Category: News

Eurasianet Organization
April 28 2004
GEORGIA STRIVES TO BURNISH IMAGE AMID AJARIA CRISIS
Alex van Oss: 4/28/04
Amid a constitutional crisis involving the renegade region of Ajaria,
Georgian leaders have waged a diplomatic offensive to bolster
Georgia’s international image. In the United States, Georgian Prime
Minister Zurab Zhvania has touted his government as “one of the most
competent” in the former Soviet Union. Meanwhile, President Mikheil
Saakashvili was promoting trade ties during a tour of Ukraine and
Poland.
Since the Soviet collapse in 1991, Georgia has been riven by civil
strife and economic dysfunction. [For additional information see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. At a public appearance in Washington on
April 26, Zhvania emphasized that with Saakashvili’s reform-minded
administration in place, Georgia should no longer be viewed as a
“failed state.” Since January, Georgia has made great strides in
curbing corruption, long seen as the single most daunting obstacle to
Georgia’s stabilization, Zhvania maintained.
“Formerly untouchable gangsters are now in prison, so people now have
physical security. This is just a beginning,” Zhvania said during the
appearance, sponsored by the Center for International and Strategic
Studies. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. “The
Minister of Finance [Zurab Nogaideli] has put an end to absolute
chaos…and, for the first time in Georgia’s history, is paying
refugees their pensions without a single day of delay – though, of
course, these pensions are still miserably low.”
Progress in the battle against corruption is making Georgia a safer
investment risk, Zhvania contended.
“Georgia’s energy sector was unbelievably corrupt,” he said. “They
[energy-sector officials] had ways of seizing money that were almost
state-of-the-art. … Our current interior minister [Giorgi
Baramidze], though only 29, is the most competent we’ve ever had.
Already, he has a 16-month plan in place to reconstruct and make the
energy sector more attractive for investment.”
Zhvania suggested that Georgia was now in position to promote
stabilization in the broader Caucasus region, adding that Tbilisi
could potentially help foster the normalization of relations between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. He added that during recent visits to
Azerbaijan and Armenia, Saakashvili had been “inspired by the
increased pragmatism” shown by the leaders of those nations, along
with a new sense that “all three countries live in one region.” There
had even been requests, Zhvania said, for Georgia to serve as a venue
for regular discussions on improving regional cooperation.
The uncertainty surrounding the Ajaria issue clouded Zhvania’s
generally sunny assessment of Georgian stabilization efforts.
Saakashvili’s efforts to restore the central government’s authority
in all of the country’s constituent entities have brought Tbilisi to
the brink of armed confrontation with Ajaria on several occasions in
recent months. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Tbilisi-Batumi tension is once again spiking. On April 28, Ajarian
leader Aslan Abashidze confirmed that armed forces loyal to his
regional authority had been mobilized to repel a potential attack by
Tbilisi. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Zhvania said the Ajaria issue was “not a dispute between Georgia’s
central and regional governments, or between Saakashvili and
Abashidze. It is Georgia’s attempt to restore democracy.” He insisted
that Abashidze has steadfastly refused to act within Georgia’s new
democratic framework, going on to recount a conversation he had with
Abashidze earlier in April. “I offered to [Abashidze] that if he
began a general disarmament, he could keep a small force for personal
security and stay in office to the end of his elected term. But he
must stop attacking people and journalists,” Zhvania said. “He
refused even to talk about it.”
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Saakashvili indicated that the Ajaria issue
would be resolved quickly. “Aslan Abashidze has no chance,” Imedi TV
quoted Saakashvili as saying April 27. “The time for such people is
over. I think that gradually – not gradually but very soon –
everything will be settled.”
Saakashvili has been away from Georgia during most of the recent
crisis. On April 28 he arrived in Poland, following a three-day stay
in Ukraine. His tour has so far been devoted to boosting commerce. In
Kiev, Saakashvili took action to encourage free trade between Georgia
and Ukraine.
Georgian officials insist that they have no plans to use force to
resolve the Ajaria standoff. In Washington, Zhvania called on the
United States and Russia to exert pressure on Abashidze to
“compromise.” According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, US
President George W. Bush discussed Georgian domestic developments
with Russian leader Vladimir Putin during an April 26 conversation.
Russian leaders have tended to view Saakashvili’s administration as
the aggressor in the Tbilisi-Batumi standoff. On April 28, the
Russian Duma adopted a statement that expressed concern over the
recent escalation of tension, the Civil Georgia web site reported.
“We have all reasons to suppose that Tbilisi plans to use force for
the conflict resolution,” the Duma statement said. It went on to
recognize that the Ajaria matter was an “internal affair,” but it
stressed that the issue had the potential to adversely impact Russian
national security.
During face-to-face discussions April 27, top Bush administration
officials reportedly pressed Zhvania for assurances that Tbilisi
would do everything possible to avoid violence in Ajaria, Civil
Georgia reported. “Everybody understands that presence of illegal
armed groups in one of Georgia’s regions is inadmissible and the
problem should be solved once and forever through peaceful means,”
Zurab Zhvania told Georgian reporters just before holding talks with
US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Editor’s Note: Alex van Oss is a freelance journalist based in
Washington, DC.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
April 28 2004
PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN ILHAM ALIYEV AND PRESIDENT OF ARMENIA ROBERT
KOCHARYAN MEET IN PRIVATE
[April 28, 2004, 22:56:36]
A one-on-one meeting between President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and
President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan was held at `Parkiva’ State
Residence in Warsaw on April 28, AzerTAj correspondent reports.
OSCE Minsk group U.S., French and Russian co-Chairs initially
attended the meeting. Later, the heads of state talked in private.
The 2-hour meeting was focused on ways of peaceful settlement of the
Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
After the meeting, the Presidents made statements for mass media.
STATEMENT OF AZERBAIJAN PRESIDENT ILHAM ALIYEV
The meeting was of constructive character. We last met in December.
It has been some time since then; there have been co-Chairs’ visits
and meetings with them, Foreign Ministers have recently met as well,
and today’s meeting is a continuation of the peace process. The
negotiations are continuing; there is a mutual aspiration for
constructive dialogue. The problems have been discussed. Azerbaijan
wants to settle this problem; Armenia’s wish to do so is also felt.
So, we can advance if there is mutual desire to find way of the
conflict’s resolution.
STATEMENT OF ARMENIAN PRESIDENT ROBERT KOCHARYAN
I share the opinion expressed by the Azerbaijan President. We have
agreed that meetings between ministers would be continued. The next
one will be held in May. We will try to promote their more active
involvement in the negotiation process. Of course, we will also use
the possibilities of multilateral meetings. We cannot boast of a
result, but I think the atmosphere of the talk was favorable.

ArmenPress
April 28 2004
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC SUMMIT OPENS IN WARSAW
WARSAW, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: Armenian president Robert Kocharian
is among some 20 presidents and prime minister, along with 600 other
ministers, central bankers, representatives from the EU and other
international organizations, and 50 companies from 45 countries who
have gathered in the Polish capital at the start of a three-day
European Economic summit devoted to the economic impact of the
European Union’s May 1 enlargement.
Organized by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, the summit has
been held every year in Salzburg, Austria, since 1996. This year, as
an exception, the meeting is being held in Poland, the biggest of the
10 mainly former communist bloc countries set to join the EU on May
1, along with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia. The summit is taking place
amid tight security, due to the expected presence of thousands of
anti-globalization demonstrators. On the sidelines of the summit
presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Ilham Aliyev and Robert
Kocharian Armenia will discuss ways of settling the Nagorno-Karabagh
conflict today. The meeting is expected to last two-hours today
evening. Both presidents may also meet with co-chairmen of the OSCE
Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabagh from the US, Russia and France.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress
April 28 2004
AUTHORITIES IN KARABAGH SAY MAY 8 MARCH AIMS TO STIR UP PROVOCATIONS
STEPANAKERT, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: Authorities in Nagorno Karabagh
responded on Tuesday to purported plans of so-called Azerbaijani
organization Karabagh Liberation Organization (KLO) to march to
Karabagh on May 8, the date of the “occupation” of the second-largest
town of Shushi by Armenian troops.
A statement issued by Karabagh foreign ministry says the march,
portrayed in Azerbaijan as a public initiative, is a propaganda and
populist idea, designed by top authorities of that country. The
statement says this initiative could have been be assessed as a move
aimed at building the climate of confidence should not it have been
plotted by KLO leader Akif Naghi, who has won a notoriety by his
anti-Armenian and racist announcements. The statement also says there
is no doubt that the “peaceful march” has been designed to instigate
provocations on the line of contact between Azeri and Armenian
troops.
Earlier Akif Naghi was quoted by Azeri news media as saying that
the Turkish embassy in Baku and some political parties were
indifferent towards his plans. Naghi said the KLO was going to
determine the route of their planned march. He said 7,150 people are
expected to start action from the Martyrs’ Alley in Baku on May 8 “to
let the world community know about the real truths of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.”

ArmenPress
April 28 2004
MARGARIAN MEETS FESB DELEGATION
YEREVAN, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: Armenian prime minister Andranik
Margarian received today a delegation of the Federation of European
Biochemistry Societies (FEBS), led by Professor Guy Dirheimer.
Welcoming members of the delegation, Margarian said he was pleased to
see prominent scientists representing different countries to have
come to Armenia to explore ways for assisting its biochemistry’s
development.. Margarian thanked FEBS for its assistance to several
Armenian research institutes and helping the Armenian Association of
Biochemists to become FEBS member.
Margarian was also quoted by government’s press office as saying
that he expects FEBS’s to identify most perspective achievements of
Armenian biochemists and outline ways for attracting European funds
to support new studies.
Founded in 1964, the Federation of Biochemical Societies is one of
the largest organizations in European life sciences, with nearly
40.000 members distributed among 36 Constituent Societies and 5
Associated Member Societies throughout Europe seeking to promote,
encourage and support biochemistry, molecular cell biology and
molecular biophysics throughout Europe in a variety of different ways
through funding advanced courses, providing various types of
fellowships, publishing primary research through their publications,
facilitating the exchange of information and awarding prizes and
medals in recognition of scientific distinction.

Baku Today
Aliyev meets Kocharyan
Baku Today 28/04/2004 19:46
Azerbaijani president Aliyev has met with his Armenian counterpart Robert
Kocharyan today to consider the ways of settling Karabakh conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to ANS.
The two presidents have hold close meeting which lasted about two hours.
This is the second time Aliyev and Kocharyan have met over Karabakh issue.
Their first meeting was in December 2003 in Geneva of Switzerland.
Aliyev is now meeting with OSCE Minsk group’s chairmen.
Since 1997 United States, Russia and France have been jointly mediating
peaceful solution for Karabakh conflict in a group of three.
United States has recently appointed new chairman to the group.
Chairman of Washington based Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Frederick Starr
said, in interview to Azerbaijan’s Lider TV, new US spokesman at the Minsk
group Steven Mann is quite professional and knowledgeable person to advance
the group’s efforts for settling the conflict.
Yet Minsk group, Starr said, might have solved the problem long ago. As if
three chairmen have agreed orally to meet sometimes, he said, “to talk and
drink some wine.”
“This is cynicism,” said Starr adding “If the United States or Russia or
Europe wanted to solve this problem they could do that 10 years ago. Each
for some reason did not (solve)”.

ArmenPress
April 28 2004
VLADIMIR SPIVAKOV TO VISIT ARMENIA
YEREVAN, APRIL 28, ARMENPRESS: The conductor of Moscow Virtuosi
ensemble, Vlidimir Spivakov, will visit Armenia next month. Spivakov
will perform a solo concert at Aram Khachatrian concert hall on May
5, Armenian association on cultural ties with foreign countries
reported. He will perform Brahms, Shnitke and Straus.
Spivakov is the winner of the International Tchaikovsky
Competition, Paganini International Violin Competition and Montreal
Competition, Vladimir Spivakov enjoys an international career as one
of Russia’s preeminent violinists. He also is a respected conductor
who founded the renowned Moscow Virtuosi, and since 1999 he has been
Music Director and Principal Conductor of the Russian National
Orchestra.
Vladimir Spivakov has been decorated with Russia’s highest prize,
the National Cultural Heritage Award, and is Ambassador of the Arts
at the World Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He established the
International Charity Foundation in 1994 to offer creative and
financial support to talented young people and needy children from
his homeland. He is married to Armenian.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
April 28, 2004, Wednesday
THE MAGNET OF BRUSSELS: PROS AND CONS
SOURCE: Izvestia, April 28, 2004, p. 5
by Fedor Lukianov, chief editor of “Russia in Global Politics”
magazine
On May 1, the European Union (EU) will make the most important
breakthrough in the history of European integration. Never before has
the Old World been so close to fulfilling its dream of complete
unity, which has been promoted ever since the Renaissance by
philosophers and rulers of various nations. By admitting ten new
member states from the Baltic, Mediterranean, and East-Central
Europe, the EU will unite almost all the territory which is generally
considered to be part of European civilization, in terms of culture
and history. Switzerland and Norway, while not official EU members,
are actually integrated into the political and economic system of the
united Europe. As for the Balkans, it’s only a matter of time until
the EU swallows them up as well. Next in line are Bulgaria and
Romania, which have been promised membership in 2007. Romania is
considered a very problematic candidate, and Brussels does not rule
out that its preparation period may be extended; but the basic
decision to admit those two countries has been made.
Next are Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania; with the more distant
prospect of Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro. It’s worth noting that
Bosnia, which exists as a united state only on paper, has a better
chance than Serbia and Montenegro, which don’t wish to follow
European principles. In fact, however, the nations of the Balkans
have no other option: they have no room for maneuver, whether in
political or (more importantly) economic terms.
The Balkans round off the territory which has been traditionally
included in Europe’s zone of influence. Any further expansion would
mean the EU venturing out onto new and uncertain ground. Not
surprisingly, therefore, Brussels is much more cautious about the
other nations that wish to become part of the Greater Europe project.
The main problem which the ideologues of the united Europe will have
to resolve in the near future is Turkey. Ankara was promised EU
membership as far back as the 1960s, but no one seriously imagined
that there would ever be any question of Turkey actually joining the
EU. In recent years, Turkey has made gigantic efforts to carry out
the reforms demanded by Europe. In terms of politics and its economy,
modern Turkey is no worse than Albania or Romania, and no one is
questioning their right to EU membership. Off the record, many
European politicians are saying that Turkey will never be admitted –
because it’s part of a different culture and civilization; Europe
simply fears this large, rapidly-developing Muslim state, and prefers
to keep it at a distance.
Those who support EU membership for Turkey argue that a refusal would
alienate Turkey from Europe, and from Western values in general; it
would provide substantial impetus for pro-Islamic attitudes.
Washington is lobbying for Turkey to be admitted into the EU, since
Washington needs a powerful, strongly pro-West ally in the Greater
Middle East region. The decision on whether to open negotiations with
Turkey should be made at the EU summit towards the end of this year.
Even if the verdict is positive, the negotiations will take a very
long time, no less than a decade. It’s worth noting that Turkey’s
fate is of great interest to its northern neighbors: Georgia,
Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Georgia and Armenia have stated on more than
one occasion that they wish to become part of the European
integration process. A senior Armenian diplomat once told me that if
the EU is prepared to discuss membership with Turkey, then Armenia
ought to be a natural choice.
All the same, Turkey is last on the list of potential candidates.
After that, there are questions which directly concern Russia. Will
the EU cross the “red line” – the current borders of the CIS? And
what will be the basis of relations between Brussels and Russia in
the coming decades?
“Europe represents an attempt by small and medium-sized nations to
reach agreement in order to decide their fate together. A superpower
would be out of place among them, even if it is not an economic
giant, and perhaps even no longer a political giant. The common home
of Europe will not be built according to Gorbachev’s design; it will
be located to the west of the disintegrating empire and its heirs.”
When those words were written, all this seemd a distant and not
entirely obvious prospect. Even though the Soviet Union had less than
a year of life remaining, few believed it would fall apart so soon.
But less than fifteen years later, not a trace remains of the
erstwhile geopolitical architecture of the Old World. Only one aspect
has been unaffected by the changes: people’s impressions of where the
walls of that common home of Europe are, the home those former
ideological opponents appeared to start building together in the
Gorbachev era.
“On his own initiative, Silvio Berlusconi has attempted to win
President Putin’s goodwill by promising him EU membership. This is a
short-sighted move. We should not hesitate to admit that borders do
exist. The European Union should not encourage hopes it has no
intention of fulfilling.” That is a quote from “The Borders of
Europe,” a book that came out in late 2003 and immediately became a
best-seller. Its author is Fritz Bolkestein, EU commissioner for
domestic markets, taxation, and the customs union; the person
responsible for the very foundations of how this enormous territory –
stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean – functions.
The key question the EU faces in post-Soviet territory is its policy
on Ukraine: a country which is undoubtedly European, and suited to
the EU in terms of its size. Kiev has announced its “choice in favor
of Europe” on numerous occasions: its intention to integrate itself
into European structures, eventually becoming a member of the EU. The
Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly expressed disappointment that
their sincere wish to become part of the West is not being met with a
worthy response from the EU. Ukrainian Senior Deputy Foreign Minister
Alexander Chalyi, responsible for European integration issues in the
government, has long been pestering people with this question: Why
has Russia been recognized as a nation with a market economy, even
though the European Commission itself admits that Russia’s energy
sector is not based on market principles and is heavily subsidized by
the state – but Ukraine has not been recognized, even though it has
long been paying world prices for energy?
Brussels says reforms in Ukraine are making slow progress, and points
to problems with the functioning of democratic institutions, freedom
of the press, and transparency during elections. Off the record,
European diplomats say the European Commission is trying to walk on
the razor’s edge in its relations with the “western CIS” nations:
Ukraine, Moldova, and (to a lesser extent) Belarus. In other words,
it is trying to motivate those countries to get as close to Europe as
possible, drawing them into Europe’s orbit, while refraining at all
costs from promising them EU membership (the Turkey experience has
been instructive). This is a very difficult task, since the leading
motivation for all transformations in Eastern Europe has been the aim
of fulfilling all the criteria for joining the “club.” In the absence
of that prospect, the will to make changes declines perceptibly.
Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova are officially called the EU’s “new
neighbors,” implying a special relationship. The form and content of
that relationship are now a topic of discussion within the EU, and a
new policy will be developed over the next year or two. One thing is
clear: the EU is serious about continuing to expand the “European
idea” eastward, and this idea will be the main rival to an idea now
taking shape in Russia: restoring the economic (for a start) unity of
post-Soviet territory. It should be noted that the EU, which until
now has been a weak, unskilled player in the global geopolitical
arena, is acting with precision, being goal-directed, not making any
mistakes – when it’s a matter of looking after its own direct,
immediate interests. The situation along the EU’s borders is
undoubtedly among those interests.
No one now disputes the fact that Russia has no intention of joining
the EU and the EU doesn’t want Russia as a member. Russia –
especially the kind of Russia being created by Vladimir Putin, with
the support of most citizens – will not share sovereignty with anyone
else (this being a cornerstone principle of European integration); it
has no intention of adopting Europe’s laws in any significant
quantity; and it will not make human rights a priority in its
policies. Both in Moscow and in Brussels, people are starting to say
that the model of relations set down ten years ago in the Russia-EU
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) is no longer appropriate
for the current state of affairs. Back then, both the Europeans and
Russia’s liberals assumed that Russia would become similar to Europe,
even if this process was slow and difficult. The PCA was based on the
idea of gradual integration. But now it’s clear that Russia and the
EU represent different political-economic systems – and most
importantly, Russia is not developing in the direction that was
assumed at the dawn of Russian democracy. As a result, the PCA’s
emphasis on integration is tending to become a factor leading to
conflicts, rather than motivation for development.
What kind of problems will Russian-European relations encounter over
the next few years?
Firstly, there is Europe’s reaction to Russia’s domestic political
situation. The EU is a very ideology-heavy project, based on a system
of “European values”: the rule of law, the priority of human rights,
the ideals of social justice and civic responsibility. What’s more,
these concepts are not empty cliches for the Europeans, but real
factors influencing real-world politics. Thus, the undemocratic
phenomena that accompany Russia’s “authoritarian modernization” will
draw a negative response from Europe. Bureaucrats in the foreign
affairs ministries of EU member states and at the European Commission
might wish to turn a blind eye to events in Chechnya, or trials of
spies and oligarchs, but public opinion and the legislatures that
supervise them will not permit them to do so. This problem will be
exacerbated once the Baltic states and Eastern European countries,
with their habitual dislike of Russia, become EU members.
Secondly, the interest of the EU in post-Soviet territory holds great
potential for conflicts with Russia. Moscow reacts nervously to the
West’s activity in the regions which are important for it – in the
European part of the CIS and in the South Caucasus. The first direct
conflict took place last November, when the EU essentially scuttled
Russia’s proposal for resolving the Trans-Dniestr conflict and
accused Russia of acting unilaterally. Such conflicts will continue,
especially if we take into account the fact that the CIS countries
are becoming a priority for Russian foreign policy. Thus, Europe has
a negative attitude toward the CIS Common Economic Zone which was
initiated by Moscow, saying that such integration is incompatible
with striving for EU membership, for example, in the case of Ukraine.
Thirdly, there is a domestic European factor which will complicate
the relations between Moscow and Brussels. The EU is on the threshold
of a very difficult period. On the one hand, the process of
“digesting” of new members and, on the other hand, of intensification
of integration with conversion to the federative structure will
occupy the majority of the EU’s strength and energy in the near
future. The EU will be responsible for resolving various problems
after the entry of 10 new members. These are the economic
backwardness of the new members, labor migration from these countries
to more developed states, the situation in Cyprus, inter-ethnic
problems in the Baltic states, the growth of populist anti-European
attitudes in Poland, and so on. The series of referendums on a
European Constitution will lead to heated debates in old member
states. However, the main sponsor of integration – Germany – is
unable to emerge from economic recession. In this situation, it is
difficult to believe that relations with Russia would be among the
main priorities of Europe.
Finally, nobody can say today what the EU will be like five or ten
years from now. Its prospects depend not only on internal issues, but
also on the development of the global situation. The plans of today’s
united Europe – the plan for a territory of peace, law, and
prosperity – was drawn up before the era of new global instability
called the “war on international terrorism.” The “Greater Middle
East,” which the EU borders on, is a potential arena for operations
and it will be impossible for the EU to fence itself off from them.
The explosions in Madrid destroyed the glass dome which had covered
Europe. It is impossible to predict what tasks the EU will be faced
with in the near future.
Jacque Delaure, former chairman of the European Commission and
architect of the present phase of integration, expressed serious
anxiety about the future of the EU. In his opinion, Brussels has been
too hasty with expansion and admitted the countries which don’t
strengthen, but weaken the alliance. In other words, not “producers”
but “consumers” of “stability and prosperity.” Delaure fears that the
EU will die as an integration mechanism and will be turned into one
large free trade zone.
Only towards 2010 will it be clear whether the prophecy of the
patriarch of integration will come true or not. As for us, the fact
that the EU will be Russia’s main partner, largest neighbor, and
customer in the foreseeable future is the determining factor.
The key to success in Russian-EU relations is understanding the logic
and mechanisms of the EU’s operations. Moscow should learn to use all
possible opportunities and loopholes in the European Constitution in
order to promote, defend, and lobby for its interests – from quotas
and tariffs to the rights of Russians in Latvia. This requires some
significant increase in material and intellectual resources directed
towards Europe. Otherwise, Russia will always be too late in making
correct decisions in its relations with the EU and will try to solve
various problems at the last moment, when it is impossible change
anything. The more complex the partner, the more attention should be
paid to it.
Translated by Gregory Malyutin

Armenian General Benevolent Union
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Tel: 212.319.6383
Fax: 212.319.6507
Email: [email protected]
AGBU GENERATION NEXT MENTORSHIP PROGRAM MEMBERS TRACE THE ROOTS OF
THEIR ANCESTORS IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
On April 18, 2004, the AGBU Generation Next Mentorship Program
convened at the AGBU Pasadena Center to participate in a group
activity dedicated to the Armenian Genocide. Mentors, mentees, and
task force members were asked to determine where their grandparents or
great grandparents were from before the Genocide. Program members
placed pins on a map of historic Armenia and/or a world map indicating
the origins of their ancestors and the subsequent journey of their
family throughout the world. This activity not only demonstrated how
the Genocide forced Armenians outside of their homeland, but it also
encouraged the mentees to learn more about their family history and in
turn themselves. This powerful visual effect also showed that we are
still unified as a people despite being dispersed across the world.
Guest speaker and task force member Armen Tamzarian led the group in a
discussion about the Genocide by asking probing questions and
highlighting important events in Armenian history. After
Mr. Tamzarian’s overview, the program members joined together to share
their own struggles and experiences in dealing with the Armenian
Genocide’s impact today. While everyone shared personal stories,
members also suggested constructive ways of coping with the tragedy’s
painful history.
Since its establishment in 1997, AGBU Generation Next mentors and
staff have served over 100 Armenian students ranging from the seventh
to eleventh grades. Adult volunteers from AGBU Generation Next assist
these students with issues involving academics, behavior, and
acculturation. By providing positive role models, our volunteer
mentors help these young Armenians become responsible, self-sufficient
young adults. To receive more information about AGBU Generation Next,
please call 626.794.7942 or send an email to [email protected].

RIA OREANDA
Economic Press Review
April 28, 2004 Wednesday
Opposition Meeting in Armenia
Yerevan. GAZETA.RU
On Tuesday evening another opposition meeting, organized by the
Justice and National unity parties, with the only demand to shift the
authorities of the republic took place in the downtown of Yerevan.
Twenty five thousand people were reported to take part in the meeting
whereas according to information given by the police, the meeting
counted roughly 3 thousand men. Setting out the Armenian opposition s
vision in the Parliament, the Justice faction deputy, Stepan Zakarayn
said that they put in a claim to the Parliament majority to accept
the opposition demands and let the Armenians move freely about the
country according to the Constitution. More over, the Justice party
leader considered the discussion of Armenia s situation at the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) meeting to be
required. Copyright (c) 1997-2004 RIA “OREANDA”