Category: News

The German Exodus
DEBATE OVER COMMEMORATION OF MILLIONS EXPELLED FROM LOST TERRITORIES
Le Monde diplomatique
March 2004
By Brigitte Pätzold
Should there be a centre to commemorate the Germans expelled from
Czechoslovakia and Poland after the second world war? And if this
buried collective memory is to be revived, where should the centre be
located – in Berlin, Wroclaw, Geneva, Strasbourg or Stockholm? There
is nothing accidental about this debate, which has been the focus of
German public opinion for some time now; 60 years on, Germany wants to
normalise its relations, particu larly with its East European
neighbours who will join the European Union in May.
For years Germans seemed paralysed by their sufferings under
bombardment and during the exodus towards the end of the war and
after. Now, with the third and fourth generations to be born since
then and with the deaths of so many witnesses to the events, the
silence has been broken. Writers have taken the lead in the
debate. Günter Grass, winner of the Nobel Prize for literature, was
the first to break the taboo. He is a native of Danzig, a keen Social
Democrat and close companion of Willy Brandt, and unlikely to minimise
Nazi crimes (1). He dealt with the exodus in Crabwalk (2), the story
of the vessel Wilhelm Gustloff, which was torpedoed by a Soviet
submarine on 30 January 1945; 9,000 refugees fleeing the Red Army died
in the icy Baltic.
Does this book mark a change of heart by Grass, who has always been
convinced that the lost territories were the price Germany had to pay
for starting two world wars? Not really. Grass blames himself for not
tackling German sufferings earlier and says: “We should never have let
the right make the subject its own. People of my generation had a duty
to speak out.” The book has sold 400,000 copies in weeks.
Jörg Friedrich’s The Fire (3), which has had a similar shock effect,
is about the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Cologne 1943-45, the
Allies’ war of fire in which 161 towns were razed and some 600,000
people killed. Friedrich, a historian who has written about German
army crimes in Russia, now brings to the public a subject previously
covered only in specialist publications. This story of the sufferings
of ordinary people produced an amazing response from readers.
Young writers are also interested in the past and its last surviving
witnesses. Tanja Dückers, 36, unwittingly chose the same subject as
Grass for a novel (4). The discovery of old letters in an attic led
her to question her uncle and aunt, who narrowly escaped the Wilhelm
Gustloff disaster. Other young authors – Christoph Amend, Stephan
Wackwitz, Reinhard Jirgl and Olaf Müller – seek their material in the
German past, their grand parents’ experiences during the war, the
exodus and the lost territories.
Hilke Lorenz, 41, interviewed war children (5). “The people I knew
didn’t talk about the war. It wasn’t the done thing. Pity was out.” So
she decided to get survivors to talk about air-raids, their fears in
underground shelters, the rape of mothers or sisters (which sometimes
they witnessed helplessly), the loss of their parents. It is hard to
talk about these things: what are their sufferings compared with those
inflicted by the “nation of butchers”?
This is the background to the debate about a centre to commemorate the
Germans expelled at the end of the war. Its location has caused
controversy. A proposal for a German centre in Berlin was made by
Erika Steinbach, joint president, with Social Democrat Peter Glotz, of
the Expellees’ Union and author of a history of her native Sudetenland
and the exodus.
Another proposal, for a European centre in Wroclaw in Poland, came
from Markus Meckel, Social Democrat member of the Bundestag and
foreign minister in the last government of the German Democratic
Republic. Supporters of this project, launched in July 2003, include
the Nobel Prize winners Grass and Imre Kertesz.
Steinbach launched her project in February 2000, when she had just
been elected president of the Union. She set up a foundation for a
centre against expulsion, to collect funds to build a centre in the
capital. At first all went well. The president, Johannes Rau, and the
minister of the interior, Otto Schily, whose parents had been
expelled, appeared to support it, and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and
foreign minister Joschka Fischer were not against it.
It was officially adopted for debate but there were many hostile
reactions, particularly in Poland and the Czech Republic. A caricature
photomontage appeared in the Polish magazine, Wprost, showing
Steinbach in SS uniform, astride Chancellor Schröder, who was depicted
as a sheep. The commentary read: “The Germans owe the Poles a billion
dollars in compensation for the crimes committed during the second
world war.” This made it seem as if the Poles still feared German
revanchism, as though the good relations based on post-war
reconciliation might collapse. Politicians criticised the
project. “Chauvinism is now the order of the day in Germany,” said
former foreign minister Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, and his contemporary
counterpart, Bronislaw Geremek, considered that the Berlin project
would not contribute to reconciliation but foment hatred.
In the Czech Republic the Sudeten question still poisons the political
atmosphere. History has left painful memories here. As Prime Minister
Milos Zeman pointed out, the first expulsion was that of the Czechs by
Germans after the Nazi invasion of the Sudetenland in October 1938 and
Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939; he has described the Sudeten
Germans as Hitler’s fifth column. The violence is well-remembered,
too, from the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich on 27 May 1942 and
the reprisal massacre at the village of Lidice on 10 June 1942, to the
expulsion of most Germans from the region in 1945-46.
In 1991 President Vaclav Havel apologised, on behalf of his people,
for massacres of Germans during the expulsion, and even suggested that
former inhabitants of the Sudetenland might apply for Czech
nationality to reclaim their lost properties. This gesture of
reconciliation seems to belong to another age. The present Czech
government will not repeal Edvard Benes’s 1945 decrees, which provided
the legal basis for the expulsion of three million Germans accused of
collective collaboration with the Nazi regime and the confiscation of
their property. Surveys suggest that public opinion is against any
such move. In this context it is not surprising that the plan for a
centre in Berlin has been opposed on the initiative of academics Hans
Henning and Eva Hahn, who have collected Czech, Polish and German
signatures.
Faced with the obvious distrust of Germany’s eastern neighbours,
Marcus Meckel launched his resolutely European project in July
2003. He has the support of the Polish president, Aleksander
Kwasniewski, son of an expatriate, the former Czech president, Vaclav
Havel, two Polish politicians Bartoszewski and Geremek, and Czech
politicians, including former prime minister and current president of
the senate, Petr Pithart, deputy prime minister Petr Mares, and Tomas
Kafka, co-director of the Joint Czech-German fund.
Adam Michnik, editor-in-chief of the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, is
among the strongest advocates of Wroclaw as the location; it is at the
junction of two expulsions, of the Germans and of the Poles from Lvov
in Ukraine. Former Czech president Havel may be in favour of
establishing the centre at Wroclaw but his successor, Vaclav Klaus,
would prefer neutral Stockholm.
For Meckel the location is not important. What he wants is to set it
in a European context and persuade the future members of Europe to
regard expulsion, forced migration and deportation as a violation of
human rights. Democrats such as Winston Churchill and Franklin
Roosevelt may have thought it acceptable to uproot whole peoples to
establish ethnically homogenous communities and achieve a stable
peace, but the sufferings of civilian populations and the rise of
nationalist movements since prove that they were wrong.
In this context, the Germans are entitled to recognition of their
sufferings. This in no way lessens their responsibility for the war
and for genocide. The object is not to record of the number of victims
on either side but to alert nations to their duty of transnational,
non-selective commemor ation, with due respect to their
differences. As Otto Schily suggests, the centre against expulsion
should not be a museum or a court of law but a living history workshop
for future Europeans.
According to Peter Glotz, to offset one crime against another, even in
the name of collective responsibility, is to return to the law of an
eye for an eye. He is prepared to give way on the question of
location, as long as work on the centre starts: “If we have to give up
the idea of Berlin so be it. But we don’t need to go to Srebrenica or
Stockholm.” For him the most urgent task is education, starting with
an exhibition in 2005 in the historical museum in Bonn on the 20th
century, the century of expulsion, from the exile of the Armenians all
the way to Kosovo in 1999, taking in the Sudeten Germans. Meckel is in
a hurry. He does not want to wait for governments, or Europe, to
decide on a centre whose location and funding are problematic; he
wants to set up a European network against expulsion, with seminars,
conferences, history workshops, competitions and bursaries.
So the debate is still open. The Polish writer Stefan Chwin points out
that there is a difference between his mother, who was expelled by the
Nazis, and the Germans expelled from Danzig/ Gdansk by the Poles: the
difference between the aggressor and the victim of aggression. (Günter
Grass has never forgotten this.) But it does not alter for either the
pain of being exiled from home.
Brigitte Pätzold is a journalist
NOTES
(1) Der Brand, Propyläen-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
(2) Himmelskörper, Aufbau-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
(3) Kriegskinder, List Verlag, Munich, 2003.
(4) Die Vertreibung. Böhmen als Lehrstück, Ullstein Verlag, 2003.
(5) Reproduced in Der Spiegel, Berlin, 22 September 2003.
Translated by Barbara Wilson

ARMENIA TREE PROJECT
65 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
617-926-8733
[email protected]
www.armeniat ree.org
Contact: Jeffrey Masarjian
August 18, 2004
ATP to Participate in Upcoming UN DPI/NGO Conference in New York City
WATERTOWN, MA – Armenia Tree Project (ATP) has been invited to attend the 57th
Annual United Nations Department of Public Information/Non-Governmental
Organization Conference (DPI/NGO) to be held at the UN headquarters in New
York City. The conference will be held from September 8-10 and is titled
`Millennium Development Goals: Civil Society Takes Action.’
The conference will focus on the roles of NGOs as well as civil society and
governments for implementing the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
adopted by the UN assembly during its high-level millennium session in 2000.
ATP was invited to participate in the conference by the Armenian General
Benevolent Union (AGBU) in association with Rotary International and Human
Rights Committee-Peace Action.
The MDG target areas that ATP specifically focuses on in Armenia through its
multi-faceted environmental restoration efforts include poverty alleviation,
hunger reduction, sustainable development, and reversing the loss of
environmental resources through reforestation programs.
ATP has already begun implementing ambitious programs in the villages of
Aygut and Dzoravank located in the Getik River Valley aimed at restoring the
environmental integrity of the surrounding areas while jumpstarting the
local economic development of rural communities. Village residents are
provided economic incentives for fostering the growth of tree seedlings to
be transplanted in nearby decimated forests, thereby helping to reduce
poverty. ATP also provides resources to local schools for teaching
fundamentals about environmental protection and is also strengthening
communities by helping to create fruit and nut orchards, which will provide
greater food security and economic development. Mr. Masarjian will outline
these and other ways that ATP is contributing to the development of civil
society in Armenia during a panel discussion with representatives of two
other NGOs.
Conference delegates will attend five plenary sessions with UN agency, NGO,
civil society, and governmental leaders to assess the challenges associated
with meeting each of the goals by the target date, set for 2015. That same
date marks ATP’s goal to have planted 15 million trees throughout Armenia.
Since 1994, Armenia Tree Project has been dedicated to restoring,
revitalizing, and protecting Armenia’s environment, while simultaneously
alleviating the socioeconomic burdens facing its people. Thus far, over
531,000 trees have been planted and restored under ATP’s guidance throughout
Armenia. By 2006, ATP programs will have the capacity to produce and plant
over 1 million trees per year.
For more information about ATP, please visit
###

Mighty mite Ali adds to Iraq’s Olympic triumphs with boxing win
By GREG BEACHAM
.c The Associated Press
ATHENS, Greece (AP) – For just one evening, Najah Ali felt 10 feet
tall and unbeatable.
Iraq’s only Olympic boxer added another triumph to his war-torn
nation’s unexpected success at the Olympic on Wednesday, beating North
Korea’s Kwak Hyok Ju 21-7 to advance to the second round in the light
flyweight bracket.
Ali, the games’ smallest fighter at 1.5 meters (4-foot-11) and 48 kg
(106 pounds), outslugged his taller opponent from the start, peppering
the Korean with jabs and combinations. With his nation’s flag on his
chest and his American coach’s chosen slogan – “Iraq Is Back” –
across his back, Ali punched, feinted and danced across the ring for
four impressive rounds.
When it was over, Ali pumped his fist over his head and jumped for joy
while a handful of flag-waving Iraq fans screamed and chanted his
name. Just reaching the Olympics was a triumph – but winning was
unimaginably better.
“It’s a victory for Iraq and for Iraqis all over the world,” said
Ali, who looks much younger than his 24 years. “I’m a symbol for a
lot of people looking for a good life. I’m a symbol for freedom.”
Ali’s victory arrived on the heels of the Iraqi soccer team’s wins
over Portugal and Costa Rica. The Olympics already have been
improbably successful for a nation that was banned from competition
last year by the IOC.
After the fight, Ali received several kisses from Maurice “Termite”
Watkins, a Texan who went to Iraq last year to provide pest control
for the U.S. Army – and wound up coaching 21 Iraqi fighters. Termite
and his mighty mite pursued their dream from the Philippines to
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula – and for four rounds in Athens, everything
came together.
“I felt as good as a man can feel,” Watkins said. “Whether he wins
another fight or not, he’s a winner now in the Olympics.”
Ehad Hussain, the Iraqi press attache, was unsure of his nation’s
total number of Olympic boxing victories, but Iraq has never medaled.
“How can I express my feelings?” Hussain said. “It’s a wonderful
thing for the people of Iraq. Just a wonderful thing.”
The Iraqi boxing program largely was ignored when Uday Hussein ran the
nation’s sports programs – and that might have been a lucky break for
the boxers. Ali has seen the torture and abuse of athletes, mostly
soccer players, who didn’t live up to Hussein’s standards.
Ali, a college graduate who was working in a furniture factory before
joining the team, was introduced to boxing by his father, a former
Iraqi champion.
“I’m sure he’s jumping now in front of the screen,” Ali said. “In
Iraq, everyone is jumping.”
Ali spent six weeks training with the U.S. team in Colorado earlier
this year, also making stops in Houston and Marquette, Mich., with his
colorful coach. Watkins is a raconteur and a boaster, a former
used-car salesman and lightweight boxer who took time out from
dispatching black flies and snakes to rebuild Iraq’s national team.
After training in a bombed-out Baghdad gym, Watkins led his team
around Asia in several failed attempts to qualify any fighters for the
games. When asked to choose one boxer for the IOC’s special invitation
to Athens, he selected Ali.
The fighter carried the flag in the opening ceremonies, leading Iraq’s
delegation of six individual athletes and the soccer team.
Watkins was joined in Ali’s corner by U.S. head coach Basheer
Abdullah, who agreed to help out Watkins in Ali’s corner after getting
to know the Iraqi fighter during training.
The coaches knew Ali caught an enormous break drawing Kwak as his
first-round opponent. The Korean gave perhaps the most awkward
performance of any fighter at the games, completely unable to contend
with the diminutive dynamo ducking and dodging in front of him.
“I don’t want to say anybody is easy in the Olympics, but we thanked
God we had that type of draw to get him some confidence,” Abdullah
said.
After the Olympics, Watkins believes Ali will turn pro, perhaps also
returning to Houston to work on a master’s degree in computer science.
But first, there’s the matter of another Olympic fight Saturday
against Armenia’s Aleksan Nalbandyan. Ali will be a heavy underdog –
but he has faced bigger challenges.
“If he’s right, he can beat anybody,” Watkins said. “He’s that
good.”
08/19/04 02:01 EDT
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IWF suspends five more weightlifters for failing pre-Olympics drug tests
By ALAN ROBINSON
.c The Associated Press
ATHENS, Greece (AP) – Five weightlifters were suspended Thursday for
flunking drug tests they took before the Olympics, including two who
were pulled out just before walking to the lifting stand.
The International Weightlifting Federation said the suspended lifters
were Wafa Ammouri of Morocco, Zoltan Kecskes of Hungary, Viktor
Chislean of Moldova, Pratima Kumari Na of India and Sule Sahbaz of
Turkey – raising to 20 the number of world-class weightlifters
suspended this year.
Normally, suspensions are for two years unless the athlete is a repeat
offender. Earlier this year, 2000 Olympic champion Galabin Boevski was
banned for eight years following a second failed drug test.
Sahbaz is the most accomplished of the latest group, winning a
European championship in 2002 and finishing third in the world
championships at 77kg in 2003. He was second in the European
championships in April. Kecskes had an eighth-place finish at the 1996
Atlanta Olympics.
Ammouri and Kecskes were to have lifted Wednesday, but were suspended
just before their competitions. Kecskes was on the start list
distributed to the media less than an hour before he was to have
lifted, but he didn’t compete.
The news was welcomed by International Olympic Committee president
Jacques Rogge.
“The IOC praises the work and determination of the weightlifting
federation in its fight against doping by testing its athletes on a
systematic basis according to its rules,” he said in a statement.
The cases are the latest setback for a sport plagued by cheating
athletes in the last two Olympics, one that is threatening to
overshadow some exceptional performances on the lifting
stand. However, unlike the Sydney Games, the latest suspensions do not
involve weightlifters who have already competed or won medals.
So far, only one lifter who competed has been suspended: on Monday,
Myanmar’s Nan Aye Khine was stripped of her fourth-place finish
Saturday at 48kg after failing her test.
Embarrassed by four failed tests at the 2000 Games – three that cost
Bulgarians medals – the IWF tried to crack down on cheating earlier
this year by banning three Bulgarians well before the games began. Two
of Boevski’s Bulgarian teammates, former world champions Zlatan Vanev
and Georgi Markov, drew 18-month suspensions that barred them from
competing in Athens.
The three tampered with their doping tests nine months ago at the 2003
world championships in Vancouver by submitting urine samples that came
from the same person, the IWF said.
Eleven other weightlifters from 10 nations failed drug tests in
Vancouver, according to the IWF – including Shang Shichun, who set
three world records while winning the women’s 75kg for China. Banned
substances were found in the tests of nine men and two women.
Other 2003 medalists suspended and stripped of their medals were 69kg
silver medalist Vladislav Lukanin, Russia; 77kg silver medalist Gevorg
Davtyan, Armenia; 105 kg-plus silver medalist Artem Udachyn, Ukraine;
and 62kg bronze medalist Henadzi Aliashchuk, Belarus.
Sahbaz moved up to a bronze medal in Vancouver because Davtyan failed
his drug test.
Others who failed in Vancouver were Sanjar Kadyrbergenov,
Turkmenistan; Vladimir Popov, Moldova; Khalid A. Himdan, Iraq;
Mohammad Swara, Iraq; Dmitriy Lomakin, Kazakhstan; and Hungary’s Ilona
Danko. Danko, who finished fourth, said she took an unspecified
diuretic to speed weight loss.
In Sydney, Bulgaria’s Izabela Dragneva’s gold in the first women’s
event at the Olympics was given instead to the United States’ Tara
Nott. Nott, now known as Tara Cunningham, and Dragneva returned to
Athens but neither won medals Saturday, the first day of
competition. Dragneva was suspended for two years before being
reinstated.
Two Romanians also tested positive just before the Sydney Games, and
the day the Bulgarian drug scandal broke, two Qatar lifters who
trained in Bulgaria were scratched from the event without explanation.
Bulgaria’s entire team was temporarily banned, but was reinstated by
the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Afterward, Alan Tsagaev went on to
win a silver medal. Romania’s team was also banned by the IWF
following three failed drug tests within a year, but was allowed to
stay in the 2000 Games by paying a $50,000 fine.
Thursday’s drug suspensions came a day after Croatia’s Nikolai
Peshalov won a record-tying fourth Olympic weightlifting medal, a
bronze; Zhang Guozheng lifted China’s third weightlifting gold medal
in as many events, and Ukraine’s Natalia Skakun overcame a big deficit
to take the gold and force Belarus’ record-setting Hanna Batsiushka to
settle for silver.
Next up Thursday, China looks for more golds from double gold medalist
Zhan Xugang in a very competitive men’s 77kg weight class and
19-year-old world champion Liu Chonhong in women’s 63kg.
08/19/04 06:15 EDT

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:
PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon
ARMENIAN EDUCATION IN DIASPORA FOR THIS CENTURY
Antelias, Lebanon – An historic Conference was held in Bikfaya Lebanon based
on the theme “The Armenian Education in the Diaspora” 5-7 August 2004. At
this conference, educators from the Armenian communities in the Diaspora
came together for the first time, to discuss the meaning and purpose of
Armenian Education in this century.
The conference, which was initiated by His Holiness Catholicos Aram I of
Cilicia, is the first step of a planning process leading towards a Pan
Armenian education strategy. More than one hundred educators, journalists
and representatives of Education Boards from Armenia, Argentina, Australia,
Venezuela, Cyprus, France, Greece, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Canada,
Turkey and the U.S.A. attended the meeting. At the end of two intense days
of lectures, presentations, debate, and group work, the participants feeling
that they had gained a great deal from the Conference, but that there was a
great deal more yet to learn, requested that His Holiness Aram I initiate
further activities that would lead to a strategic plan and would help them
to discover their different ways of affirming their common identity.
The conference placed Armenian education at the forefront with Gospel values
as its basis. Participants discussed the relationship between specific local
cultures and Armenian Christian identity and the monoculture of
globalization. His Holiness Aram I was impressed by the contribution of all
participants, particularly the youth and women. The President of the Writers
‘ Association in Armenia and the President of the Educational Commission of
Armenia’s Parliament expressed their appreciation of the initiative of His
Holiness Aram I. They stated that the conference had widened their
perspective of Armenian Education.
After thanking them all for their participation and contributions, His
Holiness Aram I concluded the meeting by saying, “We are living in different
contexts. We must, therefore, develop different educational procedures and
strategies. We are citizens of different countries as Armenians and yet part
of the globalized world. We have our own convictions, values and norms, but
we are living in a new environment. Hence it is vital that we develop an
education policy that provides integrity, relevance and coherence to our
educational work, at the same time preserving our Christen identity. There
is a great challenge before us and we must take it seriously and
responsibly.”
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (E.)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Chris Zakian
Tel: (212) 686-0710; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
August 19, 2004
___________________
ARCHBISHOP BARSAMIAN ISSUES APPEAL TO HELP VICTIMS OF SUDAN GENOCIDE
Primate Urges Faithful to Help Victims of “Another Genocide”
EDITORIAL NOTE: In response to the continuing tragedy of death and
displacement in the Sudan, Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the
Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America, issued an appeal to
all Diocesan parishes, to send humanitarian relief to the victims of
this latest attempt at genocide. What follows is the full text of
that appeal, issued on August 11, 2004.
* * *
CONFRONTING ANOTHER GENOCIDE
To us Armenians, “genocide” is more than just a word. It is more than
an abstract calculation of how many died at such a time, in such a
place. It is more than a legal designation, used to describe a
species of mass murder.
We know that genocide is the utter destruction of a people: its great
figures and common folk; its high culture and everyday customs.
Genocide is the attempt to extinguish the future of a nation–and so,
diabolically, to render that nation’s history meaningless, and
obsolete.
Our own ancestors felt the cold hand of genocide rake across their
shoulders. And still today, we shudder from the chill of events that
took place nearly a century ago. That is the larger truth about
genocide: not only does it wipe out lives in the present; it also
sends ripples of sorrow outward, to torment future generations.
Through hard experience, we Armenians have learned to recognize
genocide
when it rears its hideous head. But we have also learned, by the
grace of God, how critical it is for the wider world to stand up, take
notice, and lend support to the victims–whenever and wherever
genocide appears.
This monster is abroad again–this time committing atrocities in the
Darfur region of the Sudan. Shocking reports tell of a marauding band
of mercenaries, called the Janjaweed, which is supported by the
Sudanese government to rid the region of its non-Arab residents.
Their weapons of genocide include systematic killing, punishment by
rape, and the burning of entire neighborhoods. An estimated 50,000
people could die in the near future from the violence and refugee
crisis. ONE MILLION PEOPLE have reportedly left their homes in the
Darfur region, and are barely surviving in neighboring Chad.
There is little need to draw the obvious parallels to the things our
ancestors endured in their own desperate hour.
Over the past months, our Diocese has been working with the National
Council of Churches (NCC) to bring the issue to the forefront of
public discussion, and we will be working with the NCC’s aid
organization, Church World Service, to provide assistance to the
victims of Sudan’s genocide.
With this directive, I strongly appeal to all our parishioners and
parish leaders to collect funds in an effort to provide humanitarian
aid to the
victims of this horrendous genocide. Please urge your parishioners to
contribute to the Diocesan “SUDAN GENOCIDE RELIEF FUND.” The most
efficient way to donate is through our Diocesan website,
, where you can click on the “Donate” link and
make a credit-card donation on our secure server.
Naturally, individuals and parishes can also send checks via mail to
the
Diocesan headquarters in New York (please write “Sudan Genocide
Relief” in the memo).
Finally, I hereby direct our parishes to hold a special collection for
this cause during badarak on Sunday, September 12. All funds
collected should be sent to the Diocesan headquarters by Friday,
September 17. Please use the occasion to discuss the genocide in
Sudan, and our moral obligation as Armenian Christians to come to the
aid of those in despair.
May God bless you and your parishioners. And may He answer the
prayers of all people who call out to Him from the depths of their
suffering.
–8/19/04

Iran allegedly aborts anti-U.S. plot
BigNewsNetwork.com
Thursday 19th August, 2004
Iran reportedly aborted a plot by al-Qaida and radical Iranian
Revolutionary Guards to assassinate U.S. officers in central Asian
countries neighboring Iran.
The Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat Thursday quoted sources close to
Iranian intelligence, which is controlled by reformists, as saying that
they discovered the plot after intercepting messages between al-Qaida
operatives and Iranian Revolutionary Guards, along with the so-called
Quds Brigade, in Iran.
Iranian intelligence also monitored telephone conversations between a
senior official in the office of Iranian spiritual guide Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei and a senior operative of al-Qaida in Iran.
It said their findings indicated that there is a sensational plot in
which members of Quds Brigade, al-Qaida and the Revolutionary Guards
were involved to assassinate U.S. military personnel and intelligence
officers operating in central Asia, notably in Azerbaijan, Armenia and
Turkmenistan, which are Iran’s neighbors.
The paper said the plot was aimed at drawing Iran into direct
confrontation with the United States as well as countries located on its
northern border.

Agence France Presse — English
August 18, 2004 Wednesday 3:54 PM GMT
Russian Orthodox church to open in UAE
MOSCOU
A Russian Orthodox church is to be built in Sharjah, one of the
United Arab Emirates (UAE), which are home to an estimated 8,000
Russian speakers, church authorities in Moscow said on Wednesday.
The decision follows an agreement struck in April with the Sheikh of
Sharjah, Sultan bin Mohammed Al-Qassimi, the patriarchy said.
Russian Orthodox faithful in Sharjah currently attend an Armenian
church, built there several years ago with approval from the emirate.

Agence France Presse — English
August 18, 2004 Wednesday 2:37 PM GMT
Azeri FM in Moscow: Nagorny Karabakh and Caspian on agenda
MOSCOW
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday that the
conflict in the enclave of Nagorny Karabakh and the status of the
Caspian Sea had been top of the agenda of talks with his visiting
Azeri counterpart Elmar Mamedyarov.
Lavrov told reporters he was sceptical about the effectiveness of
international mediation to settle the conflict in Nagorny Karabakh,
an enclave in Azerbaijan with a majority Armenian population over
which Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a four-year war.
Russia “is ready to lend its aid (in the settlement of the conflict)
but no one can resolve the problem in the place of the two parties,”
he said.
The conflict has cost an estimated 35,000 lives and forced about one
million people on both sides to flee their homes.
A ceasefire was agreed in 1994, leaving Armenian forces in de facto
control of the enclave and surrounding Azeri regions. Azerbaijan has
said it is determined to force Armenian troops out of the territory.
Peace talks have been taking place intermittently for 10 years, under
the mediation of the Minsk Group (France, Russia and the United
States) to hammer out a permanent solution.
Mamedyarov, who said Azerbaijan saw its relationship with Russia as a
strategic partnership, meanwhile called for an “intensification of
diplomatic efforts” to find a status for the Caspian Sea.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1994 the five countries
bordering the sea have been in dispute over how to share its oil and
gas reserves, estimated to be the third largest in the world.
Iran and Turkmenistan says each of the five littoral states should
own 20 percent of the sea’s resources. But Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and
Russia say that the shares should reflect the length of the
coastline, which would leave Iran with only 13 percent.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
August 18, 2004, Wednesday
August in Russia: a midsummer night’s dream of politics
WPS Observer
It’s mid-August: the height of the holiday season. Everyone’s on
vacation! The press is providing vivid coverage of Boris Yeltsin’s
trip to Norway for some fishing – at the invitation of King Harald V.
The last time Yeltsin visited the land of the fjords was in 1996,
notes the Novye Izvestia newspaper; that was an official visit during
which Yeltsin faced many unpleasant questions about the fate of
Alexander Nikitin, a Russian member of Norway’s Bellona
environmentalist organization. Moreover, at the time the Kremlin was
concerned about NATO exercises taking place in Norway close to
Russia’s border.
Times have changed. Yeltsin will fish for salmon on a Norwegian
Island, sail along the coast on a 19th century schooner called the
Paulina, and picnic among the fjords, with shrimp and white wine –
entirely carefree.
Norwegian papers are saying that retirement has been good for
Yeltsin: in contrast to past occasions, “he looks good, speaks
rationally, and not only gets his facts straight, but even corrects
others.” To everyone’s surprise, Yeltsin has proved to be remarkably
well-informed. “When Yeltsin was shown a document stating that the
first official border between Norway and Russia was established in
1826, he protested loudly: No, no! The first border agreement was
reached back in 1348!” It’s hard to believe this is the same
historical figure who at one time said the legendary “Chechen
snipers” numbered only 38.
Actually, Yeltsin isn’t forgetting about business affairs during his
vacation. According to Novye Izvestia , Yeltsin is making this family
visit to Norway in order to lobby for the interests of Aeroflot and
his own son-in-law, Aeroflot chief Valery Okulov: the main aim is “to
help his son-in-law sign an agreement for Norwegian salmon to be
shipped to Japan by Aeroflot via the Erland Airport.” Thus, it’s a
traditional attempt to combine business with pleasure.
President Vladimir Putin is taking a break as well: “at least until
the end of this week – or until early September, according to some
reports,” says Nezavisimaya Gazeta .
Putin has headed in the opposite direction from Yeltsin: to his
Bocharov Ruchei residence in Sochi. All the same, he also intends to
combine relaxation with work, and has already found time to discuss
Chechnya’s upcoming presidential election with Central Electoral
Commission Chairman Alexander Veshnyakov. And the Kommersant
newspaper reports that Veshnyakov wore a white suit, in keeping with
the summer season, but Putin wore “business gray” despite the 30
degrees Celsius heat. (Ever since Putin’s historic meeting with
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who took the liberty of turning up at the
Kremlin without a tie, the press has carefully monitored the clothing
details of everyone who meets with Putin.)
But the meeting with Veshnyakov was only the start of an extensive
work schedule. As Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports, Putin’s schedule for
this week includes meetings with President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine
and President Robert Kocharian of Armenia. At the end of August,
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder may visit Bocharov Ruchei; and
rumor has it that French President Jacques Chirac might come along.
In short, the summer season of politics is at its peak.
Meanwhile, Moscow’s politicians and political analysts have been
looking at the results of the first hundred days of Putin’s second
term and weighing up the head of state’s political prospects.
Some very diverse opinions have been expressed: as the Vremya
Novostei newspaper reports, after 90 minutes of debate at a special
forum the analysts taking part still didn’t manage to reach
consensus.
Vyacheslav Nikonov, director of the Politics Foundation, declared
optimistically during the discussion that he considers the balance of
the first hundred days to be positive. In his view, the authorities
are being “bold and active” in carrying out the reforms which will
“make Russia more comparable with the rest of the world.” Nikonov
even quoted Mikhail Khodorkovsky, although he added that in his view,
“Putin is more liberal than 90% of the citizenry, not just 70%.”
Nikonov then proceeded to employ a metaphor: “In recent years our
Russian plug has never quite managed to fit into Europe’s
power-points, but these days we are making good progress on
redesigning the plug.”
Mikhail Deliagin, director of the Globalization Institute, disagreed
with Nikonov: “Europe’s power-points are different, and American
power-points are different, and normal people don’t keep changing
their plugs – they just buy an adapter.” Deliagin also resorted to
metaphors, comparing the state administration reforms to an axe:
“Ever since the axe-blow fell in March, the government has remained
in a state of paralysis.”
Boris Makarenko, first deputy director of the Political Techniques
Center, was even harsher in his criticism: “Putin’s system of
governance is turning itself into a closed model, and a closed model
soon becomes stupid.”
Vremya Novostei observes that the only issue on which the analysts
were unanimous was the YUKOS affair. Even Vyacheslav Nikonov admitted
that “the drawn-out conflict over YUKOS is fraught with negative
consequences.”
Then again, as the Izvestia newspaper notes, this forum of political
analysts at the Media Center didn’t seem too concerned about Putin’s
first hundred days as such. The analysts were more interested in what
the political landscape will look like by the time of the next
parliamentary and presidential elections. Everyone agreed, with
concern, that at present the political stage in Russia remains
closed, and instead of dialogue between the authorities and the
citizenry there is only “propaganda through one gateway”: thus, the
preconditions for the emergence of any significant “successor” to
Putin simply don’t exist.
But Vremya Novostei points out that the analysts are all sure Putin’s
political career will not end in 2008.
Mikhail Deliagin was the most skeptical on this point: “No, a person
doesn’t make such titanic efforts just in order to vacate the chair
afterwards.” In Deliagin’s view, “even if we aren’t facing an
eternity of Putin, we certainly aren’t facing only four more years.”
Deliagin was contradicted by Vyacheslav Nikonov, who pointed out that
former heads of state in Europe often go on to hold other important
posts; so after Putin steps down as president, he might become prime
minister, for example.
But Boris Makarenko disagreed with Nikonov, saying that there cannot
be two centers of political power in Russia – a president and a prime
minister. So in 2008, we should expect to see a re-run of Operation
Sucessor.
The discussion was rounded off by Gleb Pavlovsky, who said that once
Putin is no longer president, he will still remain the leader of the
nation, “and the new head of state will have to measure up to Putin.”
Pavlovsky explained his views in more detail in a lengthy interview
with Nezavisimaya Gazeta .
In Pavlovsky’s view, Putin’s main problem at present is his lack of
real support among the political class. “What do we have now? We have
President Putin, and then we have a vast rabble – in the bureaucracy,
the media, and business – who claim to act in Putin’s name, but lack
any mandate from the people and pursue their own entirely mercenary
goals.”
Corruption in Russia, according to Pavlovsky, has progressed to a
qualitatively different level: now it is “no longer a phenomenon, but
a class.” Ties of corruption permeate the state bureaucracy from top
to bottom: “This is a huge stratum, involving millions of people. Our
political future will be determined by the extent to which our
society and political forces succeed in resisting this.”
So far, as the YUKOS affair has shown, the corrupt are skillfully
making money “by taking advantage of inside information obtained via
their positions in state service, in an entirely criminal manner.” Of
course, says Pavlovsky, “they are scoundrels. But Putin can’t
separate the state from the scoundrels all on his own.” When a
political community “is passive and also corrupt, a leader is forced
to wait.”
Pavlovsky believes that in the YUKOS affair, Putin has run up against
“a weakness in non-party leadership”; rather than “a coalition of
interests, there has been an explosion of incoherent emotions which
provide no political support and need not be taken into account.”
At present, says Pavlovsky, “we can discern the start of a battle
with those who seek to convert their personal loyalty to Putin into
capital.” However, according to Pavlovsky, “this will not be a battle
of the liberals versus the security and law enforcement people
(siloviki). Why should they fight each other? While the siloviki are
sending people to jail, the liberals can play with on the stock
market with frozen shares.” And that’s basically what is now
happening to YUKOS.
Meanwhile, rather than developing productive political ideas, the
political class is offering Putin “a mixture of insults and
nonsensical hints about Putin’s alleged intention to bring back
totalitarianism.”
Pavlovsky categorically denies any such accusations against the head
of state: “If he did want to do that, I assure you that given the
present state of our society, he wouldn’t encounter any strong
objections.”
Pavlovsky points out that Putin has seen two convincing examples of
“the inferiority of totalitarian systems” – the Soviet Union and East
Germany. So Putin is well aware that while the mobs are “breaking
into offices and pissing on secret files,” the masters of those
offices are doing deals and redistributing portfolios.
According to Pavlovsky, the problem with the Russian citizenry today
is that it displays “a paralysis of will, along with the wish to
retain the role of onlookers in politics.”
Among those adopting this dangerous stance is the Kremlin’s party
itself, United Russia: “it is still a self-contained, politically
helpless organization without any political personnel reserves.”
And there is no source of new political personnel: “What does a young
man find if he joins United Russia in the hope of pursuing a regular
career in state service? A sign saying ‘Closed’ – with everyone off
claiming pieces of property. So he’ll turn away and go into business.
So later on, the state will be forced to approach the private sector
for new personnel again. And the private sector will supply them –
along with lobbyists” – that is, with the prospect of further
corruption.
In Pavlovsky’s view, the political vacuum between the president and
the citizenry has been created by “pseudo-parties that collapsed
after failing to find any support in society.” These days, the
leaders of those parties “are visiting America, all expenses paid,
and denouncing ‘Putin’s authoritarianism’ there – even though they
themselves have no authority and no ideas.”
Meanwhile, an August poll by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM)
indicates that by no means all the political parties are viewed as
having “no authority and no ideas.” According to the Novye Izvestia
newspaper, one “predictable sensation” has been the opinion of
Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) voters of the LDPR
faction’s performance in the Duma in its first session since the
elections: 22% of respondents who voted for Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s
party say that the faction’s performance has fully met their
expectations, and a further 15% say the faction is doing even better
than they had expected. Novye Izvestia notes: “So it turns out that
Vladimir Zhirinovsky has been well rewarded for withstanding a
barrage of stones and old shoes during a demonstration on Teatralnaya
Square.”
Left-wing voters are watching the activities of their Duma members
most closely of all: 60% of respondents who voted for the Communist
Party (CPRF) and 56% of those who voted for Motherland (Rodina) say
they keep track of what the corresponding Duma factions are doing.
But these voters are also the most disappointed: 24% and 22% say the
CPRF and Motherland factions are not performing well enough in
parliament.
And 57% of respondents who voted for United Russia last December now
say they have no interest at all in what the United Russia faction is
doing.
“Many of them aren’t even aware that such a party exists,” says
Andrei Piontkovsky, head of the Strategic Studies Center. “After all,
at the Duma elections these people just voted for the Vladimir Putin
brand-name.” In Piontkovsky’s view, those who voted for the left-wing
parties are being unfair in their assessments now: “the CPRF and
Motherland have actually done even more for their voters than they
might have.” But their electorate, made up of “the socially
discontented layers of the population,” values results: these voters
believe that the CPRF and Motherland have been unsuccessful in
defending their interests.
The Vedomosti newspaper quotes Alexander Prokhanov, chief editor of
the leftist-patriotic Zavtra newspaper: “Information about what the
CPRF faction is doing in the Duma simply isn’t reaching the people.”
And this also explains why United Russia’s performance is rated
fairly high (16% approval): “Pro-government propaganda depicts United
Russia member Andrei Isayev, chairman of the Duma’s labor and social
policy committee, as standing up for the people’s rights.” In
Prokhanov’s view, “the people see that the very last of what they
have is being taken away from them, and they don’t know who’s taking
it away. But they do see Isayev standing up for them.”
Vedomosti points out that many analysts predicted a substantial drop
in support for United Russia, since it has been responsible for
getting the unpopular reforms through parliament. To all appearances,
however, this hasn’t happened: United Russia voters still have a
neutral or positive attitude to the party.
Dmitri Oreshkin, head of the Mercator Analytical Group, says this is
because most of those who consciously voted for United Russia are
people who have “adjusted to life,” so they aren’t very interested in
social benefits: “They expected the party to support the president’s
policies, and that’s what it has been doing.”
What’s more, United Russia continues to strengthen its leadership
positions. In early August, five United Russia members, joined by
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, submitted a bill amending the constitutional
law on the federal government. If this amendment passes, will
overturn the existing ban on senior state officials, including
ministers, holding leadership posts in public organizations or
political parties.
As Kommersant-Vlast magazine observes, United Russia’s handlers in
the Kremlin “have evidently decided it’s time to follow the example
of the Soviet Constitution, which used to uphold the ‘guiding and
directing role’ of one particular party.”
Then again, says Kommersant-Vlast , the proposed amendment would not
oblige all Cabinet ministers to join United Russia en masse – and
anyway, state officials have always been responsive to the tasks and
objectives of each successive Kremlin-backed party.
However, according to Kommersant-Vlast , there is no doubt that the
opportunities offered by this change in legislation will be taken up:
the government’s most important decisions will be “sanctified” by the
will of the party, and United Russia will indeed come to resemble the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Moreover, Kommersant-Vlast draws attention to a theory popular among
many political scientists, on the subject of what Vladimir Putin
might do after his second term expires: “After the 2008 election,
Putin could become the leader of United Russia and the government it
will form – thus in effect becoming the head of state, while the new
president will be a decorative figure who is 100% personally loyal to
Putin.”
All the same, says Kommersant-Vlast , United Russia might be doing
itself a disservice by taking full responsibility for everything that
happens in Russia.
Of course, if oil prices keep on rising, and the modest sums of money
now being offered to the people as compensation for social benefits
are increased, a party-based government will not face any threats.
But if the economic situation deteriorates, says Kommersant-Vlast ,
the Kremlin may require a “scapegoat” – and United Russia would be
perfectly suited to that role.
If that happens, then in December 2007 voters might turn away from
the self-discredited United Russia and vote for another party: one
for which the efforts of state-controlled television channels would
create an image as the defender of the rights of the common people.
In the opinion of Kommersant-Vlast , exactly who ends up replacing
United Russia isn’t all that important: it could be a party led by
Dmitri Rogozin or Gennadi Zyuganov or Gennadi Semigin, or some
newly-formed organization. What’s important is that the Kremlin’s new
party “would not be tainted by complicity in passing unpopular
reforms, so it could not only replace United Russia as the nation’s
leading party, but also become a reliable support base for Putin’s
successor in the election of 2008.”
Needless to say, as Kommersant-Vlast points out, the Kremlin would
have to “exercise a certain amount of skill in policial tactics” when
replacing one party with another right before an election. But this
task is well within the capabilities of the Kremlin team led by
Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the presidential administration,
“who has long since gained a reputation as a master of
behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.”
More opinion poll results indicate that some political moves of this
nature may indeed be required.
In a poll done by the National Public Opinion Research Center
(VTsIOM), reported in Vremya Novostei , only half of respondents said
the hopes they had held of Putin’s presidency have been fulfilled to
some extent. Thirteen percent said they never had any particular
hopes. And 28% said their hopes for some improvements in the
situation have been disappointed.
Vremya Novostei reports that respondents in the higher income
brackets were most inclined to give the president’s performance a
positive evaluation: 68% of them were optimistic. In the medium
income brackets, 57% of respondents expressed approval. Among the
poorest respondents, the figure was down to 40%.
These contradictory evaluations indicate, says Vremya Novostei , that
there is still no consensus in our society about Putin’s policy
course: some people see the president as a pro-West liberal reformer,
while others see him as a “strong hand” fortifying the hierarchy of
governance. One thing is clear, says Vremya Novostei : “As he
implements such radical reforms as monetizing benefits, Vladimir
Putin is unlikely to be able to maintain the balance between the
interests of various societal groups while also retaining a high
approval rating across all layers of the electorate.”
Eloquent evidence of this can be seen in the recent fall of Putin’s
approval rating: according to VTsIOM, it’s down to 59%, while the FOM
puts it at 48%.
Irina Yasina, program director at the Open Russia Foundation, says in
the Moskovskie Novosti weekly: “What is currently happening to the
social benefits system is the result of the state’s greed, laziness,
and disrespect for all of us.”
Yasina emphasizes that the whole country, “even the illiterate,” is
aware that oil prices are currently very high. The regime has
received a “windfall,” and everyone knows that. “People might not be
very clear about the exact size of the windfall, but they do
understand that enormous revenues are involved.” What’s more, thanks
to the efforts of state-controlled television channels, everyone also
knows about the Central Bank’s growing gold and currency reserves.
“And all of a sudden – there’s this penny-pinching. Begrudging a few
hundred rubles to cover the cost of medications for invalids and war
veterans, whose homes are cluttered with bottles and jars of pills.”
Yasina says that in a country with practically no health insurance
system, “some other field for stinginess should have been chosen.”
Moreover, says Yasina, the authorities are showing “total disrespect
for their own citizens” – not considering it necessary to explain
their actions or the consequences of those actions. Then again,
Yasina believes that “we fully deserve such disrespect”: a society
that prefers not to get involved with the government’s actions
eventually receives whatever the authorities consider convenient for
themselves.
In the Vedomosti newspaper, leading television journalist Olga
Romanova says: “The people aren’t being told anything. Either this is
a preventive measure, or there’s nothing to say and no one to say
it.”
The impression, says Romanova, is that “over there in the Kremlin,
the Cabinet, and Bocharov Ruchei there is also dead silence – not a
sound. Politicians and ministers have stopped communicating – not
only with the people, but even among themselves.”
Is this only because it’s the summer vacation season? But Romanova
says it’s possible that this “midsummer night’s dream of politics”
may not end with the coming of autumn: “Actually, everyone benefits
from the absence of both domestic politics and foreign affairs. No
news – no disturbances. No objectives – no need to achieve them. No
government – no criticism.”
Only Gleb Pavlovsky is having premonitions of trouble: “We keep
assuming that a calm sea means it’s impossible there will ever be a
strong wind. Our political system has now become accustomed to a calm
sea. In this situation, only one prediction can be made: some day,
the calm will be replaced by a storm.”
Then again – who knows? As Pavlovsky says, only one thing in Russia
is predictable: Russia’s unpredictability.
Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin