OFFICIAL VISIT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA TO INDIA

National Assembly of RA, Armenia
Dec 12 2006

On December 13 the delegation headed by Mr. Tigran Torosyan, President
of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, will leave for
India on an official visit. Mr. Mnatsakan Petrosyan, Mr. Grigor
Margaryan, Mr. Alexan Karapetyan, Mr. Razmik Martirosyan are in
the delegation. In Delhi meetings are envisaged with Dr. Avul
Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, President of India, Mr. Bhairon
Singh Shekhawat, President of the Rajya Sabha of Sansad, bicameral
Parliament of India, Mr. Shri Somnath Chatterjee, Speaker of the Lok
Sabha of the Parliament of India, Mr. Advani, leader of the opposition,
Mr. Pranab Mukerjee, Minister of External Affairs, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi,
Head of the National Congress Party, Mrs. Sheila Dikshit, Chief
Minister NCT of Delhi.

On December 17 the delegation will return to Yerevan.

COLONIALISM AND THE COMPLICATIONS OF BEING ‘CYPRIOT’
By Lauren O’Hara

Cyprus Mail, Cyprus
Dec 12 2006

LAST Thursday saw the launch at Intercollege of the book Britain
in Cyprus 1878-2006, a collection of essays aimed at assessing the
complex relationship between Cyprus and its former colonial ruler.

Nicos Peristianis, one of the editors, rightly stated that colonialism
is always a case of checks and balances, like a pair of scales,
the credits and debits open to interpretation and debate.

History is always hindsight. The speculation of "what if?" is the
lifeblood of analysts, and in many ways such recent history is still
in the making, the final outcomes waiting to be reassessed by future
generations. What is true is that Cyprus’ relations with Britain have
helped make her wealthy. This is an island whose prosperity has been
drawn from its offshore status and tourism.

The 82-year colonial rule set the course for Cyprus to become one of
the most favoured destinations for sun-seeking post-war Brits. There
is an atmospheric poster in a bookshop in Nicosia, from I guess the
fifties, of a glamourous women in a deckchair, smoking a cigarette,
raising her bottle of Keo, encouraging Britain to holiday in "our
Mediterranean Isle".

Property development, hotels, package tourism have been a linchpin
of Cypriot wealth. That tie with Britain still continues to fuel the
second home market. For better or worse, a certain type of Brit has
always preferred to holiday somewhere faraway but familiar. Where the
cars drive on the left and the shopkeepers speak English, and where
you can get Premiership football down the local. What if Britain had
not been here? Well, maybe those tourists would be Turkish; maybe
the island would have been as slow to develop as Corsica, Sardinia
and Sicily. Maybe it would have had the poverty of some of the Greek
islands. Maybe it would be united and independent, or, just maybe,
it would be part of Turkey.

The truth is many people have benefited financially and educationally;
and, some would argue, the country inherited from its British masters
a sound civil service, legal system and financial base that helped
encourage investment and growth. So what is the debit? What pulls
the seesaw down?

Well for me it is the lack of identity. I am still not sure what
it means to be "Cypriot". Many Cypriots tell me they are Greek,
others Armenian or British and Australian, and this labelling, still
reinforced by the ridiculous conscription laws that are inclusive
only of those born Greek Orthodox and exclusive of other religious or
ethnic groups, means that the Republic still does not have a cohesive
sense of itself.

Nationalism here does not mean being Cypriot it means being Greek
Cypriot. And for this the British must take the blame. It was our
policies that hindered union with Greece, which may well have been
the best option for the island, but it didn’t happen, it won’t
happen. Greece has moved on and it is doubtful, even if it were
possible, that they would now want union with Cyprus. So it is no
longer "What if?" but "What now?"

It is time for all Cypriots to cast off this victim mentality of
colonialism, and recognise the fact that some of the unhappiness
on the island is of their own making. I have been told by academics
at the University of Cyprus that as many Greek Cypriots were killed
by Greek Cypriots in 1974 as by Turks. If this is true, then there
must be a lot of people who feel guilt, who betrayed neighbours and
colleagues. Civil wars are always painful; they leave psychological
scars that take a long time to heal. But they will not heal without
the hard, honest stare of self-scrutiny.

Colonialism was both good and bad for the island; in port-colonial
Cyprus, the mistakes of the past that divided communities and
reinforced differences should not be repeated. It is too late to vote
‘yes’ in the Annan plan and, unless Turkey joins the EU, unification
is just a dream. But it is not too late to create an inclusive,
fair society that treats all its members equally. Otherwise, the
noose of nationalism with its nepotism that favours one ethnic group
over another, gives jobs to its own, and uses networks to do business
simply becomes a neo-colonialism that replicates the inequalities of
the past. While blue and white flags dominate: the reality of being
"Cypriot" will never happen.

YES, I’M A DENIER! BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS?
Cem Oguz

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Dec 12 2006

In response to my open letter to Nancy Pelosi published on Nov. 21,
I didn’t get a reply from the soon-to-be U.S. House of Representatives
speaker, which in fact I didn’t expect Her Majesty to do. Instead,
however, I did receive some inspiring remarks from Armenian readers.

Some of them were indeed hopeless cases, like one gentleman from
Australia, Mr. A. M., who audaciously demanded the Turks "accept
[the Armenian genocide], apologize," and "get out of [their] homeland!"

Some others like Mrs. N. I., on the other hand, reproachfully invited
me to "reread history with open mind" by checking a variety of
"documents," ranging from statements of our Nobel winner author Orhan
Pamuk to a still-disputed remark attributed to Adolf Hitler.

Everything she pointed out were actually issues I had touched on in
my previous analyses. She was, nevertheless, kind as well as moderate
enough to admit that I have "the right to defend whatever I believe
in" and "no one should be persecuted for defending his/her opinion."

I have taken these two messages deliberately, since they represent
two categorically opposite poles, or lines of thinking, actually not
much different from would-be reactions by Turks to a similar case.

The latter letter writer, on the other hand, led me to introspection.

She deliberately ended her message by describing herself as "a firm
believer in the Armenian genocide committed by the Turks." She was
alluding to the way I signed off my letter to Nancy Pelosi. For those
of you who have forgotten how this letter ended, let me remind you
that I chose to describe myself as "a humble denier from Turkey."

At the time I wrote it, I pondered for a considerable while as to
whether it was the right thing to do. Be sure, it was not because
I feared punishment one day in France with time in prison, or that
I might be accused of being an incorrigible fascist, particularly
by my so-called liberal compatriots! I neither wanted to insult our
sincere Armenian friends nor simplify the extent of the tragedy they
suffered. But still, I did it because I wanted to underline, boldly,
the denial of our tragedy by those who accuse the Turks of being
nothing more than deniers. Yes, in that respect I am a pure denier
indeed! This must be the precise reason why I received, particularly
from U.S. citizens of Turkish descent, many messages of appreciation.

They, too, are tired of being increasingly and overwhelmingly denied.

As you might have already realized, dear readers, the "genocide"
debate revolves around three main words, or concepts: revisionism (in
response to mainstream historiography), denial, and reconciliation
with the past. In the atmosphere of intellectual terror that our
dear Armenian friends have successfully built up, they stubbornly
oppose any challenge to their version of mainstream historiography,
although, in contrast to the Holocaust, it is highly disputable.

Turkey’s relatively puny efforts at self-defense are frequently
portrayed as attempts at denial, and by accusations of revisionism
history is sadly being politicized. The substance of the messages I
received from Armenian readers precisely exemplify this phenomenon.

In all of them I was accused of being a revisionist and thus, in a
state of denial.

Since the Turks have failed to become reconciled with their past,
this line of thinking then assumes, they must be forced, either with
the help of parliamentary resolutions or political "sticks," to admit
and accept the "genocide." Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian,
for instance, in his op-ed in the International Herald Tribune in
October, maintained, "The message from France is clear: So long as
Turkey refuses to confront its own history, others will feel impelled
to do so."

Oskanian’s (or of others alike) Machiavellian line of thinking, in
turn, immediately brings to mind Turkish Armenians’ Patriarch Mesrob
Mutafyan II’s remarks at a symposium held in Kayseri a couple of months
ago. Readers may well remember him wisely arguing that it’s unethical
for both Armenians and Turks "to ignore each other’s responsibility or
completely put it on the other side although responsibilities weren’t
equal in the brutal consequence." This being said, I will pose a very
simple question the answer to which is of grave importance for any
sort of healthy dialogue between the Turkish and Armenian peoples:
Have our Armenian friends managed to reconcile with their past, or
are they, too, in a state of denial and blindly trying to convince
themselves to be the only victims without any guilt?

Those who fail to reconcile with their past or, as Oskanian accused
Turkey in the said op-ed, who "continue to surround [themselves] with
myths," one day, as the gentlemen far away from Australia unperturbedly
did in his letter, will have even the temerity to ask the Turks
to "get out of their homeland." Or, as the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (or the notorious Dashnaktsutiun) spokesman Giro Manoyan
told The New Anatolian’s Nursun Erel during her visit to Armenia,
those who still fail to engage in self-criticism may even think
that "the perfect solution for them would be the Treaty of Serves"
(of 1920, superseded in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne).

After reading what the gentleman from Australia or Mr. Manoyan has
sarcastically as well as irresponsibly argued, my Turkishness wanted
to show itself. I just wanted to respond to both, by saying "Come and
take or change it!" But I didn’t. Because I still believe in dialogue
and reason …

NAGORNO-KARABAKH ADOPTS 1ST CONTROVERSIAL CONSTITUTION
TNA with RIA Novosti / Ankara

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Dec 12 2006

Azerbaijan’s disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh overwhelmingly
voted in favor of its first controversial constitution to reaffirm
the predominantly Armenian region’s independence from Azerbaijan,
the central election commission said Monday.

Nagorno-Karabakh residents voted Sunday in a referendum on the
republic’s constitution, which was rejected by Azerbaijan as having no
legal meaning. More than 100 international observers and journalists
from Russia, France, the United States, Italy, Israel, Serbia and
other countries monitored the referendum.

Nagorno-Karabakh’s leader Arkady Gukasian hailed the vote as a landmark
move that would "determine the Nagorno-Karabakh’s people destiny." He
insisted the vote would not jeopardize peace talks. "The passage of the
constitution will have a positive impact on talks," he told reporters.

According to preliminary results, "A total of 78,389 voters (87
percent) out of 89,044 eligible voters participated in the poll,
with 77,279 people, or 98.58 percent of the electorate, casting their
ballots in favor of the constitution, while 549 people or 0.7 percent
voted against it," said Sergei Nasibyan, the chairman of the Central
Election Commission.

Nasibyan said there was no voter turnout threshold at the referendum,
but according to the unrecognized republic’s legislation, at least
one-third of registered voters were required to vote in favor of the
constitution for it to be adopted.

"Dec. 10 can be regarded as Nagorno-Karabakh constitution day,"
Nasibyan said, adding that the commission will announce the
referendum’s final results tomorrow.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in Azerbaijan that has been under the
control of Armenian and ethnic-Armenian Karabakh forces since a 1994
cease-fire ended a six-year separatist war that killed about 30,000
people and drove about 1 million from their homes.

The region’s final status remains unresolved, and years of talks
under the auspices of international mediators have brought few
visible results.

Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic Azeri population fled the conflict more
than a decade ago, and large numbers of them have lived as internally
displaced people since then.

In December 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh held a referendum in which ethnic
Armenian residents voted overwhelmingly for independence.

Masis Mailian, deputy foreign minister in the Nagorno-Karabakh
administration, said the constitution was essential to codify the
structure of its administration and citizens’ rights.

"It’s necessary to formalize the already existing foundations of
state system and relations between the state and its citizens,"
Mailian told The Associated Press.

ANKARA REJECTS NAGORNO-KARABAKH REFERENDUM

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Dec 12 2006

Turkey said on Monday that it would not recognize the outcome of a
referendum backing independence in the breakaway Azerbaijani region
of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry, in a written statement, said that
Ankara learned that Azerbaijan’s disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh
overwhelmingly voted in favor of its first controversial constitution
while ignoring international laws and the expectations of international
society.

The statement underlined that Ankara does not recognize the
independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, neither the "referendum" nor its
outcome, while condemning the development.

The statement said that people in Nagorno-Karabakh, a region under
the occupation of Armenia, live as refugees and in prison-like
conditions. The Foreign Ministry described the development as a new
violation of Azerbaijan’s political unity, sovereignty and territorial
integrity by Armenia.

The statement also underlined that the referendum move ignored
co-constructive efforts at peaceful conflict resolution that were
implemented under the Minsk Group in the European Security and
Cooperation Organization (OSCE).

In related news, the European Union said that it would not recognize
the outcome of a referendum backing independence in the breakaway
Azerbaijani region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

ARMENIAN GROUP CRITICIZES EU DECISION ON TURKEY

International Herald Tribune, France
The Associated Press
Dec 12 2006

BRUSSELS, Belgium: An Armenian pressure group criticized the European
Union on Tuesday for basing its decision to partially suspend
membership talks with Turkey only on a dispute over Cyprus.

It complained the EU ignored human rights issues and the controversy
over the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians.

"The silence of the (EU) member countries on other Turkish violations
are a lapse that seriously endangers European integration," said
a statement from the European Armenian Federation for Justice and
Democracy.

EU foreign ministers on Monday agreed to suspend membership talks
with Turkey in a number of areas ranging from fisheries to external
relations in response to Ankara’s refusal to respect an agreement to
open its ports to ships and planes from Cyprus.

Although the decision was a blow to Turkey’s EU membership aspirations,
the Brussels-based Armenian lobby group said it did not go far
enough. It said the EU should have also punished Turkey for violations
of human rights, treatment of minorities, a blockade of Armenia’s
border and a refusal to recognize the 1915-1919 killings of Armenians
as genocide.

Today in Europe

Communists are gone but not the spies EU acts against Ankara for
failure to open ports to Cyprus British regulators to explore possible
break-up of BAA’s airports "The member states’ decision has added to
the existing confusion in relations with Turkey," said the group’s
president, Hilda Tchoboian.

Turkey acknowledges that great numbers of Armenians were killed in
fighting and mass expulsions at the end of the Ottoman Empire, but
vehemently rejects the label of genocide.

Ankara reacted angrily to a bill in the French parliament this year
that would make it a crime to deny that the killings of up to 1.5
million Armenians by Ottoman Turks was genocide.

The European Commission criticized the French bill as counterproductive
during a critical stage in the Muslim country’s EU entry talks.

EBRD TRANSITION REPORT SEES RAPID GROWTH IN ARMENIA

Arka News Agency, Armenia
Dec 12 2006

YEREVAN, December 12. /ARKA/. Fuelled by the rapid expansion of the
construction, service and agricultural sectors Armenia’s economy has
grown by 13.9 per cent in 2005, the EBRD says in its latest Transition
Report. Increased foreign investment, a high inflow of remittances,
strong private consumption and an increase in exports also contributed
the economy’s strong performance.

Construction, services and investments driven by remittances and
bilateral grants will help to maintain Armenia’s economic momentum in
the short term, the EBRD expects. However, a combination of continued
currency appreciation and high energy prices that led to strengthened
inflationary pressures pose a significant risk in the medium term.

As the EBRD’s latest Transition Report finds, economic growth
across countries from central Europe to central Asia is being driven
increasingly by domestic consumption.

The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Mongolia grew fastest
at 6.6 per cent in 2005.

Georgia saw its economy grow by 9.3 per cent in 2005 due to a healthy
performance of the financial sector, increase in exports in 2005,
improved external debt position and increased budget revenues,
partially due to large-scale privatisations.

Within the Caucasus, Azerbaijan has become one of the world’s fastest
growing economies with growth of over 26 per cent due to the expansion
of its oil sector with the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
this year. Armenia and Georgia on the other hand, countries which
do not have significant energy resources, have benefited from robust
private consumption, rapid credit growth and strong remittance flows.

In Russia, growth is estimated to have reached 6.4 per cent in 2005
(7.1 per cent in 2004, projected 6.5 per cent in 2006). Foreign
investment into Russia has grown, as has outward investment from
Russia into other countries as Russian companies look for business
opportunities abroad. A major challenge for Russia, as well as other
commodity-rich countries, is to continue the diversification of their
economies, and not become overly dependent on high commodity prices
for growth.

In south-eastern Europe (SEE), a revival of some industries, such as
the metals sector, expanding exports, and strong domestic demand,
fuelled by credit growth, contributed to growth of 4.7 per cent in
2005, down from 6.9 per cent in 2004 mainly due to a slowdown in the
region’s largest economy, Romania.

In central eastern Europe and the Baltic states (CEB), low interest
rates and financial service innovations such as mortgage lending
promoted strong domestic demand and export growth that saw the region
grow by 4.7 per cent. Growth fell from 5.2 per cent in 2004, mainly
due to a slow down in Poland.

The Transition Report 2006 provides a detailed assessment of progress
in transition, combining both region-wide and country-by-country
analysis of the reform process. It also provides an account of
macroeconomic performance and looks at the region’s prospects. The
series of Transition Reports began in 1994 and provide a valuable
record of the historic political and economic reforms in CEE and the
CIS and their impact on economic performance.

The EBRD, owned by 60 countries and two intergovernmental institutions,
aims to foster the transition from centrally planned to market
economies in central and eastern Europe and central Asia.

OSCE CHAIRMAN CONCERNED OVER CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)

Dec 12 2006

BRUSSELS, 11 December 2006 – The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Belgian
Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, said today that the OSCE will
not recognize the referendum on a draft constitution held in
Nagorno-Karabakh on Sunday.

"Such a referendum is counter-productive to the ongoing conflict
settlement process, which has recently shown visible progress, as
acknowledged by the parties," said Minister De Gucht.

Referring to a statement on Nagorno-Karabakh made at last week’s 14th
OSCE Ministerial Council in Brussels, he said: "We do not welcome a
move that could jeopardize progress made at this promising juncture."

He also referred to today’s statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE
Minsk Group, saying: "A reason not to recognize this referendum is
that no member of the international community recognizes the so-called
Nagorno-Karabach republic as an independent state."

The OSCE Minsk Group is co-chaired by France, Russia and the United
States.

CIS PA MEMBER VLADIMIR CHUROV: NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT CAN ONLY BE REGULATED IN THE FRAME OF CIS

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Dec 12 2006

Minsk Summit of CIS heads of the states was an important step in the
cooperation in the field of migration, transport, finance, political,
drug turnover and fighting criminal," CIS PA member Vladimir Churov
said in the meeting of PACE Political Committee held in Baku,
APA reports.

He said that the migration problem became aggravated and that is why
this issue was in the focus of the summit. Churov called the meeting
of Azerbaijan and Armenia presidents held within the summit the most
important step for the regulation of the conflict.

"I consider that this conflict can only be regulated in the frame of
CIS," he said.

VUSAL GARAJAYEV’S MOTHER: WE ARE NOT INFORMED ABOUT MY SON TAKEN CAPTIVE

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Dec 12 2006

Azerbaijani soldier Vusal Garajayev’s family has no information about
his taken captive by Armenians, APA reports.

His mother Zeynab Garajayeva said that Vusal was drafted by Balaken
Military Commissariat in April, 2006. Zagatala Millitary Police officer
Amir Heshimov and other two came to Balaken on Dec 7, told the family
that Vusal had escaped the military station and kept the house under
control that day. Zeynab Garajayeva said that she had heard the
TV news of her son taken captive and directed to Commissar Mezahir
Muzefferov’s office to get more precise information. But commissar
could not tell whether he was taken captive or lost.

Mother noted that Vusal is suffering bronchial asthma and he had had
headaches. They could not afford to cure their son. She said that
the Commissariat is aware of illness.

The parents were invited to the International Red Cross Committee
office in Azerbaijan.