A MEETING OF AZERI, ARMENIAN PRESIDENTS WILL DEPEND ON FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS- OSCE CHAIR’S SPECIAL ENVOY
Author: A.Ismayilova
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Aug. 10, 2006
Trend’s exclusive interview with the special envoy of the OSCE
chairman-in-office, Andzey Kasprzyk
Question: After the Paris meeting the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
immediately made a statement that the Azerbaijani and Armenian Foreign
Ministers were proposed to meet in Prague in autumn. Is there any
agreement in this respect?
Answer: At present the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov,
is on a visit, while the Armenian FM is on holiday.
Therefore, we can’t hold any talks with the sides. At any case, the
achievement of an agreement on the meeting of the foreign ministers
depends on the interests of the sides. We will shortly discuss this
issue as soon as Mammadyarov is back.
Question: Do they prepare a meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian
Presidents? Did the co-chairs make any proposals in this connection?
Answer: The presidents meet periodically and frequently enough. The
Foreign Ministers prepare the meetings of the heads of state. Of
course, the dialogue of the Presidents will depend on further
developments linked with the coordination of the meeting by the
Foreign Ministers. There is no concrete idea on the next round of
talks between the Presidents. There is an opinion that some issues
should be discussed, while the way and the level of discussions will
be discussed by the co-chairs in a meeting with the ministers.
Question: Are the co-chairs expected to hold a private meeting with
the ministers?
Answer: Nothing is planned for the time being. I understand that
you’d like to hear the concrete date, but I can’t say. Now it is the
period of holidays. However, it does not mean that nothing is being
done. The issues discussed in Paris have been passed to sides and
now they consider some milestones.
I think we will find the moment and time for the meeting, while they
are still to be defined. The co-chairs’ activities are directed at
leading forward the issues which were not mulled. They try to bring
closer the positions of the conflict sides. That is their task.
Question: Do you feel proximity in the positions?
Answer: The co-chairs put forward different plans, which could
be taken as basis during the talks. The plans were rejected by the
sides. The Prague process, within the framework of which the meetings
of Ministers and Presidents are held, lasts too long. Though the
Presidents precisely retain their positions, considering it important
for their countries, no intension of the kind has been observed in
the talks earlier.
Question: There is an idea that following the replacement of the U.S.
Ambassador at the OSCE Minsk Group other co-chairs will also be
replaced. Could it affect on the process of talks?
Answer: There is nothing surprising. It is normal during the
carrier of a diplomat. I think it is not inked with the process of
negotiations. Every chairman is a personality. The general position
is defined by the co-chairs’ will on leading the process till the
end. Replacement of co-chairs means a new stance. The new diplomat
might see that which others could not, or simply approach from
private prism.
Question: You have developed a report on the results of monitoring
held on 3-5 July in the contact line in connection with firing in
the occupied territory of Azerbaijan. In what stage the question is?
Answer: At the request of the Azerbaijani side, I held a 3-day
monitoring in several places. Fires in the contact line are not
something unusual. Every year I observe over the fired sections. But
this time Azerbaijan prepared and submitted a very comprehensive
document for 2006. Besides I can assert that the spread of fires,
taking into cooperation the climatic conditions this year, is larger
than the usual. The figure concerns the regions, which are located
not too far from the contact line, but no economic activities are
conducted here. Besides the northern section, the fire also touched
the outskirts of Agdam. If fires reach any agricultural sections, it is
possible to think over cooperation in order to keep it under control.
The report has been submitted to the conflict sides and the
OSCE member-states. At present I am waiting for data on further
activities. If any of the sides put forward requirements, we will
take measures. The process is also hindered in the holiday period.
Question: When do you plan to hold the next monitoring?
Answer: Usually, we hold two monitoring a month. My team is comprised
of 5 people and two of them are on holiday at present. As soon as
they return [it will occur in late this August], I will be able to
hold a next-in-turn monitoring. In September it is planned to conduct
two monitoring more.
Question: Do you have any data on the injured and killed in the
frontline as a result of armistice breach?
Answer: Usually the sides inform me about the victims and the
injured. Such cases were relatively more when I came to the region
in 1996. Even then I told the Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrosian
that as of the estimations of mine, the number of the victims and
injured from every side reaches 200 people. Afterwards, thanks to the
political will, it was possible to maintain the ceasefire regime and
my office played a considerable role in it. The cases of the violation
of ceasefire regime decrease every year. From time to time shooting
is heard in the definite sections due to different reasons.
Sometimes even the officers find difficult to halt the shooting,
especially when someone suffers. In these conditions my monitoring
is very helpful. My tour disciplines everyone.
At the moment it is more or less stable in the contact line. During
every visit to Baku, Yerevan and Karabakh I hold talks. I put every
effort to notify the officers and soldiers that no firing is allowed.
Question: What are the data for the year?
Answer: In the beginning of the year the situation was so tense,
but in the end of May it stabilized. I think, this year the injured
and the killed from both sides is around 20 people.
Question: Do the armistice breaches in the frontline impact on the
negotiations?
Answer: The violation of the ceasefire regime might hurt the talks.
If there is complication in the contact line and too many injured,
it will reflect in the mood of the population and affect the
negotiations. In this case it is very difficult to make a compromise.

ARMENIAN PM CONGRATULATES YANUKOVICH ON APPOINTMENT AS UKRAINIAN PM
Arka News Agency, Armenia
Aug. 10, 2006
YEREVAN, August 10. /ARKA/. Armenian Premier Andranik Margaryan
congratulated Victor Yanukovich on his appointment as Prime Minister
of Ukraine.
The information and public relations department, RA Government,
reports that in his congratulatory message Premier Margaryan pointed
out the importance of developing bilateral relations and expressed
the confidence that the new cabinet chaired by Yanukovich will make
great progress in ensuring the country’s socio-economic development.
Margaryan also pointed out that Armenian-Ukrainian comprehensive
and mutually advantageous cooperation will be developed for the two
people’s benefit.
The Armenian Premier also wished success to his Ukrainian counterpart,
and peace, happiness and prosperity to the Ukrainian people.

LARGE AMOUNT OF STALE MEDICINES IN ARMENIA
Arka News Agency, Armenia
Aug. 10, 2006
YEREVAN, August 10 /ARKA/. A large amount of stale medicines is kept in
Armenia, stated Chairman of the Standing Commission for Social Affairs,
Health and Nature Protection, RA Parliament, Mnatsakan Petrosyan at his
meeting with Director of the Medecins sans Frontieres Christer Terling.
“The stale medicines have mainly been accumulated since the devastating
earthquake in 1988 and have become a serious problem for us,”
he said. Petrosyan reported that the Armenian Parliament is now
considering a bill “On medicines”.
In his turn, Terling informed Petrosyan that a plant reclaiming stale
medicines was constructed in Bosnia with partial sponsorship of the
Medicins sans Frontieres organization.
Petrosyan proposed the construction of an identical plant with
the organization’s sponsorship in Armenia. Terling expressed his
willingness to support this project.

75,689 ARCA PLASTIC CARDS IN CIRCULATION IN ARMENIA BY END OF 2ND QUARTER 2006
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Aug. 10, 2006
YEREVAN, August 10. /ARKA/. In the 2nd quarter pf 2006, the number of
local cards “Armenian Card” (ArCa) in circulation increase by 10,714
or 1.16 times and reached 75,689 at the end of June, 2006.
The Payment and Information System Development Department and the
Settlement System Department, Central Bank of Armenia (CBA) report
that During the period under review, a total of 331,729 transactions
worth AMD 9,828mln were effected by means of ArCa cards – an AMD
2,734mln or 1.31-time increase in volume, and 63,030 or 1.23-time
increase in the number of transactions.
Two transactions were effected a month on the average, with the
average volume of one transaction being AMD 29,000 – an AMD 2,000
increase compared to the 1st quarter of 2006.
The average share of one cash dispenser was 714 ArCa cards. A total
of 106 cash dispensers served ArCa cards.
At the end of the 2nd quarter of 2006, 19 commercial banks issued
and served plastic cards in Armenia, 17 of them were members of the
ArCa system.
During the period under review, the total volume of transactions by
means of all types of plastic cards was AMD 30,944, with the number
reaching 719,878. a total o 176,104 plastic cards were in circulation
at the end of June 2006, 19,430 more than at the beginning of the
2nd quarter of 2006. ($1 – AMD 399.66)

TURKISH EX-FM: NO TURKISH GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE ANY STEP CONCERNING ARMENIA WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH AZERBAIJAN
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Aug. 10, 2006
Abdullah Gul government’s foreign minister Yashar Yakish’s exclusive
interview to APA’s Turkey bureau.
Dossier: Yashar Yakish was born in Akchakoja district in Turkey. He
graduated from Ankara University, faculty of political sciences in
1962 and started working at the Foreign Ministry on the same year.
Mr.Yakish worked in Turkish embassies in Lagos, Rome and Aleppo as well
as in Turkish permanent representation to NATO in different years. He
was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia in 1988 and then ambassador
to Egypt and UN office in Vienna. Yakish was adviser on economic
affairs at the Foreign Ministry in 1992-1995 and retired on a pension
in 2001. He is one of the founders of the current ruling Justice and
Development Party. Yakish was elected parliament member from Duzja
in 2002, and was Foreign Minister in the 58th Abdullah Gul government.
Now he is the chair of Turkish Grand National Assembly standing
commission for European Union relations. Yakish was awarded King
Abdulaziz order by Sauddi Arabian government for his contributions
to development of Turkey-Saudi Arabia relations.
-How do you assess the current situation regarding the settlement of
the Nagorno Garabagh conflict?
– I must say we were dissatisfied with the view appearing after the
February meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents.
International community does not exert pressure on Armenia. If Armenia
felt the least pressure of the international community, it would
refrain from its position, I think. During the European Union meetings,
they claimed we were wrong regarding Turkey-Armenia relationships. We
heard the claims such as Turkey should take the initiative, “open the
border”. In response to such claims, we stress that Armenia should pull
out its troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories and accept
fair peace in Nagorno Garabagh. In addition, Armenia has territorial
claims against Turkey-they call Eastern Anatolia “Western Armenia”. We
cannot possible establish any relations with Armenia until it refrains
from these claims. No government in Turkey will take any step to have
relations with Armenia without consulting with Azerbaijan.
-US Congress subcommittee imposed veto on Eximbank to finance the
Kars-Akhalkhalak-Tbilisi-Baku railway line project. European Union
authorized representative Waldner also declared the EU will not finance
this project basing on Armenia’s remaining outside of this project.
-A railway line will connect three countries, and it is up to these
three countries to decide weather or not to involve Armenia in the
project. Turkey-Armenia border remaining closed is due to Armenia’s
policy. On the other hand, the Kars-Ghumru railway is a narrow line,
it cannot be used without being repaired. The reconstruction of
Akhalkhalak road will spend as much as the reconstruction of Ghumru
line. So, Armenia’s claims “there is already a railway” are not true.
Secondly, no other country but Armenia is responsible for this road
remaining closed.
-Turkey and Azerbaijan have already voiced their views regarding
financing of this project…
– As Azerbaijan’s oil revenues are increasing, both Baku and Ankara
can allocate $350 million to the construction of the railway line. I
think, Georgia’s participation in financing is not so necessary in
current situation. On the other hand, the United States and European
Union would not allow interest-free loan to us.
-Resigned US Army Colonel Peters has drawn a new map of the Middle
East. Though the map shows united Azerbaijan, the important city
Tabriz is shown as the territory of “Kurdustan”.
-It is incredible. This map is absolutely wrong. I received an
American delegation. When I touched on map issue, I was told it is
author’s opinion. And I asked such a question, “I write an article
saying Armenia causes a lot of problems to the Caucasus region. So it
should be removed. Would the “Armed forces Journal” publish it?” they
said “No”. So, I asked, “You told everyone can publish everything
it likes on the journal”. Such things are disgusting. Division of
many countries into artificial borders is not acceptable. Several
years ago, when Iran proposed to give Mecca and Medina the status of
“Holy land”, Saudi Arabia’s reaction was severe to this proposal. The
above-mentioned map shows Kurdustan’s border lying till the Black Sea
coast, including Artvin and Hopa. There is no single Kurd living in
these territories while the map shows these as Kurdustan’s territory.
Even, Tabriz-center of South Azerbaijan is given to Kurdustan in the
map. How many Kurds are there in Tabriz?
– The US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group has been substituted.
However, there are attempts to exert pressure on Azerbaijan. Do
you think the Minsk Group is established for the purpose of making
Azerbaijan make trade-offs?
-I think the Minsk Group aims to calm down emotions, distract the
attention of the world community from this problem and put forward
unacceptable proposals in the end. No more vital thing can I imagine
compared to the return of displaced Azerbaijanis to their occupied
homelands in Nagorno Garabagh. The attempts to part Nagorno Garabagh
from Azerbaijan are doomed to failure. The international law says
the same. Regrettably, when Armenians intend to occupy land from
Azerbaijan, international organizations ignore their decisions.
-As an experienced diplomat and former Foreign Minister, how can you
explain Armenia’s incompliance with the decisions of international
organizations?
– Armenia has a strong lobby in the West, in particular in US
and France. They are establishing relations with rich men in
other countries and influence them. Azerbaijan is also developing
economically. Though these problems cannot be solved today, everyone
can easily imagine the way of solution in future. Azerbaijan should
never say “yes I agree to such trade-offs”. Because, time is going
for Azerbaijan, which is developing its economy.
-The European Parliament has many times called for Turkey to open the
border with Armenia and recognize the so-called “Armenian genocide”.
Do you think in the process of EU membership discussions, Turkey
will have to take this step? There are no such items in Copenhagen
political principles…
-I began to consider this issue as a joke. The discussions on Turkey’s
EU membership consist of concrete paragraphs. For instance, while
discussing in what standard a cucumber should be in agriculture in
European Union, “Turkey cannot say it cannot discuss standard of
cucumber without recognizing the genocide.” Because, these are quite
different issues. Copenhagen principles do not have any paragraph
that stresses the importance of our recognizing Armenia. We regard
these appeals as the European Union’s consoling itself with.

ARMENIA CANNOT PREVENT AZERBAIJAN’S ENTRANCE TO WTO – AZERI DEPUTY FM
Author: A.Ismayilova
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Aug. 10, 2006
If Nagorno-Karabakh conflict isn’t settled until Azerbaijan’s entrance
to the World Trade Organization (WTO), according to the law of WTO,
Azerbaijan has the right not to establish economic relations with
Armenia, Mahmud Mammadguliyev, the deputy foreign minister of
Azerbaijan, told, Trend reports.
Touching on the present obligation of Azerbaijan before the WTO,
Mammadguliyev noted that Baku should undertake them until and after
entrance to WTO. However, there are several moments that Azerbaijan
cannot agree with them, and these are related with the service
sphere. This question requires several times, Mammadguliyev emphasized.
According to Mammadguliyev, Azerbaijan intensifies its activities
for entering WTO. The next meeting is planned to be held in Geneva
by tend of the year. It will be the first time that two meetings are
held annually with the participation of Azerbaijan.

REFUGEES’ CONDITION GROWING DESPERATE
By Shashank Bengali and Leila Fadel
McClatchy Cairo Bureau
San Jose Mercury News, USA
Aug. 10, 2006
Food, Money, Shelter Critically Scarce
BEIRUT, Lebanon – The living victims of the war in Lebanon — those who
have fled the war zones in the south and in Beirut’s southern suburbs,
and those who have stayed — are facing a humanitarian crisis that
is stretching this country to the breaking point.
More than 700,000 people who have left their homes are now confined
to schools, mosques, public parks or the crowded apartments of friends
and strangers generous enough to offer them shelter.
Bathrooms and kitchens are in short supply in the temporary shelters
set up in Beirut and other cities. Hygiene is suspect. Many children
are developing scabies and other infections, aid workers say.
Many of the thousands squatting in homes are running out of money,
and aid agencies are struggling to find them to deliver mattresses
and blankets.
In the south, the few thousand who remain live under siege. The roads
out of their villages either have been bombed by Israeli forces or
are too dangerous to travel because of battles raging nearby. They
can’t leave, and humanitarian aid can’t reach them.
Water and food are running out in many villages. Relief groups struggle
to operate amid battles and a road network that’s been destroyed by
Israeli airstrikes.
Aid convoys won’t travel without clearance from the Israeli military,
which is slow in coming, if it comes at all. Much of the 500 to 1,000
tons of aid that the United Nations could deliver each day in Lebanon
doesn’t go anywhere.
Asked about the dimensions of the problem, Khaled Mansour of the U.N.
humanitarian operation sounded slightly exasperated: “Major, dire,
horrific — I don’t know.”
Tales of struggle, gathered recently throughout the country, provide
a measure of the developing catastrophe and a way of viewing the mass
disaster through the plight of its victims.
On a narrow street in Bourj Hammoud, a mostly Armenian neighborhood
in north Beirut, Jameelee Abbas Zahr, 56, returned to a building that
still bears scars from the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war.
She went to the Bourj Hammoud stadium on a recent afternoon after
hearing that people were handing out food. But she found no help there.
“We haven’t gotten even 1,000 Lebanese pounds,” she said, a sum equal
to about 75 cents. “No one is helping us.”
She, her three daughters and their families fled their homes in
the southern suburbs of Beirut 20 days ago after Israeli warplanes
leveled blocks of buildings. Now they live in a distant relative’s
small apartment.
Eighteen people live in three rooms. The mattresses are lined up wall
to wall each night and then folded up in the morning. They struggle
to eat.
The last of their supplies — some cucumbers, bread, five tomatoes,
sugar and half a bottle of oil — is piled in one room. They do their
laundry in plastic tubs.
The only thing Zahr took from her home was a black-and-white
television, now regularly tuned to the Hezbollah channel, Al-Manar.
But at least they have a place to stay.
“We have it better than others,” said Fatma Roumani, one of Zahr’s
daughters.
For three weeks, Mariam Mahmoud al-Hajj, 39, has lived with her
husband and their nine children in the shade of two trees in a Beirut
park. About 800 other people are camping out nearby.
They sleep in the heat and wake in the heat, and the days run
together. They wash in the sinks of the dirty bathrooms set up
for them.
Each morning, Hajj wakes up, washes her children’s clothes by hand
and dries them in a tree. They lost their apartment and everything
they owned in Israeli air raids on the southern suburbs.
Meals are provided by aid groups. It’s almost always bread and cheese.
Six-year-old Amal Assem, Hajj’s youngest daughter, doesn’t have
lice, but the children nearby do. It’s only a matter of time, her
mother said.
They have nowhere else to go.
“We wake up and each day is worse than the last,” Hajj said. “I don’t
even have the energy to move from this place to that place.”
She pointed to a spot less than a foot away.
In the southern village of Shaqra, Hoda Wizani’s family spent the
first 18 days of the war huddled in a basement.
They survived, she said, only because Hezbollah fighters from the
village dropped in every day to bring them food and information.
Now Wizani lives with 38 relatives in a concrete schoolhouse in the
port town of Sidon, where a Lebanese charity runs a refugee center.
Meals are provided, and there are games for children. Some evenings,
the family steps outside for a walk to feel the sea breeze.
Life is peaceful, Wizani said, but everyone misses Shaqra. It was
no secret that Hezbollah operated there, and they have read in the
newspapers about Israeli attacks on the village.
Shashank Bengali reported from Shaqra, Lebanon; Leila Fadel reported
from Beirut.

STATEMENT BY KAREGIN II CAUSES SPLIT IN ARMENIAN COMMUNITY OF TURKEY
Author: A.Alasgarov
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Aug. 10, 2006
The statement by Karegin II, which was made in Turkey on 27 June 2006,
has led to split in Armenian community of this country. He sated
that ‘the genocide has been committed and it should be recognized’,
Trendspecial in Ankara reports.
Along with support to the statement, some Armenians in Turkey said
that as a religious leader Karegin II was to express his views on
historic event in a peaceable way in a host country.
The Armenian-language papers published in Turkey, Agos and Zhamanak
accused the religious leader of the Turkish Armenia, Mesrop Mutafian,
of not impeding the conduct of a conduct a news conference by
Karegin II.
In reply to critical notes Mustafian banned the around 30 Armenian
societies, churches, hospitals, schools functioning in Turkey, to
sponsor, finance and place ads in these newspapers.
The conflict between the leaders of the Armenian church of Istanbul
and publishers of Agos and Zhamanak newspapers are accompanies by
insults in the local media.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GLENDALE’S ABRIL BOOKSTORE AN OUTPOST OF ARMENIAN CULTURE
By James Ricci, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, CA
Aug. 10, 2006
Abril Books in Glendale is a touchstone for immigrants and their
Americanized offspring.
Thirty years ago, with his native Lebanon going up in the flames of
civil war, Harout Yeretzian, a Lebanese Armenian, came to Hollywood
and joined his brother in founding a magazine devoted to the Armenian
language and culture.
One thing led to another. The magazine spawned a print shop, which
spawned a bookstore, which spawned a small publishing house.
Three decades later, the brother is gone. So are the magazine and
the print shop. Yeretzian’s dedication to his people’s literature,
art and music, however, remains, domiciled now in a cottage-like
brick building near Glendale City Hall.
Abril Books, which claims to be the largest of the half-dozen
Armenian-language bookstores in the United States, is light-filled,
as befits a place of cultural illumination. Open doors, front and back,
send air currents eddying among shelves and stacks of Armenian-themed
books, including the handful that Abril publishes each year, as well
as periodicals, greeting cards and music CDs.
Unseen loudspeakers lightly bathe everything in classical cello music.
The 62-year-old Yeretzian is a small bear of a man with a bristling
mustache and wavy, gray, sweptback hair. His voice is deep and abraded
by a daily succession of Marlboro Lights.
His mission is to help his fellow Armenians maintain their ancient
identity. It’s not an easy matter for a people that, in the 1st
century B.C., ruled an empire stretching from the Mediterranean to
the Caspian Sea but since has been scattered by economic privation
and persecution to the far reaches of the Earth. With only a tiny,
recently independent, Armenian state to serve as a point of contact
for ethnic sensibility, Yeretzian says, literature, art and religion
have had to play central roles in sustaining a sense of cohesiveness
among the world’s Armenian communities.
He cites, as an example, author Krikor Beledian, whom Abril Books
publishes. “This guy lives in Paris and teaches at the Sorbonne. He
writes in Armenian about Lebanon, and I’m here in L.A., and I publish
his books,” Yeretzian says.
Abril – in Armenian the word means both “April” and “hope” – contains
about 5,000 titles, among them histories, novels, volumes of poetry
and treatises on Armenian art and music. The books include works in
Eastern Armenian, the language of Armenia proper, and Western Armenian,
the language of Armenians who hail from more westerly parts of the
Middle East, such as Lebanon and Syria. The differences between them,
Yeretzian says, are significant, including variations in word suffixes
and verb conjugation.
The challenge of multiple languages, however, is not insurmountable
for a small ethnic group that has had to live for so long in foreign
lands. As a boy in Lebanon, he says, he had to learn Armenian, Arabic,
English and French.
“It’s not really hard to learn languages,” he says, with something
like incomprehension at the American aversion to the task. “But here,
the American people don’t even learn English very well.”
Preserving the Armenian language among young Armenian Americans is
becoming a bit of a problem, however. Yeretzian says that at his
original store, off Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood, 80% of the
books he carried were in Armenian and 20% in English. In his present
store, which opened in 1998, Armenian-language books constitute only
about half of his stock. The other half is by Americans of Armenian
descent – such as Peter Balakian, author of “Burning Tigris: The
Armenian Genocide and America’s Response” – who write in English.
(Yeretzian notes that nearly half of the books in English refer to
the massacres of Armenians by Turkish authorities from 1915 to 1923,
while barely a quarter of the Armenian-language books deal with the
subject. Both of Yeretzian’s grandfathers died in the executions and
forced starvations, which took the lives, it is estimated, of 800,000
to 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children.)
Abril sold books to the Los Angeles Unified School District when
instruction for newly arrived immigrant children was conducted in
Armenian. Those sales ended, a significant blow to Abril’s business,
in 1998 with the passage of Proposition 227, which virtually banned
bilingual education in California.
As with other ethnic groups, assimilation of the young into American
culture is a concern to many older Armenians. The experience of
Yeretzian’s own son Arno, a 30-year-old filmmaker, is a case in point.
Arno, the only child of Yeretzian and his artist/gallery owner wife,
Seeroon, attended Armenian private schools through high school. All
of his friends were Armenian. Then he enrolled at UC Santa Cruz and,
as one of the relatively few Armenian Americans there, befriended
students of different ethnic backgrounds.
“The clash with American culture was very strong,” Yeretzian says.
“Now he says we should have exposed him to more American culture when
he was a kid. Most of his friends are Americans now.” Yeretzian has
faith, however, that the strength of Armenian families will keep the
Armenian sensibility intact among the next generation.
“A lot of people who are engaged to marry Armenians, or already
have, come in and ask for books on the Armenian tradition and
language. So, the assimilation goes both ways,” he says with a
grin. “If a non-Armenian girl marries an Armenian, she has to learn
some Armenian words just to be taken into consideration as a human
being by his family.”
That the bookstore is a sanctuary of Armenian identity is apparent
in the motivations of those who visit.
Narine Gabouchian of Glendale came into the shop one morning and
before long was carrying an armload of books, in Armenian and English,
as gifts for her daughter Margaret’s 16th birthday. Margaret came
with her family from Armenia when she was a toddler, and her parents
strove to teach her to read and speak Armenian.
Now a student at a private school in Pasadena, Margaret “knows she’s
Armenian and is very proud of it,” her mother said. “She would like
to know more about her motherland.”
Later that day, Avetis Bairamian, a sportswriter for the Armenian
language weekly Nor Or, dropped in on Yeretzian to exchange
pleasantries and discuss Bairamian’s self-published book, whose title
translates as “Famous Armenians in the World of Sports.”
It contains the exploits of competitors of Armenian heritage,
including tennis star Andre Agassi, chess champion Garry Kasparov
and a succession of champions in weightlifting, a sport in which
Armenians have long excelled.
Bairamian proudly noted that at the 37th Chess Olympiad this spring
in Turin, Italy, the Armenian team won the gold medal. (China won
silver, and the United States, whose squad included 23-year-old
Varuzhan Akobian of Los Angeles, bronze.)
Ruzanne Barsegyan of Tujunga, meanwhile, was scanning the CD
shelves for a copy of the “Sonatina Toccata” by Aram Khachaturian,
the most famous Armenian composer of the 20th century. Barsegyan,
18, an animated recent high school graduate headed for premedical
studies at UC Irvine in the fall, is also a pianist.
Her conservatory-trained Armenian piano teacher wanted her to begin
learning the Khachaturian piece for a recital, she explained with a
mixture of excitement and dread.
“It’s very structured, and you have to find the rhythm and the rhythm
is hard to find,” she told Yeretzian. “It’s very difficult, very,
very …. ”
“Strong?” he offered.
“Yes. Strong.”
Yeretzian shrugged knowingly. “It’s Armenian,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE POWER OF OUTRAGE: THE BEST WEAPON AGAINST GENOCIDE IS NEGATIVE PUBLICITY
By Nicholas D. Kristof
Science & Theology News, MA
Aug. 10, 2006
POWER OF THE PRESS: Spreading the word about atrocities in Africa
can help save the people suffering there.
More than two years ago, on the Chad-Sudan border, I came across an
oasis where 30,000 people from Darfur had taken refuge. There was no
international aid available in that remote spot, so they were huddled
under trees, shell-shocked, trying to keep their children alive.
I went tree to tree and began interviewing. Under the first tree,
I found two brothers. One had been shot in the neck and in the jaw
– his jaw was mostly gone – and left for dead in a pile of corpses
that included his parents. His brother, shot only in the foot, had
managed to escape and had returned at night to bury his parents. But
then he found his brother was still alive, so he left his parents’
corpses and carried his brother – traveling only at night for safety –
on his back for 49 days to this oasis.
Under the next tree was a woman whose parents had been shot and then
thrown into the village well to poison it. The Janjaweed, an armed
Arab militia, tracked down the rest of her family several weeks later
and shot her husband in front of her. She had managed to escape with
her three small children and was trying to soothe their nightmares.
Under the third tree were two little orphans: a 4-year-old girl
carrying her 1-year-old brother on her back. The Janjaweed, before
their eyes, had killed their parents. Now they had only each other.
Under the fourth tree was Zahra, a woman whose husband had been
murdered in front of her. Her two small children were grabbed from her
and killed, and she and her two sisters were kidnapped and gang-raped
over the next three days. Finally, one sister was shot dead, and the
other had her throat cut. Zahra was merely mutilated on the leg to
stigmatize her forever as a rape victim, and then left naked in the
desert to find her tribe.
Those were the people under only the first four trees I visited.
There were trees in every direction, and several tens of thousands of
people with stories just like these, stories just as anguished and
heartbreaking. That was the moment I fully realized that what was
unfolding in Darfur was not just one more tragedy in a world full
of them, but a genocide on a substantial scale – and a challenge to
us all.
It fits neatly into the historical pattern. In 1915, Armenians were
being slaughtered by the Ottoman Turks, and president Woodrow Wilson
did not want to get involved. In the Holocaust, President Franklin
Roosevelt rejected pleas to try to bomb the rail lines leading to
death camps. During the Rwandan crisis, the Clinton administration
refused to use the word “genocide” for fear that then it might have
to do something. And over the last few years, President George W.
Bush has dithered as several hundred thousand people have been killed
in Darfur. What we have is a bipartisan and consistent record of
inhumanity.
“Never again” becomes more of the same
When I first began to write about Darfur in early 2004, it was
a bit before the 10-year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. It
infuriated me to have somber memorials for the victims of Rwanda
without ever mentioning Darfur. We always say “never again” but then
define “again” so narrowly that it applies only to German National
Socialists named Hitler.
Likewise, since I am part Armenian, I was asked in 2005 to join in
the 90th-anniversary commemorations for the victims of Armenian
genocide. But what Armenians should have been doing was spending
less time remembering atrocities in 1915 and more time trying to
stop similar atrocities today. (More recently, they have been doing
just that.)
The best way to honor victims of past genocide isn’t to build museums
or hold memorials – or even to read indignant articles like this one –
but to stop the next genocide from happening. And that’s why we are
being tested in Darfur.
The origins of violence in Darfur
What happened in Darfur? Let me back up a moment and explain.
Darfur is the far western region of the African nation of Sudan. It
is mostly Muslim but divided between Arab and non-Arab tribes. That
distinction is overlaid by a racial distinction, for some Arabs have
lighter complexions than the people in the non-Arab tribes, who are
completely black. And there’s also the traditional tension between
herders and farmers, for the Arabs tend to be nomadic herdsmen while
the non-Arabs are mostly settled farmers.
These tensions have been exacerbated by competition for forage and
water, the spread of the Sahara Desert and rising Arab nationalism.
The Arab government of Sudan has sided firmly with the Arab tribes
of Darfur against the non-Arab tribes. Three black African tribes
in particular were increasingly pressured and made the subject of
violent raids: the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa.
In early 2003, those three tribes banded together and launched an
incipient rebellion to demand better treatment and an end to the
violence against them. But the Sudanese government went nuts with the
rebellion. Sudan decided that the simplest counter-insurgency method
was to depopulate rural Darfur of those tribes by using the Janjaweed
militia. The government chose as head of the Janjaweed an Arab leader
who has been quoted as having expressed gratitude for “the necessary
weapons and ammunition to exterminate the African tribes in Darfur.”
It’s eerie now to travel in Darfur – you pass village after village
that has been burned out and empty. It’s strange as a reporter,
because when I see someone, my instinct is to run. And the other
person’s instinct is to run. It makes interviews rather difficult.
The Sudanese government claims that the killing in Darfur, while
tragic, is the result of tribal clashes and that the government is not
to blame. It’s much the same argument Turkey made about the slaughter
of Armenians, and it’s equally ludicrous. The Janjaweed was formed by
the Sudanese government, which also paid its salaries. The Janjaweed
wear Sudanese military uniforms, and the Sudanese army defers to it.
In November 2005, when I was in Darfur driving back from a massacre
site on the Kalma-Nyala highway, there were lots of soldiers about
– indeed, one soldier had jumped into my car. We passed a convoy
of Janjaweed, the same people who had just massacred children in
the village I had left. The Sudanese military paid no attention,
and didn’t stop them at checkpoints. In contrast, I was stopped and
grilled at every checkpoint.
Scariest of all, the Sudanese government thugs tried to detain my
interpreter at one checkpoint. He was from the Fur tribe, so they
told me to go on and leave him behind “for investigation.” He was
terrified, fearing he would be shot the moment I left. I refused to go,
and then they detained me as well. Frankly, if the Sudanese government
simply applied the same restrictions to the Janjaweed that they do
to foreign journalists, the genocide would be over in a moment.
The question of genocide
Is this genocide? Some are skeptical, because they say there’s no
effort to exterminate every last member of the African tribes. And
that’s true – in Darfur, men and boys are mostly killed, and young
women are frequently raped, but small children and old people are
often left alone. The Janjaweed often can’t be bothered to kill them.
Although we associate genocide with extermination, in fact that’s not
a requirement. The 1948 genocide convention defines genocide as “acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.”
There’s no doubt that is exactly what is happening in Darfur.
Why care about Darfur?
A larger question I’ve wrestled with is why this should be such a
priority. Frankly, the number killed in Darfur so far is relatively
modest – maybe 300,000 or 400,000 at this writing, and it has taken
several years to kill that many. In contrast, somewhere between 1
million and 3 million people die of malaria each year, so the death
toll from Darfur is easily within the margin of error of Africans who
die of malaria each year. And a mother whose child dies of malaria
is just as inconsolable as one whose child is heaved on a bonfire.
It may also be that we can get more bang for the buck by trying to
save lives elsewhere. For example, if our sole calculus is trying
to maximize the number of lives saved, we can probably do best by
supporting vaccination initiatives in Africa, buying mosquito nets
to fight malaria or establishing order in Congo – where more than 3
million people have died since 1998 in the most lethal conflict since
World War II.
I’ve covered lots of nasty things in my career. I’ve held babies
dying of malaria and malnutrition, and I’ve seen soldiers open fire
on pro-democracy protesters. And yet what I see in Darfur evokes
particular horror, precisely because it is genocide. When a government
chooses people on the basis of their tribe or skin color, and kills
or rapes them, that is an affront to all of us. It’s an insult to our
humanity. And the way we assert our own humanity is to stand up to it.
So, granted, we should do more to save children dying of malaria. We
should do much more to stop the heartbreak in Congo. But when children
die there, they are in a sense dying because of mosquitoes, and somehow
that is less of a breach of our common humanity than when children
are speared on bayonets in Darfur. That’s why the gas chambers evoke
particular horror, even though 6 million is not in itself such a
vast number – the number killed by malaria in about three years –
and why it’s particularly incumbent on us to stand up to it.
When inertia becomes deadly
What is truly astonishing is how little we do respond. President Bush,
like past presidents, initially mostly looked the other way. He
supplied substantial amounts of relief aid to keep people alive,
but did very little to stop the killing itself. That relief is hugely
important, but it remains deeply unsatisfying.
One Western woman aid worker told me about visiting an area where the
Janjaweed were still in control, and she met two African sisters who
were obviously traumatized. Finally, this aid worker managed to talk
to them on their own. They told how the Janjaweed soldiers had burst
into their home and forced them all to become their servants, cooking
for them, fetching water for them and sleeping with them. Finally,
after many days of this, the father worked up his courage and knelt
before the commander and begged him to please let his daughters go.
The commander laughed and summoned the daughters – and then cut off
the father’s head in front of them.
This aid worker felt utterly helpless because this was happening in
an area where the international community was present. These sisters
didn’t need food or bandages, but a forceful response.
Why don’t we do more than provide aid? One reason, I think, is a
failure on the part of the institution that I am part of: the news
media. We in the media have an inconsistent record. We gave lots
of coverage to the slaughter of Armenians, Biafrans and Bosnians,
but very little to Cambodians or Jews. The New York Times published
24,000 front-page stories during the Holocaust, according to Laurel
Leff’s book Buried By The Times. And of those front-page stories,
six referred to the attacks on Jews by the Nazis.
Darfur has again been failed, particularly by television. Throughout
all of 2005, CBS Evening News only gave two minutes of coverage to
Darfur. In contrast, the three major American broadcast networks –
NBC, ABC and CBS – gave an average of 28 minutes coverage to the
Michael Jackson trial during 2005. I wish that the trial had been
held in Darfur, so that genocide might have gotten some exposure.
Explaining America’s lack of action
My hunch is that the Bush administration has failed to respond more
satisfactorily to Darfur for three reasons in particular.
First, President Bush was worried to some degree about upsetting the
north-south agreement in Sudan, which ended a separate war in Sudan
that cost 2 million lives. That was a legitimate concern, and it was
magnified because the north-south agreement was a diplomatic triumph
for the administration. But ultimately, Darfur ended up risking the
north-south deal. The way to assure it is to stop genocide in Darfur,
not pretend the genocide doesn’t exist.
The second reason is that Sudan has genuinely furnished important
intelligence useful in the war on terrorism – and, awkwardly, the head
of Sudan’s intelligence agency has also helped oversee the genocide in
Darfur. Granted, our relationship with Sudan cannot be driven solely
by humanitarianism, but it also cannot turn a blind eye to genocide.
Finally, perhaps the most important reason for the lack of firm action
is that the White House just doesn’t know what to do. And that’s
the same problem that presidents have always had in such episodes –
there are no good solutions, so we end up doing nothing.
In the case of Africa, the reluctance to engage is accentuated by
memories of humanitarian intervention in Somalia that turned out
disastrously, and a feeling that Africa is always a mess and that
there’s nothing we can do to make it better.
This spring, public protests about Darfur increased around the
United States, and – presumably in part as a response – the Bush
administration became increasingly engaged with the issue. Bush pushed
U.N. and European leaders to pay attention to Darfur, and talked about
NATO taking action. Crucially, he also pushed hard to get a new peace
agreement between the Sudanese government and the rebels in Darfur, and
the result in early May was a tentative and fragile peace accord. It
was a ray of hope – Sudan pledged to disarm the Janjaweed – and it led
to more serious preparations for an eventual U.N. peacekeeping force
in Darfur. But there was also widespread skepticism because Sudan
had broken so many promises before, and because two rebel factions
did not sign on to the agreement. All that left the prospects quite
uncertain and Darfur as tense as ever.
Shaming those who slaughter
History suggests that the West made a classic mistake by thinking
that because it didn’t know just what to do, it shouldn’t even raise
the issue. Indeed, one of the striking things about genocide is how
ashamed governments are of it. The Nazis kept their extermination
policy top-secret, and the Turks still keep their genocide a secret.
Therefore, one of our obligations is to shine a spotlight on the
slaughter and call attention to it.
In the case of Darfur, whenever we have done that, the level of killing
has subsided to some degree. When the Asian tsunami came along in
December 2004 and focused attention elsewhere, Sudan promptly stepped
up the killing. One lesson from Darfur and other past genocides is
simply the importance of making a fuss – and using photos and other
intelligence – to embarrass the governments responsible. They do back
off, to some degree.
Another lesson is the importance of using force. Today, in the shadow
of Iraq, we tend to think of the limits of military intervention. But
just a few years ago, we were absorbing the opposite lesson. For all
the warnings of disaster, the Kosovo intervention went very well,
and the Serbs backed off in the face of an air campaign. Much the
same was true of the humanitarian intervention in Iraqi Kurdistan,
and the offshore American presence in Liberia. The British presence
in Sierra Leone and the international security force in Mozambique
were all absolutely crucial to bringing hope to those countries,
and the modest French force in Chad is one reason that Sudan has
not yet invaded and extended its genocide to all of that country,
though it has nibbled at the edges.
The danger is to get bogged down in all the policy measures that the
White House could take – smart sanctions, photo-ops at the White House,
a presidential envoy, a no-fly zone, consultations with Arabs and
Europeans, and so on. All those are important, but what is needed most
of all is simply outrage. If there is true outrage at the genocide,
then policymakers will find the tools to respond.
The fact is that politicians will always look the other way. It’s
easier. But strong citizen pressure can make a difference, partly
because there is no counter-argument – there is no constituency in
favor of genocide. It’s just a matter of overcoming the inertia of
the political system and the chronic obliviousness to suffering abroad.
Then genocide can be overcome.
Nicholas D. Kristof is a columnist for The New York Times. He won
the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, partly because of writings
about events in Darfur.