ARMENIA, UKRAINE CLINCH TITLES
Rakesh Rao
Hindu, India
June 5 2006
TURIN: The gallant Indian women fell out of top-10 bracket after
running into top seeded Russians in the final round of the Chess
Olympiad before the men’s team ended its agonizing campaign with a
hard-earned victory over Italy `B’ at the Oval here.
On a day when the Armenian men and the Ukrainian women made history
by taking their maiden gold in the game’s premier team competition,
China emerged as the team of the Olympiad by winning medals in both
sections. In the Open section, China took the silver, its first-ever
medal while as defending champion in the ladies category, the team
followed Ukraine and Russia into the medal bracket.
Armenia, winner of the bronze medal in 1992, 2002 and 2004, was
worthy of the gold after being the only undefeated team in the field
of 148 teams. For once, favourite Russia was knocked out of the medal
bracket after losing to Israel 1-3 in the final round. This result,
coupled with China’s victory over Netherlands and USA’s whipping of
Norway pushed Russia to the sixth place, its worst in decades.
On this day, the Indian men went through the motions and the result
did not mean much. With an off-colour Viswanthan Anand choosing to
stay away from the action, victories for K. Sasikiran and P. Hari
Krishna on the top two boards, followed Sandipan Chanda’s fighting
draw on the contributed to the victory. Surya Shekhar Ganguly crashed
to his second straight loss on the third table.
The narrow victory lifted India from its overnight 33rd spot to the
eventual 30 in the standings. This was India’s worst showing since
1998 when it finished 33rd. Since then India took the eighth spot in
2000, 29th in 2002 and a best-ever sixth in 2004.
In comparison, the Indian ladies fared better and took the 12th spot
after suffering a 1-2 defeat at the hands of top seed Russia. While
K. Humpy and D. Harika drew, Swati Ghate’s defeat on the third board
proved decisive.
The results:
Open: Armenia (36) drew with Hungary (32.5) 2-2; China (34)
bt Netherlands (31) 2.5-1.5; Russia (32) lost to Israel (33) 1-3;
Bulgaria (32) bt France (32) 2.5-1.5; USA (33) bt Norway (29.5)
3.5-0.5; Ukraine (32) bt Poland (30) 3-1; Spain (32) bt Denmark
(30) 3-1; Cuba (30.5) drew with Georgia (31) 2-2; Italy ‘B’ (28.5)
lost to India (29.5) 1.5-2.5 (Niccolo Ronchetti lost to K. Sasikiran;
P. Hari Krishna bt Daniele Vocaturo; Sabino Brunello bt Surya Shekhar
Ganguly; Sandipan Chanda drew with Denis Rombaldoni).
Standings:
1. Armenia, 2. China, 3-4. USA and Israel, 5. Hungary, 6-10. Russia,
France, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Spain. 30-35. India, Norway, Brazil,
FYROM, Canada and Italy `A’.
Women: Ukraine (29.5) drew with Armenia (24) 1.5-1.5; India (23)
lost to Russia (27.5) 1-2 (K. Humpy drew with Alexandra Kosteniuk; D.
Harika drew with Tatiana Kosintseva; Swati Ghate lost to Nadezhda
Kosinteva); China (27.5) bt Belarus (22.5) 2.5-0.5; Germany (23.5)
drew with USA (24.5) 1.5-1.5; Poland (22.5) lost to Georgia (24.5)
0.5-2.5; Hungary (24.5) bt Greece (22.5) 2.5-0.5; Czech Republic
(24) bt France (22.5) 2.5-0.5; Philippines (22) lost to Slovenia
(24) 0.5-2.5; Cuba (23) drew with Vietnam (23) 1.5-1.5; Mongolia (21)
lost to Netherlands (24.5) 3-0.
Standings: 1. Ukraine, 2. Russia, 3. China, 4-7. USA, Hungary,
Georgia and Netherlands, 8-10. Armenia, Slovenia and Czech Republic.
11. Germany, 12-17. India, Bulgaria, Romania, Vietnam, Cuba and Latvia.

TURKISH AUTHOR PAMUK CALLS FOR FREE DEBATE OF ARMENIAN ISSUE
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 5 2006
Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk made a plea today for freedom of expression
particularly in relation to the dispted 1915 Relocation Campaign.
The acclaimed Turkish writer was in Moscow to promote the Russian
translation of his book, “Istanbul: Memories And The City.”
Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their kinsmen died in orchestrated
killings during World War I, and describe the events as genocide.
Turkey argues that 100,000 Armenians and 520.000 of Turks were
killed in civil strife when the Armenians rose up against their
Ottoman rulers.
It is almost impossible to discuss the 1915 events in Armenia. Last
year a Turkish researcher was arrested and put into prison when
he wanted to study the Armenian archives. No Turkish book has been
translated to Armenian lanuguage on the issue.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KAZAKHSTAN AND ARMENIA FMS MET IN ASTANA
source: KazInform
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 5 2006
ASTANA – On June 1 Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Kassymzhomart
Tokayev held a meeting with his Armenian counterpart Vartan Askanyan,
who pays an official visit to Kazakhstan.
The sides debated urgent issues of foreign affairs and a wide range
of matters concerning bilateral cooperation in various domains,
Kazakhstan MFA’s press service reports.
As stated there, transport and energy collaboration may become
priority one.
According to Askanyan Armenia considers Kazakhstan as the Central
Asian leader. He underlined a need for deepening further bilateral
as well as multilateral interaction.
Kazakhstan and Armenia established diplomatic links back to 1992. The
fundamental documents regulating bilateral relations are Treaty on
principles of relationship and Treaty on friendship and cooperation.
Mutual striving for widening mutual benefit trade and economic
cooperation was highlighted during the first official visit of
Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev to Armenia May 2001. A
great deal of agreements were signed then.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DARCHINYAN KOS MEXICAN TO RETAIN TITLE
Grantlee Kieza
Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia
June 5 2006
VIC Darchinyan is a little man with a huge punch and yesterday
Australia’s world flyweight champion showed it on the world stage,
knocking out previously unbeaten Mexican Luis Maldonado in Las Vegas.
Australia’s best fighter stunned the crowd at the Thomas and Mack
Centre, trading heavy shots with the rugged Mexican before finally
overwhelming him in the eighth round to retain his IBF flyweight title.
When referee Joe Cortez rescued Maldonado from Darchinyan’s relentless
onslaught it was the Mexican fighter’s first loss in 35 starts.
The undefeated Darchinyan scored his 26th win and his 21st KO. All
five of his world title bouts have ended inside the distance and he
looks a good chance to emulate his friend Kostya Tszyu in unifying
all the world titles in his 51kg weight division.
Both fighters promised fireworks and both delivered, trading heavy
shots in the opening three rounds until Maldonado was cut above the
right eye in round four.
Darchinyan, a Sydney Olympian, dropped the Mexican in round six and
although Maldonado bravely fought back, he was taking a beating when
the referee intervened midway through round eight.
The bout was scheduled as the main supporting bout to the third war
between lightweight stars Diego Corrales and Jose Luis Castillo. But
after Castillo failed to make the weight for the bout, Darchinyan’s
title defence was elevated to the main event on a huge pay per view
card throughout the world.
“It was a great chance to show the world my power,” Darchinyan said.
“I put on a good show and hopefully this win against a very good
Mexican opponent will give me more fans. I hope my supporters in
Australia liked what they saw because I have many more world titles
to win.
“I feel I can beat the champions now in three more weight classes
all the way up to super-bantamweight if I have to.”
Darchinyan’s trainer Jeff Fenech implored Australian boxing fans to
support the Armenian-born southpaw who has much more success attracting
fans overseas.
“We just saw 30,000 people turn up to see Anthony Mundine-Danny Green
in a non-title fight that no one outside Australia could care less
about,” Fenech said.
“Vic Darchinyan is an outstanding, undefeated world champion who has
crushed everyone put before him. He deserves to get recognition as
a global boxing star.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AN INTERVIEW WITH ARA SARAFIAN
Nouvelles d’Armenie, France
June 5 2006
Turkish review VIRGUL- Issue 95 – May 2006
dimanche 4 juin 2006, Stephane/armenews
OSMAN KOKER : If I remember right your name was first heard in
Turkey in the year 1995 when your research at the Ottoman Archives
was interrupted by the officials there. In the past few years your
name is mentioned in connection with the “Treatment of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916”, known as the “Blue Book”.
At the conference in the Istanbul University on 15-17 March you made
a presentation about the Blue Book. Why did you choose the Blue Book
as your topic ?
ARA SARAFIAN : I chose this subject because it is topical in Turkey,
and because the Blue Book issue reflects the disturbing face of the
official Turkish thesis on the Armenian Genocide. The whole case
against the Blue Book, according to the official Turkish thesis,
relies on deliberate misinformation about the subject. This is why I
call many of my antagonists “denier” of the Armenian Genocide rather
than people I disagree with.
O.K. : How was the Blue Book prepared ?
A.S. : The Blue Book was originally compiled as a report. We do not
know how the decision was taken to request such a report, but certainly
we do know that its compilers, Arnold Toynbee and James Bryce, acted
in good faith when putting it together. We can make this assertions
because we have Toynbee’s working papers from this period (including
his correspondence with Bryce), as well as his later published works
where he talks about the Blue Book and the Armenian Genocide.
O.K. : What are the criteria employed in deciding to include a witness
account in the book ? Do you think these criteria are reliable ?
A.S. : The key criteria for the inclusion of reports in the Blue Book
was that sources had to be authentic primary records (eye-witness
accounts). Most of these reports were from a neutral United States,
which had its consulates in the interior of the Ottoman Empire until
April 1917. These consuls reported what they saw around them, and they
also forwarded other reports written by Americans and non-Americans
in these regions, such as the letters of American, German, or Swiss
missionaries.
Given these source of information, Toynbee and Bryce did not doubt
the originality of these accounts from the Ottoman Empire, and they
judged their value as primary sources on a record by record basis.
I think the criteria used by Toynbee and Bryce to gather and assess
their materials were creditworthy under the circumstances. They
even made provisions for possible errors creeping in by basing their
case on the weight of all the evidence without relying on one or two
documents. They also, for example, made sure that, the core narrative
of events rested on the evidence of Americans, Germans and other
foreigners, in case the “native evidence” (those from Armenian or
Assyrian sources) may have overstated what they saw.
In fact, when they did so, they realised that the strongest reports
were provided by non-Armenians, and that the “native evidence” merely
provided additional information.
According to the available evidence, the report that was compiled by
Bryce and Toynbee was accepted as a Parliamentary Blue Book in the
summer of 1916 because of the strong case it represented. Certainly
Toynbee had no idea that the report he compiled would become a
Parliamentary report.
The strength of the Blue Book today lies in the fact that we have
a complete record of how it was put together. We also know where
(most of) the original documentation came from, as well as how these
documents were selected from a wider body of archival records in the
United States. This is why we can still find the original records today
(and can not simply speculate about their real or fictitious origins).
I used these archival and published sources to carefully annotate my
critical edition of the 1916 work.
O.K. : Do you think we can refer to the Blue Book as a propaganda tool
? What were the means/methods used by the British in their propaganda
efforts at that time ?
A.S. : The British used propaganda as part of their war effort. Some
of this was crude, and some of it not so crude. The British government
was careful such propaganda did not backfire. That is why they did not
publish anything on Ottoman Turkey early in the war (for example when
they were landing at Gallipoli), because they did not have reliable
information. They were concerned that, if they made a poor case
against the Ottoman Empire, it would offend the Muslim population
of the British Empire. The first pamphlet they printed, not under an
official title, was after October 1915-when they first began receiving
reliable information about the destruction of Armenians. In fact,
the basis of that booklet was a speech Bryce made in Parliament,
based on the new evidence from the USA. Toynbee was asked to create
a publication from Bryce’s speech, which is what he did, and it was
published under his own name.
As more evidence of atrocities against Armenians was revealed, Toynbee
and Bryce continued to collect such records in a more formal way in
February 1916, for a more critical and systematic report. Once the
decision was taken to publish the Blue Book, it was used for effective
propaganda purposes. However, the work itself was not compromised
by crude propaganda considerations, nor fabricated as some deniers
of the Armenian Genocide like to suggest. The Blue Book was compiled
to a high academic standard, and the archival records we have today
support this point out.
O.K. : As you know, Ottoman Empire too published a book, “Ermeni
Komitelerinin Amal ve Harekat-i Ihtilaliyesi”, for propaganda purposes
about the Armenian issue during the WWI. What can you say on this
book ?
A.S. : Regarding Ottoman wartime propaganda against Armenians,
it cannot be compared with the Blue Book. Turkish nationalists have
republished the Ottoman government’s anti-Armenian propaganda without
serious examination where the records came from, who compiled and
edited them, who forwarded them to the compilers, where the original
materials are today, how records were included or excluded from the
Ottoman publication, etc. It would be an interesting exercise for the
TTK (Turkish History Association) to undertake and publish such an
annotated republication, as the Gomidas Institute has done for the
Blue Book.
O.K. : You are the editor of the 2000 “uncensored” edition of the
Blue Book ? What does “uncensored” mean ?
A.S. : I am the editor of the 2000 and the 2005 “uncensored” editions
! The latter one came out last year with minor additions in the
introduction.
I decided to call my annotated republication the “uncensored edition”
because I included information that was left out of the original
publication. In 1916, many of the witnesses whose reports appeared in
the Blue Book, were still in the Ottoman Empire (for example, the US
consuls in Trabzon, Harput, Aleppo, Mersin). The British could not
reveal the identities of these people for obvious reasons. In other
cases, the eyewitness accounts were so specific, that the identities
of the sources inside the Ottoman Empire could be revealed by the
witness statements, so some place names also had to be obscured as
well. When Toynbee censured such information he also placed it into
a confidential key, which was not made generally available-except
to trusted individuals. Toynbee also explained all of this in his
introduction to the main volume.
The confidential key was made public after WWI and has been in print
for the past 50 years. So, when we reproduced the Blue Book at the
Gomidas Institute, we also put all of this information back into
the main work. This is why we called it the “uncensored edition,”
because we put all of the missing information that was taken out in
1916 was put back into the main text.
Deniers of the Blue Book today do not acknowledge these facts and
argue that the Blue Book hid its sources because the report used by
the British were fictitious ! Recently, at the Istanbul University
Symposium, Sukru Elekdag claimed that Justin McCarthy had just
“discovered” a copy of the key in the British National Archives at Kew,
and that the key showed that the reports comprising the Blue Book were
not creditworthy. Of course, Elekdag’s assertions remain absurd : as
mentioned before, the key to the Blue Book has been available for many
decades. Furthermore, if one looked at McCarthy’s work over the last 20
years, one can see in his bibliographies that he has been consulting
archival collections that have included the confidential key (most
notably the Toynbee Papers, Record Group of the State Department). In
fact the same is also true for other deniers, such as Mim Kemal Oke,
Salahi Sonyel, Kamuran Gurun and others. The publication of the
“uncensored edition” of the Blue Book has forced McCarthy to change
his position, but it is not enough to save him. He has acknowledged
the key only to claim (again wrongly) that the content of the Blue
Book is inadequate.
Other than collapsing the confidential key back into the main Blue
Book, I also used the Toynbee Papers in the British National Archives
to trace the original records that were sent to him. Having traced
the bulk of these records to the United States National Archives, I
checked if the reports sent to the British were selective (i.e. were
there any reports which did not support the Armenian Genocide thesis
?), and if the accounts that were sent were changed by communicants
in the USA or by Bryce and Toynbee themselves. I then annotated the
blue book with this additional information, including full citations
where the original records could be found, and I gave my analysis in
a new introduction to the “uncensored” Blue Book.
What were the results ? The Blue Book was exactly what it claimed
it was in its original introduction. It was carefully put together
with the authenticity of each document examined. I can also say that
the U.S. reports appearing in the Blue Book were not selective nor
distorted. In fact, if we added all of the missing records from the
State Department files (i.e.including those which were not sent
to the British in 1916), the Blue Book thesis would actually be
strengthened. Some of the worst accounts about the Armenian Genocide
were not made public by the Americans-but we can certainly read
them today.
I have also published these sources in another book called “United
States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-17” and these
records (and more) will soon appear on the internet on
O.K. : Turkish retired ambassador and member of parliament Sukru
Elekdag said, in the conference at the Istanbul University, that
the Blue Book was the “last fortress of the Armenian genocide
allegations”. Is this true ? Aren’t there any other publications or
archival records on Armenian genocide.
A.S. : Sukru Elekdag is like the captain of a sinking ship who
continues telling his passengers that he knows what he is doing. The
Blue Book issue is a personal debacle for him, as well as others who
have worked for him on this issue. The choice of staking Turkey’s
reputation on the denial of the Blue Book was a political blunder
which will only bring shame to the Turkish republic. I say the Turkish
republic because Elekdag managed to get the whole TGNA behind him
on this issue. I do not feel sorry for Elekdag, but I feel sorry for
those well meaning Turks who trusted his judgement.
Furthermore, at the Istanbul University symposium, Elekdag claimed
that his Blue Book campaign was part of the Turkish government’s peace
initiative last year to resolve the Turkish-Armenian issue and to
hand down a peaceful legacy to future generations of Armenians,Turks
(and presumably Kurds). If his Blue Book campaign is a measure of that
initiative, then we have to questions the actual peaceful intentions
of the Turkish authorities.
Elekdag and his supporters seem to be mocking us when addressing the
Armenian issue. They seem to believe that they are in a position of
power, and that they think they can get away with anything they want.
They are part of the problem in Turkish-Armenian relations today,
not part of the solution.
I suggest Turkish intellectuals consider carefully the case I am
making here. The Blue Book issue is very instructive how Turkey
looks in the outside world-especially as the TGNA has made it into
an international issue.
I believe the most important sources that are available on the
Armenian Genocide are the memoirs of Armenian survivors. Many of
these sources are incredibly detailed and provide the perspective of
victims. Then there are the diplomatic records of the United States,
Germany, Italy and other countries. Of course Ottoman records have
their own significance, though I cannot comment on them. I was only
recently readmitted back into Ottoman archives and I hope to have the
opportunity to return to Turkey and work with such materials as well.
The Gomidas Institute has published the memoirs and diaries
of foreign diplomats and missionaries, such as the diaries of
Ambassador Morgenthau. The latter manuscript was published in
its entirety, because it is a crucial primary source. It also
supports Morgenthau’s stance on the Armenian issue. Most people in
Turkey know about Morgenthau because of Heath Lowry’s booklet which
misrepresents Morgenthau’s reports and diaries and castigating the
American ambassador as some sort of an Armenian puppet. Heath Lowry’s
assessment of Morgenthau is wrong and part of Elekdag’s denialist
campaign from the 1980s. Lowry and Elekdag have worked together
closely to deny the Armenian Genocide. In fact, there was a big scandal
about this very subject not so long ago, following a clerical error
at the Turkish embassy, when Lowry’s correspondence with Elekdag,
where they discussed the denial of the Armenian Genocide, was sent
to an American scholar. That scholar exposed this correspondence and
there is plenty of information about that scandal on the internet.
The Gomidas Institute is currently fund-raising so that it can continue
its research and publishing work, in English, Armenian and hopefully
Turkish. Right now we have a number of key books to publish, including
translations in our new Turkish language series.
However, as an independent academic institution, the Gomidas Institute
has no government or other institutional backing. We are also not
a lobbying organisation. We have to raise funds for each project
we undertake and each book we publish. Sometimes we have to refuse
funding because potential sponsors try to twist our work for partisan
purposes. Like many other institutions, we have to remain vigilant
to maintaining our academic integrity. There is no question where
we stand in such matters. I hope we will continue our work and start
cooperating with similar institutions in Turkey.
O.K. : Have you come across reference to a specific incident mentioned
in the Blue Book in some other records/archival documents or books ?
A.S. : Yes. For example, the events in Harpout, including the mass
murder of Armenian community leaders are corroborated in the diaries
of Maria Jacobsen and Tacy Atkinson, as well as the memoirs of Henry
Riggs. Similarly, the appalling condition of Armenian deportees in
Osmaniye are corroborated by many sources, including the diaries
of an Armenian schoolboy from Corum, Vahram Dadrian. There are many
such examples.
O.K. : What do you think is the significance of the Istanbul University
symposium on the future of Turkish Armenian relations ?
And what are your expectations to follow ?
A.S. : By holding this conference, the participants at the Istanbul
University symposium demonstrated a fundamental point : the treatment
of Armenians in 1915, including the Armenian Genocide thesis,
is a legitimate topic of discussion in Turkey today. This is a
radical departure from the past, when the subject was both a taboo
and proscribed by law. This does not mean that the official Turkish
thesis, which does not recognize the Armenian Genocide, has changed.
But it does mean that the subject is open to scrutiny and discussion.
I expect that there will be many participants in future discussions,
where Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and other historians will agree
and disagree on concrete historical issues regarding their common
history. I hope it will be a fruitful endeavour.
Even now, many ethnic Turks do not agree with the official Turkish
thesis, just as many Armenian historians do not agree with the
established Armenian one. The important thing is that the Armenian
Genocide (and the genocide of Assyrians) can now be addressed within
the boundaries of sensible academic debates.
O.K. : It was a big surprise for us that Yusuf Halacoglu, head of
the TTK (Turkish History Association), offered you to make researches
together and you accepted it. Doesn’t the Gomidas Institute and the
TTK stand in opposition to each other on the events of 1915 ?
A.S. : Despite all our differences in the past, I accepted Dr.
Halacoglu’s offer in good faith. I will try to work with him and the
TTK as well as I can. The TTK and the Gomidas Institute stands in
opposition to each other on the events of 1915. But I hope we can show
by our example that it is still possible to agree and disagree with
each other in a scholarly manner, in the interest of truth, as well
as peace. Besides, the TTK is not the only body that discusses the
Armenian issue in Turkey. There are many other official and unofficial
organisations, as well as private individuals, who already take part
in such work and discussions. The Gomidas Institute is only one party
in this debate.
O.K. : Don’t you see any pitfalls and difficulties ahead ?
A.S. : Yes, there is always the possibility of failure for all sorts
of reasons. But that is not a reason not to try. Peace is a great
prize we can all share together.
_article=23050

A DISAPPOINTING FINISH FOR INDIA
The Statesman, India
June 5 2006
Press Trust of India
TURIN (Italy), June 4: India had a disappointing finish at the 37th
Chess Olympiad here with the women’s team bagging the 12th spot and
the men managing to get the 30th place after the concluding round of
the meet.
Indian men yet again failed to make the most of the situation and
managed a minimal 2.5-1.5 victory over Italy B in the 13th and
final round.
Armenia attested their supremacy in the event with a quick draw on
all four boards against Hungary and won the gold medal with a huge
score of 36 points out of a possible 52. The silver medal went to
China who came with yet another fine performance in the final round
game to beat the Netherlands by a 2.5-1.5 margin. The Chinese men
finished with 34 points.
In an amazing turn of events, pre-Olympiad favourite and top seed
Russia were thrown out of medal contention after they lost their
final round game against Israel by a 1-3 margin. It paved the way
for the United States men who beat Norway 3.5-0.5 to join Israel in
the third spot on 33 points, and after the tie-break was resolved the
USA got the bronze. Behind Israel, Hungary finished fifth overall on
32.5 points while Russia ended in sixth place. Indian men who had
been given the second billing here behind Russia finished 30th on
29.5 points after the final list was announced.
In women’s section, the Ukraine won the gold after taking a draw with
Armenian eves. The Ukraine ended with 29.5 points out of a possible
39 and won the gold with a 1.5 point lead over Russia, who defeated
Indian eves in the final round 2-1. Indian eves, seeded ninth, had a
better finish than their male counterparts and tallied 23 points to
finish in 12th place. The Chinese women, the defending champions,
had to be content with the bronze this time. In the final round,
China drew with Belarus and ended on 27.5 points overall.
For Indian men, the final round also did not bring any good news as
national champion Surya Shekhar Ganguly was outdone on the third board
by unknown Sabino Brunello of the Italy B team. In fact, the Indian
opposition did not have a single International Master against four
Indian GMs and it was again a tragedy of errors that failed to propel
the team to a better finish. Viswanathan Anand was expectedly rested
and Krishnan Sasikiran won his game against Niccolo Ronchetti after
former world junior champion P Harikrishna gave the team an early lead
defeating Daniele Vocaturo. However, Ganguly’s loss combined with a
draw by Sandipan Chanda against Denis Rombaldoni on the fourth board
could yield only a minimal victory.
Meanwhile, Mr Bharat Singh Chauhan, treasurer of the All India Chess
Federation, was unanimously elected as president of Fide’s Asian Zone
3.2 here. Zone 3.2 comprises of India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan
and Sri Lanka.

June 2, 2006, 9:43AM
Turkey Loads 1st Oil From Caspian Pipeline
By SELCAN HACAOGLU Associated Press Writer
ANKARA, Turkey Authorities at a Turkish Mediterranean oil port on
Friday loaded the first shipment of Caspian Sea oil from a newly built
pipeline onto a tanker for Western markets.
The shipment from Ceyhan, a Turkish port on the Mediterranean Sea,
marks a crucial step in completing a project designed to create
alternative oil routes to ease the West’s dependence on Middle East
crude. The pipeline starts in Baku, Azerbaijan, runs through Tbilisi,
Georgia, and then travels southwest through Turkey to Ceyhan.
Although it included oil from the Caspian pipeline, the bulk of the
shipment was already stored at Ceyhan after having been brought in by
tanker to test new storage tanks at the site several months ago, oil
officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were
not authorized to speak to the media.
The loading of some 600,000 barrels of Caspian crude onto The British
Hawtharne began at 4:17 p.m. and was expected to take at least 12
hours. The shipment was destined for the northwestern Italian port of
Savona, officials said.
The recently completed 1,100-mile pipeline, conceived in the mid-1990s
and launched in 2002, is intended to tie the oil-rich newly
independent former Soviet nations to the West and reduce the influence
of Russia and Iran. U.S. officials insisted that the pipeline be built
through Turkey, bypassing the Middle East and Russia. The project cost
some $4 billion.
The Caspian Sea fields are estimated to hold the world’s third-largest
reserves, bypassing Russia and Iran.
Ceyhan is also the end point of a pipeline running from neighboring
Iraq, and Turkey built a new terminal and storage tanks to ship Azeri
oil.
At Ceyhan, the new oil terminal is expected to begin pumping 1 million
barrels of crude per day when fully operational.
Friday’s shipment is largely considered a technical exercise. A formal
launching ceremony to be attended by the presidents of Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey is scheduled for July 13.
The Caspian’s reserves are shared by Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan,
Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.
However, hopes that Caspian oil could be an alternative source to
Middle Eastern oil have so far proven unrealistic. Analysts say the
Middle East still provides 50 percent of global oil supplies.
___
Associated Press writer Suzan Fraser in Ankara contributed to this report.

Azeris look to Total for energy boost
BAKU, Azerbaijan, May 31 (UPI) — Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyez
began talks with France’s Total and Technip to bolster energy ties.
Aliyez met Monday with Total Executive-Vice President Christophe de
Margerie and Daniel Valot, chief executive officer of Technip, to
expand oil and gas projects already in place in Azerbaijan, the
state’s news agency reported.
“We have managed to construct the biggest production platform in the
Caspian, which was commissioned within the framework of the Sahdaniz
prokect,” Valot said.
Total has been actively involved in Azerbaijan’s oil and gas projects
since 1996 and has a 10 percent share in the project to develop the
Sahdaniz gas field and the South Caucasus Pipeline.
In 2004, the French company joined another transport project, the
construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which transports
Caspian oil to world markets through Georgia and Turkey.
Technip provides services for the oil and gas industry in Azerbaijan.

No cadre massacres expected at the National Assembly

ArmRadio.am
03.06.2006 15:40
After Arthur Baghdasaryan’s resignation most of the employees of the
Staff to the former NA Chairman, including Head of Staff and three
Advisers, filed their resignations, Head of Staff of the National
Assembly Hovhannes Zargaryan told `Radiolur.’ He added that all in all
490 people work at the National Assembly, including the technical
staff. The number of civil servants, whose activity is regulated by RA
Law on Civil Service, is 190.
Yesterday the newly elected NA Chairman Tigran Torosyan said that no
cadre massacres are expected at the National Assembly.

Bosnian citizen attacked in Moscow

ArmRadio.am
03.06.2006 15:51
Two unknown persons attacked a Bosnian citizen in Moscow, stealing
US$7 thousand and a laptop. `Novosti’ Agency informs that the accident
occurred yesterday at 20 Grin Street.
According to employees of law-enforcement bodies of Moscow, the
investigation of the case continues.