Round Table – Regulation of Water Supply Services
Public Advocates Union (PAU) invites you to participate at the round table
discussion on current problems in the process of regulation of water supply
services. The discussion will take place at Tekeyan Centre, on May 23rd
2006, at 11:00.
Representatives of Public Services Regulatory Commission, State Committee of
Water Systems and other stakeholder organizations will participate in the
discussion.

Public Advocates Union
23 Marshal Baghramyan Ave. #25a, 375019
Yerevan, Armenia,
Tel: (37410) 58 88 37
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: <; CENN INFO Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN) Tel:+995 32 75 19 03/04 Fax:+995 32 75 19 05 E-mail: [email protected]
URL: <;

PRESS RELEASE
Council of Europe Press Division
Ref: 292a06
Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 60
Fax:+33 (0)3 88 41 39 11
[email protected]
internet:
116th Session of the Committee of Ministers
(Strasbourg, 18-19 May 2006) –
Conclusions of the Chair
The main theme of the 116th Session of the Committee of Ministers,
chaired by Mr Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu, Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Romania, was the follow-up to the Third Council of Europe Summit, one
year on from Warsaw.
In reviewing progress with the implementation of the Summit decisions,
the Ministers identified the following priorities:
– consolidation of the Council of Europe’s system of human rights
protection;
– relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union;
– reinforcement of the Council of Europe’s action in favour of democracy
and good governance;
– the Council of Europe’s action to develop intercultural dialogue;
– implementation of Part V of the Action Plan of the Third Summit,
concerning Council of Europe reform.
During their discussions, the Ministers noted the position and
intentions of the Committee of Ministers’ institutional partners in the
Council of Europe on the issues on the agenda. They noted in particular
the positive assessment made of the work carried out in the areas of
intercultural dialogue and democracy (including local and regional
democracy and transfrontier cooperation). In this context, they took
note of the offer by Ukraine to host the plenary session of the Forum
for the Future of Democracy in 2009. They underlined the importance of
joint efforts from all Council of Europe actors for the success of the
current reform process carried out under Chapter V of the Action Plan.
The participants in the session also took note with interest of the
interim report of the Group of Wise Persons entrusted with drawing up a
comprehensive strategy to secure the long-term effectiveness of the
European Convention on Human Rights, which was presented by the Group’s
Chairman, Mr Iglesias.
The Ministers’ decisions and conclusions on the range of issues which
were on their agenda appear in the Session Communiqué.
The Council of Europe’s action in favour of democratic stability in
Europe though the promotion of its values and principles in the fields
of human rights, democracy and the rule of law was foremost in the
discussions. In this connection, the exchange of views with Mr Martti
Ahtisaari, Special Envoy of the Secretary General of the United Nations
for the future status process for Kosovo, at the informal ministerial
meeting on the evening of 18 May, provided an opportunity to take stock
of the negotiations on this subject and to discuss the Council of
Europe’ possible contribution to the process, in particular on matters
relating to human rights protection, minority rights, decentralisation
and the preservation of cultural heritage.
Beyond Kosovo, particular attention was paid to the more general issue
of stability in south-east Europe, having in mind the important
referendum on Montenegro’s independence, scheduled for 21 May. It was
underlined that the referendum must be conducted in full respect of the
relevant international standards and Ministers called on all the
political forces of Serbia and Montenegro to act responsibly and to
accept the results of the ballot. It was also recognised that a crucial
phase would begin after the referendum, irrespective of the results.
Reference was made to the need to continue the reforms in the fields of
human rights, democracy and the rule of law and the Ministers agreed
unanimously that the Council of Europe should continue the activities
which it has carried out to this end for several years, in consultation
with the other international bodies concerned.
Several Ministers also expressed concern that Serbia and Montenegro was
still not giving the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) the full and entire co-operation expected. They
recalled that this co-operation was one of the fundamental undertakings
entered into by Serbia and Montenegro when it joined the Council of
Europe and they called on the country’s authorities to take immediate
steps to comply with this commitment.
Another issue addressed concerned the conduct of free and democratic
elections in Europe. The Ministers expressed satisfaction that the
parliamentary elections in Ukraine on 26 March 2006 had been in
conformity with the relevant international standards. They also noted
with satisfaction the positive assessment made by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the rerun of the parliamentary elections in ten
constituencies in Azerbaijan on 13 May, which was a prelude to future
major elections in this country. In order to ensure that these
elections take place in a fully democratic manner, the Committee of
Ministers recalled the necessity of revising the electoral legislation
in co-operation with the Venice Commission as soon as possible. The
same point was made with regard to the current revision of the Armenian
Electoral Code.
In the case of Belarus, several Ministers regretted that the
presidential election of 19 March 2006 had not respected the
international standards referred to above and expressed great concern
about the continued deterioration of the situation concerning human
rights and fundamental freedoms following the election. In this
context, they urged the Belarus authorities to release all the persons
arrested before and after the elections and to embark resolutely on a
democratic reform process, particularly by guaranteeing the exercise of
freedom of expression and association, in accordance with the country’s
international undertakings. In this respect, it was hoped that the
Belarus authorities would co-operate actively in the implementation of
the action plan recently adopted by the Council of Europe in order to
foster its values and principles in the fields of human rights,
democracy and the rule of law in Belarus.
It was noted that more than ever, the Council of Europe’s
standard-setting acquis and its adaptation to meet the new challenges
facing Europe were critical elements for the strengthening of democratic
stability in Europe. In this context, the Ministers welcomed the opening
for signature at the Session of the Council of Europe’s 200th treaty,
the Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in relation to State
Succession.
The Ministers also took note with satisfaction of the signatures and
ratifications in recent months of (i) the Convention on the Prevention
of Terrorism, (ii) the revised Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure
and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of
Terrorism and (iii) the Convention on Action against Trafficking in
Human Beings.1 They reaffirmed the importance of these legal
instruments in the international fight against terrorism and human
trafficking and consequently encouraged countries that had not yet
signed or ratified these conventions to do so as soon as possible.
It was also pointed out that it was essential not only to sign and
ratify conventions but also to implement effectively Council of Europe
standards in domestic law and practice. The Ministers again stressed
member states’ individual and collective responsibility for ensuring
that judgments of the European Court of Human Rights were fully applied,
as an essential condition for the credibility of the Convention’s
supervisory system. They referred in particular to the four interim
resolutions adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the case of Ilascu
and others v. Moldova and Russia. They expect the Court’s judgment in
this case to be executed without any further delay.
Finally, the Ministers welcomed the emphasis placed over the past six
months on areas where joint action by member states, based on Council of
Europe values, could make a major contribution to democratic stability.
In particular they:
– welcomed the efforts of the Council of Europe, on the strength of the
Romanian Chairmanship’s input, to promote a culture of democracy with
the authorities and citizens of the member states, in particular through
the network of political schools aimed to train new generations of
leaders in the fundamental values of the Council of Europe (the first
conference of the schools took place on 27 and 28 April in Bucharest),
and the three-year action plan on education for democratic citizenship
and human rights, launched on the occasion of the evaluation conference
of the European Year of Citizenship through Education (2005) held in
Sinaia on 27 and 28 April;
– noted with satisfaction the launch in early 2006 of the activities of
the High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion in the 21st century, which
had been mandated to review the Council of Europe’s strategy in this
area. In this connection, they welcomed the adoption in April of the
Ten-Year Action Plan on Equal Rights for People with Disabilities and
the Romanian authorities’ support for the plan’s implementation, in the
form of a regional seminar held in Constanta on 14-16 May 2006;
– gave their support for the Council of Europe’s three-year programme
“Building a Europe for and with Children”, inaugurated in Monaco on 4
and 5 April 2006, after the conference on children’s rights held in
Bucharest on 1 and 2 February, expressing the hope that the programme
would rapidly lead to practical and significant measures to improve
children’s rights, particularly where they live in difficult economic
and social conditions;
– recalled their firm commitment to the total abolition of the death
penalty in Europe and beyond. In this regard, they noted with
satisfaction that since their previous session Protocol No. 13 to the
ECHR had been ratified by Monaco, the Netherlands, Turkey and
Luxembourg, and signed by Armenia on 19 May at the Treaty event
organised in parallel to the session;
– stressed the importance of efforts to foster the rights of persons
belonging to national minorities (including Roma and Travellers). They
also welcomed the fact that, since the inauguration of the European
Forum for Roma and Travellers in late 2005, the Romanian Chairmanship
had supported this initiative, in particular by organising a conference
in Bucharest on 4 May on the implementation and harmonisation of
national policies on Roma, Sinti and Travellers;
– reiterated the importance they attach to the work carried out by the
Council of Europe of Europe in the area of the protection of national
minorities, particularly through the competent expert committee (DH-MIN)
which held its 3rd meeting in Bucharest in March 2006. In this context
they paid tribute to the Romanian Chairmanship’s initiative in
organising the same month in Brasov an international conference on the
role of consultative bodies in the promotion of the participation of
members of national universities in decision-making processes;
– gave their support to the Romanian Chairmanship in its efforts to
promote intercultural dialogue, through the 3rd Intercultural Forum of
the Council of Europe on “The promotion of intercultural dialogue
between generations” (Bucharest, 17-18 March 2006) and the seminar on
“Identity, citizenship and cohesion” (Bucharest, 5 May 2006), as well as
to encourage the protection of the environment and sustainable
development, with the Regional Conference held in Bucharest on 27 and 28
April 2006.
The Ministers once again underlined the importance of ensuring efficient
interaction and creating synergies between the Council of Europe and its
main partners on the European stage, so that citizens may reap practical
benefits from international action in these different areas. In this
respect they welcomed the useful cooperation between the Council of
Europe, the European Union and the OSCE over the last six months,
including through the high-level meetings held in Brussels on 30 January
with the OSCE and in Strasbourg on 15 March with the European Union.

At the end of the session, Mr Sergey Lavrov, Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Russian Federation, informed his colleagues of the
Russian Chair’s priorities for the Committee of Ministers over the next
six months. The transfer of the chairmanship from Mr Ungureanu to Mr
Lavrov took place immediately afterwards.
1 7 new signatures and 2 ratifications were recorded during the Session.
This brought the number of signatures to 33 for the Convention on the
Prevention of Terrorism, 21 for the revised Convention on Laundering,
Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the
Financing of Terrorism and 28 for the Convention on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings
To receive our press releases by e-mail, contact :
[email protected]
A political organisation set up in 1949, the Council of Europe works to
promote democracy and human rights continent-wide. It also develops
common responses to social, cultural and legal challenges in its 46
member states.

ARMENIAN RELIEF SOCIETY, INC. CENTRAL EXECUTIVE BOARD

PRESS RELEASE NO. 4
Armenian Relief Society, Inc.
Telephone£ 617-926-5892
Central Office
Fax: 617-926-4855
80 Bigelow Avenue
e-mail: [email protected]
Watertown, MA 02472
Website:
PRESS RELEASE
ARS CHAIRPERSON VISITS ARTSAKH
Yerevan, May 16 — On Moday, May 8, The Chairperson of the Armenian
Relief Society, Mrs. Hasmig Derderian left for Artsakh on a three-day
field work program. Three days before her departure, Mrs. Derderian,
along with the President of the Republic and numerous high government
officials, had attended a special Requiem Mass, celebrated by His
Holiness Vazgen I, in memory of the victims who perished off the shore
of Sochi in the Armenian Airlines crash.
On the very day of her arrival at Stepanakert, the
Chairperson met with the ARS/Artsakhÿs Executive Board and discussed
the entityÿs organizational issues and its activities around the
region. During the meeting, the Executive Board Chairperson, Mrs. Nelly
Ghoulian presented, in detail, the current picture of the 10 ARS
“Soseh” Kindergartens spread out across Artsakh. Daily, more than 500
children receive free sustenance and education in these nurseries,
thanks to the generous moral and financial support of ARS entities
throughout the world.
All across the Homeland, the Armenian Relief Society – whose Armenia
affiliate is preparing to celebrate its 15th Anniversary in September of
this year – continues to implement its various programs in support of
the orphaned children of the fallen warriors of the Artsakh liberation
struggle, needy students, etc., coordinated by the ARS Central Executive
Board. In view of the fact, that many of those youngsters have reached
college age, the ARS has decided to start a program of assistance to the
scholastic needs of those who wish to continue their education by
attending colleges and institutes of their choice.
Mrs. Derderian was delighted to hear, that ARS/Artsakh is firmly
committed to participate in the ARS Centennial Pan-Armenian
Fund-drive, which will secure the necessary funds allowing the
continuation of the Organization’s world-wide humanitarian activities.
The following day, on the occasion of the 14th Anniversary of the
liberation of the City of Shoushi, Chairperson Derderian laid wreathes
on the monuments of the martyred hero, Ashot-Bekor Ghoulian and those
who fell on the field of honor during World War II; she also visited the
site of the Tank which serves as a memorial at the entrance of the city,
following which, she joined those who attended the commemorative
services held in the Ghazanchetsvots Cathedral.
On Wednesday, the Chairperson visited the ARS “Soseh” Kindergarten of
Stepanakert – the oldest on the growing list of “Soseh” Kindergartens
in Artsakh. Mrs. Derderian, who was in Paris from the 26th to 30th of
April, participating in the deliberations of the Armenian Blue Cross
of France Regional Convention, later attended, in Yerevan, on May 2-4,
the plenary meeting of the “Armenia” Pan- Armenian Fund’s Board of
Trustees.
The ARS Chairperson departed from Armenia on Sunday, May 14. Until that
date, she continued her field work with the local ARS leadership and a
fellow ARS/CEB member, Mrs. Karine Hovhannisian, resident of Armenia.

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
0033 Yerevan, Armenia
Tel: (+374 – 10) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 – 10) 52.48.46
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website:
May 19, 2006
Richard Hovannisian’s “Republic” Released in Armenian
Yerevan–Professor Richard G. Hovannisian, chairholder in Modern Armenian
History at UCLA, was publicly honored today on the occasion of the
Armenian-language publication of the first volume of his four-part epic,
entitled “The Republic of Armenia: The First Year, 1918-1919.” The event was
organized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Writers’ Union of
Armenia, with support from the Armenian Center for National and
International Studies (ACNIS). The presentation brought together prominent
specialists in Armenian studies, leading scholars and intellectuals,
political and public figures, diplomats, and media representatives.
Held in the auditorium of the Writers’ Union of Armenia, the program was
opened by Academician Vladimir Barkhudarian, vice president of the National
Academy of Sciences. “There remain historical phenomena which call for
further, deeper research. One such experience is the history of the first
Republic of Armenia which, through four decades of diligent dedication and
groundbreaking work with a wealth of primary sources, Academician Richard
Hovannisian has fully and objectively brought to light,” he said.
The next speaker was chairman Levon Ananian of the Writers’ Union. In his
words, “The Republic of Armenia” is a colossal oeuvre and thus one of the
greatest achievements in contemporary Armenian studies. “It is noteworthy
that the author of the book is a unique symbol of our national pride. An
incisive thinker and a scholar with professional methodology, Hovannisian’s
international standing and pre-eminence in the field keep growing.”
Volume One of “The Republic of Armenia” was presented in detail by Professor
Ashot Melkonian, director of the Academy’s Institute of History. He first
underlined the historiographic value of the work. According to Melkonian, in
the 1960s and 1970s, when the historical truth about the First Republic was
concealed by political strictures, this masterpiece by Richard Hovannisian
was an underground imperative for those in Soviet Armenia who were
researching and studying the topic. “The ultimate importance of this book is
that the concept of statehood forms its entire backbone,” he concluded.
In his turn, Professor Babken Harutiunian, chairholder in Armenian History
at Yerevan State University, commended “The Republic of Armenia” in terms of
its reliance on a broad spectrum of sources as well as its application of
the precept of continuity in historical science. “Aside from presenting the
historical record completely and truthfully, each chapter and every line of
the work are founded in a supreme notion of patriotism.” It is not a
coincidence, he continued, that owing directly to the incessant efforts of
Professor Hovannisian a school of modern Armenian history has been developed
in the diaspora.
Raffi Hovannisian, founding director of ACNIS and Armenia’s first Minister
of Foreign Affairs, congratulated his father on the accomplishment of
finally bringing the whole history of the First Republic home to Armenia.
“Comprehensively researched and objectively presented, Richard Hovannisian’s
authoritative account both gives cause for moments of historic pride and
achievement and offers a record of losses and shortcomings which the new
Armenia must avoid repeating. It is a valuable lesson of liberty and
legitimacy, democracy and diplomacy, sovereignty and security, which must be
drawn today–in the name of the Republic of Armenia, past and present.”
Also noteworthy were artistic contributions by literary expert Svetlana
Khanumian and professor of theology Khoren Palian.
Finally, Richard Hovannisian took the floor and extended his deep
appreciation to the organizers of the event, the scholars, intellectuals and
everyone present, and acknowledged Vrezh Markosian, director of the Tigran
Mets Publishing House, for his high-caliber production of the volume.
Hovannisian shared vignettes from his childhood, his student years, and his
four-decade quest for “The Republic of Armenia.” A well-rounded
understanding of the history of the First Republic, he said, will enable its
modern-day heir to steer clear of mistakes and never place false hope in
paper guarantees for security, which we have trusted on numerous historical
occasions and suffered setbacks as a result.
The capacity crowd of assembled leaders, intellectuals, and students stood
to express their appreciation of the work and its creator.

Yerevan Press Club presents web site, featuring the
most interesting publications from the press of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
and Turkey on issues of common concern. The latest updates on the site are
weekly delivered to the subscribers.
************************************ ***************************************
RECOGNIT ION OF THE GENOCIDE – THE RIGHT TO RETURN
| “Golos Armenii” newspaper (Armenia) | Aris Ghazinian | 18-May-2006 |
In early XX, the Armenian people lost not only the demographic majority but
also the historical homeland – at least 90% of the area, making the natural
habitat of national settlement. Thus, on the eve of the First World War the
Armenian factor was still the dominant demographic and cultural-constructive
element of the upland. In this respect, the catastrophe of the Armenian
people has no precedent, since there is no other nation forced to build its
statehood on the tenth part of the historically assimilated Homeland.
There is an obvious difference between the concepts of Fatherland and
Statehood. While, due to various historical reasons the Armenian people,
dozens of times losing political independence, each time found the strength
and ability to restore the state set-up of national life. The guarantee for
restoration of sovereignty was not only the traditional vector of
orientation (general character of the Armenian of pre-20th century, aimed at
recovery of the lost statehood) but also the fact of the presence of
Homeland proper. Irrespective of any political formation, the national life
in a historical Homeland did not interrupt. However, in early past century
it is the Fatherland that the nation lost first. So if the process of
restoring statehood is possible to imagine, the mechanism of restoring the
Homeland (the right for life in natural habitat of national activity) is not
worked out. To this effect, we need a special ideology.
In short-term perspective, Turkey may afford recognition of the Armenian
Genocide, and there is ground to suppose that it will be the case. It is
obvious however that herein Ankara’s traditional preconditions will again
come up: before expressing official readiness to this revolutionary step of
theirs, the Turkish authorities will by all means demand guarantees of the
Armenian side. In particular, Yerevan will be proposed to sign (in exchange)
under the point for RA being ineligible for setting any territorial claims
to Turkey.
Doubtlessly, none of the heads of Armenian state has a right to sign such a
document. It is also obvious that the refusal of official Yerevan will
become subject for foreign policy speculations by Ankara. It is also
possible that Turkey will lift the blockade of the border and will even act
as apologist for establishing diplomatic relations with RA. However, does
the Armenian nation today have an ideology, capable of facing the coming
challenges? What will be the position of the official Yerevan if Ankara
pledges its willingness before the international community: a) to recognize
the Armenian Genocide; b) deblock the border; c) establish diplomatic
relations with Armenia? Won’t the Armenian statehood be placed in a certain
ideological vacuum in this case?
The official line of RA, aimed at international recognition of the Genocide,
should be formulated quite clearly and rigidly. In various forms and on
various levels it is recognized in over two dozens of states, however, the
priority provision – the Homeland lost after the Genocide – is not mentioned
in any of respective documents.
RA President Robert Kocharian repeatedly stated (to the Turkish journalists
as well) that the issue of Turkey’s recognition of the Armenia Genocide is
not linked to the territorial problem that should be viewed within the
aspect of the Sevres Treaty. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
stated on his behalf that the current authorities of the country will not
raise this issue, “however, theoretically it can be raised by one of the
subsequent heads of the Republic”. Nevertheless the fact of losing the
Homeland proper – the natural habitat of the Armenian settlement – is not on
the agenda of RA foreign policy. Apparently, no one except Yerevan will
raise this issue.
Currently, there is a vital necessity for adapting the previously chaotic
intention for Genocide recognition on more pragmatic ground with the demand
for guaranteed (by the international community) right for repatriation of
the peoples deprived of the homeland. If the Armenian people is now ready
for repatriation is another matter. However, in any case we need to
officially state that by the process of Genocide recognition, Yerevan also
views the right of the Armenian people for return.
EDWARD SHEVARNADZE: “IF WE ARE NEITHER A NORMAL COUNTRY NOR HAVE A NORMAL
PRESIDENT, WE CAN EXPECT ANY TROUBLE”
| “Georgian Times” newspaper (Georgia) | Maya Margvelani | 16-May-2006 |
– What is your assessment of the recent activities of the Georgian
authorities, their statements addressed to Russia? How adequate is the
reaction of the Russian side?
– Russia’s actions towards Georgia are a factual blockade. It is a classical
manifestation of Russian policy. Wine, alongside “Borjomi”, are our maim
products. When they are not sold in Russia, it naturally raises concerns. In
fact, the world market already has set preferences, and the loss of the
Russian market is very alarming.
– Is it Russia’s response to the tough policy of our authorities?
– We had quite a negative experience with the Russian authorities but it did
not go as far as the breakup of the union. Georgia’s accession to CIS was
not a forceful one, though Russia insistently recommended us to join the
Commonwealth. If my friends – presidents of other countries – had not joined
the CIS, we would probably do the same. I heeded their opinion; without
mutual support, it would be hard to find common ground with Russia. We are
on good terms with President Putin though even then both in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia their behavior was very bad. However, Putin is a flexible
person with a mild character.
– If he has a mild character, how do you explain his attitude to Georgia?
– We should pay attention to Putin’s speech in response to the statements of
our leaders. It was a balanced political speech. He said, “The friendly
Georgian people experiences grave economic problems, and we will try to find
a solution”. However, subsequent statements of our high-ranking officials
aggravated the situation.
– You mean the Defense Minister?
– The statement of the Defense Minister would be insulting for any country.
I am not initiated into the details but possibly the speech of the
Parliament Chairman in Saint Petersburg also had its share. Burjanadze
enraged Duma. I do not justify Russia, a lot happens with its approval. At
the same time, I would note that Putin’s speech was more balanced and sound.
– Where is the way out?
– We are now in actual blockade. I think the meeting of the Presidents of
Russia and Georgia is obligatory. Besides, it is the Georgian President who
should take the initiative. The relations will not improve without the
high-level meeting, moreover they might deteriorate.
– Can Russia toughen the sanctions still more?
– Russia has many levers of pressure. It may stop the supply of gas and oil
products. Once we have other gas, we can speak on different terms. When the
gas pipeline was blown up, we accused the Russian authorities. Indeed,
someone blew it up but it might be an Ossetian, a Russian or a Georgian! The
Russian authorities had no motivation for the explosion of the pipeline: we
buy gas from them and at quite high prices. In the future, it might grow
even more expensive. So that Russia may enact quite a lot of levers, as I
already mentioned… I think Russia’s irritation comes from the dislocation
of its bases. I also was categorical about their liquidation. They mostly
withdrew the bases. As for Akhalkalaki base, it was decided back in 1998,
however I was not very anxious to dislocate the base, since several
thousands of locals were employed there, while we did not have an
opportunity to give them jobs. By the way, during my presidency we
dislocated the Russian military base from Vaziani without any scandal. I
think the dislocation of the Akhalkalaki base was not a very urgent issue.
– You mean to say that Putin must not be negatively disposed to the
Georgians?
– Actually he was not. I will bring an example. I always tried to have as a
priority Georgia’s good relations with both Russia and US, as far as it is
possible. The recent meeting with Putin took place in Alma Ata. I told him
about my request to USA for support in army training. He was a bit upset
over it and said that Russia could also help. Then by the end of the summit,
someone asked him about his attitude to US supporting the Georgian army.
Putin turned around and replied, “Georgia is an independent country with a
right for choice. If it views America as its friend, how can we object?” So
we can see that Putin is a flexible person, open to cooperation and
compromise. In Georgia, there is a tough opinion about him, and he is now
thinking over a possible solution. Our tense relations really need
discharging.
– What is your opinion about the special operations of the Interior
Ministry, which often end up with victims…
– During my presidency, there was an escape of the prisoners but we did not
shoot them… Law is binding for all! So when the officials neglect the law,
it is already troublesome.
– It is a fact that you personally expressed condolences to the Girgvliani
family (scandalous murder of the young man, in which high-ranking officials
are involved – Trans.), while Mikhail Sahakashvili is still silent about
this barbarous crime.
– It is impossible in a normal country. I am convinced that sooner or later
the President will provide adequate assessment of this murder, and the
public will be informed about his decision. I repeat that it is the case in
a normal country, and if we are neither a normal country nor have a normal
president, we can expect any trouble. I am convinced that Sahakashvili will
give a proper assessment of the incident. He is well aware that he should
give his reaction to such facts.
COMPLICATED ISSUES
| “Milliyet” newspaper (Turkey) | Sami Kohen | 16-May-2006 |
When Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper made a statement on April 24 in
support of the Armenian Genocide allegations, it slipped the attention of
the Canadian public. The Canadian media took up this issue only after Turkey
has summoned its Ambassador in Ottawa Aydemir Erman to Ankara for
consultation. This speech by the Prime Minister is not the first event in
Canada, supporting Armenian Genocide allegations. In Canada, there are a
hundred thousand Armenians with an active Armenian lobby. Two years ago, the
Canadian Parliament adopted a law on the recognition of the Genocide. A
large share of it was with the Conservative Party, then oppositional, headed
by Harper. After the victory of the conservatives at the elections, the
Armenian lobby started to pressure the government of the country to ratify
the law adopted by the Parliament. Prime Minister Harper kept to his stance
and made a statement recognizing the fact of Genocide. Thus, the Genocide
allegations are supported in Canada both on parliamentary and government
level.
The Situation is Different in France
In this respect, the situation in Canada and France is different. Thus, In
France the government did not make any clear and official statements,
recognizing the Armenian Genocide. However, today the French Parliament is
considering a draft law, stipulating a punishment for denying the Armenian
Genocide, which is even worse.
The presence and influence of the Armenians in France is a common knowledge.
Internal political factors often make the French parliamentarians take the
side of the Armenian community.
What is the case in Canada? Not only in Canada: in many countries of Latin
America and Europe, where the Armenian communities are not numerous, the
Parliaments take similar decisions.
Herein, the organized activity of the Armenian Diaspora and its influence in
these countries doubtlessly has a large role.
On the other hand, Turkey itself has long abstained from these campaigns. It
cannot boast with effective presentation of its position, nor did it work
out new strategies on the “Armenian issue”.
Overall, Ankara takes measures on this issue post factum, and they are
usually short-term. In certain cases, the feedback of Ankara not only lacks
preventive force but also impedes bilateral relations. It has already been
the case with France and other European countries…
Canada’s Example
What to do with Canada?
Turkey recalled its ambassador in Ottawa for a few days, and prior to it,
the country did not participate in NATO exercise in Canada…
Alongside such “symbolic” steps, other measures, like weakening of trade and
economic relations, are also discussed. The turnover between the two
countries makes about 1 billion dollars today, and the investments of the
Canadian firms in Turkey – 700 million dollars… Besides, there are other
important joint projects (for example in nuclear energy sphere). The issue
is what will be the practical results of Canada’s isolation? Will such a
“punishment” change the position of its authorities? What will be the impact
of the isolation of large international companies on the inflow of
international investments in Turkey as a whole? Shouldn’t we think over this
aspect of the issue as well?
IRAN WILL REMIND BAKU OF ITS ANTIIRANIAN STATMENTS, expert from Iran
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad milieu announces
| “Zerkalo” newspaper (Azerbaijan) | G. Inanj | 16-May-2006 |
Azerbaijan unwillingly finds itself in the epicenter of regional processes
that are sometimes quite dangerous for it. At this stage official Baku is
given a very disguised role of mediator between the USA and Iran, claiming
to be a regional power. Yet Tehran has not forgiven the official Baku
certain steps and statements on Iran,.
In the exclusive interview to “Zerkalo”, given by Iranian expert Jalal
Mohammadi, known in the West for his proximity to the President of Iran
Ahmadinejad, interesting aspects of Azerbaijani policy of official Tehran
can be traced between the lines. Notably, in the West the statements by
Mohammadi are equaled to the opinion of official Tehran.
– The threats of US about attacking Iran that have been going on for four
years is nothing but a psychological war. Washington discusses different
ways, including a military way of solving the uranium enrichment issue in
our country. For this reason some statements voiced by American officials on
the plans of attacking Iran must not be considered as a fact.
– Do you exclude the military attack on Iran?
– The USA cannot apply military force against Iran. In the modern history
our country is a strong state of both Middle East and of Islamic world.
Under the circumstances the intrusion into Iran is not a simple question.
The aim of the Cold War is to present Iran as an unstable country and to
obstruct the development of its cooperation with other countries, including
its neighbors.
The promotion of the idea of how invincible the USA are among the smaller
countries is a part of the US anti-Iranian policy. Washington attempts to
frighten all these states into worshipping it. Contrary to everything I
would like to state that Iran is thoroughly ready for any form of aggression
from the USA, including military.
The US attempts to weaken Iran from inside, to ignite a domestic crisis
bring the Iranians together around the national idea which is today the
nuclear program.
Washington, on the one hand uses international organizations to exercise
pressure on Iran, on the other – it attempts to create ethnic problems
inside the country. the USA allocated 74 million USD for the Iranian
opposition.
– The “Zerkalo” sources in Tbilisi confirm the rumors, disseminated in media
about a certain arrangement between Georgia and USA about the use of
Georgian basin of the Black Sea in the case of military aggression against
Iran. In the US-Iranian confrontation Washington has a different role for
Azerbaijan.
– The leader of Islamic revolution Ayatollah Imam Khomeini once announced
that if the US decides to wage a war against Iraq, they will face a war from
all sides. For me the war from all sides means one thing – all the parties,
supporting the aggressor in the war launch, will get their punishment.
– After the well-known incident during the Second Congress of Azerbaijani,
Baku and Tehran have a concealed tension between them. Does Iran have a
stone in the pocket?
– Much earlier, after the presidents exchanged visits, Baku and Tehran had
positive relations. Yet the anti-Iranian statements at the 2nd Congress of
Azerbaijanis in Baku revealed the lack of firmness in the Iranian policy of
Azerbaijan and set ground for the lack of trust between the countries. Iran
does recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the fact of
Mountainous Karabagh occupation, and the official Baku allows some
questionable people to speak against the territorial integrity of Iran. Such
statements set fertile soil for Armenia and other unfriendly countries to
actively oppose our cooperation. The response of Iran on the statements
questioning the territorial integrity of the country will become known
later.
– You are implying Israel. But the Jewish lobby supports Azerbaijan in the
issues, important for the country, such as confronting Armenian lobby.
– Since the rule of the Popular Front a group of Azerbaijani politicians
believes that by cooperating with Jewish lobby and Israel they can oppose
the Armenian lobby.
The illusions about solving the Mountainous Karabagh conflict with the help
of Jewish lobby have vanished. Not a centimeter of occupied territories has
been liberated as a result of 15-year long cooperation between Baku and
Jerusalem. These politicians obviously are unaware of the priorities of
world political relations. the Western empire has two wings – the Armenian
and Jewish lobby.
– One of the reasons the USA gave up the idea of “colored revolution” in
Azerbaijan is the Iranian policy of Washington and the role given to Baku in
the scenario. The White House did not risk shattering the stable political
situation in the neighboring Azerbaijan before the serious dialogue with
Tehran.
– Firstly, the official Baku has made its conclusions after the Georgian and
Ukrainians events and cleared the government of officials, capable of
supporting the “colored”. Also, the Azerbaijani opposition is weak and does
not enjoy the support of the people. No one supports it but for the US
Embassy in Baku.
But the USA are not that omnipotent. Washington did not manage to clear the
way for a coup in Azerbaijan. Certainly, the refusal of the White
House from the scenario of the power change in Baku also includes the
neighborhood of Azerbaijan and Iran, the Shiite Islam in the two countries,
the culture and history, uniting our nations.
– To a certain extent the lack of solution to the Mountainous Karabagh
conflict also ties the hands of the White House in terms of realization
their interest-related plans. Is it the reason for the recent haste that the
West displays in the Mountainous Karabagh resolution process?
– The haste of the West in the resolution of the conflict is related to the
inner problems in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the international ties of
Azerbaijan and geopolitical situation. The factors listed complicate the
conflict resolution even more. The occupied territories are not liberated at
a negotiations table. Certainly, the war results in losses of human force as
well as inflicts moral and financial damages. What can be done, the
political organization of the world is unfair.
Many countries use the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in their interests.
They use their present status quo, but are in no way interested in the
resolution of the conflict. The continuation of the conflict is in the
interests of France, Russia and Turkey.
Turkey links the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict with the relations between
Armenia and Turkey and the interstate problems. Ankara, waving the
occupation of MK as a flag, tries to prove the aggressive policy of Armenia
and to protect itself against the psychological and political pressure of
Armenian lobby demanding the recognition of the Armenian genocide in the
Ottoman Empire.

************************************************ ***************************
For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].
Website:

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
May 19, 2006
___________________
CLERGY GATHER FOR ANNUAL DISCUSSIONS
Clergy from throughout the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
(Eastern) gathered for the annual Clergy Conference from May 1 to 4, 2006,
at the Star Lodge Resort in Bloomingdale, NJ.
“This is also an opportunity for the clergy to gather in prayer and
strengthen the bonds between each other by sharing our experiences with each
other,” said Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate. “It is a wonderful
opportunity to learn from each other.”
The Primate, presided over the gathering of 43 clergymen from the Eastern
Diocese, Fr. Zareh Zargarian, a representative of the Canadian Diocese, and
two visiting clergy from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Fr. Zaven
Yazijian and Fr. Baruyr Avedisyan, who spoke about the continued renewal and
growth of Christianity in the Republic of Armenia.
“The faith in Armenia is finding its footing, rooting itself again in our
brothers and sisters of the motherland,” the Primate said. “And these young
clergymen are examples of how Armenians are reawakening to their faith.”
A message from His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of
All Armenians, was also read to the clergymen. Later, the Primate expressed
gratitude to the Catholicos for sending his annual message of encouragement
and blessings to the clergy.
“This is again a connection that binds us as servants of the same Apostolic,
Orthodox church,” the Primate said.
He also spoke with the clergy about the Diocesan theme for the next year:
“Church and Home: One in Spirit.” The theme was introduced by Diocesan
staff, who asked the clergy for ideas and suggestions for programs to build
that united spiritual life in Armenian families. The clergy will meet again
with Diocesan staff on June 6 to further this discussion.
Along with discussing programming ideas, clergy also heard from three
distinguished panelists who spoke on the theological and pastoral traditions
of the Armenian Church in relation to suicide. Speaking were Fr. Krikor
Maksoudian, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, and Dr. Carlo Bayrakdarian, a geriatric
psychologist.
The conference was co-chaired by Fr. Haigazoun Najarian and Fr. Untzag
Nalbandian, with Fr. Shnork Souin and Dn. Levon Giragosian serving as
English and Armenian secretaries respectively.
— 5/19/06
E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News and
Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,
PHOTO CAPTION (1): Clergy at the 2006 Clergy Conference discuss various
issues and proposals during the four-day event from May 1 to 4, 2006.
PHOTO CAPTION (2): Fr. Bedros Kadehjian, the newest priest of the Diocese,
celebrates the Divine Liturgy at the St. Leon Church of Fair Lawn, NJ,
during the close of the Clergy Conference.
PHOTO CAPTION (3): Clergy from throughout the Diocese of the Armenian
Church of America (Eastern) gather for the Clergy Conference, which ran from
May 1 to 4, 2006.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
—————————————— —-
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
Government House # 2, Republic Square
Yerevan 0010, Republic of Armenia
Telephone: +37410. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +37410. 562543
Email: [email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
18-05-2006
Minister Oskanian participated at 116th session of the Council of Ministers
of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg
Minister of Foreign Affairs Vartan Oskanian is in Strasbourg to participate
in the 116th session of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
This marks the fifth year of Armenia’s Council of Europe membership, and the
first since the passage of the Constitutional Referendum which has made
possible the signing of the 13th Protocol of the European Convention of
Human Rights on abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.
Minister Oskanian addressed the Council in French and spoke about democratic
processes, democratic reforms and in that context, he raised three issues:
He said, “First, even as there is a momentum the world over toward adopting
democratic processes which assure the development of free societies where
freedom of expression is an essential component of life, the Turkish
government has become more and more aggressive in denying the Armenian
Genocide abroad and criminalizing its discussion at home. As a result, there
is a natural response to such denial in some of our member countries, to
attempt to legislate against all denialist efforts. The irony is that the
Turkish government considers this a travesty of freedom of speech and
expression while sustaining their own right to punish their own citizens who
use the term.”
The Armenian Foreign Minister also addressed issues of human rights. “I can
only wish that the ideas and ideals of Europe came automatically with
membership. Perhaps then I would not be here today to mourn the
irreversible, irrational, intentional destruction of a medieval Armenian
cemetery on the territory of Azerbaijan. Thousands of massive, unique stone
sculptures which had survived through centuries are no longer there. A
cemetery has been wiped out and the hillside has been turned into a shooting
range. This destruction is a blatant attempt to wipe out traces of Armenian
presence on those lands.”
Finally, in addressing the Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution, the
Minister said, “Upon membership, Armenia and Azerbaijan made a commitment to
see a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. There are
positive elements in the negotiations process in which we have been involved
over these last several years, but that can produce results only if the
parties understand – and clearly declare – that they don’t have a military
option here. Europe offers a new context for negotiation, regional
cooperation and post-war reconciliation. This is the Europe – the place of
peace and cooperation – to which our two countries belong.”
In the framework of the Ministerial, Minister Oskanian met with Thomas
Hammarberg, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
On the evening preceding the Ministerial meeting, a special informal
gathering, hosted by Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of
Europe, featured former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, Special Envoy of
the UN SG for the Future Status Process for Kosovo.

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:
PRESS RELEASE
May 19, 2006
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE MAINTAINS MILITARY AID PARITY
BETWEEN ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN
— Proposes $62 million for Armenia; Up to $5 million for Karabagh
Washington, DC – Early reports from Capitol Hill sources indicate
that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
today approved by voice vote to maintain military assistance parity
between Armenia and Azerbaijan, despite the Bush Administration’s
request to break the parity agreement and provide 40% more in
assistance to Azerbaijan, reported the Armenian National Committee
of America (ANCA.)
Sources on Capitol Hill reported that the key foreign aid panel
also allocated $62 million in U.S. aid for Armenia and $5 million
for Nagorno Karabagh for fiscal year (FY) 2007. The amount
represents a $12 million increase over President Bush’s FY 2007
budget request, but is lower than last year’s appropriation of $75
million. The Subcommittee also rejected efforts by Azerbaijan’s
lobbyists to weaken Section 907 restrictions on U.S. assistance to
Azerbaijan, due to its ongoing blockades of Armenia and Nagorno
Karabagh.
Overall, the Subcommittee approved $21.3 billion in foreign aid
spending, an increase of $600 million over last year’s budget.
“We commend the members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for
contributing to the continued stability of the Caucasus by
maintaining parity in military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan and
fighting back attempts to further weaken Section 907,” stated Aram
Hamparian, Executive Director of the ANCA. “We also appreciate the
efforts of our friends to increase Armenia’s assistance above the
level proposed by the President and to provide $5 million in aid to
Nagorno Karabagh. We look forward to action by the Senate – and
later in conference committee – to bring assistance to Armenia to
at least last year’s figure of $75 million,” added Hamparian.
Military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan will include
$3.5million in foreign military finance (FMF) and $790,000 in
International Military and Education Training (IMET). Economic
assistance to Azerbaijan was set at $29 million, $1 million more
than the Administration’s budget request.
“We want to express our appreciation to Congressman Joe Knollenberg
for his advocacy within the Subcommittee, to thank Chairman Jim
Kolbe and Ranking Member Nita Lowey for their leadership, and to
share our gratitude for the support of John Sweeney, Steve Rothman,
Mark Kirk, and Chaka Fattah., and our other friends on this vitally
important panel,” said Aram Hamparian, Executive Director of the
ANCA.
On March 16th of this year, Representative George Radanovich (R-
CA)and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Frank Pallone (D-
NJ)sent a letter to the leadership of the Subcommittee, cosigned by
48of their House colleagues, calling for an earmark of at least
$75million for Armenia; maintaining equal levels of military aid
for Armenia and Azerbaijan; an additional $5 million in direct aid
to Nagorno Karabagh for FY 2007, and; keeping in place the Section
907 restriction on aid to Azerbaijan.
The names of the fifty signatories are as follows: Tom Allen (D-
ME), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Howard Berman(D-
CA), Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Lois Capps(D-
CA), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Jim Costa (D-CA),
Joseph Crowley (D-NY), William Delahunt (D-MA), David Dreier(R-CA),
Eliot Engel (D-NY), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Barney Frank (D-MA),
Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Michael Honda (D-CA),Dale
Kildee (D-MI), James Langevin (D-RI), Sander Levin (D-MI),Frank
LoBiondo (R-NJ), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY),
Edward Markey (D-MA), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Thaddeus McCotter(R-MI),
James McGovern (D-MA), John McHugh (R-NY), Michael McNulty(D-NY),
Martin Meehan (D-MA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-
NJ), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Collin Peterson (D-MN), George Radanovich
(R-CA), Bobby Rush (D-IL), H. James Saxton (R-NJ), Adam Schiff (D-
CA), Joe Schwarz (R-MI), Christopher Shays (R-CT), Brad Sherman (D-
CA), Rob Simmons (R-CT), Mark Souder (R-IN), Edolphus Towns (D-NY),
Diane Watson (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
From: Baghdasarian

Azad-Hye, Dubai, 18 May 2006
The fast and lively melody of the “Hungarian Dances” by the 19th century
composer Johannes Brahms drifts out from the Auditorium at Al Owais Cultural
Foundation in Deira, Dubai (United Arab Emirates).
Inside 16 years old Pateil Tuysuzian stands on the stage masterfully
performing the Hungarian tune on her violin. She is young, talented,
ambitious and above all enjoys to play her beloved instrument alongside
musicians from thousand of miles away.
Pateil is member of the “Emirates Youth Symphony Orchestra”, grade five
violinists, one of the keen players, and hopes someday will become a
professional musician.
`I love playing the violin’ says the American School of Dubai pupil.
`I have been playing since I was 4 years old. I saw people learning how to
play the instrument and I knew I wanted to become a violinist.’
Pateil moved to the United Arab Emirates with her parents from Washington,
United States eight years ago. Her parents are originally from Lebanon. She
joined the orchestra at the end of 2001.
`It is such a good opportunity for her’ says her mother Noushig Tuysuzian
who is also the Orchestra’s coordinator.
`This year I can really see a change in her. Her confidence has grown and
her skills have really improved.’
Few weeks ago and during the commemoration ceremony of the Armenian Martyr’s
day (April 24) we had the opportunity to listen to her while she played dle
yaman and arev yegav along with the students who shared the evening with
their songs and poems in the Ohannessian Armenian weekly school’s hall in
Sharjah (UAE).
Pateil’s tunes delightfully touched the hearts of the Armenian compatriots
who, under the spell of her music, forgot for a moment the pain of the 1.5
million perished people.
Music – the key to approach the new generation, along with the knowledge of
our heritage and the firm support of our rights.
 
Pateil’s confident stand and professional act remarkably reflects the
meaning of her name PATEIL which means the flake of snow; calm and
assertive, yet lovable and appealing to the eye (in this case to the ear).
She truly brought a different perspective to the commemoration ceremony.
We wish her all the luck and prosperity, May all her dreams come true.
The above text is compiled by Liza Karajian using personal notes and
material from the UAE press.
newsId=734ahk67

ANOTHER GROUP OF ORINATS YERKIR MEMBERS DISMISSED
Panorama.am
18:05 18/05/06
According to government press services, a number of Orinats
Yerkir members were dismissed from their posts by RA prime minister
Andranik Margaryan’s decision, among them RA Regional Administration
Deputy Minister Gagik Aslanyan, RA Energy Deputy Minister Hrachia
Musaelyan. Also prime minister dismissed Artak Sahradyan, Deputy
Education minister who is not a member of Orinats Yerkir party.
With other decisions of the prime Vahe Vardapetyan was dismissed from
the position of RA Tavush regional governor, Hrachik Khachatryan RA
Aragatsotn deputy regional governor.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress