French rescuers awarded for rescue operation off Sochi
by Dmitry Gorokhov
ITAR-TASS News Agency
July 7, 2006 Friday
Russian Transport Minister Igor Levitin has handed in awards to a
group of French rescues who took part in a rescue operation in the
area of a plane crash of the Armenian airlines company off the Russian
city of Sochi. The ceremony was held at the residence of the Russian
ambassador to France on Friday.
“When the catastrophe occurred, I telephoned my French counterpart
Dominique Perben, and they gave us help,” the Russian minister told
Tass. ” It was a common mischief, and at times of hardships France,
Russia and Armenia pooled efforts,” Levitin said.
“For the first time the flight recorders were lifted from the depth
of 500 meters on the bottom of the Black Sea. Russian rescuers did
that with the help of their equipment. France provided more equipment
and sent its experts.” Levitin said.
The Russian minister summed up the results of the talks held in
France. During a meeting at the French Transport Ministry on Thursday
the two sides decided to strengthen interaction in all fields. “We
have very many points of contact with France,” the Russian minister
stressed.

EXPULSION OF TURKISH ELECTRICITY COMPANY PROMISES GEOPOLITICAL LOSSES FOR AZERBAIJAN
By Fariz Ismailzade
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
July 7 2006
Friday, July 7, 2006
After months of mutual accusations, arrests, investigations,
and political statements, the Turkish electricity company Barmek
has broken its contract with the Azerbaijani government to manage
electricity supplies for Baku, the capital, and the northern regions
of the country. “I did not want to do it,” said Barmek president Huseyn
Arabul at a press conference on July 3, “but the other side has forced
me to with their constant pressures and monitoring” (Day.az, July 4).
The contract between Barmek and the Azerbaijani government was signed
in 2002 for a period of 25 years. It was widely reported at the time
that former Turkish President Suleiman Demirel has personally lobbied
on behalf of Barmek, which defeated its German competitor Siemens in
the bidding process. Barmek’s arrival in Azerbaijan was portrayed as
another important step for Turkish-Azerbaijani economic partnership
and integration.
Since then, Barmek’s relations with its Azerbaijani counterpart,
Azerenergy, has passed through many ups-and-downs until finally in
2006 Azerenergy concretely accused Barmek of mismanagement and asked
the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, to break the contract.
This was followed by the arrest of several high-ranking Barmek
officials, and the launch of an investigation by the Ministry of Taxes
and the prosecutor general’s office. Last month Barmek’s bank assets
in Azerbaijan were frozen.
“It is impossible to work under these conditions. I broke the contract
unilaterally. And now I will demand compensation for all the investment
[$67.45 million] I have made in Azerbaijan,” Arabul told journalists
at the press conference (Sharg, July 4). The Azerbaijani government,
on the other hand, accuses Barmek of evading taxes, violating the
terms of the contract regarding investment volumes, and falsifying
invoices. “We have studied the lawsuit that Barmek has filed in the
International Court on the Protection of Investments. He demands $300
million from us. It is nothing more than blackmail. The Court will
decide,” said Minister of Economic Development Heydar Babayev after
freezing Barmek’s assets and bank accounts.
In May ministry officials had stated that Barmek has invested only
$3 million toward improving Azerbaijan’s electricity-distribution
network, which constitutes only 10% of the investment required by the
contract ($27.8 million). Furthermore, Barmek took out loans from
the International Bank of Azerbaijan to purchase transformers and
allegedly misappropriated those funds. Finally, the ministry argued
that invoices for work subcontracted to outside companies have been
inflated and falsified. These serious accusations have been backed by
evidence discovered as a result of the investigation by the prosecutor
general’s office.
Yet despite these problems, Barmek’s departure will still hurt
Azerbaijan in the long run. Foremost, Barmek brought Western-style
practices and consumer relations to Azerbaijan’s electricity system,
which was notorious for its mismanagement during Soviet times. Income
from electricity payments has been always low in the former Soviet
republic, as many citizens and businesses either secretly steal
electric power or refuse to pay, citing poverty. Barmek has fought this
“free-lunch” mentality through a series of public-service announcements
and has markedly improved the rate of payment for electricity among
ordinary citizens. People have finally begun to understand their
responsibilities related to electricity usage, and Barmek made it easy
for them to pay the bills at banks and many customer service centers.
However, Barmek’s expulsion brings opportunities for regional
utilities to compete for the right to manage Azerbaijan’s
electricity-distribution network. Russia’s electricity monopoly Unified
Energy Systems (UES) appears to be the front-runner, as its officials
have frequently visited Azerbaijan in the past and cooperation between
the two sides has increased over the past few years. Having already
taken control over Armenia and Georgia’s electricity assets, UES is
eager to complete the deal with Azerbaijan for total control over
the South Caucasus. This, in turn, could have very negative political
and security implications for the Azerbaijani people and government.
Minister of Economic Development Heydar Babayev has denied that any
company has yet made any offers. Local experts, however, have no
doubt that some Russian company will soon be knocking on their door.
Some even believe that opening the market to Russia is Aliyev’s way
of repaying Russian President Vladimir Putin for the political support
Moscow provided during last year’s disputed parliamentary elections.
It is also possible that Azerbaijan will manage the distribution
network itself, as occurred when another private company, Bayva,
had its contract to manage the electricity-distribution network in
western regions cancelled last year. Rising oil revenues now allow
the Azerbaijani government to invest in infrastructure and thus reduce
the dependence on a foreign company. In any case, the end of Barmek’s
era in Azerbaijan promises uncertainties for the country.

Zaman Online, Turkey
July 7 2006
FM Gul Blames EU Leaders for Plunge in Turkish Support for EU
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Friday, July 07, 2006
zaman.com
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul blamed some European leaders for the
plunge in Turkish public support for the European Union (EU).
Gul told a press conference on Friday after his US visit that the
remarks of some EU leaders, who cater to their domestic politics
without considering the impact of these remarks in Turkey, are
responsible for the drop in support for the EU.
A Eurobarometer poll, carried in April over 1000 people in Turkey,
found that only 43 percent of Turks have a positive image of the
union. The recent figure shows a plunge in Turkish support for the EU
over a six-month period, as the corresponding figure was 60 percent
six months earlier.
FM Gul stated that the European side should act responsibly to
prepare the Turkish public. Gul noted; however, that the exaggeration
of certain issues in Turkey was partly responsible for the fall in
Turkish support for EU membership. Foreign Minister Gul pledged that
the ruling AKP would take measures to tackle the fall in Turkish
support for the union.
Most of the Turkish people are unhappy with the EU stance on Cyprus,
PKK terrorism, the so-called Armenian issue and the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchy. Remarkable numbers of Turks believe that the EU the
cynical intention to divide Turkey.
Unceasing EU demands on the Turkish government and increasing
pressure over Cyprus are seen as the main reasons why Turkish people
have begun to turn their back to the European Union. The more EU
leaders criticize Turkey, the more nationalist sentiment gains ground
in Turkey.
Turkey commenced actual accession talks with the European Union in
mid-June, following its eight-month screening process.
Turkey’s EU accession process is expected to be long, arduous and
susceptible to crises, especially on Cyprus. Optimistic analysts
predict that Turkey, with its large population, may enter the wealthy
bloc by 2014 at the earliest.

Ambassador of Iran Afshar Suleymani: “States including the region
should be represented in OSCE Minsk Group”
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
July 7 2006
[ 07 Jul. 2006 20:12 ]
“Despite the ceasefire between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Armenians
violate ceasefire regularly, village population fired. People live
in fear on borderline territories.”
This statement was made by ambassador of plenipotentiary and
extraordinary of Iran to Azerbaijan, Afshar Suleymani visiting Tovuz
region at the invitation of parliamentarian Ganira Pashayeva. West
bureau of APA reports that the ambassador visited borderline
territories of Tovus with Armenia -Aghdam, Munjuglu, and Alibeyli
villages, met with local population: “OSCE Minsk Group works have
not any results in the settlement of the conflict. For investigating
Minsk Group work there is necessity of holding special conference in
Baku. Politicians, experts should be invited; they should announce the
non results of OSCE Minsk Group work. ” According to the ambassador,
one of the reasons of OSCE Minsk Group works’ being of no result is
related to France and the USA being represented there as not region
state. “In Minsk Group, Russia is in some meaning the only country
close to the region. This country has close relations with Armenia,
but it has borders with Azerbaijan.” The ambassador in case if the war
launches he did not give define answer on his country’s support. “The
government of Iran does not want Nagorno Garabagh conflict to be
settled through war. If Azerbaijan wages on and applies to Iran for
support, then this apply might be looked into.” It should be noted
that, ambassador of Iran to Azerbaijan, Afshar Suleymani will visit
Ganja tomorrow. Within the visit program the ambassador will meet
with city leadership and visit historical places of Ganja./APA/

Main Gate Magazine
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Spring 2006 Vol. IV, No. 3
A Journey from Geology to Iconography
Lena Kelekian’s (BS ’81) exceptional career has been a journey of
faith coupled with perseverance and passion. This internationally
acclaimed artist, iconographer, muralist, restorer, conservator,
environmental designer, and geologist believes that prayer and food
must provide equal sustenance for the fulfillment of the body.
It was an inspirational incident that drove her to iconography. “I
knew about icons from my family. My mother’s prayers that helped me
overcome an ordeal during the civil war turned me into a true
believer,” says Kelekian.
With her scientific background, artistic talent, and faith, Kelekian
decided that “nothing will stop her” from expressing her beliefs
through iconography. “After I graduated from AUB in 1981…I chose to
attend the University of London where I studied restoration and
painting. Later I trained in many places all over Europe.”
“I was part of the team that restored the frescoes of the Duomo of
Florence. I was the pigment expert on a team of ten working under the
supervision of Giorgio Mathieni. I painted in Greece, Spain,
Portugal, Yugoslavia, and in the Macedonian area where I restored
frescoes at medieval churches.”
The distinctive feature of Kelekian’s iconography is her use of
traditional Byzantine methods and natural pigments. As a geologist,
Kelekian learned how to extract colors from minerals.
“I rediscovered 89 mineral-extracted colors, and discovered a few
types of green and yellow.” In keeping with Byzantine methods, she
paints her icons in an egg tempera (the egg being the biblical symbol
of life and fertility) and embellishes the gold or silver backgrounds
with precious and semi-precious stones and pearls.
Despite the technical knowledge that enabled her to restore and
create religious art, Kelekian felt something was missing. “My faith
needed to be corroborated with the proper theological knowledge. I
decided to study theology.” She earned a Doctorate of Theological
Studies from the Institut Superieur pour la Formation Religieuse.
“When I learned about the history of the church and the unwavering
faith of the early believers despite the torments they underwent, my
perception of religious art changed. Now, I paint the same religious
figures knowing their life story…”
Kelekian and her sister Hilda, a calligrapher and arabesque designer,
held their first exhibit in 1992 at the Salon des Artistes in Beirut.
The ensuing media coverage led to requests to exhibit their work at
galleries around the world.
Kelekian has won numerous medals and awards. “Italy gave me the title
of ‘Lady’ for my achievements in the fields of arts and sciences.”
She has been honored with more than 12 international awards including
France’s La Toile d’Or, and appointed ordinary academician by the
Accademia Internazionale Greci Marino, Italy. She has exhibited in
nine countries. Eight museums around the world have purchased her
artwork, as has Queen Sophia of Spain. In 2001, the sisters launched
the Kelekian Art Gallery during New York’s International Art Expo,
where they exhibited their work for two weeks. Currently, Kelekian’s
art studio and laboratory are located in Zalka, Lebanon.
Representing Lebanon around the world was an honor, but it wasn’t
enough. She wanted to help her country in a more tangible way. The
opportunity came in 1997, when she participated in a contest to
decorate the wall of a 500-meter long tunnel in Ashrafieh, Beirut.
She won the contest with her design in the trencadis Antoni Gaudi
mosaic style, depicting 500 trees of different dimensions ranging
between three and 75 meters.
“Afterwards, I went in 1997 to Barcelona to learn about ceramics and
mosaics…. because I had to get the X, Y, and the Z axes [three
dimensional perspective] of things. One should aim at the deep roots
of things and then try to blossom. What results is an authentic and
long lasting product,” she says.
“Upon returning to Lebanon, I thought that something ought to be done
to embellish the Corniche; the only way to do this is through
ceramics and mosaics.” She embarked on the project of installing
ceramic benches and a large mosaic chessboard. “I hope that these
ceramic benches will attract millions of tourists to Ain Mreisseh,
Beirut as they do in Barcelona,” says Kelekian. When asked about the
concept behind the ongoing project on the Corniche, Kelekian says,
“my idea was to narrate the myth of Zeus and Europa on the benches,
thus showing the West that Phoenicians gave the name of Europa to
Europe…The project is a gift from me to Beirut, and I hope it
flourishes to be a landmark.”
Kelekian hopes to embellish many parts of Beirut. She has already
designed and executed cartoons in a public garden in the Naba’a area
that turned the place from a dump into an attractive spot for
children from the area. “I try to use art in service of the
underprivileged community. Also, to raise environmental awareness
about the ailing Beirut River, I designed a facade of ceramics on its
banks.”
When her sister delivered triplets in 2003, Kelekian decided to
experiment in a different direction: children’s art and cartoons.
“Last year, I was asked to furnish and paint the floors of the
Clemenceau Medical Center-Johns Hopkins with whatever suits the
ambience. For the pediatric section, I designed animal and insect
cartoons. I hope to offer the St. Jude Children’s Cancer Center of
Lebanon (CCCL) some of those paintings.”
CCCL will not be her only contribution to AUB. Kelekian and her
architect husband Hagop Silahian (BE ’85), hope to place ceramic
benches and facades of their own design on the AUB campus.
There seems to be no end to Kelekian’s talent-or her interests. Her
art will continue to celebrate her passion for her country and her
faith for years to come.
The distinctive feature of Kelekian’s iconography is her use of
traditional Byzantine methods and natural pigments. As a geologist,
Kelekian learned how to extract colors from minerals. “I rediscovered
89 mineral-extracted colors, and discovered a few types of green and
yellow.”
te/article9.htm

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
July 7 2006
Statement on issue that as though Georgians destroy Armenian
historical monuments is next Armenian provocation
Source: Trend
Author: J.Shahverdiyev
07.07.2006
There is not Armenian origin in anything, Aydin Mirzazade, the member
of the Political Council of New Azerbaijan Party (NAP) and also the
deputy chairman of the permanent security and defense commission of
Azerbaijan parliament, told Trend, commenting on the demonstration
of the film “Stones of Ancestors” of Armenian Youth Union “Mitk” in
“Rolan” theatre.
The producer of the film is Austrian Armenia Egish Gevorkyan who has
been living in Georgia for two years. The film deals with the issue
that Armenian churches and other Armenian monuments are purposefully
destroyed in Georgia.
Mirzazade noted that Armenians try to take the place of their nation.
“There is a good attitude towards Armenians in neighboring Georgia.
Even Armenian banners may be observed in several places in Javakheti
region. Along with it, Armenians pursue aggressive attitude towards
Georgians. It means that it needs to always fight with Armenian trick,”
told Mirzazade.
“It is the problem of Georgia to give reaction to it. Azerbaijan
tries to unmask Armenians and protect its objective history because
Azerbaijan has repeatedly felt such provocation of Armenians. During
the summer session of PACE, our speeches unmasking aggressive Armenian
policy of Armenia, Armenians took protection position,” he stressed.
The Azerbaijani parliament deputy Anar Mammadkhanli noted that
Armenians becomes the victim of this policy by appropriating the
history of other peoples. Armenia, as a for-post of Russia in South
Caucasus, has always pursued the policy of Moscow in the region.
“Armenians were removed to Caucasus. For more than 300 years,
Armenians have been appropriating Caucasus. It is not unexpected
for us Armenians’ appropriating the historical monuments of Georgia.
Armenians have always tried to appropriate lands, historical monuments
and the culture of other nations. But they will become the victim of
this policy,” told Mammadkhanli.
Besides, he pointed out that Armenians don’t understand that the
Javakheti region of Georgia or Azerbaijan’s occupied territories
will not belong to them. “They don’t understand that they will become
victim of this policy,” Mammadkhanli noted.
Besides, he stressed that Armenians have always made use of the
slander and blackmail. “Their statement about the issue that as though
Georgians destroy the Armenian historical monuments is the

STATEMENT BY OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS SPARKS DEBATE IN ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN
By Taleh Ziyadov
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
July 7 2006
Friday, July 7, 2006
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs Matthew Bryza On June 22, during a meeting of the OSCE
Permanent Council in Vienna, the Minsk Group co-chairs announced
the main principles of the Karabakh peace process. The accompanying
statement described these principles as “a set of core principles that
[the co-chairs] believe are fair, balanced, workable, and that could
pave the way for the two sides to draft a far-reaching settlement
agreement” (Regnum, June 29).
The same day, the newly appointed U.S. co-chair, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza,
gave an interview to RFE/RL. In the interview, Bryza elaborated on
these principles, which have emerged over the last two years.
The decision to go public about the details of the peace talks
sparked debates in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. While some of the
topics discussed during the negotiations had been leaked to the
media in Armenia and Azerbaijan, this was the first time that the
OSCE Minsk group co-chairs publicly confirmed the basic principles
of the current negotiations.
In his interview, Bryza said, “It’s really up to the presidents now
to decide whether or not they want to take the politically difficult
and challenging decisions…We want [the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan] to demonstrate that they really do have the political
will to take these next difficult steps” (RFE/RL, June 23).
The OSCE Minsk Group proposal suggests a gradual pull out of Armenian
troops from the occupied districts of Azerbaijan surrounding Karabakh
region accompanied with “special modalities for Kelbajar and Lachin
districts,” the demilitarization of these territories, the return of
internally displaced persons, deployment of peacekeeping forces to the
conflict zone, reopening the communication links between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, and “a referendum or population vote — at a date and in a
manner to be decided through further negotiations — to determine the
final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh” (OSCE Press Release, July 3).
Officials in Armenia and Azerbaijan were quick to react to the OSCE
statement and tried to use it to their advantage.
Armenia’s Foreign Ministry issued a press release stating,
“The co-chairs have only partially revealed the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict resolution principles; they have left out references to a
corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, and issues relating
to Nagorno-Karabakh’s status before a referendum” (Panarmenian.net,
June 27).
The statement also declared, “Those items over which the presidents
of Armenia and Azerbaijan continue to disagree do not include a
referendum. That concept has been agreed to by the presidents”
(Panarmenian.net, June 27).
Meanwhile in Azerbaijan, Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov noted,
“It is incorrect to make statements half-way through the peace process,
as it may cause confusion. As seen, the opposite side has already
tried to make use of such statements” (Trend, July 3).
Azimov “unequivocally dismissed statements that the [Azerbaijani]
government had agreed to a referendum to be held in [Karabakh] in the
future.” He added that there could be only a nationwide referendum
that would include not only the Karabakh region, but also the whole
of Azerbaijan (AzerNews, July 6).
“The Azerbaijani leadership will never step back from its position
on the referendum issue. Any speculation to that end is false,”
concluded Azimov (AzerNews, July 6).
Yet, despite the diplomatic disagreement, the foreign ministers of
Armenia and Azerbaijan expressed their countries’ readiness to continue
the negotiations (Panarmenian.net, June 28; Today.az, June 27).
There is still room for maneuvering and creativity with respect to
the principles currently under discussion. However, the task of the
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, as well as for the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, is extremely difficult, given the fact that they will
have to find a compromise solution to issues that are interlinked.
Without an agreement on the final status of Karabakh, Yerevan will
be reluctant to pull its troops out of the occupied districts around
the enclave, particularly from Kalbajar and Lachin. Baku, however,
will insist on the return of all seven districts around Karabakh and
reject calls for an explicit referendum within the region.
Starting from September, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs will try to
expedite the peace process in hope that the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan could at least agree on the main principles of the
settlement. If the parties fail to do so, the conflict will likely
re-freeze for another three years. During this period, there will be
a series of elections in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and both states
will try to change the political and military balance of power in
the region to their favor.

Main Gate Magazine
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Spring 2006 Vol. IV, No. 3
Alumni Profile
Writing History’s Story
Archaeology may be the study of ancient civilizations, but one would
never think to describe this type of history as “dead and buried”
after meeting with renowned archaeologist and historian Nina Jidejian
(BA ’61, MA ’65). For anyone who cracks open one of her fifteen
books, Jidejian’s animated and accessible writing style and obvious
passion for her material make these journeys into the past come to
life in the present. It is because of her scholarly reputation as
well as her knack for storytelling that MainGate sought out
Jidejian’s own life story.
Born in Boston and growing up primarily in Tehran, Jidejian’s story
begins with a fateful visit to see her sister in Beirut in 1947. At
the end of her vacation, her sister had a minor accident, obliging
the young Nina Nazaretian to spend some time at the AUB Hospital.
Here she happened to meet the esteemed surgeon Yervant Jidejian. The
following year, they were married and Nina Jidejian moved to Beirut.
In 1949 the Jidejians celebrated the birth of their only child,
Denise.
As wife to the doctor serving as governor to the Lebanese chapter of
the American College of Surgeons, Jidejian was often called upon to
entertain visitors traveling to Lebanon to attend medical
conferences. Along with organizing barbeques and swimming parties,
she gave visiting doctors her own tours of Lebanon’s many ancient
wonders, based on what she could learn from the available guidebooks.
After years of obliging her guests with tours, she decided it was
time that she learned more about the ancient history of her adopted
home. Jidejian started auditing classes at AUB, despite being both a
mother and a decade older than most university students.
Jidejian was no stranger to the University when she started attending
classes and, indeed, her contributions are still very evident. She
was one of the founding members and presidents of the Women’s
Auxiliary, which raises funds for AUBMC patients and medical
students; she helped start the still active Bargain Box, a small
store run by volunteers which supports the hospital through the sale
of used clothing, books, and other gifts items; and she established
the coffee shop in the old surgical wing of the hospital in 1953. She
describes these activities with warmth, remembering the close network
of wonderful colleagues who shared her energy and vision.
As an auditor, Jidejian recalls, “Because I wasn’t always worrying
about who I was going out with that night, I was getting much more
from the courses than my younger colleagues.” Given that this is a
woman who could not be satisfied giving tours based solely on
superficial guidebooks, it is not surprising that she soon sought to
dedicate herself fully to being a student. Having already completed
two years of university at the Sage Junior College in Tehran,
Jidejian was given standing as a “junior” when she enrolled as a
full-time student at AUB in 1961.
Jidejian recalls her days at AUB fondly. Though an older student and
the wife of a respected AUB doctor, she had to follow all the
administrative protocols required of all students. “I asked for no
favors and none were given to me,” she says. Jidejian flourished in
this challenging environment. She remembers AUB for its superb
professors and gives specific credit to William A. Ward as a
particularly supportive teacher. She was especially inspired in her
study of the ancient world by her advisor and professor John Pairman
Brown, from whom she learned the axiom of academic integrity she
still lives by today: “Never go out on a limb; always site your
sources.”
With these principles to guide her, Jidejian worked hard and fast.
Despite her other responsibilities, she earned her BA in archaeology
and history in 1963 and graduated with her MA in 1965. She produced a
groundbreaking dissertation on Byblos that so impressed the faculty
that her professors encouraged her to pursue publication.
At this juncture, Jidejian insists, luck played a large role in her
life, as she believes it does in all lives. Standing timidly inside
the Jesuit Brothers Publishing House with her revised thesis under
her arm, she learned that the publishers were currently working on a
series of English language books on Lebanon’s archaeological sites.
Whether it was due to luck or the quality of her research and
writing, her thesis was immediately accepted as part of this project
and, once published in 1966, received international acclaim.
Jidejian has since written books on all of Lebanon’s famous
archaeological sites, as well as a book on the Michel Edde coin
collection and a companion to Liban l’autre rive, an exposition in
Paris. These works have earned praise from noted academics worldwide,
as well as from the presidents of Greece and Lebanon.
One might ask, after thirty years and fifteen books, what more is
there to write about? This question would never occur to Jidejian.
When asked how she came to write her most recent book, Animals of
Lebanon in Antiquity, from A to Z, she answered with two very simple
statements. “First of all, I love animals. And, it’s never been done
before.” These two principles, a love of her material and a desire to
investigate new topics, keep both her interest and her writing fresh
and alive. Jidejian varies her audience as well, reaching beyond
academic circles. Animals of Lebanon in Antiquity is more of a
picture book than anything else and is intended to “be something
interesting for all ages.”
“What is very rewarding is that I learn as I write,” explains
Jidejian. While researching depictions of ancient animals in museum
objects and mosaics, she discovered the importance of specific
animals to various cultures. With obvious delight, she explained in
detail her findings on the symbolic meaning of the vulture to ancient
Egyptian civilization. “Every day I realize I know nothing,” she says
in complete solemnity. “You always have more to learn.”
This is clearly a heartfelt sentiment. Having already learned enough
to fill-and write-a book on Sidon, Jidejian is returning to this
ancient site for a fresh analysis. She is currently working on a
revised, enlarged edition of her Sidon work, incorporating new
research and recent findings. She describes these new developments
the way a mystery writer might explain the exciting plot twistings of
their upcoming whodunit and, indeed, Jidejian really does bring out
the ‘story’ in history.
Having remained in Lebanon throughout the war years, Jidejian has
lived through some very traumatic experiences. The beautiful home in
Yarze that she shared with her husband until his death in 1989 sits
in what was called the Triangle of Death, where bombing from the sea
and the mountains converged for fifteen years. Throughout this long
and violent period, Jidejian continued to research and publish,
though her access to AUB was completely cut off during that time. She
used the resources at the Bibliothèque Oriental to continue her work,
but risked her life every time she made a visit to her publisher, the
Jesuit Brothers.
Speaking with obvious respect and affection, she describes her late
husband’s philosophy that kept them in Lebanon throughout the war. “I
have seen the good days of Lebanon and Lebanon has made me,” Dr.
Jidejian used to say. He would not abandon his home. Thankfully, Nina
Jidejian has not abandoned her home either, and she continues to
provide the world with new perspectives of Lebanon, based on sound
research and presented with the fresh eye of a lifelong student.
e.htm
–Boundary_(ID_SEY2PHvbF3tJL4omMeE+NA)–

Russia Profile, Russia
July 7 2006
Dialogue and Debate at World Religious Summit
By Andrei Zolotov, Jr.
Russia Profile
For Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) of Smolensk and Kaliningrad,
who has run the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department of External
Church Relations for the past 17 years, it was one of the highlights
of his career. More than 200 religious figures from 49 countries
convened in Moscow this week for what was called the World Summit
of Religious Leaders. For almost three days, patriarchs, cardinals,
muftis, rabbis, ayatollahs, bishops and Buddhist monks took turns
making their presentations on the approach their communities take to
global challenges.
This summit, one of the highest-level religious conferences of the past
decade, was not the only non-governmental meeting in Russia ahead of
the G8 summit in St. Petersburg next week. President Vladimir Putin
had to divide his time between the religious summit, a gathering of
international NGO representatives called Civil G8 and a meeting of
trade union leaders, all trying to send their particular message to
the club of the world’s mightiest political leaders.
Putin put forward the main idea of the religious summit in the most
concise form: to attempt to develop an alternative to the clash of
civilizations, mainly in the field of Christian-Muslim relations,
and to present Russia as a possible arena for such discussion.
“Attempts are being made to split the world along religious or ethnic
lines, driving the wedge first and foremost between the Christian and
Muslim communities,” Putin said in his address to the meeting. “A
clash of civilizations is being de facto imposed on the world, and
we have to realize fully what kind of catastrophic consequences such
a confrontation may lead to.”
The summit also marks a change in the general feelings about interfaith
relations among the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. The “ecumenical
winter” of the 1990s is largely over, and the leadership of the Moscow
Patriarchate has found it possible to ignore anti-ecumenical protests
among its flock while formulating a decidedly non-theological, moral
values-based agenda for inter-Christian and interfaith relations,
aimed at consolidating traditionalist forces around the world in
opposition to secular liberal globalization.
On the last day of the summit, the religious leaders issued a
pre-drafted statement that was visibly different from predominant
Western discourse and echoed some ideas promoted recently by
Metropolitan Kirill.
“We need to build a world order which combines democracy – as the
way of harmonizing different interests and allowing for people’s
participation in national and global decision-making – with respect to
the moral feeling, way of life, various legal and political systems,
and national and religious traditions of the people,” the summit’s
message said. “The world should have many poles and many systems,
meeting the requirements of all individuals and nations rather than
matching lifeless and oversimplified ideological patterns.”
In response to a number of recent conflicts between religious and
secular forces, the message called for an “end to any insult to
religious feelings and defilement of texts, symbols, names or places
held sacred by believers.”
The declaration also emphasized the importance of human rights
as a concern for religious leaders, but within the confines of a
religious re-interpretation of human rights, similar to the one
announced at a national forum organized by the Russian Orthodox
Church in April. “Our experience shows that without an ethical core,
without understanding our duties, no society or country is exempt
from conflict and collapse,” the message said.
While most of the declaration is dedicated to moral principles, such
as the absolute value of human life from conception to natural death,
it also deals with issues of ecology, responsible use of natural
resources and fair distribution of wealth. The document also called
for a dialogue with the adherents of non-religious views.
In the run-up to the summit, much of the media discussion in the
Russian press focused on the absence of Pope Benedict XVI, the Dalai
Lama and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople. Apart from the
fact that the pope and the Dalai Lama do not attend conferences over
which they don’t preside, Metropolitan Kirill told reporters ahead
of the meeting that it would be wrong to combine two significant
“historical” events – the interfaith summit and the pope’s first visit
to Russia. In a sign of the highly political nature of the meeting,
he also said that the Dalai Lama was not invited because the Russian
Foreign Ministry would likely deny him a visa as a result of Russia’s
increasingly friendly relationship with China. Orthodox patriarchs
more senior than the Patriarch of Moscow were not invited because of
the need for Patriarch Alexy II to preside the meeting, he said.
Yet in a sign of marked improvement in relations between the Russian
Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, Pope Benedict sent a message
and a delegation to Moscow, including five important cardinals.
During the summit, Patriarch Alexy and Metropolitan Kirill held
bilateral meetings with the Vatican delegation as well as with a number
of other prominent summit participants, such as the Orthodox leaders of
Georgia and Romania, the heads of the Armenian and Ethiopian churches,
the chief mufti of Syria and Rabbi Arthur Schneier from New York.
Also conspicuously absent were any representatives from the major
American and Korean Protestant groups. The Protestant community was
represented largely by established Russian and European Protestant
leaders.
One of the obvious tensions at the conference was between Jewish
leaders and Iran’s leading ayatollah for interfaith relations,
Muhammad Ali Muhammad Taskhiri. At the opening ceremony, Israel’s
Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger was looking at Taskhiri as he said
– with an obvious reference to Iran’s president Mahmud Ahmadinezhad:
“There are leaders in the world who deny the Holocaust and speak of
genocide against themselves only, and it is our duty to tell these
people that not a single person in the world has the right to say
that another country should disappear.”
At the final press conference, Taskhiri said that he can have dialogue
with Judaism, but not with Zionism. “If you mean dialogue between Iran
and Israel, I see nothing in common here on which to base a dialogue,”
he said.
Much attention was dedicated to the discussion of religious extremism,
and the consensus – if any – appeared to be that religious education is
the only antidote to fanaticism. “One of the reasons behind extremism
is ignorance of religious tradition,” said Metropolitan Kirill. “An
absence of positive knowledge about religion allows dishonest people
to encourage people to embrace extremist views.”
Muslim speakers also emphasized the economic and political origins
of extremism.
“It is not religion at all that causes terrorism and extremism,” said
Mufti Ravil Gainutdin, chairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia.
“Religious feelings are fueled to boiling point only against the
background of social and economic problems, and it usually happens
in the service of someone’s concrete political interests.”
It remained unclear whether, without the pretext of the G8, such a
group would meet again. Some speakers suggested founding a platform
for regular exchange among religious leaders. Opinions differed on
whether it should be fashioned along the lines of the United Nations
or timed with G8 meetings and thus initiated by the churches of the
country that hosts the G8 summit.
Although the sessions represented a series of often pro forma speeches
and some participants were seen drifting off, the forum was also
a sight of lively conversations among colorfully dressed religious
leaders of different confessions.
The Russian daily newspaper Gazeta commented that the summit was a
result of a convergence of the Russian Orthodox Church’s political
interests and the Kremlin’s public relations policy. “The Church
understands that religious leaders have colossal influence in the
world. The Kremlin spin doctors are convinced that a gathering of
different kinds of clergy is a brilliant PR move,” the newspaper said.
Maxim Shevchenko, a television anchor and leading expert on politics
and religion, said that the summit was the best manifestation so far of
Metropolitan Kirill’s concept of Russia “as a repository of traditional
values vis-a-vis the secular liberal West,” and that it improved the
geopolitical standing of both Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church.
“Metropolitan Kirill doesn’t need PR,” Shevchenko said in an
interview. “He is a real politician – one of the few real politicians
in Russia. He has an inner conviction that he is making history.”
Staff member Alyona Dushka contributed to this report.

No danger over Garabagh mediators’ proposals – analyst
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 7 2006
Baku, July 6, AssA-Irada — The “framework agreement” on settling
the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict disclosed
recently by the mediating OSCE Minsk Group (MG) includes quite a few
provisions in favor of Azerbaijan, a political analyst has said.
The document, made public by the US co-chair Matthew Bryza, neither
mentions Azerbaijan’s city of Shusha [an ancient town occupied
by Armenia during the hostilities] nor deals with the issue of
“independence” of Upper Garabagh, head of the Center for Political
Innovation and Technology, Mubariz Ahmadoghlu, told journalists.
“The report doesn’t suggest anything specific with regard to a
referendum on the status of Garabagh. Why do we dwell upon the
dark side of it? There is no danger related to a referendum that
many expect.”
The expert said that whereas liberation of three or five Azerbaijani
districts from occupation was on the negotiating table earlier,
the liberation of 7 districts is now on the agenda.
“The document is not tragic for Azerbaijan. But it can’t be considered
as one that will please the country either,” Ahmadoghlu said.
The analyst also said there are divergent opinions in Armenia on the
disclosed report. It will take at least 20 years to hold a referendum
and Azerbaijan “can do much work in the meantime”, he said.
“The conflicting sides are waging a war of nerves. The side that is
strong in this respect will get the upper hand,” the expert said. He
added that any document that is put on public discussion would not
be fully accepted by either side.*