BACK HOME AGAIN
by Sara Khojoyan
Transitions Online, Czech Republic
May 10 2006
Children’s centers are replacing orphanages and institutions in
Armenia, and helping to get children back in the classroom.
GYUMRI, Armenia | Every day a sister and brother walk through the
bustle of reconstruction in Gyumri, the main city in Armenia’s
northwestern Shirak region, the poorest in Armenia with a poverty
rate of nearly 50 percent.
After school, 15-year-old Parandzem and 10-year-old Levon come to
town from the nearby village of Akhourian and head to the Center for
Community Development and Social Support to do their homework, draw,
or watch television.
Like most children, Levon plays, runs around, or even brags about
the progress he’s making in his lessons. Seeing how diligently this
cheerful little boy does his homework, it’s difficult to believe that
he would never have gone to school but for this center.
“Levon used to go begging. … His father wouldn’t let him attend
school. Our psychologist worked with the father for two months. After
a lot of effort we finally managed to persuade him,” says Geghanush
Gyunashyan, the center’s director. “When Levon came out dressed in
his tidy school uniform to go to school for the first time, his father
got very emotional.”
Photo by Sergey Fidanyan
At the age of 12, Parandzem started school with her brother. “Levon and
I are in the fourth grade now. Studying with the little kids doesn’t
bother me; instead, I can read and write now,” she says proudly.
There are five children in their family, but only Parandzem and Levon
are old enough for school. “They helped two of my children to go to
school, at least, and that’s good,” their mother, Alisa Grigoryan,
says gratefully.
The Center for Community Development and Social Support in Gyumri,
founded by UNICEF in 2001, has already helped 150 children considered
“high risk,” with 45 of them currently under the center’s care.
Gyumri, a major industrial city of more than 200,000 people in
Soviet times, was heavily damaged by the December 1988 earthquake
that killed an estimated 25,000 people. Scars from the earthquake are
evident today despite international aid for reconstruction. Efforts
to rebuild the economy and provide jobs and opportunity have been slow.
“A family’s extreme poverty, parents’ unemployment, a child not
attending school, begging – all these are criteria for being listed
in the high-risk group,” Gyunashyan says. Today in Armenia, there are
about 1,300 children in state and private orphanages, although about
60 percent are not orphans. In addition, more than 10,000 children
attend special schools, about 40 percent of whom are boarders.
“For a country as small as Armenia, the number of children in
orphanages is very big,” says Naira Avetisyan, manager of UNICEF’s
Children’s Rights Protection Project in Armenia. “And for a long time,
the government, instead of helping poor families so that they wouldn’t
send their children to orphanages, encouraged such institutions.”
Government policy has changed, but parents still need more options.
“Parents prefer taking their children to orphanages because conditions
are better there than in their own homes. We tried to find an
alternative,” Avetisyan says.
That’s where the community centers come in.
BABY STEPS
UNICEF supports nine such centers in Armenia, addressing slightly
different needs.
In Vanadzor and Alaverdi, in the north, the centers help children who,
for various reasons, are not in school and who have family problems,
such as parents who do not pay attention to their children’s studies
or keep track of their school attendance.
Four centers operate in the northeast region of Tavush – in Berd,
Ijevan, Dilijan, and Noyemberyan. The one in Dilijan is among the first
centers founded by UNICEF, in 2002. There, disabled children have an
opportunity to socialize with their peers who do not have disabilities.
“If a child hasn’t started school at the correct age, they do their
best in the center to help him overcome that psychological barrier. A
child is provided with elementary knowledge as well as skills to help
him eventually enter school. Younger children receive help with getting
ready for school because there is no preschool institution for children
with disabilities. This way it’s easier to start attending school,”
Avetisyan says.
The Tavush centers offer physical and psychological therapy, and
social and legal aid to disabled children as well as disability
pension registration. And, most importantly, it tries to integrate
disabled children into society at an early age and raise awareness
of the problems that disabled children face.
With UNICEF’s support, centers were opened in 2005 in the southern town
of Masis and in the Avan community in the capital city of Yerevan. In
Masis most children in the center have serious disabilities and were
not given the opportunity to attend school.
They are taught skills, such as weaving or embroidery, that might help
them contribute eventually to their families’ incomes. The center in
Avan houses younger children with disabilities, mainly ages 3 to 6.
“These are not called day-care centers because many people associate
those with care only. The centers encourage the idea of a child staying
with his or her family. At the same time parents are provided with
basic instructions on upbringing, care, and rights,” Avetisyan says.
A GROWING NEED …
After the earthquake of 1988, the number of at-risk children rose
considerably, according to Diana Martirosova, a specialist at the
National Statistics Service. “Today it’s children who suffer from
poverty most,” she says.
Back in Gyumri, one of those children is green-eyed Hovhannes, who
writes a greeting card to his late mother. “Dear Mother, I want you
to be happy. I hope that you never get sick or leave me alone: In a
word, I congratulate you on 8 March,” International Women’s Day.
Hovhannes’ father left the family when his mother was still alive.
After she died, his only caregivers were a grandmother and the
center’s workers.
“I like drawing most,” Hovhannes says. He draws what he misses in real
life – a fairytale, three-story castle, painted in red and orange,
with open windows. A spruce stands next to the castle, with the two
peaks of Mt. Ararat, Sis and Masis, in the background.
Sometimes it’s the parents who must be helped before the children
can be. Fair-haired Gohar is in the second grade, though she should
be in the third: Her mother kept her out of school for a year so she
could beg. It took the center’s workers a year to convince the mother
to let Gohar attend school. The center helped her mother register
for her state allowance and find seasonal employment, and Gohar was
sent to school. “Today Gohar reads a lesson right after the teacher,”
says Gayane Sahakyan, a social worker at the center.
Apart from doing lessons and drawing, children here learn to weave
tapestries and work with computers.
Artyom is an Adobe Photoshop fan and has combined a photo of himself
with those of his favorite car and his favorite actress, Angelina
Jolie. He was taught the skills by a student volunteer from the Gyumri
campus of the Yerevan State Academy of Arts.
“We have 15 to 20 volunteers, as a rule,” says director Gyunashyan.
“But we have fewer paid employees: two psychologists, two sociologists,
two tutors, a doctor, and a lawyer.”
Artavazd has been in the center since the summer of 2005. He quickly
became one of the best pupils in the weaving club and a favorite of
Marine Avetisyan, the teacher.
“It’s especially boys who like weaving,” Avetisyan says. “We weave
three days a week, four hours every time. The purpose, however,
is not to make them masters but merely to distract them, make them
forget their family’s concerns, as well as those put on their weak
little shoulders.”
The center’s administrators have worries of their own. Gyunashyan’s
first concern is the lack of a permanent home. “We’ve been renting
this damp two-story house for $800 a month. It would be great to get
some support for building a new house for the center,” she says.
Food is another concern. The center gets only 150 drams (U.S. 34 cents)
to feed each child per day. “We’re thankful to the German Red Cross,
who allocates that money, but it’s way too little,” she says.
UNICEF’s Naira Avetisyan says, “Such centers are highly effective. In
the Tavush region, for example, where the centers provide services
to disabled children and encourage them to live at home, very few
children are sent to orphanages. The same is true in Gyumri: If it
hadn’t been for the center, most [of the] children would have been
in orphanages a long time ago.”
Gyunashyan estimates that her center is 60 percent to 70 percent
effective; only four children have been sent to orphanages in the
past four years. “But we’ve managed to withdraw Andranik from there,
and taken little Siranoush’s case to court,” she says, recounting
the stories of these four children one by one.
… AN AMBITIOUS PLAN
What UNICEF has started, the Armenian government plans to expand,
with 25 such centers slated to open in the next 10 years, according
to Avetisyan.
Filaret Berikyan, Armenia’s deputy minister of labor and social
affairs, says serious reforms are under way in the area of children’s
rights and the government is anxious to redirect needy children from
orphanages and institutions into community centers and foster families.
“Unlike in the times of the Soviet Union, when orphanages and other
similar institutions were built for these children, now [the solutions]
are family-based. Human history has proven that the best place for
children to grow up is with their family,” Berikyan says.
The first two government centers are being established under a pilot
program of reform in children’s care supported by Japan’s Social
Development Fund.
One of the centers, in the Ajapnyak district of Yerevan, opened in
November while still under construction. Through March, staff there
compiled a database of more than 300 children who fall into the
high-risk category.
“We’ve been working with the first hundred children on the list,”
says center director Seda Ghaltaghchyan.
As in UNICEF’S Gyumri center, here a team consisting of a social
worker, a psychologist, a tutor, and a doctor and lawyer, if necessary,
works with each child. The center has 20 employees and is guided by
a governing council that meets monthly.
“We make headway every month and children are removed from the
high-risk list. Sometimes 19 children of the 100 are withdrawn,
sometimes 20 are, and sometimes none are. We keep updating the list,”
Ghaltaghchyan says.
The state budget allocates 500 drams for a child’s food each day,
and 2,100 for other expenses. The center gets around 8 million drams
a month, or $18,000.
The center in Gyumri, which performs more functions than that in
Ajapnyak, gets about $15,000 to $20,000 a month, Avetisyan says.
The second state-financed center will also be in Gyumri, where
construction is almost complete. A director will be chosen at the
end of May and the center will open in June.
Seeing Hovhannes and Gohar on their way to school in the morning,
few would suspect that these two children, neatly dressed in black
and white, are in the high-risk group. With help of the day-care
center in Gyumri, today they are pupils instead of beggars.
Sara Khojoyan is working on her master’s degree in journalism at
Yerevan State University. She also works as a reporting intern for
the ArmeniaNow online newspaper.
?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=166& amp;NrSection=3&NrArticle=17038
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

YURI MERZLYAKOV: “IT IS THE MOST SUITABLE TIME TO SETTLE KARABAKH CONFLICT”
Today, Azerbaijan
May 10 2006
“The current situation on the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict is promising and bears responsibility,” said OSCE Minsk
Group Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov.
The Russian co-chair told APA exclusively that it is the most suitable
time to reach an agreement and this chance cannot be underestimated.
“I do not think there will a better chance again,” Mr.Merzlyakov said.
The co-chair did not say what are new proposals the co-chairs offered
to the conflicting sides. However, he said there are a number of new
opinions related to some details discussed in the framework of the
Prague process.
The Russian co-chair also said that the Minsk Group co-chairs are
not expected to visit the region by the meeting of Azerbaijani and
Armenian Foreign Ministers Elmar Mammadyarov and Vardan Oskanyan in
Strasbourg in the framework of the Council of Europe event on May
18-19. He did give a specific answer to the question on the date of
the meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents.
“Let’s organize the meeting of Foreign Ministers first and they
exchange views and then organize the meeting of Presidents if the
Ministers consider it necessary,” Merzlyakov said.
URL:

TURKEY URGES FRANCE NOT TO APPROVE DRAFT LAW OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
CRI, China
May 10 2006
Turkey has urged French legislators not to approve a draft law
criminalizing denial of Armenian genocide, Foreign Ministry spokesman
Namik Tan said on Wednesday.
“It should not be the desire of anybody to cause uneasiness in a
climate in which our rooted relations were being improved,” Tan told
a weekly news conference.
The French parliament is expected to vote on a bill regarding Armenian
genocide on May 18.
If approved, the bill would provide one year in prison and a fine
of 57,000 U.S. dollars for any person who denies that the 1915-1917
massacres of Armenians were genocide.
On Monday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry recalled its ambassador to
France “for a short time” to have consultations on recent discussions
over the issue in the country.
The spokesman said that the French administration was sensitive on
this issue, stating that the issue required a process in which calm
reactions should be given.
Meanwhile, Turkey warns that ties with France could suffer if the
French parliament adopts the bill.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday held a meeting
with a group of senior directors of French companies doing business
in Turkey, saying that he hoped the group could lobby against the
bill to be voted in the French parliament.
Turkey has rejected claims that 1.5 million Armenians died as a result
of systematic genocide during the Ottoman Empire last century.
The Turkish government has been calling for the formation of a joint
research commission of Turkish and Armenian historians to find out
the truth of the history.

COE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS 116TH SESSION’S AGENDA ANNOUNCED
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 10 2006
Azerbaijani and Armenian Foreign Ministers Elmar Mammadyarov and
Vardan Oskanyan will attend the 116th session of the Council of
Europe Committee of Foreign Ministers scheduled for 18 and 19 May
in Strasbourg.
Human rights and cooperation between the Council of Europe and the
European Union will be priority on the agenda. The Europe bureau of APA
reports quoting the Council of Europe that the Russian Federation will
take over the presidency of the Committee of Ministers from Romania,
for a period of six months.
At the invitation of Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis,
the Ministers will hold an informal meeting with Martti Ahtisaari,
the United Nations Special Envoy for the future status of Kosovo. The
Ministers will also discuss other major priorities resulting from the
Council of Europe’s Third Summit in Warsaw, namely: the reinforcement
of the Council’s action in support of democracy and good governance,
the development of intercultural dialogue and the Organisation’s
process of internal reform.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, will present the priorities
for his presidency at the end of the session.
Within the session, Elmar Mammadyarov and Vardan Oskanyan will hold
next round of negotiating process for the settlement of the Nagorno
Garabagh conflict in the framework of the Prague process. The
Ministers will exchange views on new opinions OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs presented to the conflicting sides in early May. It will be
determined after the meeting of the two Ministers whether there will be
a need for the meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents.

MAY 18: TOWARDS A BAD TURNING POINT!
Selcuk Gultasli
Zaman, Turkey
May 10 2006
Emir Kir as the first person of Turkish origin to rise to the position
of minister in the Western Hemisphere represents a historic turning
point for those who came to Europe as “the lowest class”.
Kir, whose father came to Belgium as a mineworker, and thousands like
him, are gradually climbing the political ladder in Europe. These
people of Turkish origin in Germany and The Netherlands have made
their mark in European politics in a way that even scares leftist
politicians.
The “deep” Europe intends to stop Turkey’s membership march as
quickly as possible and obstruct people of Turkish origin from
gaining political positions. The Turks who came, as workers must
remain workers!
It is necessary to find such a formula that will halt both
developments, but in the meantime, it should be seen “politically
correct”. Giving every member 71 veto rights, taking into consideration
the European Union’s (EU) absorption capacity, inserting the privileged
partnership formula in EU documents or the fact that Turks could
permanently be deprived of the right of free movement, have failed
to calm the “deep” Europe down. A shortcut is needed.
The Armenian “genocide” formula emerges from confused European minds.
Rumors have been circulating at Brussels lobbies that France is
whispering to other members that “a confession and apology” for the
“genocide” should be made a prerequisite for Turkey’s admission into
the EU. The adoption of such a decision by the European Parliament in
fall is not quite convenient because it is not binding. The fact that
France will debate the bill to punish those who deny the “genocide”
on May 18 is perfectly logical from this viewpoint.
If the bill passes the French Parliament on May 18 and the approval
process afterwards is completed successfully, it would have two main
outcomes. Firstly, the “sustainability” of the already weak Turkey-EU
relations will become gangrenous. Secondly, European Turks, in general,
and politicians of Turkish origin blooming in Europe, in particular,
will either remain silent or get into big trouble.
In the first case, it will be a big enigma how visits by Turkish
officials to France will be realized. Let’s assume that Turkish
authorities and diplomats will benefit from the shield of “immunity.”
Then what will happen to Turkish intellectuals, journalists and
academics? Most probably, they will all of a sudden face a consequence
similar to the consequence David Irwing faced in Austria.
Belgium emboldened by France will rapidly adopt a similar law currently
pending at parliamentary commissions. It must be taken into account
that the parliaments of other countries may pass similar bills as well.
The second and more serious consequence is the possibility of
silencing the fledgling Turkish population in Europe. The furious
Armenian Diaspora will start hunting for politicians with Turkish
background and try to end their political careers with single-question
interviews. What is worse is that passing these bills will threaten
social peace. This is the very point European politicians do not
see and do not want to see. Lyon Mayor’s statement, “I was not aware
that this issue was so controversial,” when he saw Turks protesting
the Armenian “genocide” monument, is crucial because it shows how
ignorantly European politicians have been approaching the issue. What
the German government and people have accepted is not accepted by
the Turkish state and — most importantly — by the Turkish people.
Kir faces political lynching once in a month because he once used the
expression “so-called genocide” in an interview. Many politicians
of Turkish origin, even though they have not change their minds,
are very careful not to mention the Armenian issue. In an environment
where these bills are enacted, they will either risk imprisonment or
keep their mouths shut up! What is targeted is that Ankara would say,
“Enough is enough,” and would abandon the EU negotiation table. May
18 could go down in history as an extremely important date.
“What can be done?” Let’s tackle this subject next week!
May 8, 2006 Brussels

FESTIVITIES ON OCCASION OF TRIPLE HOLIDAY HELD IN NK
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
May 10 2006
May 9 a triple holiday – the Victory Day, liberation of the town of
Shoushi and establishment of the NKR Defense Army – was celebrated
in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.
Servicemen of the NKR Defense Army participated in a solemn march in
the Stepanakert streets May 9, DE FACTO correspondent in Stepanakert
reports. Meetings with the veterans of the Great Patriotic and Artsakh
Wars, cultural-sport measures, photo and art exhibitions were held
in the Republic.
Thousands of the inhabitants of Stepanakert visited the Memorial
Complex and paid tribute to the memory of those who had died in
the Great Patriotic and Artsakh wars. The NKR President Arkady
Ghoukasyan, Chairman of the National Assembly Ashot Gulyan, Prime
Minister Anoushavan Danielyan and leader of the Artsakh Eparchy of
the Armenian Apostolic Church Archbishop Pargev Martirosyan came
here to honor the memory of the perished. RA Prime Minister Andranik
Margaryan and Minister of Defense Serge Sargsyan arrived in Stepanakert
to participate in the festivities.
The NKR President Arkady Ghoukasyan’s message to the people runs,
in part, “May 9 is a great holiday for our country. We simultaneously
celebrate three important data for our people – the 14th Anniversary
of the Shoushi liberation, the NKR Defense Army Day and the great
holiday of the Victory the country that used to be our common gained
in the Great Patriotic War over the fascist Germany. This day we
recall all those who died in the battlefields and did not see the
liberated Motherland”.
Representatives of the NKR and RA leadership visited Shoushi, where
they put wreaths on a monument -tank near the town, monuments to the
hero of the Soviet Union Nelson Stepanyan and Vazgen Sargsyan.
Archbishop Pargev Martirosyan served solemn liturgy at the Church
of Khazanchetsots. In the evening a festive firework was held in the
NKR central square – the Revival Square.

MIKA TRIUMPH IN ARMENIAN CUP
UEFA
May 10 2006
FC MIKA have won their fifth Armenian Cup after Armen Shahgeldyan’s
23rd-minute goal earned them a 1-0 win against FC Pyunik in Tuesday’s
final.
Crucial breakthrough
Both teams made a bright start with plenty of chances in the
opening 15 miutes but it was to be Shahgeldyan who made the crucial
breakthrough. Pyunik defender Rafael Safaryan failed to clear Arsen
Meloyan’s long ball, allowing Shahgeldyan to ghost past Robert
Arzumanyan and score with the outside of his boot.
Other chances
Shahgeldyan had other chances to score later in the game as MIKA made
up for previous defeats against Pyunik in the league, but the Yerevan
side will have more than a few regrets after the game with Agvan
Lazarian, Arsen Avetisyan, Levon Pachahjyan and Tigran Karabagtsyan
all missing good chances.
Final meeting
MIKA and Pyunik are the only two sides to have won the Armenian Cup
since 2000, although this is their first meeting in the final. MIKA
have qualified for the first qualifying round of the UEFA Cup while
Pyunik will compete in the first qualifying round of the UEFA Champions
League as reigning Armenian champions.

“THE US AND RUSSIA RIVALING FOR THE LAURELS OF PEACEMAKER IN THE KARABAKH CONFLICT”: NAGORNO-KARABAKH PRESS DIGEST
Regnum, Russia
May 10 2006
Consultations of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
PanARMENIAN.Net reports the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov
(Russia), Steven Mann (US) and Bernard Fassier (France) to hold
consultations in Moscow on May 2-3. Russian Deputy FM Grigory Karasin
met with the co-chairs and the personal representative of the OSCE
chairman-in-office Andrzej Kasprzyk May 2. The sides discussed the
current issues for the Karabakh conflict settlement, reports the
press service of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
OSCE MG Russian Co-Chair Yuri Merzlyakov says that it is the first
time the co-chairs are consulting behind closed doors. He says
that they will consider how to settle the conflict and how to bring
the sides closer to agreement. The co-chairs will also discuss new
proposals, will try to reach a consensus over the moot points and will
present this formula to the sides during their upcoming visit to the
region. 525th Daily (Baku) says that the failure of the Rambouillet
meeting and the following inaction in the peace process show that
the sides are not willing to concede. This is also proved by the last
statements of the co-chairs. What they are saying implies that they
have no more new proposals to keep the process moving. The daily
reports that during the Azeri president’s Washington meeting last
week US Co-Chair Steven Mann said that they were beginning to see some
effective basis for compromise. He did not specify what basis he was
talking about but just said that they were planning not full and final
resolution, but stage-by-stage settlement of some moot points. The
daily says that, in principle, this is in line with Azerbaijan’s
stage-by-stage scenario, but, with the present differences between
the sides, it is not clear how much practicable this “stage-by-stage
resolution” is.
APA news agency (Baku) reports that on May 3, after the OSCE MG
co-chairs’ Moscow consultations with the personal representative of
the OSCE chairman-in-office Andrzej Kasprzyk, French Co-Chair Bernard
Fassier went to Yerevan and then to Baku. APA says that in Moscow
the mediators specified some details, which they have to formulate
and present to the conflicting sides.
Asked “what proposals has OSCE MG French Co-Chair Bernard Fassier
brought to Yerevan and how good will they be for the Karabakh peace
process?” Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan says: “Very much will depend on
the political will of Azerbaijan. I don’t want to link this all with
Azerbaijan, but Armenia has already taken definite steps, and, if we
want success in the matter, Azerbaijan should take them too.” A1+
reports Oskanyan to say that after their individual visits to the
region the OSCE MG co-chairs have come to a conclusion that the
presidents should meet once again, but they have not yet decided
where and when.
Commenting on Bernard Fassier’s “one more tour of the region” 525th
Daily says that the fact that he came alone proves that the MG have
not yet found a new optimal formula of how to resume the peace process
and need some more consultations with the sides. The daily says that
after Fassier’s visit to the region the MG will meet again – in either
Washington or Paris – to finalize the formula and to present it to
the sides. For this purpose, they will organize a new meeting of the
Azeri and Armenian presidents in June-July.
Fassier’s consultations with the Azeri leadership will mostly probably
held Mar 5 or May 6, says Zerkalo daily (Baku). The co-chairs have,
in fact, stopped visiting the region together. Even though they
all said quite recently that after the Moscow consultations they
will jointly visit Baku and Yerevan, what we see now is, in fact,
a shuttle diplomacy by two ally-co-chairs – the US and France. After
their individual visits to the region, the US and French co-chairs –
who seem to have formed a perfect tandem – just inform their Russian
colleague about the results. It seems that the Russian co-chair has –
at least temporarily – moved away – or has been removed from the peace
talks, says the daily. The latter is quite possible – for, as far
as the daily knows, the decision to stop joint visits to the region
was made not in Moscow by the co-chairs themselves but in Washington
by the Department of States. The daily says that before the Moscow
consultations the US DS bureau representative for Europe and Eurasia
Terry Davidson said that there would be no joint visit right after the
consultations, while just a day before Russian Co-Chair Yuri Merzlyakov
stressed that he was not planning to visit the region alone without
his colleagues. The daily also reminds that before the Rambouillet
meeting it was Merzyakov who was the most talkative of the three.
The US, together with the other two co-chairs of the OSCE MG,
continues its efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict. It gives
high importance to its cooperation with Russia and hopes that that
country will play a positive role in the matter, 525th Daily reports
US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried
as saying during debates at the Brookings Institution (Washington). He
said that the establishment of peace and stability and the resolution
of conflicts in the South Caucasus is the priority of the US’ regional
policy, and Russia is also interested in this. Fried said that in
this sphere the US and Russia cooperate mostly in the Karabakh peace
process, and, despite pessimism by some analysts and media, there is
no reason for US-Russian tensions in this region.
Still, the US and Russia are taking no practical steps to resolve
the conflict, says the daily. Both stress that the sides must resolve
their conflict themselves and expect relevant initiatives from them.
On the other hand, however ardently they may deny this, the two
super powers are actually rivaling for the laurels of peacemaker in
the conflict, which makes the possibility of their joint mediation
rather disputable.
The failure in Rambouillet was natural. The same failure awaits any
new attempt to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict according to
the scheme “territories/security zone in exchange for NK status,”
the political reviewer of the Noyan Tapan information-analytical
center David Petrossyan said at the Apr 28 Caucasus 2005 international
conference. This scheme – saying that the Armenian side should withdraw
its troops from the security zone around Nagorno-Karabakh and then
Azerbaijan should agree to hold a referendum on NK’s status – is
unacceptable for either side. This scheme was most appropriate in 1994,
after the conclusion of the cease fire agreement – when after their
military collapse the Azeris were ready to agree that Karabakh was lost
for them for ever, and Armenia did not yet have a doctrine that the
territories controlled by the Armenians or the “zone of security” must
in no way be given back to the Azeris. But in the next two post-war
years, while Russia and the OSCE were sorting out their relations,
the two societies had developed two quite opposite doctrines: in Baku
– the doctrine of “postponed revenge,” in Yerevan – the doctrine of
“security zone,” says Petrossyan. He says that the present Armenian
and Azeri leaders will not agree to the “territories/security zone
against status” scheme as this agreement runs contrary to the above
two doctrines and may lose Kocharyan and Aliyev their offices. The
idea of international peacekeeping is not popular either. So, today
the mediators have no alternative to the above doctrines. There is a
serious crisis of ideas in the negotiating process, and there is an
urgent need for new ones.
Azg daily publishes the principles of the Republican Party of Armenia
(RPA), proclaimed by its leader, Armenian Prime Minister Andranik
Margaryan. He says: “The Rambouillet talks did not fail – simply, the
sides failed to reach agreement on some key issues. Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic must not be part of Azerbaijan, the NKR population must be
given security guarantees, NKR and Armenia must have common border,
the NKR problem must not be solved at the expense of Armenia’s
borders and NKR must be a party to the negotiating process. That’s
RPA’s position on the Karabakh conflict settlement.”
Zerkalo daily calls “a sensation” the statement of OSCE MG US
Co-Chair Steven Mann that an effective basis for compromise has
been found. One important principle is that the MG has given up
its attempts to resolve all the problems once and for all. Now the
approach is opposite: moving forward step by step and leaving some
complex issues for the future. In fact, Mann has made public the MG’s
mechanism of the Karabakh conflict settlement. The daily links Mann’s
words with the “new settlement proposals” mentioned by Azeri FM Elmar
Mamedyarov for the first time after his meeting with US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, and with the fact that the selfsame “new
proposals” were presented by Rice to Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan in
Washington. The daily reports both sides to approve of them.
The daily’s reviewer Rauf Mirkadyrov concludes that the question is
about the proposal made by the co-chairs of the Dartmouth Conference
workgroup on regional conflicts Harold Saunders (ex deputy of
Henry Kissinger) and Vitaly Naumkin (well-known Russian diplomat,
orientalist) during their recent visit to the region. That is, the
question is about “a framework agreement” on peaceful settlement
of the Armenian-Azeri conflict – a framework that will include a
whole series of “intermediate agreements” on withdrawal of troops,
return of refugees, provision of security. Nagorno-Karabakh is given
“an intermediate status” to be finalized at the concluding stage of
the conflict settlement. The whole point is in Nagorno-Karabakh’s
“intermediate status,” which, though not internationally legalized,
makes the NK Armenians a party to the negotiating process and no longer
isolated and allows foreign states and international organizations
to establish “legal” relations with them. “The sheep is safe, the
wolves satisfied” – at least, for some time: Baku can parade its no
responsibility for NK’s future status, Yerevan can calm down its
public that the “intermediate status” makes Arkady Gukasyan “the
recognized leader of an unrecognized state.” But let’s not forget
that there is nothing more permanent than something temporary.
Besides, we have already witnessed something of the kind in Kosovo.
There too “unrecognized authorities” have been given “an intermediate
status.” And what has come of it – we all know.
The director of the Caucasian Institute of Mass Media, political
scientist Alexander Iskandaryan says than in the Karabakh peace
process the conflicting sides continue their efforts to freeze the
conflict. Karabakh is just something to talk about. Everybody says
that when a political decision is made, the process will get more
specific. But all the parties concerned perfectly know that no
political decision will be made, says Iskandaryan.
The research worker of the Institute of World Economy and International
Relations of the Academy of Sciences of Russia Alexander Krylov says
that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is like the Israeli-Palestinian
or Taiwan conflicts, which have stayed unresolved for many decades
already. “I would call them slack conflicts, conflicts that will not be
resolved in the near future. The talks are underway, then they stop,
then everything takes its normal course,” says Krylov. He does not
think that the US-Azeri relations over Iran will have an impact on
the Karabakh peace process.
There are more common than different points between the
Israeli-Palestinian and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, the director of
the Tel Aviv Institute of Eastern Europe and the CIS, Knesset member
Alexander Tsinker says to PanARMENIAN.Net. “Geographically, Israel
and Nagorno-Karabakh cannot ‘go away’ from Arabs and Azerbaijan,
respectively. Besides, this is a conflict of civilizations: Israel
conflicts with Arabs, Christians with Islam.”
At that Tsinker notes that Israel is already trying to resolve its
problem by demarcating its border. “In due time the international
community will recognize this border. The same thing may expect
Karabakh.”
Azeri political expert Oktay Atakhan says that all this activity in
the Karabakh problem comes from the interests of the US who wants
to deal a strike on Iran. “And today as never before the US wants
Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach whatever agreement so it can use
their territories as outposts for its strikes on Iran. The objective
of this new political game is to bring Armenia and Azerbaijan to
agreement and to return five districts. For example, they will start
from Fizuli, then Jebrail, then Agdam. The co-chair-states want to do
this stage by stage, with each stage taking one month. For example:
in a month one district, say, Fizuli, is liberated and protected by
international peacekeepers. But the key point is that the US will
use this one month for arranging its outposts in that district and
in 1-2 months to do what it wants to do against Iran.” (Echo)
Citing RFE/RL, Haykakan Zhamanak daily reports NATO Parliamentary
Assembly President Pierre Lellouche to invite the Armenian and Azeri
presidents to take part in the PA meeting in Paris in late May. “I
have been myself, just before I was president of the Assembly, to see
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev.
We are trying to help in finding a solution. The Caucasus needs
stability. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia need to do something else other
than just building weapons and being in this state of cold war,”
Lellouche said in a talk with RFE/RL Azeri correspondent. “I have
been in the trenches in Nagorno-Karabakh and I know how difficult
it is for the two nations. So, I have invited Kocharyan and Aliyev
to Paris because I’m hoping that the two presidents will work it out
through negotiations and the war is not a solution.”
Aliyev’s visit to the US
Commenting on the results of his talks with US President George Bush,
Azeri President Ilham Aliyev says that he has told Bush that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved exclusively in line with
the international law. “Azerbaijan’s occupied lands must be given
back, the refugees must be allowed to go back to their homes and
security guarantees must be provided. There are no changes in our
positions. And President Bush said that the US wants the problem to
be solved peacefully,” says Aliyev. (Day.Az)
Azeri FM Elmar Mamedyarov calls Aliyev’s Washington talks “very
useful.” He says that the sides have discussed “global and regional
problems.” Special attention was given to the Karabakh conflict and
the situation over Iran. Azerbaijan advocates peaceful stage-by-stage
resolution of the conflict in the framework of the “Prague Process.”
This means that the Armenian troops must be withdrawn from
Nagorno-Karabakh and nearby districts, the territory demined,
refugees taken back to their homes and only then the status of NK
be determined. Mamedyarov says that NK’s status must be considered
jointly with the region’s Armenian and Azeri communities, i.e. with
the Azeris who lived in the region before the conflict. (525th Daily)
US Congressmen Joe Knollenberg, Frank Pallone, George Radanovich and
Adam Shiff have urged US President George Bush to condemn Azerbaijan’s
actions against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. They say that Azerbaijan
is waging a “cold war” against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azeri
authorities are threatening with war and cultivating anti-Armenian
moods. Azerbaijan’s actions are breaking stability in the South
Caucasus. In defiance of international criticism, Azeri President
Ilham Aliyev is reiterating that Azerbaijan may start a new military
attack on Karabakh. The congressmen also remind Bush that in Dec
2005 Azeri soldiers destroyed Armenian cultural monuments in Old Juga
(Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan) (ARKA)
Haykakan Zhamanak daily calls “a sensation” the statement of Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev before his meeting with US President George
Bush that Azerbaijan will not support the US if it starts hostilities
against Iran. This statement was contrary to the general unanimity that
Aliyev was invited to the US exactly and exclusively for discussing
Azerbaijan’s involvement in the anti-Iranian program.
Thereby, Aliyev has spoiled the US’ plans. Commenting on Aliyev’s
statement, political expert Agasi Arshakyan says that the US wants
to deploy its troops all along the Azeri-Iranian border so that the
Iranian opposition be sure that Iran’s territorial integrity will
not be broken. That is, America needs this to prevent the possible
attempts by the Northern Iranian Azeris to reunify with their
“mother-Azerbaijan.” This is certainly not what Azerbaijan and,
possibly, Turkey want, says Arshakyan.
Azeri independent analyst Ilgar Mamedov says that for the first time
Azerbaijan has got a chance to speak about Karabakh in the context
of the Iranian problem, and this may open up new prospects in the
Karabakh conflict settlement. (RL)
Aravot daily gives several remarkable statements on Karabakh from
Azeri President Ilham Aliyev’s speech in the Carnegie Fund Foreign
Affairs Council. “We hope that, as a super power and OSCE MG co-chair,
the US will help to resolve the Karabakh conflict and to finally
establish peace in the region.” “Today the Karabakh problem is
the key obstacle to Azerbaijan’s development. In everything else
we are doing brilliantly: our budget is growing, energy programs
are enlarging.” Asked what concessions the winner Armenia can make,
Aliyev says: “First of all, in my opinion, Armenia has not won the
war. Everybody knows that without Russians Armenians would never be
able to occupy our territories. Besides, the war is not over yet. I
think it’s time for the Armenian authorities to make a decision and
to try to imagine what will become of Armenia in 10-15 years if the
problem stays unresolved.” “Azerbaijan’s future is easy to predict:
it will become a strong, prospering country with strong economy
and society, a country one better be a neighbor with.” Aliyev says
that peace is good for all the sides. In exchange for concessions,
Armenia will get communications, links with Russia, which “is very
important for it,” access to regional programs. The Nagorno-Karabakh
people will be allowed to live in peace. “Our firm position is that
the problem must be solved in the context of Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity,” says Aliyev and suggests his settlement scenario: “The
Karabakh Armenians will be given high autonomy in the framework of
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity in analogy with many European
countries. They must be given strong political guarantees that peace
in region will be irreversible.” Aliyev made these statements in
Washington on the eve of his meeting with Bush. So Aravot assumes
that he might have been encouraged for this.
Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov gives an interview to Day.Az
(abridged – REGNUM):
“What an effect will Ilham Aliyev’s visit to the US have on the
Karabakh conflict settlement?”
Obviously, it is exactly the US who is trying to give the Karabakh
peace process a new impulse in the context of the so-called Prague
process. And, if not Bush personally, then the deputy secretary of
state and the US co-chair of the OSCE MG, have expressed optimism in
the matter. They say that the positive result is very much possible.
The co-sponsorship of a strong power like the US may prove decisive
for the process. Furthermore, the US is acting in close constructive
cooperation with the EU and Russia. Aliyev says that he has told
Bush about our concerns and that we can’t concede beyond the limits
of the international law. I think that this time our arguments and
expectations might well be given more understanding.
When will Armenian President Robert Kocharyan visit the US and what
an effect will his visit have?
I can’t say anything specific, but, according to the Armenian media,
Kocharyan is getting ready and will visit the US soon. In economy
and energy, Armenia is of no interest for the US. As Moscow’s loyal
ally, Yerevan can’t be helpful in the regional problems either. So,
the only reason why the US has invited Kocharyan is to push through
its settlement proposals and to show balance in its relations with
the conflicting sides.
Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan says that all the three OSCE MG co-chairs
will visit the region in May and that the Armenian and Azeri presidents
may meet in June. Is there any sense in the presidents’ meeting if
the sides are not ready for concessions?
If we take the package resolution, no progress is possible because of
incompatibility of positions, but in the context of the stage-by-stage
resolution (exactly what the co-chairs are proposing), there seemingly
are some formulas that can set the process afoot. And dodgy and
stubborn as they are, the Armenians will hardly succeed this time in
the face of the joint will of the US, Russia and the EU.
PACE President Rene van der Linden says that the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict must be resolved, first of all, for the sake of the younger
generation. Whole generations of Armenians and Azeri have already
grown up without seeing each other. How can one hope that the Karabakh
problem can be solved on this basis?
This factor is certainly present. But more important is the
understanding that Azerbaijan’s growing economic power with the
continuing occupation of its lands will inevitably lead to a new war.
None of the great and regional powers wants this. That’s why they are
trying to help the process out of deadlock. Indeed, there still are
people in Azerbaijan and Armenia who have the experience of peaceful
co-existence, and until it is too late we must use this potential
for building and restoring bridges of confidence.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BENEDICT XVI WILL VISIT TURKEY THIS YEAR
Sunday – Catholic Weekly, Poland
May 10 2006
The news about the murder of Father Santoro in Trabzon, Turkey,
was released together with the announcement of the official visit of
Benedict XVI to Turkey. The head of the office of Turkish President
Ahmet Necdet Sezer told the paper ‘Hurriyet’ that the Pope would
visit the country on 28 November 2006. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican
spokesman, confirmed that information, adding that the visit would last
three days, on 28-30 November. This date is not accidental since the
Pope intends to see Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I on the feast of
St. Andrew. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the head of the Catholic
Church, on the Chair of St Peter, whereas the Orthodox Patriarch
of Constantinople, on the Chair of St Andrew, is the honorary head
among the Orthodox patriarchs, he is primus inter pares – a first
among equals.
The Pope wanted to make the trip last year because Bartholomew I
had invited the Pope to join him for the celebration of that feast
day at the beginning of his pontificate. Unfortunately, the Turkish
government thwarted the trip, which had to be postponed (popes visit
other countries only when they are invited by the local church and
the government).
Benedict XVI’s visit to Turkey will not be a precedent. Paul VI and
John Paul II visited the country, too. Paul VI went to the country on
the Bosporus in 1967, his main aim being to meet Patriarch Atenagoras
who was a sincere promoter of the ecumenical dialogue. Paul VI had had
the occasion to meet him in Jerusalem three years earlier. Apart from
the meeting with the patriarch Paul VI had meetings with the local
Catholic and Assyrian communities, the Armenian Patriarch Kalustian
and the representatives of the Jewish community.
John Paul II went to Turkey in the second year of his pontificate
in 1979. He spent three days there, from 28 to 30 November, and
he met Dimitrios I, the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch (the result
of the encounter was the joint declaration to appoint a mixed
Catholic-Orthodox commission on theological dialogue). John Paul II
visited Ephesus and Smyrna, the ancient cities that played a great
role in the early Church. On the occasion of that visit the Turkish
press published a letter of some Ali Agca who said he would kill John
Paul II.

HISTORIANS WARN FRENCH PARLIAMENT: DO NOT CENSOR HISTORY
By Selcuk Gultasli, Brussels
Zaman, Turkey
May 10 2006
Famous American and European historians have sided against the bill,
which would make denial of the so-called Armenian genocide a punishable
offence, to be discussed in the French Parliament on May 18.
Historians say if the bill is passed, freedom of speech will be harmed
and history will have been “censored.”
Lobbies in Brussels make jokes that the French parliament is being
influenced by the 301st clause in the Turkish criminal code which is
frequently criticized by the European Union (EU).
Professor Eric Zurcher, a famous Dutch professor and an expert on
Turkey, considers getting stuck on the word “genocide” is unfortunate.
Emeritus Professor of Political Science Guenter Lewy, who became
the target of Armenians because of his recently published book
“The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide,”
wants history to be left to the historians.
Britain’s Dr. Andrew Mango says it is “an insult to pass such a
ridiculous bill.” The three important academics responded to questions
posed by Zaman.
Jewish origin American scholar Lewy says he also opposes the laws
that suggest criminalizing the denial of the Jewish Holocaust.
“Parliaments should discuss the laws, not history. The Armenian
“genocide” bill in France is not as logical as the Holocaust oriented
laws. The freedom of speech in democratic societies should also be
applied to fools speaking unwisely. I oppose the existence of such
laws wherever they are – in France, in Germany, in Switzerland or
in Turkey. Such laws could have functioned in Germany after the Nazi
defeat in 1945; however, they are not needed anymore.”
Lewy says he is not concerned about being arrested in France over
his book. “If French judges want to censor history, including all the
history books published all over the world,” he said, “they will be
insulted by everyone siding with the academic world, and with free
and uncensored researches.
Algeria and Congo are forgotten
Professor Zurcher considers the French bill is objectionable in two
aspects: Primarily historians should avoid writing history; and the use
of the word “genocide” is a hindrance to any research being conducted
on the events in 1915. He also believes Armenians were exposed to
ethnic cleansing and if it is to be compared to any other event, it
can be more likened to the Serbian massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo,
not to the Jewish holocaust.
Zurcher points out that the French law could be spread throughout
Europe, but the issue, he says, cannot be made a condition for
Turkey’s entry to the European Union. “What France did in Algeria;
Belgium in the Congo and in my country, The Netherlands, as well as in
the Far-East, have never been discussed by the EU; so then why Turkey?”
British scholar Andrew Mango puts the so-called Armenian genocide
allegations aside and considers that freedom of speech will be
restricted after the bill becomes law.
Mango says, “Such a law is unlikely to be exercised in my country,
Britain. Britain even allows you to deny the Jewish Holocaust because
we highly appreciate the speech freedom.” He says defending such a
law is an “insult against freedom.”
When asked whether he will hesitate about traveling to France if the
bill becomes law, Mango replied: “I was asked the same question in my
previous France visit. I said, ‘I will not talk about the Armenian
case here because there is no freedom of speech in your country.’ I
will probably not talk about these issues in France anymore.” The
British historian says enemies of Turkey consider the EU bid as an
“opportunity.” Don’t the Greek Cypriots do the same thing? Turkey
portrays itself as if it is ready to accept everything for EU
membership.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress