TRIPLE STANDARDS
by Boris Tumanov
Translated by Pavel Pushkin

Source: Novoe Vremya, No. 15, 2006, p. 22
Agency WPS
April 17, 2006 Monday

What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)

Russia’s current foreign policy is confined to one formula; Russia’s
contemporary foreign policy is confined to a single formula: “Why can’t
we do what they do?” For example, the West is going to recognize the
independence of Kosovo – so why can’t Russia recognize the independence
of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Trans-Dniester Republic?

Leaving aside Gazprom’s projects aimed at “energy security” on a
global scale, Russia’s contemporary foreign policy is confined to a
single formula: “Why can’t we do what they do?” Lately, we have started
speaking in the same terms about the problem of unrecognized states:
“They’re going to recognize the independence of Kosovo, so why can’t
we recognize the independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the
Trans-Dniester Republic?”

Meanwhile, the solving of the Kosovo problem that has already
practically become a precedent is primarily resolving of the
fundamental contradiction embodied in the international law that has
declared territorial integrity of countries and the right of nations
for self-determination equally sacred. In other words, if Serbia
did not announce through its Foreign Minister Draskovic about its
agreement with separation of Kosovo, proceeding from international
practice it would be impossible to legitimize the striving of ethnic
Albanian people populating Kosovo for independence. Russia defended
its territorial integrity in Chechnya even in a more cruel way
that Milosevic in Kosovo but the international community condemned
it only for “excessive cruelty” without questioning of the right
of Moscow to retain Chechnya within Russian borders. That is why
belligerent joy of Russian politicians hoping to use the precedents
of Kosovo for official annexing of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and for
transformation of the Trans-Dniester Republic into a Russian military
base is untimely or is even ungrounded. All this may happen without
undesirable consequences for Russia only if Chisinau and Tbilisi give
up these territories voluntarily.

Of course, knowing the psychological condition of the Russian
establishment it is definitely difficult to believe that Moscow
will take this condition into account. In the worst case Russian
diplomacy will simply wave it off referring to the fact that the West
“has twisted hands” of the Serbian authorities. This circumstance
allegedly enables us not to take into account the soft-body stance
of Belgrade caused by terrible tortures because territorial integrity
of any state is sacred.

However, very soon we will definitely learn that not only Georgian
and Moldovan wines but also cheeses are polluted with pesticides or,
say, radioactive and hence their import to the Russian Federation
is prohibited. We will also definitely witness more hysterically
humanitarian raids of the Emergency Situations Ministry to the
Trans-Dniester Republic being as pointless as the notorious transfer
of airborne troops to Pristina.

In any case, let us temporarily get abstracted from the selfless
defending of independence of Abkhazia or Trans-Dniester Republic by
Russia under the flag of the right of nations for self-determination.

Let us forget about the Cossack volunteers and battalion of the
Confederation of Peoples of Caucasus commanded by Shamil Basaev,
about the Abkhaz attack aviation that has appeared suddenly and has
disappeared equally suddenly, as well as about Russian generals who
have crushed Georgian and Moldovan invaders. Let us forget about
Russian citizenship of Abkhaz and South Ossetian people. Let us
formulate the question in the following way: in a hypothetical case if
Tbilisi and, by the way, Baku generously agrees to give up Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, would the obvious choice of Abkhaz,
Ossetian and Armenian people contradict the letter of international law
then? Definitely it would not. In this case the matter is right about
nations or ethnic groups that have the right for self-determination.

For God’s sake, explain to me what kind of nation lives in the
Trans-Dniester Republic whose population consists of three ethnic
groups of Moldavan, Russian and Ukrainian people being approximately
equal? What has this incidentally appeared mixture to do with the right
of nations for self-determination? What kind of ethnic notion it is,
Trans-Dniester people?

At any rate, it is true that Russian politicians who feel nostalgia
about the Soviet Union still are not abashed by this nonsense because
they know perfectly well that political expedience can create a nation
or abolish it. Can you recall such ethnic groups as Karabakh and
Nakhichevan people? Behind these exotic names were ordinary Armenians
and equally ordinary Azerbaijanis. However, Moscow decided that it
would not be expedient to call Nagorno-Karabakh in accordance with
ethnic belonging of its population (like it was common in all the
rest of the territory of the Soviet Union) the Armenian Autonomous
Region and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
the Azerbaijani Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In the first
case Moscow was afraid to wake up (but finally woke up) a natural
striving of Armenians of Karabakh for reunion with Armenia and in
the second case Moscow did not wish to explain why an autonomous
region in the territory of Armenia was subordinated not to Yerevan
but to Baku according to demand of Turkey specially included into
the Russian-Turkish agreement on “friendship” singed in 1921.

Now Moscow got it into its head that separatism of the Trans-Dniester
Republic deliberately provoked by Anatoly Lukyanov back in the times
of the agony of the Soviet Union could be used by it as a tool to
pressurize Moldova and Ukraine and as a military bridgehead against
NATO. That is why Russia will keep making believe that Trans-Dniester
people are a normal nation and their wish of “self-determination”
is protected by the same international law that Moscow interprets
in the aforementioned manner, “Why is this allowed to them and not
allowed to us?”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LENKERAN ALIYEV: “OUR ARMED FORCES ARE THE STRONGEST IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS”

Today, Azerbaijan
April 16 2006

“Our officers-leading force of the Azerbaijani Army is ready to
fight war. However, we are training more professional officers for
the Azerbaijani Armed Forces,” Chief of Defense Ministry Training
and Education Center (TEC), Major-General Lenkeran Aliyev stated.

Mr. Aliyev said that Azerbaijani Armed Forces were the most trained
and the strongest in the whole South Caucasus. He stressed that
hostile Armenian Army was many times weaker from moral-psychological
and professionalism aspects.

“Armenians depend on the Russian military bases in the country.

Therefore, their national Army is many times weaker than ours,”
the Ministry official underscored.

Aliyev also said youths have begun to show more interest in military
sphere recently. According to him, the young men conscripted into
the army are trained beforehand.

“We have normal base which provides an opportunity to meet NATO
standards in military training. Our military training is many times
professional than that of Armenians. Belarusian officers also confirm
it. But I think the military training is still not in satisfactory
level. Much needs to be done and more professional officers should
be trained,” Aliyev added.

Touching on housing of servicemen, the General said they have
raised this question at the Defense Ministry and the Supreme
Commander-in-Chief.

“Our proposals have been positively responded. The Supreme
Commander-in- Chief is interested in living conditions of out
military men. I made it urgent to provide military trainers in the
center with houses. Most of military trainers have no house to live,”
he underlined.

Lenkeran Aliyev considers it important to publicise truths on the
Army to remove negative stereotypes in the public regarding the Army.

Admitting that there are some shortfalls in the Army, Aliyev said
measures are being implemented to remove these deficiencies.

“You witness the processes in other structures. If to compare, the
Army looks stronger,” the General concluded.

URL:

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

OIL DRIVES CORRUPTION BUT AZERIS LIVE IN HOPE OF FREEDOM
by Deaglan de Breadún

The Irish Times
April 17, 2006 Monday

LETTER FROM BAKU: Azerbaijan is a place most of us would have
difficulty finding on a map. Yet we have a good deal in common. Like
the Irish, the Azeris are experiencing a boom. The difference is that
their success is based on the country’s vast oil and gas reserves.

The Bush administration likes Azerbaijan and, when you arrive in the
capital, Baku, it is easy to see why. The smell of oil hangs heavily
in the air. It has to compete with an even stronger odour of gas
that’s almost overpowering when you turn on the tap in your hotel
room. Waking up in the middle of the night, you wonder if it’s all
over and whether you’ll ever breathe fresh air again.

There are massive oil rigs in the bay and the landscape is dotted with
those awkward-looking, angular drilling appliances that are shaped like
a horse’s head, busily drinking the black liqueur from the earth. The
surrounding countryside stretches for miles, with a mountain range in
the distance. “Just like Texas,” says Rizvan, my Azeri guide, laughing.

But there’s a lot to like about Baku. Pollution notwithstanding, there
is a raw energy and excitement about being in an oil town. This is what
it must have been like in the Gold Rush days in America during the
late 19th century. It takes five hours to get there from London and
everyone on the plane except me seemed to be a Scottish oil rigger,
reminiscing about the last time they went drinking in Finnegan’s or
O’Malley’s – two pubs with Irish names in Baku.

You feel safe walking the streets of the Azeri capital. Unlike other
cities, such as a certain place by the Liffey, nobody pesters you as
you pass along. But you quickly begin to notice that the prosperity,
as in Ireland, is somewhat unevenly distributed. Mercs and SUVs
jostle with clapped-out Ladas and Samaras on the roadway and many of
the people look as though they haven’t had a change of clothing or
certainly a change of fashion since Soviet times. Figures from 2002
showed 49 per cent of the population below the poverty line.

Azerbaijan crept out from under Moscow’s boot heel in 1991 and it
has many problems today. Neighbouring Armenia occupies 16 per cent
of the country’s landmass, as a result of an ethnic and territorial
dispute over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. This heightens the sense
of fragility about the place, as though it could be whittled away by
the exigencies of power politics.

There is also, by all accounts, corruption on a grand scale. Local
journalists readily testify that virtually everyone in a position to
do so is feathering his or her nest and that the political class is
lacking in patriotism and a sense of civic duty. There is corroborating
testimony from no less a source than the CIA World Factbook on the
internet which states: “Corruption is ubiquitous and the promise of
widespread wealth from Azerbaijan’s undeveloped petroleum resources
remains largely unfulfilled.”

Yet there is a sense of hope in the air. Despite the obvious cult
of personality surrounding President Ilham Aliyev, whose portrait is
everywhere, there is also a feeling of freedom about the place or, as
Michael Collins said in another context, “freedom to achieve freedom”.

Ukraine is free, Belarus is on the path to freedom; perhaps Azerbaijan
also is about to enter a new era.

Azerbaijan does not have the trappings of a police state and men in
uniform are relatively few in number. Visiting the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, I was impressed by the lack of elaborate security precautions
as well as the frankness of the press spokesman, Tahir Taghizadeh,
who freely acknowledged there were problems while insisting, as he
is employed to do, that the country is headed in the right direction.

For all its faults, including the decidedly dodgy aspects of last
November’s parliamentary elections and human rights concerns about
the current trial of three opposition youth leaders, there is one
feature of Azerbaijan that makes it a shining example today. Although
the people are overwhelmingly Muslim, they cherish their small but
significant proportion of Jewish citizens.

There are Jewish villages in the north of the country, I was told,
and relations between Muslims and Jews are excellent. If John F
Kennedy were alive today, he might well come to Azerbaijan instead of
Berlin and say to those who believe Islam and Judaism cannot co-exist:
“Lass’sie nach Baku kommen.” Let them come to Baku.

–Boundary_(ID_9bK0kTpmknGLUSHPllyr0Q)–

FM GUL, POLISH COUNTERPART REVIEW ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE

IPR Strategic Business Information Database
April 17, 2006

According to Turkiye, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul met with his Polish
counterpart Stefan Meller in Ankara. During their talks, the two
top diplomats discussed bilateral relations. At a press conference,
afterwards, citing the Polish Parliament’s decision last year on the
so-called Armenian genocide, Gul conveyed Turkey’s concern over the
matter. Stressing that the issue should be taken up by historians,
not politicians, Gul said the move could encourage Armenians. Turkey
has offered to Armenia to investigate the matter, but has so far gotten
no reply, added Gul. For his part, Meller stated that his government’s
support for Turkey’s European Union membership bid would continue.

EYE ON EURASIA: RUSSIA’S CAUCASUS CHOICE
by PAUL GOBLE

United Press International
April 17, 2006

Moscow no longer has any “rational basis” for keeping the non-Russian
republics of the Northern Caucasus within the Russian Federation,
according to a Moscow commentator, but “neither the Russian government
nor Russian public opinion is yet prepared” to allow them to become
independent.

That time will come, Boris Sokolov has argued on the prognosis.ru
web site, when Russians finally recognize that “the North Caucasus
republics have completely lost their strategic importance” and that
raising the standard of living there sufficiently to integrate them
into Russian society would be prohibitively expensive.

Two hundred years ago, Sokolov notes, controlling the northern
Caucasus was a strategic necessity for the Russian Empire. Having
gained control of what is now Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the
tsars needed to control the land bridge between Russia proper and
these new territories, especially since the Russian fleet was so weak.

And because of the strategic importance of the North Caucasus in this
regard, both the tsarist regime and the Soviet one that succeeded it
were prepared to use force on a regular basis to put down the revolts
by one or another group that have flared up on a regular basis in
this most unsettled region.

But Sokolov continues, “with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
geopolitical situation changed completely.” On the one hand, the three
countries of the southern Caucasus became independent and Turkey ceased
to be “a potential opponent” of Russia. And on the other, Russia is
in a position to supply its remaining bases in Armenia by air.

In addition, the republics of the North Caucasus “from an economic
point of view” are more a burden than an asset to Moscow: “the
reserves of oil there are not great and do not play any role in
Russia’s exports, there are few useful natural resources, the land is
not that fertile, and agricultural production at best is sufficient
only for internal consumption.”

They are all extremely poor, with unemployment rates approaching
70 percent or in some localities even more. In other respects to,
these republics “were and remain internal colonies” in precisely the
way Lenin defined that term. Moreover, the nominally democratic
institutions there are a cover for what in fact are corrupt
patron-client relations.

Because of the events of the last 15 years, virtually all Russians
have left. Indeed, Sokolov continues, “it is impossible to imagine
a Russian who would risk moving there to settle on a permanent basis.”

Changing that or the economic situation would require an amount of
money “that no Stabilization Fund could have.”

Consequently, just as President Charles de Gaulle decided to grant
Algeria independence rather than continue a disastrous war or spend
enormous sums in order to keep that North African area under French
control, so too, Sokolov insists, some future Russian leader will draw
the same conclusion and allow the North Caucasus republics to leave.

But such a decision is unlikely anytime soon. At present, Russians
who oppose independence for these republics advance two arguments,
he says. First, they point to “the memory of a great empire and hopes
for its revival. And second, they suggest that there would be a domino
effect elsewhere in the Russian Federation.

The first of these arguments is at best a distant dream, and the second
is simply not true, Sokolov says. “Today separatist inclinations
behind the borders of the North Caucasus are not to be observed,”
noting that the Middle Volga republics are not seeking independence
and that others can’t because of size, location, or the dominance of
the Russian community.

As a result, he says, “by itself the separation of the North Caucasus
republics will not have “a domino effect” elsewhere in the Russian
Federation.

What is more important, Sokolov says, is that all of the means Russia
has to exert influence on the southern Caucasus “are not connected with
Russian control over the North Caucasus republics. The “only thing”
Moscow might be concerned about would be the transit of oil and gas,
but when independent, these republics would want to help with that.

Despite current opposition to recognizing the independence of these
countries, Sokolov argues that eventually Moscow will do so, possibly
as a result of a dramatic fall in gas and oil prices will make the
burden of retaining them too great. In the meantime, Russia will
continue to lose its position there, as the rule of Ramzan Kadyrov
in Chechnya shows.

—

(Paul Goble teaches at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu
in Estonia.)

HISTORY: DOOMED TO REPEAT IT, AND REPEAT IT
by AL MARTINEZ

Los Angeles Times
April 17, 2006 Monday
Home Edition

On the same night that I watched a television program about the
English massacre of Pequot Indians in 1637, I had been reading about
the Sunni slaughter of 78 Shiite Muslims, and I realized how little
we have learned from history.

If you look on today’s world as a village and its segmented groups
of human inhabitants as tribes, you come to understand that we’re
still killing each other for the same stupid reasons, whether it’s
for territory, religion or cultural differences.

Given the hatred and the opportunity, and fed by hysteria, tribal
confrontations escalate too often into genocide, which is the
deliberate mass murder of an entire race of people. All it takes is
a perceived insult, an assassination or a raving maniac to lead to
the murder of hundreds or thousands or millions.

Only over a passage of centuries when memory becomes history do we
regard with horror the madness that once spurred us to butchery.

The TV show, one of a series called “10 Days That Unexpectedly
Changed America,” was a History Channel dramatization of an attack
by English settlers on a Pequot Indian fort that killed 500 men,
women and children, and all but eliminated the Pequots as a tribe.

It was the first of many wars between the whites and the people we now
call Native Americans in linguistic atonement for stealing their land,
their culture and their heritage. It’s our way of dismissing decades
of brutality with an airy, “Sorry about that.”

True to the obsessive nature of power, five centuries later, armed
with considerably more sophisticated weaponry, we have taken a newer
brand of Pax Americana into Iraq, theoretically to topple a dictator
and to bring peace as we know it to the troubled land.

The result of our incursion has been not only the deaths of about
2,300 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, but has also
stirred up civil war between the two Muslim sects. God is fighting God
on the sands of the Middle East, and all the villages on the globe
are beginning to take sides again. One can only guess where it all
might lead.

You don’t have to be a historian to realize what has been taking
place in the world since the Pequot massacre. Within the framework of
modern memory are genocidal episodes so wildly surreal that, reduced
to the white pages of history, it seems that they never could have
happened — until the 11 o’clock news reminds us that the kinds of
hatreds that fuel racial, religious and ethnic wars are still going on.

In the 20th century alone, Turks have slaughtered Armenians; Nazis
have murdered Jews; Hutus have butchered Tutsis; the Khmer Rouge has
slaughtered Cambodians; and Serbs have murdered Muslims. Have I missed
any? Probably.

If we dug into the frozen soil of Russia, we would find the graves of
peasants murdered by Stalin in the name of power. If we dug into the
red clay soil of Dixie, we would find the graves of blacks murdered
in the name of racial domination.

Today, as we view our planet from space, we are coming to realize that
we are only one among perhaps billions of tight little balls drifting
through eternity toward an uncertain end. We are still seeing the
same tribal wars that were probably taking place in the time before
human history, through the Stone Age to the Iron Age and into the
Nuclear Age. Wooden spears have evolved to atomic fusion.

The tiniest elements of human knowledge have potentially become the
deadliest manufacturers of human carnage.

I’m not really sure how a television show translated into a feeling
that mankind is staring down into the abyss of our future. It just
seems that we’ve always been at the mercy of leaders too limited in
vision or wisdom to understand who we are and the consequences of
what we do.

In 1637, it was John Endicott, governor of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony, who organized an army to slaughter the Pequots. Today, it’s
George W. Bush, president of the United States, who gathered an army
to invade a sovereign nation in the name of a nonexistent threat; it’s
an effort that brings new pain to a world already screaming in agony.

And the new historians prepare to write it all down for people who
don’t read, don’t understand what they do read or don’t much care
about it anyhow. One is compelled to echo the cry of the young radio
reporter 69 years ago when he watched the Hindenburg go down in
flames. It still applies:

“Oh, the humanity!”

*

Al Martinez’s column appears Mondays and Fridays. He can be reached
at [email protected].

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE
By: Ben Casey

The Rebel Yell
Issue: 04/17/2006
Section: Opinion

Leo Szilard once said, “Even if we accept as the basic tenet of true
democracy that one moron is equal to one genius, is it necessary to
go a further step and hold that two morons are better than one genius?”

Wikipedia has received a great deal of press lately. For those of
you who don’t know what it is, Wikipedia is an online collaborative
encyclopedia that is free for anyone to edit. The basic problem with
this concept is well documented, and you are bound to find an error
of assertion or omission on its Web site somewhere. But it’s fairly
self-correcting because of its size, and no repository of knowledge
can claim perfection. In fact, in December 2005 Nature, one of
the foremost publications in the sciences, published a news story
declaring that Wikipedia was “about as inaccurate” as Encyclopedia
Britannica. Britannica is the most trusted publication in the English
language. The rivalry between Britannica and Wikipedia is something
worth noting.

Wikipedia compares itself to Britannica at every opportunity, harping
at great length on any inaccuracies or omissions found in the latter,
posing them as rivals and making a great to-do of their own theoretical
superiority. Wikipedia’s most ardent supporters have always believed
that it will inevitably replace elite publications like Britannica,
and some will go to any lengths to prove it. The rivalry is, generally,
one-way. Britannica recognizes the ambitions of Wikipedia, but does
not generally respond. When the Nature study came out, critics of
Wikipedia noticed its slant almost immediately.

For one, “about as inaccurate” apparently meant that Wikipedia had
been judged a third more inaccurate than Britannica. Apparently, the
experiment focused on the sciences, wherein Wikipedia is generally
less inaccurate; and minor inaccuracies or omissions were treated as
equal to major ones.

Then came the Britannica response (which can be found in full at
re_response.pdf). It
is a truly remarkable document which amounts to a 20 page breakdown
of a major science publication by the English language’s most
trusted encyclopedia. As a science enthusiast, I found it literally
awe-inspiring. Within their response, Britannica rebuts nearly half
of the criticisms made about its articles with everything from humble
admissions to withering scorn. It questions the Nature study’s biased
methodology; most importantly, it reveals that several reviews were not
even of Encyclopedia Britannica articles at all – some came from the
Book of the Year, and others were hodgepodges from various sources. In
one case, a reviewer referred to material not part of any Britannica
publication. The verdict was fairly clear: the Nature study – conducted
by Nature and its editors, not a third party – was almost entirely
without merit. Even in a study dramatically biased in Wikipedia’s
favor, the difference in inaccuracy was astounding. And yet, the
story was spun as a triumph for the collaborative encyclopedia.

The ideological reasons why the Nature editors might have felt it
incumbent to publish a biased and misleading study on the merits
of Wikipedia are many, but no good cause justifies doctoring the
evidence. Sadly, the passions of Nature’s editors apparently got
away with them, leading them to tarnish the reputation of one of
the scientific community’s most prestigious publications to the
benefit of a Web site which has already become extremely well known
in its field. The errors found in Wikipedia are dramatic because the
“free for anyone to edit” policy allows anyone to come in and say,
for instance, that the Armenian genocide was actually a civil war.

Information from Wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There’s no reason it should replace the scholarly, well-edited and
traditional encyclopedia – exemplified by Britannica – which will
always be a consistent and accurate resource to check the facts
presented by the wild and potentially hazardous collaborative
intelligence of Wikipedia.

DISPUTES SWIRL ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Hal Boedeker

Orlando Sentinel — Newsday
tyle/sfl-genocideapr17,0,7523268.story?coll=sfla-f eatures-headlines
April 17, 2006

Some PBS stations won’t air The Armenian Genocide when it premieres
tonight. In South Florida, both WPBT-Ch. 2 and WXEL-Ch. 42 are
scheduled to show it at 10 p.m.

The documentary explores what former President Teddy Roosevelt called
the greatest crime of World War I.

The program describes how the Ottoman Turks, under nationalist
leaders, massacred and deported Armenians. Estimates put the death
toll as high as 1.5 million. Yet the modern Turkish state denies that
genocide happened, and that country’s schools teach that reports of
the atrocity are groundless.

Not surprisingly, The Armenian Genocide has generated controversy.

Los Angeles station KCET refused to show the program and instead will
offer a French documentary on the subject.

The Armenian Genocide will be available in more than 92 percent of
the country, PBS says.

PBS added a half-hour discussion, Armenian Genocide: Exploring the
Issues, with several speakers who dispute the genocide.

Armenian-Americans have protested that program. It will be seen in
65 percent of the country, PBS says.

WPBT has not scheduled the discussion. But WXEL will offer it at 5
a.m. Tuesday.

The documentary recounts the Armenians’ plight through photographs,
witnesses’ accounts and experts’ explanations. Julianna Margulies
narrates the documentary. Reading historical narration are Ed Harris,
Natalie Portman, Laura Linney and Orlando Bloom.

Secret panel

A new incarnation of the vintage tube hit I’ve Got a Secret (weeknights
at 11:30 p.m., GSN) features a cool panel that includes stand-ups
Suzanne Westenhoefer and Jermaine Taylor, and baseball’s openly gay
Billy Bean. Comic Bil Dwyer hosts their attempts to guess what, who,
why and how about mysterious guests.

GLAAD awards

Eric McCormack joins such “out” celebs as Melissa Etheridge for the
17th annual GLAAD Media Awards (9 p.m. Wednesday, VH1), taped recently
in Hollywood. Winners for their gay/lesbian/bisexual/ transgender
portrayals include Will & Grace, The L Word and My Name Is Earl. (Earl
made amends in the pilot with a gay guy he once persecuted.) Expect
appearances from desperate housewives, plus Charlize Theron, Jessica
Alba and at least three Arquettes.

Copyright © 2006, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

[sfl-genocideapr17%2C0%2C6181576%2Cp rint.story%3Fcoll%3Dsfla-features-headli
nes&t z=420&s=12201&c_TID=37sgt441247550&c_T ID=37sgt441247550&c_rcid=null]

–Boundary_(ID _gjxhzSpQnOzP0bUwj6CfcQ)–

ANDREW GOLDBERG’S “THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE” TO BE SCREENED IN U.S. TODAY

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.04.2006 21:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Today PBS will screen Andrew Goldberg’s “The
Armenian Genocide” documentary. In some states the film show will
be followed by debates with participation of Turkish scholar Taner
Akcam and writer Peter Balakyan as well as two Genocide deniers.

The PBS branch in Los Angeles meeting the wishes of the Armenians
will not screen the film and the following debates, since the Armenian
community considers the Armenian Genocide fact to be indisputable. A
French-shot film about the Genocide will be shown instead.

At that the documentary will be screened in one of Los Angeles
cinemas. “We will show the film as many times as it’s needed,”
said Goldberg, who paid the house rent amounting in $12 thousand,
reported RFE/RL.

KYIV RESIDENTS PROTEST AGAINST ARMENIAN CHURCH CONSTRUCTION

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.04.2006 21:39 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In 1992 the Kyiv authorities decided to grant
1022 square meters of land to the Armenian community of Ukraine for
the construction of an Armenian church. The community collected the
essential funds and launched the construction. However, not long ago
the residents of Podol (one of Kyiv districts) broke the fence and
said they will not allow any construction in the green zone. They say
the garden can be spoiled and they do not care who builds, let it be
Armenians, Muslims or Ukrainians. Even the Jews, who have lived in
Podol long since, did not build Synagogue here, the people say.

Business manager of the Ukrainian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic
Church Vahe Stepanyan said he is ready to defend the interests of
Armenians in all court instances. “The community possess the essential
documents and some funds have been already spent on the preparation
works,” he said, reported RFE/RL.