EUROPEAN UNION PAYS TO AZERBAIJAN SPECIAL ATTENTION
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 22, 2006
Special Representative of the European Union on Southern Caucasus
Peter Semnebey held a news conference on results of his visit to the
country, 21 July.
Having noted, that the main purpose of visit consists in discussion
of the Plan of Activity for Azerbaijan in the frame of the New
Neighborhood Policy of the European Union, P. Semnebey informed, that
at meetings with officials of Azerbaijan he had comprehensive exchange
of views in 9 basic directions of the plan. They cover settlement
of the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, development
of democratic institutes in the country, the human rights protection
and supremacy of law, regional cooperation and other questions.
He has told that ‘though negotiations on the Plan of Activity yet
have not completed, the successes, nevertheless, have been already
reached, and there were only technical questions. The Plan opens new
opportunities for the further rapprochement of Azerbaijan with the
Union. Azerbaijan represents special value for the European Union. I
consider, that Azerbaijan, too, is interested in establishment of
wide contacts with EU’, he stressed.
Noting, that at the meetings he held also discussed was the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, P. Semnebey has once again stated the
position of the European Union in connection with the conflict and
has emphasized, that EU supports peace settlement of the conflict
and though directly is not engaged in its solution, nevertheless,
can assist its elimination.
The Special Representative informed that now he would leave for Armenia
where would also touch the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. At his words,
in the meetings with the Armenian officials he is going also to focus
the arsons committed by Armenians in the occupied areas.

Defense Ministre Meets EU Special Representative On South Caucasus
Azerbaijan, DemAz.org
July 22, 2006
Defense ministre of Azerbaijan, colonel-general Safar Abiyev met
with the EU Special Representative on South Caucasus Peter Semnebey,
21 July. Azerbaijan is actively cooperating with the EU security
structures after regaining its state independence, the Minister
said. Some states have artificially created the Armenia-Azerbaijan
conflict to hamper this process. Minister Abiyev updated on economic
achievements of the Republic despite the war with Armenia, the current
status of the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict, and
also touched the EU-Azerbaijan relations. Touching upon the refugee
problem in Azerbaijan, Mr. Semnebey said the European Union would
certainly interfere this problem. The EU offers peaceful solution to
the problem, he stressed. We adhere creation of mutual trust between
the sides. ‘Armenia feels negative results of its military aggression
against Azerbaijan. And accepts it as the key reason of staying out
of the regional economic projects’. Safar Abiyev stated that Armenia,
on one hand, has occupied the lands of Azerbaijan, and on other hand,
tries to create mutual trust. ‘We do not believe it. Armenia should
withdraw its troops from the occupied areas, the refugees return
to their homelands and the infrastructures at the mentioned areas
be restored. Then we can speak on mutual trust. The problem should
be solved in the frame of the principles of international law and
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan’. Touching the Azerbaijan-NATO
links, the Defense Minister said it goes ahead in the frame of the
Plan of Activity for Individual Partnership. Azerbaijan observes all
the legal principles in its relations with foreign states. The same
should be demanded fromm the aggressor, he said.

CE-Azerbaijan conversations on Action Plan with European Neighborhood Program
about to complete – EU special representative in South Caucasus countries
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
July 22, 2006
The talks between the EU and Azerbaijan on Action Plan with European
Neighborhood Program are about to complete, Trend reports quoting
Peter Semneby, EU special representative in South Caucasus countries.
Semneby said during his two-day visit in Baku he had talked to
foreign minister, ministers of defense, justice, as well as human
rights watchers, head of Azeri community of Nagorno-Karabakh, at Baku
office of UNHCR and so. The main question to have been discussed
was Nagorno-Karabakh problem, democratic institutions development,
election processes, human rights, law domination, regional cooperation
development. Mr Semneby said almost all items of the Action Plan had
been approved, apart from some technical issues.
Mr Semneby said the Action Plan approval plays a big role in
Azerbaijan’s integration with the EU. ‘Azerbaijan is the country
of special significance for the EU, but Azerbaijan’s interests
also include developing strategic partnership with the Union’, he
underlined, mentioning significance of democratic institutions and
human rights development.
Mr Semneby also said he hoped for EU-Azeri Action Plan approval
by mid-fall.

Problem of fires in occupied territories of Azerbaijan will be one of
key topics of discussions in Yerevan – Special EU Envoy
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
July 22, 2006
Author: E.Huseynov, A.Mammadova
The problem of fires in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan will be
one of the key topics of the discussions in Yerevan, Peter Semneby,
special envoy of European Union for South Caucasian countries, told
on July 21 at the press-conference held as a result of his visit
to Azerbaijan.
According to Semneby, this question was discussed during the
negotiations in Baku. But it may be possible after the completion
of the visit to the region to speak about what measures need to be
taken for liquidating or preventing such cases, he told.
Semneby once again confirmed the position of European Union in relation
with Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which intends the peaceful solution
of the problem. According to Semneby, European Union doesn’t directly
participate in the negotiations for the settlement of the conflict,
but is ready to provide any support and contribution in this direction
to the conflict sides.

Despite wars, Mormons in Beirut persist
The Salt Lake Tribune, UTAH
July 22, 2006
Lebanon missionaries have faced evacuation before
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
It was Christmas 1965 and Elder Robert Burton had just gotten his
new assignment – Beirut, Lebanon.
The 19-year-old Mormon missionary from Salt Lake City was serving in
the LDS Church’s Swiss mission, which had responsibility for Italy,
all of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Burton and
his mission companion were to be the first proselytizing missionaries
sent into the largely Muslim nation in years. “I advised my parents
that my monthly support could no longer come in the form of a Zions
Bank check,” says Burton, who teaches computer science at Brigham
Young University. “And, of course, songs such as ‘Israel, Israel,
God is Calling’ had to be dropped from the collection of acceptable
hymns.” Burton and other American missionaries walked the streets
of what was then the Paris of the Middle East, looking for converts
to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The response was
overwhelming. Within two years, church membership went from a paltry
14 to more than 350. It all fell apart with the civil war that began
in 1975. Many ethnic Armenian members living in Lebanon immigrated to
Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, while missionaries and other Americans
were ordered to leave. Slowly, the LDS Church there dwindled and
died. It was not officially resurrected until the late 1990s, when
church headquarters sent humanitarian missionaries to help support
a tiny Mormon congregation. The church is not officially recognized
in Lebanon, so the 40 or so members meet every week in an apartment
as the “LDS Association.” Proselytizing is forbidden. The story
of Mormonism in Lebanon has been a recurring cycle of creation and
dissolution. Over the past two weeks, yet another round of violence
began, forcing the current humanitarian missionary couple to leave
the country. Again the question: What will happen to the Lebanese
members left behind this time?
Rumors of wars: Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde arrived in the Middle East
in 1841, a mere decade after the LDS Church was organized in upstate
New York, to dedicate the Holy Land for the spread of Mormonism. But it
wasn’t until the late 1800s that missionary work began in earnest. That
didn’t last long, either. It resumed in 1935, but discontinued with the
outbreak of World War II. In 1947 a mission was re-established with 12
missionaries, including a young Carlos E. Asay (later an LDS general
authority) who gained publicity for the church by joining the Lebanese
national basketball team, according to a history written by Robert
Collier. When Burton and others returned in 1965, they felt certain
this time their work would last. Confidence ran high as they began
baptizing their Mormon converts in the Mediterranean Sea. “We had
more converts than all missionaries in Switzerland put together,”
Burton recalls. Few missionaries learned Arabic, but they lived in
the Christian sector (where many people spoke French and English),
and members helped them translate when necessary. In the spring of
1967, the Six Days War thwarted their efforts. Burton had left, but
10 missionaries remained under the leadership of Robert E. Fowles,
now a cardiologist in Salt Lake City. The young elders knew about
the war from newspapers, but weren’t worried for their own safety
until members urged them to flee. They went to the American Embassy
in Beirut for advice, only to find it evacuated. Then they went to
the airport, where an American official told them to get out of the
country immediately. They found seats on the last plane to depart,
Fowles recalls, leaving their belongings behind, not even knowing where
they were heading. They landed in Rome, then returned to Switzerland
for a few weeks. But Fowles and others yearned to return to Beirut,
so their reluctant mission president allowed them to go back.
There they had more success and more adventures, including being
thrown in a Beirut jail on suspicion of being “Zionist CIA agents.”
But their optimism proved naive. Within a decade, their members were
left alone again.
Dreaming of a church: In 1985, Nabil Assouad, a Beirut resident,
went on a three-week vacation to London to get away from the civil
war and to practice his English. While there, he had a dream in
which he saw a church and chapel where he felt a kind of peace he had
never known. A few days later, he saw an LDS chapel near Hyde Park
and recognized it from his dream. Within nine days, he was baptized.
Assouad then returned to Beirut and taught his family about the new
faith. One by one, his whole family was baptized in different places
and circumstances. He and his brother, Karim, both served missions
for the church, in England and Belgium respectively. Their families
now form the nucleus of the Beirut branch, with each brother taking
turns as president. Meanwhile, Kevork Khanadenian was looking for
his church. Fowles had baptized Khanadenian and his family in 1967
when he was 11. When the Americans left in 1975, they gave him all
the church records, manuals and copies of the Book of Mormon. For
25 years, he had his faith and his books, but no congregation.
By early 2002, Khanadenian found the LDS Church on the Internet.
He contacted the humanitarian missionaries and showed them his
baptismal certificate, a photo of himself with Fowles and lots of
other related documents. Since then, he and his wife, Zovig, have
been to Utah twice. They were sealed in the Salt Lake temple in 2004.
These are the people who will hold the church together in these tough
times, says Sharon Heiss, a Sandy grandmother who returned from a
humanitarian mission to Beirut in 2004. She believes the church there
is “strong and growing,” with an adequate supply of male leaders to
officiate in the church’s lay clergy. “The church will continue
even with the war,” Heiss said Thursday. “Somehow or other, they
will manage.”
Photo 1: Four Mormon missionaries in Beirut during the summer of
1966. From left: Robert P. Burton, Robert E. Fowles (both of Salt
Lake City), Clinton J. Albano (of Wieser, Idaho) and Terrell E. Hunt
(of Covina, Calif.). (Courtesy of Robert Burton )
Photo 2: Members of the Beirut branch of the LDS Church, back row
from left: Hagop Daghlian, Nabil Assouad, Kevork Khanadenian, Andrew
Mojica and Karim Assouad. In the front is Frank Heiss, who served a
humanitarian mission in the area. (Courtesy of Sharon and Frank Heiss)

Christian town opens arms to Moslem refugees
Scoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand
July 22, 2006
By Henri Bou-Saab correspondent in The Republic of
Lebanon
It is now the middle of summer in my village in Mount Lebanon,
Dhour el-Choueir.
It is beautiful here, high up above the Sea, the heavy heat of Beirut
on the coast cannot reach us
It is Friday afternoon.
Normally I would be down in that heat at my business, trying to find
some customers to buy the beautiful Brazilian bathroom accessories
that I sell.
But not today.
Not yesterday, either.
Not since the Israel air force decided to destroy Beirut’s brand new
world-class international airport runways. There have been bombings
in the very ancient Christian fishing village north called Byblos,
bombs in the mainly Maronite Catholic Beirut suburbs of Hadaath and
Ashrafi’eh and in the mixed Christian and Muslim village of Zahle
as well.
Factories are being destroyed. Businesses blown up from the safety
of the super jets.
Lebanese are keeping away from trucks after a truck carrying medical
supplies was blown up .
Rita, my wife, works for pharmaceutical and medicine distribution
company GlaxoSmithKline. The company is still distributing medicines,
but Rita also has not been going into her office and she and our
children, Christopher and Bryan, are here with us at my parents home
in the Mountain.
So here I am stuck at home and not going into the office because
trucks go past my office. The office is also close to the port and
the air force bombed our world-class international seaport which is
very close to my office in the Antellias suburb.
The history of Antellias is very interesting.
The Armenian Christians set up their church headquarters here after the
destruction of the Armenian people by the Turkish Army in the 1920s.
In the 1920s, the communities of this Mountain – Greek Catholic, Greek
Orthodox but mostly Marounite Catholic – we accepted the Armenian
Orthodox and Armenian Catholic refugees escaping from their suffering
in Turkey. And in 1948, Lebanon accepted the Palestine refugees that
even to this day are still not allowed to return to their homeland,
which is Israel and Israel should be responsible for them, but instead
refuses to take responsibility for their needs.
ADVERTISEMENT
But as much my family’s life has been turned upside down I know
that what has happened to us is nothing, nothing compared to what’s
happening in the South of my country.
The majority of people in South are Shii’aa. They are Muslim.
So far, most of the 300 Lebanese civilians that lost their lives in
this total destruction of my country have been Shii’a and tens of
thousands of these civilians are escaping to find refuge in other
parts of the country.
My village has opened its arms to the refugees from the South. We
are not just doing this because our church leaders told us to, but
because we want to.
We want to help with shelter and with food. People are doing what
they must do.
We open our churches to our Muslim brothers and sisters.
I am afraid that if the Israeli Airforce continues this war for a very
long time then many more Lebanese Christians especially will join
the other Lebanese Christians that have already left the country to
go to America and Brazil and Canada and Argentina.
Not because we don’t love our country but because we get pushed into
making a choice between what to do for our children, what is really
best for them.
I don’t want to go. We don’t want to.
But whatever happens I will never fight against the Muslims just
because that is what the Israeli Government wants me to do.
Israel wants a war between Muslims and Christians.
They can murder our civilians by the hundreds as they have already,
but they can’t force us to kill each other on their behalf.
Never.
I promise you that.

Capitalism Magazine, Bahamas
July 22, 2006
“Insulting” The Principle of Free Speech
by Joseph Kellard (July 22, 2006)
The New York Sun reports on July 13 that the Turkish government may
jail a novelist because she supposedly “insulted Turkishness.” The
government tried to prosecute this novelist, Elif Shafak, in June on
the same outlandish Turkish criminal code that prohibits denigration
of any aspect of Turkish culture. The charges were dropped after a
prosecutor argued that “the book is a work of fiction and therefore
does not represent the view of the author,” according to the Sun. But
a higher court overruled this decision following complaints from a
group of nationalist lawyers.
Both Shafak and her publisher speculate that the alleged
“anti-Turkish” part of her novel concerns comments a character makes
about the Turkish massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915. In
recent decades, the Turkish government has denied the massacre took
place.
Meanwhile, PEN, an “artistic rights” organization, defends Shafak on
the same awful grounds as the aforementioned prosecutor, that is,
“Writers shouldn’t be held responsible for what their characters say
and do,” a PEN director said.
Actually, a novelist who creates a fictional character is responsible
for whatever that character says and does. She is responsible for her
character’s views, since the character is her creation, just as Ayn
Rand was responsible for creating Ellsworth Toohey. But all of this
is irrelevant to the fundamental issue involved in this case. That
is, like the Danish cartoonists who depicted Mohammad wearing a bomb
for a turban, Shafak has the right to write whatever she wants,
insults or otherwise, and whether or not they are her views. If what
she writes insults others, this violates no one’s rights, but to
prosecute her for this reason violates her right to free speech.
Those who ignore or evade these fundamental facts must then scramble
for rationalizations, like arguing that a novelist who creates a
character is not responsible for that creation. Instead of condemning
the Turkish court for violating Shafak’s right to free speech, and
upholding that right, PEN tries to deny that the novelist is
responsible for creating an “anti-Turkish” character, in a fruitless
attempt to distance her from any connection to violating an elastic,
irrational standard: denigrating Turkish culture.
Like the feeble, so-called defenders of the Danish cartoonists, PEN
needs a primer on why free speech is an absolute. Meanwhile, chalk up
another strike against this fundamental right, at least in Turkey.

Taylor column receives praise
Welland Tribune (Ontario)
July 22, 2006 Saturday
Scott Taylor’s Osprey column in the Saturday, July 15, Tribune.
Thank you very much for your article “Where’s Canada on this crisis?”
Niagara Falls Review.
The Azerbaijani Women’s Support Centre appreciates your effort to stand
for the truth and highlight this tense issue in the Canadian press.
We hope that this article will bring the truth into the limelight of
Canadian politics and the Canadian government will leave the double
standards policy towards the genocide.
They will defend the UN resolutions which demand the Armenian
government to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan and be among the states which condemn the genocide in
Garabagh and ethnic cleansing of the Azeri Turks in the whole region.
Thank you again for your article.
Nazila Isgandarova Chair of the Azerbaijani Women’s SUpport Centre
this letter appears also in
Sarnia Observer (Ontario) July 21, 2006 Friday Bringing truth to light
Chatham Daily News (Ontario) July 21, 2006 Friday Article raises
crucial issues

Stubbornness Leads To Strife
Chatham Daily News (Ontario)
July 21, 2006 Friday
Editor’s Note: This letter is addressed to Osprey Writer’s Group
member Scott Taylor, responding to his July 17 column in The Chatham
Daily News, “Focus on present issues.”
SIR: This is to provide you with additional information concerning
the Nagorno-Karapagh conflict that might have prevented you from
comparing the injustice towards the Azerbaijanis with the Armenian
Genocide in your article on July 17.
After the Armenians were removed from their homeland by the Ottoman
Empire (Eastern Turkey, which was the Armenians’ homeland for over
2,000 years is now empty of Armenians), the Armenians managed to form
a republic in the Russian portion of historical Armenia (Armenia
was divided between the Persian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires). It
is noteworthy that the greatest gift that Armenia has given to the
world is itself, as it has sacrificed itself so many times over its
long history, continually being subjected to attacks and occupations
from different empires.
The newly formed republic was forced to join the U.S.S.R. to protect
itself from attacks from the Turks, which was now run by Mustapha
Kemal Ataturk (known in the west as a modernizer). Under Stalin,
two areas – Nakhichevan and Nagorno-Karapagh – were removed from the
Armenian S.S.R. and transferred to the Azerbaijani S.S.R. Nakhichevan
was removed of its Armenian population, whereas Nagorno- Karapagh
continued to have an Armenian majority (both regions had had a long
Armenian presence).
Before the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karapagh
Autonomous Region requested a unification with the Armenian
S.S.R., but that was rejected. However, when the U.S.S.R. collapsed,
Nagorno-Karapagh declared independence after a referendum (it was legal
for an autonomous region in the U.S.S.R. to declare independence).
The Azerbaijani government reacted to this by attacking the unprotected
people of the newly formed Nagorno-Karapagh Republic. Seeing that the
people of Nagorno-Karapagh needed assistance, the Republic of Armenia
(and Armenians from elsewhere, fearing a repetition of the 1915 events)
sent its forces to protect the neighbouring country’s land, and it did,
as you mentioned, also occupy land outside the NKR as a buffer zone.
Please note that even with its legitimacy, the NKR has not been
recognized by any country, including Armenia, so as not to cause
problems in the on-going conflict/negotiation process.
The United Nations did adopt resolutions regarding the conflict, and it
is of course regrettable whenever force must be used. However, just as
in the Second World War, sometimes evil is necessary for the protection
of the right of self-determination and to ensure future peace.
The best solution is that the NKR be recognized, all of the Azeri
refugees be returned to their homes, and all of the appropriate
conditions be provided for continual peace in the region. The NKR
has proven that it can govern itself, being more democratic than both
the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics.
It is of course clear to you now that the problem started and continues
to exist because of the stubbornness of the Azerbaijani government in
not wanting to recognize the NKR. The Armenian republic is prepared
to withdraw forces from Azerbaijan only when the latter recognizes
the NKR. Otherwise it is pointless, because the occupation was meant
to protect the weaker NKR, and it is still necessary as evidence by
Azerbaijan’s attacks after the ceasefire.
There is no doubt that there is injustice here, but its source and
solution depend on the Azerbaijani side committing to peace and
accepting that the NKR has a right to exist, so that the refugees
can at last return to their lands.
I am a descendent of victims of the Armenian genocide studying at
the University of Toronto. I appreciate your patience in reading my
opinion about the situation, and thank you for your interest in the
situation in Nagorno-Karapagh.
Zafin Menkechian Toronto
This letter also appears in
Sarnia Observer (Ontario) July 21, 2006 Friday Answer lies in
recognizing disputed region
Timmins Daily Press (Ontario) July 21, 2006 Friday Best solution is
for NKR to be recognized

Refusal to accept responsibility
The Toronto Star
July 21, 2006 Friday
A mother’s hope turns to anguish
July 20.
Lately, we have been inundated with stories about the Lebanese
evacuations, and in particular, complaints from evacuees. Your latest
story about Lara Tcholakian fit this pattern.
Tcholakian and her husband work for U.S.-based firms and live
year-round in Armenia. They went to Beirut to visit her husband’s
family at a time when the U.S. and Canada were warning its citizens
not to travel there. Suddenly, having put themselves in harm’s way,
Tcholakian discovers her Canadian roots and demands immediate service
from the Canadian government (not the Armenian government, nor the
U.S. government).
Her mother is blaming the government and Stephen Harper for her
daughter’s dilemma. It seems that if anything goes wrong with any
Canadian citizen, the government and, by extension, the Prime Minister
are responsible.
What has happened to our society, where we complain about and make
demands of our government whenever we get ourselves into trouble? We
have turned into a bunch of crybabies, refusing to take responsibility
for our own welfare.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga