PROFESSOR LEWY BLOWS SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS
By Anadolu News Agency
Zaman Online, Turkey
Aug 29 2005
The famous US Political Scientist Professor, Guenter Lewy, announced
that documents and interpretations related to the three main plots
forming the base of the so-called Armenian genocide allegations were
at least suspicious and the allegations never proved that Armenian
murders from the beginning of the last century were pre-planned.
Professor Lewy, who studies at the Massachusetts University, wrote in
his article titled “revisiting the Armenian Genocide” that has been
published in the fall edition of the Middle East Quarterly: “Most
of those who maintain that Armenian deaths were premeditated and so
constitute genocide base their argument on three pillars: the actions
of Turkish military courts of 1919-20, which convicted officials
of the Young Turk government of organizing massacres of Armenians,
the role of the so-called “Special Organization” accused of carrying
out the massacres, and the Memoirs of Naim Bey which contain alleged
telegrams of Interior Minister Talât Pasha conveying the orders for
the destruction of the Armenians.” Lewy emphasized that when examined
in detail, those allegations were far from proving genocide claims.
Initially, dealing with the military courts that were established
during the last Ottoman government when Istanbul was under English
occupation, Lewy accused Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Cemal Pasha,
who took over the country during World War I, for the deaths of
Armenians. Professor Lewy wrote that even the British High Commissar
Calthorpe wrote in a message sent to London that those courts,
like a rough comedy, harmed their prestige. The Famous political
scientist also referring to the memories of Naim Bey, recalled that
Dutch historian Erik Zurcher, proved that those documents that spread
across the world by an Armenian called Aram Andonyan were false.
–Boundary_(ID_v0ZukPxf8OW8HvrAdgjlkg)–

Silent Kurds Have Spoken at Last
ABDULHAMIT BILICI
Zaman, Turkey
Aug 29 2005
The controversy that started with Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]
Erdogan’s meeting with a group of intellectuals and his visit to
Diyarbakir, continues to heat up.
While some applaud Erdogan for taking the initiative on this difficult
issue in such difficult times, others maintain that Erdogan’s approach
legitimizes the terrorist PKK and its extensions. Last week, we tried
in this context to reflect the views of one of our citizens, who has
a very good education, who can speak more than one foreign languages
and menages his own business in Istanbul, on this controversy.
Last week, I had promised that we were going to continue to listen
his perspective on the possibility of a Kurdish state, developments
in Northern Iraq, Turkish-Kurdish relations throughout history
and solutions to the issue. Secondly, I had urged our “silent
Kurdish citizens” to speak out loudly, who because of their
silence, have abandoned the public sphere to the PKK and other
racist/Marxist/separatist elements. If they responded positively to
that call, I would allocate a space to their views here.
If we start with the latter, I could say this call prompted a huge
wave of reactions. I congratulate readers who courageously shared
their views in a manner that did not transgress moral bounds. The
letters from readers, who put forward their own ideas on the issue
have already been publicized in zaman.com.tr, in the section just
below the article. Those who follow Zaman online probably have already
read these letters. Here, I will just summarize the common points
in these letters. Furthermore, I have received some letters from our
international readers as well, since the English translation of the
article has also been published in “zaman.com”. Among these letters,
there are readers who are disturbed by the Turkish/Kurdish-Nazi/Jewish
analogy, as well as readers, who are exaggerating the differences
between the two kin communities, maintain there is no solution other
than separation. Some, such as the Belgian State Television, even want
to speak with the “silent Kurd,” whose views are being communicated
in the article.
The letters show that those who are infected by the racism disease
can hardly be cured and it is futile to expect any solution from such
people. A Kurd, whom I surmise is from Iraq, dismissed my emphasis
on common points between the two communities as follows: “We are
not brothers. What annoys me most in life is the Arabs and Turks
continuously saying they are brothers of the Kurds.” On the other
extremity of the array is a Turk overtaken by racism: “Our greatest
mistake has been to claim that Kurds and Turks are kin races, which
were descended from a common origin. Because this is not true and
the Kurds are one of the ugliest races ever.”
Coming to the sensible letters, a reader for instance wrote that
silence is a characteristic feature of the Anatolian people and it is
an attitude in itself. Another reader maintained that Kurds prefer
to remain silent because anyone who expresses his/her grievances is
regarded as a PKK supporter. A third called on “the silent Turks to
speak out on behalf of their Kurdish brothers so that they can obtain
the rights they deserve.”
Let’s stop here and listen to our hero whom I was talking to as a
representative of the silent Kurds:
I wouldn’t prefer Diyarbakir over Istanbul
“The separation idea has no foothold at the public level. Why
should businessman Halis Toprak, who is of Kurdish origin, favor
separation?” Such demands come mostly from those who have no position
in the society. Besides, I wouldn’t go and live in Diyarbakir if a
Kurdish state was established there. Someone who is used to live in
Istanbul would not like to go to Diyarbakir, even if he is of Kurdish
origin. His losses would be greater than his gains. Visa requirements
would make going to the East harder, and more importantly, those
who come from Diyarbakir to work in Istanbul would not be able to
do so anymore. Furthermore, if a Kurdish state were established, it
is the Kurdish grassroots that would suffer most. Because a tribal
conflict, greater than the one between [Massoud] Barzani and [Jalal]
Talabani, would ensue. I am afraid that if Kurds come to power it may
lead to oppression, cruelty and chaos, because only a few of them
have the level of knowledge and culture required to understand the
world. If such a development takes place, angry masses would pillage
Diyarbakir. Under PKK’s umbrella, militant boys and girls live together
on the mountains. This way of life is 100 percent opposite to the
Kurdish culture. If they take the power, people will oppose them and
then the Kurds will witness another kind of ideological imposition,
this time in the hands of their ethnic brothers.”
Definition of ‘Kurdish issue’
“Whatever it is called, this is an artificial issue. However,
some circles by over-emphasizing this point, compelled the current
government to use the expression, ‘the Kurdish problem’ as well. In
my opinion, there is no such issue. I think about my relatives. I am
also active in the committees of local folks. I don’t discern such a
demand among them. Hunger and unemployment are the issues the people
care more about. Erdogan has good intentions but he should rather
not take this artificial demand seriously. ”
A Kurdish state in Iraq?
“Northern Iraq is a closed desert with no opening to the sea. Now it
is supported by the United States. When the U.S. withdraws, they will
fall into the hands of either Russia or Israel. When I remind them
this possibility, they brazenly respond, “Nevermind, Turkey also is
on the lap of the United States.” Barzani and Talabani have no value
whatsoever in my eyes. They are types who do not understand what is
going on in the world. If Iraq preserved its integrity, it would be
more reasonable. But Saddam’s cruelty hindered this. Moreover, we do
not understand the Sorani dialect of the Kurdish spoken in Northern
Iraq. ”
‘Constitutional citizenship’ does not explain our ties
“Constitutional citizenship is not enough to explain the ties
between us. I can not imagine of a Kurd and a Turk separately. Their
religion, families, names, culture and history are same. Kurds came
to Anatolia from Central Asia and brought with them many Turkish names
as well. The names of our districts, our villages, which are populated
by Kurds, authenticate this fact. When I express this fact, I am told
by politically affiliated Kurds that I have been assimilated. When I
hit back saying, this has no relevance whatsoever with that, challenge
them, ‘let’s see who knows Kurdish better’, they remain silent. The
only difference between us is the language. Could there be a Kurdish
history devoid of Fatih, Yavuz and Salahaddin Ayyubi. There are as
many Kurds in Turkey who name their children ‘Fatih’ as those who
vote on the PKK line in elections. ”
Why do silent Kurds remain silent?
“First of all, those who are better-off have no such problems. For
instance, why should Halis Toprak or Ibrahim Tatlýses speak out?
Secondly, the media does not give room to reasonable, moderate
people. Generally, the same political figures speak. Thirdly, the
menace faced by the discordant statements may as well be effective.
Is it possible for a person living in Diyarbakir to express his/her
views without fear? The base of the separatist line is one percent
but they are organized at national and international level and they
are armed, consequently effective. In my opinion, politics based on
ethnicity is nothing other than a vile strife.
Suggestions for solution
“Above all, hunger and unemployment should be eradicated. On the
ideological level, the solution lies on the Ottoman model. As a matter
of fact, that model bears on the self-conscious Islamic culture. During
The Ottoman time, there had been no such problems, not just with the
Kurds but with Christians and Armenians. In this formula, everyone
was free to live according to his/her culture and belief. Turkish
and Kurdish cultures have the same origin. But the Islamic culture of
the Kurds is a localized and slightly radicalized version of it. The
emphasis on feminine virtue is upfront. The Easterner does not send
his/her daughter to school because of this reason. Significantly,
the PKK also wants Kurds to distance themselves from religion. I
was watching Roj TV. Responding to a question from the audience,
they openly said that they were against religious programs. Anyway,
if PKK had had religious references they already would have realized
their objectives.”
That’s how the silent Kurd thinks. We will see if the silent ones or
the brawlers determine the future of the issue?
–Boundary_(ID_Xb1OtJCqDJXE7Qde5G/r4A)–

AN ADDITION TO ‘LEGAL BACKGROUND’
TDN
Monday, August 29, 2005
Opinion by Gunduz AKTAN
Gunduz AKTAN
In my article published on Aug. 23, I sought to explain the legal
background in the struggle against Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
terrorism. In this article I will focus on the fact that the Kurds
have already exercised their right to self-determination.
A group of people can exercise the right to self-determination only
once in history. Once this right is exercised, however, resorting to it
again and in a different manner is out of the question. The use of the
right to to self-determination generally requires the dismemberment
of countries and the emergence of new states as a result of long
and bloody wars. Exercising this right could so profoundly upset
international relations, regional peace, stability and security that
its repetition is not permissible. The only exception is persecution
bordering on genocide perpetrated on a group in a country where the
right to self-determination has been exercised.
I submit that the Kurds have exercised their right
to self-determination together with all people in Anatolia and
Thrace. There are two important documents on this issue. The first
is a declaration issued at the end of the Erzurum Congress (Aug. 7,
1919), forming the backbone of the Misak-ı Milli (National Pact).
The first article of this declaration states that “Trabzon
province, Samsun sanjak [a sub-province under Ottoman system] and
Erzurum, Sivas, Diyarbekir [the name of Diyarbakır in Ottoman times],
Elazıg, Van and Bitlis, which are known as the ‘Six Provinces,’
cannot separate from each other or secede from Ottoman territory for
any reason.” This article was aimed at preventing the creation of an
“Armenian homeland” in this region. But the document’s stipulation
that the region would not secede for any reason from the Ottoman
territory that is the Turkey of today is still valid.
Article 6 states that “We reject the concept of separating
individuals or human beings and dividing the land in regions that are
within the borders defined [by the Oct. 30, 1918 Mondros cease-fire
document], i.e., in Eastern Anatolia and at other areas inhabited by
the majority Muslim people.” Thus integrity of eastern Anatolia and
other regions was evaluated within the framework of the togetherness
of individuals or human beings rather than on the basis of the ethnic
or religious groups living in those areas.
Article 7 defines as “nationalism” the principle expressed
in Article 6, that is, not separating individuals or human beings
on the one hand and the land on the other. Therefore, what is being
defended was not a concept of nationalism based on two separate
nations but one on the basis of uniting individuals.
Article 8, after making a direct reference to the right to
self-determination, states that “our central government must
be subordinate to the national will” and that for that reason
“the national assembly must convene without delay.” Here, in its
most contemporary meaning, the right to self-determination would
be exercised through a national will that would be achieved at the
national assembly. Thus, including the Kurds, everyone who participated
in the deliberations of the assembly have become partners in the
exercise of that right.
In Article 9, while it was being said that the “Å~^arki Anadolu
Mudafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti” (Eastern Anatolia Association for the
Defense of Rights) is a union of people born out of the sufferings
and calamities endured by our country,” once again an emphasis on
the individual was made with the expression that “all Muslim citizens
are natural members of this community.”
Article 1 of the Misak-ı Milli (National Pact) adopted on Feb. 17,
1920 by the last Ottoman assembly in Istanbul has great importance for
our subject. Here it was pointed out that the Ottoman Muslim majority
living within the borders drawn up by the cease-fire form a unity
“religiously, racially and of origin.” Therefore, it underlined that
“All the regions [populated by these people] are an inseparable
whole that cannot be divided by force, de facto or de jure, for
whatever reason
The Turkish War of Liberation was waged and won on the basis of
these documents.
There is no reference in the two aforementioned documents that the
exercise of the right to self-determination was a bi-national one or
that it was realized by the regions and groups coming together.
There was an emphasis on the inseparability of the geography within
the borders drawn up by the cease-fire and the “individuals or
citizens” living in it, while territorial integrity is emphasized in
that context.
Nationalism was described as the inseparability of the individuals
or citizens and the integrity of the land.
The nation was made up of a Muslim majority that constitutes a
unity “religiously, racially and of origin.”
The right to self-determination was exercised through the national
will that manifested itself in the national assembly.
I don’t know whether in history there has ever been as clear a
description of nation and homeland that are still valid today and an
exercise of the right to self-determination as advanced and elaborate
as this.
–Boundary_(ID_fmklg/Bb8Tl53TG3L5HfOw)–

RUSSIAN TV LOOKS AHEAD AT JOINT CIS AIR DEFENCE EXERCISE
Channel One TV, Moscow
29 Aug 05
[Presenter] Over 2,000 Russian, Armenian, Belarusian and Tajik
servicemen are taking part in a large-scale military exercise of
the CIS combined air defence system, Combat Commonwealth-2005, in
Astrakhan Region. Yevgeniy Maslov reports.
[Correspondent] Fighters, bombers and anti-aircraft missile systems –
Combat Commonwealth-2005 is an exercise so complex and difficult that
it can be carried out only in several stages. The scene of action,
the Ashuluk range in Astrakhan Region, is difficult to compare to
anything. It is spread over 120 km – almost like a small region. Air
defence units from Armenia, Russia, Belarus and Tajikistan are to
operate in a single system.
[Aytech Bizhev, captioned as Russian Air Force deputy commander in
charge of CIS combined air defence system] This time the whole group
[of forces taking part in the exercise] will be operated from a
single command headquarters, which complies with the concept that
was formulated in theory and approved by all CIS member countries.
[Correspondent] Under the scenario of the exercise the air defence
units will disrupt an airlift of terrorists and eliminate their bases
in Armenia and on the Russian Caspian Sea coast. The targets are
to be hit by guided missiles. Cooperation and integrity of the CIS
combined air defence system will be assessed by the Russian defence
minister in person.
[Video shows anti-aircraft missiles, field-deployed radars, control
room and troops taking part in the exercise; c/r 0253 – 0412]

RUSSIA SEES EXCLUSION FROM PIPELINE EXERCISES IN GEORGIA AS SNUB – PAPER
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow
23 Aug 05
Moscow views its exclusion from military exercises in Georgia as an
unfriendly move by Tbilisi, the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta
has said. The paper also noted that the exercises, held to improve
measures to protect the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, were attended
by forces from Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, but not Armenia. The
following is an excerpt from a report published by Nezavisimaya Gazeta
on 23 August:
The Georgian leadership has demonstrated yet again and in a very
forthright way that it is not much bothered about the interests of its
neighbours in the South Caucasus. This was made obvious for Russia and
its only military ally in this region, Armenia, by the Eternity-2005
staff-command exercises to protect the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
[BTC] that are taking place this week at the Georgian Ministry of
Defence’s national Military Base in Tbilisi. It is worth noting
that this demarche took place immediately after the two-day meeting
between presidents Mikheil Saakashvili and Robert Kocharyan at Sevan,
which analysts regarded primarily as a demonstration of a clear
rapprochement between Yerevan and Tbilisi. However, all things
considered, in reality it was somewhat different. Account is being
taken in Georgia of Kocharyan, but only within definite limits.
As far as concerns the Tbilisi exercises, which are to last until
the end of the week, 52 officers from the armed forces of Georgia,
Azerbaijan and Turkey have been invited to attend. Turkey is financing
the exercises. [Passage omitted[
Taking everything into consideration, nobody in Tbilisi sees any
special problem in the fact that there are no Russian or Armenian
representatives among those invited. Let us say that the Georgian
Defence Ministry is stressing how these exercises are basically
“theoretical”. “Officers from the three countries are attending a
special course of lectures and working out their actions via computer
programmes, nothing more,” the head of the Press and Public Relations
Department of the Georgian Defence Ministry, Nana Intskirveli, told
Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
However, in Moscow the very fact that these exercises were not open
to Russian representatives is being viewed as yet another unfriendly
move by the Georgian leadership. As we were told by the deputy
director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ International Security
Problems Institute, Aleksey Bogaturov, “everything is logical here”.
“Generally speaking, I do not know a single expert or analyst,
who would have hopes that the Georgian leadership would invite the
Russian side to an event of this kind. Tbilisi’s actions are completely
in line with the stance taken by President Mikheil Saakashvili. If
the Georgian side is following a curtailment of military relations
with Russia, and has forced the removal of Russian bases from its
territory, then there is no sense for Saakashvili to invite Russia
to any joint actions and even let Moscow know about its plans. The
Georgian president’s logic is completely different: namely he wishes
to show that the political activity by Georgia as well as all the
Caucasian states is completely possible and viable (in both political
and purely military relations) without Russia’s participation. Time
and again Saakashvili is attempting to form some illusory anti-Russian
‘opposition front’. In this case he does not fully understand whom he
should oppose and what the prospects for such a front are. He simply
has a great wish to be a member of something, and even something more,
namely to be the initiator of a new coalition”, Aleksey Bogaturov
told us.
In Azerbaijan the authorities have preferred not to take any notice
of the Georgian demarche; after all the problem of the security of
the BTC pipeline is somewhat more important. As far as possible
threats to the 3bn-dollar project are concerned, Azerbaijan sees
two of them at least. Firstly there is the problem of potential
sabotage along the course of the pipeline from various terrorist
organizations. Secondly relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia have
not been regularized. [Passage omitted]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIAN FORCES THWART CHECHEN REBELS’ PLANS FOR SUMMER 2005 – SENIOR COMMANDER
RIA news agency, Moscow 29 Aug 05
Interfax news agency 29 Aug 05
The Russian Internal Troops have helped to prevent large-scale actions
of sabotage planned by Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev for the
summer of 2005, Russian RIA news agency quoted the troops’ commander
Col-Gen Nikolay Rogozhkin as saying on 29 August at a news conference
in Moscow marking Day of Spetsnaz (commando and reconnaissance troops).
Situation in the North Caucasus
“This summer has seen many high-profile incidents in the North Caucasus
region. But thanks to measures taken [by the Russian Internal Troops]
between mid-June and mid-August in order to prevent bandit Basayev’s
slogan of ‘a summer of fire’ from coming true, large-scale actions
by militants have been disrupted. Unfortunately, we have not been
able to prevent some local actions, but in the wake of them a lot of
gunmen were killed or captured,” Rogozhkin said.
He added that although the situation in the North Caucasus remained
difficult, it was under control of the law enforcement agencies. A
later RIA report quoted Rogozhkin as saying that the Internal Troops
were ready to ensure security at the Chechen parliamentary election
scheduled for November. “At the moment main tasks in Chechnya are
resolved by the Russian Interior Ministry’s Internal Troops,” he
said, adding that this work was conducted in full cooperation with
the Chechen Interior Ministry.
The Internal Troops’ special-purpose units have lost about 30
servicemen in Chechnya and Dagestan since the beginning of 2005,
Rogozhkin said. He added that the total number of the Internal Troops’
special-purpose units stood at about 10,000. “This number is enough for
the servicemen to perform their tasks quite successfully,” he added.
Plans for the future
Speaking about the troops’ plans, Rogozhkin said that special units
for carrying out operations in the mountains would be set up. “We have
for a long time been preparing for resolving the matter of creating
units capable of carrying out operations in mountainous areas,”
Rogozhkin said.
The mountain units will be stationed with the 49th Internal Troops
Brigade in Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia, the 46th Internal Troops
Brigade in Chechnya, the 102nd Brigade stationed in the North Caucasus
as well as in the town of Nalchik in Ingushetia, Interfax news agency
quoted Rogozhkin as saying.
In addition, a special centre was being set up near the town of Labinsk
in Krasnodar Territory to train servicemen to operate in the mountains,
Rogozhkin said.
In September an international antiterrorist exercise will be held at
the Internal Troops’ training centre (in Smolensk), Rogozhkin went
on to add. “The main purpose of the exercise is the fight against
terrorism. This event will be attended by special-purpose units from
Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan,” he said.

JUBILEE SUMMITS AND RUSSIAN PRAGMATISM
RIA Novosti, Russia
Aug 29 2005
MOSCOW, (Alexei Makarkin for RIA Novosti). — The Kazan summits of
the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
and the Common Economic Space (CES) passed much as predicted.
Everyone was keen to avoid squabbles that could have ruined the
simultaneous celebration of the 1000th anniversary of Kazan.
The leaders of the former Soviet republics were reserved and
diplomatic; they tried to focus on the issues that unite, rather than
the problems that divide.
The only exception was the announcement by Turkmenistan that it had
decided to change its status from full member to associated member.
However, this was not unexpected, as Turkmenistan had always kept a
distance between itself and the other CIS countries.
Of course, the external appearance of goodwill could not hide
the substantial differences between the CIS countries due to the
existence of two competing centers of influence: the Russian center of
influence (with organizations such as the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, the Eurasian Economic Cooperation organization, the CES,
and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, in which Russia and China
play the leading roles) and the pro-Western Ukrainian-Georgian center
(which is setting up the Democratic Choice Commonwealth).
It was clear even before the summit that Russia wanted to consolidate
relations with genuine allies and at the same time to develop pragmatic
economic relations, in compliance with the norms of international
law, with those states that have chosen “the European path.” The
Russian policy was that economic privileges would only be granted to
those states that were prepared to act consistently as its political
partners.
This heralds the end of the “nostalgic inertia” period of the CIS,
when Russia saw all the former Soviet republics as historical allies
who would remain within the sphere of Russian influence. It was as a
result of this assumption that the ruling elites of some CIS countries
believed it expedient to adopt the following strategy: they would take
full advantage of the privileged economic partnership with Russia while
at the same time maintaining their pro-Western geopolitical stand (in
the hope that they would eventually be admitted to the European Union).
An analogy can be drawn with the well-known joke in the 1970s about a
German who wanted to draw a wage in West Germany but use the social
benefits offered by East Germany. It is evident that this kind of
approach cannot work in the long run, and so the CIS member states
and their leaders now have to make a choice.
It seems that Ukraine has already made its choice. At the Kazan
summit, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus agreed to sign 29 documents
on the creation of the Common Economic Space by December 1, 2005 and
another 15 documents by March 1, 2006. Ukraine will not take part
in the process and has announced that it is not prepared to create
supranational bodies within the CES.
Some time ago, Ukrainian Economic Minister Sergey Teryokhin, who is
responsible for the CES talks, said that his country might withdraw
from the project. His statement was later refuted, but it is now
clear that the minister was simply anticipating events.
Although some experts are saying that this spells the death of the
CIS, it is too early to draw such a conclusion. There is clearly still
scope to use the CIS as a forum for dialogue between the leaders and
ruling elites of the former Soviet republics. Where else could the
leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan meet regularly? Where else could
the presidents of Russia and Georgia calmly discuss problems without
prior coordination of positions? In Kazan, Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili discussed questions
pertaining to the withdrawal of Russian bases from Georgia.
At present, only the CIS offers such a forum. There is currently no
alternative to this mechanism and one is hardly likely to be created
in the foreseeable future.
This does not mean, however, that there is no need to modernize the
executive agencies of the CIS, which have remained unchanged since
they were created in the 1990s. It was precisely on this issue that
the discussions in Kazan centered.
The CIS will live on, though the rules of the game will become stricter
and more realistic and pragmatic. At the same time, the competition
between the former Soviet republics will become fiercer. The next
battleground will be Belarus. The Belarusian presidential election is
scheduled for next year and the opposition would like to mark the event
with a “color revolution” (with overt assistance from the West, whose
criticism of Alexander Lukashenko is becoming increasingly harsh).
Meanwhile, pro-Russian forces in Ukraine want to get their revenge
at the upcoming parliamentary elections for the defeat they suffered
in last year’s presidential campaign. The parliamentary elections are
particularly significant in the light of current Ukrainian political
reforms that are expanding the powers of the legislative branch.
Looks like in the next few months and years, both the Russian and the
pro-Western centers of influence will be competing for dominance in
the post-Soviet space.
Alexei Makarkin is deputy general director of the Center for Political
Technologies.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and
may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.

GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE?
A1+
| 13:46:58 | 29-08-2005 | Social |
“ArmenTel” intends to change several norms as a result of which the
service of the company will become more expensive. Hasmik Chutilyan,
the representative of the company, did not confirm, neither refute
the information about the possible raising of costs of the telephone
service of ArmenTel.
According to the press speaker of ArmenTel, the change of the norms
is conditioned by the demands of the contract according to which on
the first Monday of every September ArmenTel represents an offer of
future activity to the Government.
By now, according to the speaker, the director board works on the
processing of the draft offer. “It is not clear whether the offer to
raise costs will be included in it or not”, said Hasmik Chutilyan.

CHARLES AZNAVOUR IN SAMARKAND TO ATTEND MUSIC FESTIVAL
Armenpress
Aug 29, 2005
SAMARKAND, AUGUST 29, ARMENPRESS: Acclaimed French singer of Armenian
origin, Charles Aznavour, has arrived in Samarkand in the former
Soviet republic of Uzbekistan, to attend Eastern Melodies international
music festival.
He was welcomed by Uzbekistan’s president Islam Karimov. Aznavour
traveled today from Samarkand to Bukhara to see its famous
architectural monuments and came back the same day. He was quoted
by Aida Ibrahimova from the festival steering commission as saying
that he had realized his youth dream when at the age of 12 he had
read a book called Let Us Go to Samarkand. The festival has brought
musicians from 50 countries.

PRESS RELEASE
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address: Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact: Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel: (374 10) 517 163
Fax: (374 10) 517 301
E-Mail: [email protected]
August 29, 2005
His Holiness Karekin II Receives Canadian Bishops
On August 26, His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos
of All Armenians, received the delegation of Canadian Church leaders
visiting Armenia on the occasion of the 1600th Anniversary of the
Creation of the Armenian Alphabet. They were accompanied by His Grace
Bishop Yeznik Petrosian, Director of the Department of Inter-Church
Relations, and His Grace Bishop Bagrat Galstanian, Primate of the
Armenian Diocese of Canada.
His Holiness welcomed the guests to the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin
and introduced the high-ranking leaders of the prominent Churches in
Canada to the history and mission of the Armenian Church. The Pontiff
of All Armenians stated, “Your presence here, in the spiritual center
of all Armenians, strengthens and assists our Church on the path of
achieving our sacred mission. Your unprecedented visit to Armenia
is the living testimony of the warm and close relations that exist
between our sister Churches, not only on the level of spiritual leaders
and heads of churches, but also within and throughout our diocesan
and parochial structures. Your visit is also a wonderful expression
of the positive ties between Armenia and Canada that have developed
since our independence nearly fifteen years ago. It is joyful for
us that the fraternal solidarity, cooperation and Christian love
are prevalent throughout all of our diasporan communities, wherever
Armenians have settled and created.” The Catholicos further presented
the guests with a brief overview of the social, educational and
spiritual work being done by the Church in various spheres of life,
and expressed his appreciation to Bishop Bagrat for his devoted and
fruitful service to the Church and his faithful flock.
Additionally, the Catholicos of All Armenians spoke of the recognition
and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide by the Canadian parliament
in 2004, and expressed his high appreciation to the Church leaders
for their support and solidarity in the political process, as well
as for their personal participation and prayers offered during the
90th Anniversary Commemoration events in Canada earlier this year.
His Eminence Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, Primate of the Anglican
Church of Canada; His Eminence Archbishop Sotirios, Greek Orthodox
Metropolitan of Canada; His Excellency Archbishop Brendan O’Brien,
President for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and
Prof. Dr. Richard Schneider, President of the Canadian Council of
Churches each in turn thanked His Holiness for the invitation to visit
Armenia on a pilgrimage and for the warm reception and hospitality they
have been receiving. In the course of the meeting, the participants
also spoke of the challenges facing the Christian Churches in the
21st century and discussed possible spheres of further cooperation
and unification of efforts in the future.
Very Rev. Fr. Sasoon Zumrookhdian, Vicar of the Diocese of Gougark,
also attended the meeting.
In the afternoon, following their meeting with His Holiness, the
Canadian Church leaders visited the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial to the
Armenian Genocide in Yerevan, where they laid a wreath dedicated to
the solemn memory of the 1.5 million victims of the first genocide
of the 20th century.
##