OSCE PA report to be presented to conflicting sides in April

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 25 2005

Baku, March 24, AssA-Irada

The report prepared by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA) rapporteur
on Upper Garabagh conflict Goran Lennmarker will be presented to
the conflicting sides late in April, the member of the Azerbaijani
delegation at the Assembly, MP Eldar Ibrahimov said. Ibrahimov also
said that the Azerbaijani side forwarded a copy of the resolution on
the Upper Garabagh conflict adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe (PACE) to Lennmarker during the March
17-18 meeting of Azerbaijani and Armenian parliamentarians held on
the initiative of the rapporteur. Lennmarker is scheduled to hold
another meeting with Azerbaijani and Armenian parliament members
after the sides get familiar with his report.*
From: Baghdasarian

Turkish parliament seeks to end Armenians’ ‘genocide’ claims

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 25 2005

Baku, March 24, AssA-Irada

The Turkish parliament has invited leaders of the Armenian Diaspora
in this country to hold discussions, in an effort to put an end to
the false ‘genocide’ claims of Armenians.

Armenian representatives Etien Makhchupian and Grant Dinkin will
participate in the discussions to be held on April 5.

Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanian said “Official Ankara
intends to postpone the activities dedicated to the 90th anniversary
of the genocide of Armenians”.

Calling on Turkey to recognize the so-called ‘genocide’, Oskanian
said that the steps that Turkey plans to take to adjourn these events
will deal a serious blow on Turkey. He noted, however, that official
Yerevan is ready for a political dialogue with Turkey.*

Turkish Daily News
March 25 2005

Decision on expanded US access to Ýncirlik soon
Friday, March 25, 2005

ANKARA – Turkish Daily News

The government is close to making its decision on a Washington
proposal to use the southern air base of Ýncirlik as a cargo hub for
U.S. forces operating in the region, said a deputy from the ruling
Justice and Development Party (AKP).

“A decision on the issue will be made very soon. I cannot tell you
when exactly since I am not in the government but it will be very
soon,” Murat Mercan, AKP’s deputy chairman told a meeting in
Washington, called, “Can the U.S.-Turkish Relationship be Repaired?”

Other attendees of the event, hosted by the American Enterprise
Institute, were influential “neo-con” intellectuals: Former Deputy
Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, Robert Pollock, who wrote the
Wall Street Journal op-ed painting Turkey as rapidly turning into a
hotbed of vicious anti-American attitudes, and Michael Rubin, who
recently questioned AKP’s links to Islamic capital.

The proposal to use Ýncirlik, located in the southern city of
Adana, as a cargo hub for U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq has
been on the table for several months. U.S. Undersecretary of Defense
for Policy Douglas Feith said during a visit to Ankara in February
that Washington was discussing the issue with Turkey with a view to
finding an agreement.

Repairing relationship:

Turkish officials have avoided commenting on the U.S. proposal
publicly but the government, eager to mend strained ties with
Washington, is widely expected to respond favorably.

Private NTV television said the government might officially reply
to Washington over the Ýncirlik proposal in the coming weeks, before
the 90th anniversary of an alleged Armenian genocide at the hands of
the late Ottoman Empire arrives on April 24.

A powerful Armenian lobby in the U.S. Congress is expected to push
for a resolution recognizing the alleged genocide as part of an
anniversary campaign. U.S. administrations have opposed such attempts
in Congress in the past but observers say this year the George W.
Bush administration may not be as willing to prevent such a move as
it was in the past, given the growing mistrust of the Turkish
government.

A positive response to the U.S. proposal for Ýncirlik would be part
of a charm campaign that the Turkish government is apparently
planning to undertake to put ties with the United States back on
track, deteriorating over Turkish criticism of U.S. policies in Iraq
and U.S. concerns over rising anti-Americanism in Turkey.

Erdoðan is planning to visit the United States in late May to
attend the graduation ceremony of his daughter and is hoping to meet
with President George W. Bush during his stay. The prime minister is
also expected to visit Israel.

Mercan said in his American Enterprise Institute speech that
Turkish-U.S. ties were not as bad as depicted in both countries
media, as both sides had the will to improve the relationship.

“We should focus on the big picture,” he said and warned against
paying too much attention to radical and extremist comments seen in
the media comments of both countries.

–Boundary_(ID_gusgSY9HaJGocqH10JATmA)–

Putin-Kocharyan meeting begins in Yerevan

ITAR-TASS, Russia
March 25 2005

YEREVAN, March 25 (Itar-Tass) — A meeting of Russian President
Vladimir Putin and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan has just begun
here. It is taking place in a presidential palace in Yerevan, which,
according to the law, is an official working residence of Armenian
presidents.

Kocharyan welcomed the honoured guest on the threshold of the palace.
The two presidents went to the Golden Hall, where meetings with
foreign statesmen visiting Armenia and with foreign ambassadors after
the presentation of credentials are usually held.

The three-storeyed palace was built in 1958 on the design of Mark
Grigoryan, merited architect of Armenia and winner of the National
Prizes of the USSR and Armenia (1900-1978). The palace housed the
Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the republic up to 1991. Late in
the 80s the palace was rebuilt, and its floor space was increased.

After the property of the Communist Party was nationalised in 1990,
the parliament moved to the palace of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Armenia, situated in front of the palace designed
by Grigoryan. The Grigoryan palace was given to Armenian presidents
as their residence. The post of president was instituted in Armenia
in May 1990, and the first presidential elections were held in October
1991. By that time a metal fence was built around the palace.

The palace, built in the style of classicism, with elements of
traditional Armenian architecture, is not quite suitable for the work
of the presidential staff, which is not numerous. There are many
official premises there. A press conference of Putin and Kocharyan
will be held in one of the halls of the palace on Friday afternoon.

A special ground for official welcoming ceremonies with the
participation of the guard of honour was created in the yard of
the palace.

Providence Journal , RI
March 25 2005

Exhibit focuces on Armenian genocide

PROVIDENCE — An exhibit of prints dealing with the Armenian genocide
will be on display next month at the Mathewson Street United
Methodist Church.

The exhibit, “Man’s Inhumanity to Man: The Armenian Genocide — If I
Start to Cry, I Think I Will Cry Forever” is by John Avakian.

Avakian said the exhibit “represents an extraordinary journey into
darkness and suffering to reclaim my past, and honor my loving
parents who suffered so much,” according to the church.

There will be a program relating to the exhibit during Gallery Night
April 21. David S. Thomas, a professor of history at Rhode Island
College, will discuss “The Turkish-Armenian Conflict from World War I
to Present” at 6:30 p.m. The program, financed by the Rhode Island
Council for the Humanities, is free and open to the public.

The church said there will be time after the presentation for a
discussion with Avakian and Thomas. That will be moderated by P.
William Hutchinson, professor emeritus of theater at Rhode Island
College and chairman of the Committee for Ministries to the City and
Arts at the church.

For more information, call the church at (401) 331-8900 or (401)
232-3961.

Journal of Turkish Daily
March 25 2005

After Kyrgyzstan: Is Next Stage Armenia or Belarus?

Davut SAHINER (JTW) After Georgia and Ukraine, ‘silk revolution’ hit
Kyrgyzstan. President Askar Akayev has fled the country, and
opposition MP Ishenbai Kadyrbekov was named acting president, hours
after demonstrators overran the presidential palace in the capital,
Bishkek.

Gangs of looters roamed through the city overnight, ransacking shops
and setting fire to buildings. At least three people are reported to
have died during the unrest. However it is understood that Kyrgyzstan
has faced a popular movement.

The US named the ‘revolution’ democratic, while Russia and the
neighboring Central Asia states are worried.

For many IR experts Kyrgyzstan is the latest stage of ‘the
democratization process’ triggered by the United States in the
‘greater Middle East and Eastern Europe, from Ukraine to China
borders. Nese Mesudoglu from Sabah, Turkish daily paper, argues that
the US uses George Soros and his foundations-societies in order to
undermine the existing ‘un-democratic’ governments. “Silk revolutions
follow Soros. When Soros goes a country, a revolution or unrest visit
that country” Sabah says. Not surprisingly the Bishkek Soros
Foundation was there before the ‘revolution’ and it is a well-known
fact that the foundation was making great assistance to the
opposition groups under the name of ‘education and democratization’.
The budget of the Bishkek Soros Foundation is about 4 million
dollars. Soros had made financial assistance to the Serbian,
Ukrainian and Georgian oppositions.

Soros has foundations and societies in 30 countries. It is claimed
that he supported opposition in Malaysia and Venezuela as well.

Withdrawal of the Russian Empire

It can be argued that the US continues to implement the ‘Greater
Middle East Initiative’. The Initiative has two columns: Military
Operations and Democratization Operations. In the second column, the
US encourages the opposing groups and minorities to overturn the
existing ‘dictatorial administrations’ or ‘anti-American powers’. In
almost all countries experienced silk revolutions the power was
belong to the anti-American groups, and all these governments had
good relations with Russia. Kyrgyzstan is a peculiar case, because
the Kyrgyzstan case can be considered as message not only to the
Russians but also to the Chinese. The country is at the crossroads of
Russia, China, India-Pakistan and the Turkic-Islamic World. Possibly,
it is the greatest gain for the US ‘Greater Middle Eastern Project’.
Kyrgyzstan is a perfect ‘base’ to control Russian and Chinese
politics in the region and to watch drug trafficking.

Next Target: Belarus or Armenia?

Kyrgyzstan is the latest example for the silk revolutions but not the
last one. Many expects that the revolution wave will continue.
Belarus is one of the possible candidates, but Armenia is the easiest
one. President Robert Kocherian, Karabakh veteran, dominates the
Armenian politics. He has very close relations with Russia and keeps
the opposition under pressure.
As Emil Danielyan pointed out “the ruling regime has heavily relied
on the oligarchs to manipulate elections and bully its political
opponents, making it doubtful that any serious action will be taken
to rein them in. They are able to bribe and intimidate local voters
and resort to other election falsification techniques. Ballot box
stuffing was commonplace during the 2003 presidential election, which
Western observers described as undemocratic.” (Jamestown). The
overwhelming majority of the Armenian population thinks that Armenian
political system is not democratic and there is no hope for the
future. The opposition started a huge campaign last year but
Kocherian with his armed supporters from Karabakh severely suppressed
the civil movement. Many were prisoned and tortured including very
young and women. There are Russian military bases in Armenia and
Kocherian Government is seen as the ‘only Russian ally’ in the
Caucasus. Armenia also has good relations with Iran. The FBI
investigates Armenian-Iranian connections in weapon trade and
terrorism. There are a pro-Western governments in Azerbaijan and
Georgia.

JTW, 25 March 2005

Turkey enlists US scholar to fight genocide claims
By Gareth Jones

Reuters
03/24/05 17:42 ET

ANKARA, March 24 (Reuters) – Turkey enlisted the help of a U.S.
historian on Thursday as part of its campaign to counter damaging,
decades-old claims that Armenians suffered genocide at Ottoman Turkish
hands during and after World War One.

Turkey is worried that the 90th anniversary of the alleged genocide
on April 24 will trigger a fresh outpouring of sympathy for the
Armenians which could harm its image and even derail the planned
start of European Union entry talks in October.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan went on the offensive earlier this month,
calling for an impartial study of the genocide claims and declaring
Turkey’s archives open to all scholars.

Invited to address the Ankara parliament on Thursday, Justin McCarthy,
an expert on the Ottoman period, argued that a complex historical
tragedy had been manipulated for ideological reasons, becoming a
vehicle for anti-Muslim, anti-Turkish prejudice.

“The Armenian question has from the start been a political
campaign… Yes, many Armenians were killed by Turks at this time and
many Turks were killed by Armenians, but this was war, not genocide,”
McCarthy said.

“Many politicians use the Armenian genocide not so much because
they believe it but because they see it as a means to prevent Turkey
joining the European Union,” said McCarthy.

Armenia says 1.5 million of its people died between 1915 and 1923
on Ottoman territory in a systematic genocide and says the decision
to carry it out was taken by the political party then in power in
Istanbul, popularly known as the Young Turks.

Turkey denies genocide, saying the Armenians were victims of a
partisan war during World War One which claimed even more Turkish
Muslim lives. Turkey accuses Armenians of carrying out massacres
while siding with invading Russian troops.

TRANSLATIONS

McCarthy urged Turkey to fund translations from Turkish into English
and other European languages of historical records and books providing
documentary evidence that there was no genocide.

Foreign diplomats said Turkey’s support for an impartial study of
the genocide issue, possibly under the aegis of the United Nations,
was a positive development.

But they said inviting an opponent of the genocide claims to address
lawmakers who largely shared his views would merely reconfirm, not
challenge, people’s firmly held views.

It would have been more fruitful to invite people of differing opinions
on the subject to the parliament, said one.

“They are still very timid,” the diplomat said.

Armenia, a tiny ex-Soviet republic which has no diplomatic relations
with Turkey, has rejected Erdogan’s proposal for an impartial
investigation, saying scholars had already established the genocide
as indisputable fact.

The European Parliament and several national assemblies from France to
Canada have also backed the claims in recent years, passing resolutions
urging Turkey to accept its past misdeeds.

Some EU politicians, notably in France, home to Europe’s largest
community in the Armenian diaspora, say Turkey must accept the genocide
claims before it can start talks to join the wealthy bloc.

DENIAL OF ARMENOCIDE POLICY AND MYTH OF REBELLION

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
25 March 05

Eighty-five years ago the town of Shushi was set to fire and ruined.
In several hours the values of world importance created throughout
centuries turned into piles of ash, and the people who had created them
fell victims to cruel manslaughter. This tragic event must be viewed
in the context of the Turkish policy of genocide of the Armenians in
East Armenia, Transcaucasia after the extermination of a major part
of the West Armenians and their displacement from their historical
cradle – West Armenia. The evaluation of the tragedy of Shushi given by
historians is not absolute and satisfactory. What is more, Shushi has
not become subject of a thorough study; no serious attempts were made
to discover the causes of the tragedy. There were only accusations
and swearing on both sides. In parallel with the tragic events the
Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) put forth the false version
of the riot of the Armenians trying to present the crime committed by
themselves as the consequence of the riot of the Armenians. Whereas,
we deal with a policy of genocide worked out by Turkey and implemented
by the government of the DRA, as well as with a recurrent attempt
of denying it. In the resolutions passed at the general meeting of
the political party Musavat on March 30, 1920 and the parliament
of Azerbaijan on April 1, 1920 the Armenians and the government of
Armenia were brazenly accused of the events in Shushi. Casting all
the blame on a group of “insurgents” Azerbaijan did not forget to
threaten that everything would be much worse if the Armenians of
Karabakh did not become sensible and obedient. Our compatriot Leo,
paying homage to the tendency of praising the new Bolshevist power,
as well as the false pivotal idea of equality it put forth that both
the Musavatists and Dashnaks were to blame for the tragedy in Shushi,
almost repeats the groundless accusations of Bolshevists inherited
from the Musavatists (see Leo, “From the Past”, Tiflis, 1925, p. 437
~@” 438). Listing the aggressive actions of the enemy and exposing the
inevitability of a crucial collision, A. Mikaelian tried to prove that
there had been enough potential for resistance and providing security
of the population, however, the chance was not used (Arsen Mikaelian,
“The Latest Events in Karabakh”, Hayrenik Journal, Boston, 1923,
p. 118, p. 121). In fact, it would take too much space to present
all the opinions but the above-mentioned two are quite typical and
vivid. It should be mentioned that the viewpoints, contradicting
information we come across in various documents cause confusion
and make it almost impossible to insist on a definite version. This
disorderly state persists in later studies. There is an impression
that often the archival documents had not been treated critically,
and the information in them had not been verified for truthfulness
and source. Studying a great many documents of this period the
majority of which was published in collections, scientific journals
and appendices of scientific works, it can be concluded that there is
a lot of information in them which disorient, do not meet scientific
requirements, and why not are untrustworthy. A careful and critical
approach is needed in order not to be caught in this web. We do not
want to play down the work of the previous investigators. However,
we can express our opinion on these works the general fault of which
is the lack of political thought and evaluation. This is especially
obvious against the impertinent trumpeting and exaggerating of
the “myth” of insurgency; we do not think that everything took
place exactly the way it is described, especially that it smells a
recurrent political provocation on the part of the opponent. Some
of the investigators (B. Ulubabian, H. Harutyunian, H. Abrahamian)
tried to manoeuver between two points of view (i.e. insurgency or
armed resistance against the Azerbaijani troops). There is a general
tendency to think that in the atmosphere of tension Sultanov and the
other executioners were waiting for an occasion to carry out the plan
of extermination of the Armenians. This also can be accepted. However,
the false version that this occasion was enabled by the Armenians is
not convincing and logical. The fact is that the Armenians defended
themselves from the gangs and regular army formed of Turk-Azerbaijanis
and Kurds, and the self-defence was presented by the Azerbaijani
propaganda as an insurgency to confuse the international community
by presenting the consequences instead of the cause and to justify
the destruction of the once prosperous town of Shushi and massacres
of the Armenian population. To get convinced of this it is enough
to recall the preceding and succeeding events and the image of the
Turk-Tatar (Azerbaijani) political thought and logic based on their
interpretation of these events, which is, by the way, typical of the
nomadic tribes at a rather law level of development which suddenly find
themselves in a civilized and prosperous country completely strange to
them. While developing this idea we based on the results of synthesis
and analysis of the cynical evaluations and “counterarguments” set
forth by the Turk-Azerbaijanis to the genocide of Armenians in 1915,
the tragic events in Baku in September 1918, the extermination of
the Armenian population of the adjacent areas of Shushi in 1919,
the ethnic cleansing in the former state of Elizavetpol in 1920,
the barbaric events in Sumgait in 1988, Baku in 1990 and Maragha on
April 10, 1992 and the NKR ~@” Azerbaijani conflict in general. The
March 1920 tragedy of Shushi is a link in this chain~@¦ The “myth”
of insurgency and the scenario of “extermination of Armenians in
reply” are used by Turks since old times. Even the genocide of
Armenians in 1915 when 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered,
is cynically presented by them as a reply to the insurgency of the
Armenians. Whereas, the riots if there were any, and generally the
national liberation movement of the Armenians was against the national,
religious, cultural and economic pressure of the Turks; for the people
living in extremely hard conditions there was nothing to do but to
make their last efforts to save from slow death. And this provoked,
and why not imposed riot was used by the Turks as an occasion to
perpetrate the extermination of the Armenians. Studying the evidence
of the past we come to believe that even if the Armenians had not
resisted, they would be condemned to slow death. In both cases the
Turks had nothing to lose; more exactly they were favoured while the
Armenians lost in any case. An example of such falsification is the
cunning expression of Nuri Pasha, “Armenians are also to be blamed
for the ruin of the Armenians of Turkey for they became toys in the
hands of these great powers (Great Britain and Russia ~@” M.H.),
started mutinies, gave rise to suppression against them and lost”
(see “Massacres of Armenians in the States of Baku and Elizavetpol
in 1918 – 1920”, ed. A. Virabian, compilers S. Mirzoyan, A. Ghaziyan,
Archive of History of RA, 2003, document 29, p. 45, 49). However, the
monstrous plan of extermination of the Armenians had been worked out
long before and strange though it may seem, without any guise, along
with an anti-Armenian hysteria and a campaign of instilling hatred. It
is a fact that already by the beginning of 1920 the Ittihat had emerged
in Azerbaijan and propagated aggressive moods among the government and
the entire Muslim population. At that time the representative of the
legacy of Armenia in Azerbaijan Tigran Bekzadian informed about this
in his report on his talk with Wardrope (see “Massacres of Armenians
in the States of Baku and Elizavetpol in 1918 ~@” 1920″, document 362,
p. 434) which confirms our viewpoint about the existence of a plan of
genocide which included the destruction of Shushi. In our opinion,
the events took place in the following order: Sultanov ordered the
troops to hit the center of Armenians Shushi. At the same time the
troops deployed in Aghdam and the armed mop, as it had been foreseen,
moved in the direction of Askeran ~@” Khojalu ~@” Khankendi ~@” Shushi
aiming to aid the criminals suppressing (but in reality slaughtering)
the Armenians of Shushi. Another fact proving that the DRA had openly
started war against the Armenians of Artsakh was that the Azerbaijani
troops attacked in the direction of Gandzak and Shamkor for the aim
of ethnic cleansing. The state policy of the DRA aiming to terrorize
and subdue the Armenians of Artsakh through horrible massacres was
first implemented in Shushi because since 1919 the population of the
capital of Artsakh had been in the state of hostages (see Leo) and,
according to the archive documents, it was viewed by the enemy as
an important factor in invading Artsakh. In his report addressed to
the chairman of the Azerbaijani council of ministers Sultanov wrote,
“I hope by officially subduing the Center and the Armenian movement in
the town of Shushi the question of subduing the Armenians of Karabakh
will be completed successfully.” According to the tactics worked out
beforehand the defence forces defeated the Azerbaijani invaders on
March 23, 1920 and liberated Askeran, which was a strategic point for
preventing further advance of the Azerbaijani forces from Aghdam and
protecting the rear of the defenders of Shushi and Khankendi. These
very events of self-defence were falsified by the Azerbaijanis and
defined as “insurgency” to “justify” their crimes, on the one hand,
denying and refuting the genocide, on the other hand.

MHER HARUTYUNIAN. 25-03-2005

–Boundary_(ID_8B3Oar2inprRBGPWfqrvfQ)–

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 24 , 2005

CONTACT: Christine Kojoian

Email: [email protected]

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY PLANS FIRST-EVER YOUNG LEADERSHIP GROUP MISSION TO
ARMENIA: JUNE 29 – JULY 11

Washington, DC – In response to the growing number of young
professionals and intern alumni joining the Armenian Assembly in
recent years, organizational leaders today announced plans to lead the
Assembly’s first-ever “Young Leadership Group Mission to Armenia.”
The trip, scheduled for June 29 – July 11, 2005, is specifically
designed for professionals ages 18-40, former interns and families
with children.

“The Assembly is thrilled to offer its supporters this trip and hopes
that a great many of our young leaders and their families will take
part,” said Board of Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian, who is
leading the Mission group. “For more than 15 years, this organization
has successfully led an annual Mission to our homeland, thanks in
part to the Assembly’s Mission Chair Annie Totah. Participants can
expect the Assembly to maintain the high standards that have been
set forth on previous Mission trips.”

Totah, who also serves as Board of Directors Vice-Chair, said Mission
participants often return from their trip with a renewed sense of
commitment for the Armenian cause. “Throughout the years, many of our
members have been touched by what they see that it inspires them to
adopt or underwrite a special project or cause in Armenia,” said Totah.
“It is now time for the next generation to make that trip home, and
best determine how they can make a difference in their homeland and
their communities.”

The 12-day visit will highlight the many important and historical sites
that Armenia has to offer, including Holy Etchmiadzin, Khor Virab,
Geghard, Garni, the Genocide Museum and Memorial. Participants will
also attend private briefings by Armenian government officials,
His Holiness Karekin II, as well as U.S. Embassy officials.

Trip participants will also tour museums, schools, churches, and other
sites in and around Yerevan. In addition, free time will be scheduled
for individual sightseeing trips or visits with friends and family.
Children participating on the Mission will also have the opportunity
to meet new friends in Armenia through several pre-planned activities.
Day programs for children ages 5-15, dubbed “Camp Yerevan” will allow
youngsters to connect with Armenia’s rich culture and heritage and
tour Armenia’s historical sites in a safe and controlled environment.

Contributing Affiliate Lena Kizirian of Redondo Beach, California made
her first trip to Armenia last year with the Assembly. Kizirian,
who traveled with her husband, said the trip forever changed her
outlook on Armenia and she’s eager to go back.

“Before this trip, Armenia used to be a very distant and far fetched
dream,” Kizirian said. “Armenia has put my life in perspective and
there are no words to describe the feelings you have when you’re there.
That’s why we’re planning on returning with the Assembly in June. And
this time, we’re taking our daughters with us!”

The Assembly Mission group will stay at the newly-renovated Hotel
Armenia Marriott situated on Republic Square in the heart of Yerevan.
Reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis
with completed application forms and payments by check or credit card
received by the Assembly by May 2, 2005.

To receive an application, or to learn more about the trip, contact
Assembly Deputy Director of Development Rita Mullane in Washington,
DC at (202) 393-3434 x246 or via email at [email protected].

The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness
of Armenian issues. It is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt membership
organization.

###

NR#2005-035

FACTBOX-Protests sweep aside brittle CIS power structures

MOSCOW, March 25 (Reuters) – Popular revolts are changing the political
landscape of the post-Soviet world.

The Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan on Thursday became the third
ex-Soviet republic in two years — after Ukraine and Georgia —
to see the established order tumble in the face of opposition protests.

The three have one common thread: the protests were triggered by
elections that the opposition said were rigged to ensure the continuity
of the old establishment.

These are brief profiles of the power structures in the other nine
members of the Russia-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),
which groups most of the republics that once comprised the Soviet
Union.

Almost all today’s leaders in these countries came to power in
elections criticised by international observers as flawed and in some
cases fraudulent.

Many leaders, particularly in Central Asia, have been in power for
more than a decade.

————————

RUSSIA: President Vladimir Putin won a second term in March 2004
elections after a campaign marked by tight Kremlin control of
television channels. Putin is popular and any discontent tends to be
funnelled against the government rather than him personally. Despite
a separatist war in Chechnya, Russia is by far the most stable member
of the CIS, with the highest living standards in the bloc. A largely
compliant population makes mass street protests against Putin’s
rule unlikely.

————————

BELARUS: Many analysts see Belarus, which borders three new EU members,
as the next possible candidate for mass protests. President Alexander
Lukashenko, in power since 1994, is shunned by Western leaders. His
re-election in 2001 was denounced in the West as fraudulent
and referendums staged to extend his stay in power were also
criticised. But he keeps tight control at home and street protests
are snuffed out quickly. The small, disorganised opposition says he
has put pressure on the courts and keeps a stranglehold on the media.

————————-

MOLDOVA: President Vladimir Voronin is the sole communist leader still
in power in the CIS but he is popular and should be re-elected for a
second term by parliament next month. Threats by the opposition to
stage protests over parliamentary elections won by the communists
were blunted by international observers saying the poll met most
international standards. Voronin has now allied himself with the
revolutionary leaders of Ukraine and Georgia and embraced pro-Europe
policies.

————————-

ARMENIA: President Robert Kocharyan won a second five-year term with
a 67.5 percent of the vote in a March 2003 election run-off against
opposition leader Stepan Demirchyan, son of a Soviet-era Armenian
leader. Opposition protesters at the time demanded a recount,
alleging fraud. European monitors and the United States said they
were disappointed with the way the poll was conducted, but stopped
short of saying it was illegitimate.

————————-

AZERBAIJAN: President Ilham Aliyev was elected in October 2003,
succeeding his father Haydar in the first dynastic handover of power in
the ex-Soviet world. His election triggered bloody opposition-led riots
and clashes between protesters and police. Aliyev has since clamped
down on dissent. Azerbaijan is emerging as a hub of Caspian Sea oil
production and both the West and Russia wish to see stability there.

————————–

KAZAKHSTAN: Former steel worker Nursultan Nazarbayev has run Kazakhstan
since Soviet times, keeping his grip on power through stage-managed
elections, sidelining some opponents and skilfully co-opting others. A
former prime minister is in exile, jailed in absentia after attempting
to challenge Nazarbayev in a 1999 presidential poll. There have been
many cases of intimidation of independent media. The giant country has
prospered by comparison with Kyrgyzstan thanks to an oil boom — one
reason why Nazarbayev feels secure from popular protest. Nazarbayev
said the Kyrgyz authorities had shown weakness by “allowing rebels
to do as they pleased.”

—————————

UZBEKISTAN: Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov tolerates no public dissent
in the big Central Asian state he has ruled with an iron fist since
Soviet times. He has openly derided the revolutions that swept Ukraine
and Georgia and has said his country will follow its own path to
democracy. Thousands of dissidents are in jail and human rights groups
say abuses are rife. But Karimov has deflected potential criticism
from the West by carving out a role as ally in Washington’s war on
terror and hosting a key U.S. airbase.

—————————

TAJIKISTAN: Imomali Rakhmonov has led Tajikistan since 1992, fighting a
civil war with the Islamist opposition which ended with a power-sharing
deal in 1997. His Popular Democratic Party swept parliamentary polls
last month which were criticised by the OSCE as unfair. He himself
says he might run for another term in 2006. Tajikistan, where people
survive on less than one dollar a day, has so far avoided unrest,
although a mystery car bomb exploded outside the headquarters of the
security service weeks before the poll.

—————————

TURKMENISTAN: Saparmurat Niyazov, known as Turkmenbashi (Chief of
the Turkmen), is the quirkiest of the region’s leaders. Now officially
president for life, 65-year-old Niyazov has already ruled the gas-rich
desert state for 20 years. He has fostered a huge personality cult and
is revered at home. He has barred the opposition from parliamentary
elections. There is no one on the horizon to replace him and leading
human rights groups have warned that his death could bring a violent
succession struggle. Niyazov survived an assassination attempt in 2002.

(Additional reporting by Ron Popeski in Kiev, Margarita Antidze in
Tbilisi and Douglas Busvine in Moscow)

03/25/05 08:55 ET