THREE EARTHQUAKES RECORDED IN SOUTH CAUCASUS DURING LAST 2 DAYS

YEREVAN, MARCH 14. ARMINFO. During the last two days, 3 earthquakes
were registered in the South Caucasus region.

The National Seismic Protection Service of the Armenian Government
Emergency Situations Department informs ARMINFO that on March 13 at
07:02 local time, on the Armenian border with Azerbaijan 25 km South
of the Armenian town of Vardenis an earthquake measuring 4 of 12-scale
bar was reorded, and 6 in the epicenter. The earthquake was felt in
the populated areas of Armenia Sotk, Tretak, Azat, Norabak, where
houses and economic buildings were insignificantly damaged.

According to the source, today at 05:55 local time in 65 km North-East
of the town of Bingyol in the territory of Turkey an earthquake
measuring 5.5 and 8 in the epicenter was recorded. Besides, today at
08.55 local time another earthquake measuring 4.2 and 5 in the
epicenter was recorded in 63 North-East of the town of Bingyol. No
information on casualties and destructions has been reported yet.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Providence Journal , RI
March 14 2005

Symposium on genocide today at RIC

01:00 AM EST on Monday, March 14, 2005

Five years ago, the Genocide Education Bill was passed into law in
Rhode Island, but not all the state’s school systems have
incorporated the corresponding curricula. But a symposium organized
by several local educators that is scheduled to take place today may
change that.

The first genocide education symposium in the state is being held at
Rhode Island College’s Gaige Hall. It will feature noted authors and
professors, as well as U.S. Sen. Jack Reed and U.S. Rep. James R.
Langevin.

Esther Kalajian said that she and co-organizer Pauline Getzoyan
embarked on “a two-year labor of love to promote genocide education
in our schools,” that led to today’s symposium. The Armenian National
Committee of Rhode Island and the Armenian Martyrs’ Memorial
Committee of Rhode Island have lent their support.

Kalajian, an educator and parent, whose own parents “were very
dedicated teachers themselves,” said that “this was a cause that I
believed in.”

The speakers include Peter Balakian, author of The Burning Tigris;
Judith Claire Mitchell, author of The Last Day of the War; Jim
Fussell, director of Prevent Genocide International; Jimmie Jones of
Facing History and Ourselves; George Aghjayan of the Eastern Region
Board of the Armenian National Commtitee of America, and Dr. Henry
Theriault, associate professor of philosophy at Worcester State
College.

The sessions will cover topics including the writing process and the
effects of uncovering history, genocide denial, labeling and
genocide, when neighbor turns against neighbor, legislation and
foreign policy.

The bill that passed in 2000 was sponored by former state Rep. Aram
Garabedian. It opened the door for elementary and secondary educators
to develop curriculum on genocide and human-rights issues, says
Kalajian.

“Obviously, there are pockets of genocide education in the state, and
maybe one or two that are covered more extensively than others. But
we wanted to give teachers as much information as possible, and let
them see what is done in other states,” Kalajian said.

Educators will receive a copy of a working curriculum from
California, she said, and hear about curriculum in other states,
including New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York.

“We invited people from outside of Rhode Island, experts in the field
. . . not only in their chosen field but experts who work well and
relate well with students and teachers. We read books, and we went to
hear them,” Kalajian said.

“We are excited not only by the integrity and ability of the people,”
but also by their ability to relate to students and faculty, she
said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EUROPA (press release), Belgium
March 14 2005

Margot Wallström

Vice President of the European Union responsible for Institutional
Relations and Communication Strategy

The European Neighbourhood Policy and the Euro-Mediterranean
partnership

Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly
Cairo, 14 March 2005

Mr President,

Members of the Assembly,

It is a great honour for me to take part on behalf of the European
Commission in this first session of the Euro-Mediterranean
Parliamentary Assembly.

Mr President,

Let me first greet you in particular as an Egyptian presiding over
the work of this first session hosted in Egypt’s capital, Cairo.
These two circumstances are symbolic and reflect your country’s
commitment to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership since its inception.
This commitment will be illustrated yet again at the upcoming
inauguration in Alexandria of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean
Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures.

Members of the Assembly,

There is no need for me to stress the importance the Commission
attaches to the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary
Assembly. As you know, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership rests on
three pillars: political, economic and social, cultural and human.
Since the launching of the Barcelona process, it has become apparent
that these pillars were not equally strong and that whereas the
economic and trade pillar was solid, those supporting the political,
cultural and social aspects of the partnership were less so. The
creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, which has
a political mandate above all (even if it deals with other issues),
bolsters the Partnership’s foundations. The Commission will cooperate
closely with your Assembly, and of course take account of any
suggestions, ideas and initiatives that it puts forward.

The Presidency of the European Union – represented by Mr Nicolas
Schmit, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg –
have reviewed the Barcelona process and taken stock of its
implementation. For my part, I wish to speak to you about a
relatively new aspect of the EU’s foreign policy, namely the European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), or rather spell out the ENP’s
relationship with the Barcelona process, which remains the nucleus of
relations between the European Union and its southern Mediterranean
partners.

* * *

What does the European Neighbourhood Policy consist of ? It is based
on a simple idea formulated by the Copenhagen European Council of
December 2002 which stated that the Union should seize the
opportunity offered by its enlargement to enhance relations with the
neighbouring countries on the basis of shared values and avoid the
creation of new divides within Europe.

To that end, the Council called for stronger relations with Ukraine,
Moldova, Belarus and the countries of the southern Mediterranean.
This circle of neighbours has been extended to other countries:
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The idea of the circle of friendly
neighbouring countries has taken concrete shape over the last two
years, notably since the EU Council meeting of 28 June 2003.

The main features of the Neighbourhood Policy are:

The new Neighbourhood Policy complements the Barcelona process and
should not supplant the current framework of the EU’s relations with
its southern Mediterranean partners established in the context of the
Barcelona process and complemented by association agreements and the
common strategy.
The European Neighbourhood Policy has general objectives which are
similar to the Mediterranean partnership and based on it, namely to
work together with our partners to reduce poverty, create a space of
prosperity and shared values, based on free trade, increased economic
integration, stronger political and cultural ties, greater
cross-border cooperation and shared responsibilities in the
prevention and resolution of conflicts.
These strands overlap with those defined in 1995 in Barcelona but
with new stress on certain aspects. The most important is the
prospect of gradual participation in the EU internal market and its
regulatory structures, including those relating to sustainable
development (health, consumer and environmental protection), based on
the approximation of legislation. Whereas the idea underlying
Barcelona, implemented through association agreements, was trade
integration which stopped at the borders (notably through tariff
dismantling), the Neighbourhood Policy goes beyond that and provides
for greater integration, going beyond borders so to speak by means of
approximation of legislation. In short, this policy will enable
partners to share in the European internal market. More emphasis will
also be put on integrating the two sides of the Mediterranean in
transport, energy and telecommunications networks.
Differentiation is at the root of the new EU policy towards its
neighbours and is implemented by action plans. These action plans
will become the key instruments of the medium-term policy conducted
by the Union in its relations with its neighbours. These are policy
papers based on existing association agreements and clearly setting
out overall strategic objectives, shared objectives and political and
economic reference criteria and a timetable for achieving them. This
is an approach that is more precise, more concrete and better defined
in its timing than that of the association agreements. As you know,
action plans were already negotiated in 2004 with Israel, Jordan,
Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority and Ukraine. Negotiations
are planned with Egypt and Lebanon in 2005. An important thing to
note is that these action plans are drawn up jointly between the
Union and its partners and adopted by the Association Councils.
This policy will be financed by a new neighbourhood instrument aimed
at promoting sustainable economic and social development among the
neighbouring countries, pursuing regional and transnational and
cross-border cooperation and ensuring the smooth functioning and
secure management of frontiers. They will be among the financial
instruments included in the new financial perspectives beyond 2006.
***

I have just outlined the main features of this European Neighbourhood
Policy. We have to admit that this policy, when it was announced,
provoked among our Mediterranean partners first surprise, then
questions and even concern. Will this policy replace the
Euro-Mediterranean policy, swallow it up or water it down? Would
there be two policies for the same countries? What would be the
relationship between the Neighbourhood Policy and the
Euro-Mediterranean partnership? Some commentators pointed out certain
contradictions between the Neighbourhood Policy and the
Euro-Mediterranean policy. I see two main ones:

On the geo-political level, despite the differences that exist within
the area, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership encompasses countries
which geographically the Mediterranean draws closer together more
than it divides them. Historically, these countries have seen their
destinies intertwined, even if this was sometimes through conflict.
The Euro-Mediterranean idea is highly symbolic. As for the
neighbourhood policy, it has to be admitted that it concerns
countries which are much more diverse.

Secondly, whereas the Euro-Mediterranean partnership approach is
mainly regional, the Neighbourhood Policy is more bilateral and
differentiates among the partners.

The few differences I have mentioned can be overcome. As it is a
regional framework, we have to reiterate that the Barcelona process
remains key to relations between the European Union and the southern
Mediterranean. It is not matter of recasting Barcelona but rather
rereading it, rediscovering it and realising, as certain analysts
have said, its potential.

Where the model is concerned, we probably have to go beyond the
framework of association which was in some respects rather vague. Or
we might use that framework but apply more specific methods. The idea
of harmonisation or at least convergence of legislative systems,
which was embryonic in the association agreements, is spelled out
more clearly in the Neighbourhood Policy and above all in the action
plans.

But the differences in the Neighbourhood Policy approach should not
be taken too far. Whilst the action plans already agreed with the
first signatory Mediterranean countries contain differences, they are
also bedrock of shared values and objectives which the Commission
deems indispensable if we are to avoid diverging paths. It is more in
the pace of progress that the divergences can exist. The ultimate
objective, participation of those countries in large parts of the
European internal market, is what those countries are aiming at.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

As I have tried to point out, the European Neighbourhood Policy does
not replace the process launched ten years ago in Barcelona. It
renews it, clarifies it and breathes fresh life into it.

Convergence between the two policies will be at the core of the
Commission’s communication ahead of the tenth anniversary of
Barcelona Declaration. This communication, still in the pipeline,
will propose for the next five years a limited number of initiatives
with three main thrusts:

Continued promotion of political reform, including protection of
human rights, in the Mediterranean, as reform is the key to security,
peace and stability in the region.
Support for the development of education, particularly primary
education, and vocational training, substantially increasing the
means of financial cooperation earmarked for them.
Continued progress on trade liberalisation and economic reform, by
starting negotiations on balanced liberalisation of services and
adopting for agriculture an approach combining the opening up of
markets and cooperation on rural development.
This does not exclude continuation of activities conducted under the
Barcelona process on migration, cooperation on energy or transport
and the environment.

In conclusion, celebrating Barcelona must not simply be about marking
the date. Anniversaries are about bringing us closer to events and
not making them more remote. The European Neighbourhood Policy does
not make Barcelona more remote, rather it brings it into sharper
focus.

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 14 2005

US co-chair says fact-finding mission’s report `precise and detailed’

Baku, March 11, AssA-Irada

The OSCE fact-finding mission’s report on settlement of Armenians in
the occupied regions of Azerbaijan is precise and detailed, the US
co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Steven Mann has said.
`Everyone should understand that the report by the fact-finding
mission targets promoting the Armenia-Azerbaijan talks,’ said Mann,
underlining that this is desired by the Minsk Group and the US
government.
The report will be elaborated upon at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent
Council in Vienna on March 19.*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 14 2005

Universal Postal Union opposes stamp publication for separatist Upper
Garabagh

Baku, March 11, AssA-Irada

The Universal Postal Union has regarded Armenia’s publication of a
postal stamp on behalf of the self-proclaimed `Upper Garabagh
Republic’ as unacceptable. The Union has forwarded a letter
supporting Azerbaijan’s position to its member-states, says the
Foreign Ministry spokesman Matin Mirza.
The document says that since Upper Garabagh is an integral part of
Azerbaijan, publication of such a stamp is out of the question.*

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 14 2005

Greek community in US to aid Upper Garabagh separatists

Baku, March 11, AssA-Irada

The separatist regime of Upper Garabagh intends to move the capital
of the self-proclaimed republic from Khankandi to Shusha. Armenian
Diasporas in different countries plan to assist separatists in this.
The Greek community in the United States also wants to see Shusha as
a `capital city’. The Greek `L 100′ organization plans to allocate $5
million to `move the capital city’.
The Greek organization in its recent meeting approved allocation of a
considerable amount of funds to Armenians in Upper Garabagh under the
cover of `assistance to Christianity’.
In the meeting, the board of `L 100′ and those funding the
organization supported the proposal on `provision of any assistance
to Armenians in Upper Garabagh’.
The meeting participants decided to hold an international conference
entitled `Upper Garabagh: Armenian struggle for national freedom’ at
the Boston University Institute of Religion and Culture.*

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
March 14 2005

The Armenian Emigration Began with a Revolt
Hasan Pulur

(Source: Milliyet via BYEGM, 14 March 2005)

`There is an Armenian issue, nobody can deny it. But I’ll try to
explain what lies behind the issue. As Russian forces made up of
volunteer Russians and Ottoman Armenians entered Ottoman soil,
Armenians serving in the Ottoman Army deserted to the Russians or
formed guerilla bands using weapons hidden in Armenian churches and
schools. Since all the men in Turkish towns and villages went to war
on the western front, the Armenian guerillas started a massacre of
civilian Turks in the region. They interfered in the operations of
the Ottoman troops, cut their lines of reinforcement, and made the
Russian invasion easier by starting revolts in the cities.

In April 1915, following the Russian decision to launch an offensive
on the eastern city of Van, the Armenians started a revolt so the
city would be easy pickings for Russia. On April 21, 1915 Russian
Tsar Nicolas I sent a telegraph expressing his thanks to the Armenian
community for their assistance to Russian troops in Van. The Armenian
daily Gocnak, published in the US, proudly wrote in its issue of May
24, 1915 that there were only 1,500 Turks left in the city.

While these developments occurred in eastern Anatolia, the British
and French fleet arrived at the Dardanelles and British troops
attacked in Iraq. The Armenian emigration began after these
developments.

Bogos Nubar, an Armenian representative attending the Lausanne Peace
Conference, said that there were about 300,000 Armenians in Turkey
and that 700,000 had migrated to other countries. There could have
been deaths during their revolts or emigration, but the claim that 1
million Armenians were killed is sheer nonsense.’

Civil Georgia, Georgia
March 14 2005

Saakashvili Pledges Jobs for Akhalkalaki Residents after Russian Base
Withdrawal

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on March 14 that those
local residents of Akhalkalaki who are currently employed at the
Russian military bases stationed there will not remain unemployed
after Russia pulls out its troops from Georgia.

`After the pullout of the Russian military bases from Georgia, we
will help all the employees, including local residents of
Akhalkalaki, to get jobs in the Georgian armed forces. Not a single
high-skilled person will remain unemployed,’ Saakashvili said while
visiting the 11th Battalion of the Defense Ministry deployed in a
town of Telavi in eastern Georgia.

The Georgian President also reiterated that no troops of any foreign
country will be deployed in Georgia after Russia closes down its
bases.

On March 13, hundreds of local residents in Akhalkalaki, a town in
Georgia’s south-western region of Samtskhe-Javakheti which is
predominantly populated by ethnic Armenians, rallied in protest of
the withdrawal of the Russian military base stationed in that town.

MosNews, Russia
March 14 2005

Hundreds of Georgians Protest Against Russian Military Pullout

MosNews

About 1,500 residents in a southern Georgian town gathered Monday to
protest the future withdrawal of a Russian military base, the
Associated Press news agency reports.

The rally demonstrated local objections to Georgia’s firm intention
to close down the last two remaining Soviet-era bases.

Participants in the rally called on the Georgian government not to
rush the pullout of the 62nd Russian military base, saying they
feared for their livelihood. Many residents of the town of
Akhalkalaki, close to the border with Armenia, work at the base.

They adopted an appeal to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to
help solve the region’s social and economic problems.

Georgia and Russia have been sparring furiously over the timetable
for withdrawal. Tbilisi wants the troops out within two years, if not
earlier, while Moscow insists it needs at least four years, if not
more than a decade, to complete the job.

The Russian daily Kommersant said last week that Moscow is motivated
in part by fears its military presence in Armenia – its closest ally
in the strategic Caucasus region – could be at risk if it pulls out
of Georgia.

Russia does not border Armenia, and uses Georgian territory to move
troops and equipment to its military base there.

The Messenger, Georgia
March 14 2005

Armenia, Georgia praise expanding trade, energy
In Armenia, Georgian PM discusses trade links, energy and Russian
bases in Georgia
By Christina Tashkevich

Zurab Noghaideli
The development of economic relations between Armenia and Georgia
topped the agenda during Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli’s two-day
visit to Yerevan on March 10-12.

Noghaideli and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan met on March 11 to
talk about cooperation in the energy sector and the expansion of
trade links.

News agency Ria Novosti reports that Kocharyan expressed his
satisfaction at the meeting with Noghaideli that the
Armenian-Georgian intergovernmental commission on economic relations
will continue its activities headed by the prime ministers of the two
countries.

“Armenian-Georgian relations have always included a wide spectrum of
issues of mutual interests,” he said. The commission will meet next
in Yerevan.

The sides positively assessed the increase in trade turnover between
the countries last year, which according to Armenian Prime Minister
Andranik Margaryan rose by 51.1 percent.

The National Department of Statistics of Armenia reports that trade
turnover between Armenia and Georgia equaled USD 78 million in 2004
compared to USD 51 million in 2003.

The two countries hope to further increase trade, however, and
Noghaideli made a report to his Armenian colleagues about the
completion of the construction of the road between Sadakhlo on the
Georgia-Armenia border and Marneuli. The sides also discussed the
construction of a new border checkpoint in Sadakhlo.

The prime minister was upbeat about energy cooperation between the
two countries, telling journalists that for the first time in recent
years the Armenian energy ministry of energy had not made claims
against the Georgian side.

“For the first time we discussed not past problems but issues of
future cooperation between Georgia and Armenia,” he enthused.

One issue of discussion during the prime minister’s visit to Armenia
was the construction of a gas pipeline linking Iran with Europe via
Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine.

Construction of the Iranian-Armenian segment of the pipeline has
already started, while the two countries are currently in
negotiations with Ukraine and Georgia. One issue likely to hold up
the project is the exorbitant cost: the prime minister of Armenia
said the total cost of the pipeline was estimated at USD 180 billion.

Noghaideli and Kocharyan also discussed the existing conflicts in the
region and their resolution, and the Georgian PM told journalists in
Yerevan that he was confident an agreement would be reached between
Moscow and Tbilisi in regard to the withdrawal of Russian bases on
Georgian soil.

“In the nearest future we will agree with the Russian side on the
withdrawal of Russian military bases,” he said in Yerevan airport
before returning to Tbilisi.

News agency Regnum reports Noghaideli as saying he did not discuss
this matter with the Armenian side, although Armenian Prime Minister
Margaryan noted that the issue was important to Yerevan because of
the predominantly Armenian population living close to the base in
Akhalkalaki.

“The only thing which is important for us is the provision of jobs
and resolution of social problems facing the Armenians living in
Javakheti,” he said, adding however that Armenia does not plan to
interfere in Georgia’s internal affairs regarding the issue of
Russian military bases in Georgia.