Armenia/Europe: Armenian public TV-radio on Hot Bird satellite in

Armenia/Europe: Armenian public TV-radio on Hot Bird satellite in Europe

GlobeCast press release, Paris
22 Feb 05

PARIS

Leading satellite services company GlobeCast announced today the
addition of Armenian Public Television and Radio to its direct-to-home
European satellite television platform on Hot Bird. The platform
offers this key channel access to the largest television community in
the world, with an estimated 95 million direct-to-home and cable homes
in Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa.

GlobeCast – a subsidiary of France Telecom – manages proprietary
direct-to-home satellite television platforms in Europe, America,
Australia, Africa and Asia. In addition to its new European coverage
on Hot Bird, Armenian Public Television already is part of the
GlobeCast WorldTV DTH platform in America.

GlobeCast is providing Armenian Public Television with an end-to-end
turnkey solution, including contribution from its teleport in Yerevan
to GlobeCast facilities in Paris via Eutelsat W1 and then turnaround
to GlobeCast’s direct-to-home broadcast platform on Hot Bird 6 [13
degrees east, 12577 MHz, horizontal]. The channel is free-to-air in
Europe.

Armenian Public Television is a 24-hour, Armenian-language network
that offers viewers an array of live programming direct from
Armenia. The programming lineup includes movies, soap operas, family
entertainment, game shows, musical programmes, sporting events,
cultural documentaries, children shows, and news reports to keep you
up-to-date with current events in Armenia. Additionally, the channel
offers five-minute daily news flashes covering current events in both
English and Russian language.

ANKARA: Phenomenon of violinist Markov

Turkish Daily News
Feb 20 2005

Phenomenon of violinist Markov
>From My Notebook
YÜKSEL SÖYLEMEZ

Despite his relative youth, Alexander Markov already has a
noteworthy international reputation as a remarkable violin virtuoso,
and there is no doubt he will leave his musical mark on the 21st
century. In two words, he is “phenomenal and sensational,” with a
complete mastery of his instrument. In fact, it is much more than
mere violin playing when a violin and his fingers become one with his
body and mind.

I was told that he has played in Ankara before, but this was the
first time I had heard him, and his rendition of Aram Katchaturian’s
“Violin Concerto” with the Presidential Symphony Orchestra (CSO)
conducted by Alexander Rahbari left me and the whole audience
spellbound.

Markov, the son of a concert violinist father, was born in the
Moscow of the old U.S.S.R. He received an invitation at the age of 14
to train under the legendary Jasha Heifetz and immigrated to the
United States with his family in 1982, becoming a U.S. citizen in the
process. He has played with all the great orchestras and conductors
of our time in venues such as New York’s Avery Fisher and Carnegie
halls, to name just two. Not only is he an extraordinary virtuoso but
alos a most congenial and modest person, thanking the audience in
Turkish with “Teºekkür ederim” followed by an unexpected “Eyvallah”
that was received with much appreciation.

Katchaturian’s “Violin Concerto,” to my mind, is one of the most
brilliant compositions in romantic music literature, and its moving
rendition roused the audience to its feet with a full house on the
evening of Feb. 11. Katchaturian (1903-1978) started writing his
concerto in 1938, completed it during the war in 1940 and dedicated
it to the great David Oistrakh. The concerto is based on Armenian and
Caucasian folk melodies and is lyrical and melodic, to say nothing of
sentimental. There is deep sadness in the repetition of the touching
themes, with the violin omnipresent throughout the three movements
and in the whirlwind finale.

The concert had started with Michael Ivanovich Glinka’s (1804-1857)
overture to his ballet, `Ruslan and Ludmilla,’ which is based on a
poem by Pushkin and is one of the most frequently produced popular
works in Russian ballet tradition. It was a rousing beginning to the
evening under Rahbari, a welcome conductor who frequently visits
Ankara.

The final work was Igor Stravinsky’s(1882-1971) “Petrushka,” again
under Rahbari’s baton and played with tremendous sonority in all its
colorful contrasting details. The subject of the ballet is simple:
Two men fall in love with the same woman. Petrushka symbolizes the
ordinary and poor people and is killed at the end of the ballet. It
is most difficult to do justice to this modern work, and it was
played with tremendous zest and great gusto by the CSO with the
adroit interpretation of Alexander Rahbari.

To relate a story about Stravinsky, it was during the mid-’50s
that, to my utter amazement, I saw Stravinsky in the lobby of the
Istanbul Hilton reading a newspaper. I subsequently found out that he
was traveling under a false name to escape the attention of the
Turkish media. Then a few years later, in 1960, he came to London to
conduct his “Oedipus Rex” at an unusual late-evening concert at the
Festival Hall with Jean Cocteau reading the text. As well as being a
music lover, I was also an ardent autograph collector in those days
and, as such. I rushed with my late friend Ömer Umar to the Green
Room at the end of his historic concert at around 1:00 a.m. A
sizeable crowd of other music enthusiasts was also waiting for him to
appear. When he finally did, he was hurriedly bundled into a spacious
elevator. As it happened, I was the only one of the crowd who managed
to muscle his way in. His tall, well-built wife Vera pushed me
against the wall of the elevator and with her index finger pressed
into my chest she protected her husband from my intrusive presence.
It was rather needless, since my hands were full with a copy of the
record of “Oedipus Rex,” the concert program and his autobiography.
Stravinsky, meanwhile, was beating the other wall of the lift with
his hands shouting, “This autograph business is a dangerous disease.”
When a minute or two later the elevator doors opened, the crowd had
collectively rushed upstairs and were enviously shouting, `He got it,
he got it!’ Actually, I hadn’t got his autograph but am rewarded
instead with a real-life Stravinsky anecdote, which I shall always
remember.

Let us change topic

Let us change topic

Yerkir/arm
February 18, 2005

Recently, the topic of re-opening or non-re-opening of the border with
Turkey has tuned into a subject of various conversations and
discussions.

And again the reason for restarting the discussion has been
artificial. It has again been spoken only about economic benefits of
the re-opening with no mentioning of the national security and
political aspects. Meanwhile the opening of the border bears latent
threats which are there even now that it is closed.

The closed border with Turkey enables us to prepare for the threats to
our national security and economy. For example, today Armenian
citizens are banned by Turkish laws to purchase lands in that country,
while we do not have a balancing law on that. Another strategic
approach can be economic strengthening of the borderline regions and
especially Shirak, which will require a state approach.

There is an opinion that the Armenian economy will benefit from
opening the border, since the transportation to the West and Middle
East will be facilitated. Or that Armenia will become a transitional
country and it willboost the economy.

However, the people holding this opinion do not specify whether the
West or Middle East needs our products and whether our economy will
not benefit more from “unshadowing” the economy and creating a
competitive field. Armenia can really become a transitional country,
if not only Turkey but also Azerbaijan open the borders and railway.

Eventually, others `confess’ that a third party is creatingobstacles
for Armenia to get other means of export like through the Georgian
harbor into the Black sea in order to force Armenia into complying
with Turkish conditions.

The fact is that Turkey shut the border in 1993 to support Azerbaijan,
but today other conditions are being drawn. Thus, the opening of the
border by Turkey will mean retreating in a way from its conditions.

While talking about opening the borders, two issues should be kept in
view. Turkey must open the border with Armenia not for providing
economic help to Armenia but to show that it does not have a hostile
position to Armenia. A mere fact of opening the border does not yet
imply normalization of economic relations which will require signing
bilateral agreements.

Secondly, we are not pleading to open the border, as is unfortunately
sometimes laid out by some of our officials but demanding it. We
demand that Turkey does not have a hostile position to Armenia. This
is why the border openingis a kind of a test on whether Turkey is
ready to renounce its hostile position to Armenia.

BAKU: US, Russian presidents to discuss Upper Garabagh conflict

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Feb 22 2005

US, Russian presidents to discuss Upper Garabagh conflict

Baku, February 21, AssA-Irada
US and Russian presidents Vladimir Putin and George Bush will discuss
the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Upper Garabagh during the
US-Russian summit to be held in Bratislava on Thursday.
`Positive results will be achieved during the discussions,’ Bush told
the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency.
The US President has started a five-day tour of European countries.*

BAKU: Health condition of 3 Azeri captives normal

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Feb 22 2005

Health condition of 3 Azeri captives normal

Baku, February 21, AssA-Irada
Health condition of three Azerbaijani soldiers, who lost their way
close to Hasangaya village of Terter District and passed to the
Armenian side of the frontline on February 15, is normal, the ANS TV
quoted head of the mission of the International Committee of the Red
Cross in Khankandi, who recently visited the captives, as saying.
Talks on releasing the Azerbaijani soldiers – Hikmat Taghiyev, Khayal
Abdullayev and Ruslan Bakirov – from captivity are underway, a source
from the Ministry of Defence told AssA-Irada.*

BAKU: Reports on ceasefire breach not confirmed

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Feb 22 2005

Reports on ceasefire breach not confirmed

Baku, February 21, AssA-Irada

The Ministry of Defence did not confirm TV reports on breach of
ceasefire by Armenia on the frontline in Aghdam District on Monday.
Armenian military units, from their positions in the occupied
Shikhlar village of Aghdam, fired at the Orta Gishlag village of the
same district and a Kamaz truck with large-caliber submachine guns
and machine guns, according to the reports.
Civilians in the village were hiding in the basements of their houses
during the incident. No casualties are reported.*
From: Baghdasarian

BAKU: Frequent ceasefire violations show =?UNKNOWN?Q?Armenia’s?weakn

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Feb 22 2005

Frequent ceasefire violations show Armenia’s weakness – Defence
Ministry

Baku, February 21, AssA-Irada
The frequent ceasefire violations by Armenians on the frontline
observed of late show nothing but their weakness. The international
community already knows the truth, therefore, the Upper Garabagh
separatists decided to resort to subversive acts and thus prolong the
conflict resolution, the Defence Ministry spokesman Ramiz Malikov
told journalists.
He said that `after the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe passed a resolution terming Armenia as aggressor and the Upper
Garabagh self-proclaimed regime as separatist, Armenia has been
trying to show its strength.
`This will not work. The sooner Armenians leave Azerbaijani
territories, the better it will be for them.’ Malikov added.*

Religion Must be Part of the Solution

Dar Al-Hayat, Saudi Arabia
Feb 22 2005

Religion Must be Part of the Solution
Rabbi David Rosen

Taking up the metaphor of “a window of opportunity,” one might point
out that someone bent over in pain will be hard-pressed to see any
light from the window, or even believe it exists. This applies to a
large segment of the Israeli and Palestinian populations, which, even
if not suffering directly from the violence of the last four and a
half years, has been substantially traumatized by it.

Personally, however, I have no doubt that we are at a remarkable
turning point. No less significant than the impressive democratic
Palestinian support for Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) is the
remarkable political turnabout of Ariel Sharon. One has to grasp the
almost metaphysical meaning of “settlement” in Zionist mythology in
order to appreciate that the advocacy of dismantlement of even one of
the settlements – and led by the man who symbolized their
establishment – is a development of enormous positive significance
toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is of
course possible that the vagaries of Israeli politics may postpone
implementation. However, there is no doubt in my mind that even if
lamentably delayed, this Rubicon will be crossed and an inevitable
and inexorable dynamic will ensue. Already, security cooperation has
advanced with rapidity, and the likelihood is that Israel’s
unilateral disengagement will increasingly be bilateral and
cooperative. As events on the ground begin to change, the
populations’ skepticism will change as well.

The greatest danger, of course, comes from extremists on both sides.
To my great distress as a religious person, such extremist violence
usually occurs under the pretext of religious duty. Indeed, the Oslo
Peace Process was torpedoed substantially on both sides by the use of
religion as justification for violent actions. We have to do our best
to neutralize such extremists, and while this requires effective
security and legal action, this is not enough.

For better and worse, religion is inextricably bound to the
identities of the parties involved in the conflict, and it is
exploited even by those who are far from the spiritual and ethical
values of its heritages. For this reason, there has been a tendency
on the part of politicians and others, while pursuing a peace agenda,
to avoid religious institutions and their representatives, viewing
them as an obstacle. In the shadow of all the terrible things that
have been done in the name of religion, this is understandable.
However, I believe it to be a tragically counterproductive approach.

If we don’t want religion to be part of the problem, we must make it
part of the solution. During the last four and a half years of
violence, the territorial conflict has increasingly been presented as
a religious one. Not only was the last Intifada portrayed in
religious terms (in the name of Al-Aqsa), but propaganda has
increasingly used religious terminology to de-legitimize and even
demonize the other. This “religionization” of the conflict is
extremely dangerous. As long as the conflict is perceived as a
territorial one it can be resolved through territorial compromise.
If, however, it is seen as a struggle between the Godly and the
godless, then we are doomed to an eternal cycle of bloodshed.

Galvanizing the religious leadership to support peaceful
reconciliation, to oppose incitement and prejudicial
misrepresentation on all sides, is thus an urgent imperative – and it
is possible, especially if political leadership supports it. In
addition, to really combat extremists, and not just contain them, we
need to give the moderates (whom I am convinced are the majority)
more visibility. Because their voices are not sensational or
bloodthirsty, they are hardly heard at all in the media, leading to a
distorted public perception and a destructive cyclical process.

There is already positive movement in this regard. Three years ago,
when violence between Palestinians and Israelis was at its height,
fifteen religious leaders and representatives of the three main
Faiths in the Holy Land – including the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of
Israel, the President of the Palestinian Sharia Courts, the Latin
Patriarch, and deputies of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Patriarchs
– were all hosted in Alexandria by Sheikh Mohamad Sayyed Tantawi, the
Grand Imam of Al Azhar. The initiator of this gathering was the then
Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey. This historic gathering
(the first ever summit of leaders and representatives of the three
main religions of the Holy Land) issued an important declaration
condemning violence in the name of religion as desecration of
religion, and calling for peace and reconciliation, as well as
education towards those goals. The effect of this declaration was
substantially lost by the ongoing violence on the ground. However,
the signatories did go ahead with the establishment of a committee to
help implement educational initiatives for the promotion of peace and
mutual religious respect. Centers in Israeli and Palestinian
societies have now been established under the auspices of this
committee to promote these goals.

In addition, recent interfaith meetings involving notable Israeli and
Palestinian religious figures, as well as those from the wider Middle
East and beyond, reflect the increasing desire of religious leaders
to be part of a process of peace and reconciliation. Arguably the
most remarkable of these was the successful gathering of some one
hundred and fifty leading rabbis and sheikhs that took place in
Brussels last month under the auspices of King Mohamad VI of Morocco
and King Albert II of Belgium. The meeting, which received widespread
coverage, especially in the European media, sought to emphasize both
the past historic legacy of interfaith cooperation, as well as the
central shared values of the religious traditions. Sheikh Talal Sidr
of Hebron (who is also one of the key protagonists of the Alexandria
committee) declared in his remarks on the opening evening that only
when the three religious traditions live in mutual respect will there
be real peace in the Middle East.

Recognizing the limitations of institutional religion, especially in
our part of the world, it would be more than naïve to expect it to
spearhead any political breakthrough. However, when there is a
political window of opportunity, as there is now, it is essential
that religious voices and leadership are actively involved in its
support. While religion may not be able to initiate a political
resolution of the conflict, it is an essential component for a
successful political process, providing the psycho-spiritual glue for
long-lasting and effective peace.

* Rabbi David Rosen, former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, is active in many
interfaith, civic, and peace organizations promoting
Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, and is a founder of Rabbis for Human
Rights.

* This article is published in partnership with the Common Ground
News Service (CGNews).

BAKU: Azeri reporter has positive impression of Karabakh tour

Azeri reporter has positive impression of Karabakh tour

Yeni Musavat, Baku
22 Feb 05

Excerpt from Sevinc Telmanqizi report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni
Musavat on 22 February headlined “‘Armenians attacked me in Lacin'”
and subheaded “Eynulla Fatullayev has returned from Nagornyy Karabakh”

Eynulla Fatullayev, editor of the Monitor magazine and prominent
journalist, has returned from a tour of Nagornyy Karabakh with loads
of news, pictures and fond memories. Visiting ancient places in the
occupied districts of Nagornyy Karabakh, talking to Armenians and even
Azerbaijanis there, our colleague backed Armenian “ministers” and
“mayors” into a tight corner with questions. It is intriguing that
despite all these aspects of the visit, our colleague has a pleasant
impression.

We asked Fatullayev to share his impressions of the 11-day tour of
Karabakh.

[Passage omitted: Fatullayev had meetings in Yerevan]

[Fatullayev] On 12 February, I left Yerevan for Xankandi, Susa, Lacin
and Agdam. Actually, I was the first Azerbaijani to visit Agdam after
the truce. I was treated well in Agdam and Susa. However, the attitude
towards me was aggressive in Lacin. The Armenians living there
attacked me, saying that this is their land and wondered about the aim
of my visit. However, my security was arranged very well. I asked them
who they are and they said they are refugees from villages of Agdara
District, which is under Azerbaijani control. There are Armenians from
Yevlax and Baku in Lacin.

People are settling in 10-15 villages of Agdam. There are about 15
houses, very few enterprises and small shops. All the houses in Agdam
have been razed to the ground.

[Passage omitted: Armenians hate Agdam residents]

[Correspondent] Did you interview people you were planning to meet?

[Fatullayev] I interviewed [Karabakh separatist leader] Arkadiy
Gukasyan and the mayor of Stepanakert. Because of the three-year ban
on [ex-defence minister] Samvel Babayan’s entry into Karabakh, I could
not interview him. I also met some Azerbaijanis in Asgaran, where a
dozen of them are still living.

[Passage omitted: one of them is from Ucar District; Fatullayev held a
press conference for Karabakh reporters]

[Correspondent] What were Armenian journalists interested in?

[Fatullayev] They were keen on my views about the ongoing processes in
Karabakh. I said that the switch from the police regime to a
semi-civil society had taken place in Karabakh and free polls were
held, the opposition won, the media was free and there was political
rivalry. Political freedom is stronger there than in Armenia. At all
meetings, they wondered about public opinion in Azerbaijan. My
impression of the meetings with the Karabakh political leadership is
that they are ready for horizontal relations with Azerbaijan.

[Passage omitted: young generation is accustomed to living without
Azerbaijan; no video filming in Agdam was permitted]

[Correspondent] You are very positive about the visit and I cannot
hear a word of criticism about the Armenians. Do you not think that
this will cause a negative reaction among the public?

[Fatullayev] I was in the same mood before my trip to Karabakh and did
not witness any anti-Azerbaijani hysteria. Maybe, they were only
pretending. However, my observation is that they hate the Azerbaijani
authorities, not our people.

Tbilisi: State Minister: No Threat in Privatizing Gas Pipelines

Civil Georgia, Georgia
Feb 22 2005

State Minister: No Threat in Privatizing Gas Pipelines

State Minister for Economic Reform Issues Kakha Bendukidze said on
February 22 that privatization of the gas pipeline system poses no
threat to Georgia’s energy security. He said that along with Russian
energy giant Gazprom, which is eyeing Georgia’s gas pipeline system,
the consortium that is heading-up the construction of the U.S.-backed
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline can also participate in the
privatization process.

`I can not understand why it should pose a threat if those gas
pipelines, through which Georgia receives gas from Russia, will be
sold to Russia and if they will take care of [the gas pipeline
system],’ Kakha Bendukidze told reporters.

In an interview to the Italian newspaper La Stampa published on
February 20, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said that talks
are underway with the Russian energy giant Gazprom over privatization
of Georgia’s gas pipeline system. `Negotiations are in progress… I
prefer not to say more,’ Saakashvili answered when asked whether
Georgia intends to sell its gas pipelines to Russia.

In 2003, when the Georgian government and Gazprom signed a memorandum
on strategic cooperation for 25 years, ex-Georgian President
Shevardnadze’s administration came under fierce criticism from the
opposition for signing this deal, as the agreement was considered a
threat to the implementation of the U.S.-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Eresrum
gas pipeline project.

`I think the fact that Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline is so
sensitive to this issues means that the Georgian gas pipeline system
might have two potential buyers, which is, of course, a positive
moment,’ State Minister Kakha Bendukidze said on February 22.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline is a part of much broader,
BP-led oil and gas development project in the region, which also
includes the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Main Export Oil Pipeline
Project.

The agreement between the state-owned Gazprom and Georgia signed in
2003, which is still enforced, envisages the supply of natural gas to
Georgian customers and the rehabilitation of gas pipelines, including
two trunk-line gas pipelines, one of which will be used for
transporting gas to Armenia and the other to Turkey, via the Adjara
Autonomous Republic.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress