BAKU: Azeri DM tells Belgian envoy chances of Karabakh war high

Azeri defence minister tells Belgian envoy chances of Karabakh war high

Space TV, Baku
22 Feb 05

[Presenter in studio] As long as the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
remains unresolved, the chances of war are high, Azerbaijani Defence
Minister Safar Abiyev has told the Belgian ambassador to Azerbaijan
and Turkey, Marc Van Rysselberghe.

[Correspondent] The minister said that representatives of the
Azerbaijani Defence Ministry often meet their Belgian counterparts as
part of the antiterror coalition and within the framework of NATO’s
Partnership for Peace programme.

Ambassador Marc Van Rysselberghe thanked the Azerbaijani leadership
for the country’s active involvement in the antiterror
fight. Recalling with regret that a fifth of Azerbaijani territory is
under Armenian occupation, the diplomat pointed to the saying that if
you want peace, prepare for war. From this standpoint, the Azerbaijani
armed forces have become significantly stronger since the outbreak of
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. However, I hope military force will
not be used in resolving the conflict, end quote.

Saying that the Azerbaijani town of Xocali and its population was
wiped off the face of the earth in just one night, Safar Abiyev
pointed to the efforts of the Azerbaijani leadership to resolve the
conflict. However, the people of Azerbaijan are worried that the world
community has not recognized Armenia as an aggressor yet.

He said although the recently-adopted resolution of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] does describe Armenia as an
aggressor and the Nagornyy Karabakh regime as a separatist one, all
international organizations have to follow suit.

Armenia is deliberately and systematically settling the Azerbaijani
territories it has occupied. This is irresponsible. We state that
Azerbaijan will not cede an inch of its land to Armenia. As long as
this conflict remains unresolved, the chances of war are high. If this
happens, responsibility will rest with Armenia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Dashnak Leader Warns Of Election Bloodshed

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Feb 22 2005

Dashnak Leader Warns Of Election Bloodshed

A leading member of the governing Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(Dashnaktsutyun) warned on Monday failure to ensure the freedom and
fairness of Armenia’s forthcoming local elections could spark armed
clashes between supporters of rival candidates.

Armen Rustamian, the number one figure in the leadership of
Dashnaktsutyun’s Armenia branch, said the authorities should
therefore reform the electoral legislation and speed up the country’s
broader democratization.

`If we fail to deepen electoral reforms to the extent required by
international standards, we could witness very sad results. In
particular, clashes in local constituencies,’ he told RFE/RL,
referring to the local polls slated for October.

He said those clashes could be as serious as a February 4 gunfight
between two business clans in Yerevan that left at least one person
dead and several others wounded. It was the most massive shootout
reported in Armenia in years. Dozens of its participants have
reportedly been arrested or questioned by the police.

Dashnaktsutyun, which is a junior partner in President Robert
Kocharian’s coalition government, has for months been lobbying for
sweeping amendments to Armenia’s Election Code. It is particularly
pushing for a sizable increase in the number of parliament seats
contested under the system of proportional representation.

The nationalist party is also looking to increase its presence in
local government bodies. No Armenian city or town is currently
controlled by it.

Rustamian argued that electoral reform is essential for accelerating
the `slow course’ of democratic reforms, echoing concerns expressed
by other Dashnaktsutyun leaders in recent months. They went as far as
to threaten to quit the ruling coalition.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

No Insurmountable Obstacles to Catholic, Orthodox Unity

Catholic World News
Feb 22 2005

No Insurmountable Obstacles to Catholic, Orthodox Unity

(CWR) — Throughout his pontificate, John Paul II has made dramatic
gestures in an effort to break down the barriers of Orthodox
hostility toward the Catholic Church. He has made pilgrimages to
traditionally Orthodox lands, apologized for the misdeeds of
Catholics, and asked Orthodox theologians to join in a discussion of
how the papacy can serve as the focus of Christian unity in the 21st
century.

In November 2003 the Pope confirmed the accuracy of a rumor that had
circulated around Rome for months: that he planned to make a new sort
of gesture toward the Eastern churches, by returning the prized icon
of Our Lady of Kazan to the Russian Orthodox Church. After several
false starts, that plan was carried out late in August 2004. By
restoring a beloved icon that had been missing for most of a century,
the Holy Father obviously sought also to restore some of the goodwill
that has been conspicuously lacking from the Moscow patriarchate’s
attitude toward Rome in recent years.

Whether the Pope’s effort will prove successful in reviving
productive ecumenical talks with the Russian Orthodox Church is not
yet clear. But the papal gesture drew one prompt reaction from
another important corner of the Orthodox world. Late in June, when he
visited Rome to join in celebrating the patronal feast of Ss. Peter
and Paul, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople asked Pope John
Paul to consider returning another set of objects prized by the
Orthodox: the relics of Ss. John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen.

Although both St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazianzen were
bishops of Constantinople, their relics have been in Rome for
centuries. The relics of St. Gregory Nazianzen were brought to the
Vatican during the 8th-century iconoclastic controversy, when the
emperors outlawed the veneration of relics. Those of St. John
Chrysostom were taken by Crusaders in the 13th century. The Orthodox
Church had complained, over the centuries, that the relics being held
by the Vatican were actually the property of the Constantinople See.

When the Pope acceded to that request, Patriarch Bartholomew I
underlined the importance of the gesture by saying that he would fly
back to Rome–making his second visit to the Vatican of the year–to
accept the relics in person. After a few weeks of preparation, plans
were set for an ecumenical ceremony in St. Peter’s basilica on
November 27, at which Pope John Paul II would turn over the relics to
the Patriarch.

HIGH EXPECTATIONS

Ss. John Chrysostom (349-407) and Gregory Nazianzen (330-390) are
both doctors of the Church, who gained fame for their defense of
Christian doctrine in the face of the Arian heresy. Each saint also
is claimed by Patriarch Bartholomew as a predecessor as Patriarch of
Constantinople.

As he announced plans for the November ceremony, Bishop Brian
Farrell, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,
observed that the Pope’s decision to return the relics was a “sign of
the deep communion that exists between the Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Church.” He pointed out that similar gestures had been made
by local churches. In 2001, the Diocese of Bari, Italy, presented
relics of St. Nicholas to the Russian Orthodox Church. And in 2000,
relics of St. Gregory the Illuminator, which had been kept in a
monastery near Naples, were presented to Catholicos Karekin II, the
leader of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The second visit of 2004 by Patriarch Bartholomew, the acknowledged
“first among equals” among Orthodox patriarchs, would in itself be a
sign of “growing rapprochement” between the Catholic and Orthodox
churches, Bishop Farrell said. While there are important
disagreements on matters of doctrine and ecclesiology that remain
unresolved, he observed, there are increasingly strong personal bonds
between the members of the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies–the
bodies that were estranged by the Great Schism of 1054.

Patriarch Bartholomew, who was elected as the 273rd Patriarch of
Constantinople in October 1991, visited the Vatican for the first
time in June 1995, when he joined in the historic inter-religious day
of prayer for peace at Assisi. In 1994, Pope John Paul had reached
out to the Orthodox leader by asking Bartholomew to write the
meditations to be read during the Stations of the Cross on Good
Friday in the Roman Coliseum. Thus began a series of visits and
exchanges between Rome and Constantinople. Each year the Vatican
sends a delegation of prelates to join in the Orthodox Patriarch’s
celebration of the feast of St. Andrew, the patron of Constantinople,
on November 30; the Orthodox respond by sending a delegation to
Rome–headed his year by the Patriarch himself–for the feast of Ss.
Peter and Paul on June 29. During his private conversations with the
Pontiff in June, Bartholomew I had invited John Paul to return the
personal visit by making a trip to Constantinople, but the Pontiff’s
health made such a trip impossible.

In a private letter sent to Patriarch Bartholomew on September 8, the
Pontiff referred to the relics as “the common patrimony of the faith
which unites us, however imperfectly.” Bartholomew responded by
confirming that he would come to Rome to receive the relics, saying
that the gesture would have “an immense significance” for his
Orthodox see.

The Orthodox delegation arrived in Rome on November 26, and was
greeted by a welcoming committee led by Cardinal Walter Kasper, the
president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. During their
stay in Rome the Orthodox clerics were lodged in the Vatican’s St.
Martha residence, and the Patriarch was the guest of honor at a
dinner hosted by Cardinal Kasper’s dicastery, with many officials of
the Roman Curia in attendance. And before his departure, the
Patriarch would again speak privately with the Roman Pontiff.

As the organizers finished the last-minute details of preparation,
television crews set up their equipment in the Vatican basilica for
live broadcasts that would bring the ecumenical ceremony to network
audiences in Italy and in Greece.

NO INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS

During the Saturday-morning ceremony, Pope John Paul II underlined
his desire for full Christian unity, while the leader of the Orthodox
world promised “to continue the dialogue of truth in love” with the
Catholic Church. As he handed over the precious relics, the Pope said
the gesture was “a blessed opportunity to purify our wounded
memories.”

The Holy Father offered a prayer that “God will hasten the hour in
which we will be able to live together, in the celebration of the
holy Eucharist, full communion.” As he received the relics–which had
been enclosed in magnificent alabaster reliquaries–Patriarch
Bartholomew I said that the Pope’s gesture “confirms that there are
not insurmountable problems in the Church of Christ.”

The ceremony included a Liturgy of the Word, in which the readings
included both Scriptural passages and selections from the two saints
whose relics were being transferred. The Pope and the Patriarch then
prayed together, and each made a short statement. (Because of the
difficulty that John Paul II now encounters in speaking aloud, the
Pope’s statement was read by Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, the deputy
Secretary of State.)

During his address, Patriarch Bartholomew gently alluded to the
historic complaints of the Orthodox Church, saying that by returning
the relics the Pope was correcting “an ecclesiastical anomaly and
injustice.” He added that the Pope’s gesture should be imitated by
others who “arbitrarily hold and still retain treasures of the
faith.” He did not identify the objects of that statement, which
could apply to governments in Eastern Europe, as well as to Catholic
dioceses.

Two days after the ceremony, Patriarch Bartholomew stunned reporters
by saying that taking possession of the relics was the “most
important event” of his 13-year tenure as the Ecumenical Patriarch.
He stressed that the Pope’s willingness to return the relics to
Constantinople was “a very important step toward full unity between
our two churches,” and that the gesture would be “very much
appreciated by the ecumenical Patriarchate and by all of the Orthodox
world.” Patriarch Bartholomew told a Vatican Radio audience that he
was “very moved and very happy” because of the “historic event,
thanks to the goodwill of the Pope.”

Cardinal Walter Kasper more modestly observed that the transfer of
the relics was “a sign of our relations, which are much improved.” He
observed that it was also a sign of the “common heritage of faith
from the first centuries of Christianity,” since the two saints are
equally venerated by the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

Just one small shadow of controversy marred the warmth of the
transfer. Provoked by the repeated charges that the relics had been
stolen from the Orthodox Church, papal spokesman Joaquin
Navarro-Valls informed reporters that the Pope was not making an “act
of reparation” or a request for “forgiveness” by turning them over to
Patriarch Bartholomew. The claims that Catholics had looted the
relics were misleading, he insisted; in particular, the notion that
the relics of St. Gregory Nazianzen had been “stolen” from the
Patriarchate of Constantinople were, he argued, “historically
inaccurate.” Navarro-Valls pointed out that the remains of St.
Gregory had been moved to Rome during the 8th century so that they
could be saved from the iconoclastic persecution of that day.

Navarro-Valls did not recount the story of how the relics of St. John
Chrysostom reached Rome, after the sack of Constantinople during the
Fourth Crusade in 1204. While acknowledging the “tragic events” that
were involved in the movement of the relics, he explained that the
Pope’s decision to return the icons was an effort to go “beyond the
controversies and difficulties of the past.” (Pope John Paul had
asked for pardon for the sacking of Constantinople on an earlier
occasion: during his trip to Greece in May 2001. In his address to
the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Christodoulos, the Pontiff said that it
was “tragic” that Crusaders who set out to liberate the Holy Land
engaged in the plunder of Constantinople.)

UNITING THE CHRISTIAN MINORITY

When the Patriarch returned home, an ecumenical assembly, including
Turkish civil authorities and many Catholic bishops, gathered in St.
George’s Orthodox cathedral in Istanbul to welcome the relics. Buoyed
by the enthusiasm generated by the Pope’s gesture, large crowds
attended the Divine Liturgy on November 30, marking the feast of St.
Andrew.

“This was an act of reconciliation among the churches which is bound
to have positive effects on ecumenical relations in the future,”
Father George Marovich, spokesman for the Catholic bishops’
conference of Turkey, told the Fides news service. National media
outlets gave ample coverage to the return of the relics, prompting a
heartily emotional reaction from the small Christian minority
community in Turkey.

The return of the relics came at a time when Turkey’s Christians were
already feeling a new sense of power and purpose, for different
reasons. Turkey’s bid for entry into the European Union has been met
by probing questions about the state of religious freedom in the
overwhelmingly Muslim country, and the government has responded by
reaching out to Christian leaders–clearly hoping to elicit their
support for the cause of entry into the European Union. During a
meeting with Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan in July, the Catholic
bishops of Turkey (representing the Latin, Armenian, Chaldean, and
Syrian Catholic communities, all of which boast a small but steadfast
following) had a rare chance to speak about the problems encountered
by Catholics in Turkey, and also to make a request for official
juridical status for the Catholic Church in Turkey–something the
government has never previously considered.

The celebration of the relics’ return, then, offered another occasion
for solidarity among the Christians who make up just 0.6 percent of
Turkey’s population.

RENEWED DIALOGUE?

The Vatican officials who visited Istanbul for that November 30
celebration reported, on their return to Rome, that the Orthodox
Patriarchate of Constantinople shared a desire that Pope John Paul
had expressed to Patriarch Bartholomew in June and again in November.
The Catholic and Orthodox officials agreed–at least in principle–to
revive a joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission that has been
dormant since a meeting in Baltimore in July 2000.

The joint commission, established as the result of talks in November
1979 between Pope John Paul and the then-Patriarch Dimitrios I, had
produced the “Balamund declaration” of 1993, in which the Orthodox
churches accepted the existence of the Eastern Catholic communities,
while the Holy See acknowledged that ecumenical progress should come
through corporate reunion with the Orthodox churches rather than the
recognition of new Eastern-rite Catholic communities. But the
commission then reached an impasse over Orthodox complaints about
“proselytism” by Catholics in traditionally Orthodox lands, and about
Vatican support for the Eastern-rite Catholic churches.

But the Pope’s latest gesture might have been enough to break that
impasse, Vatican officials reported. The delegation from Rome, led by
Cardinal Kasper, found that Orthodox officials were particularly
cordial in their greetings this year. The Pope’s gesture has been
recognized as “a sign of friendship by the Catholic Church, and of
our bond through the communion of saints,” one prelate remarked.
During their meetings in Istanbul, representatives of the Orthodox
synod assured the Vatican delegates that they plan to respond
promptly to the Pope’s plea for a resumption of formal talks by the
joint commission.

During the November 30 ceremony in the cathedral of St. George, when
Cardinal Kasper had a chance to convey greetings from the Holy See,
he emphasized the bonds between Rome and Constantinople. The German
cardinal reminded Patriarch Bartholomew “how profound and significant
were the events that we celebrated in St. Peter’s basilica, just a
few days ago, and which we continue to celebrate today.” Cardinal
Kasper added: “What unites us is much more than a human bond; it is a
communion in the faith that John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen
confessed and courageously proclaimed.” While thanking God for that
bond, the cardinal continued, “we must still reinforce our commitment
to progress on the path to full communion.” The deep spiritual bond
between the two churches, he said, calls attention to the fact that
the communion “is not complete.”

Orthodox officials responded positively to that challenge, the
Vatican envoys confirmed. The Orthodox synod confirmed a desire to
resume formal theological talks, and the only remaining problems will
be working out the details of a time, place, and agenda for the
discussions.

ARHNJ: TARC Chairman David Phillips on Nj Armenian Radio

David Phillips dicusses his book `Unsilencing The Past’ on NJ Armenian
Radio:

`TARC broke the ice, it broke a serious taboo in Turkey’

On Sunday Feb.20, 2005 Vartan Abdo, director of the Armenian Radio
Hour of New Jersey had a live on-air phone interview with author David
Phillips about his new book `Unsilencing The Past – Track Two
Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation’.

David Phillips is a senior fellow and Deputy Director of the Center
for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. He chaired
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission – TARC.

The following is a transcript of the interview:

What did you expect to achieve and actually did achieve through TARC?

Our goals were always to use the civil society contacts as a way of
building momentum towards opening the border between Turkey and
Armenia. That would be the first step in a process culminating in a
diplomatic relation between the two countries. It was also clear from
discussions that TARC had, as well as my extensive interaction with
Turks and Armenians, if you wanted to have discussions about the
Armenian genocide the only way to do that was to increase the level of
contacts between Turks and Armenians, where there will be more mutual
understanding and ultimately a recognition of historical facts.

Why were you tough on the Armenian Government in an op-ed that
appeared in the Wall Street Journal?

When I was in Yerevan meeting with different political figures as well
as with government officials, the day that I left was the day that the
security forces came and forcibly removed pro-democracy demonstrators
from the public square. That kind of heavy handed tactic in
suppressing dissent isn’t what the United States expects from its good
friends and allies around the world, nor is it in the interest of
Armenia. If the country is going to be a strong democracy and
collaborate effectively with its partners and friends aroundthe world
as well as its neighbors, it needs to abide by international
democratic and human rights norms. Clearly the behavior of forcibly
clearing the square, cracking down on dissent was an aberration from
what we expect from Armenia.

How could the governments of Turkey and Armenia have helped you in
your work with TARC?

If the goal is to open the border, the Turkish government first and
foremost needed to have the maturity and the foresight to recognize
that the economic interest of Turks and North East Anatolia would be
served by opening the border and increasing travel and trade; and its
interest in accelerating EC accession talks will also be well served,
consistent with European Parliament resolutions calling for
normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. If in fact this was the
goal -and my discussions with Armenian officials suggested it was the
intent of all parties to open the border; a clear and an unambiguous
statement from the Armenian Government that they were not seeking
Turkish territory would have created conditions for Ankara to move
forward with opening the border. I know from my own face-to-face
contacts with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, when I pressed him on
opening the border he said that mixed signals coming from Yerevan were
providing justification for not moving ahead. If it is in Armenia’s
interest to get that border open, as I think itis abundantly clear it
is, then the government is responsible for sending a clear message. It
failed to do so.

Georgia has open border with Turkey and Georgia’s economy hasn’t
benefited from open borders, why will open borders be in Armenia’s
interest?

We live in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world and the
notion of closed borders is really archaic and the thing of the
past. Right now Armenia suffers a terrible embargo on both its eastern
and western borders and as a result many young Armenian feel that they
do not have the opportunities in the country, and are leaving. That’s
not in the interest of a strong and thriving Armenia in the future.

Can we move forward without addressing the big issue of Genocide?

The only way you are going to address it is if you talk to Turks and
you have a chance to share information with them. One of the things
that shocked me in my visits to Turkey was the complete taboo on
Armenian issues and the absolute lack of understanding about events
surrounding the Armenian Genocide, in the early 20th century. Because
TARC announced its work it created a safe space for Turks and
Armenians to get together, it also served as a lightening rod
attracting a lot of criticism, but enabling other civil society
groupsto expand the broad portfolio of dialogue, contact and
cooperation. Those TRACK TWO contacts are going on today.

How would you expect Armenians to react to a comment made by a Turkish
member of TARC, `..the purpose of TARC is to block the international
recognition of the Armenian Genocide..’?

Angrily. And justifiably Armenians did respond angrily. The purpose of
TARC was not to bloc progress of international recognition. The
purpose was to promote mutual understanding through normal travel and
trade and ultimately normalized diplomatic relations. It was clear
that some members of TARC were operating with their own agendas or
instructions from their own government and weren’t entirely
constructive. That’s the difficulties of this kind of process. You
have a group assembled that represent different constituencies.
What’s important for the group is to achieve coherence and to work
constructively together. Have there been more support both from the
Armenian government and some elements of the Armenian community and
from Turkish national elementsand opposition party, I think TARC would
have been able to make more progress than it did. I was also
disappointed repeatedly by the Bush Administration. At critical
moments it failed to stand and support this reconciliation effort. We
always said that TRACK TWO is a substitute for official diplomacy but
clearly the events of September 11 and then the Iraq War affected the
context in which we were working.

At the time of the Iraq War, Ankara did not allow its bases to be used
by US military. At that same time, in a resolution passed in the US
Congress the Armenian Genocide was mentioned. How fair is it to use
this question of Genocide when it serves the national interests of a
country?

One thing about TRACK TWO is that it doesn’t occur in a vacuum. During
the negotiations leading to the Turkish government’s decision of the
transit of the 4th Infantry Division , it was extremely difficult for
US officials to raise Armenian issues in their discussions with their
Turkish counterparts. But then when the Turkish Grand National
Assembly voted against the transit ofthe 4th Infantry Division, US
officials were angered and Armenian issues suddenly resurfaced on the
list of talking points. A few months later when Turkey’s participation
in stabilizing Iraq, when the insurgency started to spread, became
more important, once again Armenian issues receded into the
background. That’s why it is important for TRACK TWO to maintain a
consistent approach and to fill the gaps when governments are unable
to do so. That was one of the successes of TARC. The milestone that we
thought to accomplish haven’t been achieved yet, but I am confident
they will be in the future.

Are Armenians ignorant of how sensitive Turks are to the Genocide
issue,` .acknowledging the genocide contradicts their
noble-self-image..’?

Well, mutual understanding is a two-way street. The Turks bring their
own baggage and their own history to the table and one of the things
we had to deal with TARC was to actually listen to each other and to
respond to each others concerns There was never any negotiation about
whether the Armenian Genocide did or did not occur. What TARC did do
is to listen to all the members. Each of them had their own views
about those events and the historical context in which they occurred
and the effect of those events on the present and the future. It’s a
difficult task to get people together and to forge acommon
vision. Because TARC announced its work and felt it is important to be
transparent about its intentions, it allowed itself to be turned into
a little bit of a punching bag. That probably also enabled other
groups to go forward andto be exempt of similar kind of treatment. But
the reality is that TARC broke the ice, it broke a serious taboo in
Turkey. Right now there is an industry of Turkish and Armenian
contacts and cooperation not only among civil society groups but also
at the business level, and all that speaks well of future prospects,
concerning both countries and of course the agenda of Armenianswhich
is to impress upon Turks facts concerning the Armenian Genocide so
that there can be an acknowledgement and move on.

How realistic is Van Krikorian’s position. `.TARC’s purpose was not
to explore the truth of the Armenian Genocide. That fact is beyond
question’?

You will note that the title of TARC doesn’t include truth in its
name. In fact when I was first introduced to Mr. Krikorian I
described to him the work that I had done with Greek-Turkish
rapprochement; one of the activities involved the shared history
between Greek and Turkish scholars on the `Fire of Izmir ‘ or `The
Burning of Smyrna’ depending on your perspective. Mr. Krikorian
listened patiently and appreciated the process but he made clear to me
then, and was clear throughout that from the Armenian perspective
there were no two versions of history. There was only one version and
that was the version that affirms veracity of the Armenian
Genocide. The question was how do we address that, how do we focus on
issues in the present tense. How do we build a brighter future for
Armenians in cooperation with Turkey and ultimately with Azerbaijan,
so the whole region can move forward.

The international Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) has qualified
the events of 1915 as genocide. Why was the wording of TARC to ICTJ so
strict?

The initiative to seek international legal advice came from Gunduz
Aktan, on the Turkish side. When he proposed this at one of our TARC
meetings, the term he used was the `applicability’ of the Genocide
Convention. The Armenians immediately understood that because he used
the term `applicability’ rather than `application’, legal analysts
could interpret that language broadly. The finding of ICTJ confirmed
that no treaty had been applied retroactively. Therefore, any effort
by any party to use the Genocide Convention to secure reparations or
territories would be null and void. Full stop! It also found in the
context of the applicability that based on the four criteria defining
genocide that at least some of the Ottoman rulers knew, when they
issued the deportations orders, that it would result in the mass
deaths of Armenians. So the prerequisite genocidal intent’ exists and
therefore journalists and historians and scholars would be justified
by using the term `genocide’. The Turks realized they had made a
mistake in the choice of words that were agreed to. The reason why we
surrounded the strategy for distributing the ICTJ findings with
ironclad language was because we didn’t want anybody to walk away from
the study once it was completed, or somehow try to disavow themselves
of the responsibility for conducting the study. It took us a
year-and-a-half to agree on the language, to request the study, to
negotiate the terms of reference, to move forward with the execution
of the study and then to release it. I think that the findings of ICTJ
will exist in history as an extremely important document concerning
Turkish Armenian relationship.

There are experts of international law who claim that there is no
statute of limitations on genocide and it could be applied
retroactively?

I am not aware of any qualified international legal experts who make
that claim. There has never been a treaty that was applied
retroactively. Any intent to do so in the context of the Genocide
Convention has no basis in International Law. I knew that all along
. The reason why I was pleased with the ICTJ finding is because I felt
it was a win-win outcome. It gave something to both sides and
ultimately rapprochement and reconciliation needs to make allowances
to both sides to move forward from a stalemate and undertake some
progress.

You mention that Armenians attack TARC in public but support it in
private?

One of the things that surprised me after my many trips to Armenia and
discussions with senior government officials and religious figures and
civil society leaders, was their strong support for reconciliation and
their endorsement of TARC’s efforts. As soon as the announcement about
TARC was made, Armenian nationalists jumped on it and started making
false accusations about TARC’s agenda and intent. Instead of standing
firm behind TARC which was the commitment that had been secured from
these persons all along they got wobbly under the pressure. Had the
government and others stood behind TARC it would have made TARC’s work
more successful and certainly much easier, but they withered under the
political pressure from coalition partners, and that was unfortunate.

What is your comment to your critics who say that TARC is all about
silencing the truth to accommodate the government of Turkey and TARC’s
funding and resources were not transparent?

Read the book! It describes in full detail the multiple sources of
funding, the extensive consultation, the constructive efforts that
TARC made. We are not holding any punches back here. It is completely
transparent accountingand it’s my belief that the Tashnag criticize
the efforts for one reason only – because they were not part of
that. Had they been included, I think they would have blown it up at
the beginning. But their criticism stems solely from the fact that
they had tried to own this issue and as a result there is little
progress made internationally and because of that scant progress work
of groups like TARC become all the more important.?

You say you have neglected to develop a strategy to neutralize
hard-line opponents? What strategy could you have applied?

Well there are hard-liners -opponents – on both sides and I feel asmy
role as a facilitator I had to work more closely with the communities
and shared more information earlier about TARC’s agenda., In
retrospect spending more time in Armenia, spending more time working
with different Armenian groups, so they felt better informed, probably
would have been to everyone’s interest. Hindsight is easy. But there
clearly were mistakes made. This was not a perfect endeavor. It fell
short of perfection, but it was still a pretty good try in moving this
agenda forward.

You say you underestimated the bitterness that exists between Turks
and Armenians. Where do we go from here?

The only way to decrease that level of bitterness is through contact.
If people have interaction with each other, no matter how bitterly
they may disagree, it will change the dynamics of their interaction in
the future. TARC was the first effort of its kind and I think that the
historical effect of TARC and of the ICTJ findings is yet to be fully
manifested over time – particularly as Turkey moves forward with its
EU talks and recognizes that it needs to make good on its pledge of
Turkey as a gateway to the Caucasus. There is going to be progress on
opening the border, on normalizing travel and trade, on diplomatic
relations. And the more contacts the Turks and Armenians have, the
more there is going to be understanding about the Armenian Genocide
and the tragic events in the beginning of the 20th century.

You were asked if YOU believe if there was Genocide. What is your
answer?

What I do or don’t believe is not important. What is important is that
all the participants in TRACK TWO endeavor have confidence in my
capacity, my commitment. My interest in this was inspired by my
affection for Armenians and Turks alike. This was hard work but it was
gratifying work and it was particularly gratifying because of the
honorable way which some of the TARC members conducted their
affairs. I hope the `Unsilencing the Past’ provides an important
historical record of their efforts and can be used as a road map for
similar kinds of TRACK TWO activities in the future.

Anything in closing?

It was an honor for me to be able to work with Turks and Armenians on
this TRACK TWO endeavor. It was a privilege to make TRACK TWO more
central part of the US government’s diplomatic toolbox. It takes time
before you realize tangible benefits, but I am very confident that we
will see in the near future measurable progress and the TARC’s efforts
will be seen in a different light, once those milestones are achieved

An interview on Yerkir website

An interview on Yerkir website

Yerkir/arm
February 18, 2005

The Yerkir weekly website has initiated a series of interviews with
politicians, statesmen, and public leaders. You can ask your
questions, by visiting

On February 5-14, the readers passed their questions to the director
of the Noravank foundation, editor of the XXI Century Journal and
political scientist Gagik Harutiunian. Below you can find an excerpt
from the interview. The full text will be installed on the website on
February 21.

Karakhanian: Do you think the permanent revolutions that seem to
impulse the activities not only in the post-Soviet countries but also
in many other `hot spots’ of the planet, may influence our region, and
namely the upcoming developments in Armenia?

Harutiunian: As you know, the concept of permanent revolutions was
well-implemented in Georgia and Ukraine and by that it already has
influenced Armenia. Note that the notion of `revolution’ has recently
assumed anew, non-traditional implication. The modern permanent
revolutions are quite artificial and their link to wide public support
is quite conventional. And in this respect it is more proper to use
the term of `overthrow.’ This kind of an`overthrow’ is a political
technology, which follows certain geopolitical and geo-ideological
goals. It is noteworthy that being just an overthrow, which results
in change of the non-principal upper elite and re-shuffle of property,
these developments do not positively tell upon the living level of the
bulk population or the prospect of the country’s development. In
addition, such abrupt developments `import in dark colors’ the recent
past, break the succession of development, which is very dangerous
from spiritual and national security prospects. It is characteristic
that a big part of the youth that carried out the `revolution’ in
Georgia has beenleft out of the game. As to Armenia, we must note
that here the situation is very different from Georgia in 2002. I
believe the main difference is that our nation has a rich political
culture, somehow different mentality, which will not let us be take up
non-constructive activities. Of course, there is a number of unsolved
social and economic issues, however, the tendencies and changes are
inspiring. Thus, we can positively say the core social-economic
tension is behind. The authority factor is important. Unlike Armenia,
Kuchma’s and Shevarnadze’ s regimes were demobilized and could not
expose a political will to defend themselves. The lists of comparisons
in favor of Armenia can be continued. The above-mentioned factors are
due but not sufficient to exclude the chance ofa permanent revolution
in Armenia, especially taking into account the huge financial
infusions provided for that event. The public psychological situation
is very important, as well as the factor of skills and abilities of
the youth being employed (which is today a real issue), ideological
unity, etc. There is still much work to be done in thisfield and this
issue deals with the point we laid about informational, psychological
and spiritual security.

Shamil Rashidov, Istanbul, professor on Eastern studies: After the
collapse of the USSR, huge geopolitical changes covered not only the
post-Soviet territory but the whole world. Last century, your country,
like many other not big countries, was sacrifices to the benefits of
bigger states. Do you think this tendency can be repeated, given that
the abilities of small countries are quite limited? Thank you in
advance for an answer.

Harutiunian: Mr. Rashidov, being a professional, You have very
accurately noticed the strong states carry out the geopolitics and
small (sometimes the big ones, too, like it happened to
Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empires at the beginning of the 20th
century) countries are often sacrificed to their benefits.

In this respect, certain processes still take place. In terms of
complying states to modern geopolitics, (which is also contributed by
your Western colleagues from the USA, like Bertrand Lewis) the Middle
East is undergoingan attempt of re-modification: autonomies are being
set up for all kinds of ethnic and religious groups.

On the example of Iraq, we see that Kurds have gained an autonomy akin
to independence, Shiites and Sunnis are being divided. There are
projects, designed for the whole region. I believe, all this does not
need special comments. I dare express the opinion that these new
geopolitical and geo-ideological challenges increase risks also for
You and do not add to optimism.

At the same time, I have an impression that the Eurasian countries
have recently started more reaching for each other. I see the
aspiration of these countries to rely on their own resources and
finding common benefits with their neighbors. Possibly, this tendency
will help all of us avoid negative scenarios of the future.

www.yerkir.am

Armenian foreign minister meets pilots jailed in Equatorial Guinea

Armenian foreign minister meets pilots jailed in Equatorial Guinea

Mediamax news agency
22 Feb 05

YEREVAN

Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vardan Oskanyan discussed with
representatives of Equatorial Guinea’s authorities the prospects of
signing a bilateral agreement on the extradition of prisoners.

As Mediamax learned in the press service of the Armenian Foreign
Ministry today, Vardan Oskanyan discussed this issue in order to
clarify the future of the six Armenian pilots serving their sentences
in Malabo. They were accused of participation in the preparation of a
coup d’etat against the authorities of Equatorial Guinea.

During his official visit to Malabo that started on 20 February, the
Armenian foreign minister met Equatorial Guinea’s Prime Minister
Miguel Abia Biteo Boriko, the foreign minister, the state secretary
and the prosecutor-general.

The foreign ministers of Armenia and Equatorial Guinea signed a
memorandum on holding consultations between the two countries’ foreign
ministries.

During his visit, Vardan Oskanyan met the Armenian pilots serving
their sentences in the prison of Malabo.

Official Yerevan has frequently stated earlier that the Armenian
pilots have not participated in the preparation of the coup d’etat in
Equatorial Guinea.

February: justice

February: justice

Yerkir/arm
February 18, 2005

February has a really special symbolism for the Armenian reality. The
dispersing of the February revolt of 1921 is followed by the wakening
of the Karabagh movement in 1988. In both cases Armenians revolted
against injustice. The hope for and belief in justice is the last
harbor that cannot be neglected.

Armenians, being deprived of statehood for centuries on, dreamed of
having a native authority, picturing in it the guarantee for their
rights and freedom. They have been ready for any hardship on this
way. However, the self-restraint and the ability to stand up to
hardships acquires meaning only when the state and authorities turn
this national attitude into a political route, raising the overall
state-nation potential, turning it into a will, aimed at general
well-being.

Today, like never before, we need social tolerance and unity. The
world is changing every day. We face new issues and challenges every
day, which we can solve only in case we preserve the ability to
maintain our statehood and mast our destiny. Today’s challenges
concern everyone, starting with authorities to regular citizens. Thus,
each of us should try to contribute to their solution.

The meaning and content of statehood are measured by the criteria of
raising the people’s level of living and security. And each of us,
people should account for his/her contribution to this cause before
giving characteristics to the current situation. All this becomes
meaningful only by social justice. This justice must prevail in
political, economic, legal and social fields.

Remaining Faithful to Ideas of 1988

REMAINING FAITHFUL TO IDEAS OF 1988

Azg/arm
22 Feb 05

The National Assembly of Nagorno Karabakh made a statement on occasion
of the Day Artsakh’s Revival (Feb. 20) reaffirming the resolution of
building a democratic state on the bases of Nagorno Karabakh people’s
right of self-determination and sticking to the track of the OSCE
Minsk group peace talks.

The statement appeals to the Azerbaijani authorities to give up the
myopic policy of confrontation and to make efforts to establish peace,
stability, trust and tolerance in the region. Meanwhile, believing
that the world community will appreciate Artsakh people’s efforts to
build a jural state andcivil society, the statement calls for
parliaments of all countries to support Nagorno Karabakh Republic’s
recognition.

The Day of Artsakh’s Revival was celebrated in Stepanakert with young
people and school children rallying on the Victory Square. “To
Complete Victory in Elders’ Footsteps” was the youth’s
slogan. Participants of historic events, rector of Artsakh State
University Hamlet Grigorian, poet Hrachya Beglarian, held speech
before people calling for the youth to keep to the ideas of national
self-determination aroused in 1988.

Soon after the multitude headed for the Stepanakert Memorial of
freedom fighters to pay tribute. The arrangements of the day continued
as the Officer’s Home aired films on Artsakh movement. A concert at
the Youth’s Cultural Home closed the day.

The national liberation movement set off as the Regional Council took
its historic decision on the 20th special session of Autonomic Region
of Nagorno Karabakh on February 20 of 1988. The people of Artsakh
proved its right of existence having underwent numerous trails. That
very Council leads today’s generation to the complete fulfillment of
their dreams.

By Kim Gabrielian in Stepanakert

Starting Spring Without Trees

A1 Plus | 14:17:57 | 21-02-2005 | Social |

STARTING SPRING WITHOUT TREES

About 20 policemen were gathered near the house N16 in the Komitas
Street since early morning. They themselves did not know why they were
ordered to come to the `place of the accident’. But it was clear at
first sight that the policemen were protecting from the residents of the
buildings the tree-cutters who had brought heavy equipment for their
criminal activity.

Standing in front of the cars, the residents tried to stop them, but it
did not help, as the drivers did not even stop the cars.

It is interesting that the trees subject for cutting were not dead. Just
vice versa. The small trees in the area already had buds. All this will
cease to exist in a few days, as the Yerevan municipality has organized
a secret auction for the area regardless of the residents.

The residents claim that Vardan Abrahamyan, judge of the Arabkir
community court of the first instance, had got their green area,
although the documents are by name of his sister. According to the
residents, the same judge has many other areas in the city. He has
always wanted to get this area.

By the way, some years ago one of the residents had wanted to privatize
a small part of the area in order to preserve the trees, but the Yerevan
municipality had refused the request saying that the area is not subject
to privatization as it is part of the living area.

Prices For Bread Went Down

PRICES FOR BREAD WENT DOWN

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
19 Feb 05

The NKR National Statistics Service reported decrease of prices for
bread on the consumer market. According to the results of the
monitoring conducted on February 1 – 10, 2005 the price for 1 kg of
all kinds of white bread was 217 drams against 281 drams in September
2004. A kg of big matnakash bread cost196 drams against 289 drams in
September and the price for a kg of small matnakash bread was 224
drams against 283. The average price for one kg of flour of superior
quality and first class totaled 195 and 170 drams respectively andhad
not changed since the last monitoring, whereas the price for a kg of
bread decreased by 22.8 per cent. During the last ten days the average
price for a kg of loafs of bread of second class was 201 drams against
253, a kg of round bread cost 263 drams against 294 and lavash cost
539 drams against 567. The average price for one kg of bread was
reduced at the expense of profits of bread producers.

AA.
19-02-2005