Primate travels to Rome for international gathering

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

February 10, 2005
___________________

DIOCESE CONTINUES ECCUMENICAL WORK

Promoting ecumenicalism and dialogue between religions and
denominations, Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese of
the Armenian Church of America (Eastern), has traveled from
Massachusetts, to Rome, and back to New York.

The Diocese’s recent ecumenical efforts highlighted new affiliations,
in-depth discussions, and on-going successes.

JOINING FELLOW FAITHFUL

The Primate was in Needham, MA, on Wednesday, January 19, 2005, to
attend a meeting of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. During the
meeting of the 103-year-old organization, the Armenian Church officially
became a member.

The Primate and delegates from various parishes in Massachusetts spoke
to the current council members about the Armenian Church, its history,
and faith. Being a member of the Massachusetts Council of Churches
gives the Diocese an official role in dialogues and efforts to build
bonds among the faithful.

“When the Armenian Church came to America, we began to lay down roots in
Massachusetts, so this state is important to us as a Diocese. It is our
home base,” the Primate said. “And now we have taken the official step
to be closer to our neighbors, and more involved in their pious
efforts.”

SISTER ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS TOGHETER

Subsequently, the Primate traveled to Rome, where he met with Oriental
Orthodox and Roman Catholic leaders at the second meeting of the
Catholic-Oriental Orthodox International Joint Commission for Dialogue.
The meetings ran from Tuesday, January 25 to Sunday, January 30.

The first meeting was held last year in Cairo, Egypt. The Mother See of
Holy Etchmiadzin will host next January’s gathering of the group.

This year’s theme was “The Church as Communion” and included panels with
topics such as “The Church as Communion in Early Christian Thought,”
“Full Communion and Degrees of Communion, A Common Ecumenical Goal,”
“Communion — Sister Churches — Church Families,” and “Understanding
Communion, Constitutive Elements of Communion.”

The delegates had an audience with His Holiness Pope John Paul II on
Friday, January 28. In his remarks to the group, the Pope welcomed them
and praised their ecumenical mission.

“I join you in praying that the real bonds of communion between us may
be further strengthened through a spirituality of communion which
contemplates ‘the mystery of the Trinity dwelling in us,’ and sees ‘what
is positive in others, to welcome it and prize it as a gift from God,'”
the Pope said. “I encourage your efforts to foster mutual understanding
and communion between Christians of East and West.”

LOCAL ORTHODOX FAMILY

Back in New York, the Primate hosted a meeting of the Joint Commission
of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches at the Diocesan Center on
February 8, 2005.

The meeting focused on upcoming events being organized by the group,
including the Prayer Service for the United Nations Orthodox Community,
which will take place again next fall at the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox
Cathedral in New York City.

— 2/10/05

E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News
and Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,

PHOTO CAPTION (1): Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese
of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern), speaks before members of
the Massachusetts Council of Churches, which the Diocese joined on
Wednesday, January 19, 2005.

PHOTO CAPTION (2): As the newest member of the Massachusetts Council of
Churches, the Primate presents the group’s executive director, Rev. Dr.
Diane Kessler, with an Armenian icon.

PHOTO CAPTION (3): Archbishop Barsamian meets with His Holiness Pope
John Paul II during the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox International Joint
Commission for Dialogue meetings at the Vatican from Tuesday, January 25
through Sunday, January 30.

PHOTO CAPTION (4): The Pope addresses the gathering of Oriental
Orthodox and Catholic leaders in the Vatican.

# # #

www.armenianchurch.org
www.armenianchurch.org.

BAKU: Analyst takes dim view of Azerbaijan’s plight if USA attacks I

Analyst takes dim view of Azerbaijan’s plight if USA attacks Iran

Yeni Musavat, Baku
10 Feb 05

Excerpt from report by Elsad in Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat
on 10 February headlined “The destruction of Iran’s nuclear assets
promises serious threats to the region”; subheaded “Azerbaijan has
face a very awkward situation”

“Had Iran owned nuclear weapons, it could have become as strong as
Russia and Turkey in the region. As it does not, Tehran is helpless
before Russia and NATO in the person of Turkey [as published]. Iran
might enjoy the same status as these states and protect its interests
if it had the weapons,” political analyst Vafa Quluzada has said.

He thinks that this is the main reason why Tehran does not give up
its nuclear ambitions.

[Passage omitted: Iran to target Israel first in case of military
operations]

The analyst regarded as realistic the possibility of a horrible strike
on Iran right on the border with Azerbaijan.

“If the US-Iranian conflict is resolved peacefully, Azerbaijan will
benefit from that as much as anyone else.”

[Passage omitted: Quluzada describes the current situation as tense
and complicated]

Commenting on the situation in which Azerbaijan found itself, he
said that it was extremely awkward. “On the one hand, 20 per cent
of our lands are under occupation. On the other hand, all monitoring
missions and negotiations are aimed at pulling the wool over people’s
eyes. Neither Azerbaijan, nor Georgia nor Armenia would, of course,
want a new war in the region. It is not known which of the countries
will be affected by radiation, if the USA attacks Iran’s nuclear
reactor. All the three South Caucasus countries are under this threat,”
he said.

The analyst thinks that Azerbaijan might not impact on the course of
operations even if it does not join a [US] coalition. “Azerbaijan is
not a great power and Iran has nothing to lose if Azerbaijan decides
not to join the coalition. The USA might not create it [presumably,
the coalition] either. Let people not think about Iraq. It is a
different country. The point is about air strikes on Iran’s nuclear
facilities. There is no need for the coalition.”

Quluzada does not believe that Azerbaijan is among the countries
which the USA has chosen as a target.

“Azerbaijan is innocent when Iran is concerned and no attacks on Iran
will be launched from our country,” he said.

Beyond Ukraine

Beyond Ukraine
By Amitabh Pal

The Progressive
February 2005

In the prolonged election battle in Ukraine, the United States cast
itself as the friend of freedom and self-determination. The Bush
Administration made strong statements in support of democracy and the
electoral process in the country, and denounced the initial rigged
election of ruling party candidate Viktor Yanukovich.

Do not think this is the norm, however.

In several instances in other countries of the former Soviet Union,
the Bush Administration has backed dictatorships much worse than
the government of Ukraine. It also hasn’t had much of a problem with
other recent elections that have been blatantly fixed. The occasional
proclamations by the United States in favor of democracy aren’t taken
seriously by most ruling governments in the area. “The United States
has a rhetorical commitment to human rights,” says Rachel Denber,
acting executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe and Central
Asia division. “But its first priority is fighting the war on terrorism
and drug trafficking. That’s why there are no real consequences for
governments in the region that violate human rights.”

In Azerbaijan, a current favorite of the United States, presidential
elections in October 2003 were marked by large-scale fraud. In
monarchical fashion, Heydar Aliyev handed over power to his son Ilham.

Heydar, who died two months after this crowning act of nepotism, had
been warmly courted by the United States since the Clinton era due
to his country’s oil wealth. (Western oil companies have invested
$4 billion in the country and are expected to put in $10 billion
more in the coming years, according to Mother Jones.) During the
Clinton Administration, Heydar’s attempts to bolster relations with
the United States were helped along by oil companies and a luminary
of go-betweens that included Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, as well as Dick Cheney and Richard Armitage.

The Bush Administration maintained the warm relationship with Heydar.

“Our common security interests, our commercial interests, and our
interests in peace and prosperity will be strengthened with each
length of pipe laid along this line,” Bush said in a letter read
aloud by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham during the groundbreaking
ceremony of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline in September 2002. (Two
American companies, Unocal and Amerada Hess, are investors in the
pipeline.) “All of us here today,” Bush stated, “are part of a new,
more promising chapter in a new, more promising history between
our nations.” For his part, Abraham lauded Heydar’s “vision and
determination.”

Bush’s high regard for the father was transferred to the son. Back
when he was governor, Bush in 1996 had made Ilham an honorary
Texan for facilitating the entry of Texas-based oil companies into
Azerbaijan. When Ilham was chosen as the prime minister shortly before
the presidential elections, Bush sent him a letter of congratulations
through a visiting Congressional delegation.

The Bush Administration continued its friendship with the Ilham
regime after the rigged October elections, even though not only
were the elections set up, the aftermath was marked by a brutality
not yet seen in Ukraine. At least one person was killed in protests,
and security forces arrested hundreds of opposition members, many of
whom were tortured, Amnesty International found.

Although the United States spent more than $2 million during the
elections ostensibly to promote democracy, in its initial statement
on the election, the State Department said that early indications
were that the polling had gone smoothly, even if it was reserving
final judgment, a very different response from that of an official
European observer who said that the brutality of the security forces
made it seem “that a war had started.”

Deputy Secretary of State Armitage made a phone call to Ilham shortly
after the election, congratulating him on his “strong performance
at the polls,” according to Mother Jones. Armitage also expressed
the Bush Administration’s “desire to work closely with him and
with Azerbaijan in the future.” Not coincidentally, Armitage is a
former board member and co-chair of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of
Commerce. “For a long time, it was the U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of
Commerce that was the real link between our two nations,” Armitage
said in a 2002 speech before the organization. “I think now we’ve
got a pretty solid government-to-government link.”

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Azerbaijan in December
2003, just six weeks after the elections. He again congratulated
Ilham and refused to comment on the fairness of the poll. Armitage
tried to make amends by holding a meeting with opposition leaders
during a visit in March 2004, but expressed confidence at a press
conference that the human rights situation would soon get better.

Apart from the oil link, Azerbaijan has proven useful to the United
States in other ways. It has granted overflight rights to the United
States, and has sent 159 troops to Iraq. The Bush Administration
requested $70 million in aid for Azerbaijan in 2004, including $8
million in military aid. Until September 11, the regime received no
military aid because of its poor human rights record and an ongoing
dispute with Armenia.

“United States policy toward Azerbaijan has focused on Azerbaijan’s
support for America’s war against terror and oil interests,” Human
Rights Watch stated in a 2004 report. “The U.S. role has been marred
by weak responses to rights abuses, including those accompanying the
2003 election and its aftermath.”

In October, the government sentenced seven opposition leaders to
years in prison for allegedly organizing the disturbances following
the elections. Human rights rapporteurs sent by Europe denounced
the imprisonment. The United States made no big fuss.

When Kazakhstan held parliamentary elections in September and October
2004, the results left the opposition with the sum total of one member
in parliament. The member refused to take his seat in protest.

Widespread fraud occurred.

“My wife is a school director, and on election day we both voted six
times, because we had to,” a driver told The New York Times. “You
call that democracy?”

After the results, the European Union condemned the vote as
unfair. The U.S. Embassy, however, remained mum. Armitage flew to
Kazakhstan a month after the vote and did not mention the elections
at all during his news conference. Nor did he refer to the State
Department’s own human rights report in February, which noted the
almost complete muzzling of the media in the country. Instead,
he said, the main purpose of the visit was to thank the government
for its twenty-eight-member contingent in Iraq. Armitage had earlier
praised Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev in an April 27, 2004,
speech before the U.S.-Kazakhstan Business Association for making
his country the “most stable and prosperous Central Asian state.”

This seems to be the general White House line in the region. On
November 28, 2001, at the launch of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium,
Bush issued a statement praising Kazakhstan for helping “build
prosperity and stability” in the world. Nazarbayev got to visit the
White House in December 2001, partly as a reward for allowing the
U.S. Air Force to use an airport in his country. During his visit,
Nazarbayev presented Bush with a fancy saddle worth $7,500. (Under
current regulations, Bush has to turn over all his gifts to the federal
government.) The two countries signed a series of agreements. “We
declare our commitment to strengthen the long-term, strategic
partnership and cooperation between our nations seeking to advance a
shared vision of a peaceful, prosperous, and sovereign Kazakhstan in
the twenty-first century,” the joint statement by Bush and Nazarbayev
stated. As if to wave at Kazakhstan’s problem, the declaration did
“reiterate our mutual commitments to advance the rule of law and
promote freedom of religion and other universal human rights.”

This expression of a commitment to human rights by the Kazakh
government did not seem to have much of an effect on its behavior. An
August 2004 report by Human Rights Watch documented a host of abuses in
Kazakhstan, including the jailing of opposition figures, the suspicious
death of a journalist, and harassment of nongovernmental organizations.

In September 2003, the two nations signed a five-year cooperation
plan that includes the supply of helicopters, military cargo aircraft,
and ships, plus supply equipment for Kazakh troops and anti-terrorism
training. U.S. aid to Kazakhstan grew from $47.9 million in 2000 to
$92 million in 2003, of which half was for security-related purposes.

“We are grateful for the strong and growing relationship we have and
for the friendship and for the steadfastness of the Kazakh people,”
Rumsfeld said in a visit to Kazakhstan in February 2004. “Kazakhstan
is an important country in the global war on terror and has been
wonderfully helpful in Iraq, and I came here to personally say ‘thank
you’ and express our appreciation.”

The Bush Administration’s fondness for Nazarbayev is partly explained
by the fact that U.S. oil companies have significant investments in
his country. Chevron Texaco is putting in billions of dollars in
Kazakhstan. Cheney was a member of Nazarbayev’s Oil Advisory Board
when he was running Halliburton. During his visit to the United
States, Nazarbayev also met with Bush Senior, whom he awarded one
of Kazakhstan’s top civilian honors. A host of former and current
officials have lobbied for, and worked with, the Kazakh government,
including Armitage, Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, and President Reagan’s
deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver, according to Ken Silverstein
in the Los Angeles Times.

Islam Karimov, a complete thug, rules Uzbekistan. The jails are filled
with an estimated 6,500 political prisoners, says The Guardian. At
least two prisoners have been boiled to death, according to a British
Embassy report. The U.N. rapporteur on torture, Theo van Boven, stated
after a 2002 visit that torture in the country was “institutionalized,
systematic, and rampant.”

But since Karimov has cooperated in the Afghan War and allowed the
setting up of a U.S. base in his country, he has become a crucial ally
of the United States. He was received in the White House in March
2002, and top cabinet officials such as Colin Powell and Rumsfeld
have visited the Central Asian republic. The country has received
hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid and rent money since
September 11, according to Lutz Kleveman in Amnesty Now, the Amnesty
International magazine.

“People have less freedom here than during Brezhnev,” a senior Western
official in Uzbekistan told The Guardian. “The irony is that the U.S.
Republican Party is supporting the remnants of Brezhnevism as part
of their fight against Islamic extremism.”

Powell, among other top U.S. officials, has lavished praise on
Karimov. “It was my pleasure to bring to the president the greetings
of President Bush and also to extend to him our thanks for all the
support we have received from Uzbekistan in pursuing this campaign
against terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world
as well,” Powell said during a December 2001 visit to the country.

At Karimov’s White House visit a few months later, Bush “expressed
appreciation” for his help. The Uzbek government made the most of
Karimov being feted by the White House. “The world community cannot
deprive this person of the moral and physical right to stand among
those who have suppressed the forces of fear and terror becoming
the living symbol of his country,” gushed an Uzbek government press
statement released during his sojourn to the United States. While
in the United States, Karimov signed five bilateral agreements with
Washington. The Bush Administration was careful, however, to invite
Karimov for afternoon tea, instead of dinner, and to avoid a press
conference afterward.

When I visited the country later in 2002, a Western diplomat
characterized the U.S.-Uzbek relationship as “very good” and claimed
that there had been “measurable improvement in the human rights
record” in that nation, a claim refuted by the Human Rights Watch
office director for the country. The indulgence toward the country
continues. The U.S. ambassador warned Uzbek activists early last year
not to ask him “political questions,” according to Harper’s Magazine.

“Tortured dupes are forced to sign confessions showing what the Uzbek
government wants the U.S. and U.K. to believe–that they and we are
fighting the same war on terror,” Britain’s ambassador to Uzbekistan,
Craig Murray, stated in a document leaked to The Financial Times. Tony
Blair forced Murray to resign because of his outspoken criticism, in
large part due to pressure from Washington, according to The Sunday
Times of Scotland.

Roughly 1,000 U.S. troops are stationed at a base in Uzbekistan, named
K2, eighty miles from the Afghanistan border. A formal agreement
commits the United States to respond to “any external threat” to
Uzbekistan. U.S. Special Forces have provided training to the Uzbek
military, and the U.S. Army has provided military communication
equipment to the Uzbek armed forces. In 2002, Uzbekistan received
$43 million in U.S. military aid. It also participates in the NATO
Partnership for Peace program.

After meeting Karimov in February 2004, Rumsfeld said that
U.S.-Uzbek defense relations were “growing stronger every month”
and that the country’s human rights record was just one part of its
relationship with the United States, which could not be based on a
“single pillar.” He added, “We have benefited greatly in our efforts
in the global war on terror and in Afghanistan from the wonderful
cooperation we’ve received from the government of Uzbekistan.”

In July, at the advice of the State Department, the United States
cut some aid over human rights concerns. But General Richard Myers,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly disagreed with that
move during an August visit to Uzbekistan. “My own view is that is very
shortsighted, and it’s never productive,” Myers said. “In fact, it can
often have the opposite effect that people intend, because you lose any
ability to influence at all, at least through a military standpoint.”

Uzbekistan’s neighbor Turkmenistan has the worst regime in the
region–and one of the nastiest in the world. Dictator Saparmurat
Niyazov put on show trials in late 2002 and early 2003. “Many people
in Russia and the West are calling [these trials] the most chilling
public witch hunt since Stalin’s show trials of prominent Bolsheviks
in the 1930s,” The New York Times reported.

Niyazov has renamed the months of January, April, and September
after himself, his dearly departed mother, and The Book of Ruhnama,
a treatise authored by Niyazov that every schoolchild has to study at
least one day a week. Portraits and statues of him are everywhere,
including a revolving thirty-five-foot golden statue whose raised
arms welcome the dawn and bid the sun farewell at dusk. His face is
on everything from the currency to vodka. The country’s oil revenue
is put in an offshore account that only Niyazov controls.

“Turkmenistan is one of the most repressive countries in the
world,” says Human Rights Watch in a 2004 report. “The government
systematically violates virtually all civil, political, economic,
social, and cultural rights.” But Niyazov’s neo-Stalinism hasn’t
stopped top U.S. officials from visiting Turkmenistan and courting him.

“The support of President Niyazov to our efforts, and the support of
the Turkmen people to the Afghan people, remain very important to our
efforts,” General Tommy Franks said after meeting Niyazov in August
2002. “The cooperation between our nations remains very good and,
of course, I am thankful for that, as well.”

The Bush Administration requested $19.2 million in military aid
for Turkmenistan in 2003, according to the Federation of American
Scientists. A small contingent of U.S. troops has been based in
Turkmenistan to refuel cargo planes for aid into Afghanistan. During
an April 2002 visit, Rumsfeld discussed with Niyazov the expansion of
the Foreign Military Financing Program, under which the United States
has donated a Coast Guard cutter to the country. The United States
has also trained Turkmen military officers under the International
Military Education and Training program.

Rumsfeld was effusive in thanking Niyazov during his visit. “I took
the opportunity to thank the president and the people for their very
fine cooperation” in the war on terror, he said, adding that the
United States was “grateful and appreciative.” Rumsfeld expressed
gratitude to Niyazov for his “very fine contribution with respect
to humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan.” He made no mention of
Niyazov’s dubious humanitarian record in his own country.

Amitabh Pal is Managing Editor of The Progressive.

http://www.progressive.org/feb05/pal0205.php

New bill to bar Armenian ombudsman from courts

New bill to bar Armenian ombudsman from courts

Mediamax news agency
10 Feb 05

Yerevan, 10 February: The Armenian government has approved changes
to the law “On the Human Rights Defender”, which deny the ombudsman
the right to interfere in the course of court trials.

Under the new bill, the ombudsman can only consult the plaintiff on
appealing against court verdicts or sentences, the press service of
the Cabinet of Ministers reported today.

It was noted at the government’s meeting that this approach was
observed in the laws of a number of countries.

MP praises Armenia’s progress in fulfilling international commitment

MP praises Armenia’s progress in fulfilling international commitments

Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
10 Feb 05

[Presenter] Armenia is continuing to fulfill its commitments to the
Council of Europe.

The Armenian parliament speaker has received a letter of congratulation
from heads of European organizations on Armenia’s fulfilment of its
commitments in the legislative sphere, the head of the parliamentary
commission for defence, national security and internal affairs,
Mger Shakhgeldyan, said today.

As for Azerbaijan’s wish, it wants to turn the Karabakh conflict into
a topic of discussion at a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
Shakhgeldyan said. He added that for the time being it is not known
how NATO will respond to that. But we should be ready and consolidate
our forces in order to drive our message across clearly.

[Passage omitted: minor details]

[Shakhgeldyan] It is natural that Azerbaijan should want to raise
this issue at every meeting. Today, we have no information that the
issue will be discussed. But Asgarov’s [as given] statement sounds
like a warning to us and we should speed up our activities.

Time For Revolution

TIME FOR REVOLUTION

A1+
10 Feb 05

Today New Times party leader, former ARFD member Aram Karapetyan
invited journalists to declare about his intention start a “revolution
from below” in April. Several months earlier he warned the authorities
that if they do not make serious system changes, he will launch a
popular revolution. “No changes took place, while the removal of some
ministers from office was a mere imitation”, he said.

Karapetyan warned that the April revolution will be peaceful, like the
one that forced Levon Ter-Petrosyan to resign. He also said that he
has already informed the police chiefs that thorny hedge and budget
funds will prove useless. “By the way, when we for the first time
announced that we are going to start a popular revolution, worried
statements appeared in the newspapers supported by the forces,
which seized power in 1998 by means of military and violence”.
When answering the question â~@~for what reasons Aram Karapetyan is
better than Stepan Demirchyan or Artashes Geghamyan, who failed to
seize power last April, he said, â~@~Situation was different then. Our
people did not see the outcomes of the developments in the CISâ~@~]
(the matter concerns latest developments in Ukraine)and added that the
Armenian revolution will not have a color. â~@~The most important
thing is that we are not going to use force, we will just take the
power with the help of the massâ~@~].

As for the Karabakh issue, Karapetyanâ~@~Ys approaches do not differ
from the leadershipâ~@~Ys position. He just states that the authorities
do not have precise policy, they do not have a strong state and do not
enjoy the peopleâ~@~Ys support. Aram Karapetyan stated he is sure of
victory. â~@~If we do not win, we will be imprisonedâ~@~], he resumed.

–Boundary_(ID_xJZjbIxW2BNIlIJJfykxZQ)–

Galust Sahakyan To Run For President

GALUST SAHAKYAN TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT

A1+
10 Feb 05

â~@~I cannot say who will be Kocharyan’s successor, but I can firmly
say that I will be elected the Armenian President in 2018â~@~], head
of the Republican Party of Armenia Galust Sahakyan stated during
todayâ~@~Ys briefing.

Today he does not see any political motives for holding extra-ordinary
elections or any reason for dissolving the parliament, since
the conversations on the existing crisis are exaggerated in the
parliament. Galust Sahakyan considers that any elections may be
dangerous at present. When commenting on the accusations of the
Orinats Yerkir party that the businessmen deputies representing the
RPA are absent from the sittings, Sahakyan stated that he does not
wish to speak of such nonsense and dropped a hint that they, the RPA
representatives, have the key role in the parliament.

Taking into account the fact that out of 46 RPA deputies only 17
were present in the sitting hall, his words can be easily proved,
since during the three days of the session there was no possibility
to gather the number of deputies essential for voting.

–Boundary_(ID_jnDzHZzwbVDBXVHe04Vhaw)–

BAKU: Azeri MP sees Russian deputy speaker’s Karabakh remarks as”dri

Azeri MP sees Russian deputy speaker’s Karabakh remarks as “drivel”

Ekho, Baku
10 Feb 05

The statement by the deputy speaker of the Russian State Duma,
Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, that the inclusion of Nagornyy Karabakh in
the Commonwealth of Independent States could facilitate a solution to
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is “drivel”, Azerbaijani MP Aydin
Mirzazada has said. “I don’t think he understands very well what
he says,” the MP told daily Ekho. The newspaper itself noted that
while Zhirinovskiy’s statement does not represent Moscow’s official
position on the problem, Russia has always backed Armenia as its
“historical ally” in contrast to Azerbaijan which is the “hireling
of the American imperialism”. The following is the text of Nurani’s
and R. Orucov’s report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 10 February
headlined “Zhirinovskiy suggests including Nagornyy Karabakh in the
CIS”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

While the results of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit
to Azerbaijan are still being discussed in Baku and plans are being
drawn up ahead of the Year of Azerbaijan in Russia, rather alarming
statements are being made in Moscow. For instance, some media, in
particular Regnum news agency, have reported that the leader of the
Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and the deputy speaker of
the Russian Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, has outlined his own vision
of a solution to the Nagornyy Karabakh problem.

“Compromise solution”

In a news conference in Moscow, Zhirinovskiy said the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict is as impossible to resolve as the dispute between Israel
and Palestine. However, he expressed his confidence that the conflict
could be resolved if Nagornyy Karabakh is admitted to the CIS.

Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, as Regnum explains, thinks that neither Armenia
nor Azerbaijan will agree to the loss of Nagornyy Karabakh. “If Russia
insists that Nagornyy Karabakh be joined to Armenia, Azerbaijan will
take offence and vice versa,” he said. But he went on to say that
“Nagornyy Karabakh is a historical part of Armenia and is called
Artsakh”. And this leads to a simple conclusion – Nagornyy Karabakh’s
entry into the CIS, according to Zhirinovskiy, is a “compromise
solution”. Of course, the Russian audience was threatened with western
expansion again. The deputy speaker said the West is trying to apply
the so-called Dayton model [peace arrangement for Bosnia-Hercegovina]
to the Karabakh problem.

“Under such circumstances the Armenians will act as the Serbs, while
the Azerbaijanis are to be the Kosovan Albanians. The West wants to
suppress Armenia and create a 20m-strong Azerbaijan,” Zhirinovskiy
said. Obviously, Zhirinovskiy did not elaborate what the Dayton
arrangements had to do with the Kosovan Albanians.

However, it remains unclear whether at issue is the recognition of
Nagornyy Karabakh’s “independence” with its subsequent entry into
the CIS or its transfer into some sort of “direct administration”
of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

But frankly speaking, this can barely change the gist of the issue. If
Zhirinovskiy’s “compromise” envisages Karabakh’s entry into the
CIS as a fully-fledged member, then, let’s face it, this will
mean the fulfilment of the Karabakh separatists’ demands. Because
having received the status of “an independent state”, they will
have the opportunity to realize their “meatsum” [Armenian word for
unification] idea. But if Zhirinovskiy suggests introducing “direct
administration” of a part of Azerbaijani territory by the CIS, then we
are actually reviving the idea of putting Nagornyy Karabakh in “direct
administration” of Moscow, a suggestion first voiced in 1990. Then
Moscow set up a special committee headed by Arkadiy Volskiy. What
happened then is remembered only too well: Karabakh first seceded
from Azerbaijan “temporarily” and then this status became permanent
with all this entails.

Kremlin’s “official position”

It goes without saying that Zhirinovskiy has simply expressed his
own opinion and it would be “incorrect” to construe his statement as
the official position of the Russian authorities, not to mention
Zhirinovskiy’s ingrained habit of making super-extravagant
statements. But Zhirinovskiy’s shocking statements often
represent… [ellipsis as published] the Kremlin’s “official position”.

In other words, despite Azerbaijan’s latest advances to Moscow, which
have started to worry the West, they have failed to produce a tangible
shift in the “balance of Moscow’s sympathies and aversions”. It
still considers Armenia to be its “historical ally” and “brother”,
while Azerbaijanis are “hirelings of the American imperialism”
similar to the “Kosovan Albanians” (whether the West is prepared to
protect Azerbaijan as it did the Kosovan Albanians is the topic for
an altogether different discussion). And Moscow is even more unlikely
to relinquish the “confessional and historical priorities” which have
defined its policy in the South Caucasus for almost 300 years now –
starting from Peter the Great’s order to settle Armenians in the
Caspian region. And maybe Zhirinovskiy’s escapades suggest that we
need to think very carefully before making advances to Russia.

“Drivel”

When commenting on Zhirinovskiy’s statement, a representative of
the ruling New Azerbaijan Party in the Milli Maclis [parliament],
Aydin Mirzazada, described it as “drivel”.

“Although this man occupies the post of the deputy chairman of the
State Duma, I don’t think he understands very well what he says.” It
is known to all that Nagornyy Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan,
the MP said.

“The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] recently
recognized Nagornyy Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory controlled by
the separatist regime. PACE documents say that Armenia controls a
considerable portion of Azerbaijani territory. And this is stated by
a body of which Zhirinovskiy himself is a member,” Mirzazada said.

Zhirinovskiy has already made a number of unrealistic and aggressive
statements and each time the Russian official circles disowned them.

“I think statements like that are put in Zhirinovskiy’s mouth by
certain nationalistic circles interested in friendship with Armenia
and some Azerbaijani territories. But the CIS is the Commonwealth of
Independent States, while Nagornyy Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijani
territory. Therefore, I think Zhirinovskiy’s statement can only be
seen as drivel.”

ASBAREZ Online [02-10-2005]

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
02/10/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://

1) Armenian Businessman Denies Turkish Newspaper Report
2) Famous Turkish Author Urges Recognition of Turkish Atrocities
3) Turkey Ignores Armenian Calls for Joint Renovation of Historical Monuments
4) Absenteeism in Armenian Parliament

1) Armenian Businessman Denies Turkish Newspaper Report

YEREVAN (Armenpress)–Arsen Ghazarian, the chairman of the Union of
Manufacturers and Businessmen, denied reports by the Turkish newspaper Zaman
that he, along with the head of the Youth Party of Armenia Sarkis Asatrian,
met
on Wednesday with Ankara Trade Chamber president Sinan Aygun in Ankara.
According to Zaman, Aygun told the two Armenians that turning incidents of
the
past into a blood feud brings no benefit. “Now, Turkey is a democratic country
and we have forgotten these incidents,” he was quoted as saying.
But Ghazarian, on Thursday, adamantly denied that a delegation visited
Turkey,
much less met with Aygun. “The report in Zaman is another concoction of the
Turkish press and it is not the first instance when I have to deny its
reports.
This proves, once again, that one should not take seriously what Turkish
newspapers write,” he said.
Zaman, meanwhile, quoted Asatryan as saying that Armenians do not want
anybody
to intervene in Turkey-Armenia relations: “Third countries like the United
States, France, Azerbaijan, Uruguay, and China should not intervene in
relations between Turkey and Armenia.”

2) Famous Turkish Author Urges Recognition of Turkish Atrocities

ISTANBUL (Combined Sources)–In Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, renowned Turkish
author Orhan Pamuk discussed the necessity to speak truthfully of the massacre
of one million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds.
“This topic should stop being taboo,” Pamuk stressed. He said that though
many
avoid discussion of the topic, he is ready to speak.
“State leaders consider that there is no need to address it, as there is a
problem in relations with Armenia… I am not interested in the issue of state
relations with Armenia. Many people were annihilated here,” he said.
In his latest book, Snow, Pamuk deals with the theme of clashes between
civilizations and the role of Islam. A young Turk named Kerim Alakusoglu
returns to Istanbul for his mother’s funeral. In a dangerous political
atmosphere, the truth concerning Kerim and the snow-covered old world city of
Kars is revealed.
Pamuk, one of Turkey’s leading novelists, began to write regularly in 1974.
Five of his books have been published in English: Beyaz Kale (The White
Castle,
1991), Kara Kitap (The Black Book, 1995), Yeni Hayat (New Life, 1997), My Name
Is Red (2001), and Snow (2004). His work has been translated into more than
twenty languages.
Though Pamuk’s views have been condemned by various circles in Turkey,
Turkish
historian Hilal Berktay, praised Pamuk as an honest and decent intellectual
for
having the courage to address an issue many avoid.
Berktay recalls similar criticism when he expressed his views on the Armenian
genocide, in 2001.
“I think that we must get rid of the taboos that surround the events of
1915,”
Berktay had written in the French weekly L’Express, adding, “For decades
Turkish public opinion has been lulled to sleep by the same lullaby. And yet
there are tons of documents proving the sad reality.”
“As more and more honest and sincere historians and public intellectuals of
integrity keep speaking up, this dam will be breached, this dam of silence
will
be breached…this will be a fundamental dimension of internal democratization
of Turkish society,” Berktay said.

3) Turkey Ignores Armenian Calls for Joint Renovation of Historical Monuments

YEREVAN (Armenpress)–Armenia’s Culture Ministry revealed on Wednesday that
Turkey has not responded to Armenian initiatives to create a cultural corridor
between the medieval Armenian city of Ani (now in Eastern Turkey, close to the
Armenian border) and Armenia.
Although the idea was put forth in 2001 by various international
organizations, including UNESCO, only a verbal agreement has been reached so
far.
Ani, the ancient, walled capital of the kings from the Bagradit dynasty who
ruled Armenia from the 9-11 centuries AD, was in its heyday a millennium ago
and a rival to Constantinople, Baghdad, and Cairo. Despite earthquakes and
Mongol raids, much of Ani’s immense, fortified walls, as well as the city’s
citadel, caravansary, cathedral, and six churches still stand well preserved,
their stone facades a testament to a well-developed level of craftsmanship.
Today, Ani is a ghost town, deserted except for the presence of Turkish border
guards and the occasional tourists.
“Making Ani a cultural center remains a focus of Armenia’s foreign policy, as
Armenia is firmly committed to improved relations with Turkey; cultural
dialogue is one of ways to do this,” deputy minister of culture Gagik Gurjian
said.
The ministry has forwarded to Turkey’s cultural ministry, proposals on joint
Armenian-American excavations in Akhtamar and Van, and a draft for continuing
research; however, both proposals have remained unanswered.
According to Gurjian, Turkey has appealed to the European Parliament to
provide funding for the restoration of several monuments in Eastern Anatolia,
including the ancient Armenian cities of Van and Igdir. If funding is
approved,
the Armenian ministry would attempt to include Armenian monuments in these
regions involved in the project.

4) Absenteeism in Armenian Parliament

YEREVAN (RFE/RL)–Widespread absenteeism among fellow lawmakers nearly
disrupted the start of the National Assembly’s spring session on Wednesday.
The 131-member assembly was forced to delay a planned debate by two hours
after failing to make a quorum in the morning. It was also largely deserted on
Tuesday, even though its electronic voting system indicated the presence of
more than 66 deputies.
Deputy parliament speaker Vahan Hovhannisian said, “Many deputies have had
their sense of responsibility weakened or simply lack it. They just don’t come
to work.”
The spring session began on Monday in the absence of parliament speaker Artur
Baghdasarian and several other deputies of the Orinats Yerkir Party, who are
currently accompanying Baghdasarian on an official visit to several Gulf Arab
states and will not be back until Friday.
Also contributing to poor attendance is the continuing boycott of parliament
sessions by 23 deputies representing the National Assembly’s two opposition
factions. The Artarutyun bloc and the National Unity Party (AMK) had earlier
indicated that they will end the year-long boycott if President Robert
Kocharian and his loyal parliament majority accept their proposals on
constitutional reform. The presidential camp effectively rejected those
conditions last week.
“The Artarutyun alliance, therefore, finds its participation in parliament
sessions pointless,” a spokeswoman for the bloc said.
Hovannisian, meanwhile, called for tougher sanctions against absenteeism. The
parliament’s existing regulations already stipulate that a deputy who fails to
take part in most parliament votes during a semi-annual session can be
stripped
of their mandate.
The provision could have been applied to the boycotting parliamentarians;
however, the majority has so far avoided enforcing it.

All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2005 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.

ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.

–Boundary_(ID_e8477wF7mUdCxUAIGdlscA)–

http://www.asbarez.com/&gt
HTTP://WWW.ASBAREZ.COM
WWW.ASBAREZ.COM

F18News: Azerbaijan – Supreme court claims constitutional rightdoesn

FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway

The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief

=================================================

Thursday 10 February 2005
AZERBAIJAN: SUPREME COURT CLAIMS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT DOESN’T EXIST

Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court has decided that a Jehovah’s Witness can be
forced to do military service – even though the constitution claims
that “alternative service instead of regular army service is
permitted.” The court argued that, as no law on civilian alternative
service exists, the appeal of Mahir Bagirov must be rejected. Azerbaijan
has broken a promise to the Council of Europe to introduce a law by January
2003. Sayad Kirimov, deputy head of parliament’s administrative and
military law department, told Forum 18 News Service that “the Supreme
Court can’t use the absence of a law to deprive someone of their
constitutional rights.” Bagirov’s lawyer told Forum 18 that the ruling
will be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights. After this
Supreme Court decision, Bagirov “expects to be arrested by the
military police and disappear into a military barracks where he anticipates
being subjected to brutal treatment as an alleged deserter.”

AZERBAIJAN: SUPREME COURT CLAIMS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT DOESN’T EXIST

By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service

Despite a provision in the constitution guaranteeing the right to perform
alternative service for those unable to serve in the army on grounds of
conscience, Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court on 4 February failed to protect this
right in the case of Mahir Bagirov, a Jehovah’s Witness. The court argued
that the lack of a law on alternative service meant this right does not
exist. “I don’t know the exact details of this case, but it’s my
subjective view that the court took the wrong decision,” Sayad
Kirimov, deputy head of parliament’s administrative and military law
department, told Forum 18 News Service from the capital Baku on 9 February.
“The constitution has direct legal force and the Supreme Court can’t
use the absence of a law to deprive someone of their constitutional
rights.”

Article 76 (2) of the constitution states: “If beliefs of citizens
come into conflict with service in the army then in some cases envisaged by
legislation alternative service instead of regular army service is
permitted.”

Also condemning the court ruling was Eldar Zeynalov, the head of the
Baku-based Human Rights Centre of Azerbaijan who has been closely following
Bagirov’s case. “This was an illegal decision which violated the
constitution, the spirit of the law and international law to which
Azerbaijan is a party,” he told Forum 18 from Baku on 9 February.
“The Supreme Court simply doesn’t want to take responsibility for a
decision that will establish a precedent.”

British lawyer Richard Daniel, who represented Bagirov at the Supreme
Court, told Forum 18 on 8 February that Bagirov intends to challenge the
ruling at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He now fears
for his client in the wake of the rejection of his final appeal. “He
expects to be arrested by the military police and disappear into a military
barracks where he anticipates being subjected to brutal treatment as an
alleged deserter.”

Adil Gadjiev, an official at the ombudsman’s office in Baku, refused to
comment on the court ruling, but said his office would be prepared to try
to help Bagirov if he seeks such help. “We didn’t allow his detention
by the military police and forcible recruitment,” he told Forum 18
from Baku on 9 February, though he could not specify what help the office
could offer. Gadjiev declined to say what young men whose faith does not
permit them to fight should now do to establish their constitutional right
not to serve in the armed forces.

Bagirov, a 28-year-old doctor who is married with a young daughter, started
attending Jehovah’s Witness meetings in 1998 and was baptised in April
1999. Since then he has tried in vain to be removed from the military
reserve to which he had automatically been inducted as a medical graduate
and for which he had taken the oath of allegiance. “As a result of his
study of the Bible, in good conscience he felt that he could no longer take
up arms or support the military in any way,” Daniel told Forum 18.
“Therefore, he sought from the Ministry of Defence removal of his name
from the list of reserve officers and registration as a conscientious
objector. The Ministry have adamantly refused to comply.”

Bagirov was most recently called up in May 2004 and ordered to report to a
military unit. On 9 June he lodged a suit at Baku’s Khatai district court,
arguing that the insistence that he perform military service was illegal
and in violation of Article 76 part 2 of the constitution, which declares:
“If the beliefs of citizens come into conflict with service in the
army then in some cases envisaged by law alternative service instead of
regular army service is permitted.” After the appeal court rejected
his suit on 16 September (see F18News 6 October 2004
), Bagirov took his case
to the Supreme Court, which heard the case on 30 December and 3 February.

“The Military Commissariat have totally misconstrued or misrepresented
two matters of law,” Bagirov’s lawyer, Richard Daniel, complained.
“Reduced to simplicity, they say that as there is no law on
alternative civilian service yet in place in Azerbaijan, there can be no
right of conscientious objection. The Court has ignored international
agreements entered into by Azerbaijan which make clear that the right to
conscientious objection is not dependent on the provision of alternative
service.” Daniel also complains that the court’s interpretation of
“religious ministers” was too narrow and excluded leaders of
“non-traditional” faiths such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who
have different systems of leadership to faiths like the Islamic or Orthodox
communities.

Zeynalov Human Rights Centre of Azerbaijan argues that, far from showing
the independence of the court, the ruling in Bagirov’s case shows that the
judges are “totally dependent” on public opinion and the view of
the government. “Government pressure can’t take the form of a direct
instruction to the judge, but ‘telephone law’ remains the norm and the
judge in this case was possibly ‘advised’ not to take this responsibility
of establishing a precedent that individuals can opt for alternative
service.”

Zeynalov points out that the authorities have already obstructed the
activity of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, granting registration as a religious
community only after a long battle, trying to restrict their activity and
preventing foreign Jehovah’s Witness leaders coming to serve the community
in Azerbaijan. Zeynalov contrasted this with the arrival of foreign
citizens to lead the Russian Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran communities.

As part of its commitments on joining the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan
should have adopted a law on alternative service by January 2003, but
failed to do so. “This was one of its commitments and Azerbaijan
failed to meet it,” Mats Lindberg, the Council of Europe’s
representative in Baku, told Forum 18 on 9 February. “We hope
parliament here will adopt this law soon. The Council of Europe gave its
expert advice on the draft last September.”

However, Kirimov of the parliament confirmed that there has been no
progress since the first reading last year. “This issue has been hotly
debated, in parliament, in parliamentary commissions and in the
media,” he told Forum 18. Although insisting that as an obligation,
the alternative service law “will be adopted”, Kirimov maintained
that drafting the law was no easy matter. “There are many questions
needing decisive answers so that disputes won’t arise on implementation.
And checking the faith and conscience of an individual will be difficult.
Does a person really follow these beliefs or is he just trying to evade
service?”

Zeynalov chided the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe for failing to
punish Azerbaijan for missing the deadline for this and many other
commitments. “The Parliamentary Assembly didn’t react
adequately,” he told Forum 18. “That’s the problem. There is no
pressure from Strasbourg.” He maintains that parliament will defer any
decisions until after the next elections, due in November. “Nothing
will happen this year,” he insisted. “They will find new
arguments and excuses to postpone and postpone adopting an alternative
service law. The beginning of 2006 is my most optimistic forecast for
adoption.”

However, Krzysztof Zyman, the official responsible for the South Caucasus
at the Council of Europe secretariat, rejects suggestions that the
organisation has not done enough to hold Azerbaijan to its commitments.
“The failure to adopt an alternative service law is the reason the
Council of Europe is maintaining the pressure,” he told Forum 18 from
Strasbourg on 10 February. “The issue is raised regularly within the
framework of the monitoring of commitments by the Committee of Ministers. I
am aware that deadlines are not always met, but we expect Azerbaijan to
meet this commitment.”

No other conscientious objectors are known to be challenging forcible
conscription at present. In the past, a handful of Jehovah’s Witnesses and
other objectors have won the right not to serve through the courts or with
the help of the ombudsman’s office, but without establishing a legal
precedent.

Daniel complained that the legal cases Bagirov has been forced to undergo
to protect his constitutional right have been “very time-consuming for
him and very expensive”. “The amount of time off work and the
harassment by the military have meant that, although his professor is well
disposed to him, he has had to resign his post to concentrate on the legal
battle.”

Daniel believes Azerbaijan’s army is not yet ready to allow young men to do
alternative service. “The military reject the concept that they are in
breach of their undertaking to the Council of Europe on the basis that
Azerbaijan is a sovereign state, the military are operating at 67 per cent
of resources and ‘there is a war going on’,” he told Forum 18,
referring to Azerbaijan’s unresolved conflict with local Armenians in the
enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

For more background information see Forum 18’s Azerbaijan religious freedom
survey at

A printer-friendly map of Azerbaijan is available at
las/index.html?Parent=asia&amp;Rootmap=azerba
(END)

© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved.

You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News

Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at

–Boundary_(ID_fvfUw66AGSiu/Wx7qOUFeA)–

http://www.forum18.org/
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=425
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=92
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/at
http://www.forum18.org/
http://www.forum18.org/