TURKISH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER SAYS THERE WAS NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

PanArmenian News
Feb 9 2005

09.02.2005 18:02

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The history does not record the fact of the Armenian
Genocide, Turkish parliament speaker Bulent Arinc stated during
a press conference in Baku. In his words, the Genocide is a fable
invented by the Armenian Diaspora, which for many years has spread
propaganda against Turkey. Turkey is ready to open the archives for
all the interested persons, he said. “However the familiarizing with
the documents can reveal that the Genocide was perpetrated against
the Turkish but not the Armenian population”, Arinc said adding that
the issue of “genocide of Azeris in Hodzhalu” will be discussed in
the Turkish parliament on February 26.

Armenian Delegation Visits A.T.O.

Anadolu Agency, Turkey
Feb 9 2005

Anadolu Agency: 2/9/2005

ANKARA – Youth Party of Armenia leader Sargis Asatryan, and Arsen
Ghazaryan, President of the Union of Manufacturers and Businessmen
of Armenia, met Ankara Trade Chamber (ATO) Chairman Sinan Aygun
on Wednesday.

When Aygun asked Asatryan whether he accepted so-called Armenians
genocide in 1915, Asatryan said that, “Turkey did not have any
connection with Ottomans. Many things were experienced and passed.
1,5 million people were killed, they say. Years have passed. These
are incidents which happened in sultanate and war period. Now, Turkey
is a democratic country and we have forgotten these incidents.”

Asatryan said, “we do not want anybody to intervene in development
of Turkey-Armenia relations. Third countries like the United States,
France, Azerbaijan, Uruguay and China should not intervene in relations
between Turkey and Armenia.”

Meanwhile, Aygun said, “Turkey’s accession to the EU will be beneficial
for Armenia.”

“We are uneasy about the statements of Armenian President Robert
Kocharian regarding Turkey-EU process. This does not bring any
benefit to Armenia. Turkey’s accession to the EU will be beneficial
for Armenia. Problems between Armenia and a Turkey which joined the
EU will be solved easier. Armenia should support Turkey in its EU
process,” said Aygun.

Noting that Armenian diaspora does not serve interests of Armenia,
Aygun said the genocide claims have become a tool for political gains
in France and United States. Aygun said, “Turkey does not have any
problems with Armenian people. Armenia has to stop Armenian diaspora.”

Recalling that Karabakh is still under occupation of Armenia, Aygun
wanted this occupation to end.

Aygun also said that Turkey does not accept Armenian genocide
allegations. “If we stuck into past incidents, we cannot reach
anywhere,’ he added.

Aygun said, “a migration movement happened in 1915. Greek soldiers
killed many Turks in 1919. This was a war and it ended. There are
also Turkish citizens who were killed by Armenians during the war. It
is an unjust attitude to claim Turks committed Armenian genocide.
Turning incidents of the past into a blood feud will bring no benefit,
but only disturb people. We shall make trade. Turkey opened its air
space to Armenia. We did not blockade Armenians.”

Asatryan said, “Turkey and Armenia should join the EU together.”

“There are Turkish citizens who make trade with Armenia. We want
political relations to recover,” he added.

Asatryan said, “we want to establish sincere relations with Turkey.
We will become strong together with Turkey.”

Asatryan invited Aygun to Armenia, and Aygun said that he can visit
Armenia in April or May.

Arinc: Turkey Must Be A Country That Resolves Disputes

Anadolu Agency, Turkey
Feb 9 2005

Anadolu Agency: 2/9/2005

ANKARA – Turkish Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc has returned to
Ankara after an official visit to Azerbaijan. He was the guest of
Azerbaijani Parliament’s Speaker Murtuz Alasgarov.

In a press conference at Ankara’s Esenboga Airport, Arinc said that
he met and had discussions with the Azeri President Ilham Aliyev,
Prime Minister Artur Rasizade and many Azeri officials.

Arinc told reporters that his meeting with Azeri executives focused
on the development of bilateral relations. “We especially discussed
ways to make our relations better,” remarked Arinc.

Arinc indicated that Turkey is for the solution of the Upper Karabagh
problem, a region under Armenian occupation. “We want Armenian tyranny
which makes one million displaced, all Azeris, to end. We will work
closely with Azerbaijan regarding this matter,” expressed Arinc.

Arinc went on to say that Turkey must be a dynamic country that
resolves disputes, and capable of taking initiatives in its region.
“The problems of Azerbaijan deserve assistance from Turkey. Our
brothers expect a far more active international diplomacy from
Turkey. Our historical mission and strength are all we need for an
active political role,” stated Arinc.

Asked about his views on north of Iraq, Arinc elaborated that Turkey
has drawn global attention to the demographic changes made in this
region. “Undoubtedly, the elections in Iraq was full of wrong and
unfair practices. We all know that the steps taken in Iraq to this
day have not been helpful in the re-construction and democratization
of Iraq,” commented Arinc.

In response to a question on the Israeli-Palestinian Summit in Sharm El
Sheikh town of Egypt, Arinc replied that the election of Mahmood Abbas
as the president of Palestine has been a very positive step towards
the restoration of democracy in Palestine. “Abbas’s election is a
new chance for peace in the region. The establishment of a permanent
peace in the Middle East will positively affect the whole world.”

Arinc added that an independent Palestine, whose recognized boundaries
are secure, is what Turkey wishes to realize.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
February 8, 2005, Tuesday

NEWS FEATURE: Armenian genocide row as Germany confronts Auschwitz

By Leon Mangasarian, dpa

Berlin

A row has erupted in Germany over alleged pressure by a Turkish
diplomat which caused removal of the Armenian genocide from school
curriculums just as Germany held high profile ceremonies marking the
Auschwitz death camp liberation anniversary last month. It all began
when Turkey’s Consul in Berlin, Aydin Durusay, raised the issue of
the 1915 Armenian massacres with leaders of Brandenburg – the only
one of Germany’s 16 federal states, which described the killings as
“genocide” in its school curriculum. Most European and U.S.
historians say up to 1.5 million Christian Armenians were killed by
Moslem Ottoman Turks during World War I and that this was a genocide.
Eight European Union (E.U.) parliaments including France and the
Netherlands – but not Germany – have passed resolutions declaring the
deaths genocide. Turkey, however, firmly rejects the genocide label
and has long insisted far fewer Armenians died or otherwise succumbed
during World War I. More recently it has moderated its tone somewhat
and said the matter should be cleared up by a historical commission.
Over lunch at Potsdam’s exclusive “Villa von Haacke” restaurant,
Brandenburg’s Prime Minister Matthias Platzeck and his education
minister swiftly agreed to Durusay’s request to eliminate references
on Armenians in history classes, said news magazine Der Spiegel.
“Naturally the whole thing came out and just in the week the
liberation of Auschwitz was being commemorated – Platzeck and his
education minister disgraced themselves,” said the Frankfurter
Allgemeine, Germany’s conservative paper of record. Education
Minister Holger Rupprecht, however, defended the decision.
Brandenburg officials say a reworked curriculum will list a series of
genocides as examples. “Mention (of the genocide) was taken out
because both the premier and myself regarded it as a mistake to only
name the Armenians as a single example for such an explosive theme as
genocide. Turkey naturally reacted allergically,” said Rupprecht in a
Potsdamer Neueste Nachrichten newspaper interview. But the
controversy swiftly took on an international angle with the angry
Armenian Ambassdor to Germany, Karine Kazinian, due to meet with
Platzeck later this week. A German Foreign Ministry spokeswoman,
Sabine Stoehr, declined to comment directly on the affair or on
whether the German government agreed that the 1915 killings of
Armenians amounted to a genocide. “Our view is that coming to terms
with the past is naturally very important but it’s an issue between
Armenia and Turkey,” said Stoehr. German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer visited Armenia last year and made a stop at Yerevan’s
genocide memorial. Stoehr said his only official comment at the
memorial had been: “Reconciliation is the basis for a common future.”
A Turkish embassy spokesman in Berlin would not comment on the
discord in Brandeburg other than to stress the initiative came from
the Turkish consulate for the region – not from the embassy itself.
The man at the centre of the dispute, Brandenburg’s Prime Minister
Platzeck, is a member of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social
Democrats (SPD). Schroeder is a top supporter of Turkey’s bid to join
the European Union. Any issue which impacts on Turkey is tricky for
Berlin given that Germany has almost two million resident Turks who
comprise by far the country’s biggest minority. Many Turks in Germany
are poorly integrated and unemployment rates for Turkish youths are
high. And there is another angle: Germany’s own historic link to the
killing of the Armenians. As Huberta von Voss, the editor of a new
book on Armenian history and contemporary affairs notes: Germany has
“moral responsibility” for the Armenian genocide because Berlin was
allied with the Ottoman Turks during the First World War. “Many
German politicians are absorbed with the Holocaust … they don’t
have the strength for another genocide,” said von Voss in an
interview. Wolfgang Gust, a former correspondent for the news
magazine Der Spiegel, says in a chapter of the book titled “Partners
in Silence” that “German officers played an important role in the war
of destruction against the Armenians.” The involvement of Germans
ranged from diplomats failing to protest the massacres, to officers
taking part in executions of Armenians and the mass expulsion of
women and children who died in the Syrian desert, says Gust who is
compiling an archive of German Foreign Ministry documents on the
genocide available at Von Voss’s book dismisses
Turkish arguments that the killing of Armenians did not amount to
genocide. “The research has already been done. We do not even need
the Ottoman archives to be opened – the evidence is overwhelming,”
she said, adding: “Don’t pretend the Armenian genocide is a matter of
opinion. It’s a fact.” With Turkey gearing up to start negotiations
in October aimed at E.U. membership, von Voss warned that failure to
address the Armenian genocide could severely harm Ankara’s chances.
The parliament of the Netherlands, which only passed its Armenia
genocide resolution last December, did so in part due to anger that
the issue was left out of the formal E.U. decision to open accession
talks with Ankara, she noted. Turkey is not expected to join the E.U.
for 10 to 15 years and will only be able to do so if all 25 current
member states give it a green light. dpa lm ms

htm#44061

IRAN DAILY
Wed, Feb 09, 2005
BAHMAN 21 1383
Zihajeh 29, 1425

Khatami Receives Armenia’s Top Security Official

President Mohammad Khatami (r) in talks with the secretary of the
Armenian National Security Council, Serzh Sarkisian, in Tehran on
Tuesday. (IRNA Photo)

TEHRAN, Feb. 8–President Mohammad Khatami said here Tuesday that
Tehran-Yerevan cooperation will help promote mutual interest and
regional security and stability.

In a meeting with the secretary of the Armenian National Security
Council, Serzh Sarkisian he said presidents of the two countries have
opened a new chapter in developing economic cooperation and efforts
should be made for speedy implementation of mutual accords.

Khatami stressed that Iran supports Armenia, in light of the fact that
mutual cooperation can help development and security in the Caucasus.

The president pointed to the role of transit and transportation in
boosting relations among regional states and reiterated the need for
connecting regional rail and roadways.

Sarkisian for his part hoped for further expansion of bilateral
relations. He said promotion of cooperation in the fields of culture,
education and economy is in the interest of regional security.

Linking the railways of the two neighboring countries would be
effective in establishing the North-South Corridor, the senior Armenian
official noted.

Russia’s GAZ 2004 vehicle sales up 6.8% on year

Prime-Tass English-language Business Newswire
February 8, 2005

NIZHNY NOVGOROD, Feb 8 (Prime-Tass) — The vehicle and vehicle assembly
kit sales of Russia’s second-largest car and truck maker GAZ rose 6.8%
on the year in 2004 to 230,664 vehicles, the plant’s press service
told Prime-Tass Tuesday citing preliminary data.

Of the total, GAZ sold 69,976 cars and 160,688 trucks, minibuses and
special-purpose vehicles.

In 2004 GAZ sold 186,143 vehicles in Russia and exported 44,521
vehicles and vehicle assembly kits, up 14% on the year. The company
exported 34,523 vehicles to CIS countries, up 20.6% on the year,
and 9,998 vehicles to non-CIS countries, up from about 1,400 vehicles
in 2003.

GAZ exports its vehicles to Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia,
Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Cuba and other countries.

GAZ exported 19.2% of its production in 2004.

In 2004 the company’s output rose 8.4% on the year to 231,336 vehicles
and vehicle assembly kits.

Of the total, GAZ produced 214,251 vehicles, up 6.4% on the year,
including 65,686 cars, up 15.7% on the year, and 148,565 trucks and
minibuses, up 2.7% on the year.

GAZ is part of Russia’s major RusPromAvto automobile holding. End

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
February 8, 2005, Tuesday

WAR IS BECOMING THE TOP BUDGET PRIORITY

SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta – Dipkurier, No. 2, February 2005, p. 11

by Vladimir Mukhin

The economies of practically all CIS countries are on the rise at
this point. GDP growth is being recorded almost everywhere – not only
in the oil and gas exporter nations (Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan), but also in countries less rich in natural resources
(Ukraine, Armenia, and Belarus).

Defense spending in the post-Soviet states is growing at an even more
impressive rate. Average GDP growth in 2004 amounted to 7-9%, while
defense spending increased by at least 30%. A similar trend will
continue in 2005 as well.

It is common knowledge that the defense and security situation
remains unstable, and military threats to practically all CIS
countries are intensifying. The sources of these threats can be found
both at home and abroad. They are attributed to terrorist
organizations and the presence of potential conflict zones (including
“separatist regions”).

On the other hand, defense spending in the majority of CIS nations is
out of proportion to the capacities of their economies, and this
state of affairs inevitably has a direct impact on ordinary citizens.
One-third of Russia’s federal budget spending goes to the Defense
Ministry and other security or law enforcement structures. In Armenia
and Azerbaijan, defense and security spending amounts to almost 50%
of total budget spending. Unfortunately, even this increased defense
spending cannot hope to provide a radical solution to the problem of
modernizing and restructuring national armed forces. They still
retain Soviet-era weapons and military hardware. Even aid from the
United States, NATO, and China to certain countries is only a partial
solution to the task of modernizing their armed forces and secret
services. Georgia and Uzbekistan each recieved $10 million of
American aid in 2004; this covered only 15% of defense spending for
Georgia, and 1% for Uzbekistan.

Why would CIS countries want to upgrade their armed forces? Firstly,
they are bracing themselves for potential hostilities. Secondly, they
need to boost their level of domestic security.

The first group of countries includes practically all of the Caucasus
– Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan – where there are regions with
separatist regimes. These countries have been increasing their
defense and security spending for years already. Georgia’s military
budget this year is 44% greater than it was in 2004. Counting the $65
million provided by the United States to equip and train four
battalions of the Georgian Army between 2001 and 2004, the rise is
indeed unprecedented. The situation in Azerbaijan is similar. Baku
will spend $245 million on its Armed Forces in 2005 (a rise of 36%
compared to 2004, and 50% compared to 2003). Armenia is spending a
great deal as well; its defense budget for 2005 will amount to $127
million, or 3.6% of the GDP (a 35% rise compared to 2004). And this
figure does not take into account spending on the Karabakh defense
army, funded by Armenia.

The countries of the Caucasus are making preparations – apparently
for hostilities on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and
South Ossetia.

The second group of countries includes almost all Central Asian
states. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan are
focusing their attention on internal stability. All these countries
have radical opposition movements, and their armed forces also
perform a domestic security function. This trend is particularly
marked in the authoritarian Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where there
have been assassination attempts directed at national leaders,
terrorist attacks, and street protests.

These countries spend 5-6% of their GDP on their security and law
enforcement structures – a record figure for the CIS and worldwide.
Practically all their resources are spent on maintaining mechanisms
of suppression that would stop at nothing to crush the radical
opposition.

The level of defense spendings in Tajikistan is relatively high as
well (about $30 million). This is attributed to the difficult foreign
affairs situation, abundance of troops, and Dushanbe’s determination
to take sole responsibility for security along the
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border as of 2006. Kazakhstan is building up
its military structure in the Caspian region, and this also requires
a great deal of resources: Astana will spend $448 million (1.2% of
GDP) on national defense in 2005.

Russia’s motives in raising defense spending are quite clear. This
concerns continuing the war against Chechen guerrillas and other
radical Islamists in the Caucasus. It also concerns Moscow’s
determination to maintain nuclear parity with the United States and
play the role of a world power.

Ukraine is raising its military budget by 22% this year. Experts
attribute this to the radical cuts in troop strength of the Army and
Navy and the military reforms under way in Ukraine. Kiev will spend
$1.127 billion on national defense in 2005. This is the
second-largest sum spent on defense in the CIS. Russia is first on
the list of heavy spenders, and Uzbekistan is third.

Some CIS countries, however, are not considering any dramatic
increases in defense spending. These countries spend less than 1% of
GDP on national defense: Moldova ($30 million) and Kyrgyzstan ($20
million). Belarus will spend 1% of GDP, or $268.5 million, on defense
this year; although official Minsk intends to double the sum within a
decade. Moldova is still at odds with Trans-Dniester separatists and
is counting on military aid from NATO and the European Union.
Kyrgyzstan benefits from the NATO and Russian military bases on its
territory; the rent it collects from those bases exceeds all its arms
spendings. In the meantime, experts name Moldova and Kyrgyzstan as
the most likely sites for the next “color revolutions” similar to
those in Ukraine and Georgia.

Translated by A. Ignatkin

The New York Times
February 9, 2005

The Coming Clash Over Kirkuk

By Sandra Mackey.

Sandra Mackey is the author of ”The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy
of Saddam Hussein.”

AS the Iraqis turn their focus from holding elections to writing a
constitution, the make-or-break issue for their nation may be the
city of Kirkuk. Situated next to Iraq’s northern oil fields, Kirkuk
is a setting for all the ethnic-sectarian conflicts that are the
historic reality of Iraq — Muslim against Christian, Sunni against
Shiite, Kurd against Arab. It is also home to the Turkmens, who are
the ethnic cousins of the Turks and look to a willing Turkey as their
protector. In their fierce competition for the right to claim Kirkuk,
the Turkmens and the Kurds threaten to turn Iraqi internal politics
into a regional conflict.

On a visit to Kirkuk last fall, I talked to both Turkmens and Kurds,
and it was immediately obvious that both groups have a passion and
feeling of possession toward the city, with its impressive citadel
built on an ancient tell. . Kirkuk is the center of the Turkmen
population in Iraq, while for Kurds, the city is a touchstone of
their identity.

Each group employs demographics to back up its claim to the city. The
last official Iraqi census, in 1957, listed 40 percent of Kirkuk’s
population as Turkmen and 35 percent as Kurdish; the rest were Arabs,
Assyrians, Armenians and others. Today, the population is roughly
850,000; based on unofficial estimates, the number of Arabs has
significantly increased, and the percentages of the Turkmens and
Kurds are probably reversed.

When the American invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Kurdish
militias advanced southward from the Kurdish autonomous zone
established in the northern third of Iraq in 1991 and entered Kirkuk.
Since then the Kurds have used their position as American allies to
bring in Kurdish families and thus bolster their demand that Kirkuk
be incorporated in the Kurds’ autonomous zone.

Their reason is emotional but also economic: Kirkuk is the key to oil
fields that represent 40 percent of Iraq’s proven petroleum reserves.
At the least, those fields constitute an enormous bargaining chip in
the negotiations over the future Iraqi government; at most they
provide the economic base for a future Kurdish state.

The Kurds’ numbers, and their determination to lay claim to Kirkuk,
have stoked the already intense hostilities between the Kurds and
Arabs that date to the late 1980’s, when Saddam Hussein pushed many
Kurds out of the city and replaced them with Arabs. But it is the
contest for Kirkuk being waged between the Kurds and Turkmens that is
the far more serious problem for the United States because the only
card the Turkmens of Kirkuk have to play against the Kurds is Turkey.
It is a card Ankara is willing to allow them to put on the table.

Turkey holds its own claim to Kirkuk. Unlike the Ottoman territories
that were ceded to Iraq in the agreements that came at the end of
World War I, Kirkuk was taken from Turkey as a result of the 1923
Lausanne Treaty. Turkish nationalists still regard it as historically
part of Turkey. Ankara also asserts guardianship over the Turkmen
ethnic minority in northern Iraq. But those are more emotional than
political issues. What is mainly driving Turkey’s interest in Kirkuk
is the long-term problem of Turkey’s own rebellious Kurdish minority,
which is 20 percent of its population.

Since 1999, Turkish Kurds have attacked Turkey from bases in northern
Iraq, in the Kurdish autonomous region. To Turkey’s frustration,
Iraqi Kurd officials turn a blind eye to their Turkish Kurd cousins’
activities, while the Americans have been reluctant to move against
the bases for fear of damaging their relationship with the Iraqi
Kurds. The Turkish military has taken matters into its own hands by
crossing the Iraqi border on occasion to battle the rebels.

But more ominous for American efforts to stabilize Iraq are Turkish
fears that Baghdad will be forced to allow the Kurds to make Kirkuk
part of their autonomous zone. For Ankara, this would constitute
excessive Kurdish autonomy, its red line in Iraq.

The Turkish military has repeatedly warned Iraqi Kurds against
changing Kirkuk’s demographics. Although it acknowledges that the
future of Kirkuk is an internal issue for Iraq, the military insists
that the inclusion of the city into the Kurdish autonomous zone is a
question in which it intends to play a part. To underline the point,
the military makes no effort to hide its plans to send troops if
needed to thwart the Kurds’ claim to Kirkuk.

Military intervention in northern Iraq is diplomatically risky for
Turkey. Having just secured Europe’s agreement to open talks on
membership in the European Union, Ankara will move with caution. Yet
Turkey may well see preventing the emergence of a potentially
oil-rich Kurdish political entity on its borders as worth the risk.
And Europe may regard keeping the Iraqi Kurds within the boundaries
of Iraq, thus promoting stability in the Persian Gulf and in oil
markets, as more important than keeping Turkey out of Iraq.

Although publicly circumspect, Washington sees Turkish military
involvement as a looming possibility on the complex political
landscape of Iraq. Washington has quietly said that the Kurds will
not be allowed to take control of Kirkuk. American military bases in
northern Iraq are discreetly being reinforced. And the First Infantry
Division that has been in charge of Kirkuk for the last year has
balanced the rights of the Turkmens and Arabs against those of the
Kurds.

So Washington recognizes that the Kurds, further emboldened by their
anticipated numbers in the new Iraqi Parliament, could precipitate a
crisis over Kirkuk. The question is whether the United States or the
non-Kurdish members of the new Iraqi government can hold the Kurds in
check — a difficult task considering the fervor, especially among
younger Kurds, for an eventual Kurdish state.

This is one of the complications of the Iraqi election that the Bush
administration has hailed as such a success. If the Kurds try to
change the status of Kirkuk, the United States may find itself forced
to turn its military power on them. But if America does nothing to
hold Kirkuk, it may well find itself in another crisis. Only this one
would not be confined to Iraq.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
February 8, 2005, Tuesday

Armenian genocide returned to German school curriculum

Berlin

Defusing a row after alleged Turkish pressure forced removal of the
Armenian genocide from German public school curriculums, a state
premier said Tuesday the 1915 killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians
would be again be taught in history classes. Brandenburg’s Prime
Minister Matthias Platzeck admitted it had been a mistake to remove
all mention of the genocide from his state’s education ministry
website curriculum planner. The Armenian genocide – which had been
used as the only example in history classes other than the Holocaust
– will now be returned to high schools along with other cases of 20th
century genocide, he said. Platzeck denied media reports that he
ordered removal of the Armenian genocide from his schools after
strong pressure from a Turkish diplomat. “None of that happened,”
said Platzeck. Platzeck made his announcement after a meeting with
Armenia’s ambassador to Germany, Karine Kazinian, who had expressed
deep anger over the move. “The key point is that the genocide and
everything that happened back then is being clearly addressed,” said
Ambassador Kazinian. The row began last month after Turkey’s Consul
in Berlin, Aydin Durusay, raised the issue of Armenian massacres with
regard to Brandenburg which is so far the only one of Germany’s 16
federal states, which described the killings as “genocide” in its
official public school curriculum. Most European and U.S. historians
say up to 1.5 million Christian Armenians were killed by Moslem
Ottoman Turks during World War I and that this was a genocide. Eight
European Union (E.U.) parliaments including France and the
Netherlands – but not Germany – have passed resolutions declaring the
deaths genocide. Turkey, however, firmly rejects the genocide label
and has long insisted far fewer Armenians died or otherwise succumbed
during World War I. More recently it has moderated its tone somewhat
and said the matter should be cleared up by a historical commission.
With about two million resident ethnic Turks, Germany is cautious
about any issue which could disturb ties with its biggest minority.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is a firm supporter of Turkey’s
bid to join the E.U. Platzeck is a rising star in Chancellor’s Social
Democratic Party (SPD) and is tipped by some as a possible successor
to Schroeder. dpa lm ms

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (E.)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Chris Zakian
Tel: (212) 686-0710; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

February 8, 2005
__________________

IN MEMORIAM: HAGOP GABRIELIAN

The Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America was deeply
saddened by the recent passing of Mr. Hagop Gabrielian, of Geneva,
Switzerland. What follows is the text of the eulogy delivered by
Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, the Diocesan Primate, during the funeral
service for Mr. Gabrielian at Geneva’s St. Hagop Armenian Church on
Friday, February 4, 2005. Also in attendance at the service were Bishop
Norvan Zakarian, of Lyon, France, and Bishop Vicken Aykazian, of
Washington, D.C.

* * *

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. AMEN.

“Verily, I say unto you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and
dies, it remains just a single grain. But if it dies, it bears much
fruit. Those who love their life will lose it, and those who hate their
life in the world will keep it for eternal life.” (John 24:25)

These words of our Lord, related by the evangelist St. John, hold a
special meaning for us today, as we gather to pay our final respects to
Hagop Gabrielian. Mr. Gabrielian’s life was indeed like that grain of
wheat, which falls to the earth, and ultimately dies–yet which
nevertheless bears much fruit. In Mr. Gabrielian’s case, it might be
more precise to say that his life encompassed many grains, which
blossomed in many different soils, and have left us with whole fields of
ripe, abundant fruit–which will surely nourish us in the years to come.

This fact, at least, might offer us some small consolation from the
sorrow of losing Mr. Gabrielian. Indeed, it is very hard to believe
that this man–this grand figure, whose influence and effect is so
deeply felt in all our lives–is now in his eternal rest. But this is
the sad truth of earthly life, as related in these words from the Book
of Psalms:

“As for mortals, their days are like grass: They flourish like a flower
of the field. The wind passes over it, and it is gone. And its place
knows it no more.” (Ps 103:15-16)

As I said, this is the truth for every ordinary mortal life. But even
so, Hagop Gabrielian’s life was something more than an ordinary. The
image of his Maker was truly reflected in him: in his generous heart,
his creative insight, his gifts of leadership. Mr. Gabrielian knew this
very well, and he regarded his gifts as a responsibility. He freely and
abundantly gave of himself and his God-given talent, for the benefit of
his family, the Armenian republic, and especially his church. Hagop
Gabrielian was a true Christian gentleman, on whom the love of God will
rest forever.

As a human being, Mr. Gabrielian’s character was formed out of the
combination of virtues and qualities he acquired from a solid Armenian
family life. The son of Gabriel and Artzvig Gabrielian, Hagop was born
in Tabriz and grew up in Tehran. He was immersed in an Armenian
background, surrounded by a vital Armenian community and church life.

As a businessman, Hagop Gabrielian was quite simply a pioneer. He found
astonishing success in a variety of concerns in Iran, and thirty years
ago, bowing to the obvious necessities of the time, transferred himself
and his family to Geneva, which became his greatly beloved base of
operations, for enterprises reaching around the globe.

Needless to say, it was in the realm of family life that Mr. Gabrielian
felt he had achieved his greatest successes: The touching love he felt
for his dear wife of nearly fifty years, Katherine; the great blessing
of his three daughters–Caroline, Christina, and Linda–and the fine
families they have built; the pride he felt towards his younger brother,
Sarkis, and his family; and most recently, the indescribable joy brought
to the Gabrielians through their five grandchildren.

These were the things that mattered to Hagop Gabrielian the most. These
were the things for which he thanked God every day. He used to enjoy
telling people that, “Living is an art.” And when you witnessed Mr.
Gabrielian in the forge of his family, you caught a glimpse of a supreme
artist: a man who knew how to live life to the fullest, and to relish
the very act of living.

Of course, there have been other people besides his family, who have
been touched by Hagop Gabrielian’s great generosity of spirit. And not
merely individuals, but even an entire nation: the Republic of Armenia,
for which Mr. Gabrielian was an ardent and foresighted benefactor. He
was the sponsor of many projects to develop and advance our homeland in
these early years of freedom.

Naturally, Hagop Gabrielian was also a magnanimous benefactor of the
Armenian Church. He felt very close to the church, and drew strength
and inspiration from the heritage it preserves. The faith he always
carried with him was the foundation and guide for his lifetime of
activity and leadership.

Mr. Gabrielian performed one very special act of kindness on behalf of
the Armenian Church, which I believe symbolizes the gentle tenderness of
his feeling for the faith of his fathers. It took place more than a
decade ago. The pontiff of the Armenian Church, His Holiness Vasken
I–who had governed the church as Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of
All Armenians for close to forty years at the time–had been diagnosed
with cancer, and was in need of treatment. These were the early days of
the independent republic, and especially with a leader of Vehapar’s
stature, the news of his illness had to be dealt with in a discrete and
respectful way.

Only a few people, really, knew of Catholicos Vasken’s condition; but
Hagop Gabrielian was one of them. It was he who immediately volunteered
his own resources to ensure that the Catholicos would receive the best
medical care available in Europe. And Mr. Gabrielian volunteered
himself, as well: to look after the Catholicos, spend time with him,
make him comfortable, during his period away from the Holy See. As we
all know, Vehapar finally did succumb to his affliction–in the fullness
of his age, and after a productive and meaningful life. But Hagop
Gabrielian brought a special grace to the difficult final year of
Vehapar’s life–quietly, without any fanfare, simply out of his feelings
of love and respect. For that, all members of the Armenian Church owe
Hagop Gabrielian a profound debt of gratitude.

Now, a decade after those events, we stand in the same position towards
Mr. Gabrielian himself. This last year was not easy for him, or for his
family. But I am certain that his loved ones were able to fill the
final period of his life with the love, the grace, and indeed the sense
of hope, which Hagop Gabrielian so often gave to others. As a great
admirer and personal friend of Mr. Gabrielian’s for many years now, I
know I am not alone in saying that he has always been in my heart and
prayers. And he always will be.

On this occasion, I express my deep condolences to his wife, Mrs.
Katherine Gabrielian; to his children–Caroline and Gregory, Christina
and Berj, Linda and Christian–and his grandchildren: Olympia,
Marie-Catherine, Alexandre, Adriana, and Anna-Karina. My sympathies
also go to the family of his late brother Sarkis; to the Atayan family;
and of course, to Mr. Gabrielian’s many loved ones and friends.

We are consoled to know that he has now gone forward, to reside in the
company of many worthy souls who have gone before him, within the loving
embrace of God. May our Lord bless his soul, and may He remember Hagop
Gabrielian on that great day, when He establishes His kingdom. Amen.

–2/8/05

# # #