Turkish speaker urges Russia to “use its weight” to solve Karabakh issue

Lider TV, Baku
9 Feb 05

[Presenter] The Kremlin may play a big part in resolving the
Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict, the speaker of the Turkish Grand
National Assembly, Bulent Arinc, has said. The Turkish diplomat said
that Armenia is interested in letting the conflict remain unresolved.

[Correspondent over video of a press conference] The Ankara government
wants to develop relations with neighbouring countries. The
strengthening of the Turkic-speaking countries in the region,
including Azerbaijan, is a result of the correct policy conducted
by their governments. This was announced by Bulent Arinc at a press
conference at the end of his visit to Azerbaijan.

Arinc also voiced his view on Armenia’s aggressive policy. He said
that Armenia has taken a non-constructive stance and is not interested
in resolving the Karabakh conflict.

He said that relations between Turkey and Russia are steadily improving
and that the Kremlin may play a big role in resolving the issue.

[Arinc speaking in Turkish] Russia’s contribution to the resolution
of the Karabakh conflict is useful. As you know, the UN has passed
four resolutions on this matter, on the withdrawal of the Armenian
troops from the occupied territories. Regrettably, those resolutions
have not been enforced. At the same time, the OSCE has set up a Minsk
Group to resolve this problem through diplomacy. Unfortunately,
despite having existed for more than 10 years, the group has produced
no results. We believe that progress on this issue can be achieved
if Russia uses its weight or influences the process.

[Correspondent] Arinc said that the Turkish Grand National Assembly
will discuss the Xocali genocide [massacre of Azerbaijanis in a
Karabakh village in 1992]. The Yerevan government which is groundlessly
trying to prove to the world the fact of genocide must realize that it
were the Armenians who carried out the massacre – they killed a lot
of Turks in 1915. There is enough evidence to prove that. A glaring
example of the Armenian fascism is the 26 February 1992 Xocali tragedy,
Bulent Arinc said.

Armenian paper accuses OSCE Karabakh mission of one-sidedness

Ayots Ashkar, Yerevan
9 Feb 05

Excerpt from Vardan Grigoryan’s report by Armenian newspaper Ayots
Ashkar on 9 February headlined “We and the OSCE monitoring mission”

The results of the OSCE monitoring mission to the liberated territories
[Nagornyy Karabakh] will be made public only in spring. But today
problems have already emerged which the Armenian party has to
attend to.

Although the head of the mission, Emily Haber, and its members assured
us that they were implementing only technical work and were not going
to make any political statement, this kind of initiative itself gives
us certain grounds for political conclusions.

At issue is first of all the political context of the monitoring
mission. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen’s latest statement implies
that Azerbaijan is trying to put on the UN agenda one of the details
of the negotiations held in Astana and Prague: the problem of refugees
and territories seized as a result of the war. In fact, Azerbaijan
has made a manoeuvre that has distracted the world community. Since in
turn the Armenian party did not object to the OSCE sending a monitoring
mission to Karabakh, the mission was given a green light automatically.

Even the monitors hint at the one-sidedness of their own mandate,
i.e. the refusal to visit Shaumyan [Goranboy], Getashen [Caykand]
and other districts controlled by the Azerbaijani armed forces is
temporary. That is to say, if Armenia, for its part, applies to the
UN, a new mission may be organized by mutual agreement of the parties.

Naturally, this position of the OSCE Minsk Group and of the monitoring
mission members causes a number of questions connected with one
another.

First, what is the reason of this close attention of the world
community to the known manoeuvre of Azerbaijan? Second, may the results
of the monitoring of only the territories controlled by the Armenian
forces become a basis for all-embracing political conclusions for
the world community? Third, are the views sounding in Armenia that
the OSCE monitoring mission arrived in the region with two versions
of the report prepared in advance substantiated? For this reason,
everything will depend not on the results of the visit but on how
the Armenian party will behave in future.

There are several answers to these questions.

a) What happened is a result of agreement between Azerbaijan’s
“caprice” and the Armenian party’s kind will. Therefore, it is natural
that the monitors’ report, as well as further steps stemming from it,
should lead to the conclusions stemming from this logic. [Sentence
as received]

b) The OSCE monitoring mission’s one-sided mandate creates a basis for
biased conclusions, which will spur the transfer of the negotiations
within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group onto quite a different
plain by means of more monitoring missions to Karabakh and the
liberated territories.

Obviously, in case of the first option, we may not pay attention to
what has happened. But if some international organizations continue
to support Azerbaijan’s current attempt to divert the course of the
negotiations, it is imperative that Armenia take steps in response.

[Passage omitted: minor details]

Globe and Mail, Canada
Feb 9 2005

Giant slalom championship postponed by television strike

Associated Press E-mail this Article

Bormio, Italy — The men’s giant slalom race scheduled for Wednesday
at the alpine skiing world championships was postponed less than an
hour before it was to start due to a strike by Italian television
workers.

“Due to the lack of TV coverage, the European Broadcasting Union, in
accordance with the International Ski Federation (FIS), decided to
postpone the race,” organizers said in a statement.

The strike was organized by workers for RAI, Italian state TV.

Organizers said the race would be rescheduled for Thursday, which was
previously reserved as an off day, although FIS had not yet issued
its formal decision. The championships are due to end Sunday and
three other races are scheduled for Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

“I’m disappointed, angry and frustrated,” said FIS general secretary
Sarah Lewis. “Everything was ready to go — 156 athletes, fan clubs
had travelled specially to be there. The giant slalom is always one
of the most exciting events.”

Fans in the finish area attacked a RAI truck upon learning of the
strike and police had to intervene.

It appeared that some of the bigger skiing nations were informed of
the strike ahead of time and did not go up to the course. However,
several athletes from nations like Senegal, Armenia and Hungary were
seen skiing down the course in a state of bewilderment.

Strikes are a common occurrence in Italy, although they are usually
confined to domestic issues and events. The alpine world
championships are the biggest event in skiing outside the Olympics
and the protest was not a good sign in view of the next Winter Games
in nearby Turin, scheduled to begin a year from Thursday.

Turin 2006 officials were planning a presentation in Bormio later
Wednesday.

“The biggest loser today is ski racing,” U.S. head coach Phil
McNichol said. “Racing is at an all-time low, we’re trying to get a
stronger foothold in TV and yet we can’t hold a world championships
race because of television. It’s extremely disappointing.”

The last major cancellation at the world championships came when the
1995 edition was postponed until 1996 due to a lack of snow in Sierra
Nevada, Spain.

“It’s typical. It fits the world championships,” said Austrian skier
Benjamin Raich, one of the giant slalom favourites.

Thomas Grandi of Banff, Alta. was also among the contenders for a
podium spot. He has won two World Cup giant slalom races this season
and currently sits second in the GS point standings.

–Boundary_(ID_+1+SBugukp3293Ti6AL+ZA)–

FrontPageMagazine.com, CA
Feb 9 2005

“Peace” Through Anti-Semitism
By Joseph D’Hippolito
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 9, 2005

If Israelis and Palestinians ever achieve peace, it likely will not
result from the efforts of the Holy Land’s most prestigious Christian
prelates.

In “Patriarch of Terror,” Front Page Magazine exposed the
anti-Semitism of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, and
his collaborationist relationship with Yasser Arafat. Sabbah,
however, is not alone.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Irineos I, and his former
spokesman, Father Atallah Hanna, have used even more virulent
rhetoric in their own collaborationist campaign. That rhetoric
includes supporting suicide bombing, charging the Jews with deicide
and advocating their expulsion from the Holy Land.

Irineos originally was appointed as the Greek Orthodox patriarch in
September 2001 but did not officially take office until this January.
According to Greek Orthodox procedures, local governments must
approve the appointment. Jordan and the Palestinian Authority — two
of the three areas encompassing the patriarchate — approved Irineos.
Israel withheld approval because of his suspected support for Arafat.

Israeli suspicions were confirmed by a July 2001 letter that Irineos
sent to Arafat and the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic
representative to Greece, Abdullah Abdullah. Irineos, the
patriarchate’s diplomatic representative to Athens at the time, was
one of five candidates rejected by Israel’s justice minister, Meir
Sheetrit. So Irineos asked Arafat to use his influence among Arabs
world to pressure Israel to reconsider.

Although Irineos’ English is awkward, his message is clear:

“You are aware of my opinions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem,
as well as the support that consecutively I offered in the past in
the fight of your people and your nation.

“You are aware of my multiple interventions towards the late
Patriarch Diodoros and the Greek Government and the international
forums for the rights of the Palestinian (sic) to have their
independent state with its capital Jerusalem.”

But this is the letter’s most damning evidence:

“You are finally aware of the sentiments of disgust and disrespect
that all the Holy Sepulcher Fathers are feeling for the descendants
of the crucifiers of our Lord Jesus Christ, actual crucifiers of your
people, Sionists (sic) Jewish conquerors of the Holy Land of
Palestine. (emphasis added).”

Should Arafat’s influence prove successful, Irineos continued, “Rest
assured, Mr. President, that the rights of the most beloved
Palestinian people on the Holy City of Jerusalem will find their most
‘hot’ supporter. Our beloved Mr. Chouri (Arafat’s personal secretary)
will inform you accordingly regarding what we have discussed of the
real estate of our Patriarchate within the boundaries of the Old
City.”

Irineos suggests more than a quid pro quo. He suggests a combined
effort to remove any Jewish presence from Jerusalem — and,
eventually, from all of Israel.

A 1998 security report presented to the Israeli cabinet stated that
the Palestinian Authority seeks to control church-owned property,
particularly in Jerusalem. The Palestinians’ big target is the Greek
Orthodox patriarchate, the largest and wealthiest church in the Holy
Land. The patriarchate derives its wealth from extensive land
holdings throughout Israel that it accumulated through the centuries
— including the land on which the Knesset, the Israeli parliament,
and the president’s and prime minister’s official residences sit.

The report also stated that “Chouri,” Irineos’ misspelling of Ramzi
Khouri, was working with Fatah’s Marwan Barghouti to create a union
of Orthodox Palestinian Christians that would act as a pressure group
for the Palestinian Authority.

“The PA realizes that control over the Christian holy places in
Jerusalem can be used as a powerful lever to gain international
political influence in the Christian world,” the report stated. “The
PA has used its indirect control over the Church of the Nativity in
Bethlehem as a means of influencing the Greek Orthodox and Armenian
Patriarchates, through which it impacts the political positions of
the Greek government and the European Union.”

The ultimate goal is conquest though land purchase and lease
revocation, if violence fails.

“The fear in the (Israeli) government is that in a few years Israel
will find itself with a patriarchate of Arabs that will in theory
hold 50 percent of the land downtown,” stated an investment report
from Capital Property Consultants, a Jerusalem real estate firm.
“Israel was always wary of the Greek Church, the oldest and most
powerful church in Jerusalem, coming under the rule of a
pro-Palestinian patriarch, fearing it could result in land disputes
when long-term leases began expiring.”

Irineos also expressed his anti-Israeli stance in a letter on
patriarchate letterhead to Arafat and Abdullah during the 2002 siege
of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, which began when Palestinian
gunmen attacked the church and barricaded themselves inside. Irineos’
awkward English does not disguise his attitude, as these excerpts
demonstrate:

“With extreme anger we see the aggression against your headquarters
in Ramallah, (a) fact that proves the humiliation in which the
Israeli government suppresses the legal leadership of the Palestinian
people but also proves their indifference for the peace process and
the international community. The siege of the Holiest among the
shrines the Nativity Church in Bethlehem makes even clearer their
intentions.

“We wish to assure you, Dear Mr. President, that the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate of Jerusalem and myself stand side by side with your
people in this fight for freedom and justice.

“We pray to the Almighty God of Love to give you success and victory
in this holy struggle, and also help to establish His peace in the
Holy Land.”

Both letters were made public by the Israeli daily Ma’ariv as part of
a series of articles between December 2002 and January 2004 on
Irineos’ pro-Palestinian attitude. Irineos responded with a libel
suit but withdrew it in December. He even paid 10,000 Israeli shekels
plus value-added tax — a total of roughly more than $2,000 — to
cover Ma’ariv’s legal expenses.

Despite Irineos’ letters and the public opposition of such cabinet
ministers as Natan Sharansky and Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon successfully argued for Irineos’ confirmation. The
reasons involve internal party politics, pressure from real estate
interests and — as Sharon aide Dov Weisglass told Israel’s Arutz
Sheva news service in 2002 — pressure from the United States.

Hanna, an Arab born in Haifa, was serving as the patriarchate’s
spokesman when he subtly advocated suicide bombing as part of the
Palestinian intifada in June 2002 during an address in Abu Dhabi to a
think tank run by the Arab League.

“Some freedom fighters adopt martyrdom or suicide bombings, while
others opt for other measures,” the Gulf News quoted Hanna as saying.
“Don’t expect us to keep distance and watch. We are in the struggle
whether it is martyrdom or any other means. The Muslims and the
Christians are one and cannot be separated from the struggle for the
liberation of Palestine.”

Irineos, who had yet to be confirmed and did not need adverse
publicity, fired Hanna that July. One month later, Israeli police
arrested and questioned Hanna on suspicion of inciting violence,
having relations with terrorist groups and illegally visiting Syria
and Lebanon, which remain in a state of war with Israel. Hanna left
the country to meet with Hezbollah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Narallah,
so police placed Hanna under house arrest and confiscated his
passports.

Nevertheless, Hanna has since used even more vituperative rhetoric
without any apparent public protest from Irineos. At a reception in
Haifa on January 11, 2003, Hanna expressed emphatic support for
suicide bombers:

“The fidaiyin are the heroes of this nation. We are proud of them and
resolutely refuse any attempt to defame their deeds. They are not
committing suicide, as some claim, and they are not terrorists, as
others claim — they are resisting the occupation. We unreservedly
support the martyrdom operations.”

Six days later, in a rally at Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy
Sepulcher, Hanna was even more enthusiastic:

“Martyrdom operations are an excellent and good way to resist the
Zionist invasion of the Palestinian land. In front of the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher, we bless the souls of the heroic shahids
(martyrs) and the families of the shahids.

“The names of the fidaiyi shahids will be inscribed in the history of
our Palestinian and Arab people in holy white letters. The voices of
those who defame these acts of heroism and honor are nothing more
than anomalous voices that do not represent Arab and Palestinian
public opinion.”

But Hanna saved his most extreme rhetoric for his sermon of January
19, 2003 — the Orthodox Epiphany:

“Palestine is from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river. We
emphatically refuse any concession on (even) a grain of the land of
our precious homeland. Just as Ramallah, Gaza, Nablus, and Jenin are
Palestinian cities, so are Haifa, Nazareth, Jaffa, Ramle, Lod,
Beersheba, Safed, and others Palestinian cities.

“We do not believe in so-called ‘peace with Israel’ because peace
cannot be made with Satan. Israel is the greatest Satan. No
concession and no truce must be made. The Palestinians’ rights will
be restored only by resistance. What was taken by force will be
restored only by force.

“The Zionist Jews are foreigners in this land. They have no right to
live or settle in it. They should go somewhere else in the world to
establish their state and their false entity. Jerusalem is an Arab
city and the Jews must not settle in it, be masters over it, or carry
out any type of religious ritual or ceremony in it. They must leave
their homes. They have no right to live on land, cities or villages
that are not theirs.”

Sixty years after the liberation of Auschwitz’s prisoners, it is an
ironic obscenity for alleged men of God to promote the most
pernicious forms of anti-Semitism.

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE

Fund for Armenian Relief
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Edina N. G. Bobelian
Tel: (212) 889-5150; Fax: (212) 889-4849
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

February 9, 2005
____________________

The following is the address delivered by Mr. Garnik Nanagoulian,
Executive Director of the Fund for Armenian Relief, on the occasion of
the Vartanantz Day commemoration at St. Vartan Cathedral in New York, NY
on February 3, 2005.

It is a privilege to speak to you today, on this special day, when we
celebrate the life of one of the most legendary Armenians, Vartan
Sparabet, and his valiant warriors, who stood up to an overwhelmingly
superior army of the Persian Empire. They faced the battle with courage,
and conviction, and dignity because they were defending the right of the
Armenian people to worship as they had chosen, to protect their
Christianity. In effect, to protect the very existence of the Armenian
people.

Vartanantz has since become a symbol of Armenian national aspiration, a
source of spiritual strength and resilience that has proven to be so
vital in confronting the numerous challenges that our nation has faced
for the centuries thereafter.

We celebrate a heroic event of the history of our nation, and we
celebrate it at the Armenian House of worship that proudly holds the
name of St. Vartan. Every morning crossing Second Avenue at 34th Street
I never stop admiring the beauty and majesty of this Armenian House of
worship. It proudly stands right in the middle of one of the most
powerful centers of the World. Busy with our daily routines we very
often take it for granted.

For me the St. Vartan Cathedral is not just a monument to one of
Armenia’s martyrs, it is yet another testimony to the fact that the holy
right and heritage of the Armenian people has been preserved through the
centuries. It is a testament to the continuing legacy of Vartanantz.

The spirit of Vartan lives today with the Knights and Daughters of
Vartan, an organization that is so proudly represented here tonight. An
organization that was established by visionary Armenians to preserve the
national, religious, and cultural heritage of the Armenian people.

Every period in Armenia’s history brought new challenges to our people,
and through it all, the spirit of Vartan persevered:

The spirit of Vartan remained alive with all those who came together to
help our fellow countrymen and women during the tragic days of the
earthquake in Gyumri and Spitak in 1988, as well as to support
Hayasdantsis in their struggle for an independent Armenia.

The spirit of Vartan remained alive with our brothers and sisters who
made the ultimate sacrifice to liberate Artsakh for all Armenians.

This year, in 2005, we are going to commemorate the 90th anniversary of
the Armenian Genocide. We come together as a nation to remind the world
that we never forget. We will make our voice louder and louder, stronger
and stronger until justice prevails.

Whenever we celebrate a glorious event in Armenia’s history, an event of
the past, it gives us the opportunity to reflect, to think about the
challenges of today and of the future.

It is amazing to me how we, Armenians will unite anywhere in the world
and in the homeland when we commemorate our past, or when we face an
imminent threat. However, as ironical as it may sound, the PRESENT, the
time we are living through NOW, does not seem to inspire us, does not
seem to ignite our will, does not seem to unite us in dealing with the
routine and day-to-day challenges of nation-building.

In the battle of Avarayr in the 5th century, the spirit of Vartan could
express itself only in two ways – live or die. In the end, the Armenians
chose to die rather than give up their holy rights, the essence of their
identity.

Today the spirit of Vartan could be expressed in many ways.

I am honored to be here tonight representing the preeminent Armenian
charitable organizations, the Fund for Armenian Relief, where each day I
witness different manifestations of the Vartanantz spirit.

The members of the FAR family have chosen to become soldiers for a new
Armenia by supporting an orphan in Gyumri, helping a single mother in
Syunik, giving hope to an elderly woman in Vanadzor, creating an
opportunity for young people, and in many, many other ways. What better
cause to fight for today than building an Armenia of our dreams!

Let me tell you about a shared philosophy within FAR’s family or donor
community – something I have learned and believe in. It is as simple as
it is powerful:
We are all Armenians. Whether in the Diaspora or in the homeland, we
are all Armenians. We have a common faith, a common culture, a common
history. Through all the generations, perhaps there are other
influences, but what unites us all, is our shared heritage. And we are
all proud to be Armenian. We are all deeply connected, as Armenians, we
are family. And as an Armenian family, we have a duty to help the
members of our family in the struggling homeland. It is a duty, an
obligation. An obligation as a choice, a choice you make for the people
you love.

Think about this: for almost 7 centuries, 700 years, Armenians did not
even have a chance to be responsible for their lives. Except for a
brief period after the World War I, almost 28 (28!) generations of
Armenians never had the luxury of self-rule, of self-government.

And guess what? We are the lucky ones. We, who simply happen to live
at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries, we
received a gift from God – an independent homeland. What a historic
opportunity for all of us to make that country the most envious place in
the World!

And we CAN make it happen. There is nothing that could prevent us. We
are a great nation, a great people: not only we have defeated all the
threats, not only we have preserved our national, religious and cultural
heritage, but we, Armenians – have been making the entire world
profitable by contributing generously to almost any advancement in the
history of mankind. There is nothing we can not do. We must believe
this.

In 1952, in his state of the Union speech, President Truman appealed for
unity and told the nation, this nation: “The only thing that can defeat
us is our state of mind. We can lose if we falter”

I believe, the same applies to Armenians today – the only thing that
could defeat us is our own state of mind. And nothing could defeat us,
if we try to illuminate the little Vartan in each of us. He is always
there with us: we just need to call on him more often.

I believe, the legacy of Vartanantz continues to teach us today, like
never before, to stay vigilant, not to allow to be overwhelmed by the
virus of apathy and complacency.

Today like never before, when most of the visible threats seemed to be
diminished, we have to find strength and inspiration from the Vartanantz
legacy and come together as a nation with our Church to double – triple
our efforts in strengthening our communities in the Diaspora, and more
importantly, to empower Armenians in Armenia to build a vital homeland.

I was on a plane returning from Armenia on my recent visit as the new
Executive Director of the Fund for Armenian Relief. An elegant, aged
lady was sitting next to me deeply submerged into her own thoughts. I
asked her if she was leaving Armenia, or just on a visit to see her
loved ones in the U.S. She said, she had left Armenia in 1985, and this
was her first trip to her homeland after it became independent. I asked
for her impressions. She sighed, and lowering her voice down said sadly:
“Well, it’s bad, pretty bad. Our poor people are suffering a lot.”

Then she paused, and continued:
“But you know what – we’ll do it, we’ve been there. It just requires
time, patience, and hard work. I have patience,” she continued, “never
shied away from hard work; as for my time – it’s in God’s hands.”

When we said good-bye at London’s Heathrow airport (she was heading to
LA, I was taking a flight to New York City), she said:
“I am afraid that we in the Diaspora sometimes lose heart over the
political disappointments in Armenia. But we can not do that, we are in
this for a long haul in Armenia. And, more importantly, that’s really
the only choice we’ve got, because Armenia is the only homeland we’ve
got.”

What a remarkable woman! What a bright spirit!

We, at the Fund for Armenian Relief, have been in Armenia for more than
16 years. We have implemented a wide range of humanitarian and
development programs there. Looking back we can proudly say – we have
accomplished a lot. Many of you are FAR family members and are fully
aware of the good work of FAR. We have channeled more than $250 million
dollars of assistance to Armenians, touched the lives of almost every
family in Armenia. And we do see the difference: perhaps not as big as
we want, maybe not as quickly as we want, sometimes with unnecessary
complications and problems, you know. But we know where we are heading.
And when you know your destination it makes it easier to overcome
today’s minor or even big problems.

Because our FAR family members know – we are still at the very beginning
in Armenia’s struggle to build a vital country, a coherent citizenry. We
just help them, we are working hard to empower them with hope and
opportunity to build the foundations for the new Armenia. And we know
these foundations are still being built.

As the old lady in the airplane said – we are in this for a long haul in
Armenia.

Today the stakes of the battle in Armenia are still high. They remind us
of the importance of the continuing resilience and long-term commitment
in helping our brothers and sisters there. That would be in the spirit
of Vartanantz, because it is there, in Armenia, where our future is.
Because it is there, where our roots are. Because this is the land of
Vartan. This is the land I’ve come from. This is the land we have ALL
come from.

We know the challenges are becoming more complex, and we are getting
prepared to meet them with the help of our FAR family – committed and
dedicated Armenians. We get our strength and encouragement from them.

Our members believe in FAR, they are proud of FAR. They know FAR has
proven many times that we accomplish our goals lawfully, transparently
and reliably.

Not only do we help people in need, but many of our social, educational
and healthcare programs contribute to a social ethos of trust, which is
so essential for a productive society.

We contribute to a practical sense of hope and opportunity among
Armenia’s people. Our work tells them that their individual lives mean
something, that in new Armenia every human being counts.

We do not simply free people from their anxieties over meeting their
daily needs. Our work also helps them to become free spiritually, a
critically important thing if we dream to eventually achieve in Armenia
the kind of society that is free, productive, consensual, and humane.

We at FAR, realize how fortunate we are to have a unique chance in our
lifetime to see and know an independent Armenia. This is our chance. It
is time to cast our vote for the future of all Armenians drawing the
lessons from our past.

In fact, it is the only vote we have as Armenians, here, in Diaspora.

By giving our time, donating money, volunteering our services – we cast
our vote for the future of Armenia, for our future, for the future of
generations of Armenians to come.

And maybe our descendants will celebrate us as warmheartedly in the
future as we today celebrate St. Vartan and his valiant warriors.

Thank you very much.
May God bless Armenia and Armenians.

All American Patriot, Sweden
Feb 9 2005

U.S. Seeks Peaceful Settlement on Nagorno-Karabakh
State Department fact sheet provides background on conflict, U.S.
policy
08 February 2005

The U.S. Department of State issued the following fact sheet February
7, 2005, which updates a January 25, 2005, fact sheet:

ADVERTISING

(begin fact sheet)

U.S. Department of State

Fact Sheet
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Washington, DC
February 7, 2005

THE UNITED STATES AND NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Background

The armed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K) lasted from 1990 to
1994. By the time a cease-fire went into effect in 1994, Armenian
forces controlled most of N-K, as well as large swaths of adjacent
Azerbaijani territory. The fighting, plus the expulsion of Armenians
from Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis from Armenia, produced more than a
million refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Approximately 100,000 Azerbaijanis remain in refugee camps today,
where they face desperate living conditions. Turkey closed its land
border with Armenia during the conflict to show solidarity with
Azerbaijan and has not reopened it. The United States provides
humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict, which
includes support for housing and school repairs, primary health care,
irrigation, potable water and sanitation, subsistence agriculture,
micro-finance, and demining.

The parties have observed a cease-fire agreement since 1994. Although
cease-fire violations and cross-border sniping occur, all sides
insist on their continued commitment to a peaceful settlement reached
through negotiation.

Peace Process

In 1992, the CSCE (now the OSCE) created the Minsk Group, a coalition
of member states dedicated to facilitating a peaceful resolution of
the conflict. The Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group (Russia, France, and
the U.S.) serve as mediators, working in close and effective
cooperation with the parties. In 1997-98, Co-Chair shuttle diplomacy
generated three separate peace proposals. Each of these proposals was
rejected by one or another of the parties.

Beginning in 1999, Presidents Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Robert
Kocharian of Armenia began a direct dialogue through a series of
bilateral meetings. Positive developments during a March 2001 Paris
meeting among Presidents Aliyev, Kocharian, and Chirac inspired then
Secretary of State Colin Powell to invite both Presidents to continue
their dialogue in the United States. Aliyev and Kocharian met with
the Co-Chairs in Key West in April 2001. The sides made significant
progress but failed to reach a comprehensive settlement. Presidents
Aliyev and Kocharian met on the margins of multilateral meetings in
late 2001 and on the border between the two countries in August 2002
but failed to narrow their differences. President Heydar Aliyev died
in 2003, and negotiations slowed as both countries held presidential
elections that year.

In 2004, the Co-Chairs initiated a series of meetings in Prague
between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The “Prague
Process” was designed to reinvigorate dialogue between the sides.
Following a series of meetings between the Foreign Ministers, as well
as meetings in Warsaw and Astana between Presidents Ilham Aliyev and
Robert Kocharian, the Co-Chairs and the parties agreed the Prague
Process should continue in 2005, with a focus on advancing
negotiations towards a settlement.

The U.S. as Mediator

The U.S. remains actively engaged in advancing a peaceful settlement
of the conflict. Cooperation among the U.S., Russian, and French
mediators is excellent. The United States does not recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not
recognized internationally or by the United States. The United States
supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the
future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation between
the parties. The United States remains committed to finding a
peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the
Minsk Group process. We are encouraged by the continuing talks
between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

(end fact sheet)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs,
U.S. Department of State. Web site: )

Harvard Crimson, MA
Feb 9 2005

Students Keep Peace Vigil for Iraq

By JENNIFER XIN-JIA ZHANG
Contributing Writer

Every Wednesday at noon, in sun, rain or heavy snow, about 30 people
congregate at the John Harvard statue for a few minutes, but they are
not tourists. They have gathered to discuss the war in Iraq.
Their meetings, commonly known as the Harvard-Cambridge Walk for
Peace, generally begin with five to 15 minutes of discussion about
the most recent events in the war: attacks in Fallujah, uproar over
the first elections, handing over authority to a provisional Iraqi
government, or the latest bit of American reporting on the subject.
Afterwards, the group walks silently around Harvard Yard, single
file, each person holding up a sign with the name of someone who has
been killed in Iraq.

And since last May, the Walk for Peace has attracted high-profile
liberal speakers like Howard Zinn, James Carroll, and Noam Chomsky.
Most recently, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey
Minister in Memorial Church Peter J. Gomes offered a pacifistic plea
despite the January snow.

Steven B. Bloomfield ’77, associate director of the Weatherhead
Center for International Affairs, decided to organize the weekly walk
nine months ago as a response to the Abu Ghraib scandals.

“I had a moment of conscience in which I was reacting to the Abu
Ghraib prison torture and abuse that Americans were perpetrating,”
Bloomfield says. “I came to think it was a behavior that needed to be
recognized, there needed to be a public coming together of people,
and the awareness that the people of Arab nations were not being
served by these acts.”

Bloomfield contacted his colleagues and friends. News of the group
has since spread by word of mouth and e-mails over house lists. Soon,
participants as diverse as Harvard undergraduates, members of
Veterans for Peace, and Harvard faculty and staff began to show up.

The meetings are not loud, but rather a moment for students and other
members of the Harvard community to contemplate the events overseas,
and share their thoughts with like-minded people.

“Each little step might not make much of a difference, but its the
cumulative effect that does. If nothing’s done, then the war will
never stop,” says Eva S. Moseley, a Cantabrigian who has been a
regular participant in the walk for peace since last summer.

“It reminds anyone who sees us and gets the message that not all
Americans are behind whats happening in Iraq. I hope that it helps to
give people the courage to speak out,” she adds.

Daphne Abeel, a reporter for the Armenian Mirror-Spectator and a
parishioner of Reverend Gomes, attended her first Walk for Peace on
Jan. 26 to hear him speak.

“I opposed the war from the very beginning and I took part in much
larger protests prior to what I call ‘the invasion,'” she says.

While Abeel says that she has noticed fewer students than she would
have expected, and has been surprised by the lack of involvement by
many undergraduates, Bloomfield commented that certain speakers drew
a larger turnout.

When Zinn spoke last June, Bloomfield estimated that at least 90
people came to listen and walk. Zinn was delivering an address about
the transference of power to Iraqi authorities, as well as the
historical significance of student movements, according to
Bloomfield.

On the whole, however, Bloomfield feels that undergraduate
participation is an area where we need to grow.

Participation by Harvard students has been low, says Henry G. Walters
06, adding that only about two or three Harvard undergraduates come
regularly, despite weekly e-mail announcements.

“I know a lot of students were critical of the war in Iraq, or
willing to be critical during a dinner conversation, but I wish that
more of them would carry their opinions outside the safety of their
houses,” he says. “We can deplore suffering and we can deplore the
loss of a life, but I think that we have to keep this as a part of
our everyday consciousness.”

Walters says that the weekly walk is ultimately more contemplative
than political for him. He does not consider himself a pacifist in
general, but says that these vigils allow him a moment of
contemplation about the suffering occurring overseas.

“I think its very easy to get caught up in the bubble of school and
not ever have time to think seriously, and I think this offers a
chance to do that,” Walters says.

Bloomfield says that he hopes that his walk for peace will spread
more widely throughout the Boston-Cambridge area. He has no plan to
stop the gatherings in the foreseeable future.

He says that the seeds are already planted for similar gatherings at
Boston University, Boston College, and Suffolk University, where
vigils are also held likewise every Wednesday at noon.

Feb 9 2005

“Turkish-Russian Relations: Implications for Eurasia’s Geopolitics”

PINR The Power and Interest News Report
Feb 9 2005

As a result of its geography, Turkey maintains a multi-dimensional
and dynamic foreign policy. Turkish foreign policymakers are
carefully analyzing their foreign policy options in light of the 9/11
attacks and the war in Iraq. Within this set of complex links,
Turkish-Russian relations appear rather perplexing. Historically,
there have been many wars between these two states up until the end
of WWI. Both countries have imperial legacies and have experienced a
post-imperial traumatic loneliness. Great imperial legacies and the
feelings of isolation after the collapse of the previous empires are
important factors that shape the national memory of these countries.

After Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Turkey in December
of last year, Turkey’s prime minister paid a one day official visit
to Russia on January 10, 2005. It is relevant to analyze current
factors that determine the relations between these two states.
Domestic politics in Russia is often the result of competing views of
Westerners, anti-Westerners, Eurasianists, ultra-nationalists and
nostalgic communists. Russian foreign policy is generally determined
along the line of domestic political preferences. There is a symbolic
pendulum in Russian foreign policy that vacillates between Europe and
Asia depending on the political balances currently at play. Russian
foreign policy is today more critical of the West and follows a more
Eurasian-oriented path.

For Moscow, the existence of such national memory and geopolitical
orientation makes it difficult to determine a fixed and
well-functioning foreign policy towards Turkey. Like Russia, Turkey
has Caucasian, Balkan, Middle Eastern and European identities and
different interests at stake in all of these regions. Another
significant factor is that both countries are going through dynamic
domestic and economic transformations. The change in the early four
years of the current decade is surely dramatic at both societal and
state levels.

Issues at Stake

More specifically, the future of Turkish-Russian relations will be a
product of bilateral, regional and international developments.
High-level mutual visits in the recent period underline a number of
important issues between the two states. Although observers seem to
have an optimistic perception of the relations both in Moscow and
Ankara, there are issues of contention between the two states.

The issues of bilateral relations will be trade, investments by
Turkish and Russian businessmen, tourism, natural gas purchases,
Russian oil tankers transiting the straits, future pipeline projects
that may pass through the Trace or Anatolia, the Chechen question,
Russian arms sales, and the actions of Kurdish separatists on Russian
soil. A major recent development is the Russian leader’s statement
that the Turkish society in Northern Cyprus deserves better treatment
from the international community, since the Turkish Cypriots voted in
favor of the U.N. plan designed to put an end to the division of the
island.

Although there is much talk about the convergence of interests
between Turkey and Russia, one should also point out the conflicting
ones. Both countries favor improving their current relations and
adopting a more pragmatic stance on the international arena.
Officials on both sides signed a number of agreements, which will
surely facilitate the establishment of constructive relations.

The volume of bilateral trade reached $10 billion in 2004, and both
sides aim to increase this volume to $25 billion by 2007. Turkey’s
construction sector is active in Moscow and is increasing its market
share in Russia. Russian businessmen closely follow Turkey’s
privatization process and want to take part in energy projects in
Turkey. Another major cooperation area is Russian arms sales to
Turkey. Considering the Iraq crisis and potential instability in Iran
and Syria, Ankara pays serious attention to military modernization
projects and has an interest in Russian arms supplies. Finally,
Russian tourists increasingly prefer Turkey’s Mediterranean coast for
their vacations.

At another level, the mutual agenda is set around Russia’s energy
geopolitics, its near abroad policies, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
(B.T.C.) oil pipeline, ethnic secessionist movements in the Caucasus,
the reduction of Russian military forces in the region in accordance
with international agreements, and the problems emerging after the
Iraq war. Russia dislikes the B.T.C. pipeline, which is expected to
transit Azeri and Kazak oil to the West. Moscow regards this pipeline
as a challenge to its status in the Caspian basin and an obstacle to
its oil trade. Although the major conflict surrounding the B.T.C.
pipeline was between Russia and a number of former Soviet states, it
indirectly influenced Turkish-Russian relations. However, the Blue
Stream project — a natural gas pipeline that runs from Russia to
Turkey via the Black Sea — and several other Turkish-Russian oil
pipeline projects have led to the emergence of a “low profile” policy
concerning oil politics on the part of Russia. Although it is
speculative at the moment, the head of British Petroleum Company in
Azerbaijan recently floated the possibility of carrying Russian oil
through the B.T.C.

According to the official Turkish policy line, the Chechen question
is a Russian internal problem. Turkish officials frequently declare
that Russian security measures should not violate human rights in
Chechnya. However, a large Chechen diaspora in Turkey follows a
different line and tries its best to assist Chechen guerrillas,
creating significant tensions between the Turkish and Russian
governments. In return, Turkish officials have expressed discontent
about the Kurdistan Workers Party’s — a separatist Kurdish armed
movement — activities in Russian territories. For the time being,
both sides extend considerable vigor in order not to sever their
relations on account of trans-boundary ethnic problems.

Toward a New Geopolitics

Russia has a regional profile and is sensitive about losing its
influence in ex-Soviet territories. Since 1991, Turkey has emerged as
a significant regional player, pursuing a special relationship with
the E.U. and paying serious attention to building good relations in
the Caucasus and Central Asia. How closer Turkish-Russian relations
will be interpreted in Brussels and Washington is another important
question.

The U.S. military deployment in different parts of Eurasia, the
pro-Western change in domestic landscapes of Georgia and Ukraine, the
U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, among others, the developments
that have paved the way for the emergence of a new geopolitics in
Eurasia. The European and U.S. expansion into former Soviet
territories influences Russian policymakers to seek new alliances in
Asia. Russian rapprochement with Iran, China and India are examples
of this new policy. In this sense, the new developments in the
aftermath of the 9/11 attacks are bringing together the policies of
not only Russia and other major Asian powers, but also some critical
European states like France and Germany.

After receiving a negotiation date for E.U. membership, Turkey is
emerging as a European actor in the region. However, Turkey’s new
orientation was tested during the subsequent domestic transformations
of Georgia and Ukraine. Turkey adopted a low profile attitude toward
the Russian policies vis-à-vis Ukraine and Georgia, and sensitively
displayed a constructive outlook by pointing to the relevant
international norms and agreements as the way to resolve the crises.
Ankara tries to avoid taking sides in any “Russia versus the West”
struggles, while developing its own relations with Moscow.

One other important area of contention is Turkish-Armenian relations,
which are held hostage to historical enmities and Turkey’s
pro-Azerbaijan policies in the Caucasus. Currently, Russia is the
main ally of Armenia, and possible Russian mediation between Turkey
and Armenia on a number of issues can be expected. Following recent
positive developments on this front, there may be Russian-Turkish
joint attempts to solve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

Conclusion

By looking at the current developments, it can be concluded that
Turkish-Russian relations will improve in the political, economic and
security realms. However, the relations are not free from a number of
serious problems that could threaten to derail these growing ties;
both countries have converging and conflicting interests in
neighboring regions, and this status makes Turkish-Russian relations
promising yet difficult. Turkey and Russia are two influential actors
in the Eurasian geopolitics and their relations have implications for
the whole Eurasian region. Because of this, internal and external
players in Eurasian geopolitical gambling will keep an eye on this
growing relationship.

Report Drafted By:
Dr. Bulent Aras

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent
organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide
conflict analysis services in the context of international relations.
PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests
involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may
not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written
permission of [email protected]. All comments should be directed to
[email protected].

–Boundary_(ID_EjscDefBJQr1PpCUd7SCdQ)–

US to provide equal aid to Azerbaijan, Armenia

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Feb 9 2005

Baku, February 8, AssA-Irada — The United States, in its 2006 draft
state budget, allocated $5,000,000 and $750,000 in assistance under the
“foreign military funding” and “international military education and
training” provisions respectively to Azerbaijan and Armenia each. At
the same time, the document states that if a country violates the
territorial integrity of another, US assistance will be withdrawn.

The draft state budget, forwarded by President George Bush to the US
Congress on Monday, designates a total of $482 million in assistance to
the former Soviet Union countries. The funds will be allocated through
the US Agency for International Development (USAID) for economic and
democratic transition programmes. The Bush administration believes that
these funds are also needed for the support of Central Asian states,
as well as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, of the anti-terror campaign
and for regional security issues.

The draft budget also envisages increasing funding for foreign
assistance programmes by 14%. The figure amounts to $16.2 billion in
the current fiscal year.

In the draft budget, the Bush administration also focused on expanding
diplomatic and other activity of the US Department of State in Islamic
countries. It also suggested that a library and information centres
entitled “America-oriented” be set up in the Middle East countries
and other Islamic states.*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Feb 9 2005

‘Iran does not and will never assist Armenia’ – Iranian Ambassador

Baku, February 8, AssA-Irada

Chairman of the Armenian Security Council, Serzh Sarkisian, told the
local media prior to leaving for Iran on Tuesday that he would ask
the Iranian government to assist in developing Armenia’s economy.
Commenting on Sarkisian’s statement, the Iranian Ambassador to
Azerbaijan, Afshar Suleymani, stressed that “Iran does not and will
never assist Armenia”.

Suleymani stated that Iran attaches great importance to relations
with Azerbaijan, underlining that his country is co-operating with
the Armenian private sector in the area of commerce alone.*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress