IRNA, Iran
Feb 8 2005

Rowhani:Strategic projects important for regional security

Tehran, Feb 8, IRNA — Secretary of Iran`s Supreme National Security
Council (SNSC) Hojatoleslam Hassan Rowhani said here Tuesday that
strategic projects such as gas and power transfer from Iran to
Armenia
is of high importance for regional security and economy.
In a meeting with Secretary of Armenia`s National Security Council
Serzh Sarkisian on Tuesday, Rowhani said Tehran and Yerevan share
deep
cultural and historical commonalties, stressing expansion of cultural

and scientific relations between the two sides.
He said regional states themselves should be involved in the
discussions regarding regional security projects and they should
adopt
proper strategies for collective regional cooperation.
He added that the SNSC is ready to cooperate with regional states
to make the regional strategy successful.
He added that Baku-Yerevan direct dialogue is an effective means
of settling the Karabakh dispute and said Tehran is ready to offer
any
kind of help to resolve the crisis, taking settlement of the crisis
`necessary` for economic development and progress.
Rowhani ruled out military method for settlement of Karabakh
problem and said fair solution, agreed upon by both sides, and taking

into account the wishes of Karabakh citizens in political dialogues
are the proper ways to overcome the Karabakh crisis.
He said the North-South transit corridor is an important axis for
development of regional economy, which has a `significant` impact on
regional stability and security.
He added that there is no impediment to expansion of the Tehran-
Yerevan relations and expansion of ties would further consolidate
peace, stability and security in the region.
The top Iranian security official said Tehran and Yerevan would
never allow foreign agents to interfere in their relations.
For his part, Sarkisian said Tehran-Yerevan cooperation is
integral part of regional security and establishment of a regional
security system with the participation of all regional states is
inevitable.
He called for dialogue among national security council secretaries
of regional states to loon into the establishment of a collective
cooperation system.
He said his country is ready to settle Karabakh crisis within the
framework of a collective settlement of all the issues under dispute.

Sarkisian ruled out any project for step-by-step and phased
settlement of Karabakh dispute and thanked Iran for supporting
Armenia`s membership in the North-South transit corridor.

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Deacon Vagarsag Seropyan
Lraper Bulletin
Armenian Patriarchate
TR-34130 Kumkapi, Istanbul
T: +90 (212) 517-0970
F: +90 (212) 516-4833

[email protected]

Patriarchate Chancellor Remarks On the Melkonian Grant

Concerning the press release of the AGBU Central Board of Directors,
on the lawsuit filed by His Beatitude Mesrob II, Armenian Patriarch of
Istanbul and all Turkey, the Revd. Dr. Krikor Damadyan, the Chancellor
of the Patriarchal See, made the following statement:

“It is difficult to comprehend how the closure of a prestigious school
in the Middle East, and one of the very few Armenian educational
institutions in the European Union could be in the best interests of
the Armenian nation. We believe that this decision, taken by a few
executives, is a wrong one.

“The AGBU Central Board of Directors claims that it will continue to
honour the vision of its many generous benefactors including the late
Garabed Melkonian, for the benefit of all Armenians worldwide. This
is a remarkable statement since the AGBU is confessing publicly that
the Armenians in Turkey are not considered part of “all Armenians
worldwide,” since, unlike the Gulbenkian Foundation and the Apcarian
Trust, the AGBU has not taken much interest in how Armenians in Turkey
have wrestled to maintain their community organisations during the
last seventy-five years. However, we do acknowledge receipt of minor
sums sent us by donors through AGBU means.

“The only way to honour the vision of the Melkonian Brothers is to
keep the Melkonian Educational Institute in Cyprus open. The AGBU
should refrain from closing down the MEI and selling the property,
lest she should declare herself untrustworthy before all Armenians
worldwide. Why should people make grants to a charity organisation such
as the AGBU, if following their demise a few executives will deal with
the grant in a way that will not do justice to the benefactor’s memory?

“The AGBU should also publish how she has executed the Melkonian Trust
since 1926. As the present successor to Patriarch Zaven of blessed
memory, His Beatitude Patriarch Mesrob takes dutiful interest as to
whether the terms of the grant have been implemented responsibly. Every
charity organisation should be accountable to the public and should
not take offense when asked for accounts. AGBU executives who donate
their own family wealth on charity are appreciated dearly by all
Armenians worldwide. Nevertheless, that should not allow them any
right to do as they please with the grants made by other benefactors.

“His Beatitude Patriarch Mesrob has magnanimously made it known to
those Californian Armenians who would like to act as mediators that
he would be willing to receive a delegation in Istanbul in order
to discuss a meaningful settlement of this critically important
issue to the Armenians of Europe. Great justice will be done if the
AGBU reverses her decision to close down the Melkonian Educational
Institute. This is our Patriarchate’s wish and prayer, as also
expressed by numerous Melkonian alumni worldwide. ”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Vail Daily News, CO
Feb 8 2005

The legal definition of genocide

Rohn K. Robbins
February 7, 2005

The recent slaughter in Darfur, coupled with the popularity of the
movie, Hotel Rwanda, and the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz bring into sharp focus the question of genocide. Darfur, of
course, is in the western part of Sudan where, over the last two
years, at least 70,000 people have been killed and more than 2
million have been dispossessed of their homes.

Since February 2003, in the context of a military counter-insurgency
campaign against two rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)
and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) Sudanese government
forces and government-backed Arab ethnic militias known as
“Janjaweed” have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and
“ethnic cleansing” in the Darfur region of Sudan. Government forces
and militias have systematically targeted civilian communities that
share the same ethnicity as the rebel groups (the black, non-Arab
Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit people), killing, looting, raping, forcibly
displacing and destroying hundreds of villages. Over a million
people, driven from their homes, now face death from starvation and
disease as the government and Janjaweed militias attempt to prevent
humanitarian aid from reaching them. The same forces have destroyed
the people of Darfur’s villages and crops, and poisoned their water.

The Hotel Rwanda recounts the genocidal terror of the 100 bloody days
commencing in April, 1994 in Rwanda when the ethnic Hutu tribesmen
engaged in the wholesale slaughter of the ethic Tutsi, ultimately
killing an estimated 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu
before the Tutsi rebels of the Rwandan Patriotic Front regained
control. Most of the dead were hacked to death with machetes by the
frantic Hutu hordes. Radio Mille Collines, featured prominently in
the movie, read the names, addresses and license plate numbers of
many Tutsi and moderate Hutus whom the Hutu slated for annihilation
and whom were summarily executed.

Of course, these two episodes of ethnic slaughter, roughly a decade
apart, were not the first of their kind in the 20th and early 21st
century. In 1915, the Turks massacred approximately 1 million
Armenians. In the 1940s, Nazi Germany exterminated more than 6
million Jews and another 5 million or so Poles, Roma, Communists and
other “undesirables”. In Cambodia, in the mid-1970s Pol Pot and the
communists Khmer Rouge exterminated roughly 2 million (out of a
population of 7 million) ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, Muslim
Chams, Buddhist monks and “intellectuals” (which translated,
literally, to anyone who could read or who wore glasses). In the late
1980s Saddam Hussein gassed and otherwise murdered tens of thousands
of Kurds. In early 1990s in Srebrenica, Kosovo and Bosnia, Muslims
and Croats were slaughtered wholesale by the Serbs. It is a sad and
sordid history of our species.

Despite the outrage which is oftentimes expressed, most times, it is
little more than politic lip service. Far more times than not, the
international community has done little more than offer its
collective condemnation and limp-wristed condolences but has, to say
the least, dragged its collective heels in offering any meaningful
intervention.

It historically may not seem so, but there is, in fact, an
international law against such things. Known as the Genocide
Convention, it took the United States more than 40 years to adopt it.

The term “genocide” was first coined by Raphael Lemkin, a survivor of
the Holocaust, and derives from the Greek “geno”, meaning “tribe” and
the derivative “cide” from the Latin word “caedre” meaning “killing”,
thus the “killing of a tribe” of peoples.

Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial,
or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group the conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

For a party to be found guilty of genocide, it has to: 1) carry out
one or more of the aforementioned acts, 2) with the intent to destroy
all or part of 3) one of the groups protected. The law does not
require the Holocaust-like extermination of an entire group, only
acts intended to destroy a substantial part.

And that has been the bugaboo; first, intent must be shown and second
a “substantial part” must be quantified. Simply, how much is
“substantial?”

The “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide” was adopted by the United Nations in 1951. The United
States did not ratify the act until 1988.

In Nuremberg the Nazi War Crimes tribunal was convened following the
Second World War to mete out justice to the perpetrators of genocide.
A similar tribunal was not convened again until the Balkans in the
1990s . A standing UN war crimes tribunal was not established at The
Hague in Belgium until 1993.

While it seems the declamations of genocide are flying earlier in
Darfur than in previous genocides, the world seems, yet again, to be
largely sitting on the sidelines. Waiting for precisely what, I
remain uncertain.

Rohn K. Robbins is an attorney licensed before the Bars of Colorado
and California who practices in the Vail Valley. He is a member of
the Colorado State Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee and is a
former adjunct professor of law. Mr. Robbins lectures for Continuing
Legal Education for attorneys in the areas of real estate, business
law and legal ethics. He may be heard on Wednesday nights at 7:00
p.m. on KZYR radio (97.7 FM) as host of “Community Focus”. Mr.
Robbins may be reached at 970/926.4461 or at his e-mail address:
[email protected]

AllAfrica. com
Feb 8 2005

Deadly Semantics

Sunday Times (Johannesburg)

OPINION
February 7, 2005
Posted to the web February 7, 2005

Andrew Donaldson
Johannesburg

If a United Nations report can decree, just days after Holocaust
Memorial Day, that the killing of tens of thousands of people in
Darfur did not amount to genocide, then what does it mean to say
‘Never again’? asks Andrew Donaldson

‘China wants the country’s oil and Russia wants to sell it weapons.
Africans will die, bluntly speaking, so their businessmen may profit’

THEY gathered at Auschwitz in the bitter cold as a light snow fell on
the crematoriums, the dark rows of huts, the barbed wire, the guard
towers and the railway sidings. Among the dignitaries were world
leaders and, of course, the frail and elderly survivors of that
horror in southern Poland – all commemorating the 60th anniversary of
the Nazi death camp’s liberation.

The media was there, too, and, amid the reflections and the
recollections of the Holocaust, one particular phrase, uttered by
politicians that day, once more, via newspaper headlines and
broadcast sound bites, made its way into our collective
consciousness: “Never again”.

Now, as ever, the blunt intention was abundantly clear: Evil like
this, and the ideology from which it stemmed, shall no longer be
allowed or tolerated in our world; that active, forceful measures
shall be taken to prevent its reappearance; and that those who
transgress in this regard shall be punished. So it was written in the
United Nations Convention on Genocide, adopted in 1948 and which came
into effect in 1951.

And yet, this week a definition over what is “genocide” has emerged
as a bitter and essentially pointless source of tension between the
US and the UN.

The context is Darfur, the victims Africans. In July last year, a US
state report found evidence of genocide in the oil-rich region where
the Sudanese government and its militia, the Janjaweed, have murdered
about 70 000 people, although there is no official confirmation of
this figure. Almost two million others have been driven from their
homes and villages in a merciless campaign of ethnic cleansing that
began in earnest in 2003. The then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell
endorsed the US’s position.

However, a UN report released just days after Holocaust Memorial Day
has ruled otherwise – thus freeing the international community, or
the 96 countries which had ratified the Genocide Convention at least,
from a legal and binding obligation to bring to a swift end the
killings there and to punish the perpetrators.

Drawn up by a five-member commission of inquiry, led by Italy’s Judge
Antonio Cassesse, who was the first president of the International
Criminal Court (ICC), the report found that the raiders of Darfur, in
their “indiscriminate attacks” and “killing of civilians, enforced
disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of
sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement throughout Darfur”
have not intentionally pursued “a policy of genocide”.

The semantics become all the more confusing when one turns to the
convention for its definition of genocide. The definition in 1948
stated that genocide could be “any of the following acts committed
with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic,
racial or religious group killing members of the group; causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its destruction in whole or in part; steps intended to prevent births
within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group”.

Nevertheless, the panel’s report has pleased Khartoum, which quickly
leaked it. Washington and its supporters are dismayed; as an
editorial in the Chicago Tribune claimed: “It’s as if the [UN] is
saying, ‘Never again? Never mind.’ ”

But Cassesse’s panel did recommend that the atrocities in Darfur be
investigated by the ICC. And, should that happen, it may well find
that genocidal acts had taken place and that some individuals may
have acted with “genocidal intent”.

Here, though, is more confusion. The Bush administration vehemently
opposes the ICC in principle and practice, and has negotiated
agreements with dozens of countries that they will not surrender US
citizens to the court.

Instead, Washington argues that a special Darfur war crimes tribunal,
independent of the I CC, be set up, possibly in Tanzania, and run
jointly by the UN and the African Union.

There is no denying there have been atrocities. Only last week a
Sudanese aircraft bombed a village, according to AU observers,
killing some 100 people, mostly women and children.

In his reaction to the report, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan said,
“Regardless of how the commission describes what is going on in
Darfur, there is no doubt that serious crimes have been committed.
Action will have to be taken [to end the conflict].”

And that will probably mean a lot more than the promised deployment
of 3 500 African Union troops.

To date, three UN resolutions have condemned the violence. The
Security Council, which was due to have discussed the report on
Friday, has threatened sanctions against Khartoum and a travel and
assets freeze against those suspected of war crimes.

Sanctions have, however, been opposed by China and Russia. As
Security Council members, both have the power of veto and both have
offered lengthy and quite often garbled diplomatic arguments against
punishing Sudan. But the truth of the matter is that both have
economic ties with the country – China wants the country’s oil and
Russia wants to sell it weapons. Africans will die, bluntly speaking,
so their businessmen may profit.

In the meantime, the debate sparked by the Cassesse panel’s report on
the definition of “genocide” has deepened. There is the suggestion,
on the one hand, that in terms of the Genocide Convention, the
definition is too narrow and that none of the mass killings
perpetrated since the convention’s adoption would fall under it.
There are, for example, those who say the Holocaust was the only
genocide in the last century.

The convention’s critics point out that it excludes targeted
political and social groups, and that the definition of “genocide” is
limited to direct acts against people – but excludes acts against
environments which sustain them or their cultural distinctiveness.

Then, as Darfur has shown, there is the difficulty of proving intent
beyond reasonable doubt. UN member states are reluctant to single out
other members or intervene.

Then there is the argument, incredibly, about establishing how many
deaths amount to genocide.

Such an argument was heard in April last year, when the Bosnian Serb
military leader, General Radislav Krstic, appealed against his
sentence for genocide for his role in the slaughter of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, Europe’s worst massacre since World
War Two.

The Hague tribunal, thankfully, rejected his contention that the 7
000 Muslim men and boys murdered at Srebrenica was “too
insignificant” to be genocide. (Krstic’s conviction was reduced to
one of aiding and abetting genocide His jail sentence was cut from 46
years to 35.)

On the other hand, others have claimed that, like “fascist” or
“racism”, the term “genocide” has become devalued through misuse.

One such person is Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for
Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, who argued in a recent
lecture: “Those who should use the word genocide never let it slip
their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a
validation of every kind of victimhood. Slavery for example, is
called genocide when – whatever it was, and it was an infamy – it was
a system to exploit, rather than to exterminate, the living.”

There is a danger, of course, that such a position trivialises the
deaths of the victims of what many have, whether incorrectly or not,
labelled genocide. They include, among others, those worked to death,
starved or who died from disease in the Congo under Belgium’s King
Leopold II a century ago, the Hereros butchered by German
imperialists in what is now Namibia, the Armenians murdered by
Ottoman Turks, those who died as a result of the Soviet man-made
famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, those who died in Mao’s Cultural
Revolution in the 1960s, those who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge
in Cambodia in the 1970s, those who were killed in the Palestinian
conflict, those who were slaughtered in the Indonesian invasion of
East Timor in 1975, and those who were hacked and bludgeoned to death
in Rwanda in 1994.

There are millions and millions of them. But it is not about the
numbers, it is about action. Or, rather, the lack of action.

As for Darfur, well, one may cynically wonder whether there too shall
be memorials to what has happened there. Perhaps we may even gather
there one day, amid the oil refineries, and promise ourselves once
more, “Never again.”

Armenian genocide back on school curriculum

Expatica, Netherlands
Feb 8 2005

8 Februrary 2005

BERLIN – Defusing a row after alleged Turkish pressure forced removal
of the Armenian genocide from German public school curriculums, a
state premier said on 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 US 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 (EU) 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 EU.

Platzeck is a rising star in Chancellor’s Social Democratic Party
(SPD) and is tipped by some as a possible successor to Schroeder.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress
Feb 8 2005

KHATAMI MEETS ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTER

TEHRAN FEBRUARY 8, ARMENPRESS: Iranian President Mohammad Khatami
was quoted by Irna news agency as saying Tuesday that Tehran-Yerevan
cooperation would be effective to support mutual interests and
security as well as regional stability.
Meeting with the visiting Armenian defense minister Serzh
Sarkisian, Khatami said Iranian and Armenian presidents have formed a
new phase to develop economic cooperation and efforts should be made
for speedy implementation of mutual accords.
Khatami stressed that the Islamic Republic of Iran supports its
neighbor Armenia, considering the fact that mutual cooperation is
effective for development and security of the Caucasus. He said
regional states can solve their problems through high level
negotiations without foreign intervention and Iran, as a country
which calls for establishment of good ties with all neighbors, is
ready to take steps for removal of any problem with the neighbors.
Khatami pointed to the significance of transit and transportation
in boosting relations among regional states and also to the need for
connection of railways and roads. He underlined the project for
transfer of gas to Armenia and also expansion of commercial
relations.
Sarkisian for his part expressed hopes for further expansion of
the Tehran- Yerevan relations on the basis of good faith. He said
development of mutual relations in the fields of culture, education
and economy would prepare the ground for guaranteeing security and
expanding ties in other spheres.
He added that connection of Iranian and Armenian railways would be
effective for establishment of the north-south corridor. He welcomed
the project for transfer of gas to Armenia. He also described as
“very logical and positive” Iran’s viewpoints on sticking to dialogue
and negotiation to settle regional disputes without foreign
intervention.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PARLIAMENT REJECTS DEBATES ON RETURN OF SOVIET-TIME BANK DEPOSITS

ArmenPress
Feb 8 2005

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 7, ARMENPRESS: Members of the Armenian
parliament, back from a winter recess, have turned down today a
motion by the opposition Ardarutyun alliance that calls for
parliament debates on returning the populations’ depreciated
Soviet-time bank accounts.
The bill was authored by Viktor Dalakian, the secretary of the
alliance and suggested that the motion be put on the agenda of the
regular three-day session. Talking to reporters, Dalakian said his
bill asks the government to announce publicly that it will pay
compensations and will draft special mechanisms for it.
But the Republican Party of prime minister Margarian and Orinats
Yerkir of parliament chairman Baghdasarian argued in favor of
postponing the issue to give time to a special task force, set up by
the president, to investigate the problem and present its own
conclusion.

Gulf Daily News, Bahrain
Feb 8 2005

Parliament talks

ARMENIAN Parliament president Arthur Bagdasarin yesterday arrived in
Bahrain to hold talks on bolstering bilateral relations.

He was met at the airport by Parliament chairman Khalifa Al Dhahrani
and other officials.

A joint co-operation agreement will also be signed.

Mr Al Dhahrani later hosted a dinner banquet at Regency
InterContinental Hotel in honour of his counterpart and his
delegation.

EducationGuardian.co.uk, UK
Feb 8 2005

Anxiety in the UK

Serious complaints by overseas students are unjustified, says their
university. Hsiao-Hung Pai reports

Tuesday February 8, 2005
The Guardian

About 400 students from east Asia have enrolled for programmes this
year at Royal Holloway, University of London. They are paying at
least three times the fees of UK students, but came because they
regarded it as a prestigious place to study. But following a series
of what appear to be racially motivated assaults, several students at
the campus in Egham, Surrey, have expressed concerns about security,
accommodation, and what they describe as a culture of isolation
within the college. These claims are vociferously denied by Royal
Holloway.
A Korean female postgraduate exchange student was attacked by three
youths – one man and two women – inside a college laundry room at the
main campus in November, 2004. They verbally abused her and hit her
continuously for half an hour, till she fell on the floor. Then they
started kicking her. She was left with bad injuries and bruises all
over her face.

“There is no security system at this university,” said Mr Jin,
president of the Korean society, who asked us not to publish his
first name. The incident provoked great anger among east Asian
students and overseas students in general. The Korean society, along
with the Chinese society, Japanese society, Taiwanese society and the
Indian society, presented a petition with 400 signatures to the
college, demanding that a satisfactory security system be installed,
with better lighting on campus and an increased patrol.

“In the first two weeks, patrolling increased. But things got back to
usual after that,” said a Korean student who doesn’t want to be
named.

Advertiser links
Life Coaching Service
By visiting this Web site you have already taken the first…

realcoachingco.com

Take an ICS Life Coaching Course
The ICS Life Coaching course will help you learn different…

icslearn.co.uk

Become a Coach Today
Achieve accredited coaching success in corporate, executive…

the-coaching-academy.com
Two months later, on January 28, a Chinese-German student was
attacked by 10 youths at the south gate, outside the college grounds.
On the same night, an Indian student was attacked.

“The college could have done better on informing students about the
attacks,” said Zepyur Batikyar, an Armenian MA student. “We got to
hear of them mostly from other students.”

“We feel extremely excluded by our skin colour,” said Yu-Jen Bai, a
postgraduate business student from Taiwan, “We almost feel we can
only be protected by the presence of a white student.”

Royal Holloway emphatically denied it had responded inadequately to
the attacks. All the students have been offered support and
counselling since the attacks, a spokeswoman said.

“The incident involving a Korean student was taken very seriously,
and subjected to a full investigation in collaboration with Korea
University, [the] students’ union, the local community and local
police. The college has also provided ongoing support for the student
involved.

“The student support officer, who has been working closely with the
Korean student involved in this incident, has received much gratitude
for the care and support, and we understand the student is hoping to
return to Royal Holloway for further study.”

After the November attack, the spokeswoman said, a bulletin was
issued by the students’ union alerting students. “Lighting systems
throughout the campus were reviewed and the level of patrol by
security officers was increased to cover additional areas on the
campus, in particular, those close to halls of residences, and
arrangements for these patrols were continued through the vacation
period. In addition, the college is working closely with the local
community and police to seek ways to ensure that all members of the
community continue to work and live in a safe and secure
environment.”

It was “totally inaccurate” to say the college had no security
system. “Each of the halls of residence has a resident warden to
support students and the college operates 24-hour security presence.”

Students, particularly east Asian students, feel fearful of these
attacks and are deeply concerned that something should be done. But,
according to Jin, they have no proper channels of complaint and are
worried that too much noise would have a negative effect on their
status at college.

“There is practically no means of communication between overseas
students and the college authorities,” said a Taiwanese MBA student.

Royal Holloway’s spokeswoman said: “This could not be further from
the truth. The college prides itself on its level of pastoral care.”

Yuki Yanagi, a 22-year-old postgraduate student from Japan, says that
the attack in November “is not just a Korean issue. To the eyes of
locals, we look similar and I feel the same thing could happen to me
or my friends.

“I have become very cautious. Nowadays I only do shopping in the
daytime and in British, male company.” My parents are worried about
me.”

Safety has, in fact, been a long-term concern. “Incidents of attacks
and harassment have been going on here for at least two years. MBA
students who studied here in 2003/04 warned me about safety the first
day I got here,” said Yu-Jen Bai. “There should have been stronger
action from the students themselves. I never imagined safety to be a
problem at London University.

“The problem is our student societies are only interested in
organising social events. They aren’t interested in fighting for our
rights. I guess it’s because they are run by younger people,
undergraduates, who aren’t very aware.”

The students suffer from being both separate and visible. “Life is
isolated and lonely here,” says Sangseuk Park. Like many other east
Asian students, Park chose to study at Holloway because of its
excellent international reputation. “And the campus looks so nice,”
he said. He is self-funded and pays a tuition fee of £8,500 for a
one-year course.

Park finds language a barrier. He only socialises with east Asian
students. “It’s not so easy to interact with local students. Perhaps
it’s cultural differences.”

“It isn’t always language that is the barrier,” says Zepyur Batikyar.
“Self-blame was my initial reaction when I experienced distance from
the local environment. But I understood it wasn’t me at all when I
began to interact so well with other overseas students.”

“We don’t go out much. Our weekend entertainment is going to the
cinema in Staines with other Chinese students,” says Gu Chen, 24, a
Chinese postgraduate in Business Information Systems.

Yuki Yanagi came to this college for its reputation in women’s
studies. She’s eager to be socially active and learn about local
culture. She joined the women’s football team where there are hardly
any Asian players, and went to watch the football in the local pub.

“But the best time of my stay in Royal Holloway was when I met east
Asian students. We socialise a lot and I feel things are getting
better and better.”

She’s disappointed with the level of interaction between overseas and
local students. “I often have racially abusive jokes thrown at me by
fellow students, and some of the sexually harassing behaviour really
disgusts me.”

Pei-Ling Lu, a business postgraduate from Taiwan, says: “We didn’t
really know that much about the course structure or the environment
before we came, because all the information was provided by agencies
at home, who gave us nothing but college brochures.”

All the east Asian students we spoke to talked about the
administrative inefficiency of the college. “Our requests are often
ignored or delayed,” one said.

Accommodation is also one of the biggest concerns among overseas
students here. “There is a large difference in the types of
accommodation we get, and the criteria of housing distribution seems
arbitrary,” said one student.

“There’s no support for overseas students here,” said Gu Chen. “We
believe that overseas students tend to be given poorer-facilitated
housing. The course is also very different from what I had expected.
It’s loosely organised, and the teaching hours are too short – only
two days a week.”

The postgraduates on the business courses seem particularly unhappy
with what they get in return for the high tuition fees. “The college
facilities are commercialised,” one MBA student said. “There are bars
run by outside companies, which charge higher prices than local pubs.
But there aren’t enough academic resources, such as a good library.
This is only geared towards undergraduate interests.”

The college denied these charges. “International students are given
priority in securing accommodation within halls of residence. In the
case of a large group of students, such as those from Korea
University, we also work to accommodate them across the campus, to
enable them to integrate more fully within the campus community,”
said the spokeswoman.

“We consider our accommodation standards to be high – situated in a
135-acre parkland campus. Royal Holloway opened a brand new £23m
state-of-the-art halls development in September 2004. Many
international students are within these halls. Indeed, we have a
collaborative venture with Korea University, and a section of the
halls have been named in honour of a Korean industrialist.”

She added: “We have many channels in operation to receive feedback
from students. Standards of teaching at the college are frequently
praised by students, and the college’s record demonstrates our high
commitment to teaching and research.”

–Boundary_(ID_V5v4W7nYXSALM7XPmQ0y5g)–

Anadolu Agency
Feb 8 2005

President Aliyev Of Azerbaijan Hosts A Banquet In Honor Of Arinc

Anadolu Agency: 2/7/2005
BAKU – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan hosted a banquet in honor
of Turkish Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc, who is currently in Baku
on an official visit, on Monday.

Relations of Azerbaijan with the other regional countries, and the
Upper Karabakh dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia were high on
agenda during the banquet.

Speaking at the banquet, President Aliyev called on Turkey to support
them in their fight against Armenian occupation.

Meanwhile, Arinc said in his part that several decisions were made by
the EU and the United Nations for withdrawal of Armenia from the
occupied Azerbaijani territories, adding, ”however, Armenian
occupation has been continuing. More than 1 million people were
forced to leave their homes. They have been living under extremely
difficult conditions. Turkey will continue extending all kinds of
support to Azerbaijan in its rightful struggle.”