AGBU Press Office
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone 212.319.6383 x.118
Fax 212.319.6507
Email [email protected]
Website

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, February 7, 2005

AGBU YPGNY ORGANIZES ARMENIA PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE SERIES

New York, NY – Starting February 17th, AGBU Young Professionals of
Greater New York (YPGNY) are proud to present a three week series
of screenings, panel discussions, and presentations at AGBU Central
Office in New York on Armenia and issues relevant to its past,
present and future.

The Thursday events begin on February 17th with a special screening of
“My Son Shall Be Armenian,” a poignant film that reflects on Armenian
identity, as filmmaker Hagop Goudsouzian follows five Montrealers
of Armenian descent as they return to the land of their forebears in
search of survivors. Goudsouzian weaves the moving accounts of these
centenarians and the touching, at times droll, reactions of the New
World travelers into a dignified and poignant film about the need to
make peace with the past in order to move into the future. Tickets
are $15.

On February 24th, the series continues with a special panel
discussion entitled, “Armenia Present,” that focuses on the state
of development in Armenia in the fields of the education, politics,
and civil society. Speakers will include Aaron Sherinian from the
U.S. Embassy in Armenia and former Fulbright scholar and educator
Nicole Vartanian. Tickets are $10.

The final event on March 3rd will host Noubar Afeyan from the
groundbreaking Armenia 2020 initiative that looks into future scenarios
for the country projecting possible trajectories for the country and
its role in the world. Tickets are $10.

All events will take place at AGBU Central Office in midtown Manhattan
(55 East 59th Street, between Park & Madison Avenues) and tickets
can be reserved by emailing [email protected], or by calling 212.319.6383.

AGBU YPGNY was established in 1999 and is part of a worldwide network
of young professionals of Armenian heritage that seek to develop
projects relevant to their lives that benefit their local and global
communities.

For more information on the YP global network, please visit AGBU
online at

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
 
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 7, 2004
CONTACT: David Zenian
Email: [email protected]

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY WELCOMES POSITIVE COMPONENTS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S FY’06 BUDGET:
CALLS FOR UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF AID TO ARMENIA

Washington, DC – The Armenian Assembly today welcomed the positive
components of the Bush Administration’s Armenia-related foreign aid
allocations of the just-released FY 2006 budget, and especially the
parity it established in security aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan and
the reference to humanitarian assistance to Nagorno Karabakh.

The Assembly said that by establishing the principle of parity
in military funding — $5 million each to Armenia and Azerbaijan
in Foreign Military Financing and $750,000 each for International
Military Education and Training — and it’s first-ever reference to
Nagorno Karabakh in a proposed budget, the Bush Administration was in
effect sending a positive message to the region designed to enhance
its role as a key partner in the peace process.

FY 2006, while not setting a dollar amount, has asked — for the
first time in specific language — for funds to “support humanitarian
assistance to Nagorno Karabakh.”

“The Armenian Assembly welcomes the Bush Administration’s financial
allocations to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, and more so because it
has placed both Armenia and Azerbaijan on the same footing in as far
as military assistance is concerned and named Nagorno Karabakh as
a separate recipient of humanitarian assistance,” Assembly Board of
Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian said.

“We are particularly pleased to note that by establishing and
maintaining military parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the
Administration has taken an effective step in maintaining its
credibility as an impartial and leading mediator in the Karabakh
peace process,” Barsamian said.

While underlining the overall positive aspects of the Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh-related budget allocations, the Assembly said one
area fell short of expectations. FY 2006, following a trend already
in progress, asked for $55 million in economic assistance to Armenia –
down from last fiscal year’s request of $62 million.

“We note this ongoing decline with disappointment, but we are
determined to advocate to Congress for increased funding just as we did
and succeeded in the previous budget cycles. The damaging and illegal
Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades have not ended,” Barsamian said.

After critical, year-long efforts from the Assembly’s friends on
the Hill, “not less than” $75 million in economic aid to Armenia was
approved within the framework of the FY 2005 Omnibus Spending Bill.

Details of the Bush Administration’s FY 2006 Budget described Armenia
as “one of the leading performers in Eurasia in economic and political
reform,” and said it was for this reason that “Armenia was one of
the two countries in the region deemed eligible to receive grants
from the Millennium Challenge Account.” But the Administration also
noted that “despite the gains produced by economic reforms, poverty
remains widespread” and said “the key now is effective implementation
of reform measures, particularly fighting corruption.”

The Administration’s characterizing of reforms in Armenia effectively
supported the earlier findings of the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street
Journal 2004 Index of Economic Freedom which last year placed Armenia
well ahead of its neighbors in terms of its business climate and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation’s recognition of Armenia as a country
whose past and present performance clearly meets its criteria of
“governing justly, investing in their people and promoting economic
freedom.”

The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness
of Armenian issues. It is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt membership
organization.

### NR#2005-011

–Boundary_(ID_Ax3DsrcByrRL46LdbOOG+w)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

An Iron Curtain at Mount Ararat
By Harout H. Semerdjian

The Moscow Times
February 8, 2005

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to 15 independent
states, from the Baltics to the Caucasus to Central Asia. Each state
inherited both advantages and challenges that were largely absent when
they were territories of a single union. For many of these new states,
such as Armenia, independence brought with it a new set of predicaments
linked to its recent historical past, its disadvantageous geography
and its immense refugee problem that resulted from ethnic conflicts
and natural disasters.

For the large and influential Armenian diaspora worldwide, the most
important issue remained recognition of the events of 1915 as genocide
— events which effectively removed their ancestors from their homeland
in the Ottoman Empire. However, for the majority of Armenians living
in Armenia, the most significant issue became survival in a period of
economic hardship and social turmoil. The country’s economy remains in
shambles, and its landlocked position only complicates the situation.

The economic conditions in eastern Turkey are not much better. In
recent years, farmers have put entire villages in the Sivas region of
the country up for sale. Isolated eastern provinces such as Erzerum,
Kars and Igdir near the Armenian border are anxious to boost their
economy in order to improve their low standards of living. Those in
Istanbul, Ankara and along the posh Aegean Coast do not necessarily
face the same challenges as those living in the forgotten east.

Yet what do the people in this impoverished region think?

On a visit to eastern Turkey several years ago, I began my journey in
Kars. Not far from the historic Armenian capital of Ani lies Ocakli,
a destitute village overlooking the frontier. A young woman from the
village pointed in the direction of Armenia and remarked, “We have
family on the other side, but we cannot reach them because of the
sealed border.”

I was intrigued: Family on the other side? Was she Armenian, Turkish
or Kurdish?

She was either unsure or unwilling to discuss her background, though
she said she hoped one day to visit her relatives in Armenia. She
voiced confidence that her village would soon prosper thanks to the
millions of dollars Armenian tourists to Ani would bring, if only
the border would open.

Today, nearly four years later, to the disappointment of the young
villager and several millions like her in both countries, the
Turkish-Armenian border remains closed.

The reason lies in unresolved historical issues and the Azeri-Armenian
conflict over Nagorny Karabakh, a conflict that does not even directly
involve Turkey. Given the current intricate situation related to
the issue of genocide in 1915 and the deadlock in Nagorny Karabakh,
the border closure between the two states only exacerbates complex
tensions in the region. While authorities in Turkey may feel they
are punishing Armenia in support of Azerbaijan, both countries are in
fact merely punishing their own people by maintaining closed borders.
Though the embargo has caused the loss of hundreds of millions of
dollars to Armenia and Turkey, it has not had the crushing impact on
Armenia that it was intended to have. Hence, the sealed border not
only fails to fulfill current political aspirations; it is actually
counterproductive in a greater regional context. The real question
is why a Turkish citizen in Kars and an Armenian citizen in Gyumri
should suffer when the existing Turkish blockade does not do extensive
damage to Armenia. It only maintains the poverty in the border regions,
which would otherwise benefit from cross-border economic activity.

The closed Armenian-Turkish frontier also causes great losses to
Azerbaijan’s isolated exclave of Nakhichevan, which shares no border
with Azerbaijan proper. All transportation arteries from this region
to Baku originate from the Turkish- Armenian border and again traverse
the Armenian province of Syunik before reaching the Azeri capital. The
current Turkish policy of keeping the border locked hence isolates
Nakhichevan and causes an alarming drain of human capital from the
exclave, the home of Azerbaijan’s ruling Aliyev family. The resumption
of railway service between Kars, Nakhichevan and Baku would prove to
be highly beneficial to all countries in the region, particularly in
light of the strategic energy and transportation projects currently
under way in Eurasia.

Opening the border would be beneficial to Armenia and Turkey in many
more respects beyond the purely economic.

First, it would demonstrate to the international community the
strong will and determination of both countries to solve their
differences themselves, not in the corridors of the French senate
or the U.S. Congress. Open borders would encourage contact, trade,
business opportunities and tourism between the population of both
countries — which would in turn create a sense of confidence and
greater understanding between the two peoples. Finally, Armenia
could become Turkey’s direct gateway to Azerbaijan and the Central
Asian republics.

Without basic human contact and activity, no government, including
Azerbaijan’s, should expect a miraculous solution to issues such
as coming to terms with genocide, the Nagorny Karabakh conflict
or the easing of tensions in the region. How can Turkey expect
the Armenian diaspora to behave in a positive, conciliatory manner
when it is unwilling to establish basic communication links between
the two countries? How can Armenia expect Turkey to understand its
needs and historical issues when Mount Ararat currently acts as an
Iron Curtain rather than a mountain of peace? Physical and economic
contact between the people of both countries would eventually make
way for closer political ties in the future.

The current policies in the region applied by both countries are
indisputably a failure. It is time to open a fresh process of dialogue
and reconciliation by opening the Turkish-Armenian border. Leaders of
both countries should be encouraged to think in global and realistic
terms and start taking alternate steps toward peace, if they are
serious about bringing harmony and eventual prosperity to the region.

Harout H. Semerdjian, an M.A. candidate at the Fletcher School of Law
and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and a member of the Turkish-Armenian
Business Development Council, contributed this comment to The Moscow
Times.

US foreign aid up for HIV/AIDS, Millennium funds

WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) – U.S. foreign aid would rise 10.7 percent
under the proposed White House budget released on Monday, with more
money to fight HIV/AIDS and help countries that reform economically
and politically.

State Department figures showed the U.S. foreign operations budget,
which funds everything from child health care programs and aid to
refugees to foreign military sales and debt relief, would rise to
$22.82 billion from an estimated $19.71 billion.

Rather than being dedicated to specific nations, most of the rise
would go to double funds for the Millennium Challenge Corporation,
which rewards nations that pursue “good governance and sound policies,”
to $3 billion from $1.49 billion.

This is below the $5 billion that U.S. President George W. Bush
initially promised he would seek for the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, an apparent reflection of past congressional reluctance
to fully fund it.

At present, 17 countries are eligible to apply for the corporation
funds: Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Cape Verde, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras,
Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua,
Senegal, Sri Lanka and Vanuatu.

The other large increase was for the U.S. Global HIV/AIDS Initiative,
whose funds would rise to $1.97 billion from $1.37 billion. The effort
seeks to help the most severely afflicted countries around the world
combat the disease.

02/07/05 19:25 ET

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESENT AND FUTURE OF AZERBAIJANI POLICY FOR KARABAKH

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

The question of withdrawing the peaceful regulation of the Karabakh
conflict from the deadlock disturbs all the interested parties
except for Azerbaijan, perhaps. We entitled us to such a brusque
statement basing on the logic of perception of the negotiation process
by official Baku since the signing of armistice with Yerevan and
Stepanakert in May 1994. This logic derives from the very perception
of the final aim of the settlement by the Azerbaijani authorities,
which supposes keeping Nagorni Karabakh within Azerbaijan as well
as creating political, legal, social and economic conditions and
necessity for changing the demographic balance of NK in favour of the
Azerbaijani population (in the shortest possible period). The present
authorities of Azerbaijan reject any other models of peaceful political
settlement. A more than vivid example of this is the February 24, 2001
meeting of the Azerbaijani parliament which discussed the situation of
the negotiations in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group countries
(Russia, USA, France). It is notable that the meeting took place in
the capital of France with the support of Jacques Chirac on the eve
of the meeting of the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia Heidar
Aliev and Robert Kocharian. It might have been expected that the
results of the meeting of Milli Mejlis with the participation of
ambassadors of a number of foreign countries in Baku would create a
favourable atmosphere for the meeting in Paris. However, everything
turned the opposite. In his address Heidar Aliev stated that the
Azerbaijani party refused all the former suggestions of the Minsk
Group, including those which Baku had accepted as basis for talks not
long ago. Thereby Heidar Aliev created a quite new situation in the
peaceful process and violated the arrangement of confidentiality in
the negotiation process. Vafa Guluzadeh, the former state adviser on
foreign policy, who had most probably received a special invitation
from Heidar Aliev to participate in the meeting, fully formulated
the intentions of Baku in the peaceful process during the meeting of
Milli Mejlis. In his address the former state adviser mentioned with
pity that the OSCE Minsk Group and the international community wanted
a settlement which would allow the Armenian population to continue
living in Nagorni Karabakh. â~@~ Nagorni Karabakh must not be given
a status. Granting Azerbaijani citizenship to Armenians would be a
crime,â~@~] stated Vafa Guluzadeh then. He explained his standpoint
in the following way: the Armenians of Karabakh would â~@~flood
Bakuâ~@~], buy real estate, shares, and they would have the same
rights as the Azerbaijanis. It is notable that all the members of
the Azerbaijani parliament, as well as the president of the country,
agreed to the open racist statements of Vafa Guluzadeh who used to
be the adviser to Heidar Aliev, as well the two former presidents
of Azerbaijan Abulfaz Elchibey and Ayaz Mutalibov. It is clear that
with such a standpoint in reference to the talks for the settlement
of the conflict either with Armenia or Nagorni Karabakh Azerbaijan
has nothing to do as the settlement of the Karabakh issue by way
of negotiations presupposes compromise which is denied by official
Baku. Then how are the Baku authorities going to achieve the goal
they have set? The analysis of the political steps of the Azerbaijani
government shows that Baku has decided to act in several directions
at the same time. The main direction is gradual retirement from
the negotiation process which, indeed, supposes coming in touch
with Armenia and perhaps again with Nagorni Karabakh. The second
direction is taking steps for hindering the negotiations allegedly by
Armeniaâ~@~Ys fault. This direction also supposes the maximum possible
amount of political and legal documents of international organizations
where Armenia will be displayed as â~@~guiltyâ~@~] and Azerbaijan
as â~@~its victimâ~@~], showing that Armenia and even the Armenian
nation is not recognized by Azerbaijan as the direct consequence of
â~@~occupationâ~@~] of Azerbaijani territories, including Nagorni
Karabakh, kindling anti-Armenian hysteria through the mass media of
Azerbaijan, intensifying revenge-seeking rhetoric on the part of the
Azerbaijani authorities as if the consequence of the abstention of
the international community to put military, political and economic
pressure on Armenia in the question of Karabakh, pursuing with the
policy of international isolation of Armenia through conjuring up
the factor of oil and later the factor of gas, organizing different
political provocations aiming to show the world the impossibility of
peaceful co-existence in the region with the presence of the Armenian
factor, and taking a number of steps to discredit Armenia and Nagorni
Karabakh internationally. Thus, the entire foreign political arsenal
of the Azerbaijani government is not directed at the reasonable and
mutually acceptable compromises for the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict but at the unreal aim of recognizing Armenia (and the Armenian
nation) by the international community as a hindering factor for the
realization of the interests of the world and regional powers in South
Caucasus. This kind of policy, according to Bakuâ~@~Y s estimates,
will finally cause general military-political and economic pressure
on Armenia making it cede Nagorni Karabakh. Otherwise, Baku thinks,
the international community may apply sanctions against Armenia,
which will satisfy Azerbaijan even more. This kind of attitude
towards the problem of Nagorni Karabakh supposes that Baku will
torpedo all the positive that may outline the future acceptable
settlement. This very circumstance became the reason for Heidar
Aliev to reject the so-called principles of Paris (Key West),
principles which were discussed in those cities in the first half
of 2001 by the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Jacques Chirac
and George Bush Jr., as well as in the framework of the OSCE Minsk
Group. Presently the political line of Heidar Aliev in the problem
of Karabakh is carried on by his son Ilham Aliev. Thus, during the
first meeting in the history of the country of the president with
the heads of the diplomatic missions of Azerbaijan abroad took
place at the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 27,
2004. During this meeting Ilham Aliev announced that the strategic
direction in the foreign political line of the Azerbaijani state is
to expose the truth about the Karabakh problem and the standpoint of
the country to the international community. â~@~The international law
is on our side,â~@~] mentioned the president of Azerbaijan, â~@~our
lands were occupied, justice is on our side. The economic potential
and other questions also favour us. I do not even doubt that the
problem [i.e. the problem of Karabakh â~@~S A.G.] will have a fair
solution.â~@~] The recent attempts of Baku to provoke the UN to adopt
a resolution on the so-called occupied territories of Azerbaijan were
again targeted at obstructing the negotiation process and later blaming
Armenia for this. The adoption of such a document by the UN would
mean recognizing Armenia as â~@~an aggressor countryâ~@~] with all
the consequences for Yerevan and Stepanakert. It should be mentioned
that the reaction of Yerevan to the discussion of the above mentioned
document in the UN in the period of its undertaking by Azerbaijan
nearly lived up to the expectations of Baku. The foreign minister of
Armenia Vardan Oskanian directly announced that the adoption of the
openly pro-Azerbaijani resolution in the UN would put an end to the
participation of Armenia in the negotiations. However, this time the
plans of the Baku authorities did not come true because of the steady
position of the mediating states which did not allow canceling the
negotiations by the fault of the â~@~ Armenian partyâ~@~]. It must
not be forgot that openly resorting to such provocation Azerbaijan at
the same time officially states its commitment to the ne gotiations
in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group. Summing up it should be
supposed that in the future Azerbaijan will not give up its tactical
and strategic line in reference to the Karabakh problem because not
recognizing the right of the people of Karabakh for self-determination,
i.e. the fundamental issue, presupposes such a behaviour on their part.

ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN. 07-02-2005

–Boundary_(ID_CaJTmBwnVuurhB5NII5RAg)–

OPPORTUNITIES ARE LIMITED BUT

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

â~@~The format of negotiations has been deformed therefore several
other problems of the conflict are discussed at a plane which is far
from the reality,â~@~] said NKR foreign minister Arman Melikian
during the press conference on February 4. In reference to the
possibility of withdrawal of troops from the territory of Karabakh
the minister emphasized that Karabakh does not participate in the
negotiations and he cannot comment on the official statements of
Azerbaijani officials on this matter. At the same time he noticed
that the information circulated by the Azerbaijani side about the
withdrawal of the â~@~occupantâ~@~] forces from NKR can be evaluated
as the willingness of Azerbaijan to recognize the independence of
Karabakh. The reason for all the problems is building the
negotiations on the attempts of Azerbaijan to accuse Armenia of
aggression. â~@~We see the negotiations at the level of negotiations
between Azerbaijan and Karabakh,â~@~] said the minister. The NKR
foreign minister mentioned that in implementing its foreign policy
Karabakh must take into account the present reality but we must not
forget that we also have interests and we must be able to defend
them. Answering the question of entitling Armenia to the prerogative
of the negotiation process the minister pointed out that it is the
fault of the international organizations and not Armenia that
Karabakh was left out of the process. After all, the format of
negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan resulted in Key West and
Parisian meetings, during which promises of settlement of the process
were made. Therefore the format can hardly be regarded as
anti-effective. At the same time, Arman Melikian emphasized that
without the participation of Karabakh the negotiation process is
impossible. The PACE resolution adopted by the results of David
Atkinsonâ~@~Ys report supposes a flow of funds to the region for
maintaining an atmosphere of trust, development of the mass media and
the public sector. Will these investments be directly made in
Karabakh? Was the text of the resolution extended to the NKR
authorities at all? In answer to these questions Arman Melikian
mentioned that Karabakh does not have direct relationships with the
PACE. â~@~They work with Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the documents
do not get to us directly. I do not think this is normal,â~@~] said
the minister. THE MONITORING GROUP IMPLEMENTS A TECHNICAL MISSION The
OSCE mission in Karabakh is checking the information of Azerbaijan
about the policy of re-settlement of the territories controlled by
Nagorni Karabakh implemented by Armenia. According to the NKR foreign
minister, Karabakh is pleased with the activity of the group. Arman
Melikian reminded that in the past few years Karabakh has requested
the international organizations to send a monitoring group to
Karabakh to check the innumerable accusations of Azerbaijan. However,
the suggestions of Karabakh were ignored. Evidently the possibilities
of the foreign policy of Karabakh are limited. Moreover, the same
organizations willingly responded to the same suggestion, this time
made by Azerbaijan. In answer to the claims of the journalists on the
partiality of the monitoring group A. Melikian mentioned that the
group is fulfilling a technical mission and actually it cannot be
partial. Political conclusions can be biased. In reference to the
accusation of the NKR newspaper â~@~Demoâ~@~] against the NKR
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Arman Melikian said that part of the
facts given by the authors are true. The other part of the
accusations is absurd. Nevertheless, the minister commended the mass
media which can speak out freely. â~@~It is evident that the authors
of the publications are really disturbed by the situation of the
countryâ~@~Ys foreign policy,â~@~] said Arman Melikian. He emphasized
that the seat of the foreign minister of Karabakh remains in
Stepanakert but if necessary the minister can stay in Yerevan and
abroad as long as it is needed. Speaking about the plans of the
foreign ministry, Arman Melikian pointed out that the ministry
undertook a number of legislative bills which will enable to solve
many problems. Particularly he mentioned the law â~@~On NKR
Citizenshipâ~@~] which will clarify the possibilities of dual
citizenship, the protection of NKR citizens irrespective of their
nationality, the responsibility for the fate of the citizens
displaced from Azerbaijan. According to the law, citizenship will be
granted not only to people born in the Autonomous Region of Nagorni
Karabakh but also in the territory of the proclaimed Republic of
Nagorni Karabakh. Two other draft laws refer to diplomatic and
consular service. After the adoption of the laws the citizens of
Karabakh leaving the country can make all the necessary arrangements
in Karabakh. The minister mentioned the necessity of coordination of
the work of the foreign ministry and its information service. At the
same time he emphasized that he is for determined and precise policy
and not outrageous propaganda. ATKINSONâ~@~YS OPINION IS NOT
EUROPEâ~@~YS OPINION After the adoption of the resolution in the PACE
David Atkinson mentioned in his interview to BBC that the most
desired solution of the Karabakh conflict would be the recognition of
Karabakh by Azerbaijan. But it is obvious that Azerbaijan would not
do it, therefore, according to Atkinson, Europe cannot recognize the
right of Karabakh for self-determination. Answering the question
whether this means that Karabakh admits the opinion of the PACE, the
minister emphasized that Atkinsonâ~@~Ys opinion is not the opinion of
Europe. Europe, the USA and Russia have their interests and speak
according to their interests, and we must admit similar statements
calmly, said the minister. EYNULLA FATULAEV TO VISIT KARABAKH ON
FEBRUARY 10 Eynulla Fatulaev, Azerbaijani journalist, wishes to visit
Karabakh and in this connection she applied to the NKR authorities.
She will arrive in Nagorni Karabakh on February 10 and will meet with
officials, representatives of public organizations and the mass
media. â~@~In the absence of relationships between Armenia and
Azerbaijan I consider this an expression of goodwill on the part of
the NKR authorities, as well as in providing the assistance to the
OSCE monitoring mission,â~@~] said Arman Melikian.

NAIRA HAYRUMIAN.
07-02-2005

–Boundary_(ID_E9VC7fR/RWlR05FaYR2yeA)–

TERRITORIES UNDER CONTROL DESERTED

Azg/arm
8 Feb 05

What Will the Missionâ~@~Ys Report Contain?

Lewis Oâ~@~YNeal, official of the US State Secretary, spend his
birthday in Ghubatlu, the region under the control of NKR armed
forces. Lewis is the most active among the ten members of the
monitoring mission and has a special way of accumulating facts. He
failed to shoot good sceneries as the fog hindered the work of his
photo camera, but also hindered the cars to move.

Notwithstanding extremely awful weather conditions, the OSCE monitoring
mission carried out a monitoring in a week in the seven regions that
formerly belonged to Azerbaijan. The region of Lachin will be the
last in the first stage of their work. The members of the monitoring
envisaged to meet with the refugees in Stepanakert, on February 7.

They kept calling on the houses spread along the Vorotan and the
Hagari rivers and settlements with slight resemblance of such and
questioning the people where they came from, why they came and who
brought them there.

The fate made the people move to Ghubatlu, that the Armenians currently
call Sanasar. Each of them brought an excuse and told what he lost
in these ruins left after the war actions. Some of them are refugees
and look for a shelter in this region. There are people that lost
their homes as a result of the earthquake. A part of the population
is sure to leave these places if they find a proper place for living
either in Armenia or in Nagorno Karabakh.

The monitoring mission tries to find out whether Armenia or
Nagorno Karabakh conducts policy of inhabiting and utilizing these
regions. Having traveled in dozens of settlements with the monitoring
group, unfortunately, we can be sure that neither Armenia nor Karabakh
inhabit the territories that used to be Armenian formerly. Certainly,
there are some inhabitants in the security region around Nagorno
Karabakh, but uncontrolled inhabiting canâ~@~Yt be characterized as
a state policy.

Though in early 20th century, when the Musavat Azerbaijan and
the Republic of Armenia were formed, Nagorno Karabakh wasnâ~@~Yt
Armeniaâ~@~Ys part, it didnâ~@~Yt belong to Azerbaijan either. Armenia
and Karabakh were directly connected. In mid-1920s the two Armenian
unites became more separated when the region of Lachin became
the administrative center of the newly formed Red Kurdistanâ~@~Ys
autonomy. In 1930 the Kurdish autonomy fell and the region of Lachin
was formed. Seven kilometers of this region separated Armenia and
Karabakh from each other.

The members of monitoring group arenâ~@~Yt that interested in
such facts, as well as the history, in general. They carry out the
instructions given to them. They will represent the report to the
OSCE Minsk group by the end of February already. One canâ~@~Yt say
what will be the content of the report. The NKR authorities didnâ~@~Yt
make any obstacles on the monitoring groupâ~@~Ys way, on the contrary,
as the European and the American diplomats stated in a conversation
with us, all the conditions were created for their work.

By Tatoul Hakobian in Ghubatlu-Lachin

–Boundary_(ID_5LqBV0ghCyhYRNRVtzZLNA)–

CONDOLEEZZA RICE HINTING AT GENOCIDE

Azg/arm
8 Feb 05

Mediamax news agency quoted US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
as expressing hope that Turkey and Armenia will overcome the existing
discords.

“We know about that complicated story and recognize it. But today
we have passed a long way towards the future. We will appeal to the
sides to find ways how to bring their stances closer on the bases
of democracy, economic development and stability”, Condoleezza
Rice stated.

Coming session period will be busy
By Karine Mangasarian

Yerkir/arm
February 04, 2005

Last week, at a press conference, ARF faction leader Levon Mkrtchian
and secretary Hrayr Karapetian presented the work plan of the faction
for the next session period.

Hrayr Karapetian said that law-making activities will mainly focus
on the social sphere, security and anti-corruption instances, as
well as adoption of local self-governance legislations. Work will
be proceeded over the “Law on lobbying,” which will enable to avoid
office abuse by the officials.

He also prioritized the social need for a law on bodyguards and
said that relevant work will be done. He pointed out the necessity
to legally stimulate birth rate by providing benefits to families
with more than 3 children. And the important role of the small and
medium-sized businesses already fixed in the economy can be even more
promoted in case of developing relevant legal paperwork.

Faction leader Levon Mkrtchian prioritized the discussions of
the Electoral Code and the Constitutional amendments. He said:
“The Electoral Code will have a strategic importance for promotion
of real democratic processes. It is an important step on the way to
elections by international standards.”

Calling oppositionâ~@~Ys participation in the discussions of the
Constitutional amendments necessary, Mkrtchian said that it is also
important in combination with the Venice commission support. â~@~It
is important to create a wide field of political-social accord in
this direction. We are against having the issue of the Constitution
serve for a different political purpose,â~@~] said Mkrtchian.

Among the events for this year, he prioritized the commemoration of
the 90th anniversary of the Genocide, noting that the advance of the
Armenian cause is a pledge for the security of Armenia.

–Boundary_(ID_pUNoBx7SLATmPVeUdi8gLg)–

Interview on Yerkir’s web site

Yerkir/arm
February 04, 2005

The Yerkir online has initiated a series of interviews with
politicians, statesmen and public figures. You can address your
questions to them by visiting

Between January 24 and 31, questions were addressed to Kiro Manoyan,
the director of the ARF Bureau’s Central Hai Dat Office. Below is an
excerpt of that interview. The full interview will be posted on the
site on February 7.

Sargis.- What do you think Turkey’s place is in the new US plan of
the Greater Middle East, and is it possible that the US would take
steps for an Armenian-Turkish reconciliation or at least a dialogue?

Kiro Manoyan.- First it should be noted that the US plan of the Greater
Middle East is still in the stage of elaboration, and the initial
plans and perceptions could be changed depending on what the real
players would do. However, it is apparent that Turkey’s role will be
changed according to the American understanding of the Greater Middle
East. In the military aspect, due to its negative stance in the Iraq
issue, Turkey has already become less important than it was before the
Iraq war, though even today, the Americans are trying to use Turkey’s
territory and military infrastructure for their “war on terror.”

Regardless of the American plan for the Greater Middle East, the United
Sates have a goal of normalizing the relations between Armenia and
Turkey due to other concerns, one of them being the reduction of the
Russian influence in the South Caucasus. If Turkey is no more seen
as a threat to Armenia, the American strategists say there will be
less need for the Russian troops in Armenia. Due to this and other
reasons, the US is trying to normalize the relations between Armenia
and Turkey, seeing the opening of the border as a first step.

Shamil Rashidov, Istanbul. Given that Armenia is not going to drop
the Armenian Genocide claim and Turkey is not going to recognize it,
is it possible to find some solution in the middle to satisfy both
sides. If yes, what in your opinion are the solutions and when can
they be reached?

K.M. – Armenia is not going to and cannot drop the â~@~Genocide
claim,â~@~] because Turkey closed the border and refused to
establish diplomatic relations with Armenia when it was ruled by an
administration which did insist on the Armenian Genocide issue in
the international arena and especially before Turkey.

This means that Turkey has proved that it expects from Armenia to
completely forget its history because Turkey is not satisfied by
merely not raising the issue in the international arena: however, no
Armenian administration that considers itself to be really Armenian,
will do that.

The truth has no middle way; it is not a subject for a bargain. A
middle way can be only considered in terms of the future plans and
only after the truth has been admitted. Turkey cannot avoid its history
forever, it will recognize the Armenian Genocide sooner or later.

Aram. – Taking into account that the official Turkish history denies
the Armenian Genocide, do you think a dialogue with historians denying
the Genocide is possible?

K.M. – A so-called dialogue between the Armenian and Turkish historians
is largely dangerous because it would mean the disagreement over the
Armenian Genocide is only between the historians.

A great number of non-Armenian historians and genocide experts admit
that the Armenian Genocide is the first genocide of the 20th century.

Any dialogue between historians â~@~S even with those who admit
the fact of the Genocide â~@~S would reduce the issue to an
Armenian-Turkish dispute over history.

–Boundary_(ID_98m1vrqU/LWfsaO30/gmDw)–