Georgia Straight, Canada
Dec 16 2004

Classical Spin: Tigran Mansurian/Kim Kashkashian

By alexander varty

Monodia (ECM New Series)

According to Armenian composer Tigran Mansurian, interviewed in his
new CD’s liner notes, the essence of his country’s music “reveals
itself in an extreme frugality of expressive means. Whether
intonation, rhythm or the shaping of tone colours–everything is
employed very sparingly.” Traditional Armenian melodies, he adds,
“shift as slowly and laboriously as the search for fertile soil among
the jagged Armenian rocks”.

We’re lucky, then, that Mansurian is a modern Armenian, open to
global influences and not bound by his culture’s often tragic past.
He’s happy to take advantage of a variety of expressive
means–Monodia’s two CDs feature a violin concerto, a viola concerto,
a duet for viola and soprano saxophone, and a piece for viola and
four voices–and although some of his charts can be both jagged and
rocky, they also move with the quicksilver speed of the information
age.

Typical of that is …and then I was in time again, scored for
Armenian-American violist Kim Kashkashian and the Münchener
Kammerorchester. It’s true that the overall pace of the work is more
slow than not, and that its melodies have something of the keening
quality typical of Armenian liturgical music. But emotionally, it can
spin the listener from great heights of exaltation to bottomless
despair in the course of a few short seconds. Though championed by
Pierre Boulez, Mansurian does not share his Parisian mentor’s
technocratic bent; instead, he’s concerned with finding sophisticated
ways to project primal feelings of loss, sorrow, terror, and,
occasionally, ecstatic peace.

That’s especially obvious on Lachrymae, a haunting duo for
Kashkashian and saxophonist Jan Garbarek. Here the resources really
are few and the melodic material plain, but Mansurian frames them up
as a kind of dialogue between hope and foreboding. Again, the music
manages to be both harsh and eloquent; those stony fields lie deep in
Mansurian’s soul, but so too does a great deal of urbane
intelligence.

–Boundary_(ID_UCgaVlj+2RjzOi2Ehem1eg)–

French icon Sylvie Vartan calls on her Bulgarian past

Agence France Presse
Dec 16 2004

ISKRETZ, Bulgaria, Dec 16 (AFP) – Legendary French singer Sylvie
Vartan took an emotional journey back into her past Thursday, when
she visited her native village of Iskretz in northwest Bulgaria,
which her family fled in 1952.

“Goodness, I have lived up to see a world star,” exclaimed an old
lady from the crowd of about 100 villagers who had gathered to welcome
the singer with a banner reading “Sylvie, we love you.”

Ilya Iliev, a retired miner of 59, was so moved that he started to
sing in Bulgarian, “This evening I will be the most beautiful, the
most beautiful on the dance floor,” one of the most well-known of
Vartan’s songs.

Dressed up in white and adorned with flowers, the ex-wife of French
pop singer Johnny Hallyday, 61, was moved to tears.

Mixing Bulgarian with French, she said: “Life begins where you were
born… I have heard my mother speak a lot about Iskretz. For me
Bulgaria is a country of love and nostalgia, the country of my parents,
to which I feel strongly attached.”

Daughter of a Bulgarian father of Armenian descent, who worked at
the French mission in Sofia, and a Hungarian mother, Sylvie Vartan
was born in August 1944 in Iskretz.

The town held the nearest hospital to the village of Lakatnik, where
the family was evacuated during World War II.

In her autobiography “Between the shadow and the light”, which is
to be published Friday in Bulgarian in Sofia, the 60-year-old singer
wrote about the heartbreak of her departure from Bulgaria at the age
of seven.

“I still miss my grandfather and I hate departures,” she told AFP
in Iskretz.

Already a star in France, Vartan refused to return to Bulgaria until
a year after the fall of the communist regime in 1990, when she had
her first concert in Bulgaria.

“The concert ended with ‘Mila Rodino’ (‘Dear Homeland’), the old
national anthem, banned during communism, and the hall started singing
along with me,” she said.

Almost 15 years later, Sylvie Vartan is optimistic. “I find that
great progress has been made,” she said.

“In only two years Bulgaria will join the European Union,” she said,
adding: “Things cannot change in a day with the movement of a magic
stick.”

Since 1990, with the help of her brother Eddy Vartan, she has also
been making charity donations to hospitals and orphanages through
her organisation “Sylvie Vartan for Bulgaria”.

She received Wednesday an award from Bulgarian President Georgy
Parvanov for this humanitarian work.

On Thursday in Sofia, Vartan gave a concert together with a children’s
choir, to 200 orphaned children.

In 1997, she and her American husband Tony Scotti adopted a Bulgarian
girl, Darina, now seven years old.

She also in 1997 took on Bulgarian citizenship.

“My heart is Bulgarian. I so much wanted to adopt a Bulgarian girl:
I told myself we will share an emotional bond,” she said.

Belmont Citizen-Herald, MA
Dec 16 2004

First Armenian Church completes renovation

First Armenian Church of Belmont recently completed the major
renovation of its kitchen. It was unveiled at the Thanksgiving dinner
on Nov. 21 to 120 attending parishioners and friends.

Led by project manager Jeff Dulgarian, who volunteered to
spearhead the renovation upon his return from 11 months of service in
Kuwait and Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the project
took nearly four months to complete. Through the coordinated effort
of general contractor Construction Coordinators Inc. of Needham,
appliance provider Eastern Bakers of Boston, and a number of
subcontractors, the kitchen was fully renovated with state-of-the-art
appliances, plumbing and electrical systems.

“The team approach is undoubtedly the reason we were able to see
this project through,” said Dulgarian. “It was a very rewarding
experience … a total team effort.”

The generosity of one congregation member made the renovation
possible, when she pledged more than half the cost. This led to a
flurry of subsequent matching donations. The church is in the process
of accepting pledges for specific appliances. Co-moderator Richard
Kazanjian said, “We are very thankful for the major donor’s
generosity, which encouraged us to begin this major project.”

The kitchen renovation is the culmination of many
accomplishments at the church over the past year. Exactly one year
ago, First Armenian Church installed its new spiritual leader, Pastor
Greg Haroutunian, who moved from Fresno, Calif. In conjunction with
his arrival, the church undertook the extensive renovation of the
parsonage next door, where he lives with his wife, Sossi, and their
two children, Mark and Ani. In the past year, church membership has
grown, the choir has expanded, Sunday School enrollment has risen,
and the Youth Group (joint with Armenian Memorial Church of
Watertown) is flourishing.

Rev. Haroutunian said, “Over the past year the First Armenian
Church has received many blessings. We are witnessing positive
growth, and God’s presence is felt in all these areas.”

Viken Manougian, chairman of the Board of Trustees, said, “The
new kitchen is just one more symbol of the bright future of our
church and its rejuvenation since the installation of our new
pastor.”

First Armenian Church offers rentals of Nahigian Hall along with
its newly renovated kitchen. For more information, please contact the
church office at 617-484-4779 or [email protected]. The church’s
Web site is

Belmont Citizen-Herald, MA
Dec 16 2004

Book explores local Armenian community
Thursday, December 16, 2004

The National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, in
association with the Armenians of New England Committee, has
announced the publication by its Armenian Heritage Press of “The
Armenians of New England: Celebrating a Culture and Preserving a
Heritage,” proceedings of the 1999 conference of the same name held
at Bentley College in Waltham. The book will be available for
purchase in time for Christmas and will be formally launched in 2005.

The papers presented in the volume cover a wide range of topics
relevant to the Armenians of New England specifically, and many of
universal relevance. Religion, immigration, literature, architecture,
music, civic, political, and cultural institutions, inter-ethnic
relations – these subjects and others are illuminated by the articles
contained in the book.

The Armenians of New England conference was the first to
undertake the study of an Armenian community of North America and was
the result of the cooperation of a number of Boston-area Armenian
organizations. The organizing committee was formed from personnel
from the Armenian Cultural Foundation (Dr. Robert Mirak and Dr. Ara
Ghazarian), the Armenian International Women’s Association (Dr.
Suzanne Moranian and Dr. Barbara Merguerian), the Armenian Library
and Museum of America (Gary Lind-Sinanian), the Friends of Armenian
Culture Society (Dr. Varant Hagopian), Mayreni Publishing (Dr. Vatche
Ghazarian), the National Association for Armenian Studies and
Research (Manoog S. Young and Marc A. Mamigonian), the New England
Heritage Center (Dr. Joyce Malcolm), the office of state Sen. Steven
A. Tolman, and the New England Board of Higher Education. The
conference committee was co-chaired by Dr. Robert Mirak and Manoog S.
Young.

The conference and book were made possible by contributions from
a number of donors, including a major grant from the Knights of
Vartan Grand Council’s Fund for Armenian Studies.

The book was edited by Marc A. Mamigonian, with editorial input
from Dr. Barbara Merguerian, Dr. Suzanne Moranian, and Dr. Robert
Mirak. Mark McKertich designed the volume, which includes dozens of
photographs, many of them provided by Ruth Thomasian of Project SAVE
Armenian Photograph Archives.

Prof. Thomas O’Connor of Boston College, a noted scholar of
Boston history, provides the introduction for the book.

It is hoped that the conference and this volume of proceedings
will stimulate further research and publication on the Armenians of
New England, as well as other regions. It is likewise hoped that a
contribution has been made to the understanding of the history of
this community, both for Armenians and non-Armenians.

For more information call 617-489-1610, e-mail [email protected], or
write to NAASR, 395 Concord Ave., Belmont, MA 02478.

16 December 2004
Copyright © Turkish Daily News

Opinion: Gunduz Aktan

Summary

I am writing this article not knowing how different the Dec. 17
European Union summit decision will be from the fourth version,
but we can say the likely changes will be more in wording than in
content as the EU’s attitude towards our membership appears inflexible.
It seems likely we will get a date to start negotiations at the summit
in 2005 with the objective being full membership.

However, the start of the process doesn’t necessarily mean it will
progress smoothly. Cyprus, the Aegean, minorities (Kurds and Alawis),
the supposed Armenian “genocide” and restricted membership that doesn’t
correspond with full membership puts the whole process in doubt.
Some may think all these obstacles will be overcome one by one, but
all of them preventing progress at the same time should be seen as
a possibility.

It is being said we cannot refuse Greek Cypriot demands to
recognize them because “they will be a party as a EU member in the
negotiations.” However, how can we refuse to withdraw our military
forces from the island, and refrain from interfering in the domestic
political structure and its constitutional order when we become the
occupiers of the north of an EU member country? Greece failed to apply
to the court to resolve the Aegean matter. Consequently, we won’t be
able to declare a EU member that we will face at the negotiation table
deciding to extend its continental shelf would be considered a casus
belli. We will have to accept their demands and if the matter goes to
court in The Hague, we will lose the Aegean entirely. It seems like
the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK/Kongra-Gel) will continue to conduct
terrorist acts perpetrated by Kurdish students at universities, rallies
and through civil disobedience in order to establish an autonomous
region in the Southeast. If the concept of minority, as defined in
the progress report of Oct. 6, becomes a political condition we need
to fulfill in the new Accession Partnership Document to be prepared
in April 2005, it can be used to further autonomy demands.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier says he would present the
recognition of the “Armenian tragedy” as a condition at the negotiation
table. This means we will need to recognize the genocide allegations by
the end of the negotiations. The suspension of negotiations or issues
that are backed with a veto threat and the sacrifices we need to make
in order to appease will eventually result in chaotic public relations.

If Angela Merkel and Edmund Stoiber in Germany in 2006 and Nicholas
Sarkozy in France in 2007 come to power and suspend the membership
negotiations like they say they will, the process that will start
after Dec. 17 will become meaningless. Moreover, if the summit
decision includes certain “derogations” in the freedom of movement,
the agricultural sector and structural policies — in other words the
treatment accorded to Turkey differs from the fundamental values of
the EU — we will actually devolve into a privileged partnership. We
will miss out on the main financial assistance accorded to member
countries such as farming subsidies and structural funds. The people
will naturally question the benefits of making so many sacrifices
and what we are negotiating for.

The government did more than its share in satisfying the EU’s
conditions and it issued the necessary warnings, but if the decision
comes out as it is, it will become obvious the EU does not want us
as members, or is not ready to accept us.

Under such conditions, the government may announce issues it cannot
accept and reject the EU summit decision. This way, the EU may be
forced to rethink its attitude that is limited, segregationist and
prejudicial. Let’s not forget the fact that prejudicial actions are
always followed by a deep regret. On the other hand, if we don’t
become EU members, Greek Cypriots and Greeks will realize how much
their excessive demands cost them. Turkey can then prove that its
democratic regime is strong enough to weather anything until the
negotiations are restarted with a new set of rules.

–Boundary_(ID_H9SohcNVq280C2AKAyvsDg)–

OSCE “REFORM” — OR A NEW LEASE ON LIFE?

Documents of the OSCE’s 2004 year-end ministerial conference, Vienna and Sofia,
December 1-8; Interfax, RIA-Novosti, December 9-12

By Vladimir Socor

With two weeks remaining from the OSCE’s 2004 budgetary authorization,
Moscow threatens to block adoption of the 2005 budget unless the
organization introduces Russian-proposed “reforms.” Those proposals
seek to: boost the OSCE’s role in the military-political and security
sphere, where Russia can and does manipulate the organization;
emasculate the OSCE in the democracy sphere, where the organization
can and does operate independently of Russia; and curtail overall
Western influence in the OSCE by restricting extra-budgetary funding
of the organization.

Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Minister
Vladimir Chizhov, and other officials pushed those proposals forcefully
at the OSCE’s year-end conference in Sofia on December 6-7, and
continue to do so afterwards. Moscow argues that OSCE activities are
doubly imbalanced: functionally, by focusing selectively on democracy
issues while neglecting all-European military-security issues; and
geographically, by focusing on political developments in post-Soviet
countries while ignoring what Moscow describes as flawed elections
and human-rights violations in Western countries and their new allies.

The “reform” proposals target three OSCE institutions and processes:
the Warsaw-based Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR), which specializes in monitoring elections throughout the OSCE
area; the organization’s field missions; and its budget-formation
procedures. Russian officials continually refer to reform proposals
advanced by the presidents of eight CIS countries in their July 3 and
September 15 collective statements to the OSCE. At the Sofia year-end
meeting, however, only Belarus acted as a convinced supporter of
those reform proposals.

The joint Russia-Belarus proposal calls for tasking ODIHR to: take into
account the work done in the CIS on developing election standards; use
those standards, alongside Western ones, in working out a “common,
uniform set of criteria” for OSCE-CIS appraisals of elections;
increase the proportion of CIS countries’ representatives in ODIHR
election observation missions; finance election observation through
the OSCE’s unified budget only [i.e., disallowing Western countries’
contributions; these do not require Russian approval, whereas the
unified budget does].

Russia and Belarus gave the OSCE until June 30, 2005, to introduce
these changes, and the organization’s Permanent Council to adopt
new political guidelines for OSCE/ODIHR election monitoring in line
with those changes. In a similar vein, the statement by CIS Executive
Committee Chairman and Executive Secretary Vladimir Rushailo called for
“coordination” of OSCE/ODIHR and CIS election observation missions,
with a view to issuing “joint assessments” of elections. As is often
the case, Russia spoke on the collective behalf of the CIS without
reflecting a consensus among those 12 countries. In the end-game
negotiations on the draft final declaration, Armenia proposed inserting
a positive reference to developing a common OSCE-CIS set of election
standards. Armenia had similarly lined up behind Russia and Belarus
in accepting the fraudulent election of Viktor Yanukovych as president
of Ukraine.

Had such “reforms” been in place, OSCE/ODIHR could not have ascertained
the electoral fraud in Ukraine, would have joined the Rushailo-led CIS
monitoring mission in blessing the fraudulent returns, and would have
been prevented from deciding — as it did at Sofia — to send and fund
observers to the repeat runoff in Ukraine. To “reform” the OSCE’s field
missions, Russia proposes to: restrict the missions’ extra-budgetary
funding, which mostly consists of above-board contributions by
Western countries to local pro-democracy activities; confine the
scope of missions’ activities to socioeconomic projects requested by
host countries’ authorities; limit the missions’ mandate to one-year
renewable terms, subject to the host government’s agreement each time;
and increase the proportion of representatives of certain CIS member
countries in OSCE field missions. The organization’s German-led Minsk
Office was “reformed” already in 2003 along these lines.

The proposed budgetary “reform” would entail: revising the scales of
OSCE member countries’ contributions “according to their ability to
pay” [i.e., reducing CIS countries’ contributions]; ending or curbing
the practice of extra-budgetary funding of the OSCE in general
[thus cutting the organization’s overall financial resources];
and establishing budget formation procedures that would, in their
practical effect, severely restrict the OSCE’s ability to function
without Russia’s or its supporters’ approval.

Russia gave the OSCE until December 31 to commit itself to proceeding
down this road. “In the absence of firm obligations on this score, we
cannot vote the 2005 budget,” Lavrov and Chizhov both warned. Their
statements and those of other Russian officials before, during, and
after the Sofia meeting strongly suggested that Russia can either
keep the OSCE in business or push it toward demise (“throw it on the
sidelines of history,” in Lavrov’s unreferenced paraphrase of Trotsky),
depending on the extent to which it cooperates with Russian policies.
Such warnings exploit the OSCE’s structural vulnerabilities, fear
of demise through irrelevance, awareness of its rapidly diminishing
raisons d’etre — save election-monitoring, which Moscow now wants to
rein in — and its disposition to give in to Russia year after year in
the military-security sphere as a price of remaining a player in that
sphere. Anxious about institutional survival, and damaged by Russia
perhaps irreparably at the 2002 Porto and 2003 Maastricht year-end
meetings over a wide range of security and democracy issues, the OSCE
hides its weaknesses and failures from public view. It prefers to
paper over the problems, instead of debating them openly and exposing
Russia’s tactics.

At the Sofia meeting, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the
United States “categorically disagreed” with Russian proposals to shift
OSCE’s focus away from democracy building in post-Soviet countries. The
European Union spoke out in a similar vein. Dutch Minister of
Foreign Affairs Bernard Bot, speaking for the EU’s presidency on
behalf of all member countries, as well as the External Relations
and European Neighborhood Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, both
ruled out any reduction of OSCE democracy-building activities, or a
“rebalancing” of security and pro-democracy goals at the expense
of the latter. Whether this stance, taken in the year-end meeting’s
media limelight, can hold in the non-transparent give-and-take with
Russia. The OSCE’s incoming Slovenian Chairmanship for 2005 sounds
anxious. According to that country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, OSCE
Chairman-in-Office-designate Dimitrji Rupel, in his closing statement
at Sofia, “Foremost among these challenges . . . is the fissure in
relations [between] East and West. As a stark reflection of this
regrettable reality . . . the more we talk of no new dividing lines
in Europe, the more we are confronted with them. I therefore read
carefully the Moscow declaration and Astana address of Presidents
of CIS states . . . a resounding expression of dissatisfaction at
the highest level, which has to be taken into account. I intend to
work relentlessly to address this situation.” Pointing to the urgent
need to adopt the 2005 budget before the end of 2004, Rupel stated,
“Without this, the very functioning of the organization would be
in jeopardy . . . . My biggest concern at the moment is to avert a
political stalemate in the organization.”

If that concern is overriding — and Russian tactics are indeed
designed to make it the overriding concern for the OSCE — then the
temptation may well persist to ensure the organization’s survival
through continuing concessions to Russia regarding the “frozen
conflicts,” CFE Treaty and Istanbul Commitment implementation, border
monitoring, and other security issues, as well as using the OSCE to
reopen ethnic issues in Estonia and Latvia at Russian insistence.
That approach would only deepen the OSCE’s crisis.

Russian duress and for the third consecutive year, the OSCE at Sofia
was unable even to cite its own earlier resolutions; let alone call,
if only symbolically, for their implementation. The organization lost
the final vestiges of its credibility in the security sphere at the
Sofia meeting.

That repeat failure, however, points the OSCE’s way out of
crisis. Election monitoring, promotion of good governance, and
democratic institution building in post-Soviet countries are compelling
raisons d’etre for the organization. It is in the democracy sphere
that the OSCE can bring its comparative advantages to bear. This,
not Russian-prescribed “reforms,” can provide the OSCE with a new
lease on life.

Georgian pilots claim they are being overlooked

The Messenger (Georgia)
December 16, 2004

As reported in Akhali Taoba, the Georgian Pilots’ Association held a
press conference on December 14, at which President of the association
Alberto Nerbekin spoke about problems in Georgian aviation. National
Airlines received a license some days ago to conduct flights using
Armenian A 320 airplanes, but according to members of the Pilots’
Association, National Airlines employs foreign pilots while they
themselves remain unemployed. The president of the association told
Akhali Taoba that National Airlines violates the rights of Georgian
pilots by employing foreign flyers. “This is prohibited by the law,
which protects our rights. Foreign pilots have the right to fly in
Georgia on our country’s airlines only six months out of the year, and
only if a Georgian pilot flies with the foreigners,” stated Nerbekin.
The pilots state that they have some 30 years of experience in this
sphere and that there are dilettantes in Georgian aviation. According
to them, National Airlines signed an agreement with Armenia and
expects the Armenians pilots to arrive in Georgia, but the Pilots’
Association protests against this agreement, saying it as illegal.

Chirac uses the word ‘genocide’

16.12.2004  18:10    

YEREVAN (YERKIR) – In an exclusive interview on Wednesday with the
French TF 1 television, French President Jacques Chirac reaffirmed
his country’s position that Turkey should review its history and
acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

Chirac deliberately used the word “genocide” and when the reporter
asked to clarify “genocide or tragedy,” Chirac said “genocide,”
adding that the fact is a law in France, adopted by the parliament.

While the French president explained that they don’t see the
recognition for the Armenian Genocide as a pre-condition for Turkey’s
accession to the European Union, he, however, insisted on Turkey’s
reviewing of its past. He also said Ankara must “completely fulfill
the requirements set for a candidate country. Otherwise, Chirac said,
France would block the entry talks with Turkey, adding the decision
over Turkey’s membership is an enormous responsibility.

–Boundary_(ID_JcpLk9gmJ7HQKR3Acl5gdg)–

Kurdistan Committee calls for recognition of Kurds, Armenian Genocide by Turkey

Yerkir
16.12.2004  17:10    

YEREVAN (YERKIR) – The Kurdistan Committee of Armenia has called on
Turkey to officially recognize the Kurdish ethnicity with mentioning
“Kurd” — instead of the “Turk” used currently — for nationality in
the Kurds’ passports, recognize the Kurdish language as the second
language of Turkey and free their leader Abdullah Ocalan, Armenpress
reported.

Kniaz Hasanov of the Committee said that in their letter to the Yerevan
offices of the European Parliament, European Union, the OSCE, as well
as embassies of UK, US, France and Italy, they demanded also that
Turkey should acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide and apologizing
for it should be made a pre-condition for Turkey’s accession to the
European Union.

There are 40 million Kurds in the world, with 20 million residing
in Turkey, 9 million in Iran, 5 to 6 million in Iraq, 3 million in
Syria, 2 million in other countries. In Armenia there are 42,000
Kurds and Yezids.

–Boundary_(ID_wJtNeCeQUVytklJlMofSmg)–

AZG Armenian Daily #226, 16/12/2004

Armenia-Azerbaijan

OSKANIAN AND MAMEDIAROV OVERCOME OBSTACLES

Negotiations to Be Held Without Karabakh’s Participation

RA Foreign Minister stated during the December 14 news conference that by the
positive mediation of OSCE Minsk group and cooperating with Azerbaijan it
became possible to remove the obstacles occurred when resuming the negotiation
process. Though the obstacles were removed, Vartan Oskanian is “cautiously
optimistic.”

Recently at one of the conferences Oskanian announced that the fate of the
“Prague process” by 100% depends on whether the UN General Assembly will adopt
“the situation in the occupied Azerbaijani territories” formula put forward by
Azerbaijan or not.

In response to the question posed by Azg Daily whether it meant that Azerbaijan
excluded the issue from the UN General Assembly, Oskanian said:” I said that we
have removed the obstacle (occurred in the settlement process). You will find
out in the future what results it will yield. We are ready to begin the second
stage of the “Prague process.”

The statement adopted by the OSCE Board of Foreign Ministers said that “taking
into account the results of the “Prague process,” the OSCE Minsk group
co-chairs have submitted a negotiation circle that can serve as a ground for
the settlement to the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents in September in
Astana.”

Oskanian responded to the question about NKR’s participation in the
negotiations and about its status saying: “The negotiations between Armenia and
Azerbaijan in the Prague format are likely to continue till some stage when
NKR’s participation will be necessary. The format of the present moment that
was in the course of the last few years will be preserved.”

A year ago, when Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev met in Geneva for the first
time, Oskanian stated that it is important for Armenia to know whether Aliyev
junior is ready to continue the negotiations from the point on which his father
stopped. Today, when the Prague format is spoken of, can we suppose that the
negotiations are being continued from the point where Kocharian and Aliyev
senior stopped?

“I wouldn’t like definitely to put this question like this. I merely can say
that the position of Armenia remained unchanged. Our approaches remain the same
and today the content of the framework is sufficient for us to continue the
negotiations,” Oskanian said.

RA foreign minister doesn’t pay attention to the way Azerbaijan comments the
discussions around the Nagorno Karabakh settlement to the publicity. “I take as
a ground the things I hear with my own ears and the things I discuss during the
negotiations. I believe that the things we discuss create a common circle for
the continuation of the negotiations. I don’t want to pay attention to the way
Azerbaijan comments all this to the Azeri publicity, taking into account its
home situation or its interests. In fact, two parallel processes are taking
place, i.e. the real negotiations and the things that are told to (the Azeri
publicity),” Oskanian said.

Recently, the first Armenian president said in a half-secret interview given to
the mass media protecting AAM that Armenia will not be able to return the
position it lost in 1997 in Karabakh issue. Oskanian who used to be the head of
the Armenian delegation at the negotiations held within the OSCE Minsk group
framework for many years when Ter-Petrosian was the president, emphasized that
“if the people demand for example, to begin stage-by-stage negotiations, this
issue should be really put forward, the parliament should discuss it and submit
it to the government, as it is done frequently, demanding to begin stage by
stage variant without wasting time.”

Oskanian believes that the issue can arouse constructive discussions in the
press.” Indeed, one of the main complaints of the first presidents was the fact
that there have never been any detailed discussions of Nagorno Karabakh issue,
the discussions were always a political and personalized means to strike the
people and criticize the authorities.”

RA foreign minister believes that “all the versions are just versions, good or
bad.” Oskanian doesn’t follow the slogan:” This variant is a traitorous, while
the second one is a heroic one”. “We should settle the problem, we should work
in that direction… We all are interested to settle the issue in the way it will
not harm our national interests, it will not weaken Armenia, or deprive NKR of
the achievements it has today… It is an issue of approaches that is why we
shouldn’t consider the issues by such categories as traitorous or heroic. We
should see what is in our interests, what is possible or impossible, what we
lose, what we gain and what is the middle.”

It’s worth reminding that Vartan Oskanian said that the Karabakh issue was not
the reason for Levon Ter-Petrosian’s resignation during the meeting with the
students of the Yerevan State University on July the 3rd, there were other
reasons and one can’t say that he resigned because of Karabakh, the foreign
minister pointed out.

By Tatoul Hakobian

–Boundary_(ID_cqaThcvh6g5fdlOGY1MYRA)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress