TURKISH SCHOLARS SEEK TO ENGAGE ARMENIAN COUNTERPARTS IN HISTORICAL DEBATE
Civil Society
EurasiaNet.org
2/01/05
By Igor Torbakov
As Turkey prepares for what promises to be a lengthy European Union
accession process, officials in Ankara are striving to remove obstacles
that stand in the way of their integration ambitions. Accordingly,
authorities appear to be welcoming a research project by Turkish
historians designed to shed additional light on the circumstances
surrounding the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians from 1915-1923.
Armenian leaders have campaigned for international recognition of what
they insist was genocide committed by Turkish forces amid the chaos of
the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Yerevan’s calls have received
support in the capitals of some influential EU capitals, in particular
France, which has a sizeable Armenian émigré population.
In early January, the Turkish Historical Society – a semi-official
institution founded in the beginning of the 1930s – announced that it
had finished a large research project commenced in 2001. The result of
the historical exploration is four volumes of documents in which `the
allegations made by Armenians are answered one by one,’ according to a
Turkish journalist familiar with the research. The project marks the
first comprehensive attempt by Turkish scholars to challenge the
Armenian version of the tragic events of the past.
Armenian officials and historians assert that the Young Turk government
in power in Istanbul in 1915 ordered the systematic slaughter of
Armenians. Turkish leaders have insisted the mass deaths of Armenians
did not constitute genocide, alleging that Armenians were largely
victims of a vicious partisan struggle during and after World War I.
The authors of the recent four-volume study appear to endorse the
mainstream Turkish view of events. They also advocate the continuation
of research, calling for a multi-national inquiry into the events.
Professor Yusuf Halacoglu, head of the Turkish Historical Society, said
in a January 12 interview with the Reuters news agency that the
commission should comprise scholars from Turkey, Armenia, the United
States, France and Britain.
Turkey is due to start EU accession negotiations on October 3, while on
April 24 Armenians throughout the world will mark the 90th anniversary
of what they call the `first genocide of the 20th century.’ Many Turkish
officials and experts believe Yerevan may attempt to engage Ankara in a
`battle over history.’ According to Turkish media reports, commemoration
activities will include conferences, meetings, exhibitions and new
publication projects. A few Turkish commentators are urging the Turkish
government to adopt a more pro-active stance in the ongoing debate.
`Saying `we never committed genocide’ is no longer enough. We will be
forced to pay the price for inactivity. We need to do something,’ wrote
Mehmet Ali Birand in a commentary published by the Turkish Daily News on
January 4.
Right after EU leaders agreed last December to open accession talks with
Turkey, both the European Parliament and France, urged Turkey to
recognize the 1915-1923 killings of Armenians as genocide. `We will
raise all the matters, including the Armenian genocide, to hear Turkey’s
response in the course of accession negotiations, which will be very
long and very difficult,’ French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier was
quoted as saying.
Halacoglu, the Turkish historian, believes that France’s stance can be
viewed as an `opportunity.’ `Armenian and Turkish historians should sit
down and debate the matter,’ he said in a December 15 interview
published in the daily Milliyet. `This has nothing to do with the EU.
Let the historians resolve the matter.’
Such a direct dialog on the `genocide’ issue between Turkish and
Armenian historians actually began last year when researchers from the
Turkish Historical Society and their colleagues from Armenian Academy of
Sciences and Yerevan’s Genocide Museum formed the so-called Vienna
Armenian-Turkish Historians’ Platform (VAT). At VAT’s first meeting held
in Austrian capital in July 2004, the two sides started exchanging
archival documents pertaining to the events of 1915-1923. But VAT’s next
meeting, reportedly scheduled for last December, was cancelled. And in
mid-January, the Anatolia news agency reported that a VAT meeting due to
take place in May 2005 had also been cancelled.
Whatever the reason for VAT’s difficulties, it appears that the work of
this bilateral forum has virtually come to a standstill. This may
explain why Turkish researchers and pundits urge the formation of an
international commission of inquiry. This commission, in Halacoglu’s
opinion, would ideally work under the auspices of the United Nations, or
another international body, to help ensure impartiality and to encourage
all states to open up their archives to the panel. `The Armenian
archives, which are closed, should also be opened to the public,’
Halacoglu said.
The idea of forming an international commission appears to be part of
Ankara’s broader strategy of seeking rapprochement with Armenia. As
Birand points out, `If these [`genocide’] studies are initiated, we will
gain time. In addition, while this process continues, Turkey can broaden
its economic relations with Armenia and open the border gate.’
In the meantime, however, Turkish historians are getting ready to debate
their Armenian colleagues on the basis of their latest research.
Speaking January 5 on the CNN-Turk television program, Hikmet Ozdemir,
head of the Turkish Historical Society’s Armenian Desk, said a publicity
campaign would be launched in February.
Editor’s Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist and researcher
who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History from
Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences. He was Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; a Visiting Scholar at the Kennan
Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington
DC; a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University, New York; and a Visiting
Fellow at Harvard University. He is now based in Istanbul, Turkey.

The Moscow Times
Lavrov expresses careful optimism over Karabakh settlement
Interfax. Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2005, 9:06 PM Moscow Time
BAKU. Feb 1 (Interfax) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there
are reasons to express careful optimism regarding the settlement in
Nagorno-Karabakh, especially taking into account the fact that bilateral
meetings between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers are taking
place.
“We feel that there are reasons for careful optimism, especially if we take
into account the resumption of meetings between the Armenian and Azerbaijani
foreign ministers. We will support the sides in their aim to come to an
agreement,” Lavrov told journalists on Tuesday, following his arrival in
Baku. Lavrov’s visit to Baku will last for two days.
“We presume that all mediators working in the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, the
U.S. and France) are maintaining contact with both sides – Armenia and
Azerbaijan,” Lavrov added

Track II Diplomacy and the Prospects of Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation
CONFLICT PREVENTION AND RESOLUTION FORUM
School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Johns Hopkins University
1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
February 1, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Since the early 1800s, the relationship between the Turkish and Armenian
people has been tragic, filled with hatred and conflict. Now, a
reconciliation commission has been working on opening a new era in the
relations between the two sides. The initiative is trying to bring
cooperation and communication between the governments of both countries.
This is an example from which to learn about the necessity of Track II
diplomacy and its contribution to conflict resolution. David L.
Phillips, who has recently written a book on Track II diplomacy and the
prospects of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, will be joined by Matt
Bryza to discuss this important topic.

Speakers:
David L. Phillips, Deputy Director of the Center for Prevention Action
at the Council on Foreign Relations
Matt Bryza, National Security Council Deputy Director of Europe and the
Caucasus
Location: Kenney Auditorium, Nitze Building
School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Johns Hopkins University
1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2005
Time:
9:00 – 11:00 AM
Contact: Tali Chazan at 202-265-4300
Please note that there is no parking at SAIS, and the nearest Metro stop
is Dupont Circle.
You may view notes from our previous speakers on the Search for Common
Ground website at
*******************************************************************************************************
ABOUT THIS FORUM:
The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum (CPRF) sponsors launched
this forum in 1999 as a platform for exploring innovative and
constructive methods of conflict prevention and resolution in the
international arena. Rather than a typical Washington debating or
briefing session, this forum seeks not only to inform its attendees
about various perspectives in a conflict, but also to contribute to
viable solutions to complex conflicts by providing a secure venue for
stakeholders from various disciplines to engage with each other in
cross-sector, or multi-track, problem-solving. As such, the Forum
insists on the basic ground-rules of non-attribution, mutual respect, no
interrupting, and no partisan grandstanding. The CPRF principals believe
that through this sustained policy focus on conflict prevention and
resolution, monitoring of events and trends in conflicted regions,
information exchange, and collective problem-solving, practitioners of
international relations working independently can combine their
strengths and minimize their weaknesses in resolving violent conflict.
CPRF Sponsors:
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Joseph Montville
Center for Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations, William Nash
Conflict Management Program/SAIS – Johns Hopkins University, I. William
Zartman
The Conflict Prevention Project/Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, Anita Sharma
Partners for Democratic Change, Raymond Shonholtz
Alliance for International Conflict Prevention & Resolution, William A.
Stuebner
Search for Common Ground, John Marks

The Russia Journal
Russia’s trade with Armenia shrinks
WORLD/CIS » :: Feb 01, 2005 Posted: 13:54 Moscow time (09:54 GMT)
EREVAN – Russia’s trade with Armenia shrank 10.6 percent in 2004 to USD266m,
the Armenian National Statistics Service has reported. Trade with Russia
accounted for 12.9 percent of Armenia’s overall foreign trade. Armenian
exports to Russia were cut by 17.3 percent to USD78m. Imports fell 7.5
percent to USD188m. Armenia boosted its foreign trade by 5.1 percent in 2004
to USD2.066bn. Trade deficit amounted to USD636m. Exports advanced 4.3
percent to USD715m. Imports grew 5.6 percent to USD1.351bn. Trade with the
European Union contributed the most to Armenia’s foreign trade, namely,
USD735m. Trade with the CIS was USD433m, or 21 percent of total foreign
trade. /RosBusinessConsulting/

Daily Bruin
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Nations must take action to end cycle of genocide
By Raffi Kassabian
At the Jan. 27 ceremonies for the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz, the prevalent reaction was “never again.” And yet we still
continue to see genocide occurring today, most notably in Darfur, Sudan.
The systematic annihilation and displacement of millions of Sudanese in
Darfur is nothing less than a part of the repetitious cycle of
systematic genocide that continues to haunt the world community to this
day.
How can today’s governments stand by while groups of people in the world
are subject to targeted extinction policies? How can the United States
send its sons and daughters into battle exclaiming that democracy and
freedom in Iraq are worth their lives, yet ignore those very same
principles in another situation?
Darfur demands a similar sacrifice, but the determination of engagement
is conspicuously absent when addressing this crisis.
Over 1.5 million Armenians were systematically executed, raped and
deported by the Ottoman Empire in what is acknowledged as one of the
first genocides of the 20th century. Volumes of academic research on the
subject are accompanied by acknowledgments by genocide scholar societies
as well as proclamations by numerous countries and state governments.
But the United States, a country that continually unfurls the banner of
ethical and moral values to justify the pursuit of domestic as well as
foreign policy agendas, has yet to come to terms with the Armenian
Genocide and join the world in admitting, let alone seeking justice for,
this crime against humanity.
Instead, in deference to the Republic of Turkey, an alleged “strategic
partner and NATO ally,” according to the U.S. Agency for International
Development, the United States has avoided facing the Armenian Genocide.
The threats of limited access to NATO bases and the loss of military or
other business contracts is apparently enough for the United States to
drop the ethical banner in this particular case and pick up the pennant
of obscure “national interests” excuses.
Until there is an equitable pursuit of justice, we are left to fight not
one battle, but two. Not only must we fight to prevent crimes against
humanity, but we must also fight the denial of such crimes. In doing so
we can ensure that we are combating the recurring cycle of genocides.
The citizens in Darfur cry for their justice. Their government has
failed to protect their lives, families and homes, but instead has
instigated or even organized those responsible for murdering and
dislocating them.
For nearly 90 years, successive Turkish governments have actively denied
the Armenian Genocide. It is their hope to absolve themselves of any
punitive measures that are a natural part of the process of justice for
this crime.
Because the Turkish government has not been held accountable for its
crimes against humanity in the past, the government has been able to
continue human rights abuses into the present day. It stifles the lives
and tramples on the rights of its minorities.
Turkey is noted for having some of the highest numbers of imprisoned
journalists, and it continually strikes down – via legal or brute
tactics – those who question the fallibility of the state. The Turkish
government wants to intimidate its own citizens into silence or
self-censorship on issues like the Armenian Genocide.
The world continues to turn a blind eye out of convenience and enables
this behavior of the Turkish government, facilitating what I call the
“Campaign of Silence.”
When the United States and governments worldwide behave in such a
manner, is it any wonder why “never again” sounds so hollow? Is it any
wonder that after 1915, there was a 1938? Is it any wonder that the
Armenians were followed by Cambodians, Rwandans and now the citizens of
Darfur?
The silence continues today because we as human beings have not come to
terms with our past. We have turned the other cheek because it is easier
than seeking justice.
Adolf Hitler proclaimed to the Nazi Army before invading Poland, “Who,
after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Will we
finally learn to consistently apply American values to our national
interests – recognizing everyone’s rights to a pursuit of happiness,
freedom and self-determination?
Or will the next genocidal government say, “Who, after all, speaks today
of the annihilation of the people of Darfur?”
————————————————————————
Kassabian is a fourth-year political science and communication studies
student.

Las Vegas Sun
January 31, 2005
The Armenian connection
Sisters, safely back in Las Vegas, work on permanent status
By Timothy Pratt

LAS VEGAS SUN
Mariam Sarkisian, the younger of the two Armenian sisters who were released
from federal custody Friday after two weeks in a Los Angeles holding cell,
was expected to resume her life as a junior at Palo Verde High School today.
Meanwhile, Jeremiah Wolf Stuchiner, one of the lawyers who defended the
Sarkisians, said he would be applying for a permit Tuesday at the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services that the sisters need to legally return
to work at Tropicana Pizza, the family business their father, Rouben, runs
in Henderson.
Mariam’s first chore today will be studying for final exams she missed while
she and her sister Emma were being held in the headline-grabbing case that
nearly saw them put on a plane to Armenia, their birthplace.
The girls were detained Jan. 14 when immigration authorities acted on a
deportation order dating to 1993.
“I’ve never wanted to go to school so bad,” 17-year-old Mariam said Friday
afternoon amid the hubbub at the pizzeria surrounding their return.
“But it’s going to be hard catching up,” she added.
Mariam’s courses include an elective course in fashion design, which is what
she wants to study at a technical school when she obtains her high school
diploma in 2006. The teenager hopes to become a designer when she is older,
because it is a career where “you can be yourself and do what you want to do
with no limits,” she said.
Emma, 18, said her first order of business on settling back into her life in
Las Vegas was to get permission to work at the pizzeria and then to obtain a
driver’s license.
Work permits are available to both girls as a condition of the so-called
deferred action that immigration authorities took to release the sisters,
Stuchiner said.
That action means the girls still have no legal status in the United States,
but they can remain in the country and are able to work. The work permit
then serves as a means of identification, Stuchiner said, that the girls can
use for such purposes as obtaining a driver’s license.
In the future, Emma wants to go to college, perhaps out of state, she said,
“to have some freedom.”
She said she is “going to take college more seriously than high school.”
Emma graduated from Palo Verde in June and didn’t study very hard, she said.
As for her future, she said she “always wanted to be a singer” when she was
younger, but her experience being detained and threatened with deportation
has made her think of other options.
Now, she said, she is “thinking of being a judge or a lawyer so this doesn’t
happen to anyone else.”
Alternatively, she said, she would like to work in the entertainment
industry.
Both girls said they look forward to becoming citizens, in order to resolve
the problem that led to their detention and separation from their family.
That problem became apparent when Rouben Sarkisian took the girls to local
immigration officials seeking paperwork he thought they should be able to
obtain after years of attempts to gain legal status for them. But he found
instead that a series of events — including him marrying a U.S citizen and
becoming a legal resident, the step below citizenship — had not changed
their status.
The sisters still had a deportation order hanging over their heads.
Stuchiner said “the most logical avenue” for the teens to become citizens,
is for their father to become a citizen and then petition for his daughters.
Sarkisian applied for citizenship in July, Stuchiner said, and should
receive a date for his interview and exam in the next few months. That date
is usually three weeks to a month from whenever the notice arrives in the
mail.
Emma said one thing she would like to do when she becomes a citizen is
travel around the world — including a trip to Armenia.
Though the sisters were born there, neither has ever been back since they
were brought to the United States as pre-schoolers in 1991. They don’t even
speak its language.
“If I was a citizen, I could visit Armenia. I want to know what it’s like
…(and) keep in touch with my roots — but of my own free will,” she said.
Many Las Vegas residents wrote or called their congressmen or the media
while the case of the Sarkisians was unfolding. Many expressed disbelief
that two teenagers who had spent most of their life in the United States
were not already citizens.
On Friday, Marsha Cook, a Henderson resident who had been following the
case, walked into the pizzeria and said, “Are you Emma?”
“I just wanted to say, ‘Welcome home … and I hope you become a citizen
soon,”‘ she said.
Father Phil Carolin, executive director of the Citizenship Project, a
nonprofit organization that has helped about 1,250 people become citizens,
said “the main hurdle is the language” for most immigrants when it comes to
passing the citizenship interview and exam.
Sarkisian said he “speaks English okay and understands,” but has chosen to
speak through Russian interpreters while in the media spotlight in the last
few weeks.
Carolin’s organization offers classes in English as a second language as
well as in history and government, subjects that are covered in the
citizenship exam.
Another hurdle for many immigrants, Carolin said, is that “many of these
people hold down two or three jobs” and never find time to study.
Sarkisian’s job often requires him to work up to 14 hours a day, Emma said.
Looking back not only on the last two weeks, but on his 56 years, he said,
“My life is like an airplane — I don’t see it.”
“Only work, only work.”
Saturday turned out to be Sarkisian’s birthday and the toasts with vodka
were flowing at Tropicana Pizza.
“I already have my biggest gift,” he said of his daughters’ return.

Report of the Second Meeting of the
International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue
Between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
Rome, Italy, 26-29 January 2005
Catholic and Oriental Orthodox representatives, delegated by their
churches, held their second meeting from 26-29 January 2005, as
members of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, under
the co-chairmanship of H.E. Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and
H.E. Metropolitan Amba Bishoy of Damiette, General Secretary of the
Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
The meeting was held in Rome at the Domus Internationalis Paulus VI,
hosted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Delegates were present from the Catholic Church and from the following
Oriental Orthodox Churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian
Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church (Catholicosate of All
Armenians), the Armenian Apostolic Church (Catholicosate of Cilicia),
the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian
Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahido Church.
The representatives of the Oriental Orthodox Church held their
separate preparatory meeting on Tuesday 25 January 2005. Both
delegations held additional separate meetings during the
dialogue. Each working day commenced with morning prayers and
concluded with evening prayers and the meetings were conducted in a
very cordial atmosphere.
The delegates were invited to attend the ecumenical vespers
traditionally celebrated at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for
Christian Unity on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (25
January) at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, which were
presided over by H.E. Cardinal Walter Kasper.
The members of the Commission were received in audience by H.H. Pope
John Paul II on Friday 28 January 2005. On behalf of the Commission
Metropolitan Amba Bishoy addressed the Pope conveying the greetings of
the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Pope responded
with a brief message of welcome and encouragement.
On Friday 28th January the Commission was invited to share in vespers
and a meal with the Benedictine Community of Sant* Anselmo.
As had been agreed upon at the first meeting of the International
Joint Commission in Cairo in January 2004, the principal themes were:
a) Understanding of Communion, Constitutive Elements of Communion; b)
Particular and Universal Communion, Meaning of Sister Churches and of
Church Families; c) Full Communion and Degrees of Communion, Common
Ecumenical Goal.
During the course of the meeting papers were presented from the
Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches on these themes: 1)
*The Church as Communion in Early Christian Thought* (Fr. Mark
Sheridan); 2) *Communion-Sister Churches-Church Families* (Archbishop
Mesrob K. Krikorian); 3) *Full Communion and the Degrees of Communion,
Common Ecumenical Goal* (Fr. Philippe Luisier); 4) *Full Communion and
Degrees of Communion, Common Ecumenical Goal* (Metropolitan Amba
Bishoy and Fr. Shenouda Maher); 5) *Particular Church/Universal
Church, Sister Churches, Ecclesial Families* (Fr. Paul Rouhana); 6)
*Understanding Communion, Constitutive Elements of Communion*
(Rev. Megabe Biluy Seife Selassie Yohannes and Lique Hiruyan Getachew
Guadie).
Discussion in the plenary sessions on the papers allowed the
participants to reach the following common affirmations:
1) The Church by its very nature is a communion, which finds its
source and model in the communion of the Holy Trinity, the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit. This communion finds its expression in
conciliarity/collegiality. The question of primacy should be
further studied.
2) The constitutive elements of communion include:
a. the Apostolic faith as lived in the Tradition and as expressed in
the Holy Scriptures, the first three ecumenical councils, and the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed; we believe in Jesus Christ the
Incarnate Word of God, the same being true God and true man; we
venerate the Holy Virgin Mary as Mother of God;
b. the celebration of the seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation/
chrismation, eucharist, penance/reconciliation, ordination, matrimony,
anointing of the sick); we consider baptism as essential for
salvation; with regard to the Eucharist, we believe that it is the
true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ;
c. the ordained ministry in Apostolic succession. However, from a
Catholic point of view, the question of the mutual recognition of
baptism must be a point of further discussion,
3) Thanks to the many shared elements of communion, the Catholic
Church uses the phrases *real though incomplete communion* and
*degrees of communion*. However, from the point of view of the
Oriental Orthodox Churches, these terms require further study.
4) The Oriental Orthodox Churches, being in full communion with each
other in faith and sacraments, refer to their unity by the term
*family of Churches*. However, from the point of view of the
Catholic Church, this concept requires further study, since it is
not a part of its tradition.
The next meeting of the International Joint Commission will be hosted
by the Catholicosate of All Armenians at Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia,
from Wednesday 25 January (day of arrival) till Tuesday 31 January
2006 (day of departure). Both delegations will have separate meetings
on Thursday 26 January. Friday 27, Saturday 28 and Monday 30 will be
full meeting days for the Joint International Commission.
Three papers from each side will be prepared on the following issues:
1. Bishops in Apostolic Succession;
2. Primacy and Synodality/Conciliarity;
3. Synods, local and ecumenical (their ecclesiological meaning).
Papers will be sent to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity in the Vatican, by November 15th , 2005, for communication to
the members of the Commission, not later than December 1st, 2005.
The members of the International Joint Commission were:
Representatives of the Oriental Orthodox churches
Coptic Orthodox Church : H.E. Amba Bishoy (co-chair), Metropolitan of
Damiette, General Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox
Church; Rev. Fr. Dr. Shenouda Maher Ishak (Rochester, U.S.A) ;
Syrian Orthodox Church : H.E. Mor Theophilus George Saliba, Archbishop
of Mount Lebanon, Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox
Church; H.G. Dr. Kuriakose Theophilose, M.S.O.T. Seminary, Vettickal,
India;
Armenian Apostolic Church (Catholicosate of all Armenians):
H.E. Dr. Mesrob K. Krikorian, Archbishop of Vienna; H.E. Khajag
Barsamian, Archbishop of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of
America;
Armenian Apostolic Church (Catholicosate of Cilicia): H.E. Archbishop
Oshagan Choloyan, Prelate of the Eastern Prelacy in the U.S.A.;
H.G. Bishop Nareg Alemezian, Ecumenical Officer of the Catholicosate
of Cilicia;
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church: Rev. Megabe Biluy Seife Selassie
Yohannes, Member of the Scholar Council of the Patriarchate; Lique
Hiruyan Getachew Guadie; Head of Department of Foreign Relations;
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church: H.E. Philipos Mar Eusebios,
Metropolitan of Pathanamthitta; Rev. Dr. John Mathews (co-secretary),
Secretary of the Committee on Inter-Church Relations;
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahido Church: Rev. Fr. Kaleab Gebreselassie,
Co-ordinator for Foreign Affairs; H.G. Bishop Abuna Shenouda Zeamanuel
(Rome), substitute for Mr. Yoftahe Dimetrios, General Director of the
Eritrean Orthodox Church (prevented).
Representatives of the Catholic Church
H.E. Cardinal Walter Kasper (co-chair), President of the Pontifical
Council for Promoting Christian Unity;
H.E. Paul-Werner Scheele, Bishop em. of Würzburg, Germany;
H.E. Amba Kyrillos William, Coptic Catholic Bishop of Assiut,
President of the Ecumenical Commission of the Catholic Church in
Egypt;
H.E. Mons. Jules Mikhael Al-Jamil, Procurator of the Syrian Catholic
Patriarchate to the Holy See and Apostolic Visitator in Europe;
H.E. Mons. Boutros Marayati, Armenian Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo,
President of the Ecumenical Commission of the Catholic Church in
Syria;
H.E. Mons. Woldetensae Ghebreghiorghis, Apostolic Vicar of Harar
(Ethiopia), President of the Ecumenical Commission of the Catholic
Church in Ethiopia and Eritrea;
Rev. Fr. Mathew Vellanickal, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of
Changanacherry, India;
Rev. Fr. Ronald Roberson, C.S.P., Secretariat for Ecumenical and
Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, Washington, USA;
Rev. Fr. Frans Bouwen, M.Afr., Consultant to the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, Jerusalem;
Rev. Fr. Philippe Luisier, S.J., Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome;
Rev. Fr. Mark Sheridan, O.S.B., Dean of the Faculty of Theology,
Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, Rome;
Rev. Fr. Boghos Levon Zekiyan, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome;
Rev. Fr. Paul Rouhana, O.L.M., Université Saint-Esprit, Kaslik,
Jounieh, Lebanon;
Prof. Dietmar W. Winkler, School of Theology, Boston University, USA;
Msgr. Johan Bonny (co-secretary), staff-member of the Pontifical
Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Metropolitan Bishoy
Cardinal Walter Kasper
Rome, 29 January 2005

ARMENIA: BUILD A SOLID AND LASTING PEACE
VATICAN CITY, JAN 28, 2005 (Vatican Information Service) – This
morning John Paul II received the president of the Republic of
Armenia, Robert Kocharian, recalling other meetings they had held, in
the Vatican in 1999 and later in Yerevan in 2001, during the Pope’s
apostolic visit to Armenia.
The Pope told the president of his “sincere appreciation for the good
relations between the Holy See and the government of your country. I
know that the Catholic community is welcomed and respected, and that
its various activities contribute to the wellbeing of the entire
nation.”
He went on: “Everyone earnestly hopes that the collaboration between
the Holy See and the Armenian government will continue to grow and,
where the situation calls for it, that eventual improvements to the
status of the Catholic Church will be made.”
The Holy Father also gave assurances of the “friendly and respectful
relations between the Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic
Church. This understanding, which is even more active thanks to the
initiative of the Catholicos Karekin II, will certainly have positive
repercussions for the peaceful coexistence of the entire Armenian
people, who are called to face no small number of social and economic
challenges.”
“I also hope,” said the Pope., “that true and lasting peace comes to
the region of Nagorno-Karabagh where you, President Kocharian, come
from. This will come about by a decisive refusal of violence and a
patient dialogue between the parties, thanks also to active
international mediation.”
The Pope concluded by recalling that the Holy See, “which over the
centuries has not failed to denounce violence and defend the rights of
the weak, will continue to support all efforts aimed at building a
solid and lasting peace.” AC/VISIT PRESIDENT/ARMENIA:KOCHARIAN VIS
050128 (300)

[31-01-2005 ‘Karabagh Conflict’]
————————————————- ———————
BAKU IS OPEN FOR DIALOGUE WITH THE ARMENIANS OF MOUNTAINOUS KARABAGH
Source : `Zerkalo’ newspaper (Azerbaijan)
Author: R. Mirkadirov
But only after liberation of the occupied territories, Deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov states.
OSCE mission, currently in Baku, will study illegal settlement of
population on occupied territories of Azerbaijan. As `Trend’ agency
reports, facts gathered by official Baku were presented to the Mission
at January 28 meeting in MFA.
Personal representative of current OSCE Chairman, Anjey Kasprshik and
OSCE experts participated in the meeting. “During our discussions with
Azerbaijani representatives, we studied a great number of
materials. At present, we have to investigate’, Russian Co-chairman of
Minsk Group, Yuri Merzlakov informed the journalists after the
meeting.
In accordance with the agreement of the Mission with official Baku,
the experts will visit all the 7 regions around Mountainous
Karabagh. In this respect, Y. Merzlakov pointed out that no
Azerbaijani representative will accompany the mission in the trip.
As a reminder, the mission includes experts from Finland, Italy,
Sweden and Germany, alongside the co-chairmen. Head of the mission is
representative of German MFA, expert on OSCE issues, Emilia Margaret.
Today, January 29, the Mission will leave for Armenia and further on
to occupied territories. According to French Co-chairman of OSCE
Minsk Group, Bernard Fassier, the Mission will work on the occupied
territories for over a week. “Later on, the experts will prepare a
technical report to submit it to the Co-chairmen. In case of
necessity, the co-chairmen will make a statement about the studied
facts”, B. Fassier said.
Settlement of the population on occupied territories of Azerbaijan is
implemented with direct involvement of Armenia. As `Turan’ reports,
Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan declared about it at yesterday’s
press conference, commenting on the results of the January 27 meeting
in MFA of OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen with the members of the
International Mission on establishing facts about populating the
occupied territories.
In the course of the meeting, the Azerbaijani side presented to the
Mission video and audio materials, serving as evidence of populating
the occupied territories, geographic maps. According to A. Azimov,
about 23 thousand people are illegally settled on the occupied
territories. The populating policy is implemented in various forms, up
to implementation of target economic and infrastructure projects.
The mission was also provided with the information on using the
occupied territories for illegal drug traffic and organized criminal
activity.
A. Azimov also expressed his attitude towards PACE resolution on
Mountainous Karabagh. He emphasized the objective reflection the
resolution provides on the issue of occupation of Azerbaijani
territories and ethnic cleansing. The diplomat stated that current
negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia discuss the issues of
suspension of the military conflict and elimination of its
consequences. Based on the results of the discussions, an agreement is
to be drafted and signed A. Azimov continued.
In due time, the negotiation will include discussions with the
representatives of the Armenian community of Mountainous Karabagh,
together with the Azerbaijani community, returned by the time. “In the
course of discussing the issue of the communities, Azerbaijani
government will hold discussions with its citizens and the society
should perceive it”, A. Azimov stated.
`Turan’ reports that yesterday President Ilham Aliev received OSCE
Minsk Group Co-chairmen and the Mission on establishing facts about
illegal settlement on occupied territories of Azerbaijan.
Besides, he pointed out that illegal settlement of the population on
the occupied territories by the Armenian side is one of most serious
obstacles on the way to a long-term peace. I. Aliev expressed
confidence that the Mission’s studying of the real situation on the
occupied territories will impede Armenia’s illegal activity on these
territories.
[29-01-2005 ‘Karabagh Conflict’]
———————————————————————-
VAHAN HOVHANNISSIAN DOES NOT THINK THAT THE ARMENIAN DIPLOMACY WAS DEFEATED
Source : `Azg’ newspaper (Armenia)
Author: Tatul Hakobian
Vice-Speaker of the Armenian National Assembly Vahan Hovhannisian
believes that the PACE document on Mountainous Karabagh contains a
number of unpleasant, dangerous definitions. `But the most dangerous
thing is that David Atkinson blames the Minsk Group for everything”,
Hovhannisian said yesterday in National Press Club.
In the interview given to BBC Atkinson noted with regret that the
10-year activity of Minsk Group turned out to be useless: `As the past
ten years have shown, the efforts of the Minsk Conference turned out
to be insufficient. And we thought that we might have definite ideas
that can be used in the Minsk process to resolve the conflict. I have
stressed repeatedly that the proposals that we make on behalf of the
Council of Europe are not a replacement for the Minsk Group and will
certainly not damage its cause. We only aim at expanding the Minsk
process’.
Vahan Hovhannisian, who represents `Dashnaktsutiun’ party, reminds
that since 1998 not a single proposal was dismissed by Armenia – even
if accepted with reservations. Thus, according to Hovhannisian, OSCE
cannot be at fault. Azerbaijan realized that when specialized
structures deal with Karabagh issue, it loses ground. For this reason,
Hovhanissian says, Baku tries to move the issue to other organizations
that have not been specialized in Karabagh conflict; besides, in the
Council of Europe Azerbaijan has Turkey and a number of other
countries at its side.
Hovhannissian found a part of the interview to be particularly
unacceptable – the one in which the British MP said: `Obviously the
authorities of Azerbaijan will never agree to the independence of
Karabagh. For this reason the Council of Europe cannot assist the
independence of Mountainous Karabagh’.
`How do you know’ was the rhetoric question asked by the Vice-Speaker
of the National Assembly, who added that by this statement Atkinson
did not only defend the Azerbaijani position but allows it to make its
stance stronger.
Hovhannisian also noted that the PACE document has a number of parts
favoring Armenia, but ‘they are merely parts’. In particular, the
Vice-Speaker welcomes the section in which the Azerbaijani authorities
are called on to establish contacts and dialogue with the
administration of Karabagh. `We would be glad to contribute to this
dialogue here in Strasbourg’, Atkinson said in his interview to BBC.
The Vice-President of the National Assembly, while acknowledging the
overall negative nature of the document for Armenia, does not think
the Armenian parliamentary diplomacy was defeated.
Hovhannisian supposes that Armenia and Karabagh must not object to the
visit of fact finding mission to territories controlled by Mountainous
Karabagh. NA Vice-Speaker reminded that on this territories Armenian
refugees from Baku, Sumgait, Dashkesan and other districts of
Azerbaijan currently reside. `What should these people do? If this
(settlement at these territories) is a crime, then nothing has changed
in the world since the 20th century’, he said.
The representative of `Dashnaktsutiun’ party thinks the
non-involvement of the Mountainous Karabagh in the process to be
conventional, rather – `the Karabagh party was uninvolved in one stage
of the negotiations process’, when in Paris and key West the
unification of Karabagh and Armenia was discussed, however, Aliev
Sr. later went back on his promise. Naturally, Hovhannissian said,
Karabagh party must take an active part at this stage of negotiations.
[28-01-2005 ‘Region’]
———————————————————————-
TURKISH BUSINESS `ON THE LOOSE’ IN THE BLACK SEA
Source : `Akhali Taoba’ newspaper (Georgia)
Author: Mamuka Bakashvili
Since the day of coming to power, the new government of Georgia has
promised the society to fully promote development of the national
business. Many people, having believed this promise, started restoring
the deserted industries but they immediately faced the familiar red
tape, a no less common problem of `roof’ and other barriers.
Murman Kharabadze, for restoration of fish processing factory, has
invested 1 million dollars, without involving the Georgian
government. His company `Kapadokia’ produces fish oil and
flour. `Kapadokia’ produce is on great demand in Turkey. At the
initial stage, the business thrived despite traditional problems of a
Georgian entrepreneur. However, a much more serious problem soon
emerged – the water area of Poti was suddenly navigated by Turkish
fishing seiners. Their hot and rapid activity led to closure of two
Georgian fish processing factories. Kharabdze has serious concerns
over the future of his `Kapadokia’. In his opinion, Turkish fishermen
get rich at the expense of the Georgian ones. `Turkish fishing
vessels penetrate our waters with the help of Georgian intermediary
firms. The intermediary gets about 50 thousand USD for each vessel. It
is very little money compared to the profit the Turks get’, Kharabadze
declared to `Akhali Taoba’ newspaper.
The khamsa caught in Poti waters is sold in Turkey for 4 USD per kilo,
whereas Georgia gets only 2% of total cost for its own fish caught by
the Turkish seiners, and the Turks get the rest 98%. Georgian
government recently raised taxes on the resources (khamsa in this case
is viewed as a resource) from 7 to 25 lari per tone. However, tax
rising primarily hit the poor Georgian fishermen, whereas the more
well-to-do southern neighbors could fully afford it. The experts
already counted: if the Turkish fishermen do not reduce the intensity
of their activity, in 2-3 years there may be no khamsa left in Poti
region.
Murman Kharabadze asserts that if the government puts an end to the
actually uncontrolled activity of Turkish fishing companies and
enables its fishermen to supply the fish processing factories with
their produce, the state profit from the taxes and reduction of the
production prime cost may increase fourfold. Besides, new job places
may emerge, which is of no small importance to Georgia. Kharabadze
confirms the calculations, bringing the example of his own enterprise.
He applied to the Ministry of Environmental Protection with the
request to provide a catch quota for 18 thousand tones of khamsa. He
has to pay for it 25 lari per tone to the budget, which totally makes
450 thousand lari. Besides, as a result of processing of 18 thousand
raw produce the enterprise will get 2800 tone of fish flour and 1440
tones of fish oil. The profit from sale of these products will make
1,5 million dollars. About 40% of this sum will be allotted to the
budget in form of taxes. `The Turks pay only for the caught khamsa,
whereas the main profit goes to their own country’, Murman Kharabadze
says.
However, the problems of Georgian fishermen do not appear to concern
anyone. In particular, head of Georgian sea transport administration
Valerian Imnaishvili ordered to launch 37 more Turkish vessels to Poti
water area. Considering the fact that each seiner, as a rule, is
accompanied by 2-3 transporting vessels, it may be counted that up to
100 Turkish vessels will soon be navigating the Poti waters. Georgian
fishermen are horrified – there will not be enough khamsa for them.
Valerian Imnaishvili explained to `Akhali Taoba’ newspaper that the
Turkish vessels expected in Poti waters navigate under Georgian
flag. However this does not stop the caught fish and future incomes
from going to Turkey?! Georgian ecologists pay attention to the
circumstance that the nets of the Turkish fishermen are much larger
than the Georgian ones, which should become a separate topic for
discussion. Besides, the Turks thoroughly sort the caught fish,
throwing the off-grade fish, according to their standards, right into
the sea. The Georgian ecologists assert that the Turkish standards
view as proper no more that 20% of the caught fish, whereas the
discarded 80% rot in the sea, obviously damaging the
environment. Meanwhile, the Georgian fishermen use all the fish
caught.
The Turkish partner of Murman Kharabadze, Altan Izim is also against
Turkish vessels in Georgian waters, `I am a Turk but I want to do
something for Georgia. The state should also help us in it, given the
fact that a million dollars are invested in our enterprise. The
Turkish coastline is more than 2 thousand kilometers. However, there
is practically no fish left there. Therefore, the Turkish vessels
enter the Georgian waters. We almost have to ask them for leaving us
at least 20-30 thousand tones of khamsa for our enterprise to
function. However, this situation cannot last long. Mass `attack’ of
Turkish seiners will result in disappearance of khamsa in Georgian
waters as well’.
The situation is so serious and threatening that the Georgian
fishermen decided to impede the Turkish vessels from entering the Poti
water area. They are ready to block the port of Poti. The problem
caught the attention of Georgian Parliament and a special hearing was
held there on this issue. At the session, the Chairman of the
Parliamentary Committee on Protection of the Environment and Natural
Resources Tamaz Khidesheli promised the fishermen that the Turkish
vessels will not be allowed to Poti waters. However, time showed that
the promise was nothing more than a promise. At present, the Georgian
fishermen are ready to defend their interests by their own forces and
possibilities.
[25-01-2005 ‘Armenia-Turkey’]
———————————————————————-
YEREVAN: WE RECOGNIZE THE KARS TREATY. ANKARA: WE
ARE WAITING FOR ACTIONS, NOT WORDS TO PROVE IT
Source : `Zaman’ newspaper (Turkey)
Author: Jumaly Onal, Suleyman Kurt
As Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanian stated in his interview to
`Zaman’ newspaper, Armenia recognizes the Kars Treaty, thus meeting
the condition put forward by Turkey.
Armenian Minister, answering the questions of `Zaman’, noted that for
Armenia Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s statement on Kars Treaty,
defining the borders between the two countries, was
unexpected. Oskanian, declaring that none of Armenian leaders has yet
questioned the validity of this agreement, stated, `We are one of the
countries-assignees of the Soviet Union. All the agreements, signed
between the Soviet Union and the third countries, are invalid.’
A high-ranking official in the interview to `Zaman’ characterized
Oskanian’s words as a `statement smelling of opportunism’. According
to the Turkish diplomat, `Armenian Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence refer to the eastern regions of Turkey as `Western
Armenia’. Ararat is depicted on the State Emblem. Armenia, through
the Armenian Diaspora, keeps putting accusations to Turkey of
committing the so-called Genocide. No concrete steps were taken
towards liberation of the occupied Armenian territories.
Reconciliation may be discussed only after concrete steps in these
three directions.’
The statement made by Prime Minister Erdogan on January 12 upon return
from Moscow concerned the Kars Treaty and the necessity for concrete
steps of Yerevan for opening of the border between Turkey and
Armenia. Foreign Minister of Armenia Vartan Oskanian answered the
questions of `Zaman’ on a large specter of issues, starting form the
Kars Treaty up to the accusations of the so-called Genocide.
– Prime Minister Erdogan stated that Armenia does not recognize the
Kars Treaty, and it is one of the obstacles on the way to
normalization of relations. Why doesn’t Armenia recognize this treaty?
– For me this statement of Prime Minister on Kars Treaty is fully
unexpected. No Armenian leader has ever declared about ignoring this
Treaty by Yerevan. We are one of the countries-assignees of the
Soviet Union. All the treaties, concluded between the Soviet Union and
the third countries, are valid until the new agreements, replacing the
old ones, are signed or a declaration about non-recognition of these
treaties is made.
– What is your attitude to the Turkey’s condition on suspension of
Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territories?
– Turkey cannot reduce the Mountainous Karabagh problem exclusively to
the territorial aspect. The issue is manifold: territory, refugees,
security, stability. The main problem is the status. Prior to Karabagh
problem between Azerbaijan and Armenia, there were no Azerbaijani
territories under Armenian control. The Armenian control over these
territories was settled as a result of Karabagh conflict. The Turkish
side does not have a clear perception of the cause and effect
relation. It is impossible to attempt solving this problem, separating
the cause from the effect. The problem is that Baku does not make any
steps on the way to discussion of the issues. Consequently, Turkey is
unable to put any territorial problems as a precondition. We aspire to
solving the problem, however, we hold that it should be viewed in a
complex.
– What is your opinion about Turkey’s becoming a mediator in Karabagh
problem?
– As Turkey is an interested party, it cannot be a mediator in
resolution of Karabagh problem. Thus, Russia has no preconditions on
the conflict resolution; therefore it is neutral, whereas Turkey
expressed its interest many times. If Turkey reconsiders its positions
on the issue of diplomatic relations, its mediation will be of large
significance. We constantly participate in bilateral meetings, however
the issue of mediation is in another plane.
Russian-Turkish Cooperation Will Not Facilitate the Solution
– How will Ankara’s cooperation with Russia impact the solution of the
problem?
– Discussion of the issue by Turkey and Russia does not worry us,
however I don’t think that joint steps of these two countries will
facilitate the solution.
– One-fifth of Azerbaijani territory is occupied by Armenia. When will
this occupation be over?
– Mountainous Karabagh has always been an Armenian territory. The
problem of other territories is the problem of Karabagh and
Azerbaijan. In USSR times, Karabagh was under Azerbaijani
control. However, when the war started between Azerbaijan and
Karabagh, Armenia naturally helped Karabagh. The reason for the
issue’s discussion between Armenia and Azerbaijan is that Azerbaijani
side does not wish to sit at negotiations table with Karabagh.
– Are the territories or compensation from Turkey the end goal of your
Genocide accusations put to Turkey, in which you aspire to get the
support of the West and primarily USA?
– Look at the map. You can see Turkey’s geography, economy,
population, whereas Armenia is a small and poor country. Our foreign
policy agenda excludes territorial claims or compensation. We just
aspire to recognition of the Genocide by the international community
and Turkey. The events of 1915 are open genocide. The opinions of the
Turkish side differ on this issue. Let people openly discuss this
issue. We are democracies. No need to worry about Armenians’ including
this issue on the agenda of third countries. The Turks may also
conduct lobbying activity in other countries. However, Armenia has
never proposed Turkey’s recognition of the Genocide as a precondition
for normalization of relations between the two countries. The issue
may be resolved by a dialogue. Without diplomatic relations in place
what solution may be offered to this problem? When no solution is
proposed on the governmental level, the search is started through
other channels.
– Do you think Turkey will recognize the genocide for the sake of
accession to EU?
– There are two important problems in our relations with Turkey:
opening of the borders and Genocide. Recognition of the Genocide is
not a precondition for normalization of the relations but opening of
the borders is naturally essential. There can be no proper relations
between the countries with closed borders. However, the relations
between these two countries may be normalized even without Genocide
recognition. We included the problem of border opening in EU agenda,
whereas the Genocide problem is of a more general and moral nature –
EU demands solution of the problem in the future. We hope these
problems will be included on the agenda, however it will take 10-15
years. Until Turkey becomes a EU member, we cannot hope for a rapid
opening of the border with Turkey.
– Armenians, living in Turkey, do not agree with the Diaspora on the
accusations of Genocide. What side does Armenia take in this dispute?
– Naturally, Diaspora Armenians are lobbying for this issue more
actively. They are the children of Genocide victims. Their fathers
were deported to Syrian deserts, Arab countries; further on they
migrated to Europe and USA. They grew up on the Genocide stories told
by adults. However, it is not their problem in particular, but
Armenia’s in general. No difference here.
The Historians Have Nothing to Quarrel About
– Wouldn’t it be easier to find the solutions if the historians
discuss the issue first? Is it essential to include the issue on the
agenda?
– Nothing new can be mentioned on this problem. There were a number
of various works, and the events of 1915 are clearly illustrated. If
the scientists sit at a negotiation table, nobody’s opinion will be
altered. The scientists have already finished their share of work. The
Turkish government should get involved at the moment. Why are you
anxious over discussion of this issue? Such problems exist among
various countries: Japan – South Korea, South Korea – China, Japan –
USA, USA – Mexico and others. These countries discuss their historical
problems, preserving their relations – and very stable relations
indeed.
—
Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue Web Site as a
Regional Information Hub’ project. As a part of the project
web site is maintained, featuring the most
interesting publications from the press of Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest updates on
the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +3741. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +3741. .562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
February 1, 2005
Statement on Ratification of the Peace Treaty in Sudan Today, the
Parliament of Sudan unanimously ratified the agreement signed between
the government of Sudan and the Sudanese People?s Liberation
Movement. Thus, the two-decades long civil war in Sudan comes to an
end.
The ratification of the agreement between the two sides paves the way
for the drafting of an interim constitution, which foresees holding a
referendum on the independence of Southern Sudan in six years.
The MFA of the Republic of Armenia welcomes the decision of the
Sudanese authorities which is based on the principle of recognizing
the right of a people to self-determination, and expresses the hope
that the agreement signed between the sides opens a new page of peace
and prosperity in the history of Sudan.