Minister Oskanian Receives Members of Eurasia Foundation Board ofTru

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

11 October 2004

Minister Oskanian Receives Members of Eurasia Foundation Board of Trustees

On 11 October, Minister Oskanian received Eurasia Foundation’s President
Charles Maynes and members of the Board of Trustees.

The Eurasia Foundation board members noted that a 10-year grants programme
in Armenia covers almost all aspects of civil society development. The
Foundation supported numerous pioneering initiatives including development
of university curriculum for business administration, the first large scale
municipal development program, the first small enterprise lending program,
the first public dialogue campaign and pioneering support for independent
print media.

Minister Oskanian welcomed the Foundation’s mission in Armenia and
acknowledged the importance of its operations in the context of Armenia’s
transition to market economy and democratic society.

Upon request of Eurasia Foundation Board members, Minister Oskanian briefed
them on the current situation in the region focusing on the status of the
Nagorno Karabagh conflict settlement and regulation of Armenia – Turkey
relations.

Eurasia Foundation (with headquarters in Washington) operates in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Moldova, Russia and
Tajikistan. The Foundation started its program in Armenia in 1995. The key
programs implemented by the Foundation include Izmirlyan – Eurasia Small
Business Loan Program, Public Dialogue, Media Strengthening Program, South
Caucasus Cooperation Program and Caucasus Research Resource Centers.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

www.armeniaforeignministry.am

Minister Oskanian Receives Norway’s Jan Petersen

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

10 October 2004

Minister Oskanian Receives Norway’s Jan Petersen

On 10 October, Foreign Minister Oskanian received Foreign Minister
of the Kingdom of Norway, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of
the Council of Europe Jan Petersen who is on a regional visit to the
countries of the South Caucasus.

At the meeting, the parties explored issues of bilateral relations
and common interest emphasizing development of economic cooperation
and creation of a contractual outline to this end. Minister Oskanian
proposed to explore the possibility of conducting a business forum
and amplifying cultural cooperation between the two countries.

In the context of European integration, the parties discussed the
progress of democratic reforms in Armenia. The Minister briefed his
counterpart on Armenia’s steps towards fulfillment of its commitments
vis-a-vis the Council of Europe highlighting, particularly, the
constitutional reform and a new electoral code.

During the meeting, the parties exchanged views on the regional
issues. Upon Minister Petersen’s request, Minister Oskanian provided
a detailed briefing on the current stage of Nagorno Karabagh conflict
settlement process and Armenia’s position on the issue.

The parties also discussed prospects of normalizing Armenia – Turkey
relations and stressed the importance of EU’s positive contribution
to this end.

At the end of the meeting, Minister Oskanian expressed is deep
appreciation for the importance of Minister Petersen’s visit both in
the context of the European extent of Armenia’s foreign policy and in
terms of development of bilateral, political, and economic relations.

The agenda of the two-day visit includes meetings with several
high-ranking officials of Armenia. The Minister will also visit the
Holy See of St. Etchmiadzin and Yerevan’s Cilicia district with its
new houses built for the refugees. The Minister also plans to meet
with representatives of Armenia’s political parties.

www.armeniaforeignministry.am

TBILISI: “Double Standards” Line Towards Russia Harmful

“Double Standards” Line Towards Russia Harmful
by Jaba Devdariani

Civil Georgia, Georgia
Oct 11 2004

On October 7, when discussing the Russo-Georgian relations at PACE,
the Georgian delegation has pushed its usual trump-card – that
Russia is using “double standards” when dealing with separatism
and terrorism. While easy to grasp at first, the “double standards”
line obscures the key question: what kind of policy Russia should,
in Georgia’s opinion, pursue. More than that – the intuitive response
suggested by repeated use of the “double standards” line is very
wrong and harmful for Georgia’s interests in Europe.

This concept widely referred to in Georgia as a line of “double
standards” has long been arming the Georgian politicians in various
skirmishes against Russia. It dates back to the Abkhazia conflict
and then President Eduard Shevardnadze’s concept of “two Russias”
– one democratic, willing to support Georgian independence, and one
totalitarian, neo-imperialist, arming and backing the secessionist
movements. The concept became so entrenched in the vocabulary and
thinking of the Georgian politicians that they accept and repeat it
almost automatically. But maybe the new Georgian authorities need to
take a closer look.

The key element of the “double standards” policy was aptly put
by Chairperson Nino Burjanadze at the Parliamentary Assembly,
“one can not suppress separatism in Grozny [capital of Chechnya]
and support it [separatism] a few kilometres away in Georgia.” Simply
put, Russia is acting inconsistently – punishing own secessionists,
whilst helping them in Georgia. The conclusion seems evident – Russia
is bullying Georgia for trying to unite own country, but clings to
its own territorial integrity. Supposedly, what Georgia wants to say,
is that it also has the right to territorial integrity.

But let’s take the analysis one step deeper. If Georgia says Russia
applying “double standards” is bad, then, logically, it should be
applying a “single standard” out of the present two. Hence, either
support secessionism in Chechnya (an impossibility) or doing the same
in Abkhazia/South Ossetia as in Chechnya. What has been the Russian
“standard” in Chechnya? Chronic disregard to the human life, systematic
abuse of human rights, levelling of the towns and heavy-handed handling
of the civilian population, as well as the election farce to appoint
puppet presidents. Russia got slammed for this very “standard” at
the Council of Europe. Does Georgian delegation claim the right to
the same treatment of its own secessionist provinces?

The Russian delegation sees this logical inconsistency. Russian MP
Konstantin Kosachev, opposite number to the Georgian spokesperson
said “we fear that by pushing this debate on the agenda, Georgia
prepares public opinion on the eve of [Georgia’s] attempts to repeat
measures similar to those that were undertaken this summer – attempts
to forcefully resolve the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts.”
The trouble is, the European MPs may start to see the picture the same
way, unless Georgia modifies and qualifies, its “double standards”
line or abandons it altogether.

The European MPs, apart from those intimately involved in Russian
affairs, do not know much about relations between Russia and Georgia.
The European mindset is very clear when it comes to use of force – it
is not tolerated under any pretext. This is echoed by the sociological
research: most US citizens think the country may use force to solve
the disputes if necessary, while most of the Europeans reject the idea.

So, if the Georgian policy was to become clearer and more honest,
the issues of Chechnya and Abkhazia/South Ossetia should once and
forever be divorced.

In an effort to pacify Russia, Georgia has muted criticism of the
Chechen policy. This may be in country’s pragmatic interest. But
the European position of the Georgian delegation should by no means
be interpreted as acquiescing with the human rights violations in
Chechnya.

Russia is wrong in its actions in Georgia’s rebel provinces because
this violates the principle of territorial integrity of Georgia
and supports rebels. There is no “double standard.” In fact,
Russia’s policy is rather consistent in supporting secessionism
in Transdniestria, in Nagorno Karabakh, in South Ossetia and in
Abkhazia. Only in Tajikistan Russia helped to root out an Islamic
movement, which was imported from Afghanistan.

True, Russia’s internal policies toward secessionism are not consistent
with its external ones. But this is a fact of life: the countries
are in habit of differentiating internal policies from external ones
on number of issues. Russia has the sovereign right to set Chechnya
policy, just as much as Georgia has the right to set the policy
towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

What Georgian politicians have to make clear is that Georgia fully
endorses the European principles of conflict settlement and vows to
affirm the principles of Human Rights in its conflict-settlement
efforts. At the same time Georgia should be against violation of
these European principles by Russia in Chechnya or elsewhere, if only
because they represent an immediate security threat to Georgia.

There should be a single standard Georgia advocates for: affirming
the territorial integrity of the states, and affirming the human
rights for each person within these states.

Jaba Devdariani is one of the founders of Civil Georgia, currently
serving as contributing editor.

Could The ‘Deal Of The Century’ Still Live Up To Its Name?

COULD THE ‘DEAL OF THE CENTURY’ STILL LIVE UP TO ITS NAME?

CENTRAL ASIA – CAUCASUS ANALYST
Wednesday / October 06, 2004

By Pavel K. Baev

On 20 September 2004, Baku staged major celebrations, with Turkish
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
and Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvily present among the guests
of honor. The cause for the festivities was the tenth anniversary
of the first contract on delivering the Azerbaijani oil to the world
market, dubbed ‘the deal of the century’ by the late president Heydar
Aliyev. Many expectations were frustrated during this decade but
the fast-approaching inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC)
pipeline could make good on many of the old promises.

BACKGROUND: Ten years ago, on 20 September 1994, the newly-forged
consortium of several international oil companies, called
the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), signed the
agreement with the government of Azerbaijan on the development of three
oilfields: Azeri, Chirag, and Guneshli. It was BP that had worked
hardest and lobbied the smartest in preparation for this agreement,
but it had to cut in Amoco, Pennzoil, and Unocal from the U.S.,
Statoil from Norway and several minor operators (Exxon joined the
next year). What was more, seeking to secure a neutral or positive
attitude from Russia, Azerbaijan’s State Oil Company (SOCAR) invited
Lukoil to join with a decent 10% of the total package, explaining
the presence of a representative of Russia’s Ministry for Fuel and
Energy at the signing ceremony.

In those days, however, powerful bureaucrats in the Yeltsin government
were not accustomed to inform one another about their policies, so
Foreign Minister Evgeni Primakov was furious at being kept in the dark.
Three months later, the first Chechen War was unleashed and this
unfolding disaster made Moscow even more nervous and disagreeable about
Western plans for the Caspian. That started a chain of setbacks for the
AIOC: a sharp drop in oil prices, downwards re-evaluations of the oil
reserves in the Southern Caspian, disagreements about export routes,
and endless quarrels about maritime borders and even an incident
(fortunately, a single one) involving Iranian patrol crafts.

In retrospect, three key sources of troubles for the project, as well
as several other contracts signed in its wake, can be identified. The
first was the (sometimes unnecessarily rude) rejections of Iran’s
proposals to channel some of the prospective oil flows towards
the Gulf through its territory. The second was the failure to give
Russia a meaningful stake in the project, thus making a partner with
a clear interest in the success. The third and most complex Pandora
box of troubles was full of local conflicts, and the oil contracts,
excitingly promising as they were, failed to make any contribution
towards their resolution. All these shortcomings are still present
but at the start of the second decade of implementation, the situation
looks significantly more promising for AIOC and its local partners. It
is not only the unstoppable rise of oil prices that improves the
overall prospects, but also the completion in the coming months, after
many delays and complications, of the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline that could deliver as much as one million barrels of Caspian
oil a day to meet steadily growing world demand.

IMPLICATIONS: The intensity of geopolitical competition for Caspian
oil has visibly subsided since the late 1990s when Russia and the US
appeared to be at loggerheads over the control of prospective Caspian
pipelines. The present-day relative calm, however, might be misleading
and the absence of any Russian guests at the celebrations in Baku (as
well as the total silence about them in the Russian media) is a warning
signal. While the technicalities of the ten-year-old deal are mostly
resolved, its implementation is still threatened by three regional
risks and three external challenges. The former are the uncertainties
about President Ilham Aliyev’s ability to control infighting among
interest groups in Azerbaijan’s ruling elite, the desperate efforts
of President Mikhail Saakashvili to keep Georgia mobilized around his
program of reforms, and the fragility of the ten years old cease-fire
in Nagorno-Karabakh with a perfectly deadlocked peace process.

The external challenges are the disgruntlement of Iran, which seeks
for means to reduce the international pressure focused on its nuclear
program; the overstretched U.S., which is stuck in the quagmire of
Iraq and seems to have few political resources left for the Caucasus;
and the confused Russia, which seeks to expand its regional influence
but remains unable to contain the war in Chechnya. Recent Russian
efforts at re-orienting its foreign and security policies towards
the ‘war on terrorism’, triggered by the horrible tragedy in Beslan,
are particularly worrisome. The doctrine of military prevention has
been made an integral part of these efforts, and there is a visible
desire to show the ability to deliver on the promises made by Minister
of Defense Ivanov and Chief of General Staff Baluevsky. The Pankisi
Gorge in Georgia has long been identified as the most probable area
for a Russian ‘counter-terrorist’ operation, but it is entirely
possible that targets for ‘surprise attacks’ could be found further
south in Georgia and in Azerbaijan. The military base in Akhalkalaki,
Georgia, would then prove its value and the radar station in Qabala,
Azerbaijan, may provide a useful pretext – and if such a penetrating
‘counter-terrorist preventive strike’ would also prevent oil from
flowing to the West by damaging some of the BTC infrastructure,
nobody in Moscow would be greatly upset.

Such a scenario might appear entirely hypothetical, and its
repercussions could be far more serious then a post-factum exchange
of stern diplomatic notes. Every balanced assessment of immediate
consequences and further implications would warn against reckless use
of military instruments in the Caucasus, but the Russian leadership has
been departing further and further away from its trademark pragmatism
and increasingly shows the predisposition to inadequate responses in
crisis situations.

CONCLUSIONS: The renewed enthusiasm around the decade-old ‘deal of
the century’ is fueled by record-high oil prices and pinned on the
forthcoming unveiling of the high-capacity pipeline. In unstable
areas like the Caucasus, however, huge profits tend to attract
big trouble. The recent cancellation of NATO Partnership for Peace
exercises in Azerbaijan was certainly not an isolated diplomatic
incident; the lack of real partnership is certainly an open secret
but the absence of real peace needs to be addressed urgently. The
list of things that might go wrong with delivering the Caspian oil
to the world markets is excessively long, from implosion of regimes
in the South Caucasus to Russia’s aggressive move in reasserting its
dominance. The deal would have deserved the pretentious name if it
was used for promoting stability in the region. It may not be too
late to give this emphasis to the oil policies, but the currently
prevalent benign neglect is not the way to proceed.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a Senior Researcher at the
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).

The CENTRAL ASIA – CAUCASUS ANALYST is a publicaton of the Central
Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Nitze School for Advanced International
Studies, at Johns Hopkins University, in Washington, DC.

Turkey ready to fly

The Gazette (Montreal)
October 9, 2004 Saturday
Final Edition

Turkey ready to fly

NORMAN WEBSTER, Freelance

Something important happened this week, and hardly anyone here seemed
to notice. While our media were covering the U.S. election, fire in a
submarine and the shutdown of NHL hockey, the European Union in
Brussels gave the go-ahead to Turkey’s application for membership.

Mind you, it was but a first step in a journey of many leagues. The
executive of the 25-country EU has recommended only that negotiations
begin with the Turks. That decision must be endorsed by the leaders
of all the states at a crucial meeting in December.

If that hurdle is crossed, the parties will sit down sometime next
year to begin discussions likely to last a decade or more before an
agreement on full membership is signed. If it ever is. The obstacles
to final accommodation with this giant (71 million people),
grindingly poor, overwhelmingly Muslim nation remain formidable.

The Turks are not universally beloved. Valery Giscard d’Estaing,
former president of France, once said Turkish membership would mean
the death of Europe. The current president, Jacques Chirac, has
indicated France might hold a referendum on the matter. Other
European politicians are trying to shunt the Turks aside by proposing
some sort of association short of full membership.

Behind these moves lie fears about waves of poor Turks invading
European economies, not to mention Midnight Express notions about a
brutal oriental culture that does not fit with Western civilization.
Such prejudices fade during a visit to bustling, fascinating,
crumbling Istanbul, one of the great European cities, but not
everyone makes that trip.

Then there is the small matter of religion. Given the rise of
fundamentalist Islam around the world, is there truly a place within
the EU for a Muslim nation?

Ironically, Turkey’s supporters turn this into an argument for
admission. At this critical moment, they say, Turkey is treading the
path of liberal democracy, showing the way to other Islamic
countries. Acceptance into the European club would send the best
possible message.

Conversely, “a no to Turkey could have catastrophic consequences,”
argued a recent editorial in The Economist. “It would be widely
interpreted in the Muslim world as a blow against all Islam.”

A significant element in the situation is the fact Turkey is the most
secular of Islamic countries, a legacy of Kemal Ataturk, founder of
the republic in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Even
today, Turkey proscribes the head scarf for females in schools,
universities and the public service. A decade ago, it had a female
prime minister, Tansu Ciller.

The country’s current leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is an embodiment
of Turkish contradictions. A devout Muslim, he leads an Islamist
party and his wife defiantly wears a headscarf.

When I last visited Istanbul, in the late 1990s, Erdogan was the
controversial mayor of the city, charged with inciting hatred by
reciting this daring poem: “The mosques are our barracks,/the domes
our helmets,/the minarets our bayonets,/and the believers our
soldiers.” In the end, he served five months in jail and a period of
banishment from office.

Yet today, two years after his party won national election, he is a
liberalizing leader whose package of reforms greatly influenced this
week’s EU decision in Brussels.

The Erdogan program has included easing up on the Kurdish minority
(the language of these former “mountain Turks” can now be used in
schools – imagine), abolishing the death penalty and loosening
restrictions on free speech (although Human Rights Watch notes an
individual who states an Armenian genocide took place during the
First World War can still be jailed for 10 years).

The military seems more comfortable in barracks, weaned from its
predilection for coups and dictatorship. Turkey’s traditional enemy,
Greece, has become a close ally. Torture is, if not abolished, at
least officially frowned upon.

There was a flap recently when the government proposed to criminalize
adultery. European officials cried shock-horror, EU negotiations
teetered in the balance, and the proposal was shelved.

Clearly, the time is ripe for another trip to Istanbul, where you can
escape the insane traffic by sipping dark Turkish coffee beside the
Bosphorus, as boats slip by between you and Asia. With the lira now
at more than a million to a Canadian dollar, capacious pockets will
be required.

It does make the head whirl when you slap down a few million and tell
the waiter to keep the change.

Norman Webster is a former editor of The Gazette.

Russia transport minister to hold talks in Yerevan

Russia transport minister to hold talks in Yerevan
By Tigran Liloyan

ITAR-TASS News Agency
October 11, 2004 Monday

YEREVAN, October 12 — Russian Transport and Communication Minister
Igor Levitin will discuss with the state leadership of Armenia the
entire complex of bilateral relations in the political and especially
in the economic sphere.

Levitin is arriving in the Armenian capital on Tuesday for the
first time in the capacity of the head of the Russian part of the
intergovernmental commission for economic cooperation.

Levitin will meet with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Prime
Minister Andranik Margaryan. The Russian minister will hold talks
with the head of the Armenian part of the commission, Defence Minister
Serzh Sarkisyan who is also Secretary of the National Security Council
under the Armenian president.

Sources in the Armenian government told Itar-Tass Levitin will address
the opening of the international Armenian economic forum held here
by the Union of Armenians of Russia and the World Armenian Congress
with well-known Russian entrepreneur and public leader Ara Abramyan
in the head.

The visit’s programme includes a visit to the Yerevan instrument
making plant Mars, which was handed over to Russia as settlement of
Armenia’s interstate debt.

Turkish ambassador to France says religion behind Turkey’s troublejo

Turkish ambassador to France says religion behind Turkey’s trouble joining EU

AP Worldstream
Oct 11, 2004

Turkey’s ambassador to France said in an interview published Monday
that his country’s would have “no problem” joining the European Union
if it were Christian and that its Muslim heritage is the real issue
behind the current debate.

“The real motive for this reticence, especially in France, is
religion,” Uluc Ozulker told the daily Le Parisien. “If Turkey were
Christian, there would be no problem. But, voila, we are a Muslim
country.”

The ambassador noted that Turkey is a secular state and has been for
more than eight decades since the nation’s founding father, Mustafa
Kemal Ataturk, instituted reforms.

Ozulker spoke as debate rose in France over Turkey’s eventual
membership in the European Union, which currently counts 25 members.

President Jacques Chirac reiterated on Sunday that “it is the French
people who will have the last word,” a reference to his plan for
France to hold a referendum on the subject. That could be a potentially
fatal blow to Turkey’s aspirations since EU members must unanimously
approve any nation’s application for membership.

Chirac supports Turkey’s membership but thinks it will take up to 15
years for it to join.

The French parliament is to debate the issue before the EU summit
Dec. 17 when leaders are to finalize an initial approval of membership
talks.

Ozulker said Europe “is not a Christian enclave” and Turkey’s joining
the EU “will not denature Europe” despite its some 70 million-strong
population.

“We share the same democratic values as the 25,” he said, adding that
Turkey is already part of the customs union.

Turkey has carried out some needed reforms such as abolishing the
death penalty and cutting back the power of the military in politics.

Asked if Turkey would recognize the Armenian genocide, the ambassador
said that it has yet to be proven.

“It’s up to international and impartial historians to meet and decide,”
he said. “We will accept the results of their work.”

Reviews

Reviews

Irish Times
Oct 11, 2004

A review of what is happening in the world of the arts.

Kazazyan, Finucane, RTE NSO/Brophy

NCH, Dublin

Borodin – Prince Igor Overture

Tchaikovsky – Violin Concerto

Stravinsky – Three Pieces for solo clarinet

Stravinsky – Symphony in E flat

Although the young Igor Stravinsky didn’t pursue a course at the St
Petersburg Conservatory, his private studies under Rimsky-Korsakov followed the
conservatory pattern.

At the beginning he wrote a piano sonata, which late in life he described as
having been “fortunately lost,” although it had in fact survived, and was
published in 1973, just two years after his death.

At the end was a symphony, the formal Op. 1, in which he followed the models
laid down by his teacher and showed a clear mastery of a style of Russian
music that he was very rapidly going to put behind him. Yet he clearly retained a
fondness for it, and in 1966, at the age of 83, he made a commercial recording
of it.

For modern listeners the symphony’s most remarkable aspect is how little it
heralds the Stravinsky we have come to know and love.

It’s the evocations of Glazunov and Tchaikovsky that stand out, and only the
fleet Scherzo is at all suggestive of the deftness that the young composer
would soon be showing.

Yet though the piece is clearly derivative (Stravinsky was assiduous in
meeting the demands of a teacher he described as being “like an adopted parent”),
it also has a brio that’s not to be taken for granted in the academic models it
was following, let alone in student exercises.

David Brophy’s performance in the RTE National Symphony Orchestra’s ongoing
Stravinsky survey at the NCH on Friday took the work very much at face value.

The playing was robust and often full-blooded, although some of the tempos
sounded a bit cautious, and the finale was certainly taken too slowly to convey
the spirit of a two-in-a-bar Allegro molto.

There were no such tempo issues in Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto, where the
young Armenian violinist Haik Kazazyan (born 1982) kept things moving nicely
and mastered the virtuoso challenges with ease, and sometimes with dazzling
polish.

Yet at the same time this was a rather cool account, more calculated to
inspire admiration than stir the passions.

There was a sense of reserve also in the evening’s remaining performances.
NSO principal clarinettist had the stage to himself for a studied account of
Stravinsky’s Three Pieces for solo clarinet, and David Brophy dispensed a
clean-limbed reading of Borodin’s tuneful Prince Igor Overture.

Michael Dervan

Martin, RTECO/Wagner

Mahony Hall, The Helix, Dublin

Blacher – Paganini Variations

Rachmaninov – Paganini Rhapsody

Beethoven – Symphony No 4

The chemistry of conductors and orchestras are every bit as mysterious as
those of relationships and marriages.

One thing, however, that’s sure at the moment is that Laurent Wagner and the
RTE Concert Orchestra’s concerts at The Helix are setting new standards in
Dublin.

The programming of these concerts is mostly cautious, and the marketing of
them is bland in the extreme.

Themed series sold as “A Tale of Four Cities,” “Tales from Vienna” and
“Beethoven PLUS” are unlikely to identify themselves as exciting or essential
musical adventures either to audiences new to classical music or to listeners long
familiar with it.

That’s not to say that Wagner hasn’t been doing his bit to step, albeit
gingerly, a little bit outside RTE norms of repertoire, especially as they have
applied to the RTECO.

The inclusion of Boris Blacher’s Paganini Variations in last Saturday’s
programme, and Henri Dutilleux’s Le loup the week before make this clear.

His major contribution, however, has been quite simply the freshness of his
music-making.

And, if Saturday’s performance of Beethoven’s Fourth Symphony is anything to
go by, he is leap-frogging the RTECO right over the RTE NSO in terms of one of
the most remarkable developments of recent years, the mainstreaming of
period-performance practices in the music of the Viennese classical period.

Thierry Fischer has already taken the Ulster Orchestra well down this road,
and in Beethoven’s Fourth Symphony Wagner took a similarly refreshing approach.

He coaxed from the RTECO such a lithe, taut responsiveness that was so lean
in tone, alert in interplay, and often infectiously high-spirited, that the
orchestra was hardly recognisable as the same group that had been heard at the
NCH the previous Tuesday.

To be fair, the acoustic in the Mahony Hall at The Helix is a great help.

It’s much fuller in the bass than the NCH, and seems altogether more
accommodating of extremes of dynamic.

I’m not yet convinced, however, that it is as readily accommodating of pianos
as of the orchestra as a whole.

Philip Martin’s glittering fluency in Rachmaninov’s Paganini Rhapsody often
blended a little too fully into the orchestral texture for my taste.

Yet, apart from Martin’s reluctance to accommodate to the orchestra having
the tune in the famous 18th variation, this was a performance which traded
successfully on a kind of runaway exuberance.

It was good also to hear a representative work by Boris Blacher, one of a
group of now largely neglected generation of German composers born in the first
decade of the 20th century.

His Paganini Variations are written in a sly, witty, deftly showy style that
would make an upbeat introduction to any programme.

This they certainly did on Saturday.

Michael Dervan

Arafat condemns Israeli settlers’ attack on Armenian archbishop

Arafat condemns Israeli settlers’ attack on Armenian archbishop

Palestinian news agency Wafa web site, Gaza
10 Oct 04

to inquire about his health following an attack on him by Israeli
settlers” published by Palestinian news agency Wafa web site

Ramallah, 10 October: Yasir Arafat, PLO Executive Committee chairman
and Palestinian National Authority president, this evening held
a telephone conversation with Deputy Armenian Patriarch Archbishop
Nurhan to inquire about his health following a sinful attack on him by
a group of Israeli settlers this morning. The archbishop was assailed
as he was leading the religious procession of the Orthodox Armenians.

During the telephone conversation, the president stressed his
condemnation of this act, which is in violation of all traditions
and conventions and is a serious infringement upon the freedom of
worship and a continuation of the Israeli policy of encroaching upon
the freedom of worship and the Christian and Islamic shrines.

A group of settlers assailed the religious procession of the Orthodox
Armenians this morning. The procession set off from the Armenian
Patriarchate and passed through Hebron Gate and Suwayqiyat Allun to
reach the Christian neighbourhood where a mass was to be held at the
Church of Holy Sepulchre in the holy city of Jerusalem. They ripped
the cross off the archbishop’s chest, slapped him and threw his mitre
on the ground in an extremely aggressive way that showed disrespect
for men of religion.

About 100 AGBU Members In NKR

ABOUT 100 AGBU MEMBERS IN NKR

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
11 Oct 04

On October 8 at the meeting hall of the government about a hundred
members of the Armenian General Benevolent Union met with the NKR
president and the speaker of the National Assembly. Addressing
the guests who represent 24 countries, president Arkady Ghukassian
mentioned that the people of Karabakh won the war owing to the powerful
backing of Armenia and the Diaspora. However, the war still goes on
in the economic, cultural and finally political spheres, and in this
context the role of the Armenian Diaspora is increasingly important.
â^À^ÜIf the recognized countries can have only one ambassador in
one country, the unrecognized countries, including Karabakh may have
thousands of ambassadors. I appoint you ambassadors of Karabakh in your
countries,â^À^Ý stated Arkady Ghukassian. In the current political
situation he pointed out the importance of lobbing mentioning that
the Armenians of the Diaspora should do their best to make the
governments of their countries recognize that if they act against
Karabakh they will have to deal with the entire Armenian nation. Arkady
Ghukassian emphasized that it is not necessary that the visits of
the Diaspora Armenians to Artsakh be connected with some program,
connected with material. â^À^ÜThe people of Karabakh need to feel
that they are not alone in their struggle,â^À^Ý said the president of
NKR. Speaking about the activities of the AGBU in Karabakh, the head
of the country mentioned that during the war Stepanakert was bombed
from five directions and almost all the buildings of the town were
damaged. Today the traces of war have been removed but historic Shoushi
and thr regions of Artsakh need to be restored. â^À^ÜToday you visited
Gandzassar, as well as the far-away village of Norashen in Hadrout. You
drove both on repaired and ruined roads. You saw that Artsakh needs
your assistance,â^À^Ý mentioned A. Ghukassian. Answering the question
of Ashkhen Muradian (San Francisco) whether the reason for unsettled
areas in Karabakh is the lack of financing, the NKR president said that
both financial and human resources are needed. He mentioned that even
if all the villages are restored, people are needed to settle down
there, which in its turn requires providing certain conditions. In
this reference he mentioned that Karabakh with a state budget of 27
million dollars cannot afford to restore Shoushi, which requires 100
million dollars, the irrigation system which costs 60 million dollars,
build 60 schools in villages, repair all the roads. And in this matter
the Diaspora should have an essential role. During the meeting Arkady
Ghukassian also spoke about the necessity of propagating Karabakh
by the Armenians of the Diaspora. He mentioned that the Azerbaijani
propaganda is very active although they do not have a diaspora. At
the same time the guests emphasized that Karabakh needs to present
its problems in a proper manner. â^À^Ü Karabakh must raise the entire
Diaspora on their feet. Whereas this work is not done actively,â^À^Ý
said Ashkhen Muradian to â^À^ÜAzat Artsakhâ^À^Ý. And this despite the
fact that, as Arkady Ghukassian mentioned, NKR has representations in
the USA, Russia, France, the Near East, Australia, soon in Germany
too. Answering the question of the AGBU representative concerning
the talks for the Karabakh problem, Arkady Ghukassian noticed that
the process had been frozen in the recent years. â^À^ÜThe regular
meetings of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the visits
of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen to the region cannot substitute
for a complete negotiation process in which Nagorni Karabakh also
participated as a conflict party in the years of 1992-1997. But the
alternative to the negotiation process is the war, and Karabakh will
do its best to prevent war. We are ready to discuss any question
without preconditions,â^À^Ý said Arkady Ghukassian, emphasizing
that the Armenian side recognizes the impossibility of a decision
without compromise. Arkady Ghukassian emphasized the role of the
Diaspora in the conflict settlement saying that it is necessary to
influence through political lobbing the international community which
should recognize that the independence of Karabakh is the only fair
settlement of the confrontation. The AGBU representative in Armenia
Ashot Ghazarian thanked the NKR president for the warm welcome and
mentioned that the members of the organization already have certain
programs. Among the Armenians who visited Karabakh was also the wife
of the chairman of the AGBU V. Sedrakian.

NAIRA HAYRUMIAN. 11-10-2004

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress