Nathan overcomes adversity for ‘miracle’ score
North Shore Times (Wed) (Australia)
December 22, 2004 Wednesday
KNOX graduate Nathan Kemp has suffered from chronic fatigue for the
past two years but that didn’t stop him from topping the state
in visual arts, achieving Band 6 results in all but one subject,
and scoring a UAI of 97.75. “I can’t believe it, it’s a miracle,”
the excited Turramurra resident told the North Shore Times.
“I am so, so happy.
“I was diagnosed with chronic fatigue in Year 11 and the doctors said
I had to stop school and rest, so I completed my HSC over two years.
“The teachers were really supportive and they helped me a lot.” Nancy
Khederlarian came first in the state for Armenian Continuers, which
she studied at the Saturday School of Community Languages at Chatswood
High School. “I was ecstatic,” the 18-year-old said.
“Armenia as a nation has had a very hard history, so I though it was
important to respect that and give something back by appreciating
the language.”
Nancy’s brothers, Mark, 10, and Michael, 5, were over the moon for
their big sister, giving her a great big hug after she was awarded
her prize.
“I think they were happier than I was,” she said.

Legacy of former Soviet Union infects new states
The Irish Times
December 22, 2004
Journalism and politics are the most dangerous jobs in the former
Soviet Union, writes Seamus Martin.
The ravaged face of Viktor Yushchenko has been the iconic image of
Ukraine’s electoral process. Poisoned with dioxin, Yushchenko lived to
tell the tale and have his case proven by medical tests in a Vienna
hospital. Others, a large number of them journalists in eastern and
central Europe, have not been so lucky.
Yuri Petrovich Shchekochikhin, like Yushchenko, fell ill at a
crucial stage in his career. A deputy in the Russian parliament
for the pro-western Yabloko party, he was also deputy editor of
the investigative journal Novaya Gazeta and was intent on exposing
corruption in post-communist Russia just as he had done in the
communist era.
After a visit to the city of Ryazan in the summer of 2003, he developed
a slight fever. Suddenly his symptoms began to resemble those we
recognise from Yushchenko’s recent photographs. His face broke out
in blisters, and his skin began to peel. He died nine days later.
The official cause of death was given as Lyell’s Syndrome, or
Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, an extremely rare allergic reaction to
medication, infections or other illnesses.
His friends and colleagues believe he was poisoned. Andrei Mironov,
a Soviet-era dissident journalist and Gulag survivor, doubted from the
beginning that Shchekochikhin died from natural causes. The publication
of Yushchenko’s photographs from Kiev has confirmed his suspicions.
Journalists on Novaya Gazeta opened their own investigation, but could
not come to a definite conclusion, even though some doctors involved
in the case were convinced that poison was administered.
Their task encountered some serious obstacles. A request for samples
of Shchekochikhin’s hair for forensic analysis, while he still lived,
was refused. Thus they were unable to discover what type of toxin
may have ended his life. In an even more suspicious development,
the official file on his death was classified as secret.
I knew Yuri Shchekochikhin quite well, spoke to him frequently and
sipped his favourite Armenian brandy in his office in the Duma during
my time as Moscow correspondent of this newspaper. He spoke often of
the difficulties his colleagues on Novaya Gazeta faced as journalists
in today’s Russia.
He spoke of reporter Igor Domnikov, who was beaten to death at the
entrance to his apartment block. He believed that the intended target
was another Novaya Gazeta journalist, Oleg Sultanov, who lived in the
same building and was investigating the affairs of the giant Russian
oil company, Lukoil.
He told of Oleg Lurye, who was hospitalised after a similar attack.
He mourned the death of Larisa Yudina, the murdered Kalmyk journalist
and Yabloko member. He talked, too, of an attack made on his paper’s
office in Ryazan, and it was events in that city which may have led
to his own death.
Shchekochikhin was working on two stories in the final weeks of his
life. One concerned possible tax fraud by a furniture company called
Tri Kita, linked to members of the Federal Security Service (FSB).
The other involved the apartment bombings attributed to Chechen
terrorists which killed almost 300 people in 1999 and which swung
public opinion in favour of a second Chechen war.
A strange incident occurred at that time in Ryazan, when members of
the FSB were reported to have been seen unloading white powder in
the basement of a block of flats. The FSB admitted responsibility,
but said its agents were merely engaged in a security drill, and the
powder was innocuous.
The fate of many of those who investigated this incident has been
unusual. Mikhail Trepashkin, a former lieutenant colonel in the KGB,
was due to issue a report on the incident in October on behalf of a
parliamentary commission. He was arrested, however, and sentenced to
four years in prison for “revealing state secrets”.
Trepashkin had identified Vladimir Romanovich, a former FSB man,
from a photo-fit picture as a suspect in the apartment bombings.
Romanovich was later killed in a car crash in Cyprus.
Two of the four Duma deputies looking into the bombings have since
died: Shchekochikhin from the disputed allergy, and another who was
shot dead outside his apartment building in spring of this year.
Physical attacks have been the most common method of murdering
politicians and journalists in Russia, Ukraine and other former
Soviet republics. In the case of Georgy Gongadze, the attack was
particularly brutal. His headless body was found near Kiev, and an
examination indicated that he had been decapitated while alive.
Tape recordings were released in which a voice sounding like that of
President Leonid Kuchma called for Gongadze to be removed.
But poison has also been regarded as a legitimate weapon by the KGB,
from which both the Russian and Ukrainian intelligence services
emerged. A former FSB agent, Alexander Litvinenko, told the New York
Times earlier this month that a secret laboratory for the study of
poisons was still operated by the FSB in Moscow.
The New York Times report pointed to the death of a Russian banker,
Ivan Kiviledi, who died after his phone was dosed with poison in
1995. The Saudi combatant known as Khattab, who fought alongside
insurgents in Chechnya, is believed to have died after opening a
poisoned letter.
More recently, Anna Politkovskaya of Shchekochikhin’s Novaya Gazeta,
a persistent critic of the war in Chechnya, became unconscious on
a flight to the northern Caucasus to cover the terrorist attack on
the school in Beslan. She was told by a nurse that there had been an
attempt to poison her.
There is little doubt that close links continue between the Russian
FSB and the Ukrainian SBU, both of which were part of the KGB,
and sharing of technology between eastern European intelligence
organisations has also been well documented in the past.
While there has been evidence of political compliance in the murder of
Gongadze in Ukraine, freelance activity by current and former security
agents is seen as the most likely cause for the murders in Russia.
Journalism and politics remain the most dangerous jobs in the former
Soviet Union. To ply both trades, as Shchekochikhin did, was to make
life perilous in the extreme.
* Seamus Martin is a member of the national executive of the National
Union of Journalists and a former international editor of The Irish
Times.

Your generosity touches hearts.
by Jenny Legg (author email [email protected])
UK Newsquest Regional Press – This is Hampshire
December 22, 2004
BASINGSTOKE — HUNDREDS of needy children in eastern Europe are
celebrating an extra special Christmas – thanks to the kindness of
readers of The Basingstoke Extra.
Last month, the Gazette Newspapers offices were filled with more
than 600 brightly-decorated shoeboxes, stuffed full of presents,
from generous readers.
The boxes were donated for The Basingstoke Extra-backed Operation
Christmas Child appeal, run by charity Samaritan’s Purse.
The shoeboxes, which contained simple items such as sweets, toys
and crayons, have now been delivered to children in Serbia, Croatia
and Armenia.
A final delivery to Russia is set to take place this week as part
of the international appeal to provide more than one million of the
world’s poorest children with a Christmas present this year.
Roger Fenton, the regional manager for Samaritan’s Purse, said:
“I have distributed the presents in previous years, and the typical
reaction from a child is one of complete wonder.
“Many of them don’t usually get a gift in any form, so to have
a stranger give them a present with no strings attached is really
moving for them.
“It’s like a message of love from a different place, and they don’t
have to do anything to receive it.”
He added: “People are really generous. You can never thank them enough.
“They don’t appreciate what a huge difference it makes when they pay
a few pounds to give things like a toothbrush or hat.”
Mr Fenton said volunteers at the charity’s regional warehouse in
Eastleigh had handled about 55,000 boxes this year, and that nationally
the charity had broken the million mark.
“It looks like there are more than last year. The indications are
that there was a much greater response,” said Mr Fenton.
“I think that’s because we have become more well known, and people
find this a nice way to give. When you give a present, it’s more
personal. People like to give in that way, rather than just donating
money.”
Since 1990, Operation Christmas Child has delivered shoeboxes to
more than 23 million children in eastern Europe, in countries such
as Bosnia, Romania and Serbia.

ARMENIA ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE LOAN FROM OPEC FUND FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ArmenPress
Dec 22 2004
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 22, ARMENPRESS: United Arab Emirates-chaired OPEC
Fund for International Development announced December 21 it approved
loans worth a total of USD 157.4million at a recent board of governors
meeting in the Fund’s Vienna offices.
Jamal Nasser Lutah, the board’s chairman and assistant undersecretary
of Industry at the UAE Ministry of Finance and Industry (MOFI),
unveiled the details of the loans. He said: ‘The board has approved
17 loans totaling $157.4 million to offer credit finance for projects
in Angola, Armenia, Bosnia, Congo, Jordan, Turkey and Turkmenistan.”
The loans are for as long as 20 years. The first five years offer a
grace period and the interest payable varies from 1 per cent to 1.75
per cent.’
The announcement did not say how much Armenia is expected to get.
The Armenian finance and economy ministry said it did not discuss
yet how the loan could be used.
The OPEC Fund for International Development was established in January
1976 by the member countries of the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC). The Fund was established to support
low-income countries in their efforts to make economic and social
progress. It aims to promote cooperation between member countries of
OEPC and other developing nations.

USAID TO HELP MODERNIZE SCHOOL HEATING SYSTEMS
ArmenPress
Dec 22 2004
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 22, ARMENPRESS; The USAID has pledged to help
Armenian authorities to install modern heating systems in 15 repaired
and newly built schools. The process is set to start next February
and is supposed to be over in late autumn next year .
A deputy urban minister, Sos Kocharian, told Armenpress that the list
of schools was reconciled with the USAID, which will release $600,000
for the implementation of the project. If it proves successful
another 15 schools will be chosen for installation of the modern
heating system.
The deputy minister said the 2005 draft budget earmarks 1.3 billion
drams for repair and construction of new heating systems for schools.

The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia)
December 22, 2004 Wednesday
Final Edition
Is Turkey European enough to join the European Union?: Many Europeans
are ambivalent about Turkey joining the EU — others are downright
hostile
by Harry Sterling, Special to the Sun
Is Turkey really part of Europe? Ever since Kemal Ataturk founded
modern-day Turkey in 1923, Turkish governments have insisted Turkey
is a European nation. This, notwithstanding that Turkey now only
maintains a small territorial toehold on the European continent,
the vast majority of its land-mass being in Asia proper.
A critically important objective in Turkey’s claim to be a European
state has been its longstanding application to join the European Union.
And now, in an historically important breakthrough for Turkey,
leaders of the 25-member European Union have finally invited it to
begin accession negotiations next October 3. However, despite the
EU’s December 17 decision, many in Europe remain ambivalent about
Turkey joining, while some are adamantly opposed.
In the past, those opposed to Turkey’s membership were spared
from openly opposing it due to Turkey’s failure to meet various
EU political and other standards, particularly its commitment to
democratic principles, respect for fundamental human rights and
treatment of minorities.
Opponents’ second line of defence was Greece. Given Greece’s
never-ending territorial disputes with Turkey — they almost went to
war over a tiny islet only occupied by goats — other EU states could
count on Athens to predictably put up obstacles to Turkish membership,
saving them from explicitly voicing their own opposition.
However, following massive earthquakes in Turkey and Greece in 1999,
resulting in the two countries unexpectedly coming to the aid of each
other, the traditionally strained bilateral relations between them
improved significantly, resulting in Athens becoming a supporter
of Turkish accession as a vehicle for settling their differences
peacefully.
Greece’s turn-around left other EU states with no alternative but to
come out of the closet to voice their own concerns regarding Turkey
joining the EU.
Although skeptical EU leaders were persuaded at their December 16-17
summit in Brussels to reach a consensus on approving negotiations
with Turkey, some clearly hope Turkey’s actual membership will
never materialize due to Ankara’s failure to meet various EU trade,
economic and human rights criteria for new members during prolonged
negotiations which may last 10 to 15 years.
Governments favouring Turkish membership — such as Britain, Germany
and Italy — are convinced it will ultimately be beneficial to all
EU states. Turkey’s well-trained, half-million-strong military is
seen as providing the EU with the independent military clout it wants
to develop.
Its population of over 70 million supposedly would offer EU states
expanded trade and economic opportunities. Supporters also point out
that Turkey, a regional power in the Eastern Mediterranean, would
be an extremely useful bridge between the European Union and Middle
East nations.
(The Blair government is keen to have Turkey join as a counterweight
to the efforts of France and Germany to dominate EU affairs.)
However, some, like former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing,
are totally against Turkish membership. He claims Turkey would
undermine the shared values of the EU which binds European states
together.
A recent poll reported three-quarters of French agree with him. And
despite French president Jacques Chirac’s somewhat qualified support
for Turkish membership, several in his own ruling UMP party oppose
Turkey entering the Community.
The former leader of the Dutch Liberal Party, Frits Bolkestein,
an EU commissioner, warned of the “Islamization” of Europe should
Turkey be admitted.
Many fear Turkey’s entry would result in a wave of Turkish workers
flooding into EU states, undercutting local workers by their
willingness to work for much lower wages. Others complain Turkish
membership would siphon away EU subsidies and other assistance
currently devoted to the agricultural sectors in EU countries,
including those in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
Still others worry Turkey’s predominantly Muslim population would
create additional religious and ethnic tensions and divisions within
European countries where anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiments have
become major issues, spawning anti-immigrant and ultra-nationalist
parties in several countries.
The recent brutal murder of controversial Dutch film-maker Theo van
Gogh, allegedly by a Muslim extremist, and the ensuing attacks against
both mosques and churches it unleashed throughout the Netherlands,
is cited as an example of the dangers now presented by the clash of
different ethnic and religious cultures in Europe.
Although the EU commission has complimented the current government
of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara for its efforts to
improve his country’s commitment to democratic principles and respect
for fundamental human rights, critics maintain much more needs to
be done.
They say that while the Erdogan government has passed new laws and
regulations prohibiting torture of prisoners and constitutional changes
guaranteeing freedom of speech for the media and political dissidents,
actual implementation remains problematic.
Critics say Turkish courts continue to be lenient in cases involving
violence against women, including the so-called “honour killings” of
females by their families for allegedly violating social customs. The
controversial move by the Turkish parliament to make adultery
punishable by imprisonment, though eventually dropped under pressure
from the EU, only reinforced the views of those convinced Turkish
membership would be incompatible with the values of the European Union.
Turkey’s failure to grant full language and other rights to its
large Kurdish population has also been criticized as unacceptable to
EU states.
(In a move angering Turkey, France’s foreign minister called upon
the Turkish government to acknowledge the mass killing of Armenians
in 1915 as a “tragedy” before negotiations with the EU begin.)
Turkish human rights advocates say that the prospect of EU membership
has been crucially important in promoting political reforms in
Turkey and the forthcoming negotiations would facilitate further
democratization and respect for human rights in Turkey.
However, Turkey will also inevitably have to deal with the thorny
issues of territorial disputes with Greece and diplomatic recognition
of the Greek-Cypriot government in Cyprus. EU leaders informed Ankara
there’s no way Turkey could join the EU without recognizing Cyprus.
The latter warned it could veto Turkey’s accession unless it recognizes
it. (Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus since a 1974 coup by Greek
Cypriots attempting to have Cyprus annexed to Greece.)
In a compromise move, Turkey has agreed to sign a customs agreement
with the EU’s newest ten members (which includes Cyprus) before
October’s negotiations start, thus implicitly giving the Cypriot
government de facto recognition.
Although this formula may partially resolve the Cyprus issue, Turkey
must still contend with years of tough negotiations before it may
realize its goal of joining the European Union.
It also has to contend with the fact that several countries, including
France and Austria, say they will hold referendums on Turkey’s
membership. Any national referendums rejecting Turkey joining could
theoretically provide governments with the justification for vetoing
Turkey’s eventual accession.
And if racial and religious tensions within European societies do not
improve in coming years it could ultimately bring to an end any hope
Turkey could have of joining the European Union.
Harry Sterling, a former diplomat who served in Europe and Turkey,
is an Ottawa-based commentator.

European Report
December 22, 2004
EU/RUSSIA: EU SEEKS CLOSURE OF FIRST-GENERATION NUCLEAR REACTORS
First-generation Russian nuclear reactors are now in the EU’s
cross-hairs. A dozen plants, commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s, are
considered dangerous by the EU but Russia is keen to extend their
service. The Commission is preparing a proposal to hold a joint
working group meeting with Russia on the first-generation reactors –
with a view possibly to extending a Euratom loan to Russia for
building a new reactor at Sosnovy Bor, near St Petersburg. Though
this nuclear safety dialogue does not figure in the EU-Russia Energy
Dialogue, it may soon be included, since the EU aims to link
electricity interconnection between Russia and the Union to the
decommissioning of the first-generation reactors.
At the 1992 G7 Summit in Munich, Western leaders decided to improve
nuclear safety in Eastern countries – but there has been little
progress in Russia. Although the EU took a firm line on early closure
of first-generation reactors in Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria, it
acted differently with Russia. The 12 first generation reactors (FGR)
came on-line before the industry adopted basic safety rules. They
produce a total of 5,762 MW in Russia. They are type VVER 440-230,
RMBK 1000 or boiling-water, graphite-moderated reactor. Their
expected lifetime is 30 years, which they will reach between 2001 and
2009. However, Russia has decided to extend their service by 10 more
years. By contrast, the EU wants them shutdown.
—
The G7 Action Plan concerns Soviet reactors in Russia, Ukraine,
Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. It
encompasses: operational safety improvements; medium term
improvements following safety assessments; improvements in safety
regulation; study of modernisation options for new facilities; and
study of options to replace less safe nuclear reactors by developing
alternative energy sources and more efficient energy use.
—
Dialogue of the deaf.
Back in January 2001, the then European Commissioner for External
Relations Chris Patten and erstwhile Russian Minister for Nuclear
Power Yevgeny Adamov, agreed to set up a Joint Working Group to
analyse the situation as regards first-generation nuclear reactors,
prepare alternatives and submit proposals, with special emphasis on
the possibility of providing Euratom loans for the completion of
certain nuclear power plants currently under construction in exchange
for the closure of some FGRs.
The first meeting of the Joint Working Group was held in Brussels on
July 16, 2001. The Russians presented their energy strategy for the
2020 horizon and their plan for the development of nuclear power in
the 21st century. A second meeting, held in Moscow on April 9, 2002,
confirmed the deadlock: Russia made it clear that it did not want to
link its nuclear plant lifecycle extension programme nor its new
reactor unit construction programme to any FGR closures. While
Minatom was not interested in loans to complete power plants under
construction, the Russians were nevertheless prepared to look into
any Euratom loan offers for new reactors and the possible closure of
FGRs after the year 2010. The European Union told them quite
categorically that finance for new reactor units was not possible via
Euratom loans.
The new Russian Administration seems to be more favourably inclined
towards dialogue with the EU. In February 2004, the new Russian
Atomic Energy Ministry Rosatom, which replaced the old Minatom,
revealed during a meeting of the G8 nuclear safety study group that
it would be prepared to consider holding a new meeting of the
EU-Russia Joint Working Group on first-generation reactors. As a
result of a recent Euratom loan decision, the EU could now have some
Euro 500-600 million available for lending for nuclear plant under
construction or already in service, if it would help raise nuclear
safety standards. Of course, not all these funds can go to Russia
because there are other dangerous or obsolete reactors in Ukraine or
Armenia – where the particularly risky reactor unit at Medzamor
should have been closed down in 2004. The Commission will propose to
help finance a new reactor unit under construction at Sosnovy Bor,
near St Petersburg, where four RMBK 1000 reactors are already in
service, the first of which should have been shut down in 2003 and
the second one at the end of 2004.
New strategy.
This time, the European Commission has its work cut out for it:
Russia has been calling loudly for some time for a power grid
interconnection with EU’s owned interconnected network – a single
electricity grid stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. A study
co-financed by the European Union will shortly start listing the
technical and legal aspects of such an interconnector project. This
is one of the biggest priorities for the Russians in their energy
dialogue with the EU (see Europe Information 2917 and 2920). The
European Union, however, has always been clamouring for environmental
reciprocity, marketing opening and, above all, better nuclear safety
standards as prior conditions to any grid link-up. It will therefore
insist on FGRs being shut down before any progress can be made on
electricity network interconnection.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 22, 2004, Wednesday
KARABAKH SLIP
SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, December 20, 2004, p. 12
by Vladimir Kazimirov
Between 1992 and 1996, Ambassador Vladimir Nikolayevich Kazimirov was
the head of the Russian intermediary mission, presidential envoy to
Karabakh, and Russian chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.
All expectations notwithstanding, 2004 failed to become a
breakthrough year in the Karabakh conflict settlement. Contours of
the peace process remain indistinct. Moreover, there is nothing
anymore to which to ascribe the failure of slack negotiations,
neither elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia, nor the complexity of
domestic political situations in these countries.
There were 9 Armenian-Azerbaijani meetings this year, 3 between the
presidents and 6 between foreign ministers. Baku, Yerevan, and
Stepanakert claim to view settlement as the ultimate priority, but
these are only words. In fact, interims between the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are filled with a Cold War attitude,
information warfare, and frequently disinformation. Azerbaijan and
Armenia’s stands remain mutually exclusive, the situation is worse
than it was even under Heidar Aliyev. Heidar Aliyev only demanded
liberation of the territories beyond Karabakh, which the Armenians
occupied during the war. His son, Ilham Aliyev, calls Karabakh itself
an occupied territory. Propaganda breeds tension in the Azerbaijani
and Armenian society. Anything goes, even calls for another war.
Instead of preparing their respective societies for mutual
concessions, ruling elites cultivate intolerance towards compromises
as such. All of that leaves the impression that Baku and Yerevan
merely feign negotiations.
To a certain extent, Baku diplomacy succeeded in the last several
months to switch attention from the matter of Karabakh’s status to
the problem of occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Satisfied with the
status quo dating back to the end of the war of 1992-1994, Yerevan
missed the fact that after a decade of peaceful occupation of
Azerbaijan, the territories beyond Karabakh look like an anomaly,
particularly to whoever does not know its history. Another anomaly,
absence of the status of Karabakh, is not that irritating anymore. In
short, Azerbaijan managed to have the UN General Assembly discuss the
situation in the occupied lands. It even succeeded in prodding the
Parliamentary Assembly into action. They will listen to a report on
Karabakh in January 2005.
Official Baku constantly refers to four resolutions of the UN
Security Council passed in 1993. The documents demand an immediate
cease-fire and withdrawal of the Armenians from the occupied
territories. It is not without risk, however, because the
international community remembers how Azerbaijan was the first to
kill fulfillment of resolutions of the UN Security Council.
Azerbaijan then was bent on settling the conflict by sheer strength
of arms. Ducking all and any peace initiatives, Baku ignored
resolutions of the UN Security Council for over a year. The truce is
not a result of these resolutions; it is a consequence of
Azerbaijan’s military failures.
These days, Yerevan is making use of Azerbaijan’s past neglect of UN
resolutions and refuses to withdraw, demanding a comprehensive
solution to the problem of Karabakh. The Armenians also use the fact
that the demand of unconditional withdrawal disappeared from the last
two UN resolutions (resolutions 874 and 884 – and Baku has only
itself to blame). This too has been a subject of numerous
Armenian-Azerbaijani consultations and talks.
There are different opinions on Azerbaijan’s latest tactical moves.
Aliyev hails them as masterful, the Armenians argue among themselves,
and official Yerevan threatens that should the UN General Assembly
pass a pro-Baku resolution, it will terminate all bilateral contacts,
and begins insisting on Stepanakert’s return to negotiations as a
third party. In the meantime, the words of both sides certainly
differ from deeds. Baku no longer insists on adoption of the UN
resolution as soon as possible. Yerevan already agreed to meetings of
two ministers in Sofia and Brussels.
Sure, diplomatic activeness is better than saber-rattling, but the
activities in question should be used for the purpose of searching
for compromises and not the purpose of aggravating confrontation.
Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group find it counterproductive. Instead
of making progress, it complicated the situation and makes transition
to efficient negotiations all the more difficult. It is the height of
naivete to believe that Baku and Yerevan will honor recommendations
from the UN General Assembly or Parliamentary Assembly when they
disregard demands from the UN Security Council.
Does it help to involve in the Karabakh affair the structures that do
not know the first thing about the problem? It is common knowledge
that every involved party will use any deviation from the previous
approach to promote its own interests. Deployment of new structures
merely indicates who finds political-propagandistic exercises more
important than conflict management. Take the draft report of the
Parliamentary Assembly, for example. It is clearly biased and full of
factual errors. The cease-fire in Karabakh accomplished with Russia’s
help is mentioned as an accomplishment of the OSCE.
There is no saying even now if 2005 is going to bring peace in
Karabakh any closer. It is only clear that this is a sheer
impossibility without abandonment of mutual sincerity, and a mutual
search for compromises. It will not hurt for international
intermediaries to become more active, instead of restricting their
activities to arrangement of meetings between presidents and
ministers. After all, a new meeting on the level of presidents or
ministers cannot be regarded as a smashing success.
The Karabakh slips we are witnessing leave the impression that
intermediaries should demand from both parties that they honor
decisions of the Budapest OSCE summit and resume negotiations in all
earnest.

World Armenian Congress leader issues New Year address
ITAR-TASS News Agency
December 22, 2004 Wednesday 5:07 AM Eastern Time
MOSCOW, December 22 — Ara Abramyan, President of the World Armenian
Congress, has congratulated members of the Armenian Diaspora on the
New Year and Christmas.
In 2005 “we shall observe a grim anniversary – 90 years since the
beginning of all-out physical extermination of Armenians in Ottoman
Turkey, which claimed the lives of 1.5 million men, women and
children. The memory of the guiltless people, who died that time,
urges all Armenians throughout the world to pool efforts even more
closely in the interests of resolving the problems, which are of vital
importance for our nation: to make Turkey admit that it has committed
an especially grave crime, and to protect the interests and security
of Armenia, our historic motherland,” says the congratulatory address
issued by him.
“Spiurk (the Armenian term for “Diaspora”) is an inseparable part of
the Armenian nation. No matter where Armenians live, their thoughts
and aspirations are always with their historic motherland. Armenians
are deeply grateful to the countries, which gave shelter to them and
became their new homeland,” the document said.
“They do their best for promoting the prosperity of those countries
and continue to be their law-abiding citizens. At the same time, they
are culturally and spiritually bound with Armenia, which they regard
as a guarantor of the liquidation of consequences of the genocide,
of a just political settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and
of the preservation of the national identity of Armenians, of their
language, culture and traditions,” the document continued.
“Diversity along with the unity of thoughts and aspiration – this is
our motto. We regard it as a guarantee of our future accomplishments,”
Ara Abramyan stressed in conclusion.

NETHERLANDS DEMANDS RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
ArmenPress
Dec 22 2004
THE HAGUE, DECEMBER 22, ARMENPRESS: The Federation of the Armenian
Organizations in the Netherlands said in a press release, forwarded to
Armenpress that it was satisfied with the Dutch Parliament unanimous
adoption of a motion concerning the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide.
Armenian community of The Netherlands has been insisting that the Dutch
Parliament and the government recognize f the Armenian Genocide of
1915 for many years. Especially last year, in the run-up to and during
the Dutch presidency of EU, the 24 April Committee of the Armenian
Federation has persistently campaigned to bring the Armenian question
under the attention of the Members of Parliament and the Dutch public.
debate nearly all fractions asked the government about the absence
of the Armenian Genocide issue in the Presidency conclusions. This in
spite of commitment by among others France and the European Parliament
and also by Dutch Foreign Minister Bot himself, who ensured the
Dutch Parliament that the Armenian question has always been brought
up at the meetings with the Turkish colleagues. The majority of the
Parliament Members had asked to pay attention to this point.
In the motion adopted by the Parliament the government is asked “to
bring up the recognition of the Armenian Genocide continuously and
expressly in the dialogue with Turkey”.
This motion has been introduced by the Chairman of Christian Union
fraction Mr. Rouvoet and supported by all other political parties in
the Parliament.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress