Slovakia refuses to recognize ‘Armenian genocide’
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Dec 8 2004
The Slovakian government has refused to approve the issue of ‘Armenian
genocide’, which was put on parliamentary discussions by this country’s
opposition, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdulla Gul has told local media.
Gul said Turkey will take all necessary steps to prevent adoption of
a decision on the issue.
Armenian news agencies reported last week that the Slovakian
parliament in its November 30 meeting passed a decision to recognize
the ‘Armenian genocide’.
The issue was approved by 69 votes and with one parliament member
abstaining, according to the reports.
The Armenian society in Slovakia stated that the country’s parliament
Speaker Pavol Hrusovsky is preparing a report on rejecting Turkey’s
admission to the European Union (EU).
In his report the Slovakian Speaker will urge all EU legislative
bodies to put pressure on Turkey to recognize the ‘Armenian genocide’.*

Neighbors Need Each Other’s Ashes
By ALI H. ASLAN
Zaman, Turkey
Dec 8 2004
Last week, when U.S. -Turkish relations were tense because of the
controversial operation in Fallujah, Turkish Ambassador to Washington
Faruk Logoglu was a guest at a live broadcast on C-Span, one of
the most respected news channels in the United States. During the
program called the “Washington Journal,” where listeners are able to
ask questions on the phone, two people brought Iraq and Fallujah to
the agenda.
While Bush administration were being criticized by the Turkish public
because of Fallujah, these American citizens put the blame on Turkey
for what is happening there. “If Turkey had allowed the U.S. 4th
Infantry Division to enter Iraq through its territory, Fallujah would
not have been the central base for insurgency and terror.”
This was not the first time I heard this argument. It is particularly
widespread in military circles. As a matter of fact, one of those who
called Ambassador Logoglu, was a former member of the 4th Infantry
Division. Logoglu tried to show his American collocutors the full part
of the glass in relations between the two countries, particularly on
Iraq. Just as his American counterparts in Turkey do…
Public diplomacy, which is aimed at explaining official policies to
peoples and creating a positive image about one’s country, is one
of the indispensable elements of international relations. However,
despite efforts by both parties since the Iraq war process, serious
difficulties among others have been experienced in the public diplomacy
aspect of U. S. -Turkish relations. The big difference of opinion on
Fallujah, constitute a dramatic example to that.
In the US public opinion, Fallujah operation is mostly portrayed as a
means of fighting against terror and securing the upcoming elections.
As for Turkey, the matter is often viewed from the angle of human
rights and civilian casualties. The differences of opinion stem mostly
from the manner which the governments and the media reflect the issues
to their publics. “Strategic partners” normally confer with their
public policies as well. The lack of a strategic partnership between
the United States and Turkey, at least on Iraq, is obvious since
reactions against Fallujah have turned into such a diplomatic crisis.
It all started when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan brought
Fallujah to the agenda, during his phone call to U. S. Vice
President Dick Cheney, to convey his congratulations over the
elections. The stunned White House was further saddened because the
phone conversation was leaked to the Turkish public. The chairman
of the Turkish Parliamentary Human Rights Investigation Commission,
Mehmet Elkatmis of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), likening
what is being done in Fallujah to “genocide,” tested the limits
of patience. Our guys had the “You cannot prevent people from
talking” approach. Americans, on the other hand, viewed the incident
as follows: Parliament is under the control of the ruling party; if
the government wishes, it could shape the discourse. Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, perhaps unaware of the scope of the problem, concurred
with Elkatmis’ remarks on his return from an overseas trip. However,
he later put reservations on the expression “genocide.” This was the
right attitude. Don’t we expect the same attitude from the U. S.
administration when the so-called Armenian genocide is brought to
the agenda in the U. S. Congress?
Today, the U. S. has the same nationalist reflexes on Iraq similar
to our sensitivities on Armenian and Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
issues. Even those who are aware of their mistakes do not like them to
be pointed out to them by putting a finger in the eye. The politicians
of both countries, in particular, should make their rightful and
democratic criticisms in a manner that would not pave the way for an
international crisis and fuel hatred. Otherwise, mutual indignations
could increase, open deep wounds in public conscience and even the
most successful public diplomacy may not be able heal them.
Besides, excessive emotional outbursts do not serve the purpose
of helping Iraq. They weaken the hands of those, already limited
in number, who defend our views in Washington. They also shake the
Americans’ trust in us more, reduce the chance that they would listen
our advice and thus correct their mistakes.
The significance Turkey gives to regional neighborhood and the empathy
it feels for the sufferings of the Iraqi people deserve appreciation;
however, whether we like it or not, we need good relations with the
United States, our possible neighbor in the foreseeable future. As
expressed in a Turkish saying, “A neighbor needs even the ashes of
a neighbor…”
–Boundary_(ID_4VabWICHUdCa+9fLiR0rQw)–

Azerbaijan Raises 2005 Defense Spending: Aliyev
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, BAKU
Agence France Presse
Dec 8 2004
Azerbaijan’s defense spending will increase by 30 percent next year
and may eventually grow by 200 percent, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev
said late Dec. 7, linking the hike to his country’s conflict with
neighboring Armenia.
“Next year, defense spending will be increased to $250 million (186
million euros), which is 30 percent more than in 2004,” Aliyev told
a cabinet meeting.
“And in the future, we will continue to increase defense spending. As
long as our land is occupied,” he added, in a reference to the disputed
territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is now under Armenian control.
“It will be (raised) by 50 percent, by 100 percent, by 200 percent,
and more,” Aliyev said.
Armenian and Azeri forces have been locked in a tense stand-off
since fighting a war in the early 1990s over the disputed territory
of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The two sides are observing a ceasefire, but cross-border shootouts
are a frequent occurrence.
Armenian troops last month shot dead an Azeri army officer along the
volatile border that separates the two warring former Soviet republics,
bringing the Azeri death toll to close to a dozen soldiers since the
start of the year.
Years of negotiations backed by the so-called Minsk group — chaired by
France, Russia and the United States and mandated by the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe — have failed to resolve
the conflict, and today no transport or communication lines link
the neighbors.
–Boundary_(ID_F3lRXgk1xcHqbsVNFKDlmw)–

Court: Bishop may sell church
By ALBERT McKEON, Telegraph Staff
[email protected]
Nashua Telegraph, NH
Dec 8 2004
Published: Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2004
NASHUA – Addressing a contentious argument surfacing throughout
American Catholicism, a judge ruled that a bishop and not parishioners
have direct control of a church.
Bishop John McCormack thus can sell St. Francis Xavier Church to the
Armenian Orthodox Church because the transaction observes restrictions
in the French Hill property’s 119-year-old deed, according to a
Hillsborough County Probate Court judge.
But former parishioners of St. Francis Xavier disagree, and hold hope
that a civil court judge will soon favor their side. The parishioners
filed a civil suit in Hillsborough County Superior Court contending
they are beneficiaries of the church, and that McCormack essentially
manages the property in trust for them.
Attorney Randall Wilbert, who represents the group of parishioners,
said the probate court ruling – handed down Nov. 23 – does not affect
his clients, and that they still await a decision in the civil court.
They believe a state law cements their rights, and that the proposed
sale defies their interests, he said.
But those involved in the potential sale, while also awaiting a
decision in the civil court, express satisfaction with the probate
ruling. McCormack, as leader of the Diocese of Manchester, has a $1
million purchase-and-sale agreement with local real estate developer
Vatche Manoukian.
Manoukian intends to donate the property to the Armenian Orthodox
Church because he has identified a potential parishioner base for the
church, his attorney, Gerald Prunier, said Tuesday. A sale, however,
is based upon the final approval of Archbishop Torkom Manoogian,
the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The matter is now
before church hierarchy, and all interested parties hope a decision
will come early next year, Prunier said.
“It’s a good use of the church,” he said.
That use was the focus of the probate argument, one initiated by the
Catholic diocese, and it also lies at the heart of the civil case.
The diocese closed the century-old Norman basilica-style building
last year and merged the parish with St. Louis de Gonzague Church.
Diocesan officials maintain the Armenian church’s use of the building
would follow the precepts of an 1885 deed granted by The Jackson Co.,
a textile manufacturer that donated the hilltop land on which the
building sits. That stipulation is the land must always hold a place
of religious observance.
“If the donor had wanted the property to be used for a Roman Catholic
church, the donor would have written that,” diocesan attorney
Ovide Lamontagne said Tuesday. “But the donor said public religious
purposes.”
Probate Court Judge Raymond Cloutier agreed, ruling that the
transaction would be in accordance with the deed. Cloutier also ruled
that McCormack holds “legal title” for the Diocese of Manchester.
“Individual parishioners of Saint Francis Xavier do not have standing
in the matter before the court as it relates to . . . the sale of
the property,” Cloutier wrote.
But Wilbert said the former parishioners, in fact, do have standing.
A legislative bill enacted in 1901 recognizes them as beneficiaries,
and the bishop who leads the diocese only holds the property in trust
on their behalf, Wilbert said. This argument was presented in the
civil case.
The issue of who has controlling interest in a church – a bishop
or parishioners – has risen to the forefront of several challenges
involving the closing of parishes throughout the country. Several
dioceses have, as part of a restructuring program, closed old churches
that have significant spiritual and sentimental value to parishioners.
St. Francis Xavier opened in 1898 after French-Canadian immigrant
mill workers funded its construction with their own nickels and
dimes. But the diocese closed the building last year and merged the
parish with St. Louis de Gonzague, citing a dwindling parishioner
base and collection coffers, and the prevailing clergy shortage.
The diocese points to a clergy-and-parishioner-driven task force
as proof that church leaders thoughtfully considered options before
selecting St. Francis and two other inner-city churches for closure.
But many St. Francis parishioners protested all efforts to close the
Chandler Street church; some of them are plaintiffs in the civil suit.
“As unfortunate, as difficult as it is for parishes to be closed and
consolidated, it’s the necessary evolution for the church,” Lamontagne
said. For that work to carry forward, the bishop must have authority
to act on behalf of parishioners, he said.
Lamontagne had noted in his probate argument that Catholic canon
law governs the organization of the church, and that a parish falls
under this jurisdiction. Parishioners “cannot and do not speak for
the parish,” he wrote.
He hopes the civil court will recognize this organizational structure.
But the parishioners hope the civil court will view the matter
differently: that state law does give them a voice.

Azerbaijan hails Karabakh talks
Interfax
Dec 8 2004
Baku. (Interfax-Azerbaijan) – The way negotiations on settling the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are being handled meets the interests of
Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev told a Cabinet session on Tuesday.
“Steps have been taken to put an end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
that I think have had a positive effect on the negotiating process.
The ways the talks are proceeding meets our interests. The fair
position of Azerbaijan has started to enjoy broader support among
international organizations. As a result, positive trends at the
negotiations have increased,” Aliyev said.
“Azerbaijan, which suffered from the conflict, is waging a “Cold War,”
if I can put it this way. And I would like to say that we have been
successful. Our propaganda campaign in international organizations and
at the bilateral level has intensified. I am confident that all this
will allow us to meet our objectives. It means that international legal
norms should be applied, all occupation troops should be withdrawn
from our territories, and the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
should be restored,” the president said.
“2004 has seen majors moves to enhance the army’s capabilities. Army
spending from the state budget will go up 30% next year. This
figure may later be increased by 50%, 100% or 200%, should it prove
necessary. Azerbaijan’s economic capabilities make this increase
possible, and Armenia, which occupied our territories, cannot compete
with us. Armenia’s budget totals $500 million today, while Azerbaijan
spends $250 million on its army,” Aliyev said.

Turkish premier showcases Turkey as a center for religions
By SUZAN FRASER
AP Worldstream
Dec 08, 2004
In a bid to showcase Turkey as a country that respects religions, Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday inaugurated a mosque, a
synagogue and church, just days before the European Union is to decide
on whether to start membership talks with the largely Muslim nation.
The side-by-side houses of worship are located in a park in the
Mediterranean resort of Belek, near Antalya, and will mainly serve
foreigners vacationing in the region. The church is partitioned into
Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox sections.
“Beyond its symbolic importance, this project gives the message of
peace and brotherhood to whole world,” Erdogan said.
European leaders will decide in a Dec. 16-17 summit whether to begin
EU accession talks with Turkey.
The 25-member bloc has expressed concern about Turkey’s treatment
of religious and ethnic minorities and has said that improved rights
for minorities are a condition for Turkish membership.
Dutch Minister for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai attended the ceremony
and urged Turkey to decrease “state intervention in worship.”
“As friends, we owe it ourselves to be critical … of each other,”
Nicolai said.
The inauguration of the mosque, church and synagogue was made possible
after Turkey changed laws that restricted the opening of houses of
worship other than mosques to boost its chances of EU membership.
Earlier this month, a nearby Protestant church that was consistently
denied permission to open finally held its first service.
Erdogan, a devout Muslim, is keen to project a positive image of the
country’s treatment of minorities. He was the first premier to visit
a chief rabbi _ visiting him shortly after suicide attacks on two
synagogues last year_ and earlier this week sent a message to Jewish
citizens for the holiday of Hanukkah.
On Sunday, Erdogan also presided over the opening of an Armenian
museum _ a rare gesture by a Turkish premier.
However, problems remain.
“Turkey’s Catholic citizens cannot claim a title of ownership on the
churches they use, let alone request permission for new ones when
there is need,” the Rev. Alphonse T. Sammut, a Vatican representative
in Turkey, said Wednesday.
Turkey is also under pressure to reopen an Orthodox theology school on
an island outside Istanbul that trained generations of church leaders,
including Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, until it was closed by
Turkish authorities in 1971.
Turkey is also locked in a dispute over the status of Bartholomew,
the Istanbul-based spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians.
Turkey has long refused to accept any international role for the
patriarch and argues the patriarch is merely the spiritual leader of
Istanbul’s dwindling Orthodox community of less than 3,000.
The EU has said “religious freedom is subject to serious limitations
as compared with European standards.”
But Erdogan has warned that EU risks being branded a “Christian club”
if it excludes Turkey.
“If the EU is not a Christian club the Turkish population, which
is Muslim, should not pose any problem,” he said in an interview
published in Italian daily La Stampa Wednesday. “We want to have
a dialogue between civilizations within the EU. Turkey will play a
fundamental role in this process.”

Le Figaro, France
08 décembre 2004
Turquie : désenclaver l’islam;
ASIE MINEURE Le débat sur l’adhésion à l’UE d’Ankara
par Robert MISRAHI
Comme tout autre problème, la question de l’entrée de la Turquie dans
l’Europe doit pouvoir être abordée sans esprit de parti. De même, il
convient d’écarter toute argumentation communautariste. Par exemple,
je suis tenté comme Juif français d’origine turque, de marquer ma
reconnaissance historique envers l’empire ottoman qui, tout au long
des siècles, sut accueillir généreusement les Juifs persécutés ou
chassés par les Espagnols, les Allemands, les Français, les Hongrois,
les Russes, etc. L’Europe chrétienne chassait ses Juifs tandis que
les Ottomans nous accueillaient et nous protégeaient. Fidèles, les
Juifs turcs parlèrent cependant le ladino (proche du castillan
classique) à côté du turc, et cela jusqu’à aujourd’hui. On peut
certes se référer à ce passé, pour honorer et souligner la relative
tolérance religieuse de l’empire ottoman, mais il est clair que cette
argumentation affective, passéiste et communautariste ne saurait être
ni décisive ni centrale. Bien au contraire, c’est à la lumière d’une
rationalité laïque que le débat doit être engagé. Il est alors
remarquable de constater que, depuis 1923, c’est-à-dire depuis la
libération et la construction de la Turquie moderne par Kemal Atatürk
dont mon père me parlait sans cesse du fond de notre misère
d’immigrés, à Paris , la Turquie est le seul pays musulman qui soit
laïque, et dont la laïcité est un principe fondateur.
Pourtant, dans un souci de critique rigoureuse, nous ne devons
engager pleinement l’argumentation positive qu’après avoir pris très
au sérieux l’argumentation négative. On ne peut, dans un article,
parcourir tous les arguments ; j’en soulignerai trois : crainte,
démographie, culture.
Spinoza avait pour devise « Caute », « méfie-toi ». Mais il affirmait
aussi : « L’homme libre n’agit jamais par ruse, mais toujours avec
loyauté. » Or je me souviens d’un ouvrage intitulé Le Livre des ruses
(Phaebus, 1970) qui, sous la direction d’un auteur libanais musulman,
rassemblait des textes littéraires ou politiques qui montraient la
présence et l’éloge de la ruse dans l’histoire de la politique arabe
; selon l’auteur, les Européens ne comprenaient pas la politique
arabe, parce qu’ils ignoraient ces textes et leurs implications. Bien
que les Turcs ne soient pas des Arabes, ce livre donne à penser. Le
monde turc est-il définitivement et totalement laïque ? Sa conversion
à la modernité laïque et démocratique est-elle sincère et durable ?
On ne peut pas ne pas poser toutes ces questions dès lors que
l’actuel gouvernement turc est explicitement islamiste. Un autre
élément de crainte concerne la Umma, l’unité de tous les musulmans du
monde et, avec eux, de tous les convertis à l’islam. Lorsque
j’enseignais (très librement) Spinoza, son humanisme et sa laïcité de
fait dans la magnifique université de Galatasaray sur le Bosphore,
les conversations amicales avec tel ou tel collègue exprimaient
souvent, à côté d’une tolérance sincère et d’un désir de dialogue,
une aspiration lointaine pour l’idée de la Umma. Une oreille
attentive peut saisir la permanence du désir de la Umma chez les
musulmans les plus éclairés. On peut alors se demander si le
militantisme musulman n’interpréterait pas l’entrée de la Turquie
dans l’Europe comme une victoire de l’Islam.
Ce qui peut accroître nos craintes est l’attitude du gouvernement
turc à propos des massacres des Arméniens. Devrionsnous être, nous
aussi, oublieux de ces massacres. A côté des craintes concernant les
intentions réelles de la Turquie, on peut évoquer des raisons plus
immédiates et objectives de s’interroger. A propos de la démographie
par exemple, ni les anticipations rassurantes des démographes ni les
assurances des philosophes politiques turcs ne sont en mesure de
répondre à nos questions. Sans y être contraints, les députés
européens peuvent toujours voter selon leurs nationalités. Et le
poids démographique de chaque pays interviendra dans les calculs de
péréquation lors du vote de certaines résolutions.
Remarquons enfin que toutes les difficultés tournent autour de la
question culturelle, qui est une question religieuse. Or la culture
de « ruse », par exemple, ne concerne que l’islam traditionnel ; et
les difficultés empiriques (démographie, richesse, pauvreté) ne sont
spécifiques de la Turquie que si l’on privilégie l’élément religieux
comme explication et source des futurs comportements du partenaire
turc. Or c’est cela même qui peut être mis en question.
L’interprétation religieuse que nous donnons de la société turque
(présente ou future) reste partielle puisqu’elle ne tient pas compte
de la laïcité de cette même société. Si l’on passe sous silence la
laïcité institutionnelle de la Turquie on se met dans l’incapacité de
saisir la situation dans sa totalité et l’on est donc conduit à mal
poser le problème. Si l’on se souvient qu’en Turquie, la laïcisation
de la société fut le fruit d’une décision politique radicale, entière
et immédiate, on se convaincra aisément que la laïcité est un acte
(et non une pesanteur ou un « trait » psychologique) : elle est donc
une possibilité constante, une constante « re-création », le fruit
d’une volonté politique à la fois ferme et efficace, toujours
renouvelable. Or il semble bien que ce soit là l’une des
caractéristiques fondamentales de la société turque contemporaine.
Evoquer la laïcité c’est privilégier l’avenir. Seule la laïcité
permet aux nations européennes de se tourner ensemble vers l’avenir,
qu’il s’agisse d’une laïcité de droit ou de fait. Pour forger et
réinventer cet avenir, l’Europe, en intégrant la Turquie, pourrait
alors s’inspirer toujours plus de ces deux grands pays désormais de
tradition laïque que sont la Turquie et la France. Le rayonnement
d’un tel ensemble serait tel qu’il influencerait la nature même des
relations de l’Europe avec l’Islam modéré. Celui-ci serait
désenclavé. Le dialogue pourrait devenir clair et amical, universel.
Non seulement, c’est tout le regard de l’Europe sur l’Islam qui
serait changé, mais encore c’est le regard de l’Islam sur lui-même
qui serait renouvelé. Aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique, il n’y a pas d’Etat
qui soit à la fois laïque de constitution et musulman de foi : avec
l’entrée de la Turquie, ce serait le cas en Europe. L’Islam ne
pourrait que s’en féliciter et se libérer de ses fantasmes
d’humiliation. Avec cette entrée de la Turquie, il y aurait aussi un
heureux effet en retour sur l’Europe elle-même. Sa laïcité de fait
serait renforcée, sinon même constituée. Car une véritable laïcité ne
concerne pas seulement le rapport d’un croyant chrétien et laïque
avec un autre croyant chrétien et laïque, mais encore le rapport d’un
laïque chrétien avec un laïque d’une autre origine religieuse : c’est
paradoxalement l’entrée de la Turquie laïque (dont la population est
musulmane) qui signerait vraiment et manifesterait la laïcité de
l’Europe institutionnelle (dont la majorité des habitants est
d’origine chrétienne).
On assisterait alors à l’instauration véritable d’une Europe laïque
et à son ouverture vers un avenir dynamique et original. En effet la
laïcité comme principe simplement négatif ne suffit pas à construire
une démocratie concrète ni une existence personnelle. Il faut ouvrir
la laïcité sur sa propre positivité : elle est une invitation à la
joie de vivre. Or sur ce point également la Turquie peut offrir à
l’Europe un précieux apport : par sa culture de la vie quotidienne
(notamment la vie stambouliote) elle peut enrichir notre réflexion
sur le bonheur et sur l’expérience que nous en avons. La culture
turque traditionnelle peut également être une source de joie :
splendeur des grandes mosquées « silhouettées » sur l’étonnant
Bosphore, poésie de la Corne d’or, richesse des manuscrits et de la
calligraphie, profondeur existentielle (comme chez Thérèse d’Avila)
des mystiques soufis, tout cela, intégré à une nation en plein
développement économique et moderniste et à un ensemble européen en
quête d’un nouveau bonheur, ne peut manquer de devenir un légitime
objet du désir. Inventrice du bonheur et de la liberté, comment
l’Europe pourrait-elle opposer un refus à la demande d’amitié des
Kurdes de Turquie en voie d’émancipation, ou des femmes turques sans
voile et sans culpabilité mais aussi sans autre défense, face à
l’intégrisme musulman, que l’institution laïque et la démocratie
européenne ? En ce qui concerne l’adhésion de la Turquie, les enjeux
positifs sont tels qu’ils justifient bien qu’on assume lucidement le
risque de l’ouverture.
* Philosophe, professeur émérite à la Sorbonne, spécialiste et
traducteur de Spinoza, lauréat du prix Humanisme 2004. Auteur de
nombreux ouvrages parmi lesquels Un Juif laïque en France, Editions
Entrelacs.
–Boundary_(ID_hbtXMnHf/xL0LpEF7MWTJQ)–

32 REFUGEE FAMILIES MOVE TO NEW APARTMENTS
ArmenPress
Dec 8 2004
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 8, ARMENPRESS: Another 32 refugee families have
moved today in new apartments built by YMCA company on funds made
available by the UNHCR Yerevan agency. The new block of flats have
24 one-room and 8 two-room apartments. Until now these families lived
in two local hostels. Another block of apartments is being built now
by the Norwegian refugee Council (NRC). It will provide another 28
families with apartments.
According to Gagik Yeganian, the head of a government-affiliated
department for refugees and migrants, the first condition for refugees’
integration is having an apartment. Until now this problem has been
solved with the help of international donor organizations. However,
the government has approved a $17 million worth program for building
apartments and cottages for refugees. When accomplished it will help
some 3,400 families to improve their housing conditions.
Yet another 19 families of refugees will get cottages in three villages
of Ararat province in 2-3 days, built by the NRC. But still 11,000
refugee families face this problem. Until now the UNHCR have built
3,500 apartments and cottages for refugees with the help of the NRC.

ARMENIAN WRESTLERS WIN SIX MEDALS
ArmenPress
Dec 8 2004
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 8, ARMENPRESS: Armenian youth Greco-Roman wrestlers
won six medals at an international competition in Norway’s Oslo.
Robert Kirakosian (50 kg), Vahram Khachatrian (54 kg) and Armen
Alexanian (63 kg) won gold medals. Three others snatched off silver
medals.

Armenia’s plans to open tourism outlets in Garabagh to fail
AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Dec 9 2004
Armenia’s intention to open tourism outlets in Upper Garabagh,
Azerbaijan’s region currently under Armenian occupation, is nothing
but nonsense, Minister for Youth, Sports and Tourism Abulfaz Garayev
told journalists.
He said that Armenia is trying to complicate the current situation.
Pointing out the low number of tourists visiting Armenia, Garayev
said that “if anyone visits Upper Garabagh, they are most likely
representatives of the Armenian Diaspora”.
The minister didn’t rule out that Armenia receives assistance
from international organizations for the development of tourism in
the occupied Azerbaijani territories. He stressed that the World
Tourism Organization has repeatedly condemned Armenia’s activities
and issued statements recognizing Upper Garabagh as an integral part
of Azerbaijan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress