Europe’s new divisions
The Economist, UK
Nov 24 2004
Nov 24th 2004
>>From The Economist Global Agenda
Russia and the European Union will spend much of the next few years
sparring over the countries that lie between them~Wand much else
besides.
LEADERS from the European Union and Russia will come together for a
summit in The Hague on Thursday November 25th. Originally scheduled
for two weeks earlier, the meeting was postponed because the new
European Commission had not yet been approved. Those taking part this
week could be forgiven for wishing that it had taken place as planned
on November 11th, for relations between Brussels and Moscow,
difficult in recent months, have been strained still further by
Ukraine~Rs disputed presidential election. Russia~Rs president,
Vladimir Putin, was quick to congratulate the ~Swinner~T, Viktor
Yanukovich, who favours close ties with Moscow. The EU, in contrast,
has expressed concern that widespread fraud may have robbed the
pro-western challenger, Viktor Yushchenko, of the presidency (see
article).
The EU-Russia summit is supposed to forge closer ties on the basis of
four ~Scommon spaces~T: economics, justice and humanitarian issues,
education and research, and internal and external security. As the
spat over Ukraine shows, the last of these issues is the thorniest.
What the EU calls its ~Scommon neighbourhood~T with Russia, and what
Russia has dubbed its ~Snear abroad~T~WUkraine, Belarus and Moldova;
and, further east, the Caucasian republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan and
Armenia~Whas become the cause of an almighty, unneighbourly row.
This is not the first time the EU and Russia have clashed over this
region. After Alexander Lukashenka ~Swon~T a recent election in
Belarus, and a referendum allowing him to stay on as president,
Moscow congratulated the dictator, while Brussels cried foul and
tightened its sanctions against his regime. But Ukraine is the key
battleground for influence between the EU and Russia. Bigger than
France, and with a population of almost 50m, it has long borders with
both the newly expanded Union and its former Soviet older brother.
That is why the war of words over Ukraine is being seen by some as
the biggest bust-up between the West and Russia since the Kosovo
conflict in 1999~Wperhaps even since the end of the cold war.
Russia has backed the eastward-looking Mr Yanukovich because it fears
losing Ukraine as a key ally, having already lost it as a Soviet
sibling. As Lilia Shevtsova, a Russia analyst, put it in an interview
with the Financial Times: ~SRussia still feels a phantom pain for the
loss of Ukraine~Elike a patient whose leg has been amputated.~T Moscow,
it seems, has had enough of watching its sphere of influence shrivel
since the Soviet Union~Rs collapse in 1991. One by one, its former
satellites have joined the NATO alliance, and earlier this year a
batch of them~Wincluding three former Soviet republics~Wjoined the EU.
Others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, will follow them before long.
The Union~Rs new members have toughened visa requirements for Russian
visitors and closed their borders to some Russian goods. All this has
made Russia feel vulnerable~Wand thus more prone to flex its muscles
in neighbouring countries.
Though Moscow worries about western influence in Ukraine, the
country~Rs chances of being invited to join the EU any time soon are
poor. The Union is keen to promote human rights and democracy there
(as well as in Belarus), but its Ukraine policy is muddled. This
reflects an internal split that has become more pronounced since the
former eastern-block countries joined in May.
The biggest of the new members, Poland, has long had close ties to
Ukraine (indeed, western Ukraine was briefly part of Poland after
being part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and some of it did not
rejoin Ukraine until 1945). The Poles have been lobbying hard for
Ukraine (and later Belarus) to be given a special relationship that
would lead eventually to EU membership. The longer the Union holds
out on these countries, the Poles say, the greater the chance they
will be lost for good.
But those EU countries that are geographically far removed from
Ukraine worry more about maintaining bilateral ties with Russia.
Moreover, they would rather focus on countries that are already lined
up for membership: not only the likes of Romania and Bulgaria but
also, further along, Turkey. They argue that the EU simply could not
absorb another big, poor country over the next decade or so. Hence,
despite all that Polish lobbying, there is no consensus on offering
Ukraine a date to start entry negotiations. Nor is there agreement on
starting talks with Georgia, whose ~Srose revolution~T of a year ago
installed a pro-western government, under Mikhail Saakashvili, that
would dearly love to be offered the chance to join the Brussels-based
club.
Those other battles
The fight over Ukraine comes at a time when relations between the EU
and Russia are already plumbing post-Soviet depths. It is true that
the two have forged strong economic ties: just over half of Russia~Rs
exports go to the enlarged Union, which in turn is heavily dependent
on Russian oil and gas. But, on a political level, trust has been
eroding. Brussels is worried that, as a European Commission policy
paper put it earlier this year, some Russian practices ~Srun counter
to universal and European values~T. It has problems with Russian
democracy, or rather the lack of it (the most recent parliamentary
and presidential elections were riddled with irregularities) and
worries that political reforms announced in the wake of the Beslan
siege represent a step back towards dictatorship. The new, central
European members of the EU are calling for a hard line against
Moscow: they want to see their former master challenged and
contained.
Russia, for its part, complains about being left out in the cold. It
resents not being informed about EU positions~Won everything from
immigration to drug trafficking~Wuntil it is too late to influence
them, and wants new joint bodies that will give it a seat at the
table. It also wants Europe~Rs governments to be more sensitive to
Russia~Rs internal concerns: Russian officials fumed when the Dutch
foreign minister accused the authorities of botching the rescue
operation in Beslan. And there is anger that some in the EU portray
Russia~Rs interest in countries to its west, such as Ukraine, as
dangerous. Russian commentators have taken to talking about
~SRussophobia~T in Brussels.
The result is that Russia is once again driving hard bargains. It is
less interested in friendship than in commercial and diplomatic
gains. Thus, it brought smiles to faces in Brussels by ratifying the
Kyoto treaty on climate change recently, but it did so only after
securing EU backing for Russian membership of the World Trade
Organisation and a host of other economic goodies. Were Russia~Rs grip
on Ukraine now to be loosened by the EU, among others, it might only
be encouraged to fight its corner more vigorously in future, in both
politics and economics. Expect tetchiness all round in The Hague.

The Economist, UK
Nov 24 2004
Is Ukraine set for conflict or compromise?
Nov 24th 2004
>>From The Economist Global Agenda
Supporters of Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s opposition presidential
candidate, have continued to protest against alleged fraud in Sunday’s
election. But the country’s electoral commission has declared the
official candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, the winner. What happens now
is unclear.
HUGE protests continued in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, for a third day on
Wednesday November 24th, after a deeply flawed presidential election
which the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, says he would have
won but for widespread balloting fraud by supporters of the official
candidate, Viktor Yanukovich. Thousands of Mr Yushchenko’s supporters,
dressed in orange, his campaign colour, continued to chant his name
in the main square, while hundreds of Mr Yanukovich’s backers, and
riot police, surrounded the electoral commission’s headquarters. The
commission rejected demands by opposition parliamentarians to
delay announcing the results until the irregularities had been
investigated. It declared Mr Yanukovich the winner, by three percentage
points – whereas exit polls had predicted a clear victory for Mr
Yushchenko. The immediate questions now are whether the opposition can
maintain the momentum of its protests; and whether they will continue
to be peaceful – or if bloody clashes with the security forces and
the official candidate’s supporters will now follow.
In an inconclusive emergency session of the parliament on Tuesday,
Mr Yushchenko had declared himself the rightful winner and had even
sworn the presidential oath, with his hand on a bible. Accusing Mr
Yanukovich and the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, of engineering
an electoral fraud, Mr Yushchenko said that, as a result, the country
was now “on the brink of civil conflict”. America, the European
Union and other international observers have strongly criticised
the irregularities in the poll, which reportedly included widespread
multiple voting using absentee ballots. Both the United States and
the EU have warned of serious consequences for their relations with
Ukraine if the irregularities are not properly investigated.
Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has been backing Mr Yanukovich,
who favours maintaining Ukraine’s traditional ties to Moscow,
whereas Mr Yushchenko is keen on joining the EU and NATO. At first,
Mr Putin rang his candidate to congratulate him on his “victory” but,
as the protests of the opposition and of the western powers grew, he
backtracked and called on both candidates to act within the law. Mr
Kuchma stayed silent until Tuesday night, when he issued a statement
calling for talks between the two sides.
The eventual outcome remains uncertain. Mr Yushchenko’s supporters
are hoping for something like the non-violent “rose revolution”
a year ago in Georgia, another former Soviet state, in which huge
popular demonstrations forced the country’s then president, Edward
Shevardnadze, to resign following dubious parliamentary elections. Mr
Yanukovich and his supporters, in turn, show no sign of backing down.
However, on Wednesday Mr Yushchenko hinted at a possible compromise,
saying that he would be prepared to stand again in a re-run of the
second round of voting between him and Mr Yanukovich.
What happens now depends on several factors. First, the strength
of ordinary Ukrainians’ feelings about the outcome – how sick they
are of the current regime and the business oligarchs who prop it up,
and how far they are prepared to go to defend Mr Yushchenko’s claims
of victory. There has been talk of a general strike and the local
authorities in Kiev and several other large cities have declared
their refusal to recognise the official results. But Ukraine is in
the middle of its bitter winter – so staying on the streets will
demand great fortitude.
The loyalty of the state bureaucracy (which recently received a big
pay rise from Mr Yanukovich, currently the country’s prime minister)
may also influence events: a number of Ukrainian diplomats around the
world have signed a document denouncing the results. In particular, it
is not yet clear how the security forces will react to the protests. On
Monday, they issued a statement promising that any lawlessness would
be put down “quickly and firmly”. But in Georgia’s revolution last
year, Mr Shevardnadze bowed to the inevitable and stepped down after
it had begun to look doubtful if his security forces would obey any
order to crush the rising pro-democracy protests. It was reported
that a mid-ranking officer in an elite Ukrainian riot-police unit
had been sacked after denouncing his superiors for issuing “illegal”
orders to use force against protesters. Meanwhile, the defence minister
has denied rumours that he sent tanks to Kiev, and asked the army to
stay calm.
International pressure may also have a significant effect on the
outcome. As well as the pressure from America and the EU, a key
determining factor will be the attitude of Mr Putin. The crisis in
Ukraine is bound to overshadow his summit with EU leaders this week
(see article) and he risks serious difficulties in his relations with
both Europe and America if he backs Mr Yanukovich in repressing the
protests. Towards the climax of the Georgian revolution last year,
Mr Putin seemed to lose patience with Mr Shevardnadze, perhaps
contributing to his downfall. Does the Russian leader’s even-handed
call for both candidates in Ukraine’s conflict to obey the law suggest
he has already begun to hedge his bets?
All along, both Russia and the West have been taking a close interest
in Ukraine’s election, not just because it is one of eastern Europe’s
largest countries, with 49m people, but because the outcome could
have important consequences for the whole region. Mr Yushchenko
presented himself as a pro-western, free-market reformer who would
clean up corruption and enforce the rule of law. Mr Yanukovich, in
contrast, stood for deepening Ukraine’s close links with Russia. If
Mr Yushchenko had gained the presidency and led Ukraine towards
becoming a westernised democracy with European-style prosperity,
voters in Russia and elsewhere in eastern Europe might have begun to
demand the same. Thus a win by Mr Yushchenko would have been a huge
blow to Mr Putin, whose attempts to exert control over former Soviet
states would be greatly diminished.
Though Mr Yushchenko is now hoping for a Georgian-style bloodless
revolution to deliver him the presidency, there are also some less
promising precedents among the former Soviet states: only two months
ago, Belarus’s president, Alexander Lukashenka, “won” a rigged
referendum to allow him to run for re-election. The EU decided this
week to tighten its sanctions against those in his government it
blames for the “fraudulent” ballot. But so far there is no sign that
Mr Lukashenka will be dislodged from power. Azerbaijan and Armenia
also held flawed elections last year: in Azerbaijan, there were
riots after the son of the incumbent president won amid widespread
intimidation and bribery, but these were violently put down; and
in Armenia, voters reacted with quiet despair at the re-election of
their president amid reports of ballot-stuffing. If Ukraine follows
these precedents, hopes for change there, and in other parts of the
former Soviet Union, may be dashed.

Eight members of Azeri pressure group detained over anti-Armenian protest
ANS TV, Baku
24 Nov 04
Excerpt from report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 24 November
[Presenter] The 58th Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly is to open in Baku tomorrow [25 November].
To recap, Armenian MPs who are due to attend the seminar are expected
to arrive in Baku tonight. The Karabakh Liberation Organization [KLO]
has started protest actions against this. KLO members are holding
their action at Heydar Aliyev international airport at the moment.
[Correspondent over video of KLO members holding black balloons with
anti-Armenian posters attached to them] KLO activists have started
untraditional protest actions against the expected visit of Armenian
MPs to Baku within the framework of the 58th Rose-Roth seminar of
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. In [Baku’s] Samad Vurgun Garden,
KLO members released into the air black balloons with posters.
[KLO Deputy Chairman Firudin Mammadov] All patriots of Azerbaijan
express their serious protest against the visit of Armenian MPs
to Baku and we insist that the government satisfy the Azerbaijani
people’s demand. Down with the people inviting Armenian MPs who have
occupied Karabakh and legally recognized it.
[Video shows people chanting this slogan and also “Karabakh or death”]
[Correspondent] Baku police tried to seize the protesters’ posters
tied up to the balloons and partially succeeded in doing so. However,
the protesters managed to release into the air the posters attached to
the black balloons also saying – Karabakh or death; Down with those
bringing Armenians to Baku; NATO, don’t support aggressor Armenia;
Aggressor Armenia should be banished from international bodies.
[Passage omitted: reported details]
Ceyhun Asgarov, Emil Babaxanov, ANS.
[Presenter] After the protest action in Samad Vurgun Garden, eight
KLO members were detained and taken to police station No 22.

Azerbaijan: Baku Tells General Assembly Of Armenian Settlement Activity
By Robert McMahon
Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Nov 24 2004
Azerbaijan’s foreign minister has urged the UN General Assembly to
adopt a resolution expressing concern over alleged Armenian settlements
in territories seized 10 years ago. Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov
told the assembly that thousands of ethnic Armenians have resettled
in Azerbaijani districts near the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. But
Armenia’s UN ambassador denied any such activities. He told the
assembly that the bid for a UN resolution could undermine an ongoing
process directed by the OSCE.
United Nations, 24 November 2004 (RFE/RL) — Azerbaijan has urged
support for a UN General Assembly resolution that calls attention
to the situation in territories captured by ethnic Armenian forces
a decade ago.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told the assembly
yesterday that Baku was seeking UN engagement because he said basic
UN humanitarian principles were at stake.
Mammadyarov said his government had become alarmed by reports of
settlement activities that could threaten the return of hundreds
of thousands of displaced Azerbaijanis to their homes in districts
near Nagorno-Karabakh.
But he also stressed the primacy of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in mediating peace talks between
Azerbaijan and Armenia.
“We do not attempt to engage the General Assembly into consideration
of the conflict resolution issues,” Mammadyarov said. “The matter is
about the problem, which impedes the process of peace negotiations and,
if continued, could lead to a humanitarian disaster.”
The foreign minister said his country had gathered credible information
about a settlement policy promoted by the Armenian government in
Azerbaijani districts adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. They include
Lachin, Kelbadjar, Zangilan, and Jabrail.
Armenia’s UN ambassador, Armen Martirosyan, denied any such policy.
But he did say that in order to address the charges, Armenia had
decided to facilitate a fact-finding team within the OSCE to assess the
situation in the territories. That is one of the requests contained
in the Azerbaijani resolution.Azerbaijan’s foreign minister said his
government had become alarmed by reports of settlement activities
that could threaten the return of hundreds of thousands of displaced
Azerbaijanis to their homes in districts near Nagorno-Karabakh.
He said Azerbaijan was trying to decouple the issue of the captured
territories from the whole group of issues discussed under the aegis
of the OSCE’s Minsk Group. A fundamental part of those talks, he said,
is the quest for self-determination by the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians.
Martirosyan said the territories are serving as a security belt around
Nagorno-Karabakh as a response to what he called the “war-mongering
rhetoric” of the Azerbaijani leadership.
“The issue of those territories cannot be resolved unless there is a
resolution on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and security guarantees
are provided,” Martirosyan said.
Turkey’s UN ambassador spoke in favor of the draft resolution,
calling it a “cry out of frustration” by Azerbaijani officials.
But U.S. representative Susan Moore, speaking on behalf of the Minsk
Group, said the Minsk process is the best forum for resolving the
dispute. She said efforts should be focused on building confidence
between the two sides and avoiding divisions in the General Assembly.
“Azerbaijan is raising specific concerns linked to the situation in
Nagorno-Karabakh,” Moore said. “We believe these concerns can be fully
addressed in the existing format. As a first step an OSCE fact-finding
mission could be considered as a means to address this issue.”
The assembly chair said the chamber would continue discussions on
the resolution at an unspecified later date.

AzerTag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Nov 24 2004
PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN ILHAM ALIYEV RECEIVED COMMANDER OF TURKEY’S
GENDARMERIE, ARMY GENERAL FEVZI TURKERI AND ACCOMPANYING DELEGATION
[November 24, 2004, 19:30:02]
On 24 November, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev
received a delegation of Turkey led by Commander of the country’s
Gendarmerie Forces, Army General Fevzi Turkeri.
Warmly greeting the guest, the Head of State expressed satisfaction
with a number of important meetings General Fevzi Turkeri had held in
Azerbaijan, and stressed the significance of further strengthening
the cooperation between the Turkish Gendarmerie Forces and Internal
Troops of Azerbaijan.
Expressing the gratitude to the Turkish Gendarmerie Forces for the
assistance provided to the Republic, President Ilham Aliyev noted
that the relations between the “One nation, two states” as was said
by national leader Heydar Aliyev are rapidly developed in all spheres.
Recalling his official visit to Turkey, the Azerbajani leader said the
meetings and document signed during that had created very favorable
conditions for further development and deepening of the bilateral
relations.
According to the President, the recent joint business forum in
Baku became a one more evidence of the very good level of economic
cooperation between Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Head of State especially
touched on the development of the two countries’ military cooperation.
“Since Azerbaijan re-gained its state independence, we have always
felt Turkey’s support in this sphere. The assistance that friendly
and brotherly Turkey provides to raise the combat training standards
in the Azerbaijan Army is of paramount significance for us. This
cooperation continues to successfully develop today”, he said.
Mentioning the huge work done in the sphere of army building in
Azerbaijan,
President Ilham Aliyev noted the socio-political stability within the
country whose foundation was laid by national leader Heydar Aliyev,
is now getting even stronger. He expressed regret, at the same time,
that the long-running negotiations to settle the hardest problem of
Azerbaijan, the conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, have
not yet brought any results.
Reinforcing of the Azerbaijan Armed Forces serves insuring peace and
stability in the region and strengthening of our country’s position
on the way of urgent and peaceful resolution of this conflict, said
the President.
Noting that the Government is taking all necessary measures to
organize the army building process on a high level, the Head of State
expressed confidence that the visit by General Fevzi Turkeri would
make a considerable contribution to the military cooperation between
Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Commander of Turkey’s Gendarmerie, Army General Fevzi Turkeri thanked
the President for the meeting and kind words saying it was a great
honor for him to visit friendly and brotherly Azerbaijan.
He said the relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan have deep
historical roots, and they are being successfully developed on the
“one nation, two states” level.
The General noted that the cooperation between the armed forces of
Turkey and Azerbaijan are strengthened day by day, and that that
between the Turkey’s Gendarmerie and Azerbaijan Internal Forces is
no exception.
I witnessed the high level of preparedness of the Azerbaijan’s Internal
Troops, and I am proud of it, he said.
General Turkeri assured the Head of State that Turkey would continue
to provide assistance and support friendly and brotherly Azerbaijan.
He also expressed confidence that the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
would be peacefully solved very soon.
General Fevzi Turkeri finnaly passed on the greetings from
Commander-in-Chief of the Turkish Armed Forces Helmi Ozkek to President
Ilham Aliyev.
The Azerbaijani President expressed his deep gratitude for the
greetings and asked the guest to convey his sincere greetings and best
wishes to Commander-in-Chief of the Turkish Armed Forces Helmi Ozkek.
Present at the meeting was Minister of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan
Ramil Usubov and Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan,
Commander of the Internal Troops, Major-General Zakir Hasanov.

PRESS RELEASE
Shahumyan-Getashen Patriotic Benevelont Association
Address: Yerevan, Armenia, Koriun Street 19/a
Contact: Eduard Balayan
Tel: (374-1) 560154
E-mail: [email protected]
23 November, 2004
Meeting with UN Resident Coordinator
Mr. Eduard Balayan, President of the Shahumyan-Getashen Benevolent
Association, met with United Nations Resident Coordinator in Armenia,
Ms. Lise Grande.
At the meeting, on November 19, Mr. Balayan, whose organization
represents the tens of thousands of Armenians who were forcibly
removed from the Shahumyan and Getashen regions of Northern Karabakh,
explained the problems and challenges facing these refugees. He
spoke specifically about the continuing uncertainty of their status
given Azerbaijan’s continuing delaying tactics in trying to achieve
a resolution of the conflict.
Mr. Balayan asked that the concerns of the refugees be transmitted
to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Ruud Lubbers who was
in Yerevan for a brief visit.

YOUTH MEETING OVER
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
24 Nov 04
On November 15-19 the representatives of youth organizations of
Armenia, as well as 11 representatives from 9 foreign countries
were visiting Artsakh. The visit was organized by the foundation
“All-Armenian Youth International Center”. The members of the
delegation met with several top officials of the republic, as
well as representatives of public organizations, journalists and
students. KARABAKH CANNOT OBEY AZERBAIJAN. The guests offered
questions on the official position of the government concerning
the Karabakh problem, talks, relationships between Karabakh and
Russia to the foreign minister of NKR Ashot Ghulian. Dwelling
upon the Artsakh movement, the situation and developments in the
country the minister emphasized that economically developed Karabakh
cannot obey the Republic of Azerbaijan where even the rights of the
citizens of Azerbaijan are violated. The representative of Serbia
was interested in Russia’s influence on the Karabakh settlement. The
foreign minister mentioned particularly that Russian influence is
present in Nagorni Karabakh like in the other countries of the South
Caucasus. “This question may be related to Azerbaijani propaganda
also, and if proceed from its statements, there are no Armenians
here and Russians fought in the Karabakh war instead of the people
of Karabakh. I think that at least your impressions must confirm that
this was not and is not the case.” According to the minister, Russia
behaved adequately in the years of the Karabakh confrontation. At that
time when our region was a so-called undiscovered point on the map for
the international community, Russia assumed the main difficulty as a
mediator in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. It was through
its direct mediation that the cease-fire was maintained in 1994. The
minister emphasized that there are wide-scale public relations
between the people of Karabakh and Russia but at the political level
the attitude of Russia towards Karabakh does not differ from that
of other countries. In answer to the question on the steps taken
towards activating the negotiation process, the minister said,
â~@~There are no enough resources for activating the negotiation
process. Generally, independent of the Karabakh conflict, the talks
cannot be the result of unilateral efforts and actions. Activation of
negotiations requires the interest of both Azerbaijan and us. Today
there is no interest on Azerbaijan’s part, and the attempts of the
past year show the settlement of the Karabakh issue is not a priority
for Azerbaijan. Instead, through propaganda and different means an
attempt is made to create the impression that Azerbaijan is really
interested. The neighbour state keeps complaining of the activity of
mediators, and on the other hand, tries to make separate points of
the problem package subject of discussion at different international
organizations. Recently an attempt was being made to discuss a similar
question at the General Assembly of the UN. Of course, we do not mind
the discussion of the problems of territories or refugees but these
cannot be considered outside the general context.” FIRST TO PREPARE
FOR FURTHER COOPERATION. During the round tables
held in
the framework of the visit an important topic of discussion was the
protests of the neighbour state against the international programs
implemented in Artsakh. This undertaking was not an exception either;
the Azerbaijanis had tried to prevent the program and the visit of
the young people to Karabakh. Foreign minister Ashot Ghulian assured
that in Karabakh no political context is attached to the visits and
meetings with guests adding that Karabakh is, indeed, interested in
the visit of young people from different countries. They will see the
developments, success and drawbacks in our republic themselves and
they will have an objective opinion on the region and our country. Of
course, the Armenian side would like Azerbaijani representatives be
included in the group as after the visit they would certainly return
home with different ideas. The foreigners were surprised at the fact
that despite the Artsakh war and the Armenian genocide the Armenian
young people still wish to cooperate with the Azerbaijanis. By
the way, before the visit the foundation “All-Armenian Youth
International Center” conducted a public opinion poll among the
youth organizations in Karabakh on cooperation between Karabakh
and Azerbaijani youth. About 40 per cent were against cooperation
with Azerbaijanis for the reason that during visits in Azerbaijan
there is no confidence for the security of visitors. The fact that
Karabakh is not recognized may, in fact, have a negative effect upon
cooperation between Karabakh and European youth organizations. As the
representative of Italy mentioned during the round table, the European
organizations will not sponsor a program where Karabakh participates as
one of the sides. In this respect it is easier to cooperate with the
youth organizations of Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine, for instance. In
answer to the question what results this visit produced in terms of
cooperation the representative of Italy said that before speaking about
cooperation it is necessary to think on how to start it. Cooperation
is possible only through a youth organization of Armenia. During the
visit the representatives of youth organizations of Artsakh came to the
conclusion that it is, first of all, necessary to undertake courses
for preparation of programs, ways of cooperation. Representatives of
certain organizations of Armenia promised to cooperate with them.
AA.
24-11-2004
–Boundary_(ID_Tqlq3dxd4McbY/Uoxbb1YQ)–

NKR President’s Meetings In California
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
24 Nov 04
The Armenian community of California supported the aspiration of
their compatriots of the eastern states of the USA to increase aid
to Nagorni Karabakh.
Like the Armenians of Boston, New York, Detroit and other cities of
the USA the Armenians of California are eager to take part actively in
the November 25 telethon aimed to raise money for the construction
of the road “North-South” which has a strategic importance for
NKR. The evidence to this is the results of the meeting of the NKR
president Arkady Ghukassian with the representatives of the Armenian
community of California where he arrived on November 19. During the
meeting with a group of Armenian businessmen and benefactors at the
town of New Port Beech, among them Levon and Zara Ghukassian, Ralf
and Savy Tufenkian, Costy and Maryann, as well as Hakob and Maria
Shirvanian told their intention of making their own contribution to
the development of Artsakh. At the same time they pointed out that the
activity of the Armenian community of the USA is directly related to
the increasing confidence in the NKR president and the democratic and
economic reforms undertaken by him. This idea was highlighted during
all the meetings of Arkady Ghukassian in America, especially during
the receptions organized by the board of chairmen of the Armenian
General Benevolent Union and the California branch of the AGBU. In
his address the director of the branch Vahe Imastunian stressed the
importance of the NKR president’s visit to the USA in promoting the
relationships between Artsakh and the Armenian community. In his
turn Ghukassian thanked them for their frank wish to help Artsakh,
and this means that hopefully this year the necessary financial
means will be obtained for finishing the construction of the road,
and next year it will be possible to start the implementation of
other important programs for the overall development of Artsakh. At
the same time he emphasized that during the upcoming telethon the
active participation of the Diaspora will show to the world once again
that they are not apart from the fate of Artsakh. Arkady and Irina
Hovhannissian also promised to participate in the telethon during
the meeting with the NKR president. During the press conference with
local Armenian journalists Arkady Ghukassian again touched upon the
social and economic development of Artsakh and the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict. “Artsakh won the war imposed on it owing to the
support of Armenia and the Diaspora,” stated the NKR president. “I am
sure that together we will achieve similar results in the economic
confrontation.” Speaking about the prospects of settlement of the
Karabakh conflict Arkady Ghukassian emphasized that it goes without
saying that Nagorni Karabakh cannot be within Azerbaijan. “We aim
to achieve the de jure recognition of Nagorni Karabakh,” stated
the NKR president. He gave a negative evaluation of the actions of
Baku authorities trying to set forth the question of the so-called
“occupied territories” for discussion at the UN and characterized
these actions as provocative steps. According to him, such steps of
Baku aggravate the already complicated Karabakh issue. The president
of NKR mentioned that the problems of territory and refugees were the
consequences of the military aggression of Azerbaijan against Nagorni
Karabakh. “The main issue of the conflict is the status of Nagorni
Karabakh,” stated Arkady Ghukassian and added that neglecting the
question of Nagorni Karabakh status renders meaningless the discussion
of all the other questions related to overcoming the consequences of
the military confrontation. On November 22 Arkady Ghukassian attended
the Sunday service at the church Saint Karapet in Hollywood served by
the archbishop of the Artsakh Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church
Parghev Martirossian. The meetings of the NKR president are continuing.
AA.
24-11-2004

SERGEY BALASANYAN DIED
A1 Plus | 13:52:35 | 24-11-2004 | Social |
Yesterday Sergey Balasanyan, Chair of “Association for Seismology and
Geophysics of Armenia” died in “Armenia” Medical Centre. On November
19 his “BMW” crashed on Ashtarak-Yerevan highway. Sergey Balasanyan
was taken to “Armenia” Medical Centre in a grave condition but doctors
didn’t manage to save his life.
We present our condolences to the relatives and friends of Sergey
Balasanyan with his tragic death.

Act on ‘never again’
By Lee Bycel
Los Angeles Daily News
Nov 24 2004
The Rwandan genocide, the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust – in the
wake of these and other catastrophes of the 20th century, we have
vowed, “Never again.” The phrase is resolute and absolute.
But it can also be empty. It prescribes nothing. In terms of action
and commitment, it is silent. And silence – to say nothing and do
nothing while the innocent perish – is genocide’s prescription.
The term “genocide” was coined exactly 60 years ago by Raphael Lemkin,
in “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe,” published in November 1944 with the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He defined the term as
“a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction
of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the
aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”
Whether the ongoing catastrophe in Darfur, Sudan, will rise (or sink)
to that definition, history will judge. It will judge our silence
as well.
I recently returned from a humanitarian mission to three refugee camps
in Chad, on the border of Darfur. These camps teem with people who have
somehow survived unfathomable suffering: husbands and fathers murdered;
wives and daughters raped; death from malaria, cholera and dysentery;
villages and lives burned to ashes. Life in the refugee camps is its
own hell, thick with the trauma and travail of those whose living eyes
can still see the dead. The camps bear witness to the darkest regions
of human degradation. There, the words “Never again” are a tragic,
empty echo.
The refugees in Chad and Darfur are abstractions when you see them
in the newspaper, but they are quite real in person, and not much
different from you and me. They happen to be victims of ethnic
cleansing and terror. They happen to have no resources. But they
yearn, as we do, for the warmth of a smile, for the touch of a caring
hand. What we consider the requirements of life are unimaginable
luxuries to them. They are desperate for our help. If only we were
as desperate to help them.
Unless the words “never again” are translated into action, their
echo is painfully hollow. Action on this scale can seem hopeless,
but we are not helpless: writing letters, making contributions,
getting involved in advocacy groups – these activities are near to
hand, and they multiply powerfully. Not everyone can give their whole
lives to such work, like the remarkable volunteers from around the
world I was privileged to meet in Chad. But that does not prevent a
more personal transformation on the part of each of us.
When we recognize that our humanity is inextricably linked to theirs,
the refugees of Darfur are no longer an abstraction that fades from
view. Awareness of their existence fosters an examination of our own.
It changes our approach to life, what we consume, what we think we
need and deserve. “Never again” is ultimately a personal challenge:
What can I do to erase Lemkin’s “genocide” from the dictionary?
Nor should we forget that “Never again” speaks to our self-interest.
Neglect of the dispossessed and disenfranchised can have devastating
consequences: political instability, deepening ethnic conflicts,
devastating famines and wars – any of which can rapidly darken our
own skies. All of humanity, the most and least fortunate alike, sleep
under the same sky, wake to the same sun, and cherish the same hopes
for their children.
“Never again” is an urgent call to each of us. Will we answer?
— Rabbi Lee Bycel, a Tarzana resident, is former dean of Hebrew
Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. He moderates leadership
seminars at The Aspen Institute.