Azer News, Azerbaijan
July 22 2004
Azerbaijan says ‘no’ to OSCE Minsk Group

The long-anticipated visit by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the
region has yielded absolutely no results, as this high-ranking group
lost even more credibility in the eyes of the Azerbaijani public. On
Thursday the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish hosted a
reception dedicated to
the co-chairs’ visit. Over 100 people were invited to the reception,
including representatives of political parties and NGOs, parliament
members, foreign ambassadors and journalists. Touching upon the Upper
Garabagh conflict, all the three co-chairs, Steven Mann of the United
States, Yuri Merzlyakov of Russia and Henry Jacolin of France,
pointed out the need for reconciliation, compromises and concessions,
without which a peace resolution would be impossible.
One of the co-chairs said that no third party will be able to resolve
the conflict and that the conflicting parties need to come to terms
on their own. The gist of all statements made by the co-chairs is
that Azerbaijan must submit to occupation, give up its demands on
restoring its territorial integrity and accept the independence of
Upper Garabagh. Addressing the meeting, former state adviser,
political scholar Vafa Guluzada said explicitly that such statements
are absolutely unacceptable, as they are aimed at compelling
Azerbaijan to relinquish its struggle for the liberation of its
territories. Guluzada told reporters after the reception that the
co-chairs are trying to blame Azerbaijan for the protracted conflict.
Azerbaijan is a victim of aggression, and instead of considering
liberation of its land, the co-chairing countries demand the country
to submit to occupation. The co-chairs are deliberately making this
blatant mistake by regarding the aggression as a conflict, Guluzada
said. The former state adviser emphasized the four resolutions,
passed by the UN Security Council on liberation of Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories. Particularly reprehensible is the position of
Russia, which is supplying arms to Armenia and has a military
cooperation agreement with this country, Guluzada said. Guluzada’s
statement caused confusion among the co-chairs, who subsequently
suggested that another speaker take the floor, but the other
participants supported Guluzada with an applause. Guluzada also said
he was confident that the goal of the meeting was to convince the
Azerbaijani public that the country must make concessions to Armenia.
Nonetheless, this attempt has failed again. The position of the OSCE
MG co-chairs has triggered a public outcry in Azerbaijan. Chairman of
the Party of National Independence of Azerbaijan (PNIA) Etibar
Mammadov said the co-chairs are making the same mistakes as before.
He said that they are not interested in a fair settlement of the
conflict and demand concessions only from Azerbaijan. Mammadov
further voiced his approval of Guluzada’s statement, saying that it
reflects the real state of affairs. “The co-chairs must understand
that neither the authorities nor the opposition of Azerbaijan will
make any concessions”, Mammadov said. Leader of Musavat Party Isa
Gambar also censured the position of OSCE MG co-chairs. He approved
of Guluzada’s statement, confirming that Azerbaijan will not make any
concessions to Armenia. Former Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov said
the co-chairs must criticize the non-constructive position of one of
the conflicting parties. As for Guluzada’s statement, it was overly
emotional, Mammadov said and added that he still agrees with some of
its parts. Another political scholar Eldar Namazov gave a negative
assessment to the co-chairs’ utterances. He said the co-chairs do not
understand the real state of affairs and that nothing has changed in
their position. Moreover, the OSCE MG is absolutely unaware of the
public opinion in Azerbaijan and this statement by Guluzada was
unexpected for the co-chairs, Namazov said. “Vafa Guluzada gave a
very harsh response”, he added.
Disappointment
In a meeting with the co-chairs on Friday, President Ilham Aliyev
expressed his dissatisfaction with the inefficient activity of the
OSCE Minsk Group. He underlined that the co-chairs are well aware of
Azerbaijan’s position stated during the meetings of Azerbaijani and
Armenian presidents and foreign ministers. Aliyev said his country
aspires to a conflict settlement within international legal norms and
noted that all conflicts should be settled this way. The President
underlined that Armenia has not honored the UN Security Council’s
four resolutions on an unconditional withdrawal of its armed forces
from the occupied lands of Azerbaijan. On the same day, the MG
co-chairs held a private meeting with Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov. Commenting on the results of the meeting, Jacolin told
journalists that it was fruitful.
UN resolutions rejected
A heated debate unfolded during a meeting of Azerbaijani Defense
Minister, Colonel General Safar Abiyev with the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs on Friday. Jacolin stated that peace talks have entered a
new stage. “If the conflicting sides do not make compromises, there
will be no progress in the Upper Garabagh conflict settlement. Any
incident occurring on the contact line of the military troops may
lead to military action.” General Abiyev underlined that Armenian
armed forces must pull out of the occupied Azerbaijani lands. “It is
necessary to comply with the UN Security Council’s four resolutions
on unconditional withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the
occupied land of Azerbaijan in order to fully settle the conflict.
Finally, the OSCE should pass a relevant decision on the matter.”
With regard to the MG co-chairs, Abiyev said that the group’s mission
is to settle the conflict and ensure that the conflicting sides come
to terms. The US co-chair Steven Mann argued that the Upper Garabagh
conflict should be solved by the governments of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, but not by the OSCE Minsk Group. He added that the co-chairs
would only assist in this. In reply to General Abiyev’s question on
the priorities for the conflict resolution and the principles the MG
proposed to the conflicting sides, the Russian co-chair Merzlyakov
said international legal norms envision a peaceful solution and
litigation as options for settling conflicts. “Today, the UN
resolutions may not be executed as they were adopted in a different
atmosphere and new versions for a conflict resolution should be
sought” Merzlyakov noted. In reply, the Minister said that the UN
resolutions are still in force. “These resolutions have already been
executed in Yugoslavia and Iraq and one day they will be applied to
the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict,” Abiyev said.
Co-chairs indifferent to public opinion
In a news conference dedicated to the results of their tour of the
region at the International Press Center of Baku on Friday, the
co-chairs failed to elaborate on the work they carried out to resolve
the Garabagh conflict. The US co-chair Mann said that they were
confident of the peaceful settlement of the Upper Garabagh conflict.
Russian co-chair Merzlyakov said all the three countries co-chairing
the OSCE MG support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and do
not recognize the independence of the “Upper Garabagh Republic”.
Unlike in a meeting with Defense Minister, Merzlyakov, touching upon
the issue of observance to the mentioned UN resolutions, said he
believes they are still in effect. Some of the resolutions on
stopping military action adopted in 1994 have been observed. As for
other regulations, for instance, one on stopping the hostilities by
the conflicting parties, the MG continues working in this direction,
Merzlyakov added. Commenting on a possible mediation by Turkey,
Merzlyakov said that this country is already playing an active role
in the Minsk Group. “We are working closely with Turkey”, he said.
The French co-chair Henry Jacolin, in his turn, noted that the peace
talks entered a new stage after Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev’s
death and Vilayat Guliyev’s dismissal from the position of Foreign
Minister. Jacolin stressed that it would take Azerbaijani and
Armenian presidents as well as foreign ministers a certain period of
time to bring their positions closer. Asked about Minsk Group’s
failure in solving the Upper Garabagh conflict, the MG co-chairs
underlined that Azerbaijan and Armenia should be blamed for this.
They declined to answer a question about the occupation of
Azerbaijani lands. Asked about the Azerbaijani public’s distrust in
the Minsk Group, Jacolin admitted that the co-chairs were not
concerned over this, as they are recognized by the Presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia. He noted that neither the UN nor the European
Union have assumed responsibility for mediating the conflict.
Unplanned meeting
Although the OSCE MG co-chairs did not plan to meet with the
leadership of the Azerbaijani community of Upper Garabagh, the
meeting took place on the insistence of the community leader Nizami
Bahmanov. Bahmanov said that if the co-chairs meet with the
separatist regime of Garabagh, they are obliged to meet with the
Azerbaijani community as well. The MG co-chairs, in turn, said that
they could not meet with the leadership of the Azerbaijani community
due to their busy schedule. Just like in the previous meetings, the
co-chairs did not come up with any concrete proposals.
>From The Editor-in-Chief
I was among those who attended the meeting of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs with the Azerbaijani public on the first day of their visit
to Baku. The Azerbaijani public came out strongly against the
statements made by the co-chairs, backing their statements with
convincing arguments. I will try to look into the reasons behind such
a harsh objection by the public. First, it was apparent that the MG
co-chairs came to Baku to impose the idea of surrender on Azerbaijan.
Second, the MG co-chairs are far from recognizing the aggression of
Armenia, a country which has occupied Azerbaijan’s lands, driven out
about one million people from Garabagh by pursuing a policy of ethnic
cleansing, destroyed ancient historical monuments and residential
areas in this region. Third, the co-chairs claim that the mentioned
UN Security Council resolutions are no longer ‘valid’, as they were
adopted in ‘different conditions’. Fourth, they call on Azerbaijan
‘to accept realities’, saying that ‘if Azerbaijan does not make any
compromises today, the conflict will not be resolved for the next 60
years’. Although the co-chairs declined to explain what compromises
should be made, it is common knowledge that Azerbaijan is expected to
give up Upper Garabagh, the city of Shusha and the Lachin District,
which is unacceptable. Neither Azerbaijani authorities nor the
opposition can agree to sign such an unfair and disgraceful peace
agreement… It is amazing that Russian co-chair Merzlyakov expressed
conflicting opinions on the same issue in various meetings. These
utterances are not accidental and reflect the policy Russia is
pursuing in the region. It is common knowledge that Russia, a
mastermind of conflicts ongoing in South Caucasus, is not interested
in their settlement. Besides, Russia is still able to keep the two
countries under pressure using the Garabagh problem. I am amazed that
the United States, a superpower, which is, contrary to Russia,
interested in establishing stability in the region, is taking a
passive stance on the issue and following Russia’s path

Azer News, Azerbaijan
July 22 2004
President Aliyev satisfied with development of relations with Russia

President Ilham Aliyev received Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russian
Ambassador to the Ukraine, former Prime Minister of Russia on
Thursday.
President Aliyev said he attaches a particular importance to
strengthening the ties with Russia and stressed the dynamics of
developing relations between Azerbaijan and Russia, which are
strategic partners. Chernomyrdin, in turn, voiced a hope for the
strengthening of the Russo-Azeri ties.
Although the purpose of the unexpected visit by Chernomyrdin, who is
one of Russia’s gas tycoons, to Baku is not officially disclosed,
political observers relate this to the issue of the construction of
an Iranian gas pipeline transporting gas to Europe through
Azerbaijan. Russia, which opposes Iranian gas exports to Europe, has
managed to hinder the construction of a pipeline transporting gas via
Armenia.

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
July 22 2004
Erdogan Urges Armenians to Give up Genocide Claims
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday said while on
an official visit to France that his country is willing to open its
gates to Armenia, but added that the main precondition for this is
the Armenians’ giving up the genocide claims.
“The Armenian Diaspora is making a mistake by keeping the so-called
Armenian genocide issue on the agenda,” Erdogan said in response to a
question from a member of the French Parliament about what Turkey
thinks of the Armenian issue.
“Progress in the relationship will be difficult to achieve as long as
the [genocide] campaigns continue. The border gates will not be
opened unless the campaigns are ended,” Turkey’s daily newspaper
Zaman quoted Erdogan as saying.
The Turkish premier suggested leaving the issues of the past to
historians and looking into ways to boost cooperation between the two
countries.
`We are well aware what situation Armenia is in,’ Erdogan said,
adding that a betterment of the Turkish-Armenian relations would be
in the interests of the latter.

IN YEREVAN ARMENIAN AND GEORGIAN FOREIGN MINISTERS DISCUSSED
DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORT COMMUNICATIONS
22.07.2004 14:14
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Questions of development of roads and transport
corridors as one of the ways to progress in the South Caucasus were
discussed by Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian and his
Georgian counterpart Salome Zurabishvili during her present stay in
Yerevan. At that, as reported by the Press Service of the Foreign
Ministry of Armenia, the parties noted that by means of equal
development of communications both in East-West and North-South
directions, the Caucasus can be turned into an actual crossroad. The
Ministers exchanged views on full launching of all railways in the
region, specifically Kars-Gyumri-Tbilisi and the Abkhazian segment of
the Russia-Georgia-Armenia railway. The Armenian and Georgian
Ministers of Foreign Affairs also discussed energy provision of the
region, realization of programs with Iran. Apropos, as S. Zurabishvili
stated in an interview with RFE/RL, the idea of possible
transportation of Iranian gas to Georgia via the Iran-Armenia gas
pipeline regia, whose leadership wishes to make the region a transit
one. As noted by Zurabishvili, the Georgian authorities are ready to
consider the idea.

21 July, 2004
”Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology”
Over the last twelve years, it has become customary to refer to the
Russian military establishment as decayed, under-armed, under-trained,
and under-supplied, thereby effectively writing it off as
second-rate. Russia’s long war in Chechnya seems to reinforce the
above sentiments, and current writings and reports on the Russian
armed forces all point to the dire need for reform and financial
assistance across the board. In essence, current analysis seems to
indicate that Russia stopped being a viable competitor to the American
military sometime after 1992. The media coverage of Russian military
technological achievements has been limited to coverage of its fighter
jet crashes at international air shows, and an occasional
complimentary article on a recent Russian entrant at a military show
or exposition.
At the same time, there has been wide and detailed coverage of
American achievements in the development of numerous military
technologies, especially after the 1991 Gulf War. The United States’
military interest is concentrated on continuing the process of
revolutionizing its military affairs with new technologies and tactics
that were learned in conflicts and wars very different from the
once-possible war between the U.S. and Russia on the European plains.
Meanwhile, the Russian military is forced to make do with weapons that
should have been retired in late 1980s.
However, even in the current dire circumstances, Russia never stopped
being a powerful entity that produced state-of-the-art military
technologies — a trend that continued from its inception as a modern
state. While its army, navy and air force are in dangerously derelict
conditions, every part of the formula for Russia’s resurgence as a
military powerhouse is still in place. Russia has been consistently
fielding top-notch military technology at various international trade
shows, and has been steady in the demonstration of its capabilities.
In spite of financial and economic difficulties, Russia still produces
state-of-the-art military technologies that continue to impress the
world. One of its best achievements after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union has been its armored fighting vehicle BMP-3, which has
been chosen over Western vehicles in contracts for the United Arab
Emirates and Oman, long located in Washington’s sphere of
influence. Russia’s surface-to-air missile systems, the S-300, and its
more powerful successor, the S-400, are reported to be more potent
than American-made Patriot systems. The once-anticipated military
exercise between the Patriot and the S-300 never materialized, leaving
the Russian complex with an undisputed, yet unproven, claim of
superiority over the American system. Continuing this list is the
Kamov-50 family of military helicopters that incorporate the latest
cutting-edge technologies and tactics, making them an equal force to
the best Washington and the West has to offer.
Additional proof of the strength of Russian military technology is the
recently held joint Indo-American air force exercises, the results of
which were widely covered in the media. Modern Russian-made Su-30
fighters in service with the Indian Air Force out maneuvered
American-made F-15 planes in a majority of their engagements,
prompting U.S. Air Force General Hal Homburg to admit that Russian
technology in Indian hands has given the U.S. Air Force a “wake-up
call.” Furthermore, the Russian military establishment is continuing
to design other helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles that are on
par with the best that the West has to offer. In addition, Mexico,
long a customer of U.S. military technology, has expressed an
interest in a limited amount of Russian weapon systems.
Part of such success — limited, but nonetheless crucial to the
survival of the Russian military industry — stems from the fact that
even in these difficult times, some of Russia’s military factories and
its covert cities, once the sites of ultra-secret projects, are still
operational and continue to work on essentially the same projects as
before the demise of the Soviet Union: the development of military
technologies that are on par or better than those available in the
West. Since the American military will be fighting its future wars
against armies possessing Russian weapons — or derivatives thereof —
Washington should pay closer attention to what is happening across the
wide spaces of the Russian Federation for three reasons.
One is the simple fact that weapons export is one of the best ways for
Russia to earn much-needed hard currency. Already, Russia is the
second-largest worldwide exporter of military technology after the
United States. As reported in various magazines, journals and
periodicals, at present, Russia’s modern military technology is more
likely to be exported than supplied to its own armies due to the
existing financial constraints and limitations of Russia’s armed
forces. This has implications for America’s future combat operations
since practically all insurgent, guerrilla, breakaway or terrorist
armed formations across the globe — the very formations that the
United States will most likely face in its future wars — are fielded
with Russian weapons or its derivatives. Even if the Russian
government exercises control over the sale and export of its military
technologies, given the present derelict state of its military and
lack of proper checks and balances, its state-of-the-art technology
might end up in the wrong hands.
The second reason has to do with Russia’s growing assertiveness in its
“near abroad,” or the states of the former Soviet Union. Russia
considers these states in its rightful economic, political and
military sphere of influence, and has acted accordingly in some of the
U.S.S.R.’s former republics, such as Georgia and Armenia. This
justification is particularly applied to oil- and natural gas-rich
Central Asian states. Already, Russia is slowly growing weary of the
American military presence in that region, and is seeking to bolster
its own presence there through closer contacts and military bases. In
order for Russia to fully exercise its influence, it would have to
field a viable, high-tech military force that is capable of projecting
its strength if the need for that arises. Given the developing
competition between the United States and Russia for Central Asia, the
Russian military will have to field the above-described technologies
in order to truly protect and exercise its sphere of influence.
The third reason has to do with Russia’s current military doctrine,
which adheres to the concept of multipolarity. The articles of the
doctrine state Russia’s conviction that the social progress, stability
and international security can only be accomplished in a multipolar
world. The doctrine further states that the Russian Federation will
work towards the establishment of such a world with all the means at
its disposal. Russia cannot be one of the potential powers in this
multipolar scenario if its military lacks advanced technologies and if
it cannot be considered a state-of-the-art military force on par with
U.S. and Western armies. Therefore, it is to be expected that Russia
will attempt to field its armies with the country’s best military
achievements.
If U.S.-Indian exercises were indeed a “wake-up call,” it is
conceivable that more such lessons for the United States can
follow. While the United States currently spends more on its military
strength than all of its potential competitors combined, one only
needs to turn to history to remember that it took Russia less than two
decades to build a state-of-the-art navy at the dawn of the 18th
century, with which it took on major powers of the day and firmly
established itself as one of the world’s superpowers. While the
current state of the Russian military is far from where the Russian
leadership wants it to be, the country’s support for modern
technological developments, and its historical ability to succeed in a
short period of time in spite of internal economic weaknesses, should
not be underestimated. Russia has yet the chance and ability to
someday rival the most technologically advanced states.
Report Drafted By:
Yevgeny Bendersky
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR).

IWPR CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE
No. 243, July 21, 2004
YEREVAN BECOMING A “DESERT”
Officials begin to worry about the systematic elimination of green areas in
the Armenian capital.
By Susanna Petrosian in Yerevan
The construction of an outdoor café in a leafy spot in central Yerevan was
halted last week, in a sign that city officials are beginning to take on the
unchecked building spree that has altered the face of the Armenian capital.
The move has been widely welcomed. “It is a precedent,” said Ruben Torosian,
a prominent former member of parliament. “The fact that finally someone was
stopped from building in the green zone is a positive sign.”
Gohar Oganezova, vice-president of Armenia’s Botanical Association, told
IWPR that “this case can be seen as the first small result of our fight over
many years against construction taking place on Yerevan’s green spaces,”
Before the city authorities had time to issue their ruling, it took workers
less than a day to chop down several old trees as they began clearing space
for the café.
Samvel Danielian, who is head of the architectural and town planning
department at the mayor’s office, promised that the area would be restored
to its former state.
But it is much too late to save large parts of the capital, which have lost
their green spaces forever to a café boom of doubtful legality.
Brash-looking cafes now sprawl across the entire city, depriving local
people of parks and open spaces they used for decades.
“When they cut down all those trees, the café-owners hardly gave a thought
about the future of our children,” said pensioner Arsen Darbinian.
“All the parks in Yerevan have been built over with cafes, and there’s
nowhere for children to play or for us to relax,” said housewife Lilit
Akopian.
Since 1990, the city has lost 40 per cent of its green areas due to new
construction, according to research carried out by three organisations, the
Yerevan Public Ecological Centre, the Centre for Regional Development and
Transparency International.
Thirty-eight environmental groups have banded together to protest about the
loss of green space.
“If illegal construction of various buildings does not stop, Yerevan will
soon become a desert,” warned Armen Dovlatian, leader of the Armenia’s
Socio-Ecological Party, one of the protesting organisations.
Srbui Harutiunian, another prominent environmentalist, said land was being
degraded, landslips were increasing and Yerevan citizens were suffering from
new allergic illnesses as a result of the changes.
But Marzpet Kamalian, deputy head of the state expert commission at the
environment ministry, rejected the charges, saying that the city was not at
risk at all. “The problem of desertification cannot affect Yerevan,” he told
IWPR, asserting that only a rural landscape can turn into a desert.
At the centre of the debate are Yerevan’s Ring Boulevard and the Opera
Garden. Twelve cafes have already been built around the famous Yerevan opera
house and three more are under construction. More than 100 cafes have been
built on the Ring Boulevard, some of them made of stone, although that is
explicitly forbidden by city laws.
Grachia Muradian, who heads the city department for control over town
planning and land use, told IWPR that everything was under control and that
the mayor’s office had stopped the construction of ten cafes in green spaces
this year. Muradian said planning regulations had always been violated in
Yerevan but his office was closely monitoring the situation.
Samvel Danielian, from the same office, told IWPR that the café-owners were
used to getting round regulations by acquiring very small plots of land and
then building outwards, but new city regulations were making it harder and
harder to break the law.
Environmentalists are not impressed and say the city authorities have been
turning a blind eye to blatant infringements of the law.
Detailed reports by the Association of Investigative Journalists in Yerevan
have recorded that the mayor’s office has been closely involved in giving
the green light to building projects.
“The mechanism which the mayor’s office uses is the following: first a plot
of land of 20 cubic metres, which does not need to be sold at auction, is
allocated and then this plot is enlarged with the help of subsequent
directives and decisions,” said Edik Bagdasarian, who heads the
investigative association.
“We can’t say that the law has been broken,” Grigor Melkumian, chief advisor
to the mayor, said in response to this allegation. “All decisions by the
mayor’s office have received state registration. If the decisions were
illegal, they wouldn’t have got state registration.”
But a former mayor, Robert Nazarian, has admitted that, “ninety nine per
cent of buildings in the opera park are illegal and we did not approve those
projects”.
Narek Sarkisian, until recently chief architect for the city, also conceded
that pressure was put on him to approve construction projects. “I tried to
do everything that was within my power, but very high-up are involved and
they believe they are above the law,” said Sarkisian.
If officials at this level are not ultimately responsible, who is? Edik
Bagdasarian points the figure of blame higher up, saying that his
organisation has established that in the Ring Boulevard, the owners of cafes
include four ministers, two generals, a deputy director of the national
security service and three heads of department in the mayor’s office.
The men involved have either denied their involvement or refused to comment.
Yervand Zakharian, who has been mayor of Yerevan for just a year, has
pledged to crack down on the illegal cafes. Many people are very supportive,
but others are waiting to see what happens.
“We’ve been so much deceived that we have to follow very closely what
happens in the green zones,” said Oganezova.
—
Susanna Petrosian is a journalist with Noyan Tapan news agency.

“IF DIASPORA CEASES BRINGING UP THE ARMENIAN CAUSE WE’LL OPEN THE
BORDER-GATE”
Azg/am
22 July 2004
According to the Turkish Sabah newspaper, the PM of Turkey Ragep
Tayyip Erdogan on his official visit to France met with Herve de
Charet, presidentof the French-Turkish group. The issue of Armenia
Cause was put forward during the meeting. Erdogan said: “This is an
issue for the historians. The Armenian Diaspora makes a mistake by
keeping this issue high in its agenda. It is not beneficial for
Armenia. As long as this propaganda keeps going there will be no
perspective for the Armenian-Turkish relations. If they put an end to
this then Turkey may be willing to open the border-gate.”
By Hakob Chakrian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUBEN POGHOSIAN’S BOOK ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Azg/am
22 July 2004
The Azg Daily’s library enriched recently with Ruben Poghosianâ=80=99s
book titled “Different approaches to the Armenian Genocide”. The book
was published by the Tekeyan Cultural Center in Aleppo in 2000. This
small in size but rather interesting book consists of a prologue, 10
chapters and an epilogue. The appendix of the book presents facts from
all over the world concerning the Armenian Genocide.
It is interesting that the name of Mustafa Kemal, founder of modern
Turkey, is among those recognizing the Genocide. Famous Turkish
sociologist Taner Akcam agrees with the author saying that Kemal
accepted the fact of 800 thousand Armenians being slaughtered during
the WW I.
The preface of the book, written by Alexan Keshishian, briefly
presents the scientific and social activities of the author, stressing
his profession of lawyer and his Ph.D. at Sorbonne University in
1952. The author participated in many scientific conferences including
ones on the Armenian Genocide. He is an author of many monographs, of
more than 100 articles in Armenia, French, English and Arabian
languages. In 1960 the UN invited Ruben Poghosian to work as a judge
and then as a supreme prosecutor in Congo.
In his book Poghosian deals with such issues as Armenians and the
concept of Genocide, the official pose of the Armenian and the Turkish
governments, attitudes of the Turkish intelligentsia, approaches of
the neighboring countries, views of the foreigners, general views in
the Arabian countries and the states openly acknowledging the fact of
the Genocide. He concludes at the end: “This preview of the existing
approaches to the Armenian Genocide reveal all complexity of the
problem and consciously bring to a conclusion that we, Armenians, were
unable to unite and systemize our efforts in order to level the issue
with international problems”.
All these stress the importance of Ruben Poghosian’s work, and his
thoughts over the scientific conference dedicated to the 80-th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide are very up-to-date. The former
Armenian president Levon Ter-Petrosian and his counselor Zhirayr
Liparitian headed the above-mentioned conference. If one of them
trying to emphasize the impertinence of the Armenian Genocide said:
“Today Armenia and Turkey have a great task to overcome the historic
challenges by establishing good relations”, than the second one tried
to transform the Armenian Genocide into a “phenomenon” evading the
word “genocide”.
The author touches upon the issue on the 16-th page: “This process,
launched by Zhirayr Shalian in 1983 and carried on by Zhirayr
Liparitian was to Turkey’ s delight and was unacceptable for us, the
Armenian Diaspora”. Though Liparitian has left Armenia and
Ter-Petrosian is president no more, the American non-scientific
structures keep on benefiting from the Armenian Genocide.
It is obvious that those structures have unlimited opportunities. In
other words if they are willing the recurrence of 80-th anniversary
this year during the upcoming conference then they can put forward
another representative, in the title of “enemy of patriotism”, of the
American intelligentsia instead of Liparitian. Financial support will
be enough for such a person to find effete snobs in Armenia. In this
case the task could be considered carried out. Consequently Ruben
Poghosian’s book is not just interesting but also teaches how to learn
on our mistakes and avoid all possible fraudulent activities during
the scientific conference dedicated to the 90-th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide.
By Hakob Chakrian

Azeris picket Armenian embassy in Moscow over Karabakh
ANS TV, Baku
21 Jul 04

[Presenter] Azerbaijanis living in Moscow picketed the Armenian
embassy in Russia today. The protest was organized by the Movement for
Azerbaijan to mark the 11th anniversary of the occupation of
[Azerbaijan’s] Agdam District. The action started at 1300 Moscow time
[0900 gmt]. After that, our compatriots gathered outside the Bolshoy
Theatre and made for the Armenian embassy. We are over to Moscow
now. The chairman of the Movement for Azerbaijan, Ilqar Qasimov, is on
the line. Ilqar muallim [form of address], how did you manage to stage
the picket?
[Qasimov, captioned, on the phone] The picket passed off at a very
high level. About 50 people took part in it. They mainly demanded that
the Armenian government unequivocally express its stance on the full
implementation of the known UN resolutions [on Nagornyy Karabakh],
that Armenia stop its aggressive policy against Azerbaijan and
withdraw its occupying armed forces from Azerbaijan. We demanded that
[Armenian President] Robert Kocharyan officially apologize to the
Azerbaijani people for delivering a speech against the Azerbaijani
state and people in Strasbourg.
We invited representatives from Armenia’s official circles and mass
media to attend our protest due in Moscow on 23 [July], so that they
can express the Azerbaijani people’s resolute position to the Armenian
public. Let them tell the world public that the Azerbaijani people
will never come to terms with the occupation of their lands and that
Karabakh is Azerbaijan’s integral part.

ANDRANIK MARGARIAN: ARMENIA INTERESTED IN STABILITY IN GEORGIA
21.07.2004 18:20
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenia interested in stability in Georgia, Armenian Prime
Minster Andranik Margarian stated today at the meeting with Georgian Foreign
Minister Salome Zubarashvili, who is on visit in Yerevan at present. Head of
the Armenian government said he is satisfied with the level of bilateral
relations. During the meeting the parties also touched upon the problems of
numerous Armenian Diaspora in Georgia. A. Margarian expressed hope that the
Georgian leadership will pay special attention to the resolving of
social-economic and cultural-educational problems of Armenians residing in
Samtshke-Javakheti region of Georgia.