Reflections on Bernard Lewis
By Hugh Fitzgerald
JihadWatch.org
June 17, 2004
Bernard Lewis is an acute scholar about many aspects of Islam; he
writes beautifully. He is well-trained in languages. He lived during
the war in Egypt. He is lionized in Turkey, and even in small shops
off Taksim Square the proprietors, when they discover a visitor
is from the United States, ask if that visitor may happen to know
“Professor Lewis.”
He has all the right enemies — the absurd Said, who knew nothing
about Islam but for some reason thought his being an Arab entitled
him to act as an expert (the footnote alone, on “thawra,” in Lewis’
“The Question of Orientalism,” is enough to delicately dismember
all of Said’s pretentions; he does not survive the essay); the
apologist Esposito, who is not fit to be mentioned at the same time
as Lewis (Esposito is an out-and-out apologist, an ignoramus, and the
producer of glossy picture-books about Islam that win the reader over,
and distract from the apologetic or vapid texts he has chosen, with
plenty of local color — venerable mosques, turbans and Iznik tulips,
the usual Mughal miniatures of hunting scenes, or Majnoun and Leyla,
an apothecary jar or two from Abbassid Baghdad, the obligatory Persian
poetry in nastaliq, and of course the Dome of the Rock — while so many
subjects, including Jihad and the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam,
are yet again ignored, or minimized to the point of disappearance.
In Lewis’ long academic career in England, he was not listened to
sufficiently by the Foreign Office, and their insulting behavior
(stemming from antisemitism) could not but affect him. He clearly
enjoys being appreciated (who does not?). He enjoys, on his visits
to the Middle East, being made much of by Turkish or Arab hosts. If
you had spent years learning, and learning well, certain languages,
and the only people who could fully appreciate your achievement were,
say, Muslim Arabs, or quasi-Muslim Turks, and if they seemed to you
to talk a good game of “moderate” Islam (in the case of the Turks, it
was meant), you too might not wish to offend those colleagues, those
friends, those hosts and patrons. Some may find it telling that Lewis
has reproduced, for both his book of translations from the Turkish,
Persian, Hebrew, and Arabic, and for his latest collection of articles,
“From Babel to Dragomans”, a photograph that shows him sitting in his
Western dress — he never stoops to the clownish indignity of going
native like the mythomane Lawrence, or St. John Philby, or dozens
of others — in the tent, or something like it, that belongs to none
other than the Hashemite Prince Hassan ibn Talal, that plummy-voiced
“dialogue-of-civilisations” apologist for Islam (the most plausible,
the most outwardly pleasing, the most subtle, and therefore the
most convincing and dangerous of such apologists); that photograph,
that desire to have that photograph used on two of his books, might
be taken simply as a way to show the members of MESA that — look,
the real Arabs know that I tell them the truth.
Lewis in various interviews does seem pleased that he can address
two audiences at the same time. “He doth bestride the world like a
colossus.” He is proud of the fact that so many of his books have
been translated into Turkish, Arabic, Farsi. But the truth is:
you cannot write with two audiences in mind, one of the Muslim, the
other non-Muslim. That Muslim audience is so prickly, so defensive, so
unwilling to admit to the events of its own history (the unwillingness,
for example, to even read the scholarship of Bat Ye’or, even among the
so-called advanced Arabs in the West, is absolutely flabbergasting),
that Lewis finds himself at every turn, either pulling his punches,
or enveloping the thought in veils of velleities. It is not a case of
being fortiter in re, suaviter in modo. He is suave in his prose all
right, but that suavity is not wrapped around a sufficient amount of
truthful iron.
*He is attempting a trick that cannot be achieved. You cannot write
simultaneously for an audience of Muslims (to get them to see, gently,
and with constant, almost formulaic, reassurance about the “greatness”
of high classical Islamic civilization — which Lewis always describes,
wrongly, as being far above any other civilisation of the time — has
he forgotten China? And does he still accept the older cliches about
the “Dark Ages”? He is a poor historian who appeals to the self-esteem
problem of part of his audience; that is not the historian’s task*.
*Lewis now seems, at last, to be fully recognized, and triumphant. But
is he? He was an enthusiastic supporter of the disastrous Oslo Accords.
It is understandable why people such as Clinton, or Tom Friedman,
or all the others who know nothing about Islam, should believe in
the efficacy of such negotiations and such treaties. But Lewis — who
knows all about the rules of Muslim jurisprudence regarding “treaties”
with Infidel peoples and polities, and knows perfectly well why every
treaty Israel has ever signed with an Arab state has been violated,
sometimes completely, and knows too the significance of the Treaty
of al-Hudaiybiyya, which Arafat so frequently mentioned to his Muslim
audiences — what is Lewis’ excuse for supporting, so loudly and for
so long, the Oslo folly?*
*Lewis describes the series of political, legal, financial, social,
sumptuary, and other disablities placed on dhimmis in quite brisk
terms, usually limiting himself to a word or two about the jizya and
“other disabilities.” He does not stop to really go into the whole
monstrous system, or to quizzically ask what that phrase “protected
peoples” might mean, or how it was that everywhere that Islam
conquered, the treatment of dhimmis, whether they were Christians or
Jews or Zoroastrians or even Hindus or Buddhists — was remarkably the
same, and in all cases the post-conquest (i.e. post-Jihad) institution
of dhimmitude led to the enforced status of degradation, humiliation,
and permanent insecurity (including intermittent massacres that Lewis
hardly ever refers to) on all of these non-Muslim peoples*.
Lewis himself must, more and more, have come to see — especially
as his beloved Turkey slides away from Kemalism — that in certain
essentials he got it wrong. He actually got Islam wrong. He
underestimated its malevolence. He underestimated the difficulty
of reform. He took as representative men the scholars, or the
well-educated exiles, who came out of that world but were about as
representative of it as Stravinsky, Balanchine, and Nabokov could have
been said to represent Soviet Russia. He was wrong; he was wrong
on the Oslo Accords; he was wrong in his political advertisement
(written with James Woolsey) to promote Prince Hassan to be a new
king for Iraq; he remains wrong if he thinks that the United States
should continue to be preoccupied with Iraq, when there are so many
other ways to expose the political, economic, moral, and intellectual
failures of Islam — which in the long run, is the only thing which
will cause, from within, the engendering of lots of local Ataturks,
who may work to constrain or limit Islam, as its sacred texts,
including the authoritative recensions of hadith, are immutable.
Lewis was asked some years ago by the TLS to review Ibn Warraq’s “Why
I Am Not a Muslim.” He dawdled and dithered; by the time he told them
he just could not do it, it was too late, in the opinion of the TLS,
to run any review. Contrast that with how the lefist, even Marxist
French scholar of Islam, Maxine Rodinson, treated the same book. He
was given it to review by Le Monde, which assumed that Rodinson,
known for his tiersmondiste sympathies (which probably explains why
Edward Said gave an enthusiastic blurb to Rodinson’s quite crticial
book on Muhammad — but then Said was known to provide enthusastic
blurbs for hundreds of books he never opened, but just guessed as to
their general direction; his endorsements were spread around like
confetti, and even cheaper). But Rodinson produced a favorable
review, much to the chagrin of the editors at Le Monde — and they,
acting true to Stalinist form, simply refused to print the review
(it can be found in Rodinson’s other publications).
But how could Lewis, after all, praise Ibn Warraq publicly? And he
could not publicly deny that the book had great merit, either. So best
to finesse; delay like Kutuzov; the mere passage of time will solve
the problem; solve it, Time did, and consequently that book, one of the
most important in recent decades, never received a review in the TLS.
It is fascinating to compare the behavior of Lewis with two other
scholars of roughly the same age and status. S. D. Goitein wrote his
celebrated “A Mediterranean Society” based on his detailed study
of the papers found in the Cairo Geniza — a record of the Jewish
community in Cairo, and not only in Cairo, that extended over many
centuries. Goitein, who earlier had had a kind of sympathetic, almost
sentimental interest in promoting the idea of the natural sympathies
and similarities of Muslims and Jews, was severely chastened by his
last decades of scholarship. If there was one thing, he wrote, about
which he had to revise his opinion, it was about the severity of the
jizyah. He now realized what a terrible burden it was, especially on
the poor non-Muslims. Just before he died, Goitein was preparing a
favorable review of Bat Ye’or.
Even at their advanced ages, both Rodinson and Goitein were willing
to break, in part, with their own pasts, to declare that new evidence,
and final summings-up, had led them to conclusions that were not nearly
as favorable to Islam as they might once have hoped. Goitein’s study
of the Cairo Geniza led him to rethink the problem of the dhimmi,
to reconsider his old pieties and sentimentalities. Rodinson, who
had been (of course) a great defender of the Arabs against French
colonialism, a die-hard tiersmondiste, a Marxist, found that Ibn
Warraq’s relentless assault on Islam, above all for its intellectual
constraints and failures, deserved the highest praise — and he
was willing to disappoint his editors at Le Monde in insisting that
they either publish his enthusiastic review, or squash it altogether
(of course, they squashed it).
Lewis himself once wrote an essay that identified the philo-Islamic
strain in Jewish Orientalists who found what seemed to be the more
welcoming world of Islam, compared to the brutalities inflicted on Jews
by Western Christendom. *He was good at diagnosis, but not as good at
self-diagnosis. He has never quite described, for his many admirers
and his wide audience, the full panoply of disabilities placed on
non-Muslims under Islam, usually being content with a sentence or
two about the “jizya” and “other disabilities.”_ _*
*Lewis has in the past been unwilling to endorse the scholarship of
Bat Ye’or, describing it as “too polemical.” Really? If the scrupulous
scholarship of “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”
is too polemical (is that a word which one applies when scholarship
is sometimes informed with passion?), what of all the scholarship on
which that book rests? What of Arakel of Tabriz? Or Armand Abel? Or
Charles Dufourcq? Or Levi-Provencal? Or what about the scholarship
that Bat Ye’or did not use, that of Mary Boyce on the Muslim treatment
of Zoroastrians, or K. S. Lal on the Muslim treatment of Hindus?_ _*
*Bat Ye’or managed both to create a work of scholarship and analysis,
much of which was original to her, as well as a synthesis of a
large amount of scholarly literature — by French, German, Armenian,
Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, and other scholars — scholarship which
does not paint quite the picture of the Ottomans as that which Lewis
has favored. Not that he has ever been an open apologist for Islam,
but he has failed to convey, in book after book, the real nature and
horror of dhimmitude. To describe, for example, the forced levy
of Christian children by the Turks, as a “recruitment” (which to
the modern mind evokes mental images of college or army recruiters
dangling inducements), which was often envied by the Muslim parents,
is to ignore the scholarship, by scholars from parts of Europe once
under Ottoman rule, detailing the fear and horror of such events as
the devshirme levy. The subject of dhimmitude has not been part of
Lewis’ main bailiwick. It is one thing not to treat of a subject,
quite another to mislead as to its real significance; quite another
still to simply shut out of serious consideration a lonely scholar,
outside the regular academic system, who has produced the body of
work that Bat Ye’or has produced, and continues to produce.*
One hesitates to criticize Lewis for this because of the disgraceful
treatment of him by the members of MESA (the MIddle Eastern Studies
Association). Their relation to Lewis reminds me of a story that
the late Tibor Szamuely once wrote in The Spectator. He described a
functionary, the compleat chinovnik, of the Soviet Writers’ Union,
giving a speech in Tula, famed for its samovars, in the southwest
of Moscow. “In bad old Czarist days,” he intoned, “we had only one
writer from Tula Province.” And then he noted proudly: “But now,
but now we have 3,247 members of the Union of Soviet Writers from
Tula Province alone.” (Wild cheering, laughter, applause).
Szamuely drily added: “Yes. He was right. But he forgot to add that
the one writer from “bad old Czarist days” was named Lev Tolstoy”
and no one would ever remember any of the 3,247 current members of
the Writers’ Union from Tula. Well, something like that comes to mind
when one thinks of Lewis, and his scholarship, compared to the heaps of
Rashid Khalidis and Hamid Dabashis and Joel Beinins, some of whom are
former propagandists for the PLO, others of whom spend their academic
leisure beavering about in the busy “construction of the Palestinian
identity” — which if it really existed, as more than a transparently
useful notion, would not require so much endless “construction.” In
relation to the MESA members who continue to deny him the recognition
he deserves, reminds us of Tolstoy, in Szamuely’s anecdote, in relation
to his numerous (3,247, to be exact) epigones. *But that does not
absolve Lewis of his failures, his elisions, his distortions, his
underappreciations, his allowing vanity to cloud his keen sight (how
could he continue to deny the Armenian genocide? out of what misplaced
loyalties to Ottomanists and Osmanlis, and to decades of friendship
with many Turks, to what perverse parsing of the word “genocide,”
could he have found himself denying what masses of evidence, and
eyewitness testimony, support? Which was more important — the
continued friendship of Turks, or the scholarly approval of Vankh
Dadrian and others who have studied the Armenian genocide?*
If one is to believe the Wall Street Journal and other publications,
Lewis has had an important influence on American policy in
Iraq. By that, one means not the original invasion itself, but the
Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project, which was to bring “democracy”
to Iraq, and then that “democracy,” in turn, would serve as a model for
other Arab states, and lead to all manner of good things, including
the diminishment of the role of Islam. But Lewis, like those in
the Pentagon, was making judgments on the basis of friendship with
highly misrepresentative men, Iraqis who were well-educated in the
West, who had spent decades in the West (Chalabi has been in the
West for 45 years), and who not only had become Western, rational
men, but had themselves forgotten just how irrational Iraqi society
is, with its ever-present substratum of Islam, the hostility that
Islam engenders toward all non-Muslims (which means, of course,
that any gratitude toward Infidel Americans for rescuing them from
the regime of Saddam Hussein will be either feigned, or fleeting, or
both). *Lewis likes to think of himself as unswervingly unpolemical,
the historian au-dessus de la melee — but he did not hesitate to
co-sign a political advertisement (written with James Woolsey) on
behalf of Prince Hassan of Jordan, to become the new king of Iraq —
an advertisement that required him to praise the ahistoric fantasies
of Amartya Sen about the historically “democratic” strain in Islam,
which if we are talking about modern “democracy” and its connection to
human rights, completely misstates the case). Lewis allowed himself
to forget, because he wanted not to remember, the essential tenets
of Islam, the manichaean split between Believer and Infidel, the
inability of the Believer to accept any authority other than the
sharia (and certainly not an authority stemmming from the votes of
mere mortals), the impossibility of their being a real defense of
human rights (beginning with full freedom of conscience, which is
impossible in any Islamic regime)_. _*
Lewis lived,in Egypt during World War II, when Egypt was essentially
ruled by the British under extraordinary, wartime conditions
(it was the British who jailed Answar Sadat for his pro-Nazi
activities). Otherwise, Lewis has visited the Middle East as a
dignitary, and in Turkey a celebrity. He is feted, treated with famous
courtesy. In Amman Prince Hassan himself is a host and patron. In
Princeton, dissenters now eager for support within the Administration
make sure, as Saad Eddin Ibrahim did, to visit Lewis in Princeton
(Lewis was instrumental in putting pressure on the Egyptian government,
through threats to withhold $30 million, to change its treatment of
Ibrahim in the courts). All of this attention, all of this lionizing,
has had an affect. Lewis has retailed on more than one occasion his
bon mots to gathered Arab admirers in Amman; his natural wariness
seems strangely absent in his retelling of a story where his sally
met with appreciative laughter. Few of us would respond otherwise;
everyone likes to have a receptive audience.
*Lewis did not grow up in the Arab and Muslim world, as did the dry
and brilliant Elie Kedourie; nor did he live, among the Arabs in situ,
as did J. B. Kelly. (It is quite another thing to live among Arab
colleagues in the West). He does not recognize quite as easily, and
thus dismiss quite as completely, the nonsense, lies,and blague that
are the stock-in-trade in the Arab countries as Kelly, for example,
is wont to do*.
What is passing strange is that Lewis’ first and greatest interest
was modern Turkey. He admired the Kemalist reforms. He understood
how difficult it was to undertake them. He knew that save for that
reforms, the class of secularist Turks — the very class from which
his own colleagues and friends came — would never have attained the
critical mass it did. Yet, when confronted with Iraq, he did not draw
any lessons from Kemalism. He did not stop to think that Kemalism was
a result purely from within, a result derived from an enlightened
despot, convinced that Islam explained the failures, political,
economic, social, and intellectual, of the Muslim peoples, including
the Turks — and it was Islam that would, in its practice, have to be
constrained by government fiat. That was what Kemalism was all about.
Now, confronted with Iraq, Lewis ignores the lessons of Kemalism. Yet
he must know that had the British tried, for example, with their
soldiers still walking the streets of Istanbul, to impose the kind of
de-islamizing reforms that Mustafa Kemal imposed, it would never have
worked, now seems to be promoting the idea that “democracy” can come to
that most unlikely country, Iraq, where tribalism and not the idea of
the individual, still rules, where ethnic (Kurd and Arab) and sectarian
(Sunni and Shi’a) rivalries and hatreds, have a long and deep history,
and where the underlying ideology of Islam is opposed, in every fiber,
to the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights —
including the right to freedom of conscience (apostasy), the right
of equal treatment under the law for believers in all religions
(directly contradicted by the sharia), the right to equal treatment
of men and women (also contradicted by the sharia), and so on.
Why did Lewis not employ the lessons of Kemalist Turkey, the only
successful or quasi-successful, democracy in the Muslim world,
and apply them to Iraq? Surely the goal is not to bring “democracy”
which would mean a Shi’a takeover. The goal for Infidels should be
to bring about the kind of end-of-our-tether conditions that will
allow a sufficient number of people within the Muslim world to see
that Islam itself has failed, politically, economically, morally,
and intellectually, and that the Kemalist approach — not to try,
hopelessly, to “reform” Islam but rather to grimly and relentlessly
create the conditions that constrain the practice of Islam, so that a
secularist class may be nurtured. And in turn, that class will have
a stake in continuing to adhere to the local version of Kemalism,
to continue to suppress any signs of backsliding, so that Islam could
continue to be tamed. As Lewis must know from his own encounter a few
days ago with the Turkish Prime Minster, Mr. Erdogan, Kemalism is now
under assault, perhaps a successful assault. The assumption that the
gains were permanent, that Turkey would remain unaffected by Islam’s
natural distempers (not, as Lewis would have it,merely reactions to
the disappointments of the modern world), has turned out to be shaky.
Lewis has noted, in public lectures, that more has been achieved to
bring “progress” to the Muslim world by those who would be properly
described as enlightened despots, such as King Muhammad V of Morocco,
Bourguiba in Tunisia, Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran, and especially, and
most successfully, by Ataturk in Turkey. Belief in the “people” (i.e.
in”democracy”) in the Muslim world is likely to lead to retrograde
legislation, and a situation that makes things worse, not better,
for Infidels.
So why did he apparently promote the idea of Iraq as a likely candidate
for something called “democracy’? Just how was that to take place, and
what was the final outcome likely to be in Iraq’s power structure? And
since there is nothing self-evident about the idea that “democracy” in
Iraq will necessarily be worth the vast allocation of men, materiel,
money, and attention that is now being spent, monomaniacally, on
this project, just how does it relate to encouraging, from within
Islam, lots of local and little Ataturks to recognize the failures
of Islam, and in their own way, for the sake of their own peoples,
to cunningly fashion ways to constrain its practice and dampen its
appeal? *What, one wonders, does Lewis think of the many Muslim or
ex-Muslim scholars who have written about the total contradiction
between the principles of sharia and the principles enshrined inthe
Universal Declaration of Human Rights — such scholars, for example,
as Rexa Afshari, or Ali Sina, or Ibn Warraq, or Azam Kamguian. Does
he give weight to their views, or regard them all as malcontents and,
as he has sometimes employed the Muslim word, “renegades”?*
Particularly when it comes to the Middle East, where Muslims do not
brook the slightest criticism of Islam, its greatness, the greatness
of its civilisation, and so on, it is hard for scholars who perceive
things otherwise to speak their minds fully. There is often a gap
between what is said publicly, and what is admitted privately. And a
good many people like to think that if they spent many decades studying
a subject, it must have inherent worth, its civilisation must have been
a glorious thing indeed. Those mental pictures pass by in vivid array,
those mosques in Samarkand and Tashkent and Bokhara, the Dome of the
Rock gleaming in Jerusalem, those turbaned Turks and Iznik tulips, all
the local color of that “high Islamic civilization” that Orientalists
today still feel that they must formulaically overpraise (and in so
doing, either tacitly accept the long-discarded notions of a European
“Dark Ages,” or belittle the vaster achievements of other non-Western
civilizatons — those of the Mayans, or the Hindus, or the Chinese).
Lewis has outlived almost all of his colleagues. The kind of training
he received goes far beyond what the Beinins and the Khalidis can
even conceive of, and much further still beyond what they could ever
attain. Because he towers over those who foolishly attack him, he
has been mistaken for a Giant Sequoia. Had those colleagues remained
in the field, he would now be seen as still something impressive —
a sturdy English oak, Quercus robur, say — but not quite as tall,
or as impressive, as that Giant Sequoia.
****

AGBU PRESS OFFICE
55 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone (212) 319-6383
Fax (212) 319-6507
Email [email protected]
Webpage
PRESS RELEASE
Thursday, June 17, 2004
LIGHTS, CAMERA, SATAMIAN
New York – On the heels of the success of last year’s ‘Zvart’ operetta,
Krikor Satamian, along with collaborator Maestro Vatche Barsoumian,
is busy putting together another work by composer Dikran Tchouhadjian
originally titled ‘Leblebiji Horhor Agha’ and now incarnated as
‘Leblebiji’ for three performances this fall in Los Angeles.
A veteran of Beirut’s AGBU Vahan Papazian Theatre Group, a graduate
of England’s famous Bristol school, and an actor with a long line of
movie and network television credits under his belt, Satamian needs
no introduction to Armenian theatre lovers. His name is synonymous
with Armenian theatre in America. He continues to foster Armenian
language performances in a country where the tradition is confined
predominantly to first-generation Armenian Americans.
When Satamian first arrived in America, he settled in the New York area
and began drawing from the local talent pool. But as fluent Armenian
speakers became increasingly difficult to find on the East Coast,
he relocated to Los Angeles where he spotted more potential.
“There was fertile ground [in L.A.] for theatre with all the immigrants
from Armenia and the Middle East,” said Satamian. ” It caught on
like wildfire. I found a generation of actors and now I have a second
generation that is coming from the schools.”
He quickly tapped into the Armenian love of theatre, which has been
sustained by the Armenian immigrants from Armenia, Iran, Syria and
Lebanon. Now the head of the AGBU Ardavazt Theatre Group, Ardavazt is
the only full-time theatre company in Los Angeles. It often tours
other cities across the continent that are hungry for Armenian
theatrical productions.
Ardavazt is currently presenting Hagop Baronian’s ‘Honorable
Beggars’. Later this year, it will be mounting a play by Zareh
Melkonian, the production of ‘Leblebiji’ and five one-act plays
performed by the Ardavazt Junior’s company, created to cultivate a
new wave of talent.
Satamian has also created a series of highly successful one-man shows
that he toured to AGBU chapters across the continent. In Watertown
and Montreal, his performances helped in the fundraising effort for
local AGBU center renovation initiatives.
Since the San Francisco Opera’s ‘Arshak II’ production by Tchouhadjian
in 2001, Satamian has been mining his popular works, most of which
have not been performed since the late nineteenth century in Istanbul
and later in Beirut in the late sixties.
While Verdi influenced ‘Arshak II’, Tchouhadjian’s operettas were
popular pieces that provided people with the equivalent of the show
tunes of their era–works that combined Italian with Oriental music.
‘Leblebiji’ is Satamian’s most ambitious Ardavazt production and
is slated for three nights this fall in contrast to the two nights
reserved for ‘Zvart’.
“The reaction [to ‘Zvart’] was tremendous, it was more than we
expected,” Satamian said. “In fact, when we did our budget we
calculated sixty percent attendance income. It turned out that
attendance was over ninety-five percent.”
“We did two performances in a 3,000 person auditorium and both
performances were full,” he added, noting some people were turned
away from the Sunday performance because of space limitations.
“This time will be bigger. It’s big in scope, and everything needs
a lot of planning,” Satamian said of the preparation underway for
‘Leblebiji’,” he continued. “We will be getting more advertisers,
more donations this time. Those that were sitting on the fence last
time know we can do it and will be onboard.”
There will be new needs this time around, Satamian says, including
more advertising to the non-Armenian community who can easily enjoy
the production because of the ‘surtitles’ that electronically translate
the Armenian dialogue and music on a screen above the stage.
‘Leblebiji’ is the latest in Satamian’s repertoire, but as someone
who is always thinking and dreaming big, he hopes one day to up the
ante and produce more challenging productions.
“I have lots of plays in mind but I don’t have the talent power to
be able to do them. The people I have are competent who can do the
average play but the difficult ones like Shakespeare, Ibsen or Bernard
Shaw I can’t yet. I say ‘yet’ with the hope that maybe these people
will show up one day on the scene.”
If Satamian’s past successes are any indication, it won’t be long
before that happens. Until then, audiences can enjoy AGBU Ardavazt
Theatre Group’s 2004 line up. The company’s ‘Leblebiji’ performances
are scheduled for October 22-24, 2004 and for more information about
this and other shows please contact AGBU Pasadena at (626) 794-7942
or [email protected].

BISNIS Outreach in Pittsburgh, PA on July 22, 2004
BISNIS
June 21, 2004
Please Note: You are receiving this message as a BISNIS client located
in or close to PPittsburgh, PA as you may have an interest in meeting
with our representatives from Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Ukraine
and Washington, DC. To modify your profile, please see instructions
at the end of this email.
Center for Russian and East European Studies,University of Pittsburgh
and the U.S. Department of Commerce – BISNIS
With the support of
U.S. Commercial Service, Pittsburgh Office
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Invite you to a seminar
Exploring Eurasia: A Fresh Look at Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic,
Moldova, and Ukraine – Export and Investment Opportunities
WHEN: Thursday, July 22, 2004
8:45 a.m. Registration
9:00-10:30 a.m. Presentations
10:30-12:30 p.m. One-on-One Meetings
WHERE: University of Pittsburgh
4D 56 Posvar Hall, University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
MARKET TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED:
· Industries Sectors to be Covered: IT, Telecommunications, Construction, Agribusiness, Pharmaceuticals/Medical, Consumer Goods, and Banking/Finance.
· Countries Covered: Armenia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Ukraine
· Presentations: Speakers will provide executive briefings on the business climate in their countries, and present trade and investment leads, as well as information on promising projects. A Q&A session will follow the presentations, and then an opportunity for one-on-one meetings with individual BISNIS representatives.
· Introductory remarks: Dr. Bob Donnorummo, Associate Director, Center for Russian and East European Studies,University of Pittsburgh, Lyn Doverspike, Director, U.S. Commercial Service, Pittsburgh Office.
For more information and to register, contact:
Desi Jordanoff, BISNIS
tel: 202-482-2709
email: [email protected]
Check Requested One-on-One Appointments: £ Armenia; £ Kyrgyzstan; £ Moldova; £ Ukraine
(Appointments shall be subject to availability.)
REGISTER DEADLINE: July 19, 2004!
Number of people attending Names of attendees
Company
Address: ____________________________________________________________________________
Phone: _____________________ Fax: __________________ E-mail: __________________________
WHAT IS BISNIS?
BISNIS (), part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was founded in 1992 to assist in the economic development and transition of the countries of the former Soviet Union by helping U.S. companies to export to and invest in the region. BISNIS has 20 representatives posted throughout Eurasia, including 11 in Russia. In addition, BISNIS has 10 trade specialists in Washington, DC. BISNIS mainly assists U.S. and Eurasia companies by identifying and disseminating trade and partner leads, preparation of regional overviews, commercial news updates, and industry reports, counseling U.S. companies interested in entering Eurasian markets, and referrals to U.S. government programs as well as sources of financing and other resources. Since 1992, BISNIS has helped U.S. companies generate over $3.2 billion of export and investment transactions. In FY03 alone, BISNIS facilitated transactions exceeding $204 million. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, BISNIS was recognized by Forbes Magazine as
“One of the Best of the Web” for information on Eurasia. The BISNIS website gets over 1 million hits per month.
PROGRAM SPEAKER PROFILES
· Desi Jordanoff has joined BISNIS in Washington, DC as an International Trade Specialist in May 2004. She currently serves as country manager for Ukraine, Russia-Urals, and Turkmenistan, covers the Medical Equipment and Services; Consumer Goods; and Tourism and Hospitality sectors for all of Eurasia. She previously worked as an International Trade Specialist at Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, Pittsburgh, PA and provided consulting and export assistance to small and mid-size companies in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Ms. Jordanoff holds a MBA degree from Katz Graduate School of Business and a Master of Public and International Affairs degree from GSPIA, University of Pittsburgh. Her Bachelor of Science is in Economics from the University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria. As a native of Bulgaria she speaks English, Russian and Bulgarian.
· Asel Sulaimanova – BISNIS Representative in the Kyrgyz Republic
Ms. Sulaimanova has worked for BISNIS in the Kyrgyz Republic since late 2002. Before joining BISNIS, she worked both in the private sector and for international donor institutions. Specifically, she was Project Manager for the European Union Program “Small and Medium Business Development” and an international consultant for several Asian Development Bank projects in the Kyrgyz Republic. Her commercial experience has been gained through working for several foreign companies doing different businesses in the Kyrgyz Republic. She graduated from Kazakh State Economic University in Economics and later received an MBA from the Bishkek International School of Management and Business in 1995.
· Andriy Vorobyov – BISNIS Representative in Ukraine
Andriy Vorobyov has worked for BISNIS in Kiev since October 2000. He has a background in agriculture, having graduated from the National Agricultural University of Ukraine. His previous work experience includes agribusiness and food processing, and work for the Department of Foreign Economic Relations at the Ukrainian Ministry of Agriculture. His recent reports for BISNIS have covered the Ukrainian Construction Sector, Trade and Project Financing in Ukraine, Customs Procedures in Ukraine, and overviews of several Ukrainian regions. Last year, Mr. Vorobyov accompanied a delegation of 25 Ukrainian companies to the International Builders Show in Las Vegas, and he has organized a number of U.S. Product Literature Centers at the largest Ukrainian trade events, including construction, automotive, food processing, pharmaceuticals shows.
· Iulian Bogasieru – BISNIS Representative in Moldova
Iulian Bogasieru joined BISNIS in December 2000. His previous experience includes working with the Moldovan Agency of Enterprise Restructuring ARIA as a consultant for three years on World Bank and European Union projects. His responsibilities were analyzing markets and providing turnaround management consulting for Moldovan businesses. Mr. Bogasieru graduated from the Academy of Economic Studies, Chisinau, Moldova, with bachelor degree in foreign economic relations. He speaks English, Russian, Romanian and Italian. Among his achievements as BISNIS representative, he organized three catalog shows of U.S. products in Moldova, which resulted in U.S. export contracts.
· George Isayan – BISNIS Representative in Armenia
George Isayan has represented BISNIS in Yerevan, Armenia, since January 1998. During 1989-1992, he worked in Armenia’s Chamber of Commerce as the head of business information department. In 1992-1997, Mr. Isayan worked at a private export-import company in Prague, Czech Republic, covering the company’s financial issues. As BISNIS representative, Mr. Isayan accompanied delegations of Armenian companies at Comdex IT show in Las Vegas (2000), BILISIM IT show in Istanbul (Turkey) in 2001, International Builders’ Show in Dallas, Texas, in 1999 and 2000, and SviazExpoComm ICT show in Moscow, Russia, in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Mr. Isayan speaks Russian, Armenian, English, Czech, and Arabic fluently.
FEATURED COUNTRY OVERVIEWS
Armenia
Area: 29,800 sq. km. (11,500 sq. mi.); Population (est.): 3 million; GDP growth rate: 13.9% (2003)
Natural resources: Copper, zinc, gold, and lead; hydroelectric power; small amounts of gas and petroleum.
Agriculture: fruits and vegetables, wines, dairy, some livestock.
Industry: chemicals, electronic products, machinery, processed food, synthetic rubber, and textiles.
2003 Trade: Exports–$678.1 million (81.3% to countries outside CIS): diamonds, scrap metal, machinery and equipment, brandy, copper ore. Export partners–Belgium, Israel, Russia, U.S., Iran. Imports–$1.269 billion (73.6% from countries outside the CIS): natural gas, petroleum, tobacco products, foodstuffs, diamonds. Import partners–Russia, Belgium, Israel, Iran, U.S.
Approximately 70 U.S.-owned firms currently do business in Armenia, including such multinationals as Procter & Gamble, M&M-Mars, Xerox, Dell, and IBM. Recent major U.S. investment projects include the Hotel Armenia; the Hotel Ani; Tufenkian Holdings (carpet and furnishing production, hotels, and construction); several subsidiaries of U.S.-based information technology firms, including Viasphere Technopark, an IT incubator; a Greek-owned Coca-Cola bottling plant; petroleum exploration by the American-Armenian Exploration Company; jewelry and textile production facilities; a large perlite mining and processing plant; and the joint venture Jermuk, which produces one of the more popular brands of mineral water in Armenia.
Recent BISNIS efforts have facilitated U.S. sales to Armenian private firms of medical diagnostic equipment and construction materials equipment, as well as the signing of an exclusive dealer contract between Ford and an Armenia company.
Kyrgyz Republic
Area: 77,181 sq. mi; Population: 5.03 million: GDP Growth Rate: 6.7% (2003)
Natural Resources: coal, oil, natural gas, antimony, gold, tungsten, tin, mercury, uranium, zinc, lead, rare earth metals, copper, iron, bauxite, hydropower, water resources.
Agriculture: Tobacco, cotton, wheat, vegetables and fruits, berries; sheep, goats, cattle, wool.
Industry: small machinery (electric motors, transformers); light industry (cotton and wool processing, textiles, food processing), construction materials (cement, glass, slate), shoes, furniture, mining, energy.
Trade (2003): Exports–$548 million: Cotton, wool, meat, precious metals, minerals, textiles, tobacco, hydropower, machinery, footwear. Partners: Switzerland, Russia, United Arab Emirates, China, U.S. 7.9%, Kazakhstan. Imports: $601 million: oil and gas, machinery and equipment, chemicals, foodstuffs. Partners: Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, China, US, Germany, Netherlands.
Major foreign investments: Hyatt Regency Bishkek Hotel (renovation), Metromedia International (cable TV venture), Marvel worldwide Ltd. (80 % of VLKSM Garment Factory), WimmBillDann (dairy, juices), Kumtor (gold mining), Coca-Cola (bottling), Philips (light bulb manufacture & equipment), Malaysian Company (semiconductor production plant)
Recent BISNIS efforts have facilitated establishment of an office in Bishkek for a small U.S. firm seeking contracts with the U.S. airbase in the Kyrgyz republic – the company has already won one tender and has additional projects in the pipeline for FY04, sales of restaurant equipment to Kyrgyzstan, assistance to a U.S. company to set up production in the Bishkek free economic zone.
Moldova
Area: 33,843 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.); Population: 4.4 million: GDP real growth (Jan.-Sept. 2003): 7.0%
Natural Resources: Lignite, phosphorites, gypsum, arable land, limestone.
Agriculture: vegetables, fruits, wine and spirits, grain, sugarbeet, sunflower seeds, meat, milk, tobacco.
Industry: Processed foods and beverages, including wine and refined sugar; processed fruit and vegetable products, including vegetable oil; dairy and meat products; tobacco items; metal processing and production of machinery; textiles and clothing, shoes; furniture.
Trade (2003): Exports $790 million (of which 46% go to countries outside the former Soviet Union): foodstuffs, wine, tobacco, textiles and footwear, machinery, chemicals. Major export markets: Russia, Ukraine, Italy, Romania, Germany, Belarus, Spain. Import: $1,34 billion (of which 61% come from countries outside the former Soviet Union): gas, oil, coal, steel, mineral products, machinery and equipment, chemical products, textiles, foodstuffs, automobiles, and other consumer durables. Major suppliers: Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Germany, Italy.
U.S. companies active in Moldova include McDonalds, FoodPro International, Food Master International, Coca-Cola, Trans Oil Invest, Europharm, MetroMedia International, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, KPMG, Caterpillar, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Proctor & Gamble, John Deere, General Electric, and Apple Computer.
Recent BISNIS efforts have facilitated sales of U.S. telecommunications equipment and medical diagnostic equipment to Moldova, as well as assisted in the development of ties between North Carolina and Moldova and supported efforts of OPIC and TDA to find projects for possible financing.
Ukraine
Area: 603,700 square miles; Population: 48 million: GDP real growth (2003 est.): 5.5-6.0%
Natural resources: Vast fertile lands, coal, ironstone, complex ore, various large mineral deposits, timber
Agriculture: Products–Grain, sugar, sunflower seeds.
Industry: Types–Ferrous metals and products, coke, fertilizer, airplanes, turbines, metallurgical equipment, diesel locomotives, tractors.
Trade (2003): Exports–$18.1 billion: Ferrous and nonferrous metals, fuel and petroleum products, mineral products, chemicals, machinery, transport equipment, grain, and textiles, food products. Major export partners: Russia, Italy, Turkey, Germany, China. Imports–$23.58 billion: Energy, mineral fuel and oil, machinery and parts, transportation equipment, chemicals, textiles, and paper. Major importers: Russia, Germany, Turkmenistan, Poland, Italy.
More than 300 U.S. companies are represented in Ukraine. Among the major U.S. companies are: Apple Computer, Avon Cosmetics, Automobile Group (Cadillac, Chevrolet, Hummer), Bechtel National, Inc., Citibank, Colgate-Palmolive, General Electric, Kraft foods Motorola, Monsanto, Mary Kay Ltd.
Recent BISNIS efforts have facilitated sales of U.S. machinery and machine tools, as well as medical, printing, and telecommunications equipment to Ukraine, as well as creation of joint projects in the financial services sector.

Armenian National Committee of America
888 17th St., NW, Suite 904
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 21, 2004
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918
KERRY HONORS 86TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE
FIRST ARMENIAN REPUBLIC
WASHINGTON, DC — In a statement released to the Armenian American
community, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry
marked the founding of the First Armenian Republic, established on May
28th, 1918, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).
In his statement, Sen. Kerry noted that, “the first Republic of Armenia
rose 86 years ago from the ashes of the Armenian genocide, but was
partitioned soon afterwards. Yet, Armenians yearned for independence,
and seven decades later realized their dream of self- determination.”
“Armenian Americans welcome John Kerry’s celebration of the 86th
anniversary of the first Republic of Armenia,” said Aram Hamparian,
Executive Director of the ANCA. “As a Senator with a twenty-year track
record of advocating for issues of importance to Armenian Americans,
John Kerry understands the tremendous challenges – first among them
the horrific toll of the Armenian Genocide – that the Armenian people
overcame in 1918 on the road to the establishment of the Armenian
Republic.”
In April of this year, Sen. Kerry joined the Armenian American
community in marking the 89th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
In a statement issued on April 22nd, Senator Kerry called “on
governments and people everywhere to formally recognize this
tragedy. Only by learning from this dark period of history and
working to prevent future genocides can we truly honor the memories
of those Armenians who suffered so unjustly.” In the days prior to his
statement, Senator Kerry joined 22 of his Senate colleagues in calling
on President Bush to “refer to the mass slaughter of Armenians as
genocide in your commemorative statement.” He was amongst the earliest
cosponsors of the Genocide resolution (S.Res.164), which marks the
15th anniversary of the U.S. implementation of the Genocide Convention.
Senator Kerry’s complete record on Armenian American concerns is
posted on the Armenians For Kerry website
. The website includes previous statements by the Senator and provides
ways for Armenian American supporters to become active in the Kerry
campaign through donations or other volunteer efforts.
The congratulatory letter regarding the First Armenian Republic was
read at a Greater Washington, DC area celebration last Saturday night,
hosted by the ARF. The complete text of the statement follows.
#####
Letter from John Kerry Honoring Armenia’s First Independence
Tonight I join Armenian-Americans in proudly celebrating the Republic
of Armenia’s day of independence. The first Republic of Armenia
rose 86 years ago from the ashes of the Armenian genocide, but was
partitioned soon afterwards. Yet, Armenians yearned for independence,
and seven decades later realized their dream of self- determination.
I am proud of my work with the Armenian-American community including
my support for ending Azerbaijan’s blockades of Armenia and Nagorno
Karabakh, for the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in 1996 and for
extending “permanent normal trade relations” (PNTR) to Armenia.
This evening I would also like to pay tribute to the Armenian-
Americans who have contributed so much to our great country.
Your hard work and strong values make our country a better place for
all Americans.
I hope you have a wonderful celebration and, of course, a very happy
birthday.

International Herald Tribune
NATO: Why not really make Russia a partner?
Ian Bremmer and Nikolas Gvosdev IHT Tuesday, June 22, 2004
WASHINGTON ‘You’re not our enemies anymore,” Secretary of State
Colin Powell told the Russians last month. Yet two years after the
NATO-Russia Council was unveiled as a new “bridge of security across
Europe,” 47 percent of Russians still consider the North Atlantic
alliance a threat to their national security.
As long as the NATO-Russia partnership remains solely a matter of
declarations and consultations, the opportunity to fundamentally
reshape the security not only of the Euro-Atlantic community but the
entire Eurasian land mass is being missed. Diplomats are squabbling
over four Belgian aircraft flying patrol over the Baltic states,
while real threats percolate along the soft underbelly of Eurasia –
terrorism, organized crime (especially smuggling and the drug trade)
and unstable states.
NATO’s primary purpose is to provide security. The alliance is there to
prevent any country – including Russia – from using force to dominate
its neighbors. But it is not NATO’s job to make Russia “disappear”
as an economic power in the region. If the United States wants to
extend a zone of peace and security across Eurasia, NATO cannot be
seen as a lever to keep Russia on the sidelines.
The “Great Game” geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West
for influence across the Eurasian steppe is over. Russia failed in
its attempt to monopolize the region’s transportation links, and the
construction of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline is one signal victory. But
Central Asia’s gas reserves are controlled by Gazprom and, as in Soviet
times, will continue to pass through Russian-controlled routes. There
is nothing further to be gained by continuing to compete with Russia.
This is the reality: Moscow has sufficient economic and strategic
leverage to frustrate further Western plans for the region if Russian
interests are not taken into consideration. Russia will continue to
play a critical role in the Caucasus and Central Asia irrespective
of American intent. Cooperation with Russia is the only way forward.
Russia continues to have the most effective network of contacts
in Eurasia. First steps have already been taken in coordinating
intelligence collection, marrying Russia’s human intelligence
capabilities with American technological capacity. Why not build upon
this foundation and create a new security organization, grounded in
the NATO-Russia Council, that would develop joint institutions for
our joint security challenges?
Recent events in Georgia demonstrate how the lack of coordination
between Washington and Moscow can cause serious misunderstandings
and frustrate effective cooperation. When Americans hint that
the real purpose of U.S. forces in Georgia is to combat Russian
influence rather than root out terrorist cells, Moscow responds
with suspicion. Russia has a shared interest with the United States
in promoting a Georgian administration that can effectively crack
down on organized crime and radicals, and it demonstrated this by
helping to end the stand-off between President Mikheil Saakashvili
of Georgia and the defiant leader of Adzharia, Aslan Abashidze.
But cooperation will be limited if Russia believes America’s true
intent is to leverage Russia out of the region altogether.
Too often, security initiatives in Eurasia have had an “us or them”
approach. In the Kyrgyz Republic, both the United States and Russia
maintain military bases, although both ostensibly serve the same
purpose – to prevent the spillover of Islamist terrorism into Central
Asia. Indeed, Russia opened its base at Kant in autumn 2003, its
first post-cold war deployment, in response to the arrival of the
U.S. military. These forces have no mechanism for joint action –
not even the ability to communicate by cellphone.
Creating a joint U.S.-Russia base under the aegis of a NATO-Russia
partnership, a proposal the Kyrgyz president, Askar Akaev, endorses,
could lay the basis for practical cooperation that could then
be extended, both to the countries where Russia has prevailing
influence (such as Armenia) and those seeking greater integration
into Euro-Atlantic structures (such as Georgia, Uzbekistan or even
Azerbaijan). It would send a clear message to all countries in the
region that cooperation with Russia does not jeopardize their progress
to full membership in the Euro-Atlantic community.
It could also pave the way for greater regional stability. Take the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – if it can be resolved, a major source
of instability and a threat to the export of hydrocarbons from the
Caspian basin would be removed. Given the lack of trust on both sides,
the only effective peacekeeping force would be a joint Russia-NATO
operation – one that could give assurances to both the Armenians
and Azeris. The peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo – the
first time that Russian and NATO forces collaborated in that manner –
provide a foundation for extending such cooperation.
The American ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, has declared
that “NATO sees Russia as a partner.” If that is the case, then it
is time to institutionalize cooperation between Russia and the West
to deal with common threats.
Ian Bremmer is president of the Eurasia Group and a senior fellow at
the World Policy Institute. Nikolas Gvosdev is executive editor of
The National Interest. NATO looks east

Utut stuns Alekseev in Tripoli
Jakarta Post
June 22, 2004
Musthofid, Jakarta — Grand Master (GM) Utut Adianto of Indonesia
defeated GM Evgeny Alekseev of Russia to advance to the second round
of the World Chess Championship in Tripoli, Libya, on Sunday.
Utut, who has an elo-rating of 2591 against Alekseev’s 2616 went
through on 1.5-0.5 points in two games in the knock-out tournament,
which featured 128 players from around the world.
“We were involved in a tense and dramatic battle before I could
stop him for a place in the second round,” Utut reported to Jakarta
by e-mail.
After his attacking tactical ploy ended in a draw in the first game
on Saturda, Utut started the second game more aggressively in an
all-out bid for a win.
The 38-year-old Indonesian employed remarkable restraint during the
game. He won a pawn in the 41st move and took another in a later move
before forcing the 19-year-old Russian into submission in 61 moves
in four-and-a-half hours.
Utut’s opponent in the second round is GM Vladimir Akopian of Armenia.
Akopian (2689), who was a finalist in the 1999 championship, defeated
Jose Gonzalez Garcia of Mexico on Sunday.
It is Utut’s fourth appearance in the world championship. He reached
the second rounds in 1997 and 2000 while he exited in the first round
in 1999.
The top seeds had little difficulty in getting past their lower-rated
opponents, with GM Vaselin Topalov, GM Michael Adams, GM Vassily
Ivanchuk and GM Nigel Short each registering 2-0 victories.
The Tripoli chess meet is going ahead in the absence of reigning
champion, GM Ruslan Ponomariov of Ukraine, who has opted to skip the
tournament in protest at the tournament format.

Internet crimes in Armenia
By: Ludmila Goroshko
Computer Crime Research Center, Ukraine
June 22 2004
Most of computer crimes in the banking sphere of Armenia are committed
through the Internet, Olga Safaryan, legal expert of “Internews”
told during seminar “Legal Field of Information Technologies and
Their Correspondence to European Standards”.
She said that these crimes are not solved in Armenia, like anywhere
in the world, because banks try to avoid announcing such information;
they fear to incur reputation damage. Olga Safaryan informed that
these crimes haven’t been prosecuted yet hence they have no special
organization to fight computer crimes in Armenia.
“In my report I suggest, on the analogy of other CIS countries,
to create a department to control computer crimes. At the moment,
it is still not clear who will investigate these crimes if they
occur, and therefore there are no statistics,” she said. Besides,
Safaryan noted that August 1, 2003 a new Criminal Code of Republic of
Armenia came into force, where chapter 24 that consists of 7 articles
is fully devoted to computer crimes. The worst crime is the one
committed through negligence, causing of harm to health or other grave
consequences. It is provided for by article 254, part 4, to establish
6 through 12 years jail for illegal access to computer information.
“However, this article does not define grave consequences that may
lead to problems applying it”, she said.

Azeri, Armenian foreign ministers see Prague talks on Karabakh as “positive”
MPA news agency
22 Jun 04
Baku, 22 June: Different aspects of and prospects for resolving
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict have been discussed in Prague by the
Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers.
Elmar Mammadyarov and Vardan Oskanyan expressed concern about the
recent cease-fire violations on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border,
MPA reports. The sides pointed out that the situation was being dealt
with in an atmosphere of mutual understanding.
The ministers said that the meeting was useful and positive. It was
attended also by the cochairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group from the USA,
Russia and France, and the special representative of the OSCE chairman,
Andrzej Kasprzyk.

Armenia, Iran boost energy cooperation
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
21 Jun 04
[Presenter] The Araks river is in the focus of the Armenian-Iran
cooperation. Armenia and Iran agreed to jointly use the river’s hydro
[electrical generating] potential nine years ago. A joint commission
was set up on in 2000 and after three years a scheme to use the river
has been confirmed. The project includes the construction of two
power stations, one on Armenian and one on Iranian territory. The
Armenian Energy Ministry discussed the preparation of the joint
Armenian-Iran programmes and the issues of the construction of the
Megri hydro-electric power station during the meeting held in Syunik
District.
[Correspondent over video of power grids] The preparation works on the
construction power stations on the Araks river are being completed. The
construction site has already been confirmed. The sides will sign an
agreement in two months and the station’s ground stone will be laid in
summer 2005. The power station will be constructed by Iranian financial
means, estimated at about 40m dollars. This amount we [Armenia] shall
return in the form of energy produced in the new power station. This
is the third Armenian-Iran joint project. The first one was the
Armenian-Iran high-voltage power station which was commissioned last
year. The second line’s construction followed the first one which is
under construction and will be completed in the autumn.
There are seven Armenian-Iran joint programmes in the energy
industry. The construction of the Armenian-Iran gas pipeline’ will
also start soon. The agreement has already been signed, the financial
sources are being confirmed and the preparation works are being
completed. The construction of oil processing and chemical plants
are possible plans.
[Armenian Energy Minister, Armen Movsesyan, captioned] These seven
programmes which we have with Iran in the energy industry are quite
large, serious programmes. I think that all these programmes will
be implemented.
[Correspondent] Apart from the security issues in the field of energy,
these programmes will also promote the development of other districts
and the resolution of social problems, in particular, employment
issues.
Tereza Kasyan, “Aylur”.

INCREASING SALARIES AND PENSIONS
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
June 18, 2004
throughout the republic. She stressed that the background radiation
around the factory will by all means be checked and the findings of
the survey will be published. 99 FLATS WERE BUILT FOR RESETTLERS IN
2003. In the report of the state department of migration, refugees and
resettlement it is mentioned that in 2003 155 families resettled in
NKR and 99 flats were built for resettlers. The head of the department
Serge Amirkhanian mentioned that it is necessary to increase the
budget subsidies at least by one fourth of the budget confirmed in
2004 because after the adoption of the law “On Refugees” at the end of
the past year the department also has to solve the housing problems
of the refugees. In answer to our question whether the program
of resettlement can include also the dying villages of NKR Serge
Amirkhanian mentioned that there are such villages in the program:
Dahrav, Nakhijevanik, Aranzamin, Sarnaghbyur in Askeran region and
the village Garnakar in Martakert region. “Already three families have
been resettled in Dahrav, although there are about 68 abandoned houses
there,” mentioned S. Amirkhanian. He emphasized that the list of the
resettled villages is regularly reconsidered, therefore if the heads
of the regional administrations have suggestions in this reference
they may present them. THE LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IS
UNSATISFACTORY. The ministry of education and culture held tests in
the republic schools and the results were published in the newspaper
“Lusarar”. According to this information, the knowledge of the pupils
was graded zero. In this reference minister Armen Sarghissian announced
that the results of the tests will be compared to the results of
the final school examinations. According to the minister, similar
tests allow to reduce the amount of false marks to the minimum. Armen
Sarghissian mentioned the importance of objective grading of knowledge
of pupils because in two years it is planned to pass to the system of
admittance to higher educational institutions without examinations.
According to the minister, 7 directors of schools were dismissed
from their positions and two received warning in written form in the
result of the recent checking. According to the minister, the aim of
the checking is not punishing but rendering methodological help. A.
Sarghissian also emphasized that in the result of discussions during
the visit of the RA minister of education S. Yeritsian to Karabakh
teachers of Karabakh made 365 suggestions referring to the 12-year
secondary education system, of which many were accepted.
NAIRA HAYRUMIAN