La Tribune
18 juin 2004
Hommes et Idées; La Chronique; p. 38
SÉLECTION
ÉCONOMIE
Gros plan sur les médias d’outre-Manche. Jean-Claude Sergeant n’est
pas seulement un spécialiste de l’histoire de la Grande-Bretagne (il
est professeur de civilisation britannique à l’université Paris-III),
un fin connaisseur de la société anglaise (il a dirigé quelques
années la Maison française d’Oxford), il est aussi un mordu de la
presse et des médias en général. Son livre, les Médias britanniques,
n’est pas le premier qu’il signe sur le sujet. Mais c’est peut-être
le plus complet, le plus technique aussi. De l’état des lieux, de la
presse écrite comme de l’audiovisuel, qu’il établit en partant de
l’héritage historique, il ne lâche rien des questions économiques et
des questions juridiques (les domaines de la loi et des régulations).
Un outil de référence.
“Les Médias britanniques” de Jean-Claude Sergeant. Ophrys-Ploton, 350
pages, 17,50 euros.
GÉOPOLITIQUE
La Turquie et l’Europe. Olivier Roy, directeur de recherche au CNRS
et spécialiste des questions concernant l’Asie centrale et l’Islam
(politique), a réuni une pléiade d’auteurs pour balayer dans un
ouvrage – sans clichés – la “question” turque et sa candidature à
l’entrée dans l’Union européenne. Il fallait toute son autorité pour
réussir ce pari. La majorité des membres de l’Union freine des quatre
fers. Sans trop dire qu’il s’agit de questions religieuses, sans trop
insister sur l’abstention record (plus de 70 %) dans certaines de
leurs dépendances territoriales lointaines (Antilles…) lors des
dernières élections européennes ! La Turquie candidate depuis 1987
veut encore y croire. En revisitant l’état de la démocratie turque,
son économie, l’islam, la question kurde mais aussi son histoire
(génocide arménien…), ce livre est d’une réelle actualité.
“La Turquie aujourd’hui”, ouvrage dirigé par Olivier Roy.
Universalis, 193 pages, 12,50 euros.

Euro-Est
17 juin 2004
PARTICIPATION DE DIPLOMATES ARMENIENS A UN STAGE EN LITUANIE SUR
L’INTEGRATION EUROPEENNE .
Des diplomates arméniens ont participé an stage au ministère
lituanien des Affaires étrangères, du 31 mai au 11 juin, en vue d’en
apprendre davantage sur l’intégration européenne. Selon le ministre,
ces diplomates ont étudié l’expérience lituanienne en matière de
préparation à l’adhésion, divers aspects de la coordination d’activités
liées à l’UE ainsi que la formation de l’opinion publique quant à
l’intégration à l’Union européenne.
Ils ont également pris part à une série de réunions au sein des
institutions lituaniennes et ont visité l’Institut des Sciences
politiques et des Relations internationales de l’Université de
Vilnius. Le Ministre a expliqué que des représentants des pays du Sud
Caucase (Arménie, Azerbaïdjan et Géorgie) participeront à différentes
activités de formation en matière d’administration publique, en
Lituanie, en 2004-2005, dans le cadre d’un programme de transfert
vers ces pays de l’expérience lituanienne en matière d’intégration
européenne. Un stage similaire a été organisé en janvier à l’attention
de hauts responsables ukrainiens.

EXHIBITION DEDICATED TO TIGRAN PETROSIAN IN NATIONAL LIBRARY
ArmenPress
June 17 2004
YEREVAN, JUNE 17, ARMENPRESS: Exhibition dedicated to the 9-th world
chess champion Tigran Petrosian’s 75 anniversary was launched today
at the National Library, Vernatun. According to library head David
Sarkisian, the exhibited books, periodical and newspapers are only
part of the publications dedicated to Tigran Petrosian.
Particularly, books by P. Clark, I. Bondarevski, V. Vasiliev and others
are exhibited together with dozens of periodicals. T. Petrosian is
still subject of interest for many researchers, scientists, chess
players and funs. Recently a book was written by academician Gevorg
Brutian about T. Petrosian which will come up soon. The exhibition
will run one week.

NATIONAL STANDARD FOR GROUND COFFEE DEVELOPED
ArmenPress
June 17 2004
YEREVAN, JUNE 17, ARMENPRESS: A recently founded National Academy
of Consumers said today it has developed a new national standard of
ground coffee that is being now reconciled with appropriate bodies.
An expert of the Academy said none of the applied normative documents
specifies the permitted level of humidity of coffee. She added that
the new coffee standard has been brought in compliance with European
standards. The new standard was developed in cooperation with local
producers of ground coffee.
The expert said introduction of this standard will allow tax
authorities to introduce some changes. In case of a higher level of the
permitted humidity standard customs officers may ban its import into
the country, as micro-toxic agents begin developing in humid coffee.
A recent examination of the quality of locally produced ground coffee
revealed that virtually all of them contained toxic agents.

South Ossetia: Activism of the Georgian Government Tests International Efforts
by Jaba Devdariani / 2004-06-17 16:25:33
Civil Georgia
June 17 2004
Reposted from Central Asia – Caucasus Analyst
Breakaway region needs a complex of social
and economic rehabilitation projects.
The Georgian government has taken decisive steps to address some of
the most pressing political and economic problems related to the
post-conflict area of South Ossetia and proposes revision of the
current peacekeeping mandate.
Recent developments in South Ossetia have shown the inadequacy of the
current peacekeeping arrangements to the complex state-building and
conflict resolution tasks that the new Georgian administration
pursues. Pro-active economic rehabilitation and social assistance
programs that are offered to South Ossetian residents hold promise
for boosting the political negotiations, but also a risk for a
militant backlash.
Somewhat paradoxically, the international organizations involved in
conflict resolution could prove the least ready to catch up with the
new developments.
Background: The conflict in South Ossetia, leading to the death of
ca. 1,000 and the displacement of some 60,000 persons ended in a
ceasefire in July 1992. A somewhat unorthodox ceasefire arrangement
introduced a joint peacekeeping force (JPKF) composed of Georgian,
South Ossetian and Russian elements.
Russia took the factual, as well as the legal lead of the military
operation. The OSCE has been the most actively involved international
institution in the political aspect of conflict settlement, but a
quadripartite Joint Control Commission (JCC) involving Georgia, South
Ossetia, Russia as well as Russia’s North Ossetia Republic became the
main political discussion forum. The OSCE acts as a JCC participant,
while UNHCR and EU involvement in the process has varied over times
and is by now rudimentary.
Although the OSCE drafted a settlement proposal in August 1994,
Russian mediation (with OSCE participation) proved more fruitful in
moving the political dialogue forward. Meetings between the South
Ossetian and Georgian presidents Lyudvig Chibirov and Eduard
Shevardnadze in 1996-98 led to a general détente in the conflict
area.
By the end of the 1990s, road communications between Tskhinvali and
neighboring Georgian provinces were restored, and the region became a
booming hub for largely illegal trade between Georgia and Russia.
While economic détente was apparent, a political settlement proved
evasive. In July 2000, the conflicting parties agreed through OSCE
mediation on demilitarization, joint economic projects, elaboration
of the legislative base for repatriation of displaced persons, and
even on joint law enforcement activities.
Yet hopes for eventual political settlement were dashed in December
2001 with the election of Eduard Kokoev as South Ossetia’s president.
Kokoev, a Russian businessman, has reportedly monopolized the illegal
trade and squeezed the previous leadership out of the political
arena, accusing them of pro-Georgian sentiments. Kokoev also presided
over a massive acceptance of Russian citizenship by South Ossetian
residents.
South Ossetia became a tangible economic security threat to Georgia.
Goods smuggled via Ossetia, such as petrol and flour, reportedly
capture up to 30% of the Georgian market. The “war economy” in South
Ossetia has also involved the Georgian and South Ossetian law
enforcers, as well as the peacekeepers, in smuggling and corruption.
In late May 2004, President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered interior
troops to crack down on smuggling. These moves harmed the interests
of the South Ossetian political elite, and apparently upset the
Russian peacekeeping commander, resulting in a standoff between
Georgian special services and the Russian and South Ossetian
peacekeepers.
In addition to these measures, Saakashvili proposed a complex of
social and economic rehabilitation projects in South Ossetia,
pledging to extend the Georgian government’s protection to its
Ossetian citizens. For the first time, the Georgian leadership took
the initiative in South Ossetia and made some reconciliatory moves,
albeit carefully backed by credible force.
The reaction of foreign players has been rather perplexed. Russia has
reacted with warnings to Georgia against a resumption of hostilities.
The OSCE has made no official reaction apart from expressing general
concern. However, State Minister for Conflict Resolution Giorgi
Khaindrava has indicated that the Georgian government will propose a
revision of the peacekeeping mandate in South Ossetia.
Implications: Georgia’s economic concerns are real. However, it is
impossible to effectively address these concerns in the current
format of peacekeeping, and OSCE diplomats seem to grudgingly agree
that the current format, which concentrated on the separation of
warring forces, has outlived its usefulness.
Effective anti-smuggling operations by Georgia put a stranglehold on
the South Ossetian leadership and may push them towards militarism if
political solutions are lagging. The domination of the Russian and
Ossetian components in the JPKF also seems to end as Georgia brings
its peacekeeping battalion to full strength in personnel and
equipment, and concentrates well-trained troops and heavy equipment
in adjacent Georgian provinces.
The need for a new level of political mediation is urgent, but
international actors seem hesitant to take risks and accept that
function. The OSCE has the longest history in handling this
particular conflict. However, its political decision-making is
burdened by consensus voting in Vienna, which would render the
organization incapable in case of Russia’s opposition.
OSCE-Russia interaction failed to produce results in 2003, when a
Transdniestria peace plan strongly influenced by Russian interests
was met with opposition in Western capitals and eventually failed,
spurring heated criticisms towards the OSCE, which the organization
may see as an obstacle in addressing South Ossetia.
The EU has crucial tools at its disposal that may come into play if
initial political consultations on South Ossetia are successful. The
EU has generated significant experience in Bosnia and Herzegovina by
running the police mission (EUPM) tasked with reconciliation and
synchronization of the hostile ethnic groups within a single police
force and also rendered significant assistance to improvement of the
border controls there.
In South Ossetia, the interoperability of local police with Georgian
counterparts would be crucial in ensuring joint anti-smuggling
efforts and precluding an armed standoff similar to that of May 31,
2004.
South Ossetia has historically been overshadowed by the conflicts in
Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The interest and involvement of the
international organizations and foreign powers, except Russia, has
been very weak.
However, at present the Georgian government is determined to first
“unfreeze” and then resolve the conflict, and is choosing a
long-term, economics-based approach coupled with a “hearts and minds”
campaign to achieve this goal. Together with a relatively low degree
of inter-community tension, South Ossetia has the chance of becoming
a one-of-a-kind conflict resolution success in the post-Soviet space
and likely set a precedent.
There is a fierce battle among international organizations for
political know-how, donor attention and finite funding. The
organization or state that puts stakes in South Ossetia conflict
resolution is likely to rip significant political benefits, while the
consequences of failure are unlikely to be catastrophic.
Conclusions: Current actions of the Georgian government to articulate
new policies towards South Ossetia provide a good background for
productive political mediation by third parties. The international
organizations present in the South Caucasus such as the OSCE and the
EU have comparative advantages to take up this role. Georgia’s recent
détente with Russia allows for positively involving the Kremlin in
this process.
It would take decades to amass the political will for peaceful
resolution comparable to the current mood in Tbilisi. Unless the
international organizations overcome their lethargy towards the
relatively low profile of South Ossetia to see the region-wide
benefits of successful conflict resolution, promising developments
may go in vain, leaving the scene to the “parties of war” on both
sides of the conflict.

La Turquie sans amnésie sur l’Arménie
Libération, France
15 juin 2004
“L’entrée éventuelle d’une Turquie négationniste en Europe inquiète
les 450 000 Français d’origine arménienne”, a écrit Ara Toranian dans
un Rebonds publié lundi dernier. Au nom du vieux principe “diffamez,
diffamez, il en restera toujours quelque chose”, M. Toranian a pris
des libertés très contestables avec la réalité.
Non, il n’est pas question ici d’affirmer que l’Empire ottoman n’a
pas été coupable d’exactions par le passé. D’ailleurs, bien peu de
pays peuvent prétendre échapper à une telle accusation. Mais nous
nous élevons contre les allégations de ce monsieur qui suggère que
la Turquie est encore aujourd’hui une menace pour les Arméniens qui
vivent sur son sol ou dans tout autre pays. Il prétend que la Turquie
efface les souvenirs des Arméniens de son territoire ! Je me suis
suffisamment rendu en Turquie pour savoir que c’est faux, et tous
ceux qui connaissent ce pays pour y avoir vécu le confirmeront. Les
Arméniens de Turquie vivent en toute quiétude, mais, tout comme les
juifs en France, ils ne sont pas à l’abri de menées de groupes ou
d’individus extrémistes qui sont la honte de toutes les nations.
Effectivement, la Turquie ne reconnaît pas le génocide arménien. Elle
a toujours admis la réalité de massacres, mais nie qu’il y ait eu une
intention délibérée de la part du gouvernement des Jeunes Turcs de
supprimer l’ensemble d’une population. Bien qu’on le taise en France,
les historiens sont partagés sur le sujet et le Royaume-Uni, qui n’a
pas spécialement d’intérêts en Turquie, rejette cette qualification,
comme l’a rappelé récemment, et à plusieurs reprises, son ministère
des Affaires étrangères.
Les propos de M. Toranian deviennent proprement scandaleux et
insultants quand il affirme que la Turquie se serait rendue “complice
de la solution finale” qui, comme chacun sait, désigne la Shoah.
Durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il convient de rappeler que la
Turquie est restée neutre. Alors que, de France, les juifs étaient
déportés par trains entiers vers les camps de la mort, la Turquie,
elle, accueillait sur son sol les juifs en exil.
Reynald Beaufort, président de l’association Turquie européenne

5,000 Rally in Armenia Protest
Moscow Times
June 18 2004
The Associated Press YEREVAN, Armenia — Opposition leaders in Armenia
held the latest in a series of anti-government protests on Wednesday
and accused the authorities of trying to fool European human rights
representatives by easing a crackdown against opponents during
their visit.
About 5,000 people gathered in the capital for a protest in central
Yerevan, where speakers denounced the foreign and economic policies
of President Robert Kocharyan and his government.
Opposition leader Stepan Demirchyan said the authorities “imitated
democratic reforms” during a recent visit by representatives of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
An opposition party leader was released from jail the day the envoys
arrived in Armenia, and prosecutors dropped a criminal case against
an official of the same party the day they left, speakers said.
Wednesday’s protest was the first this year to be held with government
permission.

Front Page Magazine
June 18 2004
Revisiting the Right of Return
By Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 18, 2004
Try to imagine what the world would be like if Israel had granted the
“Palestinian refugees,” who fled from Israel in 1948-49, the right
to return to Israel. Not to the West Bank. Not to the Gaza Strip —
but to Israel within its pre-1967 borders.
Imagine a situation in which Israel agreed to allow tens of thousands
of Arabs who fled from the battle zones of the Israeli War of
Independence the possibility of returning to Israel, in many cases to
the very homes they had abandoned during the fighting. Imagine how the
same world, currently obsessed with achieving a “right of return” for
“Palestinian refugees,” would be forced to acknowledge that Israel had
already granted the possibility for tens of thousands of these refugees
to return to Israel, in many cases decades ago. How then could the
world continue to bash Israel? What ammunition would anti-Semites
have left? And what about the crowd claiming to be “anti-Zionists
but not anti-Semites” or the self-hating leftist Jewish anti-Semites?
Well, hold on to your hat, because I have a whopper of a revelation
to make to you. Israel DID grant the “Palestinian refugees” the
right to return to Israel!
Let us back up a bit. In 1947-48, the UN proposed partitioning
“Palestine” into a Jewish and an Arab state of approximately equal
sizes. The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs rejected it. When the
UN ended the British Mandate over “Palestine,” the Arab states attacked
the newborn state of Israel, tried to annihilate it and its population,
and at the same time gobbled up most of the territory that the UN
had allotted to become a Palestinian Arab state. The territory that
became Israel had NEVER been a Palestinian Arab state.
Most of the Arabs in “Palestine” had migrated there from neighboring
Arab countries after the 19th Century start of the Zionist Jewish
immigration, taking advantage of the influx of capital and the
availability of jobs and services, like hospitals. In other words,
the Arabs of “Palestine” in 1948, just like the Jews, were by and
large people from families who had been in the country for three
generations or less.
During the fighting in the 1948-49 war, thousands of Arabs living in
the territory that became Israel fled. The main reason they fled was
that they understandably wanted to put some distance between their
families and the battle zones. At the same time, they were ordered
by the Arab political leadership to leave the territory of Israel.
Why take my word on this? Listen to Arab sources:
“The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes
temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.”
– Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949.
“The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we
got out, but they did not get in.” – from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa,
September 6, 1954.
“”The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from
the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM
TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND” (emphasis added), Abu Mazen,
erstwhile “Prime Minister” of the Palestinian Authority, in “What We
Have Learned and What We Should Do,” published in Falastin el Thawra,
the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976.
There are scores of other Arab sources confirming this.
So how many Arabs fled? The number has become enormously distorted
over time by the Bash-Israel lobby and by Arab propagandists and
their apologists, who usually claim between 500,000 and a million.
A more realistic estimate is between 300,000 and 450,000, based in
part on Arab and UNRWA sources themselves. Most of these refugees
ended up in some of the twenty-two sovereign Arab states, including
those Arab countries from which they had migrated in the late 19th
and early 20th Centuries in the first place. In other words, the
“refugees” went back to their earlier homelands in Lebanon, Syria,
and Jordan. It was a semi- “right of return.” At the same time,
the Arab states carried out a near-total ethnic cleansing of around
a million Jews, who had been living there since Biblical days and in
many cases before these states had Arab populations. The Jews from
Arab countries left behind far more property than did the Palestinian
Arab refugees. Most of these Jewish refugees were resettled in Israel
In the years immediately following World War II, there were more than
50 million refugees: Poles, Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Hungarians,
Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. etc. They were all long ago resettled
and forgotten, all except for the “Palestinian refugees”. How come?
Because for decades, the Arab aggressor states found it convenient
to utilize the “refugees” as a political and military weapon
against Israel, not only of propaganda and spin, but of terrorism.
“Palestinians” inside Arab states were trained as terrorists and
sent out to murder. At the same time, there was enormous incentive
for the Arab locals in the countries into which the refugees had
entered to pretend also to be “Palestinian refugees.” After all,
the UN and other agencies were handing out free food and perks to
anyone pretending to be a refugee from “Palestine”.
Unlike all those many millions of other people considered refugees
in the late 1940s, the “Palestinians” were the only ones for whom
the “right of return” to their previous homes was considered an
entitlement. The reason was not a selective affection for Palestinians,
but a selective hostility towards Israel and Jews. Those demanding the
wholesale “return” to Israel of Palestinian “refugees”, including the
countless thousands of non-Palestinians pretending to be Palestinian
refugees, had one goal in mind, the eradication of Israel.
Israel would have been insane to allow itself to be inundated with
real and make-pretend Palestinian “refugees”, this in a tiny sliver of
land the size of Maryland, at the same time that the 22 Arab states
have territory-galore stretching from the Atlantic Ocean all the way
to Central Asia! The Palestinian Arabs and their sponsors had tried
to annihilate Israel and failed. Just like the infant United States,
which refused to allow any of the tens of thousands of Tory Loyalists
expelled by the patriots to “return” to the United States after the
War of Independence, Israel was entirely in its rights to refuse to
allow the “return” of masses of “Palestinians”, whose migration was
being demanded by those seeking to liquidate Israel via a demographic
flooding.
There is just one little caveat though.
Israel DID let the Palestinian refugees return! Tens of thousands of
them were quietly allowed to return to Israel, in many cases to their
original homes, once the fighting in 1949 subsided. Many continue
to be admitted today within the framework of “family reunification”
agreements.
>>From 1948 until 2001, Israel allowed about 184,000 “Palestinian
refugees” or their families to “return” to Israel proper (Jerusalem
Post, January 2, 2001; see also Ha’aretz 28 December 2000). These are
in addition to about 57,000 Palestinians from Jordan illegally in
Israel, towards whom the authorities are turning a blind eye (Ha’aretz,
4 April 2001). Not the West Bank, not Gaza, but Israel inside its
pre-1967 “Green Line” borders! In the Camp David II meetings in 2000,
Israeli leftist Prime Minister Ehud Barak rather insanely offered to
allow another 150,000 “refugees” to enter Israel as part of a peace
accord. The PLO’s response was to launch pogroms and four years of
atrocities, because the number was finite.
The demand for a “right of return” by Palestinians to Israel is no
doubt the most absurd political demand floating anywhere around the
planet. There is already an Arab state in two thirds of Mandatory
Palestine, named Jordan, and most Palestinan Arabs make up most of its
population. The Oslo Accords and Israel’s Camp David II offer would
have created a second Arab state in Palestine, in the West Bank and
Gaza, as part of a comprehensive peace settlement. Any “Palestinian”
from anywhere could have moved to “Palestine” or to Jordan, within
the framework of such a peace, the same way any Jew who wishes to may
immigrate to Israel, or any Armenian may immigrate to Armenia, and
Greeks from the Greek Diaspora are automatically welcomed in Greece.
The PLO and the Islamo-Fascist states backing it demand that in
ADDITION to establishing a second Arab state in Palestine within
the framework of any peace settlement, Israel itself must ALSO be
converted into a third Arab Palestinian state, via unlimited massive
immigration of people claiming to be Palestinians. Benjamin Franklin,
who opposed granting even a dime in compensation to the Tory refugees
expelled from the United States during the War of Independence,
would be splitting his sides laughing.
But the most Orwellian absurdity of all is that Israel DID grant the
“right to return” to tens of thousands of “Palestinian refugees”
long ago. Did this earn Israel the world’s gratitude for its uniquely
generous gesture? Did the world denounce the Arab Fascist states that
ignored this generosity and continued to seek Israel’s destruction
and the genocide of its population? Do today’s bleeding hearts and
recreational compassion poseurs, pretending to feel uncontrollable
pain and caring for Palestinian refugees, even know about the limited
“right of return” granted by Israel over the past decades?
Hindus have never been returned to Pakistan, Muslems from Pakistan
have not been returned to India, ethnic Germans were not returned to
their pre-war homes in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia or Romania,
Japanese have not been returned to Manchuria, Greeks have not been
returned to Anatolia, Jews have not been compensated for the billions
they left behind when ethnic cleansing of Jews in Muslem countries
took place, and Tory Loyalists were never returned to New England.
But tens of thousands of “Palestinian refugees” had their chance.
It is time to say enough is enough. The only remaining reasonable
plan regarding those still claiming to be “Palestinian refugees”
is simply: Forget about it.

Soloist has warm feelings for Siberia
By Richard Dyer, Globe Staff | June 18, 2004
Boston Globe, MA
June 18 2004
Tonight is Armenian Night at the Boston Pops, and conductor Bruce
Hangen’s program is called “Classic Pops” — it includes the
Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto. Hangen will present an unusual soloist,
Mikhail Simonyan, now 18.
Born to Russian and Armenian parents in Novosibirsk, Simonyan began
to play the violin at 5. (Evidently that’s one of the things children
in Novosibirsk enjoy doing: Two of today’s leading soloists on the
instrument, Maxim Vengerov and Vadim Repin, as well as Ilya
Konovalov, concertmaster of the Israel Philharmonic, grew up in the
Siberian city.)
At 13, Simonyan became a sensation in Russia and in New York in the
demanding First Concerto by the Polish composer Karol Szymanowski. An
American sponsor brought him to Philadelphia to study at the Curtis
Institute of Music; more recently, successful businessmen based in
Novosibirsk have supported him — a usual situation in a country
whose cultural infrastructure has collapsed. Simonyan has already
played with the National Symphony, the Pittsburgh Symphony, and the
Kirov Orchestra under Valery Gergiev.
Inspired by Gergiev’s example, Simonyan plans to return to Russia as
his home base for his international activity and contribute to the
musical life of his native land — unlike many of his contemporaries
and predecessors, who prefer easier living in the West.
Grand tour: The Greater Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras will tour
Estonia and Latvia and play in St. Petersburg, Russia, Tuesday
through July 4 under the direction of music director Federico
Cortese. The organization’s season-ending concert tomorrow in Sanders
Theatre is also a send-off concert for the tour and will include some
of the same repertoire, including Osvaldo Golijov’s “Night of the
Flying Horses” and Brahms’s Third Symphony.
Prize winners: Conductor Gil Rose and the Boston Modern Orchestra
Project won an award for adventurous programming from the American
Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers at the recent national
conference of the American Symphony Orchestra League. BMOP and Rose
won first place in the category of orchestras with annual operating
expenses between $420,000 and $1.625 million, chiefly for last year’s
“Opera Unlimited” festival, produced in collaboration with the former
Boston Academy of Music (now Opera Boston).
Robert Mealy, Baroque violinist and orchestra leader, has received
this year’s Thomas Binkley Award from the professional service
organization in the field, Early Music America, during the group’s
annual convention in California. The award recognizes distinguished
achievement in performance and scholarship by the director of a
university or college early-music ensemble. Mealy was cofounder of
the Harvard Baroque Chamber Orchestra in 1995 and serves as director
of the Yale Collegium Players. He has been active as a performer with
many ensembles (including the King’s Noyse, Sequentia, the Boston
Camerata, and Les Arts Florissants) and in many festivals, including
the Boston Early Music Festival. He is the Christopher Hogwood Fellow
at the Handel and Haydn Society and is one of the most elegant
writers on the subject of early music.
Violist David Kim, who will be a senior at the New England
Conservatory in the fall, has won the second prize of $5,000 in the
annual Irving M. Klein International String Competition in San
Francisco. Kim played the Bartok Viola Concerto and music by Bach and
Brahms.
Schumann season: Emmanuel Music will perform what is apparently the
Boston premiere of Schumann’s opera “Genoveva” next season, as well
as Handel’s oratorio “Israel in Egypt,” both under the direction of
founding conductor Craig Smith. The oratorio is Nov. 13, the opera
April 2. Several generations of Emmanuel singers will participate,
including James Maddalena, Frank Kelley, Sarah Pelletier, Krista
River, and Aaron Engebreth.
Emmanuel also will launch a five-year series of the complete piano,
vocal, and chamber music of Schumann. The first season consists of
seven concerts featuring the Lydian Quartet, Triple Helix, and
violinist Danielle Maddon; pianists Randall Hodgkinson, Judith
Gordon, Leslie Amper, and Smith; and Emmanuel singers including Jayne
West, Jane Bryden, Mark McSweeney, and Donald Wilkinson. The regular
series of Sunday morning Bach cantata performances runs Sept. 26
through May 15. Smith leads most cantatas, but other conductors
include John Harbison, John Ehrlich, Michael Beattie, Leonard
Matczynski, Scott Metcalfe, Benjamin Zander, and James Oleson.
For more information visit

Iran-Armenia gas, electricity trade to reach $10 bln
Interfax
June 18 2004
Yerevan. (Interfax) – Trade between Iran and Armenia as part of an
agreement for the construction and operation of the Iran- Armenia gas
pipeline, involving supplies of Iranian natural gas in exchange for
Armenian electricity, will amount to $10 billion over the next 20-25
years, Iranian Ambassador to Armenia Mohammad Farhad Koleini said.
He said that this agreement will not result in increased competition
between Russia and Iran on the gas market, as these countries are
not competitors, but partners.
“We are cooperating with Russia in the international arena and our
cooperation is not restricted to the Caucasus, and we do not see
competition as a decisive factor. This is the Iranian model,” the
ambassador said.
Koleini said that “in the energy sphere Russia needs to develop a
serious model for cooperation with Europe and with Iran.”
The ambassador considers it possible to set up a consortium of large
gas producing countries in the near future.
He also said that in line with a state program, Iran is planing to
build seven nuclear power plants in various regions in the country.
“In this process Iran is cooperating with Russia and is continuing
dialogue with European countries,” the ambassador said.
Armenia and Iran signed an agreement on May 13 for the construction
of a pipeline between the two countries. The agreement is valid for
20 years, during which Iran is to supply its neighbor with up to 36
bcm in exchange for electricity produced in Armenia. The pipeline is
141 km long, inducing 41 km in Armenia ands 100 km in Iran.
The total cost of the project is estimated at $210-$220 million,
to be financed equally. Gas should start to arrive in Armenia from
January 2007.
Initially supplies will amount to 1.1 bcm of gas per annum, to
subsequently increase to 2 bcm, which will be used at Armenian thermal
power plants to produce electricity for export to Iran and Georgia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress