Punchlines:Ligament damage forces Harrison to postpone
The Scotsman – United Kingdom
May 08, 2004
Stephen Halliday

SCOTT Harrison has been forced to postpone his defence of the WBO
featherweight title defence against William Abelyan after sustaining
an injury in training. The Scot was scheduled to face the US-based
Armenian at the Braehead Arena on 29 May but it is now likely to go
ahead three weeks later on 19 June. Promoter Sports Network hopes to
confirm the new date within the next few days.
“Scott damaged ligaments on his left arm while doing some pull-ups in
the gym,” explained Peter Harrison, the champion’s father and
trainer. “He was supposed to start sparring but can’t throw hooks or
uppercuts at the moment because of the injury.
“It’s not a major injury but after what happened in his first fight
against Manuel Medina when he lost his title last year, Scott isn’t
going to fight unless he is 100 per cent right.”
Harrison was originally due to face Abelyan, the No1 contender for his
title, in March, only for the US-based Armenian to pull out at short
notice because of injury.
By the early hours of tomorrow morning, meanwhile, Harrison will have
a clearly defined target in his quest to become the undisputed
featherweight champion of the world when Juan Manuel Marquez places
his WBA and IBF belts on the line against Manny Pacquaio at the MGM
Grand in Las Vegas.
It is without question world boxing’s most eagerly anticipated contest
of the year so far and has required little in the way of hype from
promoter Bob Arum. Marquez, the 30-year-old Mexican who has won 42 of
his 44 professional fights, is the man with the titles but finds
himself a slight underdog against boxing’s rising star Pacquaio, the
25-year-old from the Philippines who shot to global prominence with
his stunning 11th-round stoppage defeat of Marco Antonio Barrera last
November.
A former WBC flyweight and IBF super-bantamweight world champion,
Pacquaio’s ascent of the weight divisions has seen him lose none of
his explosive punching power. His last 17 wins, in fact, have been by
knockout and he has not been in a fight which went the distance for
almost six years.
If Pacquaio’s win over Barrera proved he could successfully compete at
featherweight and also earned him the division’s No1 rating from the
respected Independent World Boxing Rankings, he perhaps faces a more
searching examination from Marquez tonight.
A bona fide featherweight for the whole of his 11-year career so far,
the man from Mexico City lost a controversial points decision to
American Freddie Norwood in Las Vegas four years ago for the WBA
title. Avoided by Naseem Hamed, Marquez had to wait until February
last year for his second shot at a world title and left no room for
doubt with an outstanding seventh-round stoppage of compatriot Manuel
Medina for the IBF belt.
Last November, Marquez unified the IBF and WBA titles with a bizarre
seventh-round win over a petrified Derrick Gainer and is, with some
justification, miffed at receiving less recognition for his
achievements than Pacquaio.
“Last year was a great year for me, I worked hard to win two titles,”
said Marquez. “It is impossible for me to leave these titles
here. Pacquaio is a good fighter but he already talks about fighting
people like [Erik] Morales after me. Anything else I need to say about
this will be said on Saturday night with my two hands.”
British fans can catch the fight at 9am tomorrow morning on Sky Sports
2 and I believe they will see Marquez upset the odds and earn the
right to be called the best featherweight in the world.
AUDLEY Harrison is back in action tonight, making the first defence of
his WBF heavyweight title against former British champion Julius
Francis in Bristol.
While the giant Londoner should have few problems in racking up a 16th
straight win as a professional, Scottish interest in the BBC 2
televised bill centres on New Cumnock super-featherweight Andrew
Ferrans.
The 23-year-old will earn the biggest purse of his career when he
challenges WBF super-featherweight champion Carl Johanneson, son of
former Leeds United footballer Albert Johanneson, in the chief
supporting contest.

Associated Press
May 8 2004
Armenian Church offers to buy St. Francis in Nashua
The Associated Press
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) – The Catholic Diocese of Manchester hopes that a
$1 million offer from a representative of the Armenian Orthodox
Church to buy the century-old century-old St. Francis Xavier Church
will put residents’ minds at ease.
Architectural preservationists and former parishioners of the church
filed suit against Bishop John McCormack last month to stop their
closed church from being sold. They wanted the court to prevent any
sale and have the diocese maintain the building as a functioning
church.
Diocesan officials hope a probate court will recognize their intent
to transfer ownership to another church, thus following a provision
in a 119-year-old deed that lies at the center of the parishioners
lawsuit.
The deed states that if destroyed, the church building must be
replaced with another. It also requires that the land always hold a
place of religious observance and nothing else.
“We hope this proposal is consistent with the charitable condition”
of The Jackson Co., a textile manufacturer that donated the land on
which the building sits, said the Rev. Edward Arsenault, chancellor
of the Manchester diocese. “It’s our goal to resolve any civil legal
issue before transferring the title.”
The identity of the Armenian churchs representative is unknown. It is
also unclear if the individual would personally finance the purchase,
or if it would be funded by contributions from the Armenian
community. The buyer could donate the building outright to the
Armenian church, court documents suggest.
The diocese closed the church last year, citing a declining
parishioner base, dwindling donations and a clergy shortage.
“It was meant to be a church. Im very grateful the Armenian people
see its value as a house of worship, and a magnificent one at that,”
said Georgi Hippauf, a member of the St. Francis Xavier Church
Foundation.
The foundation – a group that wants St. Francis to remain a religious
institution – and several former parishioners of the church sued
McCormack, attempting to strip the diocese of its supervisory power
of the building.
The suit boils down to the question of who owns a church: the
parishioners or the bishop?
The diocese filed several court motions Friday, including petitions
to suspend and ultimately dismiss the suit in Hillsborough County
Superior Court. The diocese instead wants the Hillsborough County
Probate Court to issue a final ruling on the deed.
Gerald Prunier, a Nashua attorney representing the interested buyer,
would also not reveal the persons identity. He said the new church
would “be the parish of New Hampshire.”
“My client has strong interest in the church,” Prunier said. “Anyone
(who) takes the time to go around in the church realizes what a great
building it is.”

The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)
May 8, 2004 Saturday Final Edition
Armenian tears flow over genocide vote: First world war killings
recognized. Liberal political reforms, allowing MPs to vote with
their heart, helped pass the bill
by: BRENDA BRANSWELL
Girair Basmadjian remembers the sadness that hung over family
gatherings when he was a child.
“Everybody used to cry,” said Basmadjian, 62, a Montreal
ophthalmologist.
The source of their sorrow was all the absent relatives. Basmadjian
knew his grandfather but never met the man’s siblings. His aunt and
uncles were among numerous family members who died in the mass
killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during the First World
War.
Since the 1980s, Basmadjian, president of the Armenian National
Committee of Canada, and others have lobbied Ottawa to recognize the
killings as “genocide” instead of using adjectives like “calamity” to
describe the atrocities.
Now many in the Armenian community are savouring their recent
victory. A private member’s motion adopted in the House of Commons
last month recognized the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemned it
as an act of inhumanity.
Retired Montreal engineer Robert Kouyoumdjian, who lost 32 family
members in the genocide, called it a “a huge relief.”
Kouyoumdjian likened it to a burial garment for the Armenians who
were interred in ditches and mass graves. “I told myself they finally
have a shroud,” he said.
Describing the bittersweet elation in his community, Norair
Serengulian, head of the Armenian National Committee of Quebec,
suggests it represents “a step closer to a collective healing.”
When they began pushing for the recognition of the genocide,
Basmadjian said, people told him he was paddling upstream.
“At the time I used to say, ‘Well, I’m not rowing against the
current. I’m rowing against the falls,’ ” he recalled, with a laugh.
The committee also sharpened its lobbying tactics. In 1999, when the
subject came before a parliamentary committee, the Armenian National
Committee assembled a six-inch-thick document backing up its
insistence that a genocide occurred.
“So this time, in order for them to read it, we made it very, very
concise,” Basmadjian said, leafing through a bound 23-page document.
Political reform also helped their cause. Under reforms introduced by
Prime Minister Paul Martin, private members’ motions are now subject
to automatic votes. Moreover, the so-called two-line vote on the
motion called for cabinet solidarity but other Liberals MPs were free
to vote the way they wanted. “Without the government members this
motion would have died,” said Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal MP for
Ahuntsic riding, who supported it.
Basmadjian and a contingent of 150 people of Armenian descent watched
in the visitors’ gallery as MPs voted 153-68 in favour of the motion.
His eyes filled with tears again recently as he recalled seeing some
members of Parliament become emotional. “Seeing Armenian eyes crying
is understandable,” Basmadjian said. “But seeing the MPs crying –
that was the most touching part of all.”
The motion was brief.
In a letter sent to MPs, the Armenian National Committee of Canada
called the recognition of the Armenian genocide “an act of historical
justice” rather than one of vengeance.
But a Turkish diplomat in Ottawa contends the motives behind it
involve land claims and financial redress.
“It is not a case of genocide from our point of view. It is a
historical dispute for land … from the days of the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire,” said Fazli Corman, a counsellor at the Turkish
embassy.
The assertion of genocide “is not right because it is a travesty of
truth,” Corman added.
Turkey suggests a few hundred thousand Armenians died; however, most
non-Turkish historians contend the Turks killed up to 1.5 million
Armenians in 1915.
“We all have someone in our family tree who has been affected – who
has either been murdered by the Ottoman authorities at the time or
had a life of hardship because of that,” Serengulian said.
[email protected]
GRAPHIC: Photo: RICHARD ARLESS JR, THE GAZETTE; Robert Kouyoumdjian,
a member of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, visits the
Armenian National Monument at Marcelin-Wilson Park at the corner of
L’Acadie and Henri Bourassa Blvds., where his daughter, Celine
Kouyoumdjian, places flowers. The National Committee succeeded in
having the federal government recognize the Armenian genocide during
the First World War.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
May 7, 2004 Friday
Azerbaijan committed to peaceful talks over Karabakh problem -pres
By Sevinzh Abdullayeva and Viktor Shulman
BAKU
Azerbaijani President Ilkham Aliyev said his country remained
committed to peaceful negotiations over the settlement of the Nagorny
Karabakh conflict.
“We believe that the problem may be resolved as a result of these
talks,” Aliyev told reporters on Friday.
He noted that Baku’s position remain unchanged: the occupied
territory of the country should be freed, while refugees should
return home. Next, it would be possible to decide on the status of
Nagorny Karabakh.
The president denied the reports by some Armenian sources alleging
the existence of accords between Baku and Yerevan.
“Azerbaijan and Armenia never had any agreements,” Aliyev stated. In
his view, mediators’ efforts are necessary to bring the parties’
positions closer.
The OSCE Minsk group on Nagorny Karabakh should do a mission of
mediation, without acting like observers on the sidelines, he said.
According to the Azerbaijani president, if the two parties are unable
to come to terms, mediators should bring forward their proposals. At
the same time, he believes that along with the Minsk group which has
a mandate for mediation, influential international organizations,
such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of
Europe should also show an active position.

The Economist
May 8, 2004
U.S. Edition
Protest voters; Armenia
A strong president stays in charge
The chances of change in Armenia remain small
UNTIL recently, Armenia was quieter than its neighbours. Armenians
seemed to have little to complain of. The economy has racked up ten
years of growth, inflation is low, the currency stable. President
Robert Kocharian’s government has largely ensured access to light,
heat and other basics. Yet the opposition has been staging
increasingly noisy protests calling for the departure of Mr
Kocharian, whose March 2003 re-election was widely seen as
fraudulent. As a minimum, the opposition wants a referendum to test
support for the government, a compromise recommended by Armenia’s
constitutional court. Mr Kocharian has given dark warnings to
participants in “illegal” protest rallies, and arrested ringleaders.
Vehicles driving into Yerevan have been forced back, for fear they
might carry demonstrators. One 6,000-strong protest was greeted by
water cannons.
Armenia lacks some necessary ingredients for a Georgian “rose
revolution”. Corruption is rampant, and few people outside Yerevan
enjoy the fruits of growth. But Mr Kocharian is less widely hated
than was Edward Shevardnadze. Generous foreign aid—Armenia is one of
the biggest per-head recipients in the world—has obscured government
thievery. Mr Kocharian keeps a steely grip on the local airwaves, in
contrast to the thriving independent media of Georgia. Russia is
still a strong supporter. And the Americans, who helped to push out
Mr Shevardnadze, seem more concerned with stability than
democracy—though American presence in Armenia is quietly increasing.
The opposition is led by Stepan Demirchian, who lacks the charisma of
Georgia’s Mikhail Saakashvili. Many local observers fear that he and
Artashes Geghamian, another opposition leader, are more interested in
a turn at the trough than in real change. The marked absence of young
people at most protest rallies reflects a deep cynicism about
politics.
Meanwhile, the ten-year ceasefire in the war over the disputed
enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh is under strain. Azerbaijan’s president,
Ilham Aliev, has been sabre-rattling to drum up support. At a recent
World Economic Forum meeting in Warsaw, where the three Caucasian
presidents met, Mr Aliev dismissed any talk of freeing up trade until
Armenia stopped occupying part of his country. The blockade of
Armenia’s borders by Azerbaijan and Turkey looks like continuing. And
prospects for change in Armenia remain bleak.

United Press International
May 7, 2004 Friday
The Peter Principles: Prisoner’s base
By PETER ROFF
WASHINGTON, May 7 (UPI)
The Bush administration’s public standing appears badly damaged by
the unfolding scandal that was kicked off by the discovery of
photographs seeming to show U.S. military personnel mistreating
inmates at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.
Since the revelations, Bush’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll
dropped 3 points, from 52 percent in mid-April to 49 percent in early
May. Those who said they disapproved of the way he is handling his
job as president increased by the same amount.
Like Claude Raines in Casablanca, there are any number of people who
claim they are “shocked, shocked” to discover that prisoners may have
been tortured or abused. While upsetting — and a potentially
damaging revelation as far as U.S. diplomatic relations with the Arab
world are concerned — the news is hardly Earth shaking. Anyone with
an even passing knowledge of what occurs in U.S. correctional
facilities on a daily basis is aware that prisons are not, to put it
mildly, nice places.
Prisoners are assaulted — and worse — on a regular basis by other
inmates and, if some claims are to be believed, also by their
warders. The same is true in countless prisons and detention
facilities throughout the world, some of the worst of which were
located in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. There, prisoners were routinely
tortured in unspeakable ways for political reasons or simply for
amusement.
While the purported incidents in the Abu Ghraib prison are disturbing
by U.S. standards, they are fairly benign when measured against what
goes on in the rest of the world. In reality, it is President George
Bush’s reaction that should really give the world pause, because it
explains yet again why the United States is different from most other
nations.
In remarks following his meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan,
comments certain to be broadcast throughout the Arab world, Bush
addressed the issue at length. The two leaders talked, Bush said,
“about what has been on the TV screens recently, not only in our own
country, but overseas — the images of cruelty and humiliation.”
“I told His Majesty as plainly as I could that the wrongdoers will be
brought to justice,” Bush said, “and that the actions of those folks
in Iraq do not represent the values of the United States of America.”
“I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi
prisoners, and the humiliation suffered by their families. I told him
I was equally sorry that people who have been seeing those pictures
didn’t understand the true nature and heart of America.”
And, in what may be one of the most remarkable admissions ever made
by a U.S. leader in wartime, “I assured him Americans, like me,
didn’t appreciate what we saw, that it made us sick to our stomachs.
I also made it clear to His Majesty that the troops we have in Iraq,
who are there for security and peace and freedom, are the finest of
the fine, fantastic United States citizens, who represent the very
best qualities of America: courage, love of freedom, compassion and
decency.”
In the Arab world, where much worse torture and abuse is routine if
not required, the president’s words must come as a true revelation.
The leader of the world’s most powerful nation humbled himself and
his country not just before its own citizens but before the people of
the world, admitting that an injustice had been done, not by another
nation but by the United States itself. More importantly is Bush’s
commitment that the perpetrators of the abuse would be punished and
that steps would be taken to insure that the abuse would not occur
again.
Other nations are rarely if ever as public in their expressions of
humility.
The People’s Republic of China has not apologized for the 1989
massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. The
Turkish government has never apologized for the slaughter of
Armenians. Neither the Soviets nor the members of the Commonwealth of
Independent States that succeeded it have fully atoned for the gulags
or uttered meaningful expressions of remorse for the pogroms
committed by the Czars against Russia’s once considerable Jewish
population.
The Japanese have never fully atoned for the infamous 1937 “Rape of
Nanking.” The British are still silent about their invention of the
concentration camp during the Boer War, the violence they perpetrated
against the Irish people over centuries and for not doing all they
could to alleviate 1942’s Bengal famine that killed at least 2
million people.
An even longer list of similar atrocities, against which the alleged
abuses in Abu Ghraib prison pale by comparison, could be assembled.
What is unique to the Abu Ghraib incident is not the abuse but the
apology.
That Abu Ghraib matters, not even but especially at the highest
levels of the U.S. government, should stand as proof before the world
that the United States is a great nation full of good people who can
do amazing things. It is not just a matter of not letting the single
bad apple spoil the entire barrel but a triumph of the idea that, in
the view of the United States, all men are created equal and should
be treated accordingly, with respect.
(The Peter Principles is a regular column on politics, culture and
the media by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of
the Washington scene.)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Zaman, Turkey
May 8 2004
Taboos Hinder Publishing
“Diversity in society does is not reflected in publishing. Expression
of only one opinion is emphasized in Turkey, like in almost all other
countries, because of the influence of neo-liberal globalization,”
said journalist Ragip Duran during a meeting of the Turkish
Publishers Union (TYB).
The TYB met on Friday at Bilgi University Dolapdere Campus for the
first time since 1998. TYB President Cetin Tuzuner delivered the
opening speech, where he mentioned that the first TYB meeting was
held in 1936. “But we still have problems today because of the fact
that problems and issues discussed in previous congresses were never
resolved,” he said.
Journalist Ragip Duran participated in a session on the freedom of
publishing in Turkey, where he brought attention to the monopoly in
the sector. He said that diversity of opinion is not represented in
published works. Duran also mentioned that several taboos that could
prevent a work from being published. These include the Armenian
issue, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), Islam and Ataturk.
Meanwhile, Prof. Turgut Tarhanli claimed that the boundaries of
freedom of speech are not well defined. He said that the press’
biases on the issues of ethnic discrimination and violence are
particularly noticeable.
05.08.2004
Elif Tunca
Bursa

BBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 May, 2004, 10:23 GMT 11:23 UK
Regions and territories: Ajaria
A mountainous semi-autonomous region of Georgia, Ajaria is situated on the
Black Sea coast on Georgia’s southwestern border with Turkey.
Its narrow band of coastal lowland has a lush sub-tropical climate while
high in the mountains there can be snow for six months of the year.
OVERVIEW
The port in the capital, Batumi, is used for the shipment of oil from
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Its oil refinery handles Caspian oil from
Azerbaijan which arrives by pipeline to Supsa port and is transported from
there to Batumi by rail.
Batumi is also an important gateway for the shipment of goods heading into
Georgia, Azerbaijan and landlocked Armenia. The Ajarian capital is a centre
for shipbuilding and manufacturing. Ajaria has good land for growing tea,
citrus fruits and tobacco.
History
The people of Ajaria are ethnically Georgian and the region also has a
substantial Russian-speaking population. Under Ottoman rule from the 17th
until the 19th century Islam predominated. The word Ajarian came to mean a
Georgian Muslim.
In 1878 Ajaria was annexed by Russia and, following the Bolshevik
revolution, incorporated into Georgia as an autonomous republic within the
USSR. Under Stalin, Islam, like Christianity, was ruthlessly repressed.
Nowadays about half the population professes the Islamic faith.
Tensions erupt on the internal border between Georgia and Ajaria
Unlike the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Ajaria has been
spared major violence and ethnic unrest since Georgia became independent
after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The region was led between 1991 and May 2004 by Aslan Abashidze under whose
tight control it enjoyed political stability and relative economic
prosperity. Election results gave him at least 90% of the vote every time
and he ruled in what many observers described as an autocratic style.
Autonomy
Ajaria achieved a substantial degree of autonomy from Tbilisi, which accused
it of failing to pay a large proportion of the sum due in tax and customs
duties. It also had its own security and interior ministries which were
under the full control of the Ajarian leadership.
After Eduard Shevardnadze was overthrown as Georgian president and the
results of the November 2003 elections were annulled, a state of emergency
was declared in Ajaria. Its leadership refused to recognise the full
authority of Mikhail Saakashvili as Georgian president.
Mr Saakashvili wanted to reassert control, abolish the Ajarian security
ministry and end what he said was corruption in the Ajarian tax and customs
authorities.
Standoff with Georgia
In a bid to assert his authority after he was prevented from entering Ajaria
in the run-up to the March 2004 elections, the Georgian president imposed an
economic blockade. It was lifted within days after talks between Mr
Saakashvili and Mr Abashidze.
However, the standoff grew increasingly ominous. In early May, Mr Abashidze
claimed that Georgian forces were preparing to invade. His forces blew up
bridges connecting the region with the rest of Georgia and pulled up rail
tracks, disrupting exports of Caspian oil from the port of Batumi.
Immediately afterwards, Mr Saakashvili gave the Ajarian leader 10 days in
which to comply with the Georgian constitution and start disarming or face
removal.
The Georgian president imposed direct rule on Ajaria on 5 May. Subsequently,
after talks with a Russian envoy, Mr Abashidze resigned and left the region.
Ties with Russia
Ajaria maintained close ties with Russia, which has a military base there –
a source of great tension with Tbilisi. Following the departure of Eduard
Shevardnadze, this tension rose still further when Russia eased entry visa
regulations for residents of Ajaria.
Developments unfolded under Moscow’s watchful eye. Russia had warned Tbilisi
that the use of force to resolve the situation would have “catastrophic
consequences”.
FACTS
Status: Autonomous region within Georgia
Population: 400,000
Capital: Batumi
Major languages: Georgian, Russian
Major religions: Islam, Christianity
Natural resources: Citrus fruit, tobacco, tea
Industry: Oil refining, shipping, manufacturing, wine-making
LEADERS
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili imposed direct presidential control
over the region on 5 May 2004. Hours later the Ajarian leader Aslan
Abashidze resigned, ending more than a decade in power by flying, with his
family, to Russia.
Georgian officials appointed an interim administration to run the region
pending elections in June and abolished the post of Ajarian leader.
Aslan Abashidze, a teacher turned Communist bureaucrat in the Soviet era,
was appointed leader in Ajaria by Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia
following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Georgian independence. He
proved remarkably adept at establishing absolute control.
Former Ajarian leader Aslan Abashidze
Mr Abashidze was born in Batumi in 1938 into a family which has been
influential in Ajarian affairs for many years. Observers often described his
style of leadership as autocratic. Ajarian election results had always given
him 90% or more of the vote.
A family affair
All opposition was suppressed and the economic reins were firmly in his
hands. Close relatives of his late wife headed the important security and
interior ministries, and other relatives also held public office.
Mr Abashidze also played a prominent role in Georgian political affairs
outside Ajaria. He was leader of the Revival of Georgia political bloc which
was the main rival of Eduard Shevardnadze’s party in parliamentary elections
in 1999. He at first stood as a candidate in the Georgian presidential
elections of 2000 but withdrew, leaving victory in Mr Shevardnadze’s grasp.
When mass protests erupted over the conduct of the November 2003
parliamentary elections in Georgia, in which the Ajarian leader claimed 95%
of the regional vote, Mr Abashidze rallied to Mr Shevardnadze’ support. He
denounced Mr Shevardnadze’s overthrow as a coup and declared a state of
emergency in Ajaria.
Differences with Tbilisi
The pro-Western Mr Saakashvili insisted that the Russians pull out of their
base in Ajaria. The pro-Russian Mr Abashidze took a different view. Mr
Saakashvili vowed to bring Ajaria into the Georgian mainstream and eradicate
corruption and nepotism.
Mr Abashidze insisted he simply wished to retain the status quo and did not
want Ajaria to secede from Georgia. He had indicated that military force
remained an option should Mr Saakashvili try to enforce his wishes.
Despite what appeared to be frequent tensions between former President
Shevardnadze and Mr Abashidze, the two always managed to come to some
arrangement in the end.
MEDIA
The Ajarian authorities operate TV and radio networks in the region.
Reporters Without Borders, the media rights body, reported in 2004 that two
private Georgian TV stations had been banned from operating in Ajaria. It
added that five journalists had been physically assaulted.
Television
Adjara TV – operated by Ajarian authorities
Channel 25 – private
Radio
Radio Adjara – operated by Ajarian authorities

Karabakh
AGBU.org
April 2004
Kashatagh: Rebuilding in old Lachin
Karabakh
Vahan Ishkhanyan
Kashatagh may be the only region of “two Armenias” where there are no
magnificent villas or foreign cars. As one resident said, there are no rich
or poor here and all are equal.
Outsiders still know it as Lachin, famous for the corridor that was the
hard-won link between Armenia and Karabakh, gained during fierce fighting in
1992. But to the locals, this area retaken from Azerbaijan and made the
sixth region of Karabakh has regained its ancient name.
“Kashatagh is the land of our ancestors,” says head of administration of
Kashatagh Alexan Hakobian. “Armenians living here began thinning out 100
years ago and as a result of the policy conducted by Stalin it became a part
of Azerbaijan.”
For many Armenians, Kashatagh is an escape. It lacks the dramatic gap
between social classes seen in Stepanakert or Yerevan. Here, they can move
to a new region and start a new life where they become landowners instead of
refugees. With the exception of officials, it is hard to find any who say
they settled here for patriotic reasons.
Together with his wife and two children Karo Meseljian moved from Yerevan to
Berdzor (the city formerly known as Lachin). the provincial seat of
Kashatagh, two years ago. He left his older son in Yerevan with his parents
while he attends chess school there.
“In Yerevan everything gets on my nerves: bureaucrats, cops, traffic
police,” says Karo. “At every turn people’s pride is mortified. Trying to
get any document, people are dishonored. Here you feel like a human being
and don’t feel the influence of authorities on you. People understand each
other very easily here, they are friendly.”
In Yerevan, Karo had a small shop which was somewhat profitable. Now he
rents out that shop and has started a business in Berdzor, bringing goods
from Yerevan and selling them to local shops. “When I had a shop in Yerevan
every day I had to deal with bureaucrats,” he says. “I had good profit
there, but it is better to have small profit here than to see their faces.”
His wife, Gayaneh, is a nurse. She didn’t work in Yerevan, but in Berdzor
she works in a kindergarten. “When you work your life becomes more
interesting,” she says. “The staff is very good. We made new friends.”
People move to Kashatagh for many reasons. Some have sold their houses in
Armenia to cover debts, and come here to start debt-free living. Some young
couples want to start families separate from their parents. Most see the new
region of Karabakh as offering opportunities they don’t see in their old
homes.
And one can meet various types of former officials in Kashatagh. In one
village the director of the school is the former head of the Education
Department of Yerevan. In another village one of former president Levon
Ter-Petrosian’s security service raises cattle. Former Karabakh Minister of
Defense Samvel Babayan’s assistant is head of the Social Department.
After a decade of resettlement, the region of 300 square kilometers now has
about 13,000 residents. Of 127 settlements, only 57 have electricity.
(Authorities say villages in the southern part of the province should have
electricity within a year, however the northern parts don’t expect
electrical service for at least five years.)
There are two hospitals in the region, in Berdzor and in Kovsakan (formerly
Zangelan), the second largest town, near the border of Iran. Each community
has a nurse. At the Berdzor hospital, director Artsakh Buniatian insists on
keeping his hospital a place where residents can receive free treatment.
“If a doctor takes money from a patient he will be punished for that,” says
Buniatian, age 69. “However, we can’t treat all diseases and when we send a
patient to Yerevan or Goris then he finds himself in a completely different
world and falls into the hands of hawks, where they demand money and
medicines of him. There, residents of Kashatagh are taken for third rate
people, who cannot cover their treatment expenses.”
Eight doctors work in the Berdzor hospital. They earn 45,000 drams (about
$80) a month. Buniatian says that it is almost impossible to find a doctor
who will agree to work in the region. Nobody wants to come here and work
only for salary, without taking money for services, he says. Buniatian spent
the war working in a field hospital in Karabakh. After the war he again
returned to his former work, as a surgeon at a hospital in Abovian (just
north of Yerevan).
“I hadn’t seen my family for three years. Three daughters were waiting for
me. After the slaughter of war it was hard for me to adapt to civilian
medicine.”
While he was trying to adapt he was invited to Berdzor hospital’s opening
ceremony. “I was invited to spend two days, but, at the opening ceremony a
Karabakh Minister handed over the order of appointing me to this position,”
Buniatian says. “I thought that during the war I had been in so many
difficult places and now it is God’s will and it means that people need me.”
The surgeon’s abilities are limited by a lack of facilities and about the
most complicated case he can treat is appendicitis. “I used to perform any
type of difficult operation, but, what can I do,” he says. “I sacrificed my
skills to the war, and now to Kashatagh in this way.”
While laying the foundation for a new society, culture has not been ignored
in the resettling of Kashatagh.
In 1996 a Museum of History was opened in Berdzor, which now holds some 300
exhibits, including bronze and stone items that date to the 4th millennium
B.C. Armenian household items from the 3rd millennium B.C. to the 19th
century show the rich heritage of the region. Most items in the museum were
collected by director Livera Hovhannisian, who before moving to Berdzor had
worked for 18 years in the Yerevan Museum of History.
“During one month, I had traveled in 47 villages and collected all these
exhibits to be in time for the museum’s opening,” she says. “Those days many
villages hadn’t been settled yet. Accompanied by two men, I was going to
every village by truck and we were searching and finding in every house
things we had been looking for. In one village we were fired upon. Residents
of that village hadn’t seen other people for a long period of time and when
they saw us they were very scared and thought we were Azeris.”
About 200 paintings are displayed in the gallery including works by
Parajanov and Carzou. Some paintings were sent from the Ministry of Culture
in Yerevan.
“The director of Yerevan Art Gallery said: ‘How can I give them to you? What
if this territory is retaken?’,” Hovhannisian recalls. “I said that if this
territory is retaken then let these paintings be lost with the territories.
And he agreed and gave 25 paintings.”
As Armenian life in previously enemy territory is formed, one feature, the
Church, lacks a significant presence in Kashatagh. In the entire province
the only functioning church is Holy Ascension, built in Berdzor in 1997.
In 2002, Diaspora benefactors restored a 4th century church in the village
of Tsitsernavank, however there are no clergy there. “We need at least three
clergymen in the north and three in the south,” says the only priest of the
region Ter Atanas. “People of the south need just one chapel but there is
nobody to give money and construct it.”
The highest settlement in Kashatagh is 1,700 meters above sea level; the
lowest, 330. In the mountainous north, life is harsh and most villagers
exist raising cattle. To the south, however, farms prosper from generous
growing seasons and fertile valleys of the Hakar River.
It was in such a valley that the first families resettled, mostly in
Tsaghkaberd (formerly Gyuliberd) where 70 families now live.
The Vardanian family, refugees from Kirovabad (Azerbaijan) were among the
first. “My husband knew that this area was populated and I took my children
and came here,” says Gohar Vardanian. “It was a good time for collecting
fruits. We collected many fruits and I told my husband, ‘Ashot, we will stay
here.’ We are here for 10 years now.”
Three Vardanian children finished school here and one now studies at
Stepanakert University. The family income is, literally, their “cash cow”.
Each year the Vardanians sell a calf to cover essential expenses. “My
children have already finished their service in the army,” Gohar says. “The
only thing left is to pay for my son’s education. I think this year we won’t
sell a calf.”
Like their neighbors, the Vardanians harvest mulberry, fig, quince and
pomegranate in addition to traditional crops. They make about 400 liters of
mulberry vodka each year. Residents had hoped that by now there would be
food processing plants in Kashatagh, but investments haven’t materialized.
And, though nature offers favorable conditions, many villagers rent out
their land because they cannot afford equipment to cultivate it. A typical
lease is about $25 per hectare, plus 200 kilograms of wheat.
“I have the land but how can I cultivate it if they don’t grant credits and
don’t give a seeding machine,” says school director Samvel Sedrakian, a
former Yerevan journalist. “I have eight hectares of land but I can’t sow
it. It’s true, villagers feed themselves, there are not hungry people, but
they cannot make any profits.”
Slava Tokhunts is an exception. He moved to Kashatagh from the Goris region
and brought a seeding machine with him. Every year he sows wheat on his 5.5
hectare property.
“I don’t ask anything from anybody and I can also help those who are
hungry,” he says. He makes cheese from milk of his six cows and then
barters the cheese for various items such as sugar and clothes. Selling
products out-right is difficult because trading involves going to one of the
towns in Armenia, and most villagers can’t manage such trips.
Over the past five years, the area of cultivated crop-lands has increased in
Kashatagh from 5,000 hectares to 12,000 hectares. The number of livestock
has increased to about 26,000 head (cattle, goats, sheep).
At the same time, the stream of migrants has tapered. Between 1997-98,
nearly 800 families moved to the province. Last year, 80 new families
settled there and about the same amount left.
“Sometimes I’m sad when people leave. But it’s normal that some of them will
come back,” says Berdzor official Alexan Hakobian. “It shows that the
process of repopulation is free and nobody is forced to live here.”

Karabakh
AGBU.org
April 2004
The Karabakh Question: After a decade of cease-fire, now what?
Karabakh
Tony Halpin
The ceasefire that ended the fighting in Nagorno Karabakh between Azerbaijan
and Armenian forces sees its 10th anniversary in May. It is a date that is
both a remarkable landmark and a symbol of the continued elusiveness of a
permanent solution to the conflict.
February marked an older anniversary, the 16th year since the emergence of
the Karabakh Movement that was the catalyst for the independence of Armenia.
The two events define the modern republic and its relationship with the
worldwide Diaspora, perhaps even more than recognition of the Genocide in
the immediacy of its importance for the future security of the Armenian
nation.
Few of the one million people who massed in the streets of Yerevan in those
early heady days of demonstrations would have predicted that Armenia would
have a Karabakhtsi as head of state within a decade and another as defense
minister. Fewer still might have believed that the “Karabakh Question” would
remain unsolved in the international arena.
That question is settled in the minds of the men and women on the street,
who have paid a terrible price in blood and endured massive economic
sacrifice to secure military victory and Artsakh’s (historic Armenian name
of Karabakh) independent status. But it remains open to interpretation in
the arena of international politics and there are many signs that 2004 will
see a marked increase in the pressure for a final settlement.
President Robert Kocharian occupies a unique position. His political
authority as a wartime leader and former President of Karabakh is viewed by
many as a guarantee that he won’t make concessions that undermine the
country’s de facto independence. Conversely, he is seen as someone who can
sell possibly painful concessions to the Armenian public, in Armenia,
Karabakh and further afield, precisely because of his political authority.
He runs the risk of being damned if he does, therefore, and damned if he
doesn’t.
The suggestion of compromise with Azerbaijan was enough to force former
president Levon Ter Petrosian from office in 1998, partly at the hands of
Kocharian, whom he had brought to Yerevan as Prime Minister. Kocharian does
not forget that he owes his present position to negative public reaction and
that he may lose it the same way.
That political crisis exposed a philosophical divide at the top of the
Armenian leadership. The Ter Petrosian faction considered a settlement to
the conflict an essential precondition of economic recovery for Armenia,
burdened by the impact of the Azerbaijani blockade and the cost of
sustaining the defense of Karabakh, and that it could be achieved through a
step-by-step process of confidence-building measures. Kocharian represented
the view that a stronger Armenian economy was possible without a settlement
and would improve the prospects of achieving one through an all-embracing
package deal.
The latter policy has dominated for five years now and Armenia’s economy has
certainly improved, recording the fastest growth of any former Soviet
republic in 2003. This year will likely put Kocharian’s argument to the
test: Has his hand been strengthened in striking a deal-or perhaps resisting
one-with Azerbaijan under the auspices of the international mediators in the
Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE)? Or has pursuit of a “package” solution over step-by-step measures
weakened Armenia’s bargaining position through delay?
About the only thing that unites the different elements of the divided
political landscape in Yerevan is the view that a settlement must
incorporate one of these two objectives. The gray area is what may be
conceded to achieve it and whether it is achievable at all in the face of
Azerbaijan’s repeated refusal to entertain any solution that does not leave
Karabakh under Baku’s jurisdiction.
The position of the government in Stepanakert is clear: Karabakh must either
be independent or reunited with Armenia. One of the ironies of Kocharian’s
elevation in Yerevan, however, has been Karabakh’s relegation from any
involvement in talks on its future status. Armenia used to argue that the
issue was best addressed by dialogue between Artsakh and Azerbaijan, in
which it was the guarantor of Karabakh’s security. Kocharian, however, has
taken upon himself the responsibility of representing the position of both
Karabakh and Armenia, dropping any pretense that the two may be separate.
In many ways this is only common sense (though diplomatically it may cause
problems). Stepanakert remains dependent on Yerevan for financial support,
encouragement of inward investment, and transport links to the wider world.
It could not support anything at odds with Armenia’s view of the conflict,
even assuming there were circumstances in which it would wish to.
Drive the road from Yerevan to Stepanakert, the capital of Karabakh-the
linking Artsakh section built with money raised in the Diaspora-and the two
already feel as one. Nothing any longer defines the strip of land between
Armenia and Artsakh as Azeri territory. Only a road sign and a traffic
police post mark the passage into Nagorno Karabakh Republic, as if you were
driving from one region of Armenia into another.
Kocharian has made plain that a final settlement must include a common
border between Armenia and Artsakh and it is inconceivable that it could be
any other way now. The land between the two is being populated with Armenian
families, creating facts on the ground that the Minsk Group mediators will
find impossible to ignore.
The secrecy that envelopes the negotiating process, however, makes it almost
impossible to divine the shape of the settlement being put together by the
mediators. Kocharian and the late Heydar Aliyev were believed to have
achieved the outline of a deal at the Key West summit hosted by Secretary of
State Colin Powell in 2001, only for it to break down after the latter
balked at selling it to his public.
With power now passed to Aliyev’s son Ilham as president, the question is
whether discussions pick up where they left off or whether the new Aliyev
has a different perspective on the future shape of a deal. Kocharian’s
meeting with him in Geneva late last year was little more than an
opportunity to look his opponent in the eye to see what measure of a man he
was dealing with. The hard bargaining remains and always with the risk that
the outcome may be derailed by negative public reaction in either country
once the details are revealed. In that regard, Kocharian’s recent offer to
put any proposals to a referendum can be viewed in two lights. Approval by
the public narrows the scope for being ousted by hardliners in the manner of
Ter Petrosian. Kocharian also knows that public rejection in a vote offers
him an escape route from international pressure to agree to an
unsatisfactory deal involving, for example, an exchange of territory
involving the southern Meghri region.
Two issues could break the deadlock. One, inevitably, is oil. Construction
of the pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan in Turkey is well advanced and oil is
expected to start flowing by the middle of next year. Azerbaijan is on the
brink of a boom in which it expects to earn some $20 billion in oil revenues
over the next two decades. For comparison, Armenia’s total state budget this
year is about $480 million.
It does not follow, as some commentators insist, that a newly wealthy
Azerbaijan will rearm for the specific purpose of launching a war of
“liberation” over Karabakh. Desperate people fight because they have nothing
to lose. The more comfortable life becomes in Baku, the less likely its
young men will be willing to exchange the pleasures of a consumer life for
the prospect of a painful death in a land most will never have seen. Far
from fueling conflict, oil may give Azerbaijan a reason to avoid war and an
incentive to seek a deal with Armenia. Azeri prosperity, therefore, may
become a security goal for Armenia and certainly a bargaining chip in
securing a settlement that allows Baku to enjoy the fruits of its good
fortune while giving Karabakh effective independence.
The second issue relates to Kocharian’s changed status. With the senior
Aliyev’s death and the sudden demise of Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia’s
“rose revolution”, Armenia’s president has gone from junior head of state to
elder statesman of the Caucasus. Georgia’s new young president Mikhail
Saakashvili has already expressed a determination to build closer ties with
Armenia. Separatist movements in different parts of Georgia present him with
considerable challenges in holding his country together.
It may be that Kocharian can achieve a permanent solution to the Karabakh
issue by enlarging the context to include a broader common view of Caucasus
stability. All three countries in the region have an interest in avoiding
war and promoting prosperity, yet each is locked into narrow ethnic
conflicts whose resolution appear to demand a winner and a loser. Seeking
common approaches to securing minority rights may permit them to escape the
traps of a Soviet landscape that was never designed to serve their
interests.
Perhaps his seniority would give Kocharian an opportunity to take just such
an initiative. Now into his second term, he knows that history’s judgement
of him will be shaped by his ability to settle the Karabakh Question, the
issue that formed him as a man and that brought him to the presidency. He
feels the pressure of time. It remains to be seen whether 2004 will provide
the opportunity for him to seize the moment.