PRESS RELEASE
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address: Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact: Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel: (374 1) 517 163
Fax: (374 1) 517 301
E-Mail: [email protected]
April 23, 2004
Appeal by Primates of Armenian Church Dioceses in Armenia
On April 20, a meeting of the Primates of all Armenian Church Dioceses
within Armenia was convened in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, under the
presidency of His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of
All Armenians. The meeting’s agenda included the discussion of issues
related to Christian education and organization of diocesan and parish life.
The bishops also discussed the internal political situation in Armenia and
issued the following appeal addressed to all of the people:
“We, the Primates of the Dioceses of Armenia, express our concern regarding
the continuation of the internal political tension in Armenia. Given the
present day situation of critical developments in our region, we consider as
unacceptable those paths that lead to political agitations, and which lead
to confrontations, deepen the spirit of intolerance and division among our
people, and jeopardize the stability of the Homeland and the security of our
statehood.
“Before the sacredness of April 24, we appeal to all of our people, to the
state authorities, the political parties and the non-governmental
organizations, asking them to remain faithful to the luminous memory of the
victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915; through whom live the wholeness of
independent statehood of our nation and the centuries-old desire of our
people for a free and secure life, and through which our spirit of national
unity has always been strengthened.
“The interest of the Homeland and the people is one and the same.
Therefore, let us listen to one another in the spirit of reconciliation, so
that we may find the necessary paths of building our homeland. We must
search for solutions to all of our issues and problems with a protectiveness
of preserving the rule of law, mutual respect, compromise, and reciprocal
understanding, while pursuing the greatest aim of maintaining the internal
peace and stability of our homeland and the unanimity of our people.
“We believe that in the this soul-renewing Easter season, when the
Resurrected Savior spreads His peace and love over us all, that we will be
able to overcome this anxious internal political situation, for the benefit
and joy of us all – our faithful Nation in Armenia and dispersed throughout
the world.”
##

FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief
=================================================
19 April 2004
ARMENIA: COUNCIL OF EUROPE FAILS TO PUNISH COMMITMENT VIOLATIONS OVER
IMPRISONED CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
With 24 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for refusing military service on
grounds of conscience, another fined and a further three awaiting trial,
Council of Europe officials have been unable to explain to Forum 18 News
Service what punishment Armenia faces – if any – for violating its
commitments to the organisation. The commitments required Armenia to have
freed all imprisoned conscientious objectors and introduced alternative
service by January 2004, but it failed on both counts. One outsider
involved in the issue at the Council of Europe, who preferred not to be
identified, told Forum 18 that the Armenian government had deployed “an
especially successful lobbying campaign” to have the issue buried. The
Jehovah’s Witnesses, one of Armenia’s largest religious minorities, appear
no nearer to receiving state registration.
21 April 2004
RUSSIA: SPRING OFFENSIVE AGAINST THE “VITALIBAN”?
Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad within Russia less
enthusiastic about a proposed merger with the Moscow Patriarchate have
faced obstruction from the state authorities, Forum 18 News Service has
learnt. When 50 clergy and lay members held a diocesan assembly in Tula
region in February, officers of the police and FSB (former KGB) questioned
their legal right to meet, while elsewhere local authorities have failed to
register parishes, obstruct those that meet in privately-owned buildings
and even threatened to confiscate churches built with parishioners’ funds.
Without state registration, parishes cannot produce publications or conduct
missionary activity, but some clergy argue it is better not to have
registration. “It is easier for state officials to apply pressure to a
community with legal status by finding fault with its documentation,” one
priest told Forum 18.
22 April 2004
RUSSIA: METHODISTS MAY HAVE FOUGHT OFF CHURCH STEALING
A Korean Methodist church in northern Moscow appears to have fought off an
attempt by a commercial firm to steal their church building. A district
court ruled against the Moscow justice department on 26 March after the
church challenged the justice department’s acceptance of fraudulent
documents which claimed to have transferred the church to the company.
Galina Skakun of the justice department admitted in court the Methodists’
claim to the building, and tried to defend her department even though it
failed to verify the authenticity of the documents. Church administrator
Svetlana Kim said the Methodists believe that coverage of their case by
both Forum 18 News Service and Russian news agencies “really helped us”.
21 April 2004
UZBEKISTAN: SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE SHOT?
Amid a major crackdown, eleven Protestants in Nukus were questioned at the
public prosecutor’s office and pressured to convert to Islam. They were
also threatened with being shot, though the city prosecutor, M. Arzymbetov,
subsequently denied this to Forum 18 News Service. The prosecutor also
tried to have a Protestant, Iklas Aldungarov, expelled from his university
medical course, but the university rector, Oral Ataniyazova, has resisted
the pressure. “How and what Aldungarov believes is his own personal
business, and we do not have the right to interfere with it,” she told
Forum 18. She added that a very large number of young people in the region
are becoming Christians. “Evidently, the Christian churches have managed to
set up a competent, well conceived operation here. I do not think that is a
bad thing. Let’s see the mosques here work as well as the Christian
churches.” Pressure on Protestants elsewhere in Uzbekistan is also
continuing.
* See full article below. *
21 April 2004
UZBEKISTAN: SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE SHOT?
By Igor Rotar, Central Asia Correspondent, Forum 18 News Service
Amid a major crackdown on a group of Protestants in Nukus, the capital of
the Karakalpakstan [Qoraqalpoghiston] autonomous republic in north-western
Uzbekistan, eleven members of a local congregation, the Church of Christ,
have been summoned for questioning at the public prosecutor’s office, where
they were pressured to renounce their faith and convert to Islam. They now
face fines in court. “All of them are members of an unregistered religious
organisation,” Nukus city prosecutor M. Arzymbetov told Forum 18 News
Service on 19 April. “The activity of unregistered organisations is
forbidden by law.” He denied reports Forum 18 had received that the
Protestants had been coarsely insulted and threatened with being shot. “It
wasn’t I who spoke to the Protestants, but my assistant Kasym
Davletmuradov. He is a very bright man and he is not capable of such a
thing.” Arzymbetov also tried to have church member Iklas Aldungarov
expelled from his university in retaliation for his participation in the
church, though so far Aldungarov has held onto his place.
The crackdown began on 1 April, when Arzymbetov wrote to the rector of the
Medical University, Oral Ataniyazova, to inform her that Aldungarov, a
final year student, was taking part in “an illegal religious sect”, the
Church of Christ. The letter, of which Forum 18 has a copy, told her that
the public prosecutor had evidence that Aldungarov had violated Article 240
part 1 (breaking the law on religious organisations) and Article 241
(breaking the law on giving religious instruction) of the code of
administrative offences and that the case had already been passed to the
court. Describing “attracting people to other religious confessions”,
distributing religious literature and organising meetings as “a crude
violation of the law” impermissible among students, the prosecutor called
for Aldungarov to be removed from the university and to confirm that this
had been done by 10 April.
Sources told Forum 18 that Aldungarov had never had any problems before,
has never been detained or had literature confiscated.
Arzymbetov confirmed that he had written to the university about
Aldungarov, but denied that he had ordered that he be expelled. “I simply
recommended that the rector should keep an eye on her students,” he claimed
to Forum 18. “The question of Aldungarov’s expulsion did not arise and he
remains a student there.”
Yet university rector Ataniyazova confirmed that the public prosecutor’s
letter had recommended that Aldungarov be excluded but insisted she had
rejected such pressure. “We replied to the prosecutor that Aldungarov’s
religious beliefs do not have any bearing on his studies, and therefore we
consider it simply unethical to consider such a letter,” she told Forum 18
from Nukus on 16 April. “How and what Aldungarov believes is his own
personal business, and we do not have the right to interfere with it.” She
said that a very large number of young people in Karakalpakstan are
converting to Christianity. “Evidently, the Christian churches have managed
to set up a competent, well conceived operation here. I do not think that
is a bad thing. Let’s see the mosques here work as well as the Christian
churches.”
At the same time she claimed that Aldungarov was a very poor student.
“Every session he fails two or three exams. But I want to stress that we
are not going to make a connection between Aldungarov’s progress and his
religious convictions.”
In the wake of the attempt to oust Aldungarov from the university, the
National Security Service (former KGB) secret police and the public
prosecutor’s office then widened their crackdown, beginning on 9 March to
summon other church members for questioning.
Protestant sources told Forum 18 that Arzymbetov, his assistant M.
Utemuratov, and investigator Davletmuratov tried to force those summoned to
sign statements admitting that they had participated in “illegal” religious
meetings and training. When one church member Mahset Jabbabergenov refused
to sign the documents, Arzymbetov reportedly began swearing at him and
threatening to imprison if he did not sign. When the threats had no impact,
he reportedly declared: “You Christians should all be shot!” Officials from
the public prosecutor’s office also insisted that Jabbabergenov, Aldungarov
and the other Protestants – Arzubay Abenov, Bahadir Joushimov, Kolbuy
Joushimov, Timur Uralbaev, Miruert Muratova, Abbat Allamuratov, Aygul
Allamuratova and Muhamed Saitov – should give up their Christian faith and
become Muslims. Other local Protestants were later summoned for
questioning.
“Although the authorities had no facts to prove the accusation they kept
inviting everybody who had any connection with Christianity and questioning
them,” one Protestant source who preferred not to be identified told Forum
18. “If during the questioning they heard any names they summoned those
people to the office.”
Meanwhile, pressure has continued on Protestants in other parts of the
country. On 10 March the criminal court for Yakkasaroy district of the
capital Tashkent fined six Protestants – Salimjon Babakulov, Mardjon
Nurulov, Olim Mamurov, Nadira Tadjikulova, Nargiza Tadjikulova and Jamilya
Makhmudova. They were punished for holding religious meetings in private
apartments under Article 240 and Article 241 of the administrative code.
In another incident in Tashkent, on 9 March police raided and cut short a
meeting being held by around 10 Protestants on the premises of the Harvest
company. Uzbek citizens present were each fined five times the minimum
wage, or 27,200 soms (183 Norwegian kroner, 22 Euros or 27 US dollars). The
South Korean citizens who were present at the meeting were “recommended” to
leave the country for engaging in “unlawful religious activity”.
Meanwhile on 23 March the deputy head of the justice department for
Tashkent region, Sh. Khaknazarov, ordered a founding group that was seeking
registration for a Protestant church on Friendship collective farm near
Tashkent to revise its registration application, claiming it contained
“grammatical errors”. “Every time, the justice administration deliberately
concentrates in its letters only on some inaccuracies, so that next time
they can once again refuse registration supposedly for objective reasons,”
one Protestant who preferred not to be named told Forum 18. “In fact,
officials are simply dragging their feet so that the church cannot
function.” (See also F18News 18 March 2004
)
Elsewhere, Baptists of the Council of Churches who refuse on principle to
register with the authorities told Forum 18 on 10 April that Viktor
Otmakhov, whose home in the town of Angren near Tashkent is used for
services, was summoned to the town’s public prosecutor’s office on 1 April
and questioned for five hours. Deputy public prosecutor Nurlan Bainazarov
demanded that he name all those who attend services and give their home
addresses, but Otmakhov refused. Bainazarov then threatened to start a
criminal case against him. He was given a written warning that if he does
not stop services in his home, arrests, fines and other unspecified
punishments will follow.
These incidents are the latest in a continuing series of attacks on
Protestants across Uzbekistan (eg. see F18News 4 March 2004
) and take place in the
context of the current post-terrorist bombing crackdown against people of
all faiths (see F18 News 13 April
).
For more background, see Forum 18’s latest religious freedom survey at

A printer-friendly map of Uzbekistan is available at
.html?Parent=asia&Rootmap=uzbeki
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved.
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at

A1 Plus | 16:03:02 | 23-04-2004 | Politics |
STATEMENT OF CENTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT/TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
ARMENIA
Considering the unprecedented political persecutions, violence and arrests
that took place in the Republic of Armenia during the last weeks as a direct
result of political corruption manifested at the presidential and
parliamentary elections, Center for Regional Development/Transparency
International Armenia appeals to international community to condemn the
above-mentioned actions undertaken by the Armenian authorities violating
democratic principles, and calls to take real measures against the current
authorities for not following international obligations aimed at ensuring
democratic development of the country.

A1 Plus | 14:48:50 | 23-04-2004 | Social |
PROTEST ACTION TO BE HELD IN AKHALTSKHA
On Thursday, a cross-stone memorial to the 1915 Armenian Genocide
victims in Akhaltskha was removed from the place by the local police.
The opening ceremony of the memorial was scheduled for April 24, the
day when Armenians worldwide commemorate those killed in the genocide.
As A-Info news agency reports, before removing the stone the police
arrested Ludvig Petrosyan, the head of the memorial erection
committee, and released after holding him in custody for four hours.
Petrosyan says the police have taken such a step following the
instruction instructions of Georgian President Representative in
Javakhetian province Nicoloz Nicolozashvili, who said the monument
erection hadn’t been authorized.
However, Ludvig Pertrosyan says Akhaltskha municipality has given due
permission.
The police move sparked protest from the town residents. They intend
to stage a protest action on Friday.

A1 Plus | 16:40:45 | 23-04-2004 | Politics |
YOUTH AGAINST VIOLENCE
A number of Armenian youth organizations reacted to the assault on Socialist
Forces leader Ashot Manucharyan, who was beaten Wednesday by unidentified
males, by issuing a statement.
“We demand the masterminds and perpetrators of that vicious action to be
tracked down and prosecuted”, the statement says.
The organization’ members gathered today in the street, where Manucharyan
had been attacked, in a protest against ongoing violence to attract, as they
say, public attention to the problem of violence and to restore justice.

COMMENT
Canada should mind its own business

By JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail
Friday, April 23, 2004 – Page A19
Bring back the friendly dictatorship! Or at least bring it back if the
absence results in the kind of irresponsible, unnecessary and
provocative resolution the House of Commons passed on Wednesday, which
complicates Canada’s relations with an ally and a hugely important
country: Turkey.
That the opposition parties, without having responsibility for Canadian
foreign policy, would act irresponsibly is hardly a surprise. That
government backbenchers would defy their own Prime Minister and Foreign
Minister and muck about in foreign policy for domestic political reasons
should make everyone wonder about the wisdom of free votes in the
Commons.
By a 153 to 68 margin, the Commons adopted a motion from an obscure Bloc
Québécois MP to “acknowledge the Armenian genocide of 1915, and condemn
this as a crime against humanity.”
What happened 89 years ago, before the creation of modern Turkey, still
rankles Armenians. Hundreds of thousands of them were killed, tortured
or deported. Books have been written about it, and movies, too,
including Ararat by Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan.
That authors and filmmakers should pick over the events of 1915 is fair
game. That Parliament should have nothing better to do with its time
than pass resolutions about events long ago — resolutions that will
reasonably be interpreted in Turkey as reflecting the opinion of
Canadians, and wrongly interpreted as the official position of the
government — is outrageous meddling, bound to irritate gratuitously one
side, Turkey.
What conceivable business is it of Canada’s Parliament, except for
unwelcome meddling, to muck about in historical matters that do not
concern this country directly? How would we like it if the Turkish
parliament started passing resolutions about, say, the hanging of Louis
Riel; or the French parliament voted on the deportation of the Acadians;
or the New Zealand Parliament voted on the treatment of Canada’s
Indians?
Canada would respond the way the Turkish government did: It called in
the Canadian ambassador in Ankara to lodge a formal protest, and issued
a statement saying correctly that “the responsibility of the negative
consequences to be brought by this motion belongs to the Canadian
politicians.”
No one denies that Ottomans did ghastly things to Armenians 89 years ago
in the context of the First World War. Almost every non-partisan account
underscores those facts. That people can study the historical record and
draw their own conclusions is as it should be.
That doesn’t mean the Canadian Parliament has to set itself up as a
moral arbiter on behalf of the Canadian people — because, why stop
there? Why not condemn the Japanese Rape of Nanking, the killings of
Chinese by European powers during the Boxer rebellion, the invasion of
Turkey by Greece after the First World War, and so on.
Some Canadian politicians were influenced by Armenian or Greek
descendants in their districts. That political pandering to ethnic
sensitivities can be understood, if not justified, but it hardly
explains why so many other MPs couldn’t understand how to conduct
foreign policy, including members of the Conservative Party who hope to
become the government in the next election.
Turkey is an incredibly important country: the only democratic, secular
Muslim state in a troubled part of the world. It is an ally of Canada in
NATO. It has become a democracy, having recently changed its government.
It is trying to solve the Cyprus deadlock, successfully urging Turkish
Cypriots to back the United Nations plan for reunification, which the
Greek Cypriots are apparently going to block. It is trying to meet
European Union conditions for starting entry negotiations.
Canada’s foreign policy, therefore, requires positive, constructive
relations with Turkey. Prime Minister Paul Martin and Foreign Affairs
Minister Bill Graham reminded the Liberal caucus of that yesterday. The
bulk of Liberal MPs told them to get lost, because under the new Martin
rules for remedying the “democratic deficit,” this was a “two-line
whip,” whereby ministers have to support the government but backbenchers
do not.
A handful of assemblies (Italy, Sweden, Russia, Argentina, the European
Parliament) has passed motions similar to the one adopted by the
Commons. All other assemblies, including those of the United States,
Britain, Australia, Japan, and Germany, refused.
Only two governments have made acknowledgment of this “genocide” a
matter of policy: France and Switzerland. Fortunately, the Martin
government, humbled by its own members, said official Canadian policy
won’t change. Thank goodness.
[email protected]

The truth about the Armenian genocide
Editorial
National Post
Friday, April 23, 2004

Wednesday’s parliamentary resolution recognizing the Turkish slaughter
of Armenians during the First World War as a genocide and a crime
against humanity may seem obscure to many Canadians. But in Turkey, the
issue is extraordinarily sensitive. Most non-Turkish historians agree
that Turks killed up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 , in some cases
burning them alive in churches or forcing them into the wilderness,
where they died of starvation and exposure. The Turkish government,
however, claims the real number of deaths was just 300,000, and that
even these fatalities arose not from genocide but from Turkish
“self-defence” against Armenians allied with Russia. Though widely
debunked, this national myth is precious to the Turks, which explains
why Ankara went ballistic yesterday, accusing Canadian legislators of
being “narrow-minded” and sowing “hatred.”
Paul Martin knew this was coming. In 2000, when the U.S. Congress
considered a similar resolution, Ankara threatened to cut America’s
access to its Turkish military bases. Prior to the vote, Mr. Martin had
his Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Graham, twist arms in an effort to
defeat the motion. But to his credit, the Prime Minister ultimately
refused to declare this a whipped vote — despite the fact there are a
number of Canadian companies with business interests in Turkey,
including Bombardier, which has a $335-million contract with Ankara’s
public transportation system. Ignoring realpolitik, many Liberals voted
their conscience, and the motion passed by a 153 to 68 margin.
All of this leaves us conflicted. On one hand, the MPs who voted for
Wednesday’s motion are certainly on the right side of history — and
there was something gratifying about seeing them buck their party bosses
to speak up for the truth. On the other hand, Parliament’s job is to
make laws — not to decide issues best left to historians and
filmmakers.
This is not to say that governments should never take a position on
historical events. In Germany, it is illegal to deny the existence of
the Holocaust, a law arguably justified by the singularly evil crimes of
the Nazis. And in other Western nations, governments have properly
recognized the campaigns of slaughter their forebears inflicted on
aboriginals. But these are exceptional instances. Our worry is that,
with the passage of Wednesday’s resolution, we will now witness a parade
of aggrieved ethnic groups coming before Parliament, each seeking
recognition of its own historical tragedy. Recall that millions of
Ukrainians were starved by Stalin in the 1930s. Half-a-million Rwandan
Tutsis were killed at the hands of Hutus in 1994. In 1948, Hindus and
Muslims killed one another by the truckload in South Asia. Is our
Parliament to serve as history’s scorekeeper, duly tallying all of these
massacres and the hundreds more like them?
As for the Turkish government, we would urge that it stop insisting on a
blinkered view of history. Even within the Turkish community itself, a
small group of scholars has emerged in recent years to challenge the
official line. Ankara should pay them heed. Though it is not our
Parliament’s job to point it out, Turkey’s refusal to recognize the 1915
Armenian massacre is a stain on the country’s international reputation.
C National Post 2004

PRESS RELEASE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web:
Statement by
Vartan Oskanian

Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Armenia

at Chatham House, London
April 16, 2004

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today. I look forward
to what is always an interesting dialog.

In preparing my thoughts for this evening, I looked over my talk here at
Chatham House in 1999. I suppose I knew, but those notes, black on white,
drove home the point that the world is a different place today. It is not
only international geopolitical relations and calculations which have
changed, but so has Armenia and our region.

Someone has said, “Show me a country’s location on a map and I’ll describe
to you their foreign policy.” Armenia is in the middle of the Caucasus,
which itself is at the center of three continents, and just north of the
Middle East. You can probably guess that our capacity to contribute to
regional stability depends very much on our success in managing our
relations with disparate and seemingly incompatible actors. Philip Marsden,
the perceptive British author of one of the most engaging books on Armenia
and Armenians, titles it the Crossing Place. No matter what type east-west,
north-south, trade, exchange and migration one talks about, for 3000 years,
Armenia has been at the intersection of millennial traffic.

It is therefore natural that the foreign policy choice, and sometimes
burden, of this young Republic is to pursue a policy of multidirectional
complementarity,

It is no secret, that given our geopolitical situation, the conflicts or
hostilities we face and the limited resources we command, our room to
maneuver is rather small.

It is important therefore for Armenia that our actions, intents and
relations are understood correctly and in their context.

Today, our future depends on how well we handle each of the following four
challenges:
Security, Development, European integration and Nagorno Karabakh.

Let me start with security. Given our history and the current realities in
the region, security is a number one priority for Armenia. Armenians are
extremely security conscious, that is why we have entered into layers of
security guarantees compatible with our policy of complementarity. Those
layers are comprised of our bilateral security arrangements with Russia, our
membership in the Collective Security Agreement, our extensive engagement in
disarmament treaties, most particularly the CFE which provides balance and
transparency in our region, our extensive relations with NATO, and finally
other bilateral arrangements, such as with Greece, and most recently with
the US.
First, Russia, with whom the scope and range of our connectedness is
extensive — economically, militarily, politically, and not unlike our
relations with the US and the EU, influenced more and more by the presence
there of a very large and increasingly more active Armenian Diaspora.
Armenia does have a military pact with Russia. There are Russian military
bases in Armenia. All of this leads to a myth about the degree of Armenia’s
dependence on the Russian Federation. There exist differing assumptions
about Armenia’s absolute margin of maneuver and, more significantly, our
relative margin of flexibility in defining and pursuing our interests, more
particularly with other countries.
Actually, the truth lies elsewhere. The larger, more crucial and
geostrategically more contingent relationship between the US and Russia, and
the EU and Russia, is what will shape the role, significance and performance
of Armenia in that triangle. And that is no myth.
Before the war on terrorism, America itself was reticent to engage Armenia
in military matters, given its desire not to offend or irritate regional
proxies, friends or rivals. Today, we have entered into substantive military
cooperation with the US.

Further, while neither invited nor self-invited to be a candidate for NATO
membership, Armenia, through PfP, is active and interested in the process.
We have just begun our accession process to IPAP. In this and other
instances, we have never been offered more than we have been willing or able
to accept. We are therefore somewhat realistically concerned that if
Armenia’s and our neighbors’ engagement with NATO proceeds unevenly, there
is the danger of new dividing lines being created in the Caucasus, and
that’s not helpful for anyone’s security interests.

Turkey, too, has a role to play in Armenia’s security. Not as a partner,
unfortunately, but as a neighbor whose words, actions, relations ­ or
absence of relations ­ creates the environment in which security concerns
must be addressed. Turkey missed the historic opportunity a dozen years ago,
to use the event of Armenia’s independence to begin a new era of relations.
Turkey is a major regional player with the potential of significantly
impacting the regional environment. Its continuing insistence on
preconditions to normal relations creates a breach in confidence. The
absence of normal relations creates a fear of unexpected actions and
complicates an already tense security environment.

Fortunately, Iran, our southern neighbor has been much more even-handed and
farsighted in its relations with Armenia. By experience and necessity, our
engagement with Iran is not and cannot be superficial and on-and-off again.
What we have is the cooperation of two neighbors, each resisting different
forms of isolation and marginalization.

Our second challenge is sustainable and rapid development. In the dozen
short years since independence, we have secured Armenia’s borders in an
inherently unstable region, we have defended our people by creating a strong
army, we have begun to build state structures where none existed, we have
stopped the economic collapse and begun the climb toward prosperity, we have
resolved the energy crisis and converted energy into a commodity, and in
these last three years have sustained double digit economic growth.
Clearly, more crucial challenges are waiting for us still. This growth,
which admittedly began from a very low point of departure, will be difficult
to maintain. We must continue to create rewarding jobs, elevate people’s
standard of living and eradicate poverty and indignity, we must fight and
win the war against nepotism and corruption, we must dispel the shadow
economy, we must protect the socially vulnerable, advocate for the rights of
women and children, allow entrepreneurs to dream and create, bolster the
vital mission of educators and shape a society where people believe in their
abilities to live up to their dreams.
We must also fashion a government of believers and believers in government.
We often say that the steps we’ve taken toward democratic processes and
democratic institutions have been the easy steps. Now, we need to do the
hard work that results in the absorption and realization of these values in
personal and public life. The recent demonstrations in Yerevan, by an
opposition determined to come to power at all cost, even as they’ve publicly
said by force, demonstrates that we have a ways to go. For Armenia or for
any country in transition, what is needed is not just a government willing
to set the rules and play by them, but also a constructive opposition that
is willing to do the same, without brazenly, aggressively abusing the new
opportunities that a democratic system offers. Only this will provide the
kind of stability that is as important to empower a citizenry, as it is for
a businessman to take risks.
Taken together, all of these efforts ­ economic and political ­ will in turn
create the kind of confidence necessary for direct foreign investments to
increase and exports to find markets. It is the combination of these two
pillars around which our economic growth will be sustained. Towards this
end, we envision the creation of a Caucasus free trade zone, as Presidents
Kocharian and Saakashvili have advocated. The BSEC and CIS can provide
serious opportunities for unhindered economic cooperation among member
states if political obstacles do not interfere. For such an enterprise to
succeed, for foreign investors to engage in Caucasus projects, we need open
communication lines. The closed border with Turkey has resulted in a gap in
operating rail links from Turkey thru Armenia to Georgia. Within the TRACECA
route, this constitutes the only missing link from Europe to Asia.
Doubtless, re-commissioning this existing line is of value to those beyond
our immediate region as well, thanks to waves of regionalization and
globalization. Thus what is good for Armenia’s development is also good for
our neighbors near and far.
>From a common security policy to a free trade area, all are achievable and
workable. Civil society, interstate cooperation, human rights reforms,
legislative compatibility, economic cooperation ­ these are the agenda items
that will drive the development of our region. In the Caucasus, where we
live with unresolved conflicts, a signal that the Caucasus belongs in
Europe, will influence and determine how conflicts are resolved. This is our
third challenge: Euro integration. This would not be a simple affirmation of
cultural and religious affinities. This would be the framework within which
we would view our futures, our borders, our neighbors. The Caucasus in
Europe means a Caucasus where all neighbors quit trying to settle scores,
where borders are no longer viewed as barriers. The countries of Europe and
the European structures talk to the Caucasus, visit us, consider our
problems and progress, our needs and accomplishments, all together, in one
breath. This means that in time, we too, will see our future together.
We appreciated the request by the Council of Ministers of the European Union
to the European Commission to make recommendations about the Caucasus
inclusion into the EU Wider Europe initiative during the Irish Presidency.
We hope for and expect such a positive recommendation.

But let me make a clear distinction, so we do not have any false illusions.
The European Union offers us the prospect, not the promise. This is clearly
understood by Armenia, and I have no doubt that it is understood by our
neighbors. It is we in the Caucasus who will turn that prospect into a
promise.

Europe’s standards force us to reexamine our own conduct and behavior. We
are working to build functional, responsive, responsible societies in this
neighborhood not through an imposition of force, but because we want to be a
part of a greater Europe. Europe’s experiences in regional cooperation,
regional conflicts, regional compromises, influenced by the successes of the
last 50 years can provide examples and guidance.

The prospect of EU membership has already had positive effects for our
neighbor Turkey, which is being forced to revisit its relations with at
least one of its neighbors. In light of possible Turkish membership in the
EU, the normalization of Turkey’s relations with Armenia, should also be
both condition and consequence. After all, this will be Europe’s eastern
border, and the prospect that it might be a closed border sounds improbable
given Europe’s standards and ideals.

As you can see, Turkey is a factor in all the major challenges facing
Armenia today. Whether we consider security interests, development
directions, or European integration, the role that Turkey plays in the
region is of consequence.
Armenia repeats at every possible opportunity that we are prepared to
continue dialogue, to work, without preconditions, for diplomatic relations,
for open formal sovereign communications, without which regional imbalances,
instability and even hostilities cannot be righted, mitigated, or anchored
in reciprocal understanding. The simple fact is that neither our past nor
our geography is going to change.
To ignore this truth means that ­ perhaps ­ we do not want them to go away.
If we do, then their legacy must be transcended together. We are not the
only neighbors in the world who have had, and who continue to have, a
troubled relationship. We know that evil ghosts on the Franco-German border
were exorcised. We know that ours can be as well.

I believe that Turkey’s current government is also interested in working
towards normalizing relations. But I also know that Turkey has fallen
hostage to Azeri pressure. Azerbaijan’s new President Aliyev recently
acknowledged, publicly, that closed borders between Turkey and Armenia is a
huge bargaining chip in Azerbaijan’s hand, and the opening of the border
will impact negatively on the Nagorno Karabakh peace process. He’s wrong on
both counts.
Open borders are in the interests of everyone else, as well, but it would
not be unfair to say that Turkey’s role in Iraq, with Israel, with NATO and
EU defense policy, not to say anything of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, are all
too critical to risk jeopardizing by pushing a positive Turkish-Armenian
agenda in the face of Turkish resistance.
We believe that the facts show that the utility of sealed borders has
diminished. On the contrary, their continued existence tends to lessen
Turkey’s credibility as a positive, active, regional player.

This bring us to our fourth challenge: finding a lasting, peaceful
resolution to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

I’ve just returned from a meeting in Prague with the new Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister, called by the Minsk Group co-chairs. I must admit that there are
many uncertainties today in the negotiation process and I think that
wittingly or unwittingly, rather than focusing on finding answers to the
causes of this conflict, Azerbaijan is focusing on the consequences, and
looking for ways of unraveling them.

If the stages of this conflict are viewed one frame at a time, and the
analysis is based on a single frame ­ the way the conflict appears today ­
then we will have a distorted view and will apply inaccurate labels and
propose inappropriate solutions. It is 2004 and the current phase of this
century-old conflict, which resurfaced in 1988, has not yet ended. It has
gone through a period of peaceful demonstrations by Armenians, followed by
pogroms in Sumgait and Baku, sanctioned by the Azerbaijani authorities. This
armed response was followed by a full military escalation, then a ceasefire,
then many stages of negotiations, and that brings us to today.
The refugee issue is consequence of the military conflict, and affects us
all. One million refugees Azerbaijan says. That’s true. But more than
one-third of those refugees are Armenians. There were 400,000 Armenians
living in Azerbaijan before this conflict began. If Armenia, with far less
resources than Azerbaijan, has found ways to settle those refugees into some
semblance of normal life, rather than keep them in tents and barracks as a
showcase to the world, that does not mean that they do not exist. There are
refugees from both sides just as there is suffering on both sides. Both
sides have certain rights that need to be addressed.
Second, it is simplistic to assume that Armenians will relinquish control
over territories under their control as some sort of confidence building
mechanism. Whose confidence are we building? Certainly not the confidence
of the population of Nagorno Karabakh which fought for its basic civil and
human rights, but will be left with no prospect of a long-term status and
security to ensure that it will not have to fight again. The conflict is not
over, and we’ve never claimed anything beyond what we think we deserve —
that the international community look at this from the point of view of the
rights of the people who live on those territories. We are both victims. We
have to work towards a solution which allows us both to become victors.
This year, on the 10th anniversary of this, the only self-imposed and
self-maintained cease-fire in the world, what we want for Armenia, for
Nagorno Karabagh and for our neighborhood are visionary, creative, tolerant
responses based on good will. The formula we seek for our conflict and for
our region is one that assumes that tomorrow we will live next door to a
neighbor and not an enemy. Our dream is to create a country that will live
in peace within itself and with its neighbors, a country that will provide
security and comfort to those who wish to return. We dream that there will
be no dead-end roads leading out of Armenia, that they will all be avenues
of opportunity linking neighbor to neighbor, country to country,
civilization to civilization.
Our borders defining our territories will identify our cultures and
identities, not serve as obstacles to free exchange and cooperation. In
other words, putting this conflict within the context of European
integration, finding solutions that are appropriate to the new geopolitical
context is what will move all of the Caucasus to a new level of peace and
prosperity.

Thank you.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web:
Minister Oskanian Meets with UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
Minister Oskanian paid a working visit to the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland on April 21 – 22. He held a series of official
meetings, spoke to a group of experts and academics, and met with
representatives of the Armenian community.

On Thursday, April 22, Minister Oskanian met with Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw and Parliamentary Undersecretary Bill Rammell. The Minister briefed
them on Armenia’s domestic situation and progress in economic development.
They also spoke about Armenia’s relations with its neighbors, regional
developments, including the Nagorno Karabakh negotiations process, and the
situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary indicated their support for
Caucasus inclusion in the European Union’s Wider Europe New Neighborhood
Initiative. Minister Oskanian extended an invitation to Secretary Straw to
visit Armenia.

Earlier in the day, the Minister had a working lunch with Sir Brian Fall,
Special Envoy to the Caucasus, Terry Davis, Member of Parliament and the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Rapporteur on Nagorno
Karabakh, as well as Simon Butt, Head of the UK Foreign Office Eastern
Department. They discussed Armenia’s engagement in European structures, as
well as prospects for the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

The Minister also held a morning meeting with Angus Robertson, member of
Parliament, and head of the Parliament’s South Caucasus group.

On Wednesday, the Minister made a presentation at the Royal Institute of
International Studies (Chatham House) on The New Caucasus in a Rapidly
Changing Geopolitical Context. The Minister addressed an invited group of
academics, regional experts, journalists and members of the international
community. The Minister talked about four major challenges facing Armenia in
the region: security, development, Eurointegration and the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. This was a return visit. Minister Oskanian last held such a talk
at the highly respected Chatham House in March 1999.

Questions covered relations with Turkey, prospects for resolution of the
Karabakh conflict, Armenia’s domestic situation, and Armenia’s expectations
of European integration.

The Minister also met with a group of community youth leaders and
representatives about Armenia’s foreign and domestic situation, economic
development. He welcomed the interest of the youth in Armenia’s and
Diaspora’s development and encouraged their continuing involvement. He also
invited them to Armenia to participate in a variety of projects in order to
become more closely engaged and informed.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A1 Plus | 17:40:06 | 23-04-2004 | Politics |
STATE-ORDERED TERROR IN JUSTICE-STARVING REPUBLIC
On Friday, human rights activist and the Armenian Helsinki Association head
Mikael Danielyan, who was severely beaten three weeks ago, speaking at a
news conference in Yerevan, called the assault on him as a state order and
state terror.
Danielyan told journalists despite president Kocharyan’s instruction to
trace the offenders, the case investigator had visited him in the hospital
when he couldn’t even speak and his next visit had come two weeks later. The
investigator brought with him a forensic expert, which had nothing to do, as
all trace of violence had almost disappeared.
Mikael Danielyan is convinced neither perpetrators nor masterminds of the
assault to be tracked down and prosecuted.
Speaking on Wednesday’s attack on Socialist Forces leader Ashot Manucharyan
after his article published in Golos Armenii newspaper, Danielyan said those
daring to criticize somebody in government-leaning press, should stay
indoors to avoid beating.
Michael Danielyan said contrary to the authorities attempt to intimidate
him, he remains committed to continue his human rights activist mission of
keeping the world in touch with all illegalities in Armenia, including
illegal arrests, violence against journalists and human rights activists,
committed with impunity.