Committee to Protect Journalists
Journalists attacked at an opposition rally
New York, April 6, 2004 – Journalists covering yesterday’s opposition rally
in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, were attacked by two dozen men in civilian
clothes. The men smashed journalists’ cameras, assaulted several reporters,
and destroyed filmed footage of the events, the U.S.-funded Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported.
The men attempted to disrupt the rally by throwing eggs at Artashes
Geghamian, the opposition party National Unity leader, who addressed a crowd
of about 5,000 people from atop a van.
Several hundred policemen present at the rally stood by passively as the
assailants smashed the videocameras of three Armenian television stations –
Kentron, Hay TV and Public Television – and the still cameras of two
opposition dailies – Aravot and Haykakan Jhamanak. According to RFE/RL, the
assailants forced reporters with the private television station Shant to
surrender their videotape of the rally. Several reporters and cameramen were
physically injured in the clash, the Association of Investigative
Journalists in Armenia (Hetq) reported.
According to RFE/RL, Onnik Krikorian, a British freelance photojournalist,
who was hit in the face by one of the assailants, approached the police for
protection, but an officer advised him to complain to the British Embassy.
—

ARMENIAN RELIEF SOCIETY, INC.
CENTRAL EXECUTIVE BOARD
Armenian Relief Society, Inc. Telephone: 617-926-589
Central Office Fax : 617-926-4855
80 Bigelow Avenue E-Mail: [email protected]
Watertown, MA 02472 Contact Person:Hamesd Beugekian
P R E S S R E L E A S E
The ARS Central Executive Board Organizes its Second Seminar
The ARS Central Executive Board is organizing its Second Seminar,
which will discuss issues concerning primarily the Middle Eastern
entities. Among the focal points are items concerning modernity and
related issues concerning Armenian women as well as general subjects
related to regional and Pan-Armenian realities. The Seminar will be
followed by a pilgrimage to Deir Ezzor.
The Seminar will take place from April 30th to May 2nd, 2004, in
Beirut, Lebanon, with the participation of members belonging to the
Middle Eastern entities.
The following are the subjects to be discussed at the Seminar under
the general theme of “Voluntary Organizations in the 21st Century”, a)
‘Organizational’– speakers: Houri Najarian and Dickie Torigian; b)
‘Educational’-speaker: Khachig Shahinian; c) ‘Social’-speakers: Mary
Arevian and Tamar Der Bedrosian; d) ‘Non-Governmental Organizations’
-speaker: Seta Hedeshian and Hamesd Beugekian; e) ‘Diaspora-Homeland’
-speaker: Hovsep Ghazarian; f) ‘Javakhq’-speaker: Viken Avakian.
#

Interfax
April 7 2004
RusAl foil mill, Achenbach to ink contract soon
Yerevan. (Interfax) – Russian aluminum giant RusAl’s Armenal foil
mill in Armenia will sign a contract with Germany’s Achenbach for the
mill’s modernization towards the end of April.
The project will cost up to 40 million euros and local contractors
will be hired for some of the work, said Georgy Avetikian, Armenal’s
general director.
A group of Achenbach specialists visited Yerevan early March to start
preparations for the upgrade.

Baylor University (press release), United States
April 7 2004
Baylor Opera Director Invited To Conduct In Armenia
April 06, 2004
by Richard Veit
Richard Aslanian, director of opera at Baylor University and
artistic director of the Lyric Opera of Waco, has been invited to
Armenia as the first American to guest conduct at the Armenian
National Opera, one of the leading opera houses of the former Soviet
republic.
With the assistance of the International Program at Baylor, Aslanian
will travel to Armenia in May to conduct Giuseppe Verdi’s opera La
Traviata, which he directed for the Waco Lyric Opera last September.
He will be accompanied by his wife, Judith, who will sing in the
production.
Aslanian will conduct at Armenia’s Alexander Spendiarian Opera and
Ballet Theater, one of the principal features of Freedom Square,
which is located in the center of the capital city of Yerevan. Opened
in 1933, the theater building’s design is actually based on the
seventh century Cathedral at Zvarnotz.
The trip also has personal significance for Aslanian, as he makes
his first visit to the home country of his father and grandparents.
The families were forced to leave their homeland during the early
20th century to escape the Turkish massacres.
In addition to taking part in the cultural activities of the
country, the Aslanians will visit historic sites, such as Mount
Ararat (location of Noah’s Ark) and the Cathedral of St. Gregory, a
church built in the fourth century after Armenia became the first
nation to adopt Christianity as its official religion in A.D. 301.
For more information, call the Baylor School of Music at 710-3991.

Worldwide Faith News, Press Release
April 7 2004
Samantha Power Keynotes NCC 4/23 Event Marking Rwandan Genocide
NCC TO COMMEMORATE 10th ANNIVERSARY OF RWANDAN GENOCIDE
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author Samantha Power to Keynote April 23 Event
in Los Angeles
April 7, 2004, NEW YORK CITY – The National Council of Churches USA
will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide with an
April 23 event in Los Angeles. “Remembering Rwanda – Ten Years After
the Genocide” will feature Samantha Power, who won the 2003 Pulitzer
Prize for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of
Genocide.
Free and open to the public, the 7 p.m. event will be held in Fowler
Museum’s Lenart Auditorium, on the campus of the University of
California at Los Angeles. Preceding the program, at 6 p.m.,
Kimberlee Acquaro’s short film, Journey to Kigali, will have its
premiere screening. The evening will close with a presentation of
Rwandan music and dance.
The event is being held as part of the World Council of Churches’
Decade to Overcome Violence and of an international initiative called
“Remembering Rwanda 1994-2004,” which is inspiring commemorations this
month in cities around the world.
The Rwandan Genocide is a tragic chapter in the history of the 20th
century. In April 1994, hostilities between the Hutu and Tutsi
peoples were at such a point that, when the President, who was a Hutu,
was killed in a plane crash, it touched off a genocide that resulted
in the deaths of more than 800,000 Tutsi and several thousand moderate
Hutu. While the events leading up to the genocide may still be
debated, what is clear is that the international community – including
the United States and the United Nations – failed to prevent it from
taking place.
Samantha Power is a leading authority on genocide. In A Problem from
Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, she analyzes the genocides of
the 20th century and the responses of the United States to these
horrors.
What she found is striking. As she writes: “It is daunting to
acknowledge, but this country’s consistent policy of nonintervention
in the face of genocide offers sad testimony not to a broken American
political system but to one that is ruthlessly effective. The system,
as it stands now, is working. No U.S. president has ever made
genocide prevention a priority, and no U.S. president has ever
suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence. It is
thus no coincidence that genocide rages on.”
Citing a case in point in an April 6, 2004, op-ed in The New York
Times, Power warned, “On this anniversary, Western and United Nations
leaders are expressing their remorse and pledging their resolve to
prevent future humanitarian catastrophes. But as they do so, the
Sudanese government is teaming up with Arab Muslim militias in a
campaign of ethnic slaughter and deportation that has already left
nearly a million Africans displaced and more than 30,000 dead. Again,
the United States and its allies are bystanders to slaughter,
seemingly no more prepared to prevent genocide than they were a decade
ago.”
“For all the horror of the Rwandan Genocide, it remains largely a
forgotten episode in the recent history of the world for most
Americans,” said Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, the NCC’s associate
general secretary for international affairs and peace.
Dr. Kireopoulos said he looks forward to Ms. Power’s remarks, during
which she will dissect the Rwandan Genocide and offer proactive steps
that the international community can take to prevent such horrors from
happening again.
“This is crucial for all of us, especially at a time when, in places
like Sudan, the situation is looking alarmingly familiar,” he
said. “Can we afford not to learn the lessons of Rwanda?”
The event “Remembering Rwanda – Ten Years After the Genocide” will
also include remarks by Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, General Secretary of
the National Council of Churches; Dr. Richard Hrair Dekmejian,
Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern
California and an expert on the history of the Armenian Genocide, and
Rabbi Allen I. Freehling, Executive Director of the Los Angeles City
Human Relations Commission. The program also will include testimonies
by Rwandan Genocide survivors.
-end-
National Council of Churches
475 Riverside Dr, New York
New York 10115-0050
Media Contact: 212-870-2252
[email protected];

Armenian president’s spokesman condemns attacks on journalists
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
6 Apr 04

The spokesman for the Armenian president, Ashot Kocharyan, has
condemned violence against journalist at the rally which took place on
Mashtots Avenue yesterday [opposition rally in central Yerevan on 5
April].
Ashot Kocharyan condemned any violence and disorder, particularly
directed against journalists and representatives of the media.

Reporters Sans Fronties, France
April 7 2004
Journalists beaten up covering opposition demonstration
Reporters Without Borders has protested after at least four
journalists were attacked covering an opposition demonstration. One
of them was also briefly arrested for photographing police setting up
roadblocks ahead of the rally.
Police failed to intervene as a group of unidentified men in civilian
clothes targeted the journalists during a demonstration organised by
the Azgayin Miabanutiun party (National Unity) in Yerevan on 5 April,
the international press freedom organisation complained.
The thugs attacked and injured Anna Israelian, of the daily Aravot,
Onik Grigorian, photographer for Armenia’s investigative journalists’
website, Hetq online, and Tigran Babaian, cameraman for privately
owned Kentron TV.
The attackers damaged their equipment, as well as the camera of Haik
Gevorgian, working for the opposition daily Kaykakan Jamanak. A film
crew from Shant TV had their videotapes snatched.
Before the rally began, Gevorgian was arrested and held for one hour
at Ashtarak, 50 kms from the capital, where he had gone to picture
police setting up roadblocks, placed the authorities said, to
maintain public order.
Expressing concern about the arrest, Reporters Without Borders
pointed out that the cameraman was only doing his job.

Armenian ombudsman condemns rights violation during opposition rally
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
6 Apr 04

[Presenter over video of women’s meeting] The human rights defender,
Larisa Alaverdyan, has also condemned violence directed against
freedom of speech that took place at the opposition rally yesterday [5
April].
Women representatives of Armenian political organizations, who
gathered at a meeting devoted to prospects of democracy, confirmed
that one could not speak even about guarantees for men’s rights in an
undemocratic country.
[Larisa Alaverdyan, captioned as Armenian ombudsman] Any violence and
disorder which takes place in Armenia does not mean violation of the
rights of only a group of men or journalists. This points to the
weakness of the state and ruling authorities which should ensure law
and order in the country.

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
April 7 2004
World: Freedom House Report Highlights Countries With Democratic
Deficits
By Breffni O’Rourke
The U.S.-based pro-democracy organization Freedom House has issued a
report that examines the problems and hurdles facing democratic
development in 30 countries. The report concludes that Uzbekistan is
one of the most repressive countries in the world. It also says
democratic efforts in Kyrgyzstan have stalled, as they have in
Armenia and Ukraine. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are described as
having authoritarian systems.
Prague, 7 April 2004 (RFE/RL) — Freedom House, an organization that
monitors democracy around the world, today published a list of
countries that it claims need help to achieve democracy — or to
further improve it.
The New York-based group says its list of 30 countries is the first
of its kind. It is aimed not just at criticizing the countries named
but also at drawing the international community’s attention to the
fact that they need assistance.
In presenting the report — called “Countries at the Crossroads” —
Freedom House’s Executive Director Jennifer Windsor said “these
countries are at key transition points and to ignore their needs
creates a risk of both individual backsliding and regional democratic
deterioration.”
The list includes Afghanistan and Pakistan; the Central Asian nations
of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan; in the Caucasus, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia; and in Europe, Ukraine. Several Arab states
are also mentioned, such as Bahrain, Qatar, and Yemen.
— In Afghanistan, the report finds that the “rule of the gun largely
supersedes the rule of law.” It says that extra military support is
urgently needed to stabilize the country outside the capital Kabul,
and that the rights of Afghan women remain at Taliban-era levels in
some regions.
— In Pakistan, it says the growing role of the military in
government and civil life is a major obstacle to democratic reform,
and that promises of reform have not so far shown results.
— In Kazakhstan, the report finds an authoritarian system with
limited scope for political competition.
— Kyrgyzstan, it says, has experienced initial democratic openings
that have since stalled or eroded.
— The report sees Uzbekistan as being among the most politically
repressive states in the world, having perpetrated what it calls
“gross violations” of human rights and religious freedoms.
Turning to the Caucasus, the Freedom House report finds that:
— In Armenia, the limited democratic reforms that were undertaken
have gradually eroded, and stalled, and are in danger of complete
reversal.
— In Georgia, before November’s ouster of President Eduard
Shevardnadze, the situation was rated the same as in Armenia.
— In Azerbaijan, there is an authoritarian system with limited scope
for political competition.
— In Ukraine, the limited democratic reforms that were undertaken
have gradually eroded, and stalled, and are in danger of complete
reversal.
“I think the key question is what happens to U.S. policy — for how
long the U.S. is going to go on supporting authoritarian regimes in
Central Asia while trying to spread democracy in the Middle East?” —
Political analyst Heather Grabbe of the Centre for European
ReformFreedom House’s inclusion today of Uzbekistan as one of the
most repressive regimes comes after the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) announced yesterday that it was
banning most loans to Uzbekistan because of continued political
repression and lack of economic reform.
EBRD President Jean Lemierre said the bank will stay engaged to push
for reforms but can no longer conduct business as usual in
Uzbekistan.
EBRD spokesman Jeff Hiday — speaking in London before yesterday’s
decision — gave the methodology on which the bank based its
decision. It set criteria against which Uzbekistan’s performance
could be measured.
“The environment in Uzbekistan has been particularly challenging. So
we set seven benchmarks. And we sought for Uzbekistan to demonstrate
progress on these benchmarks. The extent to which they made progress
would determine the extent to which we continue to invest in the
country,” Hiday said.
The watchdog organization Human Rights Watch today praised the EBRD’s
decision, calling it “unprecedented” and “principled,” and describing
Uzbekistan’s rights record as “appalling.”
Human Rights Watch spokeswoman Vanessa Saenan said in Brussels that
the EBRD should apply its benchmark system to other countries, as
well.
“There are several other countries out there, particularly in Central
Asia and the Caucasus, where a similar approach to that taken with
respect to Uzbekistan would be warranted,” Saenan said.
Another Human Rights Watch spokeswoman, Veronika Leila in Geneva,
listed those countries, saying such benchmarking could become a
standard method for measuring progress in democratic and economic
reforms.
“It would be Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan. In the
South Caucasus, we are talking about Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
In Europe, it would not be unwarranted to take a similar approach
with respect to Ukraine. So we are really hoping that the [EBRD],
after this experience with Uzbekistan, will become more forceful and
serious about its political mandate, as it has really demonstrated
that it is able to ‘operationalize’, if you wish, its political
mandate, which makes clear that it was set up to engage those
countries in the region which do respect democracy and human rights,”
Leila said.
Leila called on the United States and the European Union to take a
harder line with countries like Uzbekistan, which are allies but
which do not observe human rights. She noted that the U.S. government
must soon issue its periodic certifications for Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan, confirming that they are making progress on rights
commitments so that aid can be continued.
She said these two countries are plainly not making progress.
Political analyst Heather Grabbe of the Centre for European Reform in
London said that much will depend on what the United States does.
“I think the key question is what happens to U.S. policy — for how
long the U.S. is going to go on supporting authoritarian regimes in
Central Asia while trying to spread democracy in the Middle East? It
doesn’t really make sense, and obviously the U.S. agenda has a huge
impact on the role of the international organizations,” Grabbe said.
Grabbe said it’s an important moment for international donors to
consider the conditions they attach to their financing. But she also
said there was a persistent lack of consensus within the
international community on how to deal with repressive regimes.
The complete Freedom House survey can be found on the Internet at
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Daily speculates on Azeri campaign against opening of Turkish-Armenian border
Zerkalo, Baku
6 Apr 04

The Baku government has orchestrated a protest of Azerbaijani
reporters in Turkey against the opening of the Armenian border,
Azerbaijani daily Zerkalo has reported. The Azerbaijani leadership is
attempting to exert pressure on Turkey ahead of President Ilham
Aliyev’s visit to this country later this month, the newspaper
said. But Turkey seems to have made up its mind to lift the blockade
of Armenia since this country itself has serious problems with
Yerevan. On the other hand, there is European pressure, and Ankara is
ready to pay the highest price for EU membership, the daily said. The
sooner Turkey becomes an EU member, the better for Azerbaijan. Turkey
could then influence EU decisions relating to Azerbaijan, Zerkalo
said. The following is the text of the report by R. Mirqadirov in
Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 6 April headlined “Time to stop
viewing relations with fraternal Turkey through rose-coloured
spectacles”; subheadings inserted editorially:
Azerbaijan tries to exert pressure on Turkey
Contradictions in relations between two fraternal countries have
become visible ahead of the Azerbaijani president’s official visit to
Turkey. For the first time after gaining independence Azerbaijan is
not solving existing problems amicably through diplomatic channels,
but is trying “to exert pressure” on the Turkish government through
“public opinion” and that is a fact.
At the initiative of the independent TV company ANS, as a circulated
statement reads, on 6 April a group of journalists from leading media
outlets will go to the Turkish-Armenian border to stage an action
under the slogan “Turks must support Turks”. The rally-goers are even
planning to form a symbolic “live impassable border” between Turkey
and Armenia. The action will end in Ankara.
To all appearances, some opposition forces in Turkey will back this
action as they believe that the [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip]
Erdogan government is making inadmissible concessions for the sake of
EU membership. It is not a coincidence that the rally-goers will call
on the Turkish government not to yield to “pressure from some
countries” and not to open the border with Armenia. It would not be
very difficult for Ankara to sort out problems with individual
countries. Things are different with the EU which has been insisting
on the opening of the border. The Erdogan government is prepared to
pay the highest price for Turkey’s EU membership.
Given the aforesaid, it is difficult to imagine that the group of
journalists “from the leading media outlets leave for Turkey” without
“permission” especially ahead of [Azerbaijani President] Ilham
Aliyev’s first visit to Ankara as president. It is clear that this
demarche of the two countries’ public, which has been organized by the
Azerbaijani side and which will most probably involve Turkey’s
opposition forces, is unlikely to create a favourable atmosphere in
the forthcoming talks between Ilham Aliyev and Erdogan. Thus, the
Azerbaijani government is deliberately aggravating relations with the
Erdogan government to some extent. But is it worth doing so?
Let us start with the positive aspect. For the first time ever the
Azerbaijani government is trying to use resources of the
non-government sector to implement a specific foreign policy task. It
is a pleasing aspect on its own.
Opening of border formality
Let us now talk about the essence of the problem. If the Azerbaijani
government tries to use public pressure to prevent the opening of the
border and, in doing so, almost jeopardizes Ilham Aliyev’s forthcoming
visit to the fraternal country, this means that all other diplomatic
means have failed to settle this problem, i.e. the opening of the
border with Armenia is already a settled issue and this is all only
formalities.
Is this in the interests of the Azerbaijani government? Obviously,
no. No matter who says what, Azerbaijani society will most probably
assess the opening of the border between Turkey and Armenia as a major
foreign policy failure of the new Azerbaijani president. Ilham
Aliyev’s opponents will recall that international organizations
demanded that Turkey open the border with Armenia in the past as
well. But Ankara did not do so during [late Azerbaijani President]
Heydar Aliyev’s tenure.
Armenia to get political rather than economic dividends
But this is not the whole story. The opening of the border and
establishment of normal economic and diplomatic relations between
Armenia and Turkey will naturally strengthen the position of the
incumbent Armenian leadership, on the whole, and [Armenian President]
Robert Kocharyan in particular.
Armenia will not receive economic dividends from the opening of the
border at the beginning. First, the Armenian market is too small for
serious Turkish investors. Second, the opening of the border is one
issue, but the establishment of serious economic relations is
completely different. But one could “unofficially” regulate the level
of economic relations as well. Third, Armenia is far behind from
regional integration processes and major economic projects. That is
why, it is unlikely that anyone in Armenia could seriously hope for
the rapid improvement of the internal economic situation after the
opening of the border with Turkey.
As for political dividends, the Armenian government will obviously get
them. First, Armenia will speak everywhere about the failure of the
blockade policy. Second, Kocharyan will receive certain trumps in the
struggle with the pro-Western part of the opposition which has accused
him of the isolation policy and has already announced nationwide
rallies against the incumbent regime starting on 9 April. Kocharyan
will prove his ability to end the country’s isolation without
concessions in such principled issues as the Karabakh problem.
Turkey plays own game
What about Turkey? Ankara has been trying to speculate on the Karabakh
problem for a long period, claiming to revise its relations with
Yerevan only after the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict
and liberation of all occupied Azerbaijani territories. Many people in
Azerbaijan have been gladly trusting this, forgetting that Turkey
itself has serious problems with Armenia. These are, first of all,
the problem of the so-called “genocide” and western territories,
i.e. Armenia insists on the international recognition of “the
genocide” and has territorial claims to Turkey. Having these problems,
it would be stupid of Turkey to establish normal relations with
Armenia.
Incidentally, the recognition of “the genocide” is not only an issue
of “restoring the historical truth” as the Armenian government claims,
but it can have quite specific negative financial consequences for
Turkey. Having recognized “the Jewish genocide”, Germany is still
paying to the descendants of Nazi concentration camp victims. These
prospects could be excessive for the Turkish economy which is hardly
stable and prosperous, unlike the German one.
But today Turkey has made serious concessions in the Cyprus issue for
the sake of its EU membership. The Cyprus issue is more important for
the Turkish government and the entire Turkish people rather than the
Karabakh problem. That is why, one should not be under a delusion and
think that Turkey will reject EU membership because of Azerbaijan. But
Turkey should solve its own problems with Armenia after all.
Zerkalo has learnt from informed Turkish diplomatic channels that
Yerevan and Ankara have recently had intensive unofficial diplomatic
contacts. In exchange for the opening of the border, Ankara has been
trying to achieve Yerevan’s guarantee that it will remove the
so-called “genocide” issue from the agenda. Incidentally, it is not
quite necessary that Armenia should give up the idea of the official
recognition of the genocide at the state level. Yerevan should not
simply exaggerate this issue in the future.
Thus, Ankara is trying to solve its own problems, but pretends that it
is allegedly forced to sacrifice Azerbaijan’s interests to EU
pressure.
Azerbaijan should back Turkey’s EU membership bid
But we already must stop looking through rose-coloured spectacles and
see the practical side of the issue. Let Turkish society itself think
about the worth of opening the state border with Armenia without
certain guarantees for the settlement of the problems existing between
Ankara and Yerevan.
Ankara must realize that the EU is not in a hurry to see Turkey as its
member. Turkey is a big country in terms of human resources and
territory, which has the key geopolitical location and many serious
economic problems. Brussels realizes very well that Turkey’s
membership will create many problems for the EU itself. From this
viewpoint, the South Caucasus countries have better chances to become
EU members than Turkey.
At the same time, Azerbaijan should have an interest in Turkey’s EU
membership, the sooner, the better. At least, Turkey could then
directly influence EU decisions and even block those which are
unfavourable for Azerbaijan’s interests. It will be then possible to
judge whether fraternal ties between Azerbaijan and Turkey are strong
enough.
On the other hand, as soon as Turkey becomes an EU member, it will be
obliged to have the same level of relations both with Azerbaijan and
Armenia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress