DISGRUNTLED FARMERS CYNICAL ABOUT PROMISED U.S. AID
By Ruzanna Stepanian

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
April 13 2006

By all accounts, Hrant Sargsian is one of hundreds of thousands
of people who are supposed to be the main beneficiaries of $235.65
million in additional economic assistance to Armenia approved by the
United States. He is poor, lives in a rural area, and has trouble
irrigating crops grown on his modest plot of land.

But just like many other residents of Marmarashen, a village in the
southern Ararat region, the 68-year-old subsistence farmer does not
think that his plight will improve as a result of rural infrastructure
projects to be implemented under the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account
(MCA) program. “Charles Aznavour,” explains Sargsian, “too raised
money for Armenia but we didn’t get a single penny.”

“Now they say they want to sort out our drinking water and irrigation,”
he says. “But they won’t. The sum may reach Armenia, but we won’t see
[any benefit of] it.”

The cynicism is echoed by farmers throughout the fruit-growing Ararat
Valley, Armenia’s most developed agricultural region stretching along
its border with Turkey. Long neglected by the regional and central
governments, they have been left alone in coping with enormous problems
that plagued Armenian agriculture following the Soviet collapse.

There is a widely held belief among local residents that much of
external aid to Armenia has been embezzled by corrupt government
officials and that the U.S. aid will not be an exception. The popular
mood in other regions of the country, where farming conditions are
more difficult, is hardly more positive.

“If the entire sum reaches its destination that will be good, but
I am skeptical,” said a farmer in Mkhchian, another Ararat Valley
village. “Only 10 percent of the aid will serve its purpose.”

“How many ministers do we have? They will distribute that money among
themselves,” claimed another local resident.

Armenian and U.S. officials insist that as much as 75 percent of
approximately one million Armenians dependent on farming will directly
benefit from the five-year program. They say Armenia’s widespread
rural poverty will fall by 6 percent as a result. In addition,
the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation, which runs the scheme,
has pledged to closely oversee the use of the MCA funds to rule out
their possible misappropriation and other corrupt practices.

Most of the sum, $146 million, will be spent on refurbishing Armenia’s
Soviet-era irrigation networks. Another $67 million would go to
pay for capital repairs of about 1,000 kilometers of rural roads
that have fallen into disrepair over the past decade. A Millennium
Challenge Corporation statement last said that these two projects will
“significantly increase the annual incomes of rural poor.”

But local farmers say better roads and irrigation alone are not a
fundamental solution to their woes. They say they will still lack
access to cheap credit and fertilizers and struggle to pay for
water and the basic utilities. Nor will be they be compensated by
the state anytime soon for hail or cold snaps that regularly destroy
their crops. Agriculture insurance remains practically non-existent
in Armenia.

“As soon as farmers are able to get long-term loans from banks
without any bureaucratic hurdles, they will get on their feet,”
said a Mkhchian farmer. “That would be real poverty reduction.”

For farmers in the village of Masis, a key problem is not so much a
lack of irrigation water as its prohibitive cost. “Water is available
here,” said one of them, Ashot Ghazarian. “But it is so expensive that
villagers can not afford it with proceeds from sales of their produce.”

Ghazarian says this is what prompted him and many other locals to
sell their land and become agricultural laborers. Its main buyer,
commercial farmer Zhora Galstian, already owns more than 100 hectares
(250 acres) of the Masis land, a very big plot by Ararat Valley
standards. But even he is unhappy.

“More villagers come and ask me to buy their land but I don’t want
to,” explains Galstian. “What would I do with it? I already earn few
revenues despite working much harder than any city businessman.”

HUNGARY JAILS AZERBAIJANI KILLER

BBC News, UK
April 13 2006

Safarov was also convicted of trying to kill a second Armenian An
Azerbaijani army officer has been jailed for life for murdering an
Armenian while the two were taking a Nato course in English in Hungary.

Lt Ramil Safarov confessed to hacking Lt Gurgen Markarian to death
with an axe in February 2004 in a dormitory used by Partnership for
Peace trainees.

The Budapest court sentenced Safarov to life in prison, with a 30-year
minimum term before any parole hearings.

Azerbaijan and Armenia have been bitter rivals since a war in the
1980s-90s.

Verdict welcomed

Safarov, 29, showed little emotion as Judge Andras Vaskuti read out
the sentence.

He had claimed that he had been driven to his act by the plight
of fellow Azerbaijanis, including close family relatives, in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

He also said he had been provoked by what he called the insulting
behaviour of Lt Markarian towards the Azerbaijani flag.

But the judge ruled that the murder was pre-meditated and had been
carried out with extreme cruelty.

Had his fellow officers not restrained him, the judge added, Safarov
would have killed a second Armenian officer as well.

A lawyer representing the victim’s family welcomed the sentence as a
“good decision for the Hungarian court and for [Armenian] society”.

Safarov’s lawyer said he planned to appeal against the verdict.

2.stm

JAMES KOLBE: “I HOPE SOLUTION OF NK CONFLICT IS NOT VERY FAR”

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 13 2006

James Kolbe, Chairman of the Subcommittee Foreign Operations of US
Congress held a press conformance on the conclusions of his visit to
Baku today (APA).

Mr.Kolbe said he had talks with Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov,
met members of Milli Majlis (Parliament) as well as representatives
of the Armed Forces. During the talks the US Congressman expressed
his gratitude for Azerbaijan’s role in fighting the international
terrorism.

Mr. Kolbe said that as one of the countries co-chairing OSCE Minsk
Group, the United States supports fair and long-lasting solution of
the Nagorno Garabagh conflict, stressing that long-lasting peace and
economic development in the region depends on solving the Nagorno
Garabagh conflict.

Referring to the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s upcoming
official visit to the US, the Congressman assessed this as the proof
of development of relations between the two countries. He expressed
his confidence that the visit will be successful and promote expanding
of strategic relations. According to the US Congressman, Ilham Aliyev
will have talks with representatives of both executive and legislative
bodies in the US.

Responding to the question whether Ilham Aliyev and George Bush are
due to discuss the elimination of Section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act, Kolbe said that the Congress makes final decision on this issue.

“I hope as the solution of the Nagorno Garabagh conflict is not very
far, complete elimination of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act
can be expected too,” Kolbe emphasized.

Commenting on allocation of grants to Armenia and Georgia in the
framework of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Program but not
to Azerbaijan, the Congressman said he closely took part in preparation
of the MDGs.

“Allocation of grants to Armenia has nothing to do with the Nagorno
Garabagh issue. The quality of governing, level of corruption are
taken into account in the country when grants are allocated.

International organizations decide to what country to grant in the
end. I look forward to granting to Azerbaijan very soon. Azerbaijan has
taken some steps in this field. We’ll continue rendering multisided
aids to Azerbaijan. These spheres include military, healthcare and
development of democracy,” Kolbe said.

The US Congressman said he advocates providing strong military
assistances to Azerbaijan. He also stressed that as Chairman of the
Subcommittee he looks forward to rendering assistances to post-war
Azerbaijan for renovation work.

ARMENIAN WINE WILL NOT REPLACE GEORGIAN GOODS, GEORGIAN MP SAYS

Prime News Agency, Georgia
April 13 2006

Tbilisi. April 13 (Prime-News) – Armenian wine will not replace
Georgian wine in Russia, Giorgi Tsagareishvili, member of the Right
Opposition faction of the Parliament of Georgia told Prime-News
on Thursday.

According to him, intention of Avak Arutunian, Chairman of Wine
Producers Association of Armenia to replace Georgian wines with
Armenian production was not affordable, as Armenia has not tradition
of production of semi-sweet wines and it produces only sweet wines.

As for alcoholic drinks, Armenia produces only brandy, but Armenian
wine makers also use several Georgian brands that they have purchased
in the post-soviet period.

According to Avak Arutunian, Chairman of Wine Producers Association
of Armenia, the ban imposed on import of Georgian and Moldovan wines
to Russia is profitable for Armenia, as it will be able to fill the
gap with Armenian alcoholic drinks, Regnum news agency said

“The government of Armenia must start promotion of wine exporters
through long term and preferential credits. That money will be
necessary for promotion campaign in Russia and transportation of
wines. If the government of Armenia hesitates, tomorrow it may be
late”, Avak Arutunian was quoted as saying.

According to him, Georgian wine is the immediate rival for Armenian
one. Armenian wine has never been cheap because of transportation
expenditures, but now Armenian wine may compete with Georgian, he said.

33 wine enterprises operated and produced 2,5 m litres of wine in 2005,
Avak Arutunian said.

The similar statements were made by Pirmakhmad Dostiev, head of Wine
Department of Khurokvor Tajik corporation. But, according to the
Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Parliament of Georgia the Georgian
party was submitted an official letter by Tajikistan providing for
apology for the statement made with regard to replacement of Georgian
wines with Tajik goods.

OSCE OFFICE TO HELP RENOVATE ARMENIAN POLICE TRAINING CENTRE

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)

April 13 2006

YEREVAN, 13 April 2006 – The OSCE Office in Yerevan has signed an
agreement to help renovate all six buildings of the Armenian Police
Training Centre for non-commissioned officers.

Visiting the Centre today, Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin, Head of the
OSCE Office, said: “Non-commissioned police officers are the ones
who work closest with ordinary citizens, so improving their learning
environment and bringing the curriculum into line with international
standards will help enhance the relationship with the community.

Co-operation with the training Centre is part of the ongoing activities
of the Office to assist democratic reform of the Armenian Police”.

Ambassador Pryakhin visited the Centre together with Major-General
Ararat Mahtesyan, the First Deputy Head of the Armenian Police,
and Anthony Godfrey, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy
in Armenia.

The renovation is part of a police assistance programme, launched
by the OSCE Office in 2003. It includes the refurbishment of the
police training Centre, made possible with financial contributions
from the governments of Belgium, Sweden and the United States, the
development of a curriculum in line with international standards and
the introduction of a community-policing model in one of the police
districts of Yerevan.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

STEPHEN MANN TO VISIT YEREVAN IN MAY
Author: Z.Ibrahimli

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
April 13 2006

The date of visit of Stephen Mann, American co-chairman of OSCE Minsk
group for resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is not determined
yet. Apparently, he will arrive in Yerevan in May of the current year,
said Anthony Godfrey, deputy US Ambassador to Armenia, adding there
was no official note on this matter.

We should note that Stephen Mann is visiting Baku April 18. The purpose
of Mann’s visit is learning positions of official Baku and Yerevan on
so-called recommendations the USA made on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
resolution, Regnum reports.

ARMENIA LOOKING FOR PROFIT FROM RUSSIAN WINE BAN

Prime News Agency, Georgia
April 13 2006

Tbilisi. April 13 (Prime-News) – Armenian wine can replace Georgian
wine in the Russian market, Regnum says, as quoting Avak Arutunian,
Chairman of Wine Producers Association of Armenia.

According to him, the ban imposed on import of Georgian and Moldovan
wines to Russia is profitable for Armenia, as it will be able to fill
the gap.

“The government of Armenia must start promotion of wine exporters
through long term and preferential credits. That money will be
necessary for promotion campaign in Russia and transportation of
wines. If the government of Armenia hesitates, tomorrow it may be
late”, Avak Arutunian says.

According to him, Georgian wine is the immediate rival for Armenian
one. Armenian wine has never been cheep because of transportation
expenditures, but now Armenian wine may compete with Georgian, he said.

33 wine enterprises operated and produced 2,5 m litres of wine in 2005,
Avak Arutunian said.

The similar statements were made by the representatives of the
government of Tajikistan a bit earlier. But, according to the Committee
of Foreign Affairs of the Parliament of Georgia the Georgian party
was submitted an official letter by Tajikistan providing for apology
for the statement made with regard to replacement of Georgian wines
with Tajik goods.

PACE OFFERS GEORGIA TO ASSIGN REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL STATUS

Prime News Agency, Georgia
April 13 2006

Tbilisi. April 13 (Prime-News) – The Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe urges on Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia to assign
the status to the refugees and IDPS sheltering there, as provided
for the international law.

According to the report by Boris Tsilevich, Latvian MP, delivered
at the PACE session, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan must assign a
legal status to the refugees sheltering there, as it is provided by
the international humanitarian law.

The report says that the “situation with regard to refugees and IDPs in
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan hinders economic, social and political
development of those countries”.

The author of the report says that “the efforts undertaken by the
governments of the above-mentioned countries for conflict resolution,
including resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, were vain”.

The document also appeals to the documents by United Nations, saying
that 237 069 IDPs were registered in Georgia in 2005 – 224 938 from
the Breakaway Abkhazia and 12 131 from South Ossetia.

PACE appeals to the Council of Europe and asks to render financial
aid to Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to settle the problem of IDPS
and refugees.

ALIYEV’S INVITATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE: A BLESSING OR A CURSE?
By Fariz Ismailzade

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 13 2006

Officials in Baku are rejoicing. Three years after his election,
Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has received an official
invitation to visit the White House and meet with U.S. President George
W. Bush. In a press release issued by the White House on April 10,
the invitation was justified by the fact that “Azerbaijan is a key
ally in a region of great importance and a valued partner, making
important contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo.” The meeting
with President Bush, set for April 28, will include discussion of a
wide range of issues, including democracy promotion and cooperation in
the Caucasus, energy diversification, and the shared U.S.-Azerbaijani
commitment to working together to advance freedom and security.

The invitation comes as a slap in the face to the Azerbaijani
opposition, which has long complained about election fraud in the
country and the lack of adequate pressure from the Western community
on the Aliyev administration. The Azerbaijani opposition has often
cited the continuing refusal to invite President Aliyev to Washington,
while Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili were welcomed immediately after elections in
their countries, to show the international community’s negative
assessment of the state of democracy in Azerbaijan. Now this trump
card has disappeared.

Local analysts predict that two issues will dominate the talks
between Aliyev and Bush: Iran and Azerbaijan’s long-standing
conflict with Armenia over the Karabakh enclave. “There will be a
set of complex issues on the agenda, but Iran will dominate it with
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict being included into the discussion
through the prism of the Iranian question,” independent political
analyst Ilgar Mammadov told Jamestown. “Everything tells us that the
negotiations will focus around the Iranian and Karabakh problems,”
according to an editorial in the opposition Azadliq newspaper on
April 9. Consequently, the long-anticipated invitation from Washington
might not be the blessing that was expected by official Baku.

Political scientist Fuad Gahramanli believes “Aliyev is not interested
in participating in possible military operations against Iran and
actively tries to stay away from this process.” For that reason,
the invitation to the United States at this particular moment might
not please Aliyev that much, concludes Gahramanli (Azadliq, April
7). Mammadov also believes that Azerbaijan will try to play a careful
game, but “It is not for sure yet if Azerbaijan will stay completely
outside of the process.”

Still, some other experts forecast that the Karabakh conflict will
top the discussions, as Washington is re-energizing peace talks
between Armenia and Azerbaijan and trying to save the failed talks
in Rambouillet, outside Paris, on February 11. The intensive trips
by the OSCE’s Minsk group co-chairs into the region in the last few
weeks have raised speculations about the possibility of reaching an
agreement on this conflict in 2006. U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan
Reno L. Harnish III, has told the local Azerbaijani media that there
are good prospects for settling the conflict in 2006. Furthermore,
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said after his trip to
the Washington last week “some new, interesting proposals regarding
the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been offered
and the Azerbaijani government will discuss them” (Turan, April 10,
also see EDM, April 12).

“The United States is interested in a quick resolution of the conflict
this year,” Mammadov told Jamestown, “but whether Russia will help in
this process is still not clear.” ANS-TV radio quoted Yuri Merzlyakov,
the Russian co-chair of the Minsk group, as saying that there is no
competition between the co-chairs and that President Aliyev met with
Russian President Vladimir Putin long before he is scheduled to meet
with President Bush (ANS-TV, April 13).

Much is expected from Aliyev’s upcoming trip to Washington, yet most
local analysts agree that the negotiations will be tough for the
Azerbaijani president. Particularly, any possible pressures on Aliyev
to agree to the terms of the referendum that is being proposed for the
resolution of the Karabakh conflict might produce counter-productive
results domestically. The Azerbaijani opposition is carefully watching
what will happen in Washington and they will try to dampen President
Aliyev’s excitement about the long-anticipated meeting with President
Bush by focusing on the failures of Azerbaijani diplomacy regarding
the Karabakh conflict. As for President Bush, he is no longer feeling
the necessity to postpone this invitation, as his re-election in 2004
has removed the need to take domestic considerations into account
regarding such an action.

Now the emphasis is on security and foreign policy, areas in which
Azerbaijan could be a key ally.

KOSOVO AND THE POST-SOVIET CONFLICTS: NO ANALOGY MEANS NO “PRECEDENT”
By Vladimir Socor

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 13 2006

Part one of two.

Lavrov puts brakes on Kosovo recognition Russian Minister of Foreign
Affairs Sergei Lavrov and other officials have shifted their tactics
regarding the negotiations on the status of Kosovo. The new theme
of their statements and tactical approach to the negotiations is:
“No Haste.” In their view, the negotiations must prepare a settlement
“acceptable to all parties” — translation: hand Serbia blocking
rights — even if it means delaying the final outcome. Lavrov and
his spokesman, Mikhail Kamynin, somberly intimate that recognition
of Kosovo’s independence could set a “precedent” with “dangerous
consequences in Europe,” i.e., encourage movements in parts of certain
countries to press for separate statehood and international recognition
(Interfax, April 10). Meanwhile, the United States is the main promoter
of Kosovo’s independence, contingent on proper standards of governance
and human rights. The EU position is similar.

Moscow’s new arguments seek to dissuade some European governments
from supporting recognition and, through this tactic, to complicate
and prolong the negotiations.

The shift seems due at least in part to the prospect that the Serbian
government might officially consent to independence and international
recognition of Kosovo, albeit subject to international (i.e., Western)
certification that Kosovo has achieved democratic standards.

Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Draskovic recently declared
that Serbia could agree to international recognition of Kosovo’s
independence, including membership in all international organizations
save the United Nations (a reservation that seems destined to be
abandoned in due course). Draskovic’s statement has triggered a
reassessment of policy in Moscow.

The Kremlin had initially calculated that international recognition
of Kosovo’s independence could become a “model” or “precedent”
enabling Russia to call for recognition of Transnistria, Abkhazia,
South Ossetia, or Karabakh. However, Serbian consent to international
recognition of Kosovo would make it impossible for Moscow to apply
a “Kosovo model” to the post-Soviet conflicts. In that case, the
“model” would stipulate that international recognition of a new state
depends on the prior consent of the country from which that entity
secedes. Such a model would be useless to Russia and the post-Soviet
secessionist territories because Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan
would not grant such consent in any foreseeable circumstances.

Moreover, rapid progress toward resolving the Kosovo issue with
minimal Serbian resistance would deprive Russia of opportunities to
play spoiler in the negotiations within the Kosovo Contact Group and
UN Security Council. Moscow wants a dragged-out negotiating process
with opportunities for tradeoffs, whether at Serbia’s expense or the
expense of Moscow’s proteges in the post-Soviet secessionist enclaves,
depending on tactical developments down the road.

Moscow is responding in three ways to the situation created by the
Draskovic statement. First, it tries to embolden hard-line nationalists
in the Serbian government to oppose Kosovo’s independence in principle
and to raise insuperable obstacles in the negotiations. Second,
it tries to outflank the United States by raising the prospect of
destabilization in Europe with some West European participants in
the Contact Group and with some Central-East European governments
in bilateral channels. And, third, it cries, “No Haste,” so as to
frustrate the U.S. and, largely, Western goal of achieving a resolution
this year.

The authorities in Tiraspol, Transnistria; Sukhumi, Abkhazia;
Tskhinvali, South Ossetia; and Stepanakert, Karabakh (and Yerevan as
well) never based their hopes for international or at least Russian
official recognition upon a possible Kosovo “model” or “precedent.”

When Russian President Vladimir Putin raised this idea earlier this
year and turned it into a staple of Russia’s discourse on post-Soviet
conflict resolution, the secessionist authorities reacted with caution
and skepticism. While putting a few of their eggs in the Kosovo basket,
they are clearly loath to stake their case on Kosovo or Russian
actions related to Kosovo. They continually stress other arguments,
“precedents” or “models” in their quest for recognition (see EDM,
February 2, 6, 8).