Month: June 2005

Turkey always backed Azerbaijan, Turkish PM says
30.06.2005 17:49
YEREVAN (YERKIR) – Turkey has always backed Azerbaijan in the Karabakh
issue, and it always will, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
told a news conference in Baku Thursday, Armenpress reported.
Erdogan is visiting Baku for talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev. “Turkey is for settling the conflict through a dialogue but
it is linked to freeing the occupied territories,” Erdogan mentioned.
In his turn, Aliyev said that the development of the relations between
Azerbaijan and Turkey are critical not only for the two countries
but they also have an overall effect for the region.
Following their talks, Aliyev and Erdogan have signed a number of
agreements on political, economic and cultural cooperation.

GEORGIAN BASE CLOSURE SHIFTS STRATEGIC BALANCE
Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR)
June 30 2005
The transfer of Russian military hardware from Georgia to Armenia may
alter the balance of forces in the South Caucasus.
By Irakly Aladashvili in Tbilisi and David Petrosian in Yerevan
On May 30, after years of disagreements, Georgia and Russia finally
agreed on a timescale for Moscow to close its two remaining military
bases in Georgia. Moscow and Tbilisi are now negotiating the technical
details of the pullout – and the critical issue of what will become
of the significant numbers of Russian tanks in Georgia.
The Russian bases at Akhalkalaki and Batumi are to close up by the end
of 2008. Russia plans to transfer some of the equipment now stationed
there to its military base in Gyumri in neighbouring Armenia.
Although Georgian officials have hailed the pullout agreement as a
landmark, some observers believe the transfer of more Russian armaments
to Armenia could upset the already fragile balance of forces between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. The neighbours are still involved in a long
conflict over the disputed Nagorny Karabakh territory and lands
adjacent to it.
Peace talks to end the decade-old conflict have dragged on for years.
Recently, Azerbaijan, which lost 14 per cent of its territory to ethnic
Armenian forces in the fighting, has shown increasing impatience with
the situation.
The relocation of military hardware from Russia’s bases in Georgia to
sites in Armenia has been greeted with more concern in Azerbaijan.
President Ilham Aliev says his country will raise defence spending
by 70 per cent as a result. Azerbaijan has often accused Russia of
covertly backing Armenia in the conflict.
“It is true that this hardware is not being handed over to Armenia
but remains at the disposal of the Russian base,” President Aliev
said on June 25 as he addressed graduates at the Azerbaijani Higher
Military School. “However, it will nevertheless be transferred to
Armenian territory – and we have had to take proper steps, which we
did by increasing defence expenditure in the budget.”
According to the Military Staff of the Russian Troops in the
Transcaucasus, at the beginning of 2005, there were 1,700 military
personnel stationed at Batumi. In addition, the base had 31 tanks,
131 armoured fighting vehicles, AFVs, and 211 other vehicles, and 76
large-calibre artillery systems.
The base at Akhalkalaki had 1,800 personnel, 41 tanks, 67 AFVs and
61 other vehicles, and 64 large-calibre artillery pieces.
Three trainloads of weapons and munitions, including chemical and
nuclear warfare protection gear as well as anti-aircraft missiles,
have left the Batumi base for Gyumri since the agreement was signed.
Under the terms of the deal, around 40 per cent of Russian equipment
in Georgia is supposed to be relocated to Gyumri.
Russian defence minister Sergei Ivanov said the relocation did not
mean that Armenia or Russia would exceed international agreements
governing arms restrictions in the Caucasus. And, on an official level
at least, Yerevan says the relocation is a normal measure regulated
by treaty obligations.
Some argue that Armenia needs the boost in weaponry on its territory
that the closure of the Russian bases in Georgia will give it.
One Georgian expert predicted that in the event of a resumption of
hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia would try to
prevent new overland shipments of Russian armaments reaching Armenia
through its territory. “If the armed conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is resumed, it may be assumed that Georgia will try to
maintain complete neutrality and will not allow the Russian military
to deliver additional ammunition to Yerevan,” said the expert, who
did not want to be named.
“However, it will be first and foremost Armenia that will suffer
from Georgia’s neutrality, as it will find itself under an almost
total blockade.”
“Today, the only thing that Yerevan – whose economic potential cannot
be compared with that of Azerbaijan — can think about is replenishment
of the stocks of Russian military equipment and ammunition.”
However, a number of experts in Armenia believe that the relocation
of Russian heavy armaments to Armenia will reduce Yerevan’s security,
not increase it.
Anatoly Tsyganok, a professor at the Academy of Military Sciences,
said, “All the control units for Russian anti-aircraft systems in
this region are currently in Georgia. Moscow reinforced them not
so long ago, in 2003 and 2004, as it considered it possible that
unsanctioned missiles could be launched from the south, perhaps Iran,
aimed at Russia.
“The impending elimination of these units will sharply reduce control
over the entire system. As a result, not only Russia but also Armenia
will encounter new problems.”
Four Russian military bases remained in Georgia in the early 1990s
when the Soviet Union collapsed. In 2001, in pursuance of agreements
reached at an OSCE summit in 1999, Russia gave up the Vaziani base
located near Tbilisi and the Gudauta base in Abkhazia.
Some observers say the two bases that were left lost any real strategic
value for Russia.
“The two bases remaining on Georgian territory were then deprived of
the main component – the airfield in Vaziani,” said Koba Liklikadze,
an observer on military affairs. “As there was no railway line to reach
them, the Batumi and Akhalkalaki bases found themselves blockaded and
encountered problems with the transportation of military contingents,
fuel, and weapons.”
Moscow and Tbilisi had been negotiating on the closure of the Batumi
and Akhalkalaki bases since 1999. The Georgians had maintained that
itn could be done in three to four years, while Moscow initially
demanded 17 and later 11 years.
Talks on closing the bases were significantly stepped up after
President Mikheil Saakashvili and his team came to power in Georgia.
Georgian defence minister Irakly Okruashvili said that the agreement
to close the bases marks the end of 200 years of a Russian military
presence in Georgia.
However, the question is whether Georgia will become a “demilitarised
zone”, as its leadership has said it wants, or join NATO, to which
the government also aspires.
This question particularly worries the almost 100,000-strong Armenian
community in the Samtskhe-Javakheti region, as the Akhalkalaki military
base located there is not just the only source of jobs for the locals,
it is also viewed as a guarantor of security against NATO member
Turkey – located right across the border.
Some Armenian security officials are disappointed with the
Russian-Georgian agreement to liquidate the bases, seeing it as a
capitulation by Moscow.
“Moscow has given in to a weak country [Georgia], failing to protect
any of the diplomatic, economic, and military issues linked to its
national security, as well as the matters relating to its sole ally
in the region, Armenia,” an Armenian expert close to the government
who asked to remain anonymous told IWPR.
Irakly Aladashvili is a military observer for the Kviris Palitra
newspaper in Tbilisi. David Petrosian is a political observer for
the Noyan Tapan news agency in Yerevan

ARMENIA: CONSTITUTION DEAL IN SIGHT
Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR)
June 30 2005
Pressure from the Council of Europe may force President Kocharian to
water down his presidential powers.
By Victoria Abraamian in Strasbourg and Yerevan
The Armenian government and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission
have reached a provisional deal to break a deadlock over stalled
constitutional reform.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE, of which
Armenia is a member, had strongly criticised the country for sticking
to an undemocratic constitution. Further criticism had come from
the Armenian parliamentary opposition, which has boycotted plenary
sessions of parliament for two years.
Now the authorities have agreed to work on a new draft constitution
for debate in parliament in August which will be put to a national
referendum before the end of November.
The Venice Commission, which gives expert advice on constitutional
matters, had expressed concerns about three parts of the
constitution. In particular, they proposed abolishing the president’s
right to sack the prime minister unilaterally and that the new premier
should be appointed with the approval of a majority in parliament. It
also wanted to see the end of presidential power over judges, and
requested that the mayor of Yerevan – the capital city home to a
third of the population – become an elected official.
“Power is very attractive and it’s hard to give it up,” noted
Armen Rustamian, a parliamentary deputy from the pro-government
Dashnaktsutiun party. “I don’t want to name names, however after
constitutional reforms many will lose their levers of influence. By
following the agreements that have been made Armenia really can get
itself out of a constitutional crisis.”
Matyas Eorsi, leader of the Liberal Democratic and Reformers’ Group
in PACE, was less shy of naming names. He told the session, “The only
man abusing his powers and blocking the process of constitutional
reforms in Armenia is President Robert Kocharian. Reading the report
on constitutional reforms in Armenia you get the impression that the
draft constitution is not uniting but dividing the nation.”
Most observers agree that if the government keeps to its part of the
deal, this will mark a political climb-down for the president.
“If all the demands of the Venice Commission are adopted, then
Kocharian’s power will definitely be weaker,” said Hovsep Khurshudian,
political analyst with the National Centre for Strategic Studies in
Yerevan. “But let’s not forget that even the most ideal constitution
can be violated.”
A weakening of presidential power on all these fronts will diminish
Kocharian’s ability to dominate the country and ensure success for
his chosen successor when his second and final presidential team ends
in 2008.
Armenia’s much-criticised constitution dates back to 1995. At the time
doubts were cast on the legitimacy of the referendum under which it
was adopted. On coming to power in 1998, Kocharian raised the issue
of the need to change the constitution, but so far all attempts to
do so have failed.
On becoming a member of the Council of Europe in 2001, Armenia pledged
to change its constitution but voters rejected draft changes put to
a vote in 2003.
Since then the council and the Armenian government have begun to clash
openly, both about the timetable for changes and their substance. This
culminated with a statement by the Venice Commission on May 26,
which expressed deep disappointment with the lack of progress made
by the governing coalition.
Commission members then visited Armenia and signed a memorandum
with the Armenian government. At the June 23-24 session of PACE,
during discussion of the latest draft, discontented deputies passed
a resolution calling on the Armenian authorities to heed the Venice
Commission’s proposals.
Jerzy Jaskierna, rapporteur for the parliamentary assembly of the
council on Armenia’s constitutional reforms, told the session, “The
constitutional reforms ought to be rooted in an atmosphere of mutual
trust and dialogue between the authorities and the opposition.”
The Armenians must now present the Venice Commission with a new
improved package of constitutional reforms drawn up on the basis of
its recommendations by July 7. The new document will be written by
presidential representative Armen Harutiunian, Justice Minister David
Harutiunian, the head of Armenia’s delegation to PACE, Tigran Torosian,
and other members of the governing coalition. This will then be put
to a second reading in parliament by August 20. A public referendum
to approve it should then be held before November.
The Armenian parliamentary opposition is now cautiously optimistic.
“It’s obvious that if the president’s hyper-powers are removed and
an independent judicial system is set up, we will register progress,”
said leading opposition deputy Shavarsh Kocharian.
“If the comments and proposals of the Venice Commission are included
in the draft constitutional reforms then we are ready to suspend our
boycott of work in parliament that we began in 2003 and take part
in the work on constitutional reforms in the National Assembly,”
said Shavarsh Kocharian, who is no relation to the president.
“I think it would be very dubious to hold a referendum without mutual
agreement,” agreed pro-government deputy Armen Rustamian. “We have
really done serious work and we can’t turn back halfway.”
In a June 28 meeting with Ambassador Roland Wegener, a German diplomat
who represents the council’s committee of ministers’ monitoring group,
President Kocharian said, “The constitutional referendum will be
adopted as a result of collaboration. It will defend constitutional
reforms and convince society that that the referendum will be a good
change for the future.”
At the PACE session, many delegates from different countries warned
that Armenia will be in serious trouble if the constitutional reform
process fails again. The assembly has the right to strip Armenia of
its voting rights or even suspend its membership altogether, although
this was not put on the agenda.
“If Armenia fails in a referendum a second time then we will begin
to have big problems with the Council of Europe,” warned analyst
Khurshudian.
Victoria Abraamian works for the Ayb-Fe news agency in Yerevan.

WHY AZERIS DISLIKE ARMENIANS
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
30 June 05
Azeri-Armenian relationships are one of the fundamental factors,
directly affecting the formation of a new geopolitical architecture
in the post-Soviet South Caucasus. The martial law lasting in Armenia
and Azerbaijan for 13 years now because of the unresolved issue of
Karabakh, on the one hand, does not allow these countries to use
their full potential for economic and social development, and on the
other hand, enables the world and regional powers to manipulate this
factor to solve their geopolitical, economic and strategic issues.
With the current confrontation the concerns of Armenia and Azerbaijan
about security make them look for foreign allies. As a result Armenia
and Azerbaijan have been involved in such military and political
alliances, the front line of confrontation between which directly
passes across the South Caucasus. Thus, Armenia joined the CIS
Collective Security Treaty, while Azerbaijan aspires to enter NATO,
being a member of the overtly pro-Atlantic GUAM alliance which is
a rather military and political than economic alliance. The content
of the Azeri-Armenian relationships is one of the chief reasons for
the absence of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey, which
aggravates the vague military, political and economic situation in the
region. These actualities directly impact the implementation of any
economic project, making them too politicized. This was particularly
the case with the project of pumping Caspian oil to the world markets
via Turkey. Although economically it seems to be more favourable
if the pipeline passed through Armenia, it was decided to build the
pipeline through Georgia. The implementation of the project TRASECA
runs into serious hindrances again because of being politicized. The
Iranian-Armenian, Azeri-Iranian, Armenian-Georgian, Azeri-Georgian,
Russian-Armenian, Azeri-Russian, Azeri-Turkish, Armenian-American,
Azeri-American and even Turkish-American relationships depend to some
extent on the Azeri-Armenian relationships. Several years ago proposals
were made in Baku to form a new alliance by Azerbaijan, Turkey and
Israel, which was to be targeted at the Iranian policy in relation
to the legal status of the Caspian Sea and Armenia. In response,
staring military cooperation with Moscow, Iran set out to establish
“the alliance of three” with Greece and Armenia in counterbalance
to GUAM. All this comes to prove that the rehabilitation of the
Azeri-Armenian relationships through resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict based on compromise is one of the chief preconditions for
establishment of lasting peace and stability in the region. But is
this likely to happen in the near future? In order to forecast the
development of the Azeri-Armenian relationships it is necessary
to define the chief components underlying the foreign policies of
Baku and Yerevan. These components bear both positive and negative
charges. And the future content of the Azeri-Armenian relationships
will be greatly determined by the fact which component, positive or
negative, will prevail in the “Azerbaijani” policy of Yerevan and the
“Armenian” policy of Baku. Unfortunately, Baku’s political line on
Armenia is currently based mainly on the negative component. Thus,
Armenia is perceived by Azerbaijan as a country which: claims to the
territory of Azerbaijan; implements a policy of usurping Azerbaijani
territories by artificially causing the issue of Nagorno Karabakh;
is interested in dividing Azerbaijan on the basis of ethnic and
territorial features and supports the separatist aspirations of the
ethnic minorities living in the country, particularly the Talish and
the Lezgi peoples; “annexed” the “historical lands of Azerbaijan”,
Zangezour and the basin of Sevan; is hostile to the natural strategic
ally of Azerbaijan – Turkey; is an obstructing factor against the
implementation of the strategic issue of Turkey and Azerbaijan to
bring together and unite the Turkish-speaking states and peoples of
the post-Soviet space; has “artificially divided” the territory into
“continental” and “exclave” (Autonomous Republic of Nakhichevan)
parts; is highly interested in setting up and developing cooperation
(including military cooperation) with “undesirable” countries
for Azerbaijan and Turkey, such as Russia, Iran, Greece, Syria,
Turkmenistan, and others to form “anti-Turkish and anti-Azerbaijani”
alliances; “caused” the death of tens of thousands and deportation of
hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azerbaijanis (from Armenia as well).
This is the incomplete list of the negative components that determine
the Azerbaijani foreign political line on Armenia. Combined with this,
the “Armenian” policy of Azerbaijan is based on the recognition of a
set of circumstances by the Azerbaijani authorities, which comprise
the positive component of the “Armenian” policy of Baku. Among these
are: the recognition of Armenia by the international community
as a country which aspires to adopt the rules and values of the
Western democratic society; the perception of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict by the West as an issue of the political status of Nagorno
Karabakh and the security of its Armenian population; the interest
of the West represented by the OSCE to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict on the basis of compromise in the framework of the OSCE;
improving relationships between Armenia and the countries in the
neighbourhood of Azerbaijan – Russia, Iran, Georgia, Turkmenistan;
the interest of the US and Europe in establishing lasting peace through
an acceptable resolution of the ethnic and political conflicts in the
South Caucasus; the aspiration of the US to establish relationships
and cooperation between Turkey and Armenia, dictated by the strategic
plans of Washington in the South Caucasus; Armenia as the country
with the most effective army in the South Caucasus. Because the
set of the negative components of the “Armenian” policy of Baku
shows that having such a country in its neighbourhood as Armenia is
“a threat to the security” of Azerbaijan, Baku authorities have to
seek for ways of eliminating this threat. There are three possible
ways: increasing the military capacity of Azerbaijan to use force
against Armenia; conducting a policy of provoking the international
community to use international isolation against Armenia and using
force against Armenia without the direct participation of Azerbaijan;
a foreign policy of improvement of relationships and cooperation with
Armenia from the position of the “economic capacity” of Azerbaijan.
It is true that there exists the fourth way as well. It is the
blocking of the resolution of the Karabakh issue, which means a
“cold war”. However, it is not thought to be promising since it
does not lead to the isolation of Armenia as a factor of threat to
the security of Azerbaijan. The “Azerbaijani” policy of Yerevan too,
is chiefly based on the negative components. Thus, Armenia perceives
Azerbaijan as a country which: claims to the territory of Armenia; had
annexed the historical Armenian territory – Nakhichevan and Karabakh;
seeks to launch a policy of ethnic cleansing of Armenians; is actively
involved in the fulfillment of the idea of Pan-Turkism by Turkey, that
is the unification of Turkish-speaking nations under Turkey; does not
wish to have in its neighbourhood an Armenian state, therefore provokes
the international community to place economic, military and political
pressure on Armenia; rejects the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue by the principle of self-determination; is ready to resume
military actions against Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia at any time
favourable for it and resolve the conflict through force. The main
positive components of the “Azerbaijani policy” of Armenia are: the
interests of the US, Europe and Russia in Azerbaijan as a country
which has an important geo-strategic position in the region, rich in
energy resources; the aspiration of the US and Europe to conciliate
Armenia and Azerbaijan on the issue of Nagorno Karabakh on the basis
of compromise achieved through mediation. It is important to notice
that the negative components determine the attitude of Armenia and
Azerbaijan towards one another, whereas the positive components
are mainly determined by external factors which are to be taken into
consideration both by Baku and Yerevan. This means that if Armenia and
Azerbaijan were not under external influence, the armed conflict would
be inevitable. The evidence to this is the military actions started by
Azerbaijan against Nagorno Karabakh immediately after the dissolution
of the USSR. The conclusion is outlining already: the prospects of
improvement of relationships between the two countries will be vague
unless at least some of the positive components of the “Armenian”
policy of Azerbaijan and the “Azerbaijani” policy of Armenia come true.
ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN.
30-06-2005

Azerbaijani president satisfied with Karabakh settlement talks
Interfax
Jun 30 2005 5:07PM
BAKU. June 30 (Interfax) – Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has said
he is satisfied with the progress of Karabakh settlement negotiations.
“Negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia are developing well,”
he told a joint press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan in Baku on Thursday.
“The recent boost in negotiations gives us hope. Negotiations would
have been unnecessary without this hope,” he said.

Azerbaijan, Turkey support each other on Karabakh, Cyprus – leaders
ANS TV, Baku
30 Jun 05
[Presenter] Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan began his
first day with a visit to the grave of [ex-President] Heydar Aliyev
and then to the Martyrs’ Avenue. The prime minister, who also wrote his
thoughts in the memorial book, laid a wreath at the monument to Turkish
soldiers who died while liberating Baku in 1918. He also made a note
in the memorial book here. Then he came to the Presidential Palace.
President Ilham Aliyev and Erdogan held a press conference.
[Erdogan speaking in Turkish at the conference] We continue to take
the same position on events around Nagornyy Karabakh. As for Armenia,
Turkey will continue to stand by Azerbaijan just like it has done
until now. On the Nagornyy Karabakh issue, our position is the same
as that of the Azerbaijani authorities.
We have responded in the same way to all the offers and demands we
have received. The Council of Europe has recognized Armenia as an
invader in Nagornyy Karabakh as a result of special efforts made by
Turkey. Therefore, the invader must retreat from the occupied land.
This must be done. Turkey is in favour of resolving this problem
through dialogue, and this resolution is naturally connected with
the behaviour of Armenia which must retreat from the territory it
has invaded.
[Ilham Aliyev] We are ready to do our best to help northern Cyprus to
find a way out of isolation. The esteemed prime minister has already
spoken out on this. I said today that various Azerbaijani companies,
including travel agencies, will open their offices in northern
Cyprus. Flights will be organized from Azerbaijan to northern Cyprus.
All other necessary measures will be taken.
I believe that a delegation of Azerbaijani business executives needs
to visit northern Cyprus soon. We deeply regret that the referendum
held in Cyprus failed to justify our hopes. However, nobody will
allow our Turkish brothers in Cyprus to continue living such a life
because of that. Therefore, the isolation of Turkish Cypriots must end.

Council of Europe upbeat on coming Azeri polls – TV
ANS TV, Baku
29 Jun 05
[Presenter in studio] The people of Azerbaijan will elect their
representatives to parliament during the November elections, Council
of Europe Secretary-General Terry Davis has said and added that these
elections will be more democratic than before.
[Correspondent over archive footage] The next parliamentary elections
will put democracy in Azerbaijan to the test, Council of Europe
Secretary-General Terry Davis has said in an exclusive interview with
ANS. He also expressed confidence that these elections would be more
democratic than the ones before.
[Terry Davis shown talking to camera with Azeri voice-over] We
hope the people of Azerbaijan will elect their representatives
to parliament. They will do this fairly and without any outside
interference. I would not like to comment on the activities of any
political parties. I do not support any party in Azerbaijan. We want
the Azerbaijani people to elect their members of parliament by fully
exercising their universal franchise. Personally I am convinced that
these elections will be better than the ones before.
[Correspondent] Terry Davis said the Council of Europe is interested
in conducting democratic elections in Azerbaijan and stands ready to
provide any assistance necessary to that end. The organization intends
to provide similar assistance in resolving the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And the resolution adopted by
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] pertaining
to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict has laid foundations for that.
[Davis] The Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents have to find the
political will to achieve a breakthrough in this issue. I certainly
welcome the negotiations between the presidents. Their meetings
show that both sides are interested in resolving the conflict. It is
regrettable that there have been instances of cease-fire violation
on the front-line of late.
But on the other hand, I cannot defend the position of either of
the sides. I am only urging both of them to exercise restraint and
observe the cease-fire. I am sure that the meetings between the two
presidents will produce results and there will be no resumption of
hostilities in the foreseeable future. The position of the Council
of Europe on the conflict remains unchanged. We stand only for a
negotiated solution to the conflict.
[Correspondent] Terry Davis also noted that he would visit Azerbaijan
soon. He expressed the hope that the visit would take place in the
run-up to the parliamentary elections.
Ayaz Mirzayev, ANS.

Karabakh speaker interested in “pluralism” in parliament
Mediamax news agency
30 Jun 05
Yerevan, 30 June: The newly-elected chairman of the National
Assembly of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR], Ashot Gulyan, told
Mediamax news agency today that there is “the necessary potential for
constructive cooperation between all the political forces represented
in parliament”.
Asked by Mediamax whether the lack of real opposition in the NKR
National Assembly will hinder the establishment of a truly independent
parliament, Ashot Gulyan said that he is interested in pluralism of
opinions and regards it as the necessary condition for the effective
work of the National Assembly.
Ashot Gulyan said that there are four political parties represented
in the National Assembly, as well as independent MPs. He believes that
this will ensure a wide range of opinions in the republic’s parliament.
Ashot Gulyan told Mediamax that his first steps in the new post will be
aimed at resolving organizational issues connected with the formation
of ruling bodies of the National Assembly and the establishment of
the necessary basis for ensuring the effective work of the parliament.

Senior MP says Georgian police, locals get along fine in multiethnic district
Kavkasia-Press news agency
30 Jun 05
Tbilisi, 30 June: The chairwoman of the Parliamentary Human Rights and
Civic Integration Committee, Elene Tevdoradze, has reported to MPs on
her yesterday’s visit to Tsalka District [in southern Georgia with a
large ethnic Armenian population]. Tevdoradze went to Tsalka because
of the recent [shooting] incident [followed by protest rallies]. She
said that she had met all the parties concerned, including MP for
Tsalka District, Ayk Meltonyan.
According to Tevdoradze, “there was a clash between two Armenian
villages in Tsalka, after which Meltonyan himself called the [Georgian
Interior Ministry’s] special-purpose detachment and the situation
calmed down”. As regards the shooting incident, Tevdoradze said that
the prosecutor’s office was investigating the case. Elene Tevdoradze
noted that the special-purpose detachment was working very well. “The
local population is pleased and they want the special detachment to
stay,” she said.
“Local residents told me that members of the special detachment do
not walk around drunk or fire guns without reason as it was alleged
by [opposition] New Right MP Manana Nachqebia at a recent meeting of
the parliament’s bureau,” Tevdoradze said. She thanked the Interior
Ministry for “adequately providing the lads with food, uniforms and
all necessary equipment”.

US TO ALLOCATE MILITARY GRANT TO ARMENIA
A1plus
| 13:53:16 | 30-06-2005 | Politics |
The US House of Representatives decreed Tuesday to allocate $5 million
to Armenia and Azerbaijan as a grant for military purposes in 2006,
day.az reported
To note, the Congressmen did not approve the $4 million military aid
to Uzbekistan explaining the decision by “changeable developments in
the republic.”
Baltic states will receive $5 million each.
According to the information center of the US Department of State
the program of foreign military financing is “a critically important
instrument of the US foreign policy for advancing its interests
throughout the world.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress