Month: November 2006

AGAINST SILENCE
Shelley Walia
The Hindu, India
Nov 5 2006
With Orhan Pamuk, the site of his creativity is also the location of
political protest.
LIKE a true postmodernist rebel, Orhan Pamuk, sits in his flat in the
majestic beauty of his Istanbul, a city known for its amalgamation
of East and West, poised on the crossroads of Asia and Europe. He
represents the interface between cultures, a diasporic persona in a
rigid Islamic society struggling with the pangs of shedding its dark
Ottoman past
Orhan Pamuk, infamous for his trial on account of his criticism
of the Armenian genocide, and now acquitted of criminal charges
of denigrating his country where it is taboo to speak against the
State, recently won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature for both the
undeniably high quality of his artistic achievement as well as his
awareness of the threat of terror and State injustice. Pamuk explains
that a mere desire to discuss Turkish politics spurred the State to
declare him anti-nationalist. In his trial he claimed that he loved
his country and would never do anything to insult it. “But what if
it is wrong?” he said. “Right or wrong, do people not have the right
to express their ideas peacefully?”
Lack of understanding
Pamuk does not find it necessary to put the blame squarely on Islam
for the crisis in his life: “It is neither Islam nor even poverty
itself that directly engenders support for terrorists whose ferocity
and ingenuity are unprecedented in human history; it is, rather, the
crushing humiliation that has infected Third World countries. And
for this the West has to be held responsible because it has failed
to comprehend the shame and the humiliation that has fallen upon the
poor nations. Hot-headed military operations and wars will only take
us away from the order of peace.”
However, to say that Pamuk’s involvement with contemporary politics
is the reason behind the Nobel Prize is to ignore the literary value
and the throbbing romantic energy of his creative work As he says
in a recent interview, “Look, I’m a writer. I try to focus on these
issues not from the point of view of a statesman but from the point
of view of a person who tries to understand the pain and suffering
of others… I think literature can approach these problems because
you can go into more shady areas, areas where no one is right and
no one has the right to say what is right. That’s what makes writing
novels interesting. It’s what makes writing a political novel today
interesting.”
Pamuk has spoken again. And this time against the French government
which issued an Act of Parliament that would consider any denial of
the massacre of the Kurds and Armenians as unlawful. This, according
to Pamuk, is an infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of
speech: “The French tradition of critical thinking influenced and
taught me a lot,” he said. “This decision, however, is a prohibition
and didn’t suit
the libertarian nature of the French tradition.”
Facing the past
He has, throughout his writing career, endeavoured to break the culture
of silence and oppression in his country, revoking the genocidal
record of Turkish history and the State’s assault on constitutional
freedom. For Pamuk, politics based on reason is essential for
challenging the status quo. Protest for him is intrinsic to civil
society; we live in a world that is constantly changing, and it is
by protest that the laws are changed.
The nature and function of a writer like Pamuk can be debated only if
his critical politics are related to his function and his position
in society. All radical work for the transformation of society so
as to put an end to oppression has to be carried on at the site of
his creative activity. Politics, as is often thought, does not only
operate in Pamuk’s writings, but is central to his larger concerns.
He has always stepped beyond the private, academic, or technical
terms to the “public sphere”, and to the sphere of the citizen rather
than that of the narrow specialist. It is here that his intervention
becomes as political inside his creative work as real politics is
outside. As Vaclav Havel writes, “You do not become a `dissident’
just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career.
You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility,
combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast
out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict
with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends
with being branded an enemy of society.” Such a form of commitment to
oneself, to memory and to humanity is visible in Pamuk’s novels and
his ideology that makes him the much-needed bridge between the West
and the East, between an ancient Islamic culture and the contemporary
dream of an economically prosperous nation.
Spaces of imagination
His sensational novel The Black Book concerns itself with the history
of Turkey and takes up the polemics on the idea of a nation and
Turkey’s identity within the context of its imperial past. Like The
White Castle, which was translated into English in 1985, My Name is
Red and Snow also juxtapose tradition and modernity, continuity and
change in a style that blends mystery, romance, and philosophical
puzzles with the tension between East and West, the encounters
between Europe and the turbulent Ottoman Empire, and the inherent
European aspiration of a Muslim nation: “A Turkish novelist who
fails to imagine the Kurds and other minorities, and who neglects to
illuminate the black spots in his country’s unspoken history, will,
in my view, produce work that has a hole in its centre.”
Pamuk stresses that “the history of the novel is the history of
human liberation: by putting ourselves in other’s shoes, by using our
imagination to free ourselves from our own identities, we are able to
set ourselves free.” He, therefore, has always tried to transcend the
political with all its inherent connections with religious and the
cultural histories of the land, and reach out to the more artistic
and aesthetic aspects of his existence. But that is not to say that
the political is ever absent. This aspect of his writings is evident
from his explanation: “But later, as I began to get known both inside
and outside of Turkey, people began to ask political questions and
demand political commentaries. Which I did because I sincerely felt
that the Turkish state was damaging democracy, human rights and the
country. So I did things outside of my books.”
Modern landscapes
His most political novel, Kar (Snow, 2002) is a story about Ka’s
investigation into a mass suicide by girls who have been ordered not
to wear headscarves, a reminder of Ataturk’s ban of (on) headscarves.
Though Ka is killed, he regains his poetic creativity, which according
to Pamuk, is symbolic of human resistance and the need to share new
ideas with the world. As Margaret Atwood writes about this novel in
the New York Times Book Review: “The twists of fate, the plots that
double back on themselves, the trickiness, the mysteries that recede
as they’re approached, the bleak cities, the night prowling, the sense
of identity-loss, the protagonist in exile – these are vintage Pamuk,
but they’re also part of the modern literary landscape.”
Pamuk elucidates in A New Life a poetic rendition of his theory of
fiction: “The challenge of a historical novel is not to render a
perfect imitation of the past, but to relate history with something
new, enrich and change it with imagination and sensuousness of
personal experience.” Writing makes possible the vision of making
real a painless world. He has created literature out of despair
and neurosis. The past has to be remembered and any amount of
Westernisation cannot justify the forgetting of one’s history. “If
you try to repress memories, something always comes back,” reiterates
Pamuk. “I’m what comes back.”

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTED DRAFT CONSTITUTION
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Nov 4 2006
On November 1 the second reading of the of the draft constitution of
NKR took place. Speaker Ashot Ghulian said after the first reading
and public debates a number of proposals were made, including 127 by
the parliamentary groups and factions and members of parliament. In
accordance with the bylaws, all the proposals have been presented to
the head of the Task Force on the Constitution. The amended draft was
presented to the parliament for the second reading. The head of the
Task Force, Attorney General Armen Zalinian thanked the members of
parliament for their constructive approach during the debates over the
draft constitution and mentioned that this cooperation resulted in a
Constitution “we can be proud of”. He also thanked the citizens of the
Republic for their activity during the public debates on the draft,
which means that the society is involved in the process of writing
and adopting the constitution, and everyone realizes its importance
in our present and future life. With regard to the proposals, the
head of the Task Force said the focus was on the provisions, which
need additional clarification to enable every citizen to perceive the
structural and functional powers of one state institution or another,
as well as the proposals which would improve the draft. The chair of
the State and Legal Committee Yuri Hairapetian and the chair of the
Committee of Defense, Security and Law Enforcement Rudik Hyusnunts
stated in their reports that the conclusions of the committees were
positive. After the reports of the factions the majority, 29 members of
parliament voted for the draft, 1 member of parliament voted against,
and 1 member of parliament abstained.

“IT SHAMES ME”
Anna Israelian
Aravot, Armenia
Nov 3 2006
The announcement of a group of intellectuals of the “Forum of
Intellectuals” was published on September 22, and the answers to our
question about it Merujan Ter-Gulanian gave only now.
1. Were you so adroit and managed to lead a group of intellectuals
to a misunderstanding or our intellectuals didn’t know the value of
their words and could sign any document without reading it?
2. First of all nobody led anyone to a misunderstanding. But there
is another side of the document; Bravo Merujan Ter-Gulanian who are
trusted. That means I’m an authority for them. Let them read that
announcement, I didn’t forbid. I even surprised when Sos Sargsian
said that I had brought and he had had signed without reading. He
didn’t only read in his working room at the institute but also said
that it was written weakly.
3. One of the expressions of that announcement “agents who are financed
by doubtful sources” looks like the announcements made in 1937. Even
one of the intellectuals, actor Vardan Petrosian said that “We aren’t
officials of state security and we have no proof about the financial
sources of any company”.
4. I should stress that Vardan Petrosian didn’t deny his
participation. The formulations could be stronger or weaker. The
point isn’t that. The goal was unique; not to declare Armenia as
the center of criminal. As regards 1937 year, nobody could publish
such an announcement. We live in a free country, everybody writes
whatever he wants. Its veracity is another problem. We got angry at
the sentence of the announcement of “Forum of Intellectuals” as if
Armenia has become a center of criminal and not at those persons. I
deeply respect Rafael Ghazarian; I couldn’t sign against him, I worked
with him in the NA for years and know him very well.
5. Why do the intellectual keep silence and don’t initiate
announcements about rigged elections or violence used against
politicians and journalists?
6. Who does say that they keep silence?
I signed a group document first in my life. I was right to sign. I
signed against that sentence. The journalists aren’t judges. There
is a type of journalists whose second name doesn’t tell me anything.
They judge innocent people who have great services in this country.
I’m one of those people whose judge is in the sky, isn’t here.
1. You got angry at that sentence but what must those people do who
become witnesses of criminal demonstrations, when common citizens
becomes the victims of criminal, when the meetings of thieves in law
are held in Armenia?
2. Three things can’t be chosen in this world; Homeland, parents and
children. What you say is right. It is very bad that journalists are
beaten, it is fired on the streets but such things happen in every
country. What we must do to reduce it. Let’s speak against criminal,
I’ll also speak. Criminal exists in Armenia, and we must fight against
it everyday. Sometimes it seems to me that our media has created a
virtual state and fights against it. But the real life remains open.
3. There are publications in the press why the intellectuals don’t
make announcements against awful incidents of the real life but they
turned to the “Forum of Intellectuals”. As just this structure’s
systemizing council together with “Hayrenik u Pativ” Party has make
another announcement. “Serge Sargsian must be deprived of the position
of the Defense Minister and secretary of the security council”. It
is known that Serge Sargsian assists many of the intellectuals who
signed the announcement against he forum.
4. I’d like to ask how do you print your newspapers? You call others
corrupted very easily. Everybody knows that there are 1-2 newspapers,
which can be financed themselves.
There is so many lies in our country. The lie is like a drought. I
simply surprised when Serge Sargsian’s name was pronounced. What
connection did S. Sargsian have with this? He has read about that
announcement in the article. All these badly smell.
1. Doesn’t it smell badly when the intellectuals make announcements
against each other?
2. I deeply agree with you. It shames me indeed that the intellectuals
sign documents against each other. But the whole problem is that we
haven’t signed against the intellectuals. I don’t afraid of remaining
alone; if there was an opportunity I’d sign against that sentence
once more.

IT IS ENVISAGED TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIES OF 17.98 BILLION DRAMS TO ARMENIAN COMMUNITIES IN 2007
Noyan Tapan
Nov 04 2006
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 4, NOYAN TAPAN. By the 2007 draft state budget,
the total amount of financial equalization subsidies to be provided
to Armenia’s communities will make 17.98 bln drams, which exceeds
by 22.6% or 3.3 bln drams (about 8.68 mln USD) the 2006 index. This
amount was calculated based on the requirement of the RA Law on Local
Self-Government, according to which it shall make no less than 4% than
the sum of actual revenues of the RA consolidated budget in the second
budgetary year preceding the given budgetary year. In this case, 4%
of the total sum of revenues of the 2005 consolidated budget (449.5
bln drams) was taken as the basis. RA Deputy Minister of Finance and
Economy Pavel Safarian said this when presenting the issue of the
2007 draft state budget-envisaged financing of local self-government
bodies at the November 3 joint sitting of the RA National Assembly
standing committees. 460 mln drams out of the indicated sum is
envisaged for financing the compensation to be given to community
budgets due to privileges. However, according to the deputy minister,
the calculation of compensation sums is still continuing, and it
is not ruled out that they will undergo some changes in the final
version of the draft to be submitted to the NA. First Deputy Mayor
of Yerevan Kamo Areyan said that in 2007 the total amount of state
subsidies for 12 district communities of Yerevan is envisaged to make
5.6 bln drams against 4.941 bln drams in 2006. The 2007 expenditures
on maintenance of the mayor’s office governance staff also increased
by 104 mln drams on 2006, making 584.187 mln drams. This increase is
mainly conditioned by a growth in the salaries of civil servants.

INTERSTATE BANK FINANCES CREDIT PROGRAMS OF ABOUT 110 MILLION DOLLARS IN ARMENIA
Noyan Tapan
Nov 04 2006
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 4, NOYAN TAPAN. The Interstate Bank has implemented
tens of projects in Armenia by providing credits of a total of 110
mln dollars.
Tigran Sargsian, Chairman of the Central Bank of Armenia (CBA),
current Chairman of the Interstate Bank, said this at the press
conference to summarize the results of the Interstate Bank’s sitting
in Yerevan on November 3. Chairman of the RF Central Bank Sergei
Ignatyev and Chairman of Kazakhstan’s National Bank Anvar Saydenov
also participated in the press conference. According to T. Sargsian,
the projects implemented by the Interstate Bank in Armenia are related
to such spheres as energy, chemical industry, Yerevan inner city
transport. The bank’s loans carried 9-12% interest rates. “Armenia is
actively cooperating with the Interstate Bank,” he noted, adding that
Belarus, Russia and Ukraine have also implemented projects with this
bank. He said that issues related to the Interstate Bank’s activities,
credit policy and its cooperation with the Eurasian Development
Bank were on the aganda of the Yerevan sitting of the Interstate
Bank Board. S. Ignatyev did not rule out the possibility of a merger
between the Interstate Bank and the Eurasian Development Bank (wose
founders are Russia and Kazakhstan). In his words, the Interstate Bank
does not have yet a financial opportunity to assist with projects
on formation of new financial infrastructures in CIS countries. The
Interstate Bank was founded in 1993 based on an agreement signed by
the leaders of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Moldova,
Russia, Tadjikistan, Turmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine. The bank’s
authorized capital makes 20 million rubles (about 7.22 mln USD),
with Armenia’s share amounting to 300 thousand rubles (1.8%).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA LIKELY TO JOIN EURASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
Noyan Tapan
Nov 04 2006
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 4, NOYAN TAPAN. It is likely that Armenia will join
the Eurasian Development Bank (EDP), Chairman of the Central Bank of
Armenia (CBA) Tigran Sargsian stated this on November 3. According to
him, the issue of joining the EDP will be discussed by the Armenian
government. “We received an official letter of the EDP Chairman, the
Armenian government will discuss this issue and make a decision,”
he said. The Eurasian Development Bank was founded by Kazakhstan
and Russia in early 2006. Its authorized capital makes 1.5 billion
US dollars.

AZG Armenian Daily #211, 04/11/2006
Neighbors
MAMEDYAROV’S CONCOCTION: ARMENIANS OF NAGORNO KARABAKH
ARE CITIZENS OF AZERBAIJAN
Azerbaijan considers the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh
to be its citizens and is interested in future
development of this region which is inseparable part
of the country, Azerbaijani foreign minister Elmar
Mamedyarov stated. At a meeting with Francesco
Bascone, Italy’s permanent representative to the OSCE,
Mamedyarov “harped on one string” that Karabakh issue
can be settled only on principle of Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity by granting the Armenians of the
region the highest autonomy.
BY Aghavni Harutyunian

ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI DEFENSE MINISTERS NOT DISCUSS ISSUE OF “OCCUPIED” TERRITORIES
Arka News Agency, Armenia
Nov 3 2006
YEREVAN, November 3. /ARKA/. At their meeting on October 20, Armenian
and Azerbaijani Ministers of Defense Serge Sargsyan and Safar Abiyev
did not discuss the issue of Armenia’s vacating the “occupied”
territories, Press Secretary of the RA Minioster of Defense Colonel
Seyran Shahsuvaryan told ARKA.
“Abiev’s statement quoted by Azerbaijani mass media that during his
meeting with Sargsyan on October 20 the first issue raised by the
Azerbaijani Minister concerned the withdrawal of Armenian troops
from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan does not correspond to
the facts,” Shahsuvaryan said.
He said that the Ministers’ meeting at the Armenian-Azerbaijani
border was held on the personal initiative of OSCE Chairman-in-Office
Andrej Kasprzic to promote mutual confidence between the Armenian
and Azerbaijani Defense Offices. Shahsuvaryan said that the Ministers
only discussed issues of maintaining the cease-fire regime and border
control. P.T. -0–

GEORGIA, AZERBAIJAN DEBATE CONTROL OF ANCIENT MONASTERY’S TERRITORY
By Diana Petriashvili and Rovshan Ismayilov 11/03/06
Friday, November 3, 2006
EURASIA INSIGHT EurasiaNet, NY
An unresolved border between Georgia and Azerbaijan has put under
question one of the South Caucasus’s most significant cultural and
religious landmarks, the medieval David-Gareja monastery complex,
located in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Set in semi-desert some 70 kilometers southeast from Tbilisi along
the Georgian border with Azerbaijan and within Azerbaijan proper,
the complex, which contains a rich collection of cave frescoes, has
been a site for conflict as well as for contemplation, ever since
construction began in the 6th century.
The best-known part of the complex, the Udabno cave monastery,
which contain frescoes dating approximately from the 8th to the 13th
centuries, as well as the monastery headquarters at Lavra, are located
within Georgia. Additional monasteries, some nearly inaccessible and
largely ruined, are also on Georgian territory. Azerbaijan contains
the monastery of Bertubani, which features frescoes of the legendary
12th-13th century Georgian Queen Tamara and her son, Giorgi IV.
But who should control the David-Gareja monastery? When the Soviet
Union defined the borders between the then Soviet republics of
Azerbaijan and Georgia, the monastery complex was split in two. The
border between the two now independent countries has remained
unchanged since 1991. Part of the border passes through the top of
the 813-meter-high Udabno ridge (known in Azerbaijan as Keshishdag),
which harbors cave monasteries on its top and also on the northern
(Georgian-controlled) and southern (Azerbaijani-controlled) slopes.
The monastery complex, which has withstood attacks by Tamerlane and
Shah Abbas alike, holds strategic significance for both Azerbaijan
and Georgia. From the Udabno ridge, both Azerbaijani and Georgian
territory can be easily monitored. “From the military point of view,
this position has importance for both countries,” said Uzeir Jafarov,
an independent Azerbaijani military expert in Baku and a retired
colonel. “Theoretically, in the case of military conflict, the side
which enjoys control over these heights will get a big advantage.”
Border talks, ongoing since 1991, recently reentered the news when
Zviad Dzidziguri, a Georgian member of parliament for the opposition
Conservative Party, and chairman of the Democratic Front faction,
claimed that Azerbaijan had moved its border with Georgia so that one
of the complex’s monasteries, Chichkhituri, was now within Azerbaijani
territory, putting at risk the remaining monasteries under Georgian
control.
The Georgian foreign ministry has denied the report. In an interview
with EurasiaNet, a high-level Azerbaijani State Border Control Service
official, who asked to remain anonymous, also stated that Azerbaijan
had never moved its border. Yet, still, the debate continues.
To hold on to the churches on Georgian territory, Tbilisi has proposed
giving Azerbaijan an as yet publicly unspecified section of Georgian
land near the Azerbaijani border. “All we need to do is to find a
common language with our Azerbaijani colleagues,” Georgian Deputy
Foreign Minister Giorgi Manigaladze, who oversees the State Commission
on Border Delimitation and Demarcation, told reporters in Tbilisi on
October 30.
Azerbaijani officials, however, say that they are unwilling to consider
the exchange.
“There is no room for territorial exchange [with Georgia]. There
are no negotiations over this issue,” Deputy Foreign Minister Khalaf
Khalafov, co-chairman of the intergovernmental commission on border
delimitation with Georgia, said at a press briefing in Baku on
November 2. Azerbaijani officials say that in the past three years
Georgia has twice offered sections of Georgian territory in exchange
for recognition of the current border division of the David-Gareja
monastery, but that Baku has rejected the offers both times.
“This territory [Azerbaijan’s part of the monastery] has strategic
importance for Azerbaijan. And we have no intention of giving it
to anybody,” Garib Mammadov, chairman of the Azerbaijani State Land
and Cartography Committee, said in an April 2004 interview with the
Azerbaijani daily newspaper Echo. “This is a strategic overlook. The
whole South Caucasus might be monitored from this overlook very
well. Why should we give it away?”
While officials and experts in Baku maintain that their position will
not change, an official within the Azerbaijani foreign ministry,
who asked to remain anonymous, told EurasiaNet that Azerbaijan “is
open to the implementation of joint projects [with Georgia] for the
restoration of the complex.”
At a joint press conference with Georgian Foreign Minister Gela
Bezhuashvili on October 31 in Baku, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mamedyarov said that a fresh round of border talks would be
held in Baku in November. Two meetings have been held on the topic
since March 2006, Georgian officials say.
“During the commission’s meeting in November, the demarcation
will concern several areas of a 170-kilometer-long segment of the
border,” the Azerbaijani State Land and Cartography Committee’s
Garib Mammadov, a member of the intergovernmental commission, told
journalists on November 1. “The areas have already been investigated
thoroughly.” Mammadov did not specify which parts of the border
segment will be discussed.
Monks at the monastery say that they see the dispute as the result
of Soviet scheming to undermine relations between Christian Georgians
and Muslim Azerbaijanis.
“As the Soviet border is set on the territory of an important
cultural and religious monument, it is possible that the atheistic
Soviet leadership tried to cause misunderstanding between Georgia
and Azerbaijan someday in the future,” said Father Superior Ilarion.
“Right now, we have the result of this [plan].”
“I hope that Azerbaijan takes in consideration that David-Gareja
monastery is an important spiritual and cultural unit for Georgia,”
he continued. “We hope that Azerbaijan will not claim the territory.”
Monks at David-Gareja claim that they are unable to visit the church
of Bertubani, located two kilometers inside the Azerbaijani border in
the region of Agstafa, and are concerned about its maintenance. “We
are not let in by the border guards,” one of the monks said, adding
that the monastery’s leadership fears that the church’s interior has
been damaged. “All we know about Bertubani is that it is not used as
a church. There are unique frescos [there] that need special care,”
he said.
The Azerbaijani Border Service official states that a simplified
border control regime allows monks, Georgian pilgrims and tourists to
travel to the part of the complex located on Azerbaijani territory
without trouble. One Azerbaijani journalist who visited the area in
the summer of 2006, however, reported that “bureaucratic procedures”
for access could prove troublesome.
Questions, however, remain about the condition of the David-Gareja
monastery complex within Azerbaijan. One Azerbaijani scholar concedes
that the Azerbaijani Ministry of Culture and Tourism does not pay
sufficient attention to the question. “Neither restoration work
nor serious historical research has been held at the Azerbaijani
part of the monastery so far,” said Mekhti Mansurov, a historian at
the Azerbaijani National Academy of Sciences. Azerbaijan added the
monastery’s churches to its list of national historical monuments in
2003, “only after Georgia did so,” he added, in comments published
by the Baku-based newspaper Kaspiy on November 1.
Some Georgian observers note that the thought of the monastery and
its condition brings particular poignancy to the delay in concluding
the border discussions with Azerbaijan. The topic is “painful” for
ordinary Georgians, said Caucasian affairs expert Mamuka Areshidze,
“The problem has been discussed by people for a long time, but the
authorities have been inactive” until opposition MP Dzidziguri’s
statement about Azerbaijan moving its border, Areshidze said. “There
are problems with other borders as well — for example, with Russia —
but that issue is not currently on the agenda.”
Some Azerbaijani historians are strongly against the transfer of any
part of the David Gareja monastery complex to Georgia, arguing that
the monastery is not Georgian, but Caucasian Albanian, a reference
to an ancient people, believed to be Christian, who are thought to
have once inhabited northern Azerbaijan.
In the end, the key may be to proceed with moderation, cautions
one Georgian analyst. “There is nothing special in having undefined
borders,” said Paata Zakareishvili, an independent political analyst
in Tbilisi. “If the issue is studied professionally by both sides’
experts, no political tensions should be expected.”
Editor’s Note: Diana Petriashvili is a freelance reporter based
in Tbilisi. Rovshan Ismayilov is a freelance reporter in Baku.
Alexander Klimchuk is a freelance photojournalist based in Tbilisi.

NKR President declares general pardon
ArmRadio.am
04.11.2006 15:00
November 3 NKR President Arkady Ghukasyan presented a suggestion to
the National Assembly on declaring general pardon on the occasion of
the 15th anniversary of independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
and the Constitutional Referendum.