Month: November 2006

STATE BUDGET MUST ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMBAT AGAISNT TRAFFICKING
A1+
[05:25 pm] 01 November, 2006
The RA Government intends to process a new national program in order
to combat trafficking, but no real steps have yet been taken as the
state budget does not allot means for that. According to US deputy
Ambassador to Armenia Anthony Godfry, if the RA Government allots
a certain sum for this purpose, the USA and the UNDP are ready to
actively finance the project.
Today deputy Ambassador Godfry and political-economic expert of
the Embassy Masha Herbst met Hranoush Hakobyan, the head of the NA
Standing Committee on Science, Education, Culture and Youth.
Mrs. Hakobyan agreed that trafficking is present in today’s reality,
and measures must be taken in order to eradicate it: the national
project must be put into execution, Armenia must sign international
treaties regulating the field, and the legislative field must be
regulated. He expressed readiness to contribute to the solution of
the financial problem and to apply to the RA Government.

THE PRIME MINISTER PREPARES GROUND FOR EFFICIENT WORK
A1+
[07:08 pm] 01 November, 2006
RA Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan promised to confirm a budget
which will allow the Prime Minster, be it him or someone else, to
work efficiently next year. After the 2007 Parliamentary elections
a new Government will be formed, and as Andranik Margaryan is not
sure about the results of the NA elections, he can’t say if he will
be Prime Minister again or not.
Today the Prime Minister represented the draft budget.
NA Standing Committees started the discussions of the 2007 state
budget; they will last two weeks. According to the draft, the income
is supposed to be 489.5 billion AMD, the expenses are supposed to be
about 557.8 billion AMD, and the deficit will be about 68.3 million
AMD. The draft budget calculates one USD as equal to 357 AMD.
The Government will improve the tax and customs legislation. As a
result of the reforms about 50 billion AMD will be gathered. The
Government hopes that import will grow by 13.5%, and export – by 16%.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LIFE PRISONERS WENT ON A HUNGER-STRIKE
A1+
[08:05 pm] 01 November, 2006
About 30 life prisoners of “Noubarashen” Criminal penitentiary
institution have gone on hunger-strike since November 1. The Minister
of Justice confirmed the fact too. Several hours later the Ministry
made a statement, “On November 1 of the current year 24 prisoners
of Noubarashen Criminal penitentiary institution ceased their hunger
strike which they had started earlier that day”.
The NGO “Pach-iravunk” protecting the rights of life prisoners has also
made a statement about the reasons of the hunger-strike. According
to the statement, after the resignation of the previous head of
the prison, Aram Sargsyan, and the appointment of the new one, Vahan
Margaryan, all the reforms aimed at creation of better life conditions
for the prisoners were eliminated.
According to the author, the newly appointed manager of the prison
stopped the education programs for the prisoners and the construction
works aimed at improving the conditions of life.
The prisoners required a meeting with NA Speaker Tigran Torosyan
and RA Minister of Justice David Haroutyunyan in order to be able to
represent their problems.
The NGO “Pach-iravunk” announced that there are prisoners who have
been imprisoned for a long time and have serious health problems;
the responsibility for their spoiled health falls on Vahan Margaryan
and those who appointed him.

ARMENIAN WEIGHT-LIFTER WAS DISQUALIFIED
A1+
[08:12 pm] 01 November, 2006
Armenian weight-lifter Ashot Danielyan won a bronze medal in the
European Championship in May of the current year. Nevertheless,
Danielyan alongside with a number of other sportsmen with disqualified
because of the positive results of the doping tests.
This means Ashot will lose that medal which will on the whole not
change anything as he has already finished his career during which
he has had many victories.

SERBIA WILL PRESIDE
A1+
[08:23 pm] 01 November, 2006
RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan made a speech during the 15th
meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation.
Oskanyan mentioned that despite the problems, the BSEC countries
have much in common. And in order to create a balanced atmosphere
for settling political issues the countries much put aside their
disagreements. The Minister stressed that leaving each other out
while creating new transport knots is unacceptable for the countries
of an organization.
Referring to the membership of Bulgaria and Romania in the EU Minister
Oskanyan underlined hat it gives the BSEC countries a new chance to
closely cooperate with the EU taking into account general interests.
As a result of the session of the Foreign Ministers a joint declaration
was adopted, and Serbia took up the presidency over the organization.
Within the framework of the session the RA Foreign Minister also
met the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The sides discussed
mutual relations, as well as regional issues. A reference was also
made to the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict.

THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CONFLICT IS THE MOST URGENT ISSUE
A1+
[08:28 pm] 01 November, 2006
“The settlement of the Armenian-Azeri conflict is the most urgent issue
for the foreign policy of Azerbaijan”, announced Foreign Minister of
Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov in Baku.
According to day.az, during the meeting with PACE co-rapporteurs Tony
Lloyd and Andreas Herkel, Mammadyarov said that “Being member of the
CoE, Armenia has violated all the international norms and occupied
part of the territory of Azerbaijan as a result of which more than
a million Azeris have become refugees”.
According to Mammadyarov, the international community must draw the
attention of Armenia to the necessity of taking its troupes out of the
“occupied” areas of Azerbaijan.
The co-rapporteurs found the settlement of the conflict important
and voiced hope that the peaceful process of negotiations will go on.

ARMENIAN ARMED FORCES VIOLATES CEASEFIRE AGAIN
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Nov 2 2006
Armenian Armed Forces continues to violate the ceasefire, APA Garabagh
bureau reports.
Armenian Armed Forces’ units in occupied Bash Gervend village of
Aghdam region fired on opposite positions of Azerbaijani Armed Forces
and Chiragli village of the region with machine and submachine guns
since 00.30 to 02.00 this night.
Armenian Armed Forces’ units in occupied Sarijali village and the
territory called Kokeltme birliyi also fired on opposite positions of
Azerbaijani Armed Forces at about 09.00 today. The enemy was silenced
by response fire in both cases.

RUSSIAN GAS MONOPOLY TO DOUBLE PRICE OF GAS FOR GEORGIA AMID POLITICAL TENSIONS
China Post, Taiwan
Nov 2 2006
Russia’s state-controlled natural gas monopoly OAO Gazprom said
Thursday it would more than double the gas price for neighboring
Georgia.
The announcement signals Moscow’s continuing recalcitrant stance in its
conflict with its small ex-Soviet neighbor even as Georgia’s foreign
minister is visiting Moscow in the hope of easing spiraling tensions.
Gazprom _ which has been criticized in the past as a tool of Kremlin
policy _ said in a statement it plans to charge Tbilisi US$230
(€180) per 1,000 cubic meters of gas, compared with the US$110
(€86) that it pays now.
The statement came as Georgia’s Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili
visited Moscow in a bid to defuse tensions that peaked after Georgia
briefly detained four purported Russian spies in late September.
Moscow responded with a sweeping transport and postal blockade on
Georgia and a crackdown on Georgian migrants living in Russia.
Relations between Moscow and Tbilisi have steadily deteriorated
since the 2004 election of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili,
who has sought to take the Caucasus nation out of the Russian orbit,
bolster ties with the West and join NATO in 2008 _ a course that has
angered Moscow.
Moscow has shrugged off Western calls for lifting the sanctions
against Georgia, saying it was acting because the Georgian government
is plotting to bring its breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia back into the fold by force _ allegations Georgia denies.
Gazprom has consistently argued that price increases for former
Soviet neighbors are a long-overdue recalibration toward market
pricing. However, they have been widely seen in the West as part of
the Kremlin’s attempts to put pressure on ex-Soviet neighbors.
Gazprom temporarily switched off the gas it supplies to Ukraine at the
start of the year after Kiev refused to accept an abrupt price hike
that was seen as a calculated blow to its Western-leaning government.
Since the appointment of Kremlin-friendly Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovych, however, Ukraine has been able to negotiate a much more
gentle price rise for 2007.
Any dispute leading to cuts for Georgia could hit the nation’s
struggling economy hard. Tbilisi already was left freezing for a week
early this year after a pipeline explosion in southern Russia cut
supplies. Saakashvili blamed Moscow for the interruption, charges
Russian officials angrily denied.
Cuts would also deal a blow to Georgia’s landlocked neighbor, Armenia,
which receives its gas from Russia via Georgia. Armenian businesses
already have been forced to organize costly new export routes to
Russia due to the transport blockade.

CRIMINALIZING DEBATE: FRANCE ABANDONS MODERNITY
by Hilal Elver And Richard Falk
Zaman, Turkey
Nov 2 2006
There is a sense of absurdity surrounding the vote in October at the
French Assembly to criminalize a denial of Armenian genocide that
supposedly took place during the final stage of Ottoman rule in 1915.
The absurdity does not arise from a description of these events,
but from the idea that a correct view of history can be legislated,
and dissenter punished as criminals. True only 106 of 577 deputies in
the Assembly voted in favor of the bill, 19 opposed, and 4 abstained,
while 448 did not vote at all. No one expects this bill to become
law. The French Senate has sent signals that it will never consider
the proposed law, and the President Chirac has expressed his personal
opposition. The idea behind the bill was to impose a fine of up to
45,000 Euros and send the denier to jail for as long as a year.
But why would the 448 deputies refuse to oppose formally such a
piece of legislation? We will never know their motives, but it seems
reasonable to suspect that they recognized the absurdity of such
a legislative move, but at the same time did not want to offend the
500,000 Armenians living in France whose leaders had strongly supported
the law. Also, it allows these French politicians an indirect means
of signaling their opposition to any future move to invite Turkey to
become a member of the European Union.
To punish deniers of the Armenian experience seems in one sense a
logical sequel to punishing Holocaust deniers, which can actually
happen in at least 12 European countries. Apparently, at this time the
historian, David Irving, is serving prison time in Austria for a speech
made 17 years before he was indicted that was held in a court to deny
the Holocaust. Two distinct issues are raised: Is it acceptable to make
it a crime to deny the Holocaust? Should Armenian grievances be treated
any less seriously than Jewish grievances when it comes to denial?
The rationale for punishing Holocaust deniers relates to some
legitimate European concerns. There are claims made that the denial
of the Holocaust risks giving rise to a new wave of anti-semitism.
The evidence that there exists any link between asserting denial
and practicing anti-semitism seems far too weak at this point to
justify criminalization even in European countries with their shameful
history of persecuting Jews. Vigilance is understandable given the
existence of scary neo-Nazi movements that have emerged in several
European countries. Instead of criminalizing denial, to discourage
anti-semitism it would be far more effective for the governments in
these countries to press hard for a just solution to the ordeal of
the Palestinian people.
On the historical argument in favor of ‘denial’ there is significantly
less clarity about the genocidal character of the Armenian claims as
compared to the factual reality of the Holocaust.
There is remains a widely shared refusal on the part of the majority of
Turks to categorize the events of 1915 as ‘genocide.’ This Turkish
outlook has enjoyed some support among prominent non-Turkish
historians, most notably Bernard Lewis. At the same time, the
overwhelming weight of international historical scholarship does
endorse the main thrust of Armenian claims. Additionally, Lewis’
assessment is somewhat undermined by his close relationship with
the Turkish government while revising his influential history of
modern Turkey. It is a matter of social reality that informed opinion
outside of Turkey does support the Armenian position about the events
in 1915, but that hardly makes the case for the punishment of those
who disagree.
The Turkish relationship to the denial of history has similarities to
this French approach, yet it is significantly different. Turkey, in a
sense anticipated the tactic of the French Assembly, by enacting its
notorious ‘301’ law that punishes statements that insult Turkishness,
which covers a potentially wide range of viewpoints that could be
regarded as anti-Turkish by ultra-nationalist state prosecutors.
Recent high profile prosecutions of famous writers Orhan Pamuk and
Elif Shafak, while dismissed, have led to widespread international [and
national] criticism of such interferences with freedom of expression. A
hopeful development is that Turkey’s highest officials have let it
be known that they did not approve of these 301 prosecutions, and
even made public their sympathy with the prominent targets of these
indictments, Although dangers persist, and some disturbing prosecutions
of journalists and public figures continue to occur, and have even
led to imprisonment, Turkish public opinion seems to be moving
gradually against such restrictions of freedom of expression. This
display of greater Turkish self-confidence is more accepting of
viewpoints that might formerly have been treated as hostile to
Turkish nationalism. Turkey is a relatively young country that is
still in the midst of making its own very distinctive transition to
modernity. Perhaps as much as any country Turkey is struggling to
gain the benefits of modernity without sacrificing the achievements,
memories, and glories of its past.
But what is becoming of France, formerly the greatest inspiration
throughout the world for equality of rights and universal democratic
culture associated with modernity. It was the French Revolution in
1789 that remains the decisive moment for an emancipatory alternative
to oppressive and autocratic government. In this French revolutionary
moment nothing was more central than the idea that human progress and
prosperity depended on freedom of thought and expression. The pride
of the French nation linked this openness to a variety of opinions on
the controversial issues of the day, and there was no anxiety that a
tension existed between a robust French nationalism and the affirmation
of unrestricted cultural freedom. So how should we interpret this
seeming French retreat from its own proudest contributions to modern
social and political life?
Of course, it would be a mistake to exaggerate this act of the
French Assembly, which is really more a gesture than a rupture. At
the same time, it does reflect the regressive side of French political
identity. In the background of such anti-democratic impulses, we think,
are the current threats to French public order that conservative
opinion blames on immigrant minorities. There are disturbing signs
that racist attitudes are gaining the upper hand in French society. In
such a setting, the Armenian issue becomes a vehicle for anti-Islamic
and anti-Turkish sentiments. Of course, there is also an obvious
opportunistic dimension that relates to French electoral politics, but
challenging Turkish refusal to acknowledge crimes against the Armenians
is also useful as a way of indirectly raising doubts about whether
Turkey will ever deserve to be a member of the European Union. It
is against this background that the peculiarity of non-voting by the
majority of the French Assembly needs to be primarily understood. In
effect, the punishment of deniers of Armenian genocide is too crude
an assault on freedom of thought to be an acceptable tactic even by
those who oppose Turkish EU membership, yet to vote against this bill
might seem to exempt Turkey from censure for its refusal to admit
that the 1915 massacres were, in fact, genocide, and would anger the
well-organized Armenian pressure groups that have so enthusiastically
backed this initiative.
Two main conclusions arise from these controversies: the futility
of legislating historical reality; and the importance of coming
to terms with historic injustices that give rise to pain, anger,
and ethnic tensions. How should Turkey now address the grievances
of the Armenians relating to the events of 1915? Is it important
to construct a new Turkish approach to this tormented past by
launching an independent inquiry that is freed from nationalistic
bias? It may be that the efforts of Pamuk and Shafak are hesitant
moves in this direction, aimed at helping the people of Turkey to
think more objectively about this contested part of their past for
the sake of Turkish national interests, so that the country can move
on. Under the best of circumstances it will be certainly impossible
to reach an accommodation with the most embittered among the Armenian
diaspora or to persuade extreme Turkish nationalists to reexamine the
Armenian grievances in an objective spirit. A serious Turkish effort
to explore the issue, aimed at achieving closure in good faith, is
likely to improve the overall international atmosphere with respect
to Turkey. It would also be a convincing demonstration that Turkey
is prepared to accept internal debate and controversy. Such moves
would be further evidence of the deepening of Turkish democracy. A
process of inquiry and reflection on such an inflamed subject will
not be easy, as extremists on both sides will do all in their power
to avoid a reasonable historical reckoning. But it will also not be
easy to go on pretending that there is no unfinished business arising
from this bloody Armenian encounter. Why not seize upon this French
abandonment of modernity to risk this Turkish affirmation of the
moral and political energies of change?

VOLS CHEZ DES RESPONSABLES DE LA COMMUNAUTE ARMENIENNE EN FRANCE
Agence France Presse
31 octobre 2006 mardi 1:31 PM GMT
Des responsables de la communaute armenienne en France ont ete la
cible de vols les jours suivant l’adoption par l’Assemblee nationale
d’un projet de loi penalisant la negation du genocide armenien,
a-t-on appris mardi auprès du CCAF a Lyon.
“Des disques durs d’ordinateurs appartenant a des responsables de la
communaute armenienne de Lyon, Villeurbanne (Rhône) et Paris, ont
ete voles dans les 24 ou 48 heures suivant le vote de la loi le 12
octobre dernier”, a affirme Jules Mardirossian, president regional
du Conseil de coordination des organisations armeniennes de France
(CCAF), lors d’une conference de presse a Lyon.
Selon M. Mardirossian, ces vols, survenus dans les locaux
d’associations armeniennes mais egalement aux domiciles de
responsables, sont “l’oeuvre de professionnels bien organises et non
de voyous”.
“Ce sont les services de l’Etat turc qui ont organise tout ca”, a-t-il
declare, ajoutant que l’objectif de ces operations etait d’intimider
les responsables de la communaute armenienne en France et d’obtenir
des informations sur leur action.
Des plaintes ont ete deposees et une enquete policière est en cours,
a-t-il precise.
Par ailleurs, plusieurs responsables de la communaute armenienne,
a Lyon et a Marseille, font toujours l’objet de coups de fil anonymes
d’intimidation et de menaces de mort, selon le CCAF.
“Nous avons demande une audience au president de la Republique car
cette situation est grave et nous inquiète”, a encore affirme le
president regional du CCAF.
Le 12 octobre, les deputes ont adopte en première lecture la
proposition de loi socialiste rendant passible de prison la negation
du genocide armenien, suscitant immediatement la colère d’Ankara.
–Boundary_(ID_JSK4jHqANtQsbQxl8QXgIg)- –