Month: November 2006

ACADEMICIAN ZARIDZE: SOME ARMENIAN “SCIENTISTS” SHOULD BETTER LEARN HISTORY IN ORDER TO AVOID ITS FALSIFICATION
Author: E. Husseynov
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Oct 31 2006
Such Armenian scientists-researchers like Ivansyan, Migranyan, Muradyan
should learn the history better in order to avoid its falsification,
academician Vladimir Zaridze, a full member of the Georgian National
Academy of Sciences, exclusively told Trend.
All the above-mentioned issues were discussed during the conference
“Armenian-Speaking Population of the Whole Georgia: Problems on
Revival of the United Statehood of Georgia. The participants of the
conference heard the following reports: “Some Armenian Scientists and
the Population of Tbilisi”, “From the History of Georgian-Armenian
Relations in 1918-1921”, “Armenian Ethnic Processes on the Georgian
Land”. “History of Military Conflicts between Georgia and Armenia and
Nowadays”; “Demographic Situation in Djavakhetia and Ways Outs from the
Existing Situation”, “Armenia, or Samkheti-Somkheti?”, and other ones.
Addressed the participants of the conference with a report “Armenia,
or Samkheti-Somkheti?”, Mr. Zaridze told that according to maps
published up to 1725 in the Russian Empire, these territories were
within the Georgian rule. Since the beginning of 19 century, the
Armenian population has compactly lived here. He pointed out that
the territories called Armenia (Samkheti-Somkheti – in Georgian)
was fixed as Tashir-Zarakert on this map. Armenians themselves called
these lands Vrats Tashtan (Armenian for “Georgian Field” ).
According to Mr. Zaridze, the above-mentioned Armenian scientists “have
run into absurdity that called the clan of Bagration Armenian one”. In
addition, Armenians of this region added the endings of the Georgians
surnames ended on – iani to Armenian ones. But that was not an end,
They began to add different letters and voices to the new surnames,
mostly – “ts”, and as a result of all that the surnames of many of
them have been transferred to the surnames with the endings – “yansts”.
The Georgian academician advised “scientists” Migranyan, Muradyan,
and Ivansyan to get acquainted with the history of the region, and
learn Georgian in order to find the confirmation of the above-mentioned
words.

A MEMBER OF AZERBAIJANI DELEGATION TO PACE: PRESIDENTIAL PARDON ORDERS PUT AN END TO ISSUE ON POLITICAL PRISONERS IN AZERBAIJAN
Author: J. Shakhverdiyev
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Oct 31 2006
The orders on pardon signed by the President have put an end to an
issue on political prisoners in the country, MP Fazil Ibrahimov,
a member of the Azerbaijani delegation to PACE (Parliamentary
Assembly of Council of Europe, said, expressing his attitude toward
expressions connected with the necessity on making a report connected
with political prisoners inn Azerbaijan to be prepared by Andreas
Herkel, Trend reports.
The Azerbaijani MP said, that the PACE Co-Rapporteurs for Azerbaijan
have expressed their positions toward all issues connected with
the economic, political, spiritual, and democratic situation in
the country, including an issue on political prisoners. “I wish the
reports they to prepare, will reflect the reality. I wish people saw
them as they are, not either in a black or white tones”, he said.
Mr. Ibrahimli pointed out that an issue on political prisoners has
been closed in Azerbaijan. “The orders on pardon signed by the
President have put an end to an issue on political prisoners in
the country. However, we could treat this issue from two different
aspectsõ. The first lies in functioning of special NGOs which are
not interested the development of democracy and law enforcement
in the country. They obtain money from different people and put
certain persons to the lists of political prisoners. Those who are
linked with Armenians are among them as well. If there are persons
who were convicted for their political points of view in Azerbaijan,
then it might harm the whole country. And we ought to do our best to
avoid it”, he said.
–Boundary_(ID_9ypVbZx3v56HvF75KnGSYg)–

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SIGNALS PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS
By Emil Danielyan
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Oct 31 2006
Vartan Oskanian, a former U.S. citizen who has served as Armenia’s
foreign minister since 1998, is increasingly signaling his intention
to contest the presidential election of 2008. There is mounting
speculation in Yerevan that it is he, rather than the powerful Defense
Minister Serge Sarkisian, who is President Robert Kocharian’s preferred
successor. Sarkisian’s allies exposed their unease over Oskanian’s
possible presidential ambitions by attacking him in parliament
last week.
In recent months Oskanian has repeatedly and pointedly declined to
rule out his participation in the presidential ballot, which would
hardly sit well with either Sarkisian or Armenian opposition leaders.
The suave 51-year-old minister, who rarely commented on domestic
politics until recently, is now taking every opportunity to publicly
deplore chronic vote rigging, government corruption, and mismanagement.
Oskanian first dropped a hint about his presidential run at a news
conference last July, calling for urgent “second-generation reforms”
in Armenia that he said would “hit the economic and political interests
of the [ruling] elite.” He said he is ready to help implement such
reforms and warned against a repeat of the serious fraud that has
marred almost every election held in the country since the Soviet
collapse in 1991. These remarks followed media reports that Kocharian
might be grooming him for the presidency.
That Kocharian, who is expected to quit after completing his second
five-year term in office in 2008, would like to hand over power
to his longtime defense minister and most powerful lieutenant has
long seemed a given. However, there are growing indications that the
Armenian leader is keen to counterweight the influence of Sarkisian
and his governing Republican Party of Armenia (HHK). The HHK is still
considered the favorite to win next spring’s Armenian parliamentary
elections by again making the most of its grip on many government
bodies, its vast financial resources, and Sarkisian’s clout.
Oskanian underscored his increasingly outspoken stance in an extensive
interview with the Haykakan Zhamanak daily published on October 19. He
sought to distance himself from the Armenian government, citing an
“abyss” separating it from the people and stressing the fact that he
has not attended 80% of cabinet sessions due to his frequent trips
abroad. Furthermore, he implied that only a new government equipped
with a “right agenda” could meet key challenges facing the country. One
of those challenges, in his words, is the proper conduct of the next
parliamentary and presidential elections.
“Everyone must realize that we simply have no more room for holding bad
elections because this time the damage to our people would be not only
moral but also material,” he said before issuing what appeared to be a
thinly veiled warning to the HHK: “If there are violations and if there
are [negative] consequences as a result, it will be obvious who those
people are and they must be really held answerable before the people.”
The government’s response was not late in coming. A young HHK lawmaker,
whose main job is to publicly pour scorn on the party’s detractors,
accused Oskanian on the parliament floor on October 25 of “forgetting
his main functions and external challenges facing the country.” “He
is unhappy with the government’s policies but remains in office,” said
Armen Ashotian. Prime Minister Andranik Markarian, the nominal head of
the HHK, added that Oskanian should not be surprised by such attacks.
Oskanian, meanwhile, only added to talk of his presidential designs
by stating in the Haykakan Zhamanak interview that he will resign
as foreign minister in 2008 in any case. He claimed that he still
has not decided to run for president. Whether he would stand a good
chance of winning the presidential election is a separate matter.
Born and raised in Syria, Oskanian was still a Syrian national of
Armenian descent when he graduated from Yerevan Polytechnic Institute
in 1979 before moving to the United States to study international
relations at Harvard and two other top universities. He returned to
Armenia in 1992 to work, as an American citizen, at the former Soviet
republic’s newly established Foreign Ministry. Oskanian surrendered
his U.S. passport to obtain Armenian citizenship when Kocharian
appointed him as foreign minister shortly after coming to power
in early 1998. He has since been largely unaffected by the dramatic
political battles in Yerevan, carrying out Kocharian’s “complementary”
foreign policy and representing Armenia in peace talks with Azerbaijan.
Oskanian’s knowledge of international affairs has earned him the kind
of respectability in the West that few other Armenian politicians
can boast. Also, unlike most other members of the ruling regime, he
has not been implicated in corruption scandals. His main weakness is
a lack of a power base and the fact that, in many ways, he is still
an outsider in the Armenian political scene.
Yet assuming that Kocharian is encouraging his presidential bid,
Oskanian can count on the backing of a new but extremely ambitious
party led by Gagik Tsarukian, the country’s top “oligarch” close to
the Armenian president. The party, Prosperous Armenia, is already
busy preparing for the parliamentary polls, having embarked on a
massive distribution of agricultural aid to impoverished farmers
across the country. The unprecedented campaign, heavily advertised
by Tsarukian-controlled TV channels, has already prompted serious
concern by the Republican and other mainstream political groups.
Some local observers have speculated that Prosperous Armenia’s most
likely presidential candidate is none other than Oskanian. The latter
has also been linked with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, an
influential member of the ruling coalition that has already indicated
that it will not endorse Sarkisian for the presidency.
(Aravot, October 26; Hayk, October 25; Haykakan Zhamanak, October 19;
RFE/RL Armenia Report, July 14)

SEMINARY TO RELEASE MAJOR NEW BOOK ON ARMENIAN WORSHIP AT RECEPTION
St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, NY
Oct 31 2006
Rev. Dr. Bryan Spinks, Professor of Liturgical Studies at Yale Divinity
School, will be the keynote speaker at a book launch celebrating the
release of Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian
East, a collection of articles authored by current leading scholars
on Eastern liturgy. The event, open to the public, will be held on
December 6, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. on the campus of St Vladimir’s Seminary,
which is co-hosting the occasion with St Nersess Armenian Seminary.
Edited by Roberta R. Ervine, Associate Professor of Armenian Studies
at St Nersess Seminary, the book includes a keynote article by
Robert F. Taft, S.J. entitled, “Was the Eucharistic Anaphora Recited
Secretly or Aloud? The Ancient Tradition and What Became of It,”
among its panoply of articles on early Christian liturgy in the
Eastern traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, and East and West Syrian.
Fr. Taft is probably the world’s foremost living scholar in the field
of liturgical studies.
Armenian Christian Heritage
Worship Traditions is the third volume of St. Nersess Seminary’s
AVANT Series, dedicated to early Armenian patristic, dogmatic, and
liturgical texts. The series is a collaborative effort between St.
Nersess and St. Vladimir’s Seminaries. The new volume honors St
Nersess Seminary on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.
Professor Spinks will examine the worship of the Armenians and their
Christian neighbors, whose liturgies conserved and transmitted the
heart of doctrine in the Christian East. His own eminent research
includes East Syrian rites, Reformed rites, issues in theology and
liturgy, and worship in a postmodern age. He also teaches courses
on marriage liturgy, English Reformation worship traditions, the
eucharistic prayer and theology, Christology, and the liturgies of
the Eastern churches.
Required Reading
V. Rev. Daniel Findikyan, Dean of St Nersess Seminary and general
editor of the AVANT Series, said of Worship Traditions, “The
international symposium in 2003 that gave birth to this book brought
together practically every scholar in the world specializing in the
liturgical traditions of the ancient Christian East. This book will
be required reading for students and practitioners of the Armenian
and neighboring rites, and eye-opening to those less familiar with
eastern Christiantiy.”
The reception will take place in the Metropolitan Philip Auditorium
of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, in Crestwood, New
York. Click here for travel directions.
The reception is free and open to the public, through reservations are
requested. Copies of Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring
Christian East, as well as the previous numbers in the series will
be available for purchase at a special discounted price.
For additional information, or reservations for the event, contact
St. Nersess Seminary at [email protected] email address is being
protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it or
by telephone: (914) 636-2003.
php?option=com_content&task=view&id=359&am p;Itemid=127

A PLOT OF ONE’S OWN
By Vasily Uzun
Russia Profile, Russia
Oct 31 2006
Land Reform Shows that Small Farms Can Produce Big Results
The transition from a socialist-style planned economy to a market
economy in Russia involved radical changes in land relations. In
the Soviet era, all land was exclusively the property of the state,
given for free to those who used it in perpetuity. Changes in the
way communal farms used land were permitted only with the approval
of federal and regional authorities.
The 1990s land reforms sought to improve resource use efficiency
through privatization of collective-farm land and liberalizing
the market for land plots. These privatization mechanisms, and
the subsequent trading of land, did have a positive effect on the
efficiency of agricultural land usage.
In the post-Soviet space, the privatization of collective farm land
was done in a variety of ways, depending on the region. In the Baltic
States, the land was returned to its former owners; in Armenia,
the land was allotted to families living in the villages at the time
of the reforms. In Russia, farm land was allocated to farm members
in standard parcels. If farm laborers then chose to leave the farm,
they would receive the same amount of land elsewhere in Russia.
One of the reasons restitution was technically impossible to carry
out in Russia in the early 1990s was because citizens did not have
documents confirming property rights. The idea of giving each family
a land plot was also considered, but was rejected on the grounds that
most communal farmers were unprepared to work on their own.
As a result of the reforms, some 120 million hectares, or 60 percent
of farm holdings, were divided into shares, and 12 million people
became landowners. Owners of land shares had the right to use
their segments to create or expand a farm business or to use them
as private gardens. Shares could also be sold, rented, given away,
used as capital, or passed on to descendants.
Before the reforms, virtually all Russian farmland, some 221 million
hectares, was used by communal farms. Only about 4 million hectares
functioned as private gardens. Following the introduction of reforms,
5 percent of communal farmers, as well as some city dwellers,
pooled land plots, obtained land from the state redistribution fund
or rented land parcels from shareholders in a drive to create their
own agri-businesses. By the start of 2006, this group of people held
19.5 million hectares of farmland.
There were huge variations in the ways in which land reform was
carried out in different parts of the country: many regions were able
to put off introducing private property for as much as 49 years,
according to a 2002 law on land trading; most villagers rented out
their land shares to nascent agribusinesses joint-stock companies
or cooperatives created from reformed communal farms; agriculture is
generally loss-making in northern zones, where not all agricultural
organizations have rental contracts with land-share owners, and
roughly a quarter of all land parceled out is used by agricultural
organizations without a signed agreement.
The method of land privatization adopted in Russia made it possible
for people who live in rural areas to assume land ownership rights
on a voluntary basis while allowing major farms to continue working
by renting land shares. This setup avoided strip farming as well as
the division of all of Russia into 5-by-10-hectare chunks.
But Russia’s agricultural land privatization system had some obvious
drawbacks. For example, land shares are not accurately demarcated:
holders know roughly where their fields are but not the precise
location; agribusiness managers are able to use shared land without
signing agreements with the owners and, to this day, 15 years after
the reforms began, land share owners still do not clearly understand
their rights and responsibilities.
The authorities in many post-Soviet countries including Ukraine,
Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgyzstan have already divided
up their land into plots. But these countries now face the problem
of consolidating the divided parcels into optimal-sized units. This
process is also slowly getting underway in Russia, but lacks the
necessary political or legal infrastructure.
In recent years, Russia has seen relatively active trade in
agricultural land. It is being bought up, rented out long-term or
added to the charter capital of agribusinesses. As of Jan. 1, 2005,
legal entities in the Moscow Region mainly agribusinesses and other
investors held more than 300,000 hectares of land, or roughly 25
percent of farm holdings in the region. Agribusinesses have also taken
control of most of the agricultural land in the regions around Moscow,
including Belgorod and Oryol regions.
Land can be transferred from a share owner to an agribusiness or
other investor based on buy-sell agreements (as is the practice
of Inteko holding in Belgorod Region) by absorbing the shares into
charter capital (a procedure applied by Stoilenskaya Niva, also of
Belgorod), or by oligarchs buying up the land and property of bankrupt
agricultural firms. Agribusinesses have been created in Oryol and
Rostov using long-term agreements for land shares, as well as in
Stavropol and Krasnodar territories.
But investors in all regions are pumping money into agriculture and
creating larger business structures. In cases where sizeable farms
broke apart due to their inability to deal with competition from
domestic and foreign producers, rural residents left without jobs
were obliged to take care of their own gardens. Eventually land
share owners on such farms expanded their plots, a process that
has intensified over the last few years. In early 2006, roughly 10
million hectares of shared land had been added to market gardens,
and people were farming it themselves.
It was widely supposed that once land reforms took hold, large
Western-style organizations would replace collective farms. Although
such farms have appeared, they make up just 6 percent of gross
production. However large agribusinesses have developed rapidly,
and range from 10 to a 100 times the area of former collective farms.
On the other hand, most production over 50 percent is concentrated
in private market gardens, most of which comprise less than half a
hectare of land with one or two cows.
Although most Russians think farming has neither taken off in Russia
nor has a future, the dynamics of land redistribution suggest that
less and less land is being used by major agricultural organizations,
while the share of family farms in cultivated land is increasing. In
1990, these farms accounted for less than 2 percent of agricultural
holdings, but by 1995 this figure was 18 percent and by 2006, it had
risen to 28 percent.
In the socialist economy, the state set targets for agricultural
holdings and new area cultivation regardless of the suitability of
the plot. For example, land that eroded barely produced any crops,
yet was included in targets.
With the transition to a market economy, agricultural producers
stopped using 22 million hectares of available terrain. Between 1990
and 2006, the area used by agricultural businesses dropped by 72
million hectares, or 34 percent, while the proportion used by private
cultivators and farmers increased from 4 to 54 million hectares
(more than 13 times).
Much has been written about the drop in land use by agricultural
organizations, but few studies have analyzed which lands were abandoned
and in which regions. Published in 2003, Tatyana Nefyodova’s book,
Fragmentation of Rural Russia, showed that such areas were located
mostly in the “non-Black Earth periphery,” in other words, outside
Russia’s most fertile agricultural region.
One study examined Russia’s administrative districts by looking
at percentage change in land planted by agricultural organizations
between 1995 and 2003. Regions with a low bio-climactic potential
suffered reduced plowed and crop areas and low grain yield.
Similarly, the higher the yield and bio-climatic potential, the
smaller the reduction in cultivated land. It also became obvious that
agricultural organizations reduced the amount of land in use in an
attempt to produce higher return from their inputs.
The usage efficiency of agricultural holdings fell until 1998, but has
risen in recent years. However, this process has taken different forms
depending on the size of the producer. Agribusinesses have continued
to reduce the size of their plots while simultaneously boosting gross
production, leading to an increase in return of 35 percent in 2003
compared to 1998.
Despite different tendencies in return rates, family farms are using
land much more efficiently than agribusinesses. Each hectare used
by small landholders produces 4.5 times more gross product and 10
times more added value. Of course, such a difference in efficiency is
only partially explained by better land quality or by more intensive
cultivation and greater cattle density per area.
Besides these factors, another considerable influence is that people
make unlicensed use of land officially registered to agribusinesses, as
well as a significant amount of feedstock produced by agribusinesses
given to rural residents as part of the rental costs for their
land shares.

TURKEY’S BID TO JOIN EU REMAINS A MIRAGE
Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran
Oct 31 2006
The European Commission is to present its progress report on November
8 on Turkey’s application to join the European bloc amid media reports
and official statements suggesting the report will be negative.
Last week, in an interview with the Italian daily Il Corriere della
Sera, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he feared
talks with Turkey could be stopped.
“On Turkey, I fear there may be a stop in accession negotiations,”
the paper quoted the commission chief as saying in a headline.
“I am sorry to say this, but things are going badly. Reforms in Turkey
are going forward very slowly and I do not see the progress I would
have expected. We hope the Finns can help avoid the break-off in
negotiations but I really am very worried,” he added.
Earlier this month, Barrosso called for a pause in further EU expansion
after Bulgaria and Romania join the EU in January 2007.
The European paper Financial Times, in today’s (Tuesday) edition,
in a first-page headline said the “EU report will deal a fresh blow
to Turkey.”
The paper noted that next weeks’ report will criticize Turkey for
failing to make enough progress on freedom of expression, curbing
the use of torture and establishing civilian control over the military.
Ever since accession negotiations with Turkey began in December 2005,
Europeans have been placing one hurdle after another over the future
of Turkey’s EU aspirations, such as the Cyprus issue, the Armenian
genocide, the Kurdish issue or the enlargement fatigue.
The EU is putting pressure on Ankara to recognize the Greek Cypriot
government and to open up its ports to Greek Cypriot ships and vessels.
For their part, the Greek Cypriots have been blocking any closer
cooperation between the EU and the Turkish Cypriot community of
Northern Cyprus.
The European Parliament wanted to put recognition of the “Armenian
Genocide” as a condition for Turkey’s EU membership, but at the last
moment the EP report was changed and it said that “although recognition
of the Armenian genocide as such is formally not one of the Copenhagen
criteria (membership condition), it is indispensable for a country on
the road to membership to come to terms with and recognize its past.”
The French parliament passed a bill that criminalizes the denial of
the so-called “Armenian genocide,” causing further tension in ties
between Europe and Turkey.
Moreover, the right’s expected presidential candidate in May’s election
in France, Nicolas Sarkozy, has publicly stated that Turkey should
never be allowed to join the EU.
Turkey was officially recognized as a candidate for EU membership
in 1999 but negotiations started only on October 3, 2005, a process
nobody knows how long it will take to complete, if ever.
In contrast, Croatia, which started entry talks together with Turkey,
is expected to be given full EU membership at the latest by 2011.
It cannot be denied that Islam is a factor which plays heavy on the
minds of policymakers, the media and the people in Europe when the
issue of Turkey’s membership is weighed.
Former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing has been quoted as
saying that Turkey’s entry into the EU would be “the end of Europe.”
He told the French paper Le Monde that Turkey’s capital was not in
Europe, 95 percent of its population lived outside Europe, and it was
“not a European country.”
The BBC in a report on Turkey’s bid for EU membership said “there is
a continuing debate among member countries about whether Turkey is
culturally and geographically compatible with the European Union —
and that a broad strand of opinion says it is not.”
Turkey should be barred from joining the European Union, former German
chancellor Helmut Schmidt wrote in his book “The Self-Assertion of
Europe, Prospects for the 21st Century”.
He cites Islam as one of the reasons for the rejection.
“Islam is another issue of concern to the EU, says Schmidt.
“The outcome of the re-Islamization process is uncertain and
fundamentalism is possible.”
Such statements by top European politicians can only reinforce the
view that the EU was, is and will remain a Christian club.
The abrasive reaction of the Europeans towards Turkey is having its
reaction on Turkey’s public.
A poll published last week showed a dramatic decline in support for
EU membership in Turkey.
The survey, published in the Turkish newspaper Milliyet showed 32.2
percent thought Turkey “must certainly enter the EU,” a sharp decline
on the 57.4 percent figure last year and 67.5 percent in 2004.
The poll also showed that only 7.2 percent trust the EU.
Meanwhile, media reports hint that the EU summit in December could
freeze membership talks with Turkey which could spell the end of
Turkey’s desire to join the European club.

MORE DETAILS OF RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN GAS DEAL RELEASED
By Anna Saghabalian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Oct 31 2006
New details emerged on Tuesday of the latest Russian-Armenia energy
deal that will give Russia’s state-run Gazprom monopoly a commanding
share in Armenia’s natural gas distribution network and, most probably,
the incoming gas pipeline from Iran.
Karen Karapetian, director general of the ArmRosGazprom (ARG) network
operator, said Gazprom will pay $118.8 million to raise its share in
ARG from the current 45 percent to 58 percent.
The takeover was officially announced by the Russian energy giant
on Friday and confirmed by President Robert Kocharian on Monday. It
appears to be part of a broader Russian-Armenian agreement reached last
April. That deal allowed Armenia to temporarily avoid a doubling of
the price of imported Russian gas in exchange for ceding more energy
assets to Moscow. Those include the incomplete Fifth Unit of the big
thermal power plant in Hrazdan.
Karapetian revealed that Fifth Unit formally belongs ARG, another 45
percent of which has until now been owned by the Armenian government.
That stake will be diluted to approximately 30 percent as a result
of the latest deal.
“This is the sum needed for buying the Fifth Unit,” Karapetian said
of the $118.8 million to be paid by Gazprom. “Who is buying it?
ArmRosGazprom. By what means? By means of the issuance of additional
shares [in ARG]. Who is buying the new shares? Gazprom.”
“Why not the government of Armenia? Ask the government,” he added.
The government announced in April that the Russians will pay $248.8
million for the modern facility and spend an additional $180 million on
completing it in the next few years. The lump sum may well be including
the cost of the first Armenian section of the under-construction
pipeline from Iran which is widely expected to be incorporated into
the ARG network.
Armenian officials for months denied reports that Russian control of
the Iran-Armenia pipeline is another, unpublicized provision of the
April deal. Still, Prime Minister indicated last week that this is the
case, arguing that “it would be illogical to have two gas distribution
networks in Armenia.” A leading Moscow daily, “Kommersant,” described
on Tuesday the anticipated Russian takeover of the pipeline as the
Kremlin’s “main, if not the sole, geopolitical victory in the region
registered in the last several years.”
Karapetian claimed, however, that the government in Yerevan has
not yet decided who will own the pipeline. “Gazprom is right to be
willing to buy the pipeline,” he said. “But I don’t know whether or
not Armenia will agree to sell it.”
The overall deal will reinforce Russia’s already pervasive presence
in the Armenian energy sector which government critics in Yerevan
say is turning into an economic stranglehold. But Karapetian strongly
defended it, downplaying the fact that the bulk of the Armenian gas
infrastructure is now owned by Gazprom and another Russian energy
firm, ITERA.
“We remain an Armenian company not only because we pay taxes and are
registered in Armenia but because you will find few companies that
have invested $83 million here in the last four years,” he told a
news conference.
Armenia’s severe energy crisis of the early 1990s disrupted
centralized gas supplies to virtually all individual consumers. ARG,
which currently employs some 6,000 people, began slowly but steadily
restoring them shortly after its establishment as a Russian-Armenian
joint venture in 1997. The process gained momentum in 2002 and seems
to be nearing completion.
According to the ARG chief executive, 84 percent of the country’s
households now have access to gas, saving at least $160 million in
combined expenditures on winter heating each year.

NUCLEAR PLANT CLOSURE ‘PRECONDITION’ FOR CLOSER TIES WITH EU
By Astghik Bedevian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Oct 31 2006
The closure of the nuclear power plant at Metsamor is a precondition
for the deepening of Armenia’s links with the European Union under
the bloc’s European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) program, Trade and
Economic Development Minister Karen Chshmaritian said Tuesday.
Chshmaritian said the matter is included in Armenia’s plan of
ENP-related actions which is due to be signed by Armenian and EU
officials in Brussels on November 13. The document calls for more
political and economic reforms that would entitle Yerevan to a
privileged partnership with the 25-nation union.
Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja of Finland, which currently holds the
EU’s rotating presidency, and his Armenian counterpart Vartan Oskanian
said on October 2 that successful implementation of the action plan
would have far-reaching implications. In a joint statement issued
after their talks in Yerevan, they said Armenia’s ties with the EU
would go “beyond cooperation” and involve a “significant measure of
economic integration.”
The decommissioning of Metsamor’s sole reactor has always been high
on the agenda of the EU’s dealings with Armenia. The EU believes that
the facility is inherently unsafe because of its Soviet design and
location in a seismically active zone.
The Armenian authorities dismiss those concerns. They insist that the
plant, which meets almost 40 percent of Armenia’s electricity needs,
is safe enough to remain operational until 2016. European government
seem to have come to terms with this tentative decommissioning date.
Earlier this year the Armenian government announced its intention to
replace Metsamor by another, more modern nuclear plant over the next
decade and look for foreign investors interested in financing its
construction estimated to cost at least $1 billion. U.S. reaction
to the extremely ambitious project has been lukewarm, with a senior
State Department official suggesting last May that there are “probably
better alternatives” to it.
According to Chshmaritian, no EU country has expressed the readiness
so far to assist in the project’s implementation.

WITHOUT NAMING RUSSIA, ROMANIAN LEADER ASSAILS ITS POLICY IN COUNTRIES SUCH AS GEORGIA AND MOLDOVA
Kyiv Post, Ukraine
Oct 31 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) – Romanian President Traian Basescu took aim Tuesday
at Russia, indirectly accusing the country of benefiting from the
continuing “frozen conflicts” in countries such as Georgia and Moldova.
“The single winner of the extended period of having frozen conflicts
is the country which doesn’t like to have democratic development,”
Basescu said.
“It is the country which still continues to believe that different
countries can be controlled for next decade or for the next century,”
he said.
Basescu’s comments were delivered via an international video hookup
in Bucharest to a gathering of experts at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington.
He was a participant in a conference on economic and security
development in southeastern Europe.
Basescu, whose country was part of the old Soviet bloc, warned that
the status quo in countries where there are frozen conflicts could
become permanent if they are allowed to fester.
“It is our obligation to find a solution as soon as possible,” he said,
adding that no solution should be accepted that does not respect the
territorial integrity of each country.
It was not clear whether Basescu was holding Russia responsible for
all frozen conflicts of the Black Sea region. Russia has troops in
the disputed South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of Georgia and in
the Trans-Dniester area of Moldova.
Other frozen conflict regions that he mentioned during his presentation
were Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo.
Basescu also urged the United States to do what it can to prevent
a recurrence of authoritarian rule in Eastern Europe. He said this
should be one of the highest priorities for the region.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“MUASIR MUSAVAT” PARTY LAID BLACK WREATH IN FRONT OF FRENCH EMBASSY
Author: J.Shahverdiyev
TREND, Azerbaijan
Oct 31 2006
On October 31 at 15:00, “Muasir Musavat” Party laid a black wreath
in front of the French Embassy in Azerbaijan after holding a picket,
Trend reports.
The police did not allow the participants of the picket to approach
the Embassy. The picket was held to protest the French Parliament’s
adopting the law penalizing the denial of so-called “Armenian
genocide”. The resolution of the picket was presented to the Embassy,
and a black wreath was laid in front of the embassy.
Oppositional “Muasir Musavat” Party was created in 2002. The picket
finished without any incidents.