Month: March 2007

ARMENIAN CB REGISTERED THE NEW HEAD OFFICE OF THE "HSBC BANK ARMENIA" AND THE BRANCHES OF "ARMBUSINESSBANK" IN VANADZOR AND TALIN

Mediamax Agency, Armenia
March 21 2007

Yerevan, March 21 /Mediamax/. By the decision of the Chairman of the
Armenian Central Bank, the changed charter of the "HSBC Bank Armenia"
is registered, according to which the new address of the bank is in
Terian 66 str, Yerevan.

As Mediamax was told in the CB press service, by another decision is
registered "HSBC Bank Armenia"’s "Republic Square" branch, which will
be functioning in Vazgen Sarkisian 9 str, Yerevan.

According to the decision of the Central Bank, the "Vanadzor" and
"Talin" branches of "Armbusinessbank" are registered. They will be
functioning in Tigran Mets 44 str, Vanadzor and Gai 1 str, Talin.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LETTERS FROM AN OLD EMPIRE: ORHAN PAMUK: A BRAVE VOICE IN A TROUBLED COUNTRY
by Michael Paterakis

PopMatters, IL
March 21 2007

Sometimes fate orders strange situations. For Turkish writer Orhan
Pamuk, perhaps this one extraordinary experience was a moment
of triumph. The very same day he was awarded the Nobel Prize for
literature, the French Parliament passed a resolution to make denial
of the 1915 Armenian genocide a crime. Just one day was enough for
Pamuk to see his work receive worldwide acclaim and his politics
views outside his writing become justified.

The Turkish novelist took the center stage of global attention thanks
to his uncommon lyrical style, yes, but also due to his uncompromising
politics. His work was already well regarded in literary circles
worldwide prior to his unhesitating remarks during an interview in
February 2005 with Swiss weekly publication Das Magazin regarding the
killings of Kurds and Armenians in the beginning of the 20th century:

Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these
lands and nobody dares to talk about it," Pamuk stated in Das Magazin,
explaining later in an interview with the BBC that his objective was
to defend freedom of speech: "What happened to the Ottoman Armenians
in 1915 was a major thing that was hidden from the Turkish nation;
it was a taboo. But we have to be able to talk about the past.

This is a fearless declaration of his stance about truth, considering
that many journalists and writers in Turkey in the past have been
imprisoned for expressing their opinions on such culturally sensitive
issues. Indeed, a few have paid with their lives for their decision
to come forward and talk about this matter. The most recent example
is the assassination of Hrant Dink, a Turkish newspaper editor of
Armenian decent, on 19 January 2007.

Another well-known Turkish novelist and a close friend of Dink’s, Elif
Shafak, wrote of the editor of the weekly newspaper Agos in an obituary
published in Time magazine, ‘Ode to a Murdered Turkish Editor’:
"Tuesday, Jan. 23. The day we buried you. ‘Yes,’ you once said,
‘we Turkish Armenians do have a claim to the soil of this country,
but not to take it away, as some accuse us of secretly plotting,
but to be buried deep under it.’ Your funeral was spectacular. Tens
of thousands marched. They carried signs that said, WE ARE ALL HRANT,
WE ARE ALL ARMENIANS."

The official position of the Turkish state is that the Armenian
Genocide never took place. Pamuk was retroactively prosecuted for his
comments, under a penal code introduced in June 2005, which states:
"A person who, being a Turk, explicitly insults the Republic or Turkish
Grand National Assembly, shall be imposed to a penalty of imprisonment
for a term of six months to three years." Pamuk and Shafak, who have
both spoken publicly of the Armenian genocide, managed to have their
charges of "insulting Turkishness" acquitted.

Further demonstrating how complicated Turkey’s attitude regarding the
Armenian genocide is, Shafak acknowledged in the Time piece that Dink
wanted public dialogue about the issue but not at the expense of free
speech: "…you fervently opposed the Armenian genocide bill approved
by the French Parliament, which would make it a crime to say that
the events of 1915 were not a genocide, because, first and foremost,
you believed in freedom of expression." While Pamuk, Shafak and Dink
have each attempted to foster discourse on this issue, Dink differed
from the others in his non-support of the French genocide bill.

For Turkey, discussing publicly the genocide issue is both taboo,
as Pamuk pointed out in Das Magazin, and a major insult for the State.

However, few people in the Western world (excluding some professionals
like diplomats, professors, and journalists) can truly realize the
importance of Pamuk’s statement for the Turkish people.

It wouldn’t be unfair if I claimed that this giant nation is two-faced,
or better, is struggling between two faces: its modernized side versus
its traditional side. Doubtlessly Turkey is the most modernized
Muslim country, being a parliamentary democracy, yet its record of
suppressing public dissent invokes concern in the European Union,
where Turkey has applied to become a member.

David Hotham, a longtime London Times correspondent, in his book
published in 1972, simply called The Turks, wrote what in my opinion
is the best description of the fellow countrymen of Pamuk:

The Turk is unusually full of contradictions. Not only has he East and
West in him, European and Asian, but an intense pride combined with
an acute inferiority complex; a deep xenophobia with an overwhelming
friendliness and hospitality to strangers; a profound need for flattery
with an absolute disregard for what anybody thinks of him.

Many Europeans are against the possibility of seeing the Turks
become full members of their Union because of this rift between the
traditional and modern sides of Turkey. The divide between old and
new casts doubt on Turkey’s stance with regard to free speech as
well as reinforcing concerns about human rights. And it appears that
Turkish lawmakers offer plenty of pretexts that put more pressure
on the country’s back. Turkey has a long way to go (and many civic
liberties to give) before transforming itself into the fully modernized
and democratic state the European Union would consider admitting but
unfortunately, cases as Pamuk’s can cause greater setbacks to this
challenge with the publicity they earn.

Pamuk was born in 1952 in the showcase city of his country, Istanbul.

He studied architecture at the Istanbul Technical University due to
pressure to take over the family business but soon he realized that
his dream was to become a full-time writer. He subsequently graduated
from the Institute of Journalism at the University of Istanbul in
1976 before becoming a visiting scholar at Columbia University in
New York from 1985 to 1988. During that same period, he spent time
as a visiting fellow at the University of Iowa.

His early novels soon won critical appraises and literary awards.

Over time, Pamuk developed a writing style that revealed a deep love
for his birthplace and for Turkey in general. His first work, titled
Cevdet Bey ve Oðullarý (translated as Mr. Cevdet and His Sons), was
the story of three generations of a wealthy Istanbul family living
in the same district where Pamuk was born, Niþantaþi.

Lyricism is a critical component of Pamuk’s novels. Contrary to how
it may appear nowadays, Pamuk is not a political writer and never
actually has been interested in writing mainly about politics. What
he wanted to do when he talked about the Kurdish and the Armenian
genocide was to make an effort to bring Turkey to terms with its
history and reality. What Pamuk unintentionally achieved with this
remark was to have his name brought up in consideration of the Nobel
Prize in Literature.

His win was a surprise not because he didn’t deserve the award, but
because writers such as Philip Roth, Milan Kundera, and Umberto Eco,
to name a few, are felt by some in the literary community to deserve a
nod from the Swedish Academy. Pamuk is one of the youngest people ever
awarded with the prize. His victory is a bit like Martin Scorsese’s
Academy Award win this year: deserved but not based entirely on his
single, most recent work.

Pamuk’s personal challenge is to bridge the gap between the traditional
face of Turkey he loves and writes about with the side that the
contemporary world might be willing to accept. Most of his writing has
explored his country’s Ottoman Empire history rather than issues of
modern politico-mixed-religious extremes. The autobiographic Istanbul:
Memories and the City (2006) recollects images from Turkey’s recent
past and Pamuk’s own life. On the other hand, the novel The White
Castle (1985) offers a vivid description of the Ottoman Empire during
the 17th century.

Turkey is literally cut off from its past. After the defeat and the
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Kemal Ataturk-the
‘father of Turks’, as his name is translated-created a new republic
solely for Turks (minorities like Kurds or Armenians faced heavy
persecution), based on the organization of the modern western states.

One of his early undertakings was to ban many Ottoman traditions,
including outlawing religious practices like those performed by the
dervish sects. But his most important amendment was the introduction of
the Latin alphabet. As a result, Turks cannot read their own classics,
formerly written in the Arabic alphabet, without translation.

Despite Pamuk’s well-meaning attempts to share Turkey’s rich history
with readers in the 21st century, various factions find reason to
reproach Pamuk for betraying his Turkish background. For example,
the nationalist Turks, infected with Kemal Ataturk’s dogma, accuse
him of being too religious, while for the Islamists he is yet another
blasphemous western-style writer. The truth lies somewhere in the
middle. Pamuk is in love with the Ottoman past of his country in which
religion was an important factor but he also admires democratic values
such as the separation between religion and the state.

Although he is a bestselling novelist in Turkey-in every corner
of Istanbul you can find pirated editions of his books-when the
news of his Nobel award broke and made headlines around the globe,
journalist Fatih Altaili questioned, in his article at the popular
Turkish daily Sabah, whether: "We should be happy about it or sad",
adding: "Turkey cannot be happy about this award, even if it should,
because it can’t see Pamuk as its own man." The same reaction could
be seen in many parts of the Turkish press.

Pamuk’s narrative style is rather foreign for Turkey. My Name is Red
(2001), for example, is narrated in part by such unusual characters
as a corpse, a dog, and a gold coin, but each manages to move the
story forward in linear fashion. Influenced by great western writers,
Pamuk doesn’t hesitate to introduce postmodern motifs that portray
space and time as malleable entities which often bend and change;
novel elements to the writing tradition of his country. Yet every
single new book he has published has sold out in just few days.

Pamuk’s literary success would ultimately seem to be due to this
ongoing and divided love affair of modern Turks between the past
and the present of their country, between tradition and modernity,
between loyalty to Turkey and interest in the world outside.

Controversial for his political views advocating the need to talk about
mistakes the state of Turkey has made, no matter what opinions exist
about his work, Pamuk has used his fame as a platform to speak out
regarding his country’s problems and policies. Admired and deplored
in turn by his fellow Turks, Pamuk’s public image mirrors that of
contemporary Turkey. And he is not alone among public figures within
Turkey calling for open discussion regarding Turkey’s past-as well
as its future.

Michael Paterakis is a freelance writer and a college undergraduate
based in Athens, Greece. He has reported extensively on a series of
cultural and sports issues and for the past three years (since 2004)
he has been the Goal.com Greece Correspondent.

ns/article/31914/orhan-pamuk-a-brave-voice-in-a-tr oubled-country/

–Boundary_(ID_d+LfbfVI8VhGFqpVtV boBA)–

IRAN-ARMENIA MUTUAL TIES BOOSTED

Persian Journal, Iran
March 21 2007

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that any cooperation and
joint ventures between Iran and Armenia will develop the relations of
two nations. According to a report released by the Presidential Office
Media Department, the statement was made during Ahmadinejad’s talks
with his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharyan at Nordouz border
area on the sidelines of the inaugural ceremony of Iran-Armenia
gas pipeline.

The president added that the strong will and firm determination of
Iranian and Armenian officials is highly significant in broadening
of bilateral relations in all fields.

Turning to Iran and Armenia as neighboring and friendly countries, he
said, "Expansion of relations has always been faced by administrative
problems and a number of other obstacles. But such a strong resolve
will eventually overcome all difficulties."

Expressing his satisfaction with the implementation of one of the
joint projects between the two states, he said that Iran’s numerous
potentials in different fields such as energy, establishment of
refinery, railway and power plant as well as cooperation in the domains
of communication, telecommunication and export of various products
have prepared the ground for transferring the relevant experience
to Armenia.

Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad declared the country’s readiness
for cooperation in this regard.

CONGRESS’ ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL COULD HURT U.S. OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ

All Headline News
March 21 2007

Matthew Borghese – All Headline News Staff Writer Washington,
D.C. (AHN) – A senior leader within the U.S. Department of Defense says
that a bill before the House of Representatives (HR 106) which aims to
label the killing of over 1 million Armenians in Turkey a "genocide,"
may harm American combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Robertus Remkes, Director of Strategy, Policy and
Assessments at U.S. European Command (EUCOM) says the bill, introduced
by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and backed by House Speaker Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA) could "impact to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

According to the Pentagon’s Stars and Stripes, a February article
by F. Stephen Larrabee and Suat Kiniklioglu of Rand Corp found that
"Some 60 percent of all U.S. military equipment destined for Iraq
goes through the territory or airspace of Turkey."

"If this route to Iraq were restricted or closed entirely, the ability
of the United States to effectively combat the insurgency and violent
militias in Iraq would be impaired."

The deaths, which occurred during World War I, remain a contentious
issue in modern-day Turkey. Ankara maintains that the deaths were the
result of a civil war, not a targeted and systematic ethnic genocide.

The bill, which would not bring sanctions against Turkey for the
crimes, would call "upon the President to ensure that the foreign
policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding
and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic
cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating
to the Armenian Genocide."

WHERE HISTORY ISN’T BUNK

The Economist Newspaper
Financial Express, India
March 21 2007

Across the world, approaches to teaching children about their nation’s
past are hotly contested-especially at times of wider debate on
national identity

If the past is a foreign country, the version that used to be taught
in Irish schools had a simple landscape. For 750 years after the first
invasion by an English king, Ireland suffered oppression. Then at
Easter 1916, her brave sons rose against the tyrant; their leaders
were shot but their cause prevailed, and Ireland (or 26 of her 32
counties) lived happily ever after.

Awkward episodes, like the conflict between rival Irish nationalist
groups in 1922-23, were airbrushed away. "The civil war was just an
embarrassment, it was hardly mentioned," says Jimmy Joyce, who went
to school in Dublin in the 1950s.

These days, Irish history lessons are more sophisticated. They deal
happily with facts that have no place in a plain tale of heroes and
tyrants: like the fact that hundreds of thousands of Irish people,
Catholic and Protestant, fought for Britain during the two world wars.

Why the change? First because in the 1980s, some people in Ireland
became uneasy about the fact that a crude view of their national
history was fuelling a conflict in the north of the island. Then
came a fall in the influence of the Catholic church, whose authority
had rested on a deft fusion between religion and patriotism. Also
at work was an even broader shift: a state that was rich, confident
and cosmopolitan saw less need to drum simple ideas into its youth,
especially if those ideas risked encouraging violence.

As countries all over the world argue over "what to tell the
children" about their collective past, many will look to Ireland
rather enviously. Its seamless transition from a nationalist view of
history to an open-minded one is an exception. A history curriculum is
often a telling sign of how a nation and its elites see themselves: as
victims of colonialism or practitioners (either repentant or defiant)
of imperial power. In the modern history of Mexico, for example, a
big landmark was the introduction, 15 years ago, of text-books that
were a bit less anti-American.

Many states still see history teaching, and the inculcation of
foundation myths, as a strategic imperative; others see it as
an exercise in teaching children to think for themselves. And the
experience of several countries suggests that, whatever educators and
politicians might want, there is a limit to how far history lessons
can diverge in their tone from society as a whole.

Take Australia. John Howard, the conservative prime minister, has
made history one of his favourite causes. At a "history summit" he
held last August, educators were urged to "re-establish a structured
narrative" about the nation’s past. This was seen by liberal critics
as a doomed bid to revive a romantic vision of white settlement in
the 18th century. The romantic story has been fading since the 1980s,
when a liberal, revisionist view came to dominate curricula: one that
replaced "settlement" with "invasion" and that looked for the first
time at the stories of aborigines and women.

How much difference have Australia’s policy battles made to what
children in that cosmopolitan land are taught? Under Mr Howard’s
11-year government, "multicultural" and "aboriginal reconciliation",
two terms that once had currency, have faded from the policy lexicon.

But not from classrooms. Australia’s curricula are controlled by the
states, not from Canberra. Most states have rolled Australian history
into social-studies courses, often rather muddled. But in New South
Wales, the most populous state, where the subject is taught in its
own right, Mr Howard’s bid to promote a patriotic view of history
meets strong resistance.

Judy King, head of Riverside Girls High School in Sydney, has students
from more than 40 ethnic groups at her school. "It’s simply not
possible to present one story to them, and nor do we," she says.

"We canvass all the terms for white settlement: colonialism, invasion
and genocide. Are all views valid? Yes. What’s the problem with that?

If the prime minister wants a single narrative instead, then speaking
as someone who’s taught history for 42 years he’ll have an absolute
fight on his hands."

Tom Ying, head of history at Burwood Girls High School in Sydney,
grew up as a Chinese child in the white Australia of the 1950s. In
a school where most students are from non-English-speaking homes,
he welcomes an approach that includes the dark side of European
settlement. "When you have only one side of the story, immigrants,
women and aborigines aren’t going to have an investment in it."

Australia is a country where a relatively gentle (by world standards)
effort to reimpose a sort of national ideology looks destined to
fail. Russia, by contrast, is a country where the general principle
of a toughly enforced ideology, and a national foundation story,
still seems natural to many people, including the country’s elite.

In a telling sign of how he wants Russians to imagine their past,
President Vladimir Putin has introduced a new national day-November
4th-to replace the old communist Revolution Day holiday on November
7th. What the new date recalls is the moment in 1612 when Russia,
after a period of chaos, drove the Catholic Poles and Lithuanians
out of Moscow. Despite the bonhomie of this week’s 25-minute chat
between Mr Putin and Pope Benedict XVI, the president is promoting
a national day which signals "isolation and defensiveness" towards
western Christendom, says Andrei Zorin, a Russian historian.

Because trends and ideas take time to trickle down from the elite to
the classroom, Russian schools are still quite liberal places. In a
hangover from the free-ranging tone of Boris Yeltsin’s presidency,
teachers can portray the past pretty much in whatever way they
choose. But they are bracing for a change. As one liberal history
teacher frets: "I can imagine that in a year’s time we will be obliged
to explain the meaning of the new holiday to first-year pupils." And
part of the meaning is that chaos-be it in the Yeltsin era or prior
to 1612-is a greater evil than toughly enforced order.

In South Africa, where white rule collapsed at the same time as
communism did, the authorities seem to have done a better job at
forging a new national story and avoiding the trap of replacing one
rigid ideology with another. "The main message of the new school
curriculum is inclusion and reconciliation," says Linda Chisholm,
who helped design post-apartheid lessons. "We teach pupils to
handle primary sources, like oral history and documents, instead of
spoon-feeding them on textbooks," adds Aled Jones, a history teacher
at Bridge House school in Cape Province. It helps that symbols and
anniversaries have been redefined with skill. December 16th was
a day to remember white settlers clashing with the Zulus in 1838;
now it is the Day of Reconciliation.

By those standards, parts of the northern hemisphere are far behind.

A hard argument over history is under way in places like south-eastern
Europe: this battle pits old elites that see teaching history as a
strategic issue against newer ones that hope for an opening of minds.

In modern Turkey, classrooms have always been seen as a battleground
for young hearts. Every day, children start the day by chanting:
"I am a Turk, I am honest, I am industrious"-and woe betide the tiny
tot who stumbles because Turkish is not his main tongue. Secondary
schools get regular visits from army officers who try to instil
"national-security awareness".

In such a climate, it is inevitable that "history is considered
a sensitive matter, to be managed by the state," says Taner
Akcam, a Turkish-born historian, whose frank views on the fate of
Ottoman Armenians in 1915 have exposed him to harassment by Turkish
nationalists, even in America where he now lives. But text-books have
changed recently, under pressure from the European Union: the latest
still call the British "sly and treacherous" but are a little kinder
to the Greeks. Neyyir Berktay, an educationalist, calls the new books
"significantly better" than what went before; but they are still
far from accepting the idea of more than one culture within Turkey’s
borders. In neighbouring Greece, there is a bitter controversy over
a new textbook for 12-year-olds. Its approach is a challenge to some
historical vignettes that are dear to modern Greek hearts: for example
the idea of "secret schools" where priests taught youngsters to read
and write in defiance of their Ottoman masters.

While Ireland’s religious nationalism is in retreat (because the
Catholic Church has lost influence), Greece’s Orthodox leaders, like
Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens, are putting up a harder fight to
preserve the nationalist spirit which their predecessors embraced,
reluctantly at first, in the 19th century. Ranged against them is a new
school of Balkan history that reflects a cross-border dialogue between
scholars. The net result is a fairer story-though when books try to
be fair there’s always a risk of being bland, says Thalia Dragona,
a Greek educational psychologist.

Meanwhile some Greeks retort that 11 or 12 is too young to go
looking for facts. In a web-discussion of the new Greek textbook, one
participant thunders: "At university, the goal of historical research
is the discovery of truth. But in primary schools history teaching
has an entirely different aim-to form historical consciousness and
social identity!"

US AND EU UNLIKELY TO OSTRACIZE YEREVAN, DESPITE ELECTION WARNINGS
Emil Danielyan

EurasiaNet, NY
March 20 2007

The United States and the European Union are stepping up pressure on
the Armenian government to hold free-and-fair parliamentary elections
on May 12. They have warned that if the upcoming vote is deemed
fraudulent, Yerevan could forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars
in additional development assistance, and undermine its efforts to
forge closer links with the West.

However, analysts are skeptical that the warnings will have
much influence on the behavior of President Robert Kocharian’s
administration. The outcome of the parliamentary balloting will go a
long way toward determining the political futures of both Kocharian
and his most powerful associate, Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian,
many Armenian political observers believe. Some say that neither the
United States nor EU is prepared to take the kind of action that would
seriously challenge the president’s nearly decade-long grip on power.

None of the presidential and parliamentary elections held under
the Kocharian administration until now were judged democratic by
Western monitors. The most recent of those polls, held in early 2003,
were marred by reports of widespread ballot box stuffing, voter
intimidation, vote buying, and other irregularities. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive].

US and EU officials say the upcoming elections offer a unique
opportunity for the South Caucasus state to end its post-Soviet history
of electoral fraud. "People [in the West] feel that there can be no
more excuses," said one Western diplomat in Yerevan. "The Armenian
economy is growing, and there is no active war in Nagorno-Karabakh. So
it’s time for Armenia to graduate into a normal political life."

Cory Welt, a senior Russia and Eurasia analyst at the Washington-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed, saying that
a clean election would give a "huge boost" to Armenia’s international
reputation. "As time goes on, there are [fewer] reasons, not more, for
Western states to promote engagement with an Armenian government that
seeks to rule through anti-democratic methods," he told EurasiaNet.

The issue was reportedly high on the agenda of Armenian Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian’s March 5 talks in Washington with US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Top State Department officials,
including Rice, have repeatedly warned that if the forthcoming
elections again fall short of democratic standards, Yerevan will
risk losing $235 million in US economic assistance promised under
the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a program designed to spur
political and economic reforms in developing nations. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Armenia was deemed eligible for the
scheme, unveiled by President George W. Bush in 2004, despite being
one of the world’s leading per-capita recipients of American aid.

Testifying before a foreign aid subcommittee of the US House of
Representatives on March 15, the head of a US government agency
administering the MCA, John Danilovich, said he "communicated" with
Kocharian earlier this year to reiterate Washington’s "concerns that
elections be held in a correct manner." One of Danilovich’s deputies,
John Hewko, visited Yerevan for the same purpose earlier in March.

"We expect to see significant improvement over past elections,"
Hewko told reporters there.

For its part, the EU is tying the proper election conduct to Armenia’s
participation in the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) framework that
entitles the country, along with neighboring Georgia and Azerbaijan, to
a privileged relationship with the bloc, better access to its market,
and greater EU aid. Each of the three regional states signed with
the EU last November its own ENP action plan, each of which includes
provisions designed to promote democratization.

The EU’s Brussels-based special representative to the South Caucasus,
Peter Semneby, discussed preparations for the May polls with senior
Armenian officials during an early March visit to Yerevan. "It is
the first major election taking place in the South Caucasus after
we finalized the action plans," Semneby told RFE/RL. "And for that
reason it has an importance that goes beyond the borders of Armenia."

Failure to ensure its freedom and fairness would mean that Armenia
has lost an opportunity to build a "firm relationship" with the EU,
he warned.

Yet neither loss of the MCA funds, nor exclusion from the ENP would
threaten the political survival of Armenia’s two most powerful leaders
accustomed to Western criticism. Kocharian is believed to be planning
to hand over power to Sarkisian and remain in government in some
capacity after completing his second and final term in office in less
than a year from now. [For additional information see the Eurasia
Insight archive]. Continued control of the Armenian parliament is
seen as critical for the success of this putative scenario.

The US and the EU have so far left no indications that, in the event
of another deeply flawed election, they would openly challenge the
legitimacy of the authorities in Yerevan. "I don’t think the West will
take any sharp steps against Kocharian’s regime," Aleksandr Arzumanian,
a former foreign minister opposed to the current Armenian government,
told EurasiaNet. Arzumanian dismissed the Western incentives for
Armenia’s democratization, saying that they alone will not prevent
fresh vote rigging.

According to analyst Welt, Washington’s "only really significant
lever" is MCA aid and a "US stamp of approval" which it would give
to Yerevan. "Whether such US approval really matters to Armenia’s
authorities is another question," he said. "If they believe they
have sufficient support from countries like Russia and Iran, then
termination of MCA aid will mean little."

Another factor that may prompt the Bush administration to tread lightly
is connected with the long-running Nagorno-Karabakh peace process,
some observers believe. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. American, French and Russian diplomats who are trying to
broker a solution hope that Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev will meet shortly after the Armenian elections and finally
cut a peace deal. Diplomats privy to the peace process say Aliyev and
Kocharian have already essentially agreed on the basic principles of
a peaceful settlement proposed by the mediators.

Washington, which has long held a Karabakh settlement to be a top
policy priority for the region, seems unlikely to undercut either
leader under the current circumstances.

Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.

IRAN-ARMENIA GAS PIPELINE LAUNCHED

Regnum, Russia
March 20 2007

Iranian natural gas started to flow to Armenia through the new pipeline
launched yesterday, March 19, following the opening ceremony attended
by presidents of Armenia and Iran Robert Kocharyan and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. Present also were high-ranking officials from both
countries. REGNUM presents photographs from the ceremony.

As it has been reported earlier, the pipeline is being tested, after
which it will be fully incorporated in the gas-distributing system of
Armenia. The pipe is 700 mm in diameter; it will deliver to Armenia
1.1bn cubic meters of natural gas at the first stage of the contract
and 2.3bn cubic meters after 2019. The agreement is signed for 20
years. For each cubic meter of the Iranian gas, Armenia is to deliver
to Iran 3 kWh of energy.

To achieve the planned volumes of Iranian gas supplies to Armenia,
the Armenian-Russian ArmRosgazprom Company will construct further
197 km of the pipeline into the Armenian territory. The first stage
of the project is estimated at $33mln, of which 75% are lent to the
Armenian side by the Export Development Bank of IRAN, and the rest is
to be funded from Armenian budget. The construction’s prime contractor
at this stage of the project is the Iranian Sanir Company.

ArmRosgazprom on its behalf plans to invest 52bn drams (about
$144.5mln) in increasing the carrying capacity of the Armenian
gas-transporting system at the section Kajaran-Ararat. Increasing the
system’s carrying capacity will let import to Armenia about 2.3bn
cubic meters of Iranian natural gas annually, starting as early as
in 2008. Today, the system allows import of about 300-400mln cubic
meters of Iranian gas.

OPPOSITION ACTIVIST FIRED BY UN
By Ruben Meloyan

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
March 20 2007

An Armenian employee of the United Nations office in Yerevan claimed
on Tuesday to have been fired for his active involvement in a recently
formed opposition movement that launched a campaign of anti-government
demonstrations last month.

Aramazd Ghalamkarian, an information officer at the UN office, was
among a group of young Armenians who set up Aylentrank (Alternative)
movement together with some close associates of former President
Levon Ter-Petrosian late last year. Its stated aim is to not only
campaign for regime change but also present a pro-Western ideological
alternative to Armenia’s current leadership which it considers corrupt
and undemocratic.

Aylentrank has also formed a bloc called Impeachment to contest the
May 12 parliamentary elections. Ghalamkarian’s name is 15th on the
list of its election candidates.

Ghalamkarian told RFE/RL that he effectively lost his job on May 7,
two weeks after the first Aylentrank rally in Yerevan. He said UN
officials informed him that he has been put on leave of absence until
April 30, the expiry date of his current employment contract.

"It was decided that I must go on leave and after that will not have
my contract renewed," he said. "As a justification, they cited my
activities in Aylentrank. They said I breached some UN rules which
I think are somewhat ambiguous and can be interpreted in a different
way."

According to those rules, posted on a special election monitoring
website of the Armenian branch of Transparency International, U.N.
employees "shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting
their status as international civil servants and shall not engage in
any activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their
duties." They can join a political party only if "membership does not
entail action, or an obligation to take action, by the staff member
contrary to staff regulation."

Ghalamkarian insisted that his UN superiors had never warned him
of consequences of his involvement with Aylentrank beforehand. "I
asked them to show me the limits of what I am allowed to do so that
I either don’t overstep them and remain a UN employee or consciously
resign from the UN," he said. "But I was not given such a choice."

In Ghalamkarian’s words, such a choice was given to two other local
UN staffers who were initially included on the electoral list of a
newly formed party which, unlike Aylentrank, is not in opposition
to President Robert Kocharian. He said they kept their jobs after
dropping out of the race.

The head of the UN representation in Armenia, Consuelo Vidal, and other
senior officials there could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.

WORLD BANK URGES ‘SECOND GENERATION REFORMS’ IN ARMENIA
By Shakeh Avoyan

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
March 20 2007

In order to sustain its robust economic growth, Armenia needs to
embark on "second generation reforms" that would result in better
governance, fair competition and more developed financial services,
a senior economist from the World Bank said on Tuesday.

Presenting a World Bank study that refers to the Armenian economy as
the "Caucasian Tiger," Saumya Mitra lavished praise on the country’s
"strong" reform record and macroeconomic performance of the past
decade. He said Armenia has qualified for the title after several
consecutive years of double-digit growth which, according to official
figures, has considerably reduced poverty.

"What is impressive about the Armenian tiger is that the growth is
not based on oil or any one resource. It has been a fairly balanced
growth," Mitra told reporters in Yerevan.

But citing the study’s findings, Mitra cautioned that continued growth
requires deeper structural and institutional reforms.

"Successful economies require conditions where any entrepreneur can
enter a market and leave a market," he said. "Here there are some
formal and informal barriers — some put up by oligarchs, some put
up by political and economic interests — that prevent level and
fair competition."

"The [state] competition commission is weak and not able to enforce
adequate competition rules," he added.

That some areas of economic activity in Armenia are effectively
monopolized by wealthy businessmen close to the government is a widely
recognized fact. That is particularly true for lucrative imports of
fuel, wheat, sugar and other commodities.

Mitra made no mention of the commodity imports, pointed instead to
an equally serious lack of competition in civil aviation. He said the
Armenian government has failed to liberalize it and is keeping prices
of air transport artificially high in order to benefit the Armavia
national airline. "Not many people realize that aviation services
are actually quite expensive in Armenia, both for passengers and
cargo freight," he said. "This is the result of special privileges for
Armavia … for which the consumers of Armenia pay but the shareholders
of Armenia benefit."

The World Bank study blames the de facto aviation monopoly for the
fact that freight shipped by air to and from the landlocked country,
blockaded by two of its neighbors, fell by more than two thirds
between 1997 and 2003. Armavia is owned by Mikhail Baghdasarov,
an ethnic Armenian citizen of Russia who is thought to be close to
Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian.

Among other obstacles to Armenia’s sustainable development identified
by the study are the high cost and poor quality of telecommunication
as well as underdeveloped financial services such as bank lending and
insurance. World Bank economists also pointed to serious problems
with rule of law and widespread corruption in the Armenian tax and
customs agencies.

TURKS, AZERIS AND GEORGIANS CEMENTING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 21 2007

Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya has reported that the Turkish,
Azerbaijani and Georgian relationship has transformed into "a strategic
partnership of perspective" and noted that Armenia has been left out
of this axis due to issues with the region of Nagorno-Karabakh —
hotly disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia — and unfavorable
diplomatic relations.

In an opinion column published yesterday it was reported that despite
pessimistic forecasts "new integration initiatives" are becoming
effective, referring to the business alliance of Turkey, Azerbaijan
and Georgia, adding, "This integration has started to advance since
the mid-1990s because of the incredible petroleum and natural gas
reserves in the region of the Caspian Sea."

The article went on to say that Azerbaijan’s capital of Baku is a
"new and determined player" in the field of energy and that Russia,
along with many other countries, viewed the Baku-Supsa petroleum line,
which transports Azeri petroleum to the Black Sea, as a political
project rather than a financial initiative. "Despite all eyes being
on Azerbaijan, the oil pipeline was established and big companies
decided on the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) oil
pipeline, as well as a Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum natural gas pipeline,"
the columnist wrote.

Turkey took advantage of resources Russia ignored. Following
the realization of the BTC project, the joint decision of
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to construct a Baku-Tbilisi-Javakheti
(Ahýlkelek)-Kars railway is indicative of a regional axis, according
to the article in the Russian newspaper. The article goes on to
say that Russia has chosen to remain outside of the axis due to a
difference political opinions and maintains that a BTC project will
not be lucrative while exerting efforts to prevent the realization
of this project.

The article notes that "Turkey, like any county that has economic
strength, took advantage of the opportunity [to partake in such
a project]." The article praised Turkey for being helpful in
resolving a problem between Azerbaijan and Georgia in the early 1990s
surrounding food items, adding: "Of our course Turkey benefited from
its involvement as well. Unfortunately, Armenia, the third country
of the Southern Caucus region, is becoming exceedingly excluded from
the strengthening axis of integration between these nations because
of its lack of diplomatic relations with Turkey and the lack of a
resolution in the matter of [Nagorno-] Karabakh.

However, if Armenia’s relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan were to
improve, the integration could gain speed. Moreover, Armenia’s Minister
of Foreign Affairs Vardan Oskanyan has stated that Yerevan — Armenia’s
capital — must work towards involvement in such projects. Armenia,
which is under blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey and can only establish
relations with the rest of the world through Georgia, must know that
it is important for it to become involved in regional integration
initiatives, the article noted.

–Boundary_(ID_Tj7AZMIO712zH7n8oOoTWw)–