Month: April 2007

HUMAN RIGHTS, THEN SECURITY
By Petra Hendrickson

Indiana Statesman, IN
April 9 2007

Last week, there was a discussion of human rights in one of my classes.

My class generally agreed that although human rights should feature
prominently in foreign policy discussions, matters of national security
generally preclude that from actually happening.

However, I’m not entirely convinced that human rights and national
security have to be mutually exclusive discussions.

First, it should be noted that there are two different conventions on
human rights. One is on civil and political rights, the other covers
cultural, social and economic rights. The U.S. is keen on the former,
not so much on the latter.

Discussions of which human rights should be emphasized, and whether
certain human rights have a Western bent or not will always be
legitimate and should be encouraged. But discussion should not
necessarily get in the way of action.

For instance, many countries accuse the U.S. of trying to foist our
conception of human rights onto other countries (i.e., mostly civil
and political, but not really social, cultural or economic).

According to one of my reading assignments for the aforementioned
class, even those countries who accuse the West of cultural imperialism
acknowledge that certain human rights truly are "universal."

Genocide happens to be among these. Pretty much everyone is in
agreement that genocide is reprehensible.

Granted, genocide has some definitional issues that have yet to be
resolved. The Armenians in Turkey in the early 1900s are an example.

The West generally calls what happened there a genocide.

Turkey, on the other hand, admits it expelled hundreds of thousands
of Armenians, killed similarly large numbers, and for no other reason
than they were Armenian. But Turkey refuses to call it genocide.

And I’m not sure the U.S. has a lot of moral high ground on this,
since pretty much the same thing happened to Native Americans during
the early 1800s.

Why, then, can I argue that human rights and security are not mutually
exclusive?

Take the area of land that was once Palestine. It’s generally
considered to be Israel today. But the Palestinians have been denied
their right to self-determination, which would almost certainly result
in Israel losing its claim to sovereignty over the area.

Consider for a moment the people there who have lost hope to the
point that becoming a suicide bomber seems like a good idea.

Their hope has been stripped away by decades of statelessness, by
being treated as something less than human. Some kind of nod to human
rights by Israel would probably provide some kind of hope again.

And with hope for the Palestinians, Israel would almost certainly
find itself more secure.

Petra Hendrickson is a junior majoring in political science. She can
be reached at [email protected]

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

POLL WARNS US OVER ARMENIAN RESOLUTION

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
April 9 2007

An overwhelming majority of Turks oppose two different resolutions
on Armenian claims of genocide currently pending in the US Senate
and House of Representatives, and a massive portion of Turkish
society believes relations with Armenia and the United States will
be negatively affected if Congress passes the resolutions, a survey
of opinion conducted by a US-based group has shown.

The poll, recently conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow, revealed that
Turks felt so powerfully about this issue that should a resolution
pass, 83 percent would oppose Turkey assisting the United States
in Iraq. Almost four-fifths of Turks favor strong action by the
Turkish government if a resolution is passed, including suspension
of diplomatic relations.

Two similar resolutions, both urging the US administration to
recognize an alleged genocide of Armenians, have been presented to
both the House of Representatives and the Senate and they are now
awaiting a vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a strong supporter of
the resolution and, contrary to the past, when interventions from the
US administration stopped passage of similar resolutions, analysts
say chances are high that the resolutions will this time be passed.

Turkey has warned that passage of any such resolution would seriously
harm relations with Washington, calling the move "poisonous." Ankara
categorically denies Armenian allegations of genocide at the hands of
the late Ottoman Empire and says there were killings on both sides
when Anatolian Armenians took up arms against the Ottoman Empire in
collaboration with the invading Russian army in hope of claiming some
part of eastern Anatolia for an independent Armenian state.

Terror Free Tomorrow, whose advisory board is led by Republican Senator
John McCain and former 9/11 Commission chairs Thomas Kean and Lee
Hamilton, acknowledges that the alleged genocide took place. "The
genocide of innocent Armenian civilians in the waning days of the
Ottoman Empire must be universally acknowledged – even if condemning
the mass killings as genocide provokes ire of most Turks," wrote
Kenneth Ballen, president of Terror Free Tomorrow, in an editorial
for the study. "That fact must never be the issue."

He says, however, that passing a resolution on the issue would harden
public attitudes in Turkey, as Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink,
assassinated by a teenage gunman in January in Ýstanbul, had said.

Analysts say given the widespread sympathy among the US congressmen
toward the Armenian allegations, the only way to prevent the passage
of a "genocide" resolution is to convince the congressmen on the
devastating impacts it would deliver in US-Turkish relations.The Terror
Free Tomorrow survey, conducted in 15 provinces in Turkey between
January 27, 2007 and February 8, 2007 with a total of 1,021 interviews,
showed that some 78 percent of Turks oppose the resolution by the US
Congress on the alleged genocide. The most important reason why Turks
oppose such a resolution is they do not consider the US Congress
to be a neutral judge of this historical issue (42 percent). Some
36 percent say an Armenian genocide never happened and another 18
percent say the issue should be resolved by historians.

Asked why the US Congress would approve a resolution on the alleged
genocide, 42 percent of the respondents cited anti-Muslim feelings
in the US and some 31 percent said it was due to domestic politics
in the United States. Another 12 percent said the "Armenian genocide"
was a proven historical fact, according to the poll.

If the US Congress approves a "genocide" resolution, 83 percent said
they would oppose or strongly oppose Turkey assisting the United
States in Iraq; 73 percent said it would worsen their opinion of the
United States; 78 percent said they would boycott American products,
vote for candidates that oppose the United States or demonstrate.

Only 11 percent said they would take no action.

Asked what measures the Turkish government should take in case the
Congress passes the resolution, 24 percent said it should issue an
official protest to the US and 29.9 percent said it should suspend
diplomatic ties with Washington. Only 6.7 percent said the government
should take no action.

On relations with Armenia, 73 percent said they think the passage of
the resolution would worsen relations between Turkey and Armenia. 84
percent of those who now have a very favorable opinion of the US
would change their opinion for the worse.

The survey also found that although most Turks are opposed to a
Congress resolution on the issue, three-quarters of all Turks would
accept scholarly study on what happened in that period of history.

–Boundary_(ID_2B88grUOlWL5a8kGWVC24w)–

IRAN’S NATIONAL HERITAGE "ST. THADDEUS CHURCH" FILE ACCEPTED BY UNESCO

Persian Journal, Iran
April 9 2007

The dossier of the Church of Saint Thaddeus, locally known as Qara
Kelisa in the Iranian northwestern province of West Azarbaijan,
which was prepared by experts of Iran’s Cultural Heritage and Tourism
Organization (ICHTO) in an attempt to inscribe this ancient monument
in UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites in 2008 has been accepted
by experts of UNESCO in the initial phase.

Qara Kelisa had previously been put up by Iran for UNESCO world
registration in 2007, however due to lack of substantial documents
including those pertaining to the value of the building and maps of
its precincts, the Organization turned down the application.

Announcing this news, Mohammad Hassan Khademzadeh, head of research
centers of Iran’s Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization in
all Iranian provinces told CHN that the representatives of the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) will pay a visit
to this historic church to study its situation in two weeks and then
a team of UNESCO’s experts will come to Iran within a few months in
order to see the condition of Qara Kelisa and the other historical
churches in the province such as St. Stepanous Cathedral in Khoy and
Zoorzoor Church in Chaldoran as annexes to St. Thaddeus Cathedral
for being registered in list of UNESCO’s world heritage sites.

Khademzadeh believes that Iran has made a lot of effort to prepare
all required conditions for St. Thaddeus world registrations and
expressed hope that if nothing extraordinary happens, this ancient
church to be registered as the 9th Iranian historical site in list
of UNESCO’s World Heritage sites.

The Thaddeus Church, locally known as Qara Kelisa or the Black
Church is considered one of the oldest churches in the world, whose
construction began 1700 years ago. Historians believe that the Church
is the tomb of Thaddeus who is said to have been one of Christ’s
disciples who traveled to Armenia, then part of the Persian Empire,
for preaching the teachings of Christ.

Today the church is known as Qara Kelisa and belongs to the Armenian
community of Iran. It has an international reputation and hosts
annual meetings of world Armenians each year in July-August. Enjoying
special features such as antiquity, its unique architectural style,
as well as its religious importance among the world Armenians and the
rituals which are held annually in this church has made Qara Kelisa
worthy for being inscribed in list of UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites.

BOLTON TOAST TEYMOURIAN
By Oliver Brown

The Telegraph, UK
April 9 2007

Wigan (1) 1 Bolton (1) 3

The road from Teheran to Wigan pier might sound like a journey of
Orwellian bleakness, but for Andranik Teymourian it is one with a happy
resolution. After an inglorious week for Anglo-Iranian relations,
this unheralded midfielder proved the wisdom of Bolton’s ‘league
of nations’ philosophy with two goals that edged the club closer to
Europe, while dispatching Wigan deeper into the wilderness.

Often, when watching Bolton’s exotic assembly of talents, one cannot
help but ask, "Where on earth did he come from?" In the case of
Teymourian – a 24-year-old of Armenian extraction plucked from the
Abu Moslem club in Mashad – it is a question with a colourful answer,
reflecting the full reach of the scouting network pioneered by manager
Sam Allardyce. Such an approach is either inspired or mad but, seeing
how the club’s latest import tipped the balance at the JJB Stadium,
few would dare doubt it.

Rewind to last summer’s World Cup. Bolton receive a call, saying there
is a young man in Iran’s national team desperate to try his luck in
England. The name’s Teymourian, the agent says, and he will cost half
a million dollars. The deal is done and the rest, in Wigan’s case at
least, is history.

"You wouldn’t expect too many Iranians to play in the Premiership –
finding one was about being in the right place at the right time,
and acting on limited knowledge," Allardyce said. "I don’t think we
realise how big the Premiership is, but when players like him come and
tell you how much it’s watched in Iran, Kuwait, Dubai, you realise
that their love for it is such, that if they get the opportunity to
come here they can’t wait to grasp it."

On the surface, this defence of Teymourian’s motives undercuts
claims that English football is suffering at the hands of foreign
opportunists. But it does not tell the full story, for Bolton,
whose latest win has taken them to within two points of Arsenal, are
grappling with a dichotomy, wanting to broaden the pool of British
talent but lacking the political back-up to do so.

"I would much prefer to bring 10 homegrown players through, because we
have to look after our own," said Allardyce. "It’s a responsibility for
British managers to try to do that, to create our own champions. But
we need help from all aspects of government."

In this vacuum, the responsibility has fallen to Teymourian to help
sustain Bolton’s progress, and in the second half against Wigan he
delivered, adding to Nicolas Anelka’s strike with a calm finish from
El-Hadji Diouf’s exquisite cross, then scoring with an instinctive
near-post header five minutes later. "I’m loving it in England," he
said. "I have settled in well, although football in England is very,
very different to Iran."

Three thousand miles away, his first Premiership goals were doubtless
being toasted in Teheran. But just nine miles away, in Wigan, they were
being cursed. A second straight defeat, after Emile Heskey had steered
in the first goal, has left the club on the ragged edge of relegation.

While manager Paul Jewell acknowledged his side were in a "dog-fight",
stand-in captain Matt Jackson, who successfully battled relegation
with Everton, sought to impart a more positive message.

"We have to make sure we fight through it," he said. "The one thing we
cannot afford to do is panic – that would be the worst thing possible."

~U Man of the match: Andranik Teymourian (Bolton).

Match details

Wigan Athletic (4-4-2): Filan; Taylor, Jackson, Hall, Baines;
Valencia, Scharner, Skoko (Cotterill 74), McCulloch; Heskey, Folan
(Camara 63). Subs: Nash (g), Kilbane, Unsworth. Goals: Heskey 32
Bolton Wanderers (4-4-2): Jaaskelainen; Hunt, Meite, Faye, Ben Haim
(Gardner 35); Teymourian, Thompson (Tal 74), Speed, Davies; Anelka
(Giannakopoulos 88), Diouf. Subs: Al Habsi (g), Pedersen. Goals:
Anelka 44, Teymourian 68, 73. Booked: Thompson, Davies, Jaaskelainen.
Referee: U Rennie (S Yorkshire).

GOING TRIBAL DURING ELECTIONS
By Patrick Azadian

Glendale News Press, CA
April 9 2007

I had promised myself to take a break from writing about the elections
after April 3.

And once again, I am breaking a promise to myself.

But one more week and I’ll be back at my drab "Can’t we (all) just get
along?" routine. Besides, based on the election results, it doesn’t
really seem we are all getting along anyway.

Why the bleak forecast?

I am basing my opinion on the most prominent features of the recent
Glendale municipal elections.

The first feature has to do with the lack of support for candidates
with vision and potential for broad support. With the exception of John
Drayman in the City Council race, Mary Boger in the Glendale Unified
School District race and Tony Tartaglia in the Glendale Community
College board race, all other candidates with a solid background and
universal appeal registered below-par results.

Track record, the potential to build bridges, solid goals and the
willingness to run a campaign did not seem to count for much during
these elections – and neither did the late hours spent at their
campaign headquarters by some candidates.

Take Elizabeth Manasserian, for example; she came in with 14.1%
of the votes (pre-provisional). She trailed Todd Hunt by 7.3%.

Nayiri Nahabedian, the pre-provisional winner of one of the seats,
came in at 21.5%, a slim 0.1% advantage to Hunt.

A quick look at Hunt’s candidate statement reveals his main credentials
for the position. The first is: "I was born and raised in Glendale
and have lived here for over 40 years." And the second has to do with
his desire to provide all kids in this district the best education
possible. That sounds simple and genuine.

Yet, an unbiased evaluation of his credentials and campaign efforts
compared to Manasserian’s and Nahabedian’s should conclude that the
latter two were both better qualified for the position than Hunt.

Despite their "quirky" last names, Manasserian and Nahabedian deserved
better.

Then there was Rafi Manoukian. Although some may claim that Manoukian
was a victim of anti-incumbent feelings, and there was a fresh wind
of change sweeping Glendale, the re-election of Dave Weaver puts the
validity of those slogans to rest.

Eric Hacopian, a veteran political consultant who worked on Manoukian
campaign, has said that Weaver "got lucky and he got the right last
name." Whether Hacopian’s assessment is correct, what hurt Manoukian
most was the split in votes within the Armenian-American community.

The Armenian community cannot blame the divide-and-conquer phenomenon
on any source but itself. If indeed Manoukian was the candidate who
understood the needs of this particular community best, it was the
community’s naivete that was instrumental in his defeat.

This brings us to the next feature of these elections: Chahe
Keuroghelian. At 11.8% of the votes, Keuroghelian showed strong
promise. His campaign resonated well in south Glendale and registered
a 38.6% of the votes at the Church of Perfect Liberty polling station,
south of Colorado Street. With his efforts directed almost entirely
to the Armenian-American residents, it is not difficult to see that
it’s unlikely to win elections purely on ethnic votes.

Furthermore, with the exception of Manoukian (20% of the votes at the
same polling location), Keuroghelian was one of the few candidates
who reached out to the south.

Maybe council members and future candidates can do the same. For
someone with Drayman’s vision, this should be natural. I won’t be
surprised if he quickly reaches out to all segments of our city.

Based on his own statements about having support from across the
spectrum, however, Weaver does not seem to have much work to do in this
department. Voting along the ethnic and socio-economic lines was not
a surprise. What was a surprise was the degree in which candidates’
qualifications were not questioned as long some had the right look and
the right last names. Rewarding candidates who were not as committed
to their own campaigns with our votes did not set a good precedent.

And sadly, that sounds like a case of reverse affirmative action.

Did we all put a little too much emphasis on our tribal instincts? I
think so. But, then again, I could be wrong. Besides, the truth is
not an absolute, but what the majority agrees on.

TOP COURT BACKS DECISION TO INVESTIGATE KURDISH INVITATION

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
April 9 2007

The First Chamber of the Council of State has rejected an appeal from
Diyarbakýr Mayor Osman Baydemir to overrule permission from Interior
Minister Abdulkadir Aksu to launch an investigation into invitations
that used Kurdish expressions to invite officials to an arts and
culture festival in Diyarbakýr.

An invitation Baydemir sent to Diyarbakýr Chief Public Prosecutor
Huseyin Canan for the opening reception of the sixth Diyarbakýr Culture
and Arts Festival included Turkish and Kurdish letters, a violation of
the law on the Turkish alphabet according to prosecutors. Interior
Minister Aksu had given the green light for an investigation on
Nov. 28, 2006. Baydemir had objected to the minister’s permission
and appealed to the court to overrule the decision to allow an
investigation. In his application for an appeal, Baydemir had
argued that in addition to the sentences in Turkish and Kurdish, the
invitation also included phrases in English and Armenian and asserted
that Kurdish had the same status as a foreign language as English and
Armenian. Baydemir put forward that under international conventions,
the Constitution, the law on municipalities and other provisions
of Turkish legislation the usage of Kurdish expressions next to
Turkish was legally appropriate. The First Chamber of the Council
of State sent the file to the Diyarbakýr Chief Public Prosecutor’s
Office after it rejected Baydemir’s appeal to nullify the interior
minister’s permission to start an investigation.

–Boundary_(ID_VvHbfn+6do8+MN+0Oeh 0kg)–

UNITED STATES POSITIONS ITSELF BEFORE ELECTIONS
by Alexander Gabuyev
Translated by Elena Leonova

Source: Kommersant, April 7, 2007, pp. 1, 4
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part B (Russia)
April 9, 2007 Monday

US State Department starts its preparations for elections in Russia

US State Department looks at the democracy situation in Russia;
The United States has started making active preparations for the
upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. The US
State Department has released a report entitled "Supporting Human
Rights and Democracy: The US Record 2006," which devotes substantial
attention to Russia and the CIS.

The United States has started making active preparations for the
upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. The US
State Department has released a report entitled "Supporting Human
Rights and Democracy: The US Record 2006," which devotes substantial
attention to Russia and the CIS. The United States spent $1.2 billion
on supporting democracy worldwide last year. The 262-page report
permits us to draw the conclusion that a substantial part of that
money went into democratization in Russia and the CIS.

The report’s attitude to the democracy situation in Russia is made
clear from the very first page of its "Europe and Eurasia" section.

The cover photo is from an Anna Politkovskaya memorial rally in central
Moscow, with the brief caption: "Russian rights activists commemorate
victims of political repression." The first page features a single
quote, on a blood-red background: "How could I live with myself if
I didn’t write the truth?" And the signature: "Anna Politkovskaya,
murdered Russian journalist."

This whole section is almost entirely devoted to former Soviet
countries (Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova,
Ukraine). There are only a few paragraphs about the former Yugoslavia
(Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo), and a brief mention of Turkey.

The report starts by listing the main achievements of democracy in
these countries during 2006 (primarily the March 2006 election in
Ukraine). Then there’s a list of democracy’s main defeats – and the
greatest of these, in the US State Department’s view, are the "erosion
of civil society in Russia and Belarus," and "a new and restrictive
NGO law," and "physical attacks on journalists." The report goes on
to describe how the United States is working to counter this. It
emphasizes the "administration of fairly-contested elections," as
these are "a barometer of a country’s democratic health."

According to the report, the United States actively facilitated
democratic processes in the former Soviet Union last year. It mentions
"supporting political parties in Belarus" and "monitoring elections
in Ukraine."

But the US State Department doesn’t confine itself to listing last
year’s achievements on the battlefront for democracy; it also sets
some goals for the future. The most important of these are as follows:
"support of free and fair elections in Russia for the Duma in December
2007 and for president in March 2008," and transparent elections in
Armenia. The US State Department regards the OSCE and the European
Union as its key partners in this.

The report notes that active efforts in this area were underway
throughout 2006. In Russia, the United States organized "training
for political parties and training for mass media representatives on
covering political issues," as well as voter awareness measures.

What’s more, Washington’s preparations for the Russian elections
clearly aren’t restricted to working with opposition parties. Last
year, the United States provided grants to "civil society groups, NGO
resource centers, advocacy and watchdog groups, policy think tanks,
business associations, and labor unions."

In addition to providing financial aid, Washington also involved its
diplomatic representatives in Russia. As the report notes, senior US
officials are meeting with Russian opposition movements and NGOs. The
report maintains that the major achievement in this area was the
meeting between US Administration officials and leaders of the Other
Russia movement in July 2006.

The US State Department’s latest report is an extension of the report
it released in March: "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for
2006." That report also allocated one of the central places to Russia
and the rest of the former Soviet Union.

Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Federation Council’s international
affairs committee, says it’s hardly surpising that the United States is
showing increased interest in Russian democracy issues. Margelov told
us: "As the American elections approach, the Republicans are trying
to prove to the Democrats that although the Bush Administration has
expanded cooperation with President Putin, it hasn’t forgotten about
the problems in Russia. Both the Republicans and the Democrats share
a messianic idea: everyone must be democratized. Thus, the only point
they can agree on is criticism of Russia."

All the same, the latest report doesn’t confine itself to criticizing
Russia and the CIS. In the March report, the US State Department was
mostly concerned with analyzing and evaluating the democracy situation
in Russia. The new report essentially outlines the key directions of
US efforts to democratize the former Soviet Union. The emphasis is
on preparations for democratic elections – especially in Russia and
those CIS countries which are Moscow’s closest allies.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIAN PRIZE LITERARY CONTEST WINNERS NAMED IN MOSCOW

ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russia
April 9, 2007 Monday 07:43 AM EST

The winners of the "Russian Prize" literary contest will be awarded
prizes at the "Hermitage" theatre here on Monday. They are being
annually adjudged to writers of the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) and the Baltic countries, who write their books in Russian.

The main purpose of the contest is to help safeguard the Russian
language as a unique cultural heritage of the republics of the former
Soviet Union.

Nine authors had qualified for the finals: prose writer Turusbek
Madylbayev and Talip Ibraimov of Kyrgyzstan, Vilen Malvelian of
Armenia, Vladimir Lorchenkov of Moldova, Oleg Slepynin and Marat
Nemeshev of Ukraine, and also poets Shamshad Abdullayev of Uzbekistan,
Anastasia Afanasieva and Dmitry Lazutkin of Ukraine.

The prizes are awarded in the "Big Prose", "Minor Prose" and "Poetry"
nominations. Each winner will get eighty thousand roubles.

Approximately four hundred authors from sixteen post-Soviet countries,
including South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and the self-proclaimed Dniester
Republic took part in the contest.

The jury of the contest, chaired by writer Chingiz Aitmatov, was
made up of eminent writers, poets and literary critics of Russia
and the CIS. They included Alexander Voznesensky, Boris Kuzminsky,
and Yevgeny Abdullayev.

The non-commercial "Institute of Eurasian Studies" and the "Caucasian
Institute of Democracy" had initiated the "Russian Prize" contest in
2006. Itar-Tass is its general information partner.

RUSSIA’S IVANOV TO VISIT ARMENIA

ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russia
April 9, 2007 Monday

Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov will visit Armenia.

He arrives in Yerevan for a two-day working visit on Wednesday.

"We plan discussing matters of investment cooperation, nuclear energy,
the implementation of gas and energy accords with President Robert
Kocharian and Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian. We shall make a special
accent on the transport infrastructure, in particular the Caucasus-Poti
ferry service," Ivanov said at the government’s meeting in the Kremlin
on Monday.

He said that a new ferry was recently bought that would be put in
service soon.

"At last we shall establish a regular and extensive transport
connection with Armenia," Ivanov said.

"We also plan discussing questions of military technical cooperation,"
he added.

The visit programme includes Ivanov’s visit to a school in which
children of Russian military servicemen study, an official of the
Russian embassy in Armenia told ITAR-TASS.

SERGEI IVANOV TO LEAVE FOR ARMENIA WEDNESDAY

ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russia
April 9, 2007 Monday

First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov is leaving for Armenia
for a working visit. "We shall discuss with Armenian President
Robert Kocharian and Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian some problems of
investment cooperation, nuclear power engineering and the fulfilment
of agreements in the sphere of gas deliveries," Ivanov said at a
meeting in the Kremlin on Monday. "We shall pay special attention
to the transport infrastructure, specifically, the Caucasus-Poti
ferry communication."

According to his information, a new ferry was purchased recently,
which would be put in operation soon. "So, we shall at last set
up regular full-scale transport communication with Armenia," he
stressed. "Besides, we are going to discuss some aspects of military
and military-technical cooperation."

Ivanov arrives in Yerevan for a two-day working visit on Wednesday,
Itar-Tass correspondent Tigran Liloyan reports from Yerevan. A
programme of the trip includes a visit to the school belonging to the
Russian Defence Ministry, where children of Russian servicemen study,
a representative of the Russian embassy in Armenia said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reporting the results of
his visit to Yerevan last week, said that the Armenian authorities
had welcomed Russia’s decision to take part in the monitoring of
parliamentary elections in Armenia.

Lavrov said he had had a meeting with President Robert Kocharian.

"He is very much pleased with the way the agreements, reached early
this year are being fulfilled, including those dealing with trade and
economic cooperation, as well as with the directions of political
cooperation, specifically within the framework of CIS and of the
Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO)," Lavrov said.

According to Lavrov, he coordinated with Armenian officials during
the visit preparations for a meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign
Ministers, due to be held in Astana this month.