Ilarionov – Russia Prepared War with Georgia, Was Started by Russia

Georgiandaily, NY

Andrei Ilarionov ` Russia Prepared War with Georgia and It Was Started
by Russia
October 04, 2008

Former advisor of Vladimir Putin in economic issues Andrei Ilarionov
has opposed his former chief for two years already and openly
criticizes the Kremlin policy. Ilarionov showed his protest at the
very beginning of Russian aggression perpetrated on Georgia. He
introduced his opinions about Georgian-Russian war reasons to Katon
Institute Summer School listeners in Ukraine on September 4. His
viewpoints appeared to be interesting and we decided to present brief
variant of his opinions expressed in summer school.

A.I.: The most important thing is to find out the reason of starting
war in Georgia. This was larger scale war, where all kinds of sub
divisions took their part. In spite of the ceasefire agreement, war
continues on Georgian territories.

If the Kremlin aimed at protecting the people who wanted existence
independently, it had to recognize Chechnya. Chechen people have been
fighting for independent for 10 years and it has not stopped fight for
independence for 200 years. Moscow used tanks, hails, aviation,
artillery and chemical weapon against Chechnya. Chechen warriors were
killed exactly by chemical weapons.

Comparison of amount of damage in Chechnya and Tskhinvali is
impossible. 134 people died in war activities in South Ossetia. 80% of
them were fighters, the rest were peaceful civilians. It is obvious
that death of each person is tragedy, but we can not compare these
numbers to those dead in Chechnya. 200 thousand people died in
Chechnya from both sides.

Russian government has not recognized independence of Chechnya and
Kosovo. It has not recognized them even after Abkhazian and South
Ossetian recognition. It is obvious that Russian government has double
standard policy.

When Russia states that it acted in South Ossetia to protect its
citizens is at least unbelievable. 90% of South Ossetian population is
Russian citizens, but about 48 thousand Ossetian nationalities and 20
thousand Georgians lived in South Ossetia. Up to 10 thousand of
Ossetian citizens supported Georgian oriented Ossetian administration,
headed by Dmitri Sanakoev.

Sanakoev was one of the leaders of separatist movement in 90-ies
opposing Kokoity. He created administration where there were Ossetian
and Georgian villages.

Russia has to take more interest in Russian citizens living in
Turkmenistan, whose rights has been violated since period of Turkmen
bash’s government.

Announcements made by Russian government about its actions aiming to
protecting Russian citizens are hypocrisy that was used as reason of
starting war activities.

First number stated regarding ethnical cleansing was 1400, then it was
1600 and later 3000. The first announcement about genocide was made on
August 8, at 5 o’clock by Kokoity who was in Java, who was not in
Tskhinvali and who left the capital as soon as the war activities
started. Russian official propaganda stated that victims of genocide
were 1600. Russia continues the same today, in spite of the fact that
Putin who visited Vladikavkaz stated that there were several tens of
dead people. Special group of Russian office of general prosecutor
found out after one month work that 134 citizens were dead, 80% of
them were warriors, and others were peaceful citizens. According to
international law, genocide was proved only in three cases. Genocide
of Armenians, Genocide of Jews and genocide in Rwanda carried out in
1994. Genocide is discussed in Sudan, where more than half million
people died. Genocide was not discussed in other cases and it is
qualified as ethnical cleansing.

Even in case of Kosovo it is not said that it was genocide, in spite
of the fact that 30 thousand Albanians were killed and one million
left the territory of the state.

Destroying each other by Georgians and Abkhazians is considered to be
ethnical cleansing. 3 000 Abkhazians and 17 000 Georgians were killed
in 1992-93 war activities. After collapse of Soviet Union, Abkhazians
made up 17% of Abkhazian population, Georgians ` 52%. 250 thousand
Georgians left Abkhazian territory as a result to Abkhazian
events. Georgians now live only in Gali region of Abkhazia.

None of official versions of Georgian-Russian wars are close to truth.

I think that reasons of starting war between Russia and Georgia are
processes developed in Georgia in the last 4 years. A lot of reforms
were carried out in Georgia ` in economics among them. Georgia
developed as modern, European, democratic state. Responsible
government was formed in Georgia that is responsible for the
population. Work of state institutions became transparent.

I can not name state in the world that has developed in the shortest
period of time with so many reforms and in different fields so
successfully. Liberalization of Georgian economics made it possible
for the state to grow rapidly. Georgia imported electro energy to
Russia before August events. Nobody would believe 3-5 years ago that
Georgia, having energetic problems would import energy. Economic
wonder took place in Georgia.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Stalin enclaves economically,
especially South Ossetia. Population in South Ossetia has not been
working for the last 4 years and living on subsidies of Russian budget
that increases annually. Subsidies for South Ossetia made up 700
million USA dollars last year. If we divide this amount of money into
40 thousand residents of South Ossetia, we receive picture that Moscow
never financed any of its regions like South Ossetia. Moscow
practically decayed the local population by financing them; they have
become unused to working. Russian journalists, who visited Tskhinvali
together with Russian tanks, told how none of the masters were found
to fix the water pipeline problems. On the question why the local
population didn’t fix the pipeline, they responded: – do it
yourself. According to Putin’s command, additional 10 milliard Russian
Rubles were allocated for South Ossetia.

Big military base is being built in Java now. Russian tanks were
withdrawn to Java before August events. Russian military technique
supply has been gathered in South Ossetia for 4 years. Russian
propaganda used to say that Georgia was the most militarized state in
Caucasus. Let’s compare the numbers and we’ll perceive that this was
not so. South Ossetia, where there lived 40 thousand people, had 87
artillery equipments. Georgian military budget increased in 30 times
in the last 4 years: from 30 million USA dollars to almost 1
milliard. Georgia allocated 8% for military field in 2008. But budgets
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were much higher than it was needed and
what is the most important, Abkhazia and South Ossetia were provided
by weapons by Russia. Only 6 from 1000 people in Georgia were military
servants, 60 in Abkhazia and 65 in South Ossetia, this means that both
of these regions had ten times more unit compared to Georgia. Georgia
had 4,6 artillery equipments on 100 000 men, Abkhazia-35, South
Ossetia ` 190. Georgia had 5 units of armored carriers on 100 000 men,
Abkhazia-75, South Ossetia ` 391.

Russia deployed big amount of military technique in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia in May and July. More than 1500 armored technique, artillery
equipment, tanks and different kinds of technique were taken to
Abkhazia. We don’t have information of GDP in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia, but we can approximately say that Abkhazia spent 50% of its
budget on military equipments, South Ossetia spent ` 60%. It is
obvious that Russia provided them with weapons free of charge.

We can say that there were Russian military bases before start of
military activities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia on August 7. Aim of
Russian government was to change Saakashvili’s government in
Georgia. Nobody even hid it in Russian government. War against Georgia
was prepared 4 years ago. After Georgia had solved Ajarian problems
painlessly, Moscow started to think about changing
Saakashvili. Russian energetic company’s heads were called to the
Kremlin in 2005 and the government told them to make problems in
providing Georgia with electro energy. They were rejected by the heads
of the companies and they started to act themselves. All oil pipelines
and electro lines leading to Georgia were exploded. Russian government
stated that it was done by terrorists. It was found out later that
terrorists used the same explosive materials used by Russian special
units.

Georgian special units detained Russian spies and they were extradited
to Russian government without noise. In spite of this Russian special
units didn’t stop working in Georgia but on the contrary, their works
were reinforced. Georgian special services detained 4 Russian agents
in 2006 and it was noisy ceremony of extraditing them to
Russia. Russia started economic blockade against
Georgia. Transportation, wine, `Borjomi’, blockade followed
this. Russia strengthens Abkhazia and South Ossetia in military
field. Russian diplomats don’t hide that war had to be started before
September in Georgia. Russia rehabilitated Ochamchire and
Sokhumi-Ochamchire 54 kilometers railway. Russia deployed 50 echelons
of military technique to Abkhazia.

There was impression that war had to be started from
Abkhazia. Georgian villages were fired on August 1. If Ossetians used
to stop firing after respond from Georgian side, this didn’t happen
this time. Ossetian side continued to fire with artillery
equipments. Ossetian information department didn’t hide on August 6
that there were Russian units in South Ossetian territory.

Russian defense minister assistant Nikolai Panko and head of
reconnaissance service visited Tskhinvali on August 3. They had
meeting with Kokoity. Kokoity moves to Java after their departure and
evacuation of the population starts on August 3. Russia started war
activities on August 3. 58th army is already mobilized near Georgian
border for this time and 9000 soldiers, 700 units of armored technique
are sent from Russian regions. Russian frontiers occupied Roki tunnel
on August 6. Russian information sources informed from August 3 that
war had started in South Ossetia, this was when war activities didn’t
took place.

Georgian side tried to negotiate with Ossetian side on August
7. Georgian reincarnation minister Temur Iakobashvili visits
Tskhinvali who has to meet with Kokoity together with Russian special
tasks ambassador Popov. Popov says that he was not able to be on the
meeting due to problems of car tyre. He is offered to change the tyre,
but he says that the extra tyre is also damaged. Iakobashvili meets
with peaceful forces commander in Tskhinvali Marat Kulakhmetov, who
offers to Georgian side to cease fire. Iakobashvili tells the proposal
of the general to President Mikheil Saakashvili on phone at
18:30. Saakashvili makes televised announcement at 19:00 that Georgian
side is interested in peace. He demanded and practically bagged to
reach ceasefire. He declared ceasefire partially, but Ossetian side
started to bomb Georgian village Tamarasheni and then other villages
at 22:10.

Russian journalists in Tskhinvali said that there practically wasn’t
Ossetian population in Tskhinvali. According to official information,
34 thousand people were evacuated before starting war
activities. After emerge of Russian defense ministry tank colonies,
Georgian government concluded that war was started by Russian
politicians.

Fights to three direction start after this. Tskhinvali assault,
skirmishes near java and Roki direction. Both sides had big losses. It
must be stressed that tanks that entered from Roki tunnel reached
Tskhinvali only on August 10. Russian troops occupy Kodori Gorge in
Abkhazia at the same time. Russian ships are near Georgian
coasts. Russian defense ministry had sub divisions mobilized in Zemo
Larsi and Georgian-Armenian border.

It is obvious that the war is not over and it continues. Russian
government has not refused to overthrow Georgian government. Russia
doesn’t hide that Georgian pro-Western choice is unacceptable to it. I
think that everything starts from now on. Russian government acted
like scoundrels, when they attack weak ones. Russia of course wouldn’t
attack NATO member Baltic States. Kiev’s strive to the West is also
unacceptable to Russia. Moscow didn’t like when Kiev supported Tbilisi
in August events.

Permanent link:
NG&sec_id=50200&info_id=243556

http://interpressnews.ge/index.php?lang_id=E

Michael White: Should we extradite Holocaust deniers?

History News Network, WA

Roundup: Media’s Take

Posted on Saturday, October 4, 2008

Michael White: Should we extradite Holocaust deniers? Source:
Guardian (UK) (10-4-08)

[Michael White has been writing for the Guardian for over 30 years, as
a reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist.]

What should we do about Dr Fredrick Töben, detained at Heathrow
this week under a fast-track EU arrest warrant issued by the district
court in Mannheim?

Dr who? I know, it’s been a busy week, and I hadn’t heard of him
either until he popped up to be remanded in custody by Westminster
magistrates. By the time you read this he may be on a plane to Germany
– or home to Australia.

Töben is a 64-year-old German-born historian who runs something
called the Adelaide Institute. He denies frequent accusations that he
is a Holocaust denier, but judging by some of the things he says and
writes he makes a pretty good job of passing himself off as
one. Phrases like "Holocaust racketeers, the corpse peddlers and the
Shoah business merchants" characterise some of his scholarship.

In other words he believes that the six-million-dead German Holocaust
which took place during the 1933-45 Hitler regime, a well-documented
narrative accepted by most historians, did not occur, or did so on a
much smaller scale. If you challenge the Holocaust you must expect
persecution and abuse, he says.

Well, plenty of people, not all of them Jewish, have pursued him
during a teaching career on three continents ` from New Zealand to
Nigeria. In 1999 he served nine months in a German prison for
breaching the Holocaust law there that forbids the "defaming of the
dead" in this way. Needless to add, Töben attended the
Holocaust revisionist conference held in Tehran in 2006.

A nasty piece of work by the sound of it, and some nasty websites are
exercised on Töben’s behalf.

Why should we care? Two strands of the affair trouble me. One is the
restriction on free speech inherent in the laws that some countries `
not Britain ` have against Holocaust denial. We have broader laws
against racial incitement in general, which seems acceptable to me,
though not to those who believe that older public order laws would
have proved sufficient.

I can see why the Germans felt the need to enact such specific
legislation. After all, they did it, and have an obligation to
discharge the historic debt, something, incidentally, they have done
pretty well ` at least in the old West Germany ` over the years.

In other countries, several across Europe, such law smacks of
"exceptionalism", special pleading in a world where diverse historic
injustices abound. In Turkey you can get into trouble for saying there
was a holocaust against the Armenians in 1915. In Iran they call us
hypocrites for being selective in our championship of free speech.

The other problem I have with this is process. When the European
Arrest Warrant came into force in 2004 to help police fight cross
border crime – and post 9/11 terrorism – more effectively it abolished
the "dual criminality" principle.

That had meant that a suspect could not be extradited for an alleged
offence that was not an offence in the country where he/she had been
detained. When Britain joined the new procedure ministers assured
critics who feared Kafkaesque possibilities that no one would be
extradited for actions legal in Britain, let alone crimes they didn’t
know existed.

But here we have it: Töben taken off a plane at Heathrow and
quick to protest that he is the victim of a legal ambush, an abuse of
process in a country which has not – yet – succumbed to Germany’s
"witch-hunt mentality" in this matter. Food for thought there that
makes me uncomfortable.

I am also aware of German courts, in cases involving disputed custody
cases where one parent is German, behaving pretty badly towards the
claims of a non-German spouse. Catherine Meyer, wife of Chris Meyer,
former British ambassador to both Bonn and Washington, did not see her
"kidnapped’ children for years.

Holocaust denial is a lesser offence than involvement in war crimes
themselves. Britain has a different problem here in that, in the chaos
after 1945 when it was often hard to sort victim from persecutor, a
lot of bad people slipped into this country and led quiet, guilty
lives.

In 1991 Margaret Thatcher used the parliament acts to override the
House of Lords, which had thrown out her war crimes bill, passed by
the Commons. The average age of current MPs in 1939 was six, one peer
remarked during the debate: let it go. But some 300 suspects live on
in the UK, countered the bill’s supporters.

At the time I sympathised with the critics. It was all a long time
ago, witnesses and accused were old, far away or even dead, their
memories faulty at best. We should not forget, but it smacked of
retrospective legislation, pandering again.

Last time I looked there had not been a single successful
prosecution. Other more recent war crimes dominate the
headlines. Who’s right?

Posted on Saturday, October 4, 2008

Synod on the Word of God Meets in Rome

Catholic Online, CA

Synod on the Word of God Meets in Rome
10/4/2008

Asia News ()

The Synod Assembly opens as a sign of the Pauline Year and the
Church’s Committment to the centrality of the Word of God in the Life
of the Church.

VATICAN CITY (AsiaNews) ` The 12th General Assembly of the Synod of
Bishops opens this Sunday with a solemn Mass celebrated by Benedict
XVI. Dedicated to `The Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the
Church’, it brings together 253 bishops from the Churches of the
world. It will not include those from Communist China, Vatican Press
Office Head Fr Federico Lombardi said today at a press conference. `It
was clear that there would be no agreement [with Beijing] and they
[Chinese bishops] won’t come,’ he said `because the conditions weren’t
there.’

There will be however, as delegates directly appointed by Benedict
XVI, Card Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, archbishop of Hong Kong, Mgr José
Lai Hung-seng, archbishop of Macau as well as a Taiwanese bishop, Mgr
Peter Liu Cheng-chung. The bishops will take part in activities
scheduled to last until 26 October `to reflect’, said Archbishop
Nikola Eterovic, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, `on the
Word of God, on its central role in the life of the Church and on its
dynamism which encourages Christians in mission to announce in words
and deeds the Good News and the presence in our midst of the Risen
Lord Jesus.’ For the first time the Synod will open in the St. Paul’s
Outside-the-Walls Basilica, not in the Vatican, because of the ongoing
Pauline Year. and this will not be the only reference to the Apostle
to the Nations.

In the Synod Hall on 18 October, the Holy Father Benedict XVI and the
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I will preside at first Vespers. Each
will then pronounce an address on the subject of the Word of God, with
particular reference to the Pauline Year.This will be the first time
the Ecumenical Patriarch addresses the Synod Fathers. `He will bring
the greetings of Orthodox Churches that the Apostle to the Nations
founded before going to Rome where he suffered martyrdom,’ Archbishop
Eterovic said.

The Synod will be ecumenically important for fraternal delegates from
ten Churches and ecclesial communities will attend.

Representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate will be present along
with others from the Patriarchates of Moscow, Serbia and Romania, from
the Orthodox Church of Greece and the Armenian Apostolic Church, as
well as from the Anglican Communion, the World Lutheran Federation,
the Church of the Disciples of Christ and the World Council of
Churches.The Synod Fathers will represent 13 sui iuris Eastern
Catholic Churches, 113 Bishops’ conferences, 25 dicasteries of the
Roman Curia and the Union of Superiors General.

Of the 253 Synod Fathers 51 are from Africa, 62 from America, 41 from
Asia, 90 from Europe and 9 from Oceania. Of these 173 were elected
(72.3 per cent), 38 participate ex officio (15 per cent), 32 were
appointed by the Pope (12.6 per cent) and 10 were elected by the Union
of Superiors General (4 per cent).

Forty-one experts and 37 auditors from 21 and 26 countries
respectively will also be in attendance, including six women experts
and 19 women auditors, one more than the men.

The Synod Three will also receive three special papal guests. The
first one is Chief Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen of Haifa, Israel, who on 6
October will address the assembly on how the Jewish people reads and
interprets Sacred Scripture. As such it will be the first time that a
rabbi, and a non-Christian, has addressed the Synod Fathers.

The other special guests are Rev A Miller Milloy, secretary general of
the United Bible Societies, and Frère Alois, prior of the
Taizé Community.

www.asianews.it/

Commited to Almaty programme of action, Mins pledge to address needs

7thSpace Interactive (press release), NY
Published on: 2008-10-04

REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO ALMATY PROGRAMME OF ACTION, MINISTERS PLEDGE
TO `URGENTLY’ ADDRESS SPECIAL NEEDS OF LANDLOCKED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Outcome of High-Level Review Must Inspire `Our Sense of Solidarity’

To Bolster Infrastructure Development, Market Access, Assembly
President Says

While landlocked and transit developing countries bore the primary
responsibility for building transport systems to improve their trade
position and bring in needed investment, speakers in the General
Assembly today urged development partners and international
organizations alike to support those efforts in a spirit of shared
responsibility.

With that in mind, Assembly delegations adopted a consensus resolution
containing a Declaration that recognized the particularly severe
economic and social limits imposed on landlocked countries by their
geography, capping a two-day High-Level Midterm Review of the 2003
Almaty Programme of Action. The Programme, adopted by a ministerial
conference held in the Kazakh city for which it is named, outlines
specific measures to help landlocked countries and their transit
country neighbours bolster development and cooperation.

By the Declaration, the Assembly encouraged landlocked and transit
developing countries to allocate a greater share of their public
investment to transit transport infrastructure, supported, as
appropriate, by investment from donors, international financial
institutions and development assistance agencies. Improvement of those
facilities should be integrated into overall development strategies.

Further by the text, the Assembly stressed that accession of
landlocked and transit developing countries to the World Trade
Organization be accelerated, and that development partners provide
assistance in that matter. As high trade transaction costs kept many
landlocked developing countries from participating in world trade, the
Assembly urged that current talks on market access for agricultural
and non-agricultural goods consider products from such countries.

To accelerate implementation of the Almaty action plan, the Assembly
called on landlocked and transit developing countries to undertake a
set of actions, including to promote learning lessons from existing
regional infrastructure initiatives; further strengthen legal
frameworks for transit transport operations; promote inter-railway
cooperation; effectively implement trade facilitation measures,
including regional customs transit schemes; and consider the
possibility of granting duty-free zones at maritime ports.

For their part, donors and multilateral, regional, financial and
development institutions were called on to provide substantial
technical and financial assistance, notably in the form of grants or
concessionary loans. Also by the Declaration, development partners in
particular, were urged to put into action the Aid for Trade
Initiative, which would help diversify exports by supporting small and
medium-sized enterprises.

Throughout the two-day Review session, speakers pointed to national
and other efforts as proof they were taking their duties to
heart. Today, Thailand’s representative said his country had
cooperated in developing transport links with neighbouring countries
through regional, subregional and bilateral agreements. To ease
transit transport and eliminate non-physical barriers, Thailand had
given special privileges to its neighbours by exempting customs on
commercial goods that moved through the country. Regional transport
links were also a priority, as seen in the development of the
East-West, North-South and Southern Economic Corridors under the Great
Mekong Subregion framework.

Speaking from the perspective of a transit country, the representative
of Pakistan underscored his Government’s commitment to providing easy,
efficient and expeditious transit access to its landlocked neighbours,
to help them expand their international trade. Making Pakistan a
regional transit hub was an integral part of its national vision for
its trade and transport sector.

For example, Pakistan’s National Trade Corridor Program aimed to
improve and upgrade its existing logistics and transport
infrastructure, including its highways and rail systems. It had also
begun on constructing new road networks, seaports, airports and other
related facilities. In the services sector, Pakistan was revamping its
customs procedures, including the introduction of the Custom Reform
Project, he said.

In his closing remarks, General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto
Brockmann of Nicaragua said the `balanced and precise’ Declaration
provided guidance to strengthening project implementation in the areas
of efficient transit transport systems and international market
access. Indeed, the Assembly’s focus on action-oriented programmes
that were `measurable and feasible’ had grounded the Review in terms
that would benefit landlocked and transit countries alike, he said. It
also served to inspire greater donor involvement in such areas as
trade assistance, infrastructure, and financial and technical
assistance.

`The United Nations is all about partnerships,’ he said, underscoring
the importance of monitoring progress within the Almaty Programme’s
five stated priorities. While the work outlined in the Almaty Review
document was ambitious, it must inspire `our sense of solidarity’ with
the people of landlocked countries and their neighbours, he said.

Also speaking today were representatives of the Republic of Korea,
China, Libya, Switzerland, Ethiopia, United States, Afghanistan,
Iceland, Malawi, Burkina Faso, Italy, Iran, Russian Federation, Mali,
Egypt and Armenia.

The representative of the EuroAsian Development Bank, and the Senior
Adviser of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
spoke as observers.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Monday, 6 October,
to take up the Secretary-General’s report on the work of the
Organization.

Background

The General Assembly met today to continue and conclude its High-Level
Meeting on the Midterm Review of the Almaty Programme of Action.

Statements

PARK IN-KOOK ( Republic of Korea) recalled that five years ago in
Almaty, Kazakhstan, parties of the International Conference had set
out a comprehensive road map to assist landlocked developing
countries. The outcome document reflected the global community’s
strong commitment to address their special needs. In that regard, he
noted the Secretary-General’s assessment that, over the last five
years, landlocked developing countries had made tangible progress.

As a nation that had struggled against the poverty trap, the Republic
of Korea sympathized with landlocked developing countries’
challenges. His Government was strengthening its official development
assistance (ODA) law, and since 2000, had increased that assistance
three times in volume. The Government planned to triple ODA to more
than $3 billion by 2015, as it remained the main source of
infrastructure development in landlocked developing countries. In
addition, he said his Government had used trade as a locomotive for
economic growth, and as such, had extended duty- and quota-free access
to landlocked developing countries.

He said efficient transport infrastructure was vital for integrating
landlocked developing countries into the global trading system, but
financing gaps remained and could not be addressed without private
sector involvement. The digital divide was also a concern, and in that
regard, his Government would share technology and know-how. All in
all, the Midterm Review showed that, even with progress made, more
must be done. Landlocked developing country development required joint
efforts among landlocked developing countries, transit developing
countries and the global community.

YAO WENLONG ( China) noted his country’s first-hand experience of the
special difficulties faced by landlocked developing countries,
especially since China was a transit developing country with parts of
its territory having landlocked features. He went on to say the
landlocked developing countries had made noticeable progress in their
economic and social development in the five years since the adoption
of the Almaty Programme of Action.

The Secretary-General’s relevant report, which showed that between
2003 and 2006, gross domestic product (GDP) had risen by 8 per cent,
foreign direct investment by 11.5 per cent, and official development
assistance for those countries had grown by an annual average of 21.4
per cent -` higher than averages of the developing countries as a
group in the same period — proved that the Programme of Action had
played an important role in the promotion of economic and social
development in landlocked developing countries.

However, he said there had not been a fundamental change in the
disadvantaged position of landlocked developing countries in the world
economic system or a fundamental amelioration as to their special
difficulties, such as inefficient transport, weak infrastructure and
high trade costs. In 2007, they had accounted for less than 1 per cent
of international trade, constituted half of the 20 countries with the
lowest Human Development Index and represented 9 out of 10 countries
with the world’s highest per-container cost for import-export trade.

At this Midterm Review, he urged systematic assessment, prioritization
of future cooperation, and following up on relevant commitments, and
resolved response to new development challenges. On its part, China
proposed that the international community should focus on the
following: reaffirming political commitments by furthering the spirit
of global partnership; actively responding to challenges by meeting
new challenges as they come along; increasing development assistance
by continuing to increase the scale, sustainability and predictability
of funding; strengthening cooperation mechanisms by strengthening the
international community’s policy coordination and information sharing;
promoting economic cooperation between regional and subregional, as
well as public and private, sectors; and exploring innovative
financing mechanisms.

GIADALLAH A. ETTALHI ( Libya), recalling the United Nations Millennium
Declaration, said the Almaty Programme of Action aimed to address the
challenges landlocked and transit developing countries faced. Many
transit developing countries neighboured landlocked countries, and
bore additional burdens. The strengthening and maintenance of
effective transport systems was a major challenge borne by both
equally. Indeed, costs were often greater than the countries’
abilities, and there was no doubt that development partners could
bolster their efforts to support transport systems.

Regional cooperation could play an important role in lowering the
costs of transit transportation, notably by alleviating obstacles to
cross-border passage and easing the passage of products to nearby
markets, he said. Basic infrastructure development for transit
transport was a priority for many African countries, and he supported
policies made by the African Union, the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD) and other regional groupings.

Confirming the need for partnerships between landlocked developing
countries and transit developing countries within the framework of
regional integration, he also called on regional institutions to
increase aid and focus on bridging the remaining gaps that would tie
landlocked countries with the rest of the continent.

Libya supported policies that aimed to link African countries via
roads and networks, as that would help advance service sectors, and
activate trade, with other countries and international markets, he
said. Libya was exerting strong efforts to build desert roads, which
provided opportunities for economic and social stability. In closing,
he confirmed the need to support the efforts of the High
Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked
Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States to implement
the Almaty Programme, saying that the success of implementation would
help expand economic integration, which served the interests of all.

PETER MAURER ( Switzerland), stating that `Geography may be a
challenge, but geography is no destiny’, commended the progress and
success of the Almaty Declaration. He noted that the unexpected
spillover effects from emerging economies benefited some of the
landlocked countries through regional alternatives to overseas
markets. Besides the potential to help landlocked developing countries
reduce the high transport costs and dependence on transit corridors,
he hoped that the high export earnings of those emerging markets would
provide additional investment capital and regional integration of
capital markets.

To ensure the continued progress of the Declaration, Switzerland and
several landlocked developing countries had submitted a proposal
regarding article V of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), and focused on the issues of maintaining and protecting
freedom of transit, the discipline transit fees and charges, and
limits on certain regional and bilateral transit agreements.

Continuing, he said that the coalition of the landlocked developing
countries, as well as their partnerships with transit countries and
development partners, were further examples of the success of the
Declaration. However, he called for additional improvement. The World
Bank and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
needed to keep developing common and reliable indicators and monitors
as these developing economies responded to both world-market and
regional integration. He concluded stressing Switzerland’s commitment
to help landlocked developing countries `integrate into world
markets’.

DESALEGN ALEMU ( Ethiopia) said, despite increased international
attention being given to landlocked developing countries through the
Almaty Programme of Action in 2003, the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) XII and the recent United Nations panel
discussion on the matter, those countries continued to face challenges
due to their `geographical handicap’. That handicap created serious
constraints in their effort to achieve poverty reduction goals and
improve the standard of living of their populations. A lot remained to
be done to mobilize concrete support to address their economic
predicament.

Continuing, he called for `realistic and suitable’ strategies by
collaborating with neighbouring coastal States to develop efficient
transport, customs and other relevant infrastructure systems in
landlocked countries. Because of their disadvantaged position, in
terms of geography and transportation, landlocked developing States
should be provided with special market access to give them leverage in
the international market. Financial and technical assistance were
required to help those States overhaul major infrastructure systems,
including railways, highways and dry ports.

It was `high time we created the conditions that would enable us to
see smooth and harmonious interplay between the Almaty Programme of
Action and the World Trade Organization aid for trade initiative’, he
said. In that regard, landlocked developing countries should strive to
seek support through improved international legal instruments. In
addition, by seeking regional liaisons, they could make sure their
efforts were not duplicated. By focusing on the diversification of
non-traditional export items and improving its communication and
transport systems, Ethiopia was taking steps to ensure its own
competitive and comparative advantage. Those were self-financed
projects that, in the future, would require assistance from
development partners. Recalling the Africa regional meeting ahead of
the review of the Almaty action plan that took place in Addis Ababa
this summer, he said concerned bodies should take the lead in
advocating and contributing to `the pumping of new resources’, to
landlocked countries.

T. VANCE McMAHAN ( United States) said the United States, through its
Millennium Challenge Corporation, was providing unprecedented levels
of assistance to important national development strategies in some 13
of the landlocked developing countries today. It was also assisting
with transfer of know-how and technology, and collaborative
institution-building. Those partnerships were aimed at broad
transformation and achieving a permanent boost to rates of economic
growth in those countries.

He said the Millennium Challenge Corporation currently had signed
large grant agreements, called compacts, with 10 landlocked developing
countries for over $1.9 billion. In Mongolia, for instance, it was
funding a $188 million project to rebuild and commercialize the
national railroad system, while another $23 million project was aimed
at strengthening the legal infrastructure for property rights near
Mongolia’s rapidly growing urban centres. In conjunction with the
Asian Development Bank, $25 million would go to establishing a
vocational training network for over 30 career paths essential to
building an urban/industrial-based economy.

Also, in Armenia, the Corporation was providing $235 million to
increase economic performance in the agricultural sector, through
strategic investments on rural roads and irrigated agriculture. That
compact would directly benefit approximately 750,000 Armenians, or 75
per cent of the country’s rural population. The Corporation was also
working with Mali to transform the country’s agricultural production,
reducing vulnerability to drought and targeting agro-processing and
higher-value crops.

Explaining that the Millennium Corporation Challenge initiative was
about helping United States development partners achieve their
national priorities, based on common values, he told the meeting that
its programmes were thus premised on the expectation that once the
foundation of accountable public management and a regulatory
environment, that encouraged private economic activity, were in place,
investment in people and infrastructure would have a permanent and
transforming impact on economic growth. He stressed that the
Corporation did not replace the United States’ traditional foreign
assistance to landlocked developing countries, but supplemented it.

ABDULLAH HUSSAIN HAROON ( Pakistan) said the unfolding global
emergency, manifested by the triple crises of food, fuel and finance,
was making the implementation challenge even more complex and
daunting, not just for the landlocked developing countries but also
their transit neighbours. An effective strategy to improve the transit
transport system was particularly relevant in the wake of increasing
commodity and oil prices.

While committed to helping landlocked developing countries with its
limited means, Pakistan believed a concerted effort was necessary to
develop policies and mechanisms which would generate the necessary
financial resources to invest in transit transport infrastructure
projects. Those investments needed increased financial assistance from
development partners, donor countries, and international financial and
development institutions. In addition, he said that an early
completion of the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations
that would be oriented towards development was necessary. A successful
round that would remove the distortions in the global trading regime
and provide enhanced market access, particularly for landlocked
developing countries, had never been more urgently needed. The
sustained impasse in those talks was alarming, he added.

As a transit developing country, Pakistan actively participated in the
implementation of the Almaty Programme and was committed to providing
easy, efficient and expeditious transit access to its landlocked
neighbours, to help them expand their international trade. Making
Pakistan a regional transit hub was an integral part of its national
vision for its trade and transport sector. For example, Pakistan’s
National Trade Corridor Program aimed to improve and upgrade its
existing logistics and transport infrastructure, including its
highways and rail systems. It had also begun on constructing new road
networks, seaports, airports and other related facilities. In the
services sector, Pakistan was revamping its customs procedures,
including the introduction of the Custom Reform Project, he said.

ZAHIR TANIN (Afghanistan) said that, while many landlocked developing
and transit countries had, with the help of their development
partners, achieved certain progress towards realization of the Almaty
Programme of Action since its adoption five years ago, due to a
variety of impediments they had faced, many such countries, including
Afghanistan, had not yet been able to fully use trade as an effective
instrument to achieve their development goals.

He said that Afghanistan had been able to address many challenges in
meeting the Almaty objectives, notably with much-needed international
and regional community support. While appreciative of the financial
support to help improve its transport and transit infrastructure, he
regretted that a significant portion of the donor pledges had not yet
been delivered. Much of that aid was also delivered without full
regard to the goals of the Afghan Government and the Almaty Programme,
he noted, and he urged the international community to increase its
assistance in such priority areas as the regional and national road
networks, and improvements to, and modernization of, the existing
airports and dry ports.

He also noted that regional economic cooperation was becoming an
integral part of globalization strategies of almost all its
neighbours. As a result, Afghanistan now had the unique opportunity to
realize its potential as a `land bridge’ country between Central Asia,
South Asia and the West Asian region. While Afghanistan was aware of
its responsibilities towards its neighbours regarding the creation of
solid institutions and mechanisms, it would at the same time encourage
its neighbours and other countries in the region `to work with us in
similar pace and in the same spirit’, he concluded.

HJÃ?LMAR W. HANNESSON ( Iceland) said that, while there had been
various positive developments in landlocked developing countries in
recent years, and fairly consistent economic growth, the
Secretary-General’s report showed that `considerable’ effort was
needed to improve their competitiveness. Iceland was fully committed
to implementing the Almaty Programme’s five priorities, and recognized
that the specific situations of landlocked developing countries made
poverty eradication even more challenging.

He said his Government was concerned that landlocked developing
countries continued to build an unsustainable level of external
debt. Iceland was a financier of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
(HIPC) Initiative, and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. More
was needed regarding development financing, and Iceland aimed to be
among the top contributors of ODA, having doubled its budget for
development cooperation in the past four years.

Noting that women played a fundamental role in development, he said
Iceland had increasingly directed development cooperation at
gender-specific projects. In closing, he said aid for trade was an
important initiative that could reduce the adverse effects of
landlocked developing countries’ geography, and it should be part of a
broader development policy for them. It was more urgent than ever that
market access for goods originating in those countries be facilitated.

CHIRACHAI PUNKRASIN ( Thailand) said that in addition to Africa, whose
development needs had been discussed in the past few weeks, the
landlocked developing countries deserved ongoing attention from the
international community. Believing that opportunity was crucial for
ensuring development and prosperity, Thailand had cooperated in
developing transport links with neighbouring countries through
regional, subregional and bilateral agreements in line with the Almaty
Programme priorities. To ease transit transport and eliminate
non-physical barriers, Thailand had given special privileges to its
neighbours by exempting customs on commercial goods moved through
Thailand.

With regard to infrastructure, Thailand had made the construction of
transport links within the region a priority. For example, the Asian
Highway Network had moved ahead with the development of the East-West,
North-South and Southern Economic Corridors under the Great Mekong
Subregion framework. The Singapore-Kunming Rail Link under the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Mekong Basin
Development Cooperation, once realized, would link the ASEAN members
with China, he said.

On a bilateral basis, Thailand had provided financial assistance to
its landlocked neighbour, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, as
well as Cambodia and Myanmar, for projects that would strengthen
transport connections. For example, Thailand had provided assistance
to build a road linking Huay Xai to Luang Num Tha in the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, part of the Route 3 of the North-South Economic
Corridor under the Great Mekong Subregion framework. Thailand would
continue to actively support the development of transport links to
improve the living standards of people in the Mekong subregion. While
acknowledging the efforts of the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) in the region, he said
there was more work to be done. Thailand urged other development
partners to help develop transport connections by providing technical
and financial assistance related to infrastructure development.

STEVE D. MATENJE (Malawi) said his country, like similarly situated
countries, being both landlocked and least developed, faced daunting
challenges, not the least of which were those of rising oil costs,
lack of direct access to the sea and isolation from major
international markets. All of that resulted in prohibitive transport
costs and formidable obstacles to Malawi’s import and export
trade. Unless those challenges were addressed with urgency, landlocked
developing countries such as Malawi would remain uncompetitive in the
global economy and the development gap between them and the rest of
the world would continue to widen, resulting in their perpetual
dependence on foreign aid.

Accordingly, he urged development partners to `walk with us, and not
carry us on their shoulders’, on the journey to economic prosperity
and independence by assisting landlocked developing countries to
remove obstacles to their import and export trade in order for them to
create the much-needed wealth necessary to reduce poverty.

He said it was for that reason in fact that the United Nations adopted
the Almaty Programme of Action, as a commitment of the international
community to address the special needs of the landlocked countries as
called for in the Millennium Declaration. With that in mind, the
Malawi Growth and Development Strategy had identified transport
infrastructure development as one of the six key priority areas for
the country to achieve economic growth in the medium
term. Accordingly, the Government was vigorously pursuing a multimodal
inland transport system to improve road, rail, air and inland water
transportation with a view to facilitating internal, as well as import
and export, trade.

With regard to inland water transportation, the Governments of Malawi,
Mozambique and Zambia had concluded a Memorandum of Understanding to
develop a waterway project known as the Shire-Zambezi Waterway
Project, aimed at connecting the three countries to the sea through
the Shire River in southern Malawi and Mozambique, and the Zambezi
River in Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, he added. The project was in
line with the Almaty Programme of Action as well as the Brussels
Programmes of Action for the Least Developed Countries, both of which
were aimed at addressing the special needs of landlocked developing
countries and least developed countries such as Malawi.

MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso), joining statements given by Mali and on
behalf of the `Group of 77′ developing countries, said 2008 had seen
unprecedented socio-economic crises, including those of food and
energy, as well as the effects of natural calamities. For landlocked
developing countries, that had translated to destruction of
infrastructure.

The fact that landlocked developing countries were far from the sea
had caused turmoil in trade, he said. The fact that they were
landlocked was the major concern of the Almaty Programme, and he was
happy to see that the Assembly’s Review had benefited from the
conclusions of the ministerial meeting at Ouagadougou, and another
meeting in Ulaanbaatar. Those meetings had enabled States to assess
the implementation of the Programme. They had also allowed for
identifying the best measures to deal with the isolation of landlocked
countries and improving their competitiveness.

Continuing, he said he was happy with the theme’s current session,
which asked the global community to help create trade opportunities
for landlocked developing countries. Infrastructure funding was of
`capital’ importance, and he called on multilateral, bilateral and
other donors to offer support. He invited developed countries,
particularly those in the Group of Eight, to be involved in
preparations for the development financing conference at Doha, which
would sincerely review commitments made at Monterrey in 2002.

Noting that half of landlocked developing countries were in Africa, he
stressed that the meeting at Ouagadougou had launched an appeal to
public and private investors to bolster infrastructure. Concerned by
the failure of World Trade Organization trade talks, he said the lack
of consensus showed a marginalization of landlocked countries in the
trading system. He called for resuming the Doha Development Round in a
spirit of solidarity.

ALDO MANTOVANI ( Italy) welcomed and endorsed the philosophy that led
to the adoption of the Almaty Programme of Action. Between 2003 and
2008, Italy’s overall development aid to landlocked developing
countries had increased by 70 per cent, to about $250 million. Last
year, Italy had contributed $50,000 to the organization of the two
preparatory meetings in Ulaanbataar, Mongolia, and Ouagadougou,
Burkina Faso.

He said the obstacles faced by the Governments of landlocked
developing countries and transit developing countries were related
less to their geographical locations and more to complex regulatory
procedures, lack of cooperation in tackling bureaucratic delays, and
underdeveloped logistics sectors. While significant efforts had been
made over the past five years because of the Almaty framework, much
work had to be done. Regional and subregional cooperation were also
important vehicles for implementing the Almaty Programme and relevant
organizations, especially the ones with operations on the ground, were
important stakeholders. Their continued interest and commitment was
essential to making concrete progress towards implementing the five
priorities laid down at Almaty.

The incoming Italian presidency of the Group of Eight would pay great
attention to information and communications technology for
development, he said. The development of transit transport
infrastructure was not limited to the construction and maintenance of
physical infrastructure like roads, railways, airports, ports and
pipelines. Rather, infrastructure development needed to be
complimented by an efficient and modern storage and transport
organization, logistics management systems, and integrated information
and communication networks. Bridging the digital divide, promoting
good governance, the exchange of experiences and best practices, and
the proper training and education were consistent with priority one of
the Almaty programme. Italy would promote projects fostering the
dissemination of e-government instruments aimed at improving and
speeding up complicated bureaucratic procedures, for instance in the
field of customs and logistics.

ESAAGH AL-HABIB ( Iran) said transit transport issues were of prime
importance in a globalized world, and noted that some had acknowledged
they were equated with economic growth that would help alleviate
poverty. In that regard, the establishment of effective transit
systems was a top priority for landlocked and transit developing
countries. The primary responsibility for that rested with those
countries, so that they could attract and mobilize resources for their
development. At the same time, he called for development partners and
regional organizations to be involved in line with the principle of
shared responsibility.

In addition, true and full implementation of bilateral, regional and
subregional agreements was needed, he said, explaining that the Almaty
Programme was a fundamental framework for genuine partnership between
landlocked and transit developing countries, and their partners. For
its part, Iran had taken actions to speed implementation of the Almaty
Programme by working with the Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific to set up two workshops focusing on rail and road
transit transport. Further, Iran was making efforts to continue
implementation of measures to ease customs formalities and grant
duty-free zones at maritime free ports, among other things.

Iran was among the most important transit developing countries, and
the development and maintenance of its transit routes presented
challenges, which, if not addressed, might inhibit
cooperation. Moreover, infrastructure maintenance required more
assistance from donors and international financial institutions. In
closing, he said addressing the needs of landlocked developing
countries required a holistic approach, and he invited the United
Nations, among other international and regional organizations, to
integrate the Almaty Programme into their work.

VICTOR ZAGREKOV ( Russian Federation) said globalization was impacting
all areas of society and that uneven benefits were fraught with
problems, including the areas of risk and stagnation. This was
undermining the development of the landlocked developing countries and
least developed countries. Russia had set down steps to initiate
improved transportation links and help the shipment of products of
those countries.

Russia was resolved to tackle key issues in the coming decade in
Euro-Asian transportation. It had a federal system that enhanced
transport policies and services and improved the effectiveness of the
transit of goods to neighbouring countries. Russia was dedicated to
improving the flow of traffic, including the delivery of goods and the
management of transport systems, he said.

Because of its geographical location and its expanse over a large part
of the Euro-Asian continent, Russia was a bridge between East and
West. It participated in international dialogue on that subject and
had promoted road and rail networks in Asia. Those neighbouring Asian
countries had limited access to outside markets, and Russia was
working with them to improve that situation. For example, it had
focused on helping shipping companies move containers across the
continent from Asia across Russia to the borders with Europe. It also
tried to ensure that its roads functioned without problems so regular
road shipments could move from the Russian Federation to Asia. He was
happy with the work of international organizations, particularly the
United Nations, in that area and reaffirmed Russia’s commitment to
those countries. The creation of global frameworks for effective land
transportation was also important, he added.

OUMAR DAOU ( Mali), sharing his country’s experience, said first, that
Mali, as a typical landlocked developing country, was vulnerable to
the current global crises, notably in food and energy sectors. Mali
had carried out consistent measures to improve the efficiency of
transport and transit systems, and had organized the private sector
into a consulate chamber: the Mali Shippers Council. As for the
development and maintenance of transit infrastructure, Mali had
promoted private investment for equipment and storage facilities,
carried out transport infrastructure work, and upgraded its fleet of
rail and road equipment. To facilitate trade, Mali had used
self-assessment methodologies developed by the World Bank.

Nonetheless, Mali was up against various hurdles, including numerous
tariff and non-tariff barriers, which impeded trade and raised
shipping costs, he explained. Secondary infrastructure for transport
and transit was inefficient on the borders, information systems had
not been sufficiently developed, and shipping facilities had low
storage capacity.

Faced with such hurdles, Mali had undertaken policies to reinforce
sectoral performance, notably by focusing on local capacity-building,
restructuring transport companies and upgrading shipping
infrastructure through the national transport committee. There was
also a `national week of road safety’. Mali supported the major
programmes to develop transport within the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS). In closing, he said Mali was committed to all
activities to implement the Almaty action plan, and thanked the High
Representative for his efforts.

MAGED ABDELAZIZ (Egypt) highlighted different points that would
continue the economic progress of the landlocked developing countries,
among them the inclusion of those countries’ needs in the Doha trade
negotiations; more private and direct foreign investment;
international organizations and donor countries’ participation in the
Ulaanbaatar think tank initiative; a strengthening of South-South
cooperation, as well as trilateral, subregional and regional
cooperative initiatives; and developed countries fulfilling their
commitment to provide 0.15 per cent to 0.20 per cent of the gross
national index to ODA for the landlocked developing countries.

He went on to say that, as part of Egypt’s foreign policy to support
and strengthen South-South cooperation, two funds had been
established. The Egyptian Fund for Technical Cooperation for Africa
provided assistance to African countries, while The Egyptian Fund for
Technical Cooperation with the Commonwealth of Independent States, —
modified to include developing countries and landlocked developing
countries — was in the process of expanding its activities within
those countries.

To ensure the efficacy of the funds, Egypt had instituted training
specific to the needs of each country and their own national
strategies for development. He noted that several Egyptian companies
directed investments to landlocked developing countries’
infrastructure development, including telecommunications and
construction. He concluded that integral to these funds was trilateral
cooperation, including with United Nations bodies and donor countries,
as well as humanitarian assistance.

ARMEN MARTIROSYAN ( Armenia) began by saying, `Any programme is as
good as its realization,’ and with that, called on States to adopt
measures that would eliminate the use of unilateral measures, which
contradicted international law and undermined the multilateral trading
system. Further, the interests of landlocked developing countries
should be fully taken into account. The elaboration of divisive
initiatives ran contrary to the Almaty Programme and would only add to
tensions, notably those in the South Caucasus, he added.

Touching on transit transportation systems, he also said that
assistance should be provided to landlocked developing countries in
the area of trade facilitation. To facilitate implementation of the
Almaty action plan, he proposed promoting the development of existing
transport structure, and thoroughly considering landlocked developing
country interests when creating development plans, among other
things. Moreover, it would be necessary for international financial
institutions to provide long-term grants and loans. Finally, he said
the Almaty Programme of Action had shown its comprehensiveness, and
joint efforts would produce results at the next midterm review
session.

IGOR FINOGENOV, EuroAsian Development Bank, said the Bank had been
created in 2006 and was an international funding institution aimed at
promoting the market economy of its members and helping them bolster
their partnerships. It was open to new members and expected other
countries to join by year’s end. The Bank also wanted to see its
numbers increase. It worked on projects in the areas of
transportation, infrastructure, electricity, among others, and giving
specific attention to the Almaty Programme’s call to support the
landlocked countries of Central Asia. It was examining projects that
used waterways in the region and transport corridors, from Western
Europe to China, and North to South.

He said the Bank was interested in working with the specialized
agencies of the United Nations, especially since it had obtained
observer status last year. That gave it new opportunities. The Bank
hoped to coordinate activities with other agencies and to improve its
effectiveness, as it improved the lives of the region’s citizens. It
was also open to working on regional projects, he added.

MARC BALTES, Senior Adviser of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), said that, as the world’s largest
regional security organization recognized in the Charter, the OSCE was
a primary instrument for early warnings, conflict prevention, crisis
management and post-conflict rehabilitation. Using a comprehensive
approach, it dealt with the political/military, economic and
environmental, and human aspects of security, and thus, addressed a
range of security concerns, including arms control and
democratization, among others. All 56 participating States enjoyed
equal status.

He said the OSCE high-level Economic Forum in 2006 had been dedicated
to developing transit transportation. During that Forum, it had become
clear that special attention should be given to OSCE landlocked
developing countries and, based on that, the OSCE adopted a decision
on the `Future Transport Dialogue in the OSCE’, which provided a
strong mandate for continued activities to that end.

His office, along with the Office of the High Representative for the
Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small
Island Developing States, had organized a conference in Tajikistan to
enhance political dialogue on transit transportation in Central
Asia. The Joint Dushanbe Statement, agreed upon there, highlighted the
importance of building partnerships. In closing, he assured the
Assembly of the OSCE’s continued involvement in transport-related
activities.

The Assembly then adopted a draft resolution, containing the outcome
document of the midterm review of the Almaty Programme of Action:
Addressing the Special Needs of Landlocked Developing Countries within
a New Global Framework for Transit Transport Cooperation for
Landlocked and Transit Developing Countries (document A/63/L.3).

Closing Statement by General Assembly President

Concluding the High-Level Midterm Review of the Almaty Programme of
Action, Assembly President, MIGUEL D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN, of Nicaragua,
said that over the last two days, the world body had assessed efforts
to ensure that landlocked developing countries had efficient transit
transport systems and international market access. The `balanced and
precise’ Declaration adopted provided guidance to enhance
implementation of further projects.

The Assembly’s focus on action-oriented programmes that were
`measurable and feasible’ had grounded the Review in terms that would
benefit landlocked and transit countries alike, he said. It also
served to inspire greater donor involvement in such areas as trade
assistance, infrastructure, and financial and technical
assistance. The high-level panel on the role of international support
for transport systems provided a `dynamic exchange’ on such complex
issues, providing insight into the key partnerships emerging from the
Programme of Action.

`The United Nations is all about partnerships,’ he said, underscoring
the importance of monitoring progress within the Almaty Programme’s
five stated priorities. Noting that a global recession would be
`doubly catastrophic’ for the least developed countries that were both
poor and geographically isolated, he reiterated his promise that the
Assembly would use its authority to ensure donor commitments for
funding and technology transfer were honoured. While the work outlined
in the Almaty Review document was ambitious, it must inspire `our
sense of solidarity’ with the people of landlocked countries and their
neighbours, he said.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Defies Watertown Town Council Unanimous Call

Armenian National Committee of Massachusetts
47 Nichols Avenue
Watertown MA 02472
617-926-1918
[email protected]

PRESS RELEASE
October 1, 2008

Contact: 617-347-2833

Blue Cross Blue Shield Defies Watertown Town Council Unanimous Call
to Cut Ties with Controversial ADL Program

— Disregards Armenian American Community Concerns

WATERTOWN, MA -Despite a unanimous vote by Watertown officials last
week and hundreds of letters from Massachusetts residents, Blue
Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts (BCBSMA) announced its plans to
support the Anti-Defamation League’s "No Place for Hate" program,
despite that groups ongoing opposition to Armenian Genocide
recognition, reported the Armenian National Committee of
Massachusetts (ANC-MA)

BCBSMA’s intentions were revealed on September 26th in what
appeared to be form letters sent to individuals and organizations,
who had expressed concerns about the healthcare giant’s dubious
affiliation. "It had been our understanding that the ADL recognized
the terrible events perpetrated against the Armenian people between
1915 and 1923 as genocide," read the BCBSMA’s email. "Therefore, in
response to the letters and emails we received, and because Blue
Cross Blue Shield firmly believes there should be no ambiguity on
this issue, senior executives met directly with representatives of
the ADL to ask for clarification. At that meeting, our CEO asked
the ADL leaders about the organization’s "official" position. He
was assured that the ADL unequivocally recognizes the killing of
more than one and a half million Armenians as genocide."

The ADL’s promises rang hollow to the Watertown Town Council and
the ANC MA. BCBSMA Senior Vice President for Public, Government and
Regulatory Affairs Jay Curley, during his presentation to the
Watertown Town Council last week, admitted that the ADL’s
assurances were only verbal and that his organization was
"disappointed" with the tone and tenor of the communication from
ADL leader Abe Foxman. For more information on the Watertown
decision read:
.php?prid=3D1595

In July of this year, Foxman had traveled to Turkey to smooth over
relations with the Turkish government by reiterating the ADL’s
opposition to Armenian Genocide legislation in the U.S. Congress.
According to a July 4th article by Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem
Post, Foxman urged President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan to
strengthen relations with Armenia today, in hopes that "it will
place the historical issue in the background and be much easier to
deal with." Foxman went on to lecture the Armenian American
community on genocide recognition efforts, stating that pressure to
use "certain words they want us to use is not going to help one
Armenian."

"Foxman’s verbal assertions to the BCBSMA fly in the face of his
statements in Turkey just three months ago, where he dared not
properly characterize the Armenian Genocide as ‘genocide’, lauded
the ADL’s opposition to Congressional legislation on the issue, and
went so far as to advise the unrepentant perpetrators of Genocide
on how to sweep history under the rug," stated Ara Nazarian of the
ANC MA. "The Watertown Town Council and Massachusetts
Municipalities Authority saw through Foxman’s charade. We expect
the BCBSMA to do so as well."

On September 29th, the ANC MA responded to the BCBSMA’s letter,
stating: "We are very disappointed that Blue Cross Blue Shield has
decided to turn a blind eye to what is clearly genocide denial by
the Anti-Defamation League."

"The Armenian community has struggled against genocide denial for
ninety-three years. The entire community is united in its
determination to see justice prevail in this matter."

The complete text of the ANC MA letter to BCBSMA is provided below.

For more information visit

#####

Complete Text of ANC MA letter to BCBSMA:
September 29, 2008

We are very disappointed that Blue Cross Blue Shield has decided to
turn a blind eye to what is clearly genocide denial by the Anti-
Defamation League.

Even assuming you were given assurances by the New England Regional
ADL that the organization acknowledges the Armenian Genocide, these
comments were made privately and verbally and, as such, are not
official and have no standing in the public arena. In addition, the
verbal assurances differ greatly from the only two official public
statements the ADL has made in this regard.

Furthermore, what the NE ADL asserts is simply not pertinent to the
issue. No Place for Hate is a registered trademark of, and is
owned and operated by, the national ADL.

It is true that the New England regional tried to persuade the
national ADL to issue an unequivocal statement recognizing the
Armenian Genocide at its national meeting last November. They
failed. The entire organization determined to let stand the August
2007 statement – which, as you know, does not meet international
standards for genocide recognition – as its official position on
the Armenian Genocide.

The Boston Globe reported that New England leaders were satisfied
with the outcome, quoting regional board chair James Rudolph as
saying, "I feel comfortable with it."

Nothing has changed since that time.

The Armenian community has struggled against genocide denial for
ninety-three years. The entire community is united in its
determination to see justice prevail in this matter.

We are saddened that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts has
chosen to side with a genocide denier and not with human rights.

Sincerely,
Sharistan Melkonian
Armenian National Committee of Massachusetts

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases
www.noplacefordenial.com.

Smile Project provides free surgeries to youths with birth defects

PRESS RELEASE

Cafesjian Family Foundation
15 South 5th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402

USA contact:
Madlene Minassian
[email protected]
(818) 434-1725

Armenia contact:
Erik Grigorian
[email protected]
(+374) 99 00 25 30

Smile Project in Armenia provides free surgeries to youths with birth
defects

Initiative is a collaborative effort of five non-governmental
organizations and Ministry of Health

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, and YEREVAN – The Smile Project, a
private-public initiative that provides free reconstructive surgery to
Armenian children and young adults with certain birth defects, is
currently underway in Yerevan.

The medical procedures are being performed by a team of surgeons from
Smile Network International (SNI), a nonprofit organization that
provides reconstructive surgeries and related healthcare services to
impoverished children and young adults in developing countries.

Between October 4 and 10, the SNI surgical team will operate on over
50 patients from Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh suffering from
congenital cleft lip and cleft palate. The team will perform
additional surgeries in Spring 2009.

The Smile Project is a collaborative effort of the Cafesjian Family
Foundation’s Public Health Outreach Program, Arabkir Medical Center,
Fund for Armenian Relief, Hand in Hand Foundation (Nagorno-Karabakh),
the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Armenia, and Yerevan State
Medical University.

Patients with cleft lip or cleft palate have difficulty eating,
drinking, and speaking. As a result, they suffer from malnourishment,
stunted development, and lethargy. According to the Cafesjian
Foundation, such individuals are also shunned by society and often
subjected to discrimination or abuse, given the stigma attached to
their physical deformities.

`The month of October brings new hope to Armenia through these
life-changing reconstructive surgeries, as the children and young
adults undergoing those procedures will now get a smile, and with a
smile will come friends, opportunities, and a better life,’ said
Madlene Minassian, director of the Cafesjian Family Foundation’s
Public Health Outreach Program. `We can already see the impact of the
operations on many Armenian lives,’ Minassian continued. `It is an
honor to be on the ground here in Armenia and witness the contribution
of these organizations.’

The Smile Project
was initiated last year, when the Cafesjian Family Foundation and its
longtime partner, the Hope for the City Fund, requested that SNI
launch a mission in Armenia. In November 2007, Minassian hosted a
delegation from SNI in Yerevan and helped it assess local needs. By
May 2008, when the Cafesjian Family Foundation’s Public Health
Outreach Program began to lay the groundwork for the SNI mission, four
nonprofit organizations as well as the Ministry of Health came on
board. With their collaboration and support, the Smile Project was
officially launched.

The project is administered by the
Cafesjian Family Foundation’s Public Health Outreach Program, which
organizes PR campaigns and disseminates information for raising public
awareness of birth defects and project services, helps provide
accommodations and transportation for the SNI surgical team, assists
in identifying and registering patients for surgery, and oversees the
implementation of the project. The SNI team’s travel expenses are
underwritten by the Cafesjian Family Foundation.

Other components of the Smile Project are provided by the initiative’s
partners. The Arabkir Medial Center provides surgical suites and
personnel for patient prescreening and surgeries. It also delivers
pre- and post-operation care.

The Fund For Armenian Relief covers the transportation, food, and
accommodation costs of patients as well as a caretaker..

The Hand in Hand Foundation acts as project liaison in
Nagorno-Karabakh. It distributes information, raises public awareness,
identifies and prescreens patients, and coordinates their travel to
Armenia and participation in the project.

As the initiative’s education partner, the Yerevan State Medical
University recruits local professionals who acquire new skills and
knowledge by shadowing SNI team members during surgeries. The
university also organizes lectures by SNI surgeons, with the purpose
of contributing to local capacity-building with regard to cleft lip
and cleft palate treatment.

The Smile Project is endorsed by the Armenian Ministry of Health. `We
appreciate the ministry’s support, care, and gestures of goodwill,’
Minassian said, and applauded the ministry for granting complimentary
entry visas to the SNI surgical team. She added that the ministry has
published material about the Smile Project and disseminated it
throughout Armenia, in addition to contributing to the implementation
of the project by providing its lists of registered patients with
cleft lip and cleft palate..
The Cafesjian Family Foundation, Inc., was established in 1996 by
Gerard L. Cafesjian. The U.S.-based nonprofit organization supports a
variety of Armenian causes in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and the
U.S. A primary focus of the foundation are the security of independent
Armenia and the further development of a free, democratic society
through economic development and the strengthening of the U.S.-Armenia
relationship.

The foundation’s Public Health Outreach Program aims to help improve
healthcare in Armenia by providing medicines, medical supplies, and
equipment to public-health institutions and centers across Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh. The program also seeks to continue to provide free
surgical services through its partnership with the Hope for the City
Foundation and SNI.

The Fund for Armenian Relief provides short-term emergency relief and
implements long-term programs for the economic growth and social
development of Armenia. Among other projects, the fund operates daily
soup kitchens and summer camps, awards scholarships and scientific
grants, and builds irrigation systems. The fund’s programs also
include one-time reconstruction projects as well as ongoing projects
such as the Vanadzor Old Age Home and the Children’s Reception and
Orientation Center.

The Arabkir Medical Center, in Yerevan, provides a wide range of
medical services including prevention, diagnostics, and treatment of
various child illnesses, follow-up of patients with chronic diseases,
as well as psychosocial and rehabilitation services.

# # #

ArmRosGazprom and HPCC-3 (China) sign contract for 5th Hrazdan Unit

ArmRosGazprom and HPCC-3 (China) sign contract for reconstruction of
the 5th unit of Hrazdan TPP

2008-10-03 18:07:00

ArmInfo. ArmRosGazprom CJSC and HPCC-3 (China) have signed a contract
for reconstruction of the 5th unit of Hrazdan TPP (Hrazdan-5).

After the singing Director of Hrazdan-5 Karen Sargsyan said that the
Chinese company would carry out 80% of the construction and
installation work. The project is to be completed in two years. HPCC-3
has undertaken to install gas turbine, to reconstruct boiler, steam
generator and electric part of the unit. Sargsyan refused to specify
the cost of the contract. He said that the preliminary cost of the
project was $170mln but that sum might be changed after final
calculations. The start-up work at the unit will, be completed by mid
2010. ArmRosGazprom has cooperated with HPCC-3 since 2001 when the
Chinese successfully mounted the boiler of the 5th unit of Hrazdan TPP.

The representative of HPCC-3 said that his company had carried out
similar work in Russia, Belarus and Turkey.

To remind, when buying the 5th unit of Hrazdan TPP ArmRosGazprom
undertook to complete its construction and modernization. The company
is planning to enhance the capacity of the unit from 300MW to 440MW by
installing a new gas turbine and combining gas turbine and steam
turbine technologies.

President of Armenia Hosts Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

HULIQ (press release), NC

Posted September 29th, 2008 by admin_huliq

President of Armenia Hosts Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

The presdent of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan stresses the importance of
religion in maintaining peace and moral values in a meeting with the
Catholicos of All Armenians and the Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople.

President Serzh Sargsyan today hosted the Catholicos of All Armenians
Garegin II, Heads of Dioceses of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, His All Holiness Bartholomew I
who arrived in Armenia on the occasion of blessing the Holy Chrism and
representatives of sister churches of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Greeting the guests, the President of Armenia said: `Muron is of
special symbolic importance or us. Everyone in Armenia believes that
spreading all over the world, the Muron returns to Holy Etchmiadzin `
our religious center and it’s the spiritual magnetism of our people.’

Serzh Sargsyan stressed the importance of religion in maintaining
peace and moral values, fighting against despair, immorality and
temptations, since there are many temptations in the contemporary
world.

`Having been deprived of statehood for many centuries, the Church has
guided our people to the 21st century. Every official should return
his duty to the church for our country to grow stronger and for our
belief to lead us towards brighter future,’ the President said.

The Patriarch thanked the representatives of sister churches for
participating in the ceremony of blessing of Holy Muron.

On behalf of Pope Benedict 16th, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri wished
peace, prosperity to the Armenian people and noted: `The enthusiasm
with which people participated in the ceremony of blessing the Holy
Muron shows their exceptional devotion to the church.’

By Public Radio of Armenia

Russian, U.S. Diplomats Discuss Caucasus, Ukraine

istockAnalyst.com (press release), OR

Russian, U.S. Diplomats Discuss Caucasus, Ukraine
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:59 PM

(Source: Daily News Bulletin; Moscow – English)MOSCOW. Sept 30
(Interfax) – Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin, at a
meeting with U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle on Tuesday,
"stressed the need for extensive involvement on the part of the
international community in building strong guarantees of non-use of
force by Georgia," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. Karasin and
Beyrle, who met in Moscow, discussed "the security situation in
Transcaucasia in light of the implementation of the Russian-French
conflict settlement principles of August 12 and September 8," the
ministry said in a press release.

"Problems surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process and the
domestic political situation in Ukraine were also touched upon," it
said.

U.S. Daily Press Briefing – 10/01/2008

U.S. Daily Press Briefing
Wednesday, 1 October 2008, 9:50 pm

Press Release: US State Department

U.S. Daily Press Briefing
Scoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand

MR. WOOD: I don’t have anything for you, so why don’t we go right to
your questions.

Sir.

QUESTION: Could I ask for a reaction on the Belarus elections? Are you
guys planning to recognize —

MR. WOOD: Well, what I have is an initial read and I think we found
them to be well short of international standards. We certainly took
note of the OSCE report. But again, this is an initial take. We
obviously want to work with the Belarusian Government and we’ll be
looking for ways to do that. But again, this is just an initial read,
and hopefully, we’ll have some more details for you a bit later.

QUESTION: Can you go into why you think it’s well short of
international standards?

MR. WOOD: Well, I think, there were some issues with regard to the
vote count. But again, this is, as I said, an initial take. Let us get
back to you with a more fuller readout a little bit later.

QUESTION: What is Assistant Secretary Hill going to do this week?

MR. WOOD: Well, he’s leaving today from New York and he is going to go
to the region. He’ll be meeting with his counterparts in the Six-Party
Talks. He’ll arrive in Seoul tomorrow, Tuesday evening, where he’ll
meet with Kim Sook. Later in the week, he’ll visit Pyongyang before
going to Beijing, where he’ll meet with the Chinese Vice Foreign
Minister Wu Dawei. He is also scheduled to visit Tokyo for
consultations with the Japanese. I don’t have any more details on his
schedule. Sung Kim will be traveling with him, but that’s all we have
at the moment. So we’ll update you as we can.

QUESTION: So later in the week — you said Pyongyang.

MR. WOOD: Yeah, later in the week.

QUESTION: No specific date.

MR. WOOD: No specific date.

QUESTION: And he’s (inaudible) for Seoul?

MR. WOOD: He’s in New York now. He’ll be leaving for Seoul later
today.

QUESTION: And Tokyo follows his trip to Beijing?

MR. WOOD: To Beijing. That’s correct.

QUESTION: And just simply stated, can you tell us why he is making
this trip?

MR. WOOD: Well, obviously, we’re very concerned about some of the
reversal of disablement activities that the North has been in engaged
in. And he obviously wants to consult with his counterparts in the
region out there to see what our next steps are going to be with
regard to a response to what the North is doing. Again, we encourage
the North very strongly to submit that verification regime so that we
can move forward on the other aspects, positive aspects of the
Six-Party framework. And Assistant Secretary Hill will be obviously
out in the region looking for ways to work with our allies to bring
North Korea into compliance with its obligations.

QUESTION: Two things, Robert.

MR. WOOD: Yes.

QUESTION: One, on all the things you just described, I think are all
things that he could have done in New York this past week, or the
Secretary could have done, in other words, consult with your allies
and partners in this process. And I think the thing that is most
interesting to us is that he’s going to Pyongyang. Can you flesh out
at all what he hopes to do in Pyongyang? Is it to get a better feel
for why they have begun to roll back on the denuclearization steps? Is
it to see if there’s some kind of negotiating room on the nature of
the verification mechanism? I mean, what ` that’s probably the aspect
that’s most striking about this trip, so if you could try to address
that?

MR. WOOD: You know, I’ll do the best I can on that. The Secretary
obviously believes it’s important for Chris to go out to the region,
particularly to go to Pyongyang to get a sense on the ground as to
what’s going on and obviously to talk with North Korean officials
about why they’ve taken the steps they’ve taken. And obviously, as I
said earlier, to encourage them, once again, to submit this
verification package, which we have said is not an onerous task that
we have asked the North Koreans to undertake. It’s a standard, you
know, verification package that’s been done in other cases in the
international community. And so that’s, in essence, is why the
Secretary wants Chris to go to the region, so that we can get a
firsthand look at what’s going on.

QUESTION: And, just one other related one. Forgive me, I wasn’t here
on Friday, so I don’t know to what extent you addressed this. But the
Post on Friday said it had obtained a copy of ` a four-page copy of `
that essentially laid out the verification procedures that the Bush
Administration wanted to see. It quoted David ` well, being a former
weapons inspector David Albright as saying that this was a very
extensive one. And The New York Times in an op-ed today says, I think
` excuse me, an internet editorial says that it was so extensive that
only a vanquished ` a country vanquished in the war might submit to
the verification measures that the United States is seeking of North
Korea. One, are — was The Washington Post report correct in terms of
the verification document? And two, how would you ` since I assume you
would dispute the notion that this was, in fact, a very intrusive and
extensive set of verification measures?

MR. WOOD: Well, for one I’m not going to comment on the Post story
that referred to a document that wasn’t to be made public. But again,
as I said on Friday, I believe it was July 10 ` 12 ` there was a heads
of delegation meeting in which the verification principles were agreed
to by the parties. And so again, this call from us and from others in
the international community for the North to submit this verification
package is not new and we have made the case over and over again that
this needs to happen before we can take any steps with regard to
delisting.

And as I said, we’re talking about a standard verification
package. This is not onerous. It’s not unusual in terms of trying to
verify activities that may have taken place. So you know, the North
cannot expect that after submitting over 19,000 pages that, obviously,
we, the other parties to the framework ` we need to be able to verify
what they’ve submitted. And so again, Chris Hill will be going to the
region, trying to look for ways that we can encourage the North to
live up to its obligations.

Kirit.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that: When you say that the Secretary
wants Chris Hill to go and get a sense on the ground in Pyongyang with
what’s going on over there, do you mean to say that you’re trying to
understand who is calling the shots now with the reports or the
indications that Kim Jong Il is sick? And given their turnaround since
that time, is there an effort to find out who is in charge right now?

MR. WOOD: I think the effort is to find out why North Korea has taken
the steps that it’s taken. And we want to see those steps reversed.

And again, Chris is not just going to Pyongyang, although that’s a
very important stop, obviously, on the trip. He is going to meet with
his counterparts in other capitols in the region to talk about how we
can get the North back on the path to what it’s committed to
doing. And so I think it’s more trying to get a sense as to why they
took the steps that they took.

QUESTION: In a general sense, is it fair to say that you know that
it’s partly because of the delisting issue and the verification issue?
That they find it too stringent, the verification? Can you say that at
this point?

MR. WOOD: Well, you know, all I can say is that they haven’t submitted
a verification package. Hopefully, we’ll be able to find out better
why they have not done so. And again, in conversations with his
counterparts, Chris Hill is going to try to see what ways we can work
with our allies in the region to get the North to submit this
verification package.

But again, I want to stress this is not something that’s out of the
norm. It is a standard verification package. The North knows that it
is supposed to present the Six-Party ` the other members of the
Six-Party framework with this verification package. And again, Chris
will be making those points when he goes to the region.

QUESTION: Can I follow up with one more on this, Robert?

MR. WOOD: Sure.

QUESTION: You know, the North Koreans are known to be sticklers on
written agreements. I don’t believe that any of the agreements — any
of the written agreements ` flowing from the September 2005 agreement
actually explicitly addresses verification or explicitly requires the
North to submit a verification package. I think that the key document
referred to their making a complete and correct declaration, but I
don’t think it said anything of their nuclear programs ` but I don’t
think it said anything about submitting a verification package.

And the Singapore agreement ` again, an agreement on verification
principles ` is different from a specific agreement to, sort of,
produce a package or to accept the package that the United States has
proposed. So from the North Koreans point of view, they may feel that
they gave you a declaration. They may regard it as complete and
correct, and they may not feel obliged to accept your definition of a
verification regime.

MR. WOOD: Well, all I can say is that the North knows exactly what it
has to do. The verification package ` they’re quite aware that we need
to have that in place, a verifiable one, so that we can move forward
on other aspects of denuclearization. I can’t tell you why the North
is saying what it’s saying, but let me just again reiterate the fact
that this is not new. The North Koreans know exactly what’s required
of them. And you know, the idea that they couldn’t possibly ` or a
verification package is not something that they believe that they
needed to submit. That’s just not the case.

All the other members agree that we need to be able to verify the
declaration that the North submitted. And in order to do that we need
a verification package.

Let me try to ` go ahead, Kirit.

QUESTION: This is follow up on Arshad’s question Is there a ` can you
say whether Chris Hill is leaving the U.S. with any sort of idea or
compromise in mind to try to break the logjam?

MR. WOOD: Well, if he is, I’m not going to reveal anything here.

QUESTION: Could you say if he has ` I mean, is there something ` he’s
had a lot of meetings — the Secretary has, as well — over the past
week in New York. Can you say whether in those conversations ` the
consultations with the other four members, whether they’ve been able
to come up with some sort of proposal that they’re going to present at
Pyongyang?

MR. WOOD: Well, again, I’m not going to go into the substance of any
message or proposal that Chris may be carrying to the region, except
to say that we are going ` he is going to the region to try to look
for a way to move this process forward. And obviously, Chris will have
some ideas about how to do that. And we’ll just have to wait and see
where we go from there.

Please.

QUESTION: The process has been going precipitously backward for a few
weeks now. And going to the region is pretty much standard operation
for Chris Hill, but going to Pyongyang is not. Is this a — an effort
to try to salvage the process? Because he’s only gone to Pyongyang at
critical moments of the process. Is this an effort to try to salvage
the process right now?

MR. WOOD: Well, we want to get the process back on track. You know,
the fact that the North has taken these steps at reversing disablement
is of concern, major concern to us and the other members of the
Six-Party framework. So obviously, this is an important visit. And as
I said, Assistant Secretary Hill is looking to see what the reasons
are that the North took ` or what the reasons are for the North taking
these steps to reverse disablement. So that’s about the best I can say
on that at this moment.

QUESTION: If he comes away empty handed, is that very damaging for
this process?

MR. WOOD: Well, let’s not speculate. Let’s let him get to the region
and have him begin his diplomacy there.

Please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Very recently there was a meeting between
Armenian President and —

MR. WOOD: Can we stay North Korea and then we can come back to that?

Charley.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Just briefly, you said he’s going at the direction of
Secretary Rice. Did he receive an invitation from the North Koreans?
Did he seek an invitation? Is there anything you can give us about the
timing of that?

MR. WOOD: I don’t know the details of that. I just know that he is
going to the region, and he’s going to obviously meet with
representatives of the North Korean Government. But I don’t know the
background of that, Charley, as to —

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the activities in Yongbyon? Like,
do you have any information?

MR. WOOD: No, no new information.

QUESTION: What’s going on?

MR. WOOD: No new information, but again, Chris will be going there and
hopefully will be able to get a better read on what’s happening there.

QUESTION: The (inaudible) are still there?

MR. WOOD: Yes, our monitors are still there.

QUESTION: He’s not going to go to (inaudible) — he’ll stay in
Pyongyang, right?

MR. WOOD: I don’t know. I just know that he’s going to Pyongyang. His
schedule isn’t, you know, finalized yet and there’ll obviously be more
details and we’ll try to fill you in on those as they become
available.

QUESTION: Do you know how long he will be ` his trip to North Korea?

MR. WOOD: Don’t know. Don’t know. Anything else on North Korea?

QUESTION: Did you —

MR. WOOD: Oh, I’m sorry, was there one more? Okay. Please, go.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Did you say that ` who he’s going to meet in
Pyongyang?

MR. WOOD: No.

QUESTION: You don’t have that information?

MR. WOOD: We don’t have the information.

Okay, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Yeah, there was a meeting between President of
Armenia in New York with Condoleezza Rice, the United States
Secretary. I’d like to ask if you can provide any information how the
meeting passed? And maybe we can broaden the topic of how you estimate
U.S-Armenia relations during the last period, especially after the
Ossetian crisis when there was cooperation between Armenia and the
United States concerning U.S. citizens who were coming from Georgia to
Armenia for ` leaving the region? Thank you.

MR. WOOD: Yeah, our cooperation with the Government of Armenia is very
good. I’ll have to refer you to the ` our people up in New York for a
more detailed readout of the Secretary’s meeting, because I don’t have
them here. Sorry.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. WOOD: Anything else?

David.

QUESTION: Did you have anything on the Ecuador election that passed,
the constitutional changes that would sort of solidify the position of
the president there?

MR. WOOD: Yeah. We offer our congratulations to the people of Ecuador
on the successful referendum and we reaffirm our commitment to build
on our successful cooperation with Ecuador, consistent with our
commitment to supporting Ecuadorian efforts to strengthen democratic
institutions and the prosperity of its people.

QUESTION: You’re not at all concerned about the provisions there that
would allow the incumbent president to stay in office?

MR. WOOD: Well, again, this referendum is something that was decided
on ` or the results of the referendum were decided on by the
Ecuadorian people and it’s a decision for them to make.

Charley, were you going to ask some more? No, okay.

QUESTION: This ` the weapons on this Ukrainian ship that was hijacked
by Somali pirates on its way to Sudan, apparently — does the
U.S. interpret this sort of arms shipment as a violation of the UN
arms embargo?

MR. WOOD: Well, right now, I understand the Pentagon has a ship that’s
monitoring the situation out there right now. I don’t have any other
details about it, other than to say that, obviously, we’ve been
concerned about piracy in this part of the world for a very long
time. We’ve had travel warnings in the past about the situation off
the coast there. And ` but beyond that, I don’t have anything for you
on that. I’d probably refer you to the Pentagon for more details on
that.

QUESTION: Do you have lawyers who are examining whether this was a
violation of the UN —

MR. WOOD: I’m sure people will be looking at those aspects of it. But
right now, they’re obviously trying to resolve a standoff in the area,
first and foremost.

QUESTION: Could you say whether the U.S. is concerned or welcomes a
Russian ship that is also heading towards this, apparently, hijacked
ship?

MR. WOOD: Well, the Russians, I believe, are trying to lend their
support to the ship that was hijacked. So I don’t have anything to say
beyond that on it. They’re obviously concerned about it as we are.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. WOOD: Okay, thank you.

ENDS