Day Of Drawing To Be Organized In Dilijan

DAY OF DRAWING TO BE ORGANIZED IN DILIJAN

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
01.06.2009 14:00 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Today on the International Children’s Day the Day of
drawing will be organized in Dilijan in the framework of the Republican
Drawing Competition. Initiated by Wild nature and cultural heritage
protection fund and supported by Vivacell-MTS, this year competition
will be conducted not only in Yerevan, but Armenian regions.

The purpose of the Republican competition is to draw public attention
to ecological problems. Instead of drawing on papers the participants
of the competition will color tables and desks in kindergartens and
schools. Organizers are certain that tables painted by children will
make several generations turn gazes on beauty of the wild nature and
take better care of the planet Earth.

A Middle East democracy

Ha’aretz, Israel
May 31 2009

A Middle East democracy

By Zvi Bar’el

It’s hard to understand why the Israeli left fears the right wing’s
proposed legislation. Surely, these proposals are a grand step toward
integrating Israel into the Middle East. The legislators must have
been guided by Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Sudan, and perhaps some
states as advanced as Malawi and Ukraine, and seem to have borrowed
from their most enlightened laws.

MK Zevulun Orlev, for instance, has proposed a bill stating that
denying Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state should be
punishable by a year in prison. This is only slightly different from
the Turkish law that states that the massacre of the Armenians cannot
be called genocide. The sole difference is the penalty. In 2005,
renowned novelist Orhan Pamuk was indicted for saying, "Some 30,000
Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed on this land." He was
accused of "hurting Turkish national identity." Pamuk is the
best-known figure accused of violating this law, but he is not the
only one.

Turkey happens to be a rigidly secular state. Anyone who defies this
will find himself on trial for damaging the national identity or,
worse, acting in a manner that can bring about an act of hatred,
contempt or disloyalty toward the state. The exact wording of the
Orlev draft. Advertisement

Turkey is not the only state to emulate. In 2007, Egyptian blogger
Abdel Kareem Nabil was convicted of offending Islam and the president,
both of them key components of Egyptian identity. Al Jazeera reporter
Howaida Taha was sentenced to six months of hard labor after being
convicted of "damaging the state’s image."

Similar clauses exist in Syrian law, and have resulted in the
imprisonment of intellectuals and journalists who "offended the image
and identity of the state."

MK David Rotem’s proposal conditioning citizenship on a declaration of
loyalty to the state’s character is reminiscent of the Egyptian law
denying ID cards to anyone not belonging to one of the three
monotheistic religions. This law meant that for many years, members of
Egypt’s Bahai community could not obtain ID cards, and therefore could
not open bank accounts, register their children for school or receive
state benefits. This year, a court declared they could overcome this
problem by not listing their religion on their identification papers.

Incidentally, the enlightened Israeli legislators’ phrasing of their
bills resembles many Arab nations’ constitutions in its deliberate
vagueness, which allows for a wide range of interpretations.

In Arab countries, these laws acquired a variety of derogatory
nicknames and are known as "fear laws" and "laws of shame," used by
the regime to protect itself rather than its state. These countries
use such laws to neutralize political opponents or help the ruling
party stay in power. Enemies are dealt with through criminal law or
administrative orders.

Some people in Israel say the new bills target Arabs, and that good
Israeli Jews will be immune. How very wrong. The radical right is set
on taking its regional integration all the way. Fascism fears "enemies
from within" even more than it fears minorities. So it’s perfectly
right to be very much afraid that these laws will be used against
journalists, writers, poets, and of course, politicians who dare say
anything that could cause contempt for the state. The sole consolation
is that even the authors of the new laws could be tried for tarnishing
the national image.

The solution to the "movement for Judaizing legislation" is not
denouncing attacks on minorities or racism. Here, too, Turkey and
Egypt are useful examples. The EU is conditioning Turkey’s joining the
union on more liberal legislation, and the U.S. is conditioning part
of its aid to Egypt on a changed approach to civil rights. They must
treat Israel the same way. And one more thing – all this is being
offered before the bills become law. Once they pass, their authors
themselves might face trial for bringing hatred and contempt on the
state.

MG OSCE Co-Chairs met RA President

MG OSCE Co-Chairs met RA President
30.05.2009 13:52 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Yerevan hosted a meeting of MG OSCE Co-Chairs for
NKR conflict settlement with RA President Serzh Sargsyan. After the
meeting with RA Government Leader, MG OSCE Co-Chairs, Matthew Bryza
(US), Bernard Fassier (France) and Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia) will meet
RA FM Edward Nalbandian for the second time.
MG OSCE Co-Chairs have arrived in Yerevan to prepare the oncoming
meeting between RA and Azeri Presidents in St. Petersburg on June 4.

Obama and the Denial of Genocide – An Interview With David Boyajian

Obama and the Denial of Genocide – An Interview With David Boyajian

By Michael Zezima, 12 May 2009

Michael Zezima, one of the Web’s most noted political commentators,
conducted the following interview with David Boyajian. Zezima is
known professionally as `Mickey Z.’ (). The interview
was also published on several other widely read websites, including
ForeignPolicyJournal, CounterCurrents, IndyMedia, OnlineJournal, and
OpEdNews.
Writer-activist David Boyajian’s investigative articles and
commentaries have appeared in Armenian media outlets in the U.S.,
Europe, Middle East, and Armenia, and the Newton Tab and USA Armenian
Life newspapers named him among their "Top 10 Newsmakers of 2007." So,
when Barack Obama paid a visit to Turkey last month, it seemed like a
good time to ask Boyajian for his take on the new president’s approach
to the issue of the Armenian genocide.

Mickey Z: This April, President Barack Obama broke campaign promise
#511, namely to explicitly acknowledge the Armenian genocide as U.S.
President. What happened on his recent visit to Turkey? What are the
ramifications of his breaking this promise?
David Boyajian: President Obama visited Turkey from April 6 to 7, where
he did not use the word `genocide’ when referring to the 1.5 million
murders committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against its Armenian
citizens from 1915-1923. As a candidate, Obama had promised several
times to do so. His statement in Turkey that he had `not changed his
views”implying he still believes it was genocide’was still a clear
breach of his promise to use the `G word.’ It was a case study in
verbal gymnastics and political duplicity and should be studied in
political science courses. Obama’s broken promise obviously eroded his
credibility. The same holds true for Vice President Joe Biden and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, as senators, supported the
Armenian genocide resolution. They’ve since fallen disgracefully
silent. Dr. Samantha Power should also be embarrassed. She’s the
National Security Council’s genocide expert and a Pulitzer Prize
winning author. As a campaign advisor to Obama, she made a video
telling Armenian Americans that as president, Obama would definitely
acknowledge their genocide. `Take my word for it,’ she said.

Appeasement of a genocide-denying country such as Turkey is bad policy
because its message is that genocides can be committed without
consequence. Appeasement also erodes U.S. credibility on human rights
and its stated desire to be a leader in genocide prevention. Unlike
what lobbyists for Turkey would have us believe, Armenian genocide
affirmation by America would not harm U.S. national interests. Turkey
depends on the U.S. for weapons systems, support for billions in loans
from the International Monetary Fund, security guarantees through NATO,
advocacy for Turkish membership in the European Union, and more. Some
20 countries, including Canada, France, and Switzerland, as well as the
parliaments of the EU and the Council of Europe, have acknowledged the
Armenian genocide. None has ever experienced much more a Turkish
temper tantrum in retaliation.

MZ: Two days prior to Armenian Genocide Remembrance day’ which
annually falls on April 24’Turkey and Armenia announced that they had
agreed to a `roadmap’ to normalize relations. What was the significance
of this timing? What does the `roadmap’ contain?

DB: Behind the scenes, the U.S. State Department had long been twisting
Armenia’s arm to agree to a so-called `roadmap’ with Turkey before
President Obama issued what has become a customary `April 24 statement’
by U.S. presidents marking Armenian genocide memorial day. The
`roadmap,’ announced on April 22, provided political cover for Obama to
not use the `G word’ on April 24. That is, since there was now
supposedly a roadmap for normalization of relations’no matter how vague
and hurriedly slapped together’ Obama could say that he did not want to
upset Turkey and the touted-as-highly-delicate Turkish-Armenian
negotiations by using the `G word.’ Notice that Obama did not consult
with Armenian-Americans or Armenia about this. So much for promises
and moral principles. It’s disgraceful that Obama, simply to help
Turkey save face, not only broke his promise, but showed blatant
disregard for the activists’not just Armenians’who labored so hard for
many years for the cause of recognizing all genocides.

Armenia has always said that it was ready to normalize relations with
Turkey’which would include Turkey’s re-opening its border with
Armenia’without pre-conditions. Suddenly, however, Armenia has had
pre-conditions imposed on it in this `roadmap.’ According to the
Turkish press, the `roadmap’ allegedly contains pre-conditions such as:
Armenia’s agreeing to a joint commission to examine the veracity of the
Armenian genocide’yes, you heard right, Armenia’s formal recognition of
current Turkish boundaries’which contain the Armenian homeland, and,
possibly, Armenia’s accepting Turkish mediation in the conflict between
Armenians and Azerbaijan over the disputed Armenian region of
Karabagh’which is absurd since Azerbaijan and Turkey are allies. It
appears that Armenia’s president, whose electoral legitimacy is in
question, has been worn down in these negotiations by Turkey, the West,
and possibly even Russia. And because the Armenian president is
grappling with his legitimacy, he is not heeding the cautions being
voiced by the20people of his own nation about the `roadmap.’

MZ: The U.S. administration and mainstream media would have us believe
that Turkey is seeking to `reconcile’ with Armenia. Is
`reconciliation’ really a possibility, or have we misunderstood what’s
going on?

DB: The word `reconciliation’ in relation to Armenian-Turkish relations
is largely an invention of U.S. policymakers, their emissaries, and the
mainstream media who take their cues from them. What the U.S. and
Europe would like to see is a more stable Caucasus’that is, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia’with open borders. Open borders, you see,
would facilitate laying more oil and gas pipelines that would originate
in the Caspian Sea region and proceed west to Turkey and then to
energy-hungry Europe and Israel. The U.S. and Europe don’t want to put
it quite that crudely’no pun intended’so they try to depict Armenia and
Turkey as possibly `reconciling’ and thus resolving all their
differences. Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 out of
sympathy with its ally Azerbaijan, which was in a war with the
Armenians of Karabagh, a historically Armenian-populated autonomous
area within Azerbaijan that Stalin handed to Azerbaijan. Turkey has
also been infuriated that Armenia and Armenians worldwide have been
demanding that Turkey acknowledge the genocide it committed against
Armenians.

Turkey has to acknowledge the genocide or there will never be peace
between it and Armenia. And although the Armenian government has not
put forth any claims for reparations arising out of the genocide, or
for territory, many Armenians do have these goals. They cite the
Treaty of Sèvres of 1920, which provided for Armenian sovereignty over
Armenian lands upon which Turkey committed the genocide, and which have
since been incorporated into what is now eastern Turkey.

MZ: The countries of the Caucasus are Armenia, Georgia, and
Azerbaijan. Most Americans, including the mainstream media, could not
find these small countries on a map. Why are Russia and the U.S.’the
latter being thousands of miles from the region’so interested in these
three small countries?

DB: The Caucasus is truly Ground Zero in Cold War II, the ongoing
conflict between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S.’along with Europe and
the NATO military alliance’regard Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan as
middlemen between the West and the gas and oil-rich regions around the
Caspian Sea. The West has already laid gas and oil pipelines from
Azerbaijan through Georgia and then on to Turkey and the west. The
U.S. wanted those and future pipelines to bypass Russia and Iran
because those two countries could shut such pipelines to pressure the
U.S. and others. The only possible pipelines routes, therefore, are
through Georgia or Armenia. But Turkey shut its border with Armenia in
1993, and Azerbaijan closed its border with Armenia even earlier due to
the conflict between it and the de-facto Armenian region of Karabagh.
That left Georgia as the only place for these Western pipelines. After
the Russian-Georgian war last year, however, opening an alternative
route has become more urgent. That largely explains the West’s renewed
interest in Armenia. Conversely, Russia sees the Caucasus as within
its traditional sphere of influence, and regards U.S. and European
interest in the region as hostile acts.

Simultaneously, NATO has been pushing into the region. Georgia,
Azerbaijan, and to some extent even the ex-Soviet republics on the
other side of the Caspian Sea, are on the path to joining NATO. Russia
was already upset that, following the Cold War, NATO had absorbed the
former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe. NATO is now attempting,
in effect, to do the same thing on Russia’s southern border. Russia
fears that it will eventually be virtually surrounded by NATO. As a
result, we have Cold War II: The U.S. and NATO are trying to push into
the Caucasus and Central Asia, while Russia is trying to keep them out.

MZ: Why is Israel interested in the Caucasus, and what role is that
country playing? Why are Israel and the pro-Israel lobby dead set
against recognition of the Armenian genocide by the U.S. Co
ngress?

DB: Israel is interested in getting some of the oil and gas that flow
out of the Caspian Sea region. That is, from countries such as
Azerbaijan, oil and gas flow west through Georgia, and then on to
Turkey and other countries, possibly including Israel. After all, the
U.S. and Turkey, which are important players in these pipelines, are
obviously also very friendly with Israel. Israel also welcomes all
non-Arab supplies of energy since they would make its Western allies
less dependent on Arab oil and gas. And Israel has long had what it
calls its Periphery Policy. Historically, Israel has not had good
relations with its Arab neighbors. Therefore, to serve as
counterweights, Israel befriends those countries further away,
especially Muslim countries, that aren’t necessarily sympathetic to
Israel’s Arab neighbors or Palestinians. Azerbaijan, the only Muslim
nation in the Caucasus, and some Muslim nations to the east, such as
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, are such countries. Fortuitously for
Israel, they also possess significant deposits of gas and oil.

For decades, Israel and Turkey have had very good relations, mainly
because they have a common ally, the U.S., and common adversaries,
namely Arab nations. In the 1990’s, Israel and Turkey signed a number
of military, economic, and political agreements that solidified their
relationship. Even before that, but particularly after that, Turkey
felt that it did not have sufficient lobbying muscle in Washington. So
the Turks asked Israel to convince some of the pro-Israel lobby’the
Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and others’to serve
as advocates for Turkey. The Jewish lobby groups agreed. So these
groups, as part of their deal with Turkey, deny or call into question
the Armenian genocide and work to prevent U.S. acknowledgement of that
genocide. These groups won’t tolerate anyone questioning of the
Holocaust, and yet hypocritically work against acknowledgment of the
Armenian genocide. Interestingly, for the last 2 years, Armenian
Americans have exposed the ADL’s hypocrisy. In Massachusetts, for
example, fourteen cities severed ties with an anti-bias program
sponsored by the ADL because of the latter’s hypocritical and
anti-Armenian stance (see NoPlaceForDenial.com). Armenians are
determined to challenge genocide denial whenever it occurs.

MZ: Is there a problem with the way the mainstream media has been
covering Armenian issues?

DB: Yes. The mainstream media have several problems. First, they know
very little about the Caucasus or Armenians. Reporters tend,
therefore, to copy each other and repeat clichés and falsehoods’such as
that Armenia and Turkey are on the verge of a historic
`reconciliation.’ Media also tend to accept at face value the
propaganda issued by Western governments whose interest in the Caucasus
is’let’s be frank’not `reconciliation,’ democracy, or human rights, but
rather self-interested economic, political, and military political
penetration of the Caucasus.

Turkey has about 30 times more people and territory, and 50 times more
Gross Domestic Product, than Armenia. The power differential is
enormous. Turkey has infinitely more allies in Western media,
governments, think tanks, and multi-national corporations’and knows how
to use them. Commentators who have a vested interest in touting Turkey
for their own political and even financial reasons have particularly
come out of the woodwork to deride legitimate Armenian demands. But we
rarely hear commentators speak of how a small country that has been the
victim of genocide, that has had most of its territory stripped from
it, and that has been blockaded by the denier of that
genocide’Turkey’is being threatened by that very same unrepentant
denier. Mainstream media largely fail to appreciate the foregoing
facts. Hopefully, Mickey, this interview will help the media and your
readers understand the issues and the region a bit better.

David Boyajian can be reached at [email protected]

http://www.keghart.com/node/482
www.MickeyZ.net

One More Chance: Yerevan Elections

One More Chance: Yerevan Elections
Civilitas Perspective / Democracy
by Salpi Ghazarian

Saturday, 30 May 2009 16:16

May 31 is the date that will mark the first constitutional opportunity
to popularly elect the leadership of Yerevan, home to nearly half of
Armenia’s population.

This is history-in-the-making for two reasons: Not only does the
electorate have a chance to decide who best represents their vision for
their city; but, inarguably more important for Armenians at this time,
the political forces have a chance to decide whether they trust the
people to make such a decision.

Elections are not the only standard by which to judge a democracy. But
certainly they are an indispensable standard. These are not theoretical
political concepts. This means — are we determined that we can and
will become a country where the people choose who governs them, and
where those who govern feel accountable to the people? That’s the
simple question which each election forces us to ask.

The question is even more urgent today. The Yerevan city elections come
just a year after a cynical presidential election and a disastrous
follow-up. The ensuing political climate — from paralyzing
polarization to hopeless apathy — has impacted individual lives and
our collective future.

The Yerevan city elections offer a remedial opportunity, a chance to
regain faith in ourselves and those who live with us, those who purport
to govern us, those who wish to lead us. It’s hard to say who bears the
greatest burden in this formula. But certainly, the responsibility is
on those in power and wishing to attain power.

ANKARA: Proximity Of Views In Turkish – U.S. Relations

Turkish Press
May 29 2009

Proximity Of Views In Turkish – U.S. Relations

MILLIYET
Published: 5/29/2009
BY SAMI KOHEN

Istanbul’s Bahcesehir University is hosting an important conference on
Turkish-US relations today. The distinguished diplomats and academics
from the US will discuss the relations comprehensively and make
projections about the future, along with their Turkish colleagues in
the three-day conference, organized by the American Researches Center
of the university. This conference will give the opportunity of make
more healthy evaluations about the course of Turkish-US relations,
after Barack Obama was elected president and visited Turkey. Following
the difficulties caused by the Bush era, people started to hope that a
closer agreement will be reached between Ankara and Washington and the
‘partnership’ which was defined with various adjectives (such as
‘strategic’) in the past will be based on more real
foundations. Indeed, the new president’ world view which is different
than his predecessor and his willingness for making important changes
in foreign politics has opened a new perspective in Turkish-US
relations.

As a matter of fact, there is proximity of views between Ankara and
Washington on regional issues which particularly concern us. Let’s
start with the Middle East. Obama has taken a different stance than
Bush about the Issue and gave the message to Tehran that it was ready
for dialogue with a new opening. Ankara has been adopting and
suggesting this stance to the US since the very beginning. The US has
also displayed a similar change of stance about the Syrian issue and
taken the first step to normalize its relations with Damascus. This
situation is also in line with the policy followed by Turkey. Obama
also brought new dimensions to the US’ policies about the Palestinian
issue. On the one hand, it favors the solution of ‘two states,’ and on
the other, it treats Israel more distantly than in previous
years. This development is more harmonious with Turkey’s
stance. Finally, the US’ adoption of a withdrawal calendar about the
Iraq issue and the importance that it places on Iraq’s territorial
integrity provide the proximity of views with Turkey greatly.

The cooperation between the two countries is getting stronger about
the situation on northern Iraq and the struggle against the PKK. As
for the Caucasus, there is fundamental agreement between Ankara and
Washington about protecting Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity and initiating the normalization process between Turkey and
Armenia. The same thing can be said about Afghanistan (and now for
Pakistan).

Looking at the picture, one can get the impression that Turkey and the
US have similar views on certain issues. But once the strategies
followed by the US and Turkey on these issues are deeply analyzed,
certain differences can be seen. Obama has made an opening about the
Iran issue, but he also stated that he wouldn’t be able to wait
forever about the nuclear program issue. Unless a development occurs,
Obama might bring forward the issue of sanction and similar options
towards the end of the year. How will Turkey, which is a Security
Council member, act at that time? The US adopts the principle of ‘two
states’ about the Palestinian issue, but it considers only the Mahmoud
Abbas regime as legitimate on behalf of Palestine and regards Hamas as
a terrorist organization, as opposed to Turkey. It stipulates that it
ends its support for terrorist organizations for normal relations with
Syria. Similarly, once the issue is deeply analyzed, there are certain
differences in two countries’ strategies on other regional issues as
well. Today these differences don’t create an impact on relations (and
even the cooperation), but if a crisis occurs in these problems,
distresses might also emerge in relations.

BAKU: Meeting Of Presidents To Be Held On June 4 In St. Petersburg:

MEETING OF PRESIDENTS TO BE HELD ON JUNE 4 IN ST. PETERSBURG: FRENCH CO-CHAIRMAN OF MINSK GROUP

Trend News Agency
May 29 2009
Azerbaijan

The meeting of the Presidents will be held on June 4 in St. Petersburg,
French co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group Bernard Fassier briefed
the media.

"The talks in Baku were normal. We did not expect a special break. This
was the preparation work for the meeting of the Presidents in
St. Petersburg," said U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group
Matthew Bryza.

"In my opinion, this will be an interesting meeting – Bryza
said. – Co-chairmen expect significant progress from the meeting
in St. Petersburg. The President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev was
constructive in Prague, and we expect the same reaction from the
President of Armenia Serj Sarkisyan. Tomorrow we will meet with
Sarkisyan and look forward to constructive negotiations".

With regards to the statement that the OSCE Minsk Group has not been
able to achieve progress in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
for a period of 18 years, Fassier replied: "If reaching an agreement
would be in force of the Minsk Group, the agreement would be signed. It
does not depend on us. We can not tell the Presidents of Azerbaijan
and Armenia to be smoothed over the conflict. "According to him,
it depends on the political courage of both Presidents.

Bryza said that the OSCE Minsk Group could achieve more, but the
meeting on 4 June can bring something specific and unexpected.

Fassier said that Turkey is an important member of the Minsk Group
and supported the efforts of the co-chairmen on the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement.

BAKU: Liberation Of All Occupied Azerbaijani Lands And Return Of Int

LIBERATION OF ALL OCCUPIED AZERBAIJANI LANDS AND RETURN OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS TO THEIR LANDS STAND ON THE TABLE OF TALKS TODAY: PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN

Today.Az
tics/52646.html
May 29 2009
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has stated that mechanism of
Nagorno-Karabakh’s separation from Azerbaijan does not and will never
stand on table of talks.

"I want to state it once again as various speculations are often spread
on this issue. Nagorno-Karabakh will be an independent state not today
and neither after 10, nor after 100 years. Azerbaijan’s position is
unequivocal. Despite pressures, we will maintain this position to the
end," AzerTaj state news agency quoted Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev as saying at an official reception on Republic Day on May 27.

The president said currently the talks are more intensive. "Azerbaijan
demonstrates constructive and fair position based on international
law. Liberation of all occupied Azerbaijani lands and return of
internally displaced persons to their lands stand on the table of
talks today," President Aliyev said.

The president said Azerbaijan has consolidated its international
position.

"We are integrating with world community while we build our policy on
national interests, deep historical and cultural basis. Azerbaijan’s
foreign policy is very clear. We are interested in developing mutually
profitable and bilateral relations with all countries. Azerbaijan is
recognized as reliable country and partner in international arena. The
number of our friends and allies has increased significantly recently,"
the Azerbaijani president said.

President Aliyev said unfortunately Azerbaijan has not yet achieved
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict despite all efforts.

"It has a single reason – Armenia’s non-constructive position and a
tactics of deliberate delay of talks. It is known that Armenia uses
such tactics. But this tactics can not last for a long time. The issue
must be resolved only under international law. Azerbaijan will not
surrender its principal and fair position based on international
law. We will not take a step back. Azerbaijan is supported by
all international organizations. On some occasions Armenia tries
to introduce principles of self-determination as principles of
territorial integrity. But it can only be accepted by people who
are not informed about this issue and do not engaged in politics. It
is not accidental that the world community rejects this approach,"
the Azerbaijani president said.

The president said Azerbaijani will enhance its defense capacity.

"Funds will be allocated as much as needed. Sometimes international
community believes that Azerbaijan is doing too much work in this
regard and policy provokes concerns. Simply we are using our natural
right. We are spending our own funds. We spend the funds, earned
due to Azerbaijani people’s hard work, to strengthen our army. Today
Azerbaijan’s increasing economic power enables to spend $2 billion
for army-building. This figure equals Armenia’s state budget. This
great abyss between Armenia and Azerbaijan will further deepen in the
coming years and Azerbaijan will become a strong state. Armenia must
remain and will remain isolated from all international projects due
to its aggressor policy," he added.

"Azerbaijan’s increased opportunities, significance and credibility
worldwide consolidates our position," the president said.

"We will continue our policy to isolate Armenia from all regional and
global projects until our lands are liberated," President Aliyev said.

http://www.today.az/news/poli

First Ambassador Of Benin Hands His Credentials To President

FIRST AMBASSADOR OF BENIN HANDS HIS CREDENTIALS TO PRESIDENT

Panorama.am
15:06 27/05/2009

The President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan received today the Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Benin Ayi Visinto d’Almeida,
the President’s Cabinet reports.

Congratulating the Ambassador, the President emphasized that the
diplomat would make valuable efforts to contribute to the cooperation
of the countries. The parties have signified Armenia’s Benin’s
communication in the frames of various international organizations.

CSTO Defense Ministers To Meet In Moscow On June 3

CSTO DEFENSE MINISTERS TO MEET IN MOSCOW ON JUNE 3

ArmInfo
2009-05-27 12:29:00

ArmInfo. Collective Security Treaty Organization Council of Defense
Ministers will meet in Moscow on June 3, CSTO International Public
Information Support Center (IPISC) national office in Yerevan told
ArmInfo.

Draft agenda of the meeting contains nearly 20 issues. The defense
ministers will study the fulfillment of the decision by the CSTO
National Security Council Extraordinary Summit on formation of
Collective Rapid Deployment Force and the legal basis prepared for
this purpose.

Chairman of the Council of Defense Ministers will report on the
measures taken as Part of the CSTO Coalition Ministry Building for 2010
and further prospects. The ministers will consider draft agreements
on basic principles of the system of secret management of forces and
system of collective security means, on material reserves to form
forces and means of this system etc.

The ministers are expected to study the Plan of Joint Actions
to contribute to stabilization of the situation in Aghanistan and
counteract challenges and threats from Afghanistan as well as the Plan
of Consultation of CSTO representative for foreign policy, security
and defense for second half of 2009 – first half of 2010. Armenia
assumed CSTO chairmanship from Kyrghyzstan in 2008.