Author: Chalian Meline

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
July 25, 2007 Wednesday
SOONER EDITION

DEALING WITH DARFUR;
WASHINGTON HAS OTHER FISH TO FRY, BUT WE STILL SHOULD DO MORE TO STOP
THE GENOCIDE

by Dan Simpson

Pittsburgh benefited last week from the visit of retired U.S.
ambassador Larry G. Rossin, currently serving as senior international
coordinator for the Save Darfur Coalition, represented here by the
five-organization Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency Coalition.

Mr. Rossin has experience dealing with tough problems, including as
U.S. Ambassador to Croatia and assignments in Haiti and Kosovo. As
problems go, Darfur is as bad as it gets. He remains upbeat and has
ideas of how to push ahead.

Darfur, which means "place of the Fur people," is part of Western
Sudan. Its problems have spilled over into neighboring Chad and the
Central African Republic. The adjacent regions of both of those
countries share with Darfur excruciating dryness and poverty,
isolation and now displaced people and conflict. It is estimated that
more than 2.5 million people have been dislodged by the Darfur
troubles, which began in 2003, with between 200,000 and 400,000
killed. One must add that whenever numbers like that are rounded off
to the nearest hundred thousand it means that no one really knows how
many have been displaced or killed. But it’s a lot.

Partly because the Darfur problem has been around for a while it
receives some attention. On Thursday President Bush said he had
considered sending U.S. troops there — but had rejected the idea.
(It might have been the matter of 170,000 U.S. troops in Iraq with
more possibly to be sent to enhance the "surge.") On Friday, meeting
in Paris, new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and new French
President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to do something about Darfur, in
the U.N. Security Council or somewhere, joining Mr. Bush in talking
about what a terrible problem it was and how something had to be done
about it by someone.

Darfur stays in front of a not-awfully-interested U.S. population
because of the good work of people like Mr. Rossin and the Rev.
Carmen A. D’Amico, pastor of St. Benedict the Moor Catholic Church on
the Hill, which hosted a public meeting Thursday night. One reason
the Darfur issue continues to get attention is that it has been
called genocide.

This means, first, that peoples who have been victims of genocide,
such as Armenians, Jews and Rwandans, are interested in Darfur due to
fellow-feeling and the sympathy of shared pain and grief, and because
they don’t want their own fates to be forgotten by history.

Second, genocide is something that no one wants to be accused of
perpetrating, or of having condoned by inaction. This is what gets
Mr. Bush to talk about it, although he has yet to do anything that
has any significant impact in Darfur or Sudan.

Although Darfur is a perfectly ghastly problem, it is not easily
susceptible to becoming an issue in the U.S. presidential elections
because it is too complicated. It is hard to see the candidates
making a point in a speech about Darfur, starting by hoisting a map
to show where the place is.

Here are some of the reasons why Darfur is so hard.

* Like real estate, location. No infrastructure. No roads. No air
strips. Not even any cities. Geographically it is in the middle of
the roughest part of Africa.

* It is in Sudan, a country that has been the epitome of difficult
African countries since well before independence in 1956. If anyone
saw the movie "Khartoum," remember when the Mahdi, played by Sir
Laurence Olivier in black face with an Indian accent, organized the
death by spearing of Charlton Heston, playing British General Sir
Charles Gordon, on the porch of his office? Sudan is and always has
been an uneasy combination of pastoralists speaking Arabic,
darker-skinned farmers speaking African languages and others, living
in a large country with little water and few resources. The
pastoralists, with a general, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, as
president now, have been on top pretty much since the beginning. His
group’s approach to human rights has been very mixed.

Sudan was torn by north-south civil war for decades, ending with a
fragile agreement in 2005. Some people speculate that the reason the
world hasn’t pushed Sudan harder on Darfur is because of the risk of
the north-south accord, which was difficult to achieve, coming
unglued.

The Sudanese government is quite artful at fending off attempts to
influence its behavior through international pressure. It allowed
basically clawless African Union peacekeepers to be sent to Darfur.
It has bobbed and weaved about allowing in potentially more competent
U.N. peacekeeping forces.

* Sudan found oil. Chinese companies have staked out most of it.
China has also quietly assumed the role of protector of Sudan in the
United Nations and other forums. There is some thought that China’s
wishing to host a quiet and unprotested Olympic games in 2008 will
make it susceptible to pressure to push the Sudanese to be reasonable
about Darfur. I am skeptical. If one wanted to push the Chinese about
something in connection with the Olympics, one could easily think of
trying to ensure the human rights of the Tibetans, the Uighars or
Falun Gong, under China’s own roof.

Apart from giving the Sudanese independence of action, its oil also
serves as a deterrent to U.S. involvement in the Darfur affair. All
it would take is for someone to suggest that the United States was
interested in intervening in Sudan to get its hands on the country’s
oil — as it is sometimes suggested with respect to Iraq — or,
worse, that the United States was, in fact, zeroing in on another
Muslim country, and our engagement could become unwelcome indeed.

I see some hope in increased French interest in Darfur, since it has
military and other resources in neighboring Chad and the Central
African Republic. I think, for now, however, that the United States
has other fish to fry, although the Darfur coalition should
definitely keep the heat on Washington on this issue.

It is difficult to overestimate significance of the state of peace in
Karabakh conflict zone

Interview of NKR President’s advisor on foreign political affairs Arman
Melikyan with ArmInfo Agency

Mariam Levina

ArmInfo, June 25, 2007
2007-07-27 16:17:00

A declaration on principles of peaceful and fair settlement of the
Abkhazian, Ossetian, Karabakh and Transdniestr conflicts has been
recently signed in Tiraspol. How much viable will the document be
taking into account that it was signed by some of the parties to the
conflict , while other parties responded in no way?

As representatives of our states, we present the positions of our
peoples and, in this sense, no one can neglect these positions which,
in addition, fully meet the international legal regulations, moral
norms and concepts of justice. In this context, indication of our
approaches was important and one cannot but pay attention to this. I am
sure it will be taken into account in any case. It is quite another
issue what decisions will be made by one or another states per these
approaches.

You have recently expressed an opinion that Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transdniestria have some apprehensions regarding GUAM. What does
Nagorno Karabakh feel towards this organization?

Every GUAM member seeks its interest in this community. They try to
achieve some common goals by joint efforts. Fundamentally, this is an
alliance of states which try to escape the `trusteeship’ of RF towards
the West, on one hand, and these states have some unresolved problems
which they try to solve, on the other hand. In particular, this is the
problem of interrelations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia for Georgia,
the problem of interrelations with Transdniestr Moldovian Republic for
Moldova and that with Nagorno Karabakh – for Azerbaijan. Georgia,
Moldova and Azerbaijan try to settle these interrelations by means of
dictate, pressure, threats of force application and, doing it jointly,
they want to legitimatize the force approaches and persuade the world
community, which has also ambiguous interests, into it. In a global
geopolitical context, the issue that exists in Azerbaijan-NKR
interrelations, seriously differs from all the other conflicts in the
post-Soviet space. If in a situation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia
much is linked with interrelations of the Western Europe with Georgia,
on one hand, and the relations of Russia with Georgia, on the other
hand, this is the issue of influence on Georgia for RF and the western
states. The same concerns Transdniestria. The situation in Karabakh is
different and the significance of Karabakh is quite different. It goes
beyond the regional processes and it is of global nature. Resumption of
military actions in Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict zone will seriously
hit both the communications and possible energy supplies to the West,
as well as influence of Europe and the USA in this region, in general.
In this sense, it is difficult to overestimate significance of the
state of peace, not so much for the conflict parties as for the world
community. That is the serious difference.

Is preserving of peace in the region also important for Russia?

Undoubtedly it is. The issue of war and peace here is sufficient for
Russia.

Does it seem to you that attempts are lately made to artificially raise
the authority of GUAM?

It does not seem to me, it is unambiguously so. Problematic states have
gathered in GUAM. They have huge internal problems, which are not only
concerned with their unrecognized neighbours. First of all, this is the
problem of society’s self-organization, which they are unable to solve
in view of several reasons. GUAM is a community of states-semifinished
products. Being recognized by the world community, they turned out
unable to organize the internal life, govern their own people and the
political process without violence. I am not talking of Ukraine, it has
no conflicts, however, the internal political situation there is
unstable. This is an unstable state, torn up by opposite forces. It is
difficult to predict the result of this confrontation. There are lots
of opportunities there, right up to split of the country. As for us,
though we are in the gravest condition, we have nobody to blame and ask
for something, we have to set hopes upon ourselves, and I am sure we
shall be able to overcome this difficult situation worthily. We should
model the situations, which create conditions, by ourselves for the
world community be interested in our position and reckon with our
opinion.

Can you tell in more details how these situations are modeled and what
is done particularly?

I would prefer not to go into details as many elements are already
afoot. I think it will be shown better with time. In general, we have
the same problems as in other states of the post-Soviet space and the
countries of the transitional period. We should be able to formulate
our goals more clearly and determine their solution ways, i.e. to be
better self-organized. I am sure we shall manage it.

There was the information that EU Special Representative on South
Caucasus Peter Semneby had changed his mind on his way to Nagorno
Karabakh and turned back. Do you have any data on this issue as it is
difficult to imagine that a European official may `change his mind’
being on the way?

It is also difficult for me to imagine. However, this is an issue
concerned with piquancy of the situation in the region. Any miscounted
step may lead to catastrophe. Therefore, the world forces prefer fixing
a status quo and undertaking no actions able to break it. Imbalance may
lead to irreversible consequences. However, this is the greatest plus
for us, since it means that within the frames of status quo, each of
the parties in the territory under its jurisdiction can realize the own
plans and no one will oppose to it if such plans do not contain a
threat of using force.

Do you consider the steps of OSCE MG cochairman, who made different
statements about the negotiation process, non- calculated?

I would not say that they are not calculated. Matthew Bryza acts within
the frames where he is authorized to make statements about the peaceful
process. However, I think that the USA will lose at any result. That is
the advantage of their foreign policy: they will have some average
profit, that one cannot say of EU. Therefore, it is not by accident
that the French co-chairman Bernard Fassier is the most active among
the three co-chairs. In itself, the process of Karabakh conflict
settlement is very interesting and instructive. I think one should not
set hopes upon someone’s favour. Both the people and the state must be
able to seek the ways of their prosperity, their future and security,
for which it is necessary to neatly count the same factors for
contiguous states. Some common geopolitical vector exists, we have to
catch this vector and lay our interests within its frames. I think it
is real. No money can replace this calculation, no spread-eagle or
militaristic statements can do what correct calculation can.

I would like to specify, do you mean Armenia or NKR or all together
under the word «we»?

I mean both Armenia, NKR and Diaspora. Fundamentally, this is a
national problem today.

In your opinion, do the relations between Armenia and NKR need some
specification?

Specifications must be introduced continuously. The life is running and
new ideas come to take the place of the old ones. However, one should
remember that Nagorno Karabakh Republic is not the Republic of Armenia.
Everyone who is there and here, must learn it. The second aspect is
that the talks on NKR’s joining Armenia mean serious territorial
changes, that is a great luxury for us and for which there are no
grounds. By the way, I would like to emphasize that both the co-chairs
and the Azerbaijani party mean NKAR when saying Nagorno Karabakh, that
is unacceptable for us. NKR has formed as an independent state with the
territory it controls now. This is the only approach to allow us avoid
the territorial losses. We must know what we shall receive in one or
another case. The talks on Karabakh’s joining Armenia mean not only
loss of great territories ` this joining will never be legitimized. It
means that even a territory to be joined to Armenia, will be always
questionable. Finally, the policy for NKR independence was taken in
1991, it is efficiently carried out and it will continue up to the
international recognition. There is no alternative. We should realize
it and not rush about in the hope of finding indulgence of Turkey or
Azerbaijan or someone else. No one will be on friendly terms with us by
force. All the pathetic calls to friendship with Turkey or Azerbaijan
lead to the one – they say: `Guys, we do not want to deal with you!’.
This will last until they have a burning desire to settle the relations
with us, for which one should act and not to seat and complain.

The Azerbaijani party has recently made a statement saying that Armenia
intends to take time-out in negotiations, that was responded by RA
Foreign Minister. Who takes the time-out in fact?

Mutual accusations are not a basis for negotiations. The point is that
the Karabakh party multiply claimed that the format of negotiations has
been perverted. I think it is impossible to achieve some settlement,
acceptable for Karabakh, in this format. The Azerbaijani party achieves
its goals via this format, i.e. it makes Armenia’s positions
vulnerable, as Armenia unambiguously figures as an aggressor in this
format. There are issues, on which Armenia cannot talk to Azerbaijan at
all: the issues of territories and refugees. Indeed, Armenia touches on
the issue of the status, that is right, since Armenia today is a
guarantee of NKR security. I think one may talk of real settlement only
when the negotiations are held with participation of all the involved
parties to the conflict. In addition, each party will bear
responsibility for a definite segment of agenda of the negotiation
process. We are in a cross-point of geopolitical interests. In this
sense, all the interested external forces try to create maximum
comfortable conditions for them. In this case, they have been trying to
create such conditions over several years due to exclusion of Nagorno
Karabakh from the negotiation process. Therefore, the process remains
fruitless from the viewpoint of positive shares. The only positive
moment here is non-resumption of the military actions.

There is also a positive moment of work of public organizations
concerning attraction of attention to the issue of refugees-Armenians
from Azerbaijan. This issue was long suppressed. However, due to the
work, being carried out, in particular, by the network of civil society
`Refugees and the International Law’, the issue attracts more and more
attention and the co-chairs have to respond to it. A poll was conducted
among the refugees and, if I am not mistaken, 90% of respondents
refused to return, while over 50% of Azerbaijanis, according to the
polls, are against their return. However, these people must live
somewhere. They should find their second Motherland. Karabakh, as one
of the two state formations in the territory of the former Soviet
Azerbaijan, has a right to receive its former nationals from
Azerbaijani SSR. It is noteworthy, that ethnic demarcation and
territorial division may become a key for the problem solution. In its
time, Azerbaijan was created as a common state of Armenians and
Moslems, since there were no Azerbaijanis at that time. Well, they
could not part in a civilized way, the Azerbaijani authorities applied
force, and now they have to bear with the reality. They have lost the
trust of the former Armenian population of Azerbaijani SSR and the
moral right to make any terms. In addition, the way of ethnic
demarcation is not a know-how, it was applied in the European practice
as well. It is quite another issue that the superpowers will have to
revise some of their approaches.

The American party periodically claims of uniqueness of the Kosovo
conflict, justifying it by the fact that this conflict was considered
by the USA, NATO and UN. How will you comment on it?

We must understand that the Law is a serving discipline. After every
repartition of the world, the parties negotiate about observance of the
agreements achieved. The agreements are periodically violated. Part of
the states says it is necessary to follow the agreements, while another
part says that they have become outdated and need to be changed. Today,
we are at the next crucial stage. Every conflict is unique. I do not
know how the statement of the American party `on uniqueness of the
Kosovo problem’ sounds verbatim, but what’s the difference if the NATO
participated in it or not? The Karabakh conflict is unique by the fact
that NATO did not take part in it! However, this is not the ground for
recognition of one or another newly-formed state. Fundamentally, it
gains the right for existence by itself.

MATHEW BRYZA TO VISIT BAKU FOR DISCUSSION OF ENERGY AND DEMOCRACY ISSUES

TREND News Agency, Azerbaijan
July 26 2007

Azerbaijan, Baku / Ò corr K. Ramazanova / United States’ Co-chairman of
the OSCE Minsk Group, the US Deputy Secretary of State, Mathew Bryza,
will visit Azerbaijan, the head of PR Department at the US Embassy
in Azerbaijan, Jonathan Henick, reported on 26 July.

Before arrival to Azerbaijan Bryza will visit Yerevan on 30 July. The
exact date of arrival to Baku has not been publicized.

The purpose of the Bryza’s visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan is to
discuss the issues of bilateral cooperation. According to Henick,
along with the ways of settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
Bryza will discuss energy and democracy issues in Baku.

Bryza has to be in Moscow on 2 August, where regularly consultations
on settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be held by the OSCE
Minsk Group’s co-chairmen ( Russia, France, and United States).

The conflict between two South Caucasus countries broke out in 1988 due
to territorial claims of Armenia to Azerbaijan. Since 1992, some 20%
of Azerbaijani territories (Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 nearby regions),
have been under the occupation of the Armenian Armed Forces. In May,
1994 the sides signed a ceasefire. Peace talks are still held under
the auspices of the Minsk Group of the OSCE chaired by Russia, France
and the United States, but in vain.

–Boundary_(ID_l6kyxzvumnn5I+2zUBDUIA)–

CHOUCHA, LA "JERUSALEM DU NAGORNY KARABAKH", ATTEND AUSSI LA PAIX

Agence France Presse
CHOUCHA (Azerbaïdjan) 26 juil 2007
26 juillet 2007 jeudi 4:50 AM GMT

MAGAZINE

Partagee entre deux cultures et au centre d’un conflit sans fin entre
Armeniens chretiens et Azerbaïdjanais musulmans, la ville historique
de Choucha est souvent appelee la "Jerusalem du Nagorny Karabakh".

Perchee sur un plateau surplombant les vallees fertiles du Nagorny
Karabakh, enclave a majorite armenienne en Azerbaïdjan, Choucha est
le berceau de la culture des chretiens armeniens qui la contrôlent
et des musulmans azerbaïdjanais qui la reclament.

Theâtre d’une bataille decisive lors de la guerre du Karabakh
(1988-92), Choucha est aujourd’hui en ruines, avec des habitations
eventrees, des bâtiments administratifs delabres, des eglises et
mosquees en miettes.

Pour marquer le 15e anniversaire de la prise de Choucha en 1992,
les autorites separatistes du Karabakh (soutenues par l’Armenie)
ont annonce un plan de reconstruction de la ville, qu’elles entendent
transformer en centre culturel et touristique.

"Chouchi etait une ville magnifique et le sera a nouveau", affirme
le chef adjoint de l’administration locale, Samvel Kharatounian,
designant la cite par son nom armenien.

Les autorites prevoient de depenser 7,2 millions d’euros pour restaurer
les bâtiments historiques, construire de nouvelles habitations et
remplacer les infrastructures.

Ce projet a provoque la colère des Azerbaïdjanais qui affirment
qu’après les avoir chasses, les separatistes veulent effacer leur
heritage.

"Sans Choucha, il ne peut y avoir d’Azerbaïdjan, le pays ne peut pas
exister. Cela a toujours ete une cite azerbaïdjanaise strategique",
dit un refugie de Choucha devenu analyste politique a Bakou, Khikmat
Sabiroglou.

Les Azerbaïdjanais datent la fondation de Choucha du milieu du 18e
siècle, lorsque la ville devint la capitale du khanat du Karabakh.

Les Armeniens affirment s’y etre etablis avant.

Longtemps la ville a ete marquee par la mixite. Choucha a ete un centre
culturel au 19e et au debut du 20e siècle, produisant des musiciens,
scientifiques et ecrivains renommes dans les deux communautes.

La ville etait connue pour sa beaute architecturale, notamment ses
17 mosquees et cinq eglises. Elle a ete un temps la deuxième plus
grande ville du Caucase du Sud, après la Georgienne Tbilissi, avec
plus de 60.000 habitants.

En depit de conflits occasionnels, Armeniens et Azerbaïdjanais ont
vecu ensemble dans une paix relative jusqu’a la fin de l’Empire russe
qui avait absorbe la region au 19e siècle.

Les combats ont eclate en 1920 quand les nouvelles republiques
d’Armenie et d’Azerbaïdjan ont commence a se disputer le contrôle de
Choucha. Des milliers de personnes moururent, les Armeniens s’enfuirent
de la cite.

Une fois la mainmise sovietique etablie sur la region, le contrôle
du Nagorny Karabakh fut laisse aux Azerbaïdjanais. L’enclave etait
majoritairement peuplee d’Armeniens mais les Azerbaïdjanais dominaient
a Choucha.

Lors des violents combats qui firent rage dans l’enclave en 1991, au
moment de l’effondrement de l’URSS, plus de 95% des 17.000 habitants
de Choucha etaient azerbaïdjanais.

Citadelle fortifiee surplombant Stepanakert ("capitale" du
Nagorny Karabakh), Choucha fut une forteresse pour les forces
azerbaïdjanaises. Le 8 mai 1992, les separatistes, soutenus par
l’Armenie nouvellement independante, lancèrent l’assaut sur la ville
et en prirent le contrôle.

Aujourd’hui, Choucha est au coeur des negociations de paix, chaque
partie en revendiquant le contrôle.

Les autorites locales affirment que le plan de restauration respectera
son histoire musulmane. Mais beaucoup a Choucha, où 3.000 personnes
vivent encore, n’acceptent pas l’idee d’un retour des musulmans.

"Aucun musulman ne vit ici, bien sûr. Les mosquees sont de
simples bâtiments historiques", dit Père Andreas de la cathedrale
Ghazanchetsots.

–Boundary_(ID_lf1WrEI p4qgk7TYCTk4Y0g)–

ARMENIA CONDEMNS AZERI EFFORTS TO TAKE KARABAKH ISSUE TO UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ARMENPRESS
Jul 25, 2007

YEREVAN, JULY 25, ARMENPRESS: Armenia has condemned today Azerbaijan’s
efforts to take the Nagorno-Karabakh case to the UN General Assembly’s
session, saying through a foreign ministry spokesman that every effort
to disrupt the work of the OSCE Minsk Group, the sole international
body mandated to help the sides find a solution to their dispute,
will affect the entire process of seeking a peaceful settlement of
the conflict.

Vladimir Karapetian, a spokesman of the foreign ministry, retaliated
to media reports quoting Novruz Mamedov, an Azeri presidential advisor
on foreign policy, as saying on Monday that his country will appoint
a delegation to the 62nd UN General Assembly only after the issue of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution is placed on its agenda.

Viktor Karapetian recalled that the previous 61-st session of the
UN General Assembly had two Nagorno-Karabakh related items, one
submitted by Azerbaijan and the other by GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan and Moldova), but none had been discussed.

He said under the UN procedure these items are incorporated into
General Assembly’s next session.

Mr. Karapetian also added that the General Assembly’s agenda is to
be approved by a special resolution, which can be questioned by any
of the UN member countries. H also said incorporation of Karabakh
related items on the UN agenda does not necessarily mean they will
be put to debates.

FORECASTING INFLUENCE OF TURKISH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON RELATIONS WITH ARMENIA PREMATURE

YERKIR
25.07.2007 17:38

YEREVAN (YERKIR) – It’s premature to make forecasts about possible
influence of Turkish parliamentary elections on Armenia, RA Deputy
Foreign Minister Armen Bayburdyan told reporters Wednesday.

"The parliamentary elections in Turkey reflect domestic processes and
any forecasts about Armenia are premature, since the AKP’s election
program did not contain any provision referring to relations with
official Yerevan.

"Erdogan’s party refrained from clearly representing its election
platform. Only after the new government proceeds to work it will be
possible to assess its positions," Mr Bayburdyan said.

When asked whether the elections may demonstrate a retreat from the
principles of a secular state, the RA Deputy FM said any remarks
can be merely theoretical at the moment, "for we base on practical
subject assessments," Novosti Armenia reports.

IN CONVICTION OF HOVHANNES MARGARIAN, LEADER OF "OYP" IS IN CONFORMITY WITH STANDARDS OF COMMON CANDIDATE FOR POST OF PRESIDENT

Noyan Tapan
Jul 24, 2007

YEREVAN, JULY 24, NOYAN TAPAN. The common candidate nominated by the
Armenian opposition forces in the presidential elections should be
young, educated, should have experience and certain achievements in the
political field, as well as be accepted and respected by people. This
statement was made by Hovhannes Margarian, a member of the "Orinats
Yerkir" ("Country of Law") faction of the National Assembly, at the
July 24 press conference. He added that Artur Baghdasarian, the leader
of the "Orinats Yerkir" party, corresponds to all these standards. At
the same time Hovhannes Margarian mentioned that the "Orinats Yerkir"
party is ready to conduct discussions and consultations with other
opposition forces concerning the question of the common candidate.

In response to the question of what other candidature can be put
forward by the "Orinats Yerkir" party in the presidential elections,
besides Artur Baghdasarian, H. Margarian said that it is early to
speak about it and that he does not want to make previsions. "Being
a public and open party, we will inform society about our decisions
in the future," he said. According to the representative of the
"Country of Law" party, there are political figures in the home
political field at present, who, irrespective of the fact that they
"have not got a chance to receive even 1% of the votes", are making
pretentious statements."

Touching upon the conversations about the probable nomination of
Levon Ter-Petrosian, the first RA President, Hovhannes Margarian
mentioned that he has not heard any statement about that from the
first President in person as yet. Therefore, as he concluded, "it
is untimely to speak" about the candidature of Levon Ter-Petrosian
"in a more detailed way" at present.

ARTSRUN KHACHATRIAN RELIEVED OF POST OF RA DEPUTY MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Noyan Tapan
Jul 24, 2007

YEREVAN, JULY 24, NOYAN TAPAN. Artsrun Khachatrian has been relieved of
the post of the RA Deputy Minister of Environmental Protection by the
decision of Serge Sargsian, the RA Prime Minister. This information
was provided to Noyan Tapan by the Information and Public Relations
Department of the RA government.

TASHNAG THROWS WEIGHT BEHIND FPM AHEAD OF VOTE

Daily Star – Lebanon

July 24 2007

Dakkache tries to broker deal on consensus candidate in metn
by-election

The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) gained the support of MP Michel
Murr and his Tashnag Party allies on Monday in the Metn by-election,
securing the support of substantial numbers of the roughly 32,000
Armenian voters in the Metn. The Metn electorate totals 162,950 voters,
of which 72,430 are Maronite.

Change and Reform Bloc leader MP Michel Aoun made the announcement
from Rabieh with Murr and Tashnag Party leader Hovig Mekhitarian.

Aoun called for a spirit of good sportsmanship to prevail in the
coming elections. Murr stressed that the alliance with the FPM was
"firm and unshakable."

"We would like the election campaign to proceed calmly – this campaign
is not aimed at any individuals but has a clear political basis," Aoun
told reporters. The FPM leader criticized Future Movement leader MP
Saad Hariri’s implicit reference on Sunday to electoral opponents in
the Beirut by-election as "assassins," adding that "first they ask us
to take part in elections, and then they call us assassins when we do."

Murr pointed to a longstanding alliance between Tashnag and the FPM
that resulted in victories in the last general elections in 2005.

"This alliance still stands without any hesitation on the political
level. Our alliance with Tashnag has lasted 50 years, [and] we will
not change at the last minute. Our alliance with General Aoun has
stood since the 1980’s," Murr said.

Mekhitarian said Tashnag’s decision is clear with regard to the
by-election in the Metn, and hope for a consensus between opposing
parties in the election is slim.

Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, after meeting an FPM
delegation on Monday headed by FPM senior member Gebran Bassil, renewed
his call to all parties to meet and overcome their "rigid positions"
and rescue Lebanon from its crisis. Sfeir said no party can monopolize
authority and Lebanon is for all its children, whose responsibility
it is to preserve the unique formula of coexistence in the country.

Following its weekly meeting, the Lebanese Forces called on the
FPM to prevent further tension in the country, especially among the
Christian community, by supporting the candidacy of former President
Amin Gemayel to fill the vacant Maronite seat in Metn.

The Lebanese Forces appealed to the FPM to take into account the
Phalange Party’s longstanding struggle for Leba-non and the fact that
it was Gemayel’s son, assassinated Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel,
whose seat is being contested.

Gemayel met on Monday morning with US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman,
who left without making any comment.

Gemayel later met independent MP Pierre Dakkache, who has offered
to mediate between Gemayel and Aoun to prevent the electoral
battle unfolding in the Metn. "The endeavor I am undertaking is
conciliatory. When matters are difficult, solutions come about
through consensus," Dakkache told reporters after his meeting with
Gemayel. Dakkache, who met Aoun earlier, conveyed to Gemayel the
FPM leader’s readiness for reaching consensus on the matter of the
by-elections.

"No one likes to start an electoral battle. Everyone must agree in
spite of the difficulties that have passed and in spite of objections
from one party or the other," Dakkache said.

Dakkache met Sfeir on Monday and received encouragement from
the patriarch for the mediation. The two discussed both the Metn
by-election and the presidential election. Dakkache described the
meeting with the patriarch as a meeting of minds and said there was
a real desire to avoid an electoral battle in these difficult times.

Dakkache will visit Murr and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea in
his mediation efforts. Speaking to Voice of Lebanon radio, Dakkache
said he aims to work toward a calm and conciliatory atmosphere ahead
of the Metn by-election.

Lawyer Joseph Mansour Asmar, another candidate running in the
by-election, has challenged the nomination of Dr. Camille Khoury as
a candidate in the Metn by-election.

"How can a candidate run for election when he contests the
constitutionality and legality of calling for such elections?" asked
Asmar.

Asmar said Khoury aimed to prevent people from exercising their
democratic rights and duty to vote for MPs to fill vacant parliamentary
seats.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani stressed the importance of
holding by-elections on August 5 to fill the two vacant parliamentary
seats in Beirut and Metn, adding that participation in elections is
a national duty, especially in these difficult times.

Qabbani also urged all majority and opposition MPs to attend the
parliamentary session to vote for a new president, scheduled for
late September. He said a boycott of such a session is a violation of
democratic practice within Parliament. – The Daily Star, with agencies

BAKU NOT OFFERED ON MEETING OF AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN PRESIDENTS WITHIN UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
July 23 2007

There is no information about the meeting of Azerbaijani and Armenian
Presidents on September within the framework of the session of UN
General Assembly, APA reports quoting Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov as saying to journalists.

The minister underlined that the ministry received no appeal on the
meeting of the two Presidents.

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs considered that the meeting is expedient
but did not present an official appeal yet.

As for Azerbaijan’s representation in UN General Assembly, Elmar
Mammadyarov underlined that related discussions are underway but
final decision has not yet been adopted./APA/