Author: Chatinian Lara

A1plus

| 16:21:49 | 22-06-2005 | Politics | PACE SUMMER SESSION 2005 |

AZERBAIJAN CALLING RF TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE STABILIZATION OF SOUTHERN
CAUCASUS

President of the Azeri delegation Samad Seyidov made speech during the
discussion of Russia meeting the commitments taken upon in front of the CoE.

«The Russian Federation is a very important country for us. RF does
everything to be integrated into Europe. If the process is difficult for
such small countries as ours is, we imagine how difficult it must be for
Russia», mentioned MR. Seyidov.

At the same time he did not deny that RF still has much to do and without
mentioning what it has to do he said, `Russia has done what seemed to be
impossible to do. We want to have a democratic Russia which will not use its
influence in Southern Caucasus but will contribute to the enhancing of peace
and stability in the region’, said the President of the Azeri delegation to
CoE.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS

President
Israel Charny (Israel)

First
Vice-President

Gregory H. Stanton (USA)

Second Vice-President
Linda Melvern (UK)

Secretary-Treasurer
Steven Jacobs (USA)

June 13, 2005

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
TC Easbakanlik
Bakanlikir
Ankara, Turkey

FAX: 90 312 417 0476

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an
`impartial study by historians’ concerning the fate ofthe Armenian
people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North
America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial
study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the
extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian
Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United
Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not
just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the
overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of
independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and
whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of
decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk
government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its
Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. Morethan
a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing,
starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the
Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient
civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of
its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United
States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by
thousands of official records of the United States and nations around
the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and
Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of
missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by
decades of historical scholarship.

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly,
legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term
genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and
the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he
meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an
organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously
passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and
Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000
declaring the `incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide’ and urging
western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the
Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical
fact of the Armenian Genocide. 6) Leading texts in the international
law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in
International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian
Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the
law on crimes against humanity.

We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide-how
and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and
moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in
propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims,
and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who
are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions
are not impartial. Such so-called `scholars’work to serve the agenda
of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the
Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing
a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi
University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its
aversion to academic and intellectual freedom-a fundamental condition
of democratic society.

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people
and their future as a proud and equal participants in international,
democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous
government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German
government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

Approved Unanimously at the Sixth biennial meeting of
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS (IAGS)
June 7, 2005, Boca Raton, Florida

Contacts: Israel Charny, IAGS President; Executive Director, Institute
on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide, 972-2-672-0424; [email protected]

Gregory H. Stanton, IAGS Vice President; President, Genocide Watch,
James Farmer Visiting Professor of Human Rights, University of Mary
Washington; 703-448-0222; [email protected]

“GOLDEN APRICOT” SECOND INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL TO GO UNDER WATCHWORD “ARMENIA AT CROSSROAD OF CIVILIZATIONS AND CULTURES”

YEREVAN, JUNE 17, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The “Golden Apricot”
second international film festival under the watchword “Armenia at
Crossroads of Civilizations and Cultures” in which artists of 45
countries of the world will particpate, starts in Yerevan on July
12. Haroutiun Khachatrian, the Director of the festival, a film
director stated this at the June 16 press-conference. According to
Haroutiun Khachatrian, the goal of the festival is to gather directors
of different ethnic, national, religious, aesthetic belonging and their
films. The solemn opening ceremony, to which world famous directors
among them Nikita Mikhalkov, Yos Stelling, Klod Miller, Atom Egoyan,
etc. are invited will take place at the Alexander Spendiarian National
Opera and Ballet Theater. Director Edgar Baghdasarian’s “Mariam” film
will be shown after the opening ceremony. Haroutiun Khachatrian also
mentioned that the festival will have three competitive programs:
the art of acting, documentary and “Armenian Panorama”; as well as
numerous extra-competitive programs “Documentary World,” “Yerevan
Premieres,” “Russian Program,” “Tribute of Respect,” “Artsakh Diary,”
“Genocide-90,” “Day of France.” A regional seminar “Film as Mean
of Intercultural Dialogue” as well as classes of mastery will be
held by famous directors during the days of the festival. Susanna
Haroutiunian, a member of the organization committe of the fetival
informed journalists that in contrast to the previous festival, this
year a new prize is envisaged for the competitive programs of the art
of acting and documentary films. A portrait of Sergey Paradjanov, a
world-famous film director will be pictured on that prize. And prize
winners of the “Armenian Panorama” competitive program will be given
“Golden Apricot” prizes this year as well.

A1plus

| 20:39:33 | 16-06-2005 | Politics |

FREEDOM HOUSE STUDY:NATIONS IN TRANSIT 2005

STUDY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEMOCRACY IN FORMER SOVIET COUNTRIES

New Freedom House Study Warns of Obstacles From Authoritarian Regimes

Recent developments in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan have altered
assumptions about democracy’s prospects in the former Soviet Union,
raising questions about what a new democratic spring means for
countries from Central Europe to Eurasia, according to a major study
released today by Freedom House.

The study, Nations in Transit 2005, presented today at a briefing in
Brussels, suggests that the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the
Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, as well as more recent events
in Kyrgyzstan, may have opened a new wave of democratic expansion
in the post-Soviet environment. The study warns, however, that the
failure of leaders throughout the region to uphold commitments to
democracy and to preserve their own citizens’ meaningful voice in
governance is a political dead end.

“The findings of this year’s Nations in Transit study make clear that
citizens in the former Soviet countries have what it takes to make
their countries democratic,” said Freedom House executive director
Jennifer Windsor. “In particular, Ukraine’s extraordinary return to
the democratic path in 2004 confirmed the potential for the peaceful
spread of liberal democracy and free markets to former Soviet countries
still suffering under corrupt and authoritarian regimes,” she said.

Based on the study, which tracks the movement of countries toward or
away from democracy, Freedom House urges Western leaders concerned with
encouraging democratic practices and good governance in the region to:

~U Assist countries in consolidating important democratic gains. For
example, ensure that additional U.S. foreign assistance is delivered
to Georgia, which has been selected for enhanced support under the
Millennium Challenge Account.

~U Engage and provide incentives to countries, such as Moldova,
whose leaders have communicated a desire for greater integration with
Western democracies.

~U Consider new strategies to deal with consolidated authoritarian
regimes such as in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Uzbekistan.

~U Address countries that are backsliding. Press President Vladimir
Putin to make good on pledges to advance democracy in Russia and
address democratic deterioration in Armenia.

~U Promote nonviolent approaches to change and provide clear and
effective responses to violence when it does occur.

“With the stakes so high, the transatlantic community must renew
efforts to support good governance, independent media, civil society,
the rule of law, and free and fair elections in the former Soviet
states,” said Nations in Transit editor Jeannette Goehring. “The
community also must devise new strategies to deal with governments
that are increasingly consolidating authoritarian rule and give
assistance to countries that previously may have been overlooked.”

Russia warrants special attention. “The fate of Russian democracy
has enormous implications, both for the former Soviet region and
globally,” said Ms. Windsor. “The fact that democracy has failed in
so many countries of the former Soviet Union is due in part to the
increasingly authoritarian Russian example. The U.S. and Europe should
press Moscow to play a constructive role in supporting democratic
practice both at home and abroad.”

Freedom House found that the eight new European Union members
from Central and Eastern Europe held their position as the
highest ranking countries in the study. These countries-Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia,
and Slovenia-continued to show the strongest overall performance in
the key areas of democratization tracked: electoral process; civil
society; independent media; governance; corruption; and judicial
framework and independence. However, Nations in Transit also points
to the need of all these countries to tackle widespread corruption.

The Balkan countries showed signs of increased stability in
2004, yet still confronted substantial challenges to democratic
consolidation. Bulgaria and Romania both joined NATO in 2004 and
remained on the road to joining the European Union in 2007. At the
same time, analysis of both countries makes clear that attention is
still needed in areas such as advancing judicial reform, fighting
corruption, and increasing media independence.

The Western Balkan countries of Albania, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Macedonia, and Serbia-Montenegro (including Kosovo) face the most
substantial challenges of democratic consolidation in the Balkans. At
the Brussels briefing, Jasna Jelisic, an advisor to the Nations in
Transit study and a journalist with the Sarajevo-based weekly news
magazine Dani, noted that these countries are “only halfway down
the road to joining the European community of democratic nations and
building prosperous, open societies.”

“Although much remains to be done, the events of 2004 demonstrated that
the European integration process is having a major positive impact
on democratic consolidation and stability in the Western Balkans and
is giving hope to people for the future,” Ms. Jelisic said.

Zamira Eshanova, another advisor to the study and regional
expert on Central Asia for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, said:
“The turmoil from power successions-those that have occurred and
those that are anticipated, though nobody knows when-is having an
increasingly destabilizing effect on Central Asia. The question
is: What institutions are in place and how will relative levels of
democratic strength and weakness play out in post turmoil regimes?”

NATIONS IN TRANSIT 2004: THE RATINGS

Produced annually, the Nations in Transit study provides comprehensive
analysis of transitions in 27 post-Communist countries (plus Kosovo) by
tracking progress and setbacks in electoral processes; civil society;
independent media; governance; corruption; and judicial framework and
independence. It also provides a unique set of comparative ratings
based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of
democratic development and 7 the lowest. Nations in Transit 2005 is
an updated edition of surveys published in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001,
2000, 1998, 1997, and 1995. The 2005 study covers the period from
January 1 through December 31, 2004, and includes for the first time
separate analysis and ratings of national democratic governance and
local democratic governance.

Largest Improvements in Ukraine and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Both Ukraine and Bosnia-Herzegovina experienced ratings improvements
in 4 out of 7 Nations in Transit categories-the highest number in the
study. Ukraine’s ratings improvements were more substantial owing to
the extraordinary challenges the country overcame in late 2004 and the
success of pro-democracy supporters in reinvigorating and jumpstarting
democratic political development in the country. Ukraine’s ratings
improved significantly in the categories of electoral process, civil
society, independent media, and judicial framework and independence. As
in previous years, Bosnia continued slow but steady democratic progress
and received modest ratings advances in the categories of electoral
process, independent media, judicial framework and independence,
and corruption.

Largest Declines in Russia and Azerbaijan, Deterioration in Armenia.

Russia and Azerbaijan both experienced ratings declines in 4 out of 7
Nations in Transit categories-the greatest number in the study-owing
to the consolidation of authority by presidents in both countries. In
Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev’s efforts led to declining ratings
for electoral process, civil society, independent media, and judicial
framework and independence. Russia’s more substantial declines occurred
in the categories of electoral process, civil society, independent
media, and judicial framework and independence. Russia’s performance
in 2004 stands in stark contrast to the positive changes noted in
neighboring Ukraine. Over the last two years, Armenia has shown a
less dramatic but still disturbing decline in the areas of electoral
process, independent media, and judicial framework and independence.

Electoral process.

(+) Nine countries or territories experienced ratings improvements
for electoral process: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kosovo,
Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.

(-) Five countries or territories experienced declines in electoral
process: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Poland, Russia, and Tajikistan.

Civil society.

(+) Eight countries or territories showed gains for civil society:
Albania, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Latvia, Montenegro, Romania, Tajikistan,
and Ukraine.

(-) Three countries or territories experienced setbacks for civil
society: Azerbaijan, Russia, and Slovenia.

Independent media.

(+) Seven countries or territories experienced improvements for
independent media: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Kyrgyzstan,
Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.

(-) Eight countries or territories showed declines in independent
media: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Hungary, Romania,
Russia, and Tajikistan.

New Governance Ratings

~U Eight countries or territories showed better national democratic
governance than local democratic governance: Armenia, Croatia, Estonia,
Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.

~U Thirteen countries or territories showed better local democratic
governance than national democratic governance: Albania, Belarus,
Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Poland,
Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

~U Eight countries or territories received the same ratings for
national and local democratic governance: Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Bulgaria,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Russia, and Turkmenistan.

Judicial Framework and Independence.

(+) Nine countries or territories had ratings improvements in this
category: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Estonia, Kosovo, Latvia, Macedonia,
Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan..

(-) Seven countries experienced setbacks in their ratings for this
category: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Poland,
and Russia.

Corruption.

(+) Five countries showed improvements in their ratings for corruption:
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, and Slovakia.

(-) Four countries showed regression in their ratings for corruption:
Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, and Turkmenistan.

THE NEW ELECTORAL CODE DID NOT JUSTIFY HOPES

A1plus

| 16:42:28 | 17-06-2005 | Politics |

“This time the hopes of the society to have a flawless Electoral Code
which could secure the fairness and transparency of the elections
organized was not justified. The guarantee could be the Electoral
Committees the real balance of which is not secured by the acting
Electoral Code”. This was the announcement of Haroutyun Haroutyunyan,
head of the non-governmental organization “Choice is yours” made
during the discussion in hotel Yerevan.

He considers that even in that case a flawless Electoral Code could
not guarantee fair and transparent elections as for that will is
needed. But he also said that the RA Law on amending the Electoral
Code has some improvements.

Deputy head of the organization Khachik Voskanyan mentioned the
non-introduction of the ink fingerprints as one of the shortcomings
of the Law. He wonders why the deputies considered it something
unsuitable to our mentality and did not accept it. “Forging elections
is suitable for our mentality, and ink fingerprints are not?”, he
asked rhetorically.

Mentioning other shortcoming of the Law, the non-governmental
organization “Choice is Yours” calls everyone to do their best to
secure the fairness of the coming elections of the local governing
bodies in coming September-October.

Germans press Turks on Armenian slaughter

The Associated Press

FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2005

BERLIN Germany’s Parliament on Thursday urged Turkey to examine its
role in the killing of an estimated one million ethnic Armenians a
century ago – an issue that could affect Ankara’s hopes of joining
the European Union.

Lawmakers adopted a cross-party resolution asking the German government
to press Turkey to investigate the “organized expulsion and destruction
of the Armenians” and foster reconciliation.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said it “regrets and strongly condemns”
the decision. A ministry statement added that Turkey had cautioned
Germany that the text was “biased, contained serious errors and lacked
information,” and had warned that its approval would “deeply wound
the Turkish people.”

Armenia accuses Turkey of genocide in the killings as part of
a campaign from 1915 to 1923 to force Armenians out of eastern
Anatolia. At the time, Armenia was part of the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey remains extremely sensitive about the issue. It denies that the
killings were genocide and insists that the death count is inflated
and that Armenians were killed or displaced along with others as the
empire tried to quell civil unrest.

The motion did not mention Turkey’s effort to join the EU, but said
the Armenian issue was an example of how Turkey needs to guarantee
freedom of speech – an area where Ankara has been told it must improve
if it is to join the 25-nation bloc.

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany has been one of Turkey’s
strongest supporters in its campaign for membership. But the
conservative opposition – which hopes to win national elections this
autumn – argues that Turkey should be offered a lesser “privileged
partnership.”

The German motion noted that “numerous independent historians,
parliaments and international organizations” describe the killing as
genocide, but stopped short of using that label itself.

The motion proposed the establishment of a commission of Turkish,
Armenian and international historians to examine the killings. It
complained that the Turkish authorities were stifling debate at
home. The Turkish Foreign Ministry statement retorted that the country
“has opened up its archives to all researchers, including Germans and
Armenians, on the premise that historic events can only be assessed
by historians and not by parliaments.”

BERLIN Germany’s Parliament on Thursday urged Turkey to examine its
role in the killing of an estimated one million ethnic Armenians a
century ago – an issue that could affect Ankara’s hopes of joining
the European Union.

Lawmakers adopted a cross-party resolution asking the German government
to press Turkey to investigate the “organized expulsion and destruction
of the Armenians” and foster reconciliation.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said it “regrets and strongly condemns”
the decision. A ministry statement added that Turkey had cautioned
Germany that the text was “biased, contained serious errors and lacked
information,” and had warned that its approval would “deeply wound
the Turkish people.”

Armenia accuses Turkey of genocide in the killings as part of
a campaign from 1915 to 1923 to force Armenians out of eastern
Anatolia. At the time, Armenia was part of the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey remains extremely sensitive about the issue. It denies that the
killings were genocide and insists that the death count is inflated
and that Armenians were killed or displaced along with others as the
empire tried to quell civil unrest.

The motion did not mention Turkey’s effort to join the EU, but said
the Armenian issue was an example of how Turkey needs to guarantee
freedom of speech – an area where Ankara has been told it must improve
if it is to join the 25-nation bloc.

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany has been one of Turkey’s
strongest supporters in its campaign for membership. But the
conservative opposition – which hopes to win national elections this
autumn – argues that Turkey should be offered a lesser “privileged
partnership.”

The German motion noted that “numerous independent historians,
parliaments and international organizations” describe the killing as
genocide, but stopped short of using that label itself.

The motion proposed the establishment of a commission of Turkish,
Armenian and international historians to examine the killings. It
complained that the Turkish authorities were stifling debate at
home. The Turkish Foreign Ministry statement retorted that the country
“has opened up its archives to all researchers, including Germans and
Armenians, on the premise that historic events can only be assessed
by historians and not by parliaments.”

–Boundary_(ID_hLB0Ys09NVC0YEZpYakeSw)–

Tbilisi Softens Stance over Abkhaz Railway

Civil Georgia, Georgia
June 15 2005

If launched, rehabilitation of Abkhaz railway
will cost more than USD 100 mln. and will
take more than one year.

Georgian authorities announced on June 15 that Tbilisi has changed
its stance and now is ready to start talks over reopening of the
Abkhaz section of Russian-Georgian railway, which has been halted
since conflict in this breakaway region in early 90s. Russian
and Georgian officials say more than USD 100 million is needed to
rehabilitate 60-kilometer long portion of railway between Georgia’s
Zugdidi district and breakaway capital Sokhumi.

“Recently, the Georgian authorities are positive about resumption
of railway,” Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli said on June
15. He addressed the summit of heads of railway companies from the
CIS countries in Tbilisi.

Genadi Fadeev, who before the evening on June 15 chaired the Russian
Railway Company met with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on
the sideline of this summit and discussed the resumption of Abkhaz
railway. News broke late on June 15 that Fadeev was replaced on this
position by his deputy Vladimir Yakunin. But, it is less likely that
this change of leadership in the Russia’s state-owned Railway Company
will also change the Moscow’s positive stance over resumption of
Abkhaz railway.

If implemented, the project will revive the Trans-Caucasus Railway,
which stretched more than 2,300 kilometers during Soviet times,
connecting Armenia and Georgian Black Sea ports with central Russia;
the railway operated passenger services and handled more than 15
million tons of transit cargo per year.

But, so far, the issue of reopening the railway via Abkhazia has
always been overshadowed by the political agenda pushed forwards
by officials in Tbilisi. Specifically, Georgia demanded return of
Georgian internally displaced persons to Abkhazia in exchange of
resumption rail traffic through its breakaway region.

“Georgia’s previous authorities had a different position and were
against [the reopening of this railway link], but the new authorities
have recently taken a more positive stance on this issue. But this
process [of reopening the railway] has some organizational problems
and, of course, this issue is linked, first and foremost, with the
security of the Georgian population of Gali district [of Abkhazia],”
Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli said.

He also said that the “organizational problems” also include the
way how the customs procedures will be arranged, as well as how this
process will be controlled.

In an interview with Civil Georgia Chief of the Georgian Railway
Company Davit Onoprishvili said on June 15 that restoration of rail
link might promote the peace process in Abkhazia.

“In general, the Georgian side is interested in reopening this
railway traffic, because it will boost economy and, in turn, it
[economic levers] might as well foster conflict resolution process,”
Onoprishvili said.

“But this process [of railway rehabilitation] needs technical
preparations. It should be assessed how long it will take – apparently,
I think more than year; and also it should be decided who will fund
this project – it can be not only Georgia and Russia, but also other
interested parties,” he added.

Both, Georgian and Russian chiefs of railway companies say that the
cost of rehabilitation works will exceed USD 100 million.

“This cost [USD 100 million] will further increase if we include
[the expenses related to the] rehabilitation of [the portion of the
railway] over the Enguri river,” Genadi Fadeev told reporters in
Tbilisi on June 15. The Enguri river marks the administrative border
between Abkhazia and rest of Georgia.

“I think all participating countries – Russia, Georgia, also Armenia
and, to a certain extant Azerbaijan as well – should fund the
implementation of this project,” he added.

Davit Onoprishvili said that rehabilitation works should be carried
on the portion of railway which stretches from Abkhaz capital Sokhumi
to Ingiri station in Zugdidi district at the administrative border
with Abkhazia.

“Actually there is no railway [on this portion]. A new railway needs
to be installed there,” Onoprishvili added.

The rest of the portion of the railway, connecting Sokhumi with the
Russian capital Moscow has already been rehabilitated with the active
involvement of the Russian side and operates since September, 2004.
This portion of railway was reopened by Russia unilaterally without
prior agreement with Tbilisi which triggered the latter’s harsh
criticism.

Russia and Georgia agreed to jointly work over resumption of Abkhaz
railway in March, 2003, when Russian President Vladimir Putin and
then-Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze singed an agreement,
during a meeting in Sochi, to resume the railway connection and
simultaneously launch the process of returning Georgian internally
displaced persons to Abkhazia.

Georgian and Russian officials launched two-day talks in frames of this
agreement in Moscow on June 15. Georgian State Minister for Conflict
Resolution Issues Goga Khaindrava told reporters before departure to
Moscow on June 15 that “technical issues” over railway resumption,
as well as return of Georgian IDPs to Gali district will be discussed
during these talks.

This softening stance by Georgia was welcomed by land-locked Armenia,
which seeks for railway connection with its strategic partner Russia.
Ararat Khrimian, chief of the Armenian Railway Department told
reporters in Tbilisi on June 15, that Armenia is ready to contribute
to rehabilitation of railway via Abkhazia, if political agreement is
reached between Moscow and Tbilisi.

Despite, this change of stance by Tbilisi over Abkhaz railway, the
Georgian authorities are anyway cautious to openly talk about this
issue, because of anticipated angry reaction from the public. So
far none of the Georgian official has delivered clear explanation to
the public why this resumption of railway will benefit to Georgia,
or to the conflict resolution.

The Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS (FJC), Russia
June 15 2005

Shavuot Celebrated in Armenia
Wednesday, June 15 2005

YEREVAN, Armenia – For this year’s celebration of the holiday Shavout
in Armenia, the ‘Mordechai Navi’ Jewish Community Center of Yerevan
hosted a communal celebration.

This year’s celebration was met with a healthy turnout of local Jews,
who were eager to mark this important event in the history of the
Jewish people and Judaism. The festivity commenced with a prayer,
led by the Chief Rabbi of Armenia, Gersh Meir Burshtein. The Jewish
leader then took this opportunity to explain the meaning of the Giving
of the Torah to the keen participants.

In accordance to Jewish tradition, he then gave a reading of the Ten
Commandments given to the Jewish people that day at Mount Sinai.
Participants in this festive event then enjoyed a special treat
usually offered available to them at this time of the year – a
delicious kosher lunch comprised of traditional milk dishes.

The Jewish community of Armenia is a member of the Federation of
Jewish Communities of the CIS and Baltic Countries.

CEREMONY COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE VICTIMS TO BE HELD IN UK PARLIAMENT

Pan Armenian News
14.06.2005 08:09

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The British House of Lords will commemorate the
victims of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915, reported
the Yerkir newspaper. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian is
expected to address the event upon his arrival to London from Beijing.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
June 14, 2005, Tuesday

IN THE CONTEXT OF REGIONAL SECURITY PROBLEMS

SOURCE: Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier, No. 20, June 8-14, 2005, p. 10

by Sergei Minasyan – director of the Regional Security & South
Caucasus Integration Studies Center at the Russian-Armenian (Slavic)
State University

The process of military integration between CIS states has gradually
spread onto three levels: in the framework of the CIS, in the CST
format and on the bilateral basis. Since the very beginning Armenia
and Russia have been the most active and consistent adherents to the
military-political cooperation between CIS states. It turned out by
the late 1990s, that given ultimately opposite goals and tasks in the
security sphere of various CIS states, their military-political
cooperation proved to be inefficient. Simultaneously, certainty was
growing in Russia (…) that the future of this system could only be
in the framework of the CST and bilateral military-political contacts
between Russia and CST member countries.

Decisions passed at the Collective Security Council summit in Yerevan
(May 2001) proved to be a milestone event in the development of
military integration inside the CST, including consolidation of
Armenian-Russian military-political contacts. Attained was an
agreement on forming a regional bilateral group of forces in the
Caucasian direction. This combined group was supposed to include
units of the 102nd Russian Base in Armenia and units of the 5th Corps
of the Armenian Army. (…)

Summing up results of the present-day state and prospects of the
Armenian-Russian cooperation for development of military-political
integration in the post-Soviet defense area, it should be noted that
joint staff command and field exercises are held annually, which
unite all CSTO states and are conducted on a bilateral basis, for
instance the annual Russian-Armenian exercises at the Armavir
training ground.

A great deal of intergovernmental or interdepartmental treaties and
agreements concluded in 1992, makes the basis for the bilateral
Russian-Armenian military-political cooperation. The major part of
those treaties concerned division of military property of the former
Soviet Army units, stationed in Armenia, as well as the status of the
Russian Armed Forces in the republic. Under these agreements, Armenia
received the arms and military equipment of the 164th Mechanized
Infantry Division (MID) and the 15th MID, formerly parts of the 7th
Guard Army of the former Trans-Caucasian Military District, stationed
in Armenia; the 3rd division of the 7th Guard Army – the 127th MID
stationed in Pomri remained under control of Russia and was
transformed into the 102nd Military Base of the Russian Group of
Forces in the Caucasus (GRVZ) in 1995. Units of the former
Trans-Caucasian Border District in Armenia entered the Armenia group
of troops of the Russian Federal Border Service. At the same time,
the sides jointly finance the Russian border guards who protect the
Armenian border on Iran and Turkey. A number of bilateral agreements
reached in 1992-1995, including the Treaty on the Russian military
base in Armenia signed in Moscow on March 16, 1995, set the legal
basis for restructuring Russia’s military presence in Armenia.
However, the so-called “Big Treaty” – the Treaty on friendship,
cooperation and reciprocal defense, concluded on August 27, 1997,
became the major document regulating the bilateral military-political
cooperation.

Thus, the Russian forces stationed in Armenia now (in Gyumri,
Yerevan, and the Erebuni military airfield) include: the Combat
Management Group of the Russian Forces in Armenia, the 102nd Military
Base, the 426th Aviation Group and the 520th Aviation Command. The
Armenia group of the Russian border troops consists of four border
units. Overall, the Russian forces have 74 T-72 tanks, 17 BTR
vehicles, 129 infantry fighting vehicles, 84 artillery systems, 18
MiG-29 fighters, 2 batteries of S-300V antiaircraft missile systems,
a battery of Kub antiaircraft missile systems. Personnel strength
exceeds 3,500.

Military-technical cooperation is the most significant aspect of the
bilateral strategic partnership. In the division of Soviet military
munitions in 1992-1996, Russia handed over a certain amount of arms
and military equipment to Armenia.

No official reports on deliveries of Russia-made weapons to Armenia
have appeared since the second half of the 1990s. As is widely known,
the Russian-Armenian military-technical cooperation (MTC) mainly
includes supplies of spare parts by defense enterprises of both
states, rather than supplies of the finished military products. The
Russian-Armenian MTC has been underway since 1993, and is now being
carried out in the framework of the Interstate Military-Economic
Cooperation Commission between CIS States. The MTC with the Republic
of Armenia was suspended under Russian president’s Decree No. 623-rps
of September 9, 1993, in compliance with the UN Security Council
Resolution No. 853 on Nagorny Karabakh. Armenia wasn’t included into
the list of states to which deliveries of Russia-made military
products were permitted. In this connection, military supplies to
Armenia could solely be performed on the basis of Russian president’s
decisions. Putin signed the decree on terms of resuming supplies of
spare parts for the Russian military industrial complex from
Armenia’s defense enterprises, primarily equipment for the nuclear
powered submarines and S-300 antiaircraft missile systems, only in
December 2000. Only during his latest visit to Armenia in May 2004,
Russian defense minister declared the purchase of two Il-76 military
transports by Armenia and Russia’s assistance in upgrading the
available and purchasing new antiaircraft systems for the Armenian
army.

Cooperation in the sphere of air defense is a prior sphere of
Russian-Armenian MTC. This proceeds from availability of a serious
threat posed by the Turkish Air Force, to which the limited air
defense system of Armenia cannot resist at its present level without
the aid of Russia. The Air Defense Forces of Armenia have a certain
number of antiaircraft missile systems requiring upgrade, which
cannot be done without the aid of Russia. Besides, confined territory
of Armenia doesn’t allow space for a training ground. Therefore,
involvement in the joint air defense exercises is important for
Armenia. Unlike in other forces, the majority of Armenian air defense
officers are trained at Russian institutions of higher education.

Significant has been integration of automated control systems and
command posts of the Armenian Air & Air Defense Forces with similar
Russian systems, in particular those of the North Caucasian Military
District (SKVO). The joint combat duty of the air and air defense
forces began on April 15, 1999. In case of tension in the region,
this group could be replenished at the expense of the Russian Air
Defense Forces and deployment as extra air defense units of Armenia.
The latest S-300V air defense systems affiliated with the 102nd Base
of Russia joined combat duty in October 2001. This enabled raising
efficiency of control in the airspace above Armenia.

Creation of a joint Russian-Armenian group of forces is a significant
element in the bilateral cooperation. Its creation, the annual joint
exercises conducted at the Armavir training ground and have no
analogs in the post-Soviet area (by their regularity and number of
participants they were the biggest in the former Soviet area until
the start of 2000), and the general level of military cooperation
indicate that at the moment Russia has no as close military-political
cooperation as to Armenia (even with Belarus).

(…) The role of Russia’s military presence in the cause of ensuring
Armenia’s security goes beyond the presence of Russian military bases
on its territory. Comparison of quantitative parameters shows that
even the combined Russian-Armenian forces in Armenia yield
considerably to the armed forces in the neighboring states.

Article 2 of the Protocol on forming and functioning of the forces
and means of the Collective Security System of CSTO member states
says that in case of aggression against any of the sides collective
security groups of a certain region could be involved in repulsing an
aggression in another collective security region at request of a
single or several sides, under articles 4 and 6 of the CST. This
enables a suggestion that in case of an imminent threat of aggression
into Armenia, which is a CSTO member country, Russia will take all
the measures required to strengthen its troops to give the necessary
aid its ally needs to retaliate an aggression.

It is not a secret though that none of the CIS states, but for
Russia, is able to repulse threats autonomously in case of a
large-scale aggression. In similar circumstances the problem of
so-called “nuclear guarantees” on behalf of Russia for ensuring their
national security is of crucial significance for all CSTO member
countries. The main conceptual documents of Russia indicate Russia
resigns to itself the right for use of nuclear weapons in case of
aggression against Russia and its allies. The clauses of Russia’s
military doctrine which concern Russia’s readiness to use nuclear
weapons against the states which don’t have nuclear weapons, “in case
they attack the Russian Federation, the Russian Armed Forces or other
troops, its allies or a state with which it has security commitments,
maintained or supported by such a state, which doesn’t possess
nuclear weapons, jointly or in the availability of alliance
commitments to a state which possesses nuclear weapons,” becomes of
prior significance for CSTO member states, including Armenia.

It should be noted that along with active development of geopolitical
processes in the post-Soviet territory, experts both in Russia and
Armenia are casting doubt on the efficiency and conformity of the
military-political cooperation to their national interests. Russian
military experts maintain that in the context of potential withdrawal
of the Russian military bases from Georgia, the Russian group of
forces in Armenia might be disconnected from Russia operationally and
in the communications sphere, which would create serious problems for
its fighting efficiency and even normal functioning. A recent story
involving the ban for A-50 AWACS planes to fly above the territory of
Georgia to Armenia, which has affected the interaction of the Russian
and Armenian air defense forces, has been an evident example of this.
Moscow is quite cautious for Armenia’s more active attempt of
integration in the EU and NATO, expanding military cooperation
between Armenia and NATO, especially the USA, and is unwilling to
regard these actions as an objective necessity, which is to a great
extent caused by reduced influence of Russia in the region and
Yerevan’s wish to avert jeopardy to its national interests.

On the other hand, opinions are expressed in Armenia that the
Armenia-Russian military cooperation is no more a sufficient
guarantee for the country’s security and alternative security sources
must be sought in the West. Besides, Yerevan is confident that taking
actions in the region, as well as relations with Azerbaijan, Turkey,
and Iran, Moscow doesn’t fully account for economic and political
concerns of its major ally in the South Caucasus. In particular,
Armenia has serious fears regarding the plans of Russia on
large-scale supplies of arms and military equipment to Azerbaijan,
which is perceived by Yerevan as unwillingness of Moscow to account
for threats to security of its CSTO ally.

In spite of these problems, both Armenia and Russia realize that the
achieved level of bilateral military-political cooperation, which has
no analogs in the CIS and envisages quite real leverage for aiding in
crucial situations, is the only solution for both states in the
medium-term outlook. According to many experts, (…) active
Russian-Armenian partnership in the framework of CSTO defense
structures and their bilateral military partnership, which has
sufficient institutional and legal basis, are the major elements of
regional security and stability in the South Caucasus.

ORIGINAL-LANGUAGE: RUSSIAN