Author: Emil Lazarian

SERGE SARGSIAN REFUTES RUMOURS ABOUT CONFLICTS BETWEEN HIM AND PRESIDENT
YEREVAN, JULY 24, NOYAN TAPAN. “The Republican Party of Armenia is the
most influential political force. Of course, we have many problems but
I think we cannot compare Armenia of 2006 with Armenia of 2004 or
2002: the developments in the country are evident,” Serge Sargsian,
Chairman of RPA Board, RA Defence Minister, declared at the July 22
press briefing held after the party’s special 10th congress.
He declared that he does not consider himself the factual head of
the party: “Starting this day I can be considered one of party’s
leaders.” In response to the question, how he managed to lead to RPA
so many politicians and businessmen, Serge Sargsian advised to ask
them about it and at the same time added: “Maybe this is one of the
traits of my character.”
As for the question, whether such strong personalities as he and
Andranik Margarian can “boil in the same copper” Serge Sargsian
answered “yes.” In his opinion, the Armenian public needs a strong
team for orienting itself in complicated issues: “I think we laid
a basis for creating these forces.”
As for his interrelations with the President, Serge Sargsian declared
that there are no conflicts between them: “I don’t understand why
there should be any conflicts. I have repeatedly said that RPA has its
program, its directions and we will work irrespective of the fact how
the others work. What conflict do you speak about?” He also emphasized
that he has never violated the subordination during 18 years of his
activity. Answering the question about the possibility of cooperation
between RPA and the Bargavach Hayastan (Prosperous Armenia) party,
the Defence Minister said that nothing should be excluded.
It was unexpected for the Defence Minister that RA President Robert
Kocharian did not address a greeting to the congress. According to
Serge Sargsian, now the President is on a short leave and after
his return will show his attitude to the congress. He refuted the
rumours that the President is not ill indeed and assured that the
President has an influenza.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SHAH WILL STAB OR SHAH WILL BE STABBED
Lragir.am
25 July 06
On July 22, the conference of the Republican Party marked the alliance
of corrupt officials and criminal business. This event had been
expected for a long time, and everybody wanted to know how the members
of this camp would feel and what their strategy would be. The point
is that both the public and the members of the Republican-criminal
bunch learned on the eve of the conference that nobody in this world
wants to assume responsibility for the plans and fate of this alliance.
Considering that since 1998 the Republicans have already twice
appeared in the center of attention of people whose credo is “nothing
compares with us”, there could not be other attitude towards them,
for except the members of this camp everyone else have realized that
the time of these business plans is over and will never come back
again. The Republicans realized only one thing – for the first time
they acted without having the approval of the superior. The “orgy of
self-assertion”, during which the main principles of activity of the
Republican Party were figured out, passed with this perception and
the grudge on Robert Kocharyan and his new Bargavach Hayastan Party
(Prosperous Armenia).
It was said that “the party is going to act independent from others
actions” and the Republican Party is the force which will lead Armenia
to a new level, and in four months everyone will be able see to what
the Republican Party is. And it was said for others. For them, the
political party drew a conclusion: Gagik Tsarukyan and his boss are
the first who cannot hinder the Republicans. And for this purpose it
is enough to make them take their opinion into consideration.
The native officials are, of course, afraid that they might not have
enough time, because they might be dismissed from their posts, and in
that case, they would not even dare to call and offer condolences.
But this is not their greatest fear: the president may not go into
detail. He may decide to let them fly until their 3.5 percent in the
parliamentary election 2007. This is what they are afraid of, for the
Republicans know that the only way of success is total control over
election committees, where the necessary number of votes is drawn.
Money and administrative terror do not bring votes. How can they
take away the committees from Robert Kocharyan and Tsarukyan? This
is the problem.
Objectively, if we become one with the native criminal for a moment,
we will realize that they are in a complicated state. In fact, they
need to grow into a monster, involve the entire Armenia, and corner
Robert and Gagik, make them retire to a far corner where they would
not reach the election committees. Perhaps this is what the Republicans
will be trying to do in the upcoming four months.
They have thought out a sensible plan. However, it will be difficult
to implement. They have little authority to persuade them. Besides,
there is not a legal lever. It is difficult to use the hobby of
Serge Sargsyan – defamation. The Attorney General Aghvan Hovsepyan
disappointed them too. It is possible to coerce parliamentarian
businessmen to join in, but it is already illegal. As for “caressing”
the members of the electoral committees in compliance with the law,
it is also unclear.
What should they do? Should they retreat? The criminal would not
like this, there is nowhere to retreat for the law is behind. So,
all they can do is corner the Law. What is law for those who struggle
against the law and lawfulness all their lives? There is no need for
intelligence to corner the law, experience and strength is enough. No
doubt, this option was chosen. Hence, Armenia appeared in a state
when either the Shah will stab or the Shah will be stabbed. Shah
Kocharyan played the same games with his viziers.
Kocharyan has already heard words addressed to his “support” Gagik
Tsarukyan and him. He must feel that soon he will be hearing more
bitter words. In four months he will lose the right to “touch” the
parliament and the government. At that time they will talk to him
seriously. He appears to be meditating. In the beginning, he fell
ill. Anyway.
It seems there is no need to think. They must stab with the Law.
People with bad intentions do not have anything to tell public
officials. The country will not lose anything, it will only benefit
if it realized that its way does not cross with those who “push their
truth forward” from all directions. But does Kocharyan know what law
is. If he knew, he would not lead the country and himself into this
state. And now he must be meditating on ways of calming his furious
“viziers”.
The problem is to find a way of soothing the criminal without
the law. What should he do, maybe persuade? Is it sensible? No,
of course. Moreover, if he goes on to have a think, other
“brave men” might come up with their advice and prompt “effective
approaches”. Gagik Tsarukyan may prompt one of his favorite ways,
like Tetsi Krug. Party building is not a sign of enlightenment.
Moreover, for his part, this comrade may have taken the advice of
more experienced friends.
As for former general Samvel Babayan, he announces that “everyone
who will try to falsify the election in 2007 will be punished right
away”. He even says, “You will see who will punish.” And he does
not appear to be joking because they say he is setting up a “squad”
(there are rumors that certain boys are trained under the surveillance
of a special operational force member).
The question might occur what he can prompt and finally why. But
are there no reasons? After all, Babayan is an odious figure. It
is not clear why he should fight against electoral fraud. However,
considering that Serge Sargsyan is known as someone who instigates
electoral fraud, something floats up, nevertheless.
“Struggle against falsifiers” might be Babayan’s pay for a chance to
return to politics with practical aims – return to native Karabakh as
a lord. Moreover, his main “adversary” Arkady Ghukasyan has recently
become rather close with Serge Sargsyan and worries about Sargsyan’s
future and also his future. The chance appeared to “rip off” the
heads of both and liberate his “sanctuary” in Stepanakert.
If the law does not work, everything may emerge from water. Falsifiers
and usurpers of power always deserve a punishment. But it does not
mean that it is possible to struggle against them with their methods,
moreover, with a special intention. The situation already demands
something else: it is necessary to collect refuse lying in the way
of the country. If they fail to, everything will be done by the
advice of those who use every method and passed the test of time.
And at that time there will be blows from every direction, and the
result will be obvious – those who start will win for themselves.
But what price will the country have to pay because “Shah” is
pusillanimous? This is the question.
MELIK AVANYAN
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FEAR MAKES THEM COMMIT A CRIME
Aravot.am
22 July 06
Communist Khoren Trchuni Sargsian says.
Mr. Sargsian, in your opinion, why are the authority powers so active
and what do you think about the Defense Minister party selection?
Indeed, the authorities act more actively than the opposition does
and if we analyze this situation it will become clear, that when
the opposition was active before, the authority won but now the
authority is active, consequently the opposition will win. Some signs
are already visible. As regards Serge Sargsian’s party selection I
must say that have been with each other since 2000. Which is the aim
for being together? If the authorities knew they would be reelected
by their done work, they wouldn’t take this step. They took this
step to keep their seats warm in the NA and authority. I connect
the future of the country with the elections, which must be fair,
nothing else must be: certainly the authority will do its best to rig
the elections. God forbid if they manage to stay in the authority,
in that case Armenia will probable empty. The Armenian people flee
to Armenia because of the war in the Arabic war hoping to have a
shelter in their homeland. But they will be disappointed soon, will
find anywhere else and will leave our country. Don’t you think the
oppositionist parties are too passive? Yes, I do; if anybody commits
a crime, for example he want to steal money to eat and the master of
the house sees him, the thief feels fear and commits another crime by
killing the master of the house, then fires him, committing the third
crime and so on. Now the same happens to these authorities: the fear
of hiding their committed crimes makes them commit a new one. How do
you explain RPA-“Prosperous Armenia” relations and do you believe
that the first one acts for Serge Sargsian and the second one acts
for Robert Kocharian, are there discrepancies between them? Of course,
no. Serge Sargsian-Robert Kocharian discrepancies are invented, there
is no discrepancy; they pretend so to rise the role of them. As regards
” Prosperous Armenia”, perhaps Gagik Tsaroulian’s goal is to keep his
property from these authorities. I regard it in this way. Can the NK
conflict escalation make some people resign? I have replied to that
question a year before and I have said what will happen. Certainly
my prediction happened sooner. I have said that everything will be
strained in September when they will call the NA chairman back. Then
they will make the Prime Minister send in his resignation to appoint
their official in that post. The NA chairman after the President’s
resignation will refuse to lead the country before the elections in
40 days and the PM will lead the country. It’s the same line as it
was in 1998. It’s the same handwriting. Let’s speak about communistic
party. What does happen inside it? Speaking about the Communistic Party
of Armenia I feel pain in my heart and I won’t allow anyone to lift
his hand against the party as the Comcus of Armenia has always been
national and thanks to it we exist on this square. Our party wants
to stop exploitation people by people, to restore social justice.
I’m obliged to unify all communistic parties but if they don’t, it
will be easy for me to register the Republican Communistic Party of
Armenia, hold a session and for a new power.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Eurasia Daily Monitor
Monday, July 24, 2006 — Volume 3, Issue 142
SUMMIT PRESCRIBES CIS LITE; PUTIN BLINKS BEFORE SAAKASHVILI; VORONIN
STANDS UP TO PUTIN
by Vladimir Socor
Devalued by an unusually low attendance — only eight out of twelve
presidents — the CIS informal summit in Moscow on July 21-22 marks the
official transition of this organization to a `lite’ version of its former
self. With Russian President Vladimir Putin’s acquiescence, Kazakh President
Nursultan Nazarbayev presented a set of proposals to reduce the CIS to a few
functions, mainly in the sphere of social projects. Moreover, Putin blinked
before the absent Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, by eschewing a
discussion on Russian `peacekeeping’ in Abkhazia, even though the Kremlin
itself and all of Russia’s officialdom insisted all along that this issue
belongs to the CIS competency.
The summit’s agenda included a CIS `assessment of world
developments’ — the usual exercise to line up the presidents behind a
Kremlin-drafted statement on international issues — as well as CIS reform.
In view of the low attendance, however, the Kremlin decided to drop the
joint statement at the last moment on July 21. The following day, Putin
asked Nazarbayev to present proposals for CIS reform that Nazarbayev had
been authorized to prepare in his capacity as chairman of the CIS Council of
Heads of State.
Nazarbayev’s report explicitly acknowledges that the CIS does not meet
the requirements of an integration organization, having failed to create
even a free-trade zone, let alone a customs or monetary union or a common
security policy. He proposes that the CIS henceforth focus on harmonizing
member states’ policies on five issues: a) regulating migration; b)
developing transport links; c) promoting exchanges in the sphere of
education; d) dealing with cultural and humanitarian issues [often a
euphemism for maintaining a Russian-language cultural environment]; and e)
tackling trans-border criminality.
Under this proposal, CIS decisions are to be adopted by unanimous
consent and to be deemed obligatory once adopted. This mechanism seems a
recipe for weak and even meaningless decisions. It gives each country not
only the possibility to withhold its consent but actually an incentive to
withhold consent if necessary to avoid obligatory decisions that contravene
its interests.
Moreover, Nazarbayev proposes continuing cuts in the personnel of
Moscow-based CIS structures and transferring their functions to `national
coordinators’ who would reside in the member countries’ capitals. Reducing
the budget and personnel of CIS offices in Moscow is a trademark Nazarbayev
idea, and it is partly thanks to his insistence that those structures have
been cut radically in recent years. Any further cut would almost certainly
bring their final demise. The proposed institution of nationally based
coordinators seems inspired by the GUAM model. Although GUAM is not yet
functional, its national coordinators at least provide a flexible and
cost-effective mechanism for development and implementation of policy
decisions.
The report was circulated belatedly and could not be seriously
discussed at the summit. It has on the whole been accepted as a basis for
further discussion, and the presidents are to submit suggestions to
Nazarbayev for further development of the proposals. Nazarbayev will retain
his chairmanship of the presidents’ conclave (temporarily suspending the
rotation in that chair) in order to finalize his report. He concluded,
`Everyone knows that the CIS states are unhappy about the work of this
organization, and some are very unhappy . . . The CIS has actually turned
into a club for the presidents’ meetings’ (NTV Mir, July 22).
The club function is supposed to enable the presidents to hold
bilateral or small-format meetings on the summit’s sidelines. However, even
the club function is questionable with only eight presidents in attendance,
and Putin declining to meet bilaterally with the two presidents who had
wanted such meetings: Georgia’s Saakashvili, who was refused one day before
the summit, and Moldova’s Vladimir Voronin who was denied a bilateral
meeting with Putin while the summit was in progress.
The gist of what Voronin might have told Putin can be gauged from the
Moldovan president’s interview with the liberal Ekho Moskvy radio — one of
the few Moscow media outlets still open to him — on the summit’s opening
day, when he was still hoping for a bilateral meeting with the Russian
president. Voronin pointed to Russia’s recruitment of Transnistria’s leaders
`in the Siberian Taiga and [Soviet] Riga special police [reference to these
leaders’ actual backgrounds]; called for replacement of Russia’s
`peacekeeping’ operations with an international mission of observers, both
military and civilian; ridiculed Moscow’s claim that Transnistria’s
authorities `do not permit’ Russia to remove its arsenals and troops from
the area (a claim repeated on July 20 by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs
Sergei Lavrov); protested against Russia’s politically motivated embargo on
Moldovan wines (50% market share in Russia prior to the recent ban); and
deplored Russia’s `destruction’ of what Voronin described as traditional
Moldovan good will toward Russia (Ekho Moskvy, July 21).
Putin pointedly expressed his `thanks to those who found it possible
to come to Moscow.’ Among those who did not find it possible, Turkmen
President Saparmurat Niyazov is often absent from CIS summits; this time,
however, he is openly in conflict with Moscow over the price of Turkmen gas
deliveries to Gazprom.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko canceled his attendance with
less than 24 hours’ advance notice, citing the complicated political
situation in the country. A presidential communiqué went out of its way to
assure Russia and Putin personally of the `sincerity of Ukraine’s relations
with Russia as well as of the fact that Russia is a strategic partner of
Ukraine’ and invited Putin to visit Ukraine. A further invitation will
follow by official letter from Yushchenko, his office announced
(Interfax-Ukraine, July 21). This marks at least the fifth public and
somewhat supplicating invitation from Yushchenko to Putin to visit Ukraine.
Yushchenko previously issued such invitations in August, November, and
December 2005 and January 2006 publicly, and was also hoping to receive
Putin in Ukraine ahead of the March 26 parliamentary elections.
Armenian President Robert Kocharian was set to attend and likely to
meet with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev in Putin’s presence at this
summit. However, Kocharian canceled his attendance at the summit only hours
before its opening on July 21, citing a viral respiratory problem. In any
case, he faces an internal political problem, as Defense Minister Serge
Sarkisian seems set to launch a bid for supreme power.
(Interfax, Khabar, Mediamax, Arminfo, July 21, 22)
–Vladimir Socor
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RA Defense Minister received the Commander of the National Guards of Kansas State
ArmRadio.am
24.07.2006 16:53
Secretary of the Presidential Council on National Security, RA
Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan received the delegation headed by
Commander of the National Guards of Kansas State, Adjutant-General
Tod Banting. The meeting was attended by US Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary to Armenia John Evans.
The parties turned to the high level of US-Armenia military
cooperation, attaching special attention to the spheres of peacekeeping
and healthcare. They turned to the implementation of the Sergeant
institute in RA Armed Forces and educational divisions. They dwelt
on the cooperation between the hospitals of Armenia and Kansas,
as well as the necessity of the professional training of doctors.
Banting spoke about the Armenian peacekeepers in Iraq, who are carrying
out their duty with a great sense of responsibility. He referred also
to Rascuer-2006 military exercises.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UNESCAP to hold a joint seminar with RA Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Labor and Social Issues
ArmRadio.am
24.07.2006 12:07
July 26-26 the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) jointly with RA Ministries of Foreign
Affairs and Labor and Social Issues will hold a national seminar on
“Programs of income and opening work places, Their joint planning,
control and development in Armenia.”
Armenian and foreign experts, as well as representatives of regional
structures will participate in the seminar.

EUROWAGEN COMPANY PLANS TO INCREASE VOLKSWAGEN SALES IN ARMENIA
Yerevan, July 24. ArmInfo. Volkswagen’s dealer in Armenia, Eurowagen,
is planning to increase Volkswagen sales in Armenia this year,
says the head of the communication cooperation department Mikayel
Minassyan. He did not give specific figures.
He said that last year the sales exceeded plans – 100 cars. 60-70% of
them were Premium, Touareg, Passat, Golf – all with 2-year guarantee.
At the same time, the “Armenian mentality” prefers second-hand
luxurious Mersedes E, BMW 5 or 7, TOYOTA to new smaller economy cars
for the same $12,000-17,000.
This year Eurowagen has delivered just 10 second-hand 6-month guarantee
cars worth $6,000-15,000. In cooperation with Armeconom and Anelik
banks the company provides cars on an instalment basis. In Anelik Bank
the prepayment is 20%, the interest 15% a year, the credit period 4
years. Minassyan says that because of climatic conditions the company
imports into Armenia only 20-22 of 87 possible Volkswagen models.
He says that today Eurowagen is building a new office. 80% of
exterior and 20% of interior is ready. The company has spent $1.6
mln on the project from its profits. The building will be opened by
Mar 5 2007. Besides, the company has built its own wharehouse for
storing 14,000 original spare parts and accessories. Now there are
5,000 spare parts stored there.
Minassyan says that in the future Eurowagen will start producing
spare parts and cars on its own.
Minassyan says that cars in Armenia are gradually becoming not only
a means of transportation but a cult and lifestyle which is proved
by the abundance of tuning companies.
Eurowagen has been working in Armenia since Mar 2004. It was selected
by Volkswagen from among 10 applicants. According to the contract,
Volkswagen should provide cars ad German now-how, Eurowagen –
maintenance building and show-room.
The National Statistical Service of Armenia reports that in Jan-May
2006 car trade in Armenia totalled 27 bln AMD ($60 mln) out of the
total trade worth 349.8 bln AMD ($779.9 mln).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AN INFORMAL FAREWELL TO THE DYSFUNCTIONAL COMMONWEALTH
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
July 24, 2006
By Pavel K. Baev
There were plenty of good reasons to organize an informal top-level
meeting of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Moscow last
weekend. Old conflicts and new tensions dividing its 12 member-states,
from the deadlocked antagonism between Armenia and Azerbaijan to
the ongoing spy scandal between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, require
the urgent attention of their leaders and good-neighborly mediation
between the parties. The broad theme of “energy security” needs to
be collectively elaborated by producers and consumers in order to
harmonize their interests and prevent new “gas wars.” Yet none of
these real issues was actually put on the agenda of the summit, which
started with a long dinner at a restaurant on the shore of Moscow River
on Friday evening and ended with horse racing on Saturday afternoon
(Izvestiya, July 24).
When inviting his “junior allies” to spend some quality time together,
Russian President Vladimir Putin did not have in mind discussing
conflict management or gas prices; his main topic was the success he
had achieved at the G-8 summit the previous weekend. He had played
host to the leaders of the most influential countries in the world
and not only provided an excellent venue but proved his status as
a rightful member of the most elitist of political clubs, brushing
aside questions about the quality of democracy in Russia (Kreml.org,
July 20; Moskovskie novosti, July 21). By all accounts, Putin scored a
big victory and was eager to translate that result into a more usable
position of power in the CIS.
Such a prospect was not exactly enthralling for the invitees, and
four presidents opted to skip the occasion at the last minute, giving
various excuses (EDM, July 21; Kommersant, July 22). Turkmenistan’s
President Saparmurat Niyazov has never been a fan of the CIS and,
after reducing his status to an “associate member” last year, he
refused to interrupt his vacation this year. Armenia’s President
Robert Kocharian caught a cold, which was probably unfortunate, but
of no great import, since Moscow was not planning to launch any fresh
initiative on Karabakh and is generally inclined to take Yerevan for
granted. Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko decided that he had
nothing to discuss with Moscow until a government is formed in Kyiv,
since Putin’s opinion of Viktor Yanukovych, who hopes to claim to the
position of prime minister, is known only too well. Georgia’s President
Mikheil Saakashvili needed and even asked for a face-to-face meeting
with Putin, but when the request was diplomatically turned down,
he cancelled the trip at the last moment.
The Georgian case is perhaps the most burning one in the entire
CIS zone, and Putin’s clearly conveyed refusal to give it due
attention is even more worrisome than the shootouts and explosions
in Tskhinvali. Saakashvili paid a visit to Washington two weeks prior
to the G-8 summit, and he had expected that President George W. Bush,
together with his European allies, would raise the issue of Russia’s
support to secessionists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia at an opportune
moment. It did not happen, perhaps because Lebanon demanded priority
attention (Prognosis.ru, July 19). Putin now feels emboldened to
experiment with direct pressure on Georgia, such as staging military
exercises, while in the Russian mainstream media the campaign against
“war mongers” in Tbilisi has reached new highs (Nezavisimaya gazeta,
July 24). The din drowns out rare voices, like Yulia Latynina’s, that
warn about the risk of being drawn into a full-scale interstate war
by the force of Moscow’s own propaganda and the parochial interests
of a few “peacekeeping” colonels who control the smuggling business
in South Ossetia (Ekho Moskvy, July 22).
The “frozen” conflict in Transnistria has also recently shown dangerous
spasms, so Moldova’s President Vladimir Voronin decided to come to
Moscow in an attempt to cut some ice in bilateral relations, which
have stayed on a very low plateau since he declined Putin’s peace
plan in December 2003. Having no illusions about the prospects of
integration, Voronin was generous with his praise of the value of
CIS, hoping at least to get some relaxation of the Russian ban on
imports of Moldavian wine (Ekho Moskvy, July 21). President Ilham
Aliyev from Azerbaijan probably enjoyed the races, where his horse
finished nose-to-nose with the Russian favorite, but it was hard to
detect any interest in the CIS on his part (Kommersant, July 24). The
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which was joyfully inaugurated on the
eve of the G-8 summit, is a project hugely more important to him than
anything in the Babylonian tower of paperwork produced during the 15
years of the Commonwealth’s fruitless existence.
Only one diehard enthusiast of deepening cooperation (as he was
of preserving the USSR in 1991) attempted to make a difference at
the summit. Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev presented a
well-developed draft for reforming the CIS centered on a proposal to
adopt decisions strictly by consensus on the few matters that were of
importance for all members and to guarantee that such decisions would
be mandatory to implement (Polit.ru, July 21). By no means an idealist,
Nazarbayev appealed to the common political sense of his colleagues,
suggesting a drastic streamlining of the bureaucratic procedures and,
taking a clue from the G-8 method, appointing “sherpas” for hammering
out the details (Vedomosti, July 24). His sound ideas could have
reinvigorated the Commonwealth a few years back, but now they are
demonstratively out of place.
The problem is not that Ukraine has lost interest in the CIS and
is considering an “exit strategy”; neither is it Georgia’s desire
to join NATO nor Turkmenistan’s self-isolation. The main problem
for Nazarbayev’s plan is that it does not fit Putin’s vision of
a Russia-centered, tightly controlled organization that has few
“horizontal” links between its members. Insisting on adopting a
binding “common position” on international issues around the Russian
line, Putin is challenging the malcontents to quit the CIS. By the
official summit later this year, some of them might indeed do it;
but that hardly would make it possible to transform the curtailed
Commonwealth into a functional structure.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian Journal: In Caucasus enclave, journalists find improvement
International Journalist’s Network
July 24, 2006
By Timothy Spence, Knight International Press Fellow
Around the corner from the government offices of the self-declared
Nagorno-Karabakh republic, two journalists spend a recent Friday
evening working in the small offices of the local press club.
That there is not much news this evening may be a good thing-more
than a decade after a ceasefire between Karabakh separatists and the
armies of two former Soviet republics, the peace in this picturesque
Caucasus region remains fragile.
And so do conditions for the journalists who work here. Salaries
are low, information can be hard to come by, and the 11 independent
newspapers depend on outside sponsors for survival. Most residents
of the economically struggling region of 145,000 people cannot
afford the 100 dram (about 23 U.S. cents) it costs for a newspaper.
Advertising is scarce.
The government-run public broadcaster controls the radio and
television stations in Karabakh, and there are several state-sponsored
newspapers. But journalists interviewed here say that while there are
obstacles to getting information, the working environment has become
more free in recent years.
Naira Hayrumyan, left, and Karine Ohanyan say low wages and a reserved
society make work in Nagorno-Karabakh difficult for journalists.
It was hard to imagine this a few years ago, when there were no
alternative and independent mass media in Karabakh,” says Karine
Ohanyan, who works for the independent “Demo” newspaper and corresponds
for the London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting. “However,
now that we have a number of publications independent of authorities,
reporters are able to cover developments fairly by means of such
mass media. As a result, readers can get information from different
sources and formulate their own objective opinion.”
Naira Hayrumyan, editor of the online news service KarabakhOpen.com,
also says there is greater freedom for journalists. Officials use
“friendly advice” rather than “threats or force” in dealings with
reporters, she says.
Still, journalists face significant challenges in a region still
scarred by ethnic conflict that turned bloody as the Soviet Union
disintigrated. Self-censorship, the small size of the region and
fears of self-expression-a byproduct of Soviet rule-all make the job
difficult. And a reserved society makes it tough for even the most
aggressive journalists to have their reporting effect change.
“Karabakh reporters live in a small country where all the people
know each other, and many of them simply refuse to be in a story,”
says Hayrumyan, adding that in Karabakh, “we seek to observe the
decencies and not to offend anyone.”
Ohanyan and Hayrumyan were interviewed in English and Armenian at the
three-room press club in the capital Stepanakert, and later answered
questions about press freedom by e-mail. Their answers were translated
from the Russian.
Ohanyan of “Demo” says the lack of media influence hurts the
unrecognized Karabakh republic, saying there is no “fourth estate”
to spur public debate or create awareness about citizens’ concerns.
“They are on their own, in a way, a separate link in the chain, and
on the whole their quality matters little,” Ohanyan said. “The media
perform an information function and that’s it.”
Karabakh got much less international media attention than other
post-Soviet conflicts. The rugged moutnains of the landlocked region
made access difficult and its small size made this a secondary story to
the battles in Chechnya and the former Yugoslavia, and less compelling
a story than the peaceful revolutions and independence movements in
the Baltic states and Eastern Europe.
Two boys sit in front of the clinic in Shushi, a once-thriving mountain
town where most homes and buildings lie in ruin 12 years after the
ceasefire. Both Ohanyan and Hayrumyan say that too little attention
has been given to their homeland’s struggles and that even regional
media neglect to report about how the current political stalemate is
affecting people. “The Azerbaijan and Armenian media often feature
the lives of their citizens, but the way simple people live in the
conflict region gets little coverage,” Ohanyan says.
Karabakh-which means “black garden” and is also known in Armenian
as Artsak-was a majority Armenian area that in the earliest years of
the Soviet Union was incorporated into Azerbaijan. Tensions began to
grow in 1988 as the ethnic Armenians sought autonomy from Azerbaijan.
Soviet interior ministry forces were sent to quash the separatist
movement, but war broke out in the final months of the Soviet Union
in 1991
Christian Armenia backed Karabakh against mostly Muslim Azerbaijan.
The fighting, punctuated by accusations of ethnic cleansing and
forced expulsions on both sides, mirrored the ethnic conflicts in
the Balkans. Armenian forces and the Karabakh militia succeeded in
driving out the better-armed Azeri army before Russia brokered a
ceasefire in 1994.
As many as 30,000 people died in the conflict, and tens of thousands
of people were driven from their homes. Nearly everyone was affected by
the fighting in the enclave, which is the size of the American state of
Delaware. Hayrumyan’s husband was killed in 1992 during the conflict.
Karabakh declared independence from Azerbaijan and aligned itself
with Armenia, but the international community does not recognize it
as an independent republic. Talks have stalled on a lasting peace
deal despite renewed efforts earlier this year.
While Karabakh is largely peaceful today, scars of war remain. The
once-thriving mountain city of Shushi lies in ruin. Some 3,000 people
live there, about 10 percent of its population before the war.
While the media in Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan often wage
wars of rhetoric and nationalistic sentiment, that may be changing.
“Recently,” says Ohanyan, “there was a breakthrough in the independent
printed press, namely analytical and other information have appeared
covering the security issue. I figure it’s the opinions of people
in a story that can be nationalistic, but the story itself gives
fair coverage.”
Timothy Spence is a Knight Fellow working with journalists
in Armenia. This is his second tour with the program; he
was previously in Ethiopia. The John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation sponsors the fellowships, administered by the
International Center for Journalists. For more information, visit
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:
PRESS RELEASE
July 24, 2006
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918
STATE DEPARTMENT MISLED SENATE ON
TURKISH COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT AMB. EVANS
— Signed Statements Contradict State Department’s
Official Denial
— Justice Department Records Reveal Repeated Contacts
by Turkey’s Foreign Agent with the State Department
Concerning Remarks by the Ambassador to Armenia
WASHINGTON, DC – In yet another troubling development concerning
the controversial nomination of Richard Hoagland to serve as U.S.
Ambassador to Armenia, Department of Justice records have revealed
that the State Department has misled the U.S. Senate regarding its
communications with the Turkish government concerning the February
2005 public affirmation of the Armenian Genocide by U.S. Ambassador
to Armenia John Marshall Evans, reported the Armenian National
Committee of America (ANCA).
In a letter, dated June 28, 2005 written on behalf of Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice to Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the Ranking
Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State
Department denied that the Turkish government had even approached
the Administration on this issue. However, official Foreign Agent
Registration filings by the Turkish government’s registered foreign
agent, the Livingston Group, document that, in the days following
Ambassador Evans’ February 19, 2005 remarks, one of Turkey’s agents
communicated on at least four different occasions with State
Department officials concerning the envoy’s statement and his
subsequent retraction.
“With each new revelation, we see more clearly the corrosive impact
that the Administration’s complicity in Turkey’s denial is having
on our own core values as Americans,” said ANCA Chairman Ken
Hachikian. “This latest failed attempt by the State Department to
mislead the Senate adds to the many compelling reasons to block the
confirmation of a new Ambassador to Armenia.”
Consistent with the pattern of unresponsiveness that has come to
characterize the Administration’s actions on the Hoagland
nomination, the only answer the State Department chose to provide
in response to Senator Biden’s four questions was a misleading one.
His other inquiries – including an official request for an
explanation of why Ambassador Evans was being replaced prematurely
– remain unanswered.
On June 23rd, as part of Ambassador Richard Hoagland’s confirmation
process to replace Amb. Evans in Yerevan, Senator Biden wrote a
letter asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a series of
questions including the following: “Has the State Department
received any communication – written, electronic, or spoken – from
the Turkish Government concerning Ambassador Evans?”
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey T.
Bergner responded on behalf of Secretary Rice with the following
assertion: “Please be assured that allegations that the U.S. is
removing Ambassador Evans under pressure from the Government of
Turkey are simply untrue. The Government of Turkey has not
approached the Administration on this issue, and the United States
and Turkey engaged in no diplomatic exchanges related to this
matter.”
However, Justice Department filings by the Livingston Group reveal
that a day after Amb. Evans’ statements on the Armenian Genocide
were publicized in an ANCA-San Francisco press release dated
February 24, 2005, a Turkish agent communicated with the State
Department concerning his statements. On February 28, 2005, one
business day after the agent’s first phone call, Ambassador Evans
issued his first public retraction – noting that his mention of the
Armenian Genocide was made in a private capacity. Later that same
day, the Livingston Group reported three additional calls between
one of Turkey’s agents and State Department officials including the
Deputy Chief of Mission-designate at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara to
discuss Ambassador Evans’ retraction. The very next day on March
1, 2005, Ambassador Evans issued a public correction of his
retraction – removing entirely any mention of the Armenian
Genocide.
In addition to the Justice Department filings, several Turkish
press accounts reported that officials of the Government of Turkey
communicated their concerns to the State Department regarding
statements made by Ambassador Evans:
1) Turkish Press
On March 3, 2005, Turkish Press reported that, “Turkey’s Ambassador
in Washington Faruk Logoglu reacted to this. Ambassador Logoglu
reminded his interlocutors in the State Department that the United
States did not recognize ‘Armenian genocide’ noting the expression
in Evans’ apology was unacceptable. Justifying Turkey’s warning,
US State Department made Evans to issue a ‘correction’ for the
apology.” (“Evans Had to Correct His Statement Again After Using
‘Genocide’ in His Apology,” Turkish Press, March 3, 2005)
2) Anadolu News Agency
On March 4, 2005, the Anadolu News Agency reported that, “The
Turkish ambassador to Washington Faruk Logoglu reacted to this
message and the Washington administration approved Turkey’s demand
and made Evans correct the message of apology. Logoglu reminded the
US State Department that the US does not recognize the Armenian
genocide, but the term was used in the message of apology of the US
Yerevan Ambassador. Logoglu noted that a term that is not accepted
by USA could not be used in a statement of policy.” (“Double
Genocide Correction from US Yerevan Ambassador,” Anadolu News
Agency, March 04, 2005)
3) Turkish Daily News
On May 27, 2006, Turkish Daily News reported that, “‘After his
remarks last year that caused reaction at the State Department and
by Turkey, Evans was given a second chance, but he continued to
deviate from the official U.S. policy, working almost as a part of
Armenian groups that have a specific agenda,’ one U.S. analyst
familiar with the matter said on Thursday. ‘As a result he was
recalled.'” (“US Envoy Fired Over ‘Genocide’ Claims,” Turkish Daily
News, May 27, 2006)
The ANCA has circulated relevant sections of the Justice Department
FARA filings to Congressional offices.