Author: Emil Lazarian

ARMENIAN DM PRAISES LEVEL OF COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA

ITAR-TASS News Agency
April 18, 2006 Tuesday 09:21 PM EST

Armenia and Russia maintain a high level of cooperation in defense
and related technologies and their cooperative interests embrace a
broad spectrum of problems, Armenian Defense Minister Serge Sarkissian
says in an interview the Russian Army daily Krasnaya Zvezda published
Wednesday.

“We must by no means stop at what we’ve achieved to date,” he says.

“On the contrary, we must develop this relationship, all the more so
that we have a legal and historical basis for it as well as willing
to do it.”

Sarkissian mentions Armenia’s cooperation with NATO, saying: “We
don’t develop it at the expense of relations with Russia, since the
latter must expand in all areas but we realize it’s important to be
familiar with the experience gained in other Armed Forces.”

“Today’s Armenian Army includes mechanized infantry and Air Force
units,” Sarkissian says. “We don’t have separate branches and services
of the Army or separate staffs for them. We have a single Joint Staff
that guides the operation of all the units – five separate corps,
an artillery detachment, and antiaircraft defense brigades.”

“The total manpower [of all of those units] is 45,000 men and
officers,” he says. “Naturally, that’s too much for a country with a
population of just 3 million people, but we must keep it up because
of instability in Southern Caucasus and absence of solutions to the
Karabakh problem.”

The latter centers around the mostly Armenian-populated Azerbaijani
enclave of Karabakh that has been seeking independence, or some form
of association with Armenia since late 1980’s.

“Unfortunately, any of the smoldering conflicts in Southern Caucasus
may play the role of a detonator,” Sarkissian said. “The regions is too
small and all the countries there are interdependent on one another,
and that’s why a resumption of combat operations may have very bad
consequences, including for ourselves.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TAJIKS COMMITTED MORE CRIMES IN RUSSIA THAN OTHER CIS CITIZENS IN 2005

Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS Business and Financial Newswire
April 19, 2006 Wednesday

Tajik citizens committed 7,717 crimes in Russia in 2005, which is
9.7% more than in 2004 and more than the number of crimes committed
by citizens of any other CIS country last year, according to the
Interior Ministry’s Main Information and Analysis Center, a police
source told Interfax-Military News Agency on Wednesday.

Ukrainians committed the second largest number of crimes in Russia
among CIS citizens in 2005, the source said. “They committed 6,680
crimes, down 1,500 from 2004 when the citizens of that country led
the pack,” he said.

The number of registered crimes committed by Uzbek citizens in 2005 was
6,679; Azeri citizens, 4,893; Moldovans, 3,334; and Armenians, 2,564.

The number of crimes committed by Kyrgyz citizens increased by more
than 50 percent as compared to 2004, namely from 1,699 to 2,539. The
number of crimes committed by Georgian citizens remained nearly the
same as compared to 2004 and amounted to 2,047. As many as 1,789
crimes were committed by citizens of Belarus and 1,537 by citizens
of Kazakhstan.

Citizens of Turkmenistan turned out the most law-abiding ones, as
they only committed 185 crimes in Russia, the source said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PEACEKEEPING OPERATION IN NAGORNO KARABAKH PREMATURE – ARMENIAN MINISTER

Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS Business and Financial Newswire
April 19, 2006 Wednesday

Armenian Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian believes that it is premature
to consider a peacekeeping operation in Nagorno Karabakh and considers
Azerbaijan’s decision to increase the military budget as blackmail.

“Unfortunately there is no agreement between us and Azerbaijan
so far. That is why it is too early to speak about peacekeepers,”
Sarkisian said in an interview with Russia’s Krasnaya Zvezda daily,
published on Wednesday.

A peacekeeping operation requires the consent of all parties to the
conflict, he said. “This matter can only be discuss when the parties
come to an agreement,” he noted.

Speaking about the increase of Azerbaijan’s military budget and Baku’s
promises to bring it up to $1 dillion, the minister said that this
“looks like blackmail.”

“Billions of dollars will not help in this case. If large military
budgets had determined combat capabilities and combat readiness
of troops, all oil-exporting countries would have had the most
combat-ready armies long ago. But this is not the case,” Sarkisian
said.

According to him, “any unresolved conflict in the Caucasus may work
as a detonator.”

“The South Caucasus is a very small region, and all countries depend
on each other here. Thus, resumption of hostilities may have extremely
negative consequences,” he said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RA DEFENSE MINISTER: ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN MILITARY RELATIONS SHOULD CONSTANTLY DEVELOP

PanARMENIAN.Net
20.04.2006 00:45 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The level of the Armenian-Russian military
cooperation is very high and covers a wide scope of issues, Armenian
Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan stated in an interview with “Krasnaya
Zvezda” Russian newspaper. “We should not stop at the achievement
we have made. On the contrary, we should constantly develop these
relations. We possess the appropriate legal and historical base and
wish. I hosted my Russian counterpart Sergey Ivanov in January and
we discussed the prospects of the Armenian-Russian relations,” he
remarked. “I would like to say that Armenia by no means develops the
relations with NATO at the expense of the Armenian-Russian cooperation
that expands in all directions. But we understand we should be
familiarized with the experience of other states,” the RA Defense
Minister stated. In his words, special place in the Armenian-Russian
relations is given to 102nd Russian military base that was located by
proposal of the Armenian party. “Do you remember early 1990-ies when
military units were seized in the post soviet republics or Russia
itself conveyed the property of the bases to them. At that time by
our suggestion half of the property was conveyed the Armenian party,
on the rest 50% a military base was formed. If Armenia took the
decision it was important for it,” Serge Sargsyan said.

THE OPENING OF THE ARMENIA-TURKEY BORDER IN THE LIGHT OF ARMENO-IRANIAN RELATIONS
By Khajag Mgrdichian

AZG Armenian Daily
20/04/2006

For most Armenian political and intellectual circles, the blockade
forced on Armenia by Turkey-and the fact, that the Armeno-Turkish
border still remains closed-are proof of Turkey’s antagonistic
attitude, if not outright animosity towards Armenia and the Armenian
people. This much is undeniable. Aside from the economic consequences
of the blockade, in the realm of international relations, aggravating
the lack of formal diplomatic ties with the decision to implement
a blockade, can easily be construed as an act of war, a casus
belli. Therefore, to ask Turkey to normalize relations with Armenia by
opening the borders, may be received as an attempt to end the present
belligerent policy. It is not by chance, that the speech delivered
at an Armenian Assembly gathering by Assistant to the Secretary
of State, Daniel Fried was received with applause, when he stated:
“Now we hope, but also anticipate, that a solution on Nagorno-Karabagh
will result in an open border with Turkey, which is a consistent goal
on our agenda with Ankara. From Yerevan, I went to Ankara and I made
this point with the Turkish government that we want the border open,
and we want it open as soon as possible.”

So far, high-ranking American officials, succeeding ambassadors-the
last of whom, John Evans-have declared, that in the light of the
existing blockade, they approach with understanding Armenia’s special
relationship with Iran.

In regards to the importance of relations with Iran, a similar opinion
is expressed in a document titled “Strategic Defense Guidelines of the
Republic of Armenia” where one reads the following: “In conditions
of an economic-transportation blockade, from the point-of-view of
neutralizing Armenia’s isolation, Iran’s significance becomes more
salient as a country securing an essential strategic road to Asia
and the Middle East for Armenia.”

However, it is clear, that intent on the encirclement of Iran, the
United States has partially completed that aim with its military
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mistrust of the Gulf’s Arab
states towards Iran and the stress in Azerbaijan-Iran relations. Daniel
Fried has said in Baku, that the danger to the security of Azerbaijan
does not come from Armenia, it comes from other countries (referring
to Iran). Fried justifies American aid to Azerbaijan, saying, “Our
security cooperation with and assistance to Azerbaijan is meant
to improve Azerbaijan’s posture against those threats, not against
Armenia.”

Iran’s encirclement could be completed by reversing the progress of
her relationship with Armenia.

However, that progress cannot be justifiably slowed down, as long as
the Turkish-Azeri blockade of Armenia continues. It is by lifting that
blockade, that Armenia’s special relationship with Iran may become
not only unjustifiable, as far as the United States is concerned,
but objectionable, as well.

According to Fried, the United States follows with considerable
apprehension Armenia’s energy ties with Iran. According to him,
America-as in the case of other Caucasus countries-tries to find
alternate sources of fuel for Armenia. Therefore, it is clear, that
the increasing interest, shown recently by the United States on the
matter of the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border, is motivated by a
desire to end State Department’s present tolerance of the Armenia-Iran
special relationship, by securing other accessible sources of energy
for Armenia’s needs.

In political terms, the U.S. efforts to encircle Iran are
understandable. However, the U.S. attempt to replace the present
Armenia-Iran relations with those of Armenia-Turkey, denotes a
failure to grasp the historical context of existing Armenian-Turkish
relations. For Armenia, what is being dealt with here is not a simple
act of shutting the back door and opening the front one. More than just
political, both relationships have strategic ramifications. Opening
the borders does not nullify the Turkish threats to the security of
the Armenian people and state.

Furthermore, it jeopardizes the Armenian quest for justice and
reparations for the genocide committed by Turkey. In sum, the issue
is not one of replacing the 10 cubic meters of natural gas being
pumped from Iran with an equal amount from Turkey or Azerbaijan;
those relationships are not as simple as the spokesmen of the US
State Department’s foreign policy would make us believe.

Most worrisome of all, however, is the danger of having Armenian
circles, that may be lured and end up swallowing-hook, line, and
sinker-these simplistic notions concerning the complex relationships
discussed above.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

8 COMMUNITIES INSTEAD OF 13 IN YEREVAN
By Ara Martirosian

AZG Armenian Daily
20/04/2006

Community Heads Appointed or Elected?

As it is known, the issue of Yerevan’s status was one of the key
issues before constitutional amendments were adopted. After a long
wait the amended constitution declared that the capital should have
the status of a community and its head should be elected.

Currently two options of Yerevan’s governance system are being
discussed.

According to sources close to the government, the first option
suggests decreasing the number of communities from 13 to 8 and then
making elective the posts of city mayor and community heads.

The second option suggests making mayoralty elective and leaving the
community heads to be appointed by the government.

It’s hard to say now which option will have more appeal for the
authorities but one can assume that the latter will strive to pass
the first one. Why?

For the post-Soviet Armenian authorities the issue of elective
mayoralty was an argumentative issue. Neither the former nor the
present-day presidents and authorities wanted to have elective
mayoralty in Yerevan. While taking the mayor’s office, Vano Siradekhian
openly stated that it is inadmissible to have elective mayor. The
same opinion dominates today, and the authorities stubbornly refuse
to yield to the EU’s demand. Elective mayoralty used to be viewed as
a threat to the executive power as the overwhelming majority of our
country’s human and natural resources is concentrated in the capital.

Therefore, the option of elective mayor and community heads is
preferable for the authorities. The danger of this option lies in the
fact that Yerevan will get divided and cease being one united organism
with all negative consequences stemming out. This separates Yerevan
with its mayor and community heads tangled up in their interests
and powers, with no vertical subordination to the authorities and
consequent irresponsibility. This may suit well for the authorities
but would be disastrous for the capital.

The mess in the city construction will continue, green zones will
keep vanishing, garbage-collecting and transport issues will remain
unsolved as the mayor and community heads will go on blaming each
other for the city’s problems.

For Yerevan and its residents elective mayor and appointed community
heads should be more preferable as it will help keep the capital
united, will secure vertical subordination and will make clear who
is responsible for city maintenance. For the abovementioned reasons,
it’s hard though to believe that this option will be chosen.

THE SHAGHAT INHABITANTS ARE NOT READY FOR SOWING

A1+
[01:11 pm] 20 April, 2006

In the village Shaghat of Sisian region the sowing areas of grain
annually curtail. The peasants face such a problem because of fuel
increase and difficulties connected with the realization of local
products. The inhabitants of Shaghat have realized only 50 – 60
hectares autumn sowing instead of the 350 hectares of the previous
year and they will supply this lack with the spring sowing. Now it
is time for spring sowing but the peasants complain that they are
not ready for sowing.

The agricultural work is also lingered by the fact that the village
is adjacent to the borderline. It has 1030 hectares lands 230 hectares
of which is not cultivated because of the above – mentioned fact.

About 1000 hectares pasture and meadow lands are not available for
usage either.

According to the data of the previous year average harvest per 1
hectare grain sowing area was 12g. The Community Chief Hovhannes
Arzumanyan claims that the low index of the crop yield is determined by
a number of factors, such as the poor quality seed, unfavorable weather
conditions, the wrong land cultivation and the lack of technical
means. The harvesting is postponed because of the combine absence.

There are 80 hectares potato sowing areas in the village. On this
score, they counter the problem of realization and have to sell their
product with 50 – 70 AMD.

Soon the village will have milk purveyance service in the initiative
of “Ashtarak milk” company which will contribute to the problem
of realization.

COMPENSATION WILL BE GIVEN TO 1300

About 1300 out of 47 000 Sisian citizens who put their money in
“ArmKhnayBank” by June 10, 1993 will get compensations. 140 families
have applied to the social service of the Sisian regional centre
since April 12 and 300 applications were taken on the whole.

The regional centre workers will visit and register the citizens who
are included in the compensation list but cannot go to the regional
centre because of health problems.

“Syuni” TV channel of Sisian

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE EUROPEANS REPRESENTED THE KEY TO THE SOLUTION

A1+
[05:26 pm] 19 April, 2006

Armen Roustamyan Opposes

During the 8th session of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary cooperation
Committee in Armenia critical announcements were made about the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict. In particular, member of the
Committee Hannes Svoboda announced that the Armenian armed forces
must leave the occupied lands, they must be given a special status;
a referendum will solve the status problem, the refugees must return
to their houses, and peace-keeping forces must be allocated in
those areas.

By the way, he said all this as an agreement with the Armenian
side. Several other Europeans claimed that the areas are occupied
by the Armenian side and it is not a secret for anyone. NA deputy
Armen Roustamyan had to answer these claims, “The RA did not occupy
any lands. The history of the conflict is that Azerbaijan committed
aggression against the Karabakh people in answer to their raising the
issue of sovereignty. We must not forget the 1988 events in Sumgayit;
there are facts, and we can prove whatever we say with facts.

This aggression was beaten by the Armenian forces and control was
established over the areas according to the 51st article of the UN
legislation. We ask you to check everything yourselves.”

He informed that the getting acquainted with the history of the
conflict the Europeans will make sure that the RA is a side involved
in the conflict and not one that started it, “RA cannot fully replace
NKR in the negotiations. We cannot represent the sovereignty right
instead of the Karabakh people and decide their fate.”

“We demand that Karabakh participate in the negotiations and this
is a necessity in order to make the negotiation process more real,”
Armen Roustamyan said informing the European concerned with the
Karabakh conflict those options which are acceptable for Armenia,
“Our approach is clear: Karabakh must make use of its sovereignty
right unconditionally and without restrictions. Speaking about
sovereignty as part of Azerbaijan when they will speak about the
defense of the rights of national minorities in the territory of a
country is completely out of this context. Naturally, the variant
acceptable for us is independence.”

Roustamyan informed that Armenia has seen what autonomy offered by
the Azeri side means by the example of Nakhijevan. “The Autonomous
Republic of Nakhijevan had the highest status in the former USSR.

And in that status all the Armenians were evicted from there while
according to the data of the year 1927, 40% of its population was
Armenian. Today there are no Armenians there. You have also seen
what they have done with the cultural heritage. Seeing all this,
how do you imagine that the Karabakh people will ever agree to have
that highest status as part of Azerbaijan? It is absurd. ”

The head of the NA Standing Committee on Foreign Relations also said it
was totally absurd that the Armenian side too is required to refrain
from militant statements, as “it is no secret that the Armenian side
does not want a new war.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FUTURE IN EFFICIENCY

A1+
[06:13 pm] 19 April, 2006

Today Robert Kocharyan received the delegation of the participants
of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary cooperation Committee 8th session.

Underlining the importance of establishing a private cooperation
plan with Armenia as soon as possible within the framework of the
EU New Neighborhood policy, Robert Kocharyan said that it will give
them the possibility to have coordinated relations with the EU and
to go forward, “We see the future of Armenia in efficient governing,
efficient political system and economy, and it can be reached only
by means of radical reforms,” the head of the country underlined.

At the request of the European Parliamentarians the President
represented the recent development of the negotiations of the peaceful
settlement of the Karabakh conflict and the approaches of Armenia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EU EMPHASIZED THE RIGHT FOR SELF-DETERMINATION

Lragir.am
20 April 06

The two-day session of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation
Committee finished on April 19. A conclusion of 38 points was
adopted. After the meeting the co-chairs of the committee Ms. Marie
Anne Isler Béguin and MP Armen Rustamyan gave a news conference. The
speakers said a broad range of questions was discussed during
the session, from internal policies in Armenia and the upcoming
election in 2007 and 2008 to Nagorno Karabakh and Turkish-Armenian
relations. Marie Anne Isler Béguin appreciated the high level of
debates and in-depth consideration of issues. By the way, during the
debates one of the Europeans repeatedly used the phrase “occupied
territories.” According to Armen Rustamyan, there is nothing to worry
about, and often the questions are made sharper on purpose to have
an open and productive discussion.

Out of the mentioned 36 points of the conclusion 6 refer to Nagorno
Karabakh and all the six favor the Armenian party. It was unanimously
accepted that the settlement of the Karabakh issue should involve
the rights for self-determination of nations and the minorities,
the settlement of the conflict by military means should be excluded,
the fact that NKR is not recognized should not damage the rights
and freedoms of people who live there, there should be guarantees
of security, etc. The Europeans will discuss the same questions with
the Azerbaijanis. Sure enough, the Azerbaijanis will try to reduce,
if not remove pro-Armenian phrases. Armen Rustamyan says it will not
be easy, for in Yerevan all these were adopted unanimously, in other
words, the EU guarantees what was written. By the way, the previous
efforts of the Azerbaijanis failed thanks to the determination of
the EU delegates. Marie Anne Isler Béguin is hopeful that Azerbaijan
will accept the right of nations for self-determination.

The EU delegates are currently similarly determined, and hoping that
one day we or our children will enter the European Union, advise to
hold elections in compliance with European standards that are known to
everyone, and prepare the society for the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict and learn to live side by side with their neighbors, like
France and Germany, which used to have a lot of problems.

Besides, in all their meetings, including that with Robert Kocharyan,
the EU representatives said they would like to be televised again. They
also said that for elections complying with European standards only
laws are not enough, these require political will as well. They are
willing to monitor the elections in 2007 and 2008. They said and set
down in the conclusion that in Armenia corruption is one of the major
setbacks in economic and social development, and called for a more
consistent struggle against this vice.

–Boundary_(ID_7ZjHY7w6VM/AV3kqU7Y4mw)–