Republican Party Of Armenia Says That Assassination Attempt On Mayor

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ARMENIA SAYS THAT ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON MAYOR OF GYUMRI WAS AIMED AGAINST THE PARTY

Arminfo
2007-04-03 15:26:00

Republican Party of Armenia says that assassination attempt on mayor
of Gyumri was aimed against the party

It is quite possible that the assassination attempt on the mayor of
Gyumri, member of the Republican Party of Armenia Vardan Ghoukassyan
was aimed against the party, the RPA spokesman, Eduard Sharmazanov,
said during a press-conference today.

Sharmazanov can’t say who might seek Ghoukassyan’s life but he does
not agree with the opinion of the leader of the United Communist Party
Yuri Manukyan that the attempt was organized by external forces. He
expects the police to solve the crime as soon as possible.

To remind, the mayor of Gyumri Vardan Ghoukassyan and his escort were
attacked on the Yerevan-Gyumri highway on Monday at 10:30 PM. Three
bodyguards were killed, Ghoukassyan, his driver and vice mayor of
Gyumri Gagik Manukyan are in hospital in a grave condition. Witnesses
say that the attackers were in a gray Jeep without numbers. The
investigation is underway.

Ghoukassyan was returning from Yerevan where he had taken part in a
meeting of the board of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia. The
board met to discuss the RPA candidacy for prime minister.

Former Russian Defence Minister, First Deputy PM Sergey Ivanov Profi

FORMER RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTER, FIRST DEPUTY PM SERGEY IVANOV PROFILED

Moskovskiy Komsomolets, Moscow
29 Mar 07

Text of article by Mikhail Rostovskiy: "The Russian Federation’s
Station Chief" by Russian newspaper Moskovskiy Komsomolets on 29 March

Will the "Lone Secret Service Man" become our third guarantor?

Sergey Ivanov will be able to celebrate the eighth anniversary of
his choice as Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s official successor this
November. In fall 1999, Yeltsin asked Prime Minister Putin, the former
secretary of the Security Council, to name his candidate for the empty
Security Council seat. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin chose FSB [Federal
Security Service] Deputy Director Ivanov. Will the same thing happen
with the presidency? It is possible that even Vladimir Vladimirovich
and Sergey Borisovich do not know at this time. We could bet a million
dollars without any hesitation, however, on the certainty that Ivanov
will play a key role in the "changing of the Kremlin guard in 2008."

If Putin is a card player and the entire political elite is a deck
of cards, then Ivanov is indisputably the joker – the "wild card"
that can pop up at any time and send the game careening in the most
unpredictable direction.

The Sphinx from Yasenevo

"I have been working with Sergey Borisovich for more than seven years,
but I cannot say I know him well. He is not the kind of man who opens
up right away." In this casual remark to me, a close colleague of
Ivanov’s concisely conveyed the essence of the first vice premier’s
character. Once known in the intelligence service as "The Quietest
One," Sergey Ivanov is one of those politicians who drive people
to distraction when they try to compose a political profile of
the man. As soon as you think you know something about him, that
"something" slips out of your grasp.

Ivanov cannot be called dull or indistinguishable, however. Sergey
Borisovich has always been distinguished, for example, by his unique
imagination and sense of humour. In the middle of the 1970s, Serezha
Ivanov, a graduate of the Philology Department of Leningrad State
University, once went out to find a taxi for some guests who had
lingered at his place until late at night. Cabs were in short supply
on Vasilyevskiy Island that night, but Ivanov was resourceful, so he
hailed … a street cleaner’s vehicle!

Sergey Borisovich is able to stay calm in a crisis. When the defence
minister was in London a couple of years ago, a fire alarm went
off in his hotel late at night. Everyone started to panic. To the
amusement of the few passersby, the hotel guests ran outside in
various stages of undress. Ivanov was one of the few who managed to
keep his dignity. He made his way outside in a leisurely fashion,
dressed in a fluffy white bathrobe.

The first vice premier is exceptionally charming when people meet him
in person. Like Putin, he can charm anyone in a small group. When
Sergey Borisovich was the minister of defence, his assistants
frequently had to listen to comments like this one: "Your boss is
wonderful. It is too bad all of you are such idiots!"

Ivanov is no stranger to common human weaknesses. The first vice
premier is an inveterate smoker, but he is quite ashamed of this
habit. Photographers and TV cameramen are always begged not to take
pictures of Sergey Borisovich with a cigarette.

Sergey Ivanov is extremely proud of his English language skills.

During official meetings, he embarrasses protocol officers with his
frequent need to correct the interpreters. Ivanov’s security guards
are not particularly happy with their boss either. When the first
vice premier goes to a basketball game or a soccer match, he usually
refuses to go to the VIP box and prefers to sit in the bleachers. In
addition to his passion for sports, Sergey Borisovich loves classic
Western rock, especially Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.

Before his transformation into a high-level official, Ivanov was
distinguished by his unaffected style of dress. His university
friends remember that "he always wore the same wool sweater, and his
hair stuck out in every direction." A short time later, when he was
working at intelligence headquarters in Yasenevo, Sergey Borisovich
loved to wear jeans, turned inside out, after work. In recent years,
however, Ivanov naturally has abided by the strict official dress code.

In contrast to most of the high-level officials of the Putin era,
Sergey Borisovich is highly considerate of reporters. During the
annual conferences on security in Munich, Defence Minister Ivanov
always took his pool of reporters to one of the famous local beer
halls. According to people who were present at many private briefings,
the former head of the military establishment may not always have
provided specific answers to some questions, but his responses were
never ambiguous and were always thorough.

Ivanov’s behaviour with his subordinates is completely different. A man
of few words, he demands the same of others. The first vice premier
despises long conversations and conferences and cannot bear being
"burdened with unnecessary details."

Enemies of the first vice premier are able to learn about another facet
of Ivanov’s character. Ivanov’s first years as the defence minister
were marked by an intense fight for control of the ministry with
Chief of General Staff Anatoliy Kvashnin. Outwardly, however, Sergey
Borisovich’s relationship with his rival appeared quite cordial. Even
the ultimate dismissal of Kvashnin was arranged to look almost like
a promotion.

Which of Ivanov’s many public images is the real one? Probably none of
them. Sergey Borisovich can only feel completely free to be himself
among the friends and family he carefully screens from the eyes of
outsiders. In his relations with the outside world, it is as if Ivanov
is always clad in invisible armour.

"Feelings of Comradeship"

Ivanov’s rise to power fit the typical pattern for most of the St
Petersburgers Putin brought to Moscow. Sergey Ivanov, a new officer of
the First Division of the Leningrad KGB, met his colleague Vladimir
Putin approximately in 1976. There is no need to tell what happened
after that….

The first vice premier’s position in the government hierarchy cannot
be called typical, however. Even Ivanov’s foes admit that he is not
only an important subordinate of Vladimir Putin’s, but also his friend
and associate. There are not many of these even in Putin’s inner
circle. Here is what Putin said, for example, about Igor Sechin,
"the president’s right-hand man," in 2000: "He asked to come to
Moscow with me, so I brought him along." Putin chose completely
different words to describe his relationship with Ivanov: "feelings
of comradeship." Only Vladimir Vladimirovich and Sergey Borisovich
know why they have this kind of relationship, but the reasons for
Ivanov’s latest promotion easily can be guessed.

In the last seven years, most of the important members of
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s retinue have become the centres of
political-bureaucratic empires. Igor Sechin, for example, is relied
upon by dozens, if not hundreds, of little-known but influential
middle-level officials and businessmen. Dmitriy Medvedev does not
have a team of his own, but he is supported, almost publicly, by the
old Yeltsin family, which has not lost its influence and resources.

Sergey Ivanov, on the other hand, is the typical political "lone
wolf." Despite the colossal number of his friends and associates, there
is no Ivanov team or family. Of course, an official on that level has
to have an inner circle, but its members can be counted on the fingers
of one hand, and all of them perform purely technical functions.

Former FSB analyst Andrey Chubotov, an extreme workaholic, is still
the chief of the minister’s staff in the Defence Ministry. Sergey
Rybakov, also from the FSB, is in charge of analysis and the media.

Former intelligence officer Vladimir Chernov, who worked with Ivanov in
the Finland station, now heads the first vice premier’s staff in the
White House. Sergey Borisovich once brought Nikolay Pankov, a former
instructor at the KGB Higher School, to the Defence Ministry, but in
his present position as the military establishment’s states-secretary,
Pankov has been "naturalized" in the ministry and has almost ceased
to be regarded as one of Ivanov’s personnel.

Another of Ivanov’s important distinctive features is his virtual
lack of ties to the business community. It is almost impossible to
believe something like this could be true under present conditions,
but I heard this from more than 10 informed sources, friends and
foes of the first vice premier, with only one exception. The only
difference was in their explanations of this phenomenon.

According to his friends, Sergey Borisovich is no ascetic, of course.

He was overjoyed during the Soviet era when he was able to buy a Volga
and move into an apartment in a 16-story building in Orekhovo-Borisovo
after he returned from an assignment abroad. For Ivanov, however,
making money is not the main thing. "For a long time after he became
the defence minister, he kept wearing a coat he had bought when he
was working in Finland in the 1980s," a good friend of the first vice
premier told me. "Sergey also took a long time to move into the new
apartment they had given him. It seems to me he just did not have
enough money for the renovations."

The explanation I was given by Ivanov’s enemies is less flattering,
of course. They say Sergey Borisovich lacks the knowledge and skill
to channel the flow of money in his own direction.

In Russia today, everyone is free to choose the explanation he prefers,
but it appears that the people who love to scoff at Ivanov for being a
"loser" are losing sight of one important fact. Sergey Borisovich’s
lack of a team and a business makes him an extremely valuable player
in Putin’s eyes now that a change of government is approaching. This is
the absolutely ideal set of qualities for a potential successor. After
all, this means that Ivanov’s only government asset is Vladimir
Vladimirovich himself. This trump card in the hands of a lone player
can "beat" Sechin’s entire army. In fact, this has already happened.

The Duel with Sechin

It is easy to guess the worst day of Sergey Ivanov’s political
career. On 25 January 2006, during the defence minister’s visit to
Armenia, he was asked: "What can you tell us about what happened in
Chelyabinsk?" Ivanov replied: "I have been high up in the mountains for
the last few days and I have not heard what happened in Chelyabinsk. I
am certain it was nothing serious. Otherwise, I would know about
it." When all of the TV networks started reporting the story of Private
Andrey Sychev, who had lost both legs in Chelyabinsk, the public saw
Ivanov as the personification of callousness and incompetence.

After the spectacular failure of the American attempt to overthrow
Fidel Castro in 1961, President Kennedy declared that the chief
executive was ultimately to blame. According to this completely logical
line of reasoning, the head of the Defence Ministry definitely is to
blame for the terrible tragedy in Chelyabinsk. The fact that many
of the key details of what happened to Sychev still are unclear
is not that important. Even the fact that the number of non-combat
casualties in the army fell from 1,264 in 2001 to 554 in 2006 is not
that important.

There is another facet of this situation, however, and it would be
foolish to ignore it. Former Kremlin staff member Aleksey Volin
recently amused the readers of the New York Times by relating a
conversation he had with a current member of the presidential staff:
"Why would you watch television? It is only for the population,
after all. People like you should be using the Internet!"

Unfortunately, this is only half a joke at best. Television in our
country is a source of propaganda rather than information. The very
fact that all of the TV networks were full of stories about the
Sychev tragedy means only one thing: Someone at the very top wanted
this very much.

Who wanted this? Members of the political elite believe it was Igor
Sechin. Few people now remember when or how the fight between Igor
Ivanovich and Sergey Borisovich started. It probably was less of a
personality conflict than a systemic clash. According to people who
know the ethics of the Kremlin: "Sechin is extremely jealous of anyone
who can go over his head to get to Putin, and Ivanov and Putin have
a close relationship Sechin cannot possibly influence."

In any case, on the orders of Sechin’s relative, Procurator-General
Vladimir Ustinov, the military procuracy started "uncovering crimes"
in Ivanov’s ministry with incredible zeal in 2005. After the tragic
incident involving Sychev, the assault included "heavy artillery"
– television.

It is important to realize that the organizers of the assault were
not focusing on public opinion. People in the Kremlin regard it as
a sort of clay, which easily can be moulded into any shape whatsoever.

The target audience was one and only one TV viewer – Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin. They wanted the country’s leader to be irritated
by the head of the Defence Ministry – in about the same way, for
example, that he obviously is now irritated by Zurabov.

They did not succeed, however. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin first
reformed the informal system of TV administration and put the networks
under even stricter control. After that, Aleksandr Savenkov, the chief
military procurator, and Vladimir Ustinov, his boss, both lost their
jobs within the next year. Members of the political elite are still
arguing about the extent to which the conflict with Ivanov led to
Ustinov’s fall, but everyone agrees it was an important contributing
factor.

The "Philologist" in the Army

Sergey Ivanov obviously had no chance of becoming the army’s favourite
person. He cannot be called a total civilian, of course.

While he was still in school, Ivanov spent a month at a military
training camp near Petrozavodsk and later underwent parachute
training in the Pskov Division of the Airborne Troops. His work in
the intelligence service and in the FSB was not a completely civilian
occupation either, but Sergey Borisovich certainly does not have the
mindset of the model "paternal commander" in the army.

The exceptionally refined Ivanov addresses all of his subordinates by
their name and patronymic and uses the formal pronoun "you" when he is
speaking to them. According to his colleagues, "he drinks less than
he should," never uses obscenities, never yells, and rarely raises
his voice. It is not surprising that the army wits gave their former
boss the ambiguous nickname of "The Philologist"…. The defence
minister is no 100-euro bill, however. He cares more about results
than about popularity.

There is no doubt that Ivanov left the army in an incomparably better
condition than it was in when he took office. I will not lapse into
bombastic talk about "rebirth" and the "start of a turning point." If
I had ever had this inclination, it would have disappeared after I
spoke with the "non-elite" officers making less money than most of
the salesclerks in Moscow. Nevertheless, the army that was so lifeless
for the last decade is slowly beginning to show signs of life again,
even if these entail pain and the intense creaking of joints.

"Voronezh," the latest radar station, certainly is not a typical
military unit, but even a tour of this elite subunit proves some
sense of the intense contradictions making up the life of today’s army.

On the one hand, the equipment is ultra-modern. The station still
has no counterparts even in the NATO countries. Its predecessors
used 71 times as much energy and cost 10 times as much. The station’s
officers deserve unqualified respect and are fully capable of finding
a more lucrative occupation in the civilian sector. On the other hand,
housing conditions are deplorable. The construction of official housing
has been promised, but not for another two years. In the meantime,
the 17 unmarried officers, ranging in rank from lieutenant to major,
are all living together in one big room!

The 320,000 servicemen now in units on permanent alert status, the
resumption of brigade and division training exercises and regular
deliveries of new equipment and vehicles, the transfer of 78,000
soldiers, sergeants, and sergeant-majors to contract-based service, the
provision of servicemen on the waiting list for housing with 140,000
homes and the reduction of the list by more than one-fourth, and the
slight improvement of morale in the officer corps – all of these are
tangible accomplishments rather than mere promises "on paper."

The superficiality of the "state’s renewed concern for the army"
is a different matter. The sky-high prices of oil enabled the state
to increase defence expenditures from $8.2 billion in 2001 to 31.3
billion "greenbacks" this year. The main question, therefore, is this:
Could more have been accomplished with this amount of money?

I never was able to come up with a satisfactory answer to this
question. It is highly possible that the very qualities in Ivanov
that are so valuable to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, including his
disinclination to form his own team and to manipulate financial flows,
were not necessarily the right qualities for a minister of defence.

"Any civilian defence minister is only able to make radical changes if
he arrives with a large and knowledgeable team of administrators and
financial experts," a respected government staff member with ties to
Ivanov told me. "Military administrators are a genuine caste, leading
everyone else around on a leash. Ivanov and Kudelina, the head of his
financial service, were rarely able to reach any agreements with them."

On the other hand, this same White House source admitted that Ivanov
was somewhat justified in avoiding radical "demolition." Any demolition
must be preceded by the precise knowledge of what will be built in
place of the demolished object. The transition period in Russian
history is not over yet, however. The profound geopolitical changes
in Eurasia are just beginning. Today, therefore, it is difficult to
say exactly what kind of army the country needs. Should it be set up,
for example, in opposition to NATO? Or is there every indication that
we will be on the same side as America in about 15 years, trying to
ward off China’s growing muscles?

In addition, we have to realize that there are some fundamental
problems no defence minister is capable of solving. This applies,
for example, to the demographic disaster Russia is slowly but surely
approaching. The problem of bringing military salaries up to a
civilized level might be equally difficult to solve. A joke making
the rounds of the military says that the rulers of capitalist Russia
have managed to do something even Lenin could not do, establishing
a genuine army of workers and peasants. There are essentially three
categories of servicemen in today’s armed forces: zealots, hostages
(the ones that cannot leave for various reasons), and people from
the poorest social strata. This obviously is an intolerable situation.

The rest of the public sector is also in a similar position today,
however. There is never enough income from oil to offer everyone a
decent salary, even in this time of Russian "prosperity."

Who Is Mr Ivanov?

"Precise and consistent in his performance, he has an excellent grasp
of the rules of play and of his place in the system and he never steps
out of bounds." That is how one former high-ranking officer of the
Foreign Intelligence Service described Sergey Ivanov’s fundamental
characteristics as a public official.

But how would Ivanov act if he suddenly had to be a leader? Would he
be able, for example, to display the necessary qualities of a leader?

What sort of policy line would he pursue? Obviously, it is ludicrous
to try to predict the exact behaviour of a man as private as Sergey
Borisovich, but we are quite safe in making a few assumptions.

"My reign will be just like my grandmother’s (Catherine II – Moskovskiy
Komsomolets)," Emperor Alexander I said in his first speech to the
Palace Guard after his accession to the throne in 1801.

If Ivanov were to become the chief executive, he probably would say
something quite similar about Putin. Any radical change of policy
line probably would be out of the question.

Only minor details are up for debate. "In contrast to Putin, Ivanov
never was able to overcome the inferiority complex stemming from
the loss of the ‘cold war,’" one of Sergey Borisovich’s former
colleagues in the intelligence service told me, clearly hinting at
an even more intense confrontation with the West if Ivanov were to
become the president. Other people who know the first vice premier
disagree categorically: "Sergey’s most salient characteristic is his
unconditional observance of the proprieties."

There are also diametrically opposed opinions of Ivanov’s ability to
alter today’s "managed democracy" in Russia. Some people base their
views on the fact that Ivanov had a chance to see Western democracy in
action in England and Finland, in contrast to Vladimir Vladimirovich
Putin, who worked in the GDR. The opinions of others are coloured
by the fact that the only elections Sergey Borisovich ever won in
his life were to the Komsomol committee of the Philology Department
(putting him in charge of the sports sector) and to the party committee
of his intelligence subdivision.

"Who is Mr Putin?" I can remember everyone trying to answer this
difficult question seven years ago. If today’s second first vice
premier becomes the president, people will be just as interested in
finding the answer to the question of "Who is Mr Ivanov?"

The Secret Service Man’s Main Secret

Active wives are not rare in the military. Tamara, the wife of Marshal
Igor Sergeyev, the minister of defence, was well known to the members
of her husband’s personal staff, for example. She handled the marshal’s
professional affairs and, as old-timers in the military establishment
recall, "ruled everyone with a rod of iron." Sergey Ivanov’s "other
half," Irina, belongs to the other category of political wives –
the invisible spouse.

Irina Ivanova only accompanies her husband in his official capacity
when it is absolutely necessary, such as, for example, when Donald
Rumsfeld, then the head of the US defence establishment, came to St
Petersburg and the two ministerial couples took a cruise on the Neva.

We know that Sergey and Irina got married when Ivanov was still a
student in the Philology Department of Leningrad University. Irina
moved to the banks of the Neva from Moscow for the sake of her
husband’s career. When Ivanov was working as an intelligence officer
abroad, she chose to improve her skills and earned a Western academic
degree. When they returned to Russia, Irina took a job at a branch
of a large Western company. According to their friends, it was her
salary that enabled the family to survive the 1990s with dignity.

Sergey Borisovich’s salary in the intelligence service in those years
could only be described as "ludicrous."

Ivanov’s sons, Aleksandr and Sergey, are also in business and avoid
publicity as much as possible. Sometimes they are caught up in it
anyway, however, as they were in spring 2005, for example, when
Aleksandr Ivanov was involved in a traffic accident with a tragic
outcome.

Works On 4 Feature and 14 Documentary Films To Be Done in 2007

WORKS ON 4 FEATURE AND 14 DOCUMENTARY FILMS TO BE DONE IN 2007

YEREVAN, APRIL 2, NOYAN TAPAN. 4 feature, "Soghank" (Landslide), "Na
ev Ne" (He and She), "Aygabats" (Day-Break), "Chvogh Trchunner" (Birds
of Passage), and 14 documentary films, including "Heru-Motik"
(Far-Near), "Tonino Guerra and Armenia" "1600-Year Secret of Armenian
Alphabet" are envisaged to finish in 2007.

As Gevorg Gevorgian, the Director of the National Film Center of
Armenia mentioned in the interview to the Noyan Tapan correspondent,
shootings of Albert Mkrtchian’s "Day-Break" and Haroutiun
Khachatrian’s "Birds of Passage" films were already finished. Works of
their recording and assembly will be finished this year.

In G. Gevorgian’s words, negotiations are led with the Russian side to
bring to final Mikayel Dovlatian’s "Lanslide" film of the
Armenian-Russian joint production.

Besides, works of the Armenian side of the "Khchchvats Zugaherner"
(Entangled Parallels) film of the Armenian French joint production
have already been finished, and the recording works, which must be
done by the French side, will be finished this year. The Film Center
Director also mentioned that the 7th part of Arman Manarian’s "Davit
of Sasun" film, 3rd part of Robert Sahakiants’ "Road towards Home"
cartoons, 2nd part of Gayane Martirosian’s "Vishapagorg" (Dragon’s
Carpet) cartoons will be finished in the sphere of animated
films. Naira Muradian’s "Mumiy Troll" animated film will also be
finished.

To recap, 587 mln 385 thousand drams instead of 482 mln 928 drams are
envisaged for the film production by the 2007 state budget. Shootings
of seven feature, three animated films were finished in the last
year. It was mentioned that rather much money was spent for copying
and digitizing of films for the film-photo-background keeping.

DM expresses gratitude to his American and Russian counterparts

RA Defense Minister expresses gratitude to his American and Russian
counterparts

ArmRadio.am
31.03.2007 12:40

On the occasion of ratification of RA National Security Strategy, on
behalf of RA President the Secretary of the Presidential Council on
National Security, RA Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan sent letters of
gratitude to the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of
the Security Council of Russia Igor Ivanov for methodological
assistance of the US National University of Defense and the Russian
Presidential Academy of State Service in the process of working out
the National Security Strategy of Armenia.

Former Tufts Trustee John Mugar Passes Away At 92

FORMER TUFTS TRUSTEE JOHN MUGAR PASSES AWAY AT 92
Sarah Butrymowicz

Tufts Daily, MA
March 30 2007

John Martin Mugar (A ’37), a Tufts alum and former Tufts trustee,
died on March 23 of natural causes at the Seacoast Rehabilitation
Center in Gloucester, according to an obituary in the Boston Globe.

He was 92.

Mugar graduated magna cum laude from Tufts in 1937. He was elected
as an alumni trustee in 1966 and held that position for 10 years,
according to Secretary of the Trustees Linda Dixon. "In 1976, he
became a Charter Trustee and served 13 more years, for a total of
23 years of service, before stepping down and being named Trustee
Emeritus in 1989," she told the Daily in an e-mail.

While on the Board of Trustees, Mugar served on a variety of committees
including the Administration and Finance Committee, the Honorary
Degree Committee and the Executive Committee, in addition to chairing
the Development Committee from 1969-1972 and again from 1977-1979.

He was also involved with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

"During the latter part of his trustee service, he focused on the
international aspects of Tufts through membership on the Fletcher
Board of Overseers," Dixon said.

"Mugar helped to raise significant funds to support the work of
the university and lent his considerable business skills to helping
university systems function effectively," she said.

He also used these skills to lead the Star Market grocery store
chain as its president and chairman. He worked for over 40 years at
the company before retiring in 1978. At the time of his retirement,
there were 61 Star Market stores in New England, according to an
obituary in The Boston Globe. The company, however, is now a part of
Shaw’s Supermarkets Inc.

According to a press release issued by his surviving family members,
"John Mugar was a leader in the supermarket industry in the 1950’s
and 1960’s.

"He introduced many merchandising and management innovations,
including unit pricing before it became mandatory in Massachusetts,
and was the first in the industry to introduce in-store banking,
florists and book sales," the press release said.

In addition, Mugar served on the boards of the National Associate
of Food Chains and the Food Marketing Institute. Born to Armenian
immigrants, he was active in multiple Armenian organizations and
was a founding member of the Armenian Library and Museum of America,
which is located in Watertown, Mass.

In addition to his wife of 60 years, Helen Gienandt Mugar, he
is survived by three daughters, a son, two sisters and seven
grandchildren.

com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/03/30/News/Fo rmer.Tufts.Trustee.John.Mugar.Passes.Away.At.92-28 14400.shtml

http://media.www.tuftsdaily.

Russia Should Assist Armenia In Unblocking Infrastructures

RUSSIA SHOULD ASSIST ARMENIA IN UNBLOCKING INFRASTRUCTURES

PanARMENIAN.Net
31.03.2007 15:15 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Russian-Armenian relations should proceed from
cooperation in security and economy to deeper cooperation which would
include creation of a unified economic, humanitarian and political
space, said Sergey Markov, Director of the Institute for Political
Studies. "I think that our citizens, natives of Armenia, should enjoy
full civil rights. We should work for solution of urgent problems
and proceed from demagogy to tighter strategic unions.

Implementation of joint economic project is essential.

Insufficient development of Armenian enterprises conveyed to Russia
is a political mistake. We should use our resources to start them. We
should also assist Armenia in unblocking its infrastructure. Common
cultural space should be maintained via development of the Russian
language in Armenia," he said, Kreml.org reports.

Armenia 96th In Network Preparedness Index

ARMENIA 96TH IN NETWORK PREPAREDNESS INDEX

Arka News Agency, Armenia
March 28 2007

YEREVAN, March 28. /ARKA/. Armenia ranks 96th among 122 countries
in the Network Preparedness Index says the 2006-2007 IT Global
Competitiveness Report prepared by the Economy and Values Research
Center.

According to the report, the strong points of Armenia’s network
preparedness are the companies’ capability to apply new technologies,
availability of scientists and architects, as well as the number of
patented inventions and discoveries per each million of residents.

Among the weak points are high prices for Internet communication,
the number of subscribers and on-line services.

As a partner of the competitive network, World Economic Forum,
participated in the preparation of the report. The report is based on
the network preparedness index, which shows countries’ preparedness
for the development of information and communication technologies,
which promotes competition.

The "Economy and Values" Center studies competitiveness. The Center
introduces new concepts of developing high-level international
communication through a network of advisors and analysts.

43 Families Do Not Have Their Own Houses

43 FAMILIES DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN HOUSES

KarabakhOpen
29-03-2007 18:32:16

230 houses in the village of Haterk were destroyed by the war. The
problem of housing is urgent in the village. According to the mayor
of the village Kolya Iskandaryan, the rate of reconstruction is
unsatisfactory. "43 families do not have their own houses," said
Kolya Iskandaryan.

Last year the Armenian Relief Fund financed the reconstruction of 13
houses, but the quality of repair was low, whereas the administration
of the village does not have the right to interfere. The government
and Armenia Foundation co-financed the construction of houses for
the families of killed soldiers and large families.

According to the head of the community, after returning to the
liberated village very few people could afford to reconstruct their
houses. Besides, 17 families displaced from Azerbaijan are still
living in other people’s houses.

Although there are abandoned houses in the village, which belong to
people who left for Russia after the occupation of the village.

La Turquie Restaure Une Eglise Armenienne Dans Un Geste Vers L’Armen

LA TURQUIE RESTAURE UNE EGLISE ARMENIENNE DANS UN GESTE VERS L’ARMENIE

Agence France Presse
29 mars 2007 jeudi 2:37 PM GMT

La Turquie a celebre jeudi l’achèvement de la restauration d’une
ancienne eglise armenienne de l’est du pays, entreprise dans un geste
de bonne volonte en direction de l’Armenie avec qui les relations
bilaterales restent empoisonnees par un passe sanglant.

La ceremonie sur la petite île d’Akdamar -Akhtamar en armenien,
au milieu du lac de Van, dans la province eponyme- où l’eglise de
la Sainte-Croix, bâtie au Xe siècle, a ete renovee pour un coût de
1,4 million d’euros (1,9 million de dollars), a ete retransmise en
direct par les chaînes de television turques.

Les responsables turcs ont salue la restauration de l’edifice comme
un pas vers la reconciliation avec l’Armenie.

Le dirigeant de l’Eglise apostolique d’Armenie, Karekin II, avait
decline l’invitation envoyee par Ankara au motif que l’eglise de la
Sainte-Croix avait ete restauree pour devenir un musee au lieu de
retrouver sa fonction cultuelle et qu’il ne s’agirait donc pas d’une
ceremonie religieuse.

Le patriarche Mesrob II, chef de la petite communaute armenienne
de Turquie, a, en revanche, assiste a la ceremonie et enjoint dans
son discours le gouvernement de permettre la tenue de celebrations
religieuses dans l’eglise.

"L’organisation d’une celebration religieuse une fois par an sur
Akdamar et d’un festival en corollaire attirerait des gens disperses
dans le monde entier sur cette île pour prier", a-t-il declare.

"De cette facon, je l’espère, des pas peuvent etre faits qui vont
etablir un jour l’atmosphère de dialogue entre les deux peuples qui
nous a jusque la fait defaut", a-t-il ajoute, precisant qu’il avait
envoye une lettre a cet effet au Premier ministre Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

L’eglise, construite entre 915 et 921 avait ete abandonnee après la
première guerre mondiale, au cours de laquelle les Armeniens affirment
que jusqu’a un million et demi des leurs ont ete massacres par les
Turcs ottomans, dans ce qu’ils considèrent comme un genocide -un
qualificatif rejete par Ankara qui evoque des massacres reciproques.

Ankara a reconnu l’independance de l’Armenie en 1991 mais n’entretient
pas de relations diplomatiques avec ce pays en raison de ses efforts
pour la reconnaissance par la communaute internationale du caractère
genocidaire des massacres.

Les efforts de reconciliation turco-armenienne ont ete assombris
par l’assassinat en janvier du journaliste turc d’origine armenienne
Hrant Dink, abattu a Istanbul par un adolescent proche de la mouvance
ultra-nationaliste.

–Boundary_(ID_vXo6u T+pQrMmxeRNEpHcHA)–

ANCA Offers Testimony to Congressional Foreign Aid Panel

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel. (202) 775-1918
Fax. (202) 775-5648
Email [email protected]
Internet

PRESS RELEASE
March 29, 2007
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

ANCA OFFERS TESTIMONY TO CONGRESSIONAL FOREIGN AID PANEL

— Government Affairs Director Outlines
Armenian American Foreign Aid Priorities

WASHINGTON, DC – In testimony today to a key panel of the U.S.
House of Representatives, the Armenian National Committee of
America (ANCA) reinforced the critical role that U.S. assistance
continues to play in the growth of the U.S.-Armenia relationship
and the promotion of stability throughout the region.

ANCA Government Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian, in remarks
submitted to a hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, outlined the
recommendation of the Armenian American community to the panel,
which is currently deliberating the Fiscal Year 2008 foreign aid
bill. In February of this year, following the public release of
President Bush’s budget request, the ANCA had sent a detailed
letter to Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ranking Member Frank Wolf
(R-VA), and the other members of the Subcommittee addressing many
of these same concerns.

Nahapetian thanked the panel’s chairwoman, Nita Lowey, expressing
the Armenian American community’s "gratitude for the role that
[she] and the Subcommittee have played in strengthening the special
relationship between the United States and Armenia, and reinforcing
the enduring bonds that have long existed between the American and
Armenian peoples." She added that, "Armenian Americans deeply
appreciate America’s helping hand, both as a reflection and a
practical expression of the commitment of the United States to
Armenia’s independence, security, and prosperity."

Among the key issues Nahapetian addressed in detail in her
testimony were:

1) Restoring parity in all military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan

2) Increasing economic Assistance to Armenia to at least $75
million.

3) Expanding U.S. Assistance to Nagorno Karabagh to at least $10
million in both humanitarian and development aid.

4) Preserving Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act.

5) Funding the California-Armenia Trade Office.

Among the organizations delivering testimony at the hearing were
the Armenian Assembly, American Israel Public Affairs Committee,
Refugees International, U.S. Fund for UNICEF, and World Wildlife
Fund.

The full text of the ANCA testimony is provided below.

#####

Armenian National Committee of America

"The Armenian American Community and
U.S. Foreign Assistance Policy"

Presented by Kate Nahapetian, Government Affairs Director

Testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Thank you Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Wolf, and Members of the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs for once again providing the Armenian National
Committee of America with the opportunity to contribute the views
of our community to your discussions concerning the Fiscal Year
2008 foreign aid bill.

U.S. Leadership in the International Community

As in years past, I would like to open our remarks today by noting
the growing role of Americans of Armenian heritage in supporting
the work of this panel to promote American leadership abroad,
particularly in Eurasia, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle
East.

As Members of this Subcommittee know, we have, as a community,
worked hard to ensure a policy of international engagement and have
energetically supported a meaningful Congressional role in foreign
policy decision-making. We appreciate the fact that our foreign
aid programs represent – more than ever – a strategic investment in
advancing our national interests on a variety of levels. With
these thoughts in mind, Chairwoman Lowey, on behalf of all Armenian
Americans, I would like to express our appreciation for your
leadership of this distinguished panel and for your ongoing efforts
to enact legislation that advances both our interests and our
values around the world.

I would, as well, like to share our community’s gratitude for the
role that you and this Subcommittee have played in strengthening
the special relationship between the United States and Armenia, and
reinforcing the enduring bonds that have long existed between the
American and Armenian peoples. Armenian Americans deeply
appreciate America’s helping hand, both as a reflection and a
practical expression of the commitment of the United States to
Armenia’s independence, security, and prosperity.

The U.S.-Armenia Relationship

As members of this panel know, the enduring friendship between the
American and Armenian peoples dates back to the era of the Armenian
Genocide. American leaders, such as President Woodrow Wilson,
diplomats, most notably U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry
Morgenthau, and relief workers, among them American Red Cross
founder Clara Barton, played a critical role in protesting Ottoman
Turkey’s systematic murder of the Armenian people and in helping to
alleviate the suffering of those who survived. During and after
the Armenian Genocide, American missionaries and aid workers, many
affiliated with Near East Relief, saved tens of thousands of
Armenians by establishing orphanages and providing food, shelter
and medical care for the survivors. These noble efforts, to a very
great extent, marked the introduction of America on the world stage
as an advocate for international justice, human rights and
humanitarian values.

Throughout the Cold War, the United States championed the right of
the Armenian people to an independent homeland and, in December of
1991, was among the first to recognize Armenian independence. Even
prior to Armenia’s independence, in December of 1988, the U.S.
government and the American people, in an unprecedented act of
compassion across the iron curtain, extended their generosity to
the Armenian people as they recovered from a devastating earthquake
that took over 40,000 lives.

In the years since independence, the U.S. and the Armenian
governments have steadily expanded relations based on a history of
shared values and common interests in a secure stable Caucasus and
Caspian region.

We are, of course, proud that Armenia has been a good friend to
America, providing strong and consistent support to the global war
on terror, taking part in the NATO Partnership for Peace, and
contributing forces to Coalition operation in Iraq, as well as for
Kosovo peacekeeping operations.

Armenian American Foreign Assistance Priorities

I would like now to turn to our specific concerns regarding the
Fiscal Year 2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
bill.

1) Parity in military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan

We encourage the panel to appropriate equal levels of military
assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan, in accord with the agreement
struck between the White House and the Congress during
deliberations, in 2001, over the conditional waiver of Section 907
of the FREEDOM Support Act.

This agreement was struck between the White House and Congress in
2001, during deliberations over granting the President the
authority to waive Section 907 restrictions on aid to Azerbaijan.
The Armenian American community has vigorously defended this
principle, stressing that a tilt in military spending toward
Azerbaijan would destabilize the region and embolden the
Azerbaijani leadership to act on their threats to impose a military
solution to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. More broadly, the ANCA
has underscored that breaching the parity agreement would reward
the leadership of Azerbaijan for obstructing the peace process,
while at the same time undermining the role of the U.S. as an
impartial mediator of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

In a clear breach of this agreement, the Administration, in its FY
2008 budget, called for breaking parity, in Azerbaijan’s favor, in
both Foreign Military Financing and International Military
Education and Training. We ask the panel restore military aid
parity.

In addition, we encourage the panel to carefully monitor all
military aid provided to Armenia and Azerbaijan, including the
Caspian Guard Program, Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, De-mining
and Related Assistance, and other military-related programs, to
ensure that both the principle and practice of military aid parity
is maintained in all spheres. Each dollar in U.S. military
assistance – either specifically appropriated or provided at the
discretion of the Administration – should be matched with a dollar
of military aid to Armenia.

2) Economic Assistance to Armenia

We urge the Subcommittee to include language requiring no less than
$75 million in direct U.S. economic assistance to Armenia in FY
2008.

Since Armenia’s independence in 1991, U.S. assistance has played a
vital role in meeting humanitarian needs, fostering democratic
reforms, and building self-sustaining economic growth.

Today, with the help of the United States, Armenia is a member of
the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and
World Bank, has signed bilateral agreements with the United States
on trade relations, investments, and the protection of investments,
holds regular Economic Task Force meetings on U.S.-Armenia economic
cooperation, and – in 2005 – was granted Permanent Normal Trade
Relations status.

The Wall Street Journal-Heritage Foundation 2007 Index of Economic
Freedom ranked Armenia as the 32nd freest economy in the world,
based on a study that covered 10 broad factors of economic freedom,
including property rights protection, regulatory environment, tax
rates, fiscal policy, government intervention in the economy,
monetary policy, black markets, and trade policy.

In great measure as a result of reforms supported by U.S. economic
development programs, Armenia’s economy has grown by more than 10%
in each of the past six years, more than doubling the size of
Armenia’s Gross National Product. Sadly, however, the people of
Armenia are still faced with the devastating impact of Turkey and
Azerbaijan’s illegal dual blockades – estimated by the World Bank
as costing Armenia at least $720 million on an annual basis.

The Armenian American community is, of course, tremendously
encouraged by Armenia’s participation in the Millennium Challenge
Account, the new and innovative merit-based foreign aid program.
We wish to be clear, however, that this program does not serve as a
substitute for assistance provided by the Congress under the FSA.
In fact, the Administration made clear to Congress when the MCA
program was initiated that it would explicitly not be a substitute
for normal foreign aid but would rather serve to augment it. In
this case, the MCA is specifically designed to help alleviate
poverty through the strengthening of rural infrastructure,
primarily in the areas of roads and irrigation. The FSA, by
contrast, provides concrete and vitally needed assistance for
reforms in democratic governance, health care, social protection,
and education.

3) U.S. Assistance to Nagorno Karabagh

We urge the panel to approve no less than $10 million in its FY
2008 bill for Nagorno Karabagh, and to gradually retarget this
package from humanitarian to development aid.

For the past decade, the U.S. Congress has played a unique and
vital role in providing direct aid to meet pressing humanitarian
needs in Nagorno Karabagh, helping its people to rebuild their
lives after years of devastating Azerbaijani aggression. The
expansion of our efforts to include development aid would reflect
our success in leveraging local efforts to dramatically reduce
Nagorno Karabagh’s once-daunting humanitarian challenges. The time
has come to support Nagorno Karabagh’s young democracy and its
efforts to expand its free market economy by funding programs aimed
at supporting democratic governance, encouraging sustainable
economic development, and creating conditions conducive to greater
stability and lasting peace in this strategically important region.
For this transition to begin, Congress needs to specify in its FY
2008 State-Foreign Operations bill that aid for programs in Nagorno
Karabagh must include development programs.

4) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act

We ask the panel to keep Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act in
place and to ensure the Administration’s strict compliance with its
conditional authority to waive this law.

5) California-Armenia Trade Office

We urge the panel to appropriate $200,000 to allow the California-
Armenia Trade Office to expand its operations to help business
communities in California and other U.S. states.

Currently, this office, the only official American trade
representation in the Republic of Armenia, is operated by the
Foundation for Economic Development, a California not-for-profit
corporation that has been contracted by the State of California to
handle its operations. CATO began operations in October of 2005
under the auspices of the California Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency, but is funded entirely through privately raised
donations. Though located in Armenia, it serves a much larger
region, covering the Newly Independent States and the countries of
Eastern Europe and Western Asia. The mission of the Trade Office
is to assist California companies increase their exports to Armenia
and the surrounding region, as well as to help companies from the
region to build commercial relationships with businesses in
California.

This modest commitment of resources will expand U.S. access to
foreign markets and trade and help keep these countries
economically viable and independent. California, which boasts the
largest Armenian population outside of Armenia, almost 1,000,000
strong, is the natural partner here in the United States to serve
as the foundation for this important relationship.

In closing, please know that the ANCA respects and values your
friendship and the Subcommittee’s long-standing leadership on
issues of concern to Armenian Americans.

www.anca.org