Author: Frangulian Shushan

GEORGIAN OPPOSITION PARTY ASKS NOBEL INSTITUTE NOT TO AWARD NOBEL PEACE PRIZE TO SAAKASHVILI
Armenpress
Oct 4, 2005
TBILISI, OCTOBER 4, ARMENPRESS: A Georgian opposition party has sent a
letter to the Nobel Institute in Norway asking it ‘not to award the 2005
Peace Prize to Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili.”
Shalva Natelashvili, the chairman of the Labor Party, said the party
asked the Novel Institute that is to convene on October 7 to decide the
winner, ‘to examine Georgian president’s performance, who is trying to build
an authoritarian regime violating basic human rights and freedoms.”
Saakashvili and Ukraine’s president Viktor Yuschenko had been nominated for
the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this year by U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton
(D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ).
Clinton and McCain sent a letter to the Nobel Institute in Norway saying
Yushchenko and Saakashvili had played historic roles in the lives of their
countries ‘displaying an extraordinary commitment to peace.” “Awarding the
Nobel Peace Prize to these two men would instill hope and inspiration in
those seeking freedom in other countries that lack it,” their letter said.

Energetic, honest and transformed – so why does Turkey need us anyway?
NORMAN STONE, Guest contributors
The Times. UK
October 03, 2005
THREE OF THE greatest engineering projects of modern times are under way in
Turkey. By the Maiden’s Tower, on the Bosphorus, a famous old landmark, two
elaborate structures have appeared. They are the surface end of an enormous
underwater enterprise, to link the European and Asian sides of the city by
tunnel. It will widen the traffic bottleneck that so besets Istanbul, and do
much to make it once again one of the great European cities. Already, huge
areas of the old European part of the city are being restored, brought back
to where they were in 1900, when the city was the heart of a Mediterranean
empire.
Then there is the vast Baku-Ceyhan pipeline that brings oil from the Caspian
to the Mediterranean; again a gigantic enterprise, negotiating its way
through poor mountain country, to keep Europe going. It also brings life to
towns such as Kars, in northeastern Turkey, where, with an endless winter,
the inhabitants had to heat themselves with `straw bricks’ – combinations of
animal dung and straw, dried out in the open in the summer and then used to
keep the people going in a cold that reaches well below zero. These things –
tezek – were used in Alpine Europe until the Fifties, and then, not. Turkey
is following that path.
The greatest of these engineering enterprises is the GAP, the `southeastern
Anatolian project’, by which great dams are to be placed on the biblical
rivers Tigris and Euphrates, flooding an area the size of Belgium and
turning what, for centuries, has been a dirt-poor area back into `the
fertile crescent’ that it used to be. If you go to that mainly Kurdish part
of south-east Turkey, you can see the green areas spreading, and towns such
as Urfa, on the Syrian border, growing ever more prosperous.
These projects are the background to the debate about whether Turkey should
be allowed to join the European Union. A stage army of Euro-Lilliputs has
put up objections, humiliating for the Turks in general: too many of them,
too poor, too Muslim, too nasty to their minorities, too likely to migrate
in droves and set up kebab houses all over the place. The country has, of
course, its problems, but the history of the Turks is about getting there in
the end.
It is true that in the 1970s there was a Third World demographic problem;
Turkey added, every year, the population of Denmark to itself. Schools could
not cope, hospitals were swamped, electricity failed for six hours every
day, a smog fell across the cities. But Turkish birthrates have fallen to
replacement-rate (though there are pockets in the east where the old ways go
on).
Nor is the country nearly as poor as legend would have it. Turkish males die
on average at 70, Russian ones at 60. The growth rate is enormous and you
can see the signs all around: the restoration of battered old parts of
Istanbul, or the chains and chains of Central Europe-bound lorries on the
main roads. (Kayseri, the old Caesarea, is now a key industrial town, and so
is Antep, both of them making things that Western Europe no longer makes for
itself.)
If Western Europe opened up the agricultural market as well as the
industrial one, you would see a similar process in the countryside of
Anatolia. At the moment it is a very odd mixture: near-biblical villages,
complete with donkeys and lines of men chewing the cud in teahouses, only a
mile or so from a modern farm with irrigation sprinklers pumping away.
Is there a European country of which the above might, easily within living
memory, have been said? There is. It is Spain, under Franco. Not long ago
the backwardness and cultural difference of Spain were held to be
incompatible with EU membership. Turkey also has a Mediterranean culture,
complete with clientelistic politics, a family sense of sometimes forbidding
strength, and very good hot dinners. Once Spain joined Europe it rapidly
`modernised’. Nor did poor Spanish ` guest workers’ migrate in droves. In
fact, as within Spain, the cultural differences within Anatolia are at least
as great as those between Turks and Europeans.
Comparison with Spain brings up another contentious question: minorities.
Spain had a vicious civil war, involving them. The Catalans were ahead of
the rest of the country, in much the same way as Greeks or Armenians were in
old Turkey. Turkey’s minorities had more and better schools; in fact the
Turkish language had to be radically reformed in order for the masses to be
at all literate (the old, Arabic-based, script could cater for four `z’s and
three vowels, whereas Turkish has one `z’ and eight vowels).
The problem in Turkey was complicated during and after the First World War,
when the Western powers used local Greeks and Armenians to try to carve up
Anatolia. Much massacre resulted, with whole regions being `ethnically
cleansed’. In the Thirties roughly half the urban population of Turkey was
made up of refugees and their descendants, and these can hardly be expected
to take kindly to the European Parliament’s resolving that one of these
ethnic cleansings, and one only – the Armenian – should be recognised as
`genocide’.
The other minority question concerns the Kurds. They are like the Basques:
mountaineers, in part religious-reactionary, in part bandit-revolutionary,
in part successful migrants, with several different languages, none much
developed. When Kurds move to the cities – two thirds have now done so –
they do not vote for the nationalist parties. They do do so in the
southeast, but that area has not flourished as the rest of the country has
been doing because it is on the Iraqi and Iranian borders.
Problems of `ethnicity’ among the north-eastern Kurds are much less than to
the south, where a tradition of tribal rivalry persists, making for a sort
of civil war that the communist PKK exploited. The answer? Very obviously,
an end to the unemployment that these circumstances have created. The
southeastern Anatolian project, the GAP, should matter, though much will
depend on whether the EU allows free movement of the resulting agricultural
produce. That would do more for the Kurds than preaching about minority
rights.
The Europeans should forget their objections to Turkey. The country is much
more of a prize than all the other new Eastern European countries put
together: it has a tradition of hard work and honesty that was never
destroyed by communism. It is a Spain in the making.
The country has been doing so well that you wonder if it really needs to
join Europe at all. At present the motivation for doing so is mixed: an end
to visa queues (the British are gruesome), an escape from the puritanism of
small-town Anatolia, a prospect of waves of foreign investment, a hope that
`Europe’ will mean an end to what the secularists see as religious takeover
and what the religious see as a secularist takeover.
But the Europeans arrive with health-and-safety regulations and much else
that could just mean the end of much of what makes Turkey tick: those small
shops and artisans working till all hours, ignoring silly rules in proper
Mediterranean manner and keeping families together in a way that makes for a
very healthy social atmosphere (if a handbag is stolen here, it makes the
television news).
Can Turkey stand the unemployment, bureaucracy and taxation that the EU
really portends? Up to the Turks. But there are those of us who might think
that they can carry out the beneficial changes on their own and who might
even say that, if they really want membership of the EU, they can have ours.
Norman Stone is Professor of History at Koç University, Istanbul

Agence France Presse — English
September 30, 2005 Friday
Turkish press angered, frustrated by EU deadlock
ANKARA
Turkish newspapers Friday wondered whether the country’s decades-old
efforts to integrate Europe are going down the drain as simmering
tensions on the eve of Turkey’s accession talks appear to exasperate
even the staunchest proponents of EU membership.
In a front-page “Historical Warning” to the European Union, the
mass-selling daily Sabah appealed to European leaders to leave aside
domestic political concerns and clear the way for membership talks
with Ankara, scheduled to start on Monday.
“We hope EU leaders, politicians and bureaucrats will realize the
gravity of the situation,” Sabah said. “It is not too late to return
to common sense.”
Newspapers highlighted a warning by Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul
that he would not go to Luxembourg for the opening of the talks if
the accession terms the EU outlines are unsatisfactory and Ankara is
presented with any last-minute offer other than full membership.
Tensions mounted Thursday when the EU failed to agree on Turkey’s
negotiating conditions and called an emergency meeting for Sunday,
leaving Ankara on the edge and doubtful of the pledges the EU made at
its December 17 summit inviting Turkey to begin accession talks.
The deadlock in the EU was blamed on Austria’s insistence to offer
Turkey “partnership” as opposed to full membership.
“Are we nearing the end of the road?” asked the pro-government Yeni
Safak, while the popular Aksam said relations were teetering “on the
brink of a breakdown.”
The liberal Milliyet said the European Parliament threw “yet another
bomb” into an already demoralized Turkish public opinion by calling
on Ankara earlier this week to acknowledge that the Ottomans
committed “genocide” against Armenians in World War I as a condition
for accession.
“Is the EU aware that it is playing with fire?” Milliyet said. “Even
supporters of the EU have begun saying that enough is enough.”
The newspaper also suggested that Turkey should be prepared for a
“timeout” in its bid to join the bloc “until minds in the EU change
in favor of putting relations with Turkey on the track of full
membership, under equal conditions with the others.”

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
September 30, 2005 Friday 2:40 PM Eastern Time
Belarus culture festival opens in Armenia
By Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
The Belarussian cultural festival in Armenia opened with a large
concern of Belarussian masters of the arts in Yerevan Opera House on
Friday. This is the first such festival from the time the two
countries became independent.
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan addressed a message of greetings
to the participants in the festival, describing it as “a remarkable
event in the cultural life of the two countries.” “Belarussian
culture evokes response in Armenian people,” the message of greetings
says. The president is also confident that “Armenian art is known and
liked in Belarus.”
Pointing out that “Armenian-Belarussian ties have a long history,”
the Armenian president expressed the confidence that “friendship and
spiritual closeness of our peoples accumulated over many years have
good prospects.”
“This remarkable fete presents vast achievements of masters of
Belarussian culture and offers Armenian people an excellent
opportunity to familiarize themselves with the richness of
Belarussian culture,” says the message of Belarussian President
Alexander Lukashenko that was read out by the republic’s Culture
Minister Leonid Gulyako.
“The peoples of Belarus and Armenia are linked by lasting sincere
friendship and fruitful cooperation,” Lukashenko noted. He is
convinced that “no distances and borders can affect the strength of
spiritual unity of the fraternal countries.” The Belarussian
president is sure that “the present cultural forum will promote the
growing closeness of the peoples” of Armenia and Belarus.
The Armenian president received Belarussian culture minister. They
came out for the stepping up of bilateral ties in the area of
culture.

Agence France Presse — English
September 29, 2005 Thursday
EU applying ‘double standards’ to Turkey: parliament speaker
ANKARA
The speaker of the Turkish parliament charged Thursday that “double
standards” were being applied his country’s long-standing membership
bid in an attempt to provoke Ankara to walk away from the talks.
“It seems as if our patience is being tested. Looking at what is
being done to Turkey one sees that there are some quarters that hope
to get rid of us by forcing us to walk away from the (negotiating)
table,” Bulent Arinc said in an interview with NTV television.
“When one compares the treatment of Romania, Bulgaria or Malta to the
different treatment accorded to Turkey one sees … insincerity,
double standards and discrimination,” he added.
Arinc was commenting on a resolution adopted by the European
Parliament Wednesday which urged Ankara to acknowledge that the
Ottomans committed “genocide” against Armenians during World War I
and to recognize Cyprus during its accession negotiations with the
EU.
The resolution came only five days before Turkey is scheduled to
begin membership talks with the pan-European bloc on Monday, but the
start of the negotiations remains uncertain.
EU foreign ministers are to meet Sunday to break a deadlock on
opening the talks after Austria blocked agreement on a negotiation
position by insisting that Turkey be offered something short of full
membership.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has warned previously that he will turn
his back on the talks if the negotiating framework contains “any
formula or suggestion other than full membership.”
Arinc said: “It is hard to swallow all these… But we should be
patient and I believe that we will overcome many obstacles once the
process starts.”
The speaker stressed that he understood widespread doubts in the EU
over the prospect of admitting a vast, populous country with a
predominantly Muslim faith, but urged European leaders “to keep the
debate away from prejudices and be objective.”
The European Parliament resolution unleashed anger in Turkey where
discussion of the tragic killings in 1915-1917 largely remains taboo
and triggers nationalist sentiments.
“We would like to recall that discussing the issue (the Armenian
massacres) in political platforms would benefit nobody,” the Turkish
foreign ministry said in a statement Thursday.
“Turkey has always argued that controversial chapters in history
should be handled by historians and has opened its archives to the
service of all researchers,” it added.
Armenians claim that up to 1.5 million of their kinsmen were
slaughtered in orchestrated killings under the Ottoman Empire, the
forerunner of modern-day Turkey, but Ankara categorically denies that
a genocide took place.

Agence France Presse — English
September 28, 2005 Wednesday 3:42 PM GMT
EU lawmakers back Turkey talks, but demand ‘genocide’ recognition
STRASBOURG
The European Parliament issued Wednesday a stern warning to Turkey to
recognise Cyprus and a “genocide” of Armenians, days ahead of the
start of start of EU entry talks with the huge Muslim country.
While giving cautious backing to the opening of European Union
membership talks with Ankara next Monday, the EU lawmakers’ demands
underscore nagging reservations in the EU about the country one day
joining the European club.
EU leaders gave Turkey a green light in December to start talks. But
strains flared after the country issued a declaration in July
reaffirming its refusal to recognize the government of Cyprus.
Turkey has also come under pressure to recognize a “genocide” against
Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during World War I, a highly
sensitive issue for Ankara.
A text adopted by MEPs said the EU legislative assembly “calls on
Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide” and that it “considers
this recognition to be a prerequisite for accession to the European
Union”.
Armenians say that up to 1.5 million of their people were slaughtered
in mass killings under the Ottoman Empire, but Ankara denies that the
Ottomans committed genocide against Armenian subjects.
Turkey’s refusal to recognise EU member Cyprus has so far proved the
main stumbling block to the opening of talks, which could last for 10
to 15 years even if all goes well.
In the adopted text, MEPs stressed “that the rapid normalisation of
relations between Turkey and all EU member states, including Turkey’s
recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, is a necessary component of
the accession process”.
Turkey has steadfastly refused to endorse the internationally
recognised Greek-Cypriot government since its troops occupied the
island in 1974 in response to a Greek-engineered coup.
The EU parliament’s motion, which will not delay the scheduled
opening of the entry talks, received the backing of 356 members of
parliament while 181 voted against and 125 abstained.
In a debate, the head of the European People’s Party, the biggest in
the parliament, Hans-Gert Pottering, voiced reservations about
opening negotiations amid concerns over Turkey’s record on human
rights and respect for minorities.
“We know that torture is still ongoing and if that does not stop,
then we should be prepared to break off or suspend negotiations,” he
said. “We cannot turn a blind eye to these abuses and infringements
on human rights.”
Greens party leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit said that the debate over
Turkey had been tainted by racism towards Muslims.
“Not everyone who is against Turkey is a racist, but the people who
are against Turkey are sometimes riding or can surf on a wave of
racism”, he warned.
Speaking to the MEPs ahead of the vote, British Europe Minister
Douglas Alexander, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency,
tried to allay fears about the costs of absorbing the relatively poor
country.
“The negotiations with Turkey will be the most rigorous yet,
reflecting lessons learnt from the previous wave of enlargement. They
are also expected to take many years to conclude,” he said.
Amid ongoing unease among some member states about starting the
talks, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned that it would be a
disaster if the EU were suddenly to slam the door on Turkey’s bid to
join the bloc
“It would now be a huge betrayal of the hopes and expectations of the
Turkish people…. if, at this crucial time, we turned our back on
Turkey,” he told the Labour Party’s annual conference in Brighton,
southeast England.

All but invisible to the wider world, a crisis is developing within
Azerbaijan…
The St. Petersburg Times (Russia)
27 September 2005
Issue 74
All but invisible to the wider world, a crisis is developing within
Azerbaijan that could threaten regional stability and the future
development of Caspian basin oil and gas.
Though largely self-created, by a combination of endemic corruption
and institutional underdevelopment, the emerging calamity is being
greatly aided by opportunistic measures by others, including Russia,
the United States and especially Iran.
In many ways, this is developing into a 21st-century version of the
Great Game Î that epochal struggle between the British and Russian
empires, which dominated the lives of all sorts of tiny Eurasian
countries throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century.
But Azerbaijan is not Afghanistan, which has had the misfortune of
historically always having been someone elseÊs buffer state or
strategic beachhead.
Azerbaijan is a prize in its own right. It can claim one-fifth of the
oil and gas of the Caspian Basin, one of the worldÊs last great pools
of hydrocarbon wealth. Led by BP, the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline has
just opened, creating a new gateway to world markets for Azeri
oil. With gross national product growth increasing at about 11 percent
annually, this should be the most economically successful of the
former Soviet states. Should be, and in some ways is Î but not in
nearly enough ways to make Azerbaijan the happy and stable place it
ought to be.
Instead, it is a place that is starting to come unglued. Run until
recently by an authoritarian, but politically astute, former KGB
general named Heidar Aliyev, Azerbaijan is now run by a fractious
group of his ministers, ruling in the name of HeidarÊs son, Ilham.
Ilham Aliyev is an intelligent, quite well-educated man of 44 whose
instincts do not appear to run to strong-arm tactics or
dictatorship. But he is surrounded by ministers and minders for whom
there is much to lose in the event of a regime change. Billions of
dollars, in fact.
This is because Azerbaijan, under the elder Aliyev, functioned as a
giant franchising operation, with nearly all aspects of Azeri national
life hived off as vertically integrated businesses. If you want to
pass a university exam, you pay the instructor $50, a large part of
which he pays to his supervisor, who then pays part to his superior,
and so on all the way to the top. To be named police chief in a
medium-sized town costs about $10,000, most of which winds up with
whoeverÊs signature is required for such an appointment.
This was a relatively stable and predictable situation under Heidar
Aliyev, because he was imaginative enough to control its excesses and
tough enough to be able to do so.
There is room to doubt that Ilham Aliyev has that kind of
authority. He has in fact replaced few of his fatherÊs lieutenants and
has remarkably few allies of his own in government from his own
generation or cohort. Increasingly, he appears to be more dependent on
his fatherÊs aging cronies than they are on him.
Apart from the personalities at the top, the world around them has
changed utterly. Part of the change occurred in the streets of
Tbilisi, in neighboring Georgia, where just a month before Heidar
AliyevÊs death in 2003, the Rose Revolution replaced another former
KGB chieftainÊs regime.
Understandably, a lot of people have been sticking colored pins in
their wall maps of the former Soviet Union ever since, trying to guess
in which state the next so-called color revolution might happen:
Tbilisi, Kiev, Bishkek Î and now Baku? With parliamentary elections
set for Nov. 6, the Azeri opposition parties are playing up that trend
for all it is worth. But many of the opposition leaders in Azerbaijan
are every bit as corrupt and as much a part of the old guard as the
men they wish to replace. Many were involved in an ill-fated 1992-93
government, almost universally condemned for chaos, corruption and
incompetence.
But the color revolutions have had an important influence, if not
domestically then externally.
For one thing, they have made it more difficult for Russia, still the
leading power in the region, and the United States, the remaining
world superpower, to collaborate, even when it is practical to do so.
The United States now faces a dilemma in dealing with the former
Soviet states with which it is friendly, including Azerbaijan. For
commercial and geopolitical reasons, Washington would obviously prefer
stability over chaos. But it can also no longer afford to be seen to
be propping up an unreformable kleptocracy.
Meanwhile, Moscow also would prefer stability instead of another
revolution in its own backyard.
For both, there are other complications. Iran, along the southern
Azeri border, is chief among them. There are 20 million to 25 million
ethnic Azeris in Iran, and the dominant religion in both nations is
Shiite Islam. Fundamentalism has started to surface in AzerbaijanÊs
border areas, and there are reports that some theological schools
across the country are leaning toward Iranian-style militancy. In an
otherwise secular state, these are disturbing developments.
This must be disturbing Washington too. Rumors abound that it is
looking to redeploy military contingents from Uzbekistan, which has
asked the U.S. Army to vacate a military base there, to Azerbaijan,
including to one site close to the Iranian border.
Rumors also abound that Russia is redeploying troops formerly based in
Georgia to regions of Armenia that border Azerbaijan. Apart from the
historic enmity between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed
territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, such movements could redraw the
military map of the entire region.
But is a U.S.-Russian rivalry in the area inevitable? The truth is
that Moscow and Washington have more interests in common than they
have in conflict, particularly with respect to Iran, which is a source
of even bigger worry to Russia than to the United States.
Intriguingly, in recent weeks, some members of the Russian media have
been playing up the disruptive influences in Azerbaijan of Wahhabi
militants. But Wahhabism is used as a catch-all term for all forms of
radical Islam, whether Sunni or Shiite.
There may well be some Wahhabi activists in Azerbaijan, especially in
the north, where Chechen and Dagestani refugees have settled. But the
real fundamentalist threat is overwhelmingly from the south, from
Iran. The Kremlin certainly knows this, but, for complex and
remarkably narrow commercial reasons Î the sale of nuclear reactor
technology Î it cannot bring itself to say so publicly.
And that, almost literally, is what is keeping Russia and the United
States from collaborating in Azerbaijan. In nearly all other matters
of consequence, their interests in Azerbaijan coincide: stability,
moderate reform, and even curbing corruption Î since even Russian
companies like LUKoil must be finding the spiraling cost of graft hard
to manage.
There does not need to be a color revolution in Azerbaijan. There does
need to be fundamental change, bringing new young modernizers into
power and giving the rising middle class its say in the countryÊs
future.
But with Moscow eyeing the Americans with suspicion, and Washington
unable to rely on the Russians while facing Iran, Azerbaijan appears
headed unstoppably toward a less-than-promising future.
Ednan Agayev, an Azeri-born former senior Russian diplomat and
executive vice president of the Russian-American Business Council,
contributed this comment to The St. Petersburg Times.

US-ARMENIA TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC COOPERATION MET IN WASHINGTON
Pan Armenian News
27.09.2005 05:49
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ September 26 the US-Armenia Intergovernmental Task
Force on Economic Cooperation met in Washington, reported the Armenian
MFA Press Service. Armenian Minister of Finance and Economy Vardan
Khachatryan, President’s Advisor on Economic Affairs V. Nersisyants,
Minister of Trade and Economic Development Karen Chshmarityan,
Agriculture Minister Davit Lokyan, Deputy FM A. Kirakosyan,
Armenian Ambassador to the US Tatul Margaryan, Deputy Minister of
Finance and Economy Tigran Khachatryan represented Armenia at the
meeting. The parties discussed a wide range of economic cooperation
issues, including democratic reforms that promote economic growth in
Armenia, economic policy and long-term development of the country,
current state of Armenia’s programs within the framework of the
Millennium Challenges Account, matters of development of energy and
infrastructures in Armenia, improvement of the judicial system of
Armenia and US assistance in that field, as well as in agriculture and
other questions. The same day a reception was organized for meeting
participants at the Armenian Embassy in the US. US top officials,
representatives of US Departments of Agriculture, Finance and Trade,
as well as UNDP and Millenium Challenges Corporation were present at
the event.

RA ARMED FORCES REPLENISHED BY 10 MORE PLANES
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Sept 26 2005
YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 26, NOYAN TAPAN. “RA Armed Forces were replenished
by 10 more planes, which are completely ready for carrying out
military tasks. In this respect our fighting capacity increases,”
Artur Aghabekian, RA Deputy Minister of Defence, declared at the
briefing held at the Aviation Institute after Armenak Khanpertsian.
Answering the question, how much they paid for the planes, the Deputy
Minister said that he has no information about it. And in reply to the
question, from what country were they bought, Artur Aghabekian only
mentioned that “these planes are of Russian production.” To recap,
according to the information we have, the planes were to be bought
from Slovakia.
In reply to the question about the depreciation of the military
equipment, the Deputy Defence Minister emphasized that when military
equipment is depreciated it is immediately written off. According
to A.Aghabekian, the whole military equipment existing in Armenia or
bought by it is battle-worthy or is prepared for action by means of
additional expenditures. “On the whole, in the respect of validity term
our equipment is in a very good condition,” Deputy Defence Minister
emphasized. According to A.Aghabekian, “the program of development
of RA Armed Forces envisages constant replenishment of both Armed
Forces staff and armament. And this is an everyday problem in the
Armed Forces.”

BBC
Saturday, 24 September 2005, 13:45 GMT 14:45 UK
Turks protest at Armenian forum
Hundreds of Turkish nationalists have been protesting outside a
controversial conference on the mass killings of Armenians under Ottoman
rule.
They chanted slogans and booed delegates entering Istanbul’s Bilgi
University for the two-day event.
The conference had been due to open on Friday, at another venue, but was
stopped from doing so by a court order.
Debate of the killings has been taboo in Turkey but there is outside
pressure for greater freedom of speech.
“Treason will not go unpunished” and “This is Turkey, love it or leave it,”
shouted the demonstrators.
“The Armenian genocide is an international lie,” read a huge banner carried
by members of the minor left-wing Workers’ Party.
Taped mouths
Armenians worldwide have been campaigning for decades for the deaths –
thought to have been more than a million, around the time of WWI – to be
recognised universally as genocide.
The conference discussing the issue was due to be held at Istanbul’s
Bosphorus University, but it was banned by an Istanbul court after
complaints by nationalists that the historians behind it were “traitors”.
The historians challenge official Turkish accounts of the killings, which
give a much smaller death toll and link Armenian losses to civil strife in
which many Turks also died.
The court ruling brought emotionally charged scenes on the Bosphorus campus
on Friday, said the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul.
Students, angry that the conference was cancelled, taped their mouths while
small groups of nationalists gathered to condemn plans for the forum.
EU condemnation
Bilgi University stepped in “in the name of freedom of expression and
thought”, said its president, Aydin Ugur.
Government leaders regretted the court ruling which “cast a shadow on the
process of democratisation and freedoms”, according to Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan.
“If we have confidence in our own beliefs, we should not fear freedom of
thought,” he told separate gathering of academics on Saturday.
EU enlargement commissioner Krisztina Nagy said Brussels strongly deplored
the court’s “attempt to prevent the Turkish society from discussing its
history”.
Turkey begins talks on joining the EU in two weeks’ time.