TEHRAN: Experts Say Urartians Had No Direct Presence In Northeastern

EXPERTS SAY URARTIANS HAD NO DIRECT PRESENCE IN NORTHEASTERN IRAN

Mehr News Agency, Iran
Dec 6 2006

TEHRAN, Dec. 6 (MNA) — A team of Iranian and Italian archaeologists
which recently studied 27 ancient sites east of Lake Urmia said that
despite the previous theory, the Urartians never had a direct presence
in the region, the Persian service of CHN reported on Tuesday.

The team, led jointly by Iranian archaeologist Hamid Khatib-Shahidi
and Italian archaeologist Rafael Bichone, began the surveys about
three weeks ago to demarcate the boundaries of the Urartian state
with Media and Mannai in the region.

Before the studies, many archaeologists regarded the region as the
center of Urartu and consigned it to the map of the Uratian state.

"An appropriate environment, an abundance of water, and fertile land
encouraged settlement and the establishment of local states in the
region during the Iron Age," Khatib-Shahidi said.

"It is certain that the Urartians had indirect relations with the
people of the region. Sometimes they had clashes and sometimes allied
(with each other). But the Urartians never had a direct presence or
made fortifications in the Tabriz (region) and the Maragheh plains,
i.e. north and south of Mt. Sahand," he added.

The Iron Age castles near Mt. Sahand have mostly been built of stone
without the use of mortar, he explained.

The ancient kingdom of Urartu, the biblical Ararat, flowered in the
area south of the Caucasus from the ninth century to the seventh
century BC.

Urartu, centered in the mountainous region around Lake Van, existed
from about 1000 BC, or earlier, until 585 BC, and stretched from
northern Mesopotamia through the southern Caucasus, including parts
of present-day Armenia up to Lake Sevan.

"The local governments of the region (east of Lake Urmia) were
tributary states of the Urartian state before the Medes came to
power. The extant texts from the Assyrians, particularly Sargon II,
refer to this fact," Khatib-Shahidi noted.

The team has also identified remnants of some fortifications believed
to date back to the Chalcolithic period (7000?-3500? BC).

"The inhabitants of the period built their castles on heights, but
we have not yet been able to determine why they chose to settle on
the heights rather than the plains," Khatib-Shahidi said.

If it is proven that the remnants definitely belong to the Chalcolithic
period, the fortifications will surely be among the oldest and last
remaining very ancient defensive structures in the Middle East,
he explained.

The team has also discovered shards dating back to the Achaemenid era.

Exhibition Of Photos Of Armenian Architectural Monuments In Territor

EXHIBITION OF PHOTOS OF ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURAL MONUMENTS IN TERRITORY OF WESTERN ARMENIA OPENED AT NA

Noyan Tapan
Dec 06 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 6, NOYAN TAPAN. An exhibition of photos taken
during the 2004-2006 scientific expeditions in the territory of
Western Armenia opened in the "Green" foyer of the RA National
Assembly. Authors of the photos are members of the public organization
studying the Armenian architecture. The goal of the organization
founded about 30 years ago is to reveal and study monuments of the
Armenian architecture out of borders of present Armenia, that’s,
of historic Armenia as well as in the territory of neighbouring
countries, as well as to publish results of those studies to present
them to the Armenian and foreign society.

It Is Expedient To Have European Commission Resident Ambassador In Y

IT IS EXPEDIENT TO HAVE EUROPEAN COMMISSION RESIDENT AMBASSADOR IN YEREVAN, RA PRIME MINISTER CONSIDERS

Noyan Tapan
Dec 05 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenia is ready for exerting
maximum efforts in the direction of efficient implementation of
EU-Armenia Actions Plan approved in November within the framework of
the European Neighborhood policy.

RA Prime Minister Andranik Margarian declared this during his
December 5 meeting with newly appointed Head of European Commission’s
delegation in Armenia and Georgia, Per Goran Eklund. He said that
the European Comission, and, in particular, the delegation of the
European Commission in Armenia, certainly, will make its considerable
contribution in this issue. Saying that in Armenia they positively
estimate European Commission delegation’s activity, A.Margarian
meanwhile noted that in consideration of the growing volume of
issues on Armenia-EU agenda, it will be expedient to have a European
Commission Resident Ambassador in Yerevan. He informed the guest that
RA Foreign Minister has aleady applied to Benita Ferrero-Waldner,
Commissioner for Issues of European Neighborhood Policy, with this
issue. The head of European Commission’s delegation assured that
Armenia’s wish and proposal to have an individual ambassador will be
taken into consideration without fail. He said that no country will
be given a special preference within the framework of the neighborhood
in case of such appointment and a European Commission Ambassador will
be appointed both in Baku and in Yerevan, so Armenia should have no
anxiety about violating the principle of parity. As NT was informed
from RA government Information and Public Relations Department,
during the talk they touched upon the assistance of 400 mln euros
provided to Armenia by the European Commission since independence
within the framework of TACIS and other different programs.

M.Margarian said that the assistance being provided currently also
considerably contributes to Armenia’s economic, political progress
and facilitates the process of European integration. RA Prime Minister
said that parallel with activization of political dialogue, EU-Armenia
trade and economic ties are also being extended: EU is Armenia’s
biggest trade partner and the volume of foreign investments in the
country’s economy made by EU is also significant.

Majority Of People In Karabakh To Participate In Constitutional Refe

MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN KARABAKH TO PARTICIPATE IN CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM

Armenpress
Dec 04 2006

STEPANAKERT, DECEMBER 4, ARMENPRESS: The overwhelming majority of
residents in Nagorno-Karabakh will go to the polls next week to
participate in a constitutional referendum, set for December 10.

Out of 500 respondents questioned during a public opinion survey
conducted by the Union of Journalists of Nagorno-Karabakh, 431 said
they will participate in the referendum, 37 said they will not and
29 were undecided.

The poll was conducted between November 15-25 in the capital city
Stepanakert and in all regions of Karabakh. More than half-281- of
respondents were people with higher education, 216 had secondary
and vocational education. Also 242 respondents were aware of the
constitution text, 154 were not and 101 read only parts of it.

Azerbaijan’s Geopolitical Challenge: Improving Relations With Iran

AZERBAIJAN’S GEOPOLITICAL CHALLENGE: IMPROVING RELATIONS WITH IRAN
By Tamine Adeebfar

Middle East Economic Survey, Lebanon
Vol: XLIX, Number 49
Dec 4 2006

The following paper was written by Dr Adeebar for the Tehran-based
Ravand Institute for Economic and International Studies, and is
reprinted with the author’s permission.

In the post-cold war context, the geopolitics of the new state of
Azerbaijan, with its economic and security concerns, has become an
issue involving a range of complementary and competing factors. Since
Azerbaijan’s independence, just over a decade ago, the country has been
facing many challenges and opportunities, including: the landlocked
nature of the country and Caspian pipeline politics; the unresolved
issue of the legal status of the Caspian; the exploitation of its
natural resources and the attraction of the FDI needed to bring
hard currency into the country; the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict with Armenia; the impacts of the war in Chechnya; political
volatilities in its two powerful neighbors, Russia and Iran; and
the uncertainties in the Georgian territory. These and many more
challenges need to be taken into consideration by analysts approaching
Azerbaijan’s geopolitical issues.

In this broad context, the biggest challenge for Azerbaijan has been
to balance the threats and opportunities by minimizing the former
and maximizing the latter. This challenge has a clear political
dimension. In that context, it seems that in determining its behavior
as a newly independent state, Azerbaijan perceives two diverging
external axes of power between which it tries to play a balancing
game. These axes can be seen as US-Turkey-Israel on the one hand,
and Russia-Iran-CIS on the other. In that respect, the following key
parameters can be drawn:

Russia still has de facto influence over states close at hand and
mediates in the conflicts in the troubled areas in the region.

Russia’s interests in its ‘backyard’ neighbors have remained strong,
given its long history and ties with the new republics. These interests
may not necessarily be interpreted as confrontational, but rather as
a reality of regional politics.

Iranian Influence

Another major parameter has been Iran ­- Azerbaijan’s southern Islamic
neighbor – given the Muslim majority in Azerbaijan, the long border
between the two states, and the large population of Iranian Azeris in
Iran’s northern province. A key fear for Azerbaijan has been Iran’s
perceived ability to exercise its ideological/political power to
undermine Azerbaijan’s secular statehood.

Furthermore, since Azerbaijan’s independence, its primary foreign
policy criteria with other states has been their position towards
Nagorno-Karabakh and the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In that
respect, Iran’s aid to Armenia has created some concerns for Azerbaijan
in terms of its relations with Tehran. Yet, it is important to bear
in mind that Iran’s aid to Armenia has never consisted of support
for the territorial conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Besides,
Iran has continued its trade relations with Azerbaijan’s enclave of
Nakhjavan, located in Armenian territory.

Nonetheless, the pro-US approach has resulted in a tendency to put Iran
and Russia in one basket, despite their different positions towards
Armenia, and thus to encourage Azerbaijan’s tense relations with it two
northern and southern neighbors. In line with that policy, Azerbaijan
has been strengthening its ties with the US and the regional US ally,
Turkey, and consequently it has supported US strategy in the region,
such as neglecting the pipeline routes through Russia and Iran, and
instead opting for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline through
Turkey, regardless of its lesser commercial viability.

Azerbaijan’s pro-Western approach has developed as a counterweight to
its regional challenges and particularly its powerful neighbors. In
that direction and particularly in the aftermath of the events
of September 11th, which were followed by the US attacks on
Afghanistan and then Iraq, Azerbaijan has seized the opportunity of
mobilization of support for the US position to ally with the only world
superpower, probably in the hope that it would secure its economic
and security needs as a young state that is strongly dependent on
energy resources. Hence, Azerbaijan participated in sending troops
to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and also provided an air corridor
for the US military efforts.

Azerbaijan also began a closer relation with Israel through trade
and cultural cooperation as well as security-oriented exchanges,
regardless of the animosity between Iran and Israel. These attempts by
Azerbaijan were to define its foreign policy based on its perceptions
of geo-strategic interests rather than any other motivations such as
merely economic needs and/or cultural/ideological motivations.

Iran/Russia Interests

The common interests of Iran and Russia in the region, their support
for Armenia and particularly their shared wish to avoid Western
influence have increasingly encouraged Azerbaijan to play the US card
to act as a shield of security. Nevertheless, it needs to be kept in
mind that the US strategy in the region is defined by three issues:

First, a security-related presence in the region; second, control
over the energy-related issues in the economic context; and third,
political influence through an "Americanized democracy" in the region
to be exercised by pro-US governments. Obviously the latter approach
did not appeal to the Azerbaijan government, given its preferred
way of handling internal affairs. The ‘color revolutions’ in the
region in recent years have clearly acted as a "wake-up call" to
those in Azerbaijan favoring a pro-Western approach to modulate its
interactions with both flanks, while trying not to be seen leaning
too far in one direction.

A full alliance with the US, therefore, no longer seems to be
a golden opportunity, nor does it guarantee their "strategic
partnership". Rather it could be seen as a possible threat
to Azerbaijan’s stability. Given the US reputation of being an
unreliable ally when its immediate interests and power position are
at stake, Azerbaijan may need to take the following observations
into consideration.

Given that Russia’s challenges vis-a-vis the US are usually based on
grand bargaining, meaning that the short-term sacrifices can be made
for long-term gains, to what extent would it matter to Russia to face
instability in Azerbaijan, should a color revolution happen there?

Would it really affect Turkey’s strategic ambitions and interests in
the region if a pro-American government were to replace the present
Azerbaijani administration? How would Israel react to such change?

US Sanctions

Despite Armenia occupying almost 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory and
causing 1mn people to be displaced in Azerbaijan, the US-imposed
Section 907 Act1 on Azerbaijan in favor of Armenia remains effective.

Despite years of Western involvement – through the Minsk Group2
– in mediating between Azerbaijan and Armenia to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, there has been no success in addressing
the conflict and assuring Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, for
various reasons – from Russian interests to the Minsk group’s failings.

Despite the possible perceived threat of a successful Azerbaijan
as a role model for the more-than-20mn Azeri Iranians in Iran, the
question needs to be posed: is Iran really worried about the success
of any small country in its neighborhood? In the absence of a threat to
Iranian security through the use of a neighbor as a base for potential
attacks by a powerful state, Iran has shown no concern about the
economic success of any neighboring country. Dubai is an example. Iran,
historically, has tended to compete with more distant countries.

Also, Iranian Azeris play a leading role in Iranian society and the
economy, especially in the state’s key systems. There is no reason
for them to wish to create a troubled area within their own homeland.

In that context, the famous American marketing principle of "If you
advertise your wish often enough to make it believed, then your wish
will come true", makes one wonder if this overly repeated concept of
"Azerbaijan’s threat to Iran in terms of awakening separatist ideas
among Iranian Azeris" has ever had a genuine base. Could it be that
it is rather the expression of another agenda – to undermine potential
cooperation between the two countries?

Support For Azerbaijan

Despite the perceived threat of Iranian ideologically expansionist
tendencies, the economic and political potential for Tehran to provide
support for Azerbaijan is real and may be worth further examination
by both neighbors. From the standpoint of Azerbaijan’s need for a
balancing mechanism, Iran’s geopolitical importance in the context
of US interests in the Gulf as well as in Iraq, the tension over the
Iranian nuclear issue, the historical animosity in Iran-US relations,
and the regional rivalry among Iran, Turkey and Russia – all these
factors represent a strong card that could be played in Azerbaijan’s
geopolitical balancing game to secure its stability.

Moreover, all the economic advantages and potentials – from the
possibility of Iranian investments in Azerbaijan to inter-state
cooperation on areas of interests such as a Nakhjavan trade agreements
and/or gas pipelines to the neighboring markets – could bring more
balance into Azerbaijan’s policies in terms of the perceived divergent
interests of the two states.

Given the complex context in which it finds itself and the need to
balance the interests of competing outside interests against its
own national ones, Azerbaijan should reassess its real strategic
geopolitical interests. As outlined above, that assessment should
include consideration of a closer relationship with its southern
neighbor, Iran. Such a move is likely to offer more opportunities
and fewer threats than meet the eye.

1. Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act was passed by the United
States Congress in 1992. The article bans direct aid to the Azeri
government.

2. The OSCE Minsk Group was created in 1992 by the Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, now Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)) to encourage a peaceful,
negotiated resolution to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia
over Nagorno-Karabakh.

les/oped/v49n49-5OD01.htm

–Boundary_(ID_b6H8oJK1 mBMZu4LEaSDiSA)–

http://www.mees.com/postedartic

European Commission Makes Courtesy to Turkey

AZG Armenian Daily #231, 02/12/2006

Neighbors

EUROPEAN COMMISSION MAKES COURTESY TO TURKEY

European Commission Report Suggest Continuation of
Negotiations with Turkey

Recently Turkey has been involved in certain
international political processes of considerable
importance. After public insinuations as well as
violent protest demonstrations in Istanbul, Ankara,
Izmir and other towns of Turkey, Pope Benedict XVI at
last arrives in Ankara on November 28. Prime Minister
of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, having received the
Pope, hastily departs for Lithuania in order to take
part in NATO summit.

Meanwhile Turkey was refusing to dislocate its NATO
troops in Afghanistan and Prime Minister Erdogan was
having bilateral meetings with the heads of most
outstanding European states in Riga, The European
Commission made a decision of partial abeyance of the
negotiations with Turkey.

This decision will be considered by the EU Prime
Ministers Council on December 11, Brussels. Unless the
Prime Ministers come to consensus, the question of
EU-Turkey negotiations will be reconsidered on the
summit of December 14-15, 2006.

No details of the 8 articles of the European
Commission’s resolution are reported. Therefore it is
still unknown which spheres of negotiations will be
affected. Only one thing is certain – Prime Minister
of Finland Matti Vanhanen commenting on the resolution
said that he stands for continuing the negotiations on
Turkey’s EU membership. President of France Jacques
Chirac in connection with this issue said that the
partial abeyance of the talks was EU’s only choice.
Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel expressed her
approval of the resolution and stressed that Turkey
must become a "privileged partner", but not member of
the European Union. Her opinion was supported by Prime
Minister of Denmark Anders Volk Rasmusen, while
British Prime Minister Tony Blare warned the public of
the possible negative consequences of halting the
negotiations with Turkey.

Certainly, Prime Minister Erdogan also responded to
the decision of the European Committee. Moreover,
according to the Turkish mass media sources, in the
end of the NATO Summit in Riga, Erdogan expressed
extreme indignation and anger about the decision and
stated that was unacceptable. While in the airport of
Ankara, Erdogan sharply changed his position.

According to the Turkish Public TV, Erdogan reminded
that the decision of the European Commission was no
obligatory, but a consultative one. He added: "I don’t
consider this decision may freeze the negotiations.
Only eight points were frozen. Moreover, it states
that no end of the negotiations was envisaged in none
of the 24 points of the decision. It means that no new
restrictions will be carried out and those implemented
will be annulled. The decision of the European
Commission is not negative. There is no need for harsh
response. We will consistently follow the path we have
picked up," Erdogan said.

Most likely, one should agree with Erdogan, in
particular, from the aspect of the November 8 report
on Turkey adopted by the European commission.
According to the report, till December 14-15 Summit,
Turkey has to open its airports and seaports to the
republic of Cyprus. At the same time, French Foreign
Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy stated that the EU
membership schedule will be reconsidered, if Turkey
doesn’t take any welcoming steps to the Republic of
Cyprus. On the contrary, the same decision taken by EU
is considered to be another version of continuing the
negotiations with Ankara within the framework of the
same structure. Thus, the report that sounded like an
ultimatum for turkey lost its force by the latest
decision taken by the European Commission.

How can we explain this contradiction? Certainly,
Turkey’s geographical position play’s quite an
important part in this issue. This factor makes EU
consider Turkey as a bridge for penetrating to the
Middle East and to Tran Caucasus and let it still
exist in the political arena. Perhaps, that’s why
Europe never treated Turkey as a stranger even before
the beginning of the negotiations for the membership
to the European Union. On the eve of the negotiations,
EU constantly creates preconditions for Turkey’s
membership, at the same time sparing no efforts to
preserve good relations with this country.

By Hakob Chakrian

Chairman Of Armenian Community In Slovakia Proposes Turkish Ambassad

CHAIRMAN OF ARMENIAN COMMUNITY OF SLOVAKIA PROPOSES TURKISH AMBASSADOR PUBLICLY EXPRESSING HIS POSITION ABOUT RESOLUTION ON GENOCIDE ADOPTED BY SLOVAKIAN PARLIAMENT

Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Nov 30 2006

BRATISLAVA, NOVEMBER 30, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. On November 30,
it is two years since the adoption of the resolution condemning the
Armenian Genocide by the Slovakian parliament. In honor of adoption of
this resolution the Nig-Aparan compatriotic union of Armenia donated a
khachkar (cross-stone) to Bratislava. The Embassy of Turkey in Slovakia
by the instruction of Turkish Foreign Ministry applied to the town
authorities of Bratislava with the demand to dismantle the khachkar.

Ashot Grigorian, Chairman of Armenian community in Slovakia, applied
to the Ambassador of Turkey to Slovakia with a proposal to publicly
express his position about this decision of the Slovakian parliament.

A.Grigorian’s letter to the Turkish Ambassador, in particular, read:
"Your Excellency, we know that the Turkish Foreign Ministry demands
dismantling the memorial to the Genocide of 1915 placed in 2005 as a
token of Armenian people’s gratitude for adoption of the resolution
condemning the Armenian Genocide by the Slovakian parliament in 2004.

As you are well-aware, on November 30, 2004, the Slovakian parliament
made a decision by which it not only confirmed the fact of the
Armenian Genocide, but also conditioned Turkey’s membership to EU by
this country’s confirming the fact of the Genocide, lifting Armenia’s
blockade and other factors.

Your Excellency, we propose you publicly expressing your position
about this decision of the Slovakian parliament and say that we
are ready to freely discuss this issue with you in Slovakian media:
we are ready to discuss not the issue of the Genocide itself, during
which 1.5 mln Armenians living in Western Armenia were killed on their
native land, but the decision adopted by the Slovakian parliament.

We believe with whole our soul that not only all progressive countries
of the world, but also the country accused of organizing the Genocide
and pretending on membership to association of European democratic
countries, EU, will join this decision."

Union Of Writers Of Armenia Considers Shameful Speculating Armenian

UNION OF WRITERS OF ARMENIA CONSIDERS SHAMEFUL SPECULATING ARMENIAN BENEFACTORS’ NAMES

Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Nov 30 2006

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 30, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The presidency of
the Union of Writers of Armenia expressed its discontent in connection
with publications about Chairman of the World Armenian Congress (WAC),
Union of Armenians in Russia, Ara Abrahamian in some Armenian media
not corresponding to reality, as well as with citing some politicians’
"irresponsible expressions" regarding Ara Abrahamian. On November 30,
the presidency of the Union of Writers of Armenia spread a statement
under the title "Into Whose Hands Do We Play," which is presented
below completely:

"Charity has old traditions among Armenians and the names of
benefactors are remembered not according to their wealth, but
depending on their good deeds and public merit. And no one has dared
to cynically call them a "milking cow" by now, as ingratitude, the
synonym of which is immorality, lastly should have some limits.

But it proves that it has no limits. While, on the contrary, charity
is one of the brightest manifestations of morality and patriotism.

So, the scrawls spread lately in our press about one of the most famous
benefactors among Eastern Armenians, Ara Abrahamian, are more than
shameful. When did some of our journalists turn so yellow, as they
substitute the honest principle of freedom of expression by lack of
constraint citing irresponsible statements of some politicians. It
proves that they decided to consider 50 000 dollars to be allocated
to the All Armenian Literary Fund as a … bribe. Whom is this bribe
given to? Is it given to literature and writers? Bribe is known to
expect repayment. And how should the writers repay to Ara Abrahamian
besides expressing a gratitude to him?

What moth of undermining and intolerance has fallen into our public
atmosphere? Will the symptom of destroying the few things we have and
making a feast on the ruins become a new national trait? Into whose
hands do we play by indeed throwing mud at the Union of Armenians in
Russia, which is just making its run, at the World Armenian Congress
and their leader? It is worth reminding that Ara Abrahamian is an
internationally famous figure, a UNESCO good will ambassador, a
holder of the highest awards given by a number of states. Over the
past four years he has received the title of the Man of the Year
three times, in such a huge country as Russia, together with this
country’s President and spiritual leader. In this respect who is
today the alternative to Ara Abrahamian who voluntarily assumed the
mission of consolidating the nation spread throughout the world and
supporting the newly-independent statehood?

Ara Abrahamian’s charity is known to everybody. He does not need
protection, as the public opinion has been speaking in favor of him
long ago. Especially starting the memorable day when the Armenian
pilots were released from the African torture-chamber thanks to his
immedaite efforts. It is a pity that we have to commit to paper these
simple truth, while any step aimed at supporting national intellectual
and creative forces deserves only and only encouragement."

ANKARA: Letter signed by 90 NGOS to be sent to Chirac

Hürriyet, Turkey
Nov 24 2006

Letter signed by 90 NGOS to be sent to Chirac

A.A

A letter was written to French President Jacques Chirac, consisting
of signatures of 90 non-overnmentalorganizations led by "Association
of Victims of Massacre by Armenian gangs in eastern city of Van
during the World War I".

In a statement, the association said that the city of Van, which lost
30 thousand innocent residents and was under fire and suffered great
damage due to the attacks of Armenian gangs during the World War I,
was acting as "one heart and one voice" against the decision of
French National Assembly which adopted a bill on criminalizing denial
of so-called Armenian genocide.

The association also underlined that residents of Van got united to
strongly display their reaction and warning against France.

The letter which comprises of the signatures of 90 political,
professional, unionist and civil NGOs will be sent to Chirac after it
is introduced to the public opinion at a press conference on Sunday.

Armenia Votes Against Resolution on Human Rights in Iran

AZG Armenian Daily #226, 25/11/2006

Diaspora

ARMENIA VOTES AGAINST RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN

The Republic of Armenia has voted against the US,
Canada and the EU resolution that condemns the
violations of human rights in Iran. Vladimir
Karapetian, Spokesman of RA Foreign Ministry, said
that on Tuesday, Armenia voted for Iran’s proposal not
to discuss the issue. It’s worth mentioning that
besides Armenia 47 other countries voted against the
resolution, as well. Thus, there were 70 for, 48
against and 55 abstained as a result of the voting.