Author: Hovhannisian John

KENYA: RAILA: ARMENIANS VISITED STATE HOUSE
Martin Mutua And Harold Ayodo
The East African Standard (Nairobi)
March 15, 2006
Posted to the web March 14, 2006
Nairobi
The Government stage-managed the Monday morning press conference by
two Armenians, Lang’ata Member of Parliament Raila Odinga has said.
Raila yesterday said the men, whom he described as “dangerous
criminals”, had been seen at State House and were accorded VIP
treatment by the Kenya Airports Authority under the supervision of
a personal assistant to an Othaya Narc activist.
He said Armenians used the office of the KAA deputy managing director,
Naomi Cidi, where the Press statement was crafted and printed.
“She (Cidi) was the one who arranged the VIP treatment for them,”
he added.
Raila spoke to journalists at a news conference called by the
Orange Democratic Movement to denounce the mercenaries at Parliament
Buildings.
He said the so-called mercenaries had not flown in since they had been
in the country and were driven from their Runda house in GK vehicles
with police escort.
He said at first the organisers of the media conference had claimed
that the two had flown in aboard a Kenya Airways plan from Dubai and
locked journalists in a room as they stage-managed the scenario.
“The faces are familiar and they have been seen at State House,”
said Raila, adding that the Immigration minister Gideon Konchellah
claimed they had come in a private jet when their names missed in
the KA manifest.
“Although they are now able to manipulate things we need to be told
which private jet they used and its registration.”
He said allegations that he had asked for money to sort out a domestic
problem was insulting.
“Is it possible that you meet a stranger who then goes ahead to give
you Sh100 million to sort out a domestic problem, what sort of a
domestic problem would one have to require that kind of money?” posed
Raila.
He said it was even intriguing that a stranger would give you that
kind of money without any documentation and wondered how one would
carry such huge amounts in cash unless he was a drug dealer.
“We are dealing with very dangerous international criminals on the
loose in our country that can only be referred to as the mafia,”
he said.
Raila said last Wednesday a Kenya Power and Lighting Company official
who had gone to take meter readings at the Runda house was chased away.
Meanwhile, Nyanza church leaders yesterday challenged the Armenians
to produce the agreement they signed with Raila for the Sh100 million
loan they allegedly gave him.
Bishops Washington Ng’ede, Julius Otieno and Jusper Ogelo accused
the Government of dictatorship.
In Siaya, Rev Kenneth Wachianga of the Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK)
said there would have been a signed agreement for the alleged Sh100
million Raila pocketed.
“We want to see copies of signed agreements showing Raila took the
money and clarifications whether it was paid in cash or cheque,”
Wachianga said.
Wachianga told the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to stand strong
and not crumble over the Government’s arm-twisting.
“We want a democratic Government that tells its people the truth
and clears the air whenever there are threatening allegations,”
Wachianga said.
“President Kibaki is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and
should explain the alleged presence on mercenaries in the country,”
they said.
The clerics demanded to know why the State had not apologised for
sending police to attack Standard and KTN offices and printing press
two weeks ago.

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
03/15/2006
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://WWW.ASBAREZ. COM 1) Photos of Demolished Armenian Cemetery in Nakhichevan Published 2) Andrew Goldberg to Discuss His Genocide Documentary on KFI Radio 3) Anniversary of Talaat Pasha's Death Marked in Yerevan 4) State Dept. Again Refuses to Directly Comment on Reports of Amb. Evans' Recall 5) Turks in France to Protest Genocide Monument in Lyon 1) Photos of Demolished Armenian Cemetery in Nakhichevan Published (PanArmenian/A1Plus)--The Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) circulated photos of the former Armenian cemetery in Julfa, Nakhichevan, which shows that it has been completely demolished by Azerbaijan. According to a statement released by the MFA, "By 2005 only 3500 out of 10,000 Armenian khatchkars remained standing in Old Julfa. These 3500 monuments were demolished by Azeri soldiers." After fully eliminating the remnants of the khatchkars (cross-stones) and removing them from the cemetery, several eyewitnesses have reported that Azeri soldiers began using the cemetery as a military shooting range. 2) Andrew Goldberg to Discuss His Genocide Documentary on KFI Radio --ArmeniaTV announces it too will broadcast documentary LOS ANGELES--KFI 640 AM, the largest talk radio station in the country, has invited director/producer Andrew Goldberg to discuss issues surrounding his upcoming PBS documentary [The Armenian Genocide] with John Ziegler. Goldberg will appear for a 45 minute segment on the John Ziegler show, which airs every weeknight from 7:00 PM-10:00 PM, on Thursday, March 16. According to KFI, their decision to invite Andrew Goldberg on the air was due to the many recent high-profile issues surrounding the film, and most recently an article in the Los Angeles Times. According to the KFI producer "Free speech issues are the bread and butter of our show, so naturally this issue is something we're looking forward to exploring in depth." [The Armenian Genocide] is the story of the first Genocide of the 20th century--when over a million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I. This unprecedented and powerful one-hour documentary, airing April 17th on PBS was written, directed and produced by Emmy Award-winning producer Andrew Goldberg of Two Cats Productions, in association with Oregon Public Broadcasting. In an "act of solidarity," Armenia's largest television broadcaster, Armenia TV, announced that it will be airing Goldberg's documentary in exactly the same time slot and date as the PBS broadcast in the US. Two Cats Productions, which produced the film, has waived all costs and donated all broadcast rights for the film to Armenia TV. Canadian Broadcaster TV Ontario has also acquired the rights to the film and stated they too will be showing the film in April. "That so many millions of people across the world will be seeing the film in April, and that so many will do so at the same time as the PBS Broadcast, really affirms for us that we did the job we set out to do. Our goal was clear, we wanted to tell the story of the actual events of the Genocide and to make clear on national, and now international television, that this event was Genocide, and cannot be denied," said Goldberg. 3) Anniversary of Talaat Pasha's Death Marked in Yerevan YEREVAN (Combined Sources)--The anniversary of the assassination of Armenian genocide perpetrator Talaat Pasha was marked by over 200 people Wednesday at the unveiling of a Soghomon Tehlirian monument in Yerevan. ARF Supreme Body of Armenia representative Armen Rustamian was present at the ceremony and said, "This event that happened 85 years ago had a great impact on the fate of the Armenian nation. Tehlirian's example has been educating our present and future generations." Rustamian went on to explain the importance of the day and underlined the efficiency of the plan "Nemesis," named after the Greek Goddess of vengeance, meant to punish the main organizers of the Armenian genocide. On March 15, 1921, one of the main perpetrators of the Armenian genocide, Talaat Pasha, was gunned down in Berlin by then 24 year old student Soghomon Tehlirian. A Berlin court later acquitted Tehlirian and posthumously convicted Talaat. "Punishing a genocide perpetrator is never a crime," Rustamian said, adding that Turkey should realize this. Rustamian noted that "the demand of the Armenians was fair" and the trial held in Germany proved that. Rustamian also noted that along with Talaat, other organizers of the genocide, Enver and Jemal, were also assassinated following the Armenian Revolutionary Federation's decision to carry out the "Nemesis" operation. 4) State Dept. Again Refuses to Directly Comment on Reports of Amb. Evans' Recall WASHINGTON, DC--For the fourth time in the last week, the State Department's official spokesperson has failed to directly respond to questions raised by journalists during the Department's daily press briefing about reports that the US Ambassador to Armenia, John Marshall Evans, has been recalled due to his truthful statements about the Armenian genocide, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). "It's certainly disappointing seeing State Department officials hiding behind their spokesperson to avoid directly answering questions about whether Ambassador Evans is being recalled because he had the courage to stand up against what effectively amounts to a 'gag-rule' preventing our nation's diplomats from speaking truthfully about the Armenian genocide," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian, in a March 8 letter to Secretary Rice, wrote that, "If, in fact, the State Department has taken punitive steps against Ambassador Evans, you should fully and openly explain your policies and actions to the American people. If, on the other hand, the Department has not taken any such steps, you owe it to the American people to affirm that it is not the policy of the United States of America to punish its diplomats for speaking the truth about the Armenian genocide." Questions concerning Ambassador Evans were raised on March 8 and 10 and again on March 13 and 14. Each time journalists asked for official comments about Ambassador Evans' reported recall. Reflecting the growing frustration among journalists over the lack of a clear response to their inquiries, a member of the State Department press corps publicly described the answers provided by the official spokesperson as "a bit of a dodge." The growing controversy surrounding reports of Ambassador Evans' recall has resulted in separate letters being sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian and Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the Co-Chairman of the Armenian Issues Caucus, as well as formal Congressional inquiries by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Grace Napolitano (D-CA). Speaking last year to an Armenian American gathering at the University of California at Berkeley, Ambassador Evans said, "I will today call it the Armenian genocide. . . I informed myself in depth about it. I think we, the US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem. Today, as someone who has studied it~E there's no doubt in my mind [as to] what happened. I think it is unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe in calling things by their name." Referring to the Armenian genocide as "the first genocide of the 20th century," he said: "I pledge to you, we are going to do a better job at addressing this issue." Evans also disclosed that he had consulted with a legal advisor at the State Department who had confirmed that the events of 1915 were "genocide by definition." Within days of his remarks, Ambassador Evans was apparently forced to issue a statement clarifying that his references to the Armenian genocide were his personal views and did not represent a change in US policy. He subsequently issued a correction to this statement, replacing a reference to the Genocide with the word "tragedy." Later last year, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), in recognition of his honesty and commitment to principle, decided to honor Ambassador Evans with the "Christian A. Herter Award," recognizing creative thinking and intellectual courage within the Foreign Service. AFSA states, "The purpose of the [award] is to encourage Foreign Service career employees to speak out frankly and honestly." Sadly, as Washington Post staff writer Glenn Kessler revealed on June 9, AFSA withdrew its award following pressure from "very serious people from the State Department" just days before Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Washington, DC to meet with President George W. Bush. The full text of the four exchanges are provided below: 1. MARCH 8, 2006 ­ DAILY PRESS BRIEFING (WASHINGTON, DC) SEAN MCCORMACK, SPOKESMAN QUESTION: [. . .] Why did you recall your Ambassador to Armenia, Mr. John Evans? Are you going to replace him? MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware that we have recalled anybody -- our Ambassador to Armenia. QUESTION: Not in Germany, in Armenia. MR. MCCORMACK: What's that? I'm not aware that - I believe that he's still serving as Ambassador in Armenia. 2. MARCH 10, 2006 ­ DAILY PRESS BRIEFING (WASHINGTON, DC) TOM CASEY, ACTING SPOKESMAN QUESTION: Is the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia having his time there cut short, maybe his career? A couple of Congressmen have asked Secretary Rice about it and apparently have not gotten an answer. He's supposed to have suggested that Armenians were the victims of genocide, which doesn't happen to be Bush Administration policy. MR. CASEY: I think Sean addressed this a couple of days ago. QUESTION: I think it's been brought up -- further up to date. If you could -- MR. CASEY: I don't have anything beyond what he said on it. I'll look into it for you and see if there's any changes in -- QUESTION: He said that ambassadors serve at the privilege of the President MR. CASEY: Yeah. And as far as I know, he's . . . still ambassador. I'm not aware that anything's changed that situation. QUESTION: You can't -- well, all right, if you don't have anything further. (Inaudible.) MR. CASEY: I think, Barry, I will -- yeah, I'll look into it for you. I haven't gotten an update on it, but I'll try and see if there's something and we'll post an answer for you. QUESTION: And also if somebody ghosted an answer from the Secretary to Mr. Schiff and the other Congressmen. MR. CASEY: Okay. I'll let you know. Let's go back here. Oh, to you guys first and then we'll come over to this side. 3. MARCH 13, 2006 ­ DAILY PRESS BRIEFING (WASHINGTON, DC) TOM CASEY, ACTING SPOKESMAN QUESTION: Is the Ambassador of Armenia being -- having his career shortened because he spoke out against genocide in Armenia? MR. CASEY: Barry, I know we promised you an answer on that one on Friday. Still don't have it and I'll get something for you this afternoon. QUESTION: You mean his future hasn't been decided yet? MR. CASEY: Not that I'm aware of. QUESTION: I think it has. MR. CASEY: I believe you think it does. QUESTION: No, I do believe it does and so do -- and I have reason to believe it does and I know there are at least two members of Congress who believe it does. No, I just think the State Department is having difficulty finding words to announce his premature retirement. MR. CASEY: No. We owe you an answer on that. QUESTION: Thank you. MR. CASEY: I'll get it for you. Yes, Saul. [. . .] QUESTION: And one on Armenia. Representative Frank Pallone in a strong statement expressed his extreme disappointment with regards of the Department of State decision to rid finally Ambassador John Evans from Armenia as a retaliation for statements he made in recognition of the Armenian genocide in Los Angeles by Ottoman Turks. And it was reported that already you have decided to replace him. Could you please clarify for us what is going on exactly this particular moment of this issue? MR. CASEY: That was the question Barry asked. We owe you an answer and we'll get you one. QUESTION: Is the same answer. MR. CASEY: Yeah. It's the same issue; it will be the same answer. QUESTION: Is there an ambassador on post in Armenia right now? MR. CASEY: Yes, there is. QUESTION: Is his name Evans? MR. CASEY: Yes, it is. QUESTION: Does he have suitcase packed? MR. CASEY: Not that I'm aware of. QUESTION: But when you do announce this, would you kindly tell us the difference between what happened and genocide? MR. CASEY: I think -- QUESTION: Because U.S. policy is there was no genocide. MR. CASEY: Our policy on this issue is well known. It was reported in a presidential statement and, yeah, I don't have anything to add to it. 4. MARCH 14, 2006 ­ DAILY PRESS BRIEFING (WASHINGTON, DC) ADAM ERELI, SPOKESMAN QUESTION: Mr. Ereli, on the DOS [Department of State] Web site, regarding yesterday's taken question about U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans' status, you have put quote, "genocide," unquote, in quotes. I'm wondering why, if you can say so. MR. ERELI: I think because it was referring to remarks that somebody made. QUESTION: Do you know whether John Evans was recalled or whether he's been recalled due to his speech on Armenian genocide? MR. ERELI: I think the question was answered in the - that was answered in the question posted. QUESTION: Should DOS [Department of State] employees have been advised not to use the term, quote, "genocide," unquote, when discussing the extermination of the (inaudible)? MR. ERELI: No, I think our guidance on that is the same. And we posted that guidance last week. QUESTION: Is it not true that Mr. Evans' 35-year diplomatic career will be shortened because of the remarks he made, saying that ... genocide? MR. ERELI: I think the question was answered in the - that was answered in the question posted. QUESTION: Had DOS [Department of State] employees been advised not to use the term, quote, "genocide," unquote, when discussing the extermination of the 1 ­1/2 million . . . MR. ERELI: No, I think our guidance on that is the same. And we posted that guidance last week. QUESTION: Is it not true that Mr. Evans' 35-year diplomatic career will be shortened because of the remarks he made, saying that Armenians were the victims of genocide, since the U.S. government or the State Department doesn't believe what happened was genocide? It doesn't fit the definition of genocide? MR. ERELI: I really don't have anything more to add to what we posted. QUESTION: Well, what you posted yesterday was a bit of a dodge. MR. ERELI: No. I think it's the situation as it is. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: There is very strong reason to believe, in Congress and elsewhere, that this man is going to lose out; he's going to be brought home early because of what he said. MR. ERELI: Look, I'd like to be able to -- Ambassador Evans is our ambassador and he continues to exercise that honor and privilege. And he takes it seriously; we take it seriously. And I really don't have any more to add to that. 5) Turks in France to Protest Genocide Monument in Lyon (Zaman)--Several Turkish organizations in France have organized a protest on March 18 against the construction of an Armenian genocide monument in Lyon, France. After two years of political debate, construction of the monument has begun despite Turkish attempts to stop it. The Council of Turkish Culture Associations in Rhone-Alpes resorted to the French courts to stop the monument, but did not succeed. Turkish organizations are also angered that the French built a Komitas genocide memorial in Paris in 2001, but have not found an appropriate place to build a statue of Ataturk despite Turkey's efforts for years. The Armenian genocide monument in Lyon will be located in the heart of the city's historical center. All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and subscription requests. (c) 2006 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved. ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through mass media outlets. --Boundary_(ID_EP6LbJk/sEuG3xaJLp+ZOQ)--

IT IS NECESSARY TO THROW OFF THE TENSION
Panorama.am
17:36 14/03/06
Today not only politicians are concerned with the strained situation
in Javakhk but also Javakhk citizens living in Armenia.
The official opinion of Armenian government is known and it was
sounded today once again by ARF Grouping leader, NA Deputy Galoust
Sahakyan. “In general I don’t estimate the events in Javakhk as
political.
Moreover, I can see solutions to that problem in the context of
Armenian-Georgian interrelations and I think several problems are
trying to be solved in the recent years. The problem is based on a
social ground.”
In his turn another NA Deputy, oppositional representative Albert
Bazeyan thinks the Armenian government has something to do in the
present situation. “I think we must use our diplomatic connections
to have an influence on these processes.
Probably, our compatriots have such problems as the problem of national
identity, language, culture besides a number of social-domestic
problems. What refers to political problems, I think it is worth
discussing the variant of giving cultural self-government to
Javakhk Armenians so that they could solve all the above mentioned
problems. Besides, Armenia must take a certain responsibility
to give assistance in the process of solving such problems,” he
said.

KARABAKH IS ARMENIAN LAND
YEREVAN, MARCH 13. ARMINFO. Armenia will not cede Azerbaijan any
territory even under the threat of a new war. Armenia will consider
the question of territories and security of refugees only when
Azerbaijan has recognized the right of the people of Karabakh for
self-determination, said in an interview to the on-line version of
‘Azg’ newspaper Vardan Oskanian, the Foreign Minister of Armenia.
‘Karabakh is Armenian land. For thousands of years only Armenians
have lived there and preserved their sovereignty. One thing cannot be
doubted: Karabakh has never been a part of Azerbaijan and will never
be. The Armenians have no territorial claims beyond their historical
rights,’ said the Minister and added that Azerbaijan has no right for
Karabakh, as it lost that land in 1990’s and was trying to ravage it
by military force. ‘If the Armenian did not fight, there would be no
Karabakh today,’ he said.
Mr. Oskanian said that the authorities of Armenia will consider the
possibility of rendering aid to Azeri refugees from Armenia only
when Azerbaijan will be ready to pay compensations to those 350-400
thousand Armenians expelled from the territory of Azerbaijan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSAL-ARMENAL TO MANUFACTURE IN MARCH FIRST 100 TONS OF PRODUCTION AFTER BEING RELAUNCHED
Noyan Tapan
Mar 07 2006
YEREVAN, MARCH 7, NOYAN TAPAN. RusAl-ArmenAl CJSC resumed its operation
in February and will manufacture the first 100 tons of its production
in March.
Artur Ashughian, Head of the Nature Use Economics and Mining Industry
Department of the RA Ministry of Trade and Economic Development,
said it at the March 7 press conference.
In his words, in 2005 alone, the company made investments of 39
mln euros for equipment modernization, which allowed the company
to produce 7 micron wide foil which is in great demand on the
international market.
To recap, work on re-equipment of RusAl-ArmenAl started in the
4th quarter of 2004. The first stage of the work was completed in
December 2005. 70 mln USD was spent on re-equipment of the enterprise,
with 30-35% of this amount being spent as salaries and payments for
equipment supply.
It is envisaged that since 2006 the enterprise will produce 25 thousand
tons of foil a year, with an annual production of 9 micron wide foil
amounting to 18 thousand tons.

RA NA SPEAKER HANDED OSCE MEDAL FOR PROMOTING CLOSE COOPERATION WITH THIS ORGANIZATION
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
March 7 2006
YEREVAN, March 7. /ARKA/. Armenian National Assembly Speaker Arthur
Baghdasaryan received a medal from OSCE for promoting close cooperation
with this organization, Armenian Parliament press service told ARKA
News Agency on Monday. The medal was handed by OSCE Yerevan Office
Head, Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin.
The Ambassador stressed the importance of Parliament’s role in forming
civil and democratic institutions and pointed out kind relations
established between OSCE and Armenian Parliament.
Baghdasaryan, in turn, said the cooperation had produced particular
results.
Pryakhin also handed books in Armenian, Russian and English languages
to parliamentary library.

GAS HIKES TO AFFECT ARMENIAN INDUSTRY, OFFICIAL SAYS
Armenpress
Mar 07 2006
YEREVAN, MARCH 7, ARMENPRESS: Armenal foil plant has issued in February
the first output-100 tons of foil, after accomplishing a major $70
million modernization project. Arthur Ashughian, head of a department
of the trade and economic development ministry, told a news conference
today that the annual volume of foil production will reach 25,000 tons.
Ashughian said Russia’s decision to double the price of natural
gas it sells to Armenia would lead to higher primary cost of local
metallurgical industry’s products. He said the share of energy in the
primary cost of metallurgical products makes now from 30 to 42 percent
and when the gas price raises it will be from 52 to 60 percent. He
said higher gas price may kill Armenian cement industry and make it
unable to compete with other regional producers.
He also said Armenia’s metallurgical industry produced $31.7 million
worth output in January. He said prospecting in Getik mine by Global
Mines has showed that it has some reserves of uranium, but added it was
premature to talk about whether they may have industrial significance.

ISN, Switzerland
March 10 2006
Minsk Group fails in Nagorno-Karabakh talks
The co-chairs of the OSCE’s Minsk Group — France, Russia, and the
United States – have issued a statement after two days of meetings in
Washington D.C. on March 7 and 8 expressing their regret that the
Minsk process “has not moved forward in recent weeks” despite “ample
opportunity to do so.” There was no announcement of a date for
another high-level presidential summit between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. The tensions between Yerevan and Baku has been escalating
lately, with an increasingly testy exchange of words between the two
countries’ presidents, since they met in the Paris suburb of
Rambouillet in February but failed to reach agreement over the
disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and other issues.
By Julie A. Corwin for RFE/RL (10/3/06)
In their statement, the co-chairs called “upon the government of each
country to take steps with their publics to prepare them for peace
and not for war.” The co-chairs’ next meeting is scheduled for March
20 in Istanbul.
The Minsk group, which consists of 13 OSCE countries, has provided a
forum for negotiations to settle the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
since 1992.
As part of that effort, the co-chairs of the group — France, Russia,
and the United States — held two days of meetings in Washington this
week to press for a new meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani
presidents.
In the runup to this week’s sessions, the U.S. co-chair expressed
optimism that progress could be made.
U.S. Ambassador Steven Mann said this year could bring a breakthrough
in the impasse over Nagorno-Karabakh because neither Armenia nor
Azerbaijan are holding an election in 2006.
A Window Of Opportunity, Closing
But some other observers were less hopeful.
Corey Welt, deputy director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at
the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies,
told RFE/RL that Ambassador Mann’s emphasis on achieving an agreement
this year stems “more from desperation than optimism.”
“He’s trying to emphasize that it’s important that an agreement be
reached this year because if not the fear is that the window of
opportunity will be closed because domestic politics will then take
over in both countries in the lead up to election periods in 2007 and
2008,” Welt said. “So what they’re trying to do is, in a sense, put
pressure on the parties almost to convince them that now is the time
to reach an agreement. If they do not, it is unlikely they will be
able to get their houses in order and they will be unlikely to really
be able to get full outside support.”
Welt suggests that it might be wiser to keep expectations from this
week’s meeting low.
“It’s a troubling road to take when you put that kind of pressure and
that [many] expectations on a process within one year. It’s going to
be a tough battle and if they don’t accomplish what they set out to
accomplish this year then there is a danger of a self-fulfilling
prophecy, making further efforts at reconciliation impossible.”
Political Will Needed For Settlement
The Minsk Group talks follow an exchange of heated words between
Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev. Aliyev said on March 1 that talks with Armenia were at a
“dead end” and called for freeing Nagorno-Karabakh “no matter what it
takes.” The next day, Kocharian declared that if Azerbaijan drops out
of further negotiations then Armenia will formally recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Liz Fuller, RFE/RL Caucasus analyst, suggests that Aliyev’s words
were “nothing new” but said some of the realities on the ground may
have changed.
“There is also the question of whether the Azerbaijani Armed Forces
have improved over the past decade to the point that they could
defeat the Armenian army. Armenia’s Defense Minister Serge Sarkisyan
said that he considers Azerbaijani statements as being more in the
realm of pressure or blackmail than a real threat. And he made the
point that if you are going to launch a surprise attack on your
adversary then you don’t go round beforehand saying that we’re going
to do it.”
Fuller suggests that the failure of the Rambouillet talks to produce
an agreement represents a “minor setback,” not a “major disaster.”
She characterizes the Minsk process overall as a positive one, which
almost produced a peace agreement in 2001.
“The current progress dates back just about two years to when Elmar
Mammadyarov replaced Vilayet Guliev as Azerbaijani foreign minister
and the two foreign ministers began meeting regularly first in Prague
and then in other European capitals,” Fuller explained. “And it’s
primarily thanks to them with some input from the three co-chairmen
that they have gradually reached agreement on the [seven out of nine]
basic points that would form the sort of skeleton of a future formal
peace agreement.”
Given the political will, Fuller suggests, that it might still be
possible to reach agreement on the basic points of a peace settlement
this year.

RIA Novosti, Russia
March 10 2006
U.S. warns citizens against visiting Armenian conflict zone
16:19 | 10/ 03/ 2006

YEREVAN, March 10 (RIA Novosti) – The United States Embassy in
Armenia warned U.S. citizens Friday against visiting areas that have
seen renewed violence recently in a conflict with neighboring
Azerbaijan.
In particular, the embassy advised against using the
Kirants-Baganis-Voskevan stretch of the Ijevan-Noyemberyan highway in
Armenia, which is near the dividing line of troops from the two
countries.
On Thursday, Azerbaijan and Armenia accused each other of numerous
ceasefire violations near the disputed territory of Nagorny-Karabakh,
which has been at the center of a bitter dispute since the early
1990s.
The Armenian Defense Ministry has reported that Azerbaijani troops
have been daily violating the ceasefire regime in this area.
Armenian Defense Ministry spokesman Seiran Shakhsuvaryan said
Azerbaijani troops continued shooting at Armenian positions in the
Ijevan, Baik and Noyemberyan regions through March 7-8.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry, said
Armenian troops had fired at Azerbaijani positions 500 kilometers
from the capital, Baku, and 250 kilometers from the zone of the
Nagorny-Karabakh conflict.
The conflict between the two former Soviet republics over
Nagorny-Karabakh, an Azerbaijani region with a largely Armenian
population, first erupted in 1988, when the region claimed
independence from Azerbaijan to join Armenia.
Over 30,000 people were reported dead on both sides between 1988 and
1994, and over 100 others died after a ceasefire was concluded in
1994, leaving Nagorny-Karabakh in Armenian hands, but tensions
between Azerbaijan and Armenia have persisted.

Daily Star – Lebanon,
March 11 2006
Alternating the top political jobs around the three main confessions
every four years can reinforces the sense of national identity in the
Lebanese
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Since Syria’s “sanctities” collapsed along with its project in
Lebanon, is it time for Lebanese safeguards to establish true civil
peace that protects this country-message from booby-trapped, poisoned
and imported rhetoric?
By Lebanese safeguards I mean the constitutional guarantees that
preserve confessional diversity and balance between institutions
without failing to promote national identity in every Lebanese,
regardless of confession, tribe or place of birth.
It is true that the Taif Accord saw Lebanon’s Civil War end. However,
the inherent faults and constitutional defects that endangered the
institutions’ work were demonstrated on the one hand through
practice, and on the other by being partial, selective and
temperamental implementation in a manner that distorted its content
and shook its consensual foundations.
Consequently, if the Lebanese are serious about coexisting on the
basis of equality and regaining their sense of national belonging,
they have to prove that by forming a committee of high-ranking
lawmakers that would address the Taif’s defects without tampering
with its substance. This committee would also have to present these
amendments to the first House freely elected on the basis of a fair
and modern law.
One of the major issues that should be disregarded is the
reconsideration of the jurisdiction of the three powers – not to
limit it but rather to facilitate a stable and equal rule, allowing
confessions to alternate between these powers after the creation of
the Council of Ministers stipulated in Article 22 of the Lebanese
Constitution.
The presidency
Reducing the term of the president from six years (Article 49 of the
Constitution) to four nonrenewable and nonextendible years is
imperative to implementing the principle of alternation of the
presidency between the confessions. This ensures that no single
confession monopolizes a specific presidency for too long. The
four-year mandate has become sufficient to implement the program of a
specific presidency, giving the people the opportunity to decide
whether to maintain this program of not. By reducing the mandate to
four years, the parliamentary elections would coincide with the
presidential elections; they should be even held before the
presidential elections so the people can have the opportunity to
change the parliamentary majority should they wish to.
The legislative power
Parliament’s ordinary session:
Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution set the legal dates to hold a
parliamentary session; other dates are considered void and in
violation of the law. The House’s two ordinary periods stretch from
the Tuesday following March 15 until the end of May and from the
Tuesday following October 15 until the end of the year, provided
texamining and voting on the take precedence over anythign else.
Consequently, the meeting of MPs to legislate and vote on a budget
does not exceed 180 days a year if no extraordinary sessions were
called for.
First, regarding the increasing need to legislate and emphasize the
quality of the laws, it is not acceptable to limit Parliament’s
legislative work only to the mid-year. There are draft laws and law
proposals lying in the drawers not for political reasons but for the
financial impossibility of examining and voting on them.
Second, limiting Parliament sessions to a relatively short period of
time, and giving the president, with the premier’s consent, the
authority to call for extraordinary House sessions by virtue of a
decree setting the opening and closing date as well as the agenda
(Article 33 of the Constitution), means limiting the jurisdiction of
the House to serve as an executive power and comes in violation of
paragraph (c) of the Constitution’s preamble which clearly stipulates
that “Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic.”
This is why we suggest the amendment of Article 32 of the
Constitution and the adoption of one ordinary session for the House,
stretching from mid-October until mid-June.
Such an amendment would contribute to making Parliament its own
master.
Executive power
Separating Parliament from the Cabinet:
The principle of separating the legislative power from the executive
power stipulated in the Constitution is not effectively implemented.
Article 28 of the Constitution, which authorizes grouping the
Parliament and Cabinet function, contradicts paragraph (e) of the
Constitution’s preamble which stipulates that the regime is based on
the principle of separation, balance and cooperation between the
powers.
So how can the House hold Cabinet to account if ministers are also
MPs? Could it be both the opponent and the arbiter?
Consequently, based on the principle of separation of powers which
guarantees government’s performance, we believe the Cabinet and the
House should be separated and therefore Article 28 of the Lebanese
Constitution should be amended, and a mechanism regulating the
vacancy of the positions of MPs who joined the Cabinet be included in
the electoral law.
About urgent bill:
Article 58 of the Constitution stipulates that: “Every bill the
Cabinet deems urgent and in which this urgency is indicated in the
decree of transmission to the Parliament may be issued by the
president within 40 days following its communication to the House,
after including it on the agenda of a general meeting, reading it
aloud before the House, and after the expiration of the time limit
without the House acting on it.”
Linking the 40-day deadline granted to the president to pass an
urgent bill by Cabinet to the proviso of including this bill in the
agenda of the general House meeting and reading it aloud before the
Assembly gives the House speaker the chance to maneuver and the
possibility to hamper the implementation of this article by not
raising the urgent bill in the agenda and consequently postponing the
40-day deadline.
Based on the principle of equal and separated powers, the House
speaker should not be given this authority to hamper the Cabinet’s
work. But, if we adopt the one-session principle for the House, which
stretches from mid-October to mid-June every year, then the general
meetings become weekly throughout the year and including an urgent
bill as soon as possible in the agenda becomes inevitable.
The governmental solidarity
The National Accord document entrusted the executive power with the
Cabinet (Article 65 of the Constitution) and Article 66 of the
Constitution made the ministers responsible in general of
Parliament’s general ministerial policy and made them responsible of
their personal actions.
The practice gave the ministers the freedom to revolt against the
ministerial decisions and the Cabinet’s general policy, which
destabilized the governmental solidarity and weakened the position of
the prime minister, who coordinates with the ministers and gives
general instructions to guarantee the well-functioning of public
institutions and administrations (Article 64 of the Constitution).
In order to avoid any embarrassment and to guarantee the governmental
solidarity, which incarnates a unified political will and a coherent
vision of the Cabinet’s direction, the opposition ministers should
voice their rejection from inside the Cabinet.
Any minister, who rejects the Cabinet’s general policy by publicly
criticizing its directions and objecting its practices, should resign
or should be forced to resign.
The Cabinet cannot stay in power if it is divided and cannot be an
arena for the loyalists and the opposition at the same time. It is
true that Lebanon is based on a consensual democracy but this does
not allow the executive power to turn into a forum for exchanging
accusations between its members, because such a thing would hamper
democracy.
Keeping the opposition ministers away from the government strengthens
executive power and enhances both the opposition and the loyalists.
Setting a deadline for the prime minister to issue decrees
Article 56 of the Constitution set a time limit for the president to
issue the laws and decrees to prevent him from stalling and hampering
the work of the constitutional institutions. Article 64 of the
Constitution did not set any deadline for the prime minister to issue
these decrees, which encouraged the adoption of the boycott and the
refusal to signing the decrees for political reasons concerning the
premier, effectively hampering the work of the government and
destabilizing the relations between the president and Parliament.
Consequently, in order to restore balance between the three top
politicians and guarantee the smooth running of the government,
Article 64 of the Constitution should be amended by adding deadlines
on the prime minister similar to the president’s deadlines to issue
decrees.
Prosecuting the ministers
The Lebanese Constitution neither includes a document that defines
“high treason,” the “violation of the Constitution,” or “failing to
assume the duties,” nor does it impose compliance with the Penal
Code; knowing that the Law of Procedures before the Higher Council To
Try (the Three Top Posts) and Ministers compelled this council to
abide by the principle of the legality of the crimes and the legality
of punishments stipulated by articles one and six of the Penal Code.
Consequently, in order to abide by Article 70 of the Constitution, it
is necessary to include in the Law of Procedures before the Higher
Council a text explaining the meaning of the minister’s failure to
assume his/her duties so that the minister does not remain above the
law.
The Constitutional Council
The Constitutional Council should be granted a mandate to review the
constitutionality of the laws, according to a request of one of the
legal parties before the State Council or the Cassation Court. This
mandate should be preceded by a two-year period, during which
Parliament accounts for the laws that might be unconstitutional. It
is obvious to include in the constitutional council the mandate to
review the constitutionality of the constitutional amendments and to
preserve the higher principles in the Constitution, which cannot be
altered even in a constitutional amendment, like coexistence or
consensual democracy, and these principles are called
“supra-constitutional” in the constitutional law.
An interpretation of the Constitution by Parliament cannot produce
mandatory results unless this interpretation takes place through a
legal text that respects the constitutional procedures stipulated by
articles 76 and 77 of the Constitution.
Consequently, it is necessary to reconsider allowing the
Constitutional Council to interpret the Constitution, since this
mission does not conflict with the concept of sovereignty, especially
as the theory of monitoring the constitutionality of laws is now
adopted in most countries of the world.
The independence of the judiciary
The Constitution provides only Article 20, which organizes the
executive power and stipulates that: “The executive power is handled
by all the courts, regardless of their competence and levels, within
a system that is stipulated by the law and provides the legal parties
with the necessary guarantees. The conditions of the judicial
guarantee and its limits are set by the law. The judges are
independent in performing their job while the decrees and decisions
are issued by all the courts and implemented in the name of the
Lebanese people.”
While the Constitution stresses the independence of the judges, it
does not mention any mechanism that guarantees this independence.
The National Accord document noted this gap and tried to fill the
void in paragraph (b) pertaining to the courts, and said: “In order
to enhance the independence of the judiciary: the judicial body
elects a certain number of the members of the Higher Judicial
Council.”
However, the paragraph has not been put into effect yet. Criticism
cannot stop as long as the judicial power remains dependent on the
executive power.
Consequently, we call for the implementation of the part of the Taif
Accord pertaining to the independence of the judiciary and we also
propose that the Higher Judicial Council be granted the mandate to
make the judicial appointments without referring to the executive
power, which would give the public prosecutors and the judicial body
total independence, absolving them of all suspicions. We also call
for promoting the judges’ social situation, which would encourage
skilled individuals to join the judicial body and empower them
against bribery.
The Senate
Article 22 of the Lebanese Constitution says: “With the election of
the first Parliament on a national basis and not on a confessional
basis, a new Caabinet should be created, in which all the spiritual
families are represented and whose mandate is limited to critical
issues.”
Consequently, this article linked the creation of a Senate to the
election of the first Parliament on a national, nonconfessional
basis. This link is illogical, because the creation of a Parliament
on national basis could take dozens of years and is related to the
prior presence of the Senate, which represents the guarantee of
moving from a confessional Parliament to a national one.
The creation of a Senate would also resolve the issue of the
representation of the Druze, Catholic and Orthodox confessions in the
Lebanese pyramid, which will be formed of four powers: the president,
the premier, the speaker and the Senate president.
The jurisdictions of the Senate are summarized as follows:
l The authority to veto every law that contradicts the principle of
consensual democracy or co-existence and rights of the confessions.
l Proposing laws, especially those related to the confessional
structure in Lebanon.
l A second reading of the laws whereby the Senate has the right to
return to Parliament provided that a two-thirds majority of its
members (16 members as we will see later) vote for it. In this case,
the House should adopt the law by its majority. If the president of
the Republic requests to reconsider this law in accordance with
Article 57 of the Constitution, then the House should adopt with its
two-thirds majority (after amending Article 57 of the Constitution).
The Senate is composed of 22 members after the number of MPs in the
House is reduced from 128 to 108 as was mentioned in paragraph six of
the item on political reforms in the National Accord document.
The Senate members are distributed as follows:
Three Sunni representatives, three Shiite representatives, three
Druze representatives and one Alawite representative (10 Muslims).
Three Maronite representatives, two Catholic representatives, and two
Greek Orthodox representatives, one Armenian Catholic representative,
One Armenian Orthodox representative, and one representative for the
Christian minorities (10 Christians). One representative for the Jews
and one representative for the nonconfessional (22 altogether). Each
sect elects Senate members who represent them and each voter has one
vote (one man, one vote). Lebanon follows one electoral district and
those who secure the largest number of votes possible from the voters
within their sect for the seats allocated to this sect are considered
successful.
Alternations in presidency and in positions among confessions
What has offended the Lebanese structure the most was the domination
of one confession of a certain post for a permanent period. This made
other confessions feel they were treated unfairly even though they
were competent enough to assume a certain position. But their
confessional belonging hindered their chances of assuming a position.
This is one of the reasons that weakened national identity and pushed
the Lebanese people to take refuge behind their confessional
identities. It is difficult to change this reality especially after
the country witnessed 15 years of war in the name of the weak and 15
years of struggle in the name of the marginalized people. The answer
to to resolving this confessional reality lies in giving it
guarantees so that it doesn’t turn to foreign countries, requesting
protection from abroad, or to bloody internal fighting or division.
Confessions in Lebanon are a fact that we have to acknowledge if we
are to find a solution to the problems that the country has been
suffering from ever since these confessions existed. Therefore,
terminating political sectarianism in Lebanon can’t be acommplished
following the French approach that has begun to suffer from its
shortcomings and restrictions.
Terminating political sectarianism in Lebanon definitely passes
through alternations in presidencies and posts between the major
confessions (Maronites, Shiites and Sunnis) and the others (Druze,
Catholics and Orthodox) to pave the way for other confessions to be
active and play their roles in order to achieve actual equality
between the Lebanese people and to reinforce their national identity
in lieu of pure confessional belonging.
These alternations should be made every four years (duration of the
mandate of the president and House speaker) according to the way
defined in the attached table (the table is an example, which is why
it does not tackle all posts in all ministries and administrations).
The philosophy of alternations, which should coincide with adopting
the broad-based administrative decentralization stipulated in the
Taif Accord, is to pave the way for all confessions to actually
participate in the essence of governance without any one sect being
dominated by another or making the other confessions feel they are
marginalized. In this way, national identity is strengthened through
the confessional guarantees whereby each party feels that banking on
foreign countries will not be more profitable than banking on
Lebanon. During each governance session, alternation and change in
posts, confessions get used to dealing with each other on the basis
of equality and complementarity and it becomes a motivation for peace
without risk. From here, each confession should feel it is
represented by a person who holds a leadership position in the four
authorities and there is no default in that. As much as alternation
secures national balance and equality among the Lebanese on “the
Lebanese way” (that is much better than what is used today), the
election of each confession for its representative in the post of the
presidency of the Republic or the ministry or public prosecution or
Senate secures political stability that Lebanon has lacked since its
independence.
There is no shame in having each confession elect its “leader” at a
certain stage as long as it has the option after four years of
re-electing this leader, but allow the succeeding presidency to have
a different position and competence but which still cooperates and
interacts with the other presidencies.
This system limits these confessions from turning to other countries.
At the same time it limits the instinct that leans toward division
because, by maintaining the unity of the country, each confession is
given its right in the authority, and the right to participate and
express its specificities within the general structure. This doesn’t
stop the candidates of a certain confession wishing to assume one of
these presidential posts from cooperating with other candidates of
other confessions. Each one strives to win the confidence of his
voters on the basis of a unified governance program where it is up to
the people to decide an integrated ruling team on the basis of
political and economic choices and not on the basis of instincts.
Confessional strife under such a system can’t be justified especially
after adopting a modern and fair law for parliamentary elections on
the basis of proportionality and large historic muhafazat that
safeguards the rights of “nonconfessional individuals.”
With reference to the table on the alternation of posts between the
confessions every four years, the establishment of a Senate gives a
fourth confession the opportunity to assume a post in the authority.
This post was allocated to the Druze, but it is possible that even on
this level, there would be an alternation every four years between
the Druze, the Orthodox, the Catholics whereby each confession takes
part in determining Lebanon’s fate on all levels.
In a quick reading of the typical table of the alternation of posts
between the confessions, we can see for example when the president of
the Republic belongs to a certain confession, Maronite or Sunni, the
same confession is given the finance portfolio since it is the main
ministry. That is done in order to compensate the modest powers of
the president of the Republic compared with the other presidencies.
Furthermore, the posts of defense minister and director general of
the Surete Generale are given to a person from his confession
(Maronite, Sunni or Shiite) or from another confession (Druze,
Catholic or Orthodox) if the president was a Druze, Orthodox or
Catholic.
When the prime minister is a Druze or Shiite for example, his
confession can’t be given a major portfolio except for the Justice
Ministry to maintain the balance with the other confessions due to
the broad jurisdiction the premier enjoys although the Cabinet rules
like an assembled commission. In this context, the post of public
works and transport minister (the largest service provider ministry)
can’t be given to someone who is from a different confession than the
premier. The same is applicable to the post of the president of the
Council of Development and Reconstruction. As for the post of the
Internal Security Forces Commander, it is given to a person who is
from the same confession as the premier is so that this confession
secures an advanced position among leaders of security apparatuses.
For example, when the Speaker of the House is a Sunni or Catholic,
the foreign minister, education minister, army commander, president
of the Council of Development and Reconstruction are from his
confession. In this way, this confession secures a position for
foreign affairs, and other social, security and developmental
positions.
The Senate, with the jurisdiction it has to legislate regarding
issues such as co-existence, consensual democracy, and rights of
confessions, is like a guarantee for a confession whose leader
presides the Interior Ministry, the Lebanese University, and the
Constitutional Council. These jurisdictions safeguard for this
confession the Public Works and Transport portfolio as a development
guarantee.
If we apply the principle of alternation, with its defaults, in the
presidential posts between the confessions, we would allow the major
confessions (Maronites, Shiites, and Sunnis) to alternate the four
presidencies between them in a complete cycle every 16 years with a
different presidency for each of them every four years. This would
also allow the confessions (Druze, Catholics, and Orthodox) to take
their turns in assuming these presidencies even for a longer period
(once every eight years, meaning that every confession needs 32 years
to alternate one complete session).
Isn’t this equation, with its defaults, much fairer than the equation
that is currently adopted, wherey the Maronite confession dominates
the post of the president of the Republic, and the Shiite sect
dominates the post of the speaker of the House and the Sunni sect
dominates the post of the prime minister and then they all quarrel
over the jurisdictions and denying the other confessions their rights
in shaping the history and future of Lebanon until they give up in
frustration?
It is true that this system is not being fair to all the confessions
in Lebanon starting with the Armenians and the Christian minorities
to the Alawites. But it is a bold step on the way to eradicate
political sectarianism stipulated in Article 95 of the Constitution.
When the largest number possible of confessions take part in running
this country, then their sense of national identity is reinforced,
mutual distrust disappears and fears and concerns vanish.
Our apologies to all those who still dream of a day where all
confessional identities disappear in favor of national identity and
then naively try to impose patriotism.
I can’t imagine the orient without religions or a society without
minorities. Lebanon lies in the heart of this eastern part of the
world and the Lebanese community is composed of large minorities of a
confessional nature. So why do we lie to each other? And why do we
ignore each other or challenge each other? No one can eliminate the
other or even live without the other. Our fates are linked to the
fate of the community as a whole. That’s why we have to always
picture modern systems that sponsor co-existence in a fair and modern
manner. These systems should be tailored to Lebanon’s needs, they
should be neither copied from foreign systems nor imposed on us. This
alternation in the presidencies between the confessions is an attempt
to picture solutions to some of the challenges that are somehow
difficult our societies are facing. This solution does not claim to
be comprehensive and does not claim to be the perfect solution that I
look forward to. It is a real attempt that stands in the face of the
cycle of irrationality that is paralyzing our initiatives. Whoever
believes that the “truth” in Lebanon is only to safeguard this
constitutional equation (the charter and Taif Accord) is like a
tourist riding in a taxi that has run out of gas and believes that he
reached his destination!
So, to all those who are convening in the name of the dialogue and
are aiming to reach a settlement for the country, I urge you to not
let this stage of our long national journey pass us by. Gather all
your ideas and initiatives before the country burns down!
Rabieh al-Shaer
Adviser in Public Policies