Author: Jagharian Tania

CURRENTLY ARMENIAN ISSUE ON 2ND PLACE OF TURKEY’S FOREIGN AGENDA

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.05.2007 16:35 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkish FM Abdullah Gul secures the inflow of Islamic
capital into Turkey, with the help of which he contributes both to
the development of the ruling Justice and Development (AKP) party
and the Turkish business, Anoush Hovhannisyan, research assistant of
the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RA NAS (National Academy of
Sciences) stated at the round table organized by the Turkish Department
of that institute. She said it is being done in order Turkey would
become an example for other Islamic countries. "Currently Armenian
issue is on the 2nd place of Turkey’s foreign agenda. However taking
into account the recent agreement between Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan
and Russia on constructing Caspian gas pipeline the Armenian issue
may appear in the first place. If Iran joins the project, it means
that Moscow-Tehran-Yerevan axis can become a reality," she underscored.

GENOCIDE MUSEUM DIRECTOR SAYS NO CHANCES TO CHANGE SAFAROV’S VERDICT

Panorama.am
19:36 18/05/2007

Defense attorneys of Ramil Safarov, an Azerbaijani military who
stabbed an Armenian officer in Hungary, say that they are going
to appeal life sentence in Hungarian Appeal Court. Haik Demoyan,
director of Genocide Museum, told a news conference today "there
are no chances to change the verdict." He said the newly appointed
Azerbaijani defense attorneys just want to show they can do something.

WATCHDOG CONCERNED ABOUT DEATH IN ARMENIAN POLICE CUSTODY
By Ruzanna Stepanian and Emil Danielyan

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
May 18 2007

An international human rights organization has joined its Armenian
counterparts in demanding a "thorough and independent" inquiry into
last week’s death in police custody of a young man widely regarded
as the latest victim of police brutality in Armenia.

Levon Gulian died on Saturday while being questioned at the Armenian
police headquarters as a presumed witness of a deadly shooting that
took place outside his Yerevan restaurant earlier last week. The
police claimed that during the interrogation he tried to escape
through a window but slipped and fell to his death from the second
floor of the police building.

Gulian’s family vehemently rejected this theory, saying that
the 30-year-old father of two was tortured to death by police
investigators. Family members say his body carries numerous traces of
violence and will not be buried until it is examined by independent
forensic experts. More than a dozen of them, joined by Armenian human
rights and other civic activists, demonstrated outside the national
Police Service on Tuesday.

"We will go to the end," said Gulian’s sister Armine. "We will do
everything to have the guilty punished."

"I suspect that Levon’s death was caused by torture. Let the police
prove the opposite," Artak Kirakosian of the Civil Society Institute,
told an ensued news conference.

Aaron Rhodes, executive director of the International Helsinki
Federation for Human Rights (IHF), described these suspicions as
"legitimate" in a letter to Lieutenant-General Hayk Harutiunian,
chief of the Police Service, sent on Thursday. Rhodes cited a "past
record of suspicious cases of death in police custody in Armenia
and the fact that torture and ill-treatment by the police remain
serious problems." He urged Harutiunian to "ensure that all the
circumstances leading to [Gulian’s] death be investigated thoroughly
and independently."

The outcry already forced Harutiunian to order earlier this week an
internal police inquiry into the extraordinary incident, which is
also being investigated by Armenian prosecutors. The Office of the
Prosecutor-General launched a criminal case under an article of the
Armenian Criminal Code that deals with cases where individuals are
forced to commit suicide.

The dead man’s relatives fear this is a sign that the prosecutors
will clear the police of any wrongdoing. They wrote to Prime Minister
Serzh Sarkisian on Tuesday, asking him to prevent what they see as
a high-level cover-up.

Sarkisian assured reporters on Wednesday that he took the relatives’
concerns seriously. "Once the [police] inquiry is over, relevant
bodies will provide information to the public," he said.

Gulian was the owner of a restaurant in Yerevan’s southern Shengavit
district near which a man was shot dead on May 9 in a reported dispute
between two groups of unknown individuals. Gulian was detained and
questioned for two days at Shengavit’s police department. He was set
free only to be again arrested by the Police Service’s Directorate
General of Criminal Investigations. Family members say Gulian told
them that he was badly mistreated by the Shengavit police before being
driven to his last interrogation by Hovik Tamamian, deputy chief of
the feared police unit.

Tamamian is known as a figure close to President Robert Kocharian who
played a major role in a 2004 government crackdown on the Armenian
opposition. He was sacked as chief of central Yerevan’s police
department and given his current post last year, reportedly under
pressure from the police leadership.

Sayad Shirinian, the chief police spokesman, chided the press on
Wednesday for "speculating" about Tamamian’s possible involvement
in the man’s death. "If it is established that Hovik Tamamian was
involved, all of us will condemn him," he said.

According to local and Western watchdogs, torture and mistreatment
in custody are the most common form of human rights violations in
Armenia. The practice seems to have continued unabated since the
Armenian parliament’s ratification in 2002 of the European Convention
for the Prevention of Torture and the European Convention on Human
Rights.

Malaysia Sun, Malaysia
May 19 2007

Majority around the world reject U.S. role of world policeman

Malaysia Sun
Saturday 19th May, 2007

A multinational poll finds that people around the world reject the
idea that the United States should play the role of pre-eminent world
leader.

Most people say the United States plays the role of world policeman
more than it should, fails to take their country’s interests into
account and cannot be trusted to act responsibly.

But the survey also finds that majorities in most countries want the
United States to participate in international efforts to address
world problems. Views are divided about whether the United States
should reduce the number of military bases it has overseas. Moreover,
many people think their country’s relations with the United States
are improving.

Americans largely agree with the rest of the world: most do not think
the United States should remain the world’s pre-eminent leader and
prefer that it play a more cooperative role. They also believe the
United States plays the role of world policeman more than it should.

This is the fourth in a series of reports based on a worldwide poll
about key international issues conducted by The Chicago Council on
Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org, in cooperation with
polling organizations around the world. The larger study includes
polls in China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, France,
Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the
Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel and Armenia – plus
the Palestinian territories.

The people polled represent about 56 percent of the world’s
population. Not all questions were asked in all countries.

Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org notes the poll
reinforces the conclusions of other recent global surveys, which have
found that the United States’ image abroad is bad and growing worse.
But he added that it goes further, exploring what kind of role the
international community would like the United States to play in the
world.

`This survey shows that despite the negative views of US foreign
policy, people around the world do not want the United States to
disengage from international affairs, but rather to participate in a
more cooperative and multilateral fashion,’ Kull said.

Majorities in all 15 of the countries polled about the United States’
role in the world reject the idea that `as the sole remaining
superpower, the US should continue to be the pre-eminent world leader
in solving international problems.’ However majorities in only two
areas (Argentina and the Palestinian territories) say that the United
States `should withdraw from most efforts to solve international
problems.’ The preferred view in all of the other cases is that the
United States `should do its share in efforts to solve international
problems together with other countries.’

In Asia, large majorities embrace the idea that the United States
should play a cooperative role in South Korea (79%) and China (68%).
A majority of Filipinos (55%) and a plurality of Indians (42%) also
take this view, but they are among the few with substantial numbers
saying the United States should play the role of the pre-eminent
world leader: 20 percent in the Philippines and 34 percent in India.
They are also relatively reluctant to support a co-operative role
(47%), but very few endorse a pre-eminent role (8%) or disengagement
(18%), while 27 percent declined to answer.

In Europe, the French are those most emphatic in their support for a
co-operative role (75%), followed by Armenia (58%). A majority of
Ukrainians (52%) also support this position, but an unusually high
number (34%) supports US disengagement. In Russia, a plurality (42%)
favors a co-operative role, but this is barely more than the
percentage (38%) that favors disengagement.

In Latin America, about six in ten Peruvians (61%) and Mexicans (59%)
believe the United States should cooperate with other countries to
solve international problems. However, as mentioned above, Argentines
are one of only two countries favoring US withdrawal from
international efforts with 55 percent taking this position and 34
percent in favor of co-operation.

In the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians differ sharply. A
majority of Palestinians favor US disengagement (55%) while more than
a third (36%) prefers co-operation. Israelis are more in line with
most other people in that 62 percent favor US co-operation, but they
also show the second highest level of support (after India) for the
US taking the role of pre-eminent leader (24%).

Americans match the French in their support for the United States
doing its share together with other nations (75%), with small numbers
favoring a preeminent role (10%) or isolationism (12%).

Majorities in 13 out of 15 countries polled say the United States is
`playing the role of world policeman more than it should be.’ This is
the sentiment of about three-quarters or more of those polled in:
France (89%), Australia (80%), China (77%), Russia (76%), Peru (76%),
the Palestinian territories (74%) and South Korea (73%).

The US public is also among those most convinced that the United
States too often plays the role of world policeman. Seventy-six
percent of Americans agree that their country is overdoing such
activities.

In only one country does a majority disagree with the idea that the
United States tends to take on the role of international enforcer
more than it should: the Philippines. Fifty-seven percent of
Filipinos reject the idea that the United States plays a police role
too often, while only a third (31%) agrees that it does.

Israelis, who are the United States’ closest allies in the Middle
East, are divided over whether the United States plays the global
policeman role too often. Forty-eight percent of Israelis agree and
forty-eight percent disagree.

The five other countries where majorities believe the United States
is too often acting as world policeman are: Indonesia (68%), Ukraine
(67%), Armenia (63%), Argentina (62%) and India (53%). In India, a
country which has been among the most positive about the United
States in recent years, a third (33%) disagrees.

The survey also asks respondents in nine countries whether the United
States has the `responsibility to play the role of `world policeman,’
that is to fight violations of international law and aggression
wherever they occur.’ Majorities in eight of the nine countries say
the United States does not have the responsibility to fight
aggression and enforce international law. The exception is India,
where a slight majority (53%) says the US does have this
responsibility while a third (35%) says it does not.

Palestinians (76%) are the most likely of the people surveyed to
answer that the United States does not have such a responsibility.
The next most likely are Americans themselves. Three-quarters of
Americans (75%) reject the idea that their country has a duty to
enforce international law.

Strong majorities of Armenians (70%), Australians (70%), Indonesians
(69%), and Ukrainians (69%) also agree that the United States does
not have this responsibility.

The United States’ greatest economic and military rival in
Asia – China – and one of its closest allies – South Korea – are equally
likely to reject the idea that the US government has a duty to
enforce international law. Sixty-one percent of Chinese and60 percent
of South Koreans answer no. South Koreans are only somewhat more
likely to say yes (39%) than the Chinese (30%).

In 10 out of 15 countries, the most common view is that the United
States cannot be trusted to `act responsibly in the world.’
Respondents were allowed to choose whether the United States could be
trusted `a great deal,’ `somewhat,’ `not very much’ or `not at all.’

Two Latin American countries show the least trust in the United
States. An overwhelming 84 percent of Argentines answer that they
have little confidence in the United States, including 69 percent who
think the United States cannot be trusted at all. Eight in ten
Peruvians (80%) also think the US cannot be trusted (23% not at all).

Most Russian and French respondents agree. Nearly three-quarters of
Russians (73%) express little trust and a third (31%) says the United
States cannot be trusted at all. The French are almost equally
skeptical: 72 percent do not trust the United States to behave
responsibly, including 30 percent who do not trust it at all.

Also among those who believe the United States generally cannot be
trusted are: Indonesians (64%), Armenians (59%), Chinese (59%), Thais
(56%) and South Koreans (53%). Half of Indian respondents (50%) also
express little or no confidence.

In four countries, majorities say the United States can be at least
somewhat trusted to act responsibly. Filipinos (85%) are the most
willing to trust the United States and half of them think the United
States can be trusted a great deal (48%). Eight in ten Israelis (81%)
also believe this. They are also the most willing to say the United
States can be trusted a great deal (56%). Australians (59%) also tend
to trust the United States (18% a great deal).

In two eastern European countries, about half believe the United
States can be trusted: 51 percent in Poland – though most of these
(44%) think the United States can only be trusted somewhat – and 49
percent in Ukraine, 31 percent of whom answer somewhat. About a third
of Poles (32%) and Ukrainians (37%) say the United States cannot be
trusted and large numbers are uncertain (17% and 24% respectively).

US Willingness to Consider Other Interests

Of the seven countries polled on this question, five believe the
United States does not take their interests into account when making
foreign policy decisions. Only in Israel does a large majority
believe that the United States takes their interest into account.
Indians are divided. In the other five countries, majorities answer
`not very much’ or `not at all’ when asked whether the United States
takes their interests into account.

Three former Soviet-bloc countries are the most likely to think that
the United States fails to consider their concerns. Although Poles
tend to have fairly positive views of the United States,
three-quarters (76%) think that the United States does not take their
interests into account very much (57%) or does not do so at all
(19%).

Two-thirds of Russians (66%) also think the United States ignores
their interests, including a third who think it ignores them entirely
(33%). Ukrainian feelings are similar: 63 percent say the United
States tends not to take their interests into account, including 38
percent who say it does not take them into account at all.

In Asia, the most common view in two countries (China and Thailand)
is that their interests are not considered by the United States when
making foreign policy decisions. A majority of Chinese (58%) believe
this, of whom 23 percent say the US does not do so at all. A
plurality of Thais (49%) say the United States does not take their
interests into account (30% not very much, 19% not at all) compared
to 23 percent who believe it does (15% somewhat, 8% a great deal).

However Indians are divided. Forty-six percent say the United States
does not take their interests into account (23% not at all), while 44
percent say that it does take their interests into account (24%
somewhat, 20% a great deal).

The Israelis stand out as the only country where a strong majority
(57%) says that the United States takes their interests into account
a great deal while an additional 25 percent say that it does so
somewhat. Thus a remarkable total of 82 percent of Israelis say that
the United States takes their interests into account. A mere 14
percent disagree.

US Overseas Military Bases

Despite the widespread belief that the United States should not be
the world’s pre-eminent leader and that it plays the role of world
policeman more than it should, countries express mixed views about
whether the United States should reduce its military presence around
the world. Nonetheless, very few support increasing the number of
bases.

Twelve publics were asked whether the United States should have more,
fewer or the same number of long-term bases overseas. In six of them,
including the US public, majorities or pluralities think the United
States should maintain or increase the number of bases it maintains
overseas. In five countries, majorities call for reductions. One
country – India, again – is divided.

Those most in favor of the United States’ at least maintaining its
overseas military presence are Filipinos, Americans Israelis and
Poles. Those most likely to support a decreased presence are
Argentines, Palestinians, the French and the Chinese.

Filipinos – whose government forced the United States to shut down
its last base on Philippine territory 15 years ago – are the most
likely to say that the United States should maintain its long-term
overseas military presence. Nearly four in five respondents in the
Philippines (78%) say the United States should either keep `about as
many’ bases as now (60%) or add more bases (18%).

Sixty-eight percent of Americans think the United States should
either keep as many bases as now (53%) or add bases (15%). Only 27
percent say the United States should have fewer bases.

A majority of Israelis (59%) believe the United States should
maintain a strong military presence overseas. Of these, 39 percent
say the United States should keep its current number of bases and 20
percent say it should have more.

Respondents in Poland – one of the United States’ staunchest allies
in Europe – also believe the United States should keep as many or
more military bases overseas as it has today (54%). Most of these
(45%) believe the United States should maintain the same number of
bases and 9 percent believe there should be more.

Pluralities in Armenia and Thailand favor keeping or increasing US
overseas bases over decreasing them. Armenians are in favor of
maintaining the US military presence abroad by a margin of 42 percent
to 37 percent. Thais support it by a margin of 34 percent to 25
percent, with 41 percent not answering.

Of the twelve countries polled, Argentines are those most in favor of
shutting down US bases overseas (75%). Palestinians and the French
are next with seven in ten (70% and 69% respectively) saying the
United States should reduce its military presence abroad.

A majority of Chinese – an emerging military and economic power in
Asia – also thinks the United States should have fewer bases. Three
in five (63%) say it should reduce its overseas presence.

A majority of Ukrainians (62%) think that the United States should
have fewer bases while 13 percent say it should keep the current
number. Only 3 percent think it needs more and 22 percent are unsure.

Indians are evenly divided between those who say the United States
should increase or maintain its bases overseas and those who believe
it should decrease them. Thirty nine percent believe the US needs
more (26%) or the same number (13%) and 39 percent say it should have
fewer. About a fifth of Indian respondents (22%) are unsure.

Also contrary to the largely negative views of the United States’
role in the world is the perception in some countries – including some
that are highly critical of the United States – that bilateral
relations with the United State States are improving. Eleven
countries were asked whether relations of their country with the
United States were `improving, worsening, or staying about the same.’

Six of the eleven countries say their relations with the United
States show signs of improvement, including majorities in India (58%)
and China (53%) and pluralities in Australia (50%), Armenia (48%),
Indonesia (46%) and Thailand (37%).

In the remaining five countries, majorities or pluralities say
relations with the United States are staying about the same: 60
percent in Poland, 56 percent in South Korea, 52 percent in Israel,
52 percent in the Ukraine, and 45 percent in Russia.

In no country, does even a plurality think relations are getting
worse. South Korea has the largest minority saying that relations
with the United States are worsening (34%), followed by Thailand
(28%) and Indonesia (23%). Among the other eight countries, only 8
percent to 20 percent feel this way.

`The publics in many countries differentiate between their negative
views of the US international role and their perceptions of bilateral
relations, which are seen as improving in a significant number of
countries, even some that are highly critical of the United States,’
said Christopher Whitney, executive director for studies at The
Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

IMPEACHMENT REPRESENTATIVE’S SIT-IN CONTINUES

Noyan Tapan
May 17 2007

YEREVAN, MAY 17, NOYAN TAPAN. The sit-in of representative of
Impeachment bloc, Haykakan Zhamanak newspaper’s editor Nikol Pashinian
continues in Yerevan’s Freedom Square. The action is held under the
motto "The future of our country depends on one person and this person
is you."

Currently 30 supporters take part in the action. Among them are
Chairman of Democratic Homeland Party Petros Makeyan, representatives
of Social-Democrat Hnchak Party. Vice-Chairman of Democratic Way
Party Vardan Grigorian had come to support N. Pashinian in the morning.

As Chairman of Sargis Tkhruni Youth Organization of Social-Democrat
Hnchak Party affirmed, N. Pashinian’s sit-in can be an appeal for
struggle and a stimulus for thousands of people. In his words, such
actions will anable to put an end to people’s despair.

AK PARTY HAS ROOM TO IMPROVE IN HUMAN RIGHTS REFORM — REPORT
AyÞe Karabat Ankara

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
May 16 2007

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has given a
number of reassurances relating to the health, welfare and freedoms
of its citizens during its time in power. However, although it has
kept some of these promises, it has also fallen short of the mark in
many instances.

One of the promises of the AK Party government, as stated in its
"emergency action plan," was that — within one month — "arrangements
related to basic rights and freedoms will be speedily made within
the framework of universally recognized standards and norms and the
EU criteria." However one the obstacles to freedom of expression
in Turkey, namely Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), was
actually prepared by the AK Party government. This article makes
insulting "Turkishness" a crime. Since this article became law,
charges have been brought in more than 60 cases, some of which
have been against high-profile figures, including Nobel Laureate
Orhan Pamuk. Despite the fact that Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, in
the wake of the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink —
earlier prosecuted under Article 301 — declared that "in its current
form there are certain problems with Article 301. We see now that
there are changes that must be made to this law" the article still
remains intact.

The AK Party government also promised that "all the amendments required
to be made to judicial services and procedures for establishment of
justice shall be realized quickly in a fast and timely manner." It
said that this would be done within a period of one year. The
government made some changes in the TCK and also to the Code of
Criminal Procedures. These changes in the law honored most of the
promises, but were not implemented; instead some steps back were
taken. For example, without the permission of public prosecutors,
the police will not be allowed to carry out searches or detentions.

However this principle was criticized by some segments of society as
a way of tying the hands of the police, so the government gave on
its implementation. Some reforms were made in order to enforce the
defense in the courts, such as cross examination, but these needed
amendments to the structure of the courts that have not yet been made.

Another promise in the emergency action plan was as follows: "Turkey
will urgently be based on a state of law. To this end all kinds of
legal arrangements will be made and related applications will be
followed up very closely," but the government was not able to shed
light on some controversial cases, such as Þemdinli.

Two noncommissioned officers and a former member of the outlawed
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) have been jailed for their role in the
bombing of a bookshop in the eastern township of Þemdinli near Hakkari
in 2005. For many the bombing confirmed suspicions that the military
in Turkey sometimes acted outside the law. Local prosecutor Ferhat
Sarýkaya — who indicted some high-ranking army personnel, including
the now Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt, who called one of
the soldiers concerned a "good boy" — was later removed from office
and barred from the legal profession. Buyukanýt called the Þemdinli
affair a "legal disaster" that he said had involved an attempt to
defame the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdoðan, in a statement, termed the remarks by the top commander
"proper" and "statesmanlike."

The government also promised to increase transparency by holding
regular meetings with other political parties, nongovernmental
organizations and media organizations for information sharing and
an exchange of opinions. Erdoðan once held a meeting with "Kurdish
intellectuals," but did not take further steps in this regard.

As far as the social policy goes, the government kept its promise
to "urgently identify the families below the starvation line and
implement effective support programs for such families within
three months." However, its statement that "correcting income
distribution and protecting poor segments of society will be taken
into consideration in all kinds of arrangements to be made in the
field of social policies" was not totally adhered to. Mean while the
promise that "basic education and health support will be provided
to children of poor families" was also kept; poor families now get
regular state aid for their school-age children.

Meanwhile there were scandals in state-run childcare, like that
at the Malatya orphanage where toddlers were seriously beaten and
abused. Elsewhere some youngsters supposedly under state protection
were proven to be missing.

The government at the education sector promised administrative and
academic autonomy along with the restructuring of the Higher Education
Board (YOK). The government prepared a draft bill on the matter, but
since it included the removal of obstacles to imam-hatip high school
graduates entering universities, the bill was vetoed by President
Ahmet Necdet Sezer. The government did not pursue the matter.

–Boundary_(ID_t+q9LTUC6w+2OwSe3iwT5Q)–

ARMENIA CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A POOR COUNTRY ANY LONGER
By H. Chaqrian

AZG Armenian Daily
16/05/2007

Yesterday "Azg", basing upon numerous articles published in the Turkish
press, wrote that Turkey has estimated positively the parliamentary
elections in Armenia and their results. In Turkey the public opinion
is formed by the mass media and the official position of the Government
is expressed by the Eurasian Strategic Research Center, Ankara.

These circumstances come to emphasize the importance of the Center’s
comments on the Armenian elections, especially when made by Lutem. This
is on of his statements available at the Armenian Studies Institute’s
website.

"According to the information received, the ruling Republican party
("Hanrapetakan"- Azg) has won the majority. Although the number of
votes gained has increased, they did not suffice to provide absolute
majority in the Parliament for the Republican Party, as it had
been expected. This means that the Government will be formed by the
coalition led by the Republican Party and including "Dashnaktsutiun"
and probably other lesser parties, as it has been for the last 7 years.

After the collapse of the USSR Armenia faced serious problems. Armenian
economy was ruined, the government was unable to import energy carriers
and sometimes there was lack of food. In spite of Armenia’s success
in its war with Azerbaijan for Karabakh, its economic resources
were wasted.

After the armistice signed with Azerbaijan in 1994, life conditions
in Armenia started to improve. But the political crisis did not come
to end. Then the group led by Prime Minister Robert Kocharian forced
President Levon Ter-Petrosian to resign his office.

Kocharian took his place, but the tension in the political arena
of Armenia went on growing, until on November 27, 1999 the Prime
Minister of Armenia and a number of deputies were murdered in the
Hall of the Armenian National Assembly. After the strongest opposition
representatives were dead, Robert Kocharian and his faithful fellows
led by Defense Minister Serge Sarkisian continued implementation of
their policy, of which the main terns are the following."

First, establishment of free market economy. Due to this policy Armenia
managed to set the country’s economy on balance in a short time,
nevertheless social inequity grew. Thus a great number of millionaires
appeared in a country where most of the population were poors.

Unlike Ter-Petrosian, Kocharian did a lot to develop the relationships
with the Armenian Diaspora. After this investments from the Diaspora
flowed into the economy of Armenia, which helped to improve the
situation. Armenia GDP started growing by about 10% yearly, and made
up $1500 per head average instead of $900-1000. Armenia cannot be
considered a poor country any longer.

Without resigning pro-Russian orientation, Armenia developed relations
with the USA and the EU. In result Armenia insured influx of certain
finance assets, and achieved that most European states took neutral
of pro-Armenian position on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

On the other hand, Kocharian and his counterparts assumed
irreconcilable position against Turkey and Azerbaijan, and that policy,
in despite of all negotiations, created background for stalemate in
the Karabakh question and made impossible any yield on Armenia’s
side. Endless controversies started between Armenia and Turkey on
the issue of the Genocide.

It is obvious that Armenian public supports such toughness, which
insures support for Kocharian and his team. At the same time such
policy causes Turkey to keep the border with Armenia shut.

It was supposed that such policy would change next year latest, as
Kocharian, having held the office of President for two terms, having
no opportunity of being re-elected, is to yield his chair to someone
else. But unexpectedly, the appointment of Serge Sarkisian on the
office of the Prime Minister of Armenia and the victory of Sarkisian’s
"Republican " party in the parliamentary elections this year, the
latter became the most favored candidate on the coming presidential
elections. If so, one can surely say that Serge Sarkisian, who has
been supporting Robert Kocharian through 10 years of political career,
will continue Kocharian’s policy when becoming President of Armenia."

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION COULD HAVE MORE SEATS IF CONSOLIDATED – PARTY LEADER

Arminfo
15 May 07

Yerevan, 15 May: The Armenian opposition could have 30 per cent in
the fourth parliament if it had not vaporized its votes due to the
personal ambitions of some of their leaders and had consolidated
in the election, Vahan Hovhannisyan, a member of the ARF [Armenian
Revolutionary Federation] Dashnaktsutyun and deputy speaker of
parliament, told a news conference today.

"The counting of votes gained by the opposition forces shows that they
received 30 per cent of the votes but because of the opposition’s
disunity, only two of them, Orinats Yerkir with 6.9 per cent and
Heritage with 5.8 per cent made it to the parliament. I think this
will be a good lesson for the opposition," he said.

He also considered it interesting that a pro-Western opposition force
has come to replace the pro-Russian opposition in parliament. "This
indicates a shift in Armenian society’s foreign orientation. I spoke
about this trend a few months ago," Hovhannisyan said. He also ruled
out a possible escalation of the situation in the post-election period.

Prospering Armenia party surprised with its low results

ArmInfo.
2007-05-13 16:57:00

Prospering Armenia party is surprised with its unexpectedly low
results – only 14.7% of votes.

REGNUM reports the member of the party Aram Isabekyan to say that the
elections were normal and the party is glad that the international
observers have approved of the voting process.

To note, the leader of the party is well-known Armenian businessman
Gagik Tsarukyan. The party does not have a clear ideology. Its key
trump is its charitable activity. Earlier experts said that the party
was the president’s project aimed at gaining over part of the
opposition electorate. The party says that it has 400,000 members but
experts doubt that and low 14.7% support has proved their doubts.

To remind, according to the preliminary results, Prospering Armenia
got 204,443 votes (14.7%). Only RPA is ahead with 457,032
(32.8%). ARFD has got 177,192 votes (12.7%), Orinats Yerkir – 95,256
votes (6.8%), Heritage – 80,890 votes (5.8%), United Labor Party –
59,307 votes (4.2%).

Interfax, Russia
May 13 2007

Opposition rally under way in Yerevan

YEREVAN. May 13 (Interfax) – A rally organized by a number of
Armenian opposition parties has begun on Sunday afternoon in Yerevan.

Up to several thousand people are said to take part in the rally.
Initially, three opposition parties, including the Republic Party,
the New Times Party and the Impeachment opposition bloc planned to
stage the rally. Later, a number of other Armenian opposition
parties, which according to final results failed to overcome a 5%
barrier and secure seats in the parliament, joined them in the
protest action.

Opposition politicians presented at the rally information on
violations and falsifications, which as they claim were registered at
the May 13 parliamentary elections.

"We cannot acknowledge the results of the elections, because such
elections humiliate the dignity of our nation. We are ready to
cooperate will all forces that will fight for fair elections," leader
of the opposition Armenian People’s Party Stepan Demirchian said. ar