Author: Kalashian Nyrie

Eurasia Daily Monitor

Thursday, May 31, 2007 — Volume 4, Issue 106

CENTRAL ASIA-EUROPE ENERGY PROJECTS IN CRISIS: ITEMIZING WHAT WENT
WRONG

by Vladimir Socor

The Kremlin-orchestrated summits in Central Asia and Austria this
month turned into a cascade of setbacks to Western-proposed energy transit
projects for Europe. At these summits from May 11 through 24, Turkmenistan
and Kazakhstan agreed to maximize gas deliveries to Russia while practically
disavowing the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline to Europe for lack of
Russian consent. Kazakhstan for the first time declined to join the
Odessa-Brody-Poland oil pipeline project, unless it is transformed to
include Russia. Moreover, Kazakhstan committed additional massive oil
volumes for export via Russia, instead of the proposed trans-Caspian oil
transport system by tankers, westward into the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
Finally, Austria, initiator of the European Union’s Nabucco project for
Caspian gas to Europe bypassing Russia, has now agreed to increase the
import and transit of Gazprom’s gas.

In retrospect, it is not difficult to itemize what went wrong on the
ground with each of the Western-backed projects. In most cases, what went
wrong was fairly clear all along (see EDM, March 13, 16, 26, April 5, May
10, 14, 16, 17, 29).

Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline Project

1) The U.S. and EU did not develop specific commercial offers to
Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan regarding the price for their gas and financing
of the proposed pipeline to Europe.

2) After 2003, Washington and Brussels made a political decision to
stop dealing on gas with Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan’s autocrat. This
was a criterion that the U.S. and EU never applied to oil-rich Middle
Eastern autocracies; that the Democratic Clinton administration had not
applied to Niyazov when it launched and promoted this project; and that the
Pentagon did not apply to its good relationship with Turkmenistan in support
of operations in Afghanistan.

3) Instead of targeting Turkmenistan’s vast reserves of gas, the U.S.
quite late in the game designated Kazakhstan as anchor of the trans-Caspian
project, although Kazakhstan’s gas export potential is far smaller than
Turkmenistan’s and also more expensive to bring on stream.

4) Having to bear alone the brunt of Russian pressure, Kazakhstan
announced in March-April 2007 that it could not join this project without
Russian consent.

5) When Washington and Brussels finally reactivated relations with
Turkmenistan in early 2007 following Niyazov’s death, they apparently
lacked — or had deprived themselves of — instruments and channels to
influence the new Turkmen leadership’s policy choices.

Trans-Caspian Oil Transport System Proposal

1) A strategic blunder, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s (CPC) oil
pipeline, projected to take a staggering 64 million tons of oil annually
from Kazakhstan to Russia, was built by U.S. oil companies with U.S.
government approval from the late 1990s to 2001. It now haunts U.S. policy
in the region and the companies themselves. Currently operating at some 27
million tons annually pending enlargement, this pipeline exercises a
powerful suction effect on Kazakhstan’s growing oil output and export,
detracting from the proposed trans-Caspian oil transport system westward and
to the detriment of the U.S. government-backed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

2) The EU accepted without objection Russia’s agreement in March with
Bulgaria and Greece to construct the Burgas-Alexandropolis pipeline, the
first Russian state-controlled pipeline on EU territory. In effect
prolonging the CPC pipeline, this agreement enabled Russia’s decision in May
to enlarge the CPC pipeline’s capacity for an additional 17 million tons of
oil from Kazakhstan annually, long-term.

3) Washington (and to some extent Brussels) refrained from spending
political capital in opposing the Burgas-Alexandropolis project, deciding
instead to focus on keeping alive the troubled Nabucco project, only to face
the latter’s impending demise far sooner than anticipated.

Nabucco Gas Pipeline Project

1) Dramatically illustrating (as does CPC) the absence of a coherent
Western energy strategy in Eurasia, Italy’s state-controlled holding ENI
loaned the technology and financing for Gazprom’s pipeline, Blue Stream, on
the seabed of the Black Sea to Turkey. While making little commercial sense
in Turkey, this geopolitically motivated pipeline has positioned Gazprom one
long jump ahead of the EU-backed Nabucco in the race for European markets
through the Southern European Corridor (Turkey-Balkans-central Europe).

2) Initially designed by Austria to carry Iranian gas to Europe, the
Nabucco project was delayed for years by implacable and continuing U.S.
opposition to development of Iran’s gas fields.

3) Western failure to engage with Turkmenistan (see above) deprived
Nabucco of that possible source of gas for Europe.

4) Due to factors two and three, Washington had to insist that
Azerbaijani gas alone (expected to flow in coming years to eastern Turkey)
could support both Nabucco and the planned Turkey-Greece-Italy pipeline
simultaneously. This argument led to more questions and uncertainties.

5) Turkey’s government, driven by short-term tactical and political
considerations (often unrelated to energy policy as such), never came fully
on board the Nabucco project.

6) Hungary’s Socialist-led government (in a linchpin country on the
Nabucco route) seemed to switch sides, signaling a preference for Gazprom’s
Blue Stream in 2006-early 2007, even as Brussels and Washington intensified
political backing for the Nabucco project. Thus the stage was set for
Gazprom to expand into Austria under the agreements signed in May during
Putin’s visit there.

7) Hungary and perhaps other governments would by now accept turning
Nabucco into a `joint’ project with Gazprom — a move that would negate the
Nabucco project’s strategic rationale of carrying non-Russian gas to Europe
through a pipeline not under Russian control.

Odessa-Brody-Poland Oil Pipeline Project

1) Although supported by the EU, the pipeline has a capacity of only 9
million tons annually (augmentable to 15), a far cry from the larger
projects in terms of commercial attractiveness.

2) Since 2001, Russia has successfully blocked oil deliveries to
Odessa from Kazakhstan, including oil owned by U.S. companies and pumped
through the American-built CPC pipeline to Novorossiysk.

3) The option of shipping Kazakhstani oil to Odessa from Georgia’s
Black Sea terminals does not seem to have been seriously considered.

4) Ukraine has recently sent confusing signals, such as detouring the
Odessa-Brody pipeline into Slovakia’s transit pipeline under partial Russian
control, rather than prolonging it from Brody into Poland. Both President
Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych have aired the Slovak
option in recent months, adding to uncertainty among potential investors.

5) Russia has indirectly signaled that it might lift the blockage on
oil to Odessa, if Russia were included in the pipeline project to Poland —
a move that would, as in Nabucco’s case, defeat the project’s raison d’etre.

Itemizing what went wrong need not turn into a post-mortem analysis of
these projects. The retrospective assessment could lead to adoption of a
real U.S. and EU energy strategy in Eurasia for the first time.

–Vladimir Socor

Congressman Joseph Pitts cosponsors Armenian Genocide Resolution

ArmRadio.am
09.06.2007 12:36

Congressman Joseph Pitts (R-PA-16) recently announced that he will
cosponsor H. Res. 106, the Armenian Genocide Resolution. The
Congressman’s support was acquired through the efforts of the
Armenian-American constituents in his district led by ANC ofPA
activists, George Semerjian and Seeran and Greg Mizii. Congressman
Pitts and his staff met with Mr. Semerjian, Mr. & Mrs. Mizii and ANCA
Eastern Region Executive Director Karine Birazian in the Congressman’s
district office in Lancaster, Pennsylvania during which the Congressman
was informed of the extensive historical documentation of the Armenian
Genocide and the current genocides in the world.

H. Res. 106 calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy
of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity
concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and
genocide documented in the United States record relating to the
Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.

The Resolution introduced in the House of Representatives on January
30, 2007 by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and George Radanovich
(R-CA), and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs Frank Pallone
(D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) has 199 cosponsors, with growing
support each day.

Mrs. Mizii, and her husband Greg, have been active in the Republican
Party in the 16th district, and are elected Republican Committee
members. Following the meeting, Mrs. Mizii stated, `We have been
fortunate to have Cong. Pitts represent our conservative, Christian,
and republican values in beautiful Lancaster County. We have known
Congressman Pitts always as a man of principle and conscience. To me,
this Resolution also stands for truth, justice, freedom of speech and
freedom of religion.’

To date, eight of the 19 Pennsylvania representatives have signed on to
the legislation, and the ANC of PA is continuing its efforts throughout
the state. `We thank Congressman Pitts for his support and hope that
his commitment will inspire his colleagues in Washington on both sides
of the aisle to pass this important legislation. It is critical that
our government recognize, condemn, and prevent the crime of genocide to
demonstrate our compassion as a nation and our value for life and human
rights,’ commented ANC of PA Chairman Dr. Ara Chalian following
cosponsorship by Cong. Pitts.

HEARING OF AZERBAIJANI SOLDIER CHARGED WITH TREASON BEGINS

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
June 8 2007

Azerbaijan, Baku / Trend corr.E.Javadova / The preparation hearing
of Eldaniz Nuriyev, charged with treason, was presided over by Judge
Mammadbagir Zeynalov in the Azerbaijani Court of Grave Crimes on
8 June.

The hearing will start on 14 June. In compliance with the decision
of the Court it will be a closed hearing.

Nuriyev is charged with changing shifts of guards, desertion and
treason. Nuriyev was called up to military service from the Fizuli
region Armed Commissariat.

After five months Nuriyev left the Fizuli region N Military Department
without permission and was taken into prison by Armenians.

In compliance with the bill of indictment, the soldier, who left the
Military Department, operated against Azerbaijan and relayed State
secrets to the opponent country.

ISSUE OF UNFAILING WORK OF GEORGIAN AND ARMENIAN GAS TRANSPORTING SYSTEMS UNDER DISCUSSION

Noyan Tapan
Jun 08 2007

YEREVAN, JUNE 8, NOYAN TAPAN. A joint consultation on issues of normal
activities of the gas transporting systems of the North Caucasus,
Georgia and Armenia was held in the administrative building of
ArmRusgazprom CJSC with the participation of representatives of
Gazprom OJSC, Gazexport, Kovkaztransgaz and Georgia’s gas transporting
companies.

The problem of unforseen fluctuations in the gas consumption regime,
especially in winter, in the gas transporting systems of Georgia
and Armenia was discussed at the consultation. This problem causes
difficulties in securing the agreement-envisaged volumes of gas supply,
as well as in operation of gas pipelines.

According to Alexander Kiriev, head of Gazprom OJSC Central Control
Service Regime Optimation Unit, they are interested in reliability of
gas supply and increasing its security and are ready to assist with
all technical and organizational work in order to reduce the risks
in the system to the minimum and avoid fluctuations of regimes.

Underlining the necessity for multilateral technical agreements
in this issue’s regulation, the consultation participants proposed
carrying out preparatory work for making document drafts.

In order to solve the discussed problem, ArmRusgazprom proposed
considering the issue of increasing storage volumes of the Abovian
underground gas depot which will also be used for regulation of the
Georgian gas transporting system’s regimes.

"ARMSWISSBANK" BECAME THE FIRST BANK OPERATING IN ARMENIAN FINANCIAL MARKET, WHICH WAS GRANTED A LICENSE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF BROKERAGE AND CUSTODY OPERATIONS

Mediamax News Agency, Armenia
June 7 2007

Yerevan, June 7 /Mediamax/. "Armswissbank" CJSC became the first bank
operating in Armenian financial market, which was granted a license
for implementation of brokerage and custody operations.

Executive Director of "Armswissbank" Gevorg Machanian said this in
an interview to Mediamax.

He noted that due to the recent changes in the sphere of regulations,
commercial banks of Armenia gained the opportunity to take up
specialized investment banking activity – provision of brokerage and
custody services, as well as services on asset management.

The point, in particular, is the opportunity to carry out operations
with corporative securities. Earlier, the banks could realize such
operations only with state securities.

Gevorg Machanian stressed that, from the day when "Armswissbank"
was established, it stated its intention to position itself as an
investment bank. In fact, starting from May 30, the bank has the
authorities, necessary for that, he stated.

The Head of "Armswissbank" noted that in the nearest future, the bank
will secure the issue of corporative bonds of two major companies.

PRESIDENT KOCHARYAN THANKED THE GOVERNMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY

ArmRadio.am
06.06.2007 16:59

On June 6 RA President Robert Kocharyan chaired the last sitting of
the current Government. Information and Public Relations Department of
the Government informed Radiolur that before turning to agenda issues,
the President thanked members of Government for productive joint work.

He noted that the past four years have been productive for Armenia
and stood out for effective reforms, economic growth, which enabled
the Government to solve certain social problems. Robert Kocharyan
mentioned, however, that there is still much to do in a number of
spheres, and the next Government has a lot to do in this direction.

"The last elections showed that we are ready and able to have serious
success in the sphere of democratization. You all have made their
contribution to all this, which you can be proud of," the President
said.

UNDISCLOSED GEORGIAN-AMERICAN SECRETS: HISTORY HAS MORE TO TELL ABOUT MOSER
Ramaz Kartvelishvili

Daily Georgian Times, Georgia
June 4 2007

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia, and the emergence of the
Soviet Union on the ruins of the Russian Empire prompted the United
States’ appearance on the geopolitical arena. The US had it has its
own agenda for the future of the region, and in 1919, the US State
Department developed a strategy of how to deal with the former Russian
Empire. The US wanted to see the South Caucasian republics-Ukraine,
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Crimea, Karelia, Murmansky-districted as
separate territorial units independent of Russia. To carry out this
strategy, the US needed a foothold in the territory of the former
Russian Empire. It chose the South Caucasus as its plaform.

Aleksi Chokheli, a candidate of sciences of history, has been looking
at the geopolitical games of this period. Chokheli says that accepting
former colonies of the Turkish (Ottoman) and Russian Empire, and
also those of Germany (which was defeated in World War I) under the
status of the so-called ‘interim mandates’ was an expression of the
"common democratic spirit of the world."

In South Caucasus, the allies of the World War I offered an interim
mandate to Armenia. The mandate was intended to secure the Armenian
state. At the time, Georgian authorities were trying to have the US
mandate extended to Georgia as well.

The Georgian Times interviewed Chokheli about this period of history.

Q: History shows what a fiasco Europe and the US experienced in their
attempts to protect the South Caucasian states from Russian invasion.

They were left all alone in the face of Russia. The US even failed
to implement its mandate over Armenia.

A: A number of objective reasons can be cited to explain why this
happened. But I will now dwell on the role of the US consulate in
Georgia, which was spearheading the US policy in the South Caucasus.

More specifically, I will talk about its last boss, consul Charles
Moser. He witnessed the political turmoil that wracked Georgia in
those two years of crisis. I would say that that his performance,
and even his personality, shows the moderate course of the US that
proved so fatal for South Caucasus, including Georgia.

It is hard to say whether it was due to his political intuition or
pragmatic far-sighted policy, but history shows that the US established
its own consulate in Batumi even before World War I started, and when
the US joined the war, the consulate moved to Tbilisi.

The consulate served as a department of the General Consulate based in
Moscow, and after the demise of the Russian Empire, it was subordinated
directly to the US State Department. Following the invasion of Georgia
by the Tsarist Russian Empire the US consulate officially moved to
Constantinople, but in fact it stopped functioning.

Q: Did the US consulate serve as embassy as well, or was it strictly
limited to consulate duties?

A: It is rather obvious that when there is no embassy in a country,
the consulate assumes embassy status. The activity of the first
consul of the US to Georgia W. Smith is evidence of this. He served
in Georgia until June of 1919.

At that time, Tbilisi was a cultural and political hub in the South
Caucasus. Prime Minister of Armenia Khatisov-who once had even served
as Tbilisi Mayor-was based in Tbilisi and running Armenia from Georgia,
as his wife did not want to live in "remote" Yerevan.

Smith, who was born into a family of Americans residing somewhere
in the South Caucasus (perhaps even in Tbilisi), adapted to his new
position perfectly. He was well versed in the ethnic structure of the
South Caucasus and knew many political figures personally. Smith was
the ideal person to implement US policy in the South Caucasus as the
Russian empire was about to crumble.

In 1917, 1918 and in the first half 1919, the Atlantic States and
the US had two major issues on the agenda: to prevent Bolshevism from
taking over South Caucasus, and bring this region within the spheres
of its influence in the aftermath of World War I. These interests
even caused a latent diplomatic clash at Paris peace conference. The
documents giving evidence to this confrontation is widely covered in
American historic editions and the activity of the American consul
to Tbilisi W. Smith is granted its due place on these pages.

Reading the correspondence of Smith with high-ranking American
officials, one is astonished by his energetic and rather bold proposals
to the US Administration. Smith requested millions of dollars to fund
the South Caucasus commissariat (a federal government of Georgia,
Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1917-1918), tried to create a joint
Georgian-Armenian army of 150 000 soldiers, and worked on many other
initiatives in order to try and save the region, including Georgia,
from the Bolshevik invasion.

Q: Smith was recalled in summer 1919, when Charles Moser replaced
him. Moser’s memoirs are full of strong impressions about his personal
life, but he left almost no official document that would shed light
on his diplomatic work – something of more interest to us.

A: That is because he managed to concoct his memoirs to smartly avoid
talking about his diplomatic work. As for his correspondence, his
letters to the US State Department and other business communications
have never been published. Moreover, these were written in a code
that other consulates were using.

We can only speculate about why the documents related to Moser’s
political activity were not decoded and published. At the Paris peace
conference in 1919, the US and England made a deal and divided the
South Caucasus into discrete spheres of influence. The UK took over
Georgia, while giving Armenia’s mandate to the US. Following the
deal, the status of the American consulate in Tbilisi underwent a
major change. On July 5 of 1919, the Supreme Council of the allies
in Paris appointed American colonel Haskel as the High Commissioner
for Armenia, and the US Department delegated the management of the
US consulate in Tbilisi to Haskel.

The American colonel settled in Yerevan. Political changes have
somewhat bleached the importance of the US consulate and the US consul
in Tbilisi. Perhaps Moser’s documents also reflected the Smith-style
independent and bold consul policies. This still remains mystery.

The only document that has been unsealed is Moser’s answer to Armenia
which was kept in Georgia’s archives. Armenians expected that the
US would protect them from Turkey, and applied to the US consul with
this request. Replying to the request, Moser wrote: "Although the US
recognized the republic of Armenia and helped it as it could, the US
administration never assumed an obligation to protect the Armenian
people or to provide military support. Therefore, it cannot take
responsibility [for dealing with] the current crisis." The letter
shows the restrained position of the US in implementing the mandate
of Armenia. On the other hand, the letter suggests that the US consul
took a low-key position in his diplomacy work in the South Caucasus.

Q: Moser’s memoirs show that he knew and liked Georgia and Georgians
but there was no love lost between him and Georgian authorities. What
was the cause of disagreement?

A: Before arriving in Georgia as a professional diplomat Charles
Moser-who had experience of diplomatic work in Central and Far
East-tried to become familiar with the nation with which he was to
live and work for some time. He was not satisfied by reading books
and travel guides, and began to obtain information from live sources.

With this purpose to mind, he met with former ambassador of Russia,
King Maklakov. "[Maklakov] described Georgians as attractive people,
people who loved merry-making," Moser recalled. "[As people] who
reveal big talent whenever they need it, but will never get to business
which they do not like."

"Georgians are a beautiful nation, both women and men (which I would
certainly discover myself). They are proud and sensitive. It is easy
to offend them but they would never delay their response, even using
arms. Georgians wear long swords just for appearance but they become
dangerous… I was always to bear in my mind that Georgians love wine,
women and song, dance and even quarrel."

Moser arrived one nice day in January 1920 with these impressions.

But soon after his arrival, a misunderstanding dampened his excitement
over Georgia. At a presentation given by the consulate, Georgia’s
Foreign Minister Yevgeni Gegechkori gave the US consul the cold
shoulder. Historians do not know the reason for the cold reception
that reversed Moser’s course.

Following that fateful meeting, the new consul reduced his contacts
with the Georgian government, and began to support foreigners in
their diplomatic disputes with the government of Georgia. Sometimes
he would even encourage a hostile attitude towards the government of
Georgia from the diplomatic corp.

Distrust of the social-democratic government of Georgia grew dangerous
in character. In official documentation Moser used to describe Georgia
as a ‘socialist republic,’ which was a gross mischaracterization.

The deeply disappointed consul withdrew into his private life. Moser
then married the daughter of Georgian noble Sidamon Eristavi. The
only good thing that he did for Georgians was to evacuate Sidamon
Eristavi and his relatives when the Bolsheviks lay siege to Georgia.

Nonetheless, we think that Moser’s devotion to private life was not
the whole story. He closely followed the dramatic developments in
the South Caucasus. Working on his secret heritage may fill the gaps
in the history of Georgian-American relations with many interesting
and important facts, and who knows? They may even change our present
opinion on the activity of the US consul in Tbilisi.

TALKS TO FORM ARMENIAN CABINET ALMOST OVER – RULING PARTY MEMBER

Mediamax news agency
5 Jun 07

Yerevan, 5 June: The talks between the political parties will end
today, Galust Sahakyan, a member of the Republican Party of Armenia
[RPA] board, has said.

Speaking at a news conference in Yerevan today, Sahakyan said that
"the RPA is looking for ways to cooperate with other parties in its
efforts to rule out possible monopolization of power".

He said that this cooperation will have permanent and stage-by-stage
categories. "The stage-by-stage cooperation will be based on the
settlement of separate social and economic issues, while the permanent
cooperation envisages full solidarity on all issues with the coalition
partners," he said.

Sahakyan said that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation –
Dashnaktsutyun will cooperate permanently with the ruling coalition
only if it supports Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan’s candidacy in the
2008 presidential election.

AN ARMENIAN CITIZEN WAS KILLED IN A CAR ACCIDENT IN TURKEY

ArmRadio.am
05.06.2007 12:25

An Armenian citizen was killed in a car accident in Turkey, Acting
Spokesman of RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs Vladimir Karapetyan
told ArmInfo.

According to the source, another two Armenian citizens were injured.

According to a preliminary version, the bus belonging to "Ast Turism"
company heading for Yerevan from Istanbul ran into a lorry on June
4. There are a number of injured.

Haigazian University
Public Relations Director, Mira Yardemian
Mexique Street, Kantari, Beirut
P.O.Box. 11-1748
Riad El Solh 1107 2090
Tel: 01-353010/1/2
01-349230/1

Symposium on Quality Assurance

On June 1, 2007, the faculty of Business Administration & Economics at
Haigazian University organized a symposium on Quality Assurance, covering
quality issues in different economic sectors, including Higher Education,
Information Technology, Audit, Hospitalization and Hospitality.

The opening session started with Dean Fadi Asrawi’s address, who
considered that "over the last couple of years, the quality assurance
process ignited hundreds of conversations, discussions and debates-in
institutions, in university associations, in student organizations, in
ministerial cabinets and among most business firms. All were trying to
improve and to be seen as improving."

"It is management’s job to remove barriers to allow each person to do the
job and to work together to achieve the aim or vision of the total system.
The emphasis should be on doing, not the outcome", noted Asrawi.

The keynote speaker, Professor Ramzi Salame, Senior Specialist for Higher
Education at the UNESCO, tackled the issue of quality assurance in higher
education institutions and programs in Lebanon. Salame assessed the current
status of quality in education, and provided prospects for future
development. According to Salame, Lebanon enjoys a diversity of higher
education systems, with diverse inspirations of higher education
institutions and programs: American, French, Arab, the Lebanese university
and other mixed programs, all these resulting in a lack of unified national
higher education qualifications framework.

"Quality could be assured in higher education by embodying in the
mentality of all higher education stakeholders, the culture of quality, the
culture of evidence-based decision making, the culture of transparency and
information sharing, the culture of accountability, the culture of
productivity and results-based leadership and management and the culture of
commitment", Salame concluded.

During this ‘quality’ day at Haigazian University, a number of
distinguished speakers took part in the symposium. Dr. Amine Haddad from
"Gartner", talked about the "Best Business Practices in Audit", Mr. Joseph
El Fadl, Managing Partner at Deloitte & Touche, covered Quality Assurance in
Accounting, Dr. Karim Nasr, Dean of the Faculty of Business at the
University of Balamand, discussed Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Dr.
Patrick Tabchoury, Manager of St. Georges Hospital Ajaltoun, talked about
Quality Assurance in Hospital Care, and Mr. Joseph Moudaber, General Manager
of the Century Park Hotel covered the topic of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality.