Author: Kamalian Hagop

PROTOCOL ON ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN ARMENIA AND CHAD SIGNED

Noyan Tapan
Dec 26 2006

MOSCOW, DECEMBER 26, NOYAN TAPAN. The Protocol on Establishment
of Diplomatic Relations between Armenia and Chad was signed by the
Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to Russia Armen Smabatian and
the Ambassador of the Republic of Chad to Russia Jibrin Abdul in
the Armenian embassy in Russia on December 26. According to the RA
MFA Press and Information Department, following the signing ceremony,
the sides had a talk, during which they attached importance to further
development of bilateral relations between Armenia and Chad, especially
in the political, economic and humanitarian spheres.

CENTRAL BANK ISSUED FOUR COINS WITHIN A DAY

A1+
[05:50 pm] 25 December, 2006

Today RA Central Bank has issued four coins. One of them is designated
to the Armenian chess players’ victory in the Chess 37th Olympiad. The
coin is made of gold and its nominal value is 10 000 AMD.

The coin is outlined with the names of the Armenian chess players
– "A.Minasyan, L.Aronyan, V.Hakobyan, K.Asryan, G. Sargsyan and
S. Lputyan". The coin has the following inscription; "Golden Team"
and "Armenia".

The next coin is designated to the 125th anniversary of Hakob
Gurjian. At the bottom of the coin one can see Gurjian’s sculpture
"Salome". The nominal value of the coin is 10 000 AMD. The coin
is outlined with the sculptor’s name in the Armenian and English
languages.

The next silver coin was issued to commemorate the 100th anniversary
of Marshal Hamazasp Babajanyan. One can see the State Emblem of the
Republic of Armenia on the coin and Hamazasp Babajanyan’s picture in
a military uniform on the back.

Finally, the last coin is designated to the 100th anniversary of Jan
Garzu. Its nominal value is 10000 AMD. Garzu’s portrait is on the back
of the coin. By the way, all the coins were made in Czech Republic.

SYLVESTER STALLONE GOING TO SHOOT FILM ON MUSA DAG DEFENSE DURING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
20.12.2006 13:30 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Sylvester Stallone is going to shoot a film about
the heroic defense of Musa Dag in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 basing
on Franz Werfel’s novel ’40 Days of Musa Dag’. In Stallone’s words,
during the World War I Turkey has perpetrates mass extermination of
Armenians and the film will tell how Armenians organized defense
on Musa Dag and survived with the help of French vessels. Ankara
has pursued the policy of the Armenian Genocide denial for 85 years
already, Sylvester Stallone said adding he knows that Turkey will
pose obstacles to the film shooting, reports the RA Public Television.

The Musa Dag defense has laid in the basis of the universally known
Franz Werfel’s novel titled ’40 Days of Musa Dag’. July 30, 1915 the
residents of 6 villages situated at the mountain on the Mediterranean
shore (Armenian Cilicia) arranged a self-defense transforming the
mountain into a fortress. French warships came to rescue. September
13-15, 1915 the defenders went down to the shore where they were
received aboard of Jeanne D’Ark cruiser and conveyed to Egypt. About
4 000 people survived. Most of them returned to Armenia in 1946.

GEORGIA RENOUNCES RUSSIAN GAS: WHAT IS TO BECOME OF ARMENIA?

A1+
[02:05 pm] 20 December, 2006

The fact that the volumes of the Russian gas coming to Armenia have
decreased as a result of an accident in the gas pipeline passing
through Georgia, is one problem for Armenia. Another is the decision of
the Georgian Government according to which Georgia renounces Russian
gas and starts negotiations with Azerbaijan.

The Prime Minister of Georgia is convinced that the problem will be
solved till the end of the week and Georgia will start getting gas from
"Shah-Denis", agency "Trend" informs.

As for the complications this decision can cause for Armenia, "A1+"
tried to find out from "ArmRusGasArd" whether Georgia may refuse to
transport Russian gas by its territory. But no one in the company
was able to answer the question. Everyone said press secretary of
"ArmRusGasArd" Shushan Sardaryan is authorized to answer such
questions: nevertheless, we failed to contact her.

As for the accident with the gas pipeline, the Georgian specialists
promised to repair it till the end of the day.

IN A BEAR HUG

The Economist, UK
Dec 18 2006

Belarus will suffer as Russia raises gas prices

Belarus, for so long the recipient of Russian largesse on gas pricing,
is under intense pressure to pay much more for its gas from 2007 and
to surrender control over its energy industry. President Alyaksandr
Lukashenka’s pro-Russian stance no longer trumps Gazprom’s commercial
interests, and he is likely to cede at least partial control of
national pipeline network Beltransgaz in order to cap gas prices
at around US$135 per 1,000 cubic metres, rather than the US$200
that Gazprom is now demanding. However, even at this level it is
questionable whether Mr Lukashenka’s economic model will remain
functional-particularly given that Belarus’s lucrative trade in Russian
oil trading is set to end too. And with few bargaining chips left,
Belarus is likely within a few years to be paying even more for
its energy.

Gazprom is prepared to cut off Belarus if no agreement is reached
on gas pricing from 2007, senior officials of the state-controlled
monopoly were reported as saying on December 14th. Currently Belarus
pays US$46.67 per 1,000 cu metres while Gazprom is demanding US$200
per 1,000 metres. The Belarusian side has reluctantly accepted that
it will have to pay US$135 per 1,000 cu metres, in line with the rate
agreed with Ukraine. However, Russian officials are only willing to
concede this price if, as with Ukraine, Belarus concludes side deals.

In the case of Ukraine, these deals have not been reported. In the
case of Ukraine, Gazprom has long coveted at least 50% of Beltransgaz,
Belarus’s national gas network, which is responsible for approximately
a third of the Russian gas running through the country.

(The other two thirds go via the Yamal-Europe pipeline, which is
already majority owned by Gazprom.) The two sides have been negotiating
over Beltransgaz for over a year, but they still differ widely in
their valuations.

The end of the line Last year, Belarus was the only former Soviet
state that did not face Russian demands for at least a doubling of
the gas price; Belarusian prices remained unchanged. Today, however,
Mr Lukashenka’s unflinching support for Russian domestic and foreign
policies is no longer sufficient to keep gas flowing so cheaply. There
are two reasons for this.

First, Mr Lukashenka has this year won re-election and so Gazprom and
its controllers in the Russian government no longer feel an obligation
to be sensitive about Belarus’s political dynamics.

Furthermore, the Russian leadership is reportedly frustrated that
Mr Lukashenka has failed to make good on promises to push forward
integration with Russia; most likely, given the business focus of the
Kremlin, this refers mainly to the control of Belarusian industrial
assets by Russian capital. The haggling over Beltransgaz is only one
aspect of this.

Second, Gazprom will in the next few years struggle to produce or buy
(from Central Asia) enough gas to meet rising demand at home and
abroad. On one independent estimate, by 2011 it could be short by
approximately 92bn cu metres annually. Two-thirds of Gazprom’s output
is sold on the domestic market, where it charges a price that is below
production cost, and the company’s ability to force higher prices or
consumption cuts is limited. As a result, its focus on closing the gas
supply gap-partly through raising revenue to pay for more investment
or gas purchases-is on the export side. According to data for the first
quarter of this year, three-fifths of Gazprom’s output goes to European
states at an average price of US$242 per 1,000 cu metres. Two-fifths
goes to former Soviet states for an average price of US$89 per 1,000
cu metres. In this context, the obvious commercial solution for
Gazprom is to sharply increase gas prices to the former Soviet Union,
in order to boost its revenue and curb CIS gas consumption.

That said, Russia is not pushing a uniform pricing structure on those
countries; politics still plays an important role. As a senior Kremlin
spokesperson, quoted in the Financial Times on December 12th said,
countries that co-operate with Russia and are ready to share ownership
of domestic assets would be given time before prices reached "market"
levels. States that were "unloyal" or refused to sell assets will be
forced to European pricing levels immediately.

In the case of Belarus, with a view to Gazprom’s "supply tightness"
problem, the Russian monopoly arguably has no room for generosity. In
CIS terms, Belarus is a sizeable gas consumer as it uses 21bn cu metres
of Russian gas each year-more than twice the consumption of Georgia,
Azerbaijan and Armenia combined. Belarus consumed the same volume
of Russian gas as Italy in 2005, and more than half the Russian gas
consumption of Germany.

Out of options Mr Lukashenka has consistently refused to be browbeaten
on Beltransgaz, but he is now backed into a corner. According to a
former governor of Belarus’s central bank, Stanislav Bogdankevich,
60% of Belarusian industry is barely profitable or loss-making at
present-and this in a situation where gas is priced at less than US$50
per 1,000 cu metres. If gas prices quadruple, there is a serious risk
that the Belarusian economy would go into meltdown as its exports
would be priced out of their principal market, Russia.

Mr Lukashenka is under additional pressure economically because Russia
is threatening to place an export duty of around US$180/tonne on
crude oil exports to Belarus. Currently, Belarusian refineries import
Russian crude at below-market prices and then sell their processed
output on to west European markets at world prices. Russia has also
suggested that the proceeds from this trade-which generated almost
US$5bn in export revenue for Belarus in 2005-be redistributed, with
Belarus increasing its export duty sharply and then transferring 85%
of its windfall earnings to Russia.

Feel the pain Even assuming that Mr Lukashenka manages to limit the
rise in the price of gas next year to US$135 per 1,000 cu metres, the
impact is likely to be severe. The government will be forced to loosen
its fiscal policies in order to accommodate both significantly higher
gas import prices and its existing social programmes, agricultural
subsidies and generous wage policies. The budget deficit is therefore
expected to expand to around 3.5% of GDP in 2007. Russia’s move on
oil export duties will hit hard too, causing Belarus’s oil windfall
revenue to fall at a time when the need for subsidies across the
Belarusian economy will increase.

Moreover, the price paid for Russian gas will push up import costs
substantially-by roughly US$1.7bn. Growth in Russian demand for
Belarusian exports is also likely to slow, all of which will stretch
the current account deficit to around 8-9% of GDP annually in 2007-08.

The worst is yet to come Part of the reason for Mr Lukashenka’s
extreme reluctance to part with Beltransgaz is a recognition that he
has relatively few bargaining chips left with which to secure cheap
Russian gas and oil supplies in future years. The fact that the two
sides are now bickering over Beltransgaz, which handles the one-third
of Russian gas exports via Belarus not already under Russian control,
emphasises just how close Gazprom is to meeting its acquisition
objectives in Belarus. The Russian gas monopoly might of course fix
its eye on other energy-sector assets in future, in line with its
desire to diversify into power and oil, and to move downstream and
abroad in all three energy businesses; this would give Belarus a few
more bargaining chips.

Nevertheless, the example of Armenia-another supposedly close Russian
ally-might make Mr Lukashenka shudder. Nearly all of Armenia’s energy
sector is now in Russian hands, in return for which the country
has been promised cheap gas up to 2008. Thereafter, all signals from
Gazprom and Russian state officials point to prices rising to European
levels. The worrying prospect for both Armenia and Belarus is that
all they will get in return for transferring their strategic energy
assets to Gazprom is a few years’ grace before this happens.

And when it does, elites in both states are likely to conclude that
their unswerving loyalty to Russia has been poorly rewarded.

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Dec 16 2006

SHEIKULISLAM MEETS SAUDI ARABIAN DELEGATION
[December 16, 2006, 12:07:14]

Head of the Clerical Office of the Caucasus Moslems Sheikulisam Haji
Allahshukur Pashazade on 15 December has met Saudi Arabia’s
delegation led by Minister of Culture and Information, Iyad ibn Ameen
Madani.

The friendly relations between the heads of state have played great
role in all-round development of relations between two countries, the
Sheikulislam said. He expressed confidence that the visit of Saudi
delegation would promote further expansion of links in the cultural
and information sphere.

Touching upon the Armenian-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict,
Haji Allahshukur Pashazade said Saudi Arabia always have supported
the fair cause of Azerbaijan, noting Azerbaijan adheres peaceful
solution to the problem, in the frame of international principles.

Minister Iyad ibn Ameen Madani expressed pleasure to visit the
ancient land of Azerbaijan, thanked for cordial hospitality they were
shown. He expressed deep respect and consideration to memory of the
nationwide leader Heydar Aliyev, as the visit overlaps with his
commemoration days.

"HAYASTAN" INFORMANT CALLS TO BE CAREFUL WHEN HOISTING RA FLAG ABROAD

Noyan tapan
Armenians Today
Dec 13 2006

ATHENS, DECEMBER 13, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The tricoloured
flag of the Republic of Armenia waved by the ARF Lebanon branch
during the December 10 mass meeting in Beirut surprised not only
Lebanon Armenians but many others as well. The Athens "Hayastan"
(Armenia) informant writes. According to the media, it is natural that
different Armenian organizations of Diaspora have different approaches
and display own political viewpoints with their responsibility. "But it
is an obvious inattention and irresponsibility when Armenians living
in different countries express their viewpoints under the flag of the
Republic of Armenia. Especially a party, which makes a part of the
RA political life, even more, when it is presented at the National
Assembly and makes a part of the RA executive power coalition, must
approach from the most responsible and serious position." According
to the same source, "let’s this information be noticed as a call
of vigilance for some time to avoid misunderstandings and possible
speculations on different regional and international political scenes."

"WOMEN’S ALLIANCE" QUALIFIES FACT OF G.AVDALIAN’S AND HER 3 GRANDCHILDREN’S SETTING THEMSELVES ON FIRE AS INCOHERENT PHENOMENON OF PUBLIC THINKING

Noyan Tapan
Dec 13 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 13, NOYAN TAPAN. Representatives of 18 political
parties and public organizations – members of the "Women’s Alliance"
qualified the fact of 67-year old Gyulizar Avdalian’s and her
three grandchildren’s setting themselves on fire as a phenomenon
incoherent for public perceptions and thinking. Tsovinar Gevorgian,
the alliance coordinator stated about it at the December 13 press
conference. "We are witnesses of numerous cases of injustice,
wilfulness, violation of the human rights which are established in our
life with pitiful displays," she mentioned. In Ts.Gevorgian’s words,
an atmosphere of fear and despair was created in the society as a
result of arbitrariness and unpunishment. It was mentioned that the
"Women’s Alliance" demands just legal procedure and will chase the
process of examination of the case. In the alliance representatives’
words, Armenia is one of those exclusive countries where displays
of national discrimination have never existed. In their opinion,
the case of the murder of G.Avdalian’s son has no relation with
national discrimination.

TURKEY ASSAILS EU’S DECISION TO PARTIALLY SUSPEND ENTRY TALKS
By Katrin Bennhold

International Herald Tribune, France
Dec 12 2006

BRUSSELS: Turkey reacted angrily Tuesday to a decision by the European
Union to impose a partial freeze on membership talks and said relations
were going through a difficult test.

The decision on Turkey set the scene for a European summit meeting
Thursday where EU enlargement will figure prominently. The next phase
of expansion takes place Jan. 1, with the entry of Romania and Bulgaria
increasing the size of the bloc to 27 members.

EU foreign ministers agreed Monday to punish Turkey for refusing to
open its ports and airports to Cyprus, an EU member. They suspended
talks on 8 of the 35 issues under negotiation ahead of the possible
accession of the mainly Muslim country more than a decade from now.

The decision is expected to be endorsed by EU leaders at their summit
talks on Thursday.

"This decision is unfair to Turkey," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan said in a televised speech. "Let us not forget that our
friends in the EU also have promises they have not fulfilled."

He said that relations between Turkey and the EU were "going through
a serious test, despite all our efforts."

Turks are bitter that they are being punished for not trading with
Cyprus at a time when the EU has not fulfilled a two-year-old pledge
to end a trade embargo on the Turkish Cypriot north of the island.

They point out that Turkish Cyriots backed a United Nations plan to
unify the island in 2004, while Greek Cypriots in the south rejected
it. But the Greek part of the island still became a member of the EU
and now has veto power over Turkish accession.

Egeman Bagis, Erdogan’s chief foreign policy adviser, said the
Cyprus dispute was being used as a smokescreen in the debate
over whether Turkey should join the EU. "Some countries in the EU
unfortunately want to keep it as a Christian club," he said in a
telephone interview. "Some countries are using Cyprus – and Cyprus
is happy to be used."

The focus on Cyprus was also criticized from a different direction.

"The Cyprus issue has distracted from the fundamental issues,"
said Joost Lagendijk of the Netherlands, chairman of the EU’s Joint
Parliamentary Committee with Turkey.

"Human rights, minority rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech –
those are the issues that go to the heart of Turkey’s compatibility
with the European Union," he said.

A report by the European Commission last month that criticized Turkey’s
refusal to trade with Cyprus also faulted Ankara for backsliding on
many promised reforms. Turkey’s limitation of the rights of Kurds and
other minorities was sharply condemned, as were continuing reports
of cases of torture and limits on freedom of expression.

Erdogan’s government has still not scrapped Article 301 of the
penal code, which has allowed the prosecution of Turkish writers and
academics for insulting "Turkishness." A writer, Ipek Calislar, and
a publisher, Fatih Tas, are scheduled to be tried under the measure
next week.

The fact that the EU’s decision Monday did not mention human rights
violations was criticized by an Armenian lobby group. "The silence of
the member countries on other Turkish violations are a lapse that
seriously endangers European integration," a statement from the
European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy said.

Naif Bezwan, a Kurdish researcher at Osnabruck University in Germany,
said: "Of course it’s unacceptable that Turkey does not recognize
a member of the very Union it wants to join, but when it comes to
Turkey’s compatibility with the EU the main issue is how Turkey deals
with religious and national minorities."

Lagendijk said he hoped that a pledge Monday by EU foreign ministers
to seek an end to the economic isolation of the Turkish part of Cyprus
over the next six months would refocus the negotiations on economic
and political reforms.

"You would hardly find anyone in Turkey siding with the EU on Cyprus,"
he said, "but you’ll find a lot of people calling for our support on
human rights and political reforms."

Erdogan on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with reforms.

"Our reform process will continue with the same decisiveness," he said.

But Bagis, his adviser, said some damage had already been done. Ahead
of presidential and legislative elections in Turkey next year, the
mood has turned more nationalistic, and the EU’s demand on Cyprus is
one reason why support for EU membership has fallen sharply over the
last two years, analysts say.

ARMENIA FULLY DEPENDENT ON SITUATION INSIDE SOUTH CAUCASUS

By Karina Manukyan, ArmInfo, December 7, 2006

An interview with Director of National Research Center for Caucasian
Studies and Middle East Problems of the Russian-Armenia University
(RAU), Doctor of History, Professor Rosalia Gabrielyan.

Ms. Gabrielyan, what would you forecast regarding the
parliamentary elections of 2007 in Armenia? If the election result
is predictable? What do you think of the forecasts of many analysts
that the pre-election fight and the final result of the voting will
turn into a real "show of falsifications?"

I think the parliamentary elections in our country play no role in the
change of the political situation. The present parliamentary majority
will just ‘reproduce’ its presence (maybe by 2-4 people less than now),
as well as the presence of its satellites, who cooperate with this
majority. So, the parliamentary elections will change nothing in the
state of affairs in the country’s political field. This means that
the Republican Party of Armenia and the new pro-governmental party
"Prospering Armenia" will sweep the elections together with small easy
manageable parties comprising 10-12 people. As a result, we shall have
the same National Assembly as in 1995 i.e. a parliamentary majority
"a bit flavored with opposition."

Has the opposition any part in the country’s political life or it is
a manageable structure?

Fundamentally, there is no opposition now. Our people is very
pragmatic. It understood yet long ago that the opposition plays
no role, and that no one listens to it and takes into account its
opinion. That is why, I am not surprised when the opposition receives
too small number of votes at elections. It is not because the people
does not like the opposition. The people just understands that the
opposition decides nothing, especially in the case with our opposition,
which is rather personalized than ideological. On the other hand,
it does not mean that electors fully trust in the present ruling
forces. The people is just well aware who is in power today.

And what about the presidential election of 2008?

The situation in a country like our can radically change within the
remaining half and a year. Given the rapid changes in the political
situation in the region, we can probably have a nonstandard situation
before the presidential election. I do not rule out that the real
candidate for presidency will emerge later, maybe immediately on the
eve of the election. Alongside with this, if we do not normalize
our relations with the neighbor states more actively, it will be
absolutely senseless who will be the next president.

Is it possible to imagine a situation when Robert Kocharyan
unexpectedly sends in his resignation and the chances of Defense
Minister Serge Sargsyan to win the election sharply increase? After
all, no other political figure will have enough time to make himself
known.

Robert Kocharyan is not among those who send in their resignation. In
addition, to lose such a scenario means to cast shadow on the image
of our country.

It is not favorable either to the incumbent or to the future
president of Armenia as the opinion of such leaders is neglected in
the international arena.

The president of Byelorussia, A. Lukashenko, is a bright example of
the aforementioned.

Ms. Gabrielyan, don’t you think that Nagorny Karabakh problem hinders
the development of democracy in the country?

I think the leadership of our country takes advantage of the situation
when this problem is up in the air as it is a powerful and working
factor in the settlement of political tasks. That is why, I think that
nothing will change in this situation at least within 10-15 years. It
is paradoxical but a fact that Azerbaijan also benefits by this forever
national problem irrespective of its desire to get back the disputable
territories. Half a year before elections, an anti-Armenian hysteria
starts and the people who live in misery despite the oil dollars start
demanding the return of Karabakh instead of a solution to their social
problems. Hereby, the people turn into a broad mass of manageable
"protesting" electorate. However, despite the numerous statements by
Azerbaijan regarding the readiness to resume Karabakh war, I think
it impossible as the "oil" interests of the West come forward. This
means that Europe will not allow Azerbaijan to resume the military
actions. All this shows that Azerbaijan is well integrated into Europe
at the same time being dependent on it.

What will be the final role of Russia, USA and EU in the settlement
of Karabakh conflict?

During the last 50 years, Europe has worked out its mechanisms of
settlement of conflict issues. That is why, it seems to EU that we
should also act like they in Europe. At the same time, I think that
the situation inside the EU is critical i.e. the suspension of the
adoption of a single constitution of the European Union testifies to
disintegration processes in this structure.

As regards the USA, during the last 15 years, due to formation of
the monopolar world, it has got used to solve all the issues by force
methods. The bombing of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq… Two months
of strong bombing and then democracy starts, which has never been a
success in the poor and ruined countries. One could state that the
U.S. Government does not learn lessons from the situation, but there
is also the back of the medal i.e. one bombs, the other builds. As
you see, EU has one principle, the USA another. So, we have nothing
to do but to choose the lesser of two evils.

What do you think of the situation when Armenia, figuratively speaking,
does not hinder the clash of the interests of EU, USA and Russia in
its territory?

At least, there are no big investments in Armenia’s economy either by
the USA, or by EU or Russia. After all, speaking of "investments,"
we must suppose the aspiration of an investor to gain profit. Now
we deal only with "political investments." It is the very reason of
Russia’s investments in telecommunications and especially in energy.

The Armenian Government seemed to have taken all the measure to
make Armenia attractive for investors. All the necessary laws have
been adopted and tax privileges have been introduced. However,
there are still no big investments as the geopolitical risks are
too strong i.e. the political and economic situation inside Armenia
fully depends on the whole region of the South Caucasus, as well as
on Russia-Georgia, Russia-Azerbaijan, Russia-Turkey relations. It is
our biggest problem.

Ms. Gabrielyan, the sociological poll conducted by your center showed
that Russia’s influence on Armenia decreased from 71% in July to 63%
in October.

What do you connect this with? Do you think that Russia will further
lose its authority in Armenia or the stabilization of the two
countries’ relations is possible?

Russia like any other country makes investments where it thinks it
will not lose anything. Russia is currently engaged in purchasing of
all the strategic facilities that can be bought. At the same time,
the industrial enterprises it has already acquired under the project
"Assets for Debt" do not operate. In the present situation if our
atomic power plant is closed down after the expiry of its resources,
we will occur in a full dependence on Russia. After all, it was clear
from the very beginning that Iran will never sell gas directly to
Armenia as no one would risk the big politics for our small country.

And what do you propose in exchange?

At present, Armenia needs to specify its foreign political objectives
and start negotiating with its neighbors. The poll we conducted in
July 2006 testifies that Armenia has disputable issues with Azerbaijan
(94%), Turkey (90%), Georgia (70%), Russia (48%), and Iran (14%). The
figures are terrifying! They show that the Armenian Government has
not tried to settle these issues for long years as these issues
are not new. We have an unsettled conflict over Nagorny-Karabakh
with Azerbaijan. We can not sit at a negotiating table with Turkey
as we demand recognition of Armenian Genocide. As regards Russia,
it has closed the only transit road via Georgia "Upper Lars" without
notification.

This has made our country fully dependent on the further development
of Russian-Georgian relations. All the aforementioned shows that
too little has been done during the 15 years of independence in
order to become a really independent state whose interests are at
least respected.