Author: Kamalian Hagop

IN NATIONAL UNITY THEY KNOW WHO PUSHED BUSINESSMEN TO LEAVE ORINATS YERKIR

Lragir.am
26 May 06

Unlike the fight of the National Unity and the Orinats Yerkir Party in
the National Assembly, seasoned with vulgar phrases, the debate
between Hovanes Margaryan, Orinats Yerkir, and Aghasi Arshakyan,
National Unity, on May 25was civilized. `In the framework of
politeness,’ as Aghasi Arshakyan said. No, of course, the parties were
`armed’ with facts, arguments,documents; there were accusations but
the speakers addressed each other `dear Aghasi,’ `dear Hovanes,’
`brother,’ `darling’ and with other similar phrases.

In the beginning Aghasi Arshakyan reported that what happened between
Orinats Yerkir `was artificial and directed by a third party.’ In
answer to the question of Lragir.am `why did you yield to the
provocations of the third party?

‘Aghasi Arshakyan announced that the National Unity had not been
provoked, they expressed their stance. The most important thing is,
according to Aghasi Arshakyan, to find out who benefits from this
situation. `If we get the answer to the question, everything will be
clear.’ And who benefits? Aghasi Arshakyan believes that tensions
between Orinats Yerkir and the National Unity were kindled by Hmayak
Hovanisyan. Hmayak was in the faction of the National Unity but then
he left. The National Unity is not going to assume responsibility for
`then,’ said Aghasi Arshakyan, mentioning that this atmosphere is
beneficial for the `present president and people around him.’ The
National Unity does not have anything against Orinats Yerkir. They
simply want Orinats Yerkir to answer the question `who is responsible
for this state in the country?’ and suggest that they `repent, admit
their fault, apologize.’ `An honest person need not go through
purgatory,’ Hovanes Margaryan cited Arthur Baghdasaryan.

As it could be predicted, the debating sides often repeated what the
leaders of their parties had stated during the debate one the
eve. Orinats Yerkir always called things by their names, Serge
Sargsyan does not fund the National Unity. And as usual, first there
were words of praise for their political party, then accusations
against the other followed. Hovanes Margaryan: `When the opposition
boycotted the National Assembly, as part of the coalition, we were
criticizing, doing the job of the opposition. Where were you when they
were coercing the Orinats Yerkir members of parliament who joined the
initiative of the residents of Buzand Street to lodge a complaint with
the Constitutional Court?’ Aghasi Arshakyan: `An opposition issupposed
to criticize what is bad, and the force in power should try its best
to improve the situation.’ Arthur Baghdasaryan has a high
international reputation, says Hovanes Margaryan. Yes, agrees Aghasi
Arshakyan, adding that the opposition also helped to promote his
image. The parties agreed that there had been pressure on the
businessmen-members of parliament who left Orinats Yerkir from Robert
Kocharyan administration. But if in Orinats Yerkir they do not know
where exactly the pressure came from, Aghasi Arshakyan knows,
`Armenchik Gevorgyan coerced’: either you lose your businesses or you
leave Orinats Yerkir. Hovanes Hovanisyan assures that `Orinats Yerkir
is becoming stronger. Compared with 84 members leaving the party over
the past month, 1800 became members.’ `Quantity is one thing, quality
is another,’ immediately followed Aghasi Arshakyan’s remark.

The two political spheres, the government and the opposition, belong
to people, and people know which political force should be in this or
that sphere, people should decide through their votes; the debate
between Aghasi Arshakyan and Hovanes Margaryan, which passed in the
framework of `politeness and partnership,’ ended in the logic of this
idea expressed in the beginning of the debate and handshaking.

MONTENEGRO BREAKS AWAY: WILL ABKHAZIA FOLLOW?
by Maksim Yusin
Translated by Pavel Pushkin

Source: Izvestia, May 25, 2006, pp. 1-2 EV
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
May 25, 2006 Thursday

Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Trans-Dniester are watching Montenegro;
Montenegro’s independence is sure to inspire all those who are striving
for a revision of internationally-recognized borders. This primarily
applies to the regions where interethnic bloodshed has flared already,
with conflicts being “frozen” at some stage. Frozen, but not resolved.

Will Montenegro’s separation from Serbia trigger a chain reaction?

That might well be the most pressing question in European politics
today. The continent has at least ten other territories striving for
separation from the states to which they “belong” at present.

All of Europe’s potential separatists have been paying close attention
to developments in Montenegro. It’s hardly surprising that the leaders
of Abkhazia and the Trans-Dniester region were among the first foreign
politicians to respond to the referendum results. They welcomed the
“free expression of the people’s will” in Montenegro, and stated that
they would also like to hold independence referendums. But who would
recognize the outcomes of those referendums?

The Europeans and Americans are prepared to recognize Montenegro’s
independence, but say it’s a special case and any analogies with
other separatist regions would be inappropriate. There’s a certain
amount of logic behind those words.

Three federative states broke up after the communist system collapsed:
the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. The international community
was faced with a tough decision: what kind of criteria it would use
for recognizing or not recognizing new countries.

Eventually, it was decided that recognition would be extended to
territories that possessed something akin to sovereignty within
their former states (in the case of the USSR, that meant the 15 union
republics). But autonomous formations within those republics could
not aspire to independence.

This criterion isn’t incontestable, but at least it’s clear and
definite. It has been used to redraw the map of the world. Fifteen
new state arose to replace the Soviet Union, and two states replaced
Czechoslovakia. Only the case of Yugoslavia produced a glitch:
Montenegro declined to separate from Serbia. This situation continued
for 15 years. But now the Montenegrins have changed their minds and
decided to make use of their “postponed” right to sovereignty.

This doesn’t seem to disrupt the logic of the process – but just try
explaining it to the residents of “autonomous formations” in Georgia,
Moldova, or Bosnia. They don’t care about the subtleties of diplomatic
formulations. They simply can’t understand why the Montenegrins are
allowed to do this, but they are not. Why the double standards?

So Montenegro’s independence is sure to inspire all those who are
striving for a revision of internationally-recognized borders. This
primarily applies to the regions where interethnic bloodshed has
flared already, with conflicts being “frozen” at some stage. Frozen,
but not resolved.

* * *

Abkhazia and South Ossetia (want to separate from Georgia)

1. Conflict History

After Georgia declared independence in 1991, Abkhazia (holding
autonomous republic status) and South Ossetia (an autonomous region)
declared their wish to secede from Georgia and become part of Russia.

Matters reached the point of war with Tbilisi in both cases. Russia
sided with the autonomies. The Georgians were defeated in both South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, and at present they don’t control either of
the self-proclaimed republics.

2. Russia’s position

Officially, Moscow recognizes Georgia’s territorial integrity and
refuses repeated requests from Sukhumi and Tskhinvali for “admittance
into the Russian Federation.” All the same, Russia provides various
forms of aid to the governments of both unrecognized republics;
most of their residents have been granted Russian citizenship, and
the ruble is used as currency on their territories. Tbilisi accuses
Moscow of “creeping annexation.”

3. The West’s position

The United States and Europe are in full solidarity with Georgia,
recognizing its territorial integrity and calling for both conflicts
to be resolved via peaceful negotiations. Last year, when Georgian
President Mikhail Saakashvili seemed on the verge of launching a
military operation against South Ossetia, the Americans pressured
him to exercising restraint. A war was averted. However, the West
has been arming and training the Georgian military.

4. Prospects

In Tbilisi, many believe that the fate of both territories is sealed:
sooner or later, Russia will annex them. At the official level,
Moscow tries not to provide the slightest reason to suspect it of
harboring such intentions. Unofficially, Moscow makes it clear to
the Georgians that if Tbilisi attempts to use force to settle the
question of Abkhazia or South Ossetia, Russia is unlikely to stand
aside. So it’s better to negotiate, not fight. But the negotiations
have been deadlocked for years.

* * *

The Trans-Dniester region (wants to separate from Moldova)

1. Conflict History

In many respects, the Trans-Dniester scenario is reminiscent of
Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The residents of the Dniester River’s left
bank didn’t want to be part of independent Moldova, and declared that
they wanted to join Russia. The result was a brief but bloody war,
stopped only after Russia intervened, sending in troops commanded by
General Alexander Lebed. There hasn’t been any more fighting since
then, but negotiations haven’t made any progress either.

2. Russia’s position

The Russian authorities probably haven’t ever given any serious
consideration to annexing Trans-Dniester. The practical aspects would
be too difficult: Russia doesn’t share a border with the unrecognized
republic – they are separted by Ukraine. Moscow hoped to resolve the
conflict with the Kozak Plan, drawn up by Dmitri Kozak when he was
the senior deputy director of the presidential administration. But
Chisinau rejected the Kozak Plan, following unprecedented pressure
from EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

3. The West’s position

The Europeans and Americans were strongly opposed to the Kozak Plan.

They were particularly annoyed by the point specifying a continued
Russian military presence on Trans-Dniester territory. When Viktor
Yushchenko’s orange team came to power in Ukraine, the West decided
to use economic measures of influence on the “separatists” in
Tiraspol. The Ukrainian authorities blocked access to Trans-Dniester
for goods that didn’t go through Moldovan customs. Tiraspol called
it a blockade. Russia sent humanitarian aid to Trans-Dniester. The
West expressed full support for Kiev.

4. Prospects

The West won’t accept the Trans-Dniester region’s separation from
Moldova under any circumstances. The European Union’s activity with
regard to Trans-Dniester is likely to increase, especially after
Romania joins the EU, since it’s the major force lobbying for Moldova’s
interests. A military solution to the conflict is unlikely, especially
since Russian peacekeepers are still present in Trans-Dniester.

* * *

Nagorno-Karabakh (wants to separate from Azerbaijan)

1. Conflict History

The Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region, part of the Azerbaijan
Soviet Socialist Republic, had a mostly Armenian population. In the
late 1980s, they started making demands to join Armenia. The first
inter-ethnic clashes flared up even before the USSR collapsed, and
the bloodiest fighting happened in 1992-93. With Armenia’s support,
the Armenians of Karabakh won the war – capturing all the disputed
districts, as well as some adjacent regions of Azerbaijan. The conflict
has been frozen ever since.

2. Russia’s position

Moscow officially recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan,
and acts as a mediator. All the same, many Azeris suspect Russia of
siding with the Armenians and lobbying for their interests. The Azeris
claim that the Armenians wouldn’t have won the war for Nagorno-Karabakh
without help from Russian Armed Forces units stationed in the region.

3. The West’s position

The United States maintains close relations with Azerbaijan,
encouraging it to pursue “a foreign policy independent of Russia.”

Relations with Armenia are more complicated, since Washington considers
that the Armenian government looks to Moscow too much.

However, there are influential Armenian diasporas in the United
States and in Europe. They prevent the West from siding entirely with
Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

4. Prospects

The Nagorno-Karabakh status negotiations are deadlocked. Armenia
insists that Nagorno-Karabakh should be independent, while Azerbaijan
refuses to consider the idea. Baku occasionally threatens to resolve
the problem by force, while pointing out that time is on Azerbaijan’s
side: it’s an oil-rich country that can spend far more on its military
needs than Armenia, which has essentially been existing in blockade
conditions for the past 15 years. All the same, the Azeri military
isn’t ready to challenge Armenia as yet.

NKR MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ISSUES A STATEMENT ON THE REFERENDUM IN CHERNOGORIA

ArmRadio.am
25.05.2006 18:05

The NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on the
referendum on independence in Chernogoria. The document says,
“The referendum in Chernogoria and the recognition of its results
by the international community is a positive fact, in general. We
are confidant that the right for self-determination realized via a
nationwide referendum is of pivotal importance for overcoming similar
situations and is a stable tool for establishing political peace in
the conflict zone.”

MEETING AT THE NA STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, EDUCATION, CULTURE AND YOUTH AFFAIRS

National Assembly, Rep. of Armenia
May 25 2006

On May 24 Hranush Hakobyan, Chairwoman of the NA Standing Committee
on Science, Education, Culture and Youth Affairs met with Dominique
Souchet, President of Sport Union of Vandea, France and Francois Bon,
Vice-President of the Committee on Culture, Economy and Tourism.

It was mentioned that the purpose of the mission is to discuss events
program within the framework of the Armenian year in Vandea, France.

Possibilities of cooperation between two countries in the sphere of
economy, tourism were specified. Mr. Dominique Souchet informed that
for the first time Armenian art pieces will be exhibited in Vandea, and
the purpose of the regional union is to carry the art to rural areas.

According to Hranush Hakobyan, there are many common interests of
cooperation in the spheres of culture, education and science. Mrs.

Hakobyan highlighted the export of agricultural goods to France,
the continuity of cultural programs. Greeting the existence of sister
cities it was mentioned that there are still things to be done in the
sphere of culture and economy. It was mentioned that several Armenian
teachers had trainings in France last year, and students will go to
France to study this year. While talking about legislation, Mrs.

Hakobyan noted that the French experience has been studied and used
for many times. Referring to new European Union programme, Mrs.

Hakobyan noted that the Armenian development programs are oriented
towards Europe. Mrs. Hakobyan highly evaluated the French political
attitude towards Armenian Genocide issue. The French guests highlighted
implementing reforms in the country and inquired about some provisions
of Constitution.

Other issues of mutual interests were also discussed during the
meeting.

FINDING JOB IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN ARMENIA
By Gohar Gevorgian

AZG Armenian Daily
25/05/2006

Roman Khmboyan, 22 years old disabled, is member of “Pyunik” Union
of Disabled People. He graduated from the Yerevan Industrial Collage
and, being specialist of radio-electronic equipment, he still fails
to find a job. At present, he studies mathematics for the entrance
exams to the university. He hopes that having higher education,
he will be able to find a job. He used to apply to many companies
for job and everywhere people told him that he didn’t have required
education. Certainly, Roman realizes that unemployment is a big problem
for many Armenian citizens, as even his family members are unemployed,
except for his father. “I would say that the attitude of people gets
worse and worse. In particular, I can feel that when communicating
with young people. It’s much better to communicate with older people,
they are not only tolerant but also very friendly,” Roman says.

“Pyunik” Union has been carrying out “Public Tolerance and Integration
of Young Disabled People in Society” program by the financial
assistance of RA Culture and Youth Affairs Ministry since November 1,
2005. Hakob Abrahamian, chairman of the union, stated at the closing
ceremony of the program that they have visited the regions and in
collaboration with the local organizations tried to settle the issues
of disabled people. He stated that the one of the most urgent problems
for disabled people is the environment that is not suitable for freely
moving. The disabled people also have financial, unemployment problems,
as well as unhealthy attitude of the society to them. Mr.

Abrahamian added that the state assists the disabled people by
securing free of charge medical treatment for them, providing them
with technical equipment and prosthetic devices.

Anahit Hakobian, representative of the Department of Disabled People
at RA Labor and Social Security Ministry, informed that 141 thousand
disabled people were registered in Armenia, in 2006. She added that
they deal with the employment issues of the disabled people, but
didn’t say how many people they managed to provide with jobs.

U.S. ENVOY TO ARMENIA RECALLED
By Emil Danielyan

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
May 24 2006

President George W. Bush has officially confirmed the impending
dismissal of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans which Armenian
circles in the United States attribute to the diplomat’s public
recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide.

The White House announced on Tuesday that Bush will ask the U.S.
Senate to endorse his nomination of Richard Hoagland, Washington’s
outgoing ambassador to Tajikistan, as Evans’s replacement. It offered
no explanation for the widely anticipated move.

Evans has been tipped to lose his current job for the last three
months. Armenian-American groups and activists have suggested that
he is paying the price for his controversial reference to the mass
killings and deportations of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as “genocide.”

U.S. officials have declined to publicly confirm or deny this. “We
all serve at the pleasure of the President,” Assistant Secretary of
State Daniel Fried told the Armenian Assembly of America on March 27
when asked to comment on the issue. The Assembly and another Armenian
lobbying group in Washington, ANCA, have voiced strong support for
Evans, demanding that the Bush administration refrain from recalling
the envoy.

Evans has served as ambassador to Armenia for less than two years.

All of the four previous heads of the U.S. mission in Yerevan had
longer tenures. “I do not know when I will be leaving Armenia and
I have not submitted by retirement papers,” the 58-year-old career
diplomat told reporters on March 7.

Evans openly contradicted the long-running policy of successive U.S.

administrations when he declared in a February 2005 speech in
California that “the Armenian Genocide was the first genocide of the
20th century.”

Washington was quick to disown the remarks, saying that it reflected
only his personal views and did not signify any change in U.S. policy
on the sensitive subject. “He did not coordinate with the U.S.
government. He did not clear his remarks with the State Department,”
a senior Bush administration official told RFE/RL at the time.

“I used the term “genocide” speaking in what I characterized as
my personal capacity,” Evans clarified in a subsequent written
statement. “This was inappropriate.”

The extraordinary genocide recognition led to a decision by the U.S.
Foreign Service Association to give Evans its annual prestigious award
designed for American diplomats displaying “constructive dissent” in
their work. However, the association then unexpectedly withdrew the
award. Reports in the U.S. press suggested that the decision, which
came ahead of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s June 2005
trip to Washington, was made under pressure from the State Department.

Turkey, which is a key U.S. ally, vehemently denies that the Armenian
massacres constituted a genocide and has repeatedly warned Washington
against using the politically sensitive term.

In his last April 24 address to the Armenian-American community,
Bush again stopped short of describing the mass killings as genocide,
speaking only of “one of the horrible tragedies of the 20th century.”

But he at the same time cited and praised an independent study,
commissioned by prominent Armenians and Turks in 2002, which concluded
that the slaughter of some 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians fits the
internationally accepted definition of genocide.

MANY SURPRISED WITH THE 10 POINTS GIVEN TO ARMENIA BY TURKEY AT “EUROVISION – 2006”

ArmRadio.am
22.05.2006 18:15

10 points given to Armenia by Turkey at “Eurovision” song contest were
unexpected, and even surprising for many. The Turkish “Hurriet” wrote
today that this way the Turkish people gave their response to Western
Parliaments, which aspire to attach “the force of law” to the Armenian
Genocide. According to the opinion of outstanding representatives of
political and cultural circles, it was “the response of the people
to politicians.”

In a period when France is discussing the bill on criminalizing the
negation of the Armenian Genocide, the 10 points given by Turkey to
Armenia and the 12 points that France gave to Turkey caused immense
reaction. Editor of the ” Agos” newspaper, our compatriot Hrant Dink
is inclined to see political pretext under such distribution of votes.

At the same time Hrant Dink accepts that the Turkish media use this
fact trying to underline the gracious attitude of Turkey towards
Armenia.

Head of the Turkish opposition Democratic-Republican Party Deniz
Baikal expressed the opinion that the 10 points given to Armenia
say one thing: the Turks assessed music solely as music.” Thus,
Deniz Baikal concludes that Turks do not suffer the complex of
politicizing everything, which, according to the opposition leader,
is pleasing. Some consider that the Turks gave 10 points just because
the song presented by Armenia was good.

The Azeri media associate the high grades of the Armenian singer with
the large Armenian Diaspora and lobby, from which they have much to
learn. They, however, do not conceal their disappointment with every
point given to Armenia.

According to the comments of the Azeri “Zerkalo,” Andre managed to
“squeeze” into the final. “Zerkalo” continues to write, however, that
the fact is that Armenia was the first among Caucasian countries to
gain the right to participate in the “Eurovision” song contest.

TRAIN WITH VEHICLES OF RUSSIAN MILITARY BASE PREPARING FOR DEPARTURE FROM GEORGIA

Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS Business and Financial Newswire
May 22, 2006 Monday

The preparation procedures for the departure of the second train with
weapons and materiel of the Russian 62nd military base headquartered
in Akhalkalaki are nearing end.

“The second train will take 17 self-propelled artillery systems
and specialized vehicles to Russia,” Colonel Vladimir Kuparadze,
deputy commander of the Group of Russian Forces in Transcaucasia,
told Interfax-Military News Agency by phone from Tbilisi on Monday.

According to him, the vehicles have been loaded on flat cars and
fixed. Customs procedures are being finalized now.

Kuparadze said that the train of 19 cars will depart on Tuesday
morning. “The second train, as well as all the other 20 remaining,
will travel to Russia through Azerbaijan in compliance with the
agreements reached between Russia and the country,” he said.

He added that a convoy of vehicles will depart from Akhalkalaki to the
102nd base in Gyumri, Armenia, on Tuesday. “The convoy will include
ten trucks and an escort armored personnel carrier. It will carry
part of the military equipment of the 62nd base to Gyumri,” he said.

The first train with Russian equipment and materiel was dispatched
from Georgia to Russia on May 15.

FORUM OF INTELLIGENTSIA URGES DEBATES ON THE STATE OF ARMENIAN AVIATION

Lragir.am
20 May 06

On May 18 the Board of the Forum of Intelligentsia of Armenia issued a
news release, which runs: `The crash of A320 in Sochi on May 3 and the
loss of 113 passengers and the crew is not only great sorrow for the
Armenian people, but also a deep concern. So far the officials have
offered suggestions, which contradict to one another, as well as the
well-known facts and professional opinions. The impression is that
this is intended to create an atmosphere of despair and, why not,
indifference.

The society is still hopeful that the discovery of the black boxes
will bring a number of obscure questions to light. However,
independent from all, one can discern the ailing home political
environment between the causes of the crash, which has emerged from
the corrupt system established by the government of Armenia. This
atmosphere has had its negative impact on the system of air
communication in Armenia.

Considering the demand of the society, the board of the Forum of
Intelligentsia of Armenia proposes holding professional debates on the
state of the Armenian aviation and the crash. These activities are
necessary to avoid other crashes.’

Board of the Forum of Intelligentsia of Armenia

ONLY SERGE SARGSYAN AND HMAYAK BELIEVE

Lragir.am
19 May 06

The leader of the Nor Zhamanakner Party (New Times) Aram Karapetyan
assures that he has the report of one of the ambassadors to Armenia,
where Armenia is characterized as a tertiary country. According to
Aram Karapetyan, the ambassador informed his leadership that what is
accepted in many countries of the world is not accepted in Armenia.

To work in Armenia you have to take money from others instead of
paying yourself, to assure them that you are their friend.

Armenia is also unique because at difficult moments there always
appears someone who starts dictating scenarios. This is a situation of
controlled crisis, defines Aram Karapetyan and says, “This is a very
unserious thing because no justifications of the offered scenarios are
given. In Armenia, for instance, Serge is the only person who believes
that Serge Sargsyan may win a free and fair election. Only someone
who has a vivid imagination or is carrying out someone’s order may
suggest this.” In this context, Aram Karapetyan suggests appointing
Hmayak to all the offices to settle the question of scenarios.

Aram Karapetyan thinks this time the Armenian elections will be held
in accordance with the scenarios of the leadership, because there
are geopolitical developments, factors, there are force-majeure: the
issues of Iran and Karabakh, home political developments in Georgia.

“The Armenian government was not lucky. The question of Iran
emerged. In the geopolitical sphere Armenia does not have a position.

The head of state has to refuse to go somewhere not to have to make
arrangements.”

Currently any activity may cause a strong revolutionary surge,
predicts the leader of the Nor Zhamanakner Party. However,
for a victory the opposition also needs geopolitical support,
believes Aram Karapetyan. Besides, the opposition needs to establish
conditions to guarantee free and fair elections; freedom of campaign,
elimination of participation of the first public channel, criminals
and law enforcement agencies, which live on “the taxes that we all
pay.” Without the support of the geopolitical sphere a campaign
is possible but a victory is not. “We had such an opportunity in
2003, but the leaders were not resolved enough.” Nevertheless, Aram
Karapetyan thinks that the political processes will be unpredictable.