Author: Kanayan Tamar

ARMENIAN ARMY OFFICIAL CRITICAL OF AZERI LEADER’S REMARKS ON IRAQ PEACEKEEPING
Azg website, Yerevan
4 May 06
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev recently said in Washington that
Azerbaijan is taking an active part in anti-terrorist operations in
Iraq while Armenia is sending only drivers there.
Armenian Deputy Defence Minister Artur Agabekyan thinks that only a
person who has no idea about military service and the importance of
transport in a conflict zone could make such a statement.
Noting that the command of the multinational division has expressed
its gratitude to Armenian servicemen for implementing their task in
Iraq, Artur Agabekyan advised Azerbaijani TV to show the valour of
their servicemen and refrain from statements against Armenia.

MOST PART OF FRUIT TREES OF LORI MARZ FROZEN
Noyan Tapan
May 02 2006
VANADZOR, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN. The most part of fruit trees of the
marz of Lori, especially of the region of Alaverdi, was frozen as
a consequence of hard rains of recent days. Volodia Buniatian, the
Chief of the Agriculture and Nature Protection Department of the
Lori Governor’s Office informed the Noyan Tapan correspondent about
it. According to his data, rains will continue till May 10.

TERRORIST ATTACK WAS NOT CONFIRMED
Lragir.am
03 May 06
Igor Zhukov, the head of the North Caucasian Bureau of Transport and
Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation stated that the version
of a terrorist attack on the Armenian A-320 plane, which crashed
when flying to Sochi from Yerevan in the morning of May 3 was not
confirmed. “There are several versions, it was either caused by a
mistake of the pilot, or a technical problem, or maybe the ground
services made some mistake,” announced Zhukov May 3 to news reporters.
The spokesman of the Southern Regional Agency of the Ministry of
Emergencies of Russia Oleg Grekov announced that by midday the rescuers
have already found 38 dead bodies. It is known that out of the 105
passengers 28 were citizens of Russia, there was a national of Georgia,
and a citizen of Ukraine. The rest were citizens of Armenia. By
preliminary information all the passengers died. The rescuers work in
the place of the crash but the weather is getting worse. The speed of
the wind is 10-11 mps, with fog and rain, there might be a storm. All
the small ships are to leave the place o the crash.
The press secretary of the Department of Civil Aviation Gayane Davtyan
said there is unconfirmed information that the black box of the plane
has been found. At midday on May 3 the families of the passengers of
the crashed plane left for Sochi.

The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)
April 25, 2006 Tuesday
All Editions
The Darfur crisis, the delegation, and you
M. CHARLES BAKST
In a recent House speech, Rep. Jim Langevin said of Darfur, “We
should all be ashamed that the atrocities that have taken place there
are happening in our time. Where is the world’s outrage? Why have we
not learned from the mistakes in the past — the Holocaust, Armenia,
Cambodia and Rwanda?”
He was speaking for a bill, which the House passed, directing
President Bush to impose sanctions on Sudan and calling on NATO to
step in to help protect people.
Government-sanctioned genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region has killed
400,000 civilians and displaced millions. Rape and hunger are
rampant.
There’ll be a Save Darfur rally in Washington on Sunday
(). Fittingly, the 150-plus sponsor organizations
include more than 20 Jewish groups. In light of the Holocaust, Jews
should feel a special obligation to demand that Mr. Bush and Congress
intensify efforts to end the horror in Darfur.
Rhode Island’s congressional delegation says constituents are far
likelier to talk about, say, gas prices, health care, immigration or
Iraq. Indeed, the heavy commitment of troops in Iraq can work against
acting on Darfur. For example, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the Rhode
Islander most vocal in support of sending troops to Darfur — in
concert with forces from African countries and the United Nations —
finds no appetite for it in Washington.
Sen. Jack Reed says America probably could provide some limited
logistical military support but, given the Iraq war and threats from
North Korea and terrorists, “The strain on our military forces is
severe.”
To many Americans, Darfur is remote and complex. “It doesn’t have the
clarity of what we recognized too late was the Holocaust,” says Reed,
who nevertheless deems it imperative to act. (Darfur would be an apt
place for the kind of up-close, on the ground observation mission he
likes to make.)
There are several economic and diplomatic steps the United States
could take in regard to Darfur and which Rhode Islanders in Congress
endorse.
For instance, Sen. Lincoln Chafee says U.N. peacekeeping troops
showed “amazing effectiveness” in Liberia and the United States
should lean on the U.N. to send a force to Darfur.
But Washington needs to be jolted into making Darfur a top priority.
Langevin says, “Get educated about the issue.” And contact Congress
and the White House. A critic of the Iraq war, Langevin asserts,
“It’s amazing that the president can act decisively when he cares
about injecting the U.S. into a situation. Why can’t he get this
worked up about the genocide that’s occurring in Darfur?”
Kennedy, discussing Sunday’s rally, says that advances in America,
such as on civil rights, haven’t happened simply because they’re
just. “They’ve happened because people have petitioned their
government and raised the consciousness of America.”
He says of the atrocities in Darfur, “I don’t think human beings can
look the other way.”
I’d like to think he is right.
Certainly, he is right when he says that Darfur calls to mind a quote
identified with Martin Niemoeller, who was a Protestant minister in
Nazi Germany:
“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I
wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak
up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they
came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left
to speak up.”
Will you speak up for Darfur?
M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.

Former Soviet Union Media Still Under Assault — Freedom House
Created: 29.04.2006 14:04 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:04 MSK
MosNews
Independent media in the countries of the former Soviet Union have
come under further assault over the course of the last year, Freedom
House said in its annual report. The political, legal, and economic
environments in most of the non-Baltic former Soviet countries remain
distinctly inhospitable to independent journalism, Christopher Walker,
the organization’s director of studies, wrote in an article for Radio
Liberty’s web-site.
Of the 12 non-Baltic former Soviet states only Georgia and Ukraine,
which are categorized as “Partly Free,” escape the Not Free
designation. No country in the region achieves the designation of
“Free.” The degree to which each country permits the free flow of
information determines the classification of its media as “Free,”
“Partly Free,” or “Not Free.”
The downward trend was particularly evident in countries with
regimes that place a premium on controlling the airwaves. Among
the Not Free states, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan experienced declines. Uzbekistan and Russia suffered the
most dramatic backslide.
Russia slipped due to the Kremlin’s ongoing obstruction of journalists
from reporting on sensitive topics and its tightening of control
over news sources. According to this year’s report, the Russian
“authorities continued to exert direct influence on media outlets and
determine news content, as the state owns or controls the country’s
three main national television networks — Channel One, RTR, and
NTV.” In 2005, Russian journalists continued to be subjected to
detention or physical attack, ostensibly from coverage of sensitive
topics such as corruption. The Russian government’s posture toward
the media has also led to increased self-censorship.
Critical coverage of the Kremlin on national broadcast media is
virtually nonexistent today.
The government in Uzbekistan, which has crushed independent voices
throughout society, paid particular attention to the elimination of
independent media. The Uzbek press freedom rating for the last year
dropped accordingly.
The Andijan massacre, which occurred one year ago, was the trigger
for the further crackdown on the media in Uzbekistan. In the
immediate aftermath of the events in Andijan, the regime of President
Islam Karimov instituted a news blackout, preventing virtually any
information about the violence in the eastern Uzbek city from reaching
wider audiences.
Western-funded media in Uzbekistan drew particularly intense attention
from the government. The Karimov regime refused to renew the agreement
that allowed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to operate a bureau in
Tashkent. It likewise forced other international news and media support
organizations, including the Institute for War and Peace Reporting
(IWPR) and Internews, to close their operations in the country.
Manipulation of television news content in Uzbekistan, as in a number
of neighboring repressive countries, reached new heights over the
last year. The television medium was a favored tool in regime security
efforts. The report on Uzbekistan in this year’s press-freedom survey
cites the September trial of 15 men accused of involvement in the
Andijan unrest, where “prosecutors charged that the BBC, Institute
of War and Peace Reporting, and RFE/RL had advance knowledge that
violence would break out in the city.
State-controlled media gave prominent coverage to these unsubstantiated
charges.”
In Belarus, the autocratic government of Alexander Lukashenko
intensified its control over the country’s media, at least in part
due to elections taking place this spring. Last year, among the
measures taken by the Belarusian authorities was passage of broadly
defined legislation that makes it a crime punishable by up to two
years in jail to “discredit Belarus” in the eyes of international
organizations and foreign governments. The same prison terms apply
to those convicted of distributing “false information” about Belarus’
political, economic, social, or international situation.
Among the regulatory tricks relied upon by media-unfriendly regimes,
the Belarus press-freedom report relates a May 2005 decree issued
by Lukashenko that banned all privately owned, but not state, media
from using the words “national” or “Belarus” in their names, forcing
a number of publications to reregister.
In a region where good news on the news media is hard to come
by, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan were the only countries to register
improvement. In Kyrgyzstan, given the larger questions concerning the
country’s overall political direction, the durability of the positive
press-freedom change was far from certain, however.
Kyrgyzstan remains in the Not Free category.
Ukraine enjoys a wide range of state and private television and radio
stations, as well as print and electronic news outlets. While Ukraine’s
media ownership is diverse, it still confronts the challenges that
accompany oligarchic ownership structures.
Nevertheless, since the end of 2004 the media in Ukraine, while today
still designated Partly Free, have achieved a degree of pluralism
and independence that would have been unthinkable in the pre-Orange
Revolution era.
Ukraine, now with the strongest press-freedom rating among the former
Soviet states, therefore remains a critical media case study. Just 1.5
years ago, the country suffered from many of the same pathologies that
continue to confront most of the media in the region today. In the
run-up to Ukraine’s pivotal 2004 elections, for example, “temnyky” –
editorial theme directives from the president’s office — were standard
operating procedure. This practice was purged from the Ukrainian media
landscape but remains a blight on many other former Soviet states’
media systems.
The significant yet incomplete progress in Ukraine should serve as
a reminder that overcoming deeply entrenched Soviet-era habits and
practices will be a trying, long-term effort for reform of the media,
as well as for other key institutions that form the building blocks
of democratic societies.

SAFAROV’S CASE MIRRORS AZERBAIJANI-ARMENIAN RELATIONS
CENTRAL ASIA – CAUCASUS ANALYST
Wednesday / April 19, 2006
By Fariz Ismailzade
Last week the year-long court process on the case of Azerbaijani army
officer Ramil Safarov, who was accused of murdering his Armenian
colleague Gurgen Markarian during a NATO language course in Budapest
was concluded. The Hungarian court found Safarov guilty and sentenced
him to life imprisonment with the right to apply for amnesty only
after 30 years. The decision was immediately labeled in Baku as
biased and unfair. Surely, there were no doubts that Safarov was the
one who committed the murder (as he himself admitted) and few doubted
that he would be found guilty. Yet Azerbaijanis also hoped that the
judge would take into consideration such factors as Safarov’s personal
background as a refugee from the occupied Azerbaijani areas, the
provocations from the side of Armenian officers during the language
classes and his modest behavior during the course of investigation.
The news from Hungary prompted a very radical reaction in
Baku. Thousands of university students left their classes and
organized ad-hoc street rallies, demanding freedom and a fair trial
for Safarov. Police was totally unprepared to block such a massive
flow of people and could only observe the march. Students accused the
Hungarian court of being biased and unfair towards the Azerbaijani
officer. They claimed that a regular murder case in Hungary would
result in 8-9 years in prison, and that pressures from the Armenian
lobby and government forced the Hungarian judge to impose a much
harsher conviction.
Safarov’s case also brought reactions from Azerbaijani politicians and
media. `We were not able to protect our son!’ exclaimed the
Azerbaijani opposition daily Azadliq. `Making Ramil a hero, and
claiming that he embarrassed the Azerbaijani nation, are two extreme
assessments,’ said Ali Kerimli, the leader of the opposition Popular
Front party.
Safarov’s personal lawyer Adil Ismaylov gave a press conference in
Baku, saying that the defense side would appeal the decision in the
Courts of Appeals and would even take the case all the way to the
European Court on Human Rights until `Ramil receives a judgment that
his action and personality deserve.’ Ismaylov also noted that a series
of court procedures were violated by the Hungarian judge and expressed
hope that these examples would be taken into consideration by the
Court of Appeals.
The majority of Azerbaijanis continue to consider Safarov’s actions as
justified. `Armenians have occupied our lands, raped our women, killed
our children. Why doe nobody focus on that? Why does the world refuse
to talk about that? Ramil has killed an enemy and he did the right
thing,’ said Tarlan Gasimov, a master’s degree student at Baku State
University.
Safarov’s career in the military and his various achievements in
foreign military trainings add respect to him in the eyes of the
Azerbaijani public. Finally, Safarov is widely respected for not
putting up with Armenian officer’s insults and the latter’s disrespect
for the Azerbaijani flag and honor. `When they [Armenian participants
of the training] were drunk in the evenings, they would make insults
towards me and my nation. I was being patient at the beginning, but
when it came to the flag, I could not take it any more,’ said Ramil
Safarov in an interview to ANS-TV on the day of court decision.
Safarov’s case serves as a perfect example of Azerbaijani-Armenian
relations today. Most international organizations and local NGOs
continue to note the rising frustration in Azerbaijani society over
the fruitless and deadlocked peace process. This frustration as well
as the humiliation over the loss of lands is leading to the rise of a
militaristic mood among the Azerbaijani public. Most ordinary citizens
truly believe that the negotiations will not lead to the liberation of
the occupied regions and that war is the only remaining and effective
option. Thus, Safarov’s anger and revenge might be the first harbinger
of future Azerbaijani-Armenian tensions.
These issues are of special importance at the moment as Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev prepares to depart to Washington on April 26 to
meet with his American counterpart George W. Bush. It is widely
expected by the local experts that the resolution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be one of the main issues in the agenda
of bilateral talks. American diplomat Steven Mann, in charge of the
peace process, will be traveling to the region on April 20 to make
final arrangements for the `recent new proposals’ made to the warring
sides. It will be hard for Azerbaijani President Aliyev to make
further painful compromises on the conflict while tensions in the
Azerbaijani society are high and Safarov’s case continues to remain
the number one news in the local media.

leid=4175

LAWYER OF KILLED VAHAN ABRAMYANTS DENIES EVERYDAY MURDER VERSION
PanARMENIAN.Net
28.04.2006 01:59 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Lawyer of the family of Vahan Abramyants, 17,
killed in Moscow metro, denies the version of murder, based on
everyday circumstances.
“”We flatly deny the version of murder of Abramyants, based on everyday
circumstances, as we believe the crime was committed on ethnic
ground,” Simon Tsaturyan said at a news conference in Moscow. He
reported that along with the killed young man’s father he met with
Moscow metro Prosecutor, “we solved all formal matter and Vahan’s
father was unconditionally recognized as aggrieved party.”
Tsaturyan also reported that the prosecutor’s office has instituted
criminal proceeding according to part 2 of article 105 of the
Russian Criminal Code (murder committed as a member of a group of
two and more persons), with qualifying signs of racial and national
dislike. “However, it is not clear, why witnesses of the crime gave
evidence in the militia and not at the prosecutor’s office,” Simon
Tsaturyan said. He said he was sure the investigation conceals the
video cassette with the record of the crime.
Characterizing the victim, V. Abramyants, Tsaturyan called him a
well-bred, calm young person, “and he could never behave in the way,
as some people tried to present he allegedly was,” reports Interfax.

KIRO MANOYAN: FUTURE GENERATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND TERRITORIAL COMPENSATION FROM TURKEY
ArmRadio.am
27.04.2006 18:00
“The recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Osman Turkey has not
only a moral, but also a political aspect: Turkey has committed a
crime and it should respond for its results,” said Kiro Manoyan,
member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Bureau.
In his words, Turkey would have recognized the Genocide long ago if
it knew it would have no political implications.
“Despite the fact that Armenia has recognized the current Turkish
borders and the issue of territorial reimbursement is not included
in the agenda of official Yerevan, it does not mean that our next
generations cannot demand compensation for the Armenian Genocide in
the future,” Kiro Manoyan declared.
According to him, today’s policy of official Yerevan in the
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide yields its results.
“It has been recognized by 18 countries already, the European
community is exerting pressure over Turkey regarding this question,”
Kiro Manoyan mentioned.

AZERI PRESIDENT REGARDS NK CONFLICT AS HIS COUNTRY’S MAJOR PROBLEM
Author: Z.Ibrahimli
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
April 27 2006
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev regards the conflict with Armenia on
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as his country’s major problem. He made
a statement while addressing to the foreign Relations Council which
commenced his first official visit to the United States, Trend reports.
The President voiced his hope that the current talks on
Nagorno-Karabakh will create necessary conditions for just and durable
peace, based on the principles of the international law. “We hope
that the United States as super power and OSCE Minsk Group co-chair
will contribute in the resolution of the conflict,” Aliyev underlined.
Baku is sure that such way of settlement can be peaceable and only
the international rule of law can be a base for talks. The territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan is recognized by UN and all world countries,
except Armenia, he stated.
Russian Ambassador Steven Mann, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair,
who was present in the gathering, told ITAR-TASS that he was gong
to visit Moscow next week for next round of consultations which
his counterparts. He is in optimistic mood, noting his feeling for
‘efficient base for compromise’. The US Ambassador particularly noted
as important principle the refusal from the attempts of complete
resolution of the exiting problems. He clarified that the current
approach was contradictory: movement forward step by step and leaving
some difficult issues for future, ITAR-TASS reports.

MILITARY SOLUTION OF IRANIAN PROBLEM WILL HARM BAKU AND YEREVAN
RIA Novosti, Russia
April 26 2006
Moscow, (Alexei Makarkin for RIA Novosti) – Escalation of the
U.S. conflict with Iran directly affects the interests of its
neighbors.
A military solution may generate serious problems for Iraq, where it
took the political forces several months to agree on the distribution
of government positions. Moreover, a Shiite has again become Prime
Minister, and the Iraqi Shiites have historical ties with their
brethren in Iran. Understandably, political risks in Afghanistan
and Pakistan will markedly grow. The states of the South Caucasus,
also Iran’s neighbors, will face problems too.
The media report that the United States is hoping for Azeri cooperation
– its territory could be used as a potential bridgehead for military
action against Iran (this may or may not happen, but nevertheless
is on the agenda). Ilham Aliyev may discuss this issue during his
U.S. visit this week. The agenda may include the use of Azeri air space
and airfields, and the deployment of U.S. troops on Azeri territory.
Obviously, Baku is not very enthusiastic about this prospect. To begin
with, Azerbaijan maintains close relations with Iran. They signed a
non-aggression and cooperation treaty in 2002. Last December their
representatives attended the inauguration of the gas pipeline –
under a 25 year-long bilateral agreement, Iran will supply 80.5
million cubic m of natural gas a year.
During his recent trip to Baku, Iranian Defence Minister Mostafa
Mohammad-Najjar said: “The security of Azerbaijan is the security of
Iran. Our defence capability is your defence capability.” He seemed
keen to find out the Azeri position on the eve of Aliyev’s visit to
the U.S. It is clear, however, that if Azerbaijan becomes an American
ally in the war against Iran, it will itself become a target for
Iranian missiles.”
Moreover, Iran is the home for at least 35 million Azeris ( their
number being bigger than the population of Azerbaijan itself), many of
them with relatives in Azerbaijan. It is rumoured that the Americans
may try and use the ethnic factor – contradictions between the Azeri
diaspora and the Tehran regime (as Stalin tried to do in 1946). If so,
the U.S. will find it hard to do without Baku. But let’s not forget
that Stalin did not succeed, although the Iranian central government
was much weaker than it is now. In addition, if hostilities break
out, refugees may flood Azeri territory and create serious problems
for the Baku authorities. Finally, the Islamic fundamentalists in
Azerbaijan may use military action to enhance their positions by
espousing anti-American rhetoric.
While Baku is thinking about its position in the Iranian crisis,
Armenia is worried that it may have a negative effect on the
Karabakh problem, in which the U.S. is increasingly trying to act as
a go-between. So far, the point at issue is whether Baku will grant
Karabakh the right to self-determination, and sanction a referendum,
the results of which are already clear. Only in this case will
Armenia agree to concessions, and return to Baku control over the
areas of the country (outside Karabakh), which are now occupied by
its armed formations. For the time being, Aliyev rejects the idea of
a referendum as a matter of principle – if he agrees to it, he will
weaken his position inside the country and give the opposition an
excuse to lash out at him.
Today, the Americans are emphasizing their role of an “honest broker”
at the Karabakh negotiations, and are trying to exert equal influence
on either side. But the question is if they are so interested in Azeri
territory as a bridgehead for military action against Iran, how can
they “compensate” Baku for the tremendous political risks involved?
At the very least, the U.S. could support the Azeri option of the
Karabakh settlement, which Armenia finds unacceptable. At most,
Washington may look the other way if Baku possible attempts to resolve
the issue with military force. The leader of the Armenian opposition
Stepan Demirchyan said with good reason: “The consequences of a war
in Iran will be destructive for the whole region.” He added that a
war in Iran would spell disaster both for Nagorny Karabakh and Armenia.
Although unlikely, even the possibility of such a war causes concern
in Armenia and other CIS nations, which have a vested interest in
peaceful settlement of conflicts on their territory.
Thus potential U.S. military intervention in Iran may not only
result in huge casualties (part of which will be caused by Tehran’s
retaliation), but also exacerbate old seats of tension, which have
been almost extinguished. In short, it could trigger a chain reaction
with unpredictable consequences.
Alexei Makarkin is Deputy General Director of the Center for Political
Technologies.