Opposition parliamentarian: Ukraine needs NATO

Kyiv Post, Ukraine
Thu, Sep 21. 10:38

Opposition parliamentarian: Ukraine needs NATO
by Oksana Bondarchuk,

Kyiv Post Staff Writer Sep 21 2006, 02:08

By Konstantin Klimenko — Outspoken BYuT oppositionist, nationalist
and NATO proponent Andriy Shkil, says that Ukraine is a classic example
of a country with a divided mentality, and that division is growing.

Ukraine’s east-west divide is growing, according to Andriy Shkil,
a vocal lawmaker in the opposition Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc faction,
who warned that Ukraine must join NATO to preserve its sovereignty. An
active participant in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, Shkil accused
President Viktor Yushchenko of betraying the Revolution in September
2005 by firing Tymoshenko as premier. The current parliamentary
majority was formed out of fear of the firebrand female politician,
said Shkil.

KP: How did you start your political career?

AS: I started through public work. At the end of the 1980s, I was an
active member of the youth wing of the Helsinki Human Rights Union. I
also took part in the Organization of Independent Ukrainian Youth and
was in the [right-wing] UNA-UNSO [Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian
National Self Defense] for some time. So, I was involved in public work
first, then in politics. The movement "Ukraine without Kuchma!" in
2000 [against then Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma] made me think
that not only public movements were important, but also parties. So I
decided to join a party with a wide spectrum of views. Batkivshchyna
[Fatherland] became such a party for me.

KP: Having a broad spectrum in a party can make it difficult to
achieve a single position. Is this true of Batkivshchyna?

AS: Yes, it is difficult to make certain decisions.

But a party is a part of the society that it reflects.

Unfortunately, Ukraine was formed as a country of different
mentalities.

KP: What do you mean by "different mentalities"?

AS: The problem of self-identity. And, to be honest, it is
growing. Western Ukrainians identify themselves as different from
eastern Ukrainians, but find something in common with Poles. It is
vice versa in eastern Ukraine, where people find more in common with
Russians. The state doesn’t care about this and has not even planned
to do anything about it.

For example, living in Kyiv, I read Polish periodicals because it
doesn’t matter to me what newspapers I read, excluding Ukrainian
ones, but I prefer Polish to Russian periodicals because they are
more impartial.

This is the way I maintain contact with the world, because I don’t
want to do this through Russia. If I have a choice between Polish
and Russian, I choose Polish without hesitation. If I had the same
product, movie or TV program in Ukrainian, I would never have such
a problem of choice.

Ukraine is a classic example of a divided country. And with each month
of its independence, the difference in mentality is increasing. To
accuse [Donetsk-born Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych or someone else
of this doesn’t make sense. He just made use of an already existing
problem. We need to unify the mentality. And it has to be done at
state level with a definite program. We should defend our culture
and language.

And if someone proposes Russian as a second official language, I will
propose Polish as a third official language to save my identity.

KP: Besides promoting Polish as a third language, what are you planning
to do as a lawmaker?

AS: I work in the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, where I
try to push the government to actively work on the issue of Ukraine’s
east-west divide. If we had a common view about this at the highest
level, Ukraine could be issuing Schengen visas. To preserve Ukraine,
we need integration. And a certain part of Ukraine has already
integrated into Europe without asking anyone. If you spend several
days in Donetsk Region and then several days in Lviv or Chernivtsi
Region, you’ll see that these are two different Ukraines.

KP: President Viktor Yushchenko is apparently in favor of Ukraine’s
integration with Europe and NATO. What needs to be done to achieve
this?

AS: You know, I headed the delegation to the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly in Paris, where the presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia,
Georgia and Ukraine were invited. Two of them didn’t come. Guess who?

Yushchenko didn’t come. He was very busy. I don’t know what with. And
it was difficult for me to explain to the members of the Assembly
why the president of a country that intends to enter NATO had not
come. We cry about joining, but don’t take the first step.

KP: But joining NATO remains a controversial issue for Ukrainian
society. Is there really such a need to join?

AS: NATO has been defined as part of Ukraine’s state policy. That’s
it. This policy has to be implemented.

If someone doesn’t like this, he has a right to express his will,
to protest and so on. To preserve Ukraine we need to integrate into
NATO and Europe.

KP: Getting back to you, how do you see your role in the Batkivshchyna
party?

AS: I take responsibility for international contacts.

Consequently, I’ve made a lot of trips to attend different
meetings. We are developing Batkivshchyna as a European political
force and discussing areas of cooperation. I also work with young
people because I like them and I enjoy some popularity among them.

KP: First you were elected to parliament as an independent, weren’t
you?

AS: Yes, that was in 2002. I was elected while still serving time in
jail for my part in the "Ukraine without Kuchma!" campaign. People
who voted for me didn’t look at what party I belonged to. They
elected me for my struggles. Maybe some felt sorry for me, but
most supported me because they couldn’t take part in the campaign
themselves. These people came to Kyiv [to support President Viktor
Yushchenko’s presidential bid] during the [2004] Orange Revolution.

KP: You were a prominent participant in the Orange Revolution,
which brought Yushchenko to power. Do you feel that the president
and members of his current circle betrayed the revolution?

AS: It was a betrayal of the Orange team when [Yulia] Tymoshenko
was removed as premier [in fall 2005]. All the rest, including
recent events, was only the consequences of that move. However,
nobody expected that we [BYuT] would receive so many votes in the
[March 26 general] elections and that [the pro-presidential] Our
Ukraine would receive so little.

KP: Tymoshenko’s BYuT did better than expected in the March 26
parliamentary elections, but its popularity has dropped since then. How
do you interpret this?

AS: We were partners of Yushchenko. We actively campaigned for
a coalition [with Our Ukraine and the Socialists] and we lost
because we encouraged a coalition that was not formed. In addition,
there is distrust in the authorities in general in [Ukrainian]
society. The opposition is also associated in people’s minds with
the authorities. The drop in popularity could also be caused by Yulia
Tymoshenko’s absence from the public for some time. But even according
to the most pessimistic forecasts, we have maintained our popularity
since March.

KP: What, in your opinion, was the reason why most members of the
pro-presidential Our Ukraine party supported the parliamentary
majority formed by the Regions, the Communists and the Socialists
[in July 2006]?

AS: It’s clear: It was fear of Tymoshenko. Everyone knew about the
negotiations. In Ukraine, if you want to keep something secret,
you shouldn’t say or do anything. But it is impossible to avoid some
things. A professional differs from an amateur in that he understands
that he lost, but he should play till the end, because the most
important is the result that can come tomorrow or in a year’s time.

KP: Would you support cancellation of the constitutional reforms that
came into effect this year and weakened the authority of the president?

AS: We have never supported these political reforms and we won’t
do this. But we won’t initiate their cancellation. It’s not our
task today. Our task is to keep what we have today. However, the
presidential form of a republic is important for Ukraine, with its
different mentalities. As the opposition we can only propose some
things while not allowing other things to happen.

KP: What are BYuT’s specific goals in this parliament?

AS: We still don’t have a law on the opposition. This is essential,
and to change the agenda of the Verkhovna Rada. Our task is also to
tell society honestly about illegal actions taken by the authorities.

KP: Some lawmakers from the BYuT faction break rank, for instance,
when they voted for the new coalition headed by Regions. What will
you do with them?

AS: We won’t expel them from the party or bloc because the law
doesn’t allow this. They want this but we will not oblige them. We
will deprive them of their mandates. We are working on this. There
is such a mechanism.

KP: The pro-presidential Our Ukraine party is reportedly split over
joining the Regions-led coalition. Could you see a possible merger
with some members of this party?

AS: There will be an inter-faction merger. Such deputies will remain
in their party and will be members of this inter-faction merger.

KP: You didn’t hold a government post under the Tymoshenko
government. Would you like to one day?

AS: I don’t have such a strong desire to work in the government. The
posts that I wanted when Tymoshenko was in power were already
taken. But I am a politician and I am ready to use my skills both in
the executive and the legislative branches of power.

KP: You are an active and well-known politician. Don’t you want to
create your own party?

AS: Believe me, I don’t have such plans now. But if they appear,
I will implement them.

Poll: Muscovites Hostile to Skinheads, Jews & Migrants

Arutz Sheva, Israel

Poll: Muscovites Hostile to Skinheads, Jews & Migrants

11:35 Sep 17, ’06 / 24 Elul 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Though 76% of Muscovites have expressed hostility
toward skinheads, a large number of them still share the neo-Nazis’
view of certain non-Russian ethnic groups, according to the national
newspaper `Trud’ published on August 31. Citing a poll of Moscow
residents’ attitudes toward non-Russians, the paper reported that one
third of residents feel antipathy toward Jews and Tatars, slightly
higher numbers feel the same way about Armenians and Georgians, and
over half of residents are hostile toward Azeris and Chechens.

The article lists possible reasons for these attitudes: a large influx
of migrants who tend to cluster together in certain neighborhoods;
negative perceptions of the allegedly ill-gotten wealth of some
migrants; and, paradoxically, the extreme poverty of others, along
with the observation that most migrants are working-age men perceived
by some as competitors for the affections of Russian women.

`Trud’ also reported that this fall, the Moscow City Duma will
consider a bill that envisions the creation of a commission to prevent
ethnic discrimination by fining violators from five to 30 times their
monthly minimum wage. The fines are to be doubled for any racist
agitation on school grounds. (Bigotry Monitor — UCSJ’s weekly newsletter)

ARF Warns Baku against Trying to Shift NK Settlement Efforts to UN

ARMENPRESS

ARF WARNS BAKU AGAINST TRYING TO SHIFT KARABAKH
SETTLEMENT EFFORTS TO UN

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 15, ARMENPRESS: A senior member
of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) has
warned authorities in Azerbaijan that Yerevan will
pull out of the negotiations over the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict if Baku persists in trying to get the United
Nations to deal with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; as
a result, he said, Baku would have to negotiate with
authorities in Stepanakert.
Spartak Seyranian from the ARF ruling board,
denounced Azerbaijan for its efforts to shift the
conflict process to the UN, saying Baku is doing this
because of facing serious difficulties in the OSCE
Minsk group.
The UN General Assembly decided on September 13 to
include a new item on conflicts in the Black Sea-South
Caucasus region in the agenda of its 61-st session.
The decision to include the issue in the General
Assembly session -which was pushed for by GUAM-member
states Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova – was
adopted `following a contentious procedural debate.’
Sixteen countries, including the Baltic States,
GUAM-member states, the United States and United
Kingdom voted in favor of including the item entitled
`protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and their
implications for international peace, security and
development.’ Fifteen countries, including Russia and
Armenia, voted against, while 65 abstained.
Seyranian said Armenia has always been opposed to
UN involvement in Karabakh peace talks, insisting that
the Minsk Group of the OSCE is the most effective
international peace-brokering body to help settle the
Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute.

"No Country Has The Right To Restrict Iran’s Rights"

"NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT IRAN’S RIGHTS"

A1+
[04:35 pm] 12 September, 2006

Tigran Torosyan, RA NA Speaker, met with Iran’s parliamentary Speaker
Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel who arrived in Armenia on two-day official
visit.

The two sides focused on the intensification of bilateral relations,
promotion of parliamentary cooperation in the press conference. Iran’s
parliamentary Speaker claims the parliamentary cooperation between
the two countries is not on the relevant level.

"All countries have equal rights, regardless of their power at
that moment. No country or state has the right to use its power and
restrict the rights of other countries," declared Tigran Torosyan while
answering the question of an Iranian journalist on Iran’s chances
to use nuclear power for peaceful purpose. He voiced hope that the
questions concerning the Iranian nuclear reserves will be solved
during the negotiation procedure and the interests of our neighbours
will not be neglected.

While speaking of the Armenian genocide Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel avoided
uttering the word "genocide" but he said that before the revolution
the Armenians living in Iran were deprived of the right of organizing
marches and showing their respect and sympathy towards the victims
of April 24 whereas today there have such a right.

While speaking of the energetic plans, Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel noted
that both Iran and Armenia follow the construction of the first gas
pipeline and consider the possibilities of the second one. At present,
the most important thing is to provide Armenia with gas. Then they
may consider the possibilities of exporting gas to other countries
as well. He also mentioned that they have made arrangements with
the Armenian side on oil issue but he didn’t go into details. Both
gas and oil will contribute to the enlargement of goods circulation
which is over 200 million USD today.

Tigran Torosyan attached great importance to Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel’s
visit underlying its significance for the two sides. Mr. Torosyan
also added that regardless of the religious differences in the two
countries, Iran and Armenia are in close friendly relations which is
an outcome of mutual respect.

Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel said that the Armenians of Iran are actively
engaged in social and political life of their country and they have
two deputies in the Iranian parliament.

ANKARA: PM Erdogan Speaks About Armenia At Turkish History Congress

PM ERDOGAN SPEAKS ABOUT ARMENIA AT TURKISH HISTORY CONGRESS

Hurriyet, Turkey
Sept 12 2006

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan participated yesterday in
the 15th Turkish History Congress in Ankara. Speaking to congress
attendees, Erdogan touched on questions surrounding the so-called
Armenian genocide, noting "It is nearly impossible to come across a
people as free of guilt as ours in history. Still, there are those
who try to blacken our history for political reasons. This is where
the accusations of a so-called Armenian genocide come in. On this
subject, as the prime minister, I proposed to Armenia that we form
a commission. I still have not received a positive response to this
request. Still, we have hope. All of the Ottoman archives are open
to those who wish to investigate. In fact, foreign researchers talk
about how our archives are more open than those of other countries."

Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer also sent a message to the
president of the Turkish History Foundation, Yusuf Halacoglu, noting
that "no efforts would be successful in hiding the truth about Armenian
genocide accusations."

BAKU: China Sells 80-Km-Range Missiles To Armenia

CHINA SELLS 80-KM-RANGE MISSILES TO ARMENIA

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Sept 9 2006

Armenia purchased DW short-range missiles from China via Russia,
Akbar Huseynli, an Azerbaijani living in Hong-Kong, told APA.

He said that local media spread info about the fact that the missiles
are capable of hitting 80 km.

"Maybe Armenia could buy the missiles as a result of the activities
of the Armenian Diaspora s Armenian has no business agreement with
China".

Kazimirov: "There is too much obscurity and fraud in Baku’s policy o

Vladimir Kazimirov: "There is too much obscurity and fraud in Baku’s policy on Karabakh"

Regnum, Russia
Sept 7 2006

Vladimir Kazimirov – Ambassador, in 1992-1996 head of Russia’s
mediatory mission, Russian president’s plenipotentiary representative
for Nagorno Karabakh, Russian member and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group; presently, Vice President of the Association of Russian
Diplomats.

Kazimirov’s article reflects his personal view of the problem of
Armenian-Azeri relations

A few days ago political expert Vafa Guluzade, who has been the
closest man of the three Azeri presidents Mutalibov, Elchibey and
Aliyev, made quite a rash statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.

He alleged to REGNUM News Agency that there are no documents discussed
at the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks. "As a person who has had an
immediate relation to the talks, I say with full responsibility that
the negotiating sides have not created a single line… Neither side
can prove the other guilty of any undesirable actions."

If we translate this allegory into common language: since the sides
have not agreed on anything, they cannot blame each other for failing
any obligations. We can only be sorry for such a lapse of memory.

Guluzade should better not open this subject at all. He has not only
made a fool of himself, but he has also made the whole Azeri side look
"hopelessly bad" in the matter. I think it’s time to make known some
documents and some things I personally know for sure as a member of
the mediatory mission of 1992-1996.

It’s high time to publish the autographs of the plenipotentiary
representatives of the Azerbaijani Republic (AR) under some documents:
Abiyev, Sadykhov, Mamedov, Jalilov, Guliyev, Aliyev.

In 1993 those people repeatedly signed under the commitment to –
very shortly, on a specific date – hold a meeting of the top leaders
of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, but Baku tired to delay its
fulfillment. It was put to paper every time cease-fire was declared.

On September 12-13, 1993, the top officials of Azerbaijan and Nagorno
Karabakh (Jalilov and present Defense Minister Abiyev from Azerbaijan
and Gukasyan from Nagorno Karabakh) prolonged the cease-fire and
adopted a joint communique.

Eager to stop the military actions before presidential election
Heydar Aliyev met with Robert Kocharyan as late as September 25, 1993,
in violation of any deadlines, and demanded secrecy in exchange for
promise to continue the contacts.

The same people repeatedly pledged to stop fire, but, despite their
signatures, the Azeri side broke the cease-fire for four times in hope
to win in the battle field. The most memorable story is the breach
of the cease-fire on December 16, 1993, before the counter-attack of
the Azeri troops at various parts of the front.

Guluzade is certainly aware of this series of agreements and
breaches. If he means only the things the sides "created" on their own
without mediators, given bellow are his own words about the document
signed by all the three sides in July, 1994:

"The wording about the cease-fire – ’till the conclusion of the peace
agreement’ – was reached in a roundabout way, on the phone, bypassing
Moscow, Paris, due to the constructivism and cooperation of Zhirayr
Libarityan, former advisor of the former Armenian President Levon
Ter-Petrossyan, with whom I held direct talks. Along with other
factors, this wording had certainly contributed to the stability
of the cease-fire: it started a peace process and stopped human
casualties. (Zerkalo daily, December 26, 1998).

Why now contradict oneself "with full responsibility"? Either the
sides have borne the magic wording or they have not created "any
single line"? On Feb 6, 1995, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh
concluded an agreement on consolidating the cease-fire regime – an
agreement specifying how to settle incidents on the contact line. For
this purpose, the sides exchanged phone numbers for direct contacts
between political and military leaders.

Almost every day Azerbaijan accuses the Armenians of violating the
cease-fire agreement on the "front line" (that’s how they called it
there), but does not fulfill this agreement itself. In March, 2005,
Yerevan said it was ready to fulfill the commitments. In May, 2006,
Stepanakert urged Baku and Yerevan to do this. However, Baku keeps
silence. If this document is imperfect, Baku could suggest revising
it. Azerbaijan reports continuing human casualties, "groans" in its
propaganda, but does not want to fulfill the only agreement concluded
under the OSCE aegis.

Obligations came not only from the talks but also from decisions by
international organizations and forums. For example, the OSCE Budapest
Summit unanimously decided to hold negotiations between the conflicting
sides. Heydar Aliyev did not object. The OSCE Chairman-in-Office
clearly said that NK was also a party to the conflict. However,
for 10 years already Azerbaijan has been debarring NK from the
negotiating process.

Special point – the obligation of UN member states is to fulfill UN
Security Council resolutions. When Kalbajar fell, Azerbaijan asked the
UN SC to adopt Resolution 822, but Azerbaijan failed to meet it itself:
for over a year it ignored its key demand – to stop the military
actions. This demand was reiterated in resolutions 853, 874 and 884.

After Resolution 884 the Azeri troops actively warred for almost half
a year. Baku agreed to armistice only in the face of total collapse
rather than for the sake of belated fulfillment of the resolution. By
the way, that was the only requirement of the resolution Azerbaijan
has fulfilled so far.

The question is why the UN SC has not adopted any single resolution
on Karabakh since Nov, 1993, even though it has had plenty of new
occasions for that? Exactly because one of the sides refused to
fulfill its key requirement. Azerbaijan was the first to ignore the UN
resolutions in their most important point – the call for stopping the
bloodshed. It began insisting on their fulfillment only in the point
requiring the withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories. They
in Baku hope that the war has long been forgotten, and nobody will
notice falseness in their ardent advocacy of UN SC resolutions.

The key point of Azerbaijan’s tactics now is to show the odious
picture of the occupation without saying why it happened and why it
is going on. It should be noted that in Azerbaijan there is a ban
on the self-critical analysis of the war, its costs and mistakes. Of
course, occupation is an anomaly in the modern world, but it cannot
be considered separately from the dynamics of the military actions,
from a whole number of Baku’s refusals to stop them, from fears that,
once getting its territories back, Baku may violate the agreement
and deal a blow on NK from more favorable positions.

There are obligations of some other origin – obligations Azerbaijan
undertook when joining international organizations. For example, the
OSCE member states recognize all ten equal principles of inter-state
relations, while Baku persists in advocating the imaginary priority
of the principle of territorial integrity. When joining the Council
of Europe, Azerbaijan, just like Armenia, committed itself to solve
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict exclusively by peaceful means, but it
seldom calls it day without official threats to apply force. Nobody
in Baku dares to remember article 9 of own Constitution, which says
that war is not a way to solve international conflicts.

There were cases when Azerbaijan openly reviewed its positions
(in May, 1994, it agreed to sign the "small agreement" of Jan
Eliasson and retracted it right off). Azeri officials keep making
controversial statements (now they say "our patience is not endless"
now they say "time is serving Azerbaijan"; first they say "we have
not coordinated anything in Paris and Bucharest" and then: "2 of
8-9 points are left for coordination"). Baku’s dashing from side to
side has already become a tradition: it raises the Nagorno-Karabakh
problems at various international instances in hunt for propaganda
points, but this only hinders the resolution of these problems in
the framework of the OSCE. This swaying and alogisms is not because
of non-professionalism – there is something else behind.

Let’s be sincere – there is too much obscurity and fraud in Baku’s
policy on Nagorno Karabakh. The bellicose campaign by top officials is
nothing but a mockery at own people, isn’t it? No surprise that most
of what they in Azerbaijan do is mistrusted. Banal propaganda tricks
(20% of occupied territories, over million of refugees) could hardly
have another effect.

Of course, the Armenians too used various tricks. In early Sept, 1993,
the Nagorno-Karabakh leaders publicly promised to withdraw their
troops from the town of Kubatli, which they occupied a day before,
but they broke their promise. Oftentimes, the Armenians objected to
preliminary decision on the status of NK before the opening of the
OSCE Minsk conference, but they were inconsistent when demanding that
the status of NK should be the first problem from the package to be
given solution. However, inventive as they are, they are not a match
to their opponents in failing agreements and swindling. I sympathize
with the present OSCE MG co-chairs in their constant pains to find
something strong enough to fix the positions of the sides. Do they
realize in their plod at the "principles" (and then at agreements)
that they constantly have over them the sword of Damocles of compliance
or non-compliance of the sides with what they will sign?

Of course, the one who has dared to give the above facts will be
scolded by certain people once again (this is the easiest thing they
can do), but they can’t disprove or, at least, provide some sensible
arguments against these sad facts.

As you may know, the key obstacle to peace in Nagorno Karabakh is deep
mutual distrust. It is exactly this feeling that urges the sides to,
first of all, push forward their own interests. This feeling is the
heritage of the old discord between the Azeris and the Armenians
and the deep scar of the recent war, the fruit of zealous propaganda
and the outcome of the vicious circle of years-long talks. Breaking
one’s word, failing one’s commitments – this all reveals trickery
and replicates distrust.

It seems that the leadership of each state, especially a young one
facing the hard tasks of building own image on the international arena,
should be the first to wish to gain the reputation of a state that
can hold serious negotiations and fulfill its commitments. It should
be the first to feel uneasy when failing to fulfill them and to avoid
any set-backs that could undermine its reputation,

There are no rules without exceptions. Alas, the fashionable European
orientation is not always a remedy from non-European standards.

Oskanian Met Syrian Spiritual Leader

OSKANIAN MET SYRIAN SPIRITUAL LEADER

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.09.2006 17:59 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Today Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
received the delegation led by Syrian Grand Mufti Sheikh Ahmed
Badr-Eddine Hassun, reported the RA MFA press office. The RA FM
assessed highly the visit of the Syrian delegation and the dialogue
between two confessions.

Marking the high level of relationships between Armenia and Syria
and absence of political discrepancies Vartan Oskanian said it’s a
good basis for further development of cooperation. The interlocutors
noted the considerable role of the Armenian community of Syria and its
contribution to the development of relations between the two states.

They also referred to some regional problems and the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict settlement process.

Broadcast Of Two Video Clips Presenting Armenia To Start On Cnn Few

BROADCAST OF TWO VIDEO CLIPS PRESENTING ARMENIA TO START ON CNN FEW DAYS BEFORE RA INDEPENDENCE HOLIDAY

Noyan Tapan
Sept 06 2006

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 6, NOYAN TAPAN. Broadcast of two video clips
presenting Armenia will start on CNN TV few days before the
Independence Day of Armenia, September 21. Tigran Tavtian, the Deputy
Minister of the RA Trade and Economic Development informed the Noyan
Tapan correspondent about it. In his words, the video clips prepared by
the "H2" and "ArmeniaTV" TV companies will be sent to the CNN London
office on September 7. It was also mentioned that the media plan of
broadcasting the two video clips presenting Armenia during the coming
4 months is being agreed with the CNN at present. "The broadcast
of the clips will solve the problem of making Armenia reconizable
in the world," T.Davtian mentioned. In the Deputy Minister’s words,
programs on creating Armenia’s image will continue in 2007, with the
help of international TV channels.