Author: Khondkarian Raffi

Washington Times, DC
June 9 2005
Analysis: Russia’s friends and foes
By Peter Lavelle
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Moscow, Russia, Jun. 9 (UPI) — A recent public opinion poll suggests
Russians clearly believe the country has friends and foes in the
world. However, results also suggest Russians are almost evenly split
— for some a foe is a friend and a friend a foe. Is Russia still
looking for its place in the world?

The Levada Center, Russia’s independent and most-respected public
opinion agency, polled 1,600 Russians older than 18 years of age at
the end May to determine how the general population sees the outside
world. Determining which countries in the world are Russia’s friends
and foes produced surprises and even contradictions.
News reports of the Levada Center’s findings did not make clear
whether citizens polled were prompted with names of countries or
asked to number countries on their own. The poll also did not provide
a margin of error.
Belarus came out on top as Russia’s greatest friend in the world with
46 percent. Following Belarus, Germany came in second with 23 percent
and Russia’s other friends include Kazakhstan 20 percent, Ukraine 17
percent, India16 percent, France 13 percent, China 12 percent, the
United States 11 percent, Bulgaria 11 percent and Armenia 9 percent.
On the other side of the ledger, Latvia topped the list as Russia’s
strongest foe according to 49 percent of respondents. Following it,
Lithuania with 42 percent, Georgia at 38 percent, Estonia 32 percent,
the United States 23 percent, France 13 percent, Afghanistan 12
percent, Iraq 10 percent, Japan 6 percent and Iran 6 percent.
Cursory review of the poll’s findings shows many interesting issues
currently in play. Russia’s greatest recent enemy — Germany — is
widely seen to be a friend. Russia’s other important adversary during
the World War II, Japan, is not widely seen to be an enemy by a vast
majority of those polled.
Many of the countries that are considered enemies now are Russia’s
neighbors. The recent heated public demand and diplomatic row that
Russia should apologize to the Baltic republics for a half century of
Soviet occupation should be ascribed to the current antipathy many
Russian have toward those countries. The widely held belief that
Russian nationals living in the Baltic republics are denied some
basic human rights have also influenced public perceptions of these
countries.
The former Soviet republic of Georgia is also viewed in a dim light
among many Russians. The close relationship President Mikhail
Saakashvili has pursued with the United States and the tug-of-war
over the closure of Russian military bases in the country has soured
Russia-Georgian relations in the public mind.
The perception of Ukraine and the United States is the most striking
and contradictory of the poll results — both countries are deemed as
friend and foe by many of the respondents.
Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” and many of the anti-Russian overtones
that could be heard in media claiming Kremlin “meddling” in Ukraine’s
internal affairs continues to be irksome to many Russians. At the
same time, people-to-people and economic relations continue to tie
the two countries together.
The perception of the United States appears to be almost
schizophrenic. The fact that more respondents see it as a foe than as
a friend could be accounted for as a lingering Cold War phenomenon.
However, what may be more important than the past is many of the
countries considered foes have good relations with Washington. After
all, President Bush sandwiched his recent visit Moscow with stops in
Latvia and Georgia.
Another important result of the public opinion poll is the conclusion
that the majority of Russians asked have no majority consensus of one
international friend or foe and a significant minority who believe it
has more foes than friends.
The poll result also demonstrates how Russia has maintained close
ties with former Soviet friends, India for example. But Russia has
also reached out to former Soviet foes, namely the United States.
Some former constituent parts of the Soviet Union — once considered
“family” — rate high as countries most disliked.
The most compelling reason for the lack of consensus among many
Russians can be explained as a reflection of Russia still trying to
find its place in the world after the Soviet collapse 14 years ago.
Most importantly, Russia appears to find it hardest to come to terms
with many of the countries it has had the closest relations with for
centuries. This should serve as a wake up call for the Kremlin that
Russia’s neighbors are also coping to find their place in the world.
—
Peter Lavelle is United Press International’s Moscow correspondent.

A1plus
| 17:11:36 | 09-06-2005 | Culture |
ARMENIANS ARE EXPERTS IN CLASSICAL MUSIC
On invitation of the Philharmonic Orchestra famous US musicians Jane
Thorngren – soprano, Duane Funderburk – piano, Alex Russell – violin and
Donovan Grey – horn arrived in Armenia to perform a joint concert in the
concert hall after Aram Khachaturyan on June 10. {BR}
Today the musicians rendered a press conference in the House of Journalists.
In their word, they have already visited Armenia and are convinced that
Armenians are joyful people, who appreciate and perceives classical music.
According to Donovan Grey in the US young people prefer TV to classical
music. He said he would like to learn to play duduk while Jane Thorngren
noted she wants to learn an Armenian dance.
The concert program will include the works by Gershwin, Mendelssohn, Puccini
as well as American church hymns. The benefit will be conveyed to the UN
International Food Program.

Veto dropped in draft for new UN Council members
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS, June 8 (Reuters) – Germany, Japan, Brazil and India on
Wednesday dropped the right to a veto for new permanent U.N. Security
Council members in their revised draft resolution to expand the
15-member prestigious body.
The four nations, contenders for permanent council seats, want the
U.N. General Assembly to adopt a framework resolution as early as
this month that would add 10 new members to the council, six permanent
members and four nonpermanent ones.
The council currently has five permanent members, which would keep
their veto power, and 10 nonpermanent members rotating for two-year
terms.
“On the veto, it has become clear that the question of its extension
to the new permanent members is best dealt with by the general
membership” in a review 15 years after the proposed changes come into
force, said a covering letter to the new draft resolution by the four
nations who want permanent seats in a new expanded Security Council.
Consideration of the veto is now postponed until a review in 15 years.
France, one of the current five Security Council permanent members, on
Wednesday announced it would co-sponsor the resolution.
NEW MOMENTUM
The new draft resolution was circulated to 191 General Assembly
members, who must vote by a two-thirds majority to expand the council
after 12 years of debate. The effort was given new momentum this year
by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan as part of his overall reform of
the world body.
Annan argued that the Security Council, which rules on war and peace,
sanctions and peacekeeping operations, still reflects the balance of
power at the end of World War Two.
The second step, which needs another resolution and also a two-thirds
majority in the Assembly, is to fill in the names of the contenders
for permanent seats, which will include two nations from Africa.
And the third step involves a change in the U.N. Charter, which must
be approved by two-thirds of the legislatures around the world,
including the current five veto-wielding Security Council powers —
the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Should
two-thirds of the world’s nations approve the changes, a veto by the
five would prove embarrassing.
Japan, diplomats said, was considering delaying a vote on the
framework resolution from June to July, to make sure enough countries
were supporting it. But German envoys said Berlin opposed this.
Diplomats speculate the four contenders have about 100 votes and
needed another 30 or so for the initial resolution. Should a second
vote take place on who should fill the seats, the envoys said Germany
faces the least opposition while Muslim nations are expected to
organize against India.
FIVE POWERS ARE SPLIT
Among the current five council powers, France and Britain support the
candidacies of Germany, Japan, India and Brazil as new permanent
members. China opposes any seat for Japan and Russia’s position is
unclear.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been organizing
teleconferences with her counterparts among the five, has said
Washington supports Japan. But adding only Japan in the council would
be defeated easily in the General Assembly, which wants seats for
developing nations.
“We have no position. We support Japan but it needs to be handled
judiciously,” Anne Patterson, the acting U.S. ambassador, told Reuters
on Tuesday.
A second plan is favored by Italy, Algeria, Mexico, Canada, Pakistan,
South Korea, Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kenya, Mexico, Spain,
Turkey and others.
This group has not put down a resolution and also calls for expanding
the council from 15 to 25 members. This proposal has no permanent
seats but longer terms for some nonpermanent members.
06/08/05 18:07 ET

HEADMASTER OF AKHALTSKHA SCHOOL AFTER HOVHANNES TUMANIAN CHANGED
AGAINST TEACHERS’ AND PUPILS’ WILL
AKHALKALAK, JUNE 8, NOYAN TAPAN. On June 7, the employees of Georgian
Ministry of Internal Affairs, dispersing thousands of Armenians that
gathered around Akhaltskha secondary school N 3 after Hovhannes
Tumanian, entered the school building. According to the A-Info agency,
the people gathered near the school after the June 3 incident when
representatives of Akhaltskha power structures, Yura Zaridze, Head of
the Enlightenment Department, and representatives of the staff of
Georgian President’s Plenipotentiary in Samtskhe-Javakhk wanted to
realize Georgian Education Minister Kakha Lomaya’s May 24 decree about
dismissing school headmaster Lyuba Matevosian against the will of the
teachers and pupils. As Robert Muradian replacing L.Matevosian isn’t
trusted by people a demonstration was organized by pupils and
teachers.

PRESS RELEASE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of Australia & New Zealand
10 Macquarie Street
Chatswood NSW 2067
AUSTRALIA
Contact: Laura Artinian
Tel: (02) 9419-8056
Fax: (02) 9904-8446
Email: [email protected]
7 June 2005
ARMENIAN PILGRIMS IN HONG KONG
Sydney, Australia – With the fatherly blessing of His Holiness Karekin II
Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, the Armenian Church
Committee of Calcutta, headed by Mrs Sonia John, organised a week of events
from 26 May-1 June to honour the memory of Sir Catchik Paul Chater, an
Indian-born Armenian, considered to be one of the founding fathers of Hong
Kong having made a major contribution to its development in the 19th and
early 20th century. A group of some 100 pilgrims including about 30 of
Chater’s descendants from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and
Australia, as well as a number of distinguished guests attended the
pilgrimage that coincided with the centenary anniversary of St Andrew’s
Church in Kowloon constructed with a large donation installed by Sir
Catchik.
Among the invited guest list was His Eminence Archbishop Aghan Baliozian,
Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of Australia and New Zealand;
His Grace Bishop Yesraz Nersessian, Primtate of the Diocese of Russia; Dr
Richard Hovannisian, Dr Kevork Bardakjian and Dr Peter Cowe from the United
States.
The week-long activities commenced with Holy Mass on Friday, 27 May, 2005
presided by His Eminence Archbishop Baliozian and accompanied by His Grace
Bishop Nersessian. Sixteen students from the Armenian College &
Philanthropic Academy Church Choir in Calcutta partook in the church service
that was followed by a memorial luncheon. The congregation later proceeded
to the Happy Valley Cemetery on Hong Kong Island for the blessing of Sir
Catchik’s grave.
On the following day, a seminar was held at Kimberley Hotel where
international and local guest speakers including Archbishop Aghan Baliozian
addressed the pilgrims on various topics relating to Sir Catchik Paul
Chater’s life and his spirit of philanthropy. Later that same afternoon,
there was an open discussion with the panellists and a presentation of a
film on the life of Sir Catchik Paul Chater produced by Henrik Terchonian, a
former student of the Armenian College and Philanthropic Academy and Awardee
of the Sir Catchik Paul Chater.
On the morning of 29 May, there was opportunity for guests and pilgrims to
meet the descendants of the Chater family. In the afternoon, Mrs Sonia John
addressed the pilgrims on the Armenians of India organised by the Royal
Asiatic Society.
The activities over the week incorporated tours of Hong Kong city to view
places of Sir Chater’s interests; a cultural performance by the ‘Nane’ dance
ensemble from Armenia and students of the Armenian College and Philanthropic
Academy in Calcutta; the launching of Liz Chater’s biography on Sir Catchik
Paul Chater entitled “A Prominent Armenian From Calcutta and the Grand Old
Man of Hong Kong” and Henrik Terchonian’s book entitled “Life & Times of Sir
Catchik Paul Chater”; and a banquet dinner that concluded the commemorative
event.
Ms Liz Chater who compiled the genealogical history of the Chater family was
instrumental in gathering the descendants from around the globe for this
auspicious occasion. Also actively involved in the local organisation of
the memorial events were long time residents Mr and Mrs Jack and Julie
Maxian.
Also present among the pilgrims were Principals and student representatives
from La Martiniere School in Calcutta, Sir Catchik Chater’s alma mater.
When the School was facing financial crisis and the prospect of shutting
down, Sir Chatchik provided financial assistance to keep the School afloat.
To this day, the students remember their benefactor in the daily School
Prayer.
Sir Catchik Paul Chater’s legacy in Hong Kong is well documented however it
is his connection with the Armenian Community of Calcutta, India that
initiated this tribute. Sir Catchik bequeathed a considerable sum of money
in his will to the Armenian Church in Calcutta, a legacy that continues to
help maintain the upkeep of numerous Armenian institutions and facilities in
India today.
Sir Catchik Paul Chater (1846-1926) was revered in a manner befitting his
greatness in the pilgrimage that was entitled “Magnificent Man of All
Seasons”.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ELECTION OF BSBTD PRESIDENT POSTPONED UNTIL LATE JUNE (ARMENIA)
YEREVAN, June 6. /ARKA/. The election of the President of the Black
Sea Bank for Trade and Development (BSBTD) has been postponed until
the end of June, RA Minister of Finance and Economy, Chairman of the
BSBTD Board of Directors Vardan Khachatryan told reporters,
rpresenting the results of the 7th meeting of the BSBTD Directors
held in Yerevan. He accounted for this by the fact that it is for the
first time that, besides Turkey, Russia has nominated itself for the
BSBTD President. “Geopolitical discussions have got under way, and the
election has been postponed until June 29-30, for additional
consultations to he held, as the voters have been halved,” Khachatryan
said. He also reported that a decision has been made on holding the
next meeting in Azerbaijan, and in 2007 Moldova will host the guests.
The Minister pointed out that the Yerevan meeting agenda included over
a dozen issues, with agreements reached on all of them. Among the
issues are the BSBTD 2005 budget and a 2004 report. “In 2004, the
bank’s activities were rather efficient: in 2003 the bank’s losses
totaled 2-3mln USD, whereas last year only 400,000 USD. In the first
quarter of 2005, 300,000 USD profit was recorded,” Khachatryan
said. He also reported that an agreement have been reached on the
signing a memorandum on cooperation between the BSBTD and EU. The 7th
meeting of the BSBTD Director was held in Yerevan on June 5. No
reporters were invited to cover the meeting. P.T. -0–

AZERBAIJAN HOPES TO PROMOTE TIES WITH EU
[June 04, 2005, 10:52:59]
Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
June 4 2005
On June 3, Minister of Foreign Affairs Elmar Mammadyarov received
delegation of the Slovenian Parliament led by the National Party
leader Zmago Jelinic, reported theForeign Ministry’s press-center.
Minister Mammadyarov expressed the great significance attached by
Azerbaijan to the relations with EU and its Neighborhood policy and
particularly emphasized its steady commitment to European integration.
Mr. Jelinic, having delivered to the Minister greetings from his
Slovenian counterpart the OSCE Chairman-in-office Dimitrij Rupel,
expressed his content upon the visit to Azerbaijan, pointed out
striking democratic reforms conducted in the country. Underlining the
importance of upcoming parliamentary elections, the head of delegation
stressed his hope that the elections would be held under democratic and
transparent conditions. He also expressed his willingness to take part
in elections as an observer. Further the guest touched upon the process
of democratic reforms, social and political situation in the country.
The guest touched upon the issue of Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno
Karabakh conflict emphasizing the determination of Slovenia in its OSCE
chairmanship capacity to work for soonest settlement of the dispute. He
also stressed unacceptability of conflicts between European nations.
Elmar Mammadyarov, having underscored achievements of Azerbaijan
in economic, political, social and other areas, informed the guest
in detail about measures taken by the state to held free and fair
elections. He stressed the crucial importance of the President’s
Executive Order on improving of the election practices in Azerbaijan,
both during the pre-election campaign and in the election proper.
Foreign Minister stated that he was pleased with the level of bilateral
relations between the two nations, expressing at the same time his
hope that the relations would further develop in the future.
The minister informed the guest in detail about current stage of
peace talks in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh conflict. He
also underscored the importance of territorial integrity principle
and termed unacceptable attempts at changing frontiers through force.
During a meeting other issues of mutual interest have been discussed
by the two sides.

BREAKTHROUGH IN GEORGIA-RUSSIA NEGOTIATIONS ON TROOP WITHDRAWAL
By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Jamestown Foundation
June 3 2005
Friday, June 3, 2005
On May 30 in Moscow, Ministers of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov
and Salome Zourabichvili signed a Joint Statement regarding the
“cessation of functioning” of Russian military bases and other
installations and withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia. In this
document, the Russian side renounces some major, long-held positions,
accepts a timetable and benchmarks for troop withdrawal until 2008,
and abandons its extravagant demands for financial compensation that
had been designed to postpone the withdrawal indefinitely.
Thus, the document marks a decisive breakthrough in the negotiations
(see EDM, March 14, 15, May 9) and is a major success for Georgian
policy and diplomacy. Nevertheless, the text opens some potential
loopholes in follow-up agreements that Moscow can use down the road
to obstruct the Joint Statement’s implementation.
Timetable. Russia is to hand over its bases and installations to the
Georgian side and evacuate its forces from Georgia according to the
following schedule:
Handover of the Tbilisi armor repair plant by June 15, 2005; handover
of the Zvezda and Kojori communications relay stations (in the environs
of Tbilisi) and other, unnamed installations by September 1, 2005;
evacuation of at least 40 armored vehicles, including at least 20
tanks, also by September 1, 2005; handover of further installations,
according to a mutually agreed list, in two stages, by January 1,
2006 and October 1, 2007; evacuation of heavy weaponry, including CFE
Treaty-Limited Equipment, from the Akhalkalaki base by the end of 2006;
complete withdrawal of forces from Akhalkalaki and partial withdrawal
from Batumi by October 1, 2007; extension possible until the end of
2007 if weather conditions are unfavorable (this is understood to
refer to convoying of equipment from Batumi by sea to Russia); and
completion of the withdrawal from Batumi, along with closure of the
Tbilisi headquarters of Russia’s Group of Forces in the Transcaucasus,
“in the course of 2008.”
“Withdrawal Mode.” From the moment of the agreement’s signing,
Russia’s bases in Batumi and Akhalkalaki shall “function in a
withdrawal mode,” curtailing military training and preparing for
evacuation of equipment and personnel. Georgia shall allow Russia
temporarily to send in additional military specialists to those
bases with a view to facilitating the transport of equipment and
personnel out of Georgia. The immovable property is to be handed
over to Georgian authorities “in its existing condition” (i.e.,
not deliberately wrecked, as was done at the Vaziani base in 2001).
Russian military personnel may opt for leaving the service to stay
permanently in Georgia as civilian residents, along with their family
dependents. In such cases, Georgia shall guarantee their title to
the dwellings they currently inhabit.
Residual Presence, “Anti-Terrorist Center.” Under separate agreements
to be concluded, Russia shall use the Zvezda station jointly with
Georgia and continue using the Kojori station exclusively for an
unspecified period of time. The Gonio training range, attached to
the Batumi base, shall be handed over to Georgian jurisdiction on
September 1, 2005, to be jointly used by the two sides under a separate
agreement. Some personnel and some installations of the Batumi base are
to be used for setting up a Georgian-Russian Anti-Terrorist Center,
again under a separate agreement to be negotiated (no timeframe
mentioned for such negotiations).
In recent months, the Russian side had sought to re-label the Batumi
and Akhalkalaki bases as “anti-terrorist centers” and retain sizeable
garrisons with heavy weaponry at both bases, as well as to create an
“anti-terrorist center” in Tbilisi, and conclude agreements with
Georgia on this matter prior to the start of troop withdrawal. The
Georgian side would only agree to creating one such center, under
Georgian sovereignty, without troops and weaponry, and authorizing it
to perform analytical functions only. Once the withdrawal of Russian
forces begins in earnest — as Georgia successfully insisted — ahead
of negotiations on the “anti-terrorist center,” Russia will lose its
leverage to pressure Georgia on this issue.
Financing. The sides shall “jointly seek supplementary funding from
external sources to cover transport expenditures in the course
of withdrawal.” With this, Russia renounces its earlier demand
for hundreds of millions of dollars to finance the relocation and
accommodation of its forces in Russia. The formulation in the document
makes clear that any external financing would only relate to withdrawal
of forces from Georgia’s territory, not their rebasing in Russia;
and that the withdrawal is in no sense conditional on such assistance.
Gudauta. The Joint Statement vaguely says that a German-led
inspection will help determine whether Russia has fulfilled its
obligations regarding the Gudauta army and air force base. Under the
1999-adapted CFE Treaty and Istanbul Commitments, Russia was to have
closed Gudauta in 2001. In the event, Russia only reduced its force
there, but retains the base and seeks to legalize this situation in
order to claim compliance with this part of its 1999 obligations.
Legalization would, in turn, remove a hurdle to international
ratification of the adapted CFE Treaty, through which Moscow hopes
to place constraints on forces stationed in the Baltic states.
Transit. Russia and Georgia shall in the course of 2005 reach an
agreement on “transit in the interest of Russia’s Ministry of Defense
through Georgia’s territory in compliance with international law.”
Such wording may refer to Russian weaponry to be relocated from
Georgia to Armenia as a short-term arrangement, part of the evacuation
of Russian forces from Georgia. But it would also apply to Russian
troops and materiel moving between Russia and Armenia across Georgia
as a long-term arrangement, for rotation and supply of Russian forces
in Armenia or arms deliveries to Armenia. Russia clearly wants the
latter type of arrangement.
Legal Effect. The Joint Statement is not legally binding. However, it
has the political value of committing Russia publicly to withdrawing
its forces from Georgia by a certain date and even to observing
intermediate deadlines and benchmarks. Moreover, the Joint Statement
goes a long way toward predetermining in Georgia’s favor the content of
a legally binding Agreement, to be finalized “in the nearest future,”
on the time-table and modalities of the functioning and withdrawal
of Russian forces from Georgia.
While the document’s content clearly meets Georgia’s interests,
the procedures associated with the planned Agreement and its legal
implications pose some risks. Thus, the Joint Statement envisages that
the Agreement will legalize Russia’s military presence in Georgia,
even ensuring troop rotations from Russia, pending the withdrawal;
and that the Agreement will be packaged together with an agreement
to set up the “anti-terrorist center(s).”
It is understood (though not stipulated) that the Agreement will
involve Georgian authorization for “temporary deployment” of Russian
heavy weaponry over and above CFE Treaty ceilings; and that the
Agreement will necessitate parliamentary ratification — a process
that Russia’s Duma knows well how to misuse at the government’s
behest. Thus, Moscow will retain significant means to drag out the
troop withdrawal, circumvent its obligations, or add conditions to
its fulfillment of the Joint Statement’s and the Agreement’s terms.
Close international attention is necessary in order to ensure
scrupulous observance of the withdrawal timeframe and other commitments
stipulated by the Joint Statement as signed, without awaiting follow-up
documents that may be negotiated and signed down the road.

DIPLOMAS OF ARMENIAN UNIVERSITIES TO BE VALID IN COUNTRIES JOINED TO BOLOGNA AGREEMENT
YEREVAN, JUNE 2. ARMINFO. Diplomas of Armenia’s universities will be
valid in all the countries joined to the Bologna agreement of the
All-European educational system and ratified the Lisbon Convention
on recognizing qualification of higher education, stated director
of Armenia’s National education institute Viktor Martirossyan in an
interview to ARMINFO.
He noted that these documents will allow students to get academic
bachelor’s and master’s degrees in accordance with All-European
educational system standards. Martirossyan noted that reforms in
Armenia’s educational system will be completed till 2010. In his
words, some Armenian universities have agreements on validity of their
diplomas in some foreign universities. Besides, Armenian diplomas
are valid in universities of all CIS countries.
According to Armenia’s National Statistic Service, in 2004-2005 in
Armenian state universities studied 2972 foreign students, of them
901 from Georgia, 666 from Iran, 536 from India, 343 from Syria,
305 from Russian and 36 from Turkey. 806 foreigners study in private
universities. To remind, Armenia ratified the Lisbon convention in
March, 2005 and joined to the Bologna agreement early in May.
At the same time, as IRNA informs, ambassador of Iran to Armenia
Alireza Khakikiyan does not advise Iranians to study in Armenia, In
his yesterday’s speech in Tebriz he informed that Iranian students
face with big social problems within the study period in Armenia.
Ambassador stated that the Iranians graduated from universities and
institutions of higher education in Armenia, face with low mark of
Armenian diplomas. “Iranian families should not send their children
for continuing study in Armenia”, Khakikiyan stated. -r-

Araz Azimov: “Transporting bases to Armenia is contrary to the region countries’ interests”
Today, Azerbaijan
June 2 2005
01 June 2005 [12:45] – Today.Az
“Azerbaijan supports the agreement obtained between the sides on
withdrawing the Russian military bases from the Georgian territory”.
This was informed to the journalists by the foreign affairs
deputy-minister of Azerbajan Araz Azimov.
According to the words of the FAM official, Azerbaijan is displeased
with the wish of Moscow to place some part of the military equipment
to be withdrawn from Georgia in Armenia.
“Azerbaijan has already sent a note in the connection of this problem,
and we are waiting for the response. Transporting the military bases
situated in Georgia to Armenia does not conform to the interest of
Azerbaijan including the interest of all countries of the region. I
think that there is no need to establish foreign military bases in
the Southern Caucasus. We consider that keeping the foreign military
bases in the region is contrary to the interests of all nations living
in this region”.
/APA/
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress