Author: Maghakian Mike

Russian companies interested in cooperation with Georgia – Prime Minister Fradkov

RIA Novosti, Russia
June 3 2005

TBILISI, June 3 (RIA Novosti) – Russian companies are seriously
interested in cooperation with Georgia in the spheres of energy,
transport and metallurgy, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov said
after talks with his Georgian counterpart Zurab Nogaideli.

“We regard energy, transport and metallurgy as most attractive spheres,
while Georgian companies are also interested in the Russian market,”
Fradkov said.

Fradkov, Nogaideli and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili
discussed practical cooperation between the Russian electricity and
gas monopolies RAO UES and Gazprom and Georgian companies.

“We also discussed taxation issues and extractions from the free
trade zone hampering business development,” Fradkov said.

Fradkov and Nogaideli also discussed the restoration of railway
communications linking Russia, Georgia and Armenia via Abkhaz
territory. “We cannot miss this chance,” the prime minister said.
(With no direct railway communications between Russia and Georgia
special attention is given to the ferriage between the Russian port
of Kavkaz on the eastern shore of the Kerch Strait and the Georgian
port of Poti.)

Assessing the results of the talks, Fradkov said that the sides
discussed a number of problems and ways of their solution which will
promote the settlement of the Russian military bases issue.

Nogaideli said, in turn: “Our trade turnover totals $300 million
but this is not enough,” Fradkov said. “Let us reach $1 billion and
calm down.”

ARMENIAN LOCAL ELECTIONS REMAIN INTRA-GOVERNMENT CONTESTS AMID OPPOSITION APATHY
By Emil Danielyan

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Jamestown Foundation
June 2 2005

Thursday, June 2, 2005

Over the past 15 years Armenians have grown accustomed to a great
variety of political groups vying for power in their country. They
must therefore be amazed by the glaring lack of choice in unfolding
local elections across Armenia, races that are largely contested
by candidates representing rival government factions or competing
business clans.

The Armenian opposition is again showing little interest in local
governments, adding to popular indifference to the polls. Opposition
leaders say that they want to concentrate their efforts on removing
President Robert Kocharian and that free elections are impossible
without regime change in Yerevan.

Elections in more than two-thirds of some 930 Armenian towns, villages,
as well as Yerevan districts are scheduled for this October. Most other
hamaynkner, or local communities, will elect their chief executives
and “councils of aldermen” in the course of this year. Some of them
have already done so in recent weeks.

Virtually none of those polls featured a major opposition candidate.
They were mostly two-horse races pitting candidates affiliated with
or endorsed by Prime Minister Andranik Markarian’s Republican Party
of Armenia (HHK) against contenders backed by other pro-government
forces or wealthy individuals. One election, held in the northern town
of Alaverdi on May 8, was contested by two candidates representing
different HHK factions. The defeated candidate accused the winner,
Alaverdi’s incumbent mayor, of massive vote rigging.

Nonetheless, the Armenian authorities did manage to display unity
in some cases. Nobody, for example, dared challenge Markarian’s
27-year-old son Taron, who ran unopposed in Yerevan’s northern
Avan district. He was “elected” Avan prefect with 97% of the vote
on May 22, becoming the youngest head of a local government body
in the country. In fact, Taron Markarian told the 168 Zham weekly,
he would have an even higher government position were his father not
prime minister.

The election in Yerevan’s nearby Nork-Marash district, scheduled for
June 5, will also feature one candidate: its incumbent prefect. A local
businessman pulled out of the race at the last minute after failing
(for unknown reasons) to win the endorsement of the People’s Party
of Armenia (HZhK), one of the most popular opposition groups.

“We are not participating in those elections because we have no
candidates,” HZhK leader Stepan Demirchian said on May 11 without
elaborating. He said his party would instead field candidates for
the October polls.

Another prominent opposition leader, Aram Sarkisian, admitted that
his Republic party would not do even that, as party leaders believe
Armenian local elections cannot be democratic as long as Kocharian
is in power.

Haykakan Zhamanak, a daily staunchly opposed to Kocharian, deplored
this line of reasoning in a May 19 editorial. The paper wrote that
by letting the ruling regime maintain its grip on local communities
the opposition only lessens its chances of toppling the central
government. “Opposition parties now have trouble meeting people in the
regions, and one of the reasons for this is that government stooges
who become community prefects or village chiefs are duly following
government instructions,” it argued.

Nonetheless, money and control of electoral commissions do appear
to be the main factor deciding the outcome of those ballots. Most
Yerevan district chiefs and town mayors are wealthy, government-linked
persons who have extensive business interests in their respective
communities. For them, vote buying is the easiest way to get apathetic
and impoverished voters to the polling stations. The central
government usually turns a blind eye to their questionable activities
because the local bosses play an important role in manipulating
presidential and parliamentary elections.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, another party represented
in Kocharian’s cabinet, has repeatedly expressed concern about the
growing influence of what it calls “apolitical elements.” One of its
leaders, Armen Rustamian, warned last February that failure to rein
them in and ensure the freedom and fairness of the October elections
could result in bloodshed.

Armenians may have received a taste of things to come on May 29,
when a mayoral election in Hrazdan, a town 50 kilometers north of
Yerevan, was marred by violence and fraud allegations. According
to official results, its incumbent mayor, Aram Danielian, narrowly
defeated his main challenger, Artur Shaboyan, who is not affiliated
with any party. Shaboyan refused to concede defeat.

As voting there drew to a close, scores of masked police officers
reportedly attacked and indiscriminately beat up Shaboyan’s proxies
and supporters outside three polling stations. Eyewitnesses said
the special police units used electric-shock equipment. More than a
thousand people rallied in Hrazdan the next day to demand a recount
of ballots.

“A new fact has emerged,” another newspaper, Aravot, reported from the
scene. “You don’t have to be an oppositionist in order to be beaten and
electrocuted. All you need is to protest against vote falsifications.”

(Aravot, May 31; Haykakan Zhamanak, May 24, May 19; 168 Zham, May 19;
RFE/RL Armenia Report, May 11)

United Press International
June 2 2005

First firing in U.N. oil-food scandal
By William M. Reilly

UPI United Nations Correspondent
Published June 2, 2005

UNITED NATIONS — The firing of Joseph Stephanides, director of the
U.N. Security Council Affairs Division, marks the first termination
ordered by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in connection with the Iraq
Oil-for-Food Program scandal.

Stephane Dujarric, a spokesman for Annan, told reporters
Wednesday, “After a thorough review of all aspects of the case the
secretary-general has decided that Joseph Stephanides be summarily
dismissed for serious misconduct in accordance with the U.N. staff
regulations. Stephanides was advised accordingly (Tuesday) and was
separated from service with immediate affect.”

Stephanides said he would appeal.

Annan’s decision to dismiss Stephanides brought to 40 the
number of staffers who have been summarily fired since he became
secretary-general in 1997.

A 24-year-veteran of the world organization, Stephanides was involved
in awarding of contracts for the $64 billion Security Council-mandated
program to ease the suffering of Iraqi civilians under Security
Council-imposed sanctions against the regime of former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein.

The Independent Inquiry Committee for the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program,
commissioned by Annan to investigate the scandal, issued a report
in February which found that a U.N. steering committee “prejudiced
and pre-empted the competitive process in a manner that rejected
the lowest qualified bidder” with the “active participation” of
Stephanides. He was immediately suspended and given time to respond
to the administrative charges against him as part of due process.

According to the IIC report, Stephanides violated procurement rules
to enable Britain’s famed Lloyd’s Register Inspection, Ltd. to
secure a multimillion dollar U.N. contract under oil-for-food. While
Stephanides acknowledged this to be a technical violation of the rules,
he contended he acted to benefit the United Nations by negotiating
the lowest price and not for personal gain, the report said.

However, the IIC did not accept this explanation, noting Stephanides
“shared information with and enlisted the United Kingdom’s assistance
in an effort to win the contract for Lloyd’s, not simply to obtain
a better price from Lloyd’s for a contract award that already had
been decided.”

The inquiry committee said it did “not doubt the sincerity of
Stephanides view that Lloyd’s was the best company for the contract
or that this view was shared by high-ranking officials of the United
Nations and some members of the Security Council,” but maintained
that rules which should have been followed were not.

Stephanides, 59, and Benon Sevan, 67, head of the oil-for food program,
were suspended with pay after the IIC, headed by former U.S.

Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, accused them of misconduct
in February.

Both men have said they were being made scapegoats, a view shared by
several at “U.N. HQ.”

Dujarric said any action that may be taken against Sevan, an
Armenian-Cypriot retained after retirement on a $1 a year contract
to keep him available, would be delayed until after the committee was
finished investigating him so that “if administrative action is to be
taken against Sevan it would be taken as a whole instead of piecemeal.”

The pensions of both Sevan and Stephanides, coincidentally also
a Cypriot, could not be affected by any disciplinary action, a
spokesman said.

Sevan, a 40-year veteran of the world organization, was accused in
the February interim report of a “grave conflict of interest” for
requesting Baghdad sell oil to a Swiss-based oil company, African
Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. Inc.

It said seeking oil from Iraq was “ethically improper and seriously
undermined the integrity of the United Nations.”

While the report did not accuse him of taking kickbacks, it did show
concern for $160,000 Sevan said he received between 1999 and 2003
from an aunt, a retired photographer for the government in Cyprus. She
recently died in a fall down an elevator shaft.

“Sevan never took a penny,” said his lawyer, Eric Lewis, in a recent
statement.

The gregarious Sevan, frequently seen in the vicinity of U.N.

World Headquarters in New York, recently in a nearby restaurant gave
a friendly cuff to a United Press International correspondent and to
the amusement of other people at the table, said: “I just wanted you
to see I am not running away from anything. I am right here.”

Saddam reputedly handed out oil vouchers to influential people who
could then sell them.

The Security Council’s oil-for-food scheme allowed Baghdad to sell oil
as long as the income went into a bank account to fund the purchase
of humanitarian goods, compensation to 1991 Gulf War victims and oil
infrastructure maintenance.

Saddam’s regime decided who could buy Iraqi oil, what goods to buy
and from whom. Then the U.N. Security Council’s “661 Committee,” named
after the authorizing resolution, vetted the requests, monitored the
contracts and watched out for the possibility any of the requested
goods might have “dual use” for building or maintaining weapons of
mass destruction or a means to deliver them.

All along, there was rampant smuggling of oil out of Iraq members of
the Security Council turned a blind eye to because it was heading in
most instances to allies.

RUSSIA AND IRAN JOIN HANDS IN THE CASPIAN
By Stephen Blank

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
June 1 2005

Wednesday, June 1, 2005

While Central Asia and the Caucasus have been the recent focus of
world attention due to the popular revolution in Kyrgyzstan and the
massacre in Andijan, Uzbekistan, potentially significant strategic
developments there have been unduly neglected. In late April Russia
evidently proposed the creation of a new defense formation,
specifically a rapid-reaction force in the Caspian. Iran welcomed the
proposal (IRNA, May 3; RIA-Novosti, May 4).

Although not much is known about this proposed force, it appears to
be intended not just to repulse terrorist threats but also to oppose
a foreign, i.e. Western, military presence in the Caspian. While this
new Russo-Iranian gambit is clearly intended to counter Washington
and NATO, it also represents a significant modification of Iran’s
stated policy of opposing the militarization of the Caspian, although
Tehran naturally is trying to obscure this contradiction in its
policy (IRNA, May 3).

Azerbaijan appears to be at the center of this issue. Immediately
after U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld left Baku on April
12-13, there was a noticeable spike in local stories claiming that
Washington was seeking major bases and extensive radar, air, and
air-defense facilities in Azerbaijan from which to attack Iran or
from which sophisticated radars and a tripartite military bloc
including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan could be built.
Azeri-American plans to further develop Operation Caspian Watch,
whose purpose is to help the Azerbaijani navy defend its coastal and
offshore oil platforms that Iran has previously threatened and to
enhance Azerbaijan’s participation in NATO’s Partnership for Peace.
apparently triggered this overwrought reaction (Nezavisimaya gazeta,
April 15, 25; RIA-Novosti, May 4; Trend News Agency [Baku], April
14).

But Moscow’s proposal also occurs in a grander strategic context, not
just of the Ukrainian and Kyrgyz revolutions, and now the Andijan
uprising, but also of NATO’s and America’s enhanced interest in the
Caucasus and Central Asia and Russia’s retreat from Georgian bases.
It is now clear that Moscow will leave those bases, whose strategic
utility is questionable at best, by 2008. Russian President Vladimir
Putin, albeit with considerable bitterness, has acknowledged publicly
that in a situation where the host country insists on withdrawal,
Russia has no option but to bring its troops home. Even so, Putin
publicly voiced his fears that the Russian withdrawal would soon be
followed by American bases in Georgia, notwithstanding Georgian
officials’ long-held position that there would be no foreign bases on
their soil (Komsomolskaya pravda, May 24; Itar-Tass, May 14; Moscow
Times, May 24). Even Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s minister of defense, had
to acknowledge in April that the “temporary deployment of U.S. and
NATO bases on CIS territory in support of the anti-terrorist
operation in Afghanistan is in Russia’s national interests.”

Obviously, in order to counter that unwelcome combination of Western
bases in the CIS and retreating Russian power, Putin and Ivanov
thought they had to come up with a new gambit. Evidently they are
pushing for a second Russian base in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, in the Fergana
valley, the epicenter of unrest in Central Asia, and may relocate
their Georgian forces in Armenia, a prospect that disturbs Baku
(RIA-Novosti, May 26; see EDM, May 24).

Iran also feared that these alleged new bases, which have yet to be
announced, would be used to attack it. Certainly there were reports
to that effect from Baku (Trend News Agency, Baku, April 14). Tehran
has much to be anxious about, because it appeared that Russia was
leaning toward the Europeans in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear
program and it obviously faces tremendous pressure from the EU and
the United States over that program. Tehran cannot afford to alienate
Russia under any circumstances and, as in the past, it has had to
accept the relative primacy of Russian forces in the Caspian. It
certainly does not wish to see that primacy supplanted by NATO or the
United States.

There is also reason to believe that Iran was also animated by its
unhappiness over the prospect of a formal Afghan-American strategic
partnership complete with long-term, albeit not permanent, U.S.
basing capabilities at Bagram in Afghanistan and the retention of the
U.S. and NATO forces there. Reports from Afghanistan indicate a
considerable Iranian influence among those who stirred up the recent
anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan. They also indicate that
this issue, not reports of desecration of the Koran, was probably the
driving force behind the Iranian and Pakistani agitation that stirred
up the demonstrators (New York Times, May 26).

Pentagon officials queried by Jamestown profess no knowledge of any
such Russo-Iranian security bloc or forthcoming huge base structure
in Azerbaijan and pointedly emphasize that such reports contradict
the global basing plan that was briefed to Moscow in 2004 and found
not to be a threat to it. Thus, while there may be more heat than
light behind the Russo-Iranian proposal, that scheme suggests not
only that the great game in the CIS is heating up, but also that its
military character and the trend towards strategic bipolarity in
those regions are assuming a much sharper and therefore more
dangerous character.

RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN CENTRE FOR INNOVATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION TO OPEN IN YEREVAN ON JUNE 1

YEREVAN, May 31. /ARKA/. Russian-Armenian Centre for Innovational
Technologies in Education will open in Yerevan on June 1. According to
the Press Service of RF Embassy in Armenia, the centre will function in
the building of Yerevan branch of Moscow State Economic, Statistical
and Information Science University. The Centre is organized with the
assistance of RA Ministry of Education and Science and RF Embassy in
Armenia. L.V.–0–

STEPAN DEMIRCHIAN: WE SHOULD FIRST OF ALL STRUGGLE AGAINST PEOPLE COMMITTING FORGERIES AND VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY

YEREVAN, MAY 30, NOYAN TAPAN. “We are anxious about the fact that
instead of discharging its main obligations, the Prosecutor’s Office is
engaged in organizing the Dancing Round Aragats,” Stepan Demirchian,
Chairman of the People’s Party of Armenia, Head of RA NA Ardarutiun
faction, declared in his interview to Noyan Tapan’s correspondent. The
Prosecutor’s Office, he emphasized, has much to do in connection
with unbridled manifestations of crime, universal corruption and the
October 27 case that was slurred over. “If unity is meant I think
that we should first of all jointly struggle against people committing
forgeries and violence in our country,” the PPA chairman declared. To
recap, the May 28 Dancing Round Aragats was organized by the Nig-Aparan
compatriot union headed by Aghvan Hovsepian, RA Prosecutor General.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 30, 2005, Monday

WHOSE ARMAMENT IS BETTER?

SOURCE: Trud, May 26, 2005, p. 6

by Alexander Komlev

The dynamic development of military and technical cooperation in the
Union State of Russia and Belarus will promote provision of stability
and security in Eurasia. Director General of FGUP Rosoboronexport
Sergei Chemezov talks about the state and prospects of
Russian-Belarusian military and technical cooperation.

Question (Q.): Sergei Viktorovich, how can the military and technical
cooperation be characterized in the post-Soviet territory today?

S. Chemezov: Russia concluded the agreements on military and
technical cooperation with Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Armenia and
Azerbaijan. At that, this cooperation is special with each state.

The state participants of the Organization of Collective Security
Treaty, i.e. Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan,
have preferences in the course of purchases of Russian military
production. However, there is one important reservation. The
purchased military hardware should be adopted in the national
military units included in the collective forces of fast response.
Only in this case the export cost of the production will be equal to
the purchasing price for Russian Armed Forces.

Besides, the value added tax isn’t levied on advance payments of
allies and delivery is carried out at Russian internal prices. In
case of the withdrawal of some side from the Treaty, the preferences
should be liquidated and difference between the export and reduced
prices should be drawn up as the national debt.

Specialists have already calculated that the participation in the
joint military and technical project of three-four states reduced
their expenditures of each state by 70-100%.

On conditions that about 500 enterprises of Russian defense industry
have co-operational production, scientific and technical relations
with over 1200 managing subjects of the CIS, not only an economic
effect but the total increase in this or that high-tech sphere is
guaranteed. As it is known, 103 enterprises, which belong to Russia,
Armenia, Belarus and Ukraine, participate in the cooperation for
production of anti-aircraft missile system S-300PM. Moreover, 568 CIS
enterprises participate in production of MiG-29.

Of course, it is rather difficult to cooperate in the situation when
a lot of ties for development and production of armament were lost
and united technological chains were broken. The aircraft building is
very sensitive to it. As it is known, the state of this industry
plays a significant role in provision of national and collective
security. Each fifth plant, which produced flying vehicles and
airborne electronics, found itself abroad in 1991-1992. Russian
aircraft building lost over 40% of repair plants and 15% of
enterprises for production of engines for military requirements and
aircraft armament. Several enterprises, which had produced component
parts, had to work in the Baltic States, Moldova and Kazakhstan.
Russia practically lost the plants for production of military
transport helicopters (they are situated in Ukraine and Uzbekistan
now), engines for helicopters, cruise missiles and military transport
planes (basically, in Ukraine), elements of airborne electronics and
armament, including homing heads for air-to-air and air-to-surface
missiles.

Q.: What countries set the integration pace today?

S. Chemezov: Of course, Russian-Belarusian cooperation is an example
of development of the integration processes. The result of
cooperation, which has been stirred up since the late 90s, is the
growth of the share of armament and military hardware produced in
cooperation between Russian and Belarusian defense enterprises in the
joint export of Russian production. In accordance with some
appraisals, it reached the level of 30-35%. It is conditioned by the
fact that about 33% of assembly capacities and corresponding research
centers of the ex-USSR are concentrated in Belarus. Moreover, the
political leaderships of our countries try to strengthen our
bilateral relations.

Q: Did the disintegration and breakup of cooperation ties between
defense industries of ex-republics of the USSR tell on the export of
armament?

S. Chemezov: Unfortunately, the motives and facts of dumping behavior
of several companies on the market still persist. On the whole, it
seems that the potential of free competition between CIS countries
has already exhausted its resources. The phase of joining of efforts
in the sphere of military and technical cooperation and coordination
of joint actions on the world armament market takes place now. The
coordination of prices is another important factor. The profitability
of special exporters can be increase by 10-14% in case of use of
joint price policy. The regime of mutual supplies for cooperation
promotes the reconstruction of scientific, technical and production
cooperation between defense industries of Russia and Belarus.

The lists for supplies of over 600 items of production from 59
enterprises of Belarus for 68 enterprises of Russian defense industry
and of about 500 items of production of Belarusian defense industrial
complex without licensing and imposing of any customs duties.

The actions of Russian and Belarusian special exporters are well
coordinated today.

Q.: How is it possible to characterize the jural space in the sphere
of military and technical cooperation between Russia and Belarus?

S. Chemezov: As a favorable one. The military and technical
cooperation between Russia and Belarus has being carried out since
July, 1992. Several bilateral intergovernmental agreements were
concluded. The agreement on mutual protection of rights to results of
the intellectual activity used in the course of the bilateral
military and technical cooperation, which was concluded between
Russian and Belarusian governments, became another step on the way of
improving and unification of the standard-legal base in the frames of
the Union State. The most important fact is that both sides undertake
not to supply military production made with the use of intellectual
property of one of the sides to third countries without coordination.
By the way, Russia and Kazakhstan signed the same agreement too.

Q.: What role do intergovernmental financial and industrial groups
play on the CIS market?

S. Chemezov: The role of intergovernmental financial and industrial
(MFPGs) is very important in creation of the united technological
space in the framework of the Union State and CIS. Several
Russian-Belarusian MFPGs, e.g. Oboronitelniye Sistemy, BelRusAvto,
Elektronniye Tekhnologii etc., are working in the Union State. At the
present moment, the question concerning the participation of some
artificial person of Ukraine in MFPG Oboronitelniye Sistemy is being
solved at the present moment.

Q.: In what projects and spheres is the military and technical
cooperation between Russia and Belarus especially productive?

S. Chemezov: The biggest potential of the military and technical
cooperation is in the sphere of capital repairs and upgrading of
military hardware, including planes Su-22, Su-27, MiG-29, helicopters
Mi-8 and Mi-17, combat infantry vehicles BMP-1 and BMP-2, armored
troop-carriers BTR-60 and BTR-70, anti-aircraft systems S-300V and
communications facilities. Belarusian defense industrial complex has
great opportunities in this sphere. For example, over 100 Belarusian
enterprises participated in joint programs of upgrading of military
production made in the USSR at the present moment.

Belarusian-Russian center of after-sales service, upgrading and
repair of armament and military hardware for anti-aircraft forces
Oboronpromservis seems to be a very prospective and interesting
project. This interstate structure will provide the activity for
maintenance of anti-aircraft facilities deployed on the territory of
Belarus, Kaliningrad region and North-Western region of Russia.

We have also the so-called international projects. For example, FGUP
Rosoboronexport, Belarusian special exporter Beltekhexport, public
corporation Peleng and French company Tales participate in the
international tender for supplies of modern fire control systems for
upgrading of T-72M1, basic tanks of Indian Armed Forces. The
foundation of the fire control system is the day and night
multi-channel thermal imaging sight “Sosna-U” produced by Belarus.

(…)

ARMENIA’S EXPORTS TO INDIA AMOUNTED TO 300,000 USD IN 2004

YEREVAN, May 30. /ARKA/. In 2004, Armenia’s exports to India amounted
to 300,000 USD, Chairman of the RA Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Martin Sargsyan told reporters. According to him, closer cooperation
between the two countries’ businessmen creates opportunities for
increasing exports. “We hope that our businessmen will be able to
take part in an international exhibition in India in November 2005,”
he said.

In his turn, Indian Ambassador to Armenia Dipak Vohra stated that
over the past few years Armenia has started exporting not only metals,
but also electronic equipment and technologies to India. Armenia has
a great information technologies potential, he said. The Ambassador
also pointed out that he see great potential in the export of Armenian
wines and fruit, first of all apricots, to India.

According to the RA National Statistical Service, in 2004 Armenia’s
foreign trade with India amounted to 8.674mln USD, increasing by
44.7% as against 2003. Armenia’s exports to India totaled 289,500 USD
against 43,400 USD in 2003, and Armenia’s imports from that country
8,384.5 thousand USD against 5,951.8 thousand USD in 2003. P.T. -0–

Pan Armenian News

LUXEMBOURG CAN BUILD NEW BRIDGES BETWEEN ARMENIA AND EU

28.05.2005 04:43

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian Parliament Speaker Artur Baghdasarian met with
Grand Duke of Luxembourg Henry, press service of the RA NA reported. During
the meeting the parties discussed bilateral relations, peaceful settlement
of regional conflicts as well as cooperation within the EU New Neighborhood
EU policy. During the meeting with the Armenian delegation Minister to
Foreign Affairs and Immigration Nicolas Schmit noted that Luxembourg can
build new bridges between Armenia and the EU. Artuir Baghdasarian in his
turn presented the developments in the South Caucasus as well as Armenia’s
position on relations with neighbor states including Turkey. The parties
also agreed on cooperation in international structures.

Armenian conference issue “beyond my area of interest” – Turkish premier

Anatolia news agency, Ankara
27 May 05

ASTANA

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Greek Cypriot
administration did not fulfil its task on solution of Cyprus issue,
stating that Greek Cypriot administration was the number one reason of
not reaching a solution on Cyprus issue.

Erdogan proceeded from Astana to Almaty, Kazakhstan and talked with
journalists at the Intercontinental Hotel.

When he was reminded of the European Union’s (EU) reactions to
postponement of the conference entitled, “Ottoman Armenians in the Era
of Collapse of the Empire: Scientific Responsibility and Democracy
Problems” to be held by Istanbul’s Bogazici University, Erdogan said,
“these developments are all beyond my area of interest. Conferences
and symposiums are held. I have nothing to do with it. I am not a
person who has problem with such issues. My problem is that I think if
those who have to guard the values of this country evaluates the issue
with subjective comments without taking into all these documents on
scientific grounds, it will be disrespect to the past of our country
and nation.”

Erdogan stressed that Turkish state opened its all documents and
archives on this matter, stating that people should study these
archives and then they should held such seminars or symposiums.

[Passage omitted]