Author: Nahapetian Boris

PRESS RELEASE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-10) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web:

Diaspora Conference in Yerevan to Feature Forum Called "New Answers to Old
Questions"

As part of the ArmeniaDiaspora Conference to take place in Yerevan on
September 18-20, there will be a forum on the universal themes facing
diasporas. Entitled, "New Answers to Old Questions: Armenians in the 21st
century," this forum will explore questions about nations, nation-states,
identity, culture, economics, emigration and citizenship, in a borderless,
globalizing, electronically-linked world. Scholars from Armenia and the
Armenian Diaspora, as well as specialists on the Israeli, Irish, Basque and
Indian experiences will consider diaspora-related topics — some of which
are new for Armenians, who have a state for (nearly) the first time in
centuries. On the other hand, many of the questions that will be raised
will be the recurrent, traditional questions that diasporas ask. However, as
times and technology changes, and with an independent state as a homeland,
the answers can be new and different.

On the theme of Nation, State and Identity in the 21st century, a group of
international experts will look at approaches to understanding the elements
of culture and identity, their application to diasporas, and to Armenia and
the Armenian Diaspora. Understanding how other diaspora-homeland relations
have evolved, especially when the diaspora is older than the state, larger
than the state, more diverse than the state is important for Armenians. Can
diaspora institutions and politics develop without the homeland, and can a
homeland develop independently, unaided by its diaspora — that’s a question
that requires consideration. How to match reciprocal perceptions, therefore
expectations of each other — is another. Is there / will there be an
Armenian Diaspora outside of the traditional structures and institutions?
How does a diaspora shape perceptions of the homeland?

The culture of identity is another topic — one very significant for
Diasporans. How does one go from feeling to being Armenian? What is the
role of language, literature, arts, religion, history (including memories of
genocide and involuntary migration) in defining citizenship and culture?
Will the universal culture/mechanics of the internet and MTV become an
advantage for bringing new dynamics to relations and making ³culture² less
rigid and more democratic, making ³definers of official² culture less
relevant? Is globalization seen as a threat to both or can we see new forms
of being and feeling Armenian? Are there bridging efforts? Participants
from Armenia and the Diaspora will address these questions.

The economics of diaspora-homeland relations is a two-way street that must
be looked at in the social and cultural context. (A specific conference on
economic development and investments will take place concurrently, on
September 20, in the same conference hall.) But this session will focus on
whether mechanisms and an economics can be created to give direction to
future cultural and social developments?

Finally, a special panel will focus on migration and repatriation, studying
emigration and repatriation in history, around the world. What is the
Armenian experience and memory of emigration and repatriation? What is the
capacity for repatriation today? Should the government take on an active
role? Can or should today¹s migration and repatriation trends be reversed?

Finally, the forum will conclude on the second day with a look at the
Armenian Diaspora in 2020. It is necessary to develop some scenarios of
possible prospects for Armenian national treasures around the world, for the
future of historic communities, for language and culture even in the largest
communities, for the need and capacity for new and old institutions, around
the world. What facts and analyses are prerequisites to future programming
and policies? What will the Diaspora look like in 2020? How will each
other¹s perceptions of Armenia and Armenians have changed? What will today¹s
youth be doing as tomorrow’s Armenians?

Each of these topics will be addressed by specialists in the field, followed
by a group of discussants from the Armenian diaspora and Armenia. Finally,
the floor will be open to questions as time permits.

There will be simultaneous interpretation in four languages: Armenian,
English, Russian, French.

Participation in the ArmeniaDiaspora III conference is open and registration
is available at or
There will be many special cultural and social events during the conference,
including a special session on rural poverty eradication — a joint program
of the Armenian government, the Armenian Diaspora and the international
community.

–Boundary_(ID_Y1DK0DjeZ D/1GNNE9zo1gw)–

Seyran Ohanyan: We’ll not return the territories comprising our security
zone before the recognition of NKR

ArmRadio.am
07.07.2006 18:00

NKR Defense Minister, Colonel-General Seyran Ohanyan declared today
in Stepanakert that "before recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic we do not intend to return the territories comprising our
security zone."

Seyran Ohanyan noted that the Karabakh side stands for the peaceful
settlement of the conflict, "but Azerbaijan imposed war on us and we
had to resolve the issue in a military way."

In the Minister’s words, the territories under NKR control are not
an end in itself, they serve as a security zone to provide for the
peaceful existence of the Republic.

The General underlined that the question of deployment of peacekeeping
forces on the these territories and the conflict zone will be discussed
at the final stage of the settlement, after the resolution of the
major issue, i.e. the determination of the Nagorno-Karabakh status.
"If the major problem is not resolved, there can be no question about
the return of territories," the Foreign Minister remarked.

Turning to the militant statements of Azerbaijan, Seyran Ohanyan
expressed the opinion that in reality the Azeri side is not willing
to start war. In the Minister’s opinion, the military rhetoric of
Baku pursues domestic political objectives. He noted also that NKR
Army possesses effective measures of defending the Republic.

ECONOMIC COURT TO BE DISSOLVED

Lragir.am
07 July 06

During the debates on the judicial reform in Armenia Davit Harutiunyan,
the minister of justice of Armenia, announced that magistrate courts
will be established in Armenia where minor cases will be tried,
reports the news agency ARKA. Magistrate courts will be established
in all the regions.

"The economic courts will be dissolved in Armenia because investigation
of such cases does not differ from the investigation of civilian
cases," announced Davit Harutiunyan.

ARMENIAN COMPANY WON TENDER FOR BUILDING ELECTRIC MAIN BETWEEN GEORGIA AND ARMENIA

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.07.2006 15:11 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ An Armenian company is planning to build an electric
main of 330MW between Georgia and Armenia. Georgian Ministry of
Energy Nika Gilauri reported that the Armenian company won the tender
announced by the Energy Ministry. The details of the project are being
discussed at present. The Armenian company will launch the building
works soon, while the deadline of the works will be determined by the
yearend. The electric main will be 100km long, the project will cost
$20-24 million, reports RusCable.Ru.

300 CRIMINALS IN ARMENIA TO BE AMNESTIED

Panorama.am
16:38 06/07/06

In case the National Assembly adopts draft decision "On announcing
amnesty", about 300 criminals will be amnestied, justice minister
David Harutunyan told reporters today.

In his words, the decision on amnesty will affect some convicts
cutting their terms of imprisonment. Serious crimes or crimes of
prime importance for Armenia including political relations will not
be covered in the amnesty. Among such, election fraud is included.

"By excluding these crimes from the list, the president expressed
his attitude to such crimes," Davit Harutunyan said.

He also said that those convicts that have a term of less than 3
years will be released. Also prisoners with 5 years of imprisonment
term may be released upon meeting certain criteria.

The amnesty will be announced to commemorate 15th anniversary of
Armenia’s Independence. Last time, amnesty was announced in 2001
in connection to 1700th anniversary of adopting Christianity in
Armenia.

LES JACKPOTS DE KIRK KERKORIAN

La Tribune , France
3 juillet 2006

Des debuts de l’aviation commerciale a l’explosion de Las Vegas, il
est une des legendes des affaires americaines et, a 89 ans, n’a pas
l’intention de s’arreter. Le pari que Kirk Kerkorian a tente en prenant
près de 10 % de General Motors il y a un an est le dernier d’une
longue serie qui a fait de ce fils d’immigre armenien la dix-neuvième
fortune americaine avec 10 milliards de dollars, selon Forbes Magazine.

Pilote d’avion pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Kerkorian rachète
en 1947 pour 60.000 dollars un avion avec lequel il transporte les
riches parieurs entre Los Angeles et Las Vegas. Lorsqu’il revend la
compagnie, onze ans plus tard, il empoche 107 millions de dollars.

Naît alors Kerkorian-le-raideur, faiseur de deals hors du commun.

L’an dernier, avant de partir a l’assaut de General Motors, il a
vendu MGM a Sony pour près de 5 milliards de dollars. C’etait la
troisième fois qu’il vendait le studio hollywoodien depuis sa première
acquisition, en 1970.

S’il n’a rien d’un reclus a la Howard Hughes, Kirk Kerkorian cultive
la discretion, voire le secret. Très populaire en Armenie pour y avoir
fait de très genereux dons, il ne s’y est pourtant rendu que pour
une seule et courte visite. On lui connaît un goût prononce pour le
tennis, auquel il continue de jouer. S’il mène toujours ses affaires,
il en a laisse la gestion quotidienne a des proches, comme Jerôme
York, qui le represente au board de General Motors. Cette discretion
contraste avec le goût du clinquant dans ses investissements. Outre
le cinema, cet ancien joueur repenti fait partie des visionnaires
qui ont faconne le Las Vegas moderne. Il a ete le premier a croire
aux gigantesques hôtels-casinos, qu’il n’a cesse de construire,
de vendre ou d’acheter depuis trente-cinq ans.

Son empire MGM Mirage est a la tete de 75.000 chambres sur le celèbre
strip.

La tentative de secouer GM n’est pas sa première aventure dans
l’automobile. À la fin des annees 1980, il est entre dans le capital
du constructeur americain Chrysler. Ses efforts pour en prendre le
contrôle ont echoue, mais lors de la fusion du troisième constructeur
americain automobile avec Daimler-Benz, en 1998, la valeur de son
investissement a plus que double. Cela ne l’a pas empeche de poursuivre
la firme allemande, qu’il accuse de l’avoir trompe sur les conditions
de la fusion. La justice l’a deboute en avril 2005. Preuve qu’il lui
arrive aussi de perdre des paris.

–Boundary_(ID_az95Vcsn4Y88GjJ28DuB0A)–

Senate delays confirmation vote on Armenian Ambassador-designate

ArmRadio.am
01.07.2006 11:20

In the wake of this past Wednesday’s contentious Senate Foreign
Relations Committee nomination hearing for Ambassador to Armenia
Designate Richard Hoagland, panel members John Kerry (D-MA), Paul
Sarbanes (D-MD), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have
each submitted a series of detailed written questions asking the
nominee to explain the guidance he has received from the State
Department concerning its policy on the Armenian Genocide, reported
the Armenian National Committee (ANCA).

Ambassador-Designate Hoagland’s June 28th appearance before the
Foreign Relations Committee was alongside nominees for the US
ambassadorships to Ireland and Switzerland, who were subsequently
approved by the Committee and then the full Senate on June 29th. In
contrast, the Committee deferred action on confirming the proposed new
Ambassador to Armenia.

"Seven of the eighteen members of the Foreign Relations Committee –
over one third of this influential panel – are already on record
raising serious concerns about confirming a new Ambassador to Yerevan
before receiving a full, open, and official explanation of the
circumstances surrounding the recall of our current ambassador, the
instructions given to our prospective ambassador, and ` more broadly –
the exact nature of our government’s policy on the Armenian Genocide,"
said ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian. "In light of the seriousness of
these issues – and the lack of responsiveness from the Administration
– we were gratified that the Committee has wisely delayed action on
the new Ambassador to Yerevan until these fundamental questions have
been answered."

ARMENIA’S OCCUPATION OF 20 % OF AZERI LAND NEGATIVELY AFFECTS NARCOTIC SITUATION IN THE REGION
Author: R.Agayev

TREND, Azerbaijan
June 28 2006

Armenia’s occupation of 20 percent of Azeri land negatively
affects narcotic situation in the region. One of popular
routes of drugs transportation is Afghanistan-Iran-occupied
Azeri grounds-Nagorno-Karabakh-Armenia-Georgia-Europe and
Afghanistan-Iran-Azerbaijan-Russia. These statements have been made
in the report performed by Colonel Mazahir Aliyev, deputy Chief of
Anti-Drug Board, at international conference "Routes of drugs delivery
from Afghanistan" in Moscow.

The reports states "Azerbaijan’s geostrategic location is very
attractive for drug dealers trying to use its territory for drugs
transportation to Europe". Aliyev said Azerbaijan repeatedly raised
and raises the question of joint monitoring at its occupied grounds
by international structures but no such structure responds to its
incentives. "There are most favorable conditions in Nagorno-Karabakh
to plant drugs. Armenia conceals this fact and we are to suggest it
makes a good business with that", – he outlined.

Aliyev said also occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 adjacent areas
resulted in loss of control over 123km long section of Azeri-Iranian
border. He highly appraised the interaction between Azerbaijan and
Iran. Iran, he said, was highly appraised by UN too for its struggle
against drug dealing. However, some problems, including those on
Azeri-Iranian border, that shall be solved in cooperation.

Speaking of reports by UN, OSCE, EU, NATO, Interpol, CSTO and a
number of other international organizations, Aliyev said ‘we do not
oppose the facts international authorities reveal. Just contrary,
it is good for Azerbaijan, as well as al such conferences".

During 2001-2005, Azerbaijan’s law-enforcement authorities revealed
10,709 cases linked to illegal turnover of drugs. 822kg of various
drugs have been ceased. From this amount 554kg is marijuana, 119kg
opium and 35kg heroine and so.

NO ARSONS DETECTED BY OSCE MISSION IN NAGORNO KARABAKH SECURITY ZONE

Regnum, Russia
June 28 2006

On June 28, a recurrent monitoring was held at the contact line of the
Karabakh and Azeri armed forces’ contact line near the settlement of
Yusifjanly, reported the Nagorno Karabakh Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Field assistants of the Personal Representative of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office Peter Kii (UK), Irzhi Aberle (Czech Republic), and
Hunter Folk (Germany) conducted the monitoring from the Karabakh side.

The monitoring was held according to the schedule. No ceasefire
violations were fixed. The representatives of the NKR Foreign and
Defense Ministries who accompanied the OSCE mission remarked that
despite the Azerbaijani party’s allegations of arsons in the Nagorno
Karabakh security zone, the monitoring participants did not reveal
any cases of arsons in the area.

STATEMENT BY THE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS TO THE OSCE PERMANENT COUNCIL

AZG Armenian Daily
29/06/2006

During the Vienna June 22, 2006, meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs made a statement on their proposed
key principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement and their
further activities.

Bellow is the statement of the MG co-chairs posted on the website of
the US Embassy in Armenia:

Mr. Chairmen, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In November last year the Minsk Group Co-Chairs reported to this
Council that the two sides in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were
poised to make a transition from negotiating to decision-making and
that a historic breakthrough in the settlement of the conflict was
possible in 2006. During the past seven months, we intensified our
mediation efforts and worked hard to achieve the agreement of both
sides on basic principles for a settlement.

We visited Baku and Yerevan three times together and several more
times separately, organized two meetings of the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan and two summits between Presidents
Kocharian and Aliyev – first in Rambouillet in February and then in
Bucharest in early June.

For the first time since 1997, when the current format of the
Co-Chairmanship of the Minsk Group was established, a joint Mission
of Representatives of the Co-Chair countries at the Deputy Foreign
Minister level traveled to the region in May in order to make clear to
the presidents of both countries that 2006 is the necessary window of
opportunity for reaching an agreement on Nagorno- Karabakh. In fact,
the delegation of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigoriy Karasin,
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, and high-ranking
French diplomat Pierre Morel – representing French Political Director
Stanislaus de Laboulaye – told the two Presidents that our three
countries expected them to take advantage of this opportunity by
reaching an agreement on core principles for a settlement at their
Bucharest summit in early June.

Our deputy ministers told the two Presidents that an agreement on
basic principles now, before the July G8 Summit in St. Petersburg,
would secure broad international support and a high level of
financial assistance for postconflict reconstruction and peacekeeping
activities. We stressed – as always – the belief of our nations and,
more widely, of the international community that the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict can be resolved in no other way than a peaceful one. Moreover,
we stressed that both leaders need to prepare their publics for peace
and not for war.

Mr. Chairman, our deputy ministers proposed to Presidents Aliyev and
Kocharian a set of core principles that we believe are fair, balanced,
workable, and that could pave the way for the two sides to draft a
far-reaching settlement agreement. We continue to believe in these
principles, and we urge the Presidents to embrace them as the basis
for an agreement.

Unfortunately, the Presidents chose not to reach such an agreement
in Bucharest. As mediators in this process, we will not breach the
confidentiality of their sensitive diplomatic dialogue, as we continue
to hope that they will reach an agreement.

At this juncture, though, it is our responsibility to you,
Mr. Chairman, to this Council that has provided the funding for a very
intensive series of negotiations, to the international community, and –
perhaps most importantly – to the publics in Armenia and Azerbaijan,
to acquaint you with the basic principles that we have put on the
table for the consideration of the two Presidents. We note that the
principles the Co-Chair countries proposed to the two Presidents were
not developed in a vacuum, but follow on to nine years of detailed
proposals that have been advanced by our predecessors. Even though
3 those proposals were not accepted by the parties, that work of our
predecessors gave us important insights and foundations.

Our approach has been a modified one: we have not tried to solve all
aspects of the conflict in one phase. Instead, our principles seek
to achieve a major degree of progress but defer some very difficult
issues to the future and envision further negotiations. In sum, they
try to solve – in a practical, balanced way – what is immediately
solvable. These principles include the phased redeployment of Armenian
troops from Azerbaijani territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, with
special modalities for Kelbajar and Lachin districts.

Demilitarization of those territories would follow. A referendum or
population vote would be agreed, at an unspecified future date, to
determine the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The sides would
commit to further negotiations to define the timing and modalities
of such a referendum or population vote.

Certain interim arrangements for Nagorno-Karabakh would allow
for interaction with providers of international assistance. An
international peacekeeping force would be deployed. A joint commission
would be created to implement the agreement. International financial
assistance would be made available for demining, reconstruction, and
resettlement of internally displaced persons in the formerly occupied
territories and the war-affected regions of Nagorno-Karabakh. The sides
would renounce the use or threat of use of force, and international
and bilateral security guarantees and assurances would be put in
place. We note with respect to the idea of a referendum or population
vote to determine the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh that
such a vote would be the product of a negotiated agreement between
the two sides. Suitable pre-conditions for such a vote would have
to be achieved so that the vote would take place in a non-coercive
environment in which well-informed citizens have had ample opportunity
to consider their positions after a vigorous debate in the public
arena.

Mr. Chairman, this is what we have proposed to the two Presidents,
but they failed to agree. Nonetheless, we have heard both sides
say repeatedly that they have never before been so close to an
agreement. It would be a tragically wasted opportunity for the two
Presidents to let this window of opportunity close in 2006 without
even the basic principles in place for a future peace agreement
for Nagorno-Karabakh. As you know, election cycles are approaching,
first in Armenia and then in Azerbaijan during 2007-2008. We have
seen before the negative effect that national elections can have on
negotiations, and we continue to believe that now is the time for the
two Presidents to summon the political will to take a courageous step
forward together toward peace.

Mr. Chairman, as Co-Chairs, we have reached the limits of our
creativity in the identification, formulation, and finalization of
these principles. We do not believe additional alternatives advanced by
the mediators through additional meetings with the sides will produce
a different result. We hope that the Permanent Council will join us
in urging the parties to the conflict to reach an agreement as soon
as possible based on the core principles we have recommended. If the
two sides are unable to agree on those principles we have put forward,
we believe it is now contingent upon them to work together to reach
an alternative agreement that both find acceptable. We remain ready to
assist. As mediators, however, we cannot make the difficult decisions
for the parties.

We think the parties would be well-served at this point by allowing
their publics to engage in a robust discussion of the many viewpoints
on these issues. We are confident that neither society wants renewed
conflict, and we urge the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan to
work with their publics and to work with each other to formulate an
agreement on core principles that both find acceptable. Ultimately, it
is the two sides that will be held accountable by their peoples and by
the international community if their actions lead to war and not peace.

Mr. Chairman, we see no point right now in continuing the intensive
shuttle diplomacy we have engaged in over the past several months. We
also see no point in initiating further presidential meetings until the
sides demonstrate enough political will to overcome their remaining
differences. Of course, the Co-Chairs will remain available to both
parties to serve faithfully and impartially as mediators. Acting
in complete unity among the mediators, we have delivered a product
reflecting our best efforts, and we strongly believe that it is now
time for the two Presidents to take the initiative for achieving a
breakthrough in the settlement process. It is the only way to secure
the positive results already achieved through the last two years of
negotiations, in order not to restart them later from scratch. We
will remain vigilant. We will continue our analysis and close
consultations among ourselves in our unified and effective framework,
in our continuing capacity as Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, supported
by Ambassador Kasprzyk and his team. We will be ready to reengage if
indeed the parties decide to pursue the talks with the political will
that has thus far been lacking.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our sincere
gratitude to the Chairman in Office, Minister de Gucht, whose close
interest and constant attention to the issues of the Nagorno-Karabakh
settlement, including his introductory remarks before the last meeting
of two Presidents in Bucharest, have contributed greatly to our work
in the first half of 2006.