Author: Nahapetian Samvel

THE ‘PLEASURE’ OF TRADING WITH AMD
By Gohar Gevorgian
AZG Armenian Daily #151, 26/08/2005
Home
The law on “Currency control” adopted by the National Assembly on
24 November last year went into effect on 29 June, 2005. It clearly
prescribes to make all payments for goods and services in Republic
of Armenia in national currency — dram. The Central Bank of Armenia
reminds that the stores, hotels, fairies and enterprise offering
all kinds of services should mention dram as the only currency to
trade with. Otherwise, the State Tax Service can apply administrative
punishment — warning for the first time and then fine.
Though the law “nationalized” buy and sell of most of the services,
there are still exceptions.
A notification on the window of a trading center informed that trade
is only in drams. As soon as I asked the price of a mobile phone,
it appeared to be in USD. A potential customer aware of the new law
will certainly come up to the counter with Armenian drams that he has
previously exchanged for USD but there he finds out that the phone
is available only in dollar. Now he has to pay more money in drams
for the phone, as the sellers set higher price counting 1 USD 470
AMD and not 465 as they should.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
August 24, 2005 Wednesday
Nigerian president to keep eye on Russian sailors case
By Yelena Volkova
MOSCOW
Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo said he will continue to pay
attention to the fate of the Russian sailors who are kept in custody
in his country on charges of oil contraband.
Obasanjo said so in his answer to the appeal by good-will ambassador
Ara Abramyan.
The president said he was taking into consideration Abramyan’s
concern and his wish to quickly resolve the situation.
After completion of judicial procedures and the announcement of the
verdict it might be possible to make political moves or consider the
prisoners exchange option, the president said.
Abramyan, a UNESCO good-will envoy and head of the Union of Armenians
of Russia, is taking an active part in the efforts to secure the
return of the sailors.
Russia passed to the Nigerian lawyers all the necessary documents for
their release under the embassy’s guarantees.
“Russia has completed the formalities demanded by the Nigerian
court.” The documents now need to pass through Nigerian judicial
bodies, a Foreign Ministry official said.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
—————————————— —-
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +37410. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +37410. 562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
23-08-2005
Regular Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Commonwealth of
Independent States
On August 23, a regular session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) of
the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) took place in Moscow under the
presidency of Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov.
Foreign Affairs Minister Vartan Oskanian headed the Armenian delegation to
the session.
The session’s agenda focused mainly on the preparation and adoption of
several documents to be presented during the CIS Summit to be held in Kazan,
Tatarstan on August 26.
The key themes of the agenda were issues relating to enhancing the
efficiency and improvement of the activities of Commonwealth bodies, draft
statements of heads of CIS states on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of
the UN and the Agreement for Humanitarian Cooperation of the Commonwealth of
Independent States.
The Foreign Affairs Ministers considered a decision to declare 2006, the
Year of the Commonwealth of Independent States and an appeal by the CIS
Heads of States to the people of the member states and international
community on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the accident at the
Chernobyl Electric Power Station.
Within the context of UN reforms, the Council of Foreign Ministers stressed
the importance of having inclusive reforms and their endorsement by the
majority of UN member states.
In the same evening, an unofficial meeting of the Co-chairs of the OSCE
Minsk group and Foreign Affairs Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan took
place.
A regular meeting between the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the two countries
on Nagorno-Karabagh conflict resolution is scheduled for August 25 in
Moscow.

Armenpress
TURKEY AWAITS OUTCOME OF ARMENIAN-AZERI TALKS
YEREVAN, AUGUST 23, ARMENPRESS: The New Anatolian Magazine in Turkey
quoted an unnamed diplomatic source as saying that Ankara is awaiting the
outcome of Armenian-Azerbaijani talks over the Nagorno Karabakh conflict to
decide whether to start the process of normalization of relations with
Yerevan or not.
The magazine said Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders are expected to make
progress in the conflict regulation efforts and agree on a proposal
envisaging the withdrawal of Armenian troops from five of 7 Azeri regions,
controlled by Armenian troops, while the status of Karabakh will be decided
in a referendum within next 15 years. The magazine said Turkish officials
were pondering over lifting Armenia’s transport blockade after Armenian
troops pulled out of the occupied regions. It also said Armenian occupation
of Azeri territories was one of the main obstacle to normalization of ties
between Yerevan and Ankara.
“Though Armenian authorities implicated recently that they were ready to
give its foreign policy line for recognition of so-called genocide
allegations, special ties between Azerbaijan and Turkey are hindering
Turkish government to open its borders with Armenia unless a solution is
found to the Karabakh dispute,” the New Anatolian said.

Russia hosts CIS air-defence exercise
ITAR-TASS news agency
20 Aug 05
Moscow, 20 August: Combat Commonwealth 2005, a live-firing exercise
of the CIS combined air-defence system, begins on Monday 22 August
at the Ashuluk range in Astrakhan Region.
Combined-arms and other units of the air forces and air-defence troops
of Russia, Armenia, Belarus and Tajikistan will jointly practise
interoperability in a broad range of areas. Four types of aviation
will be involved – fighter, ground-attack, bomber and reconnaissance.
The deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces for the
CIS air-defence system, Lt-Gen Aytech Bizhev, outlined the exercise
scenario in an interview in today’s edition of the Krasnaya Zvezda
newspaper. In the 10 years since the combined air-defence system was
set up, he said, its members’ military authorities have restored the
information sharing on airspace violations that existed between them
prior to the collapse of the USSR. This exchange is now automated and
flows between the central command posts of the Belarusian, Kazakh,
Ukrainian and Tajik air forces and air defences.
In the scenario for the exercise, “bandit gangs” and “terrorist groups”
have become more active in the North Caucasus, and Armenia asks the
CIS for assistance. Russia, Belarus and Tajikistan then urgently
deploy forces to the region.
According to Gen Bizhev, the main feature of this exercise is that for
the first time a regional air-defence group will be set up from the
participants’ air-defence forces and assets. Command of the group
will be automated, with the four countries’ missile forces being
coordinated from a single command post.
The creation of regional interstate air-defence groups is one of the
main trends in the development of the combined CIS system. The plan is
to establish such groups in the future in the East European, Central
Asian and Caucasus regions. Russia and Belarus have already agreed
a package of documents on setting up a regional air-defence system.

Asharq Alawsat (The Middle East), UK
Aug 19 2005
Iraq: A tactical Setback, A Strategic Gain
Amir Taheri
19/08/2005
Is the decision by the Iraqi National Assembly (parliament) to
postpone for a week its scheduled debate on a new draft constitution
“a major setback” for the newly liberated nation, a or just a bump on
the road to democratization?
There is no doubt that many who are nostalgic for the days of Saddam
Hussein had been hoping and praying that the 15 August deadline would
not be met. These are people who want Iraq to fail so that they could
prove that George W Bush and Tony Blair were wrong in toppling the
Ba’athist regime in Baghdad.
The postponement was a setback if only because this was the first
time that the new leadership was unable to meet a political deadline
it has fixed for itself. One cannot begrudge the opponents of the
liberation their unique moment of jubilation.
But if this was “a major setback”, as some dons of dilatory deeds
have claimed, why did Iraqi lawmakers broke into spontaneous applause
after they had voted to postpone the constitutional debate? Did they
know something that the serial filibusterers on Capitol Hill didn’t?
The answer is that while the postponement was a tactical setback for
the Iraqi lawmakers it represented a strategic advance for the
practice of democracy in the newly liberated country. The Iraqis
working on the draft resisted intense pressure from all quarters,
including Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the Shiite top
cleric, and the US Ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad, to brush
disagreements under the carpet and come up with “something.” They
were told to set aside the contentious issues and offer the assembly
the apple-tart and motherhood parts of their exercise.
But the drafters understood that the goal of the exercise could not
be making everybody happy for a brief moment. They understood that
the object of democracy is not to make everyone happy on every issue
every time. In fact, the opposite is often the case if only because
democratic decisions based on compromise as they are bound to be,
never fully satisfy anyone. What matters in democracy is that
everyone should feel happy about the way decisions are arrived at.
As far as the way decisions are made is concerned, the overwhelming
majority of Iraqis are happy. They know that the days when a
mustachioed despot could impose any constitution on them are gone,
hopefully for good. They also know that no single group can impose
its will on all others. More importantly, they know that if they
ignore the wishes of the people they wouldn’t be able to look their
neighbors in the face.
It is disingenuous to make much of the fact that the Iraqis have not
succeeded in writing a constitution in three months.
The physical act of writing a constitution is not difficult.
The late Ayatollah Khomeini asked one of his minions to translate the
constitution of the Fifth French Republic and then added a few
articles to enshrine his own despotic rule. The exercise took a few
days. The Pakistani military dictator Zia ul-Haq once told me that he
could write a new constitution “in a mater of weeks, if not days.”
General Douglas Macarthur is said to have assigned one of his
secretaries to write the Japanese Constitution, again in a matter of
days.
But the American “founding fathers” needed three years to write a
constitution which was, subsequently amended two dozen times.
And then remember that all “the founding fathers” were Christian
Protestant English gentlemen sharing the same ethnic, linguistic and
cultural background.
Iraq’s “founding fathers”, however, represent a complex mosaic of
ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities. The whole thing is
further complicated by the fact that five rival political coalitions,
representing some 60 different political parties- from the Communists
to the Islamists and passing by secularists and monarchists- are
involved in the writing of the constitution.
On top of all that the debate over the new constitution was widened
to involve virtually all Iraqis. Over 300 constitutional conferences
were held throughout the country, enabling some 50,000 people to
express the views of countless trade unions, cultural associations,
women’s organizations, human rights groups, guilds, tribal
leaderships and religious fraternities. An even broader debate took
place through the newly-born private media, including 150 newspapers,
dozens of talk-radio stations and half a dozen television channels.
Thus the exercise went far beyond a political task assigned to a
committee and developed into a nationwide course in politics, human
rights, civic duties, and public ethics. Many Iraqis discovered the
complexity of their society for the first time. They saw that Iraq
did not consist of the uniformed, mustachioed and gun-toting
individuals who marched in front of Saddam Hussein’s giant portraits
like so many robots.
“I didn’t know that we had a Luri minority,” a highly educated Iraqi
friend told me the other day.
“I had no idea that many Iraqi Kurds were Shiites,” another Iraqi
friend admitted.
Others discovered that there are Iraqi Turkmen, Yazidis, Assyrians,
Armenians, Chaldaeans, and Ahl-e-Haq in addition to a variety of
Kurds, Arab Sunnis and Arab Shiites. Iraq’s ethnic, linguistic and
religious diversity is further complicated by a rich array of
political and ideological sensibilities. On the left there are
Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and Labour Party-style
social democrats. On the right there are Islamists of a dozen
different sensibilities. In the middle there are democrats,
republicans and liberals who aspire after a Western-style system.
Imposing a constitution on all these different strata at gunpoint may
be easy. Getting them to agree on one is less so.
Recently, The Americans took six months to appoint an Ambassador to
the United Nations, and, even then, failed to agree. So imagine if
the Americans were to write their constitution in the multicultural,
multi-ethnic and politically divided United States of today rather
than in the homogenous country it was two centuries ago.
There is no doubt that every political move in Iraq today should take
into account two factors: the fight against the terrorists, and the
need for an early end to the US-led coalition’s military presence.
The speedy introduction of a draft constitution would be helpful on
both accounts. But it would be wrong to see the drafting of the
constitution as nothing but a tactical move related to the war
against terrorism and the departure of the foreign troops.
While the Iraqis must work hard and fast to meet the new deadline
they have set for themselves, there is no need to sacrifice quality
to speed. The terrorists will continue killing the Iraqis with or
without a constitution but are ultimately doomed to defeat. The
departure of he foreign troops is equally inevitable, although it
could be speeded up through the Iraqi political process.
The constitutional debate has turned Iraq into a giant school for
democracy. A nation that had been terrorized into silence for more
than half a century is beginning to learn to talk, to debate and to
engage in polemics. People, who never thought anyone would bother
about their views, or whether they could have any views of their own,
are now beginning to discover the power that they could have as
individuals and groups in a democracy. The new political elite is
learning the art of negotiation, diversion and, yes, even
filibustering. In Iraq today the past is fighting the future. The
future is sure to win.

Official Calls on Opposition to Seek Support from People
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Aug 19 2005
The fact that well-known opposition representatives have nominated
their candidacies from Baku is not accidental, says deputy chairman
of the ruling New Azerbaijan Party.
“This is due not of their ‘social base’ but the fact that most
representatives from international organizations are likely to
observe the November parliamentary elections in the capital city,”
deputy chairman of the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, MP Ali Ahmadov has
said. “The opposition candidates hope for the support of international
organizations rather than voters.”
Ahmadov said that such a position of the opposition is completely
erroneous and harmful. “The individuals, who love their motherland and
people, should try to get support of their people, but not foreign
forces and international organizations. I think the incident around
Ruslan Bashirli should teach them a lesson”.
The Yeni Fikir youth movement chairman Bashirli is charged with
plotting with Armenian intelligence to stage a coup in Azerbaijan.

Negi holds GM Sergey Grigoriants
Outlook, India
Aug 18 2005
>>From our Chess correspondent Abu Dhabi (UAE), Aug 18 (PTI)
International Master-in-waiting Parimarjan Negi held Grandmaster Sergey
Grigoriants of Russia to a draw in the fourth round of the Master’s
section at the 15th Abu Dhabi International Chess Festival here.
On a day when Grandmaster Surya Shekhar Ganguly also split the point
with Russian GM Evgeny Gleizerov, Indians had moderate success with
only IM D V Prasad and Eesha Karavade managing victories on the
lower boards.
At the top of the table, GM Mikhail Kobalia of Russia accounted for
compatriot and overnight sole leader Konstantin Chernyshov in an
interesting encounter to make it a three-way tie at the top between
himself, Russian GM Dmitry Bosharov, who scored an upset victory over
top seed GM Shakhriyar Mamedjarov, and GM Ashot Anastesian of Armenia,
who accounted for GM Gadir Guseinov of Azerbaijan.
With three leaders on 3.5 points, Ganguly stands joint fourth with
10 others on three points. Eesha Karavade and Negi are the next two
Indians on 2.5 points each. There are five more rounds remaining in
this Open event having a prize pool of USD 16400.
Negi, playing white, had no problems against his much higher ranked
opponent. Playing the Ruy Lopez, Negi went for innovative moves but
did not succeed in getting any significant advantage and decided to
split the point after 22 moves.
“I was probably better but did not think it wise to press for more,”
Negi said after the game.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZG Armenian Daily #145, 18/08/2005
Karabakh issue
ELMAR MAMEDIAROV: WE HAVEN’T REACHED AGREEMENT OVER 7-9 ELEMENTS YET
Elmar Mamediarov, foreign minister of Azerbaijan, stated that if
Yerevan and Baku “come to agreement at a level of foreign ministries,
the presidents will be able to give instructions on beginning the
work based on the received information.”
Mediamax informed that Mamediarov said, “at present, we do not work
on creating any particular document” and “the sides haven’t reached
the stage of elaborating the agreement.” Commenting on the coming
meeting of the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers slated next week
in Moscow, Elmar Mamediarov said that “the sides will try to elaborate
certain details to shape unanimous position on strategic issues.”
Mamediarov said that Azerbaijan and Armenia haven’t reached agreement
over 7-9 elements. “The details are not published. It’s too early to
speak of the essence of the given details, as the negotiation process
is still on,” he said, adding at the same time, that the people who
are somehow aware of the conflict settlement, will understand what
elements are meant.

KAZAKHSTAN QUESTIONS U.S. MILITARY ROLE IN CENTRAL ASIA
By Roger McDermott
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
Aug 17 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Kazakhstan’s delicate foreign policy, predicated upon balancing
its relations among China, Russia, and the United States, has come
under increased pressure both from its involvement in the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the growing tendency within the
region to question the long-term strategic role of the U.S. military
in Central Asia. The SCO’s request that Washington set a deadline
for its military presence in the region has exposed Astana’s foreign
policy paradigm to a severe test. Equally, senior and well-placed
Kazakhstani analysts have raised objections to the need for a sustained
U.S. military presence in the region and praised President Nursultan
Nazarbayev’s efforts to avoid basing American forces in Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan has developed a close bilateral defense relationship with
the U.S. and deepened its commitment to NATO’s Partnership for Peace
(PfP). Its open demonstration of supporting the war on terror has
been shown by steadfast adherence to the deployment of elements of
its peacekeeping unit (KAZBAT) in Iraq. There are no tangible signs
that Astana is considering backtracking on any of these steps; it has
no need to do so. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan’s support for the SCO’s
call for the U.S. to think in terms of a timetable for getting out of
Central Asia has been explained by reference to pressure from China
and Russia. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs
of Staff, has reportedly interpreted the position of the Central
Asian members of the SCO in precisely this manner.
However, the Kazakhstani media has presented an alternative
interpretation. According to Delovaya nedelya, the driving force behind
Astana’s strategic choice in favor of the SCO is rooted in its fear
of the potential spread of “color revolutions.” Such fears predispose
the Nazarbayev regime to open a more constructive dialogue on the
region’s future with Beijing and Moscow. Simultaneously, the same
article argues the existence of the link between Britain’s support
for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the recent London bombings,
pointing to the level of risk to Kazakh security taken in its current
deployment of KAZBAT in Iraq. Such articles are not anti-American,
as they also offer the other side of Kazakhstan’s dilemma: falling
hostage to China and Russia (Delovaya nedelya, July 22).
Bolat Sultanov, director of Kazakhstan’s Institute for Strategic
Studies under the Kazakh president, has gone much further in his
opposition to any continued American military presence in Central
Asia. He objects that it undermines Russian and Chinese security.
Convinced that the United States must withdraw its military personnel,
he argues that the spirit of the SCO is contravened by the presence
of foreign military bases. “I am categorically against the presence
of the military bases in Central Asia because any military base is
an occupation base. By the way, I cannot understand Central Asian
countries’ euphoria about the military bases. Everywhere there
are military bases people are demanding that the bases be pulled
out. Look at Europe, South Korea, and Japan,” explained Sultanov
(Interfax-Kazakhstan, August 10). Sultanov’s position is not entirely
new, having previously postulated such ideas, but what is unclear is
the role and influence his open and public hostility towards the U.S.
military presence will have on domestic public opinion and, perhaps
more significantly, within the Nazarbayev regime itself.
Kazakhstan is also observing the difficulties relating to the
issues emerging from the U.S. military deployment in Central Asia.
Uzbekistan’s decision to terminate its agreement with the U.S.
concerning Karshi-Khanabad has had implications for the renegotiation
of the bilateral agreement with Kyrgyzstan regarding the Ganci base
in Bishkek; already plans are being mooted about elements of the
Karshi-Khanabad deployment being relocated to Ganci. These agreements,
as important as they are, now seem a little shakier than they once did,
especially when compared to the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO). On August 11, Bishkek ratified the CSTO agreement on the joint
use of military infrastructure facilities in member countries. In
this context, the deployment of elements of the Russian Air Force at
Kant now appears more durable. Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan had
already ratified the agreement (Interfax, August 11).
Other multilateral organizations, such as NATO and the OSCE, are also
doing much to improve security structures in the region, which benefits
Kazakhstan. Its emerging defense relationship with the United States
has resulted in clear advances in its process of military reform
and the preparedness of its security forces to cope with terrorist
activity. Kazakhstan will continue to attach importance to its links
with Washington, seeing training and education and other forms of
security assistance as a vital part of improving its own anti-terrorist
capabilities. But at the strategic level, it is unlikely to seek to
favor any one of the great powers at the expense of the others. Astana
is now displaying interest in multilateral organizations including the
CSTO and SCO, since the latter serves as a forum through which Beijing
is involved, as well as enhancing its cooperation with NATO. It may
be possible to defuse tension over the U.S. military involvement in
Central Asia by promoting more practical multilateral cooperation,
among NATO, the CSTO, and SCO. Any approach that gives the impression
of the United States dealing on its own with individual countries in
the region at the possible expense of China and Russia will be doomed
to failure.