Author: Nahapetian Zhanna

Azeri public has little confidence in army – paper

Zerkalo, Baku
20 Nov 04

One of the key reasons behind the lack of public confidence in the
Azerbaijani army is that although the country is going through a
period of economic development, the government cannot provide even
for the basic needs of its army and keeps the social problems of
servicemen largely unresolved, an analytical article in Zerkalo
newspaper said. The article also said violations of the law and
unjustified fatalities were aggravating the already precarious
situation in the army. At the same time, people still have vivid
memories of the army’s defeat on the battlefield in 1991-94, which
resulted in the occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia. The
following is an excerpt from C. Sumarinli and F. Teymurxanli report
by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 20 November headlined “Society
still mistrusts the army” and subheaded “Azerbaijan will have to
‘bend over backwards’ to establish normal relations between the army
and the public”; subheads as published:

While the army is popular with society, many prefer to dodge military
service. This phrase is known in many countries of the world. Although
today the army acts as the guarantor of society, its Constitution and
statehood, the issue of trust in the armed forced is still high on
the agenda. If our state is to return the occupied territories, it has
to cover a long road in boosting the authority of the Azerbaijani army.

The official authorities claim that public confidence in the
Azerbaijani army has risen many times over the past several years. For
instance, the army’s top brass say 90-95 per cent of conscripts aged
between 18 and 35 are serving in the army now. According to official
information, 25-30 per cent of draftees receive deferment every year.

While in 1991 a little over 13,000 people received adjournment
from military service for being full-time students, in 2001 the
figure rose to 52,000. Whereas in 1991 some 1,300-1,500 people
received adjournment for family reasons, in 2001 the figure reached
17,000. According to a Defence Ministry source, these indicators have
barely changed to date.

Statistics shows that the number of deferments is on the increase. This
and other facts show that society is treating military service quite
negatively. Several examples will be sufficient to confirm this. A
17-year-old resident of the Sabuncu district Baku , Rafiq Asadov,
sees military service as a task beyond his strength. He says that if
he can find a decent job after leaving school, he will forego military
service. He is also opposed to the fact that recruitment age limit has
been brought to 35 years. “Now thanks to this age limit I will have
to live in fear of military service for 17 years,” he says with horror.

At the same time, another interviewee, a 14-year-old resident of
Salyan, Elnur Tagiyev, has a great confidence in the army. “I want to
become a military man. For this, I am going to apply for admission to
the Camsid Naxcivanski military lyceum. I think I can find myself only
in this sphere,” he said. Tagiyev added that military service attracts
him also in material terms. “There are no jobs in the countryside. Even
a university degree doesn’t guarantee you a job.”

However, quite a few people are trying to leave the armed forces
as soon as possible. For instance, not very long ago the officer of
a Mingacevir military unit, Maj Telman Abilov, was discharged from
the armed forced only after going on a hunger-strike. Lt-Col Uzeyir
Cafarov, who is better known as a military expert now, had to go to
court to be discharged from the army. Another employee of the Defence
Ministry’s educational and training centre, Col Elnur Mammadov, has
also taken the ministry administration to court in an effort to leave
the armed forces.

So what is going on? Why are servicemen eager to be discharged from
the armed forces? Everyone is saying one and the same thing: they want
to wage an irreconcilable struggle against negative phenomena. Some
believe that their military careers are over, others think civilian
life is easier and more profitable. If we take public sentiments
into account, it can be inferred that society is split into two camps:
representatives of one camp think military service is detrimental to
their careers, those of the other take pride in it.

Is the army to blame for our losses?

A major role in the widespread negative attitude towards the army
was played by the military defeat which is still vivid in people’s
memories. However, a representative of the military and scientific
centre under the Defence Ministry, Maj-Gen Tacaddin Mehdiyev, denies
that the army played a crucial role in the defeat. He believes that
major obstacles were put up in the way of army building in 1991.

“There was an order of the first Azerbaijani defence minister, Valeh
Barsadli, to establish self-defence battalions. According to the plan,
the battalions were to defend the positions held, while the process
of army formation was to run in parallel. But that required five to
six months,” he said.

Passage omitted: minor details

Mehdiyev said in the first stages of army building the bodies of
all soldiers killed in action were defiantly carried in front of
the presidential administration building and it was demanded that the
minister join the funeral procession. “Such actions served as the Sword
of Damocles hanging over the heads of officers and commanders. Military
commanders were afraid of launching offensive operations as they knew
that the death of just one soldier could trigger protest demonstrations
in Baku. For this and a number of other reasons it can be said with
a high degree of confidence that it wasn’t the army but the country’s
political administration and the opposition which preconditioned the
defeat in the Armenian-Azerbaijani war. This holds true for the period
between 1991 and 1994,” Mehdiyev said.

He also pointed to the contribution of the mass media to the country’s
defeat. To substantiate his remarks, he said: “Any redeployment
of troops on the front line was immediately reflected in the
press. Consequently, the Armenians, capitalizing on this information,
subjected the necessary directions to attacks.”

Society intends to condemn

The state military policy is based on the public opinion which
regulates whether this policy is enjoying popular support.

Passage omitted: examples from history

In the issues of security and army building, coordination between
the authorities and public opinion is an important strategic
factor. Experts believe that the process of army formation and
modernization must be open to specialists, as well as society in
general, because this is not only the prerogative of the state but also
that of society. Several experts believe that otherwise a gaping abyss
may appear between the authorities and the people. Namely, despite
what the official authorities are saying about military reforms and
improved conditions in the army, the public mostly thinks there are
no reforms as such, that only attempts are being made to imitate them
and that the army decay is continuing. Public opinion contradicts
statements about military reforms and in some cases translates into
overt condemnation. Some even believe that there is no confidence in
society that the state can repel possible military intervention. We,
in our turn, would like to say that society can be mistaken, but we
should not forget the centuries-long military experience of our people.

Defectors are still not condemned by society

The defeat of the Azerbaijani army in the military operations of
1991-94 and the ensuing occupation of our districts preconditioned
the loss of public confidence in the army, which, in turn, weakened
the Azerbaijani public’s enthusiasm.

Those advocating pacifist ideas think “it is better to be alive than
dead”, and proceeding from this principle refuse to take up arms to
defend their motherland in the event of clear intervention. One of
the horrors of the years of war is that those who defect from the
armed forces do not come under public condemnation. They are looked
upon almost as heroes “exemplifying courage”.

As an example, we can cite a recent incident: a street patrol detained
a soldier in the vicinity of the 20 Yanvar underground station (it
later transpired that the soldier had defected from the armed forces
– author). The surrounding people violently sprang at the patrol
officers as if they were defending someone absolutely innocent. The
dumbfounded street patrol had to let the soldier go under pressure
of the “patriotic” mob. And this is not just an isolated incident.

Passage omitted: statistical data of popular support for the army in
other countries

International military experts believe that the prestige of the
military profession has hit its all-time low. Experts maintain that
there are certain criteria for securing a victory. The success of a
military operation has a direct connection with the support for it
by at least 70 per cent of the population (40-60 per cent in the
worst case scenario). If the support level is below 40 per cent,
the military defeat is inevitable.

Azerbaijani society regards violations of the law in the army,
the unjustified deaths of servicemen and other negative facts as
indicators of the ongoing degradation of the armed forces. Ordinary
citizens cannot understand why the state cannot provide for the basic
needs of its army against the backdrop of the country’s large-scale
economic development. One of the reasons behind the loss of public
trust in the army is the fact that the salaries of servicemen in
Azerbaijan, a country rich in oil, is far from world standards,
while their social problems have yet to be resolved.

Passage to end omitted: repetition

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

November 24, 2004
___________________

INVITATION OF CATHOLICOS YEILDS HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE TRIP

>>From November 4 to 11, 2004, member of the Eastern Diocesan Council,
headed by Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate, traveled to Armenia at
the invitation of His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and
Catholicos of All Armenians.

The meetings started on the morning of the November 4, when the Diocesan
Council members knelt at the Altar of Descent in Holy Etchmiadzin and
prayed together, expressing their gratitude to God for their
opportunities. Following that was an audience with the Catholicos, who
welcomed the council members.

During a meeting with the Supreme Religious Council — presided over by
the Catholicos and chaired by Archbishop Barsamian — each member of the
Diocesan Council presented the strategy of the Diocesan Council and what
activities and efforts have been undertaken by the Eastern Diocese the
past five years. They also spoke about future plans to strengthen the
church in America.

“This was a memorable visit to Holy Etchmiadzin and the Republic of
Armenia, which strengthened my personal faith and gave me increased
optimism for the rapid spiritual and economic development of Armenia,”
said Oscar Tatosian, a member of the Diocesan Council.

There was a very good dialogue between the Diocesan Council members and
the Supreme Religious Council members. Each group asked and answered a
variety of questions during the discussions. The meeting continued on
November 5, when it covered a variety of items, including: the
preparation of clergy and how we can prepare effective pastors to
respond to needs of the Armenian faithful today, liturgical issues, the
Friends of the Holy Sea of Etchmiadzin endowment fund and fund-raising
activities by the Eastern Diocese, how to increase cooperation and
communication between Armenian Dioceses around the world, and the recent
official recognition of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by the Armenian
government. The discussions between the Council and the Supreme
Religious Council were good, open discussions.

“Our meetings with His Holiness and the members of the Supreme Religious
Council was a memorable experience,” said Council Member John Amboian.
“It provided me the honor and opportunity to become better acquainted
with His Holiness and the needs of the Holy See. The meetings also
provided me insight into the function and role of the Supreme Religious
Council.”

On the evening of November 5, the Catholicos lead the council members to
the youth center in Yerevan sponsored by the Holy Sea and the Armenian
General Benevolent Union (AGBU). The children there put on an exciting
program of dancing and singing.

SEEING THE REBIRTH

The following day the council traveled to the region of Shirak, where
they met with Bishop Mikayel Ajapahian, Primate, at the Diocesan Center
of the Diocese of Shirak. Bishop Ajapahian spoke of activities
organized by the Diocese of Shirak and took the group to the newly
consecrated Church of St. Hagop, whose benefactor is Sarkis Acopian.
The group then traveled to the His Holiness Catholicos Vasken I School
which was destroyed in the 1988 earthquake but renovated by the Fund for
Armenian Relief (FAR), the Diocesan-affiliated international aid
organization.

On Saturday the council also attended a concert in Yerevan at the
Symphonic Orchestra Hall commemorating the 130th anniversary of the
Kevorkian Seminary in Etchmiadzin.

On Sunday the council members were in Etchmiadzin for a special Divine
Liturgy, celebrated by Archbishop Barsamian on the occasion of the fifth
anniversary of the enthronement of His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme
Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians. After the badarak was a
luncheon and program. In celebration, the Council Members presented to
His Holiness the Catholicos on behalf of the Eastern Diocese a gift of
$50,000 to go towards renovating a church in Armenia.

On Monday the council members and the Catholicos traveled to the Diocese
of Geghakouniak, where they visited the newly constructed Vazkenian
seminary in Sevan. They also met with Fr. Terenik Davidian, locum
tenens of the Gegharkouniatz Diocese, who lead the group to the Diocesan
Center in Gavar. Fr. Davidian spoke about the support provided to
Armenian parishes from the Eastern Diocese through sister parish
programs.

“The results of the sister parish program were encouraging,” Tatosian
said. “It is an initiative which can be expanded to create more bonds
between Armenia and the faithful in our diocese.”

VISITING WITH THE YOUTH

On Tuesday the group had meetings in Yerevan with the Armenian Prime
Minister Andranik Margaryan and U.S. Ambassador John Evans. They also
attended a ceremony blessing the crosses for the roof of the newly
constructed Holy Trinity Church in Yerevan, whose benefactor is Louise
Manoogian Simone. The council then visited the FAR offices in Yerevan
and the Children’s Reception and Orientation Center.

The center is a safe haven for homeless young people that was opened in
2000 and has since cared for 700 troubled youth. It is a full-service
facility run by a professional staff of social workers, nurses,
psychologists, and doctors. The Center’s methodology combines
diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to assess the sociological
circumstances of each child. Based on in-depth analyses, the staff
develops personalized treatment plans and ultimately identify new
placements for the children unable to return home.

“The visit to that center was inspirational,” said Council Member Fr.
Yeprem Kelegian. “Seeing the FAR initiatives and the FAR people and the
work they’re doing, you definitely realized they are doing an awesome
job. You realize how they’re using money given to FAR to do so much in
Armenia, especially with this children’s reception project.”

“The loving talented and dedicated staff there is just taking children
off the street and literally recreating them and giving them their
childhood back,” he added. “I was just touched and their efforts really
stood out. All the Supreme Religious Council meetings and talking with
the Catholicos that was important, but I was just moved by that center.”

That same day, the Council members also met with the vicar of the
Araratian Diocese, Bishop Navasard Ktshoyan, and more than 100 young
people from his Diocese. They talked with the young people about how to
increase the connection and communication between the youth of Armenia
and the young Armenians in America.

“It was so good to see so many young people involved in the life of the
church,” said the Primate. “It is a sign that, even after a generation
of communism, we Armenians have a bright future ahead of us.”

HIGHLIGHTING EDUCATION

While in Yerevan, the group traveled to the National Academy of Sciences
where the Primate was honored with the Academy’s Gold Medal.

“It is truly the responsibility of the church to continue supporting
learning and education,” the Primate added. “The first words of the
Bible say that God told us to go forth and multiply and be masters —
and that is something we do with education. There’s so much potential
in humans; and through education and science we learn more each day.”

On Wednesday the Diocesan Council members and the Catholicos visited the
Diocese of Gougark, where they met with Bishop Sebouh Chuljyan, Primate,
who showed them the new St. Greogry of Narek Church built by Council
Member Sarkis and Ruth Bedevian. They also visited the Diocesan Center
of the Diocese of Gougark, where Bishop Sebouh spoke about the summer
camp run by his Diocese with the help of the Eastern Diocese.

While in Vanadzor, the group also toured the Anoosh Mathevosian School,
which was rebuilt and opened in 2002 by FAR with the financial support
of Anoosh Mathevosian. The school was damaged during the 1988
earthquake.

The Council members, who traveled at their own expense, departed Armenia
with renewed spirit and deeper love for their homeland.

“It was inspiring to see the leadership and what they’re able to pull
off in Armenia with so little — the rebuilding, the gathering of the
people, they’re doing an inspiring job,” Fr. Kelegian said. “It was
inspirational.”

— 11/24/04

E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News
and Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,

PHOTO CAPTION (1): Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate, and members of
the Diocesan Council of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
(Eastern), meet with His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and
Catholicos of All Armenians, who invited the group for a historic
meeting in Armenia from November 4 to 11, 2004.

PHOTO CAPTION (2): Members of the Eastern Diocesan Council meet with
members of the Supreme Religious Council in Etchmiadzin during a
first-of-its kind meeting.

PHOTO CAPTION (3): Archbishop Barsamian celebrates the badarak at the
Mother Cathedral in Holy Etchmiadzin on Sunday, November 7, 2004,
commemorating the fifth anniversary of the enthronement of His Holiness
Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians.

PHOTO CAPTION (4): Archbishop Barsamian and His Holiness Karekin II,
Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, bless new crosses for
the roof of Yerevan’s new Holy Trinity Church during the trip of the
Eastern Diocesan Council members to Armenia the first week in November
2004.

PHOTO CAPTION (5): Members of the Diocesan Council and Garnik
Nanagoulian, executive director of the Fund for Armenian Relief (FAR),
visit with young people at FAR’s Children’s Reception and Orientation
Center in Yerevan.

PHOTO CAPTION (6): Members of the Diocesan Council of the Diocese of
the Armenian Church of America (Eastern) meet with the new U.S.
Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, during their week-long trip to
Armenia in the first week of November 2004.

PHOTO CAPTION (7): Members of the Eastern Diocesan Council meet with
the Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan on November 9, 2004.

PHOTO CAPTION (8): Members of Diocesan Council with the Primate and
Catholicos visit Vanadzor’s St. Gregory of Narek Church, which is under
construction with an anticipated date of completion October 2005.

# # #

Huge protests over a “stolen” election

The Economist, UK
Nov 23 2004

Nov 23rd 2004
>>From The Economist Global Agenda

Up to 200,000 Ukrainians have protested outside an emergency session
of their parliament, at which the expected winner of the country’s
presidential election, Viktor Yushchenko, said he was robbed of
victory by ballot fraud. The country is now on the brink of a
conflict, he says.

HUGE columns of protesters, perhaps 200,000-strong in all, marched on
the parliament in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, on Tuesday November
23rd, as it held an emergency session to debate the deeply suspect
official results of the presidential election, whose final round was
held two days earlier. Leading the protest was Ukraine’s pro-western
opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, for whom exit polls had
predicted a comfortable win. Instead, the country’s electoral
commission announced that the winner, by a margin of three percentage
points, was Viktor Yanukovich, currently Ukraine’s prime minister,
who was backed by both the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, and
Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin. America, the European Union and
other international observers have denounced the election as a fraud,
while an official Russian observer said it was “legitimate”.

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe reports from
its independent electoral observation mission in Ukraine. The Kremlin
publishes press releases from President Putin.The EU issues
statements on the elections and gives information on foreign
relations. See also the US State Department. “Governments on the WWW”
provides a comprehensive resource on the government and politics of
Ukraine, including previous election results.

Inside the chamber, Mr Yushchenko accused Mr Yanukovich and Mr Kuchma
of electoral fraud and warned them that, as a result, the country was
now “on the brink of civil conflict”. Asserting that he was the
rightful election winner, he declared the presidential oath, with his
hand on a bible, before opening a window to address the crowds.
Outside, among the sea of blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flags, and
banners in Mr Yushchenko’s campaign colour, orange, were a few in the
red-and-white colours of Georgia, another former Soviet republic.
This was the protesters’ reminder that Tuesday was the first
anniversary of Georgia’s non-violent “rose revolution”, when huge
popular demonstrations forced the country’s then president, Edward
Shevardnadze, to resign following dubious parliamentary elections.

Could Ukraine be about to undergo its own, peaceful “orange”
revolution, rather like Georgia’s–or one stained blood-red? Mr
Kuchma, having kept silent since polling day, issued a statement on
Tuesday night urging talks between the two candidates and warning
that criticisms by western countries risked worsening the situation.
Mr Putin, who had earlier congratulated Mr Yanukovich on his
“victory”, called on both candidates to act within the law. The
parliament’s emergency session ended inconclusively, after Mr
Yanukovich’s supporters boycotted the debate to ensure there was no
quorum for any binding decisions.

What happens now depends on several factors. First, the magnitude of
Ukrainians’ reaction to the dubious election result. As the protest
began to gather strength on Monday, Mr Yushchenko warned: “Our action
is only beginning.” There has been talk of a general strike and the
local authorities in Kiev and several other large cities have
declared their refusal to recognise the official results. Around 20
middle-ranking Ukrainian diplomats, in missions in America, Germany
and other countries, have signed a document denouncing the results.

A second important factor is how Ukraine’s security forces react to
the protests. On Monday, they issued a statement promising that any
lawlessness would be put down “quickly and firmly”. But in Georgia’s
revolution last year, Mr Shevardnadze bowed to the inevitable and
stepped down after it had begun to look doubtful if his security
forces would obey any order to crush the rising pro-democracy
protests.

International pressure may also have a significant effect on the
outcome. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican sent by President George
Bush to monitor voting, accused the Ukrainian government of
supporting a “concerted and forceful programme of election-day fraud
and abuse”. The White House has talked of punitive measures against
Ukraine if the irregularities are not investigated. The EU has said
all 25 member countries would summon their Ukrainian ambassadors to
register formal protests. Russia’s attitude will be at least as
important: towards the climax of the Georgian revolution, Mr Putin
seemed to lose patience with Mr Shevardnadze, perhaps contributing to
his downfall. Does the Russian leader’s even-handed call for both
candidates to obey the law suggest he is already hedging his bets?

All along, both Russia and the West have been taking a close interest
in Ukraine’s election, not just because it is one of eastern Europe’s
largest countries, with 49m people, but because the outcome could
have important consequences for the whole region. Mr Yushchenko
presented himself as a pro-western, free-market reformer who would
seek membership of the EU and the American-led NATO defence alliance,
while cleaning up corruption and enforcing the rule of law. Mr
Yanukovich, in contrast, stood for deepening Ukraine’s close links
with Russia. If Mr Yushchenko had gained the presidency and led
Ukraine towards becoming a westernised democracy with European-style
prosperity, voters in Russia and elsewhere in eastern Europe might
have begun to demand the same.

Thus a win by Mr Yushchenko would have been a huge blow to Mr Putin,
who twice visited Ukraine during the election campaign to back Mr
Yanukovich. The Russian president’s attempts to exert control over
former Soviet states would be greatly diminished if the
second-largest of them were to escape from his grip and join the
West.

Though Mr Yushchenko is now hoping for a Georgian-style bloodless
revolution to deliver him the presidency, there are also some less
promising precedents among the former Soviet states: only two months
ago, Belarus’s president, Alexander Lukashenka, “won” a rigged
referendum to allow him to run for re-election. The EU decided this
week to tighten its sanctions against those in his government it
blames for the “fraudulent” ballot. But so far there is no sign that
Mr Lukashenka will be dislodged from power.

Azerbaijan and Armenia also held flawed elections last year: in
Azerbaijan, there were riots after the son of the incumbent president
won amid widespread intimidation and bribery, but these were
violently put down; and in Armenia, voters reacted with quiet despair
at the re-election of their president amid reports of
ballot-stuffing. If Ukraine follows these precedents, hopes for
change there, and in other parts of the former Soviet Union, may be
dashed.

UN DISCUSSING SITUATION IN THE AZERBAIJANI OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

A1 Plus | 12:46:35 | 24-11-2004 | Official |

The UN General Assembly met on November 23-th morning to conclude
debate on the outcome of the Millennium Summit and of the other major
United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and
related fields.

The Assembly was also expected to consider a draft resolution on
the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan (document
A/59/L.32), by which it would urge the parties to the conflict
involving the Nagorno-Karabakh region to continue seeking a peaceful
settlement based on relevant norms and principles of international
law. It would also reaffirm the right of return to refugees and
internally displaced persons while strongly appealing to the parties
in conflict to respect the rules of international humanitarian law.

In addition, the Assembly would stress that any actions to consolidate
the status quo of occupation was legally invalid and that actions
such as the transfer of settlers into the occupied territories were
illegal under international law and must be reversed immediately. It
would also invite the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) to urgently dispatch a multinational fact-finding
mission to inquire into and report on all aspects of the situation
in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Further, the Assembly
would request the Secretary-General to report on the situation at the
Assembly’s sixtieth session, and would decide to include the item on
the provisional agenda of that session.

Situation in Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan

ELMAR MAMMADYAROV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan,
introduced the relevant draft resolution, saying that 11 years
ago, the Assembly had considered the issue of the occupation of
the territories of his country, and had expressed support for the
efforts of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE)-led Minsk Group (Co-Chaired by France, United States and the
Russian Federation), aimed at settling the conflict in accordance
with the norms and principles of international law. Since then,
the OSCE-led negotiations had yielded both successes and failures,
and a host of Security Council resolutions adopted in response to the
occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories remained the principle basis
for settlement of the conflict with Armenia.

The Assembly, he continued, had previously contributed to alleviation
of the acute humanitarian situation in his country through its adoption
of its resolution 48/114 on emergency international assistance to
refugees and displaced persons in Azerbaijan. The occupation of
a significant part of Azerbaijan’s territories and the resultant
heavy humanitarian burden had obviously made Azerbaijan the country
most interested in bringing about an effective peace as soon as
possible. Azerbaijan’s consistent adherence to a ceasefire over the
past decade had demonstrated that it preferred peaceful settlement
of the conflict for the benefit of the entire region.

He went on to detail the Minsk Group negotiations on the matter,
taking place on various fronts and led by the Foreign Ministers
of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. During those talks, Azerbaijan
became concerned at credible information concerning increased
transfer of settlers to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan —
from which 750,000 Azerbaijanis had been expelled. Although similar
sporadic incidents had been registered in the past, those most recent
large-scale and organized transfers were being administered through
an official programme of Armenia called “Return to Karabakh”. That
programme was steered by Armenia’s Department of Refugees and Migrants
and was primarily financed through a budget specifically allocated
for the separatist Nagorno-Karabakh regime.

The most disturbing situation had arisen in the Lachin district,
which was populated by Azerbaijanis prior to the conflict. Following
the implementation of the settlement programme, that region was now
inhabited by some 13,000 Armenians, he said. Under one aspect of the
programme, Armenia renamed Azerbaijani towns — erasing their original
identities — in the occupied territories. For the establishment of
those settlements, the Armenian Government mobilized its armed forces
deployed in the occupied territories. Those forces had participated
in the establishment of two new settlements in the Kelbadjar region,
he added.

He went on to cite a number of official international sources that
had confirmed the transfer of settlers, noting that an OSCE official
had recently referred to the programme, which envisaged a two-fold
increase in the Armenian population in the occupied territories. In
addition, Armenia also consolidated its occupation of the Azerbaijani
territories through economic and financial policies. Indeed, the
banking system of the puppet regime established in the territories
was regulated by the Central Bank of Armenia.

Illegal settlement policies and practices carried out by Armenia were
clearly in violation of Security Council resolutions and international
humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, he said. Such
actions also ran counter to efforts aimed at a political settlement
of the conflict, undermined the credibility of the OSCE mediation
efforts, and were obviously aimed a prejudicing their outcome and
imposing a fait accompli on Azerbaijan. Although Armenia confirmed the
political will to settle the situation peacefully by its statements,
it continued to aggressively challenge Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity and sovereignty. Examining the entire chain of events, one
could conclude that, acting with impunity, Armenia was in the final
stages of implementing its heretofore camouflaged goal: to realize
its territorial claims over Azerbaijan.

As the situation continued to worsen, Azerbaijan had been forced
to request the Assembly to take up the matter. The draft under
consideration today was aimed at creating favourable conditions for
continuing negotiations. “By doing this, we do not intend to solve
the problems of political settlement of the conflict in the United
Nations,” he said, adding that neither was Azerbaijan attempting to
engage the Assembly in conflict resolution issues. The matter, he
stressed, concerned a problem that was impeding the process of peace
negotiations, and which, if continued, could lead to a humanitarian
disaster.

He said the text was balanced and constructive and was based on the
principles of international humanitarian law and relevant provisions
of Security Council resolutions. It would have the Assembly give
its strong support for the OSCE mediation efforts and contained
concrete provisions aimed at addressing the impediments to peaceful
settlement of the conflict. The negotiations were now at a critical
juncture, he said, and prompt and adequate measures were needed from
everyone. Armenia must take immediate, unconditional and effective
measures to cease and reverse the transfer of settlers to the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan would continue to undertake
all possible diplomatic measures to stop the dangerous developments
in the occupied territories of its country.

ALTAY CENGIZER (Turkey) said his country had been unwavering in
its support for a just and lasting solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, based on international law, the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan and relevant Security Council resolutions. It had actively
supported every initiative geared towards peace that had come forth
from the OSCE Minsk Group, and encouraged all the parties concerned
to facilitate the work of that Group. It was unfortunate that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was still an obstacle to lasting peace,
stability and regional cooperation in the southern Caucuses.

Today’s debate, he said, was neither an attempt to hamper or replicate
the OSCE’s Minsk process, which was the platform to address the issue.
On the contrary, it was a call to support that very process. The
Assembly should recognize today’s debate for what it was: a cry out
of frustration for years of despondency that had to be endured each
day for more than a decade by those directly affected by the results
of the prolonged conflict. “Hence, it is time for the international
community to see the dangers of prolonged human suffering, and the
perils inherent in allowing conflicts to fester”, he said.

“We have seen…how problems, which were left to linger on, eventually
come back to haunt all of us, and how people locked in protracted
conflict situations, left solely to their own devices, failed
alas to attain peace”, he said. It was based on that understanding
that Turkey voiced its support for the dispatch of a multinational
OSCE fact-finding mission that would report on all aspects of the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. That would have
a constructive impact on the efforts of the Minsk Group.

ARMEN MARTIROSYAN (Armenia) said that, about a month ago, a process
had started in the Assembly to discuss concerns over the situation
in the so-called occupied territories of Azerbaijan. That had been
done under the guise of “urgency”, using loopholes, and had not been
based on any substantiation of the arguments’ supposed “urgency” by
providing any factually correct information. The inclusion of a new
agenda item on the matter did not enjoy the support of an overwhelming
majority of the Assembly and was opposed by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs,
who had been dealing with the conflict in and around Nagorno-Karabakh
for 12 years now. They had unequivocally stated that the move did
not meet the required criteria of urgency and importance, and was
counterproductive as well.

At that time, some countries, while supporting Azerbaijan’s motion,
expressed their sensitivities arising from the alleged “transfer of
settlers into the occupied territories”. Armenia had clearly stated
then and would reiterate today that there was no official policy of
settlement being carried out, and that neither was there any official
document or report of any kind confirming Azerbaijan’s allegations.
Armenia strongly opposed the Azerbaijani initiative, since the existing
mechanisms within the OSCE could fully and effectively address all
Azerbaijan’s concerns. But in a constructive manner, the Armenian
Government, nevertheless, decided, in order to put all concerns to
rest, to suggest facilitating a fact-finding team within the Minsk
Group framework to assess the situation. “Let’s see how Azerbaijan
tries to address its own concerns”, he added.

He said that, although presenting the draft under consideration
as a balanced document that did not interfere in the Minsk Group
mediation, Azerbaijan had attempted to give one-sided answers to almost
all the elements of the negotiation package, namely the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh, the issues of Azerbaijani refugees and internally
displaced persons and the territories themselves. Azerbaijan also
tried to present its resolution from the perspective of human rights
and humanitarian law, he said.

“A country which has violated these laws in the first place with
meticulously planned and systematically carried out massacres of
Armenians in its capital Baku, cities of Sumgait and Kirovabad
(Ganja) from 1988 to 1990 during peacetime, tries to cloak its own
actions by selectively applying international humanitarian law”,
he said of Azerbaijan. It limits the application of the return
of refugees to “the area of conflict” and to ethnic Azeris only,
conveniently leaving out the rights of over 400,000 Armenians under
the same laws, particularly those from the immediate conflict zone
from Shahumain, Getashen and northern Martakert. Their homes today
were fully confiscated and populated by ethnic Azeris, he said.

Despite its continued calls for the observance of humanitarian law,
it was Azerbaijan that consistently hindered any kind of international
involvement or operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, thus violating those
laws, as well as relevant Security Council resolutions, he continued.
Azerbaijan also spotlighted Nagorno-Karabakh as being an alleged safe
haven for all possible sorts of ills, yet when authorities there and
Armenia invited international fact-finding teams to verify the nature
of those allegations, Azerbaijan had created all kinds of obstacles,
hindering the mission’s dispatch.

In addition, Azerbaijan also tried to formalize its totally baseless
allegations by misrepresenting the tenor of Security Council
resolutions and selective interpretation of international laws. It
avoided mentioning one major international legal principle in the
current resolution: the right of peoples to self-determination. That,
despite the fact that the exercise of that right was at the core of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Further, Azerbaijan “conveniently forgets”
that the Council resolutions mentioned “local Armenian forces” and
called for unimpeded access for international relief efforts, and
restoration of economic, transport and energy links to the region.
Indeed, Azerbaijan had never implemented those particular provisions
of the Council resolutions it so frequently mentioned.

With the resolution under consideration today, Azerbaijan tried
to dissect the so-called occupied territories from the package
of negotiations, he said. However, it failed to admit that those
territories had come under the control of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians
as a result of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan in an attempt to stifle
the peaceful drive of the people of that region for self-determination.
Given the military suppression in the region in the very recent past
and the war mongering rhetoric of the Azerbaijani leadership, the
issue of those territories could not be resolved unless there was a
resolution on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, and security guarantees
were provided.

He said that Nagorno-Karabakh had never been a part of an independent
Azerbaijan. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh had proven their right to
live freely and securely on their own territory both legally — through
a referendum conducted in 1991 — and by defending that right in a war
unleashed against them by Azerbaijan. While peace should be achieved
first and foremost between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan
was not interested in the peaceful resolution of the conflict. It
had rejected or walked out on every single peace proposal made by
the Minsk Group. The present motion aimed at further torpedoing those
ongoing negotiations and in diverting the international community’s
efforts into parallel processes, which would allow it to manoeuvre
between them without committing to a final settlement of the conflict.

SUSAN MOORE (United States), speaking on behalf of the co-Chairs
of the OSCE’s Minsk Group (United States, France and the Russian
Federation), said the issue before the Assembly was one in which the
OSCE and the Minsk Group had been actively involved in, with a view
to finding a lasting solution to the situation prevailing in the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The Minsk process had already
produced positive results. It had made proposals to the parties and
was now awaiting a response to those proposals before proceeding to
the next stage.

In that light, she welcomed the efforts of the international community,
through the Assembly, noting that any actions taken by that body
and others were helpful and, therefore, welcome. Stressing that no
efforts should be spared in the search for a peaceful resolution of
the problem, she said serious consideration should be given to the
dispatching of a fact-finding mission, and urged the parties to take
necessary steps to facilitate the OSCE’s efforts.

MASOOD KHALID (Pakistan) said his country supported all the efforts
to peacefully resolve the conflict surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue and attached great importance to all the initiatives of the
OSCE Minsk Group, the Organization of Islamic Conference and others
who were seeking to advance the peace process. The best path to
be pursued was through peaceful dialogue with the support of the
international community.

Action on DraftThe Assembly was then informed that action on the draft
resolution on the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan
would be taken at a later date.

PanArmenian News
Nov 19 2004

CATHOLICOS OF ALL ARMENIANS SPOKE ON SENDING ARMENIAN SERVICEMEN TO
IRAQ

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “Patronal Echmiadzin hopes that the issue of
sending of the Armenian servicemen to Iraq will receive a solution,
which will take into consideration the concern of Armenians residing
in Arabian states, Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II stated
today. He also added that the Armenian Apostolic Church in the person
of the leader of the Iraqi Diocese has already expressed its concern
over the issue. To remind, the probable sending of the Armenian
servicemen to Iraq caused controversial reaction among the Armenian
society. Afraid of response from the direction of the Islamic
extremists hundreds of thousands of Armenians residing in Arabian
states including Iraq speak against the arrival of Armenian officers.
People in Arabian countries also reacted violently to the possible
sending of the Armenian contingent to Iraq. The question is still
awaiting resolution.

Agence France Presse
18 novembre 2004 jeudi 4:42 PM GMT

Jean Paul II : personne ne doit utiliser la religion comme moyen
d’agression

ROME 18 nov

Le pape Jean Paul II a plaidé pour la tolérance, affirmant que
personne n’a le droit d’utiliser les religions comme “moyen
d’agression, de violence et de mort”, en recevant jeudi une
délégation de responsables musulmans, orthodoxes et juifs
d’Azerbaïdjan.

“Personne n’a le droit de présenter ou d’utiliser les religions comme
un instrument d’intolérance, comme moyen d’agression, de violence et
de mort”, a déclaré Jean Paul II.

“Ensemble, musulmans, juifs et chrétiens, nous voulons lancer au nom
de Dieu et de la civilisation un appel à l’humanité pour que cesse la
violence homicide”, a-t-il ajouté, selon le texte de son discours
publié par le Vatican.

Le vieux pape polonais a également souhaité une solution pacifique du
différend qui oppose l’Azerbaïdjan et l’Arménie à propos du
Nagorny-Karabakh.

“J’espère de tout coeur le retour en Azerbaïdjan d’une paix réelle
avec la résolution de la question du Nagorny-Karabakh.

La recherche d’une solution, a poursuivi Jean Paul II, doit se faire
dans “un esprit de bonne volonté, avec un effort mutuel d’ouverture
et de compréhension réciproques et dans un esprit de vraie
réconciliation”.

Le Karabakh est un territoire azerbaïdjanais peuplé majoritairement
d’Arméniens qui a proclamé son indépendance en 1991 avec l’appui
d’Erevan. Une guerre de trois ans a alors éclaté, faisant près de
30.000 morts.

Dans une déclaration, le porte-parole du Vatican Joaquin
Navarro-Valls a souligné l’esprit de coexistence entre les religions
présentes en Azerbaïdjan.

Les responsables religieux de ce pays ont de leur côté réaffirmé au
pape “leur volonté de collaborer pour la paix et pour promouvoir la
coexistence pacifique entre les différentes religions”, a ajouté le
porte-parole.

Arminfo, Yerevan, in Russian
17 Nov 04

Armenian Apostolic Church calls for review of law on religion

Yerevan, 17 November: The participants in a sitting of the supreme
spiritual council in the Holy See of Echmiadzin discussed the
activities of various sects in Armenia and the recent registration of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious sect in Armenia.

After acquainting itself with the results of research into the
problem and an active discussion, the supreme spiritual council
decided to issue a statement, the Holy See’s press service told
Arminfo news agency today. According to the statement, the supreme
spiritual council recognizes the right to freedom of conscience and
belief as one of the bases of Christian values. At the same time it
is unacceptable for religious organizations to be registered in
Armenia whose activity is aimed at “trapping people’s souls”, which
infringes freedom of conscience.

The Armenian Apostolic Church expresses concern that the republic’s
state bodies are registering these religious organizations without
sufficient study of their activity. The activity of totalitarian
religious organizations, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses,
contradicts the national values and aspirations of the Armenian
people and the essence of Christianity and seriously contravenes
international law, the Armenian Constitution and those principles of
the Armenian law on freedom of conscience and the activity of
religious organizations that are aimed at protecting national
security, public morality and citizens’ health, the document says.

The document also notes that the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect has been
registered as Christian, while it has absolutely no connection with
Christianity and is not recognized as a Christian denomination by the
traditional churches, the World Council of Churches, the European
Council of Churches, the International Bible Society or other
organizations.

It is remarkable that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, using the Christian
label, are active only in a Christian environment and in Christian
countries, but not Muslim ones.

The statement said that the religious situation in Armenia is getting
out of control also because organizations are being registered as
public organizations, but are carrying out religious activity. Such a
situation cannot promote the recovery of public consciousness, the
preservation of spiritual values in the country, all the more so when
the Motherland and the Armenian people are facing serious economic
problems and are in the process of reforms.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is consistent in fulfilling its
mission, acknowledges its duty towards its flock and is determined to
protect it from any encroachment. The supreme council expects the
appropriate state bodies to be as consistent in examining their
approaches to these issues and their resolution. It is also necessary
to review the law on freedom of conscience and the activity of
religious organizations so that it fully enables the regulation of
the activity of religious organizations in Armenia and serves to
protect the right to freedom of conscience in spite of anarchy and a
lack of control. For it is written “use not your freedom as a pretext
for evil” (the Gospel of Peter [as published, the quotation is from
Peter’s first epistle]).

The supreme council calls on the Armenian people to see the threats
to their everyday life and their right to freedom of conscience and
to be faithful to their historic legacy – the Holy Apostolic faith,
the supreme religious council’s statement says.

Family fights to stay in U.S.
By GARY HARMON

Grand Junction Sentinel, CO
Nov 12 2004

The Daily Sentinel

Residents from two tiny western Colorado towns are trying desperately
to slow the federal government in time to prevent the deportation of
a family that friends said personify American values.

Four members of the Sargsyan family of Armenia are in custody in the
Denver Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Members of the
senior class at Ridgway High School plan to demonstrate Saturday
in front of the center for their classmate, Hayk. More than 1,500
people have signed a petition asking for agencies of the Department
of Homeland Security to slow, and reverse, the deportation of the
Sargsyans.

In addition to Hayk, Immigration and Customs Enforcement took into
custody his brother, Gevorg, sister Meri and father, Ruben.

The four were taken into custody last week after a hearing in which
they anticipated being able to post bail.

In the center of the swirl of events is Nvart Indinyan, the eldest
daughter of the family, who for the moment is free.

“They looked so good in their suits and ties and white shirts,”
Nvart said. Bail was denied, though, and her relatives were swept
away to custody.

“They won’t even let me see them,” Nvart said.

Also at stake for Nvart is her opportunity to remain in the United
States and care for her 8-year-old son, Joseph.

“They’re good people,” said Sherman Williams, a former Ridgway town
marshal. “It just breaks my heart to see what’s going on. I don’t
know what’s going on with the federal government. (The Sargsyans’)
have good religion, good family values.”

They’ve also seen a run of unfortunate events.

One attorney they hired to handle their cases was disbarred for his
mishandling of it, another simply couldn’t keep up with the volume
of work associated with their tangled web of family cases.

Now, the Sargsyans are hoping a third attorney will be able to file
a suit that will stop everything and allow them to work out their
problems.

For that, though, they need money.

Kelvin B. Kent of Ouray said town residents have outdone themselves
to raise cash for the family.

The Sargsyans, Kent said, are “innocent victims of other people’s
misdoings.”

Those misdeeds, Nvart said, began in 1994 when she met and married
an American in Armenia in 1994 and moved to America.

Her new husband, however, left behind a string of broken promises
and took with him thousands of dollars from people for whom he said
he could obtain visas to the United States.

Her family was hounded for the money in Armenia and she prevailed on
her husband to bring her kin to America, which he did, on student
visas. She was on a business visa as an associate of her husband,
she said.

Her husband refused to obtain permanent papers for her or the family.
Soon after her family arrived, Nvart sued for divorce and started a
long custody struggle.

Her ex-husband disappeared and she believes him to be in Germany
“doing harm to someone else,” she said.

Nvart remarried five years ago and her husband, Lloyd “Max” Noland,
moved to adopt his new wife’s brothers to protect them from the
possibility of deportation, she said.

Immigration officials, however, has refused to recognize the adoption,
citing Nvart’s own entry into the United States as a ruse — a charge
she denies and points to another immigration judge’s ruling that
there was no fraud in her own case.

In any case, she said, it shouldn’t matter because Noland is a citizen.

The last she heard from her brothers, their photographs had been taken,
she said.

“That’s a bad sign” because people about to be sent out of the country
are photographed, she said.

Her father’s condition while in custody is unknown, she said, while
officials have sent a psychologist in to visit with Meri, Nvart said.

Her mother, Susan, is awaiting more court rulings.

The family’s legal wranglings have cost tens of thousands of dollars
earned on double shifts, holding down two jobs and other work,
she said.

“The community has raised more than $11,000, but we now urgently need
a minimum of $16,000 to pay the last two legal bills and provide a
retainer for the next stage” of filing suit, Kent said.

Donations can be made to the Sargsyan Legal Fund, P.O. Box 774,
Ridgway 81432, he said.

Nvart said she fears that she will be deported and her ex-husband
will get custody of her son — an American citizen.

He doesn’t understand the reasons for her constant trips to Denver,
the sudden absence of close family members, she said.

“I don’t have these answers for my son.”

–Boundary_(ID_Y54FnZhTZIW1sh0vToD9MA)–

Ottawa Citizen
November 11, 2004 Thursday
Final Edition

Imagine a world without wars

by David Ljunggren, Citizen Special

The head of one adult male was neatly split in two. Next to him lay a
man — or maybe it was a woman — whose head had been dipped in acid
until only a chalky white skull remained. Further back in the unlit
barn I could make out the bodies of children laid out on the dirt
floor.

These corpses were once people living in the town of Khojaly, which
had the fatal misfortune to be located in a part of Azerbaijan
claimed by neighbouring Armenia.

One night in February 1992, a large force of Armenian gunmen
descended on Khojaly, and those inhabitants who were not killed in
the initial attack fled through a snow-laden valley where countless
dozens perished from the cold or their wounds. Estimates of the death
toll ranged from at least 500 to more than 1,000 — many of them
women and children.

Despite the passing of a dozen years, the memory of those smashed
faces remains with me still, especially on a day like today. What
happened in that remote corner of the crumbling Soviet empire was a
wartime atrocity like so many others in the past and, I fear, like so
many to come. How many new victims of war will they be remembering on
Nov. 11, 2104, I wonder?

Rather than paying homage to those who died, isn’t it about time we
began to find a way to stop having to commemorate our war dead in the
first place?

In my gloomier moments, I sometimes suspect the human race is
genetically hot-wired to cull itself every few dozen years,
regardless of how often new generations are taught about all that has
gone before.

As someone born and raised in Europe, I can testify that the
miserable lessons of the past often seem to be written on water.
There are wars crammed into every corner of our roots and still, it
seems, we want more. I sometimes feel as though Europeans walk with a
slight stoop, as if weighed down by centuries of suffering built up
during that continent’s often miserable history.

We’ve launched every kind of war for every possible reason and
already fought one war to end all wars — the one from 1914 to 1918.
It doesn’t surprise me that when British author Virginia Woolf
committed suicide in 1941, part of the reason was that she had become
so disturbed by the new global conflict and all it signified about
the stupidity of mankind. Is this really all we are good for?

As the Second World War drew to a close, Britain’s Daily Mirror
newspaper published a memorable cartoon of an exhausted, wounded
soldier holding a garland of peace.

“Here you are. Don’t lose it again!” was the caption.

It seemed as though Europe was paying attention, for we saw no more
battles for another 45 years, a development that prompted hope that
this might really be the start of a new, more rational era. Then the
former Yugoslavia disintegrated and we saw a new series of massacres,
as well as the return of concentration camps.

Although the major European powers were lambasted for their
reluctance to intervene, I don’t think they were cowards, but rather
dumbfounded by the sight of yet more carnage and misery on their
doorstep. “We’ve tried this before on countless occasions and it
doesn’t work. I thought we all agreed on that. So what on earth are
you doing?” was the loud unspoken message.

You don’t have to look at a globe for long to spot the sites of
possible future conflicts. How about India against Pakistan, or China
against India, or China against Taiwan and then the United States, or
Israel against Iran, or Syria against Israel? There is no shortage of
options. The victims of Khojaly are in the ground now, but will
surely soon be joined by women and children from Fallujah, Abidjan,
Kashmir, Chechnya and more places on Earth than you ever knew
existed. And outsiders such as ourselves will shrug and sigh and say,
“Well, that’s sad, but these things happen.” Not for us the screams
of the massacred, thank you very much.

So do we teach our children about the dangers of war until we’re blue
in the face, or do we just let them get on with carving out a tragic
chapter of their own?

Mankind has been on this planet for quite a while, long enough to
iron out most of the flaws, yet seems totally incapable of stifling
the urge to kill.

What a miserable species we can be sometimes.

David Ljunggren is the Reuters national political correspondent in
Ottawa.

E-mail: [email protected]

Kyrgyz foreign minister to attend CIS summit in Russia

AKIpress news agency web site
11 Nov 04

Bishkek, 11 November: A meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers
of the Collective Security Treaty Organization [CSTO; members are
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Russia]
member states will be held in Moscow on 12 November.

A Kyrgyz delegation headed by Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Askar Aytmatov
will attend the meeting.

The military and political situation in the CSTO member states and
the CSTO’s tasks to step up the fight against terrorism are expected
to be discussed at the meeting.

The issue concerning a CSTO interstate commission for military and
economic cooperation is also planned to be discussed.

The meeting will listen to CSTO Secretary-General Nikolay Bordyuzha’s
report on the results of the first stage of the Kanal-2004
[Channel-2004] international antidrug operation in the CSTO member
states.

The CSTO foreign ministers are expected to sign a CSTO statement
concerning non-proliferation policy and also to approve an action
plan to coordinate the activities of the CSTO member states in the
post-war reconstruction of Afghanistan.