Author: Nalbandian Albert

SCENARIOS
by Aleksei Matveyev

DEFENSE and SECURITY
May 21, 2008 Wednesday
Russia

WILL NEW CIS LEADERS REMAIN LOYAL TO MOSCOW WITH THE NEW PRESIDENT
OF RUSSIA IN OFFICE?; The new president will have to rearrange the
post-Soviet zone.

Russia strengthened its positions in the post-Soviet zone in eight
years under President Putin. Military integration in the Commonwealth
was particularly energetic these last 2-3 years

What will await Russia’s military-political and military-technical
cooperation with the CIS countries?

Six countries are all Russia has in terms of allies. They are members
of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization. Will their
political leaders remain loyal to Russia under its new President,
Dmitry Medvedev? Let us consider each country individually.

Belarus. This country remains Russia’s principal strategic
ally in the post-Soviet zone. Problems with the Union remain
unsolved. Rapprochement between the economies and legislatures of the
two countries takes too long, their integration actually questionable
since both countries insist on their sovereignty. The introduction
of a monetary unit of the Union is postponed. Establishment of
Russian-Belarussian joint air defense has been talked about for
six years already with little to show for it. As a matter of fact,
military integration has been accomplished. Developing a joint
defense zone with Minsk, Russia will keep subsidizing Belarussian
military needs. Two thirds of the Union budget provided by Russia,
13% of the budget is to be spent on military-technical cooperation,
law enforcement, and security.

Kazakhstan is one of Russia’s major allies. Its leadership promotes
an independent policy. Kazakh servicemen serve in the international
contingent in Iraq. The United States and other NATO countries help
Kazakhstan with rearmament. Astana doubled its military expenditures
since 2006. They remain under 1% of the GDP, but rearmament is pursued
energetically.

The new president of Russia will have to keep Astana from falling
under NATO’s influence and prevent it from advancing active
military-technical cooperation with the West in general and the United
States in particular.

Kyrgyzstan. It is one of the poorest republics of the late Soviet
Union. It lacks stability. Russia and the United States have military
bases in Kyrgyzstan. The installation of a pro-Western regime in this
country is unlikely.

Armenia. Second to Belarus alone in faithfulness to Russia. Armenia
elected its new president earlier this year. The election was won by
pro-Russian Serj Sarkisjan, former premier and defense minister. The
possibility of renewed hostilities with Azerbaijan compel Armenia
to rely on Russia. This is why even the opposition in Armenia
(Justice bloc and National Unity) and Robert Kocharjan’s followers
are pro-Moscow.

Tajikistan. One of the poorest CIS countries heavily relying on
Russian aid. This country enjoys an important geopolitical location
in the post-Soviet zone. Drugs from Afghanistan reach Russia and
Europe via Tajikistan. The liquidation of the Russian border guards
contingent in this country was a mistake. The new president of Russia
may find it necessary to make additional decisions concerning the
Tajik-Afghani border.

Uzbekistan. Political upheavals in this country remain a
possibility. Its President Islam Karimov’s pro-Moscow orientation
is quite iffy. There was a period several years ago when Uzbekistan
was in GUAM and actively pursued relations with the United States. It
is in the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization now, allegedly
advancing relations with Moscow.

Neutral Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Moldova may be listed as
potential allies. As a matter of fact, Azerbaijan and Moldova
and members of GUAM, a regional organization that is in serious
trouble. Anyway, Moldova is actively pursuing relations with Moscow
and Azerbaijan constantly emphasizes its neutral status and never
speaks about membership in NATO the way other GUAM members (Georgia
and Ukraine) do. In fact, these two countries are Russia’s principal
opponents in the post-Soviet zone.

The new president of Russia will have to drive a hard bargain in
relations with Kiev and Tbilisi. Forcing Ukraine and NATO to abandon
their plans to join NATO is Medvedev’s primary military-strategic
objective. Where the Russian-Ukrainian relations are concerned,
Medvedev will have to elicit from Kiev the permit to leave the Black
Sea Fleet in the Crimea. Moldova and Azerbaijan might get invitations
to join the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization. Where
relations with Turkmenistan are concerned, Moscow had better remember
that it is a major exporter of gas and that the future of Russian
geopolitical interests depends to a considerable extent on the routes
of Turkmen gas export to Europe and China.

TURK POLITICIAN AND JOURNALIST HOLD A HEATED DEBATE

A1+
[07:13 pm] 20 May, 2008

"Even God cannot change the past", declared Cem Toker, Turkish
politician and Leader of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Turkey
at the international conference organized by the Eurasia Foundation
Representative Office in Armenia and Analytical Center on Globalization
and Regional Cooperation.

Quite surprisingly frank ideas were heard at the conference. The Turk
politician, whose party is not included in the Turkish Parliament,
presented the process of his country’s integration into the EU. He
stated that Turkish national parties were not even willing to converse
with the representatives of European Institutions.

Toker also noted that he had been in close relations with the
assassinated Armenian journalist Hrant Dink who, having spent
his childhood with Armenians, had devoted all his life to the
democratization of Turkey.

"Turkey proudly states that 99.9% of its population are Muslims. And
where are the Armenians, Jews, Greeks? Why are they gone? Doesn’t it
mean that something is definitely wrong? You can see the investments of
the Armenian people while walking in Istambul. I am greatly displeased
with Turkey’s attitude towards Armenians", declares Toker.

Amber Zaman, a Turkish journalist, contradicted him in the description
of the current situation in Turkey.

Zaman, who introduced herself as a free journalist, is the
wife of Joseph Penington, the US temporary Charge d’Affaires in
Armenia. Mrs. Zaman stated that Turkey’s steps towards Democracy are
quite evident.

"Turkey still has much to do but it has made a great progress towards
democracy lately. Ten years ago the Kurds were imprisoned simply for
calling themselves Kurds. Whereas, today they are even allowed to have
broadcasts in their mother tongue. Besides, the capital punishment
has been abolished in my country.

You give a tough assessment of the situation, Mr. Toker", noticed
Amber Zaman.

In reply to the journalist’s views Cem Toker noted: "The abolition
of the capital punishment has nothing to do with Democracy. Does
it mean the USA is not a democratic country? As for the Kurds they
are only 30 minutes on the air." Meanwhile politician and diplomat
Davit Hovhannissian was making a report on the current state of
Armenian-Turkish relations. The politician noted that the First
President of RA Levon Ter-Petrossian carried out a very reserved and
cautious policy, taking into consideration Turkey’s attitude towards
the Genocide of 1915, whereas Robert Kocharian put the recognition
of the Armenian Genocide on the agenda of foreign relations. However,
in neither of cases did Turkey change its attitude towards Armenia.

Davit Hovhannissian also declared in his speech that the tense
relations between Armenia and Turkey were profitable for the
latter. "Firstly because it keeps Armenia out of the regional projects
and consequently Armenia’s influence in the Region is weakened.

Secondly, Turkey can use the absence of diplomatic relations and the
tension in threatening actions of diplomatic level."

ROBERT NAZARYAN: ‘ARMENTEL’ CJSC DOES NOT AMNESTY DEBTS BUT CORRECTS ITS MISTAKES

arminfo
2008-05-20 14:28:00

ArmInfo. The new e-billing system of "ArmenTel" CJSC has been
implemented in Armenia using the best European experience, however,
it revealed technical deficiencies at the initial stage, Chairman of
the Public Services Regulatory Commission of Armenia Robert Nazaryan
told journalists today.

He said that some problems related to the payment of accounts appeared
in the system because of technical failures. "The Company claimed
that it amnesties the debts appeared in view of this, however, I
must say that this is not an amnesty but correction of its mistakes",
R. Nazaryan said.

At the recent press-conference, acting Executive Director of "ArmenTel"
CJSC Gennadiy Kalgashkin also said about the amnesty of debts from
the fixed to cellular network.

Eurasia Daily Monitor

May 16, 2008 — Volume 5, Issue 94

U.N. RESOLUTION ON ABKHAZIA SHOWS WHO’S WHO ON ETHNIC CLEANSING

by Vladimir Socor

On May 15 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a
Georgia-drafted resolution recognizing the right of expellees to return to
Georgia’s Abkhazia region. The voting was 14 countries in favor, 11 against,
and 105 abstaining, with another 63 countries not voting. Adoption of the
resolution puts the General Assembly on record as calling for a reversal of
ethnic cleansing in the case of Abkhazia and potentially farther afield. The
arithmetic of the vote, however, shows only narrow international support for
pursuing the issue. Russia and Armenia led the opposition to the resolution.

-Deploring practices of arbitrary forced displacement [such as the]
expulsion of hundreds of thousands of persons from Abkhazia, Georgia,- the
resolution cites several times -the reports of `ethnic cleansing’- from that
region since 1993. The resolution enshrines for the first time a set of
principles that Georgia and its supporters had long advocated as a basis for
resolving this conflict. First, it -recognizes the right of return of all
refugees and internally displaced persons and their descendants, regardless
of ethnicity, to Abkhazia, Georgia.- Second, it -emphasizes the importance
of preserving the property rights of refugees and internally displaced
persons … and calls upon all member states [read: Russia] to deter persons
under their jurisdiction from obtaining property in Abkhazia, Georgia, in
violation of the rights of refugees.- And third, it -underlines the urgent
need for a rapid development of a timetable to ensure the prompt voluntary
return of all refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes.-

Concurrently -emphasizing that the rights of the Abkhaz population
have to be protected and guaranteed- — a point included in Georgia’s draft
from the outset — the resolution -requests- the UN Secretary-General to
report comprehensively on the implementation of this resolution at next year
‘s session of the General Assembly.

In the debate before the vote, Georgia’s UN envoy Irakli Alasania
reminded the Assembly of the forced exodus of hundreds of thousands of
people of Georgian and other ethnicities from Abkhazia, their growing
despair, and the unlawful seizure of the homes and property they had to
leave behind. Alluding to Russia’s role, he said that the conflict was an
-example of how externally generated conflicts have been maintained in a
frozen situation to subdue the people of Georgia.- He reaffirmed Georgia’s
proposals for autonomy and direct talks with the de facto Abkhaz
authorities.

The European Union failed to adopt a common position. Nine member
countries, including eight new ones and Sweden, joined the United States to
vote for the Georgian-proposed resolution. That European group coincides
approximately with the New Group of Friends of Georgia (see EDM, September
17, 2007), which has come into its own since last year. Up to 17 EU member
countries (all the -old- ones except Sweden) abstained from voting. Speaking
for those countries, Germany, France, and Italy claimed that the UN Security
Council traditionally deals with this conflict, thus implying that a General
Assembly debate was redundant. This argument ignores the Security Council’s
chronic ineffectiveness on Georgia due to Russia’s veto power and the
Council’s own collaboration with it.

Beyond procedural arguments, however, Germany objected to the
resolution’s content. It claimed that the document -ignored many other
aspects of the situation,- i.e., that it did not reflect Russian views.
Germany spoke in its capacity as chair of the UN Secretary-General’s Group
of Friends of Georgia (Russia, the United States, Britain, France, and
Germany). This group operates (when it does at all) based on consensus with
Russia, which renders it dysfunctional, while in this case providing Germany
with an excuse to take the position it does.

Turkey also abstained, while calling on -all parties to pursue a
peaceful resolution- and expressing its readiness -to assist in that
effort.- Indeed Turkey, home to significant Abkhaz and related Circassian
communities, seems well-placed for a mediating role in Abkhazia.
Nevertheless, for many years Turkey has passed up this opportunity to gain
regional influence. All of the abstaining countries that spoke in this
debate endorsed Georgia’s territorial integrity, and some of them paid lip
service to the expellees’ right of return. But they fell short of even a
symbolic vote for the resolution, let alone remedies to the situation.

Azerbaijan and Ukraine strongly supported the resolution. Azerbaijan
implicitly drew a parallel between the ethnic cleansing from Abkhazia and
from parts of Azerbaijan’s own territory. Deploring any acceptance of ethnic
cleansing in the South Caucasus, it called for the refugees’ return to their
homes as an indispensable basis for resolving the conflicts. For its part,
Ukraine traced the conflict in Abkhazia to its roots in Soviet policies;
-the Russian Federation continued that notorious tradition by inserting
separatism into the GUAM region.-

Moldova, the other member of the GUAM group (Georgia, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan, Moldova) broke ranks in abstaining from the vote. The Moldovan
president and government hope to earn Russia’s goodwill for a resolution of
the Transnistria conflict sometime in 2008, ahead of Moldova’s elections.
Moldova could have chosen to be absent from the vote, as did for exmple the
U.S.-protected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in deserting the United
States on this vote. But Moldova chose to abstain in an explicit bow to
Russia.

Russia criticized the resolution for -destabilizing UN activities in
settling the conflict- and -leading to a deterioration of Georgian-Abkhaz
relations,- without explaining these assertions. It claimed incorrectly that
the resolution ignored ethnic groups in Abkhazia other than the Georgians.
It described the problem as one between Georgia and Abkhazia, not between
Georgia and Russia — a claim that seeks to put an Abkhaz face on the
Russian military’s 1993 ethnic cleansing operation in Abkhazia. And it made
the refugees’ return conditional on a comprehensive political solution of
the conflict, even as Moscow stonewalls any solution that would not put
Russia in control.

Joining with Russia to excuse ethnic cleansing was an unusual
constellation of countries: Armenia, Belarus, North Korea, India, Iran,
Myanmar, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela. Some of these have themselves
been involved in ethnic cleansing operations; some of them side habitually
with Russia; and some of them qualify on both counts. From the last group,
Armenia had campaigned against inclusion of the resolution on the General
Assembly’s agenda. Like Russia, it clearly implied that the expellees’
return to their homes was contingent on a political solution acceptable to
both sides; in other words, it should be left at the discretion of the
cleansing side. Armenia had also tried unsuccessfully to block discussion on
an Azerbaijani-drafted resolution on the Karabakh conflict, which passed
also narrowly in March of this year in the General Assembly (see EDM, March
18).

Georgia persists in seeking direct contact with Abkhaz authorities
parallel to its international activity. On May 12 Georgia’s U.N envoy
Alasania, who is also a negotiator on the Abkhazia conflict, held talks in
Sokhumi to present details of the Georgian government’s offer of autonomy to
Abkhaz leaders.

(United Nations General Assembly, 62nd session: Plenary Meeting, May
15, 2008; General Assembly, -Protracted Conflicts in the GUAM Area,- May 15;
Civil Georgia, May 15).

–Vladimir Socor

GENOCIDE BOOK PULLED FROM HIGH SCHOOL READING LIST
Unnati Gandhi

The Globe and Mail
LAC.20080516.BOOK16/TPStory/National
May 16 2008
Canada

A book about genocide has been pulled from the recommended reading
list of a new Toronto public school course because of objections from
the Turkish-Canadian community, the author says.

Barbara Coloroso’s Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide was
originally part of a resource list for the Grade 11 history course,
Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, set to launch across the Toronto
District School Board this fall.

The book examines the Holocaust, which exterminated six million Jews
in the Second World War; the Rwandan slaughter of nearly one million
Tutsis and moderate Hutus in 1994, and the massacres of more than a
million Armenians in 1895, 1909 and 1915.

But a committee struck to review the course decided in late April
to remove the book because "a concern was raised regarding [its]
appropriateness. … The Committee determined this was far from a
scrupulous text and should not be on a History course although it
might be included in a course on the social psychology of genocide
because of her posited thesis that genocide is merely the extreme
extension of bullying," according to board documents.

Director of education Gerry Connelly did not return calls seeking
comment yesterday.

Ms. Coloroso, a best-selling author of parenting books, said she wasn’t
surprised her work was removed, given that "ever since the book came
out, the Turks have mounted a worldwide campaign objecting to it,
which is not surprising because of the denial of the genocide."

She said what upset her was not so much that her book had been pulled,
but that it was replaced by works by Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy,
whom she refers to as deniers of the Armenian genocide.

"I knew when I wrote Extraordinary Evil that I would anger some
genocide deniers," she wrote to Ms. Connelly. "I am disappointed that
a small group of people can bully an entire committee. …"

The Council of Turkish Canadians is opposed to the course for
classifying the Armenian killings as genocide and inciting anti-Turkish
sentiment. It has gathered nearly 11,000 signatures on an online
petition calling for changes to the course. Turkey has denied the
killings were genocide, saying they were First World War casualties.

Kevser Taymaz, president of the council’s board, said yesterday the
book’s removal was "one positive move" by the school board, but added
the Armenian massacres should not even be considered as part of course
that is entitled "Genocide."

"The course is one-sided. If they want to introduce the events of
1915, it should be giving the historical truth from both sides and
let the students decide."

Aris Babikian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee
of Canada, said Armenian-Canadians feel the course as it stands is
headed "in the right direction."

"But we have some concerns about … the inclusion of Bernard Lewis
and Guenter Lewy as reputable scholars. It will be unjust to the
hundreds of scholars who have researched the Armenian genocide."

SEVAN SURFACE INCREASED BY 54CM

Panorama.am
21:00 13/05/2008

According to the data of the beginning of May the surface of Lake
Sevan is 1899m 11cm high, Panorama.am reporter has been informed by
Arcrun Pepanyan, the press secretary of the Ministry of Environmental
protection.

According to him last year in May the above mentioned figure was
1898m 57cm high which proves that the surface of Sevan has increased
by 54cm. In these days Akhuryan and Kechut water pools are completely
filled with water, Aparan is filled by 32% and Azat by 66%.

Karabakh will pass the law on local referendums

08-05-2008 16:25:07 – KarabakhOpen

The government has approved the bill on local referendums and has
extended it to the National Assembly.

The minister of justice Narine Narimanyan said the passage of the law
is determined by the NKR Constitution which was adopted on December 10,
2006.

The bill involves mechanisms for holding local referendums, in
particular, in case of intention of communities to unite or separate.

Presently all the issues relating to the borders of communities are
solved by the government.

TEXT OF ARMINE NALBANDIAN’S SPEECH

Boston Globe
May 2 2008
United States

Arminé Nalbandian delivered these remarks today at Northeastern
University’s commencement at the TD Banknorth Garden:

American author Dale Carnegie once uttered the famous words "When
fate hands you a lemon, make lemonade." I’ve always been a strong
proponent of making the best of the worst situations, but when life
handed me the biggest lemon of all just three months ago, I was pretty
sure Dale Carnegie was full of it.

I received a call late one night and when the voice on the other end
told me that my mom, a psychotherapist, had been killed on the job
by one of her patients, the world around me literally fell apart. In
the chaos of those first couple of weeks, I remember thinking back
to Dale Carnegie’s words and wondering just how I was supposed to
make lemonade out of this one.

And then something happened; I realized that there was nothing to do
but to go on. There was nothing to do but to face this challenge just
as I had faced every other challenge before. So I picked up the pieces,
relied on the support around me and made my way back to the real
world. By now perhaps you’re wondering how all of this relates to the
reason we are all sitting here today. Why bring up such a depressing
story at a time when we should be celebrating our achievement?

I’ll give you one reason; because if it weren’t for the lessons I
had learned during the past five years at Northeastern University,
there is a good chance that I wouldn’t have known the first thing
about how to take a lemon and make it into lemonade.

I’ve often wondered about the value of a true education. I have
pondered the meaning of Sir Francis Bacon’s claim that "knowledge is
power." And I’ve come to realize that the value of education is not
in the rite of passage itself, but more about the possibility for
the future.

Here at Northeastern, I have learned not just how to calculate
a margin of error or analyze Plato’s Republic, but through this
process I have learned how to think and the choice of what to think
about. Professors, administrators, mentors and staff at this university
have taught me over and over how to see the obvious, yet extract the
unseen, I have been taught how to see an issue from someone else’s
perspective, whether the issue is a disagreement among politicians
on a government policy or a disagreement between roommates over who
did the dishes last.

An old Latin proverb dictates, "We learn not at school, but in
life." As graduates of Northeastern, we have been lucky enough to learn
from both. Not only have we gained maturity through experiencing the
daily grind of a nine to five workday, but we have also learned how to
listen, how to lead and how to address an issue with thoughtfulness
and insight. Through our experiential education, we have gained not
only intellect and maturity, but we have learned how to use it. We
have taken theory and made it practical. We have learned the freedom
that comes from education. We have learned how to extract power from
our knowledge.

Our time at Northeastern has been full of great memories and moments,
the friendships we have built are for a lifetime and the pathways
we have embarked upon and the challenges we have faced are just the
beginning of this new and exhilarating phase. I have learned that
we are the generation that can mend the errors of the past. Now more
than ever is a time for progress.

Our generation is not a lost one as some claim. We are more involved
in politics than many who came before us; we care to be the change
we want to see around us. Every generation has its own challenge,
but with every new challenge we are given a new set of tools. We
have reached today with a fresh set of tools, ones named Google,
Youtube and Facebook, ones that have changed the world community and
the prospects of our future and ones that will allow us to forge new
paths in politics, medicine, art, engineering, business, science,
and in life.

We have molded and shifted this campus with our presence and
achievements; we have seen Northeastern through the ‘top one hundred’
revolution, to the opening of the first Starbucks on campus. We have
done great things for this school and now we must challenge each
other to do great things for this world.

Ladies and Gentleman of tomorrow, don’t ever forget this moment; don’t
ever ignore your thirst for knowledge, your hunger for truth. Never
ignore your ability to see both sides of the story, and to forgive,
even when it seems impossible. Never forget what your professors
and mentors at this great institution have taught you. Never look at
your experience as average — don’t think of Northeastern and only
remember the times when things just didn’t go your way — think of
what you have learned, and what you been taught.

Remember the staff member that helped you through the NU shuffle,
or the classmate who helped you get through the death of someone who
meant the world to you. Recognize the obstacles, but don’t forget
about the solutions- remember how to take those lemons and make
them into lemonade. Love what you do, never settle, be passionate
and compassionate, love yourself and those around you, talk less and
listen more, open your mind, have your own opinion and most of all,
inspire others as you have been inspired…pay it forward.

We are the future forgers of peace, curers of cancer, abolishers of
genocide, architects of industry, inventors of truth. As the great
Roman poet Virgil once said, "They can because they think they
can." Each of you sitting here today has a discoverable gift, and
let us challenge each other to settle for nothing less than achieving
the promise others see in us and we see in ourselves.

Ladies and gentleman of the Northeastern University class of 2008,
your path is yours, your story is your own, make lemonade.

–Boundary_(ID_3ezcWKP01uo9C2ZStLHZlA)- –

The Armenian market is preparing to appear before the world joint stock
community

Interview by Emmanuil Lazarian, ArmInfo, 04.05.2008

2008-05-04 13:45:00

The placement of the Armenian Stock Exchange (Armex) and the Central
Depositary of Armenia (CDA) under the auspices of the
American-Scandinavian stock exchange operator, NASDAQ OMX, was the key
event for the Armenian financial market participants last year. The
initiator of the deal, the Central Bank of Armenia, perfectly realized
that the market needed a push. So, it decided to usher the local
capital market into a new `commercially-oriented’ phase of development.
The market has rejected its `spoke-in-the-wheel’ self-regulation
principle and is looking forward to new work style under the world
renowned brand and most advanced technologies. The coordinator of the
reforms at Armex and CDA, representative of NASDAQ OMX Johan Fredholm
has told an ArmInfo correspondent about the development plans of the
market.

– Mr.Fredholm, as far as I know, your work in Armenia is part of your
policy on Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. NASDAQ OMX has obtained a
stake in the IXSP (International Exchange St.Petersburg) and is
negotiating for entering the market of our neighbor, Georgia?

– We are interested in expanding in Eastern Europe, in general. We are
talking to different stakeholders in many different markets and Georgia
is one of them.

In Armenia, we are actively reforming the market: there have been
changes to the charter of the companies Armex and CDA to transform them
into open joint stock companies. Now further changes are required
because of the new securities law: Armex and CDA have to submit new
rules before the end of June this year. But most importantly we will
improve the way Armex and CDA work, and work with other stakeholders to
develop the market.

– Are you planning changes in the listing and trading rules?

– We will develop them over time. For us it is very important that the
rules are adapted to the market development level and as the market
develops the rules will also be changed, but it is not possible to use
exactly the same rules in Armenia as in the Untied States or in Sweden.
We will review the rules many times and will make sure that they suit
the market at any given time.

The important thing is that this will make it possible for
international investors to invest in Armenia. For them, the most
important thing is that they trust the companies they invest in and
they trust the stock market they invest in. NASDAQ OMX will improve the
processes, enforce the rules and make sure that Armex and CDA are
trusted and work just as any other NASDAQ OMX company anywhere in the
world, . We will also have high requirements on the companies that list
here – they have to be transparent and provide good information. We
also have to make it easy for foreigners to invest from technology
point of view and from rules point of view

– What do you think, is the Armenian market attractive for foreign
investors?

– Already today there are lots of foreigners who are prepared to invest
in Armenia, but the big problem is actually that there are not enough
transparent, interesting companies with enough shares available to buy
on the stock exchange. Today, brokers have foreign investors who want
to buy shares but there is nothing to buy.

There are lots of foreign funds and other investors who specialize in
Eastern Europe. They are interested in finding investments here but
they cannot find shares to invest in.

An interesting example is IXSP (International Exchange
St.Petersburg)where we own a 33.3% stake. To a large extent, the same
kind of investors are interested in investing in Russia through IXSP
and in Armenia through Armex. The similarity between these two projects
is that there is trust in NASDAQ OMX and in what we do. We create good
markets where we operate and therefore we are interesting for listing
companies and for investors.

– How tough will your listing requirements be? I think they must be
tough lest investors might face unjustified risks?

– We will have high requirements for listing. In fact, we already have
different levels of listing, but unfortunately, today there are no Ð?
listed companies (with the toughest listing requirements). We will have
high requirements and it will also be in the interest of the issuers:
if you have high requirements and provide good information the
investors trust the company and will pay more for its shares. This is
the way we do listing, not just B or C listing but A listing with
highest requirements. It will give the issuers the highest price for
their shares. We will encourage them to do that and we will help them
to comply with these high requirements and this will make it much
easier for them to attract foreign capital.

– Quite recently you introduced a new investment instrument ` corporate
bonds. But the trade in these bonds is not very active. Why?

– Last year was very positive. We got bonds of five companies. Before
that we had zero. So, in that way it has been positive growth. Of
course, I hope there will be more bond issues. I also hope that the
companies issuing bonds will take the next step and issue shares. From
volume prospective and the stock exchange perspective, there is usually
much more activity in trading in shares than in bonds. Especially for
foreigners, investing in shares is much more interesting than in bonds
and there is much more capital to be found if you list shares.

– Are you satisfied with the clearing and settlement system?

– We are going to improve clearing and settlement as now it is too
complicated and will discourage investors and make the activity lower.

We will develop it first by improving the rules. We will then also use
technology solutions to make improvements. We will do all this. We are
right now planning exactly when and how we will do it. It is important
to improve the functions of the depository and the clearing settlement
process.

We have to move from pre-deposition to T+3 settlement, which is the way
we work on other NASDAQ OMX markets. This will be important.

– When will our market be ready for attracting investments?

From our side, we will do everything we can to improve the exchange and
depository. We also need companies who are prepared to list, and
release more shares and not only trade a very small percentage. There
are already companies who want to raise capital on the exchange. When
they do that we will help them with the listing procedures. We will do
what we can to help and convince them that it is a good idea.

– Will the currency exchange remain under the control of the Central
Bank?

– I cannot answer for the Central Bank. Of course, they are controlling
this sphere. What we can do is to make sure that we provide good
platform for currency trading, which is working well already now, and
we can provide a good platform for securities trading, and we think
investors will want to use that platform. The CB sees that it is useful
for the market and we make sure that the services we provide to the
market are working well

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF FREEDOM HOUSE OUR RATING FELL

AZG Armenian Daily
02/05/2008

Statistics

Freedom House published world ratings of freedom of press.

According to the report, Armenia continues to remain as "not free"
country and ranks between 144-149 together with Ivory Coast, Guinea,
Maldivian Republic, Moldova and Pakistan.

Georgia is also among "not free" countries.

Azerbaijani rating is worse, where, according to the report, many
newspapers are closed and eight journalists – put into prison.