Author: Nanijanian Alex

Agence France Presse
March 18 2005

Secessionist leaders in former Soviet regions to strengthen ties

AFP 19/03/2005 00:49

MOSCOW, March 18 (AFP) – Four breakaway regions in former Soviet
republics plan to conclude a mutual support pact, one of their
leaders said Friday.

“We intend to reach a mutual support agreement,” Sergei Bagapsh,
leader of Georgia’s rebellious Abkhazia region, was quoted as saying
by the ITAR-TASS news agency during a visit to Moscow.

Bagapsh said he would soon meet with his counterparts Eduard Kokoity
of South Ossetia (Georgia), Arkady Gukasyan of Nagorno-Karabakh
(Azerbaijan), and Igor Smirnov of Transdniestr (Moldova).

The Russian media has suggested the leaders of the four regions met
secretly here on Wednesday and would do so again in April in the
Abkhazian town of Sukhumi.

Moscow has been accused of encouraging the two Georgian secession
movements, and has supplied peacekeepers after they beat back troops
from Tbilisi in wars after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russian troops intervened to stop fighting that broke out in
Transdniestr in 1992, and have never left.

Fighting also broke out in Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian
enclave in Azerbaijan, as the Soviet Union was collapsing. It has
remained in Armenian hands since a 1994 ceasefire.

Sharon Advocate, MA
March 18 2005

Lessons from the Holocaust

By Sen. James Timilty
Friday, March 18, 2005

No one can live without heroes.

The last eye witnesses and survivors of the Holocaust and World
War II are passing away from us. It’s critical to work to keep the
history of this genocide and others alive for succeeding generations

My family’s heritage is Irish Catholic, but even the Easter
Rebellion doesn’t offer us a better hero than Peter Zvi Malkin,
Jewish guerilla, explosives specialist, and Israeli intelligence
agent.

Kids should look to Malkin’s life if they really want an action
figure to emulate. Malkin just passed away and the papers were filled
with his story. He was born in Palestine or Poland depending on which
set of documents you look at.

Disguising himself as a stain glass windows painter, who spent
many hours in Argentine churches as a cover, one of the greatest
intelligence agents the world has ever known lifted mass murderer
Eichmann out of Argentina. He wore gloves when he did the job, so he
wouldn’t have to touch the architect of the Final Solution,
responsible for the deaths of his sister and her children.

Who could blame him? When his superiors in Israel had asked him
how he would subdue Eichmann, who was anticipated to resist, he
grabbed his boss in a half nelson to demonstrate the plan. He was
sent to Argentina with an elite commando team, and the rest is
history

There is a critical role for all of us in educating or
re-educating ourselves about the Holocaust, in helping to educate the
general public about the events which occurred 60 years ago, and
about other matters concerning historic human cruelty.

Eleven million people died in the Holocaust, including Jews,
Polish citizens, Gypsies, the handicap and other minority groups.

A short time ago, world leaders warned in Krakow, Poland against
a possible resurgence of Anti-Semitism. Avner Shalev, the head of Yad
Vashem, was quoted in the New York Times recently as saying that
without a systematic approach to teaching about the Holocaust, its
meaning for future generations might fade.

Yad Vashem is the Jewish people’s memorial to the 6 million Jews
murdered in World War II. Yad Vashem symbolizes the ongoing
confrontation with the painful past and it contains the world’s
largest repository of information on the Holocaust. It was
established in 1953 by an act of the Israeli Knesset.

The systematic approach of teaching about the Holocaust and
other genocides makes absolute sense.

In Massachusetts, Chapter 276 of the Acts of 1998 requires the
formulation in public schools in the Commonwealth of curricular
materials on genocide and human rights issues, and guidelines for the
teaching of such materials.

The statute specifically refers to the transatlantic slave
trade, the Armenian genocide, and the Holocaust, as well as other
historical events including the Irish famine. The commitment and
recommitment to the serious study of these tragic periods of history
isn’t about political correctness, and it isn’t about suggesting that
everyone has suffered equally.

Fair minded people would say that simply isn’t so. Lessons of
this kind do force us to confront some of the most horrific aspects
of human behavior, however, things most people would prefer to
forget.

The history of humanity’s repeated incidents of human rights
violations, which include, but, certainly, are not limited to the
mass murder of 6 million Jewish people in World War II and the
barbaric enslavement of people of African heritage in America and
elsewhere, the genocide of Native Americans by small pox infested
blankets, must be studied carefully and remembered for everyone’s
sake. Our children’s well being absolutely depends on it.

PanArmenian News
March 17 2005

US SECRET SERVICE AGENT, EXPERT FOR DETECTING FAKE MONEY CONDUCTS
TRAINING IN ARMENIA

17.03.2005 02:36

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Agent of the US Secret Service, expert for
discovering fake money Kevin Boden conducts trainings in Armenia. As
reported by the US Embassy in Yerevan, Boden holds seminars for
officers of law-enforcement bodies, bank and business sector staff.
In the course of the trainings Boden introduces new technology for
detecting fake US dollars. The US Secret Service has provided Armenia
equipment for struggle against forgery. Specifically, Boden has
handed the National Security Service of Armenia a digital
camera-recorder and a high-powered microscope, and Interpol Yerevan
Office was presented with another two camera-recorders.

OSKANIAN: WE STILL LIVE WITH THE MEMORY OF SUFFERING

Azg/arm
17 March 05

Foreign minister of Armenia, Vartan Oskanian, made a speech at the
session of UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, March 15. Oskanian
focused on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the
international community and the issue of Nagorno Karabakh people’s
self-determination. Touching on Turkey’s recent call for historical
debate, the minister repeated that Armenia will not participate in it
as it “delays the process of reconciling with the truth”.

Vartan Oskanian left for Vienna March 15 evening where he was to meet
the OSCE Minsk group co-chairs. He will discuss issues concerning the
OSCE monitoring mission’s report as well as issues concerning the next
meeting of Armenian and Azeri foreign ministers.

Maritime Administration Announces the Successful
Removal of High Priority Ships from the James River

Ten `High-Priority’ Ships Safely Removed In Less Than
10 Months

MARAD 07-05
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Contact: Wes Irvin
Tel.: (202) 366-5807

Acting Maritime Administrator John Jamian today announced that the
U.S. Maritime Administration delivered on its promise to remove all
ten `high-priority’ ships from the James River Reserve Fleet.

`In less than 10 months we followed through on our commitment to
getting these ships out of here,’ said Acting Administrator John
Jamian. `With the safe removal of these ships, we will now turn our
attention to a new group of aging vessels as we work to dispose of
these ships as quickly and safely as possible.’

The recent departures of the Lauderdale and the Mormacmoon to the
North American Ship Recycling facility at Sparrows Point, Maryland
follows through on the promise of the Administration to move the worst
ships in the aging fleet out of the river and on to qualified
shipyards to be dismantled. Additionally, since 2001 this
Administration has successfully removed 35 ships from the James River
Reserve fleet, Jamian said.

There are three remaining `high-priority’ ships that were not
available for disposal as they are on congressional hold or undergoing
a historical review process. These ships are the Saugatuck, Hoist and
Sphinx.

The James River Reserve Fleet is one of three National Defense Reserve
Fleet anchorage sites. The NDRF is maintained by MARAD for the
maintenance of readiness assets, including vessels owned or acquired
by the United States Government that are determined to be of value for
national defense purposes. When vessels are no longer considered
militarily useful, MARAD arranges for their responsible disposal or
disposition.

-END-

Civil Georgia, Georgia
March 15 2005

Bagapsh Articulates Sokhumi’s Position in Moscow

President of breakaway Abkhazia Sergey Bagapsh announced, in Moscow
on March 15, that economic issues should be a priority during talks
between Sokhumi and Tbilisi, while political issues can be discussed
only after solving economic problems, involving cooperation in the
energy sector and the restoration of the railway connection via
Abkhazia.

Sergey Bagapsh, who has been visiting Moscow since March 11,
articulated Sokhumi’s position at a news conference in Moscow,
organized by the Russian news agency Interfax on March 15. He also
spoke about the Russian peacekeepers’ role in the conflict zone and
Sokhumi’s relations with other secessionists regions.

He said that during the visit to Moscow he met with Russian `business
circles’ and discussed economic cooperation. `Political issues were
not put forward, there was no need,’ Bagapsh added. Reports say that
Bagapsh also met with Mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov on March 14.

Sergey Bagapsh also said that agreement between Russian President
Vladimir Putin and ex-President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze signed
in 2003 in Sochi should become the basis for launching talks between
Sokhumi and Tbilisi.

`Particularly, we are offering to launch talks over the resumption of
the railway connection and cooperation in the energy sector. Then it
will be possible to start solving political problems,’ Sergey Bagapsh
was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying at the news conference.

In 2003, the two Georgian and Russian leaders agreed `to synchronize’
the process of restoration of the railway link and the return of
internally displaced persons (IDP) to Abkhazia, particularly in the
Gali district. The agreement also envisages joint activities to
rehabilitate the Enguri hydro power plant, which lies at the
administrative border between Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia.

Sergey Bagapsh said that a return of internally displaced persons in
the Gali district has already started. `Those residents who will
return to the Gali district should receive internal passports of
Abkhazia. The possibility of granting these people duel citizenship
[Georgian-Abkhazian] should also become a subject of discussion,’ the
Abkhaz leader said.

But Tbilisi considers that a sporadic return of the Georgian
displaced person to the Gali district without any security guarantees
can not be regarded as a launch of the IDP’s return to Abkhazia.

Sergey Bagapsh also said that the issuing of Russian passports in
Abkhazia will continue. `I myself am a citizen of the Russian
Federation and the citizen of Abkhazia are as well,’ he added.

The Abkhaz leader also said that Abkhazia is ready for `any scenario
of relations with Tbilisi.’ `But I hope that all of these scenarios
will be of a peaceful character,’ Bagapsh said, adding that because
there is no `peace agreement’ signed with the Georgian side
`systematic training of reserve forces are being carried out in the
Republic.’

Sergey Bagapsh said that there is no alternative to the Russian
peacekeeping troops stationed in the conflict zone, which represent
the major guarantor of stability in the region. `We are not going to
let any other forces but Russian [ones] be deployed there. We have a
very clear position in this regard. If the issue of withdrawal of
Russian peacekeepers and the coming of others is put on the agenda,
then we will take over those positions. But this means fueling
tensions,’ the Abkhaz leader said.

Bagapsh also spoke about the military base in Gudauta, Abkhazia.
Interfax news agency reported quoting Abkhaz leader as saying:
`Georgia and Russia are negotiating over the setting up of a joint
anti-terrorist center. I think that the [military] base in Gudauta
could become this [anti-terrorist center] – there are all
preconditions for this.’

In accordance with the 1999 OSCE Istanbul treaty, Russia committed
itself to liquidating this military base in 2001. Russia claims that
it has pulled out its troops from Gudauta; however Tbilisi insists on
international monitoring of the base in an attempt to verify the
complete disbanding of this base.

Sergey Bagapsh also called for increasing coordination between the
secessionist regions of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdnestria and
Nagorno-Karabakh. He said that there are plans being made to hold a
summit of leaders of these regions.

`Tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, we will decide when to hold
this meeting,’ RIA Novosti news agency reported quoting Bagapsh. The
meeting will take place in Moscow, or in one of the cities of
Russia’s North Caucasus region.

(2005)00 7-e.asp

Council of Europe
Venice Commission
 
Strasbourg, 14 March 2005
Opinion no. 290 / 2004

CDL-AD(2005)007
Or. Engl.
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW
(VENICE COMMISSION)
 
OPINION
ON THE DRAFT LAW MAKING AMENDMENTS AND ADDENDA
TO THE LAW ON CONDUCTING
MEETINGS, ASSEMBLIES,
RALLIES AND DEMONSTRATIONS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
 
Adopted by the Venice Commission
at its 62nd Plenary Session
(Venice, 11-12 March 2005)
 
 
on the basis of comments by
 
Ms Finola FLANAGAN (Member, Ireland)
Mr Giorgio MALINVERNI (Member, Switzerland)
 
 
 
I.                    Introduction
 
1.  Upon the request of the Armenian authorities, the Venice Commission
adopted, at its 60th Plenary Session (Venice 8-9 October 2004), an opinion
(CDL-AD(2004)039) on the `Law on the Procedure of Conducting Meetings,
Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstration of the Republic of Armenia’
(CDL(2004)42). 
 
2. In its Resolution 1405(2004) of October 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe called for the Armenian authorities `to introduce
amendment, no later than March 2005, on the law on demonstrations and public
assemblies to bring it into compliance with Council of Europe standards to
ensure freedom of assembly in practice’.
 
3.  In December 2004, Mr T. Torosyan, vice-speaker of the Armenian National
Assembly, requested the Venice Commission to carry out an expert assessment
of the draft law `making amendments and addenda to the law on the procedure
of conducting gatherings, meetings, rallies and demonstrations in the
Republic of Armenia’ (CDL(2005)019 and CDL(2005)017).
 
4.  Ms Finola Flanagan and Mr Giorgio Malinverni were appointed to act as
rapporteurs.
 
5.  The present opinion, which was drawn up on the basis of their comments,
was adopted by the Venice Commission at its 62nd Plenary Session (Venice,
11-12 March 2005).
 
II.                Background
 
6.  In October 2004, the Venice Commission adopted an opinion
(CDL-AD(2004)039) on the law on the procedure of Conducting Meetings,
Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstration of the Republic of Armenia
(CDL(2004)042). This law had already been adopted by the Armenian National
Assembly on 28 April 2004.  The opinion of the Venice Commission was to the
effect that the Armenian law did not correspond to the general requirement
that laws specifically devoted to the right of assembly should be limited to
setting out the legislative basis for permissible interferences by state
authorities and to regulating the system of permits without unnecessary
details.  Rather, the law as adopted set out with excessive detail the
conditions for exercising the constitutionally guaranteed right of
assembly.  The law was considered to differentiate between categories of
event in a manner which was not properly linked to permissible reasons for
restrictions.
 
7.  The law as adopted on 28 April 2004 contained some improvements taking
into account some comments made by the rapporteurs in respect of an earlier
draft version of the law (CDL(2004)022).  Certain further amendments and
addenda to the draft law of 28 April 2004 are now proposed by the Armenian
authorities and commented on below. 
 
III.             Analysis of the proposed amendments
 
8.  The proposed amending law contains 11 articles which are commented on
article by article.  It would be helpful to have a commentary on or
explanation from the Armenian authorities on each proposed amendment since
the intended effect is not always clear.  In particular, it is not always
clear whether a proposed amendment is intended to make a substantive change
to the effect of a provision or whether it is simply a technical drafting
change.
 
Article 1 – repealing Articles 3 and 4
 
9.  The repeal would not appear to bring about any change to the rules
regarding `other events in places of general use’ or to the rules regarding
`conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and other events in areas not
considered places of general use’.  These two Articles would appear to be
replaced by a new provision in Article 5 which maintains the same rule as
heretofore. 
 
Article 2 – amending Article 5
 
10.  The proposed amendment does not appear to bring about any substantive
change.  The alterations are purely of a drafting nature.
 
Article 3 – amending Article 6
 
11.  This proposes a repeal of the requirement that the organiser `assume
other statutory duties stipulated for organisers of public events’.  It is
not clear that the repeal of this requirement reduces the duties of
organisers since it is presumed that `other statutory duties’ would continue
to apply even in the absence of this provision.  An explanation from the
Armenian Authorities of what is intended by this repeal would be helpful.
 
12.  The effect of the repeal of the express requirement that an organiser
be present throughout the conduct of a public event is also unclear; it is
not apparent whether the repeal is intended to remove the requirement that
the organiser be present.  It would not appear to be possible for an
organiser to perform certain other duties contained in Article 6 if he or
she were not present.  An explanation from the Armenian authorities of the
implications of the repeal proposed here would be helpful.
 
Article 4 – Amending Article 7
 
13.  This appears to be a technical drafting amendment not intended to
affect the rights and duties of participants in the public event.
 
Article 5 – amending Article 8
 
14.  The amendments proposed here would appear to be of technical drafting
character only and do not alter the substance of the law.
 
Article 6 – amending Article 9
 
15.  Article 9 prohibits the conduct of public events in the circumstances
listed.  Article 9, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 1, is improved by the
proposed amendment.  The amended provision would provide that public events
are prohibited `[on] bridges, in tunnels, underground areas, hazardous
buildings, construction areas if the public security, health of participants
and others are endangered…’ (emphasis added).  In the opinion adopted by the
Commission at its 60th Session the Law of April 28th 2004 was criticised
because though the Armenian Authorities explained that certain areas were
prohibited for `security reasons’ this was not stated in the law itself and
the prohibition was not therefore expressly linked to a permissible reason
for restriction of a guaranteed right.  Whilst the provision is improved by
the proposed amendment, nonetheless, the remainder of Article 9 paragraph 3
still contains an extensive list of restrictions not necessarily connected
with threats to security or public order.  Despite the amendment in relation
to the restrictions in Article 9 paragraph 3 sub-paragraph 1, the Venice
Commission’s earlier opinion therefore remains valid in relation to the rest
of Article 9 paragraph 3.
 
Article 7 – amending Article 10
 
16.  It is not clear what is the intention of the proposed amendment
involving the requirement to notify a proposed public event in certain
circumstances.  Whilst the amendment could be interpreted as relaxing the
requirement to notify in relation to non-mass public events, it is not
absolutely clear that it does so since non-mass public events which would
`disrupt the public order’ will continue to require notification.  If a
disruption of traffic would be considered in Armenian law to amount to a
disruption of public order, then the amendment would not appear to relax the
law at all. 
 
Article 8 – amending Article 11
 
17.  Some of these amendments reduce somewhat the details required in the
notification procedure for a mass public event and are, to that extent,
desirable.  Others are technical redrafting amendments which would not
appear to affect the substance of the law.  However, the general criticism
regarding `excessive bureaucracy surrounding the notification’ remains. 
 
Article 9 – amending Article 12
 
18.  It is not clear whether the amendment proposed means that a failure to
submit a notification to the relevant head of the community can be
rectified. 
 
Article 10 – amending Article 13
 
19.  The removal of Article 13, paragraph 1, paragraph 8 is to be welcomed. 
The requirement that a mass public event would be prohibited where `the
event pursue[d] unlawful goals and objectives’ is removed.  The provision
was considered too vague to be acceptable.
 
20.  The removal of the words `should there be such a possibility’ from
Article 13 paragraph 4 is to be welcomed and imposes on the authorities the
obligation to offer the organisers another date for their event.  While this
is welcomed the comments about the restrictive nature of the requirements
around holding events remain.  The right to counter-demonstrate should only
be limited in connection with genuine security or public order
consideration.
 
Article 11 – amending Article 14
 
21.  It is not clear how the proposed amendments fit in with the possible
earlier requirement that organisers be present throughout an event.
 
IV.              Conclusions
 
22.  Certain of the proposed amendments respond to specific criticisms made
in the earlier opinion of the Commission. They are therefore to be welcomed.

 
23.  Generally, however, the draft law under consideration does not make the
significant change to the law as adopted on 28 April 2004 which would be
required in order to bring the law into conformity with the requirements of
the European Convention on Human Rights.  The fundamental deficiencies and
difficulties identified in the Venice Commission’s Opinion adopted at its
60th Plenary Session remain. 
 
24.  In particular, the Commission wishes to underline that
 
–         there is still no overriding requirement in any given case that
the restrictions have to be proportionate and for relevant and sufficient
reasons; the authorities should instead be in the position to allow events
which would not pose security or public order difficulties or would not risk
violating other persons’ rights, even though they might be in breach of
formal requirements;
–         there is no room for spontaneous assemblies, except `non-mass’
ones, while spontaneous assemblies are undoubtedly guaranteed under Article
11 of the Convention;
–         the rights to counter-demonstrate should be generally allowed,
unless at risk of violating security or public order;
–         limitations on the venues for conducting public events remain
unreasonably strict;
–         the procedural requirements and mandatory time limits and the
detailed requirements in order for a mass public event to be authorised
remain so onerous as to be likely to disincline many people from organising
a public event.
 
25.  In addition, the Commission has received information that certain
amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Code of Administrative violations
were passed by the Armenian National Assembly on 24 December 2004 and signed
by the President into law on 18 January 2005.
 
26.  In particular, criminal liability has been introduced for the
`Organization and holding of illegal public event or other such events and
public calls for involving participation in those events’ (fine of 200 to
300 minimal salaries or arrest up to two months), for `calls for
disobedience to the decisions discontinuing an illegal public event’ (fine
in the amount of 300 to 500 minimal salaries or detention up to three
months) and for the `Organization of group activities violating public order
and active participation in such activities’ (`in the event of the absence
of graver criminal elements (…) fine in the amount of 400 to 800 minimal
salaries’).
 
27.  Furthermore, non-compliance with decisions on discontinuing public
events as set forth in the law `On Conducting Meetings, Rallies, Processions
and Demonstrations’ is now punished with a fine amounting to 50 to 100
minimal salaries.
 
28.  In this respect, the Commission considers that the need to establish
criminal liability, and even imprisonment, for the mere organisation of
illegal demonstrations is questionable.
 
29.  It is unclear, first of all, what is an `illegal’ public event, as no
such definition appears to be contained in the criminal code or in any other
legal text. One might wonder, for example, if spontaneous demonstrations are
`illegal’. In addition, also the organisation of `other such events’ may
lead to the imposition of a sentence, when it is unclear what is covered by
this definition. It is therefore highly doubtful that these new provisions
comply with the principle of legality, which in criminal law is fundamental
and prohibits the arbitrary application of the law.
 
30.  In the Commission’s opinion, it would be appropriate to provide for
criminal liability in the event that the persons who take part in an
`illegal’ demonstration use violence or cause physical harm to third
persons, but not in the event of merely organizing such demonstration.
 
31.  The draft law on making amendments and addenda to the law on the
Procedure of Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstration of
the Republic of Armenia does not guarantee the right to assembly and the
right to freedom of expression in Armenia as required by the ECHR and its
jurisprudence.
 
32.  In addition, taking into account the criticism by the Venice Commission
of the Armenian law, the amendments to the Armenian criminal code and code
of administrative violations would prohibit and make illegal and subject to
criminal and administrative sanction the organization and holding of
demonstrations which should, in fact, be permitted. The amendments to the
Criminal Code and Code of Administrative Violations therefore further
impinge on rights of assembly and freedom of expression.
 
33.  The Commission wishes to reiterate the importance for Armenia of
protecting and guaranteeing these fundamental rights, particularly in the
context of the upcoming constitutional reforms. It remains at the disposal
of the Armenian authorities in this respect and invites them to pursue the
legislative work in this field.

Glendale News Press
Published March 14, 2005
Settlement deadline approaching
By Jackson Bell, News-Press and Leader
GLENDALE — Heirs of those killed in the Armenian genocide have until
Wednesday to file claims to receive their share of a $20-million insurance
settlement.
New York Life last year agreed to settle the 1999 class-action lawsuit filed
by descendants of victims of the 1915 genocide. They accused the insurance
company of not paying out 2,300 policies purchased by their slain relatives
in the Ottoman Empire, officials said.
advertisement
People can find out if they are eligible by calling the Armenian Insurance
Settlement Fund or visiting its website and checking the list of victims’
names. Descendants of former policyholders are then required to fill out a
claim and submit it by Wednesday.
“The heirs of these policyholders have waited 90 years for a little bit of
justice, and it would be a tragic shame if people missed the deadline and
opportunity just because didn’t know about it,” said Paul Krekorian, a
member of the Armenian Insurance Settlement Fund Board.
Krekorian also encourages people to submit forms if they believe their
relatives had New York Life policies, but can’t find any family names on the
website.
As of Wednesday, the board had received 917 claims, and the website has had
about 250,000 hits, Krekorian said.
As much as $11 million of the settlement will be available for descendants
of policyholders. The payment size will be determined by the amount of the
unsettled policy.
An additional $3 million went to Armenian charities, including
Glendale-based Armenian Educational Foundation and Burbank-based Armenian
Church of the North American Western Diocese.
The lawsuit against New York Life was filed by La Cañada Flintridge resident
Martin Marootian and 12 other plaintiffs. The settlement, made last year, is
the first of its kind stemming from the Armenian Genocide, in which the
Turks are said to have killed more than 1.5-million Armenians in what many
consider the first genocide of the 20th century.
The Turkish government disputes that it was a genocidal effort. “The case
itself was a big milestone for us because this is the first time it really
got approved in court that it was a genocide,” said Alina Ana Azizian,
executive director of the Armenian National Committee’s Glendale chapter.
“And it’s a first step in recognizing and helping people heal.”

Demo in Georgia against Russian military pullout

Agence France Presse
March 13, 2005

Some 3,000 people demonstrated Sunday in Georgia against the withdrawal
of Russian troops whose continued presence has caused tensions with
neighbouring former Soviet partner Russia.

In a toughly-worded resolution, Georgia’s parliament assembly last
Thursday gave Russia until next January 1 to pull out, after which
it will declare illegal the bases in the Caucasian state adjacent to
Russia’s southern border.

But Georgian television reported that 3,000 mainly employees at a
local Russian base in the town of Akhalkalaki, one of two in Georgia,
had demonstrated to protect their jobs.

The protesters say the base is their only livelihood and therefore
vital to the economic survial of the area.

They also believe the Russian presence is a guarantee of the safety
of the local population, mainly an ethnic Armenian minority situated
on the common border with the Caucasian state of Armenia.

Most people working on the Russian base are paid in Russian rubles and
have been accorded Russian nationality, said the TV station Rustavi 2.

Goga Khachidze, the Georgian presidential representative in the reigon,
has promised that locals will be offered alternative employment at
the same pay when the Russian base closes.

“The people of Akhalkalaki will not be workless,” he said. “The
Georgian government is looking seriously at the question … and will
propose alternative employment.”

But he stressed that the eventual Russian troop pullout was “inevitable
and no amount of demonstrating will stop it.”

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Friday he was upbeat
about early agreement on closing the controversial military bases,
saying Russia had given positive signals on the topic, “and I hope the
problem between Georgia and Russia will be resolved in a diplomatic,
civilised way.”

In its resolution, parliament called on the Georgian government to
prepare by mid-May a list of measures to be enforced if it did not
succeed by May 1 in agreeing a hard-and-fast schedule for withdrawal
of the 3,000 military personnel.

Russia has sought to play down the impact of the Georgian parliament,
which nonetheless underscored growing international pressure on Moscow
to leave the two military bases it still occupies in Georgia that it
inherited with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, when Georgia
became independent.

Georgia has accused Russia of dragging its feet in the negotiations.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
March 9, 2005, Wednesday

TWO COUNTRIES – ONE BORDER

SOURCE: Krasnaya Zvezda, March 4, 2005, p. 1

by Olg Gorupai

Age-old partnership between Russia and Armenia is still developing.
Our countries interact in the spheres of economy and culture; they
advance military and military-technical cooperation. Here is an
interview with Colonel Vyacheslav Voskanjan, Commander of the Border
Troops of the National Security Service of Armenia, on why the
Republic of Armenia appealed to Russia with the suggestion that they
guard the Armenian borders together, on service of Armenian border
guards and their interaction with Russian counterparts.

>>From our folders:

Vyacheslav Avetisovich Voskanjan was born on September 13, 1957, in
Stepanakert (Nagorno-Karabakh). He finished the Red Banner Supreme
Military Political School of the KGB of the USSR named after
Voroshilov in 1978, and Frunze Academy in 1995. Voskanjan served in
the Border Troops of the Caucasus Border District of the Soviet KGB.
After 1993, he served with structures and troops of the National
Security Service of Armenia. He became commander of the Border Troops
in July 2003.

Question: Armenia is one of the few post-Soviet states that did not
reject help from Russia in defense of its state borders. Have there
been valid reasons for it?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: Russia and Armenia signed the Treaty “On the
status of Border Troops of the Russian Federation on the territory of
the Republic of Armenia and their functioning…” on September 30,
1992. Acting in the interests of its own security, security of the
Russian Federation, and collective security of CIS countries, Armenia
delegated the powers of protection of its borders with Turkey and
Iran to the Russian Border Troops quartered on its territory at the
time of signing of the treaty. The document defines the structure,
tasks, rights, and procedures of funding of the Russian Border Troops
quartered on the territory of Armenia, and regulate many other
aspects. The signing of the treaty was a logical corollary of the
situation Armenia found itself in when the Soviet Union disintegrated
and sovereign countries appeared in its place, when the situation on
the borders became complicated and Armenia did not have Border Troops
of its own.

Question: When were Border Troops of Armenia formed? Are there any
differences between them and analogous structures in nearby
countries?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: Border Troops of the Republic of Armenia were
formed on January 28, 1992. Initially, they were an element of the
Defense Ministry. Border Troops were transferred to the National
Security Service in 1993. Generally speaking, their structure is
analogous to that of the Border Troops of the Soviet Union and
Russian Federation – border detachments, commandant’s offices,
outposts, and checkpoints.

Question: What parts of the Armenian state borders are manned by
Russian border guards? How would you appraise relations between
border guards of the two countries?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: We could not wish for any better relations.
They are based on friendship and mutual assistance. We all share a
common task – security of the Russian Federation and the Republic of
Armenia. It involves maintenance of the state border regime, control
over individuals, transport means, and shipments crossing the state
border, prevention of all and any provocations, and interaction with
foreign colleagues. In Armenia, Russia Gazeta, man the Turkish and a
part of the Iranian part of the border totalling about 400 kilometers
in length, they also man the crossing point at Zvartnots airport in
Yerevan.

We regularly arrange meetings; exchange of information is regular
too…

Question: Who else do Armenian border guards maintain close contacts
in this sphere with? Apart from the Russian Federation, that is.

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: A special emphasis is being made on advancement
of contacts and cooperation on the Armenian-Georgian border.
Everything is done with the interests of the countries and their
national legislations taken into account. Armenian and Georgian
border guards work side by side preventing activities of illegal
armed formations and terrorist organizations, smugglers of arms and
drugs, etc. multilateral interaction between border guards is also
under way within the framework of the CIS Council of Commanders of
Border Troops.

Question: Are there any unsolved problems in the matter of
demarcation and delimitation of the state border with Georgia?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: Under the protocol of the meeting on August 14,
1995, signed by government delegations of Armenia and Georgia, our
countries agreed to set up a joint panel for delimitation and
demarcation. Four meetings of working groups have taken place so far.
Moot points and conflicts (theft of cattle, illegal felling of trees,
detention of vehicles with consumer goods, etc.) were handled at
these meetings. A visa free regime is operating on the
Armenian-Georgian border.

Question: What parts of the Armenian borders are most problematic
from the point of view of their security?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: We do not have any serious problems in this
respect. On the other hand, parts of the state border with Azerbaijan
bear watching, but units of the Armenian regular army successfully
handle this particular task.

Question: Where do you train border guards?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: Officers for our Border Troops are trained at
colleges of the Border Service of the Russian Federal Security
Service. There are also special courses at the Training Center of the
National Security Service of the Republic of Armenia. Teaching staff
there is quite experienced.

There is also a training center for low-level officers.

Question: Every now and then Armenian media outlets run critical
materials on Russian border guards. Dissatisfaction with various
aspects of their activities – from combat training to administrative
functions – is expressed in these articles. Why is that? Does the
Russian-Armenian interaction have enemies?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: I suspect that these quite infrequent articles
are a result of their authors’ lack of competence or knowledge of the
subject. They do not even come close to understanding difficulties of
the service of Russian border guards thousands of kilometers from
their homes. Sure, some shortcomings do present themselves but I do
not think that they are something to dwell on. I would not pay
attention to articles like that. The way we dismiss the articles and
criticism aimed against us.

Question: What awaits the Armenian-Russian cooperation in the sphere
of border protection?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: Well, cooperation and interaction should
continue even when Russian border guards have fulfilled their mission
in Armenia and turned the border over to their Armenian opposite
numbers. This interaction is important from the point of view of our
common war on challenges to mankind and from the angle of our
brotherly relations and their advancement.

Question: International terrorism is one of these challenges,
nowadays. Standing in the way of extremists, gunmen, mercenaries,
etc., border guards are expected to contribute too. What is being
done by the Armenian Border Troops in this sphere?

Vyacheslav Voskanjan: Main Directorate of State Border Protection of
the National Security Service and other security structures take an
active part in the war on international terrorism. We are doing what
we can. For example, our specialists designed Infotel system of
automatic monitoring of migration flows at crossing points. The
system is being installed. Crossing points are outfitted with modern
detectors of radioactive materials, drugs, and explosives. Special
gear is used to verify validity of documents. We actively interact
with other CIS countries in all of that.