Author: Taslakhchian Andranik

HE WILL DEMAND ROBERT KOCHARYAN’S RESIGNATION BUT IS
CONVINCED…

Lragir.am
18 July 06

If we compare the proposal on settlement presented in 1997 and what
Mathew Bryza revealed, we can say that the present proposal has
a positive difference, stated Vazgen Manukyan, the leader of the
National Democratic Union, July 18 at the Pastark Club, speaking
about the present process of settlement of the Karabakh conflict.

"What is there in comparison? If they used to say that we will return
the territories except Lachin and wait that the status of Karabakh
will be settled sooner of later, here the question of Kelbajar is put
forward besides Lachin, and a special way should be found for Lachin
and Kelbajar. It is not clear what it means An attempt is made to
settle the Karabakh issue in a referendum, and somewhere in the middle
Karabakh is granted a status, international or whatever. But neither
can reach a resolution because the main issue has been withdrawn,"
says Vazgen Manukyan.

According to him, it is possible to make a compromise on territories,
refugees, infrastructure and other questions, but it will not solve
the problem. "The point is that Karabakh gained independence both
constitutionally and in an imposed war, it is an independent state.

Without signing a paper, this independent state cannot be part of
a state where it does not want to be. In other words, there is no
compromise," says Vazgen Manukyan. He presents the proposal which is
acceptable for him.

"If Azerbaijan accepted that Karabakh is not part of Azerbaijan,
the other questions would be agreed on. If Azerbaijan did not accept
that negotiations cannot lead anywhere, I am 100 percent sure,"
states Vazgen Manukyan. He says in this case the talks need to be
prolonged as much as possible. Vazgen Manukyan says temporizing is
favorable for Karabakh because Armenia and Azerbaijan did little to
grow powerful as states.

"In terms of political psychology time favored Karabakh. In what
sense? If in the beginning everyone thought that Karabakh separated
from Azerbaijan by chance, and it should be joined to Karabakh again,
they know that if a state remains separate for 15 years, it cannot
be made to join another state," says the leader of the NDU. He
says although Azerbaijan possesses oil, Armenia may play down this
factors if it adopts a right policy on internal management. Vazgen
Manukyan mentions that after the ceasefire the battlefield was moved
to the sphere of economy, where Armenia and Azerbaijan did not have
significant success.

For Armenia, the leader of the NDU points out four directions: economy,
law enforcement, civil sphere, Armenia-Diaspora relations.

But the processes underway in these spheres are not sufficient
to gain a favorable position, thinks Vazgen Manukyan. Otherwise,
he says, the factor of the Azerbaijani oil cannot be an advantage,
although it may also be a disadvantage, he says.

Vazgen Manukyan disagrees that economic progress in Armenia is hindered
by the unsettled conflict over Karabakh. "For the development of the
Armenian economy, the factor of Karabakh which led to blocked roads,
is in the fourth or fifth place. The first is corruption, monopoly,
bad management," says Vazgen Manukyan.

According to him, the economic state would not change essentially
if the Karabakh issue were resolved in 1997. The leader of the NDU
believes that Armenia would not become an route for transportation
of oil because it is a geopolitical matter. "The Turkish-Armenian
border would open, but I think at that time the Armenian economy was
less prepared for it than now," says the leader of the NDU.

He states that if Robert Kocharyan signs the present document, he will
demand his resignation because Kocharyan came to power being against
the stage-by-stage settlement. "What was the point of the marasmus
of the past eight years?" asks Vazgen Manukyan. He is convinced,
however, that Robert Kocharyan will not sign the document.

Though Vazgen Manukyan says that over the past years Robert Kocharyan
has made the West understand that the problem is reaching agreement
with him, and he will solve the problem of agreement between Armenia
and Karabakh. Vazgen Manukyan thinks the consequence of this is that
the participation of Karabakh became secondary. The leader of NDU,
however, assigns everything to the boyish character of the head
of state.

Diplomtic group of RA MFA leaving for Beirut

ArmRadio.am
18.07.2006 12:44

The diplomatic group of employees of RA Ministry of ForeignAffairs
is leaving for Beirut to assist the Armenian Embassy in Lebanon,
acting Press Secretary of the MFA Vladimir Karapetyan told "ArmInfo"
correspondent.

In his words, in the morning the group visited RA Consulate General
in Aleppo and soon it will reach Beirut.

70 people, mostly Armenian citizens, have already arrived in Armenia
from Lebanon through Aleppo.

Shamil Basayev: A ruthless Chechen warlord who mocked the Kremlin

Agence France Presse — English
July 11, 2006 Tuesday 4:14 PM GMT

MOSCOW, July 11 2006 — Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, who was
reported killed on Monday, masterminded horrific attacks across
Russia and openly mocked the Kremlin by remaining at large for more
than a decade.

Among dozens of other attacks against civilian and military targets,
Basayev, 41, claimed responsibility for the Beslan school hostage
siege in September 2004 in which 362 people were killed, including
186 children.

The bearded guerrilla leader was at the core of the fierce independence
fight in Chechnya in which as many as 100,000 civilians — about 10
percent of the population — are feared to have been killed since
December 1994.

Basayev claimed that the devastation wreaked by Russia’s military
campaigns on the Chechen people, including the death of many of his
own relatives, justified attacks on Russian civilians.

But he was also widely regarded as an exceptional and fearless military
commander whose rag-tag forces inflicted major defeats on the Russian
army in Grozny and the Caucasus mountains.

He became legendary for his ability to escape capture, despite multiple
wounds, including the loss of his right lower leg on a landmine five
years ago, and a 10 million dollar bounty on his head.

But he lost support among ordinary Chechens when he embraced radical
Islam in the late 1990s. Many blamed him for provoking a second
conflict in 1999 after having masterminded the defeat of Russian
troops in a first 1994-1996 war in Chechnya.

As figurehead of the rebels’ extremist wing, Basayev increasingly
abandoned his nationalist credentials for a radical Islamist agenda,
becoming the link between Chechnya and the worldwide Islamic jihad
movement.

Born in 1965, Basayev was raised in Dyshne-Vedeno, a Chechen village
at the heart of territory with a tradition of rebellion against
Moscow. He claimed his ancestors fought alongside Imam Shamil, the
legendary 19th century resistance warrior.

He studied in Moscow and began dealing in imported computers in the
last days of the Soviet Union. Then in August 1991 he joined a group
of Chechens supporting President Boris Yeltsin at the Moscow White
House to resist a communist coup.

In November 1991, Basayev and two others hijacked a Russian plane
from Mineralniye Vody in southern Russia and flew to Turkey to promote
Chechnya’s independence struggle. They were later released by Turkish
authorities.

During the 1990s, Basayev fought against Armenian troops in
Nagorno-Karabakh and against Georgian forces in the breakaway province
of Abkhazia.

In Abkhazia he was widely rumoured to have been supported by Russia’s
military intelligence forces, the GRU, as part of Moscow’s support
for the separatist Abkhaz against the Georgians.

He is also believed to have taken men for training in Afghanistan.

In the first Chechen war Basayev emerged as the most effective field
commander.

At the height of the conflict in 1995 Basayev and a small group of
men took hostage hundreds of people in a hospital in the southwest
Russian town of Budyonnovsk.

The ruthless and utterly unexpected raid forced the Russian government
into suspending military operations in Chechnya and beginning peace
negotiations.

When these broke down, Basayev was the principal commander in the rebel
recapture of Grozny in August 1996 — one of the biggest humiliations
the modern Russian military has faced.

In 1999, he provided the Russian government with an excuse to
re-occupy Chechnya by leading a failed foray into Dagestan, a province
neighbouring Chechnya, to try and provoke an Islamist uprising.

Moscow was repeatedly shamed by Basayev’s ability to move freely
around the Caucasus mountains region for more than a decade.

A network of corrupt Russian officials was reported to have helped
him to swap the caves and forests of the mountains for comfortable
safehouses in Chechnya and far beyond.

"He doesn’t have to run around the mountains," Taus Dzhabrailov,
a top official in the Kremlin-installed Chechen government, told AFP
earlier. "He is driven around comfortably in jeeps. He just pays."

In 2005, Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky filmed an interview with
Basayev aired on US television network ABC in which the warlord issued
threats of new Beslan-style attacks should Russia fail to stop what
he called "genocide" in Chechnya.

Basayev, who lost 11 relatives in a Russian air attack on Vedeno in
1995, mocked his pursuers, saying: "Don’t tell me they’re trying to
find me. I’m trying to find them."

sms-dt/gk

President Robert Kocharyan visited the French Embassy in Armenia

ArmRadio.am
14.07.2006 12:38

On the occassion of the national holiday of France RA President
Robert Kocharyan and Mrs. Bela Kocharyan visited the French Embassy
in Armenia today.

The President congratulated the employees and noted with appreciation
that the Armenian-French coperation is developing rather effectively.

2006-2007 has been declared the Year of Armenia in France, which,
according to the assessment of the sides, is an evidence of the high
level of relations established between the two countries. According
to Robert Kocharyan, the Year of Armenia will help the French people
learn about the cultural heritage of the Armenian people having
century-old traditions.

Matthew Bryza: The date of meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents not set so far

ArmRadio.am
13.07.2006 13:00

The exact date of the meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents
has not been set so far, US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew
Bryza declared, Day.az. reports.

In his words, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs are waiting for the
initiative of the conflicting sides. In response to the question about
the reasons of publicizing the details of the negotiations without
considering the opinions of the conflicting parties, Mr. Bryza said he
did not do that at his own initiative. This was the decision of the
Co-Chairs. Bryza noted also that not all the details of the process
have been made public, only some elements discussed during the talks
were presented to public discussion.

"We are waiting for the reaction of the Presidents. I declare,
however, that the potential of the negotiations process has not been
exhausted. We are anticipating the guidance of the Presidents. They
should prompt us in which direction we must work in the future." The
American Co-Chair did not rule out that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue
might be discussed at the G8 summit to open in Saint Petersburg.

10 chess players to participate in an international tournament in Sevan

ArmRadio.am
12.07.2006 12:12

10 chess players of Armenia, Russia, Iran and Georgia will participate
today in an international chess tournament to be held in Sevan
city. The event has been organized by the Armenian Chess Academy
headed by Grand Master Smbat Lputyan.

Russia urges Georgia to show "understanding" on checkpoint closure

RIA Novosti
11 Jul 06

Moscow, 11 July: Russia expects Georgia to show understanding over the
temporary closure of the Verkhniy Lars checkpoint and not to obstruct
the crossing of the Russian-Georgian border in other areas, Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin has told RIA-Novosti.

"We hope the Georgian side will show understanding on this purely
temporary measure and not obstruct the use of border-crossing
facilities on the Russian-Georgian border in other areas," he said.

In the diplomat’s words, the Verkhniy Lars checkpoint has indeed been
closed for a technical upgrade since 8 July.

"The need for this arises in particular because this checkpoint was
repeatedly used by multinational crime groups for smuggling drugs,
gunmen and weapons into Russia for terrorist and other purposes. Some
of these cases happened very recently," the Russian Foreign Ministry
spokesman said.

He noted that the Russian side realized all the difficulties this
decision caused for the public and for goods producers, including those
from Armenia, and was looking for ways to ease these difficulties.

Discussion of EP Turkey Report Put Off Until September

Zaman, Turkey
July 11 2006

Published: Tuesday, July 11, 2006
zaman.com

The discussion of a report on Turkey filed by Dutch MEP Camiel Eurling
at the European Parliament foreign relations commission has been put
off until September.

Some 400 amendment proposals, most of them by Greek MPs, have been
submitted regarding the 2006 report on Turkey. The commission is to
discuss the draft report between September 4-7.

The draft report calls on Turkey to open its ports and harbors to
Greek Cypriot traffic. "The recognition of EU members including Greek
Cyprus by Turkey is a compulsory part of the accession process,"
the report states.

Turkey is urged to launch neighborly and diplomatic relations with
Armenia, and also to open its Armenian border, according to the same
draft report.

The border between Turkey and Armenia has remained closed since 1991
following the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands.

Turkey is also expected to accelerate its reforms and conduct fair
trials.

The report condemns the PKK terror organization and calls for the
lowering of the 10-percent electoral threshold for entry of political
parties to the National Assembly.

Analyst: Invitation of Georgia to NATO on the threshold of G8 summit is a blunt challenge to Russia

Regnum, Russia
July 10 2006

Arif Yunusov, political analyst, head of Conflictology and Migration
Department, Institute for Peace and Democracy (Azerbaijan).

REGNUM: In what formulation the Karabakh problem will be presented
at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg (most probably, on the sidelines
of the summit)?

I suppose, the Karabakh problem will not occupy any significant
place in discussions at the St. Petersburg summit. Most probably,
the Karabakh problem will be somehow discussed on the sidelines of
debates between Russia and the USA. However, it will be in context of
settlement of other conflicts. In other words, the top priority at the
summit will be discussion of Kosovo. In its turn, Russia would raise
the issue of necessity of a universal approach to all the conflicts,
and in this aspect, probably, a discussion will be held on Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Karabakh; if the Karabakh problem is to be reflected
in the documents officially, it will be only in the form of supporting
position of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs conveyed on June 22. But
separately the Karabakh problem will not be discussed at the summit.

REGNUM: What is Russia’s mission and role in settling this problem?

Concerning the Karabakh issue, Russia’s role is significant indeed.

It is another matter, how strongly it aspires for using its
opportunities. Until now Russia has been taking a hesitating
position, giving the initiative to the US. And. I suppose, the Russian
authorities will not be distressed, if what at the current stage is
named as the Prague Process ends up with another failure.

REGNUM: Will Russia, which itself has faced separatism in Chechnya
in its case, insist upon universal nature of the Kosovo precedent?

Of course, Russia would insist upon universal character of the Kosovo
precedent. Essentially, both Russian authorities of various levels
and many representatives of the political elite have repeatedly
talked about it. At the same time, Chechen separatism will play no
special role for the Russian authorities. The Chechen separatism
did not hinder Russia from playing a negative role in the conflicts
in Azerbaijan (Karabakh), Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and
Moldova (Transdnestr). It is exactly the case, when one should speak
of double standards.

REGNUM: What aims will the group of Western countries pursue and are
there any objective grounds for possible criticism of the Russian
policy?

The G8 summit in St. Petersburg can become very important for Russia
and the whole world too. It is not a secret any more that relations
between Russia and the West have started worsening considerably
recently. After more than ten years of talking about Russia’s
"integration" with the West and "strategic partnership" between Moscow
and Washington, today officials from the USA and Western Europe express
their concern publicly concerning internal political situation in
Russia and its relations with republics of the former USSR. And
Russia’s making advances to China and Iran stir serious alert and
the question, what to do with Putin Russia. At first, criticism
towards Russia was made through Western mass media. And on May 4,
US Vice President Dick Cheney directly accused the Kremlin in "unfair
infringement upon civil rights" and use the country’s energy resources
as "instruments of intimidation and blackmail." And recent almost
demonstratively pompous reception by George Bush to Georgian President
Mikhail Saakashvili and proposal to join NATO on the threshold of the
summit are just a blunt challenge to Russia. This way, it is shown
that the period of the carrot policy towards Russia has failed and now
a stage of stick has been started. Of course, at the summit, first of
all, the issue is to be considered of Russia’s using energy resources
for exerting political pressure and blackmail of the former Soviet
republics. There will be also criticism of Russia’s policy towards
former USSR countries, as well as in the East. In a lesser extent,
a question about reduction of democratic processes in Russia itself.

In many expects, this criticism will be of undoubtedly objective
character. However, the matter is, that policy of leading Western
countries has also dual nature, and just like Russia, the USA connives
at actions of authoritarian leaders if they have energy resources
and agree to support policy of the West. It will let Putin rebut the
criticism. On the other hand, the West should comprehend: Russia for
many reasons cannot be fully pro-Western or anti-Western.

It is an internal Russia’s problem, and its tragedy and strength
simultaneously. So, the West should take Russia as it is, but not
live in the world of illusions and believe that Russia has a chance
to become a part of the Wet. In his turn, Putin will try to turn
the summit into a large-scale propagandist show in order to prove
that Russia has regenerated, become a superpower again, although a
democratic one and with free market economy.

REGNUM: What can Azerbaijan expect from the summit in terms of securing
energy safety?

To a known extent Azerbaijan can gain profit from the summit. Because
one of the most acute discussions will be the problem of energy
security of Western countries and their fear that a new Russia, as
they believe, has assumed the policy of effective use of weapons in
foreign policy. In this connection, not so important in scale of Russia
and Arab countries energy resources of Azerbaijan can be partly an
alternative for Georgia, Ukraine, Poland and some other countries. I
suppose, in this issue the West will pay even more attention to
the problem of safe supply of Azerbaijani energy resources and
strengthening its influence in this country. But Russia would hardly
agree with such developments, and that means that geopolitical life
at South Caucasus will only increase.

WHY SUGGESTIONS ON PLANE CRASH CHANGED?

Lragir.am
10 July 06

The results of investigation into the crash of the Armenian plane
on May 3 in Sochi were said to be officially published July 10. In
the meantime, the Russian media have been reporting unofficial data
recorded by the black boxes. The Russian media, in fact, assumed
a rather interesting role in the period that followed the crash,
regularly publishing information about the search, investigation and
deciphering of the black boxes. The publication of data of the black
boxes several days before the investigation would end perfectly fit
into the role of the Russian media. It is notable, however, that on
July 6 the Moskovski Komsomolets, in fact, countered to the version
consistently stressed by the Russian media that the cause of the crash
was the human factor. The publication of the MK shifted the focus
onto the technical problems of the plane. This is a rather important
fact, considering that the newspaper’s conclusions are based on the
opinions of Russian experts. The same experts, who upheld the human
factor since the crash till the publication of July 6.

The reason for this change in the opinion of experts, in other words
the Russian standpoint, could be the deciphering of the black box
data, which show that there was a problem with the autopilot. A
scrutiny of the publication of the MK reveals, however, that this
information actually supports the probability of the human factor.
The point is that if we believe what the newspaper writes, after the
autopilot failed the captain took up conducting of the plane. Hence,
the captain was responsible for the actions and developments that
followed. Moreover, the newspaper writes that at some point the second
pilot started conducting the plane as well. The plane received two
opposite commands from the first and second pilots. So it becomes
evident that the crew disagreed in an emergency. The newspaper puts
this fact unambiguously, independent from its reason.

Hence, in fact, the human factor is stressed, which was unable to
tackle technical problems with the plane. However, is it possible
that the Russian experts cannot realize this in trying to present the
information as technical problems of the plane. Either they cannot
understand it or they do understand but they pursue some other aim.
The second is closer to the reality. The point is that the Russian
side, which has taken over monopoly on information on the crash,
suddenly starts referring to the French side, and even stats that
the French failed to provide some data for reasons that are not clear.

In addition, it is mentioned that without this information it is
impossible to find out the real cause of the crash. In other words,
the Russians are apparently trying to redirect responsibility for the
investigation towards France. Therefore the necessity to neutralize the
version based on the human factor occurs, highlighting the technical
factor. It is rather difficult to tell the reason for this shift of
the vector of investigation. It is interesting, however, that this
shift occurred when the president of Armenia was visiting Iran.

At first sight this has nothing to do with the investigation into
the crash. However, a scrutiny of the chronology of "non-official
reporting" in the media reveals that it overlaps with the visits of
the Armenian leadership. And the Iranian visit was notable in the
sense that the core issue of the visit was the engagement of Russia
in the project of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. France seems to
have no relation to this and it may not have any. But the version
of technical problems of the plane enables the continuity of the
investigation. As soon as the human factor is confirmed, everything
will end. Whereas the technical factor gives rise to the necessity of
a new investigation: why did the machine break down, who is supposed
to guarantee the technical security of the plane, was it the fault of
the producer of wrong maintenance? These questions provide a large
space for investigation. In other words, the question remains up in
the air, and the families of victims are sure not to learn the real
cause of the plane for a long time. It is not clear yet, however,
whether they have started to wonder about the cause, for when the
minister of defense returned from Sochi, he said the relatives of the
victims may not be interested in the cause, for their concern is to
find the bodies of their relatives.

Judging by the investigation, apparently nobody wants to know the cause
of the crash. Maybe they already know or maybe they do not want to
know. It is also possible that they do not manage. The investigation
of the plane was underway when the second plane crashed, taking 120
lives, another Airbus, the plane of Siberia Airlines. By the way,
this company used to be the shareholder of Armavia for a long time.

HAKOB BADALYAN