Author: Tavakalian Edgar

LEVON ANANIAN: ORDER OF ARMENIANS’ MURDER IS CARRIED OUT IN RUSSIA

Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Nov 15 2006

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 15, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. "Cases of
violences and murders committed against Armenians in Russia became
more frequent, but we are not informed in Armenia about all murders,"
Levon Ananian, the Chairman of the Writers’ Union of Armenia expressed
such an opinion at November 15 press conference held at the "Hayeli"
club. In his words, the circumstance that "we, Armenians, started to
involuntary conciliate with those murders, is also sorrowful."

In L.Ananian’s opinion, there are two motives for killing Armenians.

The first is, in his opinion, the one that the society of Russia
suffers from xenophobia, and the second is that an order for
Armenians’ murder is carried out in Russia. "Russia completely
rules over the army of skinheads. Those are completely ruled over
as when the issue relates to Tajiks, Azeris, they are able to find
the criminal during two hours. Those are simple Muslim forecities,
and an Azerbaijani-Turkish handwriting is noticed here," L.Ananian
mentioned. In the speaker’s words, events taking place in Russia remain
unresponded both by Armenian authorities and by Armenian Embassy to
Russia, and intellectuals.

In words of artist Henrik Igitian, one must first of all know for
whom is the murder of Armenians advantageous, and at what extent is
that process headed by the Russian authorities?

Hranush Kharatian, the Chief of the RA National Minorities and
Religious Issues Department attached to Government, is sure that the
cases taking place in Russia are actions addressed against Armenians.

In H.Kharatian’s words, the Russian authorities are wonderfully
concious of what happens. "They understand weakness of Armenia and our
people as well as the country’s dependence on them, keeping silence,
passing around or delaying, explain phenomena of racialism as a
criminal, hooliganism crime," H.Kharatian emphasized.

NATO DOES NOT HAVE A UNIFORM APPROACH TO PROBLEMATIC ZONES OF THE CIS
Translated by Pavel Pushkin

Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, November 13, 2006, p. 16
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
November 15, 2006 Wednesday

NATO WILL NOT HELP;
by Sergei Markedonov, deputy director of the department of inter-ethnic
relations department of the Institute of Political and Military
Analysis

RUSSIA IS SCARED BY NATO EXPANSION ON ACCOUNT OF CIS COUNTRIES BUT
NATO DOES NOT HAVE A UNIFORM APPROACH TO THIS PROBLEM; A new round
of Russian-Georgian confrontation highlighted the role of NATO in
post-Soviet geopolitics and in resolving the "frozen conflicts"
in the CIS.

A new round of Russian-Georgian confrontation highlighted the role
of NATO in post-Soviet geopolitics and in resolving the "frozen
conflicts" in the CIS. On the one hand, it is alarming that countries
that announce entrance into NATO as their strategic prospect view
Russia as a "potential opponent" and view its role in resolving the
"frozen conflicts" only negatively. There is also the other side.

There is a question, "What does NATO to do with this?"

NATO is not a branch of the US Department of State. Overall, it is
wrong to identify NATO and the US. NATO is an organization established
on the basis of a treaty among separate national states having their
own interests often different from each other including such interests
in post-Soviet space. NATO includes Bulgaria and Romania that wish
to internationalize the Black Sea, whereas Turkey is interested in
preserving "Black Sea Ltd" where the principal shareholders are
Turkey and Russia (that is not a NATO member at all)! Such NATO
members as Poland and Romania have different views on post-Soviet
space too. Poland does its best to maintain territorial integrity of
Ukraine and acts as its patron on the path to NATO and the European
Union. Romania has a difficult and controversial history of border
relations with Ukraine. Although the problem of North Bukovina
has remained in the past, Romania is still disputing belonging of
Zmeiny Island to Ukraine. Besides, Romania is a patron of Moldova in
NATO. Hence there is difference in the views of Warsaw and Bucharest on
the Trans-Dniester regulation. It is possible to recall that France is
a co-chair of the Minsk OSCE group for the Nagorno-Karabakh regulation
and Turkey has had economic blockage of Armenia (because of occupation
of a part of Azerbaijani territory by this republic) since 1993.

Thus, NATO is a complex institution that makes all decisions
(including those on attitude to the "frozen conflicts") on the basis
of consensus. This circumstance turns NATO (especially after its
expansion) into an insufficiently mobile and efficient institution.

Besides the policy of NATO in the CIS (as an institution) there is
also policy of separate NATO members in the Caucasus or in other
regions of the CIS. Whereas the US views the Caucasus as a rear line
of its Middle Eastern front, the European Union countries view it as
a testing ground for trial of the "good neighborhood policy."

So, what is the challenge of NATO to Russia? In our opinion, one of the
main problems of Russia’s diplomacy is inability to clearly formulate
the essence of "NATO fears." Most likely, Russia is afraid of not
NATO itself that experiences bad times. Russia is rather afraid of
NATO expansion on account of the states being, to put this mildly,
unfriendly to our country, which may change the Russian vector of
NATO policy. In this aspect the biggest apprehensions are caused by
the "special conditions" stated by Brussels for NATO neophytes. The
NATO establishment is insufficiently demanding to the former Soviet
republics.

To date, one of the most important conditions for entrance into NATO
was an internal consensus in the political elite and in the population
of a candidate country. It is obvious that there is no such consensus
in Ukraine or in Georgia. If we speak about Georgia in the borders of
the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (with Abkhazia and South
Ossetia), it is clear that such consensus is impossible. This idea is
rejected in Tskhinvali and Sokhumi. However, it seems that nobody hears
this. At any rate, after passing the resolution of the UN Security
Council on Georgia opinion of official NATO representatives was
corrected noticeably. In one of the latest interviews NATO Secretary
General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer admitted conduction of "intensive dialog"
with Georgia but said, "This does not mean that Georgia will soon
enter NATO. Although Tbilisi has been obviously striving for this,
further steps will depend on the extent to which Georgia is adherent
to the basic principles of NATO like peaceful resolving of internal
and external contradictions. The matter is about resolving conflicts
with Abkhazia and South Ossetia."

That is why it is logical to ask: is it worth encouraging potential
members with prospects of their soonest entrance into NATO or is this
a long and drawn out process? Would it be more honest to hint that
NATO is not a political resource in their struggle against Russia?

Moreover so that their own ethnocratic and authoritarian trends are
often disguised as the struggle against "empire ambitions."

Belated justice: Some Valley Armenians will share in an insurance settlement.

11/14/06

A small measure of justice will soon flow to some of the survivors
and descendants of victims of the genocide against Armenians carried
out by the Ottoman Turks in the latter days of World War I. The New
York Life Insurance Co. will issue checks as part of a settlement of
claims by the heirs of genocide victims who purchased life insurance
policies from the company many decades ago.

A number of the survivors live in the Valley, and will receive checks
ranging from $1,000 to $44,000, depending on the value of the original
policy.

The New York Life settlement totals $7.9 million. The sum was agreed
upon in 2004; it has taken a while to determine the names and the
validity of the survivors and their claims. A similar settlement –
for $17 million – was reached with a French life insurance company
last year.

Armenians in Armenia will receive $3.4million of the New York Life
settlement. Armenians in the United States will get $2.6 million,
and Armenians in France will share more than $650,000.

In addition, legal claims are being pursued against a pair of banks
in Germany that are believed to have sequestered millions of dollars
in deposits from genocide victims and never returned the money.

Such payments are perhaps more important for their symbolism than for
the actual dollar amounts the survivors and descendants will receive.

Simply paying such settlements is a powerful acknowledgment of the
validity of the claims of genocide survivors, something Turkey has
resisted mightily since the killings took place.

Turkey has been abetted in its denial by a U.S. government, led
by the State Department, that has, for geopolitical reasons, never
acknowledged the genocide itself – despite promises to do so from
several presidents of both parties and efforts by many in Congress
to see that the historical truth of the genocide is recognized.

That will be the big victory for the dwindling number of genocide
survivors and their descendants. In the meantime, it’s nice to be
able to savor some small triumphs in this decades-long battle for
recognition and justice.

.html

UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR TALKS ABOUT HIS BOOK ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Conrad Wilson

Minnesota Daily, MN
Nov 14 2006

More than one million Armenians died between 1915 and 1923 during a
devastating genocide.

ore than one million Armenians died from 1915 to 1923 during a
devastating genocide. Today, the demise of a people is debated
throughout Turkey, the epicenter of the once-powerful Ottoman Empire.

University professor Taner Akcam’s new book released this week,
"A Shameful Act," examines the genocide and the degree of Turkish
responsibility.

Akcam is a professor at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

Where did the idea for the book come from?

The idea was to discuss the problems around the international
criminal law and criminal court. The history of establishment
of the international criminal court goes back to the Paris Peace
Conferences. The Armenian genocide and the problem of trying the
perpetrator on an international criminal court was one of the major
problems in Paris. I suggested to research the problem of the Armenian
genocide.

What does the book highlight about the Armenian genocide that is
otherwise unknown?

The question of the implementation of the genocide: How different
government organizations and the party in power cooperated and
organized the genocide. Based on new Ottoman documents, I reconstruct
the implementation of the genocide.

I explicitly showed in my book that the attitude of the founder of
Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal, on the events of 1915 is just the
opposite of the denialist attitudes of current Turkish politics. His
viewpoint toward the Armenian genocide has now been deliberately
forgotten and deleted from Turkish collective memory. This is what
needs to be revised and renewed in our history.

What major elements from the genocide do you highlight in the book?

Between 1918 and 1923, the political decision-makers were grappling
with two distinct, yet related issues; the answers to which determined
their various relationships and alliances.

The first was the territorial integrity of the Ottoman state.

The second was the wartime atrocities committed by the ruling Union
and Progress Party against its own Ottoman Armenian citizens.

Although everyone agreed that these war crimes could not be left
unpunished, there was uncertainty about the scope of the penalty.

Emilie Richardson Taner Akcam, a professor in the Holocaust and
Genocide Studies department, releases his book, "A Shameful Act,"
today. The book focuses on the Armenian Genocide of 1915.One group
advocated for the trial and punishment of the first-hand criminals
as well as some of the top Union and Progress leaders.

Another group advocated for the trials of individual suspects, casting
the net as widely as possible, and for the punitive dismemberment of
the Ottoman state into new states created on its territory.

The book is quite critical of the Turkish government in regards to
their role in the genocide. What criticism, if any, have you received?

First there were attacks in Turkish press, especially because
of the title of the book. This is a quotation from Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk, founder of the (Turkish) Republic. I was attacked as a
liar and falsifier of his words in main media. The next day, they
all apologized.

The publication of the book was the main topic in Turkey between Oct.

30 and Nov. 2, not only because of Ataturk’s words, but because of
Orhan Pamuk’s blurb (a Nobel Prize-winner author) at the back of
the book.

What is the "Turkish responsibility" in the Armenian genocide?

There is a very strong moral responsibility because Turkey’s
establishment as an independent state has very strong links to what
happened to the Armenians.

I showed in my book that there is continuity between the Armenian
genocide and the foundation of Turkish Republic. The party – Union
and Progress Party – which organized the genocide, was the party which
organized the resistance movement in Anatolia against the British and
French occupation. An important number of party members who committed
crimes against the Armenians were also very active in the Turkish
liberation movement.

Additionally, today’s Turkey sits on the Armenian properties and
lands left by Armenians.

As a general rule, would you agree that national and ethnic groups
tend to focus on their pains, rather than the pains they have inflicted
upon others? How does this fit into the framework of the book?

This is a very true statement. Every ethnic group has a selective
memory and remembers only the pain that is inflicted to them by others.

My book is a call for a break with this tradition. There is a
fundamental principle in genocide research that I would like to repeat:
If societies do not want a repeat of these types of macro crimes,
it is necessary for each group to think first and foremost about the
things that they themselves have done and to discuss and debate them.

As long as this is not done, the probability of such events repeating
themselves remains quite high, because every collective carries
the potential for violence within its very structure, and when a
situation appears in which the right conditions manifest themselves,
this potential can easily become a reality, and on the slightest of
pretexts. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Does this book tackle any issues as it relates to Turkey’s application
for membership within the European Union?

Of course. Without facing its history, without coming to terms with
the past, Turkey cannot be a member of European Union.

The expectation from Turkey is that it faces the historic wrongdoings
and acknowledges its moral responsibility.

There are at least six to seven different resolutions of European
Parliament asking Turkey to acknowledge the genocide.

Is there a particular passage from the book that conveys your overall
message?

The legacy of Haji Halil to whom I dedicated my book.

This book is dedicated to Haji Halil … Eight members of his mother’s
family were kept safely hidden for some six months in Haji Halil’s
home under very dangerous circumstances. Any Turk protecting an
Armenian was threatened with being hanged in front of his house,
which would then be burned.

I was deeply moved by the story, by the humanity that triumphed
over evil … The memory of Haji Halil reminds us that both people,
Turks and Armenians, have a different history on which they can build
a future.

4/69878

FINNISH FOREIGN MINISTER:
PEACEABLE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS IS MAJOR PRIORITY OF ACTION PLAN OF EUROPEAN NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY FOR SOUTH CAUCASUS
Author: A.Mammadova

Today, Azerbaijan
Nov 15 2006

Trend’s excusive interview with Mr. Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Finland, who also heads the European Union’s Troika
for South Caucasus Countries

Question: How do you estimate the results of EU Troika visit to the
South Caucasus? What importance does EU attach to the cooperation
with the South Caucasus countries and especially with Azerbaijan –
the leader in the region?

Answer: The EU Troika visit was very timely and successful. The key
result was the political agreement on the ENP Action Plans. They are
now finalized and can be adopted formally between the EU and each of
the South Caucasus countries. I’m especially happy that we succeeded in
finalizing them during the Finnish EU Presidency. The Action Plans are
ready for implementation. Now Azerbaijan has a chance – and a challenge
– to take next steps with the implementation of the Action Plan.

The South Caucasus is important to the EU for several reasons. It
is also in our interest that Azerbaijan, as well as the rest of
our neighborhood is stable and prosperous, and with the ENP we aim
exactly at this: it is a powerful tool for the EU and Azerbaijan to
work together towards these goals, based on our common values. We
are also interested in the Southern Caucasus region from a commercial
perspective, and I see good opportunities for cooperation there.

Energy issues are also very high on all agendas nowadays, and we look
forward to cooperating closely with Azerbaijan in the energy field
in the future. I’m happy that the Memorandum of Understanding on a
strategic partnership between EU and Azerbaijan on energy issues is
also ready for signature early November.

Question: How could the adoption of the ENP Action Plan bring together
the EU and Azerbaijan? Which items of the ENP Action Plan do you
regard as the most important? When and where will the ENP Action Plan
be finally approved?

Answer: The Action Plan means a significant step towards a closer
relationship between the EU and Azerbaijan. EU’s enlargement towards
the East has brought the South Caucasus closer to EU borders and we see
the possible potential of your region. We are ready to contribute to
the development and stabilization of the region, also with increased
financial assistance. The Action Plan sets priorities for concrete
actions in order to bring the EU and Azerbaijan closer.

The core idea of European Union itself, and also of our Neighbourhood
Policy, is integration on the basis of shared values, enhancing
cooperation in all spheres, as well as contacts between people. We
believe this will bring about democracy, stability and prosperity. I
would say the peaceful settlement of conflicts and enhancing
regional cooperation are among the most important priorities of
the ENP Action Plan for Azerbaijan – as well as for Armenia and
Georgia. The unresolved conflicts still remain the biggest impediment
for development in the whole region. We are preparing discussion
within the EU on how the ENP can be developed further to make it more
efficient in enhancing regional cooperation.

Some areas were we see possibilities in the short term are cross
border cooperation in the fields of energy, transport and environment.

The formal adoption of the ENP Action Plans will take place in the
Cooperation Council meetings between EU and Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia in Brussels on 14 November.

Question: The representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Azerbaijan stated their readiness for signing with the EU a memorandum
on bilateral cooperation in the different spheres, including education
and health. At present the development of the draft energy memorandum
is coming to an end. Is the EU going to conduct talks on other spheres,
including the humanitarian sphere?

Answer: We have noted the Azerbaijani interest in developing memoranda
of understanding on strategic partnerships in other fields as well,
besides the energy memorandum. The Commission is studying how we could
best reply to the interest. The areas Azerbaijan has suggested for
new strategic partnerships have been included in the ENP Action Plan,
and will be treated as priorities anyway.

Instruments for cooperation in these fields exist already.

Question: During the visit to the region the representatives of the
EU Troika declared that adoption of the ENP Action plan will help
to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Could these initiatives
influence on the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

Answer: The Action Plan as such is not a tool for conflict settlement,
and doesn’t have anything to do with the Minsk process.

The EU continues to fully support the Minsk Group and the work of the
Co-Chairmen. With the help of the ENP, the EU can also indirectly
contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
by for example supporting regional cooperation and encouraging
people-to-people contacts, promoting the active involvement of the
civil society, supporting demining and assisting refugees and IDP
etc. The EU will also intensify its own diplomatic dialogue with
the parties. Our Special Representative to the region, Mr. Semneby,
can also contribute to the peace process.

Question: During his official visit to Helsinki this summer the
Azerbaijani Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed different aspects
of cooperation between Azerbaijan and Finland. What concrete steps
will be taken in this direction?

Answer: Due to the Finnish EU Presidency, cooperation between Finland
and Azerbaijan has also been mostly discussed in the EU framework
during the last several months, but we do have an intensive dialogue
going on also bilaterally. Our trade, for example, has increased
considerably in the last few years. Finland has high technological
know-how and Azerbaijan has important natural resources – factors
which create lots of possibilities for our cooperation in the future.

Our Ministries of Defence have cooperated in the field of training on
crisis management and peacekeeping, and we hope for this cooperation
to continue. There are several bilateral agreements already in
force. Azerbaijan has recently ratified the tax agreement between
Finland and Azerbaijan. Negotiations on a road transport agreement
are going on, and we have agreed to start negotiations on customs
duty cooperation after the Finnish EU Presidency.

In addition to your Foreign Minister Mammadyarov’s visit to Finland in
late June this year, there have also been other bilateral high-level
contacts lately. Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland
visited Azerbaijan in 2005 and naturally, a return visit to Finland
by your President Aliyev and possibly a business delegation is being
planned in due course.

THIRD MOBILE OPERATOR TO APPEAR IN ARMENIA BY 2009

TREND, Azerbaijan
Nov 9 2006

(ARKA) – The third mobile telecommunications operator will appear
in Armenia by 2009, Andranik Manukyan told reporters Wednesday. He
explained that the government has made a commitment that it will not
grant a license to a new operator until 2009.

"The Armenian market of mobile communications is so small that two
operators fully share it," the minister said.

The Russian VimpelCom OJSC (Beeline brand) signed an agreement
with the Greek Hellenic Telecommunications Organization SA (OTE)
on purchasing 90% shares of the Armenian ArmenTel Company for EUR
341.9mln, reports Trend.

According to the report by VimpelCom, the company will take the debts
and liabilities of ArmenTel for about EUR 40mln.

ArmenTel Company is one of the two mobile operators in Armenia. It has
the biggest number of subscribers in Armenia. The company holds 40%
of the mobile communications market of Armenia.

In July 1, 2005, the second mobile operator K-Telecom of VivaCell
brand entered the Armenian market of mobile communications.

A DAMASCUS MEETING. A POLITICAL GAMBIT. A PAYOFF. A FINAL PHONE CALL
By Nicholas Blanford

The Daily Star, Lebanon
Nov 9 2006

Among other things, ‘Killing Mr. Lebanon’ captures the last week in
the life of Rafik Hariri

Editor’s note: The following edited extract from Nicholas Blanford’s
newly published book "Killing Mr. Lebanon: The Assassination of Rafik
Hariri and its Impact on the Middle East" recounts the week up to
February 13, 2005, the eve of the former prime minister’s death.

Hariri, who spoke on the phone with Abdel-Halim Khaddam on a daily
basis, met his old Syrian ally for the last time in early February.

Khaddam was becoming convinced that his friend was going to be murdered
and advised him "to get on a plane and leave."

"I repeatedly warned him and told him to resign and leave the country
because I knew that the ruler of Syria does not have a logical and
balanced mind. He could take any action," Khaddam recalls. "But Hariri
replied, how could he leave with the elections coming up?"

On February 8, Terje Roed Larsen, the UN envoy, arrived in Beirut
to negotiate a mechanism that would allow Resolution 1559 to be
implemented with the approval of all sides. In his meetings with the
Lebanese leadership, he suggested linking 1559 with Taif as a means
of encouraging Syria to begin the process of redeploying troops to
the Bekaa.

In Damascus, Larsen told Bashar that the international community
would welcome some significant moves by the Syrian president in
Lebanon. Those moves could be symbolic, Larsen added carefully. It was
obvious that Damascus could not remove the entire army and military
intelligence service overnight. However, he continued, if the president
was to withdraw one soldier in particular, then Larsen would reflect
that in his upcoming report on the implementation of Resolution 1559.

"What one soldier would that be?" Bashar asked.

"Your man in Anjar," Larsen replied, referring to Rustom Ghazaleh.

Bashar looked startled and then after a moment replied to the effect
that it would be easier to remove the entire Syrian Army from Lebanon
than oust Ghazaleh from Anjar.

Sharaa was present at the meeting, along with some of Larsen’s UN
aides. Larsen asked to speak to Bashar alone for a few minutes and
the other attendees left the room. In an awkward postscript to the
meeting, Larsen’s aides discovered to their consternation that sitting
in the office of the director-general of the presidential palace,
arms crossed and staring pensively at the floor, was none other than
Rustom Ghazaleh. Clearly he was waiting to be briefed on Larsen’s
discussion with Bashar where he would undoubtedly be told of the UN
envoy’s suggestion that he be removed.

In his one-to-one discussion with Bashar, Larsen discussed the tensions
between Lebanon and Syria, particularly the deteriorating relationship
between Hariri and the Syrian leadership which the UN envoy believed
"might lead to a dangerous situation."

"I met a number of officials on both sides and my impression was,
without any qualification or nuance, that there was a rapidly
deteriorating situation between the leadership of the two countries
that caused [me] concern," Larsen says. "I urged both parties
immediately to start a dialogue; otherwise it would continue to
deteriorate rapidly further. We [Larsen and Bashar] had a tentative
discussion about setting up a meeting between a representative of
[Bashar] and Hariri for the following week, the same week that
Hariri died."

Larsen returned to Beirut that evening and had dinner at Koreitem
to update Hariri on his talks with Bashar and the possibility of
organizing a reconciliation meeting.

That same day, the Christian opposition Qornet Shehwan gathering
discussed an offer from Marwan Hamade to meet Hariri at Koreitem
to form a joint position on the electoral law. Although Hariri had
decided to align himself fully with the established Christian-Druze
opposition, he had yet to go public. The Qornet Shehwan decided that
they would meet Hariri but not at Koreitem. Instead they settled
on the more neutral setting of Parliament where the MPs in Qornet
Shehwan would meet Hariri on Monday morning.

The parliamentary elections also formed part of the discussion between
Hariri and Nasrallah the next day, Friday, February 11, at what would
be their last encounter together. Hariri was still refusing to include
any pro-Syrians on his electoral list, but Nasrallah persuaded him
to accept two candidates, an Armenian and a member of Hizbullah.

"How can I not have a member of the resistance on my Beirut list?"
Hariri said.

A few weeks earlier, Hariri had used his influence with Jacques Chirac
to persuade France not to support adding Hizbullah to the European
Union’s list of terrorist organizations which EU foreign ministers
were planning to discuss in Brussels on February 16.

Nasrallah was appreciative of Hariri’s intervention and in return
agreed to try to broker a secret meeting in Damascus between Hariri
and Bashar at which all points of contention would be discussed.

Even though he was on the verge of publicly announcing his
affiliation with the opposition, Hariri had not abandoned the
possibility of reconciling with the Syrian leadership, according to
his colleagues. After all, if his electoral game plan bore fruit,
he would return as prime minister of Lebanon after the May elections
and he would once more have to deal with the Syrians. Nasrallah told
Hariri that a senior Hizbullah official would be in Damascus on Monday,
February 14, to arrange the reconciliation with Bashar.

The state’s pressure on Hariri reached new heights on Saturday,
February 12, when four workers from one of his charities, the Beirut
Society for Social Development, were arrested by police on charges
of providing bribes to families in the form of bottles of olive oil
in advance of the parliamentary election. On hearing the news of the
arrests, Hariri intervened personally to have the workers released,
describing the incident as "foolishness."

Hariri later that day told Adnan Baba, his personal secretary, "If they
[the Syrians] kill me, they will be signing their own death warrant."

Handling the olive oil arrests took up much of Hariri’s time over the
weekend, although he did receive an unexpected phone call on Sunday
morning. It was Rustom Ghazaleh. Sounding agitated, the Syrian general
bluntly demanded a large sum of money to be delivered in cash to his
headquarters in Anjar, according to a Hariri aide.

It was not the first time that Ghazaleh had squeezed money from
Hariri. Even though Hariri had decided to no longer deal with the
Syrian mukhabarat, he gave in to Ghazaleh’s demand, saying that the
general would have to wait until the next day because the banks were
closed on Sundays.

But Ghazaleh insisted on the money being delivered the same day.

Hariri made the appropriate arrangements and the money was delivered
to Anjar by Abu Tarek, the head of Hariri’s security detail.

According to Saad Hariri, Abu Tarek received a tongue-lashing from
Ghazaleh, who used "every single curse in the Arabic dictionary"
against his boss. Abu Tarek was so shaken by the tirade that he
switched off his phone and drove to his home where he stayed for
three hours to calm himself down.

As afternoon turned into evening on Sunday, February 13, Hariri was
visited by allies and friends, including Jumblatt and Ghazi Aridi,
who remained with Hariri until late in the evening.

It was nearly midnight by the time Hariri took the lift to his private
quarters on the seventh floor. His wife, Nazek, was in Paris, although
he was planning to fly to France on the Friday to celebrate the
birthday of his only daughter, Hind, who was staying with her mother.

As he undressed for bed, he telephoned his son Saad in Saudi Arabia
for his customary late-night chat. He asked after Lara, Saad’s wife,
and his grandson Hussam, of whom he was especially fond. Saad said
that he was flying to Abu Dhabi in the morning. The conversation was
limited to general personal matters. Although Saad was curious to
hear the latest political developments, he knew better than to ask
given that the phone lines were being monitored. After a few minutes,
Hariri wound up the call with his customary adieu to his son. "I love
you," he said, and hung up the phone.

Nicholas Blanford will be signing copies of "Killing Mr. Lebanon:
The Assassination of Rafik Hariri and its Impact on the Middle
East" tonight from 6-8 p.m. at Librairie Antoine in the ABC mall
in Achrafieh.

IRAN’S SOLO EXHIBIT ON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OPENS IN YEREVAN

Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iran
Nov 7 2006

Iran opened its 7th Solo Exhibition on Construction Materials in
Yerevan, the Armenian capital, on Monday, a morning daily wrote
on Tuesday.

According to the English-language ‘Tehran Times’, the exhibition,
running for a week, is displaying construction materials and urban
development equipment presented by over 20 Iranian firms.

At the inaugural ceremony of the exhibition, Iran ambassador to
Armenia, Alireza Haqiqian said that Tehran and Yerevan have managed
to expand trade ties, thanks to efforts by economic activists.

He added that Iranian and Armenian private sectors and owners of
industries play crucial role in expansion of bilateral ties while
enjoying the support of their respective governments.

Also addressing the ceremony, Armenian Energy Minister, Armen
Movsesian, said bilateral economic ties have significantly grown
during the previous year.

Movsesian, who is also the chairman of Iran-Armenia Economic
Cooperation Commission, noted that the commission intends to facilitate
bilateral cooperation and help develop trade and economic ties between
the two countries.

EU PARLIAMENT AWAITS TURKEY REPORT

EuPolitix, Brussels
Nov 7 2006

Hannes Swoboda MEP fears the Cyprus issue will ultimately prove to
be the thorn in Turkey’s side.

"I really do fear the Cyprus question could cause EU-Turkey talks
to collapse. If Turkey does not move on this issue it will interrupt
the talks," Swoboda told the latest edition of the Parliament Magazine.

"I would say it is 50-50 that Cyprus will cause the talks to completely
collapse," the Austrian socialist MEP predicts.

"And would give the same odds on whether the Finnish presidency’s
compromise plans will be accepted."

On Monday evening the European commission stepped back from a
confrontation with Ankara and called for more time to solve in impasse.

The EU executive had been considering whether to use Wednesday’s
progress report to recommend the partial suspension of Turkey’s
membership talks because of its failure to open its ports to Cyprus.

But commission president Jose Manuel Barroso and enlargement
commissioner Olli Rehn are said to be against sparking a crisis ahead
of a summit of EU leaders in December, which is likely to decide on
the issue.

Finnish plans to solve the Turkey-Cyprus impasse would see restrictions
on the Turkish-run north of Cyprus cut back if Ankara agrees to open
up its ports to the Greek Cypriots.

Swoboda says he can understand Turkish difficulty in accepting the
EU’s latest proposals, but he firmly believes they will ultimately
represent the only way forward.

"The problem is that the Turks do not want to give in to too much
before they see any progress," he explains. "But we want the Turks to
see if they do not give in here, there will not be progress anywhere
else."

But the Austrian fears Brussels will have a tough time convincing
Ankara to give more ground in the current critical atmosphere.

"The mood is changing in the European parliament," he says. "It is
more critical today than it was one or two years ago. Some of that has
been caused by Turkish inaction on key reforms but it has also been
caused by the conservative political groups within the EU unfairly
influencing the mood. "

"They are hiding behind specific arguments such as the Armenia issue –
when really they should be more open about why they do not want Turkey
to join. They do not want Turkey inside the EU because it is a big,
poor, Muslim country."

And Swoboda says the EU’s constant trickle of damning reports serves
only to exacerbate the fearful, negative mood. He describes the recent
Turkey report by centre-right Dutch MEP Camiel Eurlings as nonsense.

"It was not helpful," Swoboda argues. "It is nonsense to have all
of these reports. Turkish EU entry is a long term project so to have
reports and permanent discussion is not helpful."

"People must realise that the Turkey of tomorrow will only be accepted
into the EU if it changes. All of the ups and downs in Eurlings report
and the alterations made to it along the way created a tension which
is not helpful in the long term."

11/b6475b5b-8d39-42a2-b4a8-beee7c2d5bab.htm

BABAJANYAN SUBMITS AN APPLICATION TO PAY FINE AGAINST PRISON SENTENCE

Panorama.am
16:28 06/11/06

The appeal court will hear the case of Arman Babajanyan,
editor-in-chief of Jamanak Yerevan newspaper, who was sentenced to
four years of imprisonment for faking documents and evading military
service. Three defense attorneys are going to defend Babajanyan –
Robert Grigoryan, Zaruhi Postanjyan and Haik Alumyan.

Grigoryan believes Babajanyan does not deserve punishment close to
maximum because he has seriously confessed his misconduct. "Babajanyan
is not the person who must be re-educated isolated from the society,"
Grigoryan says. He believes the court ruling is against the authority
of the Republic of Armenia and the justice system. On October 16
Babajanyan submitted an application to Shengavit military commissariat
with a request to pay a state fine and receive his military license
to which he is entitled based on law "On citizens who did not pass
military services in violation of the stipulated order."

Babajanyan’s defense attorney says his application has not been replied
yet and must be approved by a committee headed by the minister of
defense. According to Law on Freedom of Information, the application
must be replied in one-month period – still ten more days to fly. The
fine is set in the amount of 1 million 800,000 Armenian drams or 150
times of minimum salary for people who received education abroad. The
defense attorney says the committee ought to approve the application
because "our budget is not very rich to keep one more prisoner." Many
mass media outlets, deputies of parliament gave their signatures in
protection of Babajanyan. Some international organizations have also
made reactions to the case.

The defense attorneys complained today that Babajanyan is deprived
of some opportunities in prison like to engage in creative work or
use computer. Upon the mediation of the defense attorney, Babajanyan
was given a chance to use computer for only two days after which it
was taken away.