Author: Vorskanian Yeghisabet

$105 MLN TO BE INVESTED IN ZVARTNOTS WITHIN NEXT TWO YEARS
YEREVAN, AUGUST 25. ARMINFO. Thursday, Armenian Government approved
the changed Master-plan submitted by the manager of the Yerevan
international airport “Zvartnots” Corporacion America.
Head of General Department of Civil Aviation of the Republic of
Armenia Artem Movsisian informed journalists, the first stage of the
Master-plan for the next two years worth $105 mln was approved. The
first stage supposes completion of the construction of the new
passenger terminal till the end of 2007. The necessity of making
changes in the Master-plan of the manager approved by the government
as far back as 2003, which cost $84 mln, was connected with the
unexpected high growth of the passenger traffic.
According to Movsisian, 1.089 mln passengers were conveyed by air
transport of the republic in 2004, which 23.6% higher than the showing
of last year.
Movsisian connects the growth of the number of the passengers with the
tourism development in Armenia, as well as with the growth of the
standard of living. Last year the number of the flights increased
mainly to Europe (by 26%) and Near East (by 14%). The growth of the
flights towards Russia in average made up 10%, he said.
The head of the GDCA informed that the program of the Corporacion
America is divided into three phases and its total cost is $230 mln.
AT the second stage (in 2008-2020) the manager plans to invest $104
mln for construction of one more passenger terminal, which will serve
only for departure of passengers. And $21 mln investments are to be
made during the third phase (20021-2030), these funds will be directed
to cover the expenses on operation and keeping of the airport. The
approval of the second and third phases of the investment program of
the manager will depend on the successful fulfillment of the first
stage and prices for services of the airport.
Artem Movsisian informed ARMINFO that 40% of the investments are the
own funds of the manager, and 60% – loans of international banks. He
added net profit of Corporacion America is about $10 mln per year.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UAE PLAYERS GAIN VALUABLE EXPERIENCE
By A Correspondent
Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
Aug 25 2005
ABU DHABI – Though UAE players failed to attain any title norms or
gain ELO rating during the Abu Dhabi Chess Festival which concluded on
Tuesday, they have gained valuable experience and honed their skills,
Hussain Khouri, manager of the festival made these observations.
He said: “We need to enhance our preparations for these championships
and adopt a proficient approach for our players to use the opportunity
to gain norms”.
Zughair Ahmad, chief arbiter also said: “The quality of games in
the Masters section was excellent and even in the final round many
masters took risks”.
Grandmaster Anastasian Ashot of Armenia emerged as undisputed winner
with seven points after the ninth and final round in the Masters.
Anastasian nudged to the title after a draw with Grandmaster Federov
Alexei of Byelorussia. Ashot said: “I played the best tournament of
my career and I was able to raise my level in crucial games”
International master Kayumov Sergey of Uzbekistan defeated
Grandmaster Iuldachev Saidali of Uzbekistan and tied for the
runner-up position with Grandmaster Bocharov Dmitry of Russia with
6.5 points apiece. Kayumov Sergey will attain a GM norm based on his
ELO performance.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
August 24, 2005 Wednesday
Armenian, Azerbaijani leaders to meet in Kazan Aug 27 – FM
MOSCOW
The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan – Robert Kocharyan and
Ilkham Aliyev – will have a meeting in Kazan on August 27,
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov said.
After his talks with Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan on
Wednesday, Mamedyarov said, “We discussed the details of the
meeting.”
“But now it is early to talk about any progress in the
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement,” the Azerbaijani minister added.

ITAR-TASS news agency
24 Aug 05
Moscow, 24 August: Moscow, Baku and Yerevan count on the
Armenian-Azerbaijani summit to be a success. The two Caucasus
republics’ foreign ministers held consultations in Moscow with
Russia’s participation today on the eve of the talks between the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Ilham Aliyev and Robert
Kocharyan are to meet in Kazan on 27 August during a CIS summit.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out Moscow’s intention
to “create all conditions to achieve progress in settling the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem”.
He stressed that he “is unable to comment on the process of
negotiations led by the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group”. “No
doubt they have their ideas,” the minister said.
“The settlement should make each of the involved parties feel that
they have greater security and that the balance of forces which has
historically evolved in the region is not upset,” the Russian
co-chairman of the Minsk Group, Yuriy Merzlyakov, has said. According
to him, “if a mutually acceptable accord is reached, we can give it
our guarantees”.
“There are hopes that we can find common denominators,” the Armenian
foreign minister, Vardan Oskanyan, believes. “These can bring about
peace and stability to the Southern Caucasus.”
The main theme for the consultations in Moscow is “to prepare the
meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijanian presidents in Kazan on 27
August”. “We have discussed the details of the forthcoming talks,” he
said.
According to him, “the priority is given to the self-determination of
Nagornyy Karabakh which should manifest itself in the people’s right
to be free to shape their future”. “Other issues – eliminating the
consequences of the conflict, resolving territorial problems,
returning the refugees – will ensue because of this priority,”
Oskanyan believes.
Similar to his Armenian colleague, Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov takes a positive view of the consultations in Moscow. On
the other hand, he believes that “it is too early to say that there is
any breakthrough in settling the conflict in Nagornyy Karabakh”. He
stressed that “active work is needed” to achieve a settlement. “Now
there is a window of opportunity there to reach a common denominator
on this problem,” the Azeri minister believes. [Passage omitted: the
Karabakh talks background]

Open Democracy, UK
Aug 23 2005
Abkhazian futures
by Andrew Mueller

A small, little-known corner of the southern Caucasus resists
Georgia, relies on Russia, and is resolute for independence. Andrew
Mueller reports from Abkhazia.

Sukhum’s international airport must be the quietest such aviation hub
on earth. There are only a couple of passenger jets parked on the
runway, derelict Aeroflot planes that look like they haven’t been
airborne since Leonid Brezhnev was in power. There are no customs
formalities, just a bored security guard waving the few arrivals
through, and outside there are no taxis, no buses, no uniformed
chauffeurs holding up the names of their passengers.

Also on Abkhazia and Georgia in openDemocracy’s `Caucasian
fractures’ debate:
George Hewitt, `Sakartvelo: roots of turmoil’ (November 2003)
Nino Nanava, `Mikhail Saakashvili: new romantic or modern realist’
(December 2003)
Neal Ascherson, `Tbilisi, Georgia: the rose revolution’s rocky road’
(July 2005)
Chris Smith, `Baku-Ceyhan, the politics of oil’ (August 2005)
If you find this material valuable please consider supporting
openDemocracy by sending us a donation so that we can continue our
work and keep it free for all

The moribund status of Sukhum’s international airport is a by-product
of the fact that nobody outside Sukhum (sometimes rendered as
`Sukhumi’) considers it an international airport. Sukhum is the
nominal capital of Abkhazia, a region in the north-west of Georgia
which has been struggling for more than a decade to be recognised as
an independent, sovereign state. The cost, in money and human life,
has been incalculable: around 10,000 people are estimated to have
died in the little-reported 1992-93 war with Georgia, many of them
Abkhazians in a total Abkhaz population of only 90,000.
For most foreigners, coming here is possible only if they can gain
the necessary approval to travel on one of the United Nations’s
sporadic helicopter flights from the Georgian military airbase near
Senaki. The lumbering Russian-built Mi-8s fly straight to the coast
and then miles out into the Black Sea before turning back around to
Sukhum; the careful arc an acknowledgment that in October 2001, a UN
helicopter was shot down over Abkhazia, killing all nine people
aboard.
A shadow state
Abkhazia is visibly determined – despite the overt hostility of
Georgia, and the indifference of the rest of the planet – to make its
own way in the world. The territory’s public buildings, shops and
street stalls, fly Abkhazia’s own flag, rich in symbolism: green and
white stripes (representing Abkhazia’s mixed Christian and Islamic
heritage), a red panel emblazoned with an open palm (denoting
friendship), which appears to be juggling seven white stars
(representing Abkhazia’s provinces).
The formalities of independent status are everywhere. Abkhazia has
its own government, which collects its own taxes, and includes its
own foreign ministry (even if, by definition, this seems a bit like
Switzerland having a navy minister or the Netherlands a mountain
rescue service); its own police, operating according to Abkhazia’s
own laws; its own military, in which two years’ service is compulsory
for young men; its own postage stamps (though opinion about the
chances of postcards sent with them ever being seen again is mixed).
At the same time, the realities of dependency abound. Abhkazia plans
to issue its own passports, though an agreement to give all
Abkhazians the right of Russian citizenship in 2002 seemed to
compromise the goal of statehood. Russian troops guarantee the
country’s border with Georgia on the Inguri river to the east, and
are present in Sukhum itself – enviably billeted in tree-shrouded
dachas next to the beach in one of the old Soviet Union’s premier
holiday resorts (which must beat serving in Chechnya).
Abkhazia may shun the Georgian currency (lari), but it uses the
Russian rouble rather than any currency of its own. Russian is also
the most commonly heard language, though in recent years there has
been a revival of interest in the northwest Caucasian language of
Abkhazian, another marker of distinction from south Caucasian
Georgian (kartvelebi) and Mingrelian (megruli) of Georgia.
Abkhazians are fond of pointing out that the country’s modern
difficulties derive from a decree by a son of Georgia, Josef Stalin.
After the consolidation of Soviet power in 1921, Abkhazia enjoyed
(for want of a better term) the same constitutional status within the
Soviet Union as Georgia itself – that of an Autonomous Soviet
Socialist Republic.
Stalin’s regular holidays in Abkhazia inspired no fondness for its
people (with his chief henchman, Lavrenti Beria – a Mingrelian – he
would destroy Nestor Lakoba and the rest of Abkhazia’s political
leadership in the 1930s purges). In 1931, he decided to reduce its
status by incorporating it into Georgia. Georgian was made Abkhazia’s
official language, and thousands of Georgians were encouraged to
settle there. By the time the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
stopped answering to its own name in 1991, only around 20% of
Abkhazia’s population were ethnically Abkhazian.
War descended upon Abkhazia in August 1992. Post-Soviet Georgia had
lurched from the crazed misdirection of chauvinist zealot Zviad
Gamsakhurdia to the overlordship of ex-Soviet foreign minister Eduard
Shevardnadze, who – in face of Abkhazian moves to outright
independence – sanctioned a brutal invasion of the rebellious
province.
The thirteen-month war was largely ignored by a world then
preoccupied with the carnage in disintegrating ex-Yugoslavia. Yet
there are deep parallels between the conflicts – in the `ethnic
cleansing’ of populations, the state- and media-orchestrated
nationalist intolerance, and the impulse to cultural annihilation as
well as military victory.
Just as the Bosnian Serbs attempted to extinguish proof of Bosnia’s
national identity by destroying the national library in Sarajevo, so
Georgian bombs razed Abkhazia’s Institute of Language, Literature and
History, and used Sukhum’s monuments to local heroes as target
practice (the bulletholes are still visible in many cases, while the
statue of poet Dmitri Gulia has its head blown off).
It is hard to find a single Abkhazian who didn’t lose friends or
family members in the conflict with Georgia. Eventually, Abkhazia’s
hastily-convened irregular forces – abetted by various detachments of
Russians as well as Chechens and other `north Caucasians’ – drove the
Georgian military from Abkhazian territory. Around 250,000 ethnically
Georgian refugees fled with them, many to a hellish long-term
existence in the ruins of Tbilisi’s Hotel Iveria.
Abkhazia declared independence in 1994. It has been painfully
attempting to recover ever since. The territory still has no formal
transport links with the rest of Georgia, though discussions about
restoring the railway line have been held. Ships from Turkey call at
Sukhum, though they risk being impounded or fired on by Georgian
naval vessels. Increasing numbers of Russian tourists negotiate the
only open border crossing near Sochi to enjoy the beaches and hotels
of Gagra and Pitsunda, prestigious resorts during Soviet times.
No compromise
The potential wealth generated by tourism, against the backdrop of
one of the most fertile regions in the world, would certainly be
enough to sustain a workable Abkhazian economy. Yet in present
geopolitical circumstances it is difficult to see how Abkhazia’s
dreams can possibly come true.
It is inconceivable that any Georgian government will offer it
independence – aside from giving up miles of potentially profitable
coastline, recognising Abkhazia could only encourage Georgia’s other
restive regions (the Adzharian problem may have been solved, but
South Ossetia is beyond Tbilisi’s control and there is growing
discontent among the Armenian minority in the south).
Moreover, the United States has no conceivable interest in Abkhazian
statehood. It is developing closer military and strategic ties with
Georgia, and its interest in Caspian oil supplies is reflected in its
support of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline that runs through Georgia’s
territory.
The US has consistently made clear its positive view of Georgia since
the `rose revolution’ that brought its smart young president, Mikhail
Saakashvili, to power in late 2003 – even extending the honour of an
ecstatically-welcomed visit by George W Bush in May 2005.
Meanwhile, the present uncertainty over Abkhazia’s status and future
suits Russia rather well. As Tbilisi strives to move closer to the
west, Moscow can loom menacingly in Georgia’s wing-mirrors and
preserve its strategic options in the troubled region (fuelling more
febrile Georgians’ fears that Abkhazians may one day be used – like
Sudetenland Germans in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s – as a pretext for
military intervention).
Despite this apparent absence of hope for a diplomatic breakthrough
in Abkhazia’s recognition by the international community, there seems
no appetite – among Abkhazia’s government or public alike – for any
sort of compromise. Indeed, in a government riven with personal
rivalries (something that became dangerously apparent during the
contested, divisive, and occasionally violent electoral process
between October 2004 and January 2005), this may be the only unifying
factor. When examples of a middle way are suggested, such as the
Basque country’s autonomy inside Spain or Scotland’s and Wales’s
within the United Kingdom, they are swiftly dismissed.
`There are’, the foreign minister Sergei Shamba declares, `no models
which could bring us together with the Georgian state. Due to
history, and due to public opinion, we stand by our right to
independence.’
`It’s about us, now’, confirms Vice-President Raul Khadjimba. `We
have to create the conditions for the world to hear about us. We have
to use television, newspapers, the internet, to tell people more
about Abkhazia. Maybe one day these issues will touch someone’s
heart, and the world will give us a chance.’

OPINION OF AZERBAIJANI LAWYERS AND LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES
ON POSSIBLE NATURALIZATION OF ARMENIANS – FORMER BAKU CITIZENS DIFFER
YEREVAN, AUGUST 20. ARMINFO. Opinion of Azerbaijani lawyers and
law-enforcement bodies on possible naturalization of Armenians –
former Baku citizens differ. According to the Azerbaijani newspaper
Exho, a group of Armenians from Baku residing abroad consider a
possibility of applying to the Azerbaijani authorities for
restoration of their Azerbaijani citizenship.
The lawyer, specialist in international relations Erkin Kadirov, in
this issue everything will depend on the “period and the conditions
of their leaving the country.” Besides, the lawyer says not less
important factor will be how they managed to get citizenship of other
state, in the given case, the Russian citizenship. At the same time,
Kadirov says that the Law on AR Citizenship stipulates that every
person applying for citizenship is to apply to the country’s
government with a relevant petition. On the whole, to get citizenship
it is necessary that an applicant lives in Azerbaijan for some time,
though the fact of the person’s birth in Azerbaijan changes the
situation. The position of the country’s government will not be the
last in this issue, Kadirov says, adding that the applications of
former Baku citizens will not be consider in the general order. At
the same time. He says that the legislation in Azerbaijan does not
provide for any discrimination on the national principle. At the same
time he says that if naturalized in Azerbaijan, the above people will
lose their Russian citizenship automatically.
In his turn, an MP, member of the native deputy group at PACE
Gyultekin Hajiyev says that issue of citizenship can be considered
subject to simultaneous consideration of the return of citizenship to
the Azerbaijanis- residents of the Armenian SSR by the RA leadership.
Leader of Azerbaijani Organization for Liberation of Karabakh Akif
Nagi is sharper and urges for carefulness. He thinks the
law-enforcement bodies of Azerbaijan must identify each Armenian from
Baku that wants to return to Azerbaijan of get citizenship of
Azerbaijan. “We must find out if they fought against us during
Karabakh war.”
Meanwhile, human rights activist, Head of the Peace and Democracy
Institute Leila Yunus thinks settlement of Karabakh conflict must
suppose return of Azerbaijanis – citizens of Armenia and vice versa
in the territories they left during the war.

PRESS RELEASE
National Association for Armenian Studies and Research
395 Concord Avenue
Belmont, MA 02478
Tel.: 617-489-1610
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
MOORAD MOORADIAN TO GIVE LECTURE AND ALL-DAY SEMINAR AT NAASR IN
SEPTEMBER
Dr. Moorad Mooradian of Yerevan State University will present “A New
Look at TARC (Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission)” in a lecture
at the Center and Headquarters of the National Association for Armenian
Studies and Research (NAASR), 395 Concord Ave., Belmont, Mass., on
Thursday evening, September 8, at 8 p.m. On Saturday September 10,
Mooradian will offer an all-day seminar at NAASR entitled “Hurting
Stalemate or Mediation? The Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh.”
Dr. Moorad Mooradian’s writings on Armenian political and historical
issues are widely read on a weekly basis in English-language
Armenian newspapers, and he is also the author of a new book on the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. His previous lectures at
NAASR have been to standing-room-only audiences.
A FRESH PERSPECTIVE ON TARC
One of the most contentious issues in the contemporary historiography
of Armenia and Turkey has been the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation
Commission (TARC). In his new book, A New Look at TARC, Dr.
Mooradian has examined TARC and its composition and has analyzed it
in terms of conflict resolution theory.
Dr. Mooradian will offer his evaluation of TARC’s stated goals, its
performance, the quality and competence of its members as reconcilers,
and the course that chairman David Phillips allowed the commission
to travel. Dr. Mooradian maintains that the idea of TARC was good,
but was funded by the wrong parties and was unable to make the public
view it as impartial; it’s members, except for the chairman, were all
activists for their respective sides; and that TARC chose the wrong
issue upon which to attempt to build a bridge between the Armenian
and the Turkish governments and societies. It is Mooradian’s view
that TARC violated basic conflict resolution theory and practice and
thus was destined to be minimally, if at all, successful.
Professor Dennis Sandole of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution at George Mason University, who wrote the foreword for the
book, states that for “those who are interested in understanding and
dealing with intractable, often violent conflicts, Dr. Mooradian’s
account of TARC is a must.”
Copies of A New Look at TARC will be on sale in the NAASR bookstore
and Dr. Mooradian will be available to autograph copies. The event
is open to the public at no charge (donations accepted at door).
AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF KARABAKH STALEMATE
Capitalizing on Mooradian’s presence in the Boston area, NAASR will
feature him in an all-day Saturday seminar on September 10, from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., which will examine the various aspects of mediation,
its goals and various processes, in comparison with theory and with
what actually transpired in the Karabakh mediation efforts.
An analysis will be presented on the intensified warfare that
commenced with the Kelbajar offensive in 1993. Comparisons of the
several mediation efforts will be made to determine whether it was the
mediations themselves or the increased violence and destruction that
caused the opposing sides to seek an end to the organized violence
that culminated in the ongoing ceasefire.
The Russian mediation that competed with the CSCE (OSCE) effort will be
analyzed closely, with an effort to determine if it is valid to give
the Russians credit for bringing the Armenian and Azerbaijani side
to the negotiating table that led to the ceasefire. In the process
of evaluating the data, an examination via quantitative analysis will
be made to determine the logical outcomes of the mediations. Finally,
Dr. Mooradian will address the question–if a hurting stalemate brought
an end to massive violence in the form of set-to military battles,
why did/has it not led to a peace treaty?
Preregistration Recommended
Information on fees can be obtained from the NAASR offices.
Admission is open to all, but enrollment will be limited in order
to encourage active discussion and interaction. It is strongly urged
that participants register by September 1.
Dr. Moorad Mooradian received a PhD from the Institute for
Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University after a
distinguished 25-year career in the United States Army, from which he
retired as a colonel. He was Professor of History and International
Relations at the West Point U. S. Military Academy, N.Y.
Mooradian helped establish a Conflict Studies Curriculum at Yerevan
State University, which now awards both undergraduate and graduate
level degrees. He has been teaching at Yerevan State since 1995 as a
Visiting Professor and has developed a Long Distance Learning Center
there so that students may receive instruction from the U.S. as well as
Yerevan. He has also served as an unofficial advisor to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and has been a Fulbright Scholar to Armenia.
Dr. Mooradian is a former member of NAASR’s Board of Directors.
More information on Dr. Mooradian’s lecture or seminar or about NAASR
and its programs for the furtherance of Armenian studies, research, and
publication may be had by calling 617-489-1610, by fax at 617-484-1759,
by e-mail at [email protected], or by writing to NAASR, 395 Concord Ave.,
Belmont, MA 02478.

WELCOMING DECISION OF HIS PARTNERS OF BLOC TO PARTICIPATE IN NA
SITTING, “HANRAPETUTIUN” PARTY DOES NOT JOIN THAT INITIATION
YEREVAN, AUGUST 18, NOYAN TAPAN. “Today, the bloc doesn’t see any
reason to say “Yes” to the Constitutional reforms.” Aram Sargsian, the
Chairman of the Political Council of the “Hanrapetutiun” (Republic)
party informed journalists about this after the August 18 sitting of
the “Ardarutiun” (Justice) bloc. He reminded that the “Hanrapetutiun”
party already stated his viewpoint concerning that issue. “We stand
for our viewpoint and our approaches,” Aram Sargsian stated. So,
deputies of the “Hanrapetutiun” party will not participate in the
August 29 sitting of the National Assembly. According to A.Sargsian,
“other deputies involved into the bloc will participate in the NA
sitting where they will present their approaches. According to him,
the “Hanrapetutiun” party welcomes this decision of them.

Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iran
Aug 16 2005
Five-partite meeting on Iran’s gas export to Europe to be held
Tehran, Aug 16, IRNA
Iran-Gas Export-Europe
Deputy Oil Minister for International Affairs Seyed Mohammad-Hadi
Nejad-Hosseinian here Tuesday hoped that the five-partite meeting of
Iran, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and Russia on export of gas from Iran
to Europe via Ukraine will be held by September.
He told IRNA that Russia’s approval of the project will expedite
the process.
Stressing that the Europeans are in dire need of Iran’s gas, he added
that guarantee for future supply of energy is of great importance to
Europe and that they are both interested in and need to import gas
from Iran.
“Given that China, India and Pakistan are among Iran’s gas clients
and keen to bolster relations with the country, if other consumers of
gas do not proceed in time they may face a shortage of gas available
for export.
“Turkey is currently the only importer of gas from Iran and transfer
of gas to Europe via this country is one of the options on the agenda.
“Turkey’s recent reaction to the issue and its intention to purchase
gas from Iran and sell it to Europe directly, is not acceptable to
Iran, since another option would be to transfer it via Ukraine,”
he added.
Nejad-Hosseinian noted that Turkey cannot insist on following such
a procedure in order to become a member of European Union, since it
is not supported by EU.
Concerning export of gas from Iran to Europe via Ukraine it should
be said that a cooperation agreement has recently been inked to the
effect between the two states, but that the volume of the gas to be
transferred via this route has not been distinguished yet.
Ukraine has proposed two pipeline routes to Iran for transfer of gas:
one is Iran-Armenia-Georgia-Russia-Ukraine-Europe and the other is
Iran-Armenia-Georgia-Black Sea-Ukraine-Europe.
The expenses of each of the two suggested routes have been assessed
by Ukrainian sources at 10 billion dollars.

US Amb. dismisses allegations
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
posted Aug 15 2005
Baku, August 12, AssA-Irada — US ambassador in Baku Reno Harnish has
dismissed allegations suggesting that the United States provided
assistance to youth movement leader Ruslan Bashirli recently
arrested over plotting with Armenian secret service to stage a coup
in Azerbaijan.
“The presumptions that the USA or US National Democratic Institute
(NDI) are behind Bashirli’s actions are absolutely groundless.”
Harnish said that the US government believes Bashirli’s activity
should be scrutinized in court in accordance with the law. The issue
should not be a subject of ‘black PR’, he said.
The ambassador noted that if there are substantial grounds for accusing
Bashirli, the police should look into the matter.
Harnish continued that a major ‘campaign’ has been carried out over
the past week against political parties, especially one of them.
“If one of the legally operating parties has been subject to
persecution, physical pressures and attacks in the media, the OSCE
is not likely to call the parliament election [due in November]
unbiased.”*