Category: News

International Journalist’s Network
Nov. 5, 2004
Contest in Armenia to honor special reports on Georgia
Television stations and companies in Armenia can enter a competition
aimed at producing a series of special reports about Georgia.
Internews-Armenia is organizing the competition, sponsored by the U.S.
Agency for International Development. The application deadline is
November 20.
The contest aims to offer the public better information on the social
and political processes in Georgia. Internews encourages a creative
approach to the reports, which could focus on the economy, culture,
environment, politics, social problems or international relations,
among other topics.
Candidates should submit a completed application form; two
Russian-language copies of a detailed script proposal; the production
schedule, to be completed by January 15; the curriculum vitae of the
director/producer and main participants; detailed production expenses;
a videotape of the applicant’s past work; and a letter from the TV
company agreeing to air the reports.
Internews will select the proposal based on the best likelihood of
carrying out the project and the professionalism of the bid, among
other criteria.
Detailed requirements and forms are available at
For more information, contact Internews-Armenia at [email protected],
telephone +374 1 583 620.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Eurasianet Organization
Nov. 5, 2004
ARMENIAN DEPLOYMENT IN IRAQ HAMPERED BY DOMESTIC OPPOSITION
Emil Danielyan 11/05/04
President Robert Kocharian’s administration in Armenia appears to have
pushed back plans to dispatch a contingent of non-combat troops to
Iraq. The planned deployment has generated determined domestic
opposition, with critics of the proposal cautioning that joining the
US-led coalition could endanger the small ethnic Armenian community in
Iraq.
Yerevan made what looked like a formal commitment to join the Iraq
mission during President Robert Kocharian’s official visit to Poland in
early September. The Armenian military contingent would be largely
symbolic — comprising roughly 50 military personnel, including
doctors, de-mining experts and truck drivers – and would serve under
Polish command. Poland, a staunch US ally, leads a multinational
division stationed in south-central Iraq.
Since the initial announcement, little progress has been made toward
deployment. Government officials announced in September that military
personnel would be dispatched before the end of the year. But observers
in Yerevan now wonder whether the government can meet this deadline.
A prerequisite for deployment is an inspection visit to Iraq by an
Armenian military delegation. The visit was originally slated for late
September. However, Defense Ministry spokesman, Seyran Shahsuvarian,
said on November 3 that such a mission has yet to take place.
Shahsuvarian declined to specify a reason for the delay, and would not
speculate on when the mission would occur.
Armenia’s parliament, meanwhile, has not received a formal request from
the government to authorize the troop deployment — something that is
required under the Armenian constitution. The National Assembly
ratified earlier this year an inter-governmental agreement with Kuwait
that regulates the movements of Armenian military personnel through the
Gulf state, which serves as the main logistical base for all foreign
troops deploying to Iraq.
Helping to explain the existing uncertainty is the fact that
Kocharian’s deployment plans have faced strong domestic opposition.
Kocharian critics maintain that the presences of an Armenian military
force in Iraq could prompt Iraqi insurgents to target the country’s
Armenian community, estimated at about 25,000, for reprisals. The
insurgents have already captured and killed dozens of citizens of
countries participating in the “coalition of the willing,” or otherwise
cooperating with it.
Among those opposed to the Iraq mission is Armenia’s biggest opposition
group, the Justice alliance, along with at least two dozen
non-governmental organizations. In late September, NGO representatives
issued a joint statement, cautioning that the consequences of
participation could be severe. “We risk turning a community of 25,000
people into hostages,” one of its signatories and a prominent
environmentalist, Karine Danielian, warned. Iraqi Armenians have
themselves exhorted Yerevan not to send troops. Their spiritual leader,
Archbishop Avak Asadurian, expressed their concerns in separate letters
to President Robert Kocharian and the Armenian parliament leadership.
Significantly, two senior army generals have recently voiced opposition
to deployment plans, marking a rare instance of public questioning of
government policy by members of the Armenian army’s top brass. One of
them, Deputy Army Chief-of-Staff Enrico Apriamov, implied that the
US-led invasion of Iraq had been a mistake.
Concern for the security of the Armenian community was a major reason
for the Kocharian government’s refusal to back the Anglo-American
invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Armenia welcomed the ensuing overthrow
of Saddam Hussein and publicly expressed a desire to “participate in
Iraq’s post-war reconstruction” shortly afterward. An Armenian liaison
officer was posted at the US Central Command in Florida in late 2003 –
a move widely seen as a prelude to the troop dispatch.
The commitment to deployment among Kocharian allies appears to remain
strong – at least publicly. In recent televised remarks Defense
Minister Serge Sarkisian said that while shares the critics’ security
concerns he believes that siding with the United States on Iraq is
vital for Armenia’s national interests. Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanian, for his part, argues that the Armenian participation would be
solely “humanitarian” in nature. Another Armenian leader, Parliament
Speaker Artur Baghdasarian, noted on October 29 that the United States
has provided more than $1.5 billion in economic assistance to Armenia
since independence, hinting that Yerevan should somehow express
appreciation for the American largesse.
Some pro-government media commentators say deployment should be
considered by Armenians as a geopolitical necessity. They note that
Armenia’s neighbors, Azerbaijan and Georgia, already have hundreds of
troops on the ground in Iraq. Deployment could help Armenia complement
its military alliance with Russia with closer security ties with the
United States and the West in general. A cosmetic Armenian military
presence in Iraq, they add, is important for ensuring US neutrality in
the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.
Some are skeptical that a troop contribution will produce greater
political and economic support from the United States. Alexander
Arzumanian, Armenia’s former pro-Western foreign minister and an
opponent of deployment, believes that risks far outweigh the possible
geopolitical dividends. “I just don’t see anything tangible we can get
now in return for putting at risk the lives of a large number of
Armenians,” Arzumanian told EurasiaNet.
Ultimately, it may turn out that decisions made in Poland will
influence Armenia’s final decision on deployment. Polish leaders are
pondering whether to scale down its 2,500-strong military force in
Iraq, or even withdraw it altogether by the end of 2005. Polish Defense
Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski called for a complete troop pullout in a
newspaper interview last month. Although other officials in Warsaw,
notably President Aleksander Kwasniewski, were quick to disavow the
statement, continued Polish military presence in Iraq is now in serious
doubt.
Armenia’s Prime Minister Andranik Markarian had that in mind when he
told reporters recently, “After clarifying some questions we may go
ahead or not go ahead [with the deployment]. Everything will depend on
the situation.”
Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.

Agence France Presse
Nov. 5, 2004
NATO chief hails alliance relations with Armenia

YEREVAN (AFP) Nov 05, 2004
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Friday hailed the
alliance’s relations with the former Soviet republic of Armenia as he
wrapped up a tour of the Caucasus.
“Armenia has agreed in principle to start work on an Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO,” he said after arriving in
Armenia from Azerbaijan.
“This is quite a significant step in the development of our relations,”
he said.
De Hoop Scheffer arrived in Armenia at the tail end of his tour of the
Caucasus that also took him to Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Earlier in Baku on Friday, he told Azerbaijan to “turn a page” in its
relations with archrival Armenia, its neighbor with which it remains in
a state of war.
“At a certain stage you’ll have to turn a page,” de Hoop Scheffer said
as he prepared to fly out of oil-rich Azerbaijan, where he met with
President Ilham Aliyev, to neighboring Armenia to hold talks with its
President Robert Kocharian.
The former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war in
the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, over
Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave in Azeri territory.
A cease-fire agreement was signed in 1994 with Nagorno-Karabakh
effectively remaining in Armenian hands, but with Baku still claiming
rights to it. The two sides have yet to sign a peace treaty and
formally remain in a state of war.
In September, Azerbaijan refused to let officers from Armenia take part
in NATO-sponsored war games on its territory. The games were called off
as a result.
“These kind of activities should be accessible for anybody and
everybody,” De Hoop Scheffer said Friday. “My advice would be if there
is Armenian representation, what is a better way … to discuss these
fundamental problems. Let the Azeri voice be heard also in the presence
of (Armenians).”
The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan killed an estimated 35,000
people and displace close to one million.
Years of negotiations chaired by the so-called Minsk group — chaired
by France, Russia and the United States and operating under a mandate
from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe — have
failed to find a solution and today no transport or communication lines
link the two neighbors.
Nagorno-Karabakh “is a big problem which has created a lot of suffering
already for much too many years and which urgently needs a solution,”
De Hoop Scheffer said.
The NATO chief arrived in Baku from neighboring Georgia, where he met
with President Mikhail Saakashvili, who aims to join the alliance
within four years.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KurdishMedia, UK
Nov. 5, 2004
Minorities comment on ‘Report on Minorities’

05/11/2004 Bianet.org
Members of Turkey’s minority groups denounce violent reactions against
the Prime Ministry’s working group on “Rights of Minorities”. Lawyer
Bakar calls for full implementation of Laussane Treaty, while Alevite
researcher Sener welcomes the debate.
BIA (Istanbul) – Individuals from minority groups denounce attacks
against the controversial Report on “Minority Rights and Cultural
Rights’ drafted by the Minority Rights and Cultural Rights Study Group
of the Prime Ministry’s Advisory Board for Human Rights.
The group’s groundbreaking proposals challenging the present
established concept of Turkish citizenry what excludes recognition of
ethnic minorities other than non-Muslim religious minorities, arouses
angry reactions by nationalist circles.
The group’s spokesperson Prof. Ibrahim Kabaoglu, and Prof. Baskin Oran,
author of the draft report are publicly charged as `separatists’ by
their critics for having proposed recognition of various ethnic
identities under the super-identity of `Citizen of Turkey’ rather more
than `Turkish Citizen’
Members of Turkey’s various ethnic communities expressed their opinions
to bianet on the ongoing controversy.
Lawyer Diran Bakar, an ethnic Armenian from Istanbul, said their views
on the Minority Report was generally positive but added they were
disturbed by the fact that the report did not refer to the minority
articles in the Lausanne Peace Treaty.
1924 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Turkey and the Allies of the
1st World War recognizes the rights of non-Turkish speaking `Trukish
nationals’ as well as non-Muslim religious communities.
Alavite researcher-writer Cemal Sener said the report should not be
attacked so harshly no matter what. “I do not agree with everything in
the report either,” said Sener. “But there is no reason for attacking
it like that.”
Hrant Dink, editor in chief of the bi-lingual (Armenian-Turkish) Agos
weekly said the report was not actually a “minority” report, but
instead, a “Turkey” report. According to Dink, the report depicts an
accurate picture of Turkey.
Cumhur Bal, the secretary-general of the Circassian Federation, said
they voted for the Minority Report as members of the Prime Ministry
Human Rights Advisory Board.
“Articles of Lausanne should be implemented”
Lawyer Diran Bakar said the Report on Minorities should have referred
to the articles of the Lausanne Agreement. Bakar added that although
they did not individually have any complaints about their life in
Turkey, the memories of past incidents, the incidents of September 6-7,
1957 were still fresh. Bakar complained that the institutions belonging
to his community were still under pressure. They were still barred from
ecclesiastic training, or from opening up schools or hospitals.
Sener: The report was not strongly defended
Alavite researcher-writer Cemal Sener is of the opinion that even Prof.
Dr. Ibrahim Kabaloglu, the head of the commission, could not defend his
own report properly against attacks. Sener said:
* Due to political implications of the concept `minority’ the Alavites
are uncomfortable of being categorized as a `minority’. In Turkey
claiming minority status is almost regarded as opposing the secular
republic. Yet, Alavites have always supported the secular republic as
opposed to Sharia, caliphate, Ottoman monarchy and the like.
* The concept “minorities” is usually used to define non-Muslims.
Alavites were not regarded as minorities during the Ottoman rule
because they were Muslims. They could neither benefit from the majority
rights, nor those of the minorities. The situation continued after the
establishment of the Turkish Republic. There is no mention of a
legitimate Alavite religion in any formal document. Alavites were first
mentioned in the EU Progress Report and the Prime Ministry Human Rights
Advisory Board’s report. It is positive that it is being discussed,
instead of being ignored.”
“The essence of the report is the essence of Turkey”
Hrant Dink is of the opinion that those who drafted the Minority Report
should be congratulated. Denouncing the ultra-nationalist member of the
group who tore the report to protest its content during a press
conference Dink said: `Maybe a copy of the report had been torn down.
But the essence of the report is the essence of Turkey and the reality
remains there.’
Dink continued as follows:
* The understanding of “minorities” in Turkey is different from the
understanding of “minorities” in Western democracies.
* The concept “minority” in Turkey is moulded with security concerns.
“This is an inferior notion, an inferior status, and so we cannot be
minorities.” However, there are minorities in this country even if they
are regarded as inferior or second-class. And I am one of them.
* In the same way the state looks at non-Muslims as a security problem,
but I feel insecure of my own future.
Cumhur Bal said they did not approve the behavior of the public workers
union Kamu-Sen representative, who tore the report during the press
conference. “This report was voted on and accepted. He may not agree
with the report, but he doesn’t have the right to act violently.”
(NS/BB/YE)
BIA News Center
05/11/2004

ArmenPress
Nov. 5, 2004
US DISAPPROVES OF AZERBAIJAN’S MOTION
BAKU, NOVEMBER 5, ARMENPRESS: The US ambassador in Azerbaijan, Rino
Harnish, said his government disapproves Azerbaijan’s initiative to
include an item on the occupied Azerbaijan territories on the UN
General Assembly’s session. “The official Washington is against this
idea,” the ambassador was quoted as saying by ATV television.
He said the US sees a solution to the Karabagh conflict through
regular peaceful talks between the parties. The ambassador also said
the official Baku has to make a concrete decision concerning the
participation of Armenian parliament members in a NATO seminar in Baku,
adding that Azerbaijan’s failure to do so would mean its failure to
respect the principle of inclusiveness.

ArmenPress
Nov. 5, 2004
PARLIAMENT CHAIRMAN ENDS VISIT TO FRANCE
PARIS, NOVEMBER 5, ARMENPRESS: Before wrapping up a visit to France,
Armenian parliament chairman Arthur Baghdasarian, met November 4 with
Francois Rocheblois, the chairman of France-Armenia parliamentary
friendship group.
Rocheblois was quoted by Armenian parliament press service as saying
that Turkey cannot join the EU unless it lifts its blockade of Armenia
and recognizes the Armenian genocide. The two men also discussed
development of parliamentary relations and teaching French in Armenia.
Baghdasarian also met with several Senators. He then participated in
the opening of phonethon by the local chapter of Hayastan Fund in
Ici-le-Moulinau town.

ArmenPress
Nov. 5, 2004
ARMENIA WANTS TO STUDY CHINA’S BANKING EXPERIENCE
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 5, ARMENPRESS: The governor of Armenia’s Central
Bank, Tigran Sarkisian, told Armenpress he had discussed with his
Chinese counterpart a series of questions concerning cooperation
between the two banks during a recent visit to Beijing.
Sarkisian said financial and economic developments in China have a
serious impact on world financial system and economy. In this sense he
said it is very important to understand the logic of sweeping reforms
in that country and its repercussions on world economy.
He said he had agreed with the head of Chinese Central Bank to
exchange regularly information by both countries’ banks and increase
bilateral contacts that will help Armenia to examine China’s
experience.
He also said an agreement was reached on developing a cooperation
plan that may be signed in 2005. Sarkisian said he invited his
counterpart to visit Armenia next year.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
November 5, 2004 Friday 11:22 AM Eastern Time
NATO not to compete with other countries in Caucasus -Scheffer
By Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
The visit of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to the
Trans-Caucasian region is not aimed at engaging of the organisation in
competition with other organisations and countries there.
Scheffer made this statement in the Armenian capital after talks with
the country’s leadership on Friday.
The North Atlantic Alliance head said the Armenia-NATO relations are
developing very well. According to Scheffer, Armenia has made a
principled decision to start developing an individual plan of
partnership with NATO.
It is a very considerable step in the development of the Alliance’s
relations with Armenia, in the view of the NATO secretary general.
The NATO leader stated that his visit to the region is caused by the
decision the heads of state and government of the Alliance made in
Istanbul to give more attention to Central Asian and Caucasian
countries.
According to Scheffer, NATO has no plans and ambitions concerning the
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, as its solution is within
the competence of the OSCE Minsk Group.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
November 5, 2004 Friday
Armenia says ready to deepen relations with NATO
By Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
Armenia is ready to deepen relationship with NATO, President Robert
Kocharian said here Friday as he received visiting NATO Secretary
General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Kocharian made known his personal conviction that the visit would be
useful for future cooperation, the presidential press said.
Armenia recently broadened the format of contacts with NATO, he said,
adding: “We already have an envoy to the alliance and are seeking a
greater role in a range of its programs”.
De Hoop Scheffer said NATO had positive relations with Armenia and
stressed the importance of this country’s participation in certain
programs.
Kocharian also presented Armenia’s angle of view at the prospects of
settling the dragged-out conflict in Nagorny Karabakh, a region of
Azerbaijan with a predominantly Armenian population where tensions have
persisted since 1987.

Agency WPS
The Russian Business Monitor (Russia)
November 5, 2004, Friday
RUSSIANS CANNOT COUNT ON CHEAP WESTERN CREDITS
In the near future Russians cannot count on cheap Western credits and
Russia cannot count on entrance into WTO. Representative of the Russian
government at negotiations with WTO supported the stance of the Central
Bank that opening of branches of foreign banks was unacceptable for
Russia.
Officials of the Central Bank already said frequently that there would
be no branches of Western or Eastern banks in Russia. The government
supported them. This issue remained one of the stepping stones on the
path of Russia’s entrance into WTO. Even meetings of representatives of
the US and European Union with President Putin and Prime Minister
Fradkov in Moscow did not change anything.
However, only now an anonymous governmental negotiator said for sure
that Russia would not make concessions in this area. Whereas one of the
conditions for membership in WTO is opening of financial markets,
position of Russian authorities may result in drawing out of Russia’s
entrance into WTO for years.
After wards, on November 3 Senior Deputy Chair of the Central Bank
Andrei Kozlov announced in New York that direct access of foreign
capital to the Russian market of financial services was unacceptable.
The words of Kozlov showed that the Central Bank believed that very
much was already done to liberalize the market. Kozlov stated, “We
permit within a broad spectrum the so-called trans-border operations,
permit creation of foreign subsidiary banks in the territory of Russia
and grant the national regime to them equal to the regime for Russian
banks. Incidentally, this is practiced not in all countries.”
Such forms of business organization as buying into an already existing
bank or organization of a 100% subsidiary are offered for the
foreigners willing to work in Russia. However, the aggregate share of
foreign banks in the territory of Russia should not exceed 25% and the
authorities control observance of this limitation stringently.
A deputy director of the analytical department of one of subsidiaries
of a Western bank in Russia comments, “Organization of a subsidiary
bank in Russia is a difficult and costly process. Many Western
structures have been pressurizing negotiators from WTO to achieve a
possibility to open branches in Russia from the Russian party. But what
is a branch? This is an organization that has consolidated financial
statements with its parent company and pays taxes not in the country
where the branch works but at the place of registration of the parent
company. Could the Russian monetary authorities in the form of the
Central Bank and Finance Ministry allow this? Never.”
The Central Bank stopped the only experience of work of a branch of a
foreign bank in Russia a few years ago, right at the beginning of
negotiations between Russia and WTO. A previously registered branch of
Armenian bank ANELIK was opened in Moscow then. The Armenian bank
suffered because of the lobbying of WTO. According to representatives
of WTO, the fact of existence of a branch, although of a bank of a
former Soviet republic, in Russia contradicted to demands of banks from
developed countries to demand subsidiaries in Russia.
Financial authorities explain their stance not by the fact that they
did not want taxes to go out of the country. When the Central Bank
prohibits direct opening of branches of Western financial structures in
Russia it protects the banking system of the country.
Alexander Burya, director of the financial and operating risks
department of Mezhprombank, presumes that a new statement of Central
Bank officials that foreign banks will not be allowed to open their
branches in Russia directly once again emphasizes the course of the
authorities at creation of a strong national banking system capable of
independent investment of money in the national economy.
President of the Association of Russian banks Garegin Tosunyan comments
on the situation in the same manner. This lobbyist of the banking
community always says that cheap foreign resources will ruin the
“unnecessary” Russian banking system completely.
The reality is such that after coming of branches of large Western
banks credit resources for the population and for organizations would
become much more affordable because now Russian banks earn money on
borrowing of cheap money in the West and issue of short-term credits in
Russia at interest rates unthinkable in developed countries.
Alexander Burya from Mezhprombank remarks, “Foreign banks also have
other indisputable competitive advantages: reliability of the leading
foreign and Russian banks and their financial capabilities are
incomparable, also due to the difference between the ratings of Russia
and developed countries. Admission of foreign banks to the Russian
financial market would result in reduction of the national banking
system and ousting of majority of Russian banks to the marginal sectors
of the market. Naturally, this contradicts to the interests of the
country.”
This thesis is certainly disputable if speaking about interests of the
country we speak about the interests of its citizens and their wish to
live in apartments and drive cars bought on credit at a sensible
interest. After coming of the leading international investment banks
apartments will grow cheaper too. In any case, these are unrealistic
dreams
It is not beneficial for the state that direct branches of foreign
banks will receive direct access to international financial markets, to
which their parent companies have access. This would make control of
Russian supervisory agencies over capital flow from Russia abroad more
difficult. This means that supervision of the banking system in general
will be weakened.
The Central Bank and the government say that the market liberalization
measures already promised from 2007 by the new law on currency
regulation are sufficient. Private individuals and companies will
receive a possibility to open accounts in Western banks and to transfer
their money wherever they like. The law also implies abolishment of the
25% quota for participation of foreign banks in the market.
It is interesting that many foreign banks already working in Russia are
averse to liberalization of the market. Russian banking analysts say
that those representatives of Western capital who wanted to work on the
Russian market already came to it. They did not need to wait until
Russia’s entrance into WTO. Those who started operations in Russia in
the mid-1990s and did not close their business after the crisis of 1998
received the most profitable pieces of the Russian financial market and
their 100% subsidiaries would hardly be glad about coming of
competitors to Russia in the form of branches of their parent
companies.
Source: gazeta.ru, November 04, 2004