Category: News

Armen Press
July 2, 2004
RAPID POVERTY MONITORING METHODOLOGY DEVELOPED BY UNDP ARMENIA
PRESENTED TO PARTNERS AND THE PUBLIC
YEREVAN, JULY 2, ARMENPRESS: On July 1 in the UN House, the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) convened a discussion on the
National Human Development Survey (NHDS) and the Poverty Monitoring
Methodology (RPMM) used during the NHDS. Government officials, donors
and civil society experts focused on survey indicators, regional human
poverty indices and the National Social Monitoring System.
The NHDS was conducted in spring 2003 within the framework of a
joint UNDP and Government of Armenia project on the “Creation of a
Social Monitoring and Analysis System.” The survey covered 6,000
households in 170 rural and 41 urban communities, representatively
selected from all eleven regions of the country, including Yerevan. For
the first time, the survey was based on a Rapid Poverty Monitoring
Methodology developed by UNDP. The information collected during the
survey was disaggregated by region and population group and
incorporated into databases used to track human development, human
poverty and progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The
main findings of the NHDS are summarized in the fifth issue of Armenia
Social Trends, a bi-annual bilingual informational-analytical bulletin.
The results of the National Human Development Survey indicate that
human poverty is more widespread in rural areas, where people have
limited access to education, particularly pre-school and professional
education. People living in rural areas are also negatively affected by
reduced access to healthcare, particularly primary care, and to modern
information technologies.
According to Ms. Grande: “UNDP is confident that a better
understanding of human poverty in the regions will help the Government
and civil society to sharpen the country’s pro-poor policies, ensuring
that they are aimed at reaching the eight Millennium Development Goals
and supporting the Poverty Reduction Strategy.”
In the framework of the “Creation of a Social Monitoring and
Analysis System” project, a special training program in the Economics
Department of Yerevan State University on the theoretical and practical
aspects of databases was organized for the regional M&A units
established by the Government. In addition, seminars and workshops on
methodological and computerized analysis of data have been organized
for the 18 non-governmental organizations participating in the survey.

Ottawa Citizen
July 2, 2004 Friday Final Edition
For argument’s sake, draw your own analogies
by John Robson
When the Athenian statesman Phocion gave a speech that the public
applauded, Plutarch claims, he turned to some friends and asked, “Have
I inadvertently said something foolish?” How many politicians would
ever have such a reaction today? Yet how many should? I sure missed
Plutarch during this election.
For one thing, I treasure his anecdote of Cato the Elder who, told it
was odd that there was no monument to him in Rome, said he would far
rather have people ask why he didn’t have a statue than why he did.
What a useful standard by which to judge the personal qualities of
politicians. When Bill Clinton claims in his memoirs that “in politics,
if you don’t toot your own horn, it usually stays untooted” you might
reasonably conclude that, in Cato’s situation, he would have put one up
himself.
Some readers may be puzzled by my periodic tendency to enthuse about
some author who wrote long before Jennifer Lopez’s first marriage; if
so I reply that it is not a boast to find nothing interesting in books.
(Or quote American commentator Florence King that in high school “the
girls who recited Mickey Rooney’s wives in the cafeteria made fun of me
for reciting Henry VIII’s wives in history class …”)
All argument is in some sense argument by analogy: This thing is like
that thing, it is not like that other thing, it is more like this thing
than like that, and so on. But if we do not carry around with us a
supply of material suitable for the drawing of analogies, what sort of
reasoning is likely to result? That’s why Plutarch wrote The Lives of
the Noble Grecians and Romans.
A person without knowledge of the past is liable to react to a promise
of free money the same way Homer Simpson reacts to the word “doughnut.”
Would it not be better instead to flinch as George Washington would
have at any political program reminiscent of Rome’s “bread and
circuses” for the urban mob? Or recall another Plutarch story about
Cato the Elder: “Being once desirous to dissuade the common people of
Rome from their unseasonable and impetuous clamour for largesses and
distributions of corn, he began thus to harangue them: ‘It is a
difficult task, O citizens, to make speeches to the belly, which has no
ears.'”
Paul Martin would have been well-advised a year ago to ponder
Plutarch’s report that Pompey the Great once had the chance “to lead
Tigranes, King of Armenia, in triumph,” but “chose rather to make him a
confederate of the Romans, saying that a single day was worth less than
all future time.”
My admiration for Plutarch is not uncritical. He likes the Spartans too
much, and unfairly casts Marc Antony as too besotted with Cleopatra to
attend to affairs of the state. But it’s interesting to see him praise
Cleopatra’s personality and intellect over her raw physical beauty, and
slam Julius Caesar, who “looking upon all changes and commotions in the
state as materials useful for his own purposes, desired rather to
increase than extinguish them …”
Perhaps his correspondingly high opinion of Caesar’s assassin Brutus is
overdone. But it would be nice to have some sort of opinion on Brutus
that doesn’t also involve Popeye the sailor man. Lest you smell dust
here, I promise that Plutarch is also full of intrigue, illicit sex and
gruesome violence. For instance, the orator Cicero, who backed Brutus,
was assassinated and, on the orders of Marc Antony, his head and hands
were severed, brought to Rome, and “fastened up over the rostra, where
the orators spoke; a sight which the Roman people shuddered to behold,
and they believed they saw there, not the face of Cicero, but the image
of Antony’s own soul.” A useful anecdote to have whenever someone
triumphantly waves an enemy’s head in public.
Plutarch also records that Phocion once “answered King Antipater, who
sought his approbation of some unworthy action, ‘I cannot be your
flatterer, and your friend.'” And he advises the politically ambitious
likewise to “answer the people, ‘I cannot govern and obey you.'” Of
course anyone who did so might not win, but hey, most candidates lose
anyway. (Besides, Cato the Younger once lost an election for consul,
declined to run again because the people obviously didn’t want him, and
happily went on with his life.) And it would surely raise the level of
debate to go about dismissing people as “another Lepidus” or hailing
them as “a second Brutus” instead of wracking our brains trying to
remember who was in Joe Clark’s cabinet. Speaking of people who should
certainly have spent more time asking friends if they’d inadvertently
said something foolish.
John Robson’s column appears Wednesday and Friday. Listen to him
weeknights from 8 to 10 on CFRA 580 AM.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
July 2, 2004, Friday
CIS SUMMIT IN ISTANBUL
SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, July 2, 2004, p. 5
by Arkady Dubnov
Seven CIS presidents attending a NATO summit is something truly
unprecedented. This was truly the first time that such an impressive
delegation of leaders from the post-Soviet zone attended a summit of
NATO. But the presidents of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan were absent.
As for Vladimir Putin, much has been said already about his motives for
turning down the invitation to Istanbul. Given the situation, his
presence at the summit would have signified the Kremlin’s silent
approval of NATO eastward expansion.
German political scientist Alexander Rahr commented: “In alphabetical
order, the president of Russia would have found himself sitting at the
summit between the representatives of Romania and Slovakia… As far as
Moscow is concerned, equality in the Russia-NATO Council with novices
of the Alliance is difficult to swallow. Half a century ago, Russia
made decisions for all these countries, and even now it considers
itself a world power.”
There is no need to explain why president of Belarus was absent. As for
president of Armenia, he could not go to Istanbul, the capital of the
country that sides up Baku in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. With
regard to NATO as such, however, Armenia doesn’t sense any
idiosyncrasy. And the Turkmenbashi is the Turkmenbashi. No one in
Istanbul was particularly sorry about his absence.
It is much more interesting to try and gauge the motives of Uzbekistan,
the only GUUAM country whose president was absent from the NATO summit.
Invented as a counterweight to the pro-Moscow CIS Collective Security
Treaty Organization, GUUAM was established by presidents of Georgia,
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova in 1997. Tashkent joined GUAM (and
transformed it into GUUAM) in 1999, when Islam Karimov attended
celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Alliance in Washington. All
Karimov’s colleagues in the bloc dutifully flew to Istanbul but he
opted to stay home. It should be regarded as official Tashkent’s
gesture of loyalty to Moscow – quite in line with the policy of
strategic partnership with Russia Uzbekistan is demonstrating these
days. The authorities of Uzbekistan certainly made their point because
even presidents of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan (Moscow’s
strategic allies and members of the Organization of the CIS Collective
Security Treaty) attended the NATO summit.
Some observers do not rule out the possibility that there is another
ulterior motive at play here. Tashkent may regard itself as a key
center of another geopolitical axis – the one with Moscow and Beijing.
Unlike the aid that was promised by the West but never materialized,
China’s promises of economic assistance look like something that may
really be counted on. Moreover, Beijing doesn’t demand economic and
political reforms in return for the aid. Karimov said on two occasions
in the last twelve months (both times in Putin’s presence) that the
period of euphoria in connection with economic cooperation with the
West was over.
But let’s get back to the CIS leaders who attended the NATO summit. Has
the Alliance lived up to their expectations? Apart from Leonid Kuchma
of Ukraine, they would probably say yes. Kuchma was given to understand
once again that Ukraine’s eagerness to join the European Union would be
met halfway only if the upcoming presidential election in Ukraine is
recognized as democratic. Baku and Tbilisi in their turn were reassured
that they would be permitted to approach NATO’s threshold even closer.
Mikhail Saakashvili said that Georgia might become a NATO member in
four years. Well, the trend is undeniable. The decision was made in
Istanbul to appoint NATO special envoys to the Caucasus and Central
Asia. Needless to say, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov could
only announce that “we should view this decision as a reality.” What
else was there to say?
Observers were amused yesterday to hear of the statement made by Andrei
Kokoshin, chairman of the Duma’s CIS affairs committee. Kokoshin warned
CIS countries aspiring to NATO membership that they would “certainly
lose part of their sovereignty” and advised them to stick to Russia
instead, as a “guarantor of this sovereignty.”

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
July 2, 2004, Friday
NATO COMES TO THE CIS
SOURCE: Novye Izvestia, July 1, 2004, p. 4
by Oleg Kasimov
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s speech at the NATO summit in Istanbul
left no doubts concerning the future of the Russian contingents in
Georgia and the Trans-Dniester region. Moscow does not intend to comply
in the near future with demands from Washington and the West for Russia
to withdraw its troops.
In fact, Washington must have been prepared for this turn of events.
Hence the decision to “activate” military maneuvers around Russia,
without waiting for the pullout. And the United States is not going to
put all its eggs in one basket. On the one hand, busy negotiations are
under way with Moldova and Ukraine in order to speed up their progress
towards NATO membership. From this point of view, observers comment on
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Chisinau on the eve of the
NATO summit. On the other hand, NATO intends to greatly expand and
intensify its military contacts with countries of the Caucasus and
Central Asia. So it is hardly surprising that the summit declaration
lists these regions as strategically vital for NATO.
Turkey will be placed in charge of this particular mission – in
accordance with what official Washington decided. In fact, Ankara has
already agreed to play by the rules the United States proposes.
Washington will lobby in favor of Turkey being allowed to join the
European Union; and in return, Ankara will play the role of a battering
ram in breaching the defense perimeter Russia established in the
Caucasus and Central Asia. It may lead to a deterioration of
Russian-Turkish relations, but this is the price Ankara agreed to pay
for America’s support.
For the first time in a decade, official Ankara proclaimed its
intention to become much more active as a mediator in the
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Turkey’s interest in the matter ebbed in
the wake of the Bishkek accord which Armenia and Azerbaijan signed in
May 1994. Foreign ministers of Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan met
within the framework of the Istanbul summit. Following the talks, a
representative of Ankara announced his country’s plans with regard to
the settlement of the drawn-out Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Armenia
hopes that its dialogue with Ankara will result in establishing
diplomatic relations with Turkey and opening the Armenian-Turkish
border. Azerbaijan sees Turkey’s activization as an indication of the
Caucasus being gradually drawn into NATO’s orbit.

Associated Press Worldstream
July 1, 2004 Thursday
Armenian forces detain Azerbaijani soldier in Nagorno-Karabakh
Armenia forces in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory detained an
Azerbaijani soldier who allegedly crossed into Armenian-held land,
authorities said Thursday.
The Azerbaijani soldier, identified as Gusein Aidyn of the Azerbaijani
capital, Baku, was detained along the eastern section of
Nagorno-Karabakh border on Wednesday, officials in Nagorno-Karabakh
said.
Armenian-backed forces won control of Nagorno-Karabakh, a largely
ethnic Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan, after a 1988-94 war. More than
30,000 people were killed and a million driven from their homes during
the conflict.
Despite a cease-fire, the two countries continue to face off across a
heavily fortified no man’s land, and shooting occasionally erupts.
Nagorno-Karabakh officials said they notified the International
Committee of the Red Cross and the Organization of Security and
Cooperation in Europe about the detention, and that the Red Cross was
welcome to visit the captured soldier.
Meanwhile, in Azerbaijan, the Foreign Ministry said it was concerned
about the U.S. Congress’ move to grant US$5 million in aid to
Nagorno-Karabakh. The money “could be directed at the encouragement of
illegal activity, extremism and aggressive separatism on the territory
of Azerbaijan,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
July 2, 2004 Friday
Prospects for cooperation in fighting organized crime
By Svetlana Alikina and Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
Prospects for cooperation in fighting organized crime and cleansing the
Russian and Armenian economies of criminality will be discussed on
Friday at a meeting of the governing boards of the Russian Interior
Ministry and the Armenian police force.
Russia’s Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev and Armenian police chief
Gaik Arutyunian, as well as the leaders of the directorates subordinate
to them will take part in the meeting.
This will be the fifth meeting of the interior ministers of the two
countries since 2000, the Russian interior minister Nurgaliyev noted.
He said the creation of a common law-enforcement space of the two
states was the key priority.
The meeting will also discuss interaction in the struggle against
organized criminal groups and communities operating on an international
level. The parties also plan to dwell on fighting drug trafficking and
suppressing trade in people.
According to the Russian Interior Ministry, there has been a noticeable
reduction in the overall number of crimes committed by CIS citizens.
Lately, 254 members and 45 leaders of criminal groups organized by
natives of Armenia have been taken to criminal account; and 165
criminal cases have been opened.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
July 2, 2004 Friday
Russia, Armenia should increase protection of investment projects
By Stanislav Alikin, Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
Russian and Armenian law enforcement bodies should boost cooperation
in protecting bilateral investigation projects from criminal
encroachments, said on Friday Russian Interior Minister Rashid
Nurgaliev, speaking in Yerevan at a meeting of the leaderships of the
Russian Interior Ministry and Armenian police.
He noted that “mutual interests of Russia and Armenia are considerable
and cover all spheres of economic and political life”. “Positive
processes in relations of our countries are influenced by various
threats, including crime. We face now common tasks: we have something
to protect from criminal encroachments, and for this purpose we have
all necessary things,” Nurgaliev emphasized.
According to the minister, “it is very important now for Russia to
have support from sisterly states in settling domestic law enforcement
questions. Incidentally, Armenia is given a special role among these
states”. For one, the minister continued, “I mean struggle against
terrorism, illicit drug trafficking, illegal immigration, trade in
people, banditry and economic crime”.
Nurgaliev also suggested that his colleagues from Armenian police
should boost cooperation in implementing anti-terrorist measures,
ensuring security of vital projects and implementing measures on
protection of public law and order.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
July 2, 2004 Friday
Armenian Foreign Minister to visit Russia on July 5-7
By Syuzanna Adamiants, Alexandra Urusova
MOSCOW
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian will visit Russia on July
5-7, a source at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s information department
told Itar-Tass on Friday.
Oskanian is expected to meet with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei
Lavrov, and the chairman of the State Duma Committee on CIS affairs and
ties with compatriots, Andrei Kokoshin.
The two parties will focus on cooperation in the CIS format, including
in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Eurasian
Economic Community (EurAsEC). They will also discuss pooling the two
foreign ministry’s efforts to improve the situation in the North
Caucasus.
“The Nagorno-Karabakh problem will be of special attention,” the source
said. “Russia is ready to help settle the conflict and take on the role
of a guarantor to an agreement the two parties will come to.”
Russia and Armenia will also touch upon the development of trade,
economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation.

Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.
State Department
July 2, 2004
Robin Phillips is New USAID Mission Director for Armenia; Agency
veteran was sworn in recently in Washington
TEXT: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
announced its new mission director for Armenia, Robin Phillips, who has
worked for the agency for 20 years.
A press release provides biographical information about Phillips. It
also notes that USAID has committed $57 million to Armenia for projects
focusing on private sector development, energy sector reform, democracy
building, healthcare, social transition, and water management.
Following is the text:
(begin text)
U.S. Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C.

June 29, 2004
USAID Swears In New Mission Director for Armenia
WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
announced the swearing in of Robin Phillips as the USAID Mission
Director for Armenia. Carol Peasley, Counselor for the U.S. Agency for
International Development, will preside over the ceremony at the
agency’s headquarters in the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown
Washington.
Mr. Phillips has worked for USAID since 1984, when he accepted a
position as an economic officer in the USAID Mission in Bridgetown,
Barbados. Since then he has been assigned as an economist, program
economist, deputy director, director and now mission director. These
assignments have taken him to Nairobi, Kenya and Kampala, Uganda, as
well as Armenia.
An accomplished linguist with language skills in Chinese and Japanese,
Mr. Phillips holds multiple degrees; a bachelor’s degree from Harvard
in language studies, a master’s of art in Asian Studies and Political
Science from Stanford University and a master’s of science in Economics
from the London School of Economics.
The USAID mission in Armenia focuses on a wide variety of sectors, to
include, private sector development, energy sector reform, democracy
building, healthcare, social transition, and water management. Overall,
the mission is managing over $57 million in funds working to rebuild
Armenia after years of communist rule. USAID also provided humanitarian
assistance to Armenia following a massive earthquake in 1988. For more
information about USAID programs in Armenia, please visit the mission
website at .
The U.S. Agency for International Development has provided economic and
humanitarian assistance worldwide for more than 40 years.
Contact: USAID Press Office
Press: (202) 712-4320
Public Information: (202) 712-4810 2004-058
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State.)

Armenia Now
July 2, 2004
Writers’ Bloc: Writers’ Bloc: Literary Conference draws authors from Armenia
and Diaspora
By Lusineh Ohanyan
ArmeniaNow correspondent More than 60 authors from 18 countries gathered in
Yerevan this week for the second All-Armenian Conference of Writers.
Organised by Armenia’s Union of Writers, the conference brought together
figures from the Republic and Diaspora to discuss developments in Armenian
literature. Levon Ananyan, President of the Union, says the first conference
in 2002 was more introductory in character since Armenian writers in
different countries had had little previous opportunity to make personal
contact.
This time, many young representatives of literature from the Diaspora
attended the event. Plenary sessions covered subjects including: “Latest
achievements of Armenian literature”, “The national school and national
literature”; and “Historical memory and modern literature”.
The conference also marked two important occasions, the 70th anniversary of
the Writers Union and the 80th anniversary of the birth of the Diaspora
writer Zahrat from Constantinople. Participants traveled to Artsakh for two
days for meetings with representatives of the intelligentsia and army.
They will also take part in an event dedicated to 150th anniversary of the
great Armenian writer Muratsan. Political discussion was not on the agenda,
however, even though many of today’s Diaspora writers are public and party
figures.
The first conference agreed three measures towards greater unity of literary
organizations of the Diaspora. A constituent conference of the Armenian
Writers of California was organized in Los Angeles, USA. Then a conference
bringing together writers from the Middle East was held in Beirut, Lebanon.
Finally, a delegation from the Writers’ Union led by Ananyan and Ruben
Hovsepyan, a National Assembly deputy, organized a recent conference of
Armenian writers from Iran.
Ananyan says that, besides literary bridges, the conference also established
an All-Armenian Literary Fund to provide support for publishing books and
developing Armenian literature. A telethon organized in Armenia has
collected about $200,000 and further collections are being arranged in
Atsakh and Diaspora communities.
The third All-Armenian Conference of Writers is already being planned. It
will likely be held in two years’ time in one of the Diaspora Communities.