SEVERE INTOXICATION FROM TINNED VEGETABLES

A1+
[01:38 pm] 06 December, 2006

On December 5, at 10:50 resident of Shirak region village Hovuni
Karine Ayvazyan (b. 164) was taken to hospital with severe food
intoxication. The reason of the intoxication was tinned tomatoes she
ate earlier that day.

According to the doctors, the situation of the patient is grave.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIANS ARE INTERESTED IN THE ENERGY FIELD OF KARABAKH

A1+
[02:27 pm] 06 December, 2006

The tendency of selling certain substructures of Armenia to Russia
is passing on to Karabakh. At least this is what high-ranked people
speak of.

In order to get details KarabakhOpen turned to the NKR Minister of
regional government Armo Tsaturyan. The latter stated that there are
Russian companies which investigate the energy field of Karabakh in
order to make investments for the development of mini hydroelectric
power stations, as Karabakh was interested in carrying out negotiations
in this connection.

The experts say that the area is suitable for constructing
hydroelectric stations which can produce large amounts of energy. "But
at present there are no clear-cut offers", the Minister mentioned.

Asked the question if they are ready to discuss offers if there
are any, Mr. Tsaturyan said, "It depends on the offer itself. It is
meaningless to discuss what does not exist yet".

THREE PERSPECTIVES ON THE FRENCH PARLIAMENT BILL ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE OF 1915-1917
Gunduz Aktan, Aghasi Harutyunyan, and Morgan Poulizac

sp?ArticleID=12348
PeaceJournalism.com, Nepal
Dec 5 2006

An account of the French Parliament bill recently passed condemning the
Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917. The three articles below – providing
French, Armenian, and Turkish perspectives – highlight the controversy
and possible implications of the legislation. Varduhi Tovmasyan is
responsible for commissioning all three pieces.

Benefits of Waiting

Gunduz Aktan

Some time has passed since the French Parliament passed the bill that
criminalizes denial of the Armenian Genocide. Now that it has lost
its newsworthiness, we can better analyze the matter.

Passing such a law caused some problems for France, but we should not
exaggerate them too much. The criticisms directed against France were
all for needlessly limiting freedom of expression. Most EU citizens,
especially the French, believe the Armenian incidents in 1915
constitute genocide. All those who have anything to say first voice
their belief that the genocide actually occurred before criticizing
the bill. Maybe they get the right to raise such criticism only after
they present their credentials.

Most of the criticisms in Turkey are also for France limiting freedom
of expression. That’s why some argue that annulling Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code (TCK) would prove we respect freedom of expression
more than France and would provide a very wise response.

However, the problem goes beyond freedom of expression or academic
freedoms.

Genocide is the worst of crimes. Just like every other crime, law
defines it and the courts decide on it. Without a verdict, a person,
a group or a country cannot be accused of having committed genocide.

Moreover, it is impossible to refute a crime that has not been
proven first.

That’s exactly why a law passed by the French Parliament in 2001 that
recognizes the Armenian Genocide cannot be enforced. On the other
hand, the Gaysot Law (1990), which criminalizes denial of the Jewish
Holocaust, is enforceable because it is based on the Nuremberg court
sentences. Professor O. Duhamel, fervently praised former minister
Jack Lang as the only person who had the courage to voice this. How
unfortunate for France.

If the bill becomes law in its present form, the right of Turkey
and the families of Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha to defend themselves
against the charges are rescinded. This is a more severe human rights
violation than limiting freedom of speech.

After this injustice, the gestures of French President Jacques
Chirac and the French government, as if they share our concerns,
are sickening. The Armenian government has also resorted to similar
deception as if it has nothing to do with such initiatives. They place
the blame with the Armenian diaspora. Actually, while one tries to
protect its commercial interests, the other is working to ensure that
the Armenians who illegally work here are not repatriated. They are
after both material and moral benefits.

Armenians used Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
(ASALA) terrorism to promote their genocide claims and largely
succeeded. Westerners saw the courage to resort to terrorism as proof
of Armenians having been victims of genocide. They ignored the carnage
of terrorism until it also harmed them.

This incited Armenians to threaten academics in the United States who
said there was no genocide. They pressured universities to dismiss
such academics. They prevented publishers from printing anything that
went against their thesis. Those that were published were collected.

Dissident voices were not permitted in the meeting they held.

They walked through the corridors of the European Parliament,
brandishing guns in 1987 in order to ensure the resolution the European
Parliament was debating would support their thesis. They prevented
deputies from entering the meeting hall.

The threats by some Armenians made against one Armenian member of
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Council (TARC) resulted in him
hiding his family at a secret location and blood clots that caused
him to undergo two surgeries.

Armenian lobbies that spend exorbitant amounts of money influenced
administrations and parliaments. The Armenian diaspora used their
votes for political blackmail. They bought hundreds of people and
made them write books full of lies. It was proven that the Talat Pasha
telegraph was false. What Henry Morgenthau wrote about Talat Pasha and
Enver Pasha is full of falsehoods, too. Lepsius, who never set foot in
Anatolia, talked about the incidents as if he were an eyewitness. The
Blue Book is only war propaganda. They have now started to bribe Turks.

There is no United Nations resolution on the matter, but they look us
in the eye and say there is. Our archives are open, but they say they
aren’t. They say the Teskilati Mahsusa (Ottoman intelligence services)
organized genocide. Professors Lewy and Ericson smash this theory. Yet
they still look the other way. The figures they quote are sheer lies
and the documents they cite are a sham.

What does this disgrace have to do with freedom of expression?

———————–

The Genocide Denial Bill: Charting the Armenian Reaction

Aghasi Harutyunyan

To understand the reaction of the Armenian public and leadership to the
recent adoption by the lower house of the French Parliament of a bill
declaring the public denial of the Armenian genocide a crime, one has
to firstly understand the emotional intensity with which Armenians
treat the issue of the recognition of the 1915-17 genocide in the
Ottoman Empire. To put it bluntly, this issue is probably the cause
which unites Armenians all over the world irrespective of gender, age,
social status and even language and culture. Generations of Armenians
have devoted their lives to this cause and after hard battles have
managed to persuade the parliaments of a number of countries, but
first of all Turkey, to join them in condemning the extermination
of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire as an instance of
genocide. No wonder, then, that any and all developments on this
front receive an emotional response from Armenians residing both in
the Republic of Armenia and outside, in the diaspora centers spread
across the world.1 The response to the adoption of the French bill
was no exception in this sense.

The majority of Armenians saluted the October 12th decision of the
French National Assembly although not everyone was quick to see
pro-Armenian sentiment in that act. In the days following the act
of adoption, the political forces and the media inside the country
devoted significant attention to the issue and analyzed thoroughly
the causes that made the French Parliament’s lower house take the
extraordinary step as well as the harsh reaction from Ankara. This
article is an attempt at charting how Armenians received, perceived
and analyzed the news of the adoption of the bill.

Although the Armenian authorities welcomed the approval of the bill,
they somehow distanced themselves from the process showing that it
was a step the French took on their own without the interference of
the Armenian diplomacy. "Today’s approval of the bill by the French
National Assembly is a natural continuation of France’s principled
and consistent defense of human and historic rights and values,"
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian declared in his first comment after
the adoption of the bill. He noted that "this decision is also a
natural reaction to the intensive, aggressive and official denialism
of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish state. They have undertaken
a premeditated, planned assault on the truth. […] What we don’t
understand is the Turkish government’s instigation of extremist public
reactions, especially while Turkey itself has a law that does exactly
the same thing and punishes those who even use the term genocide
or venture to discuss those events."2 Analysts believe that this
kind of ‘passive’ greeting (judged by the standards of the region)
of the bill is due to official Yerevan’s efforts at avoiding further
deterioration of the strenuous Armenian-Turkish relations.3

A few days after his initial comments, Vartan Oskanian reaffirmed
Armenia’s contentment with the French National Assembly’s vote, but
declared that he would strive to normalize relations with Turkey. In
an interview with the Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag he stressed that
"these events… have not been condemned and not recognized once
so far, is in reality a continuation of the genocide. However, as
foreign minister I have a duty to look to the future and to seek to
establish normal relations with Turkey." Interestingly the Foreign
Minister noted, "Whether the French or the Swiss legislation is a
good starting point is hard to say," adding that the recognition of
the genocide by other countries "is not a goal in itself." "Armenia
also has no interest in humiliating Turkey," emphasized Oskanyan.

le for the recognition of the atrocities committed at the beginning
of the 20th century. On October 13th, hundreds of students gathered
at the premises of the French embassy in Yerevan to express their
gratitude to France’s parliament for passing the bill.

Chanting "Long live France!" and waving French and Armenian flags
the students who carried banners reading "Justice won over Turkish
blackmail" and "France – the standard bearer of justice in the European
Union," marched through the city center in two separate demonstrations
organized by the student organizations of one of the ruling parties,
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun),4 and another
youth organization. "We express our sincere gratitude to our French
friends and welcome this historic step," an organizer of the first
rally representing the Social Democratic Hnchak Party (the oldest
Armenian political party) said, presenting the organization’s thank-you
declaration outside the embassy building.

Most of the political forces in Armenia, too, were satisfied with the
action of the French National Assembly. For instance, a local member of
Dashnaktsutyun took the view that the law would serve a good purpose
for Armenia. "It would become a lever used by France to put pressure
on Turkey to make them recognize the Genocide," said Kiro Manoyan,
adding that "France has expressed its viewpoint which will finally
force Turkey to reckon with its history." Remarkably, the government
forces were quick to downplay the reports (that appeared in the
Turkish state media) that the French president Jacque Chirac (whose
administration was against the passage of the bill) had apologized
to the Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoghan for the act of
the National Assembly reminding that few weeks before Chirac on his
first state visit to Armenia had urged Turkey to recognize its past.

However, as mentioned before, the omnipresent enthusiasm does
not mean that there was no public discussion on the causes and
consequences of the approval of the bill. Despite the heavily
favorable attitude towards the bill there was also some dissent in
the Armenian society. The opposition press put forward several points
for consideration. One of the papers ("168 Zham") was quick to note
that the bill was approved not long before the French parliamentary
and presidential elections. France has the biggest Armenian diaspora
community (approximately 500,000 people) in Western Europe and the
Armenian votes are naturally important for the French lawmakers. The
same paper believes that the bill can not bring any tangible
benefits to the Republic of Armenia itself, but will further rouse
the anti-Armenian nationalist sentiment in Turkey, and the latter will
respond by adding the pressure on the small Armenian community (around
60,000 people) that was left in the country after the massacres of
the last century. The gist of these and similar arguments, of course,
is that the Armenian woes have yet again been used for the attainment
of internal and external political interests, something which has
sadly happened too often in the distant and near past.

But it was not only the ‘Armenian’ Armenians who had a somewhat
mixed reaction to the French bill. Hilda Tchoboian, the president
of the Brussels-based Euro-Armenian Federation, an association
representing the interests of the Armenian Diaspora in France and
other European nations, echoed in a statement the mainstream Armenian
sentiment. "We welcome with emotion this historic step forward through
which, once again, France points the way down the path of progress,
humanity and dignity. The hydra of denial is a tumor on freedom of
expression and a threat to public order that must be eradicated,"
she said in a statement. A few diaspora Armenians, however, were
reluctant to endorse the approval of the bill and had the opposite
opinion. Among them was Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of "Agos,"
an Armenian paper published in Istanbul, who reportedly told Radio
Liberty that the bill "will not be beneficial in terms of the future
of Armenians and in terms of the process of the recognition of the
genocide in the world." Dink, one of several journalists in Turkey
facing possible prison term for using the word "genocide" (under the
same infamous Article 301), labeled the bill a "trick" by those who
want to keep Turkey out of the EU. The journalist emphasized that in
case it is necessary he would go to France and would break the new law
just as he had broken the one in Turkey, simply to prove the idiotic
nature of the law. Dink’s position is interesting not only because
of its dissenting nature but also because it gives some credit to
the above-mentioned allegation that as a result of the adoption of
the bill Armenians residing in Turkey can become targets of coercion.

To sum up, the approval of the landmark bill that makes it a crime to
deny that Armenians suffered genocide during World War One received
an overwhelmingly warm response from Armenians across the globe.

Although many Armenians understand that the bill might not be approved
by the upper house of the French Parliament, the Senate, and even
if approved might not be signed by the Chirac administration (which
is weary of damaging the ties with Turkey and receiving another dose
of criticism from the European Union and the United States officials
for creating additional obstacles on the Turkish path of entry into
the EU) they continue believing that the controversial legal act can
bring them closer to the ultimate goal of persuading Ankara to accept
its past faults. Nevertheless, as the following remarks made by the
renowned French-Armenian chanson singer Charles Aznavour suggest,
"The law against denialism should have been passed for all crimes,
not only the one against Armenians, because otherwise it leaves a
bizarre impression."

———————–

French Politics and the Armenian Genocide: An Uncomfortable Relation

Morgan Poulizac

Thursday October the 12th , the lower house of the French Parliament
Assemblee Nationale approved a bill making it illegal to suggest the
1915 Armenian Genocide did not occur.

This bill has been initiated by the Socialist Party. Contrary
to a former law, voted for in 2001 (loi Gayssot), which already
recognised the existence of genocide in Armenia, the new bill proposal
criminalizes the disregard of the genocide atrocity. Despite the
unlikelihood of the legislation being passed – subsequently needing
to be backed by the upper house and signed by the President – the
vote has created a division within French opinion.

Ten days before, Jacques Chirac, the French President, visited Armenia
and declared that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide might be
a precondition of the Turkish entry into the European Union.

However, when it came to vote, the French government declared the
initiative "unnecessary and untimely", in order for the MPs in the
Chirac majority to abstain from voting.

The Chirac administration noted that the 2001 law already asserts the
existence of the Genocide and that the new text would only have some
counterproductive effects. This new initiative could indeed damage
the trade relations between the two countries, as Christine Lagarde,
the French Minister of Trade, told to the press.

In 2005, French firms exported more than 4.7 million euros in goods
to Turkey. Moreover, as long as Turkey remains an important trading
partner of the French, it’s important to keep tension between countries
at a minimum.

The parliamentary initiative raised, indeed, the anger of the Turkish
government, which now threatens to boycott French products. The day
after the vote, Turkish protesters threw eggs at the French consulate
in Istanbul. The Turkish Minister of Finance, Ali Babacan, said he
will reconsider the contract deal the Turkish government had with
Eurocopter, a French helicopter firm.

The bill did not solely spark a wave of protests in Turkey, but also
created notable strife in France.

This story is the latest episode of the bitter debate over the fate
of the Armenians slaughtered in the 1915 Ottoman Turkey territory,
yet also reveals the domineering relationship French politics have
with history.

Last year, some MPs tried to pass a law underlying the "benefits" of
past French colonialism. At a standoff with waves of popular criticisms
of their opinion, the MPs decided to give up the legislative effort
in the end.

There is, in fact, today, and since the beginning of 1990’s, a large
debate occurring in France about the legitimacy of the Parliament
to "write" history. The divide between historians and politicians
is profound. While historians insist that politicians refrain from
intervening and misinterpreting history, politicians are progressively
trying to impose their view on it.

Several reasons may explain the opposition. One the one hand,
MPs will always play to their constituencies and manage their
agendas accordingly. On the other hand, media is perfectly content
thrashing politicians on television and in print, giving them a
difficult name to work with nationally and discouraging a vote in
favour Armenian-appeasing legislation. Notwithstanding media’s wrath,
expect politicians to throw themselves in front of coming traffic to
assuage their respective constituencies – that is where the votes come
from after all. So with elections approaching near the beginning of
2007, the well-established Armenian communities may, in fact, hold
some weight.

It shows once again how history is a political matter in France.

———————–

1Up until 1991 the battle for the recognition of the genocide was
mainly fought by Armenians living in the diaspora centers whose
ancestors had been slaughtered in the Ottoman Empire. Since the
independence of the Republic of Armenia from the Soviet Union (1991)
activists in the country have joined their diaspora compatriots
in demanding that Turkey recognizes the genocide. Interestingly,
the administration of the first president of the country, Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, was reluctant to officially put the genocide issue on
its foreign policy agenda. The administration of the current president
Robert Kocharyan, however, has officially included the issue in the
list of its foreign policy priorities since it came to power in 1998.

2Oskanyan refers to the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish
criminal code which has recently been used to prosecute a number of
public figures in Turkey, including a leading Turkish novelist Pamuk
who went on trial for insulting "Turkishness" after telling a Swiss
newspaper nobody in Turkey dared talk about the Armenian massacres.

The court eventually dropped charges, and Pamuk received the Noble
Prize for Literature on the same day when the bill under discussion
was adopted.

3Armenia and Turkey do not have any diplomatic relations and
the border between them has been closed since Armenia gained
independence in 1991. Apart from the genocide issue the relations
between the neighbors are also soured because of a conflict between
ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh (effectively, Armenia
itself) and Azerbaijan, a neighboring country to which the region of
Nagorno-Karabakh belonged during the Soviet times (at the beginning
of the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh fought a local war with Azeri forces
and established a de-facto independent state strongly supported
by Armenia). Azerbaijan and Turkey are close allies, and Ankara
demands that Yerevan returns Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Until
then it refuses to talk about the establishment of diplomatic ties
with Yerevan. In recent years, however, both the European Union (EU)
and the United States have strongly urged Turkey to reopen the border
with Armenia, and many believe that Ankara will have to normalize
its ties with Armenia before the possible entry into the EU.

4This party is often characterized as nationalistic, and its
representatives have for decades been at the forefront of genocide
recognition efforts in foreign countries. Dashnaktsutyun, a junior
partner in the current coalition government, is believed to have
a rigid stance in the genocide issue and thinks that the Republic
of Armenia should not talk to Turkey unless and until Ankara has
recognized its gruesome past.

Benefits of Waiting by Gunduz Aktan was originally published 26
October 2006 by the Turkish Daily News.

d_article=396

WHERE TRADITIONAL AND MODERN MEET AND SASHAY ALONG
By Sabrina Tavernise

New York Times
Dec 5 2006

ISTANBUL, Dec. 4 – For every stereotype of a Muslim country, Turkey
has a fact to break it.

It has Islamic feminists (a few) and Israeli tourists (lots). Reality
dating shows have had the highest ratings on television, and Islamic
fashion sashays down Turkish runways.

For decades in Turkey the competing forces of the religious and
secular, Christian and Muslim, East and West, were muted, as
authorities scrubbed the country of differences while they built
a modern state. But Turkey has become more democratic in recent
years, and those forces have burst into full view, creating a sort
of modern-day identity crisis.

"We have started to think very differently about our history," said
Leyla Neyzi, a professor at Sabanci University, one of Turkey’s first
private colleges. "The past is being rethought in terms of the demands
of the present."

Nowhere is that questioning more apparent than in Istanbul, the lively
port that is the cultural and intellectual center of the country.

Aynur Dogan is a Kurdish singer with a powerful voice who grew up
in war. Turkish forces and Kurdish separatists were fighting in the
southern part of the country, where she lived and where speaking her
native Kurdish was illegal. Kurdish music tapes were buried in the
yard when government forces entered her village. Her family fled to
Istanbul in 1992 to escape the fighting.

She took an interest in Kurdish music, but in the late 1990s the
only audiences were underground. In Turkish society, Kurdish was a
bad word. "It looked impossible," she said, smoking a cigarette in
a dark Istanbul cafe with murals painted on the walls.

By 2004, she had appeared on mainstream Turkish television singing in
Kurdish. That year she released her first album, "Kurdish Girl." It
was temporarily banned by the government, but not before it sold
large numbers of copies, and finally its sale was permitted.

Now she performs frequently in Europe, and a film about Istanbul’s
music scene has featured her singing. But there are still limits in
Turkey. Sponsors of Kurdish musical events are difficult to find,
and it is harder to get a venue, but young Turks in Istanbul’s music
shops eagerly recommend her album.

"I felt there was this new group of people emerging," she said.

Many forces helped release the river of memory. One has been a steady
series of changes Turkey has enacted to gain entry to the European
Union. The push to join, led by the pro-Islamic government of Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, elected in 2002, has recently faltered,
souring Turks on the process. But the changes, which have opened
Turkey’s society and its economy, have stuck.

Another factor has been the changing international landscape. The
Muslim world has grown angry at the West, particularly the United
States, for what Muslim countries say is behavior that singles out
Muslims and creates a backlash of Islamic identity. Turkey is no
exception.

But Turkey has also matured. The young professionals who walk
along Istanbul’s central avenues at a New York pace clutching sleek
cellphones are only a few generations away from the time when Turkey
became a state in 1923, yet far enough away from the secular revolution
of Ataturk, Turkey’s founder, to start to question it.

In recent years there has been a flurry of films, books and oral
histories about Turkey’s past, and the country feels more democratic
than at any time in its short history, Ms. Neyzi said. Turkish Jews
now have a museum.

Last year, Turkey held a conference on the killings of Armenians
in the World War I era, described as genocide by many in the West
but not by the Turkish government. Estimates of the deaths given
by the Allies at the end of the war ranged from 600,000 to 800,000,
and scholars more recently have put the figure at more than a million.

It is a painful process. When Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist who has
spoken out on the Armenian issue, won the Nobel Prize for Literature,
the president of Turkey did not congratulate him. That is because Mr.

Pamuk is seen as a tool of anti-Turkish forces, whose views of his
country can be critical, instead of being seen as a writer who made
the Turkish novel universal, Ms. Neyzi said.

"All the skeletons in the closet are spilling out," said Ms. Neyzi,
who chose to return to Turkey after earning a doctorate from Cornell.

"It’s creating a lot of conflict in society."

The danger, Turks say, is that too abrupt a process can sharpen
nationalist and Islamist sentiments and possibly lead to another coup
by the army, a traditional safeguard of the country’s secularism.

There have been three in Turkey’s short history.

That, in turn, would set back efforts at change and roll back debate,
and could seriously damage the significant economic gains Turkey has
made in the last six years.

To prevent that, Turkish intellectuals like Nazan Olcer, an art
museum director, are bringing up the past in small bits. Shortly
after the opening of the museum in 2002, it made arrangements to show
a collection of an Armenian from Ottoman times.

"It was a hot iron," said Ms. Olcer, sitting on a gilded loveseat
in her office near the museum, which like Ms. Neyzi’s university
was financed by the Sabanci family, the Turkish equivalent of the
Rockefellers, which began building public learning institutions in
recent years. "Everyone warned us not to do it."

In the end, people came. By the time they left, they understood a
little more about the collector and were questioning some of their
own assumptions, Ms. Olcer said.

"You remind people to think twice," she said. In 2005 the museum
brought the first Picasso to Turkey, and this year it exhibited Rodin
sculptures. The fact that the figures were nude did not seem to bother
devout Turks, who came in large numbers, Ms. Olcer said.

On Tuesday, in another dip into the past, the museum will open an
exhibit about Genghis Khan, including some of the earliest Turkic
writing and inscriptions.

"A very important dialogue is beginning," Ms. Olcer said. "I want to
tell them the history. Not with a heroic approach. Not with strongly
accented nationalism. What they were missing was the knowledge."

Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting.

ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT APPROVES BILL "ON FOREIGNERS"

Arka News Agency, Armenia
Dec 5 2006

YEREVAN, December 4. /ARKA/. The Armenian Parliament approved in the
first reading the bill "On foreigners". RA Deputy Foreign Minister
Gegham Gharibjanyan said that the bill regulates issues of foreigners’
ingress and egress, stay in and transit through Armenia.

The bill also stipulates the order of employment of foreign citizens.

"The bill is rather flexible and will allow Armenia to promptly and
properly respond to international processes, as well as regulate its
immigration policy," Gharibjanyan said.

He pointed out that the law ensures protection of human rights, and
reflects the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

"This is of special importance after the European Convention o Human
Rights took effect in Armenia," Gharibjanyan said.

He pointed out that the RA Law "On the legal status of foreign
citizens" adopted in 1994 contains a number of provisions running
counter to the RA Constitution and other laws, as well as to a number
of international agreements.

ARMENIA FORMS NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM AS CSTO MEMBER

Arka News Agency, Armenia
Dec 5 2006

YEREVAN, December 4. /ARKA/. Armenia is a member of the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and forms its national security
system within the CSTO, RA Prime-Minister Andranik Margaryan stated
in his interview to the "Komersant" newspaper.

He pointed out that Armenia considers the relations with NATO an
important component of its policy of European integration.

"Interests of regional security imply cooperation with NATO, and
Armenia will continue implementing joint projects. We intend to
radically improve our cooperation with NATO," Margaryan said.

According to him, Armenia consistently supports the development of
regional cooperation under the "Partnership for peace" program and
NATO’s related steps.

The Individual Partnership Program has played the key role in the
NATO-Armenia relations since 2004. The Program covers all possible
cooperation spheres and is an effective mechanism for further
development of the cooperation, Margaryan said.

As to the possibility of NATO establishing a foothold in the South
Caucasus, Margaryan pointed out that it is up to any sovereign state
to join an international organization. "In the context, we understand
Georgia’s desire to join NATO. It is important to prevent the formation
of new dividing lines in our restless region with quite a number of
unsettled problems," Margaryan said.

ARMENIAN, IRANIAN GOVERNMENTS SIGN NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS ON AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Arka News Agency, Armenia
Dec 5 2006

YEREVAN, December 4. /ARKA/. Armenian and Iranian governments signs a
number of agreements on the agricultural sector. Armenian Minister of
Agriculture David Lokyan reported at the official ceremony of signing
of the agreements that the bilateral cooperation is beneficial for
both countries, and we have a few directions in which it will be most
effectively developed.

"The most effective segments of cooperation under the bilateral
agreements are particularly flower-growing, hothouse market-gardening,
seed-growing and livestock-breeding," he said.

Lokyan said that according to these agreements, working groups will
be created at the two countries’ ministries of agriculture that will
discuss establishment of disinfectants production in Armenia with
Iran’s support.

The minister pointed out that according to one of the agreements
Armenia is to supply Iran with 2000 tons of mutton and 6000 tons
of beef and veal annually during 2007-2009. Besides this, Armenia
will assist Iran in importing species of trout, and Iran will take
an active part in breeding new species of fish in Armenia. At the
same time, Lokyan reported that the Iranian ministry of agriculture
intends to render scientific and technical assistance to Armenia with
introduction of drip irrigation system to the country.

He explained that a number of verbal agreements.

In his turn, Iranian Minister of Agriculture Mohammad Reza Escandari
pointed out that Iran and Armenia have a positive potential for
cooperation that will contribute to further strengthening and
development of relations in the agricultural sector.

Armenian and Iranian governments signed agreements on cooperation in
the sanitary and veterinary sector, in the sector of protection of
plants and phytosanitary quarantine, and memorandum on understanding
on cooperation in the agricultural sector on November 29.

FOOTBALL EUROPE: ARMENIA SALUTES SHAHGELDYAN AGAIN

UEFA (English)

Dec 5 2006

FC MIKA striker Armen Shahgeldyan has been named as Armenia’s Player
of the Year for the second time having first landed the award while
at FC Ararat Yerevan 13 years ago.

Second award The experienced striker, who has scored eight times in
48 international appearances for Armenia, got 14 goals in 26 domestic
appearances this season. The 33-year-old, who was also Armenia’s Player
of the Year in 1993, received 191 points in the poll organised by the
Football Federation of Armenia in which coaches, club presidents,
referees and football writers all had a vote. FC Pyunik defender
Robert Arzumanyan came second with 161 points while third-placed FC
Banants midfielder Samvel Melkonyan earned 101 points.

HOLY SEE SAYS BUCHAREST CATHEDRAL AT RISK

Zenit News Agency, Italy
Dec 5 2006

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 4, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See wants a halt
to the construction of a skyscraper that would endanger the historic
Catholic cathedral of Bucharest.

The Vatican press office published a communique today asking the
appropriate Romanian authorities to suspend the construction.

The note states that the construction of a building — of 19 floors
above ground level and four below — at a distance of less than 10
meters from the northeast wall of the Cathedral of St. Joseph, risks
damaging the church irreparably.

"Concerns are aggravated by the precedent of the Armenian church,
which suffered grave damage for similar reasons," explains the note.

According to the Vatican, the construction of the skyscraper goes
against "the provisions of the 1993 European Union Treaty concerning
Legal Conditions and Measures for Preserving Cultural Heritage, to
which Romania adhered, and the State Commission Report for Monitoring
Building."

The Romanian Senate has already approved the report of the commission
of inquiry, which requests the immediate suspension of work.

The Holy See explained: "This should be followed by a decision on
the part of the appropriate authorities."

OSCE SAYS NAGORNO-KARABAKH TO BE RESOLVED WITHIN A YEAR

Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran
Dec 5 2006

Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht who currently chairs the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said Monday
that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is "in reach within
one year."

"We have made really substantial progress if not a breakthrough with
respect to Nagorno-Karabakh," de Gucht told a press conference in
Brussels Monday night following the end of the first day of the 2-day
OSCE ministerial meeting.

The Belgian foreign minister said he has held several meetings with
the Presidents of both Azerbaijan and Armenia.

"The trust between the two countries has grown considerably," he noted.

On other "frozen conflicts" in former Soviet states such as Abkhazia
and South Ossetia regions in Georgia, in Moldova , de Gucth said no
text was possible because of Russian opposition.

"There is a clear refusal on the Russian side even to discuss it.

No text possible," he said.

Foreign ministers from the 56 OSCE member states are holding their
annual Ministerial Council in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday.

The OSCE is a western security organisation founded in 1973, which
is concerned with conflict prevention, election observing and the
rehabilitation of post-conflict areas.