NEW MINISTER ALARMED BY DECLINING EDUCATION STANDARDS
By Astghik Bedevian
Radio Liberty. Czech Rep.
June 13 2006
The newly appointed Education Minister Levon Mkrtchian pledged on
Tuesday to embark on a sweeping reform of Armenia’s education sector
to reverse what he described as an alarming post-Soviet decline in
education standards.
“There is a clear decline in our education sector,” admitted
Mkrtchian. “Armenia is gradually losing its high level of education.
We used to compared ourselves with European countries but are now
being compared to Central Asia.”
“If we continue to move down this path, I am sure that we will lose
the remaining quality of our education system,” he said.
Mkrtchian, who had already served as education minister in 1998-99
and 2001-03, acknowledged that he has also been responsible for the
ongoing erosion of that quality. It is widely attributed to a lack
of government funds channeled into education as well as the resulting
lack of motivation among schoolteachers and university professors.
Bribery and nepotism is also seen as a serious problem facing the
sector.
Government officials have said that Armenia’s ongoing transition to
12-year primary and secondary schooling, supported by Western donors,
will help to reverse this trend. But according to Mkrtchian, that
reform alone will not improve the situation unless it is accompanied
by a “radical revision” of school curricula.
The minister, who is a leading member of the governing Armenian
Revolutionary Federation, also pledged to crack down on dozens
of private universities where education standards leave much to
be desired.

LOCAL BOYS DO GOOD FOR PYUNIK
by Khachik Chakhoyan
UEFA, Switzerland
June 13 2006
After nine rounds of the 2006 Armenian season, FC Pyunik’s new influx
of homegrown talent looks like leading them to a sixth successive
title.
Young recruits
FC Banants and FC MIKA are doing their best to keep up with the
champions, having boosted their squads with plenty of foreign talent,
but for the moment it is Pyunik who are ruling the roost with newcomers
like Hayk Chilingaryan, Norajr Sahakyan and Gevorg Kazaryan showing
plenty of promise.
U21 internationals
That trio of players are the latest crop of graduates from Pyunik’s
academy and are all playing for Armenia’s Under-21 national team.
However, they could not prevent Pyunik from dropping their first
points of the season as they scraped a 2-2 draw against FC Kilikia
on 4 June thanks to Levon Pachajyan’s late goal.
Banants rallying
Pyunik are six points clear of Banants who have made a stirring
recovery after a bad start to the season. With the foreign and local
players starting to gel as a team, they have impressed in recent
rounds, securing a significant 2-1 win against MIKA on 4 June to
secure second place in the table.
MIKA shaky
Armenian Cup holders MIKA are certainly going through a testing time.
That defeat against Banants was followed by a 3-1 defeat against
Pyunik this week. However, they will be hoping that they can restore
some stability before their UEFA Cup campaign starts in the first
qualifying round.
Foreign policy
The signing of Russian attacking midfielder Nikita Fursin on loan
from FC Salyut Belgorod has brought the total number of foreigners in
the Ashtarak side’s squad to seven, and although he found the target
in his first match – a 4-0 win against FC Shirak – MIKA’s polyglot
signing policy has yet to be vindicated.
Ulis victory
Eight points separate the remaining five clubs in the Premier
Division. At the foot of the table, a change of coach has helped
FC Ulis Yerevan pick up their first points of the season as Arsen
Chilingaryan led them to a 2-1 win against Kilikia on 31 May.
FC Ararat Yerevan remain in fourth with new coach Abraham Khashmanyan
leading them to a 3-2 win against Kilikia in his second game in
charge. They are level on points with FC Gandzasar Kapan who, like
Shirak and Kilikia, can be a match for any team in the league on
their day.

OSKANYAN: COMPREHENSIVE AND ACTIVE DIALOGUE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN ARMENIA, SWITZERLAND
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
June 13 2006
YEREVAN, June 13. /ARKA/. Comprehensive and active dialogue is
established between Armenia and Switzerland, Armenian Foreign Minister
Vardan Oskanyan said as met with his Swiss counterpart Micheline
Calmy-Rey on Monday in Yerevan.
Armenian Foreign Ministry press service reports that Oskanyan finds it
important to make economic and cultural ties between the two countries
closer and expressed hope that Armenian businessmen participation in
Swiss Invest Forum in Zurich will produce significant effect.
Oskanyan expressed appreciation of Switzerland’s contribution to
reformation process in Armenia. As an example of this contribution, the
minister singled out the involvement of Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation in the program focused on developing Armenian resort
of Tsakhkadzor.
He also expressed hope that Swiss side will display its interest in
Armenian rural areas development.
Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey arrived in Yerevan on
Sunday for a three-day visit.
She is set to meet Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Prime
Minister Andaranik Margaryan as well as to tour Mission Armenia
organization and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Office
in Yerevan and to visit Armenian Genocide Memorial to pay floral
tribute to those killed by Ottoman Turks in 1915.

ARMENIA AND SWITZERLAND SIGN AGREEMENT ON DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
June 13 2006
YEREVAN, June 13. /ARKA/. Armenia and Switzerland has signed an
agreement on double taxation avoidance.
The Information and Press Department of the RA Ministry of Foreign
Affairs reports, the agreement was signed by the RA Minister of
Foreign Affairs Vartan Oskanian and federal Councilor and Head of
Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Micheline Calmey-Rey in
Yerevan on June 12.
After the signing ceremony Calmey-Rey expressed belief that this
agreement is to become a stimulus for development of relations between
businessmen of two countries.
She also pointed out willingness of the Swiss side to go on with
initiatives on implementation of various programs in Armenia, within
bounds of which Swiss Government gave 4 mln Swiss francs to Armenia
in 2006.
In his turn Oskanian briefly presented present stage of Karabakh
conflict and Armenian-Turkish relations, as well as statement of the
Official Yerevan regarding Destruction of Armenian cemeteries and
khachkars (cross-stones) on the territory of Old Jugha in Nakhichevan
(Azerbaijan), sent to corresponding infrastructures, namely to the
Council of Europe, OSCE and UNESCO.
Calmey-Rey was in Armenia on June 11-13. During her visit she met
with the RA President Robert Kocharyan and Prime Minister Andranik
Margaryan.
Calmey-Rey visited also offices of Mission Armenia Swiss organization
and Swiss agency for development and cooperation, as well as Genocide
Museum in Yerevan and laid wreath to the Genocide Memorial.

YEREVAN ‘AT RISK OF CATASTROPHIC EARTHQUAKE’
By Shakeh Avoyan
Radio Liberty. Czech Rep.
June 13 2006
Armenia is at risk of suffering another catastrophic earthquake
that would wreak havoc on its capital Yerevan and kill hundreds
of thousands of its residents, a leading Armenian seismic engineer
claimed on Tuesday.
Mikael Melkumian, who heads the Armenian Association of Seismically
Safe Construction, said the apocalyptic scenario is based on research
conducted by himself and other local seismologists. Those include
Sergey Balasanian, the late former chief of the National Seismic
Protection Service.
“We arrived at the conclusion that the territory of Yerevan is a very
high-risk area,” Melkumian told a news conference. “If we have an
earthquake in Yerevan with a magnitude similar to that of the [1988]
Spitak earthquake … then almost nothing will be left of Yerevan
because according to our calculations, about 80 percent of buildings
will be destroyed and we will have about 300,000 victims,” he said.
The 1988 earthquake destroyed much of northwestern Armenia, killing
more than 25,000 people and leaving hundreds of thousands of others
homeless. Thousands of them still huddle in ramshackle temporary
shelters. The country had previously been hit by a similarly powerful
calamity in the 17th century. Historians say its epicenter was near
Garni, a village 20 kilometers east of Yerevan.
According to Melkumian, the Garni area is nestled on a dangerous
fault that might one day send powerful tremors to the Armenian capital.
A senior official at the National Seismic Protection Service (NSPS)
shared Melkumian’s concerns. “Professor Melkumian is one of the
best specialists in his field,” the official told RFE/RL, speaking
on the condition of anonymity. “If, God forbids, Yerevan is hit by
an earthquake as powerful as the Spitak earthquake, the number of
victims could be very large indeed, because most buildings here have
become weaker, especially after Spitak, and will not resist tremors.”
Balasanian, who died in a car crash last year, had argued in January
2004 that Armenia is part of a vast seismically active region where
powerful earthquakes are not uncommon. Speaking in the wake of one
such quake that razed the Iranian city of Bam, he warned that Armenia
could be hit hard by its possible powerful aftershocks in the next
few months.
The grim prediction, dismissed by the NSPS, never materialized,
though. The head of the government agency, Alvaro Antonian, argued at
the time that scientists around the world are unable to make precise
quake forecasts.
Still, seismologists and construction specialists agree that many
apartment buildings in Yerevan, built in Soviet times, are vulnerable
to natural disasters. “Yerevan’s condition is not encouraging in
that regard,” said Melkumian. “The main reason for that is that
Yerevan was built in accordance with the former Soviet standards that
underestimated seismic risks.”
Those standards, coupled with a poor quality of construction, have
been widely blamed for the catastrophic death toll from the 1988 quake.

RUSSIAN TAKEOVER OF ARMENIA PIPELINE ‘IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT IRAN’S CONSENT’
By Anna Saghabalian
Radio Liberty. Czech Rep.
June 13 2006
A senior Iranian diplomat indicated on Tuesday that the Armenian
government will need to secure Tehran’s consent if it indeed decides
to grant Russia control over an under-construction pipeline running
from Iran.
Russia’s state-run natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, was reported earlier
this year to have secured ownership of the pipeline as part of a
controversial settlement of its recent gas dispute with Yerevan.
The information was initially confirmed by Gazprom but subsequently
refuted by the Russian giant and senior Armenian officials.
Still, Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian, who is closely involved
in Russian-Armenian economic dealings, was more ambiguous on that
score as he spoke with journalists in April. “Let’s leave that for
the next time as there are interesting things here as well,” he said
in response to a question about a possible Russian takeover of the
Armenian-Iranian pipeline.
“There are no changes yet in the project,” Iran’s deputy ambassador
to Armenia, Ali Akbar Jokar, insisted on Tuesday. “Changes may only
happen with the consent of all parties [to the project.]”
Asked whether his government would object to the possible change of
pipeline ownership, Jokar said, “Since there is nothing concrete,
such a prediction can not be made at this point.”
Work on the first 40 kilometer section of the pipeline, financed by a
$34 million Iranian loan, got underway late last year and is scheduled
to be complete by next January. Armenian and Iranian officials say
the construction is proceeding according to plan.
The pipeline is supposed to ease Armenia’s strong energy dependence on
Russia, presently its sole supplier of gas. Critics of the Armenian
government say its ownership by Gazprom would call into question
this objective.
The implementation of this and other Armenian-Iranian energy projects
would be seriously endangered by possible U.S. military action against
Iran over its ruling regime’s controversial nuclear program.
Hence, Armenian leaders’ repeated calls for a peaceful settlement of
the dispute.
Jokar indicated that Tehran is satisfied with Yerevan’s position on
the issue. “Our friend Armenia wants a peaceful solution to the issue,”
he told reporters.

KENYA: COMMISSION SET TO INVESTIGATE BREACH OF SECURITY ON AIRPORT
Apunyu Bonny
SomaliNet, Somalia
June 13 2006
(SomaliNet) A commission of inquiry to investigate a serious breach
of security at Nairobi’s main airport which took place last week has
been set by the Kenyan Government.
Britain had demanded for a formal explanation from Kenya’s Ministry
of foreign affairs.
The breach of security which involved two Armenian brothers who
brandished weapons when challenged to open their luggage by airport
security staff last week, earlier led to the suspension pf police
Criminal Investigations Department (CID) head Joseph Kamau and 11
other officials.
The two Armenian brothers Instead of being charged, they were quietly
deported, prompting claims they were receiving top-level protection.
The two Armenians first came to public attention during a controversial
raid on a Kenyan newspaper in March.
Kenya’s president, Mwai Kibaki, on Sunday this week, dismissed
newspaper reports of a family connection with the men. The pair,
Artur Sargasyan and Artur Margaryan, have always maintained that they
are innocent businessmen.

WHILE WRITING TRANSDNESTR IS KARABAKH IMPLIED?
“Golos Armenii”
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
June 13 2006
The process of establishment and actual recognition of the so-called
unrecognized states on the CIS territory is being hastened. The report
titled “The State Sovereignty of the Transdnestr Moldavian Republic
(TMR) Pursuant to International Legislation” provides ample evidence
of the fact. The report has been prepared by a group of experts –
scientists from the Oxford, Stanford, Harvard, Cambridge Universities,
as well as the participants of the Dayton agreements on Yugoslavia’s
division.
According to the report’s resume, the TMR corresponds to all the
criteria submitted to the U.N. member countries, and yet the TMR
was formed in line with the international legislation. However,
it is noteworthy that all the postulates the report’s authors are
based upon almost fully correspond to the situation connected with
the declaration of the Nagorno Karabakh’s independence.
While reading the report one considers if “Nagorno Karabakh” is written
instead of “Transdnestr” the substitution will be difficult to notice.
Judge yourselves.
First, the report’s authors say “the territory Transdnestr is situated
on has never been a part of Moldova”; “historically Transdnestr has
never been within Moldova”. The postulate is directly employed to
Nagorno Karabakh. The Armenian party has always stated and confirmed
by a legal folder that Nagorno Karabakh has never been a part of
Azerbaijan in history, just because Azerbaijan state did not exist
up to early XX century, when such a state formation was established
by the Soviet government.
The experts write: “Modern Republic of Moldova bases its emergence
and existence on the one-sided declaration of independence that
announced forced amalgamation of Moldova and Transdnestr implemented
by Stalin at the beginning of the World War II deprived of any “real
legal foundation”, that is to say it was realized illegally…” The
difference between Transdnestr and Nagorno Karabakh is only that
Nagorno Karabakh was included as a curtailed autonomous region
within the Azerbaijani SSR illegally, having no legal basis not at
the beginning of the World War II, but in 1921 by a decision rendered
by a body called “RSDRP Caucasian Bureau”.
Then experts underscore: “The juridical and actual analysis proves
that during the USSR’s collapse Moldavian SSR disintegrated to two
successor states – Moldova and Transdnestr – and that the present
border between them totally corresponds to the traditional historical
border separating them since the early medieval period…” As it
is known, during the USSR’s disintegration the Azerbaijani SSR also
actually broke up to two state formations: Nagorno Karabakh and the
Azerbaijani Republic, yet the latter declared itself to be cessionary
of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 1918, while Nagorno Karabakh was not
within Azerbaijan then. The boundaries of the Azerbaijani SSR and
former Nagorno Karabakh autonomous region were drawn artificially:
certain territories were cut down from the Nagorno Karabakh autonomy.
However, as a result of a war imposed by Azerbaijan on NKR and won
by the latter the borders have become more logical and at present
they reflect the objective historical realities much closer.
The American experts write: “When Moldova withdrew from the Moldavian
SSR Transdnestr had already separated and governed its territory
regardless of Kishinev”, which totally corresponds to the history of
the NKR’s formation as well.
The experts sum up: “Many years of the international practice
reflected in charters enable us to mention the criteria applied to
define statehood: constant population, certain territory, government,
capacity to establish relations with other states. Nowadays Transdnestr
corresponds to all the requirements. It has its own democratically
elected President and a legislative organ being controlled by the
opposition party now. Its government is in command of armed forces
and holds discussions with other states. In case of TMR the state’s
viability is established, as well as legitimacy of the process of
the state’s formation.
Over half a million people living in Transdnestr occupying the
territory of 4,163 cube meters successfully conform with all the
indications of statehood along the lines of the international law.
Transdnestr has well-functioning government with its own organs,
Constitution, currency, levy, law and population surpassing the amount
of inhabitants of a lot of member states of the U.N.”. It all is also
applicable to Nagorno Karabakh, has been repeatedly mentioned by the
international experts, n part, the observers at the elections of the
NKR power bodies. NKR concedes to TMR only in the size of population,
however, the difference is not principal, as there are a lot of states
conceding to the NKR by the size of population in the U. N.
Ruben MARGARYAN P.S. To note, the American experts’ report does not
refer to the fact that, if Russians have already “self-determined”
in Russia, Transdnestr does not have the right to self-determination
…For Ilham Aliyev’s information.

UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER: RUSSIA AND THE US NEED NORMAL RELATIONS
Kommersant, Russia
June 13 2006
Recent statements on Russian-American relations by both sides have
been a cause of concern for me. Our countries are alike in many ways.
Anyone who has lived in Russia and is not given to prejudice will
feel admiration for that great country and its people. Foreigners
have the same feeling when they come to the United States to see and
understand our country. Americans are certain that we as a country
have many of the characteristics that are ascribed to the Russians
as well. So why are relations between our countries becoming worse?
Normal Disagreements
Both sides need to be aware that it is impossible to agree on all
things – there will always be cause for disagreement. Where we cannot
come to an agreement, it is at least necessary to understand the
position of the other side and try to reduce the disagreement and
settle problems in all fields where there is disagreement as quickly
as possible.
Judging impartially, both sides have made many errors. We Americans
look negatively on state control of the media. There is a danger that
the press will lose its ability to tell the authorities the truth,
which is an important element in a democratic system. At the same
time, it is necessary to understand that several oligarchs could
have concentrated enormous political power in their hands when
they established monopolistic control over television in Russia in
the 1990s.
We Americans are concerned by the strengthening of control by the
federal center over the Russian regions. Such centralization could
pose a threat to democracy in Russia. But we are unaware of the fact
that regional leaders in Russia often established regimes of personal
tyranny. It should also not be forgotten that the central authority
has significant influence in the regions in many modern democratic
states, such as France, as well.
At the same time, Russians watch U.S. activities in the countries
that border on Russia with great suspicion. Russians think that
the U.S. is trying to turn the countries surrounding Russia into a
sanitary zone directed against it. At the same time, Washington is
denying that Moscow has the right to create “special relationships”
with its neighbors, similar to those between the U.S. itself and
countries like Mexico, Canada and even Cuba. The changes occurring
near its borders as a result of mass demonstrations and elections
also fill the Russians with suspicion. Moscow assumes that a similar
scenario could be played out in Russia has well.
There should be a simple rule here: preliminary consultations
should be held, attempts should be made to understand each other,
cooperation should be continued on positions that are agreed on,
and no steps should be taken that would be negatively perceived by
the other side without a real need.
Six Practical Steps
There is a rule that, when there is disagreement, work should be
done mainly in those fields where agreement has been reached or
may be reached soon. Based on that, I propose a program that could
be implemented at the upcoming summit in St. Petersburg, in which
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin will take part.
First, it is necessary to wrap up the years-long negotiations on
Russia’s admittance to the WTO before the summit begins or directly
at meetings there.
Second, The U.S. and Russia have all the prerequisites for successful
cooperation in developing safe nuclear energy, especially considering
the growing interest in it in the world community. The U.S. and Russia
are capable of becoming leaders in the development of new technologies
to satisfy the growing demand for energy in the 21st century.
Third, it is necessary to continue to fight against the proliferation
of nuclear weapons. That concerns the Iran problem in particular.
Continuing contacts between U.S. and Russian representatives can
become the basis for a real breakthrough in this issue. Both the U.S.
and Russia should be involved in negotiations with Iran to find a
diplomatic solution to the growing crisis.
Fourth, the U.S., as the world’s largest energy consumer, and Russia,
as one of the main suppliers of oil and natural gas, can do much
during the summit and after it to coordinate their positions and
actions in the field of energy.
Fifth, different approaches to relations with the countries of the
former USSR should be the topic of a closer and more constructive
dialog. In particular, strengthening our bilateral relations can
encourage more active joint efforts to normalize the situation in
Nagorny Karabakh and Transdniestria.
Finally, both sides should work to create institutions for interaction
and improving cooperative processes. A successful starting point may
be the approach today to when the sides work on a conciliated list of
problems and the presidents receive accounts of the course of their
solution. It is possible that more effective coordination at the
level of the presidents would lead to more conciliated activities
on both sides. Long-term movement forward could be helped by the
establishment of working groups to solve specific problems within an
agreed upon time and regular meetings at all levels.
The realization of this program and analogical measures would
allow success to be attained during the summit, which could proceed
from pent up negativity to a constructive dialog. We should build
effective interaction and not destroy its underpinnings. Finally, we
should not forget that progress in politics brings progress in trade
and business. That approach is in the interests of the U.S. and may
become the basis for cooperation between the two countries.
by Thomas R. Pickering, senior vice president of the Boeing
Company, U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation 1993-1996,
U.S. undersecretary of state 1997-200.

ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTER GEARS UP FOR PRESIDENCY
By Emil Danielyan
Eurasia Daily Monitor
June 13 2006
Armenia’s second most powerful official, Defense Minister Serge
Sarkisian, is eliminating the last remaining doubts about his intention
to succeed President Robert Kocharian after the latter completes a
second five-year term in office in 2008. The past few weeks have
made it even clearer that the two men have agreed on a rotation
of power that could allow them to dominate Armenian politics for
another decade. In a country that has failed to hold a single election
recognized as free and fair by the international community, the opinion
of voters is considered marginal for the realization of this scenario.
Sarkisian effectively kicked off his presidential campaign last week
thanks to an event that could hardly be more apolitical. Armenia’s
national chess team notched a victory at the 37th Chess Olympiad,
which ended in Turin on June 4. The six grandmasters and their coach
received a hero’s welcome as they returned to Yerevan two days later
and addressed several thousand people in the city’s Freedom Square.
Sarkisian also received congratulations and delivered a speech to
the jubilant crowd broadcast live by state television. He happens
to be chairman of the Armenian Chess Federation and stayed with the
players in Turin throughout the two-week competition. Some government
officials and even army generals who joined in the celebrations were
quick to claim that this fact was key to the Armenian chess triumph.
Sarkisian, himself a keen chess player, stopped short of explicitly
taking credit for the success, but clearly enjoyed himself, looking
more like a politician on the campaign trail than a sport executive.
For a man long vilified by his political opponents and disliked by
many disgruntled Armenians, it was quite a public relations stunt.
For local observers, it was a taste of things to come.
That Sarkisian is Kocharian’s preferred successor was essentially
confirmed on May 20 by the Armenian president’s national security
adviser, Garnik Isagulian. “One of those who is most experienced and
ready to be the next president of Armenia is Defense Minister Serge
Sarkisian,” he stated at a news conference. “In this case, Armenia’s
current political course will be pursued.”
Indeed, Kocharian could hardly find a more reliable partner who
would guarantee his personal security and let him continue to play
a major role in Armenia’s government. Kocharian and Sarkisian have
long known and worked with each other. They both come from Karabakh,
having jointly governed the Armenian-controlled disputed region
during its successful war with Azerbaijan before ending up in senior
government positions in Armenia. They both were instrumental in the
1998 resignation of Armenia’s first president, Levon Ter-Petrosian,
the man who had brought them to Yerevan.
The Kocharian-Sarkisian duo has proved more effective (and ruthless)
in clinging to power than Ter-Petrosian, securing the allegiance
of a wide range of pro-establishment parties and clans through a
combination of sticks and carrots. The latter have taken the form
of largely insignificant government posts that enable the leaders of
those groups to enrich themselves but not endanger the duo’s exclusive
grip on defense, law-enforcement, the judiciary, foreign affairs, tax
collection, and dealings with large-scale foreign investors. None of
the state institutions managing these key policy areas is accountable
to Armenia’s cabinet of ministers. Kocharian and Sarkisian are also
believed to control a narrow circle of wealthy businessmen that enjoy
a de facto monopoly on lucrative imports of fuel and basic commodities.
The pro-establishment groups, especially those represented in the
government, allow Armenia’s leaders to not only defuse public anger
with their policies but also to somehow legitimize their rule,
which has been tarnished by chronic vote rigging. (Kocharian was
twice “elected” president in 1998 and 2003 and neither election was
deemed democratic by Western observers.) Sarkisian is widely expected
to officially join forces with one of those governing factions to
actively participate in the next parliamentary election, due in May
2007 and seen as a rehearsal of the 2008 presidential ballot. His
most obvious choice is Prime Minister Andranik Markarian’s Republican
Party of Armenia (HHK). However, the powerful defense chief is in
no rush to team up with the HHK, suggesting that he is considering
other options as well.
There has already been speculation about the possibility of Sarkisian
cutting deals with two new, but extremely ambitious, parties sponsored
by Prosecutor-General Aghvan Hovsepian and influential “oligarch”
Gagik Tsarukian. Their emergence earlier this year drew concern from
another member of the governing coalition, the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (HHD). One of its leaders, Hrant Markarian, has charged
that both parties are bent on resorting to large-scale vote buying.
According to Hmayak Hovannisian, a supposedly independent lawmaker who
is reputedly close to Sarkisian, Tsarukian’s “Prosperous Armenia” party
was set up with the aim of securing Kocharian’s political future. The
Armenian leader, he told reporters recently, wants to become prime
minister after handing over the presidency to Sarkisian and therefore
needs to have a serious power base in the next parliament. Hovannisian
further said that Kocharian and Sarkisian would strive to ensure that
the HHK, Prosperous Armenia, and Hovsepian’s “Association for Armenia”
party win the 2007 election at any cost.
This scenario, if true, bodes ill for the freedom and fairness of the
upcoming polls. Kocharian and Sarkisian are widely held responsible
for entrenching Armenia’s post-Soviet culture of electoral fraud,
and there is no reason to expect them to renounce something that has
served them so well.
(Armenian Public Television, June 7; Iravunk, May 26; 168 Zham,
May 23; RFE/RL Armenia Report, May 17)