OSCE MONITORING IN AZERI-ARMENIAN FRONTAL LINE HELD WITHOUT CAUSALITIES
Author: E.Javadova
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
The OSCE monitoring held in the contact lime of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani armed forces near Kuropatkino village of Khojavand District
on Tuesday held without causalities, Ilgar Verdiyev, the spokesman
for the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry announced.
Andjey Casprzyk, the special envoy of the OSCE chairman-in-office,
and his field assistants Peter Key will hold monitoring in the
Azerbaijani side of the frontline.
Imre Palatinus, Harry Eronen and Yuri Aberle, the special envoy’s
field assistants, are in charge of monitoring in the Armenian side
of the contact line.

KAREL DE GUCHT: “I AM NOT PESSIMISTIC, HOWEVER, NOT EXCESSIVELY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT CURRENT YEAR”
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
May 23 2006
“I am not pessimistic, however, not excessively optimistic about
Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement in 2006”, OSCE Chair-in-Office,
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht said, ArmInfo reports quoting
RFE/RL.
According to Karel de Gucht, OSCE is doing its best to bring the
conflict parties to a general resolution of the Karabakh issue. OSCE
Chairman-in-Office suggests that all efforts should be exerted
to find the settlement of the frozen conflict till the end of the
current year. “Everything depends both on Armenia and Azerbaijan;
they should arrive at understanding, while OSCE can only help them
in the matter”, Karel de Gucht stressed.
He also remarked there often were some side obstacles to the frozen
conflicts’ settlement, one of which is the closed Armenian-Turkish
border that hampers the problem’s solution. As for the settlement’s
outlooks, OSCE Chair-in-Office believes we should be optimistic.
“Unless one is optimist he has nothing to do in politics”, he stated.

PACE RAPPORTEUR ON MONITORING OF CULTURAL MONUMENTS, EDWARD O’HARA’S VISIT TO AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA DELAYED
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
PACE rapporteur on monitoring of cultural monuments, Edward O’Hara’s,
British parliamentarian, visit to Azerbaijan and Armenia which was
considered on May 28, delayed, Azerbaijani delegation member to PACE,
Rafael Huseynov has told APA.
According to him, mission headed by O’Hara had been considered to
begin the visit from Azerbaijan: “Today we were informed that O’Hara
has delayed the visit. I will clarify the matter. But presumably the
visit was cancelled by the wish of Armenian side.”
It should be noted that PACE planned to send a mission to region
headed by parliamentarian from Great Britain, on May 28. It was
considered that the mission will prepare report on ancient Alban
historic monuments claimed to be in Nakhchivan, historical monuments
of Azerbaijan and Armenian in Georgia, as well as historical cultural
monuments of Azerbaijan in Armenia, as well as in the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan by Armenians, investigating historical and
cultural monuments in Shusha.

THE YELLOW BADGE OF DENIAL
American Thinker, AZ
May 23 2006
Controversy still swirls over allegations that Iran’s government plans
to require non-Muslims to wear identifying clothing. The Canadian
National Post has retracted its May 19, 2006 report about a putative
Iranian Law requiring non-Muslim minorities-Jews, Christians, and
Zoroastrians-to wear color-coded strips of cloth attached to their
garments, to distinguish them from Muslims. Mr. Amir Taheri, author
of the article, is standing by his report.
Possible overzealous reporting by The National Post aside, the
plausibility of such a law being implemented should not be dismissed
based on the living legacy of Shi’ite religious persecution of
non-Muslims in Iran since the founding of the Shi’ite theocracy in
(then) Persia under Shah Ismail, at the very outset of the 16th
century. Inchoate dress code proposals for non-Muslims apparently
made in the Khatami era are consistent with the original story, and
an Iranian source still maintains “Mr. Taheri was correct in saying
this measure is being discussed and considered.”
Deep Roots
During the intervening half millennium (since 1502), the profoundly
influential Shi’ite clerical elite have emphasized the notion of the
ritual uncleanliness (najis) of not only Jews, but also Christians,
Zoroastrians, and others, as the cornerstone of inter-confessional
relationships towards Iran’s non-Muslims. Non-Muslims’ spiritual
impurity was linked in concrete and indelible ways to their physical
impurity. Professor Laurence Loeb’s seminal analysis of dhimmi Jews
in Shi’ite Persia/Iran (“Outcaste- Jewish Life in Southern Iran,”
1977 ), documents the social impact of najis regulations, beginning
with the implementation of a badge of shame [as] an identifying symbol
which marked someone as a najis Jew and thus to be avoided. From the
reign of Abbas I [1587-1629] until the 1920s, all Jews were required
to display the badge.
With regard to dress, specifically, the stipulations of Al-Majlisi
(d. 1699)-perhaps the most influential Shi’ite cleric of the Safavid
theocracy in Persia-from his late 17th century treatise on non-Muslims
(revealingly entitled, “Lightning Bolts Against the Jews”), are
consistent with the requirements purportedly under discussion by the
contemporary the Iranian Parliament (although, the “color-coding”
differs): it is appropriate that the ruler of the Muslims imposed upon
them clothing that would distinguish then from Muslims so that they
would not resemble Muslims. It is customary for Jews to wear yellow
clothes while Christians wear black and dark blue ones. Christians
[also] wear a girdle on their waists, and Jews sew a piece of silk
of a different color on the front part of their clothes.
The bizarre, humiliating, and enduring nature of the dress regulations
imposed upon the Zoroastrian community of central Iran (Yezd) were
captured in this eyewitness account by Napier Malcolm, (Five Years
in a Persian Town, New York, 1905, pp. 45-50) published in 1905:
Up to 1898 only brown, grey, and yellow were allowed for the qaba
[outer coat] or arkhaluq [under coat] (body garments), but after that
all colors were permitted except blue, black, bright red, or green.
There was also a prohibition against white stockings, and up to
about 1880 the Parsis [Zoroastrians] had to wear a special kind of
peculiarly hideous shoe with a broad, turned-up toe. Up to 1885 they
had to wear a torn cap. Up to 1880 they had to wear tight knickers,
self-colored, instead of trousers.
Following a relatively brief hiatus under Pahlavi reign (marked
by efforts at both secularization and Pre-Islamic revival, from
1925-1979), the Khomeini-inspired restoration of a Shi’ite theocracy
in Iran has been accompanied, predictably, by a revival of najis
regulations. Ayatollah Khomeini stated explicitly, “Non-Muslims of
any religion or creed are najis.” The Iranian Ayatollah Hossein-Ali
Montazeri further elaborated that a non-Muslim’s (kafir’s) impurity
was, “a political order from Islam and must be adhered to by the
followers of Islam, and the goal [was] to promote general hatred
toward those who are outside Muslim circles.”
This “hatred” was to assure that Muslims would not succumb to corrupt,
i.e., non-Islamic, thoughts.
The dehumanizing practical impact of najis regulations were
again observable at points of contact between Muslims and
non-Muslims-wherever non-Muslims owned or operated businesses or
manufacturing facilities whose personnel or products might “pollute”
Muslims (see here, p. 137). For example (see this), shops that sold
sandwiches or bakery goods (foodstuffs associated with minorities)
were forced to display signs stating “especially for minorities.”
Eliz Sanasarian’s important study of non-Muslim religious
minorities during the first two decades after 1979 provides a
striking illustration of the practical impact of this renewed najis
consciousness:
In the case of the Coca-Cola plant, for example, the owner
(an Armenian) fled the country, the factory was confiscated,
and Armenian workers were fired. Several years later, the family
members were allowed to oversee the daily operations of the plant,
and Armenians were allowed to work at the clerical level; however,
the production workers remained Muslim. Armenian workers were never
rehired on the grounds that non-Muslims should not touch the bottles
or their contents, which may be consumed by Muslims.
Thus, if formal badging requirements for non-Muslims were now to be
implemented, these measures would simply mark the further retrogression
of Iran’s non-Muslim religious minorities, completing in full their
descent to a pre-1925 status.
Invoking the Nazis?
Many people have reacted to these reports with a comparison to
Nazi requirements of Jews to wear a yellow Star of David on their
clothing. Major Jewish organizations, including both The Simon
Wiesenthal Center (in an almost apoplectic statement by Rabbi Marvin
Hier, “This is reminiscent of the Holocaust…Iran is moving closer
and closer to the ideology of the Nazis.”
and The American Jewish Committee,
“…the story, with its chilling echoes of the Shoah, is another
heinous example of the Iranian regime’s contempt for human rights”
have followed this rhetorical path.
I sent my original background essay on this sad state of affairs
to ranking officials in the Wiesenthal Center, and the American
Jewish Committee (AJC). Their responses were neither edifying nor
reassuring. The Wiesenthal Center official acknowledged that my essay
raised an “historical and Islamic context” which “factored in”, but
was (apparently) trumped by this non-sequitur observation, i.e., the
“…proliferation of Iranian websites and blogs that are appearing
in the last two months that specifically embrace and promote Nazism”.
The official from the AJC rebuked me for even discussing
“…legislation that to the best of our knowledge at this time does
not exist.”
In response I posed the following five questions to the AJC official
(and they certainly apply to the Wiesenthal Center as well), which
remain unanswered:
~U Why doesn’t the American Jewish Committee (AJC) discuss…what
najis is, how najis (practices) have been restored under Khomeini (and
continued under his successors), and thus why the initial report of
“badging” was plausible?
~U Why didn’t the AJC include this clear statement from Prof. Laurence
Loeb’s study of the Jews of Iran (Loeb lived there to do his
anthropological field work) published in 1977, as appropriate
background?
[the] badge of shame [as] an identifying symbol which marked someone
as a najis Jew and thus to be avoided. From the reign of Abbas I
[1587-1629] until the 1920s, all Jews were required to display
the badge
~U What does any of this have to do with “Nazism”?
~U Why can’t AJC and the other major Jewish organizations speak
honestly based upon the real (and sadly living) history of
such sanctioned Islamic doctrines-najis, the dhimmi condition,
discriminatory badging, etc.-and their implementation for centuries
(in Iran)?
~U What is to be gained by such denial and obfuscation other than
further isolating us (i.e., Jews-I was writing as a Jew, albeit a
“lapsed” Jew) as a tiny minority from the rest of the victims of jihad
hatred (in this case the Christians and Zoroastrians also targeted
by the putative dress regulations)?
While memories of the Holocaust are fresher and more widely held than
memories of traditional Islamic oppression of Jews, such comparisons
should be avoided. To invoke the Holocaust blinds us to the far
longer and much more deeply-rooted traditions in the Islamic world
which predate the rise of Nazism by well over a millennium.
In our struggle to defend our civilization and our freedoms, we must
understand our enemy. Those who insist that anti-Semitism be seen
exclusively through the lens of Nazism and the Holocaust divert our
attention and hobble our understanding of the forces against which
we defend ourselves.
It is my fervent hope that I receive serious, informed responses
to the five queries posed to the AJC so as not to squander this
“teachable moment.”
Andrew Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad.
p?article_id=5519

MOSCOW CANNOT RECOGNIZE NAGORNO-GARABAGH
Ïðaâî Âûaîða, Azerbaijan
Democratic Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
The official Moscow, concerned with serious steps taken by South
Caucasus countries for integration to NATO, is trying to exert upon
them pressure. Reinforced pressure upon Ukraine and Georgia due to
enlargement of their cooperation with NATO the official Moscow is
dissatisfied with Azerbaijan-NATO cooperation.
Recently one of political scientists of Russia stated that if
Azerbaijan becomes a Member of NATO, Russia will recognize so-called
“Nagorno-Garabagh Republic”. Such statements made by Russia can be
regarded just as bluff, as membership to NATO has not any attitude
to settlement of Nagorno-Garabagh conflict. In turn, experts inform
that this statement concerns mainly Armenia, but not Azerbaijan.
Mubariz Ahmedoghlu, Chairman of Political Technologies & Innovations
Center, notes that this statement is directed to Armenian community.
According to him, Armenian public opinion is predisposed to Russia and
for further existing of this factor Caucasus Institute of Democracy
brings the distinguished scholars from Moscow monthly.
Political expert notes that the statement concerning recognition of
“NGR” by Russia if Azerbaijan to accede to NATO, was made by one of
these scholars. In general, the official Moscow maintains very careful
position on this point. Russia does not recognize Nagorno-Garabagh
as Azerbaijan can accede to NATO, says M.Ahmedoghlu.
Talking of NATO-Russia relationship M.Ahmedoghlu noted the fact that
Russia has unfavorable attitude to NATO’s endeavor to collaborate
with the countries of East. According to him, Russia is concerned
with that in NATO autumn session Georgia and Ukraine will sign an
official agreement on accession. In addition, in due time Russia
opposed accession of Baltic States to NATO. “I heard such statements
when the countries of Eastern Europe acceded to NATO, but I do not
remind that Russia has taken any concrete steps. I think that Russia
will oppose accession of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, but I do not
believe its determination. As the experience proves, when Russia
speaks, NATO acts”.
Regarding Azerbaijan’s integration into Euro-Atlantic structures M.
Ahmedoghlu reminded that our country is cooperating with NATO within
the framework of Partnership for Peace Programme. He informed that he
does not expect that the official Baku will apply for accession to
NATO: “Azerbaijan’s foreign policy is well-balanced. Azerbaijan can
think about membership to NATO when it meets all standards of this
organization. If Azerbaijan is not yet ready to take such a step,
there is no need to create problems in relationship with Russia. Our
country desires to collaborate with West as well as with Russia. Our
policy is the integration into the western countries but this process
implies a number of various versions. For instance, Georgia has chosen
such version albeit is obliged to be at enmity with Russia.
Azerbaijan won’t do it in order to keep the friendliest relations
with Russia. From point of this view, Azerbaijan does not hasten to
accede to NATO”.
–Boundary_(ID_hZKSRIrMs3l8MRosBjNBzQ)–

HOUSE FOREIGN AID PANEL REINSTATES US POLICY ON SECURITY PARITY APPROVES $62 MILLION FOR ARMENIAIN FY FOREIGN AID BILL
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
May 23 2006
The Armenian Assembly praised members of a key foreign aid subcommittee
today for reinstating U.S. policy to maintain military aid parity
between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Foreign
Operations bill. Earlier this year, the Administration submitted a
request for Azerbaijan that exceeded security assistance to Armenia
by $1.095 million.
Lawmakers approved a symmetrical appropriation that amounts to $3.5
million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and an additional $790,000
in International Military Education and Training (IMET) assistance
to both Armenia and Azerbaijan.
“We appreciate the efforts of the House Appropriations Committee
and credit its Foreign Operations Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jim
Kolbe (R-AZ) and Ranking Member Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-NY)
for maintaining equal security assistance between Armenia and
Azerbaijan,” said Assembly Executive Director Bryan Ardouny. “We
especially appreciate the outstanding leadership of Armenian Caucus
Co-Chair and Committee Member, Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), for his
efforts in restoring parity and protecting the fragile cease-fire
at a time when Azerbaijan continues to threaten a resumption of war
against Nagorno Karabakh.” Following the vote, Knollenberg told the
Assembly that “It is vitally important that Congress maintain military
assistance parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We do not want to
unintentionally disturb the delicate balance of power that exists
in the South Caucasus nor weaken our credibility as an impartial and
leading mediator in the Nagorno Karabakh peace process.”
“Given the fact that relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan continue
to be tenuous, it is imperative that the U.S. maintain a
balanced approach,” said Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone,
Jr. (D-NJ). “Furthermore, I am pleased that the Committee called
for a higher allocation to Armenia than that requested by the
Administration.”
The FY 2007 foreign aid bill also includes $62 million in economic aid
to Armenia and up to $5 million in humanitarian assistance to Nagorno
Karabakh. The level of funding for Armenia, although less than the
amount Congress appropriated in FY 2006, is $12 million more than
that requested by the Administration in February. In that request,
the Administration also called for an additional $1 million in FMF to
Azerbaijan over Armenia and suggested $885,000 for Azerbaijan versus
$790,000 for Armenia in IMET assistance.
The overall request level reflects a $41 million drop in assistance
for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, from $482
million in 2006 to $441 million in 2007.
During the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee
hearing in April, the Assembly submitted testimony for the hearing
record, outlining the need for Congress to continue funding to
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. Additionally, the Assembly supported
a letter initiated by Pallone and Armenian Caucus Member Rep. George
Radanovich (R-CA) and co-signed by 48 additional Members of Congress,
highlighting important priorities for Armenia and Karabakh.
The bill will be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee
this week. Once the House of Representatives and Senate complete
action on their versions of the bill, a joint House-Senate Conference
Committee will reconcile the differences.

US DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICIALS TO HOLD TALKS ON TOP IN BAKU
Author: R.Abdullayev
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
During the two-day visit to Azerbaijan the US Assistant Secretary of
State, Daniel Fried, and the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair, US Ambassador
Steven Mann , are scheduled to hold meetings at the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the Azerbaijani President Apparat.
Jonathan Henick, the spokesman for the US embassy in Baku, told
Trend that no event with the participation of the US officials has
been scheduled.
Along with US officials, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir
Karasin and the Director of the French Foreign Institute for political
issues, Stanislav D’Labule will pay a visit to Azerbaijan on 24 May.
The two-day visit will focus on the situation with the resolution of
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
They will be accompanied by OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, Russian
Ambassador Yuriy Merzlyakov, and French Ambassador Bernard Fassie.
Earlier, the Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian said that the
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group visit Armenia on 25-26 May.

ARMENIAN DEPUTY OUSTED AFTER JUST EIGHT MONTHS
By Jean Christou
Cyprus Mail, Cyprus
May 23 2006
TWO of the three religious minority incumbents were re-elected
on Sunday as observers in parliament, while the third Armenian
representative Dr Vahakn Atamyan, only elected last October in a
by-election, was ousted by newcomer Vartkes Mahdessian.
Atamyan, who was not available for comment yesterday, lost his seat
by only 89 votes. He garnered 47.3 per cent of the Armenian vote,
which translated into 810 voters compared to 52.6 per cent, or 899
votes, for Mahdessian.
The Armenian community is split on a number of issues, not least the
closure of the Melkonian Educational Institute.
Prior to the election, Atamyan had admitted he was not too happy about
having to through another election so soon. He told the Cyprus Mail
that he only had eight months to show some progress, and that time
was too short.
Along with the Armenians, Maronites and Latins voted on Sunday.
Maronite incumbent Antonis Hadjiroussos beat out three other candidates
to hold on to his seat with 43.7 per cent of the vote.
His nearest rival was Ioannis Poyadjis who secured 29.6 per cent.
Poyadjis was the Maronite representative in the House from 1991
to 1996.
Hadjiroussos said yesterday he owed a debt of thanks to those who
supported him. “I will now work to bring together the Maronite people
so that they can be united,” he said. “There is a lot of work to
be done.”
Just over 3,000 Maronites voted, around half of their number on the
island, although many live in the north.
The Latin community, which had two candidates to choose from, voted
for incumbent Benito Mantovani, who secured 61.8 per cent compared
to 38.1 for rival Maria Markou. Mantovani and Markou fought it out
for a total of 372 votes.
“I am happy that the Latin community has approved of my work and
approved of what I said in my campaign,” Mantovani told the Cyprus
Mail yesterday. One of the big issues for the Latin community was
the creation of a cemetery in Nicosia.
Mantovani said he had already persuaded the government prior to the
election, to give land for the cemetery, and also a grant of £5,000
from the £20,000 he asked for. He said he kept pressing for the other
£15,000. “Today they sent us the other £15,000,” he said.
The three minority candidates do not have a vote in the House,
although all three said before the election that it was something
they would consider pushing for.
–Boundary_(ID_IeOIabqfkXzG82uyYw0j2Q)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN GOVERMENT CALM AFTER COALITION BREAK-UP
Haroutiun Khachatrian for Eurasianet
ISN, Switzerland
May 23 2006
The resignation of Armenian parliamentary speaker Artur Baghdasarian
may signal his preparation for a higher office. But, even though he
has left his post, the effect on the government appears to be minimal.
Artur Baghdasarian formally vacated on 22 May his post as Armenia’s
parliamentary speaker, completing the withdrawal of his Orinats Yerkir
Party from the country’s governing coalition. Experts in Yerevan don’t
expect the shake-up to have much of an immediate impact on government
policy, but suggest that the withdrawal could boost both Baghdasarian’s
and his party’s political fortunes in upcoming elections.
Addressing MPs after the acceptance of his letter of resignation,
Baghdasarian sounded like a politician already on the campaign trail.
Armenia is scheduled to hold parliamentary elections in 2007 and a
presidential poll the following year. “Social surveys show that 70
per cent of Armenia’s population is afraid […] We will fight for a
free society,” Baghdasarian said, according to a report distributed
by the A1-Plus web site. “When we said that the state must support
young families, they [political rivals] said it was populism. It is
not populism; it is the road to the development of our country.”
Baghdasarian also maintained it was in the country’s best interest
to pursue integration with Western economic and security structures,
while attempting to cast Orinats Yerkir’s departure from the governing
coalition as the party leadership’s choice. “Many good things have
been accomplished, but many have been left out,” Baghdasarian said,
referring to his party’s participation in the governing coalition. “Now
we have decided to follow our own route.”
In addressing parliament, Baghdasarian studiously avoided criticism
of President Robert Kocharian.
Baghdasarian signaled on 12 May his intention to resign as speaker,
a day after party leaders voted to pull out of the coalition. Although
seeking to portray themselves as the initiators, many experts believe
that Prime Minister Andranik Markarian pushed Orinats Yerkir, or the
Country of Law party, out of the coalition for conduct damaging to the
government’s interests. In the weeks leading up to his resignation,
the former speaker had been outspoken in his criticism of the
government’s continued reliance on a special political relationship
with Russia. Starting with an 19 April interview published in the
influential German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he began to
make forceful appeals for Armenia to turn away from Russia and toward
the European Union and NATO.
Markarian has maintained that Baghdasarian’s actions constituted
a violation of a 2003 power-sharing agreement, which stated that
coalition members would attempt to reconcile policy differences in
private before making them public. Baghdasarian evidently made no
attempt to do so before the newspaper interview’s appearance. Orinats
Yerkir was created in 1998, thrusting Baghdasarian, who was at the
time only 30 years old, into the center of Armenian political life.
The party, with apparently strong backing from Kocharian and other
top leaders, gained eight seats in the 1999 parliamentary vote,
and went on to secure 20 in the 2003 elections.
Over the near term, experts in Yerevan believe few, if any policy
changes will occur, as the government retains a solid majority
in parliament. On some issues, including the political future of
Nagorno-Karabakh, Orinats Yerkir’s position remains closely aligned
with those of the governing coalition, which also includes Markarian’s
Republican Party and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Following
the 2003 parliamentary elections, Orinats Yerkir had the second largest
parliamentary faction, and it received three ministerial portfolios
under the power-sharing agreement. Amid Baghdasarian’s spat with other
governing coalition leaders, the party experienced a considerable
number of defections. The 10 lawmakers who left Orinats Yerkir’s
parliamentary faction have established themselves as independents,
retaining a pro-government orientation.
The party also lost three cabinet portfolios allocated to it under
the 2003 power-sharing agreement.
Though currently operating in a severely weakened state, many observers
expect Orinats Yerkir to quickly recover, and, ultimately, benefit
from leaving the coalition. Re-casting itself as an opposition force
will likely increase the party’s competitiveness in the 2007 vote,
analysts say. “It will be beneficial to create an image of a party
that suffered due to the actions of authorities,” said a commentary
published by the Iravunk opposition weekly.
Iravunk went on to suggest Baghdasarian likely has his eye on
the presidency, saying that he “may have good chances later to
follow the path of Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili, to
make a turn from the ‘internal opposition of the authorities’ to an
‘orange opposition'”. But Baghdasarian has steadfastly sought to avoid
comparisons with the leaders of the recent revolutions in Ukraine and
neighboring Georgia. At a 12May news conference, he did not seek to
antagonize his erstwhile political allies, and insisted it was “too
early” to discuss the possibility of his candidacy for the presidency.
EurasiaNet () provides information and analysis
about political, economic, environmental, and social developments in
the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as in Russia,
the Middle East, and Southwest Asia. The website presents a variety
of perspectives on contemporary developments, utilizing a network
of correspondents based both in the West and in the region. The aim
of EurasiaNet is to promote informed decision making among policy
makers, as well as broadening interest in the region among the general
public. EurasiaNet is operated by the Central Eurasia Project of the
Open Society Institute.

POVERTY LEVEL REDUCTION OBSERVED IN ARMENIA
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 23 2006
YEREVAN, May 23. /ARKA/. A considerable reduction in the poverty
level has been recorded in Armenia as a result of implementation
of the poverty reduction program in 2003-2005, says a report on
the program for 2004 and for the 1st half of 2005 approved by the
Coordinating Council.
During the period under review the situation was generally more
favorable than had been expected under the program. Specifically,
the actual per capita GDP index in 2004 met the forecasts for 2007,
and that for 2005 ($1,524) met the forecasts for 2011.
The poverty level was to be reduced to 39% in 2006, and that of abject
poverty was to be reduced to 7.2% in 2013.
The increase in the poor population’s incomes and the government
expenditure policy remain the principal factor in poverty reduction The
report points out that the poverty reduction policy was a success due
to active involvement of the political community and private sector
as well as of donor organizations.
The RA Government’s strategic program for 2003-2015 envisages the
reduction of poor population from 50% to 19.7%. In the medium-term
period, (before 2006), 6% economic growth is expected, and 5-5.5 per
cent economic growth in the long-term period. Foreign funding of the
strategic program is to make about $1.2bln.