NKR PRESIDENT, ARMENIAN BANKERS DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT OF NKR BANKING SYSTEM
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
July 12 2006
STEPANAKERT, July 12. /ARKA/. President of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic (NKR) Arkady Ghukasyan and representatives of Armenia’s
banking sector discussed issues of comprehensive development of the
NKR’s banking system.
The NKR presidential press service reports that participating in the
meeting were Chairman of the Central Bank of Armenia Tigran Sargsyan
and Chairman of the Union of Banks of Armenia Stepan Ghyshyan.
The sides discussed issues of expanding the NKR banking sector’s
cooperation with Armenian and foreign partners and of increasing the
country’s credit resources.
Among other promising spheres of cooperation President Ghukasyan
proposed the involvement of Armenia’s banking sector in renovating
the health resort infrastructure in Shushi.
Attending the meeting were also NKR Minister of Territorial
Administration and Infrastructure Development Armo Tsatryan, Board
Chairman, Artsakhbank, Kamo Nersisyan, and Head of the Shuhsi regional
administration Vladik Kasyan. P.T. -0–

KHOSROV HARUTYUNYAN: NAGORNO-KARABAKH SETTLEMENT CANNOT CAUSE SERIOUS
POLITICAL PROCESSES IN ARMENIA
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
July 12 2006
YEREVAN, July 12. /ARKA/. The Nagorno-Karabakh settlement cannot
cause any serious political processes in Armenia, Chairman of the
Christian-Democratic Union of Armenia (CDUA) Khosrov Harutyunyan
told reporters.
“We are far from thinking that the 2007 parliamentary elections and
the Nagorno-Karabakh problem may be the principal factor that would
cause social excitement in Armenia,” Harutyunyan said.
Since the public is sensitive to the Karabakh problem, the
declassification of the negotiating process might seem to cause
political unrest in Armenia.
“To the credit of Armenia’s political forces, we must state that both
the opposition and the political majority prove to be up to the mark
and treated the problem with understanding,” Harutyunyan said.
According to him, drawing parallels with 1998 (when power changed
in Armenia as a result of disagreements over the Karabakh problem)
would be irrelevant.
Harutyunyan believes that the current situation is different. He
pointed out that both Azerbaijan and Armenia’s authorities agreed to
the terms contained in the document on settlement proposed in 1998,
whereas Nagorno-Karabakh and some of Armenia’s political forces were
against it.
“Today Azerbaijan is against the framework agreement, while Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh state that this is a sufficient basis for further
negotiations. Therefore, those thinking of a change of power in
Armenia now must realize that, after coming to power, they will have
to agree to Azerbaijan’s proposals, which is principally impossible,”
Harutyunyan said.
On June 23, American Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew
Bryza stated that the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict were
discussing a framework agreement under which Armenia forces were to
leave Azerbaijan’s territories under their control.
The agreement also envisages the stationing of peace-making forces in
the conflict zone, international assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh and
the region’s economic development. The final stage is a referendum
on the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). P.T. -0–

PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN ILHAM ALIYEV: ARMENIA IS NOW ISOLATED FROM
ALL THE INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 12 2006
“Despite all Armenians’ efforts to hamper realization of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, I am convinced that we will realize this
project. Indeed, the Armenian lobby is striving for some organizations,
international structures not to support this project”, said President
Ilham Aliyev in an interview to Turkey’s Cumhuriyet newspaper.
The President said “our current situation allows us to be independent
of other organizations. We have possibilities, and we have funds.
Azerbaijan is prepared to fulfill its financial obligation”.
“Therefore, this Armenian policy will fail to succeed; Azerbaijan
will become stronger, and take stronger position in the region.
Armenia is now isolated from all the international projects, and
their situation will further worsen,” President added.

“Zerkalo”: “Ovanesyan Wanted to be a Hero in Armenia”
Ïðaâî Âûaîða, Azerbaijan
Democratic Azerbaijan
July 12 2006
Milli Mejlis Deputy, Rabiyat Aslanova, cannot give another explanation
to the conduct of Armenian vice-speaker Recently summer session of
OSCE Parliament was finished in Brussels.
As members of Azerbaijan delegation say, session was successful
enough. Particularly, member of Azerbaijan delegation, head of
standing commission of Milli Mejlis on human rights, Rabiyat
Aslanova, informed “Zerkalo”, 25 amendments to OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly resolution were proposed on their part. “Some of them were
supported by European parliament members, and they were accepted”,
deputy stated. Unlike Armenian delegation, as R. Aslanova holds,
Azerbaijani side was very active and its activity was positive. “In
the course of discussions of the project resolution on human rights,
35 amendments were made, 6 out of them belong to Azerbaijani side,
whereas Armenians proposed just one amendment. And how do you think,
what was their amendment…Ovanesyan just added 4 words to the
one of items concerning development of diplomatic relations among
states, namely, development should be realized via “non-governmental,
political, administrative structures”. And it was all he wanted to
say”, R. Aslanova underlined.
Armenians always said that Armenia didn’t partake in regional projects,
at the same time pointing to “economic development of Azerbaijan”,
she added. “But they fail to tell who can be blamed for it. They
have no courage to confess that they are in isolation due to their
own fault”, deputy emphasized.
Armenian delegation holds that Armenia is the winner of this session,
as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey were defeated. This view belongs
to vice speaker of Armenian parliament, head of delegation to OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly, Vaan Ovanesyan. It is clearly seen in the
interview of Ovanesyan for “Regnum” agency. “In the course of the
meeting of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Georgia and Azerbaijan
proposed two resolutions. First resolution concerns the fact that
conflict should be regulated by return of disputable territories.
Three states – Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey – out of all OSCE
member-states supported this proposal. This time, our cooperation
with USA, Russia, Canada and France was very effective” he continued.
Accordingly to him, in second resolution, Azerbaijan, Georgia and
Turkey underlined that regardless of the status of Kosovo, it won’t
be precedent. “With the help of Russia we managed to succeed: no
state but the mentioned ones voted for adoption of this resolution.
Thus, future status of Kosovo can be precedent, and disputable matters
can be solved”, vice speaker stated. V. Ovanesyan also informed that
for the first time the issue on self-determination of nations basing
on Montenegro’s referendum entered on OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
resolutions. “It is good example for finding right balance between
frontiers issue and rights of nation to sell-determination. Voting
showed that solving of matters on this basis is acceptable”, he
underlined. At the same time, Commission on Human Rights, humanitarian
issues and democratic reforms of OSCE PA started dispute connected
with national minorities, including Armenian populated region
Zamzkhe-Javakheti (Georgia). “Head of Belgian senate proposed very
important document, but she didn’t explain mechanisms of solving such
issues. We added that national minorities should have possibilities to
show themselves in policy, administrative authorities and NGOs. Canada,
Russia and Monaco supported us. Resolution was adopted by majority of
votes. In turn, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey proposed to enter on
following idea – national minorities are obliged to respect territorial
integrity of country, moreover, no one can justify terrorism. I
prepared the report on this theme, but I couldn’t take floor. Spanish
delegation attacked them. Accordingly to Spanish delegation members,
if country where they live doesn’t respect their rights, national
minorities have right not to respect its territorial integrity”,
Ovanesyan said.
Having denied the words of Armenian vice speaker, R. Aslanova
stressed that he attempted to mislead journalists and society. In
fact, in our amendments to OSCE PA resolution there are many items
that would serve interests of Azerbaijan. “I’m reading what documents
states. Frozen conflicts and numerous negative phenomena connected
with them undermine stability, preventing stable development and
impede process of general influence on integration”, deputy concluded.
J. Bayramova
–Boundary_(ID_Ck+UolWzPqd/gsDoKjsO0g)- –

>From Orhan Pamuk to Oriana Fallaci
Brussels Journal, Belgium
July 12 2006
>From the desk of James McConalogue on Tue, 2006-07-11 23:56
In Turkey, Orhan Pamuk has recently taken to defending a controversial
female columnist – Perihan Magden – after the Turkish Armed Forces
pursued a case against the author for objecting and denigrating
military service. Since the defendant, Magden, is a female supporting
Mehmet Tarhan, a homosexual citizen, it has become a case not simply
considering the place of women and homosexuals in Turkish culture, but
more importantly, a case highlighting the right that all individuals
have to express themselves, given the intrusive status of religion in
public life. The cases of these authors demonstrate the very reason(s)
why it continues to be necessary to defend the freedom of expression
on religious matters in Europe’s transitional democracies.
In Late December 2005, Pamuk found himself embroiled in a case
of defending his right to free expression. His homeland of Turkey
brought charges against him for “insulting Turkishness” after he had
claimed in a Swiss newspaper, Tages Anzeiger, that 30,000 Kurds and
one million Ottoman Armenians were killed in Turkey yet nobody would
dare to talk about it. He attended a court in Istanbul for his trial.
The case was dropped on 22 January 2006 after the Ministry of Justice
held that it was not legally viable for the country to intervene. For
a country desperate for EU entry, and confident on proving basic
liberal credentials, it was a sensible move. More recently, Elif
Shafak – author of The Bastard of Istanbul – also faces charges of
“insulting Turkishness” under the notorious Article 301 of the Turkish
Criminal Code.
However, Pamuk’s case clearly demonstrates the religious boundaries
that have to be challenged in order to attain free expression in
transitional democratic countries. The trial of Pamuk was (rightfully)
thrown out in January this year. The trial of his Italian counterpart,
Oriana Fallaci, was due to begin on 12th June this year but has been
delayed. Italy has encountered similar problems. While Italy, like
Turkey, is attempting to run a nation by its demos, it still remains –
in law, electoral politics and political culture – a variant democracy
in transition.
A modern Italian journalist whose writing on Islam has tended to cause
insult is Oriana Fallaci. Perhaps unlike other writers, such as Salman
Rushdie in Britain and Michel Houellebecq in France, Fallaci’s case
is slightly tainted. It is tainted because the case does not appear
to offer critique through fiction – rather the essays themselves
are political essays directly opposing Islam in fairly biting and
vehement criticisms.
The Oriana Fallaci controversy
It seems important to retrace the steps of how, in particular,
Fallaci’s case developed; it is a valuable contemporary lesson on
how Europe’s transitional democratic states ought not to have acted
following a literary controversy. On 11th September 2001, just under
three thousand people were horrifically killed, following the intended
crashing of four aircraft into the central and densely populated
urban areas within New York City, Virginia and Pennsylvania. It was
alleged by the American government and accepted by Islamic leader,
Osama bin Laden – and remains accepted within most ranks of society –
that a collective of Islamic organizations which operate under the
name al-Qaeda were the perpetrators of the atrocity.
Radically different analyses of the situation – most hot-headed
and intolerant reports by either Western-centric reporters or
Islamic commentators – have been offered across the world, based
within a variety of political spectra. The immediate conflict has
been posed as one of the West versus the Islamic faith, the Western
value of toleration versus Islamic intolerance, or liberalism versus
multiculturalism. One popular and vehement critic was the journalist,
Oriana Fallaci. Her opinion essay, La Rabbia e l’Orgoglio (The Rage
and the Pride) had been published in Italy, just eighteen days after
the attacks of September 11 occurred. Two years later, in 2003,
a brief follow-up book entitled The Force of Reason, formulated a
similar critique of Islam operating in Europe.
What it seems important to question is this: what is Islam’s opposition
to Fallaci’s essays and books on Muslims? More to the point, how did
the author ever manage to offend Islam? These questions are important
since they enable us to then address the impossible sanctions that
Muslims appear to be imposing upon individuals who seek to express
themselves on issues relating to Islam.
Fallaci’s book, The Rage and the Pride, heavily criticizes many
aspects of Islam and is vulgar, to say the least, in the manner
in which it achieves its degrading criticism. Unlike Houellebecq’s
and Rushdie’s novels, the text is a critique of Muslims in America
and Europe. Her intolerance at the presence of Muslims in Italy,
following the terrorist attacks in America, is immediately apparent.
She writes: “I’m telling you that we have no room for muezzins,
for minarets, for false teetotalers, for their fucking Middle Ages,
for their fucking chador.”
The grounds and basis of its critique can be found in its hot-headed
reactionary journalism, populist armchair philosophy, obsessive
patriotism, ill-considered “atheism” with a large residual respect
for Christian values, and a religious separatist outlook towards
individuals in Muslim and non-Muslim cultures. Fallaci confesses her
extreme Italian and American patriotism – the two countries in which
she has lived. Of course, she finds that eternally divided Italy has
no such modern patriotic blessing and the country has surrendered
itself to what she refers to as Islam and its “sons of Allah”. The
mere “presence” of Muslims in the world is too much for Fallaci, and
as for the presence of Muslims in Italy, it “was not an immigration,
it was more of an invasion conducted under an emblem of secrecy.” The
“war of religion”, we are warned, “is in progress.” Consequently, “if
we don’t oppose them, if we don’t defend ourselves, if we don’t fight,
the Jihad will win.” (Interestingly, many well-respected academics,
particularly in the United States, had already begun to pit Islam
against the West in their accounts of global political conflicts,
such as Sam Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, 1993).
For Fallaci, those who did not see the subsequent war in Iraq
approaching are those who allowed Muslims, “the sons of Allah get
away with a little too much.” The essay quite clearly labels Muslims,
“birdbrains”, “scoundrels”, “terrorists”, inherently lazy people,
welfarists and “idiots”. As with the Theo van Gogh controversy in
Holland, the criticisms were not of a wildly intellectual nature. The
author often confesses her ignorance at the understanding of the
Islamic faith, in addition to claiming the West to have the hold on
rationalism, and Islam (and its associated states) to have the claim
on arbitrary womanizing and countless murdering and wars.
The Italian courts are still embroiled in the Fallaci controversy
and the case is far from resolved. The courts have recently decided
to pursue the trial of Fallaci, by trying her case on the Italian
defamation laws. It is claimed that Fallaci defamed Islam. If this
case were to win, it would challenge a largely common response of
Western liberal states: to not intervene in cases of free expression,
especially when those cases relate to religion. A state can be brought
to its knees through intervention in the sphere of free speech.
Why free expression?
A basic tenet of a modern European society is that each individual is
free to enjoy certain basic and personal freedoms, including that of
expressing oneself freely. In its history, that sense of expressing
oneself freely is often felt to be most sincerely represented when
it comes to defending free expression with respect to religion.
In the doctrine of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, published in 1859,
the right to freedom of expression and its conditions are stated
clearly. The most fundamental principle of a freely operating liberal
society is the right to the “freedom of opinion”. This “independence
is, of right, absolute.” The only exception in which Mill conceived
such freedom to be limited was if it were to impose severe harm onto
others – he declared this to be a rare thing. The intervention in
a literary controversy is no longer an option for a modern European
government.
In the Fallaci controversy, the right to freedom of expression
currently prevails. Despite the fact that Fallaci had written a
derogatory essay claiming that Italian Muslims are “birdbrains”
and “idiots”, it still remains important to proceed to defend the
freedom of expression – publishing it freely and imposing no ban. The
statements expressed here, by themselves, are decontextualised from
the remainder of the text. Therefore, pithy extracts offer us little
insight into the argument – just as the pamphleteering of Rushdie’s
extracts by Muslims on the streets of Pakistan meant very little,
since they are not merely name-calling texts.
Within the confines of the law, Fallaci’s essay itself does not
harm others. The harm or offence caused by the text could only,
at the very most, be understood as a breach of racial and religious
hatred or the blasphemy laws. In modern society, the breach of those
principles should rarely qualify for harm or strong offence-related
arguments in cases of free expression. It is certain that we live in
a multicultural society and that the notion of multicultural society,
and Muslims within that society, are constantly changing. However,
it is just as certain that we live within a liberal society – in
which its basic architecture requires that we do not remove or alter
certain fundamental freedoms, including that of free expression.
The harm done to others, in cases where it is felt the text will
incite mass religious hatred – with the preconditions of tyrannical
governments and a homogenous citizenry – should only be executed
on rare occasions, since it does little justice to the cultural
diversity and critical discussion said to underpin free expression
itself. That is to argue that a ban, based on harms incurred, assumes
the individual to be unreflective, lacking in spontaneity and often,
incapable of reason. If that is to be every Muslim’s subject of
defence, then it might be asked if it is a subject worth defending.
In fact, the texts themselves rarely represent harm, or offence, and
the calls for bans based on offence are often premature reactions
of the unnervingly dogmatic representatives of Islam, clearly set
against the West in politics, economy and individual values.
It is certain that free expression on matters pertaining to Islam
will prevail. It is through recourse to dated Catholic-centric
Italian laws that Muslims have sought to legitimize their claims to
offensiveness. This legally enables the right to intervene in the
publications of Fallaci’s anti-Islamic writings. However, since the
harm done to others did not signify a physical injury, or anything of
that magnitude, to any individual or group, there were few grounds for
rightful interference. The most coherent legal route to preventing
the offence was through the prosecution of Fallaci, with reference
to the defamation laws.
In Italy, a unique history, embroiled in changes under the Italian
constitution during Mussolini’s regime, meant that Catholicism occupied
a primary place in considerations of the state. It is certain that
the Italian constitution, in its first three articles sets out to
protect all citizens and accord them the freedom to speech until it
sacrifices “public morality”. The third article of The Constitution
of the Italian Republic of 1947 states that “All citizens have equal
social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction
of sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, personal
and social conditions.” Yet, only in the past twenty years, have
significant changes in Italian society brought about toleration of
free expression towards religion. The Constitution also states that
“Religious confessions other than Catholic have the right to organize
in accordance with their own statutes, in so far as they are not in
conflict with Italian laws.” Therefore, there are cases in which
the law does impinge upon the freedom to organise and express oneself
on religious matters, when it contravenes Italian law; a law already
heavily skewed by the solidarity of Catholicism.
As elsewhere in Europe, in Italy it is clearly illegal to incite
discrimination on religious grounds. However, rather than argue for
offence through incitement to religious hatred laws – which Fallaci’s
Muslim prosecution still remain eager to pursue – the most successful
and quickest way of suppressing free expression in Italy is through
claims to defamation. This is the current claim that has been made in
the Muslim prosecution against Fallaci. It is claimed that her writings
“defame” Islam. Italy’s own government often use the defamation
laws to bring critics of ministers, and antagonists of the state,
to justice, and it has been claimed that it is rare (and possibly the
first case in Italy) for free expression to be challenged by Muslims
through recourse to the defamation laws. At the time of writing,
the case for Fallaci has not finished. One would, however, hope for
Italy that what has happened in the rest of Europe for many centuries,
will continue to happen and that free expression on matters pertaining
to Islam will prevail. That is to say, Fallaci should be acquitted.
The only imaginable case in which this would no longer hold would be
as follows. Since Fallaci offers perhaps the strongest and prejudiced
“hate” article against Muslims – against a national (Italian) and
global community – there is a possibility that it could be proven to
incite religious hatred. The case for incitement to religious hatred
would have to prove that there was a threat to physical existence, or
harm done to others, of such significance that this piece of literature
should no longer be available in society, and the author sentenced
accordingly. Her trial has yet to begin this month in Bergamo.
Europe could well do with laying down a red carpet for authors such as
Fallaci rather than trying them – after all, it is freely speaking and
writing individuals that make European society such a vibrant platform
for the free exchange of ideas. If you remove the artistic and literary
freedom to express, through the bizarre invention of corrupt laws,
then there is very little left in the essence of modern society –
constitutional or cultural – that is still worth defending.
74
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Georgian journalists left for Samtskhe-Javakheti region
The Messenger, Georgia
July 12 2006
As reported in Svobodnaya Gruzia, a group of Georgian journalists
>From leading national and regional newspapers left for the
Samtskhe-Javakheti region (Eastern Georgia) July 10. During the
five-day visit, journalists will become familiar with the political
and social problems of the local population. They will hold meetings
with representatives of local self-governance bodies, public and
non-governmental organizations and colleagues from the local media
in Akhaltsikhe, Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda.
This visit is part of the programme “Overcoming the information vacuum
in Samtskhe-Javakheti,” which is being implemented under the aegis of
the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) with the financial
support of the OSCE. According to the coordinator of the project,
Shorena Ratiani, taking part in the project will help journalists get
information regarding the real situation in the region, and lead to
objective coverage of the issues.
“The Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda districts of Samtskhe-Javakheti are
over 90 percent populated by Armenians who do not know the Georgian
language. In terms of access to information they are in isolation
compared to other regions because they cannot read the Georgian
press. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the Georgian media
does not have representatives in the region, and they know almost
nothing about the problems of the local population,” stated Ratiani.
Ratiani also said that this project is mainly directed to helping
journalists find out the cause of the processes which have been
taking place in the Samtskhe-Javakheti region. “All this will help
destroy the stereotypes which exist concerning Armenian areas, and
the integration of the region into the country,” Ratiani noted.
Newspapers 24 Saati, Rezonansi, Akhali Versia, Akhali 7 Dghe,
Khvalindeli Dghe, Batumelebi, Akhali Gazeti, Samkhretis Karipche and
Panorama took part in this project.
The paper notes that the first visit took place in 2005 within
the framework of the same project. During that journey to
Samtskhe-Javakheti journalists met with representatives of local
government structures and the NGO sector, a first step toward
overcoming the information vacuum in the region. After the visit,
over 30 articles were published regarding the life and problems of
this region.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

No need for Aliyev-Kocharian meeting now, Armenian minister says
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 12 2006
Baku, July 11, AssA-Irada — Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian
has said there is currently no rapprochement in the positions of Baku
and Yerevan in talks on settling the Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict.
“The two countries maintain no ties. But the US co-chair of the
[mediating] OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza’s planned visit to the
region could forge ties between the sides and revive the peace process
in general,” he told a recent news conference held jointly with his
Lebanese counterpart Fawzi Sallukh.
Armenian parliament speaker Tigran Torosian said Armenia does not
support holding talks between the two presidents in the immediate
future.
“There is no need for such meeting, as there is nothing new in the
negotiating process,” he said in a meeting with a visiting OSCE
representative.
The latest rounds of talks between Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert
Kocharian in Rambouillet and Bucharest turned out fruitless.
Torosian accused Azerbaijan of pursuing hostile propaganda and stirring
tension over the Garabagh conflict. He also charged the Azeri side
with speculations concerning the arsons “committed in the territories
included in the security zone”.
The fire set by Armenians across the occupied Azerbaijani territories
over the past month has swept through vast areas, destroying
cemeteries, arable land, flora and fauna.*

Lebanon offers aid on Garabagh
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 12 2006
Baku, July 11, AssA-Irada — Lebanon could use its experience on
conflict resolution to facilitate settlement to the Armenia-Azerbaijan
Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh dispute upon request of the sides, its
foreign minister visiting Armenia has said.
Fawzi Sallukh said military action would not bring victory to
either side. “Azerbaijan and Armenia should make efforts to solve
the conflict in peace considering their national interests.” The
Lebanese official invited Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian
to his country to attend a meeting of the joint commission on economic
cooperation.
“The relations between the two countries are on a high level. During
a recent meeting with Oskanian, we held discussions on regional,
international and energy issues,” Sallukh said.*

Armenia breaches ceasefire
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 12 2006
Baku, July 11, AssA-Irada — Armenia breached ceasefire on the
frontline in the early hours on Tuesday.
The Armenian military units, from their positions in an occupied
village of northwestern Aghdam District, subjected the positions of
the Azeri armed forces to sustained machine and submachine gun fire.
No casualties are reported.*

Igor Levitin Briefed to Robert Kocharian on Outcomes of A-320 Flight Modeling
PanARMENIAN.Net
12.07.2006 16:00 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian President Robert Kocharian met with the
Co-chair of the Russian-Armenian intergovernmental committee on
economic cooperation, Russian Minister of Transport Igor Levitin
and chairperson of the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) Tatyana
Anodina, who furnished the outcomes of the investigation of the A-320
jet crash on May 3, 2006. The results of the flight modeling carried
out by French, Russian and Armenian specialists were presented to
Robert Kocharian. Presently the investigation is underway and the
IAC is expected to accomplish it within shortest terms.
Igor Levitin and Robert Kocharian also touched upon urgent issues
referring to bilateral relations, specifically the closing of Verkhny
Lars checkpoint at the Russian-Georgian border. They also discussed
transport development. For his part Levitin informed that Russia is
going to speed up the decision on Mars enterprise, reported the RA
leader’s press office.