RUSSIA IS REGAINING KARABAKH
Lragir.am
13 may 06
Over the past week the experts of the Russia-based Strategic Culture
Foundation headed by the director of this organization Vladimir
Maximenko were in Karabakh. They visited villages, military units, met
with the government, ordinary people. At Stepanakert Press Club they
met with news reporters. Alarge amount of data on Karabakh can be
found on the Internet, but they are not always true. Most people, even
Armenians, tend to think that the war is going on in Karabakh, and
only several dozens of soldiers live here. Whereas, the Russian
experts say the situation is quite different.
In an interview with us Expert Alexander Krilov, Ph.D., said he
visited many post-Soviet countries, and compared with them life in
Karabakh is much better. `On May 9 we went to the central square of
Stepanakert and were astonished. We saw well-dressed young people,
cheerful but calm. There are no drunkards, drug addicts. This is
something unusual for us,’ said Alexander Krilov.
For the attitude of Russia towards Karabakh, the Russian expert said
presently only tendencies can be considered. `The official standpoint
is the same: resolution in the framework of territorial integrity. At
the same time, progress is reported on a non-governmental level. Last
year the Caucasian Institute of Russian Democracy became engaged in
Karabakh. As far as I know, they aided considerably the Russian
community, funded educational and cultural programs. We learned here
that the Russian Orthodox Church is going to build a church in
Stepanakert. Thus, though on a level of humanitarian organizations,
Russia’s returning to Karabakh,’ said A. Krilov.

KARABAKH NGOs DISCUSS ACHIEVEMENTS OF 12 YEARS OF CEASEFIRE
Lragir.am
13 may 06
On May 12 NKR celebrated the 12th anniversary of the
armistice. Helsinki Undertaking 92 organized a round-table meeting
with NGOs and invited Speaker Ashot Ghulyan. What have you done over
these 12 years, did you use this period rationally? Public opinion on
this question is not unanimous. First, the representatives mentioned
that Karabakh should become involved in the talks. Karen Ohanjanyan,
the coordinator of Helsinki Undertaking 92 noticed that the present
format of the talks cannot lead to a resolution in the context it was
raised. Member of Parliament Maxim Mirzoyan says political conjuncture
changes constantly, and activities should be made to correspond it. If
in 1991 we had to hold a referendum and declare our independence, now
we have to think in accordance with other parameters to guarantee our
independence and security.
Independence is independent home and foreign policies. In this sense
we can hardly be considered independent. We lack a constitution, we
held the first parliamentary hearings on the Karabakh issue quite
recently, we have a large number of economic irregularities. This led
to the discussion of a settlement at the OSCE Minsk Group unacceptable
for us, namely recognition of the independence of Karabakh within the
borders of the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh plus a tiny
corridor,’ said Member of Parliament Maxim Mirzoyan.
The speaker of the National Assembly Ashot Ghulyan noticed that the
standpoint of the NKR government has not changed since 1991. It is
guaranteeing the independence and security of the people of NKR. A lot
has changed since 1991, namely with respect to the issue of
territories. Did the standpoint change? In answer to this question
Ashot Ghulyan said it is difficult to have ready schemes every
time. Do we have a ready plan of actions in case the United States
strikes our neighbor Iran? This question of Karen Ohanjanyan also
remained without an answer. As an achievement, the participants of the
round-table meeting mentioned the contrasts found in Karabakh. The
money spent on the billiard contest and expensive song festivals could
be spent on repairs ofthe Republic Hospital, which is in a terrible
condition. Doctor Lyudmila Grigoryan says one of the `peculiarities’
of the year is the wrong choice of priorities.
Another peculiarity is the lack of mechanisms of public debates on
burning issues. In 20 days from the parliamentary hearings on the
Karabakh issue it turned out that people had different opinions on
these hearings. During the round-table meeting the hearings were
criticized, but no one was able to answer the question why these
evaluations are made so late.
`The Jewish fund will always be full of billions, because the society
is sure this money is spent duly and is not stolen,’ says former
member of parliament Valery Ghazaryan. Sociologist Davit Gharabekyan
says the chief problem of our independence is that we have not learned
to solve our problems ourselves.
We are still waiting for someone from `above’ to tell something or to
blame someone.

WEST WAITS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE, BUT ARMENIA HAS NO ALTERNATIVE
Lragir.am
13 may 06
Member of Parliament Shavarsh Kocharyan announced May 13 the
evaluation of the parliamentary election 2007 by the West depends on
the alternative of the political sphere rather than the degree of
irregularities.
`All the evaluations of Armenian elections are objective, but their
consistency depends on if the West can see an alternative. If there is
an alternative, the West is consistent,’ says Shavarsh Kocharyan.
And for Armenia European integration has no alternative, says the
leader of the National Democratic Party. He says even the government
understands this, and the evidence to this is Arthur Baghdasaryan’s
statements.
`The fact that today the Orinats Yerkir emphasizes democratization,
European integration. This is something positive, positive in the
sense that it displays that there is no other alternative for
Armenia. In other words, this shows that even the regime acknowledges
this, simply Arthur Baghdasaryan opposed to the other branches of
power and put the question more acutely out of certain aims,’ says
Shavarsh Kocharyan. Besides, he does not exclude that Arthur
Baghdasaryan could have decided to resign and secede from the
coalition relying on signals from the West.
`In fact, the West has a positive attitude towards him, this is
obvious. But its continuity depends on people’s attitude,’ says
Shavarsh Kocharyan, emphasizing again that the West supports those who
offer an alternative tothe present government.

SOCIETY DECIDES WHO IS OPPOSITION AND TO WHAT DEGREE
Lragir.am
13 may 06
Shavarsh Kocharyan, the leader of the National Democratic Party, was
among the first who commented May 13 on the resignation of Speaker
Arthur Baghdasaryan and secession of the Orinats Yerkir Party from the
coalition.He stated at the Azdak Club that he had predicted this
political divorce two years ago.
Shavarsh Kocharyan says having such big political ambitions the leader
of the Orinats Yerkir Party could not stay in the government because
no place had been foreseen for him in the first three positions.
`In the context of the upcoming election, there should obviously be a
package solution: president, prime minister, speaker. It is obvious
that pretenders are many, and Arthur Baghdasaryan was not one of them,
and realizing this and having serious political ambitions, Orinats
Yerkir either had to accept a lower position and to lower their
ambitions, or become opposition with big ambitions,’ says Shavarsh
Kocharyan.
According to Shavarsh Kocharyan, it does not matter what place Orinats
Yerkir will have in the opposition, or how the other opposition forces
will accept it. He says the attitude and evaluation of the people and
society will be more important and deciding. Shavarsh Kocharyan says
the assessment of the government by Orinats Yerkir and its
self-assessment for the years in government is also very
important. The leader of the National Democratic Party believes that
similar statements are not enough to become opposition, therefore
Shavarsh Kocharyan advises to wait for the future actions of Orinats
Yerkir.
He does not exclude that Arthur Baghdasaryan’s step was a result of
agreement with the government. However, Shavarsh Kocharyan does not
insiston it either. He considers the step of Orinats Yerkir
inevitable, because this political party has big ambitions.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EARLY ELECTION IS IMPROBABLE
Lragir.am
13 may 06
After the resignation of the speaker of the National Assembly there
was no possibility of dissolution of the parliament and an early
election. This is the opinion of the leader of the National Democratic
Party Shavarsh Kocharyan.
Shavarsh Kocharyan said May 13 that all the political processes
underway are determined by an anticipation of the parliamentary
election 2007 and the constitutional reform. According to the leader
of the National Democratic Party, the renewed constitution has made
the role of the speaker and prime minister equal to or even higher
than the role of the head of state, and the presidential election 2008
will not be deciding. Everything will be decided in 2007.
Shavarsh Kocharyan hence points to the activity of businessmen, who
are setting up a political party to gain a place in the parliament,
because they understand that questions will no longer be solved by a
single person.
`These people are tempted, they want to decide, they do not want to
serve.
This is another threat, danger that Armenia is facing. Either 2007
will bea serious step towards a more democratic system or this
opportunity will be used by those people, and we will have a fusion of
political power and black economy. This would set us far back, we
would have serious problems,=80=9D says Shavarsh Kocharyan.
The most probable candidate of the next prime minister is Robert
Kocharyan, he says. However, it means that the president elect in 2007
will appoint an intermediate prime minister until 2008 when the office
of Robert Kocharyan ends. Shavarsh Kocharyan declined to name a
candidate of intermediate prime minister, saying that the government
knows better. Shavarsh Kocharyan, whoin fact comments on major points
rather, says in 2007 there will be no absolute majority in the
parliament. The majority, according to Shavarsh Kocharyan,will look
like a mosaic, for Robert Kocharyan to be an acceptable candidate.
`The majority needs to be like a mosaic. There cannot be a powerful
political force in the majority. If there is such a force, it will
claim to nominate its candidate,’ says Shavarsh Kocharyan.
He announces that the newly established parties, including the
Bargavach Hayastan Party, are to guarantee this mosaic. Shavarsh
Kocharyan says his political party will not ally with Bargavach
Hayastan. The National Democratic Party has not chosen who to ally
with, and is predominantly bound for running for parliament with a
separate ticket, says the person who will probably be the first on the
list, with the name Shavarsh Kocharyan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

U.S. air bases in Persian Gulf to eventually replace those in Iraq, senior
general says

AP Worldstream; May 14, 2006
JIM KRANE
The U.S. military is preparing for the day when air power from bases
along the Persian Gulf will help ensure that friendly governments in
Iraq and Afghanistan survive without American ground troops, a senior
U.S. general said.
“We’ll be in the region for the foreseeable future,” said U.S. Air
Force Maj. Gen. Allen G. Peck, deputy air commander of U.S. Central
Command, which oversees the region. “Our intention would be to stay as
long as the host nations will have us.”
Agreements have been struck recently with Qatar, Kuwait and the United
Arab Emirates for long-term use of their bases. Already home to
U.S. and allied fighter, transport and observation planes, the bases
will become more critical if plans proceed to gradually withdraw
ground forces from Iraq.
A capable Iraqi air force is years away and Iraqi infantry need the
back-up and surveillance provided by U.S. warplanes, Peck said. The
bases also could help rush soldiers into Iraq in a crisis. The
Pentagon has been keeping thousands of troops in reserve in Kuwait, on
Iraq’s southern border.
Not everyone is convinced.
The Bush administration declines to say it won’t seek to keep bases in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. military is spending almost US$1
billion (A770 million) this year for base construction in Iraq
alone. For example, the base at Balad, north of Baghdad, has been
expanded to host F-16 fighter and C-130 transport squadrons.
A former Iraq intelligence chief for the State Department, Wayne
White, said he believes one of the administration’s unstated
pre-invasion goals was to secure permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq
after overseeing the installation of a pro-American government.
Peck, however, said he knew of no current U.S. plans to maintain
permanent air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Because of the Iraqi insurgency, experts say bases in the Persian Gulf
nations are a better option given the long relationships Washington
has had with them.
But there are risks even in those countries, where many people harbor
suspicions of U.S. policy. Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals
agitate against the U.S. military presence in the Muslim world. A huge
U.S. air base and headquarters in Saudi Arabia was closed before the
invasion of Iraq because of fundamentalists’ pressure on the Saudi
government.
Indeed, American diplomats and some military officers interviewed for
this article agreed to discuss the matter only on condition of
anonymity, because Arab governments have asked the U.S. military not
to publicize their presence.
The Air Force operates refueling, cargo and surveillance flights from
large bases in Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, while
maintaining runway access and warehoused supplies in Oman and Saudi
Arabia.
The plan Peck described would have the Air Force eventually
consolidate most of its Iraq operations in the Persian Gulf bases.
Afghanistan’s military also could be backed up from Manas Air Base in
Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic where U.S. officials are
negotiating a long-term agreement. The Kyrgyz government has requested
a doubling of the base rental, Peck said.
The U.S. base at Incirlik, Turkey, could also enter into the
equation. For now, the Turkish government, a NATO ally, allows the
U.S. military to operate only cargo, refueling and passenger flights
to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the U.S. has based
fighter jets there in the past.
Peck and others caution that the shift would take years. The top U.S.
officer in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, recently said plans to begin
reducing the U.S.
presence this year are still on track. But U.S. President George
W. Bush also has said the counterinsurgency mission in Iraq will
continue at least through the end of his term in January 2009.
“The idea that we can envision a time when air power in places like
the UAE becomes our main way of watching over Iraq is still a bit
ahead of its time _ to put it gently,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a
military analyst at the Brookings Institution.
Either way, the Pentagon is planning for the time when U.S. forces
pull out of Iraq, or in case Iraq’s government asks them to leave. The
idea of a long-term U.S. military presence is deeply unpopular in
Iraq, polls say.
White and others say the United States could eventually turn over its
bases to the Iraqi military and still back up the Iraqi government
with small numbers of U.S. special forces troops, along with warplanes
based in nearby countries.
“If we do not support the Iraqi army with reconnaissance and airstrike
capabi lities, which we now rely on so heavily against the insurgents,
they’re not going to stand a chance,” said White, now an Iraq analyst
at the Middle East Institute.
O’Hanlon said the Gulf bases are safer than almost anywhere in
Iraq. “And everything in the region is close enough together that for
most purposes the bases along the gulf should suffice.”
The air bases expected to host U.S. air operations after an Iraq
pullout are Al-Udeid in Qatar, Ali Al Salem in Kuwait and Al-Dhafra in
the UAE. The three bases also lie just across the Persian Gulf from
Iran, which the Bush administration and other nations suspect is
pursuing nuclear arms.
Visits to U.S. bases in Kuwait and Qatar found signs of heavy
construction of permanent housing and operations buildings.
At Al-Udeid, forward headquarters for the U.S. Central Command,
construction is under way on a concrete bunker that will house a
command center where American and coalition teams will direct and
monitor air operations over Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the
region. The current center is housed in a temporary building on the
base.
Construction of the new operations center is being funded by the
Qatari government, a U.S. military official said on condition of
anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the topic.
The change is inevitable, some experts say.
“We will not be able to retain bases in Iraq. That will simply not be
possible,” White said.

Vigen Hakobyan: Breakup of Armenian ruling coalition will dissolve the
Speaker’s party
_
()
18:35 05/13/2006
After all, the ruling coalition in Armenia has failed and collapsed
before the 2007 parliamentary elections. The most important in the
situation is that Robert Kocharian’s promise to preserve the alliance
was broken. Last December, the Armenian President said: `The coalition
that is a political agreement of the four subjects, namely the three
parties and the President, is created for the four-year period. It
could be modified one way or another, but we are going to carry the
obligations and the responsibility before ourselves and before the
people.’ The fact that the Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law, OY) party
headed by the Parliament Chairman Artur Bagdasarian has left the
coalition means the breakup of the ruling alliance, which in its turn
means breaking the political agreement and the failure of political
parties and the President himself to live up to their promises. Who is
to blame for the failure?
Before we approach to answering the question, we should point to the
circumstances that prepared the ground for the disintegration. The
Orinats Yerkir party was the first to pronounce its intent to exit the
coalition after a series of scandals caused by the statements the
Speaker made on topics of domestic and international Armenian
policy. Bagdasarian repeatedly accused his colleagues in the coalition
(who had chosen him a Chairman) with electoral fraud.
On top of these charges, he shocked the crowd by presenting his vision
of Armenian international priorities and the formula of `Russian
impediment on Armenia’s way to joining NATO.’
The last move had the least influence on Bagdasarian’s political
career since it fit the multi-vector orientation of Armenian
international policy. But the Speaker’s doubts on the integrity and
transparency of the past parliamentary elections accompanied by his
massive correspondence with the Prosecutor General of Armenia appeared
to be quite contradictory to the very logic of political cooperation
between Orinats Yerkir, on the one hand, and Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (Dashnaktsutsiun) and Republican Party of Armenia, on the
other, within the alliance.
The latter two political bodies who consistently implemented the
Speaker’s social projects, including the main one to return funds
accumulated on resident saver accounts to the public, were clearly
determined to preserve the existing political format before the
parliamentary elections. The Orinats Yerkir party, however, proved to
be an extremely uncooperative partner. It stuck to its uncompromising
policy on several delicate issues, including the issue of
denationalization. By doing this, Orinats Yerkir hurt interests of the
Republican Party best represented in the ruling alliance.
>From the point of view of Orinats Yerkir’s philosophy, the pre-term
exiting the coalition was, in its essence, an end in itself. The party
needed to define its own political course and, so to speak, to show
its face to the public.
Association with the RPA and Dashnaktsutsiun stripped the party of any
chance to develop its own policy. Such policy, according to Orinats
Yerkir functionaries, could yield substantial results at the
parliamentary elections and create a basis for running a presidential
campaign. Besides, close alliance with the ruling parties narrowed
Orinats Yerkir’s choices in its looking for international
investors. The latter justly identified the party as a political
reserve of the acting President, whereas Bagdasarian’s rhetorical
demarches ` as a tactical move of dubious openness.
2005 and the beginning of 2006 became for Orinats Yerkir a tough
period of molding its political identity. It switched from the image
of the new opposition locomotive force to the stance of self-reliant
alternative organization capable to alter the course of the
game. This, however, did not change the essence of the party’s
character. It remained a new ` and, frankly speaking, a hastily
knocked together ` party that, quite unexpectedly, made its way to the
parliament. Its leader was almost an only eminent figure in its
ranks. The public could feel the absence of both ideological and
resource background behind the party scene. The most conspicuous was
the young age and the unhampered ambitions of Orinats Yerkir
leader. They obviously broke the rules of the harsh Armenian political
game.
The situation was quite commonplace. After the conflict of the
Speaker’s party with colleagues inside the coalition and the President
became obvious, the process of intended demolition of Orinats Yerkir
was launched. The organization was charged with breaking the
`political consensus’ and failing to meet its `obligations before the
people.’ One after another, the most important party members including
the so-called oligarchs, started to leave the party.
That was not surprising: their integrity did not prevent them from
caring more about their businesses than about the party fate. After
all, they had joined it merely to create better conditions for their
businesses. And security and success of large businesses in Armenia
are only possible if they do not openly conflict with the
government. That makes the oligarchs’ motives clear.
Exiting the ruling coalition is leading Orinats Yerkir to join the
other block, the opposition one. The prospect is quite dubious for the
Speaker’s party, taking in account the current situation of the
opposition block. Opposition’ s failure to change regime in 2003-2004
has lead to its virtual impotence, to its fractionalization and
marginalization. Orinats Yerkir’s joining the opposition ranks will
hardly be appreciated, since it will be a forced and unnatural
move. Another option for the party is to act on its own. This will
also force Orinats Yerkir to join the opposition since the party has
lost its economic ground. Its leaders will have to appeal to the
oppositional clichés, such as `Say `no’ to the President, Long
live Democracy.’ These slogans proved to be ineffective in Armenia
whose population is busy looking for the stability and peace.
As far as the authorities are concerned, they will find a political
substitute for Orinats Yerkir in the near future. A probable candidate
for the role of `centrist liberals’ once assigned for the Orinats
Yerkir party could be another new party. Like Prospering Armenia that
is being hurriedly created under the auspices of oligarch Gagik
Tsarukian. It will accumulate a great number of businessmen and
relatives of acting politicians. A pre-term sacking of the parliament
is also possible. This will leave no chance for Orinats Yerkir to
regroup and consolidate before the ultimate fight.
Vigen Hakobyan is Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the REGNUM News Agency

7DAYS, United Arab Emirates
May 14 2006
Armenian genocide threat

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened France with trade
sanctions if it adopts a bill making it illegal to deny that the
1915-1917 massacre of Armenians in Turkey was genocide, a Turkish
newspaper said yesterday.
`Patience has its limits. We do not have hatred (towards France) but
we will impose our sanctions,’ the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet quoted
Erdogan as saying at a summit of Muslim countries on the Indonesian
island of Bali.
French lawmakers were due to consider on Thursday a bill from the
opposition Socialists which would make anyone denying the existence
of the Armenian genocide liable to a five-year jail term and $57,000
fine.
French MPs should be `particularly sensitive’ to the issue of
possible sanctions since France is the number one investor in Turkey,
Erdogan said.

Anatolian Times, Turkey
May 14 2006
Parliaments Cannot Decide On Historical Facts, Charrette
PARIS – Parliaments cannot decide on historical facts, said Herve de
Charrette, the deputy chairman of French Parliamentary Foreign
Affairs Commission.
In an exclusive interview with A.A correspondent, Charrette announced
that he is against the resolution, presented by the Socialist Party,
and which makes any denial of the so-called Armenian genocide a
crime.
Charrette, who is also the chairman of the French-Turkish Friendship
Group, noted that historical incidents must be examined by historians
and researchers.
“I am against this resolution since I attach great importance to
Turkish-French friendship,“ he stressed.
Charrette indicated that he is optimistic that the resolution will be
rejected.
The resolution will be debated at the French parliament on May 18th.
The resolution has to be adopted at the Senate in order to be
enacted.
French parliament passed a resolution acknowledging the so-called
genocide in 2001, and this caused a serious tension between Paris and
Ankara.

Anatolian Times, Turkey
May 14 2006
Turkey’s Ambassadors In Paris & Ottawa Return To Their Posts
ANKARA – Turkey`s ambassadors to France and Canada returned to their
posts on Thursday after having consultations in Turkish capital of
Ankara regarding so-called Armenian genocide allegations.
Turkey`s Ambassador in Paris Osman Koruturk and Ambassador in Ottawa
Aydemir Erman arrived in Ankara at the beginning of this week to have
consultations over recent baseless Armenian genocide allegations in
these two countries.
Koruturk and Erman participated in meetings held at the Turkish
Foreign Ministry, and were received by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer
and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Canadian parliament has adopted a resolution, acknowledging the
Armenian claims, while Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have
made remarks in which he qualified unfounded Armenian allegations as
“genocide“.
On the other hand, French parliament will debate a bill on May 18th
which makes any denial of the so-called Armenian genocide a crime.