A CLOUD HANGS OVER AIRBUS
>From Charles Bremner in Paris
The Times
May 04, 2006
RUSSIAN officials have identified severe weather as the likely
cause of the crash off Sochi, and an air traffic controller is
under investigation. But the accident may revive questions about
the high-tech design of the Airbus A320 and the crew’s ability to
handle it.
The short-to-medium haul A320 was the first all-electronic
“fly-by-wire” airliner. More than 2,700 have been produced since 1988,
and it has proved one of the world’s safest airliners. Before now,
11 fatal A320 accidents had killed 327. But four fatal crashes in
the first five years of the A320 prompted concern that its flight
management system (FMS) was too sophisticated.
On Tuesday a court in France began hearing criminal charges against
Airbus and transport officials over the crash of an Air Inter (now Air
France) A320 on the approach to Strasbourg in 1992, killing 87. The
crew was officially blamed for entering data into the FMS incorrectly
but relatives of victims are partly blaming its crew interface, which
was later modified by Airbus. In 1993 the A320 design was blamed for
the late deployment of the brakes on a Lufthansa A320 when it ran
off the runway in Warsaw, killing two.
Since the early 1990s, there has been no common thread to incidents
with A320s or the larger Airbus family.
In 2000 pilot error was blamed for a disaster involving a Gulf Air
A320 that killed 143 off Bahrain. That crash was in good night-time
visibility, but it otherwise resembled yesterday’s accident because
the crew were turning back over water after a missed approach. The
relatively inexperienced crew lost their bearings and flew into the
sea. Some aviation experts at the time questioned the role of the
automated system.

DELIVERY OF CORPSES OF A-320 CRASH VICTIMS TO YEREVAN TO START TONIGHT
PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2006 19:41 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Delivery of corpses of victims of the air crash in
Sochi to Yerevan will start tonight.
Relatives of the victims are at Yerevan airport since yesterday. These
are those, who could not fly to the catastrophe location, as only one
relative or friend were allowed to fly there. The air gates function,
in fact all regular flights are executed. Yerevan Administration
has arranged ambulance presence at Yerevan airport around the
clock. Preparation work is held for funerals, that will be covered
by the state.
Armenian Government today introduced the question of financial
assistance to families of the victims at its today’s meeting,
reports Itar-Tass.

LIST OF IDENTIFIED PASSENGERS AND CREW MEMBERS OF A-320 AIRPLANE MADE PUBLIC
PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2006 19:56 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The list of identified passengers and crew members of
A-320 airplane, which was wrecked new Sochi town, is made public. The
list is provided by the Operative Headquarters of Sochi. 13 Armenian
and 5 Russian citizens are identified.
Armenian citizens:
1. Harutyunyan Gyulnara
2. Nalbandyan Silva
3. Kostanyan Atom
4. Badalyan Lusine
5. Khachatryan Anahit
6. Hamayakyan Styopa
7. Khalatyan Amest
8. Antonyan Hayrapet
9. Avetisyan Meline
10. Zargaryan Zhora
11. Abelyan Anahit – stewardess
12. Hasratyan marine – stewardess
13. Gevorgyan Lusine – stewardess
Russian citizens:
14. Karapetyan Varsenik
15. Karapetyan Albert
16. Gevorgyan Ruben
17. Hakobyan Zara
18. Sevanyan Zemfira

SAFAROV SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR SECOND CRIME
PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2006 20:14 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Trial on claim, raised by jailers against Azerbaijani
Army Officer Ramil Safarov, who is accused of murder of Armenian
officer Gurgen Markaryan in Hungary, has commenced at Pest Central
Regional Court on May 3. Representatives of the Azerbaijani Embassy in
Hungary and Azeri students in Hungary gave testimony on in the trial
presided by Judge Tot Dyendver. Ramil Safarov’s lawyer is Hungarian
Klara Fiser.

IF FOUND, FLIGHT RECORDERS WILL BE DELIVERED TO RUSSIA
PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2006 20:33 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ According to Press Secretary of the General
Department of Civil Aviation of Armenia Gayane Davtyan, in case
airborne recorders of wrecked A-320 liner are found, they will be
delivered to the Russian party. Davtyan said she is sure it is an
evident action, as just the Russian party is investigating the causes
of the crash. Flight recorders of A-320 are not found yet. Russian
specialists search for them, however they consider chances to the
find flight recorders as minimal.

TURKISH SPEAKER VIEWS REFORMS, ARMENIAN ISSUE AT TURKEY-EU MEETING
Anatolia news agency
3 May 06
Ankara, 3 May: “Turkey is ready to cooperate to reveal the 1915
incidents. We want historians to objectively research this tragedy
which Anatolian people lived together (during World War I) without
prejudice,” said Turkish Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc.
Inaugurating the 56th meeting of Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary
Commission (JPC) at Turkish parliament on Wednesday [3 May], Arinc
said: “A new period has started with 3 October 2005, the date Turkey-EU
accession talks started. With its decision (to open talks), the EU
gave a positive message to the whole world that Europe is based on
common values and norms. Turkey-EU JPC had great contributions to
current level on Turkey-EU relations.”
“Turkey has been in an impressive transformation process in recent
years. We have extended the individual rights and freedoms of
our citizens. Reforms in economy area have brought stability and
prosperity. Turkey is now among the most attractive countries for
foreign investors,” he noted.
Arinc said: “Turkish parliament is determined to pursue this reform
process. We will exert efforts to complete new legal arrangements
within the scope of 9th Adjustment Package before summer.”
Regarding globalization, Arinc said: “Globalization has brought various
tests to the EU. Terrorism, human trafficking and organized crimes are
threatening us all. Such global problems can only be solved through
cooperation and solidarity.”
“We should reconstruct our economies in order to deal with
international competition on one hand, and make fundamental rights
and freedoms prevalent on the other. This is the deal target of the
EU’s enlargement process. The EU has strengthened its influence in
the surrounding geography, and protected its peace, security and
prosperity as a result of the enlargement process,” he said.
Stressing that the EU would have to make a comprehensive definition of
itself, Arinc said: “This definition will include a transformation from
a social and economic organization into a global force. We consider
the EU membership a strategic target. It will be a part of a great
reform movement bringing forth universal standards and practice in
every aspect of daily life in Turkey.”
Referring to the so-called Armenian genocide, Arinc said: “Turkey
has been accused of committing genocide against Armenians during the
World War I for a long time. Historians could not come to a conclusion
yet. While Armenian circles describe these saddening events of 1915 as
‘genocide’, a number of distinguished Turkish and foreign historian
say that the Ottoman Empire decided in 1915 to relocate Armenian
people due to security reasons, and that it could not be described as
‘genocide’. Countless documents in our archives also proved it. Turkey
is ready to cooperate with the relevant sides to enlighten the 1915
events which Anatolian people had to suffer altogether during the
World War I. We want historians to carry out an unbiased research
without any prejudice on this tragedy. Last year, we proposed that
Turkish and Armenian historians should come together to carry out
a detailed, unbiased research both in Turkish and Armenian archives
and share all their findings with the world public opinion.”
“However, some friendly countries, especially France, which says
disputed events in its own past should be left to historians for
evaluation, but cannot endure even the debates on 1915 events,
contradict themselves. Their efforts to make legal arrangements which
accept even questioning the baseless Armenian claims as a crime are
nothing, but serious mistakes that will seriously disappoint Turkey.”
“We expect all our friendly countries to support our historical
proposal instead of making parliamentary decisions for domestic
reasons on these claims as if they are indisputable historical facts,”
Arinc added.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA CONDOLED ON A-320 CRASH
PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2006 21:46 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “I join condolences presented by Ukrainian President
Victor Yuschenko to the Armenian people over the tragedy over the
Black Sea,” Ukrainian Ambassador to Armenia Alexander Bozhko said. In
his words, a20-year-old Ukrainian citizen was on board the liner.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SOCHI MAYOR: “WE MOURN IRREPLACEABLE LOSS WITH YOU”
PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2006 01:43 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Sochi Mayor Victor Kolodyazhnyj on behalf of all
Sochi residents condoled with relatives and friends of the victims
of A-320 airplane crash.
“In this sorrowful hour I want to frankly condole with relatives and
friends of the victims! Many Armenians live in our town. Something more
than mere friendly relations always tied Armenia and Sochi. We were
tied and still are by kinship. We were united in our common happiness,
we remain together in our common grief. Our hearts are full of sorrow
and we mourn irreplaceable loss with you,” Kolodyazhnyj’s official
message says, reports Yuga.ru.

UAR OPENED BANK ACCOUNT FOR MONEY TRANSFERS TO FAMILIES OF VICTIMS
PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2006 21:59 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Union of Armenians of Russia (UAR) opened a bank
account for money transfers to families of the victims of Yerevan-Sochi
liner crash on May 3, reports the UAR Press Center. Sochi branch
of the Union of Armenians of Russia reports the address and account
numbers of the bank:
68 Kalarash St., Sochi L-200, 354200, INN 2318029397
Federal Commercial Bank Moscow Capital Ltd., Sochi, BIK 040396534
Settlement account 40703810703010000404
Correspondent account 30101810900000000534

COMMENTARY: LITHUANIA SHOULD RE-EVALUATE REGIONAL, FOREIGN POLICY
Delfi website, Vilnius
2 May 06
[Commentary by Balys Primorskas: “Lithuanian Foreign Policy:
Quo Vadis”]
Almost two years ago, a new vision of Lithuania – a member of the EU
and NATO – was presented to the public. According to this vision,
Lithuania is the centre of the region, and Vilnius is the regional
capital. We have to admit that the vision was indeed nice. It inspired
Lithuania to participate actively in shaping the pro-European foreign
policy in the post-Soviet territory.
Lithuania has contributed a great deal to the implementation of
various initiatives related to the democratization of Belarus, Ukraine,
Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Perhaps this, indirectly,
encouraged Lithuania to participate actively in the reconstruction
works in Afghanistan’s Ghowr Province.
Thanks to the active foreign policy in the post-Soviet territory,
Lithuania has become a prominent player on the international
scene. Lithuania has managed to avoid the fate of a province forgotten
by God and by the most important players in international politics.
The Lithuanian institutions that are shaping and implementing
Lithuanian foreign policy have accomplished a lot by renewing or
initiating close new ties with the former USSR republics. Moreover,
Lithuania has managed to establish and master the main principles of
spreading democracy.
We welcome public discussions about Lithuania, as the centre of the
region, an empire, or the 21st century’s Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Such
discussions are good exercise for political science students because
they motivate them to think over and to revive our history; it gives
us more self-esteem and inspires us to take action.
The vision of Lithuania as the region’s centre was useful because
it helped us overcome the stagnation in the foreign policy that was
present after we joined the EU and NATO. Who knows, perhaps if not
for this vision, there might not been any pro-Western activities in
the post-Soviet territory.
In any case, we need to revise the vision of Lithuania as the regional
centre that carries the flag of the Western civilization. Now is the
time to ask: “Does Lithuania indeed have enough resources to aspire
to the status of the region’s centre?”
The article by Antanas Kulakauskas, “Postmodern Imperia or Golden
Province,” published in the weekly Veidas on 16 March gives us
a good opportunity to start a wider discussion about what kind of
foreign policy would benefit Lithuania more. If we review and analyse
critically what Kulakauskas has written in the article, we can propose
a somewhat different scenario of development of Lithuanian foreign
policy, the scenario that would take into consideration Lithuania’s
limited potential.
To start, we have been ignoring the fact that the weak spot in the
vision of Lithuania as the region’s centre is that we are ignoring the
obvious, that Lithuania is a small country with limited resources. It
was not by chance that Kulakauskas wrote favourably about Estonia,
a country that is seeking to become an EU “golden province” and to
achieve that by following the philosophy of an artful and rational
country. Lithuania is following the vision of being the region’s
centre and ignores facts that contradict this vision. By doing so,
Lithuania could simply “burn out” or become too “strained.”
If the Lithuanian initiative to become a regional centre has brought
a short-term benefit, it has helped us avoid being an unremarkable
province. In the mid- or long term this initiative, which has not
been evaluated in the context of reality, can make us weaker. By
taking up various projects (which are often not evaluated rationally)
aimed at the democratization of the post-Soviet territories, we are
wasting valuable human and financial resources.
It is possible that after we waste our limited resources, we will
fail to show our Western partners any positive results and, at the
same time, will lose the trust of the post-Soviet countries. Then we
will have to give up our ambitions, and we will become a political
periphery ruled from abroad and representing foreign interests.
If Lithuania wants to have a more efficient and more functional
foreign policy, it has to do the following.
First, it has to team up the post-Soviet territories’ specialists
and prepare new ones.
The idea that Lithuania has to strengthen its national political
scientists’ potential is not new. However, we must admit that the
current situation is not satisfactory. We know the Russian language
and have exceptional experience of living in the USSR. However, we do
not have or do not have enough good specialists on Belarus, Ukraine,
Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. We emphasize that we can
understand residents of the post-Soviet territories much better than
any other EU country; however, by saying so, we are lying to ourselves
and to others.
Time passes and the situation in the countries of the post-Soviet
territory is different from what it was when the USSR collapsed. It
is not enough just to know the Russian language to call yourself an
expert on Ukraine, Azerbaijan, or Moldova. It is necessary to know
the specifics of these countries and to be aware of the situation in
each one (sometimes it is important to be more aware of the situation
than the locals are).
Our most attractive plans are doomed to collapse if we base our action
on sketchy and unreliable information. Not a single strategy will work
if before drawing it we do not carry out a thorough and exhaustive
analysis, if we do not evaluate all steps and contra-steps. To be
able to do that, we need specialists who know not only the Russian
language, but also the Georgian, Ukrainian, and Romanian languages.
Lithuania needs a strong and authoritative centre for strategic
analysis, whose specialists would help our country make use of the
economic and political power of the Western countries in our pursuit
to find our place in the economic and administrative niches of the
post-Soviet territories. It is important to invest in the people who
are interested in the post-Soviet countries and who have analytic
abilities. Lithuania has people who, with the right motivation,
could work in a strategic analysis centre.
In the long run, this would bring Lithuania a huge profit; this is why
we should allocate money for such projects. Good specialists would help
us save our limited resources by selecting the aid projects that would
be worthwhile and by deselecting the ones in which Lithuania should
not participate. Moreover, they could help to identify the countries
on which Lithuania should concentrate its attention and efforts.
Second, we should identify the post-Soviet territory countries
that indeed need Lithuania’s support and where this support would
be effective.
We have the specific knowledge about how to develop the essential
administrative competence needed to join the EU and NATO. Lithuania
knows how to shake off the Soviet heritage, how to transform a
centralized economy into a free-market economy, and how to harmonize
legal and political systems with EU and NATO requirements.
We can give useful advice to the post-Soviet countries; we can help
them not to repeat our mistakes. Here we have an important advantage
over the old EU countries and even over the [former] Warsaw Pact
members that have a similar experience of living under the USSR
umbrella.
We have to use this advantage. At the same time, we should realize that
we cannot democratize the post-Soviet countries all at once. Today, by
pretending we are the region’s leaders, we are trying to democratize
the wrong countries. We are not democratizing the countries that are
important geopolitical players and that are important participants
in the fight of the world’s mighty powers.
It is obvious that Ukraine is not within our range of possibility. This
country has powerful forces and big money. All Lithuania can get
in the Ukraine’s democratization game is the role of a utility
player. Therefore, the Lithuanian initiatives in democratizing Ukraine
should be well-weighted. For example, we could take measured steps
towards the democratization of Ukraine (or some other country)
if we want to give a “headache” to those who want to revive the
Russian empire.
We have to admit that the Belarus democratization projects will not
bring any benefit until the Belarusians indeed want this. It is funny
that we are trying, in an artificial way, to present Belarusians to the
West as a nation that longs for democracy. It is clear to everybody
that Alyaksandr Lukashenka would have won the presidential elections
in Belarus even if it had been free and fair.
Lithuania should support the Belarusian opposition, but we should
not overdo it. In the future, Lithuania may have to face painful
consequences because it is forcing freedom and democracy on the
Belarusians.
Generally speaking, the enthusiastic idea of some architects of
our foreign policy for Lithuania to become the tool to spread the
Western civilization ideas does a lot of harm to Lithuania. Often,
we look at the post-Soviet countries that do not belong to the EU and
NATO the same way an older brother looks down on his younger brother,
who is not capable of making independent decisions. In the long run,
citizens of these countries may start feeling resentful.
If we force on them our ideas of freedom and democracy, we may not
only spoil bilateral relations but also push the possible allies
towards Moscow. We have to admit that we are not an ideal stronghold
of freedom and democracy. This is why our relations with other
post-Soviet countries have to be the relations of equal partners,
not relations in which one party tells the other what to do and the
other blindly follows the orders.
In principle, Lithuania could work with and expect to be successful in
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. But to do that, we need to evaluate
what ties and interests connect us to these countries. Of course,
it would be good if these countries manage to become true democracies
and part of the Euro-Atlantic system. But the question is what will
Lithuania gain? (Would there be any economic gain?)
If there is no gain or if the gain is too small, is it worth wasting
our resources? Perhaps we should consider another country as our
priority, for example Moldova, and concentrate our efforts there? When
drafting a priority list of two or three countries, we should
concentrate on the countries of the Balkan region and Central Asia.
Third, we have to admit that we are not the only ones who seek to
“conquer” free administration and economy niches in the post-Soviet
territories.
Our ideas of bringing democracy to the East are not unique. Latvians
and Estonians also understand what the possible gains are if they
participate in the democratization projects in the post-Soviet
territories. Moreover, there are other countries that have been active
in the post-Soviet territories – Poland and Germany. The fact is that
we cannot match the resources and potential of these countries.
Poland and Germany have achieved a lot in the post-Soviet countries
that are striving to join the Euro-Atlantic structures. If Lithuania is
the leader in certain areas and certain countries, by all means, such
leadership is only temporary. This is why Lithuania should cooperate
with one of these countries or play with both in an effort to restore
balance. Through cooperation with Poland and/or Germany, Lithuania
could increase its manoeuvre possibilities significantly. Together
with these countries, Lithuania could implement the projects it is
not able to carry out on its own.
Of course, we have to admit that by cooperating with Poland or/and
Germany Lithuania would be pushed away from the leader position. The
political weight of the countries differs considerably. We of course
can relinquish the big ambitions and the biggest part of the praise,
if this gives us considerable economical and political dividends. If we
try to gain too much, we can lose everything. Indeed, Lithuania does
not need to compete with other EU countries. We have to complement
the efforts of the EU institutions or of other EU member states for
the sake of everybody’s wellbeing.
We have to stress that the European Union and the United States agree
that it is essential to promote democracy all over the world. The
projects initiated by Lithuania have to do with the democratization
of the post-Soviet territories; this is why we can be successful in
“selling” these projects. Of course, the best wrapping paper for
such a project would be the one with the EU symbols. In such a case,
we could please the old EU member states and make a more serious
impression on the countries we support.
Indeed, a well-planned Lithuania’s step towards the East “blessed”
by the EU would help ensuring Lithuania’s security and solving
internal social problems. In such a case, Lithuania could use the
resources it has in a more effective way; moreover, it could use the
EU funds (allocated for the neighbourhood policy); the Lithuanian
businessmen would get access to new markets and new fields of economic
cooperation. In consequence, the EU would win, ordinary Lithuanian
citizens would win, and the countries that are expecting our support
would also win.
Lastly, I have to note that public diplomacy, which has not been
actively employed so far, can play an important role in Lithuania’s
aspirations to participate in the democratization processed in the
neighbouring Eastern countries. Visits by officials, declarations,
institutional cooperation cannot substitute for cooperation between
ordinary people. Students exchange, cooperation between cities and
towns, cultural events – all these and many other things that may look
unimportant at first glance (for example, broadcasting programmes
of the countries we are interested in) could give a much more solid
basis for bilateral cooperation at the official level.
Indeed, Lithuania, which is striving to become a “post-modern empire”
or a “golden province,” needs a clear roadmap on how to attain this
goal. In both cases, the most important things are strengthening our
analytical capacity, making a prioritized list of the countries we
should support, and cooperating with Poland or Germany.
If we do not start solving the above mentioned problems, we will very
soon become not an “empire” or a “golden province,” but an EU outpost.