ARMENIAN CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS DIALOGUE NOT GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS
By Sezai Kalayci, Istanbul
Zaman, Turkey
April 19 2006
Remembered mostly for the so-called genocide allegations, the Armenian
issue will be taken up from a different angle at a conference organized
by Erciyes University.
Turkish Armenians Patriarch Mesrob II, who had refused to answer
questions related to the issue, will join the gathering to discuss
the peace process of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
Professor Metin Hulagu, deputy dean of the Faculty of Science and
Letters of Erciyes University and head of the organization committee,
said Mesrob II rejected previous invitations, but what persuaded him
this time was their aim: “We plan to talk about peace and dialogue
between the two nations.”
Another remarkable aspect of this symposium is that those who had
spoken harshly on the matter will now talk about how to manage
co-habitation of Turks and Armenians.
The three-day conference organized by Erciyes University is titled “The
Art of Co-Existence in Ottoman Society: The Case of Turkish-Armenian
Relations.”
Hulagu says the Patriarch’s refusal of previous invitations
is understandable, “He naturally refused the invitation from a
conservative city of Anatolia where the atmosphere was tense. We
showed special consideration for his decision due to such concerns,
and for when Mr. Mesrob visited Kayseri two weeks ago. I spoke with
him about the symposium and its content, and he accepted an invitation
when we assured him that we planned to focus on peace and dialogue.”
Professor Hulagu assured politics will not be discussed at the
conference. “We want to emphasize peace and tolerance. We want to
demonstrate how Armenian and Turkish societies lived together for
centuries. If we had not attempted to address such a topic the
Patriarch would not have joined the meeting.”
The professor reminded that nobody had touched on the topic of peace
in relation to this issue so far. He said they plan to conduct a
similar symposium to take place in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia
are underway.

ARMENIA’S GIVEAWAYS TO RUSSIA: FROM PROPERTY-FOR-DEBT TO PROPERTY-FOR-GAS
By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 19 2006
Armenian critics describe the government’s new agreement with Russia,
giving up infrastructure property for moderately priced gas, as the
equivalent of giving up the family’s milch cow — or at least selling
the cow for the price of milk.
The preliminary Armenian-Russian sale-and-purchase agreement, first
announced on April 6, was not signed as scheduled on April 14 — an
indication that the bargaining continues over some details. It also
appears that Moscow and Yerevan need a decent interval to condition —
if not convince — Armenia’s population to accept the terms of the
energy agreement and, more broadly, the changing nature of Armenia’s
relationship with Russia from partnership of choice to servitude
without a choice.
According to Gazprom announcements and Armenian officials’ statements
from April 6 to date, the 25-year agreement includes the following
elements:
1) Gazprom will charge $110 per one thousand cubic meters of gas
supplied to Armenia from April 1, 2006, through January 1, 2009. The
price will be subject to negotiation from 2009 onward. Armenia had
paid $54 to $56 per one thousand cubic meters until 2005, and it
will sell assets to Russia in 2006 in order to be able buy the gas at
double the old price. However, the price of gas delivered to Armenian
consumers will rise only slightly, because the government will use
the proceeds from the asset sale to Russia in order to subsidize the
domestic gas sales.
2) The joint ArmRosGaz company is taking over the fifth power bloc of
the Hrazdan gas-fired power plant and unifying it with the four old
blocs, which are already controlled by Russia’s Unified Energy Systems
(UES), under a single management system. Hrazdan’s unfinished fifth
bloc was slated to become Armenia’s largest and most modern power
generating unit. Gazprom is to pay $249 million for Hrazdan-5 in
three annual tranches from 2006 to 2008.
Of this amount, $189 million will be nominally transferred to Armenia’s
government, which will use the funds to subsidize moderately priced
gas supplies to Armenian consumers. Significantly, those funds
are earmarked for ArmRosGaz to ensure its profitability — i.e.,
they are to revert to Gazprom, which is the dominant stakeholder in
ArmRosGaz. Curiously, the remaining $60 million is to be transferred
in cash into the Armenian Defense Ministry’s extra-budgetary account.
3) ArmRosGaz is to take over the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. It shall
acquire Armenia’s ownership title to that pipeline’s first section,
Meghri-Kajaran (40 kilometers), which is due for completion before the
end of 2006; and will become the general contractor for construction of
the pipeline’s second section, Kajaran-Yerevan (197 kilometers). Thus,
Gazprom will be in a position to dictate the terms of Armenia’s access
to Iranian supplies or prevent Armenia from diversifying its supply
sources altogether. Meanwhile, Russia uses Turkmen gas for deliveries
to Armenia, and Iran had similarly planned to supply Armenia with
gas from Turkmenistan.
4) Gazprom’s existing, 45% stake in ArmRosGaz shall increase to a
veto-proof majority, between 75% and 82%, by adding Gazprom’s stake
in the Hrazdan-5 power bloc. The Russian company is to invest $140
million in the completion of Hrazdan-5. Gazprom’s offshoot Itera
holds another 10% stake in ArmRosGaz.
Construction of the Hrazdan-5 power bloc was being completed by Iran’s
Sanir company under a 2005 investment agreement. Iran made available
to Armenia a $150 million soft loan for completing Hrazdan-5 and a $90
million investment for building an electricity transmission line from
Hrazdan to Iran. Armenia was to repay the loan by supplying electricity
from Hrazdan, using Iran-supplied gas to produce that electricity. The
project envisaged annual profits of $100 million for Armenia, which
would have retained ownership of Hrazdan-5 and covered more than 40%
of the country’s electricity requirement from this project.
Russia already owns Hrazdan’s first four power blocs and some smaller
hydropower plants, as well as Armenia’s electricity distribution grid
(all under Unified Energy Systems) and controls the gas distribution
network (through ArmRosGaz), as well as exercising financial management
of the admittedly obsolete Metsamor nuclear power plant.
The transfers of Hrazdan-5 and control over the Iran-Armenia pipeline
will deliver Armenia’s energy sector totally in Russia’s hands.
(Noyan Tapan, Mediamax, Arminfo, Interfax, April 7-17; see EDM,
January 17, 20, April 6)

RENO HARNISH: “US-AZERBAIJAN CO-OPERATION IS A STRATEGIC”
/vis.pl?s=001&p=0055&n=001425&g
19.04. 2006
Safar Abiyev, Minister of Defence of Azerbaijan, General-Colonel,
received Reno Harnish, the Ambassador of the United States to
Azerbaijan. Press-Service of the Ministry of Defence informed. Pending
the meeting S. Abiyev said that for period of R. Harnish’s diplomatic
mission in Azerbaijan, bilateral relationship between two States have
been substantially developed, including military collaboration is
being developed. Minister told about relations between Azerbaijan and
Armenia and said that the United States should make more efficient
efforts for settlement of Nagorno-Garabagh conflict in accordance
with International law norms and respect for territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan: “I hope that a visit of Stephen Mann, US Co-Chair of
the OSCE Minsk Group to the region will have a positive impact upon
the conflict settlement”.
Ambassador R. Harnish informed that US-Azerbaijan co-operation is a
strategic. According to him, the official visit of the President of
Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev to the United States of America will contribute
to more efficient development of bilateral relations.
The meeting was discussed the perspectives on the US-Azerbaijan
relationship.

STATEMENT BY TURKISH AMBASSADOR NABI SENSOY ON THE PBS PROGRAM “THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE”
Anatolian Times, Turkey
April 19 2006
The program “The Armenian Genocide,” which aired on PBS on April 17,
provides a blatantly one-sided perspective of a tragic and unresolved
period of world history. Its premise is rejected not only by my
Government, but also by many eminent scholars who have studied the
period in question. Instead of acknowledging that this issue remains
unresolved, the program reflects a self-serving political agenda by
Armenian American activists who seek to silence legitimate debate
on this issue and establish their spurious orthodoxy as the absolute
truth.
Contrary to the program’s claims, Armenian allegations of genocide
have never been historically or legally substantiated. Unlike the
Holocaust, the numbers, dates, facts and the context associated with
this period are all contested, and objective scholars remain deeply
divided. The legitimacy of this debate – and the continuing lack of
consensus – was recently validated by the respected scholar Guenter
Lewy, whose latest book The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey:
A Disputed Genocide documents the incomplete historic record and
excessive politicization associated with the issue.
Regrettably, the producer of “The Armenian Genocide” does not
let facts get in the way of his effort to identify a scapegoat for
tragedies that befell many thousands of innocents during a period of
World War I when the circumstances of war, inter-communal strife,
disease, famine and instability took countless lives regardless of
ethnicity or religion. As a result, the program is rife with errors,
misrepresentations, exaggerations and unsubstantiated conclusions,
with other widely accepted facts and interpretations conveniently
omitted. The lack of objectivity, however, is common practice for
the film’s producer, who in the past has worked with funding from
Armenian Americans on similar projects and who has done little to
hide his antagonism for Turkey or his bias on the sensitive matter
in question. Such predilections are to be expected from this program
as well, underwritten by those who subscribe to the genocide thesis
and who seek to ignore or suppress evidence that would in any way
contradict their view. For this reason, PBS’ own Ombudsman has
expressed reservations regarding the almost exclusive participation
of Armenian Americans in the funding of the program.
To its credit – and in recognition of the strong bias inherent in
“The Armenian Genocide” – PBS also produced a panel discussion to
accompany the program consisting of experts with a range of views on
this matter. Unfortunately, as the New York Times and the Wall Street
Journal have reported, many PBS viewers were unable to watch the
televised debate, due to the concerted efforts of Armenian American
partisans who embarked on a nationwide campaign to prevent its airing
by PBS affiliates. By succumbing to overt pressure by these activists
and their political allies, PBS affiliates became instruments of
self-censorship that should have no place in American society.
For Armenian American activists, PBS programming is just one avenue
by which to silence the ongoing debate on this issue. In another
recent incident, the University of Southern California cancelled an
academic forum featuring two prominent Turkish experts on the matter,
due to pressure by Armenian American groups that openly took credit
for this heavy-handed suppression of academic expression. Meanwhile,
in Massachusetts, teachers and students have been forced to go to court
to preserve the presentation of alternatives to the genocide thesis
in a state-mandated curriculum guide, yet another incidence of overt
and unacceptable censorship driven by Armenian American activists.
It is heartening that in contrast to those running from this debate,
the Turkish American community in the United States has taken up
the mantle to defend America’s constitutional principle of free
expression. This community and a growing constituency of friends
have pressed for opening this debate to all viewpoints. As a result,
in parallel to grassroots efforts to persuade PBS affiliates to
air the panel discussion, over 40,000 individuals have signed a
petition sponsored by the Assembly of Turkish Associations (ATAA),
urging PBS to air other more balanced programs on this difficult and
controversial period. In other instances when the right to undertake
or express scholarly research has been threatened, Turkish Americans
and organizations like the ATAA have consistently supported free and
open examination of the facts.
Turkey itself has pursued the facts via numerous collaborative
efforts. Last year, Prime Minister Erdoðan issued an unprecedented
proposal to Armenian President Kocharian for an impartial study of
the matter through the establishment of a joint historical commission,
a landmark opening that has yet to receive a favorable response. And
unlike U.S.C.’s recent forum cancellation, conferences on this subject
are taking place in Turkey with the full support of Government leaders.
Today, Turkey and its expatriates are willing to address these
sensitive unresolved matters. Yet each time an effort is made – even
here in America, the world’s exemplar of open and free expression –
our Armenian interlocutors either run from the debate or do anything
possible to quash it. Through their efforts, freedom of speech on
this issue has been virtually eliminated, from the policy community
to university campuses to the televisions of millions of Americans.
It is clear that until and unless the Turkish and Armenian peoples
can begin an open, honest and introspective dialogue on this
matter, genuine reconciliation will not commence here or in the
Caucasus. The circumstances surrounding the PBS program and its airing
unfortunately demonstrate that we are nowhere close to reaching a
mutual understanding about our common history. Stifling debate and
perpetuating a unilaterally established narrative may be expedient
for some, but it will not bring about the closure that is needed to
lay this difficult issue to rest.
19626
–Boundary_(ID_VjQsWTIXcaTYnnBuLeTwUg)–

AZIMOV: CO-CHAIRS HAVEN’T PRESENTED THE AZERBAIJANI SIDE WITH NEW PROPOSALS OR A NEW PROJECT
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 19 2006
“Any improvement is possible if there is a strong will,” Azerbaijani
deputy foreign minister Araz Azimov told journalists (APA).
The deputy minister said the main thing is that specific frameworks
exist and constructiveness and promptness are needed to solve the
problem in these frameworks.
“Azerbaijan is ready to the improvement in this framework. There
are different models, there exist different forms of self-governing
statuses in Europe and in other regions. However, all these statues
are enjoyed on condition of preserve of territorial integrity of the
states they exist,” Mr.Azimov said.
Commenting on OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs often visiting the region,
Azimov said the objective of these visits is to decide on further steps
following the talks at Rambouillet, the sides continuing negotiating
process or finding other ways out.
The deputy minister also said that the co-chairs haven’t presented
official Baku with new proposals or a new project.
Commenting on the recent regular violation of the cease-fire in the
frontline, Azimov said the Azerbaijani government is concerned about
this case, and noted this does not serve peace process.
“Azerbaijan does not want the cease-fire violation, and advocates
continuing the negotiating process in normal atmosphere,” he said.
Responding to the question that the Great 8 is due to discuss the
Nagorno Garabagh conflict in St.Petersburg, Russia, Azimov said this
meeting is important from the aspect of the most developed states
coming together to solve urgent and difficult problems concerning
the international scene.
“Heads of state, who are responsible for great resources and political
wills, come together. However, if Armenian President and the Armenian
side do not respond to Azerbaijan’s constructiveness, neither the Great
8 nor any other great alliance can solve this issue. At the same time,
the Great 8 bringing this issue to focus is important. Because, it is
urgent as a political influence, on one hand, this is a framework which
can influence politically. On the other hand, economical resources
of the countries participating in this framework make us to conclude
that these states can donate a gift to renovation works in the region
after the solution of the conflict. This issue can be discussed in
the framework of a meeting.
However, a certain improvement should be achieved by that. Otherwise,
I think such issues are pointless”, Araz Azimov concluded.

BAKU APPRECIATES G8’S ATTENTION TO THE NK CONFLICT
Today, Azerbaijan
April 19 2006
Azerbaijan highly appreciates the G8’s attention to the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict.
The fact that the conflict issue might be raised at the meeting,
may have a huge political influence on the resolution of conflict,
the Deputy Foreign Minister, Araz Azimov told, commenting the fact
that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict might be included on the G8
meeting agenda, that is due to take place in Saint-Petersburg.
Besides, from the economic point of view the G8’s assistance in the
infrastructure reconstruction on the occupied territories may prove
vital, the Deputy FM said.
However, if the Armenian leadership won’t show any comprehension,
the G8 just as any other structure would barely be able to affect
the outcome, Mr. Azimov concluded, as Trend reports.
URL:

THE NEW YORK TIMES WHITEWASHES THE ISRAELI TAKEOVER OF EAST JERUSALEM
by Patrick O’Connor
April 18, 2006
ZNet, MA
April 19 2006
Despite a practiced guise of objectivity, the US corporate media’s
reporting on Israel/Palestine is dominated by the Israeli narrative.
An April 16, 2006 feature article by Steven
Erlanger, The New York Times’ Jerusalem Bureau Chief,
“Jerusalem, Now” in the Times’ Sunday Travel section
( vel/16jerusalem.html)
exemplifies how seemingly professional journalistic standards
can mask insidious biases and misinform readers. Erlanger, guided
around Jerusalem by Israelis, omits Israeli violence, stereotypes
Palestinians, whitewashes Israeli settlements and covers up Israeli
efforts to take over East Jerusalem. “Jerusalem, Now” is among the most
political and one-sided mainstream US news articles on Israel/Palestine
published in the last year.
In “Jerusalem, Now” Erlanger repeatedly notes his effort to remain
above the fray – “I try to see it through various lenses”, “I try
to see Jerusalem as a place where both armies and souls contend”,
“I try to see the barrier from both the Palestinian and the Israeli
points of view”, etc..
However, Erlanger simultaneously provides clues that Israeli
perspectives will dominate. He notes three times that he was guided
around Jerusalem by Israelis whom he quotes and paraphrases – “Avi
Ben Hur, the American-turned-Israeli-turned-guide”, “Avner Goren,
an archeologist and guide”, “Eilat Mazar, an archaeologist.”
Israelis in Erlanger’s article are human beings holding professional
jobs. In contrast, he never even names a single Palestinian.
Erlanger’s Palestinians are an undifferentiated mass with “ramshackle”
shops on dusty, garbage-strewn streets where they play soccer,
and labor. They are enraged and “hate”, “militants” who carry out
“suicide bombings”, “riot” and open fire on an Israeli kindergarten,
and trudge “through the dust or the mud” at an Israeli checkpoint
designed to “prevent a terrorist” attack.
American journalists frequently rely on Israelis to explain
Palestinian realities. In Erlanger’s March 19 story, Israeli analyst
Yossi Alpher furnishes the article’s misguided thesis that Hamas’
election victory is comparable to the Iranian revolution. Similarly,
in Thomas Friedman’s one-sided April 12 Times column, Friedman quotes
extensively two Israelis’ opinions of Hamas’ electoral victory,
while citing no Palestinian views. Over the past five years, the
Times has published 3.4 op-eds by Israeli writers for every op-ed by
a Palestinian writer. Over the same period, the top five US newspapers
published 2.5 op-eds by Israelis for every op-ed by a Palestinian.
Erlanger’s reliance on Israeli perspectives frames his portrait
of Jerusalem. In his second paragraph Erlanger notes – “a narrow
moral precipice, running between a military checkpoint and suicide
bombing.” His disingenuous moral equation excludes Israeli violence
and seizure of Palestinian land. He follows with a misleading proverb
characterizing both sides, “We shall struggle for peace so hard that
not a tree will be left standing.” But it is Israel that has uprooted
over one million Palestinian-owned trees. He then adds another grossly
distorted parallel -“I try to see Jerusalem as a place where both
armies and souls contend.” But the only army is the well-equipped
Israeli army, the fourth largest army in the world.
Palestinians have only poorly equipped and barely functioning security
forces, and some poorly armed militias.
Erlanger claims, “Today, after a long truce with most Palestinian
militants, Jerusalem is calmer… the level of violence is down.”
Apparently “calm” refers only to reduced Palestinian attacks on Israeli
Jews, because daily Israeli violence against 200,000 Palestinian
residents of Jerusalem continues unabated.
Erlanger mentions Palestinian “suicide bombings” three times in the
first five paragraphs, and later adds Palestinian shooting at an
Israeli kindergarten, and Palestinian “rioting.” He minimizes Israeli
violence, noting only “Israeli troops reinvaded the West Bank”,
“the siege of Bethlehem”, expropriating land from Palestinians, and
“some Jews are plotting to destroy it and Al Aksa mosque.” The near
absence of Israeli violence is remarkable since the Israeli human
rights organization B’Tselem reports that during this five year
uprising Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed 3466 Palestinians,
mostly civilians, and Palestinians have killed 998 Israelis. During
this uprising Israelis have killed five times more children than
those killed by Palestinian armed groups.
Israeli soldiers, settlers and police are almost invisible in the
article. “Israeli troops” are mentioned once and “Israeli police”
materialize once to separate “tussling [Christian] clerics”.
Incongruously, Erlanger associates Christian clerics in Jerusalem with
more violent words than Israelis. There are “furious intra-Christian
battles”, “the Armenians and the Greeks battle”, there is “the war
of the doormat, the battling over chairs” and “the struggle for
the rooftop.”
Readers might therefore be surprised to witness the Israeli military’s
ubiquitous presence and violence in Jerusalem. Israeli soldiers
killed sixteen year old bystander Muhammad Ziad in March, 2006 in
Jerusalem. Israeli police shot in the back and killed 31 year old Samir
Dari in October, 2005. Police frequently assault peaceful Palestinian
protesters. Near the Old City’s Damascus Gate, a major tourist
thoroughfare, Israeli police regularly detain and beat Palestinians,
as they do at other checkpoints. Israeli television viewers recently
watched police assault a Hamas parliamentary candidate near Damascus
Gate. In one of many cases B’Tselem documented, in November, 2005
police in Jerusalem severely beat taxi-driver Iyad Shamasneh, then
released him uncharged.
Erlanger recognizes that “even archaeology is used as a weapon in the
struggle over the land.” Yet when writing about archaeological digs
in Silwan, he avoids mentioning recent Israeli government efforts to
demolish 88 Palestinian homes in Silwan to build a Jewish historical
park, a plan staved off for now by diplomatic appeals. The Israeli
Committee Against House Demolitions recorded the demolition of 94
Palestinian structures in East Jerusalem in 2005. Demolitions are
executed with the large-scale presence of Israeli soldiers and police
who often use violence against Palestinian civilians.
Erlanger also doesn’t prepare travelers to witness extremist,
Uzi-toting Israeli settlers violently expelling Palestinians from
their homes throughout East Jerusalem. He omits the burgeoning settler
take-over in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, with now over 40
Jewish settlements there.
In fact, Erlanger makes the massive, illegal Israeli settlements
and 200,000 settlers in East Jerusalem completely vanish. The words
“settler” and “settlements” simply never appear. Instead, he names
the settlements of Gilo and Har Homa a “Jewish neighborhood”, and
“Israeli neighborhood”.
Not one government has recognized Israel’s 1967 annexation of East
Jerusalem. With East Jerusalem under Israeli military occupation,
the UN, the International Court of Justice, all major human rights
organizations, and all governments clearly state that Israeli
settlements in East Jerusalem violate international law. But Erlanger
turns illegal Israeli settlements into cozy “neighborhoods”.
Even if the Times Travel section claims to avoid politics, by calling
settlements “neighborhoods” the Times takes a political stand against
international law. The Times specifically chose the Jerusalem Bureau
Chief to write about Jerusalem, rather than a travel writer.
Covering up the obvious developments in Jerusalem at this decisive
moment is tantamount to taking a strong political position in
support of Israeli domination of East Jerusalem. Ironically, this
week “The Economist” outlines those developments in a cover story
“The Last Conquest of Jerusalem” noting that “Israel’s plans for
Jerusalem will create a large Jewish city but will have harsh
consequences for the Palestinians, on both sides of the barrier”
( ory.cfm?story_id=6795641).
The massive Israeli construction of the Wall, settlements,
checkpoints and roads transforming East Jerusalem are impossible for
any observer to miss. Yet Erlanger fails to represent their scale
or implications. Commenting on Israel’s Wall, Erlanger only notes
that it scars the landscape, and that Palestinians feel it annexes
their land and cuts off neighborhoods. He says Jerusalem is built on
“struggle and rivalry”, but refuses to state the obvious, that one
side has won the struggle.
In stark contrast, The Economist explains, “Jerusalem, centre of
pilgrimage, crucible of history and the world’s oldest international
melting-pot, is changing hands once more, but with a slow and
quiet finality.” An accompanying Economist editorial notes that,
“in Jerusalem as a whole Israel’s policy has been to entrench its
control and create facts that cannot be reversed. This has entailed
reshaping the physical and demographic geography of the city, settling
Jews on the Arab side of the pre-1967 border and creating vast Jewish
neighbourhoods to the north, east and south… Sealing in and cutting
off the Palestinians of Jerusalem will only make another descent into
violence more likely.”
In a case of “too little, too late” the Times’ Travel
section includes a token secondary article, “In the West
Bank Politics and Tourism Remain Bound Together Inextricably”
( ravel/16westbank.html) by David
Kaufman and Marisa Katz which quotes some Palestinian views on West
Bank tourism. But “Jerusalem, Now”, nearly three times longer than
Kaufman and Katz’s article, is on the front page of the Travel section
and featured on the webpage.
“Jerusalem, Now” reflects either a woeful unconscious bias, striking
ignorance, a blatant political agenda, or a combination of all three.
By again failing to tell its readers what is happening in Jerusalem,
The New York Times has abdicated its journalistic responsibility and
is effectively complicit in Israeli violations of international law.
Patrick O’Connor is an activist with the International Soldarity
Movement () and Palestine Media Watch
().
ent/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10117
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SCHEDULED TRAINING OF NKR SELF-DEFENSE ARMY FINISHED IN NK
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
April 19 2006
Scheduled training of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic Defense Army with
participation of the army formations and units, as well as mobilization
resource, has finished in the Nagorno Karabakh.
The training’s goal was to determine the level of training education
of the armed forces, to improve management of the fighting arm and
coordination of their actions during defensive and counterattack
operations.
Today, in the course of the final, third stage of the training held
on the military polygon of the NKR Defense Army tactic training with
fighting shooting was conducted, during which tanks and artillery
were used.
The preliminary estimation of the training is positive, Spokesman
of the NKR Defense Ministry Senor Asratyan told De facto agency. He
informed that the final results would be summed up one of these days.
NKR DM Lieutenant-General Seyran Ohanyan was in command of the
training. NKR President and Armed Forces Supreme Commander in Chief
Arkady Ghoukasyan and RA DM Serzh Sargsyan were present at the measure.
Today a military units’ parade has been held under field conditions.
The servicemen distinguished in the course of the training were
awarded with certificates of honor and valuable gifts.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TRADE OFFICES WERE A JOKE, BUT POLITICIANS NOW WANT NEW ONES
By Dan Walters — Bee Columnist
Sacramento Bee, CA
April 19 2006
Creating overseas offices supposedly devoted to improving California’s
international trade was a popular political exercise in the 1980s
and 1990s.
There was no objective rationale for the program, nor any rhyme nor
reason to where the offices were located. Governors and legislators
acted on political whim, driven more by local factors or Capitol
politics than a hard-nosed investment-vs.-return equation.
Finally, the entire program collapsed of its own absurd weight.
Journalistic investigations and official audits established that
the trade offices were less than useless, with their directors –
political appointees all – spending most of their time dreaming up
phantom accomplishments.
At one point, the Legislature’s budget analyst reported that the
state’s Trade and Commerce Agency was claiming credit for any export
or investment that included a contact with a trade office, but could
not document a single specific transaction that could be tied to any
trade office activity. The Orange County Register, in an extensive
examination of the program, declared that the reports submitted by
the trade offices were “often false or distorted.” In many cases,
the newspaper contacted business executives that the offices claimed
to have helped and found that most shunned any benefits.
With the state budget oozing red ink in 2003, the Legislature voted
to shut down the Trade and Commerce Agency and the overseas trade
offices – almost. While financing was eliminated for a dozen offices
in London, Tokyo and other major foreign cities, a paragraph buried
in one of the budget “trailer bills” required the state to maintain
an office in tiny, landlocked Armenia.
Why Armenia? Democratic politicians had been cultivating political
support in Southern California’s large and growing Armenian American
community and wanted to butter up voters by paying official homage
to their homeland. For the past three years, therefore, Armenia is
the only nation with which California has maintained official trade
relations. But that would change if an array of bills now pending in
the Legislature – one with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s blessing –
is enacted. The state would open a new set of trade offices in Asia,
Latin America, Europe and Africa on the questionable assertion that
they would benefit the state’s international dealings.
At least those involved can’t say they weren’t warned. Jock O’Connell,
an authentic authority on California’s international trade, bluntly
told the Assembly’s economic development committee Tuesday that
the state’s former trade offices were useless and, given changes in
communications technology, are unnecessary today.
“Trade offices are something out of the 1980s,” O’Connell said. “The
world has changed … and yet the Legislature still talks about
trade offices.”
“There’s no desperate need for these trade offices,” O’Connell
continued. “There may be a political need.”
The latter comment hit the political nail on the head. Sponsoring
trade offices has nothing to do with improving international commerce
but – as the example of Armenia indicates – everything to do with
politicians’ desires to stroke significant blocs of voters and
special interest groups in California by giving their homelands
special recognition.
The bills pending in the Senate and the Assembly would open new
trade offices in Mexico, South Korea and South Africa specifically,
or regional offices in unspecified locations in some instances.
Schwarzenegger is backing a bill to create an office in Mexico “and
two international trade and investment offices in Asia.”
The chairman of the Assembly committee, Fresno Democrat Juan Arambula,
seems reluctant to approve a new flock of trade offices and is carrying
his own measure that would require the California Economic Strategy
Panel to conduct a study of the entire issue and report back to the
Legislature in two years.
If the Legislature and the governor were serious about enhancing
California’s international trade, and not just lubricating relations
with California interest groups, they would improve the infrastructure
of the state’s crowded ports and deep-six several other measures that
would drive trade elsewhere by imposing stiff new fees on cargo for
unrelated programs.
story/14244933p-15063290c.html

EXHIBITION DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN NA
National Assembly of RA, Armenia
April 19 2006
On April 18 within the framework of EU-Armenia Parliamentary
Cooperation Committee Eighth Meeting an exhibition dedicated to
preservation of cultural property in the National Assembly was
opened. In the exhibition the Armenian monuments left out of the
Armenian territory after the World War I are mainly presented. Armen
Roustamyan, Committee Co-Chairman highlighted the opening of such
exhibition in the aspect of focusing the society’s attention on
the preservation of the historical monument. Representatives of
EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, NA deputies and others
participated at the opening of the exhibition, which initiated the
NGO Studying the Armenian Architecture.
Armen Hakhnazaryan, Chairman of the NGO studying the Armenian
Architecture, presenting the diamonds of the Armenian architecture,
noted that the goal of the NGO is the preservation and evaluation
of the Armenian architectural values left out of Armenia after World
War I.
Hranush Hakobyan, NA deputy, highlighted the organization of the
exhibition from the viewpoint of presenting our Armenian cultural
property to European deputies. In Mrs. Hakobyan’s opinion the
destruction of the architectural monuments by our neighbours is
unacceptable, reminding that both the UNESCO and the civilized world
have put a task to preserve the cultural property.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress