Armenian Migration Service: “Some of Armenians evacuated from Lebanon will be sent to Nagorno Karabakh”
Today, Azerbaijan
July 27, 2006
Armenia is planning to send its citizens evacuated from Lebanon to
Nagorno Karabakh.
According to APA, so far 550 persons have been evacuated from Lebanon
and 54 from Israel to Armenia.
“Aleppo-Yerevan charter plans to take 51 more foreign nationals
today. These nationals applied to Armenian migration service to grant
them the status of “person in need of temporary refuge.”
The migration service representative told journalists that the number
of people evacuated to Armenia form Lebanon increases day by day,
and the government faces problems to settle them.
“Most of these persons have no relatives in Armenia. The government
has discussed providing first aid to the evacuated persons. I don’t
rule out sending some of the evacuated Armenians to Nagorno Karabakh,”
the service representative said.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Tahir Taghizadeh told that such reports
released by Armenian media aim at provocation.
“The Foreign Ministry is taking serious control of this issue. If
there is any settlement in the occupied Azerbaijani lands, this issue
will be put to the discussion of the international community,” the
spokesman underlined.
URL:

IAC: A320 crash caused by inadequate actions of the captain
Regnum, Russia
July 27, 2006
The Chief Department of Civil Aviation of Armenia has received the
official findings of the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) concerning
the crash of the Armenian Airbus A320 plane that fell into the Black
Sea while flying from Yerevan to Sochi on May 3. The press service
of the Department has informed REGNUM of the content of the findings:
“The investigation has shown:
With autopilot turned on, the plane was gliding strictly within
the landing configuration and was already 300 meters high when
the air controller instructed the crew to stop landing because
of low clouds, and to make a climbing turn. When turning, the
captain turned off the autopilot and, after climbing for a while,
with improper bank and pitch attitude, began to land the aircraft –
thereby, acting inadequately. Meanwhile, the second pilot failed to
properly control the landing parameters (pitch, altitude, vertical
speed). When the terrain warning system went off, the crew’s actions
were poorly coordinated and insufficient for pulling the plane up. No
single system failed, the aircraft adequately reacted to both the
instructions of the autopilot and the actions of the crew. There was
enough fuel for safe landing.”
The investigation was carried out by the IAC, a group comprising
representatives of Russian Transport Control Service, Russian Aviation
Department, Russian Air Navigation Department, the Armenian air
authorities and experts from France (the A320 manufacturer-country)
in compliance with the ICAO standards, the Intergovernmental
Agreement of 12 regional states (including Russia and Armenia)
and the air accident investigation rules. During the investigation
the commissioners collected and examined all relevant data on the
aircraft, the crew and the services controlling the flight, decoded
and analyzed the data of the black boxes and the land air control
services. With the help of special stands and trainers, a group of
Russian, Armenian and French specialists simulated the whole flight,
including the actions of the pilots.
To remind, the A320 fell into the Black Sea near Sochi, 6 km away
from the shore, on May 3, 2006 02:13 AM. All the 8 crew members and
105 passengers onboard were killed.

David Simonyan: Surrender of territories to Azerbaijan: strategic
consequences for Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh
Regnum, Russia
July 27, 2006
REGNUM publishes the article of security expert David Simonyan
(Yerevan), which reflects his vision of the future of the Karabakh
conflict. The article is published in the author’s wording.
In the light of the continuing discourse on how to preserve the
“favorable window of opportunities” in the Karabakh peace process,
people in Armenia keep actively talking about the settlement
principles that have reportedly been presented to the Armenian
and Azeri presidents for discussion and possible signing. These
principles stipulate that Armenian troops be withdrawn from the
liberated territories and the territories, except for the Lachin
corridor, be given back to Azerbaijan.
The article is about the importance the liberated territory has for
ensuring the key element of Armenia’s national security – its military
component. When speaking about Armenia, you should keep in mind two
states, the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
(NKR), who are fully integrated in military and economic terms. As
you may know, military security is a condition of a state that allows
it to exclude any damage to its vital interests that can be caused
by threat or practical armed violence.
The given analysis is based on an axiom that is generally accepted
among experts: for ensuring national security one should be ready
for the worst scenario. And now, let’s more thoroughly consider the
significance the liberated territory has for ensuring the military
security of Armenia (RA and NKR).
The military conflict of 1991-1994 has improved the quality of the
following elements of the military-strategic position of the Armenian
states:
1. Frontline configuration
The present configuration of the frontline is optimal for the
Armenian side. The southern flank of the Artsakh front is shielded
by the Iranian border, the northern flank – by the hard-to-access
Mrav mountain range. In the east – from the mountains of Mrav to the
river Arax – the Armenian side has a well-fortified multi-echelon
defense line.
Should the Armenian side give back the territories of six districts
and keep only Lachin, the total frontline of the two Armenian states
with Azerbaijan, including Nakhichevan, will get 450 km longer to 1,100
km. The frontline between Artsakh and Azerbaijan will lengthen by 150
km to 360 km. For you to have the full picture of how long a border
Armenia will have with its conflicting neighbors, we should remind
you that Armenia also has a poorly protected 268 km border with Turkey.
In order to effectively fortify the extended frontline the Armenian
side will have to mobilize substantial human and financial resources.
First, the Armenian side will have to increase its army personnel (the
Armed Forces of Armenia and the Defense Army of Artsakh (Karabakh))
and, therefore, to prolong the compulsory service term for privates
and to enroll contract officers.
Second, after withdrawing troops, the Armenian side will have to
undertake big expenses to create new defense lines. To carry out the
above measures, the Armenian side will have to augment its military
budget, but to do this, it will have to further curtail its scarce
social financing and to face the ensuing negative consequences.
2. Depth of defense
The liberated territories have allowed the Armenian side to ensure
the minimum defense depth and to solve several important strategic
problems:
First, the present depth of defense has allowed the Armenian side to
form a multi-echelon defense line. Should the first line be broken, the
Armenian side will be able to resist on the following ones and to keep
the enemy outside Artsakh until additional troops come from Armenia.
Second, the central densely-populated areas of Artsakh, including
its capital, Stepanakert, as well as the settlements of the Goris,
Kapan and Meghri districts of Armenia have become inaccessible for
shelling by Azeri artillery and multiple rocket launching systems
(BM-21 “Grad”).
Third, by liberating the Zangelan, Jebrail and Fizuli districts
and moving the frontline over 100 km eastward, the Armenian side
has liquidated the threat to the vulnerable, just 40 km wide Meghri
district of the Republic of Armenia.
If the six districts are given back to the enemy and the frontline is
moved back to the former administrative border of Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region, the Armenian side will lose the necessary depth
for effective defense and will face bigger difficulties in defending
Artsakh should a new war begin.
The new frontline will run just 5 km away from the district centers of
Mardakert, Askeran and Hadrut and 18 km away from Stepanakert. If the
Armenian side gives back the Karvachar (formerly Kelbajar) district
too, the Martakert district will get vulnerable to possible military
attacks from three sides.
Even fortified to the maximum, the new defense line will not be a
reliable guarantor of Artsakh’s military security. As we know from
military history, any well-fortified defense line (Mannerheim line,
Siegfried line, Bar-Lev line) can be broken by the attacker, and only
sufficient depth of defense can allow the defender to organize new
resistance lines and by wearing the enemy out to stop his attack. For
example, during the Yom Kippur War (1973), when the Egyptian troops
overran the 157.5 km long and 15 km deep Bar-Lev line in Sinai in just
six hours, it was exactly the depth of the line that allowed Israel
to stop the Egyptian troops, to prevent them from going deep into
its territory, to mobilize new forces and to turn around the situation.
Besides, if the border is moved, most of the settlements of Artsakh
and the Sunik region of Armenia, first of all, Stepanakert, Kapan and
Goris, will find themselves unprotected in the face of possible massive
shelling by the enemy. If a new war starts, a sudden massive bombing
of towns, district centers and villages by artillery and “Grads”
will cause big casualties among civilians and heavy in destruction
in Artsakh and Sunik. This may result in a mass exodus of people from
the area.
3. Military communications
Efficient military communications, well-trained and equipped mobile
troops, timely supply of arms, hardware, ammunition, fuel and other
stuff and quick evacuation are really crucial in modern war. For
the Armenian side, regular military communications would be really
indispensable, should the enemy get big superiority during the first
days of the war.
Let’s see in detail what military communications each side has:
Azerbaijan
The densely-populated areas of Azerbaijan are connected with the
Artsakh front by two railroads: Baku-Yevlakh and Baku-Horadiz station
and several motor roads: Baku-Shemakha-Yevlakh, Baku-Kurdamir-Yevlakh
and Baku-Birmai-Bailakan (Zhdanovsk) as well as belt road
Yevlakh-Barda-Agjabedy-Bailakan – quite a convenient road running
along the frontline. All running via steppe, these roads will allow
the enemy to quickly send mobilized troops to the Artsakh front and
to get multiple superiority in personnel and hardware before the
approach of the Armenian troops.
Artsakh
With the present frontline configuration, there are four motor roads
connecting Armenia with Artsakh and the frontline: Vardenis-Mardakert,
Goris-Stepanakert-Askeran-Agda m, Kapan-Zangelan-Jebrail and
Meghri-Mijavan-Horadiz. If the war resumes, these roads will allow
the Armenian sides to bring up quite big troops from Armenia to the
Artsakh front in just a few days.
So-called belt roads – communications running along the frontline
– are crucial for the frontline resistive capacity. They allow
to quickly redeploy troops to wherever there is a danger of
breach. At present the Artsakh Defense Army has two belt roads:
Mardakert-Agdam-Fizuli-Jebrail and the North-South highway project
to connect Mardakert-Stepanakert-Red Bazar-Hadrut.
If the six liberated districts are surrendered, the Armenian armed
forces will control only one belt road – Mardakert-Hadrut and
only one road connecting mainland Armenia with Sunik and Artsakh –
Yerevan-Goris-Stepanakert. This road runs through a highly mountainous
area with many passes.
If a new war starts, the Armenians will find it extremely difficult
to keep the narrow Lachin corridor from the enemy’s two-side strikes,
but even if they retain Lachin, the enemy will use its artillery and
aviation to make it as hard as possible for Armenia to quickly transfer
big military forces and material and medical assistance to Artsakh.
Meanwhile, the fate of Artsakh will depend exactly on how quickly
Armenia will supply it with troops as the Defense Army of Artsakh
may prove not strong enough to resist the onslaught of the greatly
prevalent enemy.
Thus, you clearly see that the liberated territory is extremely
important for keeping the military balance between the conflicting
sides, while its surrender by the Armenian side will break
it to Azerbaijan’s advantage and will strongly aggravate the
military-strategic situation of the Armenian states – something
neither peace agreements nor international peacekeepers will compensate
for. This is especially dangerous as Azerbaijan is heavily swelling its
military potential, particularly, by redoubling its military budget
in 2006 – from $300 mln to $600 mln – while Armenia will hardly be
able to keep pace in the coming years for the following reasons:
1. The state budget of Armenia is 3.5 times smaller than the
state budget of Azerbaijan ($1 bln against $3.5bln) and this gap
will continue to grow as Azerbaijan will increase its oil exports.
Meanwhile, Armenia’s economic potential will not allow this country
to allot as much money to the military as to keep the military parity
with Azerbaijan.
2. Armenia can no longer hope for the big free military hardware
supplies that it got from Russia in the mid 1990s and that helped it
to keep military balance with Azerbaijan for the last decade. The key
military partner of Armenia, Russia has begun to show more pragmatic
policy in the last years, with no political or economic preferences.
Hence, only by retaining the liberated territory, carrying out military
reforms and improving the state administration system as a whole will
the Armenian side be able to offset the growing military potential
of the enemy and, thereby, to keep the Azeri side from temptation to
resume military actions.
Given the continuing variance of the sides concerning the status of
Artsakh, any change in the present configuration of the contact line
will not stop the conflict but will simply create another, much more
conflict-prone situation in the sphere of security.
Should Azerbaijan, whose leadership keeps saying that it will never
put up with the loss of Karabakh, agree to sign peace agreements, but
will later prove not content with the return of just six districts
and will make up its mind to get back the whole Artsakh by war,
Armenia will get in a serious danger.
Turning to advantage the change in the military balance and the
consequent vulnerability of Artsakh’s whole defense system, Azerbaijan
may use some convenient political moment to launch a blitzkrieg attack
and to occupy Artsakh. In order to break the frontline, the Azeris
will quickly concentrate strongly prevalent forces for one main
blow – not a hard thing to do for them given the big quantitative
and technical prevalence of the Azeri Army over the Defense Army
of Artsakh and the facts that 70% of Azeri troops are deployed near
the frontline and that Azerbaijan has better capacities for quickly
deploying mobilized troops to the Artsakh front. The outcome of the
war will greatly depend on its very first days, particularly, on the
ability of the Defense Army of Artsakh to keep the frontline intact,
which may prove quite a hard job.
Armenia will have very limited capacities to help Artsakh: it will
not be able to use the vulnerable Lachin corridor for transferring
big military contingents. If the frontline is broken and the Armenian
troops fail to stop the enemy at Stepanakert, the Armenian side may
lose not only Artsakh but also Sunik. If Azerbaijan occupies Artsakh,
Turkey will certainly encourage it to try to make true the Pan-Turkic
dream: to seize the Meghri district, thereby, linking Azerbaijan with
Turkey and cutting Armenia from Iran. To this end, the enemy may strike
from two sides – from Zangelan and Nakhichevan. After losing Artsakh,
it will be extremely hard for the Armenian side to keep Meghri:
the district is very narrow and lacks the necessary defense depth,
while the motor roads connecting it with the rest of Armenia are
quite vulnerable.
The liquidation of Serbian Krajina in Croatia in 1995 is one example
of how real this scenario can be: Croatia broke earlier cease-fire
agreements, mobilized its armed forces and suddenly attacked
Serbian Krajina. In some few days they broke the frontline and
occupied the region. As a result, Serbian Krajina stopped to exist
and half million of Serbs were forced to leave their homeland and
become refugees. This tragedy happened in the center of Europe in
the presence of thousands-strong UN peacekeeping contingent and led
to no sanctions against the aggressor side.
Conclusions:
1. One of the key factors keeping the military balance between Armenia
and Artsakh, from the one side, and Azerbaijan, from the other, and
compensating for Azerbaijan’s personnel and hardware superiority and
capacity to increase its military potential is the present optimal
configuration of the Artsakh frontline.
2. The existing military balance rather than the cease-fire agreement
of 1994 is keeping Azerbaijan back from resuming large-scale military
actions.
3. By giving back any part of the liberated territory, the Armenian
side will give Azerbaijan a military advantage and will reduce its
own military security. This may inspire the enemy – should there be
convenient moment – to solve the Karabakh problem by war. That’s why
it is absolutely inadmissible to surrender the liberated territory
to the enemy.
4. Given the aggressive and genocide-prone Azeri-Turkish alliance,
with its overwhelming military prevalence and open desire to destroy
the Armenian statehood, the key security guarantee for Armenia and
Artsakh must be the Armenian Army and the present territory of the
Armenian states (42,000 sq. km.)

TV satellite dishes seized in crackdown by Tehran
Gulf Times, Qatar
July 27, 2006
Published: Thursday, 27 July, 2006, 01:08 PM Doha Time
TEHRAN: Iranian police have renewed a crackdown on television satellite
dishes, banned for beaming Western “decadent” images into the Islamic
Republic.
A police spokesman said yesterday hundreds of dishes had been removed
from homes in the capital Tehran and other cities this week as part
of a campaign against “social vice”.
“We have a law against the use of satellite dishes. Police are
duty-bound to implement it,” said the spokesman, who asked not to
be named.
Iran outlawed satellite dishes in the mid-1990s as part of efforts to
curb the inroads of Western culture. But the ban was largely ignored
under former president Mohamed Khatami who tried to increase social
freedoms after he was elected in 1997.
But after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the presidency last year
with the backing of conservative clerics and Basij religious militias,
hardliners have pressed for renewed restrictions, warning of a threat
to Iran’s Islamic values.
“Police came to our building and collected all the dishes. But they
were very friendly,” said Reza Sharifi, a 45-year-old teacher, who
lives in wealthy northern Tehran.
A judiciary official told the official Irna news agency that the
crackdown was a nationwide plan.
Authorities also blame opposition television channels, mainly based
in the US, for inciting protests against the Islamic Republic.
l Iran has banned the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code after
protests from the country’s Christian clergy, the culture ministry
said yesterday, but the Persian translation is already in its eighth
edition.
Iranian publishing thresholds have relaxed considerably in recent
years and Tehran booksellers have noted an increased appetite for
new age and spiritual titles.
“Based on the request of three Christian clerics, yesterday we decided
to ban its republication,” said an official at the Ministry of Culture
and Islamic Guidance who declined to be named.
Most of Iran’s Christians belong to the Armenian church and number some
100,000. Although a small minority in a country of 69mn Muslims, the
Armenians have two seats reserved for them in the 290-seat parliament.
The tiny Assyrian Christian community also has its own parliamentarian.
Many Christians have condemned Dan Brown’s page-turner, saying the
plot is offensive.
The Da Vinci Code has sold more than 40mn copies worldwide and has
been turned into a Hollywood film starring Tom Hanks. Although the
film has not had a box office release in Iran, the pirated DVD is
widely available.
Copies of the book were still on sale in Iran and will not be taken
off bookshelves, but a ninth edition will not be printed, the official
said. -Reuters

NATO PA vice-president complains of Armenian parliament speaker to the Assembly
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
July 27, 2006
First vice-president of NATO Parliamentary Assembly, head of Turkish
delegation to NATO, ruling AKP party parliamentarian from Krikkale
Vahit Erdem has submitted second application of complaint to the
Assembly in connection with Armenian parliament president Tigran
Torosyan’s insulting him. Mr.Erdem told APA’s Turkey bureau.
“I submitted the first application of complaint to the Assembly in
June. And Torosyan also submitted an application regarding me. I
filed the second application of complaint to the Assembly after that.
I’ll make public the details tomorrow,” the vice-president said.
20-member delegation from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly led by Vahit
Erdem visited Yerevan in mid June this year. At the meeting in Armenian
parliament, the delegation head rejected the claims of the so-called
“Armenian genocide”. And Torosyan told him that he had no right to
speak as Turkish parliamentarian as he heads NATO PA delegation. When
Erdem insisted on his position, he was deprived of the cars and
bodyguards. Though the NATO PA firs vice-president had a diplomatic
passport he had to pass the common salon in the airport, and was
checked. Therefore, he delegation head separated from the team to leave
for Tbilisi and came back to Turkey. The first vice-president demanded
in his first complaint to reproach Armenia for such insult./APA/

A Katrina-Like Outpouring for the Mideast?
Inside Higher Ed, DC
July 27, 2006
By Wick Sloane
Imagine. No interruption of study and research for all students and
faculty in the Middle East shut out in this latest war. Lebanon.
Israel. Gaza. Iraq. Everyone.
John Waterbury, president of American University of Beirut, who was
stuck in the United States when war broke out, is in Washington seeking
federal aid and hopes to soon be on his way back to his campus. I’ll
bet he and all his Middle East colleagues would welcome help from us.
Never mind U.S. visas for now. We have the Web, satellites, cell phones
and air drops. Imagine seeing on CNN: classes and seminars and students
studying in the rubble. Now. On all sides of all borders. People from
around the world showing life will go on. Saturday, I listened to a
friend describe the ballet precision of his evacuation from Lebanon
last week. With thousands of others. The U.S. government can do such
things. Punch the “Reverse Route” button. Of course, this is difficult.
Hurricane Katrina was an act of God. American higher ed scrambled
to help. This Middle East war is of man. (And Yale at that, given
higher educations of U.S. leaders Bush, Cheney, Bolton and Bremer,
at least.) Are U.S. colleges and universities planning to help there,
too? Mustn’t we try?
AU-Beirut, a U.S. chartered institution, is closed for classes. I
telephoned the New York office, on Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, as it
happens. Steve Jeffries, the AUB vice president there, knew of no
unified offers of help yet. “Right now, we’re working on humanitarian
and medical issues,” he said. Students, faculty and staff in Beirut,
calling the situation the Challenges, are helping anyone they can with
blood drives and shelter and medicine for the wounded and the refugees.
The American Council on Education’s president, David Ward, offered
empathy but no call for help in his regular newsletter to presidents
last week. The National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities may be too busy howling in self-interest about a proposed
national database of student academic records.
Enough. Something must be happening.
I wrote to a few of the higher ed presidents and panjandrums I know.
These places claim a tax benefit for producing leaders, not just
wealth. Roger Mandle, president of Rhode Island School of Design, has
told me several times that the field of design has to move to illumine
intractable social issues. What would solutions here look like?
I wrote Rick Levin at Yale and Morty Schapiro at Williams, my
schools. Ruth Simmons at Brown, where I pay tuition. Mike McPherson,
president of the Spencer Foundation. Roger Mandle. Clayton Spencer
at Harvard and John Strassburger, president of Ursinus College. What
plans are under way? What is the obligation of U.S. higher education
here? AU-Beirut has not heard, so far, from American higher ed.
No reply so far from Levin at Yale, whom I met when I was a student
and he a professor at the School of Management. Schapiro, of Williams,
says he is trying to come up with some ideas.
Ursinus College, in Philadelphia, may be the only place to have
an offer.
“Ursinus could offer free housing, board and tuition for the fall
semester for up to five students if not more,” said Strassburger,
the Ursinus president. “We probably could come up with salary for a
school in residence teaching some Middle East subjects for the fall
or the year.”
Strassburger over the weekend e-mailed an Ursinus faculty member
and alumnus, the retired Ambassador Joseph Melrose, recalled to
the Lebanon desk at the U.S. State Department. Acknowledging the
complexity, Melrose, speaking for himself, replied that American
colleges and universities should plan for transfers from those able
to get a visa. “I would also encourage you all to continue to reflect
on what might be done for Lebanese students in the future. It would
be refreshing to have at least a skeletal plan in place.”
I keep thinking of the one-time Columbia University President Dwight
D. Eisenhower, who said, “I like to believe that people in the long
run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments.
Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days
governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”
Even knowing what help might work, for now, is vexing. Looking around,
at least two of the Web sites for Lebanese colleges didn’t work at
all. The sites that work show the enormous need.
“Due to the present conditions of our dear and bleeding country,”
the Web page of Haigazian University, Beirut, announced the end of
classes for now. “Offices and other functions of the University will
continue with as little interruption as possible, whenever possible.
May God keep you all in His Grace.” (The university’s name, the site
reports, honors Armenag Haigazian, an Armenian educator with a Yale
doctorate, who passed up escaping to the United States to continue
teaching and then died in the Kharpert prison.)
Lebanese American University has closed classes in Beirut and Byblos.
The Web site goes on: “We urgently ask each and every employee to
be very conservative in their usage of the utilities, especially
electricity and water, so that we can deal with the expected shortages
of these very essential resources, in an optimized manner.”
At the Yale Web site? Nothing on the Middle East. But this, ironic,
headline: “Yale president says U.S. should adopt more open attitude
in attracting int’l students.”
No “Out of the Office” autoreplies to my presidents’ and panjandrums’
e-mail. So far, only replies from Williams and Ursinus. I just tried
Joe White, president of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana,
and Jim Duderstadt, emeritus president of the University of
Michigan. I’m sure those two will have far better ideas than mine.
In May 1977, I was in the hospital lobby at American University Beirut,
visiting with a friend whose husband was a doctor there. The hospital
was neutral. Around me were fighters from all sides of the civil
war, with submachine guns. The American University Hospital treated
everyone. A precedent for U.S. higher education today?
I’d left Jerusalem that morning over the Allenby Bridge, the back
door of the Promised Land, to Amman. Then, in service taxis up
through Damascus into Lebanon and in Beirut by dinnertime. I’d spent
an afternoon in Jerusalem with an American Quaker missionary, who’d
been there for decades. Why was the Holy Land always in such trouble?
This has always been a tough place, he reminded me. “You have to
remember that God has sent his best people here to this region three
times, and the place is still in trouble. All I know is that we can’t
give up.”
While I was walking my dog this week, a young friend, Kirsten Nyborg,
stopped to talk. Harvard 2006, now an intern for Campus Crusade for
Christ. Would she give her Harvard a nudge? “That’s pretty bad,” she
said of the silence. “We’ll put this out on our listserv, too. We’ll
send everybody – Junior Year in Beirut for All. Bring a rake. We’ll
get things cleaned up.” And she jogged off.
What’s become of Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Yale ’63, who
evacuated Iraq ahead of the U.S. troops. (“L” for “Let’s disband
the Iraqi army and not collect the weapons first.”?) According to
the Yale alumni directory, Bremer is managing director, Marsh Crisis
Consulting. Perhaps Rick Levin should give Bremer a call?
Wick Sloane is chief operating officer at Generon Consulting in
Massachusetts and former chief financial officer of the University
of Hawaii system.
07/27/sloane

Turkey deserves our thanks
Montreal Gazette , Canada
July 27, 2006
Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006
Relations between Canada and Turkey have been a little tense since
April, when our government declared that what happened to Armenians
in Turkey 90 years ago was genocide. It’s a view Turks strongly
reject. Further, Turkey is a Muslim country, and Ottawa has given
firm moral support to Israel in the current Lebanese fighting.
On both counts it would have been an easy matter for Turkish
authorities to find themselves too busy to return calls last week
when Canada requested the use of a Turkish port and airport to funnel
Canadians out of Lebanon.
All Canadians should take note and bear in mind that Turkey avoided
this temptation. The port of Mersin and the nearby airport at Adana
were instead opened wide to Canadians coming off chartered cruise
ships.
With the principal staging post at Larnaca, Cyprus, overflowing
with people of many nations, the cooperation of Turkey’s government
simplified the evacuation process for many Canadians.
And beyond the government’s reaction, news reports say individual
Turks and local authorities exerted themselves to help.
The numbers still have not been tallied but it appears that several
thousand Canadians have moved through Mersin and Adana. They, and
all of us, offer sincere thanks to the government and people of Turkey.
s/editorial/story.html?id=dc31551a-b36b-45d1-a742- 342f0a6c3ed3

Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku railway project will strengthen regional and international integration
The Messenger, Georgia
July 27, 2006
As reported in Svobodnaya Gruzia, the Minister of Transport of
Azerbaijan, Namik Gasanov, stated before the meeting of the heads of
the transport ministries of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Kazakhstan,
which is due to take place on July 27 in Astana, that the construction
of Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku railway project will strengthen regional
and international integration.
“The project will make Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey like a united
organism, and in this sense it has great importance at least from
the regional standpoint,” he stated, noting that “being a unit of
the infrastructure-transport chain, which links Europe and Asia,
this project has very great importance in view of international
integration as well.” Gasanov highlighted that realization of the
project will lead Azerbaijan to Europe via Turkey.
According to him, experts’ assessments show that the project is very
profitable from the economic standpoint also. “It will bring large
profits from freight and passengers transportation,” he said. Gasanov
also said that money invested in the project would be recovered in
two or three years of the railway’s operation.
The Azeri minister also said that the project has great political,
as well as economic, importance. “This project is also important in
regard of the settlement of interstate relations,” he said.
Touching upon obstacles the project faces, Gasanov stressed that
attempts are being made in this direction by Armenia. “Armenia is
making every effort, even with the help of the U.S. Congress, to impede
this project and prevent its implementation.” According to him, Armenia
will not be involved in one of the greatest regional projects because
of their “destructive policy” and “occupation of Azeri territories.”
Gasanov also commented on the cost of the project and said that,
according to preliminary data, the cost of this project is USD 400
million. At prior negotiations, the Turkish side agreed to allot USD
200 million for the realization of the project. “The parties have
been continuing negotiations on this issue. Georgia also expresses its
readiness to finance this project, but clarity in this issue will be
made at the negotiations in Kazakhstan,” Gasanov stated. According
to him, construction of the project will start in 2007 and will be
completed within two to three years.

UN Resident Coordinator at National Assembly
National Assembly of RA, Armenia
July 27, 2006
On July 26 the RA NA President Tigran Torosyan received Ms. Consuelo
Vidal, UN Resident Coordinator and newly appointed UNDP Resident
Representative in Armenia.
The issues on the cooperation between the NA and the UN organization
were on the pivot of the meeting. Ms. Consuelo Vidal expressed
readiness to promote the organization of the upcoming election
processes through development programs to ensure free and fair
elections. In this regard the NA President Tigran Torosyan highlighted
both: reform of the Electoral Code and the establishment of necessary
atmosphere among political forces. The agreement on debates of
introducing clarity into cooperation programs in the election processes
was reached.
Ms. Consuelo Vidal, UN Resident Coordinator and newly appointed
UNDP Resident Representative in Armenia wished to clarify from the NA
President the fate of the draft on Lobbying in the development of which
the UN has participated as well. And in this regard they referred to
the support of international organizations to law creation works. It
was noted that some cases of non-effective use of allocated sources
were registered in the work with international organizations. The
agreement was reached to debate steps directed to the increase
of effectiveness of the support of international organizations in
legislative works.
The other issues of mutual interest were debated during the meeting.

In the Parliament
National Assembly of RA, Armenia
July 27, 2006
On July 25 the representatives arrived from different regions who
were in Yerevan within the framework of young people’s civil education
program visited the National Assembly.
Hranush Hakobyan, the Chairwoman of the NA Standing Committee on
Science, Education, Culture and Youth,familirized young people with
the parliamentarism and the history of the Armenian parliament. The
procedure of the legislative body formation, the main functions and
activity were presented to the participants. Mrs. Hakobyan detailed
legislative initiative-lawsystem, noting, that first initiation
deliberated in the Committees before becoming law, gets relevant
conclusion, and only after that it is presented to the ratification
of the Parliament. The head of the Committee answered the questions,
which related to twelve-year education, preservation of national
culture, problems of science development.
The activity of the sub-divisions of the NA staff was presented to
the young people, visited the Parliament. Maro Asatryan, the head of
Information Department, accompanied the guests to the sitting hall,
where they got familiar with the work of the electronic system of
the hall, walked through the parliament visiting official and working
meting halls.
“The draft laws, submitted to the NA , undergo an examination “,
– informed Ashot Khachatryan, the head of Legislative Analysis and
Development Department. He also noted that his department provide
MP’s with professional advice, implement research and analytic works.
Anahit Adamyan, the head of Public Relations Department, presented
functions of the department, the content of its work, kinds of its
organization and answered the questions.
” All the materials of information character prepared by the department
of public relations, and also all materials concerning structural
divisions of the staff, texts of laws in function are placed on the
website of electronic page “, – says Tatul Soghomonyan, the head of
Secretariat. According to him the functions of Secretariat are various:
applications and letters from citizens are registered, then handed to
the NA governing bodies or the MP’s direct through Secretariat. Lusine
Hovhannisyan informed details about the work of the website.
Hovhannes Zargaryan , Deputy head of the staff, summing up the day
passed in the Parliament,
expressed gratitude to young people for active participation and
wished them good luck.
He noted, that as a result of the programs which were carried out
by USAID and other international organizations during last yearsthe
NAreceived both technical and consulting assistance which promoted
increase of the effectivness of works. Mr. Zargaryan noted, that the
doors of the National Assembly are open before youth, and they always
can address questions interested them to the staff. They can also
get information about activity of the Parliamentthrough Internet site
adding their fund of knowledge. He expressed hope, that the day which
had been passed in the National Assembly, will have its continuation
and become the basis for deeper knowledge of functions of system of
the state management.