Today, Azerbaijan
July 10 2006
Armenian MP: “Russia hurts Armenia after closing Georgia checkpoint”
10 July 2006 [20:41] – Today.Az
A deputy chairman of Armenia’s parliament said Monday that Russia had
hit Armenian interests after it closed a checkpoint on the
Russian-Georgian border for construction work.
Russia closed the Kazbegi-Verkhny Lars border checkpoint early
Saturday morning for an indefinite period, which has created problems
for people traveling between Georgia and Armenia, RIA Novosti
reports.
Vaan Ovannisyan said the border had been closed because of difficult
relations between Russia and Georgia.
“They [relations] have been worsening rather than improving
recently,” he said. “Our Russian colleagues must understand that each
step against Georgia also hurts Armenia’s interests. Therefore, they
should be more flexible and careful.”
URL:

TREND, Azerbaijan
July 10 2006
Report on Nagorno-Karabakh to be prepared again
Source: Trend
Author: J.Shahverdiyev
10.07.2006
The report of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on Nagorno-Karabakh will be
prepared again, PM Fazil Gazanfaroglu, the member of the Azerbaijani
delegation in PA OSCE and also the chairman of the Great Establishment
Party, told Trend.
Due to the Goran Lennmarker’s election the chairman of PA OSCE
during the summer session on July 3-7, he completed the results of
his mission as reporter on Nagorno-Karabakh.
According to Gazanfaroglu, after appointment of a new reporter,
the report prepared by Lennmarker will be looked through. “We met
with Lennmarker. The report of Lannmarker reflects several aspects
dissatisfying the sides,” told Gazanfaroglu.
In the document, the aggression of Armenia was approached from the
same position with Azerbaijan. “Soon, the document will be again
prepared by the appointed reporter,” he told.
Besides, Gazanfaroglu stressed that during the summer session of PA
OSCE, the Azerbaijani delegation have raised enough questions about the
Armenian aggression. But, Armenians didn’t raise the question about
the conducting of a monitoring on the fires committed by Armeniand
in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

ARMENIA: FEW OBJECTIONS TO MEDIATORS’ KARABAKH STATEMENT
Haroutiun Khachatrian 7/10/06
EurasiaNet, NY
July 10 2006
Senior Armenian government officials and political leaders appear to
have reconciled themselves with a top American diplomat’s disclosure
of details of a draft peace agreement covering Nagorno-Karabakh.
In a June 22 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, US
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Matthew Bryza revealed the existence of a framework agreement that
would resolve the 18-year conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The framework
envisages the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied
territories around Karabakh, as well as “a vote at some point in the
future” on Karabakh’s status, and a “normalization of Armenia’s ties”
that would allow an international peacekeeping presence and economic
assistance to the disputed region.
In a July 5 interview with the Haykakan Zhamanak daily newspaper,
Bryza explained that his comments were part of a new strategy
endorsed by the Minsk Group’s French and Russian co-chairs to promote
public discussion of the peace framework. “It is not my decision
to disclose the [framework agreement’s] principles,” said Bryza,
recently appointed as US co-chairperson of the Minsk Group, the body
tasked by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
with moderating talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. “It was the
decision of the three co-chairs, taken even before I became co-chair.”
In Armenia, initial government reaction to the interview was
emotional. Anger appeared targeted more at what was perceived to have
been left unsaid, than at what was actually disclosed about the draft
agreement. On June 26, the official newspaper Hayastani Hanrapetutiun
published a story on Bryza’s comments under the title “Provocation
or Pressure?” In the piece, the Armenian Foreign Ministry cited what
it perceived as the gaps in the information provided by Bryza. The
ministry stated that the regions connecting Armenia with Karabakh,
Lachin and Kelbajar, are expected to remain under Armenian control
until a referendum on the enclave’s status is held. During the period
preceding the vote, Karabakh, according to the ministry, would also
be given an internationally recognized status.
Following Bryza’s disclosures, President Robert Kocharian stated that
Armenia was ready to adopt the document as the basis for further
negotiations, whereas Azerbaijan appeared reluctant to endorse the
draft agreement. The Armenian side, however, has denied a July 3
report on the Azerbaijani news site Day.az, which quoted Azerbaijani
Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov as saying that Kocharian and
Aliyev would meet July 17 to discuss a Karabakh settlement.
Notably, no political party or public organization in Armenia has
objected to the proposed Armenian withdrawal from the seven occupied
territories, often termed “liberated” by Armenian organizations and
politicians. The prospect of such a swap has been called “reasonable”
by opposition leader Aram Sargsian, head of the Hanarpetutiun
(Republic) Party and brother of the late defense minister Vazgen
Sargsian, founder of the Yerkrapah organization of war veterans.
In Armenia, public debate on the issue has intensified amid speculation
about possible new disclosures about the peace negotiations. On June
26, presidential spokesperson Viktor Soghomonian told the Mediamax
news agency that Yerevan may make public all documents relating to
the peace talks over the last seven to eight years, including papers
covering the 2001 presidential summit in Key West, Florida. It was
at that meeting that Kocharian and the late Azerbaijani President
Heidar Aliyev reportedly agreed in principle on a peace deal, only
to see the supposed agreement unravel within weeks. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Hayots Ashkharh, another pro-government daily, commented that by
disclosing such documents, Yerevan would “restrict the room for
maneuver” for Baku. The commentary went on to claim that Azerbaijan
is a frequent source of inaccurate information concerning the peace
talks. Despite the urgings of politicians and analysts, however,
the Armenian government has not yet released the documents.
In their absence, key questions about the proposed framework agreement
linger. In a July 6 editorial entitled “Let’s Discuss, But What?,” the
daily newspaper Aravot wondered whether the referendum on Karabakh’s
status would be held among the enclave’s actual population, as proposed
by Armenia, or among the residents of Azerbaijan, as advocated by the
Azerbaijani government. The newspaper also queried whether Lachin and
Kelbajar would remain under the control of Armenian forces before
the referendum is held, or whether they would be demilitarized,
as proposed by Azerbaijan.
Analysts seem sharply divided about the known features of the
framework peace deal. For example, scientist Alexander Iskandarian
was quoted by the Hayots Ashkharh daily on July 6 as saying framework
agreement favors Armenia as never before. But others, including 168
Zham newspaper columnist Armen Baghdasarian, maintain that war with
Azerbaijan seems inevitable since Baku would not risk a legitimate
referendum on the enclave’s status.
Editor’s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer
specializing in economic and political affairs.

Armenians Disappointed with Situation
Angus Reid Global Scan, Canada
July 11 2006
July 11, 2006
– Many residents of Armenia are dissatisfied with the current state
of affairs, according to a poll by Baltic Surveys released by the
International Republican Institute. 55 per cent of respondents believe
things in the country are headed in the wrong direction.
The Republic of Armenia declared it independence at the end of World
War I, but was incorporated into the Soviet Union in the 1920s.
Armenia regained its sovereignty in 1991 after the collapse of the
Soviet Union.
Armenian president Robert Kocharyan was re-elected to a new four-year
term in March 2003 in a ballot marred by fraud allegations. In
November, voters overwhelmingly approved a series of constitutional
amendments, which limit presidential powers.
Earlier this month, Kocharian expressed satisfaction with the changes,
saying, “They open new prospects for the comprehensive development
of our country and people, ensure more balance activities of various
branches of government, and boost respect for human rights.”
In March, Armenia’s unemployment level dropped to 7.6 per cent.
Polling Data
Do you think things in Armenia are going in the…
Right direction 32%
Wrong direction 55%
Not sure / No answer 13%
Source: Baltic Surveys / International Republican Institute
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 1,200 Armenian adults,
conducted from Apr. 30 to May 8, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
useaction/viewItem/itemID/12501

MOUNTAIN VIEWS: KURDS MAY HAVE SHOT AT HOMELAND
By John Hanchette
Niagara Falls Reporter
July 11, 2006
OLEAN — This space has been used in the past for commentary on the
Middle Eastern anomaly of the Kurds, the largest ethnic group on the
planet without their own official state. When President Dubya invaded
Iraq in 2003, only a tiny fraction of Americans had ever heard of them.
Now, almost daily, it becomes more and more evident the success of
the United States effort in Iraq is wedded to the future of the Kurds.
“Kurdistan” — the mountainous area they’ve called home for centuries
— is about the size of France. It has no official borders. It
encompasses southeast Turkey, southwest Armenia, northwestern Iran,
northeastern Syria — and northern Iraq.
It is this last particle upon which the future of the troubled region
seems to hinge.
It may be their time. For most of modern history, the Kurds have been
screwed over in royal fashion by neighboring peoples — subjugated,
oppressed, partitioned, displaced, manipulated, misled, murdered and
crushed every time they got a whiff of independence or a hankering
for better circumstances.
Even archaeologists argue about from whence they came. Many believe
their ethnic wellspring to be the Caucasus Mountains between the
Black and Caspian seas. Lots of Kurds have blue eyes. They are
non-Arabic people. Their language is closer to Aryan or Persian
than Arabic roots. Most Kurds, but not all, are Sunni Muslims. Their
outlook, however, seems much more western than the mind set of their
neighbors. This has not gone unnoticed by American intelligence
officials.
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries, at least, the Kurds led
a nomadic existence, herding sheep and goats through the highlands
of the above regions. Today, there are about 25 million of them —
almost 9 million in southern Turkey. There are about 5 million Kurds
currently in Iraq. Many have fled to Europe.
After the Ottoman Empire was shattered in World War I, the French
and British rushed in to fill the geopolitical vacuum in the
oil-rich Middle East, and redrew most of the boundaries to set up
new nation-states and get a piece of the oil action. France mapped
out Syria. The Brits drew the boundaries of Iraq.
A 1920 treaty promised the Kurds their independence and own nation
in the north of Iraq, and they came within a whisker of achieving it.
But the new leaders of Turkey, Iran and Iraq feared so large a separate
ethnic group on their borders and would have none of it. The Kurds
argued among themselves, and the westerners shrugged off the idea. The
treaty went unratified.
A fellow named Winston Churchill, the young British Cabinet secretary
charged with making sure the oil from Iraq kept flowing, was rather
stern in promoting the British Empire in those days. He even suggested
dropping mustard gas from airplanes on Iraqis if they got out of
line. But he did realize merely poking the Kurds away in some corner
of Iraq would lead to future unrest. He urged British supervisors on
the ground in Iraq to make sure Kurds “not be put under Arabs if they
do not wish to be.”
Like most Cabinet members in London and Washington through the years,
he was ignored, of course. In recent decades, the Kurds have further
struggled against oppression. They supported Iran in the 1980-88
Iran-Iraq War.
In the last year of that conflict, Saddam Hussein ordered chemical
gas attacks against Iraqi Kurds for such insolence and razed several
villages, besides killing more than 5,000 Kurds with such weaponry in
the town of Halabja — a murderous snit for which he now is in the
dock, among other homicides and imaginative atrocities. In Turkey,
the government refuses to recognize the Kurds as an ethnic minority
group, referring to them officially as “Mountain Turks” and banning
use of their native tongue.
In our current unpleasantness in Iraq, we rely greatly upon the Kurds,
not that we’ve treated them properly, even in recent years. In 1991,
in the closing days of the first Gulf War, Bush the Elder followed
his triumphal ousting of Saddam from Kuwait with a rousing public
speech in which he exhorted all Iraqis to rebellion against the evil
Saddam. Conservative defenders of the Bush pere-et-fils have tried
to depict it since as just a wish that would be nice if it came
true. It was no such thing. I know. I covered it. Bush the Elder
implied forthcoming American military support for such a venture. The
Kurds, among others, took him at his word. So did the Shiites in
southern Iraq.
Mindlessly, our negotiators had left Saddam with his attack helicopters
as part of the 1991 cease-fire terms. He used them. Tens of thousands
of rebellious Iraqis were slaughtered, many of them Kurds. About 1.5
million Kurds were forced to flee to the mountains of neighboring Iran
and Turkey. The TV images pained the hearts of watching Americans. The
Bush administration stood silent.
Perhaps feeling guilty, the White House and Pentagon quickly
established a “no-fly zone” north of the 36th parallel — a boundary
verboten for Saddam’s attack choppers and fighter planes to cross. It
was efficiently enforced all through the 1990s by the Clinton
administration and in the early years of Dubya’s first term.
Under this protection, the Kurds prospered. Hospitals and universities
went up. Income from black market oil smuggled into Turkey flowed
through Kurdistan, as American officers and diplomats looked the other
way. American troops stationed in Kurdistan say prayers of thanks they
are there and not in Baghdad. The well-trained Kurdish peshmerga —
literally, “those who face death” — serves as local militia and
relatively successful peacekeepers.
Even with insurgency raging in the south, the Kurdish area in the
north of Iraq seems — as former ABC News producer Kevin McKiernan
calls it in The Washington Spectator, an excellent capital newsletter
— an “island of peace.”
McKiernan — whom intelligence officials respect as very knowledgeable
about the region — has written an informative new book on the
Kurdish situation. It is called “The Kurds: A People in Search of
Their Homeland.” Writing on the subject in the above newsletter,
McKiernan writes:
“Outside of Kurdistan, Iraq is awash in sectarian warfare. Government
officials in Baghdad report that across the lower two-thirds of
the country as many as 110,000 families have fled their homes, that
25,000 people have been kidnapped this year, and that the murder rate
has passed 1,000 a month. By contrast, the three provinces under
Kurdish control are largely peaceful, continuing the experiment in
self-government they began in 1991. Kurdish roads are protected by
24-hour checkpoints, manned by disciplined fighters. Not a single
American soldier has been killed in the region.”
In Kurdistan, 200 miles north of Baghdad, “Kurdish society emulates
western ways and looks abroad for other models to follow. People on
the street readily admit they envy the alliances Israel and Kuwait
enjoy with the U.S.”
McKiernan comes very, very close to predicting the Kurds will
make their own move soon for independence. McKiernan writes:
“Kurdish — not Iraqi — flags fly on public buildings and hints of
quasi-sovereignty are everywhere: visitors entering northern Iraq
now have their passports stamped ‘Iraqi Kurdistan,’ and a law has
been passed by the Kurdistan parliament forbidding Iraqi troops from
entering the region without a special vote of Kurdish lawmakers.
Arabic is no longer spoken in the three Kurdish provinces, and the
Kurds recently signed a contract with a Norwegian company — without
consulting Baghdad — to drill for oil near the Turkish border. …
There are now direct flights from Europe to Kurdistan, with no need
for risky connections in Baghdad; and luxury hotels are being built
to accommodate tourists.”
Kurds hope the Americans see all this promise. Every administration
since Nixon has used the Kurds as uber-pawns in trying to prop up
Iran or Iraq or Turkey in playing one off against another. In 1983,
President Ronald Reagan — still cheesed off at Iran for holding U.S.
diplomats hostage in Tehran for more than a year — dispatched a much
younger Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to offer clandestine aid to Saddam
in his war with Iran. It resulted in billions of dollars in military
and domestic help, much of it used to suppress the Kurds. More than
100,000 Kurds ended up dead or missing, and 4,000 Kurdish villages
were razed. U.S. aid flowed to Saddam unabated until the day he
invaded Kuwait — Aug. 1, 1990.
Iraqi Kurds, writes McKiernan, now “worry they will be sacrificed in
the new American effort to better relations with Turkey, which was
given the cold shoulder after its March 2003 refusal to provide a
land corridor to attack Iraq.”
Dubya — in his well-publicized drive to keep the mullahs in Tehran
from achieving nuclear arms power — needs Turkey to pressure Iran,
and Ankara has already moved 100,000 troops to the Iran-Turkey
border. Turkey’s 15 million Kurds — the largest single Kurdish
population in the world — are now “restive and eyeing the freedoms
of fellow Kurds in Iraq,” according to McKiernan. Turkey is worried
about this, and about the presence of rebel units in Iraqi Kurdistan
close to the Turkish border. Since April, Turkey has massed another
250,000 troops near its border with Iraq.
Ankara, reports McKiernan, “wants the Bush administration to approve a
major cross-border operation against the (rebels) but Iraqi Kurds fear
U.S. approval would allow the Turks to occupy, at least temporarily,
a large swath of Iraqi Kurdistan. In April, Dubya dispatched Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice to Ankara to confer with Turkish leaders
about a joint agreement with Washington on both questions — Iran and
the Kurds. The confab turned out to be another embarrassment for Rice
and Foggybottom strategists.”
Rice, writes McKiernan, “wanted action on Iran. Turkey wanted action
on the Kurds, and local Turkish newspapers heralded Rice’s visit
with leaked stories of U.S. satellites monitoring (Kurdish rebels)
for the Turkish army.” Not only that, but the Turkish general staff
chose her 16-hour visit to mount a huge military crackdown on Kurdish
rebels back in Turkey, and — more significantly, but little covered
in the United States — to make a limited border-crossing into Iraq
while Rice was still in-country. In diplomatic circles, this is akin
to smacking an American dignitary across the face with a big, smelly,
wet fish.
“It was unlikely the timing was accidental,” concludes McKiernan.
“There seems little doubt that the U.S. countenanced the incursions
into both Kurdish areas in advance.” So, will we once again betray
the Kurds as we bumble through Iraq? McKiernan doesn’t pretend to
know. He quotes an old Kurdish proverb that says, “Someone who has
been bitten by a snake will always be afraid of a rope.” Me? If I
were a Vegas odds-maker? It’s 5-2, on “Yes.”

Georgia is becoming hostage to Azeri-Turkish alliance: interview with Pavel Chobanyan
15:24 10.07.2006
Permanent news address:
Pavel Chobanyan – expert of the Caucasus analytical center, doctor
of historical sciences
REGNUM: What problems are there in Armenian-Georgian relations and
what effect are they having on Russian-Georgian relations?
Armenian-Georgian relations have always been substantive, but they
got even more pronounced in the post-Soviet independence years.
Armenia and Georgia have generally positive relations, but we should
admit that there are some negative things too. Today, they are facing
a number of problems that can’t be resolved just on their good will.
The first episode of the Armenian-Georgian confrontation is the
position of the Armenian community of Abkhazia and their cooperation
with Abkhazians, who, as you know, have proclaimed independence from
Georgia. The Georgian authorities accuse Armenians of cooperation
with the Abkhazian side and are trying to sow distrust towards them
among Abkhazians and to kindle ethnic strife.
The Georgian authorities are conducting a nationalist policy in both
the capital and the regions, thereby creating ethnic conflict spots.
They are publishing openly anti-Armenian books and articles with the
only view of accusing Armenians of being unkindly to Georgia. One
of the objectives of this “old-story” policy is to assimilate
Armenians: in fact, by changing their surnames into Georgian ones
(or, as Georgians say, “restoring their Georgian surnames”), many
Georgia-based Armenians try to relieve themselves of the yoke of
ethnic discrimination.
The next stage of the Armenian-Georgian confrontation is the growing
diktat of the Georgian authorities against Javakheti and the local
Armenians. Obviously, Tbilisi is trying to force them out of the
region.
If in the first issue Armenia’s official position is quite
unnoticeable, this problem is going outside Georgia and is getting
pan-Armenian and even international importance, especially in the light
of the national minority rights situation in Georgia, the withdrawal
of Russian military bases from Akhalkalaki, the Council of Europe’s
demand for returning Meskheti Turks to Georgia, the project to lay
a railroad Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilii bypassing Armenia.
In fact, any attempt of the Javakheti Armenians to exercise their
democratic rights receives negative response from the Georgian press,
public and state.
For example, Georgian media have immediately reacted to the
statement made by the United Javakhq association during its first
congress a few days ago: their articles contained anti-Armenian
statements. In response to the association’s protest against the
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi railroad, the Georgian press said that
“only blind will fail to see that this protest reflects the position
of the central political forces of Armenia.” One Georgian newspaper
has appeared with provocative article saying that “In Akhalakali
Russia is selling arms brought from Tskhinvali.” (Khvalindeli Dge,
June 27-28, 2006, 65).
There are also problems concerning the activities of the Armenian
Church in Georgia: the Georgian authorities are curbing church
ceremonies, seizing Armenian churches, denying legal status to the
Diocese of the Armenian Church in Georgia.
Various media and “scientific” editions are openly distorting facts
in order to present the Armenians as the Georgians’ enemy.
The logic of Georgian-Russian and Armenian-Russian relations is also
a good soil for anti-Armenian moods. Regarding Russia as a force
steadily destroying the Georgian statehood and church autocephaly
since Georgia’s accession into the Russian Empire in 1801, the
Georgian authorities deny Russia any positive role in the history of
Georgia. Armenia, on the contrary, admits and appreciates the role of
Russia. As a result, Georgia is beginning to regard it as undesirable
Russia’s ally.
REGNUM: Why is Nagorno-Karabakh Republic refusing to join the
agreement of the unrecognized republics Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transdniestria. Is this because Armenia does not want to spoil its
relations with Georgia?
This may, certainly, be the case. However, it should be noted that,
unlike Abkhazia and South Ossetia, who are directly negotiating
with Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh is more restricted in its foreign
relations, and it is Armenian rather than Nagorno-Karabakh president
who is holding talks with Azerbaijan. As a result, this conflict is
regarded not as conflict between NKR and Azerbaijan but as a conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Besides, if in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, peace is kept by Russian troops according
to a relevant agreement and definite quota, in Nagorno-Karabakh,
security is guaranteed by own army and the Republic of Armenia.
The above trilateral agreement has followed the demand of the
Georgian authorities for the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers and
is aimed at ensuring join defense of independence in case of military
aggression. Hence, the Nagorno-Karabakh army can neither hope for
military help, say, from Abkhazia or Transdnestr, nor help them itself.
REGNUM: What do you think about the statement of Georgian Prime
Minister Nogaideli that there will be no new autonomies in Georgia?
Autonomy is often the result of the struggle of a local population
for its well-grounded rights and of, though reluctant, but the
acquiescence of central authorities to recognize these rights. In
Georgia they regard the Javakheti Armenians’ demands for respect of
their rights exactly as struggle for autonomy. However, there was
no such demand in United Javakhq’s statement and Nogaideli might
have seen one in the urge “to regulate the mechanisms of using the
Armenian language in administrative paper work and education as an
equal and alternative language to the only state language -Georgian.”
It should be noted that Armenians have faced many similar problems
before – and not only inside Georgia, but also over the Armenian
territories of Azerbaijan that were outside the borders of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region.
Today, when the Russian language has no state status in Georgia,
I think that the Georgian authorities must not give hostility and
misunderstanding to a local population’s demand for respect of its
native language equally with Georgian.
I think that they should permit the use of native language in village,
district or regional paper work.
REGNUM: To what a level and quality Russian-Georgian relations may
get in the near future?
A week before the Putin-Saakashvili meeting and after it, the
Georgian side stopped the unpromising and dangerous anti-Russian
rhetoric. Even more, some Georgian analysts called for restoring good
neighbor relations with Russia. Although the news about US President
Georgia Bush inviting Saakashvili to Washington has given a new rise
to pro-American moods in Georgia, there is still a growing wave of
pro-Russian and anti-Soros actions in the country. Nevertheless,
Georgia will continue acting and speaking against Russia, which will
make Georgian-Russian relations even worse. External forces cannot
make peace in Georgia but are still trying to convince Georgia of its
own political significance. Nevertheless, the authority and influence
of Saakashvili and his team are falling. In a recent survey only 10%
said that Saakashvili has political prospects against 17.8% voting
for Salome Zourabichvili and 12.7% for Koba Davitashvili.
REGNUM: And what do you think about the dynamics of Georgian-Azeri
relations?
In its struggle for existence, Georgians have traditionally tried
to avoid bad relations with neighboring Muslim states, to maneuver
between them so as to reduce own losses. Sometimes, they succeeded.
In the last years the Georgian authorities have proclaimed themselves
as the strategic allies of the US, Turkey, Ukraine and Azerbaijan and,
by confronting the regional policy of Russia, are trying to create
economic and political prerequisites for solving their own internal
and external problems. Availing itself of the Armenian-Turkish and
Armenian-Azeri conflicts, Georgia is trying to act as a transport
corridor in East-West energy relations.
With economic cooperation being the priority of Georgia’s relations
with the Turkish-Azeri alliance, the local authorities are actively
attracting Turkish investments into their economic projects.
Given its deepening military-economic cooperation with Turkey and
Azerbaijan, Georgia could not evade their political positions. Being
the key energy transit link between Armenia and the outer world,
Georgia is constantly forced to yield to Azerbaijan’s demands, which
are allegedly aimed only against Armenia. For example, Azerbaijan
has put a ban on the transit of oil products for Georgia via its
territory, alleging that, at least, part of them are for Armenia and
will be given to it.
Georgia had to give numerous proofs it would not, the Georgian prime
minister went to Baku specially to solve this problem. Recently, an
Azeri MP said that Azerbaijan is against the opening of the Abkhazian
railroad as this will give Armenia direct communication with Russia.
Otherwise, Baku is threatening with aggravation of Azeri-Georgian
relations. Presently, the Georgian-Russian railroad operations are
carried out via Azerbaijan.
In fact, Azerbaijan is not only actively interfering in Georgia’s
internal affairs but is actively enrolling to this end its communities
living in the southern regions of Georgia. Some Azeri organizations,
especially, the National Assembly of Azeris of Georgia and its
president Dasgyn Gulmamedov, are beginning to more frequently call
for Georgia’s federalization.
Obviously, this interference will keep growing, and Georgia will be
forced to make more and more concessions to the Turkish-Azeri side,
especially after the return of Meskheti Turks.
© 1999-2006 REGNUM News Agency
–Boundary_(ID_kVamUpNdbEPVwyOL7JvUcw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Kazimirov: Sabine Freizer Dramatizes Situation
10.07.2006 16:02
YEREVAN (YERKIR) – “In my opinion media pay superfluous importance
to statements by official and unofficial figures on Nagorno Karabakh
let it be panic utterances by Sabine Freizer or rich speeches by
Matthew Bryza.
In this genre Eldar Namazov’s latest interview to Echo newspaper
deserves greater attention,” former Russian Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement Vladimir Kazimirov
said in a conversation with a reporter. In his words, Ms. Freizer
deliberately dramatizes the situation and even announces of the failure
of the process. “Pretending not to see a new mediator in the process
she in actual fact bustles for EU’s interference in the matter.
Recording the history of the Karabakh talks’ since 1994 the ICG is not
well aware of it, although the OSCE has been dealing with the issue
since 1992. Over incompliance of the sides the conflict has many times
reach a deadlock but this doesn’t not mean the end of the process.
By the way, Ms. Freizer should not be afraid of contacts between the
conflicting sides without mediators. Let me remark that the mandate
of the Co-chairs encourages immediate contacts between the sides in
the Nagorno Karabakh conflict including talks on the most important
issues. It’s another matter that not all of the parties are ready
for it,” the Russian diplomat said.
He underscored that statements by separate figures hardly deserve
such attention. “It’s much more important to analyze the report
submitted by the Co-chairs to the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna
June 22. Serious discussion of the current stage of the settlement
process should be launched without panic,” Kazimirov said.

ARMENIAN SCHOOLS TO HAVE TWO TYPES OF FIRST FORMS IN 2006-2007 SCHOOLYEAR
YEREVAN, JULY 10, NOYAN TAPAN. It is planned to pass to 12-year
education in Armenian comprehensive schools in 2006-2007 schoolyear. In
this schoolyear the country’s schools will have at the same time
pupils learning by curricula of 10th, 11th and 12th forms.
As Norayr Ghukasian, Director of the Education National Institute,
informed Noyan Tapan correspondent, pupils having been admitted to
school until 2000 inclusive will learn and leave school by a 10-year
curriculum, in case of which the curricula and textbooks will not
change (7-10th forms of this year are meant).
Pupils having been admitted to school from 2001 to 2005 and those
to be admitted in 2006 having turned 6.5 will go to school 11 years
(2-6th forms of this year are meant).
This year schools will have simultaneously two types of first forms
– with age groups of children having turned 6.5 and 6 until 2006
December 31.
6-year-old children will learn by a 12-year curriculum and will finish
school in 2018 and 6.5-year-old children in 2017.
In the next, 2007-2008 schoolyear 2nd (for children having been
admitted to school at the age of 6.5), 3rd forms and above will be
renumerated: 2nd form at once becomes 3rd form, etc.
According to the Director of the Education National Institute,
those having been admitted to school in 2000 will finish school
in 2010 in a form renamed “11th.” And those having been admitted
in 2001 will continue studying in a three-year senior school since
2009-2010 schoolyear and will leave school in 2012 in a form renamed
“12th.” So, those having been admitted in 2000 will leave school in
2010 and those having been admitted in 2001 in 2012, so, in 2011 the
Armenian comprehensive schools will have no leavers.

Armenian MOD delegation to participate in the exhibition of armaments
ArmRadio.am
10.07.2006 13:20
Tomorrow the Armenian delegation will participate in the 5th
international exhibition of armaments, defense technology and
ammunition to open in Nizhniy Tagil. Press Service of RA Defense
Ministry informs that employees of the Armaments Agency, Colonels
Vasili Bondar and Ashot Danielyan have already departed.
According to Russian media, Mi-26 heavy-lift helicopters, SU-25
attack aircrafts, SU-24 fencers and Mi-24 military helicopters will
demonstrate their capacities during the exhibition of armaments. 16
countries will participate in the exhibition as guests.

An extraordinary session to discuss an extraordinary issue
By Karine MANGASSARIAN
Yerkir.am
July 07, 2006
People have been organizing protest actions in from of the Government’s
building, the President’s house, the office of the Ombudsman protesting
against unlawful alienation of their property and incommensurate
compensation for the alienated property.
The draft law on “Alienation of property for state and public needs”
proposed by the government at yesterday’s extraordinary session of
the National Assembly attempts to regulate these processes through
a special law. However, this law cannot be enacted retrospectively
and will not affect the alienation deals that were concluded before
the adoption of the law.
The draft law was presented by the Minister of Justice Davit
Harutyunian. As could be expected, the political forces in the
parliament had a very heated reaction to the draft.
Even though the necessity for having such a law was stressed the
parliamentary opposition proposed to withdraw the draft from the
parliament since it is a source of a series of disagreements and
contradictions. Chairman of the National Assembly Tigran Torossian
believes the opposition’s approach is wrong. He noted the National
Assembly should not shriek the responsibility but should do its best
to improve the law.
Head of ARF’s parliamentary faction Hrayr Karapetian answered the
question whether the draft is so bad that the government should
withdraw it from the National Assembly or the National Assembly
should work on amending and improving the draft. Karapetian noted,
“The processes that take place in our country and this sector are
not regulated by the law.
There should be laws to regulate these processes. It is not a
secret that the development of the Northern Avenue has raised
justified concerns of the population of Byuzand street and Yerevan
in general. There is not a single deputy in the National Assembly
to whom residents of Yerevan do not turn with complaints regarding
alienation of their property for state and public needs. Therefore,
the need for having such a law is obvious.”
The reason for elaborating the law was that the Constitutional Court
has recently examined the issue. The decision of the Constitutional
Court was that the National Assembly should adopt a law on “Alienation
of property for state and public needs”.
Commenting on the substance of the law, Karapetian noted that the issue
is regulated by the law and not governmental decrees. “Once the law is
adopted, there will be no questions as to the criteria for estimating
the cost of the buildings because the law clearly stipulates that the
property should be estimated based on the current market price plus 5%
to reflect possible fluctuations of the market price.
And most importantly, the law should correspond to the international
conventions on human rights to avoid instance when people appeal to the
European Court of Human Rights to protect their rights and interests,”
Karapetian noted. He believes the most important thing is to ensure
that state interests and public interests should not interfere or be
in conflict with the property rights of individual citizens.
“Now the law clearly stipulates that there should be no such
contradictions, and even if they occur, the law states that everything
should be done to settle such incidents in favor of the interests
of citizens,” Karapetian noted informing that ARF’s parliamentary
faction will soon present its proposals. One of the proposals to be
made by ARF’s faction is that decisions on alienation of property
for state and public interests should be made by the state and not
by individuals or some organizations.