Kommersant, Russia
March 24 2006
Weapons Used to Convince Armenia
// Russia compensates for its expensive natural gas with cheap arms
Friendship of the Nations
A week before Gazprom is set to increase the price of natural gas for
Armenia, Yerevan has announced significant progress in negotiations.
According to Armenian Defense Minister Serge Sarkisyan, the public
and industry will both receive gas at lower prices than stated
earlier. The price that left Yerevan gasping in horror at the end of
last year – $110 per 1000 cu. m. – has not changed. Kommersant has
learned that the difference lies in a plan proposed by Moscow to
provide a valuable bonus with its expensive gas – the latest Russian
weaponry at rock-bottom prices.
Gas for Property
Although here is only a week left until Russia and Armenia convert to
a new billing system for natural gas, the situation remains far from
clear. On Wednesday evening, Armenian Prime Minister Andranik
Margaryan announced that the price would not change. `The price of
$110 fixed in the bilateral agreement is final, and no change in it
is expected,’ he said, adding that they were still discussing
possible forms of compensation. That much had been known since the
beginning of the year, when Moscow and Yerevan began their search for
a mutually acceptable decision.
When deputy head of Gazprom Alexander Medvedev announced that the
price of gas that Russia will supply to the Transcaucasus will be
$110 per 1000 cu. m. in 2006, Moscow made it clear that that figure
was firm. Medvedev noted in particular that political alliances would
not play any role in the changing price. Moscow did, however, say
that it would consider forms of compensation for the raising price of
gas that would lighten the blow for Armenian consumers.
Moscow expressed interest in buying a large package of shares in
Armrosgazprom. Russia intended the proceeds from that sale to support
low gas prices for the domestic consumer. Russia also proposed buying
all five generating blocks of the Razdan electric plant and the
country’s entire gas transport system. Russian specialists estimated
the value of those objects at $140 million.
Those ideas came to naught thanks to Russia’s `sworn partner’ Iran.
Armenia is giving that country its gas pipeline and one of the Razdan
generating blocks. When the Islamic Republic found our about Russia’s
proposal, it was strongly opposed to it and threatened to undermine
the deal. Armenia was forced to give in to Iran’s ultimatum.
The Search for a Solution
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan visited Moscow in January. His
meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin did not bring results
in gas negotiations, however. `Considering the strategic character of
our relationship with Russia, we were counting on settling the
question of the price of Russian gas more simply and without such
long negotiations,’ the Armenian president’s press secretary Viktor
Sogomonyan commented at the end of the president’s trip.
For the first time in Russian-Armenian relations, he almost made a
veiled threat to Russia. `What concerns us most in the developing
situation is that public opinion in Armenia can hardly be interpreted
as favorable to Russia. We are concerned that that mood may play a
role in the long-term perspective,’ Sogomonyan said.
After that, Armenian politicians formed two camps. Speaker of the
parliament Artur Bagdasaryan stated that, although he remains in
favor of the development of Armenian-Russian strategic relations, he
considered it necessary to `specify their framework.’ Deputy speaker
of parliament and Dashnaktsutyun Party leader Vagan Oganesyan noted
that the `empirically pro-Russian mood’ of the Armenian public would
take on a more pragmatic character after the rise in the price of
Russian gas.
The press began to opine that there was no need for Armenia to ask
continually for lenience from Russia. Yerevan, journalists said,
should look at the example of its neighbors Georgia and Azerbaijan,
which accepted the price hike silently. `At least that gives us the
freedom of political maneuvering,’ one publication noted.
The Armenian government tried not to go to extremes. Defense Minister
Sarkisyan rejected suggestions that the country begin demanding
rental payments for the Russian military base in Armenia. `The price
of Russian gas is in no way related to our security. The Russian
military base was located there at the request of the Armenian
government. It is one of the components of our security and we still
feel the need for that base,’ he said.
Russia made no concessions. In February, while visiting Switzerland,
Kocharyan stated that he still did not know what the price of Russian
gas for Armenia would be after April 1. He noted that negotiations
were continuing on `mechanisms of compensation’ that would reduce the
consequences of the price increase and `could function for two or
three years.’
While the negotiations were going on, the Armrosgazprom company, as
required by Armenian law, applied to the commission on public
utilities regulation to raise the domestic price for natural gas.
They said in the company that they had nothing else to do, since
there had a contract dated December 28, 2005, where it was clearly
written that the new price for gas would be $110. The commission
ruled that, beginning on April 10, the Armenian public would pay 90
drams (about $0.20) per cubic meter, up from 59 drams. Industrial
consumers would pay $146.51 per 1000 cu. m., up from $79.10.
Guns for Gas
Only late Wednesday evening did the Armenian public find out news
from the gas negotiations. `On the instructions of the president of
Armenia, I have sent a letter to the head of Gazprom Mr. Miller with
a number of proposals. On Friday, we received an answer from Miller.
Gazprom is prepared to sign documents before the end of April that
will make it possible for the Armenian public and industry to pay a
lower price than had been suggested earlier,’ Sarkisyan, one of
Armenia’s most influential politicians, stated. He expressed hope
that the rising price would not have a great impact on the public and
industry. He did not hide the fact Gazprom was not conceding on its
$110 price. Kommersant has learned the details of the scheme that is
to save the Russian-Armenian alliance.
According to information obtained by the newspaper, the saving
mechanism was worked out in Moscow. Yerevan will receive a bonus that
will be almost more valuable than the main product. Supplies of
modern Russian weaponry will be made to Armenia at reduced prices.
Part of the contracts will be completely free.
That mechanism is fully acceptable to Armenia. It will allow Yerevan
to use money set aside for armaments as compensation to hold gas
prices, if not at their previous levels, at levels close to the
previous ones. Russia is also expecting to benefit from the scheme.
According to Kommersant’s information, Kremlin analysts are
predicting that the appearance of a large quantity of modern weapons
in Armenia will pique the interest of Azerbaijan. Baku may try to
undermine the deal at first, but it will understand soon enough that
Moscow will stand up for its own interests and then it will make
similar purchases to remain on parity with Armenia. In Moscow, they
are already painting rosy pictures of the future of the military
industrial complex. The dangers of an arms race in such an unstable
region are not being mentioned.
by Ara Tatevosyan, Yerevan; Alexander Reutov

Reuters AlertNet, UK
March 24 2006
ICRC (press release), Switzerland
International Committee of the Red Cross
Armenian prisoner of war repatriated under ICRC auspices
Geneva (ICRC) – On 24 March an Armenian prisoner of war detained in
Azerbaijan was repatriated under the auspices of the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
The operation took place on the road between the Azerbaijani town of
Gazakh and the Armenian town of Ijevan.
The ICRC, participating as a neutral intermediary and in accordance
with its mandate, facilitated the repatriation of the released
prisoner at the request of the Azerbaijani and the Armenian
authorities.
ICRC delegates visited the prisoner of war before the operation to
ensure he was returning home of his own free will.
Since the start of its activities in connection with the Nagorny
Karabakh conflict in 1992, the ICRC has helped repatriate or transfer
656 people, and the organization will support any similar operation
in the future should the need arise.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
March 24 2006
Armenian prisoner of war repatriated
[ 24 Mar. 2006 17:33 ]
Today an Armenian prisoner of war (POW) detained in Azerbaijan was
repatriated to his country under the auspices of the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
APA was informed by the ICRC.
The operation took place on the road between Azerbaijan’s town of
Gazakh and Armenia’s town of Ijevan.
Further to the request from the authorities of the Republic of
Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, the ICRC acting as a neutral
intermediary, and in accordance with its mandate, facilitated the
repatriation of the Armenian prisoner of war.
The ICRC delegates met with the POW to be sure that he wishes to
return to his own country.
In accordance with its mandate, the ICRC assisted in repatriation of
656 people in the region since 1992.
The repatriated Armenian prisoner of war is a military man Saakyan
Vardan Martikovich, who passed the front line in Hasangaya village of
Azerbaijani region of Terter, near contact line of troops on 3
February, this year.
The investigation found out that Saakyan Vardan was born in Uits
village of Sisian region, Armenia, on June 25, 1986, and he is
Armenian citizen.
Azerbaijan’s State Committee for Prisoners of War, Hostages and
Missing Persons informed APA that Saakyan was drafted to Armenian
Army under a contract and sent to Azerbaijan’s occupied province of
Nagorno Garabagh for military service.
The international organizations, including, the ICRC, the
International Working Group to Search for the Missing, Hostages and
Prisoners of War were informed about Saakyan./APA/

Student Operated Press, FL
March 24 2006
Republic of Armenia to Sign $235 Million Millennium Challenge Compact
by Judyth Piazza CEO (Editor)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Chair of the Board of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), will make remarks at the
signing of the Millennium Challenge Compact between the United States
and the Republic of Armenia, on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.,
in the Benjamin Franklin Room, at the Department of State.
MCC Chief Executive Officer Ambassador John Danilovich and Armenian
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian will also make remarks. The $235.65
million Compact will be signed by Ambassador Danilovich and Armenia’s
Minister of Finance and Economy, Vardan Khachatryan.
Armenia’s Millennium Challenge Compact aims to reduce rural poverty
through a sustainable increase in the economic performance of the
agricultural sector. The Compact consists of two investments: a Rural
Road Rehabilitation Project and an Irrigated Agriculture Project. The
program will directly impact 75 percent of the rural population and
is expected to significantly increase the annual incomes of the rural
poor.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. government corporation
designed to work with some of the poorest countries in the world, is
based on the principle that aid is most effective when it reinforces
good governance, economic freedom, and investments in people that
promote economic growth and elimination of extreme poverty.
This event will be open to the press.
Pre-set time for cameras: 3:15 p.m. from the 23rd Street entrance.
Final access time for all press: 3:30 p.m. from the 23rd Street
entrance.
Media representatives may attend this briefing upon presentation of
one of the following: (1) a U.S. Government-issued identification
card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of
Defense, or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo
identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on
letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by
an official photo identification (driver’s license or passport).
Source: US State Dept.

Today, Azerbaijan
March 24 2006
“Refugees and Displaced Persons in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia”
on PACE spring session agenda

24 March 2006 [14:27] – Today.Az

Declaration on “Refugees and Displaced Persons in Azerbaijan, Armenia
and Georgia” was included into Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) spring preliminary session agenda. Project of the
given document was prepared by the Latvian reporter of the Committee
on Migration, Refugees and Population, Boriss Cilevics.

As Trend informs, the document, referred by number 10 835, states in
particular; “The situation of refugees and displaced persons in
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia continues to be an obstacle for the
development of these countries in economic, socio-political and
health terms.”
Efforts to find a solution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict have not
as yet produced results. Border incidents still occur, the fate of
missing persons has yet to be solved and landmines continue to cause
injury and death. There remain urgent humanitarian needs which are
becoming ever more difficult to satisfy as donor fatigue sets in.
Urgent humanitarian needs, however, must be increasingly supplemented
by international development aid to provide a future for the refugees
and internally displaced persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
There are, however, some positive signs that the three countries are
moving forward with the local integration of their refugees and
displaced persons, thus allowing these people to regain their dignity
and prepare for the future.
“It is difficult to gauge the number of refugees and displaced
persons in the region. By law or by virtue of administrative
practice, the three countries tend to recognize the descendants of
persons displaced in various capacities within the region as
“refugees” or “displaced persons”, with the result that the total
number of refugees and displaced persons never seems to decrease.”
The majority of refugees and displaced persons are in that situation
because of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and deportations between
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Without a settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the objective
of enabling refugees and displaced persons to return to the regions
from which they came is impossible to achieve. Furthermore, the
progress of the dialogue designed to solve the practical problems
refugees and displaced persons face, particularly with regard to the
return of their identity documents and the official restitution of
their property, is not satisfactory.
The Assembly welcomes the fact that the three countries have now
embarked on programs for the local integration of their refugees and
displaced persons. Article 13 of the resolution project, indicates
that “In Azerbaijan three categories of people need to be
distinguished: displaced persons who had to flee Karabakh, displaced
persons from the districts of the Republic of Azerbaijan that are,
strictly speaking, occupied, and Azerbaijanis from Armenia, who are
refugees under international humanitarian law.”

URL:

Regnum, Russia
March 24 2006
`Russia gives Azerbaijan and Armenia `to the mercy’ of the US’: Azeri
press digest
Politics
`Armenia’s withdrawal from the occupied Azeri lands will improve our
relations with that country,’ Azeri President Ilham Aliyev says Mar
15. `We want nothing extraordinary. We just want the Armenians to
leave our lands. After that we will be able to live like neighbors,’
Aliyev says in a Mar 15 meeting with the Turkish delegates to the 2nd
World Azeris Congress. (New Time)
`Armenia will not be able to rival with Azerbaijan,’ Aliyev says at
the 2nd World Azeris Congress in Baku Mar 16. He says that Azerbaijan
is augmenting its military capacity annually and has a $600 mln
military budget this year. `My task is to shortly make our military
budget as big as the whole national budget of Armenia.’ `Armenia will
never be able to rival with us. The sooner they realize that the
better for them.’ Aliyev says that Azerbaijan will have to revise its
participation in the Karabakh peace process if it sees that Armenia
is wrecking the process by non-constructive attitude. `The peace
talks have been ongoing for 12 years already, but with no result. And
nobody knows for how much longer they will go on. We are for peace
talks, but when we see how con-constructive and insincere Armenia is,
we are losing patience. If we see that the peace process is just a
fake, we will come out of it,’ says Aliyev. `Azerbaijan will not
allow the seizure of Nagorno Karabakh in either 10 or 100 years.’
`Unless we agree on the return of displaced persons to their homes,
we will reach no peace agreement at all,’ says Aliyev. (Zerkalo)
Zerkalo daily reports: `Reliable diplomatic sources say that an
unprecedented pressure was put on the Azeri leadership during the
last visit of the US assistant secretary of state for Europe and
Eurasia to Baku. The Washington emissaries tried every means to get
Ilham Aliyev to agree to the OSCE MG-proposed peace. They also urged
Aliyev to agree to take part, if need be, in the US anti-Iranian
coalition, otherwise, the US will use various levers of pressure: the
human rights and democracy situation in Azerbaijan, especially after
the last parliamentary elections, the problem of corruption in the
government.
‘It was hardly coincidence that right after the failure in
Rambouillet, the US `found’ proofs that the well-known Czech
businessman Viktor Kozeny continued bribing top Azeri officials after
1998. It seems that Washington has made `the Kozeny case’ `a
long-playing record’ for playing it every time Baku tries to `defy’
its plans in the region. Moreover, the same reliable diplomatic
sources say that Baku will hardly get `support’ from Russia, who
wants to `freeze’ the conflict most of all. This time, Russia has
decided to give its `reliable ally,’ its `outpost’ in the South
Caucasus Armenia and its `strategic partner’ Azerbaijan `to the
mercy’ of the US. Just one look is enough to see that Russia is
actually doing that.
`…The situation is not easy. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan has little
inner capacity to resist the outer pressure in the Armenian-Azeri
peace process. In his time Haydar Aliyev (Azeri president in
1993-2003 – REGNUM) left room for system opposition and could
actively use them if offered unfavorable peace scenarios. The
`Azeri-way’ parliamentary elections can become a `Pyrrhic victory’
for the Azeri elite. The point is that having crushed the opposition
before, during and after the elections, the elite can hardly convince
the international community now that it will not be able to cope with
them if it agrees to the MG-proposed peace agreement. One can guess
that this time the US may use the opposition to its own ends, but one
can hardly imagine how. But one can’t but notice that during his Baku
visit Daniel Fried met with only one Azeri opposition leader – the
baskan (leader – REGNUM) of Musavat party Isa Gambar…’
The US will keep an intent eye on the May 2006 repeated parliamentary
elections in Azerbaijan, US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe
and Eurasia Daniel Fried says in Baku. He says that they in the US
are disappointed that the Nov 2005 parliamentary elections were not
as free and fair as they expected. They urged the Azeri government to
repeat voting in the districts with biggest violations. Democracy
development in Azerbaijan is and will be a key goal of the US policy,
says Fried and notes that a strong government should have a strong
opposition. (Zerkalo)
`To fight religious-extremist groups is one of the primary tasks of
the Azeri special services,’ Azeri National Security Minister Eldar
Mahmudov says in an interview to Interfax-Azerbaijan. `Now those
groups are mostly engaged in terrorist activities to overthrow the
present secular democratic regime and to force Azerbaijan to refuse
from involvement in international anti-terror operations,’ says
Mahmudov. `Their methods are to commit terrorist acts against vital
strategic facilities, embassies, wherever foreign citizens work and
live.’ `And to solve this problem we need not only administrative,
legal or urgent measures, but also social work and instruction. The
practice shows that the core of any extremist groups is basically
religious young people from poor families, students majoring in
theology or jobless youths. To prevent religious extremism we must
timely keep Azeri youths from getting into its nets. This is a very
hard job: despite our big experience and active work, we were really
shocked to find out that Al-Qaeda was planning to recruit Azeri young
girls as suicide bombers (shahids),’ notes Mahmudov.
The opposition Musavat party is planning mass actions for Apr, says
the party’s vice chairman Arif Gajily. They are planning rallies in
the districts of repeated elections and also a republican rally in
Baku. (Yeni Musavat)
`The state financing of the Azeri political parties is impossible
this year,’ says the executive secretary of the ruling Yeni
Azerbaycan party, MP Ali Ahmetov. The key reason is that the state
budget has no relevant allocations. State financing is a good but
also a hard thing. The public should first decide the criteria and
mechanisms of such financing. `If everybody decides that the state
should finance the parties, we will discuss this problem at a higher
level. I hope that the Azeri authorities will soon decide that such
financing is necessary and will take measures to this end,’ says
Ahmedov. (Trend)
`It is for the states themselves rather that for international
organizations to ensure the transport security of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline on their territories,’ Azeri Deputy
Prime Minister Abid Sharifov said at a news conference. He reminded
the journalists of the repeated breaks of the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline
and noted that BTC may face the same danger. `Now that the pipe is
not yet full with oil, we are not expecting such dangers, but they
are still possible – not in Azerbaijan, but in the other BTC states,’
Sharifov said. (New Time)
`A junior sergeant of the Azeri army has confessed his cooperation in
captivity with the Armenian secret services,’ reports AzerTag.
“Counter-intelligence into the case of junior sergeant of N military
unit of the Azeri Defense Ministry Bekirov Ruslan Hagani Oglu, 1985,
called up by the Shamkir military commissariat and held in captivity
by the Armenians Feb 15-May 7 2005, has proved that he was in secret
cooperation with the Armenian secret services.
Misled by the Armenians, the commander of the N unit Ruslan Bekirov,
together with his men Abdulayev Hayal Idris Oglu, 1986, and Tagiyev
Hikmet Adem Oglu, 1983, deserted to the enemy Feb 15 2005, thereby
betraying his Fatherland and causing detriment to the national
security, sovereignty, territorial integrity and defense of the
Azerbaijani Republic.
Upon being brought back from captivity by ICRC, Bekirov admitted his
cooperation with the Armenians. But counter-intelligence showed that
Bekirov’s first testimony was part of the Armenians’ secret plan. As
a result, Bekirov confessed that the Armenians persuaded him,
Abdullayev and Tagiyev into secret cooperation.
They met with Bekirov 7 times and, finally, got him to pledge secret
cooperation on paper and video. They nicked him `Ramin’ and told him
how to keep contact. They promised him $3,000-4,000 for each mission.
An Armenian secret agent, calling himself Rudik, told Bekirov to
organize blasts on the route of the Azeri president, at BTC and in
the territory of Haydar Aliyev Airport as well as to photograph
various military-strategic facilities and to send the pictures to
Armenia.
All the above facts were proved. The Military Council of the AR Court
on Grave Crimes ruled Oct 7 to imprison Bekirov and Abdullayev for 12
years – for high treason (article 274), desertion at war time or on
duty (334.3), abuse of duty (338.1) and abuse of powers (341.3),
while Tagiyev for 11 years – for high treason (274), desertion at war
time or on duty (334.3) and abuse of duty (338.1).
Mar 16 several members of the Organization for Karabakh Liberation
(OKL) tried to prevent the participation of Armenian delegates in the
OSCE Economic Forum preparatory conference in Baku, but were stopped
by the police. 10 OKL members were arrested. In its following
statement, the OKL says that by its actions the OSCE is trying to
justify the `occupant’ policy of Armenia, to force Azerbaijan to make
it up with the enemy and to put up with the loss of its lands. The
OKL qualifies the OSCE’s actions as disrespect for the international
law. The OIL also blames the Azeri government for allowing the
Armenian delegates to come to Baku. The arrested OKL members are
still in custody. (525th Daily)
Iran. Diplomatic scandal
In a Mar 14 Baku press-conference US Assistant Secretary of State for
Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried said that he had discussed the
problem of Iran’s nuclear program with the Azeri leaders and noted
that the US would discuss with Azerbaijan all its possible actions
Iran. Fried said that the US did not want this to happen and hoped
that the world community would convince Iran to stop its nuclear
program. (525th Daily)
`Whatever the further developments, we better be on the safe side of
it and consider the possible outcomes of the US war against Iran. If
one sunny morning we are suddenly waked up by a thunder of blowing up
bombs in neighboring Iran, like it or not, but we will have to think:
what to do?’ says Zerkalo. `Not to get in is certainly the best way
for us. But the question is if a small country like us will be able
to stay `weightless’ so close from Iran. We are by far not Turkey yet
to be able to keep relations with Iran and to oppose its strategic
partner US in the matter. On the other hand, even if we manage to
stay calm and aloof, we will have to manage the inevitable surge of
Iranian refugees in our country…’
Mar 17 the Iranian Embassy in Baku sent the Azeri FM a note of
protest against some anti-Iranian statements made during the Mar 16
2nd World Azeris Congress. The note says: `We deeply regret to see
some anti-Iranian elements taking part in the congress and strongly
protest against their groundless and unfriendly statements about
Iran’s internal affairs. We also condemn the actions openly
interfering in our domestic affairs and running counter to the
internationally recognized norms and to the principles of friendly
relations between two neighboring and brotherly states. This is also
contrary to Azerbaijan’s commitments under the agreement on
friendship and cooperation signed by our former presidents in Tehran
in May 2002. We are surprised to hear anti-Iranian statements during
an event organized by the Azeri government as well as statements
referring to the Turkmanchay Treaty and presenting Azerbaijan as a
divided state.’ The note points out that now that Azerbaijan is
facing a territorial problem itself, such statements damage its own
interests and bilateral relations with Iran. `The Embassy of the
Islamic Republic of Iran in Baku strongly demands that the Azeri
government stop such actions by anti-Iranian elements, calls for
signing an agreement on friendship and asks to respect the principles
of good neighborhood.’ (525th Daily)
Azerbaijan-Armenia. Karabakh problem
One cannot solve the Karabakh problem by such statements, US
Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried said
in Baku, while commenting on the statement of Armenian President
Robert Kocharyan that Armenia will recognize Nagorno Karabakh’s
independence if the peace talks fail. (525th Daily)
`Armenia has deployed vast loads of arms and military hardware,’
Azeri Defense Minister Safar Abiyev said in a meeting with his
Romanian counterpart Teodor Atanasiu. He said that Armenia has moved
its vast arsenal to the `occupied’ Azeri territories. (Trend)
`They in Azerbaijan are displeased with the western scheme of the
Karabakh conflict settlement,’ says Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta. `The
West is actively taking over Russia’s initiative in settling the
frozen CIS conflicts. The German-US Marshall Fund has joined the EU
and the US in this process.’
Recently The Washington Post published an article by Ana Palacio, the
former foreign minister of Spain, and Daniel Twining, an Oxford-based
consultant to the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The
authors urge Europe and the US to jointly battle the `shadow empire’
of Russia, who is trying to `retain political and military suzerainty
over their weaker neighbors.’ As a counteraction the West should
`require closure of the Russian bases on Armenian and Georgian
territory, support Georgian calls to internationalize the
Russian-dominated `peacekeeping’ force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia
and offer a mini-Marshall Plan for the entire South Caucasus.’ The
details of the plan are given in the paragraph about the Karabakh
conflict. The authors say that `this barely frozen conflict threatens
a hot war that would devastate the region.’
But `it is also the place where a breakthrough is perhaps most
likely. Western governments could support a settlement there in which
Armenia returned to Azerbaijan the occupied provinces surrounding the
disputed territory and allowed Azerbaijani refugees to resettle
there. Nagorno- Karabakh could enjoy full autonomy until its ultimate
status was decided by democratic referendum at some future date.’
The Azeri authorities have not yet reacted to these recommendations.
But the local media and most political experts strongly object to the
idea of a Karabakh status referendum. Considering The Washington
Post’s close relations with the White House, they take the above
article as the outlines of the US’ Armenia-Azerbaijan reconciliation
plan.
`A plan Baku must not accept,’ says well-known Azeri political expert
Rasim Musabekov. He says that `the Azeri leaders must in no way
accept the idea of Karabakh status referendum.’ `The very acceptance
of this norm will mean our renouncement of the principle of
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and de facto recognition of the
right of the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh to
self-determination,’ Musabekov says to NG.
Azeri experts say that the `new Marshall plan’ is not a fantasy by
retired western politicians but a joint concept by the West and the
US to ensure control over the South Caucasus. It is for OSCE MG US
Co-Chair Steven Mann to make this concept true. His abilities are not
just hearsay in Azerbaijan: it was due to his efforts mostly that BTC
is a reality. They in Baku assume that Mann may have already got the
agreement of the Georgian and Armenian leaders by promising them
hundreds of millions of US dollars in free Millennium Challenge
assistance in exchange for their support of the new `Marshall plan.’
Baku experts say that this is hardly a bait for the self-sufficient
Azerbaijan. At stake is Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity – if Ilham
Aliyev accepts the new `Marshall plan’ he will lose Nagorno Karabakh.
To get him to accept the plan and to agree with Robert Kocharyan one
will probably need stronger arguments, says NG.
In its `Armenia’ section the official site of RAO UES calls Shusha –
Shushi, Lachin – Kashadag, Nagorno Karabakh – Nagorno Karabakh
Republic; with no Naxchivan mentioned as part of Azerbaijan in
`Azerbaijan’ section. In this connection, Azeri NGOs and media are
going to launch a campaign against RAO UES, reports Real Azerbaijan.
No Azeri soldiers will take part in any military exercises in the
territory of Armenia, says the deputy spokesman of the Azeri Defense
Ministry Ilgar Verdiyev. Earlier Armenian Deputy Defense Minister
Artur Agabekyan said that in June 2006 Armenia will host NATO PfP
Rescuer 2006 exercises. He said that attending the exercises will be
representatives from 20 countries and probably from Turkey and
Azerbaijan. The Azeri DM reacted by saying that this is impossible.
`Armenia takes just a formal part in the NATO PfP program. They hold
just one formal PfP event in a whole year,’ says Verdiyev and notes
that even if the Azeri DM gets an official invitation to take part in
any military event in Armenia, it will not accept it. (Trend)

ICRC (press release), Switzerland
International Committee of the Red Cross
March 24 2006
Tuberculosis in prisons: a forgotten killer
Prisoners, especially in poor countries, are particularly vulnerable
to infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and TB. In the following
interview, Dr Eric Burnier, who runs the ICRC’s communicable-disease
control programmes, stresses the need to give prisoners access to the
same medical care as the general population.
©ICRC
Eric Burnier, the ICRC doctor responsible communicable-disease
control programmes
Worldwide tuberculosis kills close to 5,000 people every day.
2 billion people carry tuberculosis bacillus
425,000 new cases of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis develop every
year
How serious is the problem of TB in prisons?
Twenty years ago it was thought that medical advances would make it
possible to eradicate TB, but the disease has persisted and remains a
very serious problem throughout the world, especially in the prisons
of many countries – the main reasons being overcrowding and the
highly contagious nature of TB. The prevalence of TB in prisons is
much higher than among the general population – in some countries as
much as 100% higher – and in many of these countries TB is one of the
main causes of death in prison.
Of particular concern is the fact that TB is becoming increasingly
resistant to classical drugs, mainly because of inconsistent
treatment or the use of poor-quality drugs.
What is the connection between TB and HIV/AIDS?
The two diseases are very closely linked, and the development of the
HIV/AIDS pandemic is one of the reasons for the upsurge in TB,
especially in Africa. When a person is infected with the HIV/AIDS
virus, his immunity gradually decreases, which makes it easier for
him to become infected with TB or for a dormant infection to become
active again. As with TB, the percentage of HIV/AIDS patients is
particularly high in prison, especially in countries where the
disease is associated with the use of intravenous drugs, as is the
case in the countries of the former USSR.
How did the ICRC become involved in combating TB in the prisons of
the southern Caucasus?
The ICRC is not a medical organization per se and its mission is not
to fight pandemics like HIV/AIDS or TB. Nonetheless, when 10 years
ago, following the Nagorny Karabakh conflict, ICRC delegates
discovered prisoners of war who were suffering and dying from TB in
Azerbaijan, they couldn’t simply denounce the situation and leave it
at that. The disease was spreading and nothing was being done to
contain it. Since the government didn’t have the means to deal with
the problem by itself, the ICRC launched a programme to fight,
prevent and treat TB in the country’s prisons. The programme was
designed together with the ministry of justice and its medical staff.
Over the following years similar programmes were set up in Georgia
and Armenia.
Was it difficult to launch these programmes?
It wasn’t easy, partly because the countries involved were still
heavily reliant on detection and treatment techniques inherited from
the Soviet era, which were giving increasingly poor results. To make
the fight against TB more effective, we had to convince them to adopt
the approach recommended by WHO: DOTS (directly observed treatment,
short course).
Another difficulty stemmed from the fact that in the southern
Caucasus as elsewhere in the world, health problems in prisons do not
fall within the remit of health ministries. In the case of pandemic
diseases like TB, it is essential that a country’s ministries of
justice and health work together. The ICRC has long sought to promote
discussions and negotiations between these two ministries, reminding
them that prisoners are citizens and that as such they must have
access to the same medical care as other members of society.
What role has the ICRC played in designing TB programmes?
The ICRC works closely together with WHO and applies the DOTS
strategy recommended by this organization. As part of this strategy,
TB cases are detected and recorded according to strictly defined
rules, drug stocks are regularly replenished to cope with demand and
drugs are taken under close supervision during the entire course of
treatment. Finally, cases are systematically recorded so that the
situation can be constantly evaluated.
In the three countries of the southern Caucasus, the first thing the
ICRC did was to persuade the authorities to adopt this strategy.
Since they would have been unable to address the problem in all its
complexity or meet the costs involved, the ICRC launched a programme
aimed largely at substituting for them. The programme included
training activities, the provision of drugs and laboratory equipment,
detection services, treatment and follow-up care for prisoners with
TB and the rehabilitation of prison medical facilities.
What were the results?
How DOTS has worked
– In Azerbaijan:
around 7,000 prisoners with tuberculosis have been treated
the tuberculosis mortality rate has fallen from 14% in 1995 to 3% in
2004
– in Georgia
more than 3,000 prisoners with tuberculosis have been treated
the percentage of detainees suffering from tubercolisis has fallen
from 6.5% in 1998 to 0.6% in 2005
How DOTS has worked
– In Azerbaijan:
around 7,000 prisoners with tuberculosis have been treated
the tuberculosis mortality rate has fallen from 14% in 1995 to 3% in
2004
– in Georgia
more than 3,000 prisoners with tuberculosis have been treated
the percentage of detainees suffering from tubercolisis has fallen
from 6.5% in 1998 to 0.6% in 2005
Probably the most remarkable result was to have fully convinced the
medical staff of the justice ministries of the three countries
involved that the DOTS strategy was the right one to use, and that it
was effective not only in developing countries but in other countries
as well. What finally brought them round was the good results
obtained by these programmes (see box).
Another very positive result is that prisoners are now screened for
TB upon their admission to prison. Each prisoner is examined and if
he presents TB symptoms and the TB bacillus is detected in his
sputum, he is given a treatment course and placed in isolation.
At present, the ICRC is gradually pulling out of these programmes and
handing them over to the authorities. The existence of the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria makes it easier to do
this now than it would have been 10 years ago.
How do you deal with treatment resistance?
Treatment resistance is a very serious problem since it means that we
must resort to drugs that are very costly, have secondary effects
that make them more complicated to use and must be taken for a much
longer period of time. With the classical DOTS treatment, we can cure
any TB patient not resistant to DOTS drugs in six to eight months.
But when a patient is resistant, he must take second-line drugs for
up to two years, which is very costly and entails considerable
difficulties. In the countries of the southern Caucasus we worked
together with other organizations – in particular Germany’s overseas
cooperation service – to find adequate solutions to the problem of
treatment resistance.
How has the ICRC’s role changed in recent years?
The ICRC has been playing an increasingly supportive role in the
southern Caucasus, backing up the authorities in their efforts to
combat TB in prisons on their own. It is also helping the governments
involved to obtain the necessary funding.
In other parts of the world – Africa, in particular, where increasing
use has been made of the DOTS strategy over the past 20 years – the
ICRC adopted this supportive role from the very start, while at the
same time reminding the authorities that prisoners, as citizens, are
entitled to the same drugs, follow-up care and attention as the
general population. Whatever a prisoner may have done to deserve his
sentence, his punishment is to be in prison and not to become
infected with a potentially fatal disease like TB.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UC Riverside, CA
March 24 2006
Ambassador Ghougassian Speaks at UC Riverside About Recent Diplomacy
in Iraq
Inland area residents have a chance to hear one part of the Iraq
story from someone who was there
(March 23, 2006)

U.S. Forces accompany Ambassador Ghougassian at Bahgdad University

RIVERSIDE, Calif. () — UC Riverside will welcome The
Honorable Joseph Ghougassian, Ph.D., J.D., former Ambassador of the
United States to the State of Qatar and a government advisor in Iraq,
for a public lecture at 6 p.m. Tuesday, April 18 in the University
Theatre. He is the final speaker in the 2006 Chancellor’s
Distinguished Lecture Series.
His topic is “Diplomacy: A Tool for Peace, Education and Human
Rights,” and he will draw on his experience as an advisor on higher
education issues to the Coalition Provisional Authority – the
U.S.-led organization charged with running Iraq until power shifted
to the Iraqi-led transitional government.
Ambassador Ghougassian has an interesting story to tell. He worked as
a senior adviser to President Ronald Reagan in the Department of
Domestic Policy; directed the Peace Corps in the Yemen Arab Republic;
and then was named Ambassador to the State of Qatar, which shares a
border with Saudi Arabia. He was the first naturalized U.S.
Ambassador from the Middle East, and in the job he honed his skills
in bringing disparate, antagonistic peoples together, realizing such
skills could change the world. He was able to negotiate an end to a
14-century ban on the public practice of Christianity in Qatar, and
was subsequently knighted by the Pope in the Order of St. Gregory the
Great. Most recently, he was tapped to help find a solution to the
turmoil in Iraq.
`Our job was go to Kirkuk, look into the property disputes between
the Turks, the Kurds, the Arabs and the Christians, and to calm down
the situation.” Ghougassian was well qualified. `My fluent Arabic won
the confidence of the Arab tribal sheiks; my Armenian ethnicity
helped me with the Kurds and my Christian religion put the people at
ease, because Christians in Iraq are viewed as fair-minded and honest
people.”
In his role as advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq
in the effort to rebuild the country’s higher education system, he
directed the Iraq Fulbright Program that brought the first 25 Iraqi
scholars to American universities after a long absence. During his
time as an advisor, he lived in one of Saddam Hussein’s former
palaces in the `green zone.’
Born in Cairo, Egypt, he was an early bloomer in academics, receiving
his first two degrees (a B.A. and an M.A. in philosophy) from the
Gregorian University in Rome, Italy, in 1964 and 1965. He earned a
doctorate in philosophy from Louvain University in Belgium by the age
of 22, and was brought to the United States by a job offer: teaching
philosophy and psychology at the University of San Diego. He
subsequently received a bachelor of science degree in family studies
from Louvain University in 1974 and a master’s degree in
international relations and a law degree from USD.
He is back in the U.S. now, writing articles on diplomatic and
international affairs for the media, and lecturing. He is on the
faculty at Trinity College, Anaheim and chairman of Arabian Gulf
Consultants, an international business and international law
corporation. He speaks Armenian, English, French, Arabic, Italian and
Spanish.
Sponsored by the Office of the Chancellor, the distinguished lecture
series is an annual event featuring personalities from the arts,
sciences, letters, and other sectors of society. It’s purpose is to
stimulate the region’s intellectual community, inspire students to
think beyond the lecture hall and lab, and to involve members of the
community in the academic life of the UCR campus. The theme this year
is, “Beyond Boundaries: Explorations and Experimentation in Science,
Art, and Statecraft.’ In addition to formal public presentations,
each lecturer will participate in seminars with undergraduate and
graduate students and visits with faculty
The first speaker in this year’s lecture series was Richard R.
Schrock, an MIT professor who spent his undergraduate years at UCR
and recently shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The second speaker
was former U.S. Poet Laureate and UCR alumnus, Billy Collins.
The lectures are free and open to the public. Parking on campus costs
$6. The talk will be followed by a reception on the patio outside
University Theatre.
id=1285

Daily Times, Pakistan
March 24 2006
VIEW: Turkey has to confront its demons – Jonathan Power
The past weighs too heavily upon modern Turkey, even though its
media and intellectuals can be very forthright about these issues.
The Turkish government still needs to open up. Denial is no
substitute for the whole truth. And if Turkey truly wants to enter
the EU it must get on with it, sooner rather than later
Say what you like about the US State Department’s mastery of foreign
affairs, its annual report on human rights practice remains a beacon
of precise, honest and clear thinking. Published two weeks ago it
rightly chided China for going backwards after years of progress.
In Turkey its sharp critique has been well covered in the press,
giving the country a chance to see itself in the round. Despite
phenomenal progress in improving the parameters of free speech and
beginning to confront the legitimate demands of the Kurds, Alevites
and other minorities in recent years, Turkey still has not faced up
to its two big outstanding historical questions: What has it done
with all its Jews and Christians?
A very big question since Istanbul was the seat for centuries of the
Byzantine Church and the Ottoman Empire was the principle place of
refuge for the Jews after they were driven out of Christian Spain in
the fifteenth century. And when will it have an honest discussion
about the disappearance of the Christian Armenians, which some say
was an act of genocide?
If we’re all going to be forced to make the clash of civilisations
the principle item on the geo-political agenda, as the Bush
administration’s new National Security Strategy statement appears to
suggest, then those who oppose such polarisation need to face up to
why this modern, liberal Muslim state par excellence has not come to
terms with its terrible past. Ironically, this law-abiding state, the
creation of the pro-European, Westernising, Attatürk, has a worse
record on these matters than its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire. It
is rarely acknowledged in the West that Islam, in particular the
Ottomans, had a much better historical record than Christianity in
its tolerance of the other religions of `The People of the Book’.
For 700 years Jerusalem was under Muslim rule. The churches were
open. The Jews were given funds to rebuild their synagogues.
Likewise, from the 15th century on, when the majority of Arabs lived
under Ottoman rule, Christians and Jews were recognised and
protected.
Historically, there has never been a sustained, continuous, clash
between these great civilisations. Undoubtedly there have been
particular clashes and until the fall of the Ottoman Empire the
Muslim world won most of them. Yet in victory the Muslims invariably
showed greater magnanimity and tolerance than the Christian powers
when they triumphed. So why is it that the dying Ottoman Empire and
modern Turkey have such a poor record?
Some Turks would say in their defence it is because, since the Great
War of 1914-18 and the break up of the Ottoman Empire by the
victorious British and French, the West has inflicted one grievous
blow after another on the Muslim world. This has pushed Turkey – and
much of the Muslim world in this region – into an uncharacteristic
degree of defensiveness and intolerance.
Caroline Finkel, the author of the big new study on the Ottomans much
praised by Turkey’s most famous novelist, Orhan Pamuk, argues that
maybe it can’t be legitimately termed `genocide’ when 80,000
Armenians have continued to live unmolested all these years since in
Istanbul. Nevertheless, as she told me in her home in Istanbul,
`terrible massacres did take place on both sides. That’s not in
doubt. But the devil is in the detail. No `smoking gun’ has been
found in the Ottoman archives’, although she adds that some documents
could have been lost `perfectly innocently or removed’.
Finkel, while unsparing of the savagery of Ottoman forces in killing
off so many Armenians, reminds her audience that more Muslim Turks
than Armenians were killed in the war and that the fifth column
activities of the Armenians made inevitable their relocation to Syria
and Iraq, well away from the Ottoman-Russian frontline.
An open reckoning of the evidence by an independent panel of
distinguished historians should now be commissioned by the EU and
paid for by the Turkish government. The longer the Armenian issue is
left to stew, manipulated by the ignorant, the more damage to the EU
digestive tract, as the EU entry negotiations proceed, it is going to
cause. Likewise, a separate inquiry into what happened to the Jewish
and Christian minorities needs to be undertaken and why even today
the continued existence of a major Orthodox seminary near Istanbul
remains under threat.
The past weighs too heavily upon modern Turkey, even though its media
and intellectuals can be very forthright about these issues. The
Turkish government still needs to open up. Denial is no substitute
for the whole truth. And if Turkey truly wants to enter the EU it
must get on with it, sooner rather than later.
The writer is a leading columnist on international affairs, human
rights and peace issues. He syndicates his columns with some 50
papers around the world

WFU Old Gold & Black, NC
March 24 2006
Keep your judgemental religion out of politics
By Michael Berkowitz
Guest Columnist
March 23, 2006
I looked at the Old Gold & Black and saw on the front cover the
headline `Dialogue addresses the importance of religion in politics,
Democratic party’ (Feb. 23). I looked inside, and I spied `Religion
and politics must lead to common good’ (Feb. 23). My response was `oy
vey.’
Religion is a wonderful thing for some people; it gives them hope,
comfort, and conviction which they may have lacked otherwise.
However, because religions are judgmental in nature, and because the
topic of religion is often inflammatory, these viewpoints must not be
allowed to justify political arguments.
Sure, religion has been a key motivator for some tremendously good
works. Bernice King reminded us all of that power when she spoke here
recently, but the price one pays for using religious rhetoric is a
steep one. For many of the irreligious (which, by the way, is not a
synonym for immoral) people in America, this type of talk immediately
discredits an argument.
As for those it does reach, well, religion has, on more than one
occasion been usurped by the hateful and used to justify intolerance
and inequality.
I don’t need to list the millions of abuses of religion ranging from
Sept. 11 to the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the
Inquisition or the historic oppression of women under the pretense
(real and imagined) of religious justification, but I did. `Wait!’
The religious person cries, `Those are clear abuses of religion; my
God is a
loving God.’ True, the Bible says nothing of systematic murder as a
way to salvation. Jesus was a pacifist, ironically (see the above
listing). Unfortunately, by allowing for a religious dialogue, we
invite this manipulation.
This brings me to the crux of my argument – that religion muddles an
already unclear perception of reality, and often distracts from real
issues. Political speak never made much sense anyway, and has always
been a way of concealing real issues, but what are `Christian values’
anyway?
The title of the forum about the Democratic Party reveals that the
Republican Party has become the `more Christian’ party. Some have
even argued that President George W. Bush won his most recent
election on the back of the religious.
To this, I say, `Huh?’ I may not be a member of the `Jesus is my
Homeboy’ Facebook group, but isn’t Jesus the man who was essentially
a communist, advocating more than anything else raising the poor to
power? Isn’t this the same Republican Party which opposes welfare at
every turn and supports an economic plan where the rich get richer?
The lesson is merely that the term `Christian’ is very broad, and
could be used to support myriad views.
If religion could be taken out of politics, then gay marriage would
not be as big an issue as the war in Iraq, the inequalities of our
educational system or the near-crisis state of American health care.
Instead, we are forced to deal with the Pat Robertsons of the world,
speaking about the `message of God.’
Because of religion, lifestyles become `unnatural,’ and just like
that, rational discussion is put back in the closet. Gay couples in
several states can’t adopt a child when psychological studies have
shown them to be at least as competent parents as straight couples,
that Creationism lingers in public schools and that some schools only
teach abstinence and spread lies about AIDS proves that religion’s
impact is often a negative one. I am more than willing to discuss
these things, and would love for someone to prove to me with
something more than quotes from the scriptures that gays, Arabs, Jews
or women are any less deserving of rights than the rest of Americans.
If you are think I am exaggerating the hazards of this concept, check
out the Web site family.org’
It is the epitome of the hazards presented when we allow a
religiopolitcal dialogue. James Dobson’s organization spews hatred
from a political platform while hiding behind a supposed concern for
the family.
Very little in life gets me truly outraged, but the deception of good
people, the demand for sycophantery, and the elimination of
opposition by the use of divine right is an atrocity. The obfuscation
of reality by religious argument must come to an end. I have never
met an inferior people, nor do I think I ever will. Only by escaping
religious bickering, by calling for an open dialogue, and by
eliminating prejudice from our political sphere, can we reach the
promised land, whatever that means. I just wish I knew.
Michael Berkowitz is a freshman from Old Tappan, N.J.