A1+
ARTHUR BAGHDASARYAN, «WE ARE OPPOSITION»
[05:48 pm] 12 May, 2006
more images «I don’t want to remain NA President, I
don’t want to put forward the issue of my confidence,
I was to leave and follow my own course,» NA President
Arthur Baghdasaryan announced during the press
conference today and pointed the course, «We are
opposition».
Will the opposition accept the OYP with outstretched
hands? «I was not accepted with outstretched hands in
the authorities, neither will I be in the opposition»,
the OYP leader said. By the way, he informed that the
text of the written resignation is ready, but
everything till be done according to the RA
regulations on May 22, the first day of the NA
four-day session. He will read the letter during the
first session which will be confirmed within five
days.
CIVILIZED DIVORCE BECAUSE OF THREE DISAGREEMENTS
Arthur Baghdasaryan came to the press conference after
the last concluding session of the coalition where the
sides decided to separate in a civilized way, without
insulting each other. Was it Robert Kocharyan or
Arthur Baghdasaryan who thought of OYP’s leaving the
coalition first? Mr. Baghdasaryan answered that he had
decided what to do and could not blame those
businessmen who left the party as they were oppressed.
He said that he understands those people who `knew
there were disagreements between Robert Kocharyan and
Arthur Baghdasaryan and were to decide which course to
take.’
As for the disagreements, the NA President informed
that there are three types of disagreements between
him and his colleagues from the opposition. The first
group is the inner political one. This includes the
privatization of the nuclear power station and their
attitude towards the 2001-2003 privatization program.
`The OYP has always said that the volumes of
corruption are higher than the combat against it. We
always said that we must combat with actions, not with
words. We also did not accept the privatization
process in Armenia. It was to be held according to the
principles of transparency and equality,’ Arthur
Baghdasaryan said and reminded that he had given names
and addresses which were not taken into account.
The second group of disagreements refers to the
democratic reforms. Arthur Baghdasaryan reminded the
discussions about the Constitutional amendments. `We
are not like those people who say something and do
another thing,’ Mr. Baghdasaryan claimed.
And the third group refers to foreign policy. The NA
President announced that the aim of Armenia is the
integration into the European structures: membership
in EU and close relationships with Russia and the
NATO.
According to Arthur Baghdasaryan, these were the three
main reasons why he resigned. Asked the question if
the reason was the absence of his name in the three
main posts, the NA President answered indirectly,
`Armenia has exhausted all the resources of falsifying
the elections. Now the people must make their choice.’

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
May 12 2006
Azeri MP praises UN rights body admission
Baku, May 11, AssA-Irada
Azerbaijan’s recent admission to the newly-established UN Human
Rights Council shows that the UN General Assembly acknowledges that
human rights are being protected and the democratic reforms are
successfully underway in the country, a parliament member has said.
`The membership is another accomplishment we have made,’ said
chairwoman of the permanent parliamentary commission on human rights,
Rabiyyat Aslanova.
Azerbaijan became a member of the UN body following a vote on
Tuesday, receiving 95 votes and beating a number of other countries.
The MP said Azerbaijan will become the first South Caucasus country
to be represented in the Council. `Neighboring states had limited
opportunities to become a member state. It is not by mere chance that
Azerbaijan gained the most votes [among them],’ she said.
Aslanova said that by gaining admission, Baku has acquired an
additional opportunity to convey the essence of the long-standing
Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict it faces with Armenia to the
international community.
`Armenia was not admitted to the council due to the blatant
violations of human rights there,’ the MP added.
Also elected to the bureau have been China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan, who have been roundly criticized for poor human
rights record. Countries such as Georgia, Armenia, Slovenia and
Hungary have been closed out of the UN list.*

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 12, 2006 Friday
KARABAKH: WHY DO BREAKTHROUGH AND PEACE REMAIN AN IMPOSSIBILITY FOR
THE TIME BEING?
by Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov, the head of the Russian mission for
truce in Karabakh
VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV, THE HEAD OF THE RUSSIAN MISSION FOR TRUCE IN
KARABAKH: THERE ARE NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO PEACEFUL RESOLUTION
OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT; The very idea of a resolution of the
Karabakh conflict by force must be abandoned for good.
Debates over Nagorno-Karabakh are becoming heated: if a peaceful
resolution of the conflict is possible or the Azerbaijanis and the
Armenians are doomed to another test of bloodshed. The opponents may
be counted on to loose a propagandistic barrage to celebrate the next
anniversary of the cease-fire accord. Established with Russia’s help
on May 12, 1994, the accord is actually the only tangible result of
the peace process turned over to the OSCE. This truce is all twelve
years of the talks have to show for the effort.
A year of relative quiet in the political lives of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, 2006 created the illusions of a breakthrough. The meeting of
Presidents Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan) and Robert Kocharjan (Armenia)
in France on February 10-11 confirms the old axiom that considerable
expectations usually result in disappointment. And yet, search for
the peaceful resolution of the conflict must continue.
Everyone knows that the Azerbaijanis and the Armenians thoroughly
distrust each other and that’s probably the most distinctive feature
of the old conflict. Distrust of the other side and fear of
deception, treachery, or sabotage account for the sides’
uncompromising stand on the matter. It is as if they are doomed to
striving for fulfillment of their own demands first and foremost. The
Armenians want the status of Karabakh determined. The Azerbaijanis
want seven occupied districts liberated and returned to them. As a
result, the clumsy process of talks breeds blind alleys one after
another instead of progressing from one concession to another.
How can this fatal distrust be lessened? It is this distrust that
precludes accords. Not even their signing will guarantee
implementation. Leaderships should be responsive and tolerant, they
should stop this endless fault finding that encourages mutually
shared hostility. Contacts between structures of the two societies
are needed. This is precisely what is missing.
Nothing feeds mutual distrust as effectively and profusely as threats
and hatred. Needless to say, Azerbaijan is the leader of the two
where threats are concerned. Yerevan and Stepanakert barely manage to
keep up with Baku where state officials never miss a chance to
threaten to settle the matter by sheer strength of arms.
The “peace or war” dilemma in the meantime is false because there are
no alternatives to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Not only
because of something as vague as humanism – because of the rigid laws
of logic, because of the correlation of forces in the region that
does not really call for military adventures. The existing
correlation of forces is going to preclude success for a long time to
come, and a protracted war will deadly. Its advocates cannot even
hope for victory. Even success which is highly unlikely will only
shift the conflict to a new generation.
Everyone objects to continuation of the conflict: Russia, United
States, France, European Union, Commonwealth, NATO, and many others.
What pressure will be applied to the aggressor without even
accomplishing anything yet? Fiasco instead of victory!
It did not take Baku long to forget the bitter years of 1992-1994.
Elaborating at length on occupation of their land, the Azerbaijanis
never display the willingness to get to the root of the matter and
think of how their lands came to be occupied. Moreover, this is an
outright taboo. In the meantime, Azerbaijani leaders have spent years
trying to resolve the conflict by force, refusing to honor and even
wrecking cease-fire. I remember my conversation with President Heydar
Aliyev in Baku on July 20, 1993. I remember his scream “We’ll crush
the Armenians!” This refusal to heed common sense resulted in the
loss of seven districts. Baku is saying that it will win them back in
a war all over again now.
All these calls for vengeance are unlikely to work. They are not
going to compel the Armenians to leave the “security zone” around
Karabakh or to win Azerbaijan support in the international community.
The other way round is more likely. It will be, however, a mistake to
believe that all these calls are made for “domestic use” only and
that Azerbaijan does not really have the strength to do what it
pledges to accomplish. Deceiving the people, sawing enmity, and
maiming psyche of new generations, troubadours of the war only
aggravate distrust and thus interfere with the attempts to resolve
the conflict, slow down the process of tackling moot issues.
Incidents and victims on the line where the warring sides stand face
to face serve to mount tension. The Armenians claim they are prepared
to observe the accord between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and
Nagorno-Karabakh dated February 6, 1995, a document aimed to resolve
incidents and lessen losses. Baku does not bother to honor the accord
and does not even pledge to try to. Neither does the OSCE seem to
care. This latter does not care about the only existing accord on
Karabakh, and the monitoring missions it mounts every now and then
cannot prevent new victims or complications. The arms race President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev openly cultivate could only be condemned.
The OSCE is silent on that subject too.
All of these are artificial barriers erected by the ruling elites
because even mutual concessions imply dangers to them. Avoiding
concessions, the elites are trying to retain their positions of power
at the cost of the two peoples. This ostentatious patriotism and
demonization of the enemy are all too frequently corollaries of the
domestic political situation.
Seeking to finally establish peace in Karabakh, the very idea of a
resolution by force must be abandoned for good. That should be a
priority in 2006. No progress is possible without it. Responsibility
for resolution the conflict accepted, the OSCE should become more
determined and never hesitate whenever something compromises its
peace mission. It should not dismiss the threats uttered by state
officials or the hosannah they sing to the arms race. It should not
feign not to notice bloodshed. Both peoples need a breakthrough that
will lead to peace. At least in 2009 or 2010!
Source: Vremya Novostei, May 4, 2006, p. 5

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 12, 2006 Friday
LANDMINE LEVEL IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH IS CLOSE TO THAT IN AFGHANISTAN
by REGNUM news agency (Caucasus regional editorial office)
PROBLEM OF ANTIPERSONNEL MINES IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH; Problem of
antipersonnel mines in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nagorno-Karabakh is the first conflict zone on the territory of the
former USSR where antipersonnel mines constitute a major problem.
According to the data compiled and released by the Red Cross
International Committee, both warring sides in the
Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict planted at least 50,000 landmines in
the conflict area.
RENGUM correspondents in Stepanakert refer to some sources as saying
that more than 100,000 landmines of various types and shells ended up
on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in the period of hostilities
(1991-1994). Viewing it against density of the population and size of
the republic, experts say that the landmine level in Nagorno-Karabakh
is close to that of Afghanistan. Thousands of hectares of land,
fields, pastures, gardens, roads, other strategically important
objects of the infrastructure were mined, and the Karabakh
authorities found urgent mine-sweeping their first priority in order
to ensure safe return of refugees and displaced persons. The
territories with minefields changed hands (the fact that never made
the task easier), maps of minefields – whenever charted in the first
place – were usually destroyed.
When truce was made in May 1994, the government of Nagorno-Karabakh
charted a special program of mine-sweeping. Settlements and villages
were checked for shells that never went off, and 274 minefields were
charted. A special group was set up to compile information on
minefields. The population was informed in a special campaign of the
danger of live shells and landmines. A special service was
established to report discovery of shells and landmines to.
Mine-sweeping is painstaking, dangerous, and expensive undertaking,
hence the slowness of the process.
British humanitarian The Halo Trust began its work in Karabakh with
the local authorities’ consent on March 1995. An emphasis was made on
specialist training and on teaching civilians. This organization
disarmed 88 landmines and 6,886 live shells (almost 50 tons) in
Karabakh between May 1995 and April 1996. Almost 3,000 hectares were
made safe again, almost 30 bomb disposal specialists were trained.
Once it ran out of funding, however, The Halo Trust curtailed its
activities in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Halo Trust returned to Karabakh on recommendations from its
Caucasus Bureau in 2000. If money is raised, it intends to stay
pending complete demining of the region. The Halo Trust swept
13,125,500 square meters of land in the last six years. Its
specialists disarmed 1,735 antitank and 3,924 antipersonnel mines and
defused 34,861 shell. Financial support is provided by sponsors
including Armenian organizations in the United States (Kafeschjan
Trust is one of them). The Halo Trust leaders admit that raising
money for their activities in Karabakh is difficult because the
republic is denied international recognition.
The Stepanakert office of the Red Cross International Committee and
Karabakh authorities carried out a program aimed to reduce the number
of deaths in landmine explosions in the republic. Special attention
was paid to students of secondary schools. The number of losses went
down indeed. “Safe Playground Construction” project mounted together
with the Norwegian Red Cross resulted in appearance of safe
playgrounds in the communities known to be in mine-infested areas.
Landmines and live shells on the territory of Karabakh are also
handled by sappers of the Karabakh Army and republican Directorate
for Emergencies. Three sustained traumas in explosions of landmines
and live shells in Karabakh in the first quarter of 2006.
Source: REGNUM news agency, May 5, 2006
Translated by A. Ignatkin

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 12, 2006 Friday
THE OSCE WILL ORGANIZE A SCHEDULED MONITORING ON THE LINE OF
CONFRONTATION OF ARMENIAN AND AZERBAIJANIAN FORCES
A scheduled monitoring will be organized on the line of confrontation
between Armenian and Azerbaijanian forces near the village of Ashagy
Askiparra in the Gazakh district on May 11. Imre Palatinus and Peter
Key, field aides to the plenipotentiary of the OSCE chairman, will
participate in monitoring. Armenia’s part of the group will consist
of Andzhei Kasprshik, plenipotentiary of the OSCE chairman, and his
field aides Harry Eronen and Zhiri Abberle.
Source: Turan information agency (Baku), May 10, 2006

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part B (Russia)
May 12, 2006 Friday
WORSE THAN THE COLD WAR
by Nikolai Zlobin, World Security Institute (US)
Moscow and Washington don’t share the same visions of the future; The
situation in US-Russian relations is not another Cold War. It is
worse than that, because the crisis we see unfolding now is not
ideological. This is a conflict between the world’s strongest
democracy and the world’s largest authoritarian country.
Viewed from Washington, Russia’s policy appears to be more and more
odd and counterproductive. Washington is already used to Moscow’s
reaction to any criticism which it treats with minimum of imagination
involved. In fact, Moscow has two explanations of criticism it
applies in turns. Explanation one: lack of understanding of what is
“really” happening in Russia on the part of Western leaders or their
advisors (as far as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is concerned, for
example, US Vice President Dick Cheney was let down by his
subordinates and advisors or he would have spoken differently at the
Vilnius conference earlier this months). Explanation two: the good
old anti-Russian campaign. Dismissing everything as hostile
propaganda was a Soviet technique of the late 1940s. Oddly enough, it
still works.
At first sight, one would be hard pressed to find a better
opportunity than G8 presidency to win sympathies and present oneself
in the best possible light. Leadership in the club of the most
democratic, economically advanced, and military strong world powers
is objectively an unparalleled chance to boost one’s respect with the
international community, to improve the image of the country itself
and its regime. Last time Moscow wielded such strong leverage with
the general public worldwide was when it launched Sputnik and then
sent Yuri Gagarin into space. The USSR became a symbol of success
then. It was studied, it was emulated – even in the countries on the
other side of the front line of the Cold War.
The situation nowadays is different. Russia is setting a definitely
repellent example. Whenever others study Russia’s example, it’s only
in order to avoid becoming like Russia. Anything but a symbol of
success, Russia is even on the list of 60 failed states compiled by
Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace, where it ranks 43rd –
one slot above Tajikistan but below Nigeria, Turkmenistan, Guinea
Bissau, or even Moldova and Georgia. Moscow’s international influence
has diminished in the months of its G8 presidency, and the respect it
commands is fading fast. Trying to come up with at least something
positive, US leaders point out that Russia is not the USSR, of
course; though it’s hard to understand exactly what they mean by
that. If this is Russia’s major achievement, it’s modest indeed,
since this is also the major achievement of Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and
even Belarus.
Neither can we ascribe Russia’s troubles to economic stagnation.
These days, Russia is exporting more oil and gas than the Soviet
Union ever did and at the prices the Politburo of old could not even
imagine possible. Russian gold and hard currency reserves set an
all-time record, and flow of hard currency into the country makes
even bankers in the Persian Gulf envious. Russia’s international
economic capacities are much better than the Soviet Union’s. Military
inadequacy cannot be cited either. Russia has retained nuclear parity
with the United States. It is the only country in the world capable
of challenging the United States in the military sphere. Like the
USSR its predecessor, Russia is the second largest arms merchant in
the world. Russia abandoned communism. It is clear nevertheless that
Russia nowadays is undeniably less respected, sympathized with, or
backed than the Soviet Union was. The way Moscow achieved it – and so
fast – cannot help generating some morbid interest in the United
States.
The blame cannot be pinned on the West. The last decade was ideal for
Russia because the world powers were ruled by the politicians
sympathizing with Russia. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been
more pro-Russian than any presidents the United States has had in the
past or is likely to have in the future. The same goes for the
leaders of Germany, Italy, France, and so on. It is next to
impossible to imagine more favorable external subjective factors,
particularly since their pro-Russian stand and sympathies with Moscow
cost lots of foreign politicians their reputation.
The idea of an anti-Russian campaign that is so popular in Moscow is
actually misleading. The concept only flatters the egos of the
Russian political establishment. There are people in Washington who
dislike Russia, and they cannot be silenced. Yet they are greatly
outnumbered by people who like Russia and find it interesting.
Practically all of them, however, agree that Russia is not playing
any substantial role in American policy nowadays, and it’s not a
factor deserving a great deal of attention – let alone the effort of
anti-Russian campaigns.
Russia’s problems are direct corollaries of Russian policy. Once
Russia ceased to be a democracy, Washington saw this as fundamentally
changing the general trend of global development and Russia’s own
role in it. Once it ceased to be a democracy, Russia made a strategic
partnership with the United States impossible. For Washington,
cooperation with Russia is becoming more and more difficult – even in
areas where their interests actually coincide – because the deepening
discord over perception of values prevent Moscow and Washington from
sharing visions of the future. Sure, Russia is a sovereign state and
therefore entitled to the right to choose its own path. Yet it’s the
height of folly to believe that the West will tolerate every twist of
Russia’s foreign policy, just because everyone needs oil, gas, and
international security. Anyone who doubts that ought to look back at
Brezhnev and his era.
The hopes that Washington needs Russia so much that it would overlook
Russia’s evolution had better be abandoned. In fact, the Bush
Administration has been sending precisely this message to the Kremlin
for several years. It was and is a mistake, a political fallacy which
the White House is trying now to correct. This is what Cheney said in
Vilnius, and some advisors tried to smooth it out (that’s for you,
Mr. Lavrov!). The United States became convinced that the
authoritarian trend in Russia directly affects its foreign policy.
The more authoritarian Russia becomes, the less constructive its
foreign policy gets. As a result, Washington itself is making a
transition now from the policy of limited cooperation with Russia to
the policy of its limited deterrent. This is Washington’s reaction to
the policy Moscow has pursued with regard to the United States these
last three years. This state of affairs affects both countries and
the international community as such, and only benefits (of that is
what it is) the national elites in the two countries providing them
with an excuse to be used to explain their own foreign policy
failures.
It seems that Washington means business now and the American-Russian
relations will only sour in the foreseeable future. The policy of
limited in Eurasia is already balancing on the verge of a limited
confrontation between the two countries, a conflict between them
currently defined by certain geographic margins. The boundaries of
the limited confrontation will expand into new and new regions in
Eurasia and beyond it. American policy on Russia is largely a
reaction to Russia’s own actions. This is a more appropriate concept
than limited cooperation ever was – much less the attempts to
establish partnership.
Despite the opinion held by some specialists, this is not another
Cold War. It is worse than that, because the crisis we see unfolding
now is not ideological. This is a conflict between the world’s
strongest democracy and the world’s largest authoritarian country –
intensified by the fundamental difference in their geopolitical
views, preferences, and objectives, and intensified again by the
mutual dislike between the elites, distrust, the inertia of
hostility, and colossal ambitions on the part of both countries.
The Cold War was simpler than that. There could be a winner in it,
and there was. There was the concept of peaceful co-existence and
there was understanding of what essentially the warring sides were
after. The United States is no longer an enemy of Russia, and victory
over Russia is not what Washington is after. Neither does Moscow
aspire to see America destroyed. More complicated instruments are
needed. What is needed is a strategy more intricate that the
straightforwardness of the Cold War. What is needed is an entirely
different level of responsibility for national leaders. Neither the
United States nor Russia can hope to win in this conflict, but both
may lose. Moreover, Russia may lose much more than it hopes to gain
nowadays with its deterrent policy.
Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, May 12, 2006, p. 11
Translated by A. Ignatkin

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
May 12, 2006 Friday 11:30 AM EST
Krasnodar governor hopes for retrieval of A-320 flight recorders
KISLOVODSK
Krasnodar Governor Alexander Tkachyov hopes that flight recorders of
the A-320 jet of the Armenian airline Armavia, which crashed near
Sochi on May 3 and killed 113 people onboard, will be eventually
retrieved from the sea.
“Certainly, it is problematic to lift [the flight recorders] from
the depth of 600 meters, but we hope that will be done,” he said in
reply to an Itar-Tass question.
The Navigator vessel went to the flight recorders’ search zone for
telemetric analysis on Friday, a source at the Sochi seaport told
Itar-Tass.
“The visibility is normal on the A-320 crash scene, and we hope to
receive a telemetric picture of the seabed, where the flight
recorders are situated,” head of the Transport Ministry’s Federal
Sea and River Transport Agency Alexander Davydenko told Itar-Tass.
According to the operation headquarters, the flight recorders are
located at the distance of five meters from one another, and the
depth of 496 meters. “We are making the research to prevent any
mistakes in the choice of a deep-water apparatus that can raise the
two flight recorders from the seabed,” a source at the operation
headquarters said.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
May 12, 2006 Friday
Armenian speaker calls for North Atlantic integration
by Tigran Liloyan.
The Orinats Yerkir (country of law) party headed by Artur
Bagdasaryan, who announced his resignation from the post of the
Armenian parliamentary speaker, comes out for deeper North Atlantic
integration.
“Armenia’s European integration is the prospect that has no
alternative,” Bagdasaryan declared, outlining a political position
of his party that declared on Thursday that it quit the ruling
coalition and was joining the opposition.
“Our political team has unanimously decided to quit the ruling
coalition, and we shall resign from all the posts, including the
ministerial posts,” Bagdasaryan said.
The Armenian speaker attaches importance to the development and
persistent deepening of Armenia’s North Atlantic integration,
simultaneously upholding the development of friendly relations with
Russia.”We should not seek to have the Russian values opposed to the
Western values,” Bagdasaryan said.
“Tomorrow, Armenia should be in the European Union and be Russia’s
friend. We should go ahead and deepen our relations with NATO,” the
speaker said.
Bagdasaryan has been Speaker of the Armenian parliament since June
12, 2003. The Chairman of the National Assembly announced his
decision to quit his post at a press conference in Yerevan on Friday.
“Staying on in this post is unacceptable,” the Speaker said.
Bagdasaryan heads the Centre-Right Coalition “Orinats Yerkir”
translated from the Armenian as the Country of Law. The resolution
made by this coalition actually means the disintegration of the
ruling pro-presidential coalition that exists in Armenia since 2003.
Nonetheless, observers believe that Bagdasaryan will not abandon the
political arena, but will seek to become leader of the opposition and
even run for presidency.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
May 12, 2006 Friday
Armenian speaker resigns
by Tigran Liloyan
Armenian parliamentary Speaker Artur Bagdasaryan has declared he will
resign from his post.
Bagdasaryan has been Speaker of the Armenian parliament since June
12, 2003. The 38-year-old Chairman of the National Assembly announced
his decision at a press conference in Yerevan on Friday. “Staying on
in this post is unacceptable,” the Speaker said. “Our political
team has unanimously decided to quit the ruling coalition, and we
shall resign from all the posts, including the ministerial posts,”
Bagdasaryan said.
In accordance with the parliamentary rules of procedure, Bagdasaryan
is to submit his resignation in a written form at the next regular
meeting of the parliament due on May 22. Then, the speaker is to
confirm his resignation within five days’ time.
Many deputies suggested holding a confidence vote with subsequent
resignation as a result of the vote, but Bagdasaryan objected.
Bagdasaryan heads the Centre-Right Coalition “Orinats Yerkir”
translated from the Armenian as the Country of Law. The resolution
made by this coalition actually means the disintegration of the
ruling pro-presidential coalition that exists in Armenia since 2003.
Nonetheless, observers believe that Bagdasaryan will not abandon the
political arena, but will seek to become leader of the opposition and
even run for presidency.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
May 12, 2006 Friday
Seabed examined with sonar to spot airbus recorders
by Galina Gridneva
The seabed area where Armenia’s A-320 airbus crashed has been
examined with a sonar from a rescue vessel.
Buoys were placed at the search operation site, and the sea bottom
was examined from the vessel Zaliv, the Russian Transport Ministry’s
press service said.
Two sources of signal radiation are detected accurately. It is highly
probable that it is the flight recorders, the press service said.
The Navigator vessel will conduct telemetric examination to confirm
the information.
The signal sources are at the depth of 496 metres and at a distance
of five metres from each other.
All needed examinations were conducted from the vessel Cheleken
overnight. The received information is being analysed. After the
work, it will be decided what operation to be conducted to raise the
recorders.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress