CI TARGETS CORRUPTION IN ARMENIA
Lragir.am
20 April 06
The National Citizens’ Initiative (NCI) today convened a roundtable on
“Corrupt Society: Who is to Blame?” The meeting brought together social
and political activists, human rights advocates, analysts, experts,
and media representatives. Members of world donor organizations were
likewise invited to the event.
NCI coordinator Hovsep Khurshudian welcomed the audience with opening
remarks. “One of the key problems facing the Armenian society is
corruption by the ruling authorities and this vice has also spread onto
a large segment of the body politic like a virus. The mentality of and
the mode of operation by many has become fraudulent, and based upon
petty self interests, the deception, the swindling, and the abuse
of official and social status have grown to be ordinary and even
acceptable occurrences,” he said. In Khurshudian’s words, the first
ones to fight against this phenomenon that aims at damaging different
social strata must be the media, the NGOs, the political parties, and
the international donor associations in particular by whose subsidies
the civil society is established to a great extent. According to
Khurshudian, at times the financing by these associations is itself
turning into grounds for corruption and this is impermissible.
In his intervention, the first speaker, chairman Karen Hakobian of
the “Huis” NGO briefly presented the history behind and the cases of
corruption inside the “Professionals for Civil Society” NGO. He stated
that they had even appealed to the court in order to tackle this evil,
but it had become clear that the court’s ruling was already made prior
to hearing the case. In Hakobian’s words, this is not a single instance
and has become prevalent and widely accepted. All this, according
to Hakobian, brings about the incorrect handling of grants. He also
pointed out that since the Machiavellian precept of “the end justifies
the means” is still widespread and the constitutional amendments are
passed by way of falsifications in Armenia, these allotments cannot
serve their true purpose: the better protection of human rights and
societal interests.
During his talk concerning “Legalized Arbitrariness at the National
Academy of Sciences,” the next speaker, Academician Anri Nersisian
charged the Academy’s former president Fadey Sargsian of violating
numerous rules and regulations, unlawfully privatizing the property
belonging to the Academy and ineffectively managing the state funding
being made to the Academy. In Nersisian’s firm belief, this comes to
prove that Sargsian had acted in marginal self gain and usurped to
a large extent.
In her intervention on “Art and the ‘Distribution’ of Funding,” art
expert Susanna Giulamirian talked about the story of an unsuccessful
attempt at providing a grant. As the tale goes, since individual
petitions are not accepted for unknown set of rules, Giulamirian had
to appeal to a local social association in order to petition the “Open
Society Armenia” NGO for sponsoring a project called “European-style
Remodeling in the Post-Soviet Space.” And by winning the grant, she
started the project which also included the holding of an exhibition of
the works by arts and craftsmen of the region. However, the chairman of
the “Actual Art” local social association, through which the funding
project was introduced to the “Open Society Armenia” NGO, demanded
ten percent of the financial support. Giulamirian naturally refused.
Then “Actual Art’s” chairman started to threaten the latter as a
result of which Giulamirian made an appeal to “Open Society Armenia”
so as to change her partnering association. But she was denied on
the grounds that her evidence concerning the local NGO’s dishonest
conduct was impossible to confirm. Subsequently, Susanna Giulamirian
was compelled to discontinue the grant.
The remainder of the session was devoted to exchanges of views and
policy recommendations among the public figures and policy specialists
in attendance. Also noteworthy were interventions by Armenia’s first
Ombudswoman Larisa Alaverdian; Valery Brusov Yerevan State Linguistic
University professor Hrach Tatevian; legal attorney Zaruhi Postanjian;
research director of the Armenian Center for National and International
Studies Stiopa Safarian; chairman of Armenian Helsinki Association
Mikael Danielian; Ruzan Khachaturian from the People’s Party of
Armenia; Tamar Gevorgian of the United Labor Party; Gevorg Kalenchian
from the Heritage Party; Vazgen Karapetian of the Catholic Relief
Services; Gohar Armenakian from the Soldier’s Protection Committee;
chairwoman Artemis Lepejian of the “St. Sandukht” NGO; Vakhtang
Siradeghian from the Transparency International Organization; members
of other social organizations; men and women of arts and crafts;
and many others.
NCI Press Service

Armenian president, US mediator discuss Karabakh
Arminfo
20 Apr 06
Yerevan, 20 April: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan received the
US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Steven Mann, in Yerevan today.
The sides discussed the status of the negotiating process on the
settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, as well as prospects for
resolving the problem, the presidential press service has told Arminfo.

Armenian president wants “clearer” cooperation with EU
Mediamax news agency
20 Apr 06
Yerevan, 20 April: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan received a
delegation of the EU troika led by Austrian Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs Hans Winkler in Yerevan today.
Kocharyan gave a positive assessment to the EU’s growing interest
in the South Caucasus and spoke about the importance of the final
adoption of Armenia’s Action Plan within the framework of the European
Neighbourhood Policy, the presidential press service told Mediamax
today.
The president said that this document will make future cooperation
between Armenia and the EU “clearer and more understandable”.
“We consider the Action Plan to be a clear reference point in our
relations, which will make it possible to implement more coordinated
and purposeful reforms,” Kocharyan said.
The Armenian president briefed the delegation of the EU troika on the
latest developments in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict settlement and
Yerevan’s approaches to the development of regional cooperation and
energy security.

Armenian foreign minister, EU reps discuss energy, regional issues
Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
20 Apr 06
[Presenter] Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan and the EU
troika have discussed Armenia’s cooperation with this organization.
The delegation is led for the fist time by Hans Winkler, secretary
of state for foreign affairs of Austria, which currently chairs the EU.
The main issue which was discussed at the meeting was the Wider Europe:
New Neighbours programme of the European Union, the third stage of
which will start in May.
Vardan Oskanyan briefed the EU delegation on the latest developments
in the Karabakh settlement, Armenia’s positions and approaches. The
sides also discussed energy issues, Armenian-Turkish relations and
possible developments connected with Iran.
[Vardan Oskanyan, captioned] The third stage of the talks on Armenia’s
Action Plan within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy
will be held in Yerevan in early May. This is a serious document
which will be a guideline for the future development of relations
between Armenia and the EU.
The main issue which we discussed was the development of democratic
institutions in Armenia. The state secretary paid special attention to
the holding of parliamentary and presidential elections in Armenia. The
EU is following these developments.
[Hans Winkler, speaking in English with Armenian voice-over, captioned]
The South Caucasus region is of great importance to the EU, and Austria
wants to establish close relations with the South Caucasus countries
during its chairmanship. We discussed the New Neighbours programme. We
hope that the discussions will be finished soon and that this programme
will be a basis for close cooperation between Armenia and the EU.
We also talked about the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. The European
Union wants stability in the region and a speedy resolution to
the conflict. We are ready to render the necessary support to the
settlement of the conflict. We are sure that the settlement of the
conflict will promote stability in the region.

Armenian defence minister praises Karabakh military drills
Arminfo, Yerevan
19 Apr 06
Stepanakert ,19 April: “We have repeatedly said and will continue
to say till the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict that
Armenia is the guarantor of Nagornyy Karabakh’s security,” Armenian
Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan, who is taking part as an observer
in a combined exercise in Nagornyy Karabakh, has told an Arminfo
special correspondent in Stepanakert.
He rated highly the military exercise and noted that it was held in
conditions very close to the war-time conditions and that it differed
from a true battle only by the fact that “ammunition was used 10 times
less”. He also noted that he considered as inappropriate “the fuss
kicked up by Azerbaijan over the exercise held in Nagornyy Karabakh”.
“Should we also be indignant that they held a military exercise just
50-60 km away from here two weeks ago? This is a normal military
process, which means that the army life continues. Irrespective of
the fact that we have always been for the peaceful settlement of the
problem, our army should constantly improve,” Serzh Sarkisyan stressed.
Asked about whether Nagornyy Karabakh should be involved in the
negotiating process, the minister said: “Certainly, Nagornyy Karabakh’s
participation in the talks is desirable, but I do not consider that
the format of the negotiations will be changed in the near future.”
Serzh Sarkisyan said that by making unacceptable proposals Azerbaijan
“is attempting to snatch more for itself”. “If each side continues
to try and snatch openly more for itself, we will hardly be able to
reach an agreement,” the defence minister noted.
Assessing the situation on the contact line of the armed forces, Serzh
Sarkisyan said: “We never violate the cease-fire, we just respond
to hush the fire.” Serzh Sarkisyan believes the domestic political
situation in Armenia is normal. The political processes in Armenia
are going on normally, which has a favourable impact on the process
of the Karabakh settlement, he said.

Troops in disputed Caucasus enclave complete week of military exercises
AP Worldstream; Apr 20, 2006
Ethnic Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh wrapped up a week of
military exercises on Thursday in the disputed enclave’s annual
show of force toward Azerbaijan, which lost control of the enclave
following a war in the early 1990s.
About 1,500 soldiers took part in the exercises, which centered mainly
around the central Agdam region, about 375 kilometers (230 miles)
west of the Azerbaijani capital Baku, near the so-called line of
control that separates ethnic Armenian and Azerbaijani forces.
The drills, which included forces repelling attacks by mock enemy
forces, were observed by the defense minister and chief of general
staff from Armenia, which has long provided military and economic
support for its brethren in the enclave.
Lt. Gen. Seigan Oganyan, commander of the enclave’s forces, made
clear to reporters that the training was intended to be a signal
to Azerbaijan.
“In the event of any demonstration of aggression by Azerbaijan, the
defense army of Nagorno-Karabakh will answer with adequate measures,”
Oganyan said.
Nagorno-Karabakh is inside Azerbaijan but is populated mostly by
ethnic Armenians. Clashes regularly break out between the two sides
and Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliev have traded increasingly bellicose statements since talks
to resolve the enclave’s status broke down in February.
At least 30,000 people have been killed and 1 million made refugees
during six years of open conflict that ended with a cease fire in 1994.
The lack of final resolution over the enclave’s status has long tied
up investment in the strategic, oil-rich Caucasus region.

Russia not to use energy facilities to pressurize Armenia – minister
Arminfo
20 Apr 06
Yerevan, 20 April: “Diversification depends not so much on who owns
energy facilities but on how much these energy facilities and their
energy supplies have been diversified,” Armenian Foreign Minister
Vardan Oskanyan said at a joint press conference with Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs of Austria Hans Winkler in Yerevan today
when asked about the handover of the fifth unit of the Razdan thermal
power plant to Russia.
“I believe that these should be diversified but not the owners or
managers of the facilities. The facilities are located in Armenia,
and even if they have been privatized or handed over for long-term
management, this has been done on clear-cut conditions,” the Armenian
foreign minister said, adding that these conditions could not run
counter to Armenia’s energy demands.
Asked about whether he ruled out the handover of the Iran-Armenia
gas pipeline to Russia, the minister admitted that he did not know
the answer. “Talks are under way in this connection,” Oskanyan said.
Meanwhile, the minister noted that there was no pipeline yet and that
at issue was not the handover of the pipeline but who would build it
or fund its construction. The minister said that he did not hold the
talks and therefore did not know the details.
“But if you ask whether I rule out the possibility of handing over
the pipeline to Russia, I would answer that nothing can be ruled out.
On the other hand, one should not make hasty conclusions without
knowing the details,” Oskanyan said.
He did not agree that the concentration of Armenia’s energy facilities
mainly in Russia’s hands could be used as a lever to pressurize
Armenia, especially in the Karabakh settlement. “This issue should
not be linked to the Karabakh problem,” Oskanyan said.
He said this problem should be viewed “through the prism of a mixture
of what is desired and what is possible”. The minister said that of
course, diversification would have been desirable so that part of the
energy facilities were in the hands of Armenians, part in the hands
of Russians and perhaps part in the hands of Europeans.
“But it has happened so that there is indeed a slight tilt towards
Russia,” the minister said. He pointed out that one should not
worry as long as agreements were observed. “I am sure that there are
provisions in these agreements ensuring the republic’s energy security
and diversification,” the Armenian foreign minister said.

Georgian daily questions feasibility of Turkish Abkhaz resettling to Abkhazia
24 Saati, Tbilisi
18 Apr 06
Georgian newspaper 24 Saati has said that the leadership of breakaway
Abkhazia understands the risk of the ethnic Abkhaz population becoming
an “absolute minority” and sees the repatriation of descendants of the
19-century migrants from Turkey to Abkhazia as a solution. However,
the newspaper questions the feasibility of such a plan and notes that
it may cause problems not foreseen by the separatists or their Russian
supporters. The following is the text of Dimitri Avaliani’s article
“Abkhaz dream – prospects for repatriation with unknown results”
published in 24 Saati on 18 April; subheadings as published:
The Abkhaz authorities view the repatriation of descendants of the
Mohajirs [who were forced to resettle to Turkey in the 19th century]
as the way out of the demographic and political impasse.
“A part of the ethnic Abkhaz community in Turkey wants to return to
Abkhazia,” Sokrat Jinjolia, director of [the Sukhumi branch] of the
Caucasian Institute for Democracy, said during his visit to Turkey last
week. The Abkhaz delegation, which also included the chairman of the
[Abkhaz] state repatriation committee, Anzor Mukba, and the chairman of
the parliament’s defence and security committee, Garik Samanba, visited
Turkey to meet with representatives of the ethnic Abkhaz community.
“We travelled a lot in central Turkey and met with representatives
of the diaspora. The main thing for them is opening up the ways to
Abkhazia and knowing what is going on in their historical motherland,”
Jinjolia said.
According to Jinjolia, one of the deputy prime ministers of the
Republic of Turkey, members of the Turkish parliament, representatives
of the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy to Turkey took
part in the meeting. He also said that representatives of the Turkish
authorities noted that Turkey supported only a peaceful settlement
of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict.
“Representatives of the Abkhaz diaspora in Turkey expressed their
hope that the Russian authorities will make it much simpler to cross
the Russian-Abkhaz border, which will facilitate the arrival of the
Abkhaz diaspora in their historical motherland,” Jinjolia said.
The Russian authorities will no longer make Jinjolia beg for the
open border: By a decision of the Russian Border Guard Department,
as of last week, foreign citizens are allowed to cross the border at
the Psou checkpoint.
Demography as Abkhaz national idea
Nowadays, the main Abkhaz national idea is the survival of the ethnic
group. For them, survival is associated with “demographic supremacy”.
In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the ethnic Abkhaz, the
perpetuation of the existence of the Abkhaz ethnic group is possible
only in conditions of demographic supremacy. From this point of view,
the Abkhaz perceive the mass expulsion of ethnic Georgians as the
“restoration of historical justice”. In other words, their view is
that the ethnic Georgians went back to where they came from, and this,
in the Abkhaz point of view, is entirely fair.
Any aspiration of the Abkhaz towards national sovereignty and any
ideology of achieving it was unimaginable from the very outset without
getting rid of the main obstacle – the ethnic Georgian majority. At the
same time, any mention of “ethnic cleansing” gives rise to an extremely
negative reaction and protest among the Abkhaz, despite the fact that
this phrase, which is “ugly” in their opinion, precisely describes
what they did to the ethnic Georgian population of Abkhazia and what
is recognized at present as the main achievement of the Abkhaz victory.
The issues of the recognition of Abkhazia’s status, its political
system or civil rights are not as pressing to Abkhaz society as the
“demographic issue”.
However, at the same time, the demographic situation in modern-day
Abkhazia clearly shows that there is still a long way to go towards
achieving the main goal of the Abkhaz ethnic group. Back during [the
first separatist president Vladislav] Ardzinba’s rule, a “census”
was conducted that “established” the size of the population that was
advantageous to Sukhumi’s policy. According to that “census”, 320,000
people resided in Abkhazia, that is to say, more than a half of the
people who lived there before 1992 (whose number used to be more
than half a million). This was done to enable the Abkhaz authorities
to declare their policy an expression of the will of Abkhazia’s
population and reaffirm their legitimacy. However, in late 2003
[as published, should be 2004], during the scandalous presidential
election, the Abkhaz themselves put an end to this “trick” because
they had to calculate the real number of voters before the highly
contested and very important election. It emerged that, in reality,
Abkhazia’s population did not exceed 150,000-160,000.
Even against the backdrop of the decrease in population, the Abkhaz
are still a minority. At present, Abkhazia’s population consists of
three roughly equal groups, not only in terms of ethnicity but also in
terms of political orientation. These are the ethnic Abkhaz themselves,
some supporting the idea of Abkhazia’s sovereignty and others favouring
integration with Russia; the Russian-speaking population, which is
clearly of pro-Russian orientation and in which ethnic Armenians
dominate; and the ethnic Georgian population of Gali District with
its pro-Georgian orientation.
At present, ethnic Abkhaz are prevalent in the government bodies and
hold the highest posts, which does not reflect the real proportion
of the different ethnic groups. How long can this situation continue?
Migrants of Armenian origin already reside in Abkhazia, mainly in Gagra
District. The modern-day Abkhazia, whose population has decreased
several times over the last 14 years, is a complete “desert” from
the demographic viewpoint. However, for now, the difficult social,
economic, and crime situation hinders the cultivation of this desert
by foreign migrants.
Given the current situation, this state of affairs bodes nothing good
for the Abkhaz nation. If Abkhazia’s sovereign status is legitimized
and lawful investments start coming in, which is the goal of Abkhaz
policy today, the region will be flooded by migrants from Russia and
other CIS countries for the simple reason that the growing economy
will need a big workforce.
And this will affect Abkhaz politics no matter what. The ethnic Abkhaz
will gradually find themselves in a position from which they are now
desperately trying to get out from – in an absolute minority.
And putting an end to the domination of ethnic Abkhaz in the positions
of power will then become just a matter of time. Abkhazia will be
transformed into a Russian-speaking country in which the Abkhaz
themselves will wield very little influence. They will have much
less possibility to take part in governing their own country than
they had before 1992.
In other words, the Abkhaz will lose even the illusory advantage
which they now perceive as the main achievement of the victory they
attained at the cost of great sacrifice.
Repatriation – a threat or a new political lever?
The Abkhaz pin great hopes on the return of the descendants of the
Mohajirs, who live in Turkey and some Middle Eastern countries and
whose ancestors were deported from Abkhazia in the late 19th century
by the Russian Empire. Sukhumi has announced that their repatriation
is an official priority. The Abkhaz community is united and is part
of the Adyg-Cherkess diaspora that is quite influential in the
Middle East and especially in Turkey. There are reports that the
Abkhaz community is a few-hundred-thousand strong. This is a huge
demographic resource for the Abkhaz. However, the majority of these
people are not enthralled at the prospect of going back to their
historical motherland. At any rate, despite the fact that they have
common ancestors with the modern-day Abkhaz, they are people with a
completely different mindset, effectively a different ethnic group.
To many of them, although Abkhazia is their ancestral motherland,
it is not associated with the place of permanent residence.
The Abkhaz authorities are trying hard to make their demographic
dreams come true. The latest visit by the Sukhumi delegation to Turkey
served this purpose too. However, the prospect of the Mohajirs’ return
raises many questions which Sukhumi itself finds hard to answer. What
will the mass resettlement of citizens of Turkey and Arab countries
bring to Abkhazia? What will the repatriates’ attitude towards
the Russian-speaking and ethnic Georgian population of Abkhazia,
or even towards the modern-day ethnic Abkhaz, be? Will the Islamic
factor gain strength? Will this signify Abkhazia’s “Turkization”,
its transformation into Turkey’s satellite and active promoter of
Turkey’s interests?
An increase in the number of Turkish-oriented population will naturally
strengthen Turkey’s influence on internal Abkhaz politics.
Russian interests will be damaged substantially in any case. In
contrast to the modern-day Abkhaz population, the potential repatriates
are not connected with Russia in any way except through negative
historical experience. The likelihood is quite high that Russia will
“dig its own grave” in the Caucasus: Instead of a “friendly” separatist
entity created with its support, a hostile region will emerge on its
border and it will become the main base for North Caucasian separatism.
What prospects will this scenario create for Georgia? The Abkhaz
authorities and Abkhaz population are today radically opposed to the
return of the Georgian refugees to their own homes. They cite many
reasons for this, although the main reason is their fear of becoming
an absolute minority again. However, it is quite possible that their
resistance will not be so radical if, together with the refugees,
some of the descendants of the Mohajirs will also return, which will
make the Abkhaz population feel “demographically safe”.
The issue of the Abkhaz repatriates raises numerous questions. What
does their return mean to Georgia in terms of the conflict
settlement? How will Sukhumi’s policy change towards Georgia or
towards Russia if the repatriates come to power? What are the risks
and advantages for Tbilisi? Is it actually possible to drive Russia
out of Abkhazia? Georgia may be faced with these questions, in all
their complexity, in the future.

Defence Ministry denies Azerbaijan mediating between Iran, USA
Fars News Agency website
20 Apr 06
Tehran, 20 April: Minster of Defence [Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar] has
denied the report filed by Associated Press concerning Azerbaijan’s
mediation between Iran and America as a sheer lie.
Gen Kalantari, the deputy minister of defence for defensive and
international cooperation, in a telephone conversation with Fars News
Agency emphatically denied the news published by Associated Press
concerning Azerbaijan’s mediation between Iran and America.
He stressed: There have been no discussions concerning the mediation
of Azerbaijan over Iran’s relations with America and the report filed
by this agency is a sheer lie.
A few hours ago, Associated Press had announced that Iran’s defence
minister in his meeting with the president of Azerbaijan had said
that this country may mediate between Iran and America.

WAR WILL BE AZERBAIJAN’S LAST MISTAKE, VARTAN OSKANIAN DECLARES
YEREVAN, APRIL 20, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. “The European
Union is very much interested in the settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict, we are interested in the stability of the South
Caucasian region,” State Secretary of Austrian Foreign Ministry,
Head of EU Troika delegation Hans Winkler declared at the April 20
press conference in Yerevan. According to him, EU tries to be useful
in the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and here EU does
everything depending on it. “We want to render unbiassed assistance and
try to apply all possible measures for the settlement of the conflict
but this is the issue that should be solved by the sides,” Winkler
declared. According to Vartan Oskanian, the Nagorno Karabakh people
itself should have the right to solve the issue what political status
it wants to have. “If Azerbaijan recognizes the Karabakh people’s
right of self-determination, in this case the Armenian side is ready
to seriously discuss the issue about liquidating the consequences
of the war”. According to the Minister, issues regarding liquidation
of the consequences of the war are issues of territories, refugees,
issues of security. As for the continuing bellicose statements of
Baku, the Armenian Foreign Minister declared: “We have repeatedly
said that the Karabakh problem has no solution through a war. The
war will be a great mistake by Azerbaijan, I think this will be
their last mistake”. He again reiterated that a document regarding
the principles of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement is on
the negotiations table. At that, an agreement on part of them has
been already reached between the sides but the sides have not come
to agreement on some clauses yet. “The issues stated in the document
cannot change in their essence, they are formulated very precisely,”
the head of the Armenian foreign political department declared.