FLIGHT RECORDERS FROM SOCHI CRASH TO BE DECIPHERED IN RUSSIA
Interfax, Russia
May 24 2006
SOCHI. May 24(Interfax-South) – The black box flight recorder of the
Armenian Airlines Airbus A320 which crashed off the Russian coast
near Sochi on May 3 is to be deciphered at the Interstate Aviation
Committee’s base in Russia.
“French experts and their equipment will probably be involved as well,”
Committee Chairperson Tatyana Anodina told the press on Wednesday.

FLIGHT DATA OF CRASHED AIRBUS TO BE DECIPHERED IN RUSSIA
RIA Novosti, Russia
May 24 2006
(Adds paragraphs 4-8)
SOCHI, May 24 (RIA Novosti) – The flight data from an Armenian Airbus
that crashed into the Black Sea May 3, killing 113 people, will be
deciphered in Russia, an official said Wednesday.
Tatiana Anodina, head of the Interstate Aviation Committee, said
French equipment could be used for deciphering the data.
The recovery operation at the scene of the tragedy was officially
declared over earlier Wednesday.
Rudolf Teimurazov, a representative of the Interstate Aviation
Committee, said earlier experts would need about a fortnight to
decipher the data.
He said the two black boxes, the second of which was recovered early
Wednesday morning from a depth of about 500 meters (1,640 feet),
would be handed over to the committee’s experts within the timeframe
set by a government commission.
“A government commission working at the crash site will set the date
for handing over the flight recorders to the Interstate Aviation
Committee,” he said. “Usually it takes experts about 15 days to
decipher flight data.”
He also said cockpit flight recorder’s information was on a magnetic
tape but the flight data from the other black box was on a hard drive.
The airliner, operated by Armenia’s Armavia, crashed while flying
from the Armenian capital, Yerevan, in stormy weather 6 kilometers
(3.7 miles) from Russia’s Adler airport, which services the popular
resort of Sochi.

AZERI, ARMENIAN PRESIDENTS TO SUPPOSEDLY MEET IN BUCHAREST
Author: S.Agayeva
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
May 24 2006
Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharyan
are supposedly meeting in Bucharest, Trend reports quoting Nikolae
Ureke, Romanian Ambassador to Azerbaijan.
Mr Ureke said the meeting may be held within their participation at
Black Sea Forum for Dialog and Partnership held June 5 in Romania’s
capital. This meeting requires some preconditions, diplomat said,
and cochairmen of MG OSCE shall draw necessary proposals.
Romania is going to do its best to facilitate the presidents’ meeting,
Ambassador said. Official Bucharest is going to put forward some
incentives on resolving frozen conflicts in Black Sea region that
prevent its economic development and pose threat to Romania’s national
security. Among these are conflicts in Pridnestrovye, Osetia and,
undoubtedly, Nagorno-Karabakh.

SOMEBODY HERE IS NOT AT ALL TELLING THE TRUTH
By Robert Fisk
Gulf Times, Qatar
May 24 2006
LONDON: A letter from the Turkish Ambassador to the Court of Saint
James arrived for me a few days ago, one of those missives that send
a shudder through the human soul. “You allege that an ‘Armenian
genocide’ took place in Eastern Anatolia in 1915,” His Excellency
Akin Alptuna told me. “I believe you have some misconceptions about
those events …”
Oh indeedy doody, I have. I am under the totally mistaken conception
that one and a half million Armenians were cruelly and deliberately
done to death by their Turkish Ottoman masters in 1915, that the
men were shot and knifed while their womenfolk were raped and
eviscerated and cremated and starved on death marches and their
children butchered. I have met a few of the survivors – liars to a
man and woman, if the Turkish ambassador to Britain is to be believed
– and I have seen the photographs taken of the victims by a brave
German photographer called Armen Wegner whose pictures must now,
I suppose, be consigned to the waste bins. So must the archives of
all those diplomats who courageously catalogued the mass murders
inflicted upon Turkey’s Christian population on the orders of the
gang of nationalists who ran the Ottoman government in 1915.
What would have been our reaction if the ambassador of Germany
had written a note to the same effect? “You allege that a ‘Jewish
genocide’ took place in Eastern Europe between 1939 and 1945 … I
believe you have some misconceptions about those events …’ Of
course, the moment such a letter became public, the ambassador of
Germany would be condemned by the Foreign Office, our man in Berlin
would – even the pusillanimous Blair might rise to the occasion –
be withdrawn for consultations and the European Union would debate
whether sanctions should be placed upon Germany.
But Alptuna need have no such worries. His country is not a member
of the European Union – it merely wishes to be – and it was Blair’s
craven administration that for many months tried to prevent Armenian
participation in Britain’s Holocaust Day.
Amid this chicanery, there are a few shining bright lights and I should
say at once that Alptuna’s letter is a grotesque representation of the
views of a growing number of Turkish citizens, a few of whom I have
the honour to know, who are convinced that the story of the great
evil visited upon the Armenians must be told in their country. So
why, oh why, I ask myself, are Alptuna and his colleagues in Paris
and Beirut and other cities still peddling this nonsense?
In Lebanon, for example, the Turkish embassy has sent a “communique”
to the local French-language L’Orient Le Jour newspaper, referring
to the “soi-disant (so-called) Armenian genocide” and asking why the
modern state of Armenia will not respond to the Turkish call for a
joint historical study to “examine the events” of 1915.
In fact, the Armenian President, Robert Kotcharian, will not respond
to such an invitation for the same reason that the world’s Jewish
community would not respond to the call for a similar examination
of the Jewish Holocaust from the Iranian president – because an
unprecedented international crime was committed, the mere questioning
of which would be an insult to the millions of victims who perished.
But the Turkish appeals are artfully concocted. In Beirut, they recall
the Allied catastrophe at Gallipoli in 1915 when British, French,
Australian and New Zealand troops suffered massive casualties at the
hands of the Turkish army. In all – including Turkish soldiers –
up to a quarter of a million men perished in the Dardanelles. The
Turkish embassy in Beirut rightly states that the belligerent nations
of Gallipoli have transformed these hostilities into gestures of
reconciliation, friendship and mutual respect. A good try. But the
bloodbath of Gallipoli did not involve the planned murder of hundreds
of thousands of British, French, Australian, New Zealand – and Turkish
– women and children.
But now for the bright lights. A group of “righteous Turks” are
challenging their government’s dishonest account of the 1915 genocide:
Ahmet Insel, Baskin Oran, Halil Berktay, Hrant Dink, Ragip Zarakolu and
others claim that the “democratic process” in Turkey will “chip away
at the darkness” and they seek help from Armenians in doing so. Yet
even they will refer only to the 1915 “disaster”, the “tragedy”,
and the “agony” of the Armenians. Dr Fatma Gocek of the University
of Michigan is among the bravest of those Turkish-born academics
who are fighting to confront the Ottoman Empire’s terror against the
Armenians. Yet she, too, objects to the use of the word genocide –
though she acknowledges its accuracy – on the grounds that it has
become “politicised” and thus hinders research.
I have some sympathy with this argument. Why make the job of honest
Turks more difficult when these good men and women are taking on
the might of Turkish nationalism? The problem is that other, more
disreputable folk are demanding the same deletion. Alputuna writes
to me – with awesome disingenuousness – that Armenians “have failed
to submit any irrefutable evidence to support their allegations of
genocide”. And he goes on to say that “genocide, as you are well aware,
has a quite specific legal definition” in the UN’s 1948 Convention. But
Alputuna is himself well aware – though he does not say so, of course –
that the definition of genocide was set out by Raphael Lemkin, a Jew,
in specific reference to the wholesale mass slaughter of the Armenians.
And all the while, new diplomatic archives are opening in the West
which reveal the smell of death – Armenian death – in their pages. I
quote here, for example, from the newly discovered account of Denmark’s
minister in Turkey during the World War I. “The Turks are vigorously
carrying through their cruel intention, to exterminate the Armenian
people,” Carl Wandel wrote on July 3, 1915. The Bishop of Karput
was ordered to leave Aleppo within 48 hours “and it has later been
learned that this Bishop and all the clergy that accompanied him
have been … killed between Diyarbekir and Urfa at a place where
approximately 1,700 Armenian families have suffered the same fate …
In Angora … approximately 6,000 men … have been shot on the road
… even here in Constantinople (Istanbul), Armenians are being
abducted and sent to Asia …” There is much, much more. Yet now
here is Alptuna in his letter to me: “In fact, the Armenians living
outside Eastern Armenia including Istanbul … were excluded from
deportation.” Somebody here is not telling the truth. The late Wandel
of Copenhagen? Or the Turkish ambassador to the Court of St James?

EXPERT: SOUTH CAUCASUS IS THE KEY OUTLET FOR THE US TO CENTRAL ASIA
Regnum, Russia
May 24 2006
“Paradoxical as this may seem, the possible force outcome of the
US-Iran relations is good for both the opponents and the supporters
of a military action against Iran,” Karabakh political scientist
David Babayan says to REGNUM.
He notes that both inside and outside the US there are people who
support and oppose it.
“Many people understand that Iran is geo-strategically important not
only for the Middle East but also for the leading actors in the world
arena. Due to its geographical situation and economic potential that
country is a key target of the US foreign policy. Iran is an immediate
neighbor of the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Iraq, the Persian Gulf. Without Iran, the US presence in those regions
will be problematic and expensive. That’s why the US simply needs
Iran as a partner,” says Babayan. He notes that Central Asia, the
South Caucasus and some other regions of the Middle and Central East
are quite vulnerable (there we have unstable Afghanistan and Kashmir)
and that Central Asia borders on Russia, who has quite strong positions
there. One cannot but consider China too, that borders on Central Asia,
Afghanistan and has close relations with Pakistan.
“Besides, today the key outlet for the US to Central Asia is the
South Caucasus, where there is no final stability either and where
Russia is also strong, especially economically. That’s why the West
needs a more stable way to Central Asia. The most reliable way seems
to be Iran. Iran has no borders with the US potential geo-political
rivals, it is stable, it has thousand-year-old culture and statehood
history. Besides, there is a very small possibility of expansionist
foreign policy in Iran, unlike Turkey, where officials now and then
appear with pan-Turkic statements. Even more, by gaining Iran over,
the US will make senseless the Central Asian and Middle East countries’
orientation towards its potential geo-political rivals – Russia and
China,” says Babayan.
If the US takes Iran in the sphere of its interests – by force or
by any other means – it will gain advantage not only in the region
but in the whole world and will hold this strategic initiative for
decades. “Although Iran has quite a strong military arsenal, in
quantity and quality it is not enough for rebuffing a well-organized
large-scale military operation; especially as before the operation –
if it is launched – the US will try to maximally damage Iran’s military
arsenal by massive air strikes. And if Iran acts like Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan or Iraq did – that is, if it continues deluding itself
that it can beat the Americans or NATO forces on its territory,
it is very much likely to be beaten itself,” says Babayan.
If the war still begins, it may well embrace the neighboring countries
too – something that will destabilize the whole region. “It is very
much possible that the conflicting sides will wage this war in an
asymmetrical way – that is, by holding force actions in their own
territories or the territories of their allies and, possibly, by using
radioactive matters. This is quite possible, especially as this is the
only way for Iran to hold out in the war or to prevent it at all,”
says Babayan. He notes that this is exactly what the opponents of
war can hope for – if the US fails in Iran – by losing the war or by
not starting it at all for fear of some unpredictable consequences –
it will have to review its foreign political strategy and, possibly,
to give up its military plans in other regions. “This will be a kind
of success for those outside the US, while for those inside it, this
will mean stability and hundreds, if not thousands, of saved lives
of American soldiers,” says Babayan.

RUSSIAN HISTORIAN: TURKEY’S RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN MASSACRE MATTER OF TIME
Journal of Turkish Weekly
May 24 2006
A Russian PhD in history Viktor Bezotosny told the Regnum news agency
that Turkey should recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915, as the
fact is grounded by undisputable proofs. Bezotosny is head of the
19th century department at the State Historical Museum in Russia.
According to Regnum, Bezotosny said the question of recognizing the
“historic truth” is a question of time.
“The whole world knows about the events of 1915 and calls them
Genocide. It’s strange, that only one country rejects it and tries
to misinterpret and escape from historic facts. There are good and
bad pages in history of any country.”
Adding that, “Well, they should be bold and take responsibility to tell
the truth, otherwise memory of those killed in those awful years is
being defiled,” Viktor Bezotosny is quoted as saying. The historian
believes that the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the Holocaust are
results of domestic policies pursued by countries that committed
such villainy.
It is worth mentioning, Russia recognized the Armenian Genocide
officially. Fact of the Genocide was recognized by many countries,
including France, Uruguay, lower chamber of the Italian parliament,
several US states, parliaments of Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, Belgium,
Wales, Swiss National Council, Canadian House of Commons and Polish
Seym.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A YOUTHFUL TURKEY: AN ASSET OR A BURDEN FOR THE EU?
Ari Vatanen
ABHAber, Belgium
EU-Turkey News Network
May 24 2006
Demographic Trends across the Bosporus
Turkey is a youthful nation. The total fertility rate (average number
of children per woman) stands at 2.5, down from 3.5 in the 1970s and
is expected to decline further as economic prosperity increases.
This downward trend is accompanied by Turkey’s population growth rate
which has fallen to 1.4 percent per year according to the latest United
Nations figures. As of 2003, the country had 71 million inhabitants,
and is projected to have 98 million by 2050. In 2015 Turkey will
match the population of Germany and continue growing.
The declining German population exemplifies a general trend in the
EU. It is projected that the population of the EU will increase very
slightly for the next few years before beginning to decline. The EU’s
population will grow from 458 million in 2005 to 469.5 million in
2025 (+ 2 percent). In 2030, with 468.7 million inhabitants it will
be somewhat lower. The number of seniors (65-79 years) will start
to increase greatly in 2010 and continue to increase by a hefty 37.4
percent by 2030. As a comparison, in 2050 the median age in the U.S.
will be 36.2 whereas in Western Europe it will be 52.7. In 2002 the
respective ages were 35.5 and 37.7.
These numbers are on the whole well-known to decision makers, but
it pays to mention them, so as to highlight the demographic shift of
epic proportions Europe is about to experience.
Pros and Cons of immigration
In developed countries, immigrants differ from the general population
in two ways: they are either more or less skilled than the native
population. By attracting skilled immigrants, the host country can
specialize in activities where it has a competitive advantage. On the
other hand, less skilled immigrants lower the costs of many goods and
services by accepting lower wages. In some cases immigrants do jobs
that domestic workers shy away from. On the balance, most economists
agree that the economic impact of immigration is broadly neutral to
mildly positive. Immigrants may also be unusually entrepreneurial
and thus stimulate the economy in various ways. It is a fallacy
to say that immigrants steal jobs: they also create jobs by being
entrepreneurial and adding to demand for goods and services. The idea
that there are only a specific amount of possible jobs in a given
economy is a dangerous and persistent myth. In a flexible economy,
the labor market adjusts to an increase in the supply of workers and
more jobs are created. We do not live in a static world.
Opportunities and dynamism are created by demolishing walls of
all kinds!
However, while the population as a whole benefits from immigration,
those competing directly for jobs with immigrants do not. In the
United States, a National Research Council report concluded in 1997
that immigration had reduced the wages of groups competing with
immigrants by 1-2 percent. Actually, the people most affected by
new immigrants were immigrants who had arrived earlier. All in all
however, immigration makes business and most people better off and
some of the poor poorer.
According to the European Commission, adverse demographic change may
push up public spending by five to eight percentage points in the EU15
by 2040. It can also be feared that an older EU will be less innovative
and less adaptable. However, the challenges of globalization,
acutely felt in the EU of today, are not going to go away. Thus,
an EU incapable of redefining its role, renewing its competitive
advantage and seizing opportunities as they arise, is doomed to
progressive decline. If the EU refuses to seize the opportunity of
welcoming hard-working immigrants, especially from a partner country
like Turkey, it risks dooming itself to economic decline.
Drowned in a Wave of Turks?
Can the EU reverse its demographic trend? Encouraging the immigration
of younger workers might be a partial solution. But UN estimates
show that Germany, for example, would need to take in 3.6 million
immigrants a year between 2000 and 2050 , which clearly is not
feasible. Therefore, resolving the demographic crisis requires a
combination of measures: immigration, incentives for families to
have more children, incentives for people to stay active in work and
raising productivity so that less people are needed to do the same job.
Even though immigration is not a miracle cure for rejuvenating Europe’s
populations, it can offer a partial solution and help open up critical
bottlenecks. Turkey is a true resource in this sense.
Allowing for large-scale immigration from Turkey would provide EU
societies with much-needed additional workers, entrepreneurship and
stimuli at all levels of society. So one can argue that the EU needs
to turn the demographic tide, but do we risk a flood of immigrants
from Turkey? Would granting EU membership to Turkey be like jumping
out of the frying pan and into the fire?
A report by the Independent Commission on Turkey gave a long-term
immigration estimate of 2.7 million people moving into the EU from
Turkey in the long term. This would represent about 0.5 percent of
the EU population. Of course if the migrants all choose to cluster in
already existing Turkish communities, it would have more of a regional
impact. On the other hand, the report mentions that future Turkish
migration is likely to include professional and well-educated people,
thus reducing integration difficulties encountered by the unskilled
immigrants of the past. It is also likely that Turkish EU membership
could lead to greater mobility among migrants inside the EU with some
moving back to Turkey for good as its economy grows and prospers.
Forecasts and statistics are not an exact science, so immigration
figures cannot be known for sure. However, if Europeans are truly
afraid of being swamped with immigrants, they can deal with the
perceived problem without barring Turkey’s membership. First, the
EU can legitimately put in place lengthy transition periods during
which immigration is restricted. Second, by helping Turkey develop
its economy, opportunities in the country will grow and thus reduce
the desire of Turks to emigrate.
We should not be afraid of Turks taking jobs from local workers –
if we reform our economies, we can reduce unemployment. However,
if we say ‘no’ to reforms and economic dynamism, we say yes to high
unemployment – with or without Turkish membership!
Is a Dynamic Turkey a Competitive Threat?
Many Europeans feel at a loss in the face of globalization. Almost 20
million EU citizens are currently unemployed. European countries have
the shortest work weeks and longest holidays in the world, reflecting
a preference for leisure over work. But the unemployment rate, which
is about double the United States, is an incorruptible witness to
the inadequacies of European labor markets. Far too many of those who
actually would prefer to work, long or short days, cannot find a job.
When high unemployment is compounded by globalization challenges,
the result is skepticism towards international trade. It also fosters
Euro-skepticism – as seen in the referendums on the draft European
constitution – and risks giving rise to xenophobia among the least
fortunate Europeans. In a gloomy atmosphere it is easy to resort to
blaming others for one’s problems. For instance China, which has been
the butt of our fears and protectionism, is stronger than ever. In
China’s case, it is necessary for the EU to decide if it should
specialize in t-shirts or jumbo jets – the EU can’t have it both ways!
The same goes for Turkey. Having a vibrant and youthful economy next
to the EU should be embraced by Europeans with open arms. According
to estimates, full access to the internal market, including for
agricultural products not covered by the Customs Union of 1996 and
the elimination of administrative and technical trade barriers could
lead to bilateral trade increasing by around 40 9 percent, Yes, EU
companies will invest in the country and yes, some jobs will move
to Turkey. But for this reason, we will remain competitive in the
international marketplace. Western European companies will also be
able to export factors of production to their Turkish subsidiaries
thus creating job opportunities in their countries too.
The future competitiveness of current EU countries lies in their own
hands. Globalization will not go away by closing our eyes, but we
need to prepare ourselves better. And as trade, on the whole, is a
win-win game, the EU would stand to benefit greatly from a “tigerish”
Turkish economy.
The Reform Process in Turkey
Turkey is often accused of being undemocratic and that this stems
from its “unwesterness”. One can’t deny that Turkey has a poor human
rights record with torture, religious and ethnic intolerance, as well
as serious problems with respect to freedom of speech. Unfortunately
not all negativity towards Turkey is unfounded – but fortunately –
it is increasingly less so by the day.
In fact, the above-mentioned side of Turkey is not an argument for
denying Turkey membership. On the contrary, the very possibility of
becoming a respected member of the EU has already set in motion a wide
and profound process with undisputable results. Progress achieved
to date includes a large number of constitutional amendments and
legislative EU-related “harmonization packages”. The death penalty
has been abolished, there are now better safeguards against torture
and ill-treatment, and freedom of speech is advancing in spite of
“cultural inertia” in the justice system. The penal code, which entered
into force in June 2005, is by no means flawless, but undoubtedly an
improvement. The abolishment of the notorious State Security Courts
was also an important step. The duties, powers and functioning of
the National Security Council (NSC) have been substantially amended,
bringing civil-military relations closer to EU levels. Finally, Kurds
have also seen remarkable improvements through the lifting of the
state of emergency that curtailed basic liberties in the southeast
for 25 years. At long last they can also now use their language in
educational and media contexts.
The EU negotiators are tough and prepared to blow the whistle when
needed. There is no chance of Turkey entering the European Common
House with dirty shoes. Membership negotiations are designed to
entice countries to comply with the rules of the EU and genuinely
show that it shares common values. Therefore, Turkey will not enter
the EU before it has genuinely reformed its policies and shows that
its mind-set is compatible with the EU’s.
What about the charge that Turkey is not “Western”? Turkey shares
traits with both European and Middle Eastern cultures. This
“un-Westernness” of Turkey would constitute an enormous asset
for the current EU. During the row over Danish cartoons depicting
Prophet Mohammed, Turkey acted as a moderating voice. Yes, there
were demonstrations on Turkey’s streets, but they did not degenerate
into violence.
The fact that Turkey now has a conservative Muslim prime minister who
staunchly defends democratic values is heartening and serves as an
example to all Islamic countries. Fundamentalists exploit the misery
of people and try to push the Muslim world back to the dark ages, a la
Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our best allies in reversing these frightening
scenarios are moderate Muslims and we have to offer our unwavering
support to their aspirations towards democracy. The consequences of
the EU accepting Turkey as its member – or that of the EU failing to
do so – can determine world stability.
A Youthful Turkey – A Democratic and Prosperous Friend
Turkey is not yet ready to join the EU, nor is the EU mentally
prepared to allow it in. However, the ongoing reform course and
ever- increasing contacts between the EU nations and Turkey is set
to change the picture. What is more, I feel very optimistic about
Turkey embracing democratic values. This optimism can be spelled YOUTH.
The young generation is going to shape the Turkey of tomorrow. Their
modern views of the world contrast sharply with the nationalistic
and almost sectarian views of the military leaders of their parent’s
generation. For Turkey to take a full step into modernity, it does
not have to disavow its religion, drop its folklore or substitute
Big Macs for kebabs. The mental change which is needed is that
Turkey must embrace the idea of being both European and Turkish. The
European dimension implies tolerance for differing opinions as well
as readiness to compromise at the negotiating table for the common
good. The painful process of being honest about one’s history is also
an indispensable stage on the way to modernity. To admit that perhaps
more than one million Armenians were murdered with premeditation,
is tough, but inescapable, for Turkey to be at ease with itself and
its neighbors. The youth of Turkey is far less sensitive, and thus
far more sensible, about being honest about past misdeeds.
Establishing a new understanding of volunteerism for Turkish youth
and encouraging participatory democracy in youth’s everyday lives
is of utmost importance in bridging the gap between Western European
and Turkish societies. Tourism and student exchange programs can also
play an important role.
Europe stands to gain in many ways by saying yes to Turkish EU
membership. For the emerging European Security and Defense Policy
(ESDP), Turkey’s considerable military capabilities, not least thanks
to the country’s favorable demographics, are a clear asset. Turkey’s
entry into the EU would also stimulate trade and the EU would benefit
from the strong dynamics of the economy. On the other hand, immigration
should not be feared, but seen as an opportunity for European countries
to cope with the consequences of aging populations. Attracting
immigrant workers would help keep activities in Europe, which otherwise
risk escaping to more populous areas in the world.
Certainly, the whole world cannot join the EU, but the symbolic
step of letting a major Muslim country – the keen and reform-willing
Turkey – become an equal partner, means Europeans embrace their fellow
human beings. The quarrels of earlier generations should not prevent
Europeans from realizing the potential of the citizens of today and
tomorrow. Let us all thus see further than the next elections and
think about the future we leave to our children.

SECOND FLIGHT RECORDER RAISED FROM BLACK SEA AT A-320 CRASH SITE
Interfax, Russia
May 24 2006
MOSCOW. May 24 (Interfax) – The second cockpit voice recorder from
the A-320 Armenian Airlines passenger liner, which crashed into the
Black Sea on May 3, has been recovered, Alexander Davydenko, head
of the Transport Ministry’s Federal Sea and River Transport Agency,
told Interfax.
The flight recorder was discovered at about midnight in a 50-
centimeter thick layer of silt on the seabed, 16 meters from the place
where the first black box had been found, Russian Transport Minister
and chairman of the inter-state commission Igor Levitin told Interfax
early on Wednesday.
“Given a bad weather forecast, the decision was made to lift the
flight recorder during the night,” Davydenko said, adding that the
second black box was raised at 3 a.m. on Wednesday.
The first cockpit voice recorder was recovered on Monday and handed
over to the Inter-State Aviation Committee’s technical commission.
The A-320 Armavia airliner crashed into the Black Sea six kilometers
off the coast of Sochi. All 113 people on board were killed.

OSCE MINSK GROUP CONSULTATIONS TO BE HELD IN BAKU
ITAR-TASS, Russia
May 24 2006
BAKU, May 24 (Itar-Tass) – The Russian, French and US co-chairs of
the OSCE Minsk Group, Yuri Merzlyakov, Bernard Fassier and Stephen
Mann, will discuss in the course of political consultations with
the Azerbaijani leadership here on Wednesday issues related to the
Karabakh conflict settlement.
According to diplomatic sources in Baku, the delegations of the
countries mediators in the conflict settlement are headed by
Russian deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin, French Foreign
Ministry’s Ambassador at Large Pierre Morel and US Deputy Secretary
of State Daniel Freed. The same sources claim that the international
negotiators’ higher status can be explained by the discussion of
“new ideas” of the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group for settling the
Karabakh problem.
Official Baku, adhering to the confidentially principle, has not
commented so far on the nature of ideas that will be brought to
the region by the mediators. It is not ruled out here that they
will discuss during consultations with Azerbaijani President Ilkham
Aliyev and afterwards with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan the
possibilities and dates of talks between the two countries’ leaders.
Last time Aliyev and Kocharyan met in Rambouillet, a Paris suburb,
in February 2006, but failed to reach specific agreements on the
settlement principles.
The Karabakh conflict is believed to be in Azerbaijan “the greatest
obstacle on the way of the political and economic development of the
country and region in general. The country’s top leadership has not
once stressed this.

SECOND FLIGHT DATA RECORDER OF ARMENIAN CRASHED PLANE A-320 FOUND
ITAR-TASS, Russia
May 24 2006
MOSCOW, May 24 (Itar-Tass) – Specialists have found on the bottom
of the Black Sea the second flight data recorder (black box) from
the A-320 airliner of the Armenian Armavia airline that fell into
the sea near the resort city of Sochi on May 3. Efforts to lift
it from the seabed have proved futile so far due to bad weather,
Russian television’s Channel One reported on Wednesday.
The first of the three black boxes of the crashed airbus was lifted
from a depth of 500 metres on Monday. It was recovered from under a
5-centimetre layer of sludge.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress