CANADA-TURKEY SPAT WON’T AFFECT NATO OPERATION
Embassy, Canada
Canada’s Foreign Policy Newsweekly
May 17 2006
Last week’s diplomatic storm over Stephen Harper’s use of the term
‘genocide’ will not affect Canada’s relations with the Turkish head
of NATO’s Afghan mission, but it does signal a policy shift.
The Turkish-Canadian spat over Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s comments
recognizing the Armenian genocide two weeks ago will not spill over
into Afghanistan where a senior Turkish diplomat presently occupies
the position of NATO’s top Civilian Representative to Afghanistan,
according to the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa.
Despite Ankara’s withdrawal last week from NATO military exercises
in the Canadian province of Alberta, Turkey’s leading NATO role
in Afghanistan with Canada will not be affected, says Yonet Tezel,
Counsellor at the Turkish Embassy.
“Our contribution is still going on and it is above our relations
with Canada,” says Mr. Tezel.
NATO is scheduled to take over military operations from the U.S. in
Afghanistan in the summer.
Mr. Tezel also says Turkey is not likely to pull out its most senior
diplomat, Hikmet Cetin, who is NATO’s Civilian Representative to
Afghanistan.
With 825 troops, Turkey has the third largest contingent in
Afghanistan, after Germany and Canada. Its role is considered important
because it is also the only Muslim country with troops in Afghanistan.
In what may signal a decrease in tensions between Canada and Turkey,
Mr. Yonet also says Turkish Ambassador Aydemir Erman is expected to
return to Canada this week. Turkey called its envoy to Canada back to
Ankara for consultations on May 6 in protest of Mr. Harper’s comments.
Mr. Harper became the first Canadian prime minister to utter the word
‘genocide’ in recognizing the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in
Turkey in 1915. The statement also marks a major shift in Canadian
foreign policy towards Turkey, which also temporarily withdrew its
ambassador to France as a result of an impeding vote in the French
parliament that would make it a crime to deny the that genocide was
committed in Armenia.
But while it withdrew its envoy from Paris, the Turkish government
also sent a delegation to meet French legislators on the issue. It did
not do the same thing in Canada. Mr. Tezel says the circumstances are
totally different, hence the type of reaction to the French situation.
“The situation is philosophically and intellectually unacceptable,”
Mr. Tezel says of France’s decision to make it a crime to deny that
genocide was committed in Armenia.
Kim Nossal, Professor and Head of Political Studies at Queen’s
University in Kingston, says Mr. Harper’s decision acknowledging
that genocide was committed against Armenians was likely made to
send a message that the Tory government is different from the former
minority government.
“[Mr. Harper] wanted to signal that his government is different from
the Liberal government, which actually talked a lot about human rights,
but did nothing,” says Mr. Nossal.
“It was a clear and conscious set of reasoning on this,” he says.
“All you have to do is think about the Liberals and Darfur and you
can ask ‘Where were you then?'”
[email protected] g.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2 006/may/17/turkey/

ARMENIAN PRIME MINISTER PROPOSES MICROSOFT TO PARTICIPATE IN DIGITEC-2006 EXHIBITION TO BE HELD IN YEREVAN IN AUTUMN
Noyan Tapan
May 17 2006
YEREVAN, MAY 17, NOYAN TAPAN. The Armenian Prime Minister proposed
that the Microsoft Company should participate in the events to be
held within the framework of IT Month in September-October 2006,
including in the international exhibition Digitec 2006. Andranik
Margarian made this proposal on May 16 when receiving Microsoft Deputy
Chairman Vahe Torosian, accompanied by the company’s Director General
in CIS countries Sergyush Viza, Director for Business Management
and Strategy Paul MacLeston and the newly appointed Director
of the Microsoft Armenia Office Grigor Barseghian. A. Margarian
welcomed Microsoft’s willingness to assist with development of the
Armenian IT sector. Underlining the need for the most extensive use
of information technologies in various sectors of the economy, the
prime minister attached importance to the full presentation of the
company’s production and services in Armenia. Stressing the need for
creation of Microsoft Windows Vista/Windows XP/ MS Office software
versions in Armenian, the completion of which is scheduled for 2007, A.
Margarian at the same time expressed his concern about the issue of
translation of Armenian terms: according to him, most computer terms
do not have their equivalents in Armenian. He said that the Armenian
government expects Microsoft to make these terms accessible in the
Internet in order to allow various sections of the society to express
their opinion about these terms’ use in translation, as well as the
government expects Microsoft to take appropriate measures in order to
involve as many citizens as possible in this discussion. Vahe Torosian
considered it as a great honor that he, an Armenian, will be useful
for Armenia by offering the capacities of Microsoft – the company he
represents for the purpose of developing the country’s economy. He
expressed a high opinion about qualified Armenian experts of the IT
sector, pointing out that intellectual potential allows to fulfil
Microsoft’s innovation-based ideology.
According to the RA Government Information and PR Department, during
the meeting the sides addressed the problem of copyright protection
in Armenia, particularly the use of unlicensed packages of Microsoft
software, as well as the company’s participation in implementation
of educational programs in Armenia, the fulfilement of the idea of
e-government and some other issues of mutual interest.

HAGVERDIYEV: “EVERY FOREIGN COMPANY NOT FULFILLING ITS INVESTMENT DUTIES WILL BE ELIMINATED CONTRACTS WITH GOVERNMENT”
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 17 2006
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is in negotiations
with Open Joint Stock Company (OJSC) Azerbaijan Investment Company
to take part in its projects.
Ogtay Hagverdiyev, Chief of Financial Credit Policy Department in
The Cabinet of Ministers, told APA that the government is willing
to cooperate with every financial institute who want to take part in
Investment Company projects.
The Department Chief has also stated that foreign financial
institutions’ means share 11% in GDP now.
“Azerbaijan ranks at high places in CIS for little foreign debts.
Foreign debts get threatening when they approximate to 40% in GDP.
Our enemy Armenia has about 52% foreign debts in GDP,” he said.
Mr. Hagverdiyev has also told that the government currently considers
problem with companies not fulfilling their investment duties.
“Some companies do not follow their contract duties. For instance,
Fondel Metal Company went against the obligation to invest $1 billion
in Azeraluminum. There is the same situation with Barmek too,”
Hagverdiyev added.
On his words, investigation over Barmek’s activity show that Barmek
has not only followed its investment duties, but has also failed in
accumulation and there are some unsolved problems such as technical
losses. The chief warned foreign companies in Azerbaijan on this case.
“Every foreign company not fulfilling its investment duties will be
eliminated contracts with government”.

TODAY 14 YEARS PASSED SINCE OCCUPATION OF AZERBAIJAN’S LACHIN REGION BY ARMENIANS
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 17 2006
Today 14 years have passed since Azerbaijan’s Lachin region was
occupied by Armenians. Lachin is situated in the south-west of
Azerbaijan, on the border with Armenia.
It was established as an administrative region in 182603 hectares
of territory in 1930 (APA). According to statistics of 1989, there
lived 51,6 thousand people and according to 2003 statistics it had
68.1 thousand people. The highest top of the region is Gizilboghaz
Mountain (2823 m). There are Jura-Anthropogenic deposits in the
region. The Hakari is the largest rive in Lachin. It has fertile
sorts of soil. There are bushes, lawns and broad-leaved mountain
forests. After becoming displaced persons, the regions’ population
has settled in 53 populated areas.
Azerbaijan’s Ecology and Natural Resources Ministry there are natural
springs Turshsu-, Galaderesi, Aghanus, Khirmanlar, Tigig, Tursh-tigig,
Nureddin (have high yielding), Naghdali and Hajikhanli.
Rare historical and architectural monuments, Garagol State Reserve
and other preserves in Lachin are in Armenia’s occupation now. There
are three mercury beds-Narzanli, Chilgazchay, Saribulag (with total
reserves of 1124 tons), Hochaz marbled limestone, two tuff beds
(Aghoglan, Ahmadli) wit total reserves of 5125 cubic meters, Lachin
limestone beds with total reserve of 4457 tons, Novruzlu clayey bed
with total reserve of 998 thousand cubic meters, Gushchu pumice-stone
beds (2144 thousand cubic meters), Yukhari Hakarichay sand-gravel
beds (15 794 thousand cubic meters) and other mineral deposits in
the region.
Lachin has 33285 hectares of forests reserve lands, 26647 hectares
are forest, which constitutes 80.05%.
The Ministry has found out that Armenians cut red oak trees in Pijanis
and Hajishamli forest and sold to France for making tuns for brandy
production. Old nut trees in the region are also being cut and sold
for Iran for furniture production.
In Hajilar-Sadinlar village, Armenians have cut 65 hectares of forest,
burnt houses and destroyed graveyards.

EVEN IF ARMENIAN BILL PASSES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ENACT
By Ali Ihsan Aydin
Zaman Online, Turkey
May 17 2006
The bill, criminalizing denial of the Armenian genocide, will come
before the French National Assembly tomorrow (on Thursday).
The fate of the bill, prepared by the main opposition Socialist Party
(PS), is bound to the attitude of members of Union for Populist
Movement (UMP).
Armenian organizations declared a mobilization for convincing UMP
members, most of who are against the bill.
The government, under the auspices of President Jacques Chirac,
can drop the bill from agenda and slow the process down.
Such a move would make it difficult for the bill to be enacted even if
it gets approval from parliament. The first step is a voting session
that will be held tomorrow prior to an examination of the bill.
If a decision to discuss the bill emerges from the vote, all eyes
will then be turned to the Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre.
Debre, who is opposed to the bill, might extend the session and drop
the bill from the agenda.
Zaman examined the process that the French Assembly will follow in
discussing the bill.
It is reported that the bill’s voting has started to transform into a
“prestige struggle” between President Chirac, who is opposed to the
bill, and UMP leader Nicholas Sarkozy who supports it.
The bill prepared by the main opposition Socialist Party (SP) needs
to pass the commission in order to reach parliament.
Last month, the SP decided to bring the bill to parliament by using its
“right to determine the agenda” given to French parties in proportion
to the number of deputies.
The law proposals, which come to the parliament’s agenda in this
way, can reach the general assembly even if they are rejected in
the commissions.
The Legal Affairs Commission had rejected the bill without examining
its articles last week.
The bill will be discussed in the morning session when the PS is
given priority and exercise their “right to determine the agenda”.
The government will also reveal its opinion about the bill.
Then, the Assembly Speaker will hold a preliminary voting session
since the bill was rejected by the Legal Affairs Commission before
passing to a discussion of the bill.
In the voting session, deputies will be asked whether to “examine
the agenda or not?”
If the essential majority cannot be achieved for a discussion of the
bill, the proposal will be dropped from the agenda.
This voting is a critical threshold for the future of the bill.
The draft will be negotiated in case of an “investigation” result in
the pre-election.
The voting is scheduled for the morning session because the “niche”
right has a time limit.
The government will again have the right to determine the agenda in
the afternoon session.
The draft would be off the agenda if the investigation or voting is
delayed to the second session.
Sources, sharing their assessments with Zaman on the process, said
the French Parliament has tapped the Speaker of the Parliament,
Jean-Louis Debre, at this point.
Citing it is rare for the speaker of parliament to lead the general
assembly, in which motions raised by the opposition are discussed;
experts regard Debre’s decision to lead the session tomorrow as
“reasonable and strategic.”
Debre, who has voiced his opposition of the draft, could in theory
drop the bill by delaying the voting to the second session.
Noting Debre’s sympathy for French President Jacques Chirac and his
supportive view Turkey, sources predict there is a high probability
of this.
The ballot of the majority of the current members of parliament is
required for the proposal to be passed from the parliament.
There were nearly 30 representatives in the general assembly when
the “genocide” law was voted in 2001. The high participation rate
of the representatives will decrease the chance of the proposal to
pass tomorrow.
Meanwhile, UMP has 364 members while PS has 150 in the 577-seat
French Parliament.
Senate is also a Powerful Obstacle
If parliament passes the draft bill, the bill needs to wait for the
senate’s approval.
Parliamentary experts say the “niche” right in parliament will not
be effective in the Senate and the bill will have to wait the same
as any regular agenda item decided by the government.
It means the bill can only be discussed in the general assembly if
the government approves it.
On the other hand, the bill must to be ratified by the Senate in the
same way the parliament did.
A bill is sent to the parliament to be examined even when a proposal
of a small amendment regarding the text is approved. This process
can take some time.
The opposition Socialist Party (PS), which passed the so-called
genocide bill using the support of the “niche” during its ruling
period in 1998, faced the same Senate obstacle.
When the Senate did not put the bill suggesting “France openly
recognizes the 1915 Armenian genocide” on the agenda, a group of
senators presented a new proposal to the Senate with the same clause
and requested an “urgent discussion.”
The bill was approved by this method and sent to parliament again,
however, it was not approved until 2001.
The president’s approval is required to implement the bill if it is
passed by the senate.
French President Jacques Chirac has the right to send the bill back
to parliament.
Parliamentary sources and experts stress that the conditions in France
now are much different than those in 2001 and the chance that the
bill will become a law is not not high because of the government’s
opposition.

MAN SELLS CAR TO PAY ‘DENIAL’ FINE
By Murat Kaban, Cihan News Agency, Kars
Zaman Online, Turkey
May 17 2006
An unusual protest against the “Armenian Genocide” law facing the
French parliament came from Turkish eastern city of Kars.
Erkan Birdal, head of a foundation which provides support to those
“murdered by Armenian guerillas” in the 1st World War, went on a
hunger strike.
Birdal said he will risk imprisonment and the 45,000 euro fine proposed
by France to those who deny the “Armenian genocide”; and consequently,
he sold his car to pay the fine.
In an art exhibition organized about the Armenian genocide opposite
the governor’s office, Birdal covered his car with slogans criticizing
France and mounted a Turkish flag on the car.
With over 500 signatures collected on the first day of his campaign,
Bridal also claimed he will go on a hunger strike in Paris and Belgium
if the genocide bill is approved.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ZATULIN: RUSSIA IS NOT INTERESTED IN SOMEBODY TRAINING IN SOUTH CAUCASUS LIKE IN IRAQ
Regnum, Russia
May 17 2006
Among South Caucasian countries only Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh are
interest in maintaining the status quo in the region, Member of the
Russian State Duma, Head of the CIS Countries’ Institute Konstantin
Zatulin has declared at the international conference called “Caucasus
without Conflicts and Terrorism. Dialog of Civilizations at Caucasian
Crossroad.”
According to him, Azerbaijan is not interested in maintaining the
current situation, as its interests concerning its territorial
integrity are infringed. “Today, elites of nations criticize the
Soviet rule, but they take from the past what is profitable for them,
in particular, Georgia and Azerbaijan like the borders they had under
the Soviets,” the MP noted. According to Zatulin, Georgia is not
interested in maintaining the status quo either: “it is interested in
soonest settlement of Abkhazian and Ossetian conflicts in its favor.”
According to Zatulin, Armenia has no internal problems that could bring
about collapse of the country, which cannot be said about Georgia and
Azerbaijan. “In Georgia, apart from Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts,
there is a problem of Samtskhe-Javakheti (Armenian-populated region
in Georgia – REGNUM), there is a problem in Marneuli District, where
Azerbaijani population lives, there is a problem with Megrels and
Adjarians. And in Azerbaijan, apart from Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
there is a problem with Talysh and Lezgin population,” noted the
Russian MP.
“Distance from Russia to Caucasus is less than from the USA, and Russia
is most of all interested in maintaining peace, even with unrecognized
republics. Our priority is peace in the region,” Konstantin Zatulin
noted adding that Russia is not interested in somebody training in
South Caucasus like in Iraq.

ARMENIAN SPEAKER OUSTED FROM RULING COALITION
By Emil Danielyan
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
May 17 2006
Armenia’s President Robert Kocharian has banished one of the three
political parties represented in his government after it appeared to
threaten his reported plans to hand over power to a staunch loyalist in
2008. The Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) party officially announced
its withdrawal from the ruling coalition on May 12. Its ambitious
leader, Artur Baghdasarian, also resigned as speaker of the Armenian
parliament.
The move followed mass defections of lawmakers affiliated with
Orinats Yerkir, an exodus widely believed to have been engineered
by the presidential administration. Baghdasarian’s party boasted the
second-largest faction in the National Assembly as recently as last
month, controlling 20 of its 131 seats. It shrank by almost half in
a matter of one week.
The official reasons for the party’s ouster are its socioeconomic
and foreign policy differences with Kocharian and the two other
coalition partners. Both sides have been reluctant to elaborate on
those differences. The coalition has been beset by internal squabbles
ever since its formation in June 2003. Much of the bickering has
been caused by Orinats Yerkir’s periodic public criticism of the
government, a tactic that has been particularly galling for Prime
Minister Andranik Markarian and his Republican Party of Armenia
(HHK). The latter has also had an uneasy rapport with the third
governing party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (HHD).
Kocharian has repeatedly intervened to salvage the three-party marriage
of convenience that has enabled him to deflect popular disaffection
with the government and somehow mitigate his lack of legitimacy. As
recently as February 6, the HHK, the HHD, and Orinats Yerkir vowed
(apparently under pressure from Kocharian) to continue to stick
together “at least” until next year’s parliamentary election. In a
joint statement, they also agreed to show “mutual respect for each
other and each other’s positions.”
However, the truce did not prove long lasting, with Orinats Yerkir
lashing out at the Armenian government (in which it was represented
with three ministers) on April 11 over its shady privatization policies
(see EDM, April 19). The attack drew an angry rebuttal from Markarian
and his loyalists. Baghdasarian further raised eyebrows in Yerevan with
an April 19 interview with a leading German newspaper, Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, in which he contradicted the official line by
calling for Armenia’s eventual accession to NATO. More importantly,
he also implied that Kocharian’s hotly disputed reelection in 2003
was fraudulent.
The extraordinary confession (or a slip of the tongue) seems to have
been the final straw for Kocharian, who was reportedly behind the
devastating defections from the Orinats Yerkir faction in parliament
that began on May 5. The defectors, all of them wealthy businessmen
dependent on government connections, offered no clear explanation
for their actions. But newspaper reports citing coalition leaders
said the exodus was masterminded by Kocharian with the aim of forcing
Orinats Yerkir out of the government.
Hayots Ashkhar, a pro-Kocharian daily, indicated on May 15 that
the Armenian president has lost patience with Orinats Yerkir’s
notorious populism, widely attributed to its strong showing in
the last parliamentary polls. “It is more than weird to be part
of the government; have a number of government members, a myriad
of various-caliber officials, protected and reliable businesses;
and play the old tune,” the paper wrote. “This is a violation of the
rules of the game. One deserves to be severely punished for that.”
Interestingly, it was Kocharian who went to great lengths in June
2003 to get parliament to elect Baghdasarian as its speaker, fuelling
speculation that the then 34-year-old politician was being groomed
to become Armenia’s next president. However, it has since become
evident that Kocharian’s preferred successor is his most trusted and
powerful lieutenant, Defense Minister Serge Sarkisian. Some local
commentators suggest that the two men were incensed not so much
by Baghdasarian’s enduring populism as his far-reaching political
ambitions that could interfere with their anticipated handover of
power in 2008. The outgoing Armenian speaker has already attracted
Western interest in his personality with his pro-democracy statements
and stated strong commitment to Armenia’s “integration into Europe
and the Euro-Atlantic family.”
“Artur Baghdasarian has felt like Robert Kocharian’s successor and
begun his pre-election campaign of late,” the independent newspaper
168 Zham wrote on May 11. “In the process, he was doing everything
to distance himself from the current authorities thanks to whom he
had become the number two official in the Republic of Armenia in 2003.”
Announcing his resignation on May 12, the Orinats Yerkir leader
was anxious not to blame Kocharian for the dramatic collapse of
his parliamentary faction, saying vaguely that the Orinats Yerkir
defectors faced pressure “from all sides.” His claims that Orinats
Yerkir is “becoming an opposition force” are therefore unlikely to
be taken at face value by leaders of Armenia’s main opposition parties.
Some of them have made it clear that Baghdasarian cannot join the
opposition camp unless he publicly “repents” his association with
Kocharian.
Baghdasarian has owed his strong electoral performances to a canny
combination of opposition-style rhetoric with covert cooperation from
the ruling regime and wealthy businessmen hungry for political power.
Their defections and his subsequent ouster from the government mean
that Orinats Yerkir will have to operate in a more hostile environment
and with far fewer financial resources.
(Aravot, May 13; Hayots Ashkhar, May 12; 168 Zham, May 11; RFE/RL
Armenia Report, February 6)

MOSCOW PRESSING FOR CFE TREATY RATIFICATION DESPITE ITS OWN NON-COMPLIANCE
By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
May 17 2006
Amid a deep secrecy that belies its democratic professions, the OSCE is
preparing to hold a Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty
on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) in Vienna at the end of this
month. Some West European chancelleries are seeking ways to give in to
Moscow’s main goal at this conference: ratification of the 1999 treaty
at the expense of a few small countries in Europe’s East. Thus far,
Moscow has only managed to persuade Belarus, Ukraine (during Leonid
Kuchma’s presidency), and Kazakhstan to ratify that treaty.
Originally signed in 1990, the CFE Treaty underwent adaptation at the
1999 OSCE Istanbul summit, in one package with the Final Act that
includes what came to be known as Russia’s “Istanbul Commitments”;
namely, to withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova. While the
original 1990 treaty remains in force, the 1999-adapted treaty
never entered into force because Russia has not fulfilled those
commitments. Moreover, Armenian forces deploy Russian-supplied heavy
weaponry exceeding CFE treaty limits in areas seized from Azerbaijan,
out of bounds to international inspection.
Meanwhile, Russia seeks to extend the CFE Treaty’s area of
applicability so as to include the three Baltic states, which were
not parties to the 1990 treaty (they were still occupied by Moscow
at that time). Since the Baltic states joined NATO, Russia seeks
to bring them under the purview of the 1999-adapted CFE treaty and
start negotiations with them about limiting allied forces that might
hypothetically be deployed to the Baltic states’ territories, for
example in crisis contingencies. Legally, however, the Baltic states
cannot join an unratified treaty.
Thus, Russia is now pressing for the treaty’s speedy ratification
by all state-parties, so as to make possible the Baltic states’
accession to the ratified treaty, while still keeping Russian troops
on Georgia’s and Moldova’s territories in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and
Transnistria. Moscow calculates that Western consent to ratification
of the 1999 treaty in such circumstances would legitimize, prolong,
and even legalize the stationing of Russian troops in Georgia and
Moldova as “peacekeepers.”
To pave the way for such an outcome, Moscow has agreed with Georgia
to close Russian bases and military installations situated deep
inside the country by 2008 (nine years after its pledge to do so);
but it insists on maintaining its “peacekeeping” forces in Abkhazia
and South Ossetia while heavily arming its proxy forces there. Russia
had liquidated most of its treaty-limited weaponry in Transnistria
already in 2001; but retains a part of it to this day, has transferred
another part as well as personnel to Transnistria-flagged forces,
and openly repudiates the obligation to withdraw Russia’s own troops,
styled as “peacekeepers.”
The United States as well as NATO collectively take the position
that ratification of the adapted CFE Treaty is inseparably linked
to fulfillment of Russia’s commitments to withdraw its forces from
Georgia and Moldova; and that the Baltic states would accede to the
treaty, once it enters into force.
Russia has drafted its version of a decision for the CFE Treaty Review
conference and wants negotiations on its basis in the OSCE’s Joint
Consultative Group (JCG), the Vienna forum of the 30 state-parties to
the treaty. Moscow’s draft claims, “Most commitments and arrangements
mentioned in the [1999] Final Act are either already fulfilled or
are in the process of fulfillment, [while] the implementation of
the remaining ones has no direct relevance to the CFE Treaty and
depends on the progress of conflict settlement on the territories
of some State Parties.” It proposes that all state parties should
deem the 1999 treaty as valid from October 2006, start the national
ratification procedures, bring the treaty into force in 2007, and
“discuss the possibility of accession of new participants.”
The translation: Although Russia has far from completely honored
its force-withdrawal commitments, the state-parties (mostly NATO and
European Union member countries) should agree that is has. Thus, they
should: proceed with the Moscow-desired ratification of the treaty;
de-link ratification from the fulfillment of Russia’s withdrawal
commitments, using the conflicts for an excuse; lean on Georgia,
Moldova, and Azerbaijan to accept the situation and ratify the
treaty; and start the procedure of the Baltic states’ accession to
the force-limiting treaty.
Some German, French, Belgian, and other diplomats are now exploring
a solution that could allow Russia to claim that it has fulfilled
its troop-withdrawal commitments. Such a solution would:
1) exempt Russia’s “peacekeeping” troops from the obligation
to withdraw, recognizing their hitherto unrecognized role as
“peacekeepers” and allowing them to stay on;
2) silently tolerate the arsenals of CFE treaty-limited weaponry that
Russia has transferred to proxy forces in Transnistria, Abkhazia,
and South Ossetia, as well as the deployments inside Azerbaijan; and
3) elicit consent from Tbilisi, Chisinau, and Baku with such a
solution.
It would seem that the secrecy surrounding the JCG debates in Vienna
and the ironing out of common positions at the EU in Brussels is a
propitious atmosphere for a compromise with Moscow at the expense
of small countries. Lack of transparency in Vienna also tends to
facilitate undercutting or diluting the U.S. and collective NATO
position on these issues through initiatives from a few important
European capitals.
(JCG documents, May 2006)

MEETING IN PARLIAMENT
National Assembly of RA, Armenia
May 17 2006
On May 17 RA NA Speaker Artur Baghdasaryan received Stephen B. Nix,
Regional Program Director for Eurasia at U.S. International Republican
Institute and political expert Rasa Alisauskiene.
During the meeting issues concerning the activity of the International
Republican Institute in Armenia were discussed. The sides highlighted
the necessity of deepening democratic reforms. The guests presented
Artur Baghdasaryan the results of their researches over different
key problems.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress