Agence France Presse
June 22 2005

German book trade to honour outspoken Turkish author

Wed Jun 22,10:33 AM ET

FRANKFURT (AFP) – Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk will receive the
German book trade’s prestigious peace prize this year, the German
Publishers and Booksellers Association said on Wednesday.

Pamuk is to accept the 25,000-euro (30,400-dollar) award at the
Frankfurt Book Fair, the world’s largest literary salon, on October
23.

Announcing its decision, the prize jury said Pamuk had a unique
ability to bridge cultures.

“In Orhan Pamuk, we are honouring an author who like no other writer
of our time, explores the historical footprints of the West in the
East and the East in the West,” it said.

“He is committed to a concept of culture based on knowledge and
respect for others. Pamuk has created a genre in which Europe and
Islamic Turkey co-exist.”

Pamuk, who lives in Istanbul, is known internationally for novels
such as “My Name is Red”, “The New Life”, “The White Castle” “The
Black Book” and most recently “Snow”.

His works have been translated into 20 languages.

Set in 16th century Istanbul in the reign of Ottoman Sultan Murat
III, “My Name is Red” is a meditation on tensions between East and
West.

Pamuk is no stranger to political controversy. Earlier this year, he
angered nationalists in Turkey by publicly addressing the highly
sensitive subject of the massacre of Armenians in World War I.

In an interview with a Swiss newspaper, he said that “30,000 Kurds
and one million Armenians were killed in Turkey.”

One local official ordered the seizure and destruction of his works.

The Peace Prize is one of the highest distinctions in German
literature.

It is presented each year by the Association of German Publishers and
Booksellers at the close of the Frankfurt Book Fair.

Past winners of the prize, now in its 56th year, include the late US
writer Susan Sontag and Hungarian novelist Peter Esterhazy.

FREE, FAIR AND TRANSPARENT

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
22 June 05

The election to the NKR National Assembly took place. Today we may say
that the election to the National Assembly was held on a high level.
Free elections in Nagorno Karabakh are another progressive step on the
way of democracy and international recognition. As the international
observers stated, the election in NKR passed without irregularities
and in conformity with the law. Particularly, at the polling station
22/41 located in the Embassy of NKR toArmenia absolutely no
irregularities were reported. According to the chair of the election
committee of the polling station Argineh Davtian, the polling station
was opened at 8.00 and closed at 20.00. By 12.00 over 98 of the 129
voters had already voted, and another 15 voted by the additional
roll. The latter werethe persons who were in Yerevan on the day of the
election for some reasons. 149 people voted in this polling station,
111 voted for the Democratic Party of Artsakh, 20 for ARF, 14 for Azat
Hayrenik Party, 1 for the Communist Party.1 person voted against all,
and 2 ballots were declared invalid. In the polling station 22/41 the
election was held under the system of proportional representation
only.

CHRISTINE MNATSAKANIAN.
22-06-2005

Kazinform, Kazakhstan
June 22 2005

Enemy silenced with counter-fire

BAKU. JUNE 22. KAZINFORM. According to the press-service of the
Defense Ministry, on June 21, Armenian military units located 0,8 km
northeast of Lalailahi mountain in the Fusuli provinces of Azerbaijan
and those located in the 4,5 km southeast of the occupied Marzili
village fired submachine-guns at opposite positions of the
Azerbaijani Armed Forces located in the same areas, from 08.00 till
08.07 and from 20:40 till 20:55 respectively, Kazinform has learnt
from Azer-Taj.
The enemy was silenced with the counter-fire. No casualties were
reported.

Press Center
Office of the Ombudsman of Georgia
11 Machabeli Street,
Tbilisi 0105, Georgia
Tel: (995 32) 92 24 79/80
Fax: (995 32) 92 24 70
Mobile: (995 77) 50 52 30
E-mail: [email protected]

21 June 2005

Presentation of the Council of Religions

Today, on June 21, presentation of the Council of Religions was held in
Courtyard Marriott Hotel. A memorandum was signed at the presentation.
According to the memorandum, representatives of different confession
undertake the responsibility to cooperate and coordinate in the filed of
social, ecological and human rights issues. Leaders of almost all religions
represented in Georgia, Tbilisi Mayor Zurab Tchiaberashvili, Chairman of the
Parliamentary Committee of Internal Affairs Kote Gabashvili and Minister of
Education and Science Kakha Lomaia welcomed the establishment of the
Council.

Representative of the Office of the Patriarch of Georgia archpriest Mikael
Botkoveli addressed the gathered society and underlined the positive impacts
of the establishment of the Council.

Ombudsman of Georgia congratulated everyone with this day and expressed the
hope, that establishment of the Religions Council significantly increased
the level of tolerance and religious freedom of Georgia.

Memorandum of the Council of Religions at the Public Defender’s Office

I
As the representatives of the religious communities in Georgia we feel
responsibility to respect the dignity, freedom and human rights of each
person; we remain faithful to the experience of tolerance which is the
beauty of the historical past of our country. With this respect, we
acknowledge the local and global tasks and challenges of modernity which our
past and future required to be resolved.
The Soviet Union has collapsed, but there were offences against human
rights in Georgia for many years. Religious intolerance, extremism and
xenophobia became common practices. State policy openly showed
discrimination in its attitude towards religious minorities.
Corruption reached a peak. Drugs, trafficking, and robbery became
widespread; the criminal world became more influential.
Military conflicts have made many of our fellow Georgians refugees and
homeless. Economic crisis, a difficult social environment, and unemployment
have made many citizens leave their homeland and find their refuge abroad.
The most alarming aspect of the situation is to see so many homeless,
hungry, helpless and suffering people, especially the elderly and children.
Alienation and aggression became a hallmark of our own attitude towards
each-other and the world outside us.
The Rose Revolution appeared to be succeeded by notable improvements but
there still remain much to be done. The real freedom and prosperity of each
citizen, society and the State requires the consolidation of our efforts.
We should feel that we must support building a democratic and legitimate
state; we ought to be actively involved in the process of setting up civil
rights and a tolerant environment; to seek the peaceful solutions for
existing conflicts; to take up social, moral and ecological
responsibilities.
We can see the significance of directing our united efforts towards
defending international norms of human freedom and rights and the principles
of the Georgian Constitution.

II
As the representatives of the different confessions in Georgia, we express
our solidarity to each person, members of the Government and organizations
in resolving the above mentioned tasks and challenges and declare our will
to co-operate.
At the same time we take into consideration those tragic consequences which
were brought about by abolishing of boundaries between politics and religion
and also by the persecution of religion by the state which brought into
being totalitarian regimes, fundamentalist ideologies, terror,
discrimination, censorship, and nihilism. We oppose any attempt for use
religion as an instrument of political interest and controversies.
We regret that hatred, intolerance, extremism, terrorism, and wars have
been waged on a religious basis. We declare that religions must undertake
the mission of peacemaking, and instead of deepening opposition they must
unite people in collaboration around the eternal common values for all
humanity.
As the representatives of religions and confessions in Georgia, we are
ready to contribute to this mission and to support triumph over the local
and global crises and conflicts through the way of reconciliation and
peaceful coexistence.

III
We support the Public Defender’s initiative in establishing the Council of
Religions in order to resolve the mentioned tasks as far as they are
acceptable to all. The institution of a public defender, its significance
and authority is a precise resource which can serve as an effective
intermediary between the state and individuals, majorities and minorities
and unite them around basic values.
As a result of all of these factors we establish the Council of Religions
at the Public Defender of Georgia and we adopt the responsibility of holding
dialogue between each-other and society to respond to problems and events,
make proposals to the Public Defender and Government bodies, to bring
together the social, cultural, humanitarian, peacemaking, protection of
human rights and ecology without abusing our cultural and religious values,
defending the Georgian Constitution and the International norms of human
freedom and rights in an atmosphere of collaboration, respect, and
solidarity.
Despite the fact that religious differences between the members of the
Council are often almost diametrically opposed, we take responsibility to
avoid creating an arena for religious opposition in our work. The basis of
our participation in the Council first of all is to protect the personal
dignity and freedom of human beings and to give confidence to the spirit of
tolerance in our society.
We are united in one common principle: ‘Communicate with the other in a way
that you would like the others to communicate with you’.

The memorandum was signed by :

1. Baha’i Community in Georgia – Eiman Rohani
2. Evangelical Church – Pastor Zaal Tkeshelashvili
3. Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia – Presiding Bishop Malkhaz
Songulashvili
4. Evangelical Lutheran Church in Georgia – Bishop Andreas Stoekle
5. Pentecostal Church – Russian Community – Nikoloz Kalutski
6. Pentecostal Church – Georgian Community – Oleg Khubashvili
7. Evangelical Church – the Word of Life – Shmagi Chankvetadze
8. Roman Catholic Church in Georgia – Bishop Guizeppe Pazzotto
9. Hare Krishna Temple of Consciousness – Antimoz Natsvlishvili
10. Church of Seventh Day Adventists – Emzar Chrikishvili
11. Acting Chief Rabbi of Georgia – Abimileq Rosenblatt
12. Church of Latter Day Saints – Viktor Khatsevich
13. Representative of Chief Rabbi of Lubovich Khabad in Georgia Abraham
Mikhelashvili – Rafael Messingisser
14. Salvation Army – Giorgi Salarishvili
15. Sozar Subari – Ombudsman of Georgia.

Head of Muslim Mufti Division of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara Mufti
Bezhan ( Berik) Bolkvadze of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara sent the
Council a letter of congratulation and called the establishment of the
Religions Council a very worthwhile initiative and noted, that the aim of
the of the Council is to foster the dialogue among the peoples of different
faiths residing in Georgia, to protect human rights and freedoms guaranteed
by the Georgian Constitution, to establish such way of life by respecting
religions and traditions of each others as to eliminate hostility and
intolerance, killing of people and terrorism, adultery and trafficking,
stealing and brigandage.

Despite the support, the Office of the Patriarch of Georgia abstained from
signing the memorandum.

Eparchy of Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia also refrained from signing
the memorandum as the archbishop Vazgen Mirzakhanian is not in Tbilisi right
now.

Negotiations are carried on with the religious leaders of the New Apostolic
Church and Yezidi Kurds.

RIA Novosti, Russia
June 22 2005

Russian, Armenian presidents discus bilateral issues
19:53

MOSCOW, June 22 (RIA Novosti) – Russian President Vladimir Putin and
his Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharyan, said they were satisfied
with the Year of Russia celebrations in Armenia as they met to
discuss bilateral issues and focus on energy and investment projects.

Vladimir Putin said that Armenia’s participation in the Eurasian
Economic Community (Eurasec) as an observer would be useful.

“It is a positive signal that you regularly participate in the summit
meetings of the Eurasec heads of state,” Putin said. “I would like to
say how satisfied I am that both countries have had such close
contacts lately.”

“Russian governors are visiting Armenia and the Russia Year
celebration in Armenia covers a whole range of bilateral relations,”
Kocharyan said.

According to the Russian president, the Bolshoi Theatre tour in
Armenia was a great success. He expressed the hope that all the
events planned for the Year of Russia in Armenia would be very
impressive.

Kocharyan said that Russia was holding many events in Armenia and
economic projects were a priority.

The Armenian president further said that today’s meeting was useful
for discussing bilateral relations, especially as a continuation of
their conversation in Yerevan.

“I would like to discuss energy issues and specific investment
projects,” Kocharyan said.

According to him, “the instructions given in the past have been acted
upon and relations are developing dynamically.” At the same time, the
Armenian leader said some issues in bilateral relations needed to be
corrected.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
June 22 2005

Georgia/Russia: Withdrawal Agreement Clears First Hurdle
By Liz Fuller

Senior Georgian politicians, including President Mikheil Saakashvili,
Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli, and Foreign Minister Salome
Zourabichvili, hailed the agreement reached in Moscow on 30 May on
the terms and time frame for the closure of the two remaining Russian
military bases in Georgia as heralding a new era in bilateral
relations. So too did international organizations, including NATO and
the EU.

But within days, Georgian and Russian officials were arguing over the
ownership of equipment at one ancillary facility in Tbilisi, while
the Azerbaijani government formally protested to Moscow plans to move
part of the materiel currently deployed in Georgia to the Russian
military base in Armenia. Moreover, several crucial issues remained
to be addressed in subsequent agreements.

The 30 May agreement did, nonetheless, clarify the central issue of
the time frame for withdrawal, stating clearly that the process
should be completed by 1 October 2007 or, if that proves impossible
(for example, due to adverse weather conditions), by 31 December
2007. Russia further pledges not to deploy any further equipment or
ammunition to the two bases. The two sides agree to set in motion
preparations for a formal inspection by the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Germany of the Gudauta military
base that Russia claims to have vacated in July 2001. They also
agreed to seek additional sources of funding to cover the expenses of
transporting equipment from the two Georgian bases.

The 30 May agreement also provided for an unspecified quantity of
equipment and personnel to be transferred from the two existing bases
to a new Georgian-Russian antiterrorism center. Further details on
the creation, staffing, and operations of that facility are to be
addressed in a separate agreement, which has yet to be signed.
Georgian Foreign Minister Zourabichvili told RFE/RL on 7 June that
the creation of that center, which has been under discussion for over
a year, was a Georgian initiative, the rationale for it being that
“we did not want Russia to think it was being thrown out of Georgia.”

It is, however, difficult to reconcile the formal agreement on the
transfer of unspecified Russian equipment to that base with Georgian
National Security Council press secretary Davit Gunashvili’s
statement that it will be purely an “analytical center.” Other
Georgian officials have suggested that other countries, including
possibly the United States, could be invited to provide experts to
work at the center.

Real Agreement?

Almost immediately, however, the sincerity of both Tbilisi and Moscow
was called into question. The Georgian authorities denied a visa to
the new commander of the Group of Russian Forces in the
Transcaucasus, Major General Aleksandr Bespalov, thus forcing him to
coordinate the withdrawal from Yerevan, Interfax reported on 7 June.
At the same time, the Georgian military raised objections to the
removal from the Russian Tank-Repair Workshop in Tbilisi, which was
to be handed over to Georgia by 15 June, of equipment deployed there,
including trucks, spare parts, armored vehicles, and eight
diesel-fuelled generators. Those Georgian objections temporarily
halted the planned removal of Russian equipment from the base,
ITAR-TASS reported on 14 June. Georgia subsequently dropped its
opposition to the Russian military taking portable equipment from
that facility, and a written agreement formalizing the handover was
duly signed on 16 June.

Meanwhile Gennadii Gudkov, chairman of the Russian State Duma’s
Defense and Security Committee, paid a private visit in early June to
the two Russian bases, after which he concluded that the Defense and
Foreign ministries will not be able to meet the agreed deadline of
late 2007 for closing them. Caucasus Press on 7 June quoted Gudkov as
saying that five years was a more realistic estimate, given that it
would, he claimed, take two years just to de-mine the two bases — a
procedure on which Georgia insists.

Gudkov added that the withdrawal process could be expedited if the
United States agreed to provide additional funding to finance the
construction of alternative bases in Russia to house the personnel
and equipment withdrawn from Georgia. Russian Defense Minister Sergei
Ivanov similarly appealed on 16 June to the Russian government to
earmark additional funding to cover the cost of the Russian
withdrawal from Georgia. Nino Burdjanadze — speaker of the Georgian
parliament, which has consistently adopted a more hard-line and less
flexible position on the Russian military presence in Georgia than
has the Georgian Foreign Ministry — refused to meet with Gudkov
while he was in Tbilisi, “Nezavisimaya gazeta” reported on 10 June.

Local Hurdles

In her 7 June comments to RFE/RL, Zourabichvili acknowledged that
there is a risk Russia will not comply with the December 2007
deadline. She added that while Tbilisi considers it encouraging that
at the very highest level, both Russian President Vladimir Putin and
the Russian Foreign Ministry have admitted that the two bases do not
serve any strategic purpose and are thus no longer needed, there is
no guarantee that local Russian commanders, acting on their own
initiative, might not seek to delay the withdrawal for their own
ends.

Despite those misgivings, Russian and Georgian delegations succeeded
in two subsequent rounds of talks, in Tbilisi on 8-10 June and in
Moscow on 16-17 June, in ironing out the remaining, mostly logistical
issues connected with the Russian withdrawal. The text of the
relevant agreement has been coordinated, and it should be signed “as
soon as possible,” Interfax reported on 20 June, quoting an unnamed
Russian Foreign Ministry official.

While the bases-closure agreement has removed one major bone of
contention between Moscow and Tbilisi, it has not demolished the
coldness and mutual suspicion that have dogged bilateral relations
for many years. Indeed, Russian moves since the signing of the
withdrawal agreement seem calculated to fuel that suspicion.

First, Russian Defense Minister Ivanov announced on 6 June that
within the next 3 1/2 years, Russia will establish two military bases
near its border with Georgia to prevent “terrorists” entering Russia
from Georgian territory. One of the new bases will be located in
Karachaevo-Cherkessia and the second in Daghestan’s Botlikh Raion
close to the border with Azerbaijan and Georgia. Ivanov said three
mountain brigades will be stationed at those bases, together with
helicopters, but no tanks or heavy armor.

Then on 10 June, newly appointed North Ossetian President Taymuraz
Mamsurov said in an interview with “Novaya gazeta” that he sees no
alternative to the “reunification” of his republic and Georgia’s
unrecognized Republic of South Ossetia, most of the Ossetian
population of which already have Russian citizenship. That statement
suggests that Moscow may have come to the conclusion that
deliberately sabotaging President Mikheiil Saakashvili’s proclaimed
vow to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity may constitute more
sophisticated, and more effective leverage in relations with Tbilisi
than the Russian military presence ever did.

Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)
June 22 2005

OPPOSITION ANGRY AT KARABAKH POLL

Government declares victory in parliamentary elections in the
mountainous republic.

By Karine Ohanian in Stepanakert

The Nagorny Karabakh opposition suffered a stinging electoral defeat
in the June 19 parliamentary elections, winning only three seats out
of 33 in the new assembly.

Karabakh opposition parties are now considering their next move after
faring badly in a poll that many had expected them to do well in.

However, after the liveliest election in the mountainous territory
since the end of the war in 1994, most observers agree the voting was
free and many analysts put the drubbing down to a strategic
outflanking of the opposition by the authorities.

There were more than 130 non-governmental observers monitoring the
polls from many countries, though the international community has not
recognised the legitimacy of the election and Azerbaijan has strongly
condemned them since Armenian-run Nagorny Karabakh is an unrecognised
state.

One of the observers, James Hooper, head of the US-based Public
International Law and Policy Group expressed hope that democratic
elections in Karabakh could positively influence the peace process
with Azerbaijan.

`The region will only win if Azerbaijan and Karabakh are competing in
democracy and not an arms race,’ he told IWPR.

According to preliminary results, pro-government forces won a
convincing victory, with two pro-government parties, the Democratic
Party of Artsakh and Free Motherland, claiming a total of 22 seats in
the 33-seat parliament. A further five seats went to independents
known for their pro-government sympathies.

The opposition alliance, ARF Dashnaktsutiun-Movement 88, gained 24.4
per cent of the popular vote, giving it just three seats.

Movement 88 is a newly formed party, while Dashnaktsutiun is
Armenia’s oldest nationalist party. Their opposition to the
government was not over policy on the status of Karabakh – all the
parties want it to be separate from Azerbaijan – but on criticism of
the government’s democratic record.

These elections differed markedly from three previous polls in
Nagorny Karabakh. They took place under a new electoral law, with the
use of transparent ballot boxes and with an unprecedented 127
candidates registered to run.

Most non-governmental foreign observers saw few irregularities and
said that the elections had been largely free and fair.

`I witnessed a completely democratic electoral process, and I think
many recognised states would do well to take Nagorny Karabakh as an
example,’ said Mark Almond of the British Helsinki Human Rights
Group. `A lot here was organised better than in Great Britain and in
this regard we have something to learn.’

Only one foreign observer, Milan Stefanec from the Czech Republic,
said what he saw at nine stations fell short of European standards.
At one station, he said the chairman rejected a complaint by an
opposition observer, calling it `unimportant’. There were also
instances where problems with documentation were sorted out not by
the electoral commission but by the security forces, he said.

Some Karabakhis also though the poll was unfair. `Many people went
and voted not for people they chose themselves but for people who
were named for them by their bosses,’ said Zhan Apresian, a voter in
the village of Askeran.

A spokesman for the opposition alliance said his movement would soon
publish information about electoral irregularities. `The elections
were unfree, unfair and untransparent,’ said Gegam Bagdasarian.

The leader of another losing party, Karen Ohanjenian of Social
Justice, also insisted the elections were rigged. `A system of buying
votes has demonstrated how corrupt society in Karabakh is. A
corrupted democracy is prevailing here,’ he said.

People working on behalf of different candidates told IWPR they had
seen residents voting without proper registration documents and
entering polling booths in pairs.

Most of the complaints, however, have focussed on the use of
so-called `administrative resource’, pressure from the authorities on
electors to vote for official candidates. People spoke of threats of
being dismissed from work, bribery and pressure being put on army
conscripts.

`First they asphalted our road, then they fixed our neighbour’s
roof,’ said Galina Babayan. `One person offered money, someone else
built a children’s playground. No one dared to try to bribe me, but
my friends and neighbours got very concrete offers.’

However, political analyst David Babayan urged the opposition to look
not at government corruption but at its own strategy, which he
believes was the key to its defeat.

`It acted impulsively, from the start setting the highest priority on
criticising the authorities. For the first 10 days voters took that
well, but then they got tired from the endless criticisms,’ he said.

A local expert who asked not to be named added that the introduction
of a second pro-government party, Free Motherland, was a clever move
by the authorities to avenge an opposition victory in last year’s
elections for mayor of Stepanakert.

The results have given a boost to Karabakh president Arkady Gukasian,
who has one year remaining on his second term.

On election day, Gukasian called the poll `the most honest elections
in the entire post-Soviet space’. Asked to comment on Azerbaijan’s
rejection, he said, `Today the attention of the people and observers
is fixed on processes inside Karabakh, which directly affect the
independent future of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic.’

Tension is still high in Karabakh. On June 20 there was alarm at the
news that opposition candidate and war veteran Pavel Manukian had
been badly beaten up after an incident in the defence ministry. In
hospital Manukian named the names of two well-known Karabakh
generals.

Gukasian said the incident would be investigated and criminal charges
brought if necessary and talks were held with the opposition. `When
someone is hurt it’s not important who won and lost,’ said a top
official. `The authorities won the election but today it’s more
important that the state does not lose.’

Karine Ohanian is a journalist with the Demo Newspaper in
Stepanakert.

Armenian opposition leader predicts revolution on heels of US visit

Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
21 Jun 05

Text of Naira Zograbyan report by Armenian newspaper Haykakan Zhamanak
on 21 June headlined “Everything was done for the sake of Armenia”

An interview with the leader of the Anrapetutyun [Republic] Party,
Aram Sarkisyan.

[Correspondent] Mr Sarkisyan, your visit to the USA has generated an
unexpected interest in political circles. What has happened in the
USA?

[Aram Sarkisyan] At present, I do not want to go into details of the
visit. I would like to say only that what is most important is what I
am going to do after returning. I shall do what I was going to do
before visiting the USA but in a more consistent and confident way. By
the way, the timing of my visit was chosen correctly: Turkey’s prime
minister and foreign minister as well as our foreign minister were in
the USA and we stayed in the same hotel.

[Correspondent] Did you meet them?

[Sarkisyan] I will speak about all my meetings later. I can only say
what was done and discussed was done for the sake of Armenia.

[Correspondent] Does it mean that you were given specific guarantees?

[Sarkisyan] I can only say that democracy has no alternative in
Armenia and we shall achieve it in a very short period of time.

[Correspondent] You are still insisting on unscheduled elections in
Armenia.

[Sarkisyan] I am absolutely sure of this. In Armenia, it is impossible
any longer to establish democracy by means of reforms and in an
evolutionary way, and the authorities of Armenia are to blame for
this, as it is them who have brought about a situation when the
government will be replaced in our country only through a revolution.

[Correspondent] After your meetings in the USA there were views that
the format of the meetings clearly pointed to the fact that the USA
had already made a political decision about [Armenian President
Robert] Kocharyan’s departure. Did you gain this impression from
those meetings?

[Sarkisyan] Those were really high-level meetings which surprised me
in a sense. We shall not have any problem with the world if our
country is democratic. As for Robert Kocharyan, I never spread
rumours. Moreover, they have repeatedly expressed their attitude
towards the authorities of Armenia, stressing that the main principles
of democracy were violated in Armenia. They also openly say that they
support democratic countries.

[Correspondent] According to some rumours, the authorities of Armenia
tried to hinder some of your meetings in America.

[Sarkisyan] The Armenian authorities have not changed their working
style as there were similar obstacles when I was the prime minister
[1997-98]. For this reason, I do not rule out similar attempts this
time as well.

[Correspondent] Mr Sarkisyan, what is the mood among the diaspora?

[Sarkisyan] I think that my meeting with the Armenian diaspora was the
most important one. We have a very strong diaspora and it will
unequivocally support democratic Armenia.

[Correspondent] Los Angeles-based Zhamanak [Time] newspaper quoted you
as saying that immediately after returning to Armenia you might hand
in your deputy mandate and that the Anrapetutyun Party might leave the
Justice bloc. Is that really so?

[Sarkisyan] In politics, I have always been guided by the principle
that any step should be logical and necessary. At present, I do not
see such a necessity and I did not make such a statement.

Ukrainian president replaces envoys, dismisses property officials

Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Kiev
22 Jun 05

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has relieved Mykhaylo Reznyk of
his duties as Ukrainian ambassador to the USA and also to Antigua and
Barbuda, the Interfax-Ukraine reported at 1308 gmt on 22 June, quoting
the presidential press service.

According to the same report, Yushchenko dismissed Volodymyr Tyahlo as
Ukraine’s ambassador to Armenia and cancelled the presidential decree
dated 31 December 2004 appointing Oleksandr Bozhko as Ukraine’s
ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. Instead, Yushchenko appointed Tyahlo as
ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Bozhko as ambassador to Armenia.

He also dismissed the Ukrainian ambassador to Slovakia, Serhiy Ustych,
the agency said.

Interfax-Ukraine reported at 1305 gmt that Yushchenko had promoted
Inna Yemelyanova from deputy justice minister to first deputy justice
minister.

In another report at 1233 gmt, Interfax-Ukraine said that on 21 June
Yushchenko dismissed Oleksandr Bondar and Leonid Kalnychenko from the
posts of first deputy heads of the State Property Fund. He also
relieved Vladyslav Zburzhynskyy of his duties as deputy head of the
State Property Fund.

Yushchenko also accepted the resignation of another first deputy head
of the State Property Fund, Yevhen Hryhorenko, the agency said.

SEEDINGS

Irish Independent; Jun 22, 2005

CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

FIRST QUALIFYING ROUND

Seeded: Shelbourne, Liverpool, Artmedia Bratislava (Slovakia),
Anorthosis Famagusta (Cyprus), NK Gorica (Slovenia), Dinamo Tblisi
(Georgia), FC Haka (Finland), Hafnarfjordur (Iceland), NK Zrinjski
(Bosnia Herzegovina), Skonto FC (Latvia), FC Sheriff (Moldova), FBK
Kaunas (Lithuania)

Unseeded: Glentoran, Total Network Solutions (Wales), FK Rabotnicki
(Macedonia), Dinamo Minsk (Belarus), Pyunik (Armenia), Sliema
Wanderers (Malta), KF Tirana (Albania), Levadia Talinn (Estonia), F91
Dudelange (Luxembourg), PFC Neftchi (Azerbaijan), HB Torshavn (Faroe
Islands), Kairat Almaty (Kazakhstan).

SECOND QUALIFYING ROUND

Seeded: Celtic, Anderlecht, Dinamo Kiev, Lokomotiv Moscow, Partizan
(Serbia and Mon), Maccabi Haifa, Steaua Bucharest, Brondby, Rapid
Vienna, CSKA Sofia, Debreceni (Hungary), Trabzonspor (Turkey),
Valerenga (Norway), Winner Match 1 (Liverpool game).

Unseeded: Hajduk Split (Croatia), Thun (Switzerland), Malmo. Plus
winners from 11 other qualifiers

UEFA CUP

Northern group – Seeded: Longford Town, Viking FK (Nor), Esbjerg
(Den), Ventspils (Lat), Liepajas Metalurgs (Lat), Myllykosken Pallo-47
(Fin), Allianssi (Fin), Ekranas (Lit), Atlantas (Lit), Keflavik (Isl),
IBV Vestmannaeyjar (Isl)

Unseeded: Cork City, Portadown, Linfield, Rhyl, Carmarthen, Tallinn,
Flora (Est), Petange (Lux), Etzella Ettelbruck (Lux), B36 Torshavn
(Far), Runavik (Far)