Basic principles of the permanent constitution of the new Iraq

noticias.info (press release), Spain
Feb 27 2005

IRAQ : Basic principles of the permanent constitution of the new Iraq

/noticias.info/

Fuente: Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)

A Speech to be delivered by Dr. Munther Al-Fadhal in the conference
of Federalism and the Future of Democracy in Iraq that will be held
in April 2005, Poznan University – Poland

In 1925, the first constitution of the State of Iraq was issued under
the name of Basic Law. This was brought about by constitutional
institutions built by all Iraqi ethnicities, religion followers and
communities; with clear transparency. That was the first permanent
constitution of the state of new Iraq that has not witnessed any
other permanent constitutions so far. Since the monarchy rule was
toppled down on July 14, 1958, many constitutions have appeared and
lots of modifications in them have indicated political turmoil,
instability and the lack of institutional work in Iraq; constitutions
in which the law of force dominated the force of law.

The Basic Law went under lengthy discussions before being issued. It
included numerous texts that organized the relationship among the
three powers: the judiciary, the executive and legislative powers.
Mr. Abdal Muhsin al-Sa’dun became the first Iraqi Prime Minister who
dreamt of founding a state of law. His vision about the rights of the
Kurdish People and respecting the rights of the other nationalities
was clear. The Iraqi State took a simple form and the rule was
central in the Iraqi capital city Baghdad. The monarchy system
continued from 1921 to July 1958 witnessing much turbulence and so
many political crises including the Kurdish Revolution led by the
Sheikhs of Barzan such as, the revolution of Sheikh Abdussalam
Barzani and that of Sheikh Ahmed Barzani in the beginning of the
thirties. Those were followed by the leader Mustafa Barzani’s
revolution in September of 1961, which was a continuance of the
revolution led by Sheikh Mahmud al-Hafeed after World War I. Many
attempts that have been made to build democracy through resolving the
Kurdish Question justly and peacefully have failed and, thus,
influenced all life aspects and conditions of Iraq.

The conditions in Iraq have not stabilized since July 14, 1958. Many
interim constitutions have been passed; their contents and laws being
disrespected. The independence of the Judiciary power was also
disrespected and the ruler was above the law. There is no doubt that
such deterioration, the absence of law, the violation of human
rights, and the phenomenon of monocracy that had brought disasters to
the Iraqis commenced with the coming of the Ba’thist Rule to power in
1968. It became even worse and more dangerous when Saddam seized
power in 1979 who over extolled national integrity and led Iraq to a
civil war against the Kurdish people. He acted treacherously towards
the eastern and western neighbours. He destroyed the country due to
his dictatorial rule, crippled the constitution and dismissed the
law. The consequences of the internal and external wars on the Iraqis
can be felt up to the present and their impacts will continue for a
long time.

For the sake of a pluralistic and democratic Iraq that enjoys
stability and peace based on the principle of freely chosen
federation, which respects the Basic Law, operative laws, human
rights, and the international commitments. An Iraq which is free from
discrimination due to sex, colour, ethnicity, nationality, religion,
and thought. An Iraq in which women play a role that corresponds with
the human values in life. For the sake of a neutral Iraq away from
the wars. An Iraq in which constitutional institutions, civil
society, and the integrity of law, are established. This is to be
away from the idol-worship and the military and totalitarian rules
that are totally at odds with the principles of democratic rule. For
the sake of an Iraq in which all the nationalities enjoy freedom,
stability, and security; in which every party recognizes the others’
rights, respects the peoples’ rights of self-determination and
consolidates principles of peaceful succession; there should exist a
permanent constitution for the country. This is to be equivalent to
the Basic Law or as the Supreme Law of the Iraqi Federal State to
which all should yield, the ruler and the ruled. This is because the
basic fundamentals of the state of law are to have a permanent
constitution, to work for the separation of powers; to consolidate
the integrity of law; to respect the progression of legal rules; to
protect the rights of the people and to work for the independence of
the tribunal system.

To activate the role of women in life as they constitute half of the
society and to make them equal to men in their rights, which maintain
and confirm their human identity and repeal all forms of
discrimination against them. In order to spread the culture of human
rights and the right of opposition, to build up the principles of
tolerance and moderation; to cast away prejudice and partiality, to
fight terrorist actions wherever they come from; and to build a
civilized state that plays its role in the regional and international
scenes; the basic principles of the permanent constitution of the New
Iraq should be formulated. What are these principles? To investigate
this the subject should be divided as follows:

First: Legal Observations on the Law of State Administration .

Second: General Principles and Basic Rights of the Permanent
Constitution of the New Iraq.

First: Legal Observations on the Law of State Administration

After the liberation of Iraq on April 9, 2003 from the most repulsive
and fascist regime since the downfall of Nazism in 1945, the
Governing Council that had been established after the liberation to
run Iraq for a transitional period drafted the Iraqi Law of State
Administration on March 8, 2004, which was formed after the
liberation to administer the Iraqi State for the transitional period
that had o precede the constitutional institutions. The Law of State
Administration included the basic rules and principles of the
permanent constitution of the New Iraq. To grasp the rules that will
determine the identity and future of Iraq after dictatorship (The
Arabic Nazism), some observations should be stated about the
aforementioned Law so as to be acquainted with the basics of the
Permanent Constitution of the New Iraq.

After real diligence the Interim Constitution appeared. That was on a
famous international day, the Women’s Day, on March 8, 2003. It was
an occasion that brought to mind what was agreed on Saddam and the
Shah of Iran on March 6, 1975 according to which Saddam gave up half
of Shat al-Arab in return for Shah’s pledges to stop the Iranian
logistic support to the Kurdish liberation movement in Iraqi
Kurdistan. The event also brought to mind the courageous Kurdish
uprising as well as that of the people of the south against the
Tyrant and his regime. In 1991 which eventuated in the death of
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the country. The
defeated regime bombed the uprising cities with missiles and buried
thousands of innocent civilians in mass graves. The occasion also
reminded us of many other significant events on the level of Iraq as
well as on the international level.

Various conflicting reactions were noticed after the issuance of the
Law. Some supported it, others rejected, and some were in-between.
Therefore; we will not touch on to the regional and international
impressions regarding the Law as this is purely an Iraqi internal
affair. We also do not mean to touch on some of the political
reactions by some religious authoritative references that take a
biased and chauvinistic standpoint like most of the Arabs and some of
our brothers from other ethnicities. This is because what appeal to
us are the legal aspects and the organization and management of the
Iraqi State and its institutions until the issuance of the Permanent
Constitution of the Iraqi Federal State. It seems that one of the
legal issues that are raised is the question always asked: can a
council, which is not elected, be incumbent upon an elected one? Does
the Governing Council have the legitimate right to pass such a law?
And what is the difference between the law and the constitution. To
attempt such questions it should be stated that the venerable
Governing Council is a legitimate council even if it does not
represent all the Iraqi community. According to the Geneva Convention
of 1949, the occupying authority should administer the occupied
country and protect its civilians. One of the duties of that
authority is to form an administration from the Iraqis to run the
state affairs. Besides, the parties in the Governing Council
constitute the majority of the political parties and the influential
political movements Iraq’s had so far. Hence they constitute the
majority of the Iraqis such as, Kurdistan Democratic Party, Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan, the Iraqi Communist Party, the Da’wa Party, the
Supreme Islamic Council, the Iraqi National Conference, and the Iraqi
Islamic Union. This is in addition to some Iraqi personalities who
have struggled against dictatorship and are locally famous and
well-reputed.

Thus, in spite of all the trouble and opposition from the inside and
outside of Iraq, the Council gains legitimacy to exist and to take
power in co-operation with the Coalition Authority or the Occupation
Authority. What further asserts the legitimacy of the Council are the
resolution passed by the United Nations that organized the
relationship between the Council and the Coalition Authority and
recognized the former as legitimate. These resolutions include, the
1483 UN resolution on May 22, 2003, the 1511 resolution on October
16, 2003 which was concerned with the preparation for the
transference of integrity to the Iraqis, and finally the 1546
resolution on June 2004 regarding the transference of integrity. It
is therefore inferred that though the Governing Council was not
elected due to legal and incidental circumstances, it is legitimate
and it can pass laws and judgments like an elected council after the
approval of the Civil Ruler of Iraq; the latter being in support of
the Geneva Convention. Geneva Convention states that the Ruler can
pass laws and resolutions, and after he approves of the Interim
Constitution, it will acquire legitimacy under obligation according
to the international legal prerogatives of the mentioned Civil Ruler.
Besides, this law is an equivalent to an interim constitution of the
country for it is called the Supreme Law of the Country. Restrictions
are laid on any modifications or changes that might be done to its
items and provisions in a way that are in correspondence with its
importance and constitutional characteristic; as usually
constitutions are known for their flexibility and inflexibility to
change. In addition to all that, the coalition intervention in Iraq
to topple the regime down was legitimate according to the Security
Council resolutions to protect security in the world and to the
respect of human rights which is not an internal affair.

However, there are some observations about the Law. Some of these are
related to aspect of form and techniques of legislation that the Law
lacks. Others are objective and are related to the essence of the Law
and its items, whether stated or not, which should be redressed. We
hope to explicate some of these observations and the intention is to
be constructive and not to deconstruct, to show opinions and not to
impose them. This is for the sake of general interest and protection
of the rights of the Iraqis and in support of building the state of
law and constitutional institutions. The major points can be seen as
follows:

When the provisions of the law are reviewed, the reader who
specialized notices a clear weakness in the legal formula. It was
written by politicians and jurists who seem not to be well versed
about the formulation of such laws. There should be a clear-cut
relation between the wording and the content. They are usually clear
and transparent quoted expressions free from repetition and
wordiness. It would have been rather preferable to show the Law to a
number of jurists in the State Consultative Council at the Ministry
of Justice in cooperation with some other jurists and specialized
academicians in Kurdistan in order to set a sound legal formula.

This is in addition to many typing mistakes. And it seems that some
of the participants are not well versed in Arabic and thus have
translated the provisions from English, which has brought about a
poor style. Therefore; it is hoped that the Permanent Constitutions
might be written in partnership with some Iraqi experts who believe
in democracy to avoid the shortcomings discussed; especially when it
comes to the fact that the Permanent Constitution will represent a
crucial stage after so many years of absence of the law and the
paralyzing of the constitution terms. The following are some other
examples:

1- The political characteristic of the preamble: It is likely for the
preamble to have a legal mark that justifies the appearance of the
Basic Law. The preamble should depend on legal items rather than
political ones.

2- The Law has ignored the possibility of the fact that some of the
Iraqis may wish for the restoration of the monarchy system to Iraq as
well as the kind and nature of government in Iraq. This made the
Secretary of the League of Arab States state that the views and
standpoints of the Iraqis should be appreciated as respect to the
principles of democracy.

3- The 2nd article (B) includes a typing mistake.

4- The terminology used to describe the law is sometimes overlapping.
It is somewhere called `The Administrative Law for the Transitional
Period’ and called `The Supreme Law of the Country’ somewhere else.
There are also hard restrictions concerned with modifications in it
that ascends it to the level of a permanent constitution. There
should have been one unchangeable term to describe it: either a law
inferior to a constitution or a constitution that is superior to a
law. This overlapping terminology is there because the political
stamp dominates the legal one. Besides, the lack of Iraqi experts
while the final draft of the Constitution was being discussed. We
believe that it should be called `The Supreme Law of the Country’
until the Permanent Constitution is issued.

5- The Law does not point to the appended articles attached to the
Administrative Law for the Transitional Period that constitutes an
independent part of the articles as stated in item 1 – B of the 2nd
article in the Law.

6- The 4th article talks about (the system in Iraq) whereas the
correct expression should be the political system in Iraq. Besides,
the provision is at odds with the desire of some people for a
political monarchy system. It has imposed the republican system;
while the Iraqis in a referendum should have decided this after
making a clear and general census. Such census, however, can not be
made if the problems brought about by the former regime are not
resolved such as, the Kirkuk issue as well as the other cities that
underwent Arabization and ethnic cleansing. It is also appears that
the provision is an English translated one that has a poor style.
Accordingly, it is of crucial importance to distinguish between the
form of the Iraqi State which is a federal state and the system or
political system be it a monarchy or republican.

7- A notable mistake can be seen in article 2 where mention about the
elections is made without asserting the necessity of a general census
of the Iraqis. There are about four million Iraqis scattered all over
the world in addition to half a million Faili Kurds who have been
deported and deprived of citizenship after confiscating their
properties. These live in banishment and others were recently born
and have seen Iraq only on a map; they do not know where does lie due
to the policy of the former regime. There are also hundreds of
thousands of displaced people who are the victims of deportation and
ethnic cleansing of the cities of Kirkuk, Mandali, Khanaqeen, and
Zarbatia as well as other cities to which the people have did not go
back and so their original identity has been changed. Therefore; it
is not recommended to make the elections without considering the
deported people; and legally elections can not be made without a
general census so that all Iraqis, in and out of Iraq would have the
opportunity to participate. This point has to be considered as it
affects the legitimacy of the elections. Thus, the main question is:
how do we start making elections and writing the permanent
constitution without having a census? And should the food rations
card be such reliable evidence that the voters are Iraqis? We
certainly know that Saddam dropped so many of these cards after
displacing a lot of people. Other Iraqis who live abroad do not have
and do not need a food rations card and they certainly are looking
forward to take part in the elections through the Iraqi embassy as
any other civilized country in the world would do. The food rations
card is a primitive style adopted by the former regime for political
reasons. Besides, there are many people who have more than one card
in hope for getting more than one ration of food.

8- In article 3 this statement appears `Or is likely to affect Islam
or any other religion or ritual’. We believe that this is a
superfluous and an unjustified statement.

9- Article 6 states: `the Iraqi Interim Government will take
substantial steps to end the impacts of the repressive deeds by the
former regime such as, the coercive displacement, denaturalization,
the confiscation of movable and immovable properties, and firing
people from their positions in the government for political, ethnic
or sectarian reasons.’ We believe that this text is deficient for it
ignore an important issue which the compensation of the aggrieved and
wronged Iraqis for religious reasons such as, the Christians, the
Jewish people, the Ezidians and the Sabi’a.

10- An item about Kirkuk occurs in article 58 of the Law of State
Administration for the transitional period to resolve the problems
resulted from Arabization, the splitting of districts and
sub-districts from this city, and altering its Kurdistani identity.
It states: `the former regime acted fraudulently with the
administrative boundaries of the city to achieve some political
goals. The Iraqi Interim Government or the presidency have to give
recommendation to the National Assembly to alter such partialities.
If the presidency did not approve collectively of a number of
recommendations, they have to appoint neutral arbitrators to achieve
that. And in case the presidential council could not agree on proper
arbitrators, they need to appeal to the Secretary General to appoint
a known international personality to do that.’

We think that the aforementioned statement is also deficient and it
does not serve peace or the interests of the nationalities in Iraq
for the reasons below:

First: The case of Kirkuk is an Iraqi pure issue and its file should
not be forwarded to international arbitrators, even if they are
neutral or collectively approved of, because that will allow other
parties to interfere on the basis of having other nationalities such
as the Turkmans. This has already been seen earlier when the media
channels in Turkey maintained that the Kirkuk case is not an Iraqi
internal issue. Moreover, an Iraqi expert would be certainly better
than a foreigner in understanding what has happened to this city and
its history as a problem of building peace in Kurdistan.

Second: The Law of State Administration formed the Constitutional
High Court devoted to settle the problems and conflicts between the
government of any region and the federal central government. Hence,
any dispute on Kirkuk can be forwarded to that Court for settlement.
Any decision passed by this Court about the issue should be lawful
and just and should consolidate the principles of the state of law.

Second: General Principles and Basic Rights of the Permanent
Constitution of the New Iraq

There is no doubt that the Law of State Administration for the
transitional period – if it did not provide the Kurdish people with all
their rights – can be considered a remarkable step towards resolving
the Kurdish Case justly and peacefully after years of internal
fighting and after offering huge sacrifices to assert the national
rights of Kurds. It has considered the rights of the Kurdish people
sincerely at the moment and it is hoped that the Faili Kurds issue
may be also considered as well as the victims of Arabization, ethnic
cleansing, deportation, the lost and all other victims of the former
regime.

The Law, furthermore, is a promising step towards respecting the
rights of the other nationalities such as, the Turkumans and the
Kildo – Assyrians; it is also a noticeable step towards securing the
rights of other religion followers and towards the practice of
religious rituals and the political and cultural rights. It is the
first time that such a Law confirms that the form of the Iraqi State
will be changed from a simple autocratic State to a pluralistic,
democratic, and parliamentary State based on federalism.

Before referring to the basics of the Iraqi Permanent Constitution of
the New Iraq after the liberation, it is necessary to state that the
American Bar Association (ABA) will form an Iraqi Constitution Work
Group (ICWG) at the beginning of 2005. This group will be formed from
Iraqis in and out of Iraq including the Iraqi Lawyers Union,
academicians, and people from human rights organizations,
non-governmental organizations, women organizations as well as some
Iraqi judges. These will draft the permanent constitution of the
country supervised by the ABA to build a federal, pluralistic and
democratic Iraq in which the human rights and principles of law are
respected. It is noteworthy that I presented a proposal for the
project of the permanent constitution of a federal, pluralistic, and
democratic Iraq while I was working with a group of Iraqi experts to
build democracy in Iraq that worked under he supervision of the
American State Department in the years 2001 – 2002 called DWG.

That proposal was approved by the Iraqi experts as well as by the
participants in the Iraqi Opposition Conference held on December 14,
2002 with two other proposals: the Bill of Iraqi Rights, and the
project of Federalism for the New Iraq after the Saddam era. As the
drafting of the Permanent Constitution and the of the New Iraq is
approaching, it is essential to demonstrate some of the most
important principles and basic rights of the Permanent Constitution
of the New Iraq. The following are thus taken from my proposal that
was presented to the American State Department and the Iraqi National
Forces several months before the Operation Iraqi Freedom.

First Principle: People are the source of the authorities and their
legitimacy.

Second Principle:

1- Iraq is a federal, pluralistic, and democratic state based on a
freely chosen federation between two essential partners, which are
the Arabic People and the Kurdish People.

2- The State of Iraq is based on ideological, political, religious,
and national pluralism dominated by the law.

3- The Arabs of Iraq are part of the Arab Nation.

4- The Kurds of Iraq are part of the Kurdish Nation.

5- The rights of other nationalities such as the Turkumans,
Kildo – Assyrians, and Armenians should be protected by virtue of the
Law.

Third Principle:

The system in Iraq is Republican. Powers are divided between the
federal government and the regional governments, governorates, and
local administrations according to the principles of federalism.

Fourth Principle:

1-Integrity and the land of Iraq are one. They are not to be
abandoned. The right of the Kurdish people to self-determination is
legitimate as well as its right to found an independent state if the
constitutional institutions approve of that after having a general
referendum in Kurdistan supervised by the United Nations.

2-The referendum to such determination is only limited to Kurdistan;
and the participation of the rest of Iraq would be illegitimate.

Fifth Principle:

1- Iraq is a neutral state and it does not go into any war.

2- The Iraqi armed forces are controlled by civil institutions.

3- The armed forces are absolutely banned from indulging into
politics or political work.

Sixth Principle:

1- Those who were hurt by the former regime should be compensated
morally and materially. A proportion of 5% of the oil revenues should
be for compensation and the reconstruction of the harmed areas in
Kurdistan and the south of Iraq.

2- Those who were killed, lost, people of the mass graves, the
victims of Halabja and Anfal, and the Faili Kurds, and the victims of
the middle and the south of Iraq are all to be recorded as the
martyrs of Iraq’s National Movement.

3- The traces and remnants of Arabization, ethnic cleansing, and
displacement should be transparently cleared by virtue of the law.

Seventh Principle:

1- The Iraqis who were deported and who left the country, and were
deprived of citizenship, should be naturalized again; including the
Faili Kurds. The confiscated money and property should be restored
and those who were fired from their positions due top the repressive
policy adopted by the former regime should go back to their work.

2- The period passed should be counted as years of service for
pension reasons.

Eighth Principle:

The flag, slogan, and national anthem of Iraq should be set on the
basis of a law that takes into account the existence of two main
nationalities (the Arabs and the Kurds). They should symbolize
fraternity, multi-nationalities of Iraq and tolerance among them and
among different religion followers, and they should indicate
neutrality.

Ninth Principle:

1- Arabic and Kurdish are the official languages in Iraq.

2- The other nationalities like Turkumans, Kildo – Assyrians, and
Armenians have the right to education in their own languages.

Tenth Principle:

The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights that appeared on
December 10, 1948 and the supplement conventions should not be
segregated from the principles of the Permanent Constitution. The
international conventions and agreements that the Iraqi government
signs should be part of the legal system and should be respected and
committed to.

Eleventh Principle:

1- The Iraqis have equal rights and duties regardless to sex,
attitude, colour, ethnicity, belief, nationality, and religion; and
are equal before the law.

2- The Iraqis should not be denaturalized, banished, or prohibited
from entrance to Iraq.

3- As an exception to the above item, the person who is known to have
given false substantial information to obtain citizenship should be
deprived of it.

Twelfth Principle:

1- Iraqi citizenship and its regulations should be organized by the
law.

2- Iraqis should not remain without citizenship and passports.

3- Iraqis are allowed to have more than one citizenship.

Thirteenth Principle:

All kinds of freedom, public and private, should be preserved and the
individual’s privacy should not be transgressed.

Fourteenth Principle:

The right to freedom of thought and expression should be protected.

Fifteenth Principle:

1- Every citizen has the right to the freedom of holding peaceful
meetings, establishing unions, and peaceful strike and
demonstrations.

2- Every citizen has the right to the freedom of possession, movement
and travel to any place as well as to return according to the law.

Sixteenth Principle:

Every Iraqi has the right to security, education, and health and
social insurance.

Seventeenth Principle:

Any three governorates (provinces) or more have the right to form a
region in accordance with the law. The border of any region should
not be drawn on the basis of sect, ethnicity, or nationality. Iraq
consists of the following regions; considering the fact that each
region has the right through a referendum to shape its relation with
the central federal government.

Kurdistan Region: Its geographical and administrative borders are
drawn on legal and historical basis. Kurdistan region should also
include Kirkuk according to the general census of 1957. The
conditions should be normalized and the impacts and remnants of
Arabization, ethnic cleansing, displacement, and the crimes of the
former regime should be eliminated. These should be done by restoring
the conditions geographically, administratively, and legally to the
period before the March Agreement of 1970.

The Center Region: It includes some of the other governorates with
out Baghdad which is the Capital of Federal state.

The South Region: This is the south federalism the borders of which
should be drawn on geographical, not a sectarian basis. It
administratively includes three governorates or more.

Eighteenth Principle:

1- Military service is a voluntary one; and should not be compulsory.

2- No group or party is allowed to form militias or semi military
bodies. People are not allowed to trade in, carry, and circulate
weapons or else permitted by the law.

Nineteenth Principle:

1- Death sentence or execution should not remain any more in the
Iraqi legal system after the trial of the former regime agents.

2- Death penalty should be cancelled in the Iraqi law.

3- Punishment should be there for reform, not for revenge.

Twentieth Principle:

1- A High Constitutional Court should be formed to monitor the
constitution of laws, specify them, and to preserve the separation of
legislative, judiciary, and the executive powers. This is considered
as one of the constitutional principles of the state of law and the
respect and promotion of the independence of law.

2- People who will hold judicial positions should not be
discriminated on the basis of religion, sex, belief, nationality, or
sect.

3- The judge is absolutely prohibited from practicing political or
partisan work.

4- All people have the right to carry on a lawsuit.

5- No special or exceptional courts should be formed.

6- Trial sessions should be open unless otherwise decided by the
court.

7- The law decides how tribunals are formed as well as the conditions
of appointing the judges.

Twenty First Principle:

1- A Supreme Body to combat financial and administrative corruption
should be formed. Severe legal measures should be taken against
people who are involved in such corruption regardless to their
positions and responsibilities. This is in addition to attempts that
should be made to handle the aspects of corruption by virtue of the
law.

2- No official or high official should have constitutional or legal
immunities.

Twenty Second Principle:

1- Right of asylum is guaranteed to any person who is considered a
refugee according to the international conventions.

2- People who have political asylum should not be extradited.

3- International criminals should not be given the right to political
asylum or forgiveness. They do not enjoy any insusceptibility and
their crimes should not be dropped through prescription.

Twenty Third Principle:

1- People have to pay financial taxes that should be imposed by the
law. One unified currency should be minted by virtue of the law.

2- The writing on the currency should be in Arabic, Kurdish, and
English.

Twenty Fourth Principle:

1- The constitutional institutions for the federal state consist of a
national parliament and the council of nationalities of the regions
in accordance with law and democratic principles.

2- Women participation should not be less than 50% in those
institutions.

Twenty Fifth Principle:

The Law determines the functions of the prosecution and its
institutions and bodies in the Iraqi Federal State.

Twenty Sixth Principle:

1- The laws and regulations should be published in the official
newspapers in Arabic and Kurdish and they should be effective on the
day of their release unless otherwise stated by the law.

2- The law or judgment should not be retroactive if it is not in
favour of the accused.

3- The Permanent Constitution should not be modified unless one third
of the members of the National Assembly agree.

Twenty Seventh Principle:

1- The accused is innocent until the court proves him guilty.

2- The right to defense is a sanctified in all the stages of the
trial on the basis of law. Violence or torture to win confession is
prohibited.

3- One’s dignity should be protected. The practice of any form of
physical or psychological torture is prohibited. One who is hurt
should be compensated for. No person should be put to custody or
imprisoned except by virtue of the law.

4- Houses have sanctity. They should not be penetrated or inspected
except according to the law.

5- Punishment is personal; and there is no crime and no penalty
without a provision. Punishment is for the deed, which is considered
a crime by the law after being committed. No more severe penalty than
what is decided should be carried out.

Twenty Eighth Principle:

The confidentiality of posting, telegraphing, telephoning, and
electronic messages should be warranted.

Twenty Ninth Principle:

The freedom of embracing religion, beliefs, and the practice of
religious activities and rituals should be legally insured; provided
that they should not be at odds with rules of decorum or conduct.

Thirtieth Principle:

1- Inheritance is an insured right that is organized by the law.

2- All Iraqis and non-Iraqis have the right to real estate and
ownership. Ownership can not be expropriated from a person except due
to a judgment passed by a relevant court after a fair compensation
made for the person.

Conflicting statements were heard from the members of the Governing
Council and the Civil Governor of Iraq, Ambassador Paul Bremer,
regarding nonintervention of external parts in the preparation of the
Basic Law or the Interim Constitution. On the one hand, Mr. Bremer
made it clear that neither he nor the British representative did
interfere in any Iraq-related issue regarding the Interim
Constitution. On the other hand Dr. Mohammed Bahr al-Aulum stated
that the CIA imposed some provisions, which were in English and were
added by a person to the Interim Constitution. Elsewhere, the
president of the Governing Council Mohammed Bahr al-Aulum confessed
that the CIA had a role in the writing of the constitution, but their
role did not exceed consultation. However, other members of the
Governing Council stated that most of the articles of Interim
Constitution came from the outside of Iraq and were written in
English.

Review the aforementioned statement on the
[REMOVED DEAD LINK]

Review the provision of the two articles below, from the Law of State
Administration for the Transitional Period, regarding the preparation
for the permanent constitution.

Sixtieth Article:

The National Assembly is to present a draft of the Permanent
Constitution of Iraq. The Assembly is likely to do that by
encouraging discussions about the constitution in open, public, and
periodic meetings all over Iraq and through the mass media. It should
also take proposals and suggestions from the people of Iraq.

Sixty-first Article:

a – The National Assembly should prepare the draft of the Permanent
Constitution before August 15, 2005.

b – The draft will be shown to the Iraqi people to approve it through a
general referendum. In the period before the referendum the draft
should be published so that the people might have the chance to
discuss it in advance.

c – The referendum is successful and the Constitution is approved if
the majority of the voters of Iraq agree on it, and if it is not
rejected by one third of the voters in three or more provinces.

d – When the Permanent Constitution is approved through the referendum,
general elections should be made before December 15, 2005. The new
government will take charge of authority before December 31, 2005.

e – If the Constitution is not approved through the referendum, the
Assembly will be dissolved and a new assembly should be elected
before December 15, 2005. The new National Assembly and the new
Government should take charge of authority before December 31,2005.
Yet the final dates to issue a new draft of the Permanent
Constitution might undergo changes provided that they should not
exceed a year. The National Assembly will be entrusted to issue a new
draft for another Permanent Constitution.

f – When necessary, the president of the National Assembly is allowed
after the approval of the majority of the members to demand for extra
time for the completion of the draft before August 1, 2005. The
presidential council then may extend the period to six months that
can not be extended again.

g – If the National Assembly did not finish the draft before August 15,
2005, and did not demand for extension of the period as mentioned in
item (d) above, then the provision of item (c) can be applied.

Courtesy
International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) –
Ljubljana

The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies
(IFIMES) in Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly analyses events in the
Middle East and the Balkans. Dr Munther Al Fadhal, Member of Council
of International Institute IFIMES, presents the basic principles of
the new Iraqi constitution. We have published his complete proposal
of the Basic Principles of the Permanent Constitution of the New
Iraq.

Dr. Munther Al-Fadhal
Member of Council of International Institute
for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES),
Ljubljana, Slovenia, EU.

;src=0

http://www.krg.org/
http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=49970&amp

Yousefian leading in money race in Glendale election

Yousefian leading in money race in Glendale election

Los Angeles Daily News
Saturday, February 26, 2005

By Naush Boghossian, Staff Writer

GLENDALE – Mayor Bob Yousefian has raised nearly twice the amount of
campaign money as his closest competition in the City Council race,
with more than $101,000 in his coffers, new campaign reports show.

Incumbents Yousefian and Councilmen Dave Weaver and Frank Quintero
have been raising money for their re-election campaigns since last
year. Quintero has raised about $42,000 and Weaver $33,500.

Yousefian said he plans to raise more money – his goal is $150,000 –
because he will be spending more on campaigning. So far he’s spent
about $49,000.

“Everything has gotten more expensive. What I have left is not enough
to do the campaign we’re running,” he said.

The April 5 election has drawn the most number of candidates in the
city’s history for both positions, with 19 vying for four council
seats and nine for the city clerk position.

A typical Glendale election draws 20 percent to 30 percent of
registered voters. Glendale now has about 90,000 registered voters.

Campaign finance reports filed Thursday showed that of the
nonincumbents, the top fund-raisers so far are Glendale Community
College board member Ara Najarian with about $53,500; Vrej Agajanian
with about $53,000; attorney Anahid Oshagan with nearly $42,000; and
prosecutor Glynda Gomez with $30,601.

John Drayman, Garry Sinanian and John Stevenson did not reveal the
information on their campaign financial statements, but the remaining
nine candidates have so far raised less than $16,000.

The city clerk race is in full swing with Paulette Mardikian leading
the money count with about $65,500 – $50,000 of which is a loan from
her husband – and about $13,500 in expenditures.

Ardashes Kassakhian follows her with nearly $45,000, all from
fund-raising events, and has spent nearly $20,000.

Stephen Ropfogel trails with about $10,500; Lorna Vartanian with about
$8,700; George McCullough with $8,000; Stephanie Landregan with about
$7,800; Kathryn Van Houten with $6,206; and Narineh Barzegar with
$3,210.

City Clerk candidate Gary Sysock did not raise any money and plans to
spend less than $1,000 of his own money.

City Manager Jim Starbird said the number of people running for the
city clerk position surprises him, especially when the city hasn’t had
an open city clerk race for 75 years.

The position pays a yearly salary between $103,764 and $107,400,
depending on experience.

“Given the nature of the position, why is so much money being spent
for people to run? And it surprises me that they are able to raise
amounts like $40,000,” he said. “It’s unique for a city clerk race to
have campaigns in the $40,000 range. I think it’s the nature of
campaigning today.”

Naush Boghossian,
(818) 546-3306
[email protected]

,1413,200~20954~2733602,00.html

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0

State regulators voice concerns: MGM-Mandalay deal OK’d

Las Vegas Review-Journal, NV
Feb 25, 2005

STATE REGULATORS VOICE CONCERNS: MGM-Mandalay deal OK’d

Kerkorian says competition in casino market will stay strong

By HOWARD STUTZ
GAMING WIRE

MGM Mirage Chairman Terri Lanni, left, and majority stockholder Kirk
Kerkorian talk during the Nevada Gaming Commission hearing Thursday.
Kerkorian assured state regulators that the buyout of the Mandalay
Resort Group will not stifle competition.
Photo by John Gurzinski.

While it was clear from the outset of Thursday’s Nevada Gaming
Commission hearing that MGM Mirage’s $7.9 billion buyout of the
Mandalay Resort Group was going to be approved, state regulators
wanted to spell out their concerns about the anti-competitive aspects
of the transaction more stringently than the Federal Trade
Commission.

After a more than four-hour hearing that resulted in a 5-0 vote in
favor of the merger, commission Chairman Peter Bernhard was satisfied
regulators made their point.

“I viewed the FTC analysis as the beginning of our analysis,”
Bernhard said of the government agency’s decision earlier this month
not to challenge the merger. “We had to go further and look at the
best interests of Nevada. Even if it met federal antitrust standards,
we still had to make the independent judgment that it was in the best
interest of the state based on the criteria of our regulations.”

Once the buyout is completed, MGM Mirage will encompass 28 casinos in
five states with 75,000 employees, 95 percent of whom are based in
Nevada.

On the Strip, the company will own 12 casinos, including eight of the
nine major resorts on the west side of the Las Vegas Boulevard
between Spring Mountain Road and Russell Road.

The pointed questioning by gaming commissioners of MGM Mirage
executives and attorneys as to whether or not the merger would stifle
competition on the Strip brought the company’s controlling
shareholder, Kirk Kerkorian, to the podium.

The 88-year-old Kerkorian, who began MGM Mirage when he built the
5,000-room MGM Grand in 1993, said the same questions were asked in
2000 when he negotiated the buyout of Mirage Resorts to form the
current company.

Normally a spectator during such hearings, Kerkorian told the gaming
commission that one company couldn’t hold back development in Las
Vegas.

“In the last 4 1/2 years, Nevada has grown rapidly and there has been
more interest worldwide,” Kerkorian said. “I have to believe the same
thing will happen again.”

In a brief interview with the Review-Journal following his remarks,
Kerkorian said Steve Wynn’s planned April 28 opening of the $2.5
billion Wynn Las Vegas, is proof casino development will continue.

“The point I was trying to make was that the same questions were
asked when we purchased Mirage,” Kerkorian said. “Certainly,
everything kept exploding and I don’t think any one merger is going
to hold back Las Vegas. They are going to still keep coming and still
keep building.”

MGM Mirage President and Chief Financial Officer Jim Murren cited the
company’s sale of the Golden Nugget to Poster Financial Group a year
ago, the recent resale of the downtown casino to Landry’s
Restaurants, and last year’s purchase of the Las Vegas Hilton by
Colony Capital as proof new competition will continue to enter the
marketplace.

Commissioner John Moran Jr., said the FTC’s approval didn’t mean all
the questions had been answered. He said the gaming commission was
more concerned about the impact the merger would have on other Nevada
casinos.

“We had to go further and not just be a rubber stamp of the FTC,”
Moran said.

Gaming commission members said the financial data provided by MGM
Mirage showed the company’s commitment to the state.

After its merger with Mirage Resorts, the company said it spent
$1.739 billion in capital expenditures for its Nevada properties
between 2000 and 2004. Company executives said those expenditures
would continue, including the $4.7 billion expected to be spent on
the 66-acre Project CityCenter on the Strip.

“I felt this particular application showed this company’s commitment
to the state of Nevada and showed their responsibility in the past
with their track record following their last merger,” Bernhard said.

During the hearing, it was disclosed the purchase of Mandalay Resort
Group would give MGM Mirage additional acres of undeveloped land with
Strip access, including 22 acres south of Mandalay Bay, 15 acres on
the east side of Strip across from Luxor, 27 acres north of Circus
Circus, and 33 acres behind New York-New York and Monte Carlo.

MGM Grand Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Terry Lanni said after
the hearing he hopes the purchase will be able to close in about two
weeks once two remaining issues are cleared.

MGM Mirage needs to complete the sale of one of its two Detroit-area
casinos in order to satisfy Michigan gaming law, and it must place
Mandalay’s Illinois casino into an escrow trust because that state
doesn’t have a full complement of gaming regulators to rule on the
matter.

Once the merger is completed, Lanni said the company will release a
list of management changes for various casinos. He said during the
hearing that Renee West, president of the company’s three properties
in Primm, would move to a yet-to-be named Strip casino and become the
first woman to be president of a Strip property.

Lanni also attempted to ease the concerns of Mandalay Resort Group
employees about the future.

While key corporate executives are expected to leave, property
employees won’t be affected.

He said Mandalay employees will retain seniority and not be required
to reapply for their positions. Also, health insurance and other
benefits will remain status quo until MGM Mirage managers can assess
both companies’ benefit packages.

“Eventually we will look at what we offer and they offer and
implement best practices,” Lanni said. “We just ask the employees to
judge us by what we did before. In some cases, they may have better
practices.”

Lanni also reiterated MGM Mirage has no plans to sell off pieces of
the Mandalay Resort Group.

“We spent a great deal to ensure that the Federal Trade Commission
did not require us to sell anything and it’s not our intent to sell
any property at this time,” Lanni said. “But as a publicly traded
company, we have a responsibility that if someone were to make an
offer to us, we have to give consideration to that proposal. It would
be the prudent thing to do and our shareholders would expect that.”

Prepared Remarks Of Honorable Norman Y. Mineta,, US Sec. Transport.

PREPARED REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE NORMAN Y. MINETA, U.S. SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION

MARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Public Affairs
FEBRUARY 25, 2005

Good morning, everyone. It’s wonderful to be with all of you again.

I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to believe that almost an
entire year has come and gone since we were last together in
Hollywood, Florida.

>From that gathering last year through today, our economy has gotten
stronger, and more Americans have been able to find good, quality
jobs.

Or, at least in my case, more Americans are holding on to their
quality jobs!

I have President Bush to thank for giving me the opportunity to serve
this great Nation again as the Secretary of Transportation.

And, I have you to thank for the invitation to be in Las Vegas today
with the Maritime Trades Department and your 29 affiliated unions.

All of us in this room, from the people who work in the ports to the
mariners aboard the ships, are drawn together by a common interest in
one thing – the health of our economy.

We are a maritime Nation. And the maritime industry is essential to
our economic strength, to our productivity, and to the creation of
American jobs.

Just a few weeks ago we learned that, nationwide, 46,000 jobs were
created in January — the 20th straight month of steady employment
gains.

What does that tell us? It means that President Bush’s policies are
doing exactly what they are intended to do. They’re creating
employment opportunities for the rank and file, and they’re energizing
the economy.

There is another linchpin issue uniting all of us, and that is
maritime security. The President has said, and I quote, `We are safer,
but we’re not yet safe.’

And he is right.

The Maritime Security Program (MSP) supports the war on terror by
giving us the wherewithal to carry equipment and supplies to those
charged with defending our freedom and expanding liberty.

This program is one more important measure of the maritime industry’s
vital importance to our economic and national security, and our
commitment to addressing its needs.

So, I am pleased to announce that the President’s fiscal year 2006
budget calls for a fully funded fleet expansion to 60 ships, up from
47.

This marks the first increase in the fleet since the program was
created more than ten years ago.

Without MSP reauthorization, there would have been a high likelihood
that many of the existing 47 ships would have been re-flagged to
foreign registries employing foreign crews.

And they would not be putting money into our economy or paying taxes.

Now, with the funding that the President has proposed, when the new
MSP begins on October 1 of this year, it will bring greater
opportunities and more jobs for U.S. citizens.

As you know, the MSP fleet employs a labor base of skilled and loyal
American seafarers. They must also be well-trained.

When the Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act in
2002, it gave the Secretary of Transportation the responsibility of
developing new, focused security training courses for maritime
professionals.

We have done that.

And we have set up a voluntary process to assess the quality of the
courses being offered by private parties.

The Seaferers’ Harry Lundeberg School of Seamanship was the first
training provider to apply to MARAD for course certification. We also
received submissions from several non-union training providers.

This is a great opportunity to announce that SIU has the distinction
of being the first to receive certification for your Vessel Security
Officer training course.

Congratulations to Mike Sacco and the SIU.

Nearly one year ago, at the MTD’s last conference, you’ll recall that
I unveiled the Administration’s blueprint for a comprehensive Marine
Transportation System.

I called that initiative SEA-21.

This is one of my top priorities for this second term, and several
crucial components have already gone into effect.

One of the issues that SEA-21 recognized was that America’s merchant
marine was at a disadvantage compared to foreign-flagged vessels whose
owners and crews pay minimal taxes.

This issue was brought directly to the President’s attention. And I am
extremely pleased that, after years of competing on a slanted playing
field, tax relief for the U.S. shipping industry is a done deal, and
the field has been leveled.

As if taxes were not enough of a challenge, there are 17 Federal
agencies in six, separate cabinet-level Departments participating in
maritime decision-making.

The job of coordinating their work and their policies has never been
easy, but we hope we’ve found a way to make their job easier.

The answer is a one-stop shop for the maritime sector.

President Bush is committed to improving the coordination of maritime
policy, and an integral part of that is building a higher profile for
the Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System.

On December 17 of last year, in his U.S. Ocean Action Plan, the
President elevated the ICMTS to a Cabinet-level body, ensuring that
the maritime sector will now be accorded the attention it deserves.

I want to thank Captain William Schubert for his tremendous efforts in
this regard while he was the Maritime Administrator.

Thanks to his leadership and ability to work as an honest broker with
all segments of the maritime community, there is now greater
across-the-board industry cooperation to help us in addressing the
challenges of the future.

And John Jamian, our acting Administrator, is working with the Coast
Guard to develop the framework that will make the ICMTS a useful tool
for the maritime industry.

We’ve already done something similar with aviation policy, and it has
really improved the way that we coordinate the Nation’s air
transportation planning.

In short, we are bringing that same can-do mindset to the maritime
sector, in cooperation with all of our partners, especially the Coast
Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA.

Let’s turn now to another significant constraint facing the maritime
community.

And that is, congestion and inadequate infrastructure at the
connections between our ports and the Nation’s surface transportation
system.

I know that John Jamian spoke to you yesterday about port congestion,
so for the moment I’ll focus on infrastructure and what we’re doing
about it.

Too often, the connections between trucks and trains and merchant
ships are neglected, which slows the efficiency of the entire system.

One solution can be found in our reauthorization proposal for surface
transportation programs, which we call SAFETEA, or the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act.

SAFETEA encourages, in new and innovative ways, meaningful investments
to help improve the critical `last-mile’ road connections from the
National Highway System to intermodal freight facilities.

These initiatives are designed to enhance accessibility and to improve
the productivity of the entire maritime system.

With freight volumes soaring and bottlenecks on the rise, the time for
this legislation is now.

I will continue to work with the Congress to get SAFETEA passed. And I
believe that it will pass, early this year.

And then in 2006, when I stand once again before the Maritime Trades
Department, we can celebrate another major success for the
U.S. maritime industry.

Thank you for inviting me to share our plans. May God bless all of
you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp022505.htm

BAKU: Weekly profiles new governor of eastern Ukrainian region

Weekly profiles new governor of eastern Ukrainian region

Zerkalo Nedeli, Kiev
19 Feb 05

The new governor of Kharkiv Region, Arsen Avakov, is one of the
richest men in the region, a serious weekly has said. His ruthless
business and political methods made certain that he rose to top, the
article says. In good time he saw which way the wind was blowing and
jumped on the bandwagon of new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko,
establishing firm links with his brother and nephew. However, he still
has to deal with a resolute opponent in the popular former governor
Yevhen Kushnaryov, a former ally, before he can really establish
himself. The following is the text of the article by Bohdan Sovchenko
entitled “Banker who broke the bank” published in the Ukrainian weekly
newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli on 19 February; subheadings are as published:

The appointment of 41-year-old Arsen Avakov to the post of head of the
Kharkiv Regional State Administration surprised many people not only
in the capital, but also in Slobozhanschyna [old Russian name for
Kharkiv Region and parts of Donetsk and Sumy regions]. First, far more
famous and experienced politicians were named as his rivals in the
struggle for the governorship – Anatoliy Matviyenko, Volodymyr Filenko
and Volodymyr Shumilkin. Second, Mr Avakov had, up till now, preferred
to be not so much part of the authorities, as to be with the
authorities. Thanks to his recognized talent as a lobbyist, his
business has flourished regardless of who exactly was on the summit of
the local Olympus.

Biographical elements

In the personal file of the qualified engineer who graduated from
Kharkiv Polytechnic there are several bright pages and just as many
blank spots. The instincts of an enterprising businessman were noticed
early in Avakov. With an enviable tirelessness he created and
implemented numerous and varied business schemes, thanks to which his
capital grew in front of one’s eyes. As early as the beginning of the
90s, this native of the Azeri capital was considered one of the
wealthiest and most influential citizens of the megalopolis.

Twelve years ago the successful entrepreneur found himself in the
field of view of law-enforcement agencies. The guardians of the law
started to take an interest in the head of the Investor firm in
connection with the investigation into the so-called (?Valshonok) case
(the director of the Potok firm, accused of large-scale embezzlement
of property).

Also in 1993, on Kharkiv’s First Cavalry Street, Avakov’s closest
business partner, the deputy president of Investor, Oleksandr
Konovalov, was killed by two point-blank shots. Fedir Razzakov (author
of the book “Gangsters of the times of capitalism”) claims that the
43-year-old, previously convicted Konovalov was suspected of giving
bribes to high-ranking staff of the prosecutor’s office. It was
thought that the illegal financial “assistance” was intended to
accelerate closure of the (?Valshonok) case. Ukrainian detectives were
unable to prove that, just as they were unable to clear up the hired
killing of Konovalov.

By the end of the 90s, the head of the Investor firm and the Bazis
bank had firmly secured a reputation as one of the bosses of “the
first capital” [Kharkiv was the capital of Ukraine for a time in the
previous century]. For some reason the name of the sweetest and most
charming person was regularly connected with scandals that, on the
other hand, died down just as quickly as they had flared
up. Ill-wishers allege that it is not without the intervention of the
local authorities.

In 1998 special lottery tickets, “We will build the metro together”
were issued through the Bazis bank. According to some reports, the
promotion brought its organizers about 10m hryvnyas. It was assumed
that a considerable part of that sum would be directed to covering
expenses connected with the construction of new branches of the local
metro system. It is not really known precisely how much money reached
the metro builders. But it is known that since then the financial
position of Bazis became substantially more solid. Even though in 1997
the bank went through not the best of times and, rumour has it, was
threatened with losing its licence and bankruptcy.

Incidentally, according to reports from the Informbyuro information
and analysis publication, “one of the co-owners of Bazis was a deputy
of Kharkiv city council, (?Askharbek Yeloyev), the founder of the
famous Kharkiv “Quick money” trust and another 47 firms that deceived
gullible people in Kharkiv to the tune of 2m dollars… [ellipsis as
published]”

After Yevhen Kushnaryov became governor of Kharkiv Region, Bazis
became a participant in a considerable number of projects conducted
under the aegis of the local authorities. With the protection of the
regional administration, Avakov’s bank became the permanent financial
partner of the flagship of Kharkiv machine-building, Turboatom, one of
the few local enterprises operating in a stable manner for the export
market.

In January 2000 the city residential communal management transferred
the lease to Avakov’s commercial structures of the major Kharkiv
heating and electricity station No 3 [HES-3]. Under the agreement, the
lessees were to invest 10m hryvnyas required to replace the
turbine. Turboatom manufactured and delivered the new
turbine. However, Avakov’s HES-3 did not pay in cash… [ellipsis as
published] but in Kharkivteploenerho promissory notes. With their aid,
the debts of Turboatom for the heating used were allegedly covered.

At approximately the same time, Avakov (his opponents claim) chose a
gas well allegedly belonging to nobody in the village of
Ohultsy. After the reorganization of Ukrhazdobycha [Ukrainian gas
extraction] it, for some reason, found itself without a formal
owner. On the order of Mr Avakov’s commercial structures,
Kharkivhazbud-1 [Kharkiv gas construction] built a gas pipeline into
Ohultsy and built a gas condensation installation there. Following
that, the construction and assembly directorate waited a fairly long
time to be paid for the work it carried out.

Critics of the current governor have claimed that gas from the seized
well was profitably used by HES-3. With mediation from the
authorities, Avakov (as alleged by the Kharkiv press) obtained a lease
on another well that previously belonged to
Shebelikahazdobycha. Before that, according to media reports, the
association supplied HES-3 with gas at prices lowered by about one
third.

The compliancy of the most varied Kharkiv leaders, officials and
businessmen and their readiness to meet half way the large-scale plans
of Avakov in the city were explained by the close ties of the Investor
chief with local governor Yevhen Kushnaryov and especially with his
first deputy, Volodymyr Shumilkin.

After the latter decided in 2002 to stand for mayor, he was supported
by Kharkiv’s Channel 7, which is controlled by Avakov. A journalist
from the channel particularly annoyed their colleague. He was the
well-known TV presenter Serhiy (?Potymkov), former parliamentary
deputy and Shumilkin’s main opponent at the mayoral
elections. Mykhaylo Brodskyy, a comrade-in-arms of (?Potymkov) in the
Yabluko party [party led by Brodskyy], asserted at one time that the
present Kharkiv Region governor even offered several hundred thousand
dollars of “compensation” for the voluntary withdrawal of Mr
(?Potymkov) from the election race. It is noteworthy that immediately
after the victory of Shumilkin at the elections, Avakov and the
general producer of Channel 7, Volodymyr Chapay, became members of the
new city executive committee.

During the 2002 parliamentary campaign the election clips of For a
United Ukraine [pro-presidential bloc] on Channel 7 rubbed shoulders
fairly comfortably with the publicity for [President] Viktor
Yushchenko’s bloc [Our Ukraine]. Local cognoscenti found a logical
explanation for such pluralism: the cautious Volodymyr Shumilkin and
forward-looking Arsen Avakov were seeking points of rapprochement with
Our Ukraine. At the same time, the former strengthened political
contacts with Yushchenko’s brother, Petro Yushchenko, while the latter
strengthened business links with Mr Yushchenko’s nephew, Yaroslav.

The conflict between the governor of Kharkiv Region and the mayor of
the region’s centre seriously spoilt relations between Avakov and
Kushnaryov. The boss of Investor had bet on Shumilkin and he had not
guessed wrongly. With the latter’s arrival to take up the mayor’s
seat, Avakov’s affairs became even rosier. That can be judged if only
by the successes of Bazis. In 2000 Avakov’s bank had only one isolated
regional branch. In 2003 there were 18 of them. In the same year Bazis
increased its authorized capital by almost one third, and its size was
brought up to 19.5m hryvnyas, and in 2004 it had reached 22.191m.

However, nearer the elections difficult times came for Avakov. By
supporting Shumilkin (who had gone into a prolonged clinch with
Kushnaryov), Mr Avakov had definitively burned his bridges with the
governor. There were rumours that it was the governor’s active
opposition to Avakov’s attempts to take control of another heating and
electricity station – HES-5 – that put an end to their relationship.

It is no secret in Kharkiv that it was hardly political convictions
that drew the head of Investor and Bazis into the opposition
camp. Avakov was always noted for his cunning and foresight: he was
hoping that support for Yushchenko would be able to bring him tangible
dividends. And, as it happened, his hopes were not in vain. Apart from
that, Mr Avakov needed allies in the war with the governor that had
started.

As the AZN agency reported at one point, in December 2003 an
inspection was made of Bazis, during which staff of the National Bank
discovered serious breaches. The bank, which was allegedly suspected
of money laundering, escaped fines and got away with a written
warning. However, in February 2004 (according to AZN information)
Bazis was included by the National Bank on a list of violators of the
standards of financial monitoring of dubious financial operations.
Storm clouds gathered over the bank. According to some reports, Bazis
was saved from further unpleasantness by intervention from deputies of
the Our Ukraine faction. It is quite possible that they sincerely
considered what was happening to Avakov’s company to be political
repression. After all, at that time Mr Avakov was already an activist
in the regional headquarters of Our Ukraine.

During the 2004 campaign Avakov’s Channel 7 was the main mouthpiece
for Yushchenko’s team in Kharkiv. Apart from that, it faithfully
relayed the capital’s [independent] TV 5 Kanal, despite permanent
pressure from the regional authorities.

Avakov’s star time came after the second round [that is, after 21
November 2004]. At the suggestion of one of the main players in the
Orange Revolution, [Our Ukraine MP] Volodymyr Filenko, he essentially
became Viktor Yushchenko’s plenipotentiary in one of the biggest
regional centres. Formally the banker and numismatist was the second
person in the regional Committee of National Salvation (the first was
the head of the local election headquarters, Anatoliy Matviyenko). In
fact, there was no doubt that in reality he was the first. It was
precisely thanks to his organizational efforts that Kharkiv had its
own “Orange Square” [Kiev’s Independence Square was the heart of the
pro-Yushchenko Orange Revolution]. Incidentally, this was more than
presentable for a city that massively supported [Yushchenko’s
opponent, Viktor] Yanukovych. It was he who got the doubting Volodymyr
Shumilkin to back Yushchenko whole-heartedly. As a political manager
the non-affiliated Avakov turned out to be far more effective than
many veterans of election battles. The bank boss went for bust. And he
broke the bank.

Allies and rivals

It is simpler to say who did not lobby for Avakov as governor. Mayor
Volodymyr Shumilkin, whom (according to our information) Viktor
Yushchenko offered the governor’s job, thought briefly and turned it
down. He insistently recommended instead the candidacy of his
long-time partner, Avakov.

Another claimant, Anatoliy Matviyenko, it is said, gave up the
struggle after a direct meeting with the chief of Investor. And not
only did he give up, but also became an active lobbyist for Mr
Avakov. Sources in the Kharkiv organization of Our Ukraine allege that
[Prime Minister] Yuliya Tymoshenko put her weight behind the
nomination of Avakov. Neither did [current head of Ukrainian State
Secretariat] Oleksandr Zinchenko stand on the side. They say that he
discovered old friends in HES-3. But the main guarantors of Mr Avakov
in the eyes of the new president were his brother and nephew. It seems
that Messrs Petro and Yaroslav Yushchenko are connected with the new
governor by the closest personal and business contacts. And yet the
last word, so far as can be judged, rested with Shumilkin. He gained
access to Mr Yushchenko precisely when the latter was still undecided
whom to choose – Avakov or Filenko.

Some people call Avakov Shumilkin’s man. Others are convinced that it
is all absolutely the other way round. Nevertheless, the link between
the two eminent Kharkiv people is evident to the naked eye. Some
people are convinced that the two are in harmony. Others are sure that
they will certainly fall out in the predicted battle for power. And to
back it up, they quote the conflict between Shumilkin and Kushnaryov,
who also at one time were considered to be a reliable tandem. So far
the former has not become an independent figure and has not started to
share rights and powers with his former boss. Be that as it may,
Shumilkin was undoubtedly pursuing his own interests in pushing his
partner upwards. And for now the governor has a reliable ally in the
person of the mayor. At least until the common and still dangerous
enemy – Yevhen Kushnaryov – is definitively vanquished.

Immediately after his triumphant arrival in office on Freedom Square,
Avakov announced his intention to make Yaroslav Yushchenko deputy
governor. It was planned that the president’s 26-year-old nephew would
be in charge of attracting investments at the regional
administration. However, the relevant official instruction has not yet
been signed: it is being said that the head of state himself spoke
himself against such an appointment.

Avakov’s friends and partners include virtually all the eminent people
in the city, including such well-known personalities in the world of
politics and business as MPs Oleksandr Yaroslavskyy, Ernest Haliyev
and Vasyl Salyhin.

At the same time, Mr Avakov is living proof of the rule that there are
no eternal friends in politics and business, only eternal
interests. The history of his relationship with Kushnaryov is
indicative and not unique. At one time the current head of Kharkiv
Regional State Administration was virtually the closest friend of
Yuriy Haysinskyy. But after the latter left the post of first deputy
prosecutor-general, they were seen together far less frequently. On
the other hand, Avakov has constantly been seen in the company of
Yaroslav Yushchenko in recent times.

Relations between the Investor chief and the above-mentioned
(?Potymkov) developed in a strange way. At the 2002 parliamentary
elections the opposition politician and journalist was a dangerous
opponent for the pro-authorities Avakov and Shumilkin. At the 2004
elections Avakov and (?Potymkov) were now in the same team and both
joined the local National Salvation Committee. Furthermore, the former
MP became a writer and programme presenter on Avakov’s Channel 7.

Still more fantastic was the history of Avakov’s links with Henadiy
Kernes, a highly colourful Kharkiv personage, businessman and member
of the city council (and, at the same time, related by marriage to
Yuriy Haysinskyy). Mr Kernes (better known in the city by the nickname
Hepa) was in conflict with Avakov on several occasions. At one point,
Avakov’s Investor firm was incautious enough to take loans from
Kernes’s NPK bank and failed to pay them back on time. Mr Kernes has
the reputation of being an irascible man and, to put it mildly, [his
irascibility is] not too well hidden. Journalists well recall what he
said then and how he then spoke about the current governor.

Today the gentlemen in question are reliable partners. It was
precisely these two who, in the larger scheme of things, provided
support for Viktor Yushchenko in the city council. Bedecked in orange,
Kernes and Avakov stood peaceably side by side at revolutionary
rallies and nothing can now recall the former rows and old
offences. However, knowing Kernes’s character and his business
appetite, it can be assumed that in future they will clash again on
more than one occasion.

Avakov’s unexpected siding with the opposition surprised many Kharkiv
people not initiated into the secrets of politics. But the fact of his
appointment was even more surprising. Mr Avakov can safely be called a
Mister Big for local businessmen. But he is hardly that for residents
of the city, far less of the region. The business history of Investor
and Bazis was not always smooth and, what is more, was surrounded by
legends over many years. Bitter and terrifying stories connected with
Avakov’s commercial structures were almost always being told and then,
with the arrival of the new governor, residents of “the first capital”
reacted more with fright than with hope. Even the large (about 25,000
people) and influential Armenian diaspora perceived the arrival of
Avakov in the building on Freedom Square equivocally.

It is a surprising fact that it can be said that after Avakov’s
appointment, the popularity of former governor Kushnaryov only
rose. And this is a circumstance that the new viceroy will have to
take into account.

Interests

Immediately after his appointment, the new governor announced that he
had resigned his powers as president of Bazis and chairman of the
supervisory board of Investor. He solemnly declared, “I have come to
power not to improve my business or to lobby interests, but to realize
my important ideals… [ellipsis as published]”

Mr Avakov entrusted his entrepreneurial affairs to Henadiy Hayev, his
right hand, long-term partner and reliable confidant. Frankly
speaking, Mr Hayev gently guided Avakov’s business while his boss
engaged in lobbying and political activity. There is much to show the
closeness of Avakov and Hayev. For example, they are co-authors of the
book “Promissory note circulation: theory and practice”, published in
2000 by the local publishing house Folio. They are both on the
organizing committee of the science fiction festival “Star Bridge”
(sponsored by Avakov himself, a long-time fan of this genre).

At present Avakov’s empire, according to some reports, includes over
70 enterprises. His interests are most varied. As well as the
above-mentioned Bazis bank and HES-3 and the two gas wells, there is a
bread factory and a (?tea weighing) factory, a company that builds
elite housing and the cult restaurant Podvorye (at one time a
traditional place for “fixing [criminal] meetings”). It is said that
Avakov not long ago managed to take under his “guardianship” the
Kharkiv central department store.

According to available information, he controls half of Channel 7 (the
other 50 per cent is in the hands of Henadiy Kernes) and half of the
A/TVK holding (the remaining shares belong to his partners Oleksiy
(?Lipchanskyy) and Oleksandr Kovalenko and also to local oligarchs
Oleksandr Yaroslavskyy and Vasyl Salyhin). Apart from that, he is said
to own the Simon-Info publication, the weekly Pyatnytsya and several
FM stations. The popular newspapers Sobytiye, Vecherniy Kharkov and
Vremya are also said to be close to Avakov.

Avakov, so far as can be judged, has long been collaborating with
Russian entrepreneurs and, it seems, is eager to expand that
collaboration. As they say, Mr Avakov is not averse to placing his
capital in Russia. Others allege that he already has business in
Russia and it is only a matter of expanding it. At the same time, the
new governor is waiting for the arrival of Russian capital to
Slobozhanshchyna. At any rate, he tasked officials with “establishing
Kharkiv Region as a centre of border cooperation with Russia”. Some
people believe that, with the help of the new governor, Russian
oligarchs may “pay visits to” local enterprises, among whom they even
name [fugitive Russian businessman] Boris Berezovskiy for some reason.

Avakov is certainly vain. Speaking immediately after his appointment
with regional activists, he recalled the words of Napoleon: “50,000
soldiers and I make 100,000 soldiers”.

Avakov’s plans are also Napoleonic. By the end of the year he promises
to create 50,000 new jobs, removing one of the most acute local
problems. True, it is not yet clear how precisely he intends to do
this. Another vital task (that many people call unrealistic for the
governor and his team) is to boost local machine-building.

But the main headache for the head of Kharkiv Regional State
Administration in the near future is destined to be the struggle to
establish his own authority in the eyes of the public that to date
feels a poorly concealed mistrust of him. And apart from that – a
scrap with the local opposition. Considering today’s mood in the city
and the extraordinary activity of Yevhen Kushnaryov, this will not be
simple. The former governor is in a state of war with his former
partners Avakov and Shumilkin. Local political, business and media
teams have been drawn into this war. And the outcome of the battle is
not yet clear.

World Bank allocates 20m dollars to improve water supplies in Armeni

World Bank allocates 20m dollars to improve water supplies in Armenia

Mediamax news agency
25 Feb 05

YEREVAN

The board of directors of the World Bank (WB) has approved the
allocation of a credit of 20m dollars to Armenia for the
implementation of the programme on water supplies and sewerage in
Yerevan.

The director of the WB office in Yerevan, Roger Robinson, said in
Yerevan today that this is the second programme that has been financed
by the World Bank in the sphere of water industry, Mediamax news
agency reports. The implementation of the first project started in
1998 and cost 30m dollars. The new credit is being allocated within
the framework of the strategy of aid to Armenia (Country Assistance
Strategy) in 2005-2008.

Robinson expressed his satisfaction with the implementation of the
programme on water supplies and sewerage in Yerevan. He said that
considerable progress was registered in this sphere in the recent four
or five years. Ninety per cent of the Yerevan population will have
round-the-clock water supplies and the quality of drinking water will
improve after the implementation of the programme in four or five
years.

[Passage omitted: A World Bank delegation will come to Armenia next
week to discuss improvements in the heating system]

At the moment, a delegation of the World Bank is visiting Yerevan to
study a programme on the development of agriculture, which will also
be considered in July.

EU, Russia far apart on rights, Moldova, Georgia

EU, Russia far apart on rights, Moldova, Georgia

By Sebastian Alison

BRUSSELS, Feb 27 (Reuters) – Differences between the European Union
and Russia will be exposed on human rights and relations with former
Soviet countries when foreign ministers from the two sides meet on
Monday.

Strains over Georgia and Moldova, ex-Soviet states trying to move
towards the EU but where Moscow keeps troops against their will, are
set to top the agenda when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
meets the EU in Luxembourg.

The bloc also will take Moscow to task over human rights at
consultations on Tuesday, days after the European Court of Human
Rights ruled Russia committed serious abuses, including torture and
killing, during military offensives in Chechnya.

“Our concerns are harassment of human rights defenders, especially in
Chechnya; increased racism and xenophobia; and religious intolerance,
especially anti-Semitism,” an EU official said.

“The Russians are likely to raise the issue of the rights of
Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltics.”

Russia and the EU hold a summit in Moscow on May 10 when they hope to
sign an agreement establishing four “common spaces” on areas of mutual
interest — the economy; freedom, security and justice; culture and
education; and external security.

But talks on external security are bogged down by Russian resistance
to the idea that the EU has a role to play in countries Moscow sees as
in its sphere of influence, namely Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia.

The EU insists it should be involved as these countries are its near
neighbours following the bloc’s enlargement last May.

Lavrov and Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, representing
the EU as his country currently holds the bloc’s presidency, will
discuss Moldova — which holds parliamentary elections on March 6 and
whose president Vladimir Voronin has accused Moscow of interfering
with the election campaign.

MOSCOW UNCOMFORTABLE IN RIGHTS BODY

Russia keeps 1,500 troops in Moldova’s breakaway Dnestr region
following a brief war in 1992, despite a pledge to withdraw them, and
the EU has said it will appoint a special envoy to the country to help
end the “frozen conflict” there.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the
continent’s human rights watchdog of which Russia is a member along
with EU states, is the lead player in ending the Dnestr dispute.

But EU diplomats say Russia feels increasingly uncomfortable with its
role in the OSCE as countries like Moldova and Georgia have sought to
escape Moscow’s influence, leaving it increasingly isolated within the
group.

“Now Russia is paralysing the OSCE’s budget, and practically
paralysing its secretariat,” an EU diplomat said, adding that the OSCE
would also be on the agenda for the talks.

Russia has faced sharp criticism in recent days. Apart from the
European Court of Human Rights verdict on Chechnya, President Vladimir
Putin also heard U.S. President George W. Bush question his commitment
to democracy.

Former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov has also stepped in to
criticise Putin’s record, saying bluntly that the country was on the
wrong track and he may stand for the presidency in 2008.

But diplomats said they expected constructive talks with Moscow on
Iran, the western Balkans and Middle East peace talks.

Russia is a member, with the EU, United States and the United Nations,
of the Quartet seeking a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, and after Monday’s talks Lavrov will head to London for a
Quartet meeting on Tuesday.

02/27/05 04:29 ET

Government Officials from 3 Caucasus Nations Visit Korea

Chosun Ilbo, South Korea
Feb 27 2005

Government Officials from 3 Caucasus Nations Visit Korea

Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have a lot in common. All former
members of the USSR, the three countries have been struggling to make
transitions into market economies since the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991. Carrying out widespread reforms has led to steady
growth and lower inflation.
But they are still battling issues like poverty and high unemployment
rates, problems Korea faced in the 60s and 70s in the aftermath of
the Korean War.

Officials from the Caucasus nations, are in town to learn about
Korea’s economy, especially how the country was able to emerge so
quickly from the ruins of the Korean War and into an economic
powerhouse. The officials say there is much to be learnt from Korea’s
experience, from both its successes and failures.

One area of great interest for these countries that are used to a
centrally planned economy is how to effectively lead the economy
under democratic conditions. “Strengthening the capacity of the state
as a planner and as a developer and supporter of the private sector
is critical for Georgia and Korea has very good experience. And this
is what we would like to primarily learn from your experience,” said
one official.

Officials are also taking the chance to increase bilateral
cooperation by inviting Korean investors to their countries. These
countries hope to benefit from technological help to fully utilize
their resources and successfully develop their economies.

Increasing bilateral ties is expected to be mutually beneficial. “By
strengthening the relationship between Korea and these countries, I
think we can enhance our international status. Not only diplomatic
but also economic status, because they have many good natural
resources. We can have good opportunity to secure those natural
resources like oil and minerals,” said one Korean official.

Also for Korea, enhancing ties with the three countries located at
the strategically important area linking Asia and Europe may open a
new route to Southwest Asian countries.

Arirang TV

Italy computerize Iranian manuscripts

Persian Journal, Iran
Feb 27 2005

Italy computerize Iranian manuscripts
Feb 26, 2005, 17:43

Italian researchers have begun study on old Iranian manuscripts and
handwitten works, according to Italian Iranologist Carloce Rati.

A professor at La Sapienza University in Rome, Carloce said
reaserchers have launched a broad investigation into the Iranian
literary works located all over the world in an attempt to
computerize the masterpieces.

Manuscripts and records dating back to old Iranian Achamanid and
Sassanid era, unearthed in India, Iraq, Armenia and Kurdestan
province have been classified and loaded into computer, since 2003.

Roti, also leading the reaearch team said Italy is interested in
collaborating with Iranian universities and scientific centers to
complete the project.

Rome University highly appreciates the unprecedented breakthrough,
Roti said.

US envoy describes 1915 massacre of Armenian as “genocide”

US envoy describes 1915 massacre of Armenian as “genocide”

Mediamax news agency
25 Feb 05

YEREVAN

The US ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, has described as “genocide”
the mass extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 90 years
ago, Mediamax news agency has quoted the Armenian National Committee
of San Francisco as saying.

Speaking at a meeting on 19 February with representatives of the
Armenian community of San Francisco, John Evans stated: “Today I shall
call this Armenian genocide,” the organization told Mediamax news
agency.

The US ambassador told the participants in the meeting that he had
read many books on the Armenian genocide.

“I think that we, the US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a
more straightforward and honest discussion of this problem. I can tell
you as a person who has studied this problem – I have no doubts about
what happened,” John Evans said. The diplomat noted that he had
consulted a lawyer from the US State Department who confirmed that the
1915 events were “genocide by definition”.

John Evans noted that although representatives of the US
administration have avoided using the term “genocide”, “none of them
has denied it”.

At the same time, the ambassador said ,”I think that it is
inappropriate for us, the Americans, to play with words in this
case”. “I believe that we must call a spade a spade,” John Evans
said. He also pointed out that the USA’s official position has not
changed.

“The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century,”
John Evans said, noting that “we made a lot of mistakes after the
First World War”.