Muslims, Christians Unite in Tears at Hariri’s Gravesite

Lebanese Lobby, Lebanon
Feb 18 2005

Muslims recited the opening verse of the Koran and Christians drew
the sign of the cross as his daughter Hind, the youngest and only
girl of his children sat all day weeping with nuns lighting candles
around his grave.

Rafik Hariri has in dept brought the Lebanese from all sects together
in a spontaneous show of national unity never seen since the civil-war
guns fell silent 15 years ago.

The grave at the floodlit spacious courtyard of Al Amin Mosque in
downtown Beirut was full to the brim with grieving Lebanese flocking
as if in a pilgrimage to pay their last respects on his gravesite.

The ‘Hajj’ was kicked off by a nationally televised bow by France’s
President Chirac and his wife Bernadette on the mountain of roses
covering Hariri’s last resting place Wednesday night.

President Bush has vowed from the White House to bring enough pressure
to bear on the Assad regime to force Syria out of Lebanon, while all
through Thursday hundreds poured from all over Lebanon to stand by
the grave with tears welling down. Armenian boy scouts placed dozens
of floral wreaths as women sprayed the tomb with rose water.

Among ‘pilgrims’ was World Bank President James Wolfensohn who flew
in from Washington to offer condolences to the family of his long-time
friend. Also present was Turkey’s Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and his
wife as well as all opposition leaders on Lebanon’s political spectrum.

At Hariri’s Koreitem mansion a deluge of condolers continued for a
second straight day since his one million strong funeral Wednesday.

Lebanese Forces commander Samir Geagea’s wife, Strida, shook hands
with the ex-premier’s four sons offering her condolences. Other
opposition leaders like Walid Jumblat and Naila Mouawad, widow of
slain President Rene Mouawad, were standing on both sides of the
Hariri family in the condolence rituals.

Newark Star Ledger, NJ
Feb 18 2005

Russian ‘Rendezvous’
It’s tough to get past the appetizers at bustling Manalapan
restaurant Rendezvous

BY S.J. GINTZLER
FOR THE STAR-LEDGER

Rendezvous brings an authentic taste of Russian cuisine to Manalapan.
Dine on black caviar with butter, crepes with sour cream and Uzbek
chuchvara (fried dumplings) in glittery surroundings.

Ambience:

Nightclub. Access the lengthy dining room via a snazzy glass-brick
vestibule. On Saturday nights (and some Fridays and Sundays), it’s
party time at this strip mall spot with a live band and filled
tables. It’s relatively tranquil on weekday evenings.

Staff:

Caring, courteous and attentive on uncrowded weekdays. Slow and
preoccupied on busy weekends.

Food:

Regional Russian. Dishes range from an assorted pickled vegetable
platter ($10.95) and Caucasian tomatoes ($6.95) to Uzbek shurpa (lamb
and vegetable soup, $6.95), samsi (puffy turnovers) with pumpkin
($3.95), chicken Kiev ($16.95) and beef stroganoff ($14.95).

We sipped our own Stoli and nibbled on crusty squares of Armenian
bread from the exposed brick oven. (The owners are Armenian, born in
Uzbekistan.) We could have made a meal of the excellent hot and cold
appetizers, which outnumbered the entrees two to one on the menu.
King’s herring with home style potatoes ($6.95) featured a mildly
pickled fish fillet alongside a stack of spaghetti-like, vinegary
onions and crisp golden spuds. The smoked fish platter was well worth
$18.95. It was an ocean’s worth of sliced sturgeon, turbot, salmon
and butterfish showered in black olives pin-wheeled about the plate.
Then came the dumplings: dainty balls of Siberian veal-stuffed
pelmeni ($6.95) and ravioli-like vareniki filled with sweet-sour
cherries accompanied by sour cream. Two Georgian dishes were
delicious — hachapuri ($4.95), cheese-stuffed, flaky turnovers that
melted in the mouth, and lobio ($5.95), a red kidney bean salad
tossed with crunchy dried beef and chopped pecans freshened with
cilantro. Ukrainian borscht ($5.95) was sweet, zesty and heavy on the
pork.

Two entrees were just right. Chicken tapaka ($15.95), a butterflied
whole chicken fried crisp in an iron skillet with a weighted lid, was
smothered in garlic and accompanied by a robust tomato sauce.
Calahach ($20.95), juicy baby lamb chops, also came with a rich
dipping sauce. Both dishes came with terrific fried potatoes.

Desserts, prepared by the owner’s wife, are not to be missed. The
honey cake was masterful, layer upon layer of chocolate, honey
filling, pastry and cream. The sweet pecan cake was addictive, as
were the creamy Napoleon and pear-stuffed, pencil-thin crepes
drizzled in chocolate and cherries.

Come to Rendezvous not only for top-notch Russian home cooking, but
for an unforgettable Saturday night wing-ding.

Food: ***

Ambience: ***

Service: ** 1/2

Overall: ***

Power and Interest News Report (PINR)
Feb 18 2005

Lebanon loses its buffer

Having lost its buffer and pivot, Lebanon is now faced with the
prospect of descending into another cycle of inter-communal conflict.

By Dr Michael A. Weinstein for PINR (18/02/05)

The assassination of former long-time Lebanese prime minister Rafiq
al-Hariri on 14 February opens a new chapter in Lebanon’s slide
towards instability that began on 20 October 2004 when Hariri
unexpectedly resigned over a Syrian-inspired move to extend the term
of President Emile Lahoud. Since then, Lebanon has been in the throes
of what observers call a “political crisis”, as the country’s
political class has become polarized over the presence of 15’000
Syrian troops in the country and the scheduling of parliamentary
elections that are supposed to take place in the coming spring.
Lebanon’s current phase of political history begins with the signing
of the Ta’if Accord in 1989 that ended the country’s 15-year civil
war and ushered in a period of reconstruction, economic renewal and
relative political stability. The war resulted from the breakdown of
Lebanon’s delicately balanced and religiously diverse society under
the pressure of an influx of Palestinian refugees and an ensuing
military conflict between the country’s neighbor Israel and the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had headquartered in
Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan in 1967. Created after World
War I, when the League of Nations mandated the five provinces of the
Ottoman Empire that compose the country to France, Lebanon has a
preponderantly Arab population that is split into a dizzying array of
religious communities, including Shi’ite Muslims (40 per cent), Sunni
Muslims (20 per cent), Maronite Christians (16 per cent), Druzes (6
per cent), and smaller proportions of Alawite Muslims and Greek and
Armenian Christians. During the colonial period, which lasted into
World War II, France favored the Christians, who at that time
composed slightly more than half of the country’s population, and set
up a system of communal representation, in which the president was a
Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the
speaker of the National Assembly a Shi’ite Muslim. The legislature
and state bureaucracy were also staffed proportionally according to
religious confession. The confessional system of representation,
which was intended to be temporary, persisted after independence and
was restored in a modified form by the Ta’if Accord. Estimates put
Lebanon’s population at 3.8 million; there are no reliable figures
since there has been no national census since 1932, preserving the
fiction of Christian-Muslim parity.

Transcending communalism
Traditionally the most cosmopolitan country in the Arab world,
Lebanon has reclaimed its role as a regional financial and trading
center through its post-war reconstruction, yet its social cohesion
remains fragile. The civil war, which was ultimately tamped down by
Syrian military occupation, revealed deep communal conflict between
Christians seeking to maintain their power in the face of an
unfavorable population balance and Muslims eager to institutionalize
their majority status. The tendency towards polarization is blunted
by the diversity within each side of the great religious divide, but
that has resulted in severe fragmentation during periods of
instability. Given the constraints imposed by confessional
representation, Lebanese politics are not articulated through
Western-style political parties, but through shifting blocs composed
of local notables based in religious communities. The system
functions effectively when competing blocs organize representatives
from each of the major religious groups so that political competition
takes place over trans-communal issues rather than spiraling downward
into communal conflict, as occurred during the civil war. In order to
avoid breakdown into hostile fragmentation, Lebanon’s political
system requires bridging figures who transcend communalism and have
the negotiating skills and credibility necessary to make and maintain
the deals that allow the country’s major confessional groups to
coexist in peace. Al-Hariri was the major bridging figure in Lebanese
politics throughout the post-civil war period and his assassination
portends the possible collapse of the country’s tenuous social
contract.

Al-Hariri as a political pivot and buffer
Since the end of the civil war, Lebanon has been in great part a de
facto protectorate of the Ba’athist regime in Damascus, whose
military presence in the country has prevented a renewal of violent
conflict, but has also guaranteed Damascus’ decisive influence in
Lebanese politics. Throughout the time in which Syria has functioned
as Lebanon’s power broker, making sure that Beirut’s leadership
acquiesced in Damascus’ interests, al-Hariri was the only politician
with sufficient stature to allow Beirut to achieve a considerable
degree of autonomy in domestic policy by maintaining a high level of
popularity across confessional groups, skillfully negotiating winning
coalitions among blocs and placating Damascus just enough to keep it
at bay. Al-Hariri was able to accomplish his difficult balancing act
through the combination of his immense wealth, which made him
independent of any sectoral interest, and his commitment to
functioning as a bridge builder, which enabled him to serve as a
buffer between communities, and between the Lebanese political system
and Damascus, as he pivoted among blocs. The son of a poor Sunni
family from the southern city of Sidon, al-Hariri left Lebanon after
dropping out of college for financial reasons and migrated to Saudi
Arabia, where, after holding several jobs, he entered the
construction business, became a personal friend of King Fahd,
received dual Saudi Arabian citizenship and made billions of dollars
through varied enterprises. One of the richest men in the Arab world,
al-Hariri used his wealth to enter Lebanese politics, providing all
of the funds for the 1989 conference in Ta’if, Saudi Arabia that
ended the civil war. Afterwards, he volunteered equipment from his
construction company to clear out the rubble left from the war and
was elected to serve in the National Assembly. In 1992, al-Hariri
assumed the post of prime minister, holding that position five times
as he maneuvered through the maze of Lebanese politics, using
resignation as a tactic and then re-emerging as a coalition builder
with wide popular backing. As prime minister, al-Hariri reinforced
his stature by engineering Lebanon’s reconstruction through the
private company Solidere, of which he was the major shareholder, and
by using his international business and political connections to
attract foreign investment and revive the tourist industry. Although
he was criticized by opponents for profiting from reconstruction
through Solidere and for driving Lebanon into debt, he was widely
credited for playing an indispensable role in renewing the country’s
economy and preserving social peace.

Syrian presence
With the country’s economy reviving and sectarian militia disbanded –
except for the Syrian and Iranian supported Shi’ite Hizbollah, which
has continued its confrontation with Israel in the south – the major
issue in Lebanese politics became the Syrian military presence in the
country and Damascus’ role as its power broker. Although the division
over whether Syria should remain or withdraw cuts across confessional
boundaries, opposition to Damascus is concentrated in the Christian
and Druze communities, and pro-Damascus sentiment in the Shi’ite and,
until recently, Sunni communities. In negotiating the domestic
conflict over the Syrian presence, al-Hariri managed to be an
effective buffer, pivoting towards Damascus and away from it, until
the autumn of 2004, when Damascus engineered a constitutional
amendment granting al-Hariri’s arch political rival Lahoud a
three-year extension of his presidential term, in order to head off
presidential elections that might have resulted in a presidency less
favorable to the Syrian presence. As the constitutional crisis
loomed, Paris and Washington moved in the UN Security Council to push
through Resolution 1559, which called upon Damascus to withdraw its
troops from Lebanon, and for Beirut to disband non-state militia and
permit free elections. Washington had already imposed economic
sanctions on Damascus in 2003, was pressuring Damascus to police its
border with Iraq and withdraw its support of Hizbollah, and
ultimately desired regime change in Syria. Paris’ support for the
resolution seemed to be based on a desire to mend fences with
Washington after their dispute over the US intervention in Iraq. The
result of the pressure exerted by Paris and Washington for Lebanese
politics was to strengthen the resolve of the anti-Syrian opposition.
After the Lebanese National Assembly approved the constitutional
amendment on 3 September – a day after the passage of Resolution 1559
in the Security Council – al-Hariri attempted to form a new
government, but was unable to do so and resigned as prime minister on
20 October, saying that he would stay on the sidelines and wait and
see if Damascus could retain its control over Lebanon in the face of
international pressure and domestic conflict. A pro-Syrian government
led by Omar Karami was installed under the conditions of an
opposition boycott and the abstention of al-Hariri’s bloc, setting
the stage for unbuffered polarization.

Opposition’s ‘silent leader’
Since the constitutional crisis, Lebanese politics have been taken up
with arranging elections for the National Assembly in spring 2005 (no
date has yet been set). During this time, al-Hariri pivoted towards
the opposition and was accused by pro-Syrian forces of having
engineered Resolution 1559. Now a divisive figure, no longer able to
play the role of buffer, al-Hariri was widely deemed the “silent
leader” of the opposition – the strains within and the pressures from
without the Lebanese political system had become too great for him to
manage, although it was widely assumed that he would make yet another
bid for the prime minister’s office if results of the parliamentary
elections were favorable. The significance of al-Hariri’s pivot
towards the opposition was the possibility that it could decisively
shift the balance of power in Lebanese politics towards the
anti-Damascus opposition by allying his Sunni base with it and
isolating the Shi’ite. Were that to happen, Damascus’ influence in
Lebanon would be diminished, perhaps to the point that it would have
to pull out, and the Franco-American combination would gain leverage
and have the possibility of prying Beirut into the Western sphere of
influence, weakening and further isolating Syria’s Ba’athist regime.
As it presently stands, al-Hariri’s assassination has already
provoked attacks on Syrian workers and businesses in Sidon,
indicating that his death might only hasten the process of
realignment. Even more serious for Damascus, a mass march of hundreds
of thousands of Lebanese mourners around al-Hariri’s funeral on 17
February attracted participants from all of the country’s
confessional groups and took on an anti-Syrian tone with banners
reading “Syria Out”.

Reaction to Hariri’s assassination
Although an Islamic revolutionary group – Victory and Jihad in
Greater Syria – claimed to have carried out al-Hariri’s assassination
on account of his Saudi ties, its claim was not deemed credible by
interested parties, which used his death as an opportunity to press
their own agendas – all of them deplored the deed, expressed fears of
a return to civil war and urged the Lebanese people to show
solidarity, but there the similarities ended. The government declared
a three-day mourning period and placed the army on high alert,
promising to hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice. In
contrast, the opposition, meeting at al-Hariri’s Beirut residence,
blamed Damascus for the crime – if not for actually committing it,
which they implied it had, then for allowing it to happen. The
opposition called for Damascus to withdraw its forces from Lebanon,
for an international investigation of the assassination to be held,
and for a three-day general strike to be mounted. Some even suggested
that Lebanon be placed under “international receivership”. Maronite
Christian leader Michel Aoun, who had fled into exile in Paris after
he refused to accept the Ta’if Accord and who still retains support
in his community, promised to return to Lebanon for the parliamentary
elections and expressed hope that the assassination would spur the
exit of Syrian forces from the country: “If they are capable of
eliminating political leaders, they are capable of influencing
election results. The Syrians must be reined in.” Druze leader Walid
Jumblatt was even more blunt, accusing the Lebanese government of
being “a regime of terrorists”. Washington and Paris joined the
opposition in placing their focus on Damascus, but were more
restrained. Endorsing one of the opposition’s demands, Paris urged an
international investigation into the assassination. Washington did
not directly accuse Damascus of the crime, but said through White
House press secretary Scott McClellan that it was “a terrible
reminder that the Lebanese people must be able to pursue their
aspirations and determine their own political future free from
violence and intimidation and free from Syrian occupation”.
Washington followed up on its statement by recalling US ambassador to
Syria Margaret Scobey for “consultations”. The responses of Paris and
Washington reflected their continuing cooperation on trying to
eliminate the Syrian presence in Lebanon – during her visit to Europe
in February, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had conferred
with French President Jacques Chirac on further action against
Damascus in the UN. As would be expected, Damascus took an opposite
line to that of its adversaries, blaming them indirectly for the
assassination. Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara urged Lebanese
to “reject foreign interference”, and Information Minister Mahdi
Dakhlallah said the crime was perpetrated by the “enemies of Lebanon”
and had occurred at a time when pressure was being exerted on
“Lebanon and Syria aimed at achieving the aggressive goals of
Israel”. Rejecting calls for an international investigation, al-Shara
stated that “Lebanese authorities will carry out an investigation to
determine which party was behind this act”. That position was quickly
affirmed by Beirut, which rejected an international investigation on
the grounds that it would be a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Deep divisions resurface
Having lost its buffer and pivot, Lebanon is now faced with the
prospect of descending into another cycle of inter-communal conflict.
Despite the swell of popular support for al-Hariri at his burial
services, reaction to his assassination shows that the deep divisions
in Lebanese society that surfaced in the civil war had never healed
but had simply been held in check by war weariness, the process of
reconstruction, al-Hariri’s skillful deal making, and the Syrian
military presence. With reconstruction basically accomplished, the
bridge builder gone, and the Syrian presence a destabilizing factor,
all that prevents factional breakdown is general fear of a return to
violent conflict and a possible crystallization of public opinion
against Damascus. The major external players in the struggle over
Lebanon’s future – Washington and Damascus – face the problem of
pressing their conflicting interests without precipitating a Lebanese
civil war. Washington, which desires regime change in Damascus, is
not yet ready to pursue military action that would place Lebanon
under “international receivership” and drive Damascus out of the
country. Its past failures to stabilize Lebanon through direct
intervention will make it shy of repeating the process, as will its
commitments in Iraq and its need to attend to other world trouble
spots. Washington is likely, instead, to continue leaguing with
France through the Security Council, where its ambitions will
probably be compromised – as they were in September 2004 – by
opposition from Beijing and Moscow. Damascus, whose position in
Lebanon has been weakened by the defection of al-Hariri’s Sunni base
in the aftermath of its attempt to retrench by engineering the
extension of Lahoud’s term, is faced with the prospect of losing its
status as power broker and encountering active resistance to its
military presence.

Tough choices for Damascus
Were Damascus to attempt to crack down on a resurgent opposition, it
would risk growing support among major international players for
Washington’s agenda and might be drawn into a costly and uncertain
military quagmire. Yet if it concedes its influence, it will open up
a power vacuum in Lebanon that is likely to be filled by forces
hostile to its interests, and its Ba’athist regime will lose
credibility at home. The announcement on 17 February that Tehran and
Damascus would form a “united front” against Washington reflects a
desire by both capitals to circle their wagons. Syrian Prime Minister
Mohammad Naji Otari said, after meeting with Iranian First
Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref, that “the challenges we face in
Syria and Iran require us to be in one front”. In its confrontation
with Damascus, Washington has the luxury of treading cautiously, as
it did when it downplayed the announcement of the Tehran Damascus
“united front”. Damascus, in contrast, has unwittingly pushed itself
into a corner – it appeared during the 2004 constitutional crisis
that Damascus would get away with its power play, but it did not
count on the consequences of a decisive pivot by al-Hariri towards
the opposition. Now it can only hope that parliamentary elections in
Lebanon – if they are held – will not swing the balance of power in
Lebanese politics firmly against it. Analysts in the Middle East
speculate that al-Hariri’s assassination might have been inspired by
Damascus itself, by rogue elements in its intelligence apparatus, or
by anti-al-Hariri forces from one of Lebanon’s confessional
communities. If the perpetrators are credibly identified, the present
tensions might be more sharply defined and shift the balance of power
towards one of the contending sides, but knowing who the culprits
were will not change the basic polarized situation. Lebanon had lost
its buffer and pivot before Hariri’s assassination; his death only
makes obvious Lebanon’s failure to heal.

Dr. Michael A. Weinstein is a professor of political science at
Purdue University and an analyst with the Power and Interest News
Report, at (). This article originally appeared in PINR,.
All comments should be directed to [email protected].

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Messenger, Georgia
Feb 18 2005

Refusal to lay wreath clouds Lavrov visit
Russian foreign minister angers Tbilisi on eve of Russian-Georgian
negotiations

By Anna Arzanova

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation Sergei Lavrov
expressed his hope on February 17 that his refusal to lay a wreath at
the Memorial on Heroes Square in Tbilisi for Georgians who died
fighting for the territorial integrity of Georgia will not create any
further strain in Georgian-Russian relations.

“We hope that this will not create artificial problems for the
fruitful negotiations in Tbilisi on key points of Russian-Georgian
relations,” said Lavrov, who arrives in Tbilisi on a working visit on
Friday.

“I hope that my forthcoming visit to Georgia will help clarify some
issues and make progress in our relationship,” Lavrov added.

The Russian minister’s announcement on Wednesday that he would not
lay a wreath as planned, after he had laid a wreath at the Armenian
Genocide Memorial, led Georgian officials to downgrade his visit from
an official to a working visit.

Lavrov explained that the proposal to visit the memorial was made
less than a day before his visit. Speaking with Armenian reporters on
February 16, Lavrov said that his refusal to lay a wreath at the
memorial is a result of Russia’s status as a mediator in the process
of resolving the South Ossetian and Abkhaz conflicts.

“Such a public event is hardly capable of creating a proper
atmosphere for the resumption of negotiations on resolution of the
conflicts,” he added.

The Russian minister of foreign affairs is coming to Tbilisi to
discuss the framework agreement currently being negotiated between
the two countries.

But although he noted that a lot of preliminary work had been put in
that “I hope will yet bear fruit,” Lavrov stated that Georgia is not
yet ready for such negotiations.

“Three rounds of negotiations have already taken place recently but
there are some important issues on which we cannot find a common
language. As a result we can say that the Georgian side is not ready
for negotiations,” he said.

Lavrov explained that during his meetings in Tbilisi the two sides
will have to discuss problems in the relations of the two countries,
including the process of preparing the “major” framework agreement,
the prospects for cooperation in the fight against terrorism,
military problems, the situation in the conflict zones, and so on.

“We are ready to listen to the standpoint of the Georgian side and
share our problems. I would like to believe that the coming
negotiations will be a starting point for resolving these problems,”
he added.

Officials at the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to
Lavrov’s decision not to lay a wreath at the Georgian Memorial by
saying that the wreath-laying had been included in the schedule of
the visit from the beginning and had been cancelled at the request of
the Russian authorities.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Salome Zourabichvili responded to
Lavrov’s statement at a briefing on February 16 by saying that
Georgia would not escalate the situation, despite her Russian
counterpart’s “lack of diplomatic manners.”

“We do not know what Russia wants, or what this country which comes
to us on a neighborly visit to normalize the situation needs. He does
not even have enough elementary upbringing to go to the memorial and
bow his head before the monument to those who have died,”
Zourabichvili expressed her indignation.

Zourabichvili said that during her entire diplomatic career she could
not remember such an incident when a diplomat officially invited to a
foreign country ignored the rules of diplomatic norms accepted all
over the world.

“This refusal has its meaning and we won’t forget it, but because
dialogue needs to be continued, we will receive Lavrov on a working
visit, not an official one as was planned before,” Zourabichvili
added. “This is a non-neighborly and inappropriate sign by the
Russian side.”

Commenting on this issue, leader of the parliamentarian majority MP
Maia Nadiradze positively assessed the conduct of the Georgian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, adding that Lavrov’s decision could only
damage Russia itself.

“This is not and cannot be only Lavrov’s initiative. It is really an
expression of those politics which saturates Russia’s policy toward
Georgia. However, the most important thing in this case is how
Georgia responded to this statement,” Nadiradze said, adding that
such an incident had never before taken place in the history of
Georgia.

Chair of the parliamentarian committee for foreign affairs Kote
Gabashvili also thinks that Lavrov’s decision was a major
embarrassment to Russian diplomacy. “This is not the way diplomats
should conduct themselves. The change of the format of the visit will
affect the issues which must be discussed at the meetings,”
Gabashvili told journalists.

MP Giga Bokeria sees behind this statement the trace of ordinary
Russian politics, the basic part of which relates to the Russian
military bases located in Georgia.

“We will not take bilateral duty in our relations with Russia when we
talk about the framework agreement regarding the non-location of
bases of a third country in Georgia,” he said, referring to the
Russian demand that the agreement include a clause stating that no
other country will be permitted to deploy military bases on Georgian
soil.

About 80 veterans of the Abkhaz and the South Ossetian conflicts as
well as veterans of World War II gathered in front of the Russian
Embassy on February 17 in order to express their protest at the
decision of the Russian minister. The protesters brought wreaths to
the Embassy.

“Lavrov’s behavior was an insult to our heroes. He went to Armenia
and laid a wreath at the genocide memorial there and refused to do
the same in Georgia. That is why we came here to express our
condolences at the death of their diplomacy,” demonstrator Alexander
Tsiklauri told journalists.

According to another participant of the demonstration Andro
Cheishvili, Lavrov buried Russian diplomacy on February 16. “There is
a slogan here-we give our condolences to the death of Russian
diplomacy,” he said.

According to Black Sea Press, during his visit to Georgia, Lavrov is
going to lay a wreath to the grave of the former Georgian prime
minister Zurab Zhvania. Russian Foreign Ministry official Alexander
Yakovenko said to journalists that Zurab Zhvania had done a lot to
prevent escalation in the conflict zones in Georgia standing for
their peaceful resolution.

This demarche of the Russian minister follows an exchange of comments
between the two countries, after talks over the withdrawal of Russian
military bases from Georgia and a framework agreement failed on
February 11. After the collapsed talks, Russian Minister Lavrov
accused Georgia, on February 15, of the strain which currently exist
in bilateral relations between Georgia and Russia.

“During the talks in Tbilisi on February 10-11, [held between Russian
Foreign Ministry official Igor Savolski and Deputy Foreign Minister
Merab Antadze] we understood that Georgia was not ready to discuss
some issues and has even make concessions on some others,” the news
agency RIA Novosti reports Lavrov as saying on February 15.

“Not only the Foreign Ministries of the two countries but also the
Georgian and Russian Security
Councils have joined the process. I believe that there was a chance
to achieve mutually acceptable formulas on the provisions of the key
Agreement that had not been agreed yet,” he noted.

Negotiations on the issue held on Friday, February 11 were intended
as preparation for further talks during Lavrov’s visit, when the
creation of a joint antiterrorist center in Georgia will also be
discussed, but the negotiations fell through, and the two sides are
still unable to agree the main aspects of a framework agreement.

The Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accuses the Russian
delegation of causing the negotiations to fail, while the Russian
side for its part accuses Georgia of side-stepping the issue of
setting up anti-terrorism centers.

“We tried to find all compromise formulations, but finally there was
a situation where variants were offered which put under doubt the
possibility of the creation of the anti-terrorist centers,” Russian
Foreign Ministry official Igor Savolski stated.

Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia Merab Antadze issued a similar
message, telling journalists after the negotiations that
unfortunately, despite the serious efforts and compromises of the
Georgia side, the Russian side was not prepared to reach an
agreement, because of which the negotiations failed.

Opposition Azeri leader receives support in France

The Messenger, Georgia
Feb 18 2005

Azeri newspaper Ekho. Baku reports that leader of Azerbaijan’s
opposition Popular Front Party, Ali Kerimli, visited several foreign
countries recently, including France.

Within the framework of the Paris meetings, Kerimli visited the
lower chamber of the French Parliament. MPs also met with Kerimli
and were primarily interested in the situation in Azerbaijan and the
run-up to the new parliamentary elections in the country. According
to the paper, Kerimli spoke about the devotion of the Azeri people
to democratic reforms.

In addition French MPs were interested in the influence of the events
in Georgia and Ukraine on Azerbaijan. They also asked about the
potential for democratic forces and opposition in the country. The
paper writes that Kerimli replied that the majority of Azeri people
prefer democracy and the lifestyle of freedom.

“Sooner or later, democracy in the country will be restored,” stressed
Kerimli and called on the French politicians to render support to
democratic changes and reforms in Azerbaijan.

The settlement of the Karabakh conflict was addressed during a meeting
between Kerimli and the French co-chairman of the Minsk Group of the
OSCE, Bernard Fassie. Fassie stated that he supports the continuation
of negotiations between the ministers of foreign affairs of the two
opposing sides. He also noted that the Minsk group will support any
compromise between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Kerimli replied that the
conflict should be solved only within the framework of territorial
integrity and international laws.

“Chronicle of the declared revolution”

The Messenger, Georgia
Feb 18 2005

The Armenian newspaper Aravot reports that an “ordinary Armenian
revolution” will be conducted in April. The leader of the Novoye Vremia
party Aram Karapetian has announced plans for it to be held in April.

“This politician is really a gentleman,” the paper writes, “He not
only informed the ruling administration regarding his intention but
also magnanimously gave them time to improve themselves. But when
they understood that they lost the chance that was given to them and
did not wish to improve, he informed them once again that revolution
will take place in April.”

According to the paper, he has informed the government so that they
are morally prepared once they are deprived of their chairs: “Those
large public masses, which our revolutionists give the main role in the
implementation of the overthrow of the current authoritative regime,
should desire this themselves.”

The paper adds: “The more often the opposition will declare the day
and hour of the revolution, the less they will wish to implement it.
This is despite the fact that lots of people want changes in the
country. But first of all, we should believe that we have a serious
political force that will be able to implement everything and not
only speak and promise.”

ARMENIANOW.COM
Administration Address: 26 Parpetsi St., No 9
Phone: +(374 1) 532422
Email: [email protected]
Internet:
Technical Assistance: (For technical assistance please contact to Babken Juharyan)
Email: [email protected]
ICQ#: 97152052

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE?: FOREIGN MINISTER’S VISIT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ASSESSMENT

By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmenianNow Reporter

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was on an official visit to
Yerevan the past two days. His first visit to Armenia fell on the
historical stage when pro-Western sentiments not traditional for the
overwhelming majority of Armenians are on the rise in the public and
political life of the republic.

The first time these sentiments made themselves felt as a special
internal political factor was during the latest presidential
elections in 2003. However, now there are a dozen political and public
organizations in the republic demonstratively stating the need for
Armenia’s new orientation towards the West and NATO. Never before
have such sentiments made themselves felt so strongly in Armenia.

On the day of the Russian minister’s arrival in Yerevan, the leader of
the Liberal-Progressive Party of Armenia (LPPA) Hovhannes Hovhannisyan
called a press conference during which he stated: “Armenia’s security
is in NATO, since Armenia’s strategic partner, Russia, proceeding
from its interests, may change its position towards Yerevan at any
moment. Revolutions in the post-Soviet space are unavoidable in the
next year or two. There will be a revolution in Armenia too.”

Representatives of other opposition parties also speak about the need
to reorient Armenia’s foreign policy towards the West.

“It is remarkable that while new pro-Western political structures
have already been formed in Armenia, no party openly propagandizing
the Russian vector of foreign policy has appeared in the country
yet,” Vardan Mkhitaryan, a historian and researcher at the Chair of
the History of the Armenian People of the Yerevan State University,
said in this connection.

Meanwhile, the political structures traditionally inclined towards
boosted Armenian-Russian relations for their part accentuate attention
on the insufficient level of development of these ties. What is
particularly pointed out is Russia’s neutral, at best, position
on Nagorno Karabakh, which, in the opinion of Armenian parties
cannot correspond to the officially declared level of strategic
relationship. According to political analysts, also symptomatic is
the fact that while 2005 is declared the Year of Russia in Armenia,
in Russia this year is determined as the Year of Azerbaijan. This
was stated in Moscow by President Vladimir Putin and President Ilham
Aliyev of Azerbaijan on the same day Lavrov arrived in Yerevan.

“What is striking in this connection is that the visits of high-ranking
Russian officials to Armenia, as a rule, are chronologically replaced
by equally ‘high-level’ meetings already on the plane of Russian-Azeri
ties,” says Mkhitaryan. “The visit of the Russian Foreign Minister
to Yerevan is not an exception: on February 16-17 Putin and Aliyev
discussed the Karabakh settlement in Moscow.”

The presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan met four times in 2004, while
Putin and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan had two meetings. A
total of 17 government delegation of the Russian Federation visited
Baku during last year, and the commodity turnover between Russia
and Azerbaijan increased by 60% and made $735 million. During the
same period, the commodity turnover between Russia and Armenia grew
by 12.9% and made $266.2 million.

But the greatest annoyance in Armenia is caused by the position
repeatedly voiced by the Kremlin about Russia’s support for
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. In August of last year Lavrov
himself told an AzerTaj’s correspondent: “Russia has been supporting
consistently and in full measure the principle of territorial
integrity. This applies to Azerbaijan as well.”

Nevertheless, the recent visit of Russia’s foreign minister to
Baku deserves special attention. Answering on February 2 the
question of an Azeri journalist about Russia’s priorities in the
principles of “territorial integrity” and “the right of nations
to self-determination”, Lavrov said: “One should not set off these
two principles against each other, since both of them are stated in
the UN Charter and should not be applied to the detriment of each
other.” Some Azeri mass media already then hurried to “interpret”
such a reply of the Russian diplomat in the context of his Armenian
origin, reminding that during last year’s visit of Armenia’s Foreign
Minister Vardan Oskanian to Moscow, Lavrov said: “Yes, I have Armenian
blood in my veins. My father is an Armenian from Tbilisi.”

That he has Armenian blood his veins Lavrov also repeated in Yerevan
during a meeting with students of the Russian- Armenian Slavonic
University yesterday.

However, at the same time he made it clear that his Baku statement was
not understood quite correctly. He made it clear that Russia supports
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, for “Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity is recognized by the international community, including by
the UN and other international structures.”

Thursday Lavrov met with Kocharyan, Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan
and Oskanian. Four main subjects were discussed during the meetings:
the Karabakh problem, bilateral cooperation, regional cooperation
and cooperation within international structures.

It is cooperation within international structures that is one of
the most delicate problems in Armenian-Russian relations. It is
commonly known that all initiatives of the Azeri delegation in the
PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe), including on
Nagorno Karabakh, as a rule find support of the Russian delegation,
while none of the initiatives of the Armenian delegation has yet been
supported by the Russian delegation. Does this state of affairs
correspond to the “strategic” level of relations between Armenia
and Russia? “The parliamentary delegation of Russia to the PACE,
just like other delegations, does not receive any instructions,”
said Lavrov on this account.

In his meeting with Lavrov, Margaryan expressed his concern over the
building of communications projected within the framework of the
“North-South” transit corridor, bypassing Armenia. In particular,
he pointed to the Russian-Azeri- Iranian consortium building a
railroad in the direction of Astara (Azerbaijan) – Resht (Iran) –
Kazvin (Iran). (See ArmeniaNow story ….)

In reply to this remark of the Armenian premier, Lavrov said that from
now on Russia would consider also Armenia’s interests in developing
its transport strategy. He promised to notify Russia’s Minister of
Transport about it. Last autumn Russia limited the use of the only
stable motorway connecting Armenia with Russia through Georgia at
Verin Lars checkpoint (North Ossetia, Russia) – Kazbek (see ArmeniaNow
story …) Thus, Lavrov’s official visit to Yerevan also exposed flaws
in the officially declared policy of strategic partnership.

We will be able to judge as to how these flaws can be put right only
after Putin’s visit to Armenia. The date of this visit has not been
set yet, but as the Russian minister said the sides will come to
agreement as to the terms of the visit within the coming weeks after
which the date will be declared.

THE MARGARYAN TRIAL: COURT SUSPENDED FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT AND
TRANSLATIONS

By Zhanna Alexanyan
ArmeniaNow Reporter

The trial against Azeri Army officer Ramil Safarov, the accused
murderer of Armenian Army officer Gurgen Margaryan has again been
recessed in Budapest. Testimony was to be taken from Safarov, who
killed Margaryan ilast February while the two and others attended a
“Partnership for Peace” seminar in the Hungarian capital. The court
also expected to hear from a Lithuanian officer who is credited
from saving another Armenian officer, Hayk Makuchyan, from attack
by Safarov.

Neither Safarov nor the Lithuanian was present when court was to
begin last week. According to the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense,
Safarov has a head injury and was in Turkey to receive treatment. And
attorneys for the Lithuanian have asked the court for a five-month wait
while court documents are translated from Hungarian into Lithuanian.
Nazeli Vardanyan, the Armenian attorney assigned to the case, and
Ministry of Defense representative Hayk Demoyan returned to Yerevan
and met journalists Wednesday with a briefing on the case.

According to them, Safarov pleads innocent by reason of temporary
insanity. A Hungarian psychologist assigned by the court to examine
Safarov has diagnosed him as healthy and sober minded, but described
him as “anti-social, disharmonic and unstable”.

The court upheld an appeal by the Azeri side granting a second
examination, and will hear a doctor’s report in a May 10 session.
“He is totally healthy both mentally and physically, has realized what
he was doing at the moment of the crime,” Vardanyan told reporters. “He
has not regretted it and has been saying from the very first day he
will kill Armenians in a hundred years as well.

“If they prove he is mentally ill that can somehow mitigate the
sentence, but how will they substantiate mentally ill people serving in
their army, graduating from a military academy in Turkey and leaving
for Budapest for trainings?” Safarov has said he killed Margaryan in
retaliation for family members who were killed in Jabrail, Azerbaijan
during the Karabakh war. In a February 8 hearing, information about
the conflict was entered into testimony by the Azeris, angering the
judge, according to the Armenian lawyer.

“When it was publicized the judge got quite angry and banned
publicizing such documents, which steers the trial to politics,”
Vardanyan said.

Vardanyan and Demoyan say public opinion in Hungary may be swung
in Safarov’s favor, because there is no Armenian Diaspora community
there to offset Azeri propaganda.

Demoyan says the Armenian side plans to counter with materials from
an English-language webpage about the trial and publications about
Karabakh printed in Hungarian.

Demoyan further said he is confident the Armenian side will prevail,
stating that the Hungarians are not interested in the politics of
the matter, and are amazed that Safarov has become a national hero
for whom a special pension has been provided. The trial is expected
to continue in May.

DEBT GIFT: UK AGREES TO PAY CUT OF ARMENIA’S WORLD BANK LOAN

By Suren Musayelyan
ArmenianNow Reporter

The British Government hopes its offer to relieve Armenia’s external
debt will help the country grapple more effectively with its domestic
problems. Under the offer confirmed earlier this week the Government
of the United Kingdom will repay 10% of Armenia’s debt to the World
Bank until 2015 – a total of just under $20 million. After Tuesday’s
meeting with Armenia’s minister of finance and economy, British
Ambassador to Armenia Thorda Abbott- Watt expressed a hope that the
relief of Armenia’s external debt will save funds for the country to
spend more on solving social problems.

“I am pleased that my Government has felt able to make this gesture,
which recognizes and rewards strong economic management,” she
said. “The money which will be released will help Armenia increase
investment in spheres such as health, education and social support
and raise living standards more quickly.” According to the British
Embassy’s Public Relations Department, the British Government has
offered this financial assistance in recognition of the difficulties
that low income countries face in trying to reduce poverty while at
the same time service their international debts.

“The objective is to free additional resources to enable Armenia to
achieve its development goals,” the Embassy said in a press release.

According to the British Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia is one of
five countries to benefit in this way along with Mongolia, Vietnam,
Nepal and Sri Lanka. The UK Government chose all in recognition of
their sound public expenditure policies, which will ensure that the
money saved will be targeted towards poverty reduction. After the
meeting with the British Ambassador Armenia’s Minister of Economy
and Finance Vardan Khachatryan highly evaluated the initiative of
the British Government and pointed out its importance for Armenia.
“The released funds will be aimed at purposeful programs and the
implementation of measures fixed in the government program,” the
minister assured. According to the data of the Ministry of Finance
and Economy, Armenia’s current external debt totals $1.15 billion or
37.7 percent of its 2004 Gross Domestic Product.

The British Department for International Development (DFID) will
pay the money into a WB trust fund. The International Development
Association (the World Bank agency that allocates funds on concession
to the poorest developing countries), for its part, will reduce the
repayments that Armenia makes over the next 10 years. Armenia is
due to repay the World Bank $8 million, $11 million and $12 million
in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively. The UK contribution will be 10%
of these funds, i.e. $800,000, $1.1 million and $1.2 million for each
year respectively.

SEEKING RELATIONS: TURKISH BUSINESS LEADER CALLS FOR AN OPEN BORDER
WITH ARMENIA

By Gayane Lazarian
ArmeniaNow Reporter

The Turkish co-chairman of the Turkish-Armenian Business Development
Council (TABDC) called for the opening of the border between the two
countries during a visit to Armenia this week.

Kaan Soyak, an import and export businessman from Ankara, also declared
that the people of Turkey should “know the truth” about the Armenian
Genocide. He invited the Dashnaktsutyun party, a member of Armenia’s
governing coalition, to enter dialogue with Turkey, promising to
devote his energies to the facilitating talks if it agreed.

Soyak was in Yerevan this week for the launch of a new program proposed
by the Eurasia Foundation on the implications of the opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border. The project, initiated last year, studies
the potential effects on the economy, should borders between Armenia
and Turkey open.

He told a press conference that, although the organization had
not yet worked on issues related to the Genocide, he was aware
that preparations were underway in Armenia to commemorate the 90th
anniversary of the killings. “You know that those in Turkey know
about it and deny it. It was only during the last two or three years
that they began to speak about it in Turkey. We are working in the
direction of addressing and spreading this subject in Turkey on a
larger scale. The Turkish people must know the truth,” Soyak said.

The Turkish co-chairman also said that the council had implemented
a program on the preservation of Armenian monuments in Turkey, which
resulted in an end to military control of the area around Ani in 2003.

Soyak said: “Turkey says that Armenia must recognize its territorial
integrity, Armenia says that the Genocide of Armenians must be
recognized. Armenia declares that it is ready to develop economic
relations without preconditions. Time can thus be dragged out
infinitely. And to achieve any result the two countries should mitigate
their policies.” He reported that he had brought greetings from
Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to Soyak,
it was time that Armenia and Turkey were viewed as one region, with
open borders like those between member states of the European Union.

Armenia has called consistently for Turkey to open its border and
to establish relations without preconditions. The authorities in
Ankara, however, have maintained a blockade of Armenia in support of
Azerbaijan’s position in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, an issue
that Yerevan says should have no bearing on its relations with Turkey.
Soyak said that, with open borders, direct trade would expand and
the conditions would be created for cooperation between Armenian and
Turkish businessmen.

“I am sure that Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Turkey will not like these
words, but I care little about that. I also think that Azerbaijan’s
position should not be a factor in the opening of borders. They
consider Karabakh’s position to be a precondition for that,” he said.

He added that Azerbaijan is conducting large-scale propaganda in
Turkey in this regard and that its ambassador does not like the
development council because of its objections to Azeri meddling in
Turkey’s foreign policies. The TABDC was established on May 3, 1997 in
Istanbul and Yerevan by Soyak and Arsen Ghazaryan, president of Union
of Businessmen and Industrialist of Armenia. The council’s goal is to
develop and promote closer cooperation between the business circles
of Armenia and Turkey and to help the two countries’ organizations
establish communication. Soyak said that in 1997 they were considered
“crazy” in Turkey, but now their prestige had risen quite a lot. Of
his invitation to Dashnaktsutyun, the party considered most hostile
to relations with Turkey, he said: “In Turkey, Dashnaktsutyun has
a negative image. But I have my own opinion that the party and its
members are serious and sensible people.

“I am ready to do that and I promise to organize and implement their
dialogue, of course if Dashnaktsutyun agrees. All this will only help
us make greater achievements.”

Ashot Soghomonyan, a specialist in Turkish affairs and secretary
of the TABDC, said that the Armenian side was open to any type of
activities. It is not precisely known how many Armenian companies
operate in Turkey, but the number of Turkish companies operating in
Armenia has reached 30.

They have already had meetings about the agricultural sector, with
the Turkish partners being interested in purchasing potato seeds at
reasonable prices from Armenia.

Soghomonyan said that the Eurasia Foundation project would study
“to what extent the two countries’ economies will benefit from
the opening of the border and what developments can be expected”.
He added: “Eventually, the work will be presented to the two countries’
authorities. The commodity turnover between Armenia and Turkey is
currently worth $120 million and this figure will increase threefold
if the borders are opened.”

LAW ON LAWYERS: LEGAL SPECIALISTS PRAISE/PAN LEGISLATION OF THEIR
PRACTICE

By Zhanna Alexanyan
ArmeniaNow Reporter

Members of Armenia’s legal community met Tuesday to discuss the impact
of a new law, active since February 1, regulating their practice.
Led by the president of the International Union of Lawyers, Tigran
Janoyan, attorneys voiced both approval and disapproval of how their
profession will be conducted from here onward.

Much of the new law brings Armenia into form with European standards,
Janoyan said. Significantly, it calls for the establishment of a Law
Bar that will oversee licensing and monitor attorney performance.

Previously, many practiced law without appropriate licenses. Now
the law clarifies the necessary authorization. “Today the way of
those lawyers is open only through becoming (licensed) attorneys,”
Janoyan said. “The Chamber (Bar) will solve the question of their
qualification and licensing.”

The Bar will supervise and initiate disciplinary means in respect to
those who do not fulfill their responsibilities. The new law also
establishes a single body of lawyers, whereas many unions existed
before, Janoyan said. Most attorneys are not satisfied, however,
with the Public Defender system as outlined in the “Law on Attorneys”.
The public defender will provide a free legal service and will be
paid by the state. The law allows choosing from several licensed
practitioners who will provide the service.

But lawyers complain that the law does not stipulate how they will
be paid. “The state declares its democratic attitudes without showing
its poor resources,” Janoyan complained. “And in case of failure,
the responsibility will fall on us – the attorneys.”

President of the Republic of Armenia Union of Attorneys Misha
Piliposyan confirmed that the current budget does not include
a provision for financing the Public Defender’s Office. He says,
however, that the Ministry of Justice will solve that problem and
reminds that this is a first attempt at addressing the need.

Janoyan warns that the way the new law sets up the Public Defender’s
Office makes the office liable to government control, which could
hinder the judicial process.

The law provides electoral principle for the Public Defender but
Janoyan does not trust it. “Elections are conditioned with some
interference just like all kinds of elections in our country,” says the
lawyer. The candidacies for the heads of the Bar and Public Defender’s
Office are already being discussed, encouraged by the Ministry of
Justice and have gained the approval of the majority of judges.

“Can you imagine the scale of the tragedy in this case? This means,
these are custom-built jobs,” concludes Janoyan. “The same will
be repeated. During the first days of the investigation a state
defense will be executed, because the cases are fabricated and the
‘confessional evidences’ are obtained during those very days.”

POVERTY CALLING: PHONE CHECKS HELP TO IDENTIFY THOSE IN GREATEST NEED
AS AID PAYMENTS INCREASE

By Gayane Abrahamyan
ArmeniaNow Reporter

The Government described the 2005 State budget as a “social budget”
when it put forward proposals late last year for significant increases
in spending on family allowances for the poor.

Those allowances took effect this month, raising monthly state payments
to 12,000 drams (approximately $25) from 9,200 drams (about $19)
in 2004. The state budget has allotted 20 billion drams, 4 billion
more than last year, for poverty allowances and one-off financial aid.

The cut-off point for receiving assistance has also been lowered,
from 35 to 34 points under a government formula for calculating who
is eligible for payments.

Astghik Minasyan, head of the Department for Social Assistance at
the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, says 139,000 families in
Armenia will receive poverty family allowances in 2005, of which 30,000
(7.4 percent) are considered to be in absolute poverty.

Family allowances are given to the poor, based on yearly estimations
of a “consumer basket”, those with three or more children, unemployed
people, the disabled, and single pensioners without family to care for
them. (Anyone whose monthly income is less than $60 can be qualified
as “poor”.) Social workers visit applicants at their homes as well
as taking documents supporting their status into consideration.

“We frequently hear the phrase: ‘Visit us and then evaluate the
level of my poverty’,” says Minasyan. She says it is very difficult
to evaluate the conditions of a family properly without visiting
their homes, because of hidden employment levels. The grading system
even takes account of spending on telephone calls and electricity.
Social worker Marine Sukiasyan believes that checking telephone and
electricity expenses are more than effective in establishing poverty.

“One can find out while asking questions that one of the family
members works without registration, but one can hardly find out about
the money they receive from abroad. That is why the only indicators
are the telephone calls and expenses for electricity,” she says.

“If one can allow himself expenses that exceed the amount of
the allowance than he has also the resource to pay for them.”
The department’s poverty indicators state that electricity spending
per head should not exceed 158 kilowatts per month, which makes some
4000 drams (about $8).

The basic allowance is 6 000 drams, which goes to families with no
school-age children. Each child attracts an additional 3,000 drams in
allowance and an extra 4,000 drams is paid if the family is graded as
extremely poor. A family with four children will receive a monthly
allowance of 18 000 drams ($38), while the poor with children in
highland or borderland settlements qualify for an extra 2,000.

Families expecting a new arrival have additional support. In the past
four years, a one-time payment of 35 000 drams ($74) was made to the
family of a newborn child. The sum doubled this month to 70,000 drams
($148), provided the family applies to community social services
within three months of the birth.

Naira Sahakyan, of Yerevan, who receives welfare support, believes
it is still too low to meet even minimal needs, but she still draws
comfort from the increase (from 9,200 drams last year to 12,000 this
year) in the payments.

“I have three under-age children, my husband left for Russia seven
years ago as if to earn money and it’s almost four years since I’ve
heard from him. How can I buy food and cloths and send my child to
school with 12 000 drams?” she says.

“It’s not the allowance that should be increased; they should rather
open factories so that people can work.” Diana Martirosova, the head
of the Department for Household Surveys at the National Statistical
Service, said that the level of poverty in 2003 was 42.9 percent,
the lowest for the last 10 years.

“The poverty indicator decreased for the first time in 2001, when it
was 50.9 per cent compared to 55.5 per centsin 1998-1999. In 2002 it
was 49.7 per cent,” says Martirosova.

Today, 57.1 per cent of the population is considered not poor, 42.9 per
cent are poor, and those in absolute poverty represent 7.4 per cent.
“The numbers in absolute poverty decrease more quickly than that of
the poor; the allowances play a role here, but our priority is to
create jobs and to reduce the number of families receiving aid in a
natural way,” said the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs Aghvan
Vardanyan in a press conference last week.

CHILDHOOD PAINFULLY EXTENDED: MEASLES AFFLICTING OLDER ARMENIANS WHO
MISSED VACCINATION

By Arpi Harutyunyan
ArmeniaNow Reporter

During the month of January, some 100 cases of measles were reported
in Yerevan’s Nork Infections Hospital. Most required hospitalization.
It is unusual to contact measles this time of year, but the Ministry
of Health says there is no cause for alarm and that it is “absolutely
not” an epidemic.

There is concern, however, that the typical-childhood affliction has
struck young adults. Most of those reported to Nork were older than 18.
The reason is likely to be related not just to some recent exposure
to bacteria, but also a holdover from social hardships of a decade ago.

“The fact that more people above 18 get ill leads us to conclude
that they represent the part of the population that has not been
vaccinated and lacks immunity,” explains the head physician at Nork,
Ara Asoyan. “Those responsible for health care in 1992-1996 may had
wished, but were unable to buy vaccine. And even after buying it,
it had to remain refrigerated. And during those years we didn’t have
even electricity.”

The result is that a group of the population aged about 18-25 may
now have a risk that should have been countered years ago.

Measles usually last for two weeks or more, causing high temperature,
weakness, rash and vomiting. Usually not a severe threat to children,
contamination of measles in adults can cause serious health problems.
Last July 400 cases of measles were registered, and nearly 90 percent
were over age 18. During that period a select group in the 18-25 age
group were chosen to receive vaccination. According to Sirak Sukiasyan,
director of the national program for immunization, “we have provided
for the age group”.

However infections specialist at the Nor Arabkir medical center Narina
Sargsyants holds another opinion on the matter. “According to our
estimations only in one district there are nearly 5,000 people aged
18-25 and we have vaccinated 10 times less than that,” she says. “It
was not only the fault of the people who were not interested in
addressing us, but also the doctors who did not provide population
with high level of awareness.”

During July and August, the Ministry of Health issued 53,000
vaccinations. Now, however, it does not provide the service because it
does not vaccines to distribute. A measles vaccine costs about $20,
making it prohibitive for most of the population.

Whether there is an epidemic is of minor concern to those who have
been infected.

Eduard Davtyan, a student of the National Institute of Economics got
infected three weeks ago. Davtyan says the disease came from his class,
where four students also suffer measles. “If only from my class four
people get infected it means that the health officials should take
the necessary measures to fight the disease,” he says. “They had to
provide free vaccine. And they should have paid more attention to
the risk-group students and schoolchildren.”

Many students who are concerned with the threat of being infected
apply to their district clinics to be vaccinated, but have been told
that there is no vaccine, except at private clinics, which have the
$20 shots.

BOUNCING WITH EXPECTATION: CHINESE AND ARMENIANS HOPEFUL OVER RUBBER
PARTNERSHIP

By Suren Musayelyan
ArmenianNow Reporter

A year after the project on the establishment of an Armenian-Chinese
rubber producing joint venture formally got underway, specialists are
optimistic about the success of the enterprise. The 30-month-long
project in which the Armenian side represented by Nairit-2 CJSC
provides technology and expertise was launched on February 19, 2004.

Nairit-2 and its Chinese partner, Shanxi Synthetic Rubber Group
Co. Ltd, are to build a plant, ChinArmenPren, with an annual production
capacity of 30,000 tons of rubber in north China’s Shanxi Province.
The project is still at the stage of designing but some construction
work has already been carried out. The first group of Armenian
specialists this month returned from a 2.5-month business trip to
China where they helped their Chinese colleagues with projections.

Albert Sukiasyan, Director of Nairit-2 CJSC, which represents the
Armenian side in the project, is satisfied with the results of the
work done during the year.

He says that the initial stage of the project has proved the choice of
cooperation with China as the best for Armenia’s chemical industry,
which was left without a sales market and raw material base after
the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“Armenia cooperated with China in the chemical industry still in the
1950s when it was part of the Soviet Union,” says Sukiasyan. “Since
then we have greatly advanced in terms of our rubber production
technology and it is natural that China with its increased rubber
consumption chose us as its partner.”

According to Sukiasyan, the Chinese consider the acetylene method of
producing chloroprene rubber developed by Armenian specialists to be
the safest in the world.

“They would cooperate with Dupont or Bayer if their technologies were
safer,” says Sukiasyan.

The acetylene method uses natural gas and carbide as raw materials for
producing chloroprene rubber. Unlike Armenia, China has huge deposits
of coal and vast reserves of natural gas. The province where the plant
will be situated has the richest reserves of coal in the world. And
coal is the basis for obtaining carbide used in the production of
chloroprene rubber.

“They have vast resources, we don’t. But we have the technology and
expertise that they need. So, our technology matches their potential,”
says Sukiasyan, who has worked in the chemical industry of Armenia
since 1957.

According to Sukiasyan, Nairit will also produce and supply the
necessary equipment for the plant in China. He says that the first
order will be executed in the middle of May.

The construction, according to him, is due for completion in 2006,
after which for 17 years ChinArmenPren plant will be operated by the
two sides and its profits will be divided according to the following
pattern: the Armenian side will get 40% of the profit and the Chinese
side will get 60%.

The authorized capital of the JV will amount to $35 million, with
$21 million contributed by the Chinese side and 14 million by the
Armenian side.

Sukiasyan says that the plant’s management will also be shared –
Armenian specialists will direct the technical part, while the
financial matters will be managed by the Chinese side.

Under the contract, in 17 years either side gets the right to opt out
of the joint venture getting its share. But Sukiasyan says that given
all the favorable conditions for profitable cooperation neither side
considers this option at this stage yet and is unlikely to consider
it in the future.

“I think this will be a long-term cooperation that will last for
decades,” he says. “Besides, our cooperation with the Chinese will go
far beyond rubber production. Thus, we also have plans to cooperate
in chemical production that will help the agricultural sector.”
Mavrik Farsiyan is one of the three specialists who recently worked
in China helping local specialists do the projecting works. He says
that both sides have a lot to offer to each other.

“All conditions are created for our fruitful cooperation and we hope
that this will be a long-term cooperation that will also benefit the
chemical industry in Armenia,” he says.

During Soviet times Nairit was a monopolist producer of chloroprene
rubber in the USSR. Now it is still one of the five plants in
the world producing synthetic rubber. After several unsuccessful
attempts of privatization Nairit now again belongs to the Armenian
government. There are about 2,000 workers registered on its
payroll. But the cooperation with the Chinese side is conducted through
Nairit-2, which was established in 2001 as a scientific-research
institute and also belongs to the government.

Nairit-2 has a staff of 105 workers, their average monthly wages
being 35,000 drams.

Currently, 22 specialists from China are on an exchange visit to
Armenia studying the experience of their Armenian colleagues at
Nairit-2.

According to the director of Nairit-2, up to 100 specialists are
going to be directly involved in the realization of the joint venture
establishment project from the Armenian side.

LAWTOON: YOUNG PEOPLE GET LEGAL LEARNING FROM ANIMATIONS

By Mariam Badalyan
ArmeniaNow Reporter

Thursday the American Bar Association Central European and Eurasian Law
Initiative (ABA/CEELI) organized a presentation its “Alphabet of Law”,
a series of cartoons to teach young people about law and human rights.
“The goal of the project was making law easy and teachable for the
general public,” says Lisa Russo, ABA/CEELI Rule of Law Liaison. “With
the help of these cartoons people will remember their basic rights
without making much efforts on memorizing theories.”

The cartoons are ideally meant for 8-10 form classes, but are designed
so that lower class students may also find them easy-to-understand.

The series were shot by Independent Film-Makers production team.
“The topics are serious and very important, but we have tried to
make them appealing to teenagers by adding some humor,” said Ashot
Mkhitaryan president of Independent Film Makers, the production
company.

So far, three cartoons, each two to three minutes long, have been shot
on different topics – three branches of government, constitutional
rights, and equality of sexes. The next video will be on basic rights
and responsibilities of citizens.

“There are a few more topics that are under discussion, however we
actually take suggestions from the public,” says Russo. The idea of
the project was taken from the American “Schoolhouse Rock” cartoon
series. Russo says she remembers extracts from the US constitution
from the TV show songs. The cartoons are currently used in Armenian
Young Lawyers Association Street Law project financed by the US
Embassy and ABA/CEELI.

The AYLA Street law project started in fall of 2003. The aim of the
project is acquainting the population with their fundamental human
and civil rights. Topics included: family law, labor law and labor
relations, trafficking, struggle against corruption, constitutional
rights. The classes were organized in AYLA Yerevan office as well as
AYLA regional offices in Gavar, Gyumri, Kapan, Goris, Ijevan, Vanadzor.

“The first stage of the project will be over this spring, says
Liana Harutiunyan, the Street Law coordinator of AYLA, “however,
other groups of students will be enrolled to similar classes
immediately afterwards.” So far, 280 seminars were conducted with
224 participants. Among the participants were law students, young
lawyers and school teachers. All the participants have already
conducted trainings in 97 schools in Yerevan and marzes involving
4,832 schoolchildren.

AYLA volunteer Ruslan Avetisyan says that with the introduction
of cartoons the discussion became more lively. “Recently, we have
discussed equality for women with schoolchildren. The discussion was
very hot,” says Aveitsyan, “In many Armenian families people still
do not accept that a woman may have a ‘manly’ job. Discussion help
a lot to see things from a different angle.”

At present, the cartoons are being shown on “Yerkir Media” and “Shant
TV”. During the event other TV companies were also provided with CDs
and videos to be used for broadcasting.

NATIONAL PRIDE: BROTHERS SAY HORSES SHOULD BE AN ARMENIAN TREASURE

By Vahan Ishkhanyan
ArmeniaNow Reporter

During 10 years the Mirzoyan brothers have created Armenia’s largest
stable of sport horses. Their number is at 56 now (the second is the
hippodrome in Yerevan that was established during Soviet times and
now has 46 horses, of which a few are the property of individuals).

The stable is in their birthplace – in the village of Lernamerdz in
the Armavir region. The big stable situated in the unsightly rural
area catches the eye from the distance with its grove of young poplars.

“My brother brought the first horse from Echmiadzin,” says stable
director Gevorg Mirzoyan. “Then horses were given to us as gifts. At
some point we began to attend to it seriously. A horse is a dream. My
dad was very much fond of horses too (his father is a well-known
patriot in the national circles, Janpolad Mirzoyan). The news that
we were setting up a horse-breeding farm pleased him very much.”

Gevorg Mirzoyan, 56, graduated from the Philological Department of
the Yerevan State University. In 1987, together with Paruyr Hairikyan,
he founded the Union for Self-Determination, which was struggling for
Armenia’s independence. He worked at the State TV and Radio Committee,
from which he was fired in 1988 by KGB for his political views. A court
later reinstated him. In 1994, he participated in the Karabakh war.

Mirzoyan considers horse-breeding to be the continuation of his
nationalistic activities: “I thought at that time that we should
fight for independence, then I fought in the war, now I consider
horse-breeding to be the right thing to do. In a country that has
no horses a horse becomes a national wealth.”

He considers politics to be a damaging occupation and that it is the
scum of society that are engaged in it: “The war ended and I don’t
know where they came from and became ministers. Those who sincerely
fought for Armenia saw the country in a different way.” A piece of that
“different way” is the stable of Lernamerdz.

He considers even the place to be symbolic – it is in the center of
the triangle of three mountains – Aragats, Ararat and Ara.

Horse-breeding is not a business for the Mirzoyans. Gevorg’s brother
is a businessman, who only spends on the horse- breeding farm from
his incomes without any profit expectations: “If I sold the horses,
I would drive a Jeep. But if it were so, I would be among the animals
who take 50,000 dollars out of the pocket. Not drams, but dollars. They
(officials) spend 12,000 dollars a day in casinos, and they pay a
pension of 12,000 drams a month to people. If someone gave (officials)
12,000 drams, their heart would break.” Gevorg Mirzoyan says that
several times rich people and officials came to buy a horse from him,
but he didn’t sell. He told them that they’d better spend the money
to build a school in the village.

During the Soviet years, there were farms breeding sport horses which
disappeared in the ’90s, since during the crisis it was impossible
to maintain horses. The Mirzoyans once bought a few horses from those
horse-breeding farms, and they now gave offspring.

A worker at the stable, horse trainer Norik Sargsyan worked in the
horse-breeding farm of Ddmashen, which was the largest and had about
80 horses. He remembers how horses began to die there because of lack
of food: “So many horses died of hunger at that time. We could not
find food, they couldn’t stand the winter cold. There was no water,
foals were born in heavy conditions. Once I came and saw that six of
them had died, then 10 of them had gone.”

Sargsyan has worked as a horse trainer and jockey since 1972. He has
trained about 300 horses. He says that the best studs he had seen are
in Lernamerdz, built by the Mirzoyans from foundation to top. Here
he has already trained nine young horses to be ridden. Every day
except on Sunday the horses are trained by specialist trainers. Many
of the horses participated in championships organized in Armenia and
won prizes. One of their lot, “Clever” last year placed first in a
championship called “Call of the World”, held here.

Twenty of the horses are thoroughbred English saddle-horses. The
Mirzoyans decided to create an Armenian breed that will be a mixture
of the local horse and the English one. They already got one such
horse and called the breed “taron”.

“When we say local it is conventional, in reality there is no such
breed,” says Gevorg Mirzoyan. “The locals are a mixture, during Soviet
times horses were brought from different places and they mixed up with
each other. Then, horses were not properly kept in villages, they were
fed with remains from other animals’ food, and that’s why they have
no good look, their bodies are small. My goal is to create a local
breed – a taron-horse. This horse-breeding farm will be called the
Taron-Horse Medical-Sports Complex to where people will later come to
ride horses. Sporting and healthcare arrangements will be held there.

However, the Mirzoyans already now consider that they have achieved
the result, which is not only theirs but also of Armenia: “During
those years horses were dying of hunger. Offspring of some of them
are now here, whom we have saved and won by that.”

–Boundary_(ID_rqv6qjK01YkZwDMBkeTd7A)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Lebanese President Vows to Find Killers
By PAUL GARWOOD, Associated Press Writer

Associated Press
Feb 18 2005

February 18, 2005

President Emile Lahoud’s commitment came during a condolence visit
to his slain rival’s home and amid Lebanese government efforts to
keep control of the murder investigation, despite calls by Hariri’s
family and the United States and France for a foreign-led inquiry.

No credible claims of responsibility have emerged since Monday’s
bombing, which killed Hariri and 16 others. Lebanese have little
confidence in an investigation led by their own government in light
of its history of being unable to track down those responsible for
past political assassinations.

Thousands of Lebanese have signed a 30-yard-long banner with the word
“Resign” written in French and Arabic, which has been unfurled at
Hariri’s grave outside the towering downtown Beirut mosque he built.
The popular calls for Prime Minister Omar Karami’s government to
resign are the first since 1992, when riots forced Karami, who led
the government then, to step down.

They also increase pressure on the government, which many accuse of
involvement in Hariri’s killing, and its main power-broker Syria,
which also has been linked to the attack and is facing renewed U.S.
and French calls to withdraw its 15,000 soldiers from Lebanon –
a source of resentment for many Lebanese.

Both Syrian and Lebanese governments have denied involvement and
have instead condemned the killing of Hariri, a popular, self-made
billionaire who many here credit with rebuilding the country following
the devastating 1975-90 civil war.

“The president of the republic stressed to the family of the martyr
(Hariri) that the investigation is ongoing to uncover the circumstances
of the ugly crime,” according to a statement released by Lahoud’s
office following the meeting with Hariri’s two eldest sons, Bahaa
and Saadeddine.

The statement added that all clues are being followed that “might
lead to identifying those quarters that planned and executed the
crime against the martyr of Lebanon and his companions.”

Video of the condolence call that was broadcast on television showed
Lahoud talking with Hariri’s sons: Bahaa listening intently to the
president while his visibly upset younger brother, Saadeddine, sat
not facing toward Lahoud with his eyes tightly shut.

Lahoud has been locked in a power struggle with Hariri for more than
six years. At the Hariri family’s insistence, he stayed away from the
Wednesday’s funeral, which attracted more than 200,000 people from
across Lebanon’s divided communities and turned into an anti-government
and anti-Syrian rally.

Thousands of mourners, including those from Lebanon’s Christian
Armenian community, prayed at Hariri’s grave Friday as Muslims gathered
across Beirut for the main mosque prayer service of the week.

Lebanon reopened for business following three days of national
mourning, with shops and cafes doing a brisk trade and bustling
traffic returning to the streets. The Lebanese pound was steady at
around 1,500 to the dollar despite fears Hariri’s death might harm
the local currency.

Different opposition groups are meeting Friday to decide their next
steps. Until his death, Hariri had been tilting toward the opposition’s
anti-Syrian camp, without publicly joining them.

On Thursday, the Hariri family demanded an international-led
investigation into the killing, but Karami’s government has rejected
such calls and instead requested foreign investigators, including
Swiss forensic and explosives experts, to assist.

Justice Minister Adnan Addoum said authorities contacted Interpol
in Sydney over the departure from Beirut to Australia of 12 men with
Australian citizenship on the day of the bombing.

Jane O’Brien of the Australian Federal Police said federal officers
interviewed the men but did not believe any were linked to the attack.

No credible claims of responsibility have emerged, but the interior
minister has said a suicide bomber backed by “international parties”
may have killed Hariri. Even that theory had still not been confirmed.

Suspicion has also fallen on the possibility the bomb was placed
below the street where Hariri’s motorcade was driving, blowing it up.
The chief military investigator demanded police investigate recent
road works in the seafront area, which has since been named for Hariri.

Hariri was expected to run in parliamentary elections in April or
May. He stepped down as prime minister last year amid opposition
to a Syrian-backed constitutional amendment that extended Lahoud’s
presidency. He had held office for 10 of 14 years since the war ended.

—

Associated Press correspondent Bassem Mroue contributed to this report
in Beirut.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
Feb 18 2005

REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ CALLS ON CONGRESSMEN TO SUPPORT PEACEFUL
RESOLUTION OF ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN CONFLICT
[February 18, 2005, 16:41:08]

Co-chair of the US Congress working group for Azerbaijan,
representative Solomon Ortiz calls on his House colleagues to support
peaceful resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh.

The congressman stressed that occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and 7
adjacent regions of Azerbaijan by Armenian armed forces had created
one million Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced people.

He noted referring to US Department of State that the United States
does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state.
According to Solomon Ortiz, despite no progress in finding solution
to the problem has been achieved within the OSCE Minsk group, the
U.S. is continuing its effort in this framework.

Mr. Ortiz let his colleagues know that the latest resolution on the
issue adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
confirms that a greater part of the Azerbaijani territories are under
occupation of the Armenian armed forces, and the Nagorno-Karabakh
region is under control of separatist forces. The document urges the
OSCE Minsk group co-chairs to continue their effort, and the
conflicting parties to fulfill relevant resolutions of the United
Nations, including renunciation of military operations, and
withdrawal of armed forces from all the occupied territories.

Congressman Ortiz noted that located between Russia and Iran,
Azerbaijan is the U.S. important ally in fighting terror. He reminded
in this connection that though US-Azerbaijan anti-terror cooperation
began even before September 11 events, it was intensified due to
Azerbaijan’s unconditional support of the coalition by becoming the
first Moslem state to send its soldiers to Iraq.

France and Turkey’s EU Bid

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Feb 18 2005

Many French are sceptical about Turkey’s EU bid according to a poll
by CSA published in Valeurs Actuelles.

57 per cent of respondents are opposed to the country’s entry into
the continental alliance, a seven per cent increase since December.

In December, the EU agreed to begin accession talks with Turkey on
Oct. 3, 2005. The EU with this decison confirmed that Turkey has
fulfiiled all the requirements for full-membership including
democratization, human rights contions and economy.

French President Jacques Chirac publicly supported the start of
accession talks between the EU and Turkey. However there is a strong
Armenian lobby group in France and the French Armenians strongly
oppose Turkey’s EU entry. Similarly the racist and anti-Muslim French
groups claim that Turkey is a Muslim country and there is no place in
the EU for the Muslims. Religionist groups in many European countries
defend that the EU is a civilasation project and Christianity is one
of the most important columns.

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose Turkey’s accession into the European Union
(EU)?

Feb. 2005 Dec. 2004

Support 28% 37%

Oppose 57% 50%

No reply 15% 13%

Voting intention of respondents who intend to participate in the
European Constitution referendum

Yes No

Those who support
Turkey’s accession 72% 28%

Those against
Turkey’s accession 50% 50%

Source: CSA / Valeurs Actuelles
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 798 French adults, conducted on
Feb. 2 and Feb. 3, 2005.