New York Times
Jan 4 2005

After Food and Shelter, Help in Coping With Unbearable Loss

By BENEDICT CAREY

Providing psychological services for millions who have lost family
members, homes and communities in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and other
countries will become critical in the coming weeks, officials from
the World Health Organization, Unicef, and other relief agencies say.

The scope of the emotional fallout will be impossible to predict. The
first priority, the officials said, is to deliver food, shelter and
drinking water. But the United Nations has already set up a network
for counseling in Sri Lanka and, on Friday, sent mental health
workers to the Maldives.

Any natural disaster takes a steep emotional toll, the experts said,
but this one is distinguished by its sheer size and scale. Studies of
earthquakes, fires, hurricanes and other disasters that have
devastated communities find that a majority of survivors eventually
learn to live with awful memories and to work through their grief.
But a significant number suffer either chronic mental distress or a
more immediate emotional numbness that can isolate them from others.

“At this point we have to be very careful not to label as a mental
health problem this natural psychological response to being displaced
in a split second, to seeing that everything you had now no longer
exists,” said Dr. Rachel Yehuda, director of the traumatic stress
program at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the Bronx Veterans
Affairs Hospital. Those who are deeply scarred emotionally will need
long-term care, she said, not a few hours or days of emergency care
by grief counselors or other mental health workers.

After suffering a violent injury, or witnessing a catastrophe, some 5
percent to 10 percent of people suffer from lingering nightmares,
moodiness, nervous exhaustion and other symptoms of post-traumatic
stress syndrome, researchers say. These symptoms are considered
worrisome if they become chronic; they can appear months or even
years after the crisis.

Yet the rates of severe traumatic reactions can be much higher among
people sitting directly in the impact zone of a seemingly apocalyptic
event. After a 1988 earthquake that leveled the Armenian town of
Spitak, killing half its schoolchildren, researchers from the
University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than half the
town’s children suffered from post-traumatic stress and depression.
The rate was less than half that in Gumri, some 30 miles away, and
was negligible in Yerevan, the capital, 50 miles away.

“It’s very clear, the more extreme the experience, the higher the
risk of severe psychological reactions,” said Dr. Alan Steinberg, one
of the study’s authors. “Those people who were on the beach in this
case, or close, are going to be at highest risk” of chronic emotional
distress.

Even in areas farther inland, psychiatrists say, the grieving among
people who have lost homes and family members may be complicated by
the trauma and violence. When the final memory of a lost loved one is
violent, or suffused with guilt or helpless rage, experts say, it
interferes with the natural ability to mourn loss, leaving people
numb, at risk for serious depression, and cut off from others around
them.

“If there’s a signature image of this catastrophe, it’s the loss of
children, the parents right there struggling for their own lives but
unable to protect or save their children,” said Dr. Robert Pynoos,
co-director of the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress, and a
professor of psychiatry at the University of California’s
Neuropsychiatric Institute in Los Angeles.

The risk that this prolonged grief can cause depression is greater
still, experts say, when the death of a loved one is not confirmed,
or the body is swept into a mass grave without being identified – as
has occurred in some areas hit by the tsunami.

In such circumstances, when the normal cultural rituals surrounding
death are disrupted, wild rumors often circulate, experts say. In
1985, volcanic ash and rubble killed some 80 percent of the
inhabitants of the Armero, Colombia, sweeping away the bodies. For
months afterward, there were stories and “sightings” of some of the
dead wandering in far-off places. Only after the corpses were found
two years later and proper ceremonies were conducted, did the
survivors accept their loss, according to a World Health Organization
report.

In 2001, a fire in Lima, Peru, killed some 270 people, charring many
bodies beyond recognition and depriving families of identifiable
remains to bury and mourn. In the resulting confusion, rumors
circulated that relief workers were stealing cadavers for medical
experimentation, or selling harvested body parts, the W.H.O. report
said.

In the weeks and months to come, experts say, relief workers can help
dispel such rumors, as well as identify survivors who are at risk of
prolonged depression or traumatic stress. The health organization has
issued guidelines for relief workers on how to deal with traumatized
victims, and a group affiliated with the University of Oslo is
planning a program to provide information on counseling to teachers
and others in the areas hardest hit by the disaster.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 4 2005

EU Summit of December 17: A Victory or A Defeat for Turkey?

View: Dr. Sedat Laciner

After the Brussels Summit on 17 December 17 2004, The Prime Minister
Tayyip Erdogan and his companions were welcomed as the `conquerors’.
The welcome which was started at the airport continued with a `feast’
in the Ankara Kýzýlay Square. Although the Prime Minister Erdogan
said `We are not spoiled and will never lose our self-control’, the
tv-radio news and newspaper headlines were full of `how we pull up
stakes with Europe and European leaders, ` and `how we oppressed the
Greeks and get what we want’. However, the obstinate opponents of
Europe claimed that in December 17 Turkey sacrificed Cyprus in return
of the accession date. According to these people Turkey has gained
nothing even before the summit. If such is the case which one is the
real fact? December 17 is the date of `Turkish Entrance into Europe’
or is the date of gaining nothing by adding more concessions’ to the
existing ones.

***

First of all, when we look at the remarks before the Summit we see
that Turkey went to the EU Summit with `four red lines’:

1. An exact date should be given for the negotiations and this date
should not be open-ended.

2. Before the start of the negotiations Turkey can not take any more
steps in Cyprus Issue.

3. The aim of the negotiations should be full membership. The
alternatives which will distort the full membership, such as,
`privileged partnership’ or `B Plan’ can never be accepted.

4. Permanent derogations (limitations) can never be accepted by
Turkey.

***

At the end of the Summit each of these lines were exceeded. If we
handle them one by one, the first months of 2005 do not come true,
instead the EU, with a French insistence, determined October 3, 2004
as the starting date.

In addition, the exact date of the end of negotiations has not been
defined, it has been especially stated that the negotiations will be
open-ended. In other words, the negotiations between Turkey and the
EU might be continued forevermore. For this reason, December 17 has
not given guarantee for Turkey’ full membership. Until now, Turkey
has been waiting for 41 years, and according to the draft Turkey can
wait 41 more years without any progress.

Secondly, Turkey was the one who promise not to take a step in Cyprus
before the negotiations. Turkey and the TRNC (Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus) have realized all of the EU and UN requirements and
have made all of the concessions, however, Turkey faced with new
concessions in the Summit, also added that before solving the
problem, EU have declared the membership of the Greek Cypriots as the
only representative of the island despite all of the concessions
Turkey has made. Besides, though there have not been a signed written
agreement, Turkey has pledged to take a step in Cyprus Issue before
the start of the negotiations. The South (Greek) Cyprus with the
other 9 newly joined member countries will be included into the scope
of the Ankara Agreement until the October 3. Namely, an indirect
recognition will eventuate. This step does not mean that Greek Cyprus
will be recognized as the only legitimate Cyprus State, but should be
noted as a concession for Turkey before the negotiations. In other
words, the second red line is also dispersed. Turkey, before the
starting of the negotiations, takes a step in Cyprus.

Thirdly, Turkey had declared that essentially the aim of the
negotiations should be full membership, and the privileged
partnership would not be accepted. Although the EU leaders tell that
their ultimate aim is the full membership, the expressions of `if
Turkey does not assume the obligations of membership it must be
ensured that it is fully anchored in the European structures’ in fact
means a `kind preparation’ for a `privileged partnership’. There is
no difference between the Summits indirect `membership formula’ and
the `privileged partnership’ proposal of the German Christian
Democrats and the French opposition to Turkey. `Privileged
partnership’ can be defined as the enlarged definition of the customs
unity. Briefly, this red line has not been accepted in the summit.

***

Another Turkish requirement was that the EU cannot bring any
permanent limitation (derogations) in funds, agricultural politics,
free movement, etc. According to the Turkish officials any permanent
derogation damage the spirit of the Union, and in this respect Turkey
was quite right. A full membership which could not offer free
movement right has no meaning for Turkey, because, thanks to the
Customs Union and a 41-years-old relation with the EU, Turkey has all
the `privileged relationships with the Union’. Unfortunately, when we
look at the Decision of the Summit, the EU brought just the opposite
of Turkey’s demands onto the table, and during the Summit very little
could be changed. In other words, Turkey again has gained almost
nothing on this issue. The concessions for Turkey do not allow a
normal membership.

Consequently, Turkey went to Brussels with four basic `sine qua non’
but nearly none of these were accepted and all of these red lines
were exceeded.

***

If all of the Turkish demands were refused, in this respect can we
call it as `a great victory’?
Tayyip Erdogan and his team can be considered as heroes?

Answer is `Yes’.

Turkey has gained a victory in December 17 and Erdogan and his team
are to be appreciated because of their success in Brussels. Although
it is early to `shoulder them’ or to `prepare feasts in the public
squares’ they are to be congratulated.

Above all these, the `red lines’ which were defined before December
17 were really realistic requirements and if this fact was not
noticed by Abdullah Gul, Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister in Ankara
but soon has realized in Brussels. December 17 summit barely showed
that European public’s 1000-year old prejudices have stayed
unchanged. Until now, Turkey has not been considered as a `serious
candidate’ by the member countries of the EU. They have never deemed
Turkey as a `real European’ and a `real candidate’. The public
opinion which is manipulated by religionist extreme Christians, anti
Turkish Greek, Greek Cypriot, Armenian and PKK lobbies has formed a
great obstacle for Turkey to overcome.

In conclusion, the EU leaders’ will to take Turkey as a member is not
enough. If there is not a strong and real intention behind the back
of the documents signed, then the agreements are not considered to be
worthy. In this condition, the concepts such as, Cyprus, permanent
derogations, full membership, etc. lose their meanings. If there is
will in them these `details’ would gain importance.

In the Brussels Summit Turkey has strengthened this mentioned
good-will and has developed envision that Turkey is a real candidate
for the EU. Before and during the Summit Turkish leaders proved that
Turks are `true Europeans’, however they confronted the old racist
and discriminative European habits. Turkey passed the test; the EU’s
test is still in process. Because of this reason Turkish Prime
Minister Erdogan and his team should be congratulated. They became
successful in keeping Turkey on the way of the EU membership.

It can be said that, like the December 17, there will be more summits
in near future. Turkey needs time to erase all of the prejudices and
this period of time is taken from the EU. Besides, the defenders of
Turkey in EU have become more powerful. One may ask that Turkey who
has not erased these prejudices for 41 years could have erase them
until October 3? However, an important point should be considered
that the EU and Turkey have never reached a kind of relationship in
which they can truly communicate with each other: As said before, EU
had not considered Turkey as a `real candidate’. On the other hand,
Turkey only communicated with the EU leaders and did not realized
importance of dealing with the European public opinion. Also the real
intentions of the decision former makers in Turkey are a debatable
issue. Whereas, after the September 11, Turkey and EU are open to
listen and understand each other.
December 17 is a great victory for Turkey because the main need of
Turkey is not EU but the EU process, and Turkey took what it really
wanted.

January 2005

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Los Angeles Daily News
Jan 4 2005

TV host Agajanian eyes council race

By Alex Dobuzinskis, Staff Writer

GLENDALE — The host of a local cable television show aimed at
Armenian-Americans said Monday that he plans to run for City Council,
and vowed to make city politics more transparent.
Vrej Agajanian, 53, said there was too much secrecy surrounding the
city’s negotiations with the developer of the $264 million Americana
at Brand project, a 15.5-acre retail, entertainment and dining
complex slated to open in fall 2006.

“First and foremost, I want the city to be transparent and everything
to be done in open forum and not behind closed doors,” Agajanian
said.

City Councilman Frank Quintero, who plans to run for re-election,
welcomed Agajanian into the race.

“I think he has a tenacious personality and is very good about
identifying issues and speaking out,” Quintero said.

Agajanian hosts “ABC-TV Live with Vrej Agajanian.”

The 23-year Glendale resident said he had received $4,750 to run
political ads on his program from the campaign that sought to defeat
the Americana at Brand project in a September 2004 referendum.
Glendale voters narrowly approved the project.

Agajanian, who will need to get 100 signatures to be placed on the
ballot, would be running against several candidates for four seats on
the council in the April 5 general election.

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 4 2005

Armenian Weekly: Armenian People Support Turkey’s EU Bid

Agos, Armenian weekly newspaper published in Istanbul, Turkey,
reported that Armenian public strongly supports Turkey’s EU
membership.

Agos reported in its latest issue that Armenian people in Armenia
welcomed Turkey’s success in the December 17 Brussels Summit.

However, the paper stressed, it is observed that Armenians living in
France in Diaspora conducted campaigns against Turkey in this
process:

`While the summit goes on, an Armenian group of approximately 2300
people have made a demonstration near the EU Council Building in
Brussels. The group, asked the so- called Armenian Genocide to be
recognized by Turkey before full membership talks, and asked EU not
to accept the Turkish membership because Turkey has not shared the
ideal of Europe.’

`Foreign Affairs Ministry of Armenia said `If Turkey meets all EU
demands; the full membership of Turkey may also be beneficial for
Armenia and may influence the region positively.’ The government of
Armenia argued that Turkey’s Armenian border is still closed
unilaterally, and Turkey has placed punishment to the use of the term
`genocide’. Armenian government added that Turkey asserted
unacceptable pre-conditions to normalize the relations with his own
country. Besides, Armenia said `if Turkey listens to the society of
Europe, this will enable to overcome the obstacles and guarantee a
durable stability and development.’

In a survey conducted by Armenian Strategic and National Research
Center presided by Former Armenian Foreign Affairs Minister, Raffi
Hovhannesyan, % 64 of 2000 Armenians from many different segments of
the society were in favor of Turkey’s accession.

Besides, in the frame of this survey, 92 out of 100 experts supported
the accession of Turkey to the EU.’

Turkey has two pre-conditions to normalize its relations with
Armenia:

1) End Armenian occupation in Azerbaijani territories and do not
attempt to change borders by force,
2) Recognize Turkey’s unity and national borders. Do all amendments
that do not recognize Turkey’s national borders,

Armenian `genocide’ allegations are not a pre-condition for Turkey.
However Turkey says a historical and intellectual matter should not
be abused to prevent Turkish-Armenian relations. A Turkish official
said `An EU member Turkey could be a great opportunity for Armenian
Republic’.

Armenian forces still occupies about 20 per cent of Azerbaijani
territories and 1 million Azerbaijanis became refugees after the
occupation.

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 4 2005

Armenia Armenians and Diaspora Armenians Have Contrary Interests

Jan SOYKOK (JTW), ANKARA, 4 January 2005

Dr. Nilgun Gulcan, political scientist and an expert on Caucasus
politics, told the JTW that Armenians in Armenia and Armenians in the
Diaspora had different and sometimes contrary interests.

Gulcan said `If Turkey accepts Armenian allegations Diaspora
Armenians will benefit from this, but Republic of Armenia will pay
for it.’

Gulcan further continued:

`If Turkey accepts Armenian genocide allegations, Armenian Diaspora
would benefit from this in three ways:

First they expect legal compensation. Even some of the Armenian
diaspora organizations expect billion of dollars from Turkey as
compensation.

Secondly, they expect right of relocation to Eastern towns of Turkey.
However, they did not return to Armenia, and they do not return to
Turkey or any country in the region. They are used to comfortable
Western style life.

The last and the most importantly they use so called `Turkish threat’
as an instrument for their unity and identity in Diaspora. If Turkish
threat vanishes from the Armenian agenda assimilation of Armenian
identity of Armenian diaspora will escalate. If Turkey recognizes
Armenian allegations, Armenian diaspora organizations will radically
deepen their anti-Turkey campaigns. This is an open-ended process,
and no one in Armenian Republic can benefit. Turkey’s possible
recognition of Armenian allegations will not help reconciliation and
will not help Armenian people in Armenia.’

Dr. Nilgun Gulcan argued Republic of Armenia need Turkey and the
Turks while Diaspora Armenians need a Turkish threat:

`Armenia Armenians have different interests. They do not live in
California, New York or Paris. They live in a different geography.
They live in a land-locked country. They do not live with Americans,
French or Italians but mainly with the Turks. There are more than 100
million Turkish peoples around Armenia: Turkey, Azerbaijan and
Iranian Azerbaijan. The Diaspora Armenians can insult Turkish people,
diaspora can sacrifice Turkey’s friendship for the historical
debates, because they do not need Turkey and Turkish friendship. As a
matter of fact that they need a Turkish threat to survive as an
Armenian in a foreign environment. They need a legacy to prevent
assimilation and they created the 1915. It is understandable that two
nations could see the past events in different ways. Armenians could
accuse Turks and Turkish people could accuse Armenians for the
killings of 1915. Turkish historians say more than 500,000 Muslims
were killed by the Armenian armed groups while the Armenian
historians accuse Turks of killing thousands of Armenian civilians.
All these differences could be discussed. Differences between two
sides are quite normal and understandable. However Armenians should
not sacrifice today for the past issues. Armenian politicians should
not make politics over the dead people. Armenian diaspora should not
sacrifice Armenia for their own diaspora interests. Now there is a
very enthusiastic government in Turkey to normalize relations with
Armenia. If Armenia cannot normalize relations with AK Party
Government, it will have no more chance. Armenian politicians hope a
European or American pressure over the Turkish government. All these
options were applied. And both, the EU and the US understand that
Turkey will not open its territorial borders without Armenia takes a
step in occupied territories issue. Moreover Armenia’s `strange’
special relations with Russia disturb the Americans and Europeans.
Armenia’s Russia policy obstructs the West to implement its Caucasian
policies. While Georgia and Azerbaijan develop close relations with
EU, NATO, USA, Israel and Turkey, Republic of Armenia forge its links
with Moscow. Now Russia has monopoly on energy and many other
sectors. Armenia is a sui generic case in its relations with Russia.’

Gulcan said European or American pressure over Turkey did not work
and will not work: `The only way to normalize relations between
Turkey and Armenia is normalization of Armenia-Diaspora relations. If
diaspora manipulations and misdirection end, Turkey and Armenia could
solve their problems in time’ added Gulcan.

Gulcan also argued that there was a Karabakh lobby in Armenia:

`Not only the Western Armenian Diaspora but also the Karabakh
Armenians manipulate Armenian policies. They are Karabakh-obsessed
and cannot see the regional realities. Armenia must think again the
cost of Karabakh occupation. First, Karabakh problem hinders
democratization in Armenia. Hawkish President Kocharian does trust
only those came from Karabakh. Karabakh Armenians are used to
militarize the country. There is a vivid economic catastrophe,
however the Karabakh problem and so-called Turkish threat are used to
curtail all these problems. There is a bitter demography problem.
Armenia’s population is not sufficient for survival of Armenia, and
dramatic migration to abroad continues, but extreme nationalists are
talking about conquering new territories: Karabakh, Naxcivan, Eastern
Turkey, some parts of Georgia and Russia. They are not realistic.
Armenia need population and financial aid, not advise or new
territories. Armenia needs regional friends. Armenia needs to put an
end to historical hostilities, not to create new ones. Armenia needs
a diaspora which sincerely considers Armenia’s interests.’

Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia sign memorandum on political consultations

Lider TV, Baku
4 Jan 05

[Presenter] Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is on an
official visit to Saudi Arabia. He started meetings with Saudi
officials today. The Azerbaijani ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Elman
Arasli, told Lider that Mammadyarov has already had talks with his
Saudi counterpart, Amir Sa’ud Al-Faysal. A bilateral memorandum on
political consultations was signed at the end of the meeting, which
discussed issues of mutual interest. The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict
over Nagornyy Karabakh was also discussed during the talks.

[Elman Arasli, captioned, speaking over phone and over his still
picture] Saudi Arabia unanimously supports Azerbaijan at international
organizations, the UN and the Organization of Islamic Conference on
issues pertaining to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It has not
established diplomatic relations with Armenia despite the latter’s
efforts. Undoubtedly, they exchanged views on that and also discussed
the issue.

Azeri opposition official blames government for Karabakh policy failures

Azadliq, Baku
30 Dec 04

Text of Xayal Sahinoglu report by Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq on 30
December headlined “Another defeat of Ilham Aliyev’s diplomacy” and
subheaded “The authorities give up the idea of discussing the Karabakh
issue at the UN at the demand of the Minsk Group” and “Fuad
Qahramanli: ‘Under the Aliyevs, Azerbaijan’s foreign policy has been
in such a situation that not only Armenia and its allies, but also the
international community are speaking in the language of pressure to
Azerbaijan'”

Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani lands will not be discussed at the
UN. The reason is the Azerbaijani authorities’ commitment to the
OSCE. The Russian co-chairman of the OSCE [Minsk Group], Yuriy
Merzlyakov, recently publicized an agreement Azerbaijan and Armenia
reached three months ago. Armenia will allow the co-chairmen to
monitor the occupied Azerbaijani territories if the Karabakh conflict
is not discussed at the UN, Merzlyakov said.

The co-chairman’s statement shows that Azerbaijani diplomacy has not
gained even a minimum advantage, let alone serious success, in the
resolution of the conflict, a member of the presidium of the People’s
Front of Azerbaijan Party [PFAP], Fuad Qahramanli, said. Saying that
the co-chairmen are clearly speaking from Armenia’s position,
Qahramanli noted that as a victim of the aggression, Azerbaijan is in
a more difficult diplomatic position than Armenia.

“It is clearly seen that the co-chairmen are speaking from Armenia’s
position, which is something that challenges the impartiality of the
negotiations within the framework of the OSCE and the resolution of
the problem in accordance with the principles of international law. If
the OSCE Minsk Group is dealing with the resolution of the conflict,
it should be monitoring the occupied territories despite any
problem. The co-chairmen should investigate the accuracy of the
information about Armenians settling in the occupied territories. It
turns out that if Azerbaijan had not given up the idea of discussing
the Karabakh conflict at the UN, the OSCE Minsk Group would have
remained indifferent towards the settlement of Armenians in the
occupied lands. This is a serious problem of Azerbaijani diplomacy and
the reason why it has emerged is the foreign policy which was once
conducted by [the late Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev and is now
being conducted by his son [Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev].”

He said that the good-for-nothing foreign policy Heydar Aliyev and his
son have been conducting for many years has dealt a serious blow to
Azerbaijan’s international standing. Therefore, the international
community challenges Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

“Under the Aliyevs, Azerbaijan’s foreign policy has been in such a
situation that not only Armenia and its allies, but also the
international community are speaking in the language of pressure to
Azerbaijan. Only Islamic countries supported Azerbaijan when the
Karabakh issue was put on the UN agenda. It is a logical result of the
setbacks in our foreign policy that the world community actually
questions Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.”

Saying that it would be illogical to await any outcome in Azerbaijan’s
favour from the negotiations in the present circumstances, Qahramanli
believes that responsibility for this situation lies with the
authorities.

“The government has been promulgating for a long time the idea that
our country will increase its international allies as a result of its
oil policy. It becomes clear today that no progress has been made at
all. On the contrary, the number of Azerbaijan’s international allies
has begun to decrease.”

Qahramanli chided the government for the fact that the occupied lands
are being used as a means of pressure on Azerbaijan.

“The Foreign Ministry has not expressed its attitude to what has
happened so far. It proves once again that as a state entity, the
authorities do not have the will, political power and diplomatic
capabilities to resolve the Karabakh conflict, which is considered to
be the country’s main problem.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri MPs expect no Council of Europe sanctions

Zerkalo, Baku
4 Jan 05

Text of C. Bayramova report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 4
January headlined “Calm, just stay calm” and subheaded “Azerbaijan
will not face Council of Europe sanctions”

“The Council of Europe will not impose sanctions on Azerbaijan,”
Andreas Gross, co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Group of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE], has said
().

“We hoped that in the absence of bitter political struggle (the
opposition’s boycott), the 17 December municipal election would have
become the first free and fair election. However, the ‘election
machine’ worked as it was programmed once again,” he said.

Gross also said that he came across exaggerations of voter turnout
figures in some precincts. Instead of the actual 5-7 per cent, the
final protocol featured 45-47 per cent. There were other major
violations as well, and they influenced the outcome of the election as
a result.

There are many symptoms (the trial of opposition leaders, restrictions
on freedom of speech and assembly and so on) which allow one to
conclude that the Azerbaijani authorities ignore PACE
resolutions. However, he said that the co-rapporteurs do not intend to
raise the issue of imposing sanctions on Azerbaijan.

“Should we expel Azerbaijan from the Council of Europe, this will not
mean that the authorities will have problems. It is the population,
first of all, that will face problems. By expelling Azerbaijan we will
first of all lose the opportunity to help the Azerbaijani people. The
Azerbaijani delegation to PACE is a bridge by which we conduct talks
with the government on economic reforms,” Gross said.

In a conversation with our Zerkalo correspondent, MP Qulamhuseyn
Alibayli, a member of the Azerbaijani delegation to PACE, said that
the “falsified 17 December municipal election” may, in effect, be
recognized as invalid. “It is no secret to anyone that the protocols
were written under the dictation of the local executive authorities,”
he said. It is no surprise that these circumstances did not elude
Gross’s attention, Alibayli said.

Nevertheless, PACE will not discuss sanctions against Azerbaijan in
the near future. The January session will discuss other topics,
Alibayli said. “In particular, the Karabakh conflict whose discussion,
I think, should not affect the image of Azerbaijan. On the contrary,
it is Azerbaijan’s territory that has been occupied and harsh
sanctions must be imposed on separatist Armenia,” Alibayli said.

Drawing conclusions on what was said above, the MP said that the
Council of Europe is pursuing any objectives by imposing sanctions on
the countries that fail to comply with the organization’s
resolutions. “Rather, one can talk about disapproval or, to put it
mild, reprimands, but certainly not sanctions,” he said.

It is interesting that when we asked Alibayli whether this fact will
“untie the hands” of the authorities, Alibayli said: “I do not think
so, because the political climate in Azerbaijan is gradually improving
as a result of international pressure and criticism”.

Meanwhile, the head of the Azerbaijani delegation, MP Samad Seyidov,
does not rule out that the PACE agenda may include some irregularities
in the 17 December municipal elections. However, this will not happen
before the June session in 2005.

“It is known that Andreas Gross and Andres Herkel carefully monitored
the municipal election, but they did so as PACE co-rapporteurs, not as
observers. When they visited some polling stations, they registered
certain irregularities and later briefed the Central Electoral
Commission [CEC] in this regard. I hope that the CEC will take
appropriate measures to investigate the evidence. Naturally, such
issues may be reflected in the reports of the co-rapporteurs about how
Azerbaijan complies with its commitments to the Council of Europe. I
believe that they will report in June 2005,” Seyidov said.

Armenia – Index of Economic Freedom 2004

Rank: 42
Score:2.58
Category:Mostly Free
View PDF

Quick Study

Trade Policy2.0
Fiscal Burden2.3
Government Intervention2.5
Monetary Policy2.0
Foreign Investment2.0
Banking and Finance1.0
Wages and Prices3.0
Property Rights3.0
Regulation4.0
Informal Market 4.0

Population: 3,068,000
Total area: 29,800 sq. km
GDP: $2.3 billion
GDP growth rate: 12.9%
GDP per capita: $761
Major exports: diamonds, copper ore, scrap metal, machinery and equipment
Exports of goods and services: $691 million
Major export trading partners: Israel 21.0%, Belgium 18.3%, Russia 13.9%, US
8.3%
Major imports: natural gas, petroleum, mineral products, prepared foodstuffs
Imports of goods and services: $1.2 billion
Major import trading partners: Russia 16.4%, Belgium 10.2%, Israel 9.7%, US
8.0%
Foreign direct investment (net): $89 million

The Republic of Armenia remained committed to the gradual pursuit of a
democratic society and free-market economy in 2004. President Robert Kocharian,
weakened by political instability and opposition attempts to secure a
no-confidence referendum, became more willing to use authoritarian measuresagainst his
critics. The government will look to improve political and economic relations
with neighbors Russia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan; the latter two have maintained a
trade embargo with Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Economic policy continues to be guided by the economic and fiscal policies and the
poverty-reduction strategy developed in cooperation with the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund. Reforms should provide improvements in the
banking sector, transparency, and enforcement of anti-corruption measures.
Privatization of state-owned enterprises, begun in 1994 following an aggressive land
privatization program in 1991, has been slow. According to the Economist
Intelligence Unit, of the nearly 900 businesses that the government has offered for
privatization, 320 were divested in 2003. Armenia’s government intervention
score is 0.5 point better this year. As a result, its overall score is 0.05
point better this year.

Trade Policy

Score:2.0
According to the World Bank, Armenia’s weighted average tariff ratein 2001
(the most recent year for which World Bank data are available) was 2.5 percent.
Most imports are free of prohibitions, quotas, or licensing, but the
government imposes a value-added tax on certain imports to support its industrial
policy, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development reports that
cumbersome customs procedures act as a non-tariff barrier.

Fiscal Burden

Score:2.0
The Embassy of Armenia reports that Armenia’s top income tax rate is 20
percent. The top corporate tax rate is 20 percent. In 2003, government expenditures
as a share of GDP decreased 0.5 percentage point to 18.9 percent, compared to
a 0.6 percentage point decrease in 2002.

Government Intervention

Score:2.0
The World Bank reports that the government consumed 10.1 percent of GDP in
2002. In 2003, based on data from the Ministry of Finance and Economy, Armenia
received 5.7 percent of its total revenues from state-owned enterprises and
government ownership of property. Based on the newly available, more reliable
data on revenues from state-owned enterprises, Armenia’s governmentintervention
score is 0.5 point better this year.

Monetary Policy

Score:2.0
Between 1994 and 2003, Armenia’s weighted average annual rate of inflation
was 4.01 percent.

Foreign Investment

Score:2.0
Armenia offers equal official treatment to foreign investors, who have the
same right to establish businesses as native Armenians in most sectors of the
economy. Unless specifically authorized, foreign investment is not allowed in
consumer co-operatives, collective farms, government enterprises, and
enterprises of strategic significance. The government continues to restrictownership of
land by foreigners, although they may lease it. The International Monetary
Fund reports that there are no restrictions or controls on the holding of
foreign exchange accounts, invisible transactions, current transfers, or
repatriation requirements.

Banking and Finance

Score:2.0
The central bank adopted a reform and consolidation program in 1994 after
several banks had collapsed. The banking system is improving as supervision
increases, regulation becomes more efficient, and minimum capital requirements are
increased. The Economist Intelligence Unit reports that all banks now adhere
to international accounting standards; under the revised standards, several
banks were closed, and the number of banks fell from 58 in 1994 to 22 at the
beginning of 2003. Foreign banks account for 40 percent of banking capital.The
Ministry of Finance and Economy, which regulates the insurance industry, allows
the presence of foreign insurance companies. The last state-owned bank,
Armsberbank, was sold in September 2001.

Wages and Prices

Score:2.0
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, `The state continues to control
prices for utilities and public transportation, keeping them artificially
low. From time to time, the government conducts rationed sales of basic foods and
other consumables (sugar, powdered milk, matches, soap) to the most needy
groups at prices much lower than market prices.’ In January 2002, the Armenian
State Repository set new prices (which are used to calculate the tax on
exploitation of natural resources) for nonferrous, rare, and precious metals. At the
beginning of 2004, the government raised the minimum wage.

Property Rights

Score:2.0
Private property is guaranteed by law, but neither legal enforcement nor the
judicial system provides adequate protection. According to the Economist
Intelligence Unit, `A further consideration [for investors] is the underdeveloped
and corrupt judiciary, which is a substantial impediment to the enforcementof
contractual rights and obligations, thereby keeping business risk high.â=80=9D The
U.S. Department of Commerce reports that `the Constitution’s provisions do not
insulate the courts fully from political pressure, and in practice, courts
[are] subject to pressure from the executive and legislative branches and some
judges [are] corrupt. Lengthy public trials sometimes [are] a problem.â=80=9D The
same source also notes that Armenian courts `are becoming increasingly
independent. The Ministry of Justice is gradually limiting its involvement in civil
cases.’

Regulation

Score:2.0
A corrupt bureaucracy often applies regulations haphazardly, and political
strife hampers the progress of any reforms. The Economist Intelligence Unit
reports that `a high level of corruptionâ=80¦results in firms directing activity
underground in order to reduce their vulnerability to extortion by government
officials.’ According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, `Changes in legislation
are only rarely announced or publicly disclosed before implementationâ=80¦.
[B]ureaucratic procedures can be burdensome and time consuming when an investor
negotiates a contract with the Armenian government, as the contract may require
approval by several ministries.’ Corruption continues to affect business. The
U.S. Department of Commerce reports that `bribery is widespread andis the most
common form of corruptionâ=80¦.’

Informal Market

Score:2.0
Transparency International’s 2003 score for Armenia is 3. Therefore, Armenia’
s informal market score is 4 this year.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CHINA KEEN TO CONTRIBUTE TO KARABAKH SETTLEMENT – ENVOY

Bilik Dunyasi news agency
4 Jan 05

Baku, 4 January: The Chinese ambassador to Azerbaijan, Zhang Xiyun,
has said that his country respects Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity
and sovereignty. “We have no vested interests in the Caucasus and
would be glad to see a solution to the Nagornyy Karabakh problem on
the basis of principles of justice and international law. In this
sense, we are ready to maintain close contact with the Azerbaijani
government and to contribute to a settlement, including a settlement
within the framework of the UN Security Council,” the ambassador said.

Asked whether the investigation into the illegal supplies of Typhoon
rocket mounts to Armenia had been completed, the ambassador said the
transaction had been carried out by a Chinese commercial firm without
the knowledge of the Chinese government.

Zhang Xiyun added that the Chinese side had provided an explanation
and informed the Azerbaijani authorities of the measures it had taken
to prevent this from happening again.

“I don’t think this incident should affect the development of
bilateral relations. We have to build our relations with a view to the
future, not to the past,” the diplomat said.

It should be remembered that facts of weapons supplies from China to
Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh emerged several years ago. Eight Typhoon
rocket mounts were secretly shipped to Armenia, four of which were
immediately transferred to Nagornyy Karabakh. Azerbaijan regarded it
as an unfriendly gesture on the part of the People’s Republic of China
and issued an official protest note.