Interfax, Russia
Nov 16 2004

Armenian-Iranian pipeline project put back to year-end

Yerevan. (Interfax) – Construction of the Armenian stretch of the
Iran – Armenia gas pipeline will not now begin until December this
year, the Armenian Energy Ministry told Interfax.

Work on the Armenian stretch of the pipeline was due to start late
October, but was delayed because preparations were not complete.

The ministry said dignitaries from Iran and Armenia would attend a
ceremony to mark the beginning of the project in December close to
the Armenian city of Meghri. It is expected that the first two
kilometers of the Meghri – Kajaran pipeline will be built. Iran’s
Sanir will lay the pipeline.

An official at Gazprom said last week that the Russian gas giant was
considering a role in the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to
Armenia. But the Armenian ministry said this was unlikely as the
project does not promise high returns.

Iran signed a deal to supply Armenia with 36 billion cubic meters
(bcm) of gas per year over 20 years with the possibility of extending
this by five years and gas supplies to 47 bcm in May this year.

Work on Iran’s 100-km stretch began in June. The Iranian Export and
Development Bank set aside $30 million to finance the Armenian
stretch.

It will cost a total of $210 million-$220 million to build the new
pipeline and renovate the existing Kajaran – Yerevan pipeline.
Iranian gas should start reaching Armenia by January 2007. All of the
gas will be used by power stations to generate electricity, some of
which will be exported to Iran and some of which will be consumed in
Armenia itself.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Lawrence.com, Kansas
Nov 16 2004

Cohesive chamber orchestra unites for priceless performance
By Sarah Young – Special to the Journal-World

Not even technical difficulties involving the Lied Center’s stage
lighting could dim the musical fire emanating from the stage Sunday
afternoon during the concert by Camerata Sweden. Also known as
Camerata Nordica or Camerata Roman, the 15-member chamber orchestra
performs without a conductor, relying on the heightened sense of
collective unity usually reserved for small chamber ensembles.

A traditional orchestra’s lines of communication run primarily from
individual players through the conductor. In a quartet or other small
ensemble without a conductor, the individual players must connect to
one another in ways that are sometimes difficult in the larger
orchestra. In a camerata, the difficulties multiply because there are
so many players. The possibilities for loss of cohesion multiply when
more individuals are added to the group.

However, Camerata Sweden excels at that kind of cohesiveness.
Everyone – with the exception of cellists – performs standing,
accentuating the possibilities for physical communication. Through
direct eye contact and body language, the members of the ensemble
maintain an intense, high-level, sensitive connection with one
another, moving as individuals yet playing with one glorious sound.

Saying the ensemble is not being led is false, however. Just as a
quartet follows the lead of the first violinist, Camerata Sweden
relies on the subtle direction of its music director and violinist
Levon Chilingirian, whose expressive body language guides the
ensemble through intricate musical phrasing.

Special to the Journal-World

Camerata Sweden, a 15-member chamber orchestra, performed Sunday at
the Lied Center.

Chilingirian was also the featured soloist in the aurally striking
`Violin Concerto’ by Alan Hovhaness, which was an alteration from the
announced program. Hovhaness, a 20th-century composer of Armenian and
Scottish descent, found much of his musical inspiration in Armenian
church music. The `Violin Concerto’ is a haunting piece whose first
movement – `Pastoral’ – sets the scene for the concerto’s evocation
of lazy summer days. During one of the later movements is a moment of
spectacular sound and bowing technique as the instruments emulate the
buzzing of bees. All the while, the sound of Chilingirian’s violin
soared above the ensemble with crystalline clarity.

The concert began with the Mendelssohn `String Quartet in F minor,’
which established the intense emotional content of the afternoon’s
selections. Obviously reflecting the composer’s state of grief and
despair following his sister’s death, the music is often strikingly
dissonant and macabre, but its emotional peak occurs in the third
movement, when the violins and cellos cast out the opening phrase of
profound sadness that is borne throughout the sections in an elegy of
despair.

The second half of the program contained the familiar Barber’s
`Adagio,’ played with breathtaking delicacy; however, the featured
number was the Beethoven `String Quartet in F minor.’ Mirroring the
emotions of the Mendelssohn, it is moody and intense, written in 1810
during the composer’s bleak years of worsening deafness, ill health
and familial frustration. With its emotions ranging from violent
anger to anxiety and despair and finally to hopeful resolve, it is a
piece well-suited to the chamber orchestra’s talent for emotional
investment.

Overall, Camerata Sweden’s performance offered priceless
opportunities for intense, complex musical experiences.

Sarah Young is a lecturer in Kansas University’s English department.
She can be reached at [email protected].

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Nov 16 2004

Council Of Europe Envoy Urges Faster Reform In Armenia

By Ruzanna Khachatrian 16/11/2004 09:50

A high-ranking representative of the Council of Europe urged the
Armenian authorities on Monday to redouble their efforts to honor
political commitments that earned Armenia membership in the respected
human rights organization nearly four years ago.

Ambassador Roland Wegener, a Strasbourg-based German diplomat
representing the Council’s governing Committee of Ministers, singled
out the promised reform of Armenia’s constitution, judicial system
and electoral legislation.
`We feel that progress has been made, but we also see that the most
important projects still lie ahead,’ he told reporters at the end of
a fact-finding visit to Yerevan.

Wegener, who heads a special monitoring team formed by the Committee
of Ministers, met with President Robert Kocharian, Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian as well as the leaders of the Armenian parliament
factions during the three-day trip. Kocharian, according to his press
office, assured the envoy that he is genuinely committed to bringing
Armenian legislation into conformity with European standards.

The Armenian authorities are currently working on a package of
constitutional amendments that are due to be put to a referendum next
summer. Also, the Armenian parliament, dominated by Kocharian
supporters, approved last month in the first reading a set of
amendments to the country’s electoral code.

Those discussions have been boycotted by the Armenian opposition
which refuses to recognize Kocharian’s legitimacy and accuses the
authorities of creating a smokescreen of political reform to mislead
the Europeans. Opposition leaders reaffirmed their stance in separate
meetings with Wegener over the weekend.

One of them, Shavarsh Kocharian, argued that the authorities have not
prosecuted any officials involved in vote rigging and human rights
abuses and are refusing to abolish the Soviet-era practice of
`administrative detentions’ repeatedly condemned by the Council of
Europe. `The obligations are not being met,’ he told RFE/RL. `That’s
one of the obsctales to the lack of a [government-opposition]
dialogue urged by European structures.’

One of the leaders of the parliament majority, Tigran Torosian, said
Wegener urged the top Kocharian allies to give the opposition a say
in legislative reform. He said the majority is ready to do so and
hopes that the opposition will drop its `preconditions’ for the
dialogue.

Daily News Tribune, MA
MetroWest Daily News, MA
Nov 16 2004

Hopkinton woman lived an eventful century

By David McLaughlin / News Staff Writer

HOPKINTON — Rose Vartanian, a survivor of the Armenian genocide as a
young girl who later ran a poultry farm with her husband in
Hopkinton, was remembered yesterday for her dedication to her family,
her love of hard work and her homemade yogurt.

Vartanian, who died Friday at 104, spoke six languages, played
three instruments and always cooked from scratch. She held
Hopkinton’s Boston Post Cane, presented to her in 2001 for being the
town’s oldest resident.

“She had such a long, full life. She was just so versatile and
did so many things,” said her grandson Dennis Robinson. “She was the
grand matriarch of the family, and everyone gravitated to her.”

Robinson, 58, said he would remember how much Vartanian loved
the beach. As a young man, he drove his grandmother from
Massachusetts to her winter home in Miami 12 times, three times
without stopping, while she gave him instructions all the way down to
Florida, he said.

Even at 93, he joked, she was driving from her home to the beach
and leaving a wake of accidents behind her.

“She lived everything to the fullest. She could go from being a
farmer to being totally dressed up,” he said.

Born in Armenia, Vartanian escaped the genocide at the hands of
the Ottoman Empire. Between 1915 and 1923, more than 1 million
Armenians died, according to varying historical accounts. She and her
family bribed their way through checkpoints during their escape by
hiding gold coins in their belts and the hems of their dresses, said
George Robinson and Jeff Doherty, two of her other grandsons.

In 1921, Vartanian and her husband, Lazarous, moved to
Watertown, where he owned a variety store. The couple, who had an
arranged marriage, Doherty said, then bought 30 acres at the corner
of West Main and School streets in 1935 for their farm, Hilltop
Poultry Farm. Doherty said she sold all her gold jewelry to help buy
it.

“I learned how to cook, how to sew, how to clean just watching
my two grandmothers,” he said. “The most important thing I got from
this grandmother is her faith in God and that there is nothing that
can set you back.”

Vartanian’s grandsons said she lived so long because she ate
well, exercised and never smoke or drank alcohol. She disliked eating
in restaurants and preferred her own food, including her homemade
yogurt, and drank a spoonful of castor oil a day.

She loved God more than anything, then came family and work,
said George Robinson. She was a dancer and a singer and played the
accordion, mandolin and piano. Even after she moved into a Milford
nursing home, she kept playing the piano for people she lived with.

“She always had a song in her heart. She’d be sitting down in
the nursing home tapping her fingers to a song or humming a song,”
George Robinson said.

Vartanian leaves her daughters, Rose Smith, of Florida and New
Hampshire, Alice Reardon of Hopkinton, and Angel Doherty of
Hopkinton; 14 grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.

A funeral service is scheduled for today at 11 a.m. at Chesmore
Funeral Home, 57 Hayden Rowe St., Hopkinton. Burial will follow in
Mount Auburn Cemetery, Hopkinton.

Anadolu Agency
Nov 15 2004

Paris Court Rejects Lawsuit Filed Against Turkish Consulate General
In Paris

PARIS – A court in French capital Paris rejected a lawsuit filed by
”Committee for Defense of Armenian Cause” (CDCA) against the
Turkish Consulate General in Paris on charges that it denies
so-called Armenian genocide on its official web site.

The court announced that it decided to reject the lawsuit application
as the Turkish Consulate General in Paris has diplomatic immunity.
The court also decided that the CDCA would pay the court expenses.

During the hearing on October 11th, French prosecutor requested the
court to declare itself unauthorized for the case in line with the
Vienna Convention.

Lawyers of the Turkish Consulate General in Paris requested the court
to reject the lawsuit in line with the Vienna Convention and within
the scope of freedom of expression.

Rejecting reasons of the Armenian committee, the lawyers said,
”recognition of so-called Armenian genocide by French parliament and
the European Parliament does not constitute an obstacle in front of
expression of another view on the issue.”

CDCA applied to the court on July 7th to file a lawsuit with the
accusation that the Turkish Consulate General in Paris was trying to
convince French people to deny so-called Armenian genocide through
its web-page.

Claiming that the Turkish Consulate General should be punished and
its web-page should be closed, CDCA also accused the French internet
server company hosting the web-page.

CENN — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 DAILY DIGEST
Table of Contents:
1. “Investigative Journalists” Still Have a Chance to Win The Suit
Against Yerevan Municipality
2. IMF to Release Another $13 Million to Armenia
3. School is Built in Maralik on Assets of Hayastan All-Armenian Fund
4. Alternative Energy in Armenia
5. Unlimited Electricity for Tbilisi
6. Awkwardly Successful
7. Water Supply Improves in Gegharkunik
8. SCADA System to be Installed by the End of November
9. Foreign Investments to Amount to $260-280 Million in Armenia This
Year
10. Experts fear Armenian Chernobyl

1. “INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS” STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN THE SUIT
AGAINST YEREVAN MUNICIPALITY

Source: Yerevan Press Club Weekly Newsletter, October 29 – November 4,
2004

On October 29, 2004 the RA Court of Cassation secured the suit of
“Investigative Journalists” NGO versus the municipality of Yerevan. On
September 23, 2004 the organization challenged with the supreme
jurisdiction body of the country the ruling of the RA Court of Appeals
of September 16, 2004, that had left the decision of the court of
primary jurisdiction of Center and Nork-Marash communities of Yerevan of
June 21 unchanged. As it has been reported, the courts of primary and
secondary jurisdiction did not secure the demand of the plaintiff to the
Yerevan administration to provide it with documents necessary for
journalistic investigation: the resolutions of the municipality of
1997-2003 on the constructions in the public green zone around the
National Opera and Ballet Theater (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter,
September 17-23, 2004).

The Court of Cassation ruled to send the case back to the consideration
of the Court of Appeals with a new composition. Thus, the Investigative
Journalists” along with the public at large now have a chance to finally
get an answer to the question: what were the legal grounds behind the
boost in construction of entertaining institutions in one of most
beautiful and once the greenest spots of Yerevan?

2. IMF TO RELEASE ANOTHER $13 MILLION TO ARMENIA

Source: ArmenPress, November 4, 2004

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) office in Yerevan stated that the
Fund’s Executive Board is going to approve in early December the release
of $13 million to Armenian Central Bank as the last tranche of an $87
million credit, which is part of the Poverty Reduction and Growth
Facility (PRGF) Program.

The IMF Resident Representative James McHugh told a news conference the
money would arrive in Armenia in a couple of days after the Executive
Board approves the release. McHugh said the Armenian government and the
Fund are working now on prospects for implementation of new joint
projects, expressing also hopes that the relevant talks will start in
2005 January or February. He said it was so far difficult to define the
direction of new projects, but added that they would most likely apply
to tax reforms and administration improvement.

3. SCHOOL IS BUILT IN MARALIK ON ASSETS OF HAYASTAN ALL-ARMENIAN FUND

Source: ARKA, November 4, 2004

Hayastan All-Armenian Fund put into commission a school in Maralik
(Armenia). According to the Press Service of the Fund, the
schoolchildren previously studied in temporary buildings for 15 years,
as the school was completely ruined as a result of the earthquake.

The construction of the new school, which started in 2002, was carried
out with the assistance of Jan Pogosyan, Belgian sponsor of Armenian
origin. `Thus, the last school in Shirak Marz which was located in a
temporary building will be functioning in a modern, well-built and
comfortable building’, states the press release.

The school is designed for 964 schoolchildren. The construction of the
heat supply system will be completed by the end of the year.

4. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN ARMENIA

Source: Yerevan Times (Armenia), November 12, 2004

Since the 1990s, Armenia has been grappling with how to resolve its
energy shortages. Nuclear power delivers about 35 percent of Armenia’s
energy needs, but a government study several years ago determined that
it might be possible to develop alternative sources of energy to replace
nuclear as early as 2004.

If sufficient alternative sources were developed, then the nuclear power
plant could be shut down, according to an official who was the spokesman
for Armenia’s President Robert Kocharian at the time.

People sometimes hear what they want to hear, however, and so the
scuttlebutt for years was that Armenia had made a promise to
decommission its Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant by this year. They did,
sort of. The catch, of course, was that sufficient alternative sources
had to be available, first. The year 2004 is almost over, but those
alternative sources have not been developed – at least not to the extent
necessary to serve as an alternative to nuclear power. Some progress is
being made, however, especially with wind and solar-generated projects.

WIND

Renewable energy is cleaner than the traditional sources such as nuclear
and thermal power. Solar and wind power do have an impact upon our
environment, but they don’t pollute the atmosphere – unless one
considers the pollution that is emitted when the solar panels or wind
turbines are manufactured.

Armenia doesn’t have a wind stream that is comparable to the Gulf Stream
that exists in the US, but there is nevertheless some wind potential.
Armenia is a mountainous country, and strong winds frequently develop on
mountain ridges or on the saddles of mountain passes. Some of these
local wind currents are legendary.

At present, the economically viable capacity for wind energy is
approximately equal to that of nuclear, about 500 MW, but wind energy
development in Armenia is in its infancy. Still, wind energy is a strong
contingency plan for Armenia. Testing is ongoing, but if wind power
proves to be feasible, then Armenia could add wind-generated electricity
to its power sources.

Start-up costs for establishing wind, as an alternative energy source
would be insignificant compared to the cost of building a new nuclear
power plant. Building a wind farm with a 10-megawatt capacity could cost
$10 million to build, and another $1 million in legal fees. A new
nuclear power plant might easily cost $1 billion. Plus, storing the
radioactive waste – it cannot be `disposed’ of – is an expensive and
risky business.

Start-up costs are only part of the equation, however. In order to be
economically feasible, a site must have consistent annual wind speeds of
roughly 8 meters per second. After the infrastructure is built, the
price of wind power depends on the wind speed at the site. At 6 meters
per second, it cannot compete with nuclear, coal or gas. But an annual
wind speed of 8 meters per second beats coal, and starts to compete with
gas and nuclear energy. At 9 meters per second wind beats them all. At
this wind velocity, wind turbines can generate electricity for as little
as three cents per kilowatt-hour, which is quite inexpensive.

But whereas nuclear energy might continue to be a major contributor to
Armenia’s energy needs, wind might contribute no more than five percent
of the country’s electricity. Wind is therefore just one important
alternative among a portfolio of energy sources.

SOLAR

Energy from the sun is more affordable than wind power for individual
residences when the power does not get added to the country’s electric
grid. This is because the photo voltaic cells needed for solar power are
far too costly to be used for the national electrical grid but they are
more economical in areas that the electric grid doesn’t reach.

Artak Hambarian, the director of a solar energy project in Yerevan,
estimates that it could take a business 20 or 30 years to earn enough
savings in energy costs to pay for its investment in solar panels that
are used to create electricity.

Solar is especially economical for heating water, however. This is where
solar power beats wind power. Solar energy generation capacity in
Armenia is currently around 650 MW, but estimates for future capacity
are as high as 3,500 MW. Unfortunately, says Hambarian, `this could take
decades to achieve.’ Hambarian is the Director of the Engineering
Research Center (ERC) at the American University of Armenia (AUA).

Hambarian says it could take $10 billion to convert all of Armenia’s
energy generation capacity to solar – assuming that anyone wanted to do
that. `In the future it could all be solar,’ he says. `But it would be
too expensive.’

Limited practical applications of solar energy have proven
cost-effective for AUA, however. This University is supplied with hot
water and with heating and cooling by a project that its academic
engineers from ERC are working on.

A solar photovoltaic system, also installed on the roof, provides
electricity to a solar driven electric system that makes the University
building independent from the electric grid and which serves to back-up
the University internet servers.

WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM ALTERNATIVE ENERGY?

The thermal, nuclear and hydro facilities that Armenia inherited from
the Soviet Union generate so much electricity that Armenia has been able
to sell some of it to the Republic of Georgia. How might the cost of
wind or solar energy compare with the cost of the existing nuclear
energy program in Armenia? Could electricity generated by wind or solar
be sold commercially, at a profit?

It’s difficult to compare the profitability of wind and nuclear
generated energy in Armenia, because the nuclear energy that the country
generates and sells is from a plant that was already here when the
country gained independence. Wind-generated power would include start-up
expenses that nuclear didn’t have.

What this means is that wind might not be exploitable today, but that it
might become a better bargain when, or if, Armenia scraps nuclear power.

Over time, wind and solar productions may attract more and more donor
support from the government and from others.

Wind power generates about 13,000 megawatts of electricity worldwide,
with much of the increases of the past few years attributable to new
installations in Germany and Spain. At the current rate of new
construction, wind may surpass nuclear energy in total world capacity in
just a few years.

THE STONE GARDEN GUIDE TO ARMENIA, WRITTEN AND PHOTOGRAPHED BY TWO
INSIDERS

The photographers and authors of this story – Robert Kurkjian and
Matthew Karanian – have traveled extensively in Armenia and have just
released a new book about the region.

The travel guide highlights conservation efforts in Armenia, including
efforts at adopting renewable energy technologies, among its 304 pages.
The guidebook is unique among Armenian-subject guidebooks for its
beautiful color photography, its 25 color maps, and for the insider
perspective of its authors.

`The Stone Garden Guide: Armenia and Karabagh’ is available by mail
order from booksellers such as Amazon.com for $24.95. It is available in
Yerevan from Artbridge Cafe on Abovian Street. More information about
the book is available from

5. UNLIMITED ELECTRICITY FOR TBILISI

Source: The Messenger, Novemebr 15, 2004

Deputy Minister of Energy Aleksandar Khetaguri stated at a press
conference on Friday November 12, 2004 that Tbilisi will receive
electricity without limitations, and that the ministry will take all
measures to continue importing electricity from Russia and Armenia.

Meanwhile, Director General of TELASI Dangiras Mikolayunas applied to
the National Energy Regulation Commission (GNERC) to return the license
to import electricity from Armenia that was stripped from TELASI two
weeks ago. Mikolayunas told GNERC at a meeting on Friday November 12,
2004 that they should study a letter from Energy Ombudsman David
Ebrelidze to the General Prosecutor’s Office, which blames TELASI of
concluding an “unfavorable” agreement with Armenia.

Mikolyunas said the Commission must decide whether to give the license
to TELASI or not after studying this letter.

6. AWKWARDLY SUCCESSFUL

Source: Transitions Online, Czech Republic, November 15, 2004

The government beats its own poverty-reduction target eight years ahead
of schedule. From Eurasianet.

YEREVAN, Armenia–A recent economic survey in Armenia showing a
significant decline in the number of citizens living in poverty has
placed President Robert Kocharian’s administration in a somewhat awkward
position. While Kocharian has been eager to show Armenians that living
standards are improving, the report’s findings could complicate the
Armenian government’s efforts to secure international aid for
poverty-reduction programs.

The annual survey of household incomes by the National Statistical
Service contained a full range of startling statistics. Among the most
surprising: The percentage of Armenians living below the poverty line
fell from 50 percent in 2002 to 42.9 percent in 2003. Similarly, the
number of poorest Armenians–those who earn less than 7,742 drams (about
$15) per month–also took a surprising plunge, from 13.1 percent of the
population in 2002 to 7.4 percent in 2003. At the same time, the survey
indicated that the country’s income gap between rich and poor narrowed
slightly.

The statistics reveals that the poverty reduction rate in Armenia far
exceeds the projections that the government outlined in its Poverty
Reduction Strategic Paper (PRSP) released earlier this year. In one
example in the PRSP, officials estimated that that it would take until
2012 before the “very poor” could be reduced to less than 8 percent of
the population. The NSS figures show that this benchmark has been
surpassed a full eight years ahead of the government’s schedule.

Given the NSS findings, questions are already being raised about the
accuracy and potential effectiveness of the government’s anti-poverty
blueprint. While officials have been happy to tout the reduction in
poverty, one government minister has already disputed the NSS findings.
Vardan Khachatrian, the finance and economy minister, told reporters
that the results were difficult to trust and too optimistic.

Some economic experts share Khachatrian’s doubts. “I cannot see the
reasons that could bring about such a drastic change in the percentage
of the population made up by the very poor,” said Ruben Yeganian, a
researcher at Yerevan’s Institute of Economic Problems. The decrease was
particularly improbable for 2003, when Armenia’s inflation rate soared
in response to an increase in foreign grain prices, Yeganian asserted.
That year, bread prices increased by 31 percent between January and
December, causing an overall 8.6 percent increase in the consumer price
index, compared with a 2-percent rise the previous year.

A report published on 18 October by the International Crisis Group (ICG)
echoes Yeganian’s assessment. Its study, entitled “Armenia: Instability
Ahead,” states that while the market reforms of the 1990s may mean
Armenia is now enjoying a relative boom, relatively few Armenians have
seen a vast improvement in living standards. “The benefits of economic
recovery are not equally shared,” the report found. “There is little
sign of poverty decreasing.”

Contradicting the NSS, the ICG report cited statistics that show 55
percent of the population lives in poverty, with wealth concentrated in
Yerevan and in “circles close to the government.” Meanwhile, the exodus
of educated, well-trained workers–one of the main obstacles to an
Armenian economic comeback–continues. Favored labor markets include
Russia, Central Europe, Ukraine, and Turkey, where potential salaries
are higher than the $78 average monthly salary to be had in Armenia.

The poverty issue has figured prominently in the ongoing power struggle
between Kocharian and opposition political parties. In an attempt to
outflank his critics, Kocharian unveiled a 12-year plan for fighting
poverty in June. Yeganian speculated that the government might have cast
doubt on the NSS findings in order to prevent a decrease in foreign aid
programs. An additional factor feeding official concerns, Yeganian
suggested, is the decrease in value of the U.S. dollar against the
Armenian dram over the last year. As a result, the incomes of Armenians,
when denominated in dollars, appear to have increased.

The Armenian government counts heavily on international aid to promote
economic stabilization efforts, including anti-poverty programs. Armenia
hopes to receive $100 million for various economic development schemes
in 2004 from the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account program, aid monies
that are contingent on the country’s record for democratic reform and
human rights. Also in support of Kocharian’s agenda, the World Bank has
pledged to deliver $250 million by November 2004 for work on rural
schools, infrastructure and irrigation systems.

Some representatives of the NSS themselves have admitted to being caught
off guard by the survey’s results. Hovik Hohannisian, head of Food
Security Statistics, raised questions about the criteria used to
determine who is “very poor,” saying that the food basket used to
determine purchasing power was actually more like a “bread basket.”

Meanwhile, one of the country’s main creditors, the World Bank, said it
saw no reason to doubt the NSS data, the Bank’s Yerevan spokesperson,
Vigen Sargsian, told Eurasianet. Aside from the World Bank, the NSS’s
data is routinely cited by international organizations, including the
International Monetary Fund. The NSS also receives advice from
representatives of the European Union and the U.S. Agency for
International Development.

7. WATER SUPPLY IMPROVES IN GEGHARKUNIK

Source: ArmenPress, November 15, 2004

An 8.5 km long drinking water pipeline with a capacity of supplying 25
liters of water per second was inaugurated today in Armenia’s biggest
rural settlement, Vardenik in the province of Gegharkunik. The
construction cost was $88,000. The Armenian Social Investments Fund
released the bulk of money and the community raised ten percent.

According to community head Manuk Manukian, future plans include lying
of 53 km long inner pipeline and taking water to residents of newly
built boroughs of the village that has 10,000 population.

In a related development the inner drinking water network of another
village in the province, Norakert, was repaired as part of Poverty
Reduction Program. The repair budget, some $11,5000, was funded the
government of Great Britain.

8. SCADA SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED BY THE END OF NOVEMBER

Source: ArmenPress, November 15, 2004

Armenian-Russian HayRusGazArd Company said today it would accomplish the
installation of SCADA system by the end of November. According to the
company’s deputy chief manager Ashot Hovsepian, the SCADA equipment cost
is $400,000, which does not include the cost of its installation and
putting into operation.

The SCADA system will allow collecting of updated information from all
main pipelines supplying natural gas to Armenia across Georgia. The work
for its installation began in 2003 October as part of TACIS assistance
to Armenia. The system will allow the company to maintain reliable
communication to ensure the safety operation of the pipeline and
decrease losses. The system will be the first one among former Soviet
republics.

9. FOREIGN INVESTMENTS TO AMOUNT TO $260-280 MILLION IN ARMENIA THIS
YEAR

Source: Azg/arm, November 16, 2004

Recently, the UNDP and RA Trade and Economic Development Ministry
represented World’s Investments Report 2004 at Armenian Development
Agency. Touching upon the report, Liz Grande, the UN representative,
informed that it is already the third year that the foreign investments
have decreased in the entire world, amounting to $560 billion. Moreover,
the biggest decrease is fixed in the EU countries and the North America,
amounting to $110 billion. While in Armenia, as well as in the region as
a whole, the investments have increased in the same period.

Tigran Davtian, RA Trade and Economic Deputy Minister, emphasized that
the growth of the foreign investments in Armenia is taking place on the
background of the decrease of the world’s investments. In the first half
of this year the foreign investments have increased by about 40 % and
they will amount to $260-280 million as it was envisaged for the end of
the year. Deputy Minister stated that a number of large investment
programs would be carried out in November-December of this year. He also
reminded that last year the investments made in Armenia amounted to $230
million.

Afterwards, they informed that the investments’ structure has been
changed. At present they have increased in the real sector of the
economy, in the light industry, mine industry, construction and in other
fields, too. The biggest investments in Armenia are made by Greece,
Argentina, the US and France. The local investments have increased as
well.

Tigran Davtian didn’t want to compare the investments made in Armenia
and Azerbaijan, saying that in Azerbaijan the investments are made in
one sphere only. As for Georgia, after the political changes the
interest of the foreign investors to this country has increased. The
deputy minister welcomed this phenomenon, saying for the most of the
foreign investors Armenia is considered a small market and that would be
beneficial to offer them the Georgian market as well. While the
activization of Armenian-Georgian economic relations inspire with hope
that in future it will be possible to establish an Armenian-Georgian
regional market, Tigran Davtian stated.

10. EXPERTS FEAR ARMENIAN CHERNOBYL

Source: The Times/UK, November 16, 2004

The Metsamor atomic plant looms menacingly behind Eduard Kenyasyan as he
offers a slice of homegrown watermelon on the end of his knife. `Nuclear
melon?’ He asks with a mischievous grin. After living next to this
Chernobyl-era power plant on a seismic fault in southern Armenia for 30
years, he is used to the threat of nuclear disaster. `If anything
happens, it will affect the whole country, not just me,’ he says,
shrugging.

The rest of Europe has not taken such a relaxed approach. The European
Union has lobbied hard for the plant, just ten miles from the border
with Turkey, to close this year. It says that the pressurized
water-reactor, based on first generation Soviet technology, may not
withstand another serious earthquake. Alexis Louber, the EU’s
representative in Armenia, caused an uproar recently when he said that
keeping the plant open was the same as `flying around a potential
nuclear bomb’.

Metsamor was built in the 1970s and shut down after a big earthquake in
1988, which killed at least 25,000 people in northern Armenia and hit
5.0 on the Richter scale around Metsamor. Yet the Armenian Government
reopened the plant’s second unit in 1995 because of severe power
shortages and now says that it can continue working until 2016 – and
possibly 2031.

The resulting dispute pits growing Western concerns over obsolete Soviet
nuclear facilities against Armenia’s determination to preserve its
independence and energy security. The EU has campaigned for the closure
of dozens of atomic plants in the former Soviet Union since Chernobyl,
and its concerns have intensified since expanding to Russia’s borders.

Although Metsamor uses different – and safer – technology from that at
Chernobyl, it lacks secondary containment facilities to prevent
radioactive leakage in the event of an accident, European experts say.

In addition, nuclear fuel has to be flown to Yerevan from Russia and
then driven along a bumpy road to Metsamor once a year, because
Armenia’s border with Turkey is closed.

Jacques Vantomme, the EU’s acting Ambassador to Georgia and Armenia,
said: `if there is an earthquake tomorrow, would it create a nuclear
disaster? I don’t know – it depends on the size of the earthquake.’

`The EU’s policy is that we want the closure of the plant at the
earliest possible date. This type of nuclear plant is not built to EU
standards and upgrading it cannot be done at a reasonable cost.’

The EU has offered ÷£70 million in financial aid to shut the plant and
develop alternative energy sources, but Vartan Oksanyan, the Armenian
Foreign Minister, described that as `peanuts’. Metsamor not only
provides 40 per cent of Armenia’s energy, it also sells excess power to
neighboring Georgia. Decommissioning the plant alone could cost more
than ÷£270 million, according to local experts. With no oil and gas, and
scant wind and water resources, Armenia has few alternative energy
sources.

The mostly Christian nation is also reluctant to rely on imported energy
because of its history of hostility with its Islamic neighbors.

`Armenia knows this plant has to go,’ Mr. Oksanyan said, but let’s make
sure we have the capacity to replace it before we close it down.’

Power shortages between 1989 and 1995 have left deep scars on the
country. Almost all Armenians can recall sleeping in multiple layers of
clothing or waking to use their one-hour of power each day.

Armenia’s forests were devastated by people cutting wood for fuel. Gagik
Markosyan, the head of the Metsamor plant, said: `I saw the energy
crisis myself. We can’t talk about closing the plant down overnight.’

He said that more than ÷£27 million had been spent on improving safety
since the plant reopened. British experts have been training staff there
for the past three years.

The second unit, opened in 1980, was originally designed to work until
2010, but as it was shut for six years, it could now work until 2016.
Tests by Russian experts on similar reactors show that Metsamor could,
in theory, operate until 2031.

`As an engineer, I would not exclude that,” Mr. Markosyan said. For
him, as for most Armenians, a new nuclear plant is the only viable
alternative. The EU is reluctant to foot the bill, however, arguing that
Armenia, without the Soviet Union, would never have borne the hidden
costs of development and decommissioning.

`We need the plant,” Mr Kenyasyan says. `Like it or not, we can’t live
without it.’

—
*******************************************
CENN INFO
Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)

Tel: ++995 32 92 39 46
Fax: ++995 32 92 39 47
E-mail: [email protected]
URL:

Zaman, Turkey
Nov 16 2004

Armenian Case Against Turkish Diplomat Dismissed

A Paris Court dismissed a case brought by the Comité de Défense de
la Cause Arménienne (CDCA) against the Paris Consul General of
Turkey, Aydin Sezgin, for his rejection of the so-called Armenian
genocide on the Consulate’s official internet website. The court
ruled that Sezgin cannot be impugned because of his diplomatic
privilege. The court also decided that court expenses would be met by
the CDCA.

Last July, the CDCA filed a complaint which stated, “The Turkish
Consulate General of Paris broadcasts to the French public, on its
official website, a denial of the so-called Armenian genocide.”
During the first court proceedings in October, the Paris Attorney
General requested a “foreign plea”, citing Sezgin’s diplomatic
privileges, which stem from Vienna Convention on diplomatic
privileges.

The Attorney general announced that according to the rules of
international law, the Turkish diplomat had a right to declare his
official viewpoint, despite its apparent contradiction of French
domestic law. For the first time, a Turkish diplomat was summoned to
court because of the so-called genocide claims.

ANTI-ARMENIAN TENSIONS INSIDE AZERI COMMUNITY OF MOSCOW PROVOKED BY
TURKISH LOBBY

MOSCOW, NOVEMBER 16. ARMINFO. The present anti-Armenian tensions
inside the Azeri community of Moscow are being inspired by the Turkish
political lobby, says the president of the Armenian National Club
Miabanutyun Smbat Karakhanyan.

Now they are trying to play off the Moscow Azeris with the Moscow
Armenians and to set the Russian authorities especially Pres. Putin
against the Russia-based Armenian community.

To remind, some 300 Moscow Azeris held Monday a sanctioned rally in
the center of Moscow. Many of them came in special buses. They
demanded that the Russian authorities change their attitude towards
their “false” strategic partner Armenia and turn their eyes towards
“honest” Azerbaijan. Nov 20 they are planning to rally in front of the
Armenian Embassy in Moscow.

Karakhanyan says that pressurized from abroad certain Azeri
politicians are plotting regional destabilization and stoppage of the
Karabakh conflict settlement talks.

The next step, according to Karakhanyan, will be the return of Azeri
refugees to their homes first as peaceful civil marches and then as
bloody clashes. In case of war resumption Azerbaijan will try to break
through Armenia’s territory to Nakhichevan to create a direct passage
towards Turkey.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

[16-11-2004 ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan’]
————————————————- ———————
AREAS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE REGION AS A FACTOR
FOR REDUCING THE CONFRONTATION LEVELS IN SOUTH CAUCASUS
Source : Yerevan Press Club (Armenia)
Author: Boris Navasardian

If we attempt to speak about the complicated processes of integration
into international structures and on the problems of peaceful
resolution in South Caucasus, it is reasonable to try and understand
what the resources at our disposal to solve these issues are. It is
also important to try and estimate the dynamics of these resources
after the latest stage of the ethnic conflicts in the region and the
independence of the South Caucasus countries. This presentation is an
attempt to consider the issue primarily in the context of Karabagh
conflict and the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan as the most
complicated problem in the region, however, many regularities present
here are also characteristic for other conflicts in South Caucasus.

DYNAMICS OF RECONCILIATION RESOURCES

The whole period in question (since 1988 up to present) can be
subdivided into four periods: a) Soviet, b) period of was and conflict
internationalization, c) post-war period till the Key-West meeting, d)
the post-Key-West period. The Soviet period. One of its main features
is the orientation to the central government, the aspiration to find a
solution by the bodies of USSR central administration. Thus, all
aspects were discussed only with the direct participation of Moscow
and there has been little direct dialogue aimed at
reconciliation. There has been no interaction even at the level of the
Communist Parties of the two republics. However, the
national-democratic movements and human rights activists made some
attempts to find common ground. The media of Armenia and Azerbaijan
were strongly controlled and mostly had to follow the Moscow
policy. However, there were some spans of weaker pressure, when the
media were seized by nationalistic euphoria and they were largely
contributing to the interethnic hostility. The interpersonal contacts,
so active during the pre-conflict period, diminished drastically.

The period of war and internationalization of the conflict. The
military and diplomatic channel went out into
foreground. International organizations started to join into the
conflict resolution process. At the initial stage the Armenian party
displayed much interest in the internationalization of the problem,
believing that its arguments are stronger. However, it soon became
clear that while the intervention of international structures is
inevitable, it was naïve to expect them to come up with an
unequivocal recipe for the resolution. The civil society (primarily,
the non-governmental organizations and human rights activisms) made
the interaction more active. Their activities were focused on the
problems of prisoners of war and hostages, but soon some elements of
popular diplomacy on a very narrow ground started to emerge. The media
thought it their duty to provide the information support to the
military actions of their party. The interpersonal contacts remained
quite weak.

The period after the war and before the Key-West. This time span can
be considered to be the most intensive one in terms of the use of
various reconciliation resources. It is in 1994-2001 that the OSCE
Minsk Group proposed three plans for conflict resolution, and while
each of them was turned down by one of the parties, including the
Mountainous Karabagh which acted as a quite independent factor, the
set of resolution components in the three models was quite complete
and diverse. It looked as though the reasons they are rejected are
simply the way the components are combined, and should another
principle be used, positive result can be achieved. Active mediating
role at various stages was played by all three co-chairmen of the
Minsk Group – Russia, France and the USA. At the same time no
recurrence of the idea to solve the problems in the `Center’ occurred,
since Moscow was decreasingly considered as the main mediator and on
various levels bilateral (more seldom – trilateral, including Karabagh
or regional formats, with the involvement of the whole South
Caucasus. This occurred also between the presidents, the parliaments,
also between some ministries and agencies. Against this background the
role of the purely diplomatic channel stopped being exclusive,
instead, the contacts on a non-governmental level got immediately more
active. Joint projects started to be implemented by the whole array of
NGOs’ activities. Media started to display significant interest to
the events in the rival country, various forms of information
exchange. Much attention was paid to the contacts between young
people, improvement of interpersonal relations started. Even in the
economic sphere, where the cooperation initially was excluded by the
Azerbaijani party, certain progress was manifest: some spontaneous
border trade started and joint researches of the economic perspectives
of the region were conducted.

Period after the Key West meeting. The meeting of President Heydar
Aliev and Robert Kocharian on this Caribbean Island and its
consequences have changed the situation significantly. The
`crushability’ of the stances of the Presidents under the pressure of
constructive proposals was probably wrongly interpreted. The phrase
of the American diplomat Kerry Cavanaugh that the Presidents were
ready for reconciliation and they only had to convince their public of
the acceptability of the agreements achieved. The reality proved to be
different: Aliyev and Kocharian only pretended that they were ready
for the resolution, but in reality they disagreed with the model,
defined in Paris and Key West, or did not feel secure enough to
implement it. To dismiss the burden of responsibility for the refusal,
they did start to work with the public. But this work was not the one
they were expected to do, it was just the contrary – to the work aimed
at making their stances stronger and say the countries were unready
for compromise. In Armenia statements of uncompromising nature were
made by all Parliament factions, and in Azerbaijan a document
appeared, which was conventionally called `The Charter of Four’
eventually signed by about 600 leaders of non-governmental
organizations and reputable members of society. The `Charter’,
actually put an end to the `popular’ or `civil’ diplomacy, since the
people who initiated the Dialogue with Armenian signed below the
principles, unacceptable for their peers. Thus, the basis on which the
dialogue was taking place was destroyed and arguments were provided to
the leaders of the country, enabling them to go back on the `Paris’ or
`Key West’ principles.

The situation started to rapidly return to the realities of the early
days of the conflict, when the controversies were much more numerous
than the space for compromise, and the smell of war was strong in the
air. The contacts in all the spheres were reduced. The meetings of
presidents and other high-ranked officials had become pure
rituals. The parliamentary contacts were disrupted after an incident
of little significance during the regional meeting of the MP in
Sophia, in summer 2004, held under the auspices of UK `Links’ NGO.
Several provocative actions, similar to the one that occurred in
September 2001 Baku against the human rights activist from Karabagh,
Karen Ohanjanian, reduced intensity of contacts between NGOs. The
mutual visits of journalists and other professional, civil groups that
were the strongest instrument for the restoration of mutual confidence
became completely impossible.

As the numerous researches showed, the experts of the two countries
stressed that the interaction of Armenia and Azerbaijan, of all the
international structures, was particularly promising under the
auspices of NATO, due to its extreme effectiveness in practical
matters. However, in 2004 it was under `the roof’ of NATO that several
incidents occurred raising the mutual hostility towards a height,
unprecedented since after the war. These were the assassination of an
Armenian officer by an Azerbaijani one in Budapest, an attempt of the
members of Organization of Karabagh Liberation to attack the Armenian
participant of the NATO meeting in Baku, and finally, the
scandal-making refusal of Azerbaijan to accept the Armenian officers,
resulting in the cancellation of the NATO exercise.

The sociological researches conducted by Yerevan Press Club and its
partners in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Mountainous Karabagh showed that
at least in three spheres the public of conflicting parties advocates
cooperation, even if the conflict is still unresolved. These are: 1)
the search of people lost in action, greaves, joint work on the lists
of supposed hostages and prisoners of war; 2) regional projects on
environment protection; 3) efforts aimed at the reduction of a level
of mutual hostility in the media publications. The interaction in
these spheres is favored both by people from the street, the experts
and the decision-makers. However, despite all of this, the joint
search of people missing in action is practically frozen, the
environmental subjects became another sphere where confrontation
increases and the media during the past three-four years keep
contributing to xenophobia development.

At the same time there has been no new escalation of hostility in
interpersonal relations of Armenians and Azerbaijanis and the interest
towards joint study of economic perspectives of the region. But
against the background of regress in all other spheres this gives
little comfort.

EUROPE AND CONFLICTS

The popular references to the public as the main obstacle for the
establishment of dialogue in various spheres have little ground. It is
true, the public at large in both Azerbaijan and Armenia is not very
inclined to make compromises, but it is in no way (and this has been
confirmed by numerous surveys) opposes the development of contacts on
various levels, seeing them to be a guarantee for confidence building
and rapprochement (which is actually the base for compromise). No
significant influence is made on the radicalization of the stances of
the parties by the public opinion, independent institutes. Moreover,
there is a trend of monopolization of all the processes related to the
conflict by the administration, moreover, a narrow group within it,
the exclusion of all alternative components, capable of initiating
development uncontrolled by the authorities. To this effect the
authorities are usefully manipulating the media, some civil society
institutes that due to their financial and political dependence, being
little developed are easily becoming an object and subsequently the
subject of manipulations. The pseudo-patriotic ideals, established in
this manner, are further reproduced by the whole social and political
field, there appears a creating competition as to who is more
uncompromising, the perpetual mobile is launched, the whole knots of
which are interdependent and work to strengthen the hostility.

In Azerbaijan the idea that the rigid stance will allow to gain most
results is instilled. So all the attempts to start a dialogue
proceeding from compromise are suppressed. The authorities in Armenia
see no reason in any contacts, but for official ones, so, while not
exactly suppresing, they are simply neglecting the possibilities of
`the second way’. This yields a serious controversy of transitions and
values of Europe, into which the region is seemingly trying to
integrate, and our South Caucasian attitude to conflict resolutions.

The `European recipe’ of conflict resolution, formed after World War
II calls for accentuation of common interests, the strengthening of
their influence on the relations of the conflicting parties (by
consistent, often very small steps), reduction of the impact of
dividing factors and their gradual deactualization.

The `South Caucasian recipe’ did not change during the past one
hundred years and is confined to the opposition of the idea of
compromise as such, accent on the controversies, the resolution of
which is seen to be the pure advancement of one’s own position.

The first option actually results in overcoming the conflict by an
open and unconventional dialogue of the parties involved, and the
second one eventually results in power solutions (a war or other forms
of inducement). At the same time the `South Caucasus recipe’ proposes
the only serious alternative to the military solution to be the
involvement of the international community, some `center’, that is, as
noted above, signifies a certain return to the Soviet period. The only
difference here is that Moscow concedes its place to other `centers’ –
Vienna, Strasbourg, Brussels, New York or something else. And
similarly to the situation with Moscow, the strengthening of the role
of the `center’ results not in the relief of tension, but in its
escalation. Thus, the report on Karabagh Conflict, produced by the
current Secretary General of CE Terry Davis convinced Baku that its
uncompromising position yields results and it is the one to be
followed. In Yerevan similar documents cause the accusations of the
`center’ of partiality and again the radicalization of positions.

The purely mediating role of the new `centers’ is negative under the
lack of will displayed by the parties to have constructive
dialogue. An example of this is the futility of the Minsk Group
efforts. Thus the only resolution method is imposing the constructed
model to the parties or, as it is commonly called `inducement to
peace’. The shortcoming of this method is that it usually results in
dissatisfaction of one of the parties, similarly to the war solution,
and very often – to dissatisfaction of both. In other words, the
probability of conflict regeneration remains high.

For this very reason the preferrability of the `European recipe’ is
apparent, but it calls for a process, reverse to the one existing in
Karabagh issue today: maximal expansion, and not narrowing, of
cooperation areas. Should this condition be met, the intermediary
mission of OSCE Minsk Group can turn out to be productive, and in this
regard the integration of the region to Europe should be considered
not only as a political and economic process, but also in terms of
adoption of values, traditions and experience. Also, the value and
traditions of overcoming the confrontation after World War II.

[16-11-2004 ‘Armenia-Turkey’]
———————————————————————-
ARMENIA SAYS GENOCIDE POLICY UNCHANGED
Source : “Turkish Daily News” newspaper (Turkey)
Author:

Yerevan will not stop trying for the recognition by the international
community of the so-called Armenian genocide under Ottoman Empire
rule, a move that could open the door for improved ties with Turkey.

Armenian and Azeri media recently reported that dropping, by the
Armenian government, of a regular reference to the alleged genocide in
next year’s draft budget was a sign of a possible shift in Yerevan’s
genocide policy.

But an Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman outrightly denied the
reports. “There is no change in our policy for the recognition of the
genocide on the international platform,” Anatolia news agency quoted
spokesman Hamlet Gasparyan as saying.

Recognition of the so-called genocide is not only a matter of Armenia
and Armenian Diaspora but also of the entire international community,
he added. “So, the matter of recognition cannot be limited to a
budget or financial document.”

Abandoning the genocide claims is high among the conditions put
forward by Turkey to normalize ties with land-locked Armenia. But
Yerevan should also end its occupation of the Azeri territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh and revise its constitution to take out provisions
that include territorial claims in Turkey, for better relations,
Turkish officials say.

In response to the media reports, Ankara earlier this week said that
it had not observed any indication that Armenia would abandon its
genocide policy.

Armenians claim that 1.5 million Armenians died as part of a genocide
campaign at the hands of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the
last century. Turkey categorically denies the charges, saying that the
death toll is inflated and that the killings occurred when the Ottoman
Empire was trying to quell civil unrest during the World War I period.

[12-11-2004 ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan’]
———————————————————————-
YEREVAN DISTRIBUTES LICENSES ON AZERBAIJAN
Source : “Echo” newspaper (Azerbaijan)
Author: N. Aliev, R. Orujev

The scandalous `Karabagh Telecom’ company got a license for operating
on the occupied territory of our country from the Ministry of
Communication of Armenia

Armenian government issued a license for provision of mobile
communication services in Armenia to the scandalous `Karabagh Telecom’
company, in the hope to impede Azerbaijan in `its strenuous activity’
for depriving the Karabagh separatists of any connection with the
outside world. That was the exact statement of Andranik Manukian,
Minister of Transport and Communication in his interview to Yerevan
newspaper `Aravot’. Moreover, he stated that official Yerevan granted
a license to `Karabagh Telecom’ company for activity on the occupied
territory of Azerbaijan proper.

According to Manukian, `Karabagh Telecom’ company invested 15 million
dollars to Karabagh, viewed as a zone of risk, and in accordance with
the license issued by us, assumes the obligation to invest additional
10 million dollars”. Doubtlessly, it gives a serious reason to
Azerbaijan for publicizing all of these data on international level.As
head of the press service of AR Ministry of Communication and
Information Technologies, Mushfik Amirov stated to `Echo’ yesterday,
it is not long ago that `Karabagh Telecom’ was accepted as member of
GSM Association. “However, we sent a relevant appeal to the
association, and the separatist structure was deprived of membership.
However, immediately after it `Karabagh Telecom’ sent a repeated
appeal for membership in GSM Association. On November 1, this appeal
was considered and rejected”.

By the way, after the information on official establishment of a
branch enterprise `Karabagh Telecom’ on the Armenian market, AR
Ministry of Communication and Information Technologies sent a new
appeal to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and
GSM. “Based on the fact that our first appeals got a positive response
of these international organizations, we have certain confidence that
ITU will oppose the presence of `Karabagh Telecom’ on the Armenian
mobile communications market’, M. Amirov stated.

As a reminder, our newspaper repeatedly reported that the competition
for the license on mobile communications in Armenia was won by the
branch enterprise `Karabagh Telecom’ – “K-Telecom”. This fact provoked
a surge of emotions in Armenia proper. For instance, leader of
`National Democratic Bloc’ Arshak Sadoyan declared that the process of
negotiations of Armenian government with the telephone monopolist
`ArmenTel’ company of Armenia on suspension of its monopoly in the
sphere of communication was only an imitation with an aim to introduce
`Karabagh Telecom’ company on the Armenian market. Sadoyan is
confident that already nine months ago the Armenian authorities
adopted a secrete decision for introducing `Karabagh Telecom’ company
on the Armenian communications market.He accused Armenian officials of
getting a bribe of 7 million dollars.

In his turn, Minister of Communication of Armenia, Manukian stated in
his interview to `Aravot’ that the package of investment proposals
given to `Karabagh Telecom’ foresees investments amounting to 50
million dollars for the development of mobile communications in
Armenia. “We attach particular importance to the establishment of this
type of communication in border regions of the country. At the same
time “Karabagh Telecom”, in contrast to `ArmenTel’, provides a higher
quality communication”. “I want to mention one more important fact
impacting the Commission’s decision. In Karabagh, viewed as a zone of
risk, `Karabagh Telecom’ company invested 15 million dollars and, in
compliance with the license granted, is to pay 10 million dollars
more. Besides, only for getting the license, the company will pay 7
million dollars to the Armenian state budget. “Karabagh Telecom”
ensures roaming communication of Karabagh with 88 countries, thus
contributing to the recognition of Artsakh in this sphere by the
leading countries of the world. It is a fact that communication
operators in USA, Britain, France, China and other developed countries
signed agreements with `Karabagh Telecom”. Why shouldn’t we have given
this company the opportunity to become a second operator in Armenia,
moreover with rather limited rights?” the Armenian Minister states.

– Does the word “Karabagh” in the company’s name prompt the public
that the real owners of this business are high-ranking officials of
Karabagh origin?

– It is malignant gossip. I hope that when owner of `Karabagh
Telecom’, Arab businessman Pierre-Michelle Fetusha comes to Armenia,
you will have the opportunity to speak with him. Then these absurd
doubts will disappear themselves…

By the way, as regards `absurd doubts’, the Armenian Minister was
obviously overexcited. It is enough to open the site of `Karabagh
Telecom’, which directly states that the owner of this structure is
not Pierre-Michelle – Arab businessman, but Ralph Yirikian, citizen of
Lebanon. It is this personality that with the persistence that might
be applied for a better purpose, has taken all efforts for developing
mobile communications on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan in
recent years.

In his turn, deputy of Milli Mejlis Mayis Safarli stated to `Echo’
that `the developments in Armenia are generally accorded with the
current strategy of the country to integrate the separatist regime of
Karabagh to the international community, i.e. the course for
recognizing this structure. For many years on end, the Armenian budget
has included a separate item on the expenses for Mountainous Karabagh,
which is also absolutely illegal on the international level”.

“The introduction of `Karabagh Telecom’ to Armenia testifies to the
intention of Yerevan, through development of communications on the
occupied territories, to help the separatists in their access to the
international arena. I hold that official Baku should not stay
indifferent to these moments. We have all the grounds for submitting
this issue to the discussion of UN Security Council and OSCE”, the
deputy thinks.

By the access of `Karabagh Telecom’ to its market, Armenia once more
obviously proves that the occupation of Azerbaijani territories is its
responsibility, as Safarli stated. In his opinion, this topic also
requires the position of our country’s Parliament. “At the coming
session of Milli Mejlis, I intend to insist on the inclusion of this
issue on Parliament agenda”.

—
Yerevan Press Club of Armenia, ‘Yeni Nesil’ Journalists’ Union of
Azerbaijan and Association of Diplomacy Correspondents of Turkey
present ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey: Journalist Initiative-2002’
Project. As a part of the project web site has
been designed, featuring the most interesting publications from the
press of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey on issues of mutual
concern. The latest updates on the site are weekly delivered to the
subscribers.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GEORGIA ADVOCATES ABOLISHMENT OF ROAD DUTY FOR ARMENIAN CARGO
TRANSPORTERS

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 16. ARMINFO. Georgia advocates abolishment of the
road duty for Armenian cargo transporters, says deputy economic
development minister of Georgia Gena Muradyan.

The road duty is the key problem for cars crossing the
Armenian-Georgian border. Muradyan says that the Georgian Government
is liberalizing all the border crossing procedures. The road duty is
$240 for one 20-ton container. The chief of the automobile transport
administration of Georgia Alexander Chikvadze says that the Georgian
Government has drafted a new transport code envisaging lifting all
road duties for Armenia.

Manukyan says that in 1994 Armenia and Georgia agreed to mutually
abolish all road duties but point 4 was not clearly formulated and the
sides have to date been levying the duties from each other. The issue
of their abolishment was raised during Pres.Kocharyan’s last year
visit to Georgia and was welcomed by the Georgian side.