Messenger.ge, Georgia
July 12 2004
How realistic is import of Iranian natural gas?
By M. Alkhazashvili
As soon as four months from now Georgia will be able to import
natural gas from Iran if needs be, claims Minister of Energy Nika
Gilauri after the recent visit of President Saakashvili to the
Islamic Republic of Iran.
A serious problem for Georgia’s national security is the fact that
Georgia depends very much on Russia’s energy carriers. Russia has
become the sole supplier of natural gas to Georgia. This fact,
analysts say, gives Russia the opportunity to fix prices or even put
political pressure on Georgia.
One alternative to Russian natural gas is the recently emerging Azeri
supply. The Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum natural gas pipeline requires
another 3-4 years to be completed. In the current situation, in case
the Russian gas supply to Georgia is cut off, the country will be
very vulnerable.
As Georgia’s Minister for Energy mentioned, the Tbilisi
administration believes it absolutely unacceptable to rely on Russian
natural gas and thus is seriously searching for an alternative means
of supply. It looks like after the visit of the president in Iran the
real steps were taken toward this direction.
For Iran, there is no obstacle to delivering natural gas either to
the Armenian or Azeri border. To transit gas through Armenia, a new
pipeline should be constructed which would cost approximately USD 180
million. It is more realistic for Georgia to transit Iranian gas
through Azerbaijan since in this case they only need to rehabilitate
an already existing pipeline system from the Iran-Azeri border to
Baku and then from Baku to Georgia.
Minister Gilauri most probably meant this route when he mentioned
that Georgia could receive Iranian natural gas already thorough the
existed pipeline system, which needed only four months and USD 1.8
million.
“In spite of the fact that Iranian gas costs twice the Russian price,
an alternative source for natural gas is found,” Gilauri told
Rezonansi. Despite the fact that importing Iranian natural gas is
expensive, officials still believe it is very important to have an
alternative supply for when ever needs be.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
July 12 2004
OSCE MG CO-CHAIRS VISITING REGION
[July 12, 2004, 16:56:53]
The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs will arrive in Baku on 14 July,
AzerTAj correspondent was told at the foreign ministry’s press
service.
The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, US ambassador Steven Mann, French
Ambassadors Henry Jacolin and Russian Ambassador Yuri Merzlyakov are
visiting region for another round of regional consultations since 11
July. Currently the co-chairs are in Yerevan.
The goal of the visit is to hold consultations on settlement of the
Armenian-Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh conflict.
The co-chairs are expected to have a number of meetings in Baku.

Turkish Press, Turkey
July 12 2004
What Edwards Means
BYEGM: 7/12/2004
BY ASLI AYDINTASBAS
SABAH- Does everybody really want George W. Bush to lose the coming
US presidential elections? Will a new administration led by
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry really manage to turn a
new page on US foreign policy?
For Turkey, the situation is quite complicated. As a matter of fact,
Ankara doesn’t willingly support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive
strikes whose ultimate aim is to expand American military and
economic power in the Islamic world. However, on the other hand,
neither does Ankara oppose the `star’ role Washington has set for
Turkey in its Greater Middle East Initiative (GME), which is why
certain domestic circles were extremely pleased with Bush’s speech at
Galatasaray University at the closing of NATO’s recent Istanbul
summit. Having seen Turkey’s critical importance in the wake of Sept.
11 attacks, the Bush administration is now lending its full support
to Ankara on both its EU membership bid and relations with the
International Monetary Fund. Bush somehow knows and likes our
country.
Therefore, Ankara foreign policy circles believe that the devil we
know is better than the one we don’t. Let’s recall that Kerry is one
of the supporters of the so-called Armenian genocide bills. In
addition, he is a member of US leftist circles, which are known for
their harsh criticisms of Turkey. Unlike Bush, Kerry won’t be willing
to pressure EU countries for Turkey’s EU membership.
However, Turkey shouldn’t let itself get worried. Let’s not forget
the Clinton administration, once very close to the leftist and Greek
lobbies in the US, and how Clinton’s term was one of the golden eras
for Turkish-US relations. What I’d like to stress here is no matter
what the US president thinks about our country, Turkey is a sine qua
non for US foreign policy. There are fixed, inevitable parameters in
Washington’s foreign policy which no leader can alter. Moreover,
would a Kerry administration be able to ignore the nuclear power
plant that Iran is currently building in Natanz? Kerry certainly
doesn’t have any magic wand with which to change the world.
Kerry and his charismatic running mate John Edwards so far seem very
clumsy in their campaigning, as Edwards is voicing a very leftist
rhetoric which means little to the US nation. The specter of `class
war’ which Edwards often raises in his speeches is not a popular
theme for Americans. This duo must prove to their country that they
are capable of correcting things inside and outside the homeland.
Otherwise, Americans too might opt to stick with the devil they know.

Fresno Bee, CA
July 12 2004
Always Armenian
Family, fun and tradition combine at annual picnics.
By Vanessa Colón

IF YOU GO
What: Moonlight Picnic
When: 6 to 11 p.m. Saturday
Where: California Armenian Home, 6720 E. Kings Canyon Road, Fresno
Details: (559) 224-3561

Traditional Armenian picnics in the central San Joaquin Valley have
blossomed over the past century from family gatherings into festive
summer events.
Their goal, though, has not changed: to unify the community and keep
Armenian culture alive.
Families trekked many years ago to the Kings River, carrying homemade
munchies to a dusty spot in the baking sun.
There they chatted about their lives and took a restful break from
their grape farms, where they lived and worked.
For one popular Armenian picnic, though, home-cooked meals toted to a
sandy river beach are not the model.
This is an event where people from all walks of life — doctors,
attorneys and farmers, among them — buy tickets for sizzling shish
kebabs or burger dinners on the grassy grounds outside the California
Armenian Home in southeast Fresno.
It’s the annual Moonlight Picnic.
This year’s event will be Saturday evening. It is one of the Fresno
area’s largest picnics for Armenians, attracting families every year
from as far away as Los Angeles.
Cultural unity and good company were not the only reasons for the
rise of Armenian picnics. The events also helped churches raise money
for activities.
St. Gregory’s, St. Paul Armenian Apostolic and Holy Trinity Armenian
Apostolic hold picnics in the summer.
The Armenian-American Citizens’ League is sponsoring the Moonlight
Picnic to support activities such as a youth scholarship fund.
The California Armenian Home also is a picnic sponsor.
The league, incorporated in Fresno in 1931, raised money and
established the California Armenian Home for the elderly in 1952.
The home seems an ideal spot for the Moonlight Picnic. The grounds
feature elm trees, lush green grass and flowers in giant pots.
A Spanish-style fountain splashes water from the top.
Armenian picnics date back at least 100 years, said Penny
Mirigian-Emerzian, 80, secretary and a former state president of the
Armenian-American Citizens’ League.
“It was a way to get to know each other,” she said.
The picnics rekindle memories for older Armenians.
In her youth, Mirigian-Emerzian said, store owners sold a pint of
strawberry soda for a nickel to families spending a day at the Kings
River.
“I don’t remember not going to picnics. It was something we always
did in the summertime,” she said.
The Valley’s summer heat did not bother anyone, recalled 67-year-old
Rose Pittman.
“We didn’t care if it was 110 degrees,” Pittman said. “We would still
go because it was tradition. It was a lot of fun. You met a lot of
people.”
Some of the social dynamics at the picnics have changed over the
decades.
Older Armenians recall a time when courting relationships were a bit
more circumspect than today.
“If you had a boyfriend at the picnic, nobody would know. … You
couldn’t hold hands because somebody would talk about you,” said
82-year-old Vera Avedisian.
Adults were more formal in their attire, too.
“Men wore hats, and ladies wore dresses. You don’t see that anymore,”
Pittman said.
At a picnic in June sponsored by St. Gregory’s in Fowler, couples
wearing shorts sat next to each other.
Interracial couples and non-Armenian visitors mingled with
generations of Armenian families.
Said Pittman: “There’s a lot of non-Armenians who come to our church
who marry within the Armenian community. … The doors are open to
everyone.”
The picnics are special to some Armenians because that’s where they
met their spouses.
Alice Bedrosian, 78, met her future husband at a picnic in 1948.
She remembers couples moving their feet to the sounds of swing and
jazz at a dance hall near the Kings River.
Six months later, Bedrosian said, she got married.
Mary Khasigian Nikssarian, 43, hopes her three sons marry Armenian
women when they grow up.
Khasigian Nikssarian says the picnics and youth activities are
perfect opportunities to make a match.
“I certainly have the hope that God will provide another Armenian
mate. I pray for all three each day,” Khasigian Nikssarian said.
Her 16-year-old son, Alexander Nikssarian, looks forward to the
picnics because that’s when he is surrounded by family and other
Armenians.
He lives in Marina, where he says there are few Armenians and no
Armenian school at which he can learn the language.
The picnics are a lot of fun, Alexander said: “You see people you
haven’t seen for a year. … You see generations of Armenians.”
The picnics are a way for younger generations to stay in contact with
their roots.
They listen to Armenian music and savor rice pilaf.
They strengthen ties to family and community, greet old friends and
meet new ones.
In that sense, Armenian picnics have not changed a bit over the
100-plus years.
Said 49-year-old David Nikssarian, who grew up in the Fresno area and
lives in Marina: “You can be around Armenians for the weekend and see
family. People come and say hello.”
The reporter can be reached at [email protected] or (559)
441-6313.

Eurasianet Organization
July 12 2004
RUSSIA: THE CAUCASUS’ FRIEND IN NEED?
Igor Torbakov: 7/12/04
A EurasiaNet commentary
Amidst the ongoing standoff with Georgia over South Ossetia, Russian
analysts have begun pushing for a policy that presents Moscow as the
guarantor of peace and stability in the Caucasus.
The June `8-‘9 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in
Istanbul has fueled the campaign for a transformation of Russian
strategy in the region. [For background see the EurasiaNet Insight
archive]. Nearly `3 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
most Russian analysts believe that the Kremlin has failed in its
struggle to maintain its influence throughout the former USSR. With
NATO now having expressed a clear interest in both the Caucasus and
Central Asia, that loss of influence could pose a longer-term
strategic threat, the thinking goes.
With the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania now all
members of NATO, the alliance’s military infrastructure already
touches Russia’s northern flank. That leaves Central Asia, an area
that has recently begun to show its willingness to entertain Russian
overtures, and the Caucasus, a region where, according to one recent
commentary published in Noviye Izvestia, a “bitter rivalry” between
East and West is already taking place.
Given its past as the region’s overlord, both in Soviet and tsarist
times, Russia is determined to prevent the Western security
collective from gaining a geopolitical foothold in a territory it has
long considered its “soft underbelly.”
Yet rather than attempting to preserve the post-Soviet status quo,
the Kremlin’s strategists appear to have begun to favor a policy that
looks on Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia as sovereign neighbors and
potential partners and allies. That strategy has most recently been
put to work with Georgia, where Russia played a leading role in
securing the resignation of Ajarian strongman Aslan Abashidze, a key
goal of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. [For background see
the EurasiaNet Insight archive]. Additional signs of this policy of
engagement have occurred with promises to increase Russian investment
in Georgia. Initially, the strategy appeared to have worked: Russia
has been asked to advise on changes to Georgia’s tax code and the
appointment of Kakha Bendukidze, a Georgian-born Russian “oligarch,”
as Georgia’s economics minister has emphasized those trade links
still further.
Given Russia’s own status as a former Soviet republic trying to
identify its national mission, the argument goes, it is better
equipped than NATO or the European Union to understand the needs of
newly formed countries in the Caucasus and throughout the Collective
of Independent States. To reinforce this connection, some Russian
analysts have emphasized that these countries in any case will not be
likely candidates for EU or NATO membership for at least two more
generations. Still others have presented NATO as failed peacekeepers
in Afghanistan and Iraq – a reason, they say, for CIS countries to
pay little heed to the alliance’s overtures to secure peace and
security.
How events will unfold in response to the recent crisis over South
Ossetia will present a critical test for this new policy, however.
[For background see the EurasiaNet Insight archive].While dialogue is
being held with the Kremlin to find a resolution to the stand-off,
the Georgian government has also asked US Secretary of State Colin
Powell to act as a mediator for the conflict. [For background see the
EurasiaNet Insight archive].
Such a role no doubt will only underline to Russian security and
defense analysts the need to retain Moscow’s two military facilities
in Georgia for as long as possible. In their eyes, Georgia is the key
to the entire Black Sea and South Caucasus region. The bases’
advantage, however, is primarily political. With the bases in Batumi
and Akhalkalaki as a “rear guard,” Russia can “restrain the push of
new [geopolitical] rivals into the post-Soviet space,” Sergei
Kazennov, a researcher at the Institute of World Economy and
International relations, argued in a recent commentary posted on the
Politcom.ru Web site.
For that reason, close attention is also being paid to recently
announced plans for a railroad that will provide – for the first time
in five years – a direct link between Azerbaijan and Turkey. The
railway, which would run from Baku to Kars via Tbilisi, will skirt
Russia’s base at Akhalkalaki. If Russia withdraws from its bases, the
thinking goes, the way would be clear for Turkey to begin shipping
military hardware to Georgia and Azerbaijan via the rail route.
Given these concerns, chances are few that the Kremlin will withdraw
from these installations. At the NATO summit in Istanbul, Russia
firmly rejected pressure to remove its troops from both Georgia and
Moldova, under the terms of a `999 agreement. “These demands are not
legally correct as agreements on settling things with the bases in
Georgia and the pullout of Russia military equipment from the
Dniester region [in Moldova] were of a political rather than legal
nature,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Russia-NATO Council.
Nor is an offer by alliance member states to ratify the modified
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) – a `990
agreement between the US and the USSR to slash troops and weapons
stockpiles in Europe recently ratified by Russia – sufficient
incentive for such a move. “It would be stupid to swap the withdrawal
of troops [from Georgia and Moldova] for the ratification of an
outdated treaty,” argued Kazennov. “It’s not an equal exchange.”
Ironically, despite the push to treat CIS countries as strong players
in their own right, this decision is predicated on Russia’s relations
with the US, rather than on ties with Georgia itself. The Russian
political class clearly sees Washington as the locomotive for NATO’s
eastward expansion, a move that is reckoned as “a continuation of the
tug-of-war between Moscow and Washington for the control over the
former Soviet republics,” according to one commentator.
So far, in the opinion of most Russian analysts, the Kremlin has come
out as the loser in the struggle with the US for dominance in the
Caucasus and beyond. With Georgia’s recent announcement that it
expects to join NATO within four years, it is a game of geopolitical
chess that Russia is increasingly determined to win.
Editor’s Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist and researcher
who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History
from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences. He was Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian
History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; a Visiting Scholar at
the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, Washington DC; a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University,
New York; and a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University. He is now
based in Istanbul, Turkey.

CounterBias.com
July 2 2004
The True Cost Of The Iraq War
Marc Krug
The war in Iraq has sent to their graves more than 850 Americans,
almost 120 coalition soldiers, and somewhere around 10,000 Iraqis – a
good portion of whom were civilians. Similarly dispatched from this
world were upwards of 90 contractors and 30 journalists.
In monetary terms, the war has cost Americans over $120 billion as of
June 30 and there is no end in sight. Nor will there ever be an end
as long as the Bush administration remains in power.
What is truly unfortunate is that these figures represent only the
traditional costs of the war. And while nothing exceeds the value of
a human life, the costs of this misbegotten war – both to America and
the world – amount to so much more than these figures alone can ever
convey.
For instance, the war has cost us the respect of many in the world
and of many astute Americans. Bush’s unilateralist policies, in which
he openly disdained those countries not sufficiently reckless to
support his war, have greatly damaged the strong relations we once
had with our allies. Relations that took decades to build – several
of which were battle tested during World War Two – were nearly
destroyed by Bush in weeks.
It’s not difficult to find evidence of these strained relations. On
June 16, a bipartisan coalition of 27 former senior diplomatic
officials and retired military commanders – including many who had
worked in the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush –
issued a statement quite critical of how our current President has
prosecuted this war, particularly the contempt he has displayed
toward former allies and the U.N.
“From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing
approach to America’s role in the world, relying upon military might
and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends
and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. Instead of building
upon America’s great economic and moral strength to lead other
nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism
and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by
ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. Our
security has been weakened.”
And our security has indeed been weakened. The war in Iraq has cost
Americans much of whatever security they may have felt after
September 11. It’s done the same for the Iraqis who say they feel far
less safe now than when Saddam was still in power: actually, most
Iraqis polled by the C.P.A. in late May said they would feel safer if
we were to leave immediately. This sentiment derives partly from the
horrors disclosed at Abu Ghraib and Bush’s fictitious claim that the
torture and murder of prisoners ended with the departure of Saddam.
It also derives from the never-ending carnage in Iraq.
For these and other reasons, the Iraq war provided the most effective
recruitment device for terrorists conceivable. As Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak said on March 31, 2003, twelve days after the war
began: “Instead of having one (Osama) bin Laden, we will have 100 bin
Ladens.” The London-based International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS) claims the war spurred a sharp increase in the
membership of al-Qaeda, who now number around 18,000. And who, after
the war in Afghanistan caused them to disperse, may have come to
America in large numbers.
Also weakened is international security. First, al Qaeda does not
target only the U.S., nor is it the only terrorist group whose
membership the war has increased. Furthermore, these terrorist’s most
common targets, besides Americans, are citizens of those countries
that have aligned themselves with America.
Second, amidst much noise and controversy, the State Department
recently revised the number of terror-related deaths worldwide from
307 to 625. This latter figure is the highest number recorded since
statistics of its type have been kept. So it would seem that the war
against terrorism has not only failed to decrease it; the war has
actually increased terrorism all over the world.
And third, by fighting a pre-emptive war, Bush has not only placed
certain countries at risk by setting a dangerous precedent; he has
also violated international law. For instance, his pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq has increased the likelihood that India might attack
Pakistan, Rwanda might enter the Congo by force, and Armenia might go
to war against Azerbaijan. Moreover, by fighting a pre-emptive war,
he has violated the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Charter.
Unfortunately, these are not the only international agreements Bush
has acted in disregard of.
By bombing civilian targets, our armed forces have violated the Third
and Fourth Geneva conventions, which are concerned with the
protection of civilian populations during wartime. American soldiers
have further dishonored these conventions by using certain tactics
against the Iraqi civilian population – specifically, imposing
curfews, closing entire towns, demolishing houses, and arresting and
kidnapping family members of wanted militants in the hopes that they
will turn themselves in once they’ve heard what has become of their
families.
So it’s not difficult to understand the intense enmity that many
Arabs now feel towards Americans, thus making the U.S. a “flycatcher
for terrorists,” as one State Department figure put it. Consequently,
Americans feel less safe now than they ever did before. And for good
reason.
This feeling was fueled, however illegitimately, by the
Mueller-Ashcroft “press conference” in late May. In that bizarre
televised event, our two leading law enforcement officials presented
the pictures of seven nefarious terrorists – whose crimes,
whereabouts, and connections to each other remained largely unknown –
but who, no doubt, were at that very moment planning terrorist
attacks against America. Notably absent from this “press conference”
was Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security, who stated earlier in
the day on ABC’s Good Morning America, “that the threats are not the
most disturbing I have personally seen during the past couple of
years.”
The message seemed to be that America stood in peril of imminent
terrorist attack. But apparently not to any greater degree during
Ashcroft and Mueller’s imitation of America’s Most Wanted than at any
other time before or since. One can then only wonder why the “press
conference” was held at all, aside from the fact that fear of
terrorism plays right into one of Bush’s few remaining strengths.
Nevertheless, the growing fear of Islamic terrorism has now become
part of the American landscape. But it is only one of many costs that
this war has forced Americans to endure.
Fighting this war, while simultaneously lowering taxes, has not only
created a substantial and ever increasing deficit; it has also
resulted in decreased federal and state spending. The deficit alone
has partly caused an increase in interest rates and a rise in the
Consumer Price Index.
Deficits are rather easy to understand: they happen when your
expenses exceed your income. In the case of the federal government,
the cost of the war plus its other expenses exceed the income it
derives largely from taxes, which now are substantially less because
of the cuts. To finance this deficit, the US Treasury Department must
borrow money by selling IOUs in the form of bills, notes, and bonds
to the public.
But as the debt increases, the government has to sell more of these
IOUs to what often is a reasonably fixed group of buyers. In other
words, the supply of IOUs goes up, while the demand does not – at
least not to the same extent. To compensate, the government has to
increase the incentive for individuals and institutions to buy more
of these IOUs. It does this by raising the financial reward for
buying them – namely, the interest paid to the purchaser. As a
result, one type of interest rate goes up. And, eventually so do
other types of interest rates.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. Keep in mind that interest constitutes
one cost of producing goods and services; so rising interest rates
cause the price of those goods and services to eventually rise as
well. Actually, this process already began months ago: the Consumers
Price Index for the first quarter of 2004 came in at 4.4 %, more than
twice what it was for all of 2003 (1.9%). Also keep in mind that the
first quarter ended before the rapid upward spike in oil costs,
caused largely by the war in Iraq. So most likely, we could be
looking at a 6% rise in the Consumers Price Index for the second
quarter.
Put simply, when the price of petroleum products goes up, so will the
price of everything shipped by truck or plane as both use petroleum
products. Furthermore, your drive to buy those increasingly expensive
goods will cost you more – as will your drive to the job whose
paycheck now buys you increasingly less. In addition, if crude oil
prices stay at around $40 a barrel, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) will fall by over $50 billion a year. And remember, a recession
is defined by two straight quarters of negative GDP growth.
In addition to the costs of higher interest rates, higher gas prices,
and rising inflation, the war in Iraq has brought about other
hardships as well. For example, it wasn’t until June 7, 2004 that all
American soldiers had bullet proof vests. Before then, their families
or loved ones often spent $600-$1,000 buying this equipment
themselves before shipping it overseas at their own expense.
Additionally, many National Guard units have now become depleted by
losing so many members to fighting the Iraq war that some states
worry whether they have enough people to fight whatever natural
emergencies that might occur within their boundaries. So the next
cost of the war in Iraq could be the fire that burns out of control
for weeks because there aren’t enough National Guard members to help
stop it.

Also, the families of National Guard members currently in Iraq have
learned by necessity how to survive without their primary breadwinner
– often by living in substandard housing and using food stamps to
eat and welfare to buy necessities. And when the Guard members do
return, they often do not find their old jobs waiting for them. The
law guaranteeing them their right to the job they left behind has
lately been very laxly observed and even more laxly enforced.
To make matters worse, the Bush administration’s initial proposal for
discretionary veterans’ benefits for FY 2005 was $3.8 billion short
of what was needed, according to leading veterans’ organizations. The
House of Representatives in May boosted Bush’s proposal by $1.2
million, still leaving a $2.6 million shortfall.
But for all Americans, the war meant that many programs would be cut,
such as grants for low-income schools and family literacy. In fact,
the FY 2005 budget proposes deep cuts in many essential domestic
programs. With the exception of Homeland Security, funding for
domestic discretionary programs was essentially frozen. Programs
slated for elimination included Community Development Block Grants,
Rural Housing and Economic Development, and Arts in Education grants.
Nevertheless, the tax cuts proceed unabated.
Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of the war in Iraq were the
defense contractors, particularly the politically connected
Halliburton, whose subsidiary KBR (Kellogg Brown & Root) became the
recipient of $7 billion in slightly over two years. To show their
gratitude, KBR overcharged $61 million for gas and $16 billion for
meals, 2/3rds of which were never delivered. Eventually, in March
2004, the government stepped in and withheld $160 million slated to
reimburse KBR for these phantom meals.
Just this last June, four former Halliburton employees claimed that
the company routinely wasted money, charging $45 for cases of Coke
and $100 dollars for bags of laundry. The company also instructed
employees to overstate on their time cards and to abandon nearly new
$85,000 trucks in the desert when they got flat tires. In many cases,
these trucks were entirely empty, although the U.S. Government was
billed for transporting what employees derisively referred to as
“sailboat fuel.”
So there you have the war in Iraq: death, destruction, damaged
relations with our allies, disrespect for prevailing international
law, diminished purchasing power for the dollar, and decreased
spending on what America truly needs.
I, for one, can truly live without it. As can the tens of thousands
who may yet die if the war continues too much longer.

Armen Press
July 12 2004
PRIME MINISTER ANDRANIK MARGARYAN TO VISIT RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON JUNE
12
YEREVAN, JULY 12, ARMENPRESS: On July 12 Armenian Prime Minister
Andranik Margaryan left for the Russian Federation on a two-day
official visit at the invitation of Mikhail Fradkov, the chairman of
the Government of the Russian Federation. The Armenian delegation,
headed by the Prime Minister, includes Vardan Khachatrian, the
minister of finance and economy, Karen Chshmaritian, the minister of
trade and economic development, Sergo Yeritsian, the minister of
science and education, Armen Avetisian, the chairman of the
government affiliated state customs committee, Tatul Margaryan, the
deputy minister of foreign affairs and also senior officials of the
staff of the government and the ministry of foreign affairs.
On July 13 Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan will have a meeting
with his Russian counterpart, Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov. This
will be followed by enlarged Russian- Armenian talks with
participation of all members of Russian and Armenian delegations. The
prime Ministers of Armenia and Russia will also meet with
representatives of mass media.
Within the frameworks of the visit Prime Minister Andranik
Margarian is expected to have also bilateral meetings with some
high-ranking Russian official. During his stay in Moscow the Prime
Minister will visit the “Armenia” pavilion of the Pan-Russian
Exhibition Center and will meet with its director M. Musayev.

Armen Press
July 12 2004
OSCE ACTS BEYOND FRAMES OF RESPONSIBILITIES, ARMENIAN OFFICIAL SAYS
YEREVAN, JULY 12, ARMENPRESS: A deputy parliament chairman Vahan
Hovhanesian from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) argued
today that Armenia has joined Russia and seven other ex-Soviet states
to accuse the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) of unjustly interference into their domestic affairs because
of the OSCE decreasing role in handling international issues. “The
responsibilities assigned to the OSCE are successfully carried out by
other international organizations, a clear indication of the falling
role of the OSCE,” he said.
In a joint statement ex-Soviet countries said last week that in
part the OSCE does not respect such fundamental principles as
non-interference in internal affairs and respect of national
sovereignty by meddling into their domestic affairs. The statement
was signed by Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova,
Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Georgia, Azerbaijan and
Turkmenistan refused to sign it.
Vahan Hovhanesian went on to argue that there is no now such a
problem that would require the OSCE’s joint efforts and therefore the
organization has to seek new initiatives, which, however, are beyond
its frame of commitments. He also added that Armenia cannot agree
with a motion, put forward by the OSCE leadership that resolutions
can be taken without a consensus.

Armen Press
July 12 2004
$48,000 PLEDGED FOR STARTING CONSTRUCTION OF CENTER FOR HANDICAPPED
YEREVAN, JULY 12, ARMENPRESS: Levon Nersisian, the chairman of
Astghik (Starlet) union of handicapped people, told Armenpress that
nine international and local organizations pledged $42,000 in
donations for starting the construction of a rehabilitation center on
2 hectares of land in a Yerevan Nor Nork community, allocated to it
by a government decision. Nersisian said his union has developed a
program called Hope Shelter, which conforms all internationally
accepted standards of handicapped people care, which he said costs $6
million.
He said the Union hopes that the construction of the
rehabilitation center will be finished in 2008 and its full operation
will require another four years.
The program supposes a unique approach towards meeting the needs
of handicapped people. Around 60 disabled children are supposed to be
serviced by a 148-member staff. The center will also take care of
local old people and foreign old-age tourists.
From: Baghdasarian

Armen Press
July 12 2004
ARMENIAN EMBASSY HOSTS PRESENTATION ON ARMENIAN SCIENCE AND LAKE
SEVAN
YEREVAN, JULY 12, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian foreign affairs
ministry said that on July 7, 2004, the Embassy of Armenia in the USA
hosted members of the Federal Water Quality Association and the
Greater Metropolitan Washington Area Section of the Armenian
Engineers and Scientists of America for a presentation on Armenian
science and environmental issues. Arman Kirakosian, Armenian
Ambassador to the U.S., delivered the keynote address, entitled “The
State of the Science in Armenia, with a View Toward the Water
Environment of Lake Sevan,” to an audience of some 60 experts,
researchers, and officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Agriculture, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Civilian Research & Development Foundation, and other public and
private entities.
In his presentation and the Q&A that followed, Ambassador
Kirakosian presented the modern state of scientific infrastructure,
policies, and directions in Armenia. He described the many challenges
facing the Armenian scientists today, such as drastic decrease in
government funding, greater need for commercial viability and
involvement of the private sector in directing and funding R&D, and
curtailing the so-called ‘brain-drain.’ Despite these challenges, the
Armenian scientists continue to make progress in many areas of
fundamental and applied science due to perseverance and support from
their foreign colleagues and international donors, the Ambassador
noted. He also presented the government’s plans to strengthen science
and education sectors.
Turning to Lake Sevan, Ambassador Kirakosian described the
severity of the man-made ecological problems in Lake Sevan during the
twentieth century, caused by extensive irrigation and hydropower
usage. The resulting 18-meter drop in water level and disruption of
water balance in the lake was a good example of Soviet era
environmental damage, he added. The Ambassador then noted the current
positive trends in Lake Sevan ecology, but stressed the need for
continuing attention for and greater international cooperation to
preserve the unique environment of Lake Sevan.