Armenianow.com
July 9, 2004
Social Insecurity: Identity cards meet devilish resistance from religious
extremists
By Marianna Grigoryan ArmeniaNow reporter
When controversy stirred a year ago over issuing Social Security Cards in
Armenia, officials predicted that by the time the cards came into use, their
value would be understood.
Ten days ago, the first cards appeared. But so did more noise on the part of
those who see the cards as anything from an annoying invasion of privacy to
the apocalyptic “Mark of the Beast”.
“No to Numeration”
The term for implementing the card system has been extended until January 1,
2005, but it appears that for a small but vocal minority, resistance is
endless.
“These cards are against freedom of conscience, faith and human rights,”
says Armen Avetisyan, leader of Armenian Aryan Unanimity and a member of the
Council Against People’s Numeration. “It’s been more than three months that
with threats of being fired, everywhere people are being forced to be
numerated, meaning to get those cards. These cards are a violation of human
rights.”
Avetisyan was among a group that gathered last week near the Institute of
Manuscripts for “fighting against satanic power”, advising others with
placards that read “Don’t Sell Our Souls”, “Your Holiness, Don’t Leave Your
Flock”, “No to People’s Numeration”, “How Many Heads of Servants Does Satan
Have in Armenia?”
The group carried a special coffin in which it placed mockups of Social
Security Cards, calling for the burial of the “evil” idea.
The intention was to carry the coffin to Republic Square. Police, however,
confiscated the coffin.
“As it was planned, on July 1 the coffin had to be brought to Republic
Square and people who were cheated and forced to get cards were to put
them into the coffin,” says Avetisyan. “However, the action failed
since before the protesters started acting police confiscated the
coffin and the portrait of the social security card framed and tied
with a black ribbon. If they don’t return our coffin in the nearest
time we shall sue the police.”
Council Against People’s Numeration member Khachik Stamboltsyan says the
group has more than 100,000 written complaints about the cards and more than
a million followers who are fighting against “satanic cards”.
“We collect those cards from people and are going to return them to the
ministry,” says Stamboltsyan. “Meanwhile, we will do anything to interfere
with the implementation of that system.”
Religious extremists think the cards are Satanic
Ministry of Social Welfare experts dismiss the controversy as a
misunderstanding, assuring that Social Security cards are not obligatory,
but may be necessary for future interaction in government-related record
keeping.
“If a person receives salary or pension, it’s clear that he’ll need a social
card and if he does not depend on such things he can refuse it,” says
Haykuhi Gevorgyan, a public relations officer at the Ministry of Social
Welfare.
Gevorgyan says at present around 1.6 million citizens have registered to get
social security cards and 1 million of them have already received them.
“The process continues, people call, ask questions and get registered to
receive a card,” says Gevorgyan. “Everything goes its natural way.”
However, those who are opposed to the cards assure unanimously that the
system is “a satanic brand”, “soul genocide” and is the best option to
eliminate the nation physically and spiritually.
According to one widespread opinion among dissenters, people are numerated
so that they lose their individuality.
“With the Lord’s help we’ve been fighting against cards for three years and
we will continue fighting until we achieve what we want, since it’s even
terrifying to imagine what information is put in those cards,” says
Stamboltsyan. “That information is kept for 400 years and serves against our
nation and religion. We cannot allow such a thing to happen.”
Stamboltsyan says his group has applied to many souces and also to the
Catholicos to protect Christians from that disaster. However His Holiness
Garegin II says he sees no threat in the cards and has received his on July
3.
“By that step the Catholicos sold Christ for 30 silver coins,” says
Stamboltsyan. “But with God’s power we will eliminate that system; there are
many clerics who follow us.”

Armenianow.com
July 9, 2004
Patterns of the Past?: Are there political prisoners in today’s Armenia?
By Vahan Ishkhanyan ArmeniaNow reporter
Recent arrests of political oppositionists in Armenia have prompted
activists and human rights advocates to draw parallels between the latest
government crackdown and communist-era oppression.
Beginning in February, and officially ending two weeks ago, oppositional
parties held rallies in Yerevan, calling for the resignation of President
Robert Kocharyan, on grounds that he had “stolen” last year’s election and
that his presidency is “illegitimate”.
Suren Surenyants
During the period, some 240 oppositional sympathizers were arrested on
various charges and placed under “administrative arrests”. But 14 party
members, including leaders, were charged with more serious crimes, including
advocating overthrowing the government. Though most have since been released
(often after signing statements of remorse), one regional party head,
Lavrenti Kirakosyan, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for drug
possession, under what appears to be trumped-up charges based on planted
evidence.
While law enforcement authorities call the bulk of charges civil
disobedience, veteran civil rights advocates say the arrests are a throwback
to days when anti-Sovietism could land a person in prison for up to 10
years.
“No countries, neither Northern Korea nor China admit the fact that they
have political prisoners,” says human right activist Vardan Harutyunyan, who
was a political prisoner during Soviet times. “In all those countries
political prisoners are tried in accordance with the criminal code. The
democratic world and non-governmental organizations judge whether a convict
is political or not.”
The Soviet Criminal Code contained legislation with political subtexts that
made it convenient for charging dissidents as criminals. The notorious
Paragraph 65 on anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation was used to imprison 95
Armenians between the 1960s and independence, in 1991.
When Armenia became independent, Paragraph 65 was changed and instead of
accusations of anti-Soviet activities the law enforced against “calls for
forced overturn or change of state and public order of Armenia”. In 1995
today’s deputies of the National Assembly and members of Dashnak party Vahan
Hovhannisyan and Armen Rustamyan were sentenced under the revised paragraph
and served three years of longer sentences before being released when Levon
Ter Petrossyan resigned in 1998.
In the Civil Code adopted last year, Paragraph 65 turned into Paragraph 301
and the punishment provided for by the paragraph was mitigated. Now,
conviction on charges of anti-government activity range from fines, to
three-year sentences.
In April, three oppositional representatives were arrested for making calls
to change and overturn state order. They were kept in prison for two months
and then set free.
Vardan Harutyunyan
Head of the Informational Department of the Republic party, political
secretary Suren Surenyants was the first arrested. He was accused of
inflammatory speech during a February 28 rally in the Shengavit Community of
Yerevan on the day commemorating the pogroms of Sumgait, Azerbaijan.
For saying “We must do everything so that the earth would burn under this
regime’s feet”, he was convicted of instigating an overthrow of power. And
for saying “With their acts of violence Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan
don’t differ from Azeri hooligans” he was found guilty of insulting state
authorities.
One of the party leaders, Vagharshak Harutyunyan held no speeches, however,
he was also accused of making calls to seize state power by force.
A member of the President’s Administration for Protection of Human Rights,
Zhora Khachatryan, says the charges against Surenyants were subjective,
while he found no basis at all for Harutyunyan’s arrest.
“It is a question of judging Suren’s speech. Was it an insult or not?” says
jurist Zhora Khachatryan. “He made such expressions, which can be
interpreted in every way. My opinion is that his speech contains insults and
calls for overturning the power. People must be decent in conversation.”
Khachatryan believes it is necessary to preserve Paragraph 301, however, he
believes that speculations and the fact that all speeches are regarded as
calls for overturn of power should be condemned.
Vardan Harutyunyan also believes that calls for a change of power by force
should be condemned, however, he says none of the arrested made such calls,
including Surenyants.
“During oppositional rallies nobody said that power must be overturned by
force. There is nothing like that in Surenyants’ speech as well,”
Harutyunyan says. “There were only calls to change the power but it is a
constitutional right and it is not a crime.”
Surenyants says he would never have been released, had he not signed a
document of repentance.
“My health was bad. I had heart seizures and my eye pressure was
increasing,” he says. “(Presidential Ombudsman) Larisa Alaverdyan’s action
also played an important role. However, those two factor would mean nothing
if the repentance clause (of the Paragraph) was not applied to me.”
He says he signed document of repentance only for getting out of prison and
in reality he doesn’t repent of what he had done and he will continue the
political struggle.
“When a country is independent, then one should not be in prison under the
rule of the bad regime but one should change that bad regime,” he explained
in his statement.
In the case of Kirakosyan (a leader of the National Democratic Union), human
rights activists are saying that he is in fact a political prisoner, because
his arrest was politically motivated.
Jurist Khachatryan, who was present at Kirakosyan’s trial, says there are
numerous illegalities in the case, including a lack of cause for the search
that turned up 59 grams of marijuana in Kirakosyan’s home.
He doesn’t think, however, that Kirakosyan is a political prisoner.
According to Khachatryan, Kirakosyan became a victim of defects in the
judicial system.
“If a criminal case enters the court, then verdict of ‘guilty’ should
necessarily be rendered,” Kirakosyan says. “The court avoids rendering
verdicts of ‘not guilty’ as in that case defects of the work conducted by
(state) bodies in charge of preliminary investigations will become apparent.
Zhora Khachatryan
“Even in this case the court doesn’t carry out the order of authorities,
rather, it functions in accordance with the established order. If the
Prosecutor’s Office presented a case then a verdict of ‘guilty’ must be
necessarily rendered. For now we still have no just courts.”
Vardan Harutyunyan sees reflections of past regimes in cases such as
Kirakosyan’s.
“I can bring numerous examples from the Soviet Union times when dissidents
were accused of rape, hooliganism and drug use. The paragraph means
nothing,” he says. “The real reasons must be detected. And the real reason
of trying Lavrenty is political.”
In 1980, together with his four associates Vardan Harutyunyan created Union
of Armenian Youth, whose goal was the independence of Armenia. Members of
that organization were spreading prohibited literature. One year later they
were arrested and convicted. Only Harutyunyan was accused and sentenced
under Paragraph 65 – anti-Soviet agitation. The other three were sentenced
not only under Paragraph 65, but also under other paragraphs of the criminal
code.
“I was in the army when they detained me. If I were in Yerevan they would
fabricate additional cases for me,” he says.
The head of the organization, the late Marzpet Harutyunyan, was, like
Kirakosyan, accused of dealing drugs.
Vardan Harutyunyan, now 43, recalls the sentencing:
“It was determined that Marzpet doesn’t use drugs, but deals them,”
Harutyunuan remembers the judge saying. “You think about your health but for
poisoning young men you spread drugs.”
To which, according to Harutyunyan, Marzpet answered: “Judge, if I had
wished to poison young men then I would have spread Marxism.”
Another member of the group Samvel Yeghiazaryan was accused of acts of
hooliganism, which he says he never committed.
“One day the head of the district came and said ‘come with me we have things
to do’,” recalls 46-year-old Yeghiazaryan. “Together with him we went to the
police station. A policeman told me that I had committed acts of
hooliganism, that I had been cursing women passing by in the street next to
‘Aquarium’ restaurant. I thought it was a mistake, misunderstanding. I swore
I had never done something like that. I said can you bring witnesses and
they said it is not accepted that women give testimonies.”
One of the groups’ members, Ishkhan Lazarian was killed in prison in 1985
while serving his sentence for resisting arrest and for violations of
Paragraph 65. A fifth member was set free after signing a document of
remorse during the trial.
Vardan Harutyunyan, who spent eight years in prison, says spending time in
prison was a part of their struggle.
“Of course, there is a great difference between today’s Armenia and Soviet
Armenia. Those days any kind of public or political activities was
prohibited,” says Vardan Harutyunyan. “Simply today people with Soviet
mentality came to power. Their methods are the same but their possibilities
are limited as the world has changed. They cannot fully bring to life their
ideas, however, in some measure they do that – they forbid mass meetings and
execute arrests. “

Armenianow.com
July 9, 2004
Public Relations Job: Americans train, hire locals to fill gap in
construction force
By Julia Hakobyan ArmeniaNow reporter
When the United States started discussion of constructing a new embassy in
Yerevan in 2001, the work initially caused a controversy among society and
mass media for two reasons. First: the new embassy will be the largest U.S.
Embassy (in total real estate) worldwide. Secondly: Turks (plus Bulgarians
and Filipinos) were among the laborers, but, in some specialities, Armenians
were not.
400 Armenians are included in the embassy construction workforce
A backlash of bad press criticized the Yanks for importing labor into a
country where so many natives can’t find work.
The Americans said they had good cause to hire outsiders. Simply, the
available Armenian labor force was not trained in the skills required for
the jobs.
“At the beginning of the construction the embassy advertised vacancies for
local construction workers but for some categories no one came,” said
Kimberly G. Hargan, Public Affairs Officer of the U.S. Embassy.
“The reason why JA Jones, the US Construction Company, took workers from
third countries was that Armenians were not familiar with western
construction techniques and were not acquainted with some specialties, such
as American standards of electrical works, plumbing and others.”
In a bit of goodwill (and good public relations), the Americans decided to
make jobs available to the locals by training them for such skilled labor.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the
United States Embassy designed a program for training of local laborers and
invited experts from the United States and JA Jones Company to conduct
training of the Armenians.
The training for different construction trades lasts three to four weeks,
including a week of practical work. The schedule allows participants to be
placed in jobs as quickly as possible.
Now, more than 600 employees are building the embassy, 400 of whom are
Armenians.
“We think that once the new embassy is finished, people who were involved in
construction and were trained according to western standards would be highly
marketable,” Hargan said.
“We expect that with the continuing growth and improvement of the economy
more western companies are interested in coming here and constructing
hotels, office buildings . . . And Armenian constructors can apply their
knowledge to the western construction sector in their native country.”
But there’s still plenty of work for the embassy laborers. The project is
scheduled to be completed next March.
As for the need of the new embassy, Hargan said it was caused from the
tremendous expansion of US relations with Armenia in recent years. He said
dozens of sites were evaluated to find one that would best meet the needs of
the U.S. and Armenian governments.
The current embassy on Bagramyan Avenue does not meet US safety requirements
and is small for hosting staff. The new embassy compound is being built to
the highest engineering standards to resist blast and earthquake.
The new embassy will contain a five-story Chancery Building, USAID Building,
two-story Marine Security Guard Quarters, Warehouse, Main and Service
Compound Access Control Structures. It is located on the edge of Yerevanyan
Lake, a few kilometers outside the city center on the road to Zvartnots
International Airport.
The total space covers 90,469 square meters (22 American acres). It is the
biggest lot on which a US embassy has been built and its office space will
be among the largest for US embassies worldwide. The United States bought
the property from the Government of Armenia for about $5 million.
The new embassy will not block citizen access to the lake, which remains the
property of the Republic of Armenia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA FOREIGN MINISTER COMMENTS ON NATO SUMMIT, OSCE MEDIATION AND ARMY
BASES
Golos Armenii, Yerevan
8 Jul 04
Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan has said that Armenia is guided “by a
principle of complementarity” in its foreign policy and its
cooperation with NATO is not in conflict with its membership of the
CIS Collective Security Treaty. In a wide-ranging interview with an
Armenian newspaper carried by De-Facto news agency on 8 July, he
commented on the recent Istanbul-hosted NATO summit and hailed NATO
for its statement describing the South Caucasus as “a zone of its
special attention”. The following is the text of report by Armenian
newspaper Golos Armenii on 8 July entitled “The co-chairmen will come
to learn approaches of the parties” as published by De-Facto agency;
subheadings have been inserted editorially:
(De Facto correspondent) You headed the Armenian delegation at the
Istanbul NATO summit. What did Yerevan expect from the summit? To what
extent was this expectation justified? In this sense, what was of most
significance to you? Did you discuss any important issues?
(Vardan Oskanyan) Usually no documents or programmes are discussed at
the summits of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The
documents submitted for approval from the country leaders are
discussed beforehand and are agreed at monthly meetings of the EAPC.
The agenda was also known beforehand; therefore nothing special was
expected from the EAPC session. The same can be said about NATO, that
is, we did not expect anything unusual. NATO’s statement that the
South Caucasus is a zone of its special attention was the most
significant one as far as were concerned. It may be said that there is
a certain displacement in NATO’s priorities as regards our region. But
we were aware of this six months ago when the problem was discussed
within the EAPC framework.
In the course of the summit Armenia was not going to raise any special
problems. At the same time we officially announced that we were going
to deepen cooperation with NATO.
CIS versus NATO ties
(Correspondent) In view of Armenia’s membership of the CIS Collective
Security Treaty (CST), how expedient is its cooperation with NATO?
What does NATO mean to Armenia?
(Oskanyan) I see no contradiction here. We are not alone in this
matter. Other member states of the CST, Russia, Kazakhstan and
Kyrgyzstan, are also actively developing their cooperation with
NATO. In particular, Russia is actively implementing this by means of
the NATO-Russia council.
As is known, in its foreign policy Armenia is guided by a principle of
complementarity. Stemming from this, we aspire to establish relations
at the necessary level with all the main centres that are interested
in our region and have a certain effect on the processes taking place
in the South Caucasus. For this reason we are aspiring to be involved
in all the processes, programmes and projects in the region.
Russian bases and Georgian scenario
(Correspondent) Some experts think that after the withdrawal of
Russian bases from Georgia, the problem of the expediency of the
Russian military presence in Armenia will arise. Do you see this
happening?
(Oskanyan) In terms of politics the matter of the Russian military
deployment in Armenia is not directly linked with the preservation or
withdrawal of similar bases from the territory of Georgia. We have a
long-term agreement with Russia, I see no reason for annulling it in
the near future.
(Correspondent) Do you notice new tendencies in the process of the
Karabakh settlement in connection with the stepped up efforts of the
European structures in this process?
(Oskanyan) The OSCE Minsk Group is still dealing with the Karabakh
issue settlement. The Minsk Group cochairmen have recently initiated
meetings of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The
cochairmen are expected to pay a regular visit to the region in
July. They will discuss the current approaches of the parties to the
settlement.
On the other hand, Armenia has a positive attitude towards the
initiatives of the European Union (EU) and Council of Europe (CE),
expressed during regular visits of the EU special envoy for the South
Caucasus, Heike Talvitie, and the CE rapporteur on Nagornyy Karabakh,
Terry Devis, who has recently been elected as secretary-general of the
CE.
We think that active efforts and initiatives of such authoritative
European structures may supplement but not substitute the efforts of
the Minsk Group cochairmen on the conflict settlement.
OSCE Minsk Group
(Correspondent) As a rule Azerbaijan blames the OSCE Minsk Group
cochairmen from Russia, the USA, France for failing to settle the
Karabakh conflict. How qualified are this kind of charges?
(Oskanyan) Really the Azeri party sometimes accuses the OSCE Minsk
Group and says that the conflict is not settled because of the
cochairmen’s inaction. The Azeris can only see and estimate only what
is advantageous to them this very minute. Whereas over the past few
years the mediators put forward several proposals. The last two were
accepted by Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh but rejected by
Azerbaijan. At high-level meetings the cochairmen are now discussing
outlines of and prospects for a settlement on the basis of which it
will be possible to work out new suggestions which would become the
basis of the settlement negotiations.
US envoy
(Correspondent) The US ambassador to Armenia, John Ordway, expressed
the hope that the conflict will be settled within the next couple of
years. Some experts think that it would take next 20 to 25 years to
reach a settlement. Which of these two views is more realistic?
(Oskanyan) The Armenian-Azeri negotiations conducted at the initiative
of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen are aimed at working out an
agreement as soon as possible and bringing the positions of the two
parties on the Karabakh conflict settlement closer. Certainly we would
have preferred the US ambassador’s optimistic approach to come
true. It will enable all the regional countries to engage in
comprehensive cooperation.
(Correspondent) The mediators often reiterate that the settlement
fully depends on the political will and desire of the sides. Do you
think that Russia, the USA and France will accept any option of the
conflict settlement on which the parties agree?
(Oskanyan) I have already mentioned that the cochairmen make efforts
to organize meetings between the parties to the conflict, in the
course of which it would be possible to find general approaches and
outlines of a settlement. I think that in this context any suggestion
acceptable for the conflict parties, will be acceptable for the
mediators as well.
(Correspondent) The Azerbaijani leaders have started to add the phrase
“Nagornyy Karabakh” to the “Armenian-Azeri conflict” term which they
use. We did not notice this at first. How can you explain that?
(Oskanyan) We have said many times that the conflict is between
Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh. I think that the Azeri wording aims
at presenting the conflict in an advantageous light for Azerbaijan. I
would like to remind you that international organizations, in
particular the OSCE Minsk Group, use the expression “Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict”.

ARMENIA WILL HAVE SECOND OPERATOR OF MOBILE COMMUNICATION: DAVID HARUTYUNYAN
YEREVAN, JULY 10. ARMINFO. Armenia will have a second operator of
mobile communication, RA Minister of Justice David Harutyunyan said,
responding to “hot line” questions in the “Golos Armenii” newspaper.
According to him, no doubt has ever existed about a new operator
entering Armenia’s telecommunication market, nor will it be challenged
during the RA Government’s negotiations with the OTE company. “As to
whether I am satisfied with the current state of affairs, I am not,”
the Minister said. Without commenting on the arbitration proceedings
in London, Harutyunyan pointed out that “they are going on and can be
dismissed only if the Government’s negotiations with `ArmenTel”
produce positive results.” Speaking of the interests of the Armenian
Government and people, Minister Harutyunyan stated: “The Government is
acting in the consumers’ interests and is sure that the legal
litigation at the Court of Arbitration is not the most productive
method: we are always ready for negotiations,” he said.
The RA Government has suspended the enforcement of its resolution on
amendments to License #60 of September 28, 2004, which include an
amendment depriving “ArmenTel” of its monopoly of mobile communication
and Internet access. This step was considered necessary for
stimulating the negotiations. The disagreements between the RA
Government and the “ArmenTel” company are not only in the mobile
communication sphere, but also the installation of telephone
communication in rural areas, confidentiality of negotiations,
Internet, etc..

Armenian Protests Falter Under Authoritarian Rule
President’s Hold on Power Contrasts Sharply With ‘Rose Revolution’ in
Neighboring Georgia
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 11, 2004
YEREVAN, Armenia — Inspired by the peaceful street revolution in
next-door Georgia last year that toppled the country’s longtime
president, Armenia’s newly united political opposition set out to
duplicate it here. They took to the streets this spring by the
thousands, denouncing Armenian President Robert Kocharian and vote
fraud in elections last year.
But as spring has given way to the sweltering Yerevan summer, it has
become increasingly apparent that there will be no Armenian revolution
— at least not this time. The opposition in recent weeks has called
its forces off the streets and retreated to closed-door strategy
sessions. Kocharian taunted them in a speech in France for failing to
realize that his police, unlike those in Georgia, were ready and able
to “maintain public order.”
Instead of creating a peaceful uprising, according to several
independent observers, Western diplomats and Yerevan residents
interviewed here last week, the protest proved to be an object lesson
in the powerful inertia of post-Soviet politics. Georgia, it turns
out, was more likely the exception than the model.
In the case of Armenia, Kocharian held onto power despite many signs
of widespread dissatisfaction with the course of this small and
struggling mountain country in the volatile South Caucasus region. And
he did so using the authoritarian tactics increasingly favored across
the states of the former Soviet Union, including willingness to use
force against protesters, elimination of independent television news
broadcasts and mass detentions of opposition activists.
“Of course, they tried to imitate” the Georgian revolution, Kocharian
said in an interview at his presidential palace last week. His rivals
failed, he said, because the Armenian opposition had “nothing in
common” with the pro-Western protesters who triggered the ouster of
President Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and instead is “trying to
sing an aria from one opera in a completely different one.”
Kocharian called his opponents poor losers interested only in
competing for power among themselves and said he had no choice but to
use police force to break up a demonstration they staged on April 12
and 13 because it constituted a “threat” to the state. “The government
has to protect the society from political extremism,” he said.
Kocharian’s crackdown drew immediate condemnation from international
organizations and foreign governments. Human Rights Watch, in a report
titled “Cycle of Repression,” found that 300 or more protesters had
been temporarily detained, several journalists attacked, and dozens of
protesters injured by security forces that used “excessive force,”
including stun grenades and water cannons, to break up the crowd.
Shortly afterward, authorities ransacked the headquarters of the three
largest opposition parties and several protesters have since received
harsh sentences. Edgar Arakelian, for instance, was given an 18-month
jail term for throwing an empty plastic water bottle at a police
officer.
“Kocharian is moving the country toward a police state,” said Mikael
Danielyan, a human rights activist who was assaulted March 30 by four
men and hospitalized for days. Danielyan said it was the first such
attack on a human rights activist in Armenia since the Soviet
collapse. “When they beat me, the government tries to show they can do
whatever they want; they have all the power.”
In the interview, Kocharian denied any systematic violations of the
sort that international election observers and human rights groups
complained about. While acknowledging that Armenia has “an imperfect
election system,” he argued that even if election monitors were
correct about violations, there would have been no change in the
outcome of the 2003 race, in which he was reelected in a second-round
runoff with 67 percent of the vote. “You would need a sick imagination
to have doubts about my election,” said Kocharian, who was first
elected in 1998.
He also claimed that just 17 opposition protesters were arrested, not
hundreds, and that of those, only a few appealed their
convictions. “If they treated them unfairly, hundreds could have
appealed,” he said.
The effort to duplicate what Georgians call the “rose revolution”
began in earnest in February, when two leading opposition factions —
the Justice alliance of nine smaller parties and the National Unity
Party — teamed up and walked out of the Armenian parliament.
Armenia’s Constitutional Court in a ruling last year had appeared to
sanction concerns about violations in the presidential race. In a
passage whose meaning is still hotly disputed by Armenia’s political
factions, the court either ordered or recommended a national
referendum of confidence in Kocharian by this April to assuage those
concerns. When Kocharian’s allies refused to act on a referendum, the
opposition opted for the parliamentary boycott and a campaign of
street rallies.
Almost from the start, opposition leaders said they believed that the
Georgian revolution had convinced Kocharian that it was necessary to
take tough steps against them — unlike Shevardnadze, who wavered on
ordering troops to break up the protests that triggered his
resignation last November.
“They were really terrorizing people here — they didn’t have this in
Georgia,” said Stepan Demirchian, a leader of the Justice coalition
and son of a Kocharian rival killed in 1999 when gunmen invaded
parliament and shot several prominent politicians. “Here, the
authorities are prepared to do everything to keep their power.”
But their critics said the opposition had just as much to do with why
their revolution failed as did Kocharian. Several analysts said
opposition leaders are skilled at using the language of
Western-oriented democracy but are in fact better characterized as
Russian-leaning professional politicians interested in seizing power
themselves. Ordinary Armenians, these critics added, simply never
believed that the opposition could topple Kocharian and improve the
situation. “It’s a very weak opposition unable to come up with any
sort of vision or positive program and unable to unite about anything
other than opposition to Kocharian,” said a senior foreign diplomat,
who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with diplomatic
practice. “They are not really opposition — they are people who
didn’t get power,” said Danielyan. Another key difference between
Armenia and Georgia has been the lesser role played here by
foreign-funded nongovernmental groups, such as investor George Soros’s
Open Society Institute. Independent television — which helped draw
thousands into the streets supporting Georgian leader Mikheil
Saakashvili — hasn’t existed in Armenia since the government yanked
the broadcast license of the network called A1+ two years ago. In
Georgia, “civil society is very strong, grass-roots groups are very
strong there, the media are quite strong there,” and they participated
in mobilizing activists who helped move along events during the
revolution, said Larisa Minasyan, executive director of the Open
Society Institute here. “In Armenia, genuine civil society has quite
distanced itself from the two political forces in this standoff.” For
now, the anti-presidential forces are on a break, unsure of how to
proceed besides promising “new elements,” as Demirchian put it, in
their campaign against Kocharian. “The only place we have left is the
street,” said Aram Sarkisian, another Justice leader. “There’s no
other way to continue our struggle, but they don’t like to let us out
on the streets, either.”
Hrayr Tovmasyan, an independent political analyst, said that “the two
sides are deadlocked and now the government and the opposition are
repeating the same moves over and over, like a long-running soap
opera. The opposition has no new moves left; they can’t arrange
protests anymore. This could be their death.
“The authorities don’t have any new moves, either, and won’t even
think about compromise, which could lead to their death,” he
said. “It’s just a dead end.”
He and other experts here say they worry that the Armenian political
unrest might turn into not only a case study in the difficulty of
challenging power in the former Soviet Union but a longer-term threat
to the country’s development. Closed borders have cut off Armenia
economically from its neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan; Armenia fought
a war in the 1990s with Azerbaijan over the disputed enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh. It does not have a wealth of natural resources
available. And now, Georgia has seized what international attention
there was on the South Caucasus region with its experiment in
democracy. “This standoff could last for years,” Tovmasyan said. “At
the same time, Georgia has grabbed the flag of democracy in the region
and will get investments there as a result, and Azerbaijan can count
on billions of dollars for its budget from oil. What future is there
for Armenia? It’s hard to say.”

Armenian opposition parties differ on ways of combatting corruption
Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
10 Jul 04 p 3
Text of Naira Zograbyan report by Armenian newspaper Haykakan Zhamanak
on 10 July headlined “Don’t we need new targets?”
A conflict is brewing up within the opposition. The Justice bloc and
the National Unity Party agree that they need to revise their
strategy, but each of them has its own view on ways of doing it. The
Justice bloc, which includes the Republic Party and the People’s Party
of Armenia, says that they should no longer focus on [Armenian
President Robert] Kocharyan and [Defence Minister Serzh] Sarkisyan and
should start publicizing instances of corruption by ministers, MPs and
top officials.
Both Aram Sarkisyan and Stepan Demirchyan say that from now on, they
will disclose specific case of corruption that pervades the whole
current government. They will no longer say that “everyone is
corrupt”, but will name specific names. The National Unity Party
immediately protests, saying that if Justice really wants to revise
its strategy in such a way, they will be “sidelined”. They say that if
they divert their attention from Kocharyan and Sarkisyan, this will
give them an advantage and make it easier for them to retain power
until 2008. “The state is de jure ruled by Robert Kocharyan, but de
facto, he rules it together with Serzh Sarkisyan. All ministers and
top officials are following their orders and if the opposition aims at
them, this will be like placing responsibility for a military
operation on a soldier rather than on a commander. Kocharyan and
Sarkisyan would very much like the opposition’s blows to hit the
premier, the parliament speaker, other top officials – for they are
ready to make anybody a scapegoat in order to retain their
throne. Having a dinner, gambling or hunting together is not a
criteria for them. If need be, they will sacrifice all their
supporters just to keep their seats. And if the opposition does them
such a favour, speaking about ministers and MPs during its rallies,
Kocharyan and Sarkisyan will be deeply grateful to them. Moreover,
they will start providing the opposition with compromising information
about their partners, pretending that they are fighting for justice,
but in fact, attempting to distract public attention from
themselves. If the opposition does such a thing, this will be an order
from the state. National Unity will not take the bait and take part in
such intrigues,” says the vice-president of the party, Aleksan
Karapetyan.
Moreover, National Unity believes that by targeting top officials, the
opposition will provide Kocharyan and Sarkisyan with a strong group of
kamikazes and political prisoners. “Sensing a threat, these people
will cling to Kocharyan and become his kamikazes.” So National Unity
hopes that their colleagues will not be so naive to fall into the
government’s trap.
Meanwhile, Justice does not share National Unity’s concern. “There are
no primary or secondary targets. We are dealing with a criminal
administration and Justice will address each case of corruption
irrespective of who is involved in it,” says the Justice press
secretary, Ruzan Khachatryan.

KavkazCenter.com
11 07 2004 Sun. 22:18 Djokhar Time
Ossetia-Georgia: war on the horizon?
After America supported the peaceful transition of power from former
Georgian president Eduard Sheavrdnadze to young oppositional group headed by
charismatic leader Mikhail Saakashvili, US Secretary of State Colin Powell
called for immediate withdrawal of the Russian troops from Georgia and was
insisting that Georgia’s future must be free from Russian intervention.
Russia is worrying about it, figuring that the actions of the West are
interference into its domestic affairs, even though Moscow is missing the
fact that former Soviet republics are really former republics.
The latest events in Georgia have shown that the confrontation between
Georgia and its autonomy, South Ossetia, are unlikely to end just with angry
escapades or reciprocal invectives. If Russia gets involved in the active
confrontation, the danger that the war might spread towards the South
Caucasus will become very real.
Judging by Moscow’s first indirect reaction, the Kremlin will not be
standing aside if war operations in South Ossetia resume. But still, there
is no complete guarantee that Moscow made its final decision not to give up
that republic. So far you never know what pressure factors on Moscow
Washington may have yet.
Nevertheless, in Russia you can already hear some calls for integrating
South Ossetia into the Russian Federation. But Georgian central government
in Tbilisi is hoping for the Western states, which are for having Ossetian
autonomy as part of Georgia. Not only the West, which Georgia views as the
key arbitrator, is an intermediary in the exchange of views on the Ossetian
issue.
There is Turkey as well. Russian government does not trust the steps that
Turkey has been taking, such as «The Caucasus Security Agreement» signed by
Turkey and Georgia, which claims «with no superfluous diplomacy» (as Russian
sources put it) that not only Russia has the right to be present in the
Caucasus.
It is a known fact that in order to retain their influence in the Caucasus,
Russians have been using the disagreements artificially fomented by Moscow,
and provoking interethnic conflicts. The hand of Moscow is clearly seen in
the conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Ingushetia and North Ossetia,
North Ossetia and Georgia (in South Ossetia), between Georgia, Abkhazia and
Adjaria, between Karachaevans and Cherkesians, etc.
Depending on the situation, the opposing sides are provided with mercenaries
and weapons borrowed from the Russian army. Russia is trying to retain its
influence and its military presence in the Caucasus while making someone
else do the work and making it look like Russia itself is standing aside.
All kinds of methods and options are used for that purpose.
Thus, Russia’s puppets in South Ossetia are already voicing the Kremlin’s
instructions that Russia is allegedly staying away from the Caucasus
problems and left their allies to the mercy of fate. According to Moscow’s
scenario, if war operations resume, South Ossetian breakaway government in
Tskhinvali will get assistance from unrecognized pro-Russian republics and
from a number of «subjects of the Russian Federation» in the North Caucasus.
North Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transdniestria (de-facto independent pro-Russian
area near Moldova, Dniester River region), and Stavropol and Kuban Cossacks
(Southern Russia) will come to the rescue to help South Ossetia.
«South Ossetia has agreements about military aid with Abkhazia and
Transdniestria, as well as with Ters and Kuban Cossacks», Director of
Swedish-based Center for Strategic Research «Central Asia and the Caucasus»,
Murad Esenov, told RBC Daily.
President of Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic, Igor Smirnov, has already
made an official statement.
«In case of aggression we will not be standing aside, we will provide
comprehensive aid to our brothers, including military aid», Transdniestrian
leader told journalists.
Military storages in Transdniestria have huge amounts of ammunition, so the
help from Tiraspol (capital of Transdniestria) cannot be underestimated. So,
the new Georgian-Ossetian war may actually develop into an international
conflict right away.
Out of the latest events around South Ossetia we must also mention the
address of Tskhinvali’s leadership (South Ossetia) to Moscow with the appeal
to let the republic be integrated into Russia. Russian Council of Federation
reacted to this appeal. The Council of Federation `expressed concern with
the escalation of tensions and aggravation of the situation in the zone of
the Georgian-Ossetian conflict».
Russian parliamentarians mentioned that the «aggravation of the situation in
South Ossetia caused tension mounting all across the Caucasus» and offered
Georgian government in Tbilisi (Georgian capital) to «take all measures
necessary to implement the plans of combined control commission, dated June
2 this year». It should also be reminded that this is when the decision was
made to have Georgian troops pulled out of the territory of South Ossetia.
Speaking before the journalists, Chairman of the Council of Federation
Sergei Mironov stated that Russia is for Georgia’s territorial integrity,
but Russia still believes that all conflicts should be resolved peacefully.
Thus, on behalf of Moscow the Council of Federation virtually pointed
Georgia at the danger in changing the status quo of South Ossetia and the
danger in Georgia’s attempts to establish its control in that republic. It
means that South Ossetia still remains under the military patronage of
Russia.
Ahmad of Ichkeria,
for Kavkaz-Center
2004-06-11 00:15:11

Ha’aretz, Israel
July 11 2004
Wall annexes Rachel’s Tomb, imprisons Palestinian families

By Lily Galili

Behlehem resident Fuad Ahmad Jado, surrounded by a wall, hasn’t even
a way out to buy food.

Last Wednesday morning, 10 ultra-Orthodox men sat near Rachel’s Tomb
compound heatedly discussing halakhic (Jewish legal) issues. They
were sitting in a long corridor linking the tomb to a new house,
which until recently was owned by a Palestinian resident of
Bethlehem, who used to rent it to small business owners.
A few months ago the Palestinian sold the building, on Bethlehem’s
main road, to private Israeli buyers. In a short time it was
significantly altered. Its facade, which looked onto the Palestinian
street, was completely sealed and its rear was hastily joined to the
tomb compound. The result is a weird architectural product. The rim
of the pavement adjacent to the original structure is now part of the
interior of the joined building.
The soldiers in charge of security in Rachel’s Tomb live on the
basement floor, which was turned into a barracks. The entrance hall
is an improvised yeshiva. The rooms on the other floors are locked
up, pending renovation. The buyers’ “big plan” is to build a sort of
little settlement in the expanding compound of Rachel’s Tomb.
Former MK Hanan Porat knows a lot about it. “With the help of God we
are progressing toward maintaining a permanent Jewish presence and a
fixed yeshiva in Rachel’s Tomb, as Rabbi Kook urged, and bringing
Israelis back to where they belong.”
The house annexed to the tomb is not the last. In the adjacent
building, on the Palestinian side, a small humus diner is located –
but diners are few, due to the situation. “Blessed is God, we’re
taking care of the humus joint too,” says Porat. “The buyers have
received a good price for it, voluntarily. It’s a private purchase,
without the government’s intervention. All the official bodies in
Israel know about it, but they also know it’s all legal. There are
other lands owned by Jews in the area, on the other side of the
road.”
Asked if the goal is creating a Jewish settlement in this part of
Bethlehem resembling the Jewish settlement in Hebron, Porat says with
a sigh: “Alas, at a later stage and smaller, but yes. It’s time to
renew the meaning of the verse `your children will return to their
own land'”(Jeremiah 31:17).
This verse has been engraved on a wall slate in a little ceremony
inaugurating the new building in the tomb compound. However, the main
road’s official name, once Derech Efrata – the road to Efrat – which
until the intifada was also the main Jerusalem-Hebron road, is now
Yasser Arafat Street. This name is still on the road sign near
Rachel’s Tomb – so the future residents can say their address is
Rachel’s Tomb, corner of Arafat.
Jerusalem’s tomb
Many are waiting in line to move into the house. It will be inhabited
only after the separation wall south of Jerusalem is completed. The
creeping wall has been diverted from its course and will close in on
the expanded tomb compound, turning it into a walled enclave. The
wall bites into about half a kilometer of Bethlehem land, annexing it
to Jerusalem.
“It has never been decided that Rachel’s Tomb will be in C area
(Israeli security and political control),” says Shaul Arieli, a
Geneva Initiative activist. “The interim agreement of September `95
has a clause promising Israel free access to Rachel’s Tomb, but
without giving it the authorities deriving from a C area status. When
they set the borders of Jerusalem, they refrained from annexing
Rachel’s Tomb, because it is located in heart of Bethlehem. Now the
wall is in fact annexing the tomb. The wall in this area was built
during the trauma of the big events in Bethlehem and Beit Jallah. In
the insanity that ensued, the tractors arrived and created faits
accomplis.”
Huge concrete fortifications around Rachel’s Tomb are severing the
main road and writing a new history. The direct road from Jerusalem
to Hebron is no more. Near Rachel’s Tomb the road was blocked with a
high concrete wall built across it. The Palestinians wishing to enter
Bethlehem are directed to a small bypass. The Israelis are led into
the closed tomb enclave in dozens of buses daily (mostly organized
Egged trips accompanied by soldiers). Barrier 300 between Jerusalem
and Bethlehem was diverted toward Bethlehem and in the future it will
become a terminal like the Erez barricade.
The Palestinian businesses on this part of the road, once a bustling
shopping center, closed down because their clients couldn’t get to
them. A handsome sign with the word “Memories” testifies to the
existence of a once popular pub in the city that was once the
Palestinians’ big urban hope. Only a distant memory of that hope
remains. The history of the main road and Bethlehem’s geopolitics are
changing with the help of “contractor Effie Magal,” who is hanging up
his company’s advertisement posters on the wall with professional
pride.
The Palestinian partner to the Geneva Initiative, Yasser Abed Rabu,
cites Rachel’s Tomb to demonstrate that the Israelis are cheating.
Last Tuesday Fuad Ahmad Jado sat at the entrance to his house, near
the Al-Aida refugee camp. His address is hard to define. In the days
before the wall, his power supply came from Jerusalem and his water
from Bethlehem. He didn’t really belong to either, and the high
concrete wall creeping toward his entrance is complicating things.
Middle of nowhere
Jado’s story is a test of the High Court of Justice’s ruling on the
separation fence. His tale demonstrates that the “proportionality”
the court spoke of is like an “enlightened occupation.” Three
families live in the compound with Jado. The wall will make their
life impossible. Are three families, in the middle of nowhere, enough
to weigh against the security needs? Is the fact that Jado recently
had a heart attack, after a clash with the border police, and is now
facing open heart surgery, a matter to be considered? Jado, 47, who
speaks fluent Hebrew, believes it is.
In the relentless 36-degree heat, Jado pulls all the documents of his
history from orderly files. Order is second nature to the man who
worked for years in Israel’s licensing office in Jerusalem. One of
the permits, given his grandfather Ayub Hassan Jado in July 1978,
states explicitly: “this man was registered in the population
registry in 1967 and registered in form 049556. The place is within
Jerusalem’s jurisdiction.”
As proof Jado pulls out arnona (city rate) payment forms he received
from Jerusalem’s municipality and never paid. Does this prove he is a
true Jerusalemite?
Not really. On April 27, 2003, another permit was issued for Jado, on
which he was informed in red print that he belongs to Bethlehem. “An
officer who wasn’t born yet when my grandfather was a citizen of
Jerusalem came and informed me that I wasn’t a Jerusalemite,” Jado
says cynically.
The story does not end here. In recent months senior border police
officers came to Jado’s house, examined it and left. Then came an
officer from the military authorities and informed him, “you belong
to Jerusalem again.” They did not come again. As a Jerusalem citizen,
Jado is prohibited from entering Bethlehem, but also from entering
Jerusalem, because nobody issued him a permit to do so. Jado is
sitting on the land his family has lived on for 60 years and does not
belong anywhere. He has to sneak illegally to his medical tests in
East Jerusalem’s Al-Makassed Hospital.
The wall being built on his doorstep will imprison him within it,
with no way out in any direction. In the original plan, the wall was
supposed to pass west of his house, leaving it in Bethlehem. But as
his luck would have it, the house is near an Armenian monastery and
the monks did not want the wall to separate them from their real
estate property in the area. Unlike Jado, they have power and
connections and the fence route was diverted accordingly.
Now Jado is imprisoned within the wall. Once it is completed, it is
not even clear how he will be able to buy his family food. “Maybe
they’ll put up a supermarket here just for me,” he quips. “But what
if I need an ambulance, or fire fighters? How will they get here?”
Two months ago fire broke out in the Armenian monastery, which was
empty at the time. Jado called a monk who called the fire fighters.
It took the fire trucks two hours to reach the monastery from
Bethlehem, from a distance of two minutes away, because it had to go
through the road block instead of directly. Since then Jado is
worried about needing emergency treatment.
The big plan is clear to him. Israel intends to make his life
intolerable, in order to drive him from his land. About six months
ago a senior border police officer ordered him to move out. Jado
replied that in a state of law a resident cannot just be ordered out.
“Bring a document,” he told the officer, who did not return. Someone
suggested he petition the High Court of Justice. “Stop talking
nonsense,” he says. “I live in this country. The Shin Bet and police
run it. I would only lose money.”

Alexandria Town Talk, LA
July 11 2004
TOMPKINS: U.S. Olympic boxer fought here last year
Bob Tompkins / Staff Reporter/Columnist
USA Boxing officials weren’t kidding last year when they said there
might be a future Olympian in the Under-19 National Championship
Boxing Tournament that was held last August in Alexandria.
There was.
Vanes Matriroysan, a native Armenian and resident of Glendale, Calif.
who lost the 152-pound title bout to Nick Casal of Niagra Falls,
N.Y., here last August, is one of nine members on the U.S. Boxing
Team that will compete next month in Athens.
Curiously, after Casal won the title by beating Martirosyan, he said,
“It was the most competitive fight I’ve had this year. He definitely
belonged in the finals. He’s a good fighter.”
Martiroysyan, 18, was ranked just 14th in his weight class in
January, but he won 11 fights in six weeks and took advantage of
slips by boxers with bigger reputations to make the U.S. Olympic
team.
A semifinalist at this year’s U.S. Championships in Colorado Springs,
Colo., Martirosyan then beat five foes in five days to win the
Western Trials, which got him to the Olympic Trials. After America’s
top two welterweights were disqualified, Martirosyan advanced to the
Trials final and beat Corey Jones, 18-4. He then outpointed Austin
Trout at the Box-Offs to make the U.S. team and won the Americas
qualifier in Tijuana, Mexico.
Vicente Escobedo, another member of the U.S. team, didn’t box here
last August, but Anthony Vasquez of Snyder, Texas, who was runner-up
in the 132-pound finals in the Under-19 Championships here, pulled
the upset of the U.S. Championships last March by defeating Escobedo.
The U.S. National Champion in ’03, Escobedo, 22, won the Western
Trials to get back on track to making the Olympic team.
Eric Parthen, the executive director of USA Boxing, expressed
disappointment last week that Alexandria is no longer trying to build
a USA Boxing Southern training center, as it hoped to do a year ago
before state and federal grants for such a project were rejected.
“We’re certainly disappointed that hasn’t become a reality,” Parthen
said, “yet Central Louisiana is still being mentioned as a possible
site in the future, so it’s not dead yet.”
Officials from USA Boxing spoke highly of this community, the
hospitality and news coverage during their experience here last
summer, when Alexandria hosted the U.S. Junior Olympics and the
International Invitational Boxing Tournament in addition to the
Under-19 National Championships.
After all those positives, it’s a shame the bitter aftertaste lingers
with Louisiana College’s logical legal bout with Houston’s Galena
Park Boxing Academy and Youth Center for not paying a $78,000 bill
for food and lodging for the boxers during the first two events.
Galena Park director Kenny Weldon said many times to local officials
that while his group could bring the events to town, it could not
afford to finance them. The England Authority last summer voted to
provide “up to $30,000” to help with the financing of the U.S. Junior
Olympics (facility rentals, lodging, etc.) and the City of
Alexandria, according to Councilman Myron Lawson, agreed to
contribute $35,000 as a general sponsorship for the first two events.
Those events, incidentally, never would have taken place here without
LC’s help.
We can’t wait to see how this gets resolved, and LC, understandably,
wants the waiting to end.