Armenian leader, Russian official discuss mutual ties
Mediamax news agency
28 May 04
Yerevan, 27 May: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan received today
Georgiy Poltavchenko, plenipotentiary representative of the Russian
president in the Central Federal District.
The Armenian presidential press service told Mediamax today that
Kocharyan and Poltavchenko noted at the meeting that the potential
of bilateral economic cooperation remained sufficiently high. In
this regard, Kocharyan stressed the need for developing ties between
separate territorial and administrative entities of the two countries.
Kocharyan informed him of the spheres of the economy which are
developing more rapidly and could be of interest to interaction.

Armenian paper blames BBC Karabakh Internet page for bias
Golos Armenii
27 May 04
The Armenian newspaper Golos Armenii has criticized the BBC Russian
web site on the 10 years of the Karabakh cease-fire, saying that it
reflects only Azerbaijan’s position on the conflict. The web site does
not contain any Armenian view on the Karabakh conflict, excerpt for
“kind human interest stories” about the mood of Karabakh’s Armenian
residents, the newspaper said. Golos Armenii said that the authors
of the Karabakh web page have not presented the facts correctly, and
added that “an open lie” in such a painful issue cannot help start
a dialogue between the conflicting sides. The following is the text
of Marina Grigoryan’s report by Armenian newspaper Golos Armenii on
27 May headlined “‘The Karabakh project’ of the BBC: is everything
allowed?”. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
The Russian editorial office of the BBC (bbcrussian) has opened
“a Karabakh page” on its Internet web site, which is especially
dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the cease-fire in the conflict
zone. According to its authors, its purpose is “to create opportunities
for contacts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the conflict
region, as well as in the whole world”. So the site is to promote the
development of “people’s diplomacy” and strengthen the peace process.
“Difficult and thankless task”
Of course, the implementation of such a project is a difficult and
thankless task, taking into account the particular abnormality and
bloodiness of the conflict, which has been going on for about 20 years,
and judging by recent events, its importance has not decreased. And
although the aspiration to help the Armenians and Azerbaijanis to
start a virtual dialogue was declared as its main purpose, it is
clear that such a page on the web site of one of the influential
world mass media will become an opportunity for Internet users to
familiarize themselves with the history and heart of the conflict,
its present state, the attitude to the problem in today’s Yerevan,
Stepanakert and Baku, and to learn the opinion of famous people who
are related to the issue in this or other way.
>>From this point of view, a person who knows the problem very well and
follows the development of the situation has many questions. And more
or less detailed research into the site leads to certain conclusions,
which I think are due to the fact that the BBC is a state corporation
and the Karabakh page on the BBCRUSSIAN Internet web site reflects in
some way the policy and interests of the UK in our region. Although
those who have created the site are trying to keep a veneer of
impartiality, there are many questions for them.
“Evident subjectivity”
Let us start with the most unbiased sector: the chronology of the
conflict. The short lines seem to reflect the historical events in
reality. But in close examination, the subjectivity of those who
have created the “chronology” becomes evident, although it may not
be so evident to people who do not know the history of the conflict
very well.
For instance: everything concerning the Azerbaijani party was conveyed
with a barely perceptible emotional slant which causes sympathy for
the “victims”. It is achieved by means of such expressions as “the
mass banishment of Azeris from Armenia” or “Azeris are running away
from Kafan”. The point is about January and November 1988 – “dozens,
hundreds and thousands” Azeris killed in the course of hostilities. At
the same time, the unprecedented tragedies of “Sumqayit” and “Baku”
are characterized only as “Armenian pogroms”, and there is no word
about the excruciating death of dozens of innocent people and no hint
about hundreds of thousands of Armenians who ran away from medieval
brutality and barbarity and whose influx, as is known, started long
before the “exile of Azeris from Armenia”!
Do you not agree that a poorly-informed reader gets the impression that
in spite of the pogroms, Armenians continued to live in Azerbaijan all
that time and live there even today (one more piece of disinformation
which is actively promoted by the Azerbaijani party), while from
the very beginning the Armenians, “forcibly and on a mass scale”,
deported their neighbours from their own territory?
Then the “Incidents” connected with Armenians are presented in quite a
cunning way. For instance: “18 October. Demonstration in Yerevan as a
protest against incidents with the Armenian population of the Chadakhlu
village, to the north of Karabakh.” Why are the consequences fixed, but
the fact itself is not presented? Why is it not explained what kind of
“incidents” they were that caused demonstrations in Yerevan? Why,
when talking about Operation “Koltso”, the authors of the site
do not talk about the numerous victims of the Armenian civilians,
including hundreds and thousands driven away as hostages and lost
forever? Why in a sector dedicated to Shushi [Susa] is it said that
“Azeris consider that town to be a “cradle of national culture”? As
for the Armenians, this town is only of “strategic significance”,
as it is situated at the height over Karabakh.
By the way, I cannot refuse pleasure and submit a devastating fact:
as proof that Shushi is “a cradle of national culture”, the names
of the famous representatives of national culture are named on the
web site: one republican scale poetess and [Azerbaijani singer and
Minister of Culture] Polad Bulbuloglu. I think they could not find
other names. They could not mention the names of the famous Armenian
Shushi residents, could they? But in all probability, the authors
of the site were not happy to listen to the songs of the “prominent”
singer-functionary, otherwise they would be really surprised by the
“cradle” that gave birth and educated such a “culture”.
“Evidence of bias”
Many such examples can be presented, and it is evidence of the reality:
it is important not only to what to inform but also how to inform. One
more example which is evidence of the bias of those who created the
site directly affects the understanding of the conflict by the visitors
of the site. The referendum conducted on 2 September 1990 in the
Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR] according to the strict international
judicial norms is mentioned as: “Nagornyy Karabakh declared separation
from independent Azerbaijan”. After this one should not be surprised by
the bewildered questions from different countries of the world in the
“Forum” sector: “Why do they not conduct a pan-national democratic
referendum in Karabakh that will define the destiny of the region?”
Let us leave chronology and look into another sector with the
tear-jerking headline “A friend in need is a friend indeed” and a no
less pompous subheading “History knows many examples when interethnic
hostility was powerless against a common misfortune” (where is this
“Sovietism” coming from on the Western radio station?). Everything
would be normal, if they submitted examples of how some Azeris were
saving Armenians – their neighbours and friends during terrible
pogroms.
But tell me please, men from the BBC, why did you touch on the wound
of the Armenian nation – Spitak earthquake on 7 December 1988? Show
me at least one adult Armenian resident who did not remember the
Azerbaijani carriages that arrived in Armenia with humanitarian
aid and inscriptions “Congratulations on the earthquake!” – it is
difficult to imagine more blasphemy and inhumanity. But according to
the Russian editorial office of the BBC, it was a “common misfortune”
and “the Azeris directed to Armenia, which was suffering a disaster,
an aeroplane carrying rescuers – ‘civil defence fighters'”, which
did not arrive in Armenia because of a crash! Sorry, but such crude
and primitive lies do not become the world famous corporation.
“Open lie”
Does it not seem to the authors of the page that an open lie in such a
painful issue cannot help start a “dialogue”? On the contrary, it can
only give rise to distrust in the project, created with pretension
to objectivity, but in many cases coming out of the frames of even
clear disagreements and variant readings. The third moment. There are
two interviews on the site: with an [Azerbaijani] playwright Rustam
Ibrahimbayov and the OSCE Minsk Group diplomat Vladimir Kazimirov. I
do not know the reason for such a choice, but one thing is clear:
there is no Armenian viewpoint on the web site. In this case, the
parity was not even formally kept, because two short reports from
Yerevan and Stepanakert [Xankandi]- are simply kind human interest
stories telling of the mood of today’s Armenian residents and about
a Karabakh girl who is drawing the world. Quite another thing is
an interview with Rustam Ibrahimbayov who calls himself a “world
citizen”. Along with the praiseworthy restraint of his assessments,
the Azerbaijani writer has achieved his goal: “I give both parties
the right to consider Karabakh their land. I do not have a right
to refuse Armenians such a right. But as a world citizen, I think –
is it possible to settle such problems by armed forcible methods? I
categorically say ‘no’! And even if the Armenian party manages to
prove that historically, politically, etc. these lands should be
moved away from Azerbaijan, all the same, I think in the 20th and
21st centuries to settle the problem by means of war – is a crime
against humanity on the whole.” The journalist who puts questions
to the “world citizen” prudently keeps silence that only compatriots
of the famous playwright were the first to apply force, by the way,
not in the course of hostilities, but against civilians – their own
citizens, and then declared a war against the Karabakh residents,
terribly bombing hungry and cold Karabakh for several months – by
the way, there is no word about this on the site.
Then the writer assures the Karabakh residents that it will be more
profitable for them to be within Azerbaijan, because “Azerbaijan means
oil, and Armenians are potential businessmen”. In all probability, for
“the engineer of human souls”, Ibrahimbayov, there is no other high
category than “black oil” and all the “profits” stemming from it. The
articles of independent monitors are also presented on the site, in
particular, of an employee of the institute on peace and war coverage,
the author of the book “Black garden” Tom de Vaal. Certainly, every
person has a right to form an opinion about the conflict and make
their own assessments, and I am not going to condemn and criticize
Mr Vaal’s position. But I would like to ask him only one question:
why does he think that the Armenian nation, through its president,
should apologize to the Azerbaijanis?
As for the Azerbaijani nation and its president, they do not need
to do this, and the latter can kindly call “home his citizens –
Azerbaijanis”. If Mr Vaal, who visited the NKR and did not understand
where the home of a Karabakh resident is, I would like to ask him
– what did he understand about the conflict on the whole? We can
speak about the Karabakh project of the BBC more, but I think it
is enough for its assessment as being subjective in its choice and
interpretation of the facts. The absence of the material where the
position of the Armenian party is presented, as it is done in case
of Azerbaijani Ibrahimbayov, compels us to pricks up our ears. As a
result, we have the feeling that the project is being politicized,
which will unfortunately become an obstacle for achieving its goals –
to stimulate the development of contacts between the public of both
sides. The projects within the framework of “people’s diplomacy”
may bear and are already bearing fruit only if they serve their
direct purpose.
Azerbaijan is more successful in information war
At the same time, we would like to look at the Karabakh project from
another point of view as well. On the whole, it is already for ten
years that a cease-fire has been preserved in the conflict zone. But an
information war has existed even longer. It started with the articles
and TV reports of the Soviet period. And if we look at this site
from that point of view, what has each party managed to achieve in
this most significant component of today’s contradiction? One thing
is evident: the Azerbaijanis have had more success in conveying the
conflict to the world in a way that is advantageous to them. Here it
is irrelevant to speak about the foul means by which they achieved
this goal. But the result is evident, and the Karabakh page of the
BBC is demonstrates it well. In short, it may be formed in two most
important propaganda theses.
First – hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees are actively
presented in all the documents and materials concerning the Karabakh
conflict. The Armenian refugees have been practically ruled out from
the context of the problem.
Second – the efforts Azerbaijan is making on the recognition of
Armenia as an aggressor are gradually achieving their goal – it
has already taken place if not directly, then indirectly, because
the term “occupied territories” is used practically everywhere
and without any reserve. It seems that even in Armenia itself they
have resigned themselves to this, thanks to the “heroic” efforts of
our local diplomats who always find an excuse for their own cruel
failures and who have accustomed us to the country’s defeats in the
world arena. But this is a theme of another conversation, though very
topical, in the context of the new Internet web site of the BBC.
The lack of talent in the Karabakh issue policy, the repeated failures
of the Armenian party at the level of international discussions
on the problem of importance to the country, a number of documents
adopted recently, which unequivocally reflect the position of the
Azerbaijani party – all this and many other things testify to the
following fact: today’s generation of Armenian diplomats and all those
who are responsible for the Karabakh problem are unable to make the
world community understand the TRUTH [capitalization as published]
about Karabakh.
This has made possible the appearance and gradual domination of
LIES about Karabakh in the world’s news sources. And this calls into
question the future fair settlement to the problem. From this point
of view, a dangerous situation is taking shape because of those
politicians we are gradually losing immunity and neutrality on the
lies and misinformation about what happened to us and in our land
10-15 years ago.
Once, when the situation was quite different from today, we could
hardly allow somebody to tell a LIE about us and our motherland.
P.S. By the way, the BBC is flattering Ibrahimbayov, calling him
the author of the “White sun of the desert” film scenario. It is
known that the scenario of the famous film was written by the famous
playwright B. Yezhov, who recently passed away. As for Ibrahimbayov,
he was only an assistant consultant on the east.

Azeri officials more critical than media of BBC’s Karabakh coverage
Ekho, Baku
28 May 04
The BBC has broadcast a documentary named “One Day of War” about the
situation in the Nagornyy Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. The ruling
New Azerbaijan Party [NAP] and the pro-government parties are warning
the BBC that its broadcasts in Azerbaijan can be suspended. Meanwhile,
the experts suggest waiting until the film is shown.
“Neil Harvey is in the mainly ethnic Armenian enclave of
Azerbaijan… It’s visually extremely good. Looks like World War One
trenches. The front line is just beyond the city,” this is what is
reported about the film on the BBC’s official web site.
The film was broadcast yesterday by the BBC Two TV channel. The web
site carries information about the course of work by journalist Neil
Harvey, who visited Xankandi between 15 and 22 March 2004.
[Passage omitted: Quotes from the BBC web site]
“They allowed me to film the valley, but were against me filming
Agdam,” Harvey reports. Next comes an enthusiastic report about the
bandit formations of the separatist regime who were “marching like
samurais”.
[Passage omitted: Threats by Azerbaijani officials against the BBC]
The pro-government circles are increasingly vocal in blaming the BBC
Russian Service for “bias”. However, experts suggest looking into
each case separately and not jumping to conclusions.
“The way the film about Xankandi has been made does not give enough
grounds to judge whether it is ethically correct. It all depends on the
content: on whether the views of both sides are presented and so on,”
the chairman of the Yeni Nasil Union of Journalists, Arif Aliyev, says.
“The preparation and broadcasting of the film means imparting
information to TV viewers, which is a journalist’s responsibility,” the
director of the Institute for Media Rights, Rasid Hacili, says. There
may be claims about “bias” if a journalist has violated the principles
of objectivity and balanced reporting by failing to present the views
of both sides.
The radio station can be deprived of its frequency only by a court
ruling.

Russia’s Aeroflot holding talks on buying up Georgian Airlines
RIA news agency
28 May 04
Tbilisi, 28 May: Aeroflot is holding talks on buying the Georgian
Airlines company, director-general of the Russian company Valeriy
Okulov has said. He is attending a Russian-Georgian business conference
in Tbilisi.
“The talks will take more than a week,” Okulov said. He refused to
disclose any other details of the deal.
RIA-Novosti has learnt from a member of the Russian delegation that
there is talk about purchasing 100 per cent of shares in the Georgian
company. The source said that Aeroflot had already initialled an
agreement with Georgian Airlines on acquiring the company. “The deal
is worth several million dollars,” the source said.
The source also said that talks had began at the business conference
between the Volga car manufacturer and the Georgian leadership and
the Tbilisi aircraft factory [as received] on setting up the assembly
of Niva cars in Tbilisi.
He said that talks had also started on the construction of a railway
branch from Georgia to Armenia, which will be financed by Russian,
Armenian and Georgian businessmen.

Azeri TV says ruling party unhappy with “biased” BBC reports
Lider TV, Baku
27 May 04
[Presenter] The BBC Radio Service’s biased reports on the Karabakh
conflict have triggered protests in Baku. Azerbaijani Minister of
Communications and Information Technology Ali Abbasov has said that
if the press council [presumably the National TV and Radio Council]
bans BBC broadcasts in Azerbaijan, it is feasible for the ministry
to carry it out technically.
[Correspondent] A round table discussion on recent interference in
Azerbaijan’s media sphere has been held. The participants in the
round table said that the BBC has lately carried biased reports on
Azerbaijan. They noted that the radio company’s employees had visited
the occupied territory without obtaining permission from official Baku.
The deputy executive secretary of the [ruling] New Azerbaijan Party,
Mubariz Qurbanli, said that Azerbaijani citizens can watch and listen
to any foreign radio and TV channels. After getting licenses, some
foreign TV and radio channels can freely broadcast in our country. The
New Azerbaijan Party has monitored the programmes of the BBC Radio
Russian Service and has established that their programmes are not
only biased, but also reflect the position of the enemy. They could
be compared with programmes broadcast from Armenia.
[Qurbanli] BBC programmes in Russian put out anti-Azerbaijani
reports. They distort the political situation in Azerbaijan. At the
same time, they distort our history and culture. They carry biased
reports against Azerbaijan.
[Correspondent] In this context, the New Azerbaijan Party has sent
letters of protest to the BBC Radio management twice. Qurbanli
said that the BBC is broadcast through popular local channels whose
listeners receive false information. The biased position of the radio
has caused fair dissatisfaction by the Azerbaijani public.
At the latest sessions of the Azerbaijani parliament, MPs noted that
if the BBC ignores the appeals from Azerbaijan, the broadcasts will
be stopped, and Minister of Communications and Information Technology
Ali Abbasov has said that it is feasible for the ministry to solve
this issue.
[Abbasov speaking to microphones] If the press council decides that
their activities should be stopped, then we will do so technically.
[Correspondent] It is interesting that the BBC Radio Service has not
delivered any official statement concerning discontent in society.
Rasad Nasirov and Vuqar Sixaliyev, Lider TV.
[Azerbaijani Space TV, at 1530 gmt, and the first channel of state
television, at 1500 gmt, also broadcast similar reports on 27 May]

ARMENIA FRUSTRATED AS TIES WITH TURKEY REMAIN STRAINED
Emil Danielyan: 5/28/04
Eurasianet Organization
May 28 2004
Hopes for a rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey are fading,
underscored by Armenian President Robert Kocharian’s recent decision
not to attend the late June NATO summit in Istanbul. Despite a flurry
of diplomatic activity, Armenian officials say “no considerable
progress” towards normalization has been made over the past year.
For the last decade, Turkey has effectively linked the normalization
of Ankara-Yerevan ties with resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. In mid 2003, Turkish officials first hinted that they were
willing to consider decoupling the two issues, while raising the
possibility that the Armenian-Turkish border could be reopened. Turkey
sealed the frontier in 1993 – at the height of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict over Karabakh – as an act of solidarity with Baku. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Turkey’s effort to open the border prompted an immediate and prolonged
outcry from Azerbaijani officials, prompting Ankara to retreat. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Baku argued that if
Turkey opened its frontier with Armenia to trade, it would remove
a vital incentive for Yerevan to make concessions in the Karabakh
peace process, which at present is stalemated. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].
Economic experts say an open Armenian-Turkish frontier would
substantially reduce the transportation costs in Armenia’s
export/import operations, and make the country more attractive for
potential foreign investors. According to a 2003 World Bank study,
the border opening alone could boost Armenia’s GDP by 30 percent.
Now, Armenian officials aren’t expecting to see the border reopened
soon. “Unfortunately, the Turks have lacked the will to separate
relations with Armenia from their alliance with Azerbaijan,” one
well-informed source told EurasiaNet. “As long as they stick to
that policy serious progress in Turkish-Armenian relations will
be impossible.”
Armenia expressed its displeasure via the announcement that Kocharian
would skip the NATO summit. The decision was widely applauded in
Yerevan.
Just last June, there existed mounting optimism concerning
Armenian-Turkish relations. Turkey itself raised hopes for
normalization when the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan began sending signals about the reopening the border. In a
policy speech, Erdogan made no mention of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict over Karabakh as he spoke about obstacles to normalizing
ties with Armenia. He instead complained about Yerevan’s continuing
campaign for international recognition of the 1915-1922 slaughter of
some 1.5 Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. Turkey vehemently
denies that the mass killings and deportations constituted genocide.
The change of rhetoric was welcomed by Yerevan and was followed by
three meetings between the Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers in
June, September and December 2003. Armenia’s Vartan Oskanian emerged
from the talks with cautiously optimistic statements. Other Armenian
sources involved in the dialogue claimed that Ankara has decided
in principle to lift the blockade before establishing diplomatic
relations with Yerevan. Ironically, some of them suggested that the
Turkish government might announce the ground-breaking development
during the NATO summit in Istanbul.
In mid-2003, regional and Western observers said Turkey’s shift
on the Armenian border issue could reflect positively on Turkey’s
long-standing bid to join the European Union. Of late, however,
Ankara’s efforts to obtain a date for the start of EU accession talks
have been damaged by strong French opposition.
For the time being, it seems that the status quo in Armenian-Turkish
relations will hold. Indeed, the speaker of the Turkish parliament,
Bulent Arinc, was quoted by the official Anatolia news agency as
telling his Armenian counterpart Artur Baghdasarian in Strasbourg on
May 19 that his country still wants Armenia to take “positive steps
to settle the Karabakh problem” before making any overtures.
But some observers believe that not much should be read into such
statements. According to Van Krikorian, a prominent Armenian-American
activist and a member of the US-sponsored Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC), the reopening of the border this
year remains “more than possible.” [For additional information see
the Eurasia Insight archive].
“The technical evaluations are done, the international community
supports it, and both the Turkish and Armenian people, including
opponents, are ready for it,” Krikorian said. “The real question is
on what terms it should occur.”
“Azerbaijan is clearly, and can be, an obstacle to the border opening,
but not an insurmountable obstacle if Turkey continues on its current
path,” he added.
Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.

BOXING: Team USA’s Vanes Martirosyan Grabs First Win at Athens Test Event
Sports Features Communications (press release), FL
May 28 2004
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. – United States welterweight (152 lbs/69 kg)
Vanes Martirosyan recorded a win in his first bout of the Athens Test
Event on Thursday evening at the Peristeri Olympic Boxing Hall in
Athens, Greece. Martirosyan defeated Bulent Ulusoy of Turkey, 23-14,
in their quarterfinal match-up, and the first bout of the tournament
for both Martirosyan and the U.S. team.
Despite early nervousness in the contest, Martirosyan pushed
through a tough first round to pull out the preliminary victory.
Martirosyan’s Armenian background contributed to his nervousness,
knowing the battles that his homeland had faced with Turkey, but
strong advice from his father helped Martirosyan turn his attention
back to business in the ring.
“My dad told me to forget about the past and have fun, and that’s
what I tried to do,” Martirosyan said. “I knew that my opponent was
very good, but I listened to the instructions from my corner and used
my jab. ”
Head Coach Basheer Abdullah praised his boxer’s victory in his first
bout of the competition, but saw room for improvement. “Overall I
give him a B-,” Abdullah said. “It was a good start for Vanes. He was
a little nervous and it showed but he put it all together and pulled
out the win.”
Martirosyan will face Cuban World Champion, Lorenzo Aragon in
Saturday’s semifinal action, and the 18-year-old Olympian is ready
for the challenge.
“I feel great, and I am going to go into the ring with a lot of
confidence on Saturday,” Martirosyan said.
Middleweight (165 lbs/75 kg) Andre Dirrell of Flint, Mich., will
be the next U.S. boxer to compete in Athens when he faces off with
China’s Dabateer Ha on Friday evening.

VTB intending to acquire a majority stake in one of Georgian bank majors.
Analytical Information Agency, Russia
May 28 2004
Vneshtorgbank (or VTB) is intending to acquire a majority stake in one
of Georgian bank majors. VTB said the principal agreement on the issue
has been announced over the formal meeting of Georgian’s President
Mikhail Saakashvili with the delegation of Russian manufacturers
headed by the RF Economic Development Minister German Gref.
As informed earlier, VTB completed the deal in March to get 70%
stake in Armsberbank, second largest bank of Armenia.

The Death of Green Spaces
by Edik Baghdasaryan
Transitions Online, Czech Republic
May 28 2004
They may have botanical names, but there is no disguising that the
cafes blossoming in Yerevan are destroying parks – and bearing rich
fruits for public officials.
YEREVAN, Armenia – In 1988, the large, leafy public square next to
the Opera House in Yerevan was renamed Freedom Square, in honor of
the movement that eventually led the country to independence from
the Soviet Union in 1991.
With its benches, open spaces, and trees, the square has long been a
popular place for people to come and relax. Grandparents come to take
their grandchildren for a walk, kids to roller-skate, and couples to
romance each other. It has also long served as a gathering point for
the opposition.
All that is changing at alarming speed, however, as the square’s green
spaces are paved over to make room for cafes, restaurants, and dance
clubs. So many of these places have sprung up that in some corners
of the square it is impossible to tell where one establishment stops
and another begins – the outdoor tables and chairs all run together,
and the music from competing loudspeakers merges.
Every time a café is built, another bit of public space is lost.
Here, dozens of trees have been felled, benches have been ripped
up, and grass has been replaced by cement patios. It’s a phenomenon
that can be seen across the city. According to the Social Ecological
Association, more than 700 hectares of trees have been chopped down
over the past decade in Yerevan’s construction boom.
“I don’t bring my grandson [to the park] anymore, because there are
cafes everywhere and no benches,” said Sargis Torosian, a 72-year-old
pensioner. “We used to spend every evening here, but now we have no
place to go.”
“What happened to the Himalayan cedars that are so rare in our city?
Or the grapevines and persimmon trees that used to grow where the
Astral Disco is now?” asks biologist Gohar Oganezova. “Most of
the firs have dried up over time as their roots come up against the
concrete base of the cafes. A plane tree whose branches got entangled
in the fence has withered. Two years ago, it was a wonderful, viable
tree. The fir trees along the path next to the Atlantic Café are
drying up, too. Last season they were almost leafless, their roots
are so damaged.”
By law, it shouldn’t be happening this way. According to government
records, the building permits for most of the cafes violate the city’s
own ecological and planning standards. The rules say that before
construction can begin on a new establishment, an owner must submit a
design that meets the approval of ecologists. According to 2002 data
from the Ecology Ministry, only one of the 12 cafes in Opera Square,
the Astral, followed that procedure.
Yerevan’s chief architect, Narek Sargisian, defends the onslaught
of development as a market response to public demand. “If so many
cafes are being built, it means that there is a demand for them,”
he said. Sargisian admits that the park’s planners didn’t anticipate
the displacement effect that the retail establishments would have on
people who are looking for a public green space to relax in. On the
other hand, he said, “the cafes are always full.”
But they’re not making much money, or so believes Srbuhi Harutiunian,
head of the Social Ecological Association. Harutiunian said his group
had undertaken an unofficial survey of the park’s café and restaurant
owners and came up with surprising results.
“We found that 40 percent of these establishments are unprofitable,”
Harutiunian said. “Among the rest, 40 percent don’t worry about profit
at all [and are more interested in the prestige of their location],
and the remaining 20 percent secure a profit only by not paying
their taxes.”
Yet the building continues. To understand why, it’s necessary to
look at who’s behind the chattering crowds, loud music, and frothy
cappuccinos.
THE WINDFALL FROM CUTTING TREES
Ordinary Armenian businesspeople patronize the restaurants and cafes
around Opera Park, but they certainly don’t own them. So far, at least,
it seems that ownership is a privilege reserved for the political
elite – members of parliament, ministers, influential bureaucrats,
and their cronies. The concreting over of Yerevan’s green spaces has
been enabled by a loophole in the city’s law on allocation of land
that has allowed the city to chop up and sell small café-size plots
that it owns. Any plot larger than 20 square meters must be sold
at public auction; anything less can be quietly sold to any buyer,
for any price. Former Mayor Robert Nazarian, a man appointed by the
president, was a champion of the loophole.
Although he is no longer in office, Nazarian’s legacy of political
favoritism continues to deprive the city treasury of public funds
and to line the pockets of government officials who “bought” parcels
of land. A case in point: recently, according to reliable sources,
a café in Freedom Park that was owned by a senior government official
sold for $250,000. The official had spent $15,000 on the land on which
the café has constructed. His final take after including construction
costs? More than $220,000.
Some estimates of the total losses to the state treasury from corrupt
land sales near the Opera, where 15 companies have built cafes,
exceed $1 million.
Typically, the new owner begins to expand his cafe. After the event,
the Mayor’s Office “legalizes” the expansion of the café rather than
taking action against the owners – who are high-level public officials.
Whatever the procedure, the results can be gargantuan. In early 2002,
Nazarian “sold” a 20-square-meter plot of parkland to a company
(inappropriately) named Magnolia. The area of the plot has continued
to expand until today. According to the city’s Architecture and
Planning Department, the Magnolia Café occupies a staggering 2,615
square meters, making it the largest establishment in the park. The
businessman who managed to take over so much land? Grigor “Bellagio
Grish” Margarian, a member of parliament from the Orinats Yerkir Party.
Nazarian has explicitly intervened in some developments. In January
2002, a company named Only Merriment requested permission to buy
a plot of land and build a video arcade next to Freedom Square.
Permission was granted, and approval from the city planning department
awarded. One month later, Only Merriment was allowed to acquire an
additional 312-square-meter plot of land adjacent to the arcade site,
to build an outdoor café.
Then, one month after that, Nazarian abruptly amended both decisions
and issued blanket permission to Only Merriment to build a combined
arcade-café, although this hybrid had never been approved by the
city’s architecture department. Only Merriment was re-registered as
Atlantic Garden and, according to official documents, was authorized
to occupy 332 square meters in a public tender. Today, it’s hard to
tell how much of the park Atlantic Garden occupies – much more than
332 square meters, though, since, during construction the building
was considerably expanded by its owner. The owner? Anush Ghazaryan
(better known as Kamvolny Anush, or Pretty Anush), a man widely thought
to enjoy the protection of National Security Minister Karlos Petrosian.
Levon Khachatrian, a member of parliament, has also benefited from
the generosity of the Mayor’s Office. Just as with Only Merriment
and Magnolia, the major expansion of his café was within the law:
Khachatrian first received a 20-square-meter plot and then permission
to expand the plot. Khachatrian’s café today obscures part of the
Opera House from Sayat-Nova Street.
Asked recently if any establishment in Freedom Square of the area
near the Opera House was built according to city-approved plans,
chief architect Sargisian replied with one word: “No.”
KEEPING PUBLIC RECORDS PRIVATE
Official corruption in Armenia is a problem recognized by a host of
international organizations. The Office for Security and Cooperation
in Europe has been at the forefront of international efforts to bring
attention to the problem and help the government tackle it, in part
with the help of a joint OSCE-Armenian task force. President Robert
Kocharian has even appointed a special adviser to coordinate the fight.
So why hasn’t anything been done to stop the corrupt practices
that are doing obvious damage to public life in the capital?
“Unfortunately, the people with power in this city are above the
law,” says biologist Oganezova, voicing a common public sentiment.
“But they don’t realize that they, too, lose. We lose our city’s
environment, literally and figuratively.”
He may have final approval over all new construction and land sales
in the capital, but chief architect Sargisian says he can do nothing.
“I try to do everything in my power, but there are too many senior
officials in our government. They build these structures and consider
themselves to be above the law,” he said. But, as someone who has
kept his post through three mayors, Sargisian has become vulnerable
to accusations by some nongovernmental organizations that he allows
the situation to continue.
In November 2003, two months before he was dismissed from office,
Mayor Nazarian admitted to reporters that he had come under pressure
by government authorities to approve the land sales. Ninety-nine
percent of the cafes near the Opera House were illegal structures,
he acknowledged, adding, “We did not approve these designs.” But none
of the structures was torn down. In fact, since he made those remarks,
new ones have gone up.
According to City Deputy Kamo Areyan, current Mayor Yervand Zakharian
has given his staff a “strict order” to examine how building licenses
and land sales are approved.
Armenia’s Association of Investigative Journalists has tried several
times to gain access to mayoral decisions on land allocations during
the period from 1997 to 2003, without success. Zakharian has refused
to provide the group with this public information and has not given
an explanation for his refusal. President Kocharian has refused to
intervene. The matter is now with the courts.
Edik Baghdasaryan is the editor-in-chief of the Armenian daily
***HETQ*** and a member of the Association of Investigative
Journalists.

Georgia: Moscow, Tbilisi Open ‘Historic’ Business Talks
By Jean-Christophe Peuch
Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
May 28 2004
Dozens of businessmen have gathered in Tbilisi to attend the first
Russian-Georgian economic forum. Over the next two days (28-29 May),
Russian private entrepreneurs and government officials will discuss
investment opportunities with their Georgian counterparts. This
unprecedented initiative testifies to the new relationship that has
been growing between Moscow and Tbilisi since the recent change of
leadership in the Georgian capital. The development of Russian-Georgian
economic ties is likely to have important consequences for the entire
South Caucasus region.
Prague, 28 May 2004 (RFE/RL) — Georgia’s Rustavi-2 private television
yesterday said dozens of airliners carrying loads of Russian
businessmen were expected at Tbilisi airport ahead of the conference.
Although the report eventually proved exaggerated, it gives a good
indication of the importance the Georgian side attaches to the event.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is expected to inaugurate the
two-day forum, which will be attended by Russian Economic Development
and Trade Minister German Gref.
Participants include top managers of Russia’s Unified Energy Systems
(EES) electricity monopoly and Aeroflot national air carrier, as
well as representatives of LUKoil, TransGazOil, Rosnefteeksport and
other energy companies. Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania, Economy Minister
Irakli Rekhviashvili, Finance Minister Zurab Nogaideli, and Interior
Minister Giorgi Baramidze will represent the Georgian government.
Included on the Russian delegation’s agenda is a tour of Kakheti,
Georgia’s most important wine-growing region. The perception of Russia,
which helped secure Shevardnadze’s resignation — and more recently
that of Aslan Abashidze, the unruly leader of the Black Sea autonomous
region of Adjara — has obviously changed in Tbilisi.
Although this is the third time both countries have held business
talks since 1991, never before have talks been conducted on such a
large scale. In comments made to Georgia’s state television upon his
arrival in Tbilisi, Gref said that Russia sees today’s forum as a
“symbol” of its new relations with Georgia.
Vladimir Chkhikvishvili, Russia’s ambassador to Georgia, told reporters
yesterday the upcoming event would mark a milestone in the history
of bilateral ties. “It is both a political and economic event for
our bilateral relations,” he said. “More generally, one could even
say that this is a historical event. As far as I know, it’s been a
long time since such a large and high-level Russian delegation has
come to Georgia.”
A Georgian official statement says neither of the first two bilateral
business conferences has produced any concrete results despite
Tbilisi’s willingness to open its market to Russian capital.
The last Russian-Georgian economic consultations were held in October
2003, just days before street protests spearheaded by Saakashvili and
Zhvania forced then-President Eduard Shevardnadze out of office amid
controversy over disputed parliamentary elections.
Since then, Russian-Georgian relations have significantly improved.
Both Saakashvili and Russian President Vladimir Putin have pledged to
foster political and economic ties between their countries, prompting
positive reactions from the United States, which sees stability in
the Caucasus as key to its foreign-policy agenda.
The perception of Russia, which helped secure Shevardnadze’s
resignation — and more recently that of Aslan Abashidze, the unruly
leader of the Black Sea autonomous region of Adjara — has obviously
changed in Tbilisi.
When they were still in the opposition, Georgia’s current leaders
were among the fiercest critics of Russia’s economic presence in the
country, in particular in the energy field. But now they have adopted
a radically different stance. During a visit to Moscow earlier this
week, Zhvania secured an agreement over the rescheduling of Georgia’s
debt toward Russia, thus paving the way for the resumption of talks
between his government and the International Monetary Fund.
At a meeting with his Russian counterpart Mikhail Fradkov, the Georgian
prime minister welcomed the warming of bilateral ties that followed
Shevardnadze’s departure. “I believe we have now the opportunity to
build a new, closer relationship between Georgia and Russia. To our
great satisfaction, we note that our relations can now develop in a
climate of much greater trust,” Zhvania said.
The two prime ministers agreed to draft a comprehensive economic
treaty that would pave the way for an increased Russian presence in
Georgia’s energy sector.
Addressing reporters at the end of his visit, Zhvania praised
Russia’s EES monopoly for helping his country meet its electricity
needs this past winter. Last December, EES acquired a 75 percent
share in Telasi, the formerly U.S.-owned electricity-distribution
company that services Tbilisi. It also purchased majority stakes in
the Mtkvari power station and other Georgian energy facilities.
EES Chairman Anatolii Chubais has hinted that the company could use
Georgia as a springboard for expanding its presence in Azerbaijan
and beyond. In remarks made during a visit to Baku on 25 May, Chubais
floated the idea of connecting the power grids of Russia, Azerbaijan,
and Iran. He also said his company could help Georgia trade electricity
with neighboring Azerbaijan.
Normalization of Russian-Georgian ties would have another positive
impact on the region’s economy. Having secured its authority over
Adjara, Georgia counts on Moscow’s help to restore control over the
northwestern region of Abkhazia, which formally seceded in 1993 to
develop close political and economic ties with Moscow.
Zhvania this week hinted that in return for Russia’s assistance
in solving the decade-old Abkhaz conflict, Georgia could lift its
objections to the reopening of railroad connections between Russia and
landlocked Armenia through Abkhazia. “We will see how things develop
[with regard to Russian-Georgian ties] and, naturally, any significant
progress in that direction will allow us to consider the opening of
[this] railway line,” he said. “This would be an extremely important
development for our entire region. This is a very important question,
not only for Georgia and Russian-Georgian ties, but also for the
entire South Caucasus region.”
Rail communications between Russia and Armenia were disrupted during
the Abkhaz conflict and, despite an agreement reached at a 1994 CIS
summit, were never restored.
Rail traffic between the Abkhaz capital Sukhum and the Russian Black
Sea port of Sochi resumed early last year amid protests from Tbilisi.
Georgia links the reopening of the Sochi-Sukhum-Tbilisi-Yerevan
transport route — one of Putin’s pet economic projects — to the
repatriation of internally displaced ethnic Georgians to Abkhazia’s
southern Gali district.
Ethnic Georgians made up the bulk of the Gali population before
the war and, although most internally displaced people now have
the opportunity to return to the area, Tbilisi is seeking security
guarantees for them. Fradkov this week said Moscow and Tbilisi had
agreed to seek a solution to the Gali issue that would meet the
interests of all sides involved.
In another good sign, while insisting that the Gali and railroad
problems should be solved at the same time, Georgian parliamentary
speaker Nino Burdjanadze said yesterday that Tbilisi was ready to
look at the whole Abkhaz issue “with new eyes.”