Author: Badalian Vardan

DEFENSE MINISTER WILL SAY WHEN HE WANTS

Lragir.am
12 April 06

Defense minister declines to say anything concerning the parliamentary
election and the political force that he will support.

Whereas, in late January Serge Sargsyan stated that he needed two
more weeks to make a decision. Several months have passed since late
January but the defense minister still declines to speak about his
decision. “I think this is not a burning topic. Political processes
are going on normally and correspond to my plans,” said Serge Sargsyan
April 11. The defense minister did not tell news reporters, however,
when he would announce about his decision.

“When I think it is time,” says Serge Sargsyan. With regard to his
presidential aspirations he again resorts to convenience.

“We will see what the situation will be. It is early to speak about
this. We will see what will happen after the parliamentary election,”
announced the minister of defense of Armenia.

PRESS RELEASE
Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
138 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-7810
Fax: 212-689-7168
e-mail: [email protected]
Website:
Contact: Iris Papazian

APRIL 11, 2006

Prelate’s 2006 Easter Message – Listen, Break Bread, Proclaim

“The Lord has risen indeed.”
(Luke 24:34)

Can you imagine the joy of the apostles when they confirmed the
Resurrection of their Lord? Their joy became deeper and ingrained when they
heard the testimony of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus who met a
“stranger,” heard the prophetic words from his lips, broke bread on the
modest table, and then suddenly the “stranger” was gone, leaving behind
amazement, regret and thankfulness for becoming the first witnesses, seeing
Christ with their own eyes, and as the first bearers of good news announcing
the Resurrection of the Son of God.
The two travelers to Emmaus are the models for the world’s inhabitants.
We too are travelers in this world and during our journey throughout our
lives, from our student days to our various positions of employment through
adulthood and old age; we are listeners to God’s word. The “stranger” always
speaks to us by and through the Bible. Therefore it is necessary to:

1. Listen to the Prophetic Words. Listening is not a passive activity. In
Biblical and Christian understanding listening to the Gospel and Christ
symbolizes not only understanding God’s word and commandments, but also
practicing them, bearing witness to those truths and demonstrating their
validity by the way we live. When God’s words resonate in our ears and do
not find fertile ground, when the words fall amidst thorns and rocks, they
dry up and wither (Mt 13:6-7), thus drying in us the breath of God,
corrupting the image of God in us, and turning us into beings without
foundation and persons without principles, scattered by the wind. In our
lives, listening represents the seed that falls into healthy soil and blooms
with God’s nurturing. With our Christian faith and life it becomes the flour
in the heavenly bread, which gives life to the world. Whether we are
students, employees, entrepreneurs, employers, or retirees, we are called to
open our souls to God’s word so that we can live the desirable life of a
true and faithful Christian, enriched with His words.

2. Breaking Bread with Christ. “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me
shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.” (John
6:35)
The bread of life is distributed to us during every Divine Liturgy. Are we,
therefore, participants with Christ, who as resurrected God sits at the
banquet with all those who want to share His joy with His living presence?
Thus, we are in communion with the resurrected Savior, creating the family
which belongs to Christ that we call Church. The Church becomes one with
Christ when the faithful worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) and
become communicants to each other and to God. The same unity that the
persons of the Trinity have to each other is created in the faithful during
the Divine Liturgy, and Christ with his bread and body lives and makes us
live. We are a part of Christ’s Church by our participation-our working
participation-when we are joined in prayer, when our love to God and to each
other become the consecrated bread and wine of our soul as sacrifice and
offering.
By sharing our bread with Christ we become a living Church (I Cor. 3:16)
where the Holy Spirit joins us to each other and guides us to an everlasting
true life, in order to enjoy God’s Kingdom.

3. Proclaim the Resurrection of Christ. It was with great trust that the
travelers on the road to Emmaus proclaimed they had seen the Lord. Was not
the encounter with Christ the strength that armed the apostles, who became
the evangelizers and witnesses of Christ’s Resurrection? God’s miraculous
influence was necessary to transform fishermen into fishers of men (Luke
5:11) so that we would all be invited to a resurrected and new life. On the
one hand our life on earth is God’s gift to us, and on the one hand the
resurrected and new life is a blessing, like God’s Holy Oil (Muron) that
descends on every faithful who believes in the salvation and resurrection of
Christ. The travelers on the road to Emmaus saw the Lord and believed.
Blessed are we who have not seen and yet have come to believe (John 20:29),
in the same way that our forefathers accepted Christ and sacrificed their
lives to bear witness.

During these days when we live with the mystery of Christ’s Resurrection,
let us all become travelers to Emmaus, meet Christ through our faith, listen
and follow His teachings, and together become communicants to His sacrifice
and be witnesses and preachers to his miraculous resurrection.
Then our Lord will come to us, just the way He came to the disciples right
after the proclamation of the travelers to Emmaus. He will strengthen us by
banishing our weaknesses, doubts, fears and troubles, saying to us:
“It is I, do not be afraid.” (Luke 24:36)

Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan
Prelate
Armenian Apostolic Church of America
Eastern United States of America

Easter 2006

US ENVOY PREDICTS AZERI-ARMENIAN ACCORD IN 2006

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
posted on April 10 2006

Baku, April 7, AssA-Irada
The US ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish has said an agreement
may be signed in 2006 to settle the long-standing Armenia-Azerbaijan
conflict over Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh. He reiterated that the United
States is doing everything in its power to achieve a solution.

Harnish said this year is suitable to reach peace for two reasons.

“We have carried out the needed talks both with the two countries’
presidents and foreign ministers and the co-chairs, and worked hard
to achieve sustainable and fair peace. On the other hand, 2006 is
essential to strike such an accord since no political developments
will take place this year,” the ambassador said.

The diplomat stressed that the co-chairs of the mediating OSCE Minsk
Group have paid frequent visits to the region of late.

PRESS RELEASE
Eurasia Foundation Representative Office in Armenia
4 Demirchyan Street, Yerevan, Armenia
Contact: Alisa Alaverdyan
Tel/Fax: 374 10-58-60-59, 58-61-59
E-mail: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Web: <;

Fighting Corruption in Armenia: Strengthening Cooperation between the
National Assembly, Civil Society and the Media

Yerevan, Armenia – More than 130 representatives of Armenia’s National
Assembly, media and civil society, and 30 representatives of international
organizations and experts, came together on April 6-7th for a conference to
discuss the cooperation between the National Assembly, civil society and the
media in the fight against corruption. The conference was organized by the
National Assembly of Armenia (NA), the Eurasia Foundation (EF), the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Arthur Baghdasaryan, Speaker of Armenia’s NA, opened the event by stating
that “the consistent fight against corruption is a political necessity for
Armenia. The successful fight against corruption depends on the progress of
democracy, because democracy means transparency, supervision and public
monitoring; that is to say everything, which is necessary for achieving
success in this difficult struggle.” He especially emphasized that “the role
of an independent press and mass media is pivotal in the fight against
corruption.” U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans; UNDP Resident
Representative, Consuelo Vidal; OSCE Ambassador, Vladimir Pryakhin; and EF
Regional Vice President, Andrea Harris, also made opening remarks.

During the first day, participants heard presentations on the role of the
media; of public monitoring institutions including the Chamber of Control;
and on cooperation between the NA and civil society in the fight against
corruption. In each session, the experience of international experts and
representatives of governments in other countries of the CIS, Eastern Europe
and Armenia served as a basis for sharing lessons learned and best
practices. During break-out sessions on day two, participants discussed each
of these issues in smaller groups and developed recommendations for future
cooperation between the NA, civil society and the media. For example, the
working group on public monitoring institutions suggested that current
legislation must explicitly state the functional separation between internal
and external auditing of government activities; and it must also clarify
what kind of auditing information can be made available to the public and
the media.

The conference concluded with an announcement of the formation of an
Armenian chapter of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians against
Corruption (GOPAC), an international network of parliamentarians dedicated
to good governance and combating corruption through improved legislation and
active citizen oversight.

“The Eurasia Foundation is heartened by the fact that the leader of the
country’s Parliament is so willing to engage non-governmental organizations
and the media as equal partners in the fight against corruption. In the
coming years, EF intends to continue its work for increased cooperation
between these sectors.” stated Ms. Harris.

In a recent workshop on anti-corruption, the OSCE demonstrated that the
engagement of the country’s government, non-government and media structures
are all necessary for fighting corruption. Ms. Vidal from the UNDP agreed:
“we believe that public participation in the fight against corruption is
essential and we will continue to actively support national actors in
reducing corruption in Armenia – in order to alleviate poverty, to improve
the social structure of the country, to promote economic development, and to
enhance Armenia’s democratic development overall.”

The two-day Conference was closed with a reception at the Government
Reception Hall, which was attended by the Chairman of the National Assembly
of the Republic of Armenia, the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, as well as
representatives of government, civil society and the media.

# # #

The Eurasia Foundation is a privately managed non-profit organization
supported by the U.S. government and other public and private donors. Since
1992, the Eurasia Foundation has invested more than $335 million through
more than 7,700 grants and technical assistance projects in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova,
Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

_____

This press release is made possible by the generous support of the American
people through the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Eurasia Foundation and
do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States
Government.

RADZIKHOVSKI: “RUSSIA HAS TO PLAY PEACEFUL ROLE, NOT JUST TO BE CATALYST REGARDING NK CONFLICT”

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 5 2006

“Azerbaijan is one the former Soviet countries having real political
interests not just a psychopathic one,” Russian prominent political
scientist Leonid Radzikhovski told. He stressed that the oil-rich
Azerbaijan is having serious talks with Russia regarding the settlement
of legal status of the Caspian Sea.

“If Turkmenistan, main rival to Russia in gas sector, tries to
construct a new gas pipeline by breaking relations with Kremlin,
Azerbaijan will turn out to play a key role in the sale of Turkmen
gas,” the political scientist said. “Only Armenia in the South
Caucasus unconditionally supports Russia. All are aware of the
relations between Yerevan and Baku. Bearing in mind that Russia has
regularly supplied Armenia with guns due to some reasons, this fact
always instigated the conflict between the two countries. In practice,
those reconciling two parties benefit form it,” he emphasized.

Radzikhovski also said that the official Kremlin has recently had
tendencies towards Azerbaijan.

“This tendency is based on Russia becoming gas and oil empire, and
this factor is more obvious than other ones. Russian authorities try
to expand relations with Azerbaijan which caused dissatisfaction of
Armenian side several times. However, the Kremlin does not intend to
argue with Armenia as this country is historical strategic ally of
Russia. Nowadays, Russia takes interest in instigating the conflicts in
Trans-Dnestrovia, Abkhazia, South Osetia. However, Russia has not such
an interest regarding the Nagorno Garabagh conflict. Because, tense
situation in Garabagh and outbreak of active military operations can
lead Russia to foolish situation. If the war breaks out, Russia will
defend Armenia which will lead to worsened relations with influential
and very important Azerbaijan. Let’s consider the opposite variant:
to ruin the relations with Armenia and dissatisfy Armenian lobby which
as enough influence in Moscow. So, this variant is not advisable
either. Therefore, Russia has to play a peaceful role, not just to
be a catalyst with regard to the Nagorno Garabagh conflict,” the
political scientist concluded.

WIMAX TECHNOLOGY PROPOSED TO BE USED FOR DATA TRANSMISSION IN ARMENIA

Noyan Tapan
Apr 04 2006

YEREVAN, APRIL 4, NOYAN TAPAN. Representatives of the Alvarion company
(Israel) on April 3 presented to the Armenian consumer the broadband
radio access systems envisaged for the digital transmission of
Internet, sound and visual data. Igor Bashes, manager for preliminary
sales preparation at Alvarion, said that the company occupies 31%
of the world market of these systems. It operated under the name of
BreezeCOM company before 2001. Alvarion was formed after the merger
with Floware company and later it was joined by Innowave and InterWAVE
companies. According to I. Bashes, the WiMAX systems of Alvarion ensure
a coverage within a 40-km radius in conditions of direct visibility
and within a 7-12-km radius in cities. He said that from 2007, these
systems can be applicable in laptops produced with Centrino processors
of the Intel company.

Alvarion’s authorized distributor and service center in CIS countries
is the Cedicom company, whose president Simon Paamon noted that now
the equipment to secure a radio access by the subscriber’s personal
computer costs 1,200 USD, but the price may decline 2-3fold as a
result of using Intel’s new chip.

According to Karapet Avetisian, Armenian representative of Cedicom,
technical director of Redinet company, Alvarion’s systems can be
used by ArmenTel and VivaCell companies, as well as by various
Internet service providers and the final users of the Internet. In
his words, Alvarion’s radiosystems allow the subscriber to use a 12
megabit/second capacity radio channel. He said that a base station
to secure communication with radio channels of this capacity for 250
subscribers will cost at least 20 thousand dollars. According to K.

Avetisian’s information, WiMAX systems of Alvarion are competible with
the network of Wi-Fi systems installed by the Arminco company. The
network operates by the radiomodem – optical channel combination. In
response to a question of NT correspondent, technical director
of Arminco Grigor Saghian said that the technology proposed by
Alvarion can promote a rapid development of Arminco’s network, since
optico-fiber channels with a higher transmission capacity cannot be
installed in all areas. In his opinion, both in terms of its price
and coverage provision, the WiMAX standard is more suitale for use
in Armenian rural areas remote from the main optico-fiber cables.

BIG ROW IN ARMENIA
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
04 April 06

I did not notice the moment when I started to pay attention to the
public debates on the song Andre is going to sing in Eurovision. But
it has been a long time since I began to follow opinions, evaluations,
and arguments. Frankly speaking, for a long time I have been unable
to find out if what is happening is a dialogue or settling of accounts.

Andre is going to sing, and a row started in Armenia. As in any
other quarrel in Armenia there are also two arguments: is Andre’s
song Turkish or not Turkish. Nothing else. No one asks if the song
is good or bad. Is Andre the right candidate? If the debate was on
these questions, it could be considered useful and important. But the
debate is on confirming or declining that the song and the singer’s
image are Turkish. Therefore, this reminds me of settling of accounts
rather than concern about due performance of Armenia in Eurovision.

Whereas it is time that the Turkish factor stop being a blind
argument pro or con, for the people of Armenia and for Armenians in
general. They compared Andre to Tarkan to show that the song and the
image are bad. I wonder why the resemblance of the Armenian singer
to the Eastern pop star is viewed so negatively, whereas if Andre
resembled to Ricky Martin, for instance, that would not be considered
that bad. Of course, it is another question that maybe Andre is not
fit for the “classical” image of a pop singer. In other words, Andre is
too good for this image, for he may can make a serious singer. Maybe. I
have my own opinion, which is not essential here and is not a competent
opinion. However, I repeat that there was no professional discussion
of this. Everything is on the eternal plane of adversity of Armenians
and Turks, and with regard to Armenia Karabakh is added.

Finally it is amazing that our participation in Eurovision, which is
a youth show, and the aim is pure business, caused such heated public
debates. Members of parliament, intelligentsia, builders, and farmers
got involved in these debates. The Public TV Channel even held a big
talk show to defend Andre from strictures. The question, however,
does not have such a big public importance. In fact, it should be
discussed by people who are in show business. But it is the Public
Channel’s business only, for they will spend money and get results,
therefore public debates are absolutely useless, since the problem
has a narrow scope of interest. The public is not a specialist of
Turkish studies, an ethnographer, or a musician. And the problem
has nothing to do with the public, it is not a price or a tariff,
it is not a public concern. There are a number of problems, which
failed to become a subject of public discussion. No debates are held
and the Public Channel never organizes talk shows on promotion of a
civic consciousness, improvement of governance, tricks with prices
and other problems, which are closely related to the society.

And for this reason I am being more convinced that with regard to Andre
it is not a debate but revenge, settling of accounts, interests. The
best evidence to this is that a singer, who is referred to as a
star, one day complains of and wonders why Andre and not Inga or
Anush Arshakyan go to Eurovision, or Shushan Petrosyan herself, and
several days later Petrosyan announces that we should not criticize
Andre but we should pray for him and wish him good luck, we should
love and appreciate what we have and come together. There is nothing
to do but to become convinced that they say what the moment requires.

Obviously, Andre has nothing to do here, he is just another good
opportunity for settling accounts. Another opportunity seemed to have
occurred to have a competent debate. This opportunity was missed,
whereas there is so much to discuss.

TREATY ASSURES THAT RUSSIAN TANKS WILL RUMBLE THEIR LAST
By Keti Sikharulidze

The Messenger, Georgia
April 3 2006

Russia and Georgia agree on a set deadline for the removal of Russian
bases; and sign it.

Georgian First Deputy Minister of Defense Mamuka Kudava and Russian
Land Forces Commander Alexei Maslov sign the military base withdrawal
agreement.

After a year of negotiations, Georgia and Russia signed a treaty
on March 31, “on the operation terms, deadlines and withdrawal of
Russian military bases and objects from the territory of Georgia.”

The treaty was signed in the southern Russian city of Sochi by Deputy
Defense Minister Mamuka Kudava from Georgia and General Aleksei Maslov,
Commander-in Chief of the Russian land forces.

“With the signing of this agreement we have ended an epic story that
has been going on since the Giorgievski treaty was signed in 1783. It
has now ended successfully, which is a victory for the Georgian
nation,” Kudava said after signing the agreement.

Russian ambassador to Georgia Vladimiir Chkhikvishvili commended the
treaty saying “all terms and conditions in the documents were solved
by mutual compromises acceptable for both sides.”

The negotiations surrounding the withdrawal of Russian bases from
Georgian territory have been centered primarily on a joint declaration
which was signed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and former
Georgian Foreign Minister Salome Zourabichvili in May 2005.

“We have compromised by allowing Russia three years to withdraw
its military bases, as we believe that in reality such a long term
is not necessary. But we have decided to accept the arguments which
have been submitted by the Russian side,” Georgian Defense Minister
Irakli Okruashvili said at a news conference on March 31.

The withdrawal will be conducted according to the terms and conditions
laid out in the treaty. The Akhalkalaki base will be closed by October
1, 2007 while the Batumi base, which is also the headquarters of the
Russian forces in the South Caucasus, will be shut down in 2008.

According to the agreement, the heavy equipment currently on the two
bases must be removed by the end of the year. 370 pieces of military
hardware from the Akhalkalaki base will be transferred to Russia’s
102nd military base in Gyumri, Armenia while the rest of the equipment
will leave Georgian territory through Batumi port, including the 11
tanks, 127 armoured cars, and 76 pieces of artillery that are located
at the Batumi base. All other weapons must leave Georgia by December
31, 2007.

One potentially troubling unsolved problem remains however: Russia’s
Gudauta military base in Abkhazia is not included in the treaty. The
Russian side claims that the base has not been in use since 2001 and
that it no longer houses any weapons although recent reports suggest
that this allegedly abandoned base has come under attack from Abkhazian
boevics who have purportedly been trying to capture weapons. Russian
soldiers even injured several Abkhaz militiamen during this attack,
some reports indicate.

“This incident clearly shows that the base has not been closed, and
therefore we categorically call upon the international commonwealth
to pressure make everything evident and close it like Akhlakalaki
and Batumi bases,” stated Okruashvili. The Georgian side has demanded
that its own military representatives be allowed in to inspect this
supposedly derelict base.

In addition the two sides also signed a document on the organization
of the transit of Russian military cargo and personnel across
Georgia. Russia needs such permission from Georgia in order to supply
its military base in Guymri as Georgia represents the only possible
ground transit route due to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

According to the draft agreement, Georgia can refuse to allow the
transit of any military cargo that it believes could pose a threat
to its national security or if the final destination of the cargo is
located within a conflict zone or a warring state.

“It can be called a compromise from our side when we accepted this
transit agreement… However this does not mean that we will put
ourselves in a position where we will allow the transit of any cargo
that will pose a threat to regional stability,” said the Defense
Minister, adding that the amount of military cargo transited via
Georgia will be agreed upon by Russia and Georgia at least one year
in advance.

Russia also undertakes the commitment not to transit biological,
nuclear or chemical weapons, or weapon of mass destruction or any of
their components.

Despite these stipulations, Azerbaijan has protested what it sees as
a decision by Georgia to assist Russia arm Armenia – an accusation
which the Georgian Minister of Defense refutes.

“Russia does not bring this equipment to Armenia in order to give it
to the Armenian military, but to place it on their own military bases
there and besides, this complaint has no significant meaning for us
as the main thing is to withdraw foreign militaries from our country,”
Defense Minister Okruashvili noted.

GEORGIA: RUSSIA PLEDGES TO COMPLETE MILITARY PULLOUT ON SCHEDULE
Jean-Christophe Peuch 4/01/06
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL

EurasiaNet, NY
April 2 2006

Russia has agreed on the practical details of its military pullout
from Georgia. Envoys from Moscow tand Tbilisi signed two documents
to that effect in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi on March
31. The agreements confirm a pledge given by Russia last year that
the withdrawal would be completed within months.

Under the terms of a preliminary agreement reached May 30, 2005 in
Moscow, Russia had pledged to vacate the two former Soviet military
bases it retains in Georgia by the end of 2008.

The two documents signed March 31 by Georgian Deputy Defense Minister
Mamuka Kudava and General Aleksei Maslov, the commander-in-chief of
the Russian Ground Forces, set a detailed time frame for the planned
pullout.

Russia news agencies cite the Sochi agreements as saying the two
Russian bases in Akhalkalaki and Batumi are already operating in
preparation for pullout.

Out By Year’s End

Under the terms of the documents, Russia is to withdraw heavy military
hardware from the two bases — including equipment that falls under
the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty — by the
end of 2006. All other weapons must leave Georgia at the latest by
December 31, 2007.

The closure of the Akhalkalaki base and the transfer to the Georgian
Defense Ministry of all other military facilities that are not
formally part of the two Russian bases must be completed within the
same time frame.

Addressing a news briefing in Tbilisi, Georgian Defense Minister
Irakli Okruashvili welcomed the signing of the Sochi agreements.

“We welcome the constructive approach adopted by the Russian side,
which in the past two weeks has worked intensively so that an agreement
could be reached on those documents,” Okruashvili said.

Proof Required

Okruashvili said, however, that Georgia would insist that Russia
provide evidence that it has vacated another base in the separatist
region of Abkhazia.

Russian troops officially pulled out from the Gudauta military facility
in 2001, but Tbilisi — which has no control over Abkhazia — insists
that it be allowed to inspect the base to make sure it is no longer
in use.

“There remains the problem of the base in Gudauta. We will work
actively so that the other side doesn’t try to beat around the bush,
and that the base is effectively vacated,” Okruashvili said.

Neither of the Sochi agreements makes any specific mention of the Black
Sea base of Batumi, through which most Russian military equipment is
to leave Georgia.

But after the March 31 signing ceremony, Russian General Maslov said
the Batumi base would be vacated within the next two years.

“During the course of the year 2008 we will vacate the Batumi military
base and [relocate] the command of the Russian Group of Forces in
the Transcaucasus,” Maslov said.

Provisional Concerns

Maslov also said part of the military equipment would be sent to army
units based in the North Caucasus region and that another part would
be given to the military base Russia maintains in the Armenian city
of Gyumri.

There have been concerns in Azerbaijan that Russia may give weapons and
military hardware to Armenia, with which it is linked by a military
alliance pact. Azerbaijan remains formally at war with Armenia over
its separatist enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has said that Russia’s plans
for the military relocation justify calls for an increase in Baku’s
defense spending.

Talking to RFE/RL last year shortly after Russia announced it would
withdraw its bases from Georgia, the Armenian Army Chief of Staff,
General Mikayel Harutiunian, denied his country would benefit from
the planned transfer.

“The presence of the 102nd Russian military base [in Gyumri] on
Armenia’s territory is covered by a [bilateral] agreement,” Harutiunian
said. “What type of weapons should be stored at this base is up to
Russia to decide. As for a possible transfer of materiel or equipment
to Armenia, there is no agreement and there will not be any. Armenia
can equip its armed forces on its own within the limits of the [CFE
treaty] quotas.”

Heavy Weapons

Russia’s Defense Ministry said on March 17 equipment transferred
to the Gyumri base would include 370 pieces of military hardware,
including 35 tanks and armored vehicles.

Pullout operations through Batumi are expected to begin in May and
last until mid-August.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a March 31 statement the Sochi
documents require that Georgia “create normal conditions for the
activities of the bases until they are closed.”

Georgian authorities have in recent months detained a number of Russian
servicemen on charges of violating domestic travel regulations. Moscow
says the detentions aimed at hindering the functioning of its bases.

LANDLOCKED JAVAKHETIA: SYMPTOMS OF DIFFICULTIES OF THE NATION-STATE IN GEORGIA?
By Nicolas Landru In Tbilisi
Translated By Simone Koshimizu

Caucaz, Georgia
April 2 2006

Mountainous and isolated, over 92% of the population of Javakhetia
is composed of Armenians. According to Georgian historiography, this
region, located in the south-west of Georgia, is above all the cradle
of national Christianity. The Georgian government remains categorical
in view of the forum of local Armenian associations that called for
an autonomous status last September. Against a backdrop of economic
isolation and rows between the Armenian and Georgian Churches on
religious heritage, does this strained context show the difficulties
of building a nation-state in Georgia?

Questioned about the position adopted by the Georgian diocese of
the Armenian Apostolic Church in relation to this tension, Levon
Isakhanyan, directorate assistant of the diocese, replies first of
all that “no one knows what kind of country Georgia has become today.

According to article 2 of the Georgian Constitution, the territorial
organisation of the Georgian state is undefined”. Is the lack of
territorial organisation the source of the tensions that rose in
the region?

Javakhetia resulted from the crossing of Georgian, Turkish and
Armenian lands. It was part of the XII century great Georgian kingdom,
submitted to the Turkish control at the end of the Middle Ages,
and then inhabited mainly by Muslims of controversial origins –
Turkish or Georgian. The Russian conquest caused great upheavals:
the Muslim population was exchanged for Armenian Christians by the
Ottoman Empire. The arrival of Armenians fleeing the genocide in Turkey
between 1915 and 1921 strengthened the Armenian nature of the region.

Its isolation results from the expansion of the Russian empire against
the Ottomans. In this process, Javakhetia was strongly militarised
and its access was controlled. The USSR ended this process by turning
the region into a no man’s land. Being on the border of the NATO,
access was forbidden, isolating the local inhabitants from the rest
of Georgia. The development of ethnical affinities established in
the USSR after Stalinisation, which soon weakened the republics,
caused the region to be more attached to Yerevan than to Tbilisi.

Legacy of the past, the Russian military base of Akhalkalaki is among
those things that concentrated the grievances of the Georgian national
movement against the Empire. Today it has become a symbolic issue
of the independence that might be achieved, with the withdrawal of
the army planned for the end of 2007. But the Armenian population in
Akhalkalaki has not forgetton the Armenian genocide and the military
base, an almost unique economic resource, protects them from Turkey as
local people fear that Ankara could invade the region through the NATO.

Lack of interest of the central government

“In the Post-Soviet period, from Gamsakhurdia to Shevardnadze, nobody
thought seriously about the integration of the region into Georgia”,
explains Levon Isakhanyan. “We have normal roads and they don’t”,
he adds, explaining the different problems faced by the Armenians in
Tbilisi and by those of Javakhetia.

During Gamsakhurdia’s government, a national construction with ethnical
characteristics was designed in Georgia. Overwhelmed by the war in
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Tbilisi abandoned the region in 1991
fearing separatism. A conception of ethnical minorities “invited”
by the Georgian “host” did not allow the Armenians of Javakhetia to
give their Georgian citizenship an identity dimension.

In this context, the Armenian national and regional movement of
Javakhk ran the country within an autarchy.

The clientelism established by Shevardnadze allowed the country to
be governed by alternate local clans without establishing a regional
integration policy. The reattachment to the administrative entity
of Samtskhe-Javakhetia in 1994 changed the regional demographic
balance in favour of Georgians, which was interpreted by political
organisations of Javakhetia as an attempt of “Georginisation”.

A politically alienated region

Levon Isakhanyan confirms the legalistic position adopted by the
diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church. “Only state structures
have the right to define the forms of territorial organisation and
the status of different regions in the heart of a unified Georgia”,
he says.

But, based on examples of European democracies, he adds that “if
Georgia wants to become a democratic country where all citizens feel
equal and protected, it should think about a definitive form”.

The legal vacuum and the present status quo give rise to a severe
lack of political legitimacy in Javakhetia. The gathering of the
United Javakhk political forces claims that the representatives of
the region do not defend the population’s interests.

Georgian authorities deny legitimacy to local political organisations,
such as Virk, as they are not elected. Georgia does not recognise
regional political parties; Virk says they could not be registered;
but according to some, these leaders would not wish to be registered
in order to keep a popular legitimacy of contestation.

As far as the United Javakhk is concerned, it is mainly seen as a
rising force – the JEM (Cultural and Sportive Youth Union of Javakhk)
could soon become well-known based on the example of the decisive
rally on 11 March when its members closed the Georgian church, the
university and the court of Akhalkalaki to protest against the murder
of an Armenian in Tsalka in the neighbouring region of Kvemo-Kartli.

Local government is composed by elected people (Sakrebulo) who have
little power compared to the Gamgebeli, the Georgian president’s
local representative, and have no more than 850,000 laris for the
yearly budget of Akhalkalaki, which is not enough to introduce
effective reforms.

National parties only appear in the region in pre-electoral period.

This explains the evident popularity of Virk and the United Javakhk
among the population. Igor Giorgadze’s party, which is opposed to
the present government, has an office in Akhalkalaki.

“Representatives of the Javakheti population are deputies chosen in
major parliamentary elections”, Levon Isakhanyan insists. But he also
brings up the legal pre-conditions that exist in order to acquire a
complex of rights and completely fulfil their status.

If the Forum of Armenian associations of Javakhetia does not have the
legal means of their claims yet, a deep unrest remains in Javakhetia
within the Georgian state, almost completely separated from Tbilisi
by the road system, language, media and ethno-cultural identity. The
conflict of legitimacy shows the political alienation of a region
that does not have a legal political force able to offer an adequate
identification to its inhabitants. However, in order to forbid the
closing of the Russian base in the end of 2007, local political
organisations might deploy the necessary means to make the coming
year tumultuous.

New initiatives in Tbilisi

“We have to do all we can for the development of Javakhetia”, Guiorgui
Kutsichvili declares. He is director of the International Centre
for Conflict Negotiation of Tbilisi and is now launching a programme
aiding the development of potato farming. “Georgian politicians should
finally understand the necessity of changing the landlocked status
of Javakhetia”, he adds. Other NGOs and international organisations
also try to promote the development of the region.

The desire to establish programmes of integration also seems to point
to the central government. “This year, the government will build new
roads in Javakhetia within the framework of the Millennium Challenge
Program; approximately 100,000 dollars will be spent. I think this
government thinks more seriously about the integration of Armenians
of Javakhetia into the common political space of Georgia than the
previous one”, Levon Isakhanyan suggests. He also mentions the teaching
programme for Georgians in Javakhetia, launched under the aegis of
the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). “The
government finally thinks about the teaching of the Georgian language
and that is really a good sign. We, Armenians of Georgia, need air
to breathe and we need Georgian to express ourselves”, he says.

Isakhanyan considers it a diplomatic move on the part of the government
to recognise Armenian as a regional language in Javakhetia and to
seriously examine what the population claims, if they express it as
a majority.

But there’s a long way from raising awareness to the introduction of
effective reforms and the local population’s reluctance to political
and linguistic integration for fear of assimilating and losing their
identity is still a reality. But without definitely adopting a model
of construction of a nation-state in Georgia, can problems be solved?