Talks on Iran-Armenia gas pipeline end – Armenian minister

Talks on Iran-Armenia gas pipeline end – Armenian minister

Arminfo
21 Apr 04

YEREVAN

Negotiations on the construction of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline have
ended, Armenian Energy Minister Armen Movsisyan told a news conference
today.

According to him, the Armenian government’s main task is to start the
pipeline’s construction this year.

Passage omitted: reported details

The minister said that Armenia needed 90m-100m dollars for the
construction of the pipeline’s Armenian section. It is planned to
obtain this money partly through loans and grants. The minister
declined to disclose sources of financing until an agreement is
signed.

Passage omitted: pipeline not to be an alternative to Armenia’s
nuclear power station

NKR: Ten years of cease-fire

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
April 16 2004

TEN YEARS OF CEASE-FIRE

_Would you recall the details of the events that took place ten years
ago, which ended in the maintenance of cease-fire in the area of the
Karabakh conflict. _ In my opinion, May 1994 and the meeting in
Bishkek was a significant stage in the history of settlement of the
Karabakh conflict. It should be mentioned that certain agreements had
been signed before that on stopping the military actions at the
Azerbaijani _ Karabakh front but as a rule these worked for several
days, a week at best. For the sake of justice we should state that the
cease-fire was violated mainly by the Azerbaijani party; today the
mediators remind about this. In those years the peacemaking process
was carried out by Russia and the CSCE (today the OSCE). The CIS
interparliamentarian summit, the delegates of which regularly visited
Nagorni Karabakh, tried to carry out a rather active mission at the
beginning of the 1990’s. At the beginning of May 1994 the NKR Defence
Army had mainly fulfilled its military and political role; the
military actions were shifted to the territory of the enemy and a
security zone was created around Nagorni Karabakh, which allowed
starting the regulation of the peaceful life in Karabakh. I think, the
suggestion of signing the cease-fire was necessary for Azerbaijan as
well; the Azerbaijani army then had a problem of time and needed `a
rest’. It should also be recalled that an attempt of signing a
cease-fire was made in February 1994 during the meeting of the heads
of the defence ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the
representative of the NKR Defence Army in Moscow, which however was
not a success; the cease-fire was again broken by the Azerbaijanis. _
Would you also give detailed information on the Bishkek meeting? _ At
the end of March and the beginning of April the representatives of the
CIS interparliamentarian summit visited the area of the Karabakh
conflict, headed by one of the most active participants of the
process, the speaker of the parliament of Kirgizia Medetkan
Shirinkulov. On April 15 the meeting of the heads of the CIS
member-countries took place. The meeting passed a resolution calling
the parties of the Karabakh conflict to stop the military actions in a
short period of time and maintain a cease-fire. Later the
interparliamentarian committee undertook more definite actions and at
the beginning of May the delegations of the direct participants of the
conflict Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh were invited to Bishkek. On
May 2 the NKR delegation left Stepanakert. It was headed by the
speaker of the parliament Karen Baburian. The delegation included the
foreign minister then Arkady Ghukassian, the chairman of the
parliamentary committee Valery Balayan, adviser of the head of the
parliament Vassily Atajanian and in the role of assistants Levon
Mayilian and me. For me it was the first meeting in the sense of
participation in this type of meetings and it was a successfully
fulfilled experience. The delegation of Armenia was also constituted
of the members of the government and parliament: the delegation
included the speaker of the parliament then Babken Ararkcian, Seyran
Baghdassarian, Khachik Bezirchian, Petros Katsakhian and others. The
Azerbaijani delegation included the vice speaker of the parliament A.
Jalilov (not alive any more), several members of parliament and
experts. On May 2 all the three delegations arrived in Bishkek. I
should mention with gratitude the hospitality of the Kirgizian party.
On the next day the delegations started their work. There was certain
unease on the first day. In the beginning the president of Kirgizia
Askar Akaev and the head of the CIS interparliamentarian committee
Vladimir Shoumeiko addressed the meeting. A working group was made up
for working out a united document and presenting it to the delegations
to sign. The work of the group was not in vain because the Azerbaijani
party tried in any way to hinder the participation of the Karabakh
delegation in the talks as a separate party. Then long-lasting talks
followed between the heads of the delegations after which the final
text was worked out and presented for signing on May 5. At the last
moment the head of the Azerbaijani delegation refused to sign the
Bishkek protocol (in several days from the Azerbaijani party it was
signed by the speaker of the parliament Rasul Guliev). The Bishkek
agreement signed by all the conflict parties served as basis for the
Russian mediator to achieve the arrangement of the cease-fire which
was brought in effect on May 12 at the Azerbaijani-Karabakh front. _
Recently there has been some anxiety in our society concerning the
expiry of the term of the cease-fire agreement. Do you confirm or you
do not share this anxiety? – The anxiety of our citizens is because
our society is not well-informed on the agreement of cease-fire. The
rumours that the cease-fire agreement signed in the area of the
Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict will expire in May are merely rumours
and only create additional tension. The cease-fire was maintained ten
years ago and was the result of the agreement reached between Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Karabakh in Bishkek. According to this agreement the
cease-fire came in effect on May 12, 1994, and on May 16 in Moscow the
defence ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorni Karabakh
confirmed the willingness of their countries to maintain the
cease-fire, which works up today. The agreement has no time
limit. Moreover, their devotion to the maintenance of peace was
confirmed in July 1994 when the conflict parties assumed
responsibility before the mediators to maintain the cease-fire up to
signing of a final political agreement by which the military actions
will be finally stopped. In other words an arrangement was made
according to which in case of achieving final peace in the region the
cease-fire agreement is changed to a peace agreement. Again I want to
stress that there is no reason for worry. There are no objective
causes for resuming the military actions. In these ten years the
cease-fire is maintained without international peace-keeping forces
due to the balance maintained between the forces of the conflict
parties. And the efficiency of the Karabakh army allows hoping that
this balance will be maintained henceforth.

SEYRAN KARAPETIAN

Rafsanjanis Are Iran’s Power Brokers as Investors Seek Oil

Bloomberg
April 21 2004

Rafsanjanis Are Iran’s Power Brokers as Investors Seek Oil

April 21 (Bloomberg) — At 6 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2003, agents from
Oekokrim, Norway’s financial crimes police unit, raided the Stavanger
headquarters of Statoil ASA, the nation’s largest oil company. They
were seeking records of a $15 million contract with Horton
Investment, a London-based consulting firm with links to a son of
Iran’s former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Oekokrim said in Sept. 12 press release that a $5.2 million Statoil
payment that wound up in a Turks and Caicos Islands bank account
might have been a bribe to drill in Iran’s natural gas fields, the
largest in the world after Russia’s. Oekokrim charged Statoil with
violating Norway’s General Civil Penal Code, which prohibits
influencing foreign officials.

The Statoil scandal reveals the risks of dealing with Iran – – a
country that ranks with Armenia, Lebanon and Mali as “highly
corrupt” in a survey by Berlin-based Transparency International,
which polls business executives and academics on investing. Two weeks
after the raid, Statoil Chairman Leif Terje Loeddesoel, 69, Chief
Executive Officer Olav Fjell, 52, and Executive Vice President
Richard Hubbard, 53, resigned. None of the executives has been
charged with any wrongdoing.

Iranian Revolution

Twenty-five years after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led the
revolution that toppled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a dozen families
with religious ties control much of Iran’s $110 billion gross
domestic product and shape its politics, industries and finances,
says Ray Takeyh, a professor and director of studies at National
Defense University’s Near East and South Asia Center in Washington
and coauthor of “The Receding Shadow of the Prophet: The Rise and
Fall of Radical Political Islam” (Praeger, 2004).

The Rafsanjanis — who have investments in pistachio farming, real
estate, automaking and a private airline worth a total of $1 billion
— are among the best connected and most influential of the families,
Takeyh says.

Rafsanjani, 69, has wielded power since the creation of the Islamic
Republic in 1979, when he served on the Revolutionary Council under
Khomeini.

Mohsen Hashemi, 43, Rafsanjani’s oldest son, heads a $2 billion
project to build Tehran’s subway. Yasser Hashemi, 32, the youngest
son, runs a horse farm north of Tehran in the exclusive suburb of
Lavasan, where an acre of land costs $2 million. Mehdi Hashemi
Rafsanjani, 34, the son whose contact with Statoil led to the police
search, was a director at National Iranian Gas Co. and heads the unit
that develops compressed natural gas for cars.

“The whole Iranian economy is set up to benefit the privileged
few,” Takeyh says. “Rafsanjani is the most adept, the most
notorious and the most privileged.”

Tempting Riches

Iran’s riches are tempting to companies and private investors. The
country — which, at 1.65 million square kilometers (637,069 square
miles), is slightly smaller than Alaska — holds 9 percent of oil
reserves, second in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Iran also holds 15
percent of global natural gas deposits.

With two-thirds of Iran’s 70 million people under age 30, the
country’s appetite for consumer goods is ballooning. GDP will climb 8
percent this year: the same rate as China and almost double the 4.6
percent rate in the U.S., the International Monetary Fund projects.

In 2003, the Tehran Stock Exchange All-Share Price Index more than
doubled to 10879.87 compared with a 26 percent increase for the
Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. The market value of the 350 companies on
the exchange rose 7 percent to $37 billion in the first three months
of 2004. Automaker Iran Khodro Co.; Melli Investment Co., a unit of
Bank Melli, Iran’s biggest bank; and Kharg Petrochemical Co., the
country’s fifth-biggest company by market value, powered the gains.

Stock Market

The government of President Mohammad Khatami, 60, who replaced
Rafsanjani in 1997, introduced legislation last year to open the
stock market to foreign investors. A 1996 ban keeps the exchange
closed to all but Iranians. Khatami also proposed creating an
independent regulatory body like the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Jim Rogers, 61, who founded the New York-based Quantum Fund with
George Soros in 1969, is among a handful of foreigners who bought
shares in Iranian companies in the early 1990s, before Iran’s
parliament banned outside investment. The exchange let investors like
Rogers keep their shares.

Rogers says his holdings, which he declines to name, have risen “an
enormous amount.” He says he’s aware of Iran’s attractions — as
well as its pitfalls. “The country has oil, lots of minerals, a
young population,” Rogers says. “Transparency is a problem. They
only send me information about my companies when they want to.”

Legal Traps

Companies and investors that want to break into Iran need to
understand how to navigate legal and ethical traps like the one that
rocked Statoil, says Arwa Hassan, program director for the Middle
East at Transparency International.

In 1979 and 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter imposed a series of
bans on Iran that barred travel, trade and financial transactions
after militants held 52 American embassy staff members hostage in
Tehran for 444 days. In 1995, President Bill Clinton banned U.S.
companies from helping to develop Iran’s energy industry. In 1996,
the U.S. Congress authorized the president to impose sanctions on
non-U.S. companies that invested more than $20 million in Iran’s
energy assets.

Interest From Europe

European and Asian companies aren’t bound by U.S.-style prohibitions
against Iran — and they’re rushing to get a piece of the action.
France’s Total SA, Europe’s No. 3 oil company, is in talks to
construct a $2 billion liquefied natural gas plant. Alcatel SA, the
world’s second-biggest maker of telecommunications gear, is building
Iran’s phone system and supplying lines for high-speed Internet
service.

In February, Japan’s state-run oil company, Inpex Corp., and Osaka,
Japan-based trading company Tomen Corp. agreed to spend $2.5 billion
to develop the Azadegan oil field.

Michael Thomas, an adviser to the U.K. Department of Trade and
Industry, says Iran is ripe for foreign investment. “Iran has
everything the West needs: cheap energy, lots of raw material and a
large labor pool,” he says.

Statoil pursued Iran’s oil and natural gas. The North Sea reserves
that produced more than 90 percent of Statoil’s output began to
decline in 1999. Hubbard, the former executive vice president, said
in a January interview that the onus of finding new fields fell to
him as head of international exploration. Fjell and Loeddesoel
declined to comment for this story.

Meeting With Junior

In a letter given to Statoil’s board after his resignation, Hubbard
said that when he got a chance to talk with the son of Iran’s former
president, he took it. In 2001, Hubbard met Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani,
whom he called Junior, in Statoil offices in Bergen.

According to Hubbard’s Oct. 22 letter, Mehdi Hashemi asked if Statoil
would pay “a success fee” to develop the Salman oil field in the
Persian Gulf. Hubbard turned down the proposal after his development
team rejected Salman on technical and cost grounds. “Junior led us
to believe several companies had paid success fees for various
contracts,” Hubbard wrote.

Mehdi Hashemi made other proposals, Hubbard wrote. One was a plan to
divert funds to Iranian Islamic charities, or Bonyads. Hubbard
rejected those. In early 2002, he found one offer acceptable, he
wrote in his letter: Mehdi Hashemi proposed acting as Statoil’s
political adviser and said he would commission a consulting agreement
with Abbas Yazdi, 34, an Iranian who had set up Horton Investment and
was living in London. In a September interview, Yazdi confirmed that
he ran Horton.

Consulting Deal

In June 2002, Statoil and Horton Investment signed a formal agreement
for an 11-year, $15 million consulting deal, Hubbard said in the
January interview. Four months later, Statoil announced plans to
invest $300 million to drill and pump natural gas from the South Pars
field, the world’s largest, with 800 trillion cubic feet of reserves.

That December, Yazdi asked Statoil to wire $5.2 million to his
account in Turks and Caicos, according to Hubbard’s letter. A few
months later, Statoil’s internal auditors questioned the payment,
says Jan Borgen, national director for Norway at Transparency
International.

“The auditors became suspicious because of the size of the contract
and the fact that Statoil paid a 35 percent lump sum, which is
unusual,” says Borgen, who followed the case as an official at
Transparency International. The consulting agreement was for 11 years
and Statoil paid 35 percent of the value after six months, he says.

Hubbard confronted Yazdi about the transfer, he said in his letter.
Yazdi said it had always been his intention to use an offshore
account. “There was a clear understanding that companies that are
active in Iran are expected to contribute to the society one way or
another,” Hubbard wrote.

Suing Iran

Houshang Bouzari, 51, an adviser to Iran’s oil minister in the 1980s,
says doing business in Iran without paying someone in power is
impossible. When he refused to pay a bribe, he says, he wound up in a
Tehran prison. Now a Canadian citizen, Bouzari is suing the
government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for torture, abduction and
false imprisonment.

In 1988, Bouzari left his post and set up an oil trading and
consulting firm with offices in Rome and Tehran. Four years later, he
says, he began working with Saipem SpA, Europe’s second- biggest oil
field services company, and Tecnologie Progetti Lavori SpA, an
Italian subsidiary of France’s Technip SA, Europe’s largest oil field
services company.

With Bouzari’s help, the companies secured a $1.8 billion contract to
help develop Iran’s South Pars gas field, the area Hubbard targeted a
decade later. Bouzari would have made as much as $36 million, or 2
percent of the total contract, he said in February 2002 in testimony
at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where he’s taken his case
against the Iranian government.

Tortured in Prison

Instead, Bouzari got nothing. On June 1, 1993, he told the court that
three agents from Iran’s Intelligence Ministry arrested him as he was
finishing his morning coffee. They took him to Evin, a Tehran prison
where Iranian political prisoners are detained. Jailers whipped the
soles of his feet with metal cables and pushed his head in a toilet,
he testified. On three occasions, he was told to prepare for his
imminent execution, according to the court transcript.

Bouzari spent more than eight months in prison. His wife paid $3
million to Iran’s Ministry of Information before he was released,
court documents show. Bouzari then paid another $250,000 to secure
his passport. He left Iran for Rome in July 1984 and emigrated to
Canada in 1988.

Bouzari testified he was tortured because he’d refused to pay $50
million as a bribe to Mehdi Hashemi. “I didn’t believe at that time
in paying money to a government official or son of the president,”
Bouzari said.

Pressed for a Commission

In a February interview in London, Bouzari elaborated on his ordeal.
“Mehdi and Yazdi pressed me to give them a commission, but I didn’t
need the Rafsanjanis because I had done all the hard work in lining
up the contract,” he said. “I was detained and tortured illegally.
No shred of paper was ever presented to me or my family as to why I
was jailed or tortured.”

Bouzari sued in February 2002, seeking to regain the $3.25 million he
says his imprisonment cost him. That May, Judge Katherine Swinton
said she accepted the truth of Bouzari’s testimony. She ruled the
Canadian court had no jurisdiction over Iran as a sovereign nation.
In December 2003, Bouzari appealed to Ontario’s Court of Appeal,
where the case is pending. While he waits, he has set up the
International Coalition Against Torture, which aims to end
state-sponsored abuse.

“I would have been killed had I tried to take this action in Iran,”
Bouzari says.

`Psychological Warfare’

Mohammad Hashemi, 52, Rafsanjani’s younger brother, dismisses such
stories. He says his family is a victim of rumors, gossip and
propaganda.

In a December interview at the former Saadabad Palace in northern
Tehran, in a complex of buildings that once belonged to the deposed
shah’s sister, Hashemi says enemies of the Islamic regime are lying
about the family wealth.

“This is part of the psychological warfare to create a rift between
the people and their government,” says Hashemi, who abandoned his
studies at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1978 to join
the revolution. He served as Iran’s vice president from 1995 to 2001
and headed state radio and television for 13 years. Today, he often
acts as family spokesman with the international press.

Tea and Almonds

“Our Mehdi has said he had nothing to do with bribery,” Hashemi
says, speaking over a snack of tea and salted almonds in a room
furnished with Louis XVI chairs, silk wallpaper and a Persian carpet.
“If foreign companies want to do business, they should do so in a
correct way without resorting to any middlemen.”

Mehdi Hashemi declined telephone, fax and e-mail requests for an
interview. In a March interview with the Shargh newspaper, a Tehran
daily, he said he had no knowledge of Horton Investment and has had
no consulting agreements with Statoil or Horton.

The discovery that a Rafsanjani figures in controversy over money and
power doesn’t surprise Ali Ansari, an Iranian lecturer in Middle
Eastern history at Exeter University in southwest England.

“Rafsanjani operates on the principle of what’s good for him is good
for the country,” says Ansari, who has written two books on Iran:
“A History of Modern Iran Since 1921: The Pahlavis and After”
(Longman, 2003) and “Iran, Islam and Democracy: The Politics of
Managing Change” (Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2000).
“His family has long tentacles.”

Rafsanjani stepped down as president in 1997 after serving Iran’s
limit of eight years. Today, he leads the religious organizations
that shadow Iran’s official government. He’s deputy chairman of the
Assembly of Experts, which appoints Iran’s Supreme Leader, the
ultimate political and religious authority. In 1999, the assembly
named Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the post.

Extending His Reach

Rafsanjani also heads the Expediency Council, which sets strategic
economic policy and mediates between parliament and the Guardian
Council, a 12-member clerical body that oversees parliament. “He is
one of the most powerful men in Iran,” Ansari says. “His reputation
is that of a Mr. Fix-it.”

Rafsanjani extends his reach through his family. Cousin Ahmad
Hashemian is managing director of the Rafsanjan Pistachio Growers
Cooperative, which dominates the $746 million pistachio export
market, according to the Web site of Iran’s Customs Ministry.

Older brother Ahmad, now retired, headed the Sarcheshmeh complex,
Iran’s largest copper mine. Another brother, Mahmud, was governor of
Qom, Iran’s most important holy city. Nephew Ali Hashemi, 43, is a
member of the parliamentary energy commission that oversees oil and
gas policy. Mohsen Rafiqdoust, 63, Rafsanjani’s brother-in-law, was
Khomeini’s driver and head of security when the ayatollah arrived
from exile.

Role of Bonyads

One way the Rafsanjanis and other clerical families maintain their
grip is through the Bonyad foundations, says Shaul Bakhash, a
visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington- based
research organization.

After the revolution, the Bonyads expropriated assets of foreigners
and the former shah’s friends, says Bakhash, who has written
extensively on Iran and is the author of “The Reign of Ayatollahs:
Iran and the Islamic Revolution” (Basic Books, 1984).

Companies under Bonyad control account for as much as a third of
Iran’s economy, he says. The Bonyads don’t disclose their accounting
or pay taxes; they get subsidized loans and report only to the
Supreme Leader, he says. “The economic power structure is even more
opaque than the political system,” Bakhash says. “The Bonyads
funnel money to senior religious figures for patronage and suspected
clandestine activities.”

Links to Terrorism?

The Bonyads have been linked with funding terror organizations, he
says. In 1989, Bonyad 15 Khordad offered $1 million to any
non-Iranian who carried out Khomeini’s charge to kill author Salman
Rushdie for writing “The Satanic Verses” (Viking Press, 1989), a
novel that mocks the prophet Mohammad. Over the years, the bounty has
increased to $2.8 million.

Rafiqdoust, Rafsanjani’s brother-in-law, headed the biggest Bonyad
for more than 10 years, until 1999. The Bonyad Mostazfan and
Janbazan, or Foundation for the Oppressed and War Invalids, owns the
former Hilton and Hyatt hotels in Tehran; Zam-Zam, Iran’s largest
soft drink company; Bonyad Shipping Co., a global shipper with
offices in London and Athens; and industrial plants and real estate,
according to its Web site.

A 2000 World Bank report put the value of BMJ assets at $3.5 billion;
Iranian economist Mohammad Jamsaz, a consultant to Iran’s Chamber of
Commerce, estimates the number is closer to $12 billion.

Student of Khomeini

Rafsanjani gained entry to Iran’s political and religious elite early
on. He was one of nine children born into a pistachio farming family
from the village of Bahraman, near Rafsanjan, a dusty town in central
Iran. When he was 14, his parents sent him to Qom, a seminary town on
the northern fringes of the Dasht-e Kavir Desert.

Khomeini taught classes there, and Rafsanjani studied Islamic law,
morality and mysticism. Khomeini advocated giving clerics more say in
running the country, an interpretation that contrasted with the then
Shiite leadership, which shunned political entanglements, Bakhash
said in his book.

In 1964, Iran’s military arrested Khomeini and exiled him to Izmir,
Turkey, and Najaf, Iraq. Khomeini opposed the shah’s policies on
women’s rights and land reform, under which the government
accumulated property from Iran’s mosques. He also fought the growing
role of the U.S. military in Iran. During the next 15 years,
Rafsanjani landed in jail five times for his own activities against
the shah.

Shah’s Regime Falls

The shah’s regime fell in 1979 after his modernization plans and
links to the U.S. sparked a revolution. Khomeini returned as a
national hero and pushed his idea that only the religious class may
rule. An assembly composed of 82 percent clerics changed Iran’s
constitution to create an Islamic republic.

Rafsanjani stayed at the center of power. He was a member of the
Revolutionary Council, which ordered executions of officials in the
shah’s regime, Bakhash writes. He was speaker of the Majlis, Iran’s
parliament, for nine years. He acted as Khomeini’s representative on
the Supreme Defense Council — or war cabinet – – during the
eight-year war with Iraq. The war ended in a stalemate in 1988,
leaving a million casualties. In 1989, Rafsanjani was elected
president, replacing Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader.

Today, Rafsanjani’s two terms are remembered for corruption and
nepotism, says Mehdi Haeri, a lawyer in Bochum, Germany. Haeri,
himself a former student of Khomeini and a classmate of President
Khatami at Qom Theology School, spent four years in jail for
criticizing Khomeini’s ideas on Islamic rule.

In 1997, Haeri testified before the U.S. House International
Relations Committee in favor of continuing U.S. sanctions against
Iran. “In every major industry and in every financial activity, you
find the Rafsanjani family somehow connected,” Haeri said.

Prevalence of Bribes

Siamak Namazi, managing director of Tehran-based consulting firm
Atieh Bahar Consulting, says bribes are prevalent in Iran. “In a
country where you have to pay off the postman to make sure your
international packages are delivered, bribes can be a way of life,”
says Namazi, who counts Nokia Oyj and BP Plc as clients.

Nokia, the world’s biggest mobile-phone maker, sells handsets in Iran
and is seeking a contract to expand cell phone coverage. BP, Europe’s
biggest oil company, is negotiating with the oil ministry for
drilling rights.

`Zero Tolerance’

BP spokesman Toby Odone says his company doesn’t pay success fees or
bribes. Nokia spokeswoman Arja Suominen says the company and
employees won’t pay bribes or illicit payments to government
officials or candidates.

“You have to have zero tolerance toward bribery,” she says. Namazi
says he advises clients not to pay to win business. “I would advise
against paying a bribe,” he says. “You’ll only bring fire upon
yourself.”

At Statoil, CEO Fjell’s resignation makes the case for Namazi’s
statement. “Looking back, I see that I entered an ethical
borderland,” Fjell said at his September farewell news conference in
Stavanger. “This particular agreement shouldn’t have been made. I’m
struggling with the fact that I could allow that to happen.”

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Hossein Adeli says the
Statoil episode would have blown over had the company been more open.
A former central bank governor and ambassador to Canada, Adeli takes
a deep breath, searching for the right words.

“If a Western company wants to come to Iran, should they pay someone
to show them around and to help them navigate the Iranian market?
Absolutely,” he says. “They have to pay. The only thing Statoil did
wrong was to keep the payments a secret.”

Foreign investors may not be so generous in their assessment. “If
there’s a feeling a country has corrupt officials, it’s bad for
investors,” says Karina Litvack, head of governance at Isis Asset
Management Plc, a London fund manager with about 62 billion pounds
($111 billion) under management, including Statoil shares. “It makes
it risky because corruption breeds lawlessness.”

Investors seeking riches in Iran are likely to run up against the
Rafsanjanis. The challenge is to avoid the pitfalls.

To contact the reporter on this story:
–Kambiz Foroohar in London at [email protected]

To contact the editor of this story:
Ron Henkoff at [email protected]

Negotiations Resumed

A1 Plus | 16:33:19 | 20-04-2004 | Politics |

NEGOTIATIONS RESUMED

On the initiative of Raffi Hovhannissyan, first Foreign Minister of Armenia,
Opposition-Coalition dialogue resumed.

Intellectuals and members of Parliament “People’s Deputy” group appeared as
a mediator for the meeting. Journalists were forbidden to enter the
building. We will later obtain information about the agreements achieved
during the talks.

Let’s remind that Opposition representatives think the negotiations won’t
have serious results since Coalition can’t influence upon Robert Kocharyan.

“Rescue Of Nation” Ready for Violence

A1 Plus | 15:57:36 | 20-04-2004 | Politics |

“RESCUE OF NATION” READY FOR VIOLENCE

“We are ready to resort to even violence to get rid of these Authorities”,
Sargis Karapetyan, Chair of “Rescue of Nation” newly-established Party
announced at the press conference. {BR}

He assured their party will save Armenian people from treacherous
Authorities within 3 months. “If hotels, casinos become more in our state,
it means our state is very rich. The task is to return people what has
always belonged to them”.

Mr Karapetyan is sure Armenia now needs new apostles since no mortal is able
to take people out of crisis. Karapetyan said he’s ready to undertake the
role and announced all their supporters – the fighters of Artsakh War will
struggle till the present regime leaves. “We have toured all over Armenia
and concluded the only wish of our people is to get rid of the Authorities”.

Sargis Karapetyan said his party won’t cooperate or join any other one. “In
2001 I was eliminated from ARF for my policy against Authorities. Now I am
the Chair of the Party, which will fight for rescue of the nation”.

Work with specialists is also important

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
April 16 2004

WORK WITH SPECIALISTS IS ALSO IMPORTANT

The failure of the reforms made in the system of education in the past
decade were, perhaps, conditioned by the fact that these reforms were
the result of the political views of their authors, which turned
hollow in the course of time. Another cause of the non-correct policy
in secondary education was that the public opinion was not taken into
account, the cadres were not prepared and the reforms turned to be
artificial therefore did not stand the trial of the time. Despite
being in the same sphere with the educational system of the Republic
of Armenia, the system of education in Artsakh was able, fortunately,
to avoid major shocks. However, clinging to the traditional and
neglecting the new actualities means not looking ahead. And, on the
other hand, copying the new neglecting the traditional means starting
everything from the zero point. To imagine the school of the future
with the status of a soviet school, as most of our teachers do, is not
correct. Of course, we should adopt the best features of the soviet
school but taking into consideration the new actualities of the
world. The NKR Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport adopted a
policy which can be characterized as condensation of the best
traditions of the past at the same time implanting novelties. And this
is not so easy a process. It is possible only due to consistent work
with the specialists. According to minister Armen Sarghissian, to
implement any reform three important points are necessary: a clear-cut
program, funding and cadres. According to the minister, if the first
two are technical matters and sooner or later will be solved, the
third is more difficult to solve; the revolution should be done first
of all in their consciousness. And it turns out that it is several
times easier to carry out technical changes than spiritual. To convey
the national and local peculiarities of the new policy the ministry
pays regular visits to the regions of the republic. On April 15, 2004
the minister visited the schools of the regions of Martouni. He was
accompanied by the head of the department of education and science
A. Tovmassian, the head of the regional administration
M. Hovhannissian, the head of the department of education, culture and
sport of the regional administration S. Petrossian. One of the best
traditions of the past is providing the succession of
generations. Today this problem also exists at schools, and one of the
cornerstones of the policy of the ministry is using the experience of
the senior generation of teachers by way of their direct participation
in the school life.

SVETLANA KHACHATRIAN

NATO Incident

Nato incident

The Guardian – United Kingdom
Apr 15, 2004

An Armenian army officer attending a Nato-sponsored English language
course in Budapest was murdered by an Azerbaijani officer attending
the same course. The attack took place in February during a training
course organised under Nato’s Partnership for Peace programme.

[email protected]

Armenian opposition decisive to topple government

Armenian opposition decisive to topple government

Mediamax news agency
15 Apr 04

YEREVAN

“The Armenian opposition is not broken and will consistently struggle
for a change of power in the country,” Stepan Demirchyan, leader of
the opposition Justice bloc and People’s Party of Armenia, stated in
Yerevan today.

As Mediamax news agency reports, speaking at a briefing in the
Armenian National Assembly today, Stepan Demirchyan said that the
opposition can open up a dialogue with the authorities only after
those who used force against the peaceful protesters in Marshal
Bagramyan Avenue and those who took part in the falsification of the
presidential elections in 2003 are brought to book.

“Everything that is going on today is a continuation of the
presidential elections during which the police were also used as a
tool for suppressing the opposition,” Stepan Demirchyan stated.

A member of the political council of the Republic Party, Armenian
ex-prime minister, Aram Sarkisyan, stated today that “Robert Kocharyan
has never offered us a dialogue”. He said that if before the police
dispersed the rally on the night of 12-13 April, 90 per cent of our
country’s population were “in favour of the president’s resignation,
today this indicator has reached to 99 per cent”.

Armenian President Robert Kocharyan stated on 14 April that he regards
it as unacceptable if these statements about readiness for dialogue
resemble an ultimatum.

The head of the OSCE office in Armenia, Vladimir Pryakhin, called on
the representatives of the Armenian opposition “to be more restrained,
more moderate and ready for constructive negotiations with the
opposite side”. In his interview to the Yerevan newspaper Golos
Armenii today, Vladimir Pryakhin stated:

“Unfortunately, the leaders of the opposition are refusing any
political dialogue. In this situation, this position is not convincing
enough for me”.

Armenian Constitutional Court Again Explains its Decision

ARMENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AGAIN EXPLAINS ITS DECISION

YEREVAN, APRIL 12, ARMENPRESS: Despite the fact that the
Constitutional Court of Armenia and its chairman for many times
commented and explained the Court’s decision No. 412, dated
16.04.2003, concerning the referendum on trust to the president of
Armenia, the attempts to interpret the decision continue. According
to the press office of the Constitutional Court of Armenia these
attempts pursue political goals or result from unawareness of
constitutional justice.

The statement issued today by the press office says that the
Constitutional Court of Armenia upheld the decision of Central
Electoral Commission of Armenia No. 36-A, dated 11.03.2003, concerning
the results of presidential elections. This decision is final and
compulsory.

“When regulating a state argument, the Constitutional Court has
togive a concrete legal solution to the issue and to outline the legal
ways of regulation of social, political issues, which are of a great
importance forthe country’s legal, democratic development, basing on
the existing realities. The Constitutional Court stressed in its
decision that the possible public confrontation may greatly endanger
our country. The confrontation must be overcome democratically, one of
the ways of which is holding of a referendum, which supposes direct
usage of democracy’s potential. This was underlined as a proposal,
which is not compulsory and brings no legal consequences”, is said in
the release.

It is also stated that the Court made no decision concerning the
constitutionality of Law on Referendum. In the context of its proposal
the Court focus ed the attention of the National Assembly on this
issue, taking into consideration the European development in this
sphere.

“Currently more than 110 Constitutional Court are operating in
theworld and their decisions, without exception, contain both
imperative and additional norms. Thus the Constitutional Court of
Armenia requests to see its decision only from legal point and refrain
from making it a subject for political speculations”, says the
statement.

We’ll make a bang

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 9, 2004, Friday

WE’LL MAKE A BANG!

SOURCE: Moskovsky Komsomolets, April 7, 2004, p. 2

by Olga Bozhieva

Russian and Belarusian Antiaircraft Forces were put an alert this
morning. A command exercise of the CIS United Antiaircraft System is
under way, run right near the western borders of the Commonwealth.

No general of the Russian or Belarusian Antiaircraft Forces could be
found at their desks on day two of the exercise. All of them
descended into underground command posts to practice “joint command
of antiaircraft forces and means in a deteriorating
military-political situation.”

Needless to say, “deterioration” means unpredictable or hostile
actions on the part of the Alliance. The official legend of the
exercise is approximately like that: actions of the CIS United
Antiaircraft System when terrorists hijack foreign planes or cross
the borders of the Commonwealth.

Planes imitating the potential enemy will make runs between Russian
and Belarusian airfields allegedly trespassing and land in nearby
countries. S-300 crews and fighters of the Antiaircraft Forces will
“destroy” them on LCDs.

Actual targets will be handled next week on Ashuluk near Astrakhan.
The Belarusians set out for Ashuluk on April 12 to “open the season”.

Lieutenant General Oleg Paferov, Belarusian Air Force and
Antiaircraft Forces Commander: Up to a dozen Belarusian batteries are
involved in shooting practice every year. Russia provides the
equipment, the testing site, and targets. Belarus spends much less on
Russian military objects on its territory than what Russia spends to
allow us to make use of its testing sites and shooting grounds free
of charge.

It means that “gas” and financial problems worry Russian and
Belarusian politicians only. The military is concerned with common
military threats.

The command exercise involves:

– over 100 units and formations of the Air Force and Antiaircraft
Forces;

– over 80 aircraft from Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Russia.

Russia is represented by the Special Task Command (Moscow, and
Leningrad, Rostov, and Yekaterinburg armies of the Air Force and
Antiaircraft Forces.