Author: Kanayan Tamar

CSTO CONTINUES TO DEVELOP AS MILITARY-POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

RIA Novosti, Russia
November 10, 2004

MOSCOW, November 10 (RIA Novosti) – “After the Collective Security
Session in Astana in June 2004, the CSTO has continued to dynamically
develop as a military-political organization,” Foreign Ministry
spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said in an interview with RIA Novosti.
“The unanimous approval of a draft resolution granting the CSTO
observer status at the UN General Assembly during the UN General
Assembly 6th committee session is evidence of the CSTO’s growing
prestige as an international regional organization.”

In the run-up to the regular CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting,
Mr. Yakovenko said the CSTO was a multifunctional military-political
integration structure that included Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. The purpose of the CSTO is to
develop a system of collective security capable of effectively reacting
to any possible threats to national security of the organization’s
members.

“The questions of responding to new threats and challenges – terrorism
and other violent manifestations of extremism, drugs trafficking,
illegal migration, organized crime, etc. – take an increasingly
prominent position within the CSTO,” he said. “The CSTO Committee of
Security Council Secretaries coordinates the CSTO’s work in this area.”

“The Central Asian Collective Rapid Deployment Forces, which was
created in 2001 and comprises troops from Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, played an important role in curtailing
Islamic extremist terrorist groups’ activity in Central Asia,” he
said. “Since it was founded, the forces have become an important, or
even decisive, factor in ensuring peace and stability in Central Asia.”

MP SAYS ARMENIA’S DESIRE TO COOPERATE WITH NATO “NATURAL”

Ayots Ashkar, Yerevan
9 Nov 04

An interview with the chairman of the national security and internal
affairs commission of the National Assembly, Mger Shakhgeldyan. He
comments on NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s visit to
the region.

(Ayots Ashkar correspondent) Mr Shakhgeldyan, was Scheffer’s visit
only a fact-finding one or it had more specific purposes?

(Shakhgeldyan) I think both statements are true. The visit may be
assessed as a fact-finding one in a sense that Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
was recently elected NATO secretary-general. The new secretary-general
needed to learn positions of the three states form the point of view of
continuing and expanding further cooperation with NATO. His specific
purpose was that he needed to get familiarized with the general
situation in the region and see the potential of NATO’s participation
in the South Caucasus processes, its presence and expansion.

(Passage omitted: it will take Azerbaijan and Georgia many years to
become NATO members)

(Correspondent) At present to what extent does Armenia’s position
correspond to NATO’s aspirations and desires?

(Shakhgeldyan) Armenia has made the decision to broaden cooperation
without becoming a NATO member. But one should not forget that NATO
is also a structure that takes part in military, political and social
processes. In this sense, Armenia’s desire to continue cooperation is
absolutely natural stemming from NATO’s significant role in different
processes.

(Correspondent) What will the programme of individual cooperation
with NATO give to Armenia?

(Shakhgeldyan) As it is at the stage of development, I think it will
be correct to speak about this when it is finished and endorsed. As a
preliminary assessment, I can say that the programme will give us an
opportunity to form more flexible cooperation mechanisms proceedings
only from the interests of our state.

(Correspondent) Can we interpret this as follows: this individual
cooperation programme will also counter-balance Azerbaijan’s claims
to be a pro-NATO state and to present Armenia as an anti-NATO state
and a partner of Russia?

(Shakhgeldyan) Sometimes Azerbaijan really tries to present reality
in this way. But I think that NATO understands very well that by this
Azerbaijan is trying to create additional problems for Armenia in the
world. But the individual cooperation programme in the first place aims
to develop Armenia-NATO relations, especially that earlier we took part
in different programmes initiated by NATO. Creating a counter-balance
to Azerbaijan’s strategy in this context is a lesser problem.

Minority Phobia’ Haunts Turkey

Kurdistan Observer
Nov 8 2004

Any attempt to revise existing norms revives memories of the
non-ratified Sevres Treaty of 1920, forced through by the World War I
victors that would have divided Anatolia
FATMA DEMIRELLI – EMINE KART
Turkish Daily News / Nov 7, 2004
In 1923 the newly born Turkish Republic defined its minorities and
their rights in the historic Lausanne Treaty that was signed by
Western powers who failed to prevent the establishment of the
independent Turkish state. 81 years after Lausanne, the minority
issue is at the heart of a boiling debate and is under pressure from
outside and within.

The main outside player is the European Union, whose executive arm
the European Commission called on Turkey to expand its cultural
rights to Kurds without explicitly calling them a minority, and
complained that Alawis were not recognized as a Muslim minority.

That immediately sparked fury in Ankara, but complaints were
whispered and criticism was restrained and care was taken not to
spoil the positive atmosphere in the wake of the commission’s
historic recommendation.

At the heart of the unrest layed the fact that neither Alawis nor
Kurds were among the communities recognized as minorities under the
Lausanne Treaty, widely acclaimed as the basis of the independence
and unitary structure of the Turkish state. Thus, the commission’s
suggestions for rights for Kurds and Alawis were perceived as
potential threats to the unitary structure of the state.

The roots of sensitivities regarding minority issues are strongly
grounded in the experiences during the decline of the Ottoman Empire
and the birth of the Turkish Republic after World War I. During
Ottoman rule, Christian, Armenian and other religious communities
enjoyed autonomy in their religious activities and education.

But both the Turkish establishment and Turkish public share a
widespread belief that the Christian West then used the stick of
religion and nationalism in Eastern Europe to break up the Ottoman
Empire during the 19th and 20th centuries. Any attempt to revise
existing norms revives memories of the non-ratified Sevres Treaty of
1920, forced through by the World War I victors that would have
divided Anatolia with outright independence for the Armenians and
autonomy for the Kurds, leading to their independence.

The EU moved to calm the fears by saying the rights enjoyed by the
people were what mattered and not the “terminology,” and made it
clear Turkey would need to revise its thinking on the matter in the
light of changing international practices.

“It looks somehow not necessarily compatible with the existing
international instruments that the only minorities that Turkey
recognizes as minorities in Turkey should be non-Muslim religious
minorities and that any other minority would by definition not exist
in Turkey,” EU Commission’s representative in Ankara Ambassador
Hansjoerg Kretschmer told the Turkish Daily News in an interview.

That unrest in the state apparatus was initially kept low but Kurds,
and Alawis were quick to respond in a forceful way that rather
shocked the authors of the commission’s report and prompted
Kretschmer to admit, “I was somehow surprised by statements that are
made by representatives of Alawis and also of Kurds that they are not
a minority.”

Meaning entirely different things, representatives of both
communities agreed in rejecting the “minority” label designed for
them by the EU Commission. Alawis, citing their strong loyalty to the
secular republic and to its founder Kemal Ataturk, denounced the
“minority” description, something they felt was questioning their
firm loyalty to the state.

For Kurds, on the other hand, recognition as a minority fell short of
what they appeared to be wishing for, namely, acknowledgment of their
status as a “constituent element” of Turkey.

“We are not a minority,” Leyla Zana, a former deputy of the now
defunct People’s Democracy Party (DEHAP) told the European Parliament
in a speech upon receiving the prestigious Sakharov Prize. “Kurds are
a constituent element of the Turkish Republic,” she said.

Other Kurdish politicians emphasized that Kurds were too big a
community to be labelled as a minority, and their centuries-long
presence in Anatolia made it psychologically difficult for them to
accept minority status.

“We are talking about 20 million people who have been living in this
land for centuries. This huge number in itself and their presence for
centuries prevents them feeling like a minority group,” Hamit
Geylani, a lawyer for the pro-Kurdish Democratic People’s Party
(DEHAP), told the TDN.

“Calling for equal rights for all would not promote the
disintegration of the state; this fear is groundless. What leads to
clashes is the policy of denial,” he said.

“Provided that the state can satisfy its citizens, no one would like
to quit their own state and join another one, no matter how
geographically or ethnically close it would be. Switzerland is a very
good example,” said Serafettin Elci, former leader of the banned
Democratic Mass Party (DKP).

‘Sevres syndrome’
What marked a new stage in the debate over minorities was a report
drafted by a sub-committee of the Human Rights Advisory Board, a
government-sponsored body making recommendations to Prime Minister’s
Office.

With its sharp language criticizing the practice concerning cultural
rights, the report said the minority definition in Turkey was
restrictive, contradicting the modern-day trend that says nation
states are not to be asked if there are minorities living in their
territory and which accepts the presence of minorities in a state if
there are communities in that state who are “ethnically,
linguistically and religiously different” and feel this difference is
an inseparable part of their identity.

It said even the most innocent demands for a distinct identity have
been viewed with a “paranoid” suspicion that they are meant to divide
the country and promote terrorism, which the report described as the
“Sevres syndrome.”

The report’s blunt assessment created a storm even within the
78-member Human Rights Advisory Board, with some of its members
calling the report a “document of betrayal.” And it was that that
broke the silence of the state as well. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer,
in a message marking the anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish
Republic, warned the unitary structure of the state was an
untouchable issue and similar warnings from the influential military
followed.

“The Turkish Armed Forces [TSK] cannot accept any debate over the
unitary structure of the Turkish state, an untouchable provision of
the Constitution,” Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug told a
press conference last week.

Unleashing criticism directed to the EU — held back for weeks —
Basbug also said the EU Commission’s report was not in compliance
with the Lausanne Treaty.

“It is clear that the EU’s approach goes beyond the framework drawn
up by the Lausanne Treaty,” Basbug said, complaining that some of the
rights suggested for those communities in the EU report went beyond
cultural rights and spilled over into the “political realm.”

The ongoing debate is yet to finish and the rights and wrongs are yet
to be set, but it has already exposed fears that have haunted Turkish
minds for decades, perhaps even centuries.

But for Geylani, who is banned from politics for five years as a
member of the now defunct People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), this is a
time to cherish. “The very fact that the issue is being debated 81
years after the establishment of the Turkish Republic is the most
positive thing about the whole debate,” he said.

Eurasianet Organization
Nov. 5, 2004

ARMENIAN DEPLOYMENT IN IRAQ HAMPERED BY DOMESTIC OPPOSITION
Emil Danielyan 11/05/04

President Robert Kocharian’s administration in Armenia appears to have
pushed back plans to dispatch a contingent of non-combat troops to
Iraq. The planned deployment has generated determined domestic
opposition, with critics of the proposal cautioning that joining the
US-led coalition could endanger the small ethnic Armenian community in
Iraq.

Yerevan made what looked like a formal commitment to join the Iraq
mission during President Robert Kocharian’s official visit to Poland in
early September. The Armenian military contingent would be largely
symbolic — comprising roughly 50 military personnel, including
doctors, de-mining experts and truck drivers – and would serve under
Polish command. Poland, a staunch US ally, leads a multinational
division stationed in south-central Iraq.

Since the initial announcement, little progress has been made toward
deployment. Government officials announced in September that military
personnel would be dispatched before the end of the year. But observers
in Yerevan now wonder whether the government can meet this deadline.

A prerequisite for deployment is an inspection visit to Iraq by an
Armenian military delegation. The visit was originally slated for late
September. However, Defense Ministry spokesman, Seyran Shahsuvarian,
said on November 3 that such a mission has yet to take place.
Shahsuvarian declined to specify a reason for the delay, and would not
speculate on when the mission would occur.

Armenia’s parliament, meanwhile, has not received a formal request from
the government to authorize the troop deployment — something that is
required under the Armenian constitution. The National Assembly
ratified earlier this year an inter-governmental agreement with Kuwait
that regulates the movements of Armenian military personnel through the
Gulf state, which serves as the main logistical base for all foreign
troops deploying to Iraq.

Helping to explain the existing uncertainty is the fact that
Kocharian’s deployment plans have faced strong domestic opposition.
Kocharian critics maintain that the presences of an Armenian military
force in Iraq could prompt Iraqi insurgents to target the country’s
Armenian community, estimated at about 25,000, for reprisals. The
insurgents have already captured and killed dozens of citizens of
countries participating in the “coalition of the willing,” or otherwise
cooperating with it.

Among those opposed to the Iraq mission is Armenia’s biggest opposition
group, the Justice alliance, along with at least two dozen
non-governmental organizations. In late September, NGO representatives
issued a joint statement, cautioning that the consequences of
participation could be severe. “We risk turning a community of 25,000
people into hostages,” one of its signatories and a prominent
environmentalist, Karine Danielian, warned. Iraqi Armenians have
themselves exhorted Yerevan not to send troops. Their spiritual leader,
Archbishop Avak Asadurian, expressed their concerns in separate letters
to President Robert Kocharian and the Armenian parliament leadership.

Significantly, two senior army generals have recently voiced opposition
to deployment plans, marking a rare instance of public questioning of
government policy by members of the Armenian army’s top brass. One of
them, Deputy Army Chief-of-Staff Enrico Apriamov, implied that the
US-led invasion of Iraq had been a mistake.

Concern for the security of the Armenian community was a major reason
for the Kocharian government’s refusal to back the Anglo-American
invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Armenia welcomed the ensuing overthrow
of Saddam Hussein and publicly expressed a desire to “participate in
Iraq’s post-war reconstruction” shortly afterward. An Armenian liaison
officer was posted at the US Central Command in Florida in late 2003 –
a move widely seen as a prelude to the troop dispatch.

The commitment to deployment among Kocharian allies appears to remain
strong – at least publicly. In recent televised remarks Defense
Minister Serge Sarkisian said that while shares the critics’ security
concerns he believes that siding with the United States on Iraq is
vital for Armenia’s national interests. Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanian, for his part, argues that the Armenian participation would be
solely “humanitarian” in nature. Another Armenian leader, Parliament
Speaker Artur Baghdasarian, noted on October 29 that the United States
has provided more than $1.5 billion in economic assistance to Armenia
since independence, hinting that Yerevan should somehow express
appreciation for the American largesse.

Some pro-government media commentators say deployment should be
considered by Armenians as a geopolitical necessity. They note that
Armenia’s neighbors, Azerbaijan and Georgia, already have hundreds of
troops on the ground in Iraq. Deployment could help Armenia complement
its military alliance with Russia with closer security ties with the
United States and the West in general. A cosmetic Armenian military
presence in Iraq, they add, is important for ensuring US neutrality in
the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

Some are skeptical that a troop contribution will produce greater
political and economic support from the United States. Alexander
Arzumanian, Armenia’s former pro-Western foreign minister and an
opponent of deployment, believes that risks far outweigh the possible
geopolitical dividends. “I just don’t see anything tangible we can get
now in return for putting at risk the lives of a large number of
Armenians,” Arzumanian told EurasiaNet.

Ultimately, it may turn out that decisions made in Poland will
influence Armenia’s final decision on deployment. Polish leaders are
pondering whether to scale down its 2,500-strong military force in
Iraq, or even withdraw it altogether by the end of 2005. Polish Defense
Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski called for a complete troop pullout in a
newspaper interview last month. Although other officials in Warsaw,
notably President Aleksander Kwasniewski, were quick to disavow the
statement, continued Polish military presence in Iraq is now in serious
doubt.

Armenia’s Prime Minister Andranik Markarian had that in mind when he
told reporters recently, “After clarifying some questions we may go
ahead or not go ahead [with the deployment]. Everything will depend on
the situation.”

Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer

Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

REPRESENTATIVES OF WORLD VISION VISIT CILICIAN CATHOLICOSATE

Antelias, Lebanon – Representatives of World Vision visited His Holiness
Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia, in Antelias, Lebanon, on Tuesday, November 2.
Also in attendance was Bishop Kegham Khatcherian, Primate of Lebanon.

The representatives presented an overview of their various international
programs. His Holiness praised their work and emphasized the importance of
the organization working together with the churches.

World Vision International, established in 1950, is a Christian relief and
development organization working for the well being of all people,
especially children. World Vision helps communities help themselves through
emergency relief, education, health care, economic development and promotion
of justice.

##

The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

NATO chief rules out plans on bases in Azerbaijan

Turan news agency
5 Nov 04

BAKU

“I have had productive meetings with the Azerbaijani leadership,
including tete-a-tete talks with President Ilham Aliyev, and I am very
pleased with the results,” NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer has said opening his news conference at Baku airport before
leaving Azerbaijan.

The subject of the talks was plans for further cooperation between
NATO and Azerbaijan in the light of the Individual Partnership Action
Plan. “We have exchanged opinions, now both we and you have a big home
task which needs to be seriously worked on,” the secretary-general
said. He said that the sphere of cooperation ranged from projects
within the framework of restoring the Great Silk Road and
environmental protection to scientific research.

“The Karabakh problem was also discussed, but it is known that NATO is
not engaged in this issue and is not going to be involved. NATO
respects Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, but it is up to the OSCE
Minsk Group to deal with the settlement of the problem, and the
alliance does not interfere in this process,” Scheffer said.

Asked about whether he had discussed the holding of a seminar of the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Baku and the possible presence at the
event of Armenian MPs, Scheffer answered affirmatively. “NATO
principles are widely known, and I think that they will be put into
practice. This means that every participant in the Partnership for
Peace Programme can take part in all projects within the framework of
the programme, and in this seminar as well,” the secretary-general
said.

As for the cancellation of the Cooperative Best Effort 2004 exercises
in Baku in September [2004], Scheffer said: “I made this decision
after a telephone conversation with Ilham Aliyev”.

“NATO is not planning to set up military bases in Azerbaijan,”
Scheffer said, commenting on reports in a number of western media in
this regard. As for the Individual Partnership Action Plan with
Azerbaijan, this is “a very expanded programme” that envisages serious
reforms in the army and the defence system in general, as well as
ensuring the rule of law and respect for human rights.

The Messenger, Georgia
Nov. 3, 2004

Zhvania agrees to Georgia-Abkhazia railway

Tbilisi officials say restoration currently impossible owing to tense
situation in Abkhazia
By Keti Sikharulidze

Russian Minister of Transport and Communications Igor Levitin was in
Tbilisi on November 1 to discuss the possible reopening of the
Georgia-Russia railway link through Abkhazia.

He met with Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania, Head of the railway
department David Onoprishvili and Minister of Economy Kakha Bendukidze
to discuss the issue, and afterwards Zhvania announced that an
agreement had been reached, and that experts would begin considering
the reopening of the railway link.

However, the prime minister added that reopening the link is currently
impossible, due to the tense situation in the breakaway republic.
Restoring the railway seems impossible “until the situation becomes
clear and calm in Abkhazia,” he stated.

Onoprishvili confirmed Zhvania’s comments, saying that it had been
agreed in principle to reopen the railway link, but that this was
impossible at the present time owning to the situation in Abkhazia.
Once stability has been restored, “a group of experts will be created
that will work out these issues,” he said.

The railway through Abkhazia was destroyed during the Georgian-Abkhaz
war in 1992, but in September the Abkhazia-Russia section was reopened.
Tbilisi protested against this, saying that it violated the 2002 Sochi
agreement between Russia and Georgia, which envisaged the reopening of
the railway in parallel with the return of Georgian refugees to the
Abkhaz region of Gali.

Neither Zhvania nor Onoprishvili made any mention of the return of
Georgian refugees, however, leading some Georgians to express concern
regarding the agreement.

The announcement was met with cautious approval by the opposition
Industrialist Party, who welcomed the positive impact the railway would
have on the Georgian economy, but said that it should be restored only
after Georgian refugees from Abkhazia are able to return.

One of the leaders of the Industrialists Zurab Tkemaladze told The
Messenger that his party “likes the idea of the government reopening
the railway line between Tbilisi and Sokhumi, but with the condition
that Georgian refugees are allowed to return, first to the Gali and
then to other regions of Abkhazia as well.”

“The problem is that we can’t be sure Russia will keep such a promise
and will deceive the Georgian side once more,” Tkemaladze warned.

“On the whole, however, I like the idea, because it would be good for
the country from the point of view of industry,” he said.

The reopening of the railway will also affect the economies of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, and before traveling to Tbilisi, Levitin visited both
countries, where his proposal that the railway the reopened met with a
warm welcome.

“I was in Baku and Yerevan where I received support from the ministers
of transport and the presidents of both countries. And I am also
pleased to announce that the Georgian side agreed to renew the former
Caucasus railway line and I am glad that we found mutual cooperation,”
Levitin told Imedi.

Levitin also added that this railway line would help boost the movement
of passengers and the movement of goods, and thus the Georgia economy.

It is unclear how much the restoration of the railway will cost, and
who will pay for it.

The restoration of the Abkhazia-Russia section cost several million
rubles, and the Russian side said the Tbilisi-Sokhumi leg would cost
more because it has several bridges.

The Georgian side said that its experts would estimate the total costs
of the project, and that each country (including Azerbaijan and
Armenia) would be responsible for paying for the restoration of
sections of the railway passing through its own territory.

As well as railway communications, the two sides also discussed
problems connected with the ferry route between Poti and the Russian
port in Sochi.

Minister of Economy Kakha Bendukudze expressed his satisfaction with
the negotiations regarding both the sea and railway links, as well as
the memorandum signed by himself, Zhvania and Levitin.

Anadolu Agency, Turkey
Nov. 1, 2004

Administrators Of Group Of The Greens In Germany Due In Turkey
Anadolu Agency: 11/1/2004
ANKARA – Administrators of the Group of the Greens/European Free
Alliance in Germany will visit Turkey this week, the German Embassy in
Ankara said on Monday.

The German Embassy stated that a German delegation chaired by Claudia
Roth, co-chairperson of the Group, would visit capital Ankara,
commercial hub Istanbul, and southeastern cities of Diyarbakir and
Sirnak.

The delegation will start their meetings in Turkey tomorrow (Tuesday),
and be received by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul.

The group will also meet Murat Sungar, Turkey’s secretary general for
the European Union (EU); Mehmet Elkatmis, chairman of Turkish
Parliamentary Human Rights Commission; Mehmet Dulger, chairman of
Turkish Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Commission; Yasar Yakis, chairman
of Turkish Parliamentary EU Adjustment Commission; deputies of the main
opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP); and human rights
organizations tomorrow.

After their meetings in Ankara, the German delegation will proceed to
Istanbul to meet representatives of business circles, the Fener Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate and Armenian Patriarchate.

A part of the Greens group will depart from Turkey after their meetings
in Istanbul, while Claudia Roth and Winfried Nachtwei will go to
Diyarbakir on Wednesday.

Administrators of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in
Germany will meet Sirnak Governor Osman Gunes, Sirnak Mayor Ahmet
Ertak, Diyarbakir Governor Efkan Ala and Diyarbakir Mayor Osman
Baydemir on Thursday.

The remaining officials of the delegation are expected to return to
Germany on Friday.

Civil Georgia, Georgia
Oct 30, 2004

Russia Concerned over Visa Delays for its Troops in Georgia

The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern on October 30
regarding, as Moscow put it, Georgia’s `delay’ to grant entry visas to
the Russian servicemen, who are expected to be deployed in the Russian
military base in southern Georgian town of Akhalkalaki.

`We think that the delay in granting of visas to Russian servicemen and
their families is unjustified and politically motivated. We hope that
official Tbilisi will take a constructive position in this regard,’ the
Russian Foreign Ministry information note issued on October 30, reads.

`Granting of visas needs particular time,’ the Georgian Foreign
Ministry official told Civil Georgia. Official said that the Ministry
will make a statement regarding the issue on November 1.

Reportedly, over 400 servicemen, currently deployed on the Russian
military base in the Armenian city of Gyumri, are waiting for the
Georgian entry visas.

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s information note, Georgia
explains delay in issuing visas with the fact that the number of
Russian servicemen, which will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, exceeds the
number of those soldiers, which will be replaced.

Deputy Commander of the Headquarters of Group of Russian Troops in
Trans Caucasus, Col. Vladimir Kuparadze told Russian daily Nezavisimaya
Gazeta that in previous years there were less soldiers at the
Akhalkalaki military base than it is considered with the agreement
between Russia and Georgia.

`Now more soldiers will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, but their numbers
will not exceed those envisaged by the agreement,’ Col. Kuparadze said.

VOICE OF RUSSIA RE-ESTABLISHES ITSELF ON THE CIS AIRWAVES

ITAR-TASS news agency
29 Oct 04

Moscow, 29 October: One of the top priorities of Voice of Russia,
which has represented its country on the international airwaves for
75 years, is a direct dialogue with its listeners, a spokesman for
this state broadcaster, Armen Oganesyan, said today at the close of
the Radio Without Frontiers conference, which gathered directors and
presidents of foreign radio companies.

Voice of Russia carries 400 programmes on various aspects of life
in the country, broadcasting 115 hours a day in Russian and 31
foreign languages. It has a global audience of 109m in over 160
countries, and from its Internet site transmits live programmes in
17 languages. Experts confidently place Voice of Russia among the
top three world broadcasters, alongside the BBC and Voice of America.

In the post-Soviet zone, Voice of Russia has filled the niche left
by the departure from that zone of some Russian media outlets. Its
breakthrough into the CIS airwaves came two years ago with the creation
of its Sodruzhestvo (Commonwealth) channel, but it has only now gained
the opportunity to broadcast on FM. Voice of Russia programmes are
now available in Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan, and the station began domestic broadcasting in Azerbaijan
in October this year.