RA DoD Organized 5 Bus Routes For Visiting Yerblur on 12/31/04

RA MINISTRY OF DEFENSE TO ORGANIZE 5 BUS ROUTES FOR VISITING “YERABLUR”
PANTHEON ON DECEMBER 31

YEREVAN, December 30 (Noyan Tapan). The RA Ministry of Defense will
organize the visit of the “Yerablur” pantheon for the relatives of
perished freedom fighters at the New Year’s night. According to press
service of the RA Ministry of Defense, buses given for this purpose
will go on the following routes. Route N1 – the Lamp Plant –
“Barekamutiun” station – the Sport-Concert Complex – “Yerablur”. Route
N2 – Nork Massiv (“Radiotechnique” shop) – the Avan-Arinj highway –
the “Airarat” movie house – the Railway station – the “Airenik” movie
house – “Yerablur”. Route N3 – 6th Nork Massiv – Erebuni – Nzhde
square – “Yerablur” Route N4 – Nork Massiv (market) – Victory Park –
Opera – Mashtots Avenue – “Yerablur”. Route N5 – Davidashen market –
the Republican hospital – Malatia – “Yerablur”.

Armenia: The Crush of Global Pressures

Stratfor.com

Armenia: The Crush of Global Pressures
December 28, 2004 1815 GMT

Summary

The former Soviet republic of Armenia, located at the crushing center
of a series of geopolitical tectonic plates, is on the cusp of a
massive change. But unlike many of the other former Soviet republics
that are choosing between Russia and the West, Armenia’s choice is not
nearly as clear-cut — and its future will be free of the decisive
paths that may be available to other states.

Analysis

Armenia is a former Soviet republic in trouble. Its economy holds
little prospect, its people are leaving in droves and its geopolitical
space is under siege. The one factor that has helped it keep its head
above water to date is Russian sponsorship. But, as Russia racks up
geopolitical defeats, that too could soon give way.

The South Caucasus that Armenians call home is where the Russian,
Turkish and Iranian geopolitical plates converge, putting the small
states there under enormous — and continuous — pressure. Georgia and
Azerbaijan have opted to look not just to Turkey next door, but also
to Europe and the United States. Such connections make Iran —
clerical regime or not — hostile to both states, a factor that is
only enflamed when one considers that nearly a quarter of Iran’s
population is actually of Azerbaijani ethnicity.

Armenia, for reasons of war, history, and the 1915 Armenian Genocide
by the Turks, naturally looks to Iran, and especially similarly
Orthodox Christian Russia to counterbalance itself against its hostile
eastern and western neighbors.

Under the Soviet system, Armenia received its oil from Azerbaijan and
traded (as part of the Soviet Union) with Turkey. As the Soviet era
ended, however, Armenia became embroiled in a war with Azerbaijan over
the fate of Nogorno-Karabakh, a majority Armenian enclave within
Azerbaijani territory. Armenia — or if you believe Yerevan’s public
relations, Armenian volunteers supporting the Karabakh Armenians —
won the war and continues to control a large western slice of
Azerbaijani territory contingent to it. But Turks, who consider
Azerbaijanis their ethnic kin based on historical, ethnic and
linguistic grounds, slapped on a near-total embargo, limiting
Armenia’s trade options to only Georgia to the north and Iran to the
south.

Armenia has refused to negotiate down from this untenable geopolitical
position. After winning the Nogorno-Karabakh war, Armenian leaders —
backed by a fiery nationalism that is quite popular among Armenians
within both the country and the diaspora — have refused to seriously
negotiate a peace agreement with Azerbaijan that might end the
military standoff.

To be fair, the Azerbaijanis have not exactly been extending olive
branches either, but Baku believes that ultimately its oil and natural
gas revenues will allow it to build up a military force capable of
recapturing its lost territory. It likely is correct. Armenia, on the
other hand, is an economic basket case dependent upon diaspora support
for one-fifth of its gross domestic product. Nearly one-third of
Armenians have emigrated abroad to look for better opportunities since
independence in 1991, the sharpest population decline anywhere in the
world. Only three million remain. There are eight million Azerbaijanis
and 69 million Turks.

To sustain its political and military positions, Armenia largely is
dependent upon Russia, as the source of nearly all of its energy and
its de facto security guarantor. Russia’s commitment to the Armenian
relationship will soon begin to falter, and with it, quite possibly
Armenia’s chances for survival.

The dawning problem is one that Armenian President Robert Kocharian
has foreseen. In October 1999 there was a paramilitary attack against
the Armenian Parliament that resulted in the deaths of several members
of the country’s mostly pro-Russian political faction; Russia took
advantage of the situation to send special forces troops in and cement
its political influence in the small country. The attack and Moscow’s
reaction to it shook Kocharian’s view of the Russians as a dependable
ally. After all, if the Russians could not prevent its most ardent
supporters from harm, and would take advantage of Armenian instability
to strengthen its grip, was Russian protection really worth it?

Kocharian, always a moderate on the issue of Russia, began quietly
reaching out to other potential power centers in an attempt to balance
foreign interests in Yerevan.

But the coming crisis has little to do with Armenian desires of
balance, and everything to do with a new world being forced upon the
small country. In 2005 the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline will
activate, and within two years its sister project, the Shah Deniz
natural gas pipeline, will most likely also enter operation. The two
parallel lines will transport Azerbaijani energy west through Georgia
and Turkey and then on to global markets. Azerbaijan and Georgia will
then be getting all of their energy needs from the two projects and
will no longer need to import any energy from Russia’s Caucasian
network.

Once that happens, Armenia will no longer be able to depend upon
Russian deliveries. On one hand, the economics of maintaining the
network of supplying Armenia — which does not even border Russia —
are questionable unless Russia can also ship petroleum to Azerbaijan
and Georgia. Economies of scale and all that.

More importantly, the Georgians are not particularly fond of Russians.
Once they have a reliable alternative to the purchase of Russian
natural gas, they are very likely — just as the Moldovans,
Ukrainians, Belarusians and Transdnesiterians have done before them —
to siphon supplies bound for elsewhere (i.e. Armenia) from the Russian
supply line that crosses their territory. That will put Russia in the
awkward position of either subsidizing a geopolitical foe, or cutting
off supplies to Armenia to spite Georgia.

Even worse than the energy issue, Georgia may soon be causing problems
for Russia’s military deployment in Armenia. Already Georgian
authorities — with full Western support — are blocking Russia from
resupplying and rotating new troops into its Georgian military base in
Akhalkalaki near the Armenian border. Once the Russians are forced out
of Akhalkalaki, as seems likely, it will become an open question
whether Tbilisi will impinge upon Russia’s ability to keep its
Armenian forces supplied.

Either way Russia’s most significant contributions to Armenian
security are about to fall into jeopardy, and, fate in the Caucasus
being a fickle thing, the Armenians must plan accordingly.

Armenia is preparing for a possible future without Russian sponsorship
in two ways. First, it is looking to its other traditional backer,
Iran, to fill the gap. The Armenians and the Iranians already are
putting together an alternative natural gas supply line to keep the
lights on in Yerevan. Unlike Russia, Iran actually borders Armenia, so
maintaining a new network is not an overburdening expense. Unlike the
massive trans-Caucasus network that connects Armenia to Russia, the
Iranian-Armenian project only requires a mere $30 million, 26-mile
pipe linking the countries’ networks together.

But Iran can never be Russia: their cultures are too dissimilar and,
unlike Russia, Iran lacks the ability to project power in a way that
might dissuade Azerbaijan or Turkey from working against Armenia. Iran
favors Armenia over its Shiite compatriots in Azerbaijan because it is
concerned about maintaining supremacy over the Turkic minority within
its own country and as a lever to keep Azerbaijan and Turkey
physically separated. It is a relationship based upon mutual interest,
but unlike Azerbaijan and its Turkish sponsor, the two are not willing
to sacrifice anything — certainly not blood — for each other. Even
if they wanted to, their military projection capabilities are
questionable to say the least.

Military intimidation in the Caspian is something that has already
backfired horrendously on the Iranians. In 2001, Iran fired warning
shots at Baku-based ships prospecting near the Iranian-Azerbaijani sea
border. Turkey responded by helping Azerbaijan host military
exercises. When it was over, several advanced fighter jets, complete
with Turkish pilots, remained behind.

Undercutting the commitment of the gas line, Iran is even working to
pipe some Turkmen gas to the Armenian market so that should Armenia
default on its energy debts — as it has in the past — Iran will be
left holding the transit fees, but Turkmenistan the energy bill.

Second, Armenia is extending Washington a tentative hand, and what
better way to do it than to support the current administration’s
primary international project? On Dec. 4, the Armenian Parliament
voted to empower Kocharian to send a small team — 46 support
personnel — to participate in the Iraqi occupation coalition. The
contingent will not be seeing any combat, and the entire affair has
been carefully orchestrated (with the United States paying for the
whole thing).

This puts Armenia on the long list of former Soviet republics and
clients which have sought to trade the Kremlin for the West: Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia,
Serbia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and most recently — and loudly —
Ukraine.

Unlike all of these states, however, Armenia cannot fully choose the
Western path.

Armenia, unlike the states aforementioned states, is not
geographically proximate to the Western states. And unlike Azerbaijan
and Georgia (who share this characteristic), Armenia has no oil
(unlike Azerbaijan) and has missed out on its chance to be a transit
route that could ship petroleum westward (unlike Georgia).

Moreover, for Armenia to truly make a go at Westernizing, it would
have to bury the hatchet with Turkey and Azerbaijan, which would mean,
at a minimum, withdrawing the bulk of its forces — volunteers — from
internationally-recognized Azerbaijani territory. In addition to that
being a non-starter at home, it would enrage the Armenian diaspora,
endangering the one international advantage that Armenia enjoys; the
diaspora’s economic support is the only thing that keeps the Armenian
economy in its pseudo-functional shape.

This commits Armenia to strategic ambiguity out of circumstance rather
than design. Russia is being cut off, the West is for all practical
purposes out of reach, and Iran is so fundamentally different that
though Armenia can be a good neighbor it could never really be a
client. Winds of change are blowing in Armenia. Russia is more
strategically distant than ever, and the West’s strategy of triggering
soft revolutions a la Georgia and Ukraine has proven reliable.
Armenia’s next presidential elections are in 2006.

Winds of change are blowing in Armenia; it is not clear whether
Armenia will survive them.

Glendale: Interest low for board seats

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Dec 29 2004

Interest low for board seats

Candidates include Armond Agakhani, Hoover alum Larry Miller and
parent Naira Khachatrian.

By Darleene Barrientos, News-Press and Leader

GLENDALE – The public school board race is not generating nearly the
same type of interest as the City Council and city clerk elections.

As of Tuesday, only incumbents Greg Krikorian and Chuck Sambar have
announced their intention to run for the three open seats on the
Glendale Unified School District board. That’s in contrast to the
crowded city races, where 10 are in line for the four open City
Council seats and six want to be city clerk.

“It is curious. It’s very curious,” said Patty Scripter, president of
the Parent Teacher Assn. of Glendale. “I’m hoping somebody will step
up, but it’s a big commitment, and there are a lot of issues facing
the school board that will make it a challenge.”

There are a few potential candidates, but they won’t confirm whether
they will run.

One of those possible candidates is Armond Agakhani, former field
representative for Assemblyman Dario Frommer and chairman of the
city’s parks, recreation and community services commission.

“I’m giving it serious consideration,” Agakhani said. “You will hear
something by the beginning of January.”

Another potential candidate was Naira Khachatrian, president of the
Armenian Parents Committee and frequent critic of the district’s
English Language Development program and Medi-Cal billing practices.

“I can’t answer that right now,” Khachatrian said. “We will wait to
see what’s going on.”

Sambar said he has been talking to people, encouraging them to run
for the spot board clerk Lina Harper will leave vacant when she steps
down in April. Hoover alumnus Larry Miller is also considering a run,
Sambar said. Efforts to reach Miller for comment were unsuccessful.

Scripter said she hopes a candidate with a similar background to
Harper’s will come forward.

“We’re hoping for someone with Lina Harper’s expertise,” she said.

ANKARA: Armenia Sends Special Military Team to Iraq

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Dec 27 2004

Armenia Sends Special Military Team to Iraq
JTW (27 December 2004)

Armenian Defense Minister Serge Sarkisyan said that Armenia would
send 46 military experts to Iraq to operate as part of the Polish
contingent. The minister said that the U.S. command and the Polish
division would arrange logistics support, medical services, housing
and utilities for the Armenian experts. The Armenian Defense Ministry
received approval from parliament to
send the experts to Iraq for a year.

There is an Armenian minority group in Iraq, and according to the
Iraq experts, Armenians in Iraq will be under threat after the
decision. The Iraqi resistance groups see the states that send
soldiers to Iraq `hostile’ and make attacks against these countries
as seen in the Madrid Case.

Armenia is a relatively poor and the country has been suffering from
economic catastrophes. Analyzers say the decision was taken in order
to attract the American support for Armenia in the Caucasus:

`Armenia takes a high risk by sending military peoples to Iraq. Iraqi
militants may attack Armenian targets in Armenia and around the
world. Apart from this kind of attacks, Yerevan must consider the
safety of the Armenian minority in Iraq. The arrival of Armenian
military people to Iraq will put the Armenians in Iraq at risk’ said
Dr. James Trivar, international politics expert. According to Trivar,
the Armenian military team could be perceived as a contribution to
occupation of Iraq by US led countries.

Tehran wants to develop military cooperation with Azerbaijan

Tehran wants to develop military cooperation with Azerbaijan

AFX Asia (Focus)
Dec 23, 2004

BAKU (AFX) – Iran wants to develop military cooperation with
neighbouring Azerbaijan, Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said
after meeting his Azeri counterpart Safar Abbiyev.

The Azeri minister was invited to visit Tehran. The defence ministry
said consultations on military cooperation between the two countries’
would continue.

Armenian paper accuses Azeri leader of provocative comments on tiesw

Armenian paper accuses Azeri leader of provocative comments on ties with Russia

Ayots Ashkhar, Yerevan
22 Dec 04

Text of unattributed report by Armenian newspaper Ayots Ashkhar on
22 December headlined “Aliyev’s provocation”

We would not have paid attention to the statement made by the chairman
of the Russian State Duma, Boris Gryzlov, in Yerevan that Armenia is
Russia’s outpost in the South Caucasus, if it were not for [Azerbaijani
President] Ilham Aliyev’s comments.

Aliyev’s attempt to describe Boris Gryzlov’s idea as something that
allegedly casts a doubt on Armenia’s independence was a well-thought
out and careful provocation addressed to the world community, as well
as to relevant “listeners” of the “Armenian audience”.

Addressing the world community, Ilham Aliyev first aimed to attract
Western countries’ attention to the word “outpost”. As is known, in
the recent period, the main trend in processes in CIS countries has
been a certain limitation of Russia’s influence on the post-Soviet
area. So within the framework of this process of forming a negative
attitude towards Armenia, it was advantageous to Aliyev to change
intentionally the meaning of the word “outpost” used by Gryzlov,
describing it as something that questions Armenia’s independence.

But the point is that the word “outpost” means that a certain state
in any specific region is a reliable point of support for this or
that superpower. For instance, for tens of years Israel has been
considered to be the USA’s outpost in the Middle East, but this does
not at all mean that Arab countries are dealing with a state that
has lost its independence.

Incidentally, the West did not bother to reply to Aliyev’s
comments, while some forces in Armenia are speculating on them with
pleasure. They even tried to assess this fact as a slap in the face
of independent Armenia from the Azerbaijani president and as an
obvious disgrace.

Incidentally, how will they respond if these forces and functionaries,
which have obvious pro-Western orientation, come to power tomorrow and
if any American official says for instance that “Armenia is the USA’s
outpost in the South Caucasus” or “Armenia is an outpost of the West”.

Certainly, it was absolutely expectable that a member of the Armenian
Pan-National Movement, David Shakhnazaryan, commented on this, saying
that not Armenia, but its current authorities are Russia’s outpost
in the South Caucasus. But how should we understand the statements
of some top officials that “the Republic of Armenia is a sovereign
state and cannot be an outpost of any country”? And they make such
statements at the moment when, for instance, the leadership of Georgia
is trying to prove by all means that Georgia is an outpost of the
West in the South Caucasus. Can we conclude that Georgia is trying
to give up its sovereignty? Or is it really advantageous to Georgia
to have such status?

Incidentally, for many years Armenia has been an outpost of the West in
the whole of Asia. Maybe time has come for us to think that remaining
Russia’s outpost in parallel with the improvement of Russia-West
relations, we shall be able to restore our traditional status of the
West’s outpost as well and strengthen our own positions.

These responses to Ilham Aliyev’s simple provocation testify that due
to our politicians’ different orientation they do not understand or
do not want to accept the simple fact that in the modern world, being
an outpost of any superpower that has strong nuclear potential is not
only a serious security guarantee, but also an obvious advantage in
comparison with neighbours.

Armavia Starts Flights In Six New Directions In January, 2005

ARMAVIA STARTS FLIGHTS IN FIX NEW DIRECTIONS IN JANUARY, 2005

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 21. ARMINFO. The national air carrier of Armenia,
Armavia company, will start flights in six new directions in January,
2005, the company’s press-service informs ARMINFO.

According to the source, these are the flights U8-303/304
Yerevan-Dubai-Yerevan on Wednesdays and Saturdays at 00:30,
U8-305/306 Yerevan-Beirut-Yerevan on Wednesday at 22:50, U8-
101/107 Yerevan-Paris-Yerevan on Mondays and Thursdays at 05:00,
U8-105/106 Yerevan-Athens-Yerevan on Saturdays at 06:35, U8-888/889
Yerevan-St.Petersburg-Yerevan on Saturdays at 16:35 and U8-855-856
Yerevan-Kiev-Yerevan ¬ on Thursdays at 7:00.

The first flight Yerevan-Paris-Yerevan is fixed on January
3. Armavia Press Secretary Garik Siroyan states that Armavia will
carry out non-stop flights from Yerevan to Beirut, Dubai, Paris,
Athens. Meanwhile, as to the flights to Saint Petersburg and Kiev,
Armavia has rivals, “Pulkovo” air carrier (one flights weekly) and
“Donbassaero” air carrier (one flight to Kiev weekly). The flights
to all the six directions will be carried out by Airbus A320.

It should be noted that flights in these directions are currently
carried out by the “Armenian International Airlines.” The license of
this company exhausts on Dec 31, 2004. It should be noted that within
9 months of 2004, Armavia transported over 316,000 passengers and 1.1
thousand tons of post and cargoes. The company’s passenger-turnover
totaled 557.7 mln p/km, with cargo turnover being 2.3 mln t/km. The
share of Armavia in the total passenger turnover in Armenia in 9 months
of 204 grew as compared to the same period of 2003 by 17% and totaled
43%. The company serves 20 routes and has interline-agreement with
over 40 air carrier in the world. The company was founded in 2001. Its
strategic partners the second large Russian air line Siberia.-

–Boundary_(ID_52wpPzxFrh0JoT3z7shGJg)–

Nor Zhamanakner Party Suggests To Send Detachment To Another Region

NOR ZHAMANAKNER PARTY SUGGESTS TO SEND DETACHMENT TO ANOTHER REGION

Azg/arm
21 Dec 04

Nor Zhamanakner party (the New Times) made a statement in which the
party members again condemn the Armenian authorities for sending an
Armenian detachment to Iraq, taking into account the bitter experience
of 1970s in Lebanon, when one of our Diaspora communities was on
the verge of disaster. The tragedy was averted only by conducting a
balanced and neutral policy. The statement said that the necessity
to join the international anti-terrorist struggle should not endanger
the interests of Armenia, otherwise we should look for an alternative
version of joining the program. The party suggests to discuss and
find another hotbed for sending the Armenian detachment under the UN
shelter, where the interests of the Arabic world and the Republic of
Armenia will not clash. At the same time, the party calls on holding
an open vote at RA National Assembly on the abovementioned issue, so
that both the people who took the decision and the ones who approve
it feel responsibility.

Itâ~@~Ys worth mentioning that recently, John Evans, US ambassador
to Armenia, visited the office of Nor Zhamanakner party where he
had a conversation with Aram Karapetian, leader of the party, for
several hours.

–Boundary_(ID_wYcKM2m7R04QQUneD6uCsg)–

Turkish PM basks in EU triumph

Turkish PM basks in EU triumph
Nicolas Rothwell, Middle East correspondent

The Australian
Dec 20 2004

TURKEY’S reformist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the man behind
his country’s successful bid to stage an entry to the European club,
returned home to his capital in triumph yesterday, and basked in a
ticker-tape parade before his jubilant supporters.

Mr Erdogan, a convinced democrat at the head of an Islamic-flavoured
party, was greeted by thousands in Ankara’s central square.

Confetti filled the air, and fireworks were let off in broad daylight
as he addressed the crowds in near-freezing temperatures.

The celebrations capped a week of high tension as the Turks watched
the progress of the Brussels summit, where Ankara’s bid to secure a
date for accession talks with the European Union was almost derailed
at the last moment.

Mr Erdogan, a politician who combines pragmatism and intense emotional
commitment, seized the high ground at once on his return, committing
his Government and nation to the path of continued social reforms
and economic development.

Despite fringe protests by hard-line leftists and right-wing
nationalists, Mr Erdogan stands at the head of a united country,
and his authority, after the drama of the Brussels summit and his
high-octane performance there, stands at a new level.

“Turkey has now turned a critical corner,” Mr Erdogan proclaimed,
to rolling cheers, as his listeners waved the Turkish flag and the
European Union banner.

“Our road is open, and you should not have any doubt about it. From
now on, democracy will have a different meaning – human rights and
freedoms will be practised in a more meaningful manner, and the economy
will perform better. Turkey will take its rightful place among modern
and civilised countries.”

These heady claims, and the general atmosphere of euphoria, have
combined to make this an extraordinary time across the diverse
nation of 70 million people, stretching from the frontiers of Iran
and Armenia to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

Unalloyed national exultation of this kind has not been seen in Europe
since the collapse of Eastern communism in 1989.

Mr Erdogan’s words, and his broad message of progress, repeated
constantly in recent weeks, places him firmly in the tradition of the
nation’s Westernising founder, Kemal Ataturk, whose name has been on
everybody’s lips in recent days.

Mr Erdogan himself, in his proud and controlled performance at his
first press conference after the EU decision, pointedly invoked
Ataturk, and referred to Turkey’s European trajectory as a “second
great national revolution”.

Mr Erdogan’s work, though, is only just beginning. European leaders,
still sceptical about the implications of admitting a vast, rapidly
expanding and still-developing Muslim state into their union, have
stressed it may take 15 years before full membership is possible,
and they have refused to guarantee a successful conclusion to the
Turkish negotiations.

The critical stumbling block at the summit was Ankara’s position
on Cyprus.

Turkey occupies the northern part of the island and has for decades
refused to recognise the southern Republic of Cyprus – a full EU
member since May this year.

By giving an oral pledge on Friday to expand an EU trade protocol,
Ankara provided an intent to grant technical recognition to Cyprus,
and this highly unpopular concession will have to be finessed through
parliament by the Erdogan Government before the formal talks with
Europe begin on 3 October 2005.

“Our sensitivity about the issue is beyond comparison,” Mr Erdogan
insisted, while his Foreign Minister and key lieutenant in the talks,
Abdullah Gul, stressed there would be no recognition of Cyprus until
a lasting solution to the island’s political impasse has been found.

Turkey’s treatment of its Kurdish minority also remains a chief
concern of EU member states, and assuaging European doubts on this
front will be one of the main tasks of the Government in Ankara over
the years ahead.

Kurdish leaders placed advertisements in European papers last week
appealing for quasi-autonomous status for the region: a move the
Turks will not condone, given their sensitivity to the threat of
territorial carve-up and the distinct possibility a Kurdish state
may emerge across the border in the north of war-torn Iraq.

Turkey under Mr Erdogan has transformed conditions in the Kurdish
southeastern region by permitting the public use of the Kurdish
language and removing pressure on Kurdish political leaders.

Mr Erdogan also faces the difficult task of maintaining his country’s
strong, and newly revived, sense of national unity during a period
of further sharp social and economic changes. He addressed this
point obliquely yesterday in pledging that all Turks, those from the
rural far east as much as those from the busy metropolis of Istanbul,
were of equal value.

Hard days lie ahead, as even Mr Erdogan’s most ardent admirers in
Turkey’s fractious media concede: the road before the country in its
bid for full admittance to the EU is still a long one.

But the sense of delight and fulfilment is keen, after almost four
decades of slow progress towards this goal. “We succeeded,” exclaimed
the weekend edition of the leading newspaper, Hurriyet – and of that,
at least, there could be no doubt.

–Boundary_(ID_zvKrouxzFdgeQg0S0IyxwQ)–

Armenia comes out for creating reg security system in S Caucasus

Armenia comes out for creating reg security system in S Caucasus
By Tigran Liloyan

ITAR-TASS News Agency
December 17, 2004 Friday

YEREVAN, December 18 — Armenia comes out for the creation of a
regional security system in the South Caucasus, Armenian Defence
Minister Serzh Sarkisyan said in his report “South Caucasus: issues
of regional security” during the debates that were organised by the
Center of public dialogue and development on Friday.

He noted that “the constructive policy and interest to ensure
stability by external forces – Russia, the United States, European
Union, Iran and Turkey is important in order to ensure security in
the South Caucasus.” “However, the position and policy of countries
of the region have primarily the decisive significance in this issue,”
the minister emphasised.

According to him, “real guarantees of regional development can be
provided only with the system of comprehensive security, atmosphere
of stability and mutual trust.” “Armenia will pursue the policy for
the development of a multipolar system of country’s security till
these conditions are not provided yet,” the minister pointed out.