Author: Kharatian Ani

Newsday, NY
March 15 2005

U.S. authorities charge 18 with Russian weapon-smuggling plot

By MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN

March 15, 2005, 10:34 AM EST

NEW YORK — U.S. authorities have charged 18 people with weapons
trafficking, including an alleged scheme to smuggle grenade
launchers, shoulder-fired missiles and other Russian military weapons
into the country.

The arrests resulted from a year-long investigation that used a
confidential informant posing as an arms trafficker selling weapons
to terrorists, according to prosecutors, the FBI and police.

The case took U.S. investigators to South Africa, Armenia and the
Georgian Republic, a federal source, speaking on condition of
anonymity, told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The informant, an explosives expert, contacted the FBI after he was
approached by a man who said he had access to weapons from the former
Soviet Union and believed the informant could find a willing buyer,
according to another law enforcement source, also speaking to the AP
on condition of anonymity.

Over the following year, the informant purchased eight assault
weapons in locations around the country. Using a digital camera
provided by the informant, members of the ring, which included
Armenians and South Africans, provided pictures of the weapons they
said they had available for sale, the official said.

The pictures, apparently taken somewhere in Armenia, show anti-tank
missiles, a Russian missile launcher and a recoilless anti-tank
rifle, among other weapons, the officials said.

Arrests have been made in New York, Miami and in Los Angeles in
connection with the investigation, the source said.

The defendants also are charged with conspiring to traffic in machine
guns and other assault weapons, and with selling the eight weapons
during the investigation.

Details of the investigation were to be discussed at a late-morning
news conference with officials from the FBI and the New York Police
Department.

GRANT TO ARMENIAN BORDER GUARDS FROM AMERICANS

A1+
14-03-2005

The U.S. Embassy’s (EXBS) Export Control and Related Border Security
Assistance Program granted eight vehicles to the Armenia’s National
Security Service Border Guards. “The Armenian Government has taken on
the challenge of securing its borders, and the U.S. Embassy is proud
to help with this important effort,” U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission
Anthony F. Godfrey said today at an official ceremony in the Armenia’s
National Security Service Headquarters.

The vehicles include 3 NIVA’s, 2 LADA’s and 3 Specialized All-Terrain
Vehicles (ATV’s) for off-road patrolling.

Asked about assistance levels for this type of program in 2005, DCM
Godfrey responded, “This is not the first border and customs grant we
have undertaken, and it is certainly not the last. We have a budget of
$1.3 million for this year, which will go toward both equipment
transfer and training.”

The Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program,
administered by the Department of State and the U.S. Homeland Security
Agency, has been operating in Armenia since 2000.

Last year, the EXBS Assistance Program initiated several construction
projects to upgrade the Border Guards Port of Entry checkpoint
facility at Bagratashen, Border Guards barracks at the Gogavan Port of
Entry, and both Border Guard and Customs training facilities in
Yerevan.

ARMENIA HAS NO SOCIAL OR POLITICAL PREREQUISITES FOR REVOLUTION

YEREVAN, MARCH 7. ARMINFO. Armenia has no social or political
preconditions for revolution, says presudential advisor for national
security Garnik Isagulyan commenting on the opposition’s revolutionary
plans for this spring.

These statements come from personal ambitions, he says noting that
the opposition is showing its political incompetence by calling
for revolution now that in May the whole world will be watching
parliamentary elections in Nagorny Karabakh. “I suppose they have
already realized that for they have begun saying they are not holding
but just preparing for revolution this sprig.” “Otherwise it would
be high treason,” says Isagulyan.

He says that the ruling coalition would be much stronger given stronger
opposition. There are some opposition moods inside the coalition
itself. But they are not so deep as to split the coalition. They are
quite natural, says Isagulyan.

STATEMENT ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BY US AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA NOT
COORDINATED WITH US STATE DEPARTMENT

YEREVAN, MARCH 3. ARMINFO. The statement by US Ambassador to Armenia
John Evans that the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey in early XX
can be qualified as genocide was his personal opinion and runs counter
to the US official policy on the issue, says a representative of the
US presidential administration in an interview to Radio Liberty.

Evans did not coordinate his statement with the US State Department.
Pres.Bush has qualified the 1915 events in Ottoman Turkey as one of
the most outrageous tragedies of XX and as a massacre of 1.5 mln
Armenians. Presidential opinion is always most weighty in the US
policy. Until Bush has changed his position on the issue no one can
empower an ambassador to make such a statement, says the official.

He says that Evans’ statement has made even more difficult
Armenian-Turkish rapprochement. When Turks are driven into a corner
they react very acutely. They can change their position on some
issues if one raises them consistently, purposefully and
persuasively. But pressure is not effective.

The Messenger, Georgia
March 4 2005

Nogaideli in Azerbaijan

Georgian Premier Zurab Nogaideli is leaving on March 4 for Baku on a
two-day working visit, the Azerbaijani Embassy in Georgia reports.
According to Black Sea Press, he will meet with Azeri President
Ilkham Alyev and other senior officials to discuss a wide spectrum of
issues of bilateral cooperation, especially in the economic sphere.
The issue of the detention of railway cars with goods bound for
Georgia by Azeri Customs will also be in the focus of discussion.
Azerbaijan held some 1000 railway cars destined for Georgia back in
November on the grounds that Baku suspected some of the cargo may in
fact have been destined for Armenia. Of these. 320, mostly carrying
diesel fuel, grain, and liquid gas, remain stuck at the
Azerbaijan-Georgia border.
Within the frame of the visit Noghaideli will also lay a wreath at
the grave of late Azeri president Heidar Alyev.

Weekly profiles new governor of eastern Ukrainian region

Zerkalo Nedeli, Kiev
19 Feb 05

The new governor of Kharkiv Region, Arsen Avakov, is one of the
richest men in the region, a serious weekly has said. His ruthless
business and political methods made certain that he rose to top, the
article says. In good time he saw which way the wind was blowing and
jumped on the bandwagon of new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko,
establishing firm links with his brother and nephew. However, he still
has to deal with a resolute opponent in the popular former governor
Yevhen Kushnaryov, a former ally, before he can really establish
himself. The following is the text of the article by Bohdan Sovchenko
entitled “Banker who broke the bank” published in the Ukrainian weekly
newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli on 19 February; subheadings are as published:

The appointment of 41-year-old Arsen Avakov to the post of head of the
Kharkiv Regional State Administration surprised many people not only
in the capital, but also in Slobozhanschyna [old Russian name for
Kharkiv Region and parts of Donetsk and Sumy regions]. First, far more
famous and experienced politicians were named as his rivals in the
struggle for the governorship – Anatoliy Matviyenko, Volodymyr Filenko
and Volodymyr Shumilkin. Second, Mr Avakov had, up till now, preferred
to be not so much part of the authorities, as to be with the
authorities. Thanks to his recognized talent as a lobbyist, his
business has flourished regardless of who exactly was on the summit of
the local Olympus.

Biographical elements

In the personal file of the qualified engineer who graduated from
Kharkiv Polytechnic there are several bright pages and just as many
blank spots. The instincts of an enterprising businessman were noticed
early in Avakov. With an enviable tirelessness he created and
implemented numerous and varied business schemes, thanks to which his
capital grew in front of one’s eyes. As early as the beginning of the
90s, this native of the Azeri capital was considered one of the
wealthiest and most influential citizens of the megalopolis.

Twelve years ago the successful entrepreneur found himself in the
field of view of law-enforcement agencies. The guardians of the law
started to take an interest in the head of the Investor firm in
connection with the investigation into the so-called (?Valshonok) case
(the director of the Potok firm, accused of large-scale embezzlement
of property).

Also in 1993, on Kharkiv’s First Cavalry Street, Avakov’s closest
business partner, the deputy president of Investor, Oleksandr
Konovalov, was killed by two point-blank shots. Fedir Razzakov (author
of the book “Gangsters of the times of capitalism”) claims that the
43-year-old, previously convicted Konovalov was suspected of giving
bribes to high-ranking staff of the prosecutor’s office. It was
thought that the illegal financial “assistance” was intended to
accelerate closure of the (?Valshonok) case. Ukrainian detectives were
unable to prove that, just as they were unable to clear up the hired
killing of Konovalov.

By the end of the 90s, the head of the Investor firm and the Bazis
bank had firmly secured a reputation as one of the bosses of “the
first capital” [Kharkiv was the capital of Ukraine for a time in the
previous century]. For some reason the name of the sweetest and most
charming person was regularly connected with scandals that, on the
other hand, died down just as quickly as they had flared
up. Ill-wishers allege that it is not without the intervention of the
local authorities.

In 1998 special lottery tickets, “We will build the metro together”
were issued through the Bazis bank. According to some reports, the
promotion brought its organizers about 10m hryvnyas. It was assumed
that a considerable part of that sum would be directed to covering
expenses connected with the construction of new branches of the local
metro system. It is not really known precisely how much money reached
the metro builders. But it is known that since then the financial
position of Bazis became substantially more solid. Even though in 1997
the bank went through not the best of times and, rumour has it, was
threatened with losing its licence and bankruptcy.

Incidentally, according to reports from the Informbyuro information
and analysis publication, “one of the co-owners of Bazis was a deputy
of Kharkiv city council, (?Askharbek Yeloyev), the founder of the
famous Kharkiv “Quick money” trust and another 47 firms that deceived
gullible people in Kharkiv to the tune of 2m dollars… [ellipsis as
published]”

After Yevhen Kushnaryov became governor of Kharkiv Region, Bazis
became a participant in a considerable number of projects conducted
under the aegis of the local authorities. With the protection of the
regional administration, Avakov’s bank became the permanent financial
partner of the flagship of Kharkiv machine-building, Turboatom, one of
the few local enterprises operating in a stable manner for the export
market.

In January 2000 the city residential communal management transferred
the lease to Avakov’s commercial structures of the major Kharkiv
heating and electricity station No 3 [HES-3]. Under the agreement, the
lessees were to invest 10m hryvnyas required to replace the
turbine. Turboatom manufactured and delivered the new
turbine. However, Avakov’s HES-3 did not pay in cash… [ellipsis as
published] but in Kharkivteploenerho promissory notes. With their aid,
the debts of Turboatom for the heating used were allegedly covered.

At approximately the same time, Avakov (his opponents claim) chose a
gas well allegedly belonging to nobody in the village of
Ohultsy. After the reorganization of Ukrhazdobycha [Ukrainian gas
extraction] it, for some reason, found itself without a formal
owner. On the order of Mr Avakov’s commercial structures,
Kharkivhazbud-1 [Kharkiv gas construction] built a gas pipeline into
Ohultsy and built a gas condensation installation there. Following
that, the construction and assembly directorate waited a fairly long
time to be paid for the work it carried out.

Critics of the current governor have claimed that gas from the seized
well was profitably used by HES-3. With mediation from the
authorities, Avakov (as alleged by the Kharkiv press) obtained a lease
on another well that previously belonged to
Shebelikahazdobycha. Before that, according to media reports, the
association supplied HES-3 with gas at prices lowered by about one
third.

The compliancy of the most varied Kharkiv leaders, officials and
businessmen and their readiness to meet half way the large-scale plans
of Avakov in the city were explained by the close ties of the Investor
chief with local governor Yevhen Kushnaryov and especially with his
first deputy, Volodymyr Shumilkin.

After the latter decided in 2002 to stand for mayor, he was supported
by Kharkiv’s Channel 7, which is controlled by Avakov. A journalist
from the channel particularly annoyed their colleague. He was the
well-known TV presenter Serhiy (?Potymkov), former parliamentary
deputy and Shumilkin’s main opponent at the mayoral
elections. Mykhaylo Brodskyy, a comrade-in-arms of (?Potymkov) in the
Yabluko party [party led by Brodskyy], asserted at one time that the
present Kharkiv Region governor even offered several hundred thousand
dollars of “compensation” for the voluntary withdrawal of Mr
(?Potymkov) from the election race. It is noteworthy that immediately
after the victory of Shumilkin at the elections, Avakov and the
general producer of Channel 7, Volodymyr Chapay, became members of the
new city executive committee.

During the 2002 parliamentary campaign the election clips of For a
United Ukraine [pro-presidential bloc] on Channel 7 rubbed shoulders
fairly comfortably with the publicity for [President] Viktor
Yushchenko’s bloc [Our Ukraine]. Local cognoscenti found a logical
explanation for such pluralism: the cautious Volodymyr Shumilkin and
forward-looking Arsen Avakov were seeking points of rapprochement with
Our Ukraine. At the same time, the former strengthened political
contacts with Yushchenko’s brother, Petro Yushchenko, while the latter
strengthened business links with Mr Yushchenko’s nephew, Yaroslav.

The conflict between the governor of Kharkiv Region and the mayor of
the region’s centre seriously spoilt relations between Avakov and
Kushnaryov. The boss of Investor had bet on Shumilkin and he had not
guessed wrongly. With the latter’s arrival to take up the mayor’s
seat, Avakov’s affairs became even rosier. That can be judged if only
by the successes of Bazis. In 2000 Avakov’s bank had only one isolated
regional branch. In 2003 there were 18 of them. In the same year Bazis
increased its authorized capital by almost one third, and its size was
brought up to 19.5m hryvnyas, and in 2004 it had reached 22.191m.

However, nearer the elections difficult times came for Avakov. By
supporting Shumilkin (who had gone into a prolonged clinch with
Kushnaryov), Mr Avakov had definitively burned his bridges with the
governor. There were rumours that it was the governor’s active
opposition to Avakov’s attempts to take control of another heating and
electricity station – HES-5 – that put an end to their relationship.

It is no secret in Kharkiv that it was hardly political convictions
that drew the head of Investor and Bazis into the opposition
camp. Avakov was always noted for his cunning and foresight: he was
hoping that support for Yushchenko would be able to bring him tangible
dividends. And, as it happened, his hopes were not in vain. Apart from
that, Mr Avakov needed allies in the war with the governor that had
started.

As the AZN agency reported at one point, in December 2003 an
inspection was made of Bazis, during which staff of the National Bank
discovered serious breaches. The bank, which was allegedly suspected
of money laundering, escaped fines and got away with a written
warning. However, in February 2004 (according to AZN information)
Bazis was included by the National Bank on a list of violators of the
standards of financial monitoring of dubious financial operations.
Storm clouds gathered over the bank. According to some reports, Bazis
was saved from further unpleasantness by intervention from deputies of
the Our Ukraine faction. It is quite possible that they sincerely
considered what was happening to Avakov’s company to be political
repression. After all, at that time Mr Avakov was already an activist
in the regional headquarters of Our Ukraine.

During the 2004 campaign Avakov’s Channel 7 was the main mouthpiece
for Yushchenko’s team in Kharkiv. Apart from that, it faithfully
relayed the capital’s [independent] TV 5 Kanal, despite permanent
pressure from the regional authorities.

Avakov’s star time came after the second round [that is, after 21
November 2004]. At the suggestion of one of the main players in the
Orange Revolution, [Our Ukraine MP] Volodymyr Filenko, he essentially
became Viktor Yushchenko’s plenipotentiary in one of the biggest
regional centres. Formally the banker and numismatist was the second
person in the regional Committee of National Salvation (the first was
the head of the local election headquarters, Anatoliy Matviyenko). In
fact, there was no doubt that in reality he was the first. It was
precisely thanks to his organizational efforts that Kharkiv had its
own “Orange Square” [Kiev’s Independence Square was the heart of the
pro-Yushchenko Orange Revolution]. Incidentally, this was more than
presentable for a city that massively supported [Yushchenko’s
opponent, Viktor] Yanukovych. It was he who got the doubting Volodymyr
Shumilkin to back Yushchenko whole-heartedly. As a political manager
the non-affiliated Avakov turned out to be far more effective than
many veterans of election battles. The bank boss went for bust. And he
broke the bank.

Allies and rivals

It is simpler to say who did not lobby for Avakov as governor. Mayor
Volodymyr Shumilkin, whom (according to our information) Viktor
Yushchenko offered the governor’s job, thought briefly and turned it
down. He insistently recommended instead the candidacy of his
long-time partner, Avakov.

Another claimant, Anatoliy Matviyenko, it is said, gave up the
struggle after a direct meeting with the chief of Investor. And not
only did he give up, but also became an active lobbyist for Mr
Avakov. Sources in the Kharkiv organization of Our Ukraine allege that
[Prime Minister] Yuliya Tymoshenko put her weight behind the
nomination of Avakov. Neither did [current head of Ukrainian State
Secretariat] Oleksandr Zinchenko stand on the side. They say that he
discovered old friends in HES-3. But the main guarantors of Mr Avakov
in the eyes of the new president were his brother and nephew. It seems
that Messrs Petro and Yaroslav Yushchenko are connected with the new
governor by the closest personal and business contacts. And yet the
last word, so far as can be judged, rested with Shumilkin. He gained
access to Mr Yushchenko precisely when the latter was still undecided
whom to choose – Avakov or Filenko.

Some people call Avakov Shumilkin’s man. Others are convinced that it
is all absolutely the other way round. Nevertheless, the link between
the two eminent Kharkiv people is evident to the naked eye. Some
people are convinced that the two are in harmony. Others are sure that
they will certainly fall out in the predicted battle for power. And to
back it up, they quote the conflict between Shumilkin and Kushnaryov,
who also at one time were considered to be a reliable tandem. So far
the former has not become an independent figure and has not started to
share rights and powers with his former boss. Be that as it may,
Shumilkin was undoubtedly pursuing his own interests in pushing his
partner upwards. And for now the governor has a reliable ally in the
person of the mayor. At least until the common and still dangerous
enemy – Yevhen Kushnaryov – is definitively vanquished.

Immediately after his triumphant arrival in office on Freedom Square,
Avakov announced his intention to make Yaroslav Yushchenko deputy
governor. It was planned that the president’s 26-year-old nephew would
be in charge of attracting investments at the regional
administration. However, the relevant official instruction has not yet
been signed: it is being said that the head of state himself spoke
himself against such an appointment.

Avakov’s friends and partners include virtually all the eminent people
in the city, including such well-known personalities in the world of
politics and business as MPs Oleksandr Yaroslavskyy, Ernest Haliyev
and Vasyl Salyhin.

At the same time, Mr Avakov is living proof of the rule that there are
no eternal friends in politics and business, only eternal
interests. The history of his relationship with Kushnaryov is
indicative and not unique. At one time the current head of Kharkiv
Regional State Administration was virtually the closest friend of
Yuriy Haysinskyy. But after the latter left the post of first deputy
prosecutor-general, they were seen together far less frequently. On
the other hand, Avakov has constantly been seen in the company of
Yaroslav Yushchenko in recent times.

Relations between the Investor chief and the above-mentioned
(?Potymkov) developed in a strange way. At the 2002 parliamentary
elections the opposition politician and journalist was a dangerous
opponent for the pro-authorities Avakov and Shumilkin. At the 2004
elections Avakov and (?Potymkov) were now in the same team and both
joined the local National Salvation Committee. Furthermore, the former
MP became a writer and programme presenter on Avakov’s Channel 7.

Still more fantastic was the history of Avakov’s links with Henadiy
Kernes, a highly colourful Kharkiv personage, businessman and member
of the city council (and, at the same time, related by marriage to
Yuriy Haysinskyy). Mr Kernes (better known in the city by the nickname
Hepa) was in conflict with Avakov on several occasions. At one point,
Avakov’s Investor firm was incautious enough to take loans from
Kernes’s NPK bank and failed to pay them back on time. Mr Kernes has
the reputation of being an irascible man and, to put it mildly, [his
irascibility is] not too well hidden. Journalists well recall what he
said then and how he then spoke about the current governor.

Today the gentlemen in question are reliable partners. It was
precisely these two who, in the larger scheme of things, provided
support for Viktor Yushchenko in the city council. Bedecked in orange,
Kernes and Avakov stood peaceably side by side at revolutionary
rallies and nothing can now recall the former rows and old
offences. However, knowing Kernes’s character and his business
appetite, it can be assumed that in future they will clash again on
more than one occasion.

Avakov’s unexpected siding with the opposition surprised many Kharkiv
people not initiated into the secrets of politics. But the fact of his
appointment was even more surprising. Mr Avakov can safely be called a
Mister Big for local businessmen. But he is hardly that for residents
of the city, far less of the region. The business history of Investor
and Bazis was not always smooth and, what is more, was surrounded by
legends over many years. Bitter and terrifying stories connected with
Avakov’s commercial structures were almost always being told and then,
with the arrival of the new governor, residents of “the first capital”
reacted more with fright than with hope. Even the large (about 25,000
people) and influential Armenian diaspora perceived the arrival of
Avakov in the building on Freedom Square equivocally.

It is a surprising fact that it can be said that after Avakov’s
appointment, the popularity of former governor Kushnaryov only
rose. And this is a circumstance that the new viceroy will have to
take into account.

Interests

Immediately after his appointment, the new governor announced that he
had resigned his powers as president of Bazis and chairman of the
supervisory board of Investor. He solemnly declared, “I have come to
power not to improve my business or to lobby interests, but to realize
my important ideals… [ellipsis as published]”

Mr Avakov entrusted his entrepreneurial affairs to Henadiy Hayev, his
right hand, long-term partner and reliable confidant. Frankly
speaking, Mr Hayev gently guided Avakov’s business while his boss
engaged in lobbying and political activity. There is much to show the
closeness of Avakov and Hayev. For example, they are co-authors of the
book “Promissory note circulation: theory and practice”, published in
2000 by the local publishing house Folio. They are both on the
organizing committee of the science fiction festival “Star Bridge”
(sponsored by Avakov himself, a long-time fan of this genre).

At present Avakov’s empire, according to some reports, includes over
70 enterprises. His interests are most varied. As well as the
above-mentioned Bazis bank and HES-3 and the two gas wells, there is a
bread factory and a (?tea weighing) factory, a company that builds
elite housing and the cult restaurant Podvorye (at one time a
traditional place for “fixing [criminal] meetings”). It is said that
Avakov not long ago managed to take under his “guardianship” the
Kharkiv central department store.

According to available information, he controls half of Channel 7 (the
other 50 per cent is in the hands of Henadiy Kernes) and half of the
A/TVK holding (the remaining shares belong to his partners Oleksiy
(?Lipchanskyy) and Oleksandr Kovalenko and also to local oligarchs
Oleksandr Yaroslavskyy and Vasyl Salyhin). Apart from that, he is said
to own the Simon-Info publication, the weekly Pyatnytsya and several
FM stations. The popular newspapers Sobytiye, Vecherniy Kharkov and
Vremya are also said to be close to Avakov.

Avakov, so far as can be judged, has long been collaborating with
Russian entrepreneurs and, it seems, is eager to expand that
collaboration. As they say, Mr Avakov is not averse to placing his
capital in Russia. Others allege that he already has business in
Russia and it is only a matter of expanding it. At the same time, the
new governor is waiting for the arrival of Russian capital to
Slobozhanshchyna. At any rate, he tasked officials with “establishing
Kharkiv Region as a centre of border cooperation with Russia”. Some
people believe that, with the help of the new governor, Russian
oligarchs may “pay visits to” local enterprises, among whom they even
name [fugitive Russian businessman] Boris Berezovskiy for some reason.

Avakov is certainly vain. Speaking immediately after his appointment
with regional activists, he recalled the words of Napoleon: “50,000
soldiers and I make 100,000 soldiers”.

Avakov’s plans are also Napoleonic. By the end of the year he promises
to create 50,000 new jobs, removing one of the most acute local
problems. True, it is not yet clear how precisely he intends to do
this. Another vital task (that many people call unrealistic for the
governor and his team) is to boost local machine-building.

But the main headache for the head of Kharkiv Regional State
Administration in the near future is destined to be the struggle to
establish his own authority in the eyes of the public that to date
feels a poorly concealed mistrust of him. And apart from that – a
scrap with the local opposition. Considering today’s mood in the city
and the extraordinary activity of Yevhen Kushnaryov, this will not be
simple. The former governor is in a state of war with his former
partners Avakov and Shumilkin. Local political, business and media
teams have been drawn into this war. And the outcome of the battle is
not yet clear.

AMBASSADORS JOIN HEADS OF UN AGENCIES FOR A HELICOPTER TRIP TO
REFUGEE-POPULATED REMOTE AREAS OF ARMENIA

Azg/arm
26 Feb 05

Yesterday, a MI-28 helicopter took a senior-level delegation of
Ambassadors and heads of UN Agencies to Syunik marz, the most remote
province of Armenia, to visit refugees and project sites. Ambassadors
and senior officers from France, Untied States, United Kingdom, India,
Germany, Poland, Italy, OSCE, European Commission, USAID, Armenia
Social Investment Fund as well as the UN Resident Coordinator, and
Representatives of UNHCR and UNICEF accepted the invitation of the
Governor of Syunik and visited Meghri, Vardanidzor and Goris
communities.

Members of the diplomatic corps visited sites where the United Nations
have on-going programmes. The Governor and UN Agencies also discussed
future joint programmes including reconstruction of the school in
Vardanidzor, construction of a refugee hostel in Goris and expansion
of child-centred health and education initiatives. Local authorities
confirmed that they are fully committed to support all new initiatives
with both human and financial resources.

Ms. Lise Grande, UN Resident Coordinator in Armenia, summarised the
trip: “Last year all of the UN Agencies working in Armenia developed
an unprecedented joint five-year plan. The UN is committed working
under the leadership of the Government to reduce economic, social and
political inequality in the country. By visiting refugee-populated
communities in Syunik marz and by showing how the whole UN family is
working together to find solutions, we hope to encourage other donor
missions to help with our efforts in impoverished and remote
communities. We are confident that the international community
represented in Armenia will support proposals aimed at alleviating
hardship of the people we visited today.”

The number of registered refugees in Syunik is 9,505, of which 77
percent reside in urban areas and 23 percent in rural
areas. Approximately 50 percent of refugees in the marz live in
Kapan. The most heavily refugee-populated communities are Aldara,
where 85.4 percent of the population are refugees, Khalaj where they
are 73.7 percent, Gomaran, where they are 73.5 percent and Yegheg,
Vorotan, Vardanidzor, Nyuvadi, Lehvaz, and Toruniq where they are more
than 40 percent. The unemployment rate in Syunik is 1.7 times higher
than the national average. Basic health indicators, such as incidences
of anaemia and stunting, are significantly higher in Syunik marz than
in other parts of the country. School attendance rates in refugee
communities are also notably lower than national averages.

OPTIMAL STATUS FOR NAGORNY KARABAKH IS INDEPENDENCE IN NEAR FUTURE AND
PART OF ARMENIA IN LONG-TERM PROSPECT

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 26. ARMINFO. The optimal status for Nagorny Karabakh
is independence in the near future and part of Armenia in the
long-term prospect, Armenia’s President Robert Kocharyan says in his
interview to the readers of Golos Armenii.

As long as there is no practical solution to the Karabakh conflict the
talk about stalemate in the negotiating process is
inevitable. International experience says that such conflicts are not
settled quickly. They require painstaking and consistent work –
“that’s exactly what we are doing.” The talks are resumed now and “we
are hoping for some result.”

Kocharyan says that there is some incorrect understanding of Nagorny
Karabakh’s involvement in the negotiating process – this process is
much wider than just coordinating meetings of the Armenian and NKR
presidents. This is systematic visits by Minsk Group and their
meetings with NKR leaders. This is the most pithy part of the
talks. NKR is an active party to the whole process. Kocharyan notes
that during his meetings with Ilham Aliev he represents NKR’s
interests as well. “If course we will seek to get Nagorny Karabakh
involved in this format and I believe that we will do that,” says
Kocharyan noting that this requires healthy pragmatism in approaching
the negotiating technologies. Azerbaijan is too sensitive to
conditionalities. NKR’s more active involvement in the process will
certainly increase settlement chances, says Kocharyan.

The Times, UK
Feb 26 2005

Bravery that offers beacon of hope in Georgia
by Michael Bourdeaux
A Baptist bishop’s efforts have eased troubled inter-church relations

GEORGIA is a country of outstanding natural beauty. Spring comes
early to its fertile fields and vineyards protected beneath the
towering peak of Mount Kazbek and the Caucasus range, the highest in
Europe. It has one of the oldest Christian civilisations in the
world, dating from 326, and its Church is in the mainstream of the
Orthodox tradition. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is
also a land of chaos.
Stalin, who was born there, attended a seminary and always granted
his homeland special privileges – not least allowing the Church to
exist under its own identity, while abolishing the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church. He encouraged a semi-independent economic development, so
Georgian agricultural entrepreneurs prospered, while collectivisation
brought famine to other places.

This relative prosperity suffered its first blow when Mikhail
Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign led to the grubbing up of some of
Georgia’s best vines. Ethnic strife tore the country apart in the
early years of independence under Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Gorbachev’s
former Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, a man of international
reputation, returned to his homeland to become president – and,
incidentally, to be baptised into the Orthodox Church – but he failed
to bring the separatists back under central control.

The `Rose Revolution’ in 2003 brought Mikhail Saakashvili to power in
a well-monitored election, but the strange death of the Prime
Minister Zurab Zhvania in a gassing accident this month is a huge
setback.

Church life, too, has been troubled beyond measure over the past
decade. Even in the heyday of Soviet atheism, Georgians were proud of
their ancient Christian heritage and since the 1960s its Orthodox
Patriarchate took part in international ecumenical affairs – until
1997, when they withdrew from the World Council of Churches, stating
that they no longer recognised other faiths as legitimate.

Malkhaz Songulashvili, born in 1963, is perhaps the most remarkable
figure in Georgian church life today. He was secretly baptised in a
river at 17. Gifted at languages, he also studied history and
archaeology at Tbilisi University, before Patriarch Ilia II invited
him, as a Baptist, to collaborate in the first modern Georgian Bible
translation.

In his mid-thirties he made the first of periodic visits to begin a
thesis on church relations in Georgia, in which he set out to
demonstrate that Protestants and Catholics were not peripheral to the
Georgian Christian scene, but were part of its lifeblood. Baptists
had existed in Georgia since the mid-19th century. Pastor
Songulashvili struck all his new friends as a gentle, quiet man. No
one guessed that he would soon be propelled into the centre of the
stage, butt of a wave of violence which erupted against non-Orthodox
believers in the late-1990s.

The Georgian Baptists, who in their tradition have bishops, conferred
that title on Pastor Songulashvili, as their leader. From 1997 they
were victims of a campaign of violence instigated by Basil
Mkalavishvili, a defrocked Orthodox priest, now claiming to be an
`Old Calendarist’ and subject, he says, to the jurisdiction of this
tiny branch of the Orthodox Church in Greece. He has led dozens of
assaults against `sectarians’, targeting Jehovah’s Witnesses, a well
as Baptists. Unrestrained by police over nearly a decade, he stole
and burnt what he called `anti-Orthodox’ books in March 1997. On
February 3, 2002, he led a mob which looted the Baptist Union’s
warehouse in Tbilisi and burnt more books, including Bibles.

Even worse was a pogrom against a united Christian service (including
Orthodox representatives) held in the main Baptist church on January
24, 2003, marking the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Worse
violence was averted only when the organisers of the service told the
worshippers to disperse before the service had begun.

President Shevardnadze condemned this and other incidents, but
Mkalavishvili continued unchecked. Only after the `Rose Revolution’
were he and his gang brought to account.

At the trial last November there was a dramatic moment when Bishop
Songulashvili publicly forgave Mkalavishvili and heard words of
repentance in reply. The case dragged on, however. Of the seven
defendants, five were charged only with resisting arrest, while
Mkalavishvili received a sentence of six years, an associate four
years. Hundreds of others have gone unpunished, however, and
Songulashvili has called for a full investigation into the
background, on the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
in South Africa. He estimates that more than one hundred incidents
have occurred.

Amid this turmoil he has found time to devote himself to the causes
he passionately embraces: building up the work of his own Baptist
community, promoting ecumenism and teaching at Tbilisi State
University. After the violence of January 24, 2003, he worked with
other Christian leaders to reinstate the prayer service on March 14,
attended by President Shevardnadze in person. On Holy Saturday 2003,
Bishop Songulashvili wrote to me: `Yesterday we celebrated Good
Friday. It was a great occasion for us. We observed it by a
six-hour-long procession with a Cross in the streets of Tbilisi and
devotions in different churches (the Roman Catholic and Armenian
Apostolic Cathedrals, the Lutheran Church of Reconciliation),
followed by a service in our own Baptist church.’

Further shocks were to follow, however. On the following Whit Sunday
fanatics, still unidentified, burnt down the Baptist church in the
Kvareli district of eastern Georgia.

This did not deter Songulashvili from promoting his ecumenical work
in practical ways. Most notably, in December 2004 he went with two
Orthodox priests to support the Ukrainian democrats on Independence
Square, Kiev. They met Christian leaders and appeared on television
(with a fishing rod converted into a staff to carry the Georgian flag
they had brought to identity themselves).

Peaceful inter-church relations may still seem a long way off for
members of Georgia’s minority denominations, but the commitment and
bravery of Bishop Songulashvili and his supporters stand out as a
beacon of hope for the future.

Canon Michael Bourdeaux is the founder and president of Keston
Institute, Oxford, which monitors religious freedom in the communist
and former communist countries ()

Karabakh “most likely” ignored at Bush-Putin meeting – Azeri daily

Ekho, Baku
25 Feb 05

Excerpt from report by R. Tofiqoglu in Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on
25 February headlined “Have George Bush and Vladimir Putin ignored the
Karabakh problem?” and subheaded “US and Russian leaders did not speak
about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict at the joint press conference”

Contrary to predictions, most likely the expectations of the
Azerbaijani public have not been confirmed. The Nagornyy Karabakh
problem was not discussed at the Bratislava meeting [on 24 February]
between the US and Russian presidents, George Bush and Vladimir Putin.

Nevertheless, it is not ruled out that Bush and Putin discussed the
Karabakh issue at their over two-hour tete-a-tete meeting. They did
not however mention a word at the press conference ensuing the
meeting. Of course, nobody asked questions of this kind.

[Passage omitted: other aspects of the meeting]