Author: Kharatian Ani

Armenian ombudsman displeased with new bill

Aravot web site, Yerevan
11 Feb 05

A government session held yesterday and chaired by President Robert
Kocharyan discussed and approved draft amendments to the law “On
human rights defender”.

Under the draft law, the ombudsman cannot interfere in court trials
but can advise the plaintiff on appealing against the court verdict.

During the discussions Armenian ombudsman Larisa Alaverdyan asked to
allow her to put forward her position. But the president interrupted
her rudely: “The ombudsman has the right to ask questions but not
to interfere.”

Larisa Alaverdyan walked out of the session after this. In an interview
with an Aravot correspondent, the human rights defender said that
she considered this amendment to be unreasonable.

Azeri Speaker chides Russian official’s Karabakh remarks

ANS TV, Baku
10 Feb 05

[Presenter] Azerbaijani Speaker Murtuz Alasgarov has described as
rubbish a statement by the deputy speaker of the Russian State Duma,
Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, on Nagornyy Karabakh’s incorporation into
the CIS.

[Alasgarov, speaking to microphone] He does not understand that the
CIS is not a state but an international organization. It is the
international organization that unite states. The territory of a
sovereign state cannot be incorporated into the CIS. He simply does
not understand this.

[Correspondent] Is Azerbaijan going to take a step in this regard?

[Alasgarov] I think, the Foreign Ministry should issue a statement.

Send a valentine from the vine: Uncork these love potions
by Jerry Shriver

USA TODAY
February 11, 2005, Friday, FINAL EDITION

Heartening news for you unquenchable romantics who intend to use wine
as a seduction vehicle on Valentine’s Day: This year’s options might
be more wickedly efficient than usual.

For those who are normally tongue-tied by love, consider watching the
Oscar-contending flick Sideways by yourself this weekend and then
composing your own version of that soulful soliloquy Virginia Madsen
delivers about ” . . . the life of a wine, how it’s a living thing .
. . how every time I open a bottle it’s going to taste different than
if I had opened it any other day.” If purring those words over a
bottle of pinot noir doesn’t do the trick, it may be time to rethink
your relationship.

Another offbeat strategy is to sample something that is both trendy
and harks back to ancient aphrodisiacs. Pomegranates have re-emerged
as a sensual element in contemporary cuisine, and now Proshyan Wine
Factory of Armenia is making a wine from them and exporting it to
major markets in America. Their non-vintage version is semisweet,
enticingly aromatic and costs about $9 (armenianwines.com).

If over-the-top luxury is more your style, then invest in one of the
upper-tier rose champagnes, which have come back into vogue. Among
the best is the rich, decadent 1995 Dom Perignon Rose, which sells
for about $325 a bottle — and could be worth every penny.

Finally, for those who tend to fall for underdogs and/or wine geeks,
why not embrace an oddly named but potentially rewarding grape that
has been working its way back into the hearts of California
winemakers recently? Petite sirah fits the Valentine’s theme with its
heart-throbbing muscularity, provocative spiciness and supple texture
(when made carefully). Its under-the-radar coolness even comes with
its own advocacy group of growers and producers known as P.S. I Love
You (psiloveyou.org).

“It offers something to zinfandel lovers who are looking for a wine
with a little more guts, and it usually has less alcohol,” says
spokeswoman Jo Diaz. The flavors, which can include blackberries,
blueberries, coffee, chocolate, tobacco and pepper, and the firm
structure “offer an alternative to always having cabernet sauvignon
with beef.”

The grape has been grown in California since the 1880s and has been
used mainly to add color and heft to blended wines. But petite sirah
has always suffered from an identity crisis. Historically, several
grapes have carried the name, and their botanical relationship to the
better-known syrah grape and several obscure French grapes are
tangled. However, a handful of faithful vintners always have believed
that petite sirah can stand on its own as a varietal wine, and that
has enabled the grape not only to survive but also to thrive. P.S. I
Love You counted 65 petite sirah producers in 2001; today there are
more than 190.

“It has withstood the test of time, and people who like it are very
passionate about it,” Diaz says.

True Valentine’s virtues, in other words.

To get a sense of the wine’s potential, check out some of these
versions that stood out in a recent tasting of 24 bottles. Available
vintages will vary from market to market; in this case older is
usually better, because this high-tannin wine benefits from a few
years’ aging. Expect to pay $10 to $18 for entry-level versions and
$25-$40 for reserve wines.

* 2002 Bogle, Calif., $10.

* 2003 Concannon “Selected Vineyard,” Central Coast, $12.

* 2002 Pedroncelli, Dry Creek Valley, $14.

* 2002 Foppiano “Estate Bottled,” Russian River Valley, $18.

* 2000 Guenoc, North Coast, $18.

* 2001 Vina Robles, Jardine Vineyard, Paso Robles, $26.

* 2001 Stags’ Leap Winery, Napa Valley, $27.

* 2002 Trentadue, Alexander Valley, $28.

* 2002 Miro, Coyote Ridge Vineyard, Dry Creek Valley, $30.

* 2001 Silkwood Wines “Silkwood,” Stanislaus County, $35.

* 2001 EOS “Cupa Grandis,” Paso Robles, $40.

Who’s drinking what?

“A grape that always gives me pleasure is nebbiolo from the Piedmont
region of Italy. I like the 2001 Hilberg Nebbiolo D’Alba, which has
an intense perfume along with an elegant style. We recommend it with
the guinea hen stuffed with fennel and anise, served with asparagus
wrapped in prosciutto. The richness of the wine holds firm with the
gamy flavor of the meat.”

— Piero Trotta, wine director, San Domenico, New York

Tasteful inquiries

Everyone I know seems to drink wine except me. I have been able to
drink Marco Negri “Marsilio” Moscato d’Asti. Can you suggest wines
that are similar in taste? Also, how long can I retain bottles of
Marco Negri before they are past their prime?

— Larry Howell, Albany, Ga.

No need to feel left out of the party, Larry. You are drinking wine
— your moscato is a peach-scented, fresh-tasting, slightly sweet and
fizzy version from Asti in the Piedmont region of Italy. It sells for
about $13 and is one of my favorites for summer picnics.
Moscato-based wines are best drunk young and are not built for long
aging. Your moscato is made from a grape in the broad muscat family,
and within that family there are drier and sweeter versions. Muscat
de Beaumes de Venise is a famous fortified sweet wine from the
southern Rhone Valley in France, while Muscat d’Alsace is a dry wine
with strong citrus notes from the Alsace region of France.

Do you have a wine question? Send it along with your name and the
place where you live to [email protected].

ARMENIAN BUSINESSMAN DENIES REPORT IN TURKISH DAILY

ArmenPress
Feb 10 2005

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 10, ARMENPRESS: Arsen Ghazarian, the chairman of
the Union of Manufacturers and Businessmen, denied today a report by
a Turkish daily Zaman that said Ghazarian and Sarkis Asatrian, the
head of the Youth Party of Armenia, met Wednesday in Ankara with
Ankara Trade Chamber president Sinan Aygun.
Aygun was quoted by Zaman as saying that turning incidents of the
past into a blood feud will bring no benefit, but only disturb
people.
Speaking to Armenpress Arsen Ghazarian said no delegation visited
Turkey and never met with Aygun. “The report in Zaman is another
concoction of the Turkish press and it is not the first instance when
I have to deny its reports. This comes to prove one again that one
should not take seriously what Turkish newspapers write,” he said.

The New York Times
February 9, 2005

The Coming Clash Over Kirkuk

By Sandra Mackey.

Sandra Mackey is the author of ”The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy
of Saddam Hussein.”

AS the Iraqis turn their focus from holding elections to writing a
constitution, the make-or-break issue for their nation may be the
city of Kirkuk. Situated next to Iraq’s northern oil fields, Kirkuk
is a setting for all the ethnic-sectarian conflicts that are the
historic reality of Iraq — Muslim against Christian, Sunni against
Shiite, Kurd against Arab. It is also home to the Turkmens, who are
the ethnic cousins of the Turks and look to a willing Turkey as their
protector. In their fierce competition for the right to claim Kirkuk,
the Turkmens and the Kurds threaten to turn Iraqi internal politics
into a regional conflict.

On a visit to Kirkuk last fall, I talked to both Turkmens and Kurds,
and it was immediately obvious that both groups have a passion and
feeling of possession toward the city, with its impressive citadel
built on an ancient tell. . Kirkuk is the center of the Turkmen
population in Iraq, while for Kurds, the city is a touchstone of
their identity.

Each group employs demographics to back up its claim to the city. The
last official Iraqi census, in 1957, listed 40 percent of Kirkuk’s
population as Turkmen and 35 percent as Kurdish; the rest were Arabs,
Assyrians, Armenians and others. Today, the population is roughly
850,000; based on unofficial estimates, the number of Arabs has
significantly increased, and the percentages of the Turkmens and
Kurds are probably reversed.

When the American invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Kurdish
militias advanced southward from the Kurdish autonomous zone
established in the northern third of Iraq in 1991 and entered Kirkuk.
Since then the Kurds have used their position as American allies to
bring in Kurdish families and thus bolster their demand that Kirkuk
be incorporated in the Kurds’ autonomous zone.

Their reason is emotional but also economic: Kirkuk is the key to oil
fields that represent 40 percent of Iraq’s proven petroleum reserves.
At the least, those fields constitute an enormous bargaining chip in
the negotiations over the future Iraqi government; at most they
provide the economic base for a future Kurdish state.

The Kurds’ numbers, and their determination to lay claim to Kirkuk,
have stoked the already intense hostilities between the Kurds and
Arabs that date to the late 1980’s, when Saddam Hussein pushed many
Kurds out of the city and replaced them with Arabs. But it is the
contest for Kirkuk being waged between the Kurds and Turkmens that is
the far more serious problem for the United States because the only
card the Turkmens of Kirkuk have to play against the Kurds is Turkey.
It is a card Ankara is willing to allow them to put on the table.

Turkey holds its own claim to Kirkuk. Unlike the Ottoman territories
that were ceded to Iraq in the agreements that came at the end of
World War I, Kirkuk was taken from Turkey as a result of the 1923
Lausanne Treaty. Turkish nationalists still regard it as historically
part of Turkey. Ankara also asserts guardianship over the Turkmen
ethnic minority in northern Iraq. But those are more emotional than
political issues. What is mainly driving Turkey’s interest in Kirkuk
is the long-term problem of Turkey’s own rebellious Kurdish minority,
which is 20 percent of its population.

Since 1999, Turkish Kurds have attacked Turkey from bases in northern
Iraq, in the Kurdish autonomous region. To Turkey’s frustration,
Iraqi Kurd officials turn a blind eye to their Turkish Kurd cousins’
activities, while the Americans have been reluctant to move against
the bases for fear of damaging their relationship with the Iraqi
Kurds. The Turkish military has taken matters into its own hands by
crossing the Iraqi border on occasion to battle the rebels.

But more ominous for American efforts to stabilize Iraq are Turkish
fears that Baghdad will be forced to allow the Kurds to make Kirkuk
part of their autonomous zone. For Ankara, this would constitute
excessive Kurdish autonomy, its red line in Iraq.

The Turkish military has repeatedly warned Iraqi Kurds against
changing Kirkuk’s demographics. Although it acknowledges that the
future of Kirkuk is an internal issue for Iraq, the military insists
that the inclusion of the city into the Kurdish autonomous zone is a
question in which it intends to play a part. To underline the point,
the military makes no effort to hide its plans to send troops if
needed to thwart the Kurds’ claim to Kirkuk.

Military intervention in northern Iraq is diplomatically risky for
Turkey. Having just secured Europe’s agreement to open talks on
membership in the European Union, Ankara will move with caution. Yet
Turkey may well see preventing the emergence of a potentially
oil-rich Kurdish political entity on its borders as worth the risk.
And Europe may regard keeping the Iraqi Kurds within the boundaries
of Iraq, thus promoting stability in the Persian Gulf and in oil
markets, as more important than keeping Turkey out of Iraq.

Although publicly circumspect, Washington sees Turkish military
involvement as a looming possibility on the complex political
landscape of Iraq. Washington has quietly said that the Kurds will
not be allowed to take control of Kirkuk. American military bases in
northern Iraq are discreetly being reinforced. And the First Infantry
Division that has been in charge of Kirkuk for the last year has
balanced the rights of the Turkmens and Arabs against those of the
Kurds.

So Washington recognizes that the Kurds, further emboldened by their
anticipated numbers in the new Iraqi Parliament, could precipitate a
crisis over Kirkuk. The question is whether the United States or the
non-Kurdish members of the new Iraqi government can hold the Kurds in
check — a difficult task considering the fervor, especially among
younger Kurds, for an eventual Kurdish state.

This is one of the complications of the Iraqi election that the Bush
administration has hailed as such a success. If the Kurds try to
change the status of Kirkuk, the United States may find itself forced
to turn its military power on them. But if America does nothing to
hold Kirkuk, it may well find itself in another crisis. Only this one
would not be confined to Iraq.

MONUMENT TO PETER I TO BE ERECTED IN YEREVAN IN AUTUMN

YEREVAN, February 4 (Noyan Tapan). It is expected that the monument to
Russian King Peter I will be erected in Yerevan in the middle of
October of this year. Discussion dedicated to the issues regarding the
volumes, materials for the preparation of the monument, the selection
of the place of erection of the monument was organized at the Yerevan
Head Architect. Samvel Danielian, the Head Architect of Yerevan, told
journalists after the discussion that the children’s park of the
Arabkir Community was suggested as the final place of the erection of
the monument of Russian sculptor Vadim Tserkovnikov. This territory is
advisable, because the monument will be seen for all the sides.

According to Ara Khaleyan, the Deputy Chairman of the “400th
Anniversary of the Romanovs” Foundation, the idea of the erection of
the monument to Peter I in Yerevan was proposed still during the
Armenian World Congress held in Moscow in October 2003. The
construction of the monument will be financed by the Armenian
Community of Russia, in particular, of Moscow, Kostroma and Lipetsk.

art=11629
The Arshile Gorky legacy: Armenian supreme cleric seeks artist’s bones and art

Moves to return Gorky’s remains to Etchmiadzin are being opposed by
his descendants

By David D’Arcy

Moves are afoot to transfer to Armenia the remains of the artist
Arshile Gorky, who is buried in the US, and a collection of his work,
that is presently in Portugal. Calls for the transfer of his remains,
(and appeals for funds to do so) made by a nationalist group calling
itself the Arshile Gorky Foundation, based in Yerevan, the Armenian
capital, have been rejected by the artist’s heirs. Officials of the
Council of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern),
which owns the 50 works that are now in Portugal are weighing the
potential consequences of moving those works to Armenia.

At issue are some 50 drawings, paintings and documents in a collection
that belonged to Gorky’s nephew Karlen Mooradian, who died in 1990,
and his mother, Gorky’s sister, Vartoosh, who died in 1991. The works
were placed by the church’s American diocese council with the Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon.

Members of the council, who are volunteers, are now considering a
request from the church’s world spiritual leader, the Catholicos of
All Armenians, His Holiness Karekin II, to place the collection in a
renovated monastery in a wing of the Catholicos’s residence in
Etchmiadzin, the seat of the church near the capital of Yerevan in the
Republic of Armenia.

Haig Dadourian, a New York businessman who chairs the council, said
`we do not like the idea of the collection being moved’, but noted
that he was considering sending a certain number of works in rotation,
if it could be shown that the monastery had installed acceptable
levels of climate control and security.

Mr Dardurian stressed that the collection, even if were moved, would
still belong to the diocese in New York, and that the Catholicos had
simply asked to act as custodian of Gorky’s work. Mr Dardurian noted
that the diocese’s collection had not been appraised, but he estimated
its value at $30 million.

Moving Gorky’s work to Armenia, especially on the centenary of his
birth this year, could provide a powerful publicity boost for Armenian
ambitions to create an instant pilgrimage destination around the tomb
of a national martyr. A pioneer of abstract art, Gorky, originally
named Vostanig Adoyan, never spoke publicly about being Armenian.

Yet Armenians still see him as a national artist because he was a
survivor of and a witness to the Armenian Genocide, the mass murder of
the Armenian population in Anatolia by the Ottoman authorities between
1915 and 1923. Gorky’s mother is said to have died of starvation in
1919 in her son’s arms and his portrait of her, painted in 1938, has
become a powerful symbol of Armenian sufferings and identity.

Gorky committed suicide in 1948 in Sherman, Connecticut, and is buried
there. He died without a will, and the settlement of his estate with
the Julien Levy Gallery in New York involved the division of the
artist’s works among his widow and his two daughters.

Ambitions for what some critics are calling a Gorky shrine in Armenia
are viewed as manoeuvring to promote tourism there, and to draw
philanthropic funds from the Armenian diaspora.

Critics call it a scam. `I see no symbolic significance to having
Gorky’s remains in Armenia. He was born in Khorgom, which was Western
Armenia, not Armenia proper, and he lived his adult life in the US’,
said Alice Kelikian, a professor of history at Brandeis University,
who opposes the transfer. Dr Kelikian’s parents were the executors of
the estates of Gorky’s sister and nephew. `It seems that His Holiness
is trying to make the so-called `repatriation’ of Gorky’s drawings and
bones the legacy of his episcopacy’.

Speaking on the telephone to The Art Newspaper from her home outside
Siena, Maro Gorky, the painter’s daughter, said she was against
sending her father’s works or his bones to Armenia. `They can’t move
them without our permission, and we’re not giving it. It’s that
simple’.

Maro Gorky sees another motive for the revival of the campaign by the
Arshile Gorky Foundation. Last spring, Ms Gorky and her husband,
Matthew Spender, the sculptor and Gorky biographer, were surprised to
learn that the Arshile Gorky Foundation was using Spender’s name to
raise funds for the transfer. `They’re terribly impressed that Gorky’s
work is selling for so much at the moment, and so they want the
bones. It’s a scam to collect funds from innocent Armenians’.
Tuesday, 25 January 2005

Hovnanian Enterprises Announces 13% Increase in Dollar Value of Net
Contracts and 50% Increase in the Dollar Value of Contract Backlog for
the First Quarter

PRNewswire-FirstCall
Thursday February 3, 2005

RED BANK, N.J., Feb. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Hovnanian Enterprises,
Inc., a leading national homebuilder, announced today preliminary net
contracts and sales backlog for the first quarter and month ended
January 31, 2005. For the first quarter of fiscal 2005, the dollar value
of net contracts, including unconsolidated joint ventures, increased
13.0%, and the number of net contracts increased 0.5%, when compared to
the same period a year ago. The sales value of contract backlog at
January 31, 2005, including unconsolidated joint ventures, increased
50.3% on a year-over-year basis, and the number of homes in contract
backlog increased 19.1%, when compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2004.

For the month of January 2005, the dollar value of net contracts,
including unconsolidated joint ventures, increased 11.3%, while the
number of contracts increased 0.3%, when compared with January 2004. The
Company experienced a decline in the number of net contracts in the West
for the month and the quarter. This decline was primarily due to the
severe wet weather in California in January, which impacted traffic and
sales. The Company also experienced a decline in net contracts in the
Northeast for the month and the quarter, due entirely to a decline in
net contracts in the Company’s on-your- lot operations in Ohio.

The Company delivered 3,266 homes, excluding unconsolidated joint
ventures, an increase of 12.6%, during the 2005 first quarter, compared
with 2,901 homes delivered in last year’s first quarter. The number of
active selling communities company-wide on January 31, 2005 increased to
292 communities from 288 communities at the end of January 2004.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. founded in 1959 by Kevork S. Hovnanian,
Chairman, is headquartered in Red Bank, New Jersey. The Company is one
of the nation’s largest homebuilders with operations in Arizona,
California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Michigan,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia and West Virginia. The Company’s homes are marketed and sold
under the trade names K. Hovnanian(R)Homes, Goodman Homes, Matzel &
Mumford, Diamond Homes, Westminster Homes, Forecast Homes, Parkside
Homes, Brighton Homes, Parkwood Builders, Great Western Homes and
Windward Homes. As the developer of K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons
communities, the Company is also one of the nation’s largest builders of
active adult homes.

Additional information on Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., including a
summary investment profile and the Company’s 2003 annual report, can be
accessed through the Investor Relations page of the Hovnanian website at
To be added to Hovnanian’s investor e-mail or fax
lists, please send an e-mail to [email protected] or sign up at

Source: Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.

The New York Times
February 3, 2005
Inquiry Severely Criticizes U.N.’s Oil-for-Aid Program
By JUDITH MILLER

An interim report by a United Nations-appointed panel investigating
the oil-for-food program in Iraq severely criticizes its director and
depicts the program as “tainted” for failing to follow the
organization’s own procedures.

In an essay appearing today in The Wall Street Journal, Paul
A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who heads the
three-member commission investigating the oil-for-food program, said
its procurement system had failed to follow “the established rules of
the organization designed to assure fairness and accountability.”

He said the report, which is scheduled to be made public today, also
accuses Benon Sevan, the Cypriot who had headed what was once the
world body’s largest humanitarian effort, of “irreconcilable conflict
of interest.”

Citing what he called “conclusive” evidence, Mr. Volcker wrote that by
“effectively participating in the selection of purchasers of oil under
the program,” Mr. Sevan had violated both “specific United Nations
rules and of the broad responsibility of an international civil
servant to adhere to the highest standards of trust and integrity.”

One official who has seen parts of the report said that it also
criticized another senior United Nations official, Joseph Stephanides,
a senior official on the Security Council staff, for failing to ensure
that the organization’s own rules for buying oil, selling goods and
selecting contractors were followed.

Telephone calls were made last night to the offices of both Mr. Sevan
and Mr. Stephanides, but neither man could be reached for comment.

In his essay, Mr. Volcker said the report explored in “excruciating
detail” three “potentially vulnerable” parts of the $64 billion
program, which was aimed at easing the debilitating effects of
economic sanctions on the Iraqi people between 1996 and 2003 by
ensuring that Iraq’s oil revenues were used to buy food, medicine and
other necessities for its people.

Specifically, he said the interim report discussed the initial
selection of major contractors hired to inspect Iraqi oil exports,
imports of ostensibly humanitarian goods, and how the program’s funds
were spent and managed. The report also discusses internal program
audits, many of which have already been disclosed, and how the program
spent its own administrative funds, he wrote.

“The findings do not make for pleasant reading,” Mr. Volcker
concluded.

His interim report, which has been eagerly and skeptically awaited by
United Nations critics, is months overdue. Hampered by what
investigators and diplomats called a reluctance among some member
countries to cooperate and a lack of subpoena power, Mr. Volcker’s
panel has had difficulty obtaining evidence. Conservatives and other
critics have accused him of being insufficiently impartial and
independent, a charge he has denied. And John Danforth, who recently
left his position as American ambassador to the United Nations, said
Mr. Volcker, with a staff of over 60 people and a budget of some $30
million, lacked some tools needed to conduct a thorough inquiry.

Mr. Volcker was particularly critical of the oil-for-food program’s
procurement system. “We have found in each case that the procurement
process was tainted,” he wrote, by a failure to follow established
rules.

“Perhaps not surprisingly,” he added, “political considerations
intruded, but in a manner that was neither transparent nor
accountable.”

Repeating criticisms the commission, officially known as the
Independent Inquiry Committee, made in an earlier report, Mr. Volcker
said the interim report concluded that the auditing system was
“underfunded and undermanned” and hence, “unable to meet effectively
the challenge posed by a really unique, massive and complex program of
humanitarian assistance.”

Despite the “skill and dedication of auditing professionals,” he
wrote, the auditing system lacked “clear reporting lines and the
management responsiveness critical to achieving a fully effective
auditing process.”

Even though no evidence of “systematic or widespread abuse” was found
in how the program’s administrative funds were spent, Mr. Volcker
wrote, the commission still found what he called “a clear lapse from
disciplined judgment.”

Mr. Volcker called his panel’s initial findings about Mr. Sevan “more
disheartening.” He indicated that the investigation of Mr. Sevan, an
aide to Kofi Annan, was continuing, as was his investigation of how
and why Cotecna Inspection, a Swiss-based company that was hired to
inspect humanitarian goods bought by Iraq and that employed
Mr. Annan’s son, got its own contract.

Mr. Annan has denied charges of nepotism within his organization and
said he had not known that his son, Kojo, had continued being paid by
Cotecna after leaving the company. Mr. Sevan have also previously
denied charges of wrongdoing, but he has declined for many months to
meet with or talk to reporters.

Under the rules of the oil-for-food program created by the United
States and other members of the Security Council, Iraq could chose to
whom it would sell its oil and buy humanitarian goods. Congressional
investigators have said that because of the program’s structure,
secrecy and poor oversight, billions were diverted from the program.

Mr. Annan told reporters yesterday that the United Nations would adopt
reforms in response to Mr. Volcker’s criticisms and recommendations,
and that he was already doing so.

Azeri paper warns of row with Georgia over military aid to Armenia

Zerkalo, Baku
2 Feb 05

Excerpt from C. Sumarinli and M. Yasaroglu report by Azerbaijani
newspaper Zerkalo on 2 February headlined “A military scandal is
brewing between Georgia and Azerbaijan” an subheaded “If Tbilisi
continues repairing Armenian tanks, this issue will be discussed at a
parliament session”

Zerkalo has repeatedly written about Georgia’s inconsistent and more
than strange policy towards Azerbaijan. In some issues, our Georgian
neighbours pretend that they are giving us all-out support, but do
quite the opposite in other cases.

The information we have discovered may trigger a new incident between
the two countries’ authorities as it is directly related to
Azerbaijan’s interests in the Karabakh issue. The point is that
[Russia’s] Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported yesterday that the Tbilisi
tank repairing plant of the Group of Russian Troops in the
Transcaucasus [GRTT], which is the only plant of the sort in the South
Caucasus, has been handed over to the Georgian Defence Ministry.
[Passage omitted: details of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta report]

In a word, no problem is anticipated between the Georgian and Russian
defence ministries. However, problems may arise with Azerbaijan.

The point is that until recently, not only Russian and Georgian tanks,
but also armoured vehicles of the Armenian army were repaired in
Tbilisi. Let us recall that several years ago, official Baku accused
Georgia of giving military aid to unfriendly Yerevan. Official Baku
turned down the Georgian and GRTT offer to provide the Azerbaijani
army with the same services.

What will neighbouring Georgia do now that it owns the plant? And one
should not forget that Georgia is Azerbaijan’s strategic partner.
[Passage omitted: details of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta report]

Interestingly, Azerbaijan’s Defence Ministry displayed “enviable
awareness” of the issue. To put it simply, the Azerbaijani Defence
Ministry has no idea about this at all. At least this is what Col
Ramiz Malikov, head of the Defence Ministry’s press office, told our
Zerkalo correspondent.

“I have no idea about this information and that’s why I cannot say
anything specific,” he said.

Despite the spartan calm of the head of the Defence Ministry press
office, a member of the parliament’s standing commission for defence
and national security, Alimammad Nuriyev, views this issue as quite
serious. He says that official Baku should focus on the issue,
“carefully study it and express its concern to the Georgian side”.

Nuriyev believes that the handover of the tank repairing plant to
Georgia has fundamentally changed the situation. Given the fact that
Russia and Armenia are military and strategic partners, the repairing
of Armenian military hard ware at the Georgian plant is a logical
reality, which, however, is not in Azerbaijan’s interests. But if the
situation has changed in favour of Georgia, official Tbilisi simply
has to take into account the interests of Baku, which is its strategic
partner. What’s more, like Azerbaijan, Georgia has chosen to integrate
into NATO.

“Given all these factors, one should not view normally the fact that
Georgia is repairing Armenian military hardware,” Nuriyev said. He
voiced his hope that the Azerbaijani government will express its
position on the issue.

Nuriyev believes that if the situation develops in the direction that
goes against Azerbaijan’s interests, the issue will be raised at the
Azerbaijani parliament. He said Azerbaijan has many levers to pressure
Georgia, and the Georgian side understands this. However, he refused
to elaborate on this, as Azerbaijan has not announced its official
position.

In turn, independent military expert Col-Lt Uzeyir Cafarov said that
official Tbilisi should take account of Azerbaijan’s interests and,
most importantly, of the fact that we are at war with Armenia. Georgia
should limit its military cooperation with Armenia. Otherwise, the
expert said, tensions may emerge in Azerbaijani-Georgian relations in
the near future.

Cafarov is sure that Armenia will continue having its military
hardware repaired at that plant for a long time. However, sooner or
later official Tbilisi will have to take into account Azerbaijan’s
interest, he said.

The expert thinks that it is of benefit to Azerbaijan to have its
tanks repaired at this plant instead of Armenia. As a person who used
to serve in Georgia, he also noted the high professionalism of the
plant’s staff in this sphere. Many, including Azerbaijan, have
refused the services of the plant, as a result of which the capacity
of the plant has halved.

“I think that the plant will be upgraded to modern international
standards with the help of NATO. This will be possible in three or
four years. It will be good if Azerbaijan also used the services of
this plant,” he said. [Passage omitted: minor details]