Author: Nadirian Emma

ArmenPress
July 1 2004

PARAJANOV’S ANNIVERSARY MARKED IN YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JULY 1, ARMENPRESS: Relatives and close friends of Sergey
Parajanov, an outstanding Armenian film director, arrived in Yerevan
from Ukraine, Russia, Iran and Georgia to join a set of events that
are being held from July 1 to July 4 in commemoration of his 80-th
birth anniversary. The events are part of the Golden Apricot
international film festival that opened in Yerevan June 30.
Zaven Sarkisian, the director of Parajanov Museum in Yerevan, said
the guests will tour across several sites in Armenia, favored by the
director. Also an installation, designed by Rafael Virling from
France will be held in Yerevan. Today a documentary shot by
Parajanov’s nephew, Georgy Parajanov, about his uncle and called I
Died in my Childhood was screened at Moskva cinema house. It was also
shown at a recent festivals in Cannes and Moscow.

New proposal on Karabakh based on Cyprus blueprint – Azeri paper

Ayna, Baku
29 Jun 04

Text of X. Afqani report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ayna on 29 June
headlined “Cyprus blueprint for Karabakh” and subheaded “Turkey’s
involvement in the Nagornyy Karabakh talks agreed”

The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey met yesterday
[28 June] on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Istanbul. The
gathering was held behind closed doors.

The ministers told journalists after the meeting that they had
discussed the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict but did not disclose the
details. In their brief speeches the ministers said that both
Azerbaijan and Armenia support a greater involvement of Turkey in
resolving the conflict. The mechanism for this will be ready in one or
two months, [Azerbaijani Foreign Minister] Elmar Mammadyarov said.

In turn, [Armenian Foreign Minister] Vardan Oskanyan said that the
sides also discussed the opening of the Turkish-Armenian
border. Resolving this issue may take some time, Oskanyan said. The
foremost objective of the talks was to work out a new approach to
resolving the problem.

According to Turkish diplomatic sources, Armenia received a new
formula to settle the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict during the trilateral
meeting. The formula is similar to the blueprint for resolving the
Cyprus problem. In essence, the new proposal is to pay greater
attention to the interests of both the Armenian and Azeri communities
in Nagornyy Karabakh.

Before the trilateral meeting, [Turkish Foreign Minister] Abdullah Gul
received Oskanyan. The Turkish mass media reported that this meeting
discussed the Nagornyy Karabakh problem and relations between Turkey
and Armenia. The two countries have yet to establish diplomatic
relations.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
June 28, 2004 Monday 6:33 AM Eastern Time

South Ossetia blocks buses with Georgian passengers

By Eka Mekhuzla

TBILISI, June 28

Police of South Ossetia, Georgia’s enclave, has stopped six passenger
that were en route from different cities of Russia to the Georgian
capital Tbilisi.

More that 150 Georgian passengers, including 40 children, have
entered South Ossetia’s Dzhavsky district from Russia through the
Roksky tunnel, and have been stranded for about 24 hours, a spokesman
at the office of the Georgian state minister for conflict settlement
told Itar-Tass on Monday.

Several passengers managed to make telephone calls to Tbilisi, saying
that they were running out of food.

They said South Ossetian authorities demanded that Georgia release
two trucks with fuel cargoes that Georgian police seized last week as
contraband.

South Ossetian Interior Minister Robert Guliyev has confirmed the
fact of blocking the busses at a migration control post.

“The ban on the traffic of the private passenger and cargo transport
has been introduced for the time until Georgia lifts the economic
blockade of South Ossetia and returns the trucks confiscated from our
citizens,” Guliyev told Itar-Tass by phone from Tskhinvali.

He added that “this measure applies only to those who live in
Georgia; Russians Azerbaijanis, Armenians and citizens of other
countries can calmly travel in transit through the territory of South
Ossetia”.

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
06/25/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://

1. Gorky Family Representative Expounds Family’s Decision
2. House Panel Vote Maintains Parity in US Military Aid to Armenia and
Azerbaijan
3. Poll Shows Universal Rejection of Karabagh’s Return to Azerbaijan
4. Kocharian Delivers Powerful Message to PACE

1. Gorky Family Representative Expounds Family’s Decision

On behalf of Arshile Gorky’s family, son-in-law Matthew Spender recently
explained to Asbarez that although the chances of transferring Gorky’s remains
to Armenia are small, the Gorky family would review a formal request.
In May of this year, the family was stunned by the announcement of the
Yerevan-based Arshile Gorky Foundation, that efforts were underway to
transport
and bury the remains of the artist in Armenia, so as to carry out Gorky’s
greatest dreams “to return home and to be one with the soil of Armenia.”
Spender had responded saying that neither Gorky’s daughter Maro, her mother,
nor sister had been informed of the plan, and were against the idea. “Gorky’s
resting place in Connecticut is final,” emphasized Spender.
In a June 23 letter, Spender explained that a similar attempt had been made
many years ago by Gorky’s nephew Karlen Mooradian, but was rejected by the
family. “The confidence with which the present group has been raising money
for
the scheme has also created a bad impression, as you can imagine,” Spender
told
Asbarez. “But it is only fair to give the proposal a hearing.”
Addressing the point of Gorky’s remains being at one with the soil of
Armenia,
Spender explained that Gorky’s relationship to Armenia is unclear. “Vartoosh
and her husband returned there in 1935 and had a terrible time. It was only
with difficulty that Gorky, through a US relief agency (to which he remained
eternally grateful), was able to bring them back to the United States.”
In fact, Spender says that Gorky never really mentioned the Republic of
Armenia, except in one letter in which he “seemed diffident,” about it.
“Regarding what one might guess to have been his feeling on the subject, it
would make more sense to translate his remains to Van than to Armenia. But
that, of course, is out of the question,” concludes Spender.
Spender is the author of the 1999 Gorky biography, From a High Place: A Life
of Arshile Gorky.

2. House Panel Vote Maintains Parity in US Military Aid to Armenia and
Azerbaijan

WASHINGTON, DC (ANCA)–A key House Appropriations Subcommittee, voted on June
23 to maintain parity in US foreign military financing (FMF) assistance to
Armenia and Azerbaijan. The decision counters President Bush’s FY 2005 budget
proposal, which would have broken an earlier agreement between the
Administration and Congressional leaders to ensure balanced military
assistance
to the two countries.
The House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, chaired by Arizona Republican Jim
Kolbe, voted to allocate $5 million in military assistance to Armenia and
Azerbaijan, respectively, as opposed to President Bush’s request of $8 million
for Azerbaijan and $2 million for Armenia. The Committee also supported a hard
earmark of $65 million in US assistance to Armenia, and $5 million for
Mountainous Karabagh. By contrast, the Bush Administration had requested $62
million for Armenia and had not specified any funds for Mountainous Karabagh.
The Subcommittee’s decision would effectively reduce US assistance to Armenia
by $10 million from FY 2004 levels. The reduction reflects an overall
reduction
of US assistance to former Soviet countries.
In the months leading up to the Subcommittee mark up of the foreign aid bill,
Armenian American activists from across the country participated in ANCA
WebFax
campaigns calling attention to potential repercussions to breaking US military
assistance parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In February, activists noted
that the brutal murder in Hungary of 26-year-old Armenian Lieutenant Gurgen
Markarian during a NATO language course underscored the dangers posed by
adopting President Bush’s policy. That tragedy was followed by disturbing
rhetoric by the Azerbaijani leadership threatening to resolve the Mountainous
Karabagh issue militarily. As Armenians and Azerbaijanis were marking the 10th
anniversary of the Mountainous Karabagh ceasefire on May 12th, Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev announced that, “We [Azerbaijan] must increase our
military potential. Our army is able at any moment to free our territory.”
Aliyev went on to note that military expenditures have grown over the past
several years and “it will keep increasing in the future.”
In a briefing paper faxed to House and Senate members earlier this year, the
ANCA noted that “a tilt in military spending toward Azerbaijan would
destabilize the region, emboldening the new Azerbaijani leadership to continue
their threats to impose a military solution to the Mountainous Karabagh
conflict. More broadly, breaching the parity agreement would reward the
leadership of Azerbaijan for walking away from the OSCE’s Key West peace
talks,
the most promising opportunity to resolve the Mountainous Karabagh conflict in
nearly a decade.”
Members of Congress concurred with this assessment, with over 30 House
members
cosigning a February 24th letter to President Bush, initiated by Congressional
Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ), stating that they “strongly
believe that providing unequal military assistance to Azerbaijan and Armenia
will contribute to instability in the region and could unintentionally tip the
military balance.” Earlier that month, on February 11, Representatives
Thaddeus
McCotter (R-MI), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Brad Sherman
(D-CA) pressed Secretary of State Colin Powell to explain the Administration’s
reasoning for the proposed break in Armenia-Azerbaijan military parity in
spoken and written statements submitted during his testimony before the House
International Relations Committee.
In April, Rep. Pallone and New York Republican John Sweeney initiated a
letter
to Foreign Operations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe and Ranking Democrat
Nita
Lowey (D-NY) urging that military parity be maintained. Foreign Operations
Subcommittee member and Congressional Armenian Caucus co-Chairman Joe
Knollenberg (R-MI) was outspoken in his efforts to maintain a balance in
military assistance to the two countries. During the ANCA Capitol Hill
Observance of the Armenian Genocide, Rep. Knollenberg stated, “every single
time we have gotten the federal government’s dollar numbers for Armenia, they
have always been down and we’ve always had to bring it up. And we aren’t
going
to stop fighting to bring it back and to ensure there is parity on the
military
issue.”
The foreign aid bill will likely be considered by the House Appropriations
Committee on July 9, followed by a full House vote thereafter. The Senate
version of the bill will follow a similar path.

3. Poll Shows Universal Rejection of Karabagh’s Return to Azerbaijan

YEREVAN (ACNIS/RFE/RL)An opinion poll publicized by the Yerevan-based think
tank on Friday shows that less than only one percent of Armenians support
Mountainous Karabagh’s return to Azeri rule as part of a possible peaceful
settlement.
The Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) said
nearly
60 percent of some 2,000 people around the country recently interviewed by its
researchers want Karabagh to formally become a part of Armenia, while 39
percent of them would agree to its independence. The pollsters said only about
a third of those surveyed are against the return of the Armenian-controlled
territories in Azerbaijan proper under any circumstances, the others being
ready to trade them for Karabagh’s independence or a lasting peace.
According to the poll, thirty percent of ordinary Armenians view Russia as
the
most trustworthy of international mediators and only three percent believe the
United States tends to have a pro-Armenian stance on the issue.
This perception contrasts sharply with the findings of a separate poll
conducted by the ACNIS among 50 political and public policy analysts. Eighteen
percent of them said US interests in the region are good for a pro-Armenian
solution to the Karabagh dispute. Only ten percent mentioned Russia in that
regard.
The ACNIS survey confirms the strong Armenian opposition to any deal that
would restore Baku’s control of Karabagh. It comes amid a fresh international
push to end the conflict.
Since the raising of the Karabagh question (1988-2004), 82% of respondent
experts consider the greatest achievement to be independence and sovereignty,
8% guarantees of physical security, 4% confidence in our own abilities, and 4%
enhancement of territory. As for the public survey, 49.7% think that the most
important accomplishment is independence, 6% guarantees of physical security,
10% confidence in one’s own abilities, and 12.8% enhancement of territory. 54%
of responding specialists see the status of Mountainous Karabagh as a part of
Armenia, 32% as an independent and sovereign republic, while 10% find it
acceptable for Karabagh to be an autonomous part of Azerbaijan. Among the
broader public, these figures are 59.7%, 38.6%, and 1.1%, respectively.
All 50 professionals who took part in the focus poll are from Yerevan. 90% of
them are male, and 10% female; 8% are 30 years of age or below, 40% 31-40, 42%
41-50, and 10% 50 or above. All of the experts surveyed have received higher
education: 20% are candidates of science (PhD), 76% hold a Master’s degree,
while 4% have earned solely a Bachelor’s degree. As for the 1,950 citizens
polled, 50% of them are male and 50% female; 30.5% are 30 years of age or
below, 45.2% 31-50, 20.6% 51-70, 3.7% 71 or above. 45.7% of the responding
citizens have received higher education, whereas 11.2% incomplete higher,
17.3%
specialized secondary, 21.6% secondary, and 2.4% incomplete secondary
training.
Urban residents constitute 60.7% of the citizens surveyed, and rural residents
make up 39.3%. 34.3% are from Yerevan, and 65.7% from all of Armenia’s
regions.

4. Kocharian Delivers Powerful Message to PACE

STRASBOURG (PACE)–In his speech to the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary
Assembly (PACE) on Wednesday, President Robert Kocharian addressed the
domestic
opposition’s efforts against his administration, the Mountainous Karabagh
conflict and Armenia’s relations with Turkey. The 20-minute speech was
followed
by a question-and-answer session. The two PACE parliamentarians representing
the Armenian opposition boycotted the speech and were not on hand to pose
questions. Azeri and Turkish lawmakers, however, attempted to grill the
president. Asked by one of the Azeri parliamentarian whether he had any
role in
the war over Mountainous Karabagh, Kocharian replied, “Yes, I took part in the
war. My children were hiding in a basement for three years and had no
childhood. I am proud of my participation in the war.”
The following are excerpts from the speech:

Mr President, members of the Parliamentary Assembly and ladies and gentlemen,
it is an honor and pleasure to address you. The last time that I addressed the
Assembly was on a very significant day for Armeniathe day of our accession to
the Council of Europe.
There have been three demanding years of reforms since then that have touched
upon all domains of life in our country and necessitated the full-time
employment of all our efforts. Today I am here to announce proudly that
Armenia
has fulfilled the vast majority of its accession commitments. For the few
outstanding ones, there is a timetable agreed, with a deadline for conclusion
fixed at the end of this year. If I were asked what the single greatest
achievement was, I would definitely point to the perception Armenian society
has about its own future. The people of Armenia are now more involved in the
everyday life of the country. There is more attachment to the values of
freedom
and democracy and the formation of the civil society is burgeoning.
Does this mean Armenia has achieved the desirable level of democratic
freedoms? The obvious answer is no. Democracy has a long way to go in any
country that has a high poverty rate. To assure the peoples’ full
participation
in the democratic process, it is essential to have at least minimal social
guarantees. This is precisely why we strived to synchronize reforms in the
economy, political system, the judiciary and the social field. In essence,
Armenia has completed the process of dismantling the former centralized system
of power and economy, which allowed for total control over the society.
The Armenian economy has undergone radical transformation both in terms of
diversifying areas of economic activity and of liberalizing property law and
regulations. The scope and depth of the reforms allowed for a full-scale
enactment of the market economy. At present over 85% of Armenia’s GDP is
produced in the private sector and over 38% of it in small and medium
enterprises. Annual GDP growth has averaged 12% for the last three consecutive
years, despite the blockade implemented by two fellow members of this very
Organization.
Our biggest problem is the unacceptable difference in levels of income in our
society. Our dynamic economic growth has allowed us to develop a long-term
poverty elimination strategy. For the first time in Armenia, this governmental
program was developed in close co-operation with international financial
institutions and the wide involvement of society. That strategy now guides us
in political decision-making and in choosing our budget priorities.
Fighting corruption is yet another important step towards effective
democracy.
The Government of Armenia sees corruption as a systemic evil, which cannot be
eradicated merely through rhetoric or model prosecutions. We concentrate on
the
systemic change aimed at ruling out the sources of corruption. That is exactly
why we have joined the Greco groupthe Group of States Against Corruptionwhere
we can learn from the experience of other states on combating corruption.
Through a wide discussion including the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, we
have developed a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy. A few weeks ago I
established an Anti-Corruption Council. We count on the international
community
to help us combat this scourge.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know many of you wonder: what was happening in
Armenia
last spring? What fostered the activity of the opposition to replace
parliamentary work with revolutionary rallies? You are right to wonder, since
you have been all informed by the monitoring group of rapporteurs, who had
visited Armenia only very recentlyin Januarythat there have been significant
advances in fulfilling the commitments accepted at our accession. Most of
those
dealt with advancing democracy. Recently, Resolution 1361 of the Assembly was
adopted, setting out the extent to which Armenia has fulfilled its
commitments.
Expert evaluations of Armenia by international financial institutions are more
than optimistic. Double-digit economic growth figures and budgetary surpluses
are not fertile ground for revolution. Moreover, there are three full years
before the next parliamentary elections. Therefore, there were no internal
factors that would explain the increase in political activity. So what
happened?
The answer is easy. The opposition, encouraged by the results of the `rose
revolution’ in neighboring Georgia, decided to duplicate it in the Armenian
reality, which, however, had nothing in common with the Georgian one. They
disregarded the fact that Armenia’s economy, as opposed to Georgia’s, is
undergoing dynamic advance. Our government is efficient and our democratic
achievements are safeguarded by institutional structures, including a law
enforcement system capable of protecting public order.
History has often demonstrated that inspiration from foreign revolutions
never
results in positive outcomes. Unfortunately, learning often comes only from
people’s own mistakes. That also happened in our case. The opposition left the
parliament and organized rallies in the streets. They openly declared their
goal was to destabilize the situation in the country, attract the maximum
possible number of participants to street action, surround the building of the
Presidency and force me to resign.
Once the opposition witnessed the lack of public interest in their action,
they decided to increase the tension, most probably to attract attention. They
blocked the busiest boulevard of the city of Yerevan. That resulted in
disruption of traffic and prevented the normal functioning of the National
Assembly, of the Administration of the President and of the Constitutional
Court. In the area they blocked off, there are four embassies, the National
Academy of Science and one of the biggest schools. The organizers called on
the
public to undertake civil disobedience. The police were left with no choice;
public order was restored quickly, without any significant damage to the
health
of the participants.
Calling on the police for such operations is always regrettable. Still,
authorities have to protect the society from political extremists. That is
particularly important in young democracies, which still lack the advanced
traditions of the political and legal culture, and even more so when part of
the population lives in poverty and can be easily manipulated by populist
rhetoric.
I would particularly like to mention that the parties comprising the ruling
coalition have many times offered co-operation to the opposition.
Unfortunately, those offers were rejected. The opposition probably thinks that
co-operation would undermine the revolutionary temper of their supporters. Our
proposals were announced in the press and on television and were made in
writing and orally but they were rejected.
Our country is at an important stage of its advancement, and I am confident
that there are many things that need to be done jointly. We have offered to
work together with the opposition on the most important issues: constitutional
reform and the new electoral code. The offer is still valid; however the
discussions must be held in parliament, not in the street.
I would not refer to all this but for the last Parliamentary Assembly
resolution on Armenia. I regret that the Assembly was dragged into the
discussion. I am convinced that the Council of Europe is not the best forum in
which to clarify relations between the domestic authorities and the
opposition;
that should be done in one’s own parliament. I regret that, and I felt
duty-bound to comment on what has been happening in Armenia.
Let me now turn to one of the priority interest issues for Armenia. At the
time of accession Armenia undertook to take steps towards peaceful settlement
of the Mountainous Karabagh conflict. We have done so because we greatly
appreciate the necessity of friendly relations among neighboring states.
However, the ability to secure a long-lasting solution requires a deep
understanding of the essence of the conflict. I would like to outline two
important characteristics of the Karabagh conflict.
First, Karabagh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan. At the time of
the collapse of the Soviet Union two states were formed: the Azerbaijani
Republic on the territory of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, and the
Republic of Mountainous Karabagh on the territory of the Mountainous Karabagh
autonomous region. Establishment of both these states has similar legal
grounds. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan henceforth has nothing to do
with the Republic of Mountainous Karabagh. We are ready to discuss the
issue of
settling that conflict in the legal domain.
Secondly, the war of 1992-94 was launched by the aggression of the Azeri
authorities, which attempted to implement ethnic cleansing of the territory of
Mountainous-Karabagh with the purpose of its annexation. The situation in
place
today is the result of a selfless fight of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh
for survival on their own land. It is a classic example of both the
implementation of the right to self-determination and misuse of the
`territorial integrity’ concept as a justification for ethnic cleansings.
The people of Karabagh have prevailed in their striving for independent life
in an egalitarian society. Independence of Karabagh today has sixteen years of
history. An entire generation grew up there that can think of no other status
for the country. The Mountainous Karabagh Republic today is an established
state, in essence meeting all the Council of Europe’s membership criteria. It
is the reality which cannot be ignored. That is exactly why we insist on
direct
participation by Mountainous Karabakh in the negotiations, in which Armenia
actively participates.
The solution will emerge from the substance of the conflict, not from the
perception of the possible strengthening of Azerbaijan through future `oil
money.” The `oil money’ approach is the formula of confrontation and not of
compromise. Armenia is ready to continue and advance the ceasefire regime. We
are ready for serious negotiations on a full-scale solution for the conflict.
That is exactly why we have accepted two last formulas of solution offered by
the international mediators, which, unfortunately, were rejected by
Azerbaijan.
I want to comment on Armenian-Turkish relations, or rather on its absence.
Those relations are shaded by the memories of the past: the Genocide, its
consequences and the lack of repentance. Nowadays the situation is worsened by
the blockade of Armenia by Turkey. I would like to outline two principles
which
in my view are crucial to finding the way out of this impasse.
First, the development of practical ties and deliberations over the inherited
problems must take place in different dimensions, and one must not influence
the other. Secondly, Armenian-Turkish relations must not be conditioned by our
relations with a third country. No prizes for guessing that I am referring to
Azerbaijan. Any precondition terminates all positive expectations.

All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2004 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.

ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.

ZAWYA

Iran signs customs cooperation agreement with 22 countries

24 June 2004

Tehran — Iran has signed customs cooperation agreements with 22 countries,
said the International Cooperation Department at Iran`s Customs
Administration here on Wednesday.

According to the Department, some of the agreements, related to a bill which
has been passed by Majlis, concern European, Asian and African states and
there are one signed with a South American state. The agreements help
upgrade level of commercial exchanges with countries and remove certain
impediments to expansion of economic cooperation.

The agreements are also expected to facilitate technical and educational
cooperation and help speedy exchange of information. Iran is now engaged in
talks with Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Morocco and China to sign the
agreements. Presently, contracts with Belarussia, Albania, Spain, Italy,
Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and
Hungary are undergoing their final stages.

In addition, Georgia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Portugal, Switzerland, France,
Tanzania, Zambia, Japan and the Philippines have voiced readiness for talks
to ink related agreements. Iran`s Customs Administration official has in
recent years signed 37 memoranda of understanding with 19 countries for
expansion of cooperation.

Russia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, Belgium, Azerbaijan, Austria, Ukraine,
Turkey, Armenia, India, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tazakhstan, Sudan,
Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tunisia, Cuba and Lebanon have so far
signed customs cooperation agreement with Iran.

© IRNA 2004

Article originally published by IRNA 24-Jun-04

Northern Avenue Legal Analysis

Arman Zrvandyan 2004

24.06.2004
CSI

http://www .csi.am

In 2001 the Government of RA planned to construct Northern Avenue in
Yerevan. For the realisation of this project the Government of the RA made
several decisions approving the area of real assests (sites, houses and
construction) located within the planned area of Northern Avenue in Yerevan
and amortisied for the state needs, as well facilitated establishment of «
Northern Avenue and the Cascade » projects realisation office » governmental
non-profitable organisation wich has been charged for the activities related
to the construction of the Northern Avenue and the Cascade. Morover, in
accordance to the Government decisions N 950 of 05.10.2001 and N 1169-N
14.08.2002 N the organisation was also charged for the whole portfolio in
determination, following it currency adjustment offer and further purchase
of the confiscated sites and real estate in the area of Northern Avenue

It is noteworthy that before the confiscation of individual’s property for
the state needs, the latter should observe particular preconditions
envisaged by the Constitution of the RA, aacting laws and ratified
international agreements; and their ignorance makes the process of the
amortization of the real estate of individualsillegal.

Thus, Article N28 of the Constitution of the RA on confiscation of the
individual’s property either for the state or public needs defines the
following:

“.Confiscation of property for the needs of society and the state may occur
only in exceptional cases with prior full compensation on the basis of the
law. ”

This impleis that before confiscating the property for the needs of the
society and statethe authorities of the RA must observe the following
preconditions in accordance with the Constitution of the RA :

1. Confiscation of the property should serve for the satisfaction of the
needs of the society and the state;
2. Confiscation of property for the needs of society and the state may occur
only in exceptional cases;
3. Confiscation of property should be realized solely on the basis of the
law;
4. The authorities are obliged to provide prior full compensation.

Have the authorities of the RA satisfied the above-mentioned requirements
envisaged in the Constitution and International agreements? In order to give
a proper answer to the question it is necessary to understand how the
authorities should have provided the very guaranties.

The precise answer was given by the Constitutional Court of the RA in its
Decision N SDO-92 (SD) of February 27, 1998, that, while clarifying points
of the above stated article 28 of the Constitution of the RA, declared such
a legal position in which the property of an individual can be confiscated
in accordance to the provisions of the Second part of the Article N28 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and in case of his disagreement, the
state can terminate the enjoyment of the rights to the property by means of
Accepting Law on that particular property that will substantiate its
explicit importance and significance and define distinctly that the
confiscated property will be used for the needs of the state and the
society. Moreover, the Constitutional Court states that the Government of
the Republic of Armenia cannot establish such procedures of confiscation of
property for the needs of the state and society that will automatically
authorise it with the right for confiscating this type of property.

The National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia has never accepted any Law
on Confiscating the Property in the Area of the Northern Avenue as stated in
the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the RA. Furthermore, the
afore-mentioned decisions of the Government of the RA, that were taken as a
legal basis for the realisation of processes of confiscating the property in
this area, are mere Sub-Constitutional Acts and they can no way be addressed
and treated as “Laws”. Accordingly, the absence of the Law automatically
implies the disregard to the other constitutional requirements, as only in
the Law on the Confiscation of the confiscation-due Property in the area of
the Northern Avenue the Government of the RA could have proven the explicit
importance and significance and define distinctly that the confiscated
property will be used for the needs of the state and the society.

Thus, as the Constitutional norms are put into force immediately and
International Agreements of the RA are superior over the Laws that
contradict them, it goes naturally that the provisions of the latter should
be practised.

In these conditions the decision made by the executive branch of the RA
couldn’t have served as satisfactory legal basis for confiscations of the
individuals’ property.

Furthermore, the Article N1 of the Protocol N1 of the European Convention on
the “Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” states the following

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the
general principles of international law.

So, as you can see, the European Convention also foresees restrictions in
the usage of own property, though, the same way as in the Constitution of
the RA, it allows confiscation in the manner of “except in the public
interest” and “subject to the conditions provided for by law” and not by a
Sub-Constitutional Act.

The European Court on Human Rights in its case of Zvolski and Zvolskaya
against Republic of Czech gave the following in its Verdict:
. Article N1 of the Protocol N1 of the Convention requires that any
interference into the right of enjoying possessions of the natural person by
the state authorities must be legal. Moreover, the predominance of the
Right, which is one of the fundamental principles of the democratic society,
is applicable to all the Articles of the Convention.
The law, which serves as a basis for the interference, should correspond to
the relevant provisions of the inter- state Legislation, including
Constitution of the High Agreeing Side (See, point 65 of December 11, 2002
in the Verdict of ECHR on case of Zvolski and Zvolska against Republic of
Czech)

Those preconditions for the deprivation of the property are included,
primarily, to establish control over restrictions towards individual’s
fundamental right of property by the Legislative body and prevent possible
abuse and violations committed in out of the control on behalf of the
Executives.

Summarising the above written, we can conclude that the Confiscation of the
property realised in frames of the project on the Construction of the
Northern Avenue in the RA was not “on the basis of Law” as the National
Assembly has not ever accepted the relevant Law, which is a direct breach of
both the Constitution of the RA and other laws as well as provisions
envisaged in the Article N1 of the Protocol N1 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.

Interview: Journalists and Writers Foundation acts in Accordance with Turkey’s Interests

Zaman, Turkey
June 18 2004

The Journalists and Writers Foundation has celebrated its 10th
anniversary. The foundation, established in January 1994, by a group
of journalists and writers, including Fethullah Gülen, has realized
many national and international activities in accordance with its
mission, that is, to promote communal consensus and global peace.

The foundation, introducing itself with the tolerance awards it gives
to people from different sectors, under the framework of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Tolerance Year, has also started ‘dialogue iftars’ (evening meals
during Ramadan),’ that many civil and official institutions support.
At a time when nobody considered making dialogue with Jews and
Christians, the foundation took important steps in this regard. It
also backed world peace efforts. The Abant meetings are the most
conspicuous activities of the foundation. Apart from the Abant
Platform, that conducted its activities in Turkey for six years and
then expanded abroad, the Eurasia Dialogue Platform and Intercultural
Dialogue Platform are also organizations being closely watched by the
whole world. While the former is a meeting point of Eurasian
intellectuals, the latter focuses on intercultural dialogue.
Naturally, some questions arise about the foundation realizing
international activities with such great costs. We asked President
Harun Tokak about the foundation’s 10-year process:

You have carried out activities not seen in the branches of
Journalism and Authorship. Why such a choice?

Job institutions such as, the Journalists’ Association of Turkey
(TGC), dealing with job applications and the problems encountered on
that issue, is already in existence. We considered it unnecessary to
do the same thing. I say this here to explain what triggered us to
establish such a foundation, not meaning that we will not be tackling
the problems and the projects of the employees.

What was the deficiency in you opinion?

The journalists and authors are from the intellectual section of
society. To a certain extent, they present this intellectual
accumulation through the media. However, looking at the process the
world is going through, we see that what countries like us need is
not only thousands of years of accumulation, but also other factors
contributing to the process. The presentation of views by the media
was not enough for us. We felt that people with different views and
different beliefs reflect the richness of our country and should
unite physically. We wanted to stress the importance of talking face
to face and sharing the same places.

Have you reached your goals?

At the opening session of the foundation’s establishment, our
honorary President Fethullah Gülen said: “Turkey will not give up on
democracy,” and this remark gained unexpected publicity. This not
only showed the need for democracy in Turkey but also elucidated the
fact that religious sects do not consider democracy as a hurdle
before Islam. We need to recognize and embrace each other. On the
11th of February, 1995, during the iftar we gave at the Polat
Renaissance Hotel, people from different sects constitued a colorful
picture. On January 4, 1996, our foundation gave ‘Tolerance Awards’
on the occasion of the ‘Tolerance Year.’ The corroboration was such
that the whole Turkey was excited. For instance we organized a World
XI versus Turkey XI match to draw attention to the tragedy in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. The proceeds from that game were sent to three
Turkish schools in Bosnia. Children from Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia
are now being educated at these Turkish schools. We are sure that
these children will not make the mistakes their fathers made.

The foundation generates anti-theses against the clash of
civilizations and organizes meetings on civilization dialogues. Why
do you focus on these issues? Is it because you feel a possible clash
may also happen in Turkey?

Yes, during that period the study thesis was very intense. On one
hand there was the clash of civilizations thesis, and on the other
hand, the polarizations in Turkey. For this reason we organized the
first international meeting under the name, “From Clash of
Civilizations to Dialogue.” Both native and foreign, so many
scientists delivered messages of global peace and consensus. But the
main issue we focused on was the problems our country was
encountering. There were issues that would cause tension in Turkey as
our people took different sides in the Turk-Kurd, Alevi-Sunni,
secular-anti secular conflicts. Fortunately, these problems no longer
exist in that dimension. During those years, the differences between
cultures were exaggerated on purpose. This communal psychology made
the Abant meetings known publicly. The need to discuss our country’s
problems emerged. A great many people, from atheists to theologians,
from liberals to nationalists, participated in the first Abant
Meeting that was held in 1998. The meetings lasted for six years, and
this year it expanded abroad. The intitution’s founding president is
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Aydin, currently a state minister. Carrying the
meetings to the international level was proposed at the last Abant
Meeting. The Advisory Board then made a decision in accordance with
this proposal. We held the first meeting abroad in Washington, the
second will be held in Brussels in December, before Turkey gets a
[negotiation] date from the European Union (EU).

Your interregional activities have been widely supported by a
substantial part of the society. Why do you give so much importance
to these relations?

There may naturally be people criticizing, not appreciating and even
considering the activities not enough. The important point here is
that if we are to attain global peace, we should not overlook the
religion fact. If peace and consensus among religions are ensured,
international relations will also improve. We invited the Armenian
patriarch to our iftar dinner; now every year the esteemed Patriarch
Mesrob II invites Muslims to iftar meals himself. In 2000, we held
the “Forefather Abraham Symposium.” in Harran and representatives
from the three Abrahamic religions came together at this symposium.
These meetings are of paramount importance, since they also play a
lobby role in the EU. Even Mesrob went to the EU and drew attention
to the importance of Turkey being a member of the Union. Global peace
and Turkey’s interests are closely related with dialogue and
consensus among religions. Turkey wants to compete with the modern
world, but before that, it must structure the bridges between the
sects in society. Our ultimate goal is to make contributions so that
Turkey achieves its targets.

Many institutions, after a while, have supported some of your
activities. Now everybody gives iftar meals. What do you think about
this? Do you feel disturbed?

No, we certainly do not feel disturbed. Anyway, we do all these
things in order to make our culture known. This is our aim , and the
process shows that we are following a correct procedure. The dialogue
efforts should be supported. These activities should be more
widespread through conscientious efforts.

You have made Abant Platform known internationally by carrying it
abroad for the first time. Did the Abant meeting in Washington catch
up with the same level as that of Turkey?

World-renowned academicians, Esposito and Fukuyama took part in the
meetings. The academicians from the United States know Turkey and
Middle East very well and speak Turkish fluently. Apart from Kemal
Dervis, (former Turkish economy minister), the permanent Abant
participants came to the meeting on behalf of Turkey. I observed that
the culture of dialogue and consensus that we call ‘Abant Soil’ was
spreading in Washington.

Some commentators say the US hosted these meetings in order to
realize its dreams of a Greater Middle East Project. Did Washington
Abant serve the aims of the United States in the Middle East?

We never accept claims of this sort. Because by the time we made a
decision to hold the Washington Abant Meeting, there was no such
issue as the Greater Middle East Project. State Minister Mehmet Aydin
gave an important lecture at that meeting. Aydin, evaluating the
Greater Middle East Project, said more or less the following: “If
this a project to unify the Middle Eastern countries, the democracy
tree cannot be planted by force. Democracy will come to the Middle
East through will power.” I personally agree with Aydin on this
point. Another participant, Mithat Melen, said: “Turkish
intellectuals paid their own money to tell the Americans something.
Since the Americans and Europeans invited us, we went to talk.” This
comment is important as it explains the aim of the meeting. In all
our activities, the interests of our country and nation come first.
As an international organization, we have a say on the issue of the
Greater Middle East Project, and we are for the interests of Turkey.

You work on a line extending from the US to the Middle East and send
many people abroad. How can you finance these activities?

This is a question asked frequently. This was a topical issue
especially when the last Abant Meeting was held. Comments that we
were financed by a U.S.foundation and about our honorary President
Fethullah Gülen were made. It is true that we stage big
organizations, but our main financial support comes from the
sponsors. We find sponsors for all the organizations we make. The
official institutions also contribute sometimes. For example during
the tenure of esteemed Istemihan Talay, we received support from the
Culture Ministry. We have also applied to the present ministry, and
expect a reply from them. And about the incomes of our fund. We
organized the Washington Abant and Mardin meetings with our own
incomes. Anyway, the Anatolian people’s generosity saves you from
many expenses. This is our cultural richness. It is not true that we
pay the people we take there. These claims are false. For instance,
the journalists who send their news reports pay from their own
pockets. Besides, the university students of John Hopkins themselves
paid for the conference room. The total amount we paid for the
meetings was US$50,000. We could afford this through our foundation’s
incomes. In addition, the budget of the meeting held in Mardin was
US$100,000 in all. Apart from the sponsors’ assistance, we make up
the rest from the foundation’s incomes.

Fethullah Gulen is being talked about frequently. What is the
relation between Gulen and your foundation?

Our relations with Gulen is always a discussion issue. The esteemed
Gulen was among the founders in the early years. Then he became the
honorary president. All the relations with him are as such. We run
our work as platforms, as intercultural platforms, the Abant Platform
and the Dialogue Platforms. These platforms work independently.
Namely, the decision mechanism is not Gulen, but the board of
presidents. It decides on the time and place of the meetings. People
with different kinds of beliefs take part in the Advisory Board.

The foundation gives importance to unifying people from different
origins and different beliefs. Do the opposing views disturb you?

Let alone disturbing, they are good for us. This is the very positive
side of the meetings. Our aim is to make people of different beliefs
come together and talk. This was not possible 10 years ago, but today
it is considered natural and an ‘Abant Soil’ has come to Turkey.

It is interesting that different cultures come together and talk
about country issues. What is the reason that makes you reach a
consensus so easily?

Of course, consensus does not come easily. Many problems exist. For
example, in the first Abant meetings the debates were very tense.
People were even offended. Some of them even left the meetings, there
was a war of words. However, in the end we saw that it difficult to
be in the same atmosphere and maintain our differences, but it is not
impossible! We witnessed that every section can come around a table
and discuss at high intellectual level. The first Abants and the ones
that followed were different because of this. In my opinion, the
barriers between people collapsed. We have learned to live together.
All the enterprise and efforts are for the furtherance of our
country.

06.18.2004
ZAFER OZCAN

“LIGHT TO ARMENIAN EYES”

Azat Artsakh – Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
June 6 2004

>>From May 17 to June 22 the charity organization “Armenian
Ophthalmologic Project” implements the program “Light to Armenian
Eyes” in Artsakh. We met with a group of ophthalmologists in Martakert
region. The minister of health Zoya Lazarian was there too. “Several
years ago the director of the organization Roger Hovhannissian living
in Los Angeles together with professor Malian arrived in Karabakh
from Yerevan and provided medical equipment to the republic hospital,”
said the minister. “Taking into account the lack of ophthalmologists in
Armenia and especially in Artsakh the organization decided to implement
a charity program involving leading specialists in the both Armenian
republics. The program was brought into being in Armenia and a year
ago receiving Roger Hovhannissian NKR president Arkady Ghukassian
suggesting implementing the program in Artsakh not after finishing
the visits to Armenian regions but in parallel. By the suggestion of
the NKR Ministry of Health the program of medical examination visits
involved not only Stepanakert but also the regions. The group has
already been in Hadrout and Martouni towns and villages, presently it
is in Martakert region. Then they will visit the upper subdistrict of
Askeran, the region of Shoushi, Kashatagh-Berdzor.” According to the
minister, the movable clinic consisting of the equipped surgery and
the theatre will remain in Stepanakert and the patients directed by
the examination groups will be operated on in the capital. “I repeat
that this is a charity action and examination is for everyone and free
of charge. Free operation is only for socially insecure people. And
another circumstance: similar collaboration is a peculiar schooling for
the local specialists. Our young specialists actively participate in
both the examination and operations,” said Zoya Lazarian. “It should
be mentioned that the group headed by doctor Avetissian works in the
region with great work load,” mentioned the director of the Martakert
Medical Union after R. Baziyan Sergey Ohanian. “It would be nice if
such medical examination was held at least once or twice a year. In the
regions (including ours) there is almost no ophthalmologic service and
few people can afford to leave for Stepanakert and Yerevan.” Touching
upon the problems of professional qualification, the minister of
health added that in Stepanakert she had asked Roger Hovhannissian to
work out a sponsored program for young ophthalmologists in Artsakh
to be implemented in Yerevan. “At least in this way we will manage
to fill the gap of professional specialists in our republic,” said
Zoya Lazarian.

NIKOLAY BAGHDASSARIAN

Palestinian, Israeli girls to model for peace

Daily Times, Pakistan
June 15 2004

Palestinian and Israeli beauties are set to hit the catwalk together
later this week at a beauty contest, which aims at building bridges
between the two estranged communities, organisers told AFP.

Two Arab and 15 Jewish contestants will compete in the Miss Seamline
contest which is to take place in Gilo, a south Jerusalem neighbourhood
built on Palestinian land annexed by Israel after the 1967 Middle
East war, organiser Uzi Nagar said.

Contestants from Gilo, the southern West Bank town of Bethlehem and
the neighbouring villages of Beit Sahour and Beit Jala, will enjoy
an evening of Jewish and Arab music before going on stage in a bid
to win a weekend in either Paris or London.

Organisers initially had eight Arab contestants, but the number dropped
to two, Nagar said. One is a 20-year-old Palestinian student of French
from Beit Jala, while the second is a 21-year-old Armenian Christian
from occupied east Jerusalem.

“This is a very special contest which we began organising three months
ago,” Nagar said.

“The aim is to promote dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli girls
through universal means like fashion and beauty,” he said. “It is
for everyone.” afp

CENN – JUNE 14, 2004 DAILY DIGEST
Table of Contents:
1. 57th Meeting of World Journalists Held in Istanbul
2. Eurasian Space Development Concept Adopted
3. KfW May Credit Yerevan Hydro Plant Modernization
4. Terms of Reference — Agricultural Biodiversity
5. IRD Tender Announcement

1. 57TH MEETING OF WORLD JOURNALISTS HELD IN ISTANBUL

Source: AzerTag, June 12, 2004

The regular, 57th Congress of World Association of Newspapers /WAN/ was
held in Istanbul.

The organization created in Paris, in 1948, amalgamates 72 newspaper
associations, over 18.000 newspapers, 12 news agencies, 9
media-organizations of the world, AzerTAj correspondent reports.

Aim of annual forum is to unite journalists of world in the period of
globalisation, protect their rights and interests, and establish
cooperation between the mass media representatives and editorial offices
of different countries

2. EURASIAN SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ADOPTED

Source: AzerTag, June 12, 2004

According to information received by AzerTAj, The participants of the
forum “Eurasia in the 21st century: cultures dialog or civilizations
conflict”, held on the shores of the Issyk Kul high-mountain lake,
adopted a common Eurasian space development concept.

“The East and the West as social and cultural formations should have a
dialog, based on the principles of tolerance and mutual understanding,
as equal partners”, reads the document. “There are no grounds for
separating or opposing the cultural values from the viewpoint of their
belonging to different types of civilization”, stresses the concept.

The forum participants came to the conclusion that “only through the
dialog can the problems of security, counter-terrorism and violence
globalisation be settled”. The economic basis of the dialog should be
made up of “international trade and tourism development and
establishment of new transportation corridors”.

The globalisation advantages should be used by all nations to reduce
poverty and settle the environmental issues, which are closely related
to the economic and social issues, believe the forum participants.

“The oncoming generation should be brought up in the spirit of the world
culture and civilizations dialog”, reads the concept.

The forum was attended by Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmonov,
Kirghiz President Askar Akayev, UNESCO Director General Koitiro
Matsuura, Iran’s Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abdahi, and government
delegations of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Afghanistan,
Turkmenistan, Russia and other countries, as well as by famous
scientists.

3. KFW MAY CREDIT YEREVAN HYDRO PLANT MODERNIZATION

Source: Interfax, June 11, 2004

ZAO International Energy Corporation hopes to receive a credit of 15
million euros from Germany’s Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau by the end
of 2004 to modernize Yerevan Hydroelectric Plant, plant Deputy General
Director Mels Akopyan told Interfax.

He said that representatives from KfW are currently discussing this
project with IEC General Director Mikhail Mantrov in Moscow.

Akopyan said that the German bank is waiting for the question of
guarantees to be resolved before providing the credit. He said that he
hopes that the credit will be provided under beneficial terms.

IEC has taken on the obligation of repaying a credit for 18 million
euros already received from KfW to restore the fifth and sixth
power-producing units at Kanaker Hydroelectric Plant, which is also part
of the Sevan-Razdan Cascade power plant. This credit was provided to the
Armenian government at the end of 2000 for 40 years at 0.75% per annum,
with a grace period of 10 years.

The Sevan-Razdan Cascade united six hydro plants build between 1930 and
1962 and is one of the main electricity producers in Armenia. The plant
has a capacity of 556 megawatts or about 18% of the total power capacity
of Armenia.

ZAO International Energy Corporation was set up at the start of
September 2003 by Unified Energy System of Russia to operate the Sevan-
Razdan plant. The company has a license from the Armenian commission for
the regulation of natural monopolies to produce electricity in the
country for 15 years.

4. TERMS OF REFERENCE — AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY
Project Consultant (part-time)

UNDP/GEF Project:
Recovery, Conservation, and Sustainable Use of Georgia’s Agricultural
diversity

Project Summary:
The project’s goal is the conservation and sustainable utilization of
threatened local plant genetic resources important to food and
agriculture. The project has two immediate objectives. The first is the
on-farm conservation of selected local agricultural biodiversity in
Samtskhe-Javakheti, historically the main granary of Georgia, on a pilot
demonstration basis. The second is to develop and implement a strategy
for replication of best lessons learned in conservation and utilization
of local agricultural biodiversity to other Georgian regions.

The project will address threats and root causes by concentrating its
technical and financial resources along 5 main avenues of actions.
First, it will establish sources of primary seed and planting material
for the threatened crops and fruit varieties. Second, it will strengthen
farmers’ own organizational structures (e.g. farmer association) as main
vehicles for production and distribution of seed and planting material
and experience sharing. Third, it will assist farmers in accessing
markets, including markets for organic products. Fourth, it will enhance
access to information on local agricultural biodiversity to farmers,
authorities, research stations, donors and other stakeholders and
promote information sharing among them. Finally, the project will ensure
that best lessons from project activities in Samtskhe-Javakheti are
replicated to other regions of Georgia.

Responsibilities
The Project Consultant will be responsible to the Project Coordinator.
The Consultants will provide needed expertise to the Project. The
Consultant will work in close cooperation with the Project Management.
His/her responsibilities include but are not limited to:
ž working closely with the Project Coordinator, Manager and
Agrobiodiversity Program Officer, assisting in development of work-plans
for conservation program
ž development of an assessment and analysis of existing information on
agricultural sector, including
– analysis of cross-sectoral issues related to in situ and on farm
conservation;
– policy and legal framework;
– Institutional and human capacity;
– identification of gaps and assessment of existing needs with respect
to involving different stakeholders in the conservation program
implementation
ž assisting in preparation of and participation in stakeholders’
meetings, strategic planning workshops;
ž assisting with the drafting of strategy document on agricultural
diversity conservation and sustainable utilisation, as required by the
Project Coordinator.

Outputs
ž Analysis reports and recommendations

Qualifications
ž Recognized expertise in related subject (local and international);
ž At least 10 years of experience in professional or academic position
in related discipline;
ž Proven ability to effectively analyze situations and communicate
results well;
ž Excellent knowledge of written and oral English and Georgian.

Education
– Higher education in related discipline

Duty Station
Tbilisi

Period of work
5 days per month during the total period of the project implementation
(5 years).

Deadline for CV submission
June 21, 2004

Please deliver your CVs according to the following contact information:
UNDP
Mariam Shotadze
Program Analyst
UNDP, Georgia
Eristavi Str. 9, Tbilisi,
Tel: 25 11 28/29 or 31
Fax: 25 0071/72
E-mail: [email protected]

and

ELKANA
III Delisi str. Nakveti 16
Tel: 536487 (contact person: Rusudan Nemsadze)
Fax: 536484
E-mail: [email protected]

Important note: Interviews will be scheduled with the short listed
candidates only.

5. IRD TENDER ANNOUNCEMENT

IRD, Inc. is announcing request for application from experienced
construction/engineering companies to take part in implementation of the
2-year USAID-financed SAE Primary Health Care initiative project in
Tsalka district.

Interested parties are invited to apply immediately. Please submit the
application documents required below in a sealed envelope to: 1 Irakli
Abashidze St. Tbilisi 0179 IRD Georgia Office.
The deadline is June 28, 2004 12.00 AM.

Organization/Project description:
International Relief and Development is a US based non-profit,
non-governmental organization working in Georgia since 1999.
In 2003 IRD started implementation of the USAID/SAE “Primary Health Care
Initiative in Georgia” for the period of 2003 – 2005. The project is
designed to provide medical care and treatment to the vulnerable
population of Tsalka district. This project will:

– Increase the professional level of Primary Health Care providers;
– Improve the condition of out-patient medical facilities.

The activities outlined address these objectives with an overall goal to
providing increased access to and improvement of the delivery of primary
health care services in Georgia.

General Description of Work:
Rehabilitation of three village Ambulatories selected by IRD in Tsalka
district. Due to the severe weather conditions in Tsalka region,
rehabilitation works should be finished before October 2004.

Interested organizations should submit the following:
1. Organization’s legal status and place of registration;
2. List of the civic infrastructure building/rehabilitation activities
implemented during the last three years;
3. Approximate amount (in GEL) of the total operational activities
implemented during the last three years;
4. Information about human and material resources;
5. Information about the bad debt for the State budget and/or any other
law obligations raised against organization;
6. Information about participation in construction/rehabilitation
activities financed by USAID or other international donor organization;
7. Building-repairing experience in Tsalka Region (desirable).

Only successful candidates will be contacted on June 29, 2004 before
6.00 PM. On June 30, 2004 they will be invited to come to Tsalka to
perform the assessment of physical condition of three selected village
Ambulatories in Tsalka district. Before July 6, 2004 5.00 PM, they have
to submit rehabilitation projects for each of three Ambulatories
(including time schedule and detailed budget).

—
*******************************************
CENN INFO
Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)

Tel: ++995 32 92 39 46
Fax: ++995 32 92 39 47
E-mail: [email protected]
URL: