Author: Nalchajian Markos

ARMENIA: CONSTITUTION DEAL IN SIGHT

Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR)
June 30 2005

Pressure from the Council of Europe may force President Kocharian to
water down his presidential powers.

By Victoria Abraamian in Strasbourg and Yerevan

The Armenian government and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission
have reached a provisional deal to break a deadlock over stalled
constitutional reform.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE, of which
Armenia is a member, had strongly criticised the country for sticking
to an undemocratic constitution. Further criticism had come from
the Armenian parliamentary opposition, which has boycotted plenary
sessions of parliament for two years.

Now the authorities have agreed to work on a new draft constitution
for debate in parliament in August which will be put to a national
referendum before the end of November.

The Venice Commission, which gives expert advice on constitutional
matters, had expressed concerns about three parts of the
constitution. In particular, they proposed abolishing the president’s
right to sack the prime minister unilaterally and that the new premier
should be appointed with the approval of a majority in parliament. It
also wanted to see the end of presidential power over judges, and
requested that the mayor of Yerevan – the capital city home to a
third of the population – become an elected official.

“Power is very attractive and it’s hard to give it up,” noted
Armen Rustamian, a parliamentary deputy from the pro-government
Dashnaktsutiun party. “I don’t want to name names, however after
constitutional reforms many will lose their levers of influence. By
following the agreements that have been made Armenia really can get
itself out of a constitutional crisis.”

Matyas Eorsi, leader of the Liberal Democratic and Reformers’ Group
in PACE, was less shy of naming names. He told the session, “The only
man abusing his powers and blocking the process of constitutional
reforms in Armenia is President Robert Kocharian. Reading the report
on constitutional reforms in Armenia you get the impression that the
draft constitution is not uniting but dividing the nation.”

Most observers agree that if the government keeps to its part of the
deal, this will mark a political climb-down for the president.

“If all the demands of the Venice Commission are adopted, then
Kocharian’s power will definitely be weaker,” said Hovsep Khurshudian,
political analyst with the National Centre for Strategic Studies in
Yerevan. “But let’s not forget that even the most ideal constitution
can be violated.”

A weakening of presidential power on all these fronts will diminish
Kocharian’s ability to dominate the country and ensure success for
his chosen successor when his second and final presidential team ends
in 2008.

Armenia’s much-criticised constitution dates back to 1995. At the time
doubts were cast on the legitimacy of the referendum under which it
was adopted. On coming to power in 1998, Kocharian raised the issue
of the need to change the constitution, but so far all attempts to
do so have failed.

On becoming a member of the Council of Europe in 2001, Armenia pledged
to change its constitution but voters rejected draft changes put to
a vote in 2003.

Since then the council and the Armenian government have begun to clash
openly, both about the timetable for changes and their substance. This
culminated with a statement by the Venice Commission on May 26,
which expressed deep disappointment with the lack of progress made
by the governing coalition.

Commission members then visited Armenia and signed a memorandum
with the Armenian government. At the June 23-24 session of PACE,
during discussion of the latest draft, discontented deputies passed
a resolution calling on the Armenian authorities to heed the Venice
Commission’s proposals.

Jerzy Jaskierna, rapporteur for the parliamentary assembly of the
council on Armenia’s constitutional reforms, told the session, “The
constitutional reforms ought to be rooted in an atmosphere of mutual
trust and dialogue between the authorities and the opposition.”

The Armenians must now present the Venice Commission with a new
improved package of constitutional reforms drawn up on the basis of
its recommendations by July 7. The new document will be written by
presidential representative Armen Harutiunian, Justice Minister David
Harutiunian, the head of Armenia’s delegation to PACE, Tigran Torosian,
and other members of the governing coalition. This will then be put
to a second reading in parliament by August 20. A public referendum
to approve it should then be held before November.

The Armenian parliamentary opposition is now cautiously optimistic.
“It’s obvious that if the president’s hyper-powers are removed and
an independent judicial system is set up, we will register progress,”
said leading opposition deputy Shavarsh Kocharian.

“If the comments and proposals of the Venice Commission are included
in the draft constitutional reforms then we are ready to suspend our
boycott of work in parliament that we began in 2003 and take part
in the work on constitutional reforms in the National Assembly,”
said Shavarsh Kocharian, who is no relation to the president.

“I think it would be very dubious to hold a referendum without mutual
agreement,” agreed pro-government deputy Armen Rustamian. “We have
really done serious work and we can’t turn back halfway.”

In a June 28 meeting with Ambassador Roland Wegener, a German diplomat
who represents the council’s committee of ministers’ monitoring group,
President Kocharian said, “The constitutional referendum will be
adopted as a result of collaboration. It will defend constitutional
reforms and convince society that that the referendum will be a good
change for the future.”

At the PACE session, many delegates from different countries warned
that Armenia will be in serious trouble if the constitutional reform
process fails again. The assembly has the right to strip Armenia of
its voting rights or even suspend its membership altogether, although
this was not put on the agenda.

“If Armenia fails in a referendum a second time then we will begin
to have big problems with the Council of Europe,” warned analyst
Khurshudian.

Victoria Abraamian works for the Ayb-Fe news agency in Yerevan.

Prospects of regional development
Alexander Iskandaryan
Director of Caucasus Media Institute

Dear readers,

Between June 14 and 21, 2005, you had an opportunity to address your
questions on the Yerkir’s website to ALEXANDER ISKANDARYAN, Director
of Caucasus Media Institute.

Below are the answers to your questions. See the full version of the
interview in Armenian and Russian.

Thank you for your active participation: Spartak Seyranian, editor-in-chief
of “Yerkir” Weekly.

Armen – Dear Mr. Iskandarian, In present international situation every
nation sells something to buy security. Azerbaijan has its oil and
pipelines, Georgia its transport routes. As it has been noticed by many
Armenia’s asset are its people. Currently we are losing this strategic
asset every day. We are losing it because Armenia is an unattractive
(economically, politically and even culturally) country. Don’t you
think that we are not careful enough with our strategic asset?

Alexander Iskandarian – Azerbaijanis sell image of oil rather than oil.

Heydar Aliyev was a political genius. He conducted a great campaign,
he sold Americans oil which actually was not there. Recently the
Baku-Cheyhan pipeline was opened and now they have to think how
to fill it. They are going to try to engage Kazakhstan, maybe
successfully. What Aliyev did was trading images for strategic
security, and is often exercised in the world politics.

Georgia sells itself as a transit route when it actually is not, at
least now, until the pipeline is operative. I don’t see what important
goods go from Azerbaijan to the West through Georgia. At least, the
flow is not big enough to make Georgia a transit region. Georgia is
not Panama with the Panama canal or Egypt with Suez canal or Turkey
with Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. Georgia portrays itself a
transit country and it may work with pipelines, railways, etc.

What are we selling? We say that first of all we have nothing to offer except
for our human resources, and then we say that we have less and less of it. We
are working against ourselves. Actually, both statements are not exactly
true. It is true that human asset is crucial. But Georgia, Azerbaijan and the
United States can say the same thing.

Besides, Armen is fighting against a problem that actually does not
exist: the mass exodus from Armenia is the problem of the past. The
peak of the emigration was in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Beginning 1996,
the emigration rate has significantly slowed, and in the past two
years, the migration balance is a positive one, Armenia’s population
is growing, though the growth rate is insignificant. Some may say
the growth rate is faked. Maybe, but it is not important whether the
population has grown by 2,000 or 3,000 people, what is more important
is the trend. Currently the population has stabilized, and today’s
task is to not allow the emigration to resume.

However, this is not only Armenia’s problem, all the countries of
the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which had no energy
resources, had the same problem. With no energy resources, the industry
collapses, and people lose their jobs and begin to leave. Both Georgia
and Azerbaijan had the same problem.

Azerbaijan’s migration rate was higher than that of Armenia. Let them
say their population is 8 million, but that is not true. The same is
true for Georgia. When the three South Caucasus countries were parts of
the USSR, they were funded. In Armenia, for example, there was a great
military production sector, but it died when the USSR collapsed. There
are similar to the Armenian factories in Russia that are deteriorating,
not speaking of communications and other problems. There was no way
those factories could survive, and once they are shut down, the loss
of that part of population is unavoidable. So the process was natural,
Armenia could not feed that many people, and those who left helped
to survive others in those years by sending money to their relatives.

The economic situation in Armenia is changing, so is the situation
with the emigration. What we should realize is that the emigration
is not a calamity but, unfortunately, something natural. Armen is
writing in English, he is obviously writing from the West. If he
lives in Britain, then he sees Bangladeshis and Indians in his city,
if he is writing from Germany, he sees Turks, if from France, he
sees Arabs, if from the U.S., he sees Mexicans and so on. As long as
Armenia remains a poor country compared to Britain, U.S. or France,
people will leave this country. Once we become a country richer than
our neighbors we will see other problems, those that Armen sees if
he lives in a developed country and not in Jamaica.

Then Bangladeshis, Turks, Persians and Arabs would start to arrive
in our country, and we would not be happy about it. This is how the
world lives and we should get used to it. People leave, people want
to live better, some return, some don’t, and some who have never
lived in Armenia come to live here. Me, for an example.

Ahar – Mr. Iskandarian 1) I presume that by regional development the
media implies the parallel and interdependent development of the 3
south Caucasian states. Unfortunately and as everyone knows, this
expression takes an absurd meaning when we know the current level of
“cooperation” between Armenia and Azerbaijan. So as a first question,
I would like to know if any major prospects or breakthroughs for the
region are directly and entirely dependent on the normalization of
Azeri-Armenian relations, or if the latter is not a necessity and is
only preferable? 2) Second, in case the region develops asymmetrically
(i.e. Azerbaijan becomes much richer than Armenia or otherwise,
if Armenia becomes the economic and stable center of the Caucasus),
do you think that because of the geographic proximity of the 3 states
the overall effect will simply result in the development of the entire
region. In other words, no matter who gets where, don’t you think that
the Caucasus countries are so dependent on each other that one way or
the other they will always move towards the same direction and at a
relatively similar pace? That major changes in one of them (whether
positive or negative) will result in almost equivalent changes in
the others?

Alexander Iskandarian – Preferable but not necessary. This does not
mean I am against good economic and other relations. Good, if we had
such relations but Armenia is able to develop without them. I am not
answering this question; the current situation is answering it. Armenia
is developing without relations with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani
provinces are in a worse economic situation than the Armenian provinces
are. Armenia can develop in some aspects better than Azerbaijan can. In
Azerbaijan, the growth in industry other than the oil sector is much
smaller than in Armenia, which has no oil sector. Our oil sector is
the Diaspora with its remittances. It is the same “Dutch disease,”
these are the same injections made into the economy. They do not
depend on Azerbaijan, they depend on the completely other substance,
mainly on the West and our compatriots living in Russia. And they
will not end. If, God forbid, something happens somewhere, they
would remain somewhere else. If there is no America, there will be
Russia, and if there is no Russia, there still would be France and
so on. So, cooperation with Azerbaijan or normalization of relations
with Azerbaijan is preferable but not necessary.

The second part of the question: there are both versions in the world. A
fifty-sixty kilometer from Italy there is Albania. They influence each other .

Stolen cars are taken from Italy to Albania, miserable Albanians move
to Italy to make both ends meet and send home money. Some Albanian
bandits mug Italians and so on. But Italy remains a developed country,
and Albania lives in medieval ages. Another example: Saudi Arabia
and Yemen. Strikingly rich Saudi Arabia where people don’t know how
to spend their extra money and strikingly poor Yemen. Again, there
are some interrelations, Yemenis go to work in Saudi Arabia and so on.

There are contrary examples, too, when countries influence their
neighbors’ economies positively. Germany influences modern-day Czech
Republic and Poland; Italy and Austria influence Slovenia. A country’s
readiness to comprehend what is next to it is crucial. I believe
there will be an effect if Armenia suddenly becomes a rich country
or the richest country of the region. If modern industries, such as
IT technologies, bank sector, tourism, and the present growth rates
of construction are maintained, some elements of the industry would
develop. This, of course, will have an overall effect on the neighbors.

Actually, we see it now. Significant amount of Armenian grapes went to
Georgia last year. So the fact that the Armenian agriculture is more
developed than that of Georgia has its effect on Georgia. Georgian
wine-makers produce Georgian wine using Armenian grapes. Sausage
production is more developed in Armenia than in Georgia. In Tbilisi, if
one wishes to buy quality sausages, you buy Armenian-made sausages. The
Western produce is of low quality and cheap.

Pomegranates in Azerbaijan are better than in Armenia. They are
imported into Armenia. Any pomegranates, grapes, electricity that
goes to Georgia is serious. And if Armenia suddenly becomes rich,
then Georgians and Azeris — providing we have normal relations —
would work in our gas stations, and this is realistic too. So far, our
interdependence is too weak simply because we all are poor. America
and England have effect on us so far, and our boys and girls go to
these countries to works as waiters and gas station attendants.

Vahan Mikaelian – I would like to know you opinion on how the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will influence the outcome of the Karabakh
peace process.

Specifically, have the Azeris dug themselves in a hole by building
the pipeline in such a strategically important area?

Alexander Iskandarian – What has happened so far is the opening of
the Azerbaijani sector of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and not
what the press writes. But sooner or later the whole pipeline will be
opened. It is possible even that some oil would be pumped via this
pipeline provided Kazakhstan is included in it. The region’s oil
is not enough to fill the pipeline. It is not yet quite clear with
everything and there are big problems. However, if the oil is pumped
via the pipeline, it would have a stabilizing effect on the Karabakh
conflict settlement. Any such project has a stabilizing effect in the
region after all. I entirely oppose the idea that we need everything go
wrong in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Meaning, if it is bad there,
it is good here That’s . not true. What we need is that it be no
good there. To be more politically cynical, it is important to us to
have stability there. Stability is a democratic method of governance,
normal economic development and international relations.

The pipeline is not a great achievement, nothing striking, but it is a kind of
a contribution to the stability. People, countries and companies whose oil is
to go through this pipeline would be the guarantors of the stability in the
region, though it is quite stable even now.

Vartan – Do you consider that Armenia is in fact in a better off
social and economic condition than Azerbaijan and Georgia? Is this
the actual reality?

Relations with Georgia are not the most best that they can be. If
we worked together, we can surely accomplish a lot. Why are these
Georgians kissing the Turks’ ass? Where do you think is the future
of Armenian-Georgian relations?

Recently I heard news that there is a railway being built through
Abkhiazia which Armenia will participate. I mean if Georgia agrees
with this, perhaps the future of cooperation b/w us is good? what
is the state of Iranian-Armenian relations? I know Iran is the most
important neighbor, but is there any friction caused by the Americas
so called “war on terror” and the issue of supposed nuclear weapons
program in Iran. Will this hurt Iran-Armenia relations, or even
U.S.-Armenia relations?

Alexander Iskandarian – Than Georgia, definitely yes; than
Azerbaijan… hard to say because Azerbaijan is much more polarized
than Armenia. There is no middle in Azerbaijan. There is oil there and
everything that is linked to it influences the development of Baku. The
development of Baku cannot be compared to that of Yerevan. There is
more money fluxing to the city, more construction is carried out, and
the city is becoming more beautiful than Yerevan. Yerevan is gaining on
it but the process has just started. As for the Azerbaijani villages,
they are poorer than Armenian villages. Azerbaijani provincial towns
are poorer and the living conditions there are worse than in Armenian
provincial towns. In Baku, they are better off, and since half of the
country’s population is concentrated in Baku, then maybe… It is hard
to answer where the overall social conditions are better. Azerbaijan
and Armenia have very different social structures.

Georgians have a common border with Russia, but the relations are
strained.

So, they do not have this border after all. In case of Abkhazia, they
don’t, in case of South Osetia, this border is problematic. The only
country that Georgia has normal border and no political problems
is Turkey. So they try to develop normal relations and it is
understandable.

The humiliation element: why do they kiss Turks’ ass and not the
other way around? I don’t think it is exactly the case, but if there
is a disbalance in relations, it is because they need Turkey and
Turkey does not need them because Turkey is a huge country with a
70-million population. Georgia is a small country with a 4-million
population. And also Georgia is less developed and Turkey is a way
to Europe for Georgia and not the other way around and so on.

Where is the future of the Armenian-Georgian
relations? Armenian-Georgian relations will remain tense but they
will not get too bad. Armenia and Georgia cannot afford to have
bad relations. These countries will have tense but good-neighborly
relations. On the surface there will always be beautiful statements
but there will always be real problems due to the configuration and
national interests of the two countries. This is normal and both we
and Georgians should take this into account.

The railway through Georgia and Abkhazia to Russia. Is it good or
bad? It is not important whether it is good or bad. I don’t think
this railway will open in the visible future.

Armenian-Iranian relations. I know that Iran is the most important
of our neighbors. There are no alternatives to the relations between
Armenia and Iran.

These relations will remain good. U.S.-Iran relations are more an
issue of political and physiological problem existing in the U.S. since
the hostage crisis.

In reality, Iran is not much different than the other countries of the
region — and it is different positively. Iran is a more democratic
country than Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Iran is more
economically developed than Pakistan on Turkey. Democratic development
in Iran is more dynamic than in Afghanistan or Uzbekistan with whom
the U.S. have good relations. Iran has no nuclear bomb unlike Pakistan
or Israel.

But there is a problem that goes deep in the minds of the Americans
toward Iran. We have to take it into account, and it creates extra
complications in the relations of Armenia with the U.S. This problem
will be there until the Americans change their attitude to Iran. I
don’t believe it would change soon.

Armenians, however, have not much to choose from. Armenians would
continue to explain to the Americans that they have no other way. By
the way, we succeed in explaining — not on the level of journalism
in terms of terrible phrases like “war on terror” — but on the level
politicians who understand it very well and take it into account.

Which is more important, America or Iran? They are both important in
different ways. Iran is our major neighbor, America is a global power,
and so it is a “neighbor” to everyone, so it is important, too. When
economic, political, military projects are implemented opinions of
both countries are taken into consideration.

See the full version of the interview in Armenian and Russian.

PRESS RELEASE

ARMENPAC, The Armenian-American Political Action Committee
421 E. Airport Freeway, Suite 201
Irving, Texas 75220
Contact: Jason P. Capizzi, Esq.
Tel: 201-906-4150
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

ARMENPAC CO-HOSTS MAJOR FUNDRAISER IN SUPPORT OF CONGRESSMAN PALLONE’S
BID FOR U.S. SENATE

Irving, TX – ARMENPAC and the Armenian Friends of Frank Pallone
recently gathered in support of Congressman Frank Pallone’s (D-NJ)
bid for United States Senate. Over 90 members of the local community
and various Armenian organizations attended the event at the home
of AGBU President Berge and Vera Setrakian. “ARMENPAC thanks the
Setrakians’ for their gracious hospitality, as well as everyone
else in attendance for supporting our continuous effort to rally
all members of the Armenian community behind Congressman Pallone,”
said ARMENPAC Co-Chair Annie Totah.

Congressman Frank Pallone is the founder and Co-Chair of the
Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues in the United States House
of Representatives. He is a staunch supporter of Armenian-American
issues and has led countless efforts towards Genocide Recognition,
ensuring foreign aid to Armenia, finding equitable and lasting
peace in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, maintaining military
parity between our homeland and Azerbaijan. Congressman Pallone’s
advocacy has been critical in strengthening U.S.-Armenia relations,
and ARMENPAC is grateful for his leadership.

Congressman Frank Pallone has been campaigning for United States
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ), who is favored to win the New Jersey
Gubernatorial election in November 2005. As Governor, Jon Corzine will
appoint his successor in the United States Senate for the remaining
year of his 6-year term. ARMENPAC hopes that Congressman Pallone
will be appointed to the United States Senate, and is working hard in
support of his candidacy. “It is crucial that all Armenian-Americans
ban together in support of Congressman Pallone’s bid, not just because
we are losing a great supporter of our issues in the Senate with the
upcoming retirement of Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), but because we must be
loyal to Congressman Pallone, who has been a loyal advocate of our
issues throughout his 16-year career in Congress,” said ARMENPAC
Co-Chair Annie Totah. AGBU President Berge Setrakian added that
“Congressman Pallone is an effective leader, having successfully
championed several initiatives that safeguard the interests of Armenia
and Artsak, and will benefit our community greatly as a member of
the Senate.”

Congressman Frank Pallone expressed his sincere appreciation for
our community’s generous support thus far, but stressed that “more
must be done.” Congressman Pallone must raise at least an additional
$200,000 before the Federal Election Commission’s next filing deadline
in order to remain competitive in his bid for the United States Senate.
“Armenian-Americans must do all that we can in support of Congressman
Pallone, whose successful bid will ultimately benefit all Armenians
by increasing the efficacy of our lobbying efforts in Washington,
D.C.,” said ARMENPAC Co-Chair Annie Totah.

ARMENPAC supports Congressman Frank Pallone’s bid for the United
States Senate given his distinguished leadership and advocacy for
Armenian-American interests in Congress. Congressman Pallone is a
steadfast friend of all Armenians, and will more effectively be able
to advance the concerns of our community as a member of the Senate.
If you would like to make a contribution in support of Congressman
Pallone’s campaign, please contact ARMENPAC Co-Chair Annie Totah
at 301-365-2277 or ARMENPAC Executive Director Jason P. Capizzi
at 201-906-4150.

ARMENPAC is an independent, bipartisan political action committee
established to shape public policy by raising awareness of,
and advocating for, Armenian-American issues. ARMENPAC provides
financial support to federal officeholders, candidates, political
action committees and organizations that actively support issues of
importance to Armenian-Americans. For more information and how to
join ARMENPAC, please visit

A1plus

| 12:20:43 | 27-06-2005 | Politics |

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PROCESS IN ARMENIA: RESOLUTION 1458 (2005)

1. The Parliamentary Assembly recalls that the revision of the
Constitution is a pre-condition for the fulfilment of some of the most
important commitments that Armenia undertook upon its accession to the
Council of Europe. These include the reform of the judicial system,
local self-government reform, the introduction of an independent
ombudsman, the establishment of independent regulatory authorities
for broadcasting and the modification of the powers of and access to
the Constitutional Court. The deadlines for the completion of these
commitments, stipulated in the Assembly’s Opinion No. 221 (2000)
on Armenia’s application for membership of the Council of Europe,
have now long expired.

2. The Assembly therefore is deeply concerned that the delay in
agreeing and adopting the constitutional amendments is holding back
Armenia’s progress towards European democratic norms and standards
in key areas of political life.

3. The present Constitution, adopted in 1995, has played an essential
role in the development of democracy and its irreversibility and has
allowed Armenia to become a member of the Council of Europe. However,
its practical day-to-day implementation has increasingly revealed
serious conceptual shortcomings which have become an obstacle for the
further democratic development of the country. In the first place,
the Constitution endows the President with excessive prerogatives and
does not provide for clear separation and balance of powers within
the state structures. Equally serious is the lack of constitutional
guarantees for basic human rights, of independence of the judiciary
and of local self-government in conformity with European standards.

4. The Assembly recalls the failure of the first referendum on
constitutional amendments of 25 May 2003 and the fact that the
authorities at the time had not committed themselves to a campaign
in support of the reform as parliamentary elections were held in
parallel. The subsequent deadline fixed by the Assembly in Resolutions
1361 and 1405 (2004) for the holding of a new constitutional referendum
– not later than June 2005 – has been missed.

5. The Assembly recalls that in 2001, the Armenian authorities and
the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
had arrived at a mutually acceptable draft Constitution in line
with European standards. This draft, however, underwent significant
changes during its examination and adoption by Parliament and the
text submitted to referendum in May 2003 represented an important
step back. The Assembly therefore insists that such a scenario must
not be repeated with the new draft.

6. The Assembly notes with approval the renewed active and intensive
co-operation between the Armenian authorities and the Venice Commission
since 2004. It regrets, however, that after several expertises of
different subsequent drafts and after the first reading in Parliament
on 11 May 2005, the draft still needs substantial revision, according
to the Venice Commission. In its second interim opinion of 13 June
2005, the Venice Commission expressed deep disappointment with the lack
of satisfactory results, deploring the fact that the recommendations,
notably concerning the balance of powers between the President and the
Parliament, the independence of the judiciary and the election of the
Mayor of Yerevan (instead of his/her appointment by the President),
had not been taken into account.

7. The Assembly welcomes the memorandum on further co-operation
signed between the Venice Commission working group and the Armenian
authorities on 2 June 2005. It commends the Armenian authorities
on presenting an improved version of the text within the deadlines
agreed in the memorandum. However, the Assembly insists that the
final proposed amendments do comply with all the recommendations of
the Venice Commission and are finally voted as such by the National
Assembly.

8. The Assembly underlines that the new constitutional referendum
can only succeed on the basis of a very broad public consensus. In
addition to the political significance of such an act, the consensus
is also needed for technical reasons – the constitutional amendments
must be approved by more than 50% of the votes but not less than one
third of all registered voters. It is therefore important that the
voters’ lists are updated so that the necessary quorum can be achieved.

9. The Assembly deplores the breakdown of dialogue between the ruling
coalition and the opposition. It regrets that the ruling coalition
has not yet been able to agree on the three key requests of the
opposition which coincide with the recommendations of the Venice
Commission: separation and balance of powers, independent judiciary
and a real local self-government. It equally regrets the fact that
the opposition resorted to a boycott of parliamentary sittings. The
Assembly therefore strongly hopes that an agreement on the three
points will lead to the opposition returning to Parliament.

10. The Assembly points out that a proper awareness-raising campaign
in favour of the constitutional reform can only start after agreement
has been reached on the remaining problematic areas. If the latest
deadline for holding the referendum – November 2005 – is respected,
any further delay in reaching a political consensus can jeopardise
the chances of the draft being accepted by the population.

11. The Assembly reiterates its previous concerns with regard to
media pluralism and balanced political coverage in the electronic
media. The media, and television in particular, should play a major
role in allowing the public to make a well-informed choice in the
referendum. One of the main reasons for the present unsatisfactory
situation resides in the shortcomings of the Constitution with regard
to the appointment of members of the broadcasting regulatory bodies.

12. The Assembly strongly believes that, for the sake of its own people
and for the sake of its further European integration, Armenia cannot
afford another failure of the constitutional referendum. It supports
the expert advice of the Venice Commission as a clear indication
of the direction to follow and believes that if it is backed by
political will and democratic maturity, the necessary ingredients
for a successful constitutional reform would be in place.

13. The Assembly therefore calls on the Armenian authorities and the
parliamentary majority to:

i. fully implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission;

ii. undertake clear and meaningful steps in order to resume an
immediate dialogue with the opposition;

iii. adopt the text at second reading without altering the agreement
reached with the Venice Commission on the above-mentioned points
and no later than August 2005;

iv. provide live broadcasting of the parliamentary sittings where
the constitutional amendments will be discussed and voted;

v. start a well-prepared and professional awareness-raising campaign
immediately after the adoption of the text at the second reading;

vi. implement without delay the Assembly recommendations with regard
to media pluralism in order to guarantee the broadest possible
public debate;

vii. urgently update voters’ lists;

viii. hold the referendum no later than November 2005;

ix. and to provide for the coming into force of the constitutional
reform as soon as reasonably possible.

14. The Assembly calls on the opposition to stop its parliamentary
boycott and do everything possible to promote the recommendations of
the Council of Europe with regard to the constitutional reform.

15. The Assembly expresses its support for the adoption of a draft
Constitution fully complying with the Council of Europe standards
and calls on all political forces and civil society to assure the
success of the constitutional reform.

16. The Assembly resolves to observe the constitutional referendum
and, in the meantime, declares its readiness to provide any assistance
that might be needed for its preparation.

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
June 27 2005

NEWLY APPOINTED AMBASSADORS TO AZERBAIJAN PRESENT COPIES OF THEIR
CREDENTIALS TO DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER
[June 27, 2005, 22:33:11]

On June 27, 2005, Mr. Khalaf Khalafov, Deputy Foreign Minister of the
Republic of Azerbaijan, received Her Excellency Jean Dunn, His
Excellencies Amara Bangura, Anthony Mannix, Li Don Pal, Abdullah Al
Duwaikh, Mikhail Laur, Hol Deng Alak and Peter Lusaka Chintala, newly
appointed non-resident Ambassadors to Azerbaijan from respectively,
Australia, Republic of Guinea, Republic of Ireland, People’s
Democratic Republic of Korea, State of Kuwait, Republic of Moldova,
Republic of Sudan and Republic of Zambia.

Deputy Minister K. Khalafov congratulated the Ambassadors upon their
appointments and expressed his confidence that their activity will
contribute to further development of relations between Azerbaijan and
the nations they represent.

Khalaf Khalafov spoke about crucial political, social-economic and
democratic reforms underway in Azerbaijan and positive impact the
achievements in these fields will bring to the bilateral relations.
He also informed the diplomats about the Armenia-Azerbaijan
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which resulted in occupation of 20 percent
of Azerbaijan by armed forces of Armenia and in about one million of
refugees and displaced persons in our country.

In the meetings, the sides also discussed the perspectives for the
development of bilateral relations, especially considerable potential
for economic cooperation. They also stressed the existing effective
cooperation within international organizations and the importance of
further strengthening this interaction.

The Ambassadors having emphasized their pleasure at being appointed
to Azerbaijan stated their intention to use all venues to further
broaden and develop relations between their respective countries and
Azerbaijan.

At the meetings the Ambassadors presented copies of their credentials
to Deputy Foreign Minister K. Khalafov.

PREMIERE OF DIASPORAN PLAYWRIGHT KHOREN ARAMUNI’S “IRREVOCABLE FUTURE”
PLAY TO TAKE PLACE AT SUNDUKIAN THEATER

YEREVAN, JUNE 23, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. On June 24, the
premiere of Diasporan playwright Khoren Aramuni’s “Irrevocable Future”
play will take place at G.Sundukian National Academic Theater. The
play was staged by Jean Nshanian, head of Los Angeles company of
actors after Vardan Achemian. As Noyan Tapan’s correspondent was
informed by Vahe Shahverdian, Art Director of Sundukian Theater, the
play is modern and urgent in the respect of its subject-matter. “The
play shows how numerous families leave Armenia departing, in
particular, to the US, and how their life turns out there. Are they
happy there and should an Armenian leave Armenia?” To recap, Jean
Nshanian has been founded and been at the head of Los Angeles company
of actors after Vardan Achemian for already 20 years. During these
years the well-known actor and producer staged numerous performances
and played in cinema and theater.

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT TO LEAVE FOR MOSCOW

YEREVAN, June 21. /ARKA/. Armenian President Robert Kocharyan is to
leave for Moscow tomorrow to take part in a regular session of the
Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The Ra
presidential press service reports that the session will begin with a
meeting of the heads of state, who are to exchange views on the
politico-military situation in the CSTO security zone and on the
Organization’s further tasks. The meeting will be followed by a
plenary session, which is to be attended by Foreign Ministers,
Ministers of Defense and Secretaries of the Security Councils of the
participant-countries.

The session participants are to sign a number of documents, which are
to expand the contractual basis for the partnership of the CSTO
member-countries in the political and military spheres. The session
will be preceded by meetings of committees of the Ministers of Defense
and Foreign Ministers, as well as of Secretaries of the CSTO Security
Councils.

The RA President is also to attend meetings of the Interstate Council
of Eurasian Economic Community as an observer.

On June 24, the Armenian delegation headed by RA President Robert
Kocharyan is to return to Yerevan. P.T. -0–

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
June 22 2005

Mediating Countries Not to Send Peacekeepers to Karabakh

Baku Today 22/06/2005 03:28

Peacekeeping forces will be stationed in the conflict zone after
Azerbaijan and Armenia reach an accord on settling the Nagorno
Karabagh conflict, officials said, according to Assa Irada.

`It has been agreed that co-chairing countries [France, United States
and Russia] will not be included in these forces,’ according to
Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov.

Azimov said the agreement on the issue was reached a while ago and
Russia agreed to this proposal.

`The precise make-up of peacekeepers will be determined as results
are achieved in peace talks,’ he said.

NUMBER OF SMUGGLING CASES DOUBLES IN FIRST FIVE MONTHS OF 2005
COMPARED WITH SAME PERIOD OF LAST YEAR

YEREVAN, JUNE 21, NOYAN TAPAN. The number of smuggling cases and
instances of customs rules breach, which were revealed by the RA
Government-affiliated State Customs Committee (SCC) bodies during the
first five months of 2005, was twice as many as the number of such
violations in the same period of 2004. According to the SCC press
service, in January-June, 2005, 190 cases of a total amount of 1 bln
756 mln drams were registered against 93 cases of 287 mln drams (about
645 thousand USD) in the same months of last year. In the period under
review, 8 cases of gold, jewelry and medicine smuggling and 1 case of
cigarette smuggling were discovered, with the violations being mainly
registered at the Bagratashen, Bavra and Zvartnots customs points.

Pan Armenian News

KARABAKH DEMOCRATIC ACHIEVEMENTS NEED INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION

21.06.2005 08:38

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Observers from Russia appreciated the parliamentary
election in Nagorno Karabakh. According to their statement, «The election in
Nagorno Karabakh was democratic, transparent, free, independent, exemplary
and complying with the Nagorno Karabakh Electoral Code and all highest
standards.» The statement notes the election has demonstrated the
unflinching urge of the NKR people towards strengthening the democratic
election institution and promotion of the civil society in Karabakh. «The
democratic achievements of NKR need to be recognized and assisted by the
civilized international community, which could promote the soonest possible
resolution of the conflict, establishment of stability and peace in the
region, would fit the genuine interests of the region and all of its
peoples,» the statement notes, Mediamax reported.