Author: Tambiyan Samvel

783 Azerbaijanis in captivity

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Oct 13 2004

783 Azerbaijanis are currently held in captivity and as hostages
in Armenia, Eldar Samadov, acting chairman of the working group
of the State Commission on Prisoners of War, Hostages and Missing
Persons, told an event dedicated to Armenian separatists’ terror acts
perpetrated against Azerbaijan.

Samadov pointed out the poor health condition of the Azeris held in
Armenian captivity.

A documentary on Armenia’s atrocities committed against peaceful
Azerbaijanis was displayed in the event organized by the Commission.*

UNICEF: Amid Eastern Europe’s economic recovery, children fall behind

The Star Online
Wednesday, October 13, 2004

MOSCOW: Although the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe and
Central Asia are seeing substantial economic improvement, millions of
their children still languish in poverty and the problem is worsening
in some countries, UNICEF said in a report released Wednesday.

Child populations are rising most quickly in the region’s most
impoverished countries, said the report by the United Nations
Children’s Fund. In addition, public health expenditures in some of
the countries have declined at a rate sharper than their economies
are rising, the report shows.

“Economic growth alone does not benefit children,” UNICEF executive
director Carol Bellamy said at a news conference launching the report.

The report notes that full assessment of the child poverty conditions
in 27 countries _ the former Soviet republics and once-communist
countries of Europe _ is difficult because of a dearth of recent data
and widely varying local standards of what constitutes poverty.

For example, the report said, comparatively prosperous Latvia sets
the poverty line at 51 percent of per-capita GDP while Georgia, where
per-capita GDP is only 25 percent of Latvia’s, sets the poverty line
at 63 percent.

In nine countries for which recent data were available, 14 million
of 44 million children were living in poverty, the report said. The
countries cited were Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Belarus,
Albania, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.

Azerbaijan was among the countries where annual per-capita spending on
public health declined in recent years, the report said: just US$32
(26) in 2001, less than was spent in 1998, even though national
income rose about 10 percent annually in the period. In Tajikistan,
the poorest of the former Soviet republics, the report said health
expenditures stayed flat at about US$12 (10) despite 7 percent
economic growth.

The report also expressed concern about population growth in the
countries of formerly Soviet Central Asia. It noted that in 1990,
11 percent of the survey region’s impoverished children lived
in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and that in 1992 those
countries plus comparatively small Moldova accounted for 17 percent
of the region’s poor children. – AP

Telegraph.co.uk, UK
Oct 10 2004

Why we must let Turkey into the EU
(Filed: 10/10/2004)

Last week a momentous decision was taken. The European Commission
recommended that the EU start negotiations over Turkish entry. The
final decision will not be taken until December. And even if the
go-ahead is given it will be 10 years at least before Turkey could
join. Nevertheless, I think the Rubicon has been crossed. So what
would be the effects of Turkish entry?

Turkish differences

Click to enlarge
Admitting Turkey would be a huge step because of its sheer size, its
culture, its location and its comparative underdevelopment. The
population is currently about 70m. As our top chart shows, that makes
Turkey the second most populous country in Europe. Moreover, because
of Turkey’s comparatively high birth rate and Germany’s low one, her
population is likely to exceed Germany’s within 20 years – and it
could be not far short of 90m 10 or 15 years after that.

Culturally, she is also radically different from all other EU
members. Most Turks are Muslims. Moreover, she has a history of
political instability, with the army seeing itself as the guardian of
the secular state, and being prepared to intervene in government
whenever it has seen this threatened, usually with widespread support
among the middle classes. To put it mildly, this is not the political
and cultural milieu of the burghers of Mitteleuropa.

Moreover, most of Turkey is in Asia, bordering Syria, Iraq, Iran,
Georgia and Armenia. Turkish entry would therefore put the EU’s
borders right in the firing line of some key Middle East hotspots –
literally.

Turkey is also extremely poor. As our lower chart shows, her per
capita GDP is in a different parish even from Greece, which is among
the old EU’s poorest countries, and is significantly lower even than
Poland’s. Levels of education, social services and infrastructure all
put Turkey in the developing country league.

Macro-economically, Turkey’s performance makes her seem like a banana
republic. Over the past 16 years, interest rates and inflation have
averaged over 60 per cent. There have recently been some big
improvements, but inflation is still running at 9 per cent and
interest rates at 22 per cent.

Admittedly, economic growth has averaged 4.5 per cent over 30 years.
But the fluctuations have been extraordinary. At times the economy
has grown by 8 per cent in a year. At other times, though, it has
contracted by 8 per cent in a year.

For or against?

Given all this, it should be obvious what an economist like myself
should think about Turkish entry. I am, of course, in favour of it.
There are two reasons. First, EU entry will be extremely good for
Turkey. History shows that the EU has brought major advantages to
poor countries with troubled political histories. Spain, Portugal and
Greece all gained from EU entry. Perhaps the greatest gains have come
not from entry itself but rather from the improvements made necessary
by the attempt to join.

Improvements extend beyond the narrowly economic into the fields of
politics and human rights. But these have economic consequences as
well. Full democracies bound by the rule of law rarely if ever
descend into the blatant incompetence and kleptocracy that is the
fate of so many dictatorships.

Much as I like and admire the Turks, though, my concern for the
Turkish interest is not purely altruistic. It is in our interests too
that Turkey should prosper. The narrow economic argument is that we
all gain by our neighbours being prosperous. This means that they
will be better able to supply us with goods and services and their
market for our exports will also grow correspondingly.

But more importantly, it is vital that a country as strategically
important as Turkey be kept in the Western ambit and that it does not
slide off towards the Islamic fundamentalists. Indeed, more
positively, if Turkey could thrive within a predominantly
post-Christian European Union, this would be a favourable model for
the secularisation and democratisation of the Middle East. In the
long run, this is of the greatest possible importance to both our
security and our prosperity.

The second reason why I am strongly in favour of Turkish entry is
quite different. In short, I think it would help to change the nature
of the EU. The fundamental narrative of the EU is the tension between
widening and deepening. Wild enthusiasts like to think that the EU
can do both, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we will not
be able to run even the current EU as an integrated political unit,
never mind a much larger union. With Turkey in, this would become
blindingly obvious.

The consequence would be that the forces pushing for a multi-level EU
would be strengthened. This would be no bad thing. Forget “slow lanes
and fast lanes”. If an inner core of countries comprising the
original six members wanted to go ahead and form a political union
then all well and good, but outside this core would be groups of
countries with different alignments on different issues – but all
under the broad umbrella of the EU, including what that means for
trading relationships and access to markets.

The EU’s achievement

Fanatical supporters of the EU believe that it is responsible for the
very good performance of the Continental economies for the first
quarter of a century after the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1956.
They are wrong. The countries of core Europe were set to grow
strongly without the EU. And more recently, its large members have
been held back by the EU’s emphasis on regulation and harmonisation
and its suppression of competition. Whatever they have achieved
recently has been despite the EU, not because of it.

But where the europhobes are wrong is jumping from this to the
conclusion that the EU has been a disaster. On the contrary, it has
been little short of a triumph. And here I do not refer to the
prevention of war in Europe – which, noble though this cause is, I
attribute primarily to other factors such as Nato and the Soviet
threat. No, the EU’s triumph has been helping the peripheral
countries of Europe to aspire to core European standards of living
and extending democracy and accountable government to countries that
had been plagued by dictatorships.

In this way, the EU has played the role that the great empires,
including the British, have sometimes played in the past, bringing a
measure of prosperity and stability to areas that might otherwise
fall prey to tinpot nationalism and bad government.

Historians will surely judge the success of the EU not by its
contribution to raising German living standards but rather by what it
has done for Spain, Portugal, Greece and the former communist states
of eastern Europe. Doing the same thing for Turkey would be an
enormous triumph.

• Roger Bootle is managing director of Capital Economics and economic
adviser to Deloitte. You can contact him at roger.bootle@capital
economics.com

IMPRESSIONS MAGAZINE

September/October /November 2004

THE FUTURE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN ARMENIA

Story by Impressions Staff

With its Soviet-built nuclear power plant nearing the end of its life and
international pressure to `go green’, Armenia has the opportunity to position
itself at the forefront of environmentally friendly energy production. Matthew
Karanian and Robert Kurkjian explore the wind, water and solar options
available and assess their viability.

During the 1990s, Armenia grappled with how to resolve its energy shortages.
Since then, its nuclear power plant has been restarted, financial and technical
assistance has come from the international community, natural gas imports have
increased and the energy crisis has been mitigated.

The country now relies upon a variety of sources, with nuclear energy accounting
for about 35% of its energy needs, but over the past few years there has been
increased pressure from the European Community to shut the nuclear plant down.

The Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant is operated by a Russian company and has two
reactors with projected useful lives that will expire in a decade. Only one of
the reactors is operating, and there are many reasons for shutting it down and
keeping the other closed.

The most persuasive of these arguments is that the reactors sit in a seismically
active zone near a densely populated area, and they don’t have a containment
dome that would prevent the release of radiation during an uncontrolled event.

The government has been studying energy issues since Armenia’s independence.
Back in 1996, it projected that alternative sources of energy might be
developed within the next six to eight years.

At that time it was thought that those alternative sources might be enough to
make it possible to shut down the nuclear power plant as early as 2004. Those
alternative sources have not been developed – at least not to the extent
necessary for them to be considered a genuine alternative to nuclear power.

Thermal power plants in Armenia, using a combination of oil and natural gas,
fuel approximately 45% of the country’s needs and hydropower provides the
balance. Strictly speaking, these are alternatives to nuclear power, but the
cleanest, most cutting edge alternative energy sources available today are
solar and wind.

These sources, also referred to as `renewable energy’, are cleaner than
traditional sources, such as coal or oil combustion. Solar and wind power do
have an impact upon our environment, but they don’t pollute the atmosphere
during operation. Instead, the environmental impact is from the perceived
blight upon the landscape created by a field of wind turbines or solar panels.
Wind turbines have also been known to be harmful to birds and can be noisy, but
such environmental problems are relatively insignificant compared to the
problems that are created by nuclear and thermal energy generation.

WIND ENERGY

Armenia doesn’t have a wind stream that is comparable to the Gulf Stream that
exists in the US, but there is nevertheless some wind potential. Armenia is a
mountainous country and strong winds frequently develop on mountain ridges or
in the saddles of mountain passes. Indeed, some of these local wind currents
are legendary.

According to fable, the stones of Armenia’s hot Ararat Plain were cooled by a
unique airflow pattern. 1700 years ago, that swept down from the northern
mountains and from the Lake Sevan region. The wind supposedly made life a bit
more comfortable for an embattled man named Gregory, who was confined to a
prison there. This man would later become a Saint, and the wind pattern has
since been known as the Saint Gregory Wind.

At present, it is estimated that the economically viable capacity for wind
energy is approximately equal to that of nuclear, about 500 MW, but wind energy
development in Armenia is in its infancy.

As part of a project funded by Gerard Cafesjian, an Armenian- American
philanthropist, engineers are studying the economic viability of wind-generated
electricity in Armenia. Testing is ongoing, but if wind power proves to be
feasible, then Armenia could add wind-generated electricity to its portfolio of
energy sources.

Windmills – actually large wind turbines – are sleek and aerodynamic. They are
made of aluminum, steel or plastic and often operate in large fields. A
wind-generated electricity project in Palm Springs, California, for example,
uses a field of 7,500 windmills. It’s too costly to use one windmill to
generate electricity for commercial purposes, but a single windmill can power a
mechanical pump, which is how they are sometimes used in the US and places with
extensive rural areas – Argentina, for example, has an estimated 320,000 solo
windmills in operation.

Armenia has large tracts of rural areas, but one of the legacies of Soviet
industrialisation is that nearly every place in Armenia has access to the
electricity grid, so a remote location that might otherwise need to generate
its own energy simply doesn’t need to. The future for wind power in Armenia,
therefore, is in large wind farms that generate electricity that is then added
to the grid. The Armenian government hopes one day to be able to generate as
much as 10% of its electricity in this way.

HYDRO POWER

Hydro power generates approximately 20% of Armenia’s energy needs. Although this
form of power generation does not emit atmospheric pollution, there can be
significant environmental impacts. The greatest impacts are on water quality
and quantity, and changes to the surrounding environment. This is usually due
to the construction of dams, which causes flooding above the dam, and decreases
the water flow downstream.

Lake Sevan’s waters have been used for decades to generate electricity, but at a
cost to the lake’s ecosystem. The increased out-flow of the lake’s water for use
in hydroelectric generation has contributed to the lake’s deterioration by
reducing its volume by roughly 40%, increasing the water temperature and
impacting the fishing industry.

SOLAR ENERGY

Energy from the sun is typically more affordable than wind power for individual
residences. Solar is particularly economical for heating water, and actually
beats many energy alternatives, though widespread implementation could take
decades to achieve. Solar energy generation capacity in Armenia is currently
around 650 MW, but estimates for future capacity are as high as 3,500 MW.

Dr Artak Hambarian, Director of the Engineering Research Center (ERC) at the
American University of Armenia (AUA), has been researching solar energy and its
applications for years. He estimates that it could take a business 20 or 30
years to earn enough savings in energy costs to pay for its investment in solar
panels that are used to create electricity.

For nearly a decade, the ERC has been engaged in a variety of solar energy
related projects. Its project of perhaps greatest national significance is its
Solar Monitoring Station (SMS), which collects solar radiation data to assist
with evaluating and developing solar energy devices.

Based on data from the SMS, engineers have calculated that one square metre of
land in Yerevan receives about 1,700 kWh of sun power annually. It is said that
Yerevan is sunny for 300 days each year, and at this rate there is a great
incentive for people to install solar panels on the roofs of their homes in
order to heat water. Additional solar data collectors are proposed for
installation at several locations around the country to further research the
applications of solar energy.

Limited practical applications of solar energy have proven cost- effective for
the AUA in recent years. The university is supplied with hot water and with
heating and cooling by a project that engineers from ERC are working on. The
project is known as DESODEC – the `Design and Installation of a Solar Driven
Desiccant Cooling Demonstration System.’

They have a solar water heater on the roof of the University’s six-floor
building, and the solar heater, together with the Desiccant Evaporative Cooling
system, provide the University with heat in the winter, and cooling in the
summer.

A solar photovoltaic system, also installed on the roof, provides electricity to
the system that makes the university building independent from the electricity
grid, and which serves to back-up the university internet servers. The DESODEC
is the first solar driven combined system in the former Soviet Union, and one
of a handful in the world.

WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM ALTERNATIVE ENERGY?

The thermal, nuclear and hydro facilities that Armenia inherited from the Soviet
Union now generate so much electricity that Armenia has been able to sell some
of it to the Republic of Georgia. But if Armenia were to halt its nuclear
program, could wind and solar generated power be sold commercially, at a
profit? How would the cost of producing wind or solar energy compare with the
cost of the existing nuclear energy production in Armenia? According to energy
consultant Serge Adamian, it is not meaningful to compare the nuclear example
with solar or wind sources because Armenia isn’t paying for the nuclear power
plant. It was already there when the country gained independence, so comparing
wind and nuclear energy is therefore the `wrong paradigm,’ he says. Armenia’s
nuclear power plant is nearing the end of its productive life, and there are
other serious issues to consider, such as waste disposal and safety. Analysts
expect that the plant will be shut down within a decade, and there is not a
high probability of a new one being built.

All of this means that alternative sources may not be fully exploitable today,
but they will represent a far more practical solution if and when Armenia
scraps nuclear power. Over time, Adamian says, wind and solar production will
attract more support from the government and from others. Iran’s support in
2004 for a wind farm on Lake Sevan’s south-eastern shore is one such example.

The continued development and installation of alternative energy resources will
also lessen Armenia’s reliance on imported fossil fuel. Air quality in Armenia
will improve and there will be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – two
peripheral but significant advantages.

With an appropriate and comprehensive strategy, Armenia has an opportunity to
enter the international renewable energy market. In contrast to other
established industrial markets, the renewable energy industry has not yet
matured worldwide, which could provide an opportunity for Armenia’s scientists,
its manufacturing industry, and associated businesses. The people of Armenia
ultimately stand to benefit.

THE STONE GARDEN GUIDE TO ARMENIA, WRITTEN AND PHOTOGRAPHED BY TWO INSIDERS

The photographers and authors of this story -Robert Kurkjian and Matthew
Karanian – have travelled extensively in Armenia and have just released a new
book on the region, The Stone Garden Guide: Armenia and Karabagh (ISBN
09672120-8-1).

The guidebook highlights conservation efforts in Armenia, including attempts to
adopt renewable energy technologies, and Robert Glenn Ketchum – a renowned
conservationist and environmental photographer – contributes a Foreword.
Splendid photography, detailed colour maps, and the insider perspective of its
authors all combine to make it a unique offering.

Kurkjian and Karanian have been publishing books and photography on Armenia
since 1999, when they released the coffee table photo book Out of Stone. They
published Edge of Time: Traveling in Armenia and Karabagh in 2001, and then
released a second edition a year later. The Stone Garden Guide: Armenia and
Karabagh is available by mail order from More information on the
book is available at

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan State Info Agency
Oct 7 2004

STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN ILHAM ALIYEV
[October 07, 2004, 13:51:20]

Dear Mr. President,

Dear guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Dear Mr. President, once again I welcome You in Azerbaijan.

Official visit of President of the Republic of Bulgaria Mr. Parvanov
represents great value to Azerbaijan. We with deep impatience waited
for this visit. And are very glad, that visit passes successfully.
The negotiations carried out by us once again testify that relations
between two countries develop and our links become stronger. I am
convinced that after the current visit, our cooperation in the field
of politics, economy, culture and all other spheres becomes even
stronger.

>From the political point of view, our countries are very close to
each other. We successfully integrate into the European and
Euro-Atlantic structures, and in this sense, our mutual relations
develop also in positive direction. Bulgaria as chairman of OSCE
plays extremely active role in settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan,
Nagorny Karabakh conflict, and we are very glad that as a result of
this activity during negotiations there can be new motions.

Great potential exists and in economic sphere, however, it is
involved not completely. But I hope, that after present visit
economic relations between our countries will develop.

Session of the intergovernmental joint commission has been carried
out, and the decision on creation of working group adopted. I hope
that due to activity of the Commission, and also negotiations of the
numerous Bulgarian businessmen who have arrived today in Azerbaijan
with the Azerbaijan colleagues, we can achieve great successes and in
the field of economy.

The economy of Bulgaria and Azerbaijan promptly and dynamically
develops. Certainly, the economic potential in process of
strengthening will allow us to achieve further acceleration of
economic relations between two countries and will bring big advantage
to both sides. I hope that activity of embassy of Azerbaijan, which
will shortly open in Bulgaria, also will bring in great contribution
to our common cause.

I want to note that our negotiations as in private, and in the
expanded structure, have passed in very warm conditions. We have
discussed wide enough spectrum of questions. And have discussed
mutual relations, questions of regional cooperation and, certainly,
had exchange of views on the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh
conflict. It is very glad, that fine relations developed between us,
sincerity will allow us to achieve a new level of relations between
our countries.

Dear Mr. President, once again I welcome You in Azerbaijan. I am
certain that the successfully begun present visit as successfully and
will end. Due to your visit, two countries become even closer to each
other.

PREMIER SAYS ARMENIA ABLE TO REPAY FOREIGN DEBT

Golos Armenii
7 Oct 04

Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Markaryan’s interview with Moscow’s
Noyev Kovcheg (Noah’s Ark) newspaper.

(Noah’s Ark correspondent) Dear Mr Prime Minister, you have been
occupying the post of prime minister for more than four years.

(Passage omitted: Markaryan says his position on Karabakh has not
changed; Markaryan on development of Megri Region, history of the
Armenian Apostolic Church)

During your tenure, Armenia’s state debt has reduced in relation to
the GDP. Will this tendency be maintained?

(Markaryan) The foreign debt totalled 39.3 per cent of the GDP by the
end of 2003. For comparison, in 2000 this figure was 45 per cent. If
the policy conducted today in the sphere of foreign debt settlement,
as well as today’s rates of GDP growth, export of goods and services
are maintained, Armenia’s state budget revenue will be enough to repay
its foreign debt. If this tendency is kept till 2007, the foreign debt
will amount to 30.7 per cent of the GDP.

(Passage omitted: Gini coefficient in Armenia)

(Correspondent) According to many experts, unfortunately, Armenia
remains to be a country with a high level of corruption and “shadow”
economy. According to the results of the previous year, Armenia
occupied one of the last places among the CIS countries in terms of
the share of taxes in the composition of the GDP. What specific
measures are being taken by the government to improve the situation?

(Markaryan) Today fighting corruption is the most important problem in
the world and in the countries with transition economies, in
particular.

(Passage omitted: according to Transparency International in 2003
Armenia occupied 78 place among 133 countries for the level of
corruption)

Understanding the danger of this phenomenon, the government in 2003
endorsed the Programme of the Anti-Corruption Strategy of the Republic
of Armenia and measures to fulfil it. As a result of the conducted
reforms, significant positive changes have taken place in the tax and
bank spheres, as well as in the sphere of state management. Certainly,
the process has not finished yet.

(Passage omitted: before the programme was endorsed more than 20
anti-corruption laws in different spheres had been adopted)

As for the low level of tax revenue in the GDP, this is conditioned by
the large number of fields that are provided with tax
incentives. Although in 2003 taxes and duties accounted for 14.5 per
cent of the revenue growth, compared to 2002 their share in the GDP
reduced by 0.6 per cent, which is mainly explained by the fact that
the number of fields provided with tax incentives in the GDP structure
increased sharply. This was in the first place conditioned by the
implementation of large credit and grant programmes.

I think it is necessary to note that the government is carrying out
consistent work to improve this figure, particularly by eliminating
subjective factors. Thus, the programme envisages increasing tax
revenue mainly by reducing the shadow economy without raising the rate
of the main taxes. Legislation also plays a significant role in
improving the tax policy. To that end, the government will soon draft
the Tax Code of the Republic of Armenia and submit it to the National
Assembly for endorsement. As a result of these measures, it is planned
to increase the share of tax revenue in the GDP by an average of
0.3-0.4 per cent annually.

(Passage omitted: minor details)

CHINA ALLOCATES 100MLN. USD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RUBBER-PRODUCING PLANT

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 4. ARMINFO. China has allocated 100mln. USD for the
construction of a plant to produce chloroprene rubber by Armenian
technology, the Armenian participant in the project, Director of the
“Nairit 2” CJSC Albert Sukiasyan told ARMINFO.

According to him, the construction of a plant with a designed capacity
of 30,000 tons of rubber a year in the province of Shaahsi was started
a year ago. The Armenian share in the authorized capital of the
“Shaansi-Nairit” CJSC is 40%, and that of China 60%. Sukiasyan pointed
out that the State Bank of China lent a credit, and the Armenian side
is to contribute with technologies and equipment. Sukiasyan pointed
out that a rubber-producing plan is already operating in Shaansi, but
is was closed for environmental reasons. The old plant is to be shut
down after the new one is put into operation, 50km. away from the
city. Sukiasyan reported that China’s yearly demand for rubber is
100,000 tons.

An agreement on the establishment of a JV was signed on October 2001
between the RA Ministry of Trade and Economic Development and the
Shaansi group of joint-stock companies of synthetic rubbers.

IranMania
Sept 28 2004

Gazprom to take part in Iran gas pipeline project

IranMania.com

LONDON, Sep 28 (IranMania) – Inter-parliamentary commission of
Russia- Armenia in economic cooperation is to consider next month
the participation of Gazprom firm in construction of the gas pipeline
between Iran and Armenia.

An informed source in Armenian government told Interfax News Agency
that the Russian Gazprom company intends to offer its cooperation
for construction of 41 kilometers of the pipeline in the Armenian
territory.

According to the aforementioned source the expenditure of construction
is around $30 mln which will be financed by a loan from Iranian Bank of
`Export promotion`.

Interfax News Agency said Iran and Armenia signed an agreement on May
2004 to establish a consortium to provide gas for Armenia. According
to the agreement Iran will provide 36 bln cubic meters of gas for
Armenia in 20 years period.

Meanwhile, it is possible that the agreement be renewed for another 5
years and the amount of gas be increased to 47 bln cubic meters. The
construction work in Iran side started in mid-July and in Armenia
side will start by the end of October.

RA DEFENCE MINISTRY AND UN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DECLARE START OF MINE
CLEARING OF ARMENIA PROJECT

YEREVAN, September 25 (Noyan Tapan). On September 24, with the support
of the European Union the RA Defence Ministry and the UN Development
Program (UNDP) declared the start of the Mine Clearing of Armenia
Project. The RA Defence Minister Serge Sargsian and the permanent
coordinator of the UN in Armenia and permanent representative of the
UNDP Lis Grande took part in the official ceremony. According to the
specialists’ estimate, in Armenia there are 6,000-8,000 land-mines on
about 840 square km, mainly in border areas. The impact of this mining
is extremely serious: every year part of the civilian population,
including children, suffer from the mines, and the agricultural work
in many border villages is made impossible because of the mines.

According to Yerevan Office of the UNDP, the budget of this 3-year
project is more than 1.5 mln euros. One of the main purposes of the
project is strengthening the coordination and implementation
capacities of the mine clearing programs conducted by the government.

In addition, the republican study on the assessment of the impact of
the mines will be conducted and a new data base will be created. The
other components of the project are the mine clearing of Syunik marz,
the campaign to increase public awareness, a targeted help to the
victins and those injured by the mines, as well as the professional
training of the medical staff and mine clearing personnel. ” This
project is valuable from several aspects: thanks to the mine clearing
of arable lands it will enable to reduce poverty in a number of
regions of the country, it will strengthen the government’s capacities
in this sphere, and finally it will increase public awareness in the
settlements adjacent to the mined areas. It is also of importance to
the UNDP that the RA Defence Ministry directly allocated finance to
this project. In this way the RA Government shows its obvious
willingness to carry out humanitarian mine clearing,” Lis Grande
said. The Aemenian Humanitarian Centre on Mine Clearing, which will
officially represent Armenia in the process of the project
implementaation, was established in March 2002 with the support of the
US State Department and the US Defence Ministry. According to the
survey conducted among those suffered from mines in 2002, at present
343 poeople who have suffered from mines live in Armenia, and mine
explosions have been registered in all 11 marzes o Armenia. Due to the
security problems existing presently in Transcaucasia, Armenia has not
yet signed the 2 main international conventions on land mines.

Russia’s Gazprom seen as aiming to buy Georgian pipelines

Rustavi-2 TV, Tbilisi
23 Sep 04

[Presenter] Gazprom representatives who arrived in Georgia yesterday
are currently at the Economic Development Ministry where they are
meeting [Economic Development Minister] Kakha Bendukidze’s deputy. The
director of Tbilgazi [Tbilisi gas distribution company], Davit
Morchiladze, is also at the talks.

There are reports that Gazprom is prepared to pay 300m dollars to take
control of Georgia’s trunk gas pipelines. There is also speculation
that there are plans to privatize Tbilgazi, although none of the
parties involved has yet confirmed this information.

The meeting at the ministry has been going on for more than two
hours. Our correspondent Giorgi Kalandadze is there and can tell us
more about Gazprom’s secret plans.

[Correspondent] About 300m dollars is the sum that Gazprom intends to
pay for control of Georgia’s trunk gas pipelines. According our
information, Gazprom needs these pipelines primarily to carry gas from
Iran’s huge deposits to Europe via Georgia. In relation to this issue,
there were reports in the Russian media recently that Gazprom is
trying to sell Iranian gas to Europe and for that reason the
construction of a pipeline between Iran and Armenia has been under
way, while pipelines between Armenia, Georgia, Russia and Western
Europe already exist.

For this plan to come to fruition, Gazprom and Russia need Georgia’s
agreement. About one year ago this subject came up for discussion and
a decision was taken then that it would be possible to set up a joint
enterprise, Gruzrosgazprom, or Sakrusgazmretsvi in Georgian, with the
shares split 50-50 and Gazprom representing Russia.

[Presenter] Giorgi, late last night the Gazprom delegation also met
the prime minister [Zurab Zhvania]. Is anything known about this
meeting?

[Correspondent] The meeting lasted several hours, starting at around
9.30 p.m. The energy and economic development ministers also attended
the meeting with the Gazprom delegation. Nothing about this meeting is
known as yet, although they did not conclude their discussions. It is
possible there will be another meeting with the prime minister today,
although an exact time is not yet known. The Gazprom representatives
intend to leave Georgia this evening.