Author: Zaminian Bedik

DEVELOPMENT AID CAN BE GEARED TOWARD CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN ABKHAZIA
by Vladimir Socor

Eurasia Daily Monitor — The Jamestown Foundation
Monday, July 17, 2006 — Volume 3, Issue 137

Georgia is preparing to exercise its sovereign right to demand the
termination of Russian "peacekeeping" operations on its territory
and their replacement with genuine international peacekeeping missions.

Concurrently, Tbilisi is redoubling efforts to unfreeze not the
conflicts as such (these are not and never were "frozen") but rather
to unfreeze the frozen negotiations toward political settlements
in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Within this context, the role of
international donor agencies and the functions of development aid in
the secessionist enclaves requires some overall political rethinking
and adjustment of goals on the ground.

Until now, those agencies and aid programs have basically aimed
to bring at least minimal improvements to living conditions in
the conflict-torn enclaves. Rarely, if ever, was Western-funded
development assistance conceived as a tool for advancing political
resolution of the conflicts, let alone resolution on terms consistent
with Western interests. This approach should and can now begin to
change by correlating development aid programs more directly with
the goals of conflict resolution. Free from Russian influence on
their decisions, donor agencies are potentially valuable vehicles
for promoting those goals.

A new approach along these lines can now be tested in Abkhazia. For
example, international development aid can contribute significantly to
the rebuilding and resumption of operations of the railroad section
between the Psou and Inguri Rivers. A linchpin in the pre-1991
Trans-Caucasus railroad, that section was destroyed in the 1992-93
war and awaits reconstruction in a package deal that would also
provide for the Georgian refugees’ safe and orderly return to the
Gali district. Russia’s state railways company lays claim to operating
that section once it is restored.

To ensure politically neutral operation of that section, donor
agencies could facilitate the formation of a Georgian-Abkhaz joint
technical group. Georgian managers and personnel who ran that railroad
prior to 1992 were turned into refugees as a result of the conflict,
and the relevant technical documentation is in Tbilisi since those
events. Having the railroad operated by a joint Georgian-Abkhaz
group is clearly preferable to a Russian takeover that would advance
Abkhazia’s de facto incorporation into Russia.

Moreover, Russian operation of that railroad would probably involve
deployment of railway troops — a specifically Russian institution that
handles many aspects of civilian transport — to Abkhazia on the excuse
of protecting that railroad. Meanwhile, an example of Georgian-Abkhaz
technical cooperation exists at the Inguri hydroelectric power plant,
jointly and continuously operated since 1994.

Donor agencies’ strategy to promote small-scale private-sector
projects particularly in farming can also be adjusted to advance the
resolution of this conflict. In the Ochamchire district, for example,
such assistance can be channeled to joint farming projects that would
be undertaken by local Abkhaz residents and Georgian refugees who
would be returning to their homes in that district. Such projects
can promote the goal of reversing the ethnic cleansing of Georgians
— a goal that can be achieved gradually and with proper economic
incentives to both sides and is central to a political resolution
of the conflict. Also in the Ochamchire district there is need for
an inventory of Georgian-owned houses, preparatory to their eventual
rebuilding to accommodate any returning refugees.

In the Gali district, Georgian refugees have returned in fairly
large numbers to their homes in an unorganized movement that the
Abkhaz authorities could not stop. However, Abkhaz authorities
are subjecting those Georgians to various forms of discrimination
and intimidation. Those problems — as well as organized crime
in the Gali and Ochamchire districts — can best be handled by
an international police force of several hundred, not by military
peacekeeping troops, let alone by Russian Army "peacekeepers." For
their part, donor agencies are well placed to support the provision
of Georgian-language education in Gali for the returnees’ children,
whom the Abkhaz authorities currently deprive of that right. It
is also clearly necessary at this stage to support the creation of
community representation of refugees who returned to Gali.

Ongoing demographic trends in Abkhazia would also seem to warrant an
adjustment in the aid focus and a more direct correlation of assistance
programs to conflict-resolution goals. According to broadly convergent
estimates by all sides involved, the number of resident ethnic Abkhaz
has dropped to between 50,000 and 60,000 (from an estimated 90,000
a decade ago) through social hardships and emigration. The number of
resident Armenians has slowly but steadily increased to some 55,000
and may rise further, mainly through immigration from Russia’s nearby
Krasnodar krai, where the authorities condone harassment of Armenians.

And the number of returning Georgians in Abkhazia has reached some
55,000, most of them in the Gali district.

These numbers and these proportions suggest that some political and
aid dimensions of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction
are manageable at the local level. By the same token they underscore
the need to face up to Russia’s challenge at the international level,
first and foremost by pressing for withdrawal of Russian troops to
clear the way for local processes toward political settlement.

–Vladimir Socor

ONE-PARTISAN SYSTEM IS IMPOSED ARMENIA, UNITING OPPOSITION

Lragir.am
18 July 06

The problem is not that the defense minister must be non-partisan
or not. And the problem is not how the army will vote. The army
has always been instructed how to vote, stated the leader of the
National Democratic Union Vazgen Manukyan July 18, commenting on
Serge Sargsyan’s membership to the Republican Party at the Pastark
Club. According to him, the problem is much deeper and bigger for
the country’s future.

"Serge Sargsyan is known to control not only the army, which is known
to everyone, but also the economy and the bulk of financial influx
to Armenia. By joining the political party of Andranik Margaryan,
who controls the rest of funds and economy, a monster is created,
which controls the entire economy," Vazgen Manukyan says.

According to him, this path leads Armenia to a unipartisan order.
"Unipartisan, when we lived in the Soviet Union, there was only one
political party, but very few people remember that in Poland, Hungary,
Bulgaria, for instance, there were "satellite" parties besides the
Communist Party, but those were fictitious, intended to show to the
world that there are starts of democracy, but in reality there was
only one political party. Now this experience is repeating in Armenia,"
says the leader of the National Democratic Union.

According to him, it is hard to tell what can be set against the
phenomenon which crushes the internal political system and threatens
the future of the state, called Serge Sargsyan – Republican Alliance.

"Power is a pyramid. In the Soviet Union, the entire economy was at
the bottom of the pyramid. In Armenia the bulk of the economy is again
in that pyramid. Now imagine the power pyramid, and the workers of the
pyramid are told that it is favorable for them and they have to become
members of a political party. The power pyramid becomes a solid, strong
political party at once. The opposition does not have the possibility
to build a pyramid and fight the pyramid. Therefore, it is much more
difficult to oppose it in the opposition," says Vazgen Manukyan.

According to him, it is not accidental that the opposition is
speaking about revolution and a storm. Vazgen Manukyan thinks these
considerations take place because "no other ways of breaking through
the pyramid are visible".

"I would like, I wish one or two ideological forces appeared in
the opposition (but unfortunately the opposition does not have the
necessary funds), who would run in the election determined to go all
the way to struggle, if not to take power, at least to take a sector
of power to influence further developments," says Vazgen Manukyan.

The leader of the NDU says it is important that in a newly established
state the first persons take a risk and think about the public
interests besides their own interests. Vazgen Manukyan hints at the
steps taken by leaders of different countries intended to foster
the establishment of political parties, endangering their power but
thinking about the state.

"Jefferson, Adams, Washington acted so in America, Franco did,
Pinochet did. A real head of state must have only one great public
interest besides his personal interest. If our statesmen thought about
the future of the country apart from their personal interests, they
would encourage, foster formation of a normal force against them,"
says Vazgen Manukyan.

He says the opposition is diverse, but there are serious forces,
nevertheless, whose unification would change the state of things.

Vazgen Manukyan cannot discern a tendency of unification of serious
forces yet, but he does not exclude it either. He finds that life
will impose this unification.

Putin the Great?

TCS Daily, DC
July 17 2006

By Nathan Smith

In his TCS article, "G7 + 1 Autocracy," K. Caldwell Harmon voices an
increasingly common view: that "G8 member countries should examine
whether Russia deserves to be represented in a group intended to
represent the developed, free world," in view of the way "political
freedom under Vladimir Putin has been heavily curtailed."

Yet despite, or because of, his moves to centralize power and clip
the wings of civil society, Putin now enjoys a 77 percent approval
rating in Russia, which is probably the highest in the G-8. Why don’t
Russians seem to object to the curtailment of their freedoms?

The Russian language has two words for freedom, neither of which
quite corresponds to civic freedom in the Anglo-American sense.
Svoboda is merely not to be a slave, serf, prisoner, or under foreign
occupation. Russians under the tsars were svobodnye. Volia, which also
means "will," is like the wild freedom of a Cossack on the steppes. For
generations, Russian writers like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Nicholas
Berdyaev have struggled to articulate a quixotic "Russian Idea," which
combines a inner freedom, made possible by spiritual transcendence,
with a communitarian ethos. The Russian Idea is believed to inhere
in the Russian people.

Though not illiberal in itself — it implies no clear political
program — the Russian Idea has been a distraction from the gradualist
pursuit of practical freedoms. Worse, it has periodically morphed into
political utopianism, and helps to explain Russia’s attempts at total
societal transformation, in which the past is completely repudiated,
and the country tries to emulate foreign models.

In the 17th century, Czar Peter I the Great decided to recast Russia
in the Western mold. He introduced Western-style fashion, navigation,
education, and even built a new capital, St. Petersburg, on the Baltic
Sea, as Russia’s "window on Europe." But Peter the Great was ruthlessly
repressive, all the more so because his expensive Westernization
program required heavy taxation, and provoked cultural resistance.

Next, the revolution of 1917 sought to realize the socialist theory
developed by a foreign philosopher, Karl Marx. The Soviets repudiated
Russia’s past, and desperately tried to industrialize the country
and imitate Western technology. Finally, in 1991, Russia attempted
another societal transformation, this time from communism to democratic
capitalism. Like past Russian revolutions, the 1991 revolution was
a time of grand illusions juxtaposed on social breakdown, chaos,
and impoverishment. The forms of Western practices appeared without
the substance.

Today, while Westerners regard the non-violent fall of communism as one
of history’s better moments, Russians regard the Soviet collapse as a
disaster. With the dissolution of the USSR, millions of Russians found
themselves living in foreign countries. There were mass exoduses from
places where Russians had lived for decades or generations. Wars broke
out between Armenia and Azerbaijan; in Tajikistan; and in Chechnya. The
economy unraveled, and by the mid-1990s, Russia’s official GDP, in
current dollars, had sunk by over 40 percent; Ukraine’s, by over 60
percent; Georgia’s, by almost 80 percent. Male life expectancy in
Russia fell from 65 to 58. For a few years, the centrifugal forces
of regionalism put the very survival of the Russian state in doubt.

The year 1991 for Russia was like the Great Depression and the South
losing the Civil War, rolled into one. Like post-Civil War Southerners,
Russians half realize that the West was right in the Cold War, but
nostalgia and romantic nationalism keep enmity with the West alive
in the Russian imagination. At the same time, after the meaningless
suffering of the 1990s, Russians admire Putin for getting their country
out of its Great Depression, just as an older generation of Americans
once admired Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In the aftermath of the 1991 revolution, Russians have become
pragmatic. A Pew poll in January showed that Russians favor a "strong
leader" (66 percent) over a "democratic government" (23 percent),
and also think that a "strong economy" (81 percent) is more important
than a "good democracy" (14 percent). One might object that these
are false dichotomies. "Democracies, both old and new," Dick Cheney
said in Vilnius last May, "can follow a course to political stability
and economic prosperity." In the Russian context, this claim has,
to put it mildly, not much empirical support.

Fareed Zakaria, in his recent book, uses Russia to illustrate his
"illiberal democracy" thesis: Putin is an elected leader who has
restricted freedom, with strong public support. Yet in the same book
he calls Putin a "liberal autocrat." Which is it — is Russia an
illiberal democracy, or a liberal autocracy?

Maybe both. Putin’s apparatus has stifled criticism of the president
on television, and NTV, the last independent TV channel, was shut down
in 2001, though newspapers have sometimes criticize the president,
and the internet remains uncensored. Putin’s main ally in the Duma,
the Unity party, is short on ideas and long on yes-men. But with the
help of a pliant Duma, Putin has passed reforms that, among other
things, allow private ownership of land, introduced trial by jury,
cut corporate taxes, and most importantly, introduced a flat tax
of 13 percent, which has led to increased revenues and a balanced
budget. That Russian GDP per capita has increased at an average 7
percent per year since Putin came into office owes a good deal, of
course, to high oil prices, but smart macroeconomic policies have
also helped.

Daniel Treisman and Andrei Shleifer recently disputed the black legend
about Russia in a Foreign Affairs article entitled "Russia: A Normal
Country," by which they mean, "a normal middle-income country." Point
by point — on elections and democracy, on corruption, on economic
inequality, on press freedom — Treisman and Shleifer argue that,
while Russia has its flaws, its problems are not systematically worse
or different than those of other middle-income countries.

Of course, even if Russia is a normal middle-income country (with
nukes of course), its G8 membership is still anomalous, because,
minus Russia, the G8 is a club of high-income countries. But is
the exclusiveness of the G8 club an end in itself? There may be
practical benefits to giving Russia a seat at the table that, in
some sense, it doesn’t "deserve." The themes that Russia chose for
this G8 summit are energy security and education. What’s the harm
in Russia leading discussions on these topics? Indeed, Russia has a
comparative advantage on these issues, since Russia itself and the
former Soviet Union generally are both large energy exporters, and
unusually well-educated relative to their level of per capita income.

Given Russians’ recent bad experience with trying to import the Western
model, Western "pressure" or "holding Putin accountable" will go down
badly with normal Russians. For now, Russians have the government that
they want, and they’re tired of Western meddling. We should respect
that. If Russia’s G8 membership gives Russia a stake in a Western-led
international order which otherwise it might be inclined to subvert,
it’s an anomaly worth keeping.

Nathan Smith is a writer living in Washington, DC. He blogs here,
and you can e-mail him here. He has lived and traveled extensively
in eastern Europe, Russia, and other post-Soviet countries, and is
married to a Russian national.

Referendum in Karabakh Shouldn’t Be Postponed for 10-15 Years

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.07.2006 14:41 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "The referendum on the status of Nagorno Karabakh
should not be postponed for 10-15 years, that is upon completion of
the Azeri President’s second tenure of office. Why cannot it be held in
4-5 years after the start of realization of the agreement? Certainly,
the Azeris who used to live in NK and their children who were
born there should vote too. They should be given the right to
return but they should also know under whose power they return.
They can vote distantly (like it was done recently in Milli Mejlis)
to avoid incidents pregnant with upset of the referendum," says the
article PanARMENIAN.Net received from former OSCE MG Russian Co-chair
Vladimir Kazimirov.

"The right to volunteer return of displaced persons and refugees is
one of the axioms of settlement but not for all of the parties. Deep
demilitarization of the territories until the final status of NKR
comes into force is also necessary. The security of the re-settled
people could be ensured by peacekeepers and civil police," he said.

Turkey faces pressure over freedom of speech

Gulf Times, Qatar
July 14 2006

Published: Friday, 14 July, 2006, 01:03 PM Doha Time

ISTANBUL: Turkey yesterday faced growing demands to ease restrictions
on freedom of speech after a court confirmed a six-month suspended
jail sentence for an editor convicted of "insulting Turkishness".

The European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, said after the ruling
this week that Ankara should rewrite its penal code.

Human rights groups and Turkish commentators urged the government to
abolish the code’s controversial Article 301, which carries a jail
sentence of up to three years.

The High Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Hrant Dink,
editor-in-chief of the Turkish and Armenian weekly Agos, would send a
chill through the domestic media, said Joel Simon, executive director
of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

"It calls into question the country’s commitment to press freedom
and legal reforms which are a pre-condition for its goal of joining
the European Union," Simon said.

Turkey started EU entry talks last October but negotiations are
expected to last more than a decade. In recent months it has faced
growing criticism from Brussels over the pace of reform.

EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said on Wednesday the latest
ruling showed the reformed penal code still restricted freedom of
expression and would set a binding precedent for other pending human
rights cases.

He said the Commission would review the situation in the light of the
EU’s political criteria in its upcoming progress report on Turkey in
late October or early November.

Sensitive to those concerns, the government has said it may call
parliament back from its summer recess two weeks early in mid-September
to push through the latest package of reforms.

Rights groups and Turkish commentators said it should use this
opportunity to abolish Article 301.

"A revision of Article 301 must urgently be incorporated into this
package," said Radikal newspaper editor Ismet Berkan.

The government has not yet commented on the court’s ruling and
officials were not immediately available.

Jonathan Sugden from New York-based Human Rights Watch said it was
difficult for the government to abolish such laws given its uneasy
relationship with the state bureaucracy.

The onus was thus on judges who could acquit in such cases on the
grounds that a conviction would contravene Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated in Turkish law.

"It is staggering that seven years into a reform programme and several
programmes dedicated to training judges in applying the convention,
a substantial section of the judiciary … still hasn’t grasped the
fundamentals," he said.

Internationally acclaimed Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk is among a
host of other writers who have been prosecuted under the same laws,
although his case was dropped.

Dink was sentenced for Armenian-related comments.

Armenians say 1.5mn Armenians were killed in a genocide by the
Ottoman Turks in 1915, but Turkey rejects this and says both Christian
Armenians and Muslim Turks suffered mass killings in partisan conflict.

London-based Amnesty International called for an immediate repeal of
the law, which it says muzzles peaceful dissenting opinion, and said
it could be part of the next reform package.

* Turkish prosecutors have charged nine people with killing a top
judge and bombing a secularist newspaper, attacks which fuelled
tensions between the government and hardline secularists, Turkish
media said late on Wednesday.

The prosecutors said the shooting at the top administrative court,
the Council of State, was an attack on the secular order as the court
had upheld rules restricting the wearing of the Muslim headscarf and
faced fierce criticism in Islamist circles.

Wearing the headscarf in public offices and universities is a central
issue in the debate over the significance of Islam in Turkey, which
is largely Muslim but has a secular constitutional system. Courts
have blocked government attempts to ease the ban.

The Ankara prosecutor’s office has completed the indictment over the
killing of a senior Council of State judge in May, state-run Anatolian
news agency reported. According to popular newspaper Hurriyet, the
indictment statement said the attack was linked to the headscarf ban.

The prosecutor’s office was not immediately available for comment.

Prosecutor Semsettin Ozcan charged a total of nine people, including
Alparslan Arslan, a young lawyer arrested for the killing, with
"attempting to overthrow the constitutional order by force".

The prosecutor sought four life terms for Arslan, and three life
terms for two other defendants.

The prosecutor also charged the three defendants with "founding and
administering an illegal armed organisation".

Tensions between the secularists, who include the armed forces, and
the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) have intensified ahead
of next year’s elections.

Secularists accuse the highly popular party, which has former political
Islamists among its founders, of having a hidden Islamist agenda. The
AKP denies this.

The prosecutor also completed the indictment of six people over a bomb
attack against Turkey’s most staunchly secularist newspaper Cumhuriyet.

The left-leaning Cumhuriyet recently ran a media campaign directed
at what it saw as rising Islamic fundamentalism in the European Union
candidate country.-Reuters

TRUTH AROUSES DOUBT WHEN FEW KNOW IT

Lragir.am
13 July 06

Almost every time when the minister of defense is asked about his
political plans, he gets surprised why the mass media consider
it so important. Of course, journalists do not explain why. It is
clear that the political plans of a person who occupies several high
offices in the spheres of national security, economy, sport, culture
and science willy-nilly become important, independent from who this
person is. Presently, the society has reason to be more attentive to
Serge Sargsyan’s steps. The point is that formerly his steps were
characterized by a highly logical sequence, whereas now his steps
are highly controversial.

The defense minister announced July 12 that there is no arrangement on
selling the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to Russia. Serge Sargsyan did
it calmly, as if another Serge Sargsyan had told news reporters in
the corridor of the Constitutional Court that there are "interesting
developments" in the negotiations with Russia over the pipeline,
and wished patience to learn about them. Now the minister of defense
announces that there is no arrangement on this at present. He also
said he would "ask" the minister of energy and the chief executive
of Armrusgasard to provide necessary information to the public,
filling in the gap in information on the pipeline.

What a quick response! And surprisingly it follows the Iranian visit
of the president of Armenia, the purpose of which was said to be the
gas pipeline. There is no need to repeat that Iran does not approve its
sale to Russia. The Iranian officials have announced about this for a
great number of times. Not directly, of course, but rather clearly. And
after all this Serge Sargsyan announces that there is no arrangement on
sale, because "there is no pipeline yet." There was no pipeline either
when the minister promised interesting developments. There may have
been developments but not that interesting if Serge Sargsyan suddenly
recalled the absence of a pipeline, as well as that the Ministry
of Energy and Armrusgasard, in other words, the subjects of the
sphere, should give information about the pipeline. It is interesting,
however, why these subjects did not provide the important information,
waiting until Serge Sargsyan would make a hint. If Serge Sargsyan were
president or prime minister, it would be possible to understand, but he
is merely a minister, let alone of defense, or especially of defense.

On the other hand, these agencies might also need information
on what is going on in their sphere, and finally, is the pipeline
being sold to the Russians or not? Therefore, independent from Serge
Sargsyan’s remark, the Ministry of Energy and Armrusgasard could not
give information to the public for the simple reason that they have
no information. It is also possible that very few of the Armenian
high officials have this information. And this makes doubt every
statement, because if several people know the truth, they may come
to an arrangement on hiding it.

Of course, nobody would be eager to assume responsibility for
problems, which is definitely natural. But it is equally natural
that a person who assumes responsibility at a favorable moment does
not avoid responsibility in "bad weather". Otherwise, natural logic
is violated. It would not be so bad if only logic were damaged.
Due to this national security is damaged too.

JAMES HAKOBYAN

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
07/12/2006
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://WWW.ASBAREZ. COM

1) Sen. Feingold Adds Voice to Growing Calls For Answers
2) Russia to Keep Georgian Border Closed Despite Armenian Protests
3) Dink Sentenced to Six Months, Turkey Warned by EU
4) European Parliament Postpones Vote on Turkey

1) Sen. Feingold Adds Voice to Growing Calls For Answers

WASHINGTONConcerns continued to grow this week regarding the circumstances
surrounding the firing of US Ambassador to Armenia John Marshall Evans, as
Sen.
Russell Feingold (D-WI) becomes the ninth member of the influential Senate
Foreign Relations Committee to call for clarification of the State Department
policy on the Armenian Genocide, reported the Armenian National Committee of
America.
In a written statement submitted as part of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearing on Ambassador Designate to Armenia Richard Hoagland, Sen.
Feingold noted that, "I want to express my deep concern about the
Administration’s reluctance to acknowledge the acts of genocide that were
committed against the Armenians almost a century ago. The Administration’s
continued failure to recognize these tragic events is troubling to me and to
those who share my belief that we should speak honestly about, and insist on
accountability for, past crimes against humanity and genocide."
Among specific questions to the Ambassador Designate, Sen. Feingold asked:
n Why was Ambassador Evans removed as Ambassador to Armenia?
n What is the Administration’s policy towards acknowledging the Armenian
genocide and what boundaries have been set for your position as Ambassador to
address or speak about the Armenian genocide?
n Do you anticipate that the departure of your predecessor, Mr. Evans, will
harm US-Armenian relations? How do you plan to respond to those in the
Armenian
community who are upset about his departure?
Sen. Feingold’s concerns are shared by half of the influential Senate Foreign
Relations Committee members including Senators George Allen (R-VA), Ranking
Democrat Joe Biden (D-DE), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Norm
Coleman (R-MN), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), John Kerry (D-MA) and Paul Sarbanes
(D-MD) who must first approve Amb. Evans’ replacement prior to a full Senate
confirmation. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed action on
Ambassador Designate Hoagland, while quickly voting for the incoming
Ambassadors to Switzerland and Ireland, who were before the Committee the same
day as Ambassador Designate Hoagland.
During the June 28th nomination hearing, Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Sen. Norm
Coleman (R-MN), and Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) pressed the nominee for an
explanation of the State Department’s guidance regarding the use of the word
"genocide" to properly characterize this crime against humanity. Senators
Allen
and Coleman peppered the nominee with numerous questions and expressed
frustration as the Ambassador-Designate avoided giving direct answers to
any of
the questions, resorting to the use of euphemisms.
In addition, Representatives George Radanovich (R-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ),
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), and Adam Schiff (D-CA) have urged Secretary Rice to
reconsider the decision to recall Amb. Evans. Over the past several months,
scores of Senate and House Members have directed questions to State Department
officials, calling for answers surrounding the controversial firing of Amb.
Evans, including 60 Representatives who joined Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) in a
letter to Secretary Rice, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) who submitted questions
to Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who
submitted questions to Secretary Rice. Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and
John Kerry also asked Secretary Rice for clarification on Amb. Evans’
dismissal. The Administration has either failed to provide responses or
provided responses, which have been largely perfunctory, citing that
Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President, but giving no clear
insight
into the State Department’s decision to dismiss the career diplomat after 35
years of distinguished service.
The State Department, with the blessing of the White House, fired Amb. Evans
in response to his February 2005 statements before American audiences in the
United States, during which he properly characterized the Armenian Genocide as
"genocide."
Following his statements, Amb. Evans was forced to issue a statement
clarifying that his references to the Armenian Genocide were his personal
views
and did not represent a change in US policy. He subsequently issued a
correction to this statement, replacing a reference to the genocide with the
word "tragedy." The American Foreign Service Association, which had decided to
honor Amb. Evans with the "Christian A. Herter Award," recognizing creative
thinking and intellectual courage within the Foreign Service, reportedly
rescinded the award following pressure from the State Department in the days
leading up to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to
Washington, to meet with President Bush.

2) Russia to Keep Georgian Border Closed Despite Armenian Protests

YEREVAN (RFE/RL)Russian Transport Minister Igor Levitin said on Wednesday that
Moscow will try to address Armenia’s concerns regarding the closure of
Russia’s
main border crossing with Georgia but stopped short of promising its speedy
reopening.
The issue featured large during Levitin’s one-day visit to Yerevan that
involved talks with President Robert Kocharian and Defense Minister Serzh
Sarkisian. The two men apparently reiterated Yerevan’s serious concerns about
negative consequences of the effective shutdown of the Georgian-Russian land
border which serves as one of Armenia’s few external trade routes.
"This issue was included into our memorandum signed today," Sarkisian told a
joint news conference after the talks. "We agreed that after Mr. Levitin
returns to Moscow he will report the matter to the leadership of the Russian
Federation."
Levitin said the Russian government will discuss, among other things, ways of
compensating Armenia for the losses incurred as a result of the border
closure.

Levitin also assured reporters that the border crossing at Upper Lars was not
closed by Russia as part of its clearly punitive economic measures taken
against Georgia’s pro-Western government in recent months. He repeated
Moscow’s
claims that the move was necessary for repairing roads and border control
facilities on the Russian side of the mountainous area. Such work can only be
carried out during summer months, he said, declining to announce any time
frames for its completion.
Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan complained at the weekend that the
Russians failed to notify Yerevan about the unilateral measure, condemned by
the Georgian government, beforehand. He said the border closure created a
"very
severe" situation for Armenia companies exporting goods to Russia and other
parts of the Soviet Union via the Upper Lars crossing.
"The Armenian side was not told in advance that Upper Lars will be closed,"
admitted Levitin. He said the Armenian leaders asked him to make sure that
they
have prior knowledge of such Russians actions in the future.
Levitin and Sarkisian met in their capacity as the co-chairmen of an
intergovernmental commission on Russian-Armenian economic cooperation. They
reported and welcomed a sharp increase in the volume of bilateral trade during
the first four months of this year.
The Russian minister also discussed the ongoing official inquiry into the
causes of the May 3 crash off the Russian Black Sea coast of an Armenian
airliner that killed all 113 passengers and crew on board. The Airbus A-320 of
Armenia’s largest airline, Armavia, plunged into the sea under still uncertain
circumstances as it tried to land at the Russian resort city of Sochi.
A Russian aviation official accompanying Levitin said Russian investigators
have already examined the plane’s two black box flight recorders recovered
from
the Black Sea and other factual evidence and will present their findings later
this month. "We have all the facts to fully and objectively establish the
cause," said Tatyana Anodina, head of the Interstate Aviation Committee of the
Commonwealth of Independent States. "I think that all the materials will be
made public in full by the end of July."

3) Dink Sentenced to Six Months, Turkey Warned by EU

ANKARA (Combined Sources) Turkey’s high court Tuesday handed down a six-month
prison sentence to Hrant Dink, the editor of bilingual Turkish and Armenian
weekly, Agos. The editor was convicted last year for an article criticizing
Article 301, which punishes the public denigration of Turkishness or state
authorities. This is the first final judgment based on the controversial
article, reported the BBC.
The European Commission lamented Wednesday a Turkish court ruling against an
ethnic Armenian journalist for "denigrating the Turkish national identity,"
warning the case could cloud Ankara’s EU hopes, the Agence France Presse
reported.
Commenting on an appeal court ruling on Dink, EU Enlargement Commissioner
Olli
Rehn called on the Turkish government to bolster freedom of speech in the
country. "I am disappointed by this judgment which limits the exercise of
freedom of expression in Turkey," he said, following Tuesday’s court ruling,
the first such judgment based on article 301 of Turkey’s new Penal Code.
He noted that ruling "will set the trend for lower jurisdiction to follow
when
applying article 301 in the future," adding: "This is all the more serious
since there are still a number of similar court cases pending. I would
therefore urge the Turkish authorities to amend article 301 and other vaguely
formulated articles in order to guarantee freedom of expression in Turkey," he
said.
Rehn underlined that freedom of expression is a key principle of the EU’s
so-called Copenhagen political criteria, which Ankara must adhere to if it one
day wants to join the currently 25-nation bloc. "In any case, the Commission
will review the situation in light of the Copenhagen political criteria in its
upcoming Progress Report," Rehn said, referring to an annual report on
Ankara’s
EU preparations due in October.
Turkey began EU entry talks last October, but the negotiations are likely to
take at least a decade and Ankara has been warned there is no guarantee of
eventual membership.
Rehn is expected to issue a report on Turkey’s progress by early November,
but
he has already warned that membership talks, which began last year, could soon
grind to a halt. There was international outcry when Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s
best
known novelist, was prosecuted under the article.
His offense, like that of Dink’s, was speaking about the Armenian Genocide.
While the case against Pamuk was dropped on a technicality, Hrant Dink could
go to prison if he commits a similar offense in the next five years. The human
rights group Amnesty International says several other writers, publishers,
artists and activists are charged with denigrating Turkishness.

4) European Parliament Postpones Vote on Turkey

BELGIUMThe Vote on the draft resolution on "Turkey’s progress toward
accession"
which should have been voted on Wednesday by the Committee for Foreign Affairs
of the European Parliament was postponed due to practical reasons, reported
the
European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (ANC of Europe).
The major reason for delay was the late translation of the numerous
amendments. These amendments were submitted only on Monday afternoon to the
various political groups, which did not leave time to them to prepare for the
vote.
The European Parliament resolution will finally be voted on the first week of
September 4 to 7 by the Foreign Affairs Committee and eventually on the last
week of September in the plenary session.
On Monday, members of the leading European Parliament factions offered to
introduce the Armenian Genocide issue and opening of borders with Armenia
without any preconditions as the items of the agenda of the EU-Turkey talks.
The EU can freeze talks with Turkey on EU accession, stated Finnish Premier
Matti Vanhanen, whose country assumed the EU presidency on July 1, the
Associated Press reported..
"There is always an opportunity to stop the talks. I think Turkey knows it,"
Vanhanen remarked.
The Finnish Premier also underscored that official Ankara should fulfill all
conditions for continuing talks on EU accession, specifically normalize
relations with EU member Cyprus.

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) 2006 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.

Ïðaâî Âûaîða, Azerbaijan
Democratic Azerbaijan
July 11 2006

Illegal Settlement of Armenians by Armenia in Occupied Territories of
Azerbaijan – Rough Violation of the Principles of International Law

11.07.2006

Member of MM delegation to PACE, Ganira Pashayeva prepared the
recommendation concerning illegal settlement of Armenians by Armenia
in occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The document signed by over 30
Members of PACE is submitted to the addressing and taking measures by
the CE leading structures.
The document says:
Ignoring 4 Resolutions of the UN Security Council on unconditional
withdrawal of the Armenian Armed Forces from Azerbaijani territories
and PACE Resolution 1416 on releasing of Azerbaijani lands and return
of internally displaced persons of Azerbaijan to their native lands,
thereby Armenia endangers the direct negotiation process between two
Presidents. Armenian illegal settlement policy in occupied
Azerbaijani territories contradicts to the International law
principles, and the mentioned documents.
Increasing the number of Armenian settlements in occupied Azerbaijani
territories, Armenia endeavors to reinforce its status-quo in these
lands and to impede the return of IDPs of Azerbaijan to their native
lands.
According to official figures, before conflict in 1989 the Armenians
living in Nagorno-Garabagh, the autonomous district of Azerbaijan
were numbered 145,450. For the purposes to bring this figure to
300,000 till 2010, the official Yerevan pursues the special state
policy. According to other sources, including some Armenian data, for
the last few years the territory of Nagorno-Garabagh and 7 occupied
districts was settled by 23,000 people, including 13,000 – settled in
Lachin, 700 – in Kalbajar, 520 – in Zangilan and 280 – in Jabrayil.
Before invasion of the Armenian armed forces, the population of these
regions was Azerbaijanis. Armenia and Garabagh separatists forced
Azerbaijanis to leave their native lands and conducted ethnic
cleansing policy there. Hundreds of Armenian families from Armenia
and other countries have been settled in Aghdam, Fizuli and other
occupied regions of Azerbaijan.
Under Armenian state programme, more 15,000 people should be settled
in occupied Shusha. Armenian illegal settlement policy in occupied
Azerbaijani territories is embodied in the documents of a number of
international organizations (UN Sub-Commission on the Protection and
Promotion of Human Rights, Working Group for National Minorities; the
US Committee for Refugees, World Refugee Survey 2002, report on
Armenia; US Department of State Report on Human Rights, Azerbaijan,
25 February 2004, paragraph 2 (d); the report on activity of the
personal representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office for conflict
dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Group, 1 September – 31 October 2004).
Furthermore, paragraph 6 of the Article 49 of the Geneva Convention
says: "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations
of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the
Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are
prohibited, regardless of their motive." It means that the illegal
settlement in occupied territories is a rough violation of the
International law norms.
Azerbaijan, seriously concerned with violation of all norms and
principles of International law by Armenia (4 Resolutions of the UN
Security Council, PACE Resolution, Geneva Convention) and with its
ongoing illegal actions, addressed to the UN General Assembly
concerning the situation in its occupied territories. The latest
report said that the Mission for Fact Establishment monitored the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The Mission recommends: "The OSCE
Minsk Group urges the Co-Chairmen not to allow migrants to occupied
territories any more."
Seriously concerned with Armenian illegal settlement in occupied
territories of Azerbaijan, the UN General Assembly urges:
– Armenian authorities to stop illegal settlement of Armenians in
occupied territories of Azerbaijan without delay;
– Member States of the Council of Europe to undertake necessary
measures aiming at affecting Armenia in order to stop its policy
contradicting to the norms and principles of International law,
including PACE Resolution.

–Boundary_(ID_tw8xZL8A8pkg2idTk6XyxQ )–

ARMENIAN DIPLOMATS RANK 59TH IN LIST OF FINES FOR WRONG PARKING AT
UN HEADQUARTER

Yerevan, July 10. ArmInfo. Armenian diplomats with 10.1 fines proved
the 59th in the lists of fines for wrong parking at UN headquarters in
New York, says a survey by the economists of Columbia University and
Berkeley University. Washington Profile reports that data for 1997-2002
were subjected to analysis. Diplomats evaded 150,000 fines for a total
of $18 million for the period under review. Kuwait representatives
proves the most undisciplined (246.2 evaded fines per diplomat a
year in average). Then goes Egypt and Chad. As regards the diplomats
from post-Soviet states, representatives of Kazakhstan are in the
lead (the 33rd place in the list, 21.1 unpaid fines per diplomat
a year). Ukraine goes the 51st (12.9), Estonia – the 57th (10.5),
Georgia – the 64th (9.7), Uzbekistan the 68th (8.8), Turkmenistan
the 81sr (5.8), Kyrghyzstan – the 85th (5.2), Tajikistan the 89th
(4.3), Belarus the 102nd (2.7), Russia and Lithuania share the 108th
position (2), Moldova is on the 118th position (0.7). The source
reports Azerbaijan and Latvia among the most conscientious diplomats,
they had no single fine to pay. They are among leaders alongside with
Great Britain, Netherlands, Oman, Israel, Greece and Equador.

In addition, the university experts draw a parallel between the
unwillingness of diplomats to pay fines, the complicate relations
of countries with the USA, as well as with wide-spread corruption in
the countries having diplomatic relations with the USA.

To note, the RA Foreign Ministry told ArmInfo, three Armenian diplomats
work at the UN headquarters, with relevant number of official cars.

Reintegration processes in the CIS

Yerkir.am
July 07, 2006

The CIS countries’ attempts to transform and adjust this political
union to the realities of the globalized world create new features
in the behavior of the CIS member states. The modification of the
geopolitical orientation of the larger members of the CIS serve as new
signals for such transformations. On the other hand, the traditional
economic and cultural ties and the opportunities for their restoration
serve as a kind of counterbalance for the disintegration processes.

Background of the issue

The main issue on the agenda of the recent summit of Eurasian Economic
Cooperation (known as EurozES) leaders was the issue of establishment
of a customs union in the framework of this organizations.

Against the background of Russia’s rather pragmatic policies towards
the CIS states, political analysts were increasingly optimistic about
this initiative. The leaders of the six members of EurozES announced
that it is possible that the EurozES customs union will be created
by the end of this year, something which was not possible to do in
the past fifteen years.

EurozES, an entity formed in the framework of CIS in 2000, was aimed to
regulate and ensure smooth operation of the member states’ economic
relations, trade regimes, provision of resources, flow of human
capital, technological and infrastructure sectors. Establishment of
more or less liberal and efficient customs and tax regulation regimes
was an axis for the initiative.

Armenia’s expectation from EurozES

Armenia applied to be an observer to this organization. The observer’s
status allows the country to participate in the open sessions,
make statements and receive documents on the decisions taken by the
organization.

The priorities EurozES has set for itself are to some extent related to
Armenia’s vital interests, especially in the sectors of transport and
freight transportation, energy sector, regulation of labor migration
and cooperation in the sector of agricultural and industry.

On the other hand, as a member of the World Trade Organization and
a country with multi-faceted economic, trade and military-technical
relations with CIS countries Armenia could not stay indifferent towards
the transformation and reintegration processes underway in the CIS.

The leaders of the CIS states voice the opinion that the new customs
union which is in the process of being established aims at developing a
common position towards membership in the World Trade Organization. In
this context, the proposal made at the Minsk Summit to set a unified
customs tax in the framework of EurozES is of special interest.

In the context of the recent developments in the CIS Russia’s decision
to increase the prices for gas should be considered quite natural. The
promise-threat to sell 1000 cubic meter of natural gas for 180 dollars
starting next year can easily be understood in this context.

Depending on the supply of the Russian gas, CIS partners including
Armenia will have to diversify their energy resources. In the case
of Armenia, rapid construction of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline emerges
as increasingly important.

Of course, deepening relations with EurozES member states and
membership in their customs union might be in Armenia’s interests if
the political and regional problems on the way to such membership are
settled. However, to wait that large investments would flow to Armenia
from the EurozES region in near future would be an overly exaggerated
expectation, especially in what concerns investments from Russia.

Russia itself is in dire need of investments. Russia needs millions
and millions of working people. According to different estimates,
5-8 million people from the CIS are currently working in Russia. This
number is far from being sufficient. 65 million people are currently
working in the Russian economy while the expectation is that 8-10
million new jobs will be created in the near future. This is why
the Russian authorities are planning to eliminate all obstacles for
labor migration.

This means Russia itself needs large investments and is using all
methods to attract them. Experts estimates Russia needs investments
of 2-3 trillion dollars in the coming 10 years and will do everything
to encourage such investments. Armenia in its turn can and is making
considerable investments into Russian economy with its qualifies
labor force. This investment is larger than any investment Armenia
can expect to get from Russia.

As to Russian investments made or expected to be made in Armenia,
Russia is solving more political than economic problems through such
investments. The fact that the Russian authorities did not want to
delay the payoff of Armenia’ s debt of 100 million dollars, is an
indirect evidence of this. Meanwhile, successful Russian investments
are more of an exception than a rule.

By Mher OHANIAN