CIS SECURITY CHIEF HOLDS TALKS WITH BELARUSIAN SECURITY OFFICIAL

Belapan news agency
29 Apr 04

MINSK

The secretary-general of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO), Nikolay Bordyuzha, noted three main current areas of CSTO
activities during his meeting with the chairman of the committee for
international affairs and national security of the Council of the
Republic (Belarusian parliament’s upper house), Mikalay Charhinets, on
29 April in Minsk.

According to him, this includes coordination of foreign policy of
member states (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
and Russia), formation of the organization’s military component and,
above all, counteracting modern threats and challenges. Bordyuzha said
that the ways of development of the CSTO military component will be
discussed at the next session of the Collective Security Treaty
Council scheduled for June in Astana (Kazakhstan). “The existence of
the military component is a factor of deterrence,” Bordyuzha said.

Speaking about CSTO activities aimed at counteracting modern threats
and challenges, the organization’s secretary-general noted the fight
against drugs and terrorism. According to him, the creation of a
single legal basis on these issues and informational support are
becoming quite topical in this respect. Bordyuzha recalled with
satisfaction that the Channel operation was carried out within the
CSTO framework in 2004. Law-enforcement agencies of the organization’s
member states, including Belarusian special services and the Interior
Ministry, were involved in the operation. The operation resulted in
the confiscation of about two tonnes of drugs, approximately the same
quantity of precursors and institution of 1,500 criminal cases in the
area of illegal turnover of drugs.

Nikolay Bordyuzha also said that the CSTO has been registered with the
UN and the issue of granting it observer status with the UN is
currently being discussed. The organization has established ties with
security bodies of the UN and OSCE.

The goal of Bordyuzha’s two-day visit to Minsk is to prepare the next
session of the Collective Security Treaty Council. He had meetings to
this effect with the head of the presidential administration, Ural
Latypaw, on 28 April and took part in a joint board session of the
defence ministries of Belarus and Russia. Bordyuzha had a meeting with
leaders of the Belarusian Foreign Ministry on 29 April.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

USA TO FAIL IN KARABAKH, AZERI DAILY SAYS

Ekho, Baku
29 Apr 04

The US business interests in the South Caucasus will eventually
require political backing, and Washington seems to have decided to
deal seriously with regional conflicts, and firsty the
Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflic t, Azerbaijani
newspaper Ekho has reported. In order to resolve the problem, the USA
has to dismiss its balanced policy and define favourites, Ekho said.
Washington might try to drive Armenia out of Russia’s influence, while
at the same time putting pressure on Azerbaijan and Turkey. But in
this case, the USA could alienate its two strategic partners and,
moreover, provoke an upsurge in Islamic influence in the region, the
paper said. The whole plan might have “catastrophic repercussions” for
Washington and make it forget about its major economic projects in the
region, Ekho concluded. The following is the text of Nurani report by
Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 29 April headlined “American
rollercoaster”; subheadings inserted editorially:

USA vs Russia in South Caucasus

This popular attraction is called “Russian rollercoaster” everywhere
in the world. It is believed to repeat the traditional Russian
amusement – sliding down an ice hill on a sleigh. However, in Russia
it is said to be “American” since this “round-the-year” attraction
came from America.

For some reason, this unserious comparison comes to my mind every time
I compare how the Russian and Western press comment on the situation
in the South Caucasus. The majority of Moscow (and pro-Moscow)
newspapers believe that the South Caucasus has long been “ruled” by
the USA that has turned this region, which is geographically and
environmentally destined to be none other than “Russia’s backyard”,
into “its 51st state”. On the other side of the former “cold war”
frontiers, the situation is conceived in a completely opposite way.

The composition, to be more precise, the style of the (OSCE) Minsk
Group was the best proof: while Russia was officially represented by
unimpressive (Nikolay) Gribkov, the former deputy director of the
Russian foreign intelligence service and the incumbent deputy foreign
minister, Vyacheslav Trubnikov, visited the region along with his
colleagues. Moreover, the “strategic concepts” of the two super
powers, as regional observers could witness more than once, do not
concur.

We should probably expect that the US business interests in the region
will sooner or later require political “backing”. Today, one can find
dozens of ongoing political developments which, if you have enough
desire and imagination, could pass for the manifestation of that US
strategy. For instance, the “rose revolution” in Georgia (even if the
USA’s real role in it is a topic where telling whisper and hints will
for a long time dominate clear-cut and unambiguous statements) was
unequivocally interpreted as the start of a “purge” of the political
field of the oil-rich region from corrupt undemocratic regimes,
despite their loyalty and the leader’s past merits.

USA has to dismiss balanced policy

Against this background, the appointment to the post of US co-chairman
of the Minsk Group of Steven Mann, who used to be in charge of the
“energy diplomacy” in the region which proved to be very successful,
is said to clearly show the USA’s decision to seriously deal with the
settlement of regional conflicts in the South Caucasus, and the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in the first place.

If we remember that the USA has been for quite a long time “pushing”
Armenia and Turkey towards a dialogue, Steven Mann’s appointment,
which reveals the USA’s aspiration to a speedy settlement to the
conflict which is simmering near pipelines, completes the “picture” of
the situation in the region.

However, the “conflict diplomacy” in general, and the brokering
mission in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in particular, might
prove to be a much more difficult task for the USA than an effective
economic breakthrough. The world has already witnessed the failure of
three mediation initiatives in Nagornyy Karabakh – the step-by-step
and package settlements and the territorial swap. Although today US
diplomats react quite painfully to criticism of the Minsk Group, one
has to draw not at all encouraging conclusions from 10-year-long
negotiations: the chances that the parties themselves can “reach a
compromise” are most likely to be very slim. To put it simply, if the
USA is serious in its intention to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict, it will sooner or later have to dismiss its hope to conduct
“balanced policy” and define its likes and dislikes.

A fairly extraordinary situation has been formed in the region. Both
regional political mega projects – the Karabakh settlement and the
Armenian-Turkish dialogue – impact Armenia. This country is the only
strategic ally of Russia in the region, while it is opposed in one
case by Turkey, for which, despite all the recent problems, the USA is
undoubtedly number one strategic partner, and in the other case by
Azerbaijan, for which Washington is again closer than Moscow.

“Catastrophic” repercussions for USA

Rumours have been going on in the South Caucasus for quite a while
that the USA will finally try to “buy out” Armenia from Russia and
take this country out of Moscow’s monopoly and thus gain control of
the whole of the region. Hence, there is a clear conclusion that now
Washington will try its best to “interest” Armenia and,
correspondingly, step up pressure on Azerbaijan and Turkey: it is
always easier to pressurize your ally than a country which you have
yet to improve relations with.

However, the situation is far from being simple. If in the early 1990s
analysts said that those who would succeed in mediating conflicts
would get carte blanche in the region, today’s forecasts are
completely different: in case of the mediators’ failure, all the other
US projects in the region, including economic projects, might be
threatened.

Indeed, relations with Armenia are a very sensitive issue both in
Azerbaijan and Turkey. It is hardly possible, even theoretically, to
“dose up pressure” in order, on the one hand, to force Azerbaijan and
Turkey to make a concession that would impress Armenia, and on the
other hand, not to damage its own positions in these countries. The
reason is simple: the “limit” of Armenia’s requirements is extremely
high. On the other hand, excessive pressure on Baku and Ankara might
prompt these countries not only to look for “alternative partners”,
from the European Union to Russia. An upsurge in Islamic influence in
these countries could prove to be much more dangerous. These will be
the same Islamists who found themselves in power in Iran unexpectedly
for the whole world, easily won the majority of seats in the Algerian
parliament elections, and proved to be the most influential political
force in today’s Iraq. They hardly have any particular influence in
Azerbaijan nowadays, and the ruling JDP (Justice and Development
Party) in Turkey can hardly be described as a radical group. However,
politicians know well about the possibility of “catastrophic” shifts
in the public opinion, particularly if sensitive and painful problems
such as Karabakh are at issue. This means that an attempt to buy out
Armenia from Russia at the expense of Turkey and Azerbaijan could have
catastrophic repercussions for Washington, and the USA will have to
forget about those regional mega projects for a long time to come.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

HEAD OF ARMENIAN DELEGATION REACTS TO COUNCIL OF EUROPE DISCUSSIONS

Hayots Ashkarh, Yerevan
29 Apr 04

Yesterday, late in the evening PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe) finished discussions on the domestic political
situation in Armenia. The deputy chairman of the National Assembly,
head of the Armenian delegation, Tigran Torosyan, comments on this by
telephone.

(Hayots Ashkarh correspondent) Mr Torosyan, how did the discussions
finish? Was a negative decision adopted on Armenia?

(Tigran Torosyan) I think on the contrary. A very good decision for
Armenia was adopted that gave an answer to all the questions. It was
in connection with the so-called vote of confidence as well as the
presidential and parliamentary elections. In fact, it is the second
time that they have made more detailed assessments. So some people
should be able to understand, at least for the second time, what PACE
is saying.

(Correspondent) Can we say that all the information submitted by the
opposition was rejected by PACE? Who made a speech from the
opposition?

(Torosyan) Shavarsh Kocharyan (National Democratic Party, part of the
Justice bloc) made a speech against our proposals and, in his turn,
presented their proposals. As for the rejection of their information,
it is incorrect to put it this way, as the voting has finished,
decisions have been adopted and, of course, answers have been given to
all the questions.

(Correspondent) How did the PACE leadership respond to the information
presented in your report?

(Torosyan) PACE first of all makes assessments by voting. It was
obvious that the majority supported all our proposals.

The voting gave a strict assessment to the results of the two
elections as well as to the so-called vote of confidence. This is the
most significant.

(Correspondent) What were the results of the voting?

(Torosyan) I think it is not so important, as about four times as many
people were in favour as against. In fact, more than 40 deputies
supported views favourable for us, and only 10-12 were against. Simply
this figure was different during different votes.

ARMENIAN DEFENCE MINISTER SLAMS OPPOSITION

Hayots Ashkarh, Yerevan
29 Apr 04

Armenian Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan has commented on the
domestic political situation in the country and other
issues. Following is the text of a report by the Armenian newspaper
Hayots Ashkarh on 29 April headlined “They are justifying their own
inaction”:

(Hayots Ashkarh correspondent) How do you assess the failure of the
coalition-opposition dialogue?

(Serzh Sarkisyan) I think this is first of all a problem of the
parties which form the coalition. As the defence minister I refrain
from expressing any view, so that tomorrow you have no reason to say
that I am interfering in political problems. Though this problem is in
some way connected with national security as well. But I have not
studied the details of the political consultations initiated by the
president.

(Correspondent) The opposition has submitted political proposals that
consist of 10 points. They are demanding that political persecution be
stopped and free movement of citizens be ensured.

(Sarkisyan) Do you think that there is political persecution in our
country? I do not agree with this view of the opposition. The latest
provocation that they have disseminated is that armoured personnel
carriers closed the streets to block the way of rally-goers. This is a
simple means for the opposition to justify their own inaction. Why do
those journalists, who are so active and have become a microphone for
the opposition, not go and take a photo of at least one armoured
personnel carrier? Why do they not tell the truth? When the agressive
political forces publicly announce that they are going to change power
by violence, the police is simply obliged to make the relevant checks
to ensure public security.

(Correspondent) How possible do you think it is that, after studying
our country’s domestic political situation, they will raise the issue
of Armenia leaving the Council of Europe?

(Sarkisyan) I am sure this will not happen. Azerbaijan and Turkey do
not have enough force to do this.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“TIME WILL TELL” SAYS AZERI LEADER ON PROSPECTS FOR KARABAKH TALKS

Turan news agency, Baku
29 Apr 04

Strasbourg, 29 April: During today’s press conference in Strasbourg,
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev did not speak in Azerbaijani. All
journalists, including those from Azerbaijan, were told to ask
questions in English. Nobody explained the reason for such a strange
conduct of Ilham Aliyev.

Asked whether the political prisoners, including participants in the
October events (those arrested for post-election riots in 2003), might
be pardoned in near future, Aliyev said that this issue needs to be
“closed” soon.

As for the participants in the October events, a line has to be drawn
between those who “expressed their will and those who threw stones at
the police”. The trial is not over yet and it would be premature to
count them as political prisoners, Aliyev said.

On possibility of dialogue with the opposition, Aliyev said that he
proposed such a dialogue three times but received no response. “But if
the opposition displays its willingness, then this can be considered,”
he said.

Asked why the president’s press service invites to official events
only the pro-government mass media and journalists, Aliyev said that
it is up to them to decide who to invite and where. “It is impossible
to obtain an invitation to the president’s events by pressure.”

Armenian journalists asked Aliyev whether he will recognize Turkish
Cypriots’ independence as he promised. Aliyev said that Azerbaijan
will be in the first ranks of those countries which will do this when
the issue of recognition arises.

Responding to a question on prospects for settling the Nagornyy
Karabakh conflict, Aliyev said that there are no agreements and “time
will tell” how and from which point the talks will continue.

Asked to comment on the killing of the Armenian officer in Budapest by
Azerbaijani serviceman Ramil Safarov, Aliyev said that this case
should not be turned into a “show”. In 2003 alone, Armenian snipers
killed 20 civilians in Azerbaijan, he said.

ARMENIA HOLDS MILITARY EXERCISES ON OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Lider TV, Baku
29 Apr 04

Armenians today held military exercises on the occupied Azerbaijani
territories. Lider TV’s special correspondent in the Karabakh region
reports that shooting from cannons, tanks and heavy-caliber weapons
was heard this morning in the occupied area of Agdam
(District). Azerbaijani military confirmed that the Armenians were
holding the exercises. Truce violation was not registered during the
exercises.

According to the head of the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry press
service, Ramiz Malikov, these exercises have been monitored.

UCLA Today
APRIL 28, 2004

Welcoming 800 international guests annually
Visitors bureau rolls out red carpet

BY ANNE BURKE
UCLA Today Staff

Gohar Grigorian stands at the ready as a charter bus rolls to a stop
at UCLA’s Westholme entrance. She is straight-backed, dark-suited and
nicely coiffed, with a cell phone clipped to her waist and a stack of
documents in the crook of her arm.

The bus is carrying a delegation of 11 Europeans who are meeting with
UCLA administrators and academics as part of a U.S. State
Department-sponsored visit to America. The passengers alight, among
them a police officer from Norway, a German politician and a
journalist from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Grigorian welcomes each with a
wide, warm smile and a `Hello, I’m Gohar, so nice to meet you.’

Grigorian knows better than most that you don’t get a second chance to
make a first impression. For the past decade, she has worked for
UCLA’s International Visitors Bureau, which each year brings more than
800 international guests to campus, eager to forge bonds with
professional counterparts and to learn about America from the vantage
point of one of its most storied academic institutions.

Recent visitors have spanned the globe, ranging from Afghan judges
learning about U.S. jurisprudence and Tunisian opposition politicians
studying grassroots democracy to Italian Ambassador Sergio Vento, who
took in the Young Research Library’s collection of works by the
Italian Renaissance book printer Aldus Manuzio.

`If they’re in Los Angeles, they usually want to come to UCLA,’ said
Grigorian, the program officer for the visitors bureau since 2002. The
bureau traces its history to 1966, when it was part of the
now-disbanded UCLA Visitors Center. The bureau later moved to Special
Events and Protocol and in 2001 became part of the International
Institute.

As UCLA’s unofficial hostess, Grigorian makes sure that visitors get
face time with a faculty member or administrator in their area of
specialization. The European delegation, for example, was interested
in diversity, so Grigorian arranged a meeting with a leading campus
expert on that subject, Assistant Vice Chancellor Thomas
E. Lifka. From a small office on the 11th floor of Bunche Hall, she
works the phones, arranging the tiniest details, down to side dishes
on the lunch menu. Her only staff is a part-time student assistant.

`Gohar does an excellent job,’ said Napah Phyakul Quach, director of
exchange programs for the International Visitors Council of Los
Angeles, with which Grigorian works closely.

The protocol business is laden with land mines, but Grigorian has so
far managed to sidestep them. She keeps a book on multicultural
manners nearby and is a keen reader of body language who can `tell if
someone is going to shake my hand or not.’ For Muslim visitors who are
so inclined, she sets aside prayer time. When picking a menu, she
usually bypasses meat and poultry in favor of salmon.

Snafus are inevitable, though. When a professor couldn’t meet with a
delegation at the last minute, she frantically knocked on faculty
doors until she found someone who agreed to substitute. `The visitors
didn’t even notice what happened,’ she said.

But Grigorian’s hard work hasn’t gone unnoticed. In February, UCLA’s
work promoting citizen diplomacy won the bureau a commendation from
the State Department, which each year brings thousands of
international visitors to the United States for professional exchanges
and study.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Karabakh sceptical about Azeri pressure group’s peace march

Arminfo, Yerevan
26 Apr 04

STEPANAKERT

People in the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR] are very sceptical
about the Azerbaijani Karabakh Liberation Organization’s intention to
march to Nagornyy Karabakh and to end it in the town of Susa
[Armenian-occupied Shushi] on 8 May.

David Babayan, an employee of the NKR presidential office, told
Arminfo news agency that this action is mainly aimed at fermenting
public opinion and drawing attention to the Karabakh problem against
the background of diminishing interest on the part of ordinary
Azerbaijanis who are now more concerned about social and domestic
issues. By this escapade the organizers of the action aim to divert
the attention of the people from the domestic problems. At the same
time they intend to draw attention to themselves and to show their
political importance.

For his part, the deputy of the NKR National Assembly, Maxim Mirzoyan,
said that the Azerbaijani organization’s intention is pure adventurism
and political intrigue. There are many other ways of attracting the
attention of the international community to the Karabakh problem. “If
Baku really strives for a peaceful settlement of the problem, I am
sure the optimum way would have been found ,” Maxim Mirzoyan said.

Member of the board of the youth organization [?Ayk Generation]
Yervand Gadzhiyan said that this action is a populist one. It aims to
revive the flagging spirit of military [as published] patriotism of
Azerbaijani society ahead of new peaceful efforts aimed at settling
the Karabakh issue and to make the Azerbaijanis less flexible on the
issue.

Attack on Armenian politician aimed to escalate tension, president says

Arminfo
26 Apr 04

YEREVAN

“I think that there is a certain third player in power-opposition
relations whose name we do not know yet,” Armenian President Robert
Kocharyan has said in an interview with Armenian Public TV, commenting
on the recent attack on Ashot Manucharyan. Manucharyan is a member of
the political council of the Armenian Socialist Forces and the former
Armenian interior minister and advisor on national security under
Armenian ex-President Levon Ter-Petrosyan.

Robert Kocharyan noted that nobody doubts that today the country’s
authorities especially need peace and political stability. Nobody
doubts that what happened to Ashot Manucharyan by no means facilitates
the abovementioned goals. A question arises – Who benefited from this?
The head of the state asked the question and answered it immediately –
Definitely, not the authorities. The incident that involved Ashot
Manucharyan was a good reason for the opposition to once again accuse
the authorities. Moreover, Ashot Manucharyan did not play an active
role in the recent domestic political events, he was not among the
radical opposition. On the contrary, he considered himself to be a
restrained politician, he met writer Zoriy Balayan and presidential
advisor Garnik Isagulyan and even “as far as I know, the president of
the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic, Arkadiy Gukasyan. All the
abovementioned well-known people informed me that Ashot Manucharyan
played the role of a restrictive factor among the opposition of the
country. Hence, another question arises – Who needs this?” Robert
Kocharyan repeated his question.

He said that there was an impression that someone had organized the
incident during an interval between [opposition] rallies to kick up a
fuss and escalate the tension. That was the goal of the incident, the
Armenian president noted.

Hellenic Resources Network
Cyprus PIO: Turkish Press and Other Media, 04-04-29

Ankara is planning to apply the “Armenian model” in its relations with the
Republic of Cyprus

Turkish Cypriot daily KIBRIS newspaper (29.04.04) reports that in its future
relations with the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey will take as example the model
it applies in its relations with Armenia. According to the paper, Ankara
recognizes Armenia as state, but it has not established diplomatic relations
with it. Therefore, Armenia has not an embassy in the Turkish capital.
According to KIBRIS, even if Turkey recognizes the Republic of Cyprus in the
future, it will not permit it to open an embassy in Ankara. In case of such
a demand on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey “will show as address”
the so-called embassy of the pseudostate.

Ankara is determining its strategy on the issue as it expects international
pressure on it in the direction of the recognition of the Republic of
Cyprus. Ankara is planning on delaying as much as possible the political
recognition, but it could make some “openings” towards the Republic of
Cyprus, to the extend the European Union establishes relations with the
Turkish Cypriots.

Furthermore, Turkey will have contacts with the Republic of Cyprus within
the framework of its relations with organizations which have many members,
one of which is the Republic of Cyprus. The first contact will be on 16 May
at the meeting of the Partnership Council between Turkey and the EU,
concludes KIBRIS.