Month: April 2007

TSARUKIAN WITHDRAWS LOCAL ELECTION APPEAL
By Astghik Bedevian

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
April 3 2007

A candidate of Gagik Tsarukian’s Prosperous Armenia Party (BHK) on
Tuesday unexpectedly withdrew his lawsuit against the pro-government
mayor of the southern town of Armavir who controversially defeated
him in a recent local election.

The candidate, Arayik Aghababian, asked a local court to annul the
official results of the March 25 vote, accusing the incumbent Mayor
Ruben Khlghatian of resorting to serious fraud. Aghababian asked the
presiding judge to call a halt to the two-day proceedings just as
appeared to be winning the case.

The judge, Manvel Simonian, was clearly sympathetic to the plaintiff
throughout the hearings, ordering a public recount of ballots in the
courtroom and accepting other petitions from Aghababian’s lawyers.

The court chairman, Hrach Sargsian, was also present in the court,
openly issuing instructions to Simonian that favored the defeated
candidate.

The latter alleged that the mayor won mainly as a result of illegally
including scores of people, who do not live in Armavir and therefore
can not elect its mayor, to the local vote registers.

Khlghatian, who is affiliated with the governing Republican Party
(BHK), and his representatives denied any wrongdoing. "We won fair
and square," the mayor told RFE/RL.

Aghababian gave no reason for his surprise decision to withdraw the
lawsuit. But local BHK activists said he acted in accordance with
a last-minute order from the party’s leadership in Yerevan. Neither
Tsarukian, nor his aides have commented on the election controversy
so far.

The HHK and the BHK are seen as the top contenders of Armenia’s
parliamentary elections scheduled for May 12. The Armavir vote
highlighted their uneasy relationship which some observers say could
develop into a serious confrontation in the coming weeks.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SARKISIAN POISED TO BE NAMED ARMENIAN PM
By Irina Hovannisian

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
April 3 2007

President Robert Kocharian looked set on Tuesday to appoint Defense
Minister Serzh Sarkisian as Armenia’s new prime minister after the
latter was formally nominated for the post by his governing Republican
Party (HHK).

The HHK’s board unanimously approved the nomination at a meeting late
on Monday. A party spokesman said the next day that a presidential
decree naming Sarkisian prime minister as a forgone conclusion.

The official, Eduard Sharmazanov, pointed to an agreement reportedly
reached by Kocharian and leaders of the HHK and two other parties
represented in his government the day after the May 25 death of Prime
Minister Andranik Markarian. "On March 26 President Kocharian held a
meeting with representatives of the political majority, during which
it was decided that the Republican Party will continue to control
post of prime minister and that its board will nominate a relevant
candidacy," he said.

"The Republican Party has a number of ministers in the government, but
I believe the most suitable person for this post is Serzh Sarkisian,"
Tigran Torosian, the parliament speaker and a senior HHK member,
told reporters after the board meeting. Sarkisian’s candidacy is also
supported by the two other governing parties, he said.

Kocharian’s consultations with his top political allies coincided
with the collective resignation of Armenia’s entire cabinet of
ministers. Under the Armenian constitution, Kocharian must pick
Markarian’s replacement on Wednesday at the latest.

Some observers he is trying to delay the appointment as much as
possible in order to make sure that it is not discussed and approved by
Armenia’s outgoing and largely moribund parliament. The constitution
gives the newly appointed prime minister 20 days to form a cabinet,
which will have another 20 days to submit its program to the National
Assembly. That means the current assembly will be unable to debate
and vote on that program before the May 12 parliamentary elections.

The new premier and his cabinet must step down immediately after the
elections in any case.

RUSSIA SIGNALS OPPOSITION TO REGIME CHANGE IN ARMENIA
By Karine Kalantarian

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
April 3 2007

Russia signaled on Tuesday its opposition to regime change in Yerevan,
with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointedly declining to deny
speculation that Moscow supports Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian’s
apparent plans to become Armenia’s next president.

Lavrov, in Yerevan on a two-day official visit, stressed the need
for continuity in policies pursued by the current Armenian leadership.

During a joint news conference with Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
he was asked to comment on growing assertions by Russian media and
prominent analysts that the widely anticipated handover of power from
President Robert Kocharian to Sarkisian suits the Kremlin.

"The official position of Russia coincides with the unofficial position
of Russia," Lavrov replied. "We are sincerely interested in seeing
Armenia stable and prosperous and seeing it continue to move down the
path of reforms. As far as we can see, the results [of those reforms]
are already felt in the socioeconomic sphere."

"So we wish Armenia success in this endeavor," he added. "We want the
next phase of the constitutional process to lead to the creation of
conditions for a continued movement in that direction."

Kocharian is thought to have enjoyed Russian backing throughout
his nearly decade-long presidency. Both he and Sarkisian stand for
Armenia’s continued military alliance with Russia, while seeking
closer security ties with the West. The Kocharian administration has
also helped to significantly boosted Russia’s economic presence in
the country in recent years.

The Russian minister’s visit to Armenia was officially dedicated to the
15th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between
the two former Soviet republics. The unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict was high on the agenda of his talks with Oskanian. Russia
co-heads the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe together with the United States and France.

Oskanian told reporters that he and his Azerbaijani counterpart Elmar
Mammadyarov will again later this month or early next in a fresh
attempt to narrow the conflicting parties’ differences over the Minsk
Group’s existing peace proposals. "The goal is to continue to work on
the document and to prepare for the likely meeting of the presidents
[of Armenia and Azerbaijan] in June," he said.

The international mediators hope that the Armenian-Azerbaijani summit
will yield a breakthrough.

Lavrov said that Karabakh peace is facilitated by what he described as
the absence of any differences on the issue between the three mediating
powers. "This is probably the only conflict where the interests of
Russia, the United States, and the European Union absolutely do not
contradict each other and the interests of the conflicting parties
themselves," he said.

Lavrov further assured journalists that his country is trying hard
to ease Armenia’s geographic isolation which has been aggravated by
the continuing Russian transport blockade of neighboring Georgia. He
pointed to the upcoming launch of a rail ferry service between the
Georgian Black Sea port of Poti and Russia’s Port-Kavkaz. The ferry
link will be primarily used by Armenian exporters and importers.

CO-CHAIRS NOT TO VISIT THE REGION BY AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTERS’ MEETING

Today, Azerbaijan
April 3 2007

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group mediating in the settlement of
the Nagorno Karabakh conflict will not visit the region by the meeting
of Azerbaijani and Armenian Foreign Ministers Elmar Mammadyarov and
Vartan Oskanian scheduled for April this year.

Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov told the APA that the mediators will
possibly visit the region by summer.

Yuri Merzlyakov had a meeting with OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
president Goran Lennmarker, who was visiting Moscow along with the
delegation from Swedish parliament.

Swedish parliament told the APA that Lennmarker does his best to
discuss the Nagorno Karabakh.

Merzlyakov informed Goran Lennmarker about the meeting of Azerbaijani
and Armenian Foreign Ministers and previous two meetings of the
co-chairs. Lennmarker expressed hope that the conflict will soon
be settled.

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told journalists that
the co-chairs phoned him and offered him to meet with his Armenian
counterpart in one of European cities in late April or early in May.

Elmar Mammadyarov said that date of the meeting depends on the
ministers’ schedule and will be specified soon.

The minister noted that both Azerbaijan and Armenia expressed their
positions in Geneva. "As parliamentary elections will be held in
Armenia in mid May, the co-chairs are trying to arrange the meeting
by the elections," he said.

URL:

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONFERENCE ON THE ASSYRIAN GENOCIDE

Assyrian International News Agency AINA
April 3 2007

On March, 26th, 2007 a conference on the Assyrian Genocide (Seyfo)
was held in the European Parliament in Brussels. Under the theme
"Genocide, Denial and the Right for Recognition" several specialists
had been invited to speak on the Seyfo and its coherence to nowadays
in terms of Turkey’s request for membership in the European Union.

Mrs. Eva-Britt Svensson of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left,
who organized along with the SEYFO Center the conference, stressed
in her talk that her party struggles in its work to put pressure on
Turkey to recognize the genocide perpetrated against the Assyrians
in 1915 in order to stop further discriminations according to the
Copenhague Criteria. Accordingly, the EP can not allow to accept a
potential member not meeting the set measures.

Additionally, the head of the SEYFO Center, Mr. Sabri Atman started
his talk with the murder of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink as an
example for recent attacks against minorities living in Turkey. In
saying "Turkey is afraid of its past", he summed up that treatment
and challenged the Turkish state to take the ethnic diversity within
the own country as a key for access into the EU.

The Swedish Professor David Gaunt presented in his speech the historic
events, which he has collected and presents in his book "Massacres,
Resistance, Protectors", surrounding the Assyrian Genocide.

Mr. Markus Ferber, a German politician and member of the EP talked on
the current political discussion towards the negotiation with Turkey.

He emphasized that the recognition of the genocide against the Assyrian
people has to be set as admission criteria by the European Union due to
ensure the cultural diversity of which Europe and its identity consists
of. Herewith he pointed out that the Treaty of Lausanne does not define
clearly the treatment towards the non-Muslims in Turkey. Therefore
the EP has to urge the Turkish government to set precise remarks on
the rights of the Assyrians and all other minorities in the country
and put them into practice according to the European standards.

Eventually, Mr. Willy Fature, director of Human Rights Without
Frontiers, focused in his speech on the debate about the genocide
issue in the Belgian scene. By saying "that the Armenian Genocide
and Assyrian Genocide are two sides of the same coin and can not be
separated from each other. They are the same genocide," he recommended
to the Assyrian organizations amongst the other nations to struggle
together for the recognition to prohibit racism and negationism within
the EU.

After having heard the different views on Turkey’s position towards
the Assyrian Genocide (Seyfo) and thus the behavior towards the
Christians living in Turkey, the moderator of the conference Miss
Nicme Seven presented a letter of the Turkish Embassy addressed to
Mr. Ferber. The Ambassador of the Permanent Delegation of Turkey
to the European Union firstly claimed in that letter that both the
GUE/NGL group and Assyrians in Belgium had nothing to do with the held
conference, whereas the vice-chairwoman of GUE/NGL joined the panel
herself and members of the Assyrian community in Brussels supported
the organization of that event. Furthermore, Mrs. Svensson explained
that she got the same letter as well not knowing the sources the
ambassador took his false information from. Basically, the letter was
appealing to Mr. Ferber to not let the conference take place due to
"a pre-judged and ill-intentioned designation" as the letter signed
by Mr. Volkan Bozkir ends.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A DAMNING REPORT ON ATTACKS AGAINST FREE SPEECH IN TURKEY
by wsws (reposted)

Bay Area Indymedia, CA
April 3 2007

On March 26, the Freedom to Publish Committee of the Turkish
Publishers’ Union issued an alarming report on the state of free speech
in Turkey. The report lists the large number of book confiscations and
prosecutions of writers, editors and translators tried and sentenced
in 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. The report is dedicated to the
memory of Hrant Dink, a well-known Turkish-Armenian journalist who was
killed by a 17-year-old fascist assassin on January 19 in Istanbul in
front of his paper’s (bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos) office.

The report paints a grim picture of the state of free speech in Turkey
and provides a full and detailed list of those who have been taken
to court for their speeches, writings, published articles, and even
their translations.

The very first line of the report points out that the year 2006 was
one of the worst in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of the
press, and the same problems persist in 2007. The report warns that
continuing attacks on freedom of speech have been accompanied by
physical violence, which reached its climax with the heinous murder
of Hrant Dink.

The authors of the report are not optimistic about the rest of 2007.

They point out that with the beginning of the New Year in January,
author Taner Akcam and journalist Aydin Engin were brought to court,
and even the funeral of Hrant Dink was the subject of a court case.

At the same time, the government has been resisting the calls for the
removal of obstacles to free expression, most notably the notorious
Article 301. In the report’s own words, Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code "was the champion of the year."

According to the report, in 2006, some 293 writers, publishers,
journalists, intellectuals, translators and human rights activists were
brought before courts. In 2005, this figure was 157. At the moment,
22 dissident journalists and editors are behind bars.

More ml

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS KARABAKH CONFLICT OF A UNIQUE NATURE

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
April 3 2007

During today’s joint conference being held in Yerevan with the
Armenian Acting Foreign Minister, Vardan Oskanian and Russia’s
Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, Lavrov has stated that the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict is unique in its nature and it is the only conflict,
where the interests of Russia, the United States and the OSCE do not
contradict one another.

The Russian Foreign Minister said that the OSCE Mink Group worked out
a document for settling the conflict that a lot of other countries
in conflict would envy, Trend reports referring to ARKA

"The country mediators not only follow united principles in this
issue, but are also absolutely united in the most concrete details
of possibilities of the settlement. No other conflict has such a
united approach from by-standers. Therefore, we hope that both Baku
and Yerevan will reach a new level of settlement in the near future
on the basis, which could fully satisfy both those who lived and
currently live in Nagorno-Karabakh," he stressed.

Mr. Lavrov particularly marked that final decisions must be made
by both the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan. "We highly
appreciate the efforts taken both by Yerevan and Baku to further
peaceful negotiations, first of all, at a presidential level, as
well as at the level of Foreign Ministers of the two countries,"
said the Russian Foreign Minister.

The Head of the Russian Foreign Office also noted that the OSCE Minsk
Co-Chairs carefully treated their duties and responsibilities. "We
have an idea that we should not make decisions instead of the conflict
parties, we should just help them in this issue, and intend to render
our adequate aid and support in this conflict," said Mr. Lavrov.

For his part, Vardan Oskanian, Armenia’s Acting Foreign Minister,
expressed an opinion that each conflict has its own peculiarities.

"Today Karabakh is neatly moving to its independence through
self-determination depending on how other similar conflicts would be
resolved, particularly, the issue with Kosovo," said. Mr. Oskanian

Notably, the Head of the Russian Foreign Office arrived in Armenia
with a two-day official visit today. During the visit, Mr. Lavrov is
expected to meet Armenia’s President, Robert Kocharyan and Catholicos
of All Armenians, Garegin II.

Moreover, the delegation representing the Russian Foreign Ministry
laid a wreath at the Memorial of the Victims of the Armenian Genocide
of 1915 located on the Hill of Tsitsernakaberd.

On April 4, Mr. Lavrov will also visit Yerevan State University,
where he is expected to deliver a speech.

PRIME MINISTER OF KAZAKHSTAN: AZERBAIJAN AND KAZAKHSTAN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FRIENDLY POWERS

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
April 3 2007

Azerbaijan, Baku / corr. Trend E.Huseynov / Trend Exclusive Interview
with Prime Minister of Kazakhstan, Karim Masimov

– How do you asses present bilateral relations between Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan? What are the prospects of Azerbaijani-Kazakh cooperation?

Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have always been friendly powers. After
regaining independence, a constructive political dialogue was
established between Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. The basis for
bilateral cooperation between the two countries was built up by
agreements reached during official visits of the former President
of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, to Kazakhstan in 1997-1998, a visit of
the present President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, to Astana in March
2004 and a State visit of the President of Kazakhstan, N.Nazarbayev,
to Azerbaijan in May 2005.

Bilateral cooperation is actively developing in the economic sphere as
well. The Kazakh-Azerbaijani Inter-Governmental Commission for Economic
Cooperation was established in October 1999. Thus, at present 36 small
and medium sized enterprises tended by Azerbaijani business people
have been registered in Kazakhstan and of them, 13 are joint ventures.

The priority in direction of cooperation is the participation of the
two countries in the project of the international transport corridor
Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA). The interaction is successfully
developing under the working project group, Organization of Cooperation
of Railways (OCR), Transport and crossing of the borders within UN
Special Program for Economy of Central Asia and CIS Inter-Governmental
Council of Railway People.

A grain terminal and a mill complex are being built in Baku to reduce
the price of Kazakh grain and increase the volume of its delivery
to the market of Azerbaijan. The key direction of Azerbaijani-Kazakh
cooperation in the oil and gas field is the transportation of Kazakh
oil to the world market via the trans-Caspian route.

Undoubtedly inter-parliamentary relations are expanding as well. An
Azerbaijani delegation chaired by the head of the Azerbaijani-Kazakh
Parliamentary Cooperation Group, F.Garibov, arrived in Astana
in December 2006 at the invitation of the Kazakh side. During
the visit, the sides exchanged views and experience regarding
legislative activities, as well as discussing the strengthening of
inter-parliamentary relations. In addition, progress is observed
in cultural and humanitarian cooperation, in particular in the area
of cinematography and the mutual participation in various creative
competitions and festivals.

– What key issues will be discussed during the visit?

– My visit to Azerbaijan has been scheduled for 3-4 April. Diplomats
of the two countries are working on a list of issues to be discussed.

However, answering your question I can say that we will discuss
the issues of expanding and strengthening bilateral commercial and
economic relations with regards to cargo transportation, agriculture,
tourism as well as inter-religious cooperation, etc.

Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan signed an inter-governmental agreement on
Joint Oil Transportation via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline. What
does Kazakhstan expect from future development of cooperation with
regards to exportation of its own oil to world markets via the
territory of Azerbaijan?

– As you may remember, on 16 June 2006 the Presidents of Kazakhstan,
N.A.Nazarbayev and Azerbaijan, I.Aliyev, signed an agreement
between Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan on assistance and support of oil
transportation from Kazakhstan to world markets via the Caspian Sea
and territory of Azerbaijan through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline.

The key goal of the project is to create conditions for transporting
the growing volumes of Kazakh oil to the Mediterranean Sea via the
East-West energy corridor.

Principally a new transportation system is capable to ensure the
transportation of the light Kashagan oil. The Trans-Caspian transport
system will ensure the transportation of 5 mln tons of oil at the
initial stage, and in the future an increase of up to 38 mln tons of
oil per year.

It is supposed that Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan will create new
oil transportation infrastructures under the realization of the
Trans-Caspian system on the coast of the Caspian Sea. Presently the
Kazakh side is implementing works to agree the technological aspects
of the project.

In my opinion, generally the realization of the project plays a key
role in developing a unified energy corridor East-West.

– How do you assess the present level of the economic cooperation
between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan? What priority of direction of the
oil sector can you highlight from the point of view of cooperation
of the two countries?

– As I said, the economic cooperation between Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan
is actively developing. Thus, according to statistics, the amount of
trade turnover in 2005 totaled $150.4 mln, this figure equaled $297
mln in 2006, with $226 mln for export and $71 mln for import. In
addition, a tendency of growth is being observed both in export and
in import. The amount of trade turnover from January to March 2007
already equaled $41mln. Kazakhstan exports oil and hydrocarbons,
natural chemical compounds, grain, barley, tobacco products and
electrical equipments to Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan exports oil products, ethylene polymers, accessories
for machines and mechanisms, pumps and elevators and prefabricated
elements to Kazakhstan.

The volume of Kazakh export to Azerbaijan has increased by 175%.

Moreover, significant changes of the commodity structures are observed
due to the strengthening of commercial relations between the two
countries. Thus, in 2006 the share of export of water transport means
(vessels, boats and floating installations) increased by 33% compared
with previous years.

In addition, the export of fuel, oil and oil products, machines and
equipments has decreased compared to 2005. Moreover, a significant
increase is observed over products from ferrous metal and land and
water transport means.

All figures that I mention testify to the positive dynamics in the
development of economic cooperation of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.

Moreover, we can surely speak of the significant potential for future
productive economic cooperation between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

– What is the position of Kazakhstan on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
settlement? Does Kazakhstan support the settlement of the conflict
on the base of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan?

– Kazakhstan supports and offers support to a peaceful settlement of
regional and international conflicts, including Nagorno-Karabakh. We
share the anxiety of the international community on this issue and
condemn any kind of interference in internal affairs of the states,
which brings escalation of tension and imposing threats for the
territorial integrity, independence, security and stability of the
sovereign states. As Head of the Government of Kazakhstan, I hope
that the complicated situation will be settled peacefully.

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: RESULTS OF CONSIDERATION OF KOSOVO SITUATION AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL ARE NOT PREDETERMINED

Regnum, Russia
April 3 2007

Ahtisaari’s plan derives unambiguously and categorically from necessity
of Kosovo independence despite Serbia’s position, and such approach
is inadmissible for the Russian side, Russia’s Minister of Foreign
Affairs Sergey Lavrov announced at a news conference in Yerevan
commenting on the question how non-granting of independence to Kosovo
can reflect upon other conflicts and, in particular, upon the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict.

As a REGNUM correspondent informs, according to Lavrov, results of
consideration of the Kosovo issue at the UN Security Council are not
pre-determined, and the Russian side repeatedly stressed that Russia
would back only the variant of conflict settlement that is admissible
for both sides of the conflict. "As for Kosovo projection to other
conflicts, it will, of course, happen," the minister noted. Speaking
on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, he noted again that the "conflict
is unique not from the point of view of the international law,
but grounding on the fact that all mediators not only practice
similar principles, but are absolutely united in certain details
of the conflict settlement scheme." In this connection, he noted,
regarding to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the Russian side hopes that
a decision will be found in the near future on conditions acceptable
for all the conflict parties, Lavrov concluded.

In his turn, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan shared the
idea of the unique nature of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and
noted that any conflict should be considered taking into account
its peculiarities: Nagorno Karabakh has its own peculiarities,
Kosovo its own ones. "Nagorno Karabakh is moving clearly on the way
of self-determination, no matter what settlement of other conflicts
will be," Oskanyan stressed. "Of course, a precedent is important in
international relations, but we shall consider any conflict within
its context," the Armenian minister said.

READING AND MISREADING MOSCOW’S POSITIONS ON KOSOVO
By Vladimir Socor

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 3 2007

On March 30 in Brussels, the meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
of the European Union’s 27 member countries showed for the first time
some cracks in the EU’s common front regarding conflict resolution
in Kosovo. The EU collectively, as well as the United States and
NATO, seek to finalize Kosovo’s transition to Western-supervised
independence.

Brussels also offers Serbia the prospect of European integration if
Belgrade overcomes the archaic Greater Serbia nationalist quest to
somehow regain Kosovo with its 90% Albanian majority. However, Russia
supports Belgrade’s hardliners in order to control Serbia’s foreign
policy and separate the country from the EU. Serbian leaders such as
Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica are rising to the bait: "Russia’s
support to Serbia [on Kosovo] is of historic importance. Russia’s
support in the U.N. Security Council will help maintain Serbia’s
sovereignty" (Interfax, April 1).

Moscow is also trying to unnerve certain European countries by warning
that recognition of Kosovo’s independence without Serbian and Russian
consent would set a "dangerous precedent" that could work against
these countries’ territorial integrity. This Russian argument seems
to be having an effect on several European governments.

Thus, Spanish diplomacy seems concerned that a Kosovo "precedent"
could become an argument for Basque nationalists to demand secession
from Spain. Such a linkage and scenario seem, however, so far fetched
as to raise the question of whether the Spanish Socialist government’s
bilateral relationship with Russia might not partly explain Madrid’s
sudden nod to Moscow’s viewpoint.

Greece and Cyprus also show some sympathy for Russia’s position,
their concern being that recognition of Kosovo’s independence would
encourage certain countries to recognize the Turkish Republic of North
Cyprus. In the case of Greece, moreover, a legacy of pan-Orthodox
solidarity with Serbia and even with Russia sometimes influences
the position of Athens on Balkan issues. Even so, some spokesmen for
Russian policy seek to unnerve the Greeks by suggesting that a Kosovo
"precedent" might prompt some Muslim countries to recognize Turkish
Cyprus (National Interest Online, March 21).

In Slovakia, the existing coalition government includes some
nationalist parties harboring irrational fears of Hungarian irredentism
within the country and in neighboring Hungary. Thus the Slovak
government wants the Kosovo settlement to strengthen, not weaken,
the principles of territorial integrity of states and inviolability
of existing international borders. Slovakia carries special weight
as a member of the current UN Security Council, which is expected to
debate a resolution on Kosovo’s status next month.

For similar reasons, the Romanian presidency and government seem
concerned by the possible implications of Kosovo’s recognition
for Romanian-Hungarian relations in Transylvania. Thus, Romania
backs "Serbia’s territorial integrity." Moreover, Serbia enjoys
some traditional sympathies among Romania’s populace and governing
class alike. Ukrainian diplomacy also has expressed all along serious
misgivings about Kosovo’s independence, out of concern for its possible
impact on the Crimea.

These views seem to misread Moscow’s position in a number of ways.

First, while opposing secession in Kosovo’s case, ostensibly on the
basis of international law, Russia is sponsoring territorial secession
and de facto annexation in the post-Soviet conflicts in defiance of
international law. Thus, the notion of enlisting Russia to uphold
international law through "single-standard" conflict-resolution, in
ways that would "set positive precedents," seems illusory. It also
recalls former Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze’s futile efforts
to commit Russia to the principle of territorial integrity in the case
of Georgia, hoping that Russia would have to demonstrate consistency
when it was waging war for that same principle in Chechnya. However,
Russia persisted with its dual approach to this issue even during
that war; and it is even more cynical about such dualism now, when
no longer encumbered by the Chechen problem.

In Kosovo’s case, Russia professes to uphold first and foremost the
notion that any settlement terms must be accepted by both parties to
the conflict (not imposed on one of them) and approved by decision of
the U.N. Security Council. This implies a double veto by Serbia and
Russia and a deep freeze on settlement, leaving Moscow with plenty
of bargaining chips to play through open-ended linkages with other
conflicts and other issues.

On one hand, Russia poses as a responsible power by warning that
recognition of Kosovo’s independence could destabilize certain
European countries through the "precedent" thus created. On the
other hand, Russia threatens to exploit itself such a "precedent"
by recognizing the post-Soviet secessionist territories — a move
that could multiply the selfsame destabilizing potential that Russia
claims it wants to defuse.

Thus, insecure or wavering governments that accept the logic of
linking Kosovo with other existing or potential conflict situations,
hoping thereby for a "model" or "precedent" that could operate in
their favor, do so at their peril. Their most effective protection
would be to rally behind the U.S., EU, and NATO position that each
conflict has its individual characteristics requiring a case-by-case
resolution and ruling out any linkages with other conflicts.

Moscow and the post-Soviet secessionist leaderships are indirectly
admitting to the unsustainability of their own conflict-resolution
proposals based on a Kosovo "precedent." For example, one of their
favorite recent arguments holds that international recognition of
an autonomous unit (Kosovo) that existed within a republic (Serbia)
that formed a subject of a federation (former Yugoslavia) should open
the way for "analogous" recognition of Transnistria, Abkhazia, and
South Ossetia. However, the analogy does not hold up because Moldova
and Georgia were never federations; Transnistria never formed any
kind of unit within Moldova; the three secessionist territories are
treated internationally as integral parts of Moldova and Georgia,
respectively, from 1991 onward; and both countries effectively hold
portions of the secessionist territories.

Moreover, the leaderships of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
and Karabakh openly speak of the possibility or probability of
their territories’ accession to the Russian Federation or Armenia,
respectively; whereas the Western-endorsed status of Kosovo explicitly
rules out any merger of Kosovo with another country (i.e.

Albania). Furthermore, the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from Abkhazia
and of Azeris from a large part of Azerbaijan has yet to be reversed;
whereas international intervention has successfully reversed the
ethnic cleansing of the Albanian majority from Kosovo.

Ultimately, Moscow is making clear that it would hold on to Abkhazia,
South Ossetia, and Transnistria irrespective of any outcome in
Kosovo. As Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov told the Duma on
March 21, Russia would in any case retain its "responsibility" for
its citizens or "compatriots" that populate those three territories
(Interfax, March 21). Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan quite
appropriately refuse to argue with Russia over "precedent"-setting or
linkages. The great majority of Western countries similarly decline
being drawn into any such discussion with Moscow.

While Spain and Greece seem to lend an ear to Moscow for reasons
of their own, it would be risky and naïve for Romania, Slovakia,
and Ukraine to become entangled in fine-tuning the "right" kind of
"precedent" or "model" in Kosovo, instead of adhering to the joint
position of the EU, NATO, and the U.S., ruling out any linkage to
other situations.

(EUObserver [Brussels], March 26; ATA, March 29; Interfax, March
26-April 2; Rossiiskaya gazeta, March 29; see EDM, March 23, April 2)

–Boundary_(ID_X6e+ei+LV822x5i6vBQQWw)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress