How Orange Networks Work

How Orange Networks Work.

17. 05.2008

Andrei ARESHEV

On `Orange Networks From Belgrade to Bishkek’.

Ñ?егÐ&# xB8;: color revolutions, Orange Networks, Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, USA
We have seen well-organized mobs – allegedly acting in the name of the
`protesting people’ – occupy parliament buildings in Belgrade and
Tbilisi, paralyze Mensk and Budapest, launch noisy campaigns in the
streets of Kyiv, and riot in the downtown Bishkek and Yerevan. The
events have taken place sufficiently long ago to realize that the color
revolutions have not led Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia to prosperity.
They did transform the political landscape in the post-Soviet space
though, and the consequences they have for the neighboring countries,
especially for Russia, such as the drift in Ukraine’s foreign politics
which followed the developments of 2004, can prove long-lasting and
dire.

The phenomenon of `color revolutions’ has been examined by the Russian
political science in a number of point studies, particularly those
which dealt with the 2004 events in Ukraine. However, until recently,
there was no broad study of the of the `non-violent’ coup d’état
technology. `Orange Networks From Belgrade to Bishkek’, a collection of
essays prepared by the Historical Perspective Foundation and published
in Saint Petersburg by Alateya Press in 2008, is intended to fill the
gap.

Altogether, the essays comprise a detailed investigation of the
technologies employed in the `color revolutions’ first in Serbia in
2000 and later in several FSU Republics. The political dynamics in the
post-Soviet space (the essays were written by an international team of
authors) leaves no doubt as to the timeliness of the studies. The
collection was in press in March, 2008 when the crisis erupted in
Armenia – in many respects the tragic events in the country can be
regarded as a failed `color’ coup – and entailed fatalities. Efforts to
similarly destabilize other countries, particularly Belarus, are being
made continuously, and developments like the Andijan unrest in
Uzbekistan and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan cannot be ruled out.
The forces which organized the upheaval in Bishkek in 2005 failed to
take into account the specific features of the local situation, and
their initial objectives largely remained unaccomplished. Most
importantly, they failed to push Kyrgyzstan out of the orbit of the
political and military cooperation with Moscow (as discussed in the
essay by A.Sh. Niyazi). Another theme touched upon in `Orange Networks
From Belgrade to Bishkek’ is the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and a
number of other crises of the same origin. Student protests in Iran in
2003 could also be considered in the context, but the authors mainly
focused on the former Soviet Republics of Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and on Russia.

The range of political and social circumstances responsible for the
radicalization of public protests is well-known. The most significant
destabilizing factor in the post-Soviet Republics is the course of
radically liberal economic reforms, which was adopted in the early
1990ies largely under the influence of Western advisers. The
ideological vacuum, the dominance of petit bourgeois philosophy in
public life, a catastrophic social stratification, mass poverty
plaguing entire social strata, the disorganization of key
administrative institutions (a phenomenon oftentimes erroneously
regarded as limited to corruption), the de facto loss of a significant
part of sovereignty by Republics all tend to ignite public discontent
and a longing for change and justice, and to fuel the desire to see
immediate transformations and to shape history `right here and right
now’. The younger generation which is also the most politically active
part of the population in any country is particularly affected by the
atmosphere. Definitely, the situation is well-understood by Western
consultants seeking to manipulate the population’s protests so as to
achieve their own objectives.

Color revolution strategies and scenarios are generated by various
Western think tanks. Their genesis and operations are analyzed by
President of the Historical Perspective Foundation N.A. Narochnitskaya.
The ideological doctrines formulated in think tanks are imposed on
sovereign Republics regardless of their actual national interests.
Organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation, the Heritage Foundation,
the Brookings Institution and others teach local elites to view local
politics through the prism of `global thinking’, but the efforts of the
US think tanks are aimed exclusively at promoting the interests of the
US. In addition to making inroads into local elites, the main task
performed by the US think tanks internationally is to export
ideological concepts and myths which the organizers of color
revolutions plant in the minds of the populations of the targeted
countries.

In his essay, J. Laughland, a British political scientist and writer,
examines the key theoretical provisions and the field practice of
overthrowing the legitimate authority in various countries. He marshals
an impressive array of factual data to prove that the color revolutions
are a new coup d’état technique developed by the US think tanks in
cooperation with the CIA. Though revolutions of the kind – the ones in
Serbia, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia, and the failed one in
Uzbekistan – are routinely portrayed as the results of public protests,
Laughland argues that in reality the developments were carefully
planned operations in many cases including disinformation via mass
media, and that the operations were funded and carried out by
transnational networks serving as instruments of the Western influence.
The range of pertinent activities spans covert operations, threats to
resort to military intervention or even a direct use of military force,
smear campaigns, secret political leverage, bribing journalists, public
disinformation, and the use of other methods not excluding political
assassinations. For example, reconnaissance and target identification
were a part of the actual mission carried out by agents of the CIA and
other Western intelligence agencies in the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer
Mission in 1998…

Irina Lebedeva, a US-based journalist and translator, focuses on the
role played by `angered youths’ in protest movements at least for the
last 40 years. Already in 1967, prominent social scientist Fred Emery
of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations argued that by the late
1990ies specific models of behavior typical for younger people would
possibly be used to destabilize sovereign countries. From this
standpoint, the progress in communications technology opens extensive
opportunities. Global media, cell phones, mass SMS messaging, blogs,
and web sites are convenient tools for real-time guiding of the youth
mob and for ascribing great political significance to any event, no
matter real or imaginary. The potential of propaganda under the current
conditions was exemplified by the developments around the Racak village
in Kosovo…

In 2000, Serbia became the starting point of a wave of color
revolutions. The authors of the essays in `Orange Networks From
Belgrade to Bishkek’ see the NATO attack on Yugoslavia and the October,
2000 unrest in Serbia as links in the chain of events organized not
only to overthrow the political regime in Belgrade but also to induce
an irreversible partition of the country. In his essay, Belgrade-based
political scientist and historian Petr Ilchenkov supplies unique
information concerning the preparations for the protests which led to
the ouster of S. Milosevic. Serbia was the proving ground for many of
the techniques which were subsequently refined and employed in later
color revolutions. The techniques include the creation of mass
opposition movements and golem parties, the extensive application of
communication technologies to mobilize mass public support, the pouring
of large funds into spreading protest movement logotypes, acts of
individual terror against authority figures, the formation of armed
support groups backing the protests presented as `non-violent’ by mass
media, etc. Notably, the revolution in Serbia did not translate into
the country’s prosperity, and most of its activists dropped out of
politics after having played their roles.

Lawyer S.B. Mirzoev describes in detail the activities of Western NGO’s
during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The facts he presents show
that the US and Canada, as well as international organizations, both
public and governmental, were directly involved in the crisis of the
Ukrainian sovereignty. A key role in the power seizure in the country
was played by the mechanisms of the `international legitimization’ of
the candidate supported by the West. The activity of a large number of
West-funded Ukrainian organizations was synchronized with that of their
Western peers. For example, an institute led by V. Yuschenko’s
political ally and future Ukrainian Defense Minister A. Gritsenko gave
Yuschenko an 11% lead on the basis of its exit polls in the immediate
wake of the second-round run-off. The figure has never been confirmed,
and the same is true of Yuschenko’s alleged 15% lead in the
illegitimate third round. Nevertheless, the 11% became a street
campaign slogan already on November 21, that is, before the ballots
were actually counted…

Dr. A.B. Krylov, a historian from the Institute for World Economy and
International Relations of the Russian Academy of Science, convincingly
disproves the official version of the Rose Revolution in Georgia.
According to this version, the Revolution resulted from mass protests
provoked by the official election results which were perceived as
grossly rigged in favor of the political regime. Following the Rose
Revolution, Tbilisi’s politics lost the last signs of independence and
ability to maintain balance between various centers of power. The
dynamics of the developments around Abkhazia and North Ossetia shows
that the radically pro-US course adopted by Georgia can have extremely
negative consequences. Saakashvili’s popularity is dwindling, and, like
his Ukrainian colleague, he has to turn to his foreign patrons for
legitimization and stirs a nationalist hysteria by groundlessly
portraying Russia as an enemy of Georgia.

In an essay entitled `Orange Technologies in Armenia…’ A. Areshev
from the Strategic Culture Foundation addresses the developments in the
country in 2004-2007. Though the essay does not cover the events in
Armenia in February and March, 2008, many of the negative tendencies in
the Republic which stemmed from the implementation of an extremely
liberal economic model were already evident at that time. The
discontent due to these tendencies made it possible for the opposition
to openly proclaim breaking the country’s statehood machine as its
goal. The atmosphere in Armenia – aggressive rallies which continued
for days, the instigation of political divisions in the army and law
enforcement agencies, the incitement of hostility towards the people
from a particular region – combined the most repulsive aspects of the
scenarios which had materialized in Serbia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. An
attempt to stage an armed coup disguised as nonviolent civic
disobedience left the shaky Armenian statehood on the verge of a
serious crisis and made the country vulnerable to a plenitude of
challenges.

A. Yunusov, Head of the Conflictology and Migration Department of the
institute for Peace and Democracy, traces the strengthening of the
positions of the US and other Western countries in Azerbaijan in the
1990ies-2000ies. In his opinion, the West outplayed Russia in the
country by the early XXI century without any serious political or
financial efforts and met with no considerable resistance from Moscow
in the process. Several hundred experts in the US Administration, the
Congress, the CIA, and US research centers monitored the situation in
the Caspian region and in Azerbaijan in particular and formulated the
US Caspian strategy. However, the growing Western influence in the
Republic led to the emergence of a political system of a colonial type
in the Republic with a parasitic elite exploiting its oil riches. The
data provided by the author shows that the population in Azerbaijan is
deeply disappointed in Western values and is turning increasingly
anti-American. Actually, the same trend can be found in most of the
countries which survived color revolutions and have elites politically
dependent on Washington, for example, in Georgia. This sentiment cannot
be attributed entirely to ongoing political crises and persisting
economic problems – largely the situation is due to the falsehood of
the very values aggressively marketed by the forces behind the color
revolutions.

* * *
The probability of a color revolution in Russia continues to draw the
attention of politicians, experts, and media. Currently, Russia appears
politically stable. Nevertheless, in our turbulent epoch both the
domestic and the international challenges grow increasingly diverse and
also increasingly coordinated. The essay by I. Dobaev, Head of the
Geopolitics and Information Analysis Sector of the Southern Research
Center of the Russian Academy of Science, surveys the network
organizations active in Russia’s Caucasus. Over a hundred pro-Western
NGO’s, foundations, and monitoring networks function in Russia’s
Southern Federal District alone. Many of them are openly oppositional
and attempt to maximally mobilize the support of the younger people and
other politically active social strata. E. Popov, a writer who has
authored a number of books on Russian politics, examines the activity
of Ukrainian NGOs in Russia. Their main objective is to consolidate the
Ukrainian community in Russia, which numbers approximately 5 mln
people, and to boost their ethnic self-awareness. Notably, at the same
time we witness intense attacks on the positions of the Russian
language and culture in Ukraine.

Probably, we should expect new attempts to destabilize the situation in
Russia. Such attempts necessarily have to be preceded by a unification
of various opposition groups and a centralization of their funding from
abroad, as it has happened in Serbia. Efforts in this direction, albeit
unsuccessful, have been observed. Adequately to the situation,
amendments to the federal legislation regulating the activity of NGOs
in Russia were made in 2006. In his April 26 Address to the parliament,
Russian President V. Putin explained why the step quite natural for a
sovereign country had to be taken. He said that the steady progress
made by Russia is bad news for certain forces and that there are those
who would be happy to bring back the recent past under the guise of
democratic rhetoric, some – to loot Russia’s national wealth as they
used to do in the past, others – to undermine Russia’s economic and
political independence. President Putin also said that increasing
amounts of money are poured from abroad to intervene in Russia’s
domestic affairs. He noted that even in the colonial epoch major powers
played a civilizing role, but these days their only objective is to
gain unilateral advantages and to secure their own profits.

The forces interested in color revolutions see high mobility and
network structure as prerequisites for their success. They will make
efforts to carefully organize their work with target population groups
(young people, women, intellectuals, taxi drivers, salespersons at
newspaper stands). Political network marketing attempts have been noted
in the run-up to the 2007 parliamentary elections, but they were fairly
unsuccessful. The same is true of the attempts to discredit the results
of the vote. Still, skilled media manipulation and efforts aimed at
creating an impression of high attendance of protest rallies
(especially in the country’s capital, as it was done in Armenia) can
yield certain undesirable results. Practically any events – not
necessarily important elections or key political developments – can be
used as pretexts for mass opposition rallies. Less significant
occasions like `unorganized’ strikes or unexpected price hikes for
prime necessities would do as well. The first developments of the kind
have already taken place in Saint Petersburg. Interested parties can
try to capitalize on certain social strata’s traditional mistrust of
the authority (especially of its lower and intermediate segments), or
on the widening gap between the rich and the poor in Russia. Such
factors were present in all the counties which fell victims of color
revolutions, and in many cases in greater proportions than in Russia.
Difficulties experienced by the global economy (the growth of food
prices worldwide combined with Russia’s risky dependency on
agricultural import being just one of a number of potential
vulnerabilities) and the conflicts provoked both within Russia and
along its borders will hardly leave our country unaffected in the
future. Western intelligence agencies have started to show interest in
extremist groups currently active in Russia. Minor street skirmishes
between allegedly warring Russian youth groups have long been
overstated by global and some of the domestic media. They have also
become a recurrent theme in information wars in Internet. Russian
security agencies say that attempts are underway to organize the
funding of fascist groups in Russia via various foundations, as it has
been done previously in the case of Muslim fundamentalists in Russia’s
North Caucasus1. Hence the importance of the issues discussed in the
essays by E. Popov and I. Dobaev.

Aggressive style of propaganda is another factor of great importance.
The cases of the countries neighboring Russia showed that even when the
authorities retained control over most of the media, they traditionally
relied on the administrative leverage and were completely unable to
arrange their own informational defense. Moreover, instead of acting
adequately in order to overcome domestic political problems, the
authorities in some countries worried excessively about the way they
were perceived internationally, as they were used to believing that the
source of their legitimacy (from the political support to financial
interests and the possibility of winning grants like the Millennium
Challenge) lay in the West rather than in their own countries. If
Republic leaders remained defiant, the West resorted to direct threats
to use military force. For example, the NATO forces backed the
opposition in Serbia during its conflict with law enforcement agencies
– NATO threatened to intervene in the case of open hostilities in the
country. At that time British Foreign Minister R. Cook openly warned
the Serb authority against forgetting about NATO’s permanent presence
all along Serbia’s borders. Thus, the domestic pressure on the regime
is typically synchronized with outside threats. Russia should pay
special attention to this circumstance now that NATO is moving closer
to its borders (the NATO `responsibility zone’ has already spread over
the Baltic countries and can span Ukraine and Georgia in the
foreseeable future).

The authors of the `Orange Networks From Belgrade to Bishkek’ are by no
means a team of conspiracy theorists. Nor do they call for total
control over mass media and for political or cultural isolationism
(rather, it is fair to say that this approach is practiced in the
countries where color revolutions have taken place). They simply
suggest viewing things realistically and without illusions. Authority
institutions must be adequate to the emerging challenges and threats
faced by sovereign countries in the early XXI century. They must be
ahead of the events, not lag behind them. They must be strong and
united. Such is the necessary condition for putting to practice the
ambitious economic and political modernization plans in Russia. This is
the main conclusion one comes to upon reading `Orange Networks From
Belgrade to Bishkek’.

_________________

1 A. Medvedev. Playing Against All Sides.
Http://vesti7.ru/news?id=12177

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1372
Http://vesti7.ru/news?id=12177

Turkey’s Claims on ARF Archives False

HULIQ (press release), NC
May 24 2008

Turkey’s Claims on ARF Archives False

GLENDALE–Turkey’s recent claims that the Armenian Revolutionary
archives are closed are false, said the ARF archivist Tatul
Sonentz-Papazian Friday, who managed the archives until 2000.

`Actually the archives are open up to 1925,’ Sonentz-Papazian said in
response to recent claims by head of Turkey’s state-funded Turkish
Historical Society Yusuf Halacoglu who told the Hurriyet Monday that
Turkey has offered to give $20 million for the classification and the
opening of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Archives housed in
Boston.

Halacoglu claimed that the archives allegedly contained what he called
"very important" documents about the "incidents" of 1915.

`Anyone can apply to the administration and provide a reason for their
request. The archives are open to academicians and students,’ added
Sonentz-Papazian, who said that they have already been used by several
scholars and students, including Richard Hovannisian, Hagop Manjikian,
who compiled and edited the ARF Album-Atlas, and most recently Dikran
Khaligian. He added that Turkish scholars were welcome to study the
archives as well.

Halacoglu said the Armenians do not want to have the archives opened
because such efforts will "start a real debate over the genocide
claims." Halacoglu said that the ARF archives in Boston allegedly
contain very important documents regarding both the 500,000 Armenians
who currently live in Turkey, and the 1915 incidents.

`I have no idea what Halacoglu is talking about,’ said
Sonentz-Papazian, adding, `There is nothing there that could remotely
be proof of case of the denial. Everything points to the fact that the
Genocide did happen. There is no doubt that it was a state process to
get rid of the Armenian.’

Halacoglu, who is notorious for making bizarre statements regarding
the Armenian Genocide, is also wanted in Switzerland and would face
trial based on that country’s law on Genocide deniers.

"The [Armenians] had said ‘We don’t have money to categorize the
archives, and therefore we cannot open them.’ I frankly told them we
can give you the money needed and open the archives’. But they did not
respond to my offer," Hurriyet was quoted Haracoglu as saying on
Tuesday.

Halacoglu said he also presented his proposal to two Armenian
historians, Ara Sarfian and Hilmar Kaiser, adding he heard no word
back, and noted that the opening of the archives in Boston would
launch a real debate on the issue. "This would directly open a debate
over the genocide claims. Armenians are aware of this and therefore
they are doing their best not to sit at the table," he claimed.

`I saw Hilmar a few months ago. We talked for quite a long time and he
never mentioned anything of the sort,’ said Sonentz-Papazian, who also
reported that the archives, which are stored in a
temperature-controlled vault, were currently being digitized and work
was being done to restart the cataloging.

SOFIA: Bulgar Court Rules in Favor of Armenian Genocide Recognition

Sofia News Agency, Bulgaria
May 24 2008

Bulgarian Court Rules in Favor of Armenian Genocide Recognition

24 May 2008, Saturday

The District Administrative Court in Bulgaria’s Danube city of Ruse
rejected Friday the appeals against the declaration of the City
Council recognizing the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire.

The appeals were table to the Court by the Ruse District Governor
Mariya Dimova, and by city counselors from the ethnic Turkish Movement
for Rights and Freedoms party.

The Court ruling states that the declaration recognizing the genocide
over Armenians and Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire could not be
disputed because it was not an administrative act, it was only
declarative, and had no legal consequences.

The declaration recognizing the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman
Empire between 1915 and 1922 was adopted by the Ruse City Council on
April 17.

BAKU: Kazimirov: No country declares stake on force so loudly as Az.

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
May 24 2008

Vladimir Kazimirov: "No country declares the stake on force so loudly
as Azerbaijan does"

24 May 2008 [14:11] – Today.Az

"Inadmissibility of military actions and strengthening of ceasefire
regime should become common priorities in the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict".

The due announcement was made by ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov, deputy
chairman of the Association of Russian diplomats, former head of
Russia’s mediatory mission on Nagorno Karabakh during the
international conference on the 20th anniversary of the separatist
Karabakh movement, held in Khankendi.

He said in conditions when one party hopes for a military revenge,
while other parties, fearing renewal of hostilities, strive for
retaining favorable military positions, the space for adoption of
political decisions is limited dramatically.

At the same time, the Russian diplomat noted that "a stronger party
fell victim of previous military actions, which encourages it to
revenge" and "in other conflicts no country declares the stake on
force so loudly as Baku does".

"Lack of alternative to the peaceful resolution of the conflict meets
the interests of the world society and Russia, in particular", said
Kazimirov. Touching upon the activity of the mediators, the diplomat
spoke for a more decisive resistance of the OSCE "to any steps,
contradicting its peace-keeping mandate".

Kazimirov said at the same time that the working chairmen of the OSCE
mostly make general optimistic statements. Touching upon the violation
of ceasefire on the contact frontline, Kazimirov noted that spreading
information about ceasefire violation by the Armenian side, Azerbaijan
does not make any steps to reduce number of violations and tensions.

"I am here to promote the peaceful resolution of this complicated
conflict", said the Russian diplomat, commenting on his participation
in the conference in the self-declared "Nagorno Karabakh Republic".

/Regnum/

URL:

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

http://www.today.az/news/politics/45213.html

BAKU: Vlasov: I am more likely a careful pessimist than an optimist

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
May 24 2008

Alexei Vlasov: "I am more likely a careful pessimist than an optimist
in the issue of the Karabakh resolution"

24 May 2008 [13:49] – Today.Az

Day.Az interview with Alexei Vlasov, Russian political scientist,
director general of the information-analytical center for research of
sociopolitical processes in the post-Soviet area.

– Do you share the opinion of the Russian leadership that the
unilateral recognition of Kosovo’s independence will complicate the
solution of conflicts on the post-Soviet area, as it will become a
precedent for other unrecognized countries? I mean primarily Nagorno
Karabakh.

– I do not think that the resolution of this conflict will depend on
the adopted resolution on Kosovo as historically this conflict had a
bit different structure. And furthermore, the Kosovo precedent may
affect more Europe than the so-called "frozen conflicts" in the
post-Soviet area.

It is clear even without Kosovo that Abkhazia remains problem for
Georgia and Nagorno Karabakh is a factor, isolating Azerbaijan and
Armenia and nothing will change much in this sense.

Therefore, the Kosovo precedent is more likely a break of all existing
norms and traditions of the international law, which formed in period
following the World War Second, we will feel the geopolitical
consequences for long. But I would not say that this may cardinally
influence the resolution or deterioration of the situation around
Nagorno Karabakh.

– Russia’s mediatory role in the resolution of regional conflicts,
which mainly occur in the territory of Georgia is negatively assessed
in the Caucasus. The Russian leadership has once issued Russian
passports to Abkhazs and now openly uses it as a cause for
interference with possible new Georgian-Abkhaz war to defend "its
compatriots" or hints on possible annexion of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Don’t you think that such policy not peace-keeping but
deteriorates the conflict even more?

– I think no annexation is possible in this case. I think a
complicated game is conducted around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, being
connected with the counteraction between Georgia and Russia.

Several factors have appeared here if speaking about Abkhazia. These
are Abkhazs’ objective striving for creation of an independent country
and West’s influence on Georgia, which is gradually becoming the
outpost of the US influence in the South Caucasus, unlike Azerbaijan,
which in this sense having close contacts with the West, conducts a
multi-directional and balanced policy, I think.

And the third factor is a hidden conflict between Russia and the West
in a struggle for the post-Soviet area, including on the issue of the
South Caucasus and the problem of unrecognized states.

If these factors are brought together, we will see that in fact there
is no direct counteraction between Russia and Georgia, there is a
complex geopolitical game, involving not two or three subjects, but
several sides. Therefore, it is difficult to find the common ground in
the Abkhaz, South Ossetia and Transdniestria conflicts.

But you have singled out Nagorno Karabakh, as here I do not feel any
counteraction between Russia and the West. This is the problem of
bilateral relations, of Armenia and Azerbaijan. When these countries
find common grounds on Nagorno Karabakh conflicts, the serious
breakthrough would be possible. But at present we see the results of
the mediatory efforts since 1994. They have no results.

– You have used the term "outpost" speaking about the relations of
Georgia with the West. In our region this term was previously applied
by chairman of Russian State Du,a B.Gryzlov to Armenia, whom the
speaker called "the outpost of Russia in the South Caucasus. Don’t you
think such statement of a high-ranking representative of the country
which is, undoubtedly, the leading mediator in the Karabakh conflict
settlement, undermine its neutralize?

– (Laughing) You know, being a Russian political scientist, I have
already got used to that primarily it is necessary to treat seriously
the announcements of senior political leadership: Previously it was
President and not there are two of them-President and Prime Minister.

This is because for example when Luzhkov states his position on
Sevastopol, it is clear that this is his position of a politician and
a patriot (by the way, I mostly agree with all he says). But this is
not Russia’s position and this does not reflect position of the senior
officials.

– A new president, who is considered to succeed to the previous one,
was inaugurated in Armenia. The same occurred in Russia. In October of
this year the elections will be held in Azerbaijan as well. Do you
hear any changes in the talks on Karabakh following the completion of
this year of elections?

– First of all, according to all my forecasts, the outcome of
elections is quite predictable in Azerbaijan.

Indeed, despite the replacement of the President in Armenia, the
policy, conducted by Kocharyan’s team insite the Armenian elite, will
also remain changeless. It is possible to say about succession of
powers in Russia, as well. The replacement of the first figure on the
political Olymp will also not change two much in the first 1.5-2
years, which means that there positions, Putin fixed lately, which
will successively affect the external political course of
Medvedev. Perhaps, only the rhetorics will change a bit.

Now what we have? As for the Karabakh resolution I am more a careful
pessimist than an optimist, as, if three components are the same, any
real achievements can not be expected in such case without the due
ground. And this is not because of Russia’s egoism. This is because
neither of the countries has an exact plan of resolution, though it
was worked out in the 1990s: this is primarily, liberation of the
seven regions of Azerbaijan. As I understand no achievements should be
expected for the next 1-1.5 years.

/Day.Az/

URL:

http://www.today.az/news/politics/45212.html

BAKU: Armenia could have withdrawn its troops from seven regions

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
May 24 2008

Turkish expert: "Armenia could have withdrawn its troops from seven
regions of Azerbaijan for Turkey to open the borders immediately"

24 May 2008 [10:35] – Today.Az

Ankara is well aware that much is left until the resolution of Nagorno
Karabakh conflict but Armenia could have withdrawn its troops from
seven regions of Azerbaijan.

The due announcement was made by professor Mustafa Aydin, chief of
department for international relations of the University of Economy
and Technologies in Ankara.

"The Presidential elections in Armenia on February 19 give hope for
normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations. At least, thus is
considered in Turkey and proven by intentions of the new President of
Armenia Serzh Sarkissyan.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry considers that Armenian diplomacy is too
"Soviet", old-fashioned and clumsy. Our diplomacy is more of a western
pattern, which stipulates for joint steps. Restoration of the St.Cross
church in Akhtamar on the Van lake is a serious step of the Turkish
government and we expect Armenia to make response steps", noted the
Turkish professor.

He considers that one of such steps may become softening of Armenia’s
position in the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "Ankara is
well aware that too much is left to the resolution of the conflict,
but Armenia could have withdrawn its troops from seven regions of
Azerbaijan. In this case Turkey would have opened the border, closed
in 1993. Nevertheless, I am sure that relations between Armenia and
Turkey would normalize soon", said Mustafa Aydin.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/

URL:

http://www.today.az/news/politics/45203.html

BAKU: Not late for Armenia to use economic achievements of Azerb.

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
May 24 2008

Dennis Summut: "It is not late for Armenia to make use of economic
achievements of Azerbaijan"

24 May 2008 [11:54] – Today.Az

Day.Az interview with Dennis Summut, chief executive of British NGO
LINKS.

-What do you think about the opinion that economic achievements of
Azerbaijan are not a heavy argument for Armenia in the resolution of
the Karabakh problem?

-It is true that Azerbaijan’s economy is strengthening owing to oil
revenues. Further success of the Azerbaijani economy will depend on
the rational use of oil funds and development of oil sector. I think,
the non-oil economic sector should base on knowledge with the use of
human potential. In Azerbaijan the population is among the youngest
in the region. In other words, the young population has conditions to
study to contribute to the further development of the national
economy.

Moreover, Azerbaijan may influence the Karabakh conflict settlement by
means of its economic strengthening only in case of a regional
cooperation. The decision, which the Azerbaijani government will have
to make in the near future, is the economic interaction with Armenia,
which is a great dilemma. I understand that this is a difficult
decision, but this is a decision, which the government should take.

Thus, the simple answer to your question is: "Yes, Azerbaijan can use
its potential to support its position in the Karabakh issue". Yet,
currently the answer is no, because this is an issue of time.

-Some experts state that it is too late. This means that the largest
economic projects with Azerbaijan’s participation are being
implemented or are close to their implementation and Armenia’s
participation in these projects is not envisioned.

-This is not true. In this sense, it is not too late. The
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project is something different. It is not an
economic, it is an infrastructural projects, intended for oil
transportation by the safest, fastest and most available route.

Great efforts are needed for restoration of regional cooperation. This
is what should be and what is on the agenda. There are different ways
of achievement of purpose and the topic we are discussing is one of
them. I consider it necessary to hold serious discussions on this
issue.

-The first meeting of President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and newly
elected President of Armenia Serzh Saskissyan is to be held
soon. What is expected from this meeting?

-I think this will allow two people get acquainted with each other and
learn positions of the opposite side. I do not think this will take
too long. There is a need to make the negotiation process more
flexible to get a chance for success. This does not mean that the
sides should give up their principle positions.

-Don’t you think that the succession of the political course in
Armenia makes a breakthrough in the resolution process impossible?

-I am not the one who does not believe in the resolution of this
conflict. I believe that the problem has a solution. In order to find
this solution we should look at the problem from several directions,
but still it exists and I consider that the two countries should
start realizing the positive sides of this decision.

-Some people consider that the problem lies in the origin of the
working and former Presidents of Armenia. They said that a politician
born in Karabakh and coming to power on the high tide of the Karabakh
counteraction can not make any concessions in the Karabakh
issue. What do you think about this statement?

-I do not think that this is a problem. It is enough to recall the
experience of Northern Ireland.

I do not consider that Karabakh origin of Serzh Sarkissyan proves his
inability to see what is good for Armenia and Karabakh, which is a
peaceful resolution of the conflict, promoting restoration of the
development of the whole region. If the Armenian President sees it, it
means his origin, no matter whether he is from Karabakh or Yerevan, is
not important. The thing is that Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia
see ways out of the situation.

/Day.Az/

URL:

http://www.today.az/news/politics/45207.html

BAKU: ROA DM: We will continue talks for returning our citizens

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
May 24 2008

Armenian Defense Minister: "We will continue talks for returning our
citizens, captured by Azerbaijani side"

24 May 2008 [10:15] – Today.Az

The talks on return of four citizens of Armenia, captured by
Azerbaijan, will continue.

The due announcement was made by Armenian Defense Minister Seyran
Oganyan.

"Our citizens found themselves in Nakhchivan in the result of the
clash in the military unit. We have conducted talks on return of our
citizens with the military command of Azerbaijan, which even expressed
readiness to return them but then changed its mind by some definite
reasons", said Oganyan during the meeting with the students and
professors of the faculty of military psychology and pedagogics of the
Yerevan State Pedagogical University named after Abovyan.

Four citizens of Armenia from Noraduz and Qavar were detained by
Azerbaijani servicemen in the territory of Azerbaijan on April 28.

Armenian Defense minister reminded that Azerbaijan side explained the
refusal to return Armenian citizens to the country by the need to
conduct definite works with the captives.

According to the Defense Minister, the return of Armenian citizens
depends on their wish to return to Armenia as well.

"For example, we have some Azerbaijanis here, who do not want to
return to their country and we can not force them do it", said the
Defense Minister.

At the same time, Oganyan assured that the talks with the Azerbaijani
side for return of the Armenian citizens will continue.

The Minister noted that the situation with Armenian captives was
discussed during the session of the commission for issues of hostages,
war prisoners and missing people.

The Defense Minister informed that during the session the commission
members were demonstrated video materials about the detainment
conditions of the Armenian citizens, posted at one of the Azerbaijani
websites.

"We have decided to continue the work and talks on the return of our
citizens", said the Defense Minister.

/Novosti-Armenia/

URL:

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

http://www.today.az/news/politics/45202.html

Azeri Ambassador to UK meets members of House of Lords

Trading Markets (press release), CA
May 24 2008

AZERBAIJANI AMBASSADOR TO UK MEETS MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF LORDS
Saturday, May 24, 2008; Posted: 12:03 AM

Baku, May 23, 2008 (Asia Pulse Data Source via COMTEX) — —
Azerbaijani ambassador to Great Britain Fakhraddin Gurbanov met
separately with members of House of Lords of the Parliament lord Clark
and Lord Patel on May 14 and 21.

The meetings mostly circled around prospects for developing
Azerbaijan-UK relationships. The ambassador informed the British MPs
of ongoing developments in Azerbaijan and the region,

as well as regional integration initiatives of GUAM – Organization for
Democracy and Economic Development.

The Azeri diplomat also touched on his country`s conflict with Armenia
over Nagorno-Karabakh, including the current state of OSCE Minsk
Group-brokered peace talks.

Ambassador Gurbanov has called on both Lord Clark and Lord Patel to
join the Azerbaijan-Great Britain interparliamentary group.

20th Anniversary of Karabakh Movement: Realities and Perspectives

PanARMENIAN.Net

-20th Anniversary of Karabakh Movement: Realities and
Perspectives- conference kicks off in Stepanakert
23.05.2008 14:54 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ -20th Anniversary of Karabakh
Movement: Realities and Perspectives- 2-day
international conference kicked off in the capital of
Nagorno Karabakh, Stepanakert on May 23.

The conference brought together political scientists
and experts from Nagorno Karabakh, Armenia, Russia,
U.S., Iran, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and
a number of European states, IA Regnum reports.