Month: December 2008

WE NEVER DO ANYTHING AIMLESSLY
Lilit Poghosyan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
04 Dec 08
Armenia

During his recent visit to Baku, Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan
once again calmed down his Azeri brothers, saying that the task of
liberating Karabakh and its surrounding areas from the "Armenian
occupation" was a matter to be dealt with not only by Turkey but also
Azerbaijan and that his country has been standing by Azerbaijan since
1918 and will always stand by it in future. Isn’t Armenia playing into
the hands of Turkey which is pretending to conduct an Armenian-Turkish
dialogue in an attempt to cheat Europe?

In response to our questions, EDWARD SHARMAZANOV, member of the RPA
parliamentary faction presents his comments.

"Armenia and the Armenian authorities play their own game which is in
the interests of the nation and the state. This is a fact. President
Serge Sargsyan’s recent initiatory policy enshrined in his pre-election
program is aimed at that.

As regards Turkey’s partial approach, I don’t think the fact that
the Turkish Government has always been standing by Azerbaijan since
1918 (when Azerbaijan was formed as an independent state unit) is
something new for anyone. And the Government of Turkey was the first
to voice protests in different international conferences, claiming
that Karabakh form part of Azerbaijan or remain under its control.

There are a lot of books, as well as scientific articles. In
particular, Head of the Genocide Museum Hayk Demoyan has done serious
research in that field, giving detailed description of Turkey’s
military, financial, economic and political assistance to Azerbaijan.

But nonetheless, we live in this region, and whether or not we want
it, Turkey is our neighbor; so we must try to settle the problematic
questions between our countries. And to do that, it is first of all
necessary to have diplomatic relations."

"But the Turkish side has not given up its traditional approach of
establishing a relationship with preconditions. Don’t the bilateral
or trilateral negotiations in the Turkey-Azerbaijan-Armenia format
become aimless in view of this fact?"

"We never do anything aimlessly. I think the goal is very clear. That
is, to have normal relations with the neighboring countries, including
those with which we have serious problems. And let’s note that this
approach is also enshrined in the National Security Strategy.

If, in the 21st century, we have adopted democratic reforms and are
guided by the rules of a civilized game, then there is no alternative
to the Armenian party’s attitude expressed by President Serge Sargsyan
who proposed the Turkish side to establish diplomatic ties without
any preconditions.

The establishment of diplomatic ties without preconditions doesn’t mean
to forget about the recognition of the Genocide or make unilateral
concessions with regard to the Karabakh issue. No. Both President
Serge Sargsyan and Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan have many a
time announced that the Armenia-Turkish relations should be regulated
without any preconditions.

Naturally, both the international recognition of the Genocide and
the pro-Armenian settlement of the Karabakh conflict remain in the
foreign policy agenda."

MASTER-EDUCATORS FROM BRITISH EMBASSY
Editorial

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
04 Dec 08
Armenia

In the mid-XVII century, the English theatre underwent reforms and
thoroughly changed its image. King Charles II allowed females to appear
on stage, at the same time forbidding men to play in women’s roles.

The royal decision completely changed the life of Ned Kenaston, a
star of the London theatre who was famous for his female roles. The
bi-sexual actor who was peerless in the role of Desdemona and aroused
lust among the representatives of both sexes was actually dismissed
from the theatre. But Ned did not put up with the situation and
tried to prove that he was a universal actor, and it was easier for
him to act as a man rather than a woman. Alas, all the attempts fell
flat. Once infatuated with the play, Kenaston immediately turned into
a woman.

The same is the situation with the British Embassy in Armenia. Like
any other embassy in any other part of the world, this embassy too, is
disallowed to interfere in the domestic affairs of the hosting country.

After each scandal (which have become common to the British over
the recent years; let’s recall at least the year 2007), the embassy
declares that that it does not absolutely deal with such matters. But
once the British diplomats become infatuated with the game, they find
themselves in the focus of the internal political developments.

Furthermore, the coincidences we see are very interesting (and
naturally, quite accidental).

For instance, on November 26, 11: 00 a.m. Deputy Ambassador Gedeon
Durehurst and employee of the British embassy Nayira Soultanyan
visited Zhiraryr Sefilyan’s office situated on the first floor of
building 51, Nikol Douman street. At the time of the visit, there
were several freedom fighters there.

Shutting themselves up in Zh. Sefilyan’s study, G. Durehurst and
N. Soultanyan were talking over some matters for about an hour.

After the Deputy Ambassador left, Zh. Sefilyan and several members of
"Miatsum" (unification) initiative went to Yerablour (around 13:00)
and started the hunger strike, demanding that the authorities make
no concession in the Karabakh peace talks.

And do we have the right to assume that the Deputy Ambassador of
Great Britain guides the activities of an organization whose main
objective is the struggle against the authorities. But in that case,
there arises the following question: with what purpose does he guide
the activities of that organization? Why is destabilization in our
country advantageous to the Embassy?

Or, has the British Embassy decided to restore in the Armenian
world the old and kind tradition of master-educators and has this
time recruited Zh. Sefilyan as its apprentice? Let’s note that this
source of upbringing faded away and died together with the collapse
of the Soviet power.

In those days, an unmanageable teenager would be admitted to the
factory as an apprentice turner (not by his own will, of course). And
who was the first person to take charge of him? Of course, the
master-educator who later became like father for him. Moving away his
apprentice from the street, the master would teach him how to open a
small hole on the machine tool, so as the youngster would fall out
of the habit of wandering around with brass-knuckles and smashing
street lamps.

And generally, a small person entering the complicated world of
the adults is from early ages patronized by nurses and mistresses,
class-teachers and the party committee, kung fu trainers and police
departments dealing with juvenile offences. Catching the young person
by the hand and imbuing him with the spirit of collectivism, they
would show him his way to the mature life.

Everything was being done to make him a mature person as quickly as
possible, get his honestly earned first salary, buy presents for his
mom and sister and last but not the least, not to misbehave.

So, the British Embassy is doing a good job by revitalizing the
institute of upbringing. But the master-educators there are very
strange people. Instead of making the teenagers drop the bad habits,
they teach them ones.

20 YEARS LATER

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
04 Dec 08
Armenia

According to the studies of "Arevamanuk" social-psychological
fund, even 20 years after the earthquake the people of Gyumry need
psychological help. The survey demonstrates that 75% of the population
remembers the earthquake with terror, for 91% the human losses is
the worst consequence of the disaster, around 70% are still hopeless,
depressed and have feeling that they have been punished.

It is noteworthy that this opinion was expressed by those who have
seen the disaster and those who were born later.

The 87% of the surveyed believed no progress is recorded in any
sphere, after the disaster. According to the polled they haven’t
overcome the social, economic and psychological problems. Only 3%
expressed optimism regarding the future.

INTER-CULTURAL DIALOGUE IN THE GRAVEYARD OF CULTURES
Vardan Grigoryan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
04 Dec 08
Armenia

The two-days International Conference "Inter-Cultural Dialogue as
Basis of Stable Development and Peace in Europe and the Neighboring
Regions" between the Ministers of Culture of COE member states, which
took place in Baku on December 2-3, as it was expected, served as a
regular chance for the Azerbaijani authorities to conduct anti-Armenian
campaign in the international arena.

Whereas the occasion was very proper for Armenia as well and the fact
that our authorities missed it over again one more time testifies
that our officials who take pride in the millennial culture of our
people, regrettably, by now are not able to comprehend the importance
of participating in similar events and expressing their personal
opinion. Not only did the Ministers of Culture of COE member states,
but also representatives of authoritative cultural organizations of
the USA, Council of Europe, and UNESCO participated in the conference.

Secretary General of the Council of Europe Terry Davis honored the
conference by his presence and in his opening speech Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliev used the occasion to complain about the
"aggression" of Armenia against Azerbaijan and even managed to
boast about Azerbaijan’s success in the "development of national and
religious tolerance".

The choice of the place and title of the conference demonstrates that
the Council of Europe and its leader Terry Davis far not accidentally
chose the capital of Azerbaijan. It is evident that here we deal with
certain projects to turn Baku, like Turkish Istanbul into a center
of intersection of European and Islamic cultures.

The announcements made by the Official on Academic and Cultural
Exchange Issues of the US State Secretariat Alina Romanovsky and
representative of the Russian Federation Michael Shvedko regarding
the importance of cultural dialogues and turning Azerbaijan into
the bridge of cultures between Europe and the East testifies to the
before mentioned.

Thus the Baku conference held under the auspices of the Council of
Europe was not only an advocacy event for Azerbaijan, in the framework
of which their leaders shed crocodile tears on the topic of the
"annihilation of Azerbaijani cultural memorials" they even managed
to show a movie regarding "Khojalu Genocide". On the background of
similar regular events and the pro-Azerbaijani announcements made
by the Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis, in reality
they solved the political issue of turning Baku into the center of
"cultural dialogues".

Independent of what type of relations we have with Azerbaijan at the
moment Armenian Minister of Culture must have participated in that
event. The Azerbaijani party could never make obstacles, because it
would have contradicted the main essence of the conference.

Moreover it was here that Armenia could demonstrate to the whole
world which country should really become the center of inter-cultural
dialogues of great significance in the 21st century. We don’t have
any intentions to elucidate the ridiculous fact that by mocking at
the main idea of inter-cultural dialogue they convened a conference
of Ministers of Culture in the framework of the Council of Europe,
in the country, which has annihilated the Khachkars of Jugha.

The presence of the Armenian party during the conference was important
for the simple reason that the latter was taking place in the center
of Armenian culture during the recent two centuries, that is to say in
Baku. The Armenian Minister of Culture must have recorded with pride
that he is in the city where all the basic elements of the European
culture – architecture, educational centers, theatres, and libraries
are founded by the Armenians who constructed Baku in the second half
of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

Thus the conference on the topic of inter-cultural dialogue held
under the auspices of the Council of Europe was held in the city
where the tats (still in the 19th century they made up 2/3rd of the
population of Baku) the representatives of the real middle-age culture
were forcibly assimilated to Turkish-Azerbaijanis and the Armenians
where forced20to live the city that they have built. That is to say
the inter-culture dialogue is organized in a city, where the main
subjects of that dialogue, the founders of the middle age Iranian
and modern Armenian architecture and culture are simply absent.

We must have had courage to deliver a speech in the conference and
to pay tribute to the founders of the Iranian and Armenian culture
in Baku.

WHAT MEDIATION IS POSSIBLE?

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
03 Dec 08
Armenia

If Turkey does not conceal the crimes committed in 1918

As we know, during his visit to Baku, the Turkish Foreign Minister not
only announced that the regulation of the Armenian-Turkish relations
depended upon the further course of the Armenian-Azeri relations,
i.e. the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, but also made certain
confessions that deserve special attention.

As mentioned by the Turkish Foreign Minister, "The Nagorno Karabakh
conflict concerns not only Azerbaijan, but also Turkey and the
whole region.

Since 1918, we have been standing by Azerbaijan and will always stand
by it in future."

This leads us to the following conclusion:

a) By making that statement, the official Ankara confesses that it
considers the Karabakh issue to be "its own business".

b) Furthermore, Turkey views the Karabakh conflict in the context of
the issues concerning the South Caucasus. It follows from here that the
problem fits the logic of Prime Minister R. T. Erdoghan’s proposal on
establishing a "Security and Stability Platform in the South Caucasus".

c) And after all, Turkey, in the person of its Foreign Minister Ali
Babajan, confesses that since 1918 it has been standing by Azerbaijan
and will always stand by it in future.

The following question comes up: what is, in that cas e, the motive
of Turkey’s unrestrained desire of organizing the Armenian, Turkish
and Azeri Foreign Ministers’ trilateral meeting in Helsinki, within
the frameworks of the session of the Council of the OSCE Ministers?

If Turkey considers the Karabakh issue to be "its own business",
i.e. it is a conflicting party and does not conceal the fact that it
"stands by Azerbaijan", then it cannot be a mediator. Moreover, if
the Karabakh issue is a matter concerning the whole South Caucasian
region, with Turkey being a conflicting party, then its "platform of
security and stability in the South Caucasus" is nothing more than
the expression of the unilateral intentions of one of the parties to
the Karabakh conflict.

When, apart from considering the Karabakh conflict a matter concerning
both Turkey and Azerbaijan, Ali Babajan also confesses that his country
"has been standing by Azerbaijan since 1918 and will always stand
by it in future", there emerges another puzzle. And what happened
in 1918 that makes the Turkish Foreign Minister start the history of
the Turkish-Azerbaijani relations from that particular year?

Let’s note that this was the year when, having committed the Armenian
Genocide, the Turkish army launched a new aggression against the South
Caucasus, putting half a million of Armenians to the sword and thus
establishing an artificial country that came to be known as Azerbaijan.

Thus, the country that is now trying to act as a mediator in the
Karabakh settlement talks does not actually conceal the fact that
the state bearing the name "Azerbaijan" was founded through its own
efforts in 1918, so it will always support it.

All that gives rise to the following question: if Turkey admits its
responsibility for the past inasmuch as Azerbaijan is concerned, how
come that it denies the same responsibility for continuing the Armenian
Genocide and exterminating half a million of Armenians in the South
Caucasus. Because the statement made by Ali Babajan may lead to the
assumption that in 1918 the Turkish troops were busy establishing the
same "Security and Stability Platform" currently proposed by Turkey.

We believe that in the meeting held in Baku on November 30, the Turkish
Foreign Minister not only expressed his refusal to act as a mediator in
the Karabakh settlement talks but also introduced to the Armenian party
all the legal bases for questioning Ankara’s proposal on establishing
"Security and Stability Platform in the South Caucasus".

If Turkey refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide, including the
extermination of around half a million of Armenians in the South
Caucasus, can the Republic of Armenia now have any guarantees that
in case of appearing in the same region, the country will not repeat
the crimes committed in the past but not recognized so far?

Therefore, as long as there is no clear-cut evidence as to the norms
of international law by which the perpetrator of Genocide guides
itself, attempting to act as the guarantor of its victims, Turkey’s
desires remain within the scope of the clear-cut bans prescribed by
"Convention on the Prevention of and Punishment for Genocide" (adopted
by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948). The relevant clauses
of the document envisage international taboo for the manifestation
of such desires.

Having politely and diplomatically rejected the proposal on holding a
trilateral meeting in Helsinki with the participation of the Armenian,
Azeri and Turkish Foreign Ministers, our Foreign Ministry did not
consider the Armenian diplomacy’s chances of having periodical meetings
in such format and giving a negative response to Turkey’s desires.

That is, Foreign Minister Ali Babajan’s statement saying, "Since 1918,
we have been standing by Azerbaijan and will always stand by it in
future" was perceived by the Armenian party as a clear-cut attitude
by the present-day Turkish leaders who are proud of the fact that in
1918 the Turkish Army exterminated around half a million Armenians
in the territory of the South Caucasus and first of all, in Baku,
the present-day capital town of Azerbaijan. And this serves as a
ground for the Republic of Armenia to refuse Turkey’s current and
future attempts of acting as a mediator, unless it confesses to and
repents for the war crimes committed in the South Caucasus in 1918.

STRANGE PANIC AROUND THE REFERENDUM
Kima Yeghiazaryan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
03 Dec 08
Armenia

Recently when the government submitted the bill on supplements and
changes in the law "On Referendums" from that moment the advocacy
machine serving the radicals started to alarm in terror that Karabakh
issue is put to referendum.

And when the parliament started to discuss the bill which proposes
to consider the referendums aimed at revealing the public opinion
regarding issues of state importance as a new type of referendum,
not only did the number of the heralds of sad news, but also the dose
of their sinister announcements increased.

But the most ridiculous thing is that after thoroughly familiarizing
themselves with the legislative initiative of the government,
these people introduced their statement as a revelation. As if
no one could comprehend that in the number of the issues of state
importance the settlement of Karabakh issue is considered one of the
priorities. Anyway!

The panic full of comic elements that has been created around the
bill is of course ridiculous, but the hullabaloo that continues for
the recent days is really strange.

After the ceasefire (if not beginning from 1988), the people of
both Karabakh and Armenia and the political forces functioning in
the two republics, always expressed the same opinion, which is:
any decision regarding the settlement of Karabakh issue can ‘t be
taken individually, moreover even the signing of the peace treaty is
not a matter to be decided by one or several people. And especially
as regards the destiny of Karabakh the main role in this issue is
vested in the people who can express their "yes" or "no" by means of
a pan-national referendum.

Moreover during the recent months Sefilyan, together with his "Miatsum"
almost intimidates by announcing that the issue must be settled by
a pan-national referendum. This is what we call exercising power by
the people, which is enshrined in the bill.

It is not something new and it is really strange why the bill, appeared
in the public, created such a panic among some circles. Whereas it is
noteworthy that when several years back the so-called International
Crises Group publicized the anti-Armenian version of the settlement,
putting into focus the idea of holding a referendum in NKR (In what
terms? Only God knows and the member of the Group Ararat Zurabyan),
not only did they keep silence but even warmly welcomed the proposal
made by the foreigners.

And at present when our authorities are trying to regulate the issue
of holding referendums through legislative methods (which was to
happen sooner or later) for unknown reasons these people hue and cry.

We must also underscore that while revolting against the referendum
these people managed to formulate the question, alleg edly to be put
to referendum. And the only issue that came to their minds was ceding
the liberated territories. That is to say this is the most important
issue in terms of revealing the public opinion. It is not even clear
whether or not the referendum will be held or what questions will
be put to referendum, these people are already hinting something to
Azerbaijan and Aliev.

In parallel with forming the questionnaire, not to break the
"tradition", they expressed doubt regarding the possible referendum,
emphasizing that anyway it will be falsified. This is the way the
radicals always do. Five years or minimum 1 year before the voting they
start speaking about the possible falsifications. Very interesting,
these people who have bored us to death by their demands on holding
extraordinary elections, if tomorrow they hold these elections,
these people will express the same doubt.

And in general except Ter-Petrosyan, who stated on October 17 that the
settlement of the issue is a matter of 2-3 months, all the political
forces and political figures from Vazgen Manukyan to Sadoyan, Samvel
Babayan and even Demirchyan don’t share this opinion. They believe
the settlement of the issue will take much longer.

And it is not yet clear regarding what issues will the Armenian party
be pressurized to give agreement during the negotiation process. Even
if it becomes clear, it will not be the end of the wor ld. By means
of a referendum the authorities will reveal the public opinion,
after they put to voting this "unpleasant" issue.

Especially in this case only mad people can think that the authorities
will try to breach the results of the referendum.

EXPECTATIONS

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
03 Dec 08
Armenia

Matthew Bryza yesterday said that the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group hoped that during the Helsinki discussions they would manage
to elaborate measures towards strengthening confidence.

"The Helsinki discussions will be devoted to the finalization of the
principles of the Karabakh settlement process by the efforts of the
OSCE co-chairing countries, Azerbaijan and Armenia."

According to the American co-Chair, the leader of each country
underlines different elements of the fundamental principles. "The
Armenian President attaches special importance to the principle of the
right to self-determination, and the Azerbaijani President highlights
the principle of territorial integrity. Our work, as mediators, is
to help the parties sign an agreement that will consider all those
principles based on mutual consent. It’s not easy, but I am sure that
we can maintain the balance provided the leaders and citizens of both
countries are ready 1tp achieve a solution," Mr. Bryza said.

RHETORICAL STATEMENT

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
03 Dec 08
Armenia

"I would like to make a rhetorical statement, "Does the Republic
of Armenia have the right to hold a referendum on the issue of a
sovereign state – NKR? That is to say can one state hold a referendum
in connection with another state?

Secondly, I’m confident in case we hold similar consultative referendum
linked with Armenia’s foreign policy, the authorities will have that
much vigilance, to formulate the issue adequately and to demonstrate
to the international instances and the international community the
unification of the Armenians regarding this issue," Victor Dallakyan
announced yesterday during the discussion of the law "On Referendums".

WE DID THE RIGHT THING

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
03 Dec 08
Armenia

"They make announcements here, saying that we do whatever the President
dictates us to do. Yes we must do whatever the country’s President
tells us to do, because the President is the leader of a big party,
the coordinator of coalition forces and we must guaranty the important
role that he must play.

Or they ask us why didn’t we pass the bill submitted by Raffi
Hovhannisyan regarding the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh. We did the
right thing; when you come to power do what you want to do. Even if
you decide to cede Karabakh we will never do that," Galust Sahakyan
announced with indignation, yesterday.

OUR PEOPLE WELCOMED

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
03 Dec 08
Armenia

The Commission on Armenian Cause of America and the Armenian Congress
of America welcomed the decision of the US President-elect Barrack
Obama, to appoint Senator Hillary Clinton (democrat, New York) as
the US State Secretary.

The Congress and the Commission on Armenian Cause remind that on
January 24 Hillary Clinton said, "I believe the terrible events
realized by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians is a Genocide. The
universal morality and the belief of our peoples must be voiced, as an
appeal for the defense of the human rights, ensuring the recognition
and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide by the Congress and the
President.