Month: February 2015

Activist taken to hospital (video)

21:15 | February 7,2015 | Politics

Artak Khachatryan, who had been abducted and beaten in the morning,
was taken to Malatya hospital. BHK deputies, Artak’s friends and
relatives are at the hospital. Doctors haven’t given information about
his health condition. He is being examined.

Artak is one of the activists who complain about “Turnover tax” law.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Artak Khachatryan found beaten (video)

21:02 | February 7,2015 | Politics

It was announced near the Government building that “Kasetsum” movement
member Artak Khachatryan was found beaten near his house. ” Some
people had just left him there,”- said Artak’s brother.

Artyom Khachatryan considered his brother’s abduction a cowardly act,
“Why don’t you open your faces? I haven’t seen any act more despicable
and more horrible. Such acts happened in 1990s when there was no
government, but now? Let one explain why a person was abducted. Is
there any explanation? No. I am a free, independent and brave citizen
of the RA, let them take me, where must they take? I consider the
institution, which isn’t able to reveal the crime in an operative way
to be criminal.”

From: Baghdasarian

Darchinyan KOs Jimenez (video)

10:52 * 08.02.15

Former world champion Vic “Raging Bull” Darchinyan (40-7-1, 29 KOs)
dropped back down to the super bantamweight division and scored an
entertaining ninth round TKO over Juan “El Penita” Jimenez (19-9, 12
KOs) on Saturday night at the Domo del Palacio Municipal in Chetumal,
Mexico, fightnews.com reports.

The free-swinging Jimenez seemingly dropped Darchinyan in round three
but no count was given. After that, Darchinyan upped the pressure and
began to punish Jimenez. Jimenez was down in round seven from a punch
that was ruled behind the head. Darchinyan then dropped Jimenez again
in round nine to end it.

From: A. Papazian

Sources of Israel’s Policy in the Caucasus

Posted by: Maxim Suchkov Thursday, February 5, 2015

The scope of Israeli foreign policy is often mistakenly narrowed to its
geographical location. While Tel Aviv’s vital interests are certainly
concentrated in the Middle East, its intellectual, political, economic,
technological, and lobbying resources harken its description as a regional
power with a global outreach.

The Jewish political tradition is primarily based on the school of realism.
>From this school, the country has derived the three guiding principles of
its foreign policy: a focus on “survival in an antagonistic neighborhood,”
the pursuit of power, and the formation of alliances. Israel’s foreign
policy is also very much linked to its deep-seated historical traditions.

The “Alliance of the Periphery,” formed in the 1950s, is one of these
traditions. The Periphery Doctrine, as it was framed, presumed the
development of close relationships with non-Arab Muslim nations in the
Middle East. At the time, the two chief targets of the policy were Turkey
and pre-revolutionary Iran. Times have changed; Ankara is perceived as
unfriendly at best and Tehran is an ominous threat. Moreover, with the rise
of ISIS

and
Islamist sentiments, Israel’s stance in the region has been challenged
further. Today, the Periphery Doctrine that once seemed to have been stored
away has been called back into action. But this time it is targeted toward
a region that feels the dynamic vibe of the Middle East yet has
geopolitical leverage over its northern part–the Caucasus.

Israel’s engagement in the Caucasus increased in the late 2000s when its
Foreign Ministry established special departments on the Caucasus and
Central Asia. In its relatively short track record of focusing more
resources on the region, Israeli policy has gone through two major stages.
The first stage took place before 2008 and focused on Georgia. Israel
trained the Georgian army and allowed private defense firms to supply it
with drones and sophisticated equipment. After the war in South Ossetia
in 2008, Tel-Aviv lowered its
public profile in Georgia to avoid antagonizing Moscow. To compensate,
Israel augmented its presence in Azerbaijan.

In this second stage of engagement in the Caucasus, the trade turnover
between the two countries amounted to some 4 billion dollars, with Israel
buying Azeri oil and planning to import 12 billion cubic meters of gas from
the Caspian country over the next decade. Most importantly, however Israel
sees Azerbaijan, in the words of former President Shimon Perez, as “key in
limiting Iran’s influence in the Greater Middle East.” The well-known list
of grievances between Baku and Tehran includes four major areas of
disagreement: 1) the status of the Caspian Sea; 2) the Nagorno Karabakh
issue where Iran has taken a
rather pro-Armenian stance; 3) the territorial dispute over the
northwestern part of Iran–the so called “Iranian Azerbaijan” that is home
to an estimated 20 million ethnic Azeris; 4) a religious factor–Baku
accuses Iran of fueling radical moods in the secular Shia-majority country.
Against this background, Israel sees Azerbaijan as pivotal in its
“encirclement strategy” of the Islamic Republic. While there are several
restrains to the Israeli-Azerbaijani rapprochement such as the Turkish
factor, anti-Semitism, and Azerbaijani-Palestinian relations, countering
Iran through formation of periphery alliances (this time with Azerbaijan)
is perfectly built into Israeli strategic planning.

Israel also sticks to a tradition of providing support to Jewish diasporas
across the globe. In the Caucasus this foreign policy resource is quite
significant. In Georgia , the
official statistics from 2012 listed 3,540 Jews living in the country;
unofficial records hold it as high as 8 to 12 thousand. In Azerbaijan–where
the number of Jews is less transparent–the figure ranges from 9 to 16
thousand people. In many cases, especially in Georgia, citizens of Jewish
descend hold influential positions in government and business which
represents an opportunity for greater Israeli political and economic
engagement in the region.

In a nutshell, Israel’s interests in the Caucasus have three principal
dimensions: strategically, as a means of encircling Iran
; in the mid-term, as a zone
of energy supplies; and in a short-term, as a market for selling high tech
arms and ammunition. At the same time these dimensions represent a
challenge for the troika of traditional regional players–Russia, Turkey,
and Iran–who are very reluctant to let in any outsiders.

*Maxim A. Suchkov, a former Fulbright visiting fellow at Georgetown
University (2010-11), is currently a contributor to *Al Monitor *(Russia
Pulse) and fellow at the Institute for Strategic Studies (Pyatigorsk).*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenia: Aftermath of a Massacre

Posted by: Thomas de Waal

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

For two weeks, Armenians have had time for only one issue: the horrible
murder of a whole family in the town of Gyumri and outrage at the way
politicians have dealt with it.

At first it was just a tragic murder. On January 12, a soldier broke out of
Russia’s 102 military base in Armenia’s second city of Gyumri and, for
reasons that are still unexplained, made his way to a family house in the
middle of the city. He broke in and shot and killed six members of the
Avetisian family, including a two-year-old girl. Then he fled on foot and
was detained several hours later near the Armenian-Turkish border.
[image: De Waal is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment,
specializing primarily in the South Caucasus region comprising Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia and their breakaway territories as well as the
wider Black Sea region.]Thomas de Waal

Senior Associate
Russia and Eurasia Program

The whole of Armenia followed agonizing health bulletins on the seventh
member of the family, a six-month-old baby boy whom the soldier had stabbed
with his bayonet. A week later, the boy too died of his wounds.

By then, the alleged murderer, a 19-year-old named Valery Permyakov, was in
custody at the Russian military base and the subject of a growing political
row.

The public reacted much more quickly to the tragedy than did either
Armenian or Russian politicians. On the day of the family funeral, angry
crowds demonstrated

outside
the Russian consulate in Gyumri demanding that the soldier be handed over
to the Armenian authorities. At least 14 people were injured as the police
beat back the demonstrators.

The protesters voiced anger not just with the Russians but with their own
leaders. On the fourth day after the murders, a veterans’ group criticized

both
President Serzh Sargsyan and the leader of the Armenian Apostolic Church
Karekin II for not speaking in public about the killings.

We can presume that there were many private Armenian-Russian official
conversations about what should be done with the alleged killer. Even
though the crime had been committed against Armenian victims on Armenian
soil, Russian officials displayed an amazing stubbornness in insisting that
he should be tried under Russian law.

In the first few days after the killings, the Russian media barely
mentioned them. When Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov
eventually spoke

on
the issue, he said that the trial would be held in a Russian military
court. When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was asked
about the
killings at a press conference on January 21, he condemned them in the
strongest terms but also stirred up resentment by talking about a
“provocation” by “those willing to use this tragedy to obtain some
geopolitical advantages,” implying that the demonstrators were working to a
Western agenda.

Russia is Armenia’s economic and political patron and sole provider of
foreign security. On January 1, Armenia entered the Russian-led Eurasian
Union. The Gyumri base, home to 4,000 soldiers and their families, is also
the mainstay of the local economy. In 2010 its lease was extended until
2044.

But that does not mean the relationship is an easy one. Periodically
Armenian resentment at Moscow’s perceived high-handedness and colonial
mentality boils over. That was the case in 1988, the year of Armenia’s
anti-Soviet revolt, when Soviet troops opened fire on Armenian nationalist
demonstrators at Zvartnots airport.

On the Armenian side, the Russian alliance is in large part a forced
marriage which Armenia has entered in order to maintain military parity in
the Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan.

Currently none of the political elite questions it. The three political
parties associated with the current president and his two predecessors–the
Republican Party, Prosperous Armenia and the Armenian National Congress–all
swear loyalty to Moscow. The relationship deepened last year with the
appointment of a new prime minister in the oligarch mold, Hovik Abrahamian.
In October a prominent American-Armenian columnist

wrote
that the close relationship with Russia was founded on “existential
strategic and economic realities” and that it was pointless to criticize
Armenia’s joining of the Eurasian Union.

The protests show that the Armenian public has a much broader spectrum of
views than do their political leaders. The political fallout of the
horrible Gyumri massacre will not result in a strategic orientation away
from Russia. But it will further hollow out public support for President
Sargsyan and his government.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Prospects for Turkey’s New `Armenia Opening’ and Russia’s Concerns

Source: iStockphoto
Posted by: Pavel Shlykov Thursday, January 29, 2015 +

Recently the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations has often and
increasingly drawn the attention of both Turkish and world media. Turkish
politicians have also not been shirking from speaking about this topic
publicly. The recent press conference of Turkish prime minister and current
leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) Ahmet DavutoÄ=9Flu in
London only proved this tendency. DavutoÄ=9Flu predicted

that
Turkish-Armenian relations would normalize in 2015: `Turkey and Armenia
must make an effort to build a new world for peace.’ The Turkish politician
also declared that Turkey shares the sufferings of the Armenians and
sincerely strives to heal wounds by restoring friendly relations with
Armenia: `Only by breaking taboos can we hope to begin addressing the great
trauma that froze time in 1915. For its part, Turkey has transcended this
critical threshold and relinquished the generalizations and stereotypical
assertions of the past.’

Prime Minister DavutoÄ=9Flu’s statement is hardly unexpected, as
some media
hurried to portray it. Even in December 2012 DavutoÄ=9Flu (who was then
minister of foreign affairs) noted in his traditional address
on foreign policy
strategy to the members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly that
`normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations would become a factor
of
stability and cooperation in the South Caucasus.’ In addition, the
recently
advanced project of `Just memory’ (*Adil Hafıza Ä°nisiyatifi
*) represents another proof that the
AKP government is working on a new `Armenian opening.’ In a spring 2014
article, DavutoÄ=9Flu defined and elaborated the concept of `just memory’ as a
denial of unilateral approaches to history and an effort to strive to
comprehend the scale of Armenian tragedy. However, according to DavutoÄ=9Flu
,
one of the essential conditions of such an approach is mutual respect,
implying Armenians must also respect the historical memory of the Turks.

The October 2014 appointment of Etyen Mahçupyan
,
a famous journalist of Armenian origin, as a key advisor to the Turkish
prime minister also signals that a new `Armenian opening’ is in
preparation. An initiative to build a new Christian Church

in
Istanbul `for the first time in the history of the Turkish Republic’ should
be seen as part of this new push as well.

Within the last year the Turkish public showed a distinct expectation that
a qualitative breakthrough in the relations between Ankara and Yerevan was
coming. This public mood is partly based on the statements of DavuloÄ=9Flu,
who was one of the main players in 2009 talks aimed at political
reconciliation (notable for so called football diplomacy and un-ratified
Zurich protocols), and on Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ=9Fan’s surprising statement timed
to the 99-year anniversary of the 1915 events. ErdoÄ=9Fan virtually became the
first Turkish leader to present official condolences for the numerous
victims among the Armenian population under the Ottoman Empire. ErdoÄ=9Fan
didn’t use, and even studiously avoided, the word `Genocide,’ preferring to
call the massacres and forced deportations of 1915 `the events of the early
20th century
.’
Nonetheless, recent Turkish media reports suggest that there are currently
attempts to come to an agreement that would allow for the opening of the
borders between the two states before April 24-the 100-year anniversary of
the 1915 Armenian Genocide.

The normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations has implications for both
foreign policy and domestic politics. On January 18, Turkey commemorated
the 8th anniversary of the assassination of Hrant Dink, the editor in chief
of the bilingual Armenian-Turkish newspaper `*Agos*’ who had been known for
advocating Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, human rights and rights for
minorities in Turkey. That almost all of Turkey’s central newspapers
published large editorials about these memorials to Dink testifies to a
distinct trend in Turkish public opinion. ErdoÄ=9Fan and DavutoÄ=9Flu are both
striving to make progress on the issue. Kurdish political parties also
support the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and the recognition
of the Armenian genocide (Sebahat Tuncel, a Kurdish politician and member
of parliament, for instance, submitted a proposal seeking

condemnation of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire to the Grand
National Assembly). Generally in today’s Turkey one would be hard-pressed
to find manifestations of mass anti-Armenian sentiment.

Armenia’s joining the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in January 1, 2015 may
bring additional opportunities to start the normalization process between
Yerevan and Ankara. The rising political tensions in the Turkey-EU
relationship together with the serious economic dependence of Turkey on the
European economy may prompt Turkey to develop its cooperation with the
EAEU, which, by today’s estimates, has an economy with a total volume in
excess of four trillion dollars. Turkey is highly unlikely to pursue
economic alienation regarding Armenia as it did in 2003 when Yerevan joined
the WTO and Ankara declared that it wouldn’t apply WTO norms in relation to
Armenia.

Standing in the way of the new `Armenia Opening’ are both the official
position and the interests of Azerbaijan. The political decision of Moscow
to offer broad political and economic assistance to Armenia within the
framework of the EAEU will obviously force Baku to alter its policy toward
Yerevan. It may also facilitate the realization of DavutoÄ=9Flu’s `Armenia
Opening.’

The international pressure on Turkey by the influential Armenian diaspora
must also be taken into account. The forthcoming 100-year anniversary of
the 1915 events will lead to an increase in the Armenian diaspora’s
activities. And, in the United States, where 43 out of 50 states recognize
the Armenian genocide, a new resolution on the Armenian genocide may be on
the agenda, potentially creating legal grounds for numerous compensation
claims against the Turkish government.

Nowadays the Turkish political elite appears preoccupied with normalizing
Armenian-Turkish relations, in consideration of this process’s potential
diplomatic, political, and economic risks and benefits. Furthermore, in the
run up to summer 2015 parliamentary elections, when political tensions will
rise and a political struggle accelerate, a diplomatic success for the AKP
government and for the new AKP party leader DavutoÄ=9Flu will obviously help
to distract people’s attention from a tendency toward economic crisis (for
which the AKP government has been criticized in recent years) and make
people associate the party with a positive agenda once again.

However, current activities around the `Armenian question’
cannot help but
bring a feeling of déjà vu, recalling the situation in 2005, when, on the
eve of the 90-year anniversary of the events of 1915, the Turkish
government also made great efforts to mend relations with Armenia. At that
time the culmination of these efforts became a declaration of the Turkish
Grand National Assembly. In this document the tragic events of 1915 were
described and analyzed quite objectively (this was a real breakthrough in
the Turkish perception of the Armenian genocide), but the word `genocide’
was not used. This word proved to be a red line for Turkey, a distinct
limit of Turkey’s flexibility. These steps failed to reach even the most
minimal demands from the Armenian perspective. Thus all these initiatives
failed to create solid ground for real compromise between the two states.
And the current situation surrounding dueling invitations-Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan invited his Turkish colleague for the
commemoration of the Armenian genocide on April 24, while ErdoÄ=9Fan plans a
celebration of the Turkish victory in the Dardanelles Operation on the same
date-doesn’t inspire confidence that the situation today can bear the fruit
of a sound and mutually acceptable compromise.

*Pavel Shlykov is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Asian and
African Studies, Moscow State University.*

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Interfax, Russia
Feb 6 2015

Azerbaijan hampering Karabakh settlement – Armenian foreign minister

YEREVAN. Feb 6

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbaldyan informed the co-chairs of
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk
Group at a meeting in Munich that Azerbaijan frequently breaches the
ceasefire along the line of contact between the Armenian and Azeri
Armed Forces in Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian Foreign Ministry
spokesman told Interfax.

“The authorities of Azerbaijan grossly defy the international
community’s calls, while their adventurist policy and provocative
actions only serve to further escalate the situation and hamper the
peaceful settlement process,” Nalbandyan said.

In recent weeks, Azerbaijan has breached the ceasefire more than 3,000
times, “leading to casualties, including among the civilian
population,” the Armenian minister said.

However, Yerevan will continue to work together with the OSCE Minsk
Group to secure an exclusively peaceful solution to the conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh, he said.

For his part, James Warlick, the U.S. co-chair of the Minsk Group,
which spearheads the OSCE’s efforts to find a peaceful solution to the
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, welcomed the results of the meeting
with Nalbandyan.

“Good meeting with #Armenia FM @MunSecConf [on the sidelines of the
Munich Security Conference] to discuss #NKpeace [Nagorno-Karabakh
peace]. We [OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs] welcome his commitment to
reducing tensions [on the Armenian-Azeri border],” Warlick said on his
Twitter account.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry, for its part, called on the Armenian
foreign minister to take actual measures to initiate detailed
discussions on a peace treaty for Nagorno-Karabakh.

“Instead of making pointless, empty and demagogical statements, the
Armenian authorities, first and foremost, should launch work on a
peace treaty as soon as possible following the insistent calls and
appeals of the leadership of countries of the world led by the
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group,” Azeri Foreign Ministry spokesman
Hikmet Hajiyev said in a commentary on Friday.

According to the diplomat, Armenia needs to realize that peace and
stability would return to the region only after Armenia withdraws its
forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan in line with four
resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council.

On January 27, the OSCE called on Azerbaijan and Armenia to
demonstrate restraint to prevent further escalation and reiterated the
importance of measures that could help prevent possible incidents
between the two countries.

tm cy

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Interfax, Russia
Feb 6 2015

Armenia reports civilian death in Azeri military attack

YEREVAN. Feb 6

A resident of the village of Nerkin Karmirakhbyur, Tavush region of
Armenia, was killed in an attack coming from Azerbaijan, the region’s
hospital told reporters on Friday.

The doctors said Vanik Gukasyan, 60, died from a gunshot wound.

Manvel Kamenatdyan, the elder of the village, told reporters Gukasyan
was wounded near his house on Thursday and died on his way to
hospital.

In the meantime, Artsrun Ovannisyan, press officer for the Armenian
defense minister, told reporters the Azeri military had breached the
ceasefire regime on all tracks along the border on the Tavush region.

“Fire was opened on populated areas. Armenia opened fire on the Azeri
positions from which the shots had been fired,” he said.

Ovannisyan earlier said Levon Andreasyan, 85, an Armenian resident,
was wounded in an attack by the Azeri military on the village of
Movse, Tavush region of Armenia on February 4.

The OSCE on January 27 called on Azerbaijan and Armenia to exercise
restraint in resolving the Karabakh conflict.

The OSCE reiterated the importance of measures that could rule out the
possibility of incidents between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Interfax, Russia
Feb 6 2015

Attack on Azeri territory was response to ceasefire violation –
Armenian Defense Ministry

YEREVAN. Feb 6

Artsrun Ovannisyan, press officer for the Armenian defense minister,
believes there is “a slow war” taking place on the Armenian-Azeri
border.

“The situation on the border has remained tense since January. There
is a slow war taking place on the border. If we lose this war, we will
lose positions, not people. If we don’t respond to the daily actions
taken by the enemy, we will begin to suffer defeat,” Ovannisyan told
reporters on Friday.

Armenian doctors earlier said a resident of the village of Nerkin
Karmirakhbyur, Tavush region of Armenia, was killed in an attack
coming from Azerbaijan.

In the meantime, Ovannisyan told reporters the Azeri military had
breached the ceasefire regime on all tracks along the border on the
Tavush region.

“Fire was opened on populated areas. Armenia opened fire on the Azeri
positions from which the shots had been fired,” he said.

Ovannisyan earlier said Levon Andreasyan, 85, an Armenian resident,
was wounded in an attack by the Azeri military on the village of
Movse, Tavush region of Armenia on February 4.

The OSCE on January 27 called on Azerbaijan and Armenia to exercise
restraint in resolving the Karabakh conflict.

The OSCE reiterated the importance of measures that could rule out the
possibility of incidents between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

av cy

Interfax, Russia
Feb 6 2015

Azeri Defense Ministry promises “relentless response” to Armenia for
opening fire on populated area

BAKU/YEREVAN. Feb 6

The Armenian military opened intense fire on the village of Alibeili,
Tovuz district, the press service for the Azeri Defense Ministry has
reported.

One civilian was wounded and a house was burned in the attack, the
ministry said.

“The village was under fire from firearms of various caliber all night
since February 5. The targets were the positions of the Azeri army and
civilian facilities. An incendiary bullet fired from Armenia caused a
fire in a house, and a village resident was wounded,” the ministry
said in a report issued on Friday.

The Azeri Defense Ministry said that by opening fire on non-military
facilities the Armenian military breach the norms and principles of
international law and are looking to provoke Azerbaijan to take
relevant steps.

“The Azeri Defense Ministry says civilian and non-military facilities
have never been the target of the Azeri side. The enemy should be held
responsible for this act. The response of the Azeri army to destroy
Armenian military targets will be more serious, drastic and
relentless,” the report says.

The Armenian Defense Ministry earlier said the shots fired at the
Azeri territory were a response to ceasefire violations by Azerbaijan
on all tracks along the border on the Tavush region.

“Fire was opened on populated areas. Armenia opened fire on the Azeri
positions from which the shots had been fired,” Artsrun Ovannisyan,
press officer for the Armenian defense minister, said.

Armenian doctors earlier said a resident of the village of Nerkin
Karmirakhbyur, Tavush region of Armenia, was killed in an attack
coming from Azerbaijan.

The OSCE on January 27 called on Azerbaijan and Armenia to exercise
restraint in resolving the Karabakh conflict.

“We called on Azerbaijan to observe its commitments to a peaceful
resolution of the conflict. We also call on Armenia to take all
measures to reduce tensions,” the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group
(Ambassadors Igor Popov of the Russian Federation, James Warlick of
the United States of America, and Pierre Andrieu of France) said in a
communique issued after a meeting Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov.

“The rise in violence that began last year must stop for confidence to
be restored and progress to be made in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process,” the communique says.

The OSCE reiterated the importance of measures that could rule out the
possibility of incidents between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

av cy