Author: Andres-Papazian

La Tribune de Geneve.fr
dimanche 24 avril 2011 4:49 PM GMT

L’Arménie commémore les massacres de 1915, sur fond d’impasse avec Ankara

Les Arméniens ont marqué dimanche le 96e anniversaire des massacres
de leurs ancêtres sous l’Empire ottoman au moment où le processus de
réconciliation entre Ankara et Erevan s’est enlisé ces derniers mois.

Les Arméniens ont marqué dimanche le 96e anniversaire des massacres de
leurs ancêtres sous l’Empire ottoman, sur fond d’enlisement du
processus de réconciliation entre Ankara et Erevan.

Des milliers de personnes ont défilé à Erevan jusqu’au monument aux
morts Tsitsernakaberd de la capitale arménienne pour se recueillir à
la mémoire des victimes.

“L’Arménie a prouvé par ses gestes résolus que malgré les pages noires
de l’Histoire, elle aspire à la paix avec ses voisins, la Turquie
incluse”, a déclaré le chef de l’Etat arménien, Serge Sarkissian.

“Néanmoins, la politique officielle de déni (du génocide) de la
Turquie continue”, a déploré le président de cette ancienne république
soviétique du Caucase.

L’Arménie et la Turquie ont signé en octobre 2009 des protocoles de
réconciliation, mais le processus s’est enlisé dans des accusations
mutuelles, chaque partie estimant que l’autre manque d’implication.

L’Arménie a gelé la ratification des protocoles de réconciliation il y
a un an, mais M. Sarkissian a récemment souligné qu’Erevan avait pris
cette décision “un certain temps après que les Turcs ont refusé de
suivre cette procédure (devant leur propre Parlement)”.

L’Arménie accuse la Turquie d’avoir de nouvelles exigences au regard
de ces protocoles dont certains responsables politiques arméniens
réclament l’annulation.

Les Arméniens qualifient de génocide les massacres et déportations qui
ont fait, selon eux, plus d’un million et demi de morts au sein de
leur communauté.

De son côté, la Turquie reconnaît qu’entre 300.000 et 500.000
personnes ont péri, non pas victimes d’une campagne d’extermination,
mais, selon elle, dans le chaos des dernières années de l’Empire
ottoman.

La qualification de ces événements de génocide a été approuvée par la
France, le Canada et le Parlement européen.

Samedi, le président américain, Barack Obama, a commémoré le massacre
en demandant à Ankara la “pleine” reconnaissance de ces tueries, en
prenant soin de ne pas prononcer le mot “génocide” dont il avait
pourtant préconisé l’utilisation pendant sa campagne électorale en
2008.

“Une juste reconnaissance, entière et franche, des faits est dans
notre intérêt à tous”, a estimé M. Obama dans un communiqué.

La Turquie s’est empressée de critiquer les déclarations
“unilatérales” du locataire de la Maison Blanche.

“Les déclarations (de M. Obama) déforment les faits historiques. C’est
pourquoi nous trouvons qu’elles posent problème et les déplorons”, a
indiqué le ministère turc des Affaires étrangères.

“Nous attendons des Etats-Unis qu’ils facilitent la normalisation” des
relations entre la Turquie et l’Arménie, “pas qu’ils la compliquent”,
a ajouté le ministère.

Les protocoles signés en 2009 auraient pu mettre fin à des décennies
d’hostilités et permettre la réouverture de la frontière commune entre
les deux pays, mais l’Arménie a suspendu le processus de ratification
en avril 2010.

M. Sarkissian a récemment déclaré que les choses resteraient en l’état
jusqu’à ce qu’Ankara ratifie les protocoles, réaffirmant qu’Erevan
n’accepterait aucune “condition préalable”.

Le chef de l’Etat arménien reproche à la Turquie, alliée de
l’Azerbaïdjan, de lier la ratification des textes à une avancée dans
le contentieux sur le Nagorny-Karabakh, territoire azerbaïdjanais
contrôlé de facto par les Arméniens.

Les massacres de 1915 ont été pendant longtemps tabou en Turquie, mais
un débat public s’est instauré au cours des dernières années avec un
nombre croissant d’historiens et d’intellectuels mettant en question
la ligne officielle d’Ankara sur cette question et préconisant une
réconciliation.

From: A. Papazian

SDA – Service de base français
24 avril 2011 dimanche 11:12 AM CET

L’Arménie marque le 96e anniversaire des massacres de 1915

Erevan

Les Arméniens ont marqué dimanche le 96e anniversaire des massacres de
leurs ancêtres sous l’Empire ottoman. Cette commémoration intervient
alors que le processus de réconciliation entre Ankara et Erevan s’est
enlisé ces derniers mois.

Des milliers de personnes ont défilé dans Erevan jusqu’au monument aux
morts Tsitsernakaberd pour se recueillir.

“L’Arménie a prouvé par ses gestes résolus que malgré les pages noires
de l’Histoire, elle aspire à la paix avec ses voisins, la Turquie
incluse”, a déclaré le président arménien Serge Sarkissian.

“Néanmoins, la politique officielle de déni (du génocide) de la
Turquie continue”, a déploré le chef de l’Etat arménien.

Processus gelé

L’Arménie et la Turquie ont signé en octobre 2009 des protocoles de
réconciliation sous médiation suisse, mais le processus s’est enlisé
dans des accusations mutuelles, chaque partie estimant que l’autre
manque d’implication.

L’Arménie a gelé la ratification des protocoles de réconciliation il y
a un an, mais le président arménien avait récemment souligné qu’Erevan
avait pris cette décision “un certain temps après que les Turcs ont
refusé de mener cette procédure (devant leur propre Parlement)”.
L’Arménie accuse la Turquie d’avoir de nouvelles exigences au regard
de ces protocoles.

Les Arméniens qualifient de génocide les massacres et déportations qui
ont fait, selon eux, plus d’un million et demi de morts au sein de
leur communauté. La Turquie reconnaît qu’entre 300’000 et 500’000
personnes ont péri, non pas victimes d’une campagne d’extermination
mais, selon elle, dans le chaos des dernières années de l’Empire
ottoman.

La qualification de ces événements de génocide a été reconnue par la
France, le Canada et le Parlement européen.

Samedi, le président américain Barack Obama a commémoré le massacre en
demandant à Ankara la “pleine” reconnaissance de ces tueries, évitant
de prononcer le mot “génocide”.

From: A. Papazian

Interfax, Russia
April 29 2011

Nagorno-Karabakh says two soldiers killed, one wounded by Azeri sniper fire

STEPANAKERT. April 29

Nagorno-Karabakh says two soldiers killed, one wounded by Azeri sniper fire
Two servicemen from the Nagorno-Karabakh defense army have been killed
and one more wounded by sniper fire from the Azeri side, the
Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Ministry told Interfax.

The ministry of the self-proclaimed republic accused Baku of failing
to comply with ceasefire agreements that were reached earlier at
negotiations at different international levels.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Ministry had reported one serviceman had
been killed on Thursday.

va

From: A. Papazian

TURKISH ELECTIONS COULD OPEN WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IN TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS

By Armen Grigoryan (04/27/2011 issue of the CACI Analyst)

The upcoming parliamentary elections in Turkey should clarify whether
Turkish-Armenian relations may improve in a short-term perspective,
opening for a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and regional
cooperation in the South Caucasus. Regardless of the outcome of the
elections, it will clarify the fate of the Turkish-Armenian protocols
signed in October 2009. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP
party seems capable of securing a majority in the newly elected
parliament and to form a new government. After the elections, the AKP
will not be under the threat of instantly losing the support of voters
due to opposition criticism, so its leadership may consider the
ratification of the protocols safer.

Such a decisive move followed by an opening of the border, without
explicitly linking the normalization of relations with the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution process, would change the
regional situation radically. The Turkish opposition and Azerbaijan’s
government, which have opposed normalization, do not believe that
Armenia will become more willing to make concessions if
Turkish-Armenian relations are normalized. However, such thinking does
not take into account that Armenia’s excessive dependence on Russia is
the main issue requiring a solution.

When the normalization process came to a standstill, Russia easily
persuaded Armenia to extend its basing rights. An agreement was signed
in August 2010, during President Medvedev’s visit to Yerevan. In
general, events during recent years have shown that the policy of
isolating Armenia and the militaristic rhetoric of Azerbaijani
officials will not bring about progress in the conflict resolution
process on Nagorno-Karabakh through unilateral concessions from the
Armenian side. Instead, Russia’s and to a certain extent Iran’s
influence has been growing continuously.

At the same time, the internal political situation in Armenia, where
the opposition has been organizing mass demonstrations demanding
extraordinary presidential and parliamentary elections, as well as a
complete failure of the financial and economic policy of the Armenian
government should be taken into account. The weak legitimacy of
President Sargsyan’s administration may induce him to seek
international support and financial assistance. An opening of the
Turkish-Armenian border would allow Sargsyan to save face and avoid
criticism from the opposition and Armenian Diaspora for being
`defeatist’. Before the standstill, Sargsyan had enjoyed the image of
a realistic politician trying to put an end to a decades-long enmity
and could make use of it again. It is telling that although the
ratification of the protocols by Armenia’s National Assembly was
suspended in 2010, Sargsyan has not called off his signature despite
the opposition urging him to do so by.

An opening of the border would reduce internal political tension in
Armenia, as it would partly relieve the economic hardship that the
country’s population is experiencing. Besides, the possibility of
transport communication via Turkish territory would reduce Armenia’s
dependence on Russia and promote mutual trust. Therefore, it would
ultimately benefit also Azerbaijan and Georgia. Better opportunities
to maneuver independently from Russia and seeking further
international assistance for legitimating his rule would stimulate
Sargsyan and the ruling coalition to be more flexible on the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

At the same time, Sargsyan should not be considered a politician with
truly progressive views. His approach is rather opportunistic. If the
newly formed Turkish government refuses to ratify the protocols,
Sargsyan will most probably seek legitimacy by playing to nationalist
sentiments. By denouncing the protocols and actively exploiting the
genocide issue politically, Sargsyan could secure the support of all
factions of the National Assembly and mobilize the active support of
the Diaspora.

In summary, the window of opportunity for normalizing Turkish-Armenian
relations and stimulating regional cooperation in the South Caucasus
will be open for quite a short time after the elections in Turkey. If
the issue is not solved promptly, pressure by the opposition will very
soon motivate Sargsyan to start advocating more hardcore nationalist
policies. In fact, the 20th anniversary of independence in September
could become a convenient starting point. It should also be remembered
that sensitive issues such as Turkish-Armenian relations and the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are unlikely to progress in pre-election
periods. Campaigning for the May 2012 parliamentary elections in
Armenia will begin shortly and will be followed by campaigning for the
February 2013 presidential elections. Growing sentiments will also
induce both government and opposition to compete for a more
`patriotic’ image while moving towards 2015 – the 100th anniversary of
the genocide. Therefore, even the small opportunity to normalize
Turkish-Armenian relations and advance the resolution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may be lost, and that would benefit neither
Turkey, nor Armenia, nor Azerbaijan.

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJAN PROTESTS PLANNED AIRPORT IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH
By Mina Muradova (04/27/2011 issue of the CACI Analyst)

The three Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia held a
meeting in Moscow on April 22 to discuss several issues related to the
resolution of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over
Nagorno-Karabakh. An issue of special concern is the increased tension
along the frontline due to intensifying cease-fire violations over
recent months.
Observers said that tensions peaked when Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan announced his intention to be the first passenger on the
first flight from Yerevan to a reopened airport in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Moreover, the Armenian side announced that the opening ceremony will
be held on May 9, which is a black date for Azerbaijanis as it is
connected with the occupation of the town of Shusha in
Nagorno-Karabakh, considered a cradle of Azerbaijani culture. Thus,
official Baku has threatened to shoot down any flight over
Nagorno-Karabakh, legally part of Azerbaijan’s territory.

During a recent visit to the region, international mediators expressed
their concern over the planned opening of an airport in the breakaway
region, saying it could fuel further tensions. The co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassadors Bernard Fassier of France, Robert
Bradtke of the U.S., and Igor Popov of the Russian Federation,
traveled to Yerevan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Baku on April 11-14, where
they met separately with the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and
the de facto authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Located ten kilometers from the region’s main city – called Khankendi
by Azerbaijanis and Stepanakert by Armenians – the airport was closed
down during the most intense fighting in 1991-1992. The reconstruction
of the airport has taken over a year and has sustained costs of US$
2.8 million to unspecified “charitable sources”, according to Armenian
media reports. The de facto leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh announced
the opening of a `civilian’ airport in May for the first time in
twenty years. It was stated that the airline company Air Artsakh
(Artsakh is Armenian name for Karabakh), established by the region’s
unrecognized authorities, will first launch flights between
Khankendi/Stepanakert and Yerevan four times a week. Three SRJ-200
planes have been purchased for US$ 15-16 million to provide 40-minute
flights for 50 passengers each.

According to the Armenian side, one building at the Stepanakert
airport has already been constructed and is currently being equipped
with navigation and other systems, while asphalting is about to start.

In March, Azerbaijan’s aviation authorities warned that flights from
and to Karabakh’s new airport are not authorized and that the country
has the right to shoot down any plane that violates its airspace,
causing international concern. Some regional players, like the U.S.,
Russia, Turkey, and international organizations have sought to calm
Azerbaijani authorities. The U.S. and the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group attest that Azerbaijan does not intend to shoot down civilian
aircrafts, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and
Eurasia Philip Gordon said to journalists on April 21 in Baku after
his meeting with Azerbaijan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. `The U.S.
previously voiced its clear position on this matter. Threats to
destroy civilian aircraft are unacceptable’, Gordon reportedly said.
Elkhan Polukhov, a spokesman of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, also
reiterated that Azerbaijan would not use force against civilian
objects. However, official Baku now underline that they will rely on
all possible diplomatic means to prevent the operation of the airport.
Azerbaijan’s aviation administration has already made complaints about
the planned flights to the United Nations-run International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), which assigns airports the
identification codes required for flight plans. The ICAO stated that
only the aviation regulatory body of the member state in which an
airport is located can issue an identifier code. Nagorno-Karabakh is
internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. At the same time, in
an interview to Mediamax news agency, the ICAO representative
underlined that issues related to the opening of an airport in
Karabakh and launching of flights have to be settled in bilateral
negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Diplomatic measures taken by Baku have already started to bear fruit.
On April 14, the co-chairs stated that the operation of flights to and
from this airport `could not be used to support any claim of a change
in the current status of Nagorno-Karabakh under international law’.
The co-chairs urged the sides to reach an understanding in adhering to
international conventions and agreements, as well as current practice
between Armenia and Azerbaijan for flights over their territories. The
co-chairs welcomed assurances from the sides that they will reject any
threat or attack against civilian aircraft, pursue the matter through
diplomatic means, and refrain from politicizing the issue. According
to Trend news agency, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe (PACE) also approved a document signed by over 20 PACE members
representing different countries, demanding that the airport’s
construction be stopped since it can increase tensions in the region.

During their latest meetings in the region, the co-chairs discussed
the next steps for reaching an agreement on the Basic Principles. `It
is the strong view of the co-chairs that the time has arrived to
finalize and endorse the Basic Principles and move to the drafting of
a peace agreement,’ the statement said. The document also mentioned
that the co-chairs crossed the Line of Contact (LOC) by foot on April
13 before continuing to Baku. Like their crossing of the LOC in
September 2010, this was intended to `demonstrate the importance of
maintaining and strengthening the 1994 ceasefire and that the LOC
should not become a permanent barrier to contacts among neighboring
peoples’. The mediators also visited the village of Orta Karvend
southwest of the city of Terter, where a 10-year-old boy was shot on
March 8.

In order to create `a transparent and objective’ investigation process
concerning casualties along the frontline, the mediators presented a
draft mechanism for investigating incidents with the participation of
all sides. The co-chairs will travel to Washington in late April for
consultations with senior U.S. government officials, and to discuss
the current status of progress towards a peace settlement.

From: A. Papazian

Turkey Analyst,
vol. 4 no. 8
18 April 2011

THE POTENTIAL DEMISE OF THE CFE TREATY: A MAJOR CONCERN FOR TURKEY

Richard Weitz

Moscow’s decision to `suspend’ its compliance with the Conventional
Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty since December 2007 now remains one of
the few visible sources of tension in the otherwise significantly
improved relationship between Turkey and Russia. Yet, like other NATO
countries, Turkey has sought not to bury the CFE but to praise and
revive it. Turkish officials are calling for further negotiations and
mutual concessions in order to restore the treaty framework. Perhaps
the most immediate concern behind Turkish unease at the potential
demise of the CFE regime is that it could worsen tensions between
Armenia and Azerbaijan.

BACKGROUND: Turkish strategic thinkers have traditionally seen their
country as surrounded by unstable, potentially hostile geographic
regions. Turkish foreign and defense policy has sought to reduce this
instability’and ideally transform Turkey’s pivotal geopolitical
position from that of a liability into an advantage. In this context,
the landmark CFE Treaty has served as a tool to dampen security
tensions in some of these regions by enhancing defense transparency
and establishing other confidence-building measures.

The CFE Treaty established a sophisticated system of monitoring,
inspections, and verification of the military deployments and
activities of its State Parties. The treaty, which entered into force
in 1992, set ceilings of five categories of `heavy’ conventional
weapons in the geographic zone extending from the Atlantic to the
Urals. Besides the limits on the permissible number of tanks, armored
vehicles, artillery pieces, combat aircraft, and helicopters’which
were converted from bloc to national restrictions in 1999’the treaty
imposed additional ceilings on the number of allowable `active’ units
in each category. It also created several regional `flank zones,’ most
notably along northwest and southwest Russia, and established an
extensive system of military confidence-building measures that have
helped eliminate the possibility of large-scale surprise attacks in
Europe.

Yet, NATO’s expansion and Moscow’s continued military deployments
outside Russia have led to mutual accusations that the other party is
violating the treaty. Western governments accuse Moscow of failing to
carry out its commitments, made by then-President Boris Yeltsin at the
November 1999 OSCE summit in Istanbul, to withdraw all Russian
military forces and equipment from the former Soviet military bases in
Georgia and Moldova.

On December 12, 2007, the Russian government `suspended’ its
participation in the CFE Treaty due to `exceptional circumstances’
that jeopardized Russia’s `national interests in the sphere of
military security.’The effect of the suspension, an option not even
provided for in the original 1990 treaty, has been that Moscow has not
provided information about the size, location, and activities of its
military forces west of the Ural Mountains, the Russian territory
covered by the treaty, for more than three years. Another consequence
has been that security concerns in countries located near Russia,
especially Turkey, have been exacerbated.

In fact, tensions between Turkey and Russia arose almost as soon as
the CFE treaty entered into force since the Russian government quickly
exceeded its southern flank limits by deploying additional military
forces in the South Caucasus (Armenia and Georgia) and North Caucasus
(especially Chechnya) after the Russian military intervened to
suppress the separatist forces there. Russian authorities said that
the CFE limits applied only under “normal” conditions, which did not
exist. Although the government of Turkey, like those of Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Ukraine, considered the surge of Russian forces in their
neighborhood unsettling, they were forced to tolerate them since the
other CFE parties were unwilling to confront Russia on the issue. Many
of Ankara’s NATO allies declined to press Moscow on CFE since they
were eager to secure Russian acceptance of NATO’s enlargement.

Despite these concessions, Russian officials pressed for more
permanent relaxation of the flank limits in the treaty. Nonetheless,
the overall improvement in Russia-Turkey relations during the past
decade has made this issue less salient. Then the Russian suspension
decision, soon followed by the Russia-Georgia War and the upswing of
Islamist militancy in the North Caucasus, alarmed the Turks about
their regional security situation and catalyzed several initiatives,
as discussed in the August 29, 2008 issue of the Turkey Analyst.

IMPLICATIONS: Moscow’s decision to `suspend’ its compliance with the
CFE Treaty since December 2007 now remains one of the few visible
sources of tension in the otherwise significantly improved
relationship between Turkey and Russia. At the time of the suspension
decision, an official in the Turkish Foreign Ministry disputed
Moscow’s assertion that Russia needed to increase its defenses along
its southwestern border to counter terrorism: `Russia claims it is
facing a terrorism threat and cannot deal with it properly due to the
restrictions imposed on it by the Treaty. We have told the Russians
that we cannot see any immediate terrorism threat directed toward
them.’ The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the Russian
suspension decision `particularly perplexing’ given the
`multidimensional dialogue’ that Turkey and other NATO governments had
conducted with Russia, which offered `a constructive way forward that
would preserve the integrity of the Treaty with all its elements
including the Flank regime, and would allow the ratification of the
Adapted CFE Treaty responding to Russian concerns.’

The importance of the treaty as a form of security reassurance between
Turkey and Russia was evident in the number of their mutual
inspections. At the time Russia suspended its involvement in the CFE
inspections, the Russian Federation had conducted 92 inspections in
Turkey, more than any other party. And of the 162 inspections
conducted by Turkey as of December 2007, 57 were in Russia, and 25
more were of the Russian military units in Armenia and Georgia.

Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs still characterized the CFE
Treaty `the cornerstone’ of Europe’s security architecture. The
government has supported the `parallel actions package’ proposed by
NATO as the means to restore the CFE regime and bring the adapted
treaty into force. The Ministry affirms that, `Turkey supports the
position of the NATO Alliance that the ratification process on the
adapted CFE cannot start unless Russia fulfils entirely the Istanbul
commitments on Georgia and Moldova.’

At the June 2009 OSCE Annual Security Review Conference, the Turkish
Ambassador to the OSCE, Yusuf Buluç, called the CFE Treaty a `unique
and irreplaceable¦compendium of measures to build confidence and a
wide array of tools crucial for early warning, conflict prevention and
resolution as well as crisis management.’ Alluding to Moscow’s
suspension, Ambassador Buluc added that, for the sake of European
security, `We have to do much better by rededicating ourselves to the
principles of common security and to fulfilling our commitments.’ He
said that Moscow’s suspension of its CFE obligations has led `to its
progressive corrosion, the gradual diminishing of the relevance of the
measures prescribed in the Vienna Document, [and] a lessening reliance
and political will to apply decisively and effectively the tools for
conflict prevention, displayed so alarmingly lately in the South
Caucasus across our borders’ as well as `a severe shortage of mutual
trust and confidence.’

Many critics of Moscow’s action argue that, since the CFE contains no
provision for a `suspension,’ the Russian government has effectively
abrogated the treaty by violating its provisions. This position can
also be supported by pointing to Russia’s deployment of a higher level
than permitted by the CFE of conventional forces in its southwestern
flank. Yet, like other NATO countries, Turkey has sought not to bury
the CFE but to praise and revive it. Turkey has also sought to
strengthen other OSCE-related security measures.

At the December 2009 OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, Foreign
Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu, while not explicitly naming Russia, made
clear his irritation with Moscow’s suspension policy: `The arms
control and confidence and security building measures are the OSCE’s
unique and fundamental contribution to the security and stability of
Europe. It is essential to preserve and implement these arrangements.
Unfortunately, the CFE Treaty is at present suspended by one State
Party. The continued suspension erodes and invalidates this landmark
regime.’ DavutoÄ?lu then noted how the Russia-Georgia War `has
demonstrated the necessity of maintaining strong international
security mechanisms, in particular those designed to provide
transparency and stability through a system of regional and
sub-regional limitations on conventional armaments.’

Nonetheless, Ankara is not eager to see NATO members or other States
Parties retaliate in kind, which could easily lead to the treaty’s
collapse. Instead, Turkish officials have called for further
negotiations and mutual concessions in order to restore the treaty
framework: `We call upon all partners to redouble their efforts to
restore the viability of the CFE regime and to avoid any further
actions, which would result in its erosion.’

The Turkish government has sought to strengthen related OSCE and other
European security processes regardless of the Russian CFE suspension.
These include proposals to improve the implementation of the 1999
Vienna Document, the Open Skies Treaty, and additional CSBMs.
‘However, like other governments, Turkish representatives recognize
`that the legally binding provisions of the CFE Treaty cannot be
replaced with politically binding commitments, nor can their loss be
compensated through reinforcing other instruments such as the 1999
Vienna Document.’

CONCLUSIONS: Although a military confrontation between Turkey and
Russia is improbable, long-term rivalry cannot be excluded and Turkey
certainly would like to keep Russian military power in its vicinity
within reasonable bounds.

Turkish officials have found the OSCE-CFE framework for Europe so
useful that they have joined with other states, especially Kazakhstan,
and sought to extend the CFE concepts to Asia in the form of the
Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building in Asia (CICA).
Turkey holds the CICA chairmanship for the years 2010-2012 and has
developed an ambitious action plan, though tensions with Israel and
between other Asian countries have thus far limited its
implementation.

Perhaps the most immediate concern behind Turkish unease at the
potential demise of the CFE regime is that it could worsen tensions
between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Although Turks sympathize with
Azerbaijan, and are therefore unenthusiastic about Russia’s extensive
military support to Armenia, Turkish diplomacy has striven to end this
conflict. Elements in both Armenia and Azerbaijan are eager to re-arm
beyond the levels permitted by the CFE Treaty. Already substantial
unaccounted-for equipment is present in the separatist region of
Nagorno-Karabakh contested by both countries. If Armenia and
Azerbaijan decide the CFE quota limits no longer apply, Turkey could
experience a full-scale arms race in a neighboring region already
primed for conflict.

Richard Weitz, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director, Center for
Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute

© Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint
Center, 2010. This article may be reprinted provided that the
following sentence be included: “This article was first published in
the Turkey Analyst (), a biweekly publication of
the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint
Center”.

From: A. Papazian

La Voix du Nord
vendredi 29 avril 2011

Le parcours d’une famille armentiéroise, de l’Arménie à l’épicerie fine

Armentières – Angela, Samuel et leurs deux enfants, Anouch et Manuel,
habitent Armentières. Arméniens, réfugiés politiques depuis mai 2006,
ils souhaitent créer leur boutique, une épicerie fine. Ils se donnent
six mois pour trouver un local dans le centre-ville. PAR CATHERINE
QUÉTELARD [email protected] PHOTO « LA VOIX » Ils sont nés
loin d’ici mais c’est ici qu’ils ont trouvé l’asile politique,
souhaitent travailler et élever leurs enfants. « Mon village n’existe
plus », dit simplement Samuel. Habitant Martunashen, village de
l’enclave arménienne en Azerbaïdjan, il n’a eu d’autre choix que de le
quitter en 1991, quand cette ex-république soviétique devient
indépendante et que les Arméniens, chrétiens, n’y sont plus souhaités.
Samuel, né en 1978, part alors à Moscou, en Russie, en 1992. Il étudie
à l’école professionnelle de cuisine avant de travailler durant cinq
ans dans un restaurant français à Moscou.

Cuisinier à Moscou
Il revient en Georgie où il fait la connaissance d’Angela, native
d’Erevan, en Arménie, en visite chez sa tante. Elle n’a pas à fuir son
pays mais choisit de partir avec Samuel, d’abord à Moscou puis à
Lille, où vit la maman de Samuel depuis quatre ans. Sa famille a connu
le sol français une première fois, en 1915, à la suite des poursuites
dont étaient victimes les Arméniens de la part des Turcs. Les
Arméniens viennent de commémorer la mémoire de ce grand nombre de
morts, le 24 avril, jour de Pques. Le grand-père de Samuel a connu
les prisons de Staline, le goulag. Le couple qui a déjà une petite
fille, Anouch, née en juin 2001, en Georgie, vit à Lille dans un petit
studio. À Armentières ils trouvent une maison à louer dans une petite
rue tranquille du quartier de la route d’Houplines. Un petit garçon,
Manuel, est né en août 2007. Les deux enfants sont scolarisés à
Houplines, à l’école Saint-André, une école catholique, un choix
important pour ces chrétiens.

La recherche de travail s’avère difficile pour Samuel à qui les
employeurs objectent que son diplôme culinaire n’est pas européen. Son
statut de réfugié politique lui interdit de passer la frontière belge
pour se faire embaucher. Angela, née en 1981, demandeuse d’emploi,
fait une formation en informatique au GRETA. À Erevan, où sa famille
réside toujours, elle était étudiante en décoration. Ils forment à
deux le projet de créer leur boutique. Et leur projet fait partie des
cinq acceptés par la Boutique de gestion espace, sur les quatorze
dossiers présentés. Ils souhaitent y vendre thé, café et chocolat, de
qualité et belge, et des épices. Angela nous montre l’aneth, le
basilic violet, la coriandre, l’estragon. Cette dernière herbe vient
garnir les sandwichs arméniens avec la salade, l’oeuf et le jambon.
Ils proposeraient aussi d’autres sandwiches, des burritos à la
mexicaine (la soeur d’Angela vit au Mexique), des cup cakes, des
sujets en pte d’amande. L’épicerie fine, « tout ce qu’on ne trouve
pas en grande surface, les petites mesures ». Ajoutons l’accueil en
plus. Qui ne craquerait pas devant le sourire d’Angela ? Ils parlent
russe, anglais, flamand (Samuel) et ont appris le français à l’école
(Instep) à Fives. La communauté arméniene lilloise compte une
cinquantaine de personnes et des cours d’arménien y sont délivrés, que
suivent leurs enfants. Il ne leur reste plus qu’à trouver un local en
centre-ville (60 à 70 m2). Ils se donnent six mois pour le dénicher.

From: A. Papazian

Scottish Express
May 1, 2011 Sunday
Edition 1;

New light on pirate tale:
Exhibitions tell of Scot Kidd’s life and death – and of his lost treasure

By Robert James

HE WAS the marauding seafarer whose exploits led to him going down in
history as one of Britain’s most infamous pirates.

Now two new ventures on either side of the Atlantic are to shed more
light on the legend of Greenock-born Captain William Kidd, 210 years
after he was hanged in London.

The Museum of London Docklands is to host an exhibition about Kidd’s
life, including his famous last letter with the promise of hidden
treasure. And in the Dominican Republic, a new visitors’ centre will
allow tourists to dive to his sunken galleon.

Dr Tom Wareham, the museum’s Curator of Maritime History, said: “The
wreck of the Quedagh Merchant is being designated an underwater
museum.

“There will be an onshore visitors’ centre and divers will be able to
float over the actual site of the ship itself.”

He added that both ventures will open on or around May 23, the date in
1701 when Kidd was executed at Wapping.

The sailor was a privateer, commissioned by the British king to
plunder French ships. But he was declared a pirate after mistakenly
capturing the Quedagh Merchant, an Armenian vessel captained by an
Englishman but sailing under the French flag.

Kidd, learning that he was a wanted man, scuttled the ship and hid his
treasure – a haul worth £100,000 in 1700 that has never been found. He
planned to offer the booty in exchange for clemency but was hanged
after a trial in the House of Commons.

The new exhibition will chart the “surprising truth of how London’s
corrupt political activities were entrenched in piracy”.

Dr Wareham said: “There have been debates among academics about
whether Kidd was set up or not. Our view is that he quite definitely
was a pirate, although his trial wasn’t exactly fair.

“It is amazing how many Scotsmen have contributed to the mythology of
piracy. There was Kidd himself and other pirates such as John Gow, who
was also executed at Wapping. Then you think about Robert Louis
Stevenson, who used the Kidd legend as inspiration for Treasure
Island, as well as Sir Walter Scott and JM Barrie who also wrote about
pirates.

“Perhaps it is something in the Scottish imagination, the sense of
adventure which appeals to Scottish writers.”

From: A. Papazian

Syrian Arab News Agency SANA, Syria
April 30 2011

Religious and intellectual figures: Syrian people proved awareness of
the plots against it

A number of religious and intellectual figures in Aleppo governorate
affirmed that the recent events in Syria proved the Syrian people’s
awareness and realization of the scale of the conspiracy targeting
Syria, and that the Syrians showed ability to find solutions in the
most difficult circumstances to confront challenges.

Second Mufti of Aleppo Mahmud Akkam said that religious figures are
tasked with a historic responsibility as they are close to the people
and in daily contact with them, so opinions and judgments regarding
events in Syria must be based on rational analysis, honesty towards
God and country, and judging actions from a perspective taking into
consideration the country’s interest before all other considerations.

Akkam called on the Syrians to defer to their conscience in everything
they say or do, judge people by their actions and resort to the
principles of justice to protect Syria.

He stressed that youths are at the centre of any social movement, and
that they are responsible for protecting the country and citizens
through rejecting extraneous ideas and confronting them rationally.

Director of Aleppo Endowments Ahmad Isa Muhammad called on youths to
be careful as to not become a way for others to harm Syria and its
national unity. He also urged religious figures to address the people
properly and help youths to realize the aspects of the conspiracy
targeting Syria.

In turn, Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo Youhanna Ibrahim Mitran
said that Syria is aware of its role and its destiny of supporting the
resistance and confronting conspiracies because Syria is a symbol of
coexistence, which doesn’t please some people and doesn’t meet their
interests.

Mitran underlined the role of religious figures and balanced religious
discourse that serves the country, which guarantees foiling this plot
particularly in light of the reforms issued by the leadership.

He pointed out that reforms cannot be carried out all at once and that
time is required, which is why society must cooperate to realize these
reforms.

For his part, Armenian Protestant Bishop Harut Sleiman said that all
forms of vandalism are deplorable because they assist the foreign plot
against Syria’s security and stability and damage society.

Harut said that those who vandalize public and private establishments
can’t possibly want reform; rather they are harming the country and
its people. He called for giving the government the needed opportunity
and time to carry out the announced reforms.

Owner of Al-Ddadd magazine, writer Riad Halak said that the people in
Syria live in harmony and unity, and that they are surprised by this
conspiracy that seeks to disrupt the peace of our nation and society
using empty slogans, adding that the reforms and announced by
President Bashar al-Assad and his responses to the people’s
aspirations made the conspiracy obvious and clear, prompting the
Syrians to rally behind President al-Assad.

Halak stressed that intellectuals have a duty in the coming stage to
help translate reform decisions and decrees into reality, affirming
that all the Syrian people are in a single boat and that everyone must
protect the country through awareness of the conspiracy that uses
instigation.

From: A. Papazian

Interfax, Russia
April 30 2011

U.S. Embassy in Armenia denies mediating govt-opposition talks

YEREVAN. April 30

U.S. Embassy in Armenia denies mediating govt-opposition talks
The U.S. Embassy in Yerevan on Saturday denied allegations that it is
mediating talks between Armenia’s government and opposition.

U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch regularly meets with government
officials and senior figures in the Armenian National Congress, an
opposition party led by former president Levon Ter-Petrosian, but has
never mediated between the government and National Congress, the
embassy told Interfax.

Earlier, Armenian media said Yovanovitch had been mediating current
government-opposition talks ever since the latter began two months
ago.

The country’s leadership is represented in the talks by Constitutional
Court Chairman Gagik Arutiunian, who was vice president to
Ter-Petrosian when the latter was president from 1991 to 1998, and the
chief opposition negotiator is Levon Zurabian, who was presidential
spokesman when Ter-Petrosian was president.

Earlier, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said: “We are ready to be
the first to take steps to defuse the situation, and I have already
instructed the justice minister to prepare proposals to that effect.”

However, the opposition demanded permission to hold rallies on Liberty
Square in Yerevan, the release of convicts allegedly imprisoned for
their political views and an investigation into clashes between
demonstrators and police in Yerevan on March 1, 2008, that claimed 10
lives.

The Yerevan mayor’s office permitted the National Congress to hold a
rally on Liberty Square on April 28. It was the first time in three
years that the party was allowed to hold a meeting on the square.

Sargsyan, at a conference with top judiciary and justice officials in
mid-April, demanded new ways of investigating the 2008 violence.

On Friday, Armenian parliament speaker Ovik Abramian asked the
president to pardon former parliament deputy Sasun Mikaelian,
convicted of organizing mass riots in Yerevan on March 1, 2008.

as

From: A. Papazian