Author: Andres-Papazian

DM Seyran Ohanyan meets foreign military attachés accredited in Armenia

armradio.am
29.01.2011 18:49

Minister of Defense Seyran Ohanyan received the military attachés
accredited in the Republic of Armenia. The Minister introduced the
priorities of the Ministry of Defense for 2011 approved by the
Government. He also talked about the present defense policy, defense
reforms, and answered their questions.

Talking about the constant bellicose statements of Azerbaijan in the
negotiation process, Seyran Ohanyan particularly stated, `Azerbaijan
is threatening, saying let’s solve the problem quickly, otherwise I
will start war. We treat the issue as follows: let us negotiate, in
order to solve the problem without war. You can come and meet the
commanders of all the sections of our armed forces – they will never
fear and retreat.’

Mr. Ohanyan also told the foreign attachés that `while realizing
military cooperation with partner countries Armenia does not sow
enmity towards those neighbors, which it has problems with and
refrains from steps that could endanger the balanced policy of the
partner countries in the region.

The foreign attachés and military representatives participating in the
meeting congratulated the Armenian Defense Minister on Army Day and
thanked him for the reception.

From: A. Papazian

Edward Nalbandian: Turkey’s policy is not constructive

armradio.am
29.01.2011 14:10

`Turkey’s position is non-constructive on both the Karabakh conflict
settlement and the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations,’
Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said in a interview with
Russia Today.

`You know that the Armenian President initiated the process of
normalization of relations with Turkey. Yes, we started the process,
held talks and signed two protocols, having agreed with the Turkish
side that we were taking the step without any preconditions. However,
after signing the protocols, Turkey did not find enough strength to
remain committed to one of the basic principles of international law,
the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which means that if there is an
agreement it should be followed. We signed the documents in presence
of witnesses – Switzerland, Russia, the United States, France,
representatives of the European Union and the Council of Europe. After
that Turkey practically returned to the preconditions it had been
suggesting at the beginning of the process.

`These preconditions included the attempts to link the normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations to the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. The United States, France and Russia have declared many
times that the two are completely different processes and the attempts
to tie the two would harm both. The Turkish side pretends not to
notice and hear what the international community is saying. The second
precondition was the Armenian Genocide recognition. When we started
the process, we said the recognition of the Armenian Genocide was not
a precondition for the establishment of diplomatic relations between
the two countries. We stressed that Armenia would never question
either the fact of genocide, or the importance of its international
recognition. We told this the Turkish side, the mediators, and all the
countries involved in the normalization process. However,
unfortunately Turkey returned to the language of preconditions it had
been using before the start of the process, thus taking a
non-constructive position on both the process of normalization of the
Armenian Turkish relations and the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, since, as I have already mentioned, the attempts to tie the
two processes harms both,’ Minister Nalbandian said.

From: A. Papazian

Is there a principle of `preservation of territorial integrity’ in
international law?

[ 2011/01/29 | 14:40 ] politics

Or, As always – what to do?

Let us state at once that there is no principle of `preservation of
territorial integrity’ in international law. The fourth clause of
Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) declares only the
following: `All Members shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations’.

This clause does not have anything to do with the preservation of
`territorial integrity’, that is, the inviolability of the territory
of any state. According to an authoritative commentary on the law on
foreign relations of the United States, it is simply a clause against
invasion, a `prohibition of use of force’ (Restatement of the Law
(3rd). The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, The American
Law Institute, Washington, 1987; v. 2, § 905 (7), p. 389), and it
merely calls upon refraining from `the use of force by one state to
conquer another state or overthrow its government’ (Ibid, p. 383).

The phrasing `against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state’ found its way into the UN Charter upon the
request of certain smaller states, as a certain guarantee that `force
could not be used by the more powerful states in violation of the
`territorial integrity or political independence’ of weaker states’
(Leland M. Goodrich, Edward Hambro, Charter of The United Nations,
Commentary and Documents, [second and revised edition], Boston, 1949,
p. 103).

It is evident that this clause does not contradict the principle of
self-determination of peoples and has absolutely nothing to do with
the contrived, so-called principle of `preservation of territorial
integrity’ which does not exist in international law, but is thrown
about due to political considerations (Ara Papian, On the Principles
of Self-Determination and so-called `Territorial Integrity’ in Public
International Law, (The Case of Nagorno-Karabagh), Noravank
Foundation, `21st Century’, # 2, 2010
).

A legitimate question may arise, then: what to do? What to do when
there are differences of opinion on a point of international law or
its interpretation? The response is simple and clear – one must appeal
to a body that has the corresponding authority and competence to
interpret the given issue and, more significantly, to make a ruling on
it. That very body for international law is the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), which, in accordance with clause 2(b) of Article 36 of
its Statute, has jurisdiction over discussing and deciding on `any
question of international law’.

It has become clear today that, when it comes to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, the supposed contradiction between the principle of
`self-determination of peoples’, its manifestations and complexities,
and the invocation of the so-called `preservation of territorial
integrity’, has ceased to be a purely legal issue.

The question of life and death for thousands of people are at stake.
Without rendering similar the understanding of the principle of
`self-determination of peoples’, it would be impossible to deal with
these issues. Without making clear what is meant by `territorial
integrity’, and from what it may be preserved to what degree, it would
be impossible to come up with a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

Accordingly, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan,
as member-states of the United Nations, must jointly appeal to the
court of the UN, namely the International Court of Justice, with more
or less the following questions:

1. Does international law contain a `principle of self-determination
of peoples’? If yes, then, does the `principle of self-determination
of peoples’ apply to collective unit of a people who are found outside
of a nation-state of that people already existing? If yes, then are
there any limitations to that self-determination?

2. Does international law contain a `principle of preservation of
territorial integrity’? If yes, then does that principle limit a
`principle of self-determination of peoples’, denying the collective
unit in question the right to political self-determination?

Both the Armenian parties and the Azerbaijani side have on numerous
occasions expressed with confidence that their positions are based on
international law. But they are not the ones who decide such matters.
Even the mediators do not possess the authority to do so. There is a
competent body in international law with jurisdiction over such
questions.

I believe that the time has come for the mediators to approach the
sides with the request to present such appeals to the International
Court of Justice. They should then be combined and put forth at the
ICJ as per its procedures. If one of the sides should decline, then it
would imply that its rhetoric on how its position is based on
international law is meaningless.

The international community should pursue the matter accordingly. In
that case, the mediators should themselves, on behalf of the UN
Security Council and as per Article 65 of the ICJ Statute, approach
the ICJ for a clarification and advisory opinion on the aforementioned
questions.

As difficult as it would be to come to a decision for a solution to
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it would doubtless be twice as
difficult to actually implement it. And so, a clarification by the
International Court of Justice on certain basic points of the conflict
and a decision on them would create a legal and beneficial basis for a
solution to the conflict, as it would eliminate the differences of
opinion on principles of fundamental legal issues as presently borne
by the parties to the conflict.

Ara Papian
Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre
28 January, 2011

From: A. Papazian

Apigian-Kessel: Reader Mailbag

Sat, Jan 29 2011
By: Betty Apigian-Kessel

Ah, those passionate, hot-blooded Armenians. Their temperatures rise,
rightfully so, freely displaying their angst and sorrow, coupled with
unabashed disappointment at the behavior of their fellow countrymen.
The object of some of their anger? Armenians residing in Istanbul,
Turkey.

A concerned reader writes: It’s bad enough that after four years
Armenians are still waiting for justice to be served in the cowardly
shooting in Istanbul of Agos’s editor Hrant Dink. The photo of his
lifeless body on the ground covered with papers in front of his
newspaper office, with only his shoed feet exposed, remains forever
embedded in our minds.’ The martyred Dink was a civilized man trying
to build peaceful dialogue between Turks and Armenians.

Another irate reader sent me a recent article about an
Armenian-Turkish couple marrying in Trebizond after six years of
waiting because of `bureaucratic obstacles.’ (Remember Trebizond, the
city of romance, where the Turks drowned 15,000 Armenians in the Black
Sea during World War I?)

The groom was a widower with four children and an ill mother. The
bride’s sister had introduced them and they had fallen in love, with
the Armenian woman agreeing to marry him, producing two children prior
to the civil marriage.

It is said the Armenian bride converted to Islam after succumbing to
the sound of the azan and watching her Muslim husband praying; ditto
her mother. All apparently are living happily ever after.

But not my reader. His note with the subject line `WHAT A CROCK’
followed on the footsteps of yet another Armenian-Turkish marriage I
was notified of. So I posed the following question to him: `Am I to
understand you do not approve of this marriage?’ His reply:
`ANSHOOSHT’ (Of course note). I attached a copy of my recent column
asking him if he thought the marriage issue would be upsetting to me.

He responded, `Yes, Hamagir of the Year. I did think this would upset
you. I read your column and you are right on. I know the Hyes over
there must be under extreme pressure but that would only seem to make
them more resistant to this type of thing, one would think.’

Another debate has been started by a Turkish writer who questions the
fact that most of the beautiful architecture in Turkey was
accomplished by Armenians and Greeks. He asks that someone showcase
the works of Turkish architects as proof to the contrary.

A reader addresses that issue by stating: `Many Turks are continuing
the state mentality. They always deny that anybody else had any
contribution to their culture. For centuries Turks excelled in
warfare, not arts or architecture. Instead of downgrading the Armenian
and Greek architects, they should try to have a similar exhibition of
Turkish architects of the same Ottoman era if they can.’

They can never erase the fact that Armenian architects of five
generations of Balyans (Balian) were imperial architects during the
18th and 19th centuries, or that the names of Sinan and Manuel remain
prominent in Turkish architectural history.

***

Taken from the Yerevan Scope travel handbook: `Zorats Kar or Karahunj
believed to be an ancient observatory quite similar to Stonehenge in
England. The columns sit like soldiers on a hill, huddled in
formation. The 204 stones near Sissian have been ascribed with
mystical, fertility and cosmic powers, but rarely have ancient
monuments caused such a sensation in astronomical circles.’

From: A. Papazian

State Environmental Inspection ‘makes a mark’ again

2011-01-29 12:35:00

ArmInfo. What Happened In Jermuk: Collusion Or Natural Disaster?

Under EcoLur signal alarm, the State Environmental Inspection of
Nature Protection Ministry of Armenia conducted an examination.
According to the official information, 124 trees have been cut down in
Jermuk City Park, out of which 108 have been knocked down or damaged
from hurricane. Punitive measures, 370,500 AMD, have been applied only
for 16 poplars.

“Municipality’s statement, to say the least, is a lie. Only 2-3
poplars were damaged because of strong winds in Jermuk. Why was no
representative from Nature Protection Ministry or an environmental NGO
present during the recording of natural disaster consequences?” says
one of the letters addressed to EcoLur. “It would be much better, if
Mayor could explain why only 12 ha has been left out of 17 ha in the
park?” another letter says.

Earlier in December the Control Service revealed gross violations in
environment and agricultural sectors. In has turned out that the
Environment Protection Inspectorate has not inspected the reserves and
national parks. Financial violations in the amount of 17 million drams
were revealed at the Ijevan National Park alone. The inspectorate
restored only 6.1% of 165 million drams illegal felling. Relevant
structures have not been informed of the violation. The inspectorate
independently revealed only 40 of 465 violations.

From: A. Papazian

Edward Nalbandian: In response to Karabakh people’s free expression of
will Azerbaijan started the large-scale military actions and ethnic
cleansing

2011-01-29 10:12:00

ArmInfo. “It was the decision of the Caucasian Bureau of the Bolshevik
Party that made Karabakh part of Azerbaijan. Of course the population
and people of Nagorno-Karabakh did not agree with that decision. But
the Soviet leaders replied that they did not have any borders between
the states – there were only territorial- administrative borders, we
all lived in one country. But during the collapse of the USSR the
people of Nagorno-Karabakh organized a referendum and 99,89% percent
of population voted for the
independence,” Edward Nalbandian, Foreign Minister of Armenia, says in
an interview with Russia Today TV.

He recalled that before that, on the 26th of November 1991, the
Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan liquidated the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy
as a national and territorial entity.

“In two days time the Constitutional Supervision Committee of the USSR
– it still existed back then – condemned that decision. The referendum
took place almost two or three weeks later, in December. The voting
showed that not just majority, but almost all the people were for
Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence. In response to that, Azerbaijan
started the large-scale military actions and ethnic cleansing both in
Karabakh and other settlements of Azerbaijan. Actually, it was an
aggression against Karabakh,” he says.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict broke out on February 28 1988 in the
Azerbaijani Sumgait with massacre of Armenians as a peculiar response
of Azerbaijanis to the peaceful demand of the Nagorno-Karabakh
autonomous Region, part of the Azerbaijani SSR, to unite with the
Armenian SSR. This resulted in other pogroms of Armenians in Baku,
Kirovabad and other regions of Azerbaijan populated with Armenians. In
1991 Azerbaijan unleashed war against peaceful populations of
Nagorno-Karabakh, expulsing ethnic Armenians from the territory of
Azerbaijan. Dozens of thousands of peaceful residents on both parties
were killed in the military actions, and hundreds of thousands were
left homeless and have become refugees. In 1994 in Bishkek in
mediation of the OSCE MG, the NKR, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a
Protocol on Ceasefire that is observed more or less so far.

From: A. Papazian

Armenian MP: PACE Subcommittee on Karabakh is a useless structure and
cooperation with it cannot be effective

2011-01-29 10:36:00

ArmInfo. The PACE Subcommittee on Karabakh is a useless structure, and
the cooperation with it cannot be effective, Secretary of the ruling
Republican Party of Armenia parliamentary faction Eduard Sharmazanov
said when commenting on the decision of the PACE Bureau to re-launch
the special committee on Nagorno-Karabakh.

“Armenia and the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen have repeatedly stated
that this commission hinders the peace process and cannot be useful in
this connection”, he said.

On January 28 the PACE Bureau took a decision on re-launching the
special committee on Nagorno- Karabakh, and Spanish MP Jordi Xucla i
Costa has been appointed its chairman.

Earlier Head of the Armenian Delegation to PACE David Haroutyunyan
told ArmInfo that PACE President, Turkish parliamentarian Mevlut
Cavusoglu has probably played his role in the matter of re- launch of
the specified special committee.

“The Armenian and Azerbaijani Delegations expressed their positions.
Our opinion was that creation of this subcommittee is simply
ineffective from two points of view: firstly, it will create a new
arena for aggressive rhetoric, secondly, allegedly having no goal to
avoid the issues being discussed within the OSCE Minsk Group, it will
all the same get into that trap”, said Haroutyunyan.

“However, after the PACE President expressed his position and said
that the presiding committee supports that idea, no more questions
arose, and none of the Bureau members actively objected to that”, said
Haroutyunyan.

From: A. Papazian

Edward Nalbandian: Turkey pretends not to hear the voice of
international community

January 29, 2011 – 12:15 AMT 08:15 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net –

Turkey’s position regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and
normalization of relations with Armenia is not just unconstructive,
but even destructive, Armenian Foreign Minister said

`We started the reconciliation process; we conducted negotiations and
reached the stage of signing protocols, having agreed with the Turkish
side that we were doing it without any preconditions. But after
protocols were signed, Turkey could not bring itself to observing one
of the major principles of international law, which was born together
with diplomacy – the pacta sunt servanda principle, meaning that all
the agreements are to be implemented,’ Edward Nalbandian said in an
interview with Russia Today.

`We reached those agreements and signed them in the presence of
Switzerland, Russia, the United States, France, as well as members of
the European Union and the Council of Europe. And then the Turkish
side has got back to the same preconditions it was presenting before
the start of this process, the preconditions keeping normalization of
Armenia-Turkey relations at a deadlock. What are those preconditions?
First, it’s an attempt to link the Nagorno Karabakh settlement with
Armenia-Turkey relations. Russia, the US and France – as the mediators
– repeatedly made statements The attempts to link those two processes
would harm both of them. The Turkish side is pretending that it does
not see or hear what the international community is saying. The second
issue is the recognition of the Armenian genocide When we started this
process, we said that genocide recognition by Turkey is not a
precondition for normalization of our relations despite the fact that
Turkey has been denying Armenian genocide for 95 years,’ he said.

`Unfortunately Turkey has returned to the language of preconditions
that was used at the beginning of the process. By doing so it took a
counterproductive position both in settling the Armenia-Turkey
relations and the Karabakh process, because as I have mentioned
before, the international community is saying that linking these two
processes may affect the Karabakh conflict settlement,’ the Minister
concluded.

From: A. Papazian

Cafesjian Foundation wins Genocide Museum lawsuit

January 29, 2011 – 14:28 AMT 10:28 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net –

A U.S. court decision removed a major hurdle for the future Armenian
Genocide Museum and Memorial when a federal judge ruled that all
properties located in downtown Washington, which had been purchased
and donated by Gerard L. Cafesjian for the purposes of the project,
revert to the Cafesjian Family Foundation (CFF).

In addition to the reversion of property, the ruling dismissed all
claims launched against Mr. Cafesjian and CFF by Hirair Hovnanian and
his associates, reinstated CFF on the board of the Armenian Genocide
Museum & Memorial (AGMM Inc.) and ruled that Mr. Cafesjian is entitled
to compensation of his legal fees.

Starting in the year 2000, Mr. Cafesjian initiated a large-scale
purchase of a group of buildings located just two blocks from the
White House. These included the historic National Bank of Washington
building and four adjacent structures.

In 2003, the properties were donated to the newly-established AGMM,
Inc. on the condition that they would be developed into the Armenian
Genocide Museum and Memorial by December 31, 2010. Mr. Cafesjian, Mr.
Hovnanian, Robert Kaloosdian and others were included on the AGMM,
Inc. board as founding members.

According to witness testimony, subsequent efforts to develop the
project were stymied by objections from Mr. Hovnanian and Mr.
Kaloosdian, leaving the project in a standstill. The court agreed and
found that that Mr. Hovnanian and Mr. Kaloosdian were not supportive
of Mr. Cafesjian’s vision for the project.

On January 26, the judge ruled that the parties’ agreement reached in
2003 remained in force and accordingly all the properties donated by
Mr. Cafesjian had reverted to CFF as of December 3, according to The
Armenian Reporter.

From: A. Papazian

Domodedovo blast carried out by 20-year-old resident of North Caucasus region

January 29, 2011 – 16:46 AMT 12:46 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net –

The deadly terrorist blast at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport on January
24 was carried out by a resident of the North Caucasus region and was
aimed primarily at foreigners, investigators said on Saturday, January
29.

`It was no accident that the terrorist attack took place in the
international arrivals zone,’ Investigative Committee spokesman
Vladimir Markin said.

`Investigators believe that it was directed against, in the first
place, foreign nationals,’ he added.

He also said that the blast, which killed 35 and injured dozens, was
carried out by a 20-year-old resident of the country’s volatile North
Caucasus region.

`Despite the investigation having established the name of the
terrorist, we will not reveal his name today,’ Markin went on, adding
that investigators were seeking to detain the organizers of the
attack.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, which came
less than 12 months after two female suicide bombers from the North
Caucasus republic of Dagestan attacked the Moscow metro, killing 39.

Markin also said that a number of suspects believed to have been
planning a December 31 attack in the centre of Moscow had now been
taken into custody, while others had been placed on a wanted list.

He also said the suspects had been involved in a December 31 blast at
a hotel room in southeast Moscow. Reports say the blast killed a
would-be suicide bomber who was assembling an explosive device, RIA
Novosti reported.

From: A. Papazian