Author: Andres-Papazian

FREEDOM HOUSE DOWNGRADES KARABAKH DEMOCRACY FOR UNCERTAIN REASONS
Armen Hareyan

HULIQ.com

Jan 14 2011

The Freedom House (FH) report, analyzing the democratic trends of
2011, reveals that the Former Soviet region, with the exception of
Baltic States, is moving toward authoritarian rule of governance.

While Armenia is partially a free country, Azerbaijan is downgraded.

Nagorni Karabakh is downgraded for uncertain reasons as well.

The truth, according to the Freedom House, is that since 2001 the
region as a whole demonstrates continuous decline in political rights
and civil liberties. However, FH estimates show that the whole global
freedom suffered its fifth consecutive year of decline in 2010.

With everything more or less predictable, Nagroni Karabakh’s democratic
downgrade is surprising. As you already might have noticed, the NKR,
first time ever, now is listed in the “not free” group, together
with its former metropolis ~V Azerbaijan. In my opinion, there
is a mixture of causes behind this outcome. But before mentioning
this, I would urge to pay attention to the Report of the Independent
American-Dutch Monitoring Delegation, published after the observation
mission on Karabakh Parliament elections of May 2010. It is important
to highlight the position of the only American observation mission,
in order to understand where the FH got its negative feedback about
Karabakh. The report reads that the elections were held in a “free,
fair and transparent” manner, in line with national legislation and
the international standards of democracy. The report also marked that
“Nagorno Karabakh continues to make strong progress in establishing
and sustaining a healthy and sustainable democracy”. So, if FH put
together all the reports coming from the field, it could not have
resulted in worsening of its status, but just the opposite.

Bearing this in mind, I argue that the FH assessment is more about
putting the indicators of Nagorno Karabakh into some “equation” that
all the other countries pass, without any attachment to the real
political situation and other specifications, effective in Karabakh.

What I want to say, is the following. It’s well known, that the
last year, 2010, elections in NKR were less competitive than in the
previous years, because, as it came, less oppositional candidates
contested in the elections. The result was that only 1, if I am
right, candidate out of the all elected MPs can be labeled as being
oppositional. And naturally, I guess, the FH experts just put this
indicator into their equation and the result came, that there is a
certain decline in the democracy of Karabakh. Those experts and FH,
as a whole, obviously did not have time to dig in deeper and realize,
that in reality the main opposition forces in Karabakh had simply
been unwilling to contest the elections for the reasons they would
know better themselves. Perhaps they had not been ready to effectively
participate in the elections, and simply chose the easiest way in the
political process: to standby the elections, and begin criticizing
the Government and the new Parliament for whatever they criticize,
without minor efforts to engage in the political process.

Instead, in the unrecognized Republic of Nagorno Karabakh certain
democratic improvements in the Electoral Code went into effect before
2010 general elections. The general thresholds for political parties
was lowered from 10 to 6 percent, and for political blocs ~V from
15 to 8 percent, thus increasing the chances for relatively small
political units to effectively contest general elections.

In short, the result indicated in the FH report, is more about
technical problems in FH assessments and their practice of
generalization, than about a real setback in Karabakh democracy.

Still, I am not ready to challenge the impartiality of the FH,
since it’ has been the most established democracy and human rights
monitor in the world, recognized as such by many. I hope they will
soon correct themselves, as the Permanent Representative of NKR in
Washington DC Amb. R.Avetisyan sent them a letter on the matter,
with comprehensive presentation of the political map of Karabakh.

Written by Hovhannes Nikoghosyan: Director and Research Fellow at
Yerevan-based Public Policy Institute ()

From: A. Papazian

AN INVENTED HISTORY FLOGGED ON THE NATION’S GOSSIP PAGES
by ETYEN MAHCUPYAN

Today’s Zaman
Jan 14 2011
Turkey

Last week, every television channel in Turkey was in hot pursuit of
two events in particular, with an effort by the media to unearth as
many gossipy dimensions to these stories as possible.

One of these events was the broadcast of the television series
“MuhteÅ~_em Yuzyıl” (The Magnificent Century), which takes as its
focus the palace and times of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in the
16th century. The other “event” was a statue by sculptor Mehmet Aksoy
named “Ä°nsanlık Abidesi” (Memorial to Humanity), whose construction
began in the city of Kars but was left to stand unfinished for two
years. It became clear last week that the media felt bored by the
almost tortuous meanderings of news concerning the Kurdish issues
and/or the economy. And so it turned to stories about a new TV series
and the unfinished statue in Kars. Needless to say, these pieces of
news spilled over easily into the gossipy, more paparazzi aspects of
the news, and thus also easily tampered with the subconscious of the
Turkish people.

History has never belonged to the “civilian” arena in this country.

When the elite cadres that formed the republican regime decided
to create the “modern citizens” who would complement their own
sense of legitimacy, a new intellectual effort aimed at Turkicizing
Muslims emerged, and all of history was then rewritten through this
perspective. The positivism embraced by this elite cadre viewed
everything connected with religion as a possible ball and chain
and thus began to view the Ottoman world as somehow outside “real
history,” instead treating it as some sort of auxiliary period of
time. In line with this, the Turks were an ethnic group that had come
out of Central Asia, spread across the world and never lost any of
their ethnic characteristics.

As they saw it, the Turks had acted as protectors of Islam and turned
it into a great civilization, but it was their Turkishness that
held precedence above all else. Islam and the general order of the
Ottoman Empire were perceived by this intellectual effort as having
prevented Turkishness, and as they told it, there thus came a point
at which the Turks reared up and were in a sense reborn from their
own ashes. This period of rebirth is expressed in the cleansing of
Anatolia and the clearing out of different ethnicities. There was
no room for non-Muslims amongst the Turks; non-Muslims were seen as
extensions of Christian Westerners, people who had betrayed the Turks
and who received their punishment.

Not only did this version of events, created originally for children,
become standard material for teaching in schools in Turkey, it also
began to be constantly imposed by the media. And so the people of
the nation, almost completely Muslim themselves, reacted in different
degrees to this story according to their own levels of secularity. For
secular citizens who felt close to the state, there was absolutely no
problem whatsoever with this version of events. In fact, if anything,
they might complain it lacked more details. As for the wider society
at hand, which possessed Islamic sensitivities, there was a perception
of this story that split the story itself into two parts: It outright
rejected the judgment of the part of the story related to the Ottoman
period. As Muslims saw it, the nearly flawless systems of justice,
mentality and morality that reigned during that period were rewritten
as having been simply figurative, while the symbolic Sultan Suleiman
was remade as some sort of “sacred carrier.”

At the same time, Muslims also failed to embrace the judgments put
forth by the state’s version of the history of the final period: that
non-Muslims were traitors who had sowed discord, and that whatever
thus happened to them was the natural result of this behavior. In
addition, the Ottomans had still behaved tolerantly, and even in the
final period of the empire, supported them as much as possible.

And thus emerged a society which sought its own identity through a
shared history but which was at the same time separated from reality,
the result of which was that everyone began to pursue their own version
of invented histories. And so what this new TV series “MuhteÅ~_em
Yuzyıl” did was to bring together this splintered fantasy of the
past with the world of paparazzi. Two very different perspectives
on history were combined, and it was a very good thing because what
became immediately clear was just how unhealthy and insufficient each
of these versions really was.

As for the previously referred to piece of news about the unfinished
“Ä°nsanlık Abidesi” statue, it did not provide as wide encompassing
a function as the TV series. The argument surrounding that statue took
place within a narrower circle of people, one primarily concerned with
civil rights. Interestingly, when the topic turns to non-Muslims —
the Armenian issues, for example — the distance separating Muslims
from secularists closes quickly. Basically, there is no question in
most people’s minds that it was really the Armenians who were guilty
and that the Turks acted with high-mindedness and much esteem.

The only reason for the statue to even be in the news lately is that
the government was damaged by words spoken by the prime minister about
the statue itself and the fact that these words were used to try and
portray the government as being opposed to modernity. The real goal
in the presentation of that particular piece of news is to try and
make Muslims appear opposed to statues in general. Outside of that,
no attention is paid to the statue as a symbol of friendship between
the Turkish and Armenian borders, and the fact that it was designed
to be such a symbol.

Turkish society is still stuck in the identity template created for
it by the state. What’s more, an ideologically driven view of history
does very much act as a source of nurture for this sense of identity.

For that reason, politics can only really spread out and take up space
in the world of gossip and paparazzi, and the world of thought cannot
get beyond its basic needs.

From: A. Papazian

HRAPARAK: ARMENIAN SOLDIERS ENTERED MINEFIELD AND RECEIVED SEVERE INJURIES

news.am
Jan 14 2011
Armenia

According to the information at Haraparak daily’s disposal, on December
29, two soldiers of Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army entered a minefield
due to fog and received severe injuries.

NKR Defense Ministry has not yet spread information on the incident.

However, in a conversation with the daily, Spokesman for Defense
Ministry David Karapetyan confirmed the information. According to him,
contract soldiers Mihran Arakelyan and Vahan Margaryan were injured.

At the moment, the soldiers are in the military hospital. According
to some reports, the blast caused amputation. “The health state of
the soldiers is esteemed as mid grave, the soldiers are recovering,”
Karapetyan said.

The Head of Central Military Hospital Mikael Mikaelyan declined to
comment on the incident.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT RATIFIES LAW ON AGREEMENTS WITH UNRECOGNIZED “REPUBLICS”

APA
Jan 14 2011
Azerbaijan

Yerevan – APA. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan ratified amendments
to law on international agreements, APA reports.

According to new amendments, Armenia will be able to sign agreements
with unrecognized “republics”.

Armenian parliament adopted draft amendment on international agreements
on December 17, during the last reading. These amendments consider
securing peace with subjects unrecognized by the international law,
regulation of human rights protection, humanitarian, economic and
financial aid.

Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia Shavarsh Kocharyan noted that
according to the draft law, subjects unrecognized by the international
law may take the floor as a supporter of international agreement. So,
Armenia is intending to ratify agreements and contracts with
separatist “Nagorno Karabakh Republic”. Kocharyan said that Armenia
acts as guarantee of security of “NKR” and proves it to continue the
signing process of bilateral agreements: “Recognition of Karabakh’s
independence is on the agenda and it will be realized in more
appropriate time, when it will be possible to achieve maximum effect”.

From: A. Papazian

HRANT BAGRATYAN: EXTERNAL DEBT SITUATION IN ARMENIA CATASTROPHIC

PanARMENIAN.Net
January 14, 2011 – 17:48 AMT 13:48 GMT

According to Armenian government’s statements, the country’s external
debt will amount to USD 4,2 billion by 2011, which is equal to 400%
of export index.

“The result is highly unsatisfying,” former Prime Minister of Armenia
Hrant Bagratyan told a news conference in Yerevan.

“Actual foreign debt of Armenia comprises around USD 6 million,
as during the default the country becomes responsible for private
debts, including those of commercial banks. Clearly, the situation
is catastrophic,” Bagratyan stressed.

From: A. Papazian

EDWARD NALBANDIAN: OSCE MG ONLY POSSIBLE FORMAT FOR KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT

PanARMENIAN.Net
January 14, 2011 – 17:32 AMT 13:32 GMT

At news conference in Yerevan, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandian characterized OSCE MG as the only possible format for
Karabakh conflict settlement.

“Another format for the conflict settlement will not promote
resolution of the issue, making it even harder. I agree with my
Russian counterpart Segei Lavrov who named the principle of “causing no
further harm” as the essential one in the settlement of the conflict,”
Nalbandian stressed.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: KARABAKH HAS LOTS OF PRECEDENTS TO DRAW UPON, REFERENDUM IN SOUTH SUDAN BEING ONE OF THEM

PanARMENIAN.Net
January 14, 2011 – 18:03 AMT 14:03 GMT

Karabakh has lots of precedents to draw upon, the referendum in South
Sudan being one of them, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian
believes.

“Most of 192 UNO member states can serve as a precedent of people’s
right for self determination. Recent events in South Sudan proved
that the fulfillment of people’s right for self determination cannot
be hampered against the latter’s will or through use of violence or
extermination,” the Foreign Minister told a news conference in Yerevan.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA WILL NOT ALTER POSITION ON NORMALIZATION OF TIES WITH TURKEY

PanARMENIAN.Net
January 14, 2011 – 17:11 AMT 13:11 GMT

Armenia will not alter its position on normalization of ties with
Turkey; we always adhere to our statements. Turkey should be the one to
change its stance, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated.

As he told a news conference in Yerevan, “Turkey has been pursuing
the same policy it did before 2008, before signing the documents in
question. International community expects Turkey to ratify documents
without preconditions and observe agreements, which is essential to
make progress. Armenia has tried its best, it’s now for Turkey to
make the next step,’ Nalbandian emphasized.

From: A. Papazian

EXPERT: ARMENIA CAN GIVE ARMAMENT RESPONSE TO AZERBAIJAN

Aysor.am
Friday,January 14

The threat of Azerbaijan’s use of missile equipment and air force
against Armenia, which formerly gave military advantage to Azerbaijan,
has been neutralized, and the possibility of Azerbaijan’s victory
has been reduced to minimum, military expert David Jamalyan told
reporters in Yerevan.

In his words, Armenia’s arsenal was replenished in late 2010, mostly
with air defense equipment.

“To win a war nowadays it is important to have aviation, air force
and air defense equipment,” Jamalyan said.

The military expert expressed confidence that tension on the front
contact lines will be kept in 2011.

“Minor clashes will occur, with political implications, to ensure
substantiation of Aliyev’s statements,” Jamalyan said adding that
nothing more than violation of ceasefire regime can be expected
since Azerbaijan is not ready for a war and should answer before the
international community.

According to military expert Artsrun Hovhannisyan, last year we clearly
saw that Azerbaijani diversion groups did not have any serious success.

“If Azerbaijan is convinced it is well armed, then Armenia is
sufficiently armed. Armenia can give response to any armament of
Azerbaijan. I don’t think a reasonable leader will make such an
adventure since Azerbaijan has not sufficient quality growth and
level to make war,” Hovhannisyan said.

From: A. Papazian

DISORDERS IN BAKU PASSED UNDER THE SAME SLOGANS AS IN SUMGAIT

Aysor.am
Friday,January 14

Massacres of Armenians started 21 years ago in Baku. Valery Kiporenko,
an investigator of KGB (USSR Committee for State Security), was then
on a mission to Azerbaijani SSR.

Valery Kiporenko, a member of the investigators’ group of USSR
Committee for State Security, worked in Sumgait and Baku for seven
months, in 1990 he was the Senior Investigator of USSR Committee for
State Security Special Department in Kiev Military District.

Analitika.at.ua and PanARMENIAN.Net present an interview with Ukraine’s
Reserve Colonel Valery Kiporenko.

– Please tell about your mission to Azerbaijan.

– Before the collapse of the USSR I served in the Special Department of
Kiev Military District as a Senior Special Investigator, and after the
1988 events in Sumgait an operational investigation group was set up
under the aegis of the Prosecutor General’s Office, with investigators
from the whole Soviet Union. I must say that Ukrainian investigators
made 70-80 percent in the group. Ukrainians have always been diligent,
they often, if we may say so, “closed” serious problems in the USSR.

In Sumgait, we stopped at the Dalga (“Wave”) hotel, we were warned
against going out, local bodies sabotaged our work and did not help us.

According to our information, a week or two before the mass disorders,
several buses arrived in Sumgait with refugees from Yerevan, so-called
“yerazes” (Yerevan-Azerbaijanis). They said that allegedly they had
underwent violence in Yerevan, had been banished from their homes,
etc. Indeed, they had a low income in Yerevan and taking advantage
of the aggravation of the situation in Nagorno Karabakh they decided
to come to the homeland, to get an apartment to spite Armenians. We
had operational reports of USSR Committee for State Security with no
mention of rape or banishment from Yerevan. It was merely a propaganda
campaign, and as a result of it, poor Azerbaijanis hearing it,
having no dwelling and permanent job, formed brigades who inquired
where Armenians lived in Sumgait, robbed their apartments, banished
the owners from their houses, killed them.

When I arrived in Sumgait, the town was completely destroyed; I
remember that filtration was proceeding in the town, and we were
immediately involved in it. Internal troops were brought from the
Rostov region who detained all suspects, gathered them at the stadium,
photographed them until the operational-investigation group arrived,
and only then set them free. I remember my brigade investigate more
than 18 crimes in Sumgait. In particular, there was a criminal band,
with recidivist Edik Grigoryan. The band revealed apartments in
Sumgait where Armenians lived, killed, raped them. The situation
was extremely complicated and absolutely unique, they were the first
serious mass disorders of purely ethnic nature. Ukrainians, Russians,
Belarusians suffered but these were rare cases, only when they were
taken for Armenians.

– Was Grigoryan Armenian?

– Heading the investigation group I personally interrogated Grigoryan
and brought a charge against him, he had an Armenian surname but was
registered as an Azerbaijani. He was born in a problem family, his
mother was Azerbaijani, his father left them when he was a child,
that is why he treated Armenians very negatively. He had several
convictions and though he had an Armenian surname, his attitude just
to people of Armenian nationality was extremely negative.

– Did any Azerbaijanis suffer in the disorders?

– No Azerbaijani suffered in Sumgait disorders, Armenians killed none.

The Armenian people was not ready to resist. Particularly, I remember
an incident with Ohanesyan brothers who lived on the ground floor.

They had been under siege for 2 or 3 hours. Their parents escaped
to the upper floor to their Belarusian neighbors who hid them. The
crowd surrounded their apartment, the brothers were armed with a
pistol belonging to their relative and shot back but eventually the
apartment was set on fire, the brothers were killed in the yard. I
was present at the dissection, they had been beaten so strongly that
their flesh separated from the bones.

For me, the most terrible was the rape of a 16-year-old Armenian girl
in the presence of hundreds of people, they raped them, then burnt,
and the crowd was watching, and no one interceded for her. While she
was an excellent pupil, Sumgait’s “face,” everybody knew her.

– Do you think the massacres were spontaneous or were planned?

– It was an organized action. “Refugees” from Armenia stayed somewhere
close to the House of Culture. They told about “horrors” in Armenia.

We tried to explain to them that nothing of the kind had occurred and
they must not tell such stories. But it was vain. And the criminals
headed just them, they robbed, killed and raped based on the ethnic
principle. Crowds rushed about the town, turned over cars, set cars
on fire, etc.

– How would you describe the massacre against Azerbaijan’s peaceful
Armenian population? Can it be called genocide, especially as Armenians
were persecuted by the ethnic principle?

– Yes, what happened in Sumgait was just genocide because the slogans
voiced by pogrom-makers were: kill Armenians, they took our best
apartments, they are a secondary people, and no Armenian should remain
in Sumgait.

– You were in the epicenter of the events. Tell about other towns
– what happened there. What was the difference between pogroms in
Sumgait and those in Baku or Kirovabad?

– Upon completion of criminal cases in Sumgait where I spent 5 or
6 months those guilty were punished. The very Grigoryan was under
examination, his case was sent to the court and we departed. I don’t
know about other towns of Azerbaijan, our group worked in Sumgait.

Mass disorders broke out in Baku in 1990 under the same slogans of
extermination of Armenians. Troops were brought into Baku.

Non-Azerbaijanis were treated badly in Baku. Once I went to buy bread
but they refused to sell bread to me allegedly because we supported
Armenians. Indeed, we just investigated crimes.

Ferryboats departed to the Caspian Sea from Baku, they took out
Armenians under the pretext of evacuation, but those operations
were headed by Azerbaijan’s nationalist elements, and we failed to
establish whom exactly they took out and what happened to them.

– Taking into consideration everything you told, did the Nagorno
Karabakh people have a choice but self-defense to stay in its land?

– The Nagorno Karabakh people had no other choice but self-defense.

But for troops in Sumgait and Baku, violence would be used against
all Armenians there in order to banish them from the country.

The Armenian people had no other way out, judging by the cruel
treatment of Armenians in Sumgait and Baku.

Every people has a right of self-determination, and if historically
it came that most Armenians lived in Nagorno Karabakh territory, they
have a right of self-determination. Or this territory should have been
redistributed in favor of Armenia as early as in the Soviet period.

– What are your wishes to our readers?

– I would like no one to face crimes on national ground.

Nationalism is a terrible thing, it is inadmissible when crime is
committed only because someone has another nationality. I am deeply
convinced that peoples cannot be bad, only individuals can be bad.

Translated by Maria Simonyan

From: A. Papazian