Author: Andres-Papazian

GOLDEN APRICOT FILM FESTIVAL WINNERS ANNOUNCED

Aysor
July 19 2010
Armenia

The 7th Golden Apricot International Film Festival announced the
winners. The festival closing ceremony was held in the Moscow Cinema
and all films awarded prizes were screened on Sunday.

In the International Feature competition, Golden Apricot for the Best
Feature Film was awarded to the Turkish director Reha Erdem for the
film Kosmos. Silver Apricot Special Prize for Feature Film went to
Sergey Loznitsa for the film My Joy.

In the International Documentary Competition, Golden Apricot for
the Best Documentary Film went to to Pavel Kostomarov for the film
Together. Silver Apricot Special Prize for Documentary Film went to
Vadim Jendreyko for the film The Woman with Five Elephants.

In the Armenian Panorama Competition, Golden Apricot for the Best
Armenian Film was awarded to Arman Yeritsyan and Inna Sahakyan for
the film The Last Tightrope Dancer in Armenia, Silver Apricot Special
Prize for Armenian Film went to Comes Chahbazian for the film Down
Here. Special Mention prize went to Nikolay Davtyan for the film
Uncle Valya.

FPRESCI Jury Award went to Jasmila ŽbaniÄ~G for the film On the Path.

Ecumenical Jury Award went to Suren Babayan for the film Don’t Look
in the Mirror, and the Special Recommendation to Aleksei Popogrebsky
for the film How I Ended This Summer.

Hrant Matevosyan Prize went to Marat Sargsyan for the short film
Lernavan, which also received the Best Short Film Award by the British
Council Armenia.

The closing ceremony was conducted by French-Armenian filmmaker Serge
Avedikian whose film “Barking Island” closed the festival.

From: A. Papazian

NEW US ENVOY TO TURKEY FACES TOUGH CONFIRMATION PROCESS

Hurriyet Daily News
July 19 2010
Turkey

Frank Ricciardone, United States President Barack Obama’s pick as the
new ambassador to Ankara, will appear at a confirmation hearing at the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday to be grilled by several
senators on a number of aspects of the U.S.-Turkish relationship.

“Ambassador Ricciardone’s confirmation process provides members of
the Foreign Relations Committee a rare and vital opportunity at a
pivotal moment in U.S.-Turkey relations to really explore whether the
administration’s seemingly endless willingness to defer to Turkey
– on human rights, regional security, and genocide denial – truly
serves U.S. interests and American values,” said Aram Hamparian,
executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America,
or ANCA, in a weekend statement.

ANCA is the largest and most influential U.S. Armenian group seeking
formal U.S. recognition of supposed World War I-era killings of
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as “genocide.”

ANCA also said it has encouraged “activists to contact their senators
and urge close scrutiny of U.S. policy toward Turkey and the region.”

ANCA’s statement fell short of calling on the senators to reject
Ricciardone, but analysts suggest that the fate of his nomination
may depend on the nature of his remarks Tuesday.

Under U.S. law, all senior administration officials, including
ambassadors, need to be endorsed by the Senate. But even only a single
senator has the right to defer the confirmation process of a senior
administration official indefinitely.

Such rejections are rare, but happen from time to time. For example
in 2007, pro-Armenian Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez put a hold on the
nomination of Richard Hoagland as ambassador to Armenia, accusing him
of denying the “Armenian genocide.” Menendez eventually succeeded in
preventing Hoagland from becoming the U.S. ambassador to Yerevan.

Long Foreign Service career

On July 1 Obama formally nominated Ricciardone, currently U.S. deputy
ambassador to the Afghan capital of Kabul, as his country’s new
ambassador to Ankara.

Ricciardone, a career member of the Foreign Service, has served as
U.S. ambassador to Egypt and the Philippines, and has had two tours
of duty in Turkey, most recently, between 1995 and 1999, as deputy
chief of mission. He speaks Turkish fluently.

His nomination needs to be confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and later by the full Senate. If approved, Ricciardone
would replace the current ambassador to Ankara, Jim Jeffrey. Jeffrey’s
confirmation hearing to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Iraq
will also be held at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday.

Some neo-conservative statesmen and analysts oppose Ricciardone’s
nomination for Ankara, citing objections about his earlier performance
as ambassador to Cairo. For example, Elliott Abrams, a key former
National Security Council member during ex-president George W. Bush’s
presidency, said Ricciardone had failed to support a major democracy
effort made by the U.S. administration in Egypt.

“Especially in 2005 and 2006, Secretary [of State Condoleezza]
Rice and the Bush administration significantly increased American
pressure for greater respect for human rights and progress toward
democracy in Egypt. This of course meant pushing the [Hosni] Mubarak
regime, arguing with it in private, and sometimes criticizing it in
public. In all of this, we in Washington found ambassador Ricciardone
to be without enthusiasm or energy,” Abrams told The Cable, the blog
of the U.S. magazine Foreign Policy.

“Now is not the time for us to have an ambassador in Ankara who is
more interested in serving the interests of the local autocrats and
less interested in serving the interests of his own administration,”
Danielle Pletka, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute,
a neo-conservative think tank in Washington, told the Cable.

It is not clear yet if some Republican senators would object to
Ricciardone’s nomination.

Tuesday’s hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will
be chaired by Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic Party’s
presidential candidate in the 2004 election.

Ricciardone’s nomination comes at a time of heightened tensions
between Turkey and the United States. Washington has been dismayed
by the June opposition of Turkey, a non-permanent member of the U.N.

Security Council, to fresh sanctions on Iran because of the Islamic
Republic’s controversial nuclear program. The United States is also
annoyed by worsening relations between Turkey and Israel.

From: A. Papazian

ISRAEL-TURKEY AXIS TURNED ON ITS HEAD
By Chris Zambelis

Asia Times

July 19 2010
HongKong

For many observers, the long-term implications of Israel’s deadly
May 31 assault against the MV Mavi Marmara, the Turkish flagship that
was part of the Gaza Freedom flotilla, on Israeli-Turkish relations
are unclear.

The attack left eight Turks and one Turkish-American dead and scores
more wounded. The flotilla set off to break Israel’s illegal blockade
of Gaza and to raise global awareness of the suffering endured by
the 1.5 million Palestinians living in what is widely described as
the world’s largest open-air prison.

While acknowledging the growing rift between Israel and Turkey that
began amid Israel’s December 2008 invasion of Gaza, as

evidenced by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s clash with
Israeli President Shimon Peres during a dialogue about Gaza at the
World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2009,
many point to the tradition of strong ties enjoyed by Israel and
Turkey as proof that the current crisis in Israeli-Turkish relations
represents a temporary setback as opposed to a permanent realignment
of the regional order.

Business as usual?

Based on the track record of Israeli-Turkish relations, it would
seem logical to conclude that the confluence of mutual interests will
transcend the bilateral crisis. Israel and Turkey have cultivated a
strategic partnership over the years spanning the political, economic
and military realms.

Although Turkey has announced that it will review its military
relationship with Israel, including current and future arms purchases
of Israeli weapons platforms and other forms of cooperation, the
ongoing spat has not precluded the scheduled delivery of Israeli-made
Heron unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and supporting technology as
part of a US$190 million deal.

A Turkish military delegation arrived in Israel in late June to test
the UAVs following Israel’s decision to recall its military personnel
from Turkey following the diplomatic row. On the trade front, consumer
boycotts by Israelis targeting the Turkish economy and similar moves
by Turks to single out the Israeli economy have already contributed
to a decline in the bilateral trade volume that normally totals around
$3 billion annually.

Thousands of Israeli tourists, for instance, heeded the advice of
their government and canceled planned vacations to Turkey in 2010.

Many Israeli stores have also emptied their shelves of Turkish
products. Likewise, a number of Turkish firms have dropped out of
plans to enter into joint ventures with Israeli companies. A host
of construction and energy projects involving Turkish firms dealing
with Israelis, for instance, have been suspended until further review
or cancelled outright. Despite these actions, there are signs that
business dealings overall between Israel and Turkey will, for the
most part, remain largely unaffected.

Leaked reports of secret talks between Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu and Israeli Industry, Trade, and Labor Minister Benjamin
Ben-Eliezer in Brussels in late June were also interpreted as a sign
that national interests and pragmatism would win out over a continued
deterioration of relations.

Looks can be deceiving Tangible signs of a looming reconciliation
between Israel and Turkey aside, there are also indications that
tensions will continue to degenerate.

Turkey’s recall of its ambassador to Israel and its threat to sever
relations over its refusal to apologize for the deadly raid against
the flotilla and accept an independent international inquiry into the
incident, reflect the extent to which relations have deteriorated,
as do Israeli threats to recognize the Armenian Genocide of 1915
perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks and ramped up efforts among Israel’s
supporters in the US to do the same in Washington – a red line that
cannot be crossed as far as Turkey is concerned. Turkish military and
government officials have also accused Israel of providing support
to militants from Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (the Kurdistan Workers’
Party – PKK) , including during a May 31 attack against a naval base
in Iskandirun that left seven servicemen dead and six more wounded.

The PKK attack occurred just hours before Israel’s assault against
the flotilla. In this context, Israeli support for the PKK would
appear to represent a form of retaliation for Turkish support for the
Palestinians. No evidence has emerged to substantiate Turkish claims
of an Israeli hand behind the PKK attack at Iskandirun. Israel does
maintain close contacts with various factions in Iraqi Kurdistan –
a launching pad for PKK operations against Turkey – where it is known
to have an intelligence presence. Israeli companies also have extensive
business interests in the Iraqi province.

There are also indications that future crises revolving around
flotillas are in the offing, and it is likely that Turks will once
again figure prominently in such efforts. Meanwhile, the Israelis have
called for the formation of an Israeli-led flotilla that would embark
for Turkey to protest over the plight of its ethnic Kurdish community
as well as Ankara’s positions on the Armenian genocide and Northern
Cyprus. The organizers of the Gaza Freedom flotilla are also planning
additional missions to break the siege and deliver humanitarian aid
in the coming months. A number of independent activist groups have
also set off on their own missions to Gaza.

Demise of Israel’s ‘periphery strategy’ Important shifts in the
respective strategic outlooks and societies in Israel and Turkey
also suggest that hostilities in Israeli-Turkish relations will not
go away anytime soon.

A consideration of Israel’s “periphery strategy” is critical to
understanding the current state of Israeli-Turkish ties. The strategy
has served as a guiding principle of Israeli foreign policy since
the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

Israel sought to cultivate formal as well as covert alliances with
non-Arab countries and ethnic and sectarian minorities around its
periphery to outflank the surrounding Arab states hostile to it – in
particular Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan and the Palestinian
national movement – and to counter the influence of pan-Arab
nationalism.

As the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel in 1949, Turkey was an
essential part of the periphery strategy, along with Iran under Reza
Shah Pahlavi, Ethiopia under Haile Selassie, Kurdish nationalists in
Iraq, Maronite Christians and Druze in Lebanon, Christians in southern
Sudan, and Jewish communities across the region.

Given its traditionally pro-Western and staunchly secular orientation,
its status as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), and aspirations of gaining entry into the European Union
(EU), Israel’s ties with Turkey developed into one of the region’s
most dynamic relationships.

The significance of Israeli-Turkish relations increased dramatically
after the Iranian revolution of 1979 toppled the shah. Therein lies
the significance of the rift in Israeli-Turkish relations; Israel’s
attack against the flotilla signaled its abandonment of its strategic
alliance with Turkey. Israel also seemingly went to great lengths to
humiliate Turkey in the process, a reality that will surely not be
forgotten in Ankara anytime soon.

Turkey’s star is rising Much has been said of Turkey’s rise as
a regional power and its improved standing in the greater Islamic
world. Turkey is indeed relishing its position as a symbol resistance
and advocate for the Palestinians in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims
across the Middle East.

Long excluded from the EU and having felt betrayed by its ally
the United States for its backing of Kurdish political aspirations
in Iraqi Kurdistan – a development it saw as setting a dangerous
precedent to be emulated by Kurdish nationalists on its own soil –
an increasingly confident and assertive Turkey has set off on a new
foreign policy course that departs from its prior role as a reliable
and predictable friend of Washington and Brussels.

Elements of political theater are certainly at play in Turkey’s attempt
to fashion itself as a regional leader and champion of the Palestinian
cause. Moreover, despite the noticeable shift in Ankara’s rhetoric
and actions, Turkey remains a valuable and close ally of the United
States and NATO, as well as a committed EU aspirant.

At the same time, buoyed by an increasingly stable domestic political
scene and an expanding economy that continues to trend upward even amid
the global economic downturn, the transformation of Turkish foreign
policy under the leadership of Erdogan’s moderate Islamist-oriented
Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (Justice and Development Party – AKP)
in recent years reflects a fundamental shift in Turkey’s outlook.

Turkey is also asserting itself amid a decline of American power in
the Middle East and beyond and the appearance of a new multi-polarity
characterized by the ascent of regional powers capable of projecting
their influence on the global stage. While it preserves its Western
orientation, Turkey today also openly embraces its Islamic heritage
and Muslim neighbors, including former enemies such as Syria that it
now counts as a strategic partner.

Driven by its philosophy of “zero problems with neighbors”, Turkey,
in essence, sees no contradiction with maintaining a firm foothold in
the West while re-establishing close economic, diplomatic, cultural and
increasingly, military ties, with the countries situated in its former
sphere of imperial influence around its southern and eastern frontiers.

Changes in Turkish society characterized by the growing sense of
collective Muslim identity have also impacted the recalibration of
Turkish foreign policy. The rise of the AKP is a key aspect of this
trend. Popular opinion among Turks tends to reflect a deep-seated
sensitivity to the suffering of the Palestinians living under Israeli
military occupation. As a result, Ankara’s stance on the flotilla
attack and evolving approach to its dealings with Israel and the
Palestinians must also be considered as a product of public opinion;
an important point that should not be discarded considering Turkey’s
democratic landscape.

In contrast to the sclerotic authoritarian regimes such as those in
Egypt and Jordan that meet popular expressions of support for the
Palestinians and other forms of activism with oppression, Turkish
democracy, for all of its flaws, must cater to public opinion. Israel
– increasingly isolated in the Middle East and in the international
arena – may come to rue the day it dumped Turkey. In the strategic
realm, Israel today (and down the line) needs Turkey far more than
the other way around.

Conclusion The crisis in Israeli-Turkish relations is not over. In
fact, it may have just begun. Bilateral ties will continue on multiple
levels, especially in the economic sphere. The United States will
also devote a great deal of effort to help both countries reconcile.

At the same time, the strategic military aspect of the Israeli-Turkish
axis – the most crucial facet of the relationship – has suffered
irreparable damage. As the relationship between the US and China
demonstrates, strong trade ties and other critical links can coexist
alongside serious rifts and disagreements over a host of strategic
military issues.

A regional force in its own right that enjoys seemingly unconditional
support from Washington, Israel has grown accustomed to dealing with
weak and generally compliant neighbors that have allowed it to shape
events in its environment to its advantage. Turkey now appears capable
and intent to steadily challenge this status quo.

Chris Zambelis is an author and researcher with Helios Global, Inc, a
risk management group based in the Washington, DC area. He specializes
in Middle East politics. The views expressed here are the author’s
alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Helios Global, Inc.

From: A. Papazian

‘WORLD MORE INTERESTED IN DEEPENING OF CONFLICT OF WEST WITH IRAN’

news.az
July 19 2010
Azerbaijan

Rasim Musabeyov ‘I think OSCE and the world are more interested in
deepening of the conflict of the West with Iran.

Negative events are not ruled out in July-August’, said political
scientist Rasim Musabeyov commented on whether he considers the talks
with Armenians have been put an end to in Almaty.

‘No, this is not the end since Azerbaijani foreign minister did not say
anything about suspension of talks. He said the Minsk Group co-chairs
will arrive in the region in September.

I think OSCE and the overall world are most concerned with the
deepening of the conflict of the West and Iran. Negative events may
occur in July-August. Superpowers that must promote the solution to
the Karabakh conflict, including Russians, are currently busy with
Iran. Will Americans use our territory in the conflict with Iran?

Russians have their own attitude to this issue, which will have an
impact on their participation in the Karabakh settlement. In the end,
the lands occupied by Armenia are adjacent to Iran.

But even if Almaty had signed a peace agreement, this would have not
meant the withdrawal of Armenian troops immediately on the next day.

I would like to repeat that they haven’t pressed on Armenians leaving
the Karabakh problem in the air. Probably, there are some reasons
for them to do so’.

From: A. Papazian

TSARUKYAN AND ZHUKOV SIGNED A TREATY

Panorama
July 19 2010
Armenia

Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, President of the Russian Olympic
Committee Alexander Zhukov paid working visit to Armenia. President
of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan and PM Tigran Sargsyan hosted the guest.

President of Russian Olympic Committee had a meeting with the President
of Armenian National Olympic Committee Gagik Tsarukyan, ANOC press
service reported.

The sides made agreements on reinforcing the bilateral cooperation,
improving the Olympic process to protect Olympic charter and rights
and legitimacy defined by the laws of both countries.

Gagik Tsarukyan and Alexander Zhukov signed cooperation deal which
came into force since July 17, 2010.

From: A. Papazian

TALKS ON ARMENIA-EU ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT GET UNDERWAY

Panorama
July 19 2010
Armenia

The talks on the Association Agreement between Armenia and the European
Union kicked off today. According to the press office of the Armenian
Foreign Ministry, before the negotiations Armenian Foreign Minister
Edward Nalbandyan met with the EU delegation headed by Gunnar Wiegand,
the director of the European Commission’s Unit for Relations with
Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Central Asia.

The negotiations were opened by the Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan
who noted in his speech that “Our will to deepen cooperation with the
EU was expressed during President Sargsyan’s visit to Brussels in May.”

Edward Nalbandyan also noted that cooperation between Armenia and EU
has essentially progressed in the spheres of foreign policy, political
dialogue, justice, freedoms and security, economy and energy, etc.

He said the “Eastern Partnership” program, the activity of the EU
Advisory group in Armenia, established of dialogue with the EU on
human rights pointed out the readiness of the two parties to bring
the relations on a new qualitative level.

The minister noted that July 6 the Armenia-EU justice, freedoms and
security affairs sub-commission successfully ended its first meeting.

Head of the EU negotiation team Gunnar Wiegand presented the message
of Catherine Ashton on the occasion of launching of the negotiations.

The main document regulating Armenia’s cooperation with the EU –
the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement entered into force July
1999 with 10 year term. According to the corresponding article of
the document, after the time expires the agreement is automatically
prolonged with one-year term. The association agreement will replace
the currently functioning Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. It
will reflect the guidelines of cooperation in economic integration,
free move, energy issues. The agreement will also have cooperation
elements in general foreign and security policy sphere.

The negotiations over the association agreement will take place in
three thematic groups which will negotiate over political dialogue,
foreign and security policy, justice, freedoms as well as economic,
financial, cultural, energy and other spheres.

For organizing the negotiation process Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan signed July 15 an order “About Negotiations over Association
Agreement between the Republic of Armenia and the European Union”,
according to which from the Armenian side the coordinator is Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandyan and the chief negotiator is deputy foreign
minister Karine Ghazinyan.

The head of the justice, freedoms and security affairs task group
will be deputy justice minister Nikolay Arustamyan, the head of
the economic, financial cooperation affairs will be deputy finance
minister Mushegh Tumasyan.

From: A. Papazian

FRANCE-ARMENIA FRIENDSHIP GROUP IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

National Assembly of RA
parliament.am
July 19 2010
Armenia

The delegation of France-Armenia Inter-parliamentary Friendship Group
of the Senate of France led the Chairman of the Group Serge Lagauche
is in Armenia on three-day visit.

On the morning of July 8 the members of the delegation laid flowers
in the Park of the National Assembly at the memorial perpetuating
the memory of the October 27, 1999 crime victims.

The Head of Armenia-France Friendship Group Ara Babloyan, MPs Galust
Sahakyan, Naira Zohrabyan, Heghine Bisharyan, Armen Rustamyan and
Vazgen Karakhanyan met the delegation of Senate in the National
Assembly.

Greeting the guests the Head of Armenia-France Friendship Group Ara
Babloyan emphasized the long-century friendship of the two peoples.

Highly assessing the current level of the Armenian-French multi-lateral
relations, Mr. Babloyan highlighted the further development of the
inter-parliamentary relations and the cooperation in international
structures.

Highlighting the activation of parliamentary diplomacy Mrs. Zohrabyan
noted that it was the important instrument that the official diplomacy
could push forward in parallel the interests and the problems of
bilateral interest. Naira Zohrabyan noted that the experience of
France, one of the countries as EU locomotive, was useful on the
way of the European integration for Armenia and expressed hope that
the mutual visits at parliamentary level could promote the advance
of those values. Touching upon the NK problem Mrs. Zohrabyan highly
assessed the effort of France to solve the conflict through peaceful
negotiations as OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair country.

Heghine Bisharyan noted that the Country of Law party had constantly
been the propagator of the development of the Armenian-French
relations. In the issue of deepening the Armenian-French relations,
Mrs. Bisharyan highlighted the role of the French University in
Armenia, which in its kind and quality distinguishes. Mrs. Bisharyan
also emphasized the role of France as OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair
country in settling the issue of NK conflict in peaceful way.

Armen Rustamyan added that France was one of the countries in the
international instances that firmly stood next to Armenia. In his
word, the Armenian-French relations are not only official, but also
friendly. Mr. Rustamyan noted with satisfaction that France was one
of the first that officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

Highly assessing the Armenian-French relations Galust Sahakyan
highlighted the role of the French culture in the education and
upbringing of the Armenian people. Mr. Sahakyan emphasized the role
of the MPs of France in more deepening and developing the cooperation
between the two countries. Touching upon the involvement of the bill
of the denial of the Genocide on the agenda of the Senate of France
Mr. Sahakyan in that issue expected their assistance.

The members of France-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group thanked
for warm reception and noted that the delegation with that composition
was first time in Armenia.

The Chairman of France-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group of
Senate Serge Lagauche noted that the aim of the visit was to get
familiarized with the problems of Armenia. He expressed wish that
the peoples of the region would build not through force, but through
negotiations, trying to forget the past. He also considered necessary
to more activate the Armenian-French cooperation, emphasizing the
development of the inter-parliamentary relations and the deepening
of cooperation in international organizations.

On the same day the delegation of the Senate of France visited the
memorial of the Armenian Genocide victims at Tsitsernakaberd.

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJAN FAILS THE PROCESS TRYING TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY

Panorama
July 19 2010
Armenia

Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers met in the capital city of
Kazakhstan Almaty on July 17. The mediators also attended the meeting.

The lack of positive assessments on the meeting results indicates that
the sides did not come to an agreement. And to all appearances, the
lack of agreement was caused by Bakuâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance. This
is not merely a supposition, but a conclusion drawn from confrontation
of facts and events preceding and following the meeting.

We had touched upon the issue before the meeting, specifically,
speaking about Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys approaches to the negotiation process
and main elements of conflict resolution.

We had shown clearly that by accepting some of the elements and
rejecting others Official Baku, in essence, rejects them. Thus Baku
uses the whole set of diplomatic instruments to leave responsibility
for process failure on the Armenian side. However, Baku fails to do it,
and it is confirmed by the statements following the meeting. First
we will view mediatorsâ~@~Y statements. OSCE co-chairing countries
Foreign Ministers issued a statement mentioning that international
communityâ~@~Ys attention is focused on Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys policy,
and use of propaganda and diplomatic tricks gave no results since
the mediators committed no mistake.

Thus, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov (as well as a bunch of other state officials and court
experts) for several months had been speaking about â~@~accepting
Madrid Principles with some reservationsâ~@~] enumerating what they
accept and what not. Therefore, the mediators had to remind them of
the danger approaches of the kind pose.

â~@~These elements are developed as a whole, and any attempt
to selectively single out some elements makes balanced resolution
impossible,â~@~] Sergey Lavrov, Bernard Kouchner and James Steinberg
warned when speaking about the well-known 6 elements.

Next, though Official Baku has repeatedly assumed the commitment to
resolve the conflict peacefully, it never ceased to make bellicose
statements and even provoked an armed clash on the contact line in
June, 2010. It did not slip mediatorsâ~@~Y attention, either. However,
they did not call for being restrained, neither they reminded of
sidesâ~@~Y commitments but clearly warned in this connection:

â~@~The current situation is consequence of use of force, and its
recurrence will only lead to sufferings and destructions and will
hand down conflict and hostility to the next generations.â~@~]

And lastly, Azerbaijan had organized a long-lasting
political-informational campaign to misrepresent the conflict essence
and to use international community resources on that basis to solve
the conflict in favor of it.

Particularly, Azerbaijan attempted to show that the conflict is
a territorial argument between Azerbaijan and Armenia disregarding
Nagorno Karabakh populationâ~@~Ys rights. While co-chairing countries
representatives statement indicates that these efforts of Baku were
also vain.

â~@~The heads of co-chairing countries delegations reaffirmed their
support to the sides in the issue of achieving peaceful agreement,
meanwhile mentioned that Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders are most
responsible for ending the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.â~@~]

Pay attention to the fact that they speak not about Armenian and
Azerbaijani authorities but Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders; the
international community has no doubt that no stable and fair problem
resolution is possible without NKR representatives.

Now letâ~@~Ys touch upon the statements of the sides. Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandyanâ~@~Ys assessment is more than clear:

â~@~The pentalateral meeting was useful, though there was no
possibility to issue a pentalateral statement, certainly, because of
Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance.â~@~]

No comments are needed: Armenian Foreign Minister explains lack of
agreement by the opposite sideâ~@~Ys unconstructive stance.

And what is Elmar Mammadyarovâ~@~Ys response?

â~@~Personally, I formed the opinion that Armenia does not wish
progress in the negotiations,â~@~] Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
declared.

At first sight it may seem that it is a mirror statement of blaming
the Armenian side for being unconstructive, however, with a difference
that Elmar Mammadyarovâ~@~Ys statement rather related to his personal
impressions.

If Elmar Mammadyarov were Azerbaijani media correspondent and issued
a statement based on his impressions, perhaps his assessment would be
valuable. However, since he is Minister and personally took part in
the negotiations, his assessments should have been more exact. Since
his statements are not exact, it means he avoids calling things by
their name. Thus, a matter of responsibility is supposed to be here.

To all appearances, Elmar Mammadyarov and his leaders avoid
responsibility for failing the process. Because, if he confesses his
fault in the lack of agreement, he will have to give explanations
not only to the world but also in his own country.

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJANI EMBASSY IN SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC INVESTIGATE INFORMATION ABOUT ACCOMMODATION OF IRAQI ARMENIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF AZERBAIJAN

APA

July 19 2010
Azerbaijan

Baku – APA. Azerbaijani embassy in Syrian Arab Republic sent a letter
of inquire to Iraqi embassy in this country on recent information
about accommodation of Iraqi Armenians in the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan, press service of the Foreign Ministry told APA.

The document from Iraqi embassy in Damascus says that according to the
report-2010 of UNHCFR representation in Syria on condition of refugees
accommodated in Syria report, number of Iraqi refugees registered at
the representation until March 31, 2010 of Armenian origin is 1223.

Moreover, it was in the letter that Iraqi citizens accommodated in
Syria had been located in the Western and Central Europe, as well
as in the North America states. Information about realization of any
operation due to the accommodation of Iraqi refuges in the territories
of Azerbaijan and Armenia has not been shown in the report.

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN FMS’ TALKS GAVE NO PROGRESS IN GARABAGH CONFLICT MATTER

Azerbaijan Business Center
July 19 2010

Baku, Fineko / abc.az. A meeting of ministers of foreign affairs Elmar
Mamedyarov of Azerbaijan and Edward Nalbandian of Armenia failed to
give any progress in the peaceful settlement of Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Garabagh conflict.

Today in Baku Mammadyarov has said that at the ministerial meeting in
Almaty both FMs failed to make progress, despite long negotiations
and good foundation available in the negotiation process, including
the statement made by OSCE Minsk Group co-chair states’ presidents.

“I think negotiations will continue. Sooner or later the economic
development of Azerbaijan will make its contribution. The return of
Azerbaijani lands is only a matter of time, but it depends on how
soon the Armenian leadership will realize that conflict settlement
is in its interests,” Mammadyarov said.

At that, Azerbaijan is in favor of opening of all communications
in the region and the restoration of ties with Armenia. However,
for this, the latter should withdraw its troops from Azerbaijani lands.

“I’d like much we could make progress quickly, but on the other hand
we understand that this is a very sensitive issue,” Mammadyarov said.

He called “ridiculous” the statements by Armenians of the superiority
of the right of nations to self-determination over the two other
fundamental principles of the Helsinki Final Act – territorial
integrity and non-use of force.

From: A. Papazian