Author: Andres-Papazian

TIME FOR AZERBAIJAN TO CEASE ITS OCCUPATION OF TERRITORIES BELONGING TO ARMENIA
by Dr. Ara Papian

Bay Area Indymedia

June 13 2012
San Francisco, CA

To ensure stability in the region, prevailing arbitration over occupied
lands must be implemented.

June 8, 2012 — Various ways have been proposed to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict over the years. Lately, on the 5th of June,
2012, a discussion was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington
with the participation of four experts entitled, “Nagorno-Karabagh:
Will the Frozen Conflict Turn Hot?”. It is worth noting, by the way,
the coincidence of the event’s date and content with the attacks
carried out by Azerbaijan on the Republic of Armenia on the night of
the 4th-5th of June. However, let us turn to the actual matter at hand.

Unfortunately, I was not present at that discussion and am not familiar
with its details. Regardless, one point in particular among the issues
raised drew my attention, and I would like to turn to it.

Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council,
Washington, spoke of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through
forceful arbitration. According to news sources, he said, “Mediators
don’t negotiate: both sides – Azerbaijan and Armenia don’t let their
job work. Now, in this case, it’s time to move from mediation to
forceful arbitration” [1].

This idea differs in essence from other ones that have been expressed
with regards to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict until now.

Whereas the basic principle till today was that the parties to the
conflict must themselves arrive at a mutually-acceptable conclusion,
and the mediator states – in this case, the Minks Group and its three
co-chairs – would assist in that process and serve as the guarantors
of the implementation of any agreement, now for the first time the
idea has been expressed of a resolution without the agreement of the
parties, and perhaps even one that could go against their will.

Considering the fact that American foreign policy is customarily
developed first at the level of experts who express the ideas and
get them into circulation, after which, given some circumstances,
they get carried out as real policy, this idea is worth analysing
in some detail, even more so given that the organisation Wayne Merry
represents, the American Foreign Policy Council, has great influence
on new approaches being developed in US policy. Wayne Merry himself
is a seasoned diplomat, with a decades-long career spanning the
State Department and the Department of Defense. It is important to
emphasise that any enforcement – and, in this case, that applies to the
implementation of a forceful arbitration in a war zone – will require
the presence of a large number of “peacekeepers”. It is also clear
that many states would have interest in placing a large number of
“peacekeepers” in Nagorno-Karabakh, that is, on the northern border
of Iran.

Now let us take a look at just how new this innovative-sounding
idea by Wayne Merry is. When it comes down to it, this idea is not
new at all. In principle, the arbitration as a resolution to this
conflict was first adopted by the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920),
and then by the League of Nations that arose from it and followed it
(1920-1946), and, naturally, it was passed on to the legal successor
of the latter, the United Nations.

Diplomats, politicians and other public figures, and experts often
refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as a “frozen conflict”. This
is an absolutely accurate characterisation, but the main mistake is
that many of them measure the “freezing” from the 1990s. That is not
the case at all in reality. The conflict arose from that time when,
in 1918, the Azerbaijani Republic, such an entity being established
for the first time in history, claimed the entirety of the Baku and
Elizavetpol administrative units of the former Russian Empire without
any legal or other basis and without considering the demographics of
either of those territories. Of course, this approach was unacceptable
for the Great Powers at the Paris Peace Conference – the United States,
the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, as the creation of new
states and their frontiers were not to be based on the administrative
divisions of former states, but on the principle of self-determination
of peoples as brought forth by US President Woodrow Wilson.

And so, when during the first London conference of the Paris Peace
Conference (12 February to 10 April, 1920), the issue of the borders
of the Republic of Armenia was once again taken up in detail on the
16th of February [2], it was decided to create a commission “on the
boundaries of a new independent State of Armenia” comprised of one
member each of the Great Powers [3]. Accordingly, the commission was
established on the 21st of February, 1920, with representatives of
the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan [4], which prepared the
“Report and Proposals of the Commission for the Delimitation of the
Boundaries of Armenia” [5] dated the 24th of February, 1920, put on
the agenda for discussion on the 27th of February [6].

The president of that session, the Foreign Secretary of the British
Empire, Lord Curzon, in speaking of the territorial issues between
the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, said that, “the regions of
Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhitchevan were in dispute. The population
there was chiefly Armenian, except for a part which was almost
wholly Tartar” [7]. I find it necessary to stress that this part
does not refer to Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh), nor even
to that territory created out of a part of it later, known as the
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, but to Karabakh itself, which
includes the Karabakh Plains.

This document that expressed the joint view of Britain, France, Italy,
and Japan on the borders in the southern Caucasus, called for a period
of waiting so that the parties would themselves come to an agreement,
only arbitrating on the bondaries in case of a failure of the parties
to do so. “As regards the boundary between the State of Armenia and
Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Commission considers that, it is advisable
for the present to await the results of the agreement, provided for
in the treaties existing between the three Republics, in regard to the
delimitation of their respective frontiers by the States themselves.

In the event of these Republics not arriving at an agreement respecting
their frontiers, resort must be had to arbitration by the League of
Nations, which would appoint an interallied Commission to settle
on the spot the frontiers referred to above, taking into account,
in principle, ethnographical data.”

As is clear from the above, the principle of resolving by
arbitration the issue of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, as well as the
Armenia-Georgia on, was proposed and adopted as early as the 24th of
February, 1920, by this joint document of the Great Powers. Moreover
and most importantly, the principle of delimitation was made clear:
“taking into account, in principle, ethnographical data”. Accordingly,
then, the report had a map annexed to it [8]. According to that
document, taking the demographic make-up of the South Caucasus of 1920
into account, not only was Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh)
considered part of the Republic of Armenia, but so was also a large
part of the Karabakh Plains.

It is also of great importance that this document was included as
well in the Full Report of the Arbitral Award of US President Woodrow
Wilson of the 22nd of November, 1920, as document No. 2 in Annex I,
indicating that the US accepted the arbitration, the arbitral nature
and legality of this document. Those clauses were also included in the
Treaty of Sèvres (of the 10th of August, 1920), as Article 92: “The
frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively will
be determined by direct agreement between the states concerned. In the
either case the States concerned have failed to determine the frontier
by agreement at the date of the decision referred to in Article 89,
the frontier line in question will be determined by the Principal
Allied Powers, who will also provide for its being traced on the spot”.

In sum, one can draw the following conclusion. The proposal by Wayne
Merry to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by arbitration is
completely acceptable and realistic, as it not only expresses the
decision already codified by Britain, France, Italy, and Japan,
but also, which is more important, it is based on as democratic
a principle as “ethnographical data”. Naturally, a basis for the
arbitration can only be found on the ethnographic data of 1920,
because whatever happened since 1920 – the forcible occupation of the
independent republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia by the armed forces
of a foreign state, the 11th Red Army, followed by their annexation
to Soviet Russia in its new veneer of the Soviet Union – was in utter
violation of international law, and, as goes the maxim in international
law, ex injuria jus non oritur – law does not arise from injustice.

Consequently, I believe that the international community and, first
and foremost, the United States must follow up on the proposal by
the American expert Wayne Merry and implement the decision of the
international document that already exists based on the principle of
arbitration; that is, they must compel the Republic of Azerbaijan to
withdraw its forces from the territory that belongs to the Republic of
Armenia – the Karabakh Plains and Nakhichevan (by my rough estimation,
14.000 sq.km and 5.400 sq.km, respectively).

As long as the Republic of Azerbaijan maintains its occupation of not
just 19.400 sq.km of territory of the Republic of Armenia, but also
continues to demonstrate claims towards territory of the Republic of
Armenia currently liberated from Azerbaijani occupation, there will
not be stability in the region.

Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, as well as the United States
of America, must not spare any efforts in implementing their very
decision as soon as possible.

References 1. 2. Documents on British
Foreign Policy 1919-1939, (ed. by R. Butler and J. Bury) First Series,
v. VII, London, 1958, pp. 81-86. Document # 10: Consideration of the
future boundaries of Armenia: decision to appoint an Allied commission
to report thereupon, Feb. 16, 1920.

[hereafter, DBFP] 3. Ibid, p. 86.

4. Ibid, Document #20: Decisions of parts III and IV of the draft
synopsis of the Turkish treaty (political clauses), p. 178.

5. The entire document is available in Arbitral Award of the President
of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson: Full Report of the
Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and
Armenia, Washington, November 22, 1920, (prepared by Ara Papian).

Yerevan, 2011, pp. 98-112.

6. DBFP, Document # 34, p. 280.

7. Ibid, p. 281.

8. The map is kept in the National Archives and Records Administration
and is published in Arbitral Award of the President of the United
States of America Woodrow Wilson: Full Report of the Committee upon
the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia, Washington,
November 22, 1920, (prepared by Ara Papian). Yerevan, 2011, p. 328.

-end-

His Excellency Ara Papian was the Ambassador of Armenia to Canada
(2000-2006). He is currently Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre, whose
mission is to solve regional problems by peaceful means through
International Law.

From: A. Papazian

PARIS MEETING TO BRING NO PEACE IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Vestnik Kavkaza
June 13 2012
Russia

Elmira Tariverdiyeva, Baku. Exclusively to VK

The international society should think about the nearest future of
one of the longest frozen conflicts in the former Soviet space.

Today the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict could move out the relative
stable situation, set the fire of war and damage not only Armenia
and Azerbaijan, but also other interested sides. If we rely on facts,
it is obvious that the Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial conflict has
never been frozen. During 18 years clashes are appearing at the border
of Armenia and Azerbaijan, soldiers of both sides are being killed,
despite the fact that the sides achieved the agreement on seizing
fire in May 1994.

The sides of the conflict suffered losses in early June because
of diversionary attack committed by the Armenian army toward the
Azerbaijani positions in the north-western on June 5. According the
Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan, at 6:30 a.m. the group of Armenian
diversionists, who tried to escape the army’s positions in the village
of Ashagy Askipara, faced fire from the Azerbaijani sides and had
to withdraw. Four Azerbaijani soldiers were killed. According to the
Armenian mass media, the Armenian side suffered losses as well.

Provocations leading to prolonged fire-fights follow visits by
top-official mediators to the region or the negotiations between the
sides. The situation repeated during the talks between Baku and Yerevan
under the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. The same thing took place
during the visit by the State Secretary of the USA, Hillary Clinton.

Ahead of the visit by Clinton to the South Caucasus the situation
became tense once again, which caused various comments and even
suggestions on possible war. The incidents caused serious concerns
of the international organizations involved into the negotiations
on settlement of the conflict and those that do not relate to the
conflict directly. The UN also expressed disappointment connected
with tension of the situation.

NATO, even though it doesn’t participate in settlement of the conflict
around Karabakh, also supported easing the situation, the special envoy
of NATO in the South Caucasus and the Central Asia, James Appathurai,
stated on June 11.

There is no doubt that the provocation was committed by Armenia and
separatist Nagorny Karabakh. Armenia is interested in the status quo,
unlike Baku that tries to change the situation by diplomatic measures.

In reality, Armenia is guilty in the conflict, because the front line
exists only due to the fact that the country has been occupying the
Azerbaijani territories for 20 years. Armenia ignores all urges by
the international society and the UN resolutions on freeing Nagorny
Karabakh’s region and nearby territories.

Official Yerevan is fully responsible for deaths of young Azerbaijani
militaries, the official representative of the Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry, Elman Abdullayev, told Trend. The international society
blames Armenia indirectly and urges Yerevan to withdraw troops from
the occupied territory. However, the international powers do not
hurry to press on Yerevan and set the Azerbaijani territories free.

The conflict is not frozen and it can turn into a big problem any day.

It will lead to complete destabilization of the South Caucasus region.

On June 18 in Paris the meeting between heads of foreign ministers of
Azerbaijan and Armenia, Elmar Mamedyarov and Edvard Nalbandyan, will
take place. However, there is no optimism on the coming meeting between
the conflicting parties. Official Baku insists on development of the
full-scale peacemaking treaty, while Yerevan is not quick to negotiate,
trying to preserve status quo. Yerevan is delaying settlement of the
conflict by rejecting work under the peacemaking treaty, which would be
a first step on the way to deoccupation of the Azerbaijani territories.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA’S PRESIDENT VISITS RF EMBASSY ON DAY OF RUSSIA

ITAR-TASS
June 12, 2012 Tuesday 01:48 PM GMT+4
Russia

Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan visited Russia’s Embassy in Yerevan
on Tuesday and greeted Russia’s Ambassador Vyacheslav Kovalenko and
other diplomats with Russia’s national holiday – Day of Russia.

“Based on the many-centuries friendship between the peoples of our
countries, the Armenia-Russia relations are developing in the trend
of a union cooperation,” reads the greeting address which Sargsyan
sent to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. “The fruitful political
dialogue and the strategic character of the inter-state partnership
let us, due to joint efforts, achieve major results in all directions.”

“Armenia and Russia are united by firm relations of strategic
partnership, specific in the intensive political dialogue, close
mutual cooperation in trade, economic, scientific and technical,
in humanitarian spheres and in inter-regional cooperation,” Sargsyan
said in the greeting.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA: BEFORE AND AFTER DCFTA

Mediamax
June 12 2012
Armenia

In February this year the European Union’s Trade Policy Committee has
unanimously decided to launch negotiations on a Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with Armenia. This agreement will largely
eliminate trade barriers between the two sides, but the precondition
is that Armenia’s economy has to undergo considerable quality changes.

DCFTA talks with the EU will start in June, but a preparatory meeting,
a so called, “zero round” on the subject has already been held in
Brussels.

The Policy Advisor on Trade at the EU Advisory Group to Armenia,
Willem van der Geest explained in an interview to Mediamax and
Banks.am portal, what changes are going to take place in Armenia’s
economy and how long this will take.

– Negotiations are starting between the EU and Armenia on a DCFTA
agreement. How do you evaluate this stage of the negotiations and
what questions are on the agenda?

– It’s absolutely right to say that the DCFTA negotiations are now
starting. In 2009 the European Commission came with a very large fact
finding mission to Armenia. They identified a whole number of areas,
and then 3 areas were taken as key priorities. These were: technical
barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, as well
as intellectual property rights. So the preparation has been going
on for about three years, but on the 3-rd of May the first official,
they call it “zero round” was held, it’s really a preparatory meeting,
during which it’s discussed how these negotiations are done, what
are the areas that will be covered etc.

It took place in Brussels, and the official first round of the
negotiations will take place in the middle of June in Brussels. It’s
too early to evaluate them at this stage. But the start of these
negotiations was very constructive and positive. I think there is a
good understanding between the EU and Armenia.

– During your recent lecture at Russian-Armenian University you said
that these negotiations can last for 3 years or more, depending on
the speed at which Armenia implements economic reforms. There are
actually some reforms taking place in the fields of food security,
taxes and customs, antimonopoly regulation etc. In your opinion,
will Armenia manage to reach the agreement in three years or this
will become a longer story?

– I think that 3 years is a realistic estimate. To say it can be done
shorter is not realistic because there are many areas to be tackled.

But fortunately Armenia already has quite a simple structure of
customs tariffs, so shift will take place relatively easy. It’s not
such a large economy, so in that sense I think 3 years is a realistic
estimate, it’s definitely possible.

– Does this transition suppose more legislative or administrative
changes?

– A number of legislative changes have to take place, some institutions
must become stronger and there has to be good implementation. In some
areas, like, for example food safety, the work has already started: the
government adopted a strategy for food safety in November 2011 and the
work is already going on. In other areas work is still starting. For
example very little has yet been done in the area of trade in services.

So those areas still need to be tackled during the negotiations. And
for some sectors where the changes are quite far reaching, more time
is needed for complying with international standards, so there will
be transition time after DCFTA comes into effect. For example certain
industries will be given 2-3 years after the signing of DCFTA to
comply with those standards.

– It seems that economic reforms in Armenia are taking place slowly.

When we compare economic reforms in Armenia and Georgia, it seems
that although the same reforms are taking place in both countries,
in Georgia they’re taking place much faster than here. What’s your
opinion?

– It’s fair to say that the reforms are going a bit slowly, but it’s
not unusual. If we compare it to when a number of Central and Eastern
European countries joined EU, like Bulgaria and Romania, it also took
quite a number of years to pass the necessary legislative changes,
make the necessary reorganization of the government agencies, so it’s
slow but not unusual.

I don’t really know enough about Georgia to compare, but it’s true
that some reforms were quite swift there, especially in 2004 and 2005.

But there’s a perception from the international observation, that some
of the reforms there have not given the expected results. So sometimes
it’s better to go a bit slower but do it properly rather than do kind
of popular movements and later find out that it doesn’t work. So, as
long as there’s tangible and steady progress, a gradual approach is OK.

– One of the major preconditions for DCFTA is free economic
competitiveness in the internal market and strict regulation of
monopolies. How is this process going to take place? What is Europe’s,
or, perhaps, world’s best practice of stopping monopolies, especially
when, and that’s not a secret in Armenia, many of them are merged
with the authorities?

– Pushing monopolies back is crucial. In every economy, whether it’s
French or German, Armenia or Georgian, there are monopolies. There
are certain monopolies that are called natural monopolies, because
they’re based on the networks, for example, airport, natural gas and
electricity distribution, water, railway etc. They will always stay
throughout the world. The key is that they are regulated. And the
regulation must be such that a new entrepreneur can enter and use
those networks.

– But in Armenia there are dozens of unnatural monopolies. How should
they be dealt with?

– Here the issue of competition policy comes in. Entrepreneurs that
wish to enter into a particular field, for example importing foodstuff,
mobile phones, cars etc., must be sure that they’re not hindered by
existing operators.

In European Union we have the Directorate General for Competition,
which analyzes whether there are instances of price fixing between
colluding groups or unfair competition, and they give major fines.

There’s famous example of Microsoft: European Commission fined
Microsoft for $500 mln, because of the way they were handling their
Internet Explorer. There are cases of even larger fines: Glass
producers in France, Germany and Japan fixed the price amongst them,
which is forbidden. The Commission found the evidence of that price
fixing, it was a cartel, and they gave enormous fines: some [email protected]
bln was to be paid by 3 companies, which were smashed.

So what is important for Armenia is that the State Commission for
Protecting Economic Competition (SCPEC) has sufficient powers to
take those kinds of actions. They must have access to the accounts
of companies that they suspect. For example they must be able to
do surprise inspections. If they find that there is collusion, the
penalty has to be so high, that the lawbreaker will not contemplate
to do it again.

Of course we know that companies will always try to make deals under
the table. This is why the regulator needs to be stronger. And this
is an example of legislative and institutional change that will have
to take place in Armenia to deal with this problem.

We cannot expect all monopolies to disappear overnight. It will take
a long time, because they’re strong and entrenched, maybe through
corruption and bribery they get certain officials or administrations
to help them, so I think that anticorruption drive has to be also part
of these measures. It’s a whole package, it’s not only competition
policy, you need several related measures.

– What will actually change for an average Armenian firm, which is
in trade relations with EU, after Armenia joins the DCFTA? What will
change for EU resident companies, trading with or investing in Armenia
and what will change for an average Armenian citizen?

– Armenian firms in general will have better access to the European
markets. So if they are exporting they’ll find it easier to get into
the European market. If they’re dependent on inputs they import from
Europe, they will find it easier to bring them into the country, so
that will make them more competitive. There is small number of Armenian
companies that are exporting to Europe but virtually every company
is importing from Europe. About half of total imports come from the EU.

What will change for EU resident companies: the DCFTA Chapter that
will deal with services and investment will treat European companies
the same way it treats Armenian national companies. So, they will
find it easier to operate here. It will be more attractive and also
more secure. So there’ll be increase of investment, because of this
change of regulations, which is good for Armenia from the growth
point of view.

It will take time for an average Armenian citizen to feel the change,
because we’re talking about time frame of 5-7 years until the changes
take effect. But in the longer term there’ll be a greater choice
of goods in the markets. Goods will be somewhat cheaper because
there will be less barriers on their entry. Of course the increase
of exports will also lead to greater employment opportunities, so
there will be more jobs.

– Some Armenian businessmen doubt that DCFTA will somehow make it
more difficult to do business in Armenia. What’s your opinion?

– I think that it’s a misunderstanding and we are trying to explain
it. Of course some industries will have to upgrade the quality of
their production in order to get into foreign markets. This is the
globalization; you cannot stay with low standards. People in Armenia
don’t want low standards either. Of course this is a challenge for
many industries, but if they don’t invest they will lose. And this
is why we’re talking about transition period, so we don’t do it
overnight and the industries will have from 2 to 5 years to improve
their technology after the new regulations are adopted.

For example, we say, that we want higher standards for food safety.

This is also demand from ordinary consumers in Armenia, but at the same
time this is a requirement for entering the EU market. So companies
have to invest to meet those standards. There’s no another way.

Ruben Harutyunian talked to Willem van der Geest.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION BLOC HAS FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENTS – EXPERT

news.am
June 13, 2012 | 22:16

YEREVAN. – There is a fundamental disagreement in opposition Armenian
National Congress (ANC) concerning the evaluation of the current
political situation as well as the further plans of the Congress,
expert Ruben Mehrabyan told Armenian News-NEWS.am commenting on the
different announcements made by ANC members, MPs Levon Zurabyan and
Nikol Pashinyan.

“By further plans, I mean both strategic and tactical plans. And
the disagreement between the announcements of Pashinyan and Zurabyan
indicate fundamental misunderstandings,” Mehrabyan said.

From: A. Papazian

INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES PUBLISHED A COLLECTION

ARMENPRESS
13 June, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JUNE 13, ARMENPRESS: Institute of oriental studies of
Armenian National Academy of sciences published collection named
“Modern Eurasia” which includes analytical studies on security issues
and developments of turkey and Iran in 2008-2011. The collection is
foreseen for diplomats, experts, students and readers.

Armenpress was informed from Institute of oriental studies that in
future is planned to increase the studied issues and resources which
will give opportunity to examine and analyze modern processes in
Eurasian context.

The modern history of countries of Middle and Central Asia and study of
internal and external policy for decades has been the important sphere
of research works of Oriental studies’ institute. Great literature has
been created, rich traditions have been formed. Today the Institute
continues to implement comprehensive study of neighbor countries’
modern policy. And in the framework of implemented researches will
be the basis for this collection. Specialists from Armenian other
scientific centers and abroad will present their studies.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA’S MOD HOSTS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

news.am
June 13, 2012 | 10:50

YEREVAN. – The sixth annual conference of the education specialists
of the Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and
Security Studies Institutes kicked off Tuesday at Armenia’s MOD.

This year’s conference, which is entitled “New Students, New Methods
and New Assessments,” aims to hold discussions among the participants
on the approaches in the domain of defense and military education
and training.

The conference has brought together representatives from Armenia,
Albania, Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Georgia, Germany, Kazakhstan,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Mauritania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia,
Montenegro, Ukraine, and the United States.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN AMBASSADORS: “AZERBAIJAN TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VICTIMS ON THE BORDER AS IT DENIED THE MECHANISMS OF THE RESEARCHES”

13.06.12, 10:59

On the last days the leaders of Armenian missions in New-York and
Vienna informed appropriately UN and OSCE member-countries about the
Azerbaijani provocations and diversions on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
border.

The ambassadors noted especially in their announcements:

“In December, 2011 Azerbaijan denied the offer by the personal
representative of the OSCE chairperson to increase the budget for
the making researches on the border accidents. This offer would be
a concrete step to fulfill the agreement which was got by Armenian
and Azerbaijani Presidents during the meeting in March, 2011 in
Sochi. In its announcement Armenian side underlined that Azerbaijan
takes responsibility for the victims on the border as it denied the
mechanisms of the researches.

Unfortunately, Azerbaijani side continues denying the methods of
confidence strengthening, especially the offers by the OSCE and Minsk
Group to keep ceasefire regime, remove the snipers from the border
and fulfill the noted mechanism of researches”.

The announcement also says: “Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs
Edward Nalbandyan condemned strictly the provocation by Azerbaijani
side on June 4 during the joint press-conference with US State
Secretary Hilary Clinton and noted that the tensed situation on
Armenian-Azerbaijani border damages the negotiating process and dangers
the regional security. Azerbaijan is responsible for all the results
of all possible actions”.

From: A. Papazian

DANNY TARKANIAN WINS 4TH DISTRICT OF NEVADA REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

ARMENPRESS
14 June, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JUNE 14, ARMENPRESS: Danny Tarkanian topped eight others
Tuesday night to win Nevada’s 4th district Republican primary,
setting up a general election race with Democratic state Senate
Majority Leader Steven Horsford, reports Armenpress citing Roll Call.

Tarkanian, an attorney and son of legendary basketball coach Jerry
Tarkanian, won with 32 percent of the vote, followed by state Sen.

Barbara Cegavske with 28 percent, bail enforcement agent Kenneth
Wegner with 21 percent and businessman Dan Schwartz with 11 percent.

The new district, added in reapportionment, includes northern Clark
County and six rural counties. It will be an uphill climb for Tarkanian
against Horsford, a close ally of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D). But Republicans believe Horsford, a member of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee’s Majority Makers program, is a
flawed candidate.

Democrats hold a voter registration edge in the district, and President
Barack Obama would have won it with 56 percent in 2008.

From: A. Papazian

‘TURKISH WORLD SHOULD UNITE AS A FIST’

News.Az
Thursday, 14 June 2012 08:16

The Turkish world should be fully prepared for possible renewed war
in Karabakh.

Head of the Turkish World Students Association Ahmet Saglam has
told the statement to Gun.Az while commenting on recent incidents on
the frontline.

“In the last hundred years, Armenian forces killed millions of innocent
Turkish people, and the world community doesn’t want to see it. The
same policy is conducted today in Karabakh.

Every Turkish youth should regard the events in Karabakh as his grief
and respond to it. This should be the main strategy of the Turkish
world. The Turkish world should unite as a fist for Karabakh,”
Saglam said.

He added that Turkish youths should increase their efforts in exposing
Armenia’s aggressive policy.

“A big responsibility falls on Turkish youths in this issue and,
therefore, they should increase their activeness,” Saglam said.

From: A. Papazian