Author: Andres-Papazian

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 0033, Armenia
Tel: (+374 – 10) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 – 10) 52.48.46
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website:

25 May, 2012

On ACNIS Agenda: State-Society Interrelations

Yerevan–As previously reported, the youth school of the Armenian
Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) today held a
lecture on psychological peculiarities of social interactions, with a
presentation by ACNIS analyst, and psychologist Armine Ghazarian. The
seminar covered issues concerning psychological manifestations of
interrelations among state, special services and society, and was
closely linked with the facts derived from the experience.

To note, the Center’s youth school program, entitled `Establishment of
Civil Society and Formation of Constitutional State in Armenia: Key
Issues and New Challenges,’ commenced in 2011. Two dozen
participants–endowed with an analytical bent of mind and expert-level
reasoning skills–attend the program. The seminar-courses will end on
June 15 2012.

——————————————————————-

The Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) is
a leading independent strategic research center located in Yerevan,
Armenia. As an independent, objective institution committed to
conducting professional policy research and analysis, ACNIS strives to
raise the level of public debate and seeks to broaden public
engagement in the public policy process, as well as fostering greater
and more inclusive public knowledge. Founded in 1994, ACNIS is the
institutional initiative of Raffi K. Hovannisian, Armenia’s first
Minister of Foreign Affairs. Over the past fifteen years, ACNIS has
acquired a prominent reputation as a primary source of professional
independent research and analysis covering a wide range of national
and international policy issues.

For further information on the Center call (37410) 52-87-80 or
27-48-18; fax (37410) 52-48-46; email [email protected] or [email protected];
or visit

From: A. Papazian

Eurovision re-opens old wounds in the Caucasus

ISSUE 452

Published on May 1, 2012 by Onnik Krikorian

Azerbaijan’s hosting of the event on 26 May has caused tensions in the
region as Armenia pulls out.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are sworn enemies, locked into a bitter stalemate
over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Around 25,000 people died
and a million were forced to flee their homes by fighting between the two
former Soviet republics in the early 1990s. Lasting peace remains elusive,
despite a ceasefire agreement signed in 1994. Scores of conscripts die each
year in cross-border skirmishes, but recently the conflict has moved to a
new and unlikely battleground – the Eurovision Song Contest.

The kitsch and glitzy music competition has had its fair share of scandals
since its inception in 1956, despite the original intention to draw
countries from the European Broadcast Union (EBU) closer together. However,
the recent inclusion of post-Soviet states has taken national rivalry to
new heights.

Armenia entered Eurovision in 2006, followed by Georgia in 2007 and
Azerbaijan the following year; bitter rivalry between the countries of the
South Caucasus was evident from the outset.

In 2009, in the wake of its August 2008 war with Russia, Georgia pulled out
after its song, apparently mocking President Vladimir Putin, was considered
`too political’.

In 2009, Armenia ruffled Azerbaijani feathers with a promotional video that
featured a statue in the contested Nagorno Karabakh region. This falls
under Armenian control, but is considered sovereign Azerbaijan by the
international community. Forced to drop the video, Armenia defiantly
displayed the offending statue as the main image for its slot during the
international tele-voting, which was broadcast live to millions.

Later the same year, in perhaps the worst incident of petty bickering
between the two countries, 43 Azerbaijanis who voted for Armenia during the
competition were called in for questioning by National Security Service
agents.

No wonder, then, that when Azerbaijan won the competition last year,
earning itself the right to host the event in its capital, Baku, in 2012,
alarm bells rang in Armenia. Given that citizens of either country cannot
visit the other under normal circumstances, additional security guarantees
for Armenia’s delegation were sought from the EBU, which said that it would
not intervene. Armenia formally withdrew from the competition on 7 March.

The problems are not confined to a spat with Armenia. Online activists and
journalists are facing intimidation, detention and imprisonment in
Azerbaijan, prompting international human rights and other organizations to
cast doubts on the country’s suitability to stage Eurovision in the first
place. Both local and international groups have flagged up the forced
eviction of homeowners to construct the Crystal Hall Stadium where
Eurovision will be held.

But some activists disagree. They argue that the international spotlight
may result in much-needed reform and change. For now, however, the omens do
not look good.

From: A. Papazian

GENOCIDE MONUMENT UNVEILED IN ADELAIDE

ARMENPRESS
25 May, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, MAY 25, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian National Committee of
Australia (ANC Australia) has welcomed the unveiling of a Genocide
Memorial Monument in South Australia. The monument dedicated to the
Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides comes after many months of
planning and organising by community leaders, reports Armenpress
citing The Armenian National Committee.

In attendance were over 20 members of both State and Federal
parliament, as well as over 400 members of the community including
ANC Australia representatives from South Australia and Victoria at
an official ceremony to mark the occasion.

The unveiling of the monument comes after both the South Australia
Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly unanimously passed
resolutions recognising the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides
in 2009, recognising and condemning the events of 1915-1923.

ANC Australia Executive Director Vache Kahramanian congratulated the
South Australian Armenian, Greek and Assyrian communities on this
historic event.

“The unveiling of this monument is testament not only to the memory
of the victims of genocide but also to descendants of survivors who
have called Australia home,” Kahramanian said.

“South Australia has played an enormous role during and after the
Armenian genocide by way of humanitarian assistance the people of
that State provided. It is fitting to have such a monument erected.”

A church service was held at St. Dimitrios Greek Othordox Church
followed by the official unveiling at the Mausoleum of Holy Family
in Salisbury Downs.

From: A. Papazian

BOTNET AUTHOR SENTENCED IN ARMENIA
BY NEREA RIAL

New Europe

May 24 2012

A Russian man, Georg Avanesov, who was in command of the botnet,
Bredolab, has been sentenced to four years jail in Armenia.

With this collection of compromised 30 million computers he was
earning £80,000 a month, by renting out access to criminals who
wanted to send out spam, spread malware and fake anti-virus attacks,
and launch DDoS attacks.

It is estimated that Avanesov could send more than 3 billion infected
emails every day according to Sophos, a developer and vendor of
security software and hardware.

Often, attacks designed to recruit new computers into the botnet would
be spammed out, pretending to come from the likes of Facebook, Skype
and Amazon with an attached HTML file. When users clicked the link,
their computers were infected by a compromised third-party website.

According to Graham Cluley, Senior Technology Consultant at Sophos,
the infections took control of users’ PCs, and in some cases stole
passwords and usernames.

From: A. Papazian

HOW TO SLICE THE PIE: REFORMING LEBANON’S ELECTORAL LAW
Maren Milligan

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
May 24 2012

In recent years, nearly every incoming government in Lebanon
has called for comprehensive electoral reform, and with a year
left before the next parliamentary elections, the issue is once
again center-stage. Interior Minister Marwan Charbel proposed a
new law in September calling for fundamental change: replacing the
current majoritarian (or “winner take all”) system with proportional
representation. As June 7 approaches-when the legal window closes on
some reforms-politicians are staking out positions. What will come
of this proposal in the coming weeks? Do leaders’ positions align
with voters’ preferences? And how will recent violence affect debate?

Two issues have paralyzed progress: district size and the electoral
system itself. Given that parliament’s 128 seats are divided among
multi-member districts with multi-confessional slates, district size
is contentious because it determines the confessional demography in
each constituency. Smaller districts (like the smaller administrative
unit, the qada’) are more homogenous in their sectarian identity.

Proposals to shift to larger electoral districts (like the larger
muhafaza) would not change the number of MPs or parliament’s sectarian
balance, but many minority politicians object on the basis that
demographic majorities in larger districts would have the power to
elect minority seats. They argue that MPs elected by voters from
another confession would not be “real” representatives of their
communities but rather “lackeys” of the majority sect.

The second contentious issue is the electoral system. In the current
“block vote” (BV) system, voters are given as many votes as there
are seats; candidates with the highest number of votes win. Because
Lebanon has no pre-printed ballot, the system operates similar to a
party block vote in which voters cast a single vote for a party slate.

Consequently, blocs often sweep seats in a district after winning a
simple majority or a simple plurality. List-proportional representation
(PR), in which parties receive seats proportionate to the number of
votes received (thus ensuring representation for less popular parties),
has repeatedly emerged as an alternative.

In May 2006, a 12-member expert panel known as the Boutros Commission
appointed by former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, proposed a mixed
system with PR at the muhafaza level and majoritarian voting at the
qada’ level. The proposal languished for two years due to the July
War with Israel and the subsequent political crisis and, ultimately,
politicians agreed to return to the 1960 electoral law for the 2009
elections-majoritarian voting in the qada’. Only a few administrative
reforms, such as countrywide same-day voting, were passed. Politicians
rejected introducing pre-printed ballots-unsurprising considering
that varied formatting (font, name order) has been used to track
votes and pressure voters to vote the list “as it is.”

Today, PR is again on the table. Charbel’s law calls for PR on the
basis of 10 to 14 medium sized districts and “open” rather than
“closed” lists: rather than getting only one vote for the entire
list, voters can vote for a list and also cast two “preferential
votes” within the list. When seats are distributed among lists and
confessions, candidates that receive a greater number of preferential
votes are ranked higher. Preferential votes could thus give minorities
greater power to elect their representatives.

Proportional representation has long been an objective of Shi’a
representatives, long before the formation of Hizbullah in the
1980s-and even before Amal’s in the 1970’s. Yet, support for PR has
put the Shi’a political parties at odds with others. Saad Hariri,
leader of the largely Sunni Future Movement, has rejected PR and
placed an insurmountable roadblock to the debate by refusing to
discuss it until Hizbullah disarms. Hariri’s support for the 2008 law
is expected given how Sunni demographic distribution maximizes seat
gain under BV in smaller districts. The clashes in Tariq al-Jadida may
have called greater attention to intra-Sunni dynamics, but the Future
Movement remains the dominant party-and is committed to maintaining
the electoral status quo.

Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Druze Progressive Socialist Party,
has also rejected the Charbel proposal, and instead advocated
single-member districts (by definition, majoritarian)-a shift from
the PSP position in 2005 that advocated a majoritarian system in
multi-member districts. The last time Lebanon had single-member
districts was under the 1953 law, which Jumblatt’s father supported.

Other leaders with geographically concentrated bases-such as
independent Boutros Harb-support single member districts.

Unlike in previous years when leaders united around the qada’, there is
no Christian consensus so far. Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement
(FPM) has expressed support for PR-which could be a quid pro quo
for Hizbullah’s support for the qada’ in 2009. But it might also
reflect Aoun’s confidence that preferential votes of the open list
ballot would allow Christians to control their allocated seats. FPM
has also expressed support for another plan. Through the Maronite
“Bkirki Gathering,” the Free Patriotic Movement joined parties on the
other side of the political divide to express support for majoritarian
voting using two- to three-member districts (even smaller than some
qada’), indicating Christians might be coalescing around this plan.

Meanwhile, the Civil Campaign for Electoral Reform, a civil society
initiative that has spearheaded voter education since 2006, advocates
adoption of PR (at either the national or intermediate district
level) as well as other reforms, like lowering the voting age to 18,
introducing a quota for women, and instituting a pre-printed ballot.

Despite the centrality of the issue-or perhaps because of it-there
has been little examination of the preferences of Lebanese voters. An
October 2011 public opinion survey1 offers some insights: Popular
support for reform is quite high, with 82 percent responding “yes”
and 12 percent “no” to the question “Do you think Lebanon needs a new
electoral law?” Only six percent were “not sure.” When asked “What,
if anything, concerns you most about Lebanon’s current electoral
law?” 45 percent of respondents answered “Electoral System (that is,
majoritarian/PR),” 10 percent responded “Electoral Constituency
(muhafazah/qada’),” and 27 percent responded “Administration”
(lack of a pre-printed ballot, etc).2 This was fairly consistent
among confessions.

Given the centrality of system reform, what is the preferred electoral
system? At 50 percent, a majority of all respondents supported PR.

Unsurprisingly, 64 percent of Shi’a polled support PR. More
surprisingly, a majority of Greek Orthodox polled (53 percent) and
a plurality of Maronites polled (47 percent) support PR. This seems
to align with recent moves by some Christian zu’ama to support PR.

Still, support for majoritarianism within the Greek Orthodox and
Maronite respondents is not to be discounted at 26 percent for each.

The picture among the Sunni and the Druze respondents is less
clear-cut. Only 38 percent of Sunni respondents prioritized electoral
system reform (with 29 percent reporting no concerns with the current
electoral law and 26 percent reporting administrative concerns). A
low priority on changing the current system is understandable given
the way it translates Sunni demography into political power. But when
asked which electoral system was preferred, a plurality (45 percent)
of Sunnis answered PR-18 percent majoritarian, 18 percent Other/Mixed,
14 percent No Preference, and 5 percent Not Sure.

In contrast, Druze respondents prioritized electoral system reform
at the highest rate-59 percent but did not favor PR. The plurality
of Druze respondents (37 percent) answered Other/Mixed and another 33
percent answered majoritarian. The high rate of response for “other”
and “majoritarian” suggests that Jumblatt’s proposal for single-member
districts might be well received.

Despite overwhelming support for electoral reform, these divergent
stances would be difficult to reconcile under the best circumstances.

With the deadline less than two weeks away, escalating political
conflict-including Sunday’s clashes in Tariq al-Jadida-will likely
stymie electoral reform again, making those in favor of the current
system the de facto winners. The great irony of electoral reform is
that it requires those who benefit from the existing law to change it.

However, while changes to the electoral system or constituency size
would prove challenging at this stage, other crucial administrative
reforms prioritized by those polled (such as pre-printed ballots)
could be implemented. By eliminating the tyranny of the list and
protecting secrecy of the ballot, incremental administrative reform
could be an important step forward in comprehensive electoral reform.

Maren Milligan is a visiting assistant professor at Oberlin College
in Ohio.

[1] The poll was conducted by Shibley Telhami, the Sadat Chair for
Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and fielded by
Zogby International. The author is grateful for the support of the
Sadat Chair in this research. It is not yet available online. The
respondents included 500 individuals in Beirut (220), Babdaa (54),
‘Alay (57), Chouf (20), Metn (85), and Tripoli (54) including the
following confessions: Sunni, Shi’a, Druze, Maronite, Greek Orthodox,
Greek Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Protestant and
Minorities. By the law of large numbers, we can be confident in the
conclusions regarding those confessions polled in excess of 30: Sunni,
Shi’a, Maronite, and Greek Orthodox. Since only 27 Druze respondents
were included, conclusions must be qualified. At 19 respondents,
conclusions regarding the Armenian population must be tentative at
best. Due to small numbers, Protestants and Minorities were dropped
from the analysis.

[2] The poll was part of a regional survey and the question regarding
confession asked: “Which best describes you? 1-Muslim-Shi’a 2.

Muslim-Sunni 3. Christian 4. Druze 5. Other (Please specify) 6.

Refuse.” In self-description (in which “refuse” was an option),
respondents consistently identified themselves according to officially
recognized confessions. Confession was a statistically significant
indicator (at the .005 level) of electoral system preference when
multinomial logit analysis was conducted controlling for age, residency
(in/out of a city), education, income, gender and location.

For tables of statistics, go to

From: A. Papazian

DEFENSE MINISTRY CONSIDERS ABANDONING RADAR STATION IN AZERBAIJAN

Gazeta.Ru

May 24 2012
Russia

Russia’s Defense Ministry has expressed discontent over the conditions
of extending a missile defense radar station lease in Gabala,
Azerbaijan, a source in the ministry said on Thursday. Currently
Russia is renting the station for $7 mln per year, Baku wants to
increase this sum dramatically. The alternatives are abandoning the
station or possibly building a new one in Armenia.

“We are confused by the unreasonable leasing price increase with an
indefinite leasing period,” the source said. He added that the annual
price offered by Azerbaijan is equivalent to building two new radar
stations in Russia.

“Moreover, the Gabala station needs renovation, which requires
significant financial investment. Russia’s Defense Ministry is
interested in using the radar station for at least 10-15 years in
order to recoup our investment,” the source said.

“Taking into account all these circumstances, Russia has no other
alternative but to abandon the Gabala radar station,” the source said.

In July 2011, then-Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov held preliminary
talks in Baku about extending the leasing period, but Azerbaijan at
that time only spoke of an insignificant price increase.

According to Igor Korotchenko, head of the Defense Ministry Public
Council, the sharp increase in cost to lease the Gabala radar station
is an unfriendly move by Azerbaijan. “Azerbaijan is forcing Russia to
leave. Paying that much money for the lease would be crazy. However,
there is still a chance that Azerbaijan could correct its position.

Vladimir Putin could meet with Ilham Aliev (the Azerbaijani president)
during one of the CIS meetings and talk about a return to the old
conditions,” the expert says. According to Korotchenko, the sharp
increase of leasing prices comes from the Azerbaijani Defense agency.

“According to one information, it was Azerbaijan’s Defense minister
Safar Abiyev who suggested to increase the leasing cost. He was
motivated by one of the Azeri community members from Moscow,”
Korotchenko claims.

Baku cannot use the Gabala station on its own. The radar station is
part of a missile attack prevention system, its computers are located
in the Moscow region. Ukraine once increased the lease price for its
radar station in Mukachevo. Russia then left the site, now it isn’t
used by anyone, Ukraine cannot use it alone. According to Korotchenko,
Russia might build a new radar station, in addition to the one planned
in the city of Armavir. Moreover, Moscow could accept an offer from
one of Armenia’s government official, who said Russia could use its
territory to build a radar system.

The Gabala radar system provides early warning about possible missile
attacks on Russia from the south (the main threat is Iran). In 2007
Vladimir Putin suggested that Russia and NATO states use the system
together, however the response was that it could not defend NATO
as well as a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech
Republic.

From: A. Papazian

TOWARDS A WORLD WITHOUT NATO: A WORLD WITHOUT WAR AND INJUSTICE IS POSSIBLE
by Luis Gutierrez Esparza

Center for Research on Globalization

May 24 2012

Original in Spanish at: excelsior.com.

opinion&cat=11&idnota= 836055

CHICAGO: The NATO summit ended in this city with an apparent show of
solidarity around President Barack Obama and the U.S. government.

Reflecting the globalization of the formerly intended ‘Atlantic’
alliance, which has become a world police and army in the service
of transnational Washington and its European allies. The event was
attended by special guests such as Jordan, Qatar and Armenia.

In fact, the only agreement was that they agree: not as to the
departure of NATO troops that have occupied Afghanistan for ten years,
as some want to be fast and short, others, gradual, and the U.S.

government prefers a fake response: lets “train” the Afghans with our
troops there, as well as large contingents of mercenaries, members
of private security companies.

Various civil society groups in the U.S. held a counter-event
for ‘Peace and Economic Justice’, on Friday 18 and Saturday 19,
in The People’s Church, attended by organizations from around the
world to witness the emergence of a global movement against war,
militarism, inequality and poverty, which represents the majority of
the inhabitants of the planet.

Poverty, inequality and militarism are forms of violence that
constitute a vicious circle, which must be broken for the survival
of humanity. Each of these evils is fed from by other, all must be
challenged. All three are in NATO, a military alliance linked with
the interests of several of the richest and most powerful nations.

Participants at the counter-summit spoke up to say that one must
“oppose war, embrace peace and demand that imperial compulsion is
replaced by the understanding of our global interdependence and the
flowering of genuine democracy, which in turn will promote a greater
inclusion, equity and justice for all.”

The search for an alternative vision for a more peaceful world
is inextricably linked to economic justice, social justice and
environmental care. Militarism sustains and strengthens national and
international economic systems which are unfair and represents one
of the main obstacles to solving the most pressing world problems.

The increase in military budgets under the pretext of safeguarding
peace is an offense to people who lack the bare minimum to live with
dignity. NATO, which has never been a defensive alliance, has invaded
distant countries such as Afghanistan and Libya, with disastrous
effects, and has been extended to the borders of Russia, causing
the threat of a new nuclear arms race, and intends to go further,
to Africa, East Asia and the Pacific.

Because the United States is the main force in NATO, Latin America
is also threatened by the alliance. And the decision in Chicago to
keep the nuclear option as a valuable resource in case of conflict
affects the future of humanity, its very survival, and the ecosphere.

Military budgets that are increasingly generous and their involved
wars, along with the austerity policies promoted by the G8, channel
more wealth to the 1% overall, and privatization and deterioration
of public services is increasing due to unemployment and a steady
decline in the quality of life of human beings.

Militarism encourages further corporate globalization, seeking control
of natural resources, land and markets, and subverts democracy and
human rights. It is a drive bad for migrant workers, who leave their
countries in search of a better life. It generates huge profits by
selling arms to all stakeholders.

Another world is possible and necessary. One with peace, economic
justice, a new dimension of human security and equality among nations
in opposition to imperial ambitions. NATO tries to avoid it. The
counter-event proposed and promoted it.

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles: http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJANI LOBBYISTS TARGET EU OPINION
BY ANDREW RETTMAN

EU Observer
May 24 2012

BRUSSELS – Azerbaijan beats up journalists, jails political opponents
and bulldozes people’s homes to build shopping malls – according to
the latest resolution by the European Parliament.

It is run “in a manner similar to the feudalism found in Europe during
the Middle Ages … with general agreement among leading families to
divide the spoils” – according to a leaked US embassy cable from 2010.

It is being “consistently persecute[d]” by NGOs Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch in the run-up to Eurovision 2012 this weekend
– according to Ali Hasanov, the head of the Azerbaijan presidential
administration socio-political department.

Hasanov’s public statement earlier this week is a sign of Azerbaijan’s
sensitivity about its international reputation.

With President Ilham Aliyev’s wife personally organising the Eurovision
event and with his daughter recently launching a glossy magazine to
promote Baku, the sensitivity goes right to the top.

It has hired four lobby firms in the US: Bob Lawrence & Associates,
Jefferson Waterman International, Fabiani and Company and Patton Boggs.

In the EU, the pro-Azerbaijani foundation, The European Azerbaijan
Society (Teas), has offices in Berlin, Brussels, London and Paris.

Until Wednesday (23 May), when the International Olympic Committee
said No, Burson-Marsteller in Brussels touted Azerbaijan as a good
place for the 2020 games because of its “Olympic values of respect,
excellence and fair play.”

Boutique PR firm Glocal Communications organises seminars with MEPs
about Azerbaijan’s “geostrategic” importance.

Another pro-Azerbaijani foundation in the EU capital, the Office of
Communication of Azerbaijan (Ocaz) is a mystery: it does not answer
emails and the phone number on its website connects to the Cypriot
EU mission, which is fed up with saying it is not Ocaz.

Meanwhile, in Strasbourg – the seat of the human rights watchdog,
the Council of Europe and the EU parliament’s second home – Azerbaijan
flies council-attached MPs to Baku and gives them expensive presents.

A report out on Thursday by the Berlin-based NGO, the European
Stability Initiative, cites an Azerbaijani official as saying Council
of Europe MPs who go on the trips get “silk carpets, gold and silver
items, drinks, caviar and money. In Baku, a common gift is 2kg of
caviar [worth ~@2,500].”

Zooming in on Brussels, Teas says it is an independent NGO paid for
by ordinary folk in the Azerbaijani diaspora, even though its founder
and head, Tale Heydarov, is the millionaire son of President Alyiev’s
minister for emergency situations, Kemaleddin Heydarov.

Its line on human rights questions is the same as that of the
Azerbaijani EU embassy: that it is a “young” country where democracy
is “a work in progress,” that it is the victim of Armenian propaganda
due to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and that if you visit Baku
you would be amazed at how “modern” it is.

Teas spokesman Leon Cooke, who used to work for Burson-Marsteller,
told EUobserver: “I feel passionately about Azerbaijan. If you were
to see it, you would find it a wonderful place.”

He confirmed that Heydarov’s foundation took an interest in two recent
EU parliament resolutions – on an EU-Armenia treaty and on Azerbaijan
human rights – and that it sometimes invites MEPs to Baku. But he
denied organising any trips in relation to the dossiers.

Whether or not lobbying played a part, the resolutions went through
in unusual circumstances.

Back in April, Lithuanian centre-right MEP, Vytautas Landsbergis,
shortly after returning from Baku, tabled an amendment saying the
EU-Armenia treaty should be linked to “the withdrawal of Armenian
forces from the all [sic] occupied territories of Azerbaijan
surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.”

It was rejected after the chairman of the foreign affairs committee,
German centre-right MEP Elmar Brok, complained that it is
“irresponsible” to interfere in the conflict.

Landsbergis told this website his visit to Baku “did not play a part”
in his initiative. But he declined to say who paid for his trip.

On Tuesday, the centre-right EPP group tabled a resolution condemning
human rights problems in Azerbaijan, while adding sugary language on
“the positive development of the established political dialogue with
the opposition” and Baku’s “efforts to strengthen democracy and rule
of law.”

The EPP’s internal negotiator on the text, Romanian deputy Monica
Macovei, told EUobserver it was pushed through by someone “higher
than me in the group” and that she is “not happy” about it.

The group in a surprise move late on Wednesday binned its text in
favour of a tougher resolution by the Liberals, Greens and Socialists.

From: A. Papazian

PAP DECISION NOT FORMING COALITION WILL IMPACT ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, H KARAPETYAN

Panorama.am
24/05/2012

“I have not heard that Prosperous Armenia Party will not form a
coalition. It was clear that after the elections some changes would
occur in the political field depending on the second political force
decision,” ARF member Hrayr Karapetyan said commenting on PAP decision
not to form a coalition.

According to H Karapetyan PAP decision will indeed have its influence
on Armenia’s domestic political life.

“I cannot make long-term predictions, but this will surely impact
on the decisions of other parties and on the presidential elections,
too” he said.

From: A. Papazian

EXPERT HAILS PROSPEROUS ARMENIA’S REFUSAL TO JOIN COALITION

PanARMENIAN.Net
May 24, 2012 – 16:06 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Prosperous Armenia’s refusal to join the ruling
coalition affects the political situation in the country, political
analyst said.

Dwelling on the party’s decision, Suren Surenyants said, “After all,
we don’t need bogus coalitions. If RPA has gained 70 mandates, why
does it need a coalition?!”

The expert said that he positively assessed Prosperous Armenia’s step
due to the intrigue at presidential elections in 2013.

“An element of competition has emerged, while nobody knows whether
Prosperous Armenia will nominate own presidential candidate or not,”
he said.

“It is still difficult to see Prosperous Armenia as a political force
out of the ruling coalition,” he said, voicing hope for the party’s
decision not to result in pursuit by authorities.

Prosperous Armenia issued a statement, which said the party doesn’t
consider involvement in coalition government formation a reasonable
step.

“We maintained a common position throughout the whole election
campaign. I have repeatedly stated that I pursue no personal goals
other than political. Moreover, I reiterate readiness to suffer a
loss to retain public trust,” Gagik Tsarukyan stated.

According to polling results, Prosperous Armenia garnered about half
a million votes. These people voted for our party, out of faith in
us and the demand for tangible changes in the country’s social and
economic life. Given the election outcomes, Prosperous Armenia has
no constitutional possibility to participate in government formation
and implement its programs. Thus, I declare that our party doesn’t
deem participation in coalition formation reasonable,” the statement
by party leader read.

From: A. Papazian