Author: Babajanian Karo

Sargsyan warns Azerbaijan: War against Karabakh, Armenia will be “no flashmob”

Karabakh | 14.11.14 | 21:30

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan has warned Azerbaijan against going
to war against Nagorno-Karabakh in the wake of a major incident in the
conflict zone that involved the shooting down of an Armenian military
helicopter by Azeri forces.

On the second day of his working visit to Nagorno-Karabakh, the
supreme commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Armenia attended the
closing of joint military drills of the Armenian and Karabakh military
codenamed Unity-2014. Tens of thousands of troops and a large amount
of military hardware had been engaged in the war games watched by the
Armenian and Karabakh political and military leadership.

Addressing the officers of both armies, President Sargsyan stressed
that there will be “redemption day” for Azerbaijan that he said is
“capable of destroying a helicopter that had found itself in a
difficult situation and did not pose any threat”.

The Mi-24 helicopter that was on a training flight near the frontline
as part of the military exercises was shot down by Azeri troops on
November 12. Three members of the helicopter crew are presumed dead.

In his speech the Armenian president also praised the military for
their good service, saying that their professionalism has made “many
naïve people in Azerbaijan to change their opinion about war.”

“They thought that fighting against Karabakh, Armenia is a short and
pleasant occupation, something like a flashmob when you gather, do
something, take pictures and go away. There will be no flashmob, no
pleasure and no walk in the park. I am sure that there will be no war
as long as there are you, as long as you are strong, as long as you
stand here,” Sargsyan told the army officers.

Charles Aznavour: ‘`I’m a very special character’

Almost 70 years after Edith Piaf made him a global star, Charles
Aznavour tells Jane Shilling why he’ll never feel old

Old hand: Aznavour at the Cannes Film Festival in 1959 Photo: © Rue
des Archives/AGIP

By Jane Shilling

9:00AM GMT 15 Nov 2014

`I can’t see, and I can’t hear,’ says Charles Aznavour. With his
diminutive figure engulfed in a squashy armchair, his face half-hidden
by dark glasses, he seems tetchy and vulnerable. He gave a similar
impression when he arrived on stage at the beginning of his sell-out
concert last June at the Albert Hall. And now I come to think of it,
he began that show ` an amazing tour de force of seductive singing and
nippy dance steps ` with an almost identical line about not being able
to see or hear.

As I sit down he takes off the dark glasses and a metamorphosis takes
place. In an instant he turns from Charles Aznavour, the nonagenarian,
into Charles Aznavour, the legendary entertainer. The dark hair is
white now, but the knobbly features and snapping black eyes are
unmistakably those of his younger self.

At an age when anyone might be expected to take a rest from pushing
the creative frontiers, Aznavour’s schedule is punishing. He has
written more than 1,200 songs, sold more than 100?million records,
appeared in more than 80 films and was voted Time magazine’s
entertainer of the 20th century, edging out Elvis and Bob Dylan. But
here he is in London, publicising his latest CD.

This autumn he tours to the United States, Canada, Moscow, Geneva,
Antwerp ¦ `I’m not touring from one city to another,’ says Aznavour, a
shade apologetically, as though he felt he were slacking. `I do one
city and I go home.’ Home these days is Switzerland, where he lives
with his Swedish-born wife of 47 years, Ulla.

The new album opens with the ballad She, a UK hit in 1974, when it was
the theme song for the television series Seven Faces of Woman, and
again in 1999 when Elvis Costello sang it over the closing credits of
the romcom Notting Hill. It also includes duets with a glittering
line-up of collaborators ` Sting, Liza Minnelli, Celine Dion, Elton
John ` and ends on a high note with Frank Sinatra in Young at Heart,
the only song on the album not written by Aznavour.

`I love duetting with people,’ says Aznavour. `When I work with
someone like Liza Minnelli’ ` with whom he performs the duet Quiet
Love ` `we know each other very well, and between us there is no
surprise anymore. We have the same taste in the songs we sing
together: songs that are much more acting than singing. She does that
beautifully.’ The pair had an affair at the beginning of Minnelli’s
career and, he says affectionately, `She learnt from me. She says that
herself ` or else I would have shut my mouth!’

The running order of the CD ` from the nostalgic Yesterday When I Was
Young via the defiance of a struggling entertainer in It Will Be My
Day, the ferocious You’ve Let Yourself Go, about an unsatisfactory
wife, and the sparklingly amused account of ageing in the final duet
with Sinatra ` gives the compilation the sense of a musical
autobiography.

`When I wrote my first songs,’ Aznavour says in his fluent,
idiosyncratic English, `everyone mistook them and said, `Ah, you are
telling your story.’ It was not true. But after years, I found that
finally ` without knowing it, without trying to ` I had written my
life.’

In retrospect the story of a long life can seem like a narrative fixed
by fate. But the beginnings of Aznavour’s career were chancy in the
extreme. His parents were Armenian: his father, Michael Aznavourian,
grew up in Tbilisi, Georgia; his mother, Knar, came from Izmir. They
married in Turkey, then fled the Armenian genocide, intending to
emigrate to the United States.

Visa problems stranded them in Paris, where Charles was born in 1924 `
a stroke of luck, he reckons: `I’m sure that I wouldn’t have been able
to write in English as well as in French.’ Both parents were
performers: Michael Aznavourian ran a restaurant, La Caucase, but he
was also, his son recalls, `a good singer, singing difficult songs’ `
a tendency that Aznavour would inherit.

Knar Aznavourian was an actress, and although the family struggled
financially (Aznavour makes the gesture of rubbing thumb and fingers
together that signifies `le fric’, or cash) their life was culturally
rich. `I was raised in the understanding of the method of
Stanislavski,’ he recalls, `and knowing everything about the plays of
Chekhov, and poetry ` it’s fantastic to be fluent in different
traditions.’

At nine, Aznavour and his elder sister, Aida, had already begun
training as dancers. He got his first part as a young actor in a
dramatisation of Erich Kästner’s classic, Emil and the Detectives. At
10 he left school (again the `fric’ gesture) and began appearing in
revue as a singer. One day the director asked if he could dance. `I
said yes. He said, `Can you dance with the girls?’ So I put on a tutu.
I was not ashamed. It was my work. For years I tried to find a picture
of myself in my tutu, and when I finally found it, I was so happy.’

By 15, he was singing in the nightclubs of Montparnasse. At 20, he
formed a partnership with the pianist Pierre Roche, and started to
write songs. `I didn’t think it would be very difficult to write one
chorus and two verses.’ His colleagues laughed, `But I came back with
a song for [the singer-songwriter] Georges Ulmer.’ The lyric was J’ai
bu ` a slangy, maudlin love song ` and it was a hit. `We won the prize
for best record of the year. We started very early to win prizes. More
prizes than money.’

That changed in 1946, when the 22-year-old Aznavour was spotted by
Edith Piaf, who invited him to tour with her in the US. `She never
gave me any advice,’ says Aznavour with a sly twinkle. `She gave
advice only to the men she loved. But I knew she loved my way of
writing, and that gave me confidence. And she was very funny ` not
like she is shown in the movies.’

Even after this early success, Aznavour notoriously remarked of
himself: `My shortcomings are my voice, my height, my gestures, my
lack of culture and education, my frankness and my lack of
personality.’ What prompted this brutal self-analysis?

`I wanted to know who I was. Before presenting yourself to the public,
you have to know who you are. Your faults and your abilities ` and
often you should keep the faults, which can be very spectacular, and
avoid some of the good things. Even now, I’m in search of who I am.’

Guest star: Charles Aznavour appeared on `The Muppet Show’ in 1976

The artist and film-maker Jean Cocteau said, `Before Aznavour, despair
was unpopular.’ The tradition of French chanson is notoriously
melancholic, but Aznavour brought gritty street drama to his lyrics
and his performance. `When I write a song, it is as if I write a scene
for a movie,’ he says. `The writing is very precise. If I find one
word difficult, I don’t sleep for nights until I find the right one.’

>From the beginning, he courted controversy: `It started with Après
L’amour,’ a celebration of post-coital bliss, which was banned by
French radio. These days, he says, the lyrics seem so mild that `they
could have been written by Little Lord Fauntleroy!’ What Makes a Man
followed in 1972, a song about the life of a gay man, which his
entourage implored him not to release. But, `I wanted to write what
nobody else was writing. I’m very open, very risky, not afraid of
breaking my career because of one song. I don’t let the public force
me to do what they want me to do. I force them to listen to what I
have done. That’s the only way to progress, and to make the public
progress.’

Ideas, he says, come no more slowly at 90 than they did when he was
young: `I never had many. It was always very difficult.’ To find
inspiration he watches the news, talks to people: `They tell me their
problems, which can be helpful.’ This morning he finished a new song,
about a blind person falling in love. `It’s called De l’ombre à la
lumière ` from the shadow to the light.’

Apart from that, he has a couple of books on the go ` `I write two or
three at the same time: when I am stuck with one I switch to the
other. It’s very convenient.’ And although he reckons his acting
career is over, you never know: `I met Jean-Pierre Mocky recently, who
made my first movie [Les Dragueurs, in 1960], and he said, `I did your
first movie. Will you do your last one with me, too?’ And I said,
Yes!’

The great chansonniers with whom he began his career are almost all
gone now, but `I am very close to the young generation. I am open to
all kinds of music. There are only two kinds, the good and the bad, so
it’s not difficult.’ He has worked with the Belgian singer-songwriter
Stromae, the rapper Kery James and the EBBA award-winning singer Zaz.
`I’m always open to the young generation because when I started it was
so difficult. I’ll never forget that.’

Eighty years after he started his career, skipping about in a tutu, he
brushes away suggestions of retirement: `I’m in retirement right now.
That’s what keeps me young.’ So if he should, in the words of his duet
with Sinatra on Young at Heart, `survive to 105′, what would he be
doing?

`Travel,’ he says. `Travelling is much more important than performing.
To meet other people, to see other cultures ` I’m a curious man.
Curious because I want to learn, and curious because I’m a very
special character.’

The new greatest hits album, Aznavour Sings in English, and a 60-disc
box set of his recordings, are out now

Hurriyet Dailiy News, Turkey
Nov 13 2014

Turkish-Armenian relations need a new game-changer

by Unal Cevikoz

As Turkey prepares itself for the centenary of Gallipoli and chairing
the G-20 summit in 2015, some other forces around the world are
perhaps preparing inconspicuous scenarios to increase the duress on
Turkey to “recognize” the events in 1915 as “genocide.”
Turkish-Armenian relations, as well as Turkey’s bilateral relations
with a number of other countries, will have to go through yet another
test to overcome the 2015-syndrome.

When I think of Turkish-Armenian relations, I am inclined to
characterize it as “history of missed opportunities” that has done
injustice not only to the two nations, the two peoples, the two
countries, but also to the whole Caucasus region. Unless there is
normalization in Turkish-Armenian relations we will have serious
difficulty in talking about an environment of sustainable peace and
stability in the Caucasus.

Looking at the relations between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia, one
can easily observe the complex and interrelated trilateral imbroglio.
On the one hand, Armenia and Azerbaijan are officially at war with one
another. Despite some sporadic clashes, however, the cease-fire since
1994 still holds, pending a peace agreement. On the other hand, having
closed its border with Armenia since April 3, 1993 in order to show
its solidarity with Azerbaijan as a reaction to Armenia’s occupation
of 20 per cent of Azerbaijani territory, Turkey cannot find a way out
through the impasse it has created. Obviously, all of these factors
make Turkish-Armenian, Armenian-Azerbaijani and Turkish-Azerbaijani
relations mutually interlocking.

The two protocols signed in 2009 have been the most important game
changers in this complex equation. First of all, for the first time
since the 1921 Kars Treaty, Turkey and Armenia undersigned two
inter-governmental instruments.

Secondly, Turkey was perceived by Armenia as pursuing a new foreign
policy approach in the Caucasus. Prior to the beginning of the
normalization talks, Armenia could hardly believe that Turkey was
genuinely interested in engaging in the normalization of bilateral
relations, instead thinking Ankara was attempting to diffuse the
initiatives of third countries to recognize Armenia’s interpretation
of history. Now, Turkey is seen by Armenia as being in a serious
commitment to address the issue at its essence. Eventually, the change
in the Armenian perception has engaged Armenia in the negotiations.

Thirdly, normalization talks with Armenia indicated that Turkey was
genuinely interested in opening a new chapter in the Caucasus as well.
Turkey was aware that the normalization of bilateral relations with
Armenia would give a new momentum to other processes and bring about a
new spirit of constructive commitment to multilateral cooperation in
the region. The launching of normalization talks with Armenia,
therefore, aimed at both the progress in Turkish-Armenian relations
and in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks.

Obviously, this calculation was not misguided. Negotiations between
Turkey and Armenia created a positive impetus for the leaders of
Armenia and Azerbaijan to get together at least nine times in
2008-2009. This was unprecedented in the history of the Minsk Process,
which aimed to resolve the protracted Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

After five years, it is hard to believe that there is any substantial
way forward in the development of Turkey’s relations with Armenia
other than the ratification and implementation of the two protocols.
For various reasons, this is not happening. No significant development
has taken place since 2009, except President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s
message on April 23 this year, when he was still prime minister. The
important aspects of that message have to be reiterated. First of all,
it included concepts such as “condolence,” “respect and compassion for
those who lost their lives” and “common pain.” It emphasized
“respecting history with a perspective of just memory” and “building
our past and future together.” Finally, it highlighted a free and
pluralistic environment to discuss the events of 1915 in Turkey. For
Turkey, this message is a revolutionary step in terms of content and
timing. It would be a pity if it was not taken seriously by the
Armenians. The 2015-syndrome, however, hinders taking a positive
conclusion from the message.

No matter what happens and how the two countries get through it,
obviously 2015 is not an end in itself. What is important is how
Turkey and Armenia look at their relations beyond this notorious date.
What they need is a new game changer.

In order to regain its position in the Caucasus as a pro-active
subject of regional politics, Turkey might come forward with a new
initiative to overcome the current impasse. This could be achieved by
opening its border with Armenia to test its impact on the region, on
Turkish-Armenian relations, and on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. One
may simplistically argue that the closed Turkish-Armenian border is a
strong leverage on Armenia to engage in Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks,
suggesting that its opening before the problem is resolved would cause
Armenia to lose enthusiasm and motivation in the peace process. But it
is hard to see how the closed border remains a leverage if it has not
caused Armenia to engage in a committed negotiation with Azerbaijan in
the last 20 years. Equally, the closed border does not give Turkey the
initiative to contribute to the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
problem, but simply sustains Turkey and its closed border with Armenia
as an object of regional politics.

An open border, on the other hand, would become a more influential
leverage compared to a closed one if it really brings significant
gains to Armenia. Turkey, by gradually and incrementally opening the
border, would be in a position to encourage its neighbours to engage
in a new phase of negotiations, perhaps much more positively than
before. Turkey would then look at the progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh
peace process and would be able to transform the Turkish-Armenian
border into a more functional instrument in time.

Turkey, in order to become an honest broker in the Caucasus region,
particularly pertaining to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
problem, has to be equidistant to all actors in the region. Such an
approach would also positively change the Armenian misperception about
Turkey’s will and commitments. It is time for Turkey to show a
respectable presence in the region. Such an assertive attitude would
help Armenia and Azerbaijan follow suit with similar strong
statesmanship.

Today’s Zaman (Turkey)
November 13, 2014 Thursday

Turkey loses Arab world

Turkey loses Arab worldThe perception of Turkey among Arab nations has
taken a dramatic turn for the worse because of the harsh diatribes and
meddlesome policies adopted by shortsighted Turkish leaders. This has
in turn started to take a toll on political relations, with subsequent
adverse impacts on the Turkish economy and a decision by the 22-member
Arab League to revisit its ties with Turkey.

It is amazing how much clout Turkey has lost in the Arab world in a
very short period of time. This is because ideological dreamers —
those who were implicated in unprecedented and massive corruption
scandals and caught in backroom deals with Iran — decided to exploit
Arab sensibilities for domestic political campaigns in Turkey.

Ankara has encountered a string of failures after overplaying its hand
with a hasty entrance into Arab politics. It was blindsided by its own
ideology and lack of comprehensive knowledge, expertise and networks.

President Recep Tayyip ErdoIan, who has finally shown the true colors
of his political Islamist background after consolidating his power in
Turkey, used to be a much sought-after leader by the Arab world, a
fact that even led to a special invitation for ErdoIan to deliver a
speech at the Arab League summit in Khartoum in 2006, the first time
the honor was awarded to the head of the Turkish government. Today he
is seen as a pariah, a spoiler and effectively a persona non grata by
many leaders in Arab countries.

To the detriment of Turkey’s national interests, ErdoIan and his
allies in the government, including Prime Minister Ahmet DavutoIlu,
have succeeded in turning both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two powerhouses
in the Arab League, into a united enemy that is determined to thwart
Turkish overtures not only in the Arab and Muslim world but also in
global politics. The last casualty of this sad picture is the decisive
defeat Turkey experienced in the race to secure a seat on the United
Nations Security Council as a non-permanent member, for which it was
only able to secure 60 votes, as opposed to 150 five years ago.

Now the Arab League is considering sending a stronger message to
Ankara by reviewing the existing agreements and contracts it has with
Turkey. The Arab League and Turkey signed a memorandum of
understanding on the sidelines of the UN summit in New York in
September 2004, an agreement that paved the way for closer
cooperation.

It was in fact Egypt’s lobbying that paved the way for closer
engagement with Turkey, a non-Arab and predominantly Sunni nation.The
agreement was approved in Parliament on April 1, 2009, and published
in the Official Gazette on April 10, 2009.

To further promote ties, the Arab League also opened a representative
office in Ankara and appointed a powerful diplomat, Mohamed El Fatah
Naciri — a Moroccan who had worked closely with the former
secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, for many years — to
lead the delegation in AnkaraNow in a sharp turn, both Saudis and
Egyptians are pushing for the closure of the office in Turkey, which
helped boost ties economically and politically between Turkey and Arab
countries. A final decision on this has not been rendered, but it is
more than likely that it will happen unless Turkey quickly readjusts
its policies to assure Arab nations that it won’t interfere in their
affairs and has no ulterior motives in the Arab world other than a
constructive dialogue that benefits both sides politically and
economically.

As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Egyptian
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has never responded in kind to his
Turkish counterpart, ErdoIan, who has not ceased to bash him at every
occasion he can find, including at the UN General Assembly meeting.

Instead, Egypt sent a stern message to Turkey by realigning its
position on the east Mediterranean, choosing closer cooperation with
the Greek Cypriots and Greece.Egypt is backed by most Gulf nations and
is moving against Turkey in every platform It will be almost
impossible for any Turkish initiative to succeed in the Arab world and
within the 57-member Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Turkey’s Africa opening is also at risk. Egypt has a lot of cards it
has not yet played, such as openly supporting genocide claims about
the 1915 killings of Armenians, limiting Turkey’s engagement in North
Africa or shunning Turkey from involvement in Palestinian affairs.

The time may come to put them into use if, say, Muslim Brotherhood
leaders based in Istanbul start actively stirring up trouble for
Egypt.Many in Turkey, both from academic and state institutions,
believe Turkey’s policies concerning Arab nations in general and Egypt
in particular do not make any sense.

Yet the influence of these academics and bureaucrats on policy-making
decision processes is either very limited or nonexistent because the
policies were determined at the very top by select political Islamists
who leave no room for the input of others, especially if it comes at
the expense of religious zealotry. Ideological convictions drive these
policies rather than a common-sense approach, and therefore the
policies are prone to weaknesses and fallacious reasoning.

Most are designed to generate talking points for Islamists and to
mobilize passionate, core supporters of the ruling Justice and
Development Party (AKP) at election rallies.By intention or design,
political Islamists, with their perceived imperialist ambitions and
grand posturing, are truly jeopardizing Turkey’s national security.

They either do not have a grasp of or do not care about the risks of
alienating Arab allies and partners, whom Ankara desperately needs to
help stabilize Iraq and Syria, both neighbors of Turkey. Surely Turkey
needs the valuable assistance of Arabs in countering Iran’s
destabilizing proxy wars in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia,
which are part of Persian expansionism disguised under the pretexts of
trade, tourism and cultural and religious exchanges.

Turkey’s share in Arab markets is also in peril as political ties
worsen. The trade volume between Turkey and Arab League members was
$25.

7 billion in 2009. After cozying up with these members, it reached a record $47.

5 billion in 2013, according to Turkish government data That
represents 12 percent of Turkey’s overall trade. In the first nine
months of the year, the trade volume has dropped around 6 percent from
$35.

6 billion to $33.6 billion.

The decline in trade must spell trouble for Turkey when combined with
lost business and investment opportunities that would have created
jobs at home.As long as political Islamists — who have effectively
seized power in government and marginalized their one-time coalition
partners of liberals, social democrats and moderate conservatives
within the ruling party — continue to cling to power, there is little
hope that Turkey’s destructive course will be reversed.

Since this path is simply not sustainable for a nation that depends
heavily on trade and investment, skating dangerously on the brink of
total collapse will seal the fate of this adventurist and ideological
bunch of political Islamists.In short, things will get worse in the
short run before they get better, with the inevitability of the ouster
of Islamists from power As domestic and regional dynamics change all
the time, new problems may emerge to hasten their departure from the
political scene, which would be a welcome development for many in
Turkey and abroad.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Germany
November 13, 2014 Thursday 2:58 PM EST

Armenia, Azerbaijan trade accusations after helicopter downing

Yerevan/Moscow

DPA POLITICS Azerbaijan Armenia conflict Armenia, Azerbaijan trade
accusations after helicopter downing Yerevan/Moscow
Armenia and Azerbaijan on Thursday traded
accusations after a military helicopter with three people on board
was shot down over the disputed Nagorny-Karabakh region a day
earlier.

Armenia’s parliamentary speaker, Galust Saakyan, said that all three
crew members were killed when the Mi-24 helicopter gunship was shot
down by Azerbaijan’s armed forces on Wednesday, Interfax reported.

The aircraft belonged to the air force of Nagorny-Karabakh, a
disputed Armenian-controlled territory in southern Azerbaijan. A
spokesman for the Karabakh leadership, David Babayan, told Interfax
that rescuers could not get to the scene because Azerbaijani soldiers
kept firing at them.

The Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan on Thursday reiterated that its
forces had shot down the aircraft after it attacked. The ministry
said that the soldier who fired the hit will be awarded a medal.

Azerbaijan also pointed out that there is a no-fly zone over
Nagorny-Karabakh.

Armenia has said that the aircraft had been unarmed. Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan demonstratively flew to Nagorny-Karabakh to
watch military drills on Thursday. A video showed Sargsyan arriving
by helicopter in the regional capital Stepanakert.

Russia, which has stationed troops in Armenia and is widely seen as a
regional security guarantor, said that it is deeply worried about the
incident. Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich called on
both sides to avoid any steps that could lead to an escalation,
according to Russian news agencies.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE),
which has mediated the conflict since the 1990s, also expressed deep
concern.

OSCE chairman in office, Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter,
appealed to the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia “to do their
utmost to prevent such incidents and to honour the ceasefire regime,”
the organization said.

States News Service
November 13, 2014 Thursday

LAW STUDENTS COMPETE TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON IN ARMENIA,
AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA

NEW YORK, NY

The following information was released by the United Nations Democracy Fund:

An UNDEF-funded project for penal reform in Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia held an essay and presentation competition for law students to
increase awareness of alternatives to imprisonment, reflect on
challenges of existing criminal justice policy,and advance
professional interest in building a probation system, currently
non-existent in Armenia, Azerbaijan. The contest asked participants to
think about new approaches to working for greater use of community
service and other options, demonstrate critical thinking on the low
application of alternatives to imprisonment, and provide reasonable
arguments to enable lobbying of the ideas before governmental bodies.

The competition judges included representatives of the Council of
Europe, the Ministry of Justice of Armenia, the International
Federation for Human Rights, the National Probation Agency of Georgia,
the Georgian Center for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of
Torture Victims, as well as human rights lawyers and academics from
leading universities, and the award ceremonies took place in Yerevan
and Tbilisi in October 2014. The goal of the overall project is to
promote the effective use of non-custodial and early release measures
to challenge the overuse of imprisonment, help decrease in the prison
population and build proportionate responses to crime. The project
works to help develop a probation system in Armenia and Azerbaijan —
including through capacity-building and lessons learned from Georgia,
which does have a probation service.Penal Reform International South
Caucacus is implementing the project in partnership with the Civil
Society Institute of Armenia and the Human Rights Center of
Azerbaijan.

WASHINGTON COMMITTED TO ASSISTING SIDES TO NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Nov 14 2014

14 November 2014, 11:52 (GMT+04:00)

The United States, as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, certainly
remains committed to helping both sides in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, the U.S. Department of State Spokesperson Jen Psaki told
reporters.

She was commenting on a question regarding the Armenian military
helicopter downed by the Azerbaijani armed forces, the US Department
of State said.

“Obviously, we are engaged through diplomatic channels with both sides
about our belief that they need to redouble efforts to get back to
a peaceful negotiation,” Psaki said.

She added that retaliation, further violence, escalating tensions
certainly don’t help that effort.

Azerbaijani armed forces shot down a MI-24 military helicopter
belonging to the Armenian army and averted the enemy’s deliberate
attack on November 12. This was the first major incident in
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone since early August, when an
unprecedented exchange of fire claimed lives on both sides.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of
the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied 20 percent of
Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding
districts. The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994.

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the US are
currently holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented four UN Security Council resolutions
on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions.

INCIDENT WITH ARMENIAN HELICOPTER: INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS’ DANGEROUS FORMULATIONS

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Nov 14 2014

14 November 2014, 10:36 (GMT+04:00)

By Elmira Tariverdiyeva

Immediately after the incident with a military helicopter of the
Armenian armed forces shot down by the Azerbaijani servicemen in the
airspace of Azerbaijan, the international observers and the media
started assessing the incident.

Some talk about the need to investigate the incident, others simply
report about the helicopter flying over the territory of Azerbaijan’s
breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to some media reports,
this incident is a flagrant violation of international law by the
Armenian servicemen. The Armenian side threatens retaliation against
Azerbaijan for this incident and says that it was a training flight.

However it is time to dot “i’s” and make out the formulations.

No one denies that the helicopter was in the air space in the zone
of a contact line between Azerbaijani and Armenian troops. Everyone
essentially recognizes that the Azerbaijani armed forces shot down
a military helicopter in their own airspace.

All flights over onshore and offshore areas of a country, including
its territorial waters, can be made only after obviously expressed
consent of a country. Taking into account that the Nagorno-Karabakh
is the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan and the
airspace above it is the airspace of Azerbaijan, it becomes unclear
what exactly must be investigated in this incident.

Under international law, military aircraft (plane or helicopter)
must comply with the laws and regulations of the foreign state on
a reciprocal basis while in the airspace of that state or on its
territory. If military aircraft commits an unlawful act which clearly
has the character of aggression, the state establishes this fact and
has the right to take necessary measures for self-defense.

Regarding the incident with the Armenian helicopter that entered the
airspace over the occupied territories of Azerbaijan that have been
offically closed for many years by Baku, what were Azerbaijani armed
forces supposed to do, after establishing a flagrant violation of
international law? And who would have acted differently? Are there
any cases in the history when the military aircrafts crossed the
airspace of another country with impunity?

One Western official, quoted by the authoritative British newspaper
Financial Times, said that in 2014 there were over 100 declarations
of military alarm when NATO launched its fighters because of the
actions of Russia near the airspace of the Alliance, which is three
times more than during the whole 2013 year. This means that with a
slightest suspicion of violation of the airspace, the Alliance did
not hesitate to launch its war fighters, whose goals were obvious
– protection of the air sovereignty of NATO at any cost. In this
case, the open warning of the Alliance about the inadmissibility of
penetration into the airspace for some reason did not cause a stir
among other international organizations.

Given the above, I would like to call upon all the international
organizations, colleagues – reporters and ordinary citizens to look
at things realistically and recognize the right of Baku to protect
its own airspace and territory by any means.

ISIL MOST ACUTE CHALLENGE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA: US ENVOY

Hurriyet Daily news, Turkey
Nov 14 2014

Serkan DemirtaÃ…~_ANKARA

The jihadist threat is the key issue facing the US and Turkey, John
Bass says, stressing the importance of relations between Ankara
and Washington

The Turkey-US relationship ‘is one of our most important partnerships
in the world,’ US ambassador to Ankara John Bass tells Hurriyet.

HURRİYET photo, Rıza OZEL

The United States regards the threat posed by the extremist jihadists
in both Iraq and Syria as the most “acute” challenge and is focusing
its efforts on defeating them, the new American envoy to Ankara has
told the Hurriyet Daily News, stressing the importance of supporting
the “moderate Syrian opposition.”

“We believe the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL]. is the
most acute challenge we face in Syria and Iraq today, and that’s where
we are focusing much of our effort, but we are also continuing to work
very closely with the Turkish government to support the moderate Syrian
opposition, to enable them to continue defending their homes, and to
continue to press the case on the ground with that goal of a negotiated
political settlement down the road,” U.S. Ambassador to Turkey John
Bass said, in his first interview since he begun to serve in Ankara.

Here are some excerpts from the interview:

How would you categorize the current state of the relationship between
Turkey and the U.S.?

This is one of our most important partnerships and important
relationships in the world. For many different reasons, but I think
very importantly, because it is a partnership that is based on a
foundation of 60 years of shared interests and shared values. As the
U.S. ambassador, I am in some respects the steward of our side of
that relationship here in Turkey, in making sure that both capitals
understand each other’s perspective, understand those places where
maybe we have a difference of view about the scope of a problem or
how best to approach a problem, and that we try to resolve those
differences and make sure we can move forward.

This is your vision, but there are also realities that tell another
story. The two countries have different visions on a number of issues.

I think there are more things we have in common than there are things
that we see differently or on which we act differently. We share
a common perspective with respect to the situation in Syria. Both
governments believe there is no military solution to this conflict.

Both governments are committed to a political process based on the
principles in the Geneva Communique in which there is a future
government in Syria that doesn’t include Bashar al-Assad. Both
governments are committed to working together, and with other partners,
to make that a reality. At the same point in time, we have a big
immediate challenge posed by this terrible extremist organization
ISIL. We are very focused right now on ensuring that ISIL and its
terrible actions in Syria and Iraq do not further destabilize Iraq
and do not further complicate the situation to a point where we’ll
have an even more difficult challenge to reach that shared vision of
a future outcome in Syria.

This is a shortened version of the interview. Click here for the
full version.

You said ‘We support the opposition of Syria’. According to you, the
Democratic Union Party [PYD] is a part of the opposition in Syria,
but according to our government, the PYD is a terrorist organization.

Isn’t that a problem? President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was also quite
angry with your help to the PYD and he expressed his feelings many
times. What do you think about this?

Well, as I said, we are very focused on addressing the acute, very
urgent challenge posed by ISIL in Syria. In that context, we are
providing assistance to a range of groups within in Syria, first
and foremost the Free Syrian Army, but also in a couple of specific
instances Kurdish groups that are actively involved in fighting ISIL.

It is important not to overdraw a conclusion about the limited amount
of support specifically focused on an acute military threat to some
very specific territory in Syria. It is important not to overdraw
a conclusion about what that limited support means in terms of our
overall perspective on the PYD. We believe it is very important for
the PYD to cooperate with other organizations inside Syria and to
actively focus, as other organizations inside Syria are, on the main
problem with respect to Syria’s long term stability, and that is the
al-Assad regime.

What other military or political demands has Washington been asking
from Turkey and to what level, to what extent, do you think they are
going to be met?

Both governments are engaged in ongoing conversations about all aspects
of our efforts through the coalition. Firstly, to reduce the amount
of space that ISIL has to operate in; secondly, to address some of
the capacity challenges that currently exist in the Iraqi security
forces and within the landscape in Syria; thirdly, to address the
ongoing challenges from the enormous refugee outflows from Syria and
those Syrians who have been displaced within Syria, as well as to
try to deal with the phenomenon of propaganda that ISIL and these
extremist groups are using to recruit additional fighters and to
suggest that their vision of an extremist, violent space is a place
that is perversely exciting and attractive and a place people would
want to actually come to. So, we are talking about all of these pieces.

Do you think the city of Kobane is more important than other Syrian
cities like Tel Abyad or Aleppo. Why were you so much more interested
in Kobane than others places?

This gets back to the notion of the question, “What is the main
priority in Syria at this moment in time?” For us, as you have seen
General Austin explain and some of our colleagues in Washington
explain, Kobane became important because of the amount of attention
and resources that ISIL was contributing to try to capture that
town, which is yet another border crossing with Turkey. Our initial
objective in our effort to address the problem created by ISIL is
to prevent their ability to continue to expand the territory they
control, the possible resources at their disposal from that area and
a sense of momentum that they are continuing to grow and expand. It
is important to see our support for the Syrian opposition elements
in Kobane, because there are a range of Syrian groups now in Kobane
fighting against ISIL. It is important to see our support for those
elements within the context of that particular objective. We are also
very concerned about the situation in and around Aleppo.

Do you share the opinion that Kobane is important for the Kurdish
peace process?

I would just say that we continue to believe the process is very
important, we would like to see it continue and yield positive
results, even as we continue to support Turkey’s right to defend
itself against terrorism.

What do you think of the incident in Istanbul in which three American
soldiers were attacked?

Obviously I wasn’t pleased to see it, I don’t think anyone who
appreciates the breadth and depth of the U.S. commitment to Turkish
security and Turkish society was pleased to see it. It is certainly
not in keeping with the experiences of many of us with respect to
Turkish hospitality and the deep traditions of hospitality in this
culture. You know, I regret that those three sailors who may have
been experiencing this country for the first time are now left with
the impression that it is a place that is unwelcoming for Americans.

On the Kurdish peace process, there are reports that the U.S. has
plans to be what they called “the third eye” of the process. Does the
U.S. have this kind of intention to be an active partner mediating
between the Turkish government and the Kurds?

This process is a domestic process. It is a matter for Turks to
resolve. I would say it is important, with full respect to both you
and your organizations, to be a critical and sometimes skeptical
reader of some of the things you might see in the press and some of
the comments people might make to the press.

There are campaigns carried out in Washington for the removal of the
[outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party] PKK from the terrorist list. What
is the current position of the United States with regard to this
campaign?

The current position of the United States is that the PKK is a foreign
terrorist organization designated under our legislation. I am not
aware of any thought or plan within the U.S. government to consider
changing that designation.

Before your arrival in Turkey, at your hearing at the Senate, you were
forced to admit that the government in Turkey is “drifting toward
authoritarianism.” How does it make you feel to serve in a country
that is drifting towards authoritarianism?

My comments in that moment were consistent with what you have seen
from the United States in our annual Human Rights Report, in our
annual Religious Freedoms Report, in the other places where we talk
about what we see happening in other societies against that goal that
we all aspire to, of those full protections of those universal values.

And it is going to be a part of an ongoing conversation between our
two governments and two societies certainly during my tenure, and I
would expect in the years following my tenure.

What do you think of our new presidential palace, which is bigger
than White House?

Well, the White House is, I think on the scale of presidential
residences and operational complexes around the world, it’s toward
the smaller end of the spectrum, so I don’t know whether that’s the
right benchmark.

Have you been to the palace?

I was there briefly on Cumhuriyet Bayramı [Republic Day] and saw a
couple of the rooms. It’s a fairly expansive facility.

Did it make you feel like you were in an authoritarian atmosphere?

That’s not the way I would describe it. I think it is important that
the conversation about the residence is able to occur in society and
that it’s a topic of discussion within the media and across society.

And ultimately, from my perspective, it’s much less important what
I think about the complex and much more important what Turks think
about the complex and what you collectively decide is the appropriate
scale and purpose for a facility like that.

To what extent is Turkey’s much-criticized democratization process
and related issues in making your agenda in dealing your counterparts
in Turkey now?

Promotion of democratic values, adherence to universal values,
conversations about how those basic freedoms and rights are respected
and applied in societies are part of every U.S. ambassador’s
responsibilities and duties in the countries to which they are
assigned … And so, I fully expect throughout my tenure that I
will be discussing with many people in this society, inside and
outside government, their perspective on Turkey’s ongoing democratic
development, just as I expect them to have questions for me and
perspective about the ongoing efforts in our own society to further
refine our own democratic culture. And I fully expect that as specific
incidents that really concern us arise, I will be focusing on those
and working on those with folks in government and outside government.

Ambassador, is the U.S. going to recognize the Armenian massacres of
1915 as genocide in 2015?

What I would say about that today is that we have been quite clear as
a government about our views on the circumstances and the events that
transpired in this horrible tragedy beginning in 1915, as you see from
our statements this past year on Armenian Remembrance Day and in prior
years. We continue to believe that a full and frank acknowledgement
of the facts behind those horrible events and this terrible set of
massacres and tragedies that occurred is in the interest of both Turkey
and Armenia, and important to building the kind of the relationship
going forward between the two countries that we believe is in the
interest of both countries and in the end, our shared interest with
Turkey and building and strengthening stability in this region.

Has the Turkish government issued a demand for the deportation of
Fethullah Gulen?

With respect to Mr. Gulen, we have a very rigorous process around
deportations from the United States that is grounded in our laws
and administered by a specific legal process under the Department
of Justice. We don’t, as a matter of policy, comment on individual
deportation cases if they are occurring, but I can assure you that any
deportation proceeding that we initiated would start after a careful
consideration of facts and clear evidence of violations of U.S. law.

You mean it’s not a political issue? It’s about a person’s situation
in the country?

As I said, we have a very clear legislative basis and a legal framework
that governs deportations and that with respect to any deportation
request that is initiated by a foreign government or that comes to
light based on evidence that we find internally in the U.S.

as a function of violations of our law, then we have a process that
goes from there. And that’s the governing mechanism within U.S.

legislation.

Is there any official appeal from the Turkish side? Have you received
anything?

If there were a deportation process initiated, that would be public
record.

November/14/2014

EUROPEAN QUALIFYING: CRISTIANO RONALDO SETS NEW RECORD AS PORTUGAL BEAT ARMENIA 1-0

Sky Sports
Nov 14 2014

Last Updated: 14/11/14 10:33pm

Cristiano Ronaldo became the record goalscorer in European Championship
football as Portugal beat Armenia 1-0 in Faro.

The Real Madrid forward took his tally in qualifying and tournament
matches to 23, passing Dane Jon Dahl Tomasson’s total with a
close-range finish on 71 minutes.

The victory sees Fernando Santos’s side get their Group I campaign
back on track to move a point behind Denmark, who won 3-1 in Serbia,
but have played one match more.

Portugal suffered a shock defeat against Albania in Aveiro in their
opening qualifier but recovered to beat Denmark 1-0 away and as
expected made a positive start on Friday night at the Estadio Algarve,
with Ronaldo the main focal point.

Armenia, though, remained dangerous on the break and were away
quickly after the Real Madrid forward had gone down in the box,
but the referee waved away half-hearted penalty appeals.

Metalurh Donetsk midfielder Karlen Lazarian scampered away down the
left, before he was upended by Ricardo Carvalho, which earned the
Portugal defender a yellow card.

The resulting free-kick was well struck by Lazarian, and as the end
of the wall parted, goalkeeper Rui Patricio scrambled across the claw
the ball away.

Portugal had plenty of the ball, but were unable to really open up
a well-drilled Armenia defence.

Just before half-time, Helder Postiga shot wide from 12 yards.

The frustrations for the home support continued in the second half,
when, on 59 minutes, Miguel Danny crashed a header against the
crossbar.

Armenia’s big chance came just after the hour, when defender Taron
Voskanyan got up well to meet a corner, but his header was straight
at the Portugal goalkeeper.

The resistance of the visitors was finally broken on 71 minutes.

Substitute Ricardo Quaresma cut into the right side of the penalty
area, and his angled drive was beaten away by the goalkeeper.

However, as Voskanyan hesitated when trying to clear, Nani was able
to get a foot in and stab the ball out left to Ronaldo, who swept it
past Roman Berezovsky at the far post.

With five minutes left, Marcos Pizzelli failed to really test Patricio
with an effort from just inside the penalty area.

Portugal almost doubled their lead on 89 minutes when substitute
Antonio Eder’s header from a corner hit the base of the post.

In stoppage time, Pizzelli made space for a shot from the left side
of the area, but again fired the ball straight at Patricio.