Author: Babajanian Karo

OSKANIAN: POLITICAL MONOPOLY IS THE WORST EVIL IN ARMENIA

Wednesday,
March 20

“The worst evil in Armenia’s internal political life is the political
monopoly.” Ex-Foreign Minister of Armenia, BHK Party member Vartan
Oskanian said in his interview to RFE/RL Armenia Service today.

“Today our president, the parliament speaker, the prime minister,
all the directors and heads of departments are either members of the
same party or its supporters. I would like to note that the monopoly
situation existed in the past as well, but it is worsening day by day,”
Oskanian said.

According to him, the upcoming elections to the Yerevan Council of
Elders will be extremely politicized. “One striking demonstration
of their politicized nature is that only political parties may run
in these elections,” Oskanian underlined. He said the elections to
Yerevan Council of Elders are important because a large proportion of
the population and a number of important structures are concentrated
in Yerevan.

TODAY, 19:23

Aysor.am

15559 TOURISTS VISIT ARTSAKH IN 2012

March 20, 2013 – 21:54 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – 15559 foreign citizens from 86 countries visited
the Nagorno Karabakh (Artsakh) Republic in 2012, with the number
of tourists growing 36.9% as compared with 2011, according to NKR
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Artsakh attracted 49.5% of the tourists from Russia, 8.9% – from the
U.S., 6.1 %-from France, and 3.5% – from Iran, karabakh-open.info
reported.

The country attached special attention to tourism industry in the past
few years, with favorable legal, economic and structural conditions
created for the development of the sector.

ARMENIA TRIES MULTI-VECTOR FOREIGN POLICY

Part I

Keghart.com Editorial Board, 17 March 2013

One of the major-if not the main-theme of Armenia’s long history is its
involuntary role as a buffer state and its consequent involvement in
conflicts between the East and the West. The Sumerians, Assyrians,
Scythians, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Arab Caliphates,
Mamluks, Persians (again), and Turks in the East have all battled on
Armenian soil against the Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantium, the
Crusaders, Russians, France, and the Soviets in the West to dominate or
to occupy Armenia. When unable to do so, they’ve tried to force us to
be their allies. These titanic conflicts between empires of the East
and the West have inevitably turned Armenia into a bloody arena or
“grvakhntsor” as Armenians (“the apple/prize of the fight”) say.

More than 2,500 years after these dynastic duels of the empires began,
there seems nothing is new under the sun. In 2013 Armenian rulers
face foreign policy challenges which are identical to the ones their
forefather kings had to tackle two-and-a-half millennia ago.

After the 70-year Soviet sojourn, when Kremlin-ruled Armenia was
not in the international diplomatic push and pull, Yerevan is back
in the great game. While Soviet Union has sunk into the dustbin of
history, Russia remains a superpower in the post-Cold War world
and justifiably feels threatened by NATO. To fend off Western
encroachments, post-Soviet Moscow engineered the Collective Security
Treaty Organization (CSTO) for the Commonwealth of Independent
States (some of the former Soviet republics). Armenia is a CSTO
partner. The military/political bloc guarantees the security of
Armenia, particularly from Turkish encroachments.

To further buttress its shrinking areas of influence around its
perimeter, Moscow in recent years, promoted a new entity called Customs
Union. President Vladimir Putin would like to see the Customs Union
evolve into a closely-knit Eurasian Union (EU) of the former Soviet
republics (not be confused with the European EU). The Russian ruler
exerted tremendous pressure on Armenia to join the Customs Union. To
“persuade” Armenia to join the Customs Union, Russia also threatened
to use its gas as geopolitical weapon, courted Turkey, and sold
weapons to Baku. But Yerevan resisted Putin’s blandishments and made
overtures to the European Union. A mid-March Sarkissian and Putin
meeting didn’t bear any fruit. In fact, no statements were issued
following their discussions.

Armenia considers the Eurasian Union an arcane political model of a
new-and shaky–Russian empire. If it joins the Customs Union-Eurasian
Union, Armenia would also violate its constitution, limit its
sovereignty and likely become a vassal of Moscow. Only Belarus and
Kazakhstan have joined the Customs Union.

Armenia has made no secret to Russia that it wants to establish a
new relationship based on hard strategic and diplomatic interests,
rather than on the sentimental historical ties and the medals Armenian
soldiers won during WWII. Not to be caught in Russia’s embrace–or
more likely in the Russian bear’s chocke-hold, Armenia has been
negotiating with the European Common Market. Yerevan wants to retain
the security its CSTO partnership provides, but at the same time
to integrate with the European Union and develop closer ties with
the United States. European Union spokesmen such as Security Chief
Catherine Ashton have stated that Armenia’s desired integration with
the EU is incompatible with any involvement in Moscow’s efforts to
cobble together a band of ex-Soviet friends.

Armenia now holds regular meetings with the European Commission
for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy, Armenian diplomats
frequently meet the various European integration committees and Yerevan
is expected to sign, later this year, an association agreement on the
establishment of trade zones with the EU. Armenia is also negotiating
a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area Agreement (DCFTA) with the
European bloc. A few months ago President Serge Sarkissyan announced
that following the recent presidential elections he would enact the
reforms the DCFTA requires.

While about 40% of Armenia’s trade is with the former Soviet Republics
(with Russia responsible for the lion’s share), nearly 60% is with
Western Europe. Signaling which way Yerevan is headed, at a European
People’s Party gathering last year, Sarkissian said: “The Armenian
people, with their history, culture and modern aspirations are an
indivisible part of the European Civilization.”

Keeping its options open, Armenia has also been building closer ties
with the United States and NATO. Armenia and the US have signed
a memorandum of energy cooperation which some observers consider
a milestone for their relations. While it has reduced economic and
humanitarian assistance to Armenia, Washington has made a commitment
to ensure the security of the ancient and perhaps vulnerable Medzamor
nuclear power plant for the next 10 years. There’s also talk that the
US would provide funds for the construction of a second power plant
and boost trade and investment. Of course, one can say Washington
is concerned in the safety of Medzamor because its ally-Turkey-has
complained that a Medzamor accident could send toxic emissions to
Turkey. American Ambassador John Heffern, who in December, pulled a
diplomatic gaffe during a tour of US Armenian institutions when he
said “Armenia is a long way to nowhere”, has announced that Washington
would push major US high-tech companies to invest in Armenia and to
work with Armenian high-tech companies.

Armenia has also curtsied to the West by sending soldiers to Iraq,
Afghanistan and to Kosovo, and by attending NATO meetings. A few
months ago NATO’s Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen visited
Armenia. Acknowledging Armenia’s delicate diplomatic balance, last
year Erik Rubin, deputy state secretary-assistant, said: “The United
States is not against Armenia’s cooperation with Russia, but on the
contrary would like cooperation and the development of multinational
relations.” Adding a footnote to Rubin’s statement, Ambassador Heffern
was quoted as saying that a country can have more than one partner.

Other US voices have echoed the same sentiments by saying that the
US is not trying to create a platform in Armenia equal to that of
Russia’s. Ahem.

So far Armenia has managed to be on friendly terms with three
major political-military-economic blocs. Perhaps Armenia has been
successful because of the dexterity of its diplomats. Perhaps it
has been successful because Armenia is Russia’s only friend in the
South Caucasus and because the West doesn’t want to get into a fight
for a tiny and impoverished country which, since independence, has
lost perhaps 25% of its people to emigration. Perhaps the US doesn’t
want to push Armenia already aggrieved over Washington’s refusal to
acknowledge the Genocide or Hillary Clinton’s high-handed shenanigans
to force Armenia to sign the notorious Protocols. And perhaps the
US is not leaning on Armenia for its close ties with Iran because
it realizes Yerevan has no option, and Armenia has to rely on Iran
because Turkey-America’s ally–continues to blockade Armenia while
engaged in far greater trade with Iran than Armenia does.

If anything, international politics is a permanent cauldron. Today’s
friend is tomorrow’s enemy, and the reverse. Strategies can change
within days and diplomatic-economic-military necessities can
make strange bedfellows. Armenia is forced to play a multi-board
military-political-economic chess game on geographically separated
boards. As a nation of chess champions, this is game Armenia can play
as well as anyone. The people responsible for Armenia’s multi-vector
foreign policy face a four-dimensional M.C. Escher drawing every
working day. The question is how long can they remain in the
multi-dimensional game and win. Turkey and Israel have been playing
the same game for decades, but Armenia doesn’t have an understanding
Uncle Sam or Uncle Ivan in its corner. Perhaps the best way to walk the
tri-rope is to increase its value to the big powers. Turkey literally
gets away with murder and isn’t rebuked by Washington because Ankara is
perceived to be an important ally. Switzerland, which has negligible
resources, is one of the most prosperous countries in Europe because
the world finds the tiny Alpian country useful.

Making itself an asset to the East and West is a tall order for
Armenia, but it has to be done. Otherwise, “remote”, landlocked, and
small Armenia will remain poor and embattled: a permanent basket case.

That, after the Turkbaijan belligerence, is the biggest challenge
the Armenian government’s foreign policy faces.

Armenia has to devise a unique preposition which will end Armenia’s
isolation. It could be the establishment of an Armenian Silicon
Valley, on pharmaceuticals, on manufacturing high-end medical
equipment, on research and development in the nanotechnologies. In
all these areas, the Diaspora can play an important role. There’s
multi-billion-dollar talent pool in the Diaspora, in addition to
knowledge about international business. Armenia has to tap this
“natural” resource. An international conference in Yerevan where
Armenian scientists and businessmen from the Diaspora and Armenia
can meet to devise a grand economic revival plan would go a long
way to bring Armenia out of its shell and stop the destructive
emigration. We have to believe that we are a ONE NATION and that
Armenia is our homeland whether we live in the shadow of Ararat or
hang the glorious mountain’s photograph in our living rooms thousands
of miles away from Hayastan.

(To Continue… Part II: Armenia, Russia and the US).

DAVID BABAYAN: ARTSAKH AUTHORITIES HAVE CLEAR POLICY OF SUPPORTING SYRIAN-ARMENIANS

18:32 20/03/2013 ” SOCIETY

A great number of Syrian-Armenians fled the violence in the country
and settled abroad. Part of them settled in Armenia and Artsakh.

According to the latest data, more than 100 Syrian-Armenians have
settled in Artsakh.

Our correspondent contacted Artsakh President’s spokesman David
Babayan for a comment on the matter.

Asked if there is a clear strategy of supporting Syrian-Armenians, Mr
Babayan said, “Syrian-Armenians are our compatriots, and the Artsakh
authorities from the very start expressed willingness to support them
in creating living conditions for them. The state has clear policy
of supporting Syrian-Armenians.”

According to him, in view of the fact that many of the Syrian-Armenians
who moved to NKR are farmers, they can also make a significant
contribution to the development of agriculture in NKR.

“The state does everything possible to provide them with shelter and
jobs as well as to help them adapt to the conditions in Artsakh,”
Babayan concluded.

Source: Panorama.am

MOVSISYAN: I AM READY TO SCORE GOALS FOR ARMENIAN NATIONAL

YEREVAN, March 20. /ARKA/. Yura Movsisyan, a striker of Armenian
national soccer team and Spartak FC in Moscow, said Wednesday as met
with students of the Economic University of Armenia that he is ready
to score goals for the Armenian national.

“I missed Armenia and the Armenian national team very much,” he said.

“I was pleased to come back to by homeland. I hope everybody understand
that I’m ready to score goals for the Armenian team.”

At this meeting, Yura Movsisyan was with his teammates Henrik
Mkhitarian and Boris Berezovsky as well as with President of the
Football Federation of Armenia Ruben Hayrapetyan. The rector of the
university, Koryun Atoyan, handed a commemorative statute to the
captain of the national team Roman Berezovsky.

Armenian national team will host peers from the Czech Republic in
FIFA World Cup qualifying match on March 26. If Armenia wins it
will significantly improve its standing in FIFA ranking. Armenia is
in Group B together with Italy, Denmark, Czech Republic, Bulgaria
and Malta. Italians who scored ten points after four games are the
leaders. Bulgarians scored six points in four matches. They are
followed by the Czechs with five points after three games.

Malta has no points scored. The Armenia vs Czech Reepublic match
will be judged by Romanian referee team led by Paul Balay. He will
be aided by Kristian Nika and Sebastian George. -0-

POST-ELECTORAL ALLIANCE IS NOT RULED OUT: NAIRA ZOHRABYAN

14:30 21/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:

Prosperous Armenia party does not rule out post-electoral alliance
with non-governmental forces, said Naira Zohrabyan adding that they
would like to have a wider front for the Elders’ Council elections,
but resulted impossible.

Asked whether PAP’s victory in the upcoming election is realistic,
Naira Zohrabyan said that Yerevan residents will decide who will form
the Elders’ Council and who will become Mayor.

As to the statement according to which Taron Margaryan is the best
mayor in the last 20 years, Zohrabyan said that “Let me answer this
way: no comment”.

He said that everything will be done within the frameworks of laws
to win. As to the information that Gagik Tsarukyan is going to spend
huge money for the elections, Zohrabyan said that those, who are used
to resort to money in elections, spread these rumors.

STEVEN SIMPSON: IF THERE HAS EVER BEEN A COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST GUILTY OF COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, IT IS TURKEY

13:16 21/03/2013 ” ANALYSIS

Below is an article by Steven Simpson, published in The American
Thinker, in which he presents the crimes committed by Turkey.

Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is once again
engaging in his favorite political pastime – Israel-bashing.

Late last month at a U.N. convention held ironically to promote
religious tolerance, Erdogan lambasted Israel by calling Zionism
“a crime against humanity.” Indeed, Erdogan even outdid the biggest
anti-Israel institution in the world – the United Nations – which in
1975 passed its infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution.

But Erdogan’s continuous contempt for Israel shows the arrogance
and hypocrisy of Turkey. For if there has ever been a country in
the Middle East guilty of committing crimes against humanity, it is
Turkey. Indeed, next to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, 20th-century
Turkey ranks right up there when it comes to massacres, rapes,
expulsions, and rapine perpetrated against ethnic and religious
minorities – namely Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds.

Before documenting Turkey’s crimes against other people, it should
first be noted that today’s Turkey has for all intents and purposes
become an Islamic republic in everything but name only. The so-called
“Turkish-Israeli” alliance has been in tatters since Erdogan came
to power in 2003. Aside from veering Turkey on an Islamist course –
and cause – the Turks (even with Obama’s “apology tour” that began
in Turkey back in 2009) remain extremely anti-American. This writer
back in 2010 documented Erdogan’s democratic ascent to power, his
ideology and goals, and what an Islamist Turkey means to America,
Israel, and the West in general.

Regrettably, Israel allowed herself to once again be verbally slapped
down by the vitriolic and sanctimonious Erdogan. With Erdogan’s latest
diatribe, all Israel could weakly say was “that it was a sinister
and mendacious comment.” America, fearful of losing its only Muslim
NATO “ally,” also was quite quiet when it came to Erdogan’s latest
bombastic tirade.

Ironically, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was on his way to
Turkey to meet with officials when Erdogan had his latest verbal
apoplectic attack against Israel. Though the mainstream media made
it out that the U.S. was furious with Erdogan, Kerry simply called
the comments “objectionable.” Indeed, Erdogan upbraided Kerry when
Kerry had apologized for being late to a dinner with the Turkish
prime minister after holding talks with Turkey’s foreign minister,
Ahmet Davutoglu. Mr. Kerry had commented to the prime minister that he
had held lengthy discussions with Mr. Davutoglu. An irritated Erdogan
then acerbically stated to Kerry that they “must have spoken about
everything so there is nothing left for us to talk about.” Kerry
meekly responded “that there’s a lot to talk about.” However, it
remains unknown what the two actually discussed, and if Kerry raised
any objections to Erdogan’s statements on Israel, no one has yet
reported on the event.

This now leaves us with Erdogan’s hypocrisy in lecturing Israel about
supposed “war crimes” and leads us to actual war crimes perpetrated
by Turkey during the 20th century – crimes that still go on today
against the Kurds. It is a record that not only has caused of blood
to be spilled, but still has repercussions felt to this day.

Probably the most well-known war crime that Turkey engaged in was
the slaughter – if not genocide – perpetrated against the Armenians
in the first two decades of the 20th century. In fact, the Turks
were already slaughtering Armenians in the late 19th century in
what has come to be known as “the Hamidian massacres.” Estimates
of the slaughter range from hundreds of thousands to millions. In
any event, Turkey has consistently and constantly denied that such
crimes against the Armenians took place. Turkey is so sensitive to
the charge of genocide that when the U.S. Congress in 2010 finally
passed a resolution condemning this crime, Turkey threatened
“serious consequences” to the “partnership” between America and
Turkey. Ironically, Barack Obama, who had the audacity to say back
in 2007 that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,”
sought to stop the congressional resolution on the Armenian genocide.

Continuing with Turkish war crimes, and the hypocrisy of the
neo-Ottoman crypto-Sultan Erdogan, there were the massacres and
expulsions of the Greeks from their ancestral homelands. This is
another Turkish crime against humanity that is little-known, and even
less spoken or written about. “The Pontian Genocide” took place between
the years of 1916 and 1922. Again, estimates vary in the casualty
rate, but the slaughter could have been as close to 1,000,000 Greeks
killed. This doesn’t even take into account the surviving 1.5 million
Greeks who lived in Asia Minor (Anatolia) for millennia before being
expelled by the Turks to European Greece during this era.

Finally, there are the Kurds. If there was ever an authentic Middle
Eastern minority of Muslims that deserves a nation-state, it is
the Kurds. While Islamist governments in Iran and Turkey (as well
as the Arab world) talk about “Islamic solidarity” when it comes to
the so-called “Palestinians,” there is not even a syllable of talk
regarding the plight of the Kurds. The Kurds have been killed and
suppressed by Arab, Persian, and Turk for centuries, all of whom
see the legitimate aim of the Kurds to establish their own state as
a threat to the status quo of continuous Arab, Persian, and Turkish
imperialism.

While the Kurds are spread out over Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, it
has been in the last country that the Kurds have basically been written
out of history by the Turks. The Turkish quest to deny any semblance
of a Kurdish existence has been so bizarre that Turkey even banned the
Kurdish language during the years 1983-1999 and routinely referred
to them as “mountain Turks.” To this day, Turkey routinely crosses
the Syrian and Iraqi borders to fight against “Kurdish terrorists.”

This background on Turkish war crimes is just a brief sketch of the
brutal actions that Turkey has committed over the decades (if not
centuries). The next time the arrogant, bellicose, and venomous Erdogan
along with his fellow Islamists lectures Israel about “crimes against
humanity,” they should look in the mirror and admit to true war crimes.

Indeed, Israel – and America, for that matter – would do history
a great justice if they reminded Turkey in the strongest language
possible, of the Turks’ bloody crimes against their own minorities,
instead of sitting back and allowing Turkey to pontificate about
Israel’s nonexistent “crimes against humanity.” Continued silence
will only strengthen bullies and thugs like Erdogan, lend credence
to his outlandish slander, and allow Turkey to continue to rewrite
history in its own image.

Source: Panorama.am

NEW POPE, NEW HOPE

EDITORIAL | MARCH 20, 2013 5:17 PM

By Edmond Y. Azadian

With the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, a moment of confusion
reigned in the Roman Catholic Church, because the Papacy is a lifetime
position and his resignation only had one precedent – a millennium ago.

But, soon jubilation returned with the election of a new pope,
Francis I.

When Cardinal Aghajanian was alive, the conclave of Cardinals by-passed
him, because at that time, only Italian members of the clergy were
eligible to the throne of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

But, since his passing, a pope from Poland was elected, followed by one
from Germany and now the latest one is from South America. This week,
Pope Francis I will become the 266th pontiff occupying the Throne of
St. Peter.

But why should the new pope’s election interest or excite the members
of other churches, including the Armenian Apostolic Church?

To begin with, excitement and media hype are contagious. Second,
the papacy has a political power extending far beyond the 1.2
billion Catholics worldwide. Although gone are the days when popes
and cardinals in Europe had absolute power over individuals through
the Inquisition courts; the Catholic clergy, very much like the Nazi
and the Communist systems, controlled the thinking of individuals
members and the accusation of heresy was a death knell for its victims.

But still popes have moral power today, which also can translate into
political power, if necessary.

Part of the excitement in the Armenian community is derived from
the fact that the former Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires has
interacted with the Armenian community in Argentina and has made
powerful statements about the Armenian Genocide. To reinforce the
relations with Armenia and the Armenians, President Serge Sargisian
and Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II have flown to the Vatican to
participate in the installation ceremonies of the new pope, along with
six sovereign rulers and 31 heads of state and many religious leaders.

This is a very constructive political move building upon the existing
bond with the new pontiff.

It is reported that Pope Francis I, seven years ago, urged Turkey
to unconditionally recognize the Armenian Genocide during the
commemorations marking the 91st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
in Buenos Aires. Then-Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio urged Turkey
to recognize the Genocide as the “gravest crime of Ottoman Turkey
against the Armenian people and the entire humanity.”

It is also reported that he had been instrumental in placing a
Khatchkar (cross stone) in Buenos Aires’ Metropolitan Cathedral. He has
welcomed and met Catholicos Karekin II in Argentina and participated
in a number of ecumenical services with the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Armenians have to be appreciative of the pope’s valiant stand on the
issue of the Genocide. But, by the same token, we have experienced
many instances when people switch opinions upon attaining positions
of power. Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, as well as Secretaries
of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, shamelessly have disavowed
their earlier principled positions. We may even question the evasive
formulation of People John Paul II during his visit to Armenia, where
instead of calling a spade a spade he reverted to the Armenian term
Medz Yeghern, which is not exactly genocide (tseghaspanoutiun). He
was not a politician and one would question his ruse to avoid a
moral issue frontally. In fact, he caused more damage to the issue
of Genocide recognition than good. The first casualty, is, of course
President Obama’s imitation of the pope, hiding his previous moral
spine behind the word that the pope had used in a diversionary tactic.

With all his charisma and his contribution to the collapse of the
Soviet Empire, Pope John Paul II did not avoid the controversy of
kissing General Galtieri of Argentina, who along with President Jorge
Rafael Videla, were the perpetrators of Argentina’s Dirty War, which
claimed 30,000 lives along with many more maimed in torture chambers.

As we stated earlier, the papacy has also political clout in the real
world. That is why President Christina Kirchner of Argentina was one
of the first heads of state to rush to the Vatican to plead with the
pope to intervene on behalf of her country with Great Britain, over
the issue of Malvinas Islands, known to the British as the Falkland
Islands off the Argentine coast.

Although the new pontiff had been at odds with Mrs. Kirchner and with
her late husband, President Nestor Kirchner, before her, over some
social issues, it remains to be seen if the pope will keep his word
and help Argentina’s cause.

While still in Buenos Aires, Pope Francis I had stated that Britain
had “usurped” the Malvinas from Argentina.

It looks like the war of words over these islands is intensifying
since the discovery of oil in the coastal regions of these islands.

The political sideshow is coinciding with the papal celebration.

It is also ironic that Great Britain, which has brazenly denied
the right of self-determination to the people of Karabagh, has also
organized a referendum in March on the sparsely-populated islands
– mostly transplants from the British Isles – to declare that the
people of the Falklands have a right to self-determination and they
have overwhelmingly voted to stay with Britain.

Pope Francis I has demonstrated over the years that he stands for the
poor people. He is characterized by personal humility and doctrinal
conservatism, although some questions have been raised about his
inaction during the era of Argentina’s brutal dictatorship.

It looks like he is the pontiff most familiar with the plight
and history of the Armenian people and we can bank on that in
developing our church’s relations with the Vatican. Armenia very
recently appointed a new ambassador to the Vatican, Mikael Minasyan,
the president’s son-in-law, with the purpose of further developing
relations with the Vatican.

With the election of the new pope, comes new hope. Pope Francis can
certainly make a difference in reiterating his position on the issue
of genocide and avoid the detours that characterized Pope John Paul’s
visit to Armenia.

LES INTERETS DES ETATS-UNIS AU CAUCASE – II

Publie le : 21-03-2013

Info Collectif VAN – – Jim Nichol, specialiste
des affaires russes et eurasiatiques, retrace dans un dossier le
contexte et l’evolution politique dans les pays du Caucase du Sud,
l’Armenie, l’Azerbaïdjan et la Georgie depuis la dissolution de
l’Empire Sovietique et analyse la politique menee par les Etats-Unis
qui tentent de diminuer l’influence d’une Russie a laquelle ces pays
ont longtemps ete lies. Le dossier analyse egalement l’implication
d’autres pays : ” En août 2010, l’Azerbaïdjan et la Turquie ont signe
un partenariat strategique et un accord d’assistance mutuelle qui
revèle, peut-etre, la restauration des liens entre l’Azerbaïdjan
et la Turquie. Le protocole d’entente de 10 ans specifie que si
l’une des deux parties est attaquee par un troisième pays, les deux
parties s’offriront une aide reciproque. À la fin de fevrier 2012,
l’Azerbaïdjan a confirme qu’il avait conclu un achat important d’armes
avec Israël, mais a declare que l’achat des armes n’etait pas dirige
contre l’Iran mais visait a “liberer” des territoires occupes ” (c’est
en ces termes que l’Azerbaïdjan designe le Haut-Karabagh armenien). Le
Collectif VAN vous propose une traduction de la deuxième selection
issue de ce dossier publie en anglais par Jim Nichol le 27 septembre
2012 pour le Service de Recherche du Congrès americain.

L’Armenie, l’Azerbaïdjan et la Georgie : Evolution politique et
implications pour les interets des Etats-Unis.

Jim Nichol 27 Septembre 2012 Service de Recherche du Congrès

Suite

Les rôles de la Turquie, de l’Iran et d’autres

Les Etats-Unis ont generalement considere la Turquie comme capable
de promouvoir les politiques pro-occidentales et de dissuader l’Iran
de s’ingerer dans les Etats de Caucase du Sud, bien que la Turquie
prefère l’Azerbaïdjan dans le conflit du Nagorno Karabakh. Ceux qui
critiquent le rôle de plus en plus grand de la Turquie dans la region
mettent en garde contre le fait que les Etats-Unis et l’OTAN pourraient
etre entraînes par leurs liens avec la Turquie dans des imbroglios
regionaux. La Turquie s’efforce d’instaurer de bonnes relations avec
l’Azerbaïdjan et la Georgie et quelques contacts avec l’Armenie,
tout en essayant de limiter l’influence russe et iranienne.

L’Azerbaïdjan a egalement considere la Turquie comme un allie contre
une telle influence et comme un contrepoids aux liens de l’Armenie
avec la Turquie. La Georgie a un interet durable pour des liens avec
environ 1 million de Georgiens qui demeurent en Turquie et les quelque
50 000 demeurant en Iran, et a signe des traites d’amitie avec les
deux Etats. La Turquie est un des partenaires commerciaux principaux
de la Georgie. De nouveaux pipe-lines livrant du petrole et du gaz
vers l’Ouest depuis la mer Caspienne reflètent la cooperation entre
l’Azerbaïdjan, la Georgie et la Turquie.

L’Armenie est un membre de l’Organisation de cooperation economique
de la mer Noire, avec la Turquie, et les deux Etats ont etabli
des relations consulaires. Les obstacles a de meilleures relations
armeno-turques ont notamment ete le refus de la Turquie d’admettre
l’existence d’un genocide armenien en 1915-1923 et son soutien a
l’Azerbaïdjan dans le conflit du Nagorno-Karabagh.

Les protocoles de l’Armenie et de la Turquie en 2009

En septembre 2008, le President de la Turquie Abdullah Gul a visite
l’Armenie, soi-disant pour regarder un match de football, et ce
degel a contribue a ce que les deux pays parviennent a un accord en
avril 2009 sur une “feuille de route” pour normaliser leurs liens,
inclure l’etablissement de relations diplomatiques complètes et ouvrir
les frontières.

Après d’autres negociations, le ministre des Affaires etrangères de
Turquie, Ahmet Davutoglu, et le ministre des Affaires etrangères
d’Armenie, Edvard Nalbadian, ont lance deux protocoles “Sur
l’etablissement de relations diplomatiques” et “Sur le developpement
de relations bilaterales” le 31 août 2009 et les ont formellement
signes le 10 octobre 2009. D’après certaines sources, le nouveau
Secretaire d’Etat Hillary Clinton a rencontre les dirigeants turcs
en mars 2009 a Ankara pour les encourager et le President Obama a
activement soutenu les negociateurs lors d’une reunion a Istanbul en
avril 2009. Le protocole sur les relations diplomatiques appelait les
deux parties a etablir des ambassades dans les capitales de chacun
dans un delai de deux mois après que les corps legislatifs eurent
mutuellement approuve les protocoles et après l’echange des articles
de ratification du protocole.

Le protocole sur les relations etrangères appelait les deux parties
a “accepter d’ouvrir leur frontière commune dans un delai de deux
mois après l’entree en force de ce protocole”, c’est-a-dire, après
ratification des protocoles par le corps legislatif des deux Etats,
a “mettre en ~uvre un dialogue de portee historique dans le but de
retablir la confiance mutuelle entre les deux nations, y compris par un
examen scientifique impartial des ecrits et des archives historiques
pour definir les problèmes existants et exprimer des recommandations”
et pour entreprendre d’autres efforts de cooperation.

Une decision de la Cour constitutionnelle d’Armenie le 18 janvier 2010
stipulant que les protocoles ne devaient pas affecter la politique
de l’Armenie quant a le reconnaissance du genocide a ete critiquee
par la Turquie comme n’etant pas conforme au texte des protocoles. Le
gouvernement armenien a declare que la decision n’affectait pas les
conditions des protocoles. L’Azerbaïdjan a fortement critique la
Turquie pour s’etre orientee vers une normalisation de ses relations
avec l’Armenie sans associer officiellement une telle orientation
avec un règlement de paix du conflit du Haut-Karabakh.

Les critiques ont rapidement provoque les engagements des dirigeants
turcs selon lesquels le corps legislatif turc n’approuverait pas les
protocoles jusqu’a ce que des progrès soient realises dans le règlement
du conflit du Haut-Karabakh. Le 22 avril 2010, la coalition armenienne
au pouvoir a fait parvenir une declaration selon laquelle “etant donne
le refus de la partie turque de respecter les exigences pour ratifier
l’accord sans conditions prealables dans des delais raisonnables,
rendant la continuation de la procedure de ratification par le
parlement national inutile, nous considerons qu’il est necessaire de
suspendre cette procedure.”

En août 2010, l’Azerbaïdjan et la Turquie ont signe un partenariat
strategique et un accord d’assistance mutuelle qui revèle, peut-etre,
la restauration des liens entre l’Azerbaïdjan et la Turquie. Le
protocole d’entente de 10 ans specifie que si l’une des deux parties
est attaquee par un troisième pays, les deux parties s’offriront
une aide reciproque. D’autres clauses appellent les deux parties
a cooperer pour eliminer les menaces a la securite nationale,
a interdire les operations de groupes menacant l’independance, la
souverainete et l’integrite territoriale de l’autre partie, a empecher
leurs territoires d’etre utilises pour des actes d’agression contre
l’autre partie, et a cooperer dans la production de l’industrie de
defense, dans l’organisation d’exercices militaires conjoints et dans
la formation de specialistes dans l’armee.

L’Iran

Les objectifs de l’Iran dans le Caucase du Sud sont notamment de
decourager les puissances occidentales telles que la Turquie ou
les Etats-Unis d’accroître leur influence, de mettre un terme a
l’instabilite regionale qui pourrait menacer sa propre integrite
territoriale et de bâtir des liens economiques. Une grande partie de
l’ethnie azerbaïdjanaise dans le monde reside en Iran (le Word Factbook
l’estime a 12 millions ; d’autres estimations sont bien plus elevees)
ainsi qu’environ 200 000 Armeniens. Une prise de conscience ethnique
parmi certains “Azerbaïdjanais du Sud” en Iran s’est affirmee. L’elite
azerbaïdjanaise a peur d’un extremisme islamique soutenu par l’Iran
et conteste le soutien iranien a l’Armenie. Bakou a interdit le Parti
Islamique pro-Iranien d’Azerbaïdjan en 1995. Pour empecher l’Ouest
et l’Azerbaïdjan de developper les ressources energetiques de la mer
Caspienne, l’Iran a longtemps exige soit un contrôle commun par les
Etats du littoral soit une division du fond marin en cinq secteurs
egaux. Il y a du commerce entre les deux pays, selon certaines sources
entre 240 millions de dollars et 300 millions de dollars en chiffres
d’affaires en 2011, mais les montants n’ont cesse de diminuer.

Les relations de l’Azerbaïdjan avec l’Iran ont ete troublees en
fevrier 2012 lorsque l’Iran a accuse l’Azerbaïdjan d’abriter des
agents des services de renseignement israeliens qui avaient traverse
la frontière de l’Azerbaïdjan et de l’Iran pour mettre a execution des
operations, y compris l’assassinat suppose de scientifiques iraniens du
nucleaire. Le meme mois, l’Azerbaïdjan a condamne plusieurs individus
qu’il avait arretes en 2008 et affirmait qu’ils avaient ete formes en
Iran pour commettre des actes de terrorisme, notamment des plans pour
bombarder l’ambassade d’Israël. À la fin de fevrier, l’Azerbaïdjan a
confirme qu’il avait conclu un achat important d’armes avec Israël,
mais a declare que l’achat des armes n’etait pas dirige contre l’Iran
mais visait a “liberer” des territoires occupes.

Autres

Parmi les Etats non frontaliers, les Etats-Unis et les pays
europeens sont les plus influents dans le Caucase du Sud en termes
d’aide, de commerce, d’echange et d’autres liens. Les objectifs des
Etats-Unis et de l’Europe dans la region sont largement compatibles et
consistent a l’integrer dans l’Occident et a eviter une orientation
anti-occidentale, a l’ouvrir au commerce et au transport, a obtenir
des ressources energetiques et a l’aider a devenir plus paisible,
stable et democratique. Dans le cadre de la Politique europeenne de
voisinage, l’Union Europeenne a signe des Plans d’Action avec les
trois Etats regionaux en novembre 2006 dans l’espoir de promouvoir
leur integration europeenne et regionale. L’Union Europeenne a pris
les devants au niveau international en servant de mediateur dans le
conflit entre la Russie et la Georgie en août 2008 et en envoyant des
observateurs après le cessez-le-feu. L’Union Europeenne a lance un
programme de Partenariat oriental en 2009 pour approfondir ses liens
avec les Etats du Sud du Caucase. Dans le cadre de ce programme,
l’Union Europeenne prevoit ” des accords de libre-echange renforces
et globaux avec les pays qui souhaitent renforcer leur engagement et
en sont capables, l’integration graduelle dans l’economie de l’Union
europeenne et … la facilitation des deplacements vers l’Union
europeenne par le biais de la liberalisation progressive du système de
visas”. Certains observateurs ont considere que ces objectifs ont ete
repousses par les problèmes economiques recents de l’Union Europeenne.

Traduction de l’anglais par Tigran Mheryan pour le Collectif VAN –
20 mars 2013 – 06:00 –

Lire aussi :

Les interets des Etats-Unis au Caucase – I

Retour a la rubrique

TELECHARGER : Dossier de Presse (anglais)

Source/Lien : Service de Recherche du Congrès

THREE SENSITIVE ISSUES FOR SERZH SARGSYAN AND OTHERS
Levon Margaryan

13:25 20/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:

Serzh Sargsyan’s press conference was very long and comprehensive. It
has not received a political assessment yet. It has discussed the
government’s preferred fields, hence there is no political criticism.

Anyway, the meeting was very rich and dwelt on private property
immunity, new government, party systems and else. The next key point of
the press conference was Raffi Hovannisian, Serzh Sargsyan’s meeting
with him and the possible dialogue. The three main points of the
meeting are as follows:

1. It’s time to replace the oligarchic economy with another form. Like
many other issues, this one is also discussed at the emotional level.

Oligarch is an adjective characterizing what is bad and evil.

Objectively, it is a mode of organization of the Armenian economy.

This form no longer meets the demands of the Armenian economy.

The government also understands this. The issue can’t be addressed by
way of separation of business from politics. Actually, the involvement
of business in politics can be indirect, like in the case of Robert
Kocharyan who has huge economic resources and is able to pursue his
interests indirectly.

There is also an issue relating to the definition of oligarch because,
as it was found out during the ANC-PAP dialogue, Tsarukyan is not
an oligarch because he does not participate in the decision making
process. Perhaps, he does not but Tsarukyan and other major businessmen
or monopolists can force the government to make any decision if
they change the price a bit. It is clear that one cannot get rid of
oligopolies and monopolies immediately, no matter how strong or good
person one is.

Serzh Sargsyan meant this when he spoke about the necessity not to
take drastic steps and to display public solidarity. Despite the
esthetic particularities and nicknames of those in government and
the oligarchy, the issue is the overall situation. Armenia’s biggest
challenge is to reach markets. Given the closed borders with Turkey,
the only solution is the Abkhazian railway, DCFTA with Europe in case
of EU integration, or the Customs Union in case of integration with
the Eurasian Union. Perhaps, there is another option as well -private
international trade networks and relevant political sponsorship
for them.

Carrefour is one of these possible networks. There are two opinions
discussed in this relation: the negative public attitude towards
Samvel Alexanyan and U.S. ambassador’s moderate political intervention.

Both opinions are secondary and are symbolic. In other words, the main
issue is to look for new systems and new mechanisms. In this sense,
Serzh Sargsyan’s statement that Armenia is the only country among
those involved in the Abkhazian railway project which has friendly
ties with all the sides means that there is a future prospect for
Armenia to appear in such markets.

But, at the same time, it is clear that oligarchs have become some kind
of political class in Armenia correlated with each other, and certain
public perceptions of this class should be revised. In other words,
the moral side of the issue is also important, taking into account
the fact that one of the causes of the national tragedy since 2008
is oligarchs. The opposition is also obliged to break its silence on
foreign economic-political issues.

2. The second issue is the so-called mutual bitterness. Though Serzh
Sargsyan defined Raffi’s psychological state as bitter, but Sargsyan
was himself bitter about Raffi Hovannisian’s policies. One thing
has been clear since the parliamentary elections. The Republicans
and Heritage are motivated to play in the same political field. The
situation was such especially against the background of ANC-PAP
mutual sympathy. But the stereotypes of the opposition and the
general political field did not allow Raffi Hovannisian to enter into
a tangible dialogue, while any step towards dialogue by him or his
team was criticized.

It is worth mentioning that many Republicans did not spare efforts to
diffuse the thesis on sending all the political forces into the same
status as the Rule of Law Party. Naturally, having in mind the bitter
experience of the Rule of Law and the model of confrontation in 2008,
a compromise between the government and the opposition could have
never been perceived beyond the discourse of venality. Actually,
there was such a possibility for both of them, and in this case,
the government and Heritage needed each other equally. Both are
stable and independent political subjects: Republicans are majority,
Heritage represents the civil society and self-determined citizens. The
current situation makes us review all the political notions ranging
from dialogue to compromise.

3. The next issue is Serzh Sargsyan’s statement about the weak party
system in Armenia, in particular the shortage of human resources to
control the electoral process. This is really a major issue. The
opposition is unable to mobilize a sufficient number of proxies
to defend its votes. No one knows why Serzh Sargsyan and not the
opposition warns about this issue.

Serzh Sargsyan is supposed to dwell on the shortcomings of the
electoral process. In fact, opposition representatives are active
only in pre and post-electoral periods. For the rest of the time,
they refuse to build their parties.

We should note that the situation of the majority is not better
either. For example, has Serzh Sargsyan ever thought what will happen
to the Republican Party if it is removed from the power? Will the RPA
be able to mobilize people? Do Republicans present an idea which has
the potential to mobilize people? The Republican Party is composed
of people gathered around the governmental resource, and it is hard
to say how many people devoted to the party ideas will remain, if
RPA splits or loses power.

The fact that Republicans manage to ensure the necessary number of
proxies is determined by its being power; it has nothing to do with
being an organized party. For example, Prosperous Armenia, without
being in the power, has resources and motivation to mobilize people
only around Tsarukyan. It is difficult to affirm that Serzh Sargsyan
is like Tsarukyan or Ter-Petrosyan, who can mobilize many people with
the help of their charisma.

Sure, this individual-oriented approach is not preferable either
since it results in negative consequences. Is Serzh Sargsyan able
to create such an axis for RPA to unite people, which should not be
money, power but some idea or system? A system that can reproduce
later without mechanical interventions.

The issue related with the opposition, which Serzh Sargsyan raises,
regards the same Republican Party too and the power in general. If
it is not urgent now, it will become in the future.