Author: Badalian Vardan

EDGAR HOVHANNISYAN: AZERBAIJAN SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO ARTSAKH FOR ITS OWN INDEPENDENCE
Alisa Gevoryan

Radiolur
02.09.2011 18:03

“Not only must Azerbaijan recognize the independence of Artsakh,
but must also be grateful to the people of Artsakh, since Azerbaijan
gained independence as a result of the Artsakh movement of 1988,”
Deputy Director of the Armenian National Archive Edgar Hovhannisyan
told a press conference today.

Edgar Hovhannisyan quoted Andrey Sakharov as saying: “The Karabakh
Movement was the touchstone that accelerated the collapse of the
Soviet Union.” Therefore, according to him, it would be quite logical
for Azerbaijan to be grateful to the Artsakh Movement for its own
independence.”

According to political scientist Sergey Minasyan, although the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic is not recognized internationally, it is
more full-fledged than a number of UN member states, and all elections
held in Artsakh ever since independence are enough to prove it.

TURKEY MAY PAY BILLIONS TO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE VICTIMS’ DESCENDANTS

Tert.am
02.09.11

A few days ago the Los Angeles circuit court met a claim lodged by
three Armenians against the Turkish authorities. By court order,
official Ankara is actually obliged to act as defendant.

However, the Turkish side will not “appear in court”, and the U.S.
Department of State addressed a diplomatic note to official Ankara,
demanding that it act as defendant, reported the Turkey-based Vatan
news website.

Last December, a group of U.S. Armenians lodged a claimed against
the Turkish government, Central Bank of Turkey and Agriculture Bank
of Turkey.

The claimants, a lawyer’s wife among them, demand that the Turkish
government and banks pay restitution, U.S. $63.9m, for their
grandfathers’ lost property. Moreover, the claimants demand to be paid
part of the incomes from the lease of the U.S. air base in Incirlik.

The claimants’ fathers owned 49.5 hectares in Adana, part of which is
now occupied by the air base. The lawyer Vardges Yeghiayan represents
the claimants’ interests.

“Thus, Turkey, which is refusing to act as defendant in the trial, is
facing the risk of paying U.S. $100 m to the Armenians as restitution,”
the website reports.

This July, a group of U.S. Armenians lodged a claim against the Turkish
government, Central Bank and Agriculture Bank. The Armenian Genocide
victims’ descendants demand billions of U.S. dollars from Turkey as
restitution for the lost movable and immovable property, as well as
for bank accounts. The initiative belonged by Gabris Davoyan from
Los Angeles and Hrayr Turabyan from New York.

FAR-SEEING DECISION OF THE TURKISH AUTHORITIES

Experts’ club

Sept 1 2011
Georgia

On August 27th the Government of the Republic of Turkey issued a decree
about the return of assets to communities of religious minorities that
were confiscated in 1936 and following years. Assets were returned to
Greeks, Armenians and Jews of Turkey. If their properties were sold
and they already have other legitimate owners then the authorities are
obliged to pay their former owners relevant compensations. The list
of assets that the Turkish government decided to return to Christian
and Jewish communities include former monasteries, buildings of former
hospitals and schools, cemeteries, etc.

The process of confiscation of assets from religious minorities began
in 1936 and all non-Muslim communities were told to present full
information on their assets. According to the decree of 1974 these
communities were categorically prohibited from buying new properties.

Despite the fact that Parliamentary opposition of Turkey and their
supporting other forces spoke against this decision of the country’s
government Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made the
following speech at the traditional dinner (Iftar) which was dedicated
to the end of the holy month of Muslims – Ramadan and which took place
in the Central Museum of Istanbul on August 28th and was attended
by representatives of countries political and religious circles as
well as over 150 non-Muslim religious and public figures: “pressure
on individuals for their ethnic origin, faith, different lifestyle is
now a thing of the past. In Turkey all citizens are equal before the
law and the Constitution and no one stands above others. Everybody of
the 74-million population of our country is of first-grade. We are in
Istanbul where mosques, churches and Synagogues co-exist peacefully
side by side and this makes us different from other countries.

Provocateurs can interfere into legalized relations no longer “.

The leader of the country issued a decree for specially created groups
to examine and study register and fond archives in the following 12
months in order to start instituting measures stipulated in the new
decree in real life. A list of those important objects that are to
be transferred in the near future has already been specified.

Despite the fact that it’s only been several days since the Turkish
government announced about this far-seeing decree coming into force a
large number of people assessed and unanimously welcomed this humane
step that is directed at restoration of hisotrical justice and which,
first of all, will become one of guarantees of further progress of
the Turkish state and the Turkish society.

The European Union also welcomed this historical decree. The EU had
previously recommended Turkey to abolish laws that limit rights of
non-Muslim population of the country of 74 million. This non-Muslim
population amounts to less than one percent of the entire population
(only 120 000 Christians and 25 000 Jews).

This decision will be perceived as a new impulse for descendents of
those Muhajirs that were expelled from their homeland and robbed
multimillion diasporas of which today live in Turkey and dream of
their return to their historical homeland.

This decree should give food for thought to those imperial forces
that are artificially creating ethnic and confessional problems in
the North Caucasus and which is a reason for destruction of tens of
thousands of people.

This precedent must be a good lesson for the Russian authorities and
the new leadership of the separatist Abkhazia that are so deeply
engaged in seizure and distribution of properties of those three
hundred thousand Georgians that were expelled and robbed that they
do not even want to hear anything about resolving this issue. And
delays in resolving this issue may even result in another irreparable
confrontation.

It is clear to every reasonable person that resolving this issue
has no alternative and that is why the international community is so
persists in demanding restoration of historical justice and timely
restoration of rights of the afflicted population.

YEREVAN TO HOLD ARMENIA-DIASPORA ALL-ARMENIAN FORUM

news.am
Sept 1 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN. – Yerevan will hold Armenia-Diaspora All-Armenian forum on
September 19-20, Armenian Minister of Diaspora Hranush Hakobyan told
at a government session on Thursday.

A total of 300 people will participate in the forum. Armenian MFA will
ease the visa granting regime to all the participants. It was initiated
by the Ministry of Diaspora. Armenian government approved the decision.

ARMENIAN SOCIETY INDIFFERENT TO DECISION BY ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE – WIKILEAKS

news.am
Sept 1 2011
Armenia

Armenian media outlets have not played up the recent decision by
the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to recognize the Armenian genocide,
says the cable published by WikiLeaks website.

In a cable as of August 28, 2007 U.S. Charge d’Affairs to Armenia
Rudolf Perina says that all television stations reported the news in a
brief, straightforward manner, while the newspapers carried the news
in short articles on the front page. The Armenian Government itself
has had nothing to say on the matter.

“The low-key coverage of the ADL decision reflects the fact that
“genocide” affirmation is hardly newsworthy here. The facts are
self-evident to most Armenians, and they tend to be much less
emotionally invested in following each twitch of the “genocide” debate
abroad than either their Turkish neighbors or the Armenian-American
community.

As Armenia has only a tiny Jewish population and practically no history
of anti-Semitism, this low-key reaction in the Armenian press and
public may also be attributed, in part, to an overall unfamiliarity
with the ADL, and why its opinion on the issue should be of interest,”
the document reads.

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY STATEMENT ON TURKISH GOVERNMENT’S ANNOUNCEMENT

Panorama
Sept 1 2011
Armenia

The Turkish government’s announcement of its decision to abide
by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights to return
long-ago confiscated properties of minorities comes as a step in the
right direction. While it remains to be seen how the government will
implement this new measure, the policy holds the promise of restoring
the rule of law for minorities long discriminated against in Turkey.

The announcement comes in the wake of a series of developments in
Turkey resulting in increasing civilian oversight of several branches
of the Turkish government previously controlled by the military. Some
of these reforms stem from Turkey’s aspirations for membership in
the European Union.

However, with the increasingly Islamist policies of Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party and a recent
turnabout for the worse in its relations with the Kurdish population
in Turkey, we hope the timing is not just another effort to burnish
the government’s image as a reform-minded administration.

The timing of Erdogan’s new policy on minority properties also
coincides with the fact that the Turkish Parliament failed to act on
the Armenia-Turkey protocols to establish diplomatic relations and
open the border, despite its international commitments to do so.

Turkey’s failure to enact the protocols reflects a continued pattern
of nonperformance, including its existing obligations under the
Treaties of Kars and Moscow guaranteeing Armenia access to the Black
Sea. Instead, Turkey, in solidarity with Azerbaijan, maintains its
illegal blockade of Armenia and seeks to isolate Armenia and Nagorno
Karabakh.

As far as the Armenian minority in Turkey is concerned – after a
century of violent persecution, official discrimination, and public
racism – the decree to return some of the confiscated properties is a
welcomed development, but cannot begin to redress the magnitude of the
damage inflicted. This indirect admission that Turkey discriminated
against minorities for over three quarters of a century does nothing
to reverse the lasting consequences of the Armenian Genocide. Turkey
has shown no evidence that it is prepared to deal with the legacy of
the Armenian Genocide.

Designed to undermine the remaining minority institutions in Turkey,
the confiscation of properties mostly deeded to minority endowment
dates to the 1930s when Turkey ramped up its discriminatory practices
under the influence of Nazi racial policies. These practices of the
Kemalist regime followed upon the earlier policies of the Young Turk
Committee responsible for the Armenian Genocide and continued with
punishing taxation policies specifically targeting the Armenian,
Jewish, and Greek minorities remaining in Turkey.

Turkey never redressed the result of its official policies dating from
that era. Instead, it sustained pressure on minority communities by
continuously denying or depriving community-based institutions and
endowments that support schools and churches from legally registering
the donation of properties. The policy, as a result, succeeded
in reducing the presence of minority groups to a mere fraction of
their former numbers. In a country with a population of 78 million,
the total minority presence of Christians and Jews in Turkey numbers
less than 100,000.

The decree also does nothing to protect the Armenian architectural
heritage in Turkey represented in countless monuments, many
of a religious nature, that have been subjected to vandalism,
deliberate neglect, if not outright destruction. The sorry state of
the antiquities in the historic city of Ani that sits astride the
border with the Republic of Armenia remains a constant testament
to offenses committed in denying the Armenian Genocide as Turkish
officials continue to drag their feet about salvaging what little
remains of the medieval capital city.

After 75 years, the announcement demonstrates the need for Congress
to adopt the Royce-Berman legislation calling for the safeguarding
of the Christian heritage in Turkey. It was precisely these issues
that noted Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink raised publicly
for the first time in Turkey, and as it turned out tragically, at
the cost of his life. Much more can and should be done to address
the concerns of minorities in Turkey.

OVER BEFORE IT’S OVER

Russia Profile

Sept 1 2011

As a Unified Entity, the Soviet Union De Facto Disappeared Long Before
Its Official End

Two thousand eleven is a year rich in significant anniversaries,
but it’s easy to note that many of them are directly connected to
the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The unsuccessful attempt
to rescue the Soviet Union by cutting its first and last President
Mikhail Gorbachev off from power further promoted the process of
ethno-political self-determination in the allied and autonomous
republics at the end of August and the beginning of September 1991.

On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared independence. Three days later,
on August 27, Moldova also proclaimed itself an independent state.

However, what seemed to be impromptu political decisions were in
fact very well thought-out. Long before the “hot August” of 1991,
both Kiev, and especially Chisinau, had expressed their interest in
an independent political life.

Moldova’s sovereignty was announced on June 23, 1990. The republic
refused to take part in the referendum on preserving a “renewed”
Soviet Union on March 17, 1991, and in the “Novo-Ogaryovo process,”
which dealt with preparations for signing a new confederate agreement.

Ukraine’s Declaration of Independence came on July 16, 1990. This
document included certain elements of fully-fledged statehood,
particularly non-aligned status, which was in itself a claim
to conduct an independent foreign policy. In March of 1991 the
Ukrainian republican leadership took part in the referendum on
preserving the Soviet Union, but with one significant deviation. The
main question posed in the nationwide poll in Kiev was accompanied
by another one, which specified the republic’s special status: “Do
you agree with the fact that Ukraine should be part of the Union of
Soviet sovereign states on the basis of the Declaration of Ukraine’s
state sovereignty?” Unlike Moldova, Ukraine did participate in the
“Novo-Ogaryovo process,” but after the failure of the August putsch
in Moscow it began actively preparing to leave the Soviet Union. This
process came to a logical conclusion on December 1, 1991, during a
republican referendum on retiring from the union state.

The political decisions made at the end of August and beginning of
September by the leaderships of Azerbaijan and Central Asian states
were “surprising” to a certain degree. Until August 1991, Azerbaijan
was seen by many as Moscow’s outpost in Transcaucasia. It was the
only Transcaucasian entity to partake in the referendum on March 17,
1991, and also in the “Novo-Ogaryovo process.” Unlike Armenia, where
the Communist Party had lost its leading position back in 1990,
in August of 1991 Azerbaijan’s Supreme Soviet was headed by the
leader of the republican Communist Party Ayaz Mutalibov. But this
role of an “outpost” was ad hoc. Baku tried to preserve control over
Nagorno-Karabakh and tried to lean on the unionized authorities,
although by 1991 it already had a long list of complaints for the
Kremlin. As soon as Baku realized that the union was on the verge
of disintegration, an intensive process of state self-determination
began. On August 30, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan passed
a declaration “On the reestablishment of the Azerbaijani Republic’s
state independence.”

On August 31, 1991, declarations of state independence were adopted
in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. On September 9, 1991, during an
extraordinary session of Tajikistan’s Supreme Soviet, the declaration
of state independence of the Republic of Tajikistan and decrees
on making amendments were passed unanimously as were additions to
the “Declaration of the Sovereignty of the Tajik Soviet Socialist
Republic,” approved on August 24, 1990. Here it is important to note
that on August 19, 1991, Tashkent and Dushanbe officials de facto
associated with Gorbachev’s opponents from the State Committee for
Emergency Rule (GKChP) and supported a union state. But following
the failure of the putsch, Tashkent and Dushanbe quickly reoriented
themselves toward a strategy called “a way toward independence.”

Next on the list was Armenia’s independence. This case deserves a
separate discussion. The history of Armenia’s self-determination
in 1988 to 1991 rhymed with the struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh. At
the beginning Yerevan hoped to achieve a “miatsum” (unification with
Karabakh) with Moscow’s help. But as soon as it became clear that the
union authorities would be of no help in this matter, Armenia set the
course for self-determination. It was outlined by the Declaration of
Independence of August 23, 1990, which eliminated the Armenian Soviet
Socialist Republic and de facto proclaimed all the attributes of new
statehood. In the end, Armenia was the only one of the 15 republics
that made up the Soviet Union to leave the union in accordance with a
procedure stipulated by Soviet legislation. The republican referendum
on independence was announced six months in advance. At that, Yerevan
ignored both the union plebiscite and the “Novo-Ogaryovo process.” On
September 21, 1991, the inhabitants of Armenia supported the creation
of their own national state. But unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan,
Armenia constructed its statehood instead of reconstructing it.

The events of August and September of 1991 didn’t pass the autonomous
republics by, either. On September 2 the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region declared its independence from Azerbaijan,
and announced the creation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)
together with the Shaumyan District. September 6, 1991, 20 years ago,
marked the beginning of the history of post-Soviet Chechnya, synonymous
with wars, infighting, refugees and terrorist attacks. On this day,
power on Chechnya changed hands, going from the Supreme Soviet of
the Chechen-Ingush Republic (an autonomous entity within the Russian
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) to the All-National Congress
of the Chechen People (OKChN). The mechanism behind this change was
not legitimate or legal, but forceful. That day in September of 1991
was the first tragic incident in a myriad of mishaps that continue
to this day.

Thus the events that took place in August and September 20 years ago
speak against the popular contemporary myth that the “Belavezha pact”
was the main reason behind the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As
a unified entity, the Soviet Union de facto disappeared long before
its official end. And the reasons behind its demise were not the
“Novo-Ogaryovo process” and not the refusal to use force (in 1989 to
1991, it was used multiple times), but the country’s leadership’s
unpreparedness for the systematic modernization of society and the
state. The national factor wasn’t given proper consideration when
choosing and implementing the course of reforms. Moreover, over many
years of the existence of the Soviet Union, nationalism and territorial
segregation were encouraged in some way or another. Who, if not the
Soviet state, institutionalized ethnic groups as the main subject
of policy and state legislation? As the Soviet state’s integration
potential weakened and the integrating ideology – Soviet communism –
faced a crisis, the process of ethnic-national self determination
began in the republics that made up the Soviet Union.

And the last leadership of the Soviet Union is mainly to blame not
for the fact that it failed to prevent the disintegration of the
unified state (the groundwork for this was laid by all of its previous
development), but for the fact that it failed to make the state,
firstly, manageable, and secondly, ruled by law. Each one of the
allied republics and autonomous territories was determined based on
political expedience, often not based on the law, but on force. This
resulted in eight inter-ethnic and civil conflicts on the territory
of the former Soviet Union, as well as in unresolved problems along
the borders and inter-state disputes, which in some cases lead to
a severing of diplomatic relations between separate parts of what
once used to be one country. Alas, this period in history deserves
a separate discussion.

Sergei Markedonov, Ph.D., is a political analyst and a visiting fellow
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Russia
and Eurasia Program, Washington, DC.

AZERBAIJANI FM NOT AWARE OF NEXT SARGSYAN-ALIYEV MEETING

news.am
Sept 1 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN.- Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov has no
information about the next meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani
Presidents.

“I have no information about the next meeting of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani Presidents. I got this information from the press. I
can confirm that Azerbaijan is ready to continue talks over
Nagorno-Karabakh,” Trend agency quotes Mammadyarov.

According to him, much has been done in the peace process up to now.

“I do not want anyone to deal with propaganda, saying that Azerbaijan
abandons the negotiation process. The conflict must be resolved in
a phased manner, on the basis of the Madrid Principles,” he said.

The Minister expressed confidence that time will come when “the
Armenian troops will be withdrawn from the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan.”

Earlier press reported the OSCE Minsk Group was preparing meeting
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents on the sidelines of
UN General Assembly session.

President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan will attend UN General Assembly
session on September 23.

A diplomatic source told Armenian News-NEWS.am President Sargsyan is
not scheduled to meet with his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev
in New York.

BAKU MUST ENSURE ARMENIA’S SECURITY

07:21 pm | September 01, 2011

Armenia is still discussing its participation in the 2012 Eurovision
Song Contest to be held in Baku on May 22-26, 2012.

“The Armenian delegation not only places importance on the Azerbaijani
government’s security warrants, but also those of the European
Broadcasting Union. That is why we will present our decision on
participation in the next couple of months,” head of the Armenian
delegation for Eurovision, Gohar Gasparyan told “A1+”.

Let us inform that the organizers of Eurovision-2012 are in Baku
to find out how the Ictimai television is preparing to broadcast
the contest.

Negotiations with the Azerbaijani authorities over the guests’ security
and letters guaranteeing freedom of speech and press are underway.

Azerbaijan won last year’s Eurovision Song Contest with 221 points.

Singer Emmy represented Armenia and didn’t move on to the final stage.

TOUCHING UPON NK CONFLICT WITH STATE SECRETARY

08:53 pm | September 01, 2011

Chairs of the NA standing committees on defense, national security and
internal affairs and on foreign relations Hrair Karapetyan and Armen
Rustamyan had a meeting with Parliamentary State Secretary for the
Federal Ministry of Defense of Germany, Christian Schmidt. Attending
the meeting were RA First Deputy Minister of Defense David Tonoyan
and German Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Armenia
Hans-Johen Schmidt.

Armen Rustamyan registered that Armenia’s foreign policy is linked to
Euro-integration processes and that Armenia is carrying out projects
that are particularly aimed at matching the country’s security system
with European standards. Rustamyan said Armenia is interested in
establishing sustainable peace in the region and highly appreciated
the cooperation with European partner countries in issues such as
Armenian-Turkish relations and a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict that falls in line with the principles of international law.

Hrair Karapetyan expressed gratitude for Germany’s support in
Armenia’s defense sphere, particularly military, medicine and military
education. Karapetyan introduced the guest to the reforms taking place
in Armenia’s defense sphere and the legislative amendments, adding
that this year the National Assembly will adopt a disciplinary rule
book that will specify the rights and responsibilities of officers
and soldiers.

Christian Schmidt expressed satisfaction with the Armenian-German
military cooperation and voiced hope for more active
inter-parliamentary cooperation in that direction. Schmidt expressed
gratitude for the Armenian regiment’s participation and important
contribution to the German forces in Afghanistan.

During the meeting, the sides also discussed issues related to
Euro-integration processes, regional security, the development of
Armenian-German parliamentary and military cooperation and peaceful
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, reports the NA press
service.