Author: Badalian Vardan

TO DETERMINE FATE OF KARABAKH PEOPLE ONE SHOULD ADDRESS THEM DIRECTLY – EXPERT

news.am
July 14 2011
Armenia

To determine the fate of Karabakh people one should address them
directly, Armenian political expert Karen Bekaryan said in an
interview with Novoye Vremya newspaper. He commented on Aliyev’s recent
statement that Baku will never consider the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s
independence.

“Once, Azerbaijani leader Aliyev will realize it is senseless to speak
with Karabakh people in a language of threats or force. Voicing the
idea of interim status of Nagorno-Karabakh for the first time Aliyev
rushed to call Armenians aggressors,” he said.

The expert considers once Karabakh’s people expression of will is
discussed, Azerbaijani leader may declare Armenians “occupied” another
five villages therefore Baku had to agree to expression of will.

Speaking about the recent statement by Aliyev that Armenia wants
to start a war, Bekaryan stressed that Yerevan never threatened to
Azerbaijan and will not do so.

“All statements by Armenian senior officials, including the President,
indicate the country will give an adequate response in case Azerbaijan
resumes hostilities,” he explained.

HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HEFFERN AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE TO THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

July 13, 2011

Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is
an honor to appear before you as the President~Rs nominee to be the United
States Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. I am pleased to be joined
today by my wife Libby and our children, Lisa (and Ryan), Lucy, Sarah,
Woody and Alley. We welcome this opportunity to again serve our nation
overseas.
My mother, a naturalized American from India, could not be here
today, but I would note that I owe my interest in the Foreign Service to her
and to my deceased father, who was a WWII veteran and, briefly, an FSO as
well.
Madam Chairman, I am honored that President Obama and Secretary
Clinton have nominated me for this important post. If confirmed, I will
build upon the fine work of my predecessors to advance our bilateral
relationship with Armenia in all its facets: diplomatic, political, economic,
trade, and in our deep people-to-people ties.
2
The Obama Administration has strengthened U.S. relations with
Armenia. In April 2010, the Presidents of our two countries held their first
bilateral meeting in 10 years and, when Secretary Clinton visited Yerevan
last year, it was the first visit by a Secretary of State to Armenia
in 19 years.
We have expanded development assistance to Armenia in several
areas, especially in governance, economic growth, and market
competiveness, and maintained overall funding levels despite budget cuts in
Europe and Eurasia. Specifically, including FY 2011, we have invested
more than $38 million since 2009 in democracy and governance
programming, including over $16 million for civil society development.
During this period, we have also devoted over $17 million to promote better
access to health care and launched a new 5-year, $22 million on enterprise
development and market competitiveness. Over the past 5 years, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation has invested almost $180 million in
Armenia to improve irrigation infrastructure, provide technical and financial
assistance to farmers and agribusinesses, and improve rural roads. If
confirmed, I would like to work on expanding the U.S.-Armenia trade
relationship, building on the already strong connections between Americans
and Armenians, to foster more trade and investment between our countries.
3
On the political front, the U.S. has encouraged Armenia to improve its
human rights and democracy record, and we have seen some positive
developments this year, with the government releasing those still detained
from the protests after the Armenian elections in 2008. Armenia will hold
important national elections in 2012 and 2013, which are opportunities for
the Government of Armenia to demonstrate its commitment to democracy.
The Administration supports Armenia~Rs courageous steps to begin a process
with Turkey to address their history, and to find a way to move forward
together in a shared future of security and prosperity. Through the Minsk
Process, the U.S. supports Armenia and Azerbaijan as they work toward a
peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
There is still a lot to do. If confirmed, I would continue the efforts of
my most able predecessor, Ambassador Masha Yovanovitch. I will seek, as
she did, opportunities to enhance our relationship with Armenia, should the
Senate confirm me for this position.
My 29 years as an FSO have prepared me for this assignment. During
this time, I have served faithfully in both Democratic and Republican
Administrations. Following my instructions from Washington, I have done
my best to advance U.S. interests and uphold American ideals. In addition, I
4
pledge to the committee that, if confirmed, I will report candidly and
accurately to Washington my views and recommendations from the field.
My work at NATO with Armenia and other Caucasus partners has
introduced me to this complex and fascinating region. I look forward to
enhancing my understanding of the country and the region by working with
the Armenian Government, the Armenian people, and the Armenian-
American community.
Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, President Obama has
recognized and deplored the horrific events that took place in the waning
days of the Ottoman Empire. He has publicly called the massacre of 1.5
million Armenians at this time one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.
The President has urged Turkey and Armenia to work through their painful
history to achieve a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts. If
confirmed, I will do my best to fulfill the President~Rs vision.
Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you for your time today. I
want to assure you that, if confirmed, I look forward to working closely with
you, with members of this Committee, and with the Congress as a whole in
representing my fellow Americans as the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic
of Armenia.
Thank you and I welcome your questions.

ARMENIA SENDS TEAM TO CHINA FOR WORLD CHESS TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP

Xinhua General News Service
July 12, 2011 Tuesday 7:55 AM EST
China

Armenia on Tuesday sent its five-player team to China to play in this
year’s World Chess Team Championship to be held later this month in
the Chinese coastal city of Ningbo.

The Ningbo-bound Armenian team is consisted of Levon Aronian (third
on the FIDE July ratings), Sergei Movsesian (42nd), Vladimir Akopian
(81st), Gabriel Sargissian (84th) and Robert Hovhannisyan (398th).

Team coach is Arshak Petrosian.

Armenia, as the special pick by the FIDE president, is to join
in Ningbo Russia (winner of the previous world team championship),
Ukraine (winner of the 2010 chess Olympiad), Israel (third at the 2010
chess Olympiad), Hungary (third for all-time team championships),
Azerbaijan (qualifier from Europe), Egypt (qualifier from Africa),
India (qualifier from Asia), the United States (qualifier from the
Americas) and China (as the championship hosts) in the nine-round
round-robin tournament to set off on July 16.

Armenia is ranked sixth worldwide in team strength by FIDE, behind
Russia, Ukraine, France, China and Hungary, but above India, Israel,
the United States and Azerbaijan.

Russia won the last championship while the United States and India
finished runner-up and third.

THE MADRID PRINCIPLES: PEACE OR A NEW WAR?

Today’s Zaman
*.html
July 13 2011
Turkey

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has been going on for
approximately 20 years now, has so far failed to reach a permanent
solution.

The initiatives of the Minsk Group, which have increased in recent
years (especially after the Russia-Georgia war in 2008), and the
Madrid Principles put forth in 2007 have also failed to bring the
parties in the conflict to find a middle ground. The leaders, who
have frequently come together to discuss a solution, most recently
met in Kazan, but again no results have been obtained. Azerbaijani and
Armenian officials continue to direct accusations at each other. There
is more than one reason for this situation.

First of all, we should draw attention to the following point:
If there is a conflict between any two countries, under normal
conditions it would be expected of both sides to make concessions on
some points in order to reach a solution. However, normal conditions
unfortunately do not apply to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict because
there is no concession that Azerbaijan could make since 20 percent of
its territory is under occupation. Therefore, the side which must make
concessions is Armenia. However, not only is Armenia not willing to
make this concession, there is also no power willing to push Armenia
to make this concession.

The second point concerns the Madrid Principles, which were put forth
by the Minsk Group in order for a solution to be reached. However,
it is very difficult for the Madrid Principles, in their current form,
to be adopted and implemented by the parties. The essential reason for
this is that although the principles foresee the Armenians withdrawing
from the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, they leave the
final status of Nagorno-Karabakh to be determined by a referendum to
be made in the following years. It is very clear that this means that
Azerbaijan will lose Nagorno-Karabakh and, therefore, there is almost
no possibility for Azerbaijan to accept these kinds of suggestions.

The problem reaches a deadlock regarding what the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh will be.

On the other hand, if the parties are able to reach a compromise
on the Madrid Principles, there is a possibility that the following
scenario will arise:

In terms of Armenia: Although Armenia will get what it wants in
Nagorno-Karabakh if the principles are adopted, evacuating the
territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh will elicit strong reactions
from the public. According to this argument, recent opposition protests
in the country will give way to much greater mass demonstrations and
this situation will create complications for the country. Moreover,
how Nagorno-Karabakh, surrounded by Azerbaijan, will be affected by
this situation is another big question that would need to be addressed.

In terms of Azerbaijan: If Azerbaijan adopts the principles in their
current form, this will have more significant consequences for it
compared to the consequences for Armenia because leaving the status
of Nagorno-Karabakh to be determined by a referendum to be made 10-15
years later will cause the Aliyev administration to face the potential
of massive protests. Furthermore, it is also likely that cracks will
occur within the administration. This situation could pave the way
for instability, whose end cannot be predicted, within the internal
politics of Azerbaijan.

As can be seen, the Madrid Principles have the potential to uncover
much deeper problems, especially in the medium and long terms. On
this point, attention must be drawn to the approach of the Minsk
Group and of Russia in particular.

Despite the fact that the Minsk Group has been holding negotiations
with the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for approximately
20 years, that it has still not being able to obtain results raises
questions about its function and efficiency. In Azerbaijan especially,
serious concerns exist that the Minsk Group is pursuing a policy of
delaying. As a matter of fact, we should note that this view is not
that incorrect because there is a situation in Nagorno-Karabakh such
that changing the existing status quo, even with a text of peace,
could create unexpected results in the region. Since the results
cannot be predicted, the Minsk Group and co-chairs are proceeding
cautiously. However, it is quite clear that South Ossetia and Abkhazia
declaring their independence following the Russia-Georgia war in 2008
has created concerns within the Minsk Group, as nearly 15 meetings have
been held between the leaders since that year. Rather than increasing
the frequency of the talks, the Minsk Group co-chairs should clearly
convey their stance regarding the status of Karabakh.

Or else, it will be quite unlikely to obtain a result from the talks
concerning a just resolution.

On the other hand, as a dominant power and a Minsk Group co-chair,
Russia could influence the policies of both countries. Russia
is the big power most able to bring both parties together at the
negotiation table and which could apply pressure over Armenia in
particular. Until now, Russia has been the country benefitting the
most from a solution not being reached because the current situation
causes both Armenia and Azerbaijan to become more dependent on Russia
in both regional and international politics. In this context, the
key to the Nagorno-Karabakh deadlock is in Russia’s hands.

Amid all of this complexity, responding positively to the question of
whether the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict could be truly resolved through
politics and diplomacy is very difficult.

——————————————————————————–
*Halit GulÅ~_en is a Russia-Caucasia researcher working with the
Center for Eurasian Studies (AVÄ°M).

Issue Of Establishing Crematories In Armenia Urgent – Expert

news.am
July 13 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN. – Issue of establishing crematories in Armenia becomes
urgent, as Armenia has limited land areas and crematories help to
avoid possible epidemics, head of hygienic and epidemic department of
Ministry of Healthcare Aida Petikyan told the journalists on
Wednesday.

“Corpse burning process is not common in Armenia. It is related to the
mentality and traditions. However, state needs great deal of money to
establish crematories,” she told and added though it is possible to
bury another corpse 15 years later, crematories will be more helpful
to avoid epidemics.

Another speaker of the conference chief specialist of the epidemic
infectious and non infectious diseases department Liana Torosyan told
that classical version of the funeral can always cause dangerous
situations by spreading various infections through flies.

There are more than 14,000 crematories in the world, mainly in
Christian countries. However, Armenian Apostolic Church is strictly
against crematories and rejects to accept that practice.

OSCE CHAIRMAN MULLS KARABAKH PROBLEM WITH MINSK GROUP

Trend
July 13 2011
Azerbaijan

The OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Lithuanian Foreign Minister
Audronius Azubalis yesterday met the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group, Ambassador Bernard Fassier of France, Robert Bradtke of the
United States, and Igor Popov of the Russian Federation accompanied
by Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, the Personal Representative of the
Chairperson-in-Office on the conflict dealt with by the OSCE Minsk
Conference, the OSCE reported.

Azubalis voiced support for the efforts by the Co-Chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group to achieve a breakthrough at the negotiations on
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and called for more civil society
involvement in the implementation of confidence-building measures.

“It will contribute to the resolution of the conflict, and will
strengthen confidence among the societies,” he said.

The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs informed Ažubalis about the trilateral
meeting of Armenian, Azerbaijani and Russian Presidents in Kazan on
24 June, which was an attempt to agree on basic principles as the
framework for a comprehensive settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. They also discussed the prospects of a solution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and planned negotiating initiatives for
the remaining year.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has prepared a message to Presidents
of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan, following
discussions held in Kazan. The message includes proposals on the
visions of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution that was recently
discussed at the meeting of the three presidents with representatives
of the OSCE Minsk Group.

Presidents Ilham Aliyev, Dmitry Medvedev and Serzh Sargsyan discussed
the basic principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement in
Kazan on June 24. The meeting – ninth in the last three years – ended
without reaching agreement on the basic principles of settlement. A
joint statement issued after the meeting noted the progress towards
this goal.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. –
are currently holding the peace negotiations.

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

THINGS WILL BE WORSE FOR ARMENIA HEREAFTER

news.az
July 13 2011
Azerbaijan

News.Az interviews Rasim Musabayov, political expert.

The process of international recognition of a new state – Southern
Sudan began later last week. Should Azerbaijan also follow this
example or it should refrain as in this case we are talking about
the right of peoples to self-determination?

>From what should we refrain? This decision was adopted with the
consent of the central government, unfortunately, after a long war
that killed nearly 2 million people. In general, the decision has
been made, and I do not think that Azerbaijan should distance itself
from this in some form.

How do you comment on excitement among Armenian experts who see
realization of population’s right to self-determination in Southern
Sudan as further proof of the same “rights” of the Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh?

We are talking about 8-9 million people in Sudan. In Kosovo, it was
about 2 million people. This is a nation. And in general, there
is place for these states on the political map of the world. But
autonomy was created for 100,000 Armenians as national minorities so
that they can feel comfortable unlike 150,000 Armenians in Javakhatia
who have no autonomy or 300,000 Azerbaijanis in Georgia, who also do
not have autonomy, or 200,000 Azerbaijanis who lived in Armenia had
an no autonomous status.

However, Armenians of Karabakh were granted autonomy. And if in matters
of autonomy we will erase the line between those forms that are given
to national minorities, there will be no national minorities left on
the map of the world.

They all should either be expelled or made independent. This is
absurd. And it is illogical, absurd world view of Armenians, which
sooner or later will lead to national disaster.

By the way, once the Armenian government, commenting on this position
you voiced consonant with the position of Baku, mockingly reminded of
the expression concerning the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey
– “One nation – two states”, and already more seriously stated that
existence of two Armenian states is possible just as Arabs have many
state today.

Yes, they exist. It there were 2 million Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh,
perhaps, this issue would have some sense. But when 100,000 people
with autonomy considers this an unacceptable form and insists on
independence, tearing apart from the state, what are then “ethnic
minority” and their rights within other states? Therefore, “size does
matter” in this case.

Contrary to forecasts of pessimists, Russian President Medvedev has
not renounced personal active mediation in Karabakh process despite
failure of the Kazan summit. This is evidenced by Russian Foreign
Minister Lavrov’s visit to Baku and Yerevan last week during which he
presented Medvedev’s latest proposals on Karabakh to the parties. Do
you believe in the success of this mediation?

Apparently, the Kazan meeting really failed. In general, one can
actually say that the five-year negotiating round ends in complete
failure. Taking into account that Russia was a soloist in this
negotiation round for the last two years, it will also be considered
as a failure of Russian mediation.

I believe that to negate this view, the Russian diplomatic service
and the Russian president are making the last attempt to get at least
some result, to sign something that could be evaluated as progress
in resolving the conflict.

How are they going to do it? I do not exclude that it would totally
meet both Russian and Armenian interests to maintain the status quo
by imposing an obligation not to use force on Azerbaijan in one form
or another. But I think they realize that it is almost impossible to
impose this on Azerbaijan on the backdrop ongoing occupation.

Therefore, most likely, they want factor out a controversial issue
associated with the status of Nagorno-Karabakh (I mean, in what form
an interim status can be determined or referendum will be held or
not) and sign a document, which will reflect Armenians’ commitment
to withdraw its troops from the territory of Azerbaijan in the future
along with Azerbaijan’s undertaking to resolve the issue peacefully.

There are risks for Azerbaijan. They lie in the fact that Armenia will
some time in future (that is, on unspecified date) withdraw its forces
from the Azerbaijani territory while Baku’s commitment not to use
force will actually go into effect as soon as we take this commitment.

Unlike his predecessor and current rival in 2012 elections Vladimir
Putin, Medvedev is more active in Karabakh conflict resolution. May
Russia’s efforts in this regard reduce once Putin wins elections
next year?

I believe even if Medvedev remains in power and negotiating process
fails to reach any result in its current format, the situation will
mean a point because, in fact, the problem is that the parties have
different approaches.

It is impossible to combine them. It means there is a need to put
pressure on someone. It is impossible to put pressure on Azerbaijan.

Neither Americans, nor French and Russians can do it. On the contrary,
they have great deal of requests to Azerbaijan. But they do not want
to put pressure on Armenians.

It is clear that Medvedev is in some sense interested to go to new
elections with some serious foreign policy success. He needs this. I
think not only personal interest is involved here. Russia’s true
interest is to maintain status quo which is impossible. The fact that
any negative scenario will affect Russia’s interests badly makes them
move towards resolution of the conflict.

After all, Putin also took some steps to move the negotiating process
forward. If not Medvedev, then Putin will do this. Things will not
be worse for Azerbaijan. It will worse for Armenia hereafter.

F.H.

REVUE DE PRESSE N°1 – 13/07/11 – COLLECTIF VAN

Publié le : 13-07-2011

Info Collectif VAN – – Le Collectif VAN [Vigilance
Arménienne contre le Négationnisme] vous propose une revue de presse
des informations parues dans la presse francophone, sur les thèmes
concernant la Turquie, le génocide arménien, la Shoah, le génocide
des Tutsi, le Darfour, le négationnisme, l’Union européenne, Chypre,
etc… Nous vous suggérons également de prendre le temps de lire
ou de relire les informations et traductions mises en ligne dans
notre rubrique
Par ailleurs, certains articles en anglais, allemand, turc, etc,
ne sont disponibles que dans la newsletter Word que nous générons
chaque jour. Pour la recevoir, abonnez-vous à la Veille-Média :
c’est gratuit ! Vous recevrez le document du lundi au vendredi dans
votre boîte email. Bonne lecture.

Concert SOS Racisme le 14 juillet à Paris Info Collectif VAN –
â~@~S Pour la première fois depuis près de
20 ans, SOS Racisme renoue avec la tradition des grands concerts
de plein air. Cet évènement aura lieu le 14 juillet au Champ de
Mars. Il vise à réunir tous ceux qui, face à une ambiance lourde,
faite de libération de la parole raciste et de la stigmatisation de
plus en plus décomplexée de fractions croissantes de la population,
sont attachés au vivre-ensemble et refusent de voir se construire
une société de la haine de lâ~@~Yautre, de la méfiance, de la peur
et de lâ~@~Yaigreur. Le Collectif VAN [Vigilance Arménienne contre
le Négationnisme] tiendra un stand au sein du Village Associatif de
SOS Racisme, sur le Champ de Mars à Paris, à partir de 14h le 14
juillet 2011.

Turquie : la liberté de la presse en danger Info Collectif VAN –
â~@~S Des organisations médiatiques turques,
invoquant le fait que les journalistes ne sont pas des “agents de
lâ~@~YÃ~Itat” ont condamné la demande dâ~@~Yun procureur qui a exigé
que les journaux remettent toutes les photos en leur possession
relatives aux incidents du 31 mai à Hopa à défaut de quoi ils
seraient poursuivis en justice. Rappelons que les condamnations et
incarcérations des journalistes se multiplient et que la liberté
des médias est entravée par de nombreuses lois qui imposent une
véritable censure. La Turquie se trouve à la 138e place sur 178 au
classement mondial de la liberté de la presse 2010, publié le 20
octobre par Reporters sans frontières. Le Collectif VAN vous livre
la traduction de cet article en anglais paru sur le site turc Hurriyet
Daily News le 2 juillet 2011.

Le Soudan du Sud va devenir le 193e Etat de l’ONU Info Collectif VAN –
â~@~S Le Président du Conseil de sécurité de
l’ONU a soumis lundi la candidature de la République du Soudan du
Sud pour devenir un nouvel Etat membre des Nations Unies à l’organe
chargé d’examiner une telle demande. Le Comité du Conseil sur
l’admission de nouveaux membres s’est réuni lundi après-midi pour
examiner la candidature, qui a été soumise par le Président du
Soudan du Sud, Salva Kiir, le 9 juillet, le jour où la nouvelle nation
a proclamé son indépendance et sa sécession du Soudan. Souhaitons
que la communauté internationale puisse comprendre également la
légitime aspiration des Arméniens du Haut-Karabagh à vivre en paix
et en sécurité au sein d’un Etat indépendant, libéré des menaces
guerrières de l’Azerbaïdjan voisin : la République du Haut-Karabagh
– à population arménienne – avait été rattachée arbitrairement à
l’Azerbaïdjan pendant la période soviétique et elle s’est prononcée
par referendum pour son indépendance en septembre 1991. Le Collectif
VAN vous invite à lire cette information publiée sur le site de
l’ONU le 11 juillet 2011.

Lieberman : La Turquie a “fermé la porte” à un rapprochement Le
leader turc a “fermé la porte” à une réconciliation avec Israël en
insistant sur la fin du blocus de Gaza et sur les excuses pour avoir
stoppé un navire turc se dirigeant vers l’enclave palestinienne. C’est
ce qu’a déclaré le ministre des Affaires étrangères Avigdor
Lieberman dimanche.

L’info vue par la TRT (2) Le Collectif VAN vous propose cet article
publié sur la TRT (Télévision & Radio de Turquie). Les articles
de ce site ne sont pas commentés de notre part. Ils peuvent contenir
des propos négationnistes envers le génocide arménien ou d’autres
informations à prendre sous toute réserve. “Le Commissaire européen
à l’élargissement Å tefan Füle réalise une visite en Turquie. Les
pas à lancer afin de réanimer le processus de négociation de la
Turquie avec l’UE sont au menu.”

Le Sud-Soudan fête son indépendance Le nouveau pays est désormais
confronté à un immense défiâ~@~I: la formation dâ~@~Yun Ã~Itat. Le
Sud-Soudan a proclamé, samedi à Juba, la capitale, son indépendance
devant une foule en liesse et un parterre de dirigeants étrangers,
après un demi-siècle de guerre civile qui a fait des millions de
morts. La communauté internationale, Ã~Itats-Unis, Chine, Russie,
Union européenne et ses Ã~Itats membres, Israël aussi, ont reconnu ce
nouveau pays africain figurant parmi les plus pauvres au monde malgré
ses vastes ressources pétrolières, et lâ~@~Ya assuré de son soutien.

Barack Obama et Dmitri Medvedev sâ~@~Yaccordent sur les pourparlers
Lundi 11 juillet, le président américain Barack Obama et son
homologue russe Dmitri Medvedev ont discuté au téléphone, du
conflit du Haut-Karabagh et se sont engagés à fournir davantage
dâ~@~Yefforts dans les pourparlers de paix arméno-azerbaïdjanais.

L’info vue par la TRT (1) Le Collectif VAN vous propose cet article
publié sur la TRT (Télévision & Radio de Turquie). Les articles
de ce site ne sont pas commentés de notre part. Ils peuvent contenir
des propos négationnistes envers le génocide arménien ou d’autres
informations à prendre sous toute réserve. “Une violente explosion
avait secoué hier la base navale de lâ~@~Yarmée de la Garde nationale
dans le secteur chypriote grec. Lâ~@~Yadministration chypriote grec a
décrété trois jours de deuil national et a fait appel à lâ~@~YUnion
européenne suite à lâ~@~Yexplosion qui a fait douze morts.”

Dépêche de l’APA [ 12 jui 2011 19:33 ] – Agence de Presse
d’Azerbaïdjan Le Collectif VAN vous propose un article de l’APA
(Agende de presse azérie) daté du 12 juillet 2011. Les articles
de ce site (écrits généralement dans un français rudimentaire)
ne sont pas commentés de notre part. Ils peuvent contenir des
propos négationnistes envers le génocide arménien ou d’autres
informations à prendre sous toute réserve. «« La dernière
déclaration des chefs dâ~@~Yétat des pays membres de lâ~@~YOSCE
nous donnent de lâ~@~Yespoir. On sâ~@~Yest référé à lâ~@~YActe
final dâ~@~YHelsinki dans cette déclaration et la nécessité de
changement du « statu quo » a été soulignée.»

Matchs truqués en Turquie : Encore des arrestations De nouvelles
arrestations ont eu lieu en Turquie dans le cadre de lâ~@~Yenquête
sur les suspicions de matchs de football truqués. Deux cadres du
célèbre Besiktas, le vice-président du club et son directeur
technique ont été convoqués par la police dâ~@~YIstanbul.

Dépêche de l’APA [ 12 jui 2011 16:59 ] – Agence de Presse
d’Azerbaïdjan Le Collectif VAN vous propose un article de l’APA
(Agende de presse azérie) daté du 12 juillet 2011. Les articles
de ce site (écrits généralement dans un français rudimentaire)
ne sont pas commentés de notre part. Ils peuvent contenir des propos
négationnistes envers le génocide arménien ou d’autres informations
à prendre sous toute réserve. “Entretien avec Thomas Ambrosio,
professeur de lâ~@~YUniversité de Dakota, expert pour le Caucase
du Sud.”

Le football turc secoué par une affaire de corruption sans précédent

La justice turque a procédé récemment à une soixantaine
d’arrestations dans le milieu footballistique en Turquie dans le
cadre d’une affaire de corruption et de manipulation de matches sans
précédent qui secoue actuellement le football professionnel turc.

Retour à la rubrique

ARMENIA’S POPULATION TO DROP 500,000 BY 2050: SURVEY

Xinhua General News Service
July 11, 2011 Monday 12:25 PM EST
China

Armenia’s population is estimated to drop from 2.97 million to between
2.3 million and 2.5 million by 2050, according to a survey released
on Monday.

The prediction was made in accordance with the country’s current
birth rate.

Gagik Hayrapetyan, director of the Armenian NGO Population Fund,
told a press conference in Yerevan that statistics showed 57 percent
of the Armenian households now have on average two children instead
of three or four.

The same sampling survey has also found that two-thirds of the
respondents do not want to have their second child in the next
three years.

A 2006 estimate showed that Armenia’s population was 2.97 million.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH IN THE SHADOW OF RUSSIAN INFLUENCE

Today’s Zaman

July 12 2011
Turkey

Last year I met with a Russian official at an international conference
in Moscow. During our long and contentious discussion on the problem
of settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, he argued that any
attempt by Armenian leadership to try to change the status quo in
a positive sense will result in events similar to those that took
place in 1997 when former President Levon Ter-Petrosian was forced
to resign, or in 1999, when several top local officials were shot
dead by terrorists in the national parliament. I was not surprised to
hear such a strongly held opinion from my Russian colleague, just as
I was not surprised to learn of a new failure of the opposing parties
to reach a breakthrough in the peace talks recently held in Kazan.

In reality, the factor of external powers has always held a special
place in the conflict settlement process. Many agree that there are
outside strategic concerns behind the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis.

Clearly, an influential group of principal powers (in which Russia,
the US and the European Union dominate) plays a key role in the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) when it
comes to the issue of conflict resolution. In recent years Russia has
taken a proactive stance in the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process,
thus trying to convince the West that the Kremlin has quite a big
potential to impose a diplomatic solution on the parties, or at least
to be a credible mediator.

Indeed Moscow has succeeded in strengthening ties with both Yerevan
and Baku, with the West progressively losing ground to increasing
Russian economic, military and political advancement in the region,
as reflected in Russia’s military agreement with Armenia and growing
energy ties with Azerbaijan. Moscow is trying to create a new balance
of relations in the Armenia-Russia-Azerbaijan triangle, and all the
latest diplomatic steps by the Kremlin have been aimed at maintaining
a geopolitical equilibrium in the conflict-torn region. By doing so,
Russia has enhanced its position in the South Caucasus.

Russia’s successful foreign policy in the region also results from the
failure of other international players, or at least the systemized
weakening of their stances. The Obama administration’s shortsighted
policy has seriously weakened US strategic objectives in the South
Caucasus. Washington’s failure to craft any coherent vision as to how
the region fits into broader US strategy has allowed America’s role
to be increasingly defined through the prism of Russia. The lack of a
meaningful US response to the challenge presented by the protracted
conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh not only highlights the low level of
US engagement in this troubled region but also renders questionable
America’s ability to be an effective player in the OSCE Minsk Group.

Likewise, the EU lacks a visionary and principled approach in its
policy toward resolving the conflict. Brussels has practically no
role in the conflict settlement and therefore does not have the
necessary tools to intervene in the peace process, offering only
confidence-building activities. Such a situation strongly limits the
influence of the EU in the region and dramatically hinders Brussels’
capacity to formulate meaningful policy to deal with simmering
secessionist conflicts. The resulting lack of a common and integrated
strategy may lead in the near future to a withdrawal of the West from
the South Caucasus and the loss of ground to Russia’s more assertive
foreign policy.

Therefore, Russia is seen as essentially having a monopoly over the
peacemaking process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a role which the
OSCE has effectively forsaken. By orchestrating the negotiations, the
Kremlin seeks to enhance Russia’s “sphere of influence” and to cause
Euro-Atlantic security arrangements in the region to disintegrate. The
failure of the OSCE not only shows the EU to be effectively lacking
the ability to speak in the face of the South Caucasus crisis, but
also demonstrates their inability to build international support
around interests in competition with Russian ones.

Meanwhile, Moscow’s mediating mission has given rise to intensive
speculation as to whether Russia is presently interested in a
definitive solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. More precisely,
the question that needs to be answered is: Does Russia want a quick
resolution of the conflict? It is very unlikely that Russian-led peace
talks will effectively solve the crisis in the near future. Instead
it is likely that Moscow will exploit the peace process to gain
more economic, military and political power. In order bring about
a progressive shift of the region into its own orbit of influence,
Russia needs only to keep things as they are in the South Caucasus.

Given these circumstances, Russia is simply interested in maintaining
the “managed instability” in the region.

Nevertheless, Russia’s role in finding an ultimate solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh crisis is very critical. Without doubt, the Kremlin
holds the key to the Armenian-Azerbaijani quandary. Russia does have
a golden opportunity for ending this protracted territorial conflict
and helping reconcile the two nations. However, Moscow seems to
be waiting for a time when a new, beneficial political situation
that fits well into Russian strategic interests is realized in the
post-Soviet Southern Tier. Until this happens, the game goes on
and the end is still ahead. The Western democracies are surely not
powerless to bring about a change in Russian behavior in Europe’s
backyard. The US and the EU must understand that stand to lose all
influence in this strategically important area. Moreover, the Western
players will risk losing a major geopolitical game if they continue to
pursue a “Russia first” policy and watch calmly how Russian economic,
military and political influence extends in the aftermath of the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

*Dr. Elkhan Nuriyev was Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow at the
Peace Research Institute (Bonn, 2000-2003). He is currently professor
of political science at Western University in Baku, Azerbaijan,
and the author of “The South Caucasus at the Crossroads” (LIT, Berlin).