Author: Badalian Vardan

KAZAN : RENCONTRE AZERBAïDJAN/ARMéNIE LE 25 JUIN

Source/Lien : The New York Times
Publié le : 22-06-2011

Info Collectif VAN – – ” Les ministres
des Affaires étrangères de l’Azerbaïdjan, de l’Arménie et de
la Russie se sont rencontrés samedi [11 juin] a huis clos, les
médiateurs internationaux ayant intensifié leur pression pour
obtenir une avancée décisive dans le long conflit concernant le
territoire disputé du Nagorno-Karabakh. L’objectif de la Russie,
avec la réunion le 25 juin a Kazan en Russie, est de persuader
les parties impliquées de se mettre d’accord sur les “principes
de base” négociés il y a plus de cinq ans. Richard Giragosian,
un analyste basé a Erevan, la capitale arménienne, a déclaré
qu’il doutait que la réunion de Kazan permette de réaliser une
percée. Ã~@ l’origine, on devait présenter aux deux parties un
document d’une page indiquant qu’elles renoncaient a l’utilisation
de la force, a-t-il dit. Cet objectif a été remplacé par un but
plus ambitieux – l’approbation des principes de base – ce qui n’est
pas réaliste selon lui. ” La journaliste du New-York Times ne met
pas en avant la légitime revendication a l’auto-détermination du
peuple arménien, régulièrement victime de crimes génocidaires
et d’attaques sanglantes par ses voisins turcs-azéris : le pogrom
des 27/29 février 1988 a l’encontre de la population arménienne de
Soumgaït (Sumgait, СÑ~CмгаиÑ~Bе) en Azerbaïdjan, avait marqué
le départ de violences inouïes qui se sont répétées par la suite
a Kirovabad et Bakou, puis au cours du conflit du Haut-Karabagh avec
les massacres de Maragha. Ces massacres ont eu pour but de vider
entièrement la population arménienne vivant en Azerbaïdjan. Entre
1988 et 1990, 360 000 Arméniens sont expulsés de Bakou et d’autres
villes azéries. Ces pogroms renforcent l’idée que les autorités
azéries ne peuvent assurer la sécurité des citoyens arméniens de
la République du Haut-Karabagh.

A l’instar de l’Etat turc, l’Azerbaïdjan (alors soviétique)
n’a pas eu a répondre devant un tribunal international, des actes
génocidaires dont il est responsable. Le Collectif VAN vous propose
la traduction de cet article de New-York Times publié le 11 juin 2011.

Rencontre Azerbaïdjan/Arménie pour mettre fin au conflit territorial

De ELLEN BARRY

11 juin 2011

The New York Times

MOSCOU — Les ministres des Affaires étrangères de l’Azerbaïdjan,
de l’Arménie et de la Russie se sont rencontrés samedi [11 juin]
a huis clos, les médiateurs internationaux ayant intensifié leur
pression pour obtenir une avancée décisive dans le long conflit
concernant le territoire disputé du Nagorno-Karabakh.

The New York Times

Le conflit du Nagorno-Karabakh remonte a l’époque soviétique.

Les analystes disent qu’une nouvelle rencontre a un niveau
présidentiel, prévue le 25 juin, sera la meilleure occasion depuis
des années pour mettre fin a l’impasse dans laquelle se trouve ce
conflit concernant le Karabagh, une enclave arménienne qui voulait se
séparer de l’Azerbaïdjan a la fin de la période soviétique. Cette
impulsion est en grande mesure due au président Dimitri A. Medvedev,
qui a investi son temps et son prestige pour résoudre ce conflit.

L’objectif de la Russie avec cette réunion fin juin a Kazan
en Russie, est de persuader les parties impliquées de se mettre
d’accord sur les “principes de base” négociés il y a plus de cinq
ans, a déclaré Aleksandr K. Lukashevich, porte-parole du Ministère
des Affaires étrangères de la Russie. Il a dit que les médiateurs
internationaux – la Russie, la France et les Ã~Itats-Unis – avaient
clairement exprimé l’urgence d’arriver a accord.

Les ministres des Affaires étrangères n’ont fait aucune déclaration
après la réunion de samedi, mais vendredi, un proche collaborateur
du président de l’Azerbaïdjan a dit qu’il y avait de “grands espoirs”
avec les pourparlers a Kazan. Les déclarations de l’Arménie ont été
plus circonspectes, bien que le ministre des Affaires étrangères du
pays ait dit jeudi que : “il serait possible de réaliser l’avancée
attendue si l’Azerbaïdjan donnait aussi son consentement”, ont
annoncé les agences de presse.

Le [conflit du] Haut-Karabagh a déclenché des émotions violentes
tellement exacerbées en Azerbaïdjan et en Arménie que les dirigeants
des deux pays courent de sérieux risques s’ils donnent l’impression de
céder, a dit Thomas de Waal, un spécialiste du Caucase au Carnegie
Endowment a Washington. L’accord-cadre décrit dans les principes de
base, permettrait le retour sur le territoire de milliers d’Azéris,
déplacés pendant la guerre de six ans qui a pris fin avec un
cessez-le-feu en 1994 ; et le président de l’Arménie devra persuader
son peuple que les Arméniens vivant la ne seront pas en danger. Et
puisque ces principes accordent au Haut-Karabagh un statut autonome
provisoire, le président de l’Azerbaïdjan devra montrer qu’il ne
met pas l’intégrité territoriale en danger.

“C’est un moment dangereux, pendant lequel il ne se passe peut-être
rien sur le terrain, mais les dirigeants ont passé leur tête
au-dessus du parapet et l’opposition intérieure leur envoie des
missiles a tous les deux”, a dit M. de Waal. Il est particulièrement
important, a-t-il dit, que tout accord soit suivi de progrès
tangibles.

Des dizaines de milliers de gens ont été tués pendant la guerre
et plus d’un million de personnes, pour la plupart des Azéris,
sont devenues des réfugiés. L’Arménie dit qu’elle a dÔ exercer un
contrôle sur une large zone tampon pour protéger les Arméniens dans
l’enclave, mais qu’elle y renoncera en échange de garanties justes.

L’Azerbaïdjan, extrêmement riche en raison de son pétrole, a
fortement augmenté ses dépenses militaires, a plus de 3 milliards de
dollars par an, et a averti qu’il ferait la guerre si les négociations
échouaient.

Richard Giragosian, un analyste basé a Erevan, la capitale
arménienne, a déclaré qu’il doutait que la réunion de Kazan
permette de réaliser une percée. Ã~@ l’origine, on devait présenter
aux deux parties un document d’une page indiquant qu’elles renoncaient
a l’utilisation de la force, a-t-il dit. Cet objectif a été remplacé
par un but plus ambitieux – l’approbation des principes de base –
ce qui n’est pas réaliste selon lui.

“Les deux côtés sont tout simplement trop éloignés et il n’y
a pas de volonté politique”, a dit M. Giragosian, directeur du
Regional Studies Center. “Quand j’étais au gouvernement américain,
j’ai travaillé sur les pourparlers de Madrid entre les Palestiniens
et les Israéliens et ceci est devenu presque aussi ingérable.”

©Traduction de l’anglais C.Gardon pour le Collectif VAN – 15 juin
2011 – 07 :10 –

Lire aussi :

Azerbaïdjan : la politique ottomane du génocide arménien

Arménie, Turquie, Azerbaïdjan : de l’eau dans le gaz ?

Le pogrom de Soumgaït en images

Retour a la rubrique

REACTION DE L’ASSOCIATION SUISSE-ARMENIE

A l’attention de

Madame Irina Bokova

Directrice generale de l’Unesco

7, place de Fontenoy – 75352 Paris 07 SP

France

Berne, le 22 juin 2011

Madame la Directrice,

C’est avec desarroi et indignation que nous avons appris les
mutilations dont a ete victime l’exposition culturelle des
Khatchkars a Paris, notamment l’enlèvement a la dernière minute,
et sans consultation avec les auteurs de l’exposition, des legendes
identifiant les photos ainsi que de la carte geographique precisant
les emplacements des Khatchkars.

La mission de preservation du patrimoine culturel mondial de l’UNESCO
est bafouee par cette censure inadmissible et indigne de votre
organisation. L’UNESCO est-elle devenue un instrument politique a
la solde de commanditaires etrangers ? En acceptant d’obeir a des
ordres ” superieurs “, vous perpetuez et continuez l’~uvre de ceux
qui essayent, depuis bientôt un siècle, d’effacer toute trace de
presence armenienne sur son territoire d’origine.

Nous profitons de ce courrier pour vous rappeler que l’UNESCO n’a
toujours pas, jusqu’a aujourd’hui, pris position sur la destruction
de la necropole de Djougha.

Nous esperons encore une reaction de votre part qui permettrait
de redonner vie a cette exposition, et de redonner sa credibilite
a l’UNESCO.

Nous vous prions d’agreer, Madame la Directrice, l’expression de nos
sentiments distingues.

Association Suisse Armenie

Anna Hess, Copresidente et Andreas Dreisiebner, Copresident

——————————————————————————–

Association Suisse-Armenie – Case postale 497

3000 Berne 14 – Suisse

mercredi 22 juin 2011, Jean [email protected]

PACE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONDUCTS MEETING (UPDATE)

Trend Daily News
June 20, 2011 Monday 10:05 PM GMT +4

Details were added (first version was posted at 21:00)

A meeting of the PACE ad hoc committee on Nagorno-Karabakh was
conducted on the first working day of the PACE summer session, the
chairman of the Azerbaijani delegation to PACE Samad Seyidov said.

“Today we witnessed a very important event in the Council of
Europe. A meeting of the PACE ad hoc committee on Nagorno-Karabakh was
conducted. The ad hoc committee started its work with the participation
of the Azerbaijani delegation, including me and Sabir Hajiyev, as well
as the representatives of several political parties, rapporteurs on
Armenia and representatives of the PACE Secretariat.

However, the Armenian delegation refused to attend the meeting,”
Seyidov said.

Seyidov said non-participation of the Armenian side in the work of the
ad hoc committee will not create problems to anyone, but themselves.

“The work of this ad hoc committee testifies that with its help, the
Council of Europe is beginning to see who on what position is. Today,
Armenia demonstrated its position. In the future, their presence or
absence at the committee will not make much difference. I think it
would be better if they are absent. We have a position on our part,
the issues and topics to discuss with them. Their absence will not
create problems to anyone, but themselves. The topic of the negotiation
process on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is under the direct supervision
of the Foreign Minister and President of Azerbaijan.

However, seeing such a position in the Council of Europe on the
eve of Armenian President’s visit to this structure, I, as an MP,
do not believe that the Armenian side will act with a constructive
position during the negotiations. A party wishing to demonstrate a
constructive position would participate in the work of the ad hoc
committee and exchange views,” said the MP.

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

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

KAZAN MEETING WILL DECIDE WHETHER THE MINSK PROCESS CONTINUES OR NOT, EXPERT SAYS
Lena Badeyan

“Radiolur”
20.06.2011 18:22

The Kazan meeting is a challenge to both the parties to the Karabakh
conflict and the OSCE Minsk Group. “It will be decided in Kazan whether
the Minsk process continues or not. If Ilham Aliyev refuses to sign
the document on the table, the format as such will change. The OSCE
cannot wait long for Armenia and Azerbaijan to settle their problems
and come to an agreement,” expert Andreas Ghukasyan told a press
conference today.

“If no progress is registered in Kazan, it will question the
effectiveness of the OSCE Minsk Group format,” the expert said,
calling attention to the fact that the founding OSCE document – the
Helsinki Final Act – has not been functioning ever since 2008, while
the Karabakh issue was to be settled on the basis of the principles
of that very document.

Political scientist Alexander Markarov says the talks about the
change of OSCE Minsk Group format are groundless. According to him,
the rumors have been periodically repeating over the past 15 years.

Markarov says that all these years the negotiation process has been
working for the sake of peace, rather than for the benefit of any of
the parties.

Both are confident that at this point there are no prerequisites for
the involvement of Karabakh in the negotiation process. According to
them, Armenia’s participation in the Kazan meeting will be formal, as
Armenia has long given its consent to the document on the table. The
future developments depend on Ilham Aliyev’s position.

PACE PRESIDENT HOPES AN AGREEMENT WILL BE SIGNED IN KAZAN
Siranuh Muradyan

“Radiolur”
20.06.2011 16:58
Strasbourg

President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Mevlut
Cavusoglu hopes that an agreement on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
will be signed at the forthcoming presidential meeting in Kazan.

“I hope that an agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be signed
at the forthcoming presidential meeting in Kazan,” Cavusoglu said at
a press-conference in Strasbourg within the ahead of the PACE session.

“Nobody can be happy if no agreement is signed. We are pleased with
the advancements in this context,” he stated.

The PACE President noted, however, that the settlement of the issue
is directly linked to the Armenian-Turkish relations. That is to say,
the PACE President once again sets the Karabakh issue as a precondition
for the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations.

SERZH SARGSYAN TRIES TO ERASE ANC
SIRANUYSH PAPYAN

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 14:44:16 – 20/06/2011

Gegham, in your opinion, what is the situation after Serzh Sargsyan’s
response to the ANC’s proposal of dialogue, which the ANC described
as ambiguous?

I think the statement of the president was not unexpected. The
analysis of comments of the past few days or weeks that preceded
it, the opinions of different political camps, Serzh Sargsyan was
expected to put it that way. Frankly speaking, I didn’t think that
the statement of the ANC would be so rapid and off the point. As
far as I understand, this is an effort to procrastinate, analyze and
digest. I suppose that this statement was unexpected for the ANC. The
ANC should be dissatisfied with such a comment because the opinions
expressed by the ANC, and the expectations which were disclosed are
evidence that the ANC did not expect another answer, other tone,
other psychology. I think the ANC will not be satisfied with this
level of possibility of cooperation that has been offered.

In fact, Serzh Sargsyan’s response marks the failure of the dialogue?

There are two important circumstances which I would like to separate.

There is a problem of terminology and political content. I mean the
“dialogue”. Serzh Sargsyan emphasized this nuance, underlining that
this is a dialogue initiated by the government (true or false doesn’t
matter) and ruling out negotiations. Two things are weighed, the
dialogue and the negotiation. This is not a matter or terms, they have
a strong political context and content. Serzh Sargsyan weighed down
the negotiations for the sake of his and the government’s interests.

The dialogue is not favorable for the ANC in the way it is understood
by the government. The ANC needs negotiations. In a negotiation,
the sides are distinctly outlined. Moreover, the sides are poles.

In fact, Serzh Sargsyan conveyed that he (the government) and the ANC
are not poles, and he (the government) is the only pole. This is the
only difference of the dialogue-negotiation pun-racing. Involving
the ANC in a dialogue is Serzh Sargsyan’s effort to erase the ANC
as a super influential force in the political life of Armenia and
reduce it to an ordinary political force, like the Heritage, the ARF
Dashnaktsutyun. The president said you can participate together and
equally with the other political forces in the political life of the
country. What is the difference? I think, in negotiations, you divide
the country into two poles, there is the government and there is the
Armenian National Congress. Serzh Sargsyan pointed out that there are
the rest too. Pay attention that snap elections can be negotiated but
not made an issue of a dialogue. The issue of the dialogue, as Serzh
Sargsyan said, could be home political, economic, state issues, while
negotiations imply two opposite and equal forces. This is, I think,
the essence of the terminological dispute.

The ANC should have proposed negotiations from the beginning?

Certainly! By offering the dialogue, the ANC erased itself as a party
to the negotiation. Similarly, the decision on dialogue changed the
attitude of an important part of the society toward the ANC. There was
a considerable layer which did not participate in the ANC activities
actively but supported them. I think a considerable part of the society
is disappointed with the ANC. Today there is a distinct assessment by
the society: both sides are authoritarian systems. This is a principal
and relevant assessment. After all, authoritarian thinking cannot
fight authoritarianism. First, a new non-authoritarian system must
be created inside the ANC to be able to challenge the government and
expect the support of the majority of the society. In the meantime,
the result is a dialogue of two authoritarian systems.

Since 2008 the ANC has given a distinct description: kleptocracy, the
authoritarian, criminal and oligarchic government must be toppled,
and the track for democracy must be taken. How do you describe his
authoritarianism?

There are several indicators of authoritarianism. In this case,
I would point to the lack of new people, young people, young and
fresh brains in the elite of the ANC. When I look at it, I can see
how many smart heads have appeared in the political and civil sphere,
a young generation has come with mature political consciousness. I
am surprised why the political sphere does not recruit this resource.

This does not refer to the ANC only but I mention it first because
the ANC is the most influential force in the opposition. Generally,
I can’t understand the psychology, the atmosphere inside the ANC, the
attitude toward those who leave it, the lack of competition. It should
be noted that this phenomenon is typical of the entire political sphere
but if a party pursues quality and systemic change in the country,
it must rid of this. A new system, new relations and new values must
be proposed to the society and imposed on the government.

Meanwhile, we witness the fight of two strong authoritarian systems.

The winner will be authoritarian. The ANC stood a great chance and
still has a chance to refresh its ranks, ideology, style, to rid of
authoritarianism, look for resource in the civil society. The opposite
is slow death for this serious and influential political force.

Most people say the ANC enabled this civil society to occur after 2008.

I disagree. The nucleus of the civil society existed before 2008. Now
a rather independent system has occurred on the basis of the civil
society, it is multi-layered, multi-polar, has an independent stance.

One way or another, the reformist nucleus of the civil society
conducts an independent policy, it was not born from the ANC or any
other force. Moreover, this is the part which enables independent
poles to occur in the political field of Armenia. I don’t know what
justifications and ways of politicization of the civil society exist
in Armenia, I don’t know whether this process is right but I think
there is no other way and the civil society must be a serious pole.

Today the third force is often discussed but as my colleagues say there
is no need for a third force, the second force is needed which is going
to be the civil society. The first force is the authoritarian system
with all its expressions. Today there is need for the second system.

Do you mean the ANC is weak or the game is complicated?

I think the ANC has become weaker. The weakness of the ANC was obvious
from the beginning of the dialogue rather than after the speech of
the president.

What do you think, will the ANC take tough steps, are sudden changes
possible?

The ANC is in a difficult, ambiguous situation. The ANC has changed. A
few days ago the number of supporters, their moods, the atmosphere
was different. Today’s ANC cannot speak on behalf of yesterday’s ANC.

Moreover, the potential of the ANC today is enough for a mere dialogue,
whereas yesterday’s ANC could negotiate.

Gegham, in the last rally Levon Ter-Petrosyan brought up the issue of
Karabakh, saying that challenges are many, and the war is not behind
the mountains. Many people say there is no settlement to the Karabakh
issue. What are your thoughts?

For whatever reason, we have cornered and driven ourselves into a
deadlock. The settlement that is there should favor the Armenian
side but the impression is that this settlement is favorable for
everyone except the Armenian side because only the Armenian side
says there is no settlement to the Karabakh issue. The settlement
is us, our achievements made through a high price and hardship, the
exceptional chance which we had and have. It is as good as it gets,
we simply need to use this resource. We live in a tragicomedy. The
Armenian reality lacks a political force which believes in its people
and is happy about its people’s potential.

“STARMUS” FESTIVAL TO TAKE PLACE IN THE CANARY ISLANDS ON GARIK ISRALEYAN’S OWN INITIATIVE

Noyan Tapan

20.06.2011

(Noyan Tapan – 20.06.2011) On June 20-25, “Starmus” Festival, the
biggest event of this year dedicated to the 50th anniversary of
Yuri Gagarin’s space flight will take place in the Canary Islands,
in Spain. The festival will be carried out under the patronage of the
UNESCO International Astronomical Union (IAU) and a number of other
international organizations.

The event is organized by the famous astronomer Garik Israelyan
and it is a unique scientific- artistic-musical event, during which
scientific and popular reports, artistic exhibitions on the themes of
astronomy and space, concerts, documental movies will be presented
as well as discussions, visits to the observatories of La Palma and
Tenerife Islands will take place and so on. All the exhibitions will
be accompanied by simultaneous translations in English, Spanish,
Russian, German and French.

Famous cosmonauts such as the first woman cosmonaut Valentina
Tereshkova, Aleksey Leonov, the first who left for the open space,
Neil Amstrong and Edwin Aldrin who were the first to be on the Moon,
USA famous cosmonaut Jim Lovell, Nobel Prize laureates, amateur
cosmonauts, on the whole more than 5000 guests will take part in the
festival. Areg Mikaelyan, the co-chair of the Armenian Astronomical
Society will present Armenia in the festival.

YEREVAN INTERNATIONAL AND GYUMRI ROTARY CLUBS SUPPORT THE PEOPLE WHO SUFFERED FROM JAPANESE DISASTER

Noyan Tapan

20.06.2011

(Noyan Tapan – 20.06.2011) Yerevan International and Gyumri Rotary
clubs organized benevolent concert aimed at supporting people who
suffered from Japanese earthquake. The concert took place on June 18,
in the hall o Yerevan Camera Theatre by the performances of Stepan
Shaqaryan, Vahan Arcruni, “Ars Lunga” duet (Aram Talalyan, Julietta
Vardanyan) and “Speghani” choir headed by Marina Avtandilyan.

Jazz improvisations, songs written by R. Davoyan and Komitas and
writings of other composers were performed.

As a result of money collecting during the concert, the money was
transferred to the addressees.

GANDZASAR DOMINATE ARMENIAN FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

PanARMENIAN.Net
June 20, 2011 – 10:53 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – The 13th round of Armenian football championship
took place on June 19.

Gyumri’s Shirak played against Banants in Ijevan, the match ending
1:1. The 2010 champions of Armenia, Pyunik scored over Ararat, as
Edgar Manucharyan nailed his 11-meter kick.

Mika, under the guidance of their new coach Edward Markarov, defeated
Ulisses 1:2. In Kapan, Gandzasar and Impuls equaled the game with a
score 0:0.

Gandzasar currently dominate the championship with 26 points. Pyunik
climbed to the second place, while Ulisses are third.

PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN HAD TEL. CONVERSATION WITH MAHMOUD AHMEDINEJAD

Panorama
June 20 2011
Armenia

Yesterday, President Serzh Sargsyan had a telephone conversation with
the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

The Presidents of Armenia and Iran discussed issues pertinent to
the development of bilateral relations and enhanced cooperation in
the areas of mutual interest. They also reflected on the regional
developments and cooperation.

The call was initiated by the Iranian side, President’s press service
informs.