Author: Badalian Vardan

CLINTON’S VERSION OF THE TURKEY-ARMENIA PROTOCOLS PROCESS

Wednesday, June 11th, 2014

BY ARA KHACHATOURIAN

In reading Hillary Rodham Clinton’s book “Hard Choices,” which hit
bookstores Tuesday, one is led to believe that she was the architect
of the dangerous Turkey-Armenia Protocols, elevating the US’s role in
the doomed process, to which both Armenia and Turkey have laid claim.

In her book, Clinton claims that Turkey’s “Zero Problems With
Neighbors” policy was a window through which the US could negotiate
a thaw in Turkey-Armenia relations, with hopes of opening the border
and initiating diplomatic relations between the two countries.

She claimed that “Hard-liners in both countries were implacably opposed
to compromise and put considerable pressure on each government not to
make a deal,” without mentioning that her own American constituents
were vocally opposed to this sham, which was concocted by her
predecessors in the Bush Administration and behind which the Obama
Administration rabidly threw its support.

Clinton also called the Armenian Genocide issue, the recognition
of which she advocated during her failed presidential campaign, an
“emotionally charged conflict” between Turkey and Armenia.

Did Clinton Throw Nalbandian Under the Bus?

Throughout the years, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian
has prided himself on building solid relationship with the US and has
touted the close-knit relationship he developed with Clinton during
the protocol process.

Yet the short reference to Armenia in her book, which also excludes any
mention of her “personal visit” to Dzidzernagepert Genocide Memorial,
Clinton weaves a different tale of what happened in Zurich on October
10, 2009 during the official signing of the Turkey-Armenia protocols.

It emerges, and has been mentioned several times by Armenian officials,
that the contentious issue at the Zurich signing was the possibility
that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu would make remarks after
the signing that would counter the spirit of the Protocols. Clinton
asserts that it was due to her efforts that at the end–after a
three-hour delay–the protocols were signed without statements by
any of the parties.

“On October 9, I flew to Zurich to witness the accord signing
alongside the Foreign Ministers of France, Russia, and Switzerland
and the EU High Representative. The next afternoon I left my hotel
and headed to the University of Zurich for the ceremony. But there
was a problem. Nalbandian, the Armenian Minister, was balking. He
was worried about what Davutoglu planned to say at the signing and
suddenly was refusing to leave the hotel. It seemed as if months of
careful negotiations might fall apart. My motorcade turned around and
raced back to Zurich’s Dolder Grand Hotel. While I waited in the car,
Phil Gordon went upstairs along with the lead Swiss negotiator to
find Nalbandian and take him to the signing ceremony. But he wouldn’t
budge. Phil came back downstairs to report and joined me in the car,
which was now parked behind the hotel. I started working the phones.

On one cell I dialled Nalbandian, and I got Davutoglu on a second
line. We went back and forth for an hour, trying to bridge the
gap and coax Nalbandian out of his room. ‘This is too important,
this has to be seen through, we have come too far,’ I told them,”
Clinton recounts in her book.

“Finally I went upstairs to talk to Nalbandian in person. What if we
simply canceled the speaking portion of the event? Sign the document,
make no statements, and leave. Both sides agreed, and Nalbandian at
last emerged. We walked downstairs, and he got in my sedan to drive to
the university. It took another hour and a half of hand-holding and
arm-twisting at the site to get them to actually walk onstage. We
were three hours late, but at least we were there. We held the
expedited signing ceremony, and then, with a huge sense of relief,
everyone left as fast as they could. To date, neither country has
ratified the protocols, and the process remains stalled; however,
at a December 2013 conference, the Turkish and Armenian Foreign
Ministers met for two hours to discuss how to move forward, and I
still hope for a breakthrough,” explained Clinton in “Hard Choices.”

On Wednesday I asked Armenia’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Tigran
Balayan during an online conversation about Clinton’s assertions and
he pointed me to remarks Nalbandian made on April 26 of this year
when he touched upon a claim made by Davutoglu that his intended
remarks in Zurich were to be similar to the now infamous “condolence”
speech made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on April 23.

In his remarks this past April, Nalbandian, who was hosting a
delegation of the Foreign Policy Society of Finland explained that
“According to the reached agreement everyone who was to make a
statement during the signing ceremony of Protocols in Zurich should
have provided their texts of speeches beforehand. Turkey breached
this arrangement. This is the reason why the signing ceremony was
postponed so long until the Turkish side felt obliged to provide the
statement text.”

“All the representatives of states participating in the signing
ceremony considered the statement text of the Turkish side as
unacceptable and suggested to hold the ceremony without any speeches
and the Turkish Foreign Minister was obliged to accept that. That
was the reason why the ceremony took place with nearly a three-hours
delay. Moreover, right after the signing ceremony the participating
Foreign Ministers made public comments, underlining that any statement
made following the signing could not have an impact on the reached
agreements enshrined in the Protocols. If the Turkish side considers
that it could reanimate today what was rejected by all four and a
half years ago, it is in vain and without perspectives,” explained
Nalbandian, who added that he expressed the same sentiments to
Davutoglu when he visited Yerevan in December.

“Nobody rejects her [Clinton’s] crucial role in the negotiations. She
was really very effective in mediating the signing without statements,”
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Balayan told me on Wednesday.

ARMENIA LEFT OUT OF CSTO

Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments – Wednesday, 11 June 2014, 17:24

On June 10 the CSTO ministers of defense met in Moscow, chaired by the
Russian minister of defense Shoygu. His deputy, General Arkady Bakhin
briefed reporters on what had been discussed during the meeting. He
noted that they discussed the situation in the area of responsibility
of CSTO, the situation in Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, as well as
discussed further development of the CSTO military component.

Bakhin did not mention the name of Armenia while there is every reason
to mention Armenia in the current situation. Azerbaijan has intensified
subversive acts, as well as snipers against CSTO member Armenia. A
few days ago unprecedented escalation was noticed on the border with
Nakhidjevan, the Armenian side had two victims and the ministry of
defense of Armenia stated bluntly its doubts on Turkish involvement.

It is at least strange when two-three days after the escalation it
is not discussed in the CSTO meeting, and CSTO does not comment on it.

However, it is strange for a normal example of partnership. In the
case of CSTO, it is strange to consider this silence strange. CSTO
is always silent. Not only is it silent, but also its members supply
weapons to Azerbaijan, Russia being supplier number one.

Instead, the meeting of the CSTO ministers of defense discussed color
revolutions. Arkady Bakhin has announced that they could not miss
this issue because color revolutions are carried out under the name
of democratization.

Armenia remains CSTO area only in regard to this issue. For the rest,
Armenia has been outside CSTO, and the organization called security
alliance is in close partnership with Azerbaijan which is not a
CSTO member.

Armenia is in the area of responsibility of CSTO in terms of a “color
revolution”. In other words, CSTO will make sure no democratic
processes take place in Armenia which may change the quality of
Armenia.

The necessary internal and external mechanisms for keeping everything
unchanged are in place. Inside it is the systemic opposition which
derives from the ruling system and has formed a so-called bipolar
setting which has not opposed any initiative of handing the sovereignty
of Armenia to Russia. On the very same day, June 10, this opposition
submitted to the government 12 recommendations which do not address
any of external challenges to Armenia, unacceptability of handing
sovereignty to a supranational body, and outside the CSTO gendarmes,
the quick response forces have been formed which are entitled to
intervene in member states to protect law and order.

In this situation, it is not a surprise that domestic life in Armenia
is Á dummy, and the competition is for who will ensure more long-term
and less tense dominance of the empire in Armenia, preventing color
revolutions inside and reason for waste of resource on or need for
intervention for the center.

– See more at:

CIVIC CAMPAIGNS TO CONTINUE DESPITE POLITICIZATION OF THEIR DEMANDS BY OPPOSITION

POLITICS | 11.06.14 | 15:59

By SARA KHOJOYAN
ArmeniaNow reporter

The struggle of two civil movements that attracted broad section
of the population in the past few months will continue regardless
of the 12-point demand list presented to the government by the four
parliamentary minority parties.

Two of the demands of the opposition regard the elimination of the
mandatory component of the pension reform and reconsidering the system
of speed and traffic cameras and parking rules in Yerevan. The four
parties expect the government to address the issues by autumn.

Nevertheless, the two civic campaigns, Dem.am, campaigning against
the unpopular pension reform, and Out of Our Pockets, demanding the
reconsideration of the system of speed and traffic cameras as well
as controversial “red lines” parking rules, say they will continue
their struggle despite this “politicization”.

Tonight Dem.am plans to hold a “support march” in central Yerevan
trying to provide unified support for those who are under pressure
from their employers not to withdraw from the pension system. “Out
of Our Pockets”, meanwhile, also plans a “disobedience march” to show
to the government their determination in the campaign.

Members of the civil initiatives realize that no matter how hard
they try not to politicize their movements because their goal is
not entering politics, they cannot prevent that from happening,
as political parties also campaign against the same things and
same errors.

“The struggle of any force or unit against the pension reform can be
viewed as positive only. Every single demand for the elimination of
the mandatory component exhilarates our struggle, however, we will
try not to politicize the actions of our team,” Dem.am member Gevorg
Hayrapetyan told ArmeniaNow.

“Out of Our Pockets” campaign member Vardan Hakobyan mentioned that
they will continue their fight “on the ground”.

“If something is impossible to change on the ground, with thousands
of bills, nothing will change; it is possible to achieve change on
the ground with the help of struggle. Regardless of others’ demands,
our demands will remain in force,” he said.

Another member of the team, Arsen Petrosyan, emphasized that even
if the political “Quartet’s” demands are heard, the government will
demand more time.

“But we do not have that time. During that time hundreds of thousands
of people will be penalized, this question must be solved as soon
as possible.”

THE CORLEONES OF THE CASPIAN. HOW AZERBAIJAN’S DICTATOR WOOS THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE

12:06, 11 June, 2014

On Oct. 9, 2012, the American subsidiary of the State Oil Company
of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) purchased a five-story,
23,232-square-foot mansion in the heart of Washington, D.C., for
the purposes of “expand[ing] its operations in the United States,”
as theWashington Business Journal put it. Oil is the one thing
Azerbaijan has plenty of, and it’s the one thing the United States is
most interested in, so SOCAR’s “operations” are bound to be extensive.

Given the money at stake, the mansion’s sale price was a pittance:
$12 million. The exact address is 1319 18th St. NW, which ought to be
familiar to many an old Cold War hand as the former office of Jeane
Kirkpatrick, a onetime U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and one
of the most influential officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration.

This mansion is where Demokratizatsiya, the journal of post-Soviet
democratization, founded in 1992, used to be published. And, for a
time, its most famous lessee was Freedom House, the respected human
rights monitor, which today counts Azerbaijan among the “not free”
countries.

“I’m speechless,” said Jennifer Windsor, the executive director of
Freedom House when it was based at the Kirkpatrick address and now the
associate dean for programs and outreach at Georgetown University’s
School of Foreign Service. “I find it the highest form of irony that
one of the world’s least free countries is now occupying what was
the house of freedom.”

It’s as much a sign of the times as it is an irony. Barack Obama’s
administration has cut the U.S. budget for democracy promotion and has
struck all manner of cynical bargains with kleptocratic authoritarian
regimes. Realpolitik and isolationism are trading at high premiums
again, as whole swaths of Congress, beholden to a libertarian or Tea
Party ideology, view human rights as, at best, an afterthought of the
national interest or, at worst, as an inconvenience that America can
ill afford in the 21st century.

But SOCAR USA’s tony new address also underscores the quiet success
of one of the most energetic and free-spending foreign lobbies
in American and European politics — that of the regime headed by
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. Over the past decade, a South
Caucasian country the size of Ireland but with possibly twice the oil
reserves of Texas has managed to win friends and influence people
who include past and present members of the U.S. Congress, British
Parliament, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
which was once known for pressuring dictatorships, not embracing them.

Where it hasn’t resorted to all-expenses-paid vacations to Azerbaijan’s
capital, Baku — a form of what one European think tank witheringly
describes as “caviar diplomacy” — it has poured millions of dollars
into top-drawer U.S. lobbying, consultancy, and PR firms to whitewash
its image in the American media.

But it’s a bit more subtle than that: The Aliyev regime has quietly
made inroads into transatlantic establishments by recapitulating a
hat trick of persuasive arguments.

The first is that Azerbaijan is the only secular Muslim-majority
state that is an ally of the United States and NATO in the war on
terror as well as a happy commercial and diplomatic ally of Israel,
which imports around a third of its energy from the Caucasian state.

Azerbaijani infrastructure is set to help facilitate NATO and U.S.

troop withdrawal from Afghanistan later this year.

The second is that its oil boom, which caused Azerbaijan’s GDP to
grow tenfold from 2001 to 2011, is a necessary counterweight for
diversifying Europe’s energy consumption and putting an end to Russia’s
monopolistic and bullying tactics, the nadir of which were its “gas
wars” with Ukraine and Belarus. Almost all of Azerbaijan’s exports
in 2011 were in oil and petroleum products. The so-called Southern
Gas Corridor, a pipeline rival to Russia’s Nord Stream, advanced
dramatically last December when a BP-led consortium began laying the
groundwork for Shah Deniz 2, a $28 billion natural gas exploration
project in the Azerbaijani-controlled part of the Caspian Sea. British
Foreign Secretary William Hague and EU Energy Commissioner Gunther
Oettinger were both in Baku for the signing of this landmark deal,
which will ship gas through two pipelines: the Trans Anatolian Natural
Gas Pipeline, running through Turkey, and the Trans Adriatic Pipeline,
running through Greece and Italy. Even though Azerbaijani gas going to
the European Union represents just 2 percent of the 500 billion cubic
meters per year that the continent imports, Europe wants to lower its
energy dependence on Russia. Moscow’s state-owned gas giant, Gazprom,
is now under antitrust investigation by the European Commission. And
the continuing Western standoff with the Kremlin over Russia’s invasion
and destabilization of Ukraine will mean that Azerbaijani gas becomes
more important to Brussels in the coming months and years.

Finally, situated at the gateway between Asia and Europe, Azerbaijan
is a strategic partner for the West in resisting Iran’s nuclear
threat as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempts to
“re-Sovietize the region,” as then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton memorably characterized the Russian-conceived customs union,
entry into which has sparked a political crisis in Ukraine. So as
the United States goes looking for as many friends as it can find in
the post-Soviet world — especially those with energy resources —
Baku’s influence in Washington is only poised to grow.

And if the West is ever ungrateful or unreceptive to these overtures,
the Azerbaijani lobby passive-aggressively intimates, then the Aliyev
regime always has the option of turning toward Moscow or Tehran,
both of which are eagerly knocking at its door.

The immediate aim of this three-tiered charm offensive is to “Johnny
Mercerize” an otherwise ugly domestic political reality, as one veteran
Azerbaijan specialist, who spoke to Foreign Policy on the condition
of anonymity, termed it. That is, accentuate the positive and ignore,
downplay, or just plain lie about the negative. But there’s another
encoded agenda. “The Aliyev lobby’s true purpose is to send a message
back home that there is nothing that can be done to remove this family
from power,” said Elmar Chakhtakhtinski, chair of Azerbaijani-Americans
for Democracy (AZAD), an opposition-linked diaspora group. “When
a U.S. congressman or former congressman congratulates Aliyev on
victory, it doesn’t necessarily give the regime any better position
in the West, but to the regime’s own domestic population, it sends
a powerful signal that even the West is behind it, that the world
outside of Azerbaijan isn’t that much different.” The demoralizing
effect such signaling can have on embattled dissidents or civil
society groups in Azerbaijan is profound.

ARA PAPYAN. “MIKOYAN IS A CRIMINAL, AND NEITHER SAROYAN, NOR BAGHRAMYAN HAD SEND PEOPLE TO DEATH.”

June 11 2014

“If Baghramyan and Saroyan had done nothing, they cannot be compared
to Mikoyan, because Mikoyan is a criminal, while neither Saroyan nor
Baghramyan had sent any individual or persons to direct death by their
signature,” such opinion was expressed by the Head of “Modus Vivendi”
Center, Ara Papyan, in the conversation with Aravot.am, in response to
Mikoyan’s grandson, Vladimir Mikoyan’s observations about what William
Saroyan and Hovhannes Baghramyan had done for Armenia that their
statues are installed, whereas there is a big noise around Mikoyan’s
statue. He mentioned that it appears that if this man is a criminal,
but has had a high position, he can be justified. According to Mr.

Papyan, followed by this logic, Hitler and Talaat may also be
justified. With regard to Saroyan, Ara Papyan said, “Saroyan is a
cultural activist and a writer, and many people in the United States
were in touch with Armenian thanks to Saroyan’s works.

There is no sign of blood on Saroyan.” Mr. Papyan has some
reservations with regard to installation of the statue to Hovhannes
Baghramyan. “Once, people got offended of me when I said that we
should not place the state to the Marshall of somebody’s army in
the street of Yerevan. Neither Isakov, nor Baghramyan are Armenian
marshals, they are Armenians by origin. It is sad that the statues to
Baghramyan and Isakov were placed during the years of independence. It
is the result of Soviet upbringing of our leadership. We often
confuse ethnic Armenian with Armenian by origin.” With regard to
ordering additional executions, in response to Mikoyan’s grandson’s
reassurance, “That was not Mikoyan asking rather than Yezhov, referring
to Mikoyan,” Mr. Papyan said, “Mikoyan’s signature is on thousands of
documents. Even if no document is preserved with Mikoyan’s signature,
anyway, Mikoyan is a criminal, as he is a part of the system that
has sent millions of people to death. Generally, no document on
death penalty with Hitler’s signature is preserved. Hitler was not
involved in any of such things, but he had created a system that had
taken the life of millions of people.” To our question of why the
RA authorities are interested in it since we understand the interest
of Mikoyan’s family for installing his statue, Ara Papyan responded,
“One is the matter of pleasing. They think that if there is a factory
of sausage in Moscow, it would be also good to have Mikoyan’s statue
here. Or, they do not know who Mikoyan is. They have not gone further
beyond the Soviet school. Anyway, by installing Mikoyan’s statue,
they are also violating our international commitments. The communism
has recognized the Council of Europe as a totalitarian and condemnable
idea. And we are a member of the Council of Europe, and its decisions
are superior to our Constitution.”

Tatev HARUTYUNYAN

Read more at:

EXTERNAL MOTIVATIONS RELATING TO KARABAKH WAR

Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – Wednesday, 11 June 2014, 14:20

More and more external motivations for Karabakh War II are occurring
in the result of a serious geopolitical U-turn.

Prior to the acute confrontation between Russia and the West the
motivations of the external parties in Karabakh War II appeared more
hypothetical than a concrete scenario. Since Armenians are not good
enough at making scenarios, even on the eve of the war that is fully
realistic the society remains in a state of optimistic expectations.

On the whole, the country does not have a real debate on a new war,
while occasional remarks are exotics. Since the external parties help
up settlement between the conflict parties for a long time and tried
to present their policy as that of peace making, the population of
the country was charmed by those messages, confident of a positive
attitude of the external environment in its own country.

In the meantime, those key changes of the geopolitical arrangement come
along with negative developments in our country due to increasing
uncertainty in relations with the West. The country’s political
leadership is also well-aware of this whose trump card was prevention
of war. Now this circumstance is obsolete, and the threat of a new
war is more than real.

The United States and its partners in NATO are following a policy of
isolation and blockade of Russia, and one of its important directions
in the South Caucasus. The leading politicians of the West find that
they are conducting a flexible policy on Russia and keep its doors
open. At the same time, there is the understanding that containment
of Russian expansion will be one of the Euro-Atlantic policies.

The South Caucasus is the most complicated and detached region,
and there is no action plan on this dimension because the interests
of different powers clash in the region. However, the west has the
experience of failure of several Russian intentions and projects,
and even the most compromise-prone politicians understand that the
region needs to be reviewed otherwise it will hinder the expansion
of the European security conditions.

There is an institutional solution to this issue – first integration,
then accession of the countries of the region to the Euro-Atlantic
organizations. Practically, this means strengthening the military
and political presence of NATO and the European Union in the Black
Sea and the Caucasus. However, the South Caucasus is strongly linked
to Russia (including Georgia), and the West has an objective to push
out the Russians.

The best way to do this would be demonstration of Russia’s inability
to carry out the role of guarantor and ally of the states of the
region. The West is well aware that this is an illusion that needs
to be dispersed. In this respect Azerbaijan’s military success is
the best way of achieving these goals.

It needs to be understood that the United States and NATO have shed
responsibility for the security of Armenia, and are demonstrating it
in a way that even the political leadership has understood this.

Earlier the United States and NATO clearly stated their positions in
a possible resumption of military actions in the area of Karabakh, as
well as explained in simple terms their position on Turkey’s military
intervention in the new war but now there is minimum understanding
of the extent to which the West sticks to the previous position.

The West does not need to ease Russia’s tasks and encourage
unscrupulousness of Armenian leaders and the process of vassalization
chosen by them and supported by the Armenian society.

The West suspended the process of supply of weapons to Armenia
despite the continuing cooperation on deployment of Armenian troops
in conflict areas. Formally, relations with NATO continue, and thanks
to the efforts of the Armenian military, mostly friendly relations
are maintained with NATO but the United States and NATO are now
indifferent to the destiny of Armenia not because they have “fallen
out of love” but because they have no reason to pay attention to it,
worry about its security.

Significant changes happened in the relations of the United States and
NATO with Turkey in the recent months which are related to objectives
relating to containment of Russian expansion. If immediately after
the occupation of Crimea Turkey demonstrated full loyalty to the
United States and the west, it apparently made a decision soon to
not deepen relations with them and balance between the West and Russia.

This or maybe something more serious and long-term did not allow the
United States to involve Turkey more deeply in blocking Russia.

Moreover, the decision on strengthening the military presence of
NATO in Eastern Europe allowed reviewing the objectives of blockade
of Russia without services and participation of Turkey.

In another situation this circumstance would have been highly favorable
for Armenia because it indicates intensification of the strategy of
“double containment” by the United States and NATO towards Turkey
and Russia, as well as emerging of the “third force” in the Black Sea
and the South Caucasus. Now, however, this situation means weakening
of mutual dependence of NATO and Turkey and lack of interests of the
United States and NATO in containing the confrontation between Turkey
and Russia without any additional commitments to Turkey beyond the
relations within NATO.

For Armenia this means a “green light” for the resumption of
military actions. In addition, if earlier, i.e. before mass supply
of Russian weapons to Azerbaijan, Russian support meant to Armenia
its participation in containment of Turkish military intervention,
currently it means “avoidance” from Azerbaijani aggression because
the Russian policy has resulted in change of balance in favor of
Azerbaijan.

In the current situation that is nearing a catastrophe for Russia it
is not interested in the start of military actions against Armenia
but only now when it is not clear how far ahead the United States
and NATO will go in Eastern Europe, including the South Caucasus. If
the deployment of the United States and NATO in the Black Sea and
Caucasus starts threatening Russia’s positions, a more effective
means of containment of expansion will be the war in the region,
first of all between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

In the result of this war Russia will be trying to implement its old
plans of deployment of its troops in the area of the Karabakh conflict
which will expand to an unintelligible space. Russia has been able to
prepare this war and prepare grounds and legitimacy of Azerbaijan’s
ambitions because supply of arms to Azerbaijan means legitimacy of
its military aggression.

The Russians suppose that in this situation they will manage to avoid
intervention and keep the processes manageable. The former experience
drives its actions in this direction but only as NATO moves towards
Eastern Europe, as well as negative changes in relations between Iran
and Russia will create high uncertainty.

Turkey is hardly interested in the start of Karabakh War II because
it fears being involved in a war waged by other’s rules and scenarios.

However, if they are provoked into a war, nothing will be left to do
but assist Azerbaijan in any way, including direct participation in
the military actions.

Iran does not seem to be interested in change of status quo in the
South Caucasus but considering Iran’s interest in escalation between
NATO and Russia, Iran may be interested in a war between Azerbaijan
and Armenia, at least for loss of Russian positions in the region.

– See more at:

LE SORT D’ALEP : LES RECENTES ATTAQUES CONTRE LES ARMENIENS DANS LA VILLE SYRIENNE CONSIDERES COMME LA CONTINUATION DU GENOCIDE

ARMENIE

Selon les savants a Erevan, les recents evenements a Alep sont la
continuation du genocide armenien et la communaute armenienne d’Alep
fait face a une extermination.

Des images montrant de vastes destructions dans les quartiers armeniens
d’Alep sont apparus sur Internet ces derniers jours, provoque une
grande inquietude en Armenie où des milliers de ressortissants syriens
d’origine armenienne ont trouve refuge depuis le debut des hostilites
dans leur pays en 2011.

Vendredi lors d’une reunion avec des journalistes scientifique,
l’ethnologue de Kessab Hagop Cholakian a parle de la situation en Syrie
disant que pendant les trois annees de guerre, la communaute armenienne
d’Alep a le plus souffert, en particulier dans les banlieues, où les
riches Armeniens et les proprietaires d’usines vivaient.

“Aujourd’hui, les Armeniens sont concentres dans trois districts en
dehors de laquelle il n’y a pas d’autres Armeniens a cause de trois
annees de migration. Au cours des derniers jours un autre district,
Nor Gyugh, a ete ruine. L’etat des Armeniens a Alep est essentiel
en termes de securite et de moyens de subsistance, et en ce moment
le plus dangereux, nous sommes silencieux, il est temps d’agir >>,
a declare Cholakian.

Gagik Harutyunyan directeur de la fondation Noravank a dit que dans
tous les pays où le printemps arabe a eu lieu les sections chretiennes
ont particulièrement souffert et qu’un genocide culturel a eu lieu.

“La guerre syrienne met en danger notre securite nationale en raison
des mercenaires azerbaïdjanais et turcs qui sont très actifs au
niveau des services speciaux de l’armee regulière, nous devons faire
très attention a eux >>, a dit Harutyunyan ajoutant que les actions
realisees dans le Moyen-Orient et en Syrie sont particulièrement un
menace directe a la securite armenienne.

“Les descendants des rescapes du genocide armenien vivent au
Moyen-Orient et ils sont les porteurs de la culture armenienne
occidentale et de cette civilisation et en cas de dissipation non
seulement la securite physique des Armeniens, mais leur civilisation
seront en danger.”

L’Armenie a fermement condamne le bombardement d’Alep et, en
particulier, dans le district peuplee d’Armeniens de la ville de Nor
Gyugh ces derniers jours, qui a cause la perte de vies humaines et
des destructions.

“Nous sommes convaincus que la principale condition prealable pour
le progrès dans la resolution de la crise syrienne reside dans la
cessation immediate de la violence”, a declare le porte-parole Tigran
Balayan du ministère des Affaires etrangères.

Plus tôt, la Federation revolutionnaire armenienne (FRA), un parti
traditionnel armenien fonctionnant a la fois en Armenie et sa très
etendu diaspora, a egalement publie une declaration condamnant les
tirs de roquettes sur la population civile dans la ville syrienne
qui abrite une communaute armenienne importante.

Par Gohar Abrahamyan

ArmeniaNow

mercredi 11 juin 2014, Stephane (c)armenews.com

DES PRISONS SURPEUPLEES EN ARMENIE

ARMENIE

Les militants des droits de l’homme en Armenie avertissent que la
recente amnistie de prisonniers a eu peu d’impact afin de soulager
l’enorme surpopulation dans les prisons du pays, et une refonte
complète du système est necessaire pour regler les problèmes de
longue date.

Les 12 prisons de l’Armenie sont concus pour 4400 personnes, mais
ils recoivent regulièrement 5000 prisonniers ou plus. L’espace est
si serre que les detenus doivent souvent dormir a tour de rôle.

Plus de 500 personnes ont ete liberees suite a l’amnistie du 3 octobre,
ce qui porte le nombre total de prisonniers au maximum officiel. Mais
les observateurs disent que l’effet ne sera que temporaire.

La plupart des prisonniers en Armenie sont detenus dans des
etablissements de l’ère sovietique mal equipes, où ils dorment dans
des lits superposes dans les grandes salles jusqu’a 70 mètres carres.

Après que l’Armenie ait adhere au Conseil de l’Europe, elle a ferme
les prisons de Gyumri et Vanadzor qui etaient renommes pour leurs
conditions difficiles, et les a remplace par des institutions
nouvellement construites concus pour 245 et 373 personnes,
respectivement.

Avetik Ishkhanyan, le chef du Comite Helsinki d’Armenie, a note que
des modifications ont ete egalement apportees a d’autres prisons,
par exemple a Noubarachen, prison la plus surpeuplee du pays, où les
toilettes sont separes des cellules par de nouvelles cloisons.

> a-t-il dit. >.

La legislation armenienne a ete modifiee pour la mettre en conformite
avec les normes europeennes, et stipule maintenant que chaque detenu
devrait avoir quatre mètres carres d’espace.

Les chiffres du mediateur officiel d’Armenie indiquent que ce n’est
pas le cas. A Noubarachen, une moyenne de 17 detenus occupent chaque
cellule de 25 mètres carres, avec seulement 10 a 12 lits pour eux.

Dans certains cas, ils vivent a 25 dans une cellule. La prison dans
son ensemble detient 1044 personnes tout en etant concu pour 840.

En Juin, l’Ombudsman Karen Andreasyan a emmene l’ambassadeur
britannique Katherine Leach voir Noubarachen afin de regarder les
problèmes.

>.

Sur les 540 prisonniers liberes en vertu de l’amnistie ce mois-ci,
seulement 57 etaient de Noubarachen, ce qui signifie d’après les
chiffres qu’il avait a peine ete touche.

Il a ete question de fermer Noubarachen, situe a Erevan, mais les
experts disent que c’est peu probable dans la prochaine decennie.

Dans une tentative de reduire le surpeuplement, les autorites sont
en train de construire une grande prison a Armavir.

Le ministre de la Justice Hrayr Tovmasyan a declare que la prison de
1200 detenus serait une installation moderne avec des cellules de 16
mètres carres avec quatre prisonniers chacune. Le premier bloc sera
une aile de haute securite, et les autres bâtiments seront concus
pour permettre aux prisonniers un peu plus de liberte.

L’ambassade americaine va fournir des fonds pour l’ameublement et
l’equipement de l’etablissement, qui a ete chiffre a 20 millions de
dollars americains.

La prison d’Armavir etait cense etre achevee d’ici a 2010, mais
la crise economique a contraint le gouvernement a reporter la
construction.

> a declare Gor Glechyan,
un porte-parole du ministère de la justice, a l’Institute for War &
Peace Reporting (IWPR). Le surpeuplement est aggrave par les juges
qui imposent des peines de prison, meme pour des infractions mineures,
tout en refusant de permettre a des personnes en attente de jugement
d’etre liberes sous caution.

Ishkhanyan a declare a l’IWPR que les juges etaient connus pour
imposer des mandats de quatre ans pour des crimes aussi triviaux que
voler une paire de chaussures.

Il a dit que les juges devraient faire preuve de plus de souplesse
dans l’attribution des peines. À l’heure actuelle, a-t-il dit, ils
sont excessivement influences par les procureurs et la police, >
a declare Ishkhanyan. >.

Le gouvernement travaille sur un nouveau code penal qui envisagera
des alternatives a l’incarceration pour la periode de pre-procès,
surtout lorsque les individus sont accuses de crimes pour lesquels
la peine est inferieure a un an de prison.

Les fonctionnaires affirment que l’installation d’Armavir permettra
de resoudre tous les problèmes en suspens de la surpopulation, mais
Ishkhanyan dit que ce n’etait pas suffisant.

L’OPPOSITION DRESSE UNE LISTE DE 12 EXIGENCES AU GOUVERNEMENT

Politique

Les quatre principaux partis d’opposition ont publie une liste
de demandes concrètes a Sarkissian hier, l’avertissant que le
non-respect de celles-ci pourrait les conduire a s’allier pour
atteindre le pouvoir.

Dans une declaration commune signee publiquement par leurs leaders
parlementaires, le BHK, la FRA, le Zharangutyun et le HAK ont
donne aux autorites jusqu’a la fin septembre pour repondre a leurs
preoccupations. Ils ont dit qu’ils se reuniront a Erevan a l’automne
pour discuter ensemble de la reponse du gouvernement et decider en
reponse d’eventuelles “autres actions communes.”

La liste est composee de 12 exigences socio-economiques qui sont
essentielles pour relever les defis auxquels l’Armenie doit faire face
d’après l’opposition. En particulier, ils veulent que l’administration
Sarkissian arrete la reforme controversee des retraites, reduise
les impôts pour les petites entreprises, augmente fortement les
subventions aux agriculteurs, maintienne les tarifs des transports
publics et brise les monopoles de facto economiques.

Ils ont egalement demande des amendements au Code electoral,
imposant la tenue d’elections parlementaires sur une base de liste
et l’introduction de ce que l’opposition considère comme une garantie
essentielle contre la fraude electorale. La declaration commune demande
en outre clairement que l’Armenie ne rejoigne pas une alliance dirigee
par la Russie des ex-Etats sovietiques si c’est pour qu’elle renonce
a son “regime economique commun” avec le Haut-Karabagh.

Tout en annoncant des plans conjoint contre le gouvernement en
manifestant place de la Liberte a Erevan, les quatre partis restent
assez vagues sur ce qu’ils vont faire si les autorites rejettent
totalement ou partiellement leurs demandes. Deux d’entre eux, le BHK
et la FRA, ont a nouveau souligne leur reticence a exiger la demission
de Sarkissian.

” La demission de Serge Sarkissian ne suffirait pas a sauver le pays.

Nous avons besoin de savoir quel système mettre en place ensuite “,
a declare Armen Rustamian, le leader de la faction parlementaire de
la FRA.

En revanche Levon Zurabian (HAK) a precise que son parti voyait la
liste de 12 points comme “la première phase” pour ensuite renverser
Sarkissian. ” Nous croyons que le principal fleau du pays, c’est le
regime de Serge Sarkissian”, a declare Zurabian. “Mais nous savons
aussi que nous avons besoin d’elaborer un programme commun [avec les
trois autres partis] pour rendre ce processus politique de renversement
beaucoup plus efficace.”

Le parti republicain de Sarkissian a reagi en grande partie
positivement aux demandes de l’opposition, en disant que la plupart
d’entre elles sont en phase avec son propre programme economique. “Le
HHK est très heureux que les forces de l’opposition aient finalement
reussies a mettre en place des propositions très solides”, a declare
Vahram Baghdassarian, leader parlementaire du HHK.

Baghdassarian a souligne le fait que le quatuor de n’exigent plus la
demission de Sarkissian. “Je suis heureux que l’opposition se soit
rendue compte qu’un changement de personnes ne resoudrait pas les
problèmes du pays,” a t-il dit.

mercredi 11 juin 2014, Claire (c)armenews.com

HRAPARAK: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RUSSIA TODAY ON VISIT TO ARMENIA

09:11 * 11.06.14

Dmitry Kiselev, Director General of Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today)
is on a visit to Armenia at the invitation of one of the most
active champions of the Eurasian Union and Russian language Andranik
Nikoghosyan.

Former Russian Ambassador to Armenia Vyacheslav Kovalenko is
accompanying Mr Kiselev.

The guests are to meet with Armenian MPs at the Russian library of
Armenia’s Parliament. They will also hold a meeting at the Russian
Book House in central Yerevan to discuss mass media problems.

Armenian News – Tert.am