Author: Badalian Vardan

2013 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: A TALE OF POWER MONOPOLY AND DISENCHANTMENT
by Houry Mayissian

January 31, 2013

When you visit Armenia, you hear stories. Good stories and sad ones.

Stories that inspire hope, others that fill you with despair.

The Presidential Palace in Yerevan One story I heard from a family
friend-let’s call him Armen-on my most recent visit just after the
May 2012 parliamentary elections has been occupying my mind for some
days. Armen is a hard-working, humble man.

He’ll make you feel immediately welcome and share bread with you,
no questions asked. He is what you love about Armenia. Armen is also
a member of an opposition party-a loyal rank and file type of member
who’s in it because he believes.

Armen’s son and daughter-in-law live with him and his wife. His
daughter-in-law is a teacher at a public school, and is the family’s
main bread-winner with a stable job, or, to put it more accurately,
a stable job that comes at a cost. Before the parliamentary elections,
Armen’s daughter-in-law and all other teachers at the school received
instructions to strictly vote for the Republican Party of Armenia.

They were also “advised” to recruit at least five family members or
friends each to vote for the Republican Party. On election day last
May, Armen was the only member of his family to vote for the party
of his choice.

Armenia is on the verge of elections again. That ultimate test for
whether a nation is mature enough to exercise its right to vote and
whether its leadership is democratic enough to afford that right. So
far we have, by and large, failed that test. Previous elections have
been marred by opposition candidates crying foul. We’ve had mass
protests and we’ve seen, more than once, the army deployed to quell
these protests. We’ve witnessed arrests, casualties, even deaths.

Vote-buying, ballot-stuffing, voter intimidation, and the use of
administrative resources by the authorities have been a hallmark of
elections in our country.

Ahead of its sixth presidential elections, the country finds itself
in a “peculiar” situation: Three of the four main opposition forces
represented in the National Assembly-the Prosperous Armenia Party,
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), and the Armenian National
Congress-have decided to not field candidates. The Prosperous Armenia
Party provided no explanation for its decision, while Ter-Petrossian
of the Armenian National Congress cited his age. The ARF pointed to
the “shadowy” and pre-determined nature of elections in Armenia as
its reason to not put forth its own candidate.

With these parties not participating, contending incumbent President
Serge Sarkisian are seven candidates: former foreign affairs minister,
Raffi Hovannisian; former prime minister, Hrant Bagratian; former
foreign affairs minister of Nagorno-Karabagh, Arman Melikian,;
chairman of the National Self-Determination Union, Paruyr Hayrikian;
leader of the National Accord Party, Aram Harutiunian,; a (so-called)
specialist in epic studies, Vartan Sedrakian; and director of Radio
Hye, Andrias Ghukasyan.

Unheard-of candidates, hunger strikes, and talk of withdrawals have
come to characterize these elections, not the competition of programs
or ideas. Many don’t believe that any of the above candidates can be
a serious challenger to Sarkisian’s re-election. Read any Armenian
newspaper today and you’ll see an overwhelming consensus that the
country is headed towards five more years of Sarkisian.

That the country’s main opposition forces have decided not to field
candidates has undoubtedly had its impact on creating a competition
vacuum in the country. In reality, however, the conditions for such
a competition vacuum were created prior to the official decision by
these parties to not contest. Would these parties have chosen the same
path had they believed they stood a genuine chance to participate in
truly fair and competitive elections? Unlikely.

The monopolization of power by the authorities has rendered political
competition in Armenia impermissible. It has been practiced, bluntly
or subtly, on several occasions, and every opposition party in Armenia
has come to bear its brunt in one way or another. The ARF had its
share of the National Assembly votes slashed from 13 percent in
2007 to 5.6 percent in 2012 after leaving the coalition in 2009 (in
opposition to the signing of the Armenia-Turkey protocols). The most
high-profile member of the Prosperous Armenia Party and potential
presidential candidate, Vartan Oskanian, found himself fending off
money laundering charges after he became a tad too critical of the
government. And Armenian National Congress’ Levon Ter-Petrossian
knows too well what it means to challenge the government first as
ruling president and then as an opposition presidential candidate.

This monopolization of power has affected the attitude of Armenia’s
voters, too. According to Gallup polling, as little as 18 percent of
Armenia’s voters have confidence in the honesty of elections in the
country. Perhaps it is due to this disillusionment that when faced
with threats or offered bribes, Armenia’s voters have chosen to give
up their vote-their ultimate right as citizens of a free country,
their most important responsibility towards their country, and the
most powerful tool they have to determine the course of its future.

In two weeks, Armenians go to the polls again amid widespread loss of
faith both among the voters and political forces in the meaning of
it all. Perhaps no election in the country’s history has emphasized
the lack of confidence in the electoral process as much. Democratic
elections have two key ingredients: people who understand their rights
and exercise them, and leaders who respect the rights and the will of
the people. When at least one of these ingredients is in place, there
is hope for democracy to take root in a country. It is only when such
a day comes, that we can expect an end to pretend, pre-determined,
meaningless elections in Armenia.

MAGNUS CARLSEN CONSIDERS LEVON ARONIAN TO BE HIS MAIN RIVAL FOR TITLE OF WORLD CHESS CHAMPION

18:30, 31 January, 2013

YEREVAN, JANUARY 31, ARMENPRESS: Leader of FIDE ranking Magnus Carlsen
has considered Levon Aronian to be his main rival for the title of
world chess champion in the interview with Russian “sport express”.

“My main rival is Levon Aronian. He has numerously proved to be one
of the best chess players of the world. He would spare no effort for
becoming world champion,” Carlsen said.

Norwegian chess player has launched this year with a victory. Carlsen
played in the 75th Tata Steel Chess Tournament from 11-27 January in
Wijk aan Zee. In the 13 round tournament, he scored 10 points (seven
wins, six draws), winning clear first 1½ points ahead of second-place
finisher Aronian.

He is a triple champion of London “Chess Classic” tournament.

Levon Aronian is currently 3rd world chess player by individual rating.

ZOHRAB MNATSAKANYAN: “ARMENIA IS COMMITTED TO ITS GOAL TO COMPLETE TALKS WITH EU”

Thursday 31 January 2013 14:25
Photo: PanArmenian Photo
Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Zohrab
Mnatsakanyan said today that Armenia is committed to its goal to
complete the talks with the EU on Association Agreement till Eastern
Partnership Summit in Vilnius in November.

Speaking at the opening of the EU Center in Yerevan, Zohrab
Mnatsakanyan said that the aim of the Center is to make EU’s policy
and strategy on getting closer relations with Armenia more available
to the society.

The Deputy Minister noted that “the Armenian side is happy with the
dynamics of talks with the EU” and said that next phases of talks on
Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area will
soon take place.

R. HOVHANNISYAN: “OUR VILLAGES ARE THE CHIEF SOURCE OF ARMENIA’S NATIONAL POTENTIAL AND ECONOMIC GROWTH”

On January 30 Raffi K. Hovannisian campaigned in the villages of
Shenik, Hatsik, Vanand, Yervandashat, and Bagaran, meeting with
citizens and offering his vision of economic development for the
rural communities. Raffi Hovhannisyan campaign headquarters informs
about this.

“Our villages are the chief source of Armenia’s national potential and
economic growth,” Hovannisian said. “They are long due for a serious
investment-to develop farms, install cheap agricultural equipment,
efficiently fertilize local resources, and ensure not only ever
greater production but also firmer security along our borders. None
of this is possible without a supportive state system that encourages
investment through fair and consistent regulation.”

Later in the day, Raffi Hovannisian visited Sardarapat memorial,
and paid tribute to the memory of Armenian troops who sacrificed
their lives to liberate their homeland.

As always, Hovannisian strongly urged constituents to actively
participate in the upcoming elections, and vote freely and fearlessly
for their preferred candidate.

31.01.13, 11:17

SLATE MAGAZINE: MEXICO CITY TOLD AZERBAIJAN THAT THE MONUMENT TO THE FORMER DICTATOR HAD TO GO

How Azerbaijan botched its effort to win friends and influence people
in Mexico City. Sculpture of former Azerbaijani President Heydar
Aliyev, pictured on Oct. 22, 2012, in Mexico City.

Last August, a statue of Heydar Aliyev, who ruled Azerbaijan from 1993
to 2003, was erected along Mexico City’s grand Paseo de la Reforma,
in a park renamed the “Mexico-Azerbaijan Friendship Park.” Around
the same time, the Azerbaijani government built a second monument
in a different park in memory of Azerbaijanii villagers killed by
Armenian forces in 1992 (this is the result of Azerbaijani propaganda
and shared false information); the plaque in front of the statue refers
to the massacre as a “genocide.” Azerbaijan had renovated both public
spaces at a cost of about $5.4 million.

The inauguration of the Aliyev monument was attended by several top
Mexican government officials, including the mayor. But the Mexican
public, then engrossed in a presidential election campaign, paid little
attention to a statue of a man who once led a country 8,000 miles away.

When the nouveau riche attempt to use their money to buy respect and
prestige, it often backfires. Such was the case of the Azerbaijani
government’s effort to honor its former president. Because once
Mexico City residents became aware of the statue that had risen in
their midst, they saw the effort for what it was: an authoritarian
government clumsily trying to buy influence and whitewash the legacy
of a dictator.

This past weekend it ended in humiliation for Azerbaijan, when city
workers, guarded by 200 police in riot gear, loaded the monument onto
a flatbed truck in the middle of the night and carted it away. “Now
everybody talks about Azerbaijan, but in a bad way,” said Guillermo
Osorno, a prominent journalist and member of a government commission
appointed to study the monuments.

Aliyev’s legacy is a complex one. Most Azerbaijanis credit him with
leading their country, an oil-rich ex-Soviet republic wedged in
between Russia and Iran, out of a deep crisis in the 1990s, when
Azerbaijan’s economy collapsed and the country lost a disastrous
war with Armenia. Aliyev’s steady hand put the country on a path to
prosperity; the country enjoyed double-digit GDP growth for more
than a decade. But he was also a ruthless dictator, true to his
roots as a former head of Soviet Azerbaijan’s KGB. Azerbaijan is now
led by Aliyev’s son, Ilham, who has aggressively built up a cult of
personality to his father. Heydar Aliyev’s presence is ubiquitous in
Azerbaijan. Posters and billboards of the ex-president look down at
citizens everywhere, every city has a major street named after him,
and there are more than 60 museums and cultural centers across the
country that bear his name. In 2008, Baku State University created a
“Department of Aliyev Studies.”

But the internationalization of his cult of personality is a newer
development. Over the last several years, Azerbaijan has arranged
for at least 14 statues of Aliyev to be erected around the world,
mainly in the Middle East and the former communist world. Mexico
City’s was the one farthest away from Azerbaijan and the first in
the Western hemisphere. Along with the Aliyev cult of personality,
Azerbaijan also has been trying to advance its own interpretation of
disputed recent history. In particular, it has sought international
recognition of the 1992 massacre of hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians
in the village of Khojaly as a genocide. While certainly a war crime,
the massacre-by official Azerbaijani accounts, 485 were killed-falls
several orders of magnitude short of what is conventionally considered
an attempt to wipe out an entire people. The massacre took place during
the war over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which Azerbaijan
ultimately lost and the recapture of which is now the country’s top
priority. So the real aim of the Khojaly campaign appears to be a
weakening of Armenia’s greatest claim to moral authority: its own
genocide, when between 600,000 and 1.5 million Armenians were killed
by Ottoman forces in 1915.

Until recently, Azerbaijan had been making good progress in advancing
its agenda in Mexico. Mexico’s Senate in 2011 passed a resolution
calling Khojaly a “genocide,” one of only a handful of governments in
the world to do so. (Mexico has never formally recognized the events
of 1915 as such.) The same year, Mexico City’s Museum of Memory and
Tolerance hosted an event commemorating Khojaly.

But Azerbaijan seems to have overreached with the Aliyev statue. The
monument initially drew little notice-as early as April, four months
before it was erected, the Azerbaijani Embassy said it wanted a
monument to Aliyev in the park. But the controversy only began in
early September, a couple of weeks after the statue’s inauguration.

Osorno was tipped off by members of the park council who were
unhappy that the city government had pushed the statue through over
their objections. A few minutes of research led him to the New York
Times obituary for Aliyev, which he quoted in his first column about
the statue:

His authoritarian rule was characterized by contradictory trends.

While it undoubtedly brought a measure of stability to Azerbaijan,
political life emained turbulent, with frequent reports of coup
and assassination attempts against Mr. Aliyev and equally frequent
complaints by his opponents about electoral malpractice, human rights
abuses and a muzzled press.

Mexico City’s intelligentsia is sensitive to such practices, having
only recently emerged from a decades-long dictatorship itself.

Moreover, Mexico’s capital is a liberal oasis; in 2009 it legalized
gay marriage. “This is a city that prides itself on its liberty, and
we don’t like the symbolism of having Heydar Aliyev in Chapultepec,”
he said, referring to the park. “The monument is appalling-in bad
taste and in a very strategic position,” on Mexico City’s stateliest
avenue, near statues of Gandhi and Winston Churchill.

The controversy grew and soon became a cause celèbre among the city’s
chattering classes, leading to a steady stream of opinion articles
and talk-radio debates. A three-member commission of prominent
intellectuals (Osorno being one) was formed to study the matter and
in November issued recommendations to remove the Aliyev statue and
to change the wording on the Khojaly monument from “genocide” to
“massacre.”

Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Mexico, Ilgar Mukhtarov, tried to defend
the statue-unsuccessfully. In an interview, Mukhtarov claimed that
the silent majority of Mexicans was behind him, though he wasn’t
able to provide evidence of supporters other than the handful of
Azerbaijani expats living there. He claimed that the controversy was
ginned up by the country’s Armenian community, a standard Azerbaijani
government trope. (Mexico’s Armenian community is tiny and diffuse but
well-connected: The former rector of the country’s top university,
Jose Sarukhan Kermez, is of Armenian descent and has campaigned
against the statue. Still, his role was hardly decisive.) He also
claimed that the city of Cleveland has a Heydar Aliyev park (not true)
and acknowledged that Aliyev’s record wasn’t perfect, but neither was
that of many Mexican presidents who have statues in the city. Aliyev
“is our national hero, not Mexico’s, and it’s our right to recognize
our national leader,” Mukhtarov told me.

Azerbaijan’s most convincing argument is that a deal is a deal:
It’s not Azerbaijan’s fault that Mexicans didn’t pay attention to
the statue until after it was built. During my meeting with him,
Mukhtarov said that he would not accept any outcome other than the
statue staying where it was, and if Mexico City were to remove the
monument, the embassy would take the matter to an “international
court.” But since the statue was removed early Sunday morning, he
seems to have softened his stance, telling the Russian press that he
is working with the city to establish an Azerbaijani cultural center,
which would be the new home of the statue. The fate of the Khojaly
“genocide” memorial is still an open question.

Today, Aliyev’s monument sits in a warehouse in Mexico City’s
Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Web video of the
statue’s removal shows it being unloaded into a dirt yard, strewn
with debris and stacks of bricks. It’s an ignominious fate for the
hero of a nation.

31.01.13, 17:26

ARMENIA IS ELECTED UN COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OF OUTER SPACE MEMBER

ARMINFO
Thursday, January 31, 15:06

The UN General Assembly’s recent plenary session adopted a resolution,
whereby Armenia is elected member to the United Nations Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), the Armenian Astronomical
Society (ArAS) reported.

As per ArAS, this membership is extremely important for Armenia and,
first and foremost, it is a result of the effective work conducted
by Armenian diplomats. Despite all efforts by Azerbaijan to hinder
Armenia’s membership, the country was elected member with an absolute
majority of the votes. By becoming a COPUOS member, Armenia will join
the five main international agreements with respect to the peaceful
uses of outer space. In addition, Armenia’s representative will attend
the annual sessions of COPUOS and its subcommittees.

Armenia’s COPUOS membership will be beneficial and effective from all
vantage points. Specifically, Armenia will be able to partake in new
outer space programmes.

20 REPORTERS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARRESTED IN AZERBAIJAN

Wednesday,
January 30

The Azerbaijani police arrested the human rights activists and
reporters who went yesterday to Ismail region. They were kept at a
police station for 15 hours, Turan Information Agency reports.

We would remind you that there have clashes between police and local
residents since last week.

The illegalities committed by the regional governor and the poor
socioeconomic conditions in the country are said to have triggered
the clashes.

According to the source, the delegation was composed of 20 members.

The traffic police stopped the delegation members at the checkpoint
near the city in order to find out the purpose of their visit.

When the delegation arrived in the city, everyone was detained and
transported to a police station.

The reporters and human rights activists intended to talk with
relatives of the detained protesters and hear their complaints about
what had happened.

TODAY, 13:50

Aysor.am

HRW CALLS ON AZERBAIJANI GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE RIGHTS FOR ISMAYILLI PROTESTERS

BERLIN. January 30, 2013: The Human Rights Watch issued a press release
calling on the Azerbaijani government to respect the rights of the
people arrested during the Ismayilli protests. Below is the full
text: Azerbaijani authorities should ensure that everyone detained
in connection with riots and protests in the city of Ismayilli has
access to a lawyer and that no one is ill-treated in custody. The
authorities should free everyone detained in Baku, the capital, who
did no more than peacefully protest events in Ismayilli, and ensure
independent monitors enjoy unimpeded access to Ismayilli.

Violence erupted in Ismayilli, a regional center about 200 kilometers
northwest of Baku, on January 23, 2013. A seemingly minor car accident
led to riots and mass protests calling for the local governor’s
resignation. Numerous news media reports described several waves of
clashes between law enforcement and protesters. Police used teargas and
rubber bullets to quash the riots and restore order. In the aftermath,
dozens of people were arrested in Ismayilli, though authorities say
that as of January 30 only 12 remain in custody, facing criminal
charges of looting and organizing riots. Many others have been fined
and released.

“The Azerbaijani authorities have a terrible record of ill-treating
detainees,” said Giorgi Gogia, senior South Caucasus researcher at
Human Rights Watch. “The government needs to make sure that no one held
in relation to the riots and protests in Ismayilli is ill-treated. A
key safeguard against that happening is to immediately allow detainees
confidential meetings with their lawyers.”

Although information is difficult to verify as residents are afraid
of speaking out, Human Rights Watch spoke with three lawyers who
reported several incidents of due process violations and one case in
which a detainee was beaten in custody.

On January 26 in Baku, a large number of uniformed and plainclothes
police rounded up dozens of people who tried to hold a peaceful,
but unsanctioned, rally in the city center to express solidarity with
people in Ismayilli.

On January 29 in Ismayilli, police stopped a group of 20 human rights
defenders monitoring events there. A member of the group said police
took five of them to the police station for questioning, and then
released them, with instructions for the group to leave Ismayilli
because their presence risked “raising tensions.” The group remained
in Ismayilli.

The government should allow human rights monitors and journalists
unimpeded access to Ismayilli to document the events that began on
January 23, as well as assess the treatment of detainees, and whether
the police have engaged in excessive force to quell the riots, Human
Rights Watch said.

The crackdown, and the arrests in Baku, came less than a week after
the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly adopted a report highly
critical of the Azerbaijani government’s human rights record. The
assembly said in a resolution that Azerbaijan’s authorities should
take concrete steps to ensure independence of the judiciary, hold
law enforcement officials accountable for torture and ill-treatment,
decriminalize libel, and ensure freedom of expression and assembly.

The unrest in Ismayilli started during the night of January 23, when
a hotel owner who media reports said is related to the local governor
drove his car into an electricity pole and started to fight with a
taxi driver parked nearby. Based on numerous media reports, dozens
of other people joined the brawl to support the taxi driver, and an
angry mob torched the hotel and two cars parked in the backyard. The
mob then set fire to a car and two motorcycles parked at the home of
the regional governor’s son. The police said the rioting lasted for
about four hours and that they struggled to contain the mayhem.

The next day hundreds of protesters gathered in front of regional
government buildings and demanded the governor’s resignation. The
protesters expressed frustration with poverty, widespread unemployment,
and corruption. Law enforcement officers used teargas, water cannons,
and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, detaining dozens of
protesters.

Human Rights Watch is not in a position to assess whether the
circumstances warranted use of force to disperse the protesters,
nor if law enforcement escalated the use of force in a proportionate
manner. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), which has a mission in Baku and has carried out police training
programs, should examine whether the use of force was carried out in
accordance with international standards, Human Rights Watch said.

Because rubber bullets may in certain circumstances have lethal
force, they should be treated for practical purposes as firearms,
Human Rights Watch said. The United Nations Basic Principles on the
Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officers state that “law
enforcement officials must not use firearms against persons except
in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of
death or serious injury.”

“A lot of questions need to be answered about what happened in
Ismayilli,” Gogia said. “Was the use of force necessary? Did police
exhaust non-violent methods of crowd dispersal? And if so, was the
force used proportionate to the threat? The authorities should allow
human rights defenders to look into these issues without hindrance.”

Detention and Ill-treatment Police have not yet released official data
on how many people were detained. In Ismayilli, local activists told
Human Rights Watch that at least 150 people were arrested on January 24
and 25, although some media reports cite higher figures. Most detainees
were transferred to nearby districts of Gokchay, Gabala, and Shamakhi,
while some were taken to Baku’s Nasimi district police station.

There have been credible allegations of ill-treatment during
detention and in police custody. “Rufat” (name altered for security
considerations), a close relative of a released detainee, told Human
Rights Watch that the detainee, “Emin,” had been beaten in police
custody to coerce him into signing a false confession that he had
engaged in looting. Rufat said that police beat Emin on his chest
using a rubber truncheon, as a result of which Emin was still having
severe chest pains. Emin was released after a court appearance in
which he was fined.

“Authorities should conduct prompt, thorough, and effective
investigation into all allegations of ill-treatment in custody and
hold those responsible to account,” Gogia said.

Perfunctory Trials Many of the detainees were tried for misdemeanor
violations for participating in unsanctioned demonstrations and
resisting police orders. Human Rights Watch interviewed several lawyers
who had problems getting access to their clients and defending them
effectively and who said trials were short and perfunctory.

One of the lawyers said that despite numerous requests he was not
allowed to meet confidentially with his client, who was detained on
January 25 and is being held at the Organized Crime Unit in Baku.

Police initially denied him access altogether, and later said he
could meet with the client only in presence of an investigator.

“I had information that my client had been beaten in custody and
wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with him,” the lawyer said.

“However, they [police] wanted the investigator to be present there,
so that my client would not speak to me openly. I refused to have
such a meeting altogether.”

Human Rights Watch has previously reported on torture and ill-treatment
at the Organized Crime Unit.

Another lawyer, who requested anonymity, told Human Rights Watch that
police asked him to serve as a defense lawyer for one of the detainees
and instructed him to urge the man to sign a prepared confession and
plead guilty. The lawyer refused.

Another lawyer told Human Rights Watch that trials lasted barely more
than a few minutes. He said he had observed the Gokchay District
Court sentence about 80 detainees under administrative proceedings
in less than 10 minutes.

All detainees have the right to due process, including a right to a
lawyer of their choosing, as well as to an open and fair trial, and
the authorities should guarantee these rights, Human Rights Watch said.

According to numerous media reports, Ismayilli is under effective
lockdown. Several residents described to Human Rights Watch a heavy
police presence in the area, including armored vehicles. While there
is no official curfew, the residents are urged not to leave their
homes after 8 p.m. Reports suggest that police have been using amateur
video footage available online to identify participants in protest
actions and detain them.

Violent Dispersal of Peaceful Baku Protest On January 26, youth
activists tried to organize a protest in Baku’s center to express
support for people in Ismayilli. Starting in early morning, uniformed
and plainclothes police amassed in the city center.

As soon as the activists started arriving, chanting “Freedom!” or
other slogans, police rounded them up, shoving them into waiting
buses and police cars. Numerous amateur videos, as well as Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty live streaming from the protest, showed that the
demonstration was peaceful and that the protesters did not offer any
resistance or use any violence.

“Although the demonstration was unsanctioned, the police should
not have used force to disperse protesters who posed no threat,”
Gogia said.

Police rounded up more than 50 of the Baku protesters. Some were
released after being transported to the outskirts of Baku. Others
were taken into police detention and faced administrative charges for
participating in and organizing an unsanctioned rally. Local courts
sentenced five activists to administrative imprisonment ranging from
13 to 15 days, including the well-known blogger and social media
activist Emin Milli, who is serving a 15-day sentence.

The courts also fined three activists up to 2,500 AZN (about US$3,200)
for organizing an unsanctioned protest, while 17 protesters were fined
between 400 (about $510) and 600 AZN (about $760) for participating
in an unauthorized protest.

Since early 2006, authorities have not authorized a single opposition
protest in the center of Baku and have forced all political
demonstrations into designated zones on the outskirts of the city.

Such a blanket ban on freedom of assembly in the central areas of
Baku goes against Azerbaijan’s international commitments to freedom of
assembly and expression, Human Rights Watch said. As the European Court
of Human Rights has warned, “Sweeping measures of preventive nature
to suppress freedom of assembly and expression … do a disservice
to democracy and often endanger it.”

In November 2012, in a further restrictive move, the parliament
increased sanctions for participating in and organizing unauthorized
protests, establishing fines of up to 1,000 AZN ($1,274) for
participating and 3,000 AZN (US$3,822) for organizing.

Azerbaijan is a party to a number of human rights treaties, including
the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposes obligations on
the government to respect the right of assembly and to refrain in all
circumstances from engaging in prohibited ill-treatment of protesters.

The government also has a duty to investigate and remedy violations.

The Council of Europe assembly’s resolution on Azerbaijan’s rights
record highlighted many outstanding concerns, including violations
of freedom of assembly. The assembly urged the authorities to ensure
freedom of assembly by allowing protest actions to take place in some
areas of Baku city center and called on them to “refrain from using
disproportionate police force against peaceful protesters.”

“Azerbaijan should heed to the Council of Europe’s recommendations and
stop banning peaceful assemblies, release anyone detained for merely
expressing their views publicly, and investigate law enforcements’
actions,” Gogia said (HRW).

NAMES OF THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH PRESIDENT SARGSYAN ARE REMOVED FROM HISTORY – PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER

NEWS.AM
January 31, 2013 | 12:15

YEREVAN. – Armenia’s presidential candidate, non-party affiliate,
epic poetry specialist Vardan Sedrakyan will kick off his election
campaign on Thursday. Sedrakyan himself informed this during a press
conference on the same day.

Also, he recalled that the MOD held an event Monday on the occasion of
Army Day and “a presidential candidate” (i.e., the ruling Republican
Party candidate, incumbent President Serzh Sargsyan) likewise attended
it, not as a presidential contender, but rather as Commander-in-Chief
of the army; and this, as per Sedrakyan, is an overt manifestation
of inequality.

“What is more, they are speaking solely about Serzh Sargsyan’s
heroisms. The Armenian army is formed by the order of the First
President of Armenia. The names of all those people that disagree
with Serzh Sargsyan are being distorted and removed,” Vardan Sedrakyan
added.

TURKEY’S KRG ENERGY PARTNERSHIP

Posted By Gonul Tol Tuesday, January 29, 2013 – 3:07 PM

Only a few years back, the idea of an independent Kurdistan bordering
Turkey would have had Ankara up in arms. Not anymore. Past tensions
have been supplanted by a new energy partnership and Turkey seems far
less worried about the prospect of an independent Kurdistan. In May
2012, Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) cut a deal to
build one gas and two oil pipelines directly from Kurdish-controlled
northern Iraq to Turkey without the approval of Baghdad, taking the
rapprochement started between the two in 2009 one step further. If
realized, the Kurdish pipelines will for the first time provide the
Kurds direct access to world markets, bypassing the Baghdad controlled
Kirkuk-Ceyhan (Turkey) pipeline bringing the KRG one step closer to
the long-held dream of Kurdish independence.

Some pundits have argued that for this very reason Turkish approval
of a Kurdish pipeline is a long shot. But the construction seems
to be underway. According to Turkish press, the KRG has already
begun construction on the oil and gas pipelines which are due to be
operational by early 2014.

A couple of factors account for the sea change in Turkey’s KRG policy.

The first being Turkey’s energy strategy. Turkey is an energy hungry
country with a six to eight percent annual increase in demand. In order
to sustain its economic growth, Ankara wants to strengthen its energy
security, ensure diversification of suppliers, and establish itself
as an energy hub between the energy-producing countries to its east
and the energy-consuming countries to its west. Currently, Turkey
relies heavily on imported energy from Russia and Iran. Recently,
however, Iranian sanctions have driven up Turkey’s energy costs.

Moreover, the Syrian crisis has revealed that energy dependence on
Iran and Russia might restrict Turkey’s room for diplomatic maneuver.

This is where the Iraqi Kurdish energy supply comes in handy. The
Kurdish region sits on significant, nearly untapped oil and gas
reserves. The KRG would offer Turkey a high quality low cost energy
alternative to Iran and Russia while Turkey might serve as a conduit
for KRG energy exports to Europe.

There are also geostrategic considerations behind Turkey’s volte-face.

The Syrian uprising has strained Turkey’s once strong ties with
Iran and Syria. In retaliation for Turkey’s support of the Syrian
opposition, Bashar al-Assad has given the Democratic Union Party
(PYD), the PKK’s Syrian offshoot, a free hand to establish itself
in the country’s north. Turkish intelligence reports indicate that
Iran has been providing shelter and logistical support for the PKK
to launch attacks against Turkey as well. The KRG, on the other hand,
has banned pro-PKK political parties, arrested PKK politicians, closed
down PKK offices, and closely monitors pro-PKK activities. Against
the backdrop of shifting dynamics in Turkey’s immediate neighborhood
and mounting PKK attacks, cultivating closer ties with the KRG has
become one of the most important components of Turkey’s anti-terror
strategy and the government’s most recent “Imrali process,” the peace
talks with the PKK’s jailed leader Abdullah Ocalan.

Yet another intricacy for Turkey’s regional policy has been the face
off with Baghdad. An already strained relationship between Ankara
and Baghdad due to diverging stances over Syria came to a head after
the U.S. withdrawal. In an effort to consolidate his power, Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued an arrest warrant for Sunni
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges. Turkey granted
refuge to Hashemi and refused to extradite him dealing yet another
blow to bilateral relations. The energy deals Turkey signed with
the KRG are the latest in the Baghdad-Ankara confrontation. Baghdad
is accusing Ankara of meddling in Iraqi affairs by “backing radical
Sunni elements” in the country and signing “illegal” energy deals
with the Iraqi Kurds, while Ankara is charging Maliki of provoking
sectarian tensions and leading Iraq into civil war. Maliki’s growing
tilt toward Iran has only exacerbated the tension.

Facing a host of new challenges including an increasingly antagonistic
Maliki government, growing Iranian influence in Iraq, mounting PKK
attacks, and increasing energy demand, Turkey seems to have found an
unlikely ally in its ordeal.

Strange as it may sound, the United States is not happy about Turkey’s
courtship with Iraqi Kurds. Since the first Gulf War, Turkish-U.S.

relations suffered multiple crises over the latter’s support for Iraqi
Kurds. This time, however, it is the other way around. Last week,
Feridun Sinirlioglu, Undersecretary of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, had a meeting with the State Department in which the United
States reiterated its opposition to the energy deals directly between
Ankara and the KRG fearing that closer energy ties might push Baghdad’s
Shiite government closer toward Tehran and threaten Iraqi unity.

Despite opposition from Baghdad and the United States, there seems to
be little that can stop the ball from rolling on energy cooperation
between Ankara and the KRG. In an interview with Turkish daily Hurriyet
on January 8, Namik Tan, Turkey’s ambassador to the United States,
made it loud and clear: we will not turn our back on the KRG’s energy
resources.

The energy deals foreshadow a major shift in Turkey’s Iraq policy.

Gone are the days when the KRG was seen as part of the problem; it
is now viewed as part of the solution. Turkey cannot only tolerate
an independent Kurdistan but also benefit from it, as long as it
remains dependent economically on Turkey. An independent Kurdistan
could offer a source of energy, a buffer against a hostile Baghdad
and Iran, and an important ally in Turkey’s fight against the PKK.

Yet it is not all roses; risks abound for both parties. The oil
pipeline deal will allow the Kurds to export up to one million barrels
per day, but it might also make reconciliation between Erbil and
Baghdad harder to achieve. If the KRG does not find a constitutional
solution to its dispute with Baghdad over its contentious hydrocarbon
law, the conflict will become regionalized inviting further meddling
in Iraqi politics by neighboring powers. Ensuing instability carries
the risk of scaring away badly needed foreign investment.

Additionally, by bypassing Baghdad in its bilateral agreements with
the KRG, Turkey risks losing investment in southern Iraq which holds
the country’s largest explored oil and gas reserves.

Regardless, Turkey seems ready to take the risk. In light of Turkey’s
long tortured history with the Kurds, such a radical shift seems
nothing short of astonishing.

Gonul Tol is the founding director of the Center for Turkish Studies
at the Middle East Institute.