Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

AZERBAIJAN ATTEMPTS TO MANIPULATE THE NORMS INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: NKR FM

18:44, 17 Mar 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

On March 17, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic Karen Mirzoyan received Personal Representative of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk.

The sides exchanged opinions on a range of issues of mutual interest
related, in particular, to the current situation on the Line of Contact
between the armed forces of Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan and the
monitoring conducted by the Office of the Personal Representative of
the OSCE Chairman-in-Office.

During the meeting, the NKR Foreign Minister drew the attention of
the Ambassador to the continuous attempts of Azerbaijan to manipulate
and selectively apply the norms of international humanitarian law. In
this context, the fate of the NKR citizen, Arsen Baghdasarian, who
is kept captive in Azerbaijan, was touched upon.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIA EXCEEDS OTHER COUNTRIES IN REGARD WITH GLOBAL WARMING

13:39 March 17, 2015

EcoLur

The hazardous extent of planet temperature increase has been set 20
degrees under the international documents. Cumulative emissions of
carbon dioxide must be limited to about 2,900 gigatons, while 65% of
carbon already has been released into the atmosphere. A total of 1000
gigatons has been left, which can be emitted into atmosphere. If this
threshold is exceeded, global warming process can become irreversible.

Diana Harutyunyan, UNDP Climate Change Programme Coordinator, presented
forecasts and opportunities for Armenia, as well as actions expected
from Government at the press conference held at EcoLur Press Club.

She mentioned that United Nations report published in October 2014 says
that temperatures have already warmed by 0.7 of a degree since 1950
and by 0.85 of a degree since 1880. Ocean level has already increased
by 18 cm. As a result, the number of migrants from islands to the
continents already reaches 80,000, which is ‘a political process’,
as Diana Harutyunyan mentioned.

‘The countries expressed their willingness to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The first document has been presented by Switzerland –
40% of emission reduction by 2030. One week ago the European Union
presented that countries shall reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 and 80%
by 2050.’

Armeniw is a vulnerable area in regard with global warming.

Temperature increase in our country already exceeds the average
indicators of the planet and makes up 1.03 degrees.

If planet rates of greenhouse gas emissions are not constrained, the
temperature in Armenia will increase by up to 5% in Armenia by 2100
and the most vulnerable areas will be Ararat Valley, Meghri area and
Tavush Region.

‘A Climate Change Interdepartmental Board has been established, which
coordinates the compliance and adoption of state policy and founding
documents. A decision has been reached to submit its position by the
end of June in regard with the indicator of limiting greenhouse gas
emission Armenia is willing to undertake.’

Besides, MES Meteorological Center Head Zaruhi Petrosyan presented the
status quo of the weather and noted that in 2014 the annual average
temperature was recorded 1.5 degrees higher than the standards,
while precipitation level is 7% lower than the standard.

The warmest years were recorded in the recent 20-30 years.

‘Since 2009 we have been recording only warm winters not to mention
this winter, which falls behind a little from the winter in 2010. If
the first months of the winter in these years were comparative without
any temperature deviation, the temperature of January for 2010 was
higher than the standard by 6 degrees, this year it was 4 degrees
and 6 degrees in February,’ Zaruhi Petrosyan said.

To be continued.

The material is prepared by ‘EcoLur’ Informational NGO under UNDP
Climate Change Program, within the framework of ARM-002/2015 Contract.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including
UNDP, or the UN Member States.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE TO BE MARKED WITH SPECIAL READING AT THE DOUGLAS

Tuesday, March 17th, 2015

Center Theatre Group, in partnership with the Armenian Dramatic Artists
Alliance, will present ‘Staging the Unstageable: The Esthetics of
Dramatizing Atrocity’ at the Kirk Douglas Theatre

LOS ANGELES–In observance of the centennial of the Armenian Genocide,
Center Theatre Group, in partnership with the Armenian Dramatic
Artists Alliance (ADAA), will present “Staging the Unstageable:
The Esthetics of Dramatizing Atrocity” at the Kirk Douglas Theatre,
Tuesday, April 28 at 8 p.m.

“Staging the Unstageable” is a reading of excerpts from plays that
dramatize in different ways the Armenian Genocide, which was the
systematic extermination (beginning in April 1915) by the Ottoman
Empire of its minority Armenian subjects.

The performance will be followed by a panel discussion with notable
guests from the Armenian community and with Los Angeles theatre artists
who have grappled with the responsibilities of bringing historical
tragedies to the stage. Key to the discussion are the questions: does
theatre have a role in ensuring that communities around the world
never forget historical sins? And how can a theatre-maker bring such
trauma to the stage?

Tickets for “Staging the Unstageable” are priced at $10, and can be
purchased beginning February 18 online at
or by calling (213) 628-2772. The Kirk Douglas Theatre is located at
9820 Washington Blvd. in Culver City, 90232.

The presentation of “Staging the Unstageable” is part of the Douglas
Plus programming at the Kirk Douglas Theatre. Douglas Plus provides
the flexibility to explore new work and push boundaries through fully
and minimally staged events, workshops and readings and traditional
and non-traditional performance configurations.

From: Baghdasarian

Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry
3111 Los Feliz Avenue, #206, Los Angeles, CA 90039
Contact person: Dr. Frieda Jordan
Phone: (323) 663-3609
Email: [email protected]

ABMDR passes European licensing inspection with flying colors

Los Angeles, March 18, 2015 – For the fourth consecutive year, the
European Federation of Immunogenetics (EFI) renewed the operating
license of the Stem Cell Harvesting Center of the Armenian Bone Marrow
Donor Registry (ABMDR) in Yerevan.

The relicensing of the ABMDR laboratory, the only facility of its type
in Armenia and the entire Caucasus region, was granted by EFI after a
thorough onsite inspection held on March 16. The inspection was carried
out by two EFI-designated inspectors, Prof. Svetlana Vojovodic of Serbia
and Prof. Zorana Grubic of Croatia.

At the start of the inspection, Prof. Grubic submitted her own blood
samples for testing at the lab, as part of the inspection process.
Professors Grubic and Vojovodic went on to implement an extensive review
of the facility. They examined the operations, specific methodologies,
and technical documents of all lab departments with regard to a broad
range of scientific research and medical procedures. These include HLA
typing for patients as well as related and unrelated donors; and its
applications in the treatment of blood-related illnesses. The EFI
inspectors also examined the integrity and effectiveness of all medical
equipment and instruments utilized at the lab.

Later, when the results of Prof. Grubic’s blood test were submitted
and the inspectors reviewed them, they determined that all protocols and
standards were followed with utmost accuracy. As the EFI representatives
completed their thorough inspection of the Stem Cell Harvesting Center
and surveyed the results, they unreservedly approved EFI’s renewal of
the lab’s license.

`Once again, the ABMDR Stem Cell Harvesting Center passed the EFI
inspection with flying colors,’ Prof. Vojovodic said. `This is a
world-class, highly professional lab. Its well-trained staff not only
excels at the skills required to run such a specialized institution, but
is also confident, friendly, and accommodating.’

During their concluding meeting with lab staff and ABMDR executives,
professors Grubic and Vojovodic praised their high level of expertise,
thanked them for their hospitality, and said they wished to return to
Armenia in the future for a chance to further explore the country.

The renewal of the Stem Cell Harvesting Center’s EFI license will
enable the facility to continue its collaboration with laboratories and
transplant centers worldwide and help save the lives of patients struck
by life-threatening blood-related illnesses.

`It is immensely gratifying to be granted EFI renewal of our center’s
license,’ stated ABMDR president Dr. Frieda Jordan, who had traveled
to Yerevan in order to be on hand during the EFI inspection process.
`The approval of our work by a global and prestigious regulatory body
such as EFI makes our life-saving mission all the more worthwhile.’

About the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry: Established in 1999,
ABMDR, a nonprofit organization, helps Armenians and non-Armenians
worldwide survive life-threatening blood-related illnesses by recruiting
and matching donors to those requiring bone marrow stem cell
transplants. To date, the registry has recruited over 26,000 donors in
24 countries across four continents, identified 2,482 patients, and
facilitated 20 bone marrow transplants.

From: Baghdasarian

TALKING TO ARMENIA AND NAGORNO-KARABAKH FROM POSITION OF FORCE WILL NOT YIELD LASTING SOLUTION, PRESIDENT SAYS

YEREVAN, March 18. / ARKA /. Addressing an international media forum in
the Armenian capital entitled ‘At the Foot of Mount Ararat,’ dedicated
to the centenary of the Armenian Genocide, President Serzh Sargsyan
said it is clear that in today’s world the guarantee of stability
and normal development is peaceful co-existence and tolerance.

‘This is the very principle guiding us through the Nagorno-Karabakh
peace process, thereby not allowing Azerbaijan to ruin peace
negotiations with its bellicose statements and provocative actions. In
contrast to Azerbaijani authorities, whose provocative actions endanger
the stability of not only their state but also of the region, Armenia
is fully aware of the grave consequences of such adventurism.

Therefore, by containing Azerbaijan’s military provocations, we try
to avoid a new spark of the conflict, which will seriously deteriorate
the already unstable situation in our entire region,’ he said.

‘We do not incite hostility and hatred among our people, which
has been an inseparable component of the policy carried out by the
Azerbaijani authorities for years. In contrast to the Azerbaijani
President who declared that the Armenian people are the number one
enemies of Azerbaijanis, I would like to highlight once again that
the Armenians do not have enemy nations.

It was Azerbaijan’s decades-long anti-Armenian policy and the
determination to restore historical justice that ultimately drove
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to exercise their inviolable right to
self-determination – to build their own homeland on their own land.

Regardless of Azerbaijan’s threats and provocations, the wheel of
history is impossible to roll back: the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is
already a well-established reality and it is not feasible to break
the freedom-loving spirit of its people. To ascertain it, I am calling
upon you to visit Nagorno-Karabakh to get acquainted with the Artsakh
state-building on the ground and represent the objective reality to
your public.

The Armenian position on the settlement of the conflict remains
the same: it must be settled within the framework of the OSCE Minsk
Group, through peaceful negotiations on the basis of the three famous
principles of the Helsinki Final Act put forth by the Co-Chairs.

Azerbaijan’s efforts to alter the format provided by the Minsk
Group, talk to the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh from
a position of force, provocations and blackmail will not yield a
lasting solution. This is an unequivocal truth.

On January 27, 2015 the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group issued a
statement in Krakow on Azerbaijan’s destructive policy, in which they
called upon Azerbaijan to live up to its commitments to the peaceful
resolution of the conflict. I strongly believe that continued sending
of targeted messages calling to exercise restraint will incite certain
degree of vigilance with their true addressee.’-0-

From: Baghdasarian

EU SHOULD PUT PRESSURE ON TURKEY TO OPEN THE BORDER WITH ARMENIA WITH NO PRECONDITIONS – ARMENIAN MP

YEREVAN, March 18. /ARKA/. The European Union should, as part
of its border control elimination policy, put pressure on Turkey
to open its border with Armenia without preconditions, member of
the Armenian delegation in Euronest Parliamentary Assembly Artsvik
Minasyan said at the Euronest plenary session in Yerevan on Tuesday,
Novosti-Armenia reported.

For about 25 years now Turkey and Azerbaijan have been pursuing a
closed border policy toward Armenia, which leaves the country with
only way to Europe – via Georgia, Minasyan said.

In this respect, it is important for Armenia that the EU makes efforts
and puts pressure on Turkey to open the border without preconditions
so that the country is able to increase its trade and integrate with
Europe more closely, the member of the parliament said.

There are currently no diplomatic relations established between Turkey
and Armenia: official Ankara closed the border in 1993. The uneasy
relationship between the countries is caused particularly by Ankara’s
support to Azerbaijan on Karabakh problem and Turkey’s overreaction
to international recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide in Ottoman
Empire.

Some reconciliation in the relations started in autumn 2008 initiated
by Armenia’s president Serzh Sargsyan. Foreign ministers of Armenia
and Turkey signed protocols about establishing diplomatic relations
in Zurich on October 10 2009 to be ratified by the parliaments.

On April 22 2010 Armenia’s president Sargsyan suspended the
ratification process saying the political majority in the National
Assembly considered statements from the Turkish side unacceptable,
“specifically those by Prime Minister Erdogan, who has again made the
ratification of the Armenia-Turkey protocols by the Turkish parliament
directly dependent on a resolution over Nagorno-Karabakh.”

In a statement issued on February 16, president Sargsyan said he had
asked parliament speaker Galust Sahakian to return the protocol to
him since “the Turkish government has no political will, distorts
the spirit and letter of the protocols, and continues its policy of
setting preconditions.” –0–

From: Baghdasarian

IN MEMORY OF MARIA OF PONTUS

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
March 18 2015

“The ethics of the media are what the boss says, brother Yusuf,” warned
Sedat Orsel on Facebook early in the morning Tuesday. During a nice
online chat I wrote him my intention was to write something on the
“press ethics lecture of Prof. Korkmaz Alemdar, Maria from Pontus of
writer Petros Markaris and whether she was a victim or criminal, and
the immense pain a person feels when forced or compelled to abandon
his/her homeland.”

That was indeed how Alemdar concluded his press ethics course at the
Antalya basic journalism training program of the Press for Freedom
project of the Journalists Association. “There is not one single
line in any press ethics text written anywhere in the world which
outlines the responsibilities of the media boss; all the texts state
how a journalist must act,” the professor stressed in explaining why
the existing ethics texts were all deficient.

While there might be no free dinner, a journalist cannot be sold
for a dinner either. Thus, rather than what the intention behind the
gift might be – which cannot be easily estimated – the actual value
must be the scale. The rules of the game must be discussed with a
rational approach. If a journalist accepts an expensive rug as a
“gift” from a carpet dealer, he cannot be expected to write most of
the rugs sold by that dealer are “top-quality, hand-woven pieces”
when they are indeed manufactured by machines.

A gift must be something “affordable” for the journalist. A pen might
be a good gift for example, but there are pens sold at the price of
a second-hand car. To identify the difference between a gift and a
bribe is a very difficult road to walk.

Let’s imagine a young reporter from a small local newspaper
in Antalya. If that reporter is invited on a trip to a Far East
tourist paradise for a conference, should he accept or turn down the
invitation? Can that be a breach of ethics of the profession? If
he returns the invitation, how can he achieve the accumulation of
experience needed to comment on the state of affairs of Turkish tourism
with a perspective of what’s happening in the international arena, as
his paper could never afford such trips? That is why perhaps we have
tens of different texts regarding media ethics regulating journalists’
behavior, but none touching on the responsibility of the media bosses.

At a dinner hosted by Ambassador Kyriakos Loukakis and his spouse
in honor of eminent Istanbul-born Greek writer Petros Markaris, this
ethics issue popped up unexpectedly. An academic friend, instead of
discussing whether Maria of Pontus – who Markaris said was someone
who lived with his family until she died at the age of 90 – was a
victim or a criminal, asked me, “Why were you so critical of the
Turkish Cypriot members of the Cyprus Academic Dialogue conference?”

Maria was a Pontus Greek-Turk compelled to immigrate to Istanbul. She
was lucky, as most of her people could not stop in Istanbul, compelled
to continue on to Greece or elsewhere. As refugees or as displaced
persons, they must have incredible memories and an accumulation of
massive trauma. Today, looking back at the times of the Lausanne Treaty
and the tragic Sept. 6-7, 1955, shame of Turkey, how many Turks don’t
feel sad? A part of this great Anatolian heritage was forced to go,
and since then we have been deficient. Can we say anything different
for the lost Armenian element of Anatolia? Is it indeed important how
it is described? Is it not a reality that Armenians of this land were
compelled to leave? Has not this country been deficient since they
left? For those who left, death must be the easiest of the sufferings
they must have endured. Can anyone imagine the trauma they suffered
because they were left without a homeland?

Some Turkish Cypriots, showing typical “Stockholm syndrome”
behavior, have forgotten what they suffered from the Greek Cypriot
pogrom application on them and have been in efforts to appease their
“masters.” That attitude is sickening me, as it should sicken anyone
with some degree of morality.

Wanting peace is something different from surrendering, as surrender
can bring about only palliative peace and eventually immense further
suffering.

At the dinner, Istanbul Greek-Turk, proud Greek-Athenian Markaris,
looking direct into my eyes, was expressing his great pleasure in
seeing “Turks and Greeks which were never ever so close, so friendly,”
but it was he as well who masterly penned the immense suffering of
the plight of Pontus Greeks, in the few words of Maria.

Self-esteem, integrity and honesty must be the cornerstones of any
deal, and of course the main ingredients of an honest friend or foe.

It was an honor to sit side-by-side at a dinner table with a “friend
Markaris” and discuss the past and future “of our nations.”

March/18/2015

From: Baghdasarian

YEREVAN TURNS DOWN OFFER FOR CREATING WORKING GROUP ON PEACE DEAL

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
March 18 2015

18 March 2015, 15:56 (GMT+04:00)
By Mushvig Mehdiyev

At a time when efforts have intensified in view of solving the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia has officially refused an offer to
create a working group under the Great Peace Agreement, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister reported.

Referring to the locked settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
Foreign Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov said there is no room for optimism
in view of this issue, since Armenia remains true to its aggressive
rhetoric.

“Old arguments and old issues took the stage again. Perhaps, Armenia’s
rulers attempt to play domestic audience for its purposes,” Mammadyarov
added.

As part of the active involvement of Azerbaijan to see manifest the
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan’s position
remains unchanged when it comes to the Great Peace Agreement, said
Mammadyarov.

The Great Peace Agreement envisages the peaceful resolution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based primarily on Madrid Principles,
which includes the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied
lands as a first condition to end Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute.

Notwithstanding the handshake of top Armenian and Azerbaijani officials
on the proposed principles, no progress towards the deadline of
the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories
has reportedly been achieved, mainly due to Armenia’s reluctance to
build peace.

Despite Armenian rulers’ systematic hindrances, Azerbaijani officials
have, nevertheless, exerted all-out efforts to resolve all outstanding
issues as to promote regional stability and peace, in keeping with
Baku’s commitment to its people and the region. And yet Yerevan
remains stubborn.

Earlier last week, Mammadyarov reiterated Azerbaijan’s readiness
to start active and comprehensive talks in an effort to succeed
in brokering a breakthrough agreement towards the resolution of
the conflict.

Furthermore, the OSCE Minsk Group supports calls for coming to a
consensus in regard to the kick-off of talks under the conditions
provided by the Great Peace Agreement.

Calls for an immediate start of peace talks were included in
a statement issued by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group following
their meeting with the Armenian foreign minister in Munich on March
6. But Armenia chose instead to invent numerous lies and pretexts to
feed the stalemate and shy away from the settlement process of the
20-year-old conflict.

Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh territory
was turned into a battlefield and zone of aggravated tensions after
Armenia sent its troops to occupy Azerbaijan’s lands. As a result,
20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory stands
under military occupation. For the past two decades, and despite calls
from the international community, Armenia has refused to withdraw
its troops and retreat within its national borders.

The two countries 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.

From: Baghdasarian

NAGORNO KARABAKH: THE BENEFITS OF BEING IN THE MARGINS

European Leadership Network
March 18 2015

By Laurence Broers

Caucasus Programme Associate at Conciliation Resources and Research
Associate at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies

Wednesday 18 March 2015

As Russia consolidates what Alexander Cooley has called a new
semi-sovereign space embracing secessionist entities in eastern
Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, there is one such
entity that looks on with great interest, but from a certain distance.

The Nagorno Karabakh (NK) conflict was the first of the secessionist
conflicts accompanying the collapse of the Soviet Union; in terms of
scale and numbers of casualties it was second only to Chechnya. Ending
in 1994 with an Armenian military victory and the seizure of wide
Azerbaijani territories beyond that originally under dispute, the
conflict has lingered in the margins of Eurasian politics ever since.

Mediating the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan is the
OSCE’s Minsk Group, which has since the mid-1990s generated no less
than five peace plans. Yet to date the political fallout from the
likely compromises involved and the top-down nature of the process
has prevented progress.

Since a much anticipated but ultimately unsuccessful meeting of the
Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents in Kazan in 2010, escalation and
uncertainty have dominated the NK conflict, reflecting both local and
regional dynamics. Escalation has been the main short-term dynamic
along the 160-mile Line of Contact between Armenian and Azerbaijani
forces. The type, intensity and range of ceasefire violations have
significantly increased over the last 18 months. Last year, skirmishes
in July-August and the shooting down of an Armenian helicopter in
November grabbed the headlines. Constant strafing and sniper fire
across the de jure Armenia-Azerbaijan border in the Tavush/Tovuz
areas, and exchanges in the area of Azerbaijani exclave Nakhchivan,
have also extended the geographical range of violations.

Over the medium to long-term, the arms race between Armenia and
Azerbaijan has become a much-reported aspect of the conflict, pitting
Azerbaijani petro-dollars against Armenia’s deepening alliance (and
reliance) on Russia. In September 2013 Armenia was effectively coerced
into turning its back on an association agreement with the European
Union in favour of accession to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
Eurasian Union integration project. Yet as Russia has strengthened
its grip over Abkhazia and South Ossetia with new boundary-dissolving
treaties, there are reasons to believe that the de facto entity in NK
may be able to keep some distance from Russian integration. Russia
has no direct border with Armenia or NK. Neither does it have
“passportized” citizens to “protect”, nor peacekeepers on the ground.

Russia’s influence over NK is largely indirect, via the deep
penetration of Armenia’s economy, infrastructure and security
architecture. Armenia’s accession to the Eurasian Union has however
raised the possibility of a customs point at the border between
Armenia and NK. Unlikely in practice, this still adds to Russian
leverage over Armenia.

Over the last year Azerbaijanis have looked at the situation in
Ukraine as vindication of their argument with Armenia, claiming that
there is no essential difference between Russia’s actions in Crimea
and eastern Ukraine in 2014 and Armenia’s actions in NK in 1988-1994.

Yet while Armenia’s growing integration with a Russian-controlled space
may be a source of short-term validation of Azerbaijani positions,
there is little doubt that neither side desires an increased Russian
presence in the theatre of conflict. Although the current peace
proposal, the Madrid Principles, envisages the deployment of an
international peacekeeping operation in NK, conversations on all
sides of the conflict reveal consensus on apprehensions regarding
the composition, mandate, location and duration of any such
force. This negative consensus, serves as a reminder of an easily
forgotten feature of the NK conflict: the relative sustainability
of a self-regulating ceasefire. Recent escalations detract from
this aspect of the Armenian-Azerbaijani truce, which until 2014 had
seen no major escalations comparable to those disrupting ceasefires
in the Georgian-Abkhaz (in 1998) and Georgian-South Ossetian (in
2004 and 2008) contexts. Reprehensible though the lapses in the
Armenian-Azerbaijani ceasefire are, it is still a ceasefire that is
managed by Armenians and Azerbaijanis, by themselves, for themselves,
on their own.

In this light, the escalation in the range, breadth and severity of
Line of Contact clashes, which are driving calls for an increased
international presence in the area, is not only worrying, but also
puzzling. Azerbaijani frustration with a status quo that over time is
normalising the occupation of large swathes of its de jure territory
is understandable. There is a clear benefit on the Azerbaijani side
of countering perceptions of a “frozen”–and hence in some sense
acceptable– conflict. Yet there is a common Armenian-Azerbaijani
interest in preserving the exceptionality of NK against the wider
canvas of the incorporation of de facto space into Russian-controlled
semi-sovereign space. The treaties concluded between Russia and
Abkhazia and South Ossetia respectively have further embedded the
asymmetry in this process for de facto entities, and leave little
doubt as to the fate that would befall NK were it to become part
of this space. Whatever outcome might eventually issue from an
Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiation would be averted and this conflict
would become entangled and submerged in entirely different dynamics
on a Eurasian scale.

The “proxification” of Armenia i.e. the depiction of Armenia as a
proxy already entirely under Russian influence, and hence the absence
of a real interlocutor, is popular in Azerbaijan. Yet local agency and
bilateral scope remain much greater in this conflict than others in
Eurasia. The dynamic of escalation and the appearance of diminishing
control over the Line of Contact area are contracting this scope. In
the face of accelerating centripetal pressures that could reshape the
NK conflict beyond recognition, Armenia and Azerbaijan need to act
to avoid local instability converting into metropolitan opportunity.

The opinions articulated above represent the views of the author(s),
and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Leadership
Network or any of its members. The ELN’s aim is to encourage debates
that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing
foreign, defence, and security challenges of our time.

From: Baghdasarian

TURKISH-AZERBAIJANI PIPELINE IN ARMENIAN KARS

Naira Hayrumyan, Political Commentator
Politics – 18 March 2015, 14:57

The presidents of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia left for Kars
to attend the ceremony of launching the construction of TANAP to
transport Azerbaijani gas to Europe.

Turkey eventually chose the Azerbaijani pipeline, rejecting the
Russian project of the Turkish Stream. Moreover, according to the
Turkish press, the Turkish company BOTAÃ…~^ has refused a deal with
Gazprom on a 10.25% discount for Russian gas. Turkey asked for a 15%
discount but Russia disagreed.

The problem is not the discount, of course, but the fact that Europe
has refused to buy Russian gas even via the Turkish Stream. According
to the new European energy charter, Russia is not among Europe’s
strategic partners. Now the Russian gas needs to look for new buyers
inside Russia or in poor Armenia.

It has become known that the price of gas in Russia will increase
by 7.5% from July 1. The price of gas in Armenia is linked to the
internal price in Russia, hence, it is not ruled out that Armenia
will have to pay more for gas from July 1.

This is happening alongside with the falling prices of oil and gas
in the world. Annual futures of oil are headed for zero. This means
that soon oil and gas will simply lose their value. They have already
lost their political importance and now the countries which have oil
and gas hurry to sell them.

Technological revolution is a fact in the world, and transition to
new energy is taking place faster than it had been expected.

The oil minister of Iran Bijan Zanganeh has announced today that as
soon as sanctions on his country are lifted, Iran will boost daily
extraction of oil by 1 million barrels. Iran also wants to sell its
oil quickly, even at lower prices.

In this context, the construction of TANAP in Kars is an event
of political campaign which intends to highlight certain political
relations of countries. It is not accidental that this event was held
in Armenian Kars.

From: Baghdasarian