Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

” LE HOLODOMOR N’EST PLUS AUJOURD’HUI UN SUJET TABOU ”

Publie le : 06-12-2012

Info Collectif VAN – – ” Il est des etapes dans
la construction d’une memoire qui marquent plus que d’autres…. Nous
voici reunis ici aujourd’hui pour commemorer le 80e anniversaire
du genocide perpetre en 1932-33 par Staline et ses seides contre le
peuple ukrainien. Après-guerre, certaines voix – et non des moindres –
se sont elevees pour denoncer le genocide ukrainien de 1932-33. Ainsi,
Raphaël Lemkin, le père de la Convention de 1948, declarait-il en 1953
lors d’un discours donne a New-York : ” Ce dont je veux parler est
sans aucun doute l’exemple le plus classique du genocide sovietique,
son experience la plus ancienne et la plus etendue en termes de
russification, c’est a dire la destruction de la Nation ukrainienne. ”
Le Collectif VAN publie ici l’Intervention de Mykola Cuzin, President
de Ukraine 33, lors de la Commemoration du 80e Anniversaire de la
Famine Genocide de 1932/33 en Ukraine, Place Antonin Poncet, Memorial
de tous les Genocides, a Lyon le 24/11/2012 et vous invite a lire
egalement la conference ” La famine de 1932-1933 en Ukraine : quelle
interpretation ? “, donnee par le Pr Nicolas Werth le 29.11.2008 a
la Mairie du 2° a LYON.

Ukraine 33

Famine-Genocide en Ukraine Commemoration du 80e anniversaire du
Holodomor a Lyon

dimanche 25 novembre 2012

Madame la Consule Honoraire d’Ukraine, Messieurs les Consuls
Honoraires, Monsieur l’Adjoint au Maire de Lyon, Messieurs les Elus,
Monsieur le Directeur, Il est des etapes dans la construction d’une
memoire qui marquent plus que d’autres…. Nous voici reunis ici
aujourd’hui pour commemorer le 80e anniversaire du genocide perpetre en
1932-33 par Staline et ses seides contre le peuple ukrainien. J’aurais
tendance a dire : ” 80 ans, deja ! ”

Lorsque nous avons cree notre Comite au debut des annees 80 a
l’instigation de nos parrains le Cardinal Decourtray et Charles Hernu,
l’espoir de la liberation des Nations asservies d’Europe orientale
n’etait qu’une lointaine utopie, parler ukrainien, penser ukrainien,
vouloir etre Ukrainien… etait interdit et dangereux et evoquer le
Holodomor representait le sommet du deviationnisme petit-bourgeois que
seuls la mort ou un sejour prolonge en hôpital psychiatrique pouvaient
corriger. A cette epoque, Tchernobyl n’avait pas encore repandu son
venin et il allait encore se passer 10 ans avant que la chute du Mur
de Berlin n’entraîne l’effondrement de la prison des nations. 21 ans
ont passes depuis cette magnifique annee 1991. Force est de constater
que les progrès accomplis dans la construction de notre memoire en
general et dans celle du Holodomor en particulier ont ete immenses.

Entretenue par miracle pendant des decennies comme un filet d’eau
perdu au milieu d’un desert, cette memoire a connu un essor sans
precedent a la faveur de l’Independance de l’Ukraine en 1992 avec
la publication des premiers recueils de temoignages, l’ouverture –
mesuree et sporadique – des archives, la multiplication des travaux
d’universitaires, la creation d’une fondation et d’un memorial,
la penalisation du negationnisme du genocide par le Cour Supreme
d’Ukraine en 2006. A ce jour 26 pays ou institutions ont reconnu
et qualifie de genocide ce crime indicible commis contre le peuple
ukrainien et les publications internationales sont toujours plus
nombreuses a y faire allusion.

Alors oui, que de progrès realises lorsqu’on se retourne et que l’on
se rend compte que l’Ukraine a failli disparaître a plusieurs reprises
au cours de ce XX siècle sanglant. Pour autant, 80 ans dans la vie d’un
homme, c’est l’âge de la maturite, de la serenite devant tout ce qui a
ete accompli et tout ce qui a ete transmis aux nouvelles generations,
c’est la certitude de pouvoir bientôt se retirer en laissant son
~uvre se poursuivre. Or, chaque jour qui passe, je me rends un peu
plus compte que notre memoire n’en est qu’a ses balbutiements. Je
serais tente d’etablir un parallèle avec ce phenomène bien connu de
l’observation d’evènements cosmologiques que nous ne pouvons faire
que des centaines, voire des milliers d’annees après leur survenue,
le temps que leur traces lumineuses voyagent jusqu’a nous a travers
l’immensite de l’espace. Le Holodomor en 1932-33, c’est en quelque
sorte l’explosion cataclysmique d’une Supernova dont nous commencerions
a peine a percevoir les rayonnements dans un telescope. Certes,
il y a 80 ans, alors qu’au paroxysme de la famine-genocide près
de 1500 personnes mourraient chaque heure sur la terre d’Ukraine,
le monde libre etait au courant, la SDN et la Croix-Rouge avaient
ete alertees et la communaute ukrainienne de Pologne se demenait
comme elle pouvait pour rassembler une aide qui ne serait finalement
rejetee categoriquement car consideree comme insultante par le maître
du Kremlin.

Le Saint-Siège a lui-meme mene a cette epoque une intense activite
diplomatique afin que l’aide soit acceptee, sans toutefois agir
directement de peur d’exciter les persecutions contre les chretiens.

Mais les frontières de l’URSS sont restees obstinement closes et la
propagande sovietique a reussi son travail, au-dela de ses esperances
– bien aidee en cela par certaines factions intellectuelles de nos
democraties occidentales. Pour finir, la presence du Vojd dans le
camp des vainqueurs de la seconde Guerre mondiale lui a opportunement
permis de passer l’eponge sur tous les mensonges sovietiques passes,
mais aussi a venir… les mensonges sur la Guerre civile de 1917, les
mensonges sur les premières famines dans les annees 20, les mensonges
sur les purges et les deportations massives dans les annees 30, les
mensonges sur la collusion avec le regime nazi, les mensonges sur
le massacre de Katyn, les mensonges sur les CAJ montes uniquement
pour mieux reperer ceux que le regime appelait les ” cosmopolites ”
et les eliminer et bien sûr les mensonges sur le Holodomor.

Après-guerre, certaines voix – et non des moindres – se sont pourtant
elevees pour denoncer le genocide ukrainien de 1932-33. Ainsi, Raphaël
Lemkin, le père de la Convention de 1948, declarait-il en 1953 lors
d’un discours donne a New-York : ” Ce dont je veux parler est sans
aucun doute l’exemple le plus classique du genocide sovietique,
son experience la plus ancienne et la plus etendue en termes de
russification, c’est a dire la destruction de la Nation ukrainienne. ”
Plus près de nous, le specialiste mondialement reconnu du Holodomor –
James Mace, aujourd’hui decede – parlait deja dans les annees 80 de la
volonte maintes fois exprimee par Staline de detruire la paysannerie
ukrainienne, l’intelligentsia ukrainienne, ainsi que la langue et
l’histoire ukrainiennes. Selon lui, son calcul etait très simple,
très primitif : plus de peuple, cela voulait dire plus de nation
separatiste et donc plus de problème. Il en concluait qu’une telle
politique etait l’expression la plus evidente qui soit du Genocide. ”

80 ans après, que reste-t-il de ce massacre effroyable ? A ce jour, 13
Etats a travers leurs organes representatifs (senats ou parlements) ont
reconnu le Holodomor comme genocide. Parmi eux l’Estonie, la Lituanie,
la Pologne et l’Espagne. 13 autres l’ont qualifie de crime dirige
contre le peuple ukrainien. Fort heureusement, le Holodomor n’est plus
aujourd’hui un sujet tabou, interdit. Les historiens ont ete nombreux
a travers le monde a s’emparer du sujet ces dernières annees, mais
on sent bien encore de puissantes resistances et des reticences assez
fortes, a telle enseigne que notre actuel Premier ministre Jean-Marc
Ayrault, alors Depute-Maire de Nantes repondait ainsi en 2007 alors que
nous venions de l’interpeller sur le 75 e anniversaire du Holodomor ,
je cite : ” On ne peut qualifier de genocide tout massacre de masse
commis a l’occasion d’une revolution ou d’une guerre, quelle qu’en
soit l’horreur. Ces actes – i-e le Holodomor – relèvent du crime
contre l’humanite et ne sauraient etre spontanement consideres comme
genocide, en depit de l’usage abusif qui est souvent fait aujourd’hui
de ce terme. S’agissant du devoir de memoire a l’egard des paysans
ukrainiens, il concluait ainsi : ” Ce devoir sera d’autant mieux
rempli si les faits recoivent la qualification qui leur revient. ”
Il ne croyait pas si bien dire ! Et il y a urgence ! 80 ans après,
la generation des rescapes alors enfants a l’epoque est en train
de s’eteindre. Les temoins adultes sont morts depuis longtemps, la
plupart sans jamais avoir ete entendus et les executeurs de basses
~uvres a tous les echelons n’ont jamais ete inquietes.

L’Ukraine actuelle tente vaille que vaille de faire son chemin,
de trouver sa voie mais on sent bien que le genocide pèse encore de
tout son poids dans le c~ur de cette veille nation. L’agriculture
de s’est jamais vraiment relevee de cette catastrophe. Et les 8
millions de vies humaines sacrifiees ajoutees aux six millions du
deficit demographique ont creuse un trou abyssal dans la population.

En Ukraine orientale, de vastes regions totalement desertees suite
aux meurtres et aux deportations des populations ukrainiennes ont
ete repeuplees massivement par des paysans et des detenus russes
parce qu’il n’y avait tout simplement plus personne pour travailler
la terre. De nos jours, ces descendants bien involontaires de la
politique d’epuration ethnique stalinienne, continuent de peser de
tout leur poids sur une vie politique ukrainienne qui, du coup, peine
a servir les interets les plus elementaires de la Nation, dans le
sens où ceux-ci ne devraient plus du tout dependre de la Russie. La
Russie, quant a elle, continue de se comporter avec l’Ukraine comme
s’il s’agissait de sa chasse gardee, s’ingerant toujours plus dans ses
sphères politique, economique, militaire, religieuse et culturelle,
avec toute la force et l’arrogance que peut conferer l’impunite. Oui,
il y a urgence… urgence pour la verite historique, urgence parce
qu’une victime non reconnue transmet toujours d’immenses souffrances
a ses descendants et qu’un bourreau non designe peut laisser croire
a ses heritiers que le crime non denonce etait legitime.

Oui, nous demandons qu’enfin le Holodomor des annees 1932-33
soit reconnu de facon pleine et entière comme un genocide parce
qu’il est plus que temps que justice soit rendu a l’Ukraine et aux
Ukrainiens, mais egalement parce c’est a cette seule condition que
la reconciliation pourra s’envisager entre l’Ukraine et une Russie
veritablement democratique et que la construction europeenne pourra
s’achever sur la base d’un partenariat juste et equilibre denue de
toute velleite de chantage energetique ou militaire.

Je terminerai en ayant une pensee speciale pour les 3 millions
d’enfants disparus dans la folie de ce genocide, puisque cette
semaine, le mardi 20 novembre etait organisee la journee mondiale
2012 de l’enfance.

Merci a vous tous.

Mykola Cuzin

Lire aussi:

La famine de 1932-1933 en Ukraine : quelle interpretation ?

80e Anniversaire de la Famine Genocide de 1932/33 en Ukraine

Retour a la rubrique

Source/Lien : Ukraine 33

From: Baghdasarian

HUNGARIAN AMBASSADOR: “I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT RAMIL SAFAROV’S CASE IS ABSOLUTELY A LEGAL ISSUE”

APA
Dec 5 2012
Azerbaijan

“There are no misunderstandings between our countries. The ever-growing
relations between us are at a high-level,” said ambassador of Hungary
to Azerbaijan Zsolt Csutora at the opening ceremony of the Hungarian
Trading House in Azerbaijan, APA reports.

According to him, Azerbaijan and Hungary have good relations in the
spheres of culture and sport. Touching on Ramil Safarov’s extradition
to Azerbaijan, the ambassador said that this issue has no impact on
the bilateral relations.

“I have always said that it was a legal issue. Our relations are
developing and the delegation of “Wizz Air” company of Hungary has
today arrived in Azerbaijan. The launch of the direct flight between
the two countries is being discussed now. Visa department was launched
at our embassy a year ago and I can say that the number of tourists
traveling to our countries is gradually increasing.”

The ambassador also commented on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict:
“Hungary has always stood against aggression and recognized the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan”.

From: Baghdasarian

SECURING LASTING PEACE IN THE CAUCASUS

Wall Street Journal
Dec 5 2012
NY

Stability in Nagorno-Karabakh would open up new avenues for cooperation
and regional integration.

By ELMAR MAMMADYAROV, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan

At the end of this week, the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) will gather in Dublin for its annual ministerial
meeting. I remain hopeful that we can achieve real progress on
resolving some of the outstanding issues facing our region-in
particular, achieving lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan is economically prosperous due to an oil and gas boom,
but our efforts to build a modern country are handicapped by security
issues. The broader Caspian region is plagued with tension, which could
quickly escalate from political problems between neighbors to open
conflict. The most irritating and damaging issue for my country is with
neighboring Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh province of Azerbaijan.

This province belongs to Azerbaijan. Armenian forces have occupied
Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts since the
1993 cease-fire that was negotiated by the OSCE. The occupation has
displaced nearly one million Azeri citizens from their place of origin.

As a result, our relations with Armenia are practically nonexistent.

There is also a distinct lack of economic cooperation and trade
between our two counties.

Azerbaijan wants peace so that we can continue to grow our economy,
develop our energy resources and advance our relations with Europe and
our neighbors. But Armenia also has a stake in peace with Azerbaijan.

The country is isolated in the region largely because of this
conflict. It is excluded from all regional infrastructure and energy
projects, such as the oil and gas pipelines passing from the Caspian
Sea to Turkey and Europe via Georgia, as well as a new railroad line
between Azerbaijan and Turkey through Georgia, to be inaugurated
this year. When we can agree on lasting peace, Armenia could become
a stakeholder in these regional projects.

Settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would benefit Europe as
well. Azerbaijan is becoming a major energy exporter to Europe, and
with the new pipeline agreement signed with Turkey, Europe will soon
receive 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Azerbaijan. That
volume could eventually rise to more than 20 billion cubic meters.

European economic interests in Azerbaijan and the region extend
beyond energy. Stability in the Caucasus is now part of Europe’s
internal security. It is no longer a matter of the EU engaging with
its periphery. Like Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the Caucasus is now part
of an internal EU security debate.

One thing should be clear: We will not accept a territorial division
of Azerbaijan. Our territorial integrity must be respected, as this
is international law. In 1993, the U.N. Security Council approved
four relevant resolutions calling for an immediate, complete and
unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from our territory. The
Armenian military withdrawal must be comprehensive, and it needs to
take place now.

Beyond these two conditions, we are flexible and willing to support
any peace process. We will back it up with a real economic development
plan for Nagorno-Karabakh, including serious investments.

We can resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem only if there is political
will on all sides. There certainly is such will on our side.

Azerbaijan is the biggest proponent of an immediate settlement of
the conflict, and we stand committed to building a stable economic
and security environment in our region.

I suggest we move forward in Dublin and achieve progress on this issue
beyond what has already been agreed with Armenia and the three OSCE
co-chairs: France, the U.S. and Russia. After drafting a comprehensive
peace agreement within a fixed time frame, the OSCE should agree on
a new Minsk Group meeting to be attended by all parties.

Peace in the Caucasus would open up new avenues for cooperation and
regional integration. With peace, we could all progress more quickly
in our efforts to catch up with the rest of Europe. Dublin is our
peace opportunity. I urge our Armenian counterparts to seize it,
together with us.

Mr. Mammadyarov is foreign minister of Azerbaijan.

From: Baghdasarian

SYRIAN REFUGEES HEAD FOR ARMENIA

Wall Street Journal, NY
Dec 5 2012

Worshipers lighted candles at a church service in Yerevan, Armenia.

The war in Syria, which has already sparked refugee crises just across
its border in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, is also bringing strains
to Armenia, a Christian country hundreds of miles away.

From: Baghdasarian

IRAN THREATENS U.S. INTERESTS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Heritage.org
Dec 5 2012

By Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, Committee
on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives December 5, 2012

Chairman Burton, Members of Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen:

My name is Ariel Cohen. I am the Senior Research Fellow in Russian
and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at The Heritage
Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and
should not be construed as representing any official position of The
Heritage Foundation.

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the Iranian
threats to U.S. interests in the South Caucasus.

The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI or Iran), has emerged as a major
anti-status quo actor in the Middle East, threatening American Sunni
Arab allies along the so-called Shi’a Crescent from Lebanon, via Syria
and Iraq, to the Persian Gulf. Iran’s implacable hatred of Israel and
its threats to wipe the Jewish State off the map are widely reported.

What is less well known is the destabilizing influence of the Islamic
Republic in the South Caucasus.

The South Caucasus is located between the Black Sea and the Caspian
Sea, neighboring Central Asia to the east, the Middle East (Iran and
Turkey) to the south, and Eastern Europe to the west, hence connecting
Europe and Asia. It also plays a key role in connecting Central Asia to
the world via the Black Sea and Mediterranean ports. Home to ancient
civilizations and populated by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, the
South Caucasus is also the area where Russia, Iran, and Turkey meet.

The United States has worked hard over the last twenty years to
encourage development of this strategically important region. American
interests in the South Caucasus include security, energy and economic
development, and democratization. Thus far, our track record in
achieving these goals is decidedly mixed.

Security in the region is threatened by Iranian attempts to export
terrorism, destabilize neighboring Azerbaijan, and bypass U.N. and
E.U. sanctions. Since the launch of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Main
Oil Export Pipeline in 2006, no gas export pipeline from the Caspian
has been completed; no Turkmen or Kazakhstani gas is transiting the
region for exports; and the level of democratization leaves much to
be desired.

Since the collapse of the USSR, Washington has sought to prevent
Russia and Iran from re-establishing dominance in this region,
especially as the importance of Caspian energy resources – oil and
gas – is increasing. “Given that the region involves the Russians,
Iranians and Turks, it is inevitable that the global power [the U.S. –
A.C.] would have an interest as well,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton remarked during her visit to the region in July 2010. The U.S.

long-term strategy has been to ensure the independence of Azerbaijan,
Armenia, and Georgia, allowing for markets to develop and the rule
of law to thrive, while sustaining democratization and promoting
regional integration.[1] Since the era of bipartisanship on South
Caucasus during the Clinton and Bush Administrations, there is a
reversal in U.S. attention to and achievements of these policy goals.

Importantly, Iran is endangering the U.S. strategy through the
export of terrorism, sanction busting, subversion through soft power
application, and cultivating close relations with Armenia while
posing a threat to the stability and development of the pro-Western
and pro-American country of Azerbaijan.

Iran, the Prime Exporter of Terrorism. Iranians are responsible for at
least two recent (2012) and documented terrorist attacks on U.S. and
Israeli targets in Azerbaijan, and one in Georgia. Iranian networks
and agents targeted the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan and “iconic”
locations such as McDonalds.

They also targeted the Israeli Ambassador to Baku, the Israeli embassy
building, a rabbi, and a number of prominent members of the Azerbaijani
Jewish community leaders and their center in Baku.

Georgian security services have disarmed a bomb, apparently planted
by Iranian agents, targeting an Israeli diplomat. Georgia is allowing
Iranians to travel to their country visa-free. These attacks are a
part of a global wave of terror, which includes planned or executed
attacks on the Saudi and Israeli Embassies in Washington, D.C., New
Delhi, Bangkok in Thailand, and Burgas in Bulgaria, as well as Kenya
and Cyprus.

The Qods (or “Jerusalem”) Force, an Iranian elite paramilitary
organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),
is exporting the Islamic revolution by fostering militant Shiite
movements, creating deterrence and retaliatory networks, and
destabilizing unfriendly regimes. Officially, the Qods Force is a
part of the IRGC’s five known branches, alongside the ground forces,
the navy, the air force (in parallel with the regular tri-services),
and the brutish Basij street militia.[2] In reality, the Force enjoys
a great degree of autonomy and is directed by the Supreme Leader.

Iranian student activists compared IRGC to the Soviet KGB and the
Nazi SS, calling it “the agent of order for a harsh ideological regime
and its agent of oppression”.[3]

A 2010 U.S. Department of Defense report indicates that the Qods Force
“clandestinely [exerts] military, political, and economic power to
advance Iranian national interests abroad,” making the Force the
spearhead of Iran’s foreign policy.

The Qods Force has been accused of masterminding or supporting some
of the most prominent attacks against Western and Israeli targets over
the past three decades. Its role was decisive in launching Hezbollah,
the Shiite militant group that is responsible for the death of over
240 American Marines and numerous American diplomats and intelligence
officers in Lebanon in the 1980s, and attained notoriety for its
massive rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in the Second Lebanon
War of the summer of 2006.

Little wonder, then, that international attention has in recent years
focused on Qods Force Major General Qassem Soleimani, the enigmatic
operator who runs the “handpicked elite of an already elite ideological
army.” Ali Alfoneh, an Iran scholar specializing in the IRGC at the
American Enterprise Institute, wrote that although lacking formal
qualifications, Soleimani rose through the ranks due to his reputation
for gutsiness during tough times.

In his current role, Soleimani replaced Ahmad Vahidi in the late
1990s. Vahidi went on to become Iran’s defense minister. Soleimani’s
personal connection to Supreme Leader Khamenei, which dates back to
before the 1979 revolution, may have facilitated his ascendancy.

It is no wonder that Iran’s leaders, who believe that independent
Azerbaijan belongs within the Persian orbit, turned to Soleimani and
the Qods Force. The Iranian intelligence services have been operating
on Azeri soil as far back as the mid-1990s.

In 1997, members of the Islamic Party of Azerbaijan were tried for
spying on behalf of Iran. In 2007, Said Dadasbeyli, an Azeri cleric
and alleged leader of a group known as the “Northern Mahdi Army” was
accused of receiving assistance from the Qods Force and plotting to
overthrow the secular government. The Azerbaijani authorities believed
he had provided Iran with sensitive intelligence on the American and
Israeli embassies in Baku.

In October 2009, two Lebanese Hezbollah operatives and their four
local Azerbaijani assets were charged with plotting to attack the U.S.

and Israeli embassies. In January 2012, three men were accused of
planning to assassinate a rabbi and a teacher working at a Baku
Jewish school.

Iran’s Anti-Israel Agenda. The fact that the Iranian intelligence
services have prioritized Israeli and Jewish targets inside Azerbaijan
may be interpreted as a signal to the Azerbaijani government that
Tehran is upset by the close Azerbaijani-Israeli cooperation. In the
past, Iran undertook a number of diplomatic steps to signal its ire to
Baku about the relationship with Israel. For the Iranian Islamist Shi’a
dictatorship, neighboring, predominantly Shi’a Azerbaijan is far too
secular, too pro-Western, and too pro-Israel. Secular Azerbaijan is
not the model Iran wants to see at its northern border: a prosperous,
energy-exporting, Western-oriented and Israel-friendly, majority-Muslim
country. Iranian-Azerbaijani relations are further complicated by
rising Azerbaijani nationalism inside Iran, where over 25 percent
of the population is ethnic Azeri.Unconstitutional discrimination
against the Azerbaijani language as a language of public discourse
and education in Iran continues to poison Azeri-Persian ties.

It is no wonder that Iranian policies are making Azerbaijan’s
leadership feel threatened. I believe that they should also engender
greater concern among U.S. foreign policy makers.

Sanction Busting. Iranian attempts to circumvent the sanctions regimes
imposed by the U.N., the U.S., and the E.U. in an attempt to pressure
Tehran away from developing nuclear weapons target the South Caucasus.

These include illegal banking operations and the proliferation of
“front” companies engaged in the acquisition of sensitive, dual use,
or outright military technology. All three South Caucasus countries
are involved in trade with Iran, but Armenia, the closest to Tehran,
is the principal concern for U.S. policymakers, law enforcement,
and the intelligence community.

According to Armenian press reports, Iranians use Yerevan real estate
to launder money and achieve liquidity outside of the country.[4]An
additional aspect of the Iranian-Armenian cooperation, which may
violate the sanctions, is the Meghri hydroelectric plant along the
Arax River between the two countries. On November 8, 2012, Armenia
broke ground for the long-planned US$330 million 130-megawatt plant,
which will be built by an Iranian company, and Iran will use the
electricity generated by the project for the next 15 years.

Afterwards, ownership of the plant will be transferred to Armenia. In
2011, Armenia and Iran also agreed to an oil product pipeline planned
to run from the city of Tebriz to the Armenian border, to supply
Armenia with Iranian fuels.

Bypassing Banking Sanctions and Acquiring Technology. Last August,
news agencies reported that the Iranian regime was attempting to expand
its banking relationships in Armenia as a convenient location to avoid
international sanctions. Mellat Bank, an Iranian financial organization
sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for helping to finance imports for
Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities and suspected by the British
Treasury of violating international sanctions, operates in Yerevan.[5]
Other Iranian banks connected to illicit military-industrial, economic,
and financial activities by the regime also attempt to operate in
Armenia in order to bypass international law enforcement. While the
Government of Armenia has denied these reports, according to the
Armenian press, their adherence to international banking sanctions
against Iran has been questioned by Western officials.

Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Regional Studies
Centre (RSC) says that Iran looks at the South Caucasus as a region
where it can procure “critical elements” for its nuclear effort that
the sanctions have restricted: “Many [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard
units have pursued over the past several years setting up joint
ventures with foreign partners — front companies — designed to
pursue technical spare parts for military use and nuclear centrifuge
development.” Front companies of this type were closed in recent years
in Dubai and Kuala Lumpur. “There is new concern that Armenia, Georgia,
and other countries may become attractive for such a pursuit.”[6]

The Iranian Drug Trade Threatens the South Caucasus. The South
Caucasus is increasingly becoming a prime drug transit destination
for the Iranian drug trade, directed and protected by the Quds Force
and Hezbollah.

Drug dealers using high-speed motorboats, night goggles, grenades,
automatic assault rifles, and machine guns are breaching the borders
of Azerbaijan, and may be laundering their ill-gotten gains in the
casinos of the region. Iranian producers of methamphetamines use
industrial chemical production lines supervised by professional
pharmacists and chemists to produce ultra-pure meth for export.

Hezbollah’s ratlines through the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, Syria,
Turkey, Europe, and South America make it a drug pushing terrorist
organization with global reach, busy opening the doors to cooperation
with drug cartels for distribution deals. The porous borders and
corrupt customs officers of the Caucasus have created an additional
trafficking route via the Black Sea and air routes to Western
Europe.[7]

Caspian Sea Delimitation. Iran is subverting the delineation of
the Caspian Sea, causing significant delays in off-shore energy
development there. The Soviet-Iranian Treaties of 1921 and 1940 did
not provide marine boundaries or delineation lines, and therefore,
these treaties do not apply to today’s situation, especially after
the demise of the Soviet Union.

By resisting the partition of the Caspian Sea and construction of a
modern hydrocarbon pipeline infrastructure, as proposed in the past
by American government and international energy companies as well
as Azerbaijan, Iran is blocking the ability of land-locked Newly
Independent States such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan
to gain revenue and develop properly.

To put it simply, Iran’s leaders don’t care about the well-being
of the peoples of the neighboring states. It has bountiful oil and
gas resources to the south and ample access to the Persian Gulf and
the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean. Applying their zero-sum approach, the
Iranians believe that it is in their interest to limit the Caspian
oil and gas supply to European and Western markets.

In July 1998, Russia and Kazakhstan signed an agreement on the
delimitation of the northern part of the Caspian Sea in order to
exercise their sovereign rights to subsoil use. On November 29, 2001,
and February 27, 2003, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan signed an agreement
on the delimitation of the Caspian Sea. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and
Russia signed an agreement on the delimitation of adjacent sections
of the Caspian Sea on May 14, 2003.[8] Thus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan,
and Russia recognize the national sector regime in the Caspian,
while Iran resists the partition.

Turkmenistan, intimidated by Iran, has also not signed the national
sector regime. The lack of this regime makes it difficult to build
underwater pipelines for oil and gas. Turkmenistan could be sending
its gas west via Azerbaijan’s rapidly developing export pipeline
system for sale in Turkey and Europe. However, as a result of Iran’s
intransigence, almost all of Turkmenistan’s gas is sent to China,
and Kazakhstan is equally unwilling to commit to an oil or gas
cross-Caspian pipeline as long as Iran resists the settlement of the
Caspian Sea’s legal regime.

Iranian claims to the Azerbaijani national sector in the Caspian have
already led to dangerous incidents that had the potential to escalate.

In 2001, Iran–a known sponsor of terrorism–began an aggressive
campaign to claim a greater portion of the Caspian Sea and its
resources. Its leaders asserted that Iran has territorial and treaty
rights to as much as 20 percent of the Caspian Sea surface area and
seabed, significantly more than its long-recognized sector comprising
about 12 to 14 percent.[9]

Tehran’s use of air and naval forces to threaten a seismic research
ship working for a Western company in Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea sector
has jeopardized, in addition to energy production, Western investments
and the economic development of the post-Soviet states in that region.

Iran’s use of military force to assert its claim to part of
Azerbaijan’s sector of the Caspian Sea undermines security and the
future of Caspian oil and gas development. Iran not only has violated
its neighbor’s air space and territorial waters, but on one occasion
even massed ground troops on the border.

These aggressive actions were a blatant violation of international
law. On July 23, 2001, an Iranian warship and two jets forced a
research vessel working on behalf of BP in the Araz-Alov-Sharg field
out of that sector. That field lies 100 kilometers (60 miles) north of
Iranian waters. Due to that pressure, BP immediately announced that
it would cease exploring that field, which it did by withdrawing the
research vessels. This aggressive policy has not changed since.

Soft Power Competition. Finally, Iran is concerned about Western
pop culture influence, which is palpable in neighboring Azerbaijan,
as well as with the easy reach of casinos and beaches in the resort
of Batumi, Georgia, on the Black Sea. Azerbaijan’s victory in the
2011 Eurovision song contest; hosting Eurovision in 2012 as well as
concerts by Jennifer Lopez; Rihanna; and Shakira; and hosting the
under-17 Women’s World Cup Soccer Tournament may all be interpreted as
points scored in the soft power competition with the Islamic Republic.

It is no accident that Iranians come in droves to relax in Baku,
and not vice versa.

The payback is harsh: Iranian-trained and -paid mullahs are
indoctrinating Azerbaijanis living in the villages and towns along the
Iranian border. One of the main complaints: they convince families
to pull their daughters from the state-run, co-ed education system
and encourage early marriages for girls–as early as 12 or13As part of
putting forward the argument for a more militant, severe interpretation
of Islam and more rigorous adherence to Sharia, these mullahs preach
polygamy, forbidden by Azerbaijani law. Azeri government officials
justifiably complain that the barrage of propaganda is undermining
the secular regime in the country.

Conclusion. On the bilateral level, the U.S. has strong economic and
strategic interests in the Caspian and the South Caucasus. Without
Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Northern Distribution Network,
which supplies the U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, would
lack its Caucasus leg. An American partnership with Azerbaijan
answers Washington’s need to consolidate its presence in the South
Caucasus-Caspian Sea region and isolate Iran.

As Professor Stephen Blank of the U.S. Army War College recently wrote,

The administration has hitherto treated the South Caucasus as an
afterthought or as an overflight issue on the road to Afghanistan.

Such neglect is dangerous and misconceived. The mounting threats in
the Middle East, Iran, and the Caucasus show how vital it is that
the U.S. strengthen pro-Western regimes…. For if we continue to
neglect the Caucasus, this neglect will quickly become malign. And
malign neglect invariably generates not only instability but also
protracted violence.[10] Around the region, the U.S. needs to:

â- Expand anti-terrorism and drug trafficking cooperation between
the U.S. and the three South Caucasus states, neutralizing Iranian
subversive activities in the region; â- Focus intelligence community
efforts on collecting and neutralizing Iranian sanction-busting
activities in financial and technology transfer sectors; â- Uphold
the interests of small Southern Caucasian countries when attempting
to construct an effective Iran policy which leads to elimination of
Tehran’s nuclear weapons program; â- Sustain energy projects and
help European countries in diversifying their energy supplies by
connecting them to the energy resources of the Caspian Sea-Central
Asia region. Specifically, the U.S. should help Turkey and Europe to
finalize the TANAP and Nabucco pipeline projects;[11] â- Develop a
comprehensive interagency soft power strategy to powerfully support
the Iranian opposition, including that of Iranian Azerbaijanis,
and leading to a victory of democratic forces in Iran.

By its aggressive actions, Iran is endangering the fragile equilibrium
in the strategically sensitive region, which is important for the U.S.

interests. America should remain vigilant and deter the violence,
extremism and terrorism practiced by the Islamic Republic against
America’s friends and allies.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.

Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and
International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies

From: Baghdasarian

A KIDS’ SINGING CONTEST THAT’S A GEOPOLITICAL PROXY WAR FOR ADULTS

The Atlantic
Dec 5 2012

For the handlers of Junior Eurovision contestants, there’s a lot more
at stake than music.

Nurturing aspiring pop stars requires a lot of patience, especially
when Hamas is firing rockets over your border. Daniella Gardosh
Santo of the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (IBA) learned that fact
firsthand in recent weeks as she worked with Kids.il, a sextet of
10- to 14-year-olds competing in Israel’s name at the 2012 Junior
Eurovision Song Contest. The threat of pipe bombs and the roar
of sirens forced the group to adjust its rhythm on the eve of the
December 1 contest. “We missed a few rehearsals because I didn’t want
to take responsibility for having the kids in the studio when the
alarms sounded,” she says. “It’s not like you’re on the beach. The
shelter is very crowded.”

Even as the missiles dropped, Gardosh Santo knew the show had to go
on. Her team continued to drum up publicity for the group throughout
the conflict, and, given the sensitive nature of taking children away
from their families during a war, arranged for all of their parents
to journey with them to the Netherlands for the week of rehearsals
and press conferences that began at the end of November. For Gardosh
Santo and the IBA, competing at Junior Eurovision holds significance
far beyond giving six kids their 15 minutes of fame. “We want to
cultivate and enhance international relationships,” she says, “and
bring the beautiful face of Israel to the world.”

Now in its 10th year, Junior Eurovision is a spinoff of Eurovision,
the wildly popular-and widely mocked-pan-European song contest whose
alumni include ABBA, Celine Dion, Jedward, and Olivia Newton-John.

Watched by more than 20 million people in Europe, the former Soviet
Union and Australia, it remains the world’s biggest song contest for
children aged 10 to 15. For governments who fund the contestants-and
their choreographers, vocal coaches, producers, costume designers,
P.R. teams, and chaperones-it’s also a massive exercise in soft
power, and an opportunity to foment goodwill with kiddy viewers and
their parents across the world. The resulting talent show mixes the
ambition of pageant moms with the studied reason of policy wonks
with the patriotism of the Olympic Games-albeit with far more wind
machines and sequins.

Israel’s global charm offensive began with a nationwide audition in the
spring, which resulted in the selection of six children of Russian,
Yemenite, Indian, and Israeli descent. “We have all these colors,”
says Gardosh Santo triumphantly. “But they are all Jews.” The original,
three-minute song that the Israelis wrote for the competition-an ode
to peace called “Let the Music Win”-took on renewed significance in
light of recent events. Speaking ahead of the final, and without
a translator, 13-year old Daniel Pruzansky understood the brief:
“The music united people, and the music united us.”

Not all countries grasp that message, and some wage a proxy battle
through the Eurovision franchises. Armenia and Azerbaijan, bitter
enemies who fought a bloody war over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh
region in the early 1990s, have taken their political stalemate to the
adult and junior contests for years. Armenia withdrew from Eurovision
last year because it was being held in Baku, the Azerbaijani capital.

And in 2009 Azeri security officials detained Azerbaijani citizens
who had voted for Armenia’s contestant. The junior contest isn’t
immune from the squabbling. In 2010 Azerbaijan’s state broadcaster,
which aired Junior Eurovision but did not field a contestant, cut
the live transmission once it became apparent that a 12-year old
Armenian boy had won. His song had no political message: He merely
crooned about a schoolyard crush gone wrong.

Given the significance they place on the contest, it’s not surprising
that Azerbaijan, which debuted at Junior Eurovision this year, went
big. Rather than allowing its contestants to write their own song,
the oil-rich nation outsourced the task to British songwriters and
producers behind acts like the Sugababes and Britney Spears. They
also hired Maksim Nedolechko, one of Russia’s most famous pop
choreographers, and paid a Russian production company that specializes
in children’s programming to sort out their costumes and staging. In
the official program, the biography of Azerbaijan’s lead singer said
her “greatest wish is to be able to represent Azerbaijan worthily.”

Adults may have been using them as pawns in their geopolitical
posturing, but the kids remained blissfully unaware of it all. During
the dress rehearsals, the Armenian and Azerbaijani contestants clapped
for one another-even though their coaches did not. And as an Azeri hype
girl jumped up and down on a DJ platform spinning a faux turntable,
she seemed to believe in her sweet, if naïve, message of togetherness:
“Come and join us/ Let’s sit on the Moon and smile/ Together enjoying
the stars.”

Organizers want to preserve that innocence-and they may need to in
order to keep Junior Eurovision going. In 2005 French TV officials
called Junior Eurovision “vulgar” and withdrew after one year of
participation. In subsequent years a steady stream of nations-including
Denmark, Norway, and the U.K.-have followed suit.

They frequently voice concern the contest puts too much pressure
on the children and encourages them to grow up too quickly. Jaws
dropped this year when the 11-year old Albanian contestant turned up
to her dress rehearsal in a see-through lace dress-approved by her
coaches-that failed to cover her legs, chest, or shoulders. Event
supervisors deemed the frock “too mature,” and quickly found the
contestant a Dutch stylist, who redesigned her provocative top.

Competing countries also shoulder the responsibility of protecting
their kids from pushy parents who make American pageant moms look
tame. In the Netherlands, which airs a 13-episode national selection,
officials interview the families of contestants to make sure the
kids have appropriate support before starting their journey. “There
are parents who want their children to be a star, and they hope for
the record deals,” says Nicole Dirksen, an editor at AVRO, the Dutch
public broadcaster. “We sometimes have to have serious talks with
them and tell them to back off.”

To a large extent, though, the kids who make it to Junior Eurovision
are steering their own train. Speaking with me outside of the Heineken
Music Hall ahead of the contest, Anastasiya Petryk, a 10-year old
winner from the Ukraine, insisted on stopping the interview briefly
so she could retrieve bubble gum from a member of her entourage.

Throughout the week, she marched around the rehearsals and parties
with utter confidence and self-belief, proudly showing off her massive
D-Squared belt, and a velour tracksuit with rhinestones. Her adult
chaperone trailed behind with her coat.

In the end, her talent justified the diva-like behavior. Petryk,
who hails from the village of Nerubayskoye, near Odessa, dropped
guttural growls Christina Aguilera-style and seemingly channeled an
exorcist through her swaying dance moves and facial expressions. She
won the contest by the largest margin in its history. “This song is
an appeal to the audience to do only good things and to act only in
a good manner,” she explained through a translator at the winner’s
press conference afterwards. “I hope that the whole country will feel
proud for me.”

She’s far too young to understand just how proud they are. The
following morning Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych phoned with
his congratulations, and issued an official statement praising “her
bright performance” that “has contributed to the rise of Ukrainian
international authority.”

Israel finished eighth out of the 12 finalists. Azerbaijan came
next-to-last-or, as Baku probably sees it, eight places below Armenia.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIA CONFIRMS ITS INTENTION TO COMPLETE TALKS ON ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT WITH EU TILL NOVEMBER 2013

Mediamax
Dec 5 2012
Armenia

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia, Chief Negotiator
for the Association Agreement Zohrab Mnatsakanyan took part in the
meeting of senior officials of the Eastern Partnership in Brussels.

The goal of the meeting held on December 4 was to discuss the current
processes of development and prospects of the relations between EU and
partner states within the Eastern Partnership as well as to outline
the issues to be settled till Vilnius Summit in 2013.

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan stressed that Armenia’s relations with the EU are
first of all built on shared values. He noted that the implementation
of reforms based on the shared values and principles makes part of
Armenia’s domestic agenda and Eastern Partnership gives an excellent
opportunity to stimulate these reforms.

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan confirmed Armenia’s readiness to complete talks
on the Association Agreement including the Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement till the Vilnius Summit due to be held in
November 2013.

From: Baghdasarian

MOLDOVAN DEFENSE MINISTER CALLS SALE OF MILITARY HARDWARE, ARMS TO ARMENIA LEGAL

Interfax
Dec 4 2012
Russia

Moldovan Defense Minister Vitalie Marinuta has once again called
the sale of weapons to Armenia through mediators in 2011 legal and
legitimate.

“Such transactions have been carried out more than once, and their
purpose is to replenish the national budget. All circumstances of
the deal and documents have been examined by Prosecutor General’s
Office specialists, and the materials are to be passed to a special
parliamentary commission,” Marinuta told journalists on Tuesday.

It was reported earlier that a plane rented by a Latvian firm was
loaded with military gear and weapons that earlier belonged to the
Moldovan National Army at the Marculesti airfield in the fall of 2011.

Reports said there were about 60 tonnes of cargo on board the plane.

The service life of all this hardware had either expired or was about
to expire. The cargo was intended for Armenia, which has been in a
military conflict with Azerbaijan for years. The value of the deal is
still unknown. The parliament has set up an investigative commission
to probe the deal.

va rb

From: Baghdasarian

OPPOSITION MP DEMANDS REMOVAL OF ARMENIAN RULING PARTY’S POSTER FROM PALACE OF CULTURE

TERT.AM
19:49 ~U 05.12.12

At the Armenian NA’s meeting on Wednesday, Zaruhi Postanjyan, a
Heritage parliamentary group member, asked Armenia’s Prime minister
about the reasons for the poster of the ruling Republican Party of
Armenia (RPA) on the walls of the government-owned Palace of Culture
in Spitak.

“Why has not this illegal practice not been put an end to. I addressed
letters to you about two months ago. I am going to present a number of
facts to the judicial system because you are not taking any steps to
put an end to RPA illegally using public areas,” Mrs Postanjyan said.

The RPA’s poster has been on the wall of the Palace of Culture in
Spitak for several years.

The opposition MP hopes that the “case will not reach the European
Court of Human Rights.”

Armenia’s premier said that Head of the State Property Management
Department Arman Sahakyan responded to Mrs Postanjyan’s letter in
written form.

The RPA is renting the buildings, the premier said.

From: Baghdasarian

TURKISH MINISTER OF CULTURE IS AGAINST ELECTING THE JUDGE OF HRANT DINK’S CASE AS A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER

18:37, 5 December, 2012

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 5, ARMENPRESS: Turkey’s Culture and Tourism Minister
Ertugrul Gunay stated that he was right when voted against the election
of Nihat Omeroglu in the post of Human Rights Defender. As reports
Armenpress in the interview with “Taraf” Turkish Minister noted that
during the ballot he voted against Turkish Ombudsman noting he had
repeatedly stated that “this was not a good choice.”

“Despite I am not personally familiar with him examining his activity
I am sure that he is not the person who must become Turkish Ombudsman.

Omeroglu’s activity is questionable. I am concerned that in the post
of Ombudsman he would damage the structure”.

Nihat Omeroglu was one of the 18 judges at the Turkish Court of Appeals
who upheld a shameful sentence that was given against Hrant Dink,
the founder and chief editor of “Agos” newspaper, who was assassinated
on January 19, 2007.

From: Baghdasarian