Author: Basmajian Ani

SPORTS SOCIOLOGIST: DON’T MIX SPORTS AND POLITICS IN ARMENIA MATCH

Today’s Zaman
Sept 3 2008
Turkey

The national football teams of Turkey and Armenia will compete on
Saturday in Yerevan in a World Cup qualifying match that has drawn
more interest from politicians and diplomats than the sports world,
but a professor of sports sociology has warned that politicians should
avoid mixing sports with politics.

Professor Ozbay Guven, the head of sports sociology at the physical
education and sports department at Gazi University, cautions that
people shouldn’t attach too much symbolism to this match and should
not mix sports with diplomacy.

A member of the International Society for the History of Physical
Education and Sport (ISHPES), Guven talked to Today’s Zaman about
the high expectations of Saturday’s Armenia-Turkey match.

Noting that Turkish and Armenian sportsmen had competed many times
in sports other than football in the past, Guven said it is normal
for Turkish and Armenian nations to attach some symbolism to this
match. "First of all, it was inevitable that one day Turkey would
play against Armenia in such a match. Therefore, this event should be
viewed with reason rather than sentimentality. Actually, Turkey should
be happy as it will be playing against a weak team like Armenia. It
is very unlikely that Armenia will be successful in this football
match. They should regard this match against the Turkish national
team as an opportunity for furthering their relations with Turkey
and for the opening of borders," he says.

Guven advised that the Turkish national team should not underestimate
Armenia and that the Armenian national team should not give different
or historical meanings to the football match. "Although our rival,
the Armenian national team, seems to be an easy target, we should not
underestimate them. We saw what happened when the Maltese national
team played Turkey in 2007 and the game was equated to the Ottoman
siege of Malta. It is completely wrong to add symbolism to football
or other sports matches," he noted.

Professor Guven also emphasized that both national teams, their
players, their fans and their coaches should be ready to accept defeat
or victory and behave with good sportsmanship.

However, he said, the biggest responsibility falls on the shoulders
of Armenians in this respect. "Armenians should refrain from bringing
their ongoing propaganda against Turkey to the match and from fueling
tensions and prejudices. This football match may serve as a first step
toward the softening of relations and establishing friendship between
the two countries. The media organizations from both countries should
emphasize a love for sports," he says.

Guven maintained that depending on the atmosphere of the first match
in Yerevan, the second match in Turkey may be played in a tension-free
environment. He said the Turkish national team has learned not to mix
sports with diplomacy and foreign policy after obtaining considerable
success at the world and European championships.

"It seems that from the Turkish side, the match will be like a
friendship match. Turkey took this approach when it played against
Greece. If Armenian fans do not behave in a sportsmanlike manner,
the match’s atmosphere may be tense. Serious measures should be taken
against provocation. Armenia should prevent Armenian fans from waving
banners or placards with provocative messages. However, if the players
or fans of one country attempt to provoke those of the other country,
FIFA has serious sanctions in this regard. FIFA can easily find out
who is right and who is wrong," he cautions.

He explained that Armenia is a weak rival for Turkey and that its
chances of defeating the Turkish national team are low. He suggested
that neither side should view this match as a national cause.

"While we see it as a sports contest, Armenians may turn it into a
national cause. Our image in the contest will be positive or negative
in the eyes of the world. This match may also serve to improve
relations by giving both sides an opportunity to get to know each
other and contribute to peace. It may bring us closer. Even if some
unwanted things happen during the match, we should not allow this
to have a negative effect on the lives of our Armenian citizens. Of
course, this will boost national sentiments, but we should not forget
the historical incidents in which acting out of emotion caused great
harm to both societies. This should never be forgotten," he says.

Guven added that while the Armenian national team is mediocre, it
tends not to lose matches played at home, and therefore, the Turkish
national team should be careful in the match.

TIGRAN TOROSYAN: THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF THE TWO ARMENIAN STATES DEPENDS ON OUR EVERYDAY WORK

armradio.am
02.09.2008 12:35

Speaker of RA National Assembly Tigran Torosyan issued a congratulatory
message on the occasion of the 17th anniversary of Artsakh’s
independence.

"Dear compatriots, I sincerely congratulate you on the occasion of
one of the dearest holidays for our people – the 17th anniversary of
independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. For Nagorno Karabakh
these years became not only years of courage and exploit, but also
a period of imposing peace on the rival and establishment of statehood.

Bowing before the memory of the devotees who fell for the creation
and defense of this real miracle, the second Armenian state, we must
not forget and have to continue their work, since the security, peace
and strengthening of the two Armenian states, the deserved life of
our people depends on our everyday activity."

CSTO SECRETARY GENERAL: THAT IS THE NATURAL SOVEREIGN DESIRE OF SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKHAZIA TO JOIN CSTO

arminfo
2008-09-02 16:46:00

ArmInfo. Desire of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to join Collective
Security Treaty Organization is their natural and sovereign right, CSTO
Secretary General Nikolay Bordyuzha said at today’s press-conference
in Yerevan.

He also added that it has become clear to everybody after the
events in South Ossetia that only collective actions will make it
possible to protect one’s sovereignty and security. "Everything
taking place after the conflict including from the side of Georgia,
is unequivocally pushing South Ossetia and Abkhazia to join collective
security system. I think that without collective security system and
without the support of other states South Ossetia and Abkhazia will
not be able to develop stably and successfully", – he said.

PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN TO MAKE WORKING VISIT TO RUSSIAN SOCHI ON SEPTEMBER 2

ARMENPRESS
Aug 29, 2008

YEREVAN, AUGUST 29, ARMENPRESS: Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan will
make a working visit to the southern Russian City of Sochi on September
2. The presidential press office told Armenpress that in Sochi Sargsyan
will have a meeting with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

It said they will discuss Armenian-Russian strategic partnership,
issues pertaining to Armenia’s rotating chairmanship in the CSTO and
also regional and international issues.

INTERVIEW OF ARMENIAN PRESIDENT SERGE SARGSYAN TO TURKISH DAILY
"RADIKAL" YEREVAN, AUGUST 29, ARMENPRESS: Below is the interview of
president of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, to the Turkish daily Radikal.

Q: The 2010 World Cup qualifier between the national teams of Armenia
and Turkey, scheduled for September 6 in Yerevan, is probably the most
politicized sporting event in our region. In terms of politics what
were your expectations when you invited Turkish president Abdullah
Gul to Yerevan to watch the game together?

A: My number one goal was to normalize the relations between our
countries. Mr. Gul’s congratulation message upon my election said
about the opportunities of normalizing the relations between Armenia
and Turkey. Later on Prime Minister Erdogan stated that Turkey is
open to a dialogue with Armenia. In return, I decided to use this
opportunity. There is a good sports event ahead. It is the first
time in the history our football teams will meet. It may become a
good opportunity for us to develop our relations. The result of the
game is not important, anyways I hope it will be a pleasure for the
fans. There excitement will be great. This will be a big and exclusive
event in our relations, and I hope it will become more special due to
the presence of the Armenian and Turkish presidents. We are neighbors
and will remains so. I am sure having normal relations will benefit
both the countries. My invitation to Mr. Gul shall be considered in
this context.

Q: There are some concerns in Ankara about this invitation. How, for
example the problem of the borders is to be solved and how president
Gul will be received in Armenia. Do you share these concerns?

A: There is nothing to worry about. If we have invited a president
of a foreign state, we are able to provide everything on a due level.

Q: I have met with some representatives of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (ARF) Party, who are against your invitation. They said
they will so everything to be heard in case president Gul arrives
in Yerevan.

A: I am sure their means to express themselves will remain in terms
appropriate for an official visit. Not being politically correct they
will first harm themselves, Armenia and me, then Mr. Gul.

Q: What do you think about the regional power engineering and
communication projects realized by Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan,
which, in case of peace and stability in the region, might be very
profitable? Would Armenia like to join those projects? Do you think
that some day you will be received in Turkey in the same way as the
leaders of Azerbaijan and Georgia are, and the leaders of Turkey will
have doubts to accept invitations from Armenia?

A: By now I have learned two things about regional cooperation
projects. First, in case not all the countries of the region are
involved, or one of them is excluded, the projects do nothing but
create new dividing lines. Second, when political aspects of the
project outscore the economic ones, the projects usually turn out
not as successful as it they meant to be. It is something similar to
harnessing a horse from behind the cart.

Q: Which project do you mean?

A: The Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad, for example. Doesn’t such railroad
already exist? It can be made operational again with minimum
expenses. A lot is being spent to leave Armenia out. In the past
the leaders of Armenia visited Turkey. I too, in different offices,
have been to Turkey. Reciprocal visits between neighbors are quite a
normal thing, and they should not be deemed as some kind of courtesy
to the opposite party. Our efforts are aimed at that.

Q: When the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway was
launched, president Gul in the presence of Aliyev and Saakashvili
said that Armenia could join this project in case of respecting the
international law. Do you think he hinted at the borders defined by
the 1921 agreement of Kars?

A: I think Mr. Gul would give a better answer to that question. I can
only assure that Armenia supports the regulations of the UN, as well
as other international treaties, it respects its own international
commitments.

Q: Well, I shall phrase my question more precisely. There are
some parties in Armenia that refer to a part of Turkey as Western
Armenia and, basing on the Sevres Treaty, have territorial claims
from Turkey. Do you admit that it is difficult to have full-fledged
diplomatic relations with a neighbor which argues your borders? What
is your official opinion about the legitimateness and recognition of
the agreement of Kars?

A: I can hardly remember any Armenian official to make territorial
claims on Turkey. But I can always hear that from Turkey. I don’t
think it is right to base upon single statements. If so, there are
many people in Turkey who assure that in fact there is no Armenia
at all. We do not need any pre-conditions to establish relations
with Turkey. I know about the anxiety of Turkish officials regarding
the phrasings like Western and Eastern Armenia. It seems strange to
me. Western and Eastern Armenia are geographical terms used in the 19th
century. Trying to forget those expressions, coming from the past, is
equal to trying to deny the existence of Sparta, the Russian Empire,
the Ottoman Empire or other historical facts. If we had assumed that
official policy, we would have called our country Republic of Eastern
Armenia, not Republic of Armenia. None of the Armenian officials spoke
such things. Russia, for example, has territorial issues with China
and Japan, but it doesn’t prevent those states from having normal
diplomatic relations.

Q: After your invitation to Gul, very serious things as the
Russia-Georgia conflict happened in Caucasus. What do you think about
Russia’s assistance to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which separated
from Georgia?

A: In fact tragic events happened. People were killed. It showed what
can arms race result in such cases. We advocate settling such issues
through peace negotiations. We also advocate respecting peoples’
right to self-expression and self-determination. It s regretful that
things take such a turn and of course we do not like it. We believe
that the joint plan of the Presidents of Russia and France, Medvedev
and Sarkozy, will bring peace and stability. Peace and stability are
very important to us. Putting everything aside, 70% of Armenian trade
is made through Georgia.

Q: Yerevan experienced problems with fuel because of the railway
bridge in Georgia blown up by the Russians, is that so?

A: Yes, it is. We hope the problem will be solved in two days. The
instability in the region is against Armenia. It displays very well
how we need stability. Prolonging the instable situation for three
more months or years would multiply our problems.

Q: Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian already approved
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s initiative on Caucasian Stability
and Partnership Platform. Can you give any details on Armenia’s policy
in this question?

A: Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian expressed positive
attitude to Erdogan’s initiative on regional stability, security
and dialogue. I think the Foreign Minister took right actions. After
we receive the proposal we will discuss it in details and announce
our opinion.

Q: Do you think that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is a very
important issue in your relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, may soon
be settled? Do you think that making a peace agreement with Azerbaijan
will raise political and economic cooperation in the region onto a
new level?

A: We had a productive meeting with President Aliyev in Saint
Petersburg on June 6. Both of us ordered our Foreign Ministers to
proceed the work in accord with the principles adopted in Madrid. There
have been three meetings since then. I hope we’ll find a solution soon.

Q: Can you suggest an approximate date?

A: It would be wrong to predict anything before the presidential
elections in Azerbaijan. We shall see what happens after the elections.

Q: Do you draw parallels between Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia
and Abkhazia? I ask this because you said that people’s right for
self-determination should be always respected.

A: All the conflicts have something in common and something
different. I prefer making ourselves lessons out of them instead
of focusing on similarities and differences. I can clearly see
that efforts to solve such issues with military force result in
unpredictable and complicated consequences. I would like to know how
many people knew the results of the conflict before starting it. We
have to be very cautious.

Q: From outside it seems that the Turkish-Armenian relations are
in stalemate because of the Genocide issue. Do you think it is
right? Do you think Armenia-Turkey relations cannot progress until
Turkey recognizes the tragic events of 1915 as genocide? Is it a
pre-condition?

A: You can hardly find an Armenian in the world who does not believe
the Genocide took place. But the recognition of the Genocide is not a
pre-condition for establishing dialogue with Turkey. That is why we
say that we are ready to establish diplomatic relations with Turkey
without any pre-condition.

Q: What is your opinion about making a historians’ commission to study
the 1915 events? Do you think it is possible to have two commissions,
one for normalizing the relations and another for studying the 1915
events? Do you think they can work at the same time?

A: I think we need to elaborate new approaches to this issue. For I
cannot remember a non-governmental commission to be ever established to
settle an intergovernmental issue. The best way is to start diplomatic
relations. In that case numbers of substructures and groups may be
established in the frameworks of the Armenian-Turkish intergovernmental
commission. Earlier a similar commission was found in the USA. Did it
work? Its necessary to create a proper environment for the functioning
of the scientific commission you suggested. Therefore normal diplomatic
relations are bare necessity.

Q. Do you believe that the ongoing confidential meetings of Armenian
and Turkish diplomats will yield any outcome?

A. I would never support them if I believed they would not. But on
the other hand I believe that the course of relations shows that we,
the leaders of the two countries, have reached the decision-making
point. They are not going to be easy ones. Not all Armenians or Turks
will like them. But I am sure that the overwhelming part of both
societies will support those decisions. I do not mean the diplomats’
efforts, by the overall atmosphere. Abdullah Gul’s congratulatory
message, Erdogan’s words, my invitation to Gul, even the interview
with you are parts of this atmosphere. In this sense I believe that
we have reached the decision-making stage.

Q. Will Gul’s decision to come or not to Yerevan effect that situation?

A. I think his visit will be important. Because it is not easy to
make important decisions. Addressing an audience and looking in the
eyes of the one before you are different things. If I did not believe
it was important I would not send the invitation. We had difficult
times in our history, however Armenia is ready for development of
relations and expects the same from Turkey.

FAREWELL TO ILLUSION. SOUTH OSSETIAN EVENTS LAY BARE CRISIS IN RUSSIA’S MILITARY-POLITICAL RELATIONS WITH CLOSEST ALLIES
by Vladimir Mukhin

Nezavisimaya Gazeta
Aug 22 2008
Russia

Military cooperation of CIS countries is falling apart before the
eyes of ODKB General Secretary Nikolay Bordyuzha (22 August 2008,
Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

Most of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (ODKB) member
countries that are considered Russia’s closest allies have an extremely
reserved attitude towards its tough actions taken to repel the Georgian
aggression in South Ossetia. It became obvious following a routine
summit meeting held by defence ministers in Yerevan yesterday [21
August]. Its participants refrained from openly supporting Moscow’s
military actions against Georgia.

Only just recently, the ODKB leaders made declarations on plans
to form peacekeeping subunits and the possibility of engaging them
in operations in hot spots on CIS territory. These plans have been
forgotten now, while Russia’s ODKB allies either keep silent about
the peace-coercing operation or cover it in the tone that does not
suit Russian interests.

Even though ODKB General Secretary Nikolay Bordyuzha expressed an
unfavourable assessment of Georgian actions on behalf of the ODKB
Permanent Council, that organization eventually produced no specific
documents. In addition, Bordyuzha declared that "an assessment of
the entire situation that is currently shaping not only in Georgia or
South Ossetia but also in the foreign-policy area as a whole" would
be made at the summits to be held by the foreign diplomatic chiefs and
leaders of ODKB member states next September. Will it not be too late?

Uzbekistan, which was backed by Moscow in the rebellious days of 2005
Andijon events, has still not voiced its position on Moscow’s actions
in South Ossetia.

Also silent is Tajikistan, whose independence and territorial integrity
were defended by Russia and its ODKB allies in the early 1990’s.

At a meeting with the Kazakhstani president the other day,
Kyrgyzstani leader Kurmanbek Bakiyev declared: "Conflicts such as
the one between Russia and Georgia should be resolved exclusively
based on international law and only by political and diplomatic
methods." Meanwhile, Kazakhstani President Nursultan Nazarbayev
emphasized for his part that "Russian mass media described the
situation as a humanitarian catastrophe and genocide of Ossetian
people. The truth will probably become clear later." Thus, they have
already decided that the military force applied by Russia against
Georgia was unjustified.

One would think that Armenia should be interested in military support
of the Russian Federation but that country, too, is sitting on two
chairs. During the military fighting in South Ossetia, the Armenian
Foreign Ministry expressed its hope that the warring sides would
make efforts to resolve as soon as possible disputable issues through
dialogue but did not condemn in any way the facts of aggression and
genocide. Let us note that shortly before the Armenian military took
part in NATO’s Immediate Response 2008 exercises, whose scenario
resembled significantly the dynamics of military operations in South
Ossetia.

Today, on 22 August, is the beginning of the fourth and final stage of
the joint command and staff ODKB Rubezh 2008 exercises, whose active
phase will be held on the Marshall Bagramyan training grounds located
40 km west of Yerevan. After accomplishing tasks aimed at organizing
a joint defence operation protecting sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Armenia, the troops will practice actions intended to
rebuff an aggressor’s invasion. But the question of who should be
considered an aggressor remains sort of off screen, and so does the
fact that of all the seven ODKB countries only Armenian and Russian
subunits really take part in the manoeuvres.

After finishing the ODKB military manoeuvres, Armenia will smoothly
start exercises with NATO countries Joint Bow/Joint Lancebearer on
its territory in late September. Their scenario will be based on NATO
documents "on actions in reaction to crises." Thus, it may happen one
day that specifically NATO becomes the main guarantor of stability
in the Caucasus.

EDWARD SAHARIAN GETS KIDNEY PROBLEM AFTER BEING BEATEN BY GEORGIAN POLICEMEN

Noyan Tapan

Au g 27, 2008

AKHALKALAK, AUGUST 27, ARMENIANS TODAY – NOYAN TAPAN. Member of "United
Javakhk" democratic alliance Edward Saharian of the village of Gumbordo
was cruelly beaten by Georgian policemen and got a kidney problem.

Javakhk-Info reported citing reliable sources that E. Saharian was
taken to police from the Armenian-Georgian border and arrested on a
charge of "hooliganism". Then policemen detained his brother, member
of "United Javakhk" Ararat Saharian. The detention term of Edward
and Ararat Saharians was extended for 20 days.

E. Saharian was cruelly beaten by policemen, as a result of which he
got a kidney problem and was taken to hospital. After receiving the
first medical aid, he has been released. Ararat Saharian has also
been released.

E. and A. Saharians were arrested several days after the explosion
near the house of the head of Akhalkalak police Samvel Petrosian.

RECURRENT INCIDENT IN NORTHERN AVENUE

A1+
[06:21 pm] 25 August, 2008

There were no posters in Northern Avenue on August 25. Today at about
10.30 a.m. over 150 policemen and skinheads showed up in the avenue,
shouted abuse at the sit-down strikers, tore posters and left taking
along their posters. They even beat the strikers after they tried to
save the posters.

"As usual we were sweeping the avenue in the morning when we saw
policemen grouping here and there. They were making notes in their
copy-books. Later on about 50 skinheads came up to us accompanied
by top-ranked policemen. On reaching us they attacked and seized the
posters. About six "hyenas" grasped a poster," one of the strikers,
Anahit Grigorian, said to A1+. During the assault she tried to save
her belongings but all her efforts failed.

"We were told that the walls in Northern Avenue belong to the state
and we have no right to touch them. Does it mean that the country
is owned by Kocharian and Sarkissian? Don’t ordinary citizens have
anything in this city? They even tore my documents, medicine and
books put on the table," she said.

They pushed Mrs. Grigorian away and let her fall down. The skinheads
and policemen railed at the women-strikers.

"If we are not Armenia’s citizens, do away with us and live with
those who are ready to serve you," added Anahit Grigorian.

Serzh Sarkissian says willing to fill the gap between the government
and people. Is he going to carry out his plan in this way? He
sent a gang to beat ten women. Sarkissian says he will not talk to
Ter-Petrossian, he talks to 350 000 people. The gap will never be
bridged. I am ready to any sacrifice for our struggle. Better to die
in dignity than serve the authorities.

"Top-ranked policeman Valeri Osipian announced several times he would
kill me. Who is to defend me? Who has empowered them to violate my
constitutional right? In no other country is a citizen so humiliated
and disgraced," said Ruzanna Karapetian.

80-year-old Hrachia Aloyan was severely beaten today.

"I was trying to save Miasnik Malkhassian’s poster. I was pushed and
dropped. Then they threw the poster at me and began hitting me on
the head."

To note, Hrachia Aloyan had been beaten on April 12, 2004. He lost
an eye in the result.

"How long can they govern a country with torture and beating? The
whole world witnesses their brutality," he said.

A striker gave A1+ a photo and assured us that two of the policemen
are pictured in it.

ARMTECH CONGRESS-08 TO TAKE PLACE IN YEREVAN ON OCT 4-5

ARKA
Aug 20, 2008

YEREVAN, August 20. /ARKA/. The second IT workshop ArmTech 2008 will
take place in Yerevan on October 4-5, the RA Ministry of Economy
reports.

The purpose of the event is to make IT specialists come together,
promoting IT development in Armenia.

Recent achievements and global challenges, as well as the RA
Government’s IT policy will be on the agenda of the conference.

The main objective of the event is to discuss new ideas and further IT
projects, as well as business information and strengthen cooperation
between Armenian and overseas IT specialists.

Headquartered in Silicon Valley, the Armenian Technology Congress was
founded by technology and business professionals to foster professional
growth in the worldwide Armenian technology community.

The Armenian Technology Congress (ArmTech) first organized the global
high-tech congress in San Francisco on July 4-7, 2007. Designed to
promote both professional networking and valuable connections for
operating companies and entrepreneurs, the event featured presentations
Armenia’s high-tech achievements and challenges.

TURKEY’S PROPOSAL OF ‘CAUCASUS ALLIANCE’: HOW LIKELY IS ITS SUCCESS?
by Guner Ozkan

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Aug 21 2008
Turkey

Amidst desperate attempts of the EU, and of toughening words from
the US against Moscow, to get an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal
of Russian forces in the war between Russia and Georgia, Turkey
has offered the establishment of a formation named as ‘Caucasus
Alliance’. Surely, Turkey is acting in a good faith as it has, with
some reservations, good economic, political and social relationships
with both Moscow and Tbilisi, and seeking a durable peace on its
doorstep. So, what does the Turkish proposal include? and how likely
can it be successful in such a region as complex as the Caucasus,
and why?

Goals and Means of the ‘Alliance’

Though still in the process of creation, the Turkish Prime Minister,
Erdogan, after his prompt visits to Moscow and Tbilisi, outlined the
purpose and content of the ‘Caucasus Alliance’. The main objective
of the ‘Alliance’ is meant to be the establishment of a permanent
peace and security in the region through bringing all regional states
together in a joint formation. To this end, in the new structure
regional states are expected once again to re-assure each other of
respecting state sovereignty, refraining from the use and threat to use
of force, inviolability of state borders and of non-harming economic
and energy security in their common space of the Caucasus. Such
principles as state sovereignty, inviolability of borders and so on
in the formation will take their main references from the Charter
of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),
of which Russia, Turkey and all other Caucasian states are members.

Erdogan is seeing that the establishment of a lasting peace and
security is the principal aim here and he believes that this goal
could be archived through the increase of economic cooperation among
the regional states. In order to better present this idea, he gave the
examples of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC), Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE)
and Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) projects as the best economic ventures
contributing to the regional peace and security greatly.

He pointed out the necessity to develop more that sorts of projects
and to expand them such a way that they could connect all peoples in
the Caucasus.

Russia and Georgia appear to have accepted the new formation in
principle and foreign ministries of the three states are going to
work on details, while Turkey is getting ready to offer it first to
Azerbaijan and Armenia and then to the EU for their participation. The
Turkish side is particularly hopeful that the ‘ Caucasus Alliance’
in the offing will resolve the other most important regional security
issue, the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict, between Baku and Yerevan
once-and-for-all.

Interdependence as Security Solution

In fact, the proposal Turkey is now presenting is a method that it has
been discussed in security studies in international relations for years
mainly between the Liberal and Realist thinkers on security. Turkey’s
suggestion of ‘Alliance’ for the Caucasus takes its logical base from
liberal views on security solutions developed mainly as responses
to those of the state centric realist perspectives in inter-state
relations.

Of others, neo-liberal institutionalists principally suggest that
there are various diverse and important actors in domestic and
international levels which function away from the strict control of
governments. Inter-governmental organisations, as well as private
ones, with having diverse agendas is and can influence governments’
decisions in the way of pushing them to co-operate among themselves
further and thereby allowing states to get over a number of inter-
and intra-state disputes. Basically, liberal school suggests that
presence of complex interdependence among societies and states allows
multiple channels open between those actors in their trans-governmental
and transnational relations. This ‘complex web of linkages’ between
formal and informal actors deals with a myriad of issues in which
military security and/or survival of the state prioritized by the
Realists is supposed not to take top priority. Rather, it is assumed
that if or when states manage to construct a complex interdependence
among themselves, like voluminous trade relations and joint economic
projects in a particular region, the risk of the use of military
force will be greatly evaded.

Realist perspectives on security on the other hand do not share
much of those liberal views on security. For them, though complex
interdependence is a source of cooperation and an important method
for problem solving, or at least decreasing the tension among states,
the same sources are the scarce commodities for which individuals
and states often strive for control paving the way for inter- and
intra- state military conflicts. Indeed realists argue that states
always seek for maximising their power in line with their national
interests in economic, military and security issues and minimise the
risks in the same matters. Realists see that complex interdependence
can only work so long as all parties get satisfied, and yet this is
often impossible to succeed and hard to sustain. So, interdependence
resembles no more than a fierce power competition and domination
over scarce resources. As continuous rivalry on scarce resources is
a never-ending phenomenon, conflict cannot always be avoidable. In
this never-ending state of rivalry, inter-governmental organisations,
for the realists, are no more than instruments in the hands of states
for promoting their national/security interests.

Energy Pipelines for Peace?

The interdependent model, so to speak ‘Alliance’ of Turkey in this
case, needs to be such in kind that it must cover most, if not all, of
the intra- and extra regional security issues and actors, if it wants
to produce fruitful results. But, how easy is it to bring them all
together while they all have polarizing priorities and interests? As
Erdogan hinted, diversification of energy pipelines in the region is
the backbone of the suggested ‘Alliance’. This entails that if those
actors such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia (S.Ossetia) and Armenia benefit
from existing or impending regional big economic projects like energy
lines and railways, ethno-territorial wars, the most serious regional
security issues, can be prevented and even resolved totally.

Not going into too much detail, however, examples on the ground suggest
otherwise. As many remember, similar proposals were discussed and
even offered to the conflicting sides to resolve their differences for
permanent solutions in the midst 1990s. At that time, it was suggested
that if Russia had joined into energy projects and pipelines in
Azerbaijan, this would have integrated not only the Caucasian states
and ethnic republics but also the neighbouring countries. By this
way, for instance, the Chechen problem was believed to be resolved
peacefully as Grozny would get transit fees from the Baku-Novorossiysk
early oil pipeline crossing the Chechen territory. Yet, Russia did
not get so much satisfied with the only early oil pipeline from
Azerbaijan. Nor did the Chechens accept the amount of revenues that
they would have received from the Azerbaijani oil transportation via
their territory. As well known, Russia pushed further for main oil
pipeline, later to be known as BTC, to cross its own territory. Not
enough, the dispute between Moscow and Grozny forced Russia to change
the direction of the Baku-Novorossiysk line from Chechnya to Dagestan
Republic. Equally, neither the flow of Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline nor
Moscow’s shares in the ‘Contract of Century’ and Shah Deniz projects
in Azerbaijan did soften its pro-Armenian position in the NK dispute,
and even continued to supply huge amount of arms to Yerevan ready to
be used by the NK Armenians in an eventual war against Azerbaijan.

Similarly, the US negotiator in the NK dispute, John Maresca, made
public in Winter 1995 that if an oil pipeline, called ‘peace pipeline’,
had followed the direction from Baku to Ceyhan via the NK and Armenian
territories, this would have encouraged the like-minded Armenian
politicians to capitalize it and so get involved in an honest effort
to resolve the dispute. Obviously, the suggested ‘peace pipeline’ was
thought to have the potential that it would have resolved the still
existing problems between Turkey and Armenia, too, and given the two
the chance to normalise their political and economic relations. At
the end, both sides ruled out the project from the outset and did
not have any serious discussions on its potential benefits for
the inter-state relations and regional security. While Azerbaijan
concentrated on alternative roads for its oil, Yerevan followed a
realist way of heavily arming itself with Russia’s military hardware
against Azerbaijan, and intensified its effort of the recognition
of the so-called ‘Armenian genocide’ by the international community
against Turkey.

Intergovernmental Organisations for Solution: the OSCE

Interdependence model of the ‘Alliance’ regarding the
inter-governmental organisations can unlikely generate any positive
results in the region either. The OSCE, which is referred as another
important means in the ‘Alliance’, has already been involved in the two
of the three conflicts of S.Ossetia, Abkhazia and NK for more than a
decade. The organisation had had no mandate in the Abkhaz conflict,
while it has maintained a very limited role, only 8 observers
for monitoring the cease-fire, in S.Ossetia in the Joint Control
Commission alongside Russian, S.Ossetian, N.Ossetian and Georgian
representatives. With such a limited number of observers and a weak
mandate, the OSCE could not have been able to stop unleashing the
current fire and Russia’s heavy-handed behaviour.

The OSCE’s involvement in the NK is even much more worrisome. The
Minsk Group established within the framework of the OSCE in 1992
has specifically been dealing with the NK problem in the forms of
either bringing the sides to negotiating table or proposing its own
peace-plans to Baku and Yerevan. Since then, it brought the sides
together for dozens of times for a possible break-through in the
dispute. As this did not work, it prepared three different peace-plans
for the resolution of the NK dispute, but they were not accepted
by either Azerbaijan or Armenia due to the disagreement centred
especially on the final status of the region. Most importantly, the
Minsk Group has three permanent members of Russia, the US and France,
each of which is holding chairmanship of the Group in rotation. As
Russia has actively participated in the NK since its inception
with a pro-Armenian stance, similar to those of the conflicts
between Georgia and breakaway regions of Abkhazia and S.Ossetia,
the Minsk Group especially under Moscow’s watch did not yield a
permanent solution acceptable for both Baku and Yerevan. Hence if the
‘Alliance’ is wanted to become successful on the resolutions of all
three conflicts via inter-governmental involvement, the OSCE, as well
as its sub-entity of the Minsk Group, must be much more active on the
ground and most importantly divorce itself from being influenced by
its powerful members, such as Russia, in the Caucasus.

As far as the differing behaviours and conducts of the regional and
extra-regional actors above are concerned, the ‘Caucasus Alliance’
of Turkey, boosted up with the interdependence model of liberal
thinking rested on intensive economic relations and institutional
involvement, highly unlikely generates any promising results in the
establishment of a permanent peace in the region. Indeed, Turkey put
‘Caucasian Home’, a very similar proposal carrying the same objectives
as that of the current one, on the agenda in the 1990s. This met
with an outright rejection from the Armenian side claiming that it
was against the national interests of both Armenia and Russia, and
that it was nothing but aimed to resuscitate the ‘old Pan-Turkist
dream’ of uniting all Turks from Caucasus to Central Asia. There is
no any reason now why Armenia should not think the same way as it
thought few years ego. In fact, Russia has come out of the war against
Georgia much stronger and domineering along its backyard than before,
and is now much more defiant against the more active involvement of
international organisations (e.g. OSCE) in the ‘near abroad’. So,
it can be hardly said that Moscow has genuinely believed in the
formation and the success of the ‘Alliance’. If it is the case, why
then the Russian military is bombing various economic sites, destroying
railways and sinking ships and boats in Poti and Georgia in general is
the question waiting for some answers for all these are the important
means for Tbilisi upon which the ‘Alliance’ is supposed to be built.

It is unfortunate once again to see that old realist thinking of
power maximisation of states overwhelms the liberal model of complex
interdependence, and of the Turkish proposal of ‘Caucasus Alliance’,
at the expense of peace and security in inter-state relations. How
this can be reversed the other way around does not and will not have
an easy answer for long years ahead. Indeed, the Caucasus is not a
unique region in that respect in the world. This is the fact of the
post-Cold world order/disorder, and it can be easily seen all around
if one just turns around and looks at what is happening in Iraq today
and then asks himself why.

DEAR FRIENDS

AZG Armenian Daily #150
21/08/2008

Culture

For the first time in the Diaspora’s history, Tbilisi’s Petros Adamyan
State Armenian Dramatic Theatre is invited to America. The theatre
will be touring major Armenian populated centers of the United States
and Canada during the months of September and October of 2008.

The theatre is now 152 years old, the oldest active theatre in the
Caucasus. It is the only state Armenian theatre outside Armenia,
while also an important center that contributes to the development
and gives a wide exposure to Armenian culture. Gabriel Sundukyan,
Petros Adamyan, Siranush and many other famous Armenian artists have
their names conected to this theatre.

We ask you that you honor and support with your presence the theatre’s
company on its 153’rd anniversary. Participate, and we are confident
that you will appreciate the great artistic values of this professional
theatrical company.

Please visit , watch the videos,
glance through the history of this great Armenian theatre , check up
the upcoming events and be a part of this great Armenian journey.

Truly Yours, "The Friends of Armenian Arts"