Author: Boshkezenian Garik

Armenian opposition leader urges voters to reject constitutional reforms
Arminfo
27 May 05
YEREVAN
The leader of the Justice faction, MP Stepan Demirchyan, today called
for a resolute “no” to the package of constitutional reforms that will
be put to a nationwide referendum. The leader of the Armenian
opposition met voters of Yerevan’s Arabkir community today.
Demirchyan said that the illegitimately elected authorities have no
right to reform the constitution. Touching on the beginning of the
active process aimed at toppling the authorities, Demirchyan refused
to name specific deadlines and only pointed out that we don’t have to
wait long. The members of the Justice faction, MPs Grigor Arutyunyan
and Shavarsh Kocharyan [leader of the opposition National Democratic
Party], repeated Demirchyan’s remarks in their speeches.
It must be noted that in his speech, Demirchyan highlighted the fact
that contrary to their usual practice, the authorities did not prevent
the opposition from meeting voters this time, since “they realize that
such actions will have a reverse effect and play into the hand of the
opposition”.

MAMEDIAROV: SIDES NEGOTIATE OVER OPENING NAKHIJEVAN- MEGHRI RAILROAD AND
ROAD
Yerevan Calls the Statement ‘False’
Azeri foreign minister said in the interview to ANS TV that definite details
of peaceful settlement have been discussed, in particular, “the issue of
transportation and communication was one of the main points of the
discussion.” Mamediarov said that they discussed the issue of using the
Lachin corridor as a security belt, as well as the opening of
Nakhijevan-Meghri railroad and the roads.
The official Yerevan stated that Baku again makes false statements. A
high-ranking official of RA Foreign Ministry told Azg that such statements
of Baku hinder achieving the real agreement in the Nagorno Karabakh issue.
The diplomat opined that such statements are directed to the inner
auditorium, “the Azeri authorities seem to have inner problems.”
The diplomat also said that by making such statements Baku creates
additional problems for the very inner auditorium, as when the details of
the negotiations are published or the sides are about to sign the settlement
agreement, the same authorities will have to find excuses in front of their
own people.
“Making false statements is Baku’s tactics,” he said. After the meeting of
the presidents, Mamediarov said that Armenia is ready to return “the 7
occupied regions of Azerbaijan. He also added that “the terms for returning
the occupied territories” are being specified.
Official Yerevan denied statements by Mamediarov, while the Baku-based
newspapers sneered at the statements of the Azeri foreign minister. In fact,
Yuri Merzliakov, OSCE Russian co-chair, also denied the statements by
Merzliakov. “What does it mean, Armenia is ready? The issue of withdrawal of
the armed forces is being discussed. Armenia doesn’t doubt about the
principle of withdrawing the Armenian forces from the neighboring regions of
NKR. But we haven’t achieved any agreement concerning the terms, the order
and the deadline for the withdrawal of the forces.” Merzliakov added that
the withdrawal of the forces “is no issue of tomorrow or the day after
tomorrow.”
NKR foreign minister stated yesterday that “the NKR authorities should
control the regions.” Mediamax agency informed that Arman Melikian said that
“today it’s senseless to speak of the territories or the relocation of the
forces,” as “no agreement has been achieved over this issue.” Melikian said
that the false statements on the territories and the withdrawal of NKR
forces “are in the interests of Azerbaijan.”
The Armenian diplomat stated that they haven’t specified the terms and the
deadline for the coming meeting between RA foreign minister and the
mediators. A separate meeting between the mediators with the Azeri and the
Armenian foreign ministers are envisaged to take place. Afterwards, it is
possible that Oskanian and Mamediarov will meet. It is supposed that after
these meetings only the mediators will arrive in the region.
“There is already a necessity for the meeting between the ministers, as a
new filed has opened for us after the meeting of the presidents in Warsaw.
We have many things to discuss and work out,” Vartan Oskanian said in the
interview to RA Public TV on May 19. The minister emphasized that sooner or
later they should touch upon all the details of the resolution package,
specifying four groups of issues — the status, territories, refugees and
the security issues.
Oskanian stated in the same interview that, indeed, “a certain positive
progress” has been fixed in the issue of the status after the negotiations
between the presidents in Warsaw.
By Tatoul Hakobian

/extended/turkey_in_europe/
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Our Opinion
“Turkey in Europe”
By The Editors
As we draw closer to October 3, the start-date for the `final’ course
of negotiations for Turkey’s accession to the European Union, the
debate on Turkish membership is intensifying – which, if nothing else,
betrays an odd sort of Western European panic (arguably more racist
than not), given that these negotiations, as everyone knows (most
obviously, the Turks themselves), will last anywhere from one to two
decades (give or take a couple of years). Hardly a day goes by without
some pontification on `Muslim’ Turkey’s attempt to join the
predominantly `Christian’ EU – as if the Union had an official
(super)state religion, or its constitutional model was closer to that
of Charlemagne (or Süleyman the Magnificent) than to those of Kant
and the Framers of the US constitution. For every practical argument
in support of Turkish membership, there seems to be an ideological
argument against it. Every confirmation of concrete progress made by
Turkey to meet EU standards and demands – which, lately, has almost
invariably dictated fundamental Turkish constitutional reform – is
countered by criticism that Ankara is failing to fulfill all of the
so-called Copenhagen criteria (set by the EU in the Danish capital in
1993 for all future candidate countries). It seems that Turkey’s
critics either do not understand how utterly radical the effort to put
the country on a permanent path to democratic government and, above
all, the rule of law is, or they, in fact – and we believe this to be
much closer to the truth – want to see Turkey fail, if only to
validate their own prejudices about the `incompatibility’ between
Turkish society and European `civilization.’
Meanwhile, back in Turkey itself, the country is slowly and painfully
– if not nearly as thoroughly or honestly as needed – facing up to a
series of profound historical issues. Last Sunday marked the ninetieth
anniversary of the Armenian massacres of 1915 – an event that was
officially celebrated in a number of European capitals. These
massacres, which, until recently, were ritualistically (and
incredibly) denied by the Turkish state, have now, as The Economist
reported earlier this month, become the subject of an `unprecedented
debate…in intellectual and political circles and the mainstream
Turkish press.’ On the other hand, just 10 days ago (April 17),
Turkey’s state archives released `research’ declaring that 523,000
Turks were killed by Armenians between 1910 and 1922 (thus obviously
placing the issue of the mass murder of Armenians within the context
of Ottoman civil war rather than genocide). In a similar manner,
recent reports on modest improvements in the government’s treatment of
Turkey’s large Kurdish minority have been followed by news of
intensifying activity by the Turkish army against Kurds. Finally,
perennial assurances by Turkey’s government on the importance it puts
on a strong and close relationship with Greece are just as
persistently belied by the unabating violations of Greek territorial
waters and airspace by the Turkish armed forces.
Anyone who considers all these manifest contradictions to be strategic
machinations, or the typically cynical ploys of a shamelessly cynical
government, is actually misjudging the real conflict within Turkish
society over these fundamental moral and social issues – as well as
related ones, many of them directly linked to the generally awful fate
of minorities in Turkey in the twentieth century. A central reason
that so many Turkish right-wing nationalists and Islamic
fundamentalists are opposed to their country’s accession to the EU
(or, as they call it, to `Turkey’s humiliation’ by Europe) is
precisely because they understand its consequences: Turkey will never
enter Europe until Europe is allowed to enter Turkey. It is hardly
ironic – it is indeed utterly predictable and congruent – that
Europe’s extreme right and its religious fundamentalists are in utter
accord with Turkey’s extreme right and its religious fundamentalists
in opposing Turkish entry into the EU: they all understand the dangers
of such a democratic and liberating expansion to their respective
visions of Europe and the world.
Yet, the Euro-punditocracy and various Europols ceaselessly exploit
Turkey’s contemporary contradictions to test Europeans’ perceptions of
the country and their attitude toward its membership in the EU. But
why? These are the unsurprising `contradictions’ of any nation
wobbling from arbitrary rule to self-government, and they are easily
explicable since they reflect historical and social oppositions, and
political antagonisms, that are amenable to analysis and rational
debate. greekworks.com has repeatedly supported Turkey’s accession to
the European Union, and we continue to do so. The truth is that every
passing month reinforces our considered judgment that Turkey is the
natural extent of European society (and, lest we forget, history), and
that Turkey itself will prove that in the end in the only way
possible: by unalterably committing itself to all those covenants and
democratic self-restrictions that bind a state to protect the civil
and human rights of its citizens, who are, by that fact, free(d) to
participate actively in every aspect of civic and public life.
Indeed, the problem is that nobody takes Turkey seriously enough to
engage with it openly, without subterfuge. The issue, in other words,
as we see it, is not whether one is `for’ Turkey, but the kind of
Turkey that one is for. We believe in a democratic, self-critical,
transparent, conciliatory, secular, and, above all, just
Turkey. greekworks.com will soon be publishing The Mechanism of
Catastrophe: The Turkish Pogrom of September 6-7, 1955, and the
Destruction of the Greek Community of Istanbul by the eminent
historian, Speros Vryonis, Jr., to commemorate the fiftieth
anniversary of the Septemvriana, the government-organized and -abetted
pogrom that decimated the then-thriving Greek community of Istanbul
and marked the beginning of the end of Istanbul’s Greeks. When we
undertook the publication of this book, we had already editorialized
in support of Turkish entry into the EU. Many people will undoubtedly
see this as the height (or depths) of incoherence. We have always
thought otherwise, and we’ve never believed that there is any
contradiction between reconstituting the historical truth and using
that truth to help a nation reconcile itself not only with its
victims, but with its own history. To put things as simply as we can,
while Turkey’s road to EU membership undoubtedly goes through
Copenhagen, it also goes through Van and Smyrna and Diyarbekir and all
those villages, hamlets, towns, and cities, famous or obscure, where
corpses were left to rot in the sun, churches were turned into
stables, and speaking one’s mother tongue was prima facie `evidence’
of high treason.
In the event, there are Turks – many, many Turks – who believe as we
do. greekworks.com knows from first-hand experience that Turkish
scholars, writers, and journalists are fighting a relentless battle to
recover their nation’s history, and to restore it to their fellow
citizens, regardless of the judgments to be drawn from it (two of
these scholars, among the most engaged, have already embraced
Prof. Vryonis’s book, even before its appearance). In the end, this is
why we support Turkey’s entry into the EU. Some of the issues that
Turkey will have to address on its way to (re)joining Europe are so
deeply embedded in the modern Turkish state’s mythology that it will
be impossible to deal with them without provoking almost pathological
reactions. Yet, the very fact that the Armenian genocide as such is
being debated today in Turkey is both remarkable and highly
important. The same is true for Turkey’s treatment of its Kurdish
minority. If one is unfamiliar with the decades-long repression of
Kurdish identity – which essentially goes back to the very foundation
of the Turkish republic and is, therefore, identified with the
national testament of Atatürk himself – one cannot begin to
understand why even the most modest compromise with the Kurds on
minority rights constitutes a previously unthinkable `concession.’
Time is also running out on the military’s defining presence in modern
Turkish political life, and the sooner, the better – for Turkey’s
citizens, above all. The violation of Greek territorial waters and
airspace has for many years constituted a given of Turkey’s military
`presence.’ It is an idiot’s gambit. Which is why no Greek prime
minister has ever been intimidated by it, and why we think that it has
now degenerated into a pathetic (and patent) case of genital
exhibitionism. The continuation of this policy is hardly proof that
the military continues to play a significant role in Turkey’s
political landscape today. It is, quite the opposite, an unambiguous
sign that the military is desperate to `assert’ itself wherever it can
(and regardless of how stupidly it does so) because it knows that its
days are numbered as an entire nation’s judge, jury, and executioner.
Monumental changes are occurring almost daily in Turkey, mostly
because of the European Union, but massive societal change breeds
contradiction – at least until the change has been institutionalized,
and `naturalized,’ and integrated into the everyday reality of a
people. In a few days, the French will vote on the so-called European
constitution. There is a very good chance that they will reject it,
opposed as so many of them are (and, in our opinion, rightly so) to
the currently proposed version. The French, of course, are not the
only ones in the EU who have serious reservations about the Union’s
current form and function, and thus seem, lately, to be of two,
contradictory, minds about where it is headed. Such contradictions,
however, are an inherent dynamic of what has truly become a European
community, and they are a necessary part of constructing the Union’s
framework and future architecture. For the last half century,
contradiction – or, more accurately, creative destruction – has seemed
to be the motivating force behind Europe’s ever-steady union (and
unity). In the same way, the EU should recognize and accept the
extraordinary and very difficult historical process that today
inevitably characterizes Turkey’s efforts to merge its contradictions
with those of Europe.

US, Azerbaijan agreed on stationing bases, report says
AzerNews
May 25-31
The United States and Azerbaijan agreed on stationing US forces in the
Azerbaijani territory, a US-Israeli strategic forecasting center
said. The general accord on the issue was reached during a visit by
the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Baku on April 12 that was
shrouded in secrecy, Stratfor reported quoting a reliable source in
the Azerbaijani government.
“The US will start pulling in its forces this year. The divisions will
be formally called ‘temporarily-stationed mobile forces’ but US
military presence will be long-term, considering the tremendous
interest this country takes in the Caucasus region. US forces will
start arriving in Azerbaijan in the next few weeks”, according to
Stratfor analysts.
Azerbaijani Defense Ministry dismissed the report on stationing US
bases.
“This information is absolutely false”, its spokesman Ramiz Malikov
said.
The report further said that US forces will be stationed in three
small bases, with the main one in the Kurdamir district, 150
kilometers west of Baku. The contingent will change depending on the
military needs of the United States.
The bases that will host US aircraft have runways and barracks and
have already been upgraded to meet the required standards.
Stratfor experts believe that one of the key objectives for stationing
US forces is to safeguard the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan main export
pipeline. The US European Command is training ‘Caspian guards’
consisting of local armed forces and special troops for this
purpose. The report also suggested that dozens of US trainers have
been ‘quietly’ working in Azerbaijan for several months.
The ‘invasion to Azerbaijan’ also targets completing the process of
‘geo-political surrounding’ and setting up a forepost for an attack on
Iran. The Bush administration recently hinted that it plans to attack
Iran due to a nuclear threat from this country. The US is also trying
to create a corridor from Europe to remote Central Asia regions for
further stationing of armed forces and machinery there in order to
create new levers for pressure on Russia.
Stratfor analysts say that Baku has been trying to deter the
‘invasion’ for a long time but finally agreed with the US on the
stationing of bases early in April after US ambassador Reno Harnish
threatened the Azerbaijani authorities with a ‘velvet revolution’.
With regard to the recent signing of the memorandum on Azeri-Iranian
defense cooperation, the report said that in exchange for preventing
the entry of US forces to Azerbaijani territory, Tehran offered
military and technical supplies or assistance to Azerbaijan that could
be useful should hostilities with Armenia resume.
The Stratfor report suggests that the issue of stationing US troops
has already been solved. However, this assumption is rather dubious
considering the recent visit by Azerbaijani Defense Minister Safar
Abiyev to Tehran. It is highly unlikely that the Azeri authorities
were negotiating joint defense efforts with Iran just weeks before the
planned arrival of US forces.
Another issue involved is the possible mistrust between Washginton in
Baku, as ‘velvet revolution’ may still be staged even if US bases are
stationed in the country. Signing of the mentioned memorandum with
Iran could imply that the Azerbaijani government is seeking the needed
additional guarantees from Washington.
The deployment of bases in Azerbaijan is important for the United
States in terms of ensuring the security of strategic energy
facilities. American capital is involved in major oil and gas projects
in the region and Caspian oil is a key part of the Western countries’
policy on creating alternative energy sources.
US forces currently surround Iran in a semi-circle from the direction
of Turkey, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. The only outlet for
Iran is its northern border, where Armenia and Azerbaijan are
located. A complete encirclement of Iran is currently impossible as
America is not likely to succeed in entering Armenia, which is
Russia’s forepost. Azerbaijan is therefore the only alternative left.
The entry of US troops to Azerbaijan for a subsequent attack on Iran
may turn out costly for official Baku. Unlike the territory of Turkey,
that of Azerbaijan is poorly protected. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq,
large-scale and vulnerable economic projects are being implemented in
Azerbaijan with US capital involved. This may also lead to
destabilization within the country provoked by Iranian and Russian
residents.
Another factor involved is pressure that several million Azeris
working in Russia would face. Besides, it is still unclear whether the
United States intends to attack Iran or try to stage a change of power
in Tehran within the country. But both options allow stationing of US
bases in Azerbaijan as an additional leverage.
The Stratfor report apparently suggested that US attack on Iran is
around the corner, or the US is deliberately trying to escalate
tensions in the region.
If US plans to launch the offensive in the distant future, it could do
so by simply sending trainers to Azerbaijan and adapting local
military facilities for US troops.
Stratfor analysts say that Baku made a concession to Washington
because it fears a ‘velvet revolution’. Undoubtedly, after a series of
such revolutions, most ruling circles in the Commonwealth of
Independent States (former Soviet Union) are at serious unrest. The
United States has promises that it is ready to support opposition in
Caucasus and Central Asia states to ensure freedom of world nations.
US President George Bush said ‘democratic revolutions’ are likely to
happen in these countries. Addressing the International Republican
Institute in Washington early last week, Bush said people are awaiting
changes and ‘such changes will come’.
Bush said global democracy is rapidly developing and ‘velvet
revolutions’ have taken place around the world over the past 18
months. “This is a good start”, he said.
Washington plans to establish a ‘core of prompt response’ throughout
the world to ‘export’ democracy. It will consist of diplomatic and
civil officers as well as volunteers who will be sent to crisis areas
to act as ‘civil rescuers’.
“This will allow sending the needed specialists to foreign countries
and deploy assistance programs in just days or weeks, rather than
months or years, which was the case until now.” The ‘revolutions’
will have a considerable cost. Bush said that over the past four
years, the White House has allocated $4.6 billion on programs
supporting democratic reforms around the world. The Bush
administration has asked the US Congress another $1.3 billion for such
spending in 2006.
Bush praised the aid provided by the Institute to the democratic
development in other countries.
“I appreciate the assistance provided by the Republican Institute for
the sake of freedom. It has been at the forefront of democratic
changes in over 100 world countries over the past 20 years, which
contributes to a safe, free and secure world.”

LA Weekly
May 27-June 2 2005
A Considerable Town
Mezmerized
by PAUL ROGERS

Diana Hernandez is nursing a nasty sunburn. `That’s the sacrifice you
make for a band like System,’ she says, shrugging. Hernandez, 17, is
in line outside Best Buy’s giant Burbank outlet for an in-store
appearance by art-metal über-band System of a Down. She arrived at
5:30 a.m. for the band’s 7 p.m. show. `I’ve had 14 hours to think
about it,’ she says, `but I still don’t know what I’m going to say to
them.’
Celebrity in-stores are curious rituals: Fans wait for hours not to
see their heroes perform, or even really to talk (beyond cursory
chat), but just to be. It’s as if that briefest press of an idol’s
flesh will open a superchannel to their art thereafter.
System of a Down have sufficient commercial clout, after three
platinum-plus albums, to hold the launch for their new album,
Mezmerize, almost anywhere. They chose a bland Burbank shopping
complex over Times Square or Tokyo because, as one of the few
full-blown rock-star acts who were actually raised and formed in
L.A., they wanted to recognize their local following.
There was an added undertone of expectation to this event, because
when System tried a similar stunt for the release of their 2001
Toxicity disc – a free outdoor concert in Hollywood – more than
triple the expected 3,000 fans showed up, the fire marshal pulled the
plug, and members of the crowd went berserk, stealing all of the
band’s equipment before riot police prevailed.
But tonight the perhaps 2,000-strong crowd – principally teens and
20-somethings in black T-shirts and jeans – are the image of excited
restraint. Teetering along the thin line between admirable, pitiful
and downright psychotic devotion comes Orlando Salas, a 22-year-old
mechanic and musician who’s traveled from his native Peru for the
event. `System rocks! It’s the best!’ says Orlando, before offering
the real explanation for making the 8,000-mile-plus roundtrip: `Daron
[Malakian] is a genius!’
Thing is, Malakian is a fucking genius. He’s the principal creative
force behind his band’s bizarrely entrancing
exotic/outraged/brutal/funny/politicized metal mongrel, which, with
Mezmerize (and sister disc Hypnotize, due in the fall), has reached
its illogical, harmony-heavy, genre-ending zenith. Emerging with his
bandmates from Best Buy’s backrooms, the diminutive guitarist – a
reclusive figure more comfortable shredding on arena stages than
walking down the street – is wide-eyed, and laboring under a bizarre,
monklike Middle-earth haircut.
The whoops gather strength as the remaining three Systems appear:
vocalist Serj Tankian, looking like he just got through teaching
contemporary pottery at the local community college, with his Robert
Plant ringlets and Mona Lisa smile; bassist Shavo Odadjian, recently
re-styled as the Armenian Huggy Bear, complete with CHIPs shades,
blue hoody and shady stoop; and upright, mustachioed drummer John
Dolmayan, the big brother that every kid would want on his side.
The signing session is for the most part routine: All manner of items
– from violins and skateboards to foreheads and cleavage – are
cordially marked by the band, seated at a long table, as a podium of
photographers jostle for angles. What isn’t routine is the number of
guitars offered for autographing – maybe one in 20 fans carries one.
`This is my first guitar, and I’m going to get it signed,’ enthuses
Chris Bennett, a 19-year-old Palmdale musician who’s been queuing
since midnight, black Stratocaster in hand. `I promise not to put it
on eBay!’
And that’s it: System’s music triggers active, sympathetic expression
in others, and, while a million paintbrushes may not yield a Picasso,
if just one of these ax-wielding youngsters blossoms into another
Malakian, then their generation too will have a means to transcend
artless, gutless career-rock.

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT RELIEVES ARMEN BAIBURDYAN OF POST OF RA AMBASSADOR
TO NEPAL, INDONESIA, SRI LANKA
YEREVAN, May 24. /ARKA/. RA President Robert Kocharyan signed a decree
relieving Armen Baiburdyan of the post of RA Ambassador to Nepal,
Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The RA presidential press service reports
that RA Ambassador to India Ashot Kocharyan replaced Armen Baiburdyan
at this post. P.T. -0–

Armenpress
ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT SPEAKER ADVERTISES THE IDEA OF SOUTH CAUCASIAN
PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLY
BRUSSELS, MAY 24, ARMENPRESS: Armenian parliament chairman Arthur
Baghdasarian was received yesterday by top officials of Belgium, where he
arrived in the first leg of his three-day Benelux visit. Baghdasarian also
met with heads of diplomatic missions of Bulgaria, Russia, Azerbaijan,
Turkey in Brussels and representatives of Eurasia Foundation and
non-governmental organizations to talk about Armenia’s foreign policy
agenda.
Baghdasarian was quoted today by parliament press office as saying that
his country stands for normal relations with all nations of the region,
arguing that establishment of a South Caucasian Inter-Parliamentary Assembly
may become a heavy contribution to bringing peace and stability in the
region. Baghdasarian then reiterated that Armenia wants a peaceful
resolution of the Karabagh conflict through dialogue and negotiations.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Leader of world Armenians arrives in Isfahan
Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iran
May 22 2005
Isfahan, May 22, IRNA — The spiritual Leader of the World Armenians
Archbishop Jasliq Aram I Keshishian arrived in the ancient city of
Isfahan, central Iran, on Sunday.
During his stay in Isfahan, the leader of world Armenians is to
confer with Armenians residing in this city as well as the Friday
prayer leader and the provincial governor general.
Archbishop Jasliq is scheduled to visit the city of Shahin Shahr,
north Isfahan province, and confer with the Armenians in this city.
Armenian settlement in Isfahan dates back to the Safavid era. Most
of the Armenians in Isfahan live in the historical region of Jolfa.
The spiritual leader of the World Armenians arrived in Tehran on
Thursday, May 12 for a 14-day visit. He has already visited Iran
three times.
During his stay in Iran, he has visited Tehran and Markazi provinces
and is currently touring Isfahan before going on to the provinces of
West Azarbaijan and East Azarbaijan.
He also paid tribute to the founder of the Islamic Revolution the
late Imam Khomeini on Thursday, May 19.
The Armenian citizens in Iran enjoy citizenship rights and they are
present on the scene to elevate their country, Iran, said the Armenian
leader last Sunday, May 15 in Arak, Markazi province.
The total number of Armenians around the world stands at 15 million,
he said, adding that the 300,000 Armenians in Iran freely perform
their religious duties.
The religious center of the World Armenians is located in Lebanon and
the center follows up all various issues of the Armenian population
throughout the world, he added.
Archbishop Jasliq Aram I Keshishian conferred with President Mohammad
Khatami in Tehran on last Saturday, May 14.

Opinion: Is Azerbaijan next for a revolution?
Alexei Makarkin
Middle East Times
UPI
May 17, 2005
MOSCOW — Four presidents attended an April session of the GUUAM
regional organization of Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan
and Moldova in the Moldovan capital, Chisinau. Uzbek President Islam
Karimov ignored it because his country was preparing to withdraw
from the organization. The news was made public officially on May 5,
changing GUUAM into GUAM.
Presidents Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine and Mikhail Saakashvili of
Georgia, who did attend the summit, were brought to power by so-called
“color” revolutions – the “Orange” revolution in Ukraine and the
“Roses” revolution in Georgia. President Vladimir Voronin of Moldova
prevented a revolution in his country by becoming a sharper critic
of Russia than the revolutionaries.
The only exception was Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan. He went to Chisinau
but does not want this to affect his country’s relations with Russia
and also hopes to prevent a color revolution at home.
Color revolutions are timed for elections, as the methods behind
them are based on using public protests against the real or imaginary
falsification of election results. Observers from the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe have criticized all the elections
held in Azerbaijan, which Aliyev’s opponents can use as an additional
argument. This April the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe Monitoring Committee once again criticized Baku for failing to
ensure the freedom of speech and meeting, which are vital conditions
for free and fair elections.
The next parliamentary elections will be held in Azerbaijan this
November. The opposition is pinning its hopes on them, thinking
Aliyev’s regime will be weaker than his father’s.
Three political forces that are opposing Aliyev’s regime – Musavat,
the People’s Front and the Democratic Party – have created a coalition
that hopes to win the elections. Musavat and the Democratic Party are
led by the former parliament speakers, Isa Gambar and Rasul Guliyev,
who now live in the United States. The leader of the People’s Front
is Ali Kerimli, a comrade of the late president Abulfaz Elchibei.
In April the regional activists of these parties met with US Ambassador
Reno Harnish, which provoked great displeasure of the political forces
that are loyal to the current authorities.
There is one more opposition bloc, New Policy, which consists of
prominent figures, including the first president of independent
Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutalibov, who now lives in Moscow, Lala Shovket
Gadzhiyeva, the leader of the National Unity Movement, Etibar Mamedov,
former head of the National Independence Party and former premier Ali
Masimov. According to Gadzhiyeva, “If large-scale falsifications are
registered during the parliament election, there will be a revolution.”
The so-called Gongadze case greatly helped to discredit Leonid
Kuchma in Ukraine. Azerbaijan could explode because of the killing
of opposition journalist Elmar Guseinov.
What do the Azerbaijan authorities hope to achieve? They hope
Azerbaijan’s participation in GUAM will prevent the export of a
revolution into the country. Georgian activists helped Ukrainians last
year and Ukrainians are now helping Belarussians. Aliyev is acting
as a political ally of Yushchenko and Saakashvili, which makes him
“untouchable” to the activists of color revolutions.
Second, GUAM membership is complemented with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
oil pipeline project, which the West went to great lengths to
promote. The project is to be commissioned on May 25 in the presence of
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. By the end of the year, when
the parliamentary election is due in Azerbaijan, the first oil tanker
will depart from Ceyhan. Therefore, Baku’s leaders do not believe that
the West will rock the boat in such a strategic country as Azerbaijan.
Third, Azerbaijan is involved in the US-Iran confrontation. The April
12 visit of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld to Baku is indicative in
this context. There were rumors before the visit that a US military
base might be established in the country. They have been refuted so
far, which is not surprising, as the truth may sour Baku’s relations
with Tehran and Moscow, but this does not mean that the base may not
appear some time in the future.
It is notable that Robert Simons, a special representative of the
NATO secretary-general to the Caucasus and Central Asian countries,
has announced that though the bloc’s leaders have not approved the
deployment of troops in the South Caucasus for the protection of
the oil pipeline and other economic facilities, the issue may be
discussed later.
The Americans are energetically cooperating with Azerbaijan’s security
services. Foreign minister Elmar Mamedyarov said: They “are helping
us fulfil several very interesting and important security programs”.
Will this guarantee peace and tranquility in Azerbaijan? Hardly. The
problem is that not everything in color revolutions depends on the
external or economic factors. Much depends on the effectiveness
of the ruling regime and the ability of the opposition to use the
available resources.
If the regime preserves its own stability and becomes the main factor
of stability in the country, the revolutionaries will have to wait
for another chance. But if the regime becomes eroded the opposition
may use this situation to claim the role of a guarantor of stability,
just like it did in Georgia.

NEWS OF PROGRESS ON KARABAKH TALKS GETS CAUTIOUS RECEPTION IN ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN
Samvel Matirosyan and Alman Mir Ismail 5/20/05
Eurasianet Organization
May 20 2005
While officials in Armenia and Azerbaijan have expressed guarded
optimism about the possibility of a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement,
significant obstacles remain in place that could block any potential
deal.
Various reports suggested that the May 15-16 meeting between Armenian
President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev moved
the search for Karabakh peace forward. At the same time, there are
few details on the substance of the discussions available, as the
participants have generally declined to elaborate on the talks.
Much of the reaction in Armenian and Azerbaijani media has focused
on Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov’s assertion that
Armenia agreed to a “step-by-step” peace formula, under which Armenian
forces would withdraw from seven regions of Azerbaijani territory that
surround Karabakh. [For additional information see the accompanying
EurasiaNet story].
In the days leading up to the Kocharian-Aliyev meeting in Warsaw,
Azerbaijani media considered the Armenian withdrawal to be a foregone
conclusion. “The Armenians Have Given Their Consent: The Seven Occupied
Regions Will Be Liberated,” read a headline in the Azerbaijani daily
Sharg on May 13.
An underlying assumption held by some Azerbaijani analysts seemed
to be that Armenia had no choice but to accede to Azerbaijani
demand for a step-by-step formula. “With the near completion of
the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum
gas pipeline, along with the start of construction on a
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku railroad and the launch of a North-South
transport corridor, the regional isolation of Armenia would seem
inevitable [without a Karabakh agreement],” television reporter Ganira
Pashayeva said in a commentary broadcast by the Azerbaijani station
ANS on May 15.
On May 18, Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman Gamlet Gasparian
adamantly denied that Armenian forces would be moving out of the
occupied territories. He called reports of a promised withdrawal
to be “absolutely contrary to the facts,” and “wide of the mark,”
according to various Armenian media reports.
Some Armenian politicians and experts believe that domestic
political factors in Azerbaijan were pushing Azerbaijani officials
to misrepresent the issues discussed in Warsaw. A widely held view
in Yerevan is that Aliyev’s administration is feeling pressure from
the country’s opposition parties. With Azerbaijan scheduled to hold
parliamentary elections later this year, members of the Aliyev team
are anxious to score a political victory ahead of the election,
Armenian observers believe.
Galust Sahakian, the legislative leader of the Republican Party, the
largest faction in the Armenian parliament, told the A1+ television
station: “Allegations concerning the [Armenian occupied] territories
are connected with the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan.”
Sahakian went on to suggest that some forecasts circulating in
Yerevan indicate that the Azerbaijani election could produce a
“change of power.”
Many political analysts believe Kocharian also has little room
for political maneuver. Any perception that Kocharian was making
concessions to Azerbaijan could upset a delicate political balance
in Yerevan, providing opposition parties with fresh ammunition to
damage the president’s domestic political position.
Recent polling data indicates sharp divisions within Armenian society
on the Karabakh issue. According to a poll conducted by the Armenian
Center for National and International Studies in April, 50 percent
of Armenia’s population believes that concessions to Azerbaijan are
needed to produce a Karabakh settlement. Meanwhile, 37.7 percent is
categorically against any compromises. The remainder does not have a
strong opinion on the issue. At the same time, almost all Armenians
polled believe that Karabakh must remain outside of Baku’s control.
Some Armenian media outlets have suggested that the latest round of
Kocharian-Aliyev talks made little headway in the search for lasting
peace in Karabakh. “Although the results of the meeting between Robert
Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev, which took place May 15 in Warsaw, were
kept secret, everything is clear: they failed,” said a commentary
published by the Armenian newspaper Aravot on May 17.
A significant portion of the Azerbaijani population also remains
skeptical that peace in Karabakh may be within reach. “They
[governments] give these promises for many years, but no results. I
don’t believe that anything will be achieved any time soon,” said
Akif Rahmanov, 58 year old engineer.
Editor’s Note: Samvel Martirosyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst. Alman Mir Ismail is a pseudonym for a Baku-based
writer.