Author: Chalian Meline

RA DEFENSE MINISTRY: ‘INSTEAD OF RIBALDRY THE AZERBAIJANI DEFENSE MINISTRY HAD BETTER THINK OVER THE NUMEROUS CONCERNS OF ITS ARMY’

ARMENPRESS
MAY 3, 2010
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, APRIL 30, ARMENPRESS: Instead of ribaldry and playing mind
games or making judgments about moral-psychological and martial
readiness of the Armenian Army, Spokesperson for the Azerbaijani
Defense Minister Eldar Sabiroglu and the Ministry had better think
over the numerous concerns of the Azerbaijani army, the statement,
provided to Armenpress by the press and PR office of RA Defense
Ministry, says. The statement touches upon the next warlike rhetoric
of the Azerbaijani authorities. According to a report by Azerbaijani
mass media, a consultation, headed by the President Ilham Aliev, was
held April 23 at the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry on the construction
of armed forces. During the consultation, the Azerbaijani President
demanded from military leaders of the country to be ready for the
settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh issue by applying forces. The
President and Defense Minister assured the attendees that the whole
nation and the Azerbaijani Armed Forces support the President. Ilham
Aliev blamed Armenia for occupying territories, destroying the areas
of security (as if it is the Armenians, who destroyed the Armenian
cemetery and thousands of ancient cross-stones in Nor Jugha), as
well as stated that Azerbaijan ‘cannot tolerate the cruelty and
injustice any more’. ‘We all know the reason Baku remembered about
the arms and the 1 billion USD spent on gaining them just the day
before April 24, when people were walking to Tsitsernakaberd with sad
faces in Yerevan,’ the statement reads. Eldar Sabiroglu stated that
‘Armenia will not have the courage to fight the war alone’. Sabiroglu
assured that the international experts consider the consultation held
at the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry quite an important event and that
they said ‘due to the army, supplied with modern arms and high-level
fighting readiness, the unity of the nation with the President, ‘the
succes of the operation for liberating the ‘occupied’ territories
by Azerbaijan and the defeat of Armenia are anovaidable’. ‘This is
the impression of Eldar Sabiroglu about the consultation held in his
native country. However we should note that the Azerbaijani Minister
even did not mention about ‘the defeat of Armenia’, but just said at
the beginning of his speech that ‘the complicated military-political
situation in the region make Azerbaijan raise the level of military
possibilities for safeguarding the territorial integrity and
souvereignity, liberating the ‘occupied’ territories’. The bodies
engaged in propaganda, have the wild passion to confuse the true
reality with the desired reality and tend to justify the defeat
they suffered in the war unleashed by themselves. The Azerbaijani
propaganda machine goes on playing the same stuck gramophone record,
mentioning about some mystic 3d force, which helped Armenia during the
war, but yet being afraid of pronuncing the name of that country. In
parallel, they always stress their achievements in gaining expensive
arms each year and decide the result of the war beforehand; somehow
trying to raise the level of their army’s fighting spirit. ‘But he is
a lieutenant colonel: Sabiroglu does not manage to understand that by
spreading lies and false statements, using the cheapest and oldest
means of propaganda, it is impossible to frighten a whole nation,
which fought the war for defending the territories of the homeland
and won that war’ the statement particularly mentions.

Transitions Online
X-Sender: Asbed Bedrossian <[email protected]>
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtere d: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAMJf30tEtb/H/2dsb2JhbACdMHGyDYhehRIEjzk
X-Iron Port-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,324,1270450800";
d="scan’208";a="362834310"
X-L istprocessor-Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

In the Caucasus, a Glass Half-Full
Brainstorming and innovation might not bring peace to the Caucasus, but at
least they bring dialogue.
by TOL

30 April 2010

When it comes to relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, optimism is a
rare commodity after 16 years of stalled diplomacy in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

Even a positive ripple, like the call this week from the two countries’
religious leaders for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, was swamped by
the tide of gloom following Armenia’s earlier move to suspend ratification
of its rapprochement with Turkey, which, under pressure from Baku, belatedly
linked the deal to Karabakh.

As this depressingly familiar drama plays out, it’s tempting to grab at any
glimmer of progress in Armenian/Azerbaijani relations – especially when it
comes lit with the glow of social media, about which there is as much
optimism as there is pessimism in Caucasian politics. It’s generally wise to
have some grains of salt at the ready.

Still, it’s difficult not to be encouraged by the recent wavelets of
cross-border communication and even cooperation among independent-minded,
techno-literate, and mostly young Azeris and Armenians, on display lately at
twin events held this month in Tbilisi.

The Social Media for Social Change conference, hosted by PH International, a
U.S. organization doing community- and schools-based development work in the
Caucasus, focused on using the new online tools to foster civic engagement
and multicultural communication in the region. The concurrent Social
Innovation Camp Caucasus was essentially a social-entrepreneurship drill:
about 40 bloggers, journalists, activists, developers, and designers –
mostly twentysomethings from Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan – were split
into multinational teams and given two days to build digital startups to
address specific social issues. (TOL was one of several co-sponsors of the
camp.)

Both events were structured to bring people together across the frozen
cease-fire line, albeit sometimes implicitly. A Social Innovation Camp `is
not about making peace, it’s about making projects,’ Dan McQuillan, the
British co-creator of the SICamp concept, said during the event’s closing
ceremony. But he also noted that, particularly in the Caucasus, such events
can have an important community-building component. Azeris worked to bring
Armenian peers’ ideas to fruition, and vice versa.

The social-media conference prominently featured the teenage participants in
DOTCOM, a PH International project backed by the U.S. State Department in
which American, Armenian, and Azerbaijani students were trained together in
new-media skills, notably blogging and video. British-Armenian journalist
(and TOL contributor) Onnik Krikorian, co-presenting at the event with
political analyst and blogger Arzu Geybullaeva, openly marveled that he
could be sharing a stage with an Azeri, let alone forge a working
relationship with one, facilitated by Facebook and Skype.

They and other speakers talked about grass-roots conflict-resolution efforts
sprouting up outside the stalled diplomatic process, and the growth of youth
activism throughout the Caucasus, crystallized by the media-savvy campaign
to free jailed Azeri bloggers Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade. A tweet may not
be worth a thousand words, but one cited by Krikorian from an Armenian
expressing solidarity with Azeri activists shows those 140 characters can
matter.

`I see huge potential,’ said Philip Gamaghelyan of the Imagine Center for
Conflict Transformation, who also spoke at the conference. The center has
just launched Caucasus Edition, an online forum for writing and discussion
about Karabakh.

`So far it has been very controlled, very polarizing, very nationalist, very
anti the other – this pretty much was the mainstream media [in Armenia and
Azerbaijan]. Everything more moderate was marginalized or almost
nonexistent. So the Internet really is opening a new possibility now to
bring alternative voices out. =85 There should be a way of translating all
this into political action, into change.’

Even in a setting where simply showing up might imply a predisposition for
change, it was clear how fraught and laborious achieving it will be.
Geybullaeva wrote in her blog that after she spoke critically about Baku’s
heavy-handed response to activism, she was berated by a group of young Azeri
attendees for airing the country’s dirty laundry. And Karabakh remained the
elephant in the room – rarely brought up, and then usually in the context of
explaining why it’s best left alone for now.

It’s easy to see why. Even at forums like these, many participants might
share their countrymen’s polarized view of that conflict. Unlike many of
their countrymen, though, they’ve met, talked to, and worked side by side
with members of the other tribe. They’ve learned they can use new digital
tools to leap the communication barrier between their countries. They’ve
learned they share many problems – cowed media, environmental degradation,
dysfunctional institutions – and that there might be regional, cooperative
responses. That’s a big step.

Ultimately, conflict transformation in the south Caucasus rests on
confronting Karabakh. As long as nationalism and stereotyping dominate the
discourse in their nations, officials in Baku and Yerevan can keep playing a
zero-sum game, rejecting compromise and retreating into absolutist rhetoric.

That stance might get harder to maintain as thousands of young, educated
Armenians and Azeris become steeped in new ways to talk to and think about
one another. At the SI Camp project presentations, an Azeri journalism
student, standing near his Armenian group leader, grabbed the microphone and
made an impromptu comment about the need for the different nationalities to
come together and face common problems. It was almost enough to make one
optimistic.

WAS ALLAHSHUKUR PASHA-ZADE MISINFORMED?

Tert.am
03.05.10

Press office of the Administration of Muslims in the Caucasus
released an official statement later this afternoon in relation to
the news report by Azerbaijani new web sources disseminated earlier
this morning, according to which Azerbaijan’s spiritual leader
Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahshukur Pasha-Zade had said that His Holiness
Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians visited
the Park of Shaheeds during his visit to Baku where he participated
in the Second World Summit of Spiritual Leaders.

According to that statement the leader of Muslims in the Caucasus
Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahshukur Pasha-Zade fall victim to that
disinformation which he was provided with by an employee of the
Administration of Muslims in the Caucasus.

It also said that the person in charge has already been punished.

Earlier the press office of the Holly See of Etchmiadzin dismissed
those reports as wrong.

Aysor, Armenia
May 1 2010

Lilit Mkrtchian and Elina Danielian play in draw

In round five of the Grand Prix FIDE among women, taking place in
Nalchik, Russia’s Tatiana Kosintseva has again won, this time
overcoming Georgia’s Nana Dzagnidze.

Armenia’s Lilit Mkrtchian and Elina Danielian played in draw.

A day off is offered to chess players for a rest till the round six.

AZG DAILY #77, 29-04-2010

LISTENERS REACT TO RFE/RL’S BROADCAST ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE:
"How Disgusting!"

Hrant Darbinian

"Well, of course, there was no Genocide. It’s the Armenians who
killed themselves, they like it" – that’s how one of the listeners
reacted to broadcast titled "Why so many historians in Turkey study the
issue of Armenian Genocide". Russian Service of American Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) aired that item on April 22 and then
placed the text on its Internet site. The feed came from RFE/RL
correspondent in Istanbul.

To its credit (or disgrace), Radio Liberty got a lot of feedback.
"Ahmadinejad denies Holocaust, madam from Istanbul denies Armenian
Genocide. Congratulations to Radio Liberty – you are in a good
company!", "It’s miserable for such a site as Radio Liberty.
Especially on the eve of April 24. It `s not a worthy contribution but
an editorial window dressing on the occasion of Genocide Memorial Day.
Ashamed of Radio Liberty", "To hear them, so it is the Armenians who
massacred the whole Turkish nation=85", "Radio Liberty should apologize
to its audience. Is it a high standard of journalism of Radio Liberty?",
"Shame on you! Shame and disgrace!"=85

What outraged RFE/RL’s listeners and readers? The views and opinions
of Turkish historians? Not only that, although the vast majority of
respondents does not share them.

"You presented the opinion of Turkish side. Try to ask the Armenians"

The broadcast from Istanbul aired fifteen minutes — infinitely long
for the radio feed and mercilessly dragged out for a listener. This in
itself is unprofessional, however, question is, of course, not the
format but its filling.

For example, RFE/RL listener could learn that American professor
Justin McCarthy "argues that the Genocide is but the historians’
invention" (meaning: not of Turkish historians); that the book "by
famous British historian Norman Stone=85 ‘World War One: A Short
History’ completely refutes all theses of genocide". Quoting from that
book, RFE/RL author explains why the Armenians had chosen April 24th as
the day to commemorate their victims. It occurs that on that date "the
chieftains of Armenian gangs who betrayed the Ottoman Empire were
apprehended". Uninitiated listener could accept it just as one takes any
information from authoritative neutral source. Any Armenian, however,
shudders at hearing that, because it is on April 24, 1915 that the
blossom of Armenian intelligentsia in Turkey was arrested, several
hundred people – parliament deputies, writers, clergymen, doctors,
journalists, actors, artists, publishers=85 Most of them were brutally
killed or perished from malnutrition, thirst, physical privations.

It is not our aim to repeat, then deny or seriously challenge all the
nonsense and outright lies that found its way into RFE/RL report. Just
as it is not our goal here to prove how groundless the claims of the
quoted Turkish historians or some schoolteacher from Istanbul are.
Nevertheless, there are such evident absurdities that is impossible to
overlook.

In RFE/RL broadcast aired in anticipation of the 95th anniversary of
Armenian Genocide, "speaks one of the few witnesses of those terrible
events, Kemal Aakay. He is about one hundred and seven years old". Here
is what he shared with RFE/RL Istanbul correspondent – not as a
historian, but as an eyewitness and participant of the events: "In the
province of Van the Armenians rose in revolt. In our village there were
about two hundred people, mostly women, men went to war. I was five
years old. I do not remember everything, but recall that all were herded
into one hut, a few days we spent without food, we were only given
water, then all were shot; I was protected by my grandmother, she
covered me with her body…".

How is it that the old man, born about 1903, was in 1915, in his own
words, just five, not 12 years old? And why such an obvious absurdity
that undercuts the credibility of the entire heartbreaking testimony,
was not noticed either by RFE/RL contributor in Istanbul, or by
moderating editor in Prague? The result — in listener’s reaction: "To
give such a story on the eve of Remembrance Day for the victims of
Armenian Genocide is mean, to say the least. I do not know what thought
its author, but what is for me even more confusing is unprofessionalizm
of Radio Liberty. Your article is biased and of anti-Armenian
character". Another voice: "Let’s also say there were no massacres in
Sumgait and Baku in 1988! One’s heart bleeds to hear and read such a
nonsense, especially on a day like this, especially from Russians=85"

Meanwhile, the RFE/RL Istanbul correspondent answered — more or less
— her headlined question: Why the study of Armenian genocide became the
mass occupation of Turkish historians. Because, as she notes at the end
of her item, "today the debates about history occupy a central place in
Turkish politics. The Turkish public is extremely politicized and
fractured, including views on the Armenian issue". Of course, she should
of talked with those Turks who, in her words, "unreservedly recognize
the Armenian Genocide". That, to the detriment of RFE/RL listeners, did
not happen. At the same time, to be fair, the stringer reporting from
Istanbul, hardly could or should be expected to present the Armenian
position.

Does it mean that RFE/RL listeners are up in arms without good cause?
No, it does not. For the proper addressee of their frustration is the
American Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as the source of information.
In this case – of misinformation. Because the radio broadcast on
Turkish position, unless it was accompanied or preceded by the position
Armenian, as well as the positions of those, by now quite numerous,
states that have officially recognized the bloody ethnic nightmare in
the Ottoman Empire of 1915 – 1923 as the Armenian Genocide, hangs in
the air. In the truest sense of the word. Such a broadcast becomes (and
became!) just a distorted one-sided presentation of the reasons and
circumstances of Armenian national tragedy – in Turkish view only,
while the victim of the crime was practically rendered silent by the
media organization, by RFE/RL. The radio is not a book with the pages to
be turned over back and forth. RFE/RL is not a volume of "Judgement in
Nuremberg" where one can read first the speeches of accusation and then
of the defense and vice versa. This is why that broadcast by American
RFE/RL is a cry of unprofessionalizm, which caused a painful offense to
the listeners.

Not only to Armenian listeners, but in the first place – to them:
"That article must be translated into Armenian and reprinted in the
local press. After that conduct a survey – how many Armenians will
still go to the RFE/RL website, how many will switch on the set during
Radio Liberty broadcasting hours, how many young journalists would like
to deal with it ".

A fish rots from the head

Where did it come from – such a blatant editorial unprofessionalizm?
It came from indifference. And that, in its turn, stems from the general
atmosphere at RFE/RL – the atmosphere of hypocrisy and cynicism.
Hence, the unbalanced broadcast items of monstrous proportions and
equally monstrous effect. For the editors could not care less.

Practically all the staff of RFE/RL language desks and services know
that they are just the rightless mercenaries hired to talk about human
rights – on the air for the pay. All of them know that RFE/RL
president has over them such a power that not a single authoritarian
ruler in the Radios’ broadcasting area could ever boast – in his own
person, he is a policemen, a prosecutor in his own court without
defense, a judge whose verdict is final without appeal, and the executor
of his own judgements. Everyone knows that those prerogatives of RFE/RL
boss are not included in employment contracts but imposed on RFE/RL
foreign employees by its internal policies; however, that feudal
employment status is called a "free choice of law".

Everyone at RFE/RL knows that the court case of Armenian Anna
Karapetian v. RFE/RL is pending in the Czech Supreme court; and the
lawsuit of Croatian citizen Snjezana Pelivan is submitted to the
European Court of Human Rights – everyone knows that, but is afraid to
discuss it out of fear to be fired without any explanation, just the way
Anna Karapetian and Snjezana Pelivan were fired. Everyone knows that
international media cover these court cases regularly – but not the
RFE/RL own webpages. Everyone knows that Czech parliament already twice,
in connection with Karapetian’s and Pelivan’s lawsuits, discussed
the issue of national discrimination of RFE/RL foreign employees.

Everyone knows that RFE/RL personnel policies are developed and
approved by the Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington, and that
Hillary Clinton is the member of that Board, as well as of RFE/RL Board
of Directors, so that for them there is no official place and no
official to complain to. Everyone knows that, as a Senator, Hillary
Clinton strongly supported the approval by the Congress of a resolution
that would brand the extermination of Armenians in Ottoman Empire as
Genocide. And everyone knows that, as the Secretary of State, she,
equally strongly, opposes such a resolution: the Communists claim
dialectics of history, the anti-Communists – dialectics of chair.
It’s a big principal difference as everybody knows=85

Everybody knows, as an indignant listener wrote to RFE/RL, that "Radio
Liberty has long ceased to be the Radio Liberty". Or, as in the last
issue of The Journal of International Security Affairs, Washington,
wrote Victor J. Yasman, a political analyst who worked over twenty years
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Munich and Prague, "Today, RFE/RL
is just a shadow of its former self", and explained why: Empty words
diverge with deeds, and the deeds are drifting from bad to worse.

Meanwhile, if one is to judge by tone and content of the listeners’
reaction to RFE/RL "looking from Turkey" broadcast on Armenian genocide,
hypocritical and inept bureaucracy in Prague and Washington keeps
laboring on further destruction of RFE/RL reputation and integrity. In
the words of Mario Corty, former RFE/RL Russian Service director, "Those
among the old KGB and the new FSB officials, who see the U.S. as an
enemy rather than a valuable and generous partner of Russia, could only
be enormously happy with such leaders in charge of U.S. international
broadcasting as the current U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors
executive team. They have no reason to worry or need to do anything
themselves to undermine U.S.-funded broadcasts; it is being done for
them by these American government officials who are now trying hard to
hide their mistakes from the White House, the U.S. Congress and the
American public."

For how long they’ll be successful?

PS. On April 26, the text version of RFE/RL broadcast "Why so many
historians in Turkey study the issue of Armenian genocide" and the
listeners’ feedback letters were removed from Internet site of the
Russian Service.

May 2, 2010

Will Adams is editor-in-chief of wiwibloggs.com
Posted: April 30, 2010

Armenia’s Eurovision 2010 Song: ‘Apricot Stone’ By Eva Rivas

Huffpost –

Slighty sweet and fleshy, the apricot works well in summer fruit salads and
as a purée on pancakes. For Armenians, however, it also stirs national
pride. Known by scientists as prunus armeniaca, the fruit is thought to have
originated in Armenia and, over time, it became a symbol of the nation.

In "Apricot Stone," Eva Rivas builds on that, using the fruit as a tasty
vehicle to discuss the Armenian diaspora. She portrays an Armenian émigré
who preserves her identity by clutching an apricot pit: "May the winter stay
away/ From my harvest night and day/ May God bless and keep my cherished
fruit/ Grow my tree up to the sky/ Once I waved my home goodbye/ I just
wanna go back to my roots."

And while the apricot isn’t an obvious candidate for controversy, it’s
landed Rivas smack in the middle of Armenia’s ongoing political brouhaha
with Turkey. In February, a Turkish composer claimed that Rivas’ song hints
at the Armenian Genocide, an event Turkey does not officially recognize:
"Many, many years ago/ When I was a little child/ Mama told me you should
know/ Our world is cruel and wild/ But to make your way through cold and
heat/Love is all that you need." Critics also say the repetition of
"motherland" flames conflict over ancient Armenian territory now controlled
by Turkey.

Rivas, an Armenian born in Russia, denies those allegations and maintains
that the song revolves around cultural dislocation. She’s right to defend
herself. Last year, the European Broadcasting Union, the body behind
Eurovision, disqualified the entry from Georgia because they felt it took a
political jab at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The entry? "We Don’t
Want To Put In."

Armenia’s official preview video spares the viewer theatrics and instead
focuses on Rivas in the recording studio. She appears to sing from the
depths of her soul, and oozes emotion that helps you look past the
occasionally nonsensical lyrics: "Now I see the northern stars/ Shining
brightly in the storm/ And I’ve got an avatar/ Of my love to keep me warm."
Close-ups convey Rivas’ passion and suggest she could make a healthy living
as an Angelina Jolie impersonator.

Deliberately or not, the video also captures a former Soviet Republic
integrating into Europe. Modernity, we see, has arrived in Armenia with its
expensive computer equipment and synthesizers. Rivas, a young Armenian
singing with a stellar English accent, embodies a sophisticated and educated
nation ready to do business with the West. The jury is still out regarding
her exposed midriff.

Prediction

Armenia has never placed lower than tenth in the Eurovision final and Rivas
will keep that record going. Identity often scores contestants points with
Eurovision voters. Rivas, who has mixed Armenian, Greek and Russian
ancestry, went on a promotional tour through Greece and Cyprus to build on
that. Armenia also has the built-in advantage of being a former Soviet
Republic: there’s a tendency for them to award one another points, perhaps
stemming from shared historical connections and common tastes in music.

Armenia will advance easily from the second semi-final (assuming Rivas
avoids backstage conflict with Turkey, who also compete in that heat). In
the final, Rivas will likely finish in the Top 5, but won’t challenge for
the top spot. The professional jury that comprises half of the vote won’t
look past her occasionally questionable lyrics or the fact this is a song
ostensibly about a piece of fruit. That gives Eurovision favorites
Azerbaijan, Germany and Israel a slight edge.

MY SON WAS CRUELLY KILLED

Lragir.am
20/04/10

The relatives of the 24-year old Vahan Khalafyan, who, according
to the police chief Alik Sargsyan, allegedly committed "suicide"
in Charentsavan police department, are convinced that he was killed.

According to the relatives, Vahan was tortured and then killed in
the department.

Vahan’s mother Anahit says that her son had a cross-shaped stab wound
on his chest, his whole face and body were covered with scratches
and bruises, two stab wounds were found on his stomach.

Vahan Khalafyan’s mother outraged that during a press conference Alik
Sargsyan said, that the police arrested her son and he laid hands
on himself. But how could Vahan draw a cross on his chest with a
knife, and then make another hit in the stomach? "If the police chief
behaves this way, there is nothing to say nothing about the rest’,
said the mother.

The Police head motivates the version of suicide by Vahan’s
"pathological tendency", because of which Vahan was found unfit to
military service.

The mother said that she liberated her son from his service in the
army. She says that it is the police to suffer pathology.

Vahan Khalafyan was taken to the police on suspicion of theft without
a warrant and related documents. Anahit says she learnt about it only
when she came back home from work, but Vahan was taken to the police
in the morning. He was kept in the office from 10.30 to 4.30, was
beaten so that his whole body was blue. My son was killed in agony,
his mother said.

The relatives of Vahan tell that they visited him twice and brought
to eat for him. They say they visited him near 16 o’clock and when
they came back after one hour, the deputy head of Charentsavan police
said Vahan killed himself.

The police brought up a criminal case under article "incitement to
suicide". The case is assigned to the Special Investigation Service. A
forensic examination has been held. Several theories are put forward,
including the murder of Vahan in the Charentsavan police department.

Vahan’s relatives are determined to reveal the truth and to call for
responsibility those guilty. Note none of the police officers attended
Vahan’s funeral.

MARIE JOVANOVICH : LE 24 AVRIL EST LE JOUR OU TOUS LES AMERICAINS SOUTIENNENT LE PEUPLE ARMENIEN
Stephane

armenews
30 avril 2010
ARMENIE

Le 24 avril est le jour où tous les Americains soutiennent le peuple
armenien a declare l’Ambassadeur americain en Armenie Marie Jovanovich
aux journalistes au Complexe Tsitsenakaberd a Erevan.

" Nous nous rappelons ce qui est arrive en 1915 et exprimons notre
solidarite avec le peuple armenien dans le monde entier " a-t-elle
ajoute.

" Le president des Etats-Unis Barack Obama doit prendre la decision
tout seul s’il faut employer le mot de genocide ou pas " a dit
l’Ambassadeur americain en Armenie Marie Jovanovich.

Cet annee Obama a encore employe le mot " Mets Yeghern " pour
caracteriser les evenements de 1915.

LA VISITE JUGEE HISTORIQUE DU CATHOLICOS GAREGUINE II A BAKOU
Stephane

armenews
30 avril 2010

Lors de sa visite a Bakou aux fins de prendre part a un sommet
~cumenique rassemblant des representants de toutes les confessions,
le Catholicos armenien s’est entretenu avec le chef spirituel
des musulmans chiites d’Azerbaïdjan, Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahchukur
Pashazade, ainsi qu’avec le patriarche russe Kirill. Les trois
dignitaires religieux ont lance un appel en faveur de la paix au
Karabagh dans une declaration conjointe rendue publique a l’issue
de leur reunion. La declaration encourage les Presidents armenien et
azerbaïdjanais, ainsi que les mediateurs internationaux, a continuer
de chercher un compromis en vue d’un règlement durable du conflit. "
Il est extremement important de ne pas permettre un retour a des
moyens militaires pour resoudre les questions litigieuses ", lit-on
dans leur declaration. " Par nos efforts de paix, nous entretenons
l’espoir de voir s’effacer les divisions, les obstacles et les haines
actuels ; la guerre, si elle reprend, n’aura pas de fin ", poursuit
le texte des trois chefs religieux, qui se felicitent par ailleurs de
la liberation des prisonniers de guerre et condamne tous les " actes
de violence et de vandalisme " commis dans la zone de conflit. Le
catholicos armenienne a propose d’organiser un sommet similaire a
Erevan l’annee prochaine auquel il a d’ores et deja invite le chef
spirituel azerbaïdjanais.

Ambassade de France en Armenie

US CONFLICT RESOLUTION POLICY BACKFIRES IN YEREVAN
Vladimir Socor

Georgian Daily
m_content&task=view&id=18405&Itemid=13 2
April 29 2010
Georgia

The US State Department seems disappointed, but not entirely surprised,
by Yerevan’s April 22 suspension of Armenian-Turkish "normalization."

Assistant Secretary of State, Philip Gordon, in charge of this policy,
finds solace in Armenian President, Serzh Sargsyan’s decision to
suspend, rather than terminate the effort; and hopes that Yerevan
would continue to cooperate with the US-driven process goal. Gordon
as well as State Department Spokesman, Philip Crowley, argued that
such normalization meets the interests of Armenia, Turkey, and other
[unnamed] countries in the region (press releases cited by News.Az
and Arminfo, April 23).

These statements, however, seem to ignore Azerbaijan’s view and the
change in Turkey’s view. Inasmuch as the normalization focuses on
opening the Turkish-Armenian border unconditionally, or no longer
linked to a withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan’s interior
-Baku deemed it to be against its interests all along. Ankara had
rallied to Baku’s view last December already.

Since April 2009, US President, Barack Obama’s administration has
pressed for opening Turkey’s border with Armenia unconditionally
Thus, the October 2009 Zurich protocols, strongly backed by the US,
required Turkey to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia and
open the mutual border "without preconditions."

Washington’s policy seems driven primarily by domestic politics. The
administration hopes to remove the annual drama of Armenian genocide
recognition from the center-stage of US politics. It seeks its way out
of the dilemma of losing Turkey versus any loss of the US Armenian
vote. "Normalization" of Turkish-Armenian relations, centered on
the re-opening of that border, was offered as a substitute for the
unfulfilled electoral-campaign promises to recognize an Armenian
genocide in Ottoman Turkey.

Washington’s normalization concept, however, has also turned out to
be unfulfilled. Tilting sharply in Armenia’s favor at Azerbaijan’s
expense, it backfired first in Azerbaijan and shortly afterward in
Turkey. Instead of de-aligning Ankara from Baku, as seemed briefly
possible, it led Turkey and Azerbaijan to close ranks against an
unconditional "normalization" of Turkish-Armenian relations, prior
to a first-stage withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan.

The US initiative seemed unrelated to any regional strategy in the
South Caucasus. It actually coincided with an overall reduction
of US engagement in that region, downgrading the earlier goals of
conflict-resolution and promotion of energy projects. Moreover,
it risked splitting its strategic partner Azerbaijan from Turkey,
compromising the basis for a subsequent return to an active US policy
in the region.

Previous US administrations had also proposed to open
the Turkish-Armenian border, but never as a goal in itself,
unconditionally, or by some deadline in the political calendar, as
has most recently been the case. Moreover, those earlier discussions
considered opening both the Turkish and Azeri borders with Armenia,
as part of an overall settlement, without dividing Ankara and Baku
from each other on that account. Those border-opening proposals were
being discussed as one element in comprehensive negotiations toward
stage-by-stage resolution of the Armenian-Azeri conflict, and in
conditional linkage with Armenian troop withdrawal from inner-Azeri
districts, again in contrast to Washington’s recent proposals.

Yet, there is an element of continuity between those earlier
border-opening proposals and the latest one. That common element is
the optimistic belief that open borders and freedom to trade are
a prerequisite to resolution of conflict and durable peace. This
carryover from Manchesterianism often colored US political debates
about the possibility of opening the Azeri and Turkish borders with
Armenia. Yet, the diplomatic process integrated this issue within the
broader negotiations. It did not single it out from that context or
allow it to become a currency of exchange in US domestic politics.

The logic of the administration’s initiative from 2009 to date has
implied that Washington would "deliver" the re-opening of Turkey’s
border with Armenia; while Turkey would in turn "deliver" Azerbaijan
by opening the Turkish-Armenian border, without insisting on the
withdrawal of Armenian troops from inner-Azeri territories. That
conditionality is a long-established one in these negotiations.

However, Washington currently insists that the two processes be
separated and that Turkey opens that border unconditionally as per
the October 2009 Zurich protocols.

Breaking that linkage would irreparably compromise the chances of a
peaceful, stage-by-stage settlement of the Armenian-Azeri conflict. It
would indefinitely prolong the Armenian military presence inside
Azerbaijan, placing Russia in a commanding position to arbitrate the
conflict, with unprecedented leverage on an Azerbaijan alienated from
its strategic allies.

Washington had persuaded Ankara to break that conditionality in
the October 2009 protocols, which came close to splitting Turkey
from Azerbaijan. However, Turkey reinstated that conditionality
unambiguously from December 2009 onward. Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, declared this repeatedly and publicly, contradicting Obama
and the US State Department on this account at the December 2009 and
April 2010 Washington summits and afterward. Following the latter
event, Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, flew to Baku with
reassurances that Turkey would only open the border with Armenia if
Armenian troops withdrew from inner-Azeri districts. The assurances
were the more significant after the US White House had demonstratively
excluded Azerbaijan from the Washington summit (Anatolia News Agency,
April 14, 18-20).

The US administration’s policy has now backfired on all sides, Yerevan
being the last to abandon it after the policy had failed to "deliver"
Ankara and Baku. The Obama administration can now be expected to
revert to a balanced approach by taking Azeri and Turkish views more
carefully into account.

Source: