Author: Ekmekjian Janet

Prime News Agency, Georgia
March 25 2006
EU Will Take Part In Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Resolution
Tbilisi, March 25 (Prime-News) – The European Union (EU) will take a
direct part in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Trend news agency informs that Peter Semnebi, the EU special
representative in the South Caucasus, stated about that.
`Resolution of the conflicts in the South Caucasus is one of the EU’s
priorities.
It signals to more active attraction of the organization to the
resolution of the problem situation,’ Semnebi stated.
EU’s mandate in the issue was expanded and it includes resolution of
conflict situations.
`Unless the conflict is solved, Armenia might turn out in isolation,’
Swiss diplomat stressed.
Moreover, Semnebi did not conceal his concerns in connection with the
calls to the armed resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
`Attempts for the armed resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
might lead to serious results. It might sharp drop in inflow of
investments in the country,’ he underlined.

Student Operated Press, FL
March 24 2006
Republic of Armenia to Sign $235 Million Millennium Challenge Compact
by Judyth Piazza CEO (Editor)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Chair of the Board of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), will make remarks at the
signing of the Millennium Challenge Compact between the United States
and the Republic of Armenia, on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.,
in the Benjamin Franklin Room, at the Department of State.
MCC Chief Executive Officer Ambassador John Danilovich and Armenian
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian will also make remarks. The $235.65
million Compact will be signed by Ambassador Danilovich and Armenia’s
Minister of Finance and Economy, Vardan Khachatryan.
Armenia’s Millennium Challenge Compact aims to reduce rural poverty
through a sustainable increase in the economic performance of the
agricultural sector. The Compact consists of two investments: a Rural
Road Rehabilitation Project and an Irrigated Agriculture Project. The
program will directly impact 75 percent of the rural population and
is expected to significantly increase the annual incomes of the rural
poor.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. government corporation
designed to work with some of the poorest countries in the world, is
based on the principle that aid is most effective when it reinforces
good governance, economic freedom, and investments in people that
promote economic growth and elimination of extreme poverty.
This event will be open to the press.
Pre-set time for cameras: 3:15 p.m. from the 23rd Street entrance.
Final access time for all press: 3:30 p.m. from the 23rd Street
entrance.
Media representatives may attend this briefing upon presentation of
one of the following: (1) a U.S. Government-issued identification
card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of
Defense, or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo
identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on
letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by
an official photo identification (driver’s license or passport).
Source: US State Dept.

A1+
THE REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT THE ESSENCE OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT
07:25 pm 24 March, 2006
`The report of the international crisis group which was made public on
March20 of the current year is a serious analytical work and contains
credentials to the CE to be actively involved in the procedures in
Southern Caucasus’, the head of the political administration of the
Foreign Ministry of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic Irina Beglaryan
announced commenting on the report of the International Crisis Group
titled `Settlement of Conflicts in Southern Caucasus: The Role of the
EU’.
`We agree with the international community not to allow wars in the
European neighborhood. In this context we greet any consistent steps
which will be directed towards the establishment of peace and
stability in Southern Caucasus, and in particular the peaceful
settlement of the Karabakh conflict which aroused as a result of the
armed aggression of the Republic of Azerbaijan against the Republic of
Karabakh.
Nevertheless, we think that the mechanisms of reaching the aims
represented in the report of the ICG are not realistic as they do not
reflect the real essence of the Karabakh conflict and is based on
substitution of key concepts. Enhancing of democracy and respect of
human rights are the preconditions for the peaceful settlement of the
conflict, and we hope that in the policy adopted in Southern Caucasus
EU will be guided by the principles universal for Europe.
The positive side of the report is that the necessity of involving the
non-recognized countries of Southern Caucasus into the process of
integration into the EU is mentioned. The document also offers to make
the EU special envoy to Southern Caucasus participant of the
negotiations within the framework of the OSCE Minks group.
And still, we express our bewilderment at the attempts of the authors
of the report of accusation of the privatization of the Minsk group
peaceful procedure. The activity of the Minsk group is not the whim
of separate diplomats and countries: it is work under the OSCE
mandate.
During 14 years the Minsk group has managed to process experience of
peace-keeping activity. And I would like to underline that neither the
present format nor the possible participation of the European
mediators can compensate the absence of the immediate participant of
the conflict – Nagorno Karabakh in the negotiations’, the announcement
says.

RIA Novosti, Russia
March 24 2006
CIS and Baltic press on Russia
ARMENIA
The media see U.S. policies in the South Caucasus as a drive to
squeeze out Russia but warn this could backfire on Washington.
“The United States hopes to remove Moscow from the South Caucasus as
it prepares for a military standoff with Iran… [However,] the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not just a conflict inside the Caucasus:
its scope is well beyond the region because it maintains a balance of
forces inside the Turkey – Russia – Iran triangle. If Washington
tries to topple this balance through its demands to withdraw the
Russian military base from Armenia, this means at least two of three
regional powers – Russia and Iran – could be sent off… Azerbaijan,
on its part, risks being cornered between Russia and Iran if a basic
agreement on Karabakh is in place… U.S.’s drive toward a quick
solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through exerting pressure
on Armenia and Azerbaijan might basically strengthen Russia’s clout
in Yerevan and Baku, rather than weaken it.” (Hayots Ashkhar, March
18.)

A1+
ARAM KARAPETYAN BRINGS OLD TIMES
05:31 pm 22 March, 2006
Head of the `New Times’ party Aram Karapetyan announced in the
National Press Club that the coming authorities of Armenia will have
better relationship with Russia. The reason of the announcement was
the theme discussed in the Club – the Armenian-Russian relations. He
claimed, `All the countries, even India will try to get into close
cooperation with Russia because of energy resources’.
Aram Karapetyan was angry with the announcements of Shavarsh Kocharyan
and Hovhannes Hovhannisyan. For example, Kocharyan persuaded the
politicians in the Club that Russia is not our friend but our enemy.
According to him, even during the years of the Karabakh war Russia
allotted more weapon and equipment to Azerbaijan than to
Armenia. «In fact, during the Karabakh was Russian fought together
with the Azeris against Armenia», Kocharyan claimed.
He concluded that our relations with Russia were built not on reality
but on myths which are collapsing little by little. Shavarsh Kocharyan
also informed that the Russian military bases located in Armenia and
Georgia are much less important than the radio location station
«Gabali» in Azerbaijan.
Hovhannes Hovhannisyan too continues this theme, «All the hopes
connected with Russia are lost, as the country continues the
traditions of the Soviet Union and supports all the regimes in post
Soviet countries and outside them».
Asked a question by the journalists «Do you mean your own self by
saying – the coming authorities of Armenia? » Aram Karapetyan
answered, «Yes, of course», and even claimed, «Putin does not
trust the incumbent authorities». Hovhannes Hovhannisyan concluded,
That is to say, old times are coming».
In contrast to Kocharyan and Hovhannisyan, the deputy head of the
Armenian Pan-National Movement Aram Manoukyan spoke for the
preservation of good relations with Russia. He advised everyone not to
forget about the political and diplomatic support which is absent in
the present phase of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. «The
countries which once supported Armenia now call us an aggressor»,
representative of the past authorities Aram Manoukyan evaluated the
reputation of the present authorities for Russia and many other
countries.

ZENIT – Die Welt von Rom aus gesehen
ml?sid=86323
ZG06032108
Publikationsdatum: 2006-03-21
Benedikt XVI. fördert die Einheitsbestrebungen der getrennten armenischen
Kirchen
Empfang Benedikts XVI. für eine Delegation unter der Führung des
armenisch-katholischen Patriarchen Nerses Bedros XIX. Tarmouni
ROM, 21. März 2006 (ZENIT.org).- Benedikt XVI. hat die getrennten Kirchen
Armeniens dazu ermutigt, auf dem Weg “der Brüderlichkeit und der
Zusammenarbeit” mit Blick auf das Ziel der “vollen Einheit” weiterzugehen.
Mit diesen Worten wandte sich der Papst am gestrigen Montag an die
Synodenväter und eine Gruppe von Pilgern, die unter der Leitung von
Patriarch Nerses Bedros XIX. Tarmouni von Kilikien für die katholischen
Armenier in der Sala Clementina im Apostolischen Palast zusammengekommen
waren. Die Begegnung mit dem Heiligen beschloss die Phase der
Vorbereitungssitzungen, die vor der Einberufung des Ständigen Rates der
katholischen Kirche in Armenien und der darauf folgenden Armenischen
Patriarchalsynode im Armenischen Kolleg in Rom stattgefunden hatten.
Die Geschichte der armenischen Kirche geht in ihren Wurzeln auf den Anfang
des 2. Jahrhunderts zurück. Nach der Tradition waren es die Apostel Judas
Thaddäus und Bartholomäus, die das Evangelium zum ersten Mal in Armenien
verkündigt hatten. Aber erst in Folge der apostolischen Bemühungen des
heiligen Gregors des Erleuchters, der im Jahr 301 König Tiridates III. und
dessen Hof taufte, wurde das Christentum zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte
Armeniens Staatsreligion. Der später zum Bischof von Cäsarea und Kappadokien
geweihte heilige Gregor widmete seine ganze Kraft dem Kampf gegen das
Heidentum, indem er seiner Kirche eine hierarchische Organisation gab, an
deren Spitze der “Katholikos” [kirchlicher Titel, der seit dem 4.
Jahrhundert dem Bischof von Seleukia-Ktesiphon verliehen wurde und mit der
Stellung eines Generalvikars, der zu allen Amtsgeschäften ermächtigt ist,
vergleichbar ist, Anm. D. Red.] steht.
In der Folge des 4. Ökumenischen Konzils von Kalkedon im Jahr 465 trennte
sich die Kirche Armeniens von der der byzantinischen und römischen Kirche,
da sich Papst Leo I. geweigert hatte, den 28. Kanon zu akzeptieren, der die
Gleichstellung des Apostolischen Stuhls von Rom mit dem Patriarchen von
Konstantinopel sanktionierte und diesem Patriarchat den Primat zuwies. In
späteren Jahren gab es dann jedoch vor allem in Kleinarmenien unter
Bischöfen, Priestern und Laien eine sehr wichtige Strömung, die der Lehre
von Kalkedon treu geblieben waren. Sogar nach dem Schisma von 608/609 nahmen
einige Katholikoi und Bischöfe die Lehre von Kalkedon an und schrieben den
Päpsten Briefe, in denen sie ihre volle Gemeinschaft im Glauben zum Ausdruck
brachten.
Die verschiedenen Verfolgungen, denen die Anhänger des kalkedonischen
Glaubens im Verlauf der Jahrhunderte ausgesetzt waren, führten diese dann
zum Versuch, eine unabhängige Hierarchie für ihre Gemeinden einzurichten. So
kam es am Ende zur Wahl des kalkedonischen Katholikos Abraham Arzivian,
Bischof von Aleppo, der im Jahr 1742 offiziell von Papst Benedikt XIV.
bestätigt wurde. Bischof Arzivian wurde damit Patriarch von Kilikien und der
Armenier mit Sitz in Beirut (Libanon). Ihm oblag die Jurisdiktion über den
Süden des Ottomanischen Reiches. Aufgrund politischer Probleme im Reich
wurde der Sitz dann nach Konstantinopel verlegt.
Ab diesem Moment trennte sich die Armenische Katholische Kirche von der
Armenischen Apostolischen Kirche, die ihren Sitz in Etchmiadzin (in der Nähe
von Jerjevan, der Hauptstadt Armeniens) hat und im Jahr 1441 von einigen
antikalkedonischen Bischöfen und Mönchen gegründet worden war. Die Leitung
der Armenischen Apostolischen Kirche liegt heute in Händen Seiner Heiligkeit
Karekin II., Oberster Patriarch und Katholikos aller Armenier.
Während der Audienz zeigte Benedikt XVI. sofort seine “große Anerkennung”
für die “starke, zuweilen bis zum Martyrium gehende Anhänglichkeit, die eure
Gemeinschaft dem Sitz des Petrus in einer gegenseitigen und fruchtbaren
Beziehung des Glaubens und der Zuneigung immer erwiesen hat”. Der Heilige
Vater rückte dann jene Leiden in den Vordergrund, die das armenische Volk
“im Namen des christlichen Glaubens in den Jahren der schrecklichen
Verfolgung” erfahren musste. Diese im Jahr 1915 begonnene Verfolgung sei
“mit einem Namen, der eine traurige Bedeutung hat”, in der Geschichte
eingeschrieben: “metz yeghèrn”, “das große Übel”.
Der Genozid am armenischen Volk wurde von den damals an die Macht gekommenen
“Jungen Türken” verübt. Von der Gesamtbevölkerung, die sich im Ottomanischen
Reich, das im Niedergang begriffen war, auf ungefähr 2.600.000 Menschen
belief, wurden fast 1.500.000 grausam getötet.
Für die Armenische Katholische Kirche starben acht Bischöfe, 111 Priester,
53 Ordenleute und ungefähr 80.000 Gläubige. Der größte Teil der
Bischofssitze, Kirchen, Konvente und Schulen wurde geplündert und entweiht.
Es gab auch zahlreiche Opfer unter den armenisch-apostolischen und
protestantischen Christen. Am 7. Oktober 2001 sprach Papst Johannes Paul II.
Erzbischof Ignazio Maloyan von Mardin aufgrund seines leuchtenden Beispiels
an Hingabe und seines Zeugnisses für den Glauben an Christus selig.
Der Völkermord war auch der Anfang der Diaspora der armenischen Christen in
die ganze Welt. Heute zählen sie mehr als 7.000.000 Gläubige. Sie sind neben
Armenien auch in Russland, in Georgien, im Mittleren Osten, in Südamerika,
in Europa und in anderen Diasporaländern vertreten. Nach dem Fall des
Kommunismus richtete der Heilige Stuhl im Jahr 1991 das Ordinariat für die
armenischen Katholiken Osteuropas ein, der Länder der ehemaligen
Sowjetunion. Nach und nach wurden in Armenien, Georgien und Russland
Pfarreien, Konvente und Kulturzentren gegründet. Heute lebt in diesen
Territorien die Mehrheit der armenischen Katholiken: von den insgesamt
600.000 sind es ungefähr 400.000.
“Die göttliche Vorsehung hatte das armenisch-katholische Patriarchat in den
Mittleren Osten, nach Kilikien und später in den Libanon verlegt. Zu ihm
blicken alle armenisch-katholischen Gläubigen als einem festen geistlichen
Bezugspunkt für ihre jahrhundertealte kulturelle und liturgische Tradition
auf”, erklärte der Bischof von Rom. Die untereinander getrennten Kirchen,
die im heiligen Gregor dem Erleuchter “ihren gemeinsamen Gründervater
anerkennen”, hätten in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten “einen herzlichen und
fruchtbaren Dialog aufgenommen, um die gemeinsamen Wurzeln wieder zu
entdecken”. Als “tröstliches Zeichen” dieser Sehnsucht nach voller Einheit
erinnerte Benedikt XVI. seine Gäste an die im Jahr 2001 stattgefundene Feier
zum 1700. Jahrestags der Taufe des armenischen Volks, als die Armenische
Katholische Kirche eine erneute Annäherung an die Apostolische Kirche von
Etchmiadzin und den Anfang neuer brüderlicher Beziehungen erlebt hatte.
Eigens zu diesem Anlass verfasste Papst Johannes Paul II. ein Apostolisches
Schreiben (2. Februar 2001), in dem er der katholischen Welt einen Einblick
in die Bekehrungsgeschichte und das Schicksal des armenischen Volks gewährt.
“Ich unterstütze diese wieder gefundene Brüderlichkeit und Zusammenarbeit
und bringe meine Hoffnung zum Ausdruck, dass daraus neue Initiativen für
einen gemeinsamen Weg zur vollen Einheit hervorgehen”, so Benedikt XVI.
“Wenn die geschichtlichen Ereignisse die Zersplitterung der armenischen
Kirche zum Vorschein gebracht haben, so wird die göttliche Vorsehung es dazu
führen, dass sie eines Tages wieder in brüderlichem inneren Einklang mit
einer Hierarchie und in voller Gemeinschaft mit dem Bischof von Rom vereint
sein wird”, fuhr der Papst fort. “Die Liebe des Herrn zur Kirche während
ihrer Pilgerschaft durch die Zeit wird den Christen – das ist unsere
vertrauensvolle Hoffnung – die notwendigen Mittel bieten, um den dringlichen
Wunsch Johannes Pauls II. zu verwirklichen: ‘ut unum sint’.”
Benedikt XVI. beschloss seine Ansprache mit folgendem Wunsch: “Wir alle
wollen Instrumente sein, die Christus zur Verfügung stehen. Er, der der Weg,
die Wahrheit und das Leben ist, möge uns die Gnade gewähren, mit aller Kraft
auszuharren, auf dass es sobald als möglich eine Herde unter einem Hirten
gibt.”
Diese Nachricht an einen Freund schicken
Beziehen Sie die Zenit-Dienste per E-mail !
zurückgehen
Hauptseite
© Innovative Media, Inc.

ISSUE OF CLEANING OF CULTURE VERY IMPORTANT FOR RA MINISTER OF CULTURE
Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
Mar 21 2006
YEREVAN, MARCH 21, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Gevorg Gevorgian,
the RA Minister of Culture and Youth Issues, has no information about
getting flats of the cream of the Cinematographers’ Union of Armenia
from the many-storied being built on the Cinema House. Even more, as
the Minister informed journalists during the March 21 meeting taken
place in the Ministry, he has had no contacts and meetings with anybody
during the recent two months. “I’m continuously engaged in problems
of the Ministry, have no contacts with my friends as well. As for
the Cinema House, I had a phone conversation with R. Gevorgiants,
the Chairman of the Cinematographers’ Union. The latter said that
this is done in the name of the cinema union, which will enlarge
the territory of the Cinema House by few times. Besides, the owner
of the building promised more than 200 thousand dollars by which
the Cinema House will be re-equiped with dolby stereo system. If it
is so, then it will be good. As for giving flats, I don’t think,”
G.Gevorgian emphasized. According to the Minister, at the meeting
with representatives of the creative unions of the country recently,
everyday issues weren’t discussed but a dispute concerning perspectives
of development of culture was promoted. “For me the issue of cleaning
of the culture is very important as a regress, introduction of
alien elements and continuous fall of the national are noticed in
all the spheres,” Gevorg Gevorgian mentioned. The Minister informed
that according to the preliminary agreement, programs of the Russian
“Kultura” TV will soon be broadcast 24 hours in Armenia. According to
G.Gevorgian, it’s also envisaged to give 8 hours of that TV channel
to similar Armenian programs. And the RA Minister of Culture didn’t
like composer Armen Martirosian’s “Without your Love” song performed
by singer Andre for the “Eurovision” concert program.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH: THE LONG SHADOW OF JOSEPH STALIN
Written by Rene Wadlow
Toward Freedom, VT
March 21 2006
The president of Azerbaijan, Ilhan Aliyev, son of the long-time
president Heydar Aliyev and Robert Kocharian, president of Armenia,
met outside Paris, in Rambouillet February 10-11, 2006 to discuss the
stalemated conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Rambouillet had also been
the scene for the last-chance negotiations on Kosovo just before the
NATO bombing of Serbia began in 1999.
During the two years of fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh, 1992-1994,
at least 20,000 people were killed and more than a million persons
displaced from Armenia, Azerbaijan and the 12,000 square miles
of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. Armenian forces now control the
Nagorno-Karabakh area – an Armenian-populated enclave within
Azerbaijan. Since 1994, there has been a relatively stable
ceasefire. Nagorno-Karabakh has declared its independence as a
separate state. No other state -including Armenia – has recognized
this independent status, but, in practice, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de
facto state with control over its population and its own military
forces. Half of the government’s revenue is raised locally; the other
half comes from the government of Armenia and especially the Armenian
diaspora, strong in the United States, Canada, Lebanon, and Russia.
In addition to Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian forces hold seven small
districts around Nagorno-Karabakh, some 5,500 square kilometres that
had been populated by Azeris and that are considered as “occupied
territory”. One of the ideas being floated during these negotiations
is an Armenian withdrawal from these occupied territories accompanied
by international security guarantees and an international peacekeeping
force, probably under the control of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which has been the major forum for
negotiation on the Nagorno-Karabkh conflict.
The USA, France, and Russia are the co-chairmen of a mediating effort
called the “Minsk Group” after an OSCE conference on Nagorno-Karabakh
which was to have been held in Minsk, but then indefinitely postponed
as there was no clear basis for a compromise solution. Part of the
negotiating guidelines of the Minsk Group meetings is that no official
report is made on the negotiations, so that analysis is always an
effort at putting pieces together from partial statements, leaks,
and ‘off-the-record’ interviews with the press. This blackout on
direct statements opens the door to highly partisan analysis in both
countries where the press has always been hard line. There are those
who believe that both presidents are ‘ahead of their people’ in their
willingness to compromise and to move beyond the current “no war,
no peace” situation which is a drain on economic and social resources.
However, in both countries, the media is under tight control of the
respective governments so that the militaristic tone of the press
is not against government policy. The blackout on press statements
is also due to the monopoly on both sides of a small, tight group of
people responsible for the negotiations. Informal, Track Two, meetings
are very difficult and the few held were met by general suspicion or
hostility. There is a need for a broader-based peacemaking public to
counter the current narrow militant rhetoric.
The Nagorno-Karabakh issue arises from the Post-Revolution-Post-Civil
War period of Soviet history when Joseph Stalin was Commissioner for
Nationalities. Stalin came from neighboring Georgia and knew the
Caucasus well. His policy was a classic ‘divide and rule’ carried
out with method so that national/ethnic groups would need to depend
on the central government in Moscow for protection. Thus in 1922,
the frontiers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were hammered out
in what was then the Transcaucasian Federative Republic.
Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian majority area, was given a certain
autonomy within Azerbaijan but was geographically cut off from
Armenia. Likewise, an Azeri majority are, Nakkickevan, was created
as an autonomous republic within Armenia but cut off geographically
from Azerbaijan. Thus both enclaves had to look to Moscow for
protection. This was especially true for the Armenians. Many Armenians
living in what had been historic Armenia but which became Turkey had
been killed during the First World War; Armenians living in “Soviet
Armenia” had relatives and friends among those killed by the Turks,
creating a permanent sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Russia
was considered a historic ally of Armenia.
These mixed administrative units worked well enough or, one should
say, there were few criticisms allowed until 1988 when the whole
Soviet model of nationalities and republics started to come apart.
In both Armenia and Azerbeijan, natioanlistic voices were raised, and
a strong “Karabakh Committee” began demanding that Nagorno-Karabakh be
attached to Armenia. In Azerbaijan, anti-Armenian sentiment was set
aflame. Many Armenians who were working in the oil-related economy
of Baku were under tension and started leaving. This was followed
somewhat later by real anti-Armenian pogroms. Some 160,000 Armenians
left Azerbaijan for Armenia and other went to live in Russia.
With the break up of the Soviet Union and the independence of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, tensions focused on Nagorno-Karabakh. By 1992, full
scale conflict broke out in and around Nagorno-Karabkh and went on
for two years causing large-scale damage. The Armenian forces of
Nagorno-Karabakh helped by volunteers from Armenia kept control of
the area, while Azerbaijan faced repeated political crises.
The condition of “no peace, no war” followed the ceasefire largely
negotiated by Russia in 1994. This status quo poses few problems to
the major regional states who are preoccupied by other geo-political
issues. Informal and illicit trade within the area has grown.
However, interest in a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
has grown as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline opened in May 2005.
The pipeline is sheduled to carry one million barrels of oil a day
from the Caspian to the Mediterranean by 2009. The pipeline passes
within 10 miles of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The crucial question for a settlement is the acceptance by all
parties and by the wider OSCE of an independent ‘mini-state’. An
independent Nagorno-Karabakh might become the ‘Liechtenstein of the
Caucases’. After 15 years of independence, Karabakh Armenians do not
want to be at the mercy of decisions made in distant centers of power
but to decide their own course of action. However, the recognition
of Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent states raises the issue of the
status of other de facto mini-states of the area such as Abkhazia
and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova and Kosovo in
Serbia. Close attention must continue to be paid to the potential
restructuring of the area. Can mini-states be more than a policy of
divide and rule? The long shadow of Joseph Stalin still hovers over
the land.
#####
Rene Wadlow is editor of the online journal of world politics
and an NGO representative to the
UN, Geneva. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of
the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva.
For a good analysis of Stalin’s nationality policies see Helene
Carrere d’Encausse “The Great Challenge: Nationalities and the
Bolshevik State 1917-1930” (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1992, 262pp.)
For the need to have a wider peace constituency for negotiations
see Laurence Broers (Ed). “The limits of leadership: Elites and
societies in the Nagorny Karabakh peace process.” (London: Conciliation
Resources, 2006, 104pp.)
Comments READING FEW BOOKS!
Written by Guest on 2006-03-21 07:37:21
—————————————– —————————————
Rene deserves thanks for attempting to raise awareness about the
Karabakh issue. Yet, a lack of knowledge about the details of the
conflict is apparent.
During the Soviet Union, Nakhichevan remained an autonomous region
within Azerbaijan, not Armenia! It is still an Azerbaijani exclave
located between Armenia, Turkey and Iran – thus separated from
Azerbaijan proper.
Moreover, Azerbaijan was an independent state between 1918-1920,
and its territories included not only Karabakh and Nakhichevan but
also Zengezur, which was later transfered to Armenia by the Soviet
Central Government.
Yes, Soviet did carved out the Armenian populated regions within
Azerbaijan and granted that region an autonomy. But th phrase “was
cut off Armenia” misleads the reader as if Karabakh was a part of
Armenia and was cut off by the Soviet – which is not the case.
Karabakh has always been an integral part of Azerbaijan and was a
part of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918-1920.
Stalin was nobody when the decision was made about Karabakh autonomous
status. A little closer examination will reveal that it is not really
Stalin’s fault.
Myths about Karabakh Written by Guest on 2006-03-21 12:28:40
—————————————– —————————————
Myth #2: Stalin gave Karabakh (Qarabagh) to Azerbaijan.
This is a gross falsification; the truth is quite the opposite. After
the Soviets took over Azerbaijan in 1920, right from the beginning,
Azerbaijan began losing territory to Armenia [see the map of the
Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), e.g., one prepared in 1920
by Russian MFA or the one presented in Versailles Peace Conference
(France) in 1919]. Azerbaijan’s territory was reduced from 114,000
sq. km. during ADR (1918-1920) — which was, along with Armenia, de
facto recognized by the League of Nations in those borders in 1920 —
to its present size of 86,600 sq. km., which is actually less now
because of the Armenian military occupation.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), inside Azerbaijan, was
created in July 1923, after years of intense debates and opposition
from the Azerbaijani people to its transfer. An oblast, the Russian
term for “province,” was purely a Soviet administrative division,
which meant that in all aspects it was subordinated to the union
republic, Azerbaijan SSR.
Unlike an “oblast”, such as Karabakh (NKAO), Naxcivan, for example, was
an “autonomous republic” (ASSR within Azerbaijan SSR), which had much
broader rights, its own parliament, constitution and other privileges.
Carving out enclaves in the various Soviet republics exacerbated ethnic
tensions and was deliberately practiced. It served the Soviet Union
well by distracting the republics from seeking their own independence
because they were always occupied with ethnic tensions brewing inside
their own borders.
Myth #3. Stalin gave Naxcivan (Nakhchivan) to Azerbaijan.
The truth is that Nakhchivan, just as Karabakh, is historically part
of Azerbaijan. After Soviets gained power (1920), the foundation
stone for the autonomy of Naxcivan was laid by the Moscow and Kars
international treaties of March 16, 1921 and October 13, 1921,
respectively. These treaties are still in force. They stipulated
that Naxcivan remain within Azerbaijan, a legal fact that prevented
the Soviets from giving Naxcivan to Armenia. This did not, however,
prevent from giving small bits of territory to Armenia in the 1920s
and 1930, as well as occupation of the Kerki village in the north of
Naxcivan by Armenia in 1990. The status of Naxcivan Autonomous Republic
(ASSR) within Azerbaijan SSR was established in 1924.
Naxcivan used to be “connected” to the rest of Azerbaijan by the
Zangezur district, which was given to Armenia in December 1920.
Effectively, assigning this strip (46 km) to Armenia separated
Azerbaijan in two sections cutting off Turkey from the other
Turkic-speaking peoples in Central Asia.
Zangezur was continuously emptied of its indigenous residents.
According to the official Russian censuses, in 1897 its population
was 51.7% Azerbaijani but by 1926, the population had declined to
6.4%. During the same period, the ratio of Armenians increased from
46.1% to 87%! Tens of thousands of Azerbaijanis had to flee for their
lives in much the same way as they have had to do in the 1990s.
By the way, as more documents see light and archives get open, the
researchers have discovered shocking USSR Council of Ministers decrees,
dated 23 December 1947 (No. 4083) and 10 March 1948 (No.
754), signed by Stalin himself, with advise from top officials L.
Beria and A. Mikoyan, ordering a forced “resettlement” of more than
100,000 Azerbaijani nationals from Armenian SSR to Azerbaijan SSR in
the period of 1948-1951 (half of them died in the process). Settling
in their homes were to be incoming Armenian expatriates from abroad….
view/773/

CYBER SECURITY IS PRIORITY, ARMENIAN POLICE SAYS
Mediamax news agency
21 Mar 06
Yerevan, 21 March: The fight against cyber crimes is one of the
most important tasks facing the Armenian law-enforcement bodies,
the deputy chief of the Police, Maj-Gen Ararat Makhtesyan, said today.
Addressing a round table hosted by the OSCE office in Yerevan and
entitled “Reinforcement of cyber security and of the fight against
cyber crimes in Armenia”, Ararat Makhtesyan said that cyber security
has become especially topical taking into consideration the priority
of information technologies for the republic, Mediamax reports.
He said that the Armenian Police has already developed a programme
to ensure cyber security, and relevant institutions have approved it.
Ararat Makhtesyan noted that a relevant unit has been set up at the
Police to efficiently fight cyber crimes, and amendments have been
made to the Criminal Code. Armenia has also joined the European
convention on computer crime.
A criminal case was filed in Armenia in 2005 under Article 256 of
the Criminal Code (development, usage and distribution of dangerous
computer software).
The head of the OSCE office in Yerevan, Vladimir Pryakhin, said that
“the problem of cyber security lies in human’s lag in understanding
technical progress”.

COMMUNITIES TO HAVE WHAT LEGALLY BELONG TO THEM
Panorama.am
14:20 20/03/06
“Yerevan Municipality is going to work out the projects of breaking
down the city communities into zones during the current year,” informed
Yerevan Chief Architect Smavel Danielyan at the news briefing today.
As he said the above projects are going to be worked out according
to the requirements of Yerevan new plan.
This action aims at fixing the city building standards and norms
in each of Yerevan communities. Besides, as the chief architect
mentioned, the city government has to prepare projects of greenery
planting envisaged by the plan.
The verification of the architect is especially remarkable for the
fact that as he says in the coming 15 years the Municipality will
try not to wander away from the main lines of the plan. The first
remarkable thing about the announcement is that the map of the city
is a specific city building Constitution one mustn’t wander away
from. The second remarkable fact is that judging by S. Danielyan’s
words the city Government is not going to change in the coming years.
Otherwise, why is he giving guarantees for the forthcoming years
only?