Author: Emil Lazarian

CO-CHAIRS ARRANGE A MEETING BETWEEN FOREIGN MINISTERS OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN
Panorama.am
21:30 03/10/06
Armenian and Azeri foreign ministers will meet on October 6 in Moscow,
OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs told a press conference late today. In
their words, the foreign ministers will have another meeting after
this one followed by a meeting on the level of presidents.
Russian co-chair said the negotiations will run around the known
document.
Yesterday the co-chairs met with Azeri president and foreign
minister. Today, they had a meeting with the Armenian president and
foreign minister and tomorrow they will meet with the president of
Nagorno Karabakh.
The major aim of co-chairs’ visit is to establish links between the
leadership of the two countries.
Yuri Merzliakov said they have reached that aim.
All chairmen affirmed that they are optimistic about the continuation
of talks. “Nagorno Karabakh conflict has no military solution,”
American co-chair Matthew Bryza said, also saying Minsk Group process
has got a new push. “We do not say that we expect sharp changes now
or that all difficulties are over. However, we observe the readiness
of both sides to deliberate issues and move forward,” he said. In his
opinion, both sides have low trust to each other, which is caused by
dissemination of inaccurate information.
The co-chairs think it expedient to continue talks around the same
document because three things have become clear after July when the
co-chair said they have no more creativity. First, the co-chairs have
understood that the sides cannot make much progress without their
mediation. Second, there are two co-chairs with records in Karabakh
conflict settlement. Third, Matthew Bryza is a person with lots of
creativity. Based on these factors, the co-chairs have decided to
continue based on the document, which have become known to public
recently.
The co-chairs say they did not violate the principle of secrecy
when they released information on the document on the table of talks
because only one principle became public.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TURKISH AMBASSADOR TO AZERBAIJAN: ARMENIA SHOULD BE ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH BOTH TURKISH STATES
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 3 2006
“There is necessity to dialogue with Armenia,” Turan Morali, Turkish
ambassador to Azerbaijan told journalists, APA reports.
He said Azerbaijan and Turkey should negotiate with Armenia and it
in turn should be on friendly terms with both Turkish states. The
ambassador also added that they should use all possible means to make
Armenia negotiate.
“We feel no hostility against Armenia. We will further continue our
policy,” the diplomat said.

MAKING THEIR VOTES COUNT
By Sergei Markedonov
Russia Profile, Russia
Oct 3 2006
Breakaway Republics Start a New Round of Referendums
Fifteen years after the “parade of sovereignties” that was the end
of the Soviet Union, a new march is beginning in the Eurasian space.
This time it is a “parade of referendums” being held by the
unrecognized republics that form a kind of parallel Commonwealth of
Independent States.
On September 17, the breakaway Moldovan region of Transdnestr
held a referendum that included two questions. The first was: “Do
you support the course toward independence of the Transdnestrian
Moldovan Republic and the subsequent free joining of Transdnestr to
the Russian Federation?”; the second was “Do reject the independence
of the Transdnestrian Moldovan Republic with the subsequent entry of
Transdnestr into the Republic of Moldova?”
On November 12, South Ossetia will hold a referendum on its
independence from Georgia. The South Ossetian vote will be held
simultaneously with presidential elections in the unrecognized
republic. This is no coincidence: President Eduard Kokoity is trying
to gain additional legitimacy by asking people to identify him
as the force behind independence. It appears that definitions of
“legitimacy” are being used to justify the political situation in
unrecognized republics.
Legitimacy, however, is not the same as recognition from the
international community. Quite the opposite – the wave of referendums
is unacknowledged by influential international organizations. Terry
Davis, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, expressed
doubt as to whether the results of the South Ossetian referendum will
be recognized at all. He added that the South Ossetian authorities
should start talks with Georgia aimed at finding a peaceful solution.
“The secessionist authorities of the South Ossetian region of Georgia
are wasting time and effort on the organization of a referendum on
independence in November,” he said
In an interview with Kommersant-Ukraina, EU Special Representative to
Moldova Adriaan Jacobovits de Szeged, said that international law made
Transdnestrian secession an impossibility. “Separating Transdnestr
can happen only if agreement is reached with Moldova,” he said.
But if legitimacy is understood as the local population accepting
the authorities as “their own,” then legitimacy exists, even if it
is unrecognized. In South Ossetia, like the other de facto states,
authorities that maintain no ties with the recognized “mother
state” are seen as “ours.” Thus, this fall will likely see another
manifestation of unrecognized legitimacy. In addition to the previously
mentioned referendums, Nagorno-Karabakh will hold a vote in December
on a project for formulating a Basic Law that will govern the region’s
relationship with Azerbaijan. The question of independence for the
region and its status is seen as closed for further discussion. The
region’s foreign minister, Georgy Petrosyan, said: “Independence for
Nagorno- Karabakh is of the highest value to the republic’s people
and was supported by a popular referendum on state independence of
December 10, 1991.”
Virtually all the unrecognized post-Soviet republics held referendums
in the early 1990s. On January 19, 1992, South Ossetia approved a
referendum to secede from Georgia and to join Russia. Transdnestr
has already held six referendums before Sept. 17, including votes to
approve a Transdnestrian Constitution and to confirm the republic’s
existence.
The current “parade of referendums” seems justified on three grounds.
First, as a rule, the plebiscites of the early 1990s took place
against a backdrop of armed conflict between the breakaway territories
and their “mother countries.” In this sense, they enjoy much less
legitimacy than equivalent votes during peacetime. Fifteen years
later, the de facto states have demonstrated their viability not
only to the countries of which they are part, but also to the whole
world. Transdnestr, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh all have territory
under their control and their own legal structures.
Even among these areas, however, South Ossetia is a special case. The
region is not ethnically homogeneous and the capital, Tskhinvali,
is cut off from North Ossetia – and therefore from Russia – by the
“Liakhvsky corridor,” a strip of Georgian villages along the river of
the same name. Nevertheless, polls and other sociological research
– including some conducted in 2003 by the John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University – among South Ossetians aged
20-27 show that support for Georgian jurisdiction is zero. Thus,
the new wave of referendums is a test of viability and evidence of
the sustainability of unrecognized statehood.
The second justification for the referendums is as a demonstration
of the foreign-policy priorities of the unrecognized territories,
although this rule will be observed differently in each case. In
Transdnestr and South Ossetia, the referendums will serve as a
strategic choice in Russia’s favor, while in Nagorno-Karabakh the
vote on the constitution is primarily about territorial and political
institutionalization. Many in the region hope that deciding on the
final arbiter of the state’s viability – the Constitution – will
significantly hasten international recognition of the region.
Third and finally, the current wave of plebiscites is a reaction to
the Balkan example of ethnic self-determination.
Although both the United States and the European Union have said that
the cases of Montenegro and Kosovo are unique and should not be used as
templates for blind political copying, the former Soviet unrecognized
states are adopting political decisions aimed at acquiring additional
legitimacy and, finally, at becoming de jure independent based on
the concept of ethnic self-determination.A struggle for international
recognition based on the Balkan precedents will take place, regardless
of the genuinely significant differences between Montenegro and Kosovo
and the problems of Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
As the largest and most influential state in the post-Soviet
space, Russia faces the problem of how to act in the face of this
“Balkanization.” Moscow has two basic options – either continue
to support the status quo, hoping to prolong this state of affairs
indefinitely, or, if Kosovo is recognized, to attempt to escalate the
situation by recognizing Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh
and Transdnestr as a “symmetrical measure.”
By choosing to defend the status quo, Russia would be saying,
in essence, that it will not carry out the political will of these
regions. The wishes of the de facto states are obvious, and even evoke
some political sympathies, but identifying their political interests
with those of Russia would be incorrect. Russia is a major player on a
global scale and needs to calculate the best use of its resources and
its opportunities for politicking regarding the unrecognized states.
Obviously, international recognition of Transdnestr, Abkhazia or South
Ossetia should not just mean recognition by Russia. This would not be
satisfactory for the breakaway republics and risks the possibility
of the “Balkanization” of Russia itself. Russia needs to look for
allies in the changing configuration of the post-Soviet space. But
for this it first needs coherent arguments as to why it should take
up the case of the unrecognized republics, as well as clear criteria
to present to the international community as a whole.
The first criterion should be the countries’ viability – both in terms
of the strength of their political structures and their territorial
stability. Nagorno-Karabakh and Transdnestr, for example, are states
that already exist, and for this reason their peaceful reintegration
into their former “mother countries” is an impossibility.
The second criterion could be the ability of the mother countries
to control the “breakaway territory” in question by means other
than wholesale deportation or ethnic cleansing. In other words,
reintegration should be considered impossible if it will lead to
subsequent military conflict. A third criterion could be evidence
of democratic procedures in the unrecognized regions. All of these
states have been through several electoral cycles, and leaders have
been changed by popular vote – an extremely difficult procedure for
the post-Soviet space and something that cannot be said about many
recognized post-Soviet states.
In addition to these criteria, which are focused on the public
political space, dialogue must be carried out behind the scenes. This
requires other arguments and other issues, including the stability of
the Caucasus region as a whole and the fate of the regions’ valuable
energy resources and energy transport systems. But this kind of
backstairs horse-trading should be supplemented by active public
measures, since influencing the opinion of Brussels, Washington,
and individual EU capitals in a particular direction also relies on
forming expert and public opinion in the countries in question. This
in turn requires speaking to the West in language it understands –
the language of human rights, ethnic minority rights, guarantees for
minority languages, and the inadmissibility of military solutions.
Last, but certainly not least, recognition of the unrecognized states
is not the same as their inclusion into Russia. These two ideas must
be clearly separated. Russia will not fight alongside separatists
in the Galsk region of Abkhazia or the villages of Tamarasheni and
Kekhvi in South Ossetia, or end up with Transdnestr as a second
exclave alongside Kaliningrad – especially given that in all these
cases the local elites are certainly not dreaming about the arrival
of Russian prosecutors or tame Kremlin governors.
Only by defining such clear criteria, calculating available resources,
and undertaking serious informational and diplomatic efforts can
Russia attempt to find a final solution to the problem of unrecognized
territories. The most important thing to remember in this process is
that is should be guided not by abstract humanism, or by the interests
of the self-proclaimed elites, but by Russian national self-interest.
Sergei Markedonov is head of the international relations department
of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis in Moscow. He
contributed this comment to Russia Profile.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

L’HOMMAGE DE CHIRAC AUX VICTIMES DU GENOCIDE
La Nouvelle Republique du Centre Ouest
02 octobre 2006 lundi
Edition Informations Generales
Le president a effectue, samedi et dimanche, une visite d’Etat
empreinte d’emotion en Armenie, où la question des massacres
d’Armeniens entre 1915-1917 dans l’Empire ottoman, reconnus par la
France comme un ” genocide “, a ete omnipresente.
” C’est avec une emotion profonde que je decouvre la terre d’Armenie
“,a lance Jacques Chirac samedi, saluant” l’histoire heroïque et
tourmentee de ce peuple d’Armenie issu de la plus haute antiquite “.
Il a rendu hommage a” tous les survivants de cette tragedie “, evoquant
les tueries de 1915-1917. Au cours de cette periode, les massacres
et deportations d’Armeniens dans l’Empire ottoman ont fait plus de
1,5 million de morts, selon les Armeniens, entre 250.000 et 500.000
selon les Turcs qui refutent la notion de genocide. Jacques Chirac a
debute la première journee de sa visite d’Etat par un hommage a ces
victimes au pied du Tsitsernakaberd, le ” Monument au genocide des
Armeniens “,en presence du couple presidentiel armenien.
Parmi ses invites de la diaspora armenienne, le numero un mondial du
caviar Armen Petrossian confiait etre” submerge par l’emotion “,le
journaliste Daniel Bilalian eclatait en sanglot et le footballeur
Youri Djorkaeff observait, fige, la minute de silence. La France est
devenue en 2001 le premier grand pays europeen a reconnaître comme”
genocide “ces evenements par une loi, alors qu’un grand nombre de
pays ne retiennent pas cette qualification.
La Turquie montree du doigt
En conference de presse, Jacques Chirac a enfonce le clou en jugeant
que la Turquie devait proceder a une reconnaissance similaire avant
de pouvoir adherer a l’Union europeenne.” Tout pays se grandit en
reconnaissant ses drames et ses erreurs “, a-t-il juge. En soiree,
il a assiste a un concert geant de Charles Aznavour, 82 ans, veritable
monstre sacre dans ce pays, qui a lance l’annee de l’Armenie en France,
” Armenie mon amie “..
GRAPHIQUE: Avant le concert d’Aznavour, les presidents armenien
(Kotcharian) et francais ont rencontre l’artiste d’origine armenienne.
–Boundary_(ID_jnY9iI3ui3pzgsUCAXT0iw )–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GENOCIDE ARMENIEN: LE CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE CRITIQUE LA POSITION DE J. CHIRAC
Agence France Presse
2 octobre 2006 lundi 11:18 AM GMT
Le president de l’Assemblee parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
(APCE), Rene van der Linden, a critique lundi le president francais
Jacques Chirac qui a juge samedi a Erevan que la Turquie devait
reconnaître le genocide armenien avant d’adherer a l’Union europeenne.
“On ne peut changer les règles du jeu au milieu du jeu” a-t-il declare
a la presse, en rappelant les conditions d’adhesion fixees a Ankara
par l’Union europeenne.
Interroge a propos de Jacques Chirac qui a enjoint la Turquie de
faire l’examen de son passe avant d’adherer a l’Union europeenne,
il a declare: “ce n’est pas la première fois qu’il change assez
subitement d’avis”.
Un peu auparavant, il avait evoque les règles du jeu et la confiance
qui doit exister en Ankara et Bruxelles en soulignant que “s’il y
a des questions graves, on les aborde mais on ne les ajoute pas aux
conditions” fixees.
“S’il y a perte de confiance, on cree la mefiance et c’est toute la
negociation qui en pâtit”, a-t-il ajoute.
Le president de l’APCE a egalement estime qu’il fallait “encourager
toutes les forces en Turquie qui veulent engager des reformes”.
Interroge samedi a Erevan sur le fait savoir si la Turquie devait,
pour entrer dans l’UE, reconnaître un caractère de genocide aux
massacres d’Armeniens perpetres entre 1915 et 1917 dans l’Empire
ottoman, Jacques Chirac avait repondu : “honnetement, je le crois”.
La France s’etait jusqu’alors refusee a etablir un lien direct entre la
question du genocide armenien et celle de l’entree de la Turquie dans
l’Union europeenne, les Europeens n’ayant pas fait de la reconnaissance
du genocide armenien de 1915 une condition de l’adhesion de ce pays
a l’UE.
–Boundary_(ID_OtNGsfUyioCgYdXWnDdyVw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN SIDE HAS SOME REMARKS TO MAKE REGARDING THE CONCLUSION ON THE A-320 CRASH RESULTS
Public Radio of Armenia
Sept 2 2006
Specialists of the General Board of Civil Aviation Agency and “Armavia”
Company are summing up the remarks and objections to be submitted
connected with the final conclusion on the results of investigation
of the A-320 crash reasons. According to the Head of the General
Board of Civil Aviation Agency Artyom Movsisyan, within the coming
10 days the Armenian side will submit a number of suggestions worth
including in the document.
According to his assess ion, the Armenian side agrees with most of
the conclusions in the document. There are, however, additional
considerations, particularly connected with the flying control
officers, which should be included in the document. “Even if these
activities do not envisage penalty, the inclusion of these in the
document will allow escape similar shortcomings in the future, since
these have negative impact on air transportation,” he noted.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EU READY TO ASSIST RUSSIA AND GEORGIA TO SOLVE CONFLICT
PanARMENIAN.Net
02.10.2006 16:43 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ EU Troika delegation leaves Yerevan for Tbilisi
October 2 and will try to deal with the situation between Russia
and Georgia on the spot, Finnish FM Erkki Tuomioja stated at a news
conference in Yerevan. In his words, the parties should try to avoid
a new round of tension. “EU is ready to help Russia and Georgia to
solve the conflict, but it is not enough. They should be ready to it
themselves,” the Finnish FM said.
A statement approving the Action Plan within the ENP is planned in
Georgia. The EU started talks to implement the program simultaneously
with the South Caucasus states in 2005.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERBAIJAN MAJOR GOAL TO ISOLATE ARMENIA
PanARMENIAN.Net
02.10.2006 17:13 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Peaceful resolution of the Georgian-Russian
crisis is a major task of the Armenian foreign policy at present,
Armenian Deputy FM Arman Kirakosyan stated at South Caucasus 2006:
Trends of Development, Threats and Risks international conference
organized by Spectrum Center for Strategic Analysis. In his words,
Armenia has normal relations with both countries. Kirakosyan hoped
the crisis, which has a strong impact on the economy of the country,
will be solved soon. “We hope the EU will help to overcome it within
the ENP,” the Deputy FM said.
He also reminded that Azerbaijan’s major goal is to isolate Armenia
from the rest of the world. “GUAM pursues a short-sighted policy,
which will do not good. Armenia, to the contrary, cooperates with
countries of the region and international structures – this is the
complementary foreign policy’s actuality.
As for cooperation with the EU, not membership in that organization,
but democratic reforms are important for Armenia. Participation in
the ENP will help overcome conflicts and differences in the region,”
Kirakosyan underscored.

NATO NOT COMPETING WITH RUSSIA IN SOUTH CAUCASUS
PanARMENIAN.Net
02.10.2006 17:44 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The world is gradually becoming more open, however
new threats appear in the face of international terror. Current
relations between countries enable the NATO to successfully address
those challenges, US Temporary Charge d’Affaires in Armenia Anthony
Godfrey stated at South Caucasus 2006: Trends of Development, Threats
and Risks international conference organized by Spectrum Center for
Strategic Analysis. In his words, the NATO is a unique body, whose
members have conflict resolution skills. “Being NATO member is not
compulsory for participation in various programs, like PfP or IPAP,”
the diplomat underscored. “The NATO does not compete with Russia in
the South Caucasus, each of us has our own tasks,” he added.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EU CAN SERVE AS SETTLEMENT MODEL IN CONFLICT REGIONS
PanARMENIAN.Net
02.10.2006 18:00 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ South Caucasus may be called a transitional
period region: conflicts and energy resources have caused dangerously
explosive situations, EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus
Peter Semneby stated at South Caucasus 2006: Trends of Development,
Threats and Risks international conference organized by Spectrum Center
for Strategic Analysis. In his words, the profit from energy resources
should be distributed with extreme caution, as large incomes cause
other problems. “There are problems, which are not solved, but put
limitations on coming financial programs of the ENP,” Semneby noted.
He also remarked that in 3 months after Bulgaria and Romania joint
the EU, the EU will become a Black Sea power. As for Turkey, the
EU Special Representative said that in this case Europe can play
a more evident and stabilizing role, as it enjoys the trust of all
countries of the South Caucasus. “The EU may serve as a settlement
model in conflict regions. We have choice of instruments for solving
conflicts,” Semneby said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress