Author: Emil Lazarian

Baku Sun, Azerbaijan
Sept 1 2006
EU sends warning to Baku
By Ahto Lobajaks

BRUSSELS – European Commission officials have confirmed that European
Neighborhood Policy `action plans’ have been successfully negotiated
with Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia and now await member-state
approval.
The `action plans’ establish the priorities the EU and the South
Caucasus countries involved want to jointly tackle in the course of
the next five years.
However, the announcement of the completion of the action plans was
overshadowed by a stark warning from the commission to Georgia and
Azerbaijan to stop increasing their military budgets.
Strong sentiments
In an unusually strongly worded speech, delivered at a conference in
Slovenia on August 28, the EU’s external relations commissioner,
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, observed that `defense expenditure in the
region is going through the roof.’ A commission official who asked
not to be identified said the particular objects of EU concern are
Georgia and Azerbaijan. Ferrero-Waldner noted in her speech that
increases in defense expenditure send a negative message in terms of
resolving the region’s conflicts. The commissioner also says such
increases are unjustifiable in countries that are `in desperate need
of investment in education, health, and small businesses.’ The
commissioner also criticized leaders in the region for their
`inflammatory rhetoric.’ She also noted there has been `little or no
progress’ toward settling the conflicts in Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
and Nagorno-Karabakh.
EU on the way
Ferrero-Waldner, together with representatives of the EU’s current
Finnish presidency, will visit the Caucasus in early October to mark
the adoption of the `action plans.’
A commission official said the delivery of the plans would not in
itself be conditional on defense cuts.
But the official underlined Ferrero-Waldner’s concerns, noting her
speech also says `resolving or at least de-escalating the conflicts
must be the first priority’ for the EU’s European Neighborhood
Policy.

Zaman Online, Turkey
Sept 1 2006

I am not Comfortable with . . .
ALI H. ASLAN
Who supports sending Turkish troops to Lebanon in Washington and who
opposes it? And on what grounds? This week, let’s try to find out
some answers to these questions.
American officials say they would be happy to see Turkish troops in
Lebanon, pointing to our military’s success in UN and NATO
peacekeeping operations. It’s not that they are not troubled by
Ankara’s getting too cordial with Syria and Iran lately, and
directing harsh criticisms at Israel and the United States, last but
not the least during the Lebanon war. Nonetheless, they find it
useful that similarly skeptical Israel does not and can not do
without Turkey.
U.S diplomats are guided by one other important motive, that is to
protect Condoleezza Rice from the neocon lobby’s wrath, who push hard
to make her a scapegoat over the failures in Lebanon and Iran’s
nuclear program. Dr. Rice is the chief architect of UN Resolution
1071. She and her State Department will score points at every step
taken in that direction.
Neocons? I am sure they are praying for minimum troop contribution to
the peacekeeping force, just to see Rice embarrassed and to make sure
UN, which they dislike, don’t be an obstacle to Israel in Lebanon!
Why should neocons be content with deployment of a force which
refrains from disarming Hezbollah and operates under the command of
`Old Europe’? Especially if that force includes Turkish forces as
well under the directions of JDP (Justice and Development Party)
administration, which they have categorized as `Islamofascists’
aligned with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Ihvan (Muslim
Brotherhood) movement?
Thankfully, director of the Turkey Research Program at the Washington
Institute (WINEP), Soner Cagaptay, who has recently been doing
immensely shooting at the JDP administration, helps us understand the
neocon and the Israeli lobby lines. In articles published by the
Daily Star and the Jerusalem Post, Cagaptay characterized sending
Turkish troops to Lebanon as `dangerous’. Here is his basic line in
short: `Islamist JDP can’t be trusted. Should there be another
skirmish in Lebanon, they would favor Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis”.
I asked Robert Satloff, Executive Director of WINEP, whether
Cagaptay’s views reflected their institution’s official position.
Satloff said they don’t have an institutional view on the issue, but
he respected Cagaptay’s article. `If Syrians are welcoming it
(Turkish troops deployment .A.H.A.), I think we should have serious
questions about the wisdom of it.’ he added. Looks like positive
statements by the Syrian government about the Turkish troops
deployment raised serious doubts among some
more-pro-Israel-than-Israel Americans . They oppose Turkey’s troop
contribution even though Israel has officially asked for it.
As for the Pentagon, likewise, one cannot say the leadership of that
institution is in love with Ankara. Israel’s friends at the Pentagon
and civilian neocon officials must have as many questions in their
minds as those working at WINEP. Thus, The Pentagon does not exert so
much pressure on the Turkish General staff as it did during the March
1 parliamentary motion process, when they requested Turkey to open up
a Northern front against Iraq in the war.. So, if Turkish commanders
have some reservations about sending troops to Lebanon and they
convey them to the civilian government, Pentagon won’t be too much
surprised or offended.
Among the most ardent opponents of the deployment of Turkish troops
in Lebanon are The Armenian and Greek lobbies. The Armenian National
Committee of America (ANCA) and the American Hellenic Institute (AHI)
sent separate letters to U.S President George W. Bush to express
their objections. The Kurdish lobby also supports Armenian and Greek
lobbies, silently but surely, because every thing which makes U.S.
grateful for Turkey would not only narrow the scope of Armenian and
Greek lobbies but also make the realization of Kurdist ambitions in
both Northern Iraq and Southeastern Turkey more difficult.
Why are some people (in Turkey), seemingly worried about the fate of
Turkish troops in Lebanon, opposing an attempt that might help
enhance US support to the fight against PKK, which is still killing
many sons of this land? I sense that once again national interests
are being abandoned in favor of domestic politics. At the expense of
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which secured some of Turkey’s
vital interests, power brokers in the state establishment who dislike
religious people distanced themselves from the March 1 motion just to
make sure U.S writes off the ruling JDP. Now the same groups are
opposing possible deployment of Turkish troops in Lebanon.. Those who
do not want to see Erdogan as the president, are eager to weaken his
hand prior to meeting with President Bush. They don’t care about
Turkey’s strategic losses in the Middle East or the tactical losses
with the fight against PKK.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not question the aims and sincerity of
everyone who disapproves of Turkish troop deployment in southern
Lebanon. For instance, a retired American ambassador, whom I have
great respect for his views, expressed his concerns to me, regarding
this issue. People with good intentions both in Turkey and in the U.S
are might be coming up with different interpretations. A former
senior US government official, on the other hand, told me that he
favors sending Turkish troops to Lebanon.
Frankly, on this particular subject, I wouldn’t be comfortable with
being on the same side with Armenian, Greek, Kurdish, neocon lobbies,
Israeli right, and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. But if you want to
do that, I can’t say anything, that’s your choice…
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Los Angeles Times
Sept 1 2006

Killer of Turkish Diplomat in Los Angeles in 1982 Loses Parole Bid
>From the Associated Press
September 1, 2006
A man convicted for the 1982 murder of a Turkish diplomat in Westwood
was denied parole Thursday.
Harry Sassounian, 43, will not be eligible for parole again until
2010, said Jane Robison, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County
district attorney’s office.
Sassounian’s attorney, Mark Geragos, said he didn’t view Thursday’s
decision as a setback, arguing that it is rare for parole to be
granted on the first try.
“The parole commissioners were very complimentary of his chances next
time around,” Geragos said in a telephone interview.
Turkish Consul General Kemal Arikan was killed Jan. 28, 1982, while
stopped at a traffic signal. Sassounian was 19 at the time. A second
gunman was never caught.
In 2000, a federal appeals court upheld Sassounian’s murder
conviction but overturned the special-circumstance conviction, which
alleged that Arikan was killed because of his nationality.
A jail informant testified that Sassounian told him he killed the
54-year-old diplomat as revenge for the deaths of about 1.5 million
Armenians at the hands of Turks late in the 19th century and early in
the 20th century.
The reversal threw out Sassounian’s sentence of life in prison
without parole.
Prosecutors later agreed to drop plans to retry Sassounian on the
special-circumstance allegation, allowing him a chance at parole in
exchange for his denouncing of terrorism.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Sept 1 2006

Azeri FM Comments on `Road Plan’ of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Source: Trend
Author: A.Ismayilova

01.09.2006

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said that as there
many issues have been agreed on, now is the right time to solve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Trend reports. He was commenting on the
alleged `road plan’, mentioned by the U.S. Ambassador Matthew Bryza,
the OSCE Minks Group Co-chair.
`However we should still continue talks on the more difficult
issues,’ the Minister stressed.
Mammadyarov said that the plan involves defining the methods on the
possible signing of an agreement. `I do not regard it as a new
principle of the negotiation process.’
With regards to the opportunities for dispatching the Azerbaijani
peacemakers to Lebanon, the Minister said that the issue should be
studied separately. `It is necessary to define the situation in
Lebanon, as the question concerning the mandate of peacemakers has
not been solved yet. I cannot say that Azerbaijan will dispatch its
peacemakers there, but we are dealing with the issue,’ Mammadyarov
stated.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NA MUST BE RESPONDENT IN THE CC
Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
31 Aug 06
Chairman of the Constitutional Court Gagik Haroutiunian considers
this version more reasonable.
It is known that the first personal application the CC decided
to examine was Artak Zeinalian’s. Why was the examination of that
application appointed in November?
We haven’t started any examination in August as the NA was on holiday
and our courts as well. The law provides 9 months for the examination
of that case.
NA chairman Tigran Torosian informed during the latest press
conference that the CC had recognized the NA respondent for 7 cases
about constitutionality of laws and predicted that number of such
packages could be added. Na chairman didn’t know whether the NA would
be respondent for all that kind of cases or the government also must
be respondent in the CC. What is your opinion?
First of all they shouldn’t worry about the quantity of
applications. We should examine how it is displayed in
other countries. For example in Germany, 2-3% of personal
applications include issues of constitutionality and become point of
examination. Such applications are 3-5% in Czechia and Slovakia, 5-8%
in Russia. 10-11 from 112 applications is about constitutionality
in Armenia, that is 9-10%. First of all we must examine why that
percent is so high. I connect it with the accumulated problems,
first of all: CC didn’t have that power before, the citizen wasn’t
able to turn and a lot of issues have been accumulated. Only 10%
of our personal applications contents problems of constitutionality,
and NA different commissions have connection with those issues.
And if each commission once in three months is able to be respondent at
the CC, nothing strange will happen. Irrespective of the fact how the
law will be changed, will it remain the same or won’t, Constitutional
Court make the final decree in every country for recognizing the
respondent side. The law can’t determine, this is the respondent
side. As every case has its specificity and the court must decide
who must answer.
You think the NA must be respondent in the CC but the NA chairman
thinks that problem may be impossible to solve in the framework of
NA committees.
Na thinks there aren’t enough powers to provide for applications. The
parliament itself decides who will represent in the CC, and they
can send only three persons. That can be either the chief of the
commission, deputy chief or its member, or a certain advocate. The
problem is to choose the right way. The president of the country and
the parliament in Russia and many other countries have their permanent
representatives in the CC during the examination of all cases as the
examination of each case deal with the public authority. When the
NA tries to find any solution, it must think how to improve further
legislative activities.

ANKARA CONDUCTS UNOFFICIAL DIPLOMACY WITH YEREVAN
By Suleyman Kurt, Ankara
Zaman Online, Turkey
Aug. 31, 2006
Talks between Ankara and Yerevan, which began last April when Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sent a ‘historic letter’ to
Armenian President Robert Kocharian, continue.
The Armenian side sent an unofficial document to Ankara last
month reiterating its proposals. While Ankara is examining the
document, diplomatic sources speaking to Zaman said that the Yerevan
administration restated its position in its unofficial response.
The Armenian administration does not agree with Turkey regarding
the establishment of an independent committee of historians to
investigate the so-called genocide allegations. “We should first
establish diplomatic relations,” they said.
Armenian and Turkish diplomats met in Vienna three times last year
following the correspondence between Prime Minister Erdogan and
Armenian President Robert Kocharian.
According to Ankara, no progress has yet been made in the talks. In
order for the start of diplomatic relations, “a document should be
signed by both parties concluding that some problems between the two
countries, including the border dispute, have been resolved”.
However, the parties failed to reach such an agreement in any of
the meetings in Vienna. In the letter that Erdogan sent to Kocharian
before April 24 last year, he said “A group of historians and experts
should investigate the incidents that happened in 1915.” Kocharian
replied by saying, “We should first establish diplomatic relations.
Then, an inter-governmental commission can discuss the events.”
Ankara did not send a response to this letter at that time.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PUTIN WISHES HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO KOCHARYAN
Arka News Agency, Armenia
Aug. 31, 2006
YEREVAN, August 31. /Novosti-Armenia/. President of the Russian
Federation Vladimir Putin congratulated President of Armenia Robert
Kocharyan on his birthday. Today Kocharyan is 52 years of age.
“It is gratifying that many-sided Russian-Armenian cooperation
progressively develops, based on traditional filling of mutual respect
and friendship, liaising our people.We highly appreciate your personal
contribution to strengthening of allied strategic partnership between
Russia and Armenia”, the congratulation says.
Putin also expressed gratefulness to Kocharyan for his efforts “aimed
at further deepening of mutually beneficial relations both in bilateral
format and within the scope of the Commonwealth of Independent States,
Collective Security Treaty Organization.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NEXT COURT HEARING ON AZERBAIJANI ARMY OFFICER RAMIL SAFAROV TO START IN HUNGARY
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Aug. 31, 2006
On September 1 and 5 this year, Hungarian court will hold court
hearings on prison officers’ claim against Ramil Safarov, Azerbaijani
army officer, who was sentenced to life in prison for murdering
Armenian lieutenant Gurgen Markarian in Hungary.
Officer of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Hungary Parviz Guluzadeh told
the APA the embassy officers will also attend the trial.
While being held in Hungarian prison in 2004, jailers wanted telephone
card from Ramil. But Ramil could not understand Hungarian which led
an incident between them. Eight police officers tied his hands and
used force. Though lawyers for the Azerbaijani lieutenant appealed to
court related to this matter, the court dismissed the appeal saying
there was no evidence. Then the opposite side claimed that Ramil
resisted officials.
Clara Fisher, new Hungarian lawyer for Ramil defends him on this case.
Another Hungarian lawyer Koch Machar will defend Ramil in the trial
in the Court of Appeal.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GUKASYAN: “THE RE-START OF HOSTILITIES IN NAGORNO KARABAKH IS NOT RULED OUT”
Today, Azerbaijan
Aug. 31, 2006
“I do not rule out the re-start of hostilities in Nagorno Garabagh.
But I think Azerbaijan will not take this step which might lead to
its annihilation,” said Arkadi Gukasyan, head of the separatist regime
functioning in the occupied Azerbaijani territories.
The separatist leader said Karabakh people have got used to Baku
threats, APA reports.
“They want to threaten us by the increases in their defense expenditure
by the account of oil revenues. However, this policy will not turn
out efficient,” Gukasyan said.
The separatist leader stressed that if Azerbaijan starts war, the
consequences will be sad for it. However, he does not think military
way is the real solution of the problem.
“Power states do not want unstable situation in the region because
of the oil projects on which they spent great amount of funds. The
Azerbaijani people do not want war either. I think it is abnormal to
think of a new war. The experience showed that the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict cannot be solved by military way,” he underlined.
URL:

ARMENIAN ARTURS LINKED TO NARCOTICS AND CRIME ACROSS BORDERS
Standard, Kenya
Aug. 31, 2006
Those familiar with the Kiruki report say the commission raised the
possibility that the Artur brothers were dealing in narcotics.
They said the conclusion was that they were trans-national criminals
who took advantage of the weakness in the country’s administrative
systems.
Other findings were that their unauthorised actions were permitted and
facilitated by official reluctance or inability to require compliance
with the law.
The commission was reportedly satisfied that Mr Arthur Margaryan was
an impostor travelling on a fake passport.
Illegal business
Those acquainted with the report said the document, which is about
100 pages, alleges that Mr Artur Sargarsyan was an Armenian national
who relocated to the United Arab Emirates.
The sources said the commission established that Sargarsyan was out
to set up an outlet in Kenya for his illegal business.
The sources say the commission failed to authoritatively identity the
Armenians. The identification was not ascertained because documents
found on them were forgeries.
During the inquiry, it was proved that a photograph on Artur
Margaryan’s Kenyan passport, bearing the name Sarkissyan Artak,
was different from the name on his airport pass, Artur N N, and also
different from the one on the forged police certificate of appointment,
where he is called A M Joennes.
No bank accounts
His fake brother, Sargarsyan, held a Kenyan passport with the name
Sarkissyan Arman, and went by the name Arman Sarkissyan on the
airport pass.
His original Armenian passport belonged to Artur Sargarsyan, but
he also had another passport with similar numbers under the name
Arthur Gervorkyan.
The commission was said to have also found it difficult to establish
the nature of the Arturs business, but was satisfied that they were
engaged in illegal activities.
The Kiruki team was said to have been concerned that the Arturs
operated no bank accounts, their companies had no known offices,
their PIN numbers were forgeries and the names on their passports
were different from those on their registered companies.
The report was said to have established that two Tanzanians, Mr
Nobert Ntwenya and Mr Lucas Makena, were escorted into Tanzania and
not deported.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress