Author: Emil Lazarian

CSTO SUMMIT: MILITARY BLOC NOT YET CEMENTED
by Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor — The Jamestown Foundation
Wednesday, June 28, 2006 — Volume 3, Issue 125
Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Alyaksandr Lukashenka of Belarus,
Robert Kocharian of Armenia, Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan,
Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzstan, Imomali Rahmonov of Tajikistan,
and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan met on June 23 in Minsk for a dual
summit of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the
Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEc). The two groups’ membership
rosters are identical except in the case of Armenia, a member of the
CSTO but not of EurAsEc.
Speaking to journalists during a break between the two meetings,
Putin asserted, “Developing closer cooperation between EurAsEc and
the CSTO is one of the most topical tasks, which will make it possible
to protect integration processes from various threats” (NTV Mir, June
23). “Integration processes” being the classic code word for Russian
policies, Putin’s statement confers a distinctly military dimension to
such processes. Combining the CSTO and EurAsEc summits into a single
event in Minsk underscored that idea. Trading chairs at this summit,
Putin handed over the CSTO’s rotating chairmanship to Lukashenka
while the latter turned the EurAsEc chairmanship over to Putin.
This CSTO summit decided to place the Collective Rapid Deployment
Force under the command of a single headquarters that would operate
on a permanent basis. Until now, a standing operational group
based in Bishkek has been in charge of that Force under Russia’s
Major-General Sergei Chernomordin, who is also deputy chief of staff of
the Volga-Urals Military District. The 4,000-strong Rapid Deployment
Force, earmarked for possible operations in Central Asia, presently
consists — at least on paper — of 10 battalions of varying readiness
levels, including: three battalions from Russia, three from Tajikistan
(two of these apparently from the Russian division stationed in that
country and one from Tajikistan itself), two from Kazakhstan, and two
from Kyrgyzstan (the latter country has pleaded poverty asking to be
excused from contributing a second battalion). These units are based
in the respective countries under national control and hold joint
exercises, usually at annual intervals, under joint command. Russia’s
air base at Kant in Kyrgyzstan, with some 10 tactical combat aircraft
and about a dozen helicopters, is designated a CSTO base and assigned
to the Collective Rapid Deployment Force.
According to some Russian media reports (RTR Russia Television, June
23), participants in the Minsk summit approved a decision whereby
any CSTO member country wishing to accept a deployment of non-CSTO
troops on its territory must first obtain the agreement of all the
other CSTO countries. If so, this implies that military exercises
involving U.S. or NATO countries’ troops, their transit passage,
or their use of military installations in any CSTO member country,
for example on anti-terrorism missions, would necessitate Russian
approval. Thus, Washington or NATO allies would have to negotiate
the approval not just with possible host countries, but with Moscow,
which could either withhold the approval, maneuver one or several CSTO
countries into withholding it, or try to trade Moscow’s approval for
some geopolitical quid-pro-quo elsewhere.
Thus, if this summit decision is final, Moscow would insert itself
between the Western alliance system and CSTO member countries,
trying to force the latter to deal with the West through Russia,
not directly. In Central Asia, such a situation would reverse the
Pentagon’s historic diplomatic achievements of 2001-2002, when it
negotiated basing agreements directly with Central Asian presidents,
who felt encouraged to resist Moscow’s pressures at that time.
The decision in Minsk may also aim to nudge NATO into
alliance-to-alliance contacts and common activities with the CSTO,
thus granting the latter a form of political recognition. However,
CSTO member countries are generally interested in cooperating with
NATO in a national capacity, and NATO has always related to them
directly, consistently avoiding the pitfall of dealing with the
CSTO collectively.
At present, NATO prepares to expand its operations in Afghanistan and
may request logistical support from certain Central Asian countries.
Moscow apparently calculates that it could in that case arrange to
refer the request formally to the CSTO for consideration, so as to
press NATO into dealing with this Russia-led structure. One item in
the Minsk summit declaration (such documents are Moscow-drafted as
a rule) says that alliance obligations among CSTO member countries
take precedence over other obligations.
Participants in the Minsk summit approved measures designed to
turn the CSTO into a multifunctional organization. At Putin’s and
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov’s initiative and Lukashenka’s
proposal, the summit resolved to develop joint structures of the member
countries’ intelligence and law-enforcement agencies and Internal
Affairs ministries, as well as strengthen the Defense Ministries’
joint structures. Beyond its military and political-military remit,
the CSTO would create joint capabilities to deal with natural and
technological disasters, illegal migration, and the narcotics traffic.
Contrary to some expectations, the summit did not officially announce
an intent to create CSTO peacekeeping troops or a legal mechanism for
rendering emergency military assistance to member countries in the
event of aggression against them from outside the CSTO. Kocharian
in particular expressed regret over the failure to advance on the
assistance issue (Arminfo, Itar-Tass, June 23). For its part, Moscow
has developed a full-fledged concept for CSTO “peacekeeping” operations
within the CSTO area and collective participation in international
operations beyond that area. Moscow will almost certainly call in the
months ahead for adoption of this concept and a political decision
on creating CSTO peacekeeping troops.
The dual summit was timed to coincide with the final phase of a
Russia-Belarus military exercise, the largest-ever held in the CSTO’s
framework. Forces from Russia and Belarus comprise the CSTO’s “regional
group of forces” in the West, along with the Russian-Armenian group
and the Russian-led Central Asian group in the respective theaters.
(Interfax, Belarus Television Channel One, June 23, 24) –Vladimir
Socor
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
July 6, 2006
___________________
ARMENIA SERVICE PROGRAM LEAVES NYC FOR ARMENIA
On Wednesday, July 5, 2006, 25 young Armenian Americans from throughout the
United States departed New York City for Armenia. They were traveling
through the Armenia Service Program (ASP), a trip organized by the Armenian
Church Youth Organization of America (ACYOA).
Besides touring Armenia’s historic sites, ASP participants will build homes
through Habitat for Humanity. The group is being led by Fr. Hovsep
Karapetyan, pastor of the St. James Church of Richmond, VA.
Participants range in age from 18 to 26, and most are making their first
trip to Armenia.
“I don’t know anything about my cultural heritage, really,” said ASP
participant Chelsea Bissell of Bozeman, MT. “And really, since I grew up in
Montana, there’s not a church anywhere near me. So I want to go and see
what Armenia is all about.”
For Bissell, 19, a student at Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA, the trip
is a chance to discover more about the Armenian people.
“I hope to learn from the people there about my heritage,” she said. “I
know about the food and music, but I don’t know about the people.”
Even those few who have traveled to Armenia before see the ASP’s service
aspect as a unique way to really connect with the citizens of Armenia.
“I want to go to Armenia to do something service-related, and something with
a religious aspect,” said Mark Berberian, 19, a member of the St. Gregory
the Illuminator Church of Chicago, IL, and a student at the University of
Chicago. “I went to Armenia this September with my family and I loved it.
But I want to do something now to help: to give back to the Armenian
people.”
ASP participants will return from Armenia on July 27. Assisting group
leader Fr. Karapetyan are two assistant leaders, Anna Sargsyan and Sarine
Zenian. Before heading to Armenia the participants gathered at the Diocesan
Center in New York City for an orientation session.
“We’re excited so many young people are stepping forward to serve our
brothers and sisters in Armenia,” said Nancy Basmajian, ACYOA executive
secretary. “And the fact that most of this year’s participants are making
their first trip to Armenia is fabulous. They will definitely return
energized and excited by their Armenian heritage.”
* * *
The participants in the 2006 ACYOA ASP trip to Armenia are:
Taline Alexander, Nanor Arabatlian, Sara Arabian, Katherine Avesian,
Daniella Baydar, Jacqueline Baydar, Mark Berberian, Chelsea Bissell, Gena
Durani, Taleen Feredjian, Lucine Ghazaryan, Harutyun Gyurjyan, Danielle
Hacet, Rachel Hachigian, Michaeline Hakimian, Sarah Jacobe, Anita Minakyan,
D. Aram Mushegian, Chrstian Ohanian, Margeaux Reizian, Deanna Schanz,
Gregory Seferian, Anahid Vann, Garegian Vardanyan, Drew Zamanigian.
— 7/6/06
E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News and
Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,
PHOTO CAPTION (1): Twenty five young faithful, joined by group leader Fr.
Hovsep Karapetyan and assistant leaders Anna Sargsyan and Sarine Zenian,
gather at the Diocesan Center in New York City before heading to Armenia
through the ACYOA’s Armenia Service Program.
# # #
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GEORGIAN OFFICIAL DISMISSES PUTIN CALL FOR REFERENDUM
RIA Novosti, Moscow
6 Jul 06
Tbilisi, 6 July: No referendum on the status of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia within Georgia is possible until Georgia’s territorial
integrity is restored in full, Georgian Security Council Secretary
Kote Kemularia has told RIA Novosti.
“Until Georgia’s territorial integrity is restored within the borders
recognized by the UN as well as by Russia, and every single refugee
returns to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, no referendum can take place,”
he said.
Kemularia recalled that a referendum on Georgia’s independence took
place in Georgia, with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia then within it,
on 31 March 1991.
“Back then the whole of Georgia (Georgians, Russians, Abkhazians,
Armenians, Greeks, Ossetians, Jews, Azeris), including those who
lived in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, voted for a united and
independent Georgia. So until our territorial integrity is restored
in full, no new referendum can replace that one,” he believes.
[Passage omitted]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EUROPE LOOKS TO CASPIAN TO DIVERSIFY GAS SUPPLIES
By Stefan Wagstyl in London and Isabel Gorst in Moscow
FT
July 7 2006 03:00
A southern export route for Caspian gas to Europe was first mooted
after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of three
new energy-rich states – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. But
the idea has been given new life by recent increases in energy prices,
and European concerns about the security of Russian gas supplies.
Jeffrey Waterous, chairman of Global Union Energy Ventures, an
investment company, says: “Whether or not Gazprom will cut off supplies
again is not the point. What’s important is that the perception of
risk that this might happen is high.”
But the European Commission and other supporters of the proposal face
formidable political, financial and technical challenges. Significant
amounts of Caspian gas are not expected to reach the EU before about
2015 – and then only if gas prices remain high. Preliminary estimates
that the Caspian region holds about 9,000bn cubic metres of gas,
are dwarfed by the figures for Russia and Iran, which together own
about 68,000bn cubic metres, nearly half the global reserves.
Oil companies argue such estimates are conservative and there could
be enough to supply 40bn-80bn cubic metres annually, or 5-10 per cent
of the EU’s forecast gas demand in 2020. A European Commission paper
puts the figure higher – at 10-15 per cent of demand.
David Woodward, the head of BP, the British oil company, in Azerbaijan,
says: “Our view is that with full assessment of Caspian resources
it’s quite possible they will provide an additional source of supply
to Europe.”
BP is completing the South Caspian Pipeline – taking gas from a
new Azeri offshore field to Georgia and Turkey. This could one day
be the first link of a route deep into Europe. But much depends on
finding enough gas to justify such a scheme and on the EU’s ability
to persuade gas producers and transit countries to back ambitious
cross-border transit schemes. Mr Woodward says the EU has lagged
behind the US in developing consistent policies for securing access
to new Caspian resources.
EU diplomats retort that this is unfair. The European Commission
has since 2002 been developing an institution called the Energy
Community which regulates energy markets, including gas, in the
EU’s future member states in south-east Europe. Turkey is considering
joining. Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan could be invited next year. By
2010 EU energy market rules could reach the Caspian.
The start later this year of a pipeline between Turkey and Greece
will open a first portal for Caspian gas to Europe. The Energy
Community lists seven other projects to boost capacity in existing
networks to absorb Caspian gas. The European Commission also backs
a more ambitious scheme for a whole new pipeline – the â~B¬4.4bn
($5.6bn) Nabucco project. This 3,400km route would start in eastern
Turkey and run to Austria, taking gas from the SCP and from Russian,
Iranian and North African producers.
Mr Woodward argues in- vesting piecemeal in existing networks may be
less risky than a single new pipeline.
–Boundary_(ID_1JcmPEuGTxzsdd7SzTyWQg)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MATTHEW BRYZA: FURTHER STEPS OF THE PEACE PROCESS DEPEND ON THE PRESIDENTS
ArmRadio.am
07.07.2006 14:30
US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza declare that the
Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have political will, “but we do
not know whether it will suffice to take the last complex decisions
and agree upon the basic principles of peaceful settlement.”
Matthew Bryza noted that the further steps of the peace process
depend on the President, “since heads of states are responsible for
the prosperity, peace and democracy in their countries.”
“Minsk Group Co-Chairs consider that the Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan should prepare their peoples and primarily the political
societies to think about serious mutual concessions, which both
countries should make if they want to reach an agreement,” Matthew
Bryza said.
“By saying political society I do not mean only the non-governmental
organizations. I’m speaking about the whole population, since
everyone watches TV, read newspapers and listen to radio, and they
should better understand how the discussions are proceeding. I hope
that understanding this, they will support the complex decisions and
mutual concessions the Presidents will have to make,” Matthew Bryza
said in an interview to BBC Russian service.

BAKU DOES NOT SAY A DECISIVE “NO” TO THE MEDIATORS
Tatul Hakobyan
“Radiolur”
07.07.2006 15:22
On June 22 the mediators actually disclosed the details of settlement
of the Karabakh conflict – the principles presented at the OSCE
Permanent Council, which the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
discussed in Bucharest. If the revelation of the document was meant
to provide a topic of dispute and discussion, then the anticipations
of the mediators did not come true, since the societies in Armenia
and Karabakh, and particularly in Azerbaijan the societies responded
without spirit. This was, surely, a surprise if we consider the
importance the resolution of the Karabakh issue has in the three
countries.
Two weeks have passed after the disclosure of the last suggestions
or, let’s say so, the basic principles. However, it’s not clear up
to now whether Baku accepts these as a basis for negotiations. As
far as the parties involved in the conflict have not said a firm
“yes,” it is hard to anticipate that a healthy discussion, dialogue
or criticism will start among the society.
Official Yerevan has confirmed at least thrice that the latest
suggestions of the mediators are acceptable for the Armenian side
with some reservations.
Still on June 21, i.e. before revelation of the principles, President
Kocharyan clearly stated in Minsk that Yerevan accepts the mediators’
suggestions.
A few days ago RA Minister of Foreign Affairs Vardan Oskanyan stated,
“The suggestions put on the negotiations table today are generally
acceptable for Armenia, and we are ready to continue the talks based on
these principles, which, I think are all-embracing and rather balanced
and it seems that a correct choice has been made in regard to mutual
concessions.” Nagorno-Karabakh authorities declared yesterday that
the latest suggestions could serve as a basis for talks, of course
with some reservations.
On the other hand, NKR Parliament Speaker Ashot Gulyan underlined
yesterday that not all of the suggestions are acceptable for Armenia
and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nevertheless, it’s not clear whether Baku is admitting the Co-Chair’s
suggestions or not. From RA Foreign Minister’s words one can infer
that for the recurrent time Azerbaijan is denying these.
“We hope that Azerbaijan will reassess the situation, will create an
opportunity to continue the talks and achieve results,” Oskanyan said.
Probably, Azerbaijan has no distinct position on the latest
suggestions. One thing is clear: Baku does not accept these, but does
not want to say that it is denying the mediator’s suggestions as a
basis of negotiations. Perhaps that’s why Aliev is saying one thing,
the Foreign Ministry is stating another thing, and the Ministry of
Defense is making quite a different point.
Studying the Azeri media reports, we can say that the point on
referendum is particularly unacceptable for Baku. It deserves attention
that in the course of the recent months have been consistently refuting
that the version of referendum cannot be discussed during the talks. It
comes out, however, that compared with all other previous suggestions
of the mediators, the only novelty in the last package is just the
idea of referendum.
Thus, political scientist, ex-Ambassador of Azerbaijan to Russia
Hickmet Hajizade expressed the opinion that inclusion of the
referendum in he framework agreement is a serious defeat for
Azerbaijani diplomacy.
“Even if the leadership of Azerbaijan manages to refuse from concluding
a peace treaty, the referendum issue will be included in all other
peace agreements on settlement,” Hajizade said.
A few days ago another famous political scientist Zardust Alizade
also said in his interview with “Radiolur” that what is unacceptable
for Azerbaijan is the issue of referendum, the rest is the repetition
of the old.
“Nothing new has been said. Actually, everything was known to the
Azeri society, first of all from Armenian media. The statement
of the Co-Chairs brought about discontent and another wave of
comments. Azerbaijan cannot agree with the idea of the referendum, if
it is to be held only in Nagorno-Karabakh or among Karabakh Armenians,
since this contradicts the Constitution of the country. Therefore, to
make the Azeri society go to a referendum, it is first of all necessary
to hold another nationwide referendum to amend the Constitution in
force. Today it seems unbelievable that the Azeri society will agree
to that,” Alizade noted.

TURKEY IS PUSHED TO GO EAST
Lragir.am
07 July 06
Influential forces in world politics block the way of Turkey to Europe,
pushing it towards our region to expand NATO’s interests there, stated
Hrant Khachatryan, the leader of the Constitutional Right Union,
on July 7 at the Hayeli Club. According to him, there are forces in
Turkey, which oppose to this process and want their country to move
towards Europe rather than the East.
Hrant Khachatryan says Armenia should build relations with Turkey,
considering the present reality. According to the leader of the CRU,
it would be better if Turkey recognized the genocide, returned the
land, an election was held and the problem of the Armenian Cause
was settled, but these have nothing to do with the reality, Hrant
Khachatryan says. Ruben Safrastyan, Turkish Studies, agrees with him.
He thinks that while speaking about the prospect of Armenian and
Turkish relations our real possibilities should be taken into
consideration.
Both Hrant Khachatryan and Ruben Safrastyan are satisfied that the
issue of the genocide is constantly on the agenda of the foreign
policies of Armenia. Ruben Safrastyan even says otherwise it would
mean depriving our foreign policies from its component of identity.
Safrastyan thinks that Turkey is playing diplomatic games, asserting
its willingness to discuss the genocide.
Ruben Safrastyan mentions that the dialogue cannot be between Armenia
and Turkey. It should be mediated by international organizations. If
Turkey notices that it is alone with Armenia, Turkey starts carrying
out a policy of pressure, thinks Safrastyan. He believes that Armenian
and Turkish relations should be mediated by the European Union and the
United States, combining our interests and their interests in order to
achieve effective work in the direction of Turkish-Armenian relations.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FOR GAGIK TSARUKYAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
Lragir.am
07 July 06
One of the recent attention-grabbing news was that Member of
Parliament Ruben Hairapetyan warned Gagik Tsarukyan not to open an
office of the Bargavach Hayastan Party in the community of Avan. For
his part, the head of the Center made a similar “proposal” to Gagik
Tsarukyan. Commenting on this news, Member of Parliament Victor
Dallakyan said, “Such a thing is possible in the political sphere of
Armenia, but for Gagik Tsarukyan it is impossible.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SERIOUS FORCES CRITICIZED CATHOLICOS
Lragir.am
07 July 06
The instigators of the campaign of protest during the Turkish visit
of Catholicos Garegin II are not simply abstract forces. They are
representatives of serious non-governmental organizations, stated
Ruben Safrastyan, expert on Turkish studies, July 7 at the Hayeli Club,
commenting on the incidents during the visit of the Catholicos.
Ruben Safrastyan thinks that the Christian world should stand up
against the incident involving the Catholicos of All Armenians.
Particularly, the European community should not have remained silent,
thinks Ruben Safrastyan, stressing that the system of values is
concerned. According to him, this incident showed that Turkey is not
ready to become a member of the European family.

DM OF AZERBAIJAN AND KOREAN CHARGE D’AFFAIRES DISCUSS AZERBAIJAN-KOREA MILITARY COOPERATION
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 5 2006
Defense Minister of Azerbaijan Safar Abiyev met with Lew Kwang-chul,
charge d’affaires of Korea to Azerbaijan.
Minister updated diplomat on the reasons, results and ways of
settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Lew Kwang-chul told of the current socio-political situation in the
Republic of Korea. Diplomat said Korea supports Azerbaijan’s fair
stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The meeting focused on the possibilities of beginning the military
cooperation between the two countries.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress