Author: Emil Lazarian

15 MINUTES WITH CONDOLEEZZA RICE IN A ROOM
Lragir.am
31 March 06
The delegation of the Armenian government, which participated in
signing the agreement with the Millennium Challenge Corporation in
the capital of the United States on March 27, then met with the U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her office. At the meeting were
present RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan, the Minister of Finance
and Economy Vardan Khachatryan, the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John
Evans, the Armenian Ambassador to the United States Tatul Margaryan,
Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried and the OSCE Co-Chair Stephen Mann.
On March 31 in Yerevan the minister of finance and economy Vardan
Khachatryan told details of the meeting. In fact, there were no
details, says Vardan Khachatryan, unlike other sources that gave
information on the meeting. The Armenian officials and Foreign
Minister Vardan Oskanyan reported on the activities and steps directed
at holding fair, free and transparent elections, spoke about the
conflict over Karabakh and the U.S.-Armenian partnership. Vardan
Khachatryan informs that all this lasted for15-20 minutes, and the
Armenian officials did not make commitments. It is possible that they
simply did not manage.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

OVER 300 THOUSAND PEOPLE DO NOT FOLLOW THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH IN ARMENIA
Lragir.am
31 March 06
Alexander Amaryan, the head of the Center For Rehabilitation of Victims
of the Destructive Cult, stated over 300 thousand people in Armenia are
not followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Catholics count 180
thousand, 22-25 thousand are Charismates, 12 thousand are Witnesses
of Jehovah, 50-60 thousand are Ceremonialists, Zoroastrians (Kurds,
Yezidis), Mounists count 1000, 200-300 are Sientologists, etc. There
are also Muslim Armenians. The sects found in Armenia mostly have
an American, Swiss or German origin. There are also sects of South
Korean, Chinese and Buddhist origin. According to A.
Amaryan, there are churches in Armenia, founded by Africans,
particularly, the branch of the Church of the People of God founded
by Sunday Adeladjah from Nigeria.
Presently, 57 religious organizations are registered in Armenia,
which belong to 14 religious branches. Most sects are registered as
non-governmental, educational, charity and commercial organizations,
and operate under different functions. According to A. Amaryan,
there is a huge gap in the regulation of legislation and control on
religious organizations in Armenia.
The Armenia Newspaper, Athens, March 30
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA UNDER THE AUSPICES OF UNITED STATES?
Lragir.am
31 March 06
When signing the Millennium Challenge agreement the U.S. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice used the phrase “elected government of Armenia,”
which has not been used since 2003. Does this mean that the United
States recognizes that the leadership of Armenia was elected? “The
Americans have decided to take the country. They are going to accept
everything because they do not have a candidate here yet. They are
going to act in accordance with the government. As they used to do in
Russia. Now they understand that the country is failing, and together
with Iran they are thinking what to do to keep the country going,”
said Aram Karapetyan, the leader of the Nor Zhamanakner Party.
Aram Karapetyan does not deny that the United States and Russia may
come to an agreement and “support the same candidate” in Armenia. “In
a month everything will return to the South Caucasus. In Belarus
it is over, in Ukraine it is over. I think soon there will be
certain developments in Georgia, and then it will move to the South
Caucasus. And already there will be arrangements and so on,” said
Aram Karapetyan.

Armenian Assembly of America
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
MEDIA ALERT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 30, 2006
CONTACT: Karoon Panosyan
Email: [email protected]
RE: Ambassador Fried’s Remarks at the Armenian Assembly of America National Conference
Washington, DC – In a special address to participants of the Armenian
Assembly’s National Conference on March 27, Ambassador Daniel Fried,
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs spoke
about the great strides in U.S.-Armenia relations and the importance
of a five-year $235 million compact between Armenia and the Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
The National Conference and Banquet is a three-day advocacy push
co-hosted by the Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian General
Benevolent Union (AGBU) and the Eastern and Western Diocese of the
Armenian Church.
  Below are Ambassador Fried’s remarks as posted on the U.S. Department
of State web site:  
The transcript can also be accessed at the following link:

Remarks at the Armenian Assembly of America National Conference
Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs Mayflower Hotel Washington, DC March 27, 2006
Ambassador Fried: Thank you for that kind introduction.
I have the disadvantage of having to follow my friend Vartan [Oskanian,
the foreign minister]. That is a real disadvantage because he’s
very very good. A good interlocutor, a good friend. Most of the
time we agree. When he disagrees, I am reminded by just how good he
is. [Laughter].
It’s a pleasure to be here at the national conference, and I was
happy to accept the invitation from the Assembly and the Armenian
General Benevolent Union and the Eastern and Western Diocese of the
Armenian Church, one of the great ancient churches of Christendom,
to speak to you today. And I understand that this conference is held
in partnership with at least 15 other Armenian-American organizations
and others are in attendance. But let me say in particular that I
value my years of cooperation with the Assembly, and I appreciate
its leadership’s professionalism and their [inaudible] commitment as
Americans to work with us to support democratic and prosperous Armenia.
Now it’s true that we don’t agree on all issues and the Assembly can
be just as frank, which is a diplomatic word — [Laughter] — just as
frank as they have to be in expressing that. But as Americans it’s not
only your right, it’s your duty to speak out to your government when
you agree and when you disagree. That’s never gotten in the way of
our partnership. I appreciate the candid advice from the Assembly and
from the American Armenian community, and I look forward to hearing
more of it. It’s good to hear straight out what’s on your minds,
what you like about what we’re doing, what you don’t like about what
we’re doing. That’s the way a real partnership is made.
I’ve just come back from a visit to Yerevan, and I have to say that
it is beautiful to see a city with Mount Ararat floating in the
distance, the mountains, the snow, and spring just beginning to come
to Yerevan. [Applause].
As Americans, you should be proud that our new embassy compound
is up and running. It’s a physical embodiment of our commitment
to Armenia. It shows that we have put in the money to reflect our
political will to see that Armenia prospers in the 21st Century as
a free country, secure and democratic. [Applause].
While I was in Yerevan I had the privilege of meeting with President
Kocharian, with Vartan Foreign Minister Oskanian, with the Defense
Minister Sargsian, and with political leaders, including leaders
of the opposition. That’s what we do when we go abroad in the State
Department. We meet with everyone. And we had serious talks. We talked
about regional security, which as you know means Nagorno-Karabakh,
relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. We talked about
strengthening the economy and promoting democratic reform. And I want
to say a few words about those issues today and talk about key topics
that I think are of interest to you.
President Bush’s new National Security Strategy says that it is the
policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture. Your efforts here and
your efforts in Armenia, to help Armenia democratize and prosper
economically, matched with U.S. efforts and hopes for the country,
and I thank you for them.
I also thank you because in areas of business transparency the
Armenian-American community is leading by example. I thank you for
that as well.
Now this is a good day in U.S.-Armenian relations. Today the United
States and Armenia will sign its Millennium Challenge Cooperation
Compact. That is a new assistance agreement for $235 million, and that
is new money for Armenia. It is a testament to Armenia’s progress
and its commitment to do more on good governance, economic freedom,
and investment in its people.
Much remains to be done and no community is more aware of the
challenges, as well as the progress, as the Armenian-American
community.
The challenge to sustain Armenia’s status as an MCC recipient is
allowing voters to independently and freely choose their leaders
through elections that meet international democratic standards. We’re
looking at the parliamentary and presidential elections next year and
in 2008 as key tests. We hope that Armenia is moving in that direction.
We are building and taking at face value assurances from the
government, and with our own election strategy geared to work with
both the government and the Armenian civil society to try and achieve
this goal. We must achieve this goal to sustain our relations.
We believe that Armenia has the potential to be a leader in the
region by showing progress on democratic reforms to keep pace with
its economic expansion.
Let me turn to an issue that is much on our minds at the State
Department and perhaps on yours, which is Nagorno-Karabakh. A solution
to Nagorno-Karabakh remains a key focus. Obviously, and I don’t need to
tell you this, a resolution would open the door to large investment,
deeper integration with the global economy, peace will bring greater
prosperity.
Now we were hopeful last month that the meeting at Rambouillet between
the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan would move us decisively
forward. We were disappointed that it didn’t happen, but we did not
give up, we did not turn away.
Before I went to Yerevan, I went to Baku and met with President
Aliyev. I was sufficiently encouraged by what he said that I went
to Yerevan for further discussions, and based on the help and sound
thinking of the Armenian side, there is a possibility for progress
in 2006. Now this is not easy. Neither side can or will achieve its
maximum aims. Peace will require solutions that meet both sides’
concerns as much as possible. And both Armenia and Azerbaijan must
prepare for a good settlement, and the best can be the enemy of
the good.
The United States is not going to impose a settlement. We’re not
going to force Armenia or Azerbaijan to take anything. We don’t have
that power, and it is not our intention to try to exercise it. But
it is our intention to support a solution if both governments arrive
at it, and if there is a solution we are going to get behind it. If
the government of Armenia agrees to it, we will support them, and I
hope you do as well.
Now we hope, but also anticipate, that a solution on Nagorno-Karabakh
will result in an open border with Turkey, which is a consistent goal
on our agenda with Ankara. From Yerevan, I went to Ankara and I made
this point with the Turkish government that we want the border open,
and we want it open as soon as possible. [Applause].
This has not been easy for Armenia, but even with closed borders to
the east and west, Armenia has a northern border that is open to it
through Georgia, and Armenia’s economic growth is strong. Almost
14 percent last year, which is the fourth straight year of double
digit growth. Construction is up 34 percent, and you can see it when
you’re in Yerevan. We know that your community is helping fuel this
construction boom.
Agriculture is growing, 11 percent last year. Industrial production
is growing, and inflation remains low.
The Armenian government has increased its ability to collect
taxes. That and corporate taxes which increases government revenues
which helps provide better services and the infrastructure for yet
more growth in a virtuous cycle. We’re seeing an increase in Armenian
government expenditure, on education, science, and health. This
investment in citizens will help bring a good future for Armenia.
The U.S.-Armenian relationship is continuing to deepen and our
economic support is continuing. Since independence, the United States
has contributed more than $1.5 billion of assistance. That’s quite
a bit of money for a country the size of Armenia. And many in the
Armenian-American community have also made substantial financial
contributions to, and investments in, Armenia as well.
Our assistance program, well much of it, is aimed at promoting economic
reform to help create the conditions for Armenians to continue their
economic growth in the best possible way.
There’s more work to do. Tax collection is up, but you know better
than I do how much of the economy remains underground. Corruption is a
serious problem. Corruption is a tax on the poor and a tax on honest
entrepreneurs. That is a drag. An economy saddled with corruption is
moving forward with lead weights tied to each leg.
We want to see greater economic integration between Armenia and
Georgia and Armenia and all the states of the Caucasus. We push
this regularly, and I did so when I was in Baku. We would like
to see greater integration. Now it is difficult in advance of a
Nagorno-Karabakh solution, but we keep raising it, and we will keep
raising it. It’s good not only for Armenia; it would be good for
Turkey and Azerbaijan as well.
Let me talk about regional security and military assistance. We
do support Armenia’s efforts to strengthen its relations with the
Euro-Atlantic community. Armenia has a policy of complementarity,
which means roughly balance in its relations with the West and the
Russians. This is not a problem for us. We don’t want to force Armenia
to choose between its historic friends and its Western identity, but
we do want our relations to grow. We do want our relations to grow,
and we don’t want barriers put in the way.
Our relations in the security field have grown. We value and appreciate
Armenia’s troop contributions in Iraq. There are 46 non-combatant
soldiers serving there now. There are 34 Armenian peacekeepers in
Kosovo. And we hope that Armenia will continue to do its part through
NATO’s Partnership for Peace to contribute to other operations in
the future.
Armenia has increased its cooperation with NATO. The government
is reforming its military in cooperation with the U.S. to make it
more interoperable with NATO. Armenia is pursuing what NATO calls
an individual partnership action plan with NATO. This is basically a
chapeau that lets the Armenian military slowly but as fast as Armenia
wants, grow closer to NATO so we can work together.
Frankly, I want to express my appreciation for the Assembly’s
encouragement last year to Armenia to complete its defense
assessment. That cleared the way for deeper security cooperation
between our two countries.
Now I know that some in your community, in the Armenian-American
community, are concerned about U.S.-Azerbaijani military relations,
so let me address this straight up. The fact is Azerbaijan has
made contributions to the War on Terror and these contributions —
overflight rights, access to Azerbaijani bases, information sharing,
law enforcement cooperation — are useful. Now Azerbaijan faces
security threats not from Armenia, and when I was in Baku I repeated
that Azerbaijan’s security problem really doesn’t come from Armenia,
it comes from other countries. It’s got a rough neighbor to the south,
Iran. And it’s on the Caspian Sea with a lot of oil and gas. Our
security cooperation with and assistance to Azerbaijan is meant
to improve Azerbaijan’s posture against those threats, not against
Armenia. I repeat. Not against Armenia.
President Bush has noted that to succeed in our own efforts, we need
the support of our efforts to fight terrorism, we need the support and
actions of friends and allies. We must join with others to deny the
terrorists what they seek, which is safe haven, financial support,
and the support and protection certain nation states historically
have given them. So we do need to work with all the countries of the
region on a counter-terrorist agenda.
But our assistance to Azerbaijan does not undermine our support for
Armenian security, and it is not designed and will not be used for
offensive purposes against Armenia. So we design our programs with
Azerbaijan very carefully. Counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism,
programs to counter trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.
Now let me mention a couple of words about energy security. In
January of this year, disruptions of electricity and gas to Georgia
affected Armenia, as well. After this episode, we’re looking at ways to
bolster energy security in the region and strengthen Armenia’s energy
independence. The key to doing this is to support market forces, to
diversify energy supplies, and avoid monopolistic restrictions. We’ve
been discussing this in NATO, we’ve been discussing this in the
European Union and with key countries in the region. We will continue
to look at ways in which the United States can support energy security
for all the countries of the south Caucasus.
We are concerned by increased energy ties with Iran, and so we’re
looking at alternatives. We’ve talked to the Georgians about them.
Now let me conclude with discussion of a tough issue for all of
us. April 24th is less than a month away. I’m not going to duck
this issue.
The U.S. position on events of 1915 has not changed. We believe that a
productive dialogue is the best way to establish a shared understanding
of history that honors the victims of these horrific events, murders
on a mass scale, killings without justification, deportations. Over
1.5 million people lost their lives, innocent victims. But we want to
foster reconciliation and peace based on an understanding of history,
not a denial of it. We believe that the tragedy of 1915, the killings,
is of enormous human significance and its historical assessment should
be determined not on the basis of politics, but introspection among
civic leaders and scholars. This process has begun in Turkey where
it needs to take place.
Now I know from experience and consultations with the Assembly and
other groups that the Armenian American community has a different view,
and I expect that you will express that view, and that is not for us —
I would be surprised if you didn’t, and I welcome the dialogue we’ve
established. [Applause].
Voice: Horse manure.
Voices: Be quiet. Sit down.
Ambassador Fried: I will value even frank comments, but —
[Laughter]. Hopefully a dialogue can be serious.
Sitting here with us is my old friend John Evans, our Ambassador
in Yerevan. He is the Ambassador, remains the Ambassador, has —
[Applause and cheers].
Like all of us, we all serve at the pleasure of the
President. Ambassador Evans came from Yerevan for the signing of
the Millennium Challenge Account Compact this afternoon, and will
be in the meeting this afternoon between Secretary Rice and Foreign
Minister Oskanian. There has been a great deal of speculation. I
don’t discuss personnel issues, but since my friend is sitting here,
I thought I would recognize Ambassador John Evans. [Applause].
Now I gather there will be some time to take questions. I wouldn’t
be surprised by a frank exchange. [Laughter]. That doesn’t bother me.
I appreciate the chance to meet with you and have a discussion of
all issues, whether we agree or disagree. America is a free country,
and I’m here to listen and to answer your questions the best I can.
Thank you for your attention. I’m glad to see that people were paying
attention. [Laughter]. [Applause].
Moderator: Thank you, Ambassador Fried. You said in Armenia and the
capital of Turkey that Armenians and Turks need to have courage on
the issue. The United States has to have courage on the issue of the
Armenian genocide. [Applause]. And that ambiguity out there in terms
of denial, curriculum that is trying to be inserted in classrooms
around this country, our government needs to be very clear about
their role and mission on this issue.
Your first question: As the U.S. and EU applies increasing pressure
on Iran with the prospects of confrontation grows, will the
U.S. take concrete steps to ensure Armenia’s security and economic
stability? Will the U.S. guarantee that the border with Turkey will
be open before there is conflict with Iran or potential conflict with
Iran that would risk a border closing?
Ambassador Fried: That’s a fair question, but I don’t have to yet
accept the premise that we are headed for a military confrontation with
Iran because we are now focused on achieving a diplomatic solution
to the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. We are not going
through the motions, we are serious about this. We do not believe
that Iran is North Korea. We do not believe that Iran thrives on
isolation. Iranian society does not want to be shunned by the world
and its leaders to not reflect the consensus in that society, as far as
we can tell. So I believe that our diplomatic efforts can bear fruit.
However, to be responsive to the question, we will continue to have a
serious discussion with Armenia as our thinking develops. And as John
Evans can tell you, this issue came up in our discussions a week and
a half ago in Yerevon. We will continue to work with Armenia to make
sure that its security is part of our thinking and integrated into our
thinking. Can I guarantee that the border with Turkey will be open? I
can’t guarantee that, and to say that I could would not be honest. But
I can say that we take Armenia’s security seriously. Armenia didn’t
choose its neighborhood, but there you are. [Laughter].
We will continue to work to see to it that Armenia is not vulnerable,
particularly on energy issues. And I did have explicit discussions in
Ankara about a future in which Armenia, in which gas and oil flowed
freely through Armenia from the Caspian without political hindrance,
so we are beginning this dialogue.
Moderator: I’m sure you imagine I’m getting a few questions on
Armenian genocide.
Ambassador Fried: I imagine. [Laughter].
Moderator: Why are third parties permitted to dictate America’s
foreign policy vis-a-vis Armenia and Cyprus?
Ambassador Fried: Third parties are not permitted to dictate our
foreign policy, nor do they dictate our foreign policy. We have a
policy which many of you disagree with. I understand. But we have a
policy of seeking to encourage Turkey to reflect more seriously about
subjects which have been taboo for generations in that country. I
said earlier that process has begun in Turkey. You recall that the
famous Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk spoke clearly about this. He is
not the only Turk speaking out. As I said, this process has begun
as Turkish society modernizes, and as it modernizes, as democracy
in Turkey deepens, Turkey will have to go through what many other
countries such as the United States have had to go through in our
own history, which is looking back at the darker spots in our past.
With respect to the United States, those darker spots include things
like slavery and racial discrimination, treatment of American Indians,
and in my opinion, internment of American citizens of Japanese origin
in camps in World War II. Those are painful subjects. Just as dealing
with the history of the mass killings of Armenians is painful for
Turkey. And by the way, I say this to my Turkish friends using the
same words. We keep one set of books.
Now that process has begun in Turkey. It is certainly not going fast
enough to satisfy you. It is not going fast enough to satisfy us. But
this process has begun and it will, I hope, bring greater understanding
to Turks of their own history.
We will continue to have a dialogue about this as April 24th
approaches. I will not attempt to anticipate what the President will
say. I do believe he will issue a statement on April 24th, in fact
I can’t believe there won’t be one. And I expect, as we have in the
past, to consult with the Armenian Assembly about this and to have
a frank set of discussions before and after.
Moderator: How will the U.S. deal with Azerbaijan regarding,
or how will it take to task, regarding the issue of the Armenian
historical landmarks of the Cemetery of Djulfa that was destroyed by
the Azerbaijanis?
Ambassador Fried: When I go to Baku and when U.S. officials go
to Baku, we always raise issues of living — Not just issues of
Nagorno-Karabakh, but issues of long-term peace in the south
provinces. Now I would be happy to raise issues of Armenian
historical sites in Azerbaijan. These historical sites, regardless
of differences over Nagorno-Karabakh, need to be respected and need
to be protected. This is a universal policy of the United States,
and I look forward to hearing from you about some of these sites so
that we can raise it with the Azerbaijani government. [Applause].
Moderator: How does the U.S. policy of promoting freedom
and democracy fit into your policy towards resolution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Especially considering the democratic will
of Nagorno-Karabakh to remain free?
Ambassador Fried: I don’t want to get into the details of the
shape of settlements under discussion. There is nothing worse than
negotiating in public. But the philosophic premise behind the question
is a good one and a fair one. That is how much weight do you give
self-determination, which is clearly a factor at stake here? How
much weight do you give issues of territorial integrity? And how much
weight do you give to well, facts on the ground? All right? Now that
is a difficult issue.
In my view, it is probably a mistake to try to apply rigid precedents
to all similar issues. Nagorno-Karabakh is not the same as Kosovo,
which is not the same as Abkhazia, which is not the same as
Chechnya. These issues are individual, and they need to be handled
individually. We are well aware that the will of the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh has to be respected. [Applause]. We are also aware
that there are issues of territorial integrity and the challenge
that we all face that Foreign Minister Oskanian and Foreign Minister
Mammadyarov and those involved in trying to help an agreement, have
to deal with all of these issues. And I am convinced that there can
be solutions at hand.
I don’t know when they will come about, but I think that 2006 is a
good window for them, and I don’t think that the people of Armenia,
Nagorno-Karabakh, or Azerbaijan deserve to live forever in a state
of uncertainty.
Moderator: Why does real politik trump the moral position in
recognizing the genocide, more in the U.S. than in France? If the
U.S. wants to foster reconciliation and peace in the region it’s true
that introspection needs to be fostered within Turkey. With Turkey’s
export of denialist tactics can peace and truth really be achieved? And
specifically if you could comment on a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts
currently that denialist material be put into the genocide curriculum.
Ambassador Fried: I can’t comment about the lawsuit. The United States
government has never denied the events of 1915. We do not support,
what was the phrase, export of denialist literature or positions. We
do support efforts by Turkey to deal with its history more seriously.
As I said, this process has begun. It has not ended. Efforts such
as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were serious, and these
were efforts in which Turkish, as well as Armenian scholars, were
involved. It produced a serious look at those issues which we have
recognized officially.
This is not an easy issue. It is not an easy issue for the United
States government, and we are not at the end of the road on this
issue. We will continue to urge our Turkish friends to face difficult
issues of their past seriously, and we will urge Armenia to help the
Turks make this possible without ever sacrificing historical truth
or your position.
Now that is not an entirely satisfactory position for your community,
but again, I value the advice and input and even the criticism from
the Armenian American community and it [inaudible].
Moderator: Is there any truth to reports in the Atlantic Monthly that
the U.S. is upgrading the Baku air bases for potential airstrikes
on Iran?
Ambassador Fried: No. [Laughter].
Moderator: What is your position on recent reports that Ambassador
Evans is being recalled because of his statements last year on the
Armenian genocide issue?
Ambassador Fried: We all serve at the pleasure of the President. I
won’t discuss personnel issues. Ambassador Evans, as I said, is
a friend of more than 20 years standing. He’s our Ambassador. He’s
right here. He will be in the meetings today at the State Department,
as I said. [Applause].
Moderator: Thank you, Ambassador Fried, for this very frank
discussion, as always, and we thank you all for your attention and
for participating. Thank you very much. [Applause].
NR#2006-029
–Boundary_(ID_EMrtU/Z0S NBwXctxS+KDRQ)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Embassy of The United States
Yerevan, Armenia
Digital Video Conference with Ambassador Mann
Covered by Arminfo, Armenpress, and Regnum
March 29, 2006
Ambassador Mann: I am glad for the opportunity to speak with the
press. I was there with Assistant Secretary Fried two weeks ago and
it’s an important time in our relations.
Arminfo news agency: Could you please talk about your meeting with
the French Co-Chairman in Istanbul? What was discussed? [Inaudible.]
Ambassador Mann: We met a little more that a week ago, I guess, in
Istanbul, and this was the French Co-Chair Ambassador Kasprzyk and
the assistant to our Russian colleague. Ambassador Merzlyakov was ill
so he could not be there. The purpose of the consultation was for me
to brief my colleagues on the discussions that took place in Baku
and Yerevan. This is when I was traveling with Assistant Secretary
Fried. We looked at potential future travel to the region. But we
reached no decisions at that stage about dates on traveling to the
region either individually or collectively. And we have no plans at
that stage or at this stage on hosting future meetings between the
foreign ministers or the presidents. We do not exclude the fact that
these might happen in the future, but we developed no plans for this.
Regnum news agency: Mr. Mann, I will ask my question in Russian. How
will you comment on the statement, or better the call, made by the
head of Nagorno-Karabakh addressed to Armenia to get out of the
negotiation process?
What do you think–is it something directed towards any party of the
negotiations? What is your opinion about this?
Ambassador Mann: I haven’t seen the statement so I can’t give a direct
commentary. But I can’t imagine that anyone of good will would want
the negotiations to stop. Because 2006 is our most promising year
to make some serious progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. And I
would hate to see the sides miss this opportunity and look back in
later years with regret.
Arminfo news agency: What do you think about numerous violations of
the ceasefire, which have resulted in casualties among the military
and civilian population. Do you think it is likely that war will
resume? Are you discussing the issue of cease fire violations by
Azerbaijan in your meetings with the Azerbaijanis?
Ambassador Mann: Cease fire violations are irresponsible and dangerous.
That’s a basic fact. We, the Co-Chairs, keep in close touch with
Ambassador Kasprzyk and his team on this. And these are a subject of
discussion with each side with each defense minister.
Arminfo news agency: What are the Co-Chairs doing to discourage
Azerbaijan from unleashing a new war? [Inaudible.]
Ambassador Mann: By far the best way to discourage a new war is to
get an agreement in months ahead. Stalemate breeds frustration. Lack
of progress, I believe as a general point, leads to more radical
solutions on each side. I believe absolutely, the United States
believes, that the way peace is best served is by taking that first
step towards an agreement in 2006. I don’t believe we can solve
the entire Nagorno-Karabakh issue in 2006. I think realistically the
process of the Karabakh settlement is going to be something that takes
places over many years. But I think this is our year, and these are
the months, to take that first important step. And I am absolutely
convinced that in the months ahead the two sides have the chance,
greatly to lower the dangers of a new war. I can’t believe that people
on any side of the conflict want a war to start again. But that’s the
remarkable thing is that in these months, in these negotiations, we
have the chance to take an enormous step back from the possibility of
war. Now, by no means I am predicting that a new war will break out in
the future. No one can predict the future. But having two armies face
each other across a line of contact is not a comfortable situation.
Armenpress: What in your mind will be a possible reply of the
international community if war is resumed? And could there be sanctions
imposed upon the party that unleashes the war?
Ambassador Mann: It’s too speculative a question to have an intelligent
comment on. It’s an intelligent question, but I don’t have an
intelligent answer. But the international community has already given
an answer. They gave an answer after the last major fighting. And
the answer of the international community is that we are not going
to be a judge, we are not going to be an arbitrator, but what we are
going to do is try and develop a negotiated solution between the two
sides. That is the answer of the international community.
Armenpress: Ambassador, you didn’t answer whether there could be
sanctions imposed upon a country that unleashes a war.
Ambassador Mann: I mean again, that’s just pure speculation.
Regnum news agency: Ambassador Mann, I would like to hear your opinion
about possibility of applying the Kosovo model to the resolution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Ambassador Mann: On that, we see that whatever might happen in
Kosovo does not set a precedent for any other area. Every conflict
has its individual roots and its individual history, and we have to
respect that fact. And I think it would do a great disservice to the
complexity of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict if we viewed it as being
in a mold or as a twin with other conflicts.
Armenpress news agency: Answering the first question, you did not
mention any dates for the possible meetings of the Co-Chairs and also
foreign ministers or presidents. But I would like to know the next
step will be.
Today you had a meeting with Foreign Minister Oskanian. So, what types
of meetings are planned for the future? Will it be a meeting between
the foreign ministers, or between the presidents? Just something
about the future steps please.
Ambassador Mann: I did not give nay dates because we don’t have
any. The Co-Chairs were very, very serious when we said that
Rambouillet was the point where we needed to get decisions from each
side. And we did not have anything up our sleeve as a backup in case
Rabouillet did not result in an agreement. Now, we the Co-Chairs
are trying to decide, trying to assess, how to move forward. I will
say that after the discussions I had in Baku with President Aliyev
and in Yerevan with President Kocharian, I am hopeful that we will
find a way to move forward. Those discussions lead me to believe
that the process has not stopped. And I had very good talks with
Foreign Minister Oskanian this week in Washington. I expect to have
a chance to see Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Azimov, who is
also in Washington, on issues not related to Nagorno-Karabakh. And
the Co-Chairs and I are in contact with each other now to try and
find a point for us to consult again.
Probably some time, well definitely sometime in April, but we have
to work out our schedules.
Regnum news agency: Mr. Mann, do you think is it possible to reach any
progress on this issue without the participation of Nagorno-Karabakh?
Ambassador Mann: Well, I think progress is not only possible, it’s
necessary in the months ahead. As for the participation of Karabakh,
that has always been a question for the two sides to decide. And the
question to be asked is–does it move the negotiations ahead or does
it not? But the Co-Chairs have always had the position that if the two
sides agree, we support we support it, if the two sides don’t agree,
we support that as well. It’s whatever the two sides want.
Armenpress news agency: And to wrap up, Ambassador Mann, do you think
it is possible to come up with an agreement or to come up with a
signed document this year?
Ambassador Mann: Yes, I believe it is not only possible, but
necessary. The two sides have made a lot of progress and I believe
President Kocharian and President Aliyev deserve a great deal of
admiration and respect for what they have achieved so far. And
the diplomatic teams on each side are world-class, so that’s a
professional pleasure for me to engage in this work. But I think
that we are at this stage now also, where we have to know–do the
people want peace? I see the negotiations on the inside, and what
I see is this: that there is a chance to lower very sharply the
risks of a future war; that this is an agreement that will bring
more jobs and economic development to Nagorno-Karabakh; that this is
an agreement that will allow reconstruction and development in the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan; and it’s an agreement that will
allow Armenians and Azerbaijanis to make those first steps towards
living as peaceful neighbors in a way that people should live. So we
are at the state where we need the governments and the people on each
side to say that this is the step they would like to take. Anyway,
thank you very much. It’s been great to talk. It’s been great to
have this good quality video at a six thousand mile distance. So,
I hope to see you all in person again here or there.
Regnum news agency: Mr. Mann we are very thankful to you for this
opportunity–we hope such events will continue in the future. You
mentioned the “occupied territories” of Azerbaijan. What did you mean
by that?
Ambassador Mann: That’s the way that they are referred to in the
agreements, and that is a subject which the two sides continue
to define.
Thank you.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EURASIANET.ORG
Thursday, March 30, 2006
EURASIA INSIGHT
AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENT LASHES OUT AT “ARMENIAN NATIONALISTS”
Mina Muradova and Rufat Abbasov 3/29/06
Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, has lashed out at Armenia,
claiming that “Armenian ideologists-nationalists” have pursued a
policy of aggression against Azeris for “about 200 years.” Aliyev’s
vitriolic rhetoric indicates that the window for a negotiated solution
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is slamming shut.
In his March 28 address, Aliyev said Armenians aimed “to oust
Azerbaijanis from their lands, and create a state of ‘Greater
Armenia.'” He went on to assert that Yerevan was solely responsible
for starting hostilities between the two countries “aiming to forcibly
unify Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia.”
He complained that “the history of our nation has been roughly
distorted” by a comprehensive Armenian propaganda campaign that
“mobilized the Armenia diaspora and lobby for those purposes,”
according to the text of the address distributed by the official
AzerTag news agency.
Aliyev’s speech occurred roughly six weeks after he and his Armenian
counterpart, Robert Kocharian, failed to achieve a breakthrough in
Karabakh peace negotiations during a summit meeting in France. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In the weeks leading up
to that meeting, hopes ran high that the two leaders would agree on a
peace framework. Though few details of the discussions have emerged,
observers believe that disagreement over the timing and the scope
of a Karabakh referendum concerning the territory’s political future
emerged as an insurmountable obstacle to a settlement.
Since the summit, international mediators had expressed hope that
a settlement could still be found in 2006. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive]. Aliyev’s comments indicate, however,
that Baku doesn’t believe a peaceful settlement is achievable in the
near term.
Claiming that Armenia has “become a hostage to the idea of a ‘great
state,'” Aliyev alleged that peace talks stalled yet again “because of
the destructive and aggressive policy of the Armenian leadership.” He
reiterated that Azerbaijan is committed to a negotiated Karabakh
settlement that provides for “the restoration of our territorial
integrity.” But in comments sure to enrage Yerevan, Aliyev added that
Armenian leaders were conducting an “informational-propagandistic
fight concerning the invented ‘Armenian genocide’ … to prove their
territorial claims and obtain political dividends.”
Armenian officials had no immediate official reaction to the
Azerbaijani president’s comments. A central pillar of Yerevan’s foreign
policy has been securing international recognition of Ottoman Turkey’s
mass killings of Armenians, beginning in 1915, as genocide. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. President Kocharian
previously cautioned that if Baku did not alter its negotiating
position, the Armenian government would consider recognizing Karabakh’s
independence.
In recent weeks, Aliyev and other officials have repeatedly threatened
that Azerbaijan might resort to military action if Baku determined that
Karabakh peace negotiations stood no chance of success. In comments
made March 27 during a ceremony at the National Security Ministry,
and broadcast by ANS television, Aliyev stressed that Azerbaijan’s
rapid economic growth, driven by the development of the country’s
abundant energy reserves, was enabling the government to embark on
a far-reaching military build-up. He added that the potential for
Karabakh negotiations “has not yet been exhausted.”
“The other side [Armenia] must know that Azerbaijan is capable of
securing its territorial integrity through war,” Aliyev said.
Ceasefire violations in recent weeks have resulted in the deaths of
several Azerbaijani soldiers, Lider television reported. The ArmInfo
news agency on March 28 quoted Armenian Deputy Defense Minister
Artur Agabekyan as saying Azerbaijani forces were responsible for
starting the firefights. “Our servicemen … are in a state of combat
readiness,” Agabekyan said. “They will be prepared to repulse any
attack, be it a local attack or a large-scale one.”
In addition to the build-up, Azerbaijan appears intent on mobilizing
the Azeri diaspora to join in an information offensive to promote
Baku’s interests around the globe, including a Karabakh settlement that
is favorable to Baku. Azerbaijani officials used the second Congress
of World Azerbaijanis, held in mid March, to issue a call for rapid
consolidation of diaspora groups in order to present a unified view
of Azerbaijan and its policy aims to the outside world.
“In today’s world, a successful information policy is one of the
major factors of the overall development and perfect strengthening of
statehood,” Nazim Ibrahimov, the head of Azerbaijan’s State Committee
on Relations with Azerbaijanis Living Abroad, said in a March 16
speech to the congress’ 600 delegates.
According to state committee figures, approximately 50 million Azeris
live in over 70 countries. The largest diaspora communities are
found in Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Ukraine, Germany and the United
States. Approximately 30 million Azerbaijanis also live in modern
Iran. Roughly 8 million Azeris live in Azerbaijan.
In his March 28 speech, Aliyev indicated that Baku would seek to use
the Azeri diaspora to counter the “Armenian lobby abroad.”
Some delegates to the congress acknowledged that Azeri diaspora groups
had not done a good job in promoting Baku’s policies. “The Azerbaijani
diaspora is badly organized because it is young,” Azad Seidov, head of
the Azeri national cultural center in the Russian city Surgut, told
EurasiaNet. “We do not have a common plan of action and Azerbaijani
communities in foreign countries are working on their own. We have
to unite in order to recover our lands, cultural heritage and customs.”
Other representatives of diaspora groups confirmed that the
consolidation effort was intended to influence the Karabakh peace
process. Fahri Kerimli, chairman of board of the Romanian-Azerbaijani
Cultural Assembly, said unification would assist in the “neutralization
of efforts of Armenian diaspora around the world against Azerbaijan,
Azerbaijanis and Turkey.” A major aim of the intended information
offensive, Kerimli added, was to recast Azerbaijan as the victim in
the Karabakh conflict, dispelling the widely held view at present
that Baku was the aggressor.
Seidov and other delegates expressed interest in coordinating actions
with representatives of Turkish diaspora groups. “State interests
… made it necessary for the Azerbaijani and Turkish diasporas to
cooperate – to jointly operate to solve vital problems,” Ibrahimov,
the state committee chief, said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ZOMBYING OF THE AZERBAIJANI PUBLIC AT THE TOP LEVEL PURSUES QUITE
SPECIFIC GOALS: POLITICAL ANALYST
STEPANAKERT, MARCH 30. ARMINFO. “Ilham Aliyev’s speech is nothing but
a vaccine ruining the immune system of the Azerbaijani people. The
zombying of the Azerbaijani public at the top level pursues quite
specific goals,” David Babayan, Karabakh political expert says
commenting on the so-called “Genocide of Azerbaijanis” marked on
March 31 in Azerbaijan.
The analyst says that the Azerbaijani president presents Armenians
as the only enemy of Azerbaijan in the world. Such a policy
affects the Karabakh conflict’s settlement, which is moved from the
Karabakh-Azerbaijan to Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, hereby having
a negative influence on the stability in the South Caucasus, on the
whole. No constructive steps or compromises can be expected from a
country whose leader propagandizes anti-Armenism. Moreover, in his
speech, Ilham Aliyev openly claims also Zangezour, D. Babayan says.
The expert believes that creating the image of an enemy, makes the
Azerbaijani public manageable and radical. In fact, this radicalism
will easily turn into terrorism. The barbarian destruction of the
khachkars in Julfa is nothing but a cultural terrorism, D. Babayan
believes. If the president says that Armenian occurred in Nakhijevan in
the 19th century, they cannot be Armenian Christian cultural monuments
of the 9th century, D. Babayan says.
He says by such policy, the Azerbaijani authorities give their
national minorities to understand that any demand for observation
of their rights will be considered a solidarity with Armenians and
enmity to the Azerbaijani people. The given approach is nothing but
a forced mechanism to form the Azerbaijani people. The Azerbaijani
(Turkic) elite tries to forcefully assimilate Lezgins, Talishes, Tats
and other peoples into a single Turkic ethnos. It should be noted
that the ethnonym “Azerbaijanis” originate only in 1936 and then the
Soviet authorities took the course of forming the united Azerbaijani
people of all the Islamic peoples of Azerbaijan, D. Babayan said. The
analyst says the unhealthy craving for historical falsifications is
the state policy of Azerbaijan now.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA AND RUSSIA TO EXCHANGE STUDENTS
YEREVAN, MARCH 30.ARMINFO. “We suggested the Armenian side to create
conditions for the education of the Armenian students in Moscow. The
number of the Armenian students will depend on the number of the
Russian students that will study in Yerevan,” professor Mikhail Meyer,
head of the Institute for the Asian and the African States at the
Moscow State University, said this today.
He said that the Russian side is especially interested in studying
the Old Armenian(Grabar), as this language is a key to a number of
valuable historical archives in Matenadaran. Besides, Moscow finds it
necessary to prepare specialists of the Armenian studies. Mr. Meyer
added that the Armenian language is already taught at his institute.
“President Putin emphasized that the Armenian-Russian relations do
not keep in line with the level of strategic partnership and the
Russians don’t know Armenia well,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azerbaijani officials accuse Armenian forces of killing Azerbaijani soldier
AP Worldstream; Mar 30, 2006
An Azerbaijani soldier was killed Thursday by Armenian fire on the
volatile border between the two Caucasus nations, officials said.
Azerbaijani Defense Ministry spokesman Ilgar Verdiyev said the soldier
was killed by an Armenian sniper near the village of Alibeyli in the
northern Tovuz region of Azerbaijan.
Armenian Defense Ministry spokesman Seiran Shakhsuvarian dismissed
the Azerbaijani statement, saying Armenian forces had not fired on
Azerbaijani positions.
The two countries remain at odds over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh,
an ethnic Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. A cease-fire agreement
was reached in 1994 after six years of fighting, and the enclave is now
under the control of ethnic Armenians, whose troops face Azerbaijani
forces across a half-mile-wide (kilometer-wide) no man’s land.
Clashes break out sporadically along the tense border, however, and
the countries’ presidents have traded increasingly bellicose statements
since talks to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh’s status broke down last month.
The Nagorno-Karabakh separatist government issued a statement Thursday
accusing Azerbaijani forces of violating the cease-fire. It said
Azerbaijani shelling of Nagorno-Karabakh forces on Wednesday led
to a suspension of activities of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe’s monitoring mission in the area.

Russia not to join Romanian Black Sea Euro-region project – Romanian report
Rompres news agency
31 Mar 06
Bucharest, 31 March: The representative of the Russian Federation at
the Conference for the launch of the Black Sea Euro-region project,
director with the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry Vladimir Lebedenko,
expressed Russia’s stand in this issue, which distances itself from
the adoption of the Political Statement regarding the establishment
of this body.
Government representatives from the other riparian countries of the
extended Black Sea area – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Georgia,
Greece, Turkey, the Republic of Moldova and Bulgaria – expressed
their support for the project proposed by Romania and the Congress
of the Local and Regional Authorities (CLRA) of the Council of Europe.
Vladimir Lebedenko specified that Russia did not take part in the
preparation of this document and does not consider itself bound to
express support.
The Russian diplomat also voiced reserves regarding this initiative,
pointing out that such ideas are fine and interesting, but for the
time being, his country cannot commit to supporting them because it
is yet unclear if the new body would not overlap with the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation Organization (BSECO).
President of the Congress of the Local and Regional Authorities
Giovanni di Stasi voiced confidence that, in the end, Russia will
join the Black Sea Euro-region project, the more so as the Russian
authorities have proven openness to the cross-border cooperation
methods initiated by CLRA, as they offered support for CLRA’s opening,
in the coming months, in St Petersburg, of a centre that will offer
assistance with the establishment of a similar project in the Baltic
Sea region.
“We will continue the dialogue with our partners from Russia and I
believe we will succeed in persuading them to join us,” said Giovanni
di Stasi.
In his turn, secretary-general of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis,
underscored that this initiative is not “binding” for all the Black
Sea riparian countries, but that their own will was at the basis of
the project. However, he insisted on the utility of the Euro-region
project, pointing out that a climate of cooperation needs to be
established between the local authorities in the area, aimed at
eradicating pollution, corruption and the trafficking of humans
and weapons.
Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu expressed his opinion
that the initiative of the Black Sea Euro-region does not overlap
with BSECO’s activity object, underscoring that cooperation is very
frail in the Pontic area, so that this body’s coming into being would
be beneficial.
In the end of the Conference on regional cooperation, the
representatives of the Novorossiysk region joined the final common
statement assumed by the participants that represented the local
authorities from Black Sea riparian countries and CLRA.
The statement sets 2007 as the deadline for the establishment of the
Euro-region, as a concrete dialogue body between the local elects
from the mentioned countries, and also provides the establishment of
a standing technical secretariat that will facilitate the dialogue
until 2007. According to Giovanni di Stasi, the technical secretariat
will be probably based in the Romanian city of Constanta and will be
staffed with Romanian experts.
The next Black Sea inter-regional cooperation meting will take place
in the Turkish city of Samsun.
The Black Sea Euro-region is the first form of regional partnership
accomplished with the support and contribution of European institutions
– the Council of Europe and the European Union – that will represent
the main funding sources for the concrete projects that will be drawn
up by the local authorities from the coast areas of the Pontic basin.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress