Author: Frangulian Shushan

YEREVAN JUR COMPANY WANTS TO RAISE WATER PRICE 14.3%

ARKA
March 5, 2010

YEREVAN, March 5. /ARKA/. Yerevan Jur wants to raise water price
by 14.3% because of inflation and devaluation of Armenian national
currency.

Gagik Markaryan, commercial director of this water company, told
journalists on Thursday that as a rule, the company sets prices taking
into account three basic components – volumes of produced water,
inflation, dram/euro exchange rate and electric power price.

He said that electricity price remains unchanged, but instead,
inflation rose and Armenian dram devaluated.

Markaryan said that Yerevan Jur is implementing a large scale
construction and purchasing necessary equipment in Europe to ensure
round-the-clock water supply.

That is why changes in currency exchange rates strike at the company.

The commercial director said that annual correction of prices is
carried out in accordance with the contract on leasing and managing
water-supplying network and has no connection with gas price rise.

On February 26, Jerevan Jur appealed to Armenian Public Service
Regulatory Commission asking it to authorize water price raise.

The company wants one cubic meter of water to cost AMD 206,976 instead
of present AMD 181.

The commission considers requests within 90 days, but a decision on
this application is expected to be made earlier.

Markaryan also said that after authorization by the commission new
prices will take force on July 1, 2010.

Yerevan Jur CJSC is the residents company established by French
Generale des Eaux, who has won the tender announced by the World Bank.

Now the French company enjoys the right to run Yerevan Jur for
ten years.

Yerevan Jur runs water and sewerage systems in Armenia’s capital as
well as in Ararat, Aragatsotn and Kotayk provinces.

Yereva Jur has 332,750 customers.

The company produces some 370 million cubic meters of drinking water
every year.

The company’s network covers 2120 kilometers. ($1 = AMD 385.68).

AGBU Press Office
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone: 212.319.6383, x118
Fax: 212.319.6507
Email: [email protected]
Website:

PRESS RELEASE

Thursday, March 4, 2010

AGBU YP Toronto Hosts Business Etiquette Event

On January 17, 2010, the AGBU Young Professionals (YP) of Toronto hosted
a business etiquette seminar as they kicked off the New Year. The
Business Etiquette Workshop was led by Natalie Jikerjian, a Cambridge
University certified business etiquette expert. Over 60 young
professionals attended the event, which consisted of a cocktail
reception followed by a 90-minute seminar. The lecture covered business
etiquette and protocol in various areas of the corporate and
professional world. Attendees took advantage of the cocktail reception
as an opportunity to do some professional networking, as they
represented young Armenian professionals across a variety of fields.
Guests mixed and mingled with their contemporaries and peers, exchanging
business cards and, in many cases, making successful connections.

Jikerjian, a warm and engaging speaker, started the presentation by
letting her audience know that she had been observing the attendees
during the reception as they were naturally demonstrating their
networking skills. Jikerjian signaled out some of the individuals who
had unknowingly exhibited strong business etiquette and acumen. She
provided tips on how to make proper business introductions, went over
guidelines on electronic etiquette, and gave lessons on formal business
dining. Jikerjian also profiled cross-cultural customs for international
business travel and meetings. From learning how to make a good first
impression to dressing for success, attendees were guided through an
interactive presentation.

The hands-on workshop also covered national and international
gift-giving protocol, knowing who to introduce first in meetings, ways
to conduct proper business card exchange, and tips on entertaining
clients. The host made the evening less about a rigid lecture and more
about getting the young professionals involved and proactive, adding
some anecdotal humor along the way. Despite a slightly casual and
light-hearted approach, Jikerjian stressed the importance of her
workshop. "Etiquette is about presenting yourself with the right kind of
polished professionalism that can be taken seriously. It’s important
knowing how to open the door, so that you can close the deal," she said.

Jikerjian’s knowledge and comfort within the corporate environment
showed her own honed manners and level of professionalism. Her skills
were also indicative of the larger phenomena at hand these days. A
generation ago, young professionals were mainly focused on entry into
the corporate world. Today, amidst an ever-growing competitive corporate
and educational world, and with the bar of expectations continuously
being raised, young professionals are increasingly more concerned about
standing out, longevity, and a respectable path to success within their
individual industries. Keenly aware of the current conditions
surrounding them and the future ahead, they are constantly trying to
upgrade and enhance their skills and to continuously be as marketable as
possible.

The timely event, sponsored in part by TD Bank Financial Group, was very
well received by the Toronto-area young professionals and all guests in
attendance. Everyone was extremely thankful to the organizers and host
Natalie Jikerjian for their hard work and enthusiasm. AGBU hopes that
the positive feedback and successful turnout will lead to similar events
in the future.

Established in 1906, AGBU () is the world’s largest
non-profit Armenian organization. Headquartered in New York City, AGBU
preserves and promotes the Armenian identity and heritage through
educational, cultural and humanitarian program, annually touching the
lives of some 400,000 Armenians around the world.

For more information about AGBU and its worldwide programs, please visit

AZERBAIJANI MP: ARMENIA HAS NOT YET USED ITS CHANCE TO SECURE PROGRESS IN NK NEGOTIATIONS
A. Hasanov

Today
3020.html
March 3 2010
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with Chairman of Azerbaijan’s Party of Reforms and
member of the Azerbaijan’s Milli Majlis (Parliament) Asim Mollazade.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan will travel to France on March
9-11. What do you expect from this visit?

I expect nothing from this visit. This is the next visit to France
which is a home to a strong Armenian diaspora. Such visits serve
personal political goals of the Armenian leadership, which continues to
take an unconstructive position on settlement of Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

And what are your comments on Armenian Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandian’s statement that Armenia has presented proposals on
outstanding items on the Madrid principles to the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs?

Armenia has not yet taken advantage of its chance of serious progress
in peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But Armenia
still has such a chance. To do this, Armenia needs to accelerate
work with the OSCE MG making proposals that will truly lead to peace
rather than imitate the process of negotiations. All previous actions
of Armenian government demonstrated the country’s unwillingness to
take real steps for a just settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Can we say that non-constructive position of the Armenia leadership on
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict jeopardizes future of Turkish-Armenian
dialogue?

Certainly. After all, fate of the Turkish-Armenian dialogue depends on
a process of establishing peace in the South Caucasus region, which
envisages also settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in which
Armenian leadership displays an unconstructive approach. There is no
hope for opening of Turkish-Armenian border and full normalization
of relations between the two countries until the reason for which
Turkey closed its border with Armenia has not been eliminated yet. The
Turkish leadership has also reiterated this many times.

Meanwhile, at an opposition rally held in Yerevan on Monday, leader of
the opposition Armenian National Congress (ANC), the first president
of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan declared that liberation of the five
occupied regions have been agreed upon and now negotiations focus
on status of Nagorno-Karabakh, peacekeeping forces in the conflict
zone and the future of the Lachin corridor. How do you comment on
this statement?

We would like very much to believe in Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s words, but
his statement was most likely dictated by domestic political realities
in Armenia and designed for the Armenian public. I stress once again
that all previous actions of the Armenian leadership displayed the
country’s non-constructive approach to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, which does not give reason to make confident statements
about beginning of the process of resolving the conflict between
Azerbaijan and Armenia.

In your opinion, what will be the outcome of the U.S. Congress
discussions on the so-called "Armenian genocide" resolution?

Adoption of the "Armenian genocide" resolution by the U.S. Congress
will cause a huge blow to U.S. national interests, resulting in a loss
of its allies, especially Turkey. We hope that a basic understanding
of all the possible consequences will prevent the U.S. Congressmen
from passing this document.

MBOLA DITCHES ARMENIAN CLUB

Lusaka Times
March 3 2010
Zambia

ZAMBIA defender Emmanuel Mbola has ditched Armenian side Pyunik
Yeravan.

Division One (North) Mining Rangers director Elijah Chileshe confirmed
the development in Kitwe yesterday.

Chileshe said Mbola is not going back to Pyunik Yeravan because the
Armenian club allegedly breached some terms of the contract.

He said Mbola’s decision must be respected by everyone.

"Mbola is not going back to Pyunik. That club has not been honest
in the manner it has been handling issues. The player has complained
of ill-treatment at that club. It is just right that he joins other
clubs that will look after him well," Chileshe said.

He said the player was promised a monthly salary of US$3,500 when he
signed the contract with Pyunik Yeravan but the club has been paying
him US$1,000 without explaining to the international defender why it
did not follow what was in the three-year contract.

"Those people made him sign without our consent.

They promised to take him to school but they never did that. He is not
going back and his issues are now being handled by FIFA. We can’t blame
Mbola but Pyunik for not looking after our player well," Chileshe said.

He said there are a number of offers from European clubs that include
English Premier League side Tottenham Hotspur.

He said Spurs are still chasing for the player’s signature and that
they just want Mbola’s contractual problems resolved.

Spurs are understood to have tabled a 1 million pound deal to Pyunik
for the services of Mbola.

Mbola cut short his 10-day trials at Spurs because the English
Premiership side discovered he had a professional contract with Pyunik.

However, Spurs boss Harry Redknapp said he was not aware about the
presence of Mbola at the club.

Birmingham City and West Ham United are the other clubs that are
reported to be after Mbola’s signature.

Mbola was impressive at the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations in Angola
where the Chipolopolo were eliminated by Nigeria in the quarter-finals.

THE NETHERLANDS: A COUNTRY SEARCHING FOR ITS TRUE COLOR

Today’s Zaman
March 3 2010
Turkey

"Either appear as you are, or be as you look." Mevlana

"Be what you would seem to be, or if you’d like it put more simply:
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might
appear to others that what you were or might have been was not
otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to
be otherwise." Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland" The political
realities of the Netherlands make single-party governments nearly
impossible in this small country, so coalition governments are
common. The current political kaleidoscope is waiting to find its
true colors following the collapse of the government after the Dutch
Labour Party (PvdA) pulled out of the current three-party coalition,
precipitating early general elections on June 9, 2010.

On the surface, the course of events leading to the collapse of
the government followed an acrimonious dispute over extending the
Dutch mission in Afghanistan. PvdA political leader and Deputy Prime
Minister Wouter Bos decided to present the resignations of his party’s
12 ministers early on Saturday, Feb. 19. The two sides, the Christian
Democratic Appeal (CDA), the larger partner in the coalition, and the
PvdA had fiercely accused each other of misunderstanding the other’s
stance on the Dutch military mission in Afghanistan. The previous
government had narrowly decided in favor of the deployment of troops
in Afghanistan in 2006. Support to extend it in 2008 was only given on
the condition the mission would end in 2010. This compromise was then
supported by all political parties represented in the Tweede Kamer
(the Dutch House of Representatives).

In the aftermath of the government’s collapse, Prime Minister Jan
Peter Balkenende, CDA, openly accused the PvdA leader "of damaging
the Netherlands’ reputation abroad." It was "not responsible" of the
party to say it was not prepared to discuss NATO’s formal request to
the Netherlands to stay in Afghanistan for another year, he said. In
one way, Mr. Balkenende seems to be right in his accusation when the
official statement of the US government is considered, indicating
that the US vice president had spoken to Dutch Deputy Prime Minister
Bos, thanking him for the important Dutch contributions to security
and development goals in Afghanistan, along with the US’s desire to
continue its consultations as the alliance moves toward implementing
its shared strategy in Afghanistan. But when the Dutch government
received the official letter from NATO asking to the government to
extend its mission in Afghanistan, Mr. Bos vehemently declared to the
public that he was unaware of the expectation. Many political experts
claim that it is almost impossible for a deputy prime minister to be
unaware of such a sensitive development.

The PvdA’s leadership problem

There has been controversy over Mr. Bos’ leadership ever since he
took over as party leader — doubts that are even shared by the PvdA’s
inner circle. Mr. Bos’ style and ability to run such a well-established
party has caused some to worry. His lack of leadership has brought the
party some historic general election defeats. The only exception was
the party’s success in the latest local elections in which the PvdA
was strong in general. An example of his leadership style relates to
Turkey and voters of Turkish origin.

In the last general election in 2006, when the so-called Armenian
genocide issue erupted in the Netherlands, the party disqualified
its three Turkish candidates from the list on the basis that these
Turkish-Dutch people did not acknowledge the so-called genocide. The
other Turkish candidate, second on the list to Mr. Bos, was put in a
very tricky position. The uproar this caused in the Turkish community,
which constitutes the party’s largest group of ethnic voters, did
not seem to be a problem for Bos who declared that "he did not need
these votes." The result was so dramatic that the party seemed to
lose this important source of votes completely.

According to the latest official figures, the country has witnessed
the worst economic downturn since 1931. Mr. Bos has been the finance
minister for the last three years and this may be the reason why he
so loudly retreated from government blaming tricky matters of foreign
policy. He put the concerns of war and peace in such a way that there
is little room for maneuver left with such idealistic human behavior.

There is no doubt his popularity has increased slightly but the
cost of this political trick will have a huge negative effect on the
Netherlands. In the NATO mission in Afghanistan the Netherlands became
the first country to withdraw from its allies, especially the biggest
player in the international community, the US. And there is great
concern from the US that other countries could now follow the bad
Dutch example. It looks like the PvdA has sacrificed the Netherlands’
promise to NATO because of the short-sightedness of a weak leader.

The rules of the game Mr. Bos is playing right now include some
questions as he has tried to secure the future of his party. Although
he might be accused of not regarding an old principle of international
law — pacta sunt servanda — expressing the idea that treaties are
to be observed, he has already proved himself on another venerable
principle — clausula rebus sic stantibus — which suggests that
circumstances may change as to render a treaty inoperative. If you
take politics as an open-ended race and consider that obtaining as
many votes as possible through elections as among one of the main
objectives, Mr. Bos can be seen as a good example of a politician
but not a statesman.

In addition to the leadership problem, he has decided not to take
a seat in parliament until the next election in order to get more
understanding of the different ideas in society and to concentrate his
efforts on the coming elections. His party will not be represented
in both parliament and the cabinet with a strong leader until the
new parliament. Another important point is the party’s number two
in the last general election, Turkish-Dutch Ms. Nebahat Albayrak has
also said she has yet to decide whether she will stand as a member of
parliament in the election. This means the country’s top two social
democrats are concentrating their efforts on local elections.

*Kaan Kutlu Atac is an international security analyst.

REVENUES OF ARMENIA’S STATE BUDGET GROW BY 22.3% IN JANUARY 2010 ON SAME MONTH OF 2009

Noyan Tapan
March 3, 2010

YEREVAN, MARCH 3, NOYAN TAPAN. Revenues of the RA state budget
amounted to 51.1 billion drams (about 5 million 185.8 thousand),
while expenditures made 38.6 billion drams in January 2010, as a
result of which the first quarter program approved by the government
was executed by 34.6% and 21.4% respectively. The annual programmed
indices of the state budget were executed by 7.2% (revenues) and 4.6%
(expenditures).

The RA Ministry of Finance reported that state budget revenues grew by
22.3% or 9.3 billion drams as compared with January 2009. Taxes and
duties grew by 14.6% (5.1 billion drams), complusory social payments
by 41.7% (2 billion drams), and other revenues grew 2.1-fold or by
2.2 billion drams.

Taxes and duties made 78.6%, compulsory social security payments
– 13.3%, and other revenues – 8.1% of the revenues of the state
budget of Armenia. Under Article 9 Point 11 of the RA Law on the 2010
State Budget of the Republic of Armenia, financial resources of state
institutions’ off-budget funds, whose revenues amounted to 1.3 billion
drams in the reporting period, were also included in the state budget.

TURKEY – WEBSITE EDITOR TO BE TRIED ON CHARGE ON INSULTING PRESIDENT

Global Politics
or-be-tried-charge-insulting-president-20100302167 55.html
March 2 2010

Baris Yarkadas, the editor of the online newspaper Gercek Gundem
(Real Agenda), will face up to five years in prison when he appears
before a criminal court in the Istanbul district of Kadiköy tomorrow
in response to a complaint brought by the president’s office. He is
charged with insulting President Abdullah Gul under article 299-2 of
the criminal code for failing to remove a comment posted by a reader.

"We call for the immediate withdrawal of this baseless charge,"
Reporters Without Borders said. "It is incomprehensible that Yarkadas
should be accused of insulting the president when he did not himself
write the comment, which was anyway neither rude nor insulting. This
prosecution is indicative of a desire by the government to intimidate
and silence its critics."

The president’s office has even said it knows who posted the comments,
referring to him as "the aggressor" and revealing that he lives
abroad. The reader accused President Gul of allowing his Armenian
counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan, to defy him. "Bravo, you have trampled
on the honour of the great republic of Turkey," he wrote.

Yarkadas is facing other prosecutions. He is due to appear before
the same court on 5 March on a charge of offending Nur Birgen, the
head of the Institute for Forensic Medicine’s expertise section,
by reporting allegations that human rights NGOs have made against her.

US CONGRESS – NOT THE PLACE TO DEBATE HISTORY

PanARMENIAN.Net
02.03.2010 20:29 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ US Congress’s annual determination to debate
the history of the Ottoman Empire is a sign of spring. The Turkish
government’s approach to the American Jewish community to help sink
the proposed Congressional resolution officially recognizing the
horrific killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in the early 20th
Century as Genocide is a similar ritual. Unlike the swallows, however,
both Congress and the Turks are out of their habitat.

During the flowering of Turkish-Israeli political and security
relations, it was easy for representatives of the "organized" Jewish
community to speak on behalf of its Turkish friends and against the
resolution. As the Turkish government began to slide-and then rush-away
from its relationship with Israel and slide- and then rush-toward new
accommodations with Syria and Iran, the Jewish community has become
less inclined to use its organizational skill on behalf of the agenda
of a country that is less inclined toward the Western side of the
great divide. It doesn’t help that the Turkish "request" for "help"
has begun to sound more like a threat of damage yet to come.

It is tempting under the circumstances for the Jewish community to
"lie low," not support the resolution but not actively oppose it
either. It is probably equally tempting for the Turkish government to
start looking for someone to blame if the resolution passes-guess who?

To the extent that either side believed opposition to the resolution
was a test of loyalty, or tied it to extraneous issues, they made
a mistake. The Armenian resolution – driven largely by the Armenian
American community-should be opposed and defeated. But the reasons
stand without regard to the (increasingly difficult) behavior of the
Turkish government and without regard to (increasingly difficult)
Turkish-Israeli or Turkish-American relations.

"The Congress of the United States is not the place to debate the
history of other people in other times. The failings of our history
and the resolution of our wars are our responsibility-and those of
the Ottoman Turks have to find redress by their heirs.

"The Ottoman and Soviet Empires are gone; Turkey and Armenia are
independent countries. Their governments have to find whatever
understanding and accommodation are possible. Meddling by
Congress-particularly when Turkey has fallen out of political
favor-won’t help.

Turkey and Armenia have, in fact, made tentative-and reversible-steps
toward bilateral relations, but the protocols they signed last
autumn show signs of fraying and neither parliament has completed the
ratification process. Switzerland was the mediator for the protocols,
and perhaps could be of assistance. The U.S. government might also have
a role to play, but passage of the Armenian resolution by Congress
would make it impossible for the State Department to offer help. We
recall that after Turkey invited Hamas to Ankara, its offer to mediate
between Israel and its neighbors was no longer welcome in Jerusalem.

It’s another good reason to oppose the Armenian resolution when it
comes before Congress later this week, JINSA Reported.

MILITARY SOLUTION TO KARABAKH UNREALISTIC – FINNISH ANALYST

news.az
March 2 2010
Azerbaijan

Mikko Palonkorpi News.Az interviews Mikko Palonkorpi, a researcher at
the Graduate School for Russian and East European Studies, University
of Helsinki.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said before the November meeting
with his Armenian counterpart that if the Munich negotiations failed,
Azerbaijan would start a war to liberate the occupied lands. Do you
think the military scenario is a realistic way to resolve the conflict?

In my opinion, settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by
resorting to military force is unrealistic. This policy involves
serious military, political and economic risks that are very difficult
to calculate beforehand. All the unpredictable factors simply cannot
be simulated in war games and the outcome of a new war would be far
from certain.

>>From the military point of view, there are no guarantees that an
Azerbaijani military initiative would be successful or victorious,
especially since the Armenians have dug themselves into strong
defensive positions. Therefore, in order to succeed Azerbaijan
would need substantial quantitative and qualitative superiority in
troops and armaments and I don’t see evidence of that yet. Moreover,
if the Azerbaijani side were to suffer substantial losses without
recapturing much territory, what would be the domestic political
backlash in Azerbaijan? Or what if the Armenians were able to capture
more territory as a result of renewed fighting?

One of the lessons to be learned from the Russo-Georgian war is that
Russia is not a passive bystander in attempts to change the status
quo in the South Caucasus by military means, especially if its
perceived vital interests in the region or those of its key allies
are threatened.

In the worst case scenario, fighting could seriously threaten
Azerbaijan’s oil and gas exports via the South Caucasus energy corridor
and as a consequence threaten the backbone of the republics economy. At
the very least a new war would negatively affect investor confidence
in Azerbaijan (and Armenia) and hamper efforts to develop the South
Caucasus energy corridor including the Nabucco project.

Furthermore, if Azerbaijan were the initiator of a new war, this would
harm Azerbaijan’s international image and reputation more broadly.

Just consider how much effort both Russia and Georgia took to prove
the other side guilty of starting the August conflict.

Even if an Azerbaijani offensive were successful in retaking the lost
territories in and around Karabakh, it would not completely solve
the political problem or the root cause of the conflict. It would
turn fortunes around for Azerbaijan for sure, but leave Armenia and
Karabakh Armenians preparing for another rematch.

What action would the United States and Russia take if Azerbaijan
initiated war to liberate its land?

First of all, it is hard to see how a new war in Karabakh could be
in the interests of either Russia or the United States. It is also
very difficult to predict the exact course of action they would take
in such an eventuality, so the answer to this question is highly
speculative. Naturally, the US and Russian response would depend
on actions taken by the other actors, in particular the regional
states: Turkey, Iran and Georgia. The US would not only observe
closely Russian reaction to the conflict, but also Iranian reaction,
fearing that Iran could use the war as an opportunity to increase
its geopolitical influence in the South Caucasus region.

For the United States a new war in Karabakh and the proper response
to it, would be almost as problematic as the Russo-Georgian conflict
was, albeit for somewhat different reasons. It is highly unlikely
that the United States would intervene militarily in such a conflict,
not only because of it’s military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan
and its key role in the relief operation in Haiti, but mainly because
of the fear that Russia could also be drawn into the conflict. The
only possible exception would be a multinational peace-keeping or
peace-enforcing force that would have a clear UN mandate combined
with Russian approval and support.

Moreover, it would be very difficult for the United States to choose
sides in such a conflict, regardless of Azerbaijan being seen as
an initiator of the war. The US would opt for neutrality as long as
possible and would use intensive diplomatic pressure on both Armenia
and Azerbaijan to bring about a ceasefire and end to hostilities. The
US would likely attempt to persuade Turkey to use its influence on
Azerbaijan, but the leverage of both the US and Turkey on Azerbaijan
is limited, despite interdependencies between Turkey and Azerbaijan
in energy transit, etc. The US administration itself would be under
strong pressure from both Armenia and the Armenian diaspora lobby in
the US to pass a UN Security Council resolution which would condemn
the Azeri actions.

Certainly the US reaction would also depend on the scale of the war
and in particular the number of civilian casualties and refugees
involved. I think the United States would try to restrain both sides
from escalating the conflict beyond Karabakh and the other regions
of Azerbaijan currently under Armenian control and ensure that the
energy export infrastructure of Azerbaijan were not targeted by the
Armenian forces.

What do you think of Azerbaijan’s military potential at present? Is
Armenia able to hold an arms race with Azerbaijan without Russia’s
military support and intervention?

Azerbaijan’s military potential has certainly been boosted by
increased spending on the country’s defence budget over the last
five years or so. As a result Azerbaijan is acquiring new and more
sophisticated weapons systems, has launched new initiatives for
domestic manufacturing of military equipment and ammunition and is
also negotiating with multiple foreign partners on joint ventures
in the military-industrial sector. However, these are all assets
for Azerbaijan’s future military potential and power, since it
takes a while to train military personnel to operate new weapons
systems effectively and it would take a long time to acquire enough
state-of-the-art armaments to tilt the military balance of power
decisively in Azerbaijan’s favour, especially considering that Armenia
has also updated its destructive capacity over the years.

By focusing only on the military budget figures, it appears that the
on-going arms race between Azerbaijan and Armenia is a process which
the latter can ill afford. For this year (2010) Armenia has budgeted
360 million dollars for defence expenditure, compared to Azerbaijan’s
1.5 billion dollar military budget. Moreover, even though Azerbaijan’s
defence budget is more than four times the size of Armenia’s in
absolute terms, the relative burden of defence spending as a share
of the overall budget expenditure is still smaller for Azerbaijan
(10-11%) than for Armenia (15%).

However, one has to bear in mind, that stockpiles of Russian military
hardware and equipment were held at Russian military bases in Armenia
from the mid-90’s onwards and just a few years ago (2007) in line with
the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Treaty commitments, Russia withdrew its troops
from the base(s) in Georgia proper (Akhalkalaki) and a significant
portion of the arms and equipment were transferred to its military
base in Gyumri.

In brief, since it is not exclusively a bilateral arms race between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, as Russian military and other support for
Armenia plays an essential role in the equation, Azerbaijan is
faced with a difficult "dilemma". Any hike in oil and gas prices
will increase the oil and gas windfall received by Azerbaijan, which
among other things enables Azerbaijan to allocate more resources to
the military budget. But the same holds true for Armenia’s key ally
Russia, which as a consequence of increase in energy export revenues,
can deliver more military support to Armenia, if it so chooses.

Therefore, Russian support is extremely important for Armenia,
especially considering the serious impact of global economic crises
on the Armenian economy.

Regarding the arms race between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the key
question that should be asked is: what are the prospects for
achieving a tangible "victory" in this arms race? Is there a real
chance of the type of victory gained by US President Ronald Reagan
when he challenged the Soviet Union into a space arms race with his
Star Wars project? Or is this arms race creating new security dilemmas
and heightening tensions in the already volatile South Caucasus region
and resulting in a lose-lose pattern where both sides waste resources
that are urgently needed in other sectors of society?

STEPAN SAFARYAN: ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION U.S. BARGAIN

news.am
March 2 2010
Armenia

"The possibility of the U.S. Congress adopting an Armenian Genocide
resolution will enable the United States to pressure Turkey in the
Armenian-Turkish reconciliation process," Stepan Safaryan, Chairman of
the Heritage parliamentary faction, told a press conference on March 2.

>From the moment the Armenian-Russian protocols were singed, Turkey
launched a policy of long-term delay of international recognition
of the Armenian Genocide, he said. Safaryan pointed out that the
ratification of the protocols may halt the process. "It is not yet
clear whether U.S. President Barack Obama will pronounce the word
‘genocide’ on April 24. It is not ruled out in case Turkey fails to
meet the United States’ requirements. It is more important, however,
that the U.S. Congress adopt the Armenian Genocide resolution,"
Safaryan said. The discussions at the U.S. Congress scheduled for
March 4 are nothing but another step to threaten Turkey.

In his turn, the specialist in Turkic philology Ruben Melkonyan,
said that the possibility of the U.S. Congress adopting the Armenian
Genocide resolution will exacerbate the anti-American sentiments
in Turkey.

According to him, in its efforts to prevent the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide, Turkey has become hostage to its own actions. "The
United States, as well as a number of European states, making use of
the problem, will be ‘extorting’ concessions from Turkey, and the
present market relations between the United States and Turkey are
evidence thereof. Using the Armenian Genocide resolution as a bludgeon,
the United States is threatening turkey even now," Melonyan said.

He emphasized the fact that before March 4, President Barack Obama,
in contrast to his predecessor, George Bush, is keeping silence
about the possibility of the U.S. Congress adopting the Armenian
Genocide resolution. Safaryan, in turn, pointed out that on the way
to normalizing its relations with Turkey, Armenia has to "rearrange"
its actions toward Turkey.