State Department Regular Briefing

STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR BRIEFING

Federal News Service
February 6, 2007 Tuesday

BRIEFER: SEAN MCCORMACK, DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN; LOCATION: STATE
DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM, WASHINGTON, D.C.

[parts omitted]

Q It’s on Secretary Rice’s meeting with Gul from last week. I
understand they talked about PKK and Armenian genocide bill. Can you
give any details about their discussion on PKK, especially the ways
to eliminate the PKK in northern Iraq, did they discuss that? And
did they also discuss Armenian genocide bill that is supposed to be
discussed at the Congress in March?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they had a private discussion, a one-on-one
meeting, just the two of them. They may have one or two other aides
present. Then they had a discussion at lunch. I was present for the
discussion at lunch. Let me go down the list of topics that they
discussed at lunch.

They talked about Lebanon. They talked about Iraq, as well as the
PKK issue. They talked about Turkish-EU relations. Talked about Kosovo.

And Foreign Minister Gul also did bring up the discussion within
the U.S. Congress about a possible Armenian — a bill focused on the
events of 1915.

In terms of the discussions within the U.S. Congress, look, we
understand very clearly that this is a sensitive issue not only for
the Turkish people but for the Armenian people. We have made our
views known on the potential for a resolution or for a bill. I’ve
talked about that in the past; you can look back at the transcript
at what I’ve said.

In terms of the PKK, I think that everybody’s in agreement that we
want to try to resolve this issue. Innocent Turkish citizens have lost
their lives as a result of terrorist acts of the PKK. I think Turkey,
as well as Iraq, have — both have an interest in trying to resolve
the issue. We have appointed General Ralston as a special envoy to
work with both sides. Secretary Rice talked with Foreign Minister Gul
about where the situation stands now, what General Ralston has been
doing. And we have made it clear obviously we do not want to see a
resort to greater — any greater violence. Everybody believes in the
territorial integrity of Iraq — Turkey, Iraq, the United States. So
we want to try to work on this issue in such a way that is acceptable
to two sovereign states. And we’re doing what we can to help them
come together to solve what is a tough problem.

They Are Not Foolish

THEY ARE NOT FOOLISH

Panorama.am
17:45 07/02/2007

‘I cannot be a fool and believe the statements of the authorities on
that the elections will not be falsified’, Adrina Avagyan, leader of
NDU youth wing, stated during the press conference today. In her words,
since 1995 the authorities make the same statements, but despite that
the elections are falsified more.

Narek Galstyan, Head of the "Sargis Tkhruni" youth-student union of
Hnchakyan party, is also sure that the forthcoming elections will
be falsified, and the young men, as the most efficient factor, will
be used for it. Galstyan stated that the falsification process has
started as far back as 6-7 months ago and now they continue in the
form of potato and bale assistance. Head of the ARF student union
after Nikol Aghbalyan, Hayk Asatryan, also did not rule out the
possibility of falsifications during the parliamentary elections.

The three speakers argued that in this respect the role of the youth
is significant. "The most part of the youth serves as an instrument
for different forces, with the expectation of further career and
receiving money", Asatryan mentioned.

However, these young Party men do not see any instruments and means
to hinder the entry of the politically unhealthy persons of the same
age into the political field.

Will The Kozern Garages Be Pulled Down?

WILL THE KOZERN GARAGES BE PULLED DOWN?

A1+
[03:02 pm] 08 February, 2007

On February 8, the citizens of Kozern district organised a rally of
complaint on the first attempt of illegal alienation. On February 7
the citizens paid a visit to the Yerevan municipality to find answers
to the issues concerning them.

They say that the garage belonging to the Hovhannesyans will be pulled
down today as it hinders the construction of state security service
of the RA officials.

Reminder: under the 2004 resolution of the RA Government, Kozern
district was considered a "zone of alienation for state needs". But
the citizens assume that the resolution doesn’t give ground to pull
down the garage without preliminary warning, certificate of property
and corresponding compensation. To note, many of the citizens living
in the area since 1930, haven’t got registration certificate yet.

The rally participants, members of over 110 families, announced,
"We shan’t let them pull down the garage even if the Defense Minister
comes here with weapon".

"We are ready to make a fire and spend the night here". They fixed
posters on the garage with the following words, "It is a sin to deprive
others of their property", "Law must drive from the interests of all
nation", " Manouk Vardanyan, head of the Cadastre state committee,
don not breach the constitution! ", "We shall stay here unless the
alienation is ceased",etc.

"If they ignore our demands, we shall stay here to see who is the
author of the alienation, and who will benefit or lose from this
attempt", announced Samvel Lazarian, head of the "Community and
Right" NGO.

Samvel Lazarian also added that the cadastre puts difference between
the citizens; some of the citizens with the same problems have been
given certificates.

"We are not against constructions and alienation procedure. Let them
give us our property certificates at first and then we shall hold
round-table with the officials to make a legal bargain", says Mr.
Lazarian.

ANKARA: The Mistakes Of Armenia And The Success Of Azerbaijan

THE MISTAKES OF ARMENIA AND THE SUCCESS OF AZERBAIJAN
View By Sedat Laciner
Translated By Hasan Selim Ozertem And Fatma Yilmaz (Usak)

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Feb 8 2007

Armenia and Azerbaijan have become independent countries just like
other former Soviet Republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Some of the Republics were really ready for this "happy ending"
whereas for the others the collapse of the Soviet Union was an expected
situation which would supposedly never come. In other words, many
of them were not ready for independence in economic, political and
more importantly in mental terms. Two of these Republics were both
Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Armenia could not manage to be independent in modern times except
the period of first establishment of Armenia (1918-1920). The
Armenians in the first Republic had no clue about independence and
state administration. Until the World War I, Armenians lived under
the Ottoman, Russian and Iranian sovereignty. And the World War
I exactly transformed Armenians into a Diaspora nation. Armenians
that spread all around the world due to commercial, political and
other reasons have become more romantic and idealist after falling
apart with Turkey. The difficulties of living in foreign land are
reflected on every aspect of the lives of Armenian people. As the
conflicts between Turks and Armenians have mostly been exaggerated,
the 1915 was idealized and in a way became legendary. The hatred for
Turks has become the cement that sticks them together in diaspora. Not
being able to found a state, to gain important successes at least
to protect the dignity of Armenian nation against the Turks or the
lack of unifying successes in other parts, did not allow Armenians
to criticize and question themselves. However, the Greeks after
founding their state and winning some important battles against Turks
have become less romantic and established relatively good relations
with the Turks. On the other hand, Armenians unfortunately lived
in a world of fantasies. In fact, one of the most important reasons
for the first Armenian state to be short-lived this much was their
extreme idealism. Armenians chose to conduct assassinations against
Turkish diplomats instead of establishing good relations with their
newly established neighbor countries. This endeavor, which is called
Nemesis campaign in a way alienated Armenia and Armenians from their
real problems. However, in the same period, the new Turkish Republic
emerging from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire was not infusing its
people to attack to the Greeks or Armenians or any other neighbor.

The leader of the Young Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, was telling
its people "We have just come out from a war. However, the real and
greater war begins right now. And this is the war of development."

According to him, being independent in real sense could be maintained
through the way of economic independence and development. Due to this,
Turkey should not waste any time on the previous issues. In this
context, Ataturk tried to reestablish relations with Greece and other
countries which were subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Armenia was in
this list, but they could not approach positively to this brave effort.

***

* PETROSYAN: A FAILED ARMENIAN REVOLUTION ATTEMPT

In this regard, it was so important that Armenia emerged in the
scene of history once again in 1991. Having a new state, Armenians
could pursue a path which is more realistic. Turkey’s expectation
was also in this direction since it was expecting to find a party
with whom it could communicate on Armenian issue. Also, the first
Armenian President; Levon Ter Petrosyan and some of his advisors
believed that they should not repeat the same mistakes. According to
Petrosyan, the first and the most crucial mistake of Armenians was
to set objectives going well beyond their capacities. Although they
had known that they could not be successful with their own power,
relying on other countries -especially on the Russians- they rioted
against the Ottoman Empire to establish a separate state on the Ottoman
territories. In accordance with their point of view, the Russians
would support Armenians whereas United Kingdom, USA, France and other
Christian countries would put strain upon Turks on the international
arena, in order to make them accept the demands of Armenians.

Accordingly, the only thing they should do was to keep their demands
alive ever more. In this regard, Armenians resorted to terrorist
movements, rioting and many other methods during the 20th century. In
World War I, even they fought against Ottoman Empire in the French
and Russian side. However, in the end it was always the Armenians
to lose. They lost their people and their lands on which they had
lived for the centuries. It seems so that Armenians did what Russia
and even England and France had told to them. In 1915, they rioted
against the Ottoman Empire in the east part of the country when
the allies had sent the most powerful fleet of the world to the
Dardanelles (the Western front). But Armenians could not gain any
success. Among the invaders, the first one was France to leave the
country when it encountered with difficulties. Russia never fully
supported Armenians to the end after the First World War, but newly
established Turkey. If these countries had supported an independent
Armenia, the Ottoman Empire could not resist against this much great
power pressure. This was the first analysis of Levon Ter Petrosyan:
Armenians should count on their own power. It was a big mistake for
Armenians to build their all policies on the support of other nations.

The second analysis proposed by Levon Ter Petrosyan was that Armenia
was a small, poor, sea-locked country having no significant natural
resources and surrounded by the Turkish peoples. In the west, there
is Turkey with its population of 75 million, whereas in the north
Azerbaijan with its population of about 7 million and the south
according to some sources there are more than 30 million of Azeri
Turks of Iran. On the other hand, Georgians in the north have always
been the ally of Turks for the centuries. Armenia has no border with
Russia. Under these circumstances, only way to exist had to develop
good relations with its neighbors, especially with the Turks. The
third important analysis proposed by Mr. Petrosyan was, if Armenia
wants to be independent in real terms, it should have diverged from
the Moscow. Yerevan being dependent so much on Moscow for decades
should have dissolved its bonds and stand on its own feet. To sum,
the deductions of Petrosyan as follow:

Armenians should not rely on other countries’ support for objectives
which go beyond their own capabilities and powers, Relations would
be developed with neighbors especially with Turkey, Dependency on
Russia in particular would be decreased rapidly and an Armenia which
is fully independent would be established.

****

Petrosyan and his team were about to realize a crucial revolution in
Armenian thought. However, being so enthusiastic about independence
was not indicating that they are ready for it. They were still
into nationalism, which was so romantic and territory-centric. What
Armenians conceived from the term "homeland" was just a territory
and unrealistic ideals. They were considering annexing the regions of
Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nakhcevan (Azerbaijan) and Jevahiti (Georgia)
into Armenia as the foremost priority. Even before the collapse of
Soviet Union ultra-nationalist Armenians had started to struggle for
Karabakh’s annexation to Armenia. Thus, before Petrosyan’s plan was
implemented, Karabakh issue became dominant in the region. In addition
to the turmoil in Azerbaijan, thanks to the direct support of Russia,
Armenians not only captured Karabakh but also the cities and villages,
in which only Azeri people live. They attacked to the Nakhcivan, but
as a result of Turkey’s immediate warnings the war remained limited
in the Eastern front.

Following these developments, Petrosyan lost his chance to compromise
with Turks. Issues of Karabakh and regions under occupation caused
relations to break off with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Although Turkey
was among the countries which recognized Armenia in the first place,
it stopped diplomatic relations with Armenia and closed its borders.

This was so normal since both Turkey and Azerbaijan are Turkish
states. Moreover, there were millions of citizens who were Azeri
oriented in Turkey. During the Armenian War, streets of Turkey were
full of protests. In addition, Turkey was a country that promotes
status quo more than any other country in its region since 1923. The
most important Turkish foreign policy principle was that there could be
no way for a border change by force of arms in the region. Turkey has
resisted all efforts to change the borders by force for the decades
and Turkey saw the Armenian occupation as illegal attempt to change
the borders.

Despite this fact, Turkey searched for ways to prevent a possible
deadlock in terms of the problem. Turkish leaders expected that
Armenia at least would withdraw from the regions except Karabakh. If
Armenia had taken a step in this regard, Turkey could take bigger
steps. Messages sent to Armenia again and again during the 1990s.

Even Turkey sent food aid to Armenian people after the war due to the
emergence of the dramatic situation. Moreover, donations and aid sent
from the European and American states only could be transferred to
Armenia through Turkey. As an indicator of good faith Turkey opened
its airspace to Armenians and started regular flights between Turkey
and Armenia. However, Petrosyan understood that as long as he could
take steps in Karabakh issue, he would not resolve any problems. He
was about to take radical steps in his last days in the government
but Russia and ultra-nationalist diaspora Armenians came on the scene
and brought down Petrosyan. It is known that Tashnaks, who were banned
by Ter Petrosyan, played an important role in this process.

* KOCHARYAN PERIOD

After Petrosyan, extremely romantic Robert Kocharyan has come to
power. He was not even a citizen of the Armenian state when he became
the President. He attended to the elections by cheating and he had
no idea even about what state means. He was totally a warrior and
knew well about the Armenian people and whatever it takes Armenians
should be defended. In accordance with his opinions Turks were bad,
Armenians were good and Russia was a friend whereas Azerbaijan and
Turkey were enemies. His vision was as shallow as this much.

Thus, the era of Petrosyan came to an end and the hopes of peace
faded away with him. The policies and analysis of Kocharyan were
adverse that of previous terms;

– Relations with Russia developed further and many Russians and
supporters of Russia came to more effective positions in Armenia. In
this period, while the former Soviet Republics was diverging from
the Moscow economically and politically, Armenia became even more
dependent on the Moscow than the times of the Soviet era. Especially,
Russia became an energy monopoly in Armenia. While becoming dominant
in Armenian economy, Russians also took control of the Armenian
politics. Armenia became the only Russian base in Caucasus, yet it
could not receive the essential supports from Russia.

Kocharyan team made enormous efforts to develop relations with the
Diaspora. They especially hoped to find new credit and financial
aid sources in the diaspora. The Diaspora could provide economic and
political support. However, the expected economic support was received
so late and less than anticipated. Moreover, the extremists began to
constitute a monopoly in relations with Armenia and they captured even
the control of domestic politics. Armenia failed being an independent
country that can stand on its own feet.

– Kocharian Administration nearly declared war against the Turkish
people. A campaign has been started against Turkey to pass the
so-called genocide bill in the parliaments all over the world. In this
way, Turkey would be in a tough position in the international arena
and had to accept the Armenian demands. In other words, Kocharyan
was implementing the classic Armenian tactics once again.

Not relying on its power but on that of the others’, Armenia was
disrupting relations with its neighbors.

– Lastly, Armenia under Kocharian pursued an uncompromising
policy about Karabakh issue. It is said that Karabakh was an
independent country and would never be returned to Azerbaijan. For
the other regions under Armenian occupation, they would not make
any concessions. Kocharyan, being from Karabakh, hired Karabakhian
guards to protect his presidency and took precautions. Karabakh issue
therefore took the control of domestic and foreign Armenian policy.

***

* WHO WON, WHO LOST? AZERBAIJAN OR ARMENIA?

While turning back to its previous policy Armenia was thinking that
it had gained a crucial victory against Azerbaijan. However, it was
the Azeris who really gained a victory;

It was perhaps Azerbaijan to be the most unprepared country for
independence among the former Soviet Republics. The concept of national
conscience could not be created yet. On one hand communists wanted
an Azerbaijan bounded to Moscow, on the other hand nationalists were
as idealist and romantic as to dream a big Turkish state including
Central Asia, Iran and Turkey. In the end, as a result of the domestic
conflicts and debates and the direct Russian support to Armenians,
Azeris could not protect 20 % of their territory and Armenia occupied
these regions. One million Azeri became refugees and this problem
has continued so far. Azerbaijan lost territories at least for a
while but it gained its national unity, development and a market
integrated with the world. Let’s look at what Azerbaijan won in its
conflict against Armenia:

– Azerbaijan has become a real nation aftermath of the Armenian attacks
and thanks to the Armenian attacks, a solid national conscience was
created. Without Armenian attacks, the period to create a national
conscience would take so long.

– Azerbaijan has become a more homogeneous country. During the war
about 500.000 Armenians left Azerbaijan and all of the Azeri people
left Armenia. However, Azerbaijan Armenians were more powerful in
Azerbaijan than the Armenia Azeris in Armenia. The Azeri Armenians
were the richest and the most influential people of Baku. Thus, their
leaving this country in a way means gaining real independence for
Azerbaijan. Even the Karabakh Armenians were relatively rich and had
all of the freedoms. When Armenians occupied the Azeri territories
they lost their special position in Azeri economy and politics but
gained only the territories.

– Without the war Azerbaijan would only be a puppet of Moscow and
could never gain its independence in a short time in a real sense.

The war resulted with broken ties -in a way that could never be
repaired- between Russia and Azerbaijan. Today, if Azerbaijan really
is an independent country, it owes this to Armenian aggression.

– Owing to the uncompromising and aggressive attitude of Armenia,
Azerbaijan succeeded to isolate Armenia in the region. As a matter
of fact, Baku is happy with the Armenian polices towards Turkey
and Azerbaijan. Thus Armenia has been left outside of all regional
co-operations and integration projects.

– Having rich petroleum and natural gas reserves Azerbaijan grew
stronger and stronger, while Armenia got damaged in economic terms.

It was really hard to stand on its own feet for Armenia in the
existence of conflicts with its neighbors. Occupied Karabakh was
not a region that worth it in this regard. It did not contribute
to Armenia even it became a burden for Armenian economy. In this
situation Azerbaijan has made the following analyzes;

* It was obvious that it could not recapture Karabakh with the help
of its army right now. The most important reason for this; Russia was
still supporting Armenia. Azeri forces attempted to recapture Karabakh
in 1999, but Russians warned them and said "if you insist on this,
you would lose Gence city too".

* Secondly, USA and the EU did not respond well enough to Armenia
after the occupation of the Azeri territories. Owing to Armenian
Diaspora’s activities primarily France and the US have been following
delay tactic against Azerbaijan. Karabakh and the other cities continue
to be remain under the Armenian occupation, and the Western countries
still promise to do something. Azerbaijan understood that the West will
not make enough pressure on the occupier Armenia at least for a while.

* USA and Europe were interested in Azeri oil and natural gas but
this had not turned into a political support yet.

* Turkey, alone itself could not bring an end to the occupation.

Under these circumstances, instead of wasting its energy for nothing,
Azerbaijan decided to strengthen its army while pushing Armenia in
difficult position. For the solution of the problem according to the
Azeri politicians for a while a deadlock policy should be pursued. In
this period, Azerbaijan should be strengthened while Armenia getting
weaker. In other words, the issue of continuation of the occupied
regions was in favor of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan did turn out to be right. Having an attitude, this was so
uncompromising and extreme that Armenians did not even move slightly
from the land which they occupied. While wasting its time on the
occupied regions, Azeris externalized Armenia from all of the regional
cooperation projects. The most important of them is Baku – Tbilisi –
Ceyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project. It was certain that this pipeline
would pass through Armenia if Yerevan Government succeeded to soften
its attitudes a little. Either the project would be canceled or Armenia
would be preferred simply because it was shorter and most economic
route for the pipeline. Since the USA and Europe were the ones to
provide the required capital for this project even Azerbaijan could
not prevent this if Armenia moved wisely during the 1990s. Secondly,
natural gas pipeline also by- passed Armenia and now Kars-Baku railway
project is to by-pass Armenia. The railway that passes through Armenia
cannot be used and this pushed Turkey and Azerbaijan to construct
another one that passes through Georgia.

Armenians tried prevent this in all over the world, including American
Congress and Europe. Even they tried to guarantee that they would not
damage the trains that would pass through Armenia. However, it was
too little and too late. The most important of all, the cooperation
between Azerbaijan and Turkey were becoming more intense in all aspects
-from military to economics- that cover a broad spectrum. Armenia has
been fully isolated in the region and Russia’s political support did
not help out for economic development in Armenia. Not having border
with Russia and Russia’s commercial approach instead of behaving like
a strategic partner isolated Armenia and put it in a challenging
situation. In 15 years, the population of Armenia declined from 3
million to almost 2 million of people. Once again they spread all over
the world. Even to live and work they came to Turkey and currently
50-75.000 Armenians live in Turkey.

Another success of Azerbaijan is that step by step they achieved to
attract the attention of the USA and the Europe countries. Armenians
are still influential in these countries and Azerbaijan is still the
same Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan is engaged with a close
collaboration with Western companies in terms of energy and in other
sectors and these countries has gradually begun to understand the
importance of Azerbaijan. For instance, for the energy security of
the European Union, Azerbaijan has a key importance. The BTC pipeline
transports the Caspian Basin’s oil resources to the European and
Mediterranean markets. Italia is the country that mostly takes
the advantage of this. The BTC pipeline represents an important
alternative for European Markets against Russian and Middle Eastern
oil. Similarly, transportation of Azerbaijan’s natural gas to Europe
through Georgia and Turkey, and joining of Kazakh and even Turkmen
gas to this would constitute a crucial alternative for Europe. Even
in the current situation, European companies have an important share
in Azerbaijan’s energy resources and in this regard Azerbaijan is not
a country that can be easily sacrificed anymore. The same situation
is valid for the US. It wants to break the dominancy of Russia in
the region and mostly interested in petroleum. Not only Azerbaijan
and Central Asian Republics might become an important alternative
to Russia but also they would get out of the influence of Russia
if they could become independent energy actors and break their
dependency to Russia. For this reason the USA attaches importance
to Azerbaijan and the other Central Asian Republics. Another factor
that makes Azerbaijan important for the USA is its neighboring to
Iran and Azeri population more than 30 million in this country. In
order to destabilize Iran and against Russia, the USA expects so
much from Azerbaijan. Through collaboration with Georgia and Turkey,
the attitude of Azerbaijan to tend towards the West constitutes the
base of the US policies. Nevertheless, the repercussions of this
cannot be witnessed on the Karabakh issue. Armenian lobbies are
still influential on decision makers of the US and the EU, thus the
cooperation with Azerbaijan can be blocked in some areas. Especially,
the US and the EU do not have the maneuvering field that they want.

In spite of this, they perfectly collaborate in economic terms and
this will continue in the future. Azerbaijan keeps its expectations
limited in this regard. It does not expect Western World to bring
the Armenian occupation to an end. Azerbaijan knows that it needs
time for this result. In fact, this situation in a way serves for the
interests of Azerbaijan. If pressure is made to Armenia and due to this
Armenia withdraws from the regions that it has occupied, demographic
and political balances could change rapidly in Azerbaijan and this
could lead country to an unstable situation. Besides, hundreds of
thousands of people that come from Karabakh and the other occupied
regions move into houses from the tents that they live. Some of
them are just got employed and in a certain level they accepted
the situation. Sudden changes in the current situation could cause
different radical expectations to emerge. Under these circumstances,
a gradual transformation seems better. And Azerbaijan exploits the
position of Armenia as an "occupant" to the end. Also, it externalizes
Armenia from all of the regional projects. While wasting its time on
the occupied lands for almost nothing, Armenia’s economy cannot be
integrated nor to the world neither to the region. On the other hand,
Azerbaijan is turning into a growing regional power.

The real success of Azerbaijan certainly is its economic development.

Particularly, with the implementation of BTC pipeline project,
Azeri economy has boomed. Growth in 2005 was 26.4 % and it seems
that in 2006 growth rate will exceed this number (around 30,6-32,5
%). Even a little decrease in this rate is anticipated for 2007; a
similar growth rate is expected. Oil and natural gas revenues have an
important share in this growth rate. However, growth in non-petroleum
sector is around 9.5 %, which also is a high rate. It can easily be
supposed that with the flow of revenues that would come from energy
sector to the other sectors, the growth rate in non-petroleum sector
will increase further. Parallel to this, also budget deficit is
decreasing rapidly. There are significant increases in exports and
imports. It is easy to observe the spread of prosperity in Baku. Per
capita income has exceeded $ 7.300 in 2006 and this will increase
further. Unemployment rate is around 1.2 %.

Nevertheless, Armenia pursues a different route. Even though the
growth rate was around % 12 in 2006, this number could be deceptive
to understand an economy, which is so small, like in Armenia. The
economy, which can hardly survive with financial aids and transfers,
is not sufficient to keep the population in the country. Construction
sector has an important share in the growth of Armenian economy.

Diaspora transfers an important amount of money to the country. This
resource causes high growth rates. However, this is not something
sustainable. Armenian economy cannot create its own dynamics and
has an image that this economy needs much more financial aids and
transfers. Unemployment in Armenia is still around 30 %. Investments
of private sector mostly come from Diaspora. This means the dominancy
of Diaspora on economy and certainly on politics. Similarly, Russia
has taken the control of certain sectors like energy. Despite of the
virtual growth in the economy per capita income is around $1.513.

Even this number exceeds $5.000 with PPP; it is so interesting
that per capita income remains in this level despite of declining
population. On the other hand, the biggest problem of Armenia is the
uncertainty which Karabakh causes on its economy. Even some Diaspora
companies hesitate to invest in the country. Similarly, the closed
borders of Azerbaijan and Turkey between Armenia and having no exits
to sea increase the dependency on the borders of Georgia and Iran.

Accordingly, this increases the customs expenses of Armenia.

* CONCLUSION

Briefly, Armenia thinks it gained a victory in Karabakh and in the
other regions that it has occupied. It considers that in time it
can make other countries to forget this occupation, but for what. It
endangers the whole Armenia only for Karabakh territories. Armenia
could not comprehend the changing nation-state concept. Armenia still
preserve the old-fashioned state concept of the 19th century. Just
for land they endanger their nation and the state they could found
so late. Armenians could build their policies on fight against Turks
even though they are surrounded by 110 million Turks. Turkish Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink defended that Armenian identity should not be
built on conflicts with Turks. In accordance with his opinions, this
was the poison in the Armenian blood. Wherever they are, according to
Mr. Dink, Armenians should get rid of this poison and create a holy
alliance with Armenia. This alliance should be created on keeping
Armenia alive, not to satisfy the personal and ideological interests
through Armenia.

Citizens serve for their countries and try to glorify it. However,
Armenians try to satisfy their feelings and needs by sacrificing
Armenia. Respecting to their sorrows in the past, I could not
understand whether they want to glorify Armenian nation or try to
satisfy their personal and political ambitions by means of fighting
with the Turks.

They could not appreciate the first Armenian state. Tashnaks firstly
used this state to take revenge, and then handed it over to the
Bolsheviks. We hope history to not repeat itself. Maybe they will
be surprised but we will be the ones to worry the most. Turkey and
the region needs a stronger and really independent Armenia than the
Diaspora Armenians need.

Schiff calls for genocide recognition

Burbank Leader, CA
Jan 3 2007

POLITICAL LANDSCAPE:
Schiff calls for genocide recognition

Rep. Adam Schiff, who represents Glendale and Burbank, announced the
introduction of a resolution Tuesday recognizing and commemorating
the Armenian genocide.

It is the second year Schiff has introduced such a resolution, but
looked for Congress’ new leadership to help him pass the resolution
this year.

It received support in the form of 165 co-signing members of
Congress.

The resolution has the support of the Armenian National Committee of
America, the Armenian Assembly of America and the U.S. Armenia Public
Affairs Committee

Schiff stated that the U.S. has both compelling moral and historical
reasons to formally recognize the Armenian genocide as well as the
ability to bring further attention the genocides currently taking
place in other parts of the world.

Legislature honors slain journalist advertisement

Assemblyman Paul Krekorian and state Sen. Jack Scott made tributes on
Thursday when both houses of the California State Legislature
adjourned in memory of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was shot
by a Turkish man in Istanbul Jan. 19.

Krekorian called Dink a "courageous symbol of free speech," who spoke
out about the Armenian genocide, as well as fought for the rights of
women and ethnic minorities.

Members of Krekorian’s own family were lost during the genocide.

Scott said Dink was a man who died for his ideals and his has sparked
an outcry from people worldwide who believe in truth.

CBA Leaves Refinancing Rate Unchanged

CBA LEAVES REFINANCING RATE UNCHANGED

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 2, NOYAN TAPAN. At the February 2 sitting, the
Central Bank of Armenia (CBA) Board left the CBA refinancing interest
rate unchanged, setting it at 4.75%, NT was informed from the CBA
press service. The CBA Board takes the view that the already
registered fall in prices of oil products in international market, as
well as specification of forecasts on their fall in 2007 indicate a
decline in inflation pressures from the external sector. At the same
time, the CBA Board is unanimous in the opinion that these inflation
pressures are moderate, despite the continuing intertia of inflation
and the growth rates of gross demand. In this situatiion, the CBA
Board considers it realistic to achieve the inflation target under the
hypothesis of leaving unchanged the level of interest rates formed in
the market.

Armenian Dram Appreciates by 0.2% Against US Dollar in January

ARMENIAN DRAM APPRECIATES BY 0.2% AGAINST US DOLLAR IN JANUARY

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 2, NOYAN TAPAN. The 2.4% inflation registered in the
Armenian consumer market in January 2007 on December 2006 was
accompanied by a 0.2% fall in the settlement exchange rate of the
Armenian dram against the US dollar (the dram appreciated).

According to the RA National Statistical Service, in the same period
of last year, there was a 2.5% and 0.5% increase in consumer prices
and the settlement exchange rate of the Armenian dram against the
dollar respectively. The average settlement exchange rate of the dram
against the dollar made 363.94 drams in January 2007, which is by
19.4% lower than the respective index of January 2006 (451.74 drams).

ANKARA: Turkey should start new initiative to fight genocide bill

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 1 2007

`Turkey should start a new initiative to fight the genocide bill in Congress’

American Turkish Council President James H. Holmes says although much
has been done behind closed doors, they need Turkey to give them a
new initiative about the tragic events of 1915 to better defeat the
Armenian genocide resolution in Congress.

Retired Ambassador James H. Holmes, the president and CEO of the
American Turkish Council (ATC), visited Ýstanbul and Ankara this week
to meet with members of the ATC prior to the ATC annual conference in
March. Holmes’ visit coincided with the introduction of an Armenian
genocide resolution in the US House of Representatives, an issue that
has the potential to deteriorate the delicate balance
American-Turkish relations. Today’s Zaman met with Holmes and talked
about the action plan of the ATC against this resolution and what the
ATC is expecting from the Turkish government to strengthen its
lobbying hand on Capitol Hill.

Do you see the potential to harm US-Turkey relations in this
resolution?

The Armenian genocide resolution is the cause of great distress for
us, for the commercial interests of our members as well as for the
national security and foreign policy interests of both countries. We,
as the ATC, are fully committed to the preservation and promotion of
these relations. We see an enormous potential for cooperation and
growth in commercial relations between Turkey and the US. There is
increasing commerce between Turkey and the European Union, but we
don’t want Turkey with its 72 million population to become the
property of the EU. The strong future of Turkey is one in which the
US should participate as well.
Beyond that, we can see that this resolution points to an
overwhelmingly negative reaction from the Turkish government,
military, media and public. And with the passage of such a
resolution, we will no doubt see more reaction. Remember when the
French parliament passed a similar resolution? There is no reason to
think that Turkish public’s reaction to the US would be different. It
might even be more dramatic. In any close relationship when one of
the parties feel betrayed the reaction might be more paralyzing.
For the US to risk our relations with Turkey on the basis of a
meaningless resolution is just not right. Our interest is seeing this
resolution defeated, derailed, delayed. I don’t care what the formula
is. We want it to fail. We want Congress to realize the consequences
from the Turkish side.

Do you have an action plan to fight this resolution? Do you have any
suggestions for the Turkish government?

The ATC has put together an action plan that we are already executing
as far as our members are concerned. This constitutes the education
of our members so that they may inform their representatives in
Congress that it is in the interests of Turkey and the US to defeat
this resolution. We are going to be very active on Capitol Hill. We
are not a grassroots organization, but we can’t organize a letter
writing campaign. We just don’t have enough members for that. But we
do have some influential members, some very large employers who are
members of the ATC and who are very concerned that this will lead to
several lost commercial opportunities.
We do have a request from the Turkish government. It has been almost
two years since the Turkish government announced its call to set up a
historical commission appointed by both Yerevan and Ankara. I know
that lots of things have been going on quietly since then, such as
off the record meetings and negotiations between Ankara and Yerevan.
But if we are going to be successful on Capitol Hill, we need to have
something more to work with, something more recent than April 2005.
As tragic as the assassination of Hrant Dink was, I think it
illustrated that there is an opportunity here. There is an
opportunity for some aggressive action on the part of both Yerevan
and Ankara to make sure that current dynamics change. And if the
government of Turkey could do something and do it publicly, like a
version of what they did two years ago, that would give us a stronger
argument. When we say to the congressmen `Don’t pass this resolution,
support this instead …’ We can say `This is what you should support!’
But the Turkish government has to give us that something, something
more recent that we can work on. The call for the historical
commission was good. But still speaking about the same thing gives
the impression that nothing has happened since 2005. And I know that
this to be wrong. But Turkey hasn’t publicly said anything more.

Is there already anti-Americanism in Turkey? Is the ATC working on a
project to fight this trend also?

First of all, I don’t believe there is rampant anti-Americanism in
Turkey. I think there is a profound and durable `love’ and strength
in the relationship between Turkey and the US. There are very strong
anti-administration, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war sentiments in Turkey.
And I know that they have been presented in a variety of ways. But in
my meetings with Turks I don’t find anti-Americanism, I find
anti-administration sentiments. There is a very strong reservoir of
goodwill that can be built on and that needs to be protected.
I am concerned that this resolution could add to the litany of
accusations against the US. `Wrong in Iraq; wrong on Turkey’s
relationship with its neighbors; wrong on the PKK.’ If somehow we can
come up with an activity which will mean something, which will be
consequential on the PKK, my conviction is that the attitude toward
the US will change in 48 hours.

As the ATC do you have contact with military personnel here in
Turkey?

We regularly have contact with the military. Our members work with
the military. I will be meeting with Chief of the General Staff Gen.
Yaþar Büyükanýt two weeks from now. He is going to be speaking at an
ATC event. Several times a week, either I or my staff are in touch
with the Turkish General Staff.

Our readers would like to know why military activities dominate
Turkish-American relations.

I don’t believe that to be the case either. You have to remember
where the Turkish-American relations come from. They come from the
Cold War, the Truman Doctrine and Turkey’s role as a frontline
deterrent during the Cold War. Certainly there is a very strong
US-Turkish buyer-supplier military relationship throughout over the
years. But increasingly a more normal relationship pattern is
evolving. We are one of Turkey’s largest investment partners today
and I think we will see a historically military dependent
relationship increasingly turning into a far broader relationship.
But still, military relations will continue to be an important part
of the picture.
Up to 60 percent of our military personnel coming to Iraq or
Afghanistan pass through our bases in Turkey and Turkish ports. The
Turkish Parliament has to extend the existence of these bases in
Turkey every year. This is a high risk for the US. This meaningless
resolution would not serve anything but to anger the Turks. Why do we
have to let American politics be lead by election campaigns? The
answer is we don’t have to.

The US Congress was critical of the Baku-Tibilisi-Kars railway as
well. Why all this willingness to support Armenian policies?

The American Congress’ decision with respect to the railway has been
extremely biased. This goes back to the 1990s when Armenian troops
moved into Azerbaijan. Now they are holding about 20 percent of
Azerbaijani soil and 600,000 people are still refugees. Then, the US
Congress pressed by the Armenian diaspora focused upon Turkey’s
decision to close the borders and the railway. I know that this was
done as a consequence of what Armenia did in Azerbaijan. Turkey could
not stay idle in the face of more and more battlefield successes by
Armenia. They took the step to close the borders and railway to
Armenia. Congress did not say to Armenia `What are you doing in terms
of creating refugees,’ rather they came to Turkey and to Azerbaijan
and said if you don’t open the railway, we are going to cut of all
assistance to Azerbaijan, including the humanitarian assistance. And
they did. They had the wrong end of the stick then and they still
have the wrong end of the stick now.
This is because US history with regard to the Armenian tragedies of
1915-1923 was written by the Armenian diaspora. And for decades and
decades there has been a constant drumming of their interpretation of
history unchallenged by anybody in the US or Turkey. It is accepted
as gospel. It is very hard to penetrate the American media, into the
American political environment. We believe this is a bad history, bad
public policy, bad for business. But to get that message across is
going to take a long struggle.

02.02.2007

KERÝM BALCI ANKARA

Chirac: France would like to see S Caucasus in peace and stability

PanARMENIAN.Net

Chirac: France strongly would like to see South
Caucasus in peace and stability
30.01.2007 13:39 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Azeri President Ilham Aliev had a
meeting with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris,
in Elysee Palace. One of the key topics of the talks
was the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement. The
Azeri president described as useful the meetings of
OSCE Minsk Group with Armenian and Azeri authorities
during their last visit to the region last week.
Jacques Chirac underlining the fact that one of the
OSCE MG Co-Chairs is France stressed his country’s
efforts aimed at the solution of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict.

Besides, the two presidents exchanged views on energy
projects, situation in the South Caucasus. Touching
upon the `Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan’ and
`Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum’ projects I. Aliev underscored
their importance, reminding that during his visit to
Brussels last November a memorandum was signed between
Azerbaijan and the European Union on mutual
understanding and strategic partnership in energy
issues. He stressed Azerbaijan will become the first
country to supply European markets with oil and gas
from Caspian region.

During the discussions on the processes in the South
Caucasus President Chirac said that his country
strongly would like to see the region where Azerbaijan
is, in peace and stability, `Novosti Azerbaijan’
reports.

Armenia to hold parliamentary elections May 12

ITAR-TASS News Agency
January 29, 2007 Monday 03:05 PM EST

Armenia to hold parliamentary elections May 12

Armenia will hold parliamentary elections on May 12.

Armenian President Robert Kocharyan signed a relevant decree on
Monday.

The upcoming elections “will not constrain the president in any way.
Robert Kocharyan will continue working as usual and will demand the
same from all executive agencies,” presidential spokesman Viktor
Sogomonyan said.

He ruled out that the president might be included on the election
list of a political party.

The current parliament’s four-year term ends in May. It was elected
in 2003.