Author: Hakobian Adrine

RA NSC SECRETARY, CSTO SEC. GEN. DISCUSS ARMENIA’S CHAIRMANSHIP IN ORGANIZATION

PanARMENIAN.Net
14.10.2008 15:34 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Secretary of the Armenian National Security Council
Artur Baghsdassaryan met with CSTO Secretary General Nikolay Bordyuzha,
who is currently in Yerevan on a working visit, the RA leader’s press
office reported.

The two discussed Armenia’s chairmanship in the CSTO and the agenda
of the meeting of CIS Security Councils Secretaries due in Yerevan
in December 2008.

KARABAKH DELEGATION IN BRUSSELS TO ENGAGE WITH EU POLICY-MAKERS

14/1 0/08

NAGORNO KARABAKH

Officials from the Republic of Nagorno- Karabakh will visit Brussels
this week at the invitation of AGBU Europe, the European branch of
an international organization of the Armenian Diaspora. Mr Eduard
Atanesyan (Deputy Foreign Minister of NKR) and David Babayan (Head
of Information Department of the NKR president’s staff) will take
part, as experts, in a round table to discuss the situation in an
around Karabagh and EU policy concerning the territory. This is the
first visit to Brussels involving officials from Nagorno-Karabakh
in almost 10 years. The round table and associated events aim to
establish a dialogue in the EU foreign-policy community over the
future of Nagorno-Karabagh that involves individuals from Nagorno –
Karabakh itself.

BACKGROUND

Nagorno Karabagh is a small territory of 145 000 inhabitants in the
Caucasus that was part of Soviet Azerbaijan before the collapse of
the Soviet Union.

It became independent following a long and gruesome war with Azerbaijan
that claimed about 30 000 dead between 1991 and 1994. The conflict
was then "frozen" by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) under a policy consistently upheld until February 2008
that banned both the resumption of hostilities and the recognition
of new independent states in Europe.

However, little progress has been made towards a solution to the
conflict in the intervening 14 years, and Nagorno-Karabakh’s society
and economy have strived to develop while under a blockade and
without international recognition, not to mention without the foreign
assistance which other developing countries benefit from. The absence
of international recognition is a serious handicap to development,
as it hinders everything from international communications to trade
and human interaction with the rest of the world.

This summer’s war over nearby South Ossetia also showed the
disproportionate effect which local disputes can have in the Caucasus.

Bizarrely however, while Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, the USA,
the EU, Iran and others all vye to decide its fate, talks over the
territory’s future have consistently excluded the representatives of
Nagorno-Karabakh iself.

STATEMENTS BY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS European Union. Official EU
statements (extracts) on the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

1999 Resolution by the European Parliament on support for the peace
process in the Caucasus.

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE). 1994 PACE Resolution
1047 on the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh.

1994 Report on the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. This report records
the Council of Europe’s analysis of the conflict at the end of the
1991-1994 war. 1994 PACE Recommendation 1251 on the conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh.

0A 1995 PACE Recommendation 1263 on the humanitarian situation of
the refugees and displaced persons in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

2005 PACE Resolution 1416 The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh
region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference

2005 PACE Recommendation 1690. The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh
region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference.

United Nations. 1993 UN Security Council Resolutions demanding a
cessation of the armed conflict of Nagorno Karabagh which took place
in the years 1991-1994. [Read ]

2008 UN General Assembly Resolution affirming territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan and demanding the withdrawal of all Armenian forces
from occupied territories.

129 SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT

A1+
[09:17 pm] 07 October, 2008

At present, out of the 144 criminal cases on the March 1 events,
128 cases regarding 145 people have been filed and are currently
over. Based on the verdicts reached, 129 people have been sentenced
to imprisonment. Forty-seven of them have not received the conditional
punishment measures and two have received punishment measures based on
the 64th article of the RA Criminal Code, that is, a less mitigating
punishment than that foreseen by the law.

According to the information provided by press secretary of the RA
Cassation Court Alina Yengoyan, in general, the court reached the
"8+6" verdicts of acquittal-seven people received punishment having
nothing to do with imprisonment, while one’s criminal case was quashed
based on the reconciliation

ARMENIAN PEACEMAKERS RETURN FROM IRAQ

AZG Armenian Daily
08/10/2008

Governmental

Yesterday a group of Armenian peacemakers, consisting of 46 doctors,
field engineers and drivers, returned to Yerevan from Iraq.

The Armenian peacemakers are deployed in with the division from
Poland. The group left for Iraq in July 2008 and was supposed to
return in December, but the situation is calming down in Iraq and less
and less peacemakers are required there, said in a briefing General
Arshaluys Paytian. She also said that Armenian peacemakers can be sent
to Afghanistan if required and if the Armenian Government decides so.

Armenpress reports that the Armenian peacemakers, who returned from
Iraq may reinforce the Armenian peacemaking troops in Kosovo.

THE BARTER OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE
KIMA YEGHIAZARYAN

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
04 Oct 2008
Armenia

An Extremely Absurd Statement

As we know, the main issues discussed during the session of the PACE
Monitoring Committee concerned the recent report submitted by CoE
Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg and the process of
Armenia’s implementation of Resolutions # 1609 and 1620. After
finishing the activities of the session, the Monitoring Committee
yesterday made its statement.

There was such an impression that the Committee would try to `keep
balance’ while preparing its statement and include in it the two topics
discussed. However, choosing the `optimum’ methods, it leaned
exclusively on Thomas Hammarberg’s report which, at the same, absorbed
the second topic. That statement, as a matter of fact, is the brief
composition of the conclusion concerning the March 1-2 events.

So, leaning on Mr. Hammarberg’s report and applying it to our country’s
general commitments to the Council of Europe, the Committee has made
such a mess that one hardly make out what the principal requirements of
the Assembly are.

As far as we remember, Resolutions # 1609 and 1620 contain countless
clauses concerning democracy and human rights in general, as well as
reminding about the implementation of the successive stages of the
activities required for achieving the solution20of numerous problems.
They also contain appeals addressed both to the opposition and the
authorities, particularly on the necessity of initiating a dialogue.

Whereas, circumventing these issues and focusing only on the
individuals detained within the frameworks of the `March 1′ case, the
Monitoring Committee expressed concerns over the facts and conclusions
publicized in the Commissioner’s report, as they `show only limited
progress in terms of implementation of the Assembly’s key
requirements.’ And if they hadn’t observed the `positive steps towards
conducting an independent and reliable investigation’, they might not
have recorded any progress at all.

We should note once again that all these statements are made in the
context of evaluating the process of the implementation of Resolutions
# 1609 and 1620. However, judging by the general contents of the
statement, there actually remains only one commitment we are required
to comply with.

That is, to release the `political detainees’ and dismiss the cases.
Furthermore, the Committee does not even conceal the fact that it is
ready to close eyes to all the imperfections if the authorities display
tolerance towards the revolutionaries and release them from prison. In
that case, the committee will record an `important progress’ and will
probably discontinue the monitoring process.

Expressing regret that the Arme
nian authorities haven’t considered the
possibilities for granting the detainees amnesty or pardon or applying
other legal procedures for solving the problems of the individuals
detained within the frameworks of the `March 1′ case, `the Committee
appeals to the authorities to discuss such possibility, as this will
lead to a significant progress in the process of the implementation of
the Assembly’s requirements.’

Well, just imagine what `barter’ the Monitoring Committee proposes:
recording a high level of democracy in our country in return for the
release of the individuals who organized and participated in mass
disorders accompanied with murders. And we, for some reason, imagined
the process of the accomplishment of democracy in a different way.

Whereas it turns out that for being considered a state complying with
democratic standards it is just necessary to allow the authorities to
create a chaotic situation in the country, and then exempt the authors
of such mass disorders from liability. Otherwise, they will have to
hear the pro-democratic organizations and individuals say all the time
that they are `strictly anxious’ and `deeply’ and `extremely’
concerned. And at the end, they will threaten the country with
sanctions, as mentioned in the statement of the Monitoring Committee.

Sometimes you ask yourself the following question: when these people
visit=2
0Armenia, why do they waste time on meeting with the
representatives of the ruling coalition, the Prosecutor General or the
leader of the country? It isn’t as though all that didn’t make sense.
Returning to Strasburg, they set aside all the argumentations achieved
during these meetings and lean only on the facts and data submitted by
the centre of the Ter-Petrosyan-led movement. Both Mr. Hammarberg’s
report and the statement of the Monitoring Committee are full of such
facts and data.

And what does the Armenian delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe do? To what extent does it try to prevent such
kind of unfavorable reports and statements from being published? Or,
does it take any steps towards changing the disputable issues contained
in those papers? These are questions that need to be considered
properly.

ARMENIA TO LAUNCH NEW NPP CONSTRUCTION SOON

PanARMENIAN.Net
03.10.2008 14:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ It’s time for Armenia to implement major economic
projects, the RA President said.

"Such projects help resolution of strategic problems and create a
possibility to boost employment. Construction of the Iran-Armenia
gas pipeline proved that brave initiatives can be realized thanks
to consistent work and self-confidence," Serzh Sarsgyan said in his
address to the parliament and the nation.

He named three projects which will in focus during the next several
years. "First, it’s construction of a new nuclear power plant. Second,
it’s construction of Iran-Armenia highway. And third, it’s formation
of an All-Armenian bank and investment fund which will sponsor major
projects," the Armenian President said.

DYNAMICS OF AZERI-ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS: A THREE-LEGGED CHAIR
By Harut Sassounian

AZG Armenian Daily
04/10/2008

Regional

All indications are that Armenian and Turkish leaders have agreed
in recent weeks to improve their long frozen relations based on
the following terms: Turkey will open its border with Armenia,
establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan, and set up several
inter-governmental commissions, one of which would deal with
Ottoman-Armenian relations, including the issue of the Armenian
Genocide.

Many Armenians both in Armenia and the Diaspora have serious
problems with the apparent willingness of Armenian authorities to
participate in a historical commission specifically devoted to the
Genocide. Turkish officials have repeatedly stated that their intent
in involving Armenians in a joint commission is to discourage other
countries from adopting resolutions on the Armenian Genocide.

Another serious obstacle to Armenian-Turkish rapprochement is the
Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict. For years, Ankara had made the withdrawal
of Armenian forces from Artsakh a pre-condition for normalizing
relations with Armenia.

Last week, the Presidents of Armenia and Turkey as well as the Foreign
Ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey were in New York to attend
the General Assembly of the United Nations. While it is not known
what the three Foreign Ministers discussed in their private meeting,
one can gain an insight into their discussions from remarks delivered
at the U.N. by Turkish, Armenian and Azeri officials.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul addressed the General Assembly on
Sept. 23 and gave a glowing report on Turkey’s recent diplomatic
initiatives. His aim was to lure U.N. members into supporting Turkey’s
candidacy for a non-permanent seat at the Security Council next month,
as well as facilitating his country’s eventual entry into the European
Union. In contrast to previous U.N. appearances, when Armenian
and Turkish officials would get involved in acrimonious debates,
Pres. Gul concentrated on his visits in early September to Armenia
and Azerbaijan and expressed the hope that frozen conflicts in the
region, "including the occupied Nagorno Karabakh," would be resolved,
"on the basis of respect for the principle of territorial integrity."

Pres. Serzh Sargsyan addressed the General Assembly two days
later, recalling his invitation of Pres. Gul to Yerevan to watch
with him a football match between the national teams of the two
countries. Pres. Sargsyan stated that he was "pleased with the Turkish
President’s bold decision to accept my invitation which made him the
co-author of my ‘football diplomacy’ initiative." The President also
said, "I am confident that the time has come to solve Armenian-Turkish
problems, and on that issue I observed a similar determination by
Pres. Gul. I am convinced that it is necessary to move fast and
resolutely in that direction."

In contrast to his courteous words toward Pres. Gul, Mr. Sargsyan
was very critical of Azerbaijan. He discussed at length the status
of Artsakh and its right to self-determination, even independence. He
castigated the 39 U.N. members who had voted earlier this year for a
pro-Azerbaijan resolution on Artsakh which encouraged Azeri leaders
to become more belligerent. Pres. Sargsyan concluded his statement
by describing Armenians as "a people who had survived genocide."

Interestingly, Pres. Sargsyan delivered his remarks in Armenian –
a first in U.N. history. Despite his fluency in Russian, he chose
to speak in Armenian, not one of the six international languages
spoken at the U.N. Unfortunately, the circulated English text of
the President’s remarks, while generally well translated by Armenian
personnel, deviated occasionally from the Armenian original, altering
the meaning of some of his words.

Two days later, the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mammadyarov,
addressed the General Assembly and called for "the withdrawal of
Armenian troops from occupied lands and restoration of full sovereignty
of Azerbaijan over these territories." Devoting a major portion of
his remarks to the Artsakh conflict, Mammadyarov praised the states
that had sided with Azerbaijan in the earlier General Assembly vote.

It is abundantly clear that while Armenian and Turkish leaders are
treating each other with courtesy and respect in their U.N. remarks
— indicating that they are making headway in their rapprochement,
this does not seem to be the case between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The
officials of the two countries used the U.N. podium to publicize
their disagreements.

Since Turkey has made the resolution of the Artsakh conflict a
pre-condition to normalizing relations with Armenia, it remains to
be seen how the on-gong war of words between Armenia and Azerbaijan
would impact the improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations.

Here is a possible scenario for regional developments in the upcoming
weeks or months: After Turkey de-links the Artsakh conflict from
Armenian-Turkish relations, it would open the border with Armenia and
establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan. In return, Armenia would
participate in a historical commission with Turkey and the government
of Artsakh may make a face-saving gesture to Turkey and Azerbaijan
by withdrawing from a small portion of the buffer zone that has no
particular historic or strategic significance for Armenians. However,
when Turks and Azeris realize that Armenians are unwilling to make
further territorial concessions on Artsakh, Turkey could then break
its newly established relations with Yerevan and once again close
its border with Armenia.

It is difficult to predict if such a scenario would actually
materialize. Would Turkey’s leaders be willing to place their country’s
interests ahead of those of Azerbaijan? Would Armenians accept to
withdraw from some of the buffer zones around Artsakh?

After the upcoming presidential elections in Azerbaijan and
parliamentary elections in Turkey, it would be more apparent if the
budding relationship between Armenia and Turkey survives the lack of
progress in the resolution of the Artsakh conflict.

FLEDGLING UZBEKISTANI CHURCH PERSEVERES

Catholic.net

GLOBAL ZENIT NEWS
Oct 2, 2008
CT

ROME, OCT. 2, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The Catholic community in Uzbekistan
is coming to life after Communist repression, but it still faces
obstacles from restricted religious liberty, reported L’Osservatore
Romano in a feature on the country.

The Vatican’s semi-official newspaper called the Uzbekistan Catholic
community "a minority Church in a country of Muslim majority
[…] dedicated especially to aiding the poor through works that
receive no public recognition; what is more, they must work almost
clandestinely."

Uzbekistan is Central Asia’s most populated country, with more than
27 million inhabitants. It is also one of the poorest nations of the
former Soviet Union. Uzbekistan has an 88% Sunni Muslim population
and is 9% Orthodox Christian. Catholics number about 5,000.

Bishop Jerzy Maculewicz, on the occasion of his five-yearly visit to
the Pope and the Roman Curia, gave details on the development of the
Catholic community that is being reborn in the wake of the fall of
Communism. Bishop Maculewicz is the nation’s only active bishop. He
is of Ukrainian origin and was one of the last prelates appointed by
Pope John Paul II.

The bishop told L’Osservatore Romano: "The Catholic Church is a very
small community, grouped around five parishes that still exist. We
are hoping to open two others, but the difficulties are many and are
reflected in the daily life of our faithful.

"We are a small group, which also suffers the consequences of the
phenomenon of emigration: Many Catholics leave Uzbekistan for financial
reasons. Fortunately, every year we also see some immigrants enter,
some of whom are Catholic."

Evangelizing

Despite the difficulty of pastoral work, the local Catholic community
relies on the help of religious communities such as the Franciscans and
nine Missionaries of Charity, who take care of the poorest, prisoners,
the sick, and evangelization through charity, explained the bishop.

These religious, he said, "would like to open another house to shelter
convalescent people who leave the hospital, but for the past year
and a half they have not received an answer from the authorities."

In order to respond to the needs of the people, the pastor said that
the Church in Uzbekistan is trying to introduce the work of Caritas,
but they still do not have formal permission. "In the meantime,
we promote small charitable initiatives at the parish level."

The difficulties in the area of religious liberty are due to a law
that bans all missionary and proselytizing activity.

"We receive and catechize the people who come, but we cannot proclaim
the Gospel in public," Bishop Maculewicz said.

Daily dialogue

The Catholic community of Uzbekistan enjoys daily opportunities for
interreligious dialogue.

"When I travel through the country, many Muslims approach me and ask
me questions, especially regarding our faith, such as how we pray, why
for us, Jesus is the Son of God," the prelate noted. "At the beginning
of this year, we promoted meetings with the apostolic nuncio and the
mufti of Uzbekistan. It was an unprecedented historic event."

Three years ago, with the ambassador of Israel, a concert was
organized on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the promulgation
of "Nostra Aetate," and the mufti was invited, he recalled. "Without
this anniversary, the Israeli ambassador would never have been able
to have a meeting with the Muslim authority," Bishop Maculewicz said.

In regard to the Orthodox, the prelate said there is no contact at
an official level, but with some priests. He said the Catholics do
have a close relation with the Lutherans and the Armenian Church,
and organized a prayer meeting during the week of prayer for Christian
unity.

PRESS RELEASE
The Civilitas Foundation
One Northern Ave. Suite 30
Yerevan, Armenia
Telephones: +37494.800754; +37410.500119
email: [email protected]
web:

OCTOBER 3, 2008

OSKANIAN GIVES PRESS CONFERENCE AT CIVILITAS FOUNDATION OPENING

The newly-established Yerevan-based Civilitas Foundation was officially
launched on Wednesday, October 1.

Founded by former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, the Foundation¹s offices
in central Yerevan hosted several hundred guests from the educational,
business and government spheres.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Oskanian held a press conference and spoke about the
Foundation¹s goals and activities, as well as about recent political
developments in Armenia.

Mr. Oskanian explained that the name =8Ccivilitas¹ comes from the Latin word
that contains references to many things – civilization, civil society and
civility. He said that the foundation has adopted the meaning that focuses
on =8Ccitizen¹s responsibility to society.¹

He explained that the Civilitas Foundation will work in two directions. The
first, the Council on Foreign Relations will advocate peace and stability
in the Caucasus through multifaceted dialogue and open discourse. It will
offer a forum for Armenia¹s opinion and policy makers, and will help inform
the international academic, political and media communities about Armenia¹s
foreign policy choices, options and actions, in the context of Armenia’s
national security challenges. Through public and private discussions as well
as research and publications, the Council will promote the Armenian
perspective internationally and domestically. The Council will work to
promote the proper mechanisms and the necessary environment for further
European integration.

The second direction – the Democracy and Development Initiative – will focus
on education – through a scholarship program that encourages study in
strategically important sectors. The Civilitas Foundation Media program will
produce content in English and Armenian, for Armenia and the Diaspora, to
contribute to the elimination of the current social, political, economic and
cultural information gap. By introducing a new kind of open, objective,
responsible public discourse, media will be strengthened and can become
relevant to people’s lives. To promote uniform development, the Civilitas
Foundation will also highlight and concentrate on economic facilitation in
rural areas and on environmental awareness.

Mr. Oskanian¹s introduction was followed by questions from the journalists.

In response to questions about Turkish President Gul¹s recent visit to
Armenia, Mr. Oskanian called the Turkish President visit an unprecedented
event, but added that its real value can only be measured if there is
movement on opening the Armenian-Turkish border.

"For me the only criterion of evaluating the Turkish-Armenian relations, is
the border opening, or at least, beginning to operate the Kars-Gyumri
railroad. If this happens in the coming months, then I will say that the
invitation was the right thing to do. If not, then we will have to recognize
that Turkey has maximally used this event for its own political purposes,"
Mr. Oskanian stated.

Speaking about Turkey’s possible involvement in the Karabakh talks, Vartan
Oskanian stated that Turkey has no place in those talks so long as it hasn’t
opened the border, hasn’t reactivated the railroad, and still takes
Azerbaijan¹s side in this conflict. Thus, Mr. Oskanian made clear that
Armenian diplomacy should not only do everything possible not to let Turkey
get involved in the talks, but also should prevent Turkey from leaving such
an impression on the world.

He commented that as of today, Turkey is reaping ten times greater dividends
than the Armenian side from this visit, and added that he hopes and assumes
that the Armenian leadership must have sufficient assurances of forward
movement, otherwise it¹s difficult to understand the willingness of the
Armenian side to make statements which Turkey wants to hear while Turkey
does not act on the border, and worse, continues to link Armenia-Turkey
relations to the Karabakh confict.

Mr. Oskanian also responded to questions about the domestic political
situation. He spoke about those still being detained following the events of
March 1, and expressed concern that the longer they are held without
charges, the more difficult it will be for Armenia to escape the label of a
country with =8Cpolitical prisoners.¹ He said that these days, with the
world¹s eyes on the Caucasus, Armenia can make forward strides only if there
is domestic understanding about the need to consolidate our society, face
the difficult questions associated with March 1, which he called a black day
in our history, and arrive at an objective assessment that will allow us to
move on.

Regarding questions about his immediate engagement in Armenia¹s domestic
political processes, he acknowledged his inability to remain indifferent to
the many social and political challenges facing the country, but said it¹s
much too early to discuss the timing and nature of such involvement.
Instead, he said, he would focus on building the Civilitas Foundation into
a relevant, engaged, effective organization that would contribute to bringing
necessary change.

Mr. Oskanian promised that the public would be regularly informed of the
activities and finances of the Civilitas Foundation.

MONITORING COMMITTEE CONCERNED ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS 1609 AND 1620 BY ARMENIA

Panorama.am
2:50 02/10/2008

The Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly received the
report from the Human Rights Commissioner regarding his visit to
Yerevan from 13 to 15 July 2008 and was extremely alarmed about its
findings and conclusions that show that only limited progress has been
achieved regarding key demands of the Assembly. The Committee therefore
invited the Human Rights Commissioner to return to Yerevan and report
back to the Committee at its meeting in Paris on 17 December 2008.

The Committee took note that, while the investigations regarding
persons in preventive detention have now closed, the cases against
seven, all charged under articles 300 and 225, have not yet
been brought before the courts as a result of excessive length of
investigation. In addition, the Committee is deeply concerned that the
investigations regarding the responsibility for the 10 deaths on 1 and
2 March have not yet been, or not yet on the point of being, concluded.

The Committee regrets that the Armenian authorities did not consider
the possibility of amnesty, pardons or any other legal means available
to them, to resolve the situation regarding persons deprived of their
liberty in relation to the events on 1 and 2 March 2008. It strongly
urges the authorities to consider such options, which would result
in major progress towards meeting the requirements of the Assembly.

The Committee is of the view that Armenia is on a threshold regarding
the implementation of Resolutions 1609 and 1620. Now is the time
for the Armenian authorities to show the political will to resolve
this problem.