Author: Hakobian Adrine

RECOGNISE GENOCIDE AGAINST KURDS

SP.NL
111/080317-recognise_genocide_against_kurds.html
M arch 17 2008
Netherlands

March 17th, 2008 ~U On Sunday it will be just twenty years ago that
Saddam Hussein attacked the Kurdish town of Halabja with chemical
weapons. This attack formed part of the Anfal Campaign, which was
aimed at driving out or destroying the population of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Members of Parliament Harry van Bommel and Fred Teeven recently
attended the international conference on this subject in Erbil, Iraq.

They have since together taken up the cause of international
recognition of the genocide committed against the Kurds and of the
establishment of a commemorative monument in the Netherlands.

In the 1980s Europe and the Netherlands did a great deal of business
with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Iraq enjoyed the support of the west in
its war against fundamentalist Iran, and blind eyes were turned. Only
in the second half of that decade did it become clear that major risks
were attached to the furnishing of certain materials. Saddam Hussein
was employing chemical weapons against his enemies both inside and
outside the country. On 16th March 1988 this reached a tragic climax
with the poison gas attack on the town of Halabja and other places
in the vicinity, which left at least 5,000 people dead.

Others were physically or mentally mutilated, continuing to suffer
to this day. This gas attack followed an intensive ethnic cleansing
which had gone on for several years, the Anfal Campaign, which is
estimated to have killed 182,000 Kurds. Much is known about this
genocide, but unfortunately international recognition has not yet
materialised. The conference which we attended had as its goal the
promotion of such recognition as well as the bringing of those who
share responsibility for it to justice.

That recognition of genocide is far from straightforward is
demonstrated by the problematic discussion of the crimes committed
against the Armenians under the Ottoman Empire in 1915. The concept
of genocide is emotionally charged, but since the realisation, in
1948, of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, it has been narrowly defined as the systematic
extermination of a particular ethnic group according to a specific
premeditated plan with the involvement or foreknowledge of governmental
authorities. There is persuasive evidence for the presence of all of
these aspects in Saddam Hussein’s Anfal Campaign.

The Netherlands should, we are strongly convinced, recognise therefore
the genocidal character of this mass murder committed against the
Kurds. We will be putting questions to the government on this as well
as initiating a debate on the issue in Parliament.

Recognition by the Netherlands will make it easier for other European
countries and the EU to take the same course.

That the Netherlands should extend such recognition is for a variety
of reasons clear. Firstly, there is in the person of the convicted
Dutch poison gas dealer Frans van Anraat a direct relation between
our country and these tragic events. In 2006 the judge considered
it proven that Van Anraat had supplied the chemicals needed by
Iraq to produce the poison gasses. In addition, the judge in the
first instance explicitly declared that the regime’s crimes could be
defined as genocide. Van Anraat’s condemnation, in a higher court, to
seventeen years in prison increased, in the Netherlands, the awareness
of and attention to the genocide against the Kurds. Until 1985 it was,
moreover, legally permitted to supply substances which could be used
to produce chemical weapons. According to the Dutch UN arms inspector,
not less than 45% of all poison gas chemicals supplied to Iraq during
these years came from Dutch persons or Dutch companies. As the seat
of many international judicial institutions it should be possible
to expect the Netherlands to offer leadership when it comes to the
detection and prosecution of war crimes and human rights abuses. A
solitary reference to the role of international tribunals is in this
respect utterly insufficient.

In addition to recognition of the genocide we are urging the
establishment of an international enquiry into the medical, social,
economic and legal consequences of the Anfal Campaign. This is needed
if we are to offer justice to the campaign’s victims, especially to
those who continue daily to contend with its results. As a first step
on the way to recognition of the suffering of the Kurds we propose
the establishment of a monument in memory of the victims and as a
warning to ensure that nothing so terrible should ever happen again.

The placing of a memorial for the suffering of a specific group would
be unusual in our country. One example, which can be found at the
Church of Moses and Aaron in Amsterdam, is the monument memorialising
the fifteen Surinamese people shot dead by the military regime in
December, 1982, known as the ‘Decembermoorden’. In consultation with
a range of organisations of Kurds, it seems to us that The Hague,
as a town associated with justice and peace, would be the place to
put a Kurdish monument. This year will see in a number of places
commemorations of the Kurdish sorrow. Let us hope that in the future
there will be one single place where Kurdish people and others can
pause in an expression of the grief which has touched so many.

Harry van Bommel and Fred Teeven are Members of the Dutch National
Parliament, for the SP and VVD respectively. On Sunday they will
speak at 1 p.m. at memorial ceremonies in Delft and Amsterdam.

MINISTER VARTAN OSKANIAN PARTICIPATES IN BRUSSELS FORUM

ARMENPRESS
March 17, 2008

YEREVAN, MARCH 17, ARMENPRESS: The German Marshall Fund Brussels Forum,
held in Brussels in Spring every year, convened this year to discuss
strategic issues of importance to Europe, the US and its partners
around the world, the Armenian foreign affairs ministry said.

It said the three-day conference included presentations by European
Union Foreign and Security Policy Chief Javier Solana, Head of the
World Bank Robert Zoellick, French Minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard
Kouchner, US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Canadian
Defense Minister Peter Mackay, as well as members of government from
Afghanistan, Germany, France, Turkey, Canada, and other countries.

In a round-table discussion, Minister Vartan Oskanian participated as
a panelist to discuss "Does the Path to Europe Extend to the Caucasus?"

Together with Georgian State Minister for Re-Integration, Minister
Oskanian addressed issues having to do with Armenia’s current
domestic political dilemma, and its context. Below are portions of
the Minister’s contents.

"My response to the question would have been the same, even had we
not had our post-election crisis of these last several weeks. In fact,
the post-election situation simply reinforces my answer.

On the one hand, you’d think this question has been asked and
answered. We’re here, right? We share history, values and civilization,
we also share the goals of an integrated, interdependent, interrelated
European political and economic community.

On the other hand, since the Caucasus is still a place that clings
to old frontier posts, old ways, old solutions, I guess it’s fair
to keep repeating the question, just so everyone asking and everyone
answering are forced to look in the mirror.

I’ve said this before – Europe used to have religious, geographic and
cultural boundaries. Today, Europe by definition is political. Europe
takes for granted that its national aspirations are fulfilled, that
its institutions are functioning and responsive.

The only time when Europe stops to ask whether their path goes there,
is when there are questions about democracy and authoritarianism,
rule of law, values and systems.

Europe takes for granted that it voluntarily suspended some aspects of
sovereign political and economic rights in order to build structures
which would enhance and consolidate political and economic advantages,
and diminish the damages of war and threat of war.

We on the other hand, in our region, still live with the threat of
war, with some damages of war, and with great vulnerabilities about
giving up any aspects of our newly acquired rights, even within our own
societies. In fact, doubts and fears are so great that the political
and social institutions of our societies are still not working right.

Georgia last fall, Armenia just last month – these are perfect examples
of the absence of the institutions that work. Are they a departure
from the path of democracy, from the path of Europe? No. They were
a shock, a glitch, a blimp, an aberration in the process. And let me
warn you. We will have more.

In the post-Soviet period, in post-Soviet places, trusting in
institutions – that would have been an aberration. The functioning
of those institutions cannot be completely flushed out of certain
old instincts and patterns. It takes time for that to happen by
those who run the institutions and – because there’s more of them –
even more time by those who are affected by those institutions.

In other words, as our post-electoral processes, as Georgia’s
pre-electoral processes, and as Azerbaijan’s to come, I’m sure,
demonstrated, society’s lack of confidence in those institutions is
so great that they believe change must come from the street.

Is this the path to Europe?

I still believe it is. The events surrounding our last elections are a
perfect example. There was progress in those elections, everyone said
so. No one expected ideal, they just expected better. We delivered
better. But because the trust level is so low and because the stakes
are so high, the needs are so dire, better wasn’t good enough. They
took to the streets thinking political change means endless political
revolution.

We know that’s not the case. We’ve had our political and economic
revolutions in our region. What we haven’t had is social revolution.

And for the next decade, on our path to Europe, we will come to
Europe to ask you to work with us for that social revolution – to
bring massive and meaningful change in two critical areas – the media,
and the educational system.

Just as Europe’s path to Europe took more than a century, ours
will take time too. But together, let’s make sure it doesn’t take a
whole century.’ In Brussels minister Oskanian had a meeting with
EU’s foreign policy and security chief, Javier Solana to discuss
post-election developments in Armenia and ways out of the situation.

Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran
March 16 2008

Beglarian elected as MP of Armenian minority of southern Iran

Isfahan, March 16, IRNA

Provincial election headquarters announced on Sunday that Robert
Beglarian was elected as the representative of Iran’s Christian
Armenian minority for southern Iran.

Beglarian won the majority of the received votes in the parliamentary
election held nationwide on March 14, the headquarters said in a
statement.

Beglarian won 2,503 ballots out of the total 2,583 votes cast, added
the statement.

Iran’s Christian Armenian minority consisted of two groups including
Armenians of Tehran and northern parts of Iran as well as those of
the southern parts of the country.

Beglarian represents Armenians of southern Iran.

Christian Armenians have two seats at Iran’s 290-seat parliament
while other religious minorities (Zoroastrians, Jews and Assyrians)
have one representative at the county’s legislative body.

About 3,000 of Christian Armenians of southern Iran were eligible to
vote.

Robert Fisk: Silenced by the men in white socks

Independent.co.uk Web
Saturday, 15 March 2008

The Damascus Spring has presaged no golden summer for Syria

Shut them up. Accuse them. Imprison them. Stop them talking. Why is it
that this seems to have become a symbol of the Arab ` or Muslim `
world? Yes I know about our Western reputation for free speech; from
the Roman Empire to the Spanish inquisition, from Henry VIII to
Robespierre, from Mussolini and Stalin to Hitler, even ` on a pitiable
scale ` to Mr Anthony Blair. But it’s getting hard to avoid the Middle
East.

When Egyptian women cry "Enough!", they are sexually abused by
Mubarak’s cops. When Algerians demand to know which policemen killed
their relatives, they are arrested for ignoring the regime’s amnesty.
When Benazir Bhutto is murdered in Rawalpindi, a cloak of silence falls
over the world’s imams. Pontificating about the assassination in
Pakistan, Shaikh es-Sayed, who runs one of Canada’s biggest mosques,
expressed his condolences to "families of beloved brothers and sisters
who died in the incident [sic]". Asked why he didn’t mention Bhutto’s
name, he replied: "Why? This is not a political arena. This is about
religion. That’s politics." Well, it certainly is in Syria. George Bush
` along with M. Sarkozy ` has been berating Damascus for its lack of
democracy and its human rights abuses and its supposed desire to gobble
up Lebanon and "Palestine" and even Cyprus. But I always feel that
Syria had a raw deal these past 90 years.

First came the one-armed General Henri Gouraud, who tore Lebanon off
from Syria in 1920 and gave it to the pro-French Christians. Then Paris
handed the Syrian coastal city of Alexandretta to the Turks in 1939 `
sending survivors of the 1915 Armenian genocide into exile for a second
time ` in the hope that Turkey would join the Allies against Hitler.
(The Turks obliged ` in 1945!) Then in the Six Day War, Syria lost the
Golan Heights ` subsequently annexed by Israel. Far from being
expansionist, Syria seems to get robbed of land every two decades.

On the death of Hafez al-Assad in 2000 ` it’s extraordinary how, like
Sharon now that he is comatose, we come to like these old rogues once
they’ve departed ` we were told there was to be a "Damascus Spring". I
always thought this a bit dodgy. I’d experienced the Lebanon Spring and
read about the Ukraine Spring and I’m old enough to remember the Prague
Spring, which ended in tears and tanks. And sure enough, the Damascus
Spring presaged no golden summer for Syria.

Instead, we’ve gone back to the midnight knock and the clanging of the
cell door. Why ` oh why ` must this be so? Why did the Syrian secret
police have to arrest Dr Ahmed Thoma, Dr Yasser el-Aiti, Jabr al-Shufi,
Fayez Sara, Ali al-Abdulla and Rashed Sattouf in December, only days
after they ` along with 163 other brave Syrians ` had attended a
meeting of the Damascus Declaration for Democratic Change? The
delegates had elected Dr Fida al-Hurani head of their organisation.
She, too, was arrested, and her husband, Dr Gazi Alayan, a Palestinian
who had lived in Syria for 18 years, deported to Jordan.

The net spread wider, as they say in police reports. The renowned
Syrian artist Talal Abu Dana was arrested up in Aleppo, his studio
trashed and his paintings destroyed. Then on 18 February, Kamel
al-Moyel from the lovely hill town of Zabadani, on the steam train
route from Damascus, was picked up by the boys in white socks. A point
of explanation here. Almost all Middle East Moukhabarat men ` perhaps
because a clothing emporium has won a concession for the region’s
secret policemen ` wear white socks. The only ones who don’t are the
Israeli variety, who wear old baseball hats.

Needless to say, the Syrian prisoners were not ignored by their regime.
A certain Dr Shuabi, who runs a certain Data and Strategic Studies
Centre in Damascus, appeared on al-Jazeera to denounce the detainees
for "dealing with foreign powers". Dr al-Hurani suffered from angina
and was briefly sent to hospital before being returned to the Duma
jail. But when the prisoners were at last brought to the Palace of
Justice, Ali al-Abdulla appeared to have bruises on his body. Judge
Mohamed al-Saa’our ` the third investigative judge in Damascus,
appointed by the ministry of interior ` presided over the case at which
the detainees were accused of "spreading false information", forming a
secret organisation to overthrow the regime, and for inciting
"sectarian and racist tendencies". The hearing, as they say, continues.

But why? Well, back on 4 December, George Bush met at the White House `
the rendezvous was initially kept secret ` the former Syrian MP Mamoun
al-Homsi (who currently lives, dangerously perhaps, in Beirut) with
Amar Abdulhamid, a member of a think thank run by a former Israeli
lobbyist, and Djengizkhan Hasso, a Kurdish opposition activist. Nine
days later, an official "source" leaked the meeting to the press. Which
is about the time the Syrian Moukhabarat decided to pounce. So whose
idea was the meeting? Was it, perhaps, supposed ` once it became public
` to provoke the Syrian cops into action?

The Damascus newspaper Tichrine ` the Syrian equivalent of Private
Eye’s Rev Blair newsletter ` demanded to know why Washington was
showing such concern for human rights in Syria. Was not the
American-supported blockade of one and a half million Gaza Palestinians
a violation of the rights of man? Had not the Arabs seen all too
clearly Washington’s concern for the rights of man in Abu Ghraib and
Guanatanamo? All true. But why on earth feed America’s propaganda
machine (Syria as the centre of Hamas/ Hiz-bollah/Islamic Jihad terror,
etc) with weekly arrests of middle-aged academics and even, it
transpires, the vice-dean of the Islamic studies faculty at Damascus
University?

Of course, you won’t find Israel or the United States engaged in this
kind of thing. Absolutely not. Why, just two months ago, the Canadian
foreign minister, Maxime Bernier, discovered that a confidential
document sent to Canadian diplomats included a list of countries in
which prisoners risked being tortured ` and the names of America and
Israel were on the list! Merde! Fortunately for us all, M. Bernier knew
how to deal with such pernicious lies. The document, he announced,
"wrongly includes some of our closest allies. It doesn’t represent the
opinion or the policy of the (Canadian) government". Even though, of
course, the list is correct.

But M. Bernier managed to avoid and close down the truth, just as Mr
Mubarak does in Cairo and President Bouteflika does in Algiers and just
as the good Shaikh es-Sayed did in Toronto. Syria, according to Haitham
al-Maleh, a former Syrian judge, claims there are now almost 3,000
political prisoners in Syria. But how many, I wonder, are there in
Algeria? Or in Egypt? Or in the hands ` secret or otherwise ` of the
United States? Shut them up. Lock them up. Silence.

Scramble between world powers started, therefore it is necessary to be
cautious

Igor Muradyan
15-03-2008 15:24:27 – KarabakhOpen

Considering that the Armenian government has so thoughtlessly closed
down the media and thereby turned Radio Liberty the sole source of
information for revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries, my article
as always written for the sites Lragir.am and Karabakh-Open.com was
published only in Stepanakert, I have to offer a more extended version
of this article.

In a certain period of acquaintance with the external political
practice Robert Kocharyan and Vardan Oskanyan had the brains not to
relate Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to suspicious `associative’ schemes in
which Moscow has involved Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnyestr.
Most probably, Armenia’s stance was determined by an intuitive momentum
of sub-political thinking, but apparently afterwards the full
understanding of the danger and pointlessness of this course came.

The publics of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnyestr are enviably
consistent, and readiness to reach the historical goal and regrets for
the division of Georgia and Moldova do not beg a creative stance of the
elite of such minor ethnic communities whose possibilities were
underestimated. Unlike the Moscow-based politicians from the executive
and legislative powers, the leaders of those former autonomies realize
and duly appreciate the stance of Armenia on this issue and actions of
`solidarity’, since the Karabakh issue itself is the most significant
factor of support for the struggle of those small nations on the
international arena.

By the way, over the past few weeks the political government of
Armenia, driven by highly egoistic personal and group interests, seemed
to have realized that their salvation and at the same time the
salvation of the nation is ignoring the unjustified and imposed
external influence and constraint. If this political style is used
later, the most illegitimate governments will be recognized as
legitimate (by the way, not only become legitimate as a matter of fact
but also recognized as such). In other words, the political government
of Armenia stands only one chance to become legitimate ` it is the
Armenian nationalism. Only politicians with a `purely Armenian
thinking’ do not understand this.

Hence, March 13 which those fond of political scandals were longing for
passed in the Russian Duma in absolute compliance with the tried and
true methods of Russian politics which is described as `much ado about
nothing, preferably at others’ expense’. On March 13 Russia came up
with another meaningless initiative on the Bessarabia problem, in other
words, another experiment was staged ` `territorial integrity of
Moldova in return for refusal to join NATO’. The population of 700
thousand of Transdnyestr has become a clear token for cynical bargain
on an initiative of Moscow’s. The same perspective is awaiting Georgia
(although in a more comic setting). Hence, this favors one of the
essential elements of the U.S. policy in Western Europe ` `freezing
ethno-political conflicts’ as a factor of distancing a number of states
from Russia (which by the way is in the essential Armenian interests).

Russia is obviously late and has historically lost the battle for
shaping a new geopolitical construction. The United States, after
having squeezed its Euro-Atlantic partners, launched solidity
initiatives of `reshaping’ the world which, within the borders created
by the British empire, is becoming more uncontrollable. In some cases,
the United States is interested in a stationary situation, in other
cases, in dynamics and contradicting processes, in addition, both
replace each other from time to time. The conservative intellectual
sets in the Untied States have understood that `it is easier to reshape
the world than to stick to the obsolete, stagnant construction’, it is
easier to make adepts of the national liberation struggle allies rather
than to declare war on them and thereby acquire foes, who are more
dangerous than radical Islamists.

At least, since 2001 the U.S. Council of Security has been working on
this doctrine. The wording has also been invented, such as `extended
sovereignty’, `reserve sovereignty’, `expected sovereignty’, etc.
Immense potential of national liberation struggle has accumulated as a
recurrence of empires not destroyed through. In the vast spaces of
Eurasia and Africa the power will dominate which will initiate
international support to nations and ethnicities. In the metaphysical
sense, this doctrine is aimed against the British doctrine but of
course only in this sense, since Great Britain in this initial stage of
this initiative is not only a partner but also a major political
projector of this doctrine.

A lyrical digression. In the course of many years of studies of the
problems of geopolitical rearrangement and regional politics in the
United States and Europe I became convinced that despite the claim and
constraint to the United States on behalf of the apostles of `real
politik’, actual politics did not resolve and in future arranged to put
an end to various provocations regarding the division of the Iranian
state. Moreover, the division of Iran based on the ethnic and religious
criteria was deemed of as harmful and jeopardizing the strategic
interests of the United States in the American establishment, which was
conceived not without Great Britain. Meanwhile, it was despite the
nuclear threat from Iran. At the same time, after the Turkish
parliament had disallowed the passage of the 3rd division of the U.S.
army to Iraq, the most ardent Turkish lobbyists in the Senate and the
Pentagon `did not object’ to the division of Turkey and `review of
justification of control of Turkey on such a vast territory’. And this
was despite the lasting strategic relations.

Quite a long time ago it became clear that Russia will lose this battle
for reshaping the world, and not only will it lose but also will take
part in this battle, since the external policies of Russia are usurped
by either marasmic bribers from the old school of Soviet experts on the
East and young communist scum or slow-witted and excessively ambitious
`figures-adolescents’ from the president administration. These two
corporations understood each other well, and they have isolated
Vladimir Putin from real consulting, blocked the activities of the
Russian ministry of foreign affairs and laid the path to power and
adoption of decisions by corporations which have immense interests in
those directions where Russia had completely different goals. As a
result, Russia is facing the prospect of becoming a mere observer of
those processes and is making nervous movements together with more
incompetent functionaries and pseudo-politicians. Russia is on the path
for a new policy, but will this policy be more acceptable for nations
striving for liberation and partnership or will it be fatal for them?
Or maybe this policy is not needed at all?

—————————————-

Ac cording to media reports, `on March 13 the Russian Duma may pass a
resolution on the fate of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On this day the
Russian parliamentarians will hold hearings on the urge of the
unrecognized states of the post-Soviet space to recognize their
independence. The speakers of the parliaments of Abkhazia, South
Ossetia and Transdnyestr will participate in session.’ `Russia is ready
to take an active part in the process of changing the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The head of the Duma Committee said although the
issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is not included in the topics of the hearings
on March 13, `each participant of the discussion is free to talk about
what they want.’ No doubt, it is not the full stop but the beginning of
a new international political process. Would Russia have taken this
step if the independence of Kosovo had not been recognized?’

In the framework of these developments, in answer to Russia’s
initiative regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the United States
could have allowed for a military conflict in the province of Karabakh
as a lever of pressure on Russia. What will it be? Clear coercion, but
on whom, Azerbaijan or Armenia? What should poor Armenians do? Maybe
reject treacherous pacifist goals and join effort with those states who
are strategically interested in frozen conflicts. It is notable that
some Armenian politicians of `Yerevan’ type have already realized this
tiny political ruse and are ready to uphold this idea. But for whatever
reason this understanding takes place only when the politicians are
retiring from the scene and in `snow-white suits’.

In the context of March 13 when this problem and the moves made by the
unrecognized states were discussed at the Russian Duma, Armenia appears
in a difficult situation because it is necessary to develop a reaction,
and again a mere reaction rather than a policy. In this new situation
when NKR needs to be a real political subject, the republic has nothing
to offer, since the last reserves for underpinning this real subject
have been wasted. The United States and Russia need partners with good
sense to realize these projects, and they are ready and need
recommendations and proposals more than ever. Both powers have appeared
in an unfavorable situation. It is clear that a signal was given to the
Islamic population in Kosovo which is likely to integrate with the
Christian society both vertically and horizontally. Now it is time for
a legitimate project for the Christian society which is setting up
successful relations with the Islamic world. At the same time, this
signal was received by most Islamic countries in the form which was
presupposed, that is quite adequately and therefore hostilely.

How does Nagorno-Karabakh Republic differ from unrecognized states? If
the president elect Serge Sargsyan again fails to understand, George
Bush will never congratulate him, never. At last, it is time to make
definitive moves, dissolve this government, void and miserable
parliament, create new media and form the first nationalist government
of Armenia. Although where should nationalists be sought for? The
United States is on the path for a revolution, whereas we fear a
revolution and instead of leading it we gave it to the `orangists’. We
will have no place in the new world which is ready for rearrangement
and renovation. Shall we work it out?

——————————————– —————-

So what happened in the Duma on March 13?
The heads and parliamentarians of unrecognized states appeared as
marionettes in the `genial’ plan called `time is rubber, and possibly
against cowards’. As to the Karabakh issue, another mean action was
done. For instance, Member of Parliament Vladimir Nikotin, member of
the Duma Committee of CIS affairs and relations with compatriots, said
`the reason why the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh are not
participating in the hearings is the situation that has emerged in the
region. Possibly the situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan had an
influence. They feared escalation of the conflict’, `no invitations
were sent to the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh to participate.’
And Member of Parliament Barinov said answering the question whether
the situation regarding Nagorno-Karabakh had been raised: `The problem
of Nagorno-Karabakh was touched upon slightly, it was said that the
precedent of Kosovo has already caused escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh.’

Hence, the issue of war and peace in the province of Karabakh depends
on one discussion in the Russian Duma or another. So, why are you
sitting and not joining? However, every cloud has a silver lining, and
in fact Moscow has acknowledged that the Karabakh issue is outside its
competency. In this situation, we want to tell the Moscow-based
`drummers’ imagining themselves to be politicians: `Be nice, do not
interfere with the affairs of Karabakh, you had already been seen
there.’ This phrase has already been uttered in the Russian Duma
several years ago when V. Zhirinovsky said: `So they are idiots and do
not understand that we need not butt in on Karabakh, Armenians will
deal with it. If they had wanted to invite us, they would have done it
a long time ago. We are not needed there.’

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON NAGORNO KARABAKH

armradio.am
14.03.2008 15:00

Today the UN will discuss the situation in Nagorno Karabakh: Baku
has presented a draft resolution to the General Assembly, in which it
requests to confirm the borders of its territory and its jurisdiction
over Nagorno Karabakh and the surrounding regions.

"The General Assembly reiterates that no state must recognize as legal
the situation created as a result of the occupation of territories
of the Republic of Azerbaijan and must not support or promote the
maintenance of that situation," the draft resolution reads.

The document underlines the necessity of "immediate, complete and
unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied
territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan."

Let us remind that during yesterday’s meeting with journalists RA
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian described as "self-deluge" the
resolution presented to the UN, since the decisions of the General
Assembly have no legal power. "Neither the place, nor the time
have been chosen correctly. There is no need in such a resolution:
the negotiations on the Karabakh conflict settlement have not yet
exhausted themselves, especially considering that these proceed in
the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group," Vartan Oskanian declared. He
noted that Armenia will pay attention to the vote of those countries,
which approach the question objectively and do not vote simply out
of political convenience or economic interests.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS THOMAS HAMMARBERG MET CHIEF OF ARMENIAN POLICE AND PROSECUTOR GENERAL

arminfo
2008-03-14 14:54:00

ArmInfo. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas
Hammarberg met chief of Armenian Police Hayk Harutyunyan and Prosecutor
General Agvan Hovsepyan.

As press-service of the Armenian Police reports, Hammarberg and
Harutyunyan discussed the 1 March events in Yerevan. Harutyunyan
assured that the police did everything possible to prevent mass
disorders and not to allow further worsening of the situation. He also
said that he had already signed an order which lets the delegation
headed by Hammarberg to visit isolation ward and have a talk with
the detained persons.

As press-service of Prosecutor General’s Office reports, the same day
Thomas Hammarberg met Armenian Prosecutor General Agvan Hovsepyan. They
touched on the problems of human rights protection in the conditions
of the state of emergency. Hovsepyan informed Hammarberg that the
president’s order on introduction of the state of emergency does not
foresee any limit of judicial power working and gives no ground for
new detaining and arrests. He also added that all the legal rights
of the accused persons are being observed and several criminal cases
will be transferred to the court soon.

NO NEED FOR SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Panorama.am
17:48 14/03/2008

New disorders will bring to very bad results, said the Prime Minister
and president-elect Serzh Sargsyan the other day answering to the
citizens’ questions. He mentioned that he would not let new disorders
to be carried out in the country.

"The only thing which guarantees that the disorder will not be
repeated is the law and the Constitution of the RA. I am decisive
and I’ll not let any disorder in the future," said the Prime Minister.

As for the created strained atmosphere in the country, he excluded
carrying out another special parliamentary election, as the elections
create new strains.

COLORED REVOLUTIONS AND THE POLITICAL TURMOIL IN ARMENIA
Rovshan Ibrahimov

Journal of Turkish Weekly
March 14 2008
Turkey

As a result of presidential elections in Armenia, the third president
of this country has become Prime Minister Serg Sarkisian. Sarkisian
was the successor to the old authorities and Kocharian in particular.

Both are from Karabakh, in this case coming to power Sarkisian was
also guarantee the continuation of the course of governance and the
interests of the Karabakh clan. Superfluous proof of this thesis is
in the position of the main opponent of Sarkisian in the presidential
race Ter-Petrossian, who explained their accusations that the current
authority with their actions only worsens the plight of the country
and not in its policies in the name of Armenia, but for the sake of
their own interests.

The results of elections in Armenia can be analyzed from two
perspectives: on the one hand through comparison with similar election
conducted in the countries, the post-Soviet space, on the other,
identifying the distinctive features of the electoral process in
Armenia.

Sarkisian, as a member of the current government, and thus have the
opportunity to use the extensive public resource, in the end, was
elected the new President of Armenia. The transition of power to the
receiver, widely used in the post-Soviet space, including in Russia,
was also implemented in Armenia. In principle, this fact is rather
typical, than specific.

The transition from one authority to another in the post-Soviet space
interrupted only in two cases: when, immediately after independence,
in some states, using the general confusion have came reactionary
forces. An example of this Gamsakhurdiya serves regimes in Georgia;
Elchibey in Azerbaijan may be shown. However, referring to the lack of
experience in the state ruling and existed domestic political chaos,
the return to power previous leaders of these republics, during the
Soviet period with enormous experience of government.

Other regimes that came after collapsing of the Soviet Union under
the force-major circumstances might also be included governments of
Ter-Petrosian in Armenia and Yeltsin in Russia. But these two leaders
for many reasons have been forced to resign, never having completed
their legal deadline of government, also appointing a successor to
their seats of power.

Another case is the so-called "velvet revolutions" after which new
regimes have come to power in such countries as Georgia, Ukraine
and Kyrgyzstan. But whether changing of leader in Kyrgyzstan occurred
early in the wake of developments in Georgia and Ukraine, than with the
support of the "outside", in the last two cases, countries had clearly
felt the support of Western countries, mainly the United States.

However, even in these cases, "non-standard" abandonment chain
management countries with one team have its loopholes. So the new
leaders of all three countries have experience of government in
previous regimes, holding any positions in the government. In other
words, the "new" regimes also failed to come to power from the outside,
but were part of the nomenclature of previous commands.

Furthermore, the new government time to take root in power and already
own an interest in turn of the conversation of their regimes: so
Saakashvili was re-elected for a second term, and President Yushchenko
appointed to the post of Prime Minister Timoshenko, his fellow at
the recent "Orange Revolution".

In short, some countries of the former Soviet Union have experience
to implement practice of the transfer of power to a successor. It
will be applied in the future again especially to the countries of
Central Asia, where some leaders remain in power from Soviet times.

Referring specifically Armenia, in my earlier comment on Turkishweekly
"Presidential Elections in Armenia and Its Uniqueness" dated February
8, 2008, I have noted that non-standard provisions in the country after
the nomination of Ter-Petrossian his candidacy for the presidency
of this country. This step completely changed the situation in the
country and the electoral process has withdrawn from the formal
transition of power to a successor to the intransigent confrontation
between the government and opposition supporters of Ter-Petrossian.

Ter-Petrosian has experience in governance and a politician who could
consolidate the opposition forces. That is what happened in Armenia,
where tens of thousands of supporters of Ter-Petrosian immediately
took to the streets in support of their candidate. Situation has
changed to the fact that the authorities had to resort to force to
disperse the demonstrators, resulting in accordance to the official
figures with 8 killed people. The authorities have imposed censorship
on the information, even limiting access to the Internet. The situation
remains unstable.

As the situation Sarkisian be able to retain power and become the
next President of Armenia. This is due primarily to the fact that
Ter-Petrosian has not received the support of Western countries,
and the demonstrations did not escalate into another "a color
revolution". Incidentally Ter-Petrosian has already been publicly
accuse the West that they did not support the democratic forces in
Armenia, thereby helped advance the liberal values in the country.

Now in Armenia is relatively silent. Perhaps soon Sarkisian will
receive from the powers of the President Kocharian, but not stable
governance, which was in the time of Kocharian. The current government
should realize that in today’s Armenia there is a strong opposition
and a strong leader who will not fall behind. So, Sarkisian regime
will therefore be respected to the reality.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: "I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT WILL BE SOLVED SOON OR NOT"

Azeri Press Agency
March 13 2008
Azerbaijan

Baku. Tamara Grigoryeva-APA. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
took doubtful stance to the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh in a short
term. APA reports quoting U.S. State Department website.

Condoleezza Rice took stance to claims sounded in the Congress that
there would be war in the Caucasus region again.

"I do not know whether Nagorno Karabakh conflict will be solved soon
or not .We had several chances for it. We conduct negotiations on the
settlement of the conflict. I want to note that the two parties have
problems in the settlement of the conflict and we want to assure that
the two parties are responsible for it," she said. Rice stated that US
tried to assist the conflict parties in the resolution to the conflict.