Author: Hambardsumian Paul

Hürriyet, Turkey
Dec 15 2006

Armenian leader Mesrob II tells EU: Get Turkey relations back on track

Mesrob II, the Patriarch of the Turkish Armenian religious community,
has written a letter to leaders of Europe calling for pressure to be
put on EU leaders at today’s summit in Brussels to get relations
between Turkey and the EU back on track. The letter, which was sent
not only to heads to state, but also to royal family members across
the EU, said in part:

"Turkey’s EU accession process is a matter of primary importance for
the Turkish people. Promises to Turkey that it might one day become
an EU member have played a crucial role in encouraging economic and
political reform in our country. Due to reforms which have taken
place in these past years, the basic human rights of not only
religious minorities, but all Turkish citizens, have improved. The
founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, turned the
face of this country during the 1920s towards the West. The Turkish
people long ago made their choice for political and economic
modernity. The EU should not make decisions which will push Turkey’s
accession process off the tracks, or which force it to carry out very
one-sided sets of pre-conditions."

ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO REGULATE INFORMAL EDUCATION

Yerevan, December 14. ArmInfo. The Government of Armenia intends to
regulate the system of informal education.

Deputy Minister of Culture and Youth Arthur Poghosyan said at a
briefing, Thursday, that the Government has approved a concept of
informal education. He explained that the system of informal education
implies educational courses, lectures and seminars that require no
examinations or tests.

Many organizations provide such kind of education in Armenia and the
Government has resolved to control them up to the licensing. Criteria
of informal education are to be adopted within the year, which
will allow the authorities to estimate the quality of knowledge. It
is necessary for acknowledgment of the certificates of educational
courses, lectures and seminars, the deputy minister said. Majority of
journalists think that licensing of this activity is pregnant with
additional corruption risks. However, the deputy minister disagreed
with them and brought the example of the international experience.

NEEDED: A U.S. BLACK SEA STRATEGY
Ariel Cohen and Conway Irwin

Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, DC
Dec 12 2006

U.S. interests in the Black Sea area-energy transit, security,
counter-terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
and the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people-have taken
on particular significance since 9/11. The Black Sea basin is a
strategic region bordering the Greater Middle East and a key transit
route for Caspian oil. Confronted with developments in the region,
the U.S. needs a comprehensive regional policy to protect American
interests and security.

BACKGROUND: The Wider Black Sea region is a patchwork of overlapping
political areas and spheres of influence. Bulgaria and Romania are
NATO members and soon-to-be EU members. Ukraine is caught between
the West and Russia. Georgia leans toward the West, but borders on
Russia’s soft underbelly. Turkey vacillates between East and West,
pulled in different directions by national interests and national
pride. Russia, in a more pronounced way, it staking its own course.

The Black Sea’s six littoral states (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine,
Russia, Georgia, and Turkey) and several additional countries in
the wider region are beginning to tentatively construct a regional
identity just as foreign powers and outside forces are searching for
footholds in their vicinity. The region is geopolitically significant
precisely because it is a nexus of cultures, international trade
(legal and illicit), ideas, and influences.

Oil and gas from Central Asia and the Middle East move along Black
Sea shipping lanes and pipelines to Europe and other points west.

These same shipping lanes are used for smuggling of narcotics, persons
(including terrorists), conventional weapons, and components for
weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

The Black Sea region can be a launching platform for military,
reconstruction, and stabilization operations in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and possibly Iran and for the protection of energy shipping lanes
between the Caspian region and Western markets. It is also Europe’s
new southeastern border. Thus, both the European Union and the U.S.

have strong interests in safeguarding the movement of some goods,
preventing the movement of others, and maintaining a presence in the
Black Sea region.

Turkey and Russia are key powers uneasy about the U.S. presence in
the Black Sea basin. Turkey desires stability in the Black Sea, but
the moderate Islamist AK Party government in Ankara does not see eye
to eye with its Western partners over how to achieve this. Turkey’s
perception of the United States was profoundly changed by the Iraq
war. Long an ally of the West and an EU aspirant, Turkey has recently
distanced itself from the U.S. and NATO.

In response to its real or perceived grievances with the U.S. and the
EU, Turkey is seeking a stronger position from which it can pursue
its own ends without interference. Turkey’s most recent National
Security Policy Document emphasizes the importance of Turkey using its
geopolitical position to become a hub for energy storage and transit
between suppliers in Russia, the Middle East, and Central Asia and
markets in the West.

Russia, even more than Turkey, has been increasingly moving away from
the West and is focused on maintaining regional hegemony. The Kremlin
has been using Russia’s recently acquired economic might, by virtue
of the high price of oil and unprecedented demand for natural gas, to
pursue its foreign policy goals. One of those goals is to become the
world’s primary supplier of energy resources. Òhat requires a tight
grip on purchasing and transporting of the oil and gas resources of
the former Soviet Union.

IMPLICATIONS: Russia has turned a generous profit as the middleman
between cheap Central Asian oil and gas and energy-hungry economies
in the West. By selling Central Asian oil and gas at a premium abroad,
Russia has earned windfall profits and undertaken obligations to supply
countries such as the EU and China well beyond its own abilities to
produce. Russia also supplies two thirds of Turkey’s natural gas and
roughly 40 percent of the EU’s-a position that may be in jeopardy
if the pipelines through Turkey are built using non-Russian sources
of supply.

Further complicating regional security in the wider Black Sea
region are the unresolved conflicts in the region: South Ossetia
and Abkhazia in Georgia and Transnistria in Moldova, as well
as the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. These conflicts raise two
primary concerns. First, they threaten the territorial integrity
of internationally recognized states. Implications for separatists
in Chechnya, Daghestan, Kurdistan, Khouzistan, Baluchistan, and
even Xinjiang are easy to imagine, to say the least. Second, the
local governments of the secessionist regions operate according to
their own "laws", not those of the central governments, resulting in
insufficient oversight and crime prevention. These lawless enclaves
have become breeding grounds for international smuggling and other
illicit activities. Until the conflicts are resolved, ruling elites in
these statelets will frustrate efforts to establish a lasting peace,
which is a precondition for stability, security, and economic growth
in the broader region.

Because the U.S. does not have a free rein in the Black Sea region,
it is essential that the countries in the region develop their own
intraregional capabilities in maritime security, counterterrorism,
disaster preparedness, and other aspects of securing their waterways
and coastlines. However, the Black Sea littoral states are operating
according to their own distinct agendas, and there is no consensus
about how to achieve common security goals. Tensions over status
within the region, conflicting allegiances, and varying perceptions
of what constitutes stability are preventing these states from finding
mutually acceptable ways to combat their common problems.

U.S. presence currently has the support of Bulgaria and Romania, but
U.S. relations with Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine are on shaky ground.

Neither Turkey nor Russia supported U.S. operations in Iraq, and
relations with both countries have taken a downturn ever since.

Ukraine has adopted a more pro-Russian stance since Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovich took office. Georgia is under severe economic
and political pressure from Russia and preoccupied with internal
conflicts and is thus ill-equipped to act as a strong U.S. ally. This
tangled web of interests and alliances and the recent rapprochement
of Russia and Turkey, which has anti-American implications, may hamper
U.S. activities in the area.

CONCLUSIONS: To maintain a presence in the region, the United States
needs a realistic strategy to enhance the security and stability of
the Black Sea region. This specifically involves coordinating U.S.

and EU policies in the region, especially with regards to the European
Neighborhood Policy. It also involves increasing NATO cooperation
with non-NATO countries through Partnership for Peace by offering
technical and training assistance in security areas, and strengthen
bilateral military ties with Ukraine.

Other elements could include sponsoring trilateral military exchanges
and consultations between Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey to assuage
Turkish concerns about losing its dominant position in the Black Sea
basin to the growing influence of the U.S. America can contribute to
existing regional security structures either as a participant or as an
observer. This could include providing crucial technical intelligence
capabilities, airlift, and other specialty capacities.

These structures could also be included in NATO military and disaster
preparedness exercises to improve interoperability.

A stable Black Sea region must include urging Russia to lift sanctions
against Georgia and pushing for renewed multilateral talks over the
resolution of the region’s "frozen conflicts", particularly acute
in the case of Georgia. This includes promoting the replacement
of Russian/CIS peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia with
international peacekeeping forces – under the EU or UN umbrella,
or otherwise constituted.

Even with all of the current U.S. foreign policy concerns (e.g.,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea), the U.S. would be unwise
to concentrate on these crises to the exclusion of all others.

Shoring up alliances and improving relations with states in strategic
areas bordering on main theaters of operation, such as the Greater
Middle East, is of utmost importance in developing future geopolitical
arrangements, enhancing strategic stability, and assuring military
egress and re-supply.

Given the current state of U.S. relations with Turkey and Russia,
the only way for the U.S. to maintain and strengthen its footholds
in the Black Sea is to develop cooperation across a broad spectrum
of issues of common interest and mutual concern. The U.S. needs to
learn to tread lightly, offering support where possible and backing
off where necessary. This is not an impossible balance to achieve. If
successful, it could be used as a model for cementing U.S. presence
in other strategic areas, such as Central Asia. It is time for the
U.S. to launch a coordinated policy effort in the Wider Black Sea
region to gain support for addressing some of the most pressing issues
of the decade: the rise of Iran, WMD proliferation, cooperation in
the global war on terrorism, and energy security.

AUTHORS’ BIO: Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian
and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security at The Heritage
Foundation. Conway Irwin is an energy writer with Argus Media.

p?articleid=4636

–Boundary_(ID_EjJzvDGBDPPPLBJe8 0SmcA)–

OSCE OFFICE HELPS PRESENT REPORT ON ARMENIA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AARHUS CONVENTION

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)

Dec 13 2006

YEREVAN, 12 December 2006 – A report on the implementation of the
Aarhus environmental convention and activities undertaken in this
respect was presented in Yerevan today with the support of the
OSCE Office.

The report analyses the situation with access to information, justice
and public participation in decision-making on environmental issues,
as well as the existing and pending legislation.

The event was organized together with the Ministry of Nature
Protection, the Environmental Public Advocacy Centre and the Yerevan
Aarhus Centre.

"Promoting the principles of the Aarhus Convention is part of the
awareness-raising activities on environmental rights and ecological
education," said Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin, the Head of the
OSCE Office.

Gennady Kojoyan, Adviser to the Nature Protection Minister,
expressed his appreciation with the OSCE Office’s activities aimed
at implementing the Aarhus Convention and welcomed the expansion of
Aarhus Centres in the regions.

Winners of the "Environment and Urbanization" competition for
journalists, organized by the OSCE Office, were announced and awarded
at the end of the event.

OSCE CHAIRMAN CONCERNED OVER CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)

Dec 12 2006

BRUSSELS, 11 December 2006 – The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Belgian
Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, said today that the OSCE will
not recognize the referendum on a draft constitution held in
Nagorno-Karabakh on Sunday.

"Such a referendum is counter-productive to the ongoing conflict
settlement process, which has recently shown visible progress, as
acknowledged by the parties," said Minister De Gucht.

Referring to a statement on Nagorno-Karabakh made at last week’s 14th
OSCE Ministerial Council in Brussels, he said: "We do not welcome a
move that could jeopardize progress made at this promising juncture."

He also referred to today’s statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE
Minsk Group, saying: "A reason not to recognize this referendum is
that no member of the international community recognizes the so-called
Nagorno-Karabach republic as an independent state."

The OSCE Minsk Group is co-chaired by France, Russia and the United
States.

USA PUTS PRESSURE ON BAKU TO SETTLE KARABAKH CONFLICT – ARMENIAN PAPER
by Artak Grigoryan

Hayots Askhkhar, Armenia
Nov 30 2006

"Minsk will be continued"

The mysterious silence surrounding the results of the [28 November]
Minsk meeting between [Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan and
[his Azerbaijani opposite number Ilham] Aliyev gives grounds for
controversial predictions and comments. Moscow-based Kommersant
newspaper, for one, says that [Russian president] Vladimir Putin
will invite the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents to Moscow soon
but before that in Minsk " the three presidents look set to decide
to arrange a new meeting in Moscow in the same format".

Naturally, the two parties were trying to specify their positions and
prepare themselves for that important meeting. It is also clear that
in such conditions the presidents abstained from making statements
about the forthcoming meeting. Let us try to understand what is the
reason behind shifting the "window of opportunities" of 2006 from
Minsk to Moscow.

We believe this game is a complicated one and neither the parties to
the conflict, nor even Russia play the main part. Russia has been
chosen because the international community and especially the USA
want the Russian president to be the person who observes that there
is a "gap" in the positions of the sides to the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict. That is to say, they are trying to "fight fire with fire".

In order to make this happen they temporarily postponed the NATO
expansion programme and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili did
not see the "green light" for his country in Riga and was not received
by the Russian president in Minsk.

The USA and its partners focus their attention on the Karabakh
issue and are trying to act on two levels: jointly with Russia and
directly. Incidentally, at the first level they engage in a complicated
bargain with Russia. At the second level they exert pressure on the
sides in the conflict, especially on Azerbaijan.

There are three main reasons for that. First, accepting the frame
agreement which is being discussed now is bound to be more painful
for Azerbaijan. Second, the USA has more levers to influence
Azerbaijan. Finally, Washington believes that Russia can influence
Armenia in the most effective way.

We believe that the main "intrigue" at the present stage of the talks
is that the USA forces Azerbaijan on various levels to settle the
conflict. For this reason, the Americans repeatedly emphasize that
only peaceful settlement of the Karabakh issue is acceptable. In
Baku Jonathan Henick, public affairs officer at the US embassy in
Azerbaijan, is in charge of this job. In the USA, an expert of the
American Foreign Policy Council, Wayne Merry, is doing this at the
level of experts.

The American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, met
Arkadiy Gukasyan, the president of Nagornyy Karabakh, and discussed
settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. Gukasyan thus tried to
find out more about Azerbaijan’s ambitions. It turned out that the
USA continues the process of breaking the courage of the Azerbaijan
and at the same time is seeking a closer involvement of Russian in
resolution of the conflict. This suggests that the peace talks will
receive a new boost over the next two months. How effective they will
be is up to Russia’s response to the Karabakh policy of the USA. The
ultimate agreement will be reached simultaneously between the USA
and Russia, as well as between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

BBC: REFERENDUM IN NAGORNY KARABAKH WAS RECOGNIZED FOR VALID

Focus News, Bulgaria
Dec 10 2006

Stepanakert. The Referendum for constitution in the non-recognized
republic of Nagorny Karabakh was declared for valid, BBC announced.

44.62% of all voted cast their ballots till 14:00 local time, the
Central Elections Commission of the republic announced. In the draft
Constitution that is voted on the referendum Nagorny Karabakh is
defined as sovereign democratic republic.

Many journalists and international observers are monitoring for
the pace of the referendum. Azerbaijani authorities consider the
referendum void.

EXPERTS SAY URARTIANS HAD NO DIRECT PRESENCE IN NORTHEASTERN IRAN

Mehr News Agency, Iran
Dec 6 2006

TEHRAN, Dec. 6 (MNA) — A team of Iranian and Italian archaeologists
which recently studied 27 ancient sites east of Lake Urmia said that
despite the previous theory, the Urartians never had a direct presence
in the region, the Persian service of CHN reported on Tuesday.

The team, led jointly by Iranian archaeologist Hamid Khatib-Shahidi
and Italian archaeologist Rafael Bichone, began the surveys about
three weeks ago to demarcate the boundaries of the Urartian state
with Media and Mannai in the region.

Before the studies, many archaeologists regarded the region as the
center of Urartu and consigned it to the map of the Uratian state.

"An appropriate environment, an abundance of water, and fertile land
encouraged settlement and the establishment of local states in the
region during the Iron Age," Khatib-Shahidi said.

"It is certain that the Urartians had indirect relations with the
people of the region. Sometimes they had clashes and sometimes allied
(with each other). But the Urartians never had a direct presence or
made fortifications in the Tabriz (region) and the Maragheh plains,
i.e. north and south of Mt. Sahand," he added.

The Iron Age castles near Mt. Sahand have mostly been built of stone
without the use of mortar, he explained.

The ancient kingdom of Urartu, the biblical Ararat, flowered in the
area south of the Caucasus from the ninth century to the seventh
century BC.

Urartu, centered in the mountainous region around Lake Van, existed
from about 1000 BC, or earlier, until 585 BC, and stretched from
northern Mesopotamia through the southern Caucasus, including parts
of present-day Armenia up to Lake Sevan.

"The local governments of the region (east of Lake Urmia) were
tributary states of the Urartian state before the Medes came to
power. The extant texts from the Assyrians, particularly Sargon II,
refer to this fact," Khatib-Shahidi noted.

The team has also identified remnants of some fortifications believed
to date back to the Chalcolithic period (7000?-3500? BC).

"The inhabitants of the period built their castles on heights, but
we have not yet been able to determine why they chose to settle on
the heights rather than the plains," Khatib-Shahidi said.

If it is proven that the remnants definitely belong to the Chalcolithic
period, the fortifications will surely be among the oldest and last
remaining very ancient defensive structures in the Middle East,
he explained.

The team has also discovered shards dating back to the Achaemenid era.

EXHIBITION OF PHOTOS OF ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURAL MONUMENTS IN TERRITORY OF WESTERN ARMENIA OPENED AT NA

Noyan Tapan
Dec 06 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 6, NOYAN TAPAN. An exhibition of photos taken
during the 2004-2006 scientific expeditions in the territory of
Western Armenia opened in the "Green" foyer of the RA National
Assembly. Authors of the photos are members of the public organization
studying the Armenian architecture. The goal of the organization
founded about 30 years ago is to reveal and study monuments of the
Armenian architecture out of borders of present Armenia, that’s,
of historic Armenia as well as in the territory of neighbouring
countries, as well as to publish results of those studies to present
them to the Armenian and foreign society.

IT IS EXPEDIENT TO HAVE EUROPEAN COMMISSION RESIDENT AMBASSADOR IN YEREVAN, RA PRIME MINISTER CONSIDERS

Noyan Tapan
Dec 05 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenia is ready for exerting
maximum efforts in the direction of efficient implementation of
EU-Armenia Actions Plan approved in November within the framework of
the European Neighborhood policy.

RA Prime Minister Andranik Margarian declared this during his
December 5 meeting with newly appointed Head of European Commission’s
delegation in Armenia and Georgia, Per Goran Eklund. He said that
the European Comission, and, in particular, the delegation of the
European Commission in Armenia, certainly, will make its considerable
contribution in this issue. Saying that in Armenia they positively
estimate European Commission delegation’s activity, A.Margarian
meanwhile noted that in consideration of the growing volume of
issues on Armenia-EU agenda, it will be expedient to have a European
Commission Resident Ambassador in Yerevan. He informed the guest that
RA Foreign Minister has aleady applied to Benita Ferrero-Waldner,
Commissioner for Issues of European Neighborhood Policy, with this
issue. The head of European Commission’s delegation assured that
Armenia’s wish and proposal to have an individual ambassador will be
taken into consideration without fail. He said that no country will
be given a special preference within the framework of the neighborhood
in case of such appointment and a European Commission Ambassador will
be appointed both in Baku and in Yerevan, so Armenia should have no
anxiety about violating the principle of parity. As NT was informed
from RA government Information and Public Relations Department,
during the talk they touched upon the assistance of 400 mln euros
provided to Armenia by the European Commission since independence
within the framework of TACIS and other different programs.

M.Margarian said that the assistance being provided currently also
considerably contributes to Armenia’s economic, political progress
and facilitates the process of European integration. RA Prime Minister
said that parallel with activization of political dialogue, EU-Armenia
trade and economic ties are also being extended: EU is Armenia’s
biggest trade partner and the volume of foreign investments in the
country’s economy made by EU is also significant.