Author: Hovhannisian John

AZERBAIJANI GRANDMASTER TEYMUR RAJABOV DRAWS WITH ARMENIAN AROYAN IN SECOND ROUND OF CORUS CHESS TOURNAMENT

State Telegraph Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan
January 19, 2009 Monday

Azerbaijani grandmaster Teymur Rajabov drew with Armenian Levon Aroyan
in the second round of the Corus Chess-2009 Tournament (A group)
held in Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands.

Rajabov managed to secure only a point after 2 rounds.

The results of other games are as follows: Alexander Morozevich Luck
Van Veli 1:0, Sergei Movsesyan Michael Adams 1:0, Vanq Yu Vasili
Ivanchuk 0:1, Daniel Stellwagen Magnus Carlson 0,5:0,5, Lanier
Dominguez Gata Kamski 0,5:0,5 and Jan Smets Sergei Karyagin 0,5:0,5.

CONSUMER MARKETS
Shahan Kandaharian

Aztag Daily
Jan 17 2009
Lebanon

The tactical games of official statements that Turkey is playing over
the events taking place in Gaza suffer inconsistency or better to say
they lack harmony. Although it’s a standard procedure to find open
doors in the announcements or statements made by foreign ministers,
nevertheless the obvious game of distribution of roles is seen in
the harsh stances of prime minister Erdogan and the rather milder
approach of the foreign minister Ali Babacan.

Indeed, there is a race of explaining and interpreting the statements
made by Turkish officials over the events taking place in Gaza on
Turkish Internet websites. Let’s shed a light on the following points
extracted from the news published by Turkish diplomatic sources:

A- Turkish diplomacy is not ready to condemn Israel and go forth with
the demands of sanctions against it.

B- It’s more logical and helpful for Turkey to prefer the strategic
thinking.

C- It’s not easy to keep at the same distance from Israel as Syria
and Iran are keeping.

Before comparing the contents of the statements issued by the Turkish
diplomacy and the announcements made by the prime minister, let us
try to simplify what is being tried to convey through diplomacy. In
a simple and explicit way the following is being said: Turkey’s
strategic cooperation is obliging the Turkish state to continue to
put its interests above any other factor or obligation. Moreover,
the third point mentioned above, being a natural continuation of the
first two, must capture the attention of the observers of not only the
Gaza events but also the Turkish movements and regional developments.

Here it is. Setting aside the mention of Iran for a while, let’s
remember that Turkey was aspiring to play a major mediatory role in
the talks between Syria and Israel. On the days of the proclaimed
war over Gaza, the highest chief of Turkish diplomacy considered the
Israeli sudden attack as an insult against Turkey, thereby halting
the negotiations.

Now, what is being said exactly? The mediator announces that it
cannot keep the same distance from both Syria and Israel. The latter
is its strategic partner while the former is a country classified in
the same group as Iran (that’s the stance adopted by the West). In
the practica of the international relationships it may be difficult
to identify examples where the country that has adopted a mediatory
mission explicitly announces that it cannot keep the same distance
between the opposing sides, based on its interests.

This observation is still not enough to underline the contradictions
recorded among the different sections of the Turkish executive
authorities. Prime minister Erdogan sided with the people of Gaza with
a surprising zeal. Moreover, he presented himself with the §crime
against humanity¦ announcement, which has legal and political
implications, in front of the media representatives.

The responsibility for §a crime against humanity¦ is discussed on
international stages. Otherwise, it would be limited to the field
of propaganda or, as is the case here, it would be aimed at specific
consumer markets. It’s enough to read the speech of the Turkish foreign
minister during the discussions of the UN resolution 1860 on Gaza; it
not only lacked the mention of any crime against humanity but also it
included a clear effort to keep a balance between the opposing sides.

It seemed that the strategic game that Turkey had initiated could
last a little longer. Different representatives of the same country
proved by their statements that it was just a short-term endeavor
directed towards both the Turkish public and the Arab world. There
are signs to believe that time will prove that it is so.

–Boundary_(ID_hiW2CEXao9tDsRMn4wNGFw)–

ACCORDING TO KIRO MANOYAN, THERE ARE POLITICAL CALCULATIONS IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE’S POSITION TO ARMENIA

Noyan Tapan

Jan 19, 2009

YEREVAN, JANUARY 19, NOYAN TAPAN. "There are political calculations in
Council of Europe’s position to Armenia," Kiro Manoyan, the Responsible
Person of ARFD Hay Dat and Political Affairs Office, stated at the
January 19 press conference. According to him, Council of Europe wants
to exert pressure upon Armenia for the latter to renounce complementary
foreign policy. As to PACE’s proper demands, according to K. Manoyan,
they should be fulfilled not only to please Council of Europe, but
also because there is a public demand. "PACE’s estimation to our
country is subjective and is not based on purely the quality of our
fulfilling our commitments. Otherwise sanctions would be also used
to other Council of Europe member-countries," K. Manoyan said.

Touching upon the second anniversary of murder of Agos newspaper’s
editor-in-chief Hrant Dink, the ARFD representative reminded his words
that the criterion of Turkey’s improval will be the adoption of the
fact of Armenian Genocide. K. Manoyan also said that the American
Armenian community has sent a letter to newly elected U.S. President
Barack Obama calling him for keeping his preelection promise and
recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

As the ARFD figure predicted it, B. Obama will do it in the coming
months.

Drawing parallels between the democracy extent of Armenia and Turkey,
K. Manoyan stated that Turkey is a more totalitarian state. In response
to journalists’ observation that elections are periodically rigged
in Armenia K. Manoyan stated that instead people are punished for
the word "genocide" in Turkey.

ARARAT YEREVAN DROPS OUT OF CIS CUP FOOTBALL TOURNAMENT

Noyan Tapan

Jan 19, 2009

MOSCOW, JANUARY 19, NOYAN TAPAN. A CIS and Baltic States Cup football
tournament began in Moscow on January 17. Ararat (Armenia) was beaten
first by Aktobe (Kazakhstan) – 1:3, then by Pakhtakor (Uzbekistan)
– 1:4.

Irrespective of the results of its match against Rubin (Kazan, Russia)
to be held on January 20, Ararat will drop out of the further struggle.

TURKEY CAN DROP NABUCCO PROJECT?

PanARMENIAN.Net
19.01.2009 19:18 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey threatens to reconsider its position on
Nabucco gas pipeline construction $12 billion project meant to unite
Middle East and Europe, bypassing Russia.

"Turkey can recall its participation bid if its EU accession talks
remain blocked," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in
Brussels, Zman.com reports.

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
Jan 16 2009

Foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Russia discuss arms sale to Armenia
16.01.09 21:53

Azerbaijan, Baku, Jan. 16 /corr. Trend News E.Rustamov / Initiated by
the Russian side, a telephone conversation took place between the
Foreign Ministers of Russia, Sergey Lavrov and Azerbaijan, Elmar
Mammadyarov, on Jan. 16.

The conversation focused on Russia’s sale of military equipment and
arms to Armenia.

Lavrov said that the Foreign Ministry of Russia held an investigation
jointly with the Headquarter, and assured Mammadyarov that Russia did
not officially sold any arms to Armenia in 2008. It regards with the
military unit 102 located in Armenia’s city of Gurmi.

The sides reached an agreement to continue talks in this regard to
make this issue more clear.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry accused Russia of strengthening military
potential of Armenia, who occupied Azerbaijan’s lands, by supplying it
with ammunition worth $800 million.

The ammunition supply contradicts the UN Security Council resolution
of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Russia violates commitments not to
render support to any of the conflicting sides, Azerbaijan’s Foreign
Ministry said on Jan. 15.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan
lost the Nagorno-Karabakh, except of Shusha and Khojali, in December
1991. In 1992-93, Armenian Armed Forces occupied Shusha, Khojali and
Nagorno-Karabakh’s seven surrounding regions. Twenty percent of
Azerbaijan’s lands is under occupation. In 1994, Azerbaijan and
Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement. The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group ( Russia, France, and the US) are currently holding peaceful
negotiations.

The European Union observers the conflict solution process.

RUSSIA REQUESTS AZERBAIJAN FOR COPY OF DOCUMENT ON ARMAMENT DELIVERY TO ARMENIA

PanARMENIAN.Net
16.01.2009 14:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Azerbaijani media reports on delivery of military
hardware to Armenia were studied and turned out to be untrue, Russia’s
Foreign Minister said.

"We have carried out an investigation. The man whose last name is
mentioned in Azeri reports has never signed any documents," Sergei
Lavrov said when commenting on recent publication of a list of military
hardware allegedly delivered to Armenia by Russia.

"We requested our Azeri counterpart to provide us with a copy of this
document for an expertise," he added.

At the same time, Mr. Lavrov emphasized that Russia implements military
cooperation programs both with Armenia and Azerbaijan. "At that,
Armenia, as a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
enjoys preferential terms, and Azerbaijan is well aware of this fact,"
the Minister said, RIA Novosti reports.

SITTING OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMISSION AT THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE

p;p=0&id=709&y=2009&m=01&d=15
13.0 1.09

On January 13,2009 the recurrent sitting of the interdepartmental
commission to organize and conduct the jubilee events dedicated to the
20th anniversary of withdrawing the Soviet troops from Afghanistan
took place at the Ministry of Defense chaired by Defense Minister
Seyran Ohanyan.

Discussed were issues connected with the visit of the participants
of the event to Armenia, as well as the details of the organization
of arrangements in Armenia within this framework.

The program of events envisages an exhibition titled the "Afghan
War," meetings with servicemen, students of military educational
establishments, teachers and pupils of secondary schools, visits
of the veterans of the Afghan and Artsakhi wars to memorials to
the soldiers killed in the wars, visit to the Yerablur Pantheon and
"Haghtanak" Park, screening of archive video materials, concerts, a
Holy Mass at St Gregory the Illuminator Church, as well as a meeting
with mass media representatives.

At the end of the meeting RA Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan stressed
the importance of such events, noting that those contribute to the
patriotic upbringing of the younger generation.

Members of the commission later determined the programs for the
near future.

MOST EXPERTS BELIEVE RUSSIA DELIVERS AMMO TO ARMENIA: POLL

Trend News Agency
Jan 14 2009
Azerbaijan

A range of media sources released an information about Russia has
delivered ammunition to Armenia from the Russian 102nd military unit
in Gumru with cost $800 million.

Russian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Vasiliy Istratov was invited to the
Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry on Jan. 13. Russia’s Defense Ministry
dismissed reports that $800 million in ammunition was delivered
to Armenia

– What is your attitude to the information that Russia delivered
ammunition to Armenia?

Trend News correspondents turned to experts and political scientists
for comments on the mater.

MP Asim Mollazade, Chairman of the Democratic Reforms Party of
Azerbaijan:

– The refutation by the Russian Ministry of Defense causes
contradiction to the management of the second Russian contingent
in Armenia that stated that the ammunition was delivered under the
bilateral agreement, including the list of ammunition, i.e. the exact
number of tanks, APCs and artillery mounts.

There is nothing new. In the mid of 1990s an illegal transmission of
ammunition was carried out. And official agencies were not informed
about it. Today the situation is repeated. Russia provides Armenia with
armament in fact. Russia turned Armenia to a military unit. Armenia
is Russia’s key arm in the region.

Today Armenia’s policy is the main factor hindering the development of
the region. Russia, being the co-chairman of the Minsk Group, assists
in settling of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, on the other hand,
arms one of the conflicting sides.

I think that Azerbaijan should rise the issue in international
organizations, and especially in the OSCE.

Svante Cornell, Caucasus Institute Research Director:

-The ammunition delivery once more proves that Russia remains Armenia’s
ally. This is not new, as Russia and Armenia have cooperated during
the history. In 1990s Russia has already delivered $1 billion in
ammunition to Armenia. Sometimes Russia wants to attract Azerbaijan
to itself by possible settling of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

We must understand that Russia has huge investments in Armenia and the
Kremlin carries out pro-Armenian policy in the South Caucasus. If the
information about Russia’s ammunition deliveries to Armenia is proved,
then Azerbaijan will have to re-consider its relations with Russia.

Russian MP Gennadiy Gudkov, Deputy Chairman of the Duma Security
Committee:

– This is the attempt to play anti-Russian map. I can accurately spay
about the position of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence
Ministry. We occupy neutrality in this issue. Even when the issue about
withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia was being solved, and many
spoke that Russia would deliver weapon and armaments e directly to
Armenia – this did not occur. Russia waits, when the sides of conflict
– Armenia and Azerbaijan – negotiated agreement, and the country will
be ready ensure the guaranty of this agreement to both republics.

Russia will never realize ammunition deliveries to Armenia damaging
safety of Azerbaijan and vice versa, because Russia is not interested
in retention of tension in the Caucasus region, especially in
repetition of armed conflict between two former brother republics.

I think that this of weft, but I do not think that it appeared
randomly. Such rumours periodically were thrown to the information
field, and it seems to me that this is the sequential attempt
to complicate the Russia- Azerbaijan relations. I think that such
attempts to provoke worsening in the relations between our countries
will continue, we would relate to this issue quietly, by giving
proper rebuff and by preserving constant course on the development
of relations between Azerbaijan and Russia.

Tofig Abbasov, expert of Lider media holding analytical group Lider:

– The freelance visit of Russia’s ambassador to the Foreign Ministry of
Azerbaijan is not groundless. The confirmation of the new deal between
Moscow and Yerevan is the fact that the Russian side takes unawares and
is covered by the curtain of "inter-governmental agreement", when has
not yet set the final point in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. In this case, Moscow roused Yerevan to again roughly violate
the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and to also
ignore quotas for the armaments, established by the corresponding
reports of the United Nations.

This incident must be considered in the context of the last
peacemaking initiatives of Russia, which attempted to be affirmed as
the determining force in the post-Soviet territory.

The shady Russian armament deliveries to Armenia, under whatever
pretext they were realized, will negatively affect the fate of
Azerbaijani-Russian co-operation agreements, and also will make
it necessary for Baku to re-consider its views on the prospect in
light of expectations, which were connected with the energy sector,
transport and telecommunications.

Sergey Markov, Russian MP, director of Political Studies Institute:

– I think that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved in a
more successfully peaceful way. The matter is that within the peace,
Azerbaijan is considerably stronger than Armenia.

Certainly, delivering Russian arms will negatively affect the
Russian-Azerbaijani relations. I have not detailed information the
recent delivery of the Russian arms to Armenia, but this event is not
some extraodinary. We know well that Russia repeatedly transferred
the armaments to Armenia, including fulfilling its some obligations.

Senan Ogan, director of Turkish-based TURKSAM studies center:

– This is not news that Russia arms Armenia. There are many facts
that Russia arms not only Armenia, but also, for example, Greek Cyprus.

This fact is especially dangerous now, since after August war in
Georgia this can break balance in the region. It needs to take into
account that an agreement on military reconciliation was signed between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, but this does not mean that in reality there
is peace between them.

Despite that Russia was against the armament of Georgia by the West,
now Moscow itself pursues this policy with respect to Caucasus. This
fact destroys the hopes of Turkey for peace in the region.

Rashad Rzaguliyev, president of Azerbaijani-based Social Researches
Fund:

– Undoubtedly, Russia’s supply of arm and ammunition in amount of $800
million to Armenia is an unpleasant fact for Azerbaijan. However, it is
possible to make certain conclusions. Russia will increase its military
presence in the region, having demonstratively answered the signing of
not less demonstrative American-Georgian agreement. The opposition of
Russia and the USA in the region will present numerous surprises to us.

The events force Azerbaijan to use the entire political-diplomatic
potential to ensure the format of national security fully. I do
not think that sharp worsening in the Azerbaijan-Russian relations
looming at the horizon, but undoubtedly certain tension appeared,
of which it is necessary to regret only.

R.Agayev (Moscow), R.Hafizoglu, B.Hasanov (Baku) contributed to
the article.

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY
by Jean Ipdjian

Gibrahayer
Jan 14, 2009
Nicosia

On December 19, 2008 the Turkish TV program ’32nd Day’ organised a
live debate regarding the infamous ‘Apology Statement’ by a group of
Turkish academics and ex diplomats.

The program’s producer was Mr. Ridyan Akar and the moderator of
the debate was Mr. Mehmet Ali Birand. The panel consisted of three
doves and four hawks. All are distinguished pillars of society or
distinguished statesmen.

I should also inform that an Internet site has been set up where
people can co-sign the above mentioned statement and post comments.

It is a fact that one of the greatest challenges faced by world
leaders is finding solutions to a handful of unsolved historical
problems which refuse to go away and creep up to the surface whenever
negotiations over regional and geopolitical are attempted to launch
or positively conclude. These ‘unsolved’ problems invariably have
their roots deeply buried in the pages of history and invariably have
religious intonations.

Often outsiders cannot understand the deep emotions that are stirred
from seemingly not so important or relevant issues.

It is also a fact that world leaders would love to be able to forget
about these problems and if possible force, persuade, bribe or sweet
talk one or both sides into accepting a settlement formulae

without really caring for their content.

After all, who likes to wash his neighbours’ or acquaintance’s dirty
underwear?

Such a problem is the Armenian Question. Being a substantial member of
the Christian or ‘giavour’ minority in the Ottoman Empire, throughout
the years the Armenians, together with the other minorities, had
suffered p ogroms and massacres, their women were frequently raped and
misused, their possessions and riches confiscated by officials. They
were deprived of all kinds of protection by the state and were at
the mercy of the hordes of often crazed fanaticised mobs. Through
the decades, and especially after the successful Greek Revolution
and the independence of the some Balkan states, Armenians came more
and more under the illusion that the European, Christian powers such
as Great Britain, France and Russia would intervene with the Sultans
and enforce reforms and provide deliverance for them from the heavy
yoke of the Ottomans.

So, it was this continuous threat of intervention on the part of the
Europeans on behalf of the minorities that was the root cause for
the decision taken by the leadership of the Ittihad ve Terakki ruling
party known as the Young Turk movement, to look for a final solution
of the Armenian Problem. The beginning of the First World war saw the
Turks fighting on the side of the Axis Powers against the Entente =0
D comprising of Great Britain, France and Russia, the same Powers who
had presented themselves as the protectors of the depressed, and who
could do nothing as they were on the other side of the high fence
erected around the Turkish mainland and the Anatolou. And thus the
opportunity was created to solve the Armenian Problem by the sword,
behind the thick curtains of war.

Thus the idea of the systematic deportation, annihilation and slaughter
of the Armenian in Turkey was born, planned and executed using all
means under the disposition of the state. What was not possible to
achieve by hand, was left for nature to complete through deprivation
and exposure in the arid expanses of the deserts of northern Syria.

Furthermore, it is a fact that Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire
had no aspirations of independence and considered themselves as being
loyal citizens of the empire, if only allowed to do so and not be
forced to seek deliverance from outside powers. Eventually, having been
denied that too, in some areas they took up arms and heroically fought
in a futile attempt to save themselves and their villages and cities.

So this is what the Statement and Debate are all about. This, and
all the legal and moral obligations which must follow.

The Debate, as it evolved, made interesting reading (in my case),
though it offered no new insights or revelations as regards the

beliefs of the participants.

In essence, it was a chatting exercise between the three trends of
thought that exist in Turkey today regarding the path that will take
Turkey into the 21st century. On one side were the representatives
of the projected modern face of Turkey. They are those, who believe
that Turkey will mature, albeit belatedly, to become part of Europe,
in peace with itself, without the burden of its often violent and
dark history. They believe that in order for Turkey to take her (a)
place in the civilised world, she has to pursue its European dream
and thread the path leading her into the family of truly European
Nations and the EU, rejuvenated and looking into the future with
clear eyes and having left its past behind.

Then there were the representatives of the more conservative people,
who want Turkey in Europe and the European Union, who want Turkey to
be perceived as a willing and accepted member of the higher echelons
of power and world politics, but refuse to shed its chauvinistic
self and refuse to change. They are those who believe that Turkey’s
economic potential, her unsaturated market, her geographical position
and her military strength combine to make her acceptance into the EU
and among the powers to be, a proposition no on e dare refuse.

Finally, there were as well representatives of those who are the
ugly face of Turkey, who are so blinded=2 0by the ‘turkism’ and
arrogant self-perceptions, that they cannot accept any deviation
from her age-old policies of intimidation and terror, refusal of
compromise and denial of all things that do not conform to their
extreme nationalistic doctrines.

As such, there was a marked effort on the part of the doves to
de-politicise their Statement and distance themselves from any form
of demand or request for the Government to recognise the Genocide
as Genocide.

Also, I found their translation of the term ‘Medz Yeghern’, a term
around which a lot of discussion evolved, intentionally simplistic
and misguiding, because I believe that a more accurate translation
would have been the ‘Great Calamity’, which essentially is another
way of calling a holocaust.

The hawks, as expected, refused all and any kind of compromise. It
was clear that for them this was a sorry development and a grave
error. I am sure given the chance they would have gladly accused
the doves of treason, which a few years ago they could have easily
done, put them against a wall and solve the problem neatly by simply
shooting their mouths close. In their funny way of thinking, they
were trying to argue the massacres by rhetorically asking the panel
what they thought about the supposed killing of some villagers by
Armenian fighters, by the recent war in Azerbaijan, or the killing
of Turkis h diplomats by ASALA and other groups! This would be the
mother of lopsided logic ever expressed!

The fact that in Turkey today such a debate is being conducted and that
it was even possible to gather this group and finish the discussion
in a civilised matter should be considered extremely heartening that
maybe, just maybe this country and this nations with whom faith or
chance has dictated that we should live as neighbours, has started
taking the very first tentative steps into becoming a country that
can coexist peacefully with its neighbours, a society that can
accept different ideas and beliefs, a society that accepts variety,
a country where the rule of law is paramount and where all people
whatever their creed or religion are equals. The next and decisive
step is to be taken by the Government of Turkey, who has to find
the courage and boldness to recognise the Genocide and by accepting
the guilt of the perpetrators of the Genocide (the leadership and
government of Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century) close that
very ugly and sad page of its history.

I sincerely wish that the likes of Mr. Birand and Mr. Aktar will
eventually prevail and we will finally be able to make peace with
them and once and for all the souls of the hundreds of thousands of
victi ms of the Genocide will rest in peace.