Author: Hovhannisian John

LONG-PARTED HEARTS HAVE MET

AZG Armenian Daily #184
10/10/2007

Local Politics

The first president of the Republic of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosian
and his team, remaining faithful to the best traditions of Mason
lodges, are going on with their secret and conspired meetings. Those
meetings take place late in the evening and the team members share
the information only with the most faithful mass media. As it came
to be known, on October 8 Raphael Kazarian managed to organize the
meeting of Levon Ter-Petrosian and Vazgen Manoukian, who had not met
for 12 years. The long-parted hearts met at last, but the purposes
of their meeting remain concealed.

Lragir, Armenia
Oct 5 2007

COMMISSIONER HAMMARBERG VISITS ARMENIA TO ASSESS THE RESPECT FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS

Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human
Rights, starts on Sunday 7 October a 5-day high-level official visit
to Armenia to assess the human rights situation in the country, the
Yerevan office of the CoE reported today.

At the centre of Mr. Hammarberg’s agenda there will be a broad range
of human rights issues, including the functioning of the judiciary,
conditions of detention, prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,
freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, minorities’ rights,
conscientious objectors, rights of refugees, social and economic
rights. The visit will also focus on trafficking in human beings and
vulnerable groups. Commissioner Hammarberg will visit various police
stations, detention centres, shelters and psychiatric institutions in
Yerevan and Gyumri.

During the visit, the Commissioner will hold meetings with the
highest authorities of the State, including the President, Robert
Kocharyan, the Prime-Minister, Serge Sargsyan and the Chairman of the
Parliament, Tigran Torosyan. He will also meet parliamentarians, the
Presidents of the Constitutional Court and the Cassation Court, the
Ombudsman, local authorities, the Head of the Armenian Church, as
well as representatives of the civil society.

In the afternoon of Thursday 11 October, Mr. Hammarberg will hold a
press conference to present the first findings.

This visit falls within an ongoing series of the Commissioner’s
country missions to all Council of Europe’s member States. An
assessment report containing concrete recommendations will be
officially presented towards the end of the year.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE UPDATE

The New Republic
10.05.07

The Plank

By Michael Crowley, Jason Zengerle, and TNR’s Staff

With the Armenian genocide resolution nearing a vote in the House,
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan spoke with President Bush today. The
White House later reiterated its position that "the determination of
whether or not the events constitute a genocide should be a matter for
historical inquiry, not legislation."

Meanwhile, Washington Post readers were treated to another full-page
advertisement from the Turkish embassy today, imploring members of
Congress to "support efforts to examine history, not legislate it."
(Although Armenian-Americans doubt the chances of self-examination from
a country which criminalizes insults to "Turkishness".)

Also, fully eight former secretaries of state — Albright, Baker,
Christopher, Eagleburger, Haig, Kissinger, Powell, and Schultz — have
signed a public letter opposing the resolution.

And finally, in an odd footnote, for some reason Tom Tancredo has
withdrawn his support for the bill. (Isn’t it time you bookmarked
Today’s Zaman?)

— Michael Crowley

9478

AZERBAIJAN: IS IRAN THE REASON FOR THE CIA DIRECTOR’S RECENT VISIT TO BAKU?
Rovshan Ismayilov

EurasiaNet, NY
Oct 4 2007

Political analysts in Baku are debating the reasons for an unannounced
late September trip to Azerbaijan by Central Intelligence Agency
Director Gen. Michael Hayden. US diplomats remain tight-lipped about
the visit. Many local experts, however, contend that Hayden’s talks
with Azerbaijani leaders likely concerned Iran, Azerbaijan’s neighbor
to the south.

Gen. Hayden’s one-day visit on September 28, which included a meeting
with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Minister of National
Security Eldar Makhmudov, was not publicized in advance, and few
details have since been provided. According to informed sources,
the CIA director arrived in Baku late on the night of September
27. The Turan news agency has cited "unofficial sources" as saying
Hayden stayed in a private downtown hotel at which special security
measures were taken. He left Baku in the early evening on September 28.

US Embassy spokesperson Jonathan Henick told EurasiaNet that Hayden’s
visit was part of a trip to several countries in the region. Henick
would confirm only that Hayden discussed issues related to regional
security and international terrorism with President Aliyev and National
Security Minister Makhmudov. Azerbaijani officials likewise declined
to elaborate on the nature or specifics of the discussions.

Some Azerbaijani analysts, however, see "the Iranian issue" as the
most pressing reason for the CIA director’s trip. The trip came five
days before an October 3 statement by US President George W. Bush
that Washington was prepared, under certain conditions, to negotiate
with Tehran on the nuclear issue.

"This is a leader who has made very provocative statements, and we
have made it clear, however, in spite of that we are willing to sit
down with him so long as he suspends his program, his nuclear weapons
program," President Bush said, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. "In other words, it’s his choice not mine any more."

"It is obvious that the CIA director would not travel to Baku without
a serious reason for discussions," commented expert Rasim Musabekov.

"It is clear – most likely Iranian issues were discussed."

Political columnist Rauf Mirkadirov of Baku’s Russian-language Zerkalo
(Mirror) daily seconds that view. "[The] CIA director would hardly
visit Azerbaijan just for meeting with the president and the national
security minister and discussing general issues," he argued.

"Most likely, a complex of problems [was] discussed . . . The major
issue is no doubt Iran and the potential development of the situation
around its nuclear program," Mirkadirov said. Relations between
Azerbaijan and Russia and the construction of the Trans-Caspian gas
pipeline could also have been raised, he added. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].

Ilgar Mammadov, an independent Baku-based analyst, drew attention to
the fact that Hayden’s visit occurred shortly before the scheduled
start of a trial of a pro-Iranian extremist group charged with trying
to create a Shar’ia-based religious state in Azerbaijan.

A preliminary hearing for the government’s case against the 15-member
group, named after its leader, Said Dadashbeyli, took place at the
end of September in Baku, the Turan news agency reported on October
1. Group members are also charged with high treason, illegal arms
possession, illegal contact with foreign intelligence services,
robbery and other crimes.

The Ministry of National Security alleges that Dadashbeyli, an
Azerbaijani citizen, worked with radical Islamic organizations –
as yet not publicly named – and Iranian intelligence agents to set
up a state with Shar’ia laws. A military group, dubbed the Northern
Army of Mehdi, was allegedly formed by several of the defendants,
prosecutors allege. Prosecutors also claim that one of the group’s
members, Jeihun Aliyev, traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom,
where he was offered money by Iranian agents. The money was to be
used to mount a propaganda campaign designed to undermine Western
and Israeli influence in Azerbaijan.

According to the investigation, group members received training
in Iran. In Baku, they carried out physical training routines at
the Interior Ministry’s Dinamo sports center and held religious
discussions at the Karabakh War Invalids Society, according to media
reports. Mob-related contract "hit jobs" were allegedly carried out
by Dadashbeyli to raise money for the group’s activities, authorities
allege.

Neither the group, nor Tehran is known to have commented on the
charges. The group’s trial is scheduled to begin on October 8 in Baku
behind closed doors.

"Usually, such issues [security, fighting extremists and terrorist
groups] are being discussed at the highest level. Therefore, it is
possible that Hayden’s visit is somehow linked with this trial,"
Mammadov said. "It is possible that Iran has intensified subversive
activity against Azerbaijan and the CIA director discussed this
issue." An exchange of intelligence information on extremists groups’
activity in the region, he added, is another possibility. [Ilgar
Mammadov is a board member of the Open Society Institute Assistance
Foundation Azerbaijan. EurasiaNet.org is financed by the Open Society
Institute’s Central Eurasia Project].

Azerbaijani media and political analysts have long contended that
Azerbaijan could be used by US forces as a base for potential military
operation against Iran. The US government, however, has repeatedly
denied such a possibility. Azerbaijani officials have also stressed
that they have no interest in being part of a military campaign against
Iran, a country with which Azerbaijan, also a majority Shi’ite society,
shares strong cultural and religious ties.

[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The denials, however, have not convinced all analysts. Musabekov
did not exclude that Hayden traveled to Baku "to familiarize the
Azerbaijani leadership with some additional intelligence data that
may change Baku’s position over the issue of military operation
against Iran."

Columnist Mirkadirov takes issue with the claim that Hayden’s trip
was part of a larger regional tour. "There was no information that
Michael Hayden traveled to any other place in the region except Baku,"
he said. "I believe it was a targeted visit to Baku and after that he
[Hayden] returned to the United States."

Some pro-government political analysts, however, prefer to steer clear
of commentary. Political analyst Aydin Mirzazade, a parliamentarian
for the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party, commented that he does not want
to get lost in guesswork. "The US Embassy provided some information
[on the visit] and I have nothing to add," he said.

Editor’s Note: Rovshan Ismayilov is a freelance journalist based
in Baku.

OPENING OF BORDERS IN HUMANITARIAN FIELD MOST IMPORTANT TARGET IN CIS DEVELOPMENT

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 3 2007

YEREVAN, October 3. /ARKA/. The opening of borders in the
humanitarian field, from translations to opening of markets, is
a most important task of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States)
development, Assistant to Russia’s President, Chairman of the Council
of Humanitarian Cooperation of CIS countries Jahan Pollieva said at
the press conference on start of the Forum of CIS and Baltic countries
"Translation as gravitation field of interpenetration of cultures".

According to Pollieva, the humanitarian field is an area where
capital-consuming and intellect-consuming products are created. She
attached importance to the forum in development of national literatures
and appearance of new names in literature, poetry, drama and film
scripts.

Pollieva expressed hope that the Interstate Fund for Humanitarian
Cooperation of CIS countries will allow every country demonstrating
its abilities particularly on the world’s markets.

The three-day forum is held by CIS Executive Committee, Interstate
Fund for Humanitarian Cooperation of CIS countries, Armenian Ministry
of Culture and Armenian Society for Cultural Cooperation with foreign
countries. The forum started in Yerevan on October 3. It is to discuss
issues on education, translated literature, publishing policies,
book market and copyright in CIS and Baltic countries. The forum
participants will consider the possibility of a common cultural space
and use of information technologies in setting a cultural-cognitive
framework.

Eurasia Daily Monitor

October 3, 2007 — Volume 4, Issue 183

RUSSIA SETTING UP `COLLECTIVE PEACEKEEPING` FORCES

by Vladimir Socor

On October 2 Russia’s Nikolai Bordyuzha, secretary-general of the
Collective Security Treaty Organization, told mass media that the CSTO is
creating its own `peacekeeping’ forces. The member countries are Russia,
Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
Bordyuzha outlined the political and military concepts underlying CSTO
peacekeeping, to be approved at the organization’s October 6 summit in
Dushanbe.

CSTO peacekeeper troops are to be used if necessary on the territories
of member countries, by collective decision of the member countries’
presidents. In Moscow’s view, such use would not require a United Nations
mandate. Those troops could also be used on the territories of `other
countries of the world, in any region,’ in such cases under a UN mandate.
However, in both eventualities, Bordyuzha allowed a possibility of sending
CSTO peacekeeping troops `on some country’s request.’

Deployment of CSTO troops to conflict areas shall be subject to
consent by the local parties to the conflict. To illustrate, Bordyuzha
singled out Georgia: `CSTO peacekeepers may be used in the Georgian-Abkhaz
and Georgian-Ossetian conflict zones, only with mutual agreement of the
sides.’

The organizational model of the force resembles that of the CSTO’s
Rapid-Deployment Force (mainly a conventional-type force billed as
`anti-terrorist’) and is thereby a descendant of the former Warsaw Pact
model. Units assigned by each member country to the Collective Force shall
each be based on the respective national territory. They would remain under
national command in peacetime or when not on collective mission. Those units
shall undergo special training and receive Russian equipment on preferential
terms (preferential also in relation to the rest of national forces). This
implies presence of Russian officers and advisers.

The national units would convene periodically for joint exercises in
one or more of the member countries under `joint’ command. If a
`peacekeeping’ operation is undertaken, the units would be transferred from
national to a `single’ command. The terms joint and single imply de facto
Russian command, with decorative deputy positions from member countries and
a Russian-dominated staff in full control of the operation.

Constitutive documents of this `peacekeeping’ force were prepared at
the August 21 Moscow meeting of CSTO countries’ deputy defense, foreign
affairs, and finance ministers and security council secretaries. The
documents were apparently finalized at the September 28 Bishkek meeting of
the member countries’ defense ministers, in time for the presidents’
signature at the Dushanbe summit. At each step along the way Bordyuzha
lifted, if slightly, a corner of the curtain on these plans.

The CSTO lays claim to a `zone of CSTO responsibility’ that, in Moscow
‘s view, clearly extends beyond the territories of the seven member
countries. This claim transpires in the offer to deploy peacekeepers to
Georgian territories, even as Moscow rules out any genuine international
peacekeeping troops there. Georgia is not a CSTO member. Nevertheless,
Russia de facto includes Abkhazia and South Ossetia — and even the nearby
Georgian areas beyond demarcation lines — in an exclusive zone of Russian
`peacekeeping’ responsibility. From this point on it would apparently like
to place it under a CSTO flag.

Russia could also try this tactic in Moldova’s Transnistria, where
Russian `peacekeeping’ troops are also stationed without any mandate, in a
non-CSTO country. Offers to `internationalize’ those contingents under CSTO
colors might serve as a propagandistic counter-move to Western, Georgian, or
Moldovan proposals currently on the table for genuine transformation of
those Russian operations. Meanwhile, in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict —
an inter-state conflict, as are Russia’s in Georgia and Moldova — no
peacekeeping troops were ever deployed. The OSCE created such an option,
back in 1993; but this organization could never be expected to manage such
an operation credibly, given the built-in veto system that takes hold even
before mandate drafting. Armenia is the only CSTO member country other than
Russia involved in a military conflict against a non-member country,
Azerbaijan.

At the ongoing UN General Assembly session in New York, Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov declared that Russian peacekeeping
troops in Abkhazia operate on a `collective’ mandate and `not through Russia
‘s will, but through a multilateral format’. Thus, he claimed, any changes
to that operation can only be made through that purported multilateral
format. Russian state media reports tried to construe Lavrov’s reference as
meaning the CSTO. That statement is misleading on a number of counts, of
which Lavrov — long involved with Georgian affairs — must have been aware.

Russia in 1994 forced a prostrate Georgia on a purely bilateral basis
to accept the deployment of Russian `peacekeeping’ troops in Abkhazia,
following Russia’s own military intervention there. After creating those
facts, Moscow brought the matter to the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS), which then simply rubber-stamped the prolongation of that Russian
operation year-after-year. There was never a clear record of voting on this
issue at CIS summits, which were often chaotic. In many cases, Moscow
drafted and published the communiqués unilaterally on the organization’s
behalf, including on the Abkhazia `peacekeeping’ issue. In 2000,
then-president Eduard Shevardnadze gave up the empty right of Georgian
consent to prolongation of the mandate at six-month intervals. Instead, he
agreed under duress to automatic renewal.

All this illustrates the lawless environment prevailing in CIS
internal arrangements as long as Russia took the CIS seriously as its
instrument. But it is academic in terms of mandate-conferral, because the
CIS was not recognized as a full-fledged international organization and has
no right to authorize `peacekeeping’ operations. Russia has long campaigned
for this at the international level, unsuccessfully. Thus, the Russian
operation in Abkhazia has no mandate; and is purely Russian in its
composition. In Moldova’s Transnistria there is not even a CIS
pseudo-mandate for the Russian troops.

Now with the CSTO’s launching in a `peacekeeping’ role, complete with
`collective’ troops, Moscow can be expected to try using a CSTO flag of
convenience over Russian `peacekeeping,’ or at least to try obstructing
genuine internationalization by offering CSTO `internationalization.’

(Interfax, August 21, September 26, 28, 30, October 2; Itar-Tass,
RIA-Novosti, September 21, 26-27, October 2; see EDM, October 1 )

–Vladimir Socor

TURKISH PRESIDENT SAYS CONTENTIOUS LAW ON INSULTING TURKISH IDENTITY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED

AP
PR-Inside.com (Pressemitteilung), Austria
Oct 3 2007

STRASBOURG, France (AP) – Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Wednesday
there were problems with a contentious law that makes it a crime to
insult Turkish identity and it needed to be changed.

Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk and slain ethnic Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink were prosecuted under the law, which the EU wants
Turkey to scrap. Article 301 has been used to prosecute journalists,
writers and academics. "I support the idea of Article 301 to change,"
Gul told journalists at the Council of Europe.

COE (Communiqués de presse), Switzerland
Council of Europe
Oct 2 2007

THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE AT RISK APPLIES TO
DARFUR, WCC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SAYS

There is an "international responsibility to protect people at risk
in the Darfur region of Sudan and in neighbouring Chad," affirmed the
World Council of Churches (WCC) executive committee, calling upon the
Councils member churches to bring that responsibility "to the
attention of their governments".

In a "Minute on Darfur" approved at its 25-28 September meeting in
Etchmiadzin, Armenia, "where [a] genocide [that happened] nearly a
century ago still casts a deep shadow," the WCC governing body
encouraged the Councils member churches to "provide humanitarian aid
to Darfur through Action by Churches Together (ACT) International and
to hold its people in their prayers".

According to the United Nations, in Sudans Darfur region, more than
200,000 people have been killed, more than 2.5 million driven from
their homes to live in camps, and more than 4 million directly
affected by the conflict. The violence has spread across the border
into neighbouring Chad.

Since July 2004, ACT International and Caritas Internationalis have
put in place a joint Darfur Emergency Response Operation. This
initiative has channelled resources from some 60 Catholic,
Protestant, and Orthodox organisations and their back-donors from
around the world into one of the largest humanitarian programs in
South and West Darfur, delivering essential services over a long
period to several hundred thousand people.

The WCC executive committee based its recommendation to the Councils
member churches on an emerging international norm affirmed by the WCC
9th Assembly in February 2006. Known as "responsibility to protect,"
the norm sets a new standard of protection for civilians when a state
cannot or will not protect them. It defines state sovereignty in
terms of duties and obligations for the well being of civilians
rather than as an absolute power, and does not exclude – but limits –
the use of force in protective interventions for humanitarian
purposes.

Full text of the WCC executive committee Minute on Darfur:

ACT Caritas Darfur Emergency Response Operation:
ml

WCC and the "responsibility to protect":

ARMENIAN MPS EXPECTED TO COME TO BAKU

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 2 2007

Azerbaijan, Baku / Trend corr. I.Alizadeh / It is expected that
Armenian MPs will attend at the meeting of the Cultural, Education
and Science Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation (PA BEC), which will be held in Baku on 3 and 4
October, Asaf Hajiyev, the head of the Azerbaijani Delegation to PA
BEC and vice-president of the structure, said on 2 October.

"PA BEC has 12 members. Turkey has not been formed the delegation
to the structure after the latest parliamentary elections in the
country. The parliamentary elections in Turkey were held on 2
October. Due to aforesaid reasons these countries will not attend
at the meeting of the committee. There is no information about
participation of Armenian MPs at the meeting," Hajiyev said. Three
MPs represent Armenia at the PA BEC, Vladimir Badalyan, Garik Minasyan
and Mekhak Mkhitaryan.

Badalyan is the deputy chairman of the Cultural, Education and Science
Committee. Increase of subsistence wage in the Black Sea region will
be discussed at the meeting.

PA BEC unites 12 countries, Azerbaijan, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece,
Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, Serbia and Armenia.

Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Russia,
Belarus and World Health Organization will attend at the meeting.

"We will raise the issue concerning occupation of Azerbaijani
territories by Armenians, fire of the occupied territories and destroy
of historical monuments. We will try to explain the participants of
the meeting that occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenians
negatively affects on development of the region," the MP added.

The conflict between the two countries of South Caucasus began in 1988
due to territorial claims by Armenia against Azerbaijan. Armenia has
occupied 20% of the Azerbaijani land including the Nagorno-Karabakh
region and its seven surrounding Districts. Since 1992, these
territories have been under the occupation of the Armenian Forces. In
1994, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement at which time
the active hostilities ended. The Co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group
( Russia, France and USA) are currently holding peaceful negotiations.

U.S. PLANNING "SURGICAL" ANTI-TERRORISM STRIKES ON IRAN

PanARMENIAN.Net
01.10.2007 18:12 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "In a series of public statements in recent months,
President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the
war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between
the United States and Iran," an investigative journalist and author,
Seymour M. Hersh writes in The New Yorker.

"The President’s position, and its corollary – that, if many of
America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the
solution to them is to confront the Iranians – have taken firm hold
in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the
office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs
of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran,
according to former officials and government consultants. The focus
of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including
Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and
infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on "surgical" strikes on
Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which,
the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans
in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation
mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

"The shift in targeting reflects three developments.

First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their
campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent
nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq
war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for
a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White
House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of
the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years
away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing
recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran
is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq," he writes.

"The new administration plan gains support among U.S. allies including
the UK, Australia and other states.

Not to mention Israelis who go crazy with the idea," the journalist
told CNN, INOPRESSA reports.