Author: Kajoyan Gevork

PRESIDENT HOPES FRENCH GENOCIDE LAW NOT TO TAKE EFFECT

News.Az
Mon 06 February 2012 14:09 GMT | 14:09 Local Time

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has met a delegation of French
senators, led by Nathalie Goulet, head of the France-Azerbaijan
working group.

The head of state thanked Goulet and the other senators for what he
described as their fair position during the French Senate’s discussion
of a draft law criminalizing the denial of Armenian claims of genocide,
APA reports.

The president described the law as an initiative that distorts
history, runs counter to democracy and freedom of speech and is based
on false and faked reports. He expressed the hope that it would not
come into effect.

A group of 72 French senators at the end of January asked the country’s
Constitutional Council to block the new law.

Goulet said that she and the other senators would do their best to
develop relations with Azerbaijan during their visit.

The visiting delegation includes another five – Sylvie Goy-Chavent,
Jean-Marie Bockel, Herve Maurey, Andre Reichardt and Jeanny Lorgeoux.

HALF A MILLION AZERBAIJANIS MOVE TO RUSSIA IN 2011

News.Az
Mon 06 February 2012 14:04 GMT | 14:04 Local Time

The head of the Russian Federal Migration Service has said that
500,000 of the nearly 14 million migrants to Russia last year came
from Azerbaijan.

Konstantin Romodanovsky announced that 13.8 million people had
legally entered Russia in 2011, among them 9.7 million citizens of
CIS countries, APA reports.

The head of the Federal Migration Service said that 2.7 million
migrants came from Ukraine, two million from Uzbekistan, 1.5 million
from Kazakhstan, one million from Tajikistan and 500,000 each from
Azerbaijan, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia.

Romodanovkiy said that 220,000 illegal migrants had been caught. “Of
them, 76,000 left Russia voluntarily and 29,000 were deported,”
he said.

He said that punishments would be increased for people who break
the migration rules. Deported migrants will not be allowed to come
to Russia for five years while sentences for those found guilty of
illegally bringing migrants to the country will be increased from
five to 10 years’ imprisonment.

LEADER OF “FREE DEMOCRATS”: “MISTAKES MADE ON 2008 FORCED US TO LEAVE ANC”

06.02.12, 17:34

Today it is obvious that the Armenian National Congress (ANC) is not a
political figure to be called liberalist. Head of the “Free democrats”
political party Khachatur Qoqobelyan announced about this during the
press-conference today at “Hayeli” (“Mirror”) press club.

“First of all it political specter is unintelligible. Of course it is
possible to gather different political forces to achieve the change
of the authorities, but that change may be fulfilled only by the
political allies”, the speaker said.

Kh. Qoqobelyan informed that mistakes made during the presidential
elections on 2008 are one of the reasons of leaving ANC. “We did
not manage to be the masters of the votes which the citizens trusted
to us”.

Speaking about the dialogue between the authorities and ANC leader of
the “Free democrats” told that they have always been for the dialogue
but according to him a right moment should be elected for it.

“You must not negotiate when you are stronger. It was better to
negotiate just after elections when all were together”, Kh. Qoqobelyan
underlined.

Commenting on the version according which “Free democrats” is just
another American project, he said that it was not true and such
attitude was just too simple. He is sure that no one must think so
just because the US Ambassador visited their office.

“I am not a judge and nor you are. The society is judging. No one must
present its thoughts as reality. I thank American Ambassador for his
visit. We are accepted for large political frames”, Kh. Qoqobelyan
said adding that every political force must assist to create relations
of various formats.

HERITAGE, FREE DEMOCRATS, TO FORGE UNITY TICKET?
Mаry Mamyan

HETQ
16:51, February 6, 2012

At a press conference today, Free Democrats President Khachatur
Kokobelyan held out hope that his party and the Heritage Party
would jointly contest seats in the upcoming parliamentary elections
in Armenia.

Kokobelyan said there was “a public demand to see these two forces
unite.”

He said that it wouldn’t be hard for the two to reach the 5% vote
threshold to get into parliament.

The Free Democrats leaders said he had met with Heritage Party chief
Raffi Hovannisian and declared Heritage as a political force that
has proved itself to be a defender of the people’s interests.

Kokobelyan said that a final decision regarding electoral cooperation
would be reached in the period of March 2-10.

ORINATS YERKIR NOT TO ENTER INTO ALLIANCE WITH ANY POLITICAL FORCE
Anna Nazaryan

“Radiolur”
06.02.2012 14:10

“Orinats Yerkir Party has participated in all general elections over
the past 15 years and is going to run for Parliament this time,”
head of the Orinats Yerkir faction Heghine Bisharyan told a press
conference today. “We aim to build a country of law and our slogan
will be developed based on this principle,” she said.

The party will hold its sitting on March 3 to determine the platform
and clarify the issues connected with the party list, Bisharyan added.

According to her, the proposal of the opposition to pass to a 100%
proportional system is untimely.

“Orinats Yerkir does not claim to hold many seats at the National
Assembly,” Heghine Bisharyan said, adding that the Party will not
enter into alliance with any political force.

She considers that the Armenian National Congress, the Heritage and
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation will form a strong opposition
in the new Parliament.

SABINE FREIZER: IT IS UNLIKELY THAT TURKEY WILL GET FRANCE REPLACED IN OSCE MG

arminfo
Monday, February 6, 14:43

Sabine Freizer, the Istanbul-based director of the International
Crisis Group’s Europe Program, in an interview with Sunday’s Zaman
commented on the chances of any changes in co-chairs, saying it is
unlikely that Turkey will get France replaced. “I don’t believe that
Turkey will get much support from the OSCE states when it tries to
link the problems of the Minsk Group with the passage of legislation
in France that penalizes persons denying the genocide,” she said.

“Turkey needs to get the support of all 56 participating states —
or at least of the country that chairs the organization at that
time. It will also need the support of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the
other three current co-chairing countries, the US, France and Russia,”
Freizer added.

The OSCE, the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental
organization, works on the basis of consensus, so if Armenia, as a
member of the OSCE, vetoes Turkey’s co- chairmanship of the Minsk
Group, Turkey cannot become the Mink Group’s co-chair.

Freizer also stated that when the issue of replacing France as co-chair
by another EU country was on the table, her team was in favor,
saying that “the EU would be responsible for much of the technical
[nation building] and financial support if there is ever a peace
agreement.” Hence, the expert thinks that any kind of change in the
leadership of the Minsk Group will be difficult to pass.

Considering the Minsk Group format in many ways outdated, Freizer
thinks that a serious discussion is needed on the value and
effectiveness of the Minsk Group format.

EXPRESSION OF HATRED: HOW AZERBAIJANIS SPEAK ABOUT ARMENIANS IN THE BLOGOSPHERE
by Arzu Geybullayeva

times.am
06.02.12, 11:35

International Alert, an NGO based inLondonworking on conflict
resolution, did a study on how people on opposite sides of the
conflicts in theSouth Caucasusperceived each other. Balcanicaucaso.org
presents an article which focuses on how Armenians were depicted in
online discourse inBaku. This is an insiders’ look into the dark side
of the Azerbaijani blogosphere.

A group of scholars, researchers, and specialists was selected to
examine a range of sources, from history textbooks, to the media and
blogosphere, as well as speeches made by politicians to understand
better the dynamics behind the conflicts in theSouth Caucasus. The
aim of this research, “Myths and conflict”, was to identify key words,
narratives, and other innuendos that reference the concept of “us vs.

them” or “friend vs. enemy”. I was part of the research team. In my
research, I looked at the Azerbaijani blogosphere in order to identify
systemically-used stereotypes and propaganda to dehumanize Armenians
andArmenia. The results of this research will be released in early
2012 and should be available through International Alert’s website.

Dehumanizing the ‘other’ The tone used to talk about Armenians in
the online media – possibly even more than in traditional media – is
clearly one of hate. This is part of a process of dehumanization of the
enemy that is characteristic of conflicts in general. Communication
and media analyst Karim Karim suggests that “hate-mongers can then
‘justify’ acts of violence and degradation because they have denied
the humanity of their victims”.

This definition fits the rhetoric of hate-oriented blogs inAzerbaijan.

In fact, dehumanization is at times combined with belittling,
name-calling and other degrading comparisons in the majority of posts
targetingArmeniaand Armenians. As a result one can clearly see the
extent of bitterness, anger, and adverse attitudes that exist between
the two countries not only in traditional outlets but also in the
parallel world of online content. In this parallel world, hate 2.0
is taken to a completely different level with no strings attached
and no responsibility taken for what is said, illustrated, and written.

Azerbaijani blogosphere Though the Azerbaijani blogosphere is barely a
decade old, blogging has become more popular inAzerbaijanonly in the
last two to three years. According to the most recent Freedom House
report, there are in total about 27,000 blogs operating on various
blogging platforms.

Topics vary extensively with authors writing about art, movies, food,
society, tradition, politics, social issues, and more. Of course,
among the most widely-discussed themes in blogs and popular blogs
are the Karabakh conflict, relations betweenArmeniaandAzerbaijan,
and negative perceptions of Armenians. Let us call them “hate blogs”.

The most common theme for hate blogs is mutual perceptions. It is
also the most explicit and acute theme in terms of the language used,
analogies made, and the overall attitude. Being a blogger myself
who works in the conflict resolution field, reading these blogs
was unpleasant to say the least. The appalling descriptions used in
reference to the “other” – such as descriptions portraying “them” as
thieves, liars, drunks, prostitutes, and cave propagandists – later
appeared to be “kind” when compared to some of the analogies that
were simply beyond my ability to comprehend. It was almost as if the
authors were reassuring themselves and their readers that the “other”
was no longer a human and that it was ok to humiliate them, belittle
them, kill them, let them die, and get rid of them all together.

In a post about the shooting death of an Armenian civilian – a shepherd
– by the Azerbaijani military forces on the border, an Azerbaijani
blogger concluded “In any case, there is one less Armenian and this
is the happiest part of this news story” [Post originally written in
Azerbaijani]. The post expressed no regret about the actual death,
and even championed the incident.

In another post, the author comparedArmeniato a disease that should
be eradicated. “Yeah, almost forgot, the worst flu I am referring to
have a similar name to that of bird flu and swine flu, in our language,
we call it “Armenian flu”. The symptoms of this flu include hypocrisy,
fraud, and double standards” [Post originally written in Azerbaijani].

In an additional spin to the post, the author proudly added: “We are
sick with this Armenian trash! […] Hypocrisy they have, terror they
have it […] Now I think, will we even find a vaccine against this
dangerous flu? Let’s not forget: to find a vaccine is written only
in our destiny.”

These and other examples that were used for the purpose of this
research indicated an important factor: youth are also becoming deeply
affected by the negative relations between the two countries that
are reflected in the media, general political statements, and the
overall attitude of the government. The clear annihilation messages,
the overall tone of the posts, and the bloggers’ hostile attitudes
were in no way creations of these bloggers but rather the results
of decades-long policy and measures taken by the local government to
further embed anger and hatred.

Future of hate 2.0 No doubt, this research only reveals the tip of
the iceberg. This is just another example of the fact that in spite
of its extremely powerful liberating potential, the Internet is not
intrinsically good.

It can be used to strengthen stereotypes and can contribute to shaping
public opinion in the favour of conflict.

As the research shows, many young people inAzerbaijanhave very strong
positions regarding the conflict that are unsupportive of the peace
process to say the least. It also indicated the amount of work that
needs to be done as well as the pressing need to take concrete steps
in gradually shifting these negative attitudes, building positive
relationships, fostering dialogue and creating space for mutual
understanding rather than hatred betweenArmeniaandAzerbaijan. More
importantly, the research underscores the need to start this work to
promote mutual understanding among youth in particular.

Perhaps, hate 2.0 inAzerbaijanis here to stay. But there is a chance
that online communities with access to first-hand accounts of the
‘other’ will instead mostly contribute to changing attitudes for the
positive in the region as a new, tech-savvy generation grows. Sure
enough, alternatives to “hate 2.0” exist and are possible. The online
world is the world of opportunities, after all…

ETHNIC ENCLAVE: NEW RAILWAY BYPASSING ARMENIA WILL FREEZE ARMENIA’S “NORTHERN ROAD” PROSPECTS
By Aris Ghazinyan

ArmeniaNow
06.02.12 | 15:15

An official announcement has been made that
Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railway connecting the Azeri coast of the
Caspian Sea with Turkey will be put into operation in October of 2013.

How will that affect Armenia?

First of all, the rehabilitation project of Gyumri (Armenia)-Kars
(Turkey) railroad, that could connect Baku with Ankara through Tbilisi
and Yerevan, will be frozen for a very long time.

Despite the fact that Azerbaijan and Armenia do not have railway
communication, Baku has a railway to Tbilisi and Tbilisi – to Yerevan.

It is this railroad stretching along the current Armenian-Turkish
border that has a station in Gyumri.

Putting into operation the new railroad would make Armenia’s possible
de-blocking even more problematic and unrealistic.

The other aspect of it is the fact that the construction of the
Samtskhe-Javakheti section of the railway will engage a great number
of Turkish and Meskhetian-Turkish workers. The problem is that this
Georgian region with a large Armenian population is Armenia’s only
exit to the outer world through “a Christian road”.

Either Turkish or Azeri settlements lie all along the perimeter of
Armenia’s and Nagorno Karabakh’s borders, be it Iran from the south,
Georgia from the north and, of course, Azerbaijan and Turkey from
the east and west of Armenian, respectively.

Hence, on the ethnographic map Armenia will find itself in an enclave,
which is potentially dangerous. Inflow of Turks and Meskhetian Turks
in Samtskhe-Javakheti is a matter of serious concerns for both the
Armenian population of the region and a number of political parties
and non-governmental organizations in Armenia.

Another “blow at Armenia” will be the illusory prospect of
establishing railway communication with Russia – Armenia’s main
strategic partner. The possible exploitation of the old railroad
Tbilisi-Gyumri-Yerevan envisaged restoring communication along the
Abkhazian section of the Trans-Caucasian Railway as well, which would
connect Yerevan with Russia.

However, with the new Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railway, there
won’t be need for the “northern road”.

If viewed globally, Kars-Gyumri Tbilisi option would be more
preferable to Turkey. First of all, it would become a gesture of
goodwill towards Armenia that Turkey could show the international
community. And besides, it wouldn’t have to spend half a billion
dollars on building Kars-Akhalkalaki section.

But, Turkey has more important interests, one of which is laying a
safe and stable railway connection between Baku and Ankara (obviously
to Ankara it cannot be considered “safe and stable” if it passes
through Armenia). And, most importantly, Turkey wants to become the
main transit corridor between the European Union and Central Asia
with the Caspian Basin.

The coming year promises to be full of strong sentiments over this
issue both in Georgia and Armenia.

HASMIK POGHOSYAN: ARMENIA SHOULD TAKE PART IN EUROVISION

Aysor.am
Monday,February 06

Regardless the results Armenia should take part in the song contest
“Eurovision-2012”, RA Culture Minister Gasmik Poghosyan said at the
press conference.

“To my opinion Armenia should take part in the “Eurovision” song
contest regardless the victory or defeat,” Mrs. Poghosyan stressed.

This year “Eurovision-2012” will be held in Azerbaijan, for that
reason Armenia’s participation in the contest has become an issue of
wide discussions.

Sunday’s Zaman , Turkey
Feb 5 2012

Zero problems with neighbors revisited
by Richard Falk*

Pundits in Europe and North America in recent months have delighted in
citing with a literary smirk `zero problems with neighbors,’ the
centerpiece of Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu’s foreign policy agenda since he became
foreign minister on May 1, 2009, having previously served as chief
advisor to both the prime minister and foreign minister.
These critics point to the heightened tensions with Syria and Iraq,
the persisting inability to overcome the hostile fallout from the Mavi
Marmara incident with Israel, and even the renewed salience of the
long unresolved dispute with the Armenian diaspora sparked by a new
French bill that makes the denial of genocide associated with the 1915
massacres of Armenians in Turkey a crime.

Troubles to be sure, but should these be interpreted as `failures,’
and more precisely as `Turkish failures’? Perhaps, DavutoÄ?lu was
insufficiently cautious, or alternatively too optimistic, when he
articulated the zero problems diplomacy, but was it not an accurate
way of signaling a new dawn for Turkey’s approach to neighbors,
especially its Arab neighbors, and actually, to the world as a whole.
And DavutoÄ?lu followed through with a dizzying series of initiatives,
conceiving of the neighborhood in a broad sense and managing to banish
many of the bad memories associated with Ottoman rule over much of the
Arab world.

It should be recalled that Turkish foreign policy began charting a new
course years before DavutoÄ?lu became foreign minister. In an important
sense, the turning point came in 2003 when the Turkish government
refused to allow the United States to use its territory to stage an
invasion of Iraq. At the time the anti-Justice and Development Party
(AKP) opposition called the decision the biggest mistake in Turkish
republican history. In retrospect, it was a transformational moment
that showed Turkey, its neighbors and the world that it could think
and act for itself when it comes to foreign policy, that the Cold War
was over and that Washington could no longer take Ankara for granted.
And yet this move did not mean, as some critics immediately claimed, a
turn toward Islam and away from the West. As recently shown, Turkey
still values its NATO ties even to the extent of allowing radar
stations on its territory that is linked to missile defense for
Europe, Israel and the Gulf in relation to Iran.

Forgetting Turkey’s past

By now it is almost forgotten that it was Turkey that encouraged peace
talks between Syria and Israel that seemed to be headed for dramatic
success until their abrupt breakdown, a development attributed at the
time to the Israeli attacks on Gaza at the end of 2008, but in
retrospect better understood as the unwillingness of Israel to give up
any of its 1967 conquests. Turkey also sought to be a peacemaker
further afield in the Balkans and the Caucasus, doing the seemingly
impossible, bringing Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia together in a
manner that moved their two antagonistic governments on a path leading
to peace. Even more ambitiously, in collaboration with Brazil, Turkey
used its new stature as an independent player in May 2010 to persuade
Tehran to accept an arrangement for the storage of much of Iran’s
enriched uranium in Turkey, thereby demonstrating the plausibility of
a peaceful alternative to the United States/Israel posture of
sanctions and warmongering.

To be sure, the earlier sensible effort to have friendly relations
with Syria backfired, but not until the regime in Damascus started the
massive shooting of its citizens and refused to meet the demands of
its people for far reaching reforms. Arguably, the same reversal of
outlook in Ankara occurred in relation to Libya after Muammar Gaddafi
threatened to massacre his opposition, leading even to extending some
Turkish support to the UN-backed NATO intervention in Libya in 2011
that shaped the outcome of an internal struggle for control of the
state. Also, there is no doubt that the refusal of the European Union
to shift its one-sided stance on Cyprus has soured relations with
Greece, producing a temporary deterioration that has taken place
despite the Turkish show of reasonableness and exhibiting a spirit of
compromise.

Even with Israel, despite the strong sympathies of the Turkish public
with the struggle of the Palestinians, the AKP leadership has done its
best to restore normalcy to the relationship between the two
countries. After all, the May 31, 2010 attack by Israel’s navy in
international waters on the Mavi Marmara carrying humanitarian
activists and assistance to Gaza and challenging the Israeli blockade
was not only a flagrant breach of international law but resulted in
the death of nine Turkish passengers. Turkey has demanded an apology
and compensation for the families of the victims, a reasonable set of
expectations that was on the verge of acceptance by Tel Aviv, but
collapsed when challenged by the internal opposition to Benjamin
Netanyahu led by the super-hawk foreign minister, Avigdor Liebermann,
now under indictment for fraud.

What this brief overview argues is that Turkey has consistently tried
to avert recourse to intervention and war in the Middle East and to
promote diplomatic approaches that rely exclusively on soft power. It
has, to be sure, resisted geopolitical rebuffs, as in relation to its
efforts to end the confrontation with Iran, impressively refusing to
stay in line behind the bellicose leadership of the United States and
Israel. DavutoÄ?lu has correctly affirmed Turkey’s resolve to act on
the basis of its values and convictions in the post-Cold War politics
of the region and not blindly follow directives from Washington. Iran
is a striking case where the Turkish approach, although incapable of
stemming the drift toward war being mounted by the West, is both wiser
and more likely to achieve the goal of reassuring the world that
Tehran means what it says when it insists that it does not intend to
acquire nuclear weapons. As in every other foreign policy setting,
DavutoÄ?lu is exhibiting his belief that in the 21st century persuasion
works better than coercion, not to mention the avoidance of death,
devastation and displacement.

In sum, the zero problems with neighbors as a touchstone to Turkish
foreign policy in the Middle East and the world needs to be understood
as an aspiration and strong preference rather than as an invariable
guide to practice. There are too many contradictions embedded in
political realities to be slavishly tied to a rigid doctrine incapable
of taking account of context. For instance, in Syria and Libya the
Turkish government was forced to choose between siding with a regime
slaughtering its own people and backing the population in its efforts
to democratize and humanize the governing process. Zero problems needs
to be understood as a framework for addressing the relations between
countries, not just governments, and in situations of strife choices
must be made. Arguably Turkey went too far when it backed NATO in
Libya or not far enough when it failed to show support for the Green
Revolution in Iran after the stolen elections of June 2009. These are
difficult interpretative choices that do not invalidate the principled
positions that DavutoÄ?lu has repeatedly affirmed as being as important
as realist calculations in shaping foreign policy in complex
situations. Possibly, if the Green Revolution had shown more
persistence or the regime had engaged in more widespread killing of
its people Turkey would have made a `Syrian choice.’

`Great historical transformations’

DavutoÄ?lu on more than one occasion has expressed enthusiastic support
for the upheavals grouped together under the banner of the Arab
Spring. He calls these upheavals great historical transformations that
are irreversible and expressions of a thirst by young people for lives
of dignity and democratic freedoms. There is nothing that Turkey has
done to thwart these high ideals.

In this respect, I think it is possible to reach an assessment of
Turkish foreign policy as of early 2012. It has charted a course of
action based on — to the extent of which it is feasible — soft power
diplomacy, taking initiatives to resolve its conflicts with neighbors
but also to offer its good offices to mediate conflict to which it is
not a party. Its credibility has become so great that Ä°stanbul has
replaced European capitals as the preferred venue for conflict
resolution whether in relation to Afghanistan or even Iran. It is
notable that despite Washington’s annoyance with Ankara regarding Iran
or due to the simmering dispute with Israel, the US government seems
to favor Ä°stanbul as the most propitious site for negotiations with
Iran concerning its nuclear program.

At the same time, as Syria and Libya show, it is not always possible
to avoid taking sides in response to internal struggles, although
Turkey has delayed doing so to give governments in power the
opportunity to establish internal peace. In a globalizing world
boundaries are not absolute, and sovereignty must give way if severe
violations of human rights are being committed by the regime, but that
still should make armed intervention a last resort, and one only
undertaken in extreme instances on behalf of known opposition forces
and in a manner that has a reasonable prospect of success at
acceptable costs for the targeted society. Such conditions almost
never exist and so intervention is rarely if ever, in my judgment,
justified, although conditions may quite often create strong
interventionary temptations.

We can only hope that Turkey stays the course, pursuing every opening
that enables positive mutual relations among countries and using its
diplomatic stature to facilitate conflict resolution among others.
Rather than viewing `zero problems’ as a failure, it should be a time
to reaffirm the creativity of Turkish foreign policy in the course of
the last decade that has shown the world the benefits of soft power
diplomacy. This diplomacy, as supplemented by Turkey’s economic
success and political stability, helps us understand the great
popularity of and respect for the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip
ErdoÄ?an, throughout the region and the world.

*Richard Falk is a professor emeritus of international law and
practice who taught at Princeton University for 40 years.