Author: Kajoyan Gevork

NALBANDIAN DISPLAYS NOTHING BUT MALICE AND ENVY – FOREIGN MINISTRY

news.az
Sept 7 2011
Azerbaijan

We can only express regret that person called minister raises issues
unrelated to non-permanent membership of Azerbaijan in the UN Security
Council.

The statement came from spokesperson for the Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry Elman Abdullayev commenting on Armenian Foreign Minister
Edward Nalbandian’s recent inappropriate remarks.

“Contradictory, illogical and unsubstantiated claims by the Armenian
minister question his understanding of work of international
organizations,” Abdullayev said.

“Unfortunately, the Armenian minister displays nothing but malice
and envy. We have heard nothing constructive from the Armenian side
so far. Such statements do not correspond to the level of foreign
minister.

Talking about the use of force, the Armenian minister represents
the country that that occupied 20% of the territory of a neighboring
country and committed an ethnic cleansing in its territories. Today,
when occupation troops are still in territory of our country,
we naturally have to work to improve our defense capabilities,”
Abdullayev added.

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has recently complained
about Azerbaijan to a European official and acted as an envier with
defective mentality.

ERDOHAN TO TOUR ARAB SPRING NATIONS AMIDST REGIONAL SHOWDOWN WITH ISRAEL

Today’s Zaman
Sept 7 2011
Turkey

Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan has decided to expand the
scope of a visit to Egypt and added Tunisia and Libya to the itinerary
of his trip, which will take place next week at a time of increasing
regional tensions. “The prime minister had already announced his
intention to visit these countries. He eventually decided to visit
the three countries where the Arab Spring took place,” diplomatic
sources told Today’s Zaman on Wednesday.

Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdað, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu,
Energy Minister Taner Yýldýz, Economy Minister Zafer Caðlayan,
Transportation Minister Binali Yýldýrým and Defense Minister Ýsmet
Yýlmaz were at a coordination meeting at the Foreign Ministry on
Wednesday, reviewing preparations for Erdoðan’s visit to the three
countries.

No statement was released after the coordination meeting, with
diplomatic sources saying that all of those ministers were expected
to accompany Erdoðan during the first leg of his tour, which will
be Egypt.

“The visit to Egypt had to be postponed a few times because of the
political situation in Egypt,” the same sources highlighted, in an
apparent effort to rule out a direct link between the timing of the
visit and the escalating tension with Israel.

Turkey suspended its substantial military ties with Israel last week,
saying that it was expelling top Israeli diplomats and pledged to
lobby other nations in support of the Palestinians’ statehood bid
after Israel refused to apologize for last year’s raid on a Gaza-bound
flotilla that killed nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists.

Erdoðan is scheduled to arrive in Cairo on the evening of Monday,
Sept.12, and will proceed to Tunisia on Wednesday, where he will stay
for a day, the same sources said. The prime minister will travel
to Libya on Thursday and will return to Turkey later that day, the
sources said. “In Egypt, we have many things to discuss. North Africa,
the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean are only some of these
discussion topics. In all three countries, the main message to the
counterparts will be the need to preserve stability during these
transformations,” a senior diplomat told Today’s Zaman.

Erdoðan on Tuesday said the Turkish navy will step up its surveillance
of the eastern Mediterranean Sea — a move that could potentially lead
to confrontation with Israel — and warned of more sanctions against
Israel if relations between the former allies deteriorate further.

Whether or not Erdoðan’s visit to Egypt was projected long before
the latest escalation of tension with Israel, his visit to Egypt as
well as Tunisia and Libya will be closely watched by Israel, since
Turkey nearly cutting ties with it increases Israel’s isolation at
a delicate time.

Israel worries that Turkey’s actions will become a model for Egypt,
where calls to revoke the 32-year-old treaty with the Jewish state
have multiplied since the ouster of longtime leader Hosni Mubarak.

Egypt has threatened to withdraw its ambassador in a row over the
border shooting of five Egyptian security personnel last month,
as Israeli troops repelled militants who killed eight Israelis.

Erdoðan’s tour also comes as Israel seeks to muster international
support against the Palestinians’ attempt to have their state
recognized at the UN this month. The uprising in Syria, which shares
borders with Israel and Turkey, adds new uncertainty to the regional
mix.

Dismissing a UN report into Israel’s deadly raid that said Israel’s
naval blockade of Gaza was a legal security measure last weekend,
Foreign Minister Davutoðlu warned Israel that it risks alienation
among Arab nations by refusing to apologize.

“If Israel persists with its current position, the Arab Spring will
give rise to a strong opposition to Israel as well as the debate on
authoritarian regimes,” Davutoðlu said.

On Friday Turkey downgraded its diplomatic ties with Israel to the
level of second secretary and gave the ambassador and other high-level
diplomats until Wednesday to leave the country. In other measures
against Israel, Turkey suspended military agreements, promised to back
legal actions against Israel by the raid victims’ families and vowed to
take steps to ensure freedom to navigate in the eastern Mediterranean.

Some Israeli officials think Turkey has decided that ties with
Israel do not serve its interests as it seeks more influence in the
Muslim world and that an Israeli apology would have done nothing to
change that.

“Turkey smells Israel’s weakness and isolation in the international
arena and is exploiting it,” Tzipi Livni, a former foreign minister
of Israel and opposition Kadima Party leader, was quoted as saying
by Israeli media on Wednesday.

“Turkey realizes that the US no longer sees Israel as an asset but
as a liability and is not trying to end Israel’s isolation in the
world, which would isolate the US at the UN,” Livni said, adding,
“Turkey realizes this relationship and has increased its cooperation
with the US against the Iranian threat.”

In Egypt, in addition to the head of Egypt’s ruling military council,
Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, Prime Minister Essam Sharaf
and other officials and politicians, Erdoðan is also expected to meet
with a group of young people who joined the protests at Tahrir Square
which eventually led to the ouster of Mubarak.

“There are a few agreements that will be signed,” a spokesperson for
Egyptian Prime Minister Mohamed Higazy said on Tuesday, adding that
the two sides would discuss political coordination and economic ties.

Erdoðan on Tuesday said that Turkish officials are in talks with
their Egyptian counterparts for a possible visit to Gaza.

“This is a process that will continue until the last minute. We
are in talks with our Egyptian brothers. I may or may not go to
Gaza,” Erdoðan told reporters in response to a question on reports
suggesting that he wants to travel to the Gaza Strip through Egypt’s
Rafah border crossing.

An Egyptian official, however, said on Tuesday that he did not expect
such a trip to take place.

EU SUPPORT OF REFORMS IMPORTANT FOR ARMENIA – PRESIDENT

news.am
Sept 7 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN. – Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan met with the EU newly
appointed representative in South Caucasus Philippe Lefort.

Sargsyan congratulated Philippe Lefort and wished that his extensive
diplomatic experience and awareness of South Caucasus region will
be useful for strengthening the relations between Armenia and EU,
president’s press service informed Armenian News-NEWS.am.

President Sargsyan stressed the importance of EU-Armenia cooperation,
EU’s support in reforms taking place in Armenia.

PHILIPPE LEFORT’S APPOINTMENT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO CONSOLIDATION OF ARMENIA-EU RELATIONS – ARMENIAN FM

news.am
Sept 7 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN. – Philippe Lefort, who is appointed as EU Special
Representative for the South Caucasus and the Crisis in Georgia,
will contribute to further consolidation of Armenia-EU relations,
stated Armenian FM Edward Nalbandian, who received Lefort at his
official residence today.

Nalbandian noted that Armenia-EU relations have always been one of
the primary directions of Armenia’s foreign policy, and a special
attention is given to all domains included within the framework of
Armenia-EU interaction, and, as a result of which, the parties record
new accomplishments every year and bring new quality to the relations,
MFA Press Service told Armenian News-NEWS.am.

In his turn, Philippe Lefort likewise expressed satisfaction by
the opening of new cooperation prospects in dynamically developing
Armenia-EU relations.

The interlocutors also reflected on the current talks along the
circles of European Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership
Project, noting that considerable progress is registered in recent
times. Edward Nalbandian and Philippe Lefort also discussed the
continuing talks on the European Union Association Agreement and
examined the preparations for the start of talks concerning reduction
of entrance-visa requirements and creation of a deep and comprehensive
free trade zone.

The parties also stressed the Eastern Partnership Summit to be held
in Warsaw at the end of September and reflected on its preparations.

The interlocutors also looked into the latest developments relating
to settlement of the Artsakh issue. Against this background, and on
behalf of EU, Philippe Lefort expressed assistance to the matter’s
peaceful regulation efforts being carried out under the auspices of
the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs.

ARMENIA AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE MILITARY AND POLITICAL BLOCKS
Sergey Sargsyan

05.09.2011

Deputy Head of the Center for the Political Studies, “Noravank”
Foundation

The declaration of the intentions to intensify the works on NATO’s
renovated Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) sounded during the
visit of a new NATO Secretary General’s Special Representative for the
Caucasus and Central Asia James Appathurai made against the background
of carrying over the announced CSTO Collective Rapid Reaction Forces’
maneuvers in Armenia on 2012, has stirred up the discussion about the
possibilities and restrictions of cooperation of Yerevan with those
different in composition and having mostly distinct goals military
and political blocks.

Among four countries neighbouring Armenia Turkey is NATO member,
and Georgia and Azerbaijan, as well as Armenia, are parts of NATO
programmes directed to the further development of cooperation with
this organization. We believe that the established opinion that NATO
simply filled the vacuum of power which emerged in the region after
the “retirement” from the stage, on different reasons, of Russia,
does not correctly reflect the situation. The shift of Georgia and
Azerbaijan towards NATO-oriented security system was conditioned by
their inability to resolve such problems as, first of all, protection
of their territorial integrity and implementation of the ambitious
economic projects within the framework of the security system
functioning after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Generally, the dynamics of signing documents and shifting to new
programmes and levels of cooperation of the countries of the South
Caucasus with NATO is rather revealing as both conclusion of frame
agreements on joining Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme and
presentation of IPAP proceeded in the same sequence – first came
Georgia, then Azerbaijan, and in several months Armenia. This sequence,
though symbolically, reflects the level of interest and expectations
of those countries from setting and broadening cooperation with the
North Atlantic structures.

Georgia was and still remains the most motivated country as for
becoming NATO member, and one of the main reasons would seem to be
the lack of alternatives of the acceptable choice. In two of three
unsettled conflicts in the South Caucasus, i.e. Georgian-Abkhazian
and Georgian-South Ossetian, unrecognized republics received (and now
receive) obvious and distinct support of Russia. That is why in the
Moscow-oriented security system the prospects of their settlement in
the way acceptable for Tbilisi were zero.

Though in NATO-oriented security system those chances are rather
delusive either but, however, there are some anyway. But in the end,
unreasonably high hopes of Tbilisi connected with the cooperation of
Georgia with the Alliance brought to a Five Days War in August 2008,
after which Tbilisi, in fact lost the possibility of maneuvering in
their foreign policy. This has radically affected the military and
political situation in the whole region.

The third conflict – Nagorno-Karabakh – does not fully fall into the
pattern. Without going into the details of peculiarities of Russia’s
attitude towards this conflict, one can state that its official
stance, in fact, coincides with the de facto policy carried out by
it in regard to the conflict which can be resolved in: “arrange it
yourselves”. Though Moscow is clearly aware that staying one-to-one
the parties to the conflict would not solve anything and thus the
existing status quo will be prolonged.

But both Armenia and Azerbaijan still hope to turn the preferences
of Russia to their accounts. Armenia tries to do it through the
broad military and political and military and technical partnership
and economic cooperation, relying on energy and energy intensive
metallurgy in prospect.

Azerbaijan in its turn tries to effect the desired results through:

*military and technical cooperation; *taking advantage of rather
big Russian community in the country; *an entire complex of issues
round the Caspian Sea – from ecology and its status, prospects of
construction of Trans-Caspian oil and gas pipelines, functioning
of the North-South transport corridor to non-admission of Navies
of non-Caspian states to its water area and militarization of the
Caspian Sea in general.

Such a broad list of economic and military and political points
of contact, which sustain a high level of interest of Russia in
Azerbaijan, stimulates Armenia to balance its “pro-Russian” foreign
policy by “pro-Western” one. But if there is no disaccord in Armenia
on mutually beneficial cooperation and integration in European
political and economic structures, quite different picture can be
observed concerning the issue of profound cooperation with NATO and
its prospects of becoming NATO-member.

The results of public opinion polls carried out by different
organizations invariably show that the number of those who support
the idea of becoming a member of NATO and those who are against has
remained almost the same over the recent years – 30-35% each. And
against this background 60-70% supports the idea of entering the EU.

However the reasons of such an ambiguous attitude towards NATO
are clear.

Firstly, the availability of 30-40% of pollees who have not decided
yet on their attitude towards North Atlantic Alliance speaks about
the problems in information policy of both supporters and opponents
of the rapprochement with NATO and this is when the NATO Information
Office has been working in Yerevan since October 2006.

Secondly, in Armenia NATO is associated with Turkey. There is logic
in this as Armenia is contiguous with NATO through Turkey; Turkey is
a curator and lobbyist of Georgia and Azerbaijan in North Atlantic
programmes and projects; in future the military-transport schemes of
Georgia and Azerbaijan will be closed up in Turkey and etc. Additional
concern is caused by stirring up of military and political component
in the foreign policy of Ankara, including a peacemaking, which can
be considered as a kind of compensation to the generalship of the
Turkish Republic for the reduction of its weight in domestic policy.

Thirdly, another factor of negative perception of NATO in Armenia is
the attempts of Azerbaijan and Turkey on involving Allience, in one
way or another, into the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

That was especially topical before the stirring up of Russia in the
negotiation process on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict after the war in
South Ossetia. Thus, if in October 2005 the Secretary General of NATO
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated that their organization did not tend to be
directly involved in the settlement of Karabakh conflict”, in May 2006
the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Pierre Lellouche,
while speaking about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, mentioned
that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly exerted efforts to resolve that
conflict and they intended to search for the ways for its settlement.

Generally, stirring up of Moscow in the process of the settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabkh conflict can be welcomed but its effectiveness is
getting more questionable due to the appearance of several alerting
nuances in its motivation.

Firstly, peacemaking activity of Moscow after August 8, 2008 looks like
“compensation” for use of force in regard to Georgia and it looks to
be more directed to improving its image in the eyes of the West.

Secondly, sometimes it takes the shape of “activity for the sake of
activity” under the circumstances when announced expectations of a
“breakthrough” does not correspond to real expert forecasts which in
the end brings to (and in case if such an approach is preserved it
will continue bringing to) a discomfiture like the one in Kazan.

Thirdly, attempts to consolidate urgently its positions in both
Armenia and Azerbaijan and alongside to disturb the West’s plans
by one successful and decisive “swoop” in the resolution of such a
multi-dimensional and old conflict as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
are doomed.

So if we proceed from the analysis of the situation ad absurdum, it
would have been advantageous for Armenia to be a part of a military
and political block in which

*Azerbaijan and Turkey are not involved; *Bilateral Armenian-Russian
relation would have been substituted by multi-lateral.

At the first sight such structures are the Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO) and Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) in which
Armenia has correspondingly a status of full member and observer. But
here there are some problems either.

Firstly, in both organizations the role of the leader is taken by
Russia (in CSTO unconditional leader).

Secondly, in both organizations Kazakhstan is involved, the economic
success of which, especially in oil sphere, brought to the situation
when it can be regarded as a new leader of the Central Asia. But due
to pragmatic reasons, first of all of economic character, Kazakhstan
is a lobbyist of the Azerbaijani interests on many issues.

Thirdly, the Caucasian direction of the CSTO activity, as well as a
block of the economic programmes on Armenia for EurAsEC is secondary
as compared to the Central Asia.

All those factors had a great impact on building the policy of Armenia
on the cooperation with the regional military and political blocks
based on the principles of complimentarity. Such a directive implies
parallel sustaining of the relations with all the active actors in
the region on the same level.

No special problems should be expected in economic aspect. The main
problems will come forward in military and political sphere. How
and to what extent can the participation of Armenia in CSTO and
implementation of the IPAP with NATIO by it be combined?

On some items it is difficult but still possible to combine the
implementation of the undertaken liabilities, e.g. on exchange of
the intelligence information on “Partnership Action Plan against
Terrorism”, drafting and sending additional unit of peacekeepers to the
“hotspots”, training of the Armenian militaries in NATO collages and
military institutions in Russia, arranging joint military maneuvers.

But it seems impossible to combine to the full extent, e.g. a long-term
programme on reforming a command-control communications which implies
shifting to the NATO standard communication systems, navigation
and identification. Though there are no definite restrictions on a
quantity and terms of implementation of the IPAP, anyway this phase
of cooperation with NATO cannot last forever without going to a higher
level of cooperation.

Besides the capability of Armenia to sustain balanced foreign political
course can be affected even more radically and fast than the worsening
of Russian-Georgian relations (the climax of which was the Five Day
War) by the following factors:

*Escalation of military confrontation between the US an Iran; *The
growth of the antagonistic contradictions between Russia and US
or even wider – between Shanghai Cooperation Organization and NATO
*Resumption of the military actions in Karabakh.

At least two of the aforementioned factors directly depend on the
stance and weight of the SCO despite the fact that for it the South
Caucasus is still a periphery.

Armenia is not directly involved in Shanghai Organization and their
relations are mediated:

*though such structures widely presented in the SCO as CSTO and
EurAsEC, the weight and significance of which has considerably grown
with stirring up of the SCO; *through the bilateral relations with
Russia which is a strategic partner of Armenia; *through the influence
of the SCO on other systems of regional security formed or being
formed in the South Caucasus.

But if in case with the CSTO Armenia, due to its geographic detachment
emphasize military and political and military-technical cooperation,
after acquiring by Iran a status of observer in the SCO in July 2005,
interest of Yerevan and not only, may be focused on the economic
component of relations with the SCO member countries.

The further growth of the weight of the SCO will inevitably bring to
the widening of the zone of its responsibility for the stability and
security and involving of the South Caucasus. But the SCO can achieve
greatest efficiency in this region only in two cases:

*if Iran becomes a full member of that organization which is hardly
probable due to the current tension between Washington and Tehran
(and formally imposing on Iran sanction by the UN) but still possible,
especially in case if the SCO shifts to the confrontation model in
relations with NATO, or *in case of broadening of the rights and
liabilities of the countries which has a status of observers in the
SCO, more eager involvement of those countries in the implementation
of different projects within the framework of general policy of
that organization.

In both cases it means the consolidation of the positions of the
Islamic Republic of Iran in this region.

For Armenia which has closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan, the
availability of functioning corridor through Georgia and Iran is of
vital importance. But when under the limitedness of maneuvering in
foreign policy of Tbilisi Baku does not even conceal that building
up its economic impact on Georgia (according to the Director of
Center for Strategic Planning Ahmed Shirinov “today Georgia exists
only thanks to Azerbaijan and Turkey) will be projected on a further
isolation of Armenia, Yerevan, besides diplomatic means of suppression
of such plans, must secure itself by southern, Iranian direction. In
case when both Armenian and Iran will be members (even though with
different formats of participation) of such a powerful in economic
aspect organization as, e.g. CSO, it would be easies for Yerevan to
attach to all the aspects of bilateral relations with Tehran standing
most-favoured-mode thus minimizing its liability to momentary,
timeserving fluctuations.

Another factor of formation of the attitude of Yerevan to the SCO may
be the growth of the interest of Ankara to that organization. It once
and again offers itself as a kind of bridge, this time between the SCO
and EU and SCO and NATO. Stirring up of Turkey in this direction can
be explained by the availability of a Turkic component in its foreign
policy, as most of the Turkic states are a part of the SCO. From this
point of view it is advantageous for Armenia to stir up sharply its
contacts with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and try to become
its full member, at least before Turkey will make it.

——————————————————————————–
Another materials of author

*SHALE GAS GHOST[08.02.2011] *GAS FROM IRAQI KURDISTAN FOR NABUCCO:
TURKISH INTEREST [15.12.2010] *AZERBAIJAN: SEARCHING NEW FOREIGN
POLICY BALANCE[27.10.2010] *TWO ‘STREAMS’ FROM RUSSIA: BREAKING DOWN
THE OLD GEOPOLITICAL STRUCTURES[21.06.2010] *MILITARY AND POLITICAL
RISKS OF TRANSCASPIAN PROJECTS[04.06.2010]

CONSULTATION OF DEFENSE MINISTRY LEGAL ASSURANCE BODIES OF CIS PARTICIPATING STATES HELD

ARMENPRESS
18:01, 7 September, 2011

A consultation of CIS Participating States’ Defense Ministry Legal
Assurance Bodies was held today at the RA Defense Ministry.

Representatives from Armenia, Russia, Belarus, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan,
as well as from the CIS Council of Defense Ministers, CIS Economic
Court, CIS Executive Committee, CIS Antiterrorism Center, CIS
Inter-Parliamentary Assembly partook in the consultation, the Defense
Ministry information and PR department reports.

ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES PUT THE EYE ON PROPERTY OF PHILANTHROPISTS FROM DIASPORA

arminfo
Monday, September 5, 15:30

The Armenian authorities put the eye on the property of philanthropists
from Diaspora the Harutyunyans, the founder of “Narekatsi” art union,
philanthropist and businessman Narek Harutyunyan told journalists
today.

“Unfortunately, the authorities of the republic seem to be interested
in the art and charity a little. They are interested only in the
money. Just for this reason, over the last 10 months our family and me
personally have found ourselves in the center of the court performances
performed by representatives of the authorities. The reason was 1,5
mln drams taxes which allegedly were not paid by me for activity of
our business which our family has been doing parallel to activity of
the “Narekatsi” union”, – he said.

Harutyunyan assured that the business headed by him has no debt to
the state, and it has even repaid more than 20 mln drams taxes to
the budget. Nevertheless, it did not hinder tax, law-enforcement
and administrative structures to seize businessman’s property and
accounts. “All this became possible thanks to false evidence of Sevak
Artsruni, being our agent earlier, on the basis of which all these
structures have been taking these strange and unfounded steps”, –
he said.

The businessman is sure that all this has the only purpose – to
misappropriate the real estate that belongs to the Harutyunyans family
in Armenia and which the Armenian authorities put the eye on.

“However, we are not going to yield and will fight injustice and
illegality till final victory. It is very much easy to shut down all
our projects in Armenia, but we are not at all going to do it”, –
Harutyunyan concluded.

COURT ENTERS DEFAULT NOTICE AGAINST TURKISH GOVERNMENT

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

LOS ANGELES – The Turkish government is now in default after ignoring
a lawsuit brought against it and two Turkish banks over reparations
for land in southern Turkey seized from Armenians during the Armenian
Genocide (Alex Bakalian et. al vs. Republic of Turkey, the Central Bank
of Turkey, and T.C. Ziraat Bankasi et. al, Case Number 2:10-CV-09596,
December 15, 2010). The default notice was entered on September
1, 2011.

The land in question is currently home to the Incirlik Air Base,
which houses the United States 39th Mission Support Group and 39th
Medical Group. The Air Base is located near Adana, Turkey.

After refusing to accept service of the lawsuit under governing rules
of the 1906 Hague Convention, Turkey was served through U.S. embassy
channels on June 20. Service was confirmed and the court was notified.

Turkey had 60 days (by August 19) to answer the complaint but did not.

The two bank defendants, Central Bank of Turkey and T.C. Ziraat Bank,
requested and were given an extension to respond by September 19.

“The U.S. Department of State had sent a diplomatic note to Ankara
warning that the country is bound by law to defend against the
lawsuit,” says Vartkes Yeghiayan, with the Yeghiayan Law Firm and
one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. “Choosing to ignore
the lawsuit won’t make it go away.”

The plaintiffs are arguing that their Armenian relatives owned land
now occupied by the Base. Their complaint includes documents showing
legal ownership. When their relatives were forced to flee the then
Ottoman Empire, their property was subsequently seized and then sold
without their permission.

By refusing to respond, Turkey risks having the court rule against
it in absentia. Damages could be as high as $100 million.

Representing the plaintiffs are the Yeghiayan Law Firm in Glendale,
Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd & Rader, LLP in Los Angeles and Michael
Bazyler from Chapman University School of Law in Orange.

ISRAEL FEELS COMFORTABLE IN EURASIA

Lragir.am News

12:37:26 – 07/09/2011

Igor Muradyan, political scientist, shared his thoughts on the possible
participation of Israel in the plans of revival of the USSR

A veteran of the Soviet diplomacy was ambassador of the USSR to Arab
states, told me that Golda Mayer told diplomats from Romania that in
case Israel is posed to danger, and the United States prefers Arabs
as primary partners, “we will raise the red flag and become the 16th
soviet republic.”

In the memoirs of Golda Mayer and in more fundamental studies of her
life and work, there is no such pronouncement by the prime minister
of Israel, but there is not even a hint on such a passage. But in
some circles Golda Mayer’s pronouncement is still commented. Igor
Rostislavovich Shafarevich told me what he offered to his Jewish
friends even before the collapse of the USSR, “solve all the problems
of Israel through joining the Soviet Union in the role of an associated
republic”.

It would be nonsensical to remember the given stories with suspicious
content had I not received a message not a long time ago. My classmates
Igor Bukhman (he had this surname earlier) and Alexander Rogozin
(maternal surname Hendelsman) working for a famous consulting company
in the United States informed me that the Jewish social circles
are quite seriously discussing the possibility to support the ideas
aimed at the restoration of the Soviet Union. The purpose of this new
“project” is to accept Israel in this proposed state. Igor Bukhman
(I went to school with him for 10 years) and Alexander Rogozin
(I played water polo with him in the same team) are deprived of
excessive fantasy and prefer distinct initiatives, they say that
having become professional analysts, the active participants of
various discussions on the post-Soviet space have extended a number of
futuristic suggestions on the perspectives of Russia and its neighbors.

However, all would be a folk discussion had there not been for
the non-public state doctrine of Israel on the “Eurasian project”
which evaluates that besides the United States and Canada, the
most comfortable social and cultural and political space for the
Jews worldwide is Eurasia at the basis of which is Russia where
anti-Semitism and racism are too strong. In addition, it is possible
that the most interesting of all is that the “doctrine” points that
the most preferable political and administrative format for Eurasia
is authoritarianism as a guarantee of stability and security.

Perhaps the extravagant idea of Golda Mayer is still urgent. 30 years
ago I witnessed the talk of the rabbi of the synagogue in Moscow,
Adolf Fishman, with those on the leave. He said, “Remember my words,
you are going to return” to which an imposing lady responded,
“A good person wouldn’t be named Adolf.”

REGIME HAS EXHAUSTED RESOURCES OF POLITICAL REPRESSION, SAYS OPPOSITIONIST

Tert.am
13:05 07.09.11

The ruling regime has exhausted the resources of political repression
against the opposition, a senior representative of the Armenian
National Congress (ANC) has said.

In an interview with the Russian newspaper Moskoovskiye Novosti,
Levon Zurabyan, the coordinator of the opposition alliance, addressed
the authorities yielding policies, considering their conduct a little
surprising.

“After using repressions for 3.5 years, opening gunfire on their own
people on March 1, filling the prisons with hundreds of political
rivals, dispersing rallies and banning demonstrations on Liberty
Square, it is really surprising to see the authorities’ yielding
stance. But the explanation is clear ~V the regime has exhausted the
resources of its repression policies against the ANC,” he said, when
asked to comment on the Armenian authorities’ occasional concessions
since 2001.

Zurabyan noted that their alliance had managed to protect the
union of 18 political parties in 2008, thus becoming the first ever
political force in independent Armenia to create what he called a
shadow government.

“Despite the police bans, we re-established the right to hold
rallies, and in 2011, we had more people on the streets than ever
before. Of course, the deteriorating socio-economic situation and
the Arab countries’ scenario, as well as the changing international
situation played a certain role. The authorities came to realize
that the situation in the country might go beyond control without
concessions,” he added.