Author: Kalantarian Kevo

BRYZA HAS DONE HIS DUTY, LET HIM GO, OR DOES AZERBAIJAN NEED SUCH ‘AMERICANIZATION’?
Karin Stepanyan

Novoye Vremya
Sept 1 2009
Armenia

The US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, who is
touted for the post of US ambassador to Azerbaijan, has not yet got
the official agreement from the Azerbaijani authorities.

It is very likely that the Azerbaijani authorities are trying to
show to the USA that Azerbaijan is not very much enthusiastic about
the appointment.

So, the most "denied" by various media co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk
Group, Matthew Bryza, has left his position with as much fuss as when
he embarked on it. It was Bryza who at the beginning of his career as
a co-chairman raised the curtain over the negotiations, having made
public part of the Madrid principles. And it is Bryza who despite all
mediation rules has been appointed ambassador to a conflicting country.

The co-chairmanship has become kind of a springboard to expand his
knowledge of the region and gain a reputation here. This controversial
appointment gives many grounds for an analysis – what will the embassy
headed by Bryza bring into the US policy on Azerbaijan, how will it
correlate with relations with Karabakh and Armenia, what will it result
in the context of relations between the mentioned countries and Turkey?

Bryza is considered to be an expert of the US Department of State
on the Caucasus. Moreover, he belongs to the "executor" of the
USA’s geopolitical blueprint on the so-called "Greater Middle East"
which involves the necessity to cut the "umbilical cord" linking the
South Caucasus countries and Russia and to transfer them to another
geopolitical dimension. In this context, Bryza’s appointment to a
regional country is not a coincidence. He has got the "first hand"
knowledge of the whole region, including Karabakh – are there
many politicians or ordinary people in Azerbaijan who have seen
the contemporary NKR [self-declared Nagornyy Karabakh republic]
with their own eyes? In addition, Bryza’s wife is an ethnic Turk,
which is no less important if at issue is the Caucasus mentality
and this factor’s influence on the Azerbaijan-Turkey-USA triangle
(it is very likely that this factor can somehow cause the recently
soured Azerbaijan-Turkey and Turkey-USA relations to appear to have
got warmer).

Naturally, Bryza could have been appointed ambassador, for example,
to Georgia, especially as they say that it was [Georgian President
Mikheil] Saakashvili who financed the high-profile wedding of Bryza
and Turkish-born Zeyno Baran. In addition, Saakashvili was quick to
award Bryza for "services in developing friendship between the USA
and Georgia" – a strange award if we consider that Bryza was never
involved in Georgian affairs fully.

Of course, it would have been "more correct" on the part of the USA to
rather appoint Bryza as ambassador to Georgia, taking account of his
warm personal relationship with Saakashvili and in order to preserve
formal neutrality by not appointing an OSCE co-chairman as ambassador
to a country for which it acted as a mediator in the past. Bryza’s
appointment as ambassador to Azerbaijan shows that in fact, the
USA "does not care" about formalities since with this unethical
appointment, Washington has probably once again made it clear for
the world that American interests are above formalities… [ellipses
as published]

At the same time, this, in fact, cynical appointment of a conflict
mediator as ambassador to a conflicting country has not provoked
appropriate reaction from the NKR or Armenian government or the
mediators, which can create an undesirable precedence for the future.

Bryza noted: "[US] President Obama considers Azerbaijan to be a very
important strategic partner of the USA." It is not worth speaking
about the importance of Azerbaijan for the USA in terms of its
energy resources, the USA considers that it is important to shift
Azerbaijan’s direction towards "great" Americanization, as it was with
Georgia. But "Americanization" of Georgia has resulted in the loss of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Does the appointment of Bryza means such
"Americanization" for Azerbaijan as well? In addition, despite the
widespread opinions that Bryza’s appointment is a confirmation of the
increased US interest in Azerbaijan there are some other opinions as
well – the USA hints to the Azerbaijani leadership: "Now ‘our person
in your country’ has more information than yourselves" and this is
possibly one of the unique levers of influence on Azerbaijan by the
USA. Bryza, who is aware of all the opinions in the Caucasus and as a
possessor of the present positions of all the sides in the Karabakh
conflict, including the NKR, may perfectly use his knowledge when
the USA needs it.

With regards to "Bryza’s Karabakh history", then, of course, he managed
to present himself as a light-headed and pro-Azerbaijani mediator. His
ambiguous statements on Karabakh, especially on the return of either
five or seven districts to Azerbaijan, most probably paved the way for
the appointment of Bryza as an ambassador to Azerbaijan. Nevertheless,
Bryza was a mediator who more than others "threw to people" a piece
of information thus bringing into the public domain various matters
of the [Nagornyy] Karabakh settlement.

He would often say something and similarly deny, dismissing what
had been said and saying new things, but it was part of the policy
owing to which Bryza became the most quoted mediator and in essence,
one of the few initiators of public discussions in the conflicting
countries. In addition to all these, Bryza repeatedly said that the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict should consider the international
law on the self-determination of nations as well, which, of course
"handicaps" his good welcome in Azerbaijan. Besides, Bryza has seen
with his own eyes today’s NKR with its state symbols and everyday
life. This is more than Kosovo’s independence which "was drawn up" and
planned by American allies. Who knows, maybe Bryza, who is perfectly
and personally familiar with the political authorities of the NKR
and the Republic of Armenia, is destined to take up a new role – to
become a bridge for establishing direct dialogue between the NKR and
Azerbaijan? For Karabakh this would be a verge of breaking the rules
(because Azerbaijan may interpret this in a way that Bryza being the
US ambassador to Azerbaijan is establishing ties with Karabakh within
the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity) but, as the
saying goes, "fortune favours the daring"… [ellipses as published]
Karabakh now needs to be heard and it should be underlined that the
NKR is expected to gain more dividends from Bryza’s appointment than
Azerbaijan or Armenia.

Today, the person who will replace Bryza as the US co-chair of
the OSCE Minks Group is not yet known. So far, it is known that
Tina Kaidanow, head of the American mission in Kosovo (by the way,
this is a momentous appointment as well), will replace him in the
post of the [US] deputy assistant secretary of state. No-one knows
yet whether she would become a mediator in the Karabakh talks, but
Bryza noted that a US candidate for the post of the OSCE Minsk Group
[co-chair] "will satisfy both sides of the conflict". Which "both"
sides Bryza meant is difficult to say, in particular, in the context
of his new mission on establishing direct dialogue between the NKR
and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Nevertheless, Armenian and Karabakh political elites are yet
refraining from making hasty comments. Some political forces have
said that the appointment of Bryza is an unethical move by the Obama
administration. There even were people who said that "the Armenian
authorities should declare Bryza persona non grata"… [ellipses as
published] But in general, the Armenian authorities are waiting for
the time being: the new figure who will replace him in the OSCE [Minsk
Group] is more important now than Bryza. This appointment will dot the
"i" in the new US policy in the region. The policy which has stopped
staking on Georgia, has been fed up with open confrontation with
Russia and which wants to restore the past "mutual love" with Turkey
and desires, as always, to play first fiddle in our region. In this
regard, Bryza has been quite successful in his role. But the second
part is ahead of us, where Azerbaijan can "show its horns" to the USA;
based on Georgian experience Armenia may suddenly "seek support" from
the USA, correspondingly reacting to the Turkish-Russian alliance;
Turkey may again "wag its tail" in accordance with oriental customs,
especially as no-one has cancelled the day of 24 April [anniversary of
killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915] on the calendar
and it always comes; and Russia… [ellipses as published] – as always
"one cannot understand it with reason"… [ellipses as published]

We will have to wait for better times together with possibly
"Azerbaijanized" Bryza and the new interests of regional subjects and
objects, but also with the understanding that until today there has
been no diplomat or a non-diplomat in Azerbaijan who would clearly
understand that "the status of Nagornyy Karabakh is the most important
part of the Karabakh settlement" and that the Armenian authorities
will never budge on this point.

TURKISH MINISTER SAYS RECOGNISING BORDERS "BASIC ELEMENT" OF TALKS WITH ARMENIA

Anadolu Ajansi
Sept 1 2009
Turkey

Ankara, 1 September: Turkish foreign minister said on Tuesday that
there was currently a six-week internal political process which started
with the two protocols initialized by Turkey and Armenia yesterday.

In an interview with NTV news channel during his visit to Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu commented on the two protocols that were recently initialized
by Turkish and Armenian authorities.

Davutoglu said that "recognizing borders" was an important element
of the protocols on "Establishment of Diplomatic Relations" and
"Development of Bilateral Relations" initialized by Turkey and Armenia
within the context of the efforts the two countries had been displaying
under the mediation of Switzerland.

"Recognizing borders in line with the international norms stemming
from Kars agreement is a basic element. Without that, we cannot talk
about being neighbours," Davutoglu said.

Commenting on the six-week internal political process that started
with the protocols, Davutoglu said an agreement would be signed by
the end of such period.

"The agreement will be signed, however, both countries have their
own methods of domestic law. It should be presented to our parliament
for approval," he said.

STATE TO HEAR SCHMIDT ‘BLOOD MONEY’ CASE
By Quan Truong, [email protected]

Cincinnati.com
http://news.c incinnati.com/article/20090902/NEWS0108/909030313/ State+to+hear+Schmidt++blood+money++case
Sept 2 2009

The denial of genocide. Allegations of "blood money." Celebrity
lawyers fighting against accusations of campaign libel.

Political battles can get ugly but few have touched on such
controversial and far-reaching matters as Thursday’s hearing on
U.S. Rep Jean Schmidt’s complaint against congressional opponent
David Krikorian.

The Ohio Elections Commission will hear evidence on whether Krikorian,
an Armenian-American, wrongfully accused the congresswoman of taking
$30,000 in "blood money to deny the genocide of Christian Armenians
by Muslim Turks" during World War I.

Krikorian ran as an independent against Schmidt for the 2nd
Congressional District in 2008 and plans to try again next year as
a Democratic candidate.

He printed the accusation on fliers and placed them on the windshields
of cars the weekend before last year’s election, said Schmidt’s
spokesman, Bruce Pfaff, calling it a "desperation tactic."

"When you make a false accusation against someone, you better have
the facts to back it up and he doesn’t," he said. "It’s ridiculous
what he did and how he did it. It was dirty and certainly underhanded."

Krikorian said he stands behind how he ran his campaign, calling
Schmidt a "dirty politician who has a reckless disregard for the
truth."

"I think Mrs. Schmidt is being used, perhaps unknowingly, by the
Turkish government to further their interests in the U.S.," he
said. "There are no Turkish interests in this area. Why would they
have showered her with these contributions?…The issue is that
we have a representative on the taking and bought off by a special
interest group."

Schmidt’s campaign last year raised nearly $20,000 from Turkish donors
in one full swoop during a lunch in Newport. She is also part of the
caucus on U.S.-Turkey relations and has opposed a House resolution to
recognize the Armenian genocide. A fuming Krikorian shot off public
statements when Schmidt attended a Memorial Day conference in the
country paid for by the Turkish Coalition of America.

During a deposition on Aug. 24, attorneys grilled Schmidt about her
knowledge of the events of 1915, when a large number of Armenians
– some say up to 1.5 million – died under the rule of the Ottoman
Empire. Whether the massacre should be labeled as genocide remains
disputed.

At one point, Schmidt said she believes the deaths in Turkey were
never proven to be government-sponsored, which is required to label
what happened as genocide. She insisted contributions were offered
for no reason other than they believed she was the better candidate.

The hearing is expected to include testimony from Sibel Edmonds, a
former FBI translator turned whistleblower, about illegal political
influences between the Turkish and American governments. Her deposition
was the first time she spoke publicly, breaking a long-standing gag
order issued after she was fired.

Krikorian has recruited Armenian-American Mark Geragos, a celebrity
lawyer and frequent talk show guest, to help with his case. Geragos
is well-known for representing late pop star Michael Jackson and the
family of David Carradine, an American actor found dead in Thailand
earlier this year.

He is expected to be at the hearing, Krikorian said.

Coverage of the case has splashed over blogs and even reached Turkish
and Armenian media outlets.

"We’re not the ones who created this circus sideshow act," Pfaff
said. "We’re fully confident they will find these are false charges
against the congresswoman and we have full faith that she’ll be
proven truthful."

Decisions are typically made the day of the hearing but on occasion
have been dragged out for months, depending on the load of evidence.

The commission could dismiss Schmidt’s complaints or recommend a
penalty that could include fines against Krikorian for making false
statements.

"I’ll be happy when it’s over," Krikorian said. "She’s spending
all this time pursing what I believe is a frivolous case instead of
focusing on health care. The people of the district would be much
better served if we focused on the issues of today."

NEW STATISTICS: WHO IS THE FIRST LEBANESE LEADER?

tayyar.org
Sept 2 2009
Lebanon

The Christians’ first leader is General Michel Aoun and Berri is the
first Muslim Leader.

As-Safir Daily Published on its Wednesday edition, a new statistics
completed by "The Information International", which explored the
Lebanese opinion about who is the First Lebanese leader. The results
came as such:

1-The first Lebanese leader: 21.8% of the Lebanese respondents said
"No One" is the first Lebanese leader; If we add to them 3.5% of the
respondents who did not specify their answer and 2.1% who answered by
"We do not know", we will have more than a quarter of the Lebanese
respondents who did not identify any leader.

Meanwhile (14.1%) chose President Nabih Berri as the first leader
followed by Mr. Nasrallah and Saad Hariri who got even results (13.6%),
followed by General Aoun (13.1%).

Both President Suleiman and Samir Geagea got even results (4.8%),
Walid Jumblatt (2.6%), Amin Gemayel (1.2%) and (4.8%) did not identify
any names.

The answers according to religion sects showed that: -(47.6%) of the
Shiites respondents considered the President Nabih Berri as the first
Lebanese leader followed by Sayyed Nasrallah (34.1%).

-(43.1%) of the Sunnis respondents considered Saad Hariri as the
first Lebanese Sunni’s leader without competition.

-(29.5%) of the Maronites respondents considered General Michel Aoun as
the first Lebanese leader, in comparison to (13.6%) for Samir Geagea.

These results were compared to the results of a poll
taken in June 2008; we discerned a noticeable progress in
President Nabih Berri’s position, which in 2008 ranked in
fourth place by (10.2%), after Sayyed Nasrallah (12%),
Michel Aoun (11.3 %), and Saad al-Hariri (9.7%). Fig. 1
hotoAlbum.htm?AID=24861

2- The Sects Leaders -First Maronite Leader: 38,5% of the Lebanese
respondents said that the First Maronite Lebanese leader is General
Michel Aoun, followed by Samir Geagea (10,6%), Michel Suleiman( 5.5%,)
while ( 20.8%) of the respondents did not identify any leader. Fig. 2
According to the Maronite sect, (35.9%) of the respondents considered
the First Maronite leader is Michel Aoun, followed by Samir Geagea
(20.9%) and (4.1%) Michel Suleiman. These results were compared to
June 2008 Survey, when (35.9%) of the Maronite respondents considered
General Aoun as the First Maronite leader followed by Samir Geagea
(12.3%).

-First Orthodox Leader: 73.6 % of the Lebanese respondents said
that they don’t know who the first Orthodox Leader is, while (13.4%)
said that Michel Murr is the first Orthodox leader, followed by Najah
Wakim (with a large difference in margin 2.6%). Fig. 3 According to
the Orthodox sect, (20%) of the respondents considered Michel Murr as
the first Orthodox leader, while the poll did not show any proportion
for Mr. Najah Wakim. Compared to June 2008 Survey, Michel Murr was
also the first Orthodox leader by (18.2%).

-First Catholic Leader: 46.1% of the Lebanese respondents said
that they don’t know who the first Catholic Leader is, while (20.5%)
answered by "We don’t Know" and (16.4%) refused to answer, which means
that (83%) of the respondents don’t think there is a First Catholic
Leader while both Mr. Elias Skaff and Michel Pharaon got even results
(7.3%).

According to the Catholic sect, (22%) of the respondents considered
that Michel Pharaon is the Leader, followed by Elias Skaff
(15%). Compared to June 2008 Survey, (9.4%) of the respondents
believed that Skaff was the first Orthodox leader while it didn’t
show any significant level of support to Pharaon.

-First Armenian Leader: 18.4% of the Lebanese considered that the MP
Hagop Pakradounian is the first Armenian Leader followed by Hovik
Mekhitarian, the Tashnak Secretary-General (4.5%) while (40.8%)
did not identify any leader.

According to the Armenian Sect, half of the respondents (48%)
considered that Hovik Mekhitarian is the first Armenian Leader followed
by Hagop Pakradounian (18.2%).

Compared to June 2008 Survey, (11.8%) considered Hagop Pakradounian
as the first Armenian Leader while it didn’t show any significant
support to Mr. Hovik Mekhitarian.

-First Sunni Leader: 61.3% of the Lebanese respondents considered Saad
Hariri as the first Sunni leader, followed by President Salim el-
Hoss (7.6%) and President Omar Karameh (2.1%) and President Najib
Mikati (1.2%). Fig. 4 According to the Sunni Sect, (71.5%) of the
respondents considered Saad Hariri the first Sunni leader, followed
by President el Hoss (2.9%). Compared to June 2008 Survey, (38.6%)
of the respondents considered Hariri the first Leader, followed by
Hoss (9.5%), Omar Karami (5.6%) and (1.6%) to Mikati. The 2009 Survey
showed a great progress for Saad Hariri.

-First Shiite Leader: 48.3% of the Lebanese respondents considered
that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is the first Shiite leader, followed
by Speaker Nabih Berri (30.5%). Fig. 5 According to the Shiite Sect,
(30.7%) of the respondents considered that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is
the first Shiite leader while President Nabih Berri ranked first by
(62.9%). A big progress for the Speaker Berri in comparison to the
2008 Survey, because the majority of the respondents combined both
politics and religion figures when it comes to Sayyed Nasrallah,
which led to a confusion in the 2009 poll.

It is to be noted that in June 2008 Survey, Sayyed Nasrallah was
considered the first Shiite leader by (41.1%) followed by President
Berri by (19.2%).

-First Druze Leader: 45.8% of the Lebanese respondents considered PSP
Walid Jumblatt the first Druze leader, followed by MP Talal Arslan
(11.2%) then former minister Wiaam Wahab (10.6%).

According to the Druze Sect, (82.1%) of the respondents considered
PSP Walid Jumblatt the first Druze leader, followed by Arslan (3.6%)
and Wahab (1.8%).

Compared to June 2008 Survey, (34.3%) considered PSP Walid Jumblatt
the first Druze leader, Arslan (15.5%) and Wahab (5.3%).

The majority of Lebanese believe that no one deserves the title of
the first Lebanese leader, or that no one is the first leader.

The poll was conducted within the City of the Greater Beirut, between
August 11 and 15, 2009. It included a sample of 995 voters from all
of Lebanon, dispersed according to Sects, Sex, and Age.

According to sects: Maronite 22.1%, Orthodox 7.5%, Catholics 5%,
Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Catholics 3.3%, Sunni 27.5%, Shiite
28.6%, Druze 5.6% and 2.2 % Christian minorities.

According to the Sex: 66.3% male and 33.7% female.

According to the age groups: -8.9% were between the ages of 21-24.

-20.5% were between the ages of 25-34.

-2.7% were between the ages of 35-44.

-21.4% were between the ages of 45-54.

-12.2% were between the ages of 55-64.

– 7.2% were 65 years old and above.

FIVE FRENCH ASTRONOMERS TO ARRIVE IN ARMENIA

ARMENPRESS
SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
YEREVAN

Conference of Armenian and French astronomers will take place September
21-25 in Byurakan Observatory after Victor Hambardzumyan. Director
of the Observatory Hayk Harutyunyan told Armenpress that five
astronomers from France will take part in the conference and present
the achievements of their country in astronomy as well as the events
organized in France in the sidelines of "International Astronomy
Year". During the meeting issues on development of astronomy in
Armenia and development of cooperation between the two countries in
the sphere will be discussed.

UNESCO declared the year of 2009 International Astronomy Year the
goal of which is to make astronomy available to different clusters
of the society.

ACCORDING TO ANC, PROTOCOLS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN ARMENIA AND TURKEY ARE CONSIDERABLE ADVANCE IN THAT DIRECTION

NOYAN TAPAN
SEPTEMBER 2, 2009
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 2, NOYAN TAPAN. The Armenian National Congress
Central Office has made a statement presenting its estimation to
the agreement reached by Armenia and Turkey on starting domestic
political consultations over two protocols presigned during
negotiations conducted with the mediation of Switzerland (Protocol
on Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the Two Countries
and Protocol on Development of Bilateral Relations).

Mentioning that normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations is
in the interests of the two countries and peoples, as well as in
the interests of regional peace and stability, ANC states that the
protocols on establishment of diplomatic relations and on development
of bilateral relations between Armenia and Turkey are a considerable
advance in that direction.

Meanwhile ANC considers inadmissible the provision on creation of
an intergovernmental commission of Armenian and Turkish historians,
which casts a doubt on the fact of the Armenian Genocide.

"The condition of ratification of the mentioned documents by the
two countries’ parliaments causes anxiety, it gives Serzh Sargsyan
a possibility to share with the parliament the responsibility of
creating the commission and Turkey to delay the issue of ratification
with the motivation of Nagorno Karabakh problem’s being not settled,
and thus to delay the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border," the
ANC statement read.

ARMENIAN AND TURKISH PROTOCOLS

olitics&pid=15026
11:15:17 – 01/09/2009

Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued two protocols signed by
Armenia and Turkey under Swiss mediation.

Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.

The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.

Desiring to establish good neighbourly relations and to develop
bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and other
fields for the benefit of their peoples, as envisaged in the Protocol
on the development of relations signed on the same day.

Referring to their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations,
the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe,

Reconfirming their commitment, in their bilateral and international
relations, to respect and ensure respect for the principles of
equality, sovereignty, non-intervention in internal affairs of other
states, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers,

Bearing in mind the importance of the creation and maintenance of an
atmosphere of trust and confidence between the two countries that will
contribute to the strengthening of peace, security and stability of the
whole region, as well as being determined to refrain from the threat
of the use of force, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes,
and to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Confirming the mutual recognition of the existing border between the
two countries as defined relevant treaties of international law,

Emphasizing their decisions to open the common border,

Reiterating their commitment to refrain from pursuing any policy
incompatible with the spirit of good neighbourly relations,

Condemning all forms of terrorism, violence and extremism irrespective
of their cause, pledging to refrain from encouraging and tolerating
such acts and to cooperate against them,

Affirming their willingness to chart a new pattern and course for
their relations on the basis of common interests, goodwill and in
pursuit of peace, mutual understanding and harmony,

Agree to establish diplomatic relations as of the date of the entry
into force of this Protocol accordance with the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and to exchange Diplomatic Missions.

This Protocol and the Protocol on the Development of Bilateral
Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
shall enter into force on the same day, i.e. on the first day of the
first month following of instruments of ratification.

Signed in (place) on (date) in Armenian, Turkish and English languages
authentic copies in duplicate. In case of divergence of interpretation,
the English text shall prevail.

For the Republic of Armenia

For the Republic of Turkey

Protocol on Development of Relations between the Republic of Armenia
and the Republic of Turkey.

The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.

Guided by the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations
between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey signed on
the same day,

Considering the perspectives of developing their bilateral relations,
based on confidence and respect to their mutual interests,

Determining to develop and enhance their bilateral relations, in the
political, economic, energy, transport, scientific, technical, cultural
issues and other fields, based on common interest of both countries,

Supporting the promotion of the cooperation between the two countries,
in the international and regional organi9zations, especially within the
framework of the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council and the BSEC,

Taking into account the common purpose of both States to cooperate for
enchancimg regional stability and security for ensuring the democratic
and sustainable development of the region,

Reiterating their commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional
and international disputes and the conflicts on the basis of the
norms and principles of law,

Reaffirming their readiness to actively support the actions of eth
international community in addressing common security threats to
the region and world security and stability, such as terrorism,
transnational organized crimes, illicit trafficking of drugs and arms,

1. Agree to open the common border within 2 months after the entry
into force of this Protocol,

2. Agree to conduct regular political consultations between the
Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the two countries;

implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim
to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including
an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and
archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations;

make the best possible use of existing transport, communications
and energy infrastructure and networks between the two countries,
and to undertake measures in this regard;

develop the bilateral legal framework in order to foster cooperation
between the two countries;

cooperate in the fields of science and education by encouraging
relations between the appropriate institutions as well as promoting
the exchange of specialists and students, and act with the aim of
preserving the cultural heritage of both sides and launching common
cultural projects;

establish consular cooperation in accordance with the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations of 1963 in order to provide necessary assistance
and protection to the citizens of the two countries;

take concrete measures in order to develop trade, tourism and economic
cooperation between the two countries; engage in a dialogue and
reinforce their cooperation on environmental issues.

3. Agree on the establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral
commission which shall comprise separate sub-commissions for the
prompt implementation of the commitments mentioned in operational
paragraph 2 above in this Protocol. To prepare the working modalities
of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions, a
working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall
be created 2 months after the day following the entry into force of
this Protocol. Within 3 months after the entry into force of this
Protocol, these modalities shall be approved at ministerial level. The
intergovernmental commission shall meet for the first time immediately
after the adoption of the said modalities. The sub-commissions shall
start their work at the latest 1 month thereafter and they shall work
continuously until the completion of their mandates. The timetable
and elements agreed by both sides for the implementation of this
Protocol are mentioned in the annexed document, which is integral
part of this Protocol.

This Protocol and the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic
Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
shall enter into force on the same day, i.e. on the first day of the
first month following the exchange of instruments of ratification.

Signed in (place) on (date) in Armenian, Turkish and English authentic
copies in duplicate. In case of divergence of interpretation, the
English text shall prevail.

For the Republic of Armenia

For the Republic of Turkey

Annexed document: Timetable and elements for the implementation of
the Protocol on development of relations between the Republic of
Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.

Timetable and elements for the implementation of the Protocol on
development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the
Republic of Turkey

Steps to be undertaken

Timing

1. to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into
force of the Protocol on the development of relations between the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey

2. to establish a working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign
Affairs to prepare the working modalities of the intergovernmental
commission and its sub-commission

2 months after the day following the entry into force of the Protocol
on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and
the Republic of Turkey

3. to approve the working modalities of the intergovernmental
commission and its sub-commissions at ministerial level

within 3 months after the entry into force of the Protocol on
the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and
the Republic of Turkey 4. to organize the first meeting of the
intergovernmental commission

immediately after the adoption of the working modalities of the
intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions at ministerial
level

5. to operate the following sub-commissions:

the sub-commission on political consultations; the sub-commission on
transport, communications and energy infrastructure and networks;
the sub-commission on legal matters; the sub-commission on science
and education; the sub-commission on trade, tourism and economic
cooperation; the sub-commission on environmental issues: and the
sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue
with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations,
including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records
and archive to define existing problems and formulate recommendations,
in which Armenian, Turkish as well as Swiss and other international
experts shall take part.

ARMENIA SHOULD MAINTAIN ITS DIGNITY WHILE NORMALIZING RELATIONS WITH TURKEY

PanARMENIAN.Net
01.09.2009 15:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The closed border and absence of relations between
Armenia and Turkey conflict with the logic of the 21st century,
Armenia’s Ambassador to the EU said.

"Yesterday statement issued by the Armenian and Turkish Foreign
Ministries is the regular move in the framework of football diplomacy
and it’s hard to predict its consequences. The most important thing is
that Armenia should maintain its dignity while normalizing relations
with Turkey," Avet Adonts said.

"Turkey’s any attempt to impose terms on Yerevan will frustrate the
ongoing process," he said.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Monday that Turkey would
"guard" Azerbaijan’s interest during its reconciliation with Armenia.

"Officials can make different statements but the fact is that there
is a document, which outlines the agreements achieved before," the
Armenian diplomat commented.

RUBEN SAFRASTYAN: PROTOCOLS DIRECTED TOWARD NORMALIZATION OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS IMPORTANT ACHIEVEMENT OF ARMENIAN DIPLOMACY

ARMENPRESS
Sep 1, 2009

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: The protocols directed toward
normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations are important achievements
of the Armenian diplomacy, Director of Eastern Sciences Institute of
the Armenian Academy of Sciences, Turkish Scientist Ruben Safrastyan
said today at a press conference, pointing out that these documents
must be treated very seriously. "Of course, very serious work has been
carried out and it might be said that these documents are important
and positive for Armenia," he said, adding that the positive thing is
that Turkey refused to tie relations with Armenia with its stance in
the Karabakh conflict regulation process as the document says nothing
connecting Armenian-Turkish relations with Karabakh issue.

He said that the Turkish diplomacy was trying to make Armenia reject
its Genocide recognition policy. "In these documents, though, we see
that Turkey has also stepped back from forwarding pre-conditions,"
Safrastyan pointed out, noting that, though, it does not mean that
Turkey in short period of time will implement its commitments. "It
will be a long process during which our diplomats must preserve the
current attacking strategy," Safrastyan pointed out, adding that
Armenia will reach its final goal and relations with Turkey will
normalize without preconditions.

The speaker said that such sharp step of Turkey is explained
with the latter’s active policy in the region. Turkey’s leadership
understood that it is not right to tie country’s foreign policy with
interests of another country – Azerbaijan. Besides, normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations is one of the demands of EU to Turkey.

MUSEUMS OF ARMENIA RECEIVE ABOUT 7 THOUSAND EXHIBITS

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.08.2009 20:38 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In 2007, the museums of Armenia received about
2 thousand museum pieces, while in 2008 – about 7 thousand, Hasmik
Poghosyan , the Minister of Culture said at the presentation of the
first issue of the Museum scientific journal in Yerevan today.

According to Hasmik Poghosyan, with such an influx of exhibits, a
developed system of museum management is necessary, which implies an
advanced management system for museums to work properly to present
exhibits to the general public.