Author: Kalantarian Kevo

Mutu joins Romania squad travelling to Armenia
Sun 14 November, 2004 17:54
Reuters, UK
Nov 14 2004
BUCHAREST, Nov 14 (Reuters) – Romania striker Adrian Mutu, banned
for seven months after testing positive for cocaine, joined up with
their squad on Sunday as they left for Yerevan to face Armenia in a
World Cup qualifier next week.
Mutu, who returned home earlier in the day from Italy, did not
comment on his future nor his decision to train with the national
team following his sacking by Chelsea last month.
This week FIFA allowed him to train with Dinamo Bucharest or any
other club but said he could not play friendlies or official games
during his suspension which expires on May 18, 2005.
Mutu’s team mates welcomed their captain with striker Florin Bratu
saying: “His presence among us is a good news. He’ll back us and
we’ll make him forget for a while his problem”.
Mutu scored decisive goals in Romania’s 2-1 wins in World Cup
qualifying Group One over Finland and Macedonia in August and September
respectively last year.
Romania, who top the group with nine points after four matches,
will play Armenia on Wednesday.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Arafat’s Soviet Connection: Another ”Legacy” the Media Will Ignore
Written by Cinnamon Stillwell
ChronWatch, CA
Nov 12 2004
Earlier this year, Frontpage.com interviewed Ion Mihai Pacepa,
former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service. In the
course of the interview, Pacepa elaborated on his previous dealings
with Yassir Arafat and the PLO. It turns out that both were
creations of the Soviet Union, whose classic anti-Semitism combined
with Cold War geopolitical alliances, made them hostile to Israel.
And in Arafat, they found the perfect mouthpiece through which to try
and destroy the Jewish State.
Although ultimately unsuccessful in this goal, the propaganda
offensive did incalculable damage to Israe’s reputation, even to this
day. In particular, the language of anti-Zionism, also created by
the Soviet Union (read more about that here:
), made a lasting impression.
In light of Arafat’s recent demise and the mainstream media’s
collective amnesia about his legacy of tyranny and terrorism, it
seemed fitting to revive the Pacepa interview. The section dealing
with Arafat and the PLO is excerpted below. To read the entire
interview, follow the link at the bottom.
FP: Tell us about the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime.
Pacepa: The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for
”liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army
of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto ”Che”
Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia,
created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was
soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings, and
guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out
numerous bombing attacks on the ”Palestinian territories” occupied
by Israel, and the ”Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created
by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against
U.S. airline offices in Western Europe.
In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian
representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian
National Charter–a document that had been drafted in Moscow. The
Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were
also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence
agent who became the first PLO chairman. (During the Six-Day War he
escaped from Jerusalem disguised as a woman, thereafter becoming such
a symbol within the bloc intelligence community that one of its later
influence operations–aimed at making the West consider Arafat a
moderate–was given the codename ”Shuqairy.”) This new PLO was
headed by a Soviet-style Executive Committee made up of 15 members
who, like their comrades in Moscow, also headed departments. As in
Moscow–and Bucharest–the chairman of the Executive Committee became
the general commander of the armed forces as well. The new PLO also
had a General Assembly, which was the Soviet-inspired name given to
all East European parliaments after World War II.
Based on another ”socialist division of labor,” the Romanian
espionage service (DIE) was responsible for providing the PLO with
logistical support. Except for the arms, which were supplied by the
KGB and the East German Stasi, everything else came from Bucharest.
Even the PLO uniforms and the PLO stationery were manufactured in
Romania free of charge, as a ”comradely help.” During those years,
two Romanian cargo planes filled with goodies for the PLO landed in
Beirut every week, and were unloaded by Arafat’s men.
FP: You have discussed your personal knowledge of how Arafat was
created and cultivated by the KGB and how the Soviets actually
designed him to be the future leader of the PLO. Illuminate this
picture for us please.
Pacepa: ”Tovarishch Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat
al-Qudwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar,” was built into a
Palestinian leader by the KGB in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day
Arab-Israeli War. In that war Israel humiliated two of the Soviet
Union’s most important allies in the Arab world of that time, Egypt
and Syria, and the Kremlin thought that Arafat could help repair the
Soviet prestige. Arafat had begun his political career as leader of
the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah, whose fedayeen were
being secretly trained in the Soviet Union. In 1969, the KGB managed
to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO executive committee.
Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a Soviet puppet,
publicly proposed the appointment.
Soon after that, the KGB tasked Arafat to declare war on American
”imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black
International, an organization that was also financed by the KGB.
Arafat claimed to have coined the word ”imperial-Zionism,” but in
fact Moscow had invented this battle cry many years earlier,
combining the traditionally Russian anti-Semitism with the new
Marxist anti-Americanism.
FP: Why has the American and Israeli leadership been deceived so long
about Arafat’s criminal and terrorist activities?
Pacepa: Because Arafat is a master of deceit–and I unfortunately
contributed to that. In March 1978, for instance, I secretly brought
Arafat to Bucharest to involve him in a long-planned Soviet/Romanian
disinformation plot. Its goal was to get the United States to
establish diplomatic relations with him, by having him pretend to
transform the terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile that was
willing to renounce terrorism. Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev
believed that newly elected U.S. president Jimmy Carter would swallow
the bait. Therefore, he told the Romanian dictator that conditions
were ripe for introducing Arafat into the White House. Moscow gave
Ceausescu the job because by 1978 my boss had become Washington’s
most favored tyrant. ”The only thing people in the West care about
is our leaders,” the KGB chairman said, when he enrolled me in the
effort of making Arafat popular in Washington. ”The more they come
to love them, the better they will like us.”
”But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded, after Ceausescu
explained what the Kremlin wanted from him. ”We were born as a
revolution, and we should remain an unfettered revolution.” Arafat
expostulated that the Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and
discipline to become a formal state. That statehood was only
something for a future generation. That all governments, even
Communist ones, were limited by laws and international agreements,
and he was not willing to put any laws or other obstacles in the way
of the Palestinian struggle to eradicate the state of Israel.
My former boss was able to persuade Arafat into tricking President
Carter only by resorting to dialectical materialism, for both were
fanatical Stalinists who knew their Marxism by heart. Ceausescu
sympathetically agreed that ”a war of terror is your only realistic
weapon,” but he also told his guest that, if he would transform the
PLO into a government-in-exile and would pretend to break with
terrorism, the West would shower him with money and glory. ”But you
have to keep on pretending, over and over,” my boss emphasized.
Ceausescu pointed out that political influence, like dialectical
materialism, was built upon the same basic tenet that quantitative
accumulation generates qualitative transformation. Both work like
cocaine, let’s say. If you sniff it once or twice, it may not change
your life. If you use it day after day, though, it will make you
into an addict, a different man. That’s the qualitative
transformation. And in the shadow of your government-in-exile you
can keep as many terrorist groups as you want, as long as they are
not publicly connected with your name.
In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he
convinced President Jimmy Carter that he could persuade Arafat to
transform his PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile, if the
United States would establish official relations with him.
Thereupon, President Carter publicly hailed Ceausescu as a ”great
national and international leader” who had ”taken on a role of
leadership in the entire international community.”
Three months later I was granted political asylum by the United
States, and Romania’s tyrant lost his dream of getting the Nobel
Peace Prize. A quarter of a century later, however, Arafat remains
in place as the PLO chairman and seems to still be on track with the
Kremlin’s game of deception. In 1994, Arafat was granted the Nobel
Peace Prize because he agreed to transform his terrorist organization
into a kind of government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority) and
pretended, over and over, that he would abolish the articles in the
1964 PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of the state of
Israel and would eradicate Palestinian terrorism. At the end of the
1998-99 Palestinian school year, however, all one hundred and fifty
new schoolbooks used by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority described
Israel as the ”Zionist enemy” and equated Zionism with Nazism. Two
years after the Oslo Accords were signed, the number of Israelis
killed by Palestinian terrorists rose by 73% compared to the two year
period preceding the agreement.
To read the entire interview, go to:
–Boundary_(ID_pMYD5ATIpSI4gwemSvsh/w)–

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
November 10, 2004
___________________
THREE NORTH AMERICAN DIOCESES SEND REPRESENTATIVES TO MEETING ORGANIZED
BY ACYOA
They came from every corner of the continent, and it quickly became
apparent that these young Armenians had a lot in common, and together
could take advantage of a number of opportunities.
>>From October 1 to 3, 2004, delegates from each of the three North
American dioceses of the Armenian Church — the Diocese of the Armenian
Church of America (Eastern), the Western Diocese, and the Canadian
Diocese — met at the Eastern Diocese’s Ararat Center to discuss common
concerns and challenges related to youth involvement in the church.
“This meeting was an opportunity to unify the youth organizations of our
dioceses,” said Mathew Ash, the youth director for the Western Diocese.
“For the first time I felt as though we were all striving for the same
goals. I feel as though we have a great deal more to discuss. I pray
that we’ll be able to capitalize on this event.”
SHARED OPPORTUNITIES
Each diocese sent four representatives to the meeting. They explored
the possibility of a joint event that would assemble even more young
people from the three dioceses. They also investigated the feasibility
of sponsoring a joint pilgrimage to Armenia and drafted a document to
present to the respective primates and diocesan councils on ways to
involve youth in the life of the church.
The weekend was organized by the Central Council of the Armenian Church
Youth Organization of America (ACYOA) of the Diocese of the Armenian
Church of America (Eastern).
“This meeting was something we have wanted to do for several years. By
creating a network of communication, the ACYOA, ACYO-WD (Armenian Church
Youth Organization — Western Diocese), and ACYOC (Armenian Church Youth
Organization of Canada) will be able to work together to strengthen each
of our organizations and fulfill our common mission, bringing the youth
of the Armenian Church closer to God,” said Eastern Diocese
representative Maria Derderian, a member of the ACYOA Central Council.
The weekend was more than talking; it included matins and vespers
services and a presentation on discipleship by Fr. Stepanos Doudoukjian,
pastor of the St. Peter Church of Watervliet, NY. That Sunday, the
young participants traveled to Watervliet to attend a Divine Liturgy and
brunch at St. Peter Church. During brunch, a representative from each
of the three Dioceses spoke with the parish gathering about their
respective service programs in Armenia.
“It’s inspiring to see so many dedicated, young members of the Armenian
Church,” Fr. Doudoukjian said. “I pray they will be disciples of the
Lord and witness their faith to others.”
PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
After three days of discussion, brainstorming, and sharing past
experiences and future hopes, the group came up with a few goals for the
combined youth of the three dioceses to focus on.
Delegates plan to organize an annual Pan-North American Youth Retreat
for the next three years during late September or early October. They
hope between 75 and 100 young people can attend the sessions, which will
be hosted by the three dioceses on a rotating schedule.
Another proposal they agreed on is to organize a Pan-Armenian youth
gathering in Armenia for 2008.
The group also agreed to more coordination in regard to their respective
service programs in Armenia. ACYOA organizes the Armenia Service
Program (ASP), through which young people work as camp counselors in
Armenia. The ACYO-WD this year inaugurated its Church Youth Mission to
Armenia, which allows participants to spend a month working as an intern
in Armenia.
The group decided to jointly promote the various opportunities for young
people to serve the Armenian homeland. Also, the various trips will be
scheduled so they overlap, allowing participants from each program to
mingle with those of the others.
“It was a pleasure meeting friends from all across North America and
getting their perspectives on the goings on of their respective
Dioceses. Hopefully we can build a brighter and stronger future for
generations to come,” said Talar Chichmanian, a representative of the
ACYOC, which is just getting established.
Attending the meeting as representatives of the Diocese of the Armenian
Church of America (Eastern) were: Maria Derderian, ACYOA Central Council
public relations coordinator and member of the Sts. Sahag and Mesrob
Church, Wynnewood, PA; Dn. Diran Jebejian, ACYOA Central Council vice
chair and member of the St. Leon Church, Fair Lawn, NJ; Saro Kalayjian,
former ACYOA Central Council chair and member of the St. Mary Church,
Washington, D.C.; and Karen Khatchadourian, ACYOA Central Council
programming coordinator and member of the St. Thomas Church, Tenafly,
NJ.
Attending the session as representatives of the Diocese of the Armenian
Church of Canada were: Talar Chichmanian, parishioner at the St. Gregory
Cathedral, Montreal, Quebec; Armen DiMaria, ACYOC member from the Holy
Cross Church, Laval, Quebec; David Kaprielian, ACYOC member from the
Holy Cross Church, Laval, Quebec; and Shogher Menengichian, ACYOC member
from the Holy Trinity Church, Toronto, Ontario.
Attending the session as representatives of the Western Diocese of the
Armenian Church of America were: Hovig Artinian, ACYO-WD Central Council
chair and member of St. Paul Church, Fresno, CA; Matthew Ash, Diocesan
youth director and member of the St. James Church, Los Angeles, CA;
Abraham Chilingaryan, ACYO-WD Central Council advisor and member of the
St. John Church, Hollywood, CA; and Ryan Tellalian, ACYO-WD Central
Council secretary and member of the St. Mary Church, Yettem, CA.
Helping organize and leading discussions during the weekend were Fr.
Stepanos Doudoukjian, pastor of the St. Peter Church of Watervliet, NY;
Nancy Basmajian, ACYOA executive secretary; and Jason Demerjian, the
Eastern Diocese’s College Ministry facilitator.
— 11/10/04
E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News
and Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,
PHOTO CAPTION (1): Representatives from the three Armenian Church
dioceses of North America discuss shared opportunities and challenges
during a weekend retreat at the Eastern Diocese’s Ararat Center in
upstate New York on October 1 through 3, 2004.
PHOTO CAPTION (2): Fr. Stepanos Doudoukjian, pastor of the St. Peter
Church of Watervliet, NY, leads a discussion on discipleship and
stewardship during a gathering of young Armenian Church leaders from
throughout North America.
PHOTO CAPTION (3): Four representatives from each Armenian Church
diocese in North America gather at the St. Peter Church of Watervliet,
NY, on October 3, 2004, after a weekend of discussions and sharing of
ideas at the Ararat Center in upstate New York.
# # #

A1 Plus | 18:45:48 | 08-11-2004 | Official |
NOMINATED THE HEAD OF NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE
President Robert Kocharyan has today signed a decree on nominating
Gorik Hakobyan as the Head of National Security Service of Government,
relieving him from the post of Vice-head of National Security Service
of the Government.

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
November 5, 2004 Friday
Armenia says ready to deepen relations with NATO
By Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
Armenia is ready to deepen relationship with NATO, President Robert
Kocharian said here Friday as he received visiting NATO Secretary
General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Kocharian made known his personal conviction that the visit would be
useful for future cooperation, the presidential press said.
Armenia recently broadened the format of contacts with NATO, he said,
adding: “We already have an envoy to the alliance and are seeking a
greater role in a range of its programs”.
De Hoop Scheffer said NATO had positive relations with Armenia and
stressed the importance of this country’s participation in certain
programs.
Kocharian also presented Armenia’s angle of view at the prospects of
settling the dragged-out conflict in Nagorny Karabakh, a region of
Azerbaijan with a predominantly Armenian population where tensions have
persisted since 1987.

Milliyet, Turkey
Nov. 4, 2004
GERMAN GREENS LEADER VISITS ISTANBUL
Germany’s visiting Greens Group leader Claudia Roth accompanied by a
delegation yesterday held contacts in Istanbul. Roth visited the
Armenian and Fener Greek Patriarchates. Speaking to reporters at the
German Consulate, Roth said that she was holding a series of meetings
with Turkish officials to see how the nation’s reforms were being
implemented, adding that there were certain shortcomings. The Greens
leader then traveled to Diyarbakir in the late afternoon. /Milliyet/

Azeri pressure group pickets parliament over Armenian presence at NATO
seminar
ANS TV, Baku
4 Nov 04
[Presenter] Taking an opportunity of NATO Secretary-General Jaap de
Hoop Scheffer’s visit [to Azerbaijan], members of the Karabakh
Liberation Organization KLO] have protested against the participation
of Armenian MPs in the 58th Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly due in Baku on 26-28 November. The KLO members
staged a picket outside the Milli Maclis [Azerbaijani parliament].
[Correspondent, over video of protesters outside parliament] The KLO
members expressed their protest at the participation of the Armenian
MPs in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Rose-Roth seminar in Baku in
a more original way. Since law-enforcement bodies did not know that
members of the organization would picket the Milli Maclis, nobody
interfered in the protest. First, the protesters scattered leaflets
with various slogans outside the parliament building. The following
slogans were on these leaflets: “We are calling on the Azerbaijani
people to more actively protest against the visit of Armenian
representatives to Baku”, “Down with Armenian criminals”, “Yes to NATO
without aggressor Armenia”, “No to NATO protecting Armenia” etc.
The KLO members did not meet any obstacle till the door of the Milli
Maclis. The KLO first deputy chairman, first-grade Karabakh disabled
Firudin Mammadov, made an address.
[Firudin Mammadov, captioned] We do not have anything against
Azerbaijan’s relations with NATO. But NATO and all world organizations
should know that the Azerbaijani people and state have principles, and
Azerbaijan’s lands have been occupied by Armenia. And we are against
that occupation. We do not have any other principles.
[Correspondent] The pickets chanted other slogans too.
[Pickets shown waving their arms and chanting “Either Karabakh or
death, either Karabakh or death”].
[Correspondent] Although several policemen standing aside did not
interfere, top guards arrived and started dispersing the pickets after
the resolution was read out. But no particular violence was allowed
and nobody was detained. The detention of the protesters started only
after the delayed arrival of the employees of the Sabayil district
police department [in Baku]. When the policemen arrived, the
protesters were already trying to sit in their cars and drive away
from the parliament building. But the police pushed the protesters,
including drivers, out of the cars and took them to the station No 9
of the Sabayil district police department.
Rasad Isgandarov, Mahir Mammadli, Ibrahim Telmanoglu for ANS.

Another wave of film festivals
Taipei Times, Taiwan
29 Oct. 2004
The South Taiwan Film and Video Festival, and the second anniversary
film festival of SPOT — Taipei Film House are coming up
By Yu Sen-lun
STAFF REPORTER
The South Taiwan Film and Video Festival is quenching the thirst of
South Taiwan movie-goers for art-house movies.
PHOTOS COURTESY OF TAINAN ARTS UNIVERSITY
November is autumn and the start of Taiwan’s movie season. Raising the
curtain for a string of movie events is The South Taiwan Film and Video
Festival («n¤è¼v®i), and the second anniversary film festival for SPOT
— Taipei Film House (¥úÂI¥x¥_).
Later this month, Nov. 24, there is the annual Taipei Golden Horse Film
Festival (¥x¥_ª÷°¨¼v®i), the biggest film festival of Taiwan. In
December it is the Golden Horse Awards (ª÷°¨¼ú).
The South Taiwan Film and Video Festival starts next Tuesday in
Kaohsiung and is a festival aiming to balance the fact that most
art-house films are from Taipei.
Fifty feature-length films will be touring three south Taiwan cities —
Kaohsiung, Tainan and Chiayi. It can be seen as the largest film event
in Southern Taiwan.
The main feature this year at the festival is its collection of Chinese
independent movies made by young filmmakers, directors even younger
than the so-called Gen Z filmmakers.
Incense (­»¤õ) by Ning Hao (¹ç¯E) tells about a young monk’s journey
raising money in the city to repair an old and damaged Buddha
statue.Good Morning Beijing (¦­¦w¥_¨Ê) by Pan Jianlin (¼ï¼CªL) is about
an abduction one night in the back alleys of Beijing. Tang Poetry
(­ð¸Ö) tells about a thief’s personal transition after finding out he
suffers from muscular dystrophy and is forced to change his
“profession.” Raw quality and low budgets are the main features of
these Chinese independent movies.
The South Taiwan Film Festival will screen documentaries that have
recently made headlines. Canadian director Atom Egoyan’s Arayat, a
drama looking at the historical truth of the Armenian genocide, and
Blackboard, a humorous story about the deficit of education in Iran’s
mountain area, will both come back to the silver screen for southern
Taiwanese movie fans.
Meanwhile, in Taipei, next Tuesday is also the opening day for a film
festival — the My Camera Film Festival (·í§Ú³Û¥X¶}³Á©Ô), celebrating
the two-year anniversary of SPOT — Taipei Film House.
The first feature of the festival is a mini retro screening of director
Cheng Wen-tang’s (¾G¤å°ó) films. Cheng is a filmmaker who gained fame
along with the growth of SPOT in the past two years.
His Venice film festival award-winning dramaSomewhere Over the
Dreamland (¹Ú¤Û³¡¸¨) was premiered at SPOT two years ago. The mini
retro will showcase Cheng’s previous works, when he was a documentary
maker in the 1980s and 1990s focusing on political issues and
environmental protection.
The Days Without the Government (¨S¦³¬F©²ªº¤é¤l, 1987) tells about a
200-day long protest by employees of a chemical factory banding
together because of the dumping of chemical waste into the nearby
river. The Contract with Tso-shui River (¿B¤ô·Ëªº«´¬ù, 1999) is a
documentary dwelling on the past glory days of Taiwan longest river.
Another theme of the festival is to show the winning films of past
winners at Taipei film festivals. Taipei Film Festival serves to
discover talents among Taiwanese filmmakers.
The Taipei Film Awards have in the past two years become a dream award
of young filmmakers seeking recognition apart from the more mainstream
Golden Horse Awards.
But after winning the awards, most filmmakers find it difficult to
screen their films because Taiwan is short of art-house movie theaters.
SPOT, as Taiwan’s first arts movie theater, offers the opportunity for
moviegoers to appreciate the independent spirit of the winning films.
Tickets for both the South Taiwan Film Festival and the My Camera Film
Festival are available from the Web site:
–Boundary_(ID_rU9ilP2BQqxXRlkDG1edQA)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Karabakh official slams UN decision to discuss Azerbaijan’s Karabakh proposal
Mediamax news agency
29 Oct 04
Yerevan, 29 October: “The UN discussion of the situation on the
Nagornyy Karabakh-controlled territories initiated by Azerbaijan proves
once again that the Azerbaijani side is not interested in settling
the whole complex of problems in relations between Azerbaijan and
Nagornyy Karabakh.”
Our Mediamax correspondent reports from Stepanakert that the deputy
foreign minister of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR], Masis
Mailyan, said this while commenting on the decision of the UN General
Assembly to recommend that the issue on “the situation on Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories” be included in the assembly’s agenda.
Masis Mailyan said that “this step by official Baku has a purely
propaganda nature and does not help establish a favourable atmosphere
required for achieving a comprehensive solution to the Karabakh
problem”.
Otherwise, the deputy minister said, the Azerbaijani leadership would
have responded to the numerous proposals of the NKR authorities to
start implementing measures to establish trust between the sides and
resume full-scale negotiations, which he said are the most effective
means of solving the conflict.
[Passage omitted: minor details]
“Such destructive actions by Baku create insurmountable obstacles in
solving the problem of refugees and displaced persons and are capable
of nullifying all the efforts of international mediators to establish
a lasting peace and stability in the region,” the NKR deputy foreign
minister stressed.

Armenia should counter Azerbaijan’s hysteria by insisting on self-determination
Yerkir/am
October 22, 2004
The options for resolution of Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are regularly
discussed by the Armenian political circles. However, a certain
deficit of proposals exists among our political leaders and analysts.
What do our politicians think about the options of resolution of
Nagorno Karabagh conflict? We asked some of our political leaders
the following questions: 1. The status quo is preserved and the
negotiations do not seem to yield any tangible results. What should
Armenia do in this context? 2. In case the negotiations result in a
consensus and some of the liberated territories are required in return
for Karabaghâ~@~Ys self-determination, what should Armeniaâ~@~Ys
response be to this situation?
3. What if the negotiations end in a deadlock and peace is
threatened? If Azerbaijan starts a war what should Armenia do both
at the external front and in terms of its domestic policies?
We interviewed Armenian Revolutionary Federation Bureau member ,
vice-speaker of the National Assembly Vahan Hovhannissian.
1. When speaking about these issues we have to clarify certain
things at the outset. For instance, when we consider the option of
negotiations ending in a deadlock and Azerbaijan preparing for war,
we should keep in mind that even now when the negotiations are still
in progress Azerbaijan is already preparing for war.
As to the preservation of the status quo, we need to have a clear
understanding of it. There is no such thing as status quo. Some things
are constantly changing and we need to see where those changes can
take us. There is no such thing as static state of affairs. Static
assessment of the existing situation can result in the wrong outcomes
in the future.
Thus, we should try to see those tendencies that can potentially
determine the development of the existing situation in the
future. There are two major tendencies in this respect â~@~S first,
Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys attempts to increase international pressure on Armenia
and second, Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys exploitation of its oil potentials. From
this perspective, the above-mentioned two tendencies do not predict
favorable changes for Armenia especially taking into consideration
that Azerbaijan does not exclude the possibility of another war.
Moving from this starting point we can further clarify possible
scenarios of what Armenia should do. There are three main things
that we have to accomplish. Firstly, Armeniaâ~@~Ys internal social,
human and economic development must be ensured.
I am referring to the establishment and consolidation of civic
institutions and democratization of the society that will eventually
increase the populationâ~@~Y s confidence in the leadership of the
country and its defense capabilities.
This trust is a powerful resource for unifying the nation in case
of external threats. The population participates in the political
processes only if the authorities succeed in ensuring social justice.
We have to understand that if another war breaks out, for us it will
be a patriotic war. However, there are too many people in Armenia who
are disappointed with their homeland and the idea of independence
for different reasons. The government, the countryâ~@~Ys political
leadership must correct this. If we fail to do, that will be the
failure of the political leadership of the country.
Secondly, we must look for alternative transportation routes even
if we have to exert a certain degree of political flexibility for
that purpose. As to the pressure by the international organizations
agitated by Azerbaijan, this is political pressure that aims at
devaluing self-determination and human rights by stressing territorial
integrity without taking into consideration the historical injustice
that fixed the borders determining territorial integrity. We have
to concentrate our efforts on the international arena on presenting
correctly the legal grounding for Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys status in
order to counter the arguments put forward by Azerbaijan.
In other words, we have to distinguish between the concept of autonomy
and state borders. It might seem that this is a theoretical speculation
but it will eventually yield practical results. As soon as Azerbaijan
recovered from the defeat in the war it took up an aggressive position
and started speaking about territorial integrity. Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys
position on the proposals put forward by OSCE Minsk Group derives
from this approach.
We have to understand that the world is not a stage for playing
out political or religious affiliations. Such affiliations do
not affect decision making. Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys hysteria should
be countered by insisting on the concept of autonomy and national
self-determination. We can find allies that will share such an approach
if it also reflects their state and national interests.
2. When negotiations become more active the possible options for
consensus start being discussed. Armenia was correct in that it
included all the phase-by-phase options into one package. Why? Because
all the issues should be considered comprehensively.
Consensus should be reached in several issues including transportation,
territories, demilitarization, etc. As a result if such a consensus
a different status quo will emerge that will guarantee the security
of Nagorno Karabagh Republic.
Many people characterize todayâ~@~Ys situation as dangerous. However,
it has succeeded in guarantying Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys security for
ten years. What is the main factor that made it possible to maintain
the cease-fire for ten years? It is todayâ~@~Ys borderline because
this borderline was created with the purpose of ensuring Karabagh
populationâ~@~Ys security.
Karabagh armed forces had push out the Azeri army. This made
Azerbaijan sign the cease fire because it realized that the border
could move further into the country. A consensus can be made only if
commensurate security guarantees for Nagorno Karabaghâ~@~Ys population
are ensured. What can guarantee security?
The status of Nagorno Karabagh Republic. Sometimes the possibility
of stationing peacekeeping forces is discussed. But peacekeeping
forces cannot be a sustainable solution. If the option of exchange
of territories is discussed all these details must be taken into
consideration. Thatâ~@~Ys all I wanted to say connected with this
question since ARF continues to support the document adopted by the
previous parliament.
We have to find a balance of security guarantees. And we have to
look for this balance in all spheres. By saying balance I mean the
following. For instance, Azerbaijanâ~@~Ys opening road connections
cannot be considered a commensurate concession to giving away a single
square meter of land because they can always close the roads again
but lands can be returned only at the expense of our lives.
3. I want to repeat that Azerbaijan is always preparing for war. Even
when they were pretty close to serious progress on Key West proposal,
even at that time they were speaking about war.
They are constantly preparing for war and we should not wit for their
attack. What countermeasures should we undertake? I think Armenia as
the security guarantor for Nagorno Karabagh Republic will naturally
be involved in any developments related to Karabagh. I think we need
to unify our efforts. Wars can be different.
A war conducted by large scale military forces is not efficient and
cannot solve the problem. The problem can be solved through small but
mobile military troops that will make the war so problematic for the
enemy that they will simply have to stop it.
Interview by Karine Mangasarian
–Boundary_(ID_iVcgXKdcdp05hX8Dt0cjXA)–