Author: Kalantarian Kevo

Declining Association Agreement not calamity for Armenia – expert

14:44 – 30.11.13

Armenia’s failure to initial an association agreement with the EU
should not be perceived as a calamity for the country, an expert has
said, as the EU has not abandoned its plans to continue the joint
partnership.

At a news conference on Saturday, the political analyst Levon
Shirinyan said Armenia’s decision to join the Eurasian Customs Union
(a move that restricts the chances of European integration) was the
right choice stemming from the country’s security interests. `We must
never turn the relationship with Russia into a demonstration of
obsequiousness. We must strengthen our statehood instead,’ he said,
noting that Armenia has no alternative in the light of the Turkish
factor.

`Do you imagine what would have happened to us had we demonstrated
persistence on September 3 [the day President Serzh Sargsyan made the
landmark statement about joining the CU]?’ he said, calling for
efforts to use the Russian market.

The expert further stressed the importance of giving a proper welcome
to Russian President Vladimir Putin next week, noting that Russia is
the country that fully secures Armenia’s arms supply.

As for the Putin big delegation expected to arrive in Armenia on
December 2, Shirinyan considered it a good sign, noting that Russian
investors are coming to Armenia together with the president. Secondly,
he said, Russia is thus demonstrating its respect for Armenia.

Armenian News – Tert.am

Putin Revealed His Intention

A lot of experts state that the agenda of the Russian president
Putin’s December 2 visit to Armenia is to give a boost to the process
of membership to the Customs Union. They say the roadmap will be
discussed during Putin’s visit, and the process will be accelerated.

In fact, the Kremlin has officially confirmed that Putin’s visit will
begin in Gyumri. He will go to the 102nd Russian military base. He may
bring along a batch of weapons not to come empty-handed.

The issue of the Customs Union is just a veil on the agenda of Putin’s
visit because the visit itself is a demonstration of power. On
September 3 Russia thwarted the process of signing of the EU-Armenia
Association Agreement, and now it is not interested in fast membership
of Armenia to the Customs Union. It is a bugbear for Armenia because
it is too difficult to establish relations and achieve agreements not
only with Armenia but also Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Putin is coming to Armenia to demonstrate power and therefore he
starts his visit at the military base in Gyumri. The question is whom
he demonstrates power. Does he want to demonstrate it to Turkey?
Together with Turkey Russia implements a nuclear power plant
construction project worth 20 billion dollars, tries to have Turkey
join the Customs Union, lays out the South Stream gas pipeline, is
getting ready to confront the challenges of normalization between Iran
and the West. Or is he demonstrating power to Azerbaijan whose number
one supplier of arms Russia is?

Or is Putin demonstrating power to Armenia, hinting that while in 1920
Russia’s red army arrived in Armenia, in 2013 it is already in
Armenia. Perhaps therefore Putin chose December 2, the date of
capitulation of Armenia to the bolshevists. Putin has reasons to
threaten Armenia because recently he has become convinced that Armenia
is not only the government and the political opposition `on the
Russian line’ but the dignified citizens who might be few but have a
strong sense of dignity and big awareness of the importance of
sovereignty.

It is possible that Putin is demonstrating power to the citizens,
especially that the government of Armenia has vested in him the right
to intervene in Armenia’s domestic affairs under the CSTO agreements.

It is possible that Putin is demonstrating power to the West.
Moreover, the West could be the main audience for the demonstration of
power, and Moscow hints that it will remain in the Caucasus, even if
it takes a war. Russia has nothing else to demonstrate in the
Caucasus. Russia has lost in economy and culture, war is its last
resort. In this sense, Moscow translates its words to actions that
Armenia is an outpost.

It means that Moscow will ensure an environment for normal operation
of its armed forces. In other words, Armenia is a military township
with an adequate concept of life, logic and psychology. In other
words, Russia is becoming an obstacle to the civil future of Armenia.
This does not mean that there will not be a civil life. There will be
just enough of it to support the military township.

Here is Russia’s intention for Armenia. Moscow has run out of resource
and imagination for other programs in Moscow.

Although, there is no confidence that the resource will be enough to
turn Armenia to an outpost. After all, despite the colorful picture of
the society, there is a rise of national dignity and awareness of
state sovereignty, which is anchored in psychology and common sense.
If the citizens of Armenia do now demonstrate power, it is not due to
lack of power but reluctance to show off.

Hakob Badalyan
11:55 30/11/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:

WAS NAZARYAN ALONE IN THE ATTACKS AGAINST ELDERLY ARMENIAN WOMEN?

Today’s Zaman (Turkey)
November 28, 2013 Thursday

It is like a crime movie with many surprises. Once we get a certain
idea about the killer, we are very much surprised at the next scene
when another shadow starts to appear on the screen. Remember the
attacks and murders of elderly Armenian women in Istanbul’s Samatya
neighborhood in late 2012? When we looked at the events as they
unfolded, we concluded that they were hate crimes.

Turfanda Asik, 87, was severely beaten and lost her sight. The
assailant took nothing from her apartment. Maritsa Kucuk, 84, was
found dead in her home, stabbed seven times and badly beaten. Only a
few pieces of jewelry that were on her were taken, but the money in
her apartment remained untouched.

Sultan Aykar, 83, was knocked down by an assailant approaching from
behind as she unlocked the door to enter her home. She lost her sight.

It was obvious back then that these attacks were not robbery
motivated. But the police hastily came to this conclusion in their
very first announcement.

And on March 4, the police came up with quite a surprising discovery.

They caught the suspect, whose blood sample was a perfect match to
blood found at Kucuk’s apartment. Thirty-eight-year-old Murat Nazaryan,
the alleged assailant, was himself of Armenian origin.

With this result, the suspicion about these incidents being potential
hate crimes had quickly dispersed and the file was closed.

However, as soon as families of the victims started to get involved in
the case, some suspicious elements started to emerge once again. The
prosecutor, for example, declared the file confidential and barred
victims from accessing the file.

Lawyers from the Human Rights Association (IHD) were following the case
on behalf of the victims. On Nov. 19, they made a public announcement,
explaining peculiarities in this case and giving reasons why we should
look at the case as a potential hate crime. Let’s read this statement:

“Maritsa Kucuk, 87, was battered and stabbed to death on Dec. 28,
2012. Had murder been the only motive, an abrupt blow or a firearm
shot would have sufficed to kill a woman at that age. Yet, she was
brutally battered for hours and repeatedly stabbed. … From Nov. 28,
2012 to Jan. 26, 2013, a period that [includes] Maritsa Kucuk’s
murder, other elderly Armenian women were targeted in Samatya in
similar attacks involving brutal violence. Following Murat Nazaryan’s
arrest, all news reports, which were obviously funneled to the media
from a single source, highlighted Nazaryan’s Armenian ethnicity,
branded him the ‘Samatya assailant,’ creating the impression he was
responsible for all attacks, and asserted that the attacks were
robbery-motivated. Nazaryan, however, is currently on trial only
for Maritsa Kucuk’s murder. … Nazaryan remained silent [during]
the first two hearings. The only thing he said was, ‘I didn’t kill
anyone.’ At the hearing on Nov. 4, 2013, the truth began to slowly
emerge. Maritsa Kucuk was killed by three people who had taken Nazaryan
along by force. They had guns. … [Nazaryan] mentioned gangs. He
said he had kept silent because he was bullied and frightened.”

Nazaryan’s new testimony has led human rights groups to believe that
these attacks may indeed have been organized ones. The lawyers asked
the court to expand the investigation.

As far as I can understand, Nazaryan’s testimony has yet to lead to
arrests of other suspects; neither can I see any details about the
identity of other possible suspects. However, if his last statements
are not fabrication, then he turned into a mere pawn of an organized
gang perpetuating hate crimes.

With these tiny details, it would be premature to make any conclusion
on whether he is a pawn or an ordinary criminal who makes up stories.

However, the case deserves close scrutiny to ensure that the whole
truth about these murder and attacks is revealed. While the case is
unfolding, many other interesting details may come along with it.

HEIKO LANGNER: “ARMENIAN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS ARE THE BASIS OF THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT”

Vestnik Kavkazussia
Nov 29 2013

29 November 2013 – 11:42am

Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, head of the European Bureau of Vestnik
Kavkaza

Heiko Langner, a German political analyst, specialist on the
post-Soviet space and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has expressed
his point of view on the conflict in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.

– Mr. Langner, what has brought you to such intensive research of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

– The conflict drew my attention in the late 1980s when the situation
in the South Caucasus became tense. State mass media in the GDR was
actively describing the events, taking the political side of Moscow and
the Azerbaijani Soviet authorities. Actions of the Karabakh Armenians
were pictured as anti-Soviet and nationalistic-separatistic.

That time, I, as many other young people in the GDR, was having big
hopes for the persona and politics of Mikhail Gorbachev, so I was
shocked by the conflict in the Caucasus. It would not fit into the
image of the Soviet Union formed by the state education system of the
GDR. According to this image, the USSR was a voluntary state union
of interconnected Soviet nations. A violent conflict spoke about
the contrary.

After the unification of Germany and the collapse of real socialism,
the mass media of the FRG was dominated by a pro-Armenian outlook
on the conflict for a long time. So in early 1990s, I supposed that
mass media of the GDR gave false descriptions of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. In late 1990s, however, article with a pro-Azerbaijani
approach to the problem were initiated again.

Now, I cannot recall for sure when it happened but after a some
meetings with Armenians in Germany, I noticed that they were telling
the very same story very coherently. It seemed somewhat memorized
and even learnt by heart. It was always noted that Armenian were only
victims of the conflict but, nonetheless, they managed to win the war.

It gave me a sense of distrust because it cannot happen practically.

In the reality of war, the ones who fight actively cannot be only the
victims, they regularly get in situations where they are the offensive
side. And so the one who does not fight and always remains a victim
cannot win the war. I noticed that something just was not adding up,
so I got down to more intensive research of the conflict about 15
years ago. Since then, I got into details of the Karabakh problem.

Whether a person is an expert in this case or not is eventually decided
by others. This should be decided by readers of the interview, I will
accept that.

– What reasons for the conflict do you see?

– I can assure you that the first reason is not a competition between
different principles of the international law like territorial
integrity or the right for self-determination. These two principles
are in no way mutually exclusive and can instead complement each
other within the framework of a decision on granting autonomy from the
central government, on condition of will of the sides. There are many
examples in the world for this. The conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh
is based, in my opinion, first of all, on contradictory images of
the historic appurtenance of the region. Armenians consider it their
part of the ‘historic Armenia.’ It should be noted that the huge
space, which includes, besides Armenia, large territories of modern
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and in maximum version even
Syria and Lebanon, has never seen Armenian statehood in over 700
years and the Armenian population lived under domination of other
states. We should add that the Armenian population in its historic
reality of settlement has never been a majority, and was forced to
share the territory with numerous other groups of the population that,
doubtlessly, had and have the same fundamental right to live there.

Throughout history, the Armenian population has been facing situations
of mass threat for its existence and banishment throughout history,
starting with the Mongol invasion, and this has deeply anchored in the
memory of the nation. For this reason, earlier strives for ‘national
rebirth’ and own statehood was closely connected to understanding of
ethnic homogenous state. Ethnic uniformity became a determinant for
existence of the Armenian, equally with the desire to consolidate all
territories inhabited by Armenians in a national state. No wonder
the Armenian SSR, which like other USSR republics, was founded as
a nationally-determined territory (because the socialist policy was
supposed to be presented in a national form), had a constant decline
of the non-Armenian population.

With all understanding of the tough history and sufferings of Armenian
people under domination of foreign states, there cannot be any excuse
for exile and displacement of other population groups. Today, Armenia
with its 98% of ethnic Armenian population is the only mono-ethnic
states in the South Caucasus. This can be explained by natural
development, especially in such historically multi-ethnic region as
the South Caucasus. The situation has become a result of focused
policy, realized with a different level of intensity for decades,
even despite communist dominance. And the goal of this policy is to
form an ethnically homogenous state.

– How do you think this policy has affected the situation around
Nagorno-Karabakh?

– From 1918 to 1920, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh belonged to
the first independent Azerbaijani Republic, though even then, there
were disputes about the ownership of the region. After sovietization
of both states, the ‘Caucasian Bureau’ decided to finally leave
Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian autonomous region, as part of the
Azerbaijani SSR, in 1921. Although three Armenian representatives
took part in the vote, Armenia has never given up its claims for
the territory. In the 1960s, a petition campaign was initiated for
the Moscow center to have the autonomous region transferred from the
Azerbaijani SSR to the Armenian SSR. Moscow was consistently against
it, rightly considering such pretensions as a precedent threatening
the existence of the Soviet Empire. I have an impression that many
young people of Azerbaijan do not know about this and often think that
Moscow has always been on Armenia’s side. But this is wrong. Armenia
initiated attempts to expand its national territory by merging
compact territories inhabited by Armenians beyond the republic. This
way, they tried to realize their national dream to form the united
‘Great Armenia.’

The same happened in the late 1980s. Back then, interethnic tensions
with violent acts and pogroms erupted, resulting in both nations
getting hurt. The current conflict has a long background rooting
from realization of Armenian territorial pretensions, for which the
principle of the right of people for self-determination is being
instrumentalized today. Perhaps, even now, the majority of Karabakh
Armenians, despite 20 years of de facto separation, do not want their
own state and would prefer joining Armenia.

In the Soviet times, Azerbaijan was territorially happy and interested
in protection of the then status quo, while Armenia wanted to
fundamentally change it for its benefit. This is why it is clear
who has more responsibility for escalation of the conflict. This
can even be seen from the chronology of events. The National Supreme
Council in Baku deprived Nagorno-Karabakh of the status of autonomy
in November 1991, two years after Nagorno-Karabakh had unilaterally
proclaimed its ‘independence.’ Moscow has always been the judge in this
conflict. In reality, the conflict has lived throughout all the time
of USSR’s existence, and Moscow only ‘froze’ it for some time. During
Perestroika, it was unfrozen again and after the collapse of the USSR,
it quickly grew into an interstate war. The burden of history should
not be underestimated. The key to settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict lies in the hands of the Kremlin

To be continued

ARMENIAN, EU CHIEF DIPLOMATS EXCHANGE LETTERS

Vestnik Kavkazussia
Nov 29 2013

29 November 2013 – 2:43pm

Armenian and EU Chief Diplomats Edward Nalbandian and Catherine Ashton
have exchanged letters at the Vilnius summit with agendas for further
cooperation, ITAR-TASS reports.

The letters will be published within the framework of the summit of
the Eastern Partnership.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan is heading the Armenian delegation
to the summit.

Armenian and EU Chief Diplomats Edward Nalbandian and Catherine Ashton
have exchanged letters at the Vilnius summit with agendas for further
cooperation, ITAR-TASS reports.

The letters will be published within the framework of the summit of
the Eastern Partnership.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan is heading the Armenian delegation
to the summit.

A DIPLOMATIC FAILURE?

European Voice
November 28, 2013

With only two deals pending with Georgia and Moldova, Andrew Gardner
asks what the EU can learn from its Eastern Partnership project

On Friday, a day after Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych announced
that he would not sign political and trade deals with the European
Union, Stefan Fule, the European commissioner for the neighbourhood,
was asked whether the EU’s Eastern Partnership was a diplomatic
failure.

It was a pointed question, but also to the point. The biggest of the
EU’s six eastern neighbours in the EU’s Eastern Partnership, Ukraine,
had just decided to “pause” talks with the EU. Armenia had said in
September that it would join Russia’s Eurasian Union rather than
strike agreements with the EU.

Belarus has never shown an interest in the partnership on offer from
the EU, while Azerbaijan wants to cast it aside. And so, at the Eastern
Partnership summit today and tomorrow (28-29 November), the EU will put
its name to agreements with only two countries, Moldova and Georgia –
both tiny and poor and neither in control of all of its territory.

A natural conclusion to these widening differences would be to abandon
the Eastern Partnership and pursue bilateral approaches.

Predictably, Fule, the European commissioner for the neighbourhood,
saw things differently. “I don’t see a need [for introspection],”
he said. He described association agreements – the political deal on
offer, of which free trade is a part – as “an instrument with huge
transformative power, second only to enlargement”.

He has a strong case. Four years ago, when the Eastern Partnership
was established, the EU’s offer of access to the EU’s market was seen
as vague and too remote for most of the neighbours.

Now, Georgia and Moldova will initial political and trade deals,
and until September Armenia was on the cusp of doing so. Ukraine has
already initialled the deals; when its politicians find the will,
they can pull the deals off the shelf and sign them.

A policy approach that has brought the EU’s relations with its eastern
neighbours to this point cannot, and will not, be easily discarded.

But, whatever Fule says, there will be plenty of introspection
following Ukraine’s decision.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

What lessons are there to learn from recent months and, in particular,
from relations with Ukraine?

Russia has revealed its character: Russia has held back its neighbours
by twisting arms, a point that EU leaders have underlined by openly
attacking the economic pressure applied by Russia to Ukraine in
particular. (Even Moldova has been held back, under Russian pressure
postponing EU-related energy measures required by the European Energy
Community). West Europeans too have clarity – that Russia is a bully,
as its post-communist members have long pointed out.

The EU has shown greater interest in its eastern neighbourhood
than ever before and this has produced results. In particular,
the engagement of Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, has been a
boost for the EU, has helped reform in Moldova especially, has put
necessary pressure on Ukraine and has, overall, provided a back-stop
against Russian pressure.

The EU has all along been dealing with a multi-speed region, but it
now has a clearer sense of the speed of individual countries. Midgets
– Moldova and Georgia – have been willing to move forward fast. The
giant, Ukraine, is lumbering along, but generally forward, in a
highly unpredictable fashion. Armenia pushed ahead technically,
but its political will was questionable. The two other countries in
the region have much reason to be interested in Europe – Europe is
Azerbaijan’s new, best energy market, while for Belarus Europe is a
counter-weight to Russia – but they show next to no interest in what
the EU is offering.

Improbable changes can happen. In 2004, large volumes of Russian
money helped Yanukovych as he fought, ultimately unsuccessfully,
for the presidency. As president since 2010, Yanukovych has zigzagged
towards the EU, to the point this summer and autumn when Russia felt
it had to apply overt and blatant pressure.

It is unwise to pin too much hope on individual politicians. Since
Ukraine initialled the trade and political agreements in spring
2012, the chances of the deals being signed have depended on
Yanukovych. All along, Yanukovych has kept his thinking largely to
himself. He apparently gave no hint that he was willing to heed EU
advice and grant a partial pardon to his jailed political rival,
Yulia Tymoshenko. Only recently did he begin to tell the EU just how
worried he was about Russian economic pressure and about the state
of the country’s finances.

The EU can be confident about ambitious political and trade deals
in the region only when the region has changed more. Ukraine’s and
Armenia’s decisions not to press ahead with deals with the EU showed
how closely they remain tied to Russia, economically and strategically.

WHAT NEXT FOR THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP?

When the Eastern Partnership summit ends tomorrow (29 November),
it should be clearer whether the EU has learnt those lessons and
whether its neighbours have drawn the same lessons.

Some conclusions will be drawn, but may not be publicly expressed. For
instance, that Ukraine and other eastern EU neighbours should now
expect the EU to be more wary. If Ukraine signs the political and
trade deals, possibly at the next EU-Ukraine summit in the spring,
it can expect the ratification process, which typically lasts two to
three years, to be difficult.

Another possible conclusion is that the EU should adopt an approach of
‘strategic patience’ towards Russia and its relations in the region.

Russia’s bullying behaviour lost it the support of the Georgian public
long ago, is now costing it support in Moldova, and damaging it in
the eyes of Ukrainians and Armenians.

However, the EU’s policy cannot simply be passive; it will have to
decide what to do with its Eastern Partnership. Perhaps it should
deepen its relations in the region bilaterally. The case is strong.

The main elements of the EU’s relations with the region – the political
‘association’ agreement, the trade deals and visa liberalisation –
are issues handled bilaterally. Some elements introduced in 2009 as
part of the Eastern Partnership (such as more tailored and specific
goals for individual countries, more conditions and the measuring of
progress) do not need to be part of a broader policy package. One of
the EU’s principles in the region – more EU support for more reform –
encourages policymaking that is more differentiated and bilateral.

But the Eastern Partnership also introduced potentially useful
multilateral ways of developing relations between the EU and between
the eastern partners themselves – in the form of summits, meetings
of foreign ministers, a parliamentary assembly (Euronest) and forums
for civil society and business.

Ultimately, Russia’s pressure on its neighbours may guarantee that
the Eastern Partnership continues in its current form. But the form
of policies is less important than the aims: to make these countries
less peripheral to Europe and the world and less vulnerable to Russia.

PRESS RELEASE
Hayastan All-Armenian Fund
Governmental Building 3, Yerevan, RA
Contact: Hasmik Grigoryan
Tel:? +(3741) 56 01 06? ext. 105
Fax: +(3741) 52 15 05
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

Yerevan, November 29, 2013

Hayastan All-Armenian Fund’s 16th Telethon raised over $22,6 million in
pledges and donations

We are pleased to announce that Hayastan All-Armenian Fund worldwide
Telethon 2013 raised $22,661,372 in pledges and donations for numerous
projects in Hayastan and Artsakh, and primarily for Vardenis – Martakert
highway construction, which was approved by the Fund’s annual Board of
Trustees meeting.

Below is the initial list of pledges:

Russian Federation_ 12 350 000 US dollars
US Western Region_ 2 000 000 US dollars
France, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Greece, Belgium /Phoneathon/ _ 1
984 000 US dollars
Armenia_ 1 642 372 US dollars
Switzerland /private donation/_ 1 250 000 US dollars
Artsakh_ 1 000 000 US dollars
US Eastern Region_ 1 000 000 US dollars
Argentina_ 700 000 US dollars
Toronto /Canada/ _ 225 000 US dollars
Brazil_ 170 000 US dollars
Montreal /Canada/ _ 120 000 US dollars
Great Britain_ 100 000 US dollars
Lebanon_ 94 000 US dollars
Iran_ 60 000 US dollars
Austria_ 10 000 US dollars

AUTHORITIES ARE NOT RESPONSIVE TO OUR NEEDS, SAYS KARABAKH WAR VETERAN (VIDEOS)

20:16 ~U 28.11.13

A veteran of the Nagorno-Karabakh war has criticized the Armenian
authorities of being irresponsive to their social demands.

Speaking at a rally in Yerevan, Khachik Avetisyan said the authorities
do not seem to be willing to admit that the country is facing a
real plight.

“At the last rally, I spoke of a possible dialogue with the
authorities, having in mind the public call voiced by the Republican
Party lawmaker Karine Achemyan. I emphasized in my speech that
a dialogue may take place in case the authorities admit that the
country is facing a deep crisis and is in need of radical reforms,
not cosmetic ones. And if they do not have a political will to realize
them, they must step down,” he said, adding that the Republican MP’s
speech had made clear that the authorities do not care about the state
and the people and are absolutely unwilling to launch any reforms.

ARMENIA: JAILED CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS FREED – BUT ALTERNATIVE SERVICE APPLICATIONS MISSING?

Forum 18
Nov 28 2013

By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service

Armenia’s Jehovah’s Witness community has welcomed the freeing from
prison of all conscientious objectors jailed for refusing military
service, and the approval of 72 applications for the new civilian
alternative service. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses expressed concern
over 41 further applications to the government’s Alternative Service
Committee – many lodged in July – which officials claimed to Forum
18 News Service have not been received. 12 of those waiting for a
Committee decision have criminal cases against them, and have been
deprived of passports. This means, among other things, that they
cannot travel abroad, legally work, or marry. Artur Sogomonyan –
secretary of the Alternative Service Committee – insisted to Forum
18 that no applications had been lost. The Territorial Administration
Ministry spokesperson claimed she could not answer Forum 18’s question
as it had not been formulated in accordance with the law.

Armenia’s Jehovah’s Witness community has welcomed the freeing from
prison of all their young men imprisoned for refusing military service
and the approval of 72 applications for the new civilian alternative
service. “Now, for the first time since 1993, no Jehovah’s Witnesses
are imprisoned in Armenia for their conscientious objection to military
service,” they told Forum 18 News Service.

However, Jehovah’s Witnesses expressed concern over 41 further
applications to the government’s Alternative Service Committee –
many lodged in July – which officials claimed to Forum 18 have not
been received. Also, 12 of those waiting for a decision have criminal
cases against them, and have been deprived of passports. This means,
among other things, that they cannot travel abroad, legally work,
or marry (see below).

The release of all known conscientious objectors from prison, and
the introduction of what appears to be a fully civilian alternative
service, implements a January 2001 commitment Armenia made on joining
the Council of Europe to do both these things by January 2004.

Repeated failure to do both has been strongly
criticised internationally (see F18News 17 October 2013
).

Jehovah’s Witnesses calculate that more than 450 of their young men
were imprisoned for conscientious objection between 1993 and 2013.

Another known conscientious objector former prisoner was a member
of Armenia’s small Molokan community, a Russian Protestant-style
community.

However, a Council of Europe commitment Armenia made at the same time –
“to ensure that all churches or religious communities, in particular
those referred to as ‘non-traditional’, may practise their religion
without discrimination” – has not yet been fully implemented (see
forthcoming F18News article).

Amendments

The conscientious objection change came in amendments to the 2003
Alternative Service Law and to the 2003 Law on Implementing the
Criminal Code. They were approved in parliament on 2 May 2013 and
signed into law by President Serzh Sarkisyan on 21 May (see F18News
6 June 2013 ).

President Sarkisyan was reminded of the continuing imprisonment of 29
conscientious objectors when he addressed the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 2 October. In response,
Sarkisyan claimed that Armenia has conducted “an immense amount of
work” to ensure freedom of conscience, according to remarks published
on the Parliamentary Assembly and presidential websites. He pointed to
the alternative service legal amendments and the abolition of criminal
prosecution for conscientious objectors. “There is a political will,
legislative reform has been implemented and the process is under way,”
he claimed.

Releases

The releases of imprisoned conscientious objectors only began after
President Sarkisyan’s Strasbourg speech.

Eight imprisoned conscientious objectors – all Jehovah’s
Witnesses – were freed on 9 October after they were included
in a prisoner amnesty which saw their prison terms reduced
by six months. Several of the eight were freed just days
before the end of their sentence (see F18News 17 October 2013
).

Six more were released on 24 October, the day after their applications
were accepted. They were the first to benefit from the June 2013
amendments. The remaining 14 were freed on 12 November, the same
day the Alternative Service Commission accepted their applications
(see below).

Alternative Service Committee applications

The government has set up an Alternative Service Committee to decide
on applications for alternative service (see F18News 6 June 2013
). It has met
twice to review applications. At its first session on 23 October, 72
applications were approved. Six of them were from Jehovah’s Witness
prisoners, who were freed the following day.

Only one application – not from a Jehovah’s Witness – was rejected,
Committee secretary Artur Sogomonyan told Forum 18 from Yerevan on
27 November. He said the individual had lodged his application late
and therefore it could not be considered. He declined to identify
the young man. Human rights defenders were unable to identify the
individual either.

At the Alternative Service Committee’s second session on 12 November
– held in Erebuni Prison because all the 14 applicants were then
prisoners there – all applications were accepted. The releases of
the prisoners occurred the same day, Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18.

The Committee interviewed each applicant separately for between five
and 40 minutes, their lawyer Yelena Margaryan told Forum 18 from
the capital Yerevan on 27 November. For all the Jehovah’s Witness
applicants, she was present during interviews. During the 23 October
interviews she was also accompanied by another lawyer.

“Questions to the young men were reasonable,” Margaryan told Forum 18.

“The Committee wanted to understand their stance.” Decisions on each
application were made the same day as the hearing.

Will civilian service be civilian?

All the young men accepted for alternative civilian service are waiting
at home for information on where they will be assigned to perform
their service. Those who have served a prison sentence will have
the length they have served deducted from the length of alternative
civilian service.

Under a 25 July government decision, 11 institutions were identified
as places where alternative civilian service would be carried
out including nursing homes, children’s homes and psychiatric
clinics. The 11 institutions are controlled by a number of
ministries: the Labour and Social Affairs Ministry, the Health
Ministry and the Emergency Situations Ministry. A separate list
identified tasks the alternative service workers would carry out,
including hospital orderly, laundry worker, kitchen worker, ground
staff or emergency rescuer’s assistant (see F18News 17 October 2013
).

Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18 that they are hopeful that the
alternative civilian service will remain civilian.

Since the Alternative Service Law entered into force in 2004,
those called up could instead apply for alternative service under
military control, which lasted up to 42 months. This did not meet
the country’s Council of Europe commitments (see F18News 3 December
2012 ). When the
Alternative Service Law was first adopted in 2004, 22 Jehovah’s
Witnesses and a Molokan accepted the new alternative service. But
they abandoned it in early 2005 after it became clear it was under
military control. All 23 were subsequently imprisoned (see F18News
22 February 2006 ).

The new 2013 alternative civilian service has been set at
three years, compared to military service of two years. Although
Jehovah’s Witnesses note that the longer service could be considered
“punitive”, they told Forum 18 that they consider this a lesser
issue than having a genuinely civilian service available for
their young men. Armenian human rights defenders have criticised
the length of the alternative service (see F18News 6 June 2013
).

Missing applications?

In addition to those whose applications for alternative civilian
service have been accepted, applications from 41 Jehovah’s Witness
conscientious objectors have yet to be considered by the Alternative
Service Committee. Many were lodged on 23 July, the same day that
others which have already been considered were lodged. Others were
lodged after that as the young men involved were still aged 17 and were
trying to clarify from Conscription Offices whether such applications
should be lodged before they reach their 18th birthday.

Twelve of those waiting for a decision have criminal cases against
them, and five of the 12 have criminal trials currently underway
against them. “In the case of those on trial, courts repeatedly have
to adjourn hearings as they wait for an Alternative Service Committee
date”, their lawyer Margaryan told Forum 18.

They have no passport and live under restrictions while they wait for
the Alternative Service Committee decisions. The restrictions imposed
by having no passport include not being able to legally work or marry.

However, Sogomonyan – secretary of the Alternative Service Committee –
insisted to Forum 18 that no applications are currently pending. Asked
about the 41 waiting – many of which were lodged more than four
months earlier – he responded: “I haven’t got them. Any that have
been submitted end up with me.” Asked if they could have got lost,
he replied: “Applications don’t get lost.” He speculated that some
might have been submitted after the deadline, but had no information.

The applicants’ lawyer Margaryan insists that the 41 applications
were submitted properly. She stated that some may have been submitted
late, as individuals still aged 17 or who had medical conditions
which might have led to exemption from call-up were trying to
find out from Conscription Offices whether they needed to submit
applications. She insisted that in all these cases, individuals who
submitted applications late asked for an extension to the consideration
period, which was not rejected.

Forum 18 tried to reach Vache Terteryan, First Deputy Minister of
Territorial Administration and Chair of the Alternative Service
Committee. However, his staff told Forum 18 on 27 November that he
was not available, referring Forum 18 to Ministry spokesperson Zoya
Barsegyan.

At Barsegyan’s request, Forum 18 asked in writing the same day what
has happened to the missing applications and whether the young men now
have to send photocopies to the Committee for them to be considered.

She responded on 28 November refusing to answer the question, as she
said it had not been formulated in accordance with the law.

26 cases at European Court of Human Rights

A total of 26 Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objectors who were
subjected to imprisonment to punish them for refusing to perform
military service or the military-controlled alternative service then
on offer have lodged cases to the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) in Strasbourg, Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18. They said
these cases are continuing.

In four previous cases, the ECtHR in Strasbourg has found the Armenian
government to have violated the rights of conscientious objectors. In
a landmark case, the court ruled in July 2011 in favour of former
conscientious objector prisoner Vahan Bayatyan. The ECtHR handed
down two similar judgments against Armenia – in cases brought by
Hayk Bukharatyan and Ashot Tsaturyan – in January 2012 (see F18News
1 February 2012 ).

In November 2012, the ECtHR – in its fourth decision against Armenia
in conscientious objector cases – found that Armenia had violated the
rights of 17 Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objectors. For the first
time in such cases, Armenia’s European Court Judge, Alvina Gyulumyan,
did not dissent from the judgment.

The November 2012 judgment awarded compensation of 6,000
Euros to each of the 17 conscientious objectors. The
government was also required to pay a total of 10,000 Euros
in costs for all the applicants (see F18News 3 December 2012
).

This judgment became final on 27 February 2013, with compensation
payable by 27 May. The government paid the 112,000 Euros compensation
in mid-May.

The ECtHR’s most significant judgment was in July 2011, in the case of
former conscientious objector prisoner Vahan Bayatyan (Application No.

23459/03). It found that the right to conscientious
objection is protected by Article 9 (“Freedom of thought,
conscience and religion”) of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see F18News 7 July 2011
).

Conscientious objection deniers

Other Council of Europe countries which do not offer a full civilian
alternative to compulsory military service are Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Azerbaijan freed both of its known conscientious objector
prisoners earlier in 2013 (see F18News 28 June 2013
).

Turkish military court decisions concerning conscientious objection
claims have shown a selective and not complete recognition of the
right to conscientious objection, after Council of Europe pressure
on the Turkish government to implement ECtHR judgments (see F18News
1 May 2012 ).

The unrecognised breakaway entity of Nagorno-Karabakh in the south
Caucasus also imprisons conscientious objectors. Jehovah’s Witness
Karen Harutyunyan was sentenced in December 2011 to 30 months’
imprisonment and remains in prison in Shusha (see F18News 17 January
2012 ).

Belarus – not a Council of Europe member – has in recent
years imprisoned conscientious objectors, though none are
currently known to be in prison. Any Alternative Service Law is,
officials claim, now being prepared (see F18News 10 January 2013
).

Turkmenistan – also not in the Council of Europe – currently has
eight known conscientious objector prisoners (see F18News 29 August
2013 ). The latest
prisoner freed was Juma Nazarov on 29 August. (END)

More coverage of freedom of thought, conscience and belief in
Armenia and the unrecognised entity of Nagorno-Karabakh is at

A personal commentary, by Derek Brett of Conscience and Peace
Tax International, on conscientious objection to military
service and international law in the light of the European
Court of Human Rights’ July 2011 Bayatyan judgment is at

A compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments can be found at

A printer-friendly map of Armenia is available at

All Forum 18 News Service material may be referred to, quoted from,
or republished in full, if Forum 18 is credited as
the source.

IRAN NOT INTERESTED IN POSSIBLE NATO PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITY IN THE REGION

November 28, 2013 | 18:19

Iran’s role in the Karabakh conflict is seen as a role of a country not
interested in any military escalation on its borders, says editorial
posted on Iran.ru website.

The authors emphasize that Iran is not interested in a possible NATO
peacekeeping activity in the region.

“It’s hard to imagine that countries like the U.S., France and
others would agree to a peacekeeping operation exclusively by the
CSTO countries or Russia alone. But the presence of NATO forces in
the conflict area, even if it is authorized by the OSCE mandate or
the UN, can not but act as an irritant to Iran,” the authors claim.

The authors remind that Iran’s doubt related to the possible presence
of NATO troops near its northern borders are objective and can not
be ignored.

“Iran’s position on the Karabakh settlement basically comes down to
two points. Firstly, it is the necessity of a peaceful solution and
no alternative to negotiations,” the article says.

And secondly, Iran considers that exclusively regional states’
involvement in the peace process as a mediating party is the most
appropriate option, and this should lead to the ousting of the external
actors from mediation in the Karabakh settlement.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am