Author: Kanayan Tamar

276 PRODUCERS PROVIDED WITH CERTIFICATES TO EXPORT PRODUCTS TO THE EU MEMBER COUNTRIES OF ON PRIVILEGED CONDITIONS

ARMENPRESS
July 18, 2009

YEREVAN, JULY 18, ARMENPRESS: In the first semester of the running year
within the frameworks of the "New Neighborhood Project" of European
Union the Armenian Trade-Industrial Palace allocated certificates
to 276 Armenian producers to get use of GSP+ (Generalized System of
Preferences) trade system.

The press service of the Chamber of Commerce if Industry told
Armenpress that the producing companies exported cognac, water, wine,
sweets, lobster, frosted fruit and berries, copper concentrate,
ferromolybdenum, rubber, chemicals, goods for sewing, cigarettes,
products made from obsidian, basalt blocks, etc.

Those receiving certificates are mainly big enterprises.

Since January 1 of 2009 GSP+ system has been giving the producers an
opportunity of exporting goods to the countries of European Union with
privileged conditions by paying a custom of 0 % or of lower custom
fee. Before that Armenia got use of GSP system of preferences, which
enabled to export 2 000 types of product with privileged conditions,
and the new system – 6 400.

AZERI, ARMENIAN LEADERS TO DISCUSS NAGORNO-KARABAKH IN MOSCOW

ITAR-TASS
July 17 2009
Russia

BAKU, July 17 (Itar-Tass) — Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is
leaving for Moscow on Friday to discuss Nagorno-Karabakh settlement
with his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sargsyan and then jointly with
Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev.

In early July Aliyev said one issue is out of question for his country
– the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh.

"Azerbaijan will not accept any decision that might envisage
separation, independence of Nagorno-Karabakh either today or in ten
or a hundred years," he said.

"Azerbaijan is ready to grant Nagorno-Karabakh the necessary autonomous
status but only within the united Azerbaijani state," he added.

"In the past five years we agreed on many important issues that seemed
hardly agreeable. However the principle of the negotiating process is
such that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," Aliyev said.

This week the president said "inspiring dynamic and certain results"
have been achieved at talks with Armenia.

It will be the sixth bilateral meeting of the two presidents in the
past year and four of them were held in Russia.

The trilateral meeting with Medvedev is scheduled for Saturday.

RF EMBASSY STAFF EXTENDS CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILIES OF VICTIMS

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
16.07.2009 14:15 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ RF Embassy in Yerevan is working through Federal
Migration Service to determine whether there were any Russian citizens
in the list of passengers who died in the yesterday’s air crash. "No
Russian citizens are so far reported to be among passengers. Embassy
staff extends its condolences to the families of those who lost their
lives," Embassy says in a release.

Tu-154 aircraft belonging to Caspian Airlines company crashed down near
the Iranian town of Kazvin while flying from Tehran to Yerevan. All
153 passengers and 15 crew members died, July 16 is declared a mourning
day in Armenia. Iran has declared a three-day mourning.

INTERNATIONAL ALERT READY FOR ASSISTING SETTLEMENT OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT: DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM

Trend
July 14 2009
Azerbaijan

International Alert organization is ready for assisting settlement
of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

"Settlement of South Caucasian conflicts is very important not only
for this region but for entire world. International Alert is ready for
assisting settlements of conflicts," director of organization program
on Asia and Eurasia Phil Champaign said during round table Future of
Karabakh – future of peacemaking initiatives in Baku on July 14.

International Alert operates in 20 world countries and deals with
settlement of conflicts. But South Caucasus represents special interest
for the organization, Champaign said during round table organized
in strategic research center under the Azerbaijani President with
participation of politicians, Azerbaijani MPs and experts.

"We hope that certain progress will be achieved in settlement of
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the nearest future," expert said.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan
lost all of Nagorno-Karabakh except for Shusha and Khojali in December
1991. In 1992-93, Armenian armed forces occupied Shusha, Khojali and 7
districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed
a ceasefire in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia,
France, and the U.S. – are currently holding the peace negotiations.

AT LEAST 160 KILLED AS PASSENGER JET CRASHES IN IRAN

Times Online
July 15, 2009

Debris from the Caspian Airlines flight

Nico Hines and Charles Bremner Recommend? (56) More than 160 people
are feared dead in Iran today after a passenger plane crashed in
farmland in the northwest of the country.

The impact gouged a deep trench in the field, which could be seen
littered with wreckage in footage shown on state TV. A large chunk
of smouldering wing was seen but most of the plane appeared to have
been smashed into tiny pieces

An aviation official said that there were 153 passengers and 15 crew
on the Caspian Airlines flight from Tehran to Yerevan, the capital
of Armenia.

Local media reports claim that Iran’s national youth judo team,
along with two trainers and a delegation chief, were on the plane.

A Caspian Airlines representative in Yerevan said that most of the
passengers were Armenians, and that some Georgian citizens were also
on board.

The plane, reported to be a Russian-built Tupolev, crashed near the
city of Qazvin, northwest of the capital, just 16 minutes after take
off from Tehran’s international airport.

Masoud Jafari Nasab, the Qazvin police chief, said: "The passenger
plane was completed destroyed and the wreckage was scattered
everywhere. Most probably all passengers on board have been killed
in the crash." He added that the plane had cr ashed in fields near
the village of Janat Abad.

Caspian Airlines is a Russian-Iranian joint venture founded in
1993. Iran has frequent plane crashes often because of bad maintenance
of its aging aircraft. Tehran blames the problem in part on US
sanctions that prevent Iran from getting spare parts for some planes.

Caspian Airlines, however, uses Russian-made Tupolevs whose maintenance
should not be impaired by American sanctions.

The third major airliner disaster in seven weeks has brought to 548
the number of deaths in accidents so far this year. Last year the
worldwide total was 577 and in 2007 it was 865, according to Aviation
Safety Network.

There was no immediate indication of what went wrong aboard the Caspian
Airlines Tupolev as it climbed towards cruising altitude after take-off
from Teheran airport. Some reports said the crew reported a problem
and that the aircraft was attempting to return it lost control and
hit the ground.

The long traces on the crash scene suggested that the aircraft did not
fall vertically but was still in forward motion when it came down. This
could indicate that it did not explode or break up before crashing
and that the pilots may have had some control of the stricken aircraft.

The Tupolev 154 is the last version of a Soviet-era mid-range airliner
that in the 1970s and 1980s became the work-horse of Aeroflot, the
Russian airline and some two-dozen dozen other=2 0companies in the
former Soviet Union, eastern Europe and Iran.

Hundreds of the three-engine aircraft, built to sturdy standards
for Russia’s rustic flying conditions, were put into service up to
the late 1990s. The Tu-154, known as the Careless in the Cold War
code of the Nato alliance, took many of its design ideas from the
now obsolete British Trident of the late 1960s and the Boeing 727,
with their three tail-mounted engines and swept back wings.

About 40 Tu-154s have been involved in fatal crashes, a rate in
keeping with other Soviet-era jets, which were less reliable than
western airliners. Most of the crashes were blamed on error by the
pilots. Before today’s disaster, seven have crashed in the past decade,
two of them Iranian. In September 2006, 29 passengers died when an
Iran Air Tours Tupolev 154 skidded off the runway as it was landing
in Mashhad and caught fire.

In February 2002, Iran Air Tours Tu-154 hit the Sefid Kouh mountains
outside Khorramabad, killing all 125 aboard.

The Tu-154M of Caspian airlines was a version brought out in the late
1980s with modern turbo-fan engines and western-standard electronics
and other systems. Its basic technology, however, descended from
the rough-and-ready Soviet military-run aviation industry of the
early 1970s.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER NOOKE IN THE CAUCASUS

Auswertiges Amt
July 10 2009
Germany

Interpreter’s arrest casts cloud over visit

In Azerbaijan and Armenia Gunter Nooke discussed the human rights
situation, particularly as regards freedom of the press. An attack
on a local human rights activist who was to act as his interpreter
and his subsequent arrest cast a cloud over his visit to Baku, the
capital of Azerbaijan. Nooke called for his release.

Nooke expressed his concern over the situation of the media in
Azerbaijan and the plight of journalists in detention. Representatives
of the Opposition complain that they are denied access to the media.

Nooke also pointed out that Germany has high expectations of Azerbaijan
not only as regards economic cooperation but also as regards political
developments in the country. To date these expectations had not been
fulfilled, he noted.

The attack on a human rights activist, the former head of the
Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Baku who had been due to act as Nooke’s
interpreter, cast a cloud over the visit. According to onlookers’
accounts, the man had been attacked and beaten up while dining with
companions in a Baku restaurant.

When the police arrived they arrested not only the two assailants –
who have now been released – but also the victim himself on charges
of "hooliganism". He has now been remanded on custody for two months
and is to face further charges.

Nooke called on the Azerbaijani authorities to release the
detainee. This is "a very nasty attempt to silence political
dissidents," he noted.

First leg of the trip: Armenia

The main topic of Nooke’s talks in the Armenian capital of Yerevan
during the first leg of his trip were the events of March 2008.

After the presidential elections in February 2008 hundreds of thousands
took to the streets to protest against alleged vote rigging. On 1
and 2 March violent clashes occurred in which ten people died and
hundreds were arrested. Despite the proclamation of an amnesty in June,
an unknown number of demonstrators remain in detention.

The Council of Europe took a keen interest in the detainees, Nooke
emphasized, and was concerned about their plight. The Council had
called on the Government to fully investigate the clashes and take
appropriate action. In his talks with Government officials Nooke also
criticized the restrictions on freedom of the press in Armenia.

ARF DASHNAKTSUTYUN: AGENDA FOR NATIONAL MOBILIZATION BASED ON ARF-SPONSORED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARMENIA-TURKEY RELATIONS AND THE NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT IN STEPANAKERT, JULY 9-10, 2009

ArmInfo
2009-07-14 16:51:00

ArmInfo. "The topic of national mobilization is urgent today. Of
course, given our size – small territory, small population –
and given Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s enormous capabilities and
sophisticated machinery, we have always used all national and
international resources albeit with varying intensity, scope,
depth and effectiveness, but nevertheless we have used them",-
says the Agenda for National Mobilization based on ARF-sponsored
international conference on Armenia-Turkey Relations and the Nagorno
Karabakh Conflict in Stepanakert, July 9-10, 2009.

Today, the changing circumstances around us, and the new challenges
emerging before us, make the need for this kind of new mobilization
more timely and necessary. Let me cite four major reasons for this
kind of mobilization at this time. First, the new global and regional
developments and changes that have taken place over the past year
and half and continue to evolve

Second, our own policies and the complications that have been created
as a result of our short-sighted, miscalculated policies

Third, the wedge that has been driven between the Diaspora and
Armenia’s leadership as a result of that policy, particularly the
statement issued on April 22 by the foreign ministries of Armenia
and Turkey.

Finally, the issues of legitimacy, fragmentation, and increased tension
among different layers of our society and the deepened distrust
between society and government, as a consequence of the lack of
democratization, repeated bad elections, March 1 and its consequences.

With all this in mind, and in order for us to understand what a renewed
mobilization of resources means, we must answer a few questions. First,
what are we trying to mobilize? Where are our resources, how do
we go about revealing and identifying them, beyond the usual core,
and how do we bring them together for the common good?

Second, for what purpose do we want to mobilize and with whom would
we work to pursue our common goals? What are the centers of power
and influence that we want to target and what or where are the levers
that need to be influenced?

Finally, and most importantly, what is the ideological premise around
which we will rally our resources? What is it that the Armenian people
as a nation, as one people – in Nagorno Karabakh, Armenia and Diaspora
– together want to achieve? This is the all important question on
which I’d like to focus – our common goals and our vulnerabilities. To
understand better our vulnerabilities and the ultimate challenges,
let me give you a quick rundown of what has changed in this past year
and a half, and what are the new threats that face us: First, at the
global level, there is the changing US-Russia relationship. There is
an attempt at reconciliation and a new detente between the powers. In
a reconciled environment, these two countries will view global issues
differently, the scope of interests that must be shared or divided
will be enlarged, and the opportunities, the gain, the benefits for
both sides will be greater. In this kind of situation, where all
problematic issues, all sources of potential discord are on the table
– energy, arms control, nuclear safety, security, conflicts – Nagorno
Karabakh will clearly be on the table, too, as we witnessed just today
by the statement issued at the G8 meeting, by the presidents of the
three Minsk Group co-chair countries – US, Russia and France. Under
such circumstances, the possibility for trade- offs is greater,
and even greater is the risk that they will come at our expense. We
can’t ignore or merely observe these changes. We must be persistent,
vigilant and prevent detrimental developments for Armenia.

Second, the Georgia-Russia war last year changed the balance that
had been maintained between the principles of self-determination and
territorial integrity. Prior to that war, the West had recognized
Kosovo’s independence, despite Russia’s deep opposition. Although
Russia had threatened to counter the Kosovo decision by making a
similar unilateral move by recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it
could not do so easily. That would have presented a serious political
problem. But the Georgia-Russia war changed the environment, and
provided the necessary cover for them to do so. They did. Russia
responded to the West’s unacceptable, unilateral recognition
of Kosovo’s independence by a similar move itself. Now that this
tit-for-tat recognition is over, there seems to be a general internal
understanding that this series of recognitions of self- determination
efforts has ended, that others who aspire to the same will be viewed
differently. It goes without saying that this concept of quotas on
self-determination is a problem that will require attention and must
be countered.

Third, all this comes in the context of Turkey’s emerging role in the
region, and in regard to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. As a result of
the Russia-Georgia war, and even more, as a result of the very public
Turkey-Armenia diplomatic engagement, we are facing an unnecessary
but significant problem. Look what we have today. Because of their
attention and expectations of the very visible and very high-level
process, because of their concerns over the genocide recognition
process, the US, the EU, Russia too, and certainly Turkey and Armenia
all put their prestige on the line, expecting to succeed in opening
the Turkey-Armenia border. This did not happen and everyone came to
understand what they should have seen at the beginning that Turkey
will not move until Azerbaijan is satisfied on the Nagorno Karabakh
situation. What started out as a Turkey- Armenia bilateral process,
ended up with Nagorno Karabakh resolution becoming a condition for
progress in Turkey-Armenia relations. We all understand that under
these circumstances, with huge international pressure on Armenia most
of all, an accelerated Nagorno Karabakh process, not only for its own
sake, but to resolve another political knot, can lead to lots of bad
decisions, especially and particularly for us.

Fourth, we have signed the Moscow declaration last November, and
that declaration includes a stipulation which is going to continue
to haunt us – that the conflict must be resolved based on not
only international principles but also the decisions adopted by
international organizations.

That was a serious diplomatic blunder. That declaration has made
it easier for Russia and other countries in their relations with
Azerbaijan, by making it possible for them to make pro-Azerbaijani
statements on the issue of Nagorno Karabakh. Armenia must do everything
to neutralize that declaration and diminish its impact.

Fifth, the military and political equilibrium between Nagorno Karabakh
and Azerbaijan has changed. The ceasefire has held for 15 years. This
can’t be explained by simple goodwill or by the existence of ongoing
negotiations. An effective buffer zone, an equality in the balance
of the opposing forces, the Azerbaijani army’s insufficient capacity
to mount a serious strike – these have played an important role in
encouraging the sides to maintain the ceasefire.

Today, this component of the balance has been dislodged. The security
of the buffer zone is effected because there is increased pressure on
Armenians to return territories. Azerbaijan has massively building
its military. Our confidence in our military has not changed. But
Azerbaijan’s decision whether to go to war or not, will be based
solely on their own perception of the military balance. At the same
time, the negotiations process too is vulnerable. The document under
discussion is the fifth document in 10 years.

If the sides lose confidence in the negotiations process, this loss
of faith, coupled with a perceived change in the military balance,
is extremely dangerous and can bring on the great and imminent danger
of war.

We must ensure that Nagorno Karabakh does not become the object
of trade among the great powers. We must not accept quotas on
self-determination or independence. We must not allow Turkey to
exploit the existing deadlocked situation between us and divert
their responsibility by putting the blame on Armenians for not making
concessions in Nagorno Karabakh. We must clearly articulate that a
decision by a small group of countries at the UN cannot pretend to
resolve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Finally, because we who have
won the military battles know full well that there is no military
solution to this conflict, we must do all we can to avoid war,
to encourage compromise on all sides, compromise that respects the
realities on the ground and that offers real, historical, legal,
human justice. These objectives form the basis for our mobilization
effort, an effort that has as its ideology and purpose the right of
the people of Nagorno Karabakh to safety and security and a future
of dignity. This is where the history of the last two decades brings
us – to a claim that the world acknowledge this universal right for
the people of Nagorno Karabakh, who have themselves voted for it,
fought for it and developed institutional frameworks to consolidate
it. A lasting resolution must be based on the realities of these 20
years and look forward, with realism again, to a future of peace.

SPECIAL ISSUE OF YEREVAN PRESS CLUB WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

JULY 14, 2009

PERSPECTIVE
WITCHHUNT AS A FORM OF DIALOGUE?

Throughout the 14 years of its existence, regardless of the way the
solitaire on the Armenian political table dealt out, Yerevan Press Club has
considered and will consider the principled, fair criticism of authorities
to be an important tool of strengthening the statehood in our country. We
are convinced that the national interest can only be realized through the
well-established, strong democratic institutes. And our reluctance to put up
with any steps, directed to restricting the free media, diversity of
opinion, is due, among other things, to a concern about protecting our state
from various inner and outer dangers.

Unfortunately, a number of newspaper articles of the recent months show that
the certain power circles prefer different ways of "protection". They see
almost the utmost danger for the national security to be a group of
independent NGOs, and the main weapon against them to be squibs in
periodicals that do not worry about good reputation. The many years of
observing Armenian media allows us to immediately determine what and why is
written and uttered, when the treatise on "grant-mongers" (that is,
non-profit, non-governmental organizations) is purely a product of
inferiority complex, jealousy or simple ignorance, and when the cheap
ambitions of failed journalists (politicians, 007 agents) are exploited for
the sake of "national interest".

It is not the hateful peeps of a flock of alleged writers, able to change
skins several times a day and despised by the journalistic profession itself
that we care about. These peeps are just the side effects of free
expression. But we cannot remain impartial to the fact that people who
define the policy of the state in various spheres resort to their service.
And only in such cases does Yerevan Press Club respond to publications that
pique it: the last time was three and half years ago (see "Statement by
President of Yerevan Press Club Boris Navasardian", YPC Weekly Newsletter,
February 3-9, 2006), and again only when such pieces are obviously ordered.
This note of today is not addressed to those who sign newspaper squeals –
often in fictitious names. These people do not deserve referring to. We
address the backstage initiators of the new phase of harassment of
personalities and organizations, bold enough to speak their mind: should we
see the witchhunt to be a peculiar form of public dialogue, so loudly
announced as necessary after the tragic March 1, 2008?

With all the numerous challenges that our country faces today, its
information space is dominated by petty squabble, as to whether the member
of Armenian delegation in Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe should
or should not have approached the MP from Azerbaijan. Along with this, the
very "courageous" and, what is more important, very "principled" "guards" of
national interest had their pens ready to "fight back" the independent civil
sector. Should it disappear, there will be much less talk about corruption,
incompetent governance, election fraud, human rights violations, violence
against journalists, stronger pressure on media. Chances are, this
"malevolence" will stop completely. And who else can rise up to the
honorable mission of advancing the country towards such idyllic future by
"democratic methods", if not the "special press", trained to chase the
opponents!

…All of us need to think seriously about the protection of our statehood,
seeing from whom, how and through what – with no slightest disgust – it is
going to be protected…

When reprinting or using the information above, reference to the Yerevan
Press Club is required.

You are welcome to send any comment and feedback about the Newsletter to:
[email protected]

Subscription for the Newsletter is free. To subscribe or unsubscribe from
this mailing list, please send a message to: [email protected]

Editor of YPC Newsletter – Elina POGHOSBEKIAN
_____________________________________ _______
Yerevan Press Club
9B, Ghazar Parpetsi str.
0002, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+ 374 10) 53 00 67; 53 35 41; 53 76 62
Fax: (+374 10) 53 56 61
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site:

MASIS MAYILIAN: ADOPTION OF PUBLISHED BASIC PRINCIPLES CONTRADICTS INTERESTS OF NKR AND ARMENIA

NOYAN TAPAN
JULY 13, 2009
YEREVAN

Presidents of Russia, U.S. and France adopted a statement on the
Nagorno Karabakh problem on July 10 at the G8 Summit in the city of
L’Aquila, Italy. Noyan Tapan received a commentary by Chairman of
Public Council on Foreign Policy and Security, former Deputy Foreign
Minister of NKR Masis Mayilian concerning that statement and basic
principles of settlement. Below is the commentary completely:

"The text of the joint statement on Nagorno Karabakh conflict by
RF President D. Medvedev, U.S. President Barack Obama, and French
President Nicolas Sarkozy hardly differs from other statements
made earlier at various levels and within the framework of various
international structures in support of the OSCE Minsk process. It is
noteworthy that now the Presidents of the three countries call the
Armenian and Azeri authorities for finishing coordination of concrete
principles of settlement that were published on the official website
of OSCE ().

We will try to shortly comment upon each principle:

1. Return of territories around Nagorno Karabakh under Azerbaijan’s
control

Ceding any territory under NKR’s control to Azerbaijan will mean first
of all violation of the basic law, Constitution of NKR, where the
given territories are fixed. Secondly, withdrawal of the subdivisions
of NKR army from even if part of liberated territories will undermine
the military and food security of NKR.

The published principles have even no hint at return to NKR control
of more than 1000 sq/m Karabakh lands occupied by Azerbaijan.

Not territories, but borders between NKR and Azerbaijan should be
spoken about at the negotiations. Only after the recognition of
the NKR statehood by Azerbaijan the bilateral intergovernmental
commission should attend to delimitation and demarcation of the
state frontiers. It is the international practice of solving frontier
arguments.

2. Giving an interim status to Nagorno Karabakh, providing security
and autonomy guarantees

Indeed this principle means an attempt to limit NKR sovereignty casting
doubt on its independent status and to deprive the republic of its
own security system. Recognition of NKR independence would really
ensure security of NKR that would give Artsakh new possibilities for
maintaining its own security, including with political-diplomatic
means.

3. Corridor between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh

The land communication between NKR and Armenia was established in
1992 May and was enlarged during the operations of 1993. It would be
naive to limit the current full-value land communication of NKR with
Armenia to the vulnerable "corridor." It is noteworthy that the given
principle is proposed as a concession to the Armenians.

4. Determination of the final legal status of Nagorno Karabakh in
the future on the basis of juridically obligatory will

The legal status of NKR has been already determined on the basis of
juridically obligatory will on December 10, 1991 and was confirmed
by another referendum on adoption of NKR Constitution on December
10, 2006. Besides, the NKR people for eight times has expressed its
adherence to independent statehood in republican presidential and
parliamentary elections by voting for programs of political parties
and individual candidates, in which the necessity of international
recognition and strengthening of NKR statehood was mentioned. Thus,
over the past 18 years citizens of NKR for ten times expressed their
being for independent status of NKR.

5. Ensuring the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees
to return to places of their former residence

The given principle can be discussed by all three sides after
recognition of NKR independence by Azerbaijan. A positive moment is
the use of the word "all" and not only Azeri refugees. Though it is
not understandable who and how can ensure the rights and guarantee
the security of hundreds of thousands of people, who can appear in
the territory of the opposite side.

6. International guarantees of security, including operations on
maintaining peace

In essence, we are suggested replacing the current own system
of military security by an inefficient mechanism of "blue
helmets." Possible appearance of foreign armed forces in the
territory of NKR, even under the flag of authoritative international
organizations, will immediately result in abrupt limitation of
republic’s sovereignty. The circumstance that the NKR sovereignty
has not received yet a recognition by the international community
and the country is not represented at the above mentioned structures
can result in Karabakh’s having no levers of influence on these
forces guaranteed by the international law. Under the circumstances a
possible withdrawal of peacekeeping forces will radically contradict
our national interests. NKR cannot limit its state sovereignty without
receiving its all-embracing international juridical recognition.

Passage of direct obligations on maintaining security and
simultaneously of concrete territories to the third side do not
guarantee strengthening of the very security and poses new threats.

Karabakh residents have their own experience of communicating with
the "peacekeepers of the Soviet period, when troops from the end
of the 1980-s sent for keeping population’s security chronically
did not cope with their duties and failed to protect the Armenian
population of Azerbaijani SSR from massacres and violence. In 1991
by the order of the USSR leadership the very troops banished the
Armenian population from some parts of Artsakh (operation Koltso/
Ring). The peacekeeping operations demonstrated low efficiency in
other conlfict zones, as well.

For governments sending peacekeepers to a conflict region, their
interests and the immediate security of the very peacekeepers will
be always more important than the security of the local population.

The published basic principles in case of their adoption and
realization will damage irreparably the national interests of NKR
and RA. The inadmissibility of the basic principles of Nagorno
Karabakh conflict settlement was fixed in the Resolution of the
All-Armenian Conference held on July 10-11, 2009 in the capital
city of NKR. Participants of the conference from Armenia, Artsakh,
and Diaspora demanded from the RA authorities not to sign the
offered document. Obviously, there is an understanding that ceding
territories to the enemy, in which the Armenian people has juridical
and political, as well as historic rights, will be a strong moral blow
for the Armenian people, which can deprive for years of the will of
resistance and motivation of building their own statehood."

WHY JERUSALEM? – ISRAEL’S HIDDEN AGENDA
By Dan Lieberman

The Palestine Chronicle
July 2, 2009

Three huge granite stones rest comfortably on the top of Midbar Sinai
Street, in Givat Havatzim, Jerusalem’s northernmost district. Cut
to specification, the imposing stones represent one of several
preparations by the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement’s
to erect a Third Temple on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Since the
Islamic Wafq owns and controls all the property on the Haram al-Sharif,
by what means can these stones be transferred to the Temple Mount and
how can a Temple be constructed there? Not by any legal means. The
stones are a provocation, which the Israel government refuses to
halt. Neglect and passivity lead to a belief that an eventual Muslim
reaction to the increasing provocations will give Israel an excuse to
seize total control of the Holy Basin – the ultimate of the properties
that Israel intends to incorporate into a greater Jerusalem.

For decades, Israeli authorities have spoken of a united Jerusalem –
suggesting a spiritual quality to its message – as if Israel wants the
home for the three monotheistic faiths to be solid and stable. By being
guided from one central authority, a united Jerusalem also offers a
preservation of a common and ancient heritage. However, by stressing
the word ‘unification,’ Israel disguises the lack of a sufficiently
supporting and verifiable historical narrative that could bolster its
thrust to incorporate all of an artificially created greater Jerusalem
into its boundaries. Coupled with inconsistencies and contradictions,
Israel’s eagerness to create a greater Jerusalem under its total
control becomes suspect. The intensive concentration on a ‘united’
Jerusalem reveals a hidden agenda that debases Jerusalem’s religious
ingathering and heightens division, hatred and strife.

Examine the Holy Basin. The Holy Basin contains well marked Christian
and Muslim institutions and holy places that have had historical
placement for millenniums. Although people of the Jewish faith
had major presence in Jerusalem during the centuries of Biblical
Jerusalem, which included rule by King Hezekiah and control by the
Hasmonean dynasties, their control and presence were interrupted
for two millennia. Extensive commentary has enabled the two thousand
years of lack of control and presence to seem as if it never happened
and that today is only a short time from the years of Hezekiah. Some
remains of Jewish dwellings and ritual baths can be found, but few
if any major Jewish monuments, buildings or institutions from the
Biblical era exist in the "Old City" of today’s Jerusalem. The often
cited Western Wall is the supporting wall for Herod’s platform and is
not directly related to the Second Temple. No remains of the Jewish
Temple have been located in Jerusalem – not even a rock.

According to Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem, Jews did not pray at the
Western Wall until the Mamluks in the 15th century allowed them to
move their congregations from a dangerous Mount of Olives and pray
daily at the Wall. At that time she estimates that there may have
been no more than 70 Jewish families in Jerusalem. After the Ottomans
replaced the Mamluks, Suleiman the Magnificent issued a formal edict
in the 16th century that permitted Jews to have a place of prayer at
the Western Wall.

The only remaining major symbol of Jewish presence in Jerusalem’s Holy
City is the Jewish quarter, which Israel cleared of Arabs and rebuilt
after 1967. During its clearing operations, Israel demolished the
Maghribi Quarter adjacent to the Western Wall, destroyed the al-Buraq
Mosque and the Tomb of the Sheikh al-Afdhaliyyah, and displaced
about 175 Arab families. Although the Jewish population in previous
centuries comprised a large segment of the Old City (estimates have
7000 Jews during the mid-19th century), the Jews gradually left the
Old City and migrated to new neighborhoods in West Jerusalem, leaving
only about 2000 Jews in the Old City. Jordanian control after the 1948
war reduced the number to nil. By 2009, the population of the Jewish
quarter in the Old City had grown to 3000, or nine percent of the
Old City population. The Christian, Armenian and Muslim populations
are the principal constituents and their quarters contain almost the
entire Old City commerce.

In an attempt to attach ancient Israel to present day Jerusalem,
Israeli authorities continue the attachment of spurious labels to
Holy Basin landmarks, while claiming the falsification is due to the
Byzantines, who got it all wrong.

King David’s Tower’s earliest remains were constructed several hundred
years after the Bible dates David’s reign. It is a now an obvious
Islamic minaret.

King David’s Citadel earliest remains are from the Hasmonean period
(200 B.C.). The Citadel was entirely rebuilt by the Ottomans between
1537 and 1541.

King David’s tomb, located in the Dormition Abbey, is a cloth-covered
cenotaph (no remains) that honors King David. It’s only an unverified
guess that the casket is related to David.

The Pools of Solomon, located in a village near Bethlehem, are
considered to be part of a Roman construction during the reign of
Herod the Great. The pools supplied water to an aqueduct that carried
the water to Bethlehem and to Jerusalem.

The Stables of Solomon, under the Temple Mount, are assumed to be a
construction of vaults that King Herod built in order to extend the
Temple Mount platform.

Absalom’s Tomb is an obvious Greek sculptured edifice and therefore
cannot be the tomb of David’s son.

The City of David contains artifacts that date before and during
David’s time. However, some archaeologists maintain there is an
insufficient number of artifacts to conclude any Israelite presence,
including that of King David, before the late ninth century. In any
case any Israelite presence must have been in a small and unfortified
settlement.

The Jerusalem Archaeological Park within the Old City, together
with the Davidson Exhibition and Virtual Reconstruction Center also
tell the story. Promising to reveal much of a Hebrew civilization,
the museums shed little light on its subject. The Davidson Center
highlights a coin exhibition, Jerusalem bowls and stone vessels. The
Archeological Park in the Old City contains among many artifacts,
Herodian structures, ritual baths, a floor of an Umayyad palace, a
Roman road, Ottoman gates, and the facade of what is termed Robinson’s
arch, an assumed Herodian entryway to the Temple Mount. The exhibitions
don’t reveal many, if any, ancient Hebrew structures or institutions
of special significance.

Reliable archaeologists, after examining excavations that contain
pottery shards and buildings, concluded that archaeological finds
don’t substantiate the biblical history of Jerusalem and its importance
during the eras of a united Jewish kingdom under David and Solomon.

Margaret Steiner in an article titled It’s Not There: Archaeology
Proves a Negative in the Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August,
1998, states:

"…from the tenth century B.C.E. there is no archaeological evidence
that many people actually lived in Jerusalem, only that it was some
kind of public administrative center…We are left with nothing that
indicates a city was here during their supposed reigns (of David
and Solomon)…It seems unlikely, however, that this Jerusalem was
the capital of a large state, the United monarchy, as described in
Biblical texts."

West Jerusalem is another matter. With banditry prolific and Old City
gates being closed before nightfall, living outside the city gates did
not appeal to the population. Wealthy philanthropist Moses Montefiore
wanted to attract the Jewish population to new surroundings and he
constructed the first Jewish community outside of the Old City –
Yemin Moshe’s first houses were completed in 1860. From that time
Jewish presence played a role in creating a West Jerusalem. Other
institutions, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Russian Orthodox and Muslim
soon ventured forth and owned much property in the evolving West
Jerusalem.

In 1948, After the Israeli army seized absolute control of West
Jerusalem, the new Israeli government confiscated all West Jerusalem
property owned by Muslim institutions. Reason – enemy property. Few
Muslims and no mosques remain in today’s West Jerusalem.

One contradiction. By attacking and ethnically cleansing the
Christian Arab communities of Deir Yassin and Ein Kerem, Israeli
forces characterized Christian Palestinians as an enemy. Nevertheless,
Israel did not confiscate Christian properties, many of which are
apparent in West Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox Church owns extensive
properties in West Jerusalem, many marked by its "TΦ" (Tau + Phi)
symbol, interpreted as the word ‘Sepulchre.’

Another contradiction. Israel has cared for the Jewish cemetery on
the Mount of Olives and expanded it as a heritage site. Part of the
famous Muslim Mamilla cemetery in West Jerusalem has been classified
as refugee property and is being prepared to be demolished for the
new Museum of Tolerance.

East Jerusalem reveals more contradictions. The repeated warning
by Israeli leaders that co-existence is not feasible and that it
is necessary to separate the Jewish and Palestinian communities is
contradicted by Israel’s desire to incorporate East Jerusalem into
Israel. Incorporation means accepting somewhere between 160,000 and
225,000 Palestinians into a Jewish state. Or does it? Whereas the
older historical Jewish neighborhoods in West Jerusalem have their
character meticulously maintained or are rebuilt in their original
style, the older Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are entirely
neglected (all of Arab East Jerusalem is neglected) or destroyed. How
much deterioration and destruction can Palestinians absorb before
they decide to leave?

Construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods
proceeds and destruction of Arab homes, either declared illegally
constructed or illegally purchased, continues. On 44 dunums of
lands confiscated from Palestinian families, a private company has
constructed the gated community of Nof Zion, and conveniently separated
Palestinian Jabal Al Mukabir from other parts of East Jerusalem. No
Arabs need apply. The million dollar condominiums are advertised for
American investors.

The Israeli ministry of Interior has approved a plan to demolish
a kindergarten and wholesale market in East Jerusalem’s Wadi Joz
neighborhood in order to construct a new hotel close to the Old City
and near the Rockefeller Museum. The result will be the destruction
of an Arab neighborhood and its replacement by Jewish interests,
which will one day join other Jewish interests.

These are only two examples of a master plan to replace the centuries
old Arab presence in East Jerusalem with a modern Jewish presence. The
ancient Arab presence in an ancient land is further subdivided by
the Separation Wall, which runs through the East Jerusalem landscape
and detaches East Jerusalem from the West Bank, making it unlikely
for a Palestinian state to have its capital in East Jerusalem. The
master plan extends the boundaries of Jerusalem to include the large
Israeli settlement (city) of Maale Adumim. Between Maale Adumim
and East Jerusalem, Israel proposes to construct the E1 corridor,
which joins settlements in a ring and adds to the separation of
East Jerusalem from the West Bank. The E1 corridor will divide the
northern and southern West Bank and will impede direct transit between
Palestine Bethlehem, which is south of E1 and Palestine Ramallah,
which is north of E1. Construction of the E1 corridor, portions of
which are owned by Palestinians, could prevent the formation of a
viable Palestinian state.

So, if Israel is destroying Jerusalem’s heritage and subjugating its
spiritual meaning, why does Israel want to unify Jerusalem?

Israel’s Hidden Agenda

Israel is a physically small and relatively new country with an
eager population and big ambitions. It needs more prestige and wants
to be viewed as a power broker on the world stage. To gain those
perspectives Israel needs a capital city that commands respect,
contains ancient traditions and is recognized as one of the world’s
most important and leading cities. Almost all of the world’s principal
nations, from Egypt to Germany to Great Britain, have capitals that
are great cities of the world. To assure its objectives, Israel wants
an oversized Jerusalem that contains the Holy City.

That’s not all.

Jerusalem has significant tourism that can be expanded. It can provide
new commercial opportunities as an entry to all of the Mid-East. An
indivisible Jerusalem under Israeli control is worth a lot of shekels.

Israel competes with the United States as the focus of the Jewish
people. It needs a unique Jerusalem to gain recognition as the home
of Judaism.

By controlling all of the holy sites, Israel commands attention from
Moslem and Christian leaders. These leaders will be forced to talk
with Israel and Israel will have a bargaining advantage in disputes.

Whatever Israel gains the Palestinians are denied. Even if Israel
agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state, it will direct
its policies to limit the effectiveness of that state. Since East
Jerusalem and its holy sites greatly benefit a Palestinian economy
and increase Palestine legitimacy, Israel will do everything to
prevent East Jerusalem being ceded to the new state of Palestine. An
"indivisible" Jerusalem is part of that effort.

West Jerusalem only gives Israel a North/South capital. An indivisible
Jerusalem gives Israel a forward look towards an East/West capital or
a centralized capital of the land of previous biblical Jewish tribes.

The Zionist socialist ideals and the cooperative Kibbutzim
received support and sympathy from idealistic world peoples for
many years. Israel’s attachment to the Holocaust tragedy extended
that sympathy and support to more of the world. With the end of the
Zionist dream, the decline of kibbutz life and the over-popularizing
of the Holocaust, Israel needs a new symbol of identity that captures
world attention.

If Israel has legitimate claims to Jerusalem, then those claims
should be heard and discussed in a proper forum. However, that is
not the process forthcoming. The process has the Israeli government
using illegal and illegitimate procedures, as well as deceitful and
hypocritical methods to force its agenda. Israel is not presenting
its case but is exerting its powers to trample all legal, moral and
historical considerations.

In the Museum of the Citadel of David is an inscription: The land of
Israel is in the center of the world and Jerusalem is the center of
the land of Israel.

This self praise was echoed at a West Jerusalem coffee house in a
conversation with several Israelis, A youthful Israeli abruptly sat
at the table and entered the conversation with the words: "All the
world looks to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the center of the world and
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Everyone needs Jerusalem and they
will need to talk with Israel.’

And that is why Israel desperately wants its greater Jerusalem.

– Dan Lieberman is the editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web
based newsletter. Dan has written many articles on the Middle East
conflict, which have circulated on websites and media throughout the
world. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact
him at: [email protected]