Author: Kanayan Tamar

SERZH SARGSYAN: NEW DIVIDING LINES IN THE CAUCASUS ARE DANGEROUS

armradio.am
11.11.2008 15:33

The President of Armenia, Mr. Serzh Sargsyan, gave an interview to the
German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The full text of the interview
is presented below:

Question: Mr. President, last week in Moscow you came to an agreement
with the President of Azerbaijan on the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, a conflict which has long kept strained the relations
between the two countries. How will it develop today?

Answer: It was important for us that we signed a document,
which rules out the military solution to the conflict. Sure,
this was just a declaration, while we would be very glad to have a
treaty. Nevertheless, I don’t want to undermine the importance of the
document. I’m glad that we signed a document with Azerbaijan, which
accepts all principles of conflict resolution of international law,
and not only the principle of territorial integrity. I positively
assess the fact that despite the recent sharp criticism of the
effectiveness of the Minsk Group activity, the document emphasizes
the role of the Co-Chair countries – Russia, the United States and
France – as mediators.

Question: Are you ready to withdraw your troops from the seven regions
adjunct to Nagorno Karabakh as required?

Answer: The core issue of the conflict is the status of Nagorno
Karabakh.

Azerbaijan should recognize the right of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh to self-determination. The solution of this main issue may
be followed by the solution of other issues. For us the control of
those territories is not an end in itself. It is aimed at ensuring
the security of Karabakh. Today we need to negotiate the principles
of settlement, which may be followed by the main peace treaty. We
still have a long way to pass.

Question: You are from Karabakh. Can Karabakh remain as an autonomous
region within Azerbaijan?

Answer: The question is about creating conditions that would allow
ensuring the further safe development of the population. History has
shown that it is impossible within Azerbaijan. We have never thought
that Karabakh can remain within Azerbaijan in any status.

Question: You visited Brussels recently. Can the EU be useful in
solving the conflict?

Answer: Europe should clearly indicate if one of the parties deviates
from the way and distorts the peaceful nature of the process. Besides,
if any international organization stresses the importance of one
principle of conflict resolution, it encourages the actions of
that country in that direction and demonstrates a non-constructive
approach. The United States and several European countries applied
the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination in case
of Kosovo, but when Russia did the same, it was rejected by the United
States and Europe.

Question: But you have not recognized the independence of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia, either.

Answer: You are right. As it is known we have not recognized the
independence of Kosovo, either. We have no right to recognize the
independence of those countries until we recognize the independence
of Nagorno Karabakh. Our people will not understand the step. Now you
will ask me why, in that case, we do not recognize the independence
of Karabakh. We think that the recognition of independence is the
last step. We are not that strong to unilaterally recognize the
independence of Karabakh and consider the process completed.

Question: What were the geopolitical consequences of the Georgian
war for Armenia?

Answer: The events showed how vulnerable the region is. Georgia is
extremely important to us, since 70% of our trade passes through
that country.

Simultaneously, we are strategic partners with Russia. It was important
for us to coordinate these two responsibilities, which I think, we
managed to do. Georgia and Armenia have different approaches towards
different principled issues; however, we managed to avoid that all,
which could be viewed as hostility. And despite the numerous changes
in the region as a result of the war, I can say the Armenian-Georgian
and the Armenian-Russian relations did not suffers because of it.

Question: You are also a member of NATO’s partnership program. Does
it mean that the lesson drawn from the war is that the Alliance should
stay away from the Caucasus?

Answer: I would not approve your choice of words. In that case the
development of our relations with NATO would be impossible. We consider
that the cooperation with the Alliance is a component of our security
system. On the other hand, we do not aspire to join NATO. Drawing
new dividing lines in the region could be very dangerous. This was
the lesson learnt from the Georgia war

Question: Should your neighbors suspend their efforts of joining NATO?

Answer: I cannot speak on behalf of other countries. Over the past
ten years we have been aspiring to implement a balanced policy that
would correspond to the interests of the United States, Russia and
NATO. Deriving benefits from the discrepancy of those forces could
be tempting, but at the same time, it is very dangerous.

Question: Recently you invited the Turkish President to Armenia to
watch a football match. The whole world welcomed your initiative. Today
the Turks propose establishing a commission of historians to probe
into the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Would it be beneficial?

Answer: I see absolutely no necessity of it. We do not think
that we would manage to reach something this way. We wish to
establish diplomatic relations between the two countries without
any preconditions, open the border. Then we will be able to solve
the questions between the neighbor countries on the level of an
intergovernmental process. We do not view the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide by Turkey as precondition for the establishment
of relations. We want it, but not at any cost. European countries
did not establish commissions of historians for developing normal
relations. Such a step would mean an attempt to mislead the
international community.

Question: Could Armenia become a transit energy route to Europe
like Georgia?

Answer: I don’t think we should aspire to substitute someone. But
it’s certain that we want to have developed infrastructures, create
alternative routes of supply. We would like our communication
with Azerbaijan and Turkey to be reopened. We want to construct a
north-south railway, which will later link Armenia to Iran. The more
developed and diverse our infrastructures are, the more attractive
and safer Armenia will be.

MILITARY HELICOPTER CRASHES IN YEREVAN, KILLS PILOT

Interfax
Nov 4 2008
Russia

One man was killed as a military helicopter Mi-24 crashed at the
Yerevan airport Erebuni at about 2:00 p.m. local time on Tuesday,
Armenian Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Seiran Shakhsuvarian told
Interfax.

"The helicopter belonging to the Armenian armed forces overturned
and crashed during preparations for a planned training flight,
which killed pilot Cap. Arshak Nersisian, who was on the runway,"
Shakhsuvarian said.

A criminal case has been opened into the incident, he said.

THE MAINDORF DECLARATION
By Armen Manvelian

AZG Armenian Daily
05/11/2008

Karabakh issue

Why did the Presidents sign the document?

On November 2, at the Maindorf Castle in Moscow Armenian and
Azerbaijani Presidents signed a declaration under the patronage of the
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, which is the first document signed
by the two parties after the ceasefire agreement in 1994. In this
sense, the document is historical, as the official Moscow seems to
do the impossible thing – it persuaded the two countries’ presidents
to sign the same document simultaneously. However, more important is
what the parties gain from signing the declaration.

We would like to present the main provisions of the declaration
that are of great importance and can influence the developments of
Karabakh issue.

According to the first clause of the document, the parties "will
facilitate the improvement of the situation in the South Caucasus
and establishment of stability and security in the region through a
political settlement of the conflict based on the principles and norms
of international law and the decisions and documents adopted in this
framework to create favorable conditions for economic development and
comprehensive cooperation in the region". In other words, the parties
exclude military resolution of the issue, at least in coming years,
and the negotiation process will continue within the principles of the
international law, or, correctly, in combination with it. Of course,
it doesn’t mean that Aliyev will stop his war-like announcements,
but they will not be as sharp as before.

According to the second clause (the parties "reinstate the importance
of the mediating efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, taking
into consideration their meeting with the parties on November 29,
2007 and the future discussions held for the purpose of working out
the main principles of political settlement"), the Madrid principles
will be the basis for the future discussions, and new principles will
not be worked out, at least in the nearest future.

The third clause (the parties "agree that the peaceful resolution
should be accompanied by judicially biding international guarantees
in all aspects and stages of settlement) is probably the sincerest
clause of the document, as, according to it, the parties cannot act
without international countries’ consent, for example, they cannot
transfer the issue to the UN, and they have to take into consideration
the viewpoints of the mediator countries in the whole process of
negotiations; it means that their mediation will continue to be active.

The fourth clause mentions that "the Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan agreed to continue the efforts for the political settlement
of the conflict and instructed the Ministers of Foreign Affairs to
take more active steps in that direction through cooperation with the
OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs". This clause assures that only Russia,
USA and France continue to be the mediators in the negotiation process
of the conflict settlement, and Turkish and Iranian desire to have
their place in the mediator processes is declined from the very outset.

The last clause of the declaration (the parties "emphasize the
importance of creating conditions that will contribute to the
reinforcement of trust within the framework of the efforts targeted at
the settlement of the conflict") has a declarative nature to conclude
the document competently.

The main question to be answered is "Why was the signing of the
declaration necessary?" It was necessary for the Co-chair countries
that followed unwillingly other countries’ attempts to be involved
in the regional developments. It was also necessary for Russia to
affirm once more that the most important place for the resolution
of the issue is not Washington or Paris but Moscow. It means that
Russia strengthening its positions in the South Caucasus needed one
more announcement of its reinforcement and the Maindorf declaration
was a brilliant PR action for it, especially against the background
of the Georgian conflict.

TURKEY AND THE CAUCASUS: CAN THEY BE FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS?
Samvel Martirosyan (Armenia)

en.fondsk.ru
03.11.2008

Turkey took advantage of the radical changes that took place in the
Caucasus as the result of the Five-Day War to implement a reorientation
of its international policy.

While the fighting was raging it was already clear that Ankara was
going to start playing a bigger role in the Caucasus. During the active
phase of the conflict, Turkey made political maneuvers between the
countries involved concerning the passage of the NATO Navy via the
Black Sea straits (1).

Immediately upon the end of the hostilities Ankara floated the
initiative of creating a platform for security and stability in
the Caucasus inviting Russia, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan to
participate. Despite being the most controversial participants of
the project, Moscow and Yerevan unexpectedly expressed support for
the platform (2).

Imperialism: the Turkish Disease For Turkey, the South Caucasus is
important not only from the standpoint of geopolitics, but also as the
region relevant to the future of the country’s political elites which
are currently plagued by ideological strife. The conflict between the
ruling Islamist party and the secular army has disoriented the country:
it is uncertain whether Turkey is going to opt for Europeization with
an admixture of nationalism or for radical Islamization.

Turkey is a country with profoundly imperialist traditions, but had to
remain confined to its borders for a protracted period of time. The
contradiction has led to a serious identity crisis. An empire that
is not expanding is bound to sink into chaos, which is exactly what
is currently taking place in Turkey.

The situation in the Middle East has changed fundamentally due to
the end of the Cold War and the two Gulf Wars. The US troops gained
strongholds in the region and Washington no longer needs a strong
Turkey which used to help it implement its polices. Consequently, the
space for maneuvers available to Ankara is shrinking, and Washington
makes efforts to sideline it as an undesirable competitor.

For the Turkish elite, the activity in the Caucasian direction can
serve as a unifying factor. At the moment, Transcaucasia is the region
where Ankara can adhere to an independent national course equally free
from the pressure of the West and the politicized Islam. Ankara can
rely on Azerbaijan which is its obedient ally in the region, and can
interact with Georgia which – due to the crisis of its own statehood –
has sought maximal rapprochement with Turkey. All that Ankara had to
do was to choose the right moment to drag the "problematic" Armenia
and Russia – Turkey’s traditional rival in the Caucasus – into the
orbit of its policy.

A Turkish Breakthrough?

Is it fair to say that, having found the intelligent decision and
taken advantage of the chaos in the region, Ankara managed to make
inroads into the South Caucasus? More precisely, Turkey used the recent
complications to start implementing its old plan of penetrating the
region which remained out of its reach for a long time. Turkey’s
relations with Armenia – the neighbor country with which it had
particularly strained relations – highlight the above.

A survey of the relations between Turkey and Armenia shows that
Turkey’s snap advent to the Caucasus has been carefully planned
ahead. An unprecedented political development had taken place in
September, 2008 – Turkish President Abdullah Gul attended a soccer
game in Yerevan at the invitation of Serzh Sargsyan. Considering
that there are no diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia and
the relations between them are burdened with the legacy of a bloody
conflict, the casual meeting of the two leaders was an extraordinary
event which triggered discussions of a "breakthrough" and a possible
normalization.

Armenia was involved in talks behind closed doors about the
normalization of the relations with Turkey at least months before Gul’s
visit to Yerevan. On the surface, it appeared that the rapprochement
was induced by the Five-Day War, but in reality the conflict between
Georgia and South Ossetia merely catalyzed the process that had to
commence anyhow.

The condition of the relations between Turkey and Armenia started
to evolve incredibly fast. On the one hand, it is an unexpected
breakthrough. On the other, it is unlikely that the new trend is
explained solely by a sudden drive for better relations in Ankara
and Yerevan. Probably, the prompt rapprochement scenario had been
prepared already under President R. Kocharyan and awaited for the
right moment to be put into practice.

Otherwise it would be hard to explain how it became possible to
reach the deal to supply electric power from Armenia to Turkey,
to convince Armenia to drop its objections to Turkey’s membership
in the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development and Turkey –
to lift the air blockade of Armenia so quickly, etc.

It should be remembered that Sargsyan went public with his offer to
improve the relations between Armenia and Turkey in June, 2008 when
his presidency was in the initial phase and his domestic political
positions were fairly insecure. He took serious risks floating the
initiative which the Armenian society was going to frown upon. No
preliminary efforts were made to prepare the public opinion to
accept it, which is another indication that the snap rapprochement
was planned much earlier, and the hostilities in South Ossetia merely
signaled the right moment to move on.

Can Turkey Be an Ally?

Clearly, Yerevan had to act under serious Western pressure. From
the perspective of Washington and Brussels, lifting the blockade at
the border between Armenia and Turkey is a prologue to a shift in
the balance of forces in the region as in this case Russia would no
longer be Armenia’s only link to the outside world and Armenia would
thus get decoupled from Russia.

As a result Russia would see its potential to influence Armenia
considerably reduced.

Yet, the recent strengthening of Russia’s positions in the Caucasus
affected the US plan of weakening its hold on Yerevan. Under the
circumstances, Ankara started to play a game of its own. By launching
the process of rapprochement with Russia, Turkey has generally
neutralized the influence of the West. At the same time, Russia is
entrained by Turkey since the latter has the potential to influence
the situation in the South Caucasus with the help of Azerbaijan and –
to an extent – Georgia.

At the moment, Ankara is successfully maneuvering between Moscow,
Washington, and Brussels, probing into the opportunities to expand
its presence in the region.

It should be realized that Turkey regards the rapprochement with
Russia as a tactical move. It would be naïve to expect that the
conflict with Georgia is going to make a geopolitical alliance with
Turkey or even a Russia-Turkey axis possible. The Turkish elite are
fully aware that Russia is its number one rival in the Caucasus and
the Black Sea region.

It appears that not everybody in Armenia welcomes the dubious plans
of a snap recovery in the relations with Turkey either. Though
Armenia’s political elite has spent the entire September praising
the corresponding achievements, already in mid-October the Armenian
Prime Minister indicated in a rather harsh form that in his view the
essence of Ankara’s policy had remained unchanged.

Currently the process is stagnating notably, and no profound changes
in the South Caucasus direction loom on the horizon. There exist such
key problems that any rapid changes in the region are going to have
an adverse impact on all sides unless they are resolved. One of the
main key problems is, of course, that of Karabakh. Having no leverage
in the conflict, Turkey is nevertheless actively seeking a role in
the negotiation process. Moscow is trying to gain control over the
process as well. In all likelihood, in the nearest time neither of
the parties involved will be able to monopolize control over the
developments around Karabakh.

There is one more significant circumstance that has to be taken into
account. Some of the serious regional forces have not even joined
the game so far. For example, Iran is taking its time as much as it
appears possible and only occasionally reminds others that it is also
a country to reckon with. No doubt, in a while Tehran will attempt
to impede the emergence of any new alliances in the South Caucasus
that will pose a threat to Iran.

Currently Iran is interested in maintaining the status quo. In
particular, the strengthening of Turkey’s positions – and even more so
its rapid rapprochement with Russia and Armenia – would be undesirable
for Iran.

Therefore Tehran will try to impede the political developments in
the South Caucasus leading to the emergence of any new trends. The
country certainly has the instruments to do so.

_________

1. Turkey Did Not Admit the US Navy to Georgia. Rosbalt, August 16,
2008,

2. Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov. Russia Hails the Turkish
Initiative to Create a Caucasus Platform. PanARMENIAN.Net, 03.10.2008,
id=27246

–Boundary_(ID_95qPr9hMNsMN9W6MNt/NyQ)–

US ELECTING THE 44TH PRESIDENT

armradio.am
04.11.2008 10:42

The world will focus attention on the US today: voters will give
their verdict and pick the 44th US President.

The US presidential rivals, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, have spent a hectic final day of campaigning criss-crossing
the country in a last push for votes in key states.

Republican John McCain, trailing in opinion polls, started early
in Florida and was to finish in Arizona. He urged his supporters to
fight on to victory.

Democrat Barack Obama, at his last campaign rally in Virginia, told
voters he had one word for them: "Tomorrow."

In a symbolic opening to election day on the US east coast, Mr. Obama
defeated his rival by 15 votes to six in the hamlet of Dixville Notch,
New Hampshire.

The town, which has a 60-year tradition of being first in the nation
to vote, opened its polls at midnight, with turnout of 100%. George
W Bush won there in 2004, on his way to re-election.

Just a few days left to the election day the Obama-Biden campaign
reaffirmed its commitment to Armenian Genocide recognition. A statement
titled "Barack Obama: Supporting U.S.-Armenia Relations" affirms that
"The Armenian Genocide, carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to
1923, resulted in the deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians, and
approximately 1.5 million of those deported were killed. Barack Obama
believes we must recognize this tragic reality and strongly supports
a U.S.-Armenian relationship that advances our common security and
strengthens Armenian democracy." The statement goes on to note "Barack
Obama strongly supports passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution
(H.Res.106 and S.Res.106) and will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

RUSSIAN, AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTERS BEGIN MEETING IN MOSCOW

Azeri Press Agency
Oct 31 2008
Azerbaijan

Baku. Lachin Sultanova-APA. Foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan
and Armenia Sergei Lavrov, Elmar Mammadyarov and Edward Nalbandyan
have started their meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Russia in Moscow.

The ministers will make announcement for the journalists after the
meeting, diplomatic sources told APA.

On Saturday the ministers will hold consultations with OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairs Yuriy Merzlyakov (Russia), Bernard Fassier (France)
and Matthew Bryza (USA) and special representative of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office Andrzej Kasprzyk.

The meetings have a character of preparation for the negotiations
between the presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia Dmitriy
Medvedev, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan on November 2 in Moscow on
the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

ARMENIA WILL CARRY OUT REFORMS ENVISAGED BY ENP

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.10.2008 19:15 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Secretary of the RA National Security Council Artur
Baghdassaryan met Monday with EU Envoy for the South Caucasus Peter
Semneby, head of the European Commission delegation to Armenia Raul
de Luzenberger and France’s Ambassador to Armenia Serge Smessov to
discuss a wide scope of issue referring to Armenia-EU relations,
the European Neighborhood Policy and regional developments, the RA
President’s press office reported.

The RA NSC Secretary and European diplomats attached importance to
further cooperation between Armenia and European structures.

"Armenia will carry out reforms envisaged by the ENP properly and
according to the schedule," Artur Baghdassaryan said.

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT WAS TO ERADICATE THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION FROM ANATOLIA AND OTTOMAN ARCHIVES SHOW THIS TO US: TANER AKCAM

Arminfo
2008-10-27 11:05:00

ArmInfoThe various archives on the Ottoman Empire contain information
that is supportive and complementary to one another and explain the
same historical phenomenon from different perspectives. The main
target of the Ottoman Government at the time was to eradicate the
Christian population from Anatolia and available Ottoman documents
from Ottoman archives show this to us, Taner Akcam, Turkish historian,
Professor of Clark University, told ArmInfo.

‘I have recently published another book in Turkey and the title is
"The Armenian Issue is Resolved: Policies towards Armenians During
the War Years, Based on Ottoman Documents" The central thesis of
the book is that the available Ottoman governments documents in
the Ottoman Archive in Istanbul clearly show us that the Union and
Progress party developed and implemented plans during the World War
I which deliberately targeted the total destruction of the Armenian
people. By doing so, I refute the commonly accepted thesis by the
public and the academic world, that Ottoman archival materials in
Istanbul contradict the German, American, Austrian and other foreign
archival records and that their respective contents present different
information. As I showed in my book this perception is wrong and there
is in fact no contradiction between the materials found in the Ottoman
archives with that in Western archives. The various archives contain
information that is supportive and complementary to one another and
explain the same historical phenomenon from different perspectives. The
main target of the Ottoman Government at the time was to eradicate
the Christian population from Anatolia and available Ottoman documents
from Ottoman archives show this to us>, the Turkish historian said.

Agence France Presse
October 22, 2008 Wednesday 12:51 PM GMT

Turkish policemen cleared over pictures of journalist’s killer

ANKARA, Oct 22 2008

Two Turkish policemen were Wednesday acquitted over a scandal in which
security forces posed for pictures with the suspected killer of
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, the Anatolia news agency said.

The court verdict will be a disappointment for Dink’s family who say
police protected the self-confessed killer, Ogun Samast, when he was
seized in the northern city of Samsun a day after Dink was shot dead
in Istanbul last year.

Footage and photos leaked to the media at the time showed officers,
some in uniform, posing with Samast, aged 17 at the time, as he held a
Turkish flag, triggering accusations that some officials secretly
approved of the murder.

Eight police officiers were given disciplinary sanctions at the time,
but only Metin Balta, the deputy head of the terrorism department, and
Ibrahim Firat, a police chief in the same office, were brought to
court.

At the end of a trial which lasted a little over a year, the court in
Samsun ruled that Balta was not guilty of "abusing his office by
allowing acts unbefitting state officials and leading to the
impression that there was sympathy" for Samast’s action, the report
said.

The court also acquitted Firat on the ground that there was no "solid
and convincing" evidence to convict him of "violating the secrecy of
the investigation" by leaking the images to the media, it added.

Dink, 52, hated by Turkish nationalists for calling the World War I
massacres of Armenians a genocide, was gunned down on January 19,
2007, outside the offices of his Agos newspaper in central Istanbul.

Samast and 18 accomplices went on trial in Istanbul last year.

The charge-sheet says police received intelligence as early as 2006 of
a plot organised in the northern city of Trabzon, Samast’s hometown,
to kill Dink.

Two soldiers — members of the Trabzon gendarmerie intelligence
department — were put on trial in January on charges of covering up
intelligence about the murder plot.

They testified in court in March that they had passed on to their
superiors information of a plot to kill Dink, but said no action was
taken.

They also accused their superiors of fabricating documents after the
murder to create the impression they had no prior knowledge of the
plot.

The trial is seen as a test of Ankara’s resolve to eliminate the "deep
state" — a term used to describe security forces acting outside the
law to preserve what they consider Turkey’s best interests.

RUSSIAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST: EXPERT GROUP REQUIRED FOR ADJUSTMENT OF ARMENIA-RUSSIA RELATIONS

ARKA
Oct 24, 2008

YEREVAN, October 24. /ARKA/. A bilateral expert group needs to be
set up for adjustment of Armenia-Russia relations, said Professor
Vladimir Zakharov, Deputy Director of Caucasus Studies Center, the
Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

This group should start working over a wide range of issues –
political, economic and Karabakh problem – straightway, the expert
said at the video-bridge on results of Russian President Medvedev’s
visit to Armenia in "Novosti" International Press Center in Yerevan.

Zakharov pointed out the necessity of preparation of documents
for top-level meetings. "The work of the expert group is necessary
for bringing the unbiased picture and situation to notice of our
leadership," the political scientist said.

In talking about Karabakh problem, Zakharov stressed the necessity
of Karabakh’s involvement in the negotiation process.