Author: Kanayan Tamar

`They continue to have a sense of fear from the dead Vazgen Sargsyan.’

August 25 2013

`Vazgen Sargsyan was giving an opportunity for people to work, but he
was drawing a borderline that should not be passed over. Vazgen
created a group around him, but the groups acted so that a lot of
people just left and went away. Andreassian left, Ter-Grigoryants
left,’- so expressed the hero of the Shushi and Artsakh war Arkady
Ter-Tadevosyan, Commandos, about Vazgen Sargsyan and his mistakes, in
the interview with `GALA’, recently. `Aravot’ talked to the former
First Deputy Defense Minister Andranik Kocharyan regarding the role of
Vazgen Sargsyan and his men gathered around him. – How does the belief
of Commandos meet the reality that the generals Norat Ter-Grigoryants
and Hrach Andreassyan have left just because of Vazgen Sargsyan? –
There was no military emigration during Vazgen Sargsyan’s period,
there was immigration. Vazgen Sargsyan succeeded to bring in a lot of
military servants from different place of Armenia, which had an
important role during the war, had a decisive role, had the
opportunities to be displayed, to participate in solution of key
issues for our country, i.e. to form an Armenian Army, and to reach
success through this regular structure, both in defense of Armenian
borders, and Artsakh. It was undeniable process that managed only
Vazgen Sargsyan. None of us could do it, and to forget what he did,
and humiliate is the biggest loss for further development of the
Armenian Army, today. Vazgen Sargsyan managed to mobilize all the
detachments and make it more manageable. Also after coming to power,
he managed to solve the issues of formation of the Ministry of Defense
in a short period of time. It is also a fact that is impossible to
ignore. The policy of MD personnel during Vazgen Sargsyan’s time, and
generally the then was implemented not only for making fidai
detachments more manageable, but also for the formation of a regular
army, and the involvement of a professional officer staff in the
establishment of the army was one of the most important basic
directions. At that time, not only Ter-Grigoryants, Andreassyan,
Ivanyan, Zinevich, Ghukasov, Khatchaturov, Harutyunyan, Abrahamyan
came to Armenia … everybody came, and they are so many: generals,
colonels, military personnel occupying once high positions in the
Soviet army, who came and had the opportunity to participate in the
forming the Armenian army. But the fact is that Andreassyan and
Ter-Grigoryants had left Armenia when Vazgen Sargsyan was not the
Defense Minister for a short time. Serzh Sargsyan at that time was
already the Minister of Defense. – Were there inconsistencies between
Norat Ter-Grigoryants and Vazgen Sargsyan? – I do not know of such
evidence that there were such disagreements with Vazgen Sargsyan that
could be a serious obstacle to further servicing of any military
servant, except for the inconsistencies that were obstacles in
establishment of the army. In other words, there were soldiers who had
done such deeds that Vazgen could never forgive. We all know that
Vazgen also had great skills to forgive. The strength of Vazgen was
not only making unmanageable manageable, but also give people a chance
to correct the mistakes. Therefore, a much larger number of people
gathered around him. There was no good or bad for Vazgen. Any person
involved in the war was a value for Vazgen. – Do you agree with the
Commandos that Vazgen Sargsyan is the person about whom it is
forbidden to speak now? I must say that what he did was right, no
matter how it is evident that he had done many wrong things. – I do
not understand why the topic about Vazgen Sargsyan is raised, and why
Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan, the once hero general of Artsakh, has assumed
the speculation of this theme, imported by various forces. I do not
understand it. Everyone have made errors, and Vazgen Sargsyan would
have made his mistakes. But to speak today about the mistakes that
were made in the past, and not to talk about errors that are present
in different sectors of the state, including in the structures of the
army, it is not clear to me. Vazgen’s strength, in fact, continues to
worry certain people or systems, which, for some reason, continue to
keep a sense of fear from the dead Vazgen. – Vazgen Sargsyan, as per
Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan, created such a group around him, which
destroyed him and then performed some theaters and brought Nairi
Hunanyan. Commandos told that Vazgen Sargsyan has done a favor to many
people, and also bad to many people, many people became rich due to
him, statues by his name were made. Was Vazgen Sargsyan really
surrounded by the kind of people and he had gathered such groupings
around him? – Huge masses were surrounded around Vazgen. Vazgen had
his circle of friends, he also had a circle of unfriends, but he was
the kind of person who was gathering vast layers in our country.
Vazgen can be compared only with the activities conducted by
Myasnikyan in the beginning of the century. The latter implemented the
most important issue for the state in the beginning of the century, in
the end of the century Vazgen solved a problem, within which all other
discussions are just senseless. Vazgen was the first Sparapet of
victorious army, and the foundations laid by him are so strong until
now that even after so much criticism our army is still a victorious
army. It was the trace left by Vazgen Sargsyan along with his
mistakes. The system, which was formed around Vazgen, was so powerful
that these errors did not dismantle the system, but despite these
errors, Vazgen Sargsyan continues to be the victorious sparapet.
Vazgen had suicide attackers. He found the most correct place to win
the war. Azerbaijan pays billions on arms, but it does not have
suicide attackers. But people were ready to die for Vazgen’s word.
Even 100 people, but Vazgen had those 100 people ready to die. Today,
no one has such a thing in Armenia to believe in him, who will gather
people around him ready to die. Vazgen’s power was just in this that
listening to him, people were going to die. Nobody was thinking about
making a heroic deed or building castle after it. There was no such
thing, therefore during Vazgen’s time the victory was viable. And it
should be remembered, and not to speak about Vazgen’s mistakes. We all
had made mistakes, also Vazgen. – Isn’t the said in the context that
as a minister of power he was known for his approaches to giving
preference to power solutions, and he became the victim of the
so-called `a group of romantics’, which at least were so introduced
that they were trying to change something with the method of power. –
Vazgen was so strong that he was neglecting all types of power
solutions of his or procedures to be implemented within the state.
Vazgen, if it were not so, he would also walked with such bodyguards,
which we see from morning till night as to how many people were
looking behind every official. Vazgen had Movses Geghangulyan, who was
the driver, bodyguard, everything and, in extreme cases, at least 2-3
security officers could go behind Vazgen, being such a great person
with highly political influence. Both, Vazgen and Karen Demirchyan,
they did not have the habit of constantly putting themselves in the
atmosphere of fear, and draw the state into the atmosphere. Vazgen was
such, therefore, people qualified as `a group of romantics’ could
implement a decisive action for the state, as a result of the coup
d’etat happened. – Who was mostly eager to see Vazgen Sargsyan’s
death? – The answer to that question has not yet been given. Our
country will begin to recover after disclosure of October 27. After
that, the event on March 1st would be revealed, afterwards such things
happened in our country would be revealed one after the other, which
would lead to such a recovery that we would speak not of mistakes
occurred or not occurred, but about the phenomena that hamper our
progress, about our prospective, which we have now set aside and
continue the battle with illusions. It simply cannot be as such.

Hripsime JEBEJYAN
Read more at:

Yeni Safak, Turkey
Aug 21 2013

Are We Exporting a Regime?

by Yasin Dogan

[Translated from Turkish]

One of the charges levelled by groups that did not like the Welfare
Party [RP] was that the party was “importing regimes”. Narratives were
formulated to suggest that the RP was planning to import regimes from
Iran or Saudi Arabia to establish an Islamic state and to introduce
sharia law. The Kemalist papers who came out with headlines such as
“Mullahs to Iran” at that time today operate as welcoming centres for
Iranians and report in prominent locations the views of every Iranian
who opposes the [Turkish] government.

Those who raised a clamour about the threat of reactionism in domestic
politics used to interpret foreign policy based on their “phobia of
Islamization.” The mindset that raised such totally unfounded
allegations was, over time, pushed to the margins of Turkish politics.
What are the concerns and phobias of this group today? What ideology
or regime is the AKP [Justice and Development Party] trying to export?

Turkey’s secular and democratic character did not change with the AKP
government. On the contrary, its democratic image was even more
enhanced. The only change was that the AKP turned Turkey’s face to
both the East and the West even as it emphasized Turkey’s character as
a Muslim country.

We know that some EU countries that cannot stomach Turkey’s
prospective membership in their union perceive Turkey’s Muslim
character as a problem. The wrongheadedness of these countries that
view the issue with religious fanaticism rather than the universal
values of the EU is already noted frequently.

European countries that wanted to exclude Turkey on charges that “it
is not democratic” [in the past] revealed their true intentions when
this problem vanished and pointed at the Muslim character of the
country.

Conversely, Muslim countries of the Middle East were accustomed to
rejecting Turkey because of its secular nature. These countries were
more perturbed by Turkey’s combined Muslim and democratic identity
than by the West. The truth is that Turkey has no intention of
exporting Islam to the West or secularism to the East. On the other
hand, it has an opportunity to make an appeal to the Muslim world with
a democratic image. Indeed, this is precisely the cause of uneasiness.
The reason for the intolerance for even the partial democratization of
Egypt is that a new parameter has entered the Middle East – in other
words the will of peoples has begun to be given importance.

Countries that are perturbed by Turkey’s regional influence initially
tried to create uneasiness by promoting Turkey as a “model” or
“exemplar” country with great fanfare. These portrayals, which
provoked Arab sensitivities and pride, were aimed at creating
antipathy against Turkey. This is why the AKP government constantly
reiterated that it does not see itself as a model or exemplar but that
it is open to friendly and fraternal collaboration. The circles that
in the past spread propaganda in Turkic republics to the effect that
“Turkey is acting as an elder brother” tried to deploy a similar
propaganda in the Middle East.

That was followed by attempts to arouse Arab concerns even more
through attributions of “neo-Ottomanism.” Turkey is obviously proud of
its past and cannot ignore the mission imposed on it by history.
However, it certainly has no romantic yearnings of carrying the past
to the present or to make other countries follow its lead. Attempts
were made to twist references to the historic nature of relations in
this context.

Allegations of an “axis shift” in foreign policy did not find much
resonance because of Turkey’s ability to maintain strong relations
with the United States and the EU.

Those who criticized the overtures formulated as part of the approach
of “zero problems” in foreign policy have taken the exact opposite
position today. Turkey’s efforts to deepen its relations with Russia
was seen as a problem. The overture to Armenia was seen as a problem.
Rapprochement with neighbours ranging from Georgia to Greece was seen
as a problem. Both cooperation and friction with Israel were seen as
problems. The overture to African countries was seen as a problem.
Efforts to establish relations with Libya and Egypt were seen as a
problem. The opposition saw every effort Turkey made to reach out to
any region of the world and to establish good relations with anyone as
a problem. The mindset that wanted to Turkey to become introverted
wanted a foreign policy of passivism, surrenderism, and zero
relations. Those who criticized Erdogan for meeting with Al-Qadhafi
subsequently censured him for issuing an ultimatum to Al-Qadhafi. The
truth is that Turkey was well-intentioned and right when it extended
its hand of friendship and it was right when it screamed the truth and
expressed its indignation. Those who criticize Turkish foreign policy
are unable to find fault with the correctness of Turkey’s narratives.

Those who criticize the evolution of the government’s foreign policy
must also see how the opposition has evolved. Turkey is acting out of
not romanticism or emotionalism but a sense of ethics that seeks
rationalism and that is mindful of realpolitik.

Baltic News Service / – BNS
August 23, 2013 Friday 11:42 AM EET

Lithuanian president awaiting govt’s proposal on ambassadors

VILNIUS, Aug 23, BNS – Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite on
Friday refused to comment on Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas
Linkevicius’ proposal to recall the country’s ambassadors to
Azerbaijan and Hungary and is awaiting the Cabinet’s submission.

“The president is awaiting the government’s proposal. She will then
make a decision,” presidential adviser Skaiste Plausinyte told BNS.

She also reminded that, pursuant to the law, ambassadors are appointed
and recalled by the president upon the submission of the government
following the consideration by the Seimas Committee on Foreign
Affairs.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius told journalists on
Friday he believes he is not the person who needs to make a decision
in this situation.

“I have expressed my opinion and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
should decide as the president of the Republic of Lithuania is
responsible for foreign policy. As head of the government, I have
expressed my opinion as there can be no double standards for
politicians,” Butkevicius told journalists on Friday.

He stressed that diplomats should have a code of honor, but when asked
how the whole situation should be resolved, he said that he just
expresses his opinion and does not make any decisions.

Earlier on Friday, Linkevicius submitted a proposal to the
parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee to recall Ambassador to
Hungary Renatas Juska and Ambassador to Azerbaijan Arturas Zurauskas
after they lost confidence of state leaders.

In phone conversation recordings recently leaked onto youtube.com,
the diplomats share their personal insights into the conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, the internal situation in Turkmenistan and
make remarks about Lithuania’s state leaders. The authenticity of the
recording has not been officially confirmed.

The parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee will consider the proposal
on Monday. Its decision will be of a recommendation character.

The Daily Advertiser, Australia
August 23, 2013 Friday

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell (pictured) has hit out

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell (pictured) has hit out at Turkey for
threatening to ban MPs from Anzac Day services, after parliament
officially recognised the Ottoman genocide of Armenians.

The NSW legislative council in May passed a motion calling for the
official recognition of the Assyrian, Armenian and Greek genocides.

Turkey says the motion is not compatible with historic facts.

Turkish consul-general Gulseren Celik said on Wednesday as a result of
that Mr O’Farrell and other NSW MPs would be denied visas to attend
the Gallipoli service.

Mr O’Farrell says such a ban would fly in the face of the freedom
Australian diggers fought for.

“What a terrible indictment by the consul-general of the freedoms
fought for on Gallipoli,” he said.

Mr O’Farrell added that he would prefer to see the descendants of
Gallipoli veterans, not politicians, at commemoration services.

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Aug 23 2013

The Caucasus archive. 20 years ago. June 1993

23 August 2013 – 4:29pm
Oleg Kusov, exclusively to VK

During the 1990s, the Caucasus remained the hottest region of the CIS.
Sometimes it just looked like a detonator placed under the entire
post-Soviet space by some major political forces. What for? Perhaps
foolishly, or recklessly, or perhaps for destructive purposes.

The events of the summer of 1993 are indicative. In the South Caucasus
two wars blazed – in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The end of the
first one was quite close, but the Karabakh ceasefire only came after
about ten months. In the North Caucasus, the main destructive
processes – almost all related to Dudayev and Ichkeria – were just
beginning. It turns out that the South Caucasus in the middle of 1993
gradually, with great difficulty, was appeased, while the North
Caucasus, in contrast, just exploded. Eighteen months previously the
collapse of the USSR had occurred; a test for Russia was just
beginning. Now we already know that in the end Russia resisted, but
then, in 1993, many Moscow newspapers often published a map of the
North Caucasus painted green. They quite seriously predicted to the
Caucasus its own Islamist future. Ichkeria was considered almost a
breakaway from the country’s territory.

Let us turn to the most important events of the summer of 1993 in the Caucasus.

The end of the collapse

The main events in the Caucasus took place in June of this year,
according to most experts, in Azerbaijan. June 15, Heydar Aliyev was
elected President of the Supreme Council of Azerbaijan. On June 24 a
parliamentary decision entrusted him with the post of acting president
of the country. Another change of the leadership of Azerbaijan,
according to politicians and experts, had become nothing more than a
stage for the start of saving sprawling country. It was hard to even
imagine what disastrous consequences the collapse of the largest and
richest region of the Caucasus could bring.

Heydar Aliyev’s return to power was preceded by a rebellion led by
Colonel Surat Huseynov, which, in turn, was a response to the attempt
of the then-leadership of the country to seize and destroy the troops
of Huseynov in Ganja with the armed forces of the National Guard. The
army operation against Huseynov started on 4 June, but quickly got
bogged down, and on June 10 Huseynov’s unit moved to Baku. The colonel
had a warrant for the arrest of President Elchibey issued by attorney
general Ihtiyar Shirinov. The country’s leadership was close to panic.
They persuaded Heydar Aliyev to come from Nakhichevan; he had already
met on June 13 with Suret Huseynov in Ganja. On June 18 President
Elchibay secretly fled from Baku to the village of Keleki in the
Nakhichevan Republic.

The Ganja unit was stopped only on June 29, 1993, after another
meeting between the Acting President Aliyev and Suret Huseynov. On
June 30 Huseynov became the Prime Minister of Azerbaijan.

The Karabakh war and the Russian ruling

June 2, the echo of the Karabakh war reached almost to the center of
Baku. On a siding at a railway station a passenger car was blown up.
An investigation established that the terrorist act was committed by
Khatkovski, a Russian citizen recruited by the opposite side in the
armed conflict.

The greatest event of the war in June was the seizure by Armenian
gangs of the Agdam district of Azerbaijan, not part of
Nagorno-Karabakh. Attacks on the region continued on 23 and 24 June.
As a result, the already huge number of Azerbaijani refugees who were
expelled during the war increased by 120,000 people. The fighting
destroyed what was once one of the richest agricultural regions of
Azerbaijan. According to official statistics, in the area there were
97 settlements, 38 farms, 26 farms and cooperative associations, 24
construction companies, 12 industrial enterprises, 105 industrial
sites, 271 cultural institutions and 99 clubs. Prior to 1993 there was
the development of the cotton industry and viticulture there.

On June 27 the Armenian army occupied the city of Martakert, located
60 kilometers north of Stepanakert. On the eve of the battle for the
settlement of Magauz in this area, an Armenian volunteer from the
United States, the commander of the unit “Crusaders” Karo Kahkedzhyan,
was killed.

Another death of another native of the United States – Monte Melkonian
– took place on June 12 in the village of Marzili, located on the
border of the Martuni and Agdam regions. Melkonian is called one of
the organizers and leaders of the Armenian armed forces in
Nagorno-Karabakh. Prior to that, he was fighting in Lebanon. The first
time he took part in the fighting in Beirut, when he was 21 years old.
Two years after this Melkonian joined the military organization of
ASALA (the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia),
organizing attacks and capturing objects in European countries. The
U.S. State Department recognized it as a terrorist organization. After
the assassination of the head of the organization Hagop Hagopian in
1988, on the threshold of his Athenian home, ASALA’s work entered a
less active period. In 1985 Melkonian was arrested in Paris and
sentenced to six years in prison for possession of weapons and forging
documents. He was released after four years and arrived in
Nagorno-Karabakh in 1990.

The attitude of the Armenians towards Melkonian is expressed by his
awards – the “Hero of the NKR’, “The Golden Eagle”, “National Hero of
Armenia” (posthumously).

It is interesting to follow the temporary crossing of two diverse
events in Armenia at the end of June 1993. In the days when the
Armenian armed groups seized the Agdam district, not part of the
Nagorno-Karabakh, the heads of government of Russia and Armenia signed
five agreements in Moscow, according to one of which Yerevan was
granted a loan of 20 billion Russian rubles (18 million 762 thousand
dollars) . The agreement stipulated that with this amount Armenia will
buy a variety of Russian goods. But were there any mechanisms of
control of such large-scale procurement? Was it justified to allocate
such a large amount of money to warring countries? During the
fighting, the primary means are allocated to the military rather than
the social and economic spheres.

West Caucasus weapons are not laid down

By the summer of 1993 Sukhumi was under the control of the Georgian
authorities. Abkhaz armed units had already unsuccessfully tried to
attack the city three times. According to experts, the Georgian forces
were superior to the Abkhaz ones in the number of weapons, but they
were inferior in quality. Despite a Georgian intelligence report about
a possible assault on June 27, Eduard Shevardnadze arrived in Sukhumi.
He volunteered to head the defense of the city.

The Abkhaz military, indeed, did not sit idly developing a plan for a
summer offensive against the Georgian positions. The main task they
set was the capture of the Zugdidi – Gal – Sukhumi road, through which
the Georgian troops got help. The plan was limited to the simultaneous
capture by armed groups from Tkvarcheli of a section of the route in
Ochamchyry (a mountain road from Tkvarcheli led here) and an attack on
Sukhumi from Gudauty (the temporary capital of Abkhazia). Georgian
forces were also preparing to repel the attack, but according to the
participants of the armed events the summer of 1993 marked the moral
degradation of these units. Robbery, drugs, sales of weapons and
ammunition became a commonplace for them. Attempts by Defense Minister
Gia Karkarashvili to reverse the situation did not lead to success.

Another factor to weaken the Georgian troops in the summer of 1993 was
the activation of the deposed president Zviad Gamsakhurdia in western
Georgia. The ex-president at the time was still in Grozny, visiting
Jokhar Dudayev. The rebel troops were led by Loti Kobalia. On June 3
they entered the district center of Gal, establishing control over the
entire area. On June 14 in Zugdidi there was a televised appeal by
Gamsakhurdia, which stressed that the current Georgian authorities
(from his point of view, of course, illegal) had already made the
decision to surrender in Abkhazia’s Sukhumi and Ochamchyry.
Gamsakhurdia offered the Georgian military to join his forces,
renouncing “the impostor Shevardnadze” and continuing the struggle for
the territorial integrity of Georgia. All summer long, gradually, his
armed units strengthened their positions in Western Georgia, preparing
a basis for the return of Gamsakhurdia. He would come here in
September to head the government in exile.

Dudayev selects a dictatorial way

In the North Caucasus the main shocks were just beginning. Jokhar
Dudayev gradually established himself as the sole ruler of Ichkeria.
This was an interest of his entourage. The main motive of this
interest remained control of local oil resources. Back in early 1993,
President Dudayev instructed his team to prepare amendments to the
Constitution of the Republic for focusing all power in his hands.
Dudayev explained the strengthening of authoritarianism by the
necessity of organized opposition to the foreign threat, referring to
Moscow. The opposition centered in parliament could not calmly
perceive such a dramatic action of the President. On April 15 in the
Theatre Square in Grozny an opposition rally started to demand the
resignation of the president and the government, new parliamentary
elections and increasing the role of the representative government.
The rally lasted until the morning on June 5. In response, Dudayev
dissolved the parliament, the Constitutional Court and Grozny City
Council, and made appointments to key positions of power (without
parliamentary approval – in violation of the Constitution). This was a
scenario like the one that was implemented a few months later by the
Kremlin in Moscow against the Supreme Council of the Russian
Federation. The conflict between the president and parliament in
Ichkeria was resolved by force. On the night of June 5th Special
Forces seized a government building of the City Council, in which in
those days the work of the parliament, the Constitutional Court and
city deputies took place. According to some estimates, about 30 people
were killed. The storming of the building was commanded by Shamil
Basayev.

Dudayev formed a new government. The Minister of Information and Press
was Movladi Udugov, the Minister of Culture – Akhmed Zakayev. The
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Ichkeria was Aslan Maskhadov.

At the end of June 1993 Dudayev announced the resumption of
parliamentary work, but without the right to engage in legislative
activities. Just about half of the deputies took office – 20 people.
First of all, they voted for the deprivation of all parliamentary
powers of their opposition colleagues.

Jokhar Dudayev came out of the political crisis a dictator and a
winner. But the opposition did not leave Ichkeria, moving to the
western regions of the republic and establishing a connection with
Russian officials and the military.

Flag for the Balkar

June 10, 1993, the Russian government adopted a decree on
socio-economic support of the Balkar people. The help needed to have a
specific ethnic address that now cannot be imagined. Nine days later
the first congress of the Balkar people was held, the main result of
which, according to experts, was the adoption of the national Balkar
flag – a light blue background with two white horizontal stripes and
the silhouette of Mount Elbrus. No one in Moscow paid attention to
this fact, despite its apparent separatist message.

The year before the Congress, in March 1992, a session of the local
councils operating on the territory of Balkar settlement appealed to
the Russian Congress of People’s Deputies with a request to adopt the
law “On establishing the Balkaria Republic.” Not having received a
positive response, Balkar activists spoke of a Kabardino-Balkarian
Confederation. Looking ahead, we recall that the main separatist
events unfolded here in autumn 1996, after the next congress of the
Balkar people. It adopted an appeal to the president of Russia and the
Federal Assembly with a request to establish direct presidential rule
till the establishment of the republic and to suspend the laws of the
CBD, in the part “contrary to the Constitution of Russia and the
decisions of the congress of the Balkar people about establishing a
Balkar Republic.” This Congress created the State Board of Balkaria
and decided to establish a national militia.

Official republican authorities used milder form of repression against
separatists – riot police smashed up the Balkar Social and Political
Center. With respect to members of the State Council, criminal cases
were opened. The State Duma opposed the idea of the formation of the
new republic in the North Caucasus. The leader of the Balkar District,
General S. Beppaev, repented and two years later established the
“Voice of Balkaria” loyal to the authorities for addressing the social
and cultural problems of the people.

In the summer of 1993 in the Caucasus, the ground was laid for further
processes – in the South Caucasus the beginning of stabilization
became more noticeable, and in the North Caucasus, on the contrary,
the boiler was more and more heated.

In a week, we’ll recall the main events of July 1993.

TWO PARTICIPANTS IN SIT-IN STRIKE NEAR YEREVAN MAYOR’S OFFICE DETAINED

by Ashot Safaryan

Friday, August 23, 18:48

Two participants in the sit-in strike near Yerevan mayor’s office,
Suren Sahakyan and Vahagn Minasyan, have been detained.

The reason of their detaining was a statement to remove “criminal
elements” from the Mayor’s Office, in particular, to dismiss the head
of the transport department of the Mayor’s Office, Henrikh Navasardyan,
and director of CJSC “YerevanTrans”, Misak Hambartsumyan.

To recall, activists of the “We pay 100 drams” movement have been
holding a picket in front of the Mayor’s Office with a demand to
cancel the decision on hiking transport fare.

ARMENIA SLAMS INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOR ITS FAILURE TO RESPOND TO VIOLATION OF ARMENIAN CAPTIVES RIGHTS IN AZERBAIJAN

YEREVAN, August 24, /ARKA/. A deputy Armenian defense minister
Davit Tonoyan slammed today international humanitarian organizations
and human rights activists for their failure to respond to what he
described as ‘Azerbaijan’s permissiveness’ regarding an Armenian army
conscript, Hakob Idjighulyan, captured by Azeri troops earlier this
month near Nagorno-Karabakh.

Tonoyan’s remarks came as he met with representatives of the Armenian
offices of the UNHCR and the International Committee of Red Cross. He
said Armenian authorities are concerned over continued violation of
the captured conscript’s rights.

Tonoyan was quoted by the press service of Armenian defense ministry as
saying that no international organization has condemned the “interview”
with Hakob Ijighulyan, broadcast by an Azerbaijani TV.

The Azerbaijani side claims that Injighulyan defected to its frontline
troops on August 8 after being physically abused by one of his
commanders. The Armenian military denied this, saying the 22-year-old
conscript accidentally strayed into Azerbaijani-controlled territory.

It has condemned Baku for ‘interviewing’ the POW.

“It is evident that Azerbaijani authorities are exerting strong
moral and psychological, and possibly physical pressure on Hagop,
forcing him to make contradictory statements. A forced interview can
not be considered as grounds for his handing to a third country,”
the Armenian defense ministry said.

Tonoyan reiterated that Ijighulyan will not face prosecution when
repatriated because of absence of crime in his actions. The press
service reminded also that no citizen of Armenia, repatriated from
Azerbaijan previously had ever been prosecuted.

The Armenian authorities offered last week to swap Ijighulyan for an
Azerbaijani soldier who crossed into Armenia and was detained a year
ago. There has been no official response to the offer from Azerbaijan
yet. -0-

– See more at:

256 PERSONNES ONT DEMANDE L’ASILE EN 2013

ARMENIE

Au cours des sept derniers mois, 256 ressortissants etrangers ont
demande l’asile a la Republique d’Armenie.

235 demandeurs d’asile sont des Armeniens de Syrie, 15 sont des
citoyens d’Irak, 4 sont des citoyens d’Iran. Contrairement aux annees
precedentes il y a eu aucune demande de residents de pays d’Afrique
en 2013. La decision sur l’octroi de l’asile est faite dans les 3
mois a partir de la demande.

Selon le Service national des migrations, entre janvier et juillet 2013
345 ressortissants etrangers ont obtenu l’asile, dont 323 citoyens
de Syrie, 19 citoyens irakiens et 3 citoyens d’Iran. Entre 2005 et
2012 2098 etrangers ont demande l’asile en Armenie. 1088 se sont vus
accordes l’asile.

samedi 24 août 2013, Stephane ©armenews.com

CE SOIR ARTHUR ABRAHAM JOUE QUITTE OU DOUBLE FACE AU NAMIBIEN WILLEBEFORCE SHIHEPO

BOXE PROFESSIONNELLE

Ce soir a Schwerin (Allemagne), l’Armenien Arthur Abraham (36 victoires
dont 28 avant la limite et 4 defaites) repart a la conquete du titre
mondial WBO. L’ancien champion du monde IBF et WBO briguera de nouveau
un palmarès intercontinental après son revers face a l’Allemand Robert
Stieglitz il y a quelques mois.

Face a lui, Arthur Abraham aura ce soir Willebeforce Shihepo
(Namibie). Ce dernier compte 20 victoires dont 15 par K.O. et 6
defaites. Il est classe numero 8 mondial WBO. Le combat est a partir
de 22 heures. Pour l’Armenien, ce combat sera decisif. En cas de
victoire, Arthur Abraham sera assure d’une revanche face a Robert
Stieglitz. Mais en cas de defaite, Arthur Abraham pourrait tout
simplement arreter sa carrière professionnelle.

Krikor Amirzayan

samedi 24 août 2013, Krikor Amirzayan ©armenews.com

ARMENIA TO BALANCE ITS RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA, EU: EXPERT

People’s Daily Online, China
Aug 23 2013

(Xinhua) 20:31, August 23, 2013

YEREVAN, Armenia, Aug. 23 (Xinhua) — Armenia will maintain its
traditional friendship with Russia while developing relations with
the European Union (EU), a political analyst has said.

“Russia needs Armenia no less than Armenia needs Russia, as Russia
cannot have such deep, comprehensive and friendly relations with other
countries in the South Caucasus,” Aleksandr Iskandaryan, director of
the Caucasus Institute, a policy think-tank based here, told Xinhua
in a recent interview.

Iskandaryan said it is of utmost importance for Armenia to assure its
strategic partner Russia there was nothing to fear from the central
Asian nation’s relations with the EU.

He said Armenia developes its relations with Russia on the basis of
security and gas supply, while the Armenia-EU relationship mainly
focuses on economic cooperation.

Armenia, along with three other countries in the region – Ukraine,
Moldova and Georgia, is expected to sign an association agreement with
the EU, which would deepend economic cooperationi with the European
bloc, Iskandaryan said.

On Armenia-China relations, the expert said: “China and Armenia do
not have any problems in the region and, due to that fact, the future
of their relations can be very fruitful.”

Iskandaryan said the geographic position of Armenia at the crossroads
of Europe and Asia is an “asset” China could consider in developing
its relations with the region.