Author: Kanayan Tamar

Bicycle ride-pilgrimage to be held in Armenia

news.am
September 29, 2012 | 13:09

YEREVAN. – The Youth Foundation of Armenia and the Student Parliament
of Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU) will organize a
Yerevan-Etchmiadzin-Yerevan bicycle ride-pilgrimage on Sunday, and
within the framework of the `We don’t smoke!’ program.

The event will bring together around fifty YSMU students, the Youth
Foundation of Armenia Public Relations Service informs. The cyclists
will attend a blessing ceremony at the Mother Cathedral of Holy
Etchmiadzin and visit the museum of the Cathedral.

To note, on Sunday the Armenian Apostolic Church will celebrate the
Feast of the Holy Cross of Varak.

The bicycle ride-pilgrimage will kick off at 11am, at capital city
Yerevan’s Shahumyan Square.

Indian Bharatnatyam Dance Group to perform in Yerevan

September 28, 2012 – 21:14 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – A 5-Member Bharatnatyam Dance Group led by Ms.
Revathi Ramachandran will give a dance performance at Yerevan’s Arno
Babajanian Concert Hall on September 29 to mark the 20th anniversary
of the establishment of Indian-Armenian diplomatic relations.

The performance is being organized by the Embassy of the Republic of
India in Yerevan, jointly with the Indian Council for Cultural
Relations, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, and the
Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia.

The Group will also perform at the Yerevan State Medical University
(YSMU) on September 30, for the Indian, Armenian and other foreign
students studying at the University. The last performance by the Group
is scheduled for October 1 at Gyumri branch of State Conservatory,
press service of Indian embassy in RA reported.

Meeting at the NA Standing Committee on European Integration

&day=28
28.09.2012

On September 28 the Chairwoman of the NA Standing Committee on
European Integration Naira Zohrabyan met with Extraordinary an
Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the Republic of Belarus to the Republic
of Armenia Stepan Sukhorenko and his First Deputy Valery Gorelko.

Touching upon the parliamentary elections, which were held in Belarus
several days ago, Naira Zohrabyan expressed regret that despite the
positive report made by the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Mission, the OSCE
again negatively assessed the parliamentary elections held in Belarus.
In the Committee Chairwoman’s opinion, it is very important that
Belarus, as an equal partner, will be involved in the Euronest
Parliamentary Assembly of the Eastern Partnership. `We should work
that the link between the European organizations and European
community with Belarus would not be interrupted, which, really is very
important for ensuring democratic developments in Belarus,’ the
Committee Chairwoman said.

The sides also discussed the problem of double standards being used by
the European structures during the recent period. Naira Zohrabyan has
considered inadmissible that the European community closes an eye on
the disgraceful anti-democratic processes going on in Azerbaijan and
the growing number of political prisoners in Azerbaijan day by day,
using double standards towards Eastern Partnership different member
countries.

The interlocutors agreed to continue the work that Belarus would
actively be involved in the All-European processes.

Highlighting the European integration Stepan Sukhorenko noted that
their wish was to be an equal partner.

FOOTBALL
Le Haut-Karabagh et l’Abkhazie font match nul (1-1) en rencontre
amicale internationale

La sélection nationale de football de la République du Haut Karabagh a
joué un match amical contre l’équipe d’Abkhazie. Les deux formations,
montraient leur dynamisme et jeu offensif dès les premières minutes de
la rencontre. Malgré les attaques successives, le score restait vierge
à la mi-temps. En seconde partie de jeu, les Abkhazes allaient ouvrir
le score. Mais à la dernière minute de la rencontre l’équipe du Haut
Karabagh revient au score par un but d’Antranig Sahakian. La rencontre
se terminant sur un match nul (1-1). Ainsi l’équipe nationale de la
République du Haut Karabagh a disputé le premier match de son
histoire. Même si l’équipe du Haut Karabagh n’est pas reconnue par les
autres fédérations nationales et de la FIFA, elle disputera néanmoins
de nouvelles rencontre avec d’autres formations.

Krikor Amirzayan

samedi 29 septembre 2012,
Krikor Amirzayan ©armenews.com

REVUE DE PRESSE
La République autodéterminée du Haut-Karabagh par Mihran Amtablian

Le mois écoulé a vu, coup sur coup, les visites faites à M. Laurent
Fabius des ministres des affaires étrangères de la République
d’Arménie le 24 juillet et de la République d’Azerbaïdjan le 30
juillet. Un point commun évoqué : la question du Haut-Karabagh. La
France est engagée dans la recherche d’une solution à ce différent en
tant que co-présidente du Groupe de Minsk, aux côtés de la Russie et
des Etats-Unis, créé à cet effet dans le cadre de l’OSCE.

Rappelons ce qu’est le Haut-Karabagh. Depuis plus d’un millénaire, une
terre peuplée d’Arméniens, berceau de résistance aux conflits qui
opposèrent longtemps Empire ottoman et Perse séfévide. Lors de la
soviétisation, Moscou attribue cette région d’Arménie à la République
Fédérée turcophone d’Azerbaïdjan, selon l’adage impérial du `diviser
pour régner`. Mais le pouvoir soviétique lui reconnait sa nature
arménienne et lui confère le statut de Région Autonome. Durant toute
la domination soviétique, les Arméniens du Haut-Karabagh n’ont cessé
de revendiquer leur rattachement à la République d’Arménie. En vain. A
la fin des années 1980, croyant dans la politique de glasnost de
Gorbatchev, les Arméniens du Haut-Karabagh entament, dans le cadre des
lois soviétiques, leur premier acte d’autodétermination : le 20
février 1988, le soviet de la Région Autonome vote son rattachement à
l’Arménie. D’immenses manifestations pacifiques ont lieu dans les deux
pays. La réponse de l’Azerbaïdjan est immédiatement violente : le 27
février 1988, commencent des massacres d’Arméniens à Soumgaït,
deuxième ville du pays, et en novembre à Kirovabad. L’AFP, reprise par
Le Monde du 08 mars 1988, traduit l’état d’esprit à Bakou en
rapportant les propos d’un jeune azéri :

`Jamais ils n’oseront nous prendre Karabakh. Sinon, ce sera la guerre,
et ils le savent. Nous serons soutenus par les Turcs et nos frères
d’Iran… maintenant chez nous, c’est déjà la guerre `

Le 12 janvier 1989, Moscou soustrait le gouvernement du Haut-Karabagh
à la tutelle azérie et administre directement la Région Autonome.
Suivront en Azerbaïdjan de nouveaux pogroms anti-arméniens en janvier
1990, à Bakou la capitale et à Kirovabad, faisant des centaines de
morts. Des milliers d’Arméniens sont évacués vers la Russie et
l’Arménie. Le 30 aout 1991, l’Azerbaïdjan proclame son indépendance de
l’URSS dans le cadre de la loi soviétique du 3 avril 1990. La Région
Autonome fait de même le 2 septembre 1991. Depuis le 12 janvier 1989,
plus jamais le Haut-Karabagh ne sera dirigé par Bakou. La guerre
imposées par les dirigeants azéris finira par la défaite de Bakou et
un cessez-le feu sera signé à Bichkek le 5 mai 1994 avec le chef des
forces armées du Haut-Karabagh.

Depuis plus de 20 ans, les Arméniens du Haut-Karabagh n’ont cessé de
construire dans la paix un véritable Etat selon les normes du droit
international. Quelles ont ces normes ? D’abord, avoir un territoire
délimité. C’est le cas : la dictatoriale URSS l’avait elle-même
reconnu et délimité à sa manière. Avoir une population qui exprime sa
volonté de vivre ensemble. C’est le cas : la population très
majoritairement arménienne a servi de base à la délimitation
territoriale et a manifesté constamment son enracinement. Ainsi, une
organisation étatique a été mise en place : gouvernement, parlement,
élections libres. Libérée de la discrimination turque-azérie, la vie
politique n’a cessé depuis de se développer selon les normes
démocratiques. Depuis 1995, quatre élections législatives et trois
élections présidentielles ont eu lieu. La République détient une
constitution démocratique adoptée par référendum le 10 décembre 2006.

L’Azerbaïdjan rejette évidemment ces développements, argue de
l’atteinte à son intégrité territoriale et rejette tout droit à
l’autodétermination du peuple du Haut-Karabagh. Or, il se trouve qu’en
droit international, le droit à l’autodétermination est une règle
supérieure, erga omnès, à celle de l’intégrité territoriale des Etats
comme l’a démontré le juriste Gérard Guerguérian dans son dernier
ouvrage `Les différends arméno-turcs ou la quête de justice au regard
des principes du droit international`. On peut alors s’étonner que la
communauté internationale n’arrive pas à respecter son propre droit,
et s’ingénie à qualifier cette République `d’autoproclamée`. De façon
constante, les puissances, dont la France rappelle le respect du
principe de l’intégrité territoriale de l’Azerbaïdjan. Le pétrole de
Bakou, le poids de la Turquie pèsent sans doute plus lourd dans la
balance des rapports de force que le respect du droit international et
la reconnaissance de la République `autodéterminée` du Haut-Karabagh.

Le 19 juillet 2012, le Haut-Karabagh vient d’élire Bako Sahakian
Président de la République. Le Groupe de Minsk a fait le lendemain la
déclaration suivante : `Les co-présidents reconnaissent la nécessité
pour les autorités de fait du Haut-Karabagh d’essayer d’organiser la
vie publique de leur population`. Le principe d’intégrité territoriale
n’y est pas mentionné. Au fond, la vraie question est bien la
reconnaissance de l’autodétermination du Haut-Karabagh dont le
communiqué du Groupe de Minsk de l’OSCE accepte la réalité et la
légitimité à demi-mots.

Et la France, en tant que France ?

A une question écrite (QE 95350) du député socialiste Jean Paul Dupré,
Alain Juppé, ministre des Affaires Etrangères répond le 12 avril 2011
que la France entend `… faire émerger une solution politique
équilibrée et négociée à ce conflit sur la base des principes et des
normes du droit international, de la charte des Nations unies et des
principes de l’acte final d’Helsinki de non-usage de la force ou de sa
menace, d’intégrité territoriale et d’égalité des droits des peuples
et d’autodétermination`. L’ennui de cette réponse tient dans la
concurrence sans issue, des deux principes : intégrité territoriale et
autodétermination. Nous avons vu que l’autodétermination est erga
omnès, supérieure en droit au premier. Encore faut-il faire le choix
politique de l’appliquer.

Il faudrait que le Président Hollande et son ministre Laurent Fabius
se clarifient. L’arrêt de la Cour Internationale de Justice validant
l’autodétermination du Kosovo devrait les aider à sortir du flou au
profit d’un choix clair. Sauf à tacitement encourager une issue par la
guerre que le Président de l’Azerbaïdjan, Ilham Aliev, ne cesse de
préparer et dont il brandit la menace avec une constance inquiétante.
Sans les protestations de quiconque.

samedi 29 septembre 2012,
Stéphane ©armenews.com

Trend, Azerbaijan
Sept 29 2012

Elmar Mammadyarov: There is no alternative to peace, stability and
mutually beneficial cooperation in the region

Azerbaijan, Baku, Sept. 29 / Trend /

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov on Saturday delivered a
speech at the 67th session of the UN General Assembly.

The Minister said that this was his first speech to the General
Assembly after the election of Azerbaijan as non-permanent member of
United Nations Security Council, and expressed deep gratitude to the
members of the organization for the support and strong solidarity with
our country in the 17 rounds of the elections.

“Mr. President, the current topic of discussion is the settlement of
international disputes and situations in the world. It is still timely
and topical. This is a logical continuation of the discussions that
took place during the 66th session of the General Assembly. Indeed,
the peaceful settlement of disputes is a key, core principles of
international law . It is important to respect the territorial
integrity and political independence of each other, and to refrain
from the threat or use of force in international conflicts and resolve
them based on international law, “- said Mammadyarov.

According to him, during the 65th and 66th sessions the General
Assembly adopted two resolutions, strengthening the role of mediation
in the peaceful settlement of disputes, conflict prevention, as well
as the Secretary-General submitted a report which contained the
guidance of effective mediation. “It’s crucial that the resolutions
adopted by the General Assembly and the Secretary General’s guidance
for effective mediation reaffirm the key role of the UN Charter and
international law, in particularly commitment to respect and uphold
the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of
States,” – said the head of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry.

According to the minister, the world still faces persistent and
systematic violations of fundamental norms and principles of
international law. “There are times when the use of forceis practiced
against the territorial integrity and political independence to
achieve territorial gains. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout
the world continue to suffer aggression, occupation, ethnic cleansing,
and the prevailing impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to
the international community. The ongoing conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan continues to represent a serious challenge to security in
the region and the world. The conflict resulted with occupation of
almost 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory, and more than a million
people have become refugees and internally displaced persons. The war
killed and injured hundreds of Azerbaijanis, including the elderly,
women and children”,- said Mammadyarov.

The Foreign Minister said that the aggression of Armenia against
Azerbaijan affected the socio-economic sphere. “No single Azerbaijani
cultural and architectural monument, was not been damaged or destroyed
in the occupied territories.

But we believe that there is no alternative to peace, stability and
mutually beneficial cooperation in the region. As a country that has
suffered from the occupation and the expulsion of hundreds of
thousands of its citizens, Azerbaijan is the most interested party in
the earliest negotiated settlement of conflict, knowing that objective
is to end the illegal Armenian occupation, to ensure the return of
internally displaced persons and to ensure the peaceful coexistence of
the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of Nagorno Karabakh within
the Republic of Azerbaijan “, – said Mammadyarov.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 per cent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France and the U.S. – are
currently holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 28 2012

OSCE Minsk Group urges Azerbaijan and Armenia to return to negotiating process

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Robert Bradtke (USA), Igor
Popov (Russia), Jacques Faure (France) and the personal assistant of
the OSCE Chairman Andrzej Kasprzyk have issued a statement urging the
parties to the Karabakh conflict to return to negotiations, RIA
Novosti reports with reference to the official OSCE website.

The co-chairs of the OSCE and the personal assistant of the OSCE held
separate meetings in New York with the foreign ministers of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, Edward Nalbandian and Elmar Mammadyarov.
During the meetings the co-development in the region in recent years
was discussed with the ministers. The latter were urged to return to
the essence of the negotiation process on Nagorno-Karabakh. The
co-chairs expressed their concern at the lack of tangible progress in
the recent months.

According to media reports, Nalbandian refuses to hold meeting with Mammadyarov.

Washington Post
Sept 28 2012

Curtailing an NGO – and political debate – in Armenia

By David Ignatius

The campaign against Western-backed NGOs is spreading to Armenia,
where a former foreign minister is accused of `money laundering’
because he accepted contributions from the father of former U.S.
presidential candidate Jon Huntsman to support civil-society projects.

The target is Vartan Oskanian, a U.S.-educated Armenian who served as
foreign minister from 1998 to 2008 and then started a nongovernmental
organization called Civilitas. The allegation is that Jon Huntsman
Sr.’s contribution of nearly $2 million, described in detail on
Civilitas’s Web site, violates Armenian laws.

At the heart of the case, according to analysts in Armenia, is
politics – and whether Armenia will have open, multiparty debates or
follow Russia back into Soviet-style authoritarian government. The
Armenian National Security Service has revoked Oskanian’s
parliamentary immunity, in what’s described by the local media as a
prelude to criminal prosecution.

The move to prosecute Oskanian began after he allied himself in early
2012 with the opposition Prosperous Armenia Party and then announced
that he would not support a coalition with President Serze Sarkisian
and his ruling party. Sarkisian’s government has been a solid ally of
Russia; Oskanian is seen as more independent and potentially
pro-Western.

The legal battle in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, might seem like a
small sideshow on the world stage, but it illustrates an important and
worrying trend. In Moscow and other former Soviet capitals, NGOs are
being squeezed by the authorities, who see them as potential vehicles
for popular protest and political change. This month, Russia announced
it was expelling the U.S. Agency for International Development, which
has funded many Russian NGOs. A similar squeeze is evident in
Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Belarus, as well as in many Muslim countries,
such as Egypt and Pakistan.

The Civilitas case is interesting in part because of the involvement
of the father of Jon Huntsman. The senior Huntsman has an active
philanthropist in Armenian since the 1988 earthquake and is said by
Civilitas to have contributed about $20 million to Armenian causes.
When Huntsman International, a family company, decided in 2010, to
close its Armenian subsidiary, Huntsman Building Products, the company
directed in a written message that the proceeds should go to Oskanian
for the benefit of Civilitas. The sale produced about $2 million, of
which $577,000 went directly to Civilitas and $1.4 million to
Oskanian, for future distribution. (Oskanian said he has already sent
another $548,000 to Civilitas, with the rest to follow.)

Civilitas produces a newspaper and an Internet television news show,
which are independent voices in a country where most media outlets are
controlled by the government. Oskanian and Civilitas have attracted
international donations, including government grants from Germany,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, the U.K. and the United
States. They have also received private grants from the Eurasia
Partnership Foundation and the German Marshall Fund (GMF). (Full
disclosure: I am a GMF trustee and have met Oskanian at several
international conferences.)

John Heffern, the U.S. ambassador to Armenia, visited Civilitas in
June, along with a group of European ambassadors, and then spoke with
a reporter from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Armenia service. He
called the move against the organization `troubling’ and added:
`Civilitas is a very important partner for us, and we think it’s
really important for Armenia politically and for the media.’ Civilitas
has an international advisory board that includes Stephen Bosworth, a
U.S. former ambassador who is dean of Tufts University’s Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy, where Oskanian took a graduate degree.

The decision to go after Oskanian and Huntsman, two prominent and
widely respected figures, is scary because it illustrates how far the
authorities are willing to go in the former Soviet republics in
curtailing debate. Just a few years ago, Russia and its former
satellites were brimming with civil-society projects and NGOs, whose
links to the West gave a cosmopolitan feel to once-dreary capitals of
the old Soviet empire. You can see a figurative door swinging shut in
the moves over the past year to suppress Western contamination – and
the freer political debate the NGOs have encouraged.

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
IWPR Caucasus Reporting #660
Sept 28 2012

Armenia: Minority Group Opposes New Marriage Rules

Government wants to standardise minimum marriage age at 18.

By Gayane Lazarian – Caucasus

A proposed change to the law in Armenia setting 18 as the minimum age
at which women and men can marry has run into opposition from the
Yezidi minority.

Until now, women have been able to get married at 17, a year earlier
than men. The officials behind the proposed change say they want to
ensure gender equality, and also to keep young women in full-time
education, in light of a change to the rules which requires everyone
to complete 12 years of schooling instead of ten.

`At 17, girls are still studying, so it’s no longer appropriate for
them to get married,’ Justice Minister Hrayr Tovmasyan said. `There’s
also been a ruling by the health minister that early pregnancy can
cause health problems later on.’

Tovmasyan noted that the new law was in keeping with shifting patterns
of social behaviour. In the 1980s, a quarter of women in Soviet
Armenia married at 17 or 18, whereas now only five per cent do so.

Leaders of the Yezidi community, where girls are married off when they
are 15 or even 14 in spite of the current law, say raising the age
goes against their traditions.

Aziz Tamoyan, head of the Union of Yezidis, said that in their culture
an unmarried 18-year-old is already considered old, and will struggle
to find a husband. He urged the government to take Yezidi customs into
account before changing the law.

Yezidis speak one of the Kurdish languages, but have their own unique
religion. Although there are 60,000 of them in Armenia, only one or
two young women go to university every year, because most of the rest
are already married and raising a family.

Layla Haroyan, 17, is from the village of Rya-Taza in the Aragatsotn
region 80 kilometres from Yerevan. She is now the only girl left in
the two senior classes at school. All her friends are at home waiting
to get married.

`They tell girls who aren’t even 12 yet that they should stay at home,
wear long clothing, and learn how to do housework, since they’ll have
to get married soon,’ she said. `I’m personally opposed to that, I’m
against this custom, and I intend to overcome this obstacle which
prevents girls like me from continuing in education and studying for a
profession.’

Layla’s situation is unusual in this community. Her neighbour Sonya
Aslo, 33, has already taken her 14-year-old daughter Ilona out of
school, in preparation for a wedding in six months’ time.

`We found out that the lad comes from a good family and that he’s a
good boy, so we decided to give our daughter away to him,’ Aslo said.
`What was there for Ilona to say about it? For our children, the
parents’ word is law. I myself got married at 15 – what was bad about
that? I’ve got four children and I don’t have any health problems.’

In public, many Yezidis say early marriage is a good thing and
explains why their community has a low divorce rate.

According to Bro Hasanyan, the sheikh or religious leader of the
Yezidi community, `When a 16-year-old Yezidi girl marries, she gets
help from everyone and doesn’t face any difficulties. She can even
work, if her husband wants her to.’

In private, however, some women disagree. Zaynab Isoyan, a 40-year-old
from the village of Ferik, 40 km from Yerevan, approves of the
government plan to raise the legal marriage age.

She says many women end up in unhappy marriages but cannot get
divorced because of the disgrace it would bring on their families.

`We sacrifice ourselves for our parents, to avoid talk about someone’s
daughter being divorced. We hold back from it just so as to avoid
besmirching the honour of our forefathers. It’s also the case that our
community doesn’t take well to divorced women,’ Isoyan explained.

After marriage, Yezidi women move into the home of their
parents-in-law. By tradition, they must not speak or eat in the
presence of their husband’s father. Isoyan said her father-in-law did
not hear her voice or see her eat in 15 years.

The complaints from Yezidis opposed to the marriage age change have
been heard at national level. Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan has asked
the health, education, labour and social affairs ministries to review
to the proposal to ensure any new legislation reflects the real
situation on the ground.

Sheikh Bro Hasanyan was grateful at this news, saying he wanted his
community to be able to live by its traditions, and the voice of
ethnic minorities to be heeded during the legislative process.

(See Armenia: Yezidi Girls Fated For Teen Marriage for pictures of a
Yezidi wedding.)

In This Case Putin Is Right

HAKOB BADALYAN

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 14:35:54 – 28/09/2012

After private meetings with the foreign ministers of Armenia and
Azerbaijan the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Jacques Faure, Igor Popov
and Robert Bradtke in New York made a statement appreciating the
commitment of the sides to peace settlement. They urged them to return
to the essence of peace talks.

The statement of the co-chairs is especially interesting in the
context of their last statement following Safarov’s extradition. They
announced that the OSCE Minsk Group will continue mediation efforts
and contact with the sides.

And now they urge the sides to return to the substance of the talks.

Hence, the new content or format of the talks rather than the
continuation of the talks seems to be concerned. In other words, there
is no call for continuing what is there but the new situation.

At this point the end of the Russian mediation is marked by certain
diplomatic subtlety. Russia had taken the lead of the negotiations
going for three-party meetings. The only result of these meetings is a
few Azerbaijani subversive acts and killed Armenian soldiers. The only
notable thing is the tragic death of Armenian soldiers.

Perhaps it is good that the period of the Russian mediation is closed.
It is hard to tell what played a role, whether France and the United
States insisted on ending this Russian roulette or whether after
Putin’s return Moscow has reviewed its approaches. The point is that
Medvedev’s three-party format was explained by his urge for
self-establishment, as well as the activities of the Azerbaijani oil
and gas lobby.

It is not ruled out that Medvedev thus tries to strengthen his
personal position in the Russian oil and gas capital where Putin
stands firmly. After all, one of the keys of the Russian government is
influence on this capital. Medvedev was unable to reach this key.
Meanwhile, Putin is self-sufficient, and he might accept the
replacement of the three-party format, especially that for experienced
Putin it is not clear that the father Russia goes, the closer it gets
to the trap.

A new situation has thus occurred. After all, the place of this
three-party format must be filled in with something, with some
process, otherwise this hole might be filled with war. And this is the
least desirable thing for Armenia and Karabakh, especially in the
present social, economic and psychological situation when defeat will
have full legitimacy.

Consequently, Armenia must be interested in the new process. In
addition, not only the negotiations are concerned but also their
substance, as the Minsk Group hints. This seemingly destructive step
may contain more constructivism than different Armenian and
Azerbaijani meetings. The important thing is the topic on which the
new process will be built. Following the Safarov case the most natural
source of the new topic is the Armenian side. This is a big risk and
responsibility but there is no other way. And it is not self-admiring
statements on Azerbaijan’s awkward situation that are expected from or
needed for Armenia.

A great opportunity opens up before Armenia to come up with an
innovative approach in the process called negotiations. However,
Armenia has not displayed ability to use this opportunity. The first
step would be an initiative of open and public discussions on the
Karabakh issue and generation of ideas, providing the ground for
maneuvers of official politics. Meanwhile, instead of generation
official Yerevan seems to be moving backward, following the
conservation path.