Author: Kanayan Tamar

GROUP B: BULGARIA 1-0 ARMENIA

ESPN
Sept 11 2012

Bulgaria continued their impressive start to World Cup qualifying
with a bad-tempered victory at home to nine-man Armenia.

Stanislav Manolev’s close-range finish settled an untidy game in which
the hosts’ Svetoslav Dyakov and Armenia’s Marcos Pizelli and Gevorg
Ghazaryan were sent off all in the space of four second-half minutes.

The win built on Bulgaria’s opening draw with Italy and gave them
four points from two games in Group B, while Armenia have now won
one and lost one.

Armenia were the first to threaten after a slow start to the game,
Ghazaryan seeing his effort saved by Nikolay Mihailov in the Bulgaria
goal.

At the other end Ivan Ivanov headed an outswinging corner from Vladimir
Gadzhev wide of the left post shortly before the half-hour mark.

The visitors almost went ahead out of the blue in the 43rd minute
when Henrikh Mkhitaryan fired a shot from the edge of the area against
a post.

Instead Bulgaria took the lead barely a minute later as Ivelin Popov’s
pass inside the area picked out Manolev, who shot high into the net.

Veselin Minev had an effort saved by Roman Berezovsky just after the
break as the hosts threatened again before the visitors lost their
cool completely.

Pizelli was sent off for violent conduct in a 73rd-minute incident
which saw Dyakov also dismissed for a second yellow card.

Ghazaryan got his marching orders, also for violent conduct, in the
76th minute and, with their opponents’ discipline gone completely,
Bulgaria easily held on for the win.

CELEBRATIONS IN BAKU AND OUTRAGE IN YEREVAN AS CONVICTED KILLER IS WELCOMED BACK TO AZERBAIJAN.

Institute for War & Peace Reporting
IWPR Caucasus Reporting #657
Sept 7 2012
UK

By Shahin Rzayev, Naira Melkumyan – Caucasus

Hungary’s decision to repatriate an Azerbaijani officer convicted of
murdering an Armenian studying on the same course abroad has caused
outrage in Armenia, worried foreign diplomats and baffled analysts.

In 2004, Ramil Safarov killed Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan with an
axe at a NATO school in Hungary where they were both studying English.

Convicted by a Hungarian court, Safarov was sentenced to life in 2006.

On August 31, however, he was sent back to Azerbaijan on the
understanding, Hungarian officials said, that he would serve out his
sentence there.

Instead, Safarov received a pardon from Azerbaijan’s president Ilham
Aliyev when he arrived in Baku. On arrival, he was welcomed by Defence
Minister Safar Abiyev, promoted to the rank of major, awarded a new
flat and given 45,000 manats – about 57,000 US dollars – in army back
pay for the eight years he spent in prison.

In Armenia, an enraged President Serzh Sargsyan immediately suspended
diplomatic ties with Hungary, accusing the country of betraying
justice in exchange for a loan from Azerbaijan.

Russia, France and the United States, the three countries that
act as the OSCE’s Minsk Group intermediaries in the long-running
Armenian-Azerbaijan stand-off over Nagorny Karabakh, expressed disquiet
at the decision, saying it could endanger the already fragile peace
in the region.

“We are expressing our deep concern to Azerbaijan regarding this action
and seeking an explanation. We are also seeking further details from
Hungary regarding the decision to transfer Mr. Safarov to Azerbaijan,”
US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said. “We condemn any
action that fuels regional tensions.”

His comments were echoed closely in Russia, which expressed “deep
concern”. Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said,
“We believe that these actions by Azerbaijan, as well as those
of the Hungarian authorities, run counter to efforts agreed to at
international level… to reduce tension in the region.”

President Aliyev offered only a brief explanation of the pardon,
saying merely that it was in line with national legislation.

Azerbaijani defence ministry spokesman Eldar Sabiroglu went further in
a statement referring to Safarov’s release as a “victory for justice
and Azerbaijani diplomacy”. Sabirov accused the “enemy” – Armenia –
of responding with “hysterics”.

Most Azerbajanis appeared delighted by their government’s decision.

When Safarov’s return was announced, crowds of young people gathered
to celebrate in parks and streets in the centre of Baku.

In the Akhundov garden, near the city mayor’s office, a dozen young
men waving flags and holding pictures of Safarov chanted anti-Armenian
slogans while police looked on.

“I think it’s absolutely right that Ramil was freed,” said Iskander
Atazade, one of the students out celebrating. “I don’t consider him
a hero, but he repaid a small part of a very big debt.”

In Armenia, the reaction was one of fury.

A small group of protesters gathered outside the Hungarian embassy,
hurling tomatoes and shouting abuse.

Protesters suggested that Safarov had been prompted to carry out
the killing by the “massive anti-Armenian propaganda spread by the
authorities” as the Karabakh dispute unfolded.

“By issuing a pardon this, the Azerbaijani state is officially
admitting that it does not regard the murder of Armenians as a crime,”
Gagik Baghdasaryan, a history teacher in Yerevan, said.

Widespread criticism of Armenia’s foreign ministry for failing to
block Safarov’s repatriation was cut short when President Sargsyan
announced that ties with Budapest were being cut.

“With this decision, they [Hungary and Azerbaijan] have sent a message
to murderers that murder committed for religious or ethnic reasons
can go unpunished,” he said. “I cannot tolerate this. The Republic of
Armenia cannot tolerate it. The Armenian people will not forgive it.”

Richard Giragosian, head of the Centre of Regional Studies in Yerevan,
said the real danger coming out of the Safarov case was that it risked
reigniting conflict.

“The likelihood of a resumption of war has increased. You have to
understand that Azerbaijan has become unpredictable – you have to
expect anything from a country that can forgive murder,” he said.

In Azerbaijan, Hikmet Hajizade, a former ambassador to Russia who now
heads the Far Monitoring think-tank, said any change in the dynamics
had to be an improvement.

“The talks process is at a dead-end and all these meetings of
presidents, the Minsk Group and so on are no more than a pretence,”
he said. “The Safarov case might at least give an electric shock to
the process and bring this half-dead body out of a coma. In any case,
nothing could be worse than what we have now.”

Azerbaijanis who follow the foreign media were concerned that granting
Safarov a pardon had badly damaged their country’s reputation.

“This is what happens when the public isn’t allowed to do anything.

They are angry,” said Khadija Ismailova, a journalist with Radio
Liberty. “I think Safarov did something terrible. He created lots of
problems for Azerbaijan. But people who are victims of occupation
think he is a hero because he did something. He acted wrongly, but
he did act. ”

Tom de Waal, a veteran observer of the South Caucasus now at the
Carnegie Endowment in Washington, was baffled as to what might have
prompted Aliyev to take what he called a “deeply provocative” step.

“It is a worrying indication of the quality of advice that President
Ilham Aliyev is receiving from his inner circle,” he wrote in a comment
piece for the BBC. “Over the past few years, the government in Baku has
spent tens of millions of dollars of its new oil revenues promoting
the image of Azerbaijan as a new, modernising, dynamic country. The
effect has been quite successful, with results ranging from Azerbaijan
joining the UN Security Council to Baku hosting feel-good events such
as the Eurovision Song Contest.

“All that PR work now has to contend with a contrary image of the
government welcoming home an axe-murderer.”

As for Hungary, officials insisted they had received firm promises from
Azerbaijan that Safarov would see out his term. Armenians, however,
pointed to news reports a week before his release that Budapest –
hard hit by financial crisis in Europe – was looking to borrow money
from Azerbaijan.

Responding to rumours that it had investments in Hungary, the State Oil
Fund of Azerbaijan issued a statement denying that it held securities
or other financial instruments in that country.

Shahin Rzayev is IWPR’s Azerbaijan country director. Naira Melkumyan
is a freelance journalist in Armenia.

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION OPTS OUT OF LOCAL POLLS

Institute for War & Peace Reporting
IWPR Caucasus Reporting #657
Sept 7 2012
UK

Ruling party set to sail through assembly elections since opponents
say they’re holding off for bigger things.

By Arpi Harutyunyan- Caucasus

Armenia’s ruling party is set to win an easy landslide victory in
local polls this month, since the opposition parties have largely
opted out in order to save money for future national elections.

Of the nearly 4,800 candidates standing in the local polls, to be
held in two rounds on September 9 and 23, with over 1,440 belong to
President Serzh Sargsyan’s Republican Party. That is more than all
other parties put together.

Prosperous Armenia, which was previously in the governing coalition
with the Republicans but has moved into opposition, has 304 candidates
standing, while Dashnaktsutyun has 101 and the Rule of Law party has
64. The more radical opposition parties, Heritage and the Armenian
National Congress, ANC, are fielding fewer than ten each.

The remainder of the candidates are running as independents.

Stepan Safaryan of the Heritage Party said there was little point
taking part.

“Local assembly elections are based on corruption,” he said. “The
opposition cannot take part in a process where the fight depends on
bribe-paying rather than political capacity.”

The main reason for not putting up a fight, however, seems to be
about conserving resources so to concentrate on national elections.

“The administrative resources are in the government’s hands, and they
use unlawful methods to maintain themselves,” Lyudmila Sargsyan, a
member of parliament from the ANC, said. “The opposition is therefore
retreating from this fight,” she said.

The absence of a strong opposition presence certainly gave ammunition
to the Republican Party.

“For the opposition, the problems that exist in the regions are just
small change,” Hayk Babukhanyan, a member of parliament from the
Republican Party, said.

Sergey Minasyan, head of political research at the Caucasus Institute
in Yerevan, agreed that local politics were not the opposition’s
primary focus.

“The opposition’s passivity can largely be explained by the lack of
resources in their regional offices. In addition, elections to local
assemblies are not the best platform for presenting the opposition’s
views, as the main campaign arguments are about matters like repairing
water pipes or the providing fertilisers,” he said.

Lilit Galstyan of the Dashnaktsutyun party suggested that elections
were essentially a formality and had little real impact.

“The rules of the game are drawn up in such a way that elections
don’t mean anything. They no longer an instrument that affects the
formation of the government… intellectual, physical, moral and
material resources are therefore frittered away on them,” she said.

Alexander Markarov, director of the Yerevan office of the Institute
for CIS Countries, said the opposition were making a mistake by not
fielding candidates.

“Even if opposition parties don’t believe they will be successful in
the local assembly elections, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take
part in them,” he said.

The opposition is certain to win one major post – that of mayor of
Gyumri, Armenia’s second city. The Republican Party has not nominated
a candidate itself and is instead backing Prosperous Armenia’s Samvel
Balasanyan.

Armen Minasyan, a political analyst from the web site ,
said the Republicans had taken this decision to end a poisonous war
between its mayoral candidate in Gyumri and a former contender from
Prosperous Armenia.

“To end this battle, the authorities decided to support a neutral
candidate,” he said, noting that this did not make it more likely
that the two parties would ally themselves in future elections,
such as next year’s presidential poll.

Armen Badalyan, a political expert, noted that the Republican Party
lost Gyumri in the May parliamentary election, and probably wanted
to avoid further humiliation.

“It’s possible the Republican Party announced it was supporting the
Prosperous Armenia candidate merely in order to avoid losing to it
a second time,” he said.

Arpi Harutyunyan works for the Armnews TV Channel.

DEEP DIVE: FILLING IN THE GAPS — READING THE RAMIL SAFAROV CASE IN AZERBAIJAN

EurasiaNet.org
Sept 11 2012
NY

What happens when a state-controlled media sets an agenda and frames
an issue in a particular way? In Azerbaijan, credulity — a state
of willingness to believe in something in the absence of reasonable
proof or knowledge — wins.

In a media environment controlled by the government like Azerbaijan’s,
as my colleague Sarah Kendzior masterfully argues about Uzbekistan,
all potential information is taken seriously. And, in the case of
the Safarov affair in Azerbaijan, the government’s elaborate framing
of what occurred, without any evidence whatsoever, has created a
well-believed narrative. This narrative, originating in 2004, is the
basis for much Azerbaijani justification in 2012.

The murder of Lieutenant Gurgen Margaryan in 2004 by Azerbaijani
Senior Lieutenant Ramil Safarov took place 10 years after a cease-fire
agreement was brokered between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Ironically,
the two military officers were participating in a NATO Partnership
for Peace English-language course.

All governments, to different degrees, use the media to sway the
public. They do this through agenda setting and framing. Agenda
setting is the “public awareness” of a set of issues while framing
is when an aspect of a perceived reality is made more salient in a
communication context to promote a particular problem, definition,
interpretation, or evaluation with cognitive schema for understanding.

By following the media reports about the incident, it is possible to
piece together the agenda setting and framing strategies.

All news content that included the name Ramil Safarov and was
translated into English by the BBC Monitoring Service from 2004-2011
was analyzed. (The search was conducted through infoweb.newsbank.com
and LexisNexis.) Though these results do not include every
possible mention of the Safarov affair, it can be considered fairly
representative of news in the countries it covers. The full text of
media coverage is available here.

The first reports of the murder were published on the same day as
the event and placed Safarov as the sole suspect. The Associated
Press quoted the Budapest police major saying: “[W]e suspect Ramil
S. of having committed murder with unusual cruelty…a number of
knife wounds…the victim’s head was practically severed from his
body.” The Armenian media also reported the murder on the day that it
occurred, based on a statement from the Armenian Defense Ministry. The
initial framing of the murder by the ministry placed Safarov as a
representative of the Azerbaijani government, with claims that the
crime was “a direct consequence of the policy of aggression, hatred,
and animosity towards the people of Armenia.”

Azerbaijani ATV television news responded to the Armenian Defense
Ministry’s statement with a “clarification” from the Azerbaijani
Defense Ministry that Safarov’s mental state must be considered. This
is the beginning of the dominant Azerbaijani framing of “Safarov was
driven to do this because the Armenians made him suffer.” In this
report, Safarov’s status as an internally displaced person (IDP) was
highlighted — his family was from an Armenian-occupied region and
his family “was living in a Baku hostel in deplorable conditions,”
although the statement did not note for how long this had occurred.

The Azerbaijani ministry spokesman also noted that “many” of Safarov’s
relatives were killed by Armenians during the war, although later
reports vary in the number of relatives killed. Thus, Safarov-as-victim
was the first introduction to the story for the Azerbaijani audience,
a completely different framing than the Armenian narrative.

The day after the murder, AFP published quotes from a statement
by the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, again framing the issue as
Safarov-as-victim-of-Armenian-aggression and focusing on his IDP
status, saying that “[A]ll this could not have failed to have an
effect on Ramil Safarov’s emotional state.” The AFP article was the
introduction of what would become the understood straw that broke
the camel’s back: Margaryan insulting Safarov. AFP quoted Azerbaijani
officials claiming that Margaryan “impugning [Safarov’s] honor as an
officer and Azeri citizen and insulting the memory of victims of the
Armenian aggression,” but without any attribution for this information.

At this point, no Azerbaijani officials had been allowed to speak to
Safarov. The only possible source would be one of the other students
at the English-language program. But how would Azerbaijani officials
be able to speak to the other students within 24 hours of the event?

It is likely that as witnesses, they were instructed by police to
not speak to anyone about what had occurred. Moreover, as military
officers, these men have had operations security ingrained into their
psyches. Information disclosure is not something that they would
take lightly. Nonetheless, there was a second Azerbaijani officer,
Anar Aliyev, on the program who may have spoken to someone about
insults, but it is impossible to know if this occurred or if the
insult argument originated from Baku.

The insult incident also conflicts with statements from the program’s
Hungarian rector, quoted in Hungarian media, that the Armenian and
Azerbaijani officers were on good terms and often joked with one
another.

A week after the murder, the kindling of the insult incident began to
ignite. A representative of the Karabakh War Veterans’ organization
held — for no apparent reason — a press conference on the Safarov
case and said that it “did not rule out that the Armenian officer had
made insulting remarks in his relations with Safarov, which brought
about the incident in the end.”

Then the insult turned into “systematically and purposefully exerted
psychological pressure” from Margaryan to Safarov, according to Bilik
news on February 25. Similarly, Azerbaijani Space TV also reported
on February 25 that “It turned out that a week before the incident,
the killed man and another Armenian officer insulted Safarov in a
dormitory. The tension was defused through the intervention of other
officers. However, as Safarov did not produce a strong reaction,
the Armenian officers regarded this as his cowardice and cruelly
insulted him. When they learnt that Safarov was from the currently
occupied Cabrayil District, the Armenian officers started insulting
him in a crueler way and exasperated him.”

It would be logical to inquire about the source of this information,
yet none exists. Azerbaijani news agency Turan said that the
information originated from “unofficial sources” on March 3, but
in the same report: “[A]sked what was known about the reasons for
the incident that led to the killing of an Armenian officer, the
[Defense Ministry] spokesman said the investigation into the incident
was still under way and that the Hungarian side was not disclosing
any information in the interests of the investigation.”

On February 27, the Azerbaijani ombudsman added more twists to the
insult: “Not only did he [Armenian officer] play a tape with the voices
of suffering Azerbaijani women and girls, but he also cleaned his
shoes with an Azerbaijani flag in front of Ramil [Safarov]. At that
moment Ramil defended his national honor and responded immediately
and correctly to this. I think that the world community should
accept this.”

How did the ombudsman learn that a tape of suffering Azerbaijanis was
played? And how did Margaryan, age 16 in 1994 during the last possible
time any such tape could have been created, have such a tape 10 years
later? And why did he bring this tape to Budapest with him? Similarly,
how did the ombudsman learn that about a shoe cleaning incident?

Finally, on March 9, there is a third-hand report of repeated insults.

Azerbaijani Space TV reported that Safarov’s father met with Safarov
and was told about the repeated insults. What seems strange is that
it is a reasonable assumption that Safarov’s attorneys instructed
him to not admit guilt or discuss possible motives with anyone, even
his father. Nonetheless, Safarov’s attorney also spoke to Space TV
and said the incident had occurred because of the Armenian officer’s
“unethical behavior.” After this, the news about the Safarov case
quieted down for a while, but in May, the ombudsman and Safarov’s
attorney met with Safarov. The attorney reported that only 10 people
had been questioned as witnesses and three forensic examinations had
been carried out and that Attorney Ismayilov had not been allowed
to closely familiarize himself with the case. Given this, the claims
over what occurred during the murder are even stranger.

The trial began in November 2004, but was postponed until February
2005. In March, the Azerbaijani Organization of Karabakh Liberation
and other NGOs published a document making the insult argument to the
Hungarian parliament, media, and the court itself to no avail. The
trial finished in April 2006 during which Safarov was found guilty
of both the murder of Margaryan and the intended murder of the other
Armenian officer. The sentence was upheld in February 2007. In August
of 2012, Safarov returned to Azerbaijan and was immediately pardoned
and promoted as a hero.

In the days following the pardon, the Azerbaijani social media
discussion frequently cited the insult incident as fact and the
Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry mentioned it in a letter to Hungary
(it is unclear for whom the letter is intended).

It is impossible to know if, in fact, Margaryan or the other Armenian
officers insulted Safarov, played a tape of suffering Azerbaijanis,
or cleaned his shoes with the Azerbaijani flag. However, no witness
came forward in the media or the trial to support any of these claims.

Non-Armenian or Azerbaijani witnesses have no motivation to not testify
to what they saw. Despite the absence of evidence, the vast majority
of Azerbaijanis seem to believe that Margaryan insulted Safarov.

What role does evidence play in Azerbaijan? The media has to promote
the state’s line and does so by engaging in kompromat (from the Russian
abbreviation of compromising materials). Traditionally mudslinging
about political figures, kompromat “often employs somewhat dubious
facts and figures, sometimes with a grain of truth and sometimes
essentially groundless.” Thus, for the media, evidence does not matter.

But why are Azerbaijani citizens willing to believe stories without
evidence? First, the psychological state of Azerbaijani citizens is
marked by a “pervasive bitterness and growing sense of deprivation,”
a general sense of apathy and fear, and a lack of trust in others.

Second, the Azerbaijani public trusts the state run media. Nearly half
of Azerbaijanis (in an early 2012 survey conducted by the Caucasus
Research Resource Center) cite ANS television as the most trusted TV
channel, and a quarter named Khazar. Moreover, nearly three-quarters
of Azerbaijanis believe that TV channels provide unbiased news
coverage. Third, the narrative presented by the Azerbaijani media fed
into nationalistic and anti-Armenian attitudes already predominant
amongst Azerbaijanis.

This leads to a low willingness to question media reports or express
beliefs contrary to the dominant government narrative. An Azerbaijani
citizen criticizing this story could experience attacks like blogger
Arzu Geybullayeva or anonymous blogger Scary Azeri have. These two
live outside of Azerbaijan and have less to fear than Azerbaijani
citizens inside.

Even critics of the government are reluctant to question the
government’s position on the Safarov affair. Emin Milli, a known
opposition figure, recently blogged that there are Azerbaijanis who
disagree with “the disgusting government propaganda,” although he too
seems to believe that the insults occurred. And while it may indeed
be the case that some Azerbaijanis deviate from the government,
it is not realistic or safe for them to speak out.

Will credulity win in Azerbaijan? It certainly appears to be the case.

Editor’s note: RFE/RL has invited discussion of this article with the
following note. Anyone interested in submitting a counter-argument to
Pearce’s analysis is free to do so. Submissions should be in English,
run no more than 1000 words, and be exclusive to RFE/RL. Email
submissions to Zach Peterson: petersonz[AT]rferl[DOT]org. You can
also comment on the original story page, linked at the start of
this article.

A PROPOSAL TO THE PRESIDENT: ASK ILHAM [RAMIL] ALIYEV A QUESTION

Mediamax
Sept 11 2012
Armenia

Ara Tadevosyan
Director of Mediamax

A week ago, the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev granted pardon
to murderer Ramil Safarov. The discussions about how it will affect
the NK negotiation process and what changes official Yerevan should
make in its position have not stopped since then.

For example, former FM Vardan Oskanyan thinks that it is a
convenient time to change the accents and focus attention on fixing
the de-facto realization of Nagorno Karabakhi people’s right for
self-determination. Mr. Oskanyan did not explain whether it should
be done through the recognition of NKR by Armenia or in any other way.

For his part, Foreign Minister Nalbandyan said this week that Armenia
is not going to withdraw from the talks and it’s is Azerbaijan that
rejects all the proposals of the Co-Chair states.

In reality, the negotiation process has been actually frozen for
almost over a year. After the Azerbaijani leader had denied the
previously reached agreements in Kazan last summer, the Co-chairs do
not mediate actively, focusing on efforts to maintain the process in
a more or less “vivid” state. There were no big hopes for progress
even before Safarov’s release and today only the hopeless optimists
can speak about such hopes.

Yesterday, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan reproached the
international community, saying that one of the reasons for Safarov’s
release was the fact that the world has been demonstrating “political
correctness” towards Azerbaijan for many years and always puts an
equality sign between the sides.

Since the hopes that the international players will ever give up that
“political correctness” are not big, I would like to propose to the
Armenian President to do it himself. How?

Armenia should initiate a Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting through the Co-Chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group. The first 1-2 minutes of such meetings are
open for the reporters for protocol shooting. Usually, during this
time the Presidents and the mediators exchange polite smiles and say
nothing but: “how are you?”, “it’s a nice weather today” etc.

I propose to the President of Armenia to break this tradition and
ask a question to Ilham Aliyev just during the protocol shooting:

– Mr. President, how do you sleep after granting pardon to a murderer
who had axed a sleeping man 16 times?

And let Mr. Ilham [Ramil] Aliyev answer this question before the
cameras.

U.S. PROMISES TO BE CONSISTENT IN GETTING CLARIFICATIONS FROM BAKU AND BUDAPEST

Mediamax
Sept 10 2012
Armenia

Yerevan/Mediamax/. U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern said
today that the United States are waiting for clarifications from
Baku and Budapest on the Safarov case and they will be consistent in
getting them.

He said that he doesn’t have anything to say at the moment as “the
dialogue on the issue is underway”, Mediamax reports

The Ambassador stressed that the as an OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair,
the U.S. is against any manifestation jeopardizing the fragile
negotiation process.

Mediamax recalls that on September 1, the U.S. National Security
Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor made a statement reading that “the U.S.

President Obama is deeply concerned by today’s announcement that
the President of Azerbaijan has pardoned Ramil Safarov following his
return from Hungary” and the U.S. is also requesting an explanation
from Hungary regarding the case.

KAN. GUARD HOSTING ARMENIAN STUDY TOUR

Sacramento Bee

Sept 10 2012
CA

TOPEKA, Kan. — A delegation of Armenian officials is touring Kansas
this week to study systems for responding to emergencies and natural
disasters.

Kansas and Armenia have had a civilian and military partnership
agreement since 2003. This week’s visit is being hosted by the Kansas
National Guard.

On Wednesday, the Armenians will tour the Shawnee County Emergency
Communications Center in Topeka and the police 911 call center in
Kansas City, Kan.

During their visit, the Armenians will also meet with staff of the
Kansas Joint Forces Headquarters to learn more about the National
Guard’s role in responding to emergencies.

NATO’S PARTNERS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

NATO HQ
Sept 10 2012

Last week, NATO’s Secretary General visited the South Caucasus –
a region that is strategically important to the Alliance. NATO has
been progressively deepening dialogue and cooperation with Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia since the early 1990s. All three partners
provide valuable support to NATO-led operations, while benefiting
from NATO support for security and defence-related capacity building
and reform.

The South Caucasus is a crossroads of civilizations, situated between
the Black Sea to the west, the Caspian Sea to the east and bordering
Turkey, Russia and Iran. The region has been of considerable
geostrategic importance through the ages – and continues to be
so today.

The region borders the territory of a NATO member state and includes
Georgia, a country aspiring to join the Alliance. It also offers
useful alternative transit options for the transport of supplies to
and from the NATO-led force in Afghanistan.

Shared security concerns

The Allies and their partners in the South Caucasus face the same
security challenges, such as terrorism and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. Such threats defy borders and can only
be addressed effectively through international cooperation.

Energy security is an important security issue of shared concern. The
South Caucasus sits on key oil and gas transit routes, and has
significant oil and gas reserves. Energy-importing countries are
looking to diversify their energy sources and supply routes, while
energy-exporting and transit countries need to ensure the security
of their industry and pipeline infrastructure.

One serious concern are the protracted conflicts in the region.

Following a conflict between ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis from
1988 to 1994, the sides agreed a cease fire in May 1994. However,
a political settlement still needs to be found. The Abkhazia and
South Ossetia regions of Georgia continue to be sources of tension,
in particular following the conflict with Russia in August 2008.

NATO does not seek a direct role in the resolution of these conflicts,
but supports the efforts of other international organizations,
which have specific mandates for their mediation roles.The peaceful
resolution of conflict is a core value of NATO and is at the heart of
the commitments that NATO’s partners in the South Caucasus undertook
when they joined the Partnership for Peace.

Valued support for operations

All three Caucasus partners have provided valuable support for NATO-led
operations. Armenia has been contributing troops to the Kosovo Force
(KFOR) since 2004. It first deployed personnel in support of the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2010
and increased its deployment from 40 to 126 in 2011.

Having actively supported KFOR in the past, Azerbaijan currently has
94 personnel deployed in support of ISAF. The country also supports
ISAF’s mission with over-flight rights and has contributed to the
development of Afghan national security forces through financial
support and training in de-mining.

Today, with around 800 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan,
Georgia is the second largest non-NATO ISAF troop contributing
nation and planned deployments this autumn will make it the
largest. The country also supports Operation Active Endeavour,
NATO’s counter-terrorist maritime surveillance operation in the
Mediterranean. Georgia also contributed to KFOR in the past.

All three countries are actively working towards the development of
units that meet NATO standards and that can in future participate in
international peacekeeping operations.

Deepening partnership

Bilateral partnership programmes with NATO allow each of the Caucasus
partners to draw on Allied expertise in adapting their defence
institutions and capabilities to deal with security challenges. In
the past decade, all three countries have chosen to deepen the level
of cooperation and tighten the focus on their respective reform
priorities.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have both developed Individual Partnership
Action Plans with NATO. In the case of Georgia – following a dialogue
with the Alliance about its membership aspirations and the declaration
by Allies at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that the country will become a
member – intensified cooperation is now being taken forward through the
unique framework of the NATO-Georgia Commission that was established
in September 2008.

Beyond cooperating on security and defence-related capacity building
and reform, NATO and its partners in the South Caucasus work together
in other areas such as border security, cyber security, and disaster
preparedness and response.

Partnership has also brought some tangible benefits for citizens in
the Caucasus countries. For example, in Armenia – a country prone to
earthquakes – NATO provides training to improve the search-and-rescue
capabilities. In Azerbaijan and Georgia, NATO has supported projects
to clear and safely dispose of large numbers of dangerous, unexploded
and obsolete landmines and munitions.

SAFAROV’S RELEASE IS A DANGEROUS SIGNAL TO THE WHOLE WORLD. THE NEW YORK TIMES

ARMENPRESS
10 September, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 10, ARMENPRESS: The latest incidents have increased
the tension in Caucasian region. Armenpress reports citing the
New York Times, noting that the first thing was the extradition of
Ramil Safarov to Azerbaijan by Hungarian authorities. The Hungarian
government transferred the prisoner to Azerbaijan on the understanding
that he would serve out the rest of his life sentence in his home
country. But immediately upon his arrival in Baku, Lieutenant Safarov
was pardoned by President Ilham Aliyev, restored to military duties,
promoted to major, given an apartment and awarded back pay for his time
in prison. These actions drew universal condemnation from Washington,
Moscow and European governments. Apart from the fact that such a
step is an affront to basic notions of justice and the rule of law,
even more troubling is the message that it sends to the rest of the
world: that the Azerbaijani government thinks it is acceptable to kill
Armenians. Apparently, the grievances they suffered in their defeat
by Armenian forces in 1992-94 are so profound that even murder is
excusable. It is hard, then, to ask the Armenians living in Karabakh to
quietly accept the idea that the solution to their disputed territory
is for them to return to living under Azerbaijani rule.

In the conclusion of authoritative American newspaper compounding the
problem was a less significant but still noteworthy gesture. On Sept.

3, Richard Morningstar, the new U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan,
paid his respects to Heidar Aliyev, the deceased former president
(and father of the incumbent), by laying a wreath at his statue in
central Baku. Apparently it is standard protocol for U.S. ambassadors
to include this stop in their round of duties when arriving in Baku.

Photographs also clearly showed the ambassador bowing his head before
the monument, though a State Department spokesman later denied this.

Mr. Morningstar’s far from empty gesture sent two wrong signals.

First, it is disheartening to democratic activists to see the United
States so cravenly supporting dictatorship as a suitable form of
rule, a pattern all too familiar from U.S. policy toward the entire
Middle East.

Second, it signals to Armenia – and its principal ally, Russia –
that the United States is an unqualified backer of the Azerbaijani
government, warts and all. Strategic interests – Caspian oil, access
to Central Asia, containment of Iran – count for more than the niceties
of human rights and democratic procedure.

SAFAROV’S CASE MAY CONDUCE NEW CRIMES. LITHUANIAN DEPUTIES

ARMENPRESS
10 September, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 10, ARMENPRESS: A group of deputies of Lithuanian
National Assembly expressed their concern about the extradition of
Ramil Safarov and his pardoning by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
and spread their declaration.

As Armenpress was informed from Tigran Balayan, the press secretary of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the granting of pardon to Safarov
who hacked Armenian serviceman to death may be provocative for
other crimes. The decision of Hungarian and Azerbaijani governments
contradicts the international law norms and may become a barrier for
the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Lithuanian deputies Algis
Kasheta, Dalia Kuodite, Ketutis Masiulis and Piatra Luomanas have
signed under the declaration.

Azeri perpetrator Ramil Safarov hacked Armenian serviceman Gurgen
Margaryan with an axe during English training courses in frameworks
of NATO in Budapest on 19 February, 2004. On August 31, 2012 on the
decision of Hungarian authorities Safarov was extradited to Baku,
Azerbaijan where he was pardoned by the President Ilham Aliyev.

Armenia suspended diplomatic relations with Hungaria.