Author: Karagyozian Lena

SERGE SARGSIAN MEETING IRANIAN PRESIDENT
Azg/arm
10 Feb 05
Serge Sargsian, minister of defense of Armenia, met with the President
of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, within the framework of a three-day official
visit. According to official IRNA agency, President Khatami assured
that Iran is supporting the neighboring Armenia.
Khatami stated that the countries of the region may settle their
problems without help from outside if high-level negotiations
conducted. The Iranian President underscored the importance of
opening Iran-Armenia railroad for fostering bilateral ties. Serge
Sargsian noted that the railway communication will be efficient as
a North-South corridor.
Hosan Rohani, secretary of Security Council of Iran, received
Sargsian on February 8. IRNA agency reports that Rohani considered
the direct dialogue between Yerevan and Baku a productive way for
settling Karabakh conflict. Rohani excluded the military solution. He
noted that only a solution beneficial for both sides and considering
Karabakh peopleâ~@~Ys wish can be just. Serge Sargsian in his turn
excluded the possibility of step-by-step solution.
Rohani said that neither Tehran nor Yerevan will allow foreign agents
to intervene in Armenian-Iranian relations.
The Armenian defense minister was hosted by former president, Ali
Akbar Rafsanjan, who is currently running the Defense Council of Iran.
–Boundary_(ID_/WsO2Z/Nk5hcKAyJjlerWQ)–

Lawyers for Azeri officer in Hungarian trial challenge forensic evidence
Ekho, Baku
9 Feb 05
Excerpt from report by L. Nuri in Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 9
February headlined “‘I believe that a fair verdict will be passed,’
said the senior lieutenant of the Azerbaijani armed forces, Ramil
Safarov, in an interview with Ekho”
The trial into the case of the senior lieutenant of the Azerbaijani
armed forces, Ramil Safarov, opened in the Budapest city court
yesterday [8 February].
[Passage omitted: reported details]
All the staff of the Azerbaijani embassy in Hungary, and Azerbaijani
students and professors at Budapest Central European University were
in the courtroom. The head of the centre to protect the rights
of Azerbaijani refugees and displaced persons, Tatyana Chaladze,
independent Azerbaijani journalist Israfil Babayev and an Ekho
newspaper correspondent attended the trial.
For the Armenian side, apart from the [Armenian] embassy’s employees,
representatives of Hungary’s large Armenian community were present
in the courtroom. No representatives of the Azerbaijani community
were present.
At the very beginning of the trial, the Azerbaijani side’s lawyer,
(?Georgiy Madjar), asked the judge to allow Azerbaijani experts to
carry out a second forensic examination of Safarov. The chairman
agreed to the second examination but the Azerbaijani experts will
only be allowed to observe it. Hungarian law bans intervention of
experts from another state in a trial. In this case, experts from
the Budapest Institute for Forensic Research will examine Safarov.
[Passage omitted: examination due on 10 May 2005; Azerbaijani lawyers
unhappy with original forensic evidence.]
The atmosphere in the courtroom was tense from the very beginning. For
instance, the judge did not disturb the Hungarian journalists and
press photographers (who seemed to be ethnic Armenians) attending
the trial. As for the Azerbaijani journalists, judge Andrash Voskuti
asked for their identification cards as soon as the trial opened. The
journalists were allowed to film and take photos of the trial after
their documents were checked and lawyer Adil Ismayilov submitted a
request to the judge.
Despite protests of the Armenian lawyers, the chairwoman of the centre
to protect the rights of Azerbaijani refugees and displaced persons,
Tatyana Chaladze, managed to submit to the judge documents about
the Xocali tragedy and videotapes demonstrating its horrors. The
Azerbaijani embassy in Hungary repeatedly presented the judge with
materials on the Nagornyy Karabakh problem, the Xocali tragedy and
the occupation of Cabrayil District (where Safarov comes from).
The Ekho correspondent managed to talk to the Azerbaijani serviceman
during the 10-minute break in the trial.
[Correspondent] How do you feel?
[Safarov] Well.
[Correspondent] Have you been in touch with your relatives?
[Safarov] Yes.
[Correspondent] Do you have any problems?
[Safarov] No.
[Correspondent] Are you being put under pressure?
[Safarov] No pressure is being exerted on me. I have no complaints. The
conditions in which I am being held and the attitude towards me
are normal.
[Correspondent] You have an opportunity to say some words for people
back home.
[Safarov] I would not like to take advantage of this, since it would
be an indirect intervention in the course of the trial.
[Correspondent] Still, some words at least… [ellipses as published]
[Safarov] I am grateful to everybody. I believe that a fair verdict
will be passed.
[Passage omitted: Safarov’s lawyer from Hungary, Peter Zalay, says
they will do their best for Safarov to avoid life imprisonment]

All American Patriot, Sweden
Feb 9 2005
U.S. Seeks Peaceful Settlement on Nagorno-Karabakh
State Department fact sheet provides background on conflict, U.S.
policy
08 February 2005
The U.S. Department of State issued the following fact sheet February
7, 2005, which updates a January 25, 2005, fact sheet:
ADVERTISING
(begin fact sheet)
U.S. Department of State
Fact Sheet
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Washington, DC
February 7, 2005
THE UNITED STATES AND NAGORNO-KARABAKH
Background
The armed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K) lasted from 1990 to
1994. By the time a cease-fire went into effect in 1994, Armenian
forces controlled most of N-K, as well as large swaths of adjacent
Azerbaijani territory. The fighting, plus the expulsion of Armenians
from Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis from Armenia, produced more than a
million refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Approximately 100,000 Azerbaijanis remain in refugee camps today,
where they face desperate living conditions. Turkey closed its land
border with Armenia during the conflict to show solidarity with
Azerbaijan and has not reopened it. The United States provides
humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict, which
includes support for housing and school repairs, primary health care,
irrigation, potable water and sanitation, subsistence agriculture,
micro-finance, and demining.
The parties have observed a cease-fire agreement since 1994. Although
cease-fire violations and cross-border sniping occur, all sides
insist on their continued commitment to a peaceful settlement reached
through negotiation.
Peace Process
In 1992, the CSCE (now the OSCE) created the Minsk Group, a coalition
of member states dedicated to facilitating a peaceful resolution of
the conflict. The Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group (Russia, France, and
the U.S.) serve as mediators, working in close and effective
cooperation with the parties. In 1997-98, Co-Chair shuttle diplomacy
generated three separate peace proposals. Each of these proposals was
rejected by one or another of the parties.
Beginning in 1999, Presidents Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Robert
Kocharian of Armenia began a direct dialogue through a series of
bilateral meetings. Positive developments during a March 2001 Paris
meeting among Presidents Aliyev, Kocharian, and Chirac inspired then
Secretary of State Colin Powell to invite both Presidents to continue
their dialogue in the United States. Aliyev and Kocharian met with
the Co-Chairs in Key West in April 2001. The sides made significant
progress but failed to reach a comprehensive settlement. Presidents
Aliyev and Kocharian met on the margins of multilateral meetings in
late 2001 and on the border between the two countries in August 2002
but failed to narrow their differences. President Heydar Aliyev died
in 2003, and negotiations slowed as both countries held presidential
elections that year.
In 2004, the Co-Chairs initiated a series of meetings in Prague
between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The “Prague
Process” was designed to reinvigorate dialogue between the sides.
Following a series of meetings between the Foreign Ministers, as well
as meetings in Warsaw and Astana between Presidents Ilham Aliyev and
Robert Kocharian, the Co-Chairs and the parties agreed the Prague
Process should continue in 2005, with a focus on advancing
negotiations towards a settlement.
The U.S. as Mediator
The U.S. remains actively engaged in advancing a peaceful settlement
of the conflict. Cooperation among the U.S., Russian, and French
mediators is excellent. The United States does not recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, and its leadership is not
recognized internationally or by the United States. The United States
supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the
future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiation between
the parties. The United States remains committed to finding a
peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the
Minsk Group process. We are encouraged by the continuing talks
between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
(end fact sheet)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs,
U.S. Department of State. Web site: )

KREMLIN REDEFINING POLICY IN “POST-SOVIET SPACE”
by Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 — Volume 2, Issue 27
In a marathon-length press conference on February 3, Kremlin political
consultant Gleb Pavlovsky laid certain Russian markers in Eurasia ahead of
the George W. Bush-Vladimir Putin summit and, by the same token, seized the
moment to announce a major redefinition of Russia’s policy in the
“post-Soviet space.”
Pavlovsky warned at the outset: “One should be aware that, at least until
the end of President Putin’s tenure and probably until the end of the
presidency of his immediate successors, Russia’s foreign policy priority
will be to turn Russia into a 21st century world power. This despite the
fact that we are presently a weak regional power with a weak commodity-based
economy.”
Linking Russia’s global ambitions for the future to the projection of its
influence in the “post-Soviet space” at present, Pavlovsky defined Russia’s
“near abroad” doctrine as inherently assuming Western cooperation with this
Russian design. He faulted Russia’s policy for this “primitive” expectation,
noting that Western non-acceptance “naturally weakens the CIS, which emerged
as part of that doctrine.” In that sense, “The concept of the ‘near abroad’
is dead.” Consequently, Pavlovsky announced, “Russia is currently revising
its policy in the post-Soviet space and the mechanisms of its
implementation.” As a general principle, “any country [that would] promote
the doctrine of Russia’s rollback will certainly create a conflict in the
relations with this country. This must be clearly understood.”
As part of that reassessment, Pavlovsky advanced three salient ideas:
1) Belarus represents an optimal model of integration with Russia, whereby
the regime’s ultimate political reliability will override other issues. “We
are totally satisfied with the level of our relations with Belarus. Russia
will clearly distinguish between certain characteristics of a political
regime in a neighboring country and its observance of allied commitments.
Belarus is a model ally.”
2) As a major departure from Russian policy since 1992, Moscow reserves the
right from now on to pursue its goals by establishing relations with
political forces, opposition as well as governing, in post-Soviet countries.
“Russia will certainly interact with the entire political spectrum in the
neighboring [sic] countries, both official and opposition, including
nongovernmental organizations, democratic organizations, and in-system
political groups,” other than the “extremist, radical, or underground
groups.” “The president of our partner country or ally country, while
preserving the role of our central interlocutor, will not be regarded by
Russia as the one and only representative of the society.” Moscow intends to
use its NGOs as well as its government agencies to link up with political
forces in post-Soviet countries.
Inspired by the defeat of the Moscow-supported presidential candidate in
Ukraine, this policy shift also means explicitly that Moscow reserves the
right to work with the opposition in that country during Viktor Yushchenko’s
presidency. “During the electoral campaign in Ukraine there was an
underestimation [by Russia] and low level of cooperation between Russian
society and Ukrainian NGOs. We will try to avoid such an underestimation in
the future. . . . Mr. Yushchenko will certainly not be regarded by us as a
person with exclusive rights to interpret the position of Ukrainian society,
political, and nongovernmental organizations.”
Indeed, until now, Moscow has almost always supported or worked with the
incumbent regimes in CIS countries, keeping the opposition at arm’s length.
Support for secessionist enclaves in Moldova and Georgia were the major
exceptions to that rule of Moscow’s conduct. Pavlovsky is now signaling that
Moscow will no longer feel inhibited to seek tactical alliances with
opposition groups against incumbents. Moreover, his remarks suggest that
Russian authorities intend to compete in the civil-society arena by using
their tame or government-created NGOs to offset the genuine ones, which are
usually Western-supported and promote representative democracy as distinct
from the “managed-democracy” model associated with Putin and Pavlovsky.
The Kremlin’s intervention in the Ukrainian electoral campaign may have been
the high-water mark as well as the last egregious case of massive uncritical
support to an incumbent regime. However, even as that effort was in
progress, the Kremlin’s policy in Moldova marked a first departure from its
general pro-incumbent policy. Responding to overtures from the centrist
opposition’s Democratic Moldova Bloc, the Kremlin decided by mid-2004 to
support the DMB against President Vladimir Voronin, who had reoriented his
policy toward the West. In Chisinau it is assumed that Pavlovsky and his
team played a major role in Moscow’s decision. Apparently sobered up by the
defeat in Ukraine, however, Pavlovsky implied during his press conference
that the Kremlin has now adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward Moldova’s
upcoming general elections.
Citing Kyrgyzstan as another case study, Pavlovsky signaled support to the
incumbent authorities in the upcoming parliamentary and presidential
elections, on the grounds that the opposition has not committed itself to
using non-violent methods. However, he left open the possibility of
political deals with the opposition: “Explain to us what goals you pursue,
what means you will use, and then we will decide on the level of our
interaction with this political force.”
3) Russia does not accept the proposition that Euro-Atlantic integration
provides a shelter against Russian influence in post-Soviet countries.
“Russia will become a world power again, and will have a global area of
interests. Now, however . . . there are certain countries where we have our
interests. Even the admission of some of these countries to the European
Union and NATO does not mean that they fall out of the area of our
interests. The Baltic states are certainly within this area of interests,
particularly on such issues as transit, or the status of the Russian
language and Russian community. We will certainly use their accession to the
new organizations in order to intensify monitoring of what concerns our
interests and to influence these countries.”
This stated goal transcends the Baltic states as such, reflecting more
far-reaching ambitions to corrode NATO’s and the EU’s political cohesion by
trying to extract concessions at the expense of Baltic states on the issues
that Pavlovsky named. The tactic at this stage consists of trying to
introduce those issues on the agenda of Russia’s discussions with the EU,
NATO, and some major West European capitals. Any success in doing so would
encourage Moscow to expand the range of internal EU and NATO issues on which
Moscow seeks to obtain a voice and a say.
(fednews.ru, RIA-Novosti, February 3).
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 — Volume 2, Issue 27
IN THIS ISSUE:
*Moscow asserts right to work with opposition groups in CIS countries
*Speculation grows over Zhvania’s death, successor
*Armenian currency continues to soar against euro, dollar
*China denies financing Yuganskneftgaz acquisition

Armenia under diplomatic siege
Mirror Spectator Editorial
1/02/2005
Critical or desperate situations are not new for Armenia, and today we are in
one of those situations. To sound more patriotic we may claim that against
all odds Armenia will survive and Armenians are destined to live to the end of
history and contribute to the world civilizations. But history has prevalence
over patriotic rhetoric; the historic truth is that after the fall of the
Cilician Kingdom in 1375 AD, Armenia was not able to survive as a sovereign
nation
and fell under Seljuk and Ottoman rules for six centuries.
Also, the first Republic in early 20th Century did not survive for more than
two years, and it was soon absorbed into the Soviet Empire until its second
independence in 1991. In both instances the genesis of an Armenian Republic was
more of a geo-strategic fallout from the regional new political formations,
rather than any specific design by any Armenian entity. Of course in both cases
Armenians hung on the opportunity and they revived their sovereignty, albeit
in a decimated portion of their historic territory.
Today, the world is being reshaped, especially in the Caucasus region, and
the fallout may spell danger to the very existence of the fledgling Armenian
Republic.
Any prudent policy may not save the country from extinction, if the
powers-to-be so decide, but an imprudent act may exacerbate the situation and
contribute to the demise of a sovereign state.
Armenia’s foreign policy is not defined by anyone’s whims; it is derived from
its urgent needs. In order survive: Armenia needs Iran as its trading
partner, and Russia, both for trade and for defense against real Turkish danger.
Unfortunately, those ties are at best tenuous for strategic reasons, over which
Armenia has no control.
Armenia has been vying for the lifting of the Turkish blockade and resumption
of diplomatic relations with that country, which has become an international
player with Armenia on the bottom of its priority list. Georgia’s “friendship”
is at best treacherous, given the actual facts on the ground. On top of all
these complexities the U.S. has grand designs over the region, strengthening
Armenia’s enemies, not necessarily out of any specific animosity against
Armenia. The U.S. Ambassador to Baku is vocally advocating the lifting of
Section 907
of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, which will further embolden bellicose
parties in Baku.
The diplomatic world is crumbling over Armenia, and yet some armchair
politicians â~@~S in Armenia and the Diaspora â~@~S are engaged in their petty
game,
oblivious of the rising tide. No one can say that Armenia is curbing the freedom
of
the press after reading the nihilistic and insane statements in that press.
Unfortunately, that irresponsible diatribe is making its way into the Diaspora
press as well.
The diplomatic salvo began with the Azeri initiative to place the Karabagh
issue on the UN General Assembly agenda as a case of ethnic cleansing. Armenian
diplomacy, aided by OSCE group, was successful in deflecting the assault, only
temporarily. Then came the statement by retiring U.S. Assistant Secretary
Elizabeth Jones, accusing the Karabagh leaders as “criminal elements”; along
with
all the secessionist movements in the former Soviet territory. That was
certainly not a slip of the tongue, as Ms. Jones clarified to Foreign Minister
Oskanian, in view of overall U.S. policy in the region.
Then came the next tide of the diplomatic pressure, when Parliamentary
Assembly of the European Council (PACE), headed by David Atkinson (UK) and Mats
Einarsson (Sweden) formulated and passed a very unfavorable resolution, which
states that “considerable parts of territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by
Armenian forces” and that “separatist forces are still in control of
Nagorno-Karabagh”. The only saving grace in the resolution is that it recommends
that
the Baku government negotiate directly with the Nagorno-Karabagh leadership.
There were also references to so-called “ethnic cleansing” by Armenians
against Azeris, just reversing the roles.
Deputy Speaker of Armenia’s Parliament, Vahan Hovanissian, deplored the
Atkinson resolution characterizing that “it smells petroleum”, while Armenia’s
representative at PACE, Tigran Torossian, lamented Russian inaction in view of
this dangerous turn of events, saying that Russia is Armenia’s ally, but also
has
interests in Azerbaijan. That was a most revealing position on Moscow’s part,
and it raises a very serious question: whether Russia will be willing to
defend Armenia militarily if a conflict arises, when it is reluctant to defend
diplomatically.
Some setbacks have also been recorded on the European front when the EU
decided to place the Armenian Genocide issue on the back burner. An earlier
resolution adopted in 1987 no longer is in force, and European leaders are not
embarrassed to state that genocide recognition is no longer a pre-condition for
Turkey’s admission into the EU. That shift of position has helped transfer the
diplomatic initiative to Ankara, whose unrepentant leaders have been pressuring
Yerevan to declare its position on 1921 Kars Agreement, which had sealed
Armenia’s border with Turkey. Aggressive Turkish policy is being pushed one step
further by asking Armenia to drop all claims on its historic territories and to
table the genocide issue from its foreign policy agenda.
To aggravate the situation further the U.S. has turned the heat up on Iran.
Condoleezza Rice, the face of U.S. war machine, declared during her
confirmation hearing, that Washington couldn’t allow an Iranian regime that
threatens
Israel to survive. Of course no one dared to ask if Iran threatened the U.S. in
any way.
It seems that Iran’s conciliatory gestures in supporting the U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq has not been sufficient to assuage or convince any
leader in Washington. Any overt or covert attack in Iran will only strengthen
Azerbaijan, which has become a staging base for such an attack. Iran’s
dismemberment or containment will embolden the ruthless rulers in Baku and
seriously
damage Armenia’s economic sustenance.
Armenia’s leadership may not be the best, and many groups have grievances,
especially since the last elections. But thus far it has been able to navigate
safely through perilous waters. Besides, none of the critics have demonstrated
the proven ability to conduct a better diplomacy, nor have they come up with
an alternative. Should a calamity take place and the present administration is
toppled or replaced, it is doubtful that the new leaders will be less corrupt
and smarter statesmen.
Einstein’s theory of relativity not only applies to science, but also to
diplomacy. Armenia has inherited and has been experiencing all the problems of
the
fallen Soviet Empire, and yet it is faring much better economically and
diplomatically than most of the other republics. One has to keep in mind the
perspective relativity in assessing the situation in Armenia. Nothing happens in
a
political vacuum. Everything is relative and calls for the overthrow of the
current regime must be accompanied with far better recommendations and
demonstrable viability.
As Armenia is under intense diplomatic siege, even from the viewpoint of the
fierce critics, the current administration seems to be the “necessary evil”. A
stable Armenia can fare much safer under current conditions than one going
through political experiments.
–Boundary_(ID_mmPGqnbaWii8DcaMt/fEeA)–

ANSA Notiziario Generale in Italiano
February 6, 2005
GENOCIDIO ARMENI: FRANCIA, MINISTRO INDUSTRIA CONTRO ERDOGAN
PARIGI
(ANSA) – PARIGI, 6 FEB – Gli interlocutori turchi della
missione parlamentare francese guidata dal presidente
dell’assemblea nazionale Jean-Louis Debre che si e’ recata ad
Ankara ed Istanbul si sono mostrati delusi o meravigliati dalla
resistenza al progetto di adesione turca all’Unione europea,
soprattutto a causa del mancato riconoscimento da parte della
Turchia del genocidio degli armeni del 1915.

Ma il ministro dell’industria francese Patrick Devedjian si
e detto a sua volta scioccato dal fatto che il primo ministro
turco Recep Tayyip Erdogan non sapesse che in Francia “400 mila
armeni potevano far saltare il referendum” sull’adesione della
Turchia all’Unione europea. “Sono rimasto molto sorpreso – ha
detto il ministro – della brutalita’ della risposta del primo
ministro turco. Sono shockato perche in un certo modo sembrava
esprimere il rammarico che ci fossero ancora 400 mila armeni
sopravissuti in Francia”.

Devedjian ritiene che Erdogan non sembra “aver capito che,
ad esempio, l’Olocausto non indigna solo gli ebrei ma tutti i
democratici” mentre “dovrebbe capire che l’Europa si e
ricostruita sulla base della riconciliazione dei popoli”. Da
questo punto di vista “Erdogan ha ancora delle cose da
imparare”. Il parlamento francese ha riconosciuto nel 2001 che
quella contro gli armeni e’ stata una forma di genocidio.
(ANSA).

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Feb 2 2005
AZERBAIJANI DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: TERRITORIAL COMPROMISE IS
UNACCEPTABLE
[February 02, 2005, 21:08:18]
On February 2, at the `Europe’ hotel was commenced a two-days
workshop under the aegis of NATO ` Economics, security and defence:
the security aspects of the macroeconomic stabilization and
structural reforms including a management of the defence resources’.
The workshop have been attended by representatives NATO members
countries, partners of the organization and diplomatic corps in
Azerbaijan.
NATO secretary general’s deputy on the regional, economics and
security issues Patric Hardown said that it is a second workshop in
the region. As he noted Azerbaijan and Georgia are two most
developing countries in the South Caucasus region, as well as in the
world. According to reports of the EBRD the given countries have
expanding the economy and cooperation with both countries is very
important for NATO.
Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov has noted that
organizing of the workshop in Azerbaijan showen a great interest of
NATO to our country. As he said, the economic development is
necessary for providing of security and these issues is interrelated.
Mr. Azimov also has speaking of the integration of Azerbaijan into
Euroatlantic structures, taking by government measures for membership
in WTO, for reduction of poverty and regional development.
As regards the Armenian-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Mr.
Azimov has remind of inadmissibility of the compromise on territorial
issues. He said that PA of COE has adopted in January a document
which once again confirmed the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
Then representatives of the several countries has gave a reports.
The workshop is continues.

ARMENIAN LAWYER TO FLY TO BUDAPEST FEBRUARY 2 TO DEFEND GURGEN
MARGARIAN FAMILY’S INTERESTS
YEREVAN, JANUARY 31, ARMENPRESS: An Armenia lawyer will travel
February 2 to Budapest to defend the interests of the family of Gurgen
Margarian, an Armenian officer who was hacked to death by his Azeri
colleague, Ramil Safarov last February.
The officers were attending an English-language course within the
framework of the Partnership for Peace program, which is aimed at
increasing co-operation between neutral and former Soviet bloc nations
and NATO in peacekeeping and other areas.
The trial was started last year but was adjourned until February
8. The court will hear an Azerbaijani and also a Lithuanian officers
who were also attending the courses, apart from psychologist and
criminal experts. If found guilty Safarov may face up to 15 year
prison sentence.

Caucaz
europenews
01/30/2005 23:43 Tbilisi
EU-Caucasus, interview with Damien Helly [4/4] [PERCEPTION – EUROPEAN
IDENTITY]
By François GREMY in Paris
On 14/11/2004
Perception of EU in Caucasus : Interview with Damien Helly, independent
researcher in Brusells and former director of the « Caucasus » project of
the International Crisis Group –
May EU exist and be perceived as a unique entity, whereas European States
invest quite considerably and visibly in the three South-Caucasus countries
( France in Armenia, Germany in Georgia and Great-Britain in Azerbaijan ) ?
Untill recently, the European Union had a problem of visibility. Its major
member States were the Ses grands Etats membres en étaient la vitrine. The
efforts that EU undertook by EU by way of the humanitarian and Tacis
programs have slightly changed the situation. The nomination of its special
representative, Heikki Talvitie, also changed it. This visibility is getting
better, but from the point of view of the Caucasian citizen who does not
know those issues in detail, EU is still assimilated to the Council of
Europe, or even to the United States sometimes. The confusion between the
European Institutions has been noticed in other places, is it not the case
even among EU ?
Do the Caucasian leaders have the same expectations of EU than EU has of
Caucasus ?
There have always been comprehension issues and a mismatch between
perceptions. Mainly, the Caucasian political leaders have a short-term
approach : they would want to take benefit of the relations with EU on the
practical and financial level, or also for the political prestige. When
Europeans are still on a long-term prospect as for creating a real political
and economic change.
This mismatch is decreasing, but the issue is still the same : to take the
common decision to move forward in the same direction. We do not know wether
the three countries of South-Caucasus really have the choice to move on
toward Europe, or if all this is only rhetoric.
EU tries to promote the developments of democracy and the civil society.
Does not it seem too early or to not be among the priorities of the
Caucasian countries which still depend on latent conflicts?
It is not because the democratisation of Caucasus is taking time that we
have to push it back. It is preferable to initiate this process upstream in
order to quickly get the relative effects. Moreover, the conflicts-solving
depends very strongly on the societies’ democratisation. Indeed the
authoritarian systems, by way of propaganda and a national rhetoric, do not
favour the free expression of the public opinion about the conflicts issue.
On the other hand, within a politicaly open society there could be a debate
about the conflicts and intercommunities relations. In this case, to
democratise the conflicts issue makes it consequently less dramatic. Thus
those two process are absolutly linked.
Translated by Marie Anderson

Saturday, January 29, 2005
Las Vegas Review-Journal
FREED FROM IMMIGRATION CUSTODY: `I’m still in shock’
Federal agents quietly bring home two Henderson teens who faced deportation
By LISA KIM BACH
REVIEW-JOURNAL
Emma Sarkisian cries as she talks on the phone Friday while sisters Mariam
and Patricia hug at the family’s Tropicana Pizza parlor in Henderson. U.S.
immigration officials returned Emma and Mariam to Southern Nevada from a Los
Angeles detention facility.
Photo by Jeff Scheid.
Goar Sarkisian kisses her niece Emma as family members celebrate the return
of Emma and sister Mariam on Friday in Henderson.
Photo by Jeff Scheid.
Immigration officials handled the Friday release of two Las Vegas teenagers
reprieved from deportation to the Republic of Armenia as a stealth
operation.
While attorneys for Emma Sarkisian, 18, and Mariam Sarkisian, 17, waited for
the girls at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services building at noon,
detention officers secretly dropped them off behind the family’s Tropicana
Pizza parlor in Henderson, where they were left alone.
Attorney Troy Baker said it was an attempt to avoid more publicity on a case
that’s garnered broad-based community and media attention.
The manner of their release didn’t trouble the girls, who said they’ve been
desperate to come home ever since they were taken into federal custody two
weeks ago and sent to a Los Angeles detention center to wait out the
deportation process.
“You have no idea what it was like,” said Emma, who was surrounded by a
welcoming family soon after she called to tell them where she was. “Every
day, it just got harder. If I hadn’t gotten out, I would have had a nervous
breakdown.”
The two girls, born in Armenia when it was part of the former Soviet Union
and raised in the United States, discovered in July that they were illegal
after trying to obtain documentation for their licenses to drive.
Until then, they were under the mistaken belief that they, like their
father, had successfully obtained legal residency status. The girls’
residency applications had been received and accepted by the U.S. Department
of Justice in 1997, but were voided when Rouben Sarkisian divorced his
American wife. The three emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1991.
Sarkisian, who is legal and is pursuing U.S. citizenship, said immigration
officials did not inform him of his daughters’ change in status. When the
error was discovered, the girls were placed on a fast track to deportation,
headed for a country where they don’t speak the language and have no
resources for support. They would have left behind their father and three
U.S.-born younger sisters.
That process came to an abrupt halt Thursday night, after Secretary of
Homeland Security Tom Ridge intervened at the request of U.S. Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., and deferred action on the case against the girls.
“Senator Reid is thrilled that the girls got to go home,” said Reid’s
spokeswoman Tessa Hafen. “We hope this works out for the best for them.”
Rouben Sarkisian opened the pizza parlor early Friday and staged a
homecoming party for his girls, complete with singing, balloons, flowers and
their favorite kinds of pizza. Emma, the younger sisters said, favors
pineapple and ham. Mariam, they laughed, eats everything. Sarkisian bustled
proudly among his children, repeatedly laying a hand on Emma’s arm or
touching Mariam’s hair as he passed by them, partly to reassure himself that
they were really home.
“It’s wonderful,” Sarkisian said, laying his hand on his heart. “I am so
happy.”
Mariam Sarkisian, a senior at Palo Verde High School, joyfully hugged her
sisters and clowned around with them, doing her best imitation of “American
Idol” stars, a routine that won her an audience among the Los Angeles
detention officers. Emma, who was overtaken with bouts of tears as she
watched, said her sister’s zany performances helped break the ice while they
were among strangers in Los Angeles.
“We went from being detainees to being Emma and Mariam,” Emma said. “One
officer, who was Armenian, asked me if she was like this all the time. I had
to tell him yes.”
Both girls said they believe they were treated fairly while imprisoned, but
painted a dismal picture of life in a detention center. Guards woke them at
6:30 a.m., when they were taken out of lockdown in a hotel room to the
detention center cells. They spent 11 to 13 hours a day sitting on metal
benches or standing around with other women and children detainees.
“I’m still in shock,” Mariam said. “It’s like it was all a nightmare, and I
just woke up.”
The worst part, Emma said, was the lack of access to any kind of
information. They woke up each day not knowing if they would be deported.
Often, guards would tell them they were being deported that day. Twice,
authorities tried to place them on a plane, only to be stopped by the
intervention of defense lawyers.
“Nobody will tell you anything,” Emma said. “We couldn’t find out anything.
You just had to try not to think about it.”
The sisters said they clung to each other, becoming so dependent that when
Emma was taken briefly to see a doctor, Mariam nearly lost it.
“When I came back, she was talking on the phone to nobody,” Emma said.
The comfort they derived from each other was something U.S. Magistrate Judge
Robert Johnston sought to preserve on Thursday, when he had to rule against
an order of release that would have freed the girls until their status is
resolved.
Johnston directed immigration attorneys to make sure the girls were kept
together as much as possible and directed them to ensure the family had
access to the girls. Rouben Sarkisian was not told for more than week where
his daughters were detained.
Johnston’s ruling was a mental blow to both girls, and they realize that
they would still be in detention if some of the nation’s most highly placed
government officials hadn’t come to their aid.
Both Mariam and Emma said they will express their thanks to Reid as soon as
they’re eligible to vote. And they said they were surprised and grateful to
all the people who championed their cause.
“I was shocked that people would come together to help me, someone they
don’t even know,” Mariam said. “It’s amazing.”
The girls are still technically illegal, and will have to regularly check in
with immigration officials. But the deferment means that the father will be
given time to obtain citizenship. Once he has that, he can sponsor both his
daughters for legal residency.
“I’m going to help him study,” Emma said. “I don’t want to ever go through
this again.”