PARTIAL AMNESTY APPLIED TO 691 PERSONS IN ARMENIA
/PanARMENIAN.Net/
24.07.2009 18:25 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In accordance with RA NA resolution on "Amnesty
announcement", 407 criminal cases were examined at RA legislative
institutions. As a result, partial amnesty applied to 691 persons in
Armenia, RA Court of Appeal reported.
EACH ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DOCUMENTS IT SIGNS
Spotlight / Interviews
Vartan Oskanian’s interview to the Yerevan Daily, 168 Zham Newspaper
Saturday, 18 July 2009 13:00
Mr. Oskanian, the Madrid principles as they’ve been made public,
are they more acceptable to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh or to
Azerbaijan? In general, how do you assess that proposal?
If we’re speaking about the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict, public sentiment can theoretically be divided into two
segments. For one segment, any sort of concession is unacceptable. For
this segment then, any document that emerges from Armenian-Azerbaijani
negotiations, is in and of itself unacceptable. This approach is
understandable but then, in this case, we must accept that we do not
need negotiations, and that option depends solely on the price that
Armenians are prepared to pay.
Nevertheless, if the issue is to reach a negotiated settlement, then
it is important to understand that any document that is the product
of Armenian-Azerbaijani talks must be viewed from two different
perspectives.
First, the principles on which the document is based. Second,
the document itself in all its detail. For example, if one of
the principles is that the people of Nagorno Karabakh have the
right to self-determination, that principle is naturally considered
acceptable. But in the final document, how this principle is actually
formulated, 0Ais a different matter.
Another example: If one of the principles is the return of
territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh, that, at first glance, is
unacceptable. But if, as a result of negotiations, it is possible to
reach an agreement that the return of those territories of strategic
significance take places only after the right of self-determination is
realized, and even then, not in their totality, that is an altogether
different matter. Therefore, principles are an important basis,
but the details are the determinants.
During my years as minister, we couldn’t reach an agreement with
Azerbaijan over the document’s details. There was a clear bar which
we had set for ourselves, based on our national interest; we were
not willing to lower that bar and we did not do so.
In your view, compared to the earlier ones, is this a move in a
positive direction or a negative one? Please cite concrete facts
and examples.
I don’t know what this ‘renewed’ document is that they’re talking
about. But in the one I’m familiar with, the right of the people
of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination has been codified, and
so that document is more favorable in comparison to those that came
before. But as negotiators say, nothing is agreed until everything
is agreed, so whether this is a good or bad document depends largely
on how effectively and prudently the Armenian side will conduct=2
0the negotiations.
Is it not a negative development for Armenians that the OSCE Minsk
Group’s prior language — ‘withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied
territories’ or ‘contiguous land border’ — has been replaced by
the phrases ‘the return of territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh
to Azerbaijani control’ or ‘land link’? And, in general, are the
interests of the Minsk Group co-chair countries in the resolution
of the Nagorno Karabakh issue more congruent with the interests of
Armenians or Azerbaijanis?
In general, the objective of the co-chairs has been to bring
the positions of the two sides closer. For them, under normal
circumstances, how and what kind of a resolution is reached is not
as important as simply the fact of reaching a resolution. Of course,
from time to time, the co-chairs will make an announcement which
causes dissatisfaction for one or another side.
But that shouldn’t worry us so much as when co-chair countries, for
whatever reason, feel the necessity to resolve the Nagorno Karabakh
issue at all cost, in order to ‘disentangle’ another knot. In such
a situation, other factors too will come into play. As I have often
said, Turkey’s masterful exploitation of Armenia-Turkey relations
may provide such an excuse.
How do you interpret the view that the current unfavorable situation
of the Nagorno Karabakh process is th e product of your and former
President Kocharian’s policies?
Each administration is responsible for its term in office and for
documents it has signed. During the past 10 years, we had succeeded in
moving away from the Lisbon principles which provided Nagorno Karabakh
with a maximum of autonomy within Azerbaijan, to a point where the
right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination was
reinforced. Further, during this time, there were no concessions on
the issue of Nagorno Karabakh. On the contrary. Nagorno Karabakh
with its surrounding territories and with an unobstructed link
with Armenia, not only survived but also registered noticeable
development. Nevertheless, each new administration has a right to
step back from what it has received from the former administration,
if it so wishes. A change of administration offers such a historic
opportunity. In 1998, that opportunity was used. So, today’s processes
are the responsibility of those in charge today. And we should judge
the situation, not only based on the content of the document, but
also on the circumstances which have been created around us as a
result of our own foreign policy.
In your view, is it necessary that Nagorno Karabakh become a full
party to negotiations? If yes, then why was that presence not assured
during the Kocharian years?
Nagorno Karabakh’s participation in the negotiations was disrupted in
March 1997 whe n the Minsk group negotiations themselves were broken
off. But Nagorno Karabakh has not been left out of the process. It
was only in a rare instance that the co-chairs would visit the region
and not go to Stepanakert or not visit with the Nagorno Karabakh
authorities. Of course, taking into consideration the fact that
there cannot be a resolution without the agreement of the authorities
and people of Nagorno Karabakh, the direct participation of Nagorno
Karabakh is desirable, and even essential, and that’s always been
acknowledged. Nevertheless in 1998 when the Republic of Armenia was
faced with a dilemma – to carry out the negotiations inherited from
the former administration, and to do so at the presidential level,
or to generally withdraw from negotiations, the decision was made
in favor of continuing negotiations. But again, any administration,
faced with such a choice, can make a different determination.
YALE’S HARUTUNIAN ENTERS FENCING HALL OF FAME
IvyLeagueSports.com
July 20 2009
DALLAS, Texas – During a formal ceremony at the 2009 U.S. National
Fencing Championships, legendary Yale coach Henry Harutunian was
inducted into the U.S. Fencing Hall of Fame. A large crowd was on
hand to witness Harutunian’s induction, including dozens of past and
current Olympians, nearly 150 active fencers, U.S. fencing officials
and a vocal and enthusiastic group of more than a dozen Yale fencers
and family.
Among the luminaries attending were the leading U.S. fencing family –
the Jacobsons, including Olympic medalists Sada (Yale ’06) and her
sister Emily (Columbia ’08), along with their father David (Yale ’74)
who represented the U.S. at the 1974 World Championships. Yale alum
Steve Blum (’74) served as Harutunian’s presenter for enshrinement.
Harutunian’s induction recognizes that few if any U.S. coaches in the
past half-century have done more to advance U.S. fencing. In addition
to coaching members of three of the past four U.S. Olympic teams,
Harutunian has repeatedly developed and coached NCAA championship
individuals and teams.
Harutunian has guided the Yale men’s and women’s teams to nearly 600
combined wins. He has produced numerous All-Americans and an NCAA
men’s foil and women’s sabre champion during his tenure. Remarkably,
a number of those honored had never touched a weapon before coming
to Yale. The men captured the NCAA sabre title in 1994, while the
women have won three national titles (1982, 1984, 1985).
Harutunian, the 1996-97 USFCA Coach of the Year, had a distinguished
career as a fencer and coach in his native Armenia. He was named
eminent coach of the Republic of Armenia in 1963, while serving on
the coaching staff for the Soviet national team from 1962-1966.
One of his pupils made the U.S.S.R. Olympic team in 1956 and went
on to become the first Soviet to claim the individual epee title
at the Junior World Championships in 1958. Harutunian came to the
United States in 1966 and coached at Brandeis for three years prior
to joining the Yale staff.
Before long, Harutunian had joined the U.S. coaching elite. He
began working with the American national team in 1977, and in 1984,
he served as one of three U.S. Olympic coaches. He also coached the
Americans in the 1979 and 1983 Pan American Games and in the 1979,
1981, 1983, 1991 and 1993 World University Games.
Harutunian was named Coach of the Year by the National Intercollegiate
Women’s Fencing Association in 1982 and by the IWFA in 1984 and 1985
at the NCAA Championships. In 1986, the U.S. Men’s Fencing Coaches
Association selected him Coach of the Year.
He has also choreographed stage fencing for both theater and the
screen, and has acted in films. Harutunian’s philosophy of fencing
is guided by the following passage from The Works of Moliere: "The
eyes which watch and warn, the brain which evaluates and decides,
the hand which executes the decision must harmonize precision and
speed to give real life to the sword."
Harutunian, who will begin his 40th year at Yale this fall, continues
an amazing 85-year stretch during which Yale fencing has been led by
just three coaches from two families.
RA MINISTER OF DIASPORA RECEIVES PARTICIPANTS OF HAMAZGAYIN UNION’S STUDENT CONFERENCE
Noyan Tapan
July 17, 2009
YEREVAN, JULY 17, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. RA Minister of
Diaspora Hranush Hakobian received 35 Diasporan Armenian young people
of the Hamazgayin (National) Armenian Educational and Cultural Union’s
15th student conference who came to the homeland from the USA, France,
Lebanon, Iran, Brazil, Israel, United Arab Emirates.
Greeting the Diasporan Armenian students the Minister presented
in detail the points which made the creation of the RA Ministry of
Diaspora a historical necessity. She presented the approaches, which
were put in the basis of Homeland-Diaspora cooperation and became a
state policy guideline in the direction of strengthening the relations.
According to the Press and Public Relations Departement of the RA
Ministry of Diaspora, H. Hakobian attached importance particularly
to the involvement of Diasporan Armenian youths in all pro-Armenian
programs which are undertaken and realized by the Ministry with the
participation of Diasporan structures.
The Minister reminded once more the necessity of remaining an Armenian
out of the homeland, making an Armenian family, using the Armenian
language in the family and keeping Armenian family traditions. "Each
Armenian young man, wherever he lives, should be proud of his Armenian
roots and always remember that he has a homeland, Armenia, which
worries about him and his national problems," the Minister said.
The Diasporan Armenian young people presented their views and
suggestions about the problems of their community, which refer to the
preservation of Armenian identity and Armenian spirit, the infinite
attention towards the homeland, the development of Armenian schools
in Diaspora and manifestation of unreserved willingness in providing
proper assistance to solve each problem concerning Armenia.
Minister Hranush Hakobian wished good luck to the participants of the
Hamazgayin student conference and expressed the hope that from now on
the practical contacts and active cooperation with the RA Ministry
of Diaspora will be more objective and effective. At the and of the
meeting the students gave Hranush Hakobian a little souvenir.
ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER, KARABAKH OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT PROGRESS
Interfax
July 16 2009
Russia
Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian went to the unrecognized
Karabakh republic on Thursday, Armenian Foreign Ministry press
secretary Tigran Balaian told Interfax.
He said the minister would meet with Karabakh officials.
‘The meetings will focus on the Karabakh peace settlement," the
diplomat said.
Meanwhile, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan will pay a two-day
working visit to Moscow starting from Friday.
On that day the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents will discuss the
Karabakh settlement process, a source at the Armenian presidential
press office told Interfax.
KARABAKH POLITICAL FORCES DEMAND STEPANAKERT’S ROLE IN PEACE TALKS
Lusine Musayelian
July 16 2009
A number of political forces in Karabakh have called for participation
of this unrecognized Armenian republic in the negotiating process
currently conducted between Armenia and Azerbaijan and warned against
"jeopardizing" the security of the people living in the area.
In a joint statement issued on Thursday, eight political parties,
among them four represented in the unrecognized state’s parliament,
said that "the ouster of Karabakh from the negotiating process,
the actual disregard of its statehood and the manifestations of
discriminative approaches towards the resolution of the conflict
at the current stage doom the efforts in the Azerbaijani-Karabakh
conflict settlement to failure."
The statement presented by representative of the Karabakh Central
Committee of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun)
David Ishkhanian also says:
"We reiterate our demand – to respect the right to self-determination
of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, to secure Nagorno-Karabakh’s
participation in the conflict settlement process as a full party,
not to jeopardize the security of Nagorno-Karabakh’s people, the main
guarantee of which is the independent statehood of Nagorno-Karabakh
and territorial integrity consolidated by the Nagorno-Karabakh
constitution."
The statement of the Karabakh political parties comes on the eve of
President Serzh Sarkisian’s visit to Russian capital Moscow where
the Armenian leader is due to continue internationally mediated talks
on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement with his Azerbaijani counterpart
Ilham Aliev.
SUREN SURENYANTS: MADRID PRINCIPLES COULD SERVE AS A BASIS FOR KARABAKH SETTLEMENT
Lusine Vasilyan
"Radiolur"
17.07.2009 16:09
The Madrid Principles can serve as a basis for the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, member of the political board of the Republic Party
Suren Surenyants told a press conference today. Those are acceptable
to the party as principles of settlement with certain reservations.
The Republic Party stands for a swift resolution of the issue.
According to Surentyants, the latest joint statement by the leaders
of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries does not include anything
new: discussions focus on the same principles that have been known
for a year and a half. He considers that at this point the positions
of the co-chairs countries are quite close, which could accelerate
the settlement of the issue and transfer it to the final stage.
Predicting the future developments, representative of the Republic
Party said: "Both Armenia and Azerbaijan will seek to sign a framework
agreement or a peace treaty. The coordination of the positions of the
co-chairs countries will lead to certain formalization in the Karabakh
process and signing of a document at the beginning of the next year.
MARC PERRIN DE BRICHAMBAUT:ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN SHOULD MAKE CONCESSIONS
armradio.am
17.07.2009 17:05
Armenia and Azerbaijan should make concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict settlement, OSCE Secretary General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut
believes.
"I believe today’s Moscow meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian
Presidents, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan is an important stage,"
Brichambaut said at a news conference on the results of his visit to
Azerbaijan in Baku on July 17.
The OSCE Secretary General attached great importance to the statement
by the presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair-countries (Russia,
United States and France) during the G-8 summit in the Italian L’Aquila
city which as he states, "testifies importance of the resolution of
this conflict".
It is noteworthy that a strong revival is observed in the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairs’ activities, the Secretary General said.
"Yesterday during the meeting with President Aliyev, I witnessed his
interest in the progress of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. I
hope that this conflict will soon be resolved," Brichambaut said,
Trend News reported.
PRIME MINISTER EXPRESSED HIS CONDOLENCES TO THE RELATIVES OF CRASH VICTIMS
/PanARMENIAN.Net/
15.07.2009 22:08 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ RA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan has expressed
his condolences to the relatives of people who died in today’s air
crash. In his condolence message, he particularly says: "The tragedy
left many people dead, and this is really a great loss. Harsh though
it is, we must find strength to overcome it. I express my sincere
condolences to the relative of those who died. We’ll do our best to
alleviate their grief."
Djerejian: Land for Peace Approach is the Only Sustainable Formula
Dar Al Hayat
Thursday, 18 June 2009
By Joyce Karam
Washington – As the Obama administration enters the final round of its
consultations on the Peace Process and sets the pace for resuming
negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, U.S. career
diplomat Edward Djerejian who served in eight administrations, weighs
in on Washington’s efforts especially those related to Syria in
achieving peace. Djerejian, the author of `Danger and Opportunity’,
stresses in an interview with Al-Hayat that the Palestinian track
should remain the focal target of the Peace Process, and cautions
against substituting the land for peace approach with other
`unsustainable’ formulas.
– Envoy George Mitchell made a recent visit to Syria, how important is
this visit?
Envoy’s Mitchell visit to Syria demonstrates that President Barack
Obama is intent in pursuing a comprehensive peace settlement not only
on the Israeli-Palestinian front, but also on the Israeli- Syrian, and
Israel-Lebanese fronts. This is a very important aspect of his ability
to succeed by recognizing the interconnectivity between all these
tracks. Nevertheless, the Israeli Palestinian track should be the
focal target of these efforts, because of the centrality of that
issue. But at the same time engaging Syria in a dialogue on may issues
not only the Peace Process but also on its serious regional influence
especially vis a vis groups such as Hizballah and also on its relation
with Iran.
– What incentives can the US offer to Syria to change its behavior. We
have seen engagement in the past, even during the Bush administration
that did not produce results. What is different this time?
I think what the Syrians are really interested in is to test President
Obama’s proposition that he is prepared to enter into a strategic
dialogue with adversarial regimes. The Syrian government is interested
in a dialogue that is not exclusively focused on one issue but
incorporates a wh
he Israeli Syrian prospect for peace, cooperation on combating
terrorism, exchanging perspectives on Lebanon and securing the border
with Iraq. Such dialogue will help in determining the nature of the
bilateral relations between the two countries.
– Do you think the Syrian government is interested in achieving peace
or they’re more inclined to be part of a process?
In my experience with the Syrian government starting with former
President Hafez Assad and in my meetings with current President Bashar
Assad, Damascus has continued to adopt a policy line choosing Peace as
a `strategic option’. What that means is that Syria is prepared to
engage in the peace talks. This was most recently demonstrated in the
indirect Israeli-Syrian talks mediated by Turkey. There is no question
in my mind that Syria wants to engage with Israel on Peace talks. The
Syrians have also indicated on a level as high as President Assad that
when those talks get serious they want the U.S. to participate in
these talks.
– How important is the U.S. participation?
I was present at the Madrid peace conference (1991) and helped in
developing the peace framework it generated. I’ve also dealt with the
subject matter directly as: ambassador to Syria (1989-1991), Assistant
Secretary for Near East Affairs (1991-1993), and as ambassador to
Israel (1993-1994). It was clear at that point that the Madrid
framework was comprehensive involving all the parties, and since then
the Israeli-Syrian talks have undergone many periods of engagement
-some direct some indirect- under many administrations in Washington
and many governments in Israel. There is a legacy of negotiations on
which many of key issues of land, peace and access of water have been
dealt with and in detail. It is not an exaggeration when some say that
eighty percent of the issues have been dealt with. What is needed now
is to reengage, and to have the political will of the Israeli and the
Syrian and the U.S. governments to conclude these talks.
– With eighty percent of the p
tion?
Well, I wouldn’t advocate a Syria first option. All tracks should go
at the same pace, and I am against the `either-or’ option. The
Palestinian issue remains the core political problem and if it is
ignored it would be difficult for any Arab state to conclude a peace
agreement without some way forward on Palestinian track.
– Would you advise President Obama to put together a plan, an American
plan to break the stalemate, or maybe call for a regional conference
for peace?
The way that the Obama administration is moving on process is
smart. In having Senator George Mitchell as an emissary, they have a
superb negotiator who is doing very hard work to bring the Israeli and
Palestinian issues into focus. In determining exactly how to proceed
on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, it is smart to analyze the
situation before you start acting and that is exactly what the
administration is doing. I think they are in a period of gestation,
where they are developing what would become their negotiating
strategy. The strategy I think will be focused on the Palestinian
track but will also accommodate whatever movement can be made on the
Israeli-Syrian track. There is some speculation that Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, given his narrow political coalition and
difficulties he has politically on the issue of Settlements in West
Bank and Jerusalem that he might choose to move on Syrian track. That
is an argument that has
been often made. But whatever he decides to do, it cannot be at the
expense of Palestinian negotiations.
– On Iran, could the Syrian-Iranian alliance stand in the way of
brokering a peace agreement? Or on the flip side, could brokering
peace with Syria peel it away from Iran?
I think that the Syrians and the Iranians have an understanding that
Syria will pursue its national interests in the Arab Israeli conflict
which is to regain the Golan Heights. For example the Iranians did not
make any noise over the talks mediated by Turkey, and I think this
what will happen if talks become more direct or with the U.S. That
does not mean that the relationship will break or collapse, there will
still be a relationship.
– What about the strategic shift for peace that the Israelis are
asking Syrian government to make, not on the land for peace approach,
but a strategic shift so Syria stops supporting Hizballah and Hamas?
Any `peace for peace’ approach is doomed to failure. Arab-Israeli
negotiations have to be conducted on the basis of `land for peace’ and
based on two UNSCR 242 and 338. That is the framework for Madrid and
that remains the only valid framework for making peace. Nevertheless,
the results of moving forward on land for peace negotiations will have
to accommodate the issues of Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, and a whole range of issues but the focal point for any formula
is land for peace, any other approach is simply not sustainable
clendah/29013