Author: Maghakian Mike

BAKU DIDN’T ENSURE AZERBAIJANI-ARMENIANS SECURITY

PanARMENIAN.Net
19.01.2010 17:44 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Azeri-perpetrated ethnic cleansings of Armenians
consisted of 3 stages, member of Armenia’s Public Council Vladimir
Movsisyan finds.

"The first stage was the 1905-1918 deportation of Armenians to Baku
and Shushi. The second stage covered the Soviet years while the
third stage broke out in the 1990s, resulting in the displacement
of 389 thousand Armenian refugees who, according to official data,
left 119 houses in Azerbaijani towns," he told Tuesday a scientific
conference, adding that about 168 Azeris were officially reported to
have left for Azerbaijan in early 1990s.

"Azerbaijani side currently distorts the reality, but all facts
confirm that the crimes against Armenians constitute genocide.

Azerbaijan has proven it doesn’t ensure the security of Armenians,
so those making statements on returning Karabakh to the country have
what to think about," he said.

In January 1990, Azerbaijani authorities instigated the Armenian
pogroms in Baku. Some 400 Armenians were killed and 200 thousand
were exiled in the period of January 13-19, 1990. The exact number
of those killed was never determined, as no investigation was carried
out into the crimes.

On January 13, a crowd numbering 50 thousand people divided into
groups and started "cleaning" the city of Armenians. On January 17,
the European Parliament called on EU Council of Foreign Ministers
and European Council to protect Armenians and render assistance to
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. On January 18, a group of U.S. Senators
sent a letter to Mikhail Gorbachev to express concerns over the
violence against the Armenian population in Azerbaijan and called
for unification of Nagorno Karabakh with Armenia.

YOUNG ACTIVISTS ISSUE A STATEMENT TO UN AND WORLD COMMUNITY

Aysor
Jan 19 2010
Armenia

Today, Armenia’s students and youth organisations’ members have
organized an action timed to the 20th anniversary of the 1990 Massacres
in Azerbaijan.

Young activists said Massacres of 1988-1990s remain unrecognized and
not investigated while all these ethnic holocaust and deportations
against Armenian population of Azerbaijan are genocide.

"We believe this action is important as at the moment the process of
settlement of the Karabakh conflict is on the stage. So we must call
for international community. Karabakh cannot be part of Azerbaijan,"
said the chairman of the ideological commission of the youth wing of
the Republican Party of Armenia, Edgar Hovhannisian.

The youth has also issued a statement to international organisations,
the United Nations, and civil society organizations.

"We claim to repossess rights of those half a million deported
Armenians and other peoples, to recognize and condemn crimes by
Azerbaijan, who has made racism a national-oriented policy and
threatens region with new massacres. We claim to look up to rights of
the people of the Karabakh to live free and safely with all democratic
criteria," said in the statement.

As soon as the action ended, young activists went to the
Tsitsernakaberd Memorial to pay a tribute to victims of genocide.

SPITTING ON CHRISTIANS IN JERUSALEM RAISES EYEBROWS
By Ben Harris

Jewish Telegraphic Agency
205/spitting-on-christians-in-jerusalem-raises-eye brows
Jan 18 2010

JERUSALEM (JTA) — From his ceramics gallery along Armenian
Patriarchate Road, Garo Sandrouni has a sweeping view of one of the
Old City of Jerusalem’s longest thoroughfares, stretching from Jaffa
Gate deep into the Jewish Quarter.

Jewish worshipers heading to and from the Western Wall jostle for
space along the narrow passage with Armenian priests and seminarians,
and Sandrouni says about once a week he finds himself breaking up
fights between them.

Typically the skirmishes begin when a young yeshiva student spits on
or near a group of teenage seminarians, who occasionally respond by
beating up their attacker. Several years ago, a young religious man
pulled a gun when Sandrouni moved to intervene in a fight.

"Most of the incidents that happen, unfortunately, they happen in front
of my store," said Sandrouni, who more than once has come to the aid of
a yeshiva student bloodied after a run-in with a group of seminarians.

"Almost everybody, after the fight, they apologized," Sandrouni said.

"They say, ‘We are sorry. We didn’t know that their reaction would
be so strong.’ "

Attacks on Christian clergyman in Jerusalem are not a new phenomenon,
and may result from an extreme interpretation of the Bible’s injunction
to "abhor" idol worshipers. Five years ago, in what many say is the
worst incident on record, a crucifix hanging from the neck of the
Armenian archbishop, Nourhan Manougian, was broken in the course of
an altercation with a yeshiva student who had spit on him.

Christian leaders stress that the problem is not one of
Christian-Jewish relations in Israel. Most Israelis, they say,
are peaceful and welcoming. In an interview with several Armenian
Jerusalemites, they emphasized repeatedly that their relations with
the largely religious community in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter
are normal.

The assaults, according to George Hintlian, a spokesman for the
Armenian community in Jerusalem, are carried out by people from
the outside — visitors to Jerusalem from other towns, and even
from abroad.

Several people familiar with the issue say the attacks recently have
reached epidemic proportions — or at least enough that government
officials and Orthodox rabbinic figures have begun to take notice.

A recent meeting between Foreign Ministry officials, the Jerusalem
municipality and fervently Orthodox, or haredi, leaders resulted in a
statement by Beth Din Tzedek, a haredi rabbinic tribunal, denouncing
the phenomenon. In a sign of the ministry’s concern over the issue,
both the meeting and the statement were publicized on the Web site
of Israel’s diplomatic mission to the Vatican.

"Besides desecrating the Holy Name, which in itself represents a very
grave sin, provoking gentiles is, according to our sages — blessed be
their holy and righteous memory — forbidden and is liable to bring
tragic consequences upon our own community, may God have mercy,"
said the statement.

The incident that appears to have gotten the ministry’s attention
occurred last September, when a pair of teenage Armenian seminarians
reportedly fought with a young yeshiva student who spit on them.

Police intervened, arrested the seminarians and referred the matter
to the Interior Ministry.

According to Hintlian, the seminarians are now facing deportation —
a decision the Armenians have officially protested. Carrying out the
order would require the police to seize the boys from their seminary
in the Old City, Hintlian said, which likely would result in a public
relations disaster.

"It won’t happen easily," Hintlian said. "They’ll think twice."

Though they may bear the brunt of the phenomenon, given the proximity
of the Armenian and Jewish quarters, cases of spitting are confined
neither to Armenian clergy nor the Old City.

Athanasius Macora, a Texas-born Franciscan friar who lives in western
Jerusalem, frequently has been the target of spitting during his
nearly two decades residing in the Israeli capital.

Macora, whose brown habit easily identifies him as a Christian
clergyman, says that while he has not endured any spitting incidents
recently, recollections of past incidents started flowing over the
course of 30-minute interview.

In a sitting room at Terra Sancta College, where he is the superior,
Macora recalled the blond-haired man who spit at him on Agron Street,
not far from the U.S. Consulate. Another time, walking with an Armenian
priest in the same area, a man in a car opened his window to let the
spittle fly. Once it was a group of yeshiva students in the Old City,
another time a young girl.

Sometimes the assailants are clad in distinctive haredi garb;
other times the attackers are wearing the knitted yarmulkes of the
national religious camp. In almost all cases, though, they are young
religious men.

A Franciscan church just outside the Old City walls was vandalized
recently with anti-Christian graffiti, Macora said.

"I think it’s just a small group of people who are hostile, and a
very small group of people," Macora said. "If I go to offices or
other places, a lot of people are very friendly."

Meanwhile, the Beth Din Tzedek statement, and an earlier one from
Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, have impressed the Christians
and raised hopes that the spitting may soon end.

"We hope that this problem will be solved one day," Sandrouni said,
"for the sake of mutual coexistence."

OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS TO VISIT YEREVAN ON JANUARY 20

Noyan Tapan
Jan 18, 2010

YEREVAN, JANUARY 18, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. RA President
Serzh Sargsyan received OSCE Minsk Group American Co-chair Robert
Bradtke on January 16. According to RA President’s Press Office,
thoughts over the current stage of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
peaceful settlement negotiations were discussed at the meeting.

The same day RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian received the
American Co-chair and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
U.S. to RA Marie Yovanovitch. Issues regarding the process of Nagorno
Karabakh settlement were touched upon at the meeting.

All Co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group will visit Yerevan on January
20. They will meet with the RA President and Foreign Minister.

March 1 Commission Report Once Again to Appear in PACE Monitoring
Committee Agenda

Tert.am
13:35 – 16.01.10

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) co-rapporteurs’
report on the National Assembly of Armenia Commission for the
Investigation of March 1 Events report will be discussed in the
upcoming PACE Monitoring Committee’s January 25 meeting.

As told to Tert.am by ad-hoc March 1 Commission chair Samvel Nikoyan,
he has not personally received an inviation to that meeting: `That
report no longer belongs to the committee, but to the public;
consequently, by no means is it mandatory for me to be present there.’

Asked whether it’s possible that this time there might be certain
toned down sections in the co-rapporteur’s harsh report, Nikoyan said
by no means does he consider the report harsh.

`Europe’s experts can express whatever perspective they so wish, and
that shouldn’t obligate us to frequently reflect upon their analyses,’
he said.

news.am, Armenia
Jan 16 2010

German, French Ambassadors on Protocols and Karabakh conflict

14:36 / 01/16/2010I consider setting forth extra preconditions on the
scent of Armenia-Turkey Protocols’ ratification a slip-up, German
Ambassador to Armenia Hans-Jochen Schmidt told NEWS.am.

He underlined that ratification is not linked with Karabakh peace
process in any way. According to him, conditioning of the Protocols’
ratification by Karabakh conflict settlement is wrong and not in
Turkey’s interests. `If Turkey wishes to increase its influence in the
region, it should definitely have good relations not with one but all
regional states. The sooner Turkey realizes it, the better.
Stipulation of Protocols’ ratification by Karabakh peace process does
not assist Armenia-Turkey reconciliation,’ the Ambassador said.

According to him, early ratification is in both countries’ interests.
Schmidt recalled that Armenia and Turkey overcame a number of
obstacles on the way to Protocols’ signing, and even the last moment
problems did not hinder the signing. Thus, the sides should not stop
at what has been accomplished and ratifying the documents make the
first move towards the normalization of relations.

`It is essential to deal with Protocol’s ratification quickly to focus
on Karabakh issue,’ the Ambassador stated. He also expressed content
with Karabakh peace process, pointing out that the talks are intensive
and OSCE MG efforts are efficient.

French Ambassador to Armenia Serge Smessow emphasized that the
ratification should not be conditioned by Karabakh conflict
settlement, as the processes are not interrelated. He emphasized that
states have to ratify the Protocols shortly as a sign of goodwill.
`Undoubtedly, there are certain political issues, but Turkey should
get over them and ratify the Protocols,’ the Ambassador concluded.

TURKEY-ISRAEL RELATIONS: QUO VADIS?

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 15 2010

An Interview with Prof. Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

What is your view of the new Turkish foreign policy as promoted
by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, particularly in regards to
Turkish-Syrian relations? How you feel these developments have impacted
the region as a whole?

I think the policy strategy based on Davutoglu’s philosophy of "zero
problems with neighbors" is very important, is very sound. It is very
important because it can improve Turkey’s accession to the EU. After
all, the EU doesn’t want to end up with neighbors like Iran, Iraq, or
Syria as the enemy of another EU member. But more so, it would improve,
and has improved considerably in my view, the Turkish position in the
Middle East and in the region, so the thrust to improve relations
with Iran, with Syria, with Lebanon and the agreement with Armenia
are all very, very important, very positive. I just do not think that
this improvement necessarily should be done at the expense of another
regional and strategic ally. That’s why we have a little problem in
terms of, again, what precipitated the conflict with Israel, and we
can agree or disagree on the merit of disagreement.

Turkey is a regional power that can mediate effectively, and not
just with Syria – it can mediate with Iran, it can mediate with
Hamas, it can mediate with all the conflicting parties. It will be
much better off if it also maintains good relations with the State
of Israel. I just want to mention, in connection with Syria, it was
Bashar Assad himself who appealed to Erdogan and said, "Turkey needs
to maintain solid relations with Israel." This coming from Syria is
very significant. And this is why I think the policy is sound, why it
should be pursued, but we need to work on improving the relationship
between Israel and Turkey, and the sooner the better.

Do you think that the US or Israel is ever concerned with Turkey’s
actions in the region?

I don’t think they are concerned because Turkey is able to, and can,
and should improve relations with its neighbors. I think they see this
only as positive. They will look at it as negative only if improved
relations with Syria and Iran come at the expense of something else,
because then it will have negative effects. As a matter of fact,
when President Obama met with Prime Minister Erdogan recently in
Washington, one of the two things he mentioned to him was that it is
very important to keep a good relationship between Turkey and Israel
for regional purposes, for the strategic purposes of Turkey as well.

So it’s not something that you can just dismiss. Because Israel remains
a fact of life and there is no need to undermine the relationship
with Israel in order to build a better relationship with the rest
of the region when in fact they don’t demand it. Like as I said,
Syria is asking Turkey to keep good relations because Turkey can’t
help Syria if it doesn’t have good relations with Israel.

Going back to the Iranian nuclear issue, what do you think about
Turkey’s involvement? Do you think their participation is a bit late
in the game, that they should have been included earlier?

I don’t think it’s too late. I think Turkey can and should play
a significant role in this regard. Turkey, the prime minister of
Turkey being a Muslim, can sit down and talk to Khamenei directly. I
advised someone yesterday from the Turkish government, I don’t want
to mention any names, and basically suggested the following. There’s
hardly any dialogue today between the United States and Iran, at
least not a direct dialogue. Certainly, there’s no dialogue between
Israel and Iran. In this regard, being that diplomacy has failed,
or will fail as only a question of time. Turkey can interject itself
into the negotiating process. I suggested to American officials that
Turkey should be invited to the P5+1, to make it the P5+2 (Germany and
Turkey), but more importantly, that Turkey should enter into secret
negotiations with Iran, and basically explain to the Iranians the
serious ramifications if Iran is to become a nuclear power. It’s not
only a problem for Israel; it’s a problem for the whole Middle East.

There would be a proliferation of nuclear weapons just about
everywhere. The Saudis would pursue it, the Gulf countries would
pursue it, Egypt would pursue it, and even Turkey itself may end up
wanting to have its own nuclear arsenals in order to remain a regional
power. Moreover, Iran could intimidate every single Arab country in the
Middle East. It could intimidate its small neighbors, Bahrain, Qatar,
Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and others. It could intimidate the Iraqis, not to
mention the Saudis as well. So that is also going to be a problem.

Iran with a nuclear weapon could prevent the Syrians as well as the
Palestinians from making peace with the State of Israel, sort of
keeping the Middle East percolating for years to come, for decades
to come. Iran with a nuclear weapon becomes a bully in its foreign
policy. So it’s not just Israel that is the problem here, it is what
Iranian nuclear power is going to do to the region, and how that
might cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction
throughout the region. That is the danger of Iran, and that is why it
is so critical. Israel may act on its own because it is concerned with
itself and wants to stop it. But the rest of the region today, believe
it or not, Arab states, Arab writers in the Gulf are openly speaking
about the fact that Iran must be stopped. This is the first time in
the history of this country that actually the Arab commentators from
the Gulf and Saudi Arabia have said that Iran must be stopped. Even
if Israel has to do it, it is better today than waiting another year
when Iran already acquired a nuclear weapon.

Do you think that the Turkish attempts regarding the Iranian issue
have been successful thus far?

I think that they have had the opposite effect, as a matter of fact.

When Prime Minister Erdogan went to Iran and he said, "Why are we
focusing on Iran? We have to focus on Israel. Israel has the weapon,
Iran doesn’t; Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear power." The other
day he said more or less the same thing when Prime Minister Hariri
was in town. So basically that encourages Iran to pursue its program
almost with impunity. Whereas if Erdogan was true to his knowledge
(and he knows that Turkey does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon)
he should have said that neither Iran nor anyone else should have
them, but once there is peace between Israel and the Arab world,
then Israel should be able to dismantle its nuclear weapons. That is
a different take. By saying the opposite I think he is contributing to
the impasse rather than helping the situation. And that’s unfortunate.

Can we discuss the recent situation between the Turkish and Israeli
foreign ministries, with the escalated tensions between the two
countries?

Again, I think this whole thing is very unfortunate, most unfortunate.

Prime Minister Erdogan’s initial reaction to Gaza probably was, I’m
sure, in part his feelings for the Palestinians, an emotional reaction
to what happened. After all, that was a terrible tragedy in Gaza,
without getting into whether Israel could or should have gone into
Gaza. I always say, you know, if a country feels violated, if it feels
its sovereignty is violated day in and day out, what is it supposed
to do to stop these violations? So when you try to make a judgment
based on how many Israelis died, and how many Palestinians died,
that is not how you judge whether an operation was right or wrong,
that is not the correct measurement if the Israelis happen to be more
sophisticated in their military approach. But the fact is that Hamas
fights from within the civilian community. There is no military front,
unlike conventional wars; there is no military formation here or there
or over there. They are fighting from within the civilian community. No
matter how careful you may be, you’re going to kill civilians. If
you ask me do the Israelis want to kill civilians, I can tell you
categorically that the Israelis do not want to kill civilians, and the
reason is that they have to live with these people and they know it.

Israelis tell me, "We have to live with the Palestinians, one way
or another, whether we are friends or enemies, we have to live with
these people. Why do you think we would want to make our life more
difficult by killing innocent Palestinian people?" It doesn’t make
sense for the Israelis. So to suggest that Israel would do something
like this deliberately is really not the right conclusion. But the
reaction to it from the Turkish government was in fact related to the
number of losses, to the destruction that took place. I can understand
their reaction.

I had many conversations with Turkish officials in Washington and
elsewhere. I wrote two articles about it, suggesting Turkish-Israeli
relations are solid, that they will continue to be so because of
this and this and that. The importance of the strategic relationship
between the two countries cannot be obliterated and dismissed because
of these incidents. Because there is a long-term relationship that is
critically important to both parties. So now we have reached a point
where the rhetoric is escalating, and the terrible manifestation of
this came about in Israel the other day. And we see the escalation
in rhetoric makes things considerably worse. Both parties know the
strategic relations are very important, the bilateral relations in
every aspect – military, civilian, diplomatic – are very important.

The sooner things calm down, the better it is going to be for both
countries, and the more consistent it will be with the Davutoglu
policy of moving forward and having very good relations with all
the neighbors in the Middle East. This will allow Turkey to play its
legitimate role as a mediator who has had wonderful relations with
everybody in the region, at least for now, and in so doing be able to
be influential with the Syrians again, with the Palestinians and Hamas,
with Iran. That is the only way it can happen. If the relationship
is not rectified soon, Turkey will be handicapped. It will not be
able to play its intended role, which I still think is very, very
important. As of yesterday I was telling some officials here that
it is so critical that we make sure that this not escalates further,
but unfortunately we may not be able to control it.

Even though Israel has sent an apology letter, do you think that the
damage has already been done? Could any apology really repair the
insult that has been caused?

I would like to think that there would not be long lasting damage, but
it could become long lasting if neither side takes proper constructive
action towards each other. And that is really the prerequisite here. A
letter of apology in and of itself is not enough. Israel needs to make
another gesture, a goodwill gesture towards Turkey. And Turkey needs
to have some goodwill gesture as well, at the minimum by stopping the
verbal attacks that is going to be necessary to start with. And Israel
is going to be in a much better position to make additional goodwill
gestures, to demonstrate that the friendship and the alliance between
the two countries cannot be destroyed because of one or two incidents.

So the letter itself is a good beginning, but it is not enough. I
think Israel needs to do more, to demonstrate something else. And
the Turkish government also needs to demonstrate that there is now
a mutual desire to quiet things down a bit and begin to gradually
restore the relationship. If that is done, there will be no lasting
damage in the relationship between the two countries. But if this is
not done, and the Israelis settle for only writing a letter, then I
think there will be serious damage to the relationship.

Interviewed by Kaitlin MacKenzie (JTW)

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is an expert on Middle East politics and affairs,
specializing in peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab states.

Member of the Editorial and Advisory Board of the RILP, Review of
International Law and Politics(Uluslararasi Hukuk ve Politika Dergisi)
For the past twenty five years, Dr. Ben-Meir has been directly involved
in various negotiations and has operated as a liaison between top
Arab and Israeli officials. Dr. Ben-Meir serves as senior fellow
at New York University’s School of Global Affairs where he has been
teaching courses on the Middle East and negotiations for 17 years. Dr.

Ben-Meir is the columnist of JTW.

Friday, 15 January 2010

Journal of Turkish Weekly

tw-interview-turkey-israel-relations-quo-vadis.htm l

AZERBAIJANI PARLIAMENTARIANS LEAVE FOR US

APA
Jan 14 2010
Azerbaijan

Baku. Elbrus Seyfullayev – APA. A group of Azerbaijani parliamentarians
will visit the US, member of the delegation Gular Ahmadova told
APA. The delegation also includes Ganira Pashayeva, Igbal Agazadeh
and Zahid Oruj. According to Gular Ahmadova, the visit within the
framework of the Open World Program will last from January 20 till 31.

"The visit is organized by the American Councils for International
Education. We will visit Washington and several other states. We will
have meetings in the majority chamber, Senate and Congress. The main
aim is to hold discussions in education, health, law, agriculture,
national resources, legislation," she said.

The parliamentarian said they would once more express their protests
against the aid allocated by the U.S. Congress to the separatist
Nagorno Karabakh.

ARMENIA TO BECOME AN INDUSTRIALLY ORIENTED COUNTRY

PanARMENIAN.Net
14.01.2010 16:51 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In its Thursday session, Armenian Government approved
the country’s industrial development concept.

"The document is aimed making Armenia an industrially oriented
country, annually increasing industry’s share within GDP structure
and developing the system for export," Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyuan
said.

At that, he noted that the decision marks the beginning of a process
that needs to be discussed in future "In any case, we need to specify
the basic trends," Armenian Premier added.

RUSSIA HOPES FOR TURKEY RECOGNIZING ABKHAZIA

news.am
Jan 12 2010
Armenia

Russia hopes Turkey will be the first pro-western state to recognize
Abkhazia, and serious relevant work is under way, Alexander Rar,
European expert for energy and CIS, stated in his interview with
1news.az, speaking of Turkish Premier Recep Erdogan’s visit to Moscow.

According to him, "a most serious dynamic policy is being implemented
in the South Caucasus and Black Sea region, but it is not only
Nagorno-Karabakh that is in question." The expert believes the
Nagorno-Karabakh problem to be "of secondary importance" in this
context.

"The foremost topic is a fierce struggle for control over energy
resources – which side will be the first to lay lines for oil and
gas transit from the East to the West. The outcome is near. Very many
players are competing in this field," Rar said.

This is the reason why Russia is forming closer relations with Turkey
and doing its best for Turkey, not Ukraine, to serve as a transit
country for gas supplied to Europe and "thus prevent any attempts to
construct any other gas pipelines through Ukraine."

As regards the aim of RF Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to
Armenia, Yerevan "is not so important for Moscow now, but Turkey is."

"Armenia is unable to seriously contribute to this big game. Rather,
it can perhaps be a hindrance to Russia. Turkey is playing a much more
important role, and Russia has focused its policy on this factor,"
the expert said.