Author: Navasardian Karapet

UN News Centre

Azerbaijan, Armenia express views on Nagorno-Karabakh at UN debate

27 September 2008

Top officials of Azerbaijan and Armenia have offered their views on
the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan at the General Assembly’s
annual high-level debate this week. Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister
today noted that earlier this year, the Assembly adopted a resolution
which reaffirmed the body’s `continued respect and support for the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan
within its internationally recognized borders.’

That document also `demanded withdrawal of Armenian forces from all
the occupied territories’ of his country, Elmar Mammadyarov said.

`The soonest resolution of the armed conflict in and around the
Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan remains a primary task for us,’
he said, with principles laid out in the resolution forming the basis
of negotiations with Armenia.

Addressing the General Debate on Thursday, Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan pointed out that that document was adopted with `only 39
States out of 146 voting `for’.’

He said that Armenia does not `insist on and actually [opposes] the
idea that each claim for self-determination should be through
secession. However, we witness that that outcome more often than not
becomes the solution for the conflicts.’

A solution to the issue must be supported by all parties involved,
Mr. Sargsyan said, stressing the importance of active negotiations
with Azerbaijan under the framework of the Minsk Group of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

MOST RECENT ARGUMENT OF THE SUPER-STATES
Karine Ter-Sahakyan

PanARMENIAN.Net
25.09.2008 GMT+04:00

The right of the strongest has been prevailing in international
community lately; it has replaced both the principle of territorial
integrity and the right of nations to self-determination.

The principle of territorial integrity of a state is gradually becoming
the most recent argument in the dispute of competence to recognize
the self-declared republics in the post-Soviet territory. Appealing
to the world community and playing on different approaches and
contradictions between the chief players, mini-mother countries of
the former USSR are trying to confirm their right to this or that
territory. Especially persisting in the verification of this fact
are Azerbaijan and Georgia. The issue became even more painful after
Kosovo’s declaration of independence, as South Ossetia, Abkhazia,
Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh have no less authority and claims
for recognition of their independence than the Albanians of Kosovo had.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The right of the strongest has been prevailing
in international community lately; it has replaced both the
principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to
self-determination. On the whole, it has always been so, but refusal of
this or that ethnic group to live as before has become more relevant
lately. Former unrecognized republics of the CIS had all gained
independence except for Kosovo, which was offered it not long ago in
spite of all the objections of sober politicians against making such
an ill-considered and far-reaching step. And now we have what we have:
chaos in the Caucasus region, harsh statements of super-states about
immovability of borders of former USSR countries, which collectively
result in new tensions. Recalling the recent history we can’t but
acknowledge that borders as such did not exist between the former
USSRrepublics. There had been a random /subjective/, administrative
division based on the pretensions and significance of this or that
region. We have the same picture now, only in place of the Soviet
Union appear the United States, EC and the Russian Federation.

Saakashvili’s ill-considered and spontaneous step aimed at "restoration
of Constitutional order in Georgia" instantly changed the priorities
and called into question 10 basic principles of the Helsinki final
Act on security and cooperation in the Europe of 1975. An interesting
detail should be mentioned here: in 1991 the South Caucasian states
refused the succession of Soviet republics and as a model for their
new states they chose the independent republics of the Transcaucasia
of 1918. It is quite unlikely that current leaders of Georgia and
Azerbaijan are unaware that in 1918 South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno
Karabakh and Nakhijevan were not part of the Azerbaijan Democratic
Republic (ADR) or Georgia. If we view the territorial integrity from
the historical point of view, both ADR and Georgia must be considered
aggressors. However, much has been changed since then – World War II,
breakdown of the USSR, end of the "Cold War". And current statements
of such kind are made solely for political reasons. The South Caucasus
must be "torn off" from Russia at any rate. Besides, it would be more
preferable to carry the Baku oil to Europe bypassing Russia, and,
naturally, Armenia… But how efficient would this policy be, taking
into consideration the rather inflexible position of Russian leaders?

By the way, the USA never speaks about the territorial integrity of
Serbia, Iraq, and Kuwait realizing the consequences quite well. The
same is true about Russia: Moscow is unwilling to enter into a
dispute with Baku over Nagorno Karabakh. Unlike Mikhail Saakashvili,
Ilham Aliyev is a sober politician and he will enter into a war
only when he is a 100% sure of his victory. Thus, a new war is not
expected in the region as long as there is no 100% of confidence
in success. And though no one knows when the suppositions of Ilham
Aliyev will grow into confidence, we should enlist the support of
world leading power-holders. On the other hand, conflicts in distant
countries are not in the center of attention of the world powers:
crisis in the USA considerably shook the position of chief advocate
of democracy George Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney.

However, it would be appropriate to mention that after the
establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and USA in 1993,
Washington recognized the Soviet Union exactly with its then-existent
borders and not with the expanded borders, which Russia acquired
after the treaty signed with Hitler in 1940. Basing on the above
mentioned, after the USSR breakdown the USA took its stand against
all the self-declared post-Soviet republics. This is exactly what
the Russian Federation is doing today, grounding the presence of
its "peacemakers" in the territory of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transnistria. In this respect Nagorno Karabakh is simply left out –
it is too small to be considered Russia and too independent…

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN AZERBAIJAN TO BE DISCUSSED AT PACE SESSION

TREND Information
25.09.08 11:32
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, Baku, 24 September / corr Trend News I.Alizade / Results
of presidential elections to be held in Azerbaijan will be discussed
at the winter session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) in January 2009.

"Issues regarding Azerbaijan will be considered during the winter
session," Samed Seyidov, the head of the Azerbaijani delegation to
the PACE, the chairman of the permanent parliamentary commission on
international and interparliamentary relations of the Milli Majlis
[Parliament] told Trend News on 24 September.

The presidential elections in Azerbaijan will be held on 15
October. PACE autumn session will be held in Strasbourg, France,
from 29 September to 3 October. On its first day the session will take
reports on elections held in Macedonia, Mexico and Montenegro, a report
by Russian Speaker Boris Gryzlov. Major theme of discussions will be
the situation in Balkans and Kosovo. Furthermore, the gathering will
ratify the European Convention on preservation of national architecture
monuments and hold discussions on Social health and family, Culture
situation of Kurds.

The agenda of the autumn session does not include any issue on
Azerbaijan, as the country is in the run up to the presidential
elections.

During the autumn session it is not planned to hold a meeting of the
PACE Ad Hoc Committee on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, or elect the new
chairman of this committee, Seyidov said.

"Over two days the session will mull over conflict between Georgia
and Russia. Members of the PACE Ad Hoc Committee on Georgian-Russian
conflict have left for Russia. The delegation will shortly visit
Georgia. The session will discuss the results of visit and a report
to be developed in this respect, Seyidov said.

Azerbaijan supports the territorial integrity of Georgia and the
parliamentary delegates to the PACE will come out from this position
at the PACE session. "Azerbaijan recognizes territorial integrity
of Georgia. We want solution to the conflict within the framework
of international norms, territorial integrity and inviolability of
borders, as well as peace in the region," Seyidov said.

The delegation will leave for Strasbourg on 27 September.

BARACK OBAMA DEMOCRATIC CAMP AND SUDAN
By Steve Paterno

Sudan Tribune
Wed, Sep 24, 2008
Sudan

September 23, 2008 — More often, the members of Democratic Party in
America are portrayed as dovish and their Republican counterparts are
portrayed as hawkish when it comes to American foreign policy. However,
such portrayal can hardly measure up to American history. The reality
reveals that the past greatest wars America ever involved in are the
results of interventions by Democratic Party administrations.

The first President to have ever done that was Woodrow Wilson from the
Democratic Party who got Americans involved in World War I. Wilson did
not only involved the United States in the world’s greatest war, but
he established a legacy of American international interventionism–a
legacy that is interestingly followed to date by the Neo-Cons of
Republican Party in President George W. Bush’s administration, and
to a great deal embraced by European countries. David M. Kennedy,
a history professor, captures this point well when he argues that,
"Wilson’s ideas continue to dominate American foreign policy in the
twenty-first century. In the aftermath of 9/11 they have, if anything,
taken on even greater vitality." Another historian, Walter Russell
Mead, says, "Wilson’s principles… still guide European politics
today: self-determination, democratic government, collective security,
international law, and a league of nations" are among those principles.

Under Wilson’s leadership, American fought the greatest war the world
ever experienced. In the American hemisphere, Wilson maintained
American superiority through military interventions, occupations,
and regime changes. In Europe, Wilson sent troops to keep in check
the newly emerging Soviet aggression. He went on to intervene in
stopping Armenian’s genocide.

The World War II is another greatest war that witnessed American
intervention on a massive scale than never before. It was also the work
of a Democratic Party President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt
saw America as the "Arsenal of Democracy." He rejected the neutrality
attitude and instead embarked on expanding American military bases
around the world. If American military today occupy bases throughout
the globe, it must partly be owed to Roosevelt. President Roosevelt
eventually got Americans involved in World War II, and his successor,
also a Democrat; Harry S. Truman not only helped finished the war
for him, but did it decisively by dropping the atomic bombs–the only
person to have ever authorized the use of such weapon against the arch
rival. Indeed, a convincing proof that a Democratic Party President
cannot only intervene militarily, but can also pull the trigger,
provide economic assistance and protect peace as confirmed by the
Truman Doctrine that led to Marshall Plan and set the basis for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), European Economic Union,
and ultimately, the policies of containing Soviet aggressions.

The Vietnam War was also a result of a Democratic President
intervention, made central in President John F. Kennedy’s
administration, especially in his inaugural address, where he pledged
to the Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival
and success of liberty." Kennedy’s successor, also a Democrat,
Lyndon Baines Johnson upgraded the significance of Vietnam military
intervention in his administration and escalated it further. The
Americans had to find a Republican President, Richard Nixon to
reverse the interventionism advanced by Democratic administrations;
Nixon had to withdraw US troops out from Vietnam.

Even President William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat who seems to
be an exception to this rule had made some unilateral attempts of
interventions. The misfiring of U.S. cruise missiles that hit Osama
bin Laden’s parking lot in Afghanistan and killing a camel in Sahara
Desert in the Sudan are some of the credits that can be attributed
into Clinton’s attempts of unilateral interventions. Perhaps the most
memorable Clinton’s unilateral intervention was the one in Kosovo
where some of Clinton’s aid still brag about it that the Americans
"bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a
single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United
States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently
deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO
military action retroactively." Speaking of Kosovo and Milosevic,
one will clearly draw comparisons and Parallels to the current state
of affairs in Sudan.

Of course, Clinton regretted very much not intervening to stop the
genocide in Rwanda and apologized for not "fully appreciating the
depth and speed" of the Rwandan genocide. Nonetheless, it seems
Barack Obama and his Democratic team is about to redeem Clinton and
follow-up on the footstep of their predecessors, started by Woodrow
Wilson legacy of interventionism. Obama may naively be portrayed to
have said he is going to have tea with the provocatively agitated
President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, the message Obama
have for the President of Khartoum in Sudan is different, hawkish in
style, if you like. Obama pledges, as a matter of priority to hold
accountable President Omar al-Bashir and the company for war crimes
and end the genocide in Darfur. Obama running mate, Joe Biden is even
more explicit in his tone in dealing with Khartoum. Biden proposes that
"it’s time to put force on the table and use it." Biden’s argument is
that America is capable of going it alone and it must do so because
"those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over."

Other foreign policy advisors and supporters of Barack Obama are on
the record, arguing for unilateral US military intervention to stop
the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Among the pack is Susan E. Rice, a
prominent foreign policy chief advisor to Obama’s camp. For example,
in an article title, "US should act without UN in Darfur" (co-authored
by two other prominent figures in Democratic Party, Congressman
Donald M. Payne and Anthony Lake, a long-term US diplomat), they
argue that there is only "one language Khartoum understands: the
credible threat or use of force." They go into proposing that with
or without the U.N. blessings, the US military must "strike Sudanese
airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port
Sudan, through which Sudan’s oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would
deploy–by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing." Toting-up
to these growing voices, another long-term diplomat from Obama’s camp,
Richard Holbrooke, has gone on the record, calling for al-Bashir’s
arrest by International Criminal Court (ICC) base on pending charges
against al-Bashir for war crimes and genocide.

Given these factual evidences, the Democratic Party under Barack
Obama, if elected, can reclaim the legacy of interventionism set
forth by Woodrow Wilson–the legacy, which has ever since been
practiced in both America and Europe by both conservatives and liberals
alike. For Obama, fortune has provided time and place to practice this
legacy. The time is now and the place is Sudan. But one will wonder
that what if John McCain instead of Obama wins the election, then one
will hope that McCain will do the same, follow on Bush’s policy of
unilateral intervention, a typical Wilsonian foreign policy. As for
those Europeans, Wilson’s ideals are still very much alive in their
political culture. They can use it in the ICC by making sure that
the international justice system is functioning well to prosecute
real international criminals like President Omar al-Bashir. After
all, the Europeans were the ones behind foundation of the court,
the fact that the Rome Statue of ICC is bearing the name of one of
their prominent cities.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure,
A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at
[email protected]

SERZH SARGSYAN: OUR GOAL IS TO GUARANTEE CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE IN ARMENIA

Noyan Tapan

Se p 23, 2008

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 23, NOYAN TAPAN. On September 23, RA President
Serzh Sargsyan met with Hans-Jurgen Papier, the Chairman of the
Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany, and with the
delegation led by him. Attaching importance to cooperation with such
an authoritative institution as the German Constitutional Court,
he expressed confidence that it will contribute to perfection
of constitutional justice in Armenia. "Our goal is to guarantee
constitutional justice in Armenia, for the basic human rights to be
respected and exercised completely," S. Sargsyan said.

According to the report provided to Noyan Tapan by the RA President’s
Press Office, S. Sargsyan also touched upon Armenian-German relations
stressing that they develop successfully in all spheres. Germany is
the second donor country for Armenia, as well as is its second trade
partner within the framework of the European Union. He also stressed
that German investments are perceptible in Armenia.

DR. DER YEGHIAYAN TO LECTURE ON HISTORIC ARMENIA AND CILICIA

Noyan Tapan

Se p 22, 2008

NORTH HOLLYWOOD, SEPTEMBER 22, ARMENIANS TODAY – NOYAN TAPAN. On
October 12 Dr. Garbis Der Yeghiayan, President of Mashdots College,
will present a lecture titled, "Embracing the Land of Our Ancestors:
The Presence of the Past".

The power-point presentation, organized by the Holy Trinity Armenian
Church of North Hollywood, will cover the historic Armenian cities
and villages in Cilicia, Cappadocia and Western Armenia.

Mashdots College organizes annual pilgrimages to Historic Armenia. In
July, 2008, forty Armenians from the United States and other Diaspora
communities joined Dr. Der Yeghiayan in a 17-day pilgrimage which
offered the participants an opportunity to better understand and
appreciate the centuries-old heritage of the Armenian people, and to
observe firsthand the unparalleled accomplishments of our martyred
ancestors and the immense sacrifices endured by the survivors of the
Armenian Genocide.

GEORGIAN FACTOR IN THE US MIDDLE EAST POLICY
Boris Dolgov

en.fondsk.ru
22.09.2008

The US support for the Tbilisi aggression against South Ossetia
has highlighted the importance of Georgia as the country located
in the proximity to the Middle East to Washington’s plans. Clearly,
the objectives of the US presence in Georgia are

– Maintaining the uninterrupted transit of oil for the US consumption
via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline;

– Muscling Russia out of the Caucasus and turning Georgia into a
foothold for the destabilization of Russia’s southern regions,
especially the Caucasian Republics of Chechnya, Dagestan,
Kabardino-Balkaria, and Ingushetia1;

– Gaining control over the Caspian region and Central Asia;

– Using the territory of Georgia as an intermediate location in an
attack against Iran.

The neocons who are currently at the helm in Washington are trying
to finalize the process of partitioning Russia, which began with
the demise of the USSR. In this light, any moves made by Moscow to
ensure its security, particularly in South Ossetia which is located
at Russia’s southern border, are portrayed as "an aggression" and
cause the response in the form of ferocious informational attacks
and demonstrations of force like the recent dispatching of the US
Navy to the Black Sea.

US Republican presidential candidate J. McCain called for recognizing
the independence of Chechnya and several other republics of the Russian
Federation in response to Moscow’s recognition of the independence of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In an interview to ABC on September 12,
Republican nominee for Vice President Sara Palin described Russia’s
conduct in South Ossetia as an aggression against the small democratic
Georgia and said she did not exclude opting for a military conflict
with Russia in the future.

A US senator wrote in a paper published on September 8 that, in accord
with a secret deal between Georgia, the US, and Israel, two runways
had been constructed in Georgia to be used by Israeli reconnaissance
aircrafts to monitor Russia and Iran. The runways would also be used
by the US and Israeli warplanes in the case of a war with Iran. The
Russian army destroyed both runways while suppressing the Georgian
aggression against South Ossetia.

Both due to its proximity to Iran and from the political standpoint,
Georgia is a country whose territory could be conveniently used for
an attack against Iran. The US and Israeli warplanes based in Georgia
would have to traverse the airspace of either Armenia or Azerbaijan
to reach Iran, but it appears that the circumstance is not regarded
as a problem in Pentagon.

The September, 2008 visit of French President N. Sarkozy to Syria –
a country located far away from Georgia – is nevertheless directly
related to the=2 0conflict in South Ossetia. Sarkozy toured Syria a
few days after its President Bashar al-Assad expressed support for
Russia’s reaction to the Georgian aggression against the formerly
unrecognized Republic and said Syria was ready to host the Russian
Iskander missiles in case Moscow decided to deploy them in response
to the deployment of the US antimissiles in Poland.

No doubt, the objectives of Sarkozy’s visit to Syria and his talks
with Assad were not limited to an attempt – in the interests of the
US – to destroy the country’s alliance with Iran and to preclude
its further rapproachment with Russia. Still, as French diplomatic
sources disclosed, the themes had been invoked. As a reward, Syria
was promised a normalization of the relations initially with France
and subsecuently with the West in general.

At the same time, Sarkozy is involved in the negotiations on a peace
agreement between Syria and Israel, which are going on between Syria,
Qatar, Turkey, and France. France is playing the role of the key
intermediary in the process.

Sarkozy indicated in an interview to a Syrian radio station after
his meeting with Assad that an Israeli attack against Iran – a
development that would be a serious threat from Syria’s standpoint –
was likely. Assuming hypothetically that Russian missiles are deployed
in Syria, Israel would have to think twice before deciding to attack
Iran (and possibly also Syria as Ir an’s ally). Though, the support
for the idea of a war with Iran is not all-embracing in Israel. For
example, Israeli President Shimon Peres said he opposes a military
strike on Iran and prefers the use of international economic sanctions
to persuade Tehran to halt its nuclear enrichment programme. He said:
"If the Americans manage to form a coalition to unify their positions
with those of Europeans, they have sufficient means to exert pressure
on the Iranians".

The new system of international relations which started to
emerge after the August conflict in Georgia makes a unipolar world
impossible. Though a new confrontation between the US and Russia is not
imminent (as both are interested in maintaining serious relations and
contacts), an economic and political rivalry between the two countries
is likely to be an enduring phenomenon. Under the circumstances Russia
should reconsider its current course in foreign politics which, until
recently, was typically described as pragmatic. The course motivated
by the hunger for immediate economic benefits may have no future and
doom Russia to being an outsider in the new international settings.

If Russia seeks to strengthen its international positions,
it needs to focus on its persistent domestic problems. Those
include the overreliance on natural resources in the economy,
drastic disproportions in the distribution of income levels among the
population unseen in developed countries (the incomes of the wealthiest
and the poorest strata of the Russian population are estimated to
differ by a factor of several dozen), and the widespread corruption.

It is also of great importance to Russia to identify potential allies
– which many of the Middle East countries are – and to find ways to
attract them. Russia needs to act synchronously in both hemispheres
with the purpose of forming a more predictable and balanced world
which cannot but be multi-polar.

1 Experts from the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian
Academy of Science opine that the US intelligence community
is attempting to destabilize the situation in these Republics,
particularly in Ingushetia, with the help of Sufi orders whose Sheikhs
regularly visit the US.

FASSIER: ANY OSCE MG MEMBER COUNTRY CAN FACILITATE KARABAKH CONFLICT RESOLUTION

PanARMENIAN.Net
17.09.2008 21:07 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey’s aspiration to facilitate the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict resolution is welcomed, OSCE Minsk Group French
Co-chair Bernard Fassier said a news conference in Yerevan today when
responding to a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.

"As a member of the OSCE Minsk Group, Turkey has the right to make
proposals. This country has introduced a number of proposals during
the past 3.5 years. Nevertheless, the talks are held by three Co-chairs
from Russia, France and the United States," he said, emphasizing that
the OSCE format is not subject to transformations.

The OSCE Minsk Group includes France, the United States, Russia,
Turkey, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Finland, Armenia
and Azerbaijan.

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT SENDS MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCES TO HIS RUSSIAN COUNTERPART ON MOSCOW-PERM PLANE CRASH

ARMENPRESS
Sep 15, 2008

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 15, ARMENPRESS: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
sent a message of condolences to his Russian counterpart Dmitri
Medvedev on the crash of the airplane implementing Moscow-Perm flight
on September 13. Presidential press service told Armenpress that
the message of the president runs as following, "Dear Dmitri Anatoli,
Accept my true condolences on the crash of the plane of "Aeroflot-Nord"
airlines implementing Moscow-Perm flight.

As a person who was destined to head the searching works after the
crash of "Armavia" airlines’ plane in Sochi, I know quite well how
difficult it will be to find words of consolation for the relatives
and friends of the victims. Armenia will never forget the support
and care of Russia during that time.

Armenian people mourn with You, relatives and friends of the victims
and with all the Russians."

NALBANDIAN, AHMADINEJAD TO MEET IN TEHRAN

PanARMENIAN.Net
15.09.2008 12:28 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On September 15, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandian is leaving for Tehran on a two-day formal visit, the RA
MFA press office told PanARMENIAN.Net.

Minister Nalbandian is scheduled to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Majlis Speaker Ali
Larijani and Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili.