Author: Takmazian

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH NEW ADMINISTRATION

PanARMENIAN.Net
22.01.2009 17:02 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Following the historic inauguration of President
Barack Obama, the Armenian Assembly of America (Assembly) welcomed
the 44th President with a full-page ad in Roll Call, "The Newspaper
of Capitol Hill Since 1955," the Assembly told PanARMENIAN.Net.

The ad reads in part, "The Armenian Assembly of America and the
Armenian-American community salute President Barack Obama on his
historic inauguration," and prominently illustrates President Obama’s
position on the Armenian Genocide. Roll Call has a circulation of
over 18,000; an additional 11,500 copies are delivered to Congress
and 400 copies are delivered to the White House.

"We look forward to working with the new Administration and Congress
to further strengthen U.S.-Armenia and U.S.-Karabakh relations, as
well as end the scourge of genocide and the consequences of denial,"
stated Assembly Executive Director Bryan Ardouny.

ARONIAN SCORES FIRST VICTORY IN CORUS CHESS 2009

PanARMENIAN.Net
23.01.2009 12:02 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian grandmaster Levon Aronian has scored his
first victory at Corus Chess Tournament 2009.

Aronian defeated Slovakia’s Sergei Movsesian in the fifth tour.

After five tours, Ukrainian Sergei Karyakin tops the chart with 3.5
points. Levon Aronian, Leinier Dominguez, Gata Kamsky and Jan Smeets
have 3 points; Loek van Wely, Magnus Carlsen, Sergei Movsesian,
Teymour Radjabov and Daniel Stellwagen have 2.5 points; Yue Wang and
Vassily Ivanchuk have 2 points. Alexander Morozevich closes the chart
with 1.5 points.

In the 6th tour, Aronian will play vs. Ivanchuk.

THE GAZA STRIP MYSTERY
Igor Muradian (Armenia)

en.fondsk.ru
23.01.2009

The end of Israeli military operation in Gaza Strip right on the
eve of the official office-taking by Barack Obama could not fail to
make the world have a sigh of relief. Representatives of Arab and
European countries are taking steps to consolidate the fragile truce,
but apparently it may take long before the lasting peace can become
a reality in the Middle East (if at all)…

The response of politicians and analysts as well as European public
at large and especially the French during the final days of the US
election campaign could produce the impression that the vote was all
about the president of France. Many countries of the continental
Europe there was a s urge of enthusiasm, and even Nicola Sarkozy
made an attempt to combine his pro-US attitude with rhetoric that
emphasised his commitment to traditional French and European values.

The European "vote" for Barack Obama and even a certain substitute
of the Clinton-Biden team for Obama did not spoiled the day for
Europe. With the exception of certain rightist conservative groups
actually all responsible European forces express their hopes that a
more balanced and equal "Trans-Atlantic relations" in such areas as
the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia, China, Iran and terrorist
threats.

For quite some time Europeans have been concerned o ver the problem
of Arab-Israel relations, but they realise that they do not have at
their disposal enough potential to really influence the Middle East
processes. To a degree Europeans are hopeful that a certain success,
which they think they have achieved in their relations with the
United States on Iran (meaning that the US stance has become closer
to that of Europe). The leading capitals of the continental Europe,
and possibly London count on the correction by Obama of the US policies
and his country’s involvement in some EU foreign policy projects.

However, such prospects would hardly suit Israel that views Europe
as its ontological adversary, as it were. Politicians in Tel-Aviv
think that Europeans are ready to sacrifice Israel’s interests,
acting with an eye at depriving Israel of many strategic territories
(including Jerusalem) in accordance with the unspoken plans of the
European Catholic community.

Prevention of formation of the anti-Israel front in the West has become
a general line of Israel’s foreign policies. The team of ideologues
in the Obama administration will apparently be made up of people
who were top officials in the former Bill Clinton’s administration,
many of whom are now languishing at Brookings Institute while others
sit in the Foreign Relations Council. A reminder: the "Bill Clinton"
plan of the Middle East settlement envisaged a transfer to Palestinians
of 22% of 0territories", including part of Jerusalem.

The now defunct George W.Bush administration had original notions
about ways to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict (as well as other
regional conflicts).

With a focus on Middle East the plan aside from intensive
military-technical and political support of Israel, did not
envisage active interference. That course was suggested by a team of
neo-Conservatives and was implemented throughout both presidential
terms of George W. Bush. Bill Clinton’s policies that envisaged "a
comprehensive settlement" in the Middle East were substituted for by
the "limited interference" policies.

Even though both lines guaranteed total support of Israel, they
did not fail to provoke acute debates in the US-Israeli public and
political medium.

No matter how much observers accused Bill Clinton’s administration
being pro-Israeli (and it had unprecedented close and obliging ties
with US-based Jewish NGOs that were the collective principal initiator
of Clinton’s settlement plan), many Israelis cried wolf at its concepts
as murderous for Israel. Clinton-Rabin relations did not disappear
after the killing of Itzhak Rabin. In Israel itself the leftist and
other political forces including the Ehud Barak group supported Bill
Clinton’s plan. Jewish voters in the USA continued to demonstrate their
allegiance to Democrats, regardless of the fact that for 8 years now
Israel’s le adership is made up of the rightist partners of the US
Republican party. The policies and ideology B.Netaniahu and A.Sharon
pursue presuppose negation of extreme compromises (essentially,
any compromises at all), especially on the "territorial" issue.

Under the circumstances, when Israel is facing the problem of ensuring
influence on the new democratic US administration, Europe’s role may
appear very important and absolutely not positive from the point of
view of the Israeli elite in power. Is a new stage of US-European
relations possible? And how willing is the new administration to
resume the previous Clinton course in relation to the Arab-Israeli
conflict that was oriented at significant territorial concessions to
Arabs, so was it worth waiting for the growth of European influence
on the United States? All these issues cannot fail to cause concern
with the leaders of the Jewish state. Israelis are concerned over
the fact that George Bush’s Middle East heritage would either be
forgotten or would have but insignificant influence on the policies
of the new administration. In this case Israel could face a problem
of authority given that the current administration at the helm and
politicians who are about to make their entrance on the arenas of
the European and American policies can find themselves in isolation.

Positions of the alliance of the rightist conservative forces in the
USA and Israel are at presen t weak, but the rightist conservatives
have enough resources to make life harder for the Obama administration
not only in the Middle East. The political struggle in the USA that
aimed at gaining the needed results in the Congress and presidential
elections is already underway.

Hence the conclusion about a virtually inevitable enhancement of
tension in the Arab-Israeli relations, or plainly speaking, only war
can prevent US attempts to orient itself more on Europe.

It seems that Israeli leaders have realised the need to take measures
with an eye at preventing the US administration from pursuing a
"more moderate" course towards Iran (the policies that can easily
turn into a form of a set of American-European-Russian agreements.

*** Acording to different valuations, this narrow band of land 25 by
8 kilometres with insignificant use of water and agricultural land is
inhabited by 750,000 to 1,2 million people. Easy to understand that
such a tiny isolated piece of land cannot provide conditions for at
least satisfactory living standards.

Gaza is no Singapore or Hong-Kong, and not even the Jordan’s West Bank.

The stereotype of lifetime of Gaza population is significantly
different from the residents of the other part of the Palestinian
autonomy, which caused the predominance of Islamic political
organisations there.

The two separate Palestinian territories are significantly different
also in terms of politi cal priorities of their elites, so much so
that some analysts even ponder establishing two Arab-Palestinian
states. The elites of the Western Bank are distinctly westernized,
which can be accounted for by their intensive communication with other
religious and ethnic groups, a situation almost not registered in Gaza,
where, for example Christians account for a fraction of a percent of
the total population.

>From communication with politicians and experts in Jordan, Lebanon,
Syria and Egypt a conclusion can be drawn that the present-day
leadership of the Palestinian autonomy (de-facto – the Western Bank) is
quite "ripe" to perceive the idea of establishing two Arab-Palestinian
states. Should this happen, the Western Bank’s public would soon be
subjected to Europesation and "Levantisation."

Quite a few US leading specialist institutions and research centres
have been discussing this project for a long time. Discussions on
this score were going on at the seminars and conferences held by the
Council for Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Middle East
Research, the Institute for the Middle East, the Centre for Strategic
and International Studies, Heritage Foundation and others over the
last several years. The issue caught the sight of Richard Pearle,
one of the Pentagon’s neo-Conservative "Big Three"during the first
presidential term of president G.Bush.

George Friedman, the leading ana lyst of think-tank Stratfor also
spoke about that.

With an eye at preventing the creation of a single Palestinian state
and territorial concessions to Palestinians the Israeli elite may
soon pick up the idea of separation of the Palestinian problem into
two parts aiming to disrupt the Palestinian movement.

Presumably, Israel might take a less adamant stance in regard of West
Bank and a harder one towards the Gaza Strip, simultaneously shifting
its emphasis from the Palestinian problem towards "international
terrorism" to vindicate its tough line and unpreparedness to
compromises (by the way, many analysts think that HAMAS appeared as an
"Israeli project" to counteract FATH).

Israel is now playing for time. Probably, disguised by its plans of
solving the Palestinian problem the Israeli elite is trying to solve
other problems, too, possibly prolongation of US troops stay in Iraq,
installation of new NATO military bases in the region and even about
some form of Israel’s integration into NATO. But most urgently,
it is all about the undermining of potential attempts of the Obama
administration to settle the Arab-Israelu conflict and conservation
of G.Bush’s heritage in the US Middle East policies, including the
creation of a front of anti-Iranian struggle.

What is currently needed the most to achieve this is permanent military
operations in the Gaza Strip.

NA SPEAKER RECEIVES OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIR MATTHEW BRYZA

National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia
Jan 21 2009

On January 20 RA NA President Mr Hovik Abrahamyan received U.S. Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Mr Matthew
Bryza at the latter’s request. U.S. Ambassador to Armenia Ms Marie
L. Yovanovitch attended the meeting.

Mr Bryza congratulated Mr Hovik Abrahamyan on the election in the
office of NA Speaker and wished success, emphasizing the role of the
parliament in the development of the democracy of the country.

Welcoming the guests Mr Abrahamyan highlighted the further development
and strengthening of the Armenian-American relations. The NA President
noted that the National Assembly should be a rostrum of pluralism
and constructive criticism for all political forces.

Touching upon the problem of the settlement of the core issue the
NA President re-affirmed the position of Armenia for the peaceful
settlement of the issue, at the same time drawing attention to the
bellicose calls of Azerbaijan, which do not promote the peaceful
settlement process. Mr Abrahamyan highlighted in the context of the
settlement of the issue the priority of the right of the nations’
self-determination: the land connection of Karabakh with Armenia and
the international guarantees of the NKR people’s security, as well as
the participation of the NKR authorities’ negotiation process. The
NA President highly assessed the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group in
the direction of the peaceful settlement of the problem, highlighting
the solution of the issue within OSCE framework.

In the context of the regional peace and security Mr Abrahamyan
considered important the Armenian-Turkish dialogue and the development
of the relations with all neighbouring countries.

Touching upon the activity of the Ad-Hoc Inquiry Committee on the
Events Occurred on 1-2 March 2008 in Yerevan and Their Reasons and
the Fact-finding Group, the NA President highlighted the introduction
of unbiased and objective conclusion, which would promote the public
dialogue and the restoration of the atmosphere of confidence in the
country. The sides touched upon the procedure of the fulfillment of
PACE 1609 and 1620 resolutions.

Mr Bryza welcomed the activity of the Ad-Hoc Inquiry Committee on
the Events Occurred on 1-2 March 2008 in Yerevan and Their Reasons
and the Fact-finding Group, highlighting the necessity of introducing
the complete and unbiased conclusion to the public.

Mr Bryza noted with assessment the brave initiative of RA President
Mr Serzh Sargsyan by inviting the President of Turkey Mr Abdullah
Gul to Armenia.

The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair emphasized with satisfaction the
constructive inclination of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
directed to the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh issue, noting
that the Co-Chairs see the solution of the issue only by peaceful
settlement. Mr Bryza also highlighted the NKR participation in the
negotiation process.

At the end of the meeting the issue of the continuity of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation was discussed in detail. The sides also touched
upon other issues of bilateral interest.

RETHINKING TURKISH-GREEK RELATIONS POST GAZA CRISIS
By Christopher Vasillopulos

Today’s Zaman
Jan 20 2009
Turkey

The bitterest medicine can have beneficial effects. So, too,
with bitter experience. Medicine can work without the patient’s
effort. Experience, however, requires human knowledge, good will and
action to make it yield its benefits.

The latest Israeli aggression in Gaza, which has resulted in over
1,000 deaths and many more casualties — more than half of them women
and children — with the numbers of wounded and killed still rising,
even as an experience this bitter, might yet yield benefits. We
hope, without much optimism, that the world’s outrage might help
Palestinians. With more optimism, we hope that the Gaza catastrophe
might cause a rethinking of Turkish-Greek relations. Of the world’s
responses to Israeli aggression, Turkish and Greek officials have been
among the most severe. Their common outrage may indicate a deeper
basis for rethinking Turkish-Greek relations on a wide variety of
issues. The natural sympathy for Muslim victims by Turkey has been
matched by a natural Greek sympathy for oppressed minorities. We
believe, however, there is more to the similarity of Turkish and
Greek responses to Israeli aggression than sympathy for Palestinians.

Both Turks and Greeks have had long histories and profound
influence in the Arab Middle East. The center of the Hellenistic
world was the Middle East, extending from Byzantium to Alexandria,
from the Aegean islands and the Cedars of Lebanon to Iran and
Central Asia. More recently, the Ottoman Turks ruled the region
and beyond for 500 years. While Ottoman rule of the Greeks has
been a source of resentment, it, nonetheless, provided multiple
points of interpenetration of language, culture and practices,
especially of ordinary people. Of course, many differences persist,
especially religious, which sometimes help to continue animosity
that may otherwise have receded from memory. While the views of
the religiously observant continue to be politically important in
both nations, neither Greece nor Turkey advocates, even as an ideal,
a theocratic state. Secular voices in both nations are exceptionally
powerful and have controlled their respective foreign policies. In this
respect, Greeks have become more European, especially after admission
to the EU. Since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey has been the most
secular state in the region, including Greece. Without denigrating
the importance of spiritual values and the conflicts they sometimes
aggravate, both Turkey and Greece seem capable of keeping religious
fanaticism at bay. Moreover, properly conceived spiritual values
can be a principal source of reconciliation, as liberal versions of
Christianity and Islam well attest.

Are not moral and spiritual values at the basis of Turkish-Greek
unanimity regarding the oppression of Palestinians? Do not Islam and
Orthodox Christianity obligate their believers to relieve the burdens
of the oppressed, the poor, the dispossessed and the afflicted? More
than charity, does not love, based on divine creation taken as the
sign of God’s love, form the most important value in both creeds? Is
this point of convergence not more important than all other points
of doctrinal differences combined, at least with regard to the
moral basis of political action? We do not want to be dismissed
as hopeless idealists. To the contrary, we believe the moral and
political consensus precipitated by the Gaza catastrophe indicates
a realistic basis for a rethinking of Turkish-Greek relations. Is
there not a relationship between perception of interests and the
underlying values of any society? Without denying the factual basis
of many conflicts between nations, can anyone deny the importance
of consonant moral frameworks for estimating the importance of any
given conflict? Is not the benefit of the doubt extended to those we
perceive as similar to us? Do we not tend in these circumstances to
minimize differences in an effort to reconcile material disputes? Our
most powerful example is the Christmas truce spontaneously arranged
by German and British soldiers in World War I. Another is Ataturk’s
many comments that urged reconciliation between former enemies on the
battlefield. Do not the lives of Jesus and Muhammad provide lessons
for all decent human beings?

Since we are determined to be realistic, let us consider some obstacles
to recalibrating Turkish-Greek relations. On the Turkish side, some
members of Turkey’s foreign policy elite have criticized the Justice
and Development Party’s (AK Party) harsh criticism of Israel. While
sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, these experts believe
that Turkey depends on Israel’s good offices for access to the US. In
their view, it is essential to enlist the Jewish and Israeli lobbies
on Turkey’s behalf. This support requires Turkish support of Israel,
even when it engages in aggression against Muslims. The underlying
idea is that Turkish nationalism, conceived as embattled by Armenians,
Kurds and to a lesser extent Greek and Greek-American efforts to
take over all of Cyprus, needs Israel to help keep Americans from
undermining Turkish sovereignty and interests.

On the Greek side, apart from traditional resentment of Ottoman rule,
Greece remains conscious of its status as a small nation, surrounded
by much larger and richer nations. Its response has been to find
a big brother who would guarantee Greek security and help advance
Greek interests. Many Greeks believe that Turkey remains Greece’s most
important threat. Secondly, Cyprus remains a source of irritation. Many
Greeks believe that Cyprus is Greek and that the Greek majority should
rule and that the Turkish minority should acquiesce or leave. Only
the Turkish army has prevented the realization of a fully Greek
Cyprus, its status as a sovereign nation-state notwithstanding. And,
third, the influence of the Orthodox Church, especially in Cyprus,
has kept religious strife alive and well. Finally, diaspora Greeks,
in the US and elsewhere, have remained hostile to Turkish-Greek
accommodation. Diaspora communities, and this includes the Turks,
tend to be caught in a time warp. They remember the mother countries,
as they were when they left or when their fathers or grandfathers left,
not as they are now. This is especially true of traditional enemies.

These obstacles to a rethinking of Turkish-Greek relations remain
real and potent. They are not, however, the whole story. There are
reasons, practical reasons, for improved Turkish-Greek relations. The
first is the AK Party, which may seem paradoxical. A political party
more sensitive to observant Muslims may seem an absurd reason to
reconcile Greek-Turkish differences. Yet, when it comes to relations
with Greeks, the AK Party has been more accommodating than secular
nationalists. One wonders if nationalism is more divisive than
religious differences. Given the rhetoric of religious fundamentalists,
this idea seems ridiculous. Given the practices of the AK Party, it
seems, however, to be consonant with the facts. As we have suggested,
belief in spiritual values need not exacerbate differences. Spiritual
values, especially if they center on a single loving God that created
a world so that human beings may express their gratitude for life by
loving each other and by worshipping Him, can be a significant force
for reconciliation. The Turks and Greeks may disagree on who is the
Prodigal Son, the son who was dissolute and defiant of his father’s
wishes, yet what difference does this make? For whom is the fatted calf
slain? For whom is forgiveness offered? Both Islam and Christianity
realize that spiritual values are not solely for the holy, but for the
sick and sinful. If not, why does nearly every prayer of confession
in every mosque and every church ask for the forgiveness of sin?

On the basis of this spiritual understanding, it has been easier
for the AK Party to see the real interests of Turkey as largely
coincident with the interests of Greece. Our conviction does not
reflect an idealistic binge, a denial of Turkish values. On the
contrary, it reflects a realistic assessment of Turkish interests in
the context of Turkish (Islamic) values. To their credit, the Greek
government has responded favorably. Why? For two reasons. First, it
is consonant with Greek interests to employ their common interests
with the Turks on a variety of international issues. Second, Greek
Christianity sees forgiveness and reconciliation as central to its
values and purpose in the world. We understand there are versions of
dogma that contradict this view, yet we believe most Christians and
Muslims believe that peace is better than war, that love is better
than hate and that we all need forgiveness.

The second reason which undermines obstacles to Greek-Turkish
rapprochement is that neither nation is the same as it was 30, 50 or
100 years ago. Both are NATO allies, Greece is a member of the EU and
Turkey aspires to membership, both realize they are nations between
Europe and Asia and both realize that together they would form the
largest population and military bloc in the EU, should Turkey achieve
membership. Greece would no longer be an insignificant, relatively poor
nation on the edge of Europe. Greece and Turkey would be a potential
economic powerhouse with the youngest demographic in Europe. Moreover,
Greece-Turkey would have significant and positive relations with the
energy-rich Middle East and Central Asia. With this Greek-Turkish
bloc, the EU would be a realistic rival to the US, no longer in fear
of its military prowess or economic power.

TURKISH DEEP STATE ERGENEKON’S FOREIGN POLICY GUIDE
By Merve Mervan

Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 20 2009
Turkey

– Ergenekon network mainly aims to break Turkey’s ties with the NATO
and the West in general.

– Most of the Ergenekon members are anti-Semitic. They claim that
the MOSSAD has played very dirty role in Turkish politics and aimed
to divide the country into poles.

– Almost all Ergenekon members are isolationalist. They are against
the European Union, United State and Israel. All are ultra-nationalist
Kemalist.

– The Ergenekon generals prefer Russian and Iranian relations instead
of American and Western relations.

– Ergenekon made a strong campaign against the US intervention in
Iraq in 2003.

– Ergenekon members are against all kind of negotiations in Cyprus.

– Ergenekon members have very strong relations with Moscow. One of
the high level members, Levent Ersoz had escaped to Moscow.

– Some of the Ergenekon members, like Dogu Perincek, has special
relations with China.

– Ergenekon defends that Turkey should not join the EU. They see the
EU as anti-Turkish and enemy organization.

– Ergenekon members argue that the biggest danger for Turkish interests
is an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. They defends that
Turkey should destroy the Barzani and Talabani forces. They further
argue that Turkey should intervene militarily in Kerkuk issue.

– Almost all of them are anti-Semitic. Some of the Ergenekon
intellectuals wrote anti-Semitic books and started anti-Semitic
campaigns in order to spread their anit-Israeli opinion amon the
people.

– Ergenekon defends that the secret Jews and secret Armenians govern
the country.

– Ergenekon is against any dialogue with Armenia and Armenians.

– Ergenekon claims that the current AKP Government is backed by the US.

– According to the Ergenekon papers, the US wants to use Turkey in
order to re-construct the Middle East (Greater Middle eastern Project).

– Dogu Perincek, one of the leading Ergenok names: "The name of the
enemy is the United States. The US wants to destroy the unity of the
nation and the country." (March 2008)

– Perincek: The one who is behind terrorism in Turkey is the US
(July 2007)

– Retired General Tuncer Kilinc, the former General Secretary of
the Turkish National Security Council (MGK), argued that Turkey
should leave the NATO alliance and should search possibilities
for close co-operation with Russia and other power centers in the
region. Kilinc is considered one of the significant members of the
Ergenekon network. Kilinc said "the United States use the NATO and
United Nations in its global hegemony. Kilinc further claimed that
Turkey (30 May 2007).

NON-RECOGNITION OF KARABAKH HARMFUL FOR BAKU

PanARMENIAN.Net
20.01.2009 15:05 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Azerbaijan’s bellicose statements are meant to
blackmail the international community, an NKR official said.

"Baku calls for resumption of war, incites armed provocations at
the border, purchases armament from Ukraine, Turkey and Israel,
develops bellicose rhetoric and racist anti-Armenian propaganda,"
Ruben Zargaryan, historian and adviser to Foreign Minister of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic, said in an interview with PanARMENIAN.Net.

"Azeri leadership’s regular calls for elimination of Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh conflict with the international community’s values
and criteria," he said.

"Recognition of NKR independence by Azerbaijan would put an end to
the century-old hostility, prevent a new war and resolve the refugee
problem. It would secure sovereignty of Azerbaijan and Nagorno
Karabakh, economic reforms, civilized borders, neighborly relations
and cooperation," Zargaryan said.

Full text of the interview

Ruben Zargaryan:

Karabakh people hold the key to conflict resolution The Nagorno
Karabakh problem doesn’t lose urgency in 2009. Despite optimistic
statements by the international mediators, its resolution is still
a long way off. The regional visit of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs
and the impending meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents
in Davos do not promise a breakthrough. PanARMENIAN.Net requested
Ruben Zargaryan, historian and adviser to Foreign Minister of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic, to comment on the current situation.

20.01.2009 GMT+04:00 Some forces in Yerevan say that the key to the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict is in the hands of world powers. How would
you comment this statement?

Unfortunately, such statements demonstrate disbelief and lack of
professionalism in analysis of global political processes. The history
of Armenia has shown that confidence in decisions of the world powers
results in calamity.

Determination of Nagorno Karabakh’s status is the exclusive right of
its people, who hold the key to to their homeland. The issue has been
already resolved through formation of independent Karabakh Republic.

The Nagorno Karabakh Republic is a state with its own national
interests, the fact acknowledged by many countries. The Convention on
the Rights and Duties of States was a treaty (which was later accepted
as part of customary international law) signed at Montevideo, Uruguay,
on December 26, 1933 reads that "the political existence of the state
is independent of recognition by the other states."

The Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict can’t be resolved without soonest
recognition of NKR independence and its full-fledged participation in
talks. At that, NKR recognition should be the starting point but not
the final one. Upon fulfillment of these two fundamental conditions,
other complicated issues such as territories, refugees and borders.

Independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic cannot be questioned. A
peace agreement meeting the interests of the people of Artsakh and
Azerbaijan should be signed as soon as possible.

To secure international recognition of Karabakh, systematic and
purposeful work is needed.

To what extent are the Armenian leaders authorized to sign documents
on behalf of NKR?

The most important factor is the contents of a document. Recognition of
NKR independence should be the starting point, I repeat. Azerbaijan
is using the current format with a purpose to present Armenia as
an aggressor.

Any document loses its value if not signed by Nagorno Karabakh
and is a violation of internationally recognized Nagorno
Karabakh-Armenia-Azerbaijan trilateral format of talks.

In his New Year’s speech Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said his
country "will never agree to Karabakh’s independence"…

Such statements are made to blackmail the international community. Baku
calls for resumption of war, incites armed provocations at the border,
purchases armament from Ukraine, Turkey and Israel, develops bellicose
rhetoric and racist anti-Armenian propaganda.

Azeri leadership’s regular calls for elimination of Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh conflict with the international community’s values
and criteria.

Recognition of NKR independence by Azerbaijan would put an end to
the century-old hostility, prevent a new war and resolve the refugee
problem. It would secure sovereignty of Azerbaijan and Nagorno
Karabakh, economic reforms, civilized borders, neighborly relations
and cooperation.

Recent statement by a Kazakh diplomat that Astana equates the
principle of territories integrity with the right of nations to
self-determination aroused a wave of indignation in Azeri media. Isn’t
it the time to produce forcible arguments against Azerbaijan’s
notorious territorial integrity?

You are right. Recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic doesn’t
violate Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and doesn’t threaten its
existence. The principle of territorial integrity is not applicable
to Azerbaijan by a number of reasons. Above all, Nagorno Karabakh
has never been de jure part of Azerbaijan.

Bogged down in continuous threats, Baku officials undermine the talks
and neglect the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, including those
of peaceful resolution of conflicts and non-use of force.

Meanwhile, the international law says that the principle of
territorial integrity doesn’t run counter to the right of nations
to self-determination.

Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and even Kosovo proclaimed
independence irrespective of the position of former mother countries,
what conforms to new international approaches to democracy principles,
human rights protection, ethnic peace and regional stability.

The Kosovo model is classified as UDI (Unilateral Declaration of
Independence). I would like to emphasize that the international
law doesn’t have norms which oblige a self-determined state to ask
for mother country’s permission to secede. And last but not least,
by its democratic development index, Nagorno Karabakh passes ahead
of Kosovo. The same refers to Serbia and Azerbaijan.

With Turkey’s help, Azerbaijan spreads lies about Armenia and
Artsakh. Do you think that Armenia’s reaction is adequate? Many hold
an opinion that Armenia lost the information war to Azerbaijan. Is
it so and what should be done to change the situation?

Azerbaijan is methodically and aggressively polluting the international
information and political filed with its illegal theses about its
alleged right to make decisions on the status of Karabakh. Azerbaijan’s
attempts to present Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh as its lands should
be stopped and condemned.

I should also mention that officials of some European countries are
not aware of the conflict and do not have a considered position on
the issue.

It’s also important to remember that Nagorno Karabakh has wider borders
than the former NKAO and present-day NKR. Under the international law,
Nagorno Karabakh has the right to restore its territorial integrity
within its historical borders, as it was annexed to Azerbaijan by the
Soviet rule in 1921. The Azeri-Karabakh conflict started in 1918 but
not in 1988 as it is presented by the Azeri propaganda machine.

Russia and West, from various positions, draw parallels between
"uniqueness of Kosovo model" and Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They use
terms like ‘genocide’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘humanitarian catastrophe’,
‘status is a factor of security’. However, they cynically hush up
the ordeals that befell the people of Arstakh and the crimes the
Azerbaijani government committed against the Armenians.

Now, it important to bring to the notion of the international community
that Nagorno Karabakh is no more a conflict zone but a developing
entity, attractive for investments and tourism.

The necessity to classify the principles of the conflict settlement
and introduce them into the peace process has matured. Civilized and
lasting resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict should base on
the following principles: determination of NKR status, recognition
of NKR by Azerbaijan and by the international community, restoration
of NKR territorial integrity, international guarantees of NKR people
security, resolution of the refugee problem in the framework of a
peaceful agreement between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.

BRYZA DISCUSSED MARCH 1 ISSUE TOO

A1+
[08:48 pm] 20 January, 2009

Chairman of the RA National Assembly Hovik Abrahamyan met with
U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs, Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza upon his
request. The U.S. Ambassador to Armenia Marie Yovanovitch was also
present during the meeting. Touching upon the issue of the Karabakh
conflict settlement, the NA Chairman reaffirmed Armenia’s position
for a peaceful settlement of the conflict and drew attention to
the bellicose statements made by Azerbaijan. According to the press
release of the department for public relations of the RA National
Assembly, Mr. Abrahamyan attached importance to the right of nations
to self-determination in the context of the conflict settlement,
the land connection between Armenia and Karabakh and international
guarantees for the security of the people of Karabakh, as well as
the participation of Nagorno-Karabakh authorities in the peace
talks. The NA Chairman praised the combined efforts of the OSCE
Minsk Group Co-chairs aimed at the peaceful settlement and attached
importance to the solution in the framework of the OSCE. Touching
upon the events of March 1-2 and the activities of the NA Ad-Hoc
Committee and the Fact-Finding Group, the NA Chairman attached
importance to the objective conclusion, which will contribute to
public dialogue and restoration of confidence in the country. The
sides also touched upon the fulfillment of PACE resolutions 1609 and
1620. Mr. Bryza welcomed the work of the NA Ad-Hoc Committee into the
events that took place in Yerevan on March 1-2 and the Fact-Finding
Group stressing the importance of presenting the people complete
and objective conclusions. The Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group
underscored with content that the Armenian and Azeri presidents show a
constructive approach towards the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh
conflict. Mr. Bryza also stressed the importance of the participation
of Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiations. At the end of the meeting,
it was also discussed in detail the issue of the continuation of the
"Millennium Challenges" program and the sides touched upon other
issues of mutual interest.

ANTICIPATING BREAKTHROUGH IN THE KARABAKH SETTLEMENT INCORRECT
Siranush Muradyan

"Radiolur"
20.01.2009 17:55

Anticipating a breakthrough in the Karabakh conflict settlement today
is incorrect, political scientists, analysts consider. Rather they
are confident that the resolution of the conflict greatly depends on
the relations of the world powers.

Political scientists are confident that nothing will change with
the visit of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. "Every time the Co-Chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group visit the region to conduct monitoring and
familiarize with the situation rather than bring about a fundamental
change in the Karabakh conflict settlement," ex-Foreign Minister of
Nagorno Karabakh Arman Melikyan considers.

According to analyst Stepan Grigoryan, the societies of Armenia and
Azerbaijan are not ready for concessions.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Israel should be barred from UN, Erdogan says
16.01.2009 16:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey’s Prime Minister on Friday said Israel should
be barred from the United Nations while it ignores the body’s calls to
stop fighting in Gaza.

"How is such a country, which totally ignores and does not implement
resolutions of the UN Security Council, allowed to enter through the
gates of the UN (headquarters)?" Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

Erdogan spoke before UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was due to
arrive in Ankara to discuss the conflict. Erdogan’s comments reflected
a growing anger in Turkey, Israel’s best friend in the Muslim world,
over Israel’s Gaza operation. Ban is on a weeklong trip to the region
to promote a truce after both sides ignored a UN resolution demanding
an immediate cease-fire.

"The U.N. building in Gaza was hit while the UN secretary-general was
in Israel," Erdogan said. "This is an open challenge to the world,
teasing the world."

Israel infuriated the U.N. Thursday when it shelled the world body’s
headquarters in Gaza City, where hundreds of Gazans were seeking cover
from the fighting among food and supplies meant for refugees. The
destruction added to what aid groups say is a humanitarian crisis in
Gaza and increased tensions between Israel and the international
community even as diplomats engaged in cease-fire talks, the AP
reports.