Author: Tamamian Anna

TIME TO TAKE STOCK
Vartan Oskanian

May 2, 2009

Turkish-Armenian relations have to be viewed on two levels: process
and content.

It’s probably natural to think that to achieve progress in content,
a process must take place. But not in the case of Turkish-Armenian
relations.

For Turkey, the process itself has always been an end, not a means. On
the one hand, Turks clearly realize their conditions — that Armenia
abandon international efforts at genocide recognition, explicitly
abandon territorial claims of Turkey, and concede on the Nagorno
Karabakh issue, even partially — would be unacceptable for Armenia.

On the other hand, since Turkey is under pressure by the international
community on border opening and on genocide recognition, they want to
demonstrate that there is a process underway with Armenia, and that
the main issues on the agenda — territorial claims and genocide –
are under discussion. Thus they can call on the world not to interfere
and not to harm a possible resolution that will eventually lead to
the opening of the border and establishment of diplomatic relations.

While there were intensive Turkish-Armenian negotiations during the
previous Armenian administration, the Armenian side, by insisting on
the confidentiality of the talks, never offered the Turks a chance to
exploit either the fact of the negotiations, that is, the process,
n or their content. I believe the main shortcoming of Armenia’s
current policy on relations with Turkey is that the negotiations —
both the process and the content – have been made public.

Today, Turkish diplomacy has succeeded in formulating its blunt
preconditions in such a way as to make them palatable to the
international community. The precondition of abandoning genocide
recognition has assumed the form of an offer to set up a joint
commission of historians. The territorial issues have taken the
form of reciprocal recognition of borders through establishment of
diplomatic relations.

It’s already inarguable that both the issue of the joint commission and
diplomatic relations are on the Turkish-Armenian negotiation agenda,
and agreement in principle has been reached on these issues. This
is what the world was told on April 22 with an announcement on the
existence of a "Roadmap."

But so long as that document’s content is not public, the Turkish
side can successfully present the agreement on diplomatic relations
and on a joint commission as evidence of the Armenian side’s consent
to jointly study historical issues and on abandonment of any Armenian
territorial claims.

Moreover, even if diplomatic formulations on these two issues in
the document are acceptable for the Armenian side, Turkey will
still exploit the document and interpret it as the Armenian side’s
agreement 0D on a commission of historians and standing back from
territorial claims.

Today, it is obvious that Armenia has been involved in a process that
it no longer controls and on which it has no leverage. By publicly
announcing the existence of the Roadmap without any indication about
its content, Armenia has ended its role in the negotiations, and left
the process, its interpretation, and its future evolution to the Turks.

The date of the announcement is a topic unto itself. But whether such
a statement on the eve of April 24 was pure coincidence, or whether it
was done intentionally at someone’s proposal or perhaps insistence,
and with expectations of something in exchange, in both cases, it is
neither comprehensible nor acceptable.

Unfortunately, recent official comments from Turkey and from Armenia
make clear that the date of the announcement was imposed on Armenia. By
yielding, Armenia has given credence to the Turkish theory that the
issue of genocide recognition is the Diaspora’s issue, not Armenia’s,
thus forging a dangerous chasm between Armenia and the Diaspora.

The use of the term "Roadmap" is also difficult to understand. By
using such a term, we invite unavoidable parallels with the
Arab-Israeli conflict, which is one of the most intractable in the
world, unsolved since 1948. Naturally the international community
will picture a similarly complex problem, the solution of which will
require endless20 steps and a long time. However, the Turkish-Armenian
problem is very simple.

Turkey has unjustly closed the border, and it should open it without
preconditions.

The most concerning problem regarding this process is that it is
being coupled to the Karabakh conflict. It’s true that Karabakh is
not part of the official Turkish-Armenian bilateral agenda. Nor could
it be; otherwise it would have been obvious that this is a Turkish
precondition and the negotiations would have been senseless from the
beginning. The Karabakh problem was not a part of the negotiations in
the past either. At that time, however, the Turks could not attach the
issue publicly and conditionally to the Turkish- Armenian negotiations,
because there was no public track to which they could link Karabakh.

Today, the Karabakh issue has become a parallel process, linked
to Armenian-Turkish relations, where Turks have become an equal
player with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Today, as a result of Armenia’s
policy, the Turks have gained the right to discuss Karabakh both
bilaterally and regionally, without taking into consideration the
Armenian factor. On the Turkey-Russia agenda, the Turkey-US agenda,
too, Karabakh now is one of the main issues. This was not possible
in the past. Turkey now somehow has assumed the right to initiate a
regional meeting with the participation of Turkey, the US, Russia,
Switzerland, Armenia and Azerbaijan, where, according to the Tu
rkish foreign minister not only regional issues, and Armenia-Turkey
relations, but also Karabakh will be discussed.

Today, Turkey can behave as it wishes. It already has the Armenian
side’s public consent on the key bilateral issues, and now it can
determine, based on its own preference, discretion and convenience
when and under what conditions to open the border. Turkey has two
options: either to wait for some progress on the Karabakh resolution
and a return of some territories, something that will please the
Azerbaijani side, and then open the border; or, it will open the
border only when it has guarantees from the US, Russia and Europe,
that the Karabakh problem will be resolved within the principle of
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

For that, the necessary legal foundation has been provided. The
declaration signed by Armenia, in November, in Moscow, states that the
resolution of the Karabakh conflict must be based on the decisions
and resolutions of international organizations. This provision has
already been used by Russian President Dimitri Medvedev during his
joint press conference with the Azeri president, during the latter’s
latest Moscow visit.

As difficult as the current situation has been made due to our own
missteps, there are no irreversible processes in diplomacy. It’s
important to acknowledge the complexity of the situation and take
steps to correct it.

First of all, the iss ue of the border opening has to be
transformed. It is true that Turkey is the one who has closed the
border, and Armenia has always declared it is ready to normalize
relations without preconditions. However, since Turkey has turned
the border opening issue into a bargaining chip in a process that
has become dangerous for us, the Armenian side has to state that
after Turkey agrees to open the border, the Armenian side itself
must determine whether to open the border from its side. By doing so,
Armenia will regain its leverage in a process that hasn’t yet reached
its conclusion.

Secondly, the Armenian side must make clear that if the border is
not open by a clear and near deadline, then it will withdraw from
the negotiations.

Since Armenia’s president has already indicated that the Armenian
side is willing to wait until October, it is essential that Armenia
make clear that the president will only go to Turkey to watch the
football match in October if the border is already open and the
railway already functioning.

And finally, since the process has become public in a way that
does not serve our best interests, Armenia has to make the Roadmap
and all documents derived from it public, as soon as possible. It
is also important that the Armenian side publicly offers its own
interpretations of each of the diplomatically formulated statements
in the document. Only by doing so, will it be possible to stop Turkey
from exploiting the process and the content of these negotiations in
a way that is harmful for us.

SYMPOSIUM THURSDAY RECOGNIZES CENTENARY OF ADANA MASSACRES

Belmont Citizen-Herald
May 5 2009

Belmont, Mass. – The 100th anniversary of the Adana Massacres will be
marked with a special mini-symposium entitled "The Adana Massacres
of 1909: Legacy and Perspectives," at 7 p.m. on Thursday, May 7, at
the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR)
Center, 395 Concord Ave. in Belmont.

The Adana Massacres of April 1909 took the lives of more than 20,000
Armenians in the province of Adana and elsewhere in Armenian-inhabited
areas of the Ottoman Empire. In addition to the appalling loss of life
and property, the massacres were a bitter blow to the Armenians who had
expressed such optimism at the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Many see
in these massacres an indication of what was to come in the genocide
of 1915.

The NAASR symposium will bring together four scholars who will
present their research on various aspects of the terrible events of
a century ago.

Aram Arkun, former co-director of the Krikor and Clara Zohrab
Information Center in New York City and editor of Ararat Quarterly
will speak on "Armenian Self-Defense During the 1909 Massacres: The
Case of Dörtyol (Chorkmarzban)"; Dr. Bedross Der Matossian of the
Department of History, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will
present "Revisiting the Adana Massacres of 1909: Revolution, Power,
and Violence"; Dr. Dikran Kaligian, author of the recently-published
Armenian Organization and Ideology Under Ottoman Rule 1908-1914,
will discuss "Impact of the Adana Massacre on ARF-CUP Relations";
and Dr. Lou Ann Matossian, program director of the Cafesjian Family
Foundation, Minneapolis, and eastern U.S. community news editor of
the Armenian Reporter, will speak about "Missionary Witness: The
Christie Family Papers on the Cilician Massacres of 1909."

CBA DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH COMMERCIAL BANKS’ CREDIT POLICY

PanARMENIAN.Net
05.05.2009 20:08 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Banks are interested in working with solvent clients,
CBA Chairman Arthur Javadyan told a news conference in Yerevan. "Banks
today wish to work with so-called "healthy" clients," he said.

According to CBA Chairman, if banks change crediting terms for clients
who had credit coverage issues in past, they’ll find themselves in a
difficult situation. "This might bring to credit write off delays,"
Javadyan noted.

"CBA does not interfere with commercial banks’ credit
policy. International experience proved such interferences as totally
unfounded," CBA Chairman added.

SOUTH CAUCASIAN RAILWAYS SUMMED UP FIRST QUARTER RESULTS

PanARMENIAN.Net
04.05.2009 18:28 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ RA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan met with
Transportation and Communication Minister Gurgen Sargsyan and "South
Caucasian Railways" CJSC’s General Director Shevket Shaydullin,
SCR press service reports.

During the meeting, the parties discussed issues concerning railway
communications development. The first quarter results and the major
trends elaborated during SCR Directors’ recent meeting were introduced
to Mr. Shaydulin. The latter include the 2009 Investment Program,
tariff policy, regional and social policy etc.

The parties also discussed plans for constructing the
Vanadzor-Fioletovo railway in the frames of concessionary agreement
aimed at restoring Armenia’s railway infra-structure.

SCR CJSC is a 100% shareholder of "Russian Railways" OJSC. Armenian
Railways CJSC was transferred to South Caucasian Railway’s
concessionary management under a concessionary agreement dated
February 13, 2008. The agreement was signed for the term of 30 years,
with possible extension of 10 years.

Interfax, Russia
May 1 2009

France hopes May 7 talks on Karabakh between Azeri, Armenian leaders
will see progress

BAKU May 1

The French Foreign Ministry expects that a meeting between the Azeri
and Armenian presidents in Prague on May 7 to address the
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process should help make significant
progress in resolving this problem, the French Embassy in Baku said on
Friday.

France, which is a member of the OSCE Minsk Group mediating the
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem along with the U.S. and
Russia, is continuing to make active efforts to achieve a balanced and
peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, the statement says.

The meeting between the Azeri and Armenian presidents should continue
the previous meetings in St. Petersburg in June 2008, in Moscow in
November 2008, and in Zurich in January 2009, which passed in a
constructive atmosphere, it says.

va

PanARMENIAN.Net

`Eastern Partnership’ not promising EU membership
02.05.2009 17:00 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The prospect of Ukraine and other post-Soviet
countries’ membership in EU may become an actual issue in 5-10 years’
time in case of the proper implementation of `Eastern Partnership’
program, saidRuprecht Polents, member of Foreign Affairs Committee of
Bundestag.

According to him the initiative aims to establish maximum close ties
among eastern neighbors. As noted by Mr. Polents, the program does not
promise anything in terms of further prospects of membership.

`At the same time, the fact remains that after the EU expansion in
2004, the community is simply unable to admit new members. Instead, we
offer Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and Belarus such
programs that may facilitate discussions over membership issues in
future,’ Deutsche Welle quoted Polents as saying.

The European Commission adopted the `Eastern Partnership’ program on
December 3, 2008. The founding summit will take place in Prague on May
the 7th.

Excerpt from Riz Khan’s interview with Ahmet Davutoglu

Al Jazeera
April 11, 2009
Istanbul, Turkey

[Excerpted from Riz Khan’s interview with then chief foreign policy adviser
Ahmet Davutoglu. Davutoglu was named Turkey’s Foreign Minister on May 1,
2009.]

Question from Riz Khan: Of course this time of year there’s a lot of
tension around the anniversary of the deaths of around a million Armenians
at the end of the last century and of course the word genocide is always one
that’s caused a lot of emotion; it’s one that countries want Turkey to
recognize. Turkey, of course, says it’s not the case. Even Barack Obama
here [in Turkey] sort of avoided the word. I wonder if there’s any
resolution that can be reached and in reaching that resolution are you
having to skew your relationship with Azerbaijan, which has been,
traditionally, the ally.

Answer of Ahmet Davutoglu: Of course first of all this issue is not a
political issue; it is a historical issue. We should discuss of course with
[an] open-minded approach. But we should not forget the historical
realities of early twentieth century. From 1911 until 1924, thirteen years,
Turkey was in war from Bosnia to Yemen, from Caucasia to Egypt and
Palestine. So all these events occurred and millions of Turks were killed
as well. So this is a historical fact. It should not hijack all the
political realities today and politicians who do not know anything about
this should not decide for that. And our relation with Azerbaijan is, of
course, very important and we will keep that relation. It’s a strategic
relation with Azerbaijan and we will protect this.

9008117936157828

FOR PRESENT, THREE OF SEVEN POLITICAL FORCES NOMINATED FOR YEREVAN COUNCIL OF ELDERS ELECTIONS FORM PREELECTION FUNDS

Noyan Tapan
Apr 30, 2009

YEREVAN, APRIL 30, NOYAN TAPAN. According to the official information
provided by the Central Bank of Armenia to the Central Electoral
Commission, as of April 28, the Bargavach Hayastan and Republican
Party of Armenia, the Armenian National Congress bloc had formed
preelection funds.

As Noyan Tapan correspondent was informed by CEC Spokesperson Tatev
Ohanian, in total, 28 million 389 thousand drams were transferred
to BH account, 1 million 300 thousand drams to RPA account, 170.5
thousand drams to ANC account.

YOUNG CLARINETIST NAREK HAROUTYUNYAN TO GIVE CONCERT IN CARNEGIE HALL

PanARMENIAN.Net
30.04.2009 17:53 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ 17-year-old clarinetist Narek Haroutyunyan , winner
of several international contests, will give a concert Carnegie
Hall together with Georgian pianist Loukoy Okrostsvorize and Russian
violinist Yuriy Revich.

The concert of three musicians, who are also winners of "Guzik"
foundation, will take place in one of the world’s most prestigious
concert halls within the frames of "Young Stars of New Era" project.

Despite his young age, Narek Haroutyunyan often plays in the orchestras
of Constantine Orbelyan, Vladimir Spivakov and Yuriy Bashment. He
has also given solo concerts in France, Italy and Switzerland.

Apr il 28, 2009
Saakavili’s "Order No. 2"
Georgian Plots?

By CONN HALLINAN

At the bottom of the recent demonstrations that have packed the
capital city of Tbilisi with tens of thousands of protesters demanding
the resignation of Georgian President Mikheil Saakavili is an
investigation by the European Union (EU) as to who started last
summer’s war between Georgia and Russia. According to a report in the
German newspaper Der Spiegel, `A secret document may prove that the
Georgian president had planned a war of aggression in South Ossetia.’

The Russians charge that Georgian troops launched a surprise attack on
South Ossetia last Aug. 7, while Saakavili claims that Georgia was
merely defending itself from an invasion by 150 Russian tanks through
the Roki Tunnel connecting South Ossetia with North Ossetia. The
latter is part of Russia.

But an investigation by the EU has uncovered `Order No. 2′ dated Aug.
7, that says that Georgia was not defending itself but acting to
`reestablish constitutional order’ in South Ossetia. The EU is
closely examining an Aug. 7 television interview in which Georgian
Gen. Mamuka Kurashjvili used just those words. President Saakavili
announced Aug. 8 that `Most of South Ossetia’s territory is
liberated.’ He did not claim that Georgia was acting in `self-defense’
until Aug. 11. By that time Russian troops had driven the Georgian
Army out of South Ossetia and were within 31 miles of Tbilisi. The war
lasted five days.

The general’s remarks, reports Der Spiegel, `indicate that Georgian
President Mikheil Saakashvili was not repelling `Russian aggression,’
as he continues to claim to this day, but was planning a war of
aggression.’

The EU commission questioned the Russian deputy head of the general
staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, who said that the Russians had intercepted
Order No. 2, and that it indeed contained the phrase about
reestablishing constitutional order. `If the order, which Russian
intelligence intercepted, is authentic, it would prove that
Saakashvili lied,’ says Der Spiegel.

The investigation found that Georgia had massed 12,000 troops and 75
tanks on the South Ossetian border for the Aug. 7 attack. The Russians
tanks did not transit the tunnel until Aug. 8. While the Commission is
also critical of the Russians for meddling in South Ossetia and not
preventing South Ossetians from destroying some Georgian villages,
`the EU investigation seems to be more of a problem for Tbilisi than
for Moscow,’ according to Der Spiegel.

The Georgians refuse to turn over Order No. 2 to the commission,
claiming it is a state secret. And Georgian Minister Temur
Yakobashvili charges that the investigation is being funded by Russian
gas giant, Gazprom. The commissioners , who reject the charges, are
Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, and former German ambassador to
Georgia, Uwe Schramm. Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
advises the commission.

`More and more former allies of Saakashvili are now blaming the
authoritarian president for the war and calling for his resignation,’
says Der Spiegel. Indeed, Nino Burjanadze, who helped lead the
revolution that put Saakashvili into office, and Irakli Alasania,
former Georgian ambassador to the United Nations, are leading the
opposition demonstrations.

So far, Saakashvili has not unleashed the police as he did in breaking
up similar rallies in 2007, but he arrested 10 opposition members on
the eve of the current demonstrations, accusing them of planning a
violent overthrow of the government. The charge is based on a secret
tape that records a man identified as a `coordinator’ for Burjanadze’s
Democratic Movement – United Georgia Party saying that the former
speaker is planning to provoke violence. Burjanadze denies knowing the
so-called `coordinator’ and says he has no position of authority in
her organization.

Saakashvili, who came to power in 2003, says he has no intention of
resigning and will finish out his term in 2013. But demonstrators say
they will not disperse until he steps down and calls an early
election.

The beleaguered president says he is willing to negotiate with the
opposition, however most the people camped out in front of the
Parliament say that the call for `talks’ is a ploy. `He says things
like this only for the U.S. and Europe,’ farmer Amiran Tsertskhladze
told The New York Times, `but no one here believes he really wants
dialogue.’

Sobering thought for the week: Only the opposition of Germany and
France kept the Bush Administration from adding Georgia to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) back in 2007. While the Obama
Administration is not currently pushing for Georgia to join the
alliance, the country’s membership is still on the agenda. Had Georgia
been a NATO member during the Russia-Georgia War, it would have
triggered Article 5 of the treaty requiring member states to come to
Georgia’s aid – and NATO might have been snookered into a war with
Russia.

Conn Hallinan can be reached at: [email protected]