Category: 2018

Baku, Azerbaijan, Nov. 9

By Fikret Dolukhanov – Trend:

“Reason says: the whole cannot be endangered because of the part, and, at a minimum, it is necessary to declare, loudly declare that we do not need these fields, that we are ready to return these lands for the sake of peace.”

The above line is from a translated fragment of the biographical novel of the acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan entitled “The Other Side of the Earth”, which became a bestseller in the country in 2018.

The excerpt was published under the same headline on the Armenian analytical portal “Voskanapat”.

Pashinyan, who became Prime Minister of Armenia as a result of the velvet revolution, who was sometimes considered a “protégé” of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, was remembered in 2015 for his claims to to return the occupied regions around Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

In 1997-1998, then-President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan proposed a plan to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, implying the demilitarization of the occupied territories and the return of a number of settlements to Azerbaijan.

As a result, Prime Minister Robert Kocharyan, Minister of Internal Affairs and National Security Serzh Sargsyan and Minister of Defense Vazgen Sargsyan, dissatisfied with such a plan, actually forced him to resign before the end of his Presidential tenure – February 3, 1998.

During the 2008 presidential election, Ter-Petrosyan, made an attempt to return to power, and as a result he gathered 21.5 percent of the votes and settled for the second place. Serzh Sargsyan, the protege of the incumbent President Robert Kocharyan, won the election.

The opposition, however, did not recognize the election results and accused the authorities of fraud. Thousands of people went out to the streets of Yerevan. The confrontation turned into unrest, during which 131 people were injured, eight of whom died from gunshot wounds. On the same day, Kocharyan announced the state of emergency for 20 days in Yerevan.

The mentioned political biographical novel “The Other Side of the Earth”, was published in parts in May-December 2008 in the “Haykakan Zhamanak” newspaper when Pashinyan was hiding.

The author describes in the book how he, allegedly, illegally left Armenia, since he was on the wanted list after the events of March 1, 2008. That is, the book was a direct result of the riots of 2008, when Pashinyan was still a supporter of Ter-Petrosyan. However, we assume that he still remains a supporter of Ter-Petrosyan.

As we see, Pashinyan, like Ter-Petrosyan, even then understood that the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is impossible without the return of Azerbaijani lands, about which, as it turns out, he even openly wrote.

So why did Pashinyan change his rhetoric after coming to power? Is the fact that the power struggle in the country, as the Turkish expert on the Caucasus Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu told Trend earlier, is being built around the Karabakh issue, and if someone tries to change the country’s position on this issue, then he can be dismissed from the government the next day?

As we remember, the US Ambassador Richard Mills, in an interview with the Armenian portal EVN Report, stated that Armenia would have to make compromises with Azerbaijan in order to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and expressed hope that the transition period which Armenia had entered would lead to a discussion of the options which the country has and the compromises which the country is ready for, because what he heard before was worrisome.

The topic of returning the lands has recently been heard and is being discussed more and more often in Armenia. Perhaps, instead of engaging in populism in order to preserve power, it is worthwhile to start preparing the people for the compromises that the country will have to make anyway?

—

Follow the author on Twitter: @FDolukhanov

Baku, Azerbaijan, Nov.9

By Leman Zeynalova – Trend:

Trend’s interview with Deputy Head of the Foreign Policy Affairs Department of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Hikmet Hajiyev.

Question: The outgoing week was intensive in terms of the country’s foreign policy and was full of numerous meetings of the head of state with foreign delegations.

Answer: The visits to the country during the week, and the meetings held by the head of state with foreign delegations once again showed dynamic, flexible and multilateral foreign policy of Azerbaijan.

Baku hosted a meeting of Palestinian ambassadors in Asian countries, and in this context, the head of state received a delegation led by Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki.

It should be noted that the Palestinian issue is one of the most pressing topics on the international agenda, and Azerbaijan is contributing to the solution of this issue and elimination of humanitarian problems of Palestinians. The head of state also met with a delegation led by the Minister of the Internal Affairs of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia doesn’t have any ties with Armenia due to the occupation and aggressive policy pursued by this country towards Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan is committed to Islamic solidarity and is making a significant contribution to its strengthening by taking effective steps.

Following the first security dialogue held between Azerbaijan and the EU in late October, the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus visited Azerbaijan and was received by President Ilham Aliyev.

The EU is one of the important partners of Azerbaijan, and, as one of the high-ranking EU representatives said, Azerbaijan is a country that pursues a stable, modern and moderate policy.

In other words, Azerbaijan is an important partner for the EU. Completion of work on a draft partnership agreement between Azerbaijan and the EU will give an additional impetus to the comprehensive development of cooperation.

During the meeting of the head of state with a delegation led by the head of the US Transportation Command, the sides discussed Azerbaijan’s contribution to NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan, transit and transport support provided to NATO member countries, and prospects for developing cooperation with the United States in various fields.

In a word, I can say that successful foreign policy activities are carried out under the leadership of the head of state and Azerbaijan’s partnership relations are constantly expanding in terms of geography and content.

Q: The tendency of further strengthening the country’s fair position on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict continues. All parties recognize the unacceptability of the status quo.

A: The unacceptability of the status quo was highlighted in the message of the heads of state of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries during the G8 summit in Deauville in 2011.

Recently, during a briefing of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, held at the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna, the United States and other delegations reiterated the unacceptability of the status quo.

It is clear that the status quo based on the occupation is unacceptable and should be changed. The change of the status quo envisages withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan’s position on the settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is based on the norms and principles of international law, resolutions of the UN Security Council and the Helsinki Final Act.

If we look at the period covering the last months, we can highlight the document on partnership priorities with the EU, the final declaration of the NATO Brussels Summit, the address of the Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany, US officials and the US ambassador to Armenia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, and the declarations adopted at the trilateral meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran, as well as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey in Istanbul.

Generally speaking, these declarations reflect support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and inviolability of the borders of Azerbaijan. These documents say that Nagorno-Karabakh is the territory of Azerbaijan and the conflict’s resolution requires withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories.

Support for the fair position of Azerbaijan first of all shows the commitment of states to obligations undertaken in accordance with the UN Charter.

Armenia should properly assess the situation and withdraw its troops from the territory of Azerbaijan. Only in this case it is possible to achieve progress in resolving the conflict and to ensure sustainable peace that the region needs.

Q: Several days ago, Astana hosted a summit of heads of state of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The summit ended with another failure for Armenia. Despite the wishes and claims of Armenia, the secretary general, who represented Armenia, was recalled from his post ahead of time. Armenia was trying to keep this post until 2020.

A: Naturally, this decision was made by the CSTO member states. Azerbaijan closely watched the CSTO summit. The documents signed at the end of the summit and the final declaration were taken into account. One of these documents is about the legal status of observer countries and partner countries.

As for Armenia, it is obvious that this country is isolated and cornered. It should be noted that Azerbaijan has very close friendship and partnership relations with all CSTO members, except for Armenia for well-known reasons. This cooperation continues to expand in bilateral and multilateral formats.

Baku, Azerbaijan, Nov. 9

By Fikret Dolukhanov – Trend:

Strategic height on the border of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and Armenia came under Azerbaijani control in August-September 2018, Researcher at the Australian Institute Masis Ingilizian said in his article published on open investigation portal Bellingcat.

Ingilizian also said that Azerbaijani armed forces are currently carrying out engineering works on the Nakhichevan border into what was once considered neutral territory. Satellite imagery reveals Azerbaijan has constructed new roads towards unmanned strategic points along the mountains, leading towards the frontline and Armenian positions.

According to him, Planet Labs’ satellite imagery of the region suggests that over the summer and early autumn of this year, Azerbaijan has moved troops into new positions along the mountain which oversees the Armenian first line of defence in the area and a vital Armenian military road (highlighted in yellow in the first satellite image).

When considering satellite imagery since May 2018, it becomes clear that Azerbaijan has shifted even closer to the unofficial demarcation line on the same roads that were being built around May of this year. Ingilizian noted that the mountain northwest of the Arpa River, which now connects to the aforementioned roads, was not fully taken by Azerbaijani forces in May 2018; however, fresh satellite imagery from Planet Labs showing new roads suggests that the mountain is now under Azerbaijan control.

Such a move, according to Ingilizian, could push Armenia off its first implemented line of defence due to increased vulnerability of its positions. In fact, one such post may have already been abandoned due to new Azerbaijani maneuvers (the eastern trench highlighted in red in the second satellite image). Such a turn of events would constitute a new threat in which a seized, neutral territory could pose a threat to Armenian infrastructure and settlements.

As a result of successful actions in May 2018, the village of Gunnut of the Sharur district and the strategic heights of Khunut (2,065 meters), Gyzylgaya (1,683 meters), and Mehridag (1,869 meters), located around the village, came under the control of Azerbaijani units.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts.

The 1994 ceasefire agreement was followed by peace negotiations. Armenia has not yet implemented four UN Security Council resolutions on withdrawal of its armed forces from the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding districts.

—

Follow the author on Twitter: @FDolukhanov

Baku, Azerbaijan, Nov. 10

By Matanat Nasibova & Fikret Dolukhanov – Trend:

Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) is introducing enhanced laboratory control in relation to products coming from the Armenian enterprises Hayr Ev Vordi Buniatyanner (Father and Son Buniatyan), Fishart LLC and Khayts Ishkhan LLC, the Russian agency said in an official statement.

The nitrofuran metabolites have been found in the products of Hayr Ev Vordi Buniatyanner, the message says. Yeast has been found in sturgeon roe made by Fishart and in salmon roe made by Khayts Ishkhan.

Interestingly, at the end of October, Rosselkhoznadzor already banned the import of products of Armenian company Food Ex in connection with detection of a combination of benzaldehyde green and leuco-benzaldehyde green in trout.

The ban on the import of Armenian products into Russia is introduced not for the first time. Similar measures to prevent imports from Armenia were taken by Rosselkhoznadzor in previous years. For example, a ban was imposed on the import of dairy and meat products from Armenia in 2015 due to the unstable epizootic situation in Armenia, as well as the high risk of bringing especially dangerous animal diseases into Russia.

Later, in 2016, due to the unstable epizootic situation of hand-foot-and-mouth disease in Armenia, as well as due to the high risk of bringing the causative agent of this disease into the territory of Russia, Rosselkhoznadzor reintroduced restrictions on meat and dairy products from Armenia.

In May 2018, in connection with the discovery of quarantine organisms in Armenian tomatoes and cucumbers, the quarantine phytosanitary control of crops coming from Armenia was also strengthened. This decision was made after detection of two types of quarantine organisms: miner moth on tomatoes and western (Californian) flower thrips on cucumbers. All agricultural products were returned back to Armenia.

Commenting on the November decision of Rosselkhoznadzor, Russian expert Dmitry Verkhoturov told Trend that this is a normal procedure introduced in the event if products do not meet sanitary standards, that is, they are potentially dangerous to the health of consumers.

“As for nitrofuran metabolites found in products [all listed companies are related to fish production and fish processing], these are most likely the residues of the nitrofurans that are sometimes used in animal husbandry and fish farming as feed additives and growth stimulants. I think the Armenian companies have tried so hard to get as many products as possible and as quickly as possible that they overdid with this additive. These compounds are really quite dangerous, and the food products containing such compounds even in small quantities, are not comestible,” the Russian expert explained.

He noted that the restrictions are imposed according to results of the tests conducted by the laboratories that are politically neutral.

However, has the agency indeed simply prohibited the import of products from unscrupulous manufacturers without any political motivation?

In November 2015, the Turkish armed forces shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber in the skies over Syria. One of the pilots died during ejection, the second Russian soldier died in the course of a rescue operation.

Immediately after the incident, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the events a “stab in the back.” A few days later, Moscow announced economic measures against Ankara. On December 1, the charter flights to Turkey were banned, the visa free travel was lifted, restrictions were imposed on Turkish companies’ commercial activity in the territory of Russia, and the work of the intergovernmental commission for trade and economic cooperation was suspended.

As a result, on January 1, 2016, Rosselkhoznadzor imposed a ban on the import into Russia of Turkish products of 17 titles, including fruits, vegetables, flowers and salt. An embargo was also introduced on tomatoes, which were the main article of Turkish vegetable export to Russia (until January 1, 2016, Turkey exported 360,000 tons of tomatoes to Russia). Bilateral trade between the two countries declined sharply from $31.6 billion in 2014 to $15.84 billion in 2016.

Two years later, amid a thaw in relations, Rosselkhoznadzor allowed from May 1, 2018 the import into the territory of Russia of Turkish tomatoes without restrictions on individual enterprises. As we see, the ban was a purely political decision that had nothing to do with a quarantine or other purely environmental issues.

Another significant development occurred when President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko declared in April 2018 that Russia is unleashing trade wars by prohibiting the supply of certain Belarus goods to the Russian territory. In April, Minister of Agriculture of Russia Alexander Tkachev recommended Belarus to look for new sales markets for its milk, since the Russian authorities intend to fill the domestic market with domestic products by 90 percent. Rosselkhoznadzor also imposed a temporary ban on deliveries of live pigs and pig-breeding products from Belarus to Russia in connection with detection of African swine fever.

A rhetorical question: why did African swine fever appear in the meat from Belarus right after Tkachev’s statement?

Political scientist Valery Karbalevich in this regard believes that Russia is violating the rules of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) – which also includes Armenia – suggesting the free movement of goods, capital and labor. And although the conflict over the supply of the Belarus dairy products to the Russian market is closed, the case, according to Karbalevich, has not gone anywhere, since this has already occurred repeatedly.

Thus, Rosselkhoznadzor has openly become a political tool far from food security and environmental considerations. So, perhaps, the ban on the import of products from Armenia is also a part of this political mechanism, under which Moscow is taking preventive measures so that the officials in Yerevan do not question relations with Russia against the backdrop of the US claims.

The Georgian political expert Gela Vasadze told Trend that the logic of the Russian authorities in this case is not entirely clear.

“We all know perfectly well that Rosselkhoznadzor has long been an instrument of Russian foreign policy. In 2006, the agency, for example, imposed sanctions against Georgia, after which the Russian leadership has been actively using this tool in foreign policy. But this case is somewhat strange. The current leadership of Armenia has done nothing in word or deed that could put a question mark against relations with Russia,” Vasadze said.

He said although the stories about the arrest of the ex-President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan and the investigation in regard to CSTO Secretary General Yury Khachaturov are internal Armenian problems, the Kremlin used them to demonstrate its influence. The expert noted that the imposition of a ban on Armenian products could be needed by Russia either for some serious business interests, or as a topic for further bargaining with Yerevan.

What is happening in the relations of Armenia with Russia? The current Armenian leadership, headed by the Acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, from the very beginning of its coming to power assured Moscow of preserving the old political orientation. However, from the very beginning, certain minor hiccups appear here and there, which more and more often lead outside observers to the idea that a black kitten if not a big black cat ran between Yerevan and Moscow.

For a start, the very coming to power of Pashinyan as a result of a revolution was met in Moscow quite ambiguously. Some experts immediately said the new prime minister was a protégé of the West. A lot of questions also arouse by the recent visit of the US President’s Adviser for National Security John Bolton, during which he declared the superiority of American weapons over Russian ones, after which Pashinyan answered in absentia that, if necessary, Armenia could start acquiring the US weapons. And although a series of refutations rained down after this, such a situation caused a rather nervous and verbose reaction of the Kremlin.

In December, an extraordinary parliamentary election is expected in Armenia, through which the new political forces in the country intend to gain a foothold in the leadership. And only time will tell what steps follow from here on – whether Yerevan will continue to try to keep a foot in both camps, tacking between Moscow and Washington, and whether Rosselkhoznadzor will not ban any other products from Armenia after that.

—

Matanat Nasibova & Fikret Dolukhanov, Trend commentators

Follow Fikret Dolukhanov on Twitter: @FDolukhanov