Category: News

Armenian Chief of Staff meets US military officials in Washington
Mediamax news agency
9 Nov 04
Yerevan, 9 November: The chief of the General Staff of the Armenian
armed forces, Col-Gen Mikael Arutyunyan, has met the chairman of the US
Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Richard Myers, in Washington.
The Armenian Defence Ministry’s information department has told
Mediamax news agency that Mikael Arutyunyan was on a visit to the
USA between 31 October and 5 November at Richard Myers’ invitation.
During the visit, the chief of the General Staff of the Armenian armed
forces held meetings at the US Combined Forces Command, the US Central
Command in Tampa and NATO’s Supreme Allied Command Transformation
in Norfolk.
Military cooperation, peacekeeping, Armenia’s participation in events
within the framework of NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme were
discussed at the meetings.

Azeri leader not averse to Armenian MPs’ visit to Baku – TV
Lider TV, Baku
9 Nov 04
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has said that he is not averse to
Armenian MPs’ visit to Baku to attend the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s
Rose-Roth seminar on 26-28 November, Azerbaijani Lider TV has reported.
“If we do not hold this seminar because of Armenians, this will
not be in Azerbaijan’s interests,” a Lider TV correspondent quoted
Aliyev as saying during his trip to the country’s southern districts
on 9 November.

Tajikistan, Armenia owe Russia millions for border protection, say auditors
ITAR-TASS news agency
9 Nov 04
Moscow, 9 November: A meeting of the board of the Audit Chamber
of the Russian Federation has examined the results of a check into
the use of federal assets and funds allocated to the Russian FSB’s
[Federal Security Service] Border Service for its directorates in
Tajikistan and Armenia.
The Audit Chamber’s information department told an ITAR-TASS
correspondent today that, according to the findings, there are still
“questions connected with the co-financing of the border directorates
by the host countries”.
“During the first half-year the shortfall in Tajikistan’s financing
of Russian border guards was over R263m, and almost R3.2m in the case
of Armenia,” the information department noted.
During the discussions at the board meeting it was also noted that,
because the border directorates are not registered as corporate
bodies in the Russian Federation [RF], Tajikistan or Armenia, there
are social problems and property issues connected, for example, with
the pensionable service of civilian personnel with RF citizenship
who have moved to take up permanent residence in Russia.
The board of the Audit Chamber decided to send representations
over these questions to the Finance Ministry and the FSB’s Border
Service. It will also write a letter to the government to inform it
of the situation and send reports on the findings of the check to
the chambers of the Federal Assembly, the Audit Chamber’s information
department said.

THE END JUSTIFIED THE MEANS
A1+
09-11-2004
Armenian Progressive Party and United Communist Party staged a protest
action on Tuesday against giving ArmenTel monopoly on IP telephony.
The protest action participants carried banners with “we demand
high-quality communication” written on them. They burned a huge
pasteboard telephone. Arshak Sadoyan, a devoted opposition activist
and MP was invited to the event.
Progressive Party’s deputy chair Sargis Harutyunyan was constantly
barring journalists from asking Sadoyan questions while protest was
under way. Sadoyan reacted angrily to Harutyunyan’s conduct. “If you
invited me, let me speak”, he said.
As it became clear later, the only aim of the action was to pursue
Sadoyan to reveal the name of a member of the cabinet ministers who
had been given a $7-million bribe by ArmenTel for retaining its sole
right to provide communication.
The opposition MP recently made the allegation without giving the
name of the bribe-taker.
The young provocateur’s instigation produced wanted effect. Using
pressure, he forced Sadoyan to name the corrupted minister. The
latter’s name was David Harutyunyan.
After extracting the stunning revelation from the opposition activist,
Sargis Harutyunyan said if Sadoyan doesn’t present convincing evidence
confirming his allegation before the end of the week, he will be
prosecuted for his libelous statement.
It is remarkable that both Progressive and Communist Parties have
supported current president Robert Kocharyan’s candidacy during the
2003 presidential elections.
Sadoyan admitted that the action initiators had accomplished a great
deal in carrying out their plan.
After the goal was achieved by using dishonest means, Harutyunyan
called on the action participants to go home.
The head of the party, Tigran Urikhanyan, was absent from the event
because of “health problems”.

09 November 2004,
Turkish Daily News
Editorial
Mehmet Ali Birand
Is the door to Armenia being opened?
Turkey received a very interesting report from Yerevan last weekend.
The Armenian government, led by Robert Kocharyan, in its budget
proposal sent to the Armenian Parliament noted that, “The recognition
of the Armenian genocide by Turkey is not the government’s primary
foreign policy objective.” The government said the repair of relations
with Turkey was a priority.
If Kocharyan intends to implement such a serious policy shift, it
will soon become apparent. Policies implemented will show whether
this policy shift is sincere or just a false gesture.
I know Armenia and Kocharyan. The word “genocide” is such a mystical
and accepted concept that no matter how much we refute or try to
disprove it, we will not eradicate this belief. For an Armenian,
the word “genocide” will always remain in their national psyche.
For Turkey, it is just the opposite.
Genocide is unacceptable. No matter how much pressure they put on us,
no matter what the European Union tells us, a Turk will never accept
it. Blood was spilt on both sides. Unspeakable horrors were committed
and shameful things happened. We might exchange apologies because of
what happened, but never recognize “genocide.”
Armenia is a small and poor neighbor of ours. Turkey is a giant
knocking on the EU’s door. Should these two countries continue to
wage this genocide battle and always remain enemies? Or should both
sides preserve their beliefs, let the genocide issue drop from the
top of the agenda and try to find ways to mend bilateral relations?
Turkey has made a number of gestures in this respect.
When Turgut Ozal was prime minister, the Kars border crossing was
about to be opened. The Armenian invasion of Azerbaijan prevented
this from happening. When Suleyman Demirel was prime minister, he came
very close to signing a deal with the former Armenian President Levon
TerPetrosyan. These meetings, in which even the Nationalist Movement
Party (MHP) leader Alparslan Turkes took part, the motivation was
always, “Let’s freeze the past and look at today.”
Each time, it was the Armenians that withdrew. For Yerivan, the
priority always remained with the insistence of the Diaspora making
Turkey recognize the “genocide.”
Armenia, meanwhile, is trying to survive in its small world, isolated
from everywhere. Despite the fact that its only door to the West is
Turkey, it persists in following an impossible dream.
The news from Yerevan made me ask myself if this was a sincere policy
change. If true, we can say that this could be an historic turning
point for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey.
Kocharyan is in a position to make this happen. He should not miss
this opportunity.

Manoyan: Any shift in the US policy toward Armenia would be a positive one
Yerkir/arm
November 05, 2004
“Concerns that the US would adopt a negative policy toward Armenia
because the Armenian National Committee of America and the Armenian
political parties of the United States supported Sen. Kerry in the
presidential election, are baseless,” Kiro Manoyan, ARF Bureau’s Hay
Dat and Political Office director said, according to an Armenpress
report.
Manoyan added that in the United States supporting one of the
candidates does not result in hostilities. “I believe any shift in
the US policy toward Armenia would be a positive one because the sides
saw the activism of the ANCA and the Armenian community and will try
to please them.”
Meanwhile, in US Congress election, held along with the presidential
election, ANCA supported 202 candidates â~@~S both Republican and
Democrat â~@~S and 158 of them were elected.
As for the ANCA’s plans with the new administration, Manoyan said that
the goals are defined based on the organization’s mission. “The issues
have not changed: to enhance Armenian-American relations, ensure US
support for strengthening Armenia, ensure a positive stance of the US
toward the Artsakh issue, recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This
is our agenda regardless who is in office.”
When asked doesn’t Bush’s victory indicate that he was not going
to recognize the Armenian Genocide in the next four years, Manoyan
noted that before the previous election, Bush promised to recognize
the Armenian Genocide but he didn’t.
So, Manoyan said, it made no sense to give such a promise again; all
the Armenian community has to do now is to pursue that the Genocide
issue, as well as other Armenia-related issues be considered by the
Bush administration more seriously.
–Boundary_(ID_b37f54b03Pn5HsNF6z6zXQ)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

‘Where has all the money gone?
By Jean Christou
Cyprus Mail
Nov 10 2004
Legal battle brews to save the Melkonian from closure
THE GREAT, great nephew of the two founders of the Melkonian
Educational Institute (MEI) is in Cyprus to join the fight to save
the 78-year old school founded by members of his family.
MEI is under threat of closure from June 2005, after the Armenian
General Benevolent Union (AGBU), which administers Armenian schools all
over the world, decided the loss-making school should close finally.
The move has prompted outrage amongst the Armenian community in
Cyprus and abroad, which suspects financial motives on the part of
the AGBU as the MEI is sitting on an estimated £40 million worth of
commercial property.
Swiss-based businessman Jack Melkonian has decided to join in the
legal battle to save the school and questions the motives of the AGBU.
“I am very concerned about what his happening because this was
a donation made by our family. It was a long time ago — three
generations back — but nevertheless as a family we are concerned
because there have been a lot of rumours. I have come here to see
with my own eyes to see what is happening,” he told the Cyprus Mail
in an interview yesterday.
“I have talked to the children and the parents and support a
fundraising for eventual legal costs that may occur. We may have to
engage lawyers for the simple reason it is a very complicated matter
and obviously this is going to cost money because we have to talk to
legal experts.”
Melkonian, who was last here three years ago to mark the school’s
75th anniversary said he was rather shocked during this visit to see
how the monument to his great-great uncles has been neglected.
It was his great-great uncle Garabed, who died in Cyprus in 1934 who
made the donation that allows the school to exist.
Melkonian said his family has a copy of a deed which clearly states
that a trust should be set up, the proceeds of which were to keep
the school going
“There is no mention in that deed that the school should not exist.
In fact my great-great uncle was rather concerned that the school
stay open. The amount donated at that time corresponded to the budget
of Luxembourg. It was a very large amount of money so if it had been
set up as a trust, the interest should have covered the expenses of
the school,” he said.
“It also says clearly that if for any reason the AGBU cannot take care
of the school or that the AGBU closes down, that this fund should
be transferred to another institution that could take care of the
school which in my opinion clearly says that the continuity of this
school was very much an issue. These are the two issues that are of
particular concern to us.”
Melkonian said he has approached the AGBU on several occasions and
written to each member of the board individually. He said he was told
that they possess another document, which cancels out the wishes of
Garabed Melkonian. It’s a document, he said, nobody else seems to
have seen. He has asked for a copy of the document before travelling
to New York at the invitation of the AGBU, but so far it has not been
forthcoming, he said. “The AGBU boils down to an financial institution
run by what I call civil servants because they are there to serve the
Armenian community and not to play the money on the stock exchange
and whatever,” he said.
“I have nothing against the AGBU as an organisation, it is wonderful.
We have great esteem for it but we are more concerned about the people
who are running the AGBU at the moment who have taken this decision.”
Melkonian said his family was puzzled over the trust fund that was
designed to support the school. “Even if the money has been exhausted,
the school and the land are still here and there are a number of
members of the Armenian community that are willing to support the
school to set up a new fund. There is also an income from the business
centre on the land. The revenue of that centre is almost half the
running costs of the school.
“That money seems to flow to the States and we don’t really know what
they are doing with it. They are claiming the maintenance of the school
costs them £1.2 million of which already half should be covered from
this. There is still $4.5 million from what was donated originally so
we think there is no need to close this school for financial reasons,”
he added.
Melkonian said he is also disturbed by the way the parents and children
have been intimidated by people that the AGBU has engaged in Cyprus
to ensure the school’s closure.
“We had a meeting there on Sunday, which is not a school day, and
they prohibited the children from attending,” he said. “All this is
extremely disturbing.”
He said he has asked the AGBU to find an alternative to closing the
school such as restructuring to make it viable to attract Armenian
students from Moscow, where around one million Armenians live without
access to an Armenian education. He said some interest had already been
expressed by Armenians in Russia in sending their children to Cyprus.
“Some homework is necessary on the part of the AGBU but I understand
that in New York that they are not equipped for that. They are not
even equipped to make sure that this place is being kept tidily. I was
very shocked. I saw the house where my great uncle lived completely
neglected with garbage in the garden,” Melkonian said.
“I finally came to the conclusion that in New York what matters is the
balance sheet and we don’t know what that says. They will never show
it to anybody. There is no transparency within that organisation. I
also feel there is a lot of nepotism and people are being appointed
to the board who are there because they are related to one or the
others so I am questioning not only what is happening here but in
general the way this is being done in New York and I think a lot of
Armenians feel the same way.”
Melkonian said the AGBU seemed to have forgotten that although it is
supposed to be a financial organisation, it is also supposed to have
a human side and questioned how such a far-reaching decision as the
closure of the MEI could have been taken by a mere handful of people.
“There are other Armenian schools but none like this one,” he said.
“The Melkonian is a monument to 20th century Armenian history. It
took 78 years to build it up and it’s being destroyed within one year,
which is a great mistake. With a little work the school can be saved.”
–Boundary_(ID_OZ7nZxTUE308I9+D4DfELA)–

European Bank Report Finds Former Soviet Oil Economies Booming
By Mark Baker, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
Nov 10 2004
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) this
week confirmed what many in Russia, Ukraine, and Central Asia had
already suspected — their economies are booming. In its annual
Transition Report, released yesterday, the bank said higher oil and
other commodity prices are fueling skyrocketing annual growth for
many countries. In fact, the former Soviet Union is now the world’s
second-fastest-growing region in the world — behind only China and
neighboring countries in Asia. But the high prices won’t last forever.
Prague, 9 November 2004 (RFE/RL) — Willem Buiter, the EBRD’s chief
economist, said that from an economic standpoint, Russia and the
countries of the former Soviet Union have never had it so good.
Speaking to RFE/RL today from the bank’s headquarters in London,
Buiter said that with oil prices at around $50 a barrel and prices
of other commodities soaring, growth in the former Soviet Union could
reach 7 to 8 percent next year:
“Oil and gas prices are dragging Russia itself and Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan merrily along with them — and strong
cotton prices [as well],” Buiter said. “Gold prices do the same for
Kyrgyzstan, and for aluminum it’s Tajikistan. So we have a range
of very favorable international conditions. Not only are the prices
[of their commodity exports] higher, but also for their noncommodity
exports, there’s buoyant demand.”
The bank’s Transition Report — issued each November — is viewed as
a scorecard for the postcommunist countries in Europe and the former
Soviet Union the bank was established to help. The report forecasts
economic growth in each of the countries and also evaluates them on
reform efforts.
Buiter said, however, that while growth rates are rising, progress
in implementing reforms — things like simplifying tax codes and
cracking down on corruption — is lagging. In countries from Russia
through Central Asia and Ukraine, he said there was relatively little
effort made at reform in the past year.
There might even be an inverse relationship between oil wealth and
reform — meaning that the more natural wealth a country possesses, the
less pressure the authorities there feel to implement positive changes.
“The main consequence of nature’s largesse seems to be a slowdown
in reform efforts,” Buiter said. “Basically, easy growth and easy
government revenues from taxation and royalties make the sense of
urgency felt by the authorities to pursue reform less acute. So,
if anything, I think this commodity boom is slowing down reform.”
Buiter cited Kyrgyzstan as an exception. In this year’s report,
Kyrgyzstan was praised for introducing economic reforms the EBRD says
will serve them well in the future: “The main things that they’ve
done right [in Kyrgyzstan] is that they liberalized quite [a lot].
There was progress in structural reforms. They privatized the Kumtor
gold mine, which accounts for 10 percent of [the size of the Kyrgyz
economy] on its own. They have taken steps to enhance open transparency
in businesses. They adopted an anti-corruption law in March [2003].”
The report says that even in oil- or commodity-poor states — like
Armenia and Georgia — economies are growing in step with regional
growth. But Buiter said in these countries, successful reform efforts
are important to ensure continued growth.
“Reform, reform, reform. And implement the reforms. Don’t just pass
the laws. Anybody — or nearly anybody — can do that. Implement
on the ground. And in order to implement with the limited public
administration capacity you have, you have to keep it simple,”
Buiter said.
The EBRD is relatively active in all but two formerly communist
countries — Belarus and Turkmenistan.
Buiter said the past year simply brought more of the same misery to
both countries.
He listed Turkmenistan’s many problems: “[The] total lack of reform.
The frightening backwardness of the public administration. In the
case of Turkmenistan, the destruction of its human capital by its
dismantling of serious higher education, and indeed undermining even
secondary education, makes one worry greatly about the future of
the country.”
And he said Belarus doesn’t fare any better: “They had a fraudulent
[referendum recently], and the country is moving steadily away from
the canons of democratic and transparent pluralist societies that our
bank is supposed to support and work in. Belarus and Turkmenistan
are the two worst cases in our bank’s portfolio. One really feels
for the people of these countries who have to live through these very
difficult times.”
Neither Belarus nor Turkmenistan meets the EBRD’s democratic standards
as spelled out in its charter, and the bank has had to greatly reduce
its lending and support activities in those two countries.

Balkanalysis.com, AZ
Nov 10 2004
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Infighting Dominate Political Agenda (Part 1)
Posted on Saturday, February 28 @ 12:15:00 EST by balkanalysis
C Deliso writes ” Eurasianet.org reports that talks between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed province of Nagorno-Karabakh
have ground to a halt. Speaking at a conference in Geneva, Armenian
representatives “…flatly rejected Baku’s recent suggestion to restart
the process ‘from scratch,’ according to Armenian journalist Emil
Danielyan.
In addition, says Danielyan, “…Armenian leaders have threatened to
freeze direct contacts with Azerbaijan if Baku refuses to revive
agreements reportedly reached by the two countries three years ago.”
This is in reference to a supposed deal reached in Key West, Florida
by Armenian president Robert Kocharian and his late counterpart,
Heydar Aliyev.
This echoed Interfax’s report of 18 February, quoting Kocharian as
ruling out restarting talks “from scratch:”
“…over the years, we have invested significant efforts in laying the
groundwork for resolving the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict… I will not
throw away that effort.
…I do not think that the Azerbaijani president opposes any changes
but in the 10 years of peace, a situation has emerged in which the
two sides are reconciled to facts, so a change of the status quo is
more dangerous than maintaining it.”
Brief history of Nagorno-Karabakh
An almost kidney-shaped, mountainous area within Azerbaijan but
populated by an Armenian majority, Nagorno (‘Upper’) Karabakh has
been the subject of contentious dispute for many generations.
Somewhat like Bosnia, it was a Christian region partially Islamicized
by the Turks. In the 11th century, the low-lying eastern parts of the
Christian province fell to the Seljuk Turks, who left the mark of
religion and language on people who were “the direct descendents of
present-day Azerbaijanis,” according to Armenian-American scholar
Ronald Grigor Suny.
Through the many centuries of different empires that ruled in the
Caucasus, Nagorno-Karabakh changed hands several times but, says
Suny, “semi-independent Armenian princes” ruled there until the early
19th century, when the Russian Tzar annexed the region from Iran.
A century later, with the coming of the Russian Revolution, the
Armenian-dominated province tried to reunify with Soviet Armenia, but
the Turkish-supported Azerbaijanis forced them to remain part of
Azerbaijan. The communist Kavbiuro promised in 1920 to return the
region to Armenia, and resolved to do so on 3 July 1921. However,
“…mysteriously, two days later, the bureau reversed itself
‘considering the necessity of national harmony between Muslims and
Armenians, the economic linkage between upper and lower Karabagh, and
its permanent ties to Azerbaijan.”
Stalin had already found it useful for his greater Soviet strategy to
preserve this localized enmity, thus preventing either Armenia or
Azerbaijan from becoming too powerful or independent. Suny adds,
“…For sixty years Karabagh remained an enclave within Azerbaijan, an
anomaly in the Soviet system- the only autonomous national region
with a majority that was of the same ethnicity as a neighboring
Soviet republic yet was not permitted to join that republic.
Discontent with Azerbaijani rule grew, as discrimination against
Armenian language, culture, and contacts with Soviet Armenia became a
persistent practice. Armenians believed that Azerbaijan preferred to
invest economically in regions where its own nationality were a
majority rather than in Karabagh where 75 to 80 percent of the
population was Armenian.
…The city of Shusha, once an Armenian cultural center, became almost
entirely Azerbaijani. In 1959 Armenians made up 84.4 percent of
Karabagh’s population. Twenty years later they were just under 76
percent.” (pp. 194-5)
After Stalin’s death, nationalist ferment increased among Armenian
politicians, intellectuals and the people. This phenomenon was
mirrored in Azerbaijan. Both sides have long lists of grievances
detailing the murders, perfidy and general transgressions allegedly
carried out by the other side.
As could have been expected, the demise of the Soviet Union saw the
explosion of this long-suppressed, localized cold war. The rekindled
national zeal of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis led to open fighting
in 1992, which raged for two years, resulting in additional
grievances for the list-keepers.
According to Baku, 700,000 Azerbaijanis were forced to leave their
homes in Nagorno-Karabakh because of the war, as were 300,000 ethnic
Azerbaijanis then living in Armenia proper. Yet this had been
preceded by the expulsion of up to 300,000 ethnic Armenians from
Azerbaijan from 1988-90, when re-unification desires began to
intensify.
The current state of play
An international mediating committee called the Minsk Group, headed
by France, the United States and Russia, was set up in 1995. Yet
Nagorno-Karabakh is quite possibly one of the region’s great
unresolvable issues. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan consider the area
their historically rightful property, the former because they have
always lived there and the latter because their co-religionists, the
Turks and Iranians, ruled over the area for long periods.
Now, Azerbaijan is indignant because of alleged Armenian violations
of cease-fire agreements. For their part, Armenians are especially
incensed because of apparent Azerbaijani greed. Azerbaijan already
has official ownership of the Nakhichevan province, an
Azerbaijani-majority area on Armenia’s border with Iran- and one
completely cut off from any physical connection with Azerbaijan, a
situation comparable only to Russia’s ownership of the similarly
geographically estranged city of Kaliningrad. There is a sentiment
that due to this reality Armenia has already given away far too much-
especially considering the much earlier loss of the majority of its
historical territories to the Turkish state.
While the situation remains unresolved, Armenia feels it now has the
upper hand in Nagorno-Karabakh. The province is largely free of
Baku’s interference. Armenia also claims that a nearly-finalized deal
between the two countries, made by Kocharian and the late President
Aliyev, should be honored.
Key West: the agreement that almost was
According to Eurasianet’s Emil Danielyan, Armenia and Azerbaijan
“…have engaged in lots of political maneuvering in early 2004. Aliyev
and other leaders in Baku complained that existing Minsk Group
proposals fail to ensure that Karabakh would remain part of
Azerbaijan, going on to accuse the international community of tacitly
wanting to reward ‘Armenian aggression.’
Armenian officials, in turn, have repeated their claim that Karabakh
is now an ‘integral part’ of Armenia. ‘Our aim is to win
international recognition of the aforesaid, but it is difficult to
say when we will achieve this,’ Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian told
Yerevan TV on February 12. Armenian insists the only way to break the
existing impasse is to return to the agreement reportedly reached by
Kocharian and Ilham’s late father and predecessor, Heidar Aliyev,
during April 2001 talks on the Florida resort island of Key West.”
The reason Armenia will not consider returning to negotiations ‘from
scratch’ is that they believe Key West constituted a breakthrough,
and one that should be honored as final:
“Armenian officials say the Key West framework would effectively
transfer Karabakh to Armenia in return for Armenia’s withdrawal from
occupied territories in Azerbaijani proper. Armenia would also have
to guarantee unfettered transport and communication — and possibly
open a permanent land corridor — between the Nakhichevan exclave and
the rest of Azerbaijan. According to the chief US negotiator on
Karabakh, Rudolf Perina, the parties were ‘incredibly close’ to a
deal. ‘The issues of principle have been decided, and what is left
are technical differences,’ Perina told a conference in Washington in
May 2002.
In the aftermath of the Key West talks, according to the Armenian
version of events, Heider Aliyev suddenly and without explanation
backed away from the agreement. Today, Baku maintains no formal deal
ever existed. Azerbaijan’s presidential Chief of Staff, Novruz
Mammadov, said during a live video link between Baku and Yerevan on
February 13 that ‘there is no {Key West agreement] and there cannot
be any such document.'”
Despite the affirmation of the negotiations by American
representative Perina, Baku denies that an agreement was ever
reached. Instead, claimed Azerbaijani Presidential Chief of Staff
Novruz Mammadov Friday, “…certain people thought they could impose
some ideas on us, but we rejected them at once.”
Baku argues that Washington actually favors its own side: right now,
Azerbaijan is making hay of this year’s US State Department February
25 report on human rights, claiming that it supports its position
over Nagorno-Karabakh:
“…as usual, the Department of State recognized the continuing
aggression of Armenian against Azerbaijan.
…In the Report on human rights, it is noted that occupation of the
Azerbaijan territories is one of the major factors impeding
democratic and economic development of Azerbaijan. Further, it is
noted that the repeated violation by the Armenians in 2003 of the
ceasefire regime led to death of the civilians and militaries.”
Despite stepped up diplomatic efforts from the internationals,
prospects for peace remain distant. The young and untested
Azerbaijani president is more concerned with issues like the economy.
Recent provocations have not helped, either.
For example, Baku gleefully reported recently that its spy rings in
Yerevan have yet to be cracked:
“‘…Not a single agent of [Azerbaijani] Ministry of National Security
has ever been found in Armenia. This network is still functioning,’
Azerbaijani Minister of National Security Namiq Abbasov told
reporters. The minister didn’t rule out the possibility that the arch
foe neighbor, Armenia, also has infiltrated spies into Azerbaijan,
but said those spies would be gradually found out.”
Abbasov’s comments came in reaction to the recent Armenian
announcement that 5 Russian nationals had been arrested in Yerevan,
and charged with betraying military secrets to the Azerbaijanis.
Most galling for the Armenians, however, was the perceived
‘heroicization’ of an Azerbaijani soldier who hacked to death an
Armenian colleague on 19 February- ironically, at a NATO ‘Partnership
for Peace’ conference in Hungary. Emil Danielyan relays that for the
Yerevan daily ‘Aravot,’ “…this is a political murder provoked by that
country’s government which has been pursuing a policy of hatred
towards Armenians and filling Azerbaijani hearts with hostility.”
;file=article&sid=273
–Boundary_(ID_QiAWJvN3+K9gz9ggZCypxA)–

Balkanalysis.com, AZ
Nov 10 2004
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Infighting Dominate Political Agenda (Part
2)
Posted on Sunday, February 29 @ 09:00:00 EST by balkanalysis
CDeliso writes “Political infighting between Armenian coalition
parties have intensified during the past month, as have threats from
the opposition, just as talks for a final solution over
Nagorno-Karabakh broke down on Friday in Geneva (see part 1 of our
Armenia special report).
As usual, corruption charges have proven the easiest ‘in’ for the
politically disenfranchised. Pro-establishment vehicles such as
RFE/RL have spilled plenty of ink on championing the issue.
Two weeks ago, opposition parties demanded the resignation of
President Robert Kocharian, making the ridiculously derivative
prediction of a ‘revolution of white carnations.’ This florid prose
alludes directly to Georgia’s recent ‘revolution of roses,’ a
Soros-backed adventure which saw the mysterious importing of
thousands of roses for publicity’s sake, during a season when they
could not possibly be grown locally. So much for the spontaneous
uprising of the people. The Armenian opposition had better wait ’til
spring- or hope that FTD can deliver.
The flower power pronouncement came from Aram Karapetian, leader of
the ‘New Times’ oppositionist party on 12 February. Karapetian’s
party, together with the National Unity Party are boycotting
parliament. The speaker was, however, a little on the vague side,
prophesying that “…the president will announce his resignation on
television. The change of power could take place within the next few
days or in a year from now.”
Not only that, reports Eurasianet.org, but Kocharian’s own coalition
partners are accusing his party of “massive vote fraud” in last
summer’s parliamentary elections. According to the article, the
broadside was fired by Hrant Markarian, a leader of the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (ARF, or Dashnaktsutiun) at a party
conference:
“…In his speech, repeatedly interrupted by rapturous applause from
delegates, Markarian also expressed dissatisfaction with the
Kocharian administration’s record, pointing to rampant corruption and
the ‘deepening social polarization’ of Armenia’s population. He went
on to accuse Kocharian of having ‘tolerated the triumph of corruption
and injustice,’ adding that the president lacked the will to rein in
business tycoons and ‘other apolitical elements.'”
The chief targets of this criticism- Prime Minister Andranik
Markarian’s Republican Party (HHK) and Parliament Speaker Artur
Baghdasarian’s Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) Party- made no
official responses right away, but augured retaliation. Said HHK
parliamentary leader Galust Sahakian in a newspaper interview:
“…If it turns out that the accusations contained in Hrant Markarian’s
speech are the official opinion of Dashnaktsutiun, then that opinion
could lead to quite serious consequences.”
The report suggests that, corruption and fraud aside, more
fundamental differences lay behind Dashnaktsutiun’s frustration.
Unlike this historically nationalist party, the president “…does not
subscribe to the ARF leader’s calls for neighboring Georgia to grant
autonomous status to its Armenian-populated Javakheti region.” And,
unlike the ARF, Kocharian is in favor of normalizing relations with
traditional foe Turkey. While the nationalists demand Turkey must
first officially recognize the 1915 killings of 1.5 million Armenians
by the Ottomans as genocide, Kocharian and his party do not. They are
aware that winning such a symbolic concession from Turkey is
extremely unlikely, to say the least, and hope that a formal
rapprochement will re-open borders shut by Turkey in 1993. The Turks
blockaded the border after the 1992-1994 war broke out between Muslim
ally Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, in the opinion of Eurasinet.org’s Emil Danielyan, the
initially cautious reaction from Kocharian to Markarian’s accusation
“…indicates that he is reluctant to turn against one of the country’s
oldest parties and one of his chief pillars of political support
during his presidency.” Dashnaktsutiun enjoys a venerable legacy of
being the upholder of Armenian nationalism since the 19th century,
and has taken a strong stance against Turkey and especially
Azerbaijan since then.
According to the analysis, despite its belly-achings the ARF will
probably not give up its share of power. However, it may prove an
obstacle to negotiations with Turkey, which has renewed its
dedication to dialogue. Speaking in Russia on Friday, Turkish Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul lamented that “…Turkey-Armenia relations are
far away from the desired level.” According to TurkishPress.com, Gul
blamed the Armenian diaspora especially for stymieing progress, by
fueling the ARF’s position on genocide-recognition:
“…those who are living a comfortable life outside Armenia do not
contribute to improvement of relations between Turkey and Armenia
with their attitude. Historians should deal with events of the past.
The Ottoman Empire had never perpetrated any massacre or assimilation
intentionally.”
Gul no doubt raises an apt point, but his inclusion of the word
‘intentionally’ is sure to only provoke Armenians who feel that
Turkey is conscious of the crime, but refuses to admit it.
In any case, diaspora influence or not, the historical issue is less
an impediment than Turkey’s insistence that rapprochement involve the
return of up to 1 million displaced Azerbaijanis to Karabakh- an
unappealing sell for any Armenian politician.
;file=article&sid=275
–Boundary_(ID_wXVGqiSyLjG+NWBpUiK/sg)–