RA NA VICE-SPEAKER: ARMENIANS HAVE ALWAYS EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO ESTABLISH RELATIONS WITH TURKEY
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
April 24 2006
YEREVAN, April 24. /ARKA/. Armenians have always expressed willingness
to establish relations with Turkey, as the RA NA (National Assembly)
Vice-Speaker Tigran Torosyan stated after laying flowers on the
Genocide Memorial.
“Armenians has always sought common grounds for cooperation with
Turkey, so Turkey has to think of relations with Armenia itself”,
Torosyan stated.
At the same time he emphasized that development of relations will
not depend on Turkey’s entering or not entering the EU.
“We must think of our Eurointegration, regardless of the fact whether
Turkey is or is not member of the EU”, Torosyan stated.
Armenian Genocide in 1915 – 1923 is considered to be the first
genocide of the XX century, organized and systematically conducted
by the government of Young Turks. In 1915, in Western Armenia, which
was part of Ottoman Empire, more than 1,5 mln Armenians were massacred.
The fact of genocide has been already recognized by many countries,
namely Uruguay (first in 1965 officially recognized the Armenian
Genocide), Russia, France, Argentina, Greece, Low Chamber of the
Italian Parliament, majority of states of the USA, Parliaments
of Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, Belgium, Wales, National Council of
Switzerland, Chamber of Communities of the Canadian Parliament and
Seim of Poland.

PRESS RELEASE
April 23, 2006
Armenian National Committee of America
888 17th Street, NW, Suite 904
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
Email: [email protected]
Web:
For more information:
Maral Habeshian
ANCA Telethon Office
ANCA Telethon Launches Web Site
Nationwide Phonathon and Internet Campaign Kicks Off Fundraising Effort
(Washington, DC – April 23, 2006) – The Armenian National Committee of
America Telethon today announced the launch of the web site devoted to
the telethon at (click on Telethon logo) where supporters
of the Armenian Cause can make online donations in advance of the May
21 st nationwide telethon broadcast. In addition, a nationwide
inbound and outbound telephone campaign has been launched to
personally reach out to thousands of Armenian households across the
country during the weeks preceding the telethon. The purpose of the
telethon is to raise financial resources that will propel the advocacy
for the Armenian Cause to a new level of sophistication and reach.
Proceeds will be used to broaden the ANCA’s advocacy and educational
programs on Armenian issues within the halls of Congress, the White
House, state and local governments and the media.
“The campaign leading up to the Telethon broadcast is meant to rally
into action everyone who believes in the Armenian Cause and use the
latest technological tools to unite us as a powerful force regardless
of geography, ” said Steve Artinian, member of the ANCA Telethon’s
outreach team. “There is an amazing pool of professional talent who
have come together to ensure the Telethon reaches as many households
as possible. We are pulling out the stops on this effort and intend
to raise the stakes for the Cause substantially in the process.”
The ANCA Telethon reflects the next stage for the many issues
confronting the community. For example, the ANCA’s media relations
efforts during the last year alone are driving increased media
coverage of the Armenian Genocide. The results are a rapidly
expanding public awareness of the issue and exposure of the shameful
position of the government of Turkey and the U.S. State Department
both of whom continue to deny the Genocide. The most recent example
of the ANCA’s anti-defamation efforts with the media has been
confronting PBS for attempting to broadcast their insulting panel
discussion that featured academics who have been paid by the Turkish
government to deny and distort the Genocide’s historical facts.
However, spurring increased media coverage across the country requires
greater vigilance in anti-defamation efforts to make sure the coverage
is accurate and repels the Turkish government’s denial campaign.
This stage has led to an increased need for professional resources and
media experts in order to continue winning in the court of public
opinion.
The ANCA Telethon will feature the ANCA’s many interesting and
successful programs asking for financial support. As a run up to the
broadcast, the online Internet campaign and phonathon will allow
people to show their support in advance of the broadcast. To make a
donation in advance, people can call 1-866-402-2622 (ANCA) or go to
and click on the Telethon logo to make a donation online.

Transcript of Exclusive Armenia TV April 24th Interview
with Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
Interviewed by Paul Chaderjian for Armenia TV
Airdate: Monday, April 24, 2006 @ 9:00 PM Yerevan / 9:00 AM Los Angeles
Armenia TV: This is the 91st year that we commemorate the Genocide. What
stands out in your mind as you think about this process?
Minister Oskanian: It is humbling to think that today, the children of the
survivors and the Government of Armenia, both, have been transformed from
victims to activists working with the international community to right a
historical wrong, to acknowledge a crime against humanity and to advocate
prevention of such crimes in the future. We have the opportunity to do all
of that because this process has evolved in ways that are both surprising
and gratifying. Look at the history of the evolution: Up to 1965, there was
no talk of recognition, there were only tortured, victimized survivors.
>From 1965 to the 1980s, survivors, their descendants, a handful of political
activists, and a few lone scholars, attempted to focus the world’s attention
on what was almost uniformly referred to as the ‘alleged’ genocide.
Beginning in the 1990s, things changed dramatically. There were various
overlapping factors — A younger generation of survivors’ descendants was
more vocal and confident in using its political influence. The flow of
information about yet new genocides piqued the interest of international
scholars who also began to study the Armenian Genocide. As Europe and the US
became more engaged in Turkey’s modernization and inclusion in Euro-Atlantic
structures, Turkey’s own democratization process brought this taboo topic to
the surface. Today, in its search for European Union membership, Turkey is
having to deal history and memory and identity. And of course, the existence
of an Armenian state means that we can raise these issues at an official
government level.
There can be no doubt that our search for genocide recognition has become
internationalized. It is not an Armenian claim any longer. Today, this is an
acknowledged historic reality by most of the scholarly world, and by most
major media and journalists. Further, the international political community,
too, knows well what happened in 1915, and together, we are seeking ways to
enable more open discussion of why and how the Genocide happened, and its
implications for members of the world community today – and most of all for
Turks and Armenians.
Armenia TV: Some think it is surprising, and perhaps even unwise, for the
Government of Armenia to be engaged in this effort to achieve Genocide
recognition, given its vulnerability. The Turks, too, would like to portray
this as the Diaspora’s cause, and keep wishing that the Armenian government
would put this matter aside.
Minister Oskanian: The Genocide affected every single Armenian. The
responsibility to right the memory of that wrong rests with all of us. The
Armenian Government has the moral responsibility to speak about the Genocide
of the Armenians, and to call for Genocide recognition. This responsibility
is one we fully acknowledge. In fact, the active involvement of the Armenian
Government and its representatives has also played a role in the progress of
the recognition process. The podiums and forums that are available to the
representatives of a state are many and we use them to make our case to the
international community. At the same time, as a responsible member of that
community, we know that we cannot make Genocide recognition a pre-condition
to our relationship with the Republic of Turkey. The irony is that we, the
survivors and the victims of Genocide don’t make normal relations
conditional on its recognition, yet the Turkish side often suggests that
Armenia should put Genocide recognition aside if it wants normal relations
with Turkey. Clearly we cannot. The international community today considers
the threat of Genocide a very real 21st century challenge. Our
responsibility, together with the Diaspora, is to speak out against past and
future uses of Genocide as a political tool by states.
Armenia TV: What is the answer to the repeated charge that Armenians
continue to focus on the past, that Armenians are trapped in the past?
Minister Oskanian: One might accuse us of being trapped in the past if we
made the present conditional on the past. But we do not. Instead, we are
saying we must learn about the past, remember it, understand it, and move
on. Armenians understand that the present is connected to the past, it’s the
consequence of the past. Otherwise why teach history? This is the purpose
of learning and teaching history. The Turkish government, on the other hand,
is demanding that today’s relations be based on a specific interpretation of
the past. Turkey’s authorities and Turkish society do not fully comprehend
or recognize what happened in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, why it
happened, and they have not come to terms with those implications. They are
the ones who are trapped in the past and are not ready to move on. There is
perhaps a fear that entering this realm, embarking on a relationship with
Armenians will place them in a morally uncomfortable and undesirable
situation, and that they will be held responsible for those events. I cannot
repeat this often enough: Armenians are able to distinguish between the
perpetrators and today’s Turkey. But Turks themselves must be willing to do
what is morally right and reject and denounce the crimes of the Ottoman
Empire. Otherwise, today’s denial means implicit endorsement or acceptance
of those past crimes.
Armenia TV: Yet they are far from denouncing those crimes. On the contrary,
they are using their educational system to teach that Armenians killed
Turks, their historians are digging up bones and saying these are the bones
of Turks killed by Armenians.
Minister Oskanian: Justifying, even revering the genocidal state policy of
one regime has become the state policy of another regime. Denial is state
policy, just as genocide is state policy. It is today’s Turkish state that
is wasting money and credibility on denying, distorting, dismissing serious
crimes against humanity committed during the Ottoman years. Not only are
they denying history, they are also legislating denial by making it
difficult, if not impossible, to actually dig into this painful issue and
come face to face with difficult historic and political realities. It is
safe to say that Turkish society – writers, historians, journalists – are in
fact seeking and trying to reach their own conclusions about what really
happened. It is the state that insists on rejecting those questions even.
The people of Turkey are searching for answers. The memoir of US Ambassador
Henry Morgenthau, the British Blue Book, the works of Vahakn Dadrian and
Peter Balakian can be found in Turkish, in Turkey. We welcome this, because
before there can be dialogue with Armenians, there must be internal
questioning and dialogue in Turkey.
Armenia TV: Will there really be dialogue between Turkey and Armenia? What
happened to the Erdogan-Kocharian dialogue about dialogue?
We want there to be dialogue about all of the issues that stand between us.
Prime Minister Erdogan had suggested a commission to study history. But that
suggestion comes at a time when the use of the term ‘genocide’ or even
reference to certain facts and events in Turkish history are legally
punishable. How can such a proposal be taken seriously? Further, the
proposal is to convene a commission composed of historians from two
countries with a closed border between them. In the absence of any relations
whatsoever, in a political, social, economic vacuum, a commission is to be
convened to thrash out issues and events that can’t be discussed? That is
why President Kocharian’s response was that this kind of offer can be taken
seriously only if there is som semblance of normalcy between our two
countries. Then, discussions on all other aspects of our relations,
including the border and genocide, can and should be carried out. We have
not received an official response to that suggestion, but we still hope it
will come. It has been nearly a century that we have had this impasse
between our peoples and our societies. We don’t want to spend another
century trying to unravel this knot. Instead, we want our peoples to have
the opportunities to have new experiences to replace the old ones. The
longer we wait for this to happen, the longer it takes for Turks to
repudiate those acts, the more today’s Turks and yesterday’s Ottomans will
become synonymous in people’s minds. On the other hand, with repudiation of
those acts, with recognition of the crimes of the past, we can move on to a
dialogue of reconciliation. That is the mandate of the 21st century, that is
what our ancestors who did live together for centuries would want.
Armenia TV: Minister Oskanian, thank you very much for taking the time to
talk with Armenia TV. We look forward to having you visit again.
Minister Oskanian: Thank you.

Historic Azerbaijan Graveyard Destroyed
BAKU, Azerbaijan, April 21 (UPI) — Officials said a medieval cemetery
with a collection of several thousand carved stone crosses on
Azerbaijan`s southern border has been destroyed.
The destruction of the Jugha cemetery is believed to he related to the
conflict between Azerbaijan and its western neighbor, Armenia, The
Times of London reports.
The Times quoted the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in London
as saying there is only a dry patch of earth where once stood between
2,700 and 10,000 intricately carved headstones dating from the 9th to
the 16th centuries. The act is being likened to the Taliban`s
destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001, the
newspaper said.
The institute`s report is the first independent confirmation of what
Armenia has long alleged — that Azerbaijani authorities have razed
the cemetery since the two former Soviet republics began a border war
in 1988. The war ended in a cease-fire in 1994 but continues to
simmer.
Azerbaijan has repeatedly dismissed Armenia`s allegations and accused
Armenia of destroying hundreds of Muslim sites, the report said.
/article_1157385.php/News_Roundup

INTERNATIONAL 04.24.2006 Monday – ISTANBUL 17:15
‘If Armenian Genocide Bill Accepted, US may Apply to Hague’
By Ali H. Aslan, Washington
Published: Sunday, April 23, 2006
zaman.com
The specialist lawyer, Gunay Evinch, spoke to Zaman about the possible
legal implications of Washington Armenian lobby’s activities for
Turkey.
Evinch believes the bills presented to the US Congress will not be
accepted easily.
He says Armenians failed to make the House of Representatives accept
their allegations; so they are pressuring members of the Senate.
`What will be its legal implications, if the so-called Armenian
genocide is approved by the House of Representatives or the Senate,
though it is a rare possibility?’ is question much in the air
nowadays.
According to Evinch, in such a case, the US Foreign Secretary might
have to apply to the Hague Tribunal as required by the United Nations
genocide agreement article number 9 because it is difficult for the
government to ignore such a decision by the Senate, though the bill is
not `binding’ for the government.
The executive wing of the government might be pressured on the ground
`why it is not taking initiatives for human rights.’
If the issue appears at the Hague Tribunal, the US and Turkey will
have to launch a legal debate whether the issue comes within the
purview of the court.
The US might initiate a detailed case or request a `recommendation,’
if the court accepts the case.
Observers say since the US does not want to confront a strategic
partner like Turkey, it will continue to pressure the Congress to not
approve pro-genocide bills.
Evinch believes that Armenians try to `politicize’ the issue since
they can only provide Hague Tribunal with `secondary’ evidences and
their chance of winning the case is low.
If the issues dating back to World War I are re-debated and the
Pandora box is opened, Turkey may also bring to the fore the unjust
treatments committed against the Turkish and Muslim people during that
period.
al&alt=&trh060424&hn=32363

From: Assembly
Subject: AAA: Assembly Joins in Launch of New Anti-Genocide Coalition
Armenian Assembly of America
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
April 24, 2006
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
E-mail: [email protected]
ASSEMBLY JOINS IN LAUNCH OF NEW ANTI-GENOCIDE COALITION
Group Committed To Raising Awareness of Past, Current Crimes
Boston, MA – kNOw GENOCIDE, a new multi-ethnic coalition united
against genocide denial, was publicly launched on April 21 with the
strong backing of the Armenian Assembly during a rally outside the
Massachusetts State House. The anti-genocide coalition was announced
following a commemoration ceremony marking the 91st anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide.
“As the Armenian community marks the anniversary of these horrific
crimes, we are honored to be part of this non-partisan coalition and
help raise awareness of other instances of genocide,” said Assembly
Board of Trustees Member Anthony Barsamian, who assisted in bringing
the coalition together. “By doing so, we forever advance the cause of
genocide prevention.”
Friday’s event included presentations by Rabbi Moshe Waldoks, Chairman
of the Jewish Community Relations Council Holocaust Committee, Jean
Nganji from Rwanda Outlook, Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, Attorney
General Tom Reilly and Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA).
Earlier that day, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts presented a
distinguished award to Dr. Taner Akcam for his outstanding work in
human rights and fighting genocide denial. The award was presented by
Lt. Governor Healey and State Senator Steven Tolman (D-Boston) before
a crowd of over 400 people in the Massachusetts House of
Representatives Chamber.
“Professor Akcam is being honored today for his innovative scholarly
research into the history and sociology of the Armenian Genocide, his
willingness to confront and debunk the deniers of the genocide and
their historical revisionism and his inexhaustible energy in
struggling for universal human rights and dignity,” said Tolman.
The Assembly is a founding member of kNOw GENOCIDE, which was created
to counter the ongoing denial of known cases of genocide, such as the
Darfur, Cambodian, Jewish, Rwanda, and the Armenian genocides. The
coalition is grounded in the understanding that denial of genocide is
the final stage of that crime. For the sake of human rights as well
as the historical truth it will counter and expose attempts at
genocide denial.
In addition to the Assembly, the coalition includes the Armenian
National Committees of Massachusetts, the Cambodian Mutual Assistance
Association, the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark
University, the Genocide Intervention Network, the Irish Immigration
Center, the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Massachusetts
Council of Churches, Rwanda Outlook and the University of Minnesota
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies.
Then Armenian Genocide commemoration ceremony was organized by State
Representatives Rachel Kaprielian (D-Watertown) and Peter Koutoujian
(D-Watertown) and State Senator Steven Tolman (D-Boston).
The Armenian Assembly is the largest Washington-based nationwide
organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian
issue. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.
###
NR#2006-036

From: Assembly
Subject: AAA: Assembly Mourns Loss of Armenian Genocide Survivor
Armenian Assembly of America
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
April 24, 2006
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
E-mail: [email protected]
ASSEMBLY MOURNS LOSS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE SURVIVOR
Armine Dedekian Remembered for Her Activism, Community Support
Watertown, MA – As Armenians everywhere mark the 91st anniversary of
the Armenian Genocide, the Assembly was saddened to learn that Armine
Dedekian, a survivor of those horrific crimes, passed away April 19 in
her Watertown, Massachusetts home. Dedekian was 93 years old.
“The Armenian Assembly mourns the loss of Armine Dedekian and wishes
to express its sincere condolences to her family members and loved
ones,” said Assembly Board of Trustees Counselor and Vice Chair Robert
A. Kaloosdian. “In her memory, we reaffirm our commitment to educate
the world about the Armenian Genocide and help create a better future
for all humanity.”
Armine Dedekian, née Kailian, was born in Banderma, in the province of
Bursa, Western Turkey. That same year, her father was murdered and
Dedekian and her young mother fled to Tekirdagh, near Constantinople.
Unfortunately, the family was not safe there as the Turks soon forced
them from their homes and onto an arduous journey through the Syrian
Desert. Dedekian and her mother reached Sham, Syria but were
separated soon after and Dedekian was raised by family members. In
1929, Dedekian, at the age of 14, reunited with her mother in Ellis
Island and later settled with her in Massachusetts. She married
Sarkis Dedekian and together they raised two children.
During her lifetime, Dedekian helped raise awareness of the attempted
annihilation of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government. She
discussed her family’s tragic experiences with the national media,
including the Boston Globe, in an effort to draw national attention to
the crimes. She was also actively involved with the Armenian Relief
Society, the Armenian Renaissance Association and Saint Stephen’s
Armenian Apostolic Church.
Recently Dedekian became an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”)
along with the Armenian Assembly of America and seven other
individuals in the case of Griswold, et al., vs. Driscoll et. al.,
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. She participated in the amicus curiae brief for she
felt that the case was a denialist tactic by the plaintiffs which
included the Assembly of Turkish American Association and others who
referred to the Armenian Genocide as controversial in their Complaint.
Kaloosdian says that Dedekian was among the last remaining genocide
survivors in the greater Boston community. He recalled her excitement
to take part in the federal case and added that her passing, at this
time, has created renewed focus on her extraordinary life and memory.
The Armenian Assembly is the largest Washington-based nationwide
organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian
issue. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.
###
NR#2006-038
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Eurasia Daily Monitor — The Jamestown Foundation
Thursday April 13, 2006 — Volume 3, Issue 72
IN THIS ISSUE:
*Lavrov puts brakes on Kosovo recognition
*Baku sees opportunities, risks in Aliyev’s meeting with Bush
*Putin continues to lose allies in European elections
KOSOVO AND THE POST-SOVIET CONFLICTS: NO ANALOGY MEANS NO “PRECEDENT”
(part one of two)

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov and other officials
have shifted their tactics regarding the negotiations on the status of
Kosovo. The new theme of their statements and tactical approach to the
negotiations is: “No Haste.” In their view, the negotiations must
prepare a settlement “acceptable to all parties” — translation: hand
Serbia blocking rights — even if it means delaying the final outcome.
Lavrov and his spokesman, Mikhail Kamynin, somberly intimate that
recognition of Kosovo’s independence could set a “precedent” with
“dangerous consequences in Europe,” i.e., encourage movements in parts
of certain countries to press for separate statehood and international
recognition (Interfax, April 10). Meanwhile, the United States is the
main promoter of Kosovo’s independence, contingent on proper standards
of governance and human rights. The EU position is similar.
Moscow’s new arguments seek to dissuade some European governments from
supporting recognition and, through this tactic, to complicate and
prolong the negotiations.

The shift seems due at least in part to the prospect that the Serbian
government might officially consent to independence and international
recognition of Kosovo, albeit subject to international (i.e., Western)
certification that Kosovo has achieved democratic standards. Serbian
Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Draskovic recently declared that Serbia
could agree to international recognition of Kosovo’s independence,
including membership in all international organizations save the United
Nations (a reservation that seems destined to be abandoned in due
course). Draskovic’s statement has triggered a reassessment of policy in
Moscow.

The Kremlin had initially calculated that international recognition of
Kosovo’s independence could become a “model” or “precedent” enabling
Russia to call for recognition of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
or Karabakh. However, Serbian consent to international recognition of
Kosovo would make it impossible for Moscow to apply a “Kosovo model” to
the post-Soviet conflicts. In that case, the “model” would stipulate
that international recognition of a new state depends on the prior
consent of the country from which that entity secedes. Such a model
would be useless to Russia and the post-Soviet secessionist territories
because Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan would not grant such consent in
any foreseeable circumstances. Moreover, rapid progress toward resolving
the Kosovo issue with minimal Serbian resistance would deprive Russia of
opportunities to play spoiler in the negotiations
within the Kosovo Contact Group and UN Security Council. Moscow wants a
dragged-out negotiating process with opportunities for tradeoffs,
whether at Serbia’s expense or the expense of Moscow’s protégés in
the post-Soviet secessionist enclaves, depending on tactical
developments down the road.

Moscow is responding in three ways to the situation created by the
Draskovic statement. First, it tries to embolden hard-line nationalists
in the Serbian government to oppose Kosovo’s independence in principle
and to raise insuperable obstacles in the negotiations. Second, it tries
to outflank the United States by raising the prospect of destabilization
in Europe with some West European participants in the Contact Group and
with some Central-East European governments in bilateral channels. And,
third, it cries, “No Haste,” so as to frustrate the U.S. and, largely,
Western goal of achieving a resolution this year.

The authorities in Tiraspol, Transnistria; Sukhumi, Abkhazia;
Tskhinvali, South Ossetia; and Stepanakert, Karabakh (and Yerevan as
well) never based their hopes for international or at least Russian
official recognition upon a possible Kosovo “model” or “precedent.” When
Russian President Vladimir Putin raised this idea earlier this year and
turned it into a staple of Russia’s discourse on post-Soviet conflict
resolution, the secessionist authorities reacted with caution and
skepticism. While putting a few of their eggs in the Kosovo basket, they
are clearly loath to stake their case on Kosovo or Russian actions
related to Kosovo. They continually stress other arguments, “precedents”
or “models” in their quest for recognition (see EDM, February 2, 6, 8).
–Vladimir Socor
ALIYEV’S INVITATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE: A BLESSING OR A CURSE?
Officials in Baku are rejoicing. Three years after his election,
Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has received an official invitation
to visit the White House and meet with U.S. President George W. Bush. In
a press release issued by the White House on April 10, the invitation
was justified by the fact that “Azerbaijan is a key ally in a region of
great importance and a valued partner, making important contributions in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo.” The meeting with President Bush, set for
April 28, will include discussion of a wide range of issues, including
democracy promotion and cooperation in the Caucasus, energy
diversification, and the shared U.S.-Azerbaijani commitment to working
together to advance freedom and security.
The invitation comes as a slap in the face to the Azerbaijani
opposition, which has long complained about election fraud in the
country and the lack of adequate pressure from the Western community on
the Aliyev administration. The Azerbaijani opposition has often cited
the continuing refusal to invite President Aliyev to Washington, while
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili were welcomed immediately after elections in their
countries, to show the international community’s negative assessment of
the state of democracy in Azerbaijan. Now this trump card has
disappeared.
Local analysts predict that two issues will dominate the talks between
Aliyev and Bush: Iran and Azerbaijan’s long-standing conflict with
Armenia over the Karabakh enclave. “There will be a set of complex
issues on the agenda, but Iran will dominate it with the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict being included into the discussion through the
prism of the Iranian question,” independent political analyst Ilgar
Mammadov told Jamestown. “Everything tells us that the negotiations will
focus around the Iranian and Karabakh problems,” according to an
editorial in the opposition Azadliq newspaper on April 9. Consequently,
the long-anticipated invitation from Washington might not be the
blessing that was expected by official Baku.
Political scientist Fuad Gahramanli believes “Aliyev is not interested
in participating in possible military operations against Iran and
actively tries to stay away from this process.” For that reason, the
invitation to the United States at this particular moment might not
please Aliyev that much, concludes Gahramanli (Azadliq, April 7).
Mammadov also believes that Azerbaijan will try to play a careful game,
but “It is not for sure yet if Azerbaijan will stay completely outside
of the process.”
Still, some other experts forecast that the Karabakh conflict will top
the discussions, as Washington is re-energizing peace talks between
Armenia and Azerbaijan and trying to save the failed talks in
Rambouillet, outside Paris, on February 11. The intensive trips by the
OSCE’s Minsk group co-chairs into the region in the last few weeks have
raised speculations about the possibility of reaching an agreement on
this conflict in 2006. U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno L. Harnish
III, has told the local Azerbaijani media that there are good prospects
for settling the conflict in 2006. Furthermore, Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said after his trip to the Washington last
week “some new, interesting proposals regarding the solution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been offered and the Azerbaijani
government will discuss them” (Turan, April 10, also see EDM, April 12).
“The United States is interested in a quick resolution of the conflict
this year,” Mammadov told Jamestown, “but whether Russia will help in
this process is still not clear.” ANS-TV radio quoted Yuri Merzlyakov,
the Russian co-chair of the Minsk group, as saying that there is no
competition between the co-chairs and that President Aliyev met with
Russian President Vladimir Putin long before he is scheduled to meet
with President Bush (ANS-TV, April 13).
Much is expected from Aliyev’s upcoming trip to Washington, yet most
local analysts agree that the negotiations will be tough for the
Azerbaijani president. Particularly, any possible pressures on Aliyev to
agree to the terms of the referendum that is being proposed for the
resolution of the Karabakh conflict might produce counter-productive
results domestically. The Azerbaijani opposition is carefully watching
what will happen in Washington and they will try to dampen President
Aliyev’s excitement about the long-anticipated meeting with President
Bush by focusing on the failures of Azerbaijani diplomacy regarding the
Karabakh conflict. As for President Bush, he is no longer feeling the
necessity to postpone this invitation, as his re-election in 2004 has
removed the need to take domestic considerations into account regarding
such an action. Now the emphasis is on security and foreign
policy, areas in which Azerbaijan could be a key ally.
–Fariz Ismailzade
PUTIN’S FEAR OF ELECTIONS AND FEAR OF INVESTMENT
Every recent election in Europe has severed a connection with Moscow,
allowing Russia to drift further and further away from the rest of the
continent. Italy is the latest point in this trajectory since Prime
Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s defeat this week signifies for Russian
President Vladimir Putin the loss of a key European ally and the end of
a carefully cultivated personal friendship (Vremya novostei, April 11;
Gazeta.ru, April 13). The March 26 parliamentary elections in Ukraine,
inconclusive as they are, have confirmed Kyiv’s European vector and
shown the steady retreat of the pro-Russian forces in the multi-colored
political arena (Lenta.ru, April 11). Presidential elections in Belarus
on March 19 and the swift suppression of public protests against the
crudely manipulated voting left Putin, who rushed to congratulate
Alexander Lukashenka on his victory, alone against the broad
European condemnation of this authoritarian regime (Ekho Moskvy, April
11). Even the elections in the Palestinian Authority fit the pattern,
since Moscow’s readiness to embrace the Hamas leadership has generated
mild disapproval in Europe and bitter acrimony in Israel (Kommersant,
April 12).
The trend could easily be traced further back: Parliamentary elections
in Poland last September were dominated by parties that hold serious
suspicions about Putin’s Russia, and elections in Germany forced the
departure of Putin’s closest and most privileged partner, Gerhard
Schroeder, from the Bundestag. Some electoral results that were
unfortunate for Moscow were decided by margins slimmer than the “hanging
chads” that decided Bush’s victory in 2000, and both Berlusconi and
Schroeder could complain about bad luck. In other cases, Belarus being
the prime example, Moscow was clearly set to lose because of its own
political choices. Lukashenka enjoys solid enough popular support to win
a free and fair election, but the very possibility of creating a space
for uncontrollable political opposition was unacceptable, and he opted
to show the “monolithic unity” of the quasi-Soviet regime
(Ezhednevny zhurnal, April 1).
Putin is in much the same situation and shows equally deep mistrust in
election mechanisms, but he feels the need to hide his true preferences
behind many layers of “Euro-correct” rhetoric. This habitual hypocrisy
serves to make him an acceptable partner for Western leaders, but the
Russian public apparently prefers a more frank expression of political
views; a recent poll by Ekho Moskvy radio (March 20) showed that 82% of
listeners would vote for Lukashenka as the president of a hypothetical
union of Russia and Belarus, while only 18% preferred Putin. Finalizing
the text of his annual address to the parliament, Putin now may take a
clue from this rather unexpected choice and add a few explicitly
populist condemnations of his own bureaucracy (Vedomosti, April 12). He
also knows that he has no real competitor in the country so that the
officially discarded idea of a third presidential
term remains far more popular than any of his potential successors; 45%
of Russians are now ready to amend the constitution accordingly
(Kommersant, April 12).
Each setback with elections in the near and far neighborhood, however,
increases Putin’s distaste regarding the proposition that his tightly
hand-managed system of power should be subjected to the test of
competitive — even if only formally — decision-making by the general
population. This entirely unnecessary procedure goes directly against
his self-perception as the CEO and the chairman of the board of a
corporation comprising all structures of the Russian state. This
self-perception, which in fact is not that different from how Berlusconi
had seen himself until last weekend, probably informed Putin’s first
words to the “captains” of business that were gathered in the Kremlin
last month: “Dear colleagues” (Vedomosti, April 4). Russian
state/corporate culture could be quite relaxed and the discipline in the
hierarchy should not necessarily be draconian, but the idea that the top
management must be exposed to electoral choices of the “lower ranks” is
simply alien. Berlusconi’s scandalous resistance to his removal from a
position of power only reinforces the conviction among Putin’s entourage
that undesirable surprises must be prevented at any cost.
Elections, however, remain a source of grave risks and the possibility
of a sudden shift in the electorate’s mood cannot be eliminated.
Amassing “administrative resources” and employing every available
“political technology,” the Kremlin still cannot overcome the pervasive
fear of elections. While perhaps not entirely rational, this feeling is
driven by growing mistrust among Putin’s courtiers and rooted in their
common knowledge that the Russians indeed have very good reasons not to
trust any of them. The only way to exorcise this fear is to spread it
not only through the business elite, which constitutes less than 1% of
the population, but also across the middle entrepreneurial class that
has grown to about 20% (Kommersant, April 12). Uncertainty about the
immediate future, which can bring any kind of semi-official offer that
cannot be refused, including the sell-off of prime assets,
is an irreducible feature of Russian business climate. Fear is the main
instrument of establishing dominance of the 1.462 million strong army of
bureaucrats, which increased by 10.9% in 2005, over the oppressed,
abused, and potentially hostile class of middle and small business
(Lenta.ru, April 12; Ezhednevny zhurnal, April 11).
This instrumentalization of the fear factor creates various distortions
in Russian economic activities, from the increase of “informal taxation”
to the speculative growth of the Moscow property market. Such respected
experts as Yevgeny Gavrilenkov and Yevgeny Yasin have argued this week
that the abnormally low level of investment affects the dynamics and the
quality of economic growth and generates huge inflationary pressure
(Nezavisimaya gazeta, April 11). Entrepreneurs have no confidence in
their own businesses and are reluctant to invest, so money flows into
the stock market, which expanded by some 20% since the start of the
year, or into the accelerated growth of consumer imports. Corporatist
politics invariably translate into deformed and stagnant economics.
Putin’s team of managers may try to hide their fiasco by doctoring
accounts and spinning new slogans, but Berlusconi was a
grand master of these tricks — and they helped him only so far.
–Pavel K. Baev
The Eurasia Daily Monitor, a publication of the Jamestown Foundation, is
edited by Ann E. Robertson. The opinions expressed in it are those of
the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of the
Jamestown Foundation. If you have any questions regarding the content of
EDM, or if you think that you have received this email in error, please
respond to [email protected].
Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of EDM is strictly
prohibited by law.
The Jamestown Foundation
4516 43rd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
202-483-8888 (phone)
202-483-8337 (fax)
Copyright (c) 1983-2005 The Jamestown Foundation.

Armenian Assembly of America
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
April 24, 2006
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
E-mail: [email protected]
BUSH SAYS WORLD MUST NOT FORGET
AVOIDS USING PROPER TERM OF GENOCIDE IN ANNUAL APRIL 24 STATEMENT
WASHINGTON, DC – In his annual April 24th commemoration statement,
President Bush described the “mass killings” and “exile” of 1.5
million Armenians noting that this was a “tragedy for all humanity and
one that we and the world must never forget.” The statement was
delivered following strongly worded letters from more than 200 House
and Senate leaders last week, asking the President to properly
acknowledge the genocide in his annual statement.
“While the President once again employed the dictionary definition of
Genocide, we are deeply disappointed that he did not properly
characterize the attempted annihilation of our people as genocide,”
said Assembly Board of Trustees Chairman Hirair Hovnanian. “The
President had an opportunity to build on his 2000 campaign statement
as well as the words of President Ronald Reagan who properly
acknowledged the Armenian Genocide,” Hovnanian continued.
During the Assembly’s pan-Armenian advocacy conference last month,
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Daniel Fried laid out the Administration’s position on the Armenian
Genocide, noting that the Administration has “a policy which many of
you disagree with,” but also stated that “the United States government
has never denied the events of 1915.” Fried also called on “Turkey to
reflect more seriously about subjects which have been taboo for
generations in that country.” He added: “We do not support…export of
denialist literature or positions. We do support efforts by Turkey to
deal with its history more seriously.”
“Today, as we mark the 91st anniversary of these crimes, genocide
deniers continue their morally bankrupt campaign against the truth as
evidenced by the recent federal lawsuit initiated in the state of
Massachusetts,” said Executive Director Bryan Ardouny. “In the face of
this ongoing denial, the United States must make a firm stand for the
truth,” Ardouny continued.
Bush’s statement, as in years past, encourages dialogue between Turks
and Armenians and states that “The analysis by the International
Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), while not the final word, has
made a significant contribution toward deepening our understanding of
these Events.” The ICTJ report, issued in 2003, reached the conclusion
that: “The Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include
all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the
Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians,
journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so
describe them.” The President’s reference to ICTJ serves as an
implicit acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.
The Administration has clarified its policy on the crime of genocide
and recently stated its views on the need to prevent its repetition.
The President’s National Security Strategy (NSS), which was released
last month, notes that “the world needs to start honoring a principle
that many believe has lost its force in parts of the international
community in recent years: genocide must not be tolerated. It is a
moral imperative that states take action to prevent and punish
genocide. History teaches that sometimes other states will not act
unless America does it part.”
“America did act in response to the first genocide of the twentieth
century and Armenian-Americans are forever grateful for the leading
role of the United States in attempting to stop the Armenian Genocide
and for aiding those who survived,” Hovnanian added.
“It is now time for the U.S. to continue this proud chapter of
American history and formally and irrevocably reaffirm the Armenian
Genocide,” he continued. “By so doing, the U.S. will articulate the
same message it has already sent to the public – that genocide must
not be tolerated.”
In his statement, the President also says that the U.S. applauds
Armenia’s democratic reforms and seeks to help bolster Armenia’s
security and deepen its inclusion in the Euro-Atlantic community. The
President also encouraged a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict, adding “We remain committed to securing a peaceful
and lasting settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and hope the
leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will take bold steps to achieve this
goal.”
The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness
of Armenian issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership
organization.
NR#2006-041
Editor’s Note: Below is the full text of President Bush’s statement.
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 24, 2006
PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT ON ARMENIAN REMEMBRANCE DAY
Today, we remember one of the horrible tragedies of the 20th century
— the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million
Armenians in the final days of the Ottoman Empire in 1915. This was a
tragedy for all humanity and one that we and the world must never
forget.
We mourn this terrible chapter of history and recognize that it
remains a source of pain for people in Armenia and for all those who
believe in freedom, tolerance, and the dignity and value of every
human life. It is a credit to the human spirit and generations of
Armenians who live in Armenia, America, and around the globe that they
have overcome this suffering and proudly preserved their centuries-old
culture, traditions, and religion.
We praise the individuals in Armenia and Turkey who have sought to
examine the historical events of this time with honesty and
sensitivity. The analysis by the International Center for
Transitional Justice, while not the final word, has made a significant
contribution toward deepening our understanding of these events. We
encourage dialogues, including through joint commissions, that strive
for a shared understanding of these tragic events and move Armenia and
Turkey towards normalized relations.
Today, we look with hope to a bright future for Armenia. Armenia’s
Millennium Challenge Compact reflects our confidence and the
importance we place in Armenia making progress on democratic reform
and advancement of free markets. We seek to help Armenia bolster its
security and deepen its inclusion in the Euro-Atlantic family. We
remain committed to securing a peaceful and lasting settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and hope the leaders of Armenia and
Azerbaijan will take bold steps to achieve this goal.
On this solemn day of remembrance, Laura and I express our deepest
condolences to the Armenian people. Our nations stand together,
determined to create a future of peace, prosperity, and freedom for
the citizens of our countries and the world.
GEORGE W. BUSH

Eurasia Daily Monitor — The Jamestown Foundation
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 — Volume 3, Issue 76
IN THIS ISSUE:
*New political alliance emerges from Kyiv city council
*Armenian parliamentary speaker denounces prime minister
*Gazprom takes over Armenian power station, pipeline
TYMOSHENKO SET TO OUST NEW MAYOR OF KYIV
Banker Leonid Chernovetsky has managed to secure the legitimacy of his
election as Kyiv mayor. On April 10, the Shevchenkivsky district court
in Kyiv ruled that there was no proof of vote buying by Chernovetsky.
Outgoing mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko had accused Chernovetsky of buying
votes and demanded that his victory be invalidated (see EDM, April 5).
However, Chernovetsky’s position remains shaky. The Yulia Tymoshenko
Bloc (YTB) has forged a strong alliance to oppose the new mayor at the
Kyiv city council, and is seeking a rerun of the mayoral election in
order to topple Chernovetsky. His election has bared yet another rift
between the Orange Revolution partners, as the deputies elected to the
Kyiv council from the Socialists and President Viktor Yushchenko’s
People’s Union-Our Ukraine party (NSNU) apparently have nothing against
Chernovetsky.

In the run-up to the March 26 mayoral poll, the YTB was pronouncedly
neutral. Its candidate, Mykola Tomenko, had withdrawn long before the
race started in earnest, and the YTB did not back either Omelchenko or
his key challengers, Chernovetsky and boxing champion Vitaly Klitchko.
The YTB, however, won more seats than any other party in the election to
the city council — 41 out of 120 — and Tymoshenko’s ally Mykhaylo
Brodsky, who is expected to chair the YTB faction in the council,
offered support to Chernovetsky, reportedly expects backing for his bid
for the post of council secretary in return.

Chernovetsky, however, made it clear that he has a candidate for that
position from his own, eponymous bloc. This may have triggered the
conflict. On April 15, YTB people, their satellites from the Civic
Active of Kyiv (GAK), and the Pora-Reforms and Order liberal bloc
(Pora-RiP) ignored the first post-election session of the Kyiv council,
which was scheduled to formalize Chernovetsky’s election.

Chernovetsky was in a difficult situation, as convening the council
without the three parties would not have a quorum. Thus, according to
law, Chernovetsky could not have been sworn in. Chernovetsky was saved
by three deputies from Pora-RiP, who broke ranks and took their seats. A
visibly nervous Chernovetsky was then sworn in.

On the same evening, Tomenko gathered a press conference to announce the
creation of a “coalition of democratic forces” called “Fair Kyiv.”
According to Tomenko, the coalition including YTB, GAK, and Pora-RiP has
a majority, with 62 of the 120 seats in the city council. (But without
the three dissenters who attended Chernovetsky’s inauguration, Fair Kyiv
would be two seats short of a majority.) He also said that Fair Kyiv had
elected Klitchko as its leader, and that they would seek a new election
for mayor of Kyiv.

Tomenko argued that Chernovetsky has failed to present an action plan
for the development of Kyiv, that his legitimacy was in question because
he scored only slightly more than 30% of votes in the election, and that
Chernovetsky’s coalition, “including the Party of Regions and the NSNU,”
was “a challenge to Kyivites.”

Representatives of the opposition Party of Regions (PRU) of Viktor
Yanukovych and the NSNU had indeed been among those deputies who did not
boycott the council’s first sitting. This prompted the YTB to accuse the
NSNU of cooperating with the PRU in the council in violation of previous
agreements on a parliamentary coalition, which apparently rules out
cooperation with the PRU at any level, including local councils. On
April 17, Tymoshenko forbade her own bloc members to join any local
alliances with the PRU. She threatened potential dissenters with
expulsion.
Tomenko and Tymoshenko said that the Kyiv “coalition” between the NSNU
and the PRU was “unnatural.” For some reason, however, they abstained
from castigating the Socialists, whose representatives attended
Chernovetsky’s swearing in along with NSNU and PRU deputies.
Tymoshenko’s accusations against Yushchenko’s party in this case may be
an exaggeration as, unlike Fair Kyiv, the NSNU and the PRU did not
formalize any alliance at the council.

The quarrel over Chernovetsky coincided with another dangerous
development for the Orange coalition. On April 14, the NSNU rejected an
accord reached with the YTB and the Socialists a day earlier, which in
transparent terms stipulated that the post of prime minister in the
alliance would go to Tymoshenko. Yushchenko’s reluctance to return
Tymoshenko the post from which he fired her last year, and her
reluctance to accept a coalition on different terms, has so far been the
main problem in the talks on re-establishing the Orange coalition. The
rift over Kyiv mayor should only deepen the mistrust between
Yushchenko’s team and Tymoshenko.

The creation of Fair Kyiv, meanwhile, has apparently triggered the
dissolution of the Pora-RiP bloc. On April 17 Pora leader Vladyslav
Kaskiv announced that the bloc had ceased to exist because its leader,
Klitchko, had joined Fair Kyiv without consent from Pora. Kaskiv,
however, did not make it clear whether his people will be in the
opposition to Chernovetsky.

(NTN TV, April 10; UNIAN, April 14; ICTV, April 15; Ukrayinska pravda,
April 14, 17; Ekonomicheskie izvestiya, Channel 5, April 17, 18)
–Oleg Varfolomeyev
GOVERNMENT INFIGHTING HERALDS START OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN ARMENIA
Armenia’s governing coalition is beset with fresh infighting between the
two largest political parties loyal to President Robert Kocharian, which
could have repercussions for next year’s parliamentary election. The
Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) Party of parliamentary speaker Artur
Baghdasarian has publicly denounced Prime Minister Andranik Markarian
and his Republican Party (HHK) over questionable privatization policies
pursued by the Armenian government.
The move appears to mark the start of Baghdasarian’s election campaign.
The 36-year-old speaker, who is one of Kocharian’s potential successors,
is widely believed to be trying to enhance his populist appeal by
attacking a government in which his party is represented by three
ministers.
The row broke out on April 11 at the start of parliamentary debates in
Yerevan on the privatization of remaining state assets from 2001 through
2004. A government report on the process was expected to be accepted by
the Kocharian-controlled National Assembly without much fuss. The
parliament did endorse it, but only after three days of bitter
recriminations traded by the two coalition partners in front of
television cameras and gloating opposition parliamentarians.
Orinats Yerkir lawmakers strongly challenged the integrity of the
privatization deals handled by Armenia’s Department for State Property
Management, humiliating the pro-Markarian head of the government agency,
Karine Kirakosian. They pointed to the fact that 48 of 69 state-owned
enterprises put up for sale during the four-year period were privatized
without tenders or auctions and at knockdown prices. Most of those
enterprises have long ceased to operate and were primarily of interest
to private buyers as pieces of real property.
It emerged that virtually all properties located in central Yerevan were
sold off at ridiculously low prices ranging from to per square meter.
The market value of real estate in the increasingly expensive city
center is at least 0 per square meter. Newspaper reports said last week
that among the lucky buyers of lucrative properties were Trade and
Economic Development Minister Karen Chshmaritian and a businessman whose
daughter is married to Kocharian’s elder son.
Baghdasarian and his loyalists allege that the huge price disparity is
the result of government corruption and nepotism. “They have
appropriated millions and have to account for it,” Baghdasarian charged
without naming names. He also accused the government of illegally
privatizing buildings that once belonged to educational, cultural, and
scientific institutions.
Markarian and HHK parliamentarians rejected the accusations, presenting
them as yet another manifestation of Orinats Yerkir’s trademark
populism. “All privatizations were approved at government sessions,” he
told reporters on April 12. “Representatives of that party were present
at those sessions. If they had questions they could ask them and be
given explanations.” Markarian aides implicitly threatened to publicize
“compromising material” against Orinats Yerkir in retaliation. The
threats led the latter to somewhat tone down its anti-government
rhetoric. “Had we gone a bit further, we would have destroyed each
other,” admitted another HHK leader, Galust Sahakian.
The key question is what prompted Baghdasarian to lash out at the
HHK-dominated government now, just two months after he and other
coalition leaders pledged to stop embarrassing each other in public and
to preserve their uneasy marriage of convenience at least until the 2007
election. “One can arrest any official who has dealt with the
privatization sphere at any moment and rest assured that justice has
been done,” wrote a columnist for the 168 Zham newspaper. “On the other
hand, it is clear to everyone that Orinats Yerkir does not care much
about state property privatized for nothing.”
What the party does care about is a strong showing in the next
legislative polls. Barring the absence of personal attacks on Kocharian,
the pre-election discourse of its young leader has always differed
little from that of opposition leaders. Baghdasarian’s statements may be
often demagogic and short on specifics, but they won him the post of
National Assembly speaker and the second-largest faction in the Armenian
parliament after the HHK in 2003. He is arguably the most electable
member of the ruling regime, which explains the persistent speculation
about his ambition to succeed Kocharian, who is expected to step down
after completing his second five-year term of office in 2008.
Baghdasarian already scored more political points last October when he
forced the government, reportedly with Kocharian’s blessing, to start
compensating some of those Armenians whose Soviet-era savings bank
deposits were wiped out by hyperinflation in the early 1990s (see EDM,
October 6, 2005). (Compensation of the former deposit holders was a key
Orinats Yerkir campaign promise in 2003.) So observers wonder if his
latest offensive in the parliament was also agreed with the Armenian
president. But it is not clear why Kocharian would want to undercut the
HHK, Armenia’s number one “party of power” that has served him so well.
Some local commentators say the HHK is not 100% reliable for Kocharian
and his closest associate and most likely successor, Defense Minister
Serge Sarkisian. The latter ran for parliament on the HHK ticket in 2003
and promised to name in February the party with which he will team up
for the 2007 vote. But Sarkisian has still not made the announcement,
suggesting that he might be lacking faith in Prime Minister Markarian’s
Republicans.
(168 Zham, April 13-14; Lragir.am, April 13; Aravot, April 13; Haykakan
Zhamanak, April 12)
–Emil Danielyan
ARMENIA’S GIVEAWAYS TO RUSSIA: FROM PROPERTY-FOR-DEBT TO
PROPERTY-FOR-GAS
Armenian critics describe the government’s new agreement with Russia,
giving up infrastructure property for moderately priced gas, as the
equivalent of giving up the family’s milch cow — or at least selling
the cow for the price of milk.
The preliminary Armenian-Russian sale-and-purchase agreement, first
announced on April 6, was not signed as scheduled on April 14 — an
indication that the bargaining continues over some details. It also
appears that Moscow and Yerevan need a decent interval to condition —
if not convince — Armenia’s population to accept the terms of the
energy agreement and, more broadly, the changing nature of Armenia’s
relationship with Russia from partnership of choice to servitude without
a choice.
According to Gazprom announcements and Armenian officials’ statements
from April 6 to date, the 25-year agreement includes the following
elements:
1) Gazprom will charge 0 per one thousand cubic meters of gas supplied
to Armenia from April 1, 2006, through January 1, 2009. The price will
be subject to negotiation from 2009 onward. Armenia had paid to per
one thousand cubic meters until 2005, and it will sell assets to Russia
in 2006 in order to be able buy the gas at double the old price.
However, the price of gas delivered to Armenian consumers will rise only
slightly, because the government will use the proceeds from the asset
sale to Russia in order to subsidize the domestic gas sales.
2) The joint ArmRosGaz company is taking over the fifth power bloc of
the Hrazdan gas-fired power plant and unifying it with the four old
blocs, which are already controlled by Russia’s Unified Energy Systems
(UES), under a single management system. Hrazdan’s unfinished fifth bloc
was slated to become Armenia’s largest and most modern power generating
unit. Gazprom is to pay 9 million for Hrazdan-5 in three annual tranches
from 2006 to 2008.
Of this amount, 9 million will be nominally transferred to Armenia’s
government, which will use the funds to subsidize moderately priced gas
supplies to Armenian consumers. Significantly, those funds are earmarked
for ArmRosGaz to ensure its profitability — i.e., they are to revert to
Gazprom, which is the dominant stakeholder in ArmRosGaz. Curiously, the
remaining million is to be transferred in cash into the Armenian
Defense Ministry’s extra-budgetary account.
3) ArmRosGaz is to take over the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. It shall
acquire Armenia’s ownership title to that pipeline’s first section,
Meghri-Kajaran (40 kilometers), which is due for completion before the
end of 2006; and will become the general contractor for construction of
the pipeline’s second section, Kajaran-Yerevan (197 kilometers). Thus,
Gazprom will be in a position to dictate the terms of Armenia’s access
to Iranian supplies or prevent Armenia from diversifying its supply
sources altogether. Meanwhile, Russia uses Turkmen gas for deliveries to
Armenia, and Iran had similarly planned to supply Armenia with gas from
Turkmenistan.
4) Gazprom’s existing, 45% stake in ArmRosGaz shall increase to a
veto-proof majority, between 75% and 82%, by adding Gazprom’s stake in
the Hrazdan-5 power bloc. The Russian company is to invest 0 million in
the completion of Hrazdan-5. Gazprom’s offshoot Itera holds another 10%
stake in ArmRosGaz.
Construction of the Hrazdan-5 power bloc was being completed by Iran’s
Sanir company under a 2005 investment agreement. Iran made available to
Armenia a 0 million soft loan for completing Hrazdan-5 and a million
investment for building an electricity transmission line from Hrazdan to
Iran. Armenia was to repay the loan by supplying electricity from
Hrazdan, using Iran-supplied gas to produce that electricity. The
project envisaged annual profits of 0 million for Armenia, which would
have retained ownership of Hrazdan-5 and covered more than 40% of the
country’s electricity requirement from this project.
Russia already owns Hrazdan’s first four power blocs and some smaller
hydropower plants, as well as Armenia’s electricity distribution grid
(all under Unified Energy Systems) and controls the gas distribution
network (through ArmRosGaz), as well as exercising financial management
of the admittedly obsolete Metsamor nuclear power plant. The transfers
of Hrazdan-5 and control over the Iran-Armenia pipeline will deliver
Armenia’s energy sector totally in Russia’s hands.
(Noyan Tapan, Mediamax, Arminfo, Interfax, April 7-17; see EDM, January
17, 20, April 6)
–Vladimir Socor
The Eurasia Daily Monitor, a publication of the Jamestown Foundation, is
edited by Ann E. Robertson. The opinions expressed in it are those of
the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of the
Jamestown Foundation. If you have any questions regarding the content of
EDM, or if you think that you have received this email in error, please
respond to [email protected].
Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of EDM is strictly
prohibited by law.
The Jamestown Foundation
4516 43rd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
202-483-8888 (phone)
202-483-8337 (fax)
Copyright (c) 1983-2005 The Jamestown Foundation.