IT ISN’T JUSTIFIED
Aravot.am
9 April 06
The ANM administration made a declaration yesterday.
The current regime takes the progress step of threatening the RA
national security and keeping its own authority pleasing the people
under pretence of reducing gas price. Giving the 5th bloc of the
electric power station of Hrazdan to Russians instead of cheap
gas price for three years isn’t justified either politically, or
economically or socially.
Politically; giving the energy of the country to another state is
nothing else than the loose of one of the most important ground
of independence. Russia itself provides for the majority of state
energy as well as the strategic sphere. 80% of energy power of Armenia
belongs to Russia. By this bargain that percent reaches to 100%.
Economically; the state property is given to Russia by low price and
without any guarantees of working effectively as it was in case of
the famous bargain;”Estate instead of debt”.
The 5th bloc of the electric power station of Hrazdan can pay for
gas price only in 203 years.
Socially’ the interpretation of the regime as if the above mentioned
bargain is made in favor of social interests of the Armenian people
is a deception, no social problem is being solved by it. In reality
the compensatory money will be given to the solvent population of the
country and the oligarchs close to the regime. Everything is done at
the expense of insolvent population.
By the way 248,8 $ million which is foreseen from the bargain of the
5th bloc is sent to a special account of the Ministry of Defense,
which isn’t controlled. This bargain only aims a thing; to avoid of a
possible social revolt and collect enormous uncontrollable financial
resources for providing for the rehabilitation of the current regime
in the coming elections.

A “TACIT” STEP BY STEP SETTLEMENT
Norayr Hovsepian
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
07 April 2006
Recently debates and events connected with the Karabakh issue have
acquired a new quality and course. The offered solutions are so many
and so different that it seems impossible to offer a fundamentally
new solution. However, the relationships of the conflict parties have
not changed and still lack confidence. Hence, “bridges” are needed
rather to bring into being one of the existing solutions. This first
of all requires mutual confidence or at least a constructive dialogue
on good faith. The official bilateral and mediated meetings of the
representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan apparently cannot foster
the establishment of this atmosphere. As a result the role of the
non-governmental sector increases, and recently it has been quite
active. In this context the Dartmouth Conference is a significant
step. This is an American initiative since 2001. The delegations of
Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh participate in the activity of
the Dartmouth Conference Regional Conflicts Task Force. The task force
has effective relations with both NGOs and official bodies. After the
meetings in Baku and Armenia the task force arrived in Stepanakert on
April 1. The US co-chairman Harold Saunders, the Russian co-chairman
Vitaly Naumkin, as well as Phil Steward and Irina Zvyagelskaya met with
the representatives of non-governmental and political organizations
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The core question discussed at
the meeting was the draft of the framework agreement on the peace
settlement of the Karabakh issue, worked out in 2005, during the
ninth meeting of the Dartmouth Conference.
Harold Saunders briefed the main principles of the document. According
to him, none of the sides wants a deadlocked negotiation for the
peace settlement of the Karabakh conflict. However, he also pointed
out that it is impossible to lay bridges of agreement between the
logically opposite views that the sides have today. By the way,
Harold Saunders meant Nagorno Karabakh as a conflict side. For the
role of the framework agreement in establishing this bridge, Harold
Saunders thinks if applied it would establish serious progress in the
talks. He characterized it as a peace-building plan, in which every
next step is possible after the fulfilment of the previous one, rather
than a document that would establish peace at once. Accordingly, the
process is divided into two parts. In the first one it is foreseen
to establish an atmosphere, take actions and create conditions
for the second stage, when a final resolution of the issue will be
reached. The Russian co-chairman Vitaly Naumkin pointed out the fact
that the representatives of the United States and Russia, which have
considerable controversies with regard to conflict settlement, act
together in the peace settlement of the conflict over Karabakh. It
is interesting to know the status, however. According to him, it is
impossible to settle the Karabakh issue at once. First it is necessary
to create an atmosphere. With regard to this Vitaly Naumkin said it
is impossible to achieve results at once.
Therefore, it is preferable to take a tiny step than not to do anything
at all.
And the engagement of Karabakh in the talks will, according to him,
have only positive results for it. Nagorno Karabakh will be recognized
in international relations, and will have the right to sign certain
agreements and make commitments. The representatives of the NKR NGOs
and political organizations disagreed to certain principles and terms
used in the document with regard to the step-by-step resolution of
the conflict and the status of Nagorno Karabakh.
Margarita Karapetyan, Official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of NKR, said: “The document does not state clearly the legal status
of Nagorno Karabakh, which is of utter importance for the Karabakh
side. Here a de-facto, an ” intermediate” status is mentioned only. On
the other hand, the step-by-step settlement underlies this document,
determining the peace settlement by the return of certain territories,
the problem of refugees, etc. It is very important that it is done
through successive steps, the first, then the second, etc.
Practically, in accordance with the document, the conflict over
Karabakh and its settlement is viewed from the aspect of elimination
of the consequences rather than the cause of the conflict – the status
of NKR.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TS SHUSHI MAY BECOME ARMENIAN CULTURAL CAPITAL
Armenpress
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
10 April 2006
The Shushi Foundation decided to bring into being the idea of
making Shushi an all-Armenian centre of education, culture and
tourism. The manager of the foundation Bakur Karapetyan told news
reporters that the online referendum on “Shushi Cultural Capital
of All Armenians” has started, and everyone can donate a symbolic
sum to the foundation. The program will reconstruct the city that
used to be an all-Armenian cultural centre in the 19th century, and
turn the fortress into a centre of peace and culture. “First of all
people should recognize the cultural values of Artsakh,” said Bakur
Karapetyan. Bakur Karapetyan said the city was divided into zones of
tourism, culture, education, the spiritual, and the foundation has
foreseen to implement a series of successive projects. The foundation
did a scientific research of the historical and cultural heritage
of Shushi. Successful archaeological studies were carried out. Bakur
Karapetyan also informed that the foundation is accumulating material
for the encyclopedia of the Artsakh war.

2006 IS DECIDING BUT NOT FINAL YEAR OF KARABAKH ISSUE
Aghavni Harutiunian
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
10 April 2006
The best way of avoiding war is to reach an agreement in the upcoming
months. Moreover, the lack of progress in the settlement of the
conflict over Karabakh is dangerous, and may bring about fundamental
decisions, said Stephen Mann, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair, during
the press conference at the U.S.
Embassy to Armenia. Despite the expectations of settlement in 2006,
Stephen Mann does not think that the conflict will be finally resolved
in 2006. He thinks it will take long years. At the same time, in
reference to the year 2006 Mann said he would not like the conflict
sides miss this chance and regret for the past. The cases of violation
of the ceasefire at the front line are, according to the co-chair,
dangerous irresponsibility. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair stated
that the negotiations in the upcoming months would have a tremendous
importance in deposing the threat of ignition of a war. With regard to
the possibility of igniting wars Stephan Mann said nobody is able to
predict further developments. However, he said, allowing the armies
of both sides to transgress the front line would not guarantee
the settlement of the conflict. For a country, waging a war, the
international community can only look for ways of settlement of the
conflict more intensively. According to Stephen Mann, the co-chairs
would approve the engagement of Nagorno Karabakh in the talks if the
parties gave their approval. The American diplomat thinks that this
question should be viewed from the aspect whether the engagement of
Nagorno Karabakh would guarantee progress in the talks. He believes
that the parties have reached certain progress in the present format
of talks. Stephan Mann appreciated the recent steps of the presidents
of Armenia and Azerbaijan. He said the diplomatic envoys of the
sides are international-level professionals. With regard to using
the model of Kosovo as a precedent, the American co-chair said each
conflict is individual and has its origin and history that must be
honoured. He stated that the Kosovo settlement might prove a bad model
for the complicated conflict of Nagorno Karabakh if it were applied
to the conflict over Karabakh without any modifications. Hence, it
is becoming obvious that the year 2006 contains elements of pressure
in terms of reaching “considerable” progress in the settlement of
the conflict over Karabakh. However, it is not clear how the loud
militaristic statements of the Azerbaijani president would fit into
the mediators’ statements about the necessity to make definitive and
complicated decisions, especially that Aliev’s groundless and empty
statements form public opinion in Azerbaijan, making the Azerbaijanis
unwilling to compromise over the question of Nagorno Karabakh.

LIBERATED TERRITORIES IN LIGHT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Hovanes Asrian
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
10 April 2006
The question of liberated territories of Artsakh cannot be viewed
apart from the human rights factors. The most essential of these
is the right of people for self-determination. As characterized by
the UN Human Rights Commission, the right for self-determination
is essential to the encouragement and development of individual
human rights. The right for self-determination is set down in the UN
Conventions, the International Bill of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as a series of other
international agreements and documents. Being one of the main rights
and having a practical role in geopolitical processes, the right
for self-determination is also widely and constantly manipulated
and distorted by countries and international organizations. A more
popular distortion is when it is opposed to the territorial integrity
of countries. If viewed from the aspect of law, this opposition becomes
groundless and illegal. Different experts have covered this question,
therefore we will dwell on other questions, related to the liberated
territories of Artsakh. The problem of liberated territories should
be viewed from the beginning, i.e. the division of Armenia in 1921. In
1921, under the March 16 agreement of Moscow and October 13 agreement
of Kars, as well as the July 5 decision of the Plenum of the Caucasian
Bureau of Central Committee of the Communist Proletarian Party of
Russia, a major part of East Armenia was annexed to the Turkic states
of Turkey and Azerbaijan. This was done with an overt violation of the
right for self-determination, and was accompanied by crimes against the
humanity, massacres, assassinations, extermination, and displacement
of people. These crimes perpetuated until the liberation of Artsakh.
It is notable that the Central Committee of Azerbaijani Communist
Party was instructed to draw the borders of the region of Artsakh
(the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh). Thus, the territories,
disputed at various international organizations, are the result of
the division of Armenia and Artsakh.
>From this point of view, these organizations may be driven by political
interests and motives in accepting the borders drawn under Stalin, but
legally and morally this is not reasonable and valid. It is obvious
that the Artsakh was joined to Azerbaijan against the will of the
native people, encroaching upon their right for self-determination,
and in law this is annexation. All the other territories inside
the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh and outside its “borders”
have the same status. These are illegally annexed and later partly
liberated territories, and now are an indivisible part of Nagorno
Karabakh Republic. The annexation of these territories by Azerbaijan
for several decades cannot act as a legal factor to underlie the
territorial claims of Azerbaijan. Still at the time of division
of Armenia the principle “Ex injuria non oritus jus” worked in
international law. In other words, no right emanates from limitations
if the state of things is the result of illegal actions.
Therefore the attempts of Azerbaijanis to refer to the documents on
Soviet administrative divisions are groundless. First, the annexation
of Artsakh was illegal, second, the law was violated by the Soviet
government, and third, by the October 18, 1991 constitutional act
on the independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan Azerbaijan was
declared the successor of the first Azerbaijani republic (1918-1920)
and not Soviet Azerbaijan, and Karabakh has never been part of the
first Azerbaijani republic. The constant violation of the right for
self-determination of the people of Artsakh since 1921 was ended
by the proclamation of NKR in 1991 and the liberation of part of
these territories. Returning these territories to Azerbaijan would
mean returning the situation when human rights were constantly
violated. Countries are to honour human rights and abstain from
actions of violating these rights. Therefore, countries, including
the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh Republic, must never
consider any question of possibility or adequacy of violating human
rights. Moreover, under Articles 55-56 of the UN Conventions the
members of the UN must honour the equality of peoples, their right
for self-determination, basic human rights and freedoms. In addition,
under the principles of the international law on friendship and
partnership of states, countries must abstain from actions involving
force, that deprive peoples of their right for self-determination,
otherwise the declaration provides for the right to solicit and accept
assistance from other countries. Besides, this declaration points
out that each country must assist in the fulfilment of the principle
of equal rights and the right for self-determination of peoples. In
debates on the Karabakh state and the liberated territories of Artsakh
countries often use the formula-motto “resolution without winners and
losers”, which would not fit into the real essence of the problem. The
Azerbaijani mini-empire simply lost part of its annexed territories in
the result of the establishment of NKR and liberation of some annexed
territories. Hence, presenting Azerbaijan as a loser gives birth to
and nourishes revenge in this country, and Azerbaijan draws farther
from the settlement of the problem. After the independence of colonies
a colonial country cannot be considered a loser, because annexation
and colonization are generally against the law. The countries of
Western Europe, losing their colonies in the past decades, did not
become losers and are not trying to return the countries that became
independent. Lasting peace in the region is possible through resolution
of problems on the basis of the international law.

ISRAELI LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
William Pfaff
Koreaherald News
Tribune Media Services
2006.04.06
PARIS – London`s Financial Times performed an American public service
in its weekend edition, calling editorially for open and honest
discussion of the influence of Israel on American foreign policy.
The call came amid the resounding silence in “responsible” American
circles concerning the paper recently issued by two highly regarded
political scholars, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of
the University of Chicago, discussing the “Israeli lobby” in Washington
and its effect on American foreign relations.
So far as one can make out, in the mainstream American press,
only United Press International, the International Herald Tribune,
the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal and the
Washington Post have carried articles on the paper. The IHT`s was
an opinion piece by Daniel Levy, a former advisor to Ehud Barak,
calling for open discussion of the lobby. The UPI and the Monitor
provided professionally detached news reports.
The other two papers carried attacks – in the case of the Washington
Post, two of them, both featuring the news that the totally
insignificant David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan, applauds
the Merscheimer-Walt paper. Duke is not a figure whose views are
ordinarily treated as being of national interest by the Post, and
the newspaper`s linking him to the Merscheimer-Wall document was an
act of character assassination by association, just like those that
won Sen. Joseph McCarthy infamy in the 1950s.
The document has not otherwise lacked attention. The blogosphere
is full of it, with both attacks on it and defenses and praise. The
authors themselves predicted that the mainstream media would ignore
or attack their argument, which is essentially that the influence
of Israel on American policy has distorted it to Israel`s advantage,
and sometimes to American disadvantage.
They say that Israel`s friends in the United States have succeeded in
convincing Americans that Israeli and American national interests are
inseparable, which they are not, and have tried and often succeeded
in suppressing or punishing critical discussion of the relationship.
What are very striking are the virulence as well as the volume of the
attacks being made on the authors. The Ku Klux Klan smear has been
the least of it. Their paper has been compared to Nazi propaganda
of the 1930s and to the czarist-era forgery, “The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion” (which still circulates in the Arab world).
In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt are recognized and respected political
scholars in the so-called realist tradition, which regards the defense
and promotion of the national interest of states as the chief purpose
of foreign policy. Their paper is a responsible document of public
importance.
The venom in the attacks made on it risks the opposite of its intended
effect by tending to validate the claim that intense pressures are
exercised on publishers, editors, writers and American universities
to block criticism, intimidate critics and prevent serious discussion
of the American-Israeli relationship.
In Israel itself, there has for many years been frank, cool and
reasoned discussion of the subject. Leading figures, including retired
officers and intelligence officials, as well as peace activists,
have in the past warned that the actions of Israel`s friends in
America could eventually rebound against Israel itself, with harm to
Jews elsewhere.
Some also have noted that the leading U.S. lobby group, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, is further to the right in its views
than Israeli public opinion, and has interfered in Israeli politics
through support for the Likud party and by undermining Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin.
The note of panic in some of the attacks on Mearsheimer and Walt
contrasts with the fact that what they say is no secret in American
foreign policy circles. People have for years taken for granted the
informal censorship, or self-censorship, exercised in the government
and the press on this issue.
It is a fact of democratic life in the United States that determined
interest groups annex their own spheres of federal policy. Energy
policy is run by the oil companies, and trade policy by manufacturers,
exporters and importers, with an input from Wall Street.
U.S. Cuba policy is decided by the Cuban lobby in Florida, and policy
on Armenia by Americans of Armenian descent. The Middle East, or at
least its part of it, belongs to Israel.
However, in the Israeli case, the lobbying effort is linked to a
foreign government, even if the lobbyists sometimes take a policy
line not that of the government. Moreover, the lobbying involves
issues of war and peace.
President George W. Bush said a few days ago that, in connection with
the supposed threat of Iran, his concern is to protect Israel.
Critics ask why Israel should not protect itself. The same has been
asked about Iraq.
In this respect, the controversy over the Israeli lobby is potentially
explosive. This is why denials, secrecy and efforts at intimidation are
dangerous. David Levy is right when he says that Israel itself would
be served “if the open and critical debate that takes place over here
(in Israel) were exported over there,” meaning the United States.

RAILWAY COMMUNICATION COUNCIL OF CIS AND BALTIC STATES TO HOLD A SITTING IN ESTONIA
ArmRadio.am
11.04.2006 11:05
43rd sitting of the Railway Communication Council of CIS and Baltic
states will start today in the capital of Estonia.
The Armenian delegation is headed by Chief of the Railway Agency
Ararat Khrimyan. A number of issues related to the cooperation of
railway agencies of CIS and Baltic states will be discussed.

US AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA JOHN EVANS HAILS MCC SIGNING DURING ASSEMBLY’S PAN-ARMENIAN CONFERENCE
ArmRadio.am
11.04.2006 10:30
US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans hailed the signing of a five-year
$235 million Compact between Armenia and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation during the Armenian Assembly’s National Banquet on March
27 in Washington, DC.
The Ambassador cautioned however that a country that is found eligible
for MCC funding must continue to remain eligible. Evans noted that one
of the criteria is meeting the MCC standard for ruling justly. In his
prepared remarks, the Ambassador urged Conference participants to join
in helping “Armenia achieve democratic elections in 2007 and 2008.”
The National Banquet was part of a major three-day pan-Armenian
Conference hosted by the Assembly, together with the Armenian General
Benevolent Union (AGBU) and the Eastern and Western Dioceses of the
Armenian Church.

NEWLY APPOINTED AMBASSADOR OF HUNGARY TO ARMENIA HANDS HIS CREDENTIALS TO ROBERT KOCHARYAN
ArmRadio.am
11.04.2006 14:10
The newly appointed Ambassador of Hungary to Armenia Arbat Seki handed
his credentials to President Robert Kocharyan.
Congratulating the Ambassador on his appointment, the President
expressed the hope that new steps directed at extension of bilateral
relations will be undertaken during his term in office.
The Parties attached importance to the formation of a necessary legal
field for cooperation and activation of business ties.
The Ambassador also presented the political and economic conditions
in Hungary.

SERGE SARGSYAN: DO NOT POLITICIZE THE ECONOMIC DEALS
ArmRadio.am
11.04.2006 14:31
RA Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan turned to the privatization of
the 5th energy block of the Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant.the Mimister
said the 5th energy block resembles a three-storey building, only
the basement of which is constructed, and there is nothing else.
“The time will come that we shall bring more convincing arguments
about the value of the 5th energy block and about this deal,” Serge
Sargsyan noted.
According to him, when economic deals are politicized, these become
neither politics nor economy.
The Minister considers that we should consider whether the proposal
is profitable for our country and should not think that the suggestion
is not acceptable, since it comes from Russia.