UN SYMBOLE DE L’AMITIE FRANCO-ARMENIENNE
par Charmot Francois
Paris-Normandie , France
10 avril 2006
Vendredi en fin d’après-midi, le depute-maire Jean-Louis Debre et
Edvard Nal Bandian, ambassadeur d’Armenie, ont plante un abricotier
dans le parc Francois-Mitterrand.
Entoures de nombreuses personnalites, parmi lesquelles le prefet et
le depute Jean-Pierre Nicolas, les deux hommes, qui ont aussi devoile
une plaque destinee a commemorer l’evenement, ont, l’un et l’autre,
rappele l’amitie qui unissait nos deux pays et nos deux peuples.
Une amitie qu’il convenait de materialiser de manière durable, en
cette annee de l’Armenie en France.
–Boundary_(ID_AU3NerCcEZQl3xQEyDnyww)–

SYRIAN LEADER HAPPY WITH YEREVAN TIES – ARMENIAN AGENCY
Noyan Tapan news agency, Yerevan
10 Apr 06
Damascus, 10 April: An Armenian delegation led by Foreign Minister
Vardan Oskanyan arrived in Syria on 8 April.
Oskanyan met Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mu’allim to discuss issues
concerning bilateral relations and regional problems. In particular,
the sides focused on bilateral cooperation in international
organizations, the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict,
the situation in Iraq, relations with Turkey and other regional issues.
Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad received Oskanyan. The two discussed
regional problems, a source in the press service of the Armenian
Foreign Ministry said. Oskanyan described the current status of the
peaceful settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict and mentioned
Syria’s role in the Middle East. President Asad expressed satisfaction
with the present status of Armenian-Syrian relations and stressed
the necessity of strengthening economic ties.
[Passage omitted: Oskanyan attended luncheon, celebrations of local
Armenian organizations]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN PAPER DESCRIBES AS “CRIMINAL” HANDOVER OF PART OF POWER PLANT TO RUSSIA
Aykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
8 Apr 06
The Armenian opposition Aykakan Zhamanak newspaper has described as
“a criminal deal” the handover of the fifth unit of the Razdan power
plant to Russia.
In an article headlined “They have sold a cow at the price of milk”,
the paper said the deal was advantageous for the Russian and Armenian
authorities but not for Armenia.
“This deal lacks an economic component. Talks that in this way
Armenia will step up its energy security are a fairy tale. What kind
of security are they speaking about if almost 90 per cent of Armenia’s
energy producing facilities belong to a foreign state?” the daily said.
The unit will remain an Armenian property. Russia will pay 250m
dollars for it. However, of this sum, Armenia will pay 190m dollars
to the population to compensate for the rise in Russian gas price.
“It becomes evident that this deal is simply an unprecedented one
because of it making no sense,” Aykakan Zhamanak said.
Under an agreement between Iran and Armenia, Iran is to supply gas
to the fifth unit and receive electricity produced by it instead. In
accordance with the agreement, the fifth unit is to produce 3.5bn KWh
electricity annually, which is more than half of electricity produced
by Armenia last year, the newspaper added.

AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENT TO HOLD TALKS WITH US LEADER ON APRIL 28
EurasiaNet, NY
April 10 2006
In what some American analysts see as a US response to recent Russian
moves that strengthened Moscow’s Caspian Basin energy position, the
White House has announced that US President George W. Bush will hold
talks with Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev on April 28 in Washington.
“Azerbaijan is a key ally in a region of great importance and a
valued partner,” said a White House statement issued April 10. The
statement added that Bush and Aliyev “will discuss a range of issues
including democracy promotion and cooperation in the Caucasus, energy
diversification, and our common commitment to working together to
advance freedom and security.”
Despite the Bush administration’s characterization of Baku as a “key
ally,” US officials had been resisting the idea of a face-to-face
meeting between Bush and Aliyev, in large measure due to the tainted
elections held in Azerbaijan in recent years. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].
US concerns about Azerbaijan’s spotty record on democratization,
however, appeared to diminish significantly following the early April
announcement that Kazakhstan would enhance energy cooperation with
Russia, the main US economic and political rival in Central Asia.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Kazakhstan’s
agreements with Russia heightened concern about Astana’s participation
in the US-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive]. US officials are also trying to arrange
a summit meeting, or potentially two, between Bush and Kazakhstani
President Nursultan Nazarbayev.
Details of the Bush-Aliyev summit were reportedly discussed during an
April 7 meeting between Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov
and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington.
Earlier the same day Mammadyarov outlined Azerbaijan’s policy goals
and concerns during an appearance at the Heritage Foundation.
Mammadyarov sought to dispel the country’s poor democratization
image. He insisted that democratization, the rule of law and the
protection of human rights are priorities now, in stark contrast to
the Soviet era when Azerbaijan was the subject of the Communist command
economy. However, he cautioned that the transformation would be slow,
citing the country’s lack of experience in democratization.
He also said that improving Azerbaijan’s “human capital,” would be
a gradual process, in part because it is a “generational issue.”
The Asian Development Bank recently projected Azerbaijani GDP
growth to total 30.5 percent in 2006 and over 27 percent next
year. But Mammadyarov acknowledged that relatively high inflation
rates, caused by the massive and rapid rise in oil and gas revenues,
posed a problem. To avoid the advent of so-called Dutch Disease, the
foreign minister said that the Azerbaijani government was promoting
agricultural ventures, particularly cotton and winemaking.
Azerbaijan is also investing heavily in infrastructure improvements.
A top priority, Mammadyarov stated, was the expansion of the country’s
road and rail network. Plans are focusing on a $320-million rail route
that would stretch from Azerbaijan, via Georgia, to Turkey and beyond
to Western Europe.
Mammadyarov additionally indicated that he would strive to call
increasing international attention to Azerbaijan’s position on the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. “We cannot now live with such 20th century phenomena as
forced border and ethnic changes,” he said. At the same time, he
stressed that a durable solution to the Karabakh conflict should be
based on negotiations. In recent weeks, some Azerbaijani officials,
including President Aliyev, have spoken of the possibility of resuming
armed hostilities if a political deal isn’t reached soon.
Editor’s Note: Washington-based writer Alex van Oss contributed
reporting for this article.

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.