This was first published in the March 29, 2008 Armenian Reporter
United States set to name a new ambassador to Armenia
Career diplomat Marie Yovanovitch said to be the nominee
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – The United States has requested the Armenian government’s approval for the nomination of a new ambassador, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balayan confirmed on March 25.
The day before, the California Courier reported that the nominee is the current U.S. ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic Marie Louise Yovanovitch. The Armenian Reporter’s sources in the Armenian government confirmed the report, adding that Armenia has already given an oral agreement to the nomination and that official diplomatic approval, known as agrément, is in the works.
The name of the nominee is expected to be officially released by the White House following the formal consent of the Armenian government, in line with diplomatic protocol.
The position of the U.S. ambassador to Armenia has been vacant since the controversial recall of Ambassador John Evans in September 2006. The recall came following Ambassador Evans’ public references to the Armenian Genocide as a genocide, and the resulting protests from Turkey; Mr. Evans retired from the State Department at the end of 2006.
Nominated to replace Mr. Evans, Ambassador Richard Hoagland during his nomination hearings questioned the applicability of the term genocide to the Armenian experience. He failed to gain the approval of the U.S. Senate. His candidacy was withdrawn last year and he has since become U.S. chargé d’affaires in Turkmenistan.
After the anticipated nomination by the White House, Ms. Yovanovitch’s candidacy would be subject to the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then the full Senate.
A veteran diplomat
Ms. Yovanovitch is a 22-year veteran of the Foreign Service currently concluding her third year at the helm of the U.S. Embassy in the Kyrgyz Republic. Her service in the Kyrgyz Republic began shortly after the overthrow of President Askar Akayev in March 2005 and has been marked by tensions over the current President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s policies, particularly with regard to the status of the U.S. air base in the country.
Prior to her current appointment, from August 2004 to May 2005 Ms. Yovanovitch was senior advisor to the then Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman and, briefly, his March 2005 replacement Nick Burns.
From August 2001 to June 2004, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, working with the then U.S. ambassador Carlos Pasqual and his September 2003 replacement John Herbst.
Her term in Kiev coincided with souring of U.S. relations with the then President Leonid Kuchma, particularly over 2002 allegations of Ukrainian sale of air defense systems to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
From May 1998 to May 2000, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy director of the State Department’s Russia Desk and her previous postings were with U.S. Embassies in Canada, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Somalia.
Ms. Yovanovitch earned a bachelor’s degree in history and Russian studies from Princeton University in 1980 and a master’s degree from the National War College in 2001. Born in Canada to parents of Serbian and Russian descent, she grew up in Connecticut and is fluent in Russian and French.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Briefly: NATO Summit, Azer. vs. U.S. over UN GA, Russia vs. Georgia; Cheney in Turkey; AKP vs. military; Knesset discusses Armenian Genocide
This was first published in the March 29, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
NATO summit to discuss enlargement plans
Leaders of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member and partner countries will gather in the Romanian capital April 2 and 4 to discuss the organization’s future. President George W. Bush will attend the biennial summit after a visit to Ukraine and before a trip to Russia for a meeting with President Vladimir Putin, according to the summit agenda and wire reports.
Armenia’s President-elect Serge Sargsian and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev are due to attend, although no bilateral meeting is expected. Both countries cooperate with NATO through individual partnership action plans (IPAP) and have contributed modest contingents to NATO- and U.S.-led operations, although neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan is formally seeking membership.
Neighboring Georgia, on the other hand, has lobbied feverishly, with U.S. backing, to launch a membership action plan (MAP) with NATO, which could become a last stage before full membership.
But opposition from several members, particularly Germany, which is wary of antagonizing Russia, means that neither Georgia not Ukraine, another potential aspirant, are likely to secure a MAP at the summit. But NATO is expected to issue a statement assuring the two countries that their membership is possible in the future.
For now, NATO is expected to expand into the Balkans, formally inviting Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia to join. Member and partner states are also expected to pledge to send additional forces to Afghanistan, where NATO-led forces have come under increased attacks from resurgent Taliban forces. Separate sessions will be dedicated to NATO’s relations with Ukraine and Russia. connect: http://www.summitbucharest.ro/en/1.html
Azerbaijan spars with U.S. over UN vote; launches Washington conference
The Azerbaijani Embassy held on March 25 what it promised will become an annual academic conference at Georgetown University in Washington, the embassy newsletter reported.
Georgetown professors Charles King and Angela Stent served as moderators, and speakers included U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza and several Azerbaijani officials. The latter mostly focused on their country’s concerns with Armenians and the oil business.
According to the Georgetown University schedule of events, Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov was initially listed among the speakers, but he was on the amended list of speakers.
Mr. Azimov on March 26 confirmed reports that Azerbaijan was inquiring with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe regarding a mechanism for replacing members of the organization’s Minsk Group, which has led mediation efforts in Karabakh since 1992. That move came after the group’s co-chairs, France, Russia, and the United States, voted against an Azerbaijan-drafted resolution on Karabakh at the United Nations General Assembly on March 14.
Asked about these developments by the Azerbaijan Press Agency this week, Mr. Bryza expressed hope that “the deputy minister will remain serious [about] the negotiations,” adding that it was “time for serious diplomats to do serious work and playing around with gestures was not constructive.”
Mr. Bryza also revealed that the United States had asked Azerbaijan for time to revise the General Assembly resolution draft, but Azerbaijan refused, which resulted in a “no” vote by the United States.
At the same time, Mr. Bryza said that he “agonized” over this “very difficult decision” and that he had instructed the U.S. Mission to United Nation not to encourage other countries to vote in opposition.
Mr. Bryza also confirmed that Nagorno-Karabakh’s status remains a central issue in the negotiations, adding that if Azerbaijan “does not want to negotiate about this point then there is no sense for negotiations to be continued at all.”
Russia begins to lift Georgia embargo
Direct flights between the Georgian and Russian capitals resumed on March 25 and passenger and cargo traffic connections through the Black Sea began operating two days later, as Russia began to lift its 18-month-long embargo on Georgia, news agencies reported.
In October 2006, Moscow cut off transport and postal links and imposed visa restrictions on Georgian citizens, when Georgia appeared to be on the verge of attacking the Russia-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia and after Georgia arrested several Russian diplomats, accusing them of espionage.
Georgian Foreign Minister David Bakradze told Agence France Presse that Russia should also drop sanctions on Georgian-made goods, open the overland border checkpoints, and lift the visa regime for Georgian citizens.
Russian and Georgian officials are expected to meet next month to discuss Tbilisi’s opposition to Russia’s efforts to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the past, Georgian officials pledged to block Russian membership unless Moscow closes its borders with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the other breakaway region.
On March 21, the Russian government-controlled parliament passed a resolution suggesting that Moscow should “consider the expediency of recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” Russian officials have hinted that such recognition would become more likely should NATO agree to Georgian membership in the alliance.
Cheney concludes Middle East tour in Turkey
Vice President Dick Cheney visited Ankara on March 24 as part of a 10-day tour of the Middle East that has focused on U.S. concerns with Iran and included a visit with U.S. forces in Iraq, news agencies reported.
Meeting with Turkish civilian and military leaders, Mr. Cheney discussed Turkey’s recent military incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan, for which the United States provided intelligence, and failed to secure a fresh deployment of Turkish forces to assist with the NATO-led stabilization effort in Afghanistan, Turkish media reported.
According to The Associated Press, the visit to Ankara was accompanied by street protests, in which demonstrators burned Mr. Cheney in effigy and chanted anti- American slogans.
In days prior to the vice president’s visit, Turkey was shaken by Kurdish demonstrations to mark Newroz, the Iranian New Year celebrated in much of the Middle East and previously banned in Turkey.
In Turkey’s southeast, demonstrators clashed with security forces, resulting in two deaths and several hundred injured. Several hundred demonstrators were reported to have been detained.
Turkey arrests ultranationalists on conspiracy charges
Turkish police have arrested ultranationalist activist Dogu Perincek along with a former Istanbul University rector and several others on March 21 in a case that Turkish media linked to an alleged plot to kill writer Orhan Pamuk, according to Agence France Presse.
Mr. Perincek was charged on March 24 with “being a senior official of a terrorist organization and obtaining and possessing classified documents,” The Associated Press reported.
Earlier this year, Turkish police arrested nationalist lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz, retired general Veli Kucuk, and dozens of others who were reportedly plotting to kill Mr. Pamuk as well as Kurdish leaders.
The pro-government newspaper Zaman reported on March 24 that the arrested were part of a “criminal gang called Ergenekon with alleged links to power centers in the bureaucracy and the military” and that they were “attempting to prepare the way for a coup d’état in Turkey in 2009.”
In recent years, Mr. Kerincsiz repeatedly sued Turkish intellectuals, including Mr. Pamuk and the assassinated Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink over their comments and articles that allegedly insulted “Turkishness.” Last year, Mr. Perincek was found guilty of Armenian Genocide denial in Switzerland.
The recent arrests are seen as part of a continuing tug of war between the military secularist establishment, which includes the minority parties in parliament, and the mildly Islamist government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Turkey’s top business group, the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD), issued a statement warning of rising tension and polarization in the country and urging all sides to act with common sense and within rule of law, the Turkish Daily News reported on March 25.
***
Israel’s Knesset to consider Armenian Genocide recognition
Israel’s Knesset has decided to consider recognition of the Armenian Genocide, the Armenian National Committee of Jerusalem reported on March 26.
Haim Auron, chair of the socialist party Meretz introduced the proposal in the Knesset. (Mr. Auron’s brother is historian Yair Auron, who has written two books on the Armenian Genocide: The Banality of Indifference and The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide). All twelve members of the Knesset present voted in favor of the proposal.
The representative of the government present in the Knesset, Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon also voted in favor. Although he refrained from using the word genocide, he said, “We all know the history.” He went on to say that they have to put this issue on the agenda and that in the past he has tried to mediate between Turkey and Armenia but was unsuccessful. “It is necessary to begin a dialogue,” said the minister.
According to the Israeli press, the Knesset House Committee will now have to decide which committee will be responsible for discussing the issue. Haim Auron wants the issue handed over to the Knesset Education Committee.
However another member of the Knesset Yosef Shagal, previously from Azerbaijan, wants the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee – which usually hold hearings behind closed doors – to discuss the issue.
According to an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Haim Oron said, “It is appropriate that the Israeli Knesset, which represents the Jewish people, recognize the Armenian Genocide. It is unacceptable that the Jewish people is not making itself heard.” Mr. Oron also said that he raises the issue of the Armenian Genocide every year.
In fact last year at about the same time, a similar proposal presented by Haim Auron was rejected by the Knesset.
Minister Simhon said that although the government is not opposed to sending the issue to a Knesset committee, the question of the Genocide remains a politically charged issue between Armenia and Turkey and Israel “is not interested in taking a side.”
Mr. Shagal warned that this step could negatively impact Turkey-Israel relations and the fate of tens of thousands of Jews who live in Azerbaijan.
Present for the session of the Knesset were representatives of the Armenian National Committee, members of the Armenian community, three Armenian priests, and Armenia’s Honorary Consul.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
NATO summit to discuss enlargement plans
Leaders of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member and partner countries will gather in the Romanian capital April 2 and 4 to discuss the organization’s future. President George W. Bush will attend the biennial summit after a visit to Ukraine and before a trip to Russia for a meeting with President Vladimir Putin, according to the summit agenda and wire reports.
Armenia’s President-elect Serge Sargsian and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev are due to attend, although no bilateral meeting is expected. Both countries cooperate with NATO through individual partnership action plans (IPAP) and have contributed modest contingents to NATO- and U.S.-led operations, although neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan is formally seeking membership.
Neighboring Georgia, on the other hand, has lobbied feverishly, with U.S. backing, to launch a membership action plan (MAP) with NATO, which could become a last stage before full membership.
But opposition from several members, particularly Germany, which is wary of antagonizing Russia, means that neither Georgia not Ukraine, another potential aspirant, are likely to secure a MAP at the summit. But NATO is expected to issue a statement assuring the two countries that their membership is possible in the future.
For now, NATO is expected to expand into the Balkans, formally inviting Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia to join. Member and partner states are also expected to pledge to send additional forces to Afghanistan, where NATO-led forces have come under increased attacks from resurgent Taliban forces. Separate sessions will be dedicated to NATO’s relations with Ukraine and Russia. connect: http://www.summitbucharest.ro/en/1.html
Azerbaijan spars with U.S. over UN vote; launches Washington conference
The Azerbaijani Embassy held on March 25 what it promised will become an annual academic conference at Georgetown University in Washington, the embassy newsletter reported.
Georgetown professors Charles King and Angela Stent served as moderators, and speakers included U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza and several Azerbaijani officials. The latter mostly focused on their country’s concerns with Armenians and the oil business.
According to the Georgetown University schedule of events, Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov was initially listed among the speakers, but he was on the amended list of speakers.
Mr. Azimov on March 26 confirmed reports that Azerbaijan was inquiring with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe regarding a mechanism for replacing members of the organization’s Minsk Group, which has led mediation efforts in Karabakh since 1992. That move came after the group’s co-chairs, France, Russia, and the United States, voted against an Azerbaijan-drafted resolution on Karabakh at the United Nations General Assembly on March 14.
Asked about these developments by the Azerbaijan Press Agency this week, Mr. Bryza expressed hope that “the deputy minister will remain serious [about] the negotiations,” adding that it was “time for serious diplomats to do serious work and playing around with gestures was not constructive.”
Mr. Bryza also revealed that the United States had asked Azerbaijan for time to revise the General Assembly resolution draft, but Azerbaijan refused, which resulted in a “no” vote by the United States.
At the same time, Mr. Bryza said that he “agonized” over this “very difficult decision” and that he had instructed the U.S. Mission to United Nation not to encourage other countries to vote in opposition.
Mr. Bryza also confirmed that Nagorno-Karabakh’s status remains a central issue in the negotiations, adding that if Azerbaijan “does not want to negotiate about this point then there is no sense for negotiations to be continued at all.”
Russia begins to lift Georgia embargo
Direct flights between the Georgian and Russian capitals resumed on March 25 and passenger and cargo traffic connections through the Black Sea began operating two days later, as Russia began to lift its 18-month-long embargo on Georgia, news agencies reported.
In October 2006, Moscow cut off transport and postal links and imposed visa restrictions on Georgian citizens, when Georgia appeared to be on the verge of attacking the Russia-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia and after Georgia arrested several Russian diplomats, accusing them of espionage.
Georgian Foreign Minister David Bakradze told Agence France Presse that Russia should also drop sanctions on Georgian-made goods, open the overland border checkpoints, and lift the visa regime for Georgian citizens.
Russian and Georgian officials are expected to meet next month to discuss Tbilisi’s opposition to Russia’s efforts to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the past, Georgian officials pledged to block Russian membership unless Moscow closes its borders with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the other breakaway region.
On March 21, the Russian government-controlled parliament passed a resolution suggesting that Moscow should “consider the expediency of recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” Russian officials have hinted that such recognition would become more likely should NATO agree to Georgian membership in the alliance.
Cheney concludes Middle East tour in Turkey
Vice President Dick Cheney visited Ankara on March 24 as part of a 10-day tour of the Middle East that has focused on U.S. concerns with Iran and included a visit with U.S. forces in Iraq, news agencies reported.
Meeting with Turkish civilian and military leaders, Mr. Cheney discussed Turkey’s recent military incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan, for which the United States provided intelligence, and failed to secure a fresh deployment of Turkish forces to assist with the NATO-led stabilization effort in Afghanistan, Turkish media reported.
According to The Associated Press, the visit to Ankara was accompanied by street protests, in which demonstrators burned Mr. Cheney in effigy and chanted anti- American slogans.
In days prior to the vice president’s visit, Turkey was shaken by Kurdish demonstrations to mark Newroz, the Iranian New Year celebrated in much of the Middle East and previously banned in Turkey.
In Turkey’s southeast, demonstrators clashed with security forces, resulting in two deaths and several hundred injured. Several hundred demonstrators were reported to have been detained.
Turkey arrests ultranationalists on conspiracy charges
Turkish police have arrested ultranationalist activist Dogu Perincek along with a former Istanbul University rector and several others on March 21 in a case that Turkish media linked to an alleged plot to kill writer Orhan Pamuk, according to Agence France Presse.
Mr. Perincek was charged on March 24 with “being a senior official of a terrorist organization and obtaining and possessing classified documents,” The Associated Press reported.
Earlier this year, Turkish police arrested nationalist lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz, retired general Veli Kucuk, and dozens of others who were reportedly plotting to kill Mr. Pamuk as well as Kurdish leaders.
The pro-government newspaper Zaman reported on March 24 that the arrested were part of a “criminal gang called Ergenekon with alleged links to power centers in the bureaucracy and the military” and that they were “attempting to prepare the way for a coup d’état in Turkey in 2009.”
In recent years, Mr. Kerincsiz repeatedly sued Turkish intellectuals, including Mr. Pamuk and the assassinated Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink over their comments and articles that allegedly insulted “Turkishness.” Last year, Mr. Perincek was found guilty of Armenian Genocide denial in Switzerland.
The recent arrests are seen as part of a continuing tug of war between the military secularist establishment, which includes the minority parties in parliament, and the mildly Islamist government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Turkey’s top business group, the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD), issued a statement warning of rising tension and polarization in the country and urging all sides to act with common sense and within rule of law, the Turkish Daily News reported on March 25.
***
Israel’s Knesset to consider Armenian Genocide recognition
Israel’s Knesset has decided to consider recognition of the Armenian Genocide, the Armenian National Committee of Jerusalem reported on March 26.
Haim Auron, chair of the socialist party Meretz introduced the proposal in the Knesset. (Mr. Auron’s brother is historian Yair Auron, who has written two books on the Armenian Genocide: The Banality of Indifference and The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide). All twelve members of the Knesset present voted in favor of the proposal.
The representative of the government present in the Knesset, Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon also voted in favor. Although he refrained from using the word genocide, he said, “We all know the history.” He went on to say that they have to put this issue on the agenda and that in the past he has tried to mediate between Turkey and Armenia but was unsuccessful. “It is necessary to begin a dialogue,” said the minister.
According to the Israeli press, the Knesset House Committee will now have to decide which committee will be responsible for discussing the issue. Haim Auron wants the issue handed over to the Knesset Education Committee.
However another member of the Knesset Yosef Shagal, previously from Azerbaijan, wants the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee – which usually hold hearings behind closed doors – to discuss the issue.
According to an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Haim Oron said, “It is appropriate that the Israeli Knesset, which represents the Jewish people, recognize the Armenian Genocide. It is unacceptable that the Jewish people is not making itself heard.” Mr. Oron also said that he raises the issue of the Armenian Genocide every year.
In fact last year at about the same time, a similar proposal presented by Haim Auron was rejected by the Knesset.
Minister Simhon said that although the government is not opposed to sending the issue to a Knesset committee, the question of the Genocide remains a politically charged issue between Armenia and Turkey and Israel “is not interested in taking a side.”
Mr. Shagal warned that this step could negatively impact Turkey-Israel relations and the fate of tens of thousands of Jews who live in Azerbaijan.
Present for the session of the Knesset were representatives of the Armenian National Committee, members of the Armenian community, three Armenian priests, and Armenia’s Honorary Consul.
Matt Bryza sees return of "democratic momentum" in Armenia
This was first published in March 22, 2008 Armenian Reporter
U.S. official sees return of democratic momentum
Expects specific OSCE proposals to strengthen Karabakh cease-fire
WASHINGTON – Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Bryza has been the U.S. State Department’s point man for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Turkey since 2005; from 2001 to 2005 he held a similar portfolio at the National Security Council. He is also the U.S. co-chair for the Karabakh mediation effort under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
On March 20 Mr. Bryza discussed the most recent developments in Armenia with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan.
“Fair and balanced” Karabakh deal within reach
Reporter: On March 19 Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian was reported by RFE/RL as saying that Azerbaijan is “trying to start, through the OSCE Secretariat, a process of the dissolution of the Minsk Group,” which has led international mediation in Karabakh since 1992. Can you confirm that such an effort is underway?
Bryza: I know there has been an inquiry from the Azerbaijani mission to the OSCE about what would be the procedures were any country to wish to withdraw from the Minsk Group. But I do not know about anything that went beyond an inquiry.
So when I read Mr. Oskanian’s statement it was news to me, and I have not seen confirmation that the Azerbaijani effort had in fact moved that far.
Reporter: We have also heard from the Azerbaijani ambassador Vilayat Guliyev that the Minsk Group that you co-chair with the French and the Russians has been “useless” and its approach to the conflict “tendentious and one-sided,” as day.az reported on March 19.
Overall, there seems to be an effort by Azerbaijan to pressure the co-chair countries in the wake of the United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) vote on March 14(see story on page A3). What is happening there?
Bryza: Ambassador Guliyev, with all due respect, is not participating in negotiations under the Minsk Group and I would presume is not aware of the details of what is on the table.
And what is on the table is a fair and balanced compromise that includes elements that are attractive to Azerbaijan, an interpretation of which was cited in the UN GA resolution, but there are also many elements that are very attractive to Armenia that were not cited in that resolution.
So I do not think that any of the people that are out there criticizing the Minsk Group proposals are aware of what is really in the proposal.
Reporter: The Minsk Group statement on March 19 suggested resuming presidential-level negotiations as soon as possible. Do you expect a meeting between Armenia’s president-elect Serge Sargsian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev during the upcoming NATO summit in Romania, which both plan to attend? What would be the agenda for such a meeting?
Bryza: What we said is that it would be useful for there to be a meeting between the presidents as soon as they are ready to meet. I do not know when that is going to happen. It could be [at the NATO summit] or just after that.
The calendar is a bit complicated in that President-elect Sargsian will not be inaugurated until April 9, and the summit in Romania is from April 2 to 4. So Prime Minister Sargsian will not yet be the president. So, there is a protocol problem, which could lead to a delay, but it is up to them if they get together there. And if they don’t, they would be able to meet shortly thereafter.
[In terms of agenda], it is clear now that the president-elect of Armenia is in favor of continuing on the basis of the proposal on the table [as it was presented at the OSCE ministerial meeting in Madrid last November].
Reporter: On a related issue, former Nagorno-Karabakh deputy foreign minister Massis Mayilian proposed several measures for strengthening of the cease-fire, in particular expansion of Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk’s monitoring group and tactical disengagement of forces along the Line of Contact (see the March 15 issue of the Armenian Reporter.) Are those issues on the Minsk Group agenda?
Bryza: Yes they are. And we rely heavily on Ambassador Kasprzyk’s expertise and advice on what specific measures could be taken. It would probably be useful to increase the distance of separation between the forces along the Line of Contact, but specific ways to implement those sorts of improvements to the cease-fire regime require consultation and analysis of Ambassador Kasprzyk’s group. So when [the Minsk Group co-chairs] do get together in Romania next month, we will be able to come up with some specific proposals.
Reporter: The February 4, 1995, document, called an “Arrangement on strengthening the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict” was referenced in one of the recent Minsk Group statements. Is there an effort to make sure that it is implemented? Not in the least since it is really the only agreement signed by the parties in addition to the May 1994 cease-fire agreement?
Bryza: Of course we expect that the sides fully implement pre existing agreements. But which aspects have not been implemented? You know [that] the cease-fire is more or less respected. Are there elements in particular you have in mind?
Reporter: As the former Russian mediator Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov described this arrangement [to the Armenian Reporter, see the January 26, 2008, issue] it sets out the complaint and investigation procedure regarding cease-fire violations as well as direct contact between commanders in the field. It does not appear that any of that has been implemented in the 13 years since the time the arrangement was signed.
Bryza: Yes, one of the issues we need to explore is to improve communication between commanders along the Line of Contact. Right now I cannot assess how far that agreement has or has not been implemented; that requires real experts from [Ambassador Kasprzyk’s] group.
The short answer is yes, we want all aspects of that agreement to be implemented.
Reporter: Following the UN GA vote initiated by Azerbaijan, there has been talk in Armenia that perhaps it is time to recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
There is a proposal by the opposition Heritage Party in parliament to recognize NKR. Considering the postelection situation in Yerevan, such a step may even serve as a basis for establishing cooperation between the governing parties and the opposition.
What consequences do you foresee should the Armenian parliament move on this issue?
Bryza: I think any move that prejudges the outcome of the negotiations that are underway and that are achieving some real results in terms of moving closer to finalizing the basic principles would be unhelpful.
And we looked at the UN GA resolution of Azerbaijan in that very light: that it was a one-sided resolution that did not reflect the fair and balanced nature of the proposal on the table.
Similarly, if the Armenian side were to move unilaterally and prejudge the outcome of the negotiations by recognizing Nagorno Karabakh, that would be something that is very seriously undermining the peace process.
I think that would be a highly asymmetric response [to Azerbaijan’s move at the UN GA] and potentially a highly destabilizing move. [It would mean] to decide that this is the end of the negotiating process and we have unilaterally declared that the conflict is resolved in this way.
I do not know how that would leave space for the continuation of negotiations. We need to maintain the give and take that aims to achieve this fair and balanced compromise which is absolutely within reach right now and requires a little bit more work to reach a compromise.
U.S. aid to Armenia won’t be affected if positive trends continue
Reporter: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told members of Congress in a March 12 hearing that the state of emergency in Armenia had “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs. Which programs was Dr. Rice referring to?
Bryza: What I thought the secretary said is that we are looking into suspending or beginning to implement limitations to some of our programs.
One thing that you saw was that letter that came from [Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO] Ambassador John Danilovich that talked about the need to reconsider the MCC program in the current circumstances. We were also in the process of possibly limiting certain other flows of assistance money if the state of emergency was not lifted and if the freedoms in Armenia were not restored.
But it sounds as perhaps those positive steps have been taken [in terms of the lifting of the state of emergency] and since the positive steps have been taken then there is no need for us to take negative steps on our side.
I hope very much that lifting of the state of emergency moves tensions in Armenia to a new phase, in which freedoms and democratic momentum in Armenia are restored and we get back on track with all of the items on our important agenda.
Reporter: Are there clear guidelines on what could cause MCC suspension or termination? The MCC letter spoke of “policy reversals” and you mention “momentum,” but outside of the lifting of the state of emergency, which has now happened, what specific steps can provide for such a momentum?
And what are, as Turks like to put it, the “red lines”?
Bryza: I would rather not speculate about a specific “red line,”
because MCC has a much broader scope [to determine eligibility for aid]. The MCC is a program that President George W. Bush has developed, and he is very proud of it. It aims to provide assistance in response to performance and reform.
If the impression in Washington is that a country has wandered far away from democratic reforms, then by definition there needs to be some ratcheting back of the MCC program. That is the phase we have been in: trying to assess how much backtracking there may have been in Armenia.
So, there is no specific red line, but a subjective judgment that one has to make on whether or not there has been a large amount of backtracking. And I would rather not get into a speculative discussion about what might be too much, because I hope we have moved out of that whole set of problems.
It seems that perhaps right now we are seeing the restoration of all the freedoms and now that question of suspending assistance could become moot, I hope. But it all depends on how fully the freedoms are restored.
Reporter: Following your visit to Armenia on March 6–7 and interview with The Associated Press, where you appeared to say that the government actions on March 1 were too harsh, there seemed to be a bit of back and forth, including what sounded like an annoyed reaction from Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balayan. Have those matters been resolved or is there still an argument going on?
Bryza: Well, the Foreign Ministry spokesman made his remarks and you did not hear any retort or rejoinder from me so I do not think there is any argument at all. And I do think I need to follow-up on that at all. I think that we are looking forward and hoping to see all of the freedoms restored and then we do not have to worry.
Reporter: While you were in Armenia, the government press office publicized a couple of your remarks where you praised the leadership of Prime Minister Sargsian. Certainly Mr. Sargsian had sounded open to dialogue both before and after the March 1 events, although with the caveat that people with whom he engages in dialogue recognize his election victory. In your own words, what is your assessment of the now president-elect Sargsian and his role in this crisis?
Bryza: Prime Minister Sargsian is preparing for his inauguration and to make sure that he gets off on the right foot he seems to believe that it is important to restore media freedoms and freedom of assembly that were restricted under the state of emergency. And if he thought differently, he would not
be involved in lifting those restrictions – so that is positive and a very good sign.
I have found Mr. Sargsian to be a constructive partner diplomatically and in security matters who has a clear vision of where he wants Armenia to evolve, in terms of having complementary relations both with Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community. [Mr. Sargsian has been] open-minded in terms of listening and analyzing and synthesizing ideas and trying to come up with a way forward that is in a mutual benefit of both of our countries.
And that is all really good.
In terms of the events that just transpired – all I can say is that they were a tragedy for all of the Armenian people and the important thing is to make sure that
these tragic events do not end up slowing down the evolution of the Armenian democracy and do not end up somehow undercutting shared values that are at the core of the U.S.-Armenian relationship.
Again, the momentum is being restored and we will see where things go from here.
Reporter: There seems to be a fine line that the government needs to follow in terms of its pledge to prosecute people behind the violent postelection unrest in Yerevan and working toward reconciliation.
What is your sense on how such a balance can be struck?
Bryza: In general, what we would like to see is restoration of the confidence of all of the Armenian voters in their government, as well as the restoration of the positive progress in U.S.-Armenia relations.
Of course it is very important that all those who committed violence unlawfully, whether they are in opposition or in the government, be prosecuted. Anybody who violated the election laws, either in the campaign period, or the voting, or the tabulation of votes also should be investigated and prosecuted.
It is important that journalists have the right to speak freely, but also it is important that the journalists maintain professional and ethical standards. A cooperative evolution needs to take place between journalists and the government, as well as opposition leaders, to make sure they focus on things that really matter to Armenia, which is building democratic institutions.
Peaceful and lawful demonstrations are an important part of any democracy. But again, I stress, peaceful and lawful, so there is mutual responsibility.
That said, in our Euro-Atlantic world, whether it is fair or unfair – it is just the way our culture is structured both Europe and U.S. – when serious violence ensues
between the government and the population, we often blame the government first.
In Washington, D.C., for example, if there is a clash between the protestors and the police, the police are going to be blamed for brutality even if they were provoked. And that is what happened in Armenia as well. Perhaps some in Armenia may think this is unfair, but that is just a reality that the governments are seen bearing primary responsibility when violence ensues.
Reporter: When you met with ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian, what was your message to him? In your assessment, is he ready for a constructive dialogue to help bring the country back to normalcy?
Bryza: I hope so. I would rather not divulge the specifics of the private discussions that I had, but when you talk to Mr. Ter-Petrossian you hear a very calm and seemingly a very reasonable approach.
I can only say that [I hope that] as he exercises his democratic rights of the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, he would do so in a way that strengthens Armenia’s democratic institutions.
I have no way to predict in which way he is going to behave. I can just express my hope.
Reporter: It has been two weeks since the Constitutional Court turned down Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s challenge, letting the election results stand. The state of emergency has also now been lifted. How is the decision taken for President Bush to send a letter to the president-elect, in this case Mr. Sargsian, and when? Are the elections over, as far as you are concerned?
Bryza: It is a decision that the President of the United States has to make as to when he offers his recognition or congratulations to any foreign leader on an election.
I would presume that in a situation of the state of emergency it is quite difficult for any U.S. president to reach out and congratulate.
I hope that we are seeing today that Armenia is moving into a new phase when freedoms are restored.
And I presume that our president will have a different set of facts in his mind as he considers when and how to acknowledge and congratulate Prime Minister Sargsian on this last election.
U.S. official sees return of democratic momentum
Expects specific OSCE proposals to strengthen Karabakh cease-fire
WASHINGTON – Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Bryza has been the U.S. State Department’s point man for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Turkey since 2005; from 2001 to 2005 he held a similar portfolio at the National Security Council. He is also the U.S. co-chair for the Karabakh mediation effort under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
On March 20 Mr. Bryza discussed the most recent developments in Armenia with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan.
“Fair and balanced” Karabakh deal within reach
Reporter: On March 19 Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian was reported by RFE/RL as saying that Azerbaijan is “trying to start, through the OSCE Secretariat, a process of the dissolution of the Minsk Group,” which has led international mediation in Karabakh since 1992. Can you confirm that such an effort is underway?
Bryza: I know there has been an inquiry from the Azerbaijani mission to the OSCE about what would be the procedures were any country to wish to withdraw from the Minsk Group. But I do not know about anything that went beyond an inquiry.
So when I read Mr. Oskanian’s statement it was news to me, and I have not seen confirmation that the Azerbaijani effort had in fact moved that far.
Reporter: We have also heard from the Azerbaijani ambassador Vilayat Guliyev that the Minsk Group that you co-chair with the French and the Russians has been “useless” and its approach to the conflict “tendentious and one-sided,” as day.az reported on March 19.
Overall, there seems to be an effort by Azerbaijan to pressure the co-chair countries in the wake of the United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) vote on March 14(see story on page A3). What is happening there?
Bryza: Ambassador Guliyev, with all due respect, is not participating in negotiations under the Minsk Group and I would presume is not aware of the details of what is on the table.
And what is on the table is a fair and balanced compromise that includes elements that are attractive to Azerbaijan, an interpretation of which was cited in the UN GA resolution, but there are also many elements that are very attractive to Armenia that were not cited in that resolution.
So I do not think that any of the people that are out there criticizing the Minsk Group proposals are aware of what is really in the proposal.
Reporter: The Minsk Group statement on March 19 suggested resuming presidential-level negotiations as soon as possible. Do you expect a meeting between Armenia’s president-elect Serge Sargsian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev during the upcoming NATO summit in Romania, which both plan to attend? What would be the agenda for such a meeting?
Bryza: What we said is that it would be useful for there to be a meeting between the presidents as soon as they are ready to meet. I do not know when that is going to happen. It could be [at the NATO summit] or just after that.
The calendar is a bit complicated in that President-elect Sargsian will not be inaugurated until April 9, and the summit in Romania is from April 2 to 4. So Prime Minister Sargsian will not yet be the president. So, there is a protocol problem, which could lead to a delay, but it is up to them if they get together there. And if they don’t, they would be able to meet shortly thereafter.
[In terms of agenda], it is clear now that the president-elect of Armenia is in favor of continuing on the basis of the proposal on the table [as it was presented at the OSCE ministerial meeting in Madrid last November].
Reporter: On a related issue, former Nagorno-Karabakh deputy foreign minister Massis Mayilian proposed several measures for strengthening of the cease-fire, in particular expansion of Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk’s monitoring group and tactical disengagement of forces along the Line of Contact (see the March 15 issue of the Armenian Reporter.) Are those issues on the Minsk Group agenda?
Bryza: Yes they are. And we rely heavily on Ambassador Kasprzyk’s expertise and advice on what specific measures could be taken. It would probably be useful to increase the distance of separation between the forces along the Line of Contact, but specific ways to implement those sorts of improvements to the cease-fire regime require consultation and analysis of Ambassador Kasprzyk’s group. So when [the Minsk Group co-chairs] do get together in Romania next month, we will be able to come up with some specific proposals.
Reporter: The February 4, 1995, document, called an “Arrangement on strengthening the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict” was referenced in one of the recent Minsk Group statements. Is there an effort to make sure that it is implemented? Not in the least since it is really the only agreement signed by the parties in addition to the May 1994 cease-fire agreement?
Bryza: Of course we expect that the sides fully implement pre existing agreements. But which aspects have not been implemented? You know [that] the cease-fire is more or less respected. Are there elements in particular you have in mind?
Reporter: As the former Russian mediator Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov described this arrangement [to the Armenian Reporter, see the January 26, 2008, issue] it sets out the complaint and investigation procedure regarding cease-fire violations as well as direct contact between commanders in the field. It does not appear that any of that has been implemented in the 13 years since the time the arrangement was signed.
Bryza: Yes, one of the issues we need to explore is to improve communication between commanders along the Line of Contact. Right now I cannot assess how far that agreement has or has not been implemented; that requires real experts from [Ambassador Kasprzyk’s] group.
The short answer is yes, we want all aspects of that agreement to be implemented.
Reporter: Following the UN GA vote initiated by Azerbaijan, there has been talk in Armenia that perhaps it is time to recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
There is a proposal by the opposition Heritage Party in parliament to recognize NKR. Considering the postelection situation in Yerevan, such a step may even serve as a basis for establishing cooperation between the governing parties and the opposition.
What consequences do you foresee should the Armenian parliament move on this issue?
Bryza: I think any move that prejudges the outcome of the negotiations that are underway and that are achieving some real results in terms of moving closer to finalizing the basic principles would be unhelpful.
And we looked at the UN GA resolution of Azerbaijan in that very light: that it was a one-sided resolution that did not reflect the fair and balanced nature of the proposal on the table.
Similarly, if the Armenian side were to move unilaterally and prejudge the outcome of the negotiations by recognizing Nagorno Karabakh, that would be something that is very seriously undermining the peace process.
I think that would be a highly asymmetric response [to Azerbaijan’s move at the UN GA] and potentially a highly destabilizing move. [It would mean] to decide that this is the end of the negotiating process and we have unilaterally declared that the conflict is resolved in this way.
I do not know how that would leave space for the continuation of negotiations. We need to maintain the give and take that aims to achieve this fair and balanced compromise which is absolutely within reach right now and requires a little bit more work to reach a compromise.
U.S. aid to Armenia won’t be affected if positive trends continue
Reporter: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told members of Congress in a March 12 hearing that the state of emergency in Armenia had “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs. Which programs was Dr. Rice referring to?
Bryza: What I thought the secretary said is that we are looking into suspending or beginning to implement limitations to some of our programs.
One thing that you saw was that letter that came from [Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO] Ambassador John Danilovich that talked about the need to reconsider the MCC program in the current circumstances. We were also in the process of possibly limiting certain other flows of assistance money if the state of emergency was not lifted and if the freedoms in Armenia were not restored.
But it sounds as perhaps those positive steps have been taken [in terms of the lifting of the state of emergency] and since the positive steps have been taken then there is no need for us to take negative steps on our side.
I hope very much that lifting of the state of emergency moves tensions in Armenia to a new phase, in which freedoms and democratic momentum in Armenia are restored and we get back on track with all of the items on our important agenda.
Reporter: Are there clear guidelines on what could cause MCC suspension or termination? The MCC letter spoke of “policy reversals” and you mention “momentum,” but outside of the lifting of the state of emergency, which has now happened, what specific steps can provide for such a momentum?
And what are, as Turks like to put it, the “red lines”?
Bryza: I would rather not speculate about a specific “red line,”
because MCC has a much broader scope [to determine eligibility for aid]. The MCC is a program that President George W. Bush has developed, and he is very proud of it. It aims to provide assistance in response to performance and reform.
If the impression in Washington is that a country has wandered far away from democratic reforms, then by definition there needs to be some ratcheting back of the MCC program. That is the phase we have been in: trying to assess how much backtracking there may have been in Armenia.
So, there is no specific red line, but a subjective judgment that one has to make on whether or not there has been a large amount of backtracking. And I would rather not get into a speculative discussion about what might be too much, because I hope we have moved out of that whole set of problems.
It seems that perhaps right now we are seeing the restoration of all the freedoms and now that question of suspending assistance could become moot, I hope. But it all depends on how fully the freedoms are restored.
Reporter: Following your visit to Armenia on March 6–7 and interview with The Associated Press, where you appeared to say that the government actions on March 1 were too harsh, there seemed to be a bit of back and forth, including what sounded like an annoyed reaction from Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balayan. Have those matters been resolved or is there still an argument going on?
Bryza: Well, the Foreign Ministry spokesman made his remarks and you did not hear any retort or rejoinder from me so I do not think there is any argument at all. And I do think I need to follow-up on that at all. I think that we are looking forward and hoping to see all of the freedoms restored and then we do not have to worry.
Reporter: While you were in Armenia, the government press office publicized a couple of your remarks where you praised the leadership of Prime Minister Sargsian. Certainly Mr. Sargsian had sounded open to dialogue both before and after the March 1 events, although with the caveat that people with whom he engages in dialogue recognize his election victory. In your own words, what is your assessment of the now president-elect Sargsian and his role in this crisis?
Bryza: Prime Minister Sargsian is preparing for his inauguration and to make sure that he gets off on the right foot he seems to believe that it is important to restore media freedoms and freedom of assembly that were restricted under the state of emergency. And if he thought differently, he would not
be involved in lifting those restrictions – so that is positive and a very good sign.
I have found Mr. Sargsian to be a constructive partner diplomatically and in security matters who has a clear vision of where he wants Armenia to evolve, in terms of having complementary relations both with Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community. [Mr. Sargsian has been] open-minded in terms of listening and analyzing and synthesizing ideas and trying to come up with a way forward that is in a mutual benefit of both of our countries.
And that is all really good.
In terms of the events that just transpired – all I can say is that they were a tragedy for all of the Armenian people and the important thing is to make sure that
these tragic events do not end up slowing down the evolution of the Armenian democracy and do not end up somehow undercutting shared values that are at the core of the U.S.-Armenian relationship.
Again, the momentum is being restored and we will see where things go from here.
Reporter: There seems to be a fine line that the government needs to follow in terms of its pledge to prosecute people behind the violent postelection unrest in Yerevan and working toward reconciliation.
What is your sense on how such a balance can be struck?
Bryza: In general, what we would like to see is restoration of the confidence of all of the Armenian voters in their government, as well as the restoration of the positive progress in U.S.-Armenia relations.
Of course it is very important that all those who committed violence unlawfully, whether they are in opposition or in the government, be prosecuted. Anybody who violated the election laws, either in the campaign period, or the voting, or the tabulation of votes also should be investigated and prosecuted.
It is important that journalists have the right to speak freely, but also it is important that the journalists maintain professional and ethical standards. A cooperative evolution needs to take place between journalists and the government, as well as opposition leaders, to make sure they focus on things that really matter to Armenia, which is building democratic institutions.
Peaceful and lawful demonstrations are an important part of any democracy. But again, I stress, peaceful and lawful, so there is mutual responsibility.
That said, in our Euro-Atlantic world, whether it is fair or unfair – it is just the way our culture is structured both Europe and U.S. – when serious violence ensues
between the government and the population, we often blame the government first.
In Washington, D.C., for example, if there is a clash between the protestors and the police, the police are going to be blamed for brutality even if they were provoked. And that is what happened in Armenia as well. Perhaps some in Armenia may think this is unfair, but that is just a reality that the governments are seen bearing primary responsibility when violence ensues.
Reporter: When you met with ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian, what was your message to him? In your assessment, is he ready for a constructive dialogue to help bring the country back to normalcy?
Bryza: I hope so. I would rather not divulge the specifics of the private discussions that I had, but when you talk to Mr. Ter-Petrossian you hear a very calm and seemingly a very reasonable approach.
I can only say that [I hope that] as he exercises his democratic rights of the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, he would do so in a way that strengthens Armenia’s democratic institutions.
I have no way to predict in which way he is going to behave. I can just express my hope.
Reporter: It has been two weeks since the Constitutional Court turned down Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s challenge, letting the election results stand. The state of emergency has also now been lifted. How is the decision taken for President Bush to send a letter to the president-elect, in this case Mr. Sargsian, and when? Are the elections over, as far as you are concerned?
Bryza: It is a decision that the President of the United States has to make as to when he offers his recognition or congratulations to any foreign leader on an election.
I would presume that in a situation of the state of emergency it is quite difficult for any U.S. president to reach out and congratulate.
I hope that we are seeing today that Armenia is moving into a new phase when freedoms are restored.
And I presume that our president will have a different set of facts in his mind as he considers when and how to acknowledge and congratulate Prime Minister Sargsian on this last election.
Briefly: Anti-Genocide and appropriations advocacy; State Dept. narco report; Saakashvili in U.S.
This was first published in the March 22, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Armenian-Americans advocate against genocide
More than 100 activists visited congressional offices from March 12–14 to advocate for legislative action against genocide, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) reported. The second annual campaign was organized jointly by the ANCA and Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net).
The activists met with dozens of legislators and visited offices of every Senate and House member, focusing on the violence in Darfur and Turkey’s campaign of genocide denial.
A congressional measure affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide was passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last October in spite of unprecedented opposition from the White House and the Turkish government.
The resolution, House Resolution 106, can be brought up for a vote by the House of Representatives at any time before conclusion of the congressional session at the end of this year.
Members of Congress call for revision of administration’s foreign aid proposal
Co-chairs of the Armenian Congressional Caucus Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) together with thirty-seven other House members called on House appropriators to increase U.S. aid to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh and cut all military assistance to Azerbaijan.
In a March 19 letter addressed to House Foreign Operations Subcommittee chair Rep. Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y.) and ranking member Frank Wolf (R,-Va.), and made available by Rep. Knollenberg’s staff, the members of Congress cited continued war threats by Azerbaijan and called on the subcommittee to “zero out funding for Azerbaijan under the Foreign Military Financing as well as the International Military Education and Training account.”
The Bush administration requested $3.9 million in such funding for Azerbaijan in the Fiscal Year 2009.
The letter also argued for $70 million in economic and $5 million in military aid to Armenia and $10 million in development aid to Nagorno-Karabakh. The administration had requested $24 million in economic and $3.3 million in military aid to Armenia, and made no request for Karabakh.
The members of Congress also called for the appropriations bill language that would direct the State Department “to move in the direction of diplomatic relations with Nagorno-Karabakh,” to facilitate open dialogue, alleviate threats to Nagorno-Karabakh and aid in a peaceful resolution of conflicts.
State Department report complains of “small window” into Nagorno-Karabakh
The annual “Narcotics Control Strategy Report” issued on February 29 complained that the State Department had “only a small window… into activities in Nagorno Karabakh and the occupied territories.”
The congressionally mandated report contains a country-by-country analysis prepared primarily by U.S. embassies, which rely mostly on local governments for information.
One of these governments is Azerbaijan’s, which has for years been conducting a propaganda campaign against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, which includes unsubstantiated allegations of drug running.
Until two years ago, the State Department referred to Azerbaijan’s allegations that Karabakh was one of several routes used by international drug runners. While the United States never validated such charges, the reference itself had been used by Azerbaijan as a purported endorsement of its claims.
After Nagorno-Karabakh officials communicated with the State Department noting the baseless nature of the claims and inviting the relevant U.S. officials to visit NKR to investigate any possible concerns, the State Department dropped the reference. (See the March 10, 2007 issue of the Armenian Reporter.) But because of the existing U.S. policy, its officials’ access to Karabakh remains restricted.
As in years past the report noted that that unlike Armenia, “Azerbaijan is located along a drug transit route running from Afghanistan and Central Asia into Western Europe” and Russia. The report also noted that narcotics circulation currently poses a modest challenge to Armenia, but that that could change should borders with Turkey or Azerbaijan open.
President Bush hosts Georgian leader
In a sign of continued U.S. support, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who was re-elected in a contested election last January, was hosted by President George W. Bush and other senior officials in Washington this week.
Georgia is seeking to join the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and last year deployed one of the largest troop contingents in support of U.S. occupation of Iraq. The United States has supported Georgia’s NATO effort, although some European allies remain hesitant.
During the March 19 meeting, President Bush said that “NATO [would] benefit with a Georgian membership,” but he stopped short of endorsing Georgia’s hopes for securing a Membership Action Plan during the upcoming NATO summit in Romania on April 2–4, according to the White House press service.
President Bush also shared his admiration for Georgia and Mr. Saakashvili’s leadership and reminisced about his 2005 trip to Tbilisi “about the unbelievably good food, and about the dancing.” Mr. Saakashvili joked, “you will dance Georgia dance much better than I do.… I know you’re not Georgian, you’re a Texan, but we are pretty close.”
Although, the Georgian opposition continues to protest what it describes as a political crackdown and has not accepted the presidential election results, U.S. officials have called on opposition leaders to accept the official electoral outcome and focus on parliamentary elections expected this May (see this page in the January 26, 2008, Armenian Reporter).
Speaking at a March 19 presentation organized by the Atlantic Council of the United States, a Washington think tank, and sponsored by BP and Frontera Resources, two oil companies with interests in Georgia, Mr. Saakashvili portrayed the recent domestic upheaval in Georgia as a sign of pluralism and therefore proof of its successful democratization.
On March 18, Armenian and Georgian human rights activists organized a joint protest in opposition to both governments’ policies outside their respective embassies in Washington. But the effort, covered by three Georgian TV channels and this newspaper and dubbed a “peace vigil” by the newly fashioned “Democracy Initiative for Armenia and Georgia,” failed to make an immediate impact as only two individual participants joined the four organizers.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Armenian-Americans advocate against genocide
More than 100 activists visited congressional offices from March 12–14 to advocate for legislative action against genocide, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) reported. The second annual campaign was organized jointly by the ANCA and Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net).
The activists met with dozens of legislators and visited offices of every Senate and House member, focusing on the violence in Darfur and Turkey’s campaign of genocide denial.
A congressional measure affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide was passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last October in spite of unprecedented opposition from the White House and the Turkish government.
The resolution, House Resolution 106, can be brought up for a vote by the House of Representatives at any time before conclusion of the congressional session at the end of this year.
Members of Congress call for revision of administration’s foreign aid proposal
Co-chairs of the Armenian Congressional Caucus Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) together with thirty-seven other House members called on House appropriators to increase U.S. aid to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh and cut all military assistance to Azerbaijan.
In a March 19 letter addressed to House Foreign Operations Subcommittee chair Rep. Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y.) and ranking member Frank Wolf (R,-Va.), and made available by Rep. Knollenberg’s staff, the members of Congress cited continued war threats by Azerbaijan and called on the subcommittee to “zero out funding for Azerbaijan under the Foreign Military Financing as well as the International Military Education and Training account.”
The Bush administration requested $3.9 million in such funding for Azerbaijan in the Fiscal Year 2009.
The letter also argued for $70 million in economic and $5 million in military aid to Armenia and $10 million in development aid to Nagorno-Karabakh. The administration had requested $24 million in economic and $3.3 million in military aid to Armenia, and made no request for Karabakh.
The members of Congress also called for the appropriations bill language that would direct the State Department “to move in the direction of diplomatic relations with Nagorno-Karabakh,” to facilitate open dialogue, alleviate threats to Nagorno-Karabakh and aid in a peaceful resolution of conflicts.
State Department report complains of “small window” into Nagorno-Karabakh
The annual “Narcotics Control Strategy Report” issued on February 29 complained that the State Department had “only a small window… into activities in Nagorno Karabakh and the occupied territories.”
The congressionally mandated report contains a country-by-country analysis prepared primarily by U.S. embassies, which rely mostly on local governments for information.
One of these governments is Azerbaijan’s, which has for years been conducting a propaganda campaign against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, which includes unsubstantiated allegations of drug running.
Until two years ago, the State Department referred to Azerbaijan’s allegations that Karabakh was one of several routes used by international drug runners. While the United States never validated such charges, the reference itself had been used by Azerbaijan as a purported endorsement of its claims.
After Nagorno-Karabakh officials communicated with the State Department noting the baseless nature of the claims and inviting the relevant U.S. officials to visit NKR to investigate any possible concerns, the State Department dropped the reference. (See the March 10, 2007 issue of the Armenian Reporter.) But because of the existing U.S. policy, its officials’ access to Karabakh remains restricted.
As in years past the report noted that that unlike Armenia, “Azerbaijan is located along a drug transit route running from Afghanistan and Central Asia into Western Europe” and Russia. The report also noted that narcotics circulation currently poses a modest challenge to Armenia, but that that could change should borders with Turkey or Azerbaijan open.
President Bush hosts Georgian leader
In a sign of continued U.S. support, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who was re-elected in a contested election last January, was hosted by President George W. Bush and other senior officials in Washington this week.
Georgia is seeking to join the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and last year deployed one of the largest troop contingents in support of U.S. occupation of Iraq. The United States has supported Georgia’s NATO effort, although some European allies remain hesitant.
During the March 19 meeting, President Bush said that “NATO [would] benefit with a Georgian membership,” but he stopped short of endorsing Georgia’s hopes for securing a Membership Action Plan during the upcoming NATO summit in Romania on April 2–4, according to the White House press service.
President Bush also shared his admiration for Georgia and Mr. Saakashvili’s leadership and reminisced about his 2005 trip to Tbilisi “about the unbelievably good food, and about the dancing.” Mr. Saakashvili joked, “you will dance Georgia dance much better than I do.… I know you’re not Georgian, you’re a Texan, but we are pretty close.”
Although, the Georgian opposition continues to protest what it describes as a political crackdown and has not accepted the presidential election results, U.S. officials have called on opposition leaders to accept the official electoral outcome and focus on parliamentary elections expected this May (see this page in the January 26, 2008, Armenian Reporter).
Speaking at a March 19 presentation organized by the Atlantic Council of the United States, a Washington think tank, and sponsored by BP and Frontera Resources, two oil companies with interests in Georgia, Mr. Saakashvili portrayed the recent domestic upheaval in Georgia as a sign of pluralism and therefore proof of its successful democratization.
On March 18, Armenian and Georgian human rights activists organized a joint protest in opposition to both governments’ policies outside their respective embassies in Washington. But the effort, covered by three Georgian TV channels and this newspaper and dubbed a “peace vigil” by the newly fashioned “Democracy Initiative for Armenia and Georgia,” failed to make an immediate impact as only two individual participants joined the four organizers.
Masis Mayilian on Karabakh cease-fire
This was first published in March 15, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Former NKR official calls for measures to strengthen Karabakh cease-fire
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – “The situation on the Line of Contact (LoC) escalated in large part because of the absence of clear international mechanisms of control over the cease-fire regime,” former senior Nagorno-Karabakh diplomat Masis Mayilian told www.kavkaz-uzel.ru on March 10.
He was speaking shortly after Armenian and Azerbaijani forces fought a day-long skirmish along the LoC on March 4. Since then the situation along the LoC has largely stabilized, although over the course of the week Azerbaijan reported four more dead in various shooting incidents. NKR confirmed several incidents, but denied there were casualties on the Armenian side.
In his interview, Mr. Mayilian noted that for more than eight years, the Azerbaijani side has been drawing its forward positions closer to those of Nagorno-Karabakh, thus reducing the neutral zone between the sides. The experience shows, he said, that the cease-fire is violated most frequently in places where the sides are located closest to each other (sometimes as close as a hundred yards).
Mr. Mayilian described the work of the OSCE group led by Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, which conducts monthly monitoring of the LoC as “necessary, but not sufficient” and urged Nagorno-Karabakh leaders to call for an expansion of Mr. Kasprzyk’s mission’s size and push for a pullback by Azerbaijani forces to positions they held as of May 1994 cease-fire.
On March 7, the Nagorno-Karabakh republic issued a statement condemning Azerbaijani provocations, stressing that the OSCE had failed to make an “adequate political assessment” of this behavior, warning that NKR would resort to “adequate and proportional” retaliatory measures, and placing responsibility for any possible escalation with the Azerbaijani government.
Later the same day, the mediators, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, issued a statement, calling on “the parties to restore confidence along the Line of Contact and desist from any further confrontations, escalation of violence or warmongering rhetoric.”
Notably the statement also called on the parties “to strictly abide by the provisions of the Arrangement on strengthening the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict of February 4, 1995.”
Former Russian mediator in the conflict Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov stressed the importance of that agreement – the only one signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan, and NKR since the cease-fire was established – in his interview with the Armenian Reporter, which appeared in the January 26, 2008 issue:
“The mechanism is as follows: As soon as there is an incident, the aggrieved side immediately contacts their opposites across the LoC and also informs the Minsk Group co-chairs,” Mr. Kazimirov recalled. “And the other side, within six hours of receiving the protest is mandated to investigate the incident and offer explanations. Both sides would then offer assurances that measures are taken to prevent further escalation. In other words the agreement would demand direct contacts between commanders in the field.”
Mr. Kazimirov regretted that for more than a decade the OSCE had not pushed for the agreement’s implementation.
Former NKR official calls for measures to strengthen Karabakh cease-fire
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – “The situation on the Line of Contact (LoC) escalated in large part because of the absence of clear international mechanisms of control over the cease-fire regime,” former senior Nagorno-Karabakh diplomat Masis Mayilian told www.kavkaz-uzel.ru on March 10.
He was speaking shortly after Armenian and Azerbaijani forces fought a day-long skirmish along the LoC on March 4. Since then the situation along the LoC has largely stabilized, although over the course of the week Azerbaijan reported four more dead in various shooting incidents. NKR confirmed several incidents, but denied there were casualties on the Armenian side.
In his interview, Mr. Mayilian noted that for more than eight years, the Azerbaijani side has been drawing its forward positions closer to those of Nagorno-Karabakh, thus reducing the neutral zone between the sides. The experience shows, he said, that the cease-fire is violated most frequently in places where the sides are located closest to each other (sometimes as close as a hundred yards).
Mr. Mayilian described the work of the OSCE group led by Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, which conducts monthly monitoring of the LoC as “necessary, but not sufficient” and urged Nagorno-Karabakh leaders to call for an expansion of Mr. Kasprzyk’s mission’s size and push for a pullback by Azerbaijani forces to positions they held as of May 1994 cease-fire.
On March 7, the Nagorno-Karabakh republic issued a statement condemning Azerbaijani provocations, stressing that the OSCE had failed to make an “adequate political assessment” of this behavior, warning that NKR would resort to “adequate and proportional” retaliatory measures, and placing responsibility for any possible escalation with the Azerbaijani government.
Later the same day, the mediators, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, issued a statement, calling on “the parties to restore confidence along the Line of Contact and desist from any further confrontations, escalation of violence or warmongering rhetoric.”
Notably the statement also called on the parties “to strictly abide by the provisions of the Arrangement on strengthening the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict of February 4, 1995.”
Former Russian mediator in the conflict Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov stressed the importance of that agreement – the only one signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan, and NKR since the cease-fire was established – in his interview with the Armenian Reporter, which appeared in the January 26, 2008 issue:
“The mechanism is as follows: As soon as there is an incident, the aggrieved side immediately contacts their opposites across the LoC and also informs the Minsk Group co-chairs,” Mr. Kazimirov recalled. “And the other side, within six hours of receiving the protest is mandated to investigate the incident and offer explanations. Both sides would then offer assurances that measures are taken to prevent further escalation. In other words the agreement would demand direct contacts between commanders in the field.”
Mr. Kazimirov regretted that for more than a decade the OSCE had not pushed for the agreement’s implementation.
Briefly: U.S. unhappy with Armenia SoE; Congressmen want cut on aid to Azer.; State Dept. HR and Brookings "state weakness" reports
This was first published in March 15, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
U.S. says Armenia state of emergency “jeopardizes” aid programs, continues to call for dialogue
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a congressional panel on March 12 that the state of emergency in Armenia has “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs. In comments before the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations she also warned that the state of emergency “is jeopardizing” Armenia’s eligibility for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) aid.
President Robert Kocharian introduced a 20-day state of emergency after March 1–2 clashes between rioters and police in Yerevan turned deadly. The measure brought calm but also temporarily curtailed freedom of assembly and speech. This week, the president, citing a relative return to stability, lifted some of the restrictions related to political parties and media.
On March 11, MCC chief executive officer Ambassador John Danilovich sent a letter to Mr. Kocharian officially warning that “MCC has the right to suspend or terminate” the program “when serious policy reversals occur” and that “recent events could have negative effects on Armenia’s eligibility for MCC funding.”
On March 13, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian acknowledged the warning, adding that “it all depends on how the United States evaluates things, on how quickly we can get out of this situation.
“Right now we are facing a dilemma: the country’s stability and the people’s security versus democratic values, liberties, civil rights,” Mr. Oskanian said. “The president of the republic is facing this dilemma. The situation is not clear-cut. He has to balance things, and that’s not an easy task.”
Armenia has so far received $11.3 million in MCC funding and a second tranche in the same amount has been expected in the next few months.
In a March 12 interview with RFE/RL, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, who visited Armenia last week, said a way out of the Armenia crisis was to “launch a nationwide roundtable – including all major political parties – to chart the course forward to strengthen Armenia’s democracy” and “to restore the democratic momentum that had characterized Armenia’s political development until the period just after this last election.”
Before such an initiative could be launched, Mr. Bryza said, the government has to restore media freedoms and lift the state of emergency as soon as possible, adding that he has “a feeling that in the government of Armenia, people are thinking through how to do that, and so we can only urge them to [do that] as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bryza called on the government “to cease arrests of political leaders.” The Armenian government has charged some of these political leaders with illegal activities and said they would face prosecution.
He acknowledged that “brutality occurred on both sides” and that there is a need for “prosecuting people who used violence unlawfully or who were violating election law,” but stressed the need to look forward.
Date for congressional Armenian Genocide commemoration set
The U.S. Congress will host an annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on April 23 from 6 P.M. in the House Ways and Means Committee Room, co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus, Reps. Joe Knollenberg and Frank Pallone, announced in a March 11 news release.
On March 12–14, the Armenian National Committee of America together with the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net) brought together activists from more than a dozen states to advocate with members of Congress “in support of practical legislative initiatives to stop the genocide in Darfur and end Turkey’s ongoing denial of the Armenian Genocide.”
Members of Congress question continued U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan
Members of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a March 12 hearing about the rationale for U.S. military assistance to Azerbaijan while it continues to threaten war against Armenia.
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.- Mich.) in particular suggested to “take away [U.S.]military funding [for Azerbaijan] or at least threaten it – because they are threatening Armenia.” Mr. Knollenberg specifically pointed to the deadly border skirmish initiated by Azerbaijan on March 4.
In her response, Dr. Rice argued that in order to achieve a peaceful settlement in Karabakh “the best approach is to continue to try to get both sides to act responsibly, to keep our aid programs in place to the degree that we can.” But Dr. Rice also agreed that a peace deal was not in sight “in the immediate future.”
Another subcommittee member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), also reiterated congressional concerns over administration’s proposal for higher military aid levels to Azerbaijan than to Armenia.
Mr. Knollenberg and fellow cochair of the Armenian Caucus Rep. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) issued a statement on March 12 regarding the March 4 skirmish: “As the Co- Chairs of the Armenian Caucus, we are deeply disturbed by the preventable loss of life along the Line of Contact between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan that took place on March 4th.
“It is troubling that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has acted on his history of warmongering rhetoric. While Armenia recovers from the last week’s turmoil, President
Aliyev attempted to cause further instability in the South Caucasus region.
“Despite President Aliyev’s initiation of the conflict, we urge all parties to uphold the ceasefire provisions agreed to after the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict of February 4, 1995. We continue to support Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence and commitment to the values of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. We ask that all parties reject further military action and seek a peaceful solution.”
State Department revises controversial language in human rights report
The latest annual State Department Report on Human Rights Practices, released on March 11, revised its controversial passage which last year caused protests from Armenia and Azerbaijan. (See the April 28, 2007 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
Last year, the report suggested that Armenia “continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories” – language more akin to Azerbaijan’s official position than that of the United States.
The revised language this year states that “ethnic Armenian separatists, with Armenia’s support, continued to control most of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories.”
While the United States recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, U.S. officials also typically clarify that “Karabakh’s status is a matter negotiations” and do not charge Armenia with “occupation.”
No immediate reaction to the new language was available from either Armenia or Azerbaijan.
Study measures state “weakness” around the world
The Washington-based Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development issued a report measuring relative state weakness of countries around the world.
The report, “Index of State Weakness in the Developing World,” issued on March 7, measured 141 developing countries “on their performance in fulfilling the four core
functions of statehood: providing security; maintaining legitimate political institutions; fostering equitable economic growth; and meeting their people’s human needs.”
As in similar studies in the past, Armenia was rated favorably in comparison to its neighbors and was only second to Ukraine in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan received the worst ratings in CIS.
“Given the role that weak states can play as incubators and breeding grounds for transnational security threats, building state capacity . . . should be a higher priority for U.S. policy,” the report argued.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
U.S. says Armenia state of emergency “jeopardizes” aid programs, continues to call for dialogue
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a congressional panel on March 12 that the state of emergency in Armenia has “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs. In comments before the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations she also warned that the state of emergency “is jeopardizing” Armenia’s eligibility for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) aid.
President Robert Kocharian introduced a 20-day state of emergency after March 1–2 clashes between rioters and police in Yerevan turned deadly. The measure brought calm but also temporarily curtailed freedom of assembly and speech. This week, the president, citing a relative return to stability, lifted some of the restrictions related to political parties and media.
On March 11, MCC chief executive officer Ambassador John Danilovich sent a letter to Mr. Kocharian officially warning that “MCC has the right to suspend or terminate” the program “when serious policy reversals occur” and that “recent events could have negative effects on Armenia’s eligibility for MCC funding.”
On March 13, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian acknowledged the warning, adding that “it all depends on how the United States evaluates things, on how quickly we can get out of this situation.
“Right now we are facing a dilemma: the country’s stability and the people’s security versus democratic values, liberties, civil rights,” Mr. Oskanian said. “The president of the republic is facing this dilemma. The situation is not clear-cut. He has to balance things, and that’s not an easy task.”
Armenia has so far received $11.3 million in MCC funding and a second tranche in the same amount has been expected in the next few months.
In a March 12 interview with RFE/RL, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, who visited Armenia last week, said a way out of the Armenia crisis was to “launch a nationwide roundtable – including all major political parties – to chart the course forward to strengthen Armenia’s democracy” and “to restore the democratic momentum that had characterized Armenia’s political development until the period just after this last election.”
Before such an initiative could be launched, Mr. Bryza said, the government has to restore media freedoms and lift the state of emergency as soon as possible, adding that he has “a feeling that in the government of Armenia, people are thinking through how to do that, and so we can only urge them to [do that] as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bryza called on the government “to cease arrests of political leaders.” The Armenian government has charged some of these political leaders with illegal activities and said they would face prosecution.
He acknowledged that “brutality occurred on both sides” and that there is a need for “prosecuting people who used violence unlawfully or who were violating election law,” but stressed the need to look forward.
Date for congressional Armenian Genocide commemoration set
The U.S. Congress will host an annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on April 23 from 6 P.M. in the House Ways and Means Committee Room, co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus, Reps. Joe Knollenberg and Frank Pallone, announced in a March 11 news release.
On March 12–14, the Armenian National Committee of America together with the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net) brought together activists from more than a dozen states to advocate with members of Congress “in support of practical legislative initiatives to stop the genocide in Darfur and end Turkey’s ongoing denial of the Armenian Genocide.”
Members of Congress question continued U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan
Members of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a March 12 hearing about the rationale for U.S. military assistance to Azerbaijan while it continues to threaten war against Armenia.
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.- Mich.) in particular suggested to “take away [U.S.]military funding [for Azerbaijan] or at least threaten it – because they are threatening Armenia.” Mr. Knollenberg specifically pointed to the deadly border skirmish initiated by Azerbaijan on March 4.
In her response, Dr. Rice argued that in order to achieve a peaceful settlement in Karabakh “the best approach is to continue to try to get both sides to act responsibly, to keep our aid programs in place to the degree that we can.” But Dr. Rice also agreed that a peace deal was not in sight “in the immediate future.”
Another subcommittee member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), also reiterated congressional concerns over administration’s proposal for higher military aid levels to Azerbaijan than to Armenia.
Mr. Knollenberg and fellow cochair of the Armenian Caucus Rep. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) issued a statement on March 12 regarding the March 4 skirmish: “As the Co- Chairs of the Armenian Caucus, we are deeply disturbed by the preventable loss of life along the Line of Contact between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan that took place on March 4th.
“It is troubling that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has acted on his history of warmongering rhetoric. While Armenia recovers from the last week’s turmoil, President
Aliyev attempted to cause further instability in the South Caucasus region.
“Despite President Aliyev’s initiation of the conflict, we urge all parties to uphold the ceasefire provisions agreed to after the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict of February 4, 1995. We continue to support Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence and commitment to the values of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. We ask that all parties reject further military action and seek a peaceful solution.”
State Department revises controversial language in human rights report
The latest annual State Department Report on Human Rights Practices, released on March 11, revised its controversial passage which last year caused protests from Armenia and Azerbaijan. (See the April 28, 2007 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
Last year, the report suggested that Armenia “continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories” – language more akin to Azerbaijan’s official position than that of the United States.
The revised language this year states that “ethnic Armenian separatists, with Armenia’s support, continued to control most of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories.”
While the United States recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, U.S. officials also typically clarify that “Karabakh’s status is a matter negotiations” and do not charge Armenia with “occupation.”
No immediate reaction to the new language was available from either Armenia or Azerbaijan.
Study measures state “weakness” around the world
The Washington-based Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development issued a report measuring relative state weakness of countries around the world.
The report, “Index of State Weakness in the Developing World,” issued on March 7, measured 141 developing countries “on their performance in fulfilling the four core
functions of statehood: providing security; maintaining legitimate political institutions; fostering equitable economic growth; and meeting their people’s human needs.”
As in similar studies in the past, Armenia was rated favorably in comparison to its neighbors and was only second to Ukraine in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan received the worst ratings in CIS.
“Given the role that weak states can play as incubators and breeding grounds for transnational security threats, building state capacity . . . should be a higher priority for U.S. policy,” the report argued.
Opposition and civic activists protest use of force in Armenia
This was first published in March 15, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Ter-Petrossian campaigners, others condemn government’s actions
Gather at Armenian Embassy, visit State Department
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – Between 30 to 40 protestors on March 10 gathered outside the Armenian Embassy in Washington to condemn the recent violence in Armenia and restrictions imposed as part of the state of emergency declared by President Robert Kocharian.
About half of the attendants flew in from Los Angeles, where supporters of former presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossian had organized a large demonstration the previous day. (See coverage in the March 8 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
On March 11, Dr. Harry Sarafian and Sevak Khatchadorian, two Los Angeles–based activists with the Social Democratic Hnchakian Party, which campaigned for Mr. Ter-Petrossian, visited with the State Department’s Caucasus office to convey their views, the Armenian Council of America reported.
At the embassy, the demonstrators submitted a petition protesting a “brutal assault against democracy in Armenia.” They called on the Armenian government to lift the state of emergency restrictions and end the arrests of opposition leaders and activists.
Unlike other presidential candidates, Mr. Ter-Petrossian refused to accept the results of the February 19 election won by current Prime Minister Serge Sargsian and described by Western observers as “mostly in line with international standards.”
The ex-president’s supporters continued to hold unsanctioned but largely peaceful rallies and marches, until police and demonstrators clashed on March 1. Later that day, some of the protestors initiated deadly riots and looting in central Yerevan, which led to the imposition of the state of emergency, including media restrictions
and a government crackdown on pro-Ter-Petrossian activists.
Armenian officials argue that having lost the election, the Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s campaign sought to use undemocratic and “illegal” means to come to power by orchestrating defections from government structures, including the military, and using street protests as leverage to achieve that.
Ararat Stepanyan, 29, a Maryland businessperson who was the sole signer of the embassy protest petition, told the Armenian Reporter that the protest and the petition were organized in conjunction with the Los Angeles–based pro-Ter- Petrossian activists.
“Using force against peaceful demonstrators is totally unacceptable and that was the main reason behind my effort to organize this protest,” Mr. Stepanyan said. At
the same time he made clear that he was not a member of the ex-president’s campaign.
“I do not agree with Ter-Petrossian’s approach, his ideas, and his solutions to problems,” Mr. Stepanyan explained. “But without agreeing with Ter-Petrossian, I strongly condemn [the government’s handling of the election and subsequent protests].”
“I’m not a fanatical supporter of Ter-Petrossian and I don’t share many of the other participants’ political views,” another protestor who asked not to be named told the Armenian Reporter.
“I’m just against the use of force against people and I support the freedom of speech. To me this is above anything else.”
Ter-Petrossian campaigners, others condemn government’s actions
Gather at Armenian Embassy, visit State Department
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – Between 30 to 40 protestors on March 10 gathered outside the Armenian Embassy in Washington to condemn the recent violence in Armenia and restrictions imposed as part of the state of emergency declared by President Robert Kocharian.
About half of the attendants flew in from Los Angeles, where supporters of former presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossian had organized a large demonstration the previous day. (See coverage in the March 8 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
On March 11, Dr. Harry Sarafian and Sevak Khatchadorian, two Los Angeles–based activists with the Social Democratic Hnchakian Party, which campaigned for Mr. Ter-Petrossian, visited with the State Department’s Caucasus office to convey their views, the Armenian Council of America reported.
At the embassy, the demonstrators submitted a petition protesting a “brutal assault against democracy in Armenia.” They called on the Armenian government to lift the state of emergency restrictions and end the arrests of opposition leaders and activists.
Unlike other presidential candidates, Mr. Ter-Petrossian refused to accept the results of the February 19 election won by current Prime Minister Serge Sargsian and described by Western observers as “mostly in line with international standards.”
The ex-president’s supporters continued to hold unsanctioned but largely peaceful rallies and marches, until police and demonstrators clashed on March 1. Later that day, some of the protestors initiated deadly riots and looting in central Yerevan, which led to the imposition of the state of emergency, including media restrictions
and a government crackdown on pro-Ter-Petrossian activists.
Armenian officials argue that having lost the election, the Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s campaign sought to use undemocratic and “illegal” means to come to power by orchestrating defections from government structures, including the military, and using street protests as leverage to achieve that.
Ararat Stepanyan, 29, a Maryland businessperson who was the sole signer of the embassy protest petition, told the Armenian Reporter that the protest and the petition were organized in conjunction with the Los Angeles–based pro-Ter- Petrossian activists.
“Using force against peaceful demonstrators is totally unacceptable and that was the main reason behind my effort to organize this protest,” Mr. Stepanyan said. At
the same time he made clear that he was not a member of the ex-president’s campaign.
“I do not agree with Ter-Petrossian’s approach, his ideas, and his solutions to problems,” Mr. Stepanyan explained. “But without agreeing with Ter-Petrossian, I strongly condemn [the government’s handling of the election and subsequent protests].”
“I’m not a fanatical supporter of Ter-Petrossian and I don’t share many of the other participants’ political views,” another protestor who asked not to be named told the Armenian Reporter.
“I’m just against the use of force against people and I support the freedom of speech. To me this is above anything else.”
Armenia: a new political climate is needed. A conflict manager's perspective
First published in March 8, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Armenia: A different political climate is needed
But there are no shortcuts to establishing it
Arthur Martirosyan is the program manager for the Former Soviet Union and Middle East at the Mercy Corps Conflict Management Group (CMG) based in Cambridge, Mass. In 14 years with CMG, he has been involved in conflict management efforts from Palestine to Georgia to China. He has also managed the Momentum program which helps teach conflict management skills to young Armenian professionals. Born in Tbilisi, Mr. Martirosyan earned his degrees from the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) and Yale Universities. He is an Armenian citizen. Mr. Martirosyan spoke with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan by phone earlier this week.
Reporter: How would you formulate the pre- and post-election confrontation in Armenia from the conflict studies perspective?
Martirosyan: It is easy to recognize this confrontation as a zero-sum game. Both parties are playing one of those tough, macho games of chicken. This is sort of the game some might play with two cars racing toward each other at high speed. There are four potential outcomes: car 1 swerves and loses; car 2 swerves and loses; both swerve and it is difficult to judge who wins and who loses; or neither swerves and there is a crash – and this is what we have now.
This is a very dangerous game, because long-term there are no winners on the national
level.
Reporter: How is this illustrated in Armenia’s case?
Martirosyan: In this particular case, Levon Ter-Petrossian, even before the election, announced that he had already won and was not willing to negotiate and talk to the other side. He was talking to the crowd in the Opera [Freedom] Square about “going to the end,” although this end-game was never defined.
And the government side was playing the same game, with an attitude that said, “We are the ones who have the power and we will dictate the rules of the game.”
The election results came in. As in the past there were certainly violations. But the international observers determined that they were limited in scope, more limited than in the past. And the opposition had an opportunity to request recounts, which it did, and which did not find evidence of widespread fraud.
Although before the vote, Mr. Ter-Petrossian ruled out a “revolutionary” scenario, he changed his rhetoric following the vote, and in fact declared that a “revolution” was under way.
This too fell into the zero-sum game scenario, and in such games the first to strike has more chances to win. The government waited patiently for ten days, hoping the crowds would disperse, which was probably a mistake, because the longer the crowd stayed together and showed its perseverance and commitment, the more difficult a resolution was becoming for everyone.
And then the government struck.
Reporter: It appears that stakes were continuously upped by both sides until the engine noise of military vehicles became audible at the ex-president’s residence....
Martirosyan: Well, this is the nature of this game. But the real danger is that the game is not over and might continue in a couple of weeks when the state of emergency is lifted. Unless, of course, one side successfully crushes the other. Even that would be a shaky victory, unless the game changes into a more cooperative arrangement.
You could see some evidence that Serge Sargsian was already offering cooperation right after the election, but unfortunately the radical opposition did not take that offer, with a coalition agreement sealed with more moderate forces.
Reporter: So can this game between the government and radical opposition be changed into something less confrontational?
Martirosyan: I don’t think it is possible right now, because the parties are not open to dialogue. The last statement from Ter-Petrossian includes preconditions that he is setting for the other side in order to engage in a dialogue. And those preconditions may not be acceptable to the other side.
So instead of putting the dialogue front and center, there is entrenchment on both sides. And the danger is that the sides might continue to play this game, no matter in whose favor the Constitutional Court rules later this week. This is especially likely should results be invalidated or if, as in 2003, the court validates the results but adds clauses that opposition could use as justification for future unrest.
Such a ruling would also set a very bad precedent, saying that any candidate unhappy with election results and capable of mobilizing ten thousand people or more can put sufficient pressure on the political system to get what he wants. This is not justifiable by any means.
Changing this situation would require a very different political climate, where political forces engage in a dialogue continuously before, during, and after elections and negotiate and agree on common, shared values.
These could be issues like free and fair elections, internal stability and security, the international image of the country. And they also negotiate the red lines – things that parties agree not to do under any circumstances.
None of that has happened in Armenia. So we are left paying the price for not having a strong civil society and structured political space, from which credible players could step up and encourage the parties to engage in a dialogue.
The political parties should work with the electorate and address their concerns year-round and not just at the time of elections. Only through such work can the protest electorate be brought into the political process and help stabilize it.
Unless there is such a climate, Armenia will be coming back to this issue in future elections as well. So we are still at the stage of state-building, that agenda is not yet accomplished.
Reporter: Do you see sufficiently influential and willing parties outside Armenia who could play a mediating role – by pushing parties away from confrontation and encouraging dialogue?
Martirosyan: Well, Ter-Petrossian is now clinging to the notion that the West should get involved. Unfortunately, I doubt that any Western governments or international organizations like the European Union will be able to successfully mediate this conflict, primarily because of a number of hidden drivers and interests in this conflict that would probably not be fully disclosed to outside mediators.
Individual players in the diaspora could also get involved – although not institutions.
But again that is unlikely to happen. Perhaps Russia could more successfully play such a role, but they do not appear to be interested so far and they are going through their own presidential transition.
Reporter: What about the hidden drivers you mention? Could you elaborate?
Martirosyan: Well on the surface, the opposition is trying to mobilize public dissatisfaction with the pace and structure of economic development, corruption, injustice, etc.
And what has happened so far is that Ter- Petrossian has largely succeeded in making this campaign personality-driven, and more about mud-slinging and disinformation than about issues.
The government failed to engage him on issues effectively, letting him escape into his own element of the open square. And Ter-Petrossian went on and filled the political vacuum felt by the protest electorate and was able to energize it.
But there are also real business interests behind the opposition. What concerns, fears, and interests these business groups have when it comes to distribution and redistribution of wealth?
I am sure it did not escape your attention that most of the stores that were looted belonged to businessmen seen as loyal to the government; on the other hand, the businesses supporting the opposition had been targeted by the government for tax inspections.
So there was this tit for tat. But if you look at the situation even deeper, considering that the incumbent President Robert Kocharian is on his way out, and he does have his own network of favorite businessmen, and that most likely not for all of them the succession would be a smooth one.
So they too have concerns and some of them, especially those seen close to Ter Petrossian, must have become very nervous.
Those aspects are not very open and the negotiations taking place in that field are not at all transparent. It may be more difficult for an outsider to understand, but it is easier for insiders.
Reporter: So you would argue that this election has not been solely personality driven? If economic interests are more prevalent, does that make a potential deal easier to strike?
Martirosyan: The fact that there are these real business interests at stake does make a potential deal more likely, but not inevitable of course. At this point, though, I doubt that a political deal could be negotiated any time soon, considering Ter-Petrossian’s defiance so far.
The question is if the government can put sufficient pressure on Ter-Petrossian for him to withdraw his current demands.
But this would not be a long-term solution of course. The political climate must change, but unfortunately there are no shortcuts to create a better system.
Every crisis comes with losses, lessons, and opportunities. More comprehensive analysis of lessons is warranted now. There is also an opportunity to move faster on some of the reforms since the current crisis to a degree was caused by the slow pace of change.
Armenia: A different political climate is needed
But there are no shortcuts to establishing it
Arthur Martirosyan is the program manager for the Former Soviet Union and Middle East at the Mercy Corps Conflict Management Group (CMG) based in Cambridge, Mass. In 14 years with CMG, he has been involved in conflict management efforts from Palestine to Georgia to China. He has also managed the Momentum program which helps teach conflict management skills to young Armenian professionals. Born in Tbilisi, Mr. Martirosyan earned his degrees from the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) and Yale Universities. He is an Armenian citizen. Mr. Martirosyan spoke with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan by phone earlier this week.
Reporter: How would you formulate the pre- and post-election confrontation in Armenia from the conflict studies perspective?
Martirosyan: It is easy to recognize this confrontation as a zero-sum game. Both parties are playing one of those tough, macho games of chicken. This is sort of the game some might play with two cars racing toward each other at high speed. There are four potential outcomes: car 1 swerves and loses; car 2 swerves and loses; both swerve and it is difficult to judge who wins and who loses; or neither swerves and there is a crash – and this is what we have now.
This is a very dangerous game, because long-term there are no winners on the national
level.
Reporter: How is this illustrated in Armenia’s case?
Martirosyan: In this particular case, Levon Ter-Petrossian, even before the election, announced that he had already won and was not willing to negotiate and talk to the other side. He was talking to the crowd in the Opera [Freedom] Square about “going to the end,” although this end-game was never defined.
And the government side was playing the same game, with an attitude that said, “We are the ones who have the power and we will dictate the rules of the game.”
The election results came in. As in the past there were certainly violations. But the international observers determined that they were limited in scope, more limited than in the past. And the opposition had an opportunity to request recounts, which it did, and which did not find evidence of widespread fraud.
Although before the vote, Mr. Ter-Petrossian ruled out a “revolutionary” scenario, he changed his rhetoric following the vote, and in fact declared that a “revolution” was under way.
This too fell into the zero-sum game scenario, and in such games the first to strike has more chances to win. The government waited patiently for ten days, hoping the crowds would disperse, which was probably a mistake, because the longer the crowd stayed together and showed its perseverance and commitment, the more difficult a resolution was becoming for everyone.
And then the government struck.
Reporter: It appears that stakes were continuously upped by both sides until the engine noise of military vehicles became audible at the ex-president’s residence....
Martirosyan: Well, this is the nature of this game. But the real danger is that the game is not over and might continue in a couple of weeks when the state of emergency is lifted. Unless, of course, one side successfully crushes the other. Even that would be a shaky victory, unless the game changes into a more cooperative arrangement.
You could see some evidence that Serge Sargsian was already offering cooperation right after the election, but unfortunately the radical opposition did not take that offer, with a coalition agreement sealed with more moderate forces.
Reporter: So can this game between the government and radical opposition be changed into something less confrontational?
Martirosyan: I don’t think it is possible right now, because the parties are not open to dialogue. The last statement from Ter-Petrossian includes preconditions that he is setting for the other side in order to engage in a dialogue. And those preconditions may not be acceptable to the other side.
So instead of putting the dialogue front and center, there is entrenchment on both sides. And the danger is that the sides might continue to play this game, no matter in whose favor the Constitutional Court rules later this week. This is especially likely should results be invalidated or if, as in 2003, the court validates the results but adds clauses that opposition could use as justification for future unrest.
Such a ruling would also set a very bad precedent, saying that any candidate unhappy with election results and capable of mobilizing ten thousand people or more can put sufficient pressure on the political system to get what he wants. This is not justifiable by any means.
Changing this situation would require a very different political climate, where political forces engage in a dialogue continuously before, during, and after elections and negotiate and agree on common, shared values.
These could be issues like free and fair elections, internal stability and security, the international image of the country. And they also negotiate the red lines – things that parties agree not to do under any circumstances.
None of that has happened in Armenia. So we are left paying the price for not having a strong civil society and structured political space, from which credible players could step up and encourage the parties to engage in a dialogue.
The political parties should work with the electorate and address their concerns year-round and not just at the time of elections. Only through such work can the protest electorate be brought into the political process and help stabilize it.
Unless there is such a climate, Armenia will be coming back to this issue in future elections as well. So we are still at the stage of state-building, that agenda is not yet accomplished.
Reporter: Do you see sufficiently influential and willing parties outside Armenia who could play a mediating role – by pushing parties away from confrontation and encouraging dialogue?
Martirosyan: Well, Ter-Petrossian is now clinging to the notion that the West should get involved. Unfortunately, I doubt that any Western governments or international organizations like the European Union will be able to successfully mediate this conflict, primarily because of a number of hidden drivers and interests in this conflict that would probably not be fully disclosed to outside mediators.
Individual players in the diaspora could also get involved – although not institutions.
But again that is unlikely to happen. Perhaps Russia could more successfully play such a role, but they do not appear to be interested so far and they are going through their own presidential transition.
Reporter: What about the hidden drivers you mention? Could you elaborate?
Martirosyan: Well on the surface, the opposition is trying to mobilize public dissatisfaction with the pace and structure of economic development, corruption, injustice, etc.
And what has happened so far is that Ter- Petrossian has largely succeeded in making this campaign personality-driven, and more about mud-slinging and disinformation than about issues.
The government failed to engage him on issues effectively, letting him escape into his own element of the open square. And Ter-Petrossian went on and filled the political vacuum felt by the protest electorate and was able to energize it.
But there are also real business interests behind the opposition. What concerns, fears, and interests these business groups have when it comes to distribution and redistribution of wealth?
I am sure it did not escape your attention that most of the stores that were looted belonged to businessmen seen as loyal to the government; on the other hand, the businesses supporting the opposition had been targeted by the government for tax inspections.
So there was this tit for tat. But if you look at the situation even deeper, considering that the incumbent President Robert Kocharian is on his way out, and he does have his own network of favorite businessmen, and that most likely not for all of them the succession would be a smooth one.
So they too have concerns and some of them, especially those seen close to Ter Petrossian, must have become very nervous.
Those aspects are not very open and the negotiations taking place in that field are not at all transparent. It may be more difficult for an outsider to understand, but it is easier for insiders.
Reporter: So you would argue that this election has not been solely personality driven? If economic interests are more prevalent, does that make a potential deal easier to strike?
Martirosyan: The fact that there are these real business interests at stake does make a potential deal more likely, but not inevitable of course. At this point, though, I doubt that a political deal could be negotiated any time soon, considering Ter-Petrossian’s defiance so far.
The question is if the government can put sufficient pressure on Ter-Petrossian for him to withdraw his current demands.
But this would not be a long-term solution of course. The political climate must change, but unfortunately there are no shortcuts to create a better system.
Every crisis comes with losses, lessons, and opportunities. More comprehensive analysis of lessons is warranted now. There is also an opportunity to move faster on some of the reforms since the current crisis to a degree was caused by the slow pace of change.
U.S. reacts to March 1 violence in Armenia
This was first published in March 8, 2008 Armenian Reporter (for detailed coverage of March 1-2 events in Yerevan visit http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/A0308.pdf)
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Sadness, concern, calls for dialogue over Armenian crisis
The United States and international human rights and media organizations issued statements and dispatched envoys as Armenia’s post-election crisis took a violent turn last weekend.
“The U.S. deeply regrets today’s unrest in Yerevan, Armenia, and calls on all sides to avoid further violence, act fully within the law, exercise maximum restraint, and resume political dialogue,” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement issued on March 1, as reports began to come in that the confrontation between protestors and police had turned deadly.
Mr. McCormack said that the responsibility lay with both the government and opposition “to re-establish order and return to political dialogue.” The statement said that Assistant Secretary Dan Fried telephoned Armenia’s prime minister and president-elect Serge Sargsian to reiterate these points.
U.S. chargé d’affaires in Armenia Joe Pennington delivered the same message to the opposition.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza arrived in Yerevan on March 6 to “facilitate a dialogue” between the government and opposition to defuse tensions. (Mr. Bryza was expected to arrive earlier in the week, but was diverted to Azerbaijan to negotiate a return to cease-fire after a deadly skirmish on the Line of Contact in Karabakh on March 4; see the story on Page A1 of this issue.)
Prior to his arrival, Mr. Bryza told the Associated Press that the U.S. “deplores” the violence, but would not criticize the government’s handling of the protests.
In his Yerevan meetings, Mr. Bryza praised the leadership exercised by Mr. Sargsian, who has called for dialogue and said the government shares the blame in failing to prevent the violence.
“In principle we support you,” the Prime Minister’s press office reported the U.S. diplomat as saying. “We want you to succeed, and we want Armenia to succeed.”
According to the office of President Robert Kocharian, Mr. Bryza said in a meeting with Mr. Kocharian that the U.S. understood the need for the Armenian president to restore law and order, but also expressed concerns over persisting tensions.
According to the State Department, Mr. Bryza was also to call for a lifting of the state of emergency as soon as possible.
The 20-day emergency decree issued on March 1, as riots in Yerevan turned deadly, has helped bring about relative calm. But it also restricts Armenian mass media to circulating only official information on domestic issues, and has led a number of opposition and independent press outlets to decide to stop publishing altogether.
International human rights groups have focused their calls on lifting the decree. “While the exact details of the situation are still unclear, a state of emergency that bans all demonstrations – including peaceful ones – as well as independent reporting by the media is excessive and unnecessary,” said Paula Schriefer of Freedom House, in a March 3 statement.
The New York Times, which dispatched its Istanbul-based correspondent to Yerevan as the events unfolded, published an editorial on March 7, in which the newspaper called the state of emergency “brutal” and appeared to blame the government’s actions, not the protests that led to it, for the violence.
The editorial called on the Bush Administration to send a tougher message to Yerevan. It added, however, that “this is not a case of pure democratic virtue against pure authoritarian evil,” recalling that the opposition candidate Levon Ter-Petrossian, who claims victory “without credible evidence,” as the Times editorial conceded, had a record of election rigging and crackdowns while he was president.
Mr. Bryza was preceded by envoys from the European Union, Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. (See page A5 of this issue.)
British Parliament member John Prescott, who co-led the Western observers during the election, returned to Yerevan and in talks with senior officials and opposition leaders encouraged efforts to build public trust through dialogue.
According to the government press service, Mr. Prescott also stressed how important it is that all parties abide by the decision of Armenia’s Constitutional Court, which this week examined opposition appeals for overturning election results. The court’s decision is expected this weekend.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Sadness, concern, calls for dialogue over Armenian crisis
The United States and international human rights and media organizations issued statements and dispatched envoys as Armenia’s post-election crisis took a violent turn last weekend.
“The U.S. deeply regrets today’s unrest in Yerevan, Armenia, and calls on all sides to avoid further violence, act fully within the law, exercise maximum restraint, and resume political dialogue,” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement issued on March 1, as reports began to come in that the confrontation between protestors and police had turned deadly.
Mr. McCormack said that the responsibility lay with both the government and opposition “to re-establish order and return to political dialogue.” The statement said that Assistant Secretary Dan Fried telephoned Armenia’s prime minister and president-elect Serge Sargsian to reiterate these points.
U.S. chargé d’affaires in Armenia Joe Pennington delivered the same message to the opposition.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza arrived in Yerevan on March 6 to “facilitate a dialogue” between the government and opposition to defuse tensions. (Mr. Bryza was expected to arrive earlier in the week, but was diverted to Azerbaijan to negotiate a return to cease-fire after a deadly skirmish on the Line of Contact in Karabakh on March 4; see the story on Page A1 of this issue.)
Prior to his arrival, Mr. Bryza told the Associated Press that the U.S. “deplores” the violence, but would not criticize the government’s handling of the protests.
In his Yerevan meetings, Mr. Bryza praised the leadership exercised by Mr. Sargsian, who has called for dialogue and said the government shares the blame in failing to prevent the violence.
“In principle we support you,” the Prime Minister’s press office reported the U.S. diplomat as saying. “We want you to succeed, and we want Armenia to succeed.”
According to the office of President Robert Kocharian, Mr. Bryza said in a meeting with Mr. Kocharian that the U.S. understood the need for the Armenian president to restore law and order, but also expressed concerns over persisting tensions.
According to the State Department, Mr. Bryza was also to call for a lifting of the state of emergency as soon as possible.
The 20-day emergency decree issued on March 1, as riots in Yerevan turned deadly, has helped bring about relative calm. But it also restricts Armenian mass media to circulating only official information on domestic issues, and has led a number of opposition and independent press outlets to decide to stop publishing altogether.
International human rights groups have focused their calls on lifting the decree. “While the exact details of the situation are still unclear, a state of emergency that bans all demonstrations – including peaceful ones – as well as independent reporting by the media is excessive and unnecessary,” said Paula Schriefer of Freedom House, in a March 3 statement.
The New York Times, which dispatched its Istanbul-based correspondent to Yerevan as the events unfolded, published an editorial on March 7, in which the newspaper called the state of emergency “brutal” and appeared to blame the government’s actions, not the protests that led to it, for the violence.
The editorial called on the Bush Administration to send a tougher message to Yerevan. It added, however, that “this is not a case of pure democratic virtue against pure authoritarian evil,” recalling that the opposition candidate Levon Ter-Petrossian, who claims victory “without credible evidence,” as the Times editorial conceded, had a record of election rigging and crackdowns while he was president.
Mr. Bryza was preceded by envoys from the European Union, Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. (See page A5 of this issue.)
British Parliament member John Prescott, who co-led the Western observers during the election, returned to Yerevan and in talks with senior officials and opposition leaders encouraged efforts to build public trust through dialogue.
According to the government press service, Mr. Prescott also stressed how important it is that all parties abide by the decision of Armenia’s Constitutional Court, which this week examined opposition appeals for overturning election results. The court’s decision is expected this weekend.
Briefly: U.S. on Armenia elections and aid; Armenia-Georgia military coop.; Azeris upset over Kosovo, to push at UN GA res. on NK; Russian politics
This was first published in March 1, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
State Department, members of Congress offer congratulations over Armenia elections
In a February 22 statement, the U.S. State Department “congratulated the people of Armenia on the active and competitive presidential elections on February 19.”
The statement took note of preliminary conclusions by Western observers that the election was conducted “mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections.”
It also noted remaining “significant problems with electoral procedures,” praised the holding of recounts in a number of precincts, and urged the Armenian government
to address shortcomings “to improve future elections.”
In reference to continuing opposition protests over the election, State Department spokesperson Tom Casey added in the February 25 briefing that all election-related “disputes need to be settled within the confines of Armenia’s constitution and political system.”
Unlike other world leaders, President George W. Bush has not yet sent a message to President-elect Serge Sargsian. Similarly, President Bush did not communicate with President Robert Kocharian on his re-election until after his inauguration on April 9, 2003.
Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.), co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues (which includes more than 150 House members)
published a letter they sent to President-elect Sargsian congratulating him on his election. The February 26 letter also said the election “proved [Armenia’s] commitment to free and fair elections” and offered to work with the next president “to help address the important issues facing Armenia.”
Mr. Sargsian also received congratulations from Armenian-American community leaders, including Kirk Kerkorian, Gerard Cafesjian, Berge Setrakian, Hirair Hovnanian, and the leadership of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.
U.S. official: assistance to Armenia a “success story”
The U.S. Director for Foreign Assistance and head of the U.S. Agency for International Development Henrietta Fore offered praise for the progress made in Armenia with the help of U.S. assistance during a congressional briefing this week.
The Armenian Assembly of America reported that during a February 27 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Ms. Fore was queried by Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) about the administration’s proposed cut in aid to Armenia.
As Secretary Condoleezza Rice before her (see this page in the February 16 Armenian
Reporter), Ms. Fore appeared to justify the reduction in USAIDadministered funding by pointing to expanding aid under the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).
Ms. Fore went on to say that the administration was “very pleased” about progress in Armenia and that “it is indeed a success story.”
“It troubles me that MCA funding continues to be used to explain the vast reduction in aid to Armenia,” Rep. Knollenberg told the Assembly. “MCA funding for Armenia,
which supports rural roads and irrigation infrastructure development, should not be used as a justification to cut [other] funding.”
U.S. continues aid to Armenia’s peacekeepers
Armenia’s Peacekeeping Battalion, elements of which are deployed in Kosovo and Iraq, received a new batch of U.S. communications equipment valued at $3 million, the U.S. Embassy in Armenia reported on February 27. The previous consignment of communications gear arrived in August 2007.
The equipment includes field radios and supporting equipment purchased from the Harris Corporation in the U.S. The aid is intended to contribute to Armenia’s inter-operability with Western-led forces in peacekeeping operations under the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
This year, the U.S. is also expected to provide transport trucks, uniforms, field equipment and additional communications equipment to help expand the battalion into a brigade.
Armenia, Georgia to launch military cooperation
Armenian Defense Minister Mikhail Harutiunian’s visit to Georgia this week is expected to mark the start of bilateral military cooperation between the two countries, Armenian and Georgian news agencies reported this week.
Such cooperation has been absent even though the two neighbors have close economic ties, and are also cooperating through NATO’s Partnership for Peace program.
Between February 28 and March 1, Mr. Harutiunian met with the Georgian president and other leaders and visited with U.S.-trained Georgian Special Forces unit. As an initial steps toward cooperation, the two countries are due to appoint defense attaches at their respective embassies and establish a defense working group.
Azerbaijan to pull out of Kosovo, and to renew push for UN resolution on Karabakh
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev indicated that he will pull out a small Azerbaijani unit that has served with the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in Kosovo, Reuters reported on February 28. An Azerbaijani official said that the move came due to a “sharply changed political scene.”
At the same time, at the United Nations General Assembly, Azerbaijan introduced yet another resolution supporting its claim on Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan has introduced similar resolutions in the past, but has not brought them to a vote on the insistence of France, Russia, and the United States – the countries that are jointly involved in the Karabakh mediation effort.
Both moves came following the recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral independence by Western countries; in the words of Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balayan, the moves reflect Azerbaijan’s “panic” over the development. Mr. Balayan said that Armenia would continue to oppose the Azerbaijan-initiated United Nations resolution.
Unlike its ally Turkey, which recognized Kosovo, Azerbaijan called Kosovo’s independence “illegal.” Russia has also opposed it.
Meanwhile, Armenia’s President Robert Kocharian said on February 29 that the Kosovo precedent would play a positive role in the international recognition of Nagorno-
Karabakh’s independence, Regnum news agency reported the same day.
[Knollenberg, Pallone send letter to Rice asking for public rebuke of Azerbaijani president
WASHINGTON – Representatives Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.), cochairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, along with over 50 of their colleagues sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking for a public rebuke of Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev for his recent threatening comments regarding war with Armenia.
“It has been 20 years since the liberation movement in Nagorno- Karabakh and still today the president of Azerbaijan is threatening war over this territory. Azerbaijan can no longer spew hatred and war threats towards Armenia without a public international response.” Knollenberg and Pallone said.
“Enough is enough. It is time for the U.S. Department of State to hold Aliyev and his government accountable for their words. Armenia is an ally and friend to the United States and threatening to go to war with an ally is never acceptable.”
“A peaceful resolution to this conflict can and must be achieved. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh agree that peaceful negotiations are the way forward. It is now time for President Aliyev to rescind his vicious statements and come to the negotiating table.”
The letter was cosigned by Gary Ackerman (D.-N.Y.), Gus Bilirakis (R.-Fla.), Dennis Cardoza (D.-Calif.), Jim Costa (D.-Calif.), Jerry Costello (D.-Ill.), Joseph Crowley (D.-N.Y.), Danny K. Davis (D.-Ill.), Lloyd Doggett (D.-Tex.), Anna Eshoo (D.- Calif.), Chaka Fattah (D.-Pa.), Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), Elton Gallegy (R.-Calif.), Scott Garrett (R.-N.J.), Charles Gonzalez (D.-Tex.), Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.), Maurice Hinchey (D.-N.Y.), Michael Honda (D.-Calif.), Rush Holt (D.-N.J.), Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.), Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), James Langevin (D.-R.I.), Sander Levin (D.-Mich.), Daniel Lipinski (D.-Ill.), Frank LoBiondo (R.-N.J.), Stephen Lynch (D.-Mass.), Carolyn Maloney (D.-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D.-Mass.), Betty McCollum (D.-Minn.), Thaddeus McCotter (R.-Mich.), James McGovern (D.-Mass.), Howard McKeon (R.-
Calif.), Michael McNulty (D.-N.Y.), Candice Miller (R.-Mich.), Grace Napolitano (D.-Calif.), Colin Peterson (D.-Minn.), George Radanovich (R.-Calif.), Mike Rogers (R.-Mich.), Steven Rothman (D.-N.J.), Bobby Rush (D.-Ill.), Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.), John Sarbanes (D.-Md.), Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), Chris Shays (R.-Conn.), Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), Mark Souder (R.-Ind.), Chris Van Hollen (D.-Md.), Tim Walz (D.-Minn.), Diane Watson (D.-Calif.), Anthony Weiner (D.-N.Y.), Albert Wynn (D.-Md.)
USAPAC has urged Armenian- Americans to call these representatives and thank them for cosigning the letter. They can be reached at (202) 224-3121.
U.S. Russia watchers weigh in on Putin-Medvedev succession
Washington-based Russia experts say the March 2 vote for the next Russian president should be viewed not as an “election,” but rather a “succession,” according to a discussion hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Feb. 28.
On March 2, Russians are expected to vote in President Vladimir Putin’s former aide Dmitry Medvedev as his successor; with Mr. Putin himself becoming Prime Minister.
“The good news,” said Andrew Kuchins, the CSIS Director for Russia and Eurasia, “is that we have heard no anti-Western rhetoric from Mr. Medvedev. The bad news is that he has said nothing about [foreign affairs] … This shows that Putin will take the lead role for some time,” he said.
Sarah Mendelson, director of the CSIS Human Rights and Security Initiative, agreed that Mr. Putin’s potential role would see “Russia shifting towards the Prime Minister system, which means that Putin would [still] be the primary figure for some time to come.” She added that Russia would “take advantage of declining U.S. influence.”
“We have seen that iPods, lattes, and skateboards, and other elements of Western culture do not, alas, translate into a desire for free media and [democracy],” she said.
Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, cited Russia’s significant economic growth over the past eight years, and said that this growth would most likely continue – a factor that he says contributes to the country’s corruption.
“Countries that are as rich and educated are normally democratic. Russia is an extreme outlier,” he said, calling Mr. Putin’s administration “about the most corrupt
regime we have ever seen.”
—Alexa Millinger contributed to this briefing.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
State Department, members of Congress offer congratulations over Armenia elections
In a February 22 statement, the U.S. State Department “congratulated the people of Armenia on the active and competitive presidential elections on February 19.”
The statement took note of preliminary conclusions by Western observers that the election was conducted “mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections.”
It also noted remaining “significant problems with electoral procedures,” praised the holding of recounts in a number of precincts, and urged the Armenian government
to address shortcomings “to improve future elections.”
In reference to continuing opposition protests over the election, State Department spokesperson Tom Casey added in the February 25 briefing that all election-related “disputes need to be settled within the confines of Armenia’s constitution and political system.”
Unlike other world leaders, President George W. Bush has not yet sent a message to President-elect Serge Sargsian. Similarly, President Bush did not communicate with President Robert Kocharian on his re-election until after his inauguration on April 9, 2003.
Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.), co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues (which includes more than 150 House members)
published a letter they sent to President-elect Sargsian congratulating him on his election. The February 26 letter also said the election “proved [Armenia’s] commitment to free and fair elections” and offered to work with the next president “to help address the important issues facing Armenia.”
Mr. Sargsian also received congratulations from Armenian-American community leaders, including Kirk Kerkorian, Gerard Cafesjian, Berge Setrakian, Hirair Hovnanian, and the leadership of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.
U.S. official: assistance to Armenia a “success story”
The U.S. Director for Foreign Assistance and head of the U.S. Agency for International Development Henrietta Fore offered praise for the progress made in Armenia with the help of U.S. assistance during a congressional briefing this week.
The Armenian Assembly of America reported that during a February 27 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Ms. Fore was queried by Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) about the administration’s proposed cut in aid to Armenia.
As Secretary Condoleezza Rice before her (see this page in the February 16 Armenian
Reporter), Ms. Fore appeared to justify the reduction in USAIDadministered funding by pointing to expanding aid under the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).
Ms. Fore went on to say that the administration was “very pleased” about progress in Armenia and that “it is indeed a success story.”
“It troubles me that MCA funding continues to be used to explain the vast reduction in aid to Armenia,” Rep. Knollenberg told the Assembly. “MCA funding for Armenia,
which supports rural roads and irrigation infrastructure development, should not be used as a justification to cut [other] funding.”
U.S. continues aid to Armenia’s peacekeepers
Armenia’s Peacekeeping Battalion, elements of which are deployed in Kosovo and Iraq, received a new batch of U.S. communications equipment valued at $3 million, the U.S. Embassy in Armenia reported on February 27. The previous consignment of communications gear arrived in August 2007.
The equipment includes field radios and supporting equipment purchased from the Harris Corporation in the U.S. The aid is intended to contribute to Armenia’s inter-operability with Western-led forces in peacekeeping operations under the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
This year, the U.S. is also expected to provide transport trucks, uniforms, field equipment and additional communications equipment to help expand the battalion into a brigade.
Armenia, Georgia to launch military cooperation
Armenian Defense Minister Mikhail Harutiunian’s visit to Georgia this week is expected to mark the start of bilateral military cooperation between the two countries, Armenian and Georgian news agencies reported this week.
Such cooperation has been absent even though the two neighbors have close economic ties, and are also cooperating through NATO’s Partnership for Peace program.
Between February 28 and March 1, Mr. Harutiunian met with the Georgian president and other leaders and visited with U.S.-trained Georgian Special Forces unit. As an initial steps toward cooperation, the two countries are due to appoint defense attaches at their respective embassies and establish a defense working group.
Azerbaijan to pull out of Kosovo, and to renew push for UN resolution on Karabakh
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev indicated that he will pull out a small Azerbaijani unit that has served with the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in Kosovo, Reuters reported on February 28. An Azerbaijani official said that the move came due to a “sharply changed political scene.”
At the same time, at the United Nations General Assembly, Azerbaijan introduced yet another resolution supporting its claim on Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan has introduced similar resolutions in the past, but has not brought them to a vote on the insistence of France, Russia, and the United States – the countries that are jointly involved in the Karabakh mediation effort.
Both moves came following the recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral independence by Western countries; in the words of Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balayan, the moves reflect Azerbaijan’s “panic” over the development. Mr. Balayan said that Armenia would continue to oppose the Azerbaijan-initiated United Nations resolution.
Unlike its ally Turkey, which recognized Kosovo, Azerbaijan called Kosovo’s independence “illegal.” Russia has also opposed it.
Meanwhile, Armenia’s President Robert Kocharian said on February 29 that the Kosovo precedent would play a positive role in the international recognition of Nagorno-
Karabakh’s independence, Regnum news agency reported the same day.
[Knollenberg, Pallone send letter to Rice asking for public rebuke of Azerbaijani president
WASHINGTON – Representatives Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.), cochairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, along with over 50 of their colleagues sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking for a public rebuke of Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev for his recent threatening comments regarding war with Armenia.
“It has been 20 years since the liberation movement in Nagorno- Karabakh and still today the president of Azerbaijan is threatening war over this territory. Azerbaijan can no longer spew hatred and war threats towards Armenia without a public international response.” Knollenberg and Pallone said.
“Enough is enough. It is time for the U.S. Department of State to hold Aliyev and his government accountable for their words. Armenia is an ally and friend to the United States and threatening to go to war with an ally is never acceptable.”
“A peaceful resolution to this conflict can and must be achieved. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh agree that peaceful negotiations are the way forward. It is now time for President Aliyev to rescind his vicious statements and come to the negotiating table.”
The letter was cosigned by Gary Ackerman (D.-N.Y.), Gus Bilirakis (R.-Fla.), Dennis Cardoza (D.-Calif.), Jim Costa (D.-Calif.), Jerry Costello (D.-Ill.), Joseph Crowley (D.-N.Y.), Danny K. Davis (D.-Ill.), Lloyd Doggett (D.-Tex.), Anna Eshoo (D.- Calif.), Chaka Fattah (D.-Pa.), Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), Elton Gallegy (R.-Calif.), Scott Garrett (R.-N.J.), Charles Gonzalez (D.-Tex.), Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.), Maurice Hinchey (D.-N.Y.), Michael Honda (D.-Calif.), Rush Holt (D.-N.J.), Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.), Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), James Langevin (D.-R.I.), Sander Levin (D.-Mich.), Daniel Lipinski (D.-Ill.), Frank LoBiondo (R.-N.J.), Stephen Lynch (D.-Mass.), Carolyn Maloney (D.-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D.-Mass.), Betty McCollum (D.-Minn.), Thaddeus McCotter (R.-Mich.), James McGovern (D.-Mass.), Howard McKeon (R.-
Calif.), Michael McNulty (D.-N.Y.), Candice Miller (R.-Mich.), Grace Napolitano (D.-Calif.), Colin Peterson (D.-Minn.), George Radanovich (R.-Calif.), Mike Rogers (R.-Mich.), Steven Rothman (D.-N.J.), Bobby Rush (D.-Ill.), Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.), John Sarbanes (D.-Md.), Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), Chris Shays (R.-Conn.), Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), Mark Souder (R.-Ind.), Chris Van Hollen (D.-Md.), Tim Walz (D.-Minn.), Diane Watson (D.-Calif.), Anthony Weiner (D.-N.Y.), Albert Wynn (D.-Md.)
USAPAC has urged Armenian- Americans to call these representatives and thank them for cosigning the letter. They can be reached at (202) 224-3121.
U.S. Russia watchers weigh in on Putin-Medvedev succession
Washington-based Russia experts say the March 2 vote for the next Russian president should be viewed not as an “election,” but rather a “succession,” according to a discussion hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Feb. 28.
On March 2, Russians are expected to vote in President Vladimir Putin’s former aide Dmitry Medvedev as his successor; with Mr. Putin himself becoming Prime Minister.
“The good news,” said Andrew Kuchins, the CSIS Director for Russia and Eurasia, “is that we have heard no anti-Western rhetoric from Mr. Medvedev. The bad news is that he has said nothing about [foreign affairs] … This shows that Putin will take the lead role for some time,” he said.
Sarah Mendelson, director of the CSIS Human Rights and Security Initiative, agreed that Mr. Putin’s potential role would see “Russia shifting towards the Prime Minister system, which means that Putin would [still] be the primary figure for some time to come.” She added that Russia would “take advantage of declining U.S. influence.”
“We have seen that iPods, lattes, and skateboards, and other elements of Western culture do not, alas, translate into a desire for free media and [democracy],” she said.
Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, cited Russia’s significant economic growth over the past eight years, and said that this growth would most likely continue – a factor that he says contributes to the country’s corruption.
“Countries that are as rich and educated are normally democratic. Russia is an extreme outlier,” he said, calling Mr. Putin’s administration “about the most corrupt
regime we have ever seen.”
—Alexa Millinger contributed to this briefing.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Briefly: Kosovo declares, Brownback in Baku, Turks in Kurdistan
This was first published in February 23, 2008 Armenian Reporter (note: for detailed Armenia election results see http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/A0223.pdf)
United States, Europeans recognize Kosovo’s independence
Russia and China are opposed
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – The United Nations–administered former Serbian province of Kosovo declared independence on February 17 and was recognized by the United States the following day. The United States was joined by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, and more than a dozen other states. Serbia, along with Russia and China, protested the move.
The United States has been pushing for an international consensus to grant Kosovo a transitional independent status under European Union control for over a year. But talks between Serbs and Kosovars, as well as those at the United Nations’ Security Council, have deadlocked.
Kosovo, which has an ethnic Albanian majority and borders on Albania, has been outside of Belgrade’s control since a 1999 U.S.- led war that expelled Serbian forces
accused of ethnic cleansing President George W. Bush acknowledged international disagreements on the issue but argued that “history will prove this to be the correct move,” The AP reported on February 19. He added he believes the solution to the status issue would help ensure regional peace.
Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, one of the architects of the Bush administration’s Kosovo policy, said that the United States is committing $334 million in additional assistance to Kosovo, which has a population of about two million.
U.S. officials have taken pains to describe Kosovo’s independence, bypassing international law, as a unique case that would not necessarily be repeated elsewhere.
But the declaration of independence and its subsequent recognition by several major world powers nevertheless sets a precedent: the U.S. and its allies have recognized the independence of a breakaway region (Kosovo) despite opposition from its
former ruler (Serbia) and important international players (Russia and to a lesser extent China).
Some states were clearly worried. Unlike its ally Turkey, Azerbaijan has so far refused to recognize Kosovo, calling its declaration “illegal.” Armenian officials said they were following the developments in and around Kosovo, and have not ruled out recognition. Georgia’s president in turn appeared to have won assurances that Russia would not, for now at least, recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that have been de facto independent from Tbilisi since the early 1990s.
Serbia’s government recalled its ambassador to the United States and vowed not to recognize Kosovo, but ruled out a new military intervention into an area controlled by NATO and its partner peacekeeping forces, including a small contingent from Armenia.
Hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets in Serbia’s capital Belgrade later in the week, at one point setting the evacuated U.S. embassy on fire, the Washington Post reported on February 21. But while protests and disagreements
continue, most Western observers considered Kosovo’s independence a done deal.
Washington briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Sen. Brownback discusses “silk road” in Azerbaijan
Senator Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.), a veteran proponent of the U.S. role in Caspian energy development, became the second U.S. senator to visit Azerbaijan so far this year (see this page in the Jan. 19 Armenian Reporter).
Local media reported that in his talk at the country’s Diplomatic Academy, Mr. Brownback called for a “more active dialogue on several issues” between the U.S. and Azerbaijan.
He reportedly said that should bilateral relations strengthen, that would create an opportunity for a complete repeal of the currently waiverable Section 907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, which provides restrictions on U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan’s recently established Diplomatic Academy is led by the country’s former ambassador to the United States Hafiz Pashayev, who has been recruiting Western experts to work there.
Among recent hires as the academy’s director of research and publications is former U.S. official Paul Goble, who in the early 1990s proposed a territorial swap as a way to resolve the Karabakh conflict, the so-called Goble Plan.
Turkish ground forces resume Iraq operations
Several thousand Turkish military personnel, backed by warplanes and helicopters, re-entered northern Iraq on February 21 to fight anti-Turkey Kurdish forces based there, Turkish and international news agencies reported. A similar operation was undertaken last year, after the U.S. and Turkey agreed to jointly target Kurdish forces.
Iraqi officials downplayed the operation, suggesting that only a few hundred Turkish soldiers were involved.
The U.S. has urged Turkey to limit the operation to “precise targeting” of Kurdish rebels. “We were notified [of Turkey’s plans] and we urged the Turkish government
to limit their operations to precise targeting of the PKK, to limit the scope and duration of their operations,” White House spokesperson Scott Stanzel said on February 22.
Following disagreements over Iraq and particularly its Kurdish-populated north, the U.S. and Turkey appear to be acting in concert. Senior U.S. and Turkish military officials exchanged visits in recent weeks.
Next month, Vice President Dick Cheney, along with a large U.S. military delegation, is due to visit Ankara, Turkish media reported this week. The visit is expected to focus on issues related to Iraq, Iran,
and Afghanistan.
United States, Europeans recognize Kosovo’s independence
Russia and China are opposed
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – The United Nations–administered former Serbian province of Kosovo declared independence on February 17 and was recognized by the United States the following day. The United States was joined by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, and more than a dozen other states. Serbia, along with Russia and China, protested the move.
The United States has been pushing for an international consensus to grant Kosovo a transitional independent status under European Union control for over a year. But talks between Serbs and Kosovars, as well as those at the United Nations’ Security Council, have deadlocked.
Kosovo, which has an ethnic Albanian majority and borders on Albania, has been outside of Belgrade’s control since a 1999 U.S.- led war that expelled Serbian forces
accused of ethnic cleansing President George W. Bush acknowledged international disagreements on the issue but argued that “history will prove this to be the correct move,” The AP reported on February 19. He added he believes the solution to the status issue would help ensure regional peace.
Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, one of the architects of the Bush administration’s Kosovo policy, said that the United States is committing $334 million in additional assistance to Kosovo, which has a population of about two million.
U.S. officials have taken pains to describe Kosovo’s independence, bypassing international law, as a unique case that would not necessarily be repeated elsewhere.
But the declaration of independence and its subsequent recognition by several major world powers nevertheless sets a precedent: the U.S. and its allies have recognized the independence of a breakaway region (Kosovo) despite opposition from its
former ruler (Serbia) and important international players (Russia and to a lesser extent China).
Some states were clearly worried. Unlike its ally Turkey, Azerbaijan has so far refused to recognize Kosovo, calling its declaration “illegal.” Armenian officials said they were following the developments in and around Kosovo, and have not ruled out recognition. Georgia’s president in turn appeared to have won assurances that Russia would not, for now at least, recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that have been de facto independent from Tbilisi since the early 1990s.
Serbia’s government recalled its ambassador to the United States and vowed not to recognize Kosovo, but ruled out a new military intervention into an area controlled by NATO and its partner peacekeeping forces, including a small contingent from Armenia.
Hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets in Serbia’s capital Belgrade later in the week, at one point setting the evacuated U.S. embassy on fire, the Washington Post reported on February 21. But while protests and disagreements
continue, most Western observers considered Kosovo’s independence a done deal.
Washington briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Sen. Brownback discusses “silk road” in Azerbaijan
Senator Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.), a veteran proponent of the U.S. role in Caspian energy development, became the second U.S. senator to visit Azerbaijan so far this year (see this page in the Jan. 19 Armenian Reporter).
Local media reported that in his talk at the country’s Diplomatic Academy, Mr. Brownback called for a “more active dialogue on several issues” between the U.S. and Azerbaijan.
He reportedly said that should bilateral relations strengthen, that would create an opportunity for a complete repeal of the currently waiverable Section 907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, which provides restrictions on U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan’s recently established Diplomatic Academy is led by the country’s former ambassador to the United States Hafiz Pashayev, who has been recruiting Western experts to work there.
Among recent hires as the academy’s director of research and publications is former U.S. official Paul Goble, who in the early 1990s proposed a territorial swap as a way to resolve the Karabakh conflict, the so-called Goble Plan.
Turkish ground forces resume Iraq operations
Several thousand Turkish military personnel, backed by warplanes and helicopters, re-entered northern Iraq on February 21 to fight anti-Turkey Kurdish forces based there, Turkish and international news agencies reported. A similar operation was undertaken last year, after the U.S. and Turkey agreed to jointly target Kurdish forces.
Iraqi officials downplayed the operation, suggesting that only a few hundred Turkish soldiers were involved.
The U.S. has urged Turkey to limit the operation to “precise targeting” of Kurdish rebels. “We were notified [of Turkey’s plans] and we urged the Turkish government
to limit their operations to precise targeting of the PKK, to limit the scope and duration of their operations,” White House spokesperson Scott Stanzel said on February 22.
Following disagreements over Iraq and particularly its Kurdish-populated north, the U.S. and Turkey appear to be acting in concert. Senior U.S. and Turkish military officials exchanged visits in recent weeks.
Next month, Vice President Dick Cheney, along with a large U.S. military delegation, is due to visit Ankara, Turkish media reported this week. The visit is expected to focus on issues related to Iraq, Iran,
and Afghanistan.
Armenia elections: Polls point to Sargsian victory
This was first published in the February 16, 2008 Armenian Reporter.
Armenia elections: Polls point to Sargsian victory
Ter-Petrossian’s campaign adds intrigue
[Post-election crisis likely]
News Analysis by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON - Armenia appears headed toward a contentious election on February 19, pitting Prime Minister Serge Sargsian against his main challenger, ex-President Levon
Ter-Petrossian.
Public opinion surveys, including those commissioned by an opposition-leaning newspaper, have consistently shown Mr. Sargsian, who also has the most organizational and financial strength, with a substantial advantage in public support.
But over the past two weeks Mr. Ter-Petrossian appears to have made inroads into the Armenian political establishment, gaining enough momentum to make the outcome of the upcoming vote less predictable.
Campaigning and organizational strength
While formally there are nine contenders in the upcoming elections, only four have run full-fledged national campaigns. In addition to Mr. Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian, the others in this field are former Parliament Speaker Artur Baghdasarian, and current Deputy Speaker Vahan Hovhannesian.
All four candidates have held massive rallies around Armenia, although the support and organizational strength for the candidates appears uneven in different parts of the country.
Benefiting from his de facto incumbency, Mr. Sargsian commands the strongest political machine comprised of the Republican (RPA) and Prosperous Armenia (PAP) parties, which hold a majority in parliament and have national outreach. RPA, PAP, as well as the United Labor and several smaller parties that support Mr. Sargsian cumulatively won nearly 53 percent of the vote in the May 2007 parliamentary elections.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian in turn is also benefiting from his past incumbency, with his campaign run primarily by former government officials who retain political and economic influence around Armenia. He has also attracted the support of a number of small political parties that cumulatively won more than 14 percent of the vote last May.
Mr. Hovhannisian and Mr. Baghdasarian are backed by their respective political parties – the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which won 13 percent of the vote in May 2007, and the Country of Laws party, which secured 7 percent.
The votes won by political parties last May can serve only as rough indicators of the starting organizational strength of the individual candidates. While Mr. Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian have polled at near the levels of the past combined performance of the parties now backing them (respectively 53 and 14 percent), Mr. Baghdasarian has been polling better than Mr. Hovannisian.
Polls and public support
Armenian opposition parties have criticized the integrity of the public opinion polls that all give Mr. Sargsian a strong lead. But they have not published any alternative polls that could contradict such findings. And polls are sufficiently consistent to provide a general picture of the relative popularity of individual candidates, more so than turnout at campaign rallies.
Although certain opinion polls, such as those commissioned by Mr. Sargsian’s campaign
(through Sociometer) as well as by media entities favoring Mr. Sargsian, may raise legitimate concerns about accuracy, it is harder to allege a pro-government bias in polling funded respectively by the U.S. government and Aravot newspaper, which editorially supports Mr. Ter-Petrossian.
The nationwide polls since January have placed Mr. Sargsian’s popularity anywhere between 43 (U.S.-funded) to 50 (Armenian Public TV-funded) to 67 (Sargsian campaign-funded) percent, with more recent polls showing an increase in support.
These findings are generally backed by the polling commissioned by Aravot, and conducted in Yerevan only. Based on six opinion polls involving 663 respondents each, conducted at monthly intervals since last September, Aravot’s polling (see table at http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/A0216.pdf p. A11) puts Mr. Sargsian well ahead even among the capital’s voters – who, unlike voters in most of the provinces, have traditionally favored challengers over incumbents.
According to this survey, while many voters in Yerevan would not state their preferences, the ex-president enjoys the highest “anti”-rating: that is, when voters were asked to name the candidate “whom they would never vote for” about 30 percent named Mr. Ter-Petrossian, and less than 10 percent Mr. Sargsian. According to these findings, Mr. Ter-Petrossian would also do worse than two other main challengers would against Mr. Sargsian in a potential run-off election should none of the candidates win over half of all votes cast on February 19.
Overall, Mr. Sargsian appears to be polling somewhat better than President Robert Kocharian was on the eve of 2003 election, in which Mr. Kocharian won just under 50 percent in the first round and more than two-thirds of the vote in the run-off.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian in turn is polling substantially worse than the main opposition challenger, Stepan Demirchian, did in January-February 2003.
Uncertainty of outcome, and certainty of crisis
Mr. Sargsian is continuing to enjoy advantages in organizational resources and popular support. Throughout his campaign, he has exuded confidence and offered only a restrained reaction to the daily barrage of accusations and insults coming from the opposition candidates, particularly from Mr. Ter-Petrossian, who has in turn been targeted heavily by pro-government media.
However, over the last week the ex-president’s campaign has gained momentum and has to a large degree succeeded in turning the election into a two-man race. Mr. Ter- Petrossian appears to be attracting voters who see him as an only candidate capable of mounting a strong challenge against Mr. Sargsian.
He won the endorsement of Raffi Hovannisian’s Heritage Party (which won 6 percent of the vote last May), as well as two parliament members previously allied with HHK, the prime minister’s party. Mr. Ter-Petrossian has also been backed by Aram Karapetian, a maverick politician who claims to be close to the Russian government and whose party won 3 percent of the vote last May.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian has thus largely reconstituted the 2003 opposition alliance, at the time led by Mr. Demirchian. The only change is that parties supporting former Prime Minister Vazgen Manukian, who is running separately, have been replaced by Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s loyalists from the former ruling Armenian Pan National Movement (ANM).
Last Monday, Armenia’s ex-president went to Moscow and reportedly assured a pro- Kremlin pundit of his loyalty to Russian interests. While Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s television ads claimed that he met with senior members of the Russian government, those claims remained unconfirmed by Russian officials.
At the same time, the ex-president’s campaign pressured Mr. Baghdasarian, who has been coming second or third in most recent polls, to drop out of the race. Earlier this week, Mr. Ter-Petrossian said he was certain of Mr. Baghdasarian’s endorsement.
But on Thursday Mr. Baghdasarian refused to back the ex-president. Support for Mr. Ter-Petrossian from other candidates in the race, particularly Mr. Hovhannesian of ARF, is believed to be highly unlikely.
For months, Mr. Ter-Petrossian has also tried to woo away major players in Armenia’s establishment who have supported Mr. Sargsian – particularly PAP leader and businessman Gagik Tsarukian, with little success so far.
Last Wednesday, the ex-president claimed support from unidentified figures in the republic’s Police and the National Security Service, but those claims remained unsubstantiated as of press time.
The outcome of the electoral race, which has increasingly focused on Mr. Ter-Petrossian, Mr. Sargsian, and to an extent Mr. Baghdasarian, remains hard to predict.
Although Mr. Sargsian remains a favorite, the two major opposition campaigns also claim the inevitability of their victory and are unlikely to accept defeat without street protests and legal appeals to overturn the results.
While only one of the candidates can win, the balance of forces arrayed and the visible polarization of recent weeks make a postelection crisis likely, no matter the actual outcome of the vote.
Armenia elections: Polls point to Sargsian victory
Ter-Petrossian’s campaign adds intrigue
[Post-election crisis likely]
News Analysis by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON - Armenia appears headed toward a contentious election on February 19, pitting Prime Minister Serge Sargsian against his main challenger, ex-President Levon
Ter-Petrossian.
Public opinion surveys, including those commissioned by an opposition-leaning newspaper, have consistently shown Mr. Sargsian, who also has the most organizational and financial strength, with a substantial advantage in public support.
But over the past two weeks Mr. Ter-Petrossian appears to have made inroads into the Armenian political establishment, gaining enough momentum to make the outcome of the upcoming vote less predictable.
Campaigning and organizational strength
While formally there are nine contenders in the upcoming elections, only four have run full-fledged national campaigns. In addition to Mr. Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian, the others in this field are former Parliament Speaker Artur Baghdasarian, and current Deputy Speaker Vahan Hovhannesian.
All four candidates have held massive rallies around Armenia, although the support and organizational strength for the candidates appears uneven in different parts of the country.
Benefiting from his de facto incumbency, Mr. Sargsian commands the strongest political machine comprised of the Republican (RPA) and Prosperous Armenia (PAP) parties, which hold a majority in parliament and have national outreach. RPA, PAP, as well as the United Labor and several smaller parties that support Mr. Sargsian cumulatively won nearly 53 percent of the vote in the May 2007 parliamentary elections.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian in turn is also benefiting from his past incumbency, with his campaign run primarily by former government officials who retain political and economic influence around Armenia. He has also attracted the support of a number of small political parties that cumulatively won more than 14 percent of the vote last May.
Mr. Hovhannisian and Mr. Baghdasarian are backed by their respective political parties – the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which won 13 percent of the vote in May 2007, and the Country of Laws party, which secured 7 percent.
The votes won by political parties last May can serve only as rough indicators of the starting organizational strength of the individual candidates. While Mr. Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian have polled at near the levels of the past combined performance of the parties now backing them (respectively 53 and 14 percent), Mr. Baghdasarian has been polling better than Mr. Hovannisian.
Polls and public support
Armenian opposition parties have criticized the integrity of the public opinion polls that all give Mr. Sargsian a strong lead. But they have not published any alternative polls that could contradict such findings. And polls are sufficiently consistent to provide a general picture of the relative popularity of individual candidates, more so than turnout at campaign rallies.
Although certain opinion polls, such as those commissioned by Mr. Sargsian’s campaign
(through Sociometer) as well as by media entities favoring Mr. Sargsian, may raise legitimate concerns about accuracy, it is harder to allege a pro-government bias in polling funded respectively by the U.S. government and Aravot newspaper, which editorially supports Mr. Ter-Petrossian.
The nationwide polls since January have placed Mr. Sargsian’s popularity anywhere between 43 (U.S.-funded) to 50 (Armenian Public TV-funded) to 67 (Sargsian campaign-funded) percent, with more recent polls showing an increase in support.
These findings are generally backed by the polling commissioned by Aravot, and conducted in Yerevan only. Based on six opinion polls involving 663 respondents each, conducted at monthly intervals since last September, Aravot’s polling (see table at http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/A0216.pdf p. A11) puts Mr. Sargsian well ahead even among the capital’s voters – who, unlike voters in most of the provinces, have traditionally favored challengers over incumbents.
According to this survey, while many voters in Yerevan would not state their preferences, the ex-president enjoys the highest “anti”-rating: that is, when voters were asked to name the candidate “whom they would never vote for” about 30 percent named Mr. Ter-Petrossian, and less than 10 percent Mr. Sargsian. According to these findings, Mr. Ter-Petrossian would also do worse than two other main challengers would against Mr. Sargsian in a potential run-off election should none of the candidates win over half of all votes cast on February 19.
Overall, Mr. Sargsian appears to be polling somewhat better than President Robert Kocharian was on the eve of 2003 election, in which Mr. Kocharian won just under 50 percent in the first round and more than two-thirds of the vote in the run-off.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian in turn is polling substantially worse than the main opposition challenger, Stepan Demirchian, did in January-February 2003.
Uncertainty of outcome, and certainty of crisis
Mr. Sargsian is continuing to enjoy advantages in organizational resources and popular support. Throughout his campaign, he has exuded confidence and offered only a restrained reaction to the daily barrage of accusations and insults coming from the opposition candidates, particularly from Mr. Ter-Petrossian, who has in turn been targeted heavily by pro-government media.
However, over the last week the ex-president’s campaign has gained momentum and has to a large degree succeeded in turning the election into a two-man race. Mr. Ter- Petrossian appears to be attracting voters who see him as an only candidate capable of mounting a strong challenge against Mr. Sargsian.
He won the endorsement of Raffi Hovannisian’s Heritage Party (which won 6 percent of the vote last May), as well as two parliament members previously allied with HHK, the prime minister’s party. Mr. Ter-Petrossian has also been backed by Aram Karapetian, a maverick politician who claims to be close to the Russian government and whose party won 3 percent of the vote last May.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian has thus largely reconstituted the 2003 opposition alliance, at the time led by Mr. Demirchian. The only change is that parties supporting former Prime Minister Vazgen Manukian, who is running separately, have been replaced by Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s loyalists from the former ruling Armenian Pan National Movement (ANM).
Last Monday, Armenia’s ex-president went to Moscow and reportedly assured a pro- Kremlin pundit of his loyalty to Russian interests. While Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s television ads claimed that he met with senior members of the Russian government, those claims remained unconfirmed by Russian officials.
At the same time, the ex-president’s campaign pressured Mr. Baghdasarian, who has been coming second or third in most recent polls, to drop out of the race. Earlier this week, Mr. Ter-Petrossian said he was certain of Mr. Baghdasarian’s endorsement.
But on Thursday Mr. Baghdasarian refused to back the ex-president. Support for Mr. Ter-Petrossian from other candidates in the race, particularly Mr. Hovhannesian of ARF, is believed to be highly unlikely.
For months, Mr. Ter-Petrossian has also tried to woo away major players in Armenia’s establishment who have supported Mr. Sargsian – particularly PAP leader and businessman Gagik Tsarukian, with little success so far.
Last Wednesday, the ex-president claimed support from unidentified figures in the republic’s Police and the National Security Service, but those claims remained unsubstantiated as of press time.
The outcome of the electoral race, which has increasingly focused on Mr. Ter-Petrossian, Mr. Sargsian, and to an extent Mr. Baghdasarian, remains hard to predict.
Although Mr. Sargsian remains a favorite, the two major opposition campaigns also claim the inevitability of their victory and are unlikely to accept defeat without street protests and legal appeals to overturn the results.
While only one of the candidates can win, the balance of forces arrayed and the visible polarization of recent weeks make a postelection crisis likely, no matter the actual outcome of the vote.
Briefly: Lantos passes; Sherman vs. Rice; Clinton's Turkish delegate; Saakashvili's Patarkatsishvili dead
This was first published in February 16, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Armenian-Americans mourn loss of Rep. Tom Lantos
Rep. Tom Lantos (D.-Calif.), 80, died on February 11 due to complications from cancer, his office reported.
A member of Congress for 28 years, Mr. Lantos was chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which last October overcame unprecedented opposition from the Turkish government, the Bush Administration, and influential figures in the Democratic Party and passed a resolution that affirms the Armenian Genocide.
Mr. Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor in Congress, voted for the measure and then, amid threats by Turkey to retaliate against U.S. interests, went on national television to defend its passage as “a significant step in restoring the moral authority of U.S. foreign policy.”
“U.S. foreign policy was strong when it was based on a sound foundation of a moral authority,” Mr. Lantos told the PBS Newshour on October 11. “It’s Abu Ghraib and similar episodes which have diminished our standing globally. And the international community is not critical of the fact that the United States calls a genocide a genocide.”
“Congressman Lantos played a pivotal role in securing the Committee passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution last year,” said Ross Vartian, executive director
of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee. “His principled stance and eloquent arguments in favor of this – the only right policy – have earned him the respect of the Armenian American community. We mourn his passing and hope his principled stand will inspire other American foreign policy leaders.”
The chair of the Armenian National Committee of America, Ken Hachikian, and the Armenian Assembly of America’s executive director Bryan Ardouny praised Mr. Lantos’s leadership and offered condolences on behalf of their respective organizations.
Last month, Mr. Lantos announced plans to retire from Congress later this year. On February 12, following his death, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation to hold a special election on June 3 to fill Mr. Lantos’s congressional seat. Former California State Senator and Armenian-American Jackie Speier is heavily favored to win that election.
Rep. Sherman questions Secretary of State about proposed Armenia aid cut
In congressional testimony on February 13, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed the Bush Administration-proposed budget for the next fiscal year and was questioned on the proposed cut in U.S. assistance to Armenia.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned the administration’s proposal to cut Armenia’s aid allocation from $58.5 million appropriated by Congress last year to $24 million in fiscal 2009. (See this page in the February 9 Armenian Reporter.)
In response, Dr. Rice appeared to justify the cut by pointing to assistance the United States is providing Armenia under the performance-based Millennium Challenge Account.
Mr. Sherman also recalled the administration’s opposition to the Genocide resolution. “It adds insult to injury that the Bush Administration would seek to dramatically cut funding for Armenia, while stifling efforts to recognize the historic tragedy of the Armenian Genocide,” Rep. Sherman said, according to his office. “I will make every effort to ensure that Congress restores full funding for Armenia.”
In testimony the same day, Dr. Rice promised to heed the call by leaders of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and re-appoint a “special energy coordinator who could especially spend time on the Central Asian and Caspian region.” The State Department had a designated envoy focusing solely on Caspian energy between 1998 and 2004.
Reports: Anti-Armenian activist is Sen. Clinton’s delegate to DNC convention
Mehmet Celebi, a Chicago-based Turkish-American businessperson who is on record as promoting Genocide denial and Armeniabashing, is a major donor for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) and has been selected as one of her delegates to the Democratic National Convention, according to the Senator’s campaign web site. In addition to large personal contributions, Mr. Celebi has helped the campaign raise more than $100,000.
On February 11, the New York Post picked up reports by the National Review and other online political blogs that have pointed to Mr. Celebi’s involvement in the Valley of the Wolves: Iraq, a 2006 Turkish film with highly anti-American and anti-Semitic content.
Ms. Clinton’s campaign did not return the Post’s request for comment, but shortly after the publications appeared, the web site of Mr. Celebi’s company, BMH Worldwide Entertainment, went off-line.
In February 2007 the Turkish Daily News noted Mr. Celebi’s cooperation with the Turkish leadership. He reportedly told the newspaper, “Prominent figures of
the [Armenian] diaspora pay Hollywood to make genocide movies…. We should also be relying on such methods and commission movies explaining Turkey’s side of the story.”
Ms. Clinton is currently in a tight race for Democratic presidential nomination with Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), whose campaign has gained momentum after winning elections in five states as well as the District of Columbia since Super Tuesday.
Billionaire Georgian government opponent dies in exile
Arkady (Badri) Patarkatsishvili, 52, a Georgian billionaire who last year promised to use his fortune to oust President Mikhail Saakashvili, died on February 14 at his home in Britain. Local police said the death came after a sudden heart attack and that they had no evidence of foul play.
One Georgian opposition politician called the death an “indirect murder,” Civil.ge reported the same day. The Georgian government has charged Mr. Patarkatsishvili with an attempted coup d’etat.
The businessperson, who made his fortune in Russia in the 1990s, went to Georgia after facing charges of embezzlement there. About a year ago, he fell out with Mr. Saakashvili, whom he had previously supported, and has since left Georgia, reportedly fearing for his life.
Mr. Saakashvili was re-elected in a contentious election last month and continues to face opposition protests.
At a February 6 hearing of the U.S. Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza admitted that the Georgia’s most recent “election was not an example or a model to be followed elsewhere in the world,” but urged the opposition to forget about trying to overturn its results and instead focus on upcoming parliamentary elections.
In a sign of continued U.S. support for Mr. Saakashvili, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 13 passed a resolution urging the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to invite Georgia, along with Ukraine, for membership talks in the organization.
Mr. Saakashvili is also expected to pay an official visit to Washington next month.
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Armenian-Americans mourn loss of Rep. Tom Lantos
Rep. Tom Lantos (D.-Calif.), 80, died on February 11 due to complications from cancer, his office reported.
A member of Congress for 28 years, Mr. Lantos was chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which last October overcame unprecedented opposition from the Turkish government, the Bush Administration, and influential figures in the Democratic Party and passed a resolution that affirms the Armenian Genocide.
Mr. Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor in Congress, voted for the measure and then, amid threats by Turkey to retaliate against U.S. interests, went on national television to defend its passage as “a significant step in restoring the moral authority of U.S. foreign policy.”
“U.S. foreign policy was strong when it was based on a sound foundation of a moral authority,” Mr. Lantos told the PBS Newshour on October 11. “It’s Abu Ghraib and similar episodes which have diminished our standing globally. And the international community is not critical of the fact that the United States calls a genocide a genocide.”
“Congressman Lantos played a pivotal role in securing the Committee passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution last year,” said Ross Vartian, executive director
of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee. “His principled stance and eloquent arguments in favor of this – the only right policy – have earned him the respect of the Armenian American community. We mourn his passing and hope his principled stand will inspire other American foreign policy leaders.”
The chair of the Armenian National Committee of America, Ken Hachikian, and the Armenian Assembly of America’s executive director Bryan Ardouny praised Mr. Lantos’s leadership and offered condolences on behalf of their respective organizations.
Last month, Mr. Lantos announced plans to retire from Congress later this year. On February 12, following his death, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation to hold a special election on June 3 to fill Mr. Lantos’s congressional seat. Former California State Senator and Armenian-American Jackie Speier is heavily favored to win that election.
Rep. Sherman questions Secretary of State about proposed Armenia aid cut
In congressional testimony on February 13, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed the Bush Administration-proposed budget for the next fiscal year and was questioned on the proposed cut in U.S. assistance to Armenia.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned the administration’s proposal to cut Armenia’s aid allocation from $58.5 million appropriated by Congress last year to $24 million in fiscal 2009. (See this page in the February 9 Armenian Reporter.)
In response, Dr. Rice appeared to justify the cut by pointing to assistance the United States is providing Armenia under the performance-based Millennium Challenge Account.
Mr. Sherman also recalled the administration’s opposition to the Genocide resolution. “It adds insult to injury that the Bush Administration would seek to dramatically cut funding for Armenia, while stifling efforts to recognize the historic tragedy of the Armenian Genocide,” Rep. Sherman said, according to his office. “I will make every effort to ensure that Congress restores full funding for Armenia.”
In testimony the same day, Dr. Rice promised to heed the call by leaders of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and re-appoint a “special energy coordinator who could especially spend time on the Central Asian and Caspian region.” The State Department had a designated envoy focusing solely on Caspian energy between 1998 and 2004.
Reports: Anti-Armenian activist is Sen. Clinton’s delegate to DNC convention
Mehmet Celebi, a Chicago-based Turkish-American businessperson who is on record as promoting Genocide denial and Armeniabashing, is a major donor for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) and has been selected as one of her delegates to the Democratic National Convention, according to the Senator’s campaign web site. In addition to large personal contributions, Mr. Celebi has helped the campaign raise more than $100,000.
On February 11, the New York Post picked up reports by the National Review and other online political blogs that have pointed to Mr. Celebi’s involvement in the Valley of the Wolves: Iraq, a 2006 Turkish film with highly anti-American and anti-Semitic content.
Ms. Clinton’s campaign did not return the Post’s request for comment, but shortly after the publications appeared, the web site of Mr. Celebi’s company, BMH Worldwide Entertainment, went off-line.
In February 2007 the Turkish Daily News noted Mr. Celebi’s cooperation with the Turkish leadership. He reportedly told the newspaper, “Prominent figures of
the [Armenian] diaspora pay Hollywood to make genocide movies…. We should also be relying on such methods and commission movies explaining Turkey’s side of the story.”
Ms. Clinton is currently in a tight race for Democratic presidential nomination with Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), whose campaign has gained momentum after winning elections in five states as well as the District of Columbia since Super Tuesday.
Billionaire Georgian government opponent dies in exile
Arkady (Badri) Patarkatsishvili, 52, a Georgian billionaire who last year promised to use his fortune to oust President Mikhail Saakashvili, died on February 14 at his home in Britain. Local police said the death came after a sudden heart attack and that they had no evidence of foul play.
One Georgian opposition politician called the death an “indirect murder,” Civil.ge reported the same day. The Georgian government has charged Mr. Patarkatsishvili with an attempted coup d’etat.
The businessperson, who made his fortune in Russia in the 1990s, went to Georgia after facing charges of embezzlement there. About a year ago, he fell out with Mr. Saakashvili, whom he had previously supported, and has since left Georgia, reportedly fearing for his life.
Mr. Saakashvili was re-elected in a contentious election last month and continues to face opposition protests.
At a February 6 hearing of the U.S. Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza admitted that the Georgia’s most recent “election was not an example or a model to be followed elsewhere in the world,” but urged the opposition to forget about trying to overturn its results and instead focus on upcoming parliamentary elections.
In a sign of continued U.S. support for Mr. Saakashvili, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 13 passed a resolution urging the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to invite Georgia, along with Ukraine, for membership talks in the organization.
Mr. Saakashvili is also expected to pay an official visit to Washington next month.
U.S. Primaries: Clinton, McCain carry Los Angeles
This was first published in February 9, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Democratic presidential race is tied, Republican frontrunner emerges
Clinton, McCain carry Southern California
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – Senator John McCain of Arizona appears poised to win the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, while Senators Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) remained neck in neck this week in the competition for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
Following the Super Tuesday vote in more than twenty states on February 5, Mr. McCain took a commanding lead in the GOP race as he won more than 3.6 million votes, securing about one half of the delegate votes necessary to win the nomination; his main Republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney withdrew from the race on February 7.
In the Democratic race, with most votes tallied from the Super Tuesday primaries by February 7, Ms. Clinton had a slim advantage of 7.43 million votes to Mr. Obama’s 7.37 million; the two candidates were nearly tied in the delegate race.
While Mr. Obama won in 13 of 22 states where votes were held, Ms. Clinton won in more populous states, such as California, New York, and Massachusetts. A race was so close in one state – New Mexico – that it was still not called at the week’s end.
According to most commentators, the Democratic race may take until April or even later to be decided, with Mr. Obama enjoying the advantage of momentum at this time.
Southern California results
Ms. Clinton won 2.1 million votes (52 percent) in California to Mr. Obama’s 1.7 million (42 percent). She did particularly well among Hispanic voters there, winning 55 percent of the vote in Los Angeles County.
Mr. McCain carried California in the Republican race, but with a narrower margin of 42 percent statewide and 43 percent in Los Angeles County.
In the district of Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif., 29th), which has the highest proportion of Armenian-American voters, in Glendale and Pasadena, Ms. Clinton won 42,144 votes (52 percent) and Mr. Obama 35,735 votes (44 percent); in the Republican race, Mr. McCain won 16,740 votes (45 percent) to Mr. Romney’s 12,731 (34 percent).
In nearby district of Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif., 27th), which includes Burbank, and that of Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif., 28th), which includes Van Nuys, Ms. Clinton won with nearly 60 percent of the vote.
Mr. Schiff had endorsed Mr. Obama, while Mr. Sherman is backing Ms. Clinton, and Mr. Berman has not committed to any of the candidates.
Armenians campaign for Democratic candidates
The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which is backing Mr. Obama, reported that Armenian-Americans turned out for Super Tuesday in record numbers around the country.
On January 31, one of Mr. Obama’s top advisors, Harvard professor Samantha Power, released a video statement to the ANCA discussing the candidate’s commitment to the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide and urging Armenian-American support for the candidate. A Los Angeles lawyer and ANC activist, Nora Hovsepian, was selected to chair the group “Armenians for Obama.”
Meanwhile, ARMENPAC, a political action committee based in Irving, Texas, and California Assembly member Paul Krekorian (D.-Glendale) endorsed Ms. Clinton, citing her record and pledges on Armenian-American issues.
Mr. Krekorian said in a February 1 statement that he became national co-chair of “Armenians for Clinton.”
On the Republican side, the ANCA published a February 1 letter it received from Mr. McCain, in which he praised Armenian-Americans’ contributions to the United States, shared admiration for Armenia’s support for U.S.-led operations in Iraq and Kosovo, and condemned “the brutal murder of as many as one and a half million Armenians under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.” (See the full text of the letter on page A2.)
Mr. McCain did not use the term genocide. He did not commit to properly and officially acknowledging the Armenian experience, and he did not pledge U.S. support for Armenia.
Democratic presidential race is tied, Republican frontrunner emerges
Clinton, McCain carry Southern California
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – Senator John McCain of Arizona appears poised to win the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, while Senators Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) remained neck in neck this week in the competition for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
Following the Super Tuesday vote in more than twenty states on February 5, Mr. McCain took a commanding lead in the GOP race as he won more than 3.6 million votes, securing about one half of the delegate votes necessary to win the nomination; his main Republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney withdrew from the race on February 7.
In the Democratic race, with most votes tallied from the Super Tuesday primaries by February 7, Ms. Clinton had a slim advantage of 7.43 million votes to Mr. Obama’s 7.37 million; the two candidates were nearly tied in the delegate race.
While Mr. Obama won in 13 of 22 states where votes were held, Ms. Clinton won in more populous states, such as California, New York, and Massachusetts. A race was so close in one state – New Mexico – that it was still not called at the week’s end.
According to most commentators, the Democratic race may take until April or even later to be decided, with Mr. Obama enjoying the advantage of momentum at this time.
Southern California results
Ms. Clinton won 2.1 million votes (52 percent) in California to Mr. Obama’s 1.7 million (42 percent). She did particularly well among Hispanic voters there, winning 55 percent of the vote in Los Angeles County.
Mr. McCain carried California in the Republican race, but with a narrower margin of 42 percent statewide and 43 percent in Los Angeles County.
In the district of Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif., 29th), which has the highest proportion of Armenian-American voters, in Glendale and Pasadena, Ms. Clinton won 42,144 votes (52 percent) and Mr. Obama 35,735 votes (44 percent); in the Republican race, Mr. McCain won 16,740 votes (45 percent) to Mr. Romney’s 12,731 (34 percent).
In nearby district of Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif., 27th), which includes Burbank, and that of Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif., 28th), which includes Van Nuys, Ms. Clinton won with nearly 60 percent of the vote.
Mr. Schiff had endorsed Mr. Obama, while Mr. Sherman is backing Ms. Clinton, and Mr. Berman has not committed to any of the candidates.
Armenians campaign for Democratic candidates
The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which is backing Mr. Obama, reported that Armenian-Americans turned out for Super Tuesday in record numbers around the country.
On January 31, one of Mr. Obama’s top advisors, Harvard professor Samantha Power, released a video statement to the ANCA discussing the candidate’s commitment to the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide and urging Armenian-American support for the candidate. A Los Angeles lawyer and ANC activist, Nora Hovsepian, was selected to chair the group “Armenians for Obama.”
Meanwhile, ARMENPAC, a political action committee based in Irving, Texas, and California Assembly member Paul Krekorian (D.-Glendale) endorsed Ms. Clinton, citing her record and pledges on Armenian-American issues.
Mr. Krekorian said in a February 1 statement that he became national co-chair of “Armenians for Clinton.”
On the Republican side, the ANCA published a February 1 letter it received from Mr. McCain, in which he praised Armenian-Americans’ contributions to the United States, shared admiration for Armenia’s support for U.S.-led operations in Iraq and Kosovo, and condemned “the brutal murder of as many as one and a half million Armenians under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.” (See the full text of the letter on page A2.)
Mr. McCain did not use the term genocide. He did not commit to properly and officially acknowledging the Armenian experience, and he did not pledge U.S. support for Armenia.
Briefly: Army Day in DC; Bush gives weight to Edmonds vs. Turkey in nuclear deal, proposes FY09 budget, Congress mostly mum on anti-Armenian vandalism
This was first published in February 9, 2008 Armenian Reporter
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Inset: Armenian Army Day in Washington
More than a hundred guests, mostly U.S. civilian and military officials and foreign
defense attachés attended the annual Armenian Armed Forces Day at the
Armenian Embassy in Washington on Jan. 31. Pictured: World War II, Korea,
and Vietnam veteran and U.S. Army Col. (ret.) George Juskalian (seated) with
Armenia’s Defense Attaché Col. Armen Sargsyan (standing on right) and Armenian
Defense Ministry public affairs officer Capt. Hayk Markosyan.
President Bush OK’s nuclear deal with Turkey, cites earlier proliferation concerns
President George W. Bush approved last month the July 2000 “Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy,” and has transmitted it to Congress for ratification.
According to January 23 press release from the White House, Mr. Bush argued that the agreement would serve as “a strong incentive” for U.S.–Turkish relations and “provide the necessary legal framework for U.S. industry to make nuclear exports to Turkey’s planned civil nuclear sector.” The agreement would not allow transfers of “sensitive” nuclear technology or data.
The presidential message indirectly gives further weight to allegations made by former Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) translator Sibel Edmonds, most recently
published in The Times of London (see this page in the February 2 Armenian Reporter).
The message says that then-president Bill Clinton first authorized the agreement shortly before its signing in July 2000, but that “immediately after signature, U.S. agencies received information. . . implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation” and the agreement therefore was not submitted to Congress.
The message further noted that the Bush administration has now evaluated the “actions taken by the Turkish government to address the proliferation activities of certain Turkish entities (once officials of the U.S. Government brought them to the Turkish government’s attention)” and found that “the pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved and that there is a sufficient basis . . . to proceed with congressional review of the Agreement.”
Turkey suspended its nuclear energy program just days after the July 2000 determination, but has recently renewed its interest.
Last month, Energy Minister Hilmi Guler announced plans to conclude by next June an international tender to build a nuclear power plant. According to Turkish media, companies from Canada, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States are expected to bid.
President Bush’s decision came just weeks after his talks with visiting Turkish president Abdullah Gul, who was accompanied by Mr. Guler.
Administration again requests cut in aid to Armenia
President Bush sent his more than $3 trillion budget request to Congress this week. In it, he requested a further aid cut to Armenia, no funds for Nagorno-Karabakh, and more military assistance to Azerbaijan.
The administration’s draft for the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, which is due to be scrutinized by congressional appropriators later this year, requested $24 million in economic and $3.3 million in military aid to Armenia, as well as $3.9 million in military aid to Azerbaijan. (Armenia is also a recipient of a separate $235 million Millennium Challenge Assistance program.)
The administration also proposed $52 million to Georgia and nearly $20 million to Azerbaijan, levels virtually unchanged from what Congress approved last year. In Fiscal Year 2008 Congress approved $58.5 million in economic assistance to Armenia and $3 million in military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan each.
The administration further revealed that in spite of congressional allocation that called for parity in military aid, particularly under International Military Education and Training, the United States in fact provided $952,000 to Azerbaijan and
only $286,000 to Armenia in FY2008.
Armenian-American organizations expressed opposition to the proposed cuts.
“Given Azerbaijan’s increased war rhetoric, I have strong concerns with giving any military aid to Azerbaijan, and we definitely should not give them more than we’re providing Armenia,” senior congressional appropriator Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) was quoted as saying on February 4 by the Armenian Assembly of America. He is co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues.
“I will work with my colleagues to ensure that Armenia has the resources needed to continue to strengthen its democracy as well as ensure its security,” Mr. Knollenberg added.
Congress to condemn construction at historic cemetery in Lithuania
The House Foreign Affairs Committee will next week consider a resolution that reaffirms “the U.S. commitment to preservation of religious and cultural sites and
condemning instances where sites are desecrated.” House Resolution 255 is co-sponsored by the committee’s ranking member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R.-Fla.), Reps. Joe
Crowley (D.-N.Y.) and Michael Ferguson (R.-N.J.) (all three are Armenian caucus members) and is expected to be marked up on February 14.
The proposed resolution singles out continued construction within the boundaries of a historic Jewish cemetery (13th to early 19th century) in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius and warns that unless construction is immediately stopped by the Lithuanian government, “it will jeopardize its important relationship with the United States and its standing in the international community.”
While individual members of Congress, particularly Armenian Caucus co-chair Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.) have spoken out about the destruction of historic Armenian
cemeteries in Azerbaijan, no congressional legislation followed.
And there has so far been little or no reaction to the ongoing construction over Baku’s Armenian cemetery, where many Russians, Jews, and Azerbaijanis are also buried.
ANCA to co-sponsor congressional advocacy campaign next month
The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) announced on February 7 that together with the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net) it will co-sponsor Capitol
Hill advocacy days between from March 12 to 14.
The two organizations partnered for a similar initiative last year “to encourage U.S. action to stop the genocide in Darfur, the adoption of the Armenian Genocide resolution (S.Res.106 / H.Res.106), and the strengthening of U.S. resolve to act against all instances of genocide.”
connect: http://www.anca.org/stopgenocide
Group campaigns for environment in Armenia
Concerns over threats to the environment and public health were the focus of a public lecture organized by the Armenian Environmental Network (AEN) and held at
the World Bank on February 6.
Johns Hopkins University professor George Jakab and Dr. Charles Dunlap of the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation discussed the results of their fieldwork in Armenia and criticized lack of quick government response to environmental and health risks to the public.
The speakers noted dangerously high levels of lead found in Yerevan fountains, in which children often swim, as well as three of the Lake Sevan beaches. The contamination is linked to the tourist infrastructure that has sprung up around the lake in recent years.
AEN Director Ursula Kazarian said that public health was not a hot enough topic to attract adequate funding. “The government does not want to put up up-front costs even though resolving these [public health] problems will save them money in the long run,” she said.
AEN was set up last year to promote environmental awareness throughout the diaspora.
connect: www.armenvironment.net
—Alexa Millinger contributed to this week’s column
Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
Inset: Armenian Army Day in Washington
More than a hundred guests, mostly U.S. civilian and military officials and foreign
defense attachés attended the annual Armenian Armed Forces Day at the
Armenian Embassy in Washington on Jan. 31. Pictured: World War II, Korea,
and Vietnam veteran and U.S. Army Col. (ret.) George Juskalian (seated) with
Armenia’s Defense Attaché Col. Armen Sargsyan (standing on right) and Armenian
Defense Ministry public affairs officer Capt. Hayk Markosyan.
President Bush OK’s nuclear deal with Turkey, cites earlier proliferation concerns
President George W. Bush approved last month the July 2000 “Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy,” and has transmitted it to Congress for ratification.
According to January 23 press release from the White House, Mr. Bush argued that the agreement would serve as “a strong incentive” for U.S.–Turkish relations and “provide the necessary legal framework for U.S. industry to make nuclear exports to Turkey’s planned civil nuclear sector.” The agreement would not allow transfers of “sensitive” nuclear technology or data.
The presidential message indirectly gives further weight to allegations made by former Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) translator Sibel Edmonds, most recently
published in The Times of London (see this page in the February 2 Armenian Reporter).
The message says that then-president Bill Clinton first authorized the agreement shortly before its signing in July 2000, but that “immediately after signature, U.S. agencies received information. . . implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation” and the agreement therefore was not submitted to Congress.
The message further noted that the Bush administration has now evaluated the “actions taken by the Turkish government to address the proliferation activities of certain Turkish entities (once officials of the U.S. Government brought them to the Turkish government’s attention)” and found that “the pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved and that there is a sufficient basis . . . to proceed with congressional review of the Agreement.”
Turkey suspended its nuclear energy program just days after the July 2000 determination, but has recently renewed its interest.
Last month, Energy Minister Hilmi Guler announced plans to conclude by next June an international tender to build a nuclear power plant. According to Turkish media, companies from Canada, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States are expected to bid.
President Bush’s decision came just weeks after his talks with visiting Turkish president Abdullah Gul, who was accompanied by Mr. Guler.
Administration again requests cut in aid to Armenia
President Bush sent his more than $3 trillion budget request to Congress this week. In it, he requested a further aid cut to Armenia, no funds for Nagorno-Karabakh, and more military assistance to Azerbaijan.
The administration’s draft for the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, which is due to be scrutinized by congressional appropriators later this year, requested $24 million in economic and $3.3 million in military aid to Armenia, as well as $3.9 million in military aid to Azerbaijan. (Armenia is also a recipient of a separate $235 million Millennium Challenge Assistance program.)
The administration also proposed $52 million to Georgia and nearly $20 million to Azerbaijan, levels virtually unchanged from what Congress approved last year. In Fiscal Year 2008 Congress approved $58.5 million in economic assistance to Armenia and $3 million in military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan each.
The administration further revealed that in spite of congressional allocation that called for parity in military aid, particularly under International Military Education and Training, the United States in fact provided $952,000 to Azerbaijan and
only $286,000 to Armenia in FY2008.
Armenian-American organizations expressed opposition to the proposed cuts.
“Given Azerbaijan’s increased war rhetoric, I have strong concerns with giving any military aid to Azerbaijan, and we definitely should not give them more than we’re providing Armenia,” senior congressional appropriator Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) was quoted as saying on February 4 by the Armenian Assembly of America. He is co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues.
“I will work with my colleagues to ensure that Armenia has the resources needed to continue to strengthen its democracy as well as ensure its security,” Mr. Knollenberg added.
Congress to condemn construction at historic cemetery in Lithuania
The House Foreign Affairs Committee will next week consider a resolution that reaffirms “the U.S. commitment to preservation of religious and cultural sites and
condemning instances where sites are desecrated.” House Resolution 255 is co-sponsored by the committee’s ranking member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R.-Fla.), Reps. Joe
Crowley (D.-N.Y.) and Michael Ferguson (R.-N.J.) (all three are Armenian caucus members) and is expected to be marked up on February 14.
The proposed resolution singles out continued construction within the boundaries of a historic Jewish cemetery (13th to early 19th century) in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius and warns that unless construction is immediately stopped by the Lithuanian government, “it will jeopardize its important relationship with the United States and its standing in the international community.”
While individual members of Congress, particularly Armenian Caucus co-chair Frank Pallone, Jr. (D.-N.J.) have spoken out about the destruction of historic Armenian
cemeteries in Azerbaijan, no congressional legislation followed.
And there has so far been little or no reaction to the ongoing construction over Baku’s Armenian cemetery, where many Russians, Jews, and Azerbaijanis are also buried.
ANCA to co-sponsor congressional advocacy campaign next month
The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) announced on February 7 that together with the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net) it will co-sponsor Capitol
Hill advocacy days between from March 12 to 14.
The two organizations partnered for a similar initiative last year “to encourage U.S. action to stop the genocide in Darfur, the adoption of the Armenian Genocide resolution (S.Res.106 / H.Res.106), and the strengthening of U.S. resolve to act against all instances of genocide.”
connect: http://www.anca.org/stopgenocide
Group campaigns for environment in Armenia
Concerns over threats to the environment and public health were the focus of a public lecture organized by the Armenian Environmental Network (AEN) and held at
the World Bank on February 6.
Johns Hopkins University professor George Jakab and Dr. Charles Dunlap of the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation discussed the results of their fieldwork in Armenia and criticized lack of quick government response to environmental and health risks to the public.
The speakers noted dangerously high levels of lead found in Yerevan fountains, in which children often swim, as well as three of the Lake Sevan beaches. The contamination is linked to the tourist infrastructure that has sprung up around the lake in recent years.
AEN Director Ursula Kazarian said that public health was not a hot enough topic to attract adequate funding. “The government does not want to put up up-front costs even though resolving these [public health] problems will save them money in the long run,” she said.
AEN was set up last year to promote environmental awareness throughout the diaspora.
connect: www.armenvironment.net
—Alexa Millinger contributed to this week’s column
Art historian challenges indifference and intimidation over cultural vandalism
This was first published in the February 2, 2008 Armenian Reporter.
Art historian slams indifference and intimidation over cultural destruction in Nakhichevan
Interview with Anahit Ter-Stepanian
When Anahit Ter-Stepanian decided to organize an exhibit on the destroyed Armenian cultural monuments of Nakhichevan, she could not anticipate the threats she would have to deal with and the indifference she would have to overcome to get the word out. She succeeded, and the exhibit went ahead last November at the Harvard University. In a December 18 interview, she told the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan about the yearlong effort.
Born in Armenia, Prof. Ter-Stepanian earned a master’s degree at the Architecture Department of the Yerevan Polytechnic Institute and a Ph.D. in architecture theory and history from the Moscow Architectural Institute. Upon graduation, she worked for four years in Armenia’s Department for Protection of Monuments. Since 1993, Prof. Ter-Stepanian has been teaching art history at American colleges.
Ter-Stepanian: The idea for this exhibit was born by accident. I was in Yerevan in December of 2006 and met with my former colleague, an expert on Nakhichevan, Dr. Argam Ayvazian. That just happened to be the anniversary of the final destruction of the Old Jugha cemetery the year before and we talked about exhibits that Argam had so far organized on the subject.
And, so I decided to help organize an exhibit in the United States. Argam himself gave me contact information for diaspora organizations with which to inquire about possible assistance and which Argam thought could be interested.
Unfortunately there was almost no interest in diaspora organizations.
Reporter: How did you go about seeking diaspora support?
Ter-Stepanian: I called a number of individuals in charge of Armenian organizations and programs in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and Montreal. Per those conversations, I then submitted my proposals in writing. But for whatever reason, months went by, and I never heard back about the proposals and my efforts to again
reach some of them by phone were fruitless.
Reporter: I know that in Washington, there have been at least two events on the subject of Nakhichevan monuments in recent years: an exhibit at the Armenian Embassy
and a presentation at the Library of Congress. So, perhaps, that was the reason for the lack of urgency?
Ter-Stepanian: It is hard for me to say what the real reason was, but I hold no grudges and do not wish to confront anyone. The breakthrough finally came when historian Aram Arkun suggested that I write to Professor James Russell at Harvard. And so I did.
Professor Russell proved instrumental in talking to the university administration, specifically Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, which approved the proposal. The actual space was provided by the Center for Government and International Studies at Harvard, which provided us with a gallery, but the organizational matters were handled by the Davis Center.
Reporter: And how did you go about securing sponsorship?
Ter-Stepanian: In the end it was a Canadian company, COPRIM, which is a Montreal-based architectural development company where I have some personal contacts, that
provided us with a grant.
Reporter: When did you first hear from the Azerbaijani government?
Ter-Stepanian: It was in October that COPRIM received a letter from the Azerbaijani Embassy in Ottawa. The Azerbaijani Embassy in Washington contacted the Davis Center. And they even registered a web site with a nearly identical name to the one I created as part of the exhibit.
[The undated letter signed by the Azerbaijani chargé d’affaires in Canada, Farid Shafiyev, told COPRIM “to withdraw support to this exhibition” alleging that it
was an initiative of the “Armenian communities abroad [that] exhibit [a] radical and chauvinistic stance” and seek to create “the so-called Greater Armenia.” The communication also included pages of the Azerbaijani government’s anti-Armenian
propaganda.
In response, a COPRIM attorney sent a letter to the Azerbaijani Embassy in Canada on November 18, stating that “the sponsorship and mounting of the Exhibition constitutes a legal act both in Canada and in the United States of America” and “constitutes an expression of one of the fundamental freedoms this country offers
its citizens.”
The CORPIM attorney further noted that the Azerbaijani diplomatic mission’s “presence and activity in Canada is limited to diplomatic representation between the Government of Canada and your Government, and between your Government and its citizens or nationals. You have no right, privilege or business
i. Writing directly to a Canadian citizen who has not solicited any assistance or information from you;
ii. Advising a Canadian citizen on the exercise of his political and legal rights;
iii. Attempting to influence by persuasion or threat, a Canadian citizen engaged in lawful activity;
iv. Interfering with a Canadian citizen’s exercise of rights in Canada or in the United States of America;
v. Invading the privacy of a Canadian citizen by investigating the ownership of COPRIM Inc., a Canadian corporation.”
The attorney further notified the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the U.S. Department of State, and Harvard University of the Azerbaijani demarche and demanded “an immediate written retraction of your letter with an unconditional apology for having sent it, the whole within five (5) days of your receipt of this letter.”]
Reporter: Did COPRIM receive this apology or any further communication from Azerbaijan?
Ter-Stepanian: None that I am aware of.
Reporter: Turning to the exhibit itself, what would you say its impact had been at the university and the Boston community at large?
Ter-Stepanian: The evening before the exhibit, on November 1, Mark Mamigonian at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) in Belmont, Mass., organized a presentation by Argam, Steven Sim [a Scottish scholar who snuck into Nakhichevan in 2005], and me at NAASR, which some 80 people, mostly older Armenian Americans, attended.
There, too, we had an exchange student from Azerbaijan who tried to disrupt the event, and several more of his friends joined him at the Harvard exhibit launch the
next day. Their efforts were widely covered in the Azerbaijani media.
At the exhibit launch on November 2, we had some 80 to 100 attendees, mostly from the Harvard student body, and more came in the subsequent two weeks to see the exhibit.
Reporter: With this specific exhibit now behind you and considering that the Armenian cultural heritage in Nakhichevan has been pretty much destroyed....
Ter-Stepanian: To our knowledge, everything has been destroyed in Nakhichevan. There is not a single monument that is still intact.
Reporter: What it is that can be done at this point? There is quite a bit of photographic evidence....
Ter-Stepanian: Fortunately, Argam has an archive cataloguing virtually all of the monuments, with measurements, drawings, and photos. Fortunately, we have that. So, although Azerbaijan is already saying that there were never any Armenian monuments in Nakhichevan, we can definitively prove their existence. We have the documentation. Argam has the idea of recreating at least some of the best of Old Djulfa khachkars somewhere in Armenia.
But of course this would be a secondary artifact not a restoration. All we can do at this point is to raise awareness through publications and events.
Reporter: The Armenian government, particularly the Foreign Ministry, has done much to raise awareness of the destruction. But do you think it could have taken a tougher stance on this issue?
Ter-Stepanian: It is hard for me to say. The government is fighting on many fronts and I am not sure what other tools they had at their disposal that they could have used. There were a lot of comments in the media about why the Armenian government would continue negotiations [over Karabakh] when this monument is being destroyed.
My personal opinion is that interrupting negotiations for any reason would be something that [Azerbaijan] was looking for; perhaps that was in part their motivation [to destroy Old Djulfa].
UNESCO is supposed to be doing something and it is doing precisely nothing. Waiting for the Azerbaijani government to do something noble is ridiculous. There has to be
a third force.
From this very small event that I organized and from the [Azerbaijani government’s] reaction, now I understand who we are dealing with. These are people that have no values, no standards for telling the truth, and are ready to twist the reality anyway that fits them.
My feeling is that we have to be more focused, realize the gravity of the situation that is developing today, and take action. f
connect: www.nakhichevanmonuments.org
See also in the Arts & Culture Section of this issue (Feb. 2, 2008] an article by Gregory Lima on an Armenian woman from Agoulis in Nakhichevan who preserves costumes, jewelry, and traditions from the region and beyond.
Captions:
Anahit Ter-Stepanian (l.), James Russell, Argam Ayvazian, and Steven Sim during the
presentation launching the November exhibit. Photo: Karine Ter-Stepanian.
Surb Hakob church in Shorot in 1980 and the same site in 2005. Photos: Argam Ayvazian and Steven Sim respectively. Nakhichevan exhibit at Harvard in November 2007. Photo: Karine Ter-Stepanian.
Online Project Documents Cultural Destruction in Azerbaijan
Simon Maghakyan, a student at the University of Colorado (and an occasional contributor to the Armenian Reporter) last month launched The Djulfa Virtual Memorial and Museum at http://www.djulfa.com “aimed at spreading awareness about cultural cleansing in the Republic of Azerbaijan” focusing specifically on the destruction of the Old Djulfa khachkars. We encourage readers to visit the web site, which includes film and reference material on the history and destruction of the Djulfa cemetery. The Photo section features a number of previously unpublished images of the cemetery taken by French-Lithuanian art critique Jurgis Baltrusaitis, who visited the site in 1928. A publication co-authored by Baltrusaitis has also been digitalized and posted on the website. f
Art historian slams indifference and intimidation over cultural destruction in Nakhichevan
Interview with Anahit Ter-Stepanian
When Anahit Ter-Stepanian decided to organize an exhibit on the destroyed Armenian cultural monuments of Nakhichevan, she could not anticipate the threats she would have to deal with and the indifference she would have to overcome to get the word out. She succeeded, and the exhibit went ahead last November at the Harvard University. In a December 18 interview, she told the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan about the yearlong effort.
Born in Armenia, Prof. Ter-Stepanian earned a master’s degree at the Architecture Department of the Yerevan Polytechnic Institute and a Ph.D. in architecture theory and history from the Moscow Architectural Institute. Upon graduation, she worked for four years in Armenia’s Department for Protection of Monuments. Since 1993, Prof. Ter-Stepanian has been teaching art history at American colleges.
Ter-Stepanian: The idea for this exhibit was born by accident. I was in Yerevan in December of 2006 and met with my former colleague, an expert on Nakhichevan, Dr. Argam Ayvazian. That just happened to be the anniversary of the final destruction of the Old Jugha cemetery the year before and we talked about exhibits that Argam had so far organized on the subject.
And, so I decided to help organize an exhibit in the United States. Argam himself gave me contact information for diaspora organizations with which to inquire about possible assistance and which Argam thought could be interested.
Unfortunately there was almost no interest in diaspora organizations.
Reporter: How did you go about seeking diaspora support?
Ter-Stepanian: I called a number of individuals in charge of Armenian organizations and programs in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and Montreal. Per those conversations, I then submitted my proposals in writing. But for whatever reason, months went by, and I never heard back about the proposals and my efforts to again
reach some of them by phone were fruitless.
Reporter: I know that in Washington, there have been at least two events on the subject of Nakhichevan monuments in recent years: an exhibit at the Armenian Embassy
and a presentation at the Library of Congress. So, perhaps, that was the reason for the lack of urgency?
Ter-Stepanian: It is hard for me to say what the real reason was, but I hold no grudges and do not wish to confront anyone. The breakthrough finally came when historian Aram Arkun suggested that I write to Professor James Russell at Harvard. And so I did.
Professor Russell proved instrumental in talking to the university administration, specifically Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, which approved the proposal. The actual space was provided by the Center for Government and International Studies at Harvard, which provided us with a gallery, but the organizational matters were handled by the Davis Center.
Reporter: And how did you go about securing sponsorship?
Ter-Stepanian: In the end it was a Canadian company, COPRIM, which is a Montreal-based architectural development company where I have some personal contacts, that
provided us with a grant.
Reporter: When did you first hear from the Azerbaijani government?
Ter-Stepanian: It was in October that COPRIM received a letter from the Azerbaijani Embassy in Ottawa. The Azerbaijani Embassy in Washington contacted the Davis Center. And they even registered a web site with a nearly identical name to the one I created as part of the exhibit.
[The undated letter signed by the Azerbaijani chargé d’affaires in Canada, Farid Shafiyev, told COPRIM “to withdraw support to this exhibition” alleging that it
was an initiative of the “Armenian communities abroad [that] exhibit [a] radical and chauvinistic stance” and seek to create “the so-called Greater Armenia.” The communication also included pages of the Azerbaijani government’s anti-Armenian
propaganda.
In response, a COPRIM attorney sent a letter to the Azerbaijani Embassy in Canada on November 18, stating that “the sponsorship and mounting of the Exhibition constitutes a legal act both in Canada and in the United States of America” and “constitutes an expression of one of the fundamental freedoms this country offers
its citizens.”
The CORPIM attorney further noted that the Azerbaijani diplomatic mission’s “presence and activity in Canada is limited to diplomatic representation between the Government of Canada and your Government, and between your Government and its citizens or nationals. You have no right, privilege or business
i. Writing directly to a Canadian citizen who has not solicited any assistance or information from you;
ii. Advising a Canadian citizen on the exercise of his political and legal rights;
iii. Attempting to influence by persuasion or threat, a Canadian citizen engaged in lawful activity;
iv. Interfering with a Canadian citizen’s exercise of rights in Canada or in the United States of America;
v. Invading the privacy of a Canadian citizen by investigating the ownership of COPRIM Inc., a Canadian corporation.”
The attorney further notified the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the U.S. Department of State, and Harvard University of the Azerbaijani demarche and demanded “an immediate written retraction of your letter with an unconditional apology for having sent it, the whole within five (5) days of your receipt of this letter.”]
Reporter: Did COPRIM receive this apology or any further communication from Azerbaijan?
Ter-Stepanian: None that I am aware of.
Reporter: Turning to the exhibit itself, what would you say its impact had been at the university and the Boston community at large?
Ter-Stepanian: The evening before the exhibit, on November 1, Mark Mamigonian at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) in Belmont, Mass., organized a presentation by Argam, Steven Sim [a Scottish scholar who snuck into Nakhichevan in 2005], and me at NAASR, which some 80 people, mostly older Armenian Americans, attended.
There, too, we had an exchange student from Azerbaijan who tried to disrupt the event, and several more of his friends joined him at the Harvard exhibit launch the
next day. Their efforts were widely covered in the Azerbaijani media.
At the exhibit launch on November 2, we had some 80 to 100 attendees, mostly from the Harvard student body, and more came in the subsequent two weeks to see the exhibit.
Reporter: With this specific exhibit now behind you and considering that the Armenian cultural heritage in Nakhichevan has been pretty much destroyed....
Ter-Stepanian: To our knowledge, everything has been destroyed in Nakhichevan. There is not a single monument that is still intact.
Reporter: What it is that can be done at this point? There is quite a bit of photographic evidence....
Ter-Stepanian: Fortunately, Argam has an archive cataloguing virtually all of the monuments, with measurements, drawings, and photos. Fortunately, we have that. So, although Azerbaijan is already saying that there were never any Armenian monuments in Nakhichevan, we can definitively prove their existence. We have the documentation. Argam has the idea of recreating at least some of the best of Old Djulfa khachkars somewhere in Armenia.
But of course this would be a secondary artifact not a restoration. All we can do at this point is to raise awareness through publications and events.
Reporter: The Armenian government, particularly the Foreign Ministry, has done much to raise awareness of the destruction. But do you think it could have taken a tougher stance on this issue?
Ter-Stepanian: It is hard for me to say. The government is fighting on many fronts and I am not sure what other tools they had at their disposal that they could have used. There were a lot of comments in the media about why the Armenian government would continue negotiations [over Karabakh] when this monument is being destroyed.
My personal opinion is that interrupting negotiations for any reason would be something that [Azerbaijan] was looking for; perhaps that was in part their motivation [to destroy Old Djulfa].
UNESCO is supposed to be doing something and it is doing precisely nothing. Waiting for the Azerbaijani government to do something noble is ridiculous. There has to be
a third force.
From this very small event that I organized and from the [Azerbaijani government’s] reaction, now I understand who we are dealing with. These are people that have no values, no standards for telling the truth, and are ready to twist the reality anyway that fits them.
My feeling is that we have to be more focused, realize the gravity of the situation that is developing today, and take action. f
connect: www.nakhichevanmonuments.org
See also in the Arts & Culture Section of this issue (Feb. 2, 2008] an article by Gregory Lima on an Armenian woman from Agoulis in Nakhichevan who preserves costumes, jewelry, and traditions from the region and beyond.
Captions:
Anahit Ter-Stepanian (l.), James Russell, Argam Ayvazian, and Steven Sim during the
presentation launching the November exhibit. Photo: Karine Ter-Stepanian.
Surb Hakob church in Shorot in 1980 and the same site in 2005. Photos: Argam Ayvazian and Steven Sim respectively. Nakhichevan exhibit at Harvard in November 2007. Photo: Karine Ter-Stepanian.
Online Project Documents Cultural Destruction in Azerbaijan
Simon Maghakyan, a student at the University of Colorado (and an occasional contributor to the Armenian Reporter) last month launched The Djulfa Virtual Memorial and Museum at http://www.djulfa.com “aimed at spreading awareness about cultural cleansing in the Republic of Azerbaijan” focusing specifically on the destruction of the Old Djulfa khachkars. We encourage readers to visit the web site, which includes film and reference material on the history and destruction of the Djulfa cemetery. The Photo section features a number of previously unpublished images of the cemetery taken by French-Lithuanian art critique Jurgis Baltrusaitis, who visited the site in 1928. A publication co-authored by Baltrusaitis has also been digitalized and posted on the website. f
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
