Emil Sanamyan's articles on Armenian-Americans, Armenia and its neighborhood.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Russia, West in stare-down over Caucasus

First published in August 30, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Russia, West mull options in stare-down over Caucasus
Citing Kosovo, Moscow recognizes Abkhaz, Ossetian independence
by Emil Sanamyan

Russian navy cruiser Moskva (seen in earlier photo) dropped anchor in Abkhazia this week.

WASHINGTON
– Moscow on August 26 recognized the independence of Republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which broke away from Georgia’s rule in the early 1990s.

The bold move came just two weeks after the end of Russia’s military campaign in Georgia in defense of the two republics. It aroused a new round of condemnation from the United States and most Western states.

But it remained unclear what exactly Georgia’s Western backers could do to enhance that state’s security without undermining their own priorities.

Most observers suggested that U.S. efforts to contain Iran and continue operations in Afghanistan may immediately suffer from a cool-down in relations with Russia.

Moscow has also threatened to reciprocate with an embargo on American goods should there be any U.S. sanctions. (Both General Motors and Ford now have plants in Russia.)

For major European powers like Germany and Italy, Russian energy supplies clearly take priority over Georgia.

So far, U.S. officials have employed tough rhetoric, with some arguing that the United States should help re-arm the decimated Georgian military.

Vice President Dick Cheney will be touring Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine during the first week of September in a visit apparently intended to shore
up shaken U.S. influence. His visit will almost certainly feature more harsh talk.

The steady stream of U.S. visitors has in recent weeks included the wife of Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain and three U.S. senators, including Foreign Relations Committee Chair Sen. Joe Biden, who this week became the Democratic Party’s nominee for vice president of the United States.

In addition, two U.S. vessels arrived in the Black Sea for an earlier scheduled exercise and delivered humanitarian aid to Georgia in a show of mostly symbolic support.

Turkey’s refusal to allow larger U.S. vessels into the Black Sea prevented a more impressive show of symbolism.

Meantime, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet arrived in Abkhazia, where Russia will soon be establishing a permanent base. Russians have also promised to raise their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea.

U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas (seen in earlier photo) reached the coast of Georgia this week.

Diplomatic maneuvers

President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia said his nation was “not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War,” although adding that Russia would prefer to avoid one.

Mr. Medvedev also recalled the United States’ unilateral recognition of Kosovo earlier this year and argued that the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was the only sure way to safeguard peoples’ lives there.

Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, suggested that Russia decided to take the step to recognize the two republics after France – apparently under insistent U.S. pressure – withdrew references to future talks on the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from a draft United Nations Security Council resolution, in effect supporting Georgia’s claims on the two republics.

“So, they were the ones who immediately started walking away from this diplomatic opportunity,” forcing Russia to take the “Kosovo route,” the Russian diplomat suggested.

Kosovo, however, has been recognized by 40 countries worldwide, including three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. No such support for Russian recognition is currently anticipated.

In fact, as Armenian expert Aleksandr Iskandarian pointed out this week, Russia’s move is more akin to Ankara’s recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus rather than the U.S.–initiated recognition of Kosovo, which was a long drawn-out process.

The only exceptions, in terms of open support for Russia’s position in Georgia, may come from states closely tied to Russia, such as Belarus and Tajikistan, or openly hostile to the United States, such as Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

Eurasian fence-sitting

A majority of Eurasian states, including the fifth permanent member of the Security Council, China, and two regional powers bordering on the Caucasus – Iran and Turkey – have taken a neutral position on the conflict.

Following a meeting between Russian and Chinese leaders at a regional summit in Central Asia, China issued a statement on August 27 that referred to “the complicated history and reality of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia issues” calling for resolution of issues through “dialogue and consultation.”

Importantly, the statement did not refer to anyone’s territorial integrity – something that for China remains the cornerstone of its foreign policy. Chinese leaders may have also taken personally the fact that Georgia launched its attack on South Ossetia on the day of opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

Turkey, a NATO member that recognized Kosovo, has not criticized Russia’s actions in Georgia and appeared to welcome signs of a decline of U.S. influence in the Caucasus.

Iran and Israel, both keen on courting Russia, have taken similar positions calling for a peaceful settlement without concrete assessments of the conflict.

On September 1, European Union states will meet in Paris for an emergency session on relations with Russia, but as Moreau Defarges of the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI) suggests, EU members will prioritize a unified message of criticism along with continued dialogue with Russia rather than any concrete sanctions.

“The West is not going to go to war for Georgia,” Mr. Defarges asserted to Radio Liberty.

Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili who was expected to attend the European summit no longer plans to; although he explained his decision with reference to a fear that he might somehow be prevented from returning to Georgia.

MCC head: Armenia program “moving ahead in all respects”

Millennium Challenge Armenia program “moving ahead in all respects”
MCC CEO Danilovich, Rep. Knollenberg discuss Armenia aid program
by Paul Chaderjian in Detroit and Emil Sanamyan

DETROIT
– Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.), co-chair of the Armenian Caucus and senior congressional appropriator, highlighted the importance of the five-year $235 million Millennium Challenge Corporation’s program in Armenia as Detroit’s Armenian community hosted MCC chief executive Ambassador John Danilovich on August 5.

Interviewed by the Armenian Reporter, Mr. Danilovich said that MCC’s program in Armenia was “moving ahead in all respects,” including rural road programs, which is being financed by the Armenian government.

“It is very impressive that one of our MCC countries is willing to take tangible demonstrable steps to support the MCC program,” he said in reference to Armenia’s decision to step in with its own funding not to miss the good summer weather. This happened after MCC “put a hold on the negotiations aspects of some package of the road works [over] the conduct of elections and what transpired after the elections,” developments that raised concerns in the United States government.

“De-facto the hold [placed by the MCC] is not having an impact on the program” in Armenia because of the government funding, Mr. Danilovich suggested. He added that he has been in regular contact with Armenia’s President Serge Sargsian, who has outlined the steps he is taking to advance democracy
in Armenia and expressed hope for continued progress for Armenia to maintain its eligibility for the assistance program.

He described as “constructive and positive” MCC’s cooperation with Rep. Knollenberg, who is a senior member of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Operations Subcommittee, which oversees budgeting for MCC and other foreign aid programs.

“Rep. Knollenberg and I share a common interest for effective development assistance, for responsible foreign aid, in general, and also specifically in the case of Armenia,” Mr. Danilovich said. He added that the United States is committed to fighting poverty and facilitating Armenia’s progress, and was benefiting greatly from Mr. Knollenberg’s commitment to and understanding of Armenian issues.

The MCC CEO said his meeting with Detroit Armenians and an earlier meeting with the Armenian community in Glendale, Calif., were part of the corporation’s policy to reach out to interested American constituencies such as Armenians, Philippinos, and Salvadorans, whose home countries also stand to benefit from MCC compacts.

Briefly: Biden on Armenia & Georgia, Caucasians in Denver, Georgians ask for $1-2bn, Azeris in California

First published in August 30, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Sen. Obama’s running mate pick strong on Armenian issues


Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) chose Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate last week, and the Democratic National Convention in Denver confirmed him as the party’s vice presidential nominee.

The selection was welcomed by Armenian-American organizations since Mr. Biden has a long track record of supporting Armenian-American concerns throughout his more than 35 years in the Senate.

That record includes support for U.S. affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, including the Senate resolution championed by the Senate Republican Party leader Bob Dole in 1990, supporting all Armenian Genocide resolutions introduced in the Senate since, and pushing for a change in the Bush Administration policy as part of the confirmation process for the U.S. ambassador to Armenia since 2006 and until earlier this summer.

During the July 29 Foreign Relations Committee meeting that confirmed Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Armenia, Mr. Biden noted, “Recognition by the United States of the Armenian Genocide is not the final goal. The real goal is the recognition of Turkey – of the Turkish Government – of the Armenian Genocide and the establishment of a common Turkish-Armenian understanding of the events and tragedy that took place.”

Mr. Biden also supported Karabakh’s right to self-determination and the 1993 U.S. sanctions against Azerbaijan over its aggression against Armenia and Karabakh.

He introduced the 2007 resolution honoring the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink assassinated by Turkish nationalists.

Earlier this year, Mr. Obama himself issued a statement in which he promised to recognize the Armenian Genocide as president and support a Karabakh settlement “that is agreeable to all parties, and based upon America’s founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination.”

The Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain (R.- Ariz.) has promised no changes in U.S. policies on Armenian issues; he has also yet to select a running mate.

Last year, Mr. Biden also advocated for a robust U.S. response to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region, and was willing to “commit U.S. troops on the ground.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Biden supports U.S. leadership in Armenia’s region and checking Russia’s influence there. In a joint letter with his committee colleague Sen. Dick Lugar (R.-Ind.) last October, Sen. Biden argued that the United States has a “long-term interest in preventing Russian domination of energy [development and transportation] in the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia.”

Other senior foreign policy advisors to Mr. Obama include President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, 80, a strong advocate of containing Russia, as well as the Clinton Administration’s National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, 69, and former State Department policy planning director Gregory Craig, 63, both of whom are strong proponents of NATO expansion.

Politicians from Armenia, elsewhere in Denver for Democratic National Convention events

Some 500 foreign officials from about 100 countries were in Denver this week for the International Leaders’ Forum organized by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. NDI has organized the event during every convention since 1984 to provide a forum for foreign leaders and the Democratic Party’s foreign policy team.

According to the Armenian Reporter’s information, former Prime Minister Vazgen Manukian of the National Democratic Union and former national security service director David Shahnazarian, a political ally and in-law of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian, were expected to attend.

During the Democratic Party’s national convention held in July 2004 in Boston, Armenia was represented by Amb. Arman Kirakossian and Stepan Demirchian of the opposition People’s Party.

This year, Amb. Tatoul Markarian is in Yerevan for the annual gathering of Armenian diplomats and is unable to attend.

Azerbaijan was represented by the presidential administration’s propaganda director Ali Hassanov.

As in years past, perennial government opponents Isa Gamberov and Ali Kerimov were also invited, although it was unclear if either one was attending.

Also in attendance were Georgian Parliament Speaker David Bakradze and Minister for European Integration Georgi Baramidze, who actively lobbied for a tougher U.S. policy on Russia.

Other visitors from Georgia included former Parliament Speaker Nino Bourjanadze and leader of the opposition Republican Party David Usupashvili.

Georgia seeks “1 to 2 billion” dollars in foreign aid

The Georgian government is seeking $1 to $2 billion in aid to repair and develop infrastructure after the war with Russia, USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore said on August 22, www.civil.ge reported citing Reuters news agency.

“Georgia has given us rather a long list of things they would like to see – communications is certainly part of it, hydro-electric dams... That’s really reconstruction, it’s for infrastructure. It’s not just because of hostilities. It’s for development,” Ms. Fore said, adding that “it does not all need to be done by the United States. It can be done by international organizations as well as other bilateral organizations.”

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on August 26, Senators Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.), who recently visited Georgia on behalf of presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain, supported U.S. provision of weapons to Georgia to be able to “deter” Russian forces.

The U.S. Congress is expected to approve a significant aid package to Georgia when it returns from holidays next month, said House of Representatives’ Foreign Relations Committee Chair Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.) and Democratic Policy Committee chair Rep. George Miller (D.-Calif.) who also went to Georgia on August 22.

Georgia has received close to $2 billion in U.S. assistance in the decade and a half since independence.

Azerbaijani officials on propaganda tour of California

The California State Assembly hosted a group of four Azerbaijani officials earlier this month, one of the delegation members Azerbaijani Milli Majlis member Asim Mollazade told Day.az on August 21.

The group visited the two chambers of California’s legislature in Sacramento, Rep. Berman, who represents a Los Angeles–area district, the San Francisco City Council, and the local World Affairs Council.

Mr. Mollazade said he and his colleagues used the opportunity to talk up Azerbaijan’s importance to the world, threats posed by “imperial” Russia, as well as “true reasons” behind the conflict with Armenia.

He singled out the importance of raising the Azerbaijani flag in the California legislature as a significant event.

In September 2007 Azerbaijan hosted a California delegation that included State Senator Sheila Kuehl, State Assembly members Julia Brownley, Betty Karnette, and Lori Saldaña, as well as assistant director of the California State Senate international relations office Shannon Shellenberg.

Ossetia war: five lessons for Armenia

First published in August 23, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Ossetia War: Lessons for Armenia
by Emil Sanamyan

Burnt Georgian army tanks near the center of Tskhinval, South Ossetia on Aug. 10, 2008.

WASHINGTON
– Within hours the long-running stand-off between Georgia and Russia-backed South Ossetia became a full-blown war causing hundreds of deaths, primarily among Ossetians but also among the now-defeated Georgian army.

The fighting took place less than 100 miles from Armenia and had an immediate impact on it. Above all, it exposed the security vacuum in the region, of which Armenia is also a part.

Is Armenia ready for a repetition of a similar scenario in Karabakh?

Immediate results of Russian-Georgian fighting

Half the world away – on the other end of Asia – most of the world leaders, including President George Bush and Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, gathered for the opening of the Olympic Games.

As they sat in the VIP seats of the Beijing stadium, Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili, long-touted as Mr. Bush’s foreign policy “success story” and a thorn in Mr. Putin’s side, threw most of his U.S.-trained army into a savage attack on South Ossetia.

That happened just hours after the Georgian leader, in a televised address, promised to cease shelling of the Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, which was surrounded on nearly all sides by Georgian military positions. As events unfolded, it became clear that the Georgian operation was planned in advance, but its planners had failed to anticipate what came next.

Russia intervened within hours and on a massive scale. Had it not been for that intervention, which resulted in a defeat of the “NATO standard” Georgian army within 48 hours, and subsequent Western diplomacy to check Russian military moves within Georgia, large-scale fighting might well have claimed even more lives.

Nevertheless, the three days of shelling and shooting resulted in nearly a wholesale destruction of Tskhinvali – a town about the size of Stepanakert – and displacement of close to 100,000 people, both Ossetians and Georgians.

The rapid pace of these events, the human toll involved, the apparent shifts in the regional balance of forces and, above all, Armenians’ security predicament in Nagorno-Karabakh necessitate an urgent review of Yerevan’s policies.

Lesson 1: Ethnic hatreds and advanced weapons make for a deadly mix

Mr. Saakashvili studied in some of the best schools in Europe and the United States. He has made it clear that he wants Georgia to be part of Europe. Georgia has already adopted the European Union flag.

While his record on corruption and democracy in Georgia is checkered, under the Saakashvili presidency, Georgia has made obvious progress.

None of this stopped the Georgian president from launching a massive indiscriminate bombardment of South Ossetia and an attempt to wipe out both its small self-defense forces and, effectively, the fewer than 70,000 ethnic Ossetians living in the area.

Now let’s look at Azerbaijan. It has much more money and more deadly firepower than Georgia did before this week. Azerbaijan’s ruling family does not care much for promoting democratic facades or currying Western favor, and it has repeatedly for years threatened to attack Armenia (including the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic).

This combination of capability and stated intent creates an immediate present danger to Armenian lives and must be appreciated more seriously and addressed more effectively than has happened to date both in Armenia and the diaspora.

The quick and devastating defeat of a country that, like Azerbaijan, sought to “restore its territorial integrity,” or more accurately avenge old grievances through fresh violence only to bring new humiliation upon itself, should serve as a cold shower for Azerbaijan.

But Armenians cannot rely on President Ilham Aliyev’s rational cost-benefit calculation.

The risks are just too high. Considering the levels of anti-Armenian rhetoric – which are beyond anything Georgia’s leaders have ever employed vis-à-vis Ossetians, Abkhaz, or Russians – Mr. Aliyev or, to borrow from the words of the Russian president, another “lunatic” Azerbaijani leader may feel the “need to shed [Armenian] blood” overwhelm other cares he or she might have.

The threat is real and must be addressed.

Lesson 2: Crisis preparations are necessary before a crisis arrives

Still, most Armenians – and this is especially true for the diaspora and Yerevan – live in a blissful ignorance of threats their homeland and their lives are facing.

Even among professional individuals whose job it is to protect Armenia and neutralize its enemies, one frequently observes the attitude that Azerbaijan either “doesn’t have the balls,” “doesn’t have the army,” “won’t risk losing oil,” or “the United States and Russia won’t stand for it.”

After the Georgian attack on Ossetia, the Armenian government needs to answer a number of key questions.

Does it consider losing hundreds, if not thousands of civilians within a matter of hours, an acceptable risk? Azerbaijan today has the capability to cause such destruction.

What is it doing to stop the flow of weapon systems to Azerbaijan – particularly the type of weapons that can cause such devastating harm? Like Georgia, Azerbaijan gets most of its weapons, including the more deadly ones, from one state – another Western darling, Ukraine.

What has Armenia done to try to stop and reverse this process? Has the Armenian government made it clear to Azerbaijan that it would too pay a disproportionate price for causing Armenian civilian deaths? How has that been demonstrated?

What has the Armenian government done to prepare its population for a possible attack? Do Armenians sitting in Yerevan cafés, chewing sunflower seeds at opposition rallies, or watching television in their homes know the location of the nearest bomb shelter?

When were Armenian reservists last gathered on any significant scale? When were they last trained or tested? Do they know where to report in case of war?

Crises require more than planning for immediate security and military operations. Considering the rapid nature of warfare today, once again demonstrated in Ossetia, and the role public opinion plays in shaping policy, preparations for crisis management must include a strong media component.

Are Armenian-Americans ready for such a crisis?

Lesson 3: External guarantees carry unacceptable risks

The main reason Georgians thought they could attack Ossetia with impunity is because as part of the peace agreement the parties signed after their brief 1991–92 war, Ossetians had to yield firing positions they captured from Georgians to Russian peacekeepers.

Before the August 8 Georgian assault, Russian peacekeepers repeatedly failed to address recurring violations by Georgia of its agreements and provide for the security of the Ossetian population. As a result, even if Russia intervened faster than anticipated, Ossetian civilians bore the brunt of human casualties and material losses, with their community devastated.

Armenia too experienced “peacekeeping” of Soviet Russian forces when they were sent to “protect” the Armenian-Azerbaijani border in the late 1980s. By 1991, on orders from Moscow, went as far as to help Azerbaijan expel Armenians from parts of Karabakh.

But this is not a Russia-specific problem.

Too many United Nations peacekeeping operations in recent years – from Croatia and Rwanda in the mid-1990s, to more recent NATO policing in Kosovo and African Union operations in Sudan have failed in their stated effort to protect populations whose lives are threatened.

The reality is the peacekeepers and the countries that dispatch them care more about their own security than a foreign country they have pledged to protect.

Armenians are fortunate that foreign peacekeepers were never introduced after the Karabakh war ended in 1994. Combat capabilities of the Armenian Armed Forces along with the territories they currently hold in and around Nagorno Karabakh form two basic foundations of Armenian security.

Lesson 4: The “peace process” must be about strengthening peace and preventing war

Exchanging territories under Armenian control for promises of foreign protection without a clear and unambiguous resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijan dispute carries deadly risks for Armenians.

But, with the possible exception of the 2001 Key West deal, this is exactly what mediators have proposed throughout the conflict mediation efforts that followed the 1994 cease-fire.

This clear and unambiguous document must establish a new border between the two countries and a transparent process of disarmament and demilitarization. Clearly at this time Azerbaijan is not ready for such a resolution and would rather protract the status quo. But, under such circumstances, neither should it receive any of the territories now under Armenian control.

In fact, in recent years, in addition to a refusal to talk peace seriously, Azerbaijan has been following a policy of provocations and testing Armenian positions along the Line of Contact, just as Georgia had in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The central focus of Armenia’s foreign policy should not be the endless search for a “mutually acceptable” settlement with Azerbaijan, but urgent measures to prevent a repetition of the Ossetia events, only on a more devastating scale between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

This must include strengthening of the cease-fire with Azerbaijan through an expansion of the unarmed international monitoring mission; enforcement of the 1995 agreement on preventing violations of the ceasefire; Azerbaijani pull-out from the no-man’s lands it occupied in recent years dangerously nearing Armenian defense lines; and development of an agreement on the peaceful settlement of the conflict that would include specific disarmament clauses.

As Russia’s retired Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov has warned repeatedly, and most recently just three months ago at a conference in Stepanakert, an Armenian campaign for peace, involving the elements listed, is urgently needed.

Lesson 5: The regional balance of forces has shifted

After years of confused and contradictory policies and an often simply disinterested attitude toward the Caucasus, Russia is back with guns blazing. This is not a Soviet monster, but a new country that very much is trying to be a copycat of the United States, at least in its foreign policy.

Russian propaganda about Ossetia in recent weeks would remind American viewers of what they saw on the eve of and during the Iraq war, including references to humanitarian causes and legal grounding for the intervention, and demonization of the
opponent’s leadership.

In another sign of increased sophistication, Russian armed forces in their Georgia operations have succeeded in limiting the “collateral damage” the air strikes inevitably cause.

The Russian command even accommodated the request of the local officials in the town of Poti, and instead of air strikes on the U.S.- and European-equipped Georgian navy,
Russian military men arrived in person to dynamite and sink Georgian naval vessels at sea at a safe distance away from the port.

Even more impressive was Russia’s ability to deceive Mr. Saakashvili and his U.S. supporters (see story on military operations forthcoming). The apparent trap Russia set for the Georgian army in Ossetia followed by a wholesale dismantlement of the Georgian military infrastructure – for which U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or more since 2001 – showed the Russian leadership’s new-found ability to fuse its resource-driven enrichment with inherited intellectual capacities into an effective conduct of war.

Signs that the United States is losing its “unipolar moment,” as some U.S. commentators have described America’s dominance in world affairs since the collapse of the USSR, have been there for some time.

After becoming bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush Administration has so far failed to achieve its goal of confronting Iran effectively. Iran’s neighbors, even the two occupied by the United States, have publicly declined involvement in anti-Iranian policies.

And earlier this year even Israel has for the first time began direct contacts with Iranbacked Hezbollah in Lebanon and, through Turkey’s mediation, resumed talks with Syria.

And this week Turkey, a longtime, but by now apparently former U.S. ally, reportedly declined access to U.S. naval vessels into the Black Sea to deliver aid to Georgia.

Armenia has benefited greatly from its relations with the United States. But America’s contribution to Georgia’s assault on Ossetia raises troubling questions.

As the Ossetians were being devastated on the night of August 8, Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried accused them of “provoking” the Georgian aggression and to this day there has been no clear American condemnation of the Georgian action.

A major lesson of Ossetia war is that Russia, Armenia’s strategic partner, is capable of conducting destructive military operations against a U.S. ally in the Caucasus, and U.S. is powerless to stop Russia.

Armenia’s relationship with Russia has been longer and, on the balance, may be even more positive than with the U.S. But Armenia is also troubled that Russia is now essentially dismantling the Georgian state – one of Armenia’s two oldest and friendliest neighbors.

In these unfortunate circumstances, Armenia should try to contribute to normalization of Russian-Georgian relations by all possible means. But more importantly it should act on lessons learned from this crisis to safeguard Armenians.

Briefly: Russian military punch in Georgia; Saakashvili blamed for fiasco; Turkey sees end of U.S. dominance

Washington Brifing
by Emil Sanamyan

Russia’s military punch in Georgia stuns U.S.


The Bush Administration appeared unprepared for the consequences of Georgia’s failed invasion of South Ossetia and Russia’s subsequent “shock and awe”-type campaign that within days forced Tbilisi to return to a cease-fire on terms worse that it negotiated after its initial defeat in the early 1990s.

Hours after the Georgian military launched a massive bombardment of South Ossetia on August 7 and Georgian officials announced their intention to occupy the breakaway region, Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried blamed the fighting on Ossetian “provocations” and his comments to Reuters news agency suggested that U.S. did not expect Russia to get involved on the scale it eventually did.

“It appears that the South Ossetians have instigated this uptick in violence,” Mr. Fried said. “We have urged the Russians to urge their South Ossetian friends to pull back and show greater restraint. And we believe that the Russians ... are trying to do just that.”

In August 12 analysis, Strategic Forecasting, a leading U.S.-based political risk consultancy, argued that it was “inconceivable” that either the United States or Russia were unaware of Georgia’s preparations to attack South Ossetia. And according to the Washington Post on August 17, Western officials on the ground recorded the Georgian troop, armor and artillery movement throughout August 7.

But, Strategic Forecasting concludes, “the United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.”

Similarly, Russia’s Kommersant-Vlast’ magazine cited officials at Western embassies in Tbilisi as claiming ten hours after the Georgian attack began,

“Can’t you see that Russia decided to surrender South Ossetia? May be it is good that the [Georgian attack] happened now; later on everyone will be better off.”

But 15 hours after the Georgian attack began, the first Russian armor and artillery arrived north of South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvaliand, following a warning, opened fire on Georgians, forcing their retreat.

In the next 48 hours, backed by the Russian Air Force, a combined Russian-Ossetian force proceeded to defeat the professional Georgian army, trained and equipped by the United States since 2001.

By the night of August 11, Georgian forces fled from Georgian areas near South Ossetia, abandoning tanks and other weapon systems and leaving the local population
unprotected. The Russian forces have since come into Georgia and have been systematically destroying Georgian military facilities within reach.

So far U.S. reaction has been limited to sending humanitarian aid to Georgia, blocking of the Russian proposals on the conflict at the United Nations Security Council, verbal calls for a Russian pullout, which is currently underway, and threats that Russia would pay a price for its intervention.

Georgian officials said candidly that they counted on more U.S. support. In a press call with Western media on August 13, Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili said that “the reputation that America has gained since the Cold War is going to hell right now. This is tragic.”

Georgia’s Ambassador to the United Nations Irakli Alasania suggested on the same day that “many Georgians expected the West would intervene,” including with “military support.”

But as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed in his August 14 briefing: “The United States spent 45 years working very hard to avoid a military confrontation with Russia,” Mr. Gates said in apparent reference to the 1963 Cuba missile crisis. “I see no reason to change that approach today.”

Georgian leadership coming under domestic criticism

With Russian occupation continuing, most Georgians are wary of criticizing their leader Mikhail Saakashvili, whom most observers blame for the crisis. But criticism from his political rivals already began to emerge.

Georgia’s ex-president Eduard Shevardnadze, whom the Saakashvili- led opposition forced out in 2003, told Bild, a German newspaper, “Georgia should not have intervened in [the South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali in such an illprepared manner. This was a grave mistake,” the Times of London reported on August 13.

And Nino Bourjanadze, Georgia’s former acting president, Parliament Speaker and key Saakashvili ally who resigned last May, promised Reuters news agency she would return to active politics and said that Mr. Saakashvili will soon face “tough questions” over the failed campaign.

Other leaders from pro-Western opposition parties were blunter.

Ivlian Khaindrava of the Republican Party told Georgia’s Mteli Kvira newspaper that this it is a “tragedy that lives and welfare of thousands of people have been sacrificed to infantile complexes of the commander-in-chief.”

And Kakha Kukava of the Conservative Party told the Financial Times that “Saakashvili was personally responsible for the military operation, and for starting a war we could not win.”

Turkey takes middle ground between U.S. and Russia, revives regional pact idea

Following the Russian military victory in Ossetia and U.S. criticism of Russia, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan flew to Moscow on what was referred to as a “visit of solidarity.”

While Mr. Erdogan also visited Tbilisi, and Turkey, like Azerbaijan and Armenia, dispatched humanitarian aid to Georgia, Ankara did not join in Western criticism of Russia’s actions.

And in August 16 interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, President Abdullah Gul said that the Georgia crisis showed that the United States could no longer shape global politics on its own, and should begin sharing power with other countries.

“I don’t think you can control all the world from one centre,” Mr. Gül told the Guardian shortly before hosting the visiting Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

“There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have
consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge.”

Moreover, according to the New York Times and McClatchy newspapers, Turkey denied a U.S. request to send a large naval vessel to the Black Sea in a show of U.S. support for Georgia.

Turkey has long resisted facilitating U.S. or NATO naval presence in the Black Sea.

According to the Turkish Daily News, Rep. Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.), a long-time Georgia backer, circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter suggesting that “blocking humanitarian and medical supplies from reaching the people of Georgia is unacceptable. We should expect more from a NATO ally like Turkey.”

Two smaller U.S. vessels, a destroyer USS McFaul and Coast Guard cutter Dallas, will proceed through the Turkish straits toward Georgia later this month in an exercise
planned since earlier this year and for which Turkey granted earlier approval.

Meanwhile Turkey, which seeks to win a United Nations Security Council seat next month, has also revived a regional “peace and cooperation platform,” suggested in the 1990s by then-Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze and Turkish president Suleyman Demirel.

Turkish leaders have reportedly already discussed the idea with all regional leaders except Armenia’s, with Armenian-Turkish talks on ministerial level currently anticipated.

The concept elaborated then would reportedly bring together the three Caucasus states, along with regional powers Iran, Russia, and Turkey.

According to the Turkish Daily News, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza was “surprised” by this Turkish initiative.

Chronology: Georgian-Ossetian conflict

First published in August 23, 2008 Armenian Reporter and since slightly updated.

Chronology: Georgian-Ossetian conflict

Early history

(1918–21)


As the Czarist Empire collapses, Ossetians – who are ethnic cousins of Persians and are mostly Orthodox Christians – rise up against Georgian rule. Thousands are killed in clashes before Georgia is occupied by the Red Army in 1921.

1920s–80s

Most majority-Ossetian areas south of the Greater Caucasus Mountains become the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (Province) within Soviet Georgia. Dissent, including
ethnic grievances, are kept tightly in check.

1990–92

As Soviet Union collapses, Ossetians demand greater rights. Georgia’s newly elected nationalist leadership of Zviad Gamsakhurdia instead abolishes the autonomy altogether and sends armed Georgian units into the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, resulting in atrocities. Georgian forces are eventually forced out of Tskhinvali and Georgia agrees to a Russian-mediated cease-fire, acquiescing to de-facto loss of control over much of South Ossetia.

1992–2004

With the cease-fire patrolled by a small Russian peacekeeping contingent and the Georgian government bankrupt, relative normalcy returns to Ossetian-Georgian relations.

In the mid-1990s, Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze meets his South Ossetian counterpart and negotiates a partial return of refugees. Ethnic Ossetians return to live and work in Georgian towns and Georgians return to live and work Tskhinvali. A large black market springs up at a Georgian village near Tskhinvali.

2004–2008

Mikhail Saakashvili is elected president of Georgia after overthrowing Mr. Shevardnadze through street protests and pledges to return control over South Ossetia and another breakaway former Georgian autonomy, Abkhazia.

With help from the U.S. and Europe, Mr. Saakashvili begins to build up the Georgian army – with the country’s military budget reaching $1 billion in 2007 – and increases pressure on both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including fighting around Tskhinvali in summer 2004 involving mortars that claimed dozens of lives.

At the same time, Georgia seeks Western support and makes joining NATO one of its major foreign policy goals and provides one of the largest contingents in support of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Russia raises its profile in the long-neglected breakaway republics, extending Russian citizenship to their residents, and serving as their only conduit to the outside world. Russian leaders say they view NATO expansion into Georgia and, another former Soviet republic, Ukraine, as a hostile act.

Through spring 2008, a number of incidents take place in Abkhazia, where Georgia launched unmanned spy planes, which Abkhaz begin to shoot down with Russian help.

By summer 2008, Georgia switches its attention back to South Ossetia.

Run-up to war

June 14 – For the first time in four years, Georgian forces launch mortar fire on Tskhinvali. One person is killed and several are wounded. Russian and European mediators are unable to determine who was to blame for the incident.

June 24 – The Georgian parliament approves the government’s decision to reverse an earlier military spending cut and increases its military budget back to near the
2007 level of about $1 billion.

July 3–4 – More bombings and exchanges of fire occur, including with the use of mortars and grenade launchers, with several more people reported killed in and around Tskhinvali. The sides blame each other. Georgians force Russian peacekeepers from one of the heights near Tskhinvali. Ossetians lambast Russian peacekeepers for failing to maintain peace and begin to mobilize forces and establish defense fortifications.

July 9 – Russia acknowledges its combat plane flew over Georgia, as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits Tbilisi and tells Georgians that the United States “always fights for [its] friends.”

August 1–2 – More Georgian mortar shelling of Tskhinvali leaves 6 dead and 21 wounded; the Georgian government member in charge of South Ossetia / Abkhazia policy
arrives in Tskhinvali on August 2 for a meeting with South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity. Following that meeting, Ossetians begin largescale evacuation of women and children from Tskhinvali to Russia.

August 7 – Georgia’s artillery, including large-caliber howitzers and multiple-launch rocket systems, begin to take combat positions around Tskhinvali. After intense shelling throughout the day, Mr. Saakashvili in an evening televised addresses promises to cease fire as Georgian armored and mechanized units begin to move towards South Ossetia.

How the “4-day” Ossetian war unfolded
Some of the main developments


Friday, August 8

00:00 – Shortly before midnight Georgia’s Gen. Mamuka Kurashvili calls commander of 500 Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia Gen. Marat Kulahmetov to tell him that Tbilisi is about to begin an operation to “restore constitutional order” in South Ossetia and urges his forces to stay out of fighting.

At this time, Georgian artillery opens massive fire on the town of Tskhinvali and other areas of South Ossetia; howitzers acquired in Ukraine and Czech Repubic, and Lar-160Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems made in Israel continue shelling Tskhinvali through the morning.



01:00 – Georgian forces advance north of Tskhinvali through South Ossetia’s ethnic Georgian enclaves in an effort to interdict the Roki tunnel – the area’s only land connection with Russia. The move is anticipated by Ossetians, who deploy the bulk of their force to protect the Roki tunnel and adjacent Java district, leaving their capital of Tskhinvali sparsely defended.

[By August 9–10 this Georgian force was surrounded and largely destroyed by Russian and Ossetian forces; days later Georgian leaders admitted they were “too late” in reaching the Roki tunnel and that they underestimated Ossetian and Russian deployments in that area.]

02:00 – Georgian police spokesperson tells journalists that “Georgian [ground] attack is underway, clashes are taking place outside Tskhinvali”; Ossetians confirm engaging Georgian forces, who are using dozens of tanks and armored vehicles supplied by Ukraine and Turkey and equipped with nightvision equipment supplied by the U.S., Israel, and Ukraine. The Georgians begin to overwhelm a smaller and lightly armed Ossetian self-defense.

02:30 – Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried tells journalists in Washington: “We’re urging the Georgians to exercise restraint, but it seems the South Ossetians are the provocative party.” Mr. Fried adds that he sees no Russian involvement so far.

03:15 – In televised remarks, the Georgian government’s main war spokesperson Timur Yakobashvili urges Ossetians to surrender: “Tskhinvali is surrounded…. Illegal armed formations need to surrender.” He reports that Georgian forces have taken five Ossetian villages.

03:30 – The Ossetian leadership appeals for immediate Russian military help. Around this time, first Russian forces begin to enter South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel and build up near Java. By mid-day August 8, there were up to 2,000 Russian mechanized infantry on the ground in support of several thousand Ossetian self-defense who were facing up to 10,000 Georgian forces.

05:00 – Russia calls for an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting to protest Georgia’s actions, which Russia’s Foreign Ministry calls a “massive and treacherous attack.” The council convenes by 07:00 (11 p.m. eST), but amid disagreements between Russia and the U.S., the Security Council remains deadlocked and after days of arguments takes no position on the conflict.

06:00 – Georgian forces enter the Tskhinvali town center, after bypassing Russian peacekeeping forces. Georgia’s Israeli-upgraded aircraft attacks targets in South Ossetia, including in and near Java.

10:00 – Shortly after attending the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin tells media that Georgia’s actions “will have a response.” At about the same time, the first Russian bombing raid is reported on Georgian military targets around Gori and Kareli just south
of Tskhinvali; Russian helicopters and aircraft begin to attack Georgian forces in South Ossetia.

Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity and security detail in Java.

13:00 – The Russian Defense Ministry in a statement pledges to “protect Russian citizens” in South Ossetia. Soon after, Russia launches tactical missile strikes against Georgian army command and control center near Borjomi, as well as military targets in Gori and Black Sea port of Poti.

15:00 – A Russian tank and artillery unit breaks through a Georgian enclave and arrives north of Tskhinvali. By then Georgians claim to control “70 percent” of the town and call for a cease-fire. About the same time NATO Secretary General also calls for cease-fire.

15:10 – At a press conference in the Kremlin, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declares that “those who attack Russian citizens [in South Ossetia] will be punished. Russian officials soon brand their military action a “peace-enforcement operation” in Georgia and add that Georgia’s “territorial integrity has suffered a mortal blow,” as far as Tbilisi’s claims on South Ossetia and Abkhazia are concerned.

Georgian forces near Tskhinval. The jeep shown was later captured by an ethnic Chechen unit of the Russian army (see below).

16:00 – Russian artillery fires on Georgian forces in Tskhinvali center forcing them to retreat. The Russian Air Force attacks military targets across Georgia. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili appears on CNN, denies he launched the war, and calls for U.S. help against Russian attacks.

21:00 – Mr. Saakashvili tells Georgians that their army scored a “complete victory” in South Ossetia, while losing “30” service members; Russian TV channels that report continued fighting across South Ossetia and accuse Georgia of an attempted genocide against Ossetians, are taken off the air in Georgia.

Saturday, August 9

Overnight and throughout the day fighting and shelling takes place throughout South Ossetia, with the Russian army engaging and pushing back Georgian forces north of Tskhinvali and the Russian Air Force attacking military targets from the Black Sea to suburbs of Tbilisi.

Georgia's Czech-made Dana howitzers near Tskhinvali on August 9.

Georgian efforts to push through Tskhinvali to relieve Georgian units surrounded in Tamarasheni-Kurta enclave in the north are stalled by Ossetian forces. U.S. aircraft begin to airlift some 1,800 Georgian soldiers deployed in Iraq back to Tbilisi airport.

Later in the day, Georgians shell a Russian army column as it enters Tskhinvali, wounding the Russian commanding officer, Gen. Anatoly Khrulev, along with several Russian journalists, and destroying two Russian tanks and several armored vehicles.

Russia also confirms losing two aircraft that day, with two more lost in subsequent days, including one reportedly to “friendly fire.”

Georgia is believed to have lost most of its fleet of 12 combat aircraft.

19:00 – Mr. Saakashvili says in a televised address that the Georgian military is “sweeping out gangs, who have re-infiltrated in the north of Tskhinvali” and calls for a cease-fire with Russia. Shortly after, police spokesperson Shota Utiashvili claims that Georgians retain control of Tskhinvali and that Java and the Roki tunnel were the Georgian army’s “next target.”

Sunday, August 10

Overnight, Georgian forces begin to pull out of Tskhinvali. The Russian Air Force continues to bomb military targets throughout Georgia, including a military facility near Tbilisi airport, which causes panic and suspension of all flights into Tbilisi. Foreigners in Tbilisi begin to flee to Yerevan to take flights out. Russia begins naval blockade of Georgia and sinks a Georgian patrol boat.

10:00 – Georgia’s president’s national security advisor Kakha Lomaia says that Georgian forces are “regrouping” south of Tskhinvali. Throughout the day Ossetian and Russian units, including the special forces’ Vostok battalion comprised of ethnic Chechens, clear remaining Georgian units out of Tskhinvali.



In the evening, the Russian Air Force continues to attack targets around Georgia. Russian and Abkhaz forces begin to bombard Georgian positions in Abkhazia’s Kodori gorge.

Monday, August 11

Overnight, the Russian Air Force continues bombing raids across Georgia, including one 5 km from downtown Tbilisi. In the morning, Georgian artillery and, reportedly, one surviving aircraft fire on Tskhinvali.



In late morning, Mr. Saakashvili and visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner arrive in the town of Gori, just south of Tskhinvali, to observe collateral damage sustained from Russian attacks on military targets in the town. Just after Mr. Kouchner departs from Gori, Mr. Saakashvili observes an aircraft in the sky and is shown to be running away and then hurriedly whisked away by security guards in a car convoy.

In the afternoon, Russian and Ossetian forces move out of Tskhinvali and begin to reclaim Ossetian villages to the west of town and capture Georgian positions north, east, and south of Tskhinvali.

Destruction in Tskhinval.

Meanwhile, Russian forces from Abkhazia are accompanied by Georgian police as they begin to destroy military bases in Western Georgia, citing violations of the Abkhazia peace agreements.

Czech-made howitzers abandoned by Georgian army (Aug. 12 photo by Artem Drabkin)

17:00 – British journalists on the Gori-to-Tbilisi road observe the Georgian army retreating in panic toward the capital, leaving behind dozens of tanks, artillery, and other military equipment along with civilians. It is unclear what caused the panic, as Russian forces had not yet approached Gori.

Georgian soldiers fleeing Gori.

Later in the evening, Georgian media cites Mr. Saakashvili as claiming that “Russian tanks have taken positions on approaches to Tbilisi”; the Georgian president goes on CNN to declare that Russian tanks are “surrounding” Tbilisi and “we are ready to defend Tbilisi to the last drop of blood.”

Minutes later, Mr. Saakashvili acknowledges that tanks observed near Tbilisi were those of the retreating Georgian army and not of the Russian army. He promises Tbilisi residents a “12-hour warning” before Russian forces come; this causes panic in Tbilisi. Russians deny they intend to enter Tbilisi.

In late evening and subsequent days, Russian forces begin to come into Gori and other Georgian towns without resistance to take over abandoned military equipment and
destroy military bases. Russians also sink the Georgian navy in the port of Poti and force a Georgian retreat from Abkhazia’s Kodori gorge.

Russian soldiers taking a break near Gori.

At the same time, all sides agree to a cease-fire that necessitates a Russian pullout in exchange for the creation of a “security zone” around South Ossetia and international discussions of South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s status. Russia promises to pull out from Georgian into the “security zone” by August 22.

Casualties

As of August 19, the Georgian government has confirmed 146 military and 69 civilian deaths, as well as 1,199 military and 270 civilians wounded; 70 persons are reported “missing.” The death toll is expected to rise, since the Georgian army suffered a bulk of casualties in an area now outside its control.

As of August 20, Ossetian officials have confirmed the death of 133 of their residents, both civilians and self-defense fighters. The death toll is expected to rise, but few expect it to reach "more than 2,000 dead” claimed by Ossetian officials at the height of fighting.

Russian forces have confirmed 64 servicem members killed and 323 wounded.

— Compiled by Emil Sanamyan from media sources. All times shown are local Moscow-Ossetia-Georgia time which is eight hours ahead of EST.

In memoriam: Yuri Barsegov

First published in August 23, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Yuri Barsegov, 83, international law expert and Armenian patriot



Left to right: Masis Mayilian, Yuri Barsegov and Arkady Ghoukasian during negotiations on Karabakh in Helsinki, Finland in 1995.

WASHINGTON – Yuri Georgievich Barsegov, an Armenian patriot, respected expert in international law, and prominent representative of the Russian-Armenian community died in Moscow on August 6. He was 83.

Mr. Barsegov was born in 1925 in Tbilisi to Armenian parents. His father was an army officer and later deputy director of the Tbilisi Aviation Plant and his mother taught Armenian language at a local school.

Following army service on the Soviet-Turkish border between 1943 and 1945, Mr. Barsegov enrolled and graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) in 1950, and then enrolled in its graduate school, where in 1953 he prepared his dissertation on the subject of “Armenian territories in international
agreements,” focusing on consequences of the Armenian Genocide.

But citing relations with Turkey, the Soviet Foreign Ministry–affiliated Institute refused to hear the dissertation, forcing Mr. Barsegov to drop the Armenian case study and instead defend his degree on a more general topic. (Half a century later, the case study became the basis for Barsegov’s books on the subject.)

After leaving MGIMO, Mr. Barsegov was an international relations editor for the Inostrannaya Literatura (Foreign Literature) press that produced translations of major foreign publications.

From 1962 to 1969 and again from 1972 to 1979, Mr. Barsegov worked at the United Nations Secretariat. From 1969 to 1972 and again from 1979 until his retirement he worked at the Soviet Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), where he headed the Oceans and Environment Department, while teaching at the Moscow University of Peoples’ Friendship.

Over his long career, Mr. Barsegov emerged as a leading authority on the international law of the sea, defending his doctorate on the subject at the Soviet Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy in 1984 and from 1986 to 1987 serving as a member of the Soviet delegation to the Preparatory Commission for the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

From 1987 to 1991, Mr. Barsegov represented the Soviet Union as a member of the United Nations General Assembly’s International Law Commission of experts.

Author of more than 500 works on international law, Mr. Barsegov was a life-long activist on Armenian national issues, particularly the consequences of the Genocide and campaign for Karabakh’s re-unification with Armenia.

In 1993, at the height of the Karabakh war, Mr. Barsegov published a three-part monograph outlining the international legal bases for Karabakh’s right to self-determination.

From 1993 to 1997 Mr. Barsegov advised the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s delegation to the peace talks mediated by the Organization for Security and Cooperate in Europe (OSCE). Former senior NKR diplomat Masis Mayilyan who worked with Mr. Barsegov in the 1990s described him to the Armenian Reporter as “a great human being, great patriot, and a great professional.”

In 1999 Mr. Barsegov founded and since led the Armenian Institute of International Law and Political Science under the aegis of the Union of Armenians of Russia (www. sarinfo.org).

Under his leadership, the institute has since published two major Russian-language volumes on the Genocide: The Armenian Genocide: A Crime under International Law (2000) and the three-part The Armenian Genocide: Turkey’s Culpability and Responsibilities of the International Community (published between 2002 and 2005).

At the time of his death, Mr. Barsegov was working on a book on the history of Armenia’s international relations.

In recognition of his accomplishments, Mr. Barsegov was awarded Nagorno-Karabakh’s Order of St. Mesrop Mashtots and Armenia’s Mkhitar Gosh medal (both in 2000), elected a member of Armenia’s National Academy of Sciences in 2005, and received a special presidential prize from President Serge Sargsian earlier this year in recognition of Mr. Barsegov efforts for Genocide affirmation.

Just last month, in a letter of appreciation to President Sargsian, Mr. Barsegov asked to donate funds from that latter prize, totaling $10,000, to the Armenia Fund’s program supporting the families of Artsakh freedom fighters killed or wounded in combat.

According to the Union of Armenians of Russia, a wake and burial arrangements for Mr. Barsegov took place in Moscow on August 9. Mr. Barsegov is survived by his son Georgi Barsegov, who is a senior counselor with the Russian Foreign Ministry.

— Prepared by Emil Sanamyan drawing on materials made available by the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia and the Union of Armenians of Russia.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

An exercise in disinformation: linking PKK to NKR

First published in August 2, 2008 Armenian Reporter. For graphics, including chronology see www.reporter.am archive.


An exercise in disinformation: linking Kurds to NKR
News analysis by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– Turkish and Azerbaijani officials have frequently sought to link Armenians to the Kurdish resistance in Turkey, typically referred to as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). But they have provided little to no evidence to substantiate such linkages.

These allegations made a comeback between last October and earlier this year at a fairly high level and with all the hallmarks of an organized disinformation campaign.

This analysis seeks to deconstruct the chronology of this effort aimed against Armenia.

Background

Allegations linking Armenia to Kurdish political activism in Turkey are not new. Azerbaijan’s motivation for this is to win and maintain Turkey’s support and to position itself as fighting a “common enemy” in Karabakh.

Turkish nationalists, in turn, seek to portray the PKK as a non-Muslim and even anti-Muslim entity, appealing to religious and ethnic biases in the fight for the hearts and minds of Turkey’s Kurdish population.

In the early 1990s, frequent Turkish claims that Armenia provides support to PKK also helped build up an excuse for Turkey’s potential intervention in the Karabakh war on the side of the losing forces of Azerbaijan.

At one point in 1992, that campaign was inadvertently facilitated by Armenia’s own propaganda, which suggested, falsely, that the mostly ethnically Kurdish population
of areas between Karabakh and Armenia proper welcomed Armenian forces as liberators. (Yezidi Kurds from Armenia proper were even reported to have been bused to Lachin for that purpose.)

In fact, by the 20th century, most of Azerbaijan’s ethnically Kurdish population was thoroughly Turkified and they now mostly self- identify as Azerbaijanis.

Azerbaijan’s ethnic Kurds reportedly include such well-known characters as Azerbaijan’s late national leader Heydar Aliyev, as well as wartime chief of national police and local Grey Wolves franchise Iskender Hamidov, who famously promised to wipe out Yerevan and Stepanakert with two nuclear strikes.

First salvos

In August 2007, Yusuf Halacoğlu, head of the Turkish Historical Society, ultranationalist and Armenian Genocide denier, announced that his studies on the origins of Anatolian tribes showed many Kurds, particularly Kurdish Alevis, were originally Armenian.

As events unfolded, Mr. Halacoğlu’s comment appeared to have been motivated primarily by politics.

In an interview with Uluslararası Haber Dergisi in October 2007, Mr. Halacoğlu said many “people” who think they are Kurds may be mistaken, and the case is the same with “the terrorist groups who tried to be identified as Kurdish Alevis or Kurds.”

(Incidentally, after 15 years at the helm of Turkish official historiography, Mr. Halacoğlu was replaced by the Turkish government this week.)

Somewhat unexpectedly, this line of reasoning was reflected in the remarks made by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey during an official visit to the United States in early November 2007.

After being questioned by an Armenian Embassy staff member on Turkey’s Armenia policy in a public meeting hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Mr. Erdoğan demurred on the need to distinguish the terrorists from the Kurdish population at large, saying, “In the terrorist organization [PKK], there are Kurds, Armenians, others.” (He said this even though no ethnic Armenian member of the PKK was ever identified dead or alive, at least in the last decade.)

More importantly, during his visit, Mr. Erdoğan and Turkey’s friends in the U.S. government, succeeded in having President George W. Bush declare the PKK to be America’s enemy.

“They are an enemy of Turkey, they are an enemy of Iraq, and they are an enemy of the United States,” Mr. Bush declared that November, while also authorizing U.S. forces in Iraq to assist Turkey in their attacks against the PKK in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Azerbaijan jumps in

On November 30 Zaman, a newspaper close to the Turkish government, quoted the heretofore unknown Federation of Turkish-Azeri Associations’ Secretary General Mehmet Azeriturk as claiming, “Armenia is making an effort to bring PKK militants into the cities of Şuşa [Shushi], Lacin [Berdzor] and Fuzuli, to be able to keep these cities it has occupied.”

No reference was made as to where Mr. Azeriturk acquired that information. The Zaman article also said that Armenian officials have denied any such contacts with the PKK.

But just days later, Azerbaijan’s deputy foreign minister Araz Azimov, apparently citing the “Zaman report,” declared that Azerbaijan is ready to perform “counter-terrorist” operations against PKK military units “positioned” in Karabakh.

Azerbaijan’s Zerkalo reported Mr. Azimov saying that the PKK’s presence in the occupied territories “shows the international community that we were right in our earlier statements [making the link between the PKK and Karabakh].”

Armenians had always had a penchant for terrorists, he added.

The international echo

On December 11 the Azerbaijani allegations were promoted by the Russian journalist Aleksei Baliev. Writing for RPMonitor.ru, an online political journal, he compared “the Lachin corridor” linking Armenia and Karabakh to “Iraqi Kurdistan” as a safe haven for the PKK.

An Armenian Yezidi community leader Aziz Tamoyan had, earlier in December, endorsed the presidential candidacy of then-Prime Minister Serge Sargsian. Mr. Baliev linked this endorsement to Kurdish hopes for Armenia’s support for establishing “a Kurdish autonomy” in areas between Karabakh and Armenia proper.

(Although Mr. Tamoyan’s endorsement came in a joint press community leader, Rimma Varzhapetian, who also backed Mr. Sargsian, Mr. Baliyev did not suggest that the Jews of Armenia were also hoping to establish themselves in Lachin.)

The nonsensical nature of the argument did not stop Paul Goble, a former U.S. official now employed as research director for the Azerbaijani Academy of Diplomacy, from indirectly endorsing the claim in his personal blog the next day, suggesting that “the Kurdish initiative in Armenia provides those opposed to any settlement [over Karabakh] with yet another means to block it.”

By December 20, the Azerbaijani government allegations were presented as fact by Anar Valiev, a fellow at the Masaryk University in the Czech Republic and apparently a native of Azerbaijan.

The PKK’s (supposed) decision to move to Karabakh, Mr. Valiev stated in the December 20 issue of Global Terrorism Analysis, published by the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation, is “rational, well thought-out and could benefit both sides.”

Mr. Valiev went on to suggest that Turkey would never “chase” the PKK in Nagorno-Karabakh out of fear that any such action would come to involve several other states, upsetting the fragile balance in the region.

For Armenians, on the other hand, harboring the PKK would help to bolster the region’s population and provide “hundreds – if not thousands – of experienced guerilla fighters.”

Mr. Valiev cited Mr. Baliev’s commentary as one of his sources.

Israeli and American spillover...

In January 2008, an unofficial and frequently inaccurate Israeli source, DEBKAfile, alleged that PKK leaders had started “acting on a decision they had reached in November to move their bases from the Qandil Mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan to the predominantly ethnic Armenian South Caucasian region of Nagorno- Karabakh.”

The online publication said it got the information from its “sources [that] have picked up rumors,” which were also supported by “PKK defectors who turned themselves in to Turkish forces.”

DEBKAfile added that no transfer of the Kurdish bases had been confirmed as of January 28. However, it also said that a group of PKK chiefs were reported to have visited Kurdish villages in Karabakh looking for support. (No such villages in fact exist in Karabakh.)

A sort of a culmination of the campaign occurred in February 2008, when Mr. Azimov met with visiting U.S. State Department coordinator on terrorism Frank Urbanic (whom Azerbaijani media renamed “Urbanchik”).

Mr. Azimov told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) after the meeting that the PKK was the main focus of their talks. He expressed concern over the “PKK building ‘close relations’ with ‘terrorist groups and organizations’ that are enemies of both Turkey and Azerbaijan – a remark seen in Baku as a reference to Armenia or ethnic-Armenian forces,” RFE/RL reported.

A public affairs officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baku was quoted as saying that the United States is “increasingly concerned about what appears to be growing ties between the PKK and other groups in the Caucasus” and the “threat the PKK poses to energy infrastructure in the [region].”

But the annual State Department report on terrorism issued on April 30 did not contain references to Azerbaijani allegations.

These remarks were followed by several articles on the subject in the Turkish media. The Journal of Turkish Weekly, an online publication of the Turkish lobby in the United States, wrote, “It is reported that the Karabakh authorities provide a safe haven for international terrorism.”

The Journal, citing suspect sources, claimed that 56 PKK members had settled in Karabakh and that “terror camps” were established in the region. The Journal went on to claim that the Israeli intelligence organization Mossad “had warned Turkey and Azerbaijan about the PKK movements.”

…and denials

Contacted by the Armenian Reporter this week, Ehud Gol, Israel’s ambassador to Armenia, dismissed these reports as “a baseless story.”

He said he had no knowledge of the matter and viewed it as a bad piece of journalism with no credible sources.

Mr. Gol added that because of this, Israel had not issued any formal denial, adding, “We do not have any reason to believe [these reports are] true.”

While the United States did not formally endorse Azerbaijani or Turkish allegations, signs of interest on the part of at least some U.S. officials can be seen in the State Department’s award of a fellowship grant to Dr. Mark Yoffe to study the Yezidi Kurdish community in Armenia in September 2007.

“The U.S. Embassy in Armenia was interested in all aspects of Yezidi Kurdish life,” Dr. Yoffe told the Reporter in July. Asked about whether the Armenian state plays any role in Kurdish political activism, Dr. Yoffe said, “There are issues that might or might not involve Yezidi Kurds. However, my research does not show that Armenians are involved in them in any way.”

Dr. Yoffe, a specialist in Slavic languages at the George Washington University, held a presentation of his findings last February, noting that rather than serving as a potential connection to the PKK, Yezidi Kurds in Armenia “spoke badly” about Turkish Kurd emissaries who occasionally visited their villages, because “for Yezidis, Kurds are synonymous with Muslims and this is often given as a reason for antipathy.”

Dr. Yoffe was told that despite the emissaries’ attempts “to recruit Yezidis into their armed struggle or raise funds for their causes,” the Yezidis asked them to leave the villages, after which they stopped coming.

What it all means

“Pursuit of ‘terrorists’ or the presence of terrorists in a given territory has been used as pretext by states around the world for military operations,” Hratch Tchilingirian of the University of Cambridge told the Armenian Reporter via e-mail.

Indeed, while constantly threatening a new war in Karabakh, Azerbaijan is increasingly at a loss when it comes to providing contemporary reasons for its acrimony, with wartime grievances steadily shifting into the historical realm.

In the absence of aggressive behavior by the Armenian side, Azerbaijan has sought to invent it, coming up with baseless allegations – on subjects ranging from the environment to crime to security – that are designed to win international sympathy.

At the same time, Azerbaijan has worked to keep international access to Karabakh as restricted as it possibly can – a difficult task in an increasingly transparent and interconnected world.

Nevertheless, with the Caucasus as remote as it is, Azerbaijan frequently succeeds in having its disinformation published by reputable media and even in foreign government publications such as the many annual reports that the State Department is mandated to release.

In a drawn-out public relations war such small bureaucratic coups too can serve as small victories.

Writing on May 27 in the Soros Foundation–funded Eurasianet. org, Stephen Blank, a commentator on regional affairs who teaches at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania, suggested, “The mere fact that Turkish and Azerbaijani media outlets are complaining about a Kurdish militant presence in Karabakh should spur the international community to action [on Karabakh],” he said, calling for “redoubled efforts” on the resolution of the Karabakh issue, in order to “eliminate, or at least greatly diminish the chances” of any aggressive developments.

While stressing that the allegation linking the PKK to Karabakh is unsubstantiated, Dr. Tchilingirian agreed that “for Azerbaijan it could serve as a pretext to test military operations in the Karabakh region in the name of ‘rooting out terrorists’ that pose a threat to Turkey.”

In this case, Azerbaijan attempted to piggy-back on America’s support for Turkey’s fight against the PKK, but it once again failed to win outright Turkish government support for the effort.

When contacted this week, the Azerbaijani Embassy in Washington refused to comment on the matter.

The “Kurdish” campaign appeared to have come to an abrupt end, or at least an extended intermission in late February – early March.

It is unclear if that had something to do with Armenia’s presidential elections and subsequent domestic developments in both Armenia and Turkey; or, more modestly, with completion of prepublication research for the State Department’s terrorism report.

Senate approves Ambassador to Armenia

First published in the August 2, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Yovanovitch nomination clears Senate
After debate, Committee gives nod to ambassador-designate to Armenia
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 29 voted to endorse the nomination of Marie L. Yovanovitch as the next United States ambassador to Armenia. The full Senate quickly approved the nomination on August 1.

The position has been vacant since September 2006, when Ambassador John M. Evans was recalled for speaking openly about the Armenian Genocide.

The administration’s previous nominee for the position, Richard Hoagland, received the committee’s endorsement in late 2006, but the consideration of his nomination by the full Senate was blocked by Senator Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.)

The Bush administration resubmitted the nomination in 2007, at which time the senator once again blocked it. The administration ultimately withdrew the nomination.

The Armenian government has publicly encouraged a quick confirmation of Ms. Yovanovitch’s nomination. As a sign of the importance the Armenian government attached to this matter, Tatoul Markarian, Armenia’s ambassador to the United States, was present as the committee voted.

The administration continues to refuse to use the word genocide to characterize the Armenian Genocide.

But, whereas Mr. Hoagland had initially argued that the events of 1915–17 may not fit the definition of genocide, Ms. Yovanovitch has stated repeatedly that it is up to the president to decide whether she, as ambassador, could characterize the events as genocide.

Most senators said they were still not satisfied with the administration’s position on the Genocide.

In a voice vote, they nonetheless allowed the nomination of Ms. Yovanovitch to move forward. Senators cited a State Department letter issued the day of the vote that, one senator said, marked a “significant step forward” in the administration’s appreciation of the issue.

Sen. Boxer remains in opposition

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) was the sole committee member registering a vote against confirmation.

Criticizing the administration for its refusal to use the term genocide in reference to the destruction of the Armenian people in Asia Minor, she described her vote as “support for the truth.”

While acknowledging Ms. Yovanovitch’s experience and competence, Ms. Boxer said she could not vote in favor because the nominee refused to use the word genocide.

“Why can’t she just say, ‘I personally see this as genocide, but the administration does not want me to use that word. So, although in my personal view it was a genocide, I cannot call it so [officially]’?” the senator asked.

Ms. Boxer added that although she would be voting in opposition, she would take no other action to block the nomination.

Sen. Menendez notes better State Department rhetoric

Mr. Menendez, like Ms. Boxer, expressed dissatisfaction that Ms. Yovanovitch would not express her own opinion on the Armenian Genocide. He noted that when U.S.
ambassadors are sworn in, they do not “say that ‘I take an oath to the President of the United States, this or any future president.’”

Rather, they swear to uphold the Constitution, he noted, arguing that ambassadors should be able to express their opinions more freely when testifying before Congress.

Mr. Menendez cited a letter he had received from the State Department the day of the vote as a reason he was not voting against the nomination. The letter clarified testimony by Ms. Yovanovitch about a proposed State Department program to “bring archivists from Turkey and Armenia to the United States for professional training.”

It said the program did not intend to “open a debate” on the facts “of the mass killings and deportations of Armenians committed by Ottoman soldiers and other Ottoman officials in 1915.”

The letter of clarification, signed by Matthew A. Reynolds, acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, added, “We indeed hold Ottoman officials responsible for those crimes.”

Mr. Menendez said that for an administration that has frequently called for the characterization of the events of 1915 to be left to historians, this response was a “significant step forward,” encouraging him to vote in favor of the nominee.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) also spoke in opposition to the administration’s policy, noting that from Ms. Yovanovitch’s responses to the committee it is “clear that the nominee acknowledged that what happened [to Armenians] was genocide,” even if she was forced not to publicly use the term.

Sen. Biden thanks Armenian-Americans

In his remarks, the committee chair, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), recalled the commitments made by the State Department to work toward the improvement of Armenia-Turkey relations and to address Turkey’s genocide denial.

The committee chair said that the ultimate objective is to get Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide for all sides to move forward. Mr. Biden praised the Armenian- American community for its position on the issue and acknowledged the role played by senators in pressing the administration.

As part of the confirmation process, Senators Biden, Boxer, Cardin, and Menendez, and fellow committee members Bob Casey (D.-Penn.), Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), John Kerry (D.-Mass.), and Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) had pressed the State Department for answers on issues relating to the U.S. policy on the Armenian Genocide, U.S.-Armenia relations, and regional matters.

(See the Armenian Reporter for July 5, 12, 19, and 26 for the full texts of the correspondence.)

Briefly: U.S. on Armenian and Azerbaijani politics, Turkish ruling AKP avoids ban

Washington Briefing
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

U.S. wants Armenian government to succeed on democracy


“It is in the interest of the U.S.-Armenia bilateral relationship and in the interest of the Armenian people to see the new government in Yerevan succeed in deepening Armenia’s democratic development,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Kramer said in a prepared statement on July 29.

Recalling his tour of the Caucasus earlier this summer (see this page and the editorial page in the June 28 issue of the Armenian Reporter), Mr. Kramer stressed the need for the Armenian authorities to take timely steps – the release of opposition activists, an independent investigation, and dialogue – “to heal the serious divisions in the country that the presidential election and its violent aftermath exacerbated.”

Overall, Mr. Kramer’s remarks on Armenia were a departure from the sharp rhetoric he employed while in Yerevan.

Similarly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said earlier in the month that while the United States wanted to see the Armenian government do more on democracy, the United States is “seeing some positive momentum” and that “the direction has shifted and is much better.”

Referring to President Serge Sargsian, Mr. Bryza told the RFE/RL Armenian Service in a July 19 interview, “It seems that President Sarkisian understands the challenges that face the country and what issues need some work. We have seen some leadership from him on a number fronts and we appreciate that.”

Mr. Bryza also praised Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian for “setting a good example as he takes on tough issues [such as government corruption] and is advancing a reform agenda.”

For his part, Mr. Kramer singled out Human Rights Defender Armen Harutiunian, appointed by former President Robert Kocharian, for “playing an important role on behalf of democratic reform in the country.”

Congressional human rights commission discusses Azerbaijan

Members of Congress, officials, and activists expressed various degrees of concern with Azerbaijan’s treatment of dissenters during a July 29 hearing organized by the U.S. Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) and described as “biased” by an Azerbaijani presidential aide the next day.

The hearing was timed to precede Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev’s widely anticipated reelection on October 15 in balloting seen by most as a mere formality. Mr. Aliyev inherited the presidency after his father, Heydar Aliyev, died in 2003.

In testimony, Chris Walker of Freedom House, a human-rights advocacy group, noted that growing revenues from energy production have emboldened Azerbaijan’s government and diminished any remaining hopes for democratic changes.

Later in the hearing, Commission co-chair Rep. Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) quoted Mr. Aliyev as saying recently, “those who say that something is going wrong in Azerbaijan … should look in the mirror at their own country. Attempts to apply pressure will just cause tension in our relations. While several years ago we may not have reacted to this pressure or kept silent, we are not silent today.”

Indeed, speaking for Mr. Aliyev the next day, his aide Elnur Aslanov described views expressed at the hearing as “biased and provocative.”

“Azerbaijan has its own path leading to democracy which conforms to the level of development of state and society,” he told the Trend news agency.

“Senior Azeri officials have already suggested a third term [through 2018] for President Aliyev,” Mr. Walker said, adding that it appears that “the country is laying the foundations for a possible leader-for-life system,” as in most Central Asian states.

Assistant Secretary of State David Kramer expressed U.S. concerns that “political space for dissenting voices has been shrinking over the past few years,” pointing to the continued imprisonment of dozens of political prisoners. They
include journalist Eynullah Fatullayev, imprisoned after being labeled a “traitor” for his visit to Armenia and Karabakh. (See this page in the Nov. 3, 2007, issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

Mr. Kramer dismissed Azerbaijan’s efforts to link all its failings to Armenian misdeeds. “The unresolved conflict … over Nagorno- Karabakh is not a valid reason for either country to avoid respecting media freedom or engaging in other essential components of democratization,” he said.

Mr. Hastings pointed to his criticism of the Bush administration and wondered whether he could “still be walking around Baku” had he done something similar in Azerbaijan.

In a telling response, Azerbaijan’s ambassador, Yashar Aliyev, said, “I don’t know.”

“I think that is a fair answer to perhaps what was a rhetorical question,” Rep. Hastings went on amid laughter in the room. “And that is that my butt would be in jail.”

Commission members Sen. Robert Burr (R.-N.C.) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (R.-N.C.) focused their remarks on the imprisonment of former millionaire government member Farkhad Aliyev, who fell out with the Azerbaijani president in 2005; Rep. Hilda Solis (D.-Calif.) raised concerns over prosecution of Christian minorities, and Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) made general observations about the need for reform.

No concerns over anti-Armenian hate speech in Azerbaijan were raised as part of the hearing.

Wiesenthal Center notes “confusion” over Rabbi Cooper’s Azerbaijan comments

This column last week reported on the visit by Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Los Angeles–based Simon Wiesenthal Center to Baku during which he heard anti-Armenian hate speech from Azerbaijan’s religious leader and was reported by Azerbaijani media as praising the country for its “tolerance” and even “condemning” Armenians.

Contacted by the Armenian Reporter last week and this, Rabbi Cooper was not available for an interview. But the Center’s public relations director Avra Shapiro facilitated the following comment on behalf of Rabbi Cooper via e-mail: “My visit to Baku [was in part] to brief religious leaders who will shortly be visiting the U.S.... I read the article [from Azerbaijani media] that was written very carefully. It seems that whoever wrote the headline may have confused the comments of the [Azerbaijani] Parliamentary Chairman [condemning Armenians] with mine. For the record, what I did state was that the systematic destruction of any houses of worship would be an outrage.”

Rabbi Cooper has not so far provided comment on the Azerbaijani religious leader’s hate speech toward Armenians and how that fits into his reported praise of Azerbaijan’s tolerance.

The latter claim was this week sited by an Azerbaijani presidential aide as evidence of his country’s good behavior and in response to criticism of Azerbaijani government during the U.S. Helsinki Commission hearing on July 29.

Turkish ruling party avoids ban, gets off with “warning”

Turkey’s Constitutional Court did not endorse a proposed ban on the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) but decided to cut half of its state funding in a ruling made on July 30, news agencies reported.

Six judges voted in favor of banning the party, four voted for financial penalties, while one judge rejected the case, CNN reported. Seven votes were required for the court to approve the ban.

The case was filed by the country’s chief prosecutor in March, as part of the struggle between the mildly Islamist AKP and Turkey’s secular elite, which includes the military and the judiciary.

Despite the rejection of closure, the case issued “a serious warning” to the party, court chair Hasim Kilic said.

Mithat Sancar, a law professor at Ankara University, told the New York Times that the ruling does not mean the party is cleared of charges. “Cutting the party’s treasury funds means that the evidence for their anti-secular activity was there but not substantial enough to impose a ban,” he said.

More than 20 parties, mostly pro-Islamist or pro-Kurdish, have been banned by the courts for posing a threat to Kemalist secular principles. However, this was the first case against a party with a large parliamentary majority.

The court decision came just days after a heretofore unknown group set off two bombs in an Istanbul residential area, killing 17 passers- by including five children, and
wounding some 150.

The attack, on July 27, came shortly after six people – three police officers and three assailants – died in an attack near the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul on July 9.

It was the worst case of terrorism in Turkey since two synagogues, a British consulate, and a bank were bombed in November 2003, acts of terror blamed on local Islamic radicals.

Turkish officials said they suspected that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) was responsible for July 27 attack, with the PKK itself denying any involvement.

Writing for the Jamestown Foundation, Istanbul-based journalist Gareth Jenkins noted that neither PKK nor Islamic radicals have been known for random attacks on residential areas in Turkey.

Briefly: Azeri Muslim leader meets rabbi, insults Armenians; Armenian 'spies' captured; Turkish politics update

Washington Briefing
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

Azerbaijan shares its brand of tolerance with the L.A. Museum of Tolerance…


“Falsehood and treason run through Armenians’ blood,” Azerbaijan’s Muslim leader informed Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center with its Los Angeles–based Museum of Tolerance, according to an Azeri-Press Agency report cited by Day.az on July 22.

During a meeting with the visiting rabbi, Sheikh-ul-Islam Haji Allahshukur Pasha-zade reportedly added, “They ate our bread, but spoke against us while leaving,” in a possible reference to hundreds of thousands of Armenian refugees expelled from Azerbaijan.

Two years ago, Mr. Pasha-zade called on Azerbaijanis to be ready for “jihad” (a holy war) against Armenians. Rabbi Cooper reportedly described Azerbaijan as “a tolerant
country, where everyone can practice his religion without any restrictions,” in a Day.az interview published the next day.

He pointed, in particular, to the presence of the Jewish community in Baku.

Rabbi Cooper went on to say that Azerbaijan should do more to “inform the US community in details about their country and especially about [the Karabakh] conflict. The United States are mostly well informed about the ‘genocide of Armenians.’ It would be good if Azerbaijanis held work for informing Americans about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.”

Azerbaijan’s government and the country’s news outlets are known for frequently distorting comments by foreign visitors. The Armenian Reporter requested a clarification from the Wiesenthal Center, which could not be provided as of press time because Rabbi Cooper was traveling.

…rakes in another batch of “Armenian spies”

In spite of the massive doses of incessant anti-Armenian propaganda, a significant number of individual Azerbaijanis still cooperate with Armenian intelligence services, according to the Azerbaijani government’s declarations.

Citing the Azeri-Press Agency, Day.az reported on July 24 on the recent sentencing of five members of the Azerbaijani military to 13–14 year prison sentences for “high treason” and “violation of the military code.”

The service members reportedly served in the Fizuli district along the Line of Contact with Karabakh and were accused of “cooperation with Armenian intelligence services.”

It is unclear whether the five were counted among 13 alleged Armenian spies whose capture was mentioned among other arrests made in 2007 by Azerbaijan’s Deputy National Security Minister Ali Shafiyev in an interview to the Trend news agency last month.

Turkey in anticipation of another political crisis

Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is considering holding early elections as a backup plan for retaining power in case the Constitutional Court decides to ban Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and 39 senior party members from joining political parties for five years.

The mildly Islamist AKP first won control of Turkish government in a 2002 election that followed an economic crisis. The party has since increased its popularity and influence; it performed strongly in the 2007 parliamentary elections and also won the presidency.

Recent polls show that even if banned, Mr. Erdogan’s party in early elections would probably retain the 300 seats it currently holds in the 550-seat parliament, and would consequently get him back into power, even if he ran as an independent, Bloomberg news agency reports.

The court, which has previously shown its antipathy toward the AKP, will start hearings on the government’s alleged antisecular tendencies on July 28.

The lawsuit against the AKP is seen as an attempt on the part of the Turkish military-secular establishment to implement another soft coup d’état against a government that it accuses of “undermining” Turkey’s secular system.

In recent months, in an apparent response by the AKP, Turkish police have arrested dozens of individuals linked to the military and security agencies, implicating them
in conspiring to commit murders and other crimes as part of a plot against the government.

Meanwhile, the Turkish parliament’s Human Rights Commission run by the AKP issued on July 23 a report on the investigation into the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was killed in a nationalist plot in January 2007.

The 180-page report did not name individuals, but said “there has been negligence, fault and bad coordination both on the part of the police department and the gendarmerie,” who failed to respond to several tips on his assassination plan, Turkey’s Hürriyet newspaper reported.

So far only two security officers have been charged with negligence in Mr. Dink’s murder. The investigation has been regarded a test of the AKP’s resolve to challenge the “deep state,” the mafia that includes elements of the military, security forces, nationalists and plain criminals.

In addition to shady links between the suspects and security institutions, lawyers representing the Dink family have, at various times, accused the police of destroying vital evidence and concealing crucial information from the court and the prosecution, the pro-AKP Zaman newspaper reported.

Russian Armenians pledge $670mln. in Armenia investments

Diaspora businesspeople pledge $670 milion in Armenia investments
Pledges come within days of president’s appeal
by Emil Sanamyan and Yelena Osipova

WASHINGTON
– At least eight major investors, all but one of them based in Russia, have announced plans to invest a cumulative $670 million in Armenia’s economy over the next several years, Armenpress, the government news agency, reported this week.

The pledges cited an appeal by President Serge Sargsian on July 14. In an address before youth groups in Jermuk, Mr. Sargsian urged “businesspeople and well-to-do Armenians [to] be more active and imaginative in your undertakings to advance Armenia.”

The bulk of the pledges – amounting to more than half a billion U.S. dollars – came from three businesspeople, all of them Moscow-based, who have a long track record of investing in the country and have family ties with Armenia’s political establishment.

All the investors sought to present their commitments as a sign of confidence in Armenia’s development and support for Mr. Sargsian’s policies.

Although amounts made public were likely part of long-term investment programs developed before Mr. Sargsian’s appeal, by making their plans public at this time, the businesspeople sought to show support for the recently elected president still grappling with consequences of a post-election crisis.

Mr. Sargsian said since that the quick responses to his appeal were not unexpected. “I have asked and will continue to ask all Armenians to take part in the cause of achieving prosperity for the country,” the Arka news agency quoted him as saying on July 21.

The pledges made public are significant, considering that all foreign investments in Armenia totaled about $600 million in 2006, and approximately the same amount was invested in 2007.

The investors

Samvel Karapetian of the Tashir Group pledged $250 million. Mr. Karapetian’s brother Karen Karapetian is a senior member of President Sargsian’s Republican Party and is a leader of its parliamentary faction. In his letter made public this week, Mr. Karapetian pledged to invest “in the near future $200 million in business and social projects and $50 million for [a] project in Armenia which will support our statehood and serve for the coming generations.”

The sum of $150 million for “new economic initiatives,” as well as science and culture, was pledged by Ara Abrahamian of the Soglasie Group. Mr. Abrahamian, better known as head of the Union of Armenians of Russia, also has a brother in parliament: Gagik Abrahamian is a nonpartisan member of the Republican Party faction and chair of the Diamond Company of Armenia.

Another $120 million was pledged by Murad Muradian of the BAMO Group, who said he was ready to continue to invest in construction. BAMO has been a major investor in the ongoing construction boom in Yerevan and at Lake Sevan. Mr. Muradian’s brother, Harutiun Muradian, was a member of Armenia’s parliament between 1999 and 2007.

Serop Der Boghosian of the Metal Prince company is the only businessperson not based in Russia to join the campaign so far. In a letter made public on July 22, Mr. Der Boghosian pledged $50 million in investments over three years focused on the northern Lori province’s industry, tourism, and social needs. Metal Prince has been engaged in mining projects in Lori since 2000.

Another $50 million was promised “in the near future” by Russia’s Arch group of companies led by Vitaly Grigoriants. The company had reportedly already invested $30 million in Armenia’s financial, construction, and manufacturing spheres.

Other investment pledges came from Gagik Zakharian of the Uniastrum Bank ($30 million in the finance, mining, and construction spheres), Sergey Sarkisov of RESO-Garantia company (at least $10 million in insurance, health, and social programs) and Sergey Hambartsumian of Monolitnaya Arkhitektura ($10 million reconstruction of Matenadaran repository of ancient manuscripts).

The Armenian Reporter has contacted the businesspeople with requests for additional information about their investment plans, but responses were not available as of
press time.

Armenian Foreign Minister visits Washington

This was first published in July 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Armenia’s foreign minister visits U.S. to enhance ties
Edward Nalbandian meets Rice, others
Signs anti-nuclearsmuggling deal
by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– Armenia’s foreign minister held a series of meetings with senior United States officials here this week in a bid to reinforce a key partnership that has come under strain in recent months with a critical U.S. reaction to the Armenian government’s handling of the crisis that followed Armenia’s presidential elections in February.

Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who was making his first visit to the United States since his appointment in April, told the Armenian Reporter on July 16 that “the main message I brought with me to Washington is our strong will to deepen and enhance our relations and cooperation in all possible fields with the United States.”

Mr. Nalbandian said that in meetings with U.S. officials he had outlined the steps taken by the Armenian authorities “to address all the problems [and] difficulties raised after the elections,” and “the progress made in that direction.” He said he stressed Armenia’s determination to proceed along the democratic path, as that is the “choice of the [Armenian] people.”

High-level meetings

Between July 14 and 17, Mr. Nalbandian met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey (recently nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey). According to the governments of Armenia and the United States, the issues discussed included Armenia’s political and economic reforms, the Karabakh peace process, and relations with Turkey.

Shortly before Mr. Nalbandian’s visit, in a comment to a Turkish media outlet, a U.S. State Department official welcomed President Serge Sargsian’s offer to invite his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gül to Yerevan to watch an Armenia- Turkey soccer match scheduled for September 6, encouraging the Turkish leader to accept it.

But Foreign Minister Ali Babacan of Turkey reportedly said this week that Mr. Gul’s response will depend on “developments between the two countries ahead of the [Armenia-Turkey football] match.” (See story on p. 17.)

On July 15, Mr. Nalbandian also met with Ambassador John Danilovich, chief executive officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), to discuss the implementation of MCC’s five-year $235 million aid program in Armenia.

Citing the post-election crisis earlier this year, MCC had warned Armenia of possible suspension of the program unless “democratic momentum” is restored. It placed an informal “hold” on one of the projects – rural roads rehabilitation – last May, with other projects continuing at a normal pace.

On July 14, the Armenian government made public a decision it had made to finance the rural road project from the state budget, citing the need to begin construction work well before the onset of fall weather. A source closely familiar with the issue told the Armenian Reporter, “in an effort to keep the road construction on schedule, the MCC is prepared to accept [this] offer” by Armenia.

The MCC program has also been strained by continued devaluation of the U.S. dollar, diminishing the scope of work under the program.

As part of the visit, Mr. Nalbandian also addressed policy experts at a luncheon hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. (That presentation and discussion were off the record.)

He also met with Armenia’s congressional friends, including House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), and representatives of Armenian- American advocacy organizations.

New anti-smuggling agreement

Ms. Rice and Mr. Nalbandian also signed a formal agreement pledging to step up efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

According to a State Department fact sheet, the “Joint Action Plan between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Armenia on Combating Smuggling of Nuclear and Radioactive Materials” signed on July 14 seeks to increase Armenia’s capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond effectively to attempts to smuggle nuclear or radioactive materials that “could be acquired by terrorists or others who would use them to harm” the United States or its allies. The agreement builds on past nonproliferation cooperation between the United States and Armenia.

Armenia formally joined the Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative more than a year ago. The initiative was first launched by President George W. Bush and Russia’s then-president Vladimir Putin in June 2006; it has since been joined by 71 states worldwide (as of May 18, 2008), including most post-Soviet states and all neighbors of Iran – with the odd exception of Azerbaijan.

Armenian became the fifth country to sign a formal agreement with the United States. It was preceded by Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine; agreements with twenty more countries are anticipated.

—Yelena Osipova contributed reporting for this story.

Congress adopts foreign aid bill for 2009

First published in July 17, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Congressional panel sets Armenia aid guidelines
Rep. Knollenberg’s proposal to cut Azerbaijan aid fails
by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON – The House Foreign Operations Subcommittee voted on July 16 to approve $52 million in economic assistance to Armenia, $8 million for Nagorno-Karabakh, and $3 million each in military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The Bush Administration had requested $24 million for Armenia, nothing for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and $3.3 million in military aid to Armenia (as against $3.9 million in military aid to Azerbaijan). Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.- Mich.), a member of the subcommittee, offered an amendment that would strike out the Azerbaijani military aid allocation.

Citing Azerbaijan’s militaristic behavior, Mr. Knollenberg said in a statement that “it is completely unbelievable and unacceptable that there would be any U.S. funding of Azerbaijan’s military. The U.S. absolutely must not fund or support the Azeris’ bellicose behavior.”

The amendment was rejected by an 8 to 7 vote largely along partisan lines. A number of Armenia’s congressional friends voted against it.

According to sources familiar with the issue, the subcommittee does not normally accept amendments from the minority party at the mark-up stage. As Mr. Knollenberg
is a Republican, the Democrats on the committee blocked his amendment as a matter of procedure rather than on its merits.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.) was the only Democrat on the subcommittee to cross party lines and support Mr. Knollenberg’s amendment. That created a 7-7 tie, which was broken by the chair of the full Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D.-Wis.)

Earlier this year, Mr. Knollenberg and other congressional friends of Armenia circulated a letter urging subcommittee chair Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y.) and ranking member Frank Wolf (R.-Va.) to support zeroing out of military aid to Azerbaijan, $70 million in economic aid and $5 million in military aid to Armenia, and $10 million in aid to Nagorno-Karabakh.

“The subcommittee chairperson, Congresswoman Nita Lowey, has historically been a strong supporter of Armenia and Karabakh,” said Ross Vartian, executive director of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC). “We appreciate her leadership in providing $36 million more in assistance to Armenia and Karabakh than requested by the Bush Administration.

“But we disagree with the subcommittee’s inadequate response to Azerbaijan’s war preparation and threats. The Bush administration’s public criticism of Azerbaijan has had no effect on that country’s military expenditures or its repeated warnings of another war. The Knollenberg amendment to cut off U.S. military assistance to Azerbaijan is precisely what is needed beyond welcome, but ineffective U.S. rhetoric,” Mr. Vartian added.

According to congressional sources, the foreign operations appropriations bill will not be enacted by the House and Senate this year. As in some years past, funding for this and other stalled appropriations bills will be combined into an omnibus bill at prior-year funding levels. Congressional allocation of assistance to Armenia totaled $58.5 million in fiscal year 2008.

Briefly on Obama and Turkey, U.S. vs. Iran, U.S. backing of Georgia over Abkhazia

First published in July 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

Rep. Wexler: U.S.-Turkey ties to “blossom” under Obama presidency


Under the presidency of the Democratic party hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, American-Turkish relations will not only do well, but they will “blossom,” Rep. Robert Wexler (D.–Fla.), co-chair of the congressional Turkey Caucus and an Obama supporter predicted on July 14.

Mr. Wexler, who also chairs the House Subcommittee on Europe, made the claim at a presentation of his book, The Fire-Breathing Liberal, hosted by the Turkish Coalition of America, a lobbying group. (A review of the book’s chapter on Turkey will appear in September 13, 2008 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

Unlike his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Democratic presidential hopeful issued a detailed statement on the “importance of U.S.-Armenia relations.” In the January 19, 2008, statement, Mr. Obama pledged that “as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide,” while supporting a settlement of the Karabakh conflict “based upon America’s founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self-determination.”

Turkish leaders have expressed annoyance and anxiety over Mr. Obama’s statements, with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan angrily calling him an “amateur” last January.

On April 24, and again earlier this month, Mr. Obama reiterated his strong support for the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide while questioning the Bush Administration’s policy on the issue. (See his questions to Ambassador-Designate Yovanovitch elsewhere in this issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

That didn’t stop Mr. Wexler from stumping for both Mr. Obama and Turkey. “I don’t think there is any legitimate foreign policy voice in this country that would not agree that in order to remove 150,000 American troops responsibly from Iraq we are going to need to cooperate very closely with Turkey. And I know that Sen. Obama understands that,” Mr. Wexler argued, without claiming, however, that the need for cooperation would also force the potential president to renege on his strong and repeated pre-election pledges.

Asked by the Armenian Reporter why he chose not to highlight his role in opposing the Armenian Genocide resolution in the justpublished book, Mr. Wexler noted he represents a district with probably the largest number of Holocaust survivors.

“Issues relating to genocide of any type, alleged or not, have great sensitivity,” Mr. Wexler admitted, adding that one of his opponents an upcoming congressional election is a son of a Holocaust survivor and is very critical of Rep. Wexler’s position on the Genocide resolution.

U.S. seen to be softening approach on Iran

In what is seen as a reversal of the U.S. policy of refusing to negotiate with Iran, and despite another spike in a mutually acrimonious rhetoric over the past month, Undersecretary of State William Burns (the State Department’s number three) will join the European Union’s “foreign minister” Xavier Solana, as he meets Iran’s diplomats in Switzerland this weekend.

The development came just as Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported that the United States will soon establish a diplomatic presence in Iran.

The United States and the European Union are anticipating Iran’s response to their “incentives” offer in exchange for Iran stopping its nuclear program. Previously, the Bush administration refused to talk with Tehran before the Islamic Republic suspends its uranium enrichment program.

Iran argues that it is not bound by any treaty to halt enrichment and claims its program is peaceful.

The White House said that Mr. Burns’ trip is meant to demonstrate the West’s unity on the issue.

Nevertheless, Reuters quoted the White House spokesperson also saying that in case Iran rejects the incentives package, there will be no negotiations, and additional sanctions will be introduced against Iran.

Middle East tensions have been increasing since June, as Israel air forces held massive exercises described as a “mock raid” on Iran, and Iran responded with tests of medium and long-range missiles, which, it says, are capable of reaching Israel.

At the same time, a longtime supporter of revising U.S. policy, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R.-Neb.) and Congressional Democrats including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman (D.-Calif.) have called for unconditional U.S. talks with Iran. Mr. Hagel also argued for stationing U.S. diplomats in the U.S. interests section in Iran, a step short of a full-fledged embassy.

These developments came as Israel and Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah exchanged the bodies of two Israeli soldiers for five live Hezbollah prisoners – the first such swap ever. The two soldiers were killed and their bodies captured during a cross-border Hezbollah raid in 2006 which sparked a month-long Israeli war on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

U.S. weighs in for Georgia as explosions in Abkhazia claim lives

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia last week to reaffirm U.S. support, as its Caucasus ally appeared nearer to an open military confrontation with the de facto independent Abkhazia and its ally Russia.

Speaking in Tbilisi on July 10, Dr. Rice said it was “extremely important that the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia be resolved on the basis of principles that respect [Georgia’s] territorial integrity.” She also stressed the need for peaceful settlement of the conflicts, suggesting that “some of the activities that Russia has engaged in have not promoted a peaceful resolution.”

In recent months Russia has beefed up its military presence in Abkhazia from 2,000 to 2,500 and sent combat aircraft on patrols over both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which it no longer recognizes as Georgian territories. Russian aircraft reportedly flew near Tbilisi, as Ms. Rice arrived.

More recently, so-far-unidentified saboteurs set off a series of explosions throughout Abkhazia, killing four and wounding more than a dozen civilians last week.
Abkhaz officials accused the Georgian government of a “terrorist campaign” and for the first time in several years sealed the border with Georgia.

The developments have led a number of commentators in Georgia, Russia, Europe, and the United States to warn that tensions may spiral out of control and result in
a new war.

But two Abkhazia-based commentators contacted by the Armenian Reporter – Diana Kerselyan of the Sukhum Media Club and Akhra Smyr of the Independent Expert Fund – did not believe that the most recent escalation heralded an outright war.

Mr. Smyr hinted that the escalation was intended by Georgia “for media purposes” to once again draw international attention to the conflict, while Ms. Kerselyan pointed to Georgia’s reliance on the United States, which has argued repeatedly against a resumption of fighting that could also draw in Russia.

Georgia agreed to a Russian peacekeeping presence in its former Black Sea province of Abkhazia in 1993, after losing a war for its control launched a year before. In recent years, as Georgia strengthened its military under its pro-American president Mikhail Saakashvili, Tbilisi sought the removal of Russian forces and return of Abkhazia, and another former province it attacked in the early 1990s, South Ossetia, under its control. At the same time, Georgia has pushed for membership in NATO, to Moscow’s chagrin.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Azeris threaten Armenia with ballistic missiles, cluster munitions

First published in July 5, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Azerbaijan parades newly acquired military arsenal
Missiles shown put Yerevan within striking distance
News analysis by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– In an unusually candid display of military technology that combined Soviet-era grandeur with Azerbaijan’s increasingly Middle Eastern flair, President Ilham Aliyev showed off newly acquired missile systems and spy planes in a grand parade held in Baku last week.

In contrast to combat aircraft already known to have been in Azerbaijan’s possession, the new systems’ characteristics make them more difficult for the Armenian armed forces to deal with successfully.

New missile threat

According to television footage and photos available online, the June 26 parade included at least three of the late-Soviet-model SS-21 tactical surface-to-surface ballistic missiles known in the West as “Scarab” and in Russia as "Tochka."

Depending on specific modifications, SS-21s are capable of delivering payloads of 482 kilograms, which could be either conventional or containing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), to distances between 15 and 120 kilometers, landing with deadly accuracy of between several to 50 meters.

Armenia’s capital city, Yerevan, is located within 70 kilometers of Azerbaijani-controlled Nakhichevan and within 100 kilometers of the Kedabek district of Azerbaijan, bordering on Armenia’s Gegharkunik province, putting the city within SS-21 reach from both directions.

Under international agreements, Azerbaijan – along with other states – is required to report on any such military acquisitions. No such declarations were made through the the United Nations Register of Conventional Weapons as of August 2007, suggesting that the acquisition was either recent or made without notification.

According to a 2005 Carnegie Endowment study, “World Missile Chart,” following the Soviet collapse, SS-21 systems were inherited by Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Slovakia. (In the early- to mid-1980s, older variants had also been supplied to Syria and Yemen.)

Of these countries, Ukraine has been the most active supplier of weapons systems to Azerbaijan.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Azerbaijan, Boris Klimchuk, confirmed to Novosti-Azerbaijan that most of the equipment paraded on June 26 was supplied by Ukraine.

Also shown at the parade were at least six multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS) known in Russian as Smerch (see the March 27, 2007, issue of the Armenian Reporter for a story about their acquisition from Ukraine). That deadly system, with a range of over 70 kilometers, was paraded along with other smaller-caliber and shorter-range non-Soviet MLRS systems that appeared Israeli or Turkish in origin.

Israeli-made spy planes

Other systems whose acquisition had not been made public prior to the parade were two types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), both made by Israel’s Aeronautics Defense Systems (ADS).

UAVs have been prominent in the regional news lately after Georgia purchased about 40 Hermes-450 systems made by Israel’s Elbit Systems and several of them were reported shot down over Abkhazia since last spring. UAVs are relatively inexpensive systems capable of supplying round-the-clock battlefield reconnaissance while evading many of the traditional air defense systems.

Per video and photography from the Azerbaijani parade, the systems shown were not Elbit’s but ADS’ short-range Orbiter and midrange Aerostar UAVs.

According to www.IsraeliWeapons.com, Orbiter is a very light system that military personnel could transport in backpacks and assemble for launch within 10 minutes.

Operated remotely, it has a range of 15 kilometers, providing real-time intelligence to brigade or smaller-sized units.

First introduced in 2000, Aerostar is believed to be superior to the older Hermes-450. Aerostar, similar in appearance to popular Cessna aircraft, has an operational range of 200 kilometers, which can potentially put Armenia’s entire territory under surveillance.

Both the SS-21 and the other newly acquired missile systems and the UAVs provide a greater challenge than earlier systems did to the mostly ground-based Armenian air defenses. They may thus help tip the existing military balance and undermining the 14-year-old cease-fire.

Lukewarm international reaction

There has been no public Armenian or international reaction to systems shown in the militaristic display. Of major news outlets, only the Reuters news agency carried a report, pointing, as usual, to a potential disruption of 700,000 barrels a day in oil supplies should fighting resume.

Armenian Defense Ministry spokesperson Col. Seyran Shahsuvaryan was not impressed, telling PanArmenian.net on June 28 that his agency viewed the parade as a “festivity” organized for the local population and foreign guests.

Since 1998 Azerbaijan has marked June 26 as a day of its army because on that day in 1918, the Ottoman Turkish army divisions advancing into the Caucasus and led by Nuri Pasha (younger brother of Enver Pasha, the Ottoman war minister) were renamed “Azerbaijani national army.”

In all, according to the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry, the parade involved 25 combat aircraft (including several MiG-29s acquired in Ukraine), 19 helicopters, 31 navy vessels, and 210 units of ground equipment, including tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled and towed artillery, and air defense systems. Various special forces and cadets of ground, air, and naval military academies were among about 4,500 personnel taking part.

Writing for Novosti-Azerbaijan on June 27, Azerbaijani journalist and Karabakh war veteran Kamal Ali could not hide his excitement.

“Even a quick look at the military equipment shown in the June 26 parade assures one of the offensive nature of Azerbaijan’s war machine,” he wrote. “Nearly all of this equipment was created for an effective attacks and annihilation of a defending opponent.”

Certainly, the parade last week did send a message to Armenia and cannot be treated solely as a “festivity.”

Equipment shown and the manner of its acquisition should have real military and political repercussions both for Armenian armed forces and foreign policy.

Europeans give Armenia more time for reforms

First published in June 28, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

European body extends deadline for Armenia reforms
Gives Armenian president a boost
Maintains pressure for compliance
by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) gave Armenia an additional six months to implement the body’s recommendations originally made in April, RFE/RL and Arminfo reported from Strasbourg.

The move came in a new resolution unanimously passed by PACE over protests from the Armenian opposition. It was a significant boost to President Serge Sargsian’s administration.

The body that includes parliament members from 47 European countries previously threatened to suspend the Armenian delegation’s voting rights at PACE unless its recommendations were implemented before the current session.

Those recommendations included calls for the urgent release of individuals held for political reasons, restoration of the freedom of assembly, an independent investigation of the March 1 violence, as well as government-opposition dialogue and the opposition’s recognition of the presidential election results.

PACE’s co-rapporteurs on Armenia John Prescott (United Kingdom) and Georges Colombier (France) visited Yerevan last week and determined that progress made on PACE recommendations was “insufficient,” but decided that Armenia needed more time rather than censure.

“While regretting the delay in implementing the concrete measures to comply with the Assembly demands, the Monitoring Committee acknowledges that the time given to the Armenian authorities was short,” said the PACE Monitoring Committee report later endorsed by the full Assembly.

“It therefore proposes to the Assembly to review at its January 2009 part-session the extent of Armenia’s compliance with the requirements made in Resolution 1609.”

During the PACE debate, Mr. Prescott, a former deputy prime minister of Great Britain, argued that “Armenia is going in the right direction, and changes are being made,” but more time was needed.

The Armenian delegation to PACE, led by lawmaker and former Justice Minister David Harutiunian (of the ruling Republican party) was instrumental in securing removal from the text of the new resolution passages calling for granting a television frequency to an antigovernment news agency and release of several dozen opposition members currently charged under certain Criminal Code articles.

The new resolution also said that PACE “regrets that not all opposition forces have recognized the Constitutional Court’s decision, which confirmed the results of elections as announced by the Central Electoral Commission.”

In protest over these developments, former foreign minister Raffi Hovannisian, the sole opposition member of the Armenian delegation to PACE, stormed out of the session after declaring that he was revoking his own right to vote until Armenia meets Europe’s – and his own – standards.

Azerbaijan resolution includes anti-Armenia passages

Also in its summer session PACE passed a resolution on the “deteriorating” human rights situation in Azerbaijan. The resolution adopted on June 24 contained Baku-inspired passages that blamed the lack of democratic progress in the country to the unresolved nature of the Karabakh conflict.

The resolution also “takes note” of the United Nations’ nonbinding General Assembly resolution passed last March that endorsed Azerbaijan’s claims to Karabakh.

That resolution was opposed by the United States, France, and Russia as biased; nearly all European countries abstained from voting on it.

The Armenian delegation to PACE protested and tried unsuccessfully to prevent the inclusion of these and other anti-Armenian passages into a resolution ostensibly dealing with Azerbaijan’s domestic political problems.

In a commentary this week on the resolution, Kenan Aliyev and Khadija Ismaylova of the RFE/RL Azerbaijan Service complained that Council of Europe membership has done very little for democracy promotion in Azerbaijan and the country “is backsliding into authoritarianism.”

On several occasions since Azerbaijan joined the organization, PACE, citing issues with political prisoners, threatened to suspend Azerbaijan’s voting right, but never did.

Briefly: U.S. on Armenia-Turkey relations, NK talks and Armenia's politics; Senate on Ambassador to Armenia nominee

First published in the June 28, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan and Yelena Osipova

U.S. official: Pres. Sargsian brings new optimism to conflict resolution efforts


Armenian president Serge Sargsian stated intention to invite his Turkish counterpart to Armenia is “an amazing development that seemed impossible a few months ago,” U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said during the annual Turgut Ozal memorial lecture hosted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on June 24.

While on an official visit to Russia earlier this week, Pres. Sargsian said he would look for ways to improve relations with Turkey, including by inviting its President Abdullah Gül to watch the Armenia-Turkey World Cup qualification game in Yerevan this September.

Mr. Bryza reiterated the U.S. position urging Turkey to restore diplomatic relations and open its border with Armenia. But he also endorsed Turkey’s demand for Armenia to recognize the existing border between the two countries.

The official, who is also the lead U.S. envoy to the Karabakh peace process, said he hopes to set a framework for agreement over the conflict by the end of this year.

“It’s not all sweetness and light, but [after the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia met in Russia earlier this month], it seemed these are two leaders that think in a much more similar way than was the case with Sargsian’s predecessor [Robert Kocharian],” he said.

“Both leaders [of Armenia and Azerbaijan] now seem to be pragmatic, practical and ready to explore each side’s needs when it comes to Nagorno-Karabakh settlement,” the official claimed.

Mr. Bryza focused most of his remarks on the importance of U.S.-Turkish relations, from security to energy, while also pointing to his deep personal attachment to Turkey.

Turning to Turkey’s troubled domestic politics, Mr. Bryza recalled President George Bush’s 2005 inaugural address, in which he said that “democracy, by definition, [needs] to be different in every country depending on cultural and historical circumstances.”

“So, things will happen in Turkey that may not accord with the way we structure our democracy, but we are confident that the Turkish democratic system is strong enough to work this out,” he added.

State Department’s democracy bureau head tours Caucasus

David Kramer, appointed last month as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights, and labor, visited Armenia on June 24–25.

In meetings with Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian, other officials, opposition representatives and a subsequent press conference, Mr. Kramer repeated and seemingly sharpened U.S. criticism of the Armenian government’s handling of the post-election protests and calls for Armenia to “get back on a democratic path.”

In remarks akin to those made by Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) last week (see this page in the June 21 Armenian Reporter), Mr. Kramer appeared to question the credibility of the official probe into March 1 violence in Yerevan that left 10 dead and hundreds, many of them police, injured.

Prior to his current appointment, Mr. Kramer served on the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which Sen. Cardin co-chairs.

From Yerevan, Mr. Kramer proceeded to Tbilisi and Baku.

Senator delays consideration of nominee for Armenia Ambassador

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, requested a onemonth delay in the committee’s consideration of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s nomination as U.S. envoy to Armenia in order to ensure that there is sufficient time for the State Department to respond to senators’ written questions, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) reported on June 24.

The Senate committee held a formal hearing on the nomination on June 19, in which committee member Sen. Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.) pressed Ms. Yovanovitch on the Bush administration’s refusal to affirm the U.S. government’s own record on the Armenian Genocide.

The committee then scheduled a vote on the nomination for its June 24 business meeting, which Sen. Boxer’s request now delays to until after the July 4 recess.

In 2006 and again in 2007, Sen. Menendez blocked the previous nominee for the position, Amb. Richard Hoagland, after the administration cut short the ambassadorial term of John M. Evans over his public remarks affirming the Armenian Genocide.

While no senator has yet indicated an intention to block Amb. Yovanovitch’s nomination, Sens. Menendez and Boxer, as well as the committee chair, Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), Sens. Robert Casey (D.-Penn.), Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), John Kerry (D.-Mass.), and Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) submitted written questions to the nominee that have not yet been answered.

Turkish, Azerbaijani interests lobby House Committee over Caucasus hearing

In written statements earlier this month, the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) sought to influence House Foreign Affairs Committee members on matters related to Armenia ahead of its rare hearing on the Caucasus region held on June 18.

In a letter dated June 11 and containing numerous factual flaws, ATAA tried to deny the very fact that Turkey was blockading Armenia, even suggesting that the recent football game between Armenian and Turkish youth teams in an international competition was a “good example of the access Armenia enjoys to the west via Turkey” and that “to the extent permitted by Russian forces, Turkey facilitates transit trade between the west and Armenia.”

Still, ATAA went on to justify Turkey’s unease with Armenia with reference to “Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijan.”

Writing from presumably “occupied” Azerbaijan, the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, which is still formally led by the deceased president Heydar Aliyev, sent a letter protesting the views expressed during the hearing by “U.S. congressmen Mr Horwad Berman, Joe Clenberg, Brad Shermon, Adim Shiph and Frank Pellon,” the Trend News Agency reported on June 23.

Report notes link between petro-dollars, oppression

The 2008 Nations in Transit report, which studies the democratic development of the former Soviet and socialist states, noted a significant across-the-board regression in most of those states.

The report’s main co-authors Christopher Walker of Freedom House and Robert Orttung of the Jefferson Institute, spoke at the June 24 report launch hosted by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in Washington.

They expressed a particular concern with states having vast inflows of capital due to rapidly growing energy exports, such as Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, and not demonstrating improvements in terms of democratic governance. Mr. Orttung argued that while accumulated oil wealth did not cause the downturn in democracy, it is helping to entrench and sometimes deepen it.

The report’s Armenia chapter authored by Anna Walker of the Economist Intelligence Unit covered developments throughout 2007 and noted no major changes in that period other than relative improvements associated with the May 2007 Parliamentary elections.

Overall, Slovenia and Slovakia have received the best scores from the authors, with perennial outliers Belarus and Turkmenistan scoring the worst.

Connect: www.freedomhouse.org.

Senate considers nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Armenia

First published in the June 21, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Senate panel considers nominee to head Embassy in Armenia
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch treads Armenian Genocide issue carefully
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 19 considered the nomination of Marie Yovanovitch for the post of the U.S. ambassador to Armenia. The nomination is likely to be voted on by the committee later this summer. There was no immediate indication that the appointment would be blocked.

The Armenian government has made it clear that it wants the position, which has been vacant since September 2006, filled as soon as possible.

Ambassador Yovanovitch began her prepared remarks by addressing the subject of the Armenian Genocide: “The U.S. government – and certainly I – acknowledges and mourns the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a half million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire.”

The nominee went on to describe the events “as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the “‘Medz Yeghern’ or Great Calamity,” the Armenian-language reference
to the Genocide previously employed by President George W. Bush in April 2005 in yet another effort to avoid the term genocide that the Turkish government opposes.

She also acknowledged, “the administration understands that many Americans and many Armenians believe that the events of the past that I have referred to should be called ‘genocide.’” She then repeated the Bush administration’s justifications for not doing so, citing efforts to reconcile Armenia and Turkey.

Just two committee members, Senators Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) and Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.), were present as the testimony was delivered late on Thursday; other senators submitted statements for the record.

Pressed by Sen. Menendez, who repeatedly referred to U.S. documents from throughout the 20th century describing the Armenian Genocide, Amb.Yovanovitch said she could not deviate from administration’s policy and use the term.

Sen. Menendez described the administration’s position on the matter as “ridiculous,” while also expressing “great admiration” for the nominee and her “modest answers.”

Other committee members, including Senators Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) and Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) (see this week’s Washington Briefing on this page) issued written statements criticizing the administration’s policy on the Armenian Genocide.

In his statement, committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) suggested that the absence of a U.S. ambassador from Armenia has been “detrimental to both U.S. and Armenian interests.”

The Armenian government has expressed the wish to see a new ambassador to Armenia approved as soon as possible. The new nomination comes at a difficult period in U.S.-Armenia relations stemming from U.S. criticism of the Armenian government’s handling of the February 2008 presidential election and its aftermath.

Ambassador Yovanovitch was introduced by former Senate majority leader and longtime Armenian-American ally Robert Dole, who substantiated the need for a U.S. Ambassador in Yerevan by citing “very serious problems” in a “politically weak” Armenia.

Sen. Cardin, also a supporter of Armenian-American issues, used the opportunity to question the credibility of the Armenian government’s description of the March 1 violence and asked whether the United States continued to press for an independent inquiry. (Sen. Cardin, who is co-chair of the bicameral Helsinki Commission, also criticized the government at that commission’s hearing on Armenia held in April.)

While calling the post-election situation “disturbing” in her written testimony, Ambassador Yovanovitch acknowledged the recent establishment of a parliamentary commission to examine the clashes between police and demonstrators.

In her testimony, she noted that the United States seeks “to help the Armenian government and the Armenian people restore democratic momentum” and that “it is up to the Armenian government to take the necessary steps, so that the [Millennium Challenge] Compact program could continue.” (See a story on the program on page 4.)

Citing Armenia’s economic progress and security cooperation with the United States and NATO, she described U.S.-Armenia relations as “broad and deep” and pledged to strengthen the bilateral “partnership” if approved as ambassador.

The post of the U.S. ambassador to Armenia has been vacant since September 10, 2006, when the State Department recalled Ambassador John Evans ahead of time because he used the term Genocide in public remarks in the United States in 2005.

The president nominated Ambassador Richard Hoagland to replace Mr. Evans. Mr. Hoagland’s responses to the Senate committee were construed as a denial of the veracity of the Armenian Genocide, and committee approval was uncertain. After Mr. Hoagland revised his answers in writing, the committee approved his candidacy.

However, it never came to a vote in the full Senate because Sen. Menendez used a Senate procedure under which he was able place a “hold” on the matter coming to a vote. The president renominated Mr. Hoagland in 2007, but Sen. Menendez continued to block a vote. The president finally withdrew the nomination.

In the meantime, the U.S. mission in Armenia has been led by chargés d’affaires. The first was Deputy Chief of Mission Anthony Godfrey; at the expiration of his term, retired Ambassador Rudolph Perina was sent to Armenia for some three months as chargé. The post is now held by Deputy Chief of Mission Joseph Pennington.

Ambassador Yovanovitch is a 22-year veteran of the Foreign Service who just concluded a three-year assignment as U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. Prior to that appointment, from August 2004 to May 2005, Ms. Yovanovitch was senior advisor to the then-Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman.

From August 2001 to June 2004, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. From May 1998 to May 2000, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy director of the State Department’s Russia Desk; she had been posted with embassies in Canada, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Somalia.

Her educational background includes a B.A. in history and Russian studies from Princeton University in 1980 and a master’s 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.

Briefly: Obama on Genocide; U.S. on Central Asia oil and nuclear energy coop. with Russia; Turkish MIC

First published in June 21, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

Obama reiterates support for Genocide affirmation


“I share your view that the United States must recognize the events of 1915 to 1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as genocide,” Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said in a June 16 letter to Kenneth Hachikian, chairperson of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), the organization reported the next day.

Sen. Obama issued a similar statement on April 24 saying that “it is imperative that we recognize the horrific acts carried out against the Armenian people as genocide.”

And in a January 19 statement “On the Importance of U.S.-Armenia Relations” Sen. Obama pledged that, if elected president, he would recognize the U.S. record on Armenian Genocide, support Armenia’s development, and work to achieve “a lasting and durable settlement” in Karabakh “that is agreeable to all parties, and based upon America’s founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination.”

The latest communication from Sen. Obama came in response to the ANCA’s letter listing Armenian-American concerns ahead of the June 19 Senate confirmation hearing for the Bush administration’s nominee for ambassador to Armenia (see coverage elsewhere in this issue).

“The Bush Administration’s refusal to [recognize the Genocide] is inexcusable, and I will continue to speak out in an effort to move the Administration to change its position,” Sen. Obama wrote in his letter.

Meanwhile, the Turkish media, including the Turkish Daily News on June 6, have reported on Turkey’s efforts to foster relations with Sen. Obama’s campaign team in part to change his position on Armenian issues.

Speaking at the Claremont Graduate University on June 10, Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles Hakan Tekin noted “that the last three presidents of the United States, they also had similar statements during the elections,” but did not deliver on their pledges when elected, Peter Musurlian of Globalist Films reported via www.youtube.com on June 16.

At the same time, Mr. Tekin suggested that Turkish public may already favor Sen. Obama over his Republican candidate Sen. John McCain who has consistently refused to promise to change the U.S. policy on the Armenian Genocide.

Senate Committee urges U.S. to keep focus on Central Asia energy

Sen. Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) reiterated his concerns over Russian influence on energy supplies to Europe in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on June 12. Sen. Lugar, who serves as the committee’s ranking member (most senior Republican), touted Azerbaijan as an example to Central Asian states.

“Central Asian nations need only look across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan to gain a sense of the political benefits of maintaining a second option for oil and gas exports,” he said in his opening speech in reference to the pipelines now linking Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey and thus bypassing Russia.

The United States has since sought to link up oil from Kazakhstan and gas from Turkmenistan across the Caspian to Azerbaijan to be then transported to Turkey and Europe.

Sen. Lugar also urged the trans-Atlantic community not to take “progress in Georgia and Azerbaijan for granted” and continue to bolster ties with them. He welcomed the recent appointment of the U.S. envoy to the European Union to also serve as envoy on Caspian energy; both he and Committee chair Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) have insisted on that since last year.

“Ambassador C. Boyden Gray’s appointment lends significant weight to this initiative by virtue of his close relationship with President Bush,” Sen. Lugar said.

Mr. Gray, as well as the State Department’s two deputy assistant secretaries Steve Mann and Matt Bryza, visited Baku earlier this month to discuss energy cooperation, Trend news agency reported on June 3.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a senior advisor in Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and national security advisor in Carter Administration, shared many of Sen. Lugar’s concerns about Russia.

“We should be more active in negotiating particularly with those non-Russian suppliers who in the long run want to be accessible for the world, but in the short run are squeezed [by Russia],” he said, adding however that “long-term interdependence between the West and Russia” can have a mutually beneficial effect.

U.S.-Russia nuclear energy deal discussed in Congress

Democrats in Congress have questioned the administration’s trust in Russia and its willingness to set the U.S.-Russia Civil Nuclear Agreement into force. President George W. Bush submitted the agreement to Congress on May 13 for review.

The deal is part of U.S. efforts to win international support for U.S.- championed sanctions against Iran while facilitating U.S. companies in their efforts to secure new nuclear power plant construction contracts internationally. A similar deal on nuclear energy with Turkey came into force on June 2 following congressional approval earlier this year. (See this page in the February 9, 2008 Armenian Reporter.)

At the June 12 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, concerns focused on Russia’s unwillingness to back the United States in imposing harsher sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

President Bush made the issue of Iran sanctions the focus of his tour of Europe that ended this week.

“We want to hear whether, [the Russia-Iran nuclear weapons-related] cooperation has ceased – and what assurances, if any, Moscow has given our government,” committee chair Howard Berman (D.-Calif.) asked Acting Undersecretary of State John Rood.

Mr. Rood responded that assurances received were sufficient to “mitigate” U.S. concerns and that this agreement would establish a legal basis for a mutually beneficial nuclear cooperation internationally.

“In [certain areas] Russia possesses experience and facilities not widely available in the U.S.,” he said.

Having Russia as the supplier of Iranian nuclear fuel will decrease the likelihood of Iran enriching its own uranium, Mr. Rood told the hearing. He added he has serious suspicions about Iran himself, but said the United States needs Russian cooperation to promote global non-proliferation.

Meantime, Rep. Edward Markey (D.-Mass.) disapproved of President Bush’s recent promise to also send nuclear equipment to Saudi Arabia.

“This is a very dangerous policy and you have to have high standards [for countries you deal with] if you don’t want to see [a spread of nuclear weapons in the] Middle
East,” he said.

Turkey seeks selfsufficiency in weapons production

Turkey is working to achieve selfsufficiency in arms and aspires to become a global arms supplier, according to a study made public at Washington’s Jamestown Foundation on June 17.

The study’s author, Dr. Andrew McGregor said that Turkey’s annual arms exports would reach $1.5 billion in the next three years and that the country is aggressively seeking to increase its market share. The author noted frequent disputes between Turkey and its traditional weapons supplier – the United States – as one important motive for boosting domestic production.

Turkey is also modernizing its own armed forces, which is already one of the world’s largest, to better address asymmetric threats posed by Kurdish insurgents, and “enable Turkey to remain a regional power capable of independent action outside its borders if it feels its national integrity is threatened,” said Mr. McGregor.

See http://www.jamestown.org for the full report.

Millennium Challenge Corp. discusses Armenia Compact

First published in June 21, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Millennium Challenge Corp. watching Armenia developments
$235 million in aid over five years at stake
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– The Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is taking an active interest in the political situation in Armenia and discussed it at its meeting on June 17, MCC Chief Executive Officer Ambassador John Danilovich said at the public outreach briefing the same day.

There was concern ahead of the meeting that the MCC board may suspend or cancel its $235 million five-year assistance program in Armenia.

The terms of MCC grants require recipient countries to maintain standards of ruling justly, investing in people, and maintaining economic freedom.

While no decision was taken on the suspension of MCC-funded programs in Armenia, Mr. Danilovich indicated that the board has been “encouraged” by Armenia’s most recent steps and will continue to watch developments to see whether Armenia remains eligible for aid.

Mr. Danilovich said he communicated the MCC’s concerns to the government of Armenia following the March board meeting in a warning letter to then-President Robert Kocharian and more recently through communications with President Serge Sargsian.

The messages sent to the Armenian government are part of an MCC policy process that governs potential suspension or termination of assistance. Mr. Danilovich said that the board wanted to make it clear to President Sargsian that Armenia now has the opportunity “to make the reforms that are necessary with regards to the rights to public assembly, the creation of an ad hoc bipartisan commission to investigate the election, to take certain action with regard to political prisoners and to continue in other areas of reform to take Armenia on the path of democracy.”

Similar recommendations to Armenia were made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in April.

Mr. Danilovich welcomed the reforms already enacted and signed into law over the past several weeks. The “MCC board is expecting that the Armenian government will continue to make the appropriate reforms so that our cooperation on the poverty-reduction programs can continue as fruitfully as it has [so far],” Mr. Danilovich added.

MCC board member and International Republican Institute (IRI) president Lorne Craner said the reform efforts are “a measure of importance that the Armenian government attaches to MCC.” He said the board will continue to closely monitor the process and the other ways in which the Armenian government will improve on democracy and human rights.

“I am confident that at least at the next few meetings we are going to get reports on how Armenia is doing in respect to these issues,” he said. Mr. Craner stressed, however, that board meetings are not required for the MCC to take action on the Armenia compact, should events warrant a more immediate response.

Compact moves forward despite “hold” on one project

Mr. Danilovich said that the program’s implementation in Armenia is continuing and that the MCC is “very pleased” with many parts of it.

However, when asked by the Armenian Reporter, Mr. Danilovich confirmed that about a month ago the corporation had put on hold the commencement of negotiations on a package of road projects in order to send a clear message to the Armenian government about its concerns.

“We are considering our position on that as we go forward and we will be making some decisions on that regard in the coming weeks,” Mr. Danilovich added.

Although on March 12 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a congressional hearing that the 20-day state of emergency in Yerevan declared on March 1 had “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs, other officials denied that any “suspension” occurred.

In a March 20 interview with the Armenian Reporter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said that any MCC suspension decisions would be based on a “subjective judgment” on whether a country has made “large amount of backtracking” from democratic standards.

Economic performance and MCC eligibility

In addition to such subjective criteria, Armenia’s annual eligibility for the MCC program is determined based on its democracy, economic freedoms, and social spending ratings when compared against countries in similar economic condition.

Because of Armenia’s improved economic performance, it has graduated from the lower-income to the lower-middle income category. As a result, starting this year its indicators are judged relative to less poor countries.

Asked by the Armenian Reporter whether this would have an impact on Armenia’s eligibility, Mr. Craner responded in the negative.

“This is not the issue in Armenia,” Mr. Craner said. “The issue in Armenia is [about] the election” and its aftermath.

Mr. Danilovich said the MCC has a certain level of “fluidity” about the indicators, as the corporation recognizes that they are not perfect: the indicators may suffer from a time-lag or inaccurate information.

However, he said, the MCC has a special Policy Improvement Program to find out ways to target various aspects of institutional functioning and improve that performance
on an annual basis, in case a country has “started to slip” in its indicative performance, which initially had allowed it to join the MCC.

Inside-the-beltway struggle underway for MCC funds

The board meeting came at a difficult time for the four-year-old corporation. Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) offered an amendment last month seeking to strip the MCC of more than half a billion dollars in unspent funds in Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009, to be used for humanitarian aid around the world. (See the May 24 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

According to a June 16 posting on the Center for Global Development’s blog, “the rumor has it that the original $525 million rescission of FY08 funding to the MCC [proposed by Sen. Gregg] has been reduced in conference [to reconcile Senate and House versions of the spending bill] to around $60 million.”

Mr. Danilovich argued that the effort to rescind the funds arose in part from a misunderstanding of the way MCC operates. It takes time to determine eligibility and carry out negotiations with eligible states, and multiyear contracts require committed funds upfront.

“The notion that we are sitting on money is wrong,” he said, adding that programs that have been launched are already bringing benefits to farmers from Honduras to Armenia.

Further, Mr. Danilovich said that the campaigns of presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama have both pledged to support the program. The MCC was initiated by President George W. Bush at a time when conventional foreign aid programs, administered through U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), have been cut.

Mr. Danilovich said he expects the corporation’s total financial disbursements in the field to rise from $500 million currently to close to $1 billion before the end of 2008. At its June 17 meeting, the MCC board approved a fiveyear $480 million compact with Burkino Faso, the seventeenth country worldwide slated to receive MCC funds.

connect: http://mcc.gov/countries/armenia

Dan Fried talks U.S.' Caucasus policy

First published in June 21, 2008 Armenian Reporter

State Department, Congressional panel discuss U.S. policy in Armenia and its neighborhood
Armenian Genocide, Turkish blockade, Karabakh are focus of hearing
by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON
– The members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives and the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Dan Fried on June 18 held a rare public discussion of U.S. policies in the Caucasus region.

The hearing, titled “Caucasus: Frozen Conflicts and Closed Borders,” was an opportunity for lawmakers to express their discontent with the Bush administration’s policy on the Armenian Genocide, lack of action on the Turkish blockade of Armenia, and threats by Azerbaijan to go to war over Karabakh.

The administration in turn used the opportunity to reiterate its concerns about Russia, Iran, and recent domestic developments in Armenia and, to a lesser extent, Azerbaijan.

The hearing was called by the committee chair Howard Berman (D.-Calif.), a member of the Armenian Caucus, just weeks after Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.) introduced a legislative measure titled “End the Turkish Blockade of Armenia Act” that, if passed, would require the Secretary of State to report on steps taken by the United States to end Turkey’s blockade of Armenia.

The legislation, introduced on May 15, came as efforts to secure House adoption of the Armenian Genocide resolution, passed in the Foreign Affairs Committee last October, appear to have stalled in the face of unprecedented opposition from the Bush administration.

On the Armenian Genocide

Rep. Schiff, as well as Reps. Jim Costa (D.-Calif.), Ed Royce (R.-Calif.), Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.) and Diane Watson (D.-Calif.), also used the opportunity to grill Assistant Secretary Dan Fried on the administration’s opposition to Genocide affirmation. There were heated exchanges.

Like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last year, Mr. Fried avoided giving a yes-or-no answer when pressed on whether he thought the Armenian experience in the Ottoman Empire should be described as genocide. Instead he argued that congressional recognition “would not contribute” to the cause of improved relations between Armenia and Turkey.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) was the lone committee member to express support for this position of the administration, saying that it was not up to Congress to “bestow” terms on the “awful thing” that happened to Armenians.

Secretary Fried did acknowledge that the record on “mass killings” and “forced exile” of Armenians was “very clear” and that the administration “never denied these events” and that the president continues to mark them annually in a statement.

He went on to say: “I’ve made it clear to everyone in the European Bureau that they are welcome to present any alternative views on this or any other issue in-house, and I’ve made clear that such views will be heard and respected.”

On Turkey’s blockade

Mr. Berman began the hearing by noting that Turkey’s closure of its land border was “quite possibly illegal,” citing Ankara’s obligations under the Treaty of Kars and regulations of the World Trade Organization, of which both Turkey and Armenia are members.

“It’s baffling why Ankara would want to pursue this land blockade, which also harms the economy of eastern Turkey [and] seems manifestly contrary to the strategic interests of Turkey, which purports to be a solid member of the Western alliance,” Mr. Berman argued.

“The land blockade has done absolutely nothing to persuade Armenia to alter its policies on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue – the ostensible cause of the land blockade in the first place. Nor is there any prospect that it will do so,” Mr. Berman continued.

“Armenia has demonstrated its resolve to support the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey is more likely to win influence with the Armenian government if it pursues a policy of good-neighborliness than if it slams the border closed,” he said.

In response, Mr. Fried pointed to direct air links between Armenia and Turkey and trade conducted through Georgia, also frequently cited by officials from Ankara as evidence that Turkey was not quite blockading Armenia. He said that the United States would certainly welcome an opening of the land border as well and that such an opening should not be linked to the Karabakh peace process.

But when pressed by Reps. Costa, Royce, and Schiff, Mr. Fried did not reveal any steps to achieve the border opening beyond raising the issue.

Meantime, Turkish Caucus co-chair Rep. Robert Wexler (D.- Fla.) said that he remained “hopeful” that Armenia and Turkey will find ways to improve relations, pointing to the recent exchange of messages between the two governments.

Mr. Fried said he agreed that the exchange was “promising” and even suggesting that such an improvement could come “quickly.” But in his testimony he acknowledged that reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey will require steps that “will not be easy.”

“Turkey needs to come to terms with a dark chapter in its history: the mass killings and forced exile of up to 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire,” he said. “For its part, Armenia must be ready to acknowledge the existing border and disavow any claim on the territory of modern Turkey, and respond constructively to any efforts Turkey may make.”

On Karabakh

Mr. Berman, Mr. Royce, Mr. Sherman, as well as the Armenian Caucus co-chairs Reps. Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) and Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.), who although not committee members took part in the hearing, also expressed concerns over Azerbaijan’s posturing in the Karabakh conflict.

Mr. Berman suggested that as in the Middle East, U.S. policy should not be solely focused on achieving a peace agreement but that the United States should also reduce tensions by promoting mutually beneficial projects between parties to the conflict.

Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Royce referred to increases in Azerbaijan’s military spending and quoted statements of its president, Ilham Aliyev, about his readiness to go to war; they wondered what United States was doing about that.

Mr. Fried, while describing Azerbaijan’s “bellicose” rhetoric as “unhelpful,” disagreed that it intended to go to war, pointing to the recent meeting between Mr. Aliyev and President Serge Sargsian of Armenia.

“We’ve also explained to them, frankly, that Azerbaijan’s wealth comes from the export of gas and oil, and that a war puts that at risk very quickly,” Mr. Fried said. He added, “it is also the judgment of the United States that Azerbaijan does not have a military superiority over Armenia and that a war would be costly to both sides and unwinnable by either one.”

Also expressing “concern about Azerbaijan attacking Armenia because of a territorial dispute” was longtime Turkey and Azerbaijan supporter Rep. Dan Burton (R.- Ind.). Pointing to a need for energy independence, he also stressed the importance of minimizing prospect for conflicts in energy-rich areas, such as the Caucasus.

Rep. Bill Shuster (R.-Penn.), co-chair of the recently established Azerbaijan caucus, who was also invited to the committee hearing, noted Azerbaijan’s cooperation with the United States on energy and security issues and wondered whether Congress should accede to the “Muslim ally’s” requests and fully repeal restrictions on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan, known as Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

Secretary Fried responded that existing conditional waiver authority, approved by Congress in 2001, provides sufficient opportunities for the United States to conduct relations with Azerbaijan.

Mr. Pallone and Mr. Sherman argued that the United States should move to expand relations with the Nagorno-Karabakh republic and recognize its people’s right to selfdetermination.

“We supported the independence of Kosovo, and we ought to take some of the same attitudes and apply them to the NK conflict,” said Mr. Sherman, while Rep. Pallone suggested “de facto” recognition of Karabakh’s independence and lifting of existing restrictions on U.S. engagement with Karabakh.

Other concerns

Secretary Fried referred during the hearing to the continued tensions between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway region of Abkhazia, suggesting that “unremitting and dangerous pressure from Russia” on U.S.-supported Georgia “risk[s] igniting a wider conflict.”

Mr. Fried also touched on U.S. efforts to undermine Russia’s dominance of Eurasian energy markets by facilitating energy development in Azerbaijan and Central Asia.

Concerns about Russia’s as well as Iran’s policies were also expressed by Reps. Gene Green (D.-Tex.), Ted Poe (R.-Tex.), David Scott (D.-Ga.), and others.

Mr. Berman, the committee chair, specifically asked Mr. Fried whether any of the Caucasus countries supplied Iran with uranium, saying a rumor to that effect was going around.

Mr. Fried said he was unaware of any such supplies, but would check further.

Finally, Rep. Joe Wilson (R.-S.C.) asked whether Islamic radicals from Al Qaida had infiltrated any part of the Caucasus. Secretary Fried responded that such efforts had been made in Russia’s North Caucasus and Azerbaijan, but not in Georgia or Armenia.

—Yelena Osipova contributed to this story.

Briefly: Senate to consider Ambassadors for Armenia, Turkey; U.S.' 1951 doc. on Armenian Genocide

First published in June 14, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Senate Committee to consider nominee for Ambassador to Armenia…


The Bush Administration’s nominee for the next U.S. ambassador to Armenia, Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, will meet members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a formal hearing on June 19. The committee’s approval and that of the full Senate is necessary for ambassadorial appointments.

The post of the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia has remained vacant since the controversial recall in September 1996 of Ambassador John Evans after his remarks on the Armenian Genocide angered the Turkish government. The recall, in turn, angered the Armenian community.

Nominated to replace Mr. Evans in 2006, Ambassador Richard Hoagland found his candidacy blocked by Sen. John Menendez (D.-N.J.) following Mr. Hoagland’s remarks in the process of his nomination hearings questioning the veracity of the Genocide.

In a congressional commemoration on April 24, Sen. Menendez promised to “ask the same questions of the new nominee and would not hesitate to place a hold” on her candidacy if he was dissatisfied with her responses.

The new nomination comes at a difficult period in U.S.-Armenian relations stemming from U.S. criticism of the Armenian government’s handling of the February 2008 election and its aftermath.

Senior Armenian officials have said that they would like to see the new U.S. ambassador approved as soon as possible. In a commentary published in the Armenian Reporter on May 24, 2008, Armenia’s ambassador to the United States, Tatoul Markarian, reiterated the “hope that the nominee will be confirmed successfully and arrive in Armenia shortly.”

The nominee is a 22-year veteran of the Foreign Service who just concluded a three year assignment as U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. Ms. Yovanovitch’s service 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 that appointment, from August 2004 to May 2005 Ms. Yovanovitch was senior advisor to the then–Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman.

From August 2001 to June 2004, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. Her term there coincided with souring of U.S. relations with the then–President Leonid Kuchma, particularly over allegations of Ukrainian arms sales to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

From May 1998 to May 2000, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy director of the State Department’s Russia Desk and had been posted with embassies in Canada, Russia, United Kingdom, and Somalia.

Her educational background includes a bachelor’s degree in history and Russian studies from Princeton University in 1980 and a master’s 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.

…and to Turkey

On June 5, President Bush nominated one his aides for national security affairs, James Jeffrey, to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey. The Turkish Daily News first reported the intention to nominate Mr. Jeffrey last November.

A former Army officer and diplomat, Mr. Jeffrey is fluent in Turkish, having served in the country on three occasions in the past. He was deputy chief of mission at the Embassy in Turkey between 1999 and 2002 under ambassadors Mark Parris and Robert Pearson; and previously served at the Embassy in Ankara between 1985 and 1987 and earlier at the U.S. Consulate in Adana.

Before becoming President Bush’s assistant and deputy national security advisor last August, Mr. Jeffrey was a principal deputy assistant secretary of state for the Near East, heading the Iran Policy Team since 2006. From 2004 to 2006, he was one of the senior coordinators of the U.S. Iraq policy.

Report: U.S. recognized Armenian Genocide in 1951

According to a 1951 U.S. document recently discovered and made public by an Irish researcher, the U.S. government had at the time no qualms about using the term genocide shortly after it was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe the Armenian experience in the early 20th century Ottoman Empire.

On June 4, Professor William Schabas of the Irish Center for Human Rights blogged about stumbling upon a statement filed by the U.S. government at the International Court of Justice, in 1951. It said in part “The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

The blog entry was further made public by the Armenian Assembly of America on June 6. The document is available online http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/12/11767.pdf

Armenia democracy activists visit Europe, U.S.

A delegation of three representatives of the Armenian nongovernmental sector was in Washington on June 10–11 as a part of tour that also included stops in Strasbourg and Brussels. The aim was raising awareness of challenges to democracy in Armenia.

Larisa Minasyan of the Open Society Institute (OSI)’s Armenia affiliate told the Armenian Reporter in a conversation on June 11 that they are on a mission to provide full and complete information from the viewpoint of the Armenian public and share their assessment of the post-election situation with their foreign colleagues and European and U.S. officials.

Amalia Kostanyan of Transparency International Armenia, suggested “at least half” of the foreign aid to Armenia is ineffective, as “it did not save the country from a deep crisis” following the February election. She commended the Armenian government’s willingness to resolve the ensuing problems, adding, however, that current actions are inadequate and will not yield the intended results.

Ms. Kostanyan said that they were advocating for a comprehensive fulfillment of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)’s resolution on Armenia passed in April.

President of the Gyumri-based Asparez Journalists’ Club Levon Barseghyan said that “democracy is a resource for better life [and …] a system for national security” and should be a shared concerned for Armenians in homeland and diaspora.

He said Armenia was not successful in achieving this goal since independence, and called on the diaspora to have a more active role in this process.

U.S. diplomat to discuss Armenia, Caucasus in House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing

The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee will on June 18 hear the testimony of the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried titled “The Caucasus: Frozen Conflicts and Closed Borders.”

The testimony is expected to focus on U.S. efforts to address the Karabakh conflict and resolve outstanding issues between Armenia and Turkey. The committee’s Subcommittee for Europe previously held a hearing focusing on the region in October 2001.

—Yelena Osipova contributed to this week’s briefing.

NKR gathers experts for conference

First published in the June 14, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Karabakh gathers experts for conference
Hears views, ideas and proposals
by Emil Sanamyan

STEPANAKERT
– Retired senior diplomats, sitting and former parliamentarians and experts from Yerevan, Moscow and European countries arrived in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) between May 23 and 24 on invitation from its National Assembly to take part in a conference dedicated to the Armenian republic’s pressing challenges.

Ashot Ghoulian, the NKR’s Parliament Speaker since 2005 and earlier its Foreign Minister (2002-4), led the organizational efforts for the conference. Mr. Ghoulian told the Armenian Reporter that the idea for the conference was born as part of the government commission planning to mark the 20th anniversary of the Karabakh movement being marked this year.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Ghoulian said that the conference sought to address and de-construct stereotypes that have emerged around the conflict that have to do with its legal framework and the conflict’s external perceptions.

Asked by the Reporter if NKR sought to invite Azerbaijani participants, Mr. Ghoulian said that such participation would have been welcome, but unfortunately impossible because of the Azerbaijani government’s attitude towards visits by its citizens to NKR.

(Editor’s note: While a high-profile Azerbaijani delegation did visit Karabakh in June 2007 (see the Armenian Reporter for June 30 and July 14, 2007), no further exchanges followed. Previous unofficial visitors have been condemned and one, journalist Eynullah Fatullayev who visited in 2005, has since been imprisoned on charges stemming from the visit).

Oskanian touts Madrid principles and warns of looming challenges

Vartan Oskanian, who just completed a decade at the helm of Armenia’s Foreign Ministry and served since 1994 as a lead member of Armenia’s negotiating team in the Karabakh peace process, spoke of the most recent developments in the negotiations process.

“The document on the table today is the best there has been,” Mr. Oskanian said in reference to the general principles of settlement based on talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 2004 (the socalled “Prague process”) and summarized by French, Russian and U.S. mediators before the OSCE Ministerial meeting in the Spanish capital last November (and, hence, known as the “Madrid principles”).

“It plainly spells out Nagorno-Karabakh’s right to self-determination,” the former foreign minister stressed of the draft document that has been criticized both in Azerbaijan and Armenia.

According to earlier media reports the Madrid principles call for providing Karabakh with an interim status before its final status is determined through a new referendum; in the meantime, Armenian troops would have to pull out from most of the areas that formerly comprised Azeri-populated districts located outside Karabakh’s Soviet-era administrative borders.

Any territorial compromises, particularly prior to finalizing the nature of Karabakh’s relations with Azerbaijan, are strongly opposed in Karabakh and elsewhere in Armenia.

According to town hall research conducted by the International Center for Human Development in Karabakh last year, majority of local residents would prefer the existing territorial configuration even to immediate international recognition. (See the Mediamax news agency analysis published in the Armenian Reporter on June 2, 2007.)

Mr. Oskanian went on to outline developments that are likely to add to Armenians’ challenges: the recognition of Kosovo and subsequent backlash, in Mr. Oskanian’s view, will lead to renewed anxiety of the international community towards self-determination; deepening of differences between the U.S. and Russia will have a negative impact on Armenia; as will the post-election crisis in Yerevan.

Kazimirov urges campaign to prevent a new war

Vladimir Kazimirov, the retired Russian Ambassador who was instrumental in securing the Karabakh cease-fire agreement in May 1994, suggested that the mediators’ focus today should be neither the Karabakh’s future status nor any kind of territorial rearrangements, but preservation of the cease-fire.

“Prevention of new fighting and strengthening of the cease-fire must be the highest priority and an overarching imperative” of the peace process, Amb. Kazimirov
stressed, arguing that the threat of war itself prevents any political settlement and is not sufficiently appreciated by mediators.

Mr. Kazimirov called on Armenian leaders, as well as the mediators, to launch a sustained diplomatic campaign for strengthening of the existing cease-fire. Had such campaign been underway, Mr. Kazimirov said, Azerbaijan would have greater difficulty in securing adoption of documents such as the UN General Assembly resolution last March.

Azerbaijan may be seriously considering “shaking things up” militarily on a smaller-scale to then launch a political offensive and try to shift the approaches of settlement in its favor, Mr. Kazimirov said.

But, according to the 78-year-old diplomatic veteran, far from achieving any
breakthroughs a new bout of violence in addition to causing bloodshed would only serve to solidify uncompromising attitudes on both sides further diminishing the likelihood of a final peace agreement.

Mr. Kazimirov again reminded of the February 1995 agreement on dealing with cease- fire violations along the Line of Contact that has been largely forgotten by the mediators and ignored by the parties, setting a bad precedent for any future agreements between the parties.

Rights, perceptions and information wars

With two incomplete days of conferencing and 30 presentations, participants broke up into three thematic groups focusing, respectively, on:

1. Karabakh’s self-determination in international law (with discussion led by Gen. Hayk Kotanjian of the Armenian Defense Ministry’s Institute for Strategic Studies and Prof. Aleksandr Manasian of the Yerevan State University);

2. Foreign perceptions of the conflict (with Prof. Suren Zolian of Yerevan’s Bryusov University and former Armenian Parliament member Shavarsh Kocharian moderating); and

3. Information challenges, or in other words propaganda campaigns having to do with the conflict (moderated by NKR National Assembly member Vahram Atanesian and advisor to NKR Foreign Ministry Arsen Melik-Shakhnazarov).

Most conference proceedings are available in the Russian language at http://www.defacto.am/pages/konferens.html .

Conference participants also had an opportunity to meet the NKR President Bako Sahakian, visit the Defense Army armored forces training center, and the Gandzasar monastery.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Karabakh status quo - how much longer?

First published in June 7, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Can Armenia and Azerbaijan sustain the status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh?
News analysis by Emil Sanamyan

STEPANAKERT
– On June 6, Serge Sargsian and Ilham Aliyev will have held their first presidential meeting. While seen as a mere formality, the rendezvous sets up yet another fork in the road in the 20-year history of the Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation.

By now there are few expectations of a negotiated peace deal or even agreement on basic principles for such an agreement. The sides are rigidly dug into their mutually exclusive positions. One side wants to retain Karabakh and formalize its reunification with Armenia. The other is seeking to restore its Soviet-era borders and heal its hurt pride.

While the conflict had violently escalated for the first six years (1988-94) it has been largely conserved for the last fourteen. The main question of today is if this conservation will continue to last or if violence would break out in some form.

The peace process: how much longer?

As has been the case with Armenian-Azerbaijani presidential meetings since after the April 2001 Key West summit dedicated to the Karabakh settlement, this week’s meetings takes place on sidelines of a larger international forum the two presidents are attending anyway. This time it is the post-Soviet economic forum in St. Petersburg, Russia.

President Aliyev, Jr. and ex-President Robert Kocharian have had seven such meetings between 2004 and 2007, providing the political blessing for sustained negotiations between the two countries’ foreign ministers.

The peace process, while failing to culminate in any agreement, has provided both leaders with added international recognition and domestic legitimacy. And importantly it has helped “explain” why, in spite of all the heated rhetoric, Azerbaijan is not going back to war just yet.

Azeri officials, at least publicly, still hope that Armenians might give up without a fight. That increasingly remote possibility may have taken a new lease on life because Azeris view the return to active politics of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian in the context of his past Karabakh policy rather than Armenia’s domestic developments.

The second important self-explanation for Azerbaijan is that the next several years would mean more money recovered from Caspian offshore energy resources and more weapon systems bought and mastered.

This is also the view endorsed by conflict watchers around the world, including the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), which in an analysis last year predicted that chances for war may increase significantly in 2012 when Azerbaijan’s oil production begins to taper off.

The last, but possibly the most important explanation, on why the cease-fire has held is the Armenian military’s capability to retaliate against Azerbaijani interests.

In his remarks on May 23 and again in an interview on June 5, NKR President Bako Sahakian warned that should Azerbaijan launch a military aggression, the Armenian side will be forced to take the fighting “deep into [Azerbaijan’s] territory,” adding that “expansion of the security zone [comprising former Azeri districts around Karabakh] will be the only way for us to secure peace for our people.”

The stark warning is atypical of Armenian leaders and also reflects Azerbaijan’s expanded ability to escalate things along the Line of Contact without resorting to an outright war.

Even the mediators’ focus appears to be shifting from discussing complicated Karabakh status formulas and territorial arrangements to sustaining the cease-fire and preventing new bloodshed through practical measures along the Line of Contact.

New potential for [localized] military escalation

With conclusion of the on the ground military operations in May 1994, when Baku finally agreed to a cease-fire agreement since then made permanent, the Azerbaijani government has sought to find ways to put foreign diplomatic pressure on Armenians to force them into unilateral territorial compromises.

Dubbed the “oil strategy” by then President Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijanis staked their hopes on their relative importance to the West and Armenia’s apparently bleak economic prospects.

In that they scored a partial success at the OSCE’s Lisbon Summit in December 1996, where Armenia was left alone in not recognizing Azerbaijan’s claims on Nagorno Karabakh. Then President Ter-Petrossian’s advocacy for unilateral territorial compromises in 1997-98 reflected the peak of the success of the Aliyev Sr.’s strategy.

President Kocharian’s ascendancy has helped alter that dynamic. In the ten-year period, Armenia has succeeded in establishing that its economic development and integration with the West can proceed without unilateral territorial compromises in Karabakh.

Increased economic affluence of both Armenia and Azerbaijan has also made going to an outright war an increasingly unattractive proposition.

But the Armenian-Azerbaijan confrontation appears to be nearing a fresh turning point. Azerbaijan seems to have exhausted its diplomatic options with the United Nations General Assembly resolution last March. And the very acquisition of new weapons systems makes it tempting for Aliyev to escalate military pressure on Armenia without resorting to costly ground operations.

In the past ten years, tactical military escalation has meant primarily spikes in sniper war and small-scale tactical redeployments along the Line of Contact, with the March 3 skirmish at Levonarkh in Karabakh’s northeast as the latest example.

Today, Azerbaijan’s acquisition of modern aircraft and longer-range artillery systems may encourage its leaders to resort to new and more dramatic forms of military escalation.

These may include attempts to overfly Armenian territory, attacks against Armenian air and ground targets, and even engaging in long-distance artillery duels – all in the effort to put pressure on the local population to flee and up the ante for the Armenian state.

The Armenian side has made clear that such steps would be met with retaliation and would risk an all-out war which both sides are so far seeking to avoid. At the same time, such warnings have not been matched by a sustained diplomatic campaign to restrain Azerbaijan.

Judging by Azerbaijan’s accelerated military acquisitions and evolution of similarly protracted conflicts around the world, the fourteen-year peace enjoyed by Armenians and Azerbaijanis increasingly stands out as an oddity rather than the norm and appears to be nearing a tipping point.

Briefly on pro-Israel lobbyists in DC, Armenia [and Turkey], Turkey's UN SC goal, Turkmen gas

First published in June 7, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

U.S. presidential hopefuls flock to pro-Israel lobby event


Underscoring the strong influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference held in Washington between June 2 and 4.

Sen. John McCain (R.-Az.), the GOP’s presumptive presidential candidate, sought to portray Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), as soft on Israel’s security, pointing to his previously stated readiness to negotiate with Iran’s leaders.

Sen. Obama, who this week became the presumptive Democratic nominee, hit back saying that the Bush Administration’s policies have strengthened Iran’s hand in recent years, leaving Israel less secure. He pledged to remain a “true friend” of Israel.

Also addressing the annual gathering were Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.), who had not yet conceded defeat in the Democratic Party’s primary race.

American Jewish Committee reps. visit Armenia

Armenia’s President Serge Sargsian, Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian, and Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian separately received Peter Rosenblatt and Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), who visited Yerevan between May 28 and 30.

AJC officials were accompanied by Ross Vartian of the U.S.–Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC). According to government press releases, the meetings focused on Armenia’s relations with U.S., Turkey, and Israel.

Mr. Rosenblatt, a retired U.S. ambassador who is AJC’s chair for strategic policy, and Mr. Jacobs, also a former U.S. diplomat and AJC’s director for strategic studies, were last in Armenia in July 1999 during a regional trip that included visits to Stepanakert, Tbilisi, and Baku.

The AJC officials’ latest trip to the region also included a visit to Turkey. Ankara has long counted on support from Jewish groups for its Washington advocacy efforts. But during last year’s debate on the Armenian Genocide resolution, AJC did not take a public position on the issue.

Minister outlines Turkey’s foreign policy ambitions

Over the next year, Turkey will open 30 new diplomatic missions, mostly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, as part of its effort to raise the country’s global profile, Turkish foreign minister Ali Babacan said at the Atlantic Council of the United States, a Washington think tank, on June 3.

According to the Turkish press, as part of his working visit to the United States, Mr. Babacan will be meeting Vice President Dick Cheney, the secretaries of state, treasury, and energy, and members of Congress; he then will proceed to New York for a United Nations conference on June 10–11.

Since 2004 Turkey has been actively courting international support, including through financial aid to distant Pacific and Carribean island states, in the effort to win a two-year term (2009–10) on the United Nations’ Security Council.

The election is scheduled for October 16. In recent years, Turkey has been active as a mediator between rival factions in Lebanon as well as between Syria and Israel.

During his June 3 presentation, Mr. Babacan also pointed to the recent correspondence from Turkish leaders to newly elected and appointed Armenian leaders as reflecting Ankara’s desire to normalize relations with Armenia.

“Of course we have to address the past, the issue of the events of 1915,” Mr. Babacan said and restated his government’s offer of a joint commission of historians, first articulated in 2005, and Turkey’s readiness “to accept any conclusion of the commission.”

On the subject of Karabakh, he expressed support for a peaceful settlement along the lines acceptable to Turkey’s ethnic ally Azerbaijan.

Hopes revive for U.S.-backed Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan gas link

The Central Asian nation of Turkmenistan, believed to possess the world’s fourth-largest natural gas resources (after Russia, Iran, and Qatar), may be again considering building a pipeline under the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan to export its gas to Europe while bypassing existing lines through Russia and Iran, recent diplomatic forays and media reports suggest.

Turkmen President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov visited Baku on May 19, the first such visit by a Turkmen leader since 1996. The ethnically linked nations have had frosty relations over the past decade, postponing any bilateral engagement or projects. The two countries have not yet resolved disputes over several offshore hydrocarbon deposits.

The Turkmen visit was followed by Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev’s trip to Ukraine on May 22, where he was reported to have discussed energy issues. And on May 29–30, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher and Deputy Assistant Secretary David Merkel, officials responsible for U.S. relations with Central Asia and Eastern Europe, respectively, followed up with a visit to Baku.

Most European states, especially those in Eastern Europe, are strongly dependent on Russia for natural gas supplies. Since the early 1990s the United States has facilitated the development of the Caspian-Caucasus-Turkey energy transportation route in an effort to break Europe’s reliance on Russian supplies.

—Haik Gugarats contributed to this week’s Briefing.

----

Watchdog cites Turkey for denial campaign

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The latest issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, released on June 3, includes a report on the Turkish government’s campaign to recruit allies in its effort to deny the Armenian Genocide.

The Intelligence Report, a quarterly investigative journal that monitors the radical right, has some 300,000 subscribers, mainly in law enforcement, academia, and political activism, plus free Internet access.

A network of U.S. scholars funded by the government of Turkey is part of an energetic campaign to cover up the Turkish genocide of as many as 1.5 million Armenians during World War I, an effort that has found success in Congress and the White House, the article notes.

The article, “State of Denial: Turkey Spends Millions to Cover Up Armenian Genocide,” by David Holthouse, tracks genocide denial from the time when Armenians were still wasting away in the Syrian desert to the present day.

“What we are seeing is a despicable rewriting of history aimed at absolving the perpetrators of mass murder and demonizing their victims,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report.

“It is no different than the Holocaust denial of Nazi sympathizers who claim there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz and Treblinka.”

The summer 2008 issue of the Intelligence Report can be read at www.splcenter.org.
Ex-Speaker Hastert now a lobbyist Meanwhile, Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) has joined the Washington offices of Dickstein Shapiro, a law and lobby firm. The firm has done work for the government of Turkey and Turkish companies. Reached by ABC News, a spokesperson for the firm could not say whether or not Mr. Hastert would be working on projects involving that country.

A 2005 Vanity Fair article alleged that Turkish groups and individuals at the Turkish Consulate in Chicago had discussed funneling tens of thousands of dollars
to Mr. Hastert in exchange for political favors.

Mr. Hastert’s spokesperson at the time denied that Mr. Hastert had any knowledge of Turkish groups and had done no favors, Justin Rood reports for ABC News.

Briefly on Schiff delegation in Baku and Yerevan, Georgian election

First published in May 31, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Congressional delegation in Armenia, region


Reps. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), Allyson Schwartz (D.-Penn.) and Wayne Gilchrest (R.-Md.) visited Baku on May 24–25 and Yerevan on May 26–27, meeting with Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents and other officials, their offices reported. The trip was the first visit to Armenia by members of Congress since 2005 and was organized through the ad hoc House Democracy Assistance Commission.

Rep. Schiff, who represents the cities of Glendale and Pasadena, with the largest proportion of Armenian-American voters in the United States, told President Serge Sargsian, “We consider Armenia an important partner and ally. Consequently, we wish to as far as possible assist its political and economic progress.”

In an interview with RFE/RL Armenian Service, Rep. Schiff said that he and other members were “concerned with the problems that occurred during the election [in Armenia], the violence that occurred after the election.”

“We are here to try to assess the situation and talk with the Armenian government about how we can help move the government further in the direction of democracy,” Rep. Schiff added.

Rep. Schiff’s delegation also met with aides to Levon Ter-Petrossian, the opposition figure and former president, who focused on the recent election campaign and its outcome.

While in Baku, the members of Congress heard criticisms of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, with few details reported.

From Armenia the delegation flew on to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Georgian ruling party election sweep welcomed, protested

The National Movement Party led by President Mikheil Saakashvili swept the May 21 parliamentary election winning more than 110 seats in the 150-seat legislature, according to preliminary results made available via the Civil.ge news portal.

The remaining seats were won by the Nine-party Opposition Alliance (about 16 seats) led by David Gamkrelidze, the Christian Democratic Party of former TV anchor Giorgi Targamadze (8 seats), the Labor Party of populist politician Shalva Natelashvili (6 seats), and the opposition Republican Party led by David Berdzenishvili (2 seats).

Three of the seats in parliament went to ethnic Armenians, as the Armenian Reporter reported last week.

The opposition alliance quickly called for annulment of results, pointing to electoral violations. It also launched several well-attended protest rallies and vowed it would prevent the new parliament from convening.

Western observers suggested that the government’s efforts to meet democratic standards for elections were “uneven and incomplete.”

(The observers gave a more upbeat assessment of the presidential election last January calling it “democratic.” See this page in the January 12, 2008 Armenian Reporter.)

According to the observers there were problems with vote count in 16 percent of precincts inspected – about the same number as in Georgian, as well as Armenian, presidential polls earlier this year.

Nevertheless, the U.S. State Department was “encouraged” by what it thought were “improvements” in election conduct compared to the previous poll.

Georgia has been possibly the most eager ally of the United State in recent years, sending one of the largest military contingents in support of U.S.-led Iraq operations.

Briefly: MCC cut proposed, U.S. debt forgiveness proposal, Armenia vs. Georgia at UN GA, Turkish lobby vs. Genocide resolution

First published in May 24, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Senator proposes Millennium Challenge program cut


An amendment to Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 U.S. foreign assistance would reallocate $225 million in funds set aside for but still unspent by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to other foreign aid programs, the amendment’s sponsor Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) initially reported on May 15.

The amendment has since passed as part of the Senate spending bill on May 20 and will next be considered in a conference with the House appropriators.

Sen. Gregg, who is ranking member (most senior GOP senator) on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, proposed to spend the funds for alleviating the Burma cyclone disaster as well as food aid programs elsewhere, to address rising prices.

Last June, Sen. Gregg already succeeded in cutting MCC’s FY 2008 budget to $1.2 billion from $1.4 billion, reallocating the difference to military aid for Jordan. That came on top of the Senate Democrats’ cut of the original Bush Administration request of $3 billion for MCC.

It is so far unclear whether MCC’s Armenia program, valued at $236 million over five years, will be in any way affected. Armenia’s eligibility for the program has received additional scrutiny following the recent post-election crisis.

Since its establishment earlier in the Bush Administration, MCC has consistently received larger congressional allocation than it has been able to expend, because it employed a stricter eligibility criteria for qualification than have other U.S. aid programs in the past.

Armenia left out of new debt relief program

Because of its improved economic performance, Armenia was left out of the new congressional proposal to forgive the debt of lower-income countries.

The Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2007 (H.R. 2634/S. 2166) would make several dozen countries in the lower and lowermiddle income category, including Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, eligible for partial or full foreign debt cancellation.

The act has passed the House of Representatives and is expected to be considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month. The country qualifications are based on the World Bank’s lending category criteria.

Although Armenia and 14 other countries (including Azerbaijan, India, and Pakistan, among others) are also in the lower-middle income category, because of their somewhat higher incomes they receive World Bank assistance through both the International Development Agency (IDA) and other programs (the so-called “Blend”
category), making them ineligible for debt relief under this legislation.

According to sources familiar with the developments, last month a leading member of the congressional Armenian Caucus sought to amend the criteria to include Armenia, but since the change would make large debtors like India and Pakistan also eligible, the amendment did not succeed.

Armenia’s foreign debt amounted to $1.45 billion at the end of 2007.

UN General Assembly passes pro-Georgia resolution on Abkhazia

The General Assembly of the United Nations on May 16 voted 14-11 to pass a Georgia-sponsored nonbinding resolution affirming its claims on the breakaway and de facto independent republic of Abkhazia. Fully 105 countries abstained, and the rest did not vote.

The vote came two months after the General Assembly passed an Azerbaijan-sponsored resolution on Karabakh. In that vote Georgia sided with Azerbaijan, even though the three leading mediators in the Karabakh peace process, France, Russia and the United States, voted against the resolution.

In the May 16 vote, Armenia in turn sided with Russia, voting against the Georgian proposal.

Georgia was backed by the United States, Sweden, 10 eastern European states, as well as Azerbaijan. Most Western European states, as well as Turkey, abstained.

According to the UN news release, Armenia’s representative argued against the draft, saying that it focused on consequences of the conflict rather than addressing the core issues and was thus counterproductive to the conflict-resolution process.

A spokesperson for the Georgian Embassy in Armenia, Georgi Saganelidze, revealed on May 6 that Georgia had actively lobbied Armenia not to vote against the resolution. According to the Mediamax news agency, Mr. Saganelidze defended Georgia’s vote in favor of Azerbaijan, but still expected Armenia to continue to take a more neutral position on the Abkhazia issue, suggesting that a “no” vote could have consequences for bilateral relations.

Turkish lobby continues to target Genocide resolution

Pro-Turkey lobby groups remain focused on the congressional proposal affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide. In a Washington conference on U.S.-Turkey relations held on May 16, the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD), an influential business lobby, released an analysis it funded challenging the substance of the congressional resolution, Turkish media reported.

House Resolution 106, backed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) passed the Foreign Affairs Committee last October but has remained stalled in the House because of opposition from the Bush Administration and from several key Democrats in Congress.

The TUSIAD-sponsored analysis was prepared by David Saltzman of the Washington-based
Saltzman and Evinch LLP, the Turkish government’s veteran legal aides.

Also on May 19, Turkey’s ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensoy, discussed U.S.-Turkish cooperation at a session held on Capitol Hill. In recent months, events on U.S.-Turkish relations have taken place on nearly a weekly basis, suggesting a concerted public relations campaign by Turkey.

DC conference on Armenian economy

First published in May 24, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Political will, expertise needed for Armenian economic progress, experts say at AIPRG conference in Washington
Economists, others discuss corruption, dram appreciation
by Haik Gugarats

WASHINGTON
– Unfair business practices continue to hurt Armenia’s consumers and the country’s overall economic competitiveness, international economic experts said at an annual conference organized by the Armenian International Policy and Research Group (AIPRG) on May 17–18 at the World Bank.

Saumya Mitra, the Bank’s lead economist for Europe and Central Asia, while remaining upbeat about Armenia’s economic progress, noted that shoring up Armenia’s global competitiveness required both the political will and technocratic leadership to address the shortcomings in economic structure.

In January 2006 remarks, Mr. Mitra had dubbed Armenia the “Caucasian Tiger,” likening its economic performance to that of the high-growth non-petro-states of Southeast Asia; the term was also used as the title of a World Bank book on Armenia.

“Caucasian Tiger” stifled by unfair business practices

“Competition in Armenia has been distorted by monopolies and informal restrictions,” said Mr. Mitra, linking them to a culture of “deepseated corruption,” as well as an absence of strong conflict of interest laws and antitrust institutions.

The World Bank economist believes that Armenia’s new president, Serge Sargsian, and his government recognize these shortcomings. But, he added, in addition to their focus on fixing tax and customs agencies, a more comprehensive policy was needed.

The new government’s program, approved by the National Assembly on April 30, incorporates provisions for enhancing Armenia’s competitiveness, creating a level playing field for all domestic businesses, and a more effective approach to tackle corruption, including passing conflict-of-interest legislation.

A paper presented by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists Nienke Oomes and Fernando Goncalves and Gohar Minasyan of Boston College revealed the impact unfair practices had on consumer prices.

Noting that normally currency exchange rates should have a direct proportional impact on domestic consumer prices, and dram appreciation should in fact result in a
proportional lowering of prices, the IMF economists found that this was frequently not the case in Armenia.

The paper noted that “the asymmetry cannot be reasonably explained by transportation costs. A more coherent explanation is that it results from monopolistic practices in the import sector, which is able to increase prices as the exchange rate depreciates and keep prices high when the exchange rate appreciates.”

Impact of dram appreciation

The Armenian dram appreciation, widely criticized in Armenia and especially in the diaspora, has on balance been welcomed by World Bank and IMF economists.

While recognizing the impact appreciation has on remittances as well as exports, Dr. Mitra said that the process itself reflected real productivity gains in the economy.

The link between growing productivity and appreciation of dram was also noted in the IMF paper presented by Dr. Oomes, the IMF’s resident representative in Armenia.

The IMF paper also concluded that the real exchange rate has in fact reached (or slightly overshot) its long-term equilibrium.

[A less scientific Armenian Reporter survey published on April 19, 2008 on p. 21, also found that a majority of experts queried believe that the dram’s appreciation relative to foreign currencies has reached a plateau.]

Armenian think tank in its sixth year

AIPRG was founded in 2002 by Washington- area Armenian economists and public activists and has since attracted institutional support from the World Bank and the Armenian government. AIPRG’s Advisory Board includes Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian, who joined it while serving as chair of the Central Bank.

Armenia’s current economy minister, Nerses Yeritsian, is an AIPRG executive board member and one of its founders. Mr. Yeritsian joined the conference via video link from Yerevan, encouraging analysis and criticism of his government’s policies.

The two-day conference also included sessions on U.S. aid programs in Armenia, the role of the diaspora, developments in economic sectors such as IT and tourism, and involved a range of economists from the United States and Armenia.

AIPRG is co-led by a board which includes the World Bank’s Konstantin Atanesyan, the IMF’s Armine Khachatryan, and Nicole Vartanian of New York City’s Hunter College. This year’s conference was chaired by Dr. David Joulfaian of the U.S. Department of Treasury.

connect: www.aiprg.net

—Emil Sanamyan contributed to this story.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Reporter expert poll on trends in Armenia-Turkey relations

First published in May 17, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Survey: Armenia-Turkey status quo likely to persist
Experts weigh in on likelihood and significance of change in relations


Last month we conducted our first survey of experts, which focused on the stability of Armenia’s new government and Armenia’s economic performance. (April 19, p. 20.)

In this, our second survey, we reached out to more than 100 experts to see what they thought of likely trends in Armenian-Turkish relations – and 31 responses arrived before our deadline.

A large majority – nearly three-fourths – expect the status quo in relations between Armenia and Turkey to continue, although respondents offered wide-ranging opinions as to why this is likely to be the case.

The remaining respondents see opportunities for improvements, again offering a variety of explanations. None expects deterioration.

A majority of respondents also say that an opening of the land border between Turkey and Armenia can have a considerable positive impact for both countries, although a substantial minority believes its potential impact has either been overrated or carries substantial risks for Armenia.


Likely trends in Armenia- Turkey relations

In the next year or two, do you expect relations between Armenia and Turkey to improve, deteriorate, or remain unchanged?

74% say relations will remain unchanged


“The nature of Armenian-Turkish relations has not changed since both nations established their states in the early 20th century. These relations are dictated by strategic national interests of both sides, and any changes in political context have little if any bearing on this process.”

“The conditions for improved relations, as seen from Yerevan and Ankara, do not have much ground in common. Ankara still demands from Yerevan to drop Genocide-related charges and to withdraw from Artsakh. The situation will most likely remain unchanged for an indefinite time.”

“I do not see a reason for any change, in particular, given continuation of the pressure to recognize the 1915 Genocide.”

“Turkish-Armenian relations are secondary to Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. The strident anti-Armenian posture of the latter is an obstacle to improved Turkish-Armenian relations.”

“The current state of relations is the result of Turkey’s position. Internal political developments in Turkey, as well as the state of Turkey-Azerbaijan relations, give no reason to expect any change in Turkey’s position in the next year or two. For Turkey, relations with Armenia is not a priority, on the contrary, isolating and pressuring Armenia is. No Turkish government in the near future will be willing to risk anything for better relations with Armenia.”

“Turkey’s political uncertainties draw its attention inward and away from any external concerns (except for the Kurdish north of Iraq). There’s nothing in it for Turkey to move toward rapprochement.”

“Relations remain contingent on developments in Turkey, not Armenia. The internal struggle for redefining the fundamental questions of Turkish identity and strategic orientation is so intense that any breakthrough in relations with Armenia seems remote.”

“Status quo is more likely, because massive inertia has developed in this area. Just as people have gotten accustomed to the ceasefire with Azerbaijan, they have learned to live with the closed border with Turkey. So change is likely to come from something approaching a shock, a crisis, an impetus that can overcome inertia. The impetus may come from Armenia itself, or from Turkey.

“One likely source is the economic situation in Armenia. If the economic situation of the shaky and emergent middle class deteriorates, and there are signs of that, then the pressure to open borders with Turkey will increase. However, Turkey may not resist the temptation of seeing any Armenian willingness to open borders as anything other than a mark of weakness and a victory for Turkey, which will immediately try to pressure Armenia into some other concession.”

“President Sargsian will want to show that there is a new administration at the helm of his country and will reach out for dialogue, but Armenia has already dropped all preconditions; there is no further compromise to make. There will be a ‘feeling’ or ‘hope’ for a new wind between the two nations, but nothing will come of it.”

26% say relations will improve

“Relations will improve, but slightly. There is now a possibility for rethinking old positions, without, however, automatically heralding a major breakthrough. [Even] diplomatic relations, which would be a major step, would not mean that all problems are solved; although they would have a stabilizing effect.”

“It takes two to tango. If there are no major upheavals in Turkey, I would expect relations to remain unchanged or even to improve, given that President Sargsian has made this one of his stated priorities and is likely to be desperate for some foreign policy success to offset the criticism Armenia incurred over the conduct of the presidential election.”

“During next 1–2 years, the government in Armenia will be changed and the new government may provide a more independent policy, improving the relations with Turkey.”

“The next U.S. administration will make this issue a point of emphasis, matched by European concurrence. There will also be more expressions of support from within Turkey for improved relations with Armenia, provided that Turkey’s ruling party is not overthrown.”

“There will be increased pressure from the EU and Western powers on Turkey and Armenia to resolve their differences, regarding the genocide, Karabakh, and the closed border.”

The Turks are willing and the new Armenian government needs a foreign policy success. The Genocide won’t be a deal breaker for Yerevan; but it will mean educating the diaspora, which is already disunited over overtures to Ankara. A rapprochement with Ankara may also check Azerbaijani ambitions to resolve Karabakh through war, which currently looks more rather than less likely within 24 months.”

And none expect Armenia-Turkey relations to deteriorate

Potential impact of improvement in relations

How important is it for Armenia’s welfare for the land border with Turkey to be opened?

42% say the impact of border opening would be “significant” for Armenia


“The more options for Armenia, the more competitive its exporters and importers, the more normal Armenia will appear for foreign investment, Azerbaijan will be less certain of Turkey’s unconditional support, the more likely that increased Armenian and Turkish contact will diffuse tensions over a long list of issues.”

“In addition to positive commercial ramifications, such a significant signal by Ankara might ease the psychological pressure that some Armenians feel about Turkey, including the notion that the latter is keen on erasing the Republic of Armenia off the world map.”

“Dividends are significant, but any opening of the Turkish border must be weighed against the price that Turkey is demanding. The benefits certainly do not outweigh the value of a liberated Artsakh and Genocide recognition.”

“Since the Levon Ter-Petrossian regime, it has been vital to the ruling oligarchs to be able to say that the two barriers to Armenia’s prosperity have been the unsettled conflict in Karabakh and the closed border with Turkey. Both points have considerable validity. But since 1992, both points have been used to completely deny the single largest factor in Armenia’s extended misery – the oligarchy’s potent, monopolistic grip on economic and political life.

“What if Armenia concedes much and gets a Karabakh peace treaty and open borders with Turkey, and the misery persists, as it will, unless the market and the political sphere are democratized, opened up to more competitors? Who and what will be blamed for the continued failure? The rulers may still calculate that it is safer to have external enemies to blame.”

“From a financial perspective it is significant. From a survival and political perspective, Armenia has shown that it can get around the blockade at cost, so it’s overrated. Opening the border would increase Armenia’s geopolitical options and increase its ability to resist some Russian pressure and occasionally voice independent views of its own. The blockade primarily serves Russia’s interests. Opening the border would serve Armenia’s and Turkey’s interests.”

“All talks about the Armenian integration to the West and decreasing Armenia’s dependence from Russia will remain good wishes only until the Turkish border is opened.”

“Significant, although relations with Russia remain crucial and therefore Georgian politics are an even bigger obstacle.”

“Significant but not crucial, provided the Iranian and Georgian borders remain open.”

“Studies have shown that the economic burden on Armenia of the closed border with Turkey has declined progressively since the closure first went into effect; the market has its ways of working around such an obstacle. The closure may even have been protective of fledgling Armenian producers in the beginning. But for Armenia’s economy to make a major stride forward, it needs to perform better in the export sector, and Armenian consumers would benefit from cheaper imported goods, including Turkish ones. Looking down the road, Armenia needs to be able to export electricity to eastern Turkey to make the economics of a new nuclear-powered generating plant (replacing Metsamor) work.”

29% say the impact of border opening is “crucial” for Armenia’s future

“Trade, communications, regional hub, Yerevan provides it all for this part of Eastern Anatolia. It’s the best way for Armenians to get their land back: you won’t be able to stick your flag on it, but de facto it will be Armenian-dominated. Turkey knows this so the border won’t open until there is some trust and comfort level between Ankara and Yerevan. The global Armenian community needs to be educated about what is best for Armenia – rabid nationalism is not the answer.”

“Given the linkage between Armenia’s post-election political crisis and a looming economic crisis that will only become more severe, the new government is now in desperate need for an economic opportunity beyond the confines of the monopolistic and corrupt sectors of the existing economy.”

“It is crucial for Armenia to have open borders with Turkey from an economic perspective. Gains from trade are significant as fuel prices increase costs of transport through other channels.”

“Opening the border will create a totally new, crucial function for Armenia as a transit country.”

“Armenia’s international isolation and its status as a Russian client state have much more to do with the closed border with Turkey than Karabakh.”

“The border closure did its job; it devastated the economy. If the border is opened today there is no way to undo the damage. In the long run, it is critical that the border be open. But in the short run it will have little effect.”

29% say the impact of border opening for Armenia has been “overrated”

“This is not a critical issue for Armenia’s economic development. Changes on the domestic front such as establishing fair rules for internal competition in the key sectors of the Armenian economy, and more flexible taxation policies are likely to produce conditions attractive for foreign investments.”

“Armenia’s welfare is mainly an internal governance issue, which should adopt the principle of fair redistribution of wealth for the people of Armenia. The opening of the border with Turkey or any double-digit economic growth that Armenia’s authorities are announcing for the last decade do not have any impact for Armenia’s welfare, since Armenia’s wealth is owned and distributed only among 10 to 15 percent of Armenia’s population, whereas the majority is deprived.”

“Costs of the blockade are nontrivial, but not crucial for Armenia and heavily inflated. In the short term, improvements in the domestic business environment are much more important. That is an immediate priority for the government as is being more pro-active in advertising the country’s recent successes, including its ability to do relatively well despite the blockade. Also, normalization of Russian-Georgian relations would be more important for Armenia right now than the border opening with Turkey.”

“The Russian rail concession is likely to be more important for trade and connection with international transportation networks.”

“Opening the border is much more important for Turkey politically and economically.”

“Other than modest savings on transportation, the open borders will bring little added value to the Armenian economy compared to a huge blow to the local manufacturers due to cheaper Turkish imports. An open border will stimulate the economic growth in Turkey’s underdeveloped areas bordering Armenia. At the same time the high manufacturing costs would not allow Armenian goods to conquer the mostly rural Anatolian market.”

“A better way to frame this question would be to ask if the Armenian state (both Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) is ready to face economic security challenges arising from an open border with an openly hostile state? The answer is no, we are not. In short, having an open border with Turkey today would be a destructive step for Armenia.”

Responses (31): Armineh Arakelian (Yerevan), Hrachya Arzoumanian (Stepanakert), Konstantin Atanesyan (Washington), Karen Ayvazian (Moscow), King Banaian (St. Cloud, Minn.), Asbed Bedrossian (Los Angeles), Eduard Danielyan (Washington), Georgi Derluguian (Yerevan/Chicago), John Evans (Washington), Lev Freinkman (Washington), Liz Fuller (Prague), Richard Giragossian (Yerevan), Shushanik Hakobyan (Charlottesville, Va.), David Joulfayan (Washington), Joshua Kucera (Washington), Giro Manoyan (Yerevan), Arthur Martirosyan (Boston), Samvel Martirosyan (Yerevan), Alexandros Petersen (Brussels), Tevan Poghosyan (Yerevan), Tom Samuelian (Yerevan), Ara Sarafian (London), Harut Sassounian (Los Angeles), Zareh Sinanyan (Los Angeles), Jonathan Stark (Yerevan), Ara Tatevosian (Yerevan), Khachig Tololyan (Providence, R.I.), Mihran Toumajan (Los Angeles), Ross Vartian (Washington), Cory Welt (Washington), Aghasi Yenokian (Yerevan).

Briefly: U.S. aid to Armenia; Azer. vs. U.S. re democracy; Darfur vs. Sudan

First published in May 17, 2008

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan


U.S. official discusses aid to Armenia

The State Department’s coordinator of assistance to Eurasia, Tom Adams, was in Armenia meeting with President Serge Sargsian on May 15. According to the president’s press service, their conversation focused on the impact of Armenia’s post-election crisis on U.S. assistance to Armenia, and specifically Armenia’s continued eligibility for the Millennium Challenge Assistance program.

Mr. Adams is the outgoing cochair of the U.S.-Armenia Task Force (USATF) on economic cooperation, which meets bi-annually to review U.S. aid programs and bilateral cooperation and chart future plans. Former finance minister Vardan Khachatrian served as USATF’s Armenia co-chair before being replaced last month.

According to the USAID-Armenia strategy paper for 2009–2013, the focus of U.S. assistance to Armenia in the next five years will be on global competitiveness of the Armenian economy, increase in quality of social and health services, and promotion of democratic reforms through civil society activism.

U.S. assistance programs administered through USAID have amounted to about $75 million a year between fiscal 2004 and 2006, declining to $50 million in fiscal 2007. Meanwhile, U.S.-Armenia trade turnover has remained steady in recent years amounting to $137 million in 2004, $112 million in 2005, $127 million in 2006, and $143 million in 2007, according to U.S. Census figures.

Armenia’s exports to the United States have declined from $46 million in 2004 to $33 million in 2007 mirroring the decrease in Armenia’s jewelry sector output. Jewelry items remained the single largest export to U.S. in 2007 valued at $13 million.

Senior Azerbaijani official unhappy with U.S. leaders’ comments on democracy

Officials from Azerbaijan’s authoritarian regime have pushed for greater international condemnation of Armenia since its postelection crisis (see this page in the April 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter); instead they have heard more criticism of their own behavior.

In a May 1 speech to mark World Press Freedom Day, President George W. Bush singled out Azerbaijan, along with China, Cuba, Eritrea, and Iran as “the world’s top jailer(s) of journalists.” And days before, speaking at the U.S. Peace Corps conference on April 29, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice referred to Azerbaijan as the most problematic Caucasus country in terms of democracy.

In “the Caucasus ... not so much Georgia, but Azerbaijan [and] to a certain extent Armenia... there is important work to be done...to bring that part of the Caucasus closer to [democratic] standards that we thought they were once meeting. And it has been a disappointment,” she said.

One of Azerbaijan’s most influential officials, the long-serving chief of the presidential administration Ramiz Mekhtiyev (who has held that job since 1993 under both father and son Aliyev) said that “Condoleezza Rice’s statements about Azerbaijan cannot be taken seriously.... You can only conclude from her words that Azerbaijan ought to copy the March events in Armenia so as to earn a good report on us,” according to the IWPR Caucasus Report on May 8.

Mr. Mekhtiyev went on to describe U.S. democracy programs in Azerbaijan as “interference in the internal affairs of the country,” adding that “the U.S. would not permit the interference of another country into its internal processes, so why should that happen in Azerbaijan?”

Darfur rebels raid Sudan’s capital

Rebel forces from Sudan’s Darfur province staged an unprecedented attack on the outskirts of country’s capital Khartum, resulting in gun battles that killed hundreds on May 10, news agencies reported. The Sudanese Army beat back the attack at the cost of about 100 security forces. The government seized 180 vehicles used by the rebel groups to travel about 400 miles toward the capital.

The five-year conflict in Sudan’s Darfur province has claimed the lives of an estimated 300,000 people, leading to charges of genocide by the U.S. and sanctions against Sudan. While a contingent of 9,000 peacekeepers from African countries has deployed to the province, it has failed to stem the violence, itself coming under attack from both the rebels and the pro-government forces.

United Nations envoy for Darfur Jean-Marie Guehenno told the UN Security Council of May 15 that prospects for peace in the area have grown even more remote.

Briefly: Bush, Obama, freemasons mark 4/24; State Dept. terror and FH press reports; Burns on Turkey; U.S. buying Azeri oil; more Abkhazia tension

First published in May 3 and 10, 2008 Armenian Reporter, respectively.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan


Bush, Obama issue April 24 statements

President George W. Bush issued a traditional statement on “Armenian Remembrance Day” to “honor the memory of the victims of one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire.”

As in years past, Mr. Bush failed to uphold his pre-election pledge to properly refer to the Armenian experience as Genocide and again welcomed efforts in Armenia and Turkey of “open examination of the past in search of a shared understanding of these tragic events.”

Meanwhile, presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) said in a statement that the current U.S. position on the issue is “untenable.”

“It is imperative that we recognize the horrific acts carried out against the Armenian people as genocide,” Mr. Obama said in a statement submitted into the Congressional Record on his behalf by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.).

President Bush’s statement also called on the Armenian government “to take decisive steps to promote democracy” and reiterated the U.S. commitment “to a strong relationship with Armenia based on shared values.”

French freemasons call for genocide recognition by Turkey

France’s largest freemason organization, the Grand Orient de France, has pledged to promote Armenian Genocide affirmation, according to reports in Turkey’s Zaman newspaper.

The lodge Grand Master Jean-Michel Quillardet made the pledge at the commemorative event in Paris on April 24. A delegation from Grand Orient also attended commemorations in Yerevan.

Unlike most of its Masonic counterparts in other countries, the Grand Orient frequently takes public positions on social and political issues. Established in 1733, the lodge counts many historical French figures as its members and remains an influential organization.

During a meeting with the Association of European Journalists last February Mr. Quillardet said he has encouraged Turkish freemasons to promote genocide recognition. “I told my Turkish brothers to work on the Armenian genocide. They will make necessary preparations to make Turkey recognize it through democratic means,” Zaman quoted him as saying.

Mr. Quillardet reportedly also raised the issue with the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso in a meeting on April 8, prior to Mr. Barroso’s trip
to Turkey.

U.S. report notes problems with “war on terrorism”

2007 saw another increase in terrorism-related fatalities around the world, according to the State Department’s annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report released on April 30. More than 22,000 people died in terrorism-related incidents worldwide, an 8-percent increase over 2006.

Sixty percent of all deaths occurred in Iraq, and Afghanistan and Pakistan came second and third in the grim statistic, with the two countries together accounting for 13 percent of the fatalities.

The report said that Armenia “strengthen[ed] its counterterrorism capabilities and enhanced its counterterrorism cooperation with U.S.,” singling out Armenia’s contribution to U.S.-led military operations, including in Iraq, and efforts to prevent cross-border smuggling and terrorism financing.

At the same time, report noted that “endemic government corruption, a significant organized crime presence, and a large shadow economy” as well as Armenia’s “geographic location, porous borders, and loose visa regime still provided ample opportunities for traffickers of illicit materials, persons, and finances.” It also noted Armenia’s reluctance to “criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct.”

The report expressed no such concerns in reference to neighboring Azerbaijan or Georgia, citing instead their government efforts to crackdown on Islamic radical groups. No such groups are known to operate on Armenia’s territory.

Freedom House: 2007 Armenia press freedom two points worse

The world’s press freedom continued to decline, according to findings of the Washington-based Freedom House think tank released on April 29. It found the largest setbacks in the former Soviet republics, particularly in Russia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan.

The report concluded that Armenia’s press remained “not free” and observed one point setbacks in the media’s political and legal environment, giving the country a score of 66 instead of 64. The report cited pressure on Gala TV in Gyumri and incidents with two Yerevan newspaper editors who were active in the opposition preelection campaign to substantiate its conclusions.

(In an editorial on May 12, 2007, the Armenian Reporter took issue with the quality of Freedom House’s earlier findings.)

Neighboring Georgia and Azerbaijan got scores of 60 (partly free) and 77 (not free), respectively.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Former senior U.S. official: If Turkey opens to Armenia, Armenians will respond


“If the Turkish government makes a historic opening, reaches out to Armenia, I believe the Armenians will respond,” former Undersecretary of State Nick Burns said on May 8. The comment was part of Mr. Burns’ proposals to Turkey, which included a call to settle “historic animosities” and “sensitive subjects” with its neighbors, and echoed what Mr. Burns said in his official capacity last September (see this page in the September 22, 2007, issue).

Turkish president Abdullah Gül became one of the first foreign leaders to congratulate President Serge Sargsian on his election in February, and senior officials from two countries have since exchanged other correspondence, but there has been no indication yet that Turkey would reconsider its preconditions to relations with Armenia.

Mr. Burns, who left the Bush Administration in March, made the remarks in an annual lecture sponsored by one of Turkey’s largest business groups, Sabanci Holding, at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. The former State Department number-three agreed that Turkey remains a “vital” country for the United States, and noted that bilateral relations have improved over the last year.

U.S. emerges as major buyer of Azerbaijani oil

Since the launch of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline in June 2006, the United States has emerged as one of the largest single importers of oil from Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea deposits developed by BP (formerly known as British Petroleum), according to statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The United States began to purchase Azerbaijani oil in September 2006, with $688 million worth of crude imported in 2006 and $1.75 billion in 2007; $500 million worth was imported in January and February of this year. While the Azerbaijani crude comprised only about 0.5% of all such U.S. imports in 2007, it made up a substantial portion of total Azerbaijani oil exports, valued at about $18 billion last year (of which about $3 billion were Azerbaijan’s and the rest that of the BP-led consortium).

Increased oil production, which is expected to peak in 2012, has allowed the Azerbaijani government to beef up spending, with military spending specifically due to reach $2 billion in 2008, according to the recent declaration by the country’s president.

Georgia pushes for international condemnation of Russia

Tensions over Abkhazia persisted in recent weeks, as local officials claimed to have shot down two more of Georgia’s spy drones and Tbilisi condemned Moscow for sending additional peacekeeping forces into the province that has been de facto independent from Georgia since the war of 1992–93.

Georgia meanwhile has pressed for a more robust international reaction to credible reports that Russian forces in Abkhazia, there under a United Nations mandate to promote peace, have increasingly targeted Georgian forces, and as Russia moved closer to effectively annexing Abkhazia.

Georgia has for years pushed for withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers and their replacement with other forces, but has again failed to win international support for such a move following a special UN Security Council meeting on Abkhazia on April 23. Still, U.S. and European officials and legislators have continued to express overall support for Georgia.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 7 a nonbinding measure, H. Res. 1166, that backed peaceful restoration of Georgia’s territorial integrity and condemned the Russian government’s moves over Abkhazia and another breakaway province, South Ossetia. Congress also reiterated support for Georgia’s accession into U.S.-led NATO alliance.

Also this week, the European Parliament members blasted Russian moves over Abkhazia, but will not vote on a resolution on the subject until next month. Some European politicians have linked Russia’s moves over Georgia to the West’s unilateral recognition of Kosovo earlier this year.

Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh told Russia’s RIA Novosti, “We do not want Moscow to recognize us in defiance of the United States in order to take revenge for Kosovo. We want independence because we have a right to it.”

—Haik Gugarats contributed to this week’s Briefing.

Interview with LTP's U.S. rep. Arman Grigorian

First published in May 10, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Opposition is ready to work with Serge Sargsian
But only after the prosecution of activists ends


Arman Grigorian, ex-president Levon Ter-Petrossian’s campaign advisor who testified at the Helsinki Commission hearing on Armenia on April 17 (see our coverage in the April 26 issue) spoke with our Washington Editor Emil Sanamyan on April 30. Mr. Grigorian was a Turkey specialist on the staff of Mr. Ter-Petrossian from 1991 until 1993; he has since studied and taught in the United States and is currently a visiting professor at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

Reporter: You have heard the concerns of members of the U.S. Congress as well as the State Department regarding the post-election developments in Armenia. What is your reaction to these concerns and to the Helsinki Commission hearing specifically?

Grigorian: The opposition was shocked and disappointed by the initial reaction of the international community, which appeared to have rubber-stamped falsified elections.

But under pressure from the demonstrations in Yerevan, international institutions started to change their tone and their assessments. And more recent reactions, particularly in Europe, have been more reflective of the public dissatisfaction in Armenia and the government’s actions, particularly in the post-election period and the violence of March 1.

The Helsinki hearing was a good opportunity for us to express our views and we are grateful for it. But I personally was dissatisfied by the fact the Q&A did not take place and the hearing was cut ten minutes before the allotted time.

Reporter: The international community, particularly the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, appears to focus on four issues: opposition activists currently in pre-trial detention; the opposition’s right to
assemble in demonstrations; an independent investigation of the March 1 violence; and the opposition’s recognition of its electoral defeat.

While Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s campaign is sympathetic to the first three recommendations, it has made no indication that it would agree with the fourth. Do you expect any change in that?

Grigorian: No. The opposition may go ahead and make a deal with the government even without recognizing the legitimacy of the election. Right now we focus on one issue before all others, and this is indeed the only true precondition for us – that is the release of the arrested opposition members. All other issues are also important, but we cannot start negotiations with the government with a gun pointed to our head in the form of political prisoners.

Reporter: In your testimony you said that the government should “come to terms with the idea that the dismantling of the current kleptocratic system, in one way or another, will have to be the purpose of these negotiations, or the negotiations will have no purpose.”

Considering Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s pre-election rhetoric does this mean that you are only seeking to negotiate the government’s surrender?

Grigorian: No, this is a misrepresentation of what I said. If this government is really ready to work with the opposition and to dismantle the current kleptocratic system then we will help [them do it].

Reporter: Then you do not identify the system with the government?

Grigorian: Not necessarily. Although de facto they are one and the same, but if by some miracle Serge Sargsian decides to dismantle the kleptocracy in Armenia then we will help him do it. We are not inclined to do what other opposition forces have done – that is work with the government in exchange for tactical concessions, get a ministry or two, and call it a day. That is not what we want to do nor what our supporters want us to do. The current system cannot become democratic through cosmetic changes and tactical concessions...

Reporter: While the rhetoric in this election cycle has focused on domestic matters, what really distinguishes Mr. Ter-Petrossian from the current government is his position on foreign policy, particularly on matters of the Armenian Genocide and the Karabakh settlement. That position seems to be rooted in general pessimism about Armenia’s ability to withstand the opposition from Turkey and Azerbaijan, and that it should compromise with both.

In a 2003 paper you conceded that your 1998 assessments of Armenia’s chances were too pessimistic, but that you were not ready to concede the debate. Do you sense that Mr. Ter-Petrossian may have reassessed the position that he held in the 1990s?

Grigorian: I think he has not. And I think he still believes that a speedy resolution to the Karabakh conflict is necessary to Armenia’s normal development, its security and independence. Certainly some details have not worked out quite as Mr. Ter-Petrossian had predicted. Perhaps he was more pessimistic in 1998 than was justified but in general I do not think he was wrong then or is wrong now. Azerbaijan is becoming stronger and is developing faster than Armenia, and the longer we postpone a resolution, the more difficult it will be for us.

I have not heard persuasive arguments from those saying that “everything would be fine.” Our opponents just resort to mysticism – for example, no one believed that Karabakh could succeed during the war [but did], and that we have the support of the diaspora, and that the Armenian people coalesce in times of danger. But these are not real arguments.

Reporter: But Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s settlement formula, based on 1997 proposal (Armenian withdrawals from former Azerbaijani districts around Karabakh without addressing Karabakh’s status), seems to be closer to Azerbaijan’s position than is the position of international mediators, as was expressed in the Madrid Principles last year. Are you comfortable to be in that position?

Grigorian: That is a way of framing the issue that I do not appreciate. If the world says that the solution should be so and so and Azerbaijan does not agree to it, then we still have no agreement. And if the international community is not willing to contribute sufficient force to make Azerbaijan agree to it, then it is just a cheap propaganda trick. The only country’s agreement that matters is Azerbaijan’s agreement.

Certainly, the agreement would also have to be acceptable to Karabakh Armenians, and this is a number one issue for me.

Reporter: Why shouldn’t Armenians expect and in fact try to achieve a Kosovo-like settlement with international recognition of Karabakh’s independence without Azerbaijan’s acquiescence?

Grigorian: Because Armenians have much more formidable opponents than U.S. policy on Kosovo ever did. The situation in Serbia arose out of the West’s determination to dismember Serbia. If you provide me with a reasonable argument that in some near future the same policy would be applied to Azerbaijan, then I would be willing to reconsider my position.

Reporter: From what I can tell this willingness to compromise is not a very popular position in Armenia, not even among opposition parties that supported Mr. Ter- Petrossian in the election. Is this accurate?

Grigorian: The parties that supported Mr. Ter-Petrossian indeed have different views on Karabakh, on Turkey, and many other issues. As a political scientist, I would say that if this opposition were to come to power, some parts of it would probably break away and be in opposition to Mr. Ter-Petrossian on a number of issues. But all these forces were united in a belief that the current system had to be changed.

Interview with Armenian President's Aide Vigen Sargsyan

First published in April 26, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Vigen Sargsyan: A revolution was averted on February 23

Vigen Sargsyan, an aide to Armenia’s president, discussed the government’s vision of Armenia’s post-­election crisis with our Washington Editor Emil Sanamyan. They spoke after Mr. Sargsyan’s testimony at the U.S. Helsinki Commission on April 17. (See Washington Briefing on page 2.)


Reporter: You just had an opportunity to hear the concerns of the members of the U.S. Congress as well as the State Department regarding the post-election developments in Armenia. What is your reaction to these concerns and to the Helsinki Commission hearing overall?

Sargsyan: I was pleasantly surprised by the wide context in which our [U.S.] partners were watching this particular incident. And I had a feeling that I was among the friends who are concerned about U.S.-Armenian relations. They know the Karabakh issue well. They understand the threats and the challenges. . . .

There was a lot of discussion internally [within the Armenian government] on whether this type of a hearing was appropriate and whether we should participate.

There were critics, who thought this might look like a gladiator match with a third party watching two Armenians fighting each other on the merits of past elections and internal political disputes.

But we also recognized that this would be an important opportunity for us to share with the U.S. Congress our views on why the events unfolded the way they did and what could have been done to prevent them...

We also viewed this as yet another opportunity for the government to extend its hand and offer dialogue to our citizens who appear to be in the camp that still has not accepted the offer of dialogue, which has been sounded by President Serge Sargsian many times by now...

Reporter: We have heard the concerns in the United States, Europe, and from inside Armenia, about individuals currently in detention.

Sargsyan: First of all, there is the presumption of innocence. And until a person is convicted by a court of law no one can claim that that person is guilty of a criminal offence.

Any assessment before a court hearing is arbitrary, whether one claims that persons in detention are political prisoners or criminals.

And I do not rule out that after looking into the merits of each case, some currently in detention will be acquitted and released by courts. And then it would up to the government to say “sorry” and offer compensation that is proper for any ungrounded detention.

In Armenia and countries like it, the political system is not yet sufficiently mature and stable and as a result it is difficult to preclude situations like this. In an established democracy, when someone who is politically active commits a crime there is always a threat of a political sanction. And any politician is aware of the threat of losing votes and being held responsible politically.

In countries like Armenia, political elites are quite transient and mobile, in terms of moving from one camp to another, shifting their political preferences, and most political parties are not yet established.

So, unless a legal sanction is exercised, we have a threat of anarchy. And every time a candidate loses an election he or she can claim victory and resort to political violence.

There is no doubt that these elections were problematic, as were those before it. But there is also no doubt that they were much better conducted than before...

As long as Levon Ter-Petrossian does not recognize the authority of a legitimately elected president, it is hard to have a dialogue, and he becomes more a revolutionary than a politician. And, like in any country, the government’s interaction with revolutionaries takes a different shape and the government naturally seeks to protect itself from a possible revolution.

Reporter: Shortly before March 1, we did hear Mr. Ter-Petrossian declare that a “revolution” was under way. And we also heard President Robert Kocharian claim that the protests were part of an effort to stage a coup and threatening to take action against it, which was eventually taken. The protests, however, were largely peaceful and many question how protests in themselves could have led to a coup.

Sargsyan: There is a big difference between non-violent and peaceful demonstrations. The protests were non-violent before March 1, that is correct, but they were definitely not peaceful. We heard the ex-Commanderin-Chief [Mr. Ter-Petrossian] declaring that the army is with him.

It is not a peaceful protest when Yerkrapah veterans, many of whom possess weapons, which is natural after any war of self-determination, are dragged into politics.

And in fact, days before the March 1 events, on February 23, we were very, very close to a situation where it could get to a revolution. President Kocharian was able to prevent it politically by taking a number of steps that settled down the situation.

But the threat of violence remained and the government in fact was made aware that some of the demonstrators had weapons and explosives, and had to deal with that threat because it is the responsibility of the government to provide security...

Reporter: But in the end, the government failed to provide for sufficient security, the police failed to contain the protests at the Miasnikian square and as a result of the clashes in the night of March 1 there have been ten fatalities and many more injured. Why did these failures occur?

Sargsyan: This is for the investigation to find out. But the way the events unfolded in the night of March 1 in and outside the Miasnikian square, the fact that police were attacked with firearms from the crowd and as a result two security personnel were killed and many injured substantiated the government’s suspicions that at least some of the demonstrators were armed.

In terms of civilian deaths, we know that several of the deaths occurred when individual protestors were hit by tear gas cartridges, which is not the way the tear gas is supposed to work and this probably happened because the equipment was outdated.

Reporter: But a number of people were shot with live ammunition and several individuals, including one policeman, died as a result of bullet wounds. Have the circumstances in which police shot at civilians been cleared up?

Sargsyan: All of this is part and a central focus of the investigation. And as the president said on a number of occasions he wants this fully investigated and explained to the public. And it goes without saying that if [any security personnel] used excessive force or used the types of weapons they should not have used, then obviously they should be held responsible as well.

Briefly: Menendez on Yovanovitch, Congressional hearing on Armenia politics and Azeri war threats; Georgia vs. Russia in Abkhazia

First published in April 26, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Senator Menendez pledges tough scrutiny of new nominee for ambassador to Armenia


Sen. Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.), who in 2006 and again in 2007 blocked the nomination of Richard Hoagland to be U.S. ambassador to Armenia over his and the administration’s failure to appropriately address the Armenian Genocide, promised on April 23 to give the same kind of scrutiny to President Bush’s new nominee for the position, Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

During the annual congressional commemoration of the Genocide, Sen. Menendez said that he will “ask the same questions of the new nominee [as he asked Ambassador Hoagland] and would not hesitate to place a hold” on her candidacy.

Ms. Yovanovitch was formally nominated by President Bush on March 28 and her candidacy is expected to be considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Sen. Menendez is a member, soon.

U.S. Helsinki Commission chair calls on Armenians to sort out own affairs

“All of you all need to get grown up and make Armenia whole,” Rep. Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) told Armenian government and opposition representatives on April 17 after hearing their testimonies on the post-election crisis in Armenia.

“[The situation] doesn’t need American intervention or European intervention,” he said. “What it needs is Armenian citizens to come to terms with their own reality and to move your nation forward.”

Rep. Hastings chairs the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, also known as the Helsinki commission), which held the hearing on “Armenia after the elections.” Armenian President Serge Sargsian’s aide Vigen Sargsyan (see interview with Mr. Sargsyan on page 20 of this issue) and former aide to ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian Arman Grigorian offered testimonies on behalf of the government and Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s campaign.

While Rep. Hastings referred to Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s undemocratic conduct while president and questioned his “moral authority” today, he also agreed that at least some of the arrests of opposition activists since the election were political in nature.

Commission co-chair Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) called results of February 19 elections “troublesome,” questioned the Armenian government’s argument that the opposition was seeking to stage a coup, and warned that “restrictions of basic rights cannot be tolerated.” He also called for the United States to play a leading role in an “independent” investigation of the March 1 violence.

Another commission member and longtime supporter of Armenian-American issues, Rep. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.), called on the U.S. government to “energetically press the president of Armenia to restore full freedom of assembly and full freedom to publish and to broadcast.”

He added that “whenever the Armenian government has raised its standards in respect of human rights and democracy, it has empowered its friends abroad to support it more effectively.”

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, who testified on behalf of the U.S. government, placed the blame for the deadly March 1 clashes primarily with the Armenian government.

“We probably will never know who started [the violence], how it began, how a peaceful protest devolved into this level of violence,” Mr. Bryza said. “We do know, though, that generally in the international community, we hold governments responsible for the use of violence against civilians and for the use of violence under such political circumstances.”

The State Department official acknowledged “some progress” since the lifting of the state of emergency, but called for “dramatic steps” by the Sargsian administration to return “democratic momentum” in Armenia, suggesting that the country’s eligibility for democratic performance-based Millennium Challenge Assistance may otherwise suffer.

Member of Congress calls for tougher U.S. message to Azerbaijan on war threats

As part of the Helsinki Commission hearing on April 17, Rep. Chris Smith raised concerns over the lack of a coherent State Department response to Azerbaijan’s military build-up and threats to launch a new war over Karabakh. Mr. Smith asked Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza whether the United States has made it clear “what penalty would Azerbaijan suffer if it initiated hostilities?”

Mr. Bryza, who has been the U.S. envoy for Karabakh peace talks since June 2006, said that Pres. Aliyev’s threats were for domestic consumption and were also a form of brinkmanship in the negotiations process, and that “there’s no military solution, we believe, for the Karabakh problem.”

“I myself have a couple of times, in my capacity as [a negotiator], raised this issue with President Aliyev,” Mr. Bryza said. “In fact, twice I was able to do that.” He also reiterated the previously articulated State Department position that “any resumption of armed hostility in and around Nagorno-Karabakh would be tragic, tragic for everybody, absolute disaster.… It would just be another cycle of conflict, loss, retaliation. So that will never end.”

But “in terms of penalty, I wouldn’t want to speculate on that because all the various scenarios are so unpredictable,” Mr. Bryza added. “Who the heck knows what the outcome would be of the fighting, but as I said before, I think any fighting would lead to the perpetuation of the current situation.”

Mr. Smith recalled the “feckless” U.S. and European response on the eve of the wars in the former Yugoslavia, and added that “a predictable penalty at least needs to be on the drawing board, if hostilities are instigated by Azerbaijan.”

Georgian spy plane shot down over Abkhazia reignites tensions

What appears to have been a Russian combat aircraft shot down an unmanned Georgian spy plane over the breakaway Abkhazia province on April 20, leading to a new escalation in tensions.

Just last month, Russia began to lift its more than a yearlong transportation embargo on Georgia, after the two countries clashed repeatedly over Georgia’s efforts to re-integrate Abkhazia, and another breakaway entity, South Ossetia, while also seeking to join the U.S.-led NATO.

But following the weekend incident, President Mikhail Saakashvili again accused Russia of “aggression” and “creeping annexation” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two republics that have been de-facto independent of Georgia since the early 1990s.

Georgian Foreign Minister David Bakradze was in Washington and New York this week to mobilize U.S. and international support.

Speaking at Johns Hopkins University on April 22, Mr. Bakradze expressed hope that Russia’s moves would be checked through a combination of “Georgia’s good will” and
international criticism.

Mr. Bakradze’s co-panelist Acting Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza endorsed the Georgian view of the April 20 incident, describing it as a deplorable action, defending Georgia’s right to observe its own territory and calling for an urgent international action to improve Abkhazia security.

The United Nations Security Council will convene a special meeting on April 23 to discuss the incident.

Russia has taken a tougher line on Georgia, as the country moved closer to NATO membership. Outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin last week formally ended Russian sanctions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia and pledged to provide them with economic aid.

In recent years, as Georgian military began to build up with Western help, there has been an increase in a frequency of clashes in the two territories.

Abkhaz officials have previously claimed that Georgia’s spy planes began flying over the Black Sea republic last summer. Last month, Abkhazia exhibited debris of what its officials said was a brought down Georgian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), but at the time Georgia denied the report.

Georgia also initially denied the incident on Sunday, but then on Monday went public with footage made from the spy plane in real time seconds before it was shot down by a missile from an aircraft that appeared from the video to be a Russian MiG-29.

Russian government denied its plane was involved and called Georgian spy flights a violation of the UN-mandated peace regime in Abkhazia.

Pres. Saakashvili revealed to the New York Times on April 22 that Georgia had acquired about 40 Israeli-made UAVs. The Hermes-450 UAV costs about $2 million apiece and is made by Israel’s Elbit Systems, which had previously worked to upgrade Georgia’s Su-25 combat aircraft.

—Haik Gugarats contributed to this week’s Briefing.

Congressional leadership marks April 24

First published in April 26, 2008 Armenian Reporter

House Speaker, Majority Leader stress importance of Genocide affirmation

WASHINGTON – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) addressed the annual congressional commemoration of the Armenian Genocide hosted by Congressional Armenian Caucus co-chairs Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) on the Capitol Hill on April 23.

Ms. Pelosi spoke of the urgency of addressing the Genocide “as long as genocides happen now – in Rwanda, Darfur, we must speak with one voice.”

“I carry in my briefcase the front page of the New York Times from the day the resolution was passed because it shows the survivors,” Ms. Pelosi said in a reference to the House Foreign Affairs Committee approval last October of House Resolution 106 affirming the Armenian Genocide.

Ms. Pelosi described the committee vote as “a human rights statement [that] almost 100 years ago something happened to the Armenians, and we are prepared to call it Genocide.”

Strong pressure from the Bush administration on behalf of the Turkish government has since stalled passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives. Rep. Hoyer in turn stressed that “repetition [of genocide] is the child of denial: it’s not about what happened in 1915, it’s about what happens today. When you speak out for this resolution, you speak out for all the people today” who are suffering genocide.

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), U.S.–Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC), and other Armenian groups helped organize the event attended by hundreds of supporters of Armenian Genocide affirmation. The commemoration featured speeches from more than a dozen lawmakers, as well as keynote addresses by Dr. Gregory Stanton of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Armenia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Tatoul Markarian, NKR Representative Vardan Barseghian, and prayers led by Archbishops Oshagan Choloyan and Vicken Aykazian.

Reporter expert poll on Armenian stability and development

First published in April 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Government stability, growth and dram fluctuations
The Armenian Reporter’s inaugural survey of experts


Editors’ note: Last week we asked more than 100 regional experts to weigh in with their expectations about the longevity of Armenia’s new government and Armenia’s economic and currency trends. A good number of them – 27 – responded before our deadline.

As we learned, the respondents expect relative government stability over the next year and subsequent several years, even though the postelection crisis and global economic turndown has dampened their enthusiasm for Armenia’s economic performance somewhat. The majority also believe that the steady appreciation of Armenia’s currency has reached a peak, but few expect depreciation.

Certainly, the results of this survey are not scientific and it is always hard to predict the future. But we believe that the diverse views expressed below are informative and should help stimulate further debates about Armenia – in which we invite all of our readers to participate.

We thank this survey’s participants and hope to be able to do this with some regularity.

Please note that the percentages do not always add up to 100 because of rounding.


Government stability

Tigran Sarkisian is Armenia’s newly appointed prime minister. How long do you expect his tenure to be?

44 % say until the next parliamentary elections (scheduled for May 2012) or longer

“While I expect the transition to the new government to be difficult, I think we will have stability in the end.”

“The country needs stability and he is credible; his nonpartisanship is just what is needed at this juncture, and he could indeed last the full four years.”

“His solid background in banking and finance, coupled with the enormous trust and respect that the IMF, the World Bank, and the EBRD have for Mr. Sarkisian, bodes well for Armenia’s economic development in the long term. He will most likely surround himself with Western-educated and intelligent technocrats, which will buttress Armenia’s international standing and image.”

“Tigran Sarkisian showed excellent results in governing the Armenian banking sphere. It is highly likely that his expertise will be appreciated over the current tenure of the president and the parliament.”

“He’s done OK at the Central Bank. He has networked and should stay out of the president’s hair and play second fiddle. So I see him minding the store and surviving.”

“The choice of Tigran Sarkisian implies that the president’s priority is the economy, including trying to deliver on his pre-election promises of a better life for more people. I don’t see any candidate emerging who would be better qualified than Sarkisian to meet that requirement, even though he may have an uphill struggle if the global economic downturn intensifies.”

44 % say more than a year but less than four years

“The new president and prime minister have inherited a heavy political legacy and a society on the brink of a split. It is thus hard to believe that they could focus solely on economic issues. Populist steps dictated not by economic effectiveness but public demand will probably be necessary. The biggest challenge will be to strike the right balance, and the new government has no time to waste.”

“[Tigran Sarkisian] will smooth the path for [President] Sargsian with international financial organizations. As PM, he will be allowed to make nonessential decisions. But he has no large power base and if he tries to create one in the future, he will be ousted. If he doesn’t, he will be kept as a convenience until Sargsian’s inner circle feels the need to reward someone else with the post. There is an outside chance that like Vartan Oskanian, he will become so competent and so pliant that he will be kept on longer.”

“He is a prime minister of the moment, not a long-term player. He is a technocrat whose appointment is aimed to satisfy everyone. But it doesn’t look like he is ready for the type of reforms necessary. He may become a long-term PM, but two to three years is more likely.”

“He will most likely fall prey to party politics.”

“[Tigran Sarkisian] has presidential inclinations. I do assume that he will do everything not to fail in terms of his personal career and he will stay there if the president keeps him. However, closer to presidential elections, he may want to get out.”

“With all the caveats, I think that the most likely scenario is the status quo for Armenia: political stability, reasonable growth rate and stable government. But this scenario has not more than a 60 percent chance.”

11% say about a year or less

“Armenia is facing deep social, economic and political crises and the present prime
minister and the coalition do not have the understanding and capacity to overcome these crises, especially since they have been in power for the last ten years and somehow engendered the present situation. The lack of legitimacy and trust from society is the main cause and the backing of outside forces would not improve the situation. The situation needs internal solutions.”

Economic growth

The government expects the double-digit growth that began in 2001 to continue this
year. What do you think?

48% agree somewhat

“I expect that the instability and uncertainty that were generated because of March 1will eventually disappear. I expect Tigran Sargsian’s government would bring back Armenia’s economy back on track. I expect that this government will be able to use the discontent of the population that was exploited before and during March 1, to reduce monopolistic power of oligarch importers and to collect adequate amount of taxes from them, generating a healthier government fiscal conditions.”

“Inflation will increasingly be a factor. More important than growth is the public satisfaction with economic performance. Right now it looks like the public is dissatisfied, and this dissatisfaction is likely to grow.”

“As long as the new Sargsian administration diversifies the type and expands the flow of direct foreign investment to Armenia, especially in the realms of IT and telecommunications, Armenia’s growth should remain close to the 10 percent. What’s critical, however, is that this growth be felt in the everyday lives of Armenians living in both urban and rural areas of the country, and not just a handful of wealthy families.”

“Hard to imagine that Armenia will be immune to the worldwide slowdown, but possible; economists are talking about ‘decoupling’ and Armenia’s strong economic ties with Russia may insulate.”

“Armenia’s economy will be affected by the world economic downturn. Also, the housing and construction boom will most likely slow down somewhat. However, Armenia’s economy is not integrated with the rest of the world to such a degree where the impact of a global decline will be proportionally reflected in the Armenian economy. Also, ‘home loan’ programs which were recently initiated in Armenia will bear fruit in the next 5–10 years increasing demand for housing and thus keeping the construction boom going. All this may be affected by political instability and the resumption of fighting on the front with Azerbaijan.”

“If we can avert a war, there is no reason why things should get worse.”

“Like all other statistics in Armenia, from demography to votes, the statistics will say what the government wants. The cost of oil will rise for Armenia and this will make growth a bit harder to maintain. The misshapen, de-formed nature of the economy – remittances, construction, and agriculture as the first three sources of income – makes any regular economic model useless as a predictive indicator.”

19% agree strongly

“The Armenian economy has a strong potential for growth and if it were not for the post-election crisis, 15 percent or even higher growth would have been a real possibility. The most basic management by the government, dealing with the most controversial factors that are non-economic in nature would help sustain growth. Such steps would be both good for the economy and would also be publicly supported. But they must be taken very soon, within a month or two.”

“Armenia still has a capacity to benefit from the traditional growth sectors (real estate, agriculture, etc.) The slowing momentum in those sectors, however, will be leveraged out by the second-generation reforms, which would make knowledge-based sectors of economy a growth factor.”

19% disagree somewhat

“Current numbers published by the government are inflated in the first place. The main drivers of growth are construction (has limited growth potential), services and remittances (the unfavorable economic situation worldwide might affect the latter). A lot depends on the strength of Russia’s growth.”

15% disagree strongly

“I do not believe in these numbers. Also, it looks like in some countries the stronger the growth, the more job insecurity and unchecked business development is around, which is detrimental for Armenia. What does this growth really mean, and what is Armenia’s real economic condition? Armenia’s economy is not sustainable at all, and combined with politics it becomes even less so, so what are we talking about?”

“10 percent growth rates are quite unusual and very seldom sustained. I expect slowing to about 6–7 percent; political uncertainty should reduce foreign investment.”

Exchange rates

The Armenian dram has been appreciating against major foreign currencies. Do you expect this trend to continue this year?

41% say No, the dram should remain relatively stable

“This year, at least, the dram will stay between 300 and 320 to $1 U.S. as it is set in the budget.”

“The dram’s current rate will remain stable or at least the appreciation should slow down.”

“The [current fiscal] policy will continue because the people in power will continue to profit – keep in mind that the remittances that come to Armenia are denominated in foreign currencies and paid in drams, so remittances buy the natives less while the Central Bank acquires foreign currencies ever more cheaply by paying for it in a currency it controls.”

“I believe the Armenian Central Bank, under then–Central Bank Chief Tigran Sarkisian, had a hand in the dram’s appreciation in relation to major foreign currencies. As long as the new Sargsian administration prioritizes the needs and benefits of large-scale importers, as opposed to local manufacturers, the value of the dram will remain high in relation to other foreign currencies.”

“I do not see the continuation of appreciation trend to be a sustainable option. Tigran Sarkisian should know this better than anyone else. While real appreciation may continue, it would be much slower and directly linked to the growth rate in national productivity.”

“Even if the economic growth results in a natural appreciation the government will have to step in and stabilize it. Otherwise, Armenia risks losing its already very small export market."

“While the dram will stable relative to the U.S. dollar, it will probably depreciate vis-àvis the Euro.”

37% say Yes, the dram will continue to appreciate

“The trends will be dominated by the world financial crisis, most importantly the fall of the dollar. Armenia has only two options in this regard: dram appreciation or inflation.”

“The appreciation of dram will continue as a result of (1) a global trend of dollar-depreciation and (2) local specifics dictated by huge dollar-based injections in the form of private remittances from Armenian labor-force working abroad.”

“I expect the dollar will continue to fall in a long-term depreciation pattern similar to the long-term rise in oil prices.”

“It’s more likely to appreciate in the short term, but I don’t see that trend as continuing indefinitely.”

“My expectation is that the dram will appreciate at a slower pace than during the past few years. The financial and economic crisis in the United States could affect remittances and slow down the appreciation of dram.”

“Until a likely economic collapse, I do not expect any drastic changes in the obligations that the administration has vis-à-vis the businesses that help it survive. In the preelection period, a huge amount of promises has been delivered, which have to be satisfied, at least partly. I wouldn’t expect from Tigran Sarkisian to change the policies he is so accustomed to, like the tenet ‘inflation should be kept low.’”

22% say No, the Dram will depreciate

“Dram appreciation was reflecting inflow of remittances – if the remittance slow, it will depreciate.”

“Not because of anything to do with the local economy, but because the dollar will continue to fall relative to the euro.”

The survey responses come from 27 experts: Armineh Arakelian (Yerevan), Hrachya Arzoumanian (Stepanakert), Konstantin Atanesyan (Washington), Karen Ayvazian (Moscow), King Banaian (St. Cloud, Minn.), Asbed Bedrossian (Los Angeles), Eduard Danielyan (Washington), John Evans (Washington), Lev Freinkman (Washington), Liz Fuller (Prague), Richard Giragossian (Yerevan), David Joulfayan (Boston), Ara Khanjian (Los Angeles), Joshua Kucera (Washington), Artur Martirosyan (Boston), Samvel Martirosyan (Yerevan), Alexandros Petersen (Brussels), Tevan Poghosyan(Yerevan), Tom Samuelian (Yerevan), Zareh Sinanyan (Los Angeles), Ara Tatevosyan (Yerevan), Gevorg Ter-Gabrielian (Yerevan), Khachig Tololyan (Providence, R.I.), Mihran Toumajian (Los Angeles), Ross Vartian (Washington), Cory Welt (Washington), and Aghasi Yenokian (Yerevan).

Briefly: Congress, PACE to hold Armenia hearings; Rice downbeat, then upbeat on Karabakh

First published in April 19, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Armenian politics discussed in Washington…


Representatives of the U.S. and Armenian governments, as well as the Armenian opposition were to testify in a specially convened congressional hearing on April 17 titled “Armenia after the elections.” (A report from the hearing will appear in the next issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

The Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which includes members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and is also known as the Helsinki Commission, will hear testimony from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, Armenian presidential aide Vigen Sargsian, and College of William & Mary professor and former Armenian Foreign Ministry official Arman Grigorian, testifying on behalf of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian.

Earlier this year, the commission co-chaired by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) held a hearing on Georgia’s elections in a similar format. On March 3, following deadly clashes between police and rioters in Yerevan, both Rep. Hastings and Sen. Cardin issued statements calling for restraint and dialogue as a way out of the crisis.

On April 14, the Washington office of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) held a discussion on Armenia and Georgia. RFE/RL contributor Richard Giragossian argued that “the post-election crisis or confrontation [in Armenia] is by no means over.... The underlying dissent and frustration and dissatisfaction among the Armenian public has little avenue for expression, especially in terms of [media] outlets.”

Georgetown University’s Cory Welt painted a somewhat more upbeat picture of developments in neighboring Georgia, suggesting that if “in November [2007] the question was whether Georgia is sliding towards authoritarianism, now it’s whether it is sliding towards democracy.”

…and in Strasbourg

Discussions of Armenia’s post-election crisis took up much of the April 14 plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) convened in Strasbourg, France.

In his report, British Member of Parliament (and former deputy prime minister) John Prescott, who led the PACE delegation to observe Armenia’s February 19 presidential elections, reiterated its key finding that the poll was “basically in line with Council of Europe standards,” and he sounded critical of the Armenian opposition’s tactics.

The report elicited criticisms from Swedish and Hungarian members, who focused on incidents of fraud during vote counting and post-election violence, respectively. In their turn, members of French and Turkish parliaments, who also served as observers, generally endorsed Mr. Prescott’s conclusions.

The most vociferous criticism of the election came from members of the Azerbaijani delegation, who demanded that the PACE be tougher on Armenia. In a rebuttal, Mr. Prescott dismissed Azerbaijani arguments as “absolute rubbish.”

Members of the Armenian delegation Armen Rustamian (of the coalition-member Armenian
Revolutionary Federation) and Raffi Hovannisian (of the opposition Heritage party) presented their views.

PACE was set to continue its discussion on April 17, when it was also expected to propose a set of recommendations to Armenia with regard to its political situation.

Secretary of State takes upbeat line on Karabakh peace

“I am very much of the view that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is one that could be resolved, and actually, with just a little bit of will, could be resolved relatively quickly,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on April 15, appearing to contradict her own assessment a month ago.

In congressional testimony on March 12, Dr. Rice acknowledged, “in the immediate future I don’t know that Nagorno-Karabakh can get solved.”

But in response to a question from the American Turkish Council (ATC) conference audience this week, Dr. Rice said that the Karabakh peace agreement “is just going to take taking a couple of difficult decisions and getting an agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh.”

The question came following Dr. Rice’s address at the ATC’s 27th annual conference, held in Washington, in which she touted the importance of U.S.-Turkish relations, compared Kemal Atatürk to Thomas Jefferson, and sought to avoid commenting on the dominant issue of the day in Turkey: the secular-military establishment’s effort to ban the ruling party through a constitutional court ruling.

Dr. Rice promised continued U.S. assistance to Turkey’s fight against Kurdish rebel forces and encouraged the lifting of Turkish penal code provisions that “criminalizes insulting ‘Turkishness.’”

ATC, which is funded primarily by major U.S. weapon systems manufacturers with contracts in Turkey, is a central element of the Turkish lobby in the United States. It is chaired by retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to former President Bush and onetime superior of Condoleezza Rice. Turkish government delegates at the three-day conference included state minister Kursat Tuzmen and defense minister Vecdi Gonul. (For more information, see www.the-atc.org.)

Coming up…

The Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG) will hold its annual conference on May 17–18 at the World Bank in Washington. The conference, supported by the Armenian government and sponsored by the World Bank, United Nations Development Program, and U.S. Agency for International Development, will focus in Armenia’s economic competitiveness in the global market. Connect at http://www.aiprg.net.

—Alexa Millinger contributed to this week’s Briefing.

Interview with Israeli MP Ze'ev Elkin

First published in April 12, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Knesset member says Azerbaijan shows greater interest than Armenians in Genocide debate

Ze’ev Elkin discusses Knesset debate


On March 26, members of Israel’s legislature voted to hold a first-ever parliamentary debate on the Armenian Genocide. The Knesset will revisit the issue again next month when it returns from recess.

On April 9 our Washington editor Emil Sanamyan spoke by telephone with one of the main supporters of the discussion, Knesset Member Ze’ev Elkin. What follows is the English translation of the interview, which was conducted in Russian.


Reporter: How did you become involved in the discussion of the Armenian Genocide?

Elkin: Prior to my move to Israel [from the Soviet Union in 1990], I had a number of opportunities to visit Yerevan, and I know both the city and had traveled through the country quite a bit as well. So the subject of the Genocide is not new for me.

After my election to the Knesset [in 2006], I asked to become the chair of the Israel-Armenian parliamentary friendship group. And I have also become involved in the Genocide issue.

There is a kind of a tradition in the Knesset, where every year one of the members tries to raise this subject.

In previous years such an effort was made by the late Yuri Shtern [former Soviet Jewish activist who was Knesset member between 1996 and 2007 and was Mr. Elkin’s predecessor as chair of the Armenia-Israel parliamentary friendship group].

And then the issue was taken up by Knesset Member Chaim Oron, whose brother Prof. Yair Auron has written on the Genocide and its denial.

Typically, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, working through the parliamentary majority, would block any debate out of concern for relations with Turkey.

So the problem was not so much about views of individual Knesset members. There are several examples of members supporting discussion while they were in opposition and then, while in the majority, deferring to the government and voting against discussion.

My objective was to win the support from coalition majority to have the issue added to the Knesset’s agenda for the first time ever. And at least in part I succeeded in that [on March 26] the coalition members voted unanimously to do so, making it a historic development.

Reporter: As a member of the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima Party were you under any pressure to defer to the party leadership and the government?

Elkin: We do have a tradition in the Knesset where members do sometimes vote in accordance with their personal views and not just in line with the party’s position. And I personally tend to vote quite independently on many issues. And I am in a kind of opposition to the prime minister on his approach toward negotiations with Palestinians.

On this particular issue, I did have discussions with the Foreign Minister [Tzipi Livni] and she was not particularly happy about the vote, but there was not any great deal of pressure from the party.

[On April 1] the governing coalition parties did manage [contrary to my wishes] to send the issue to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and not the Education
and Culture Committee.

The reason for my position was that hearings in the former committee are frequently behind closed doors and this would not create the public resonance that I wish to achieve in Israel. And, secondly, members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee are more likely to look at this issue through the prism of Israel’s relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

And since relations between Armenia and Israel are not all that developed, there is no Armenian ambassador here, and there is no great deal of economic links between the two countries, the decision on the motion is likely to be based on pragmatic considerations.

But at least formally there is not yet a final determination on which committee will look at the issue, since we have appealed the [April 1] decision and our appeal will be considered after the end of the parliamentary recess next month.

Reporter: According to Turkish media, Israeli president Shimon Peres has assured the chair of the Turkish parliament’s foreign relations committee Murat Mercan, who visited Israel earlier this week, that there is no need to worry about the Armenian Genocide discussion in the Knesset.

According to your observations, how much support does the initiative have in the Israeli parliament and what is the likelihood of its passage?

Elkin: I’ll put it this way: for nearly 20 years the [Armenian Genocide] issue could not even be added to the Knesset’s agenda, and [on March 26] the decision to do so was made unanimously, including by one cabinet member. [Editor’s note: In Israel cabinet members are also members of the Knesset.]

This was a surprising development for Israeli media, considering that in the past the Foreign Ministry would typically manage to block any debate.

So I would not try to predict a result. I am not certain that we will manage to win recognition in this round. And I am sure there will be an effort to postpone any discussion and there will be more pressure from the Foreign Ministry, which will be citing the importance of Turkey.

I am a realist and realize that there is no guarantee of a positive outcome. But I have to say that on the emotional level an overwhelming majority of the Knesset supports recognition. But when other factors get involved, the outcome becomes less certain. In the very least this would be a lesson, and if not this time around, then sometime in the future we will be successful.

Reporter: How would explain that the most vocal opposition to this issue came on behalf of Azerbaijan from Knesset member Yosef Shagal, who is a native of Baku,
and chairs the Azerbaijan friendship group? On the surface, at least, this issue has no relation to Azerbaijan.

Elkin: The issue does not in fact concern Azerbaijan directly. But the amount of attention given to this issue in the Azerbaijani media and by others on behalf of Azerbaijan has been quite extraordinary. I was swamped with letters of protest from Azerbaijan and a few from Azerbaijan natives living in Israel.

I have heard quite a bit from the Azerbaijani media – and I have to say that you are the first Armenian news outlet to contact me for an interview. Although I have seen
some reprints in Armenian websites from Israeli media, there were no direct inquiries.

Azerbaijan has great sensitivity to this subject since they view any discussion of the issue as an Armenian diplomatic success. And there has been great deal of pressure [from Azerbaijan] in the last several weeks especially on me as a member of the governing party.

At the same time, I have to note that there has not been any intense attention from the Armenian side – either from the diaspora or the government – to this issue. And this does not make things easier for me. The fact that both Turkey and Azerbaijan are intensively lobbying the Knesset, and there is no similar effort from the Armenian side, makes the challenge we have even more difficult.

Reporter: What kind of involvement from the Armenian side would you have liked to see?

Elkin: Well starting just with communication by supporters of this issue with members of the Knesset – all member e-mails are available on the web site http://www.knesset.gov.il, as are phone numbers. All parliament members pay attention to the public, even if that public is not part of their electorate.

Since there is not much of Armenian or Armenia-connected electorate in Israel, from that point of view, too, it makes more sense to support the Turkish or Azerbaijani position.

Like I said, I have been swamped by e-mails from Azerbaijan arguing against this initiative and I have not seen much activity from the Armenian side. And, if I, as one of the main proponents, have not felt any Armenian interest in this subject, then certainly neither had the 119 other Knesset members.

And on the official level, to this day there has been no reaction to the Knesset discussion from either the Armenian parliament or the Foreign Ministry. It is particularly surprising since I have seen coverage of the issue in the Armenian media, at least online.

[Editor’s note: Armenia’s ambassador to France Edward Nalbandian also serves as ambassador to Israel; while Aram Safarian, a former journalist and Foreign Ministry
official, elected to parliament last year on the Prosperous Armenia Party list, is Mr. Elkin’s Armenia counterpart. On April 10, the Head of the Jewish community of Armenia, Rimma Varzhapetyan-Feller, addressed an open letter to the Knesset, urging it to “demonstrate reasonableness and adopt the Resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide.]

Reporter: It seems every time the Armenian Genocide is discussed in any national parliament, there are threats from Turkey, and now also from Azerbaijan, that the interests of that country would be hurt. And in the case of discussions in Israel and even the United States, it is said that the Jewish communities in these countries would be negatively affected. Have you heard such rhetoric this time around?

Elkin: Not from the countries themselves, no. But such rhetoric has come from some of the leaders of the Azerbaijani Jewish community, and particularly those who have already emigrated from Azerbaijan, that somehow discussion of the Genocide would hurt the Jewish community in Azerbaijan.

I think this is very wrong and irresponsible of them. Azerbaijan’s Jewish community should not be held hostage to Israeli politics. This is akin to Soviet Union’s efforts to hold its Jewish citizens responsible for Israel’s policies, which was certainly absurd.

As to bilateral relations between Israel and Turkey, I certainly realize that they can potentially be negatively impacted considering Turkey’s position on the Armenian Genocide. I would certainly regret that since I have nothing against either Turkey, or Azerbaijan for that matter. And I do value Turkey’s importance as an ally, since Israel has very few allies to begin with.

But I believe that in this case our moral responsibilities should trump any other considerations.

And Turkey will eventually have to resign itself to the fact that the parliament of Israel, like parliaments of other countries before it, will take a position on this issue.

Were Israel to do this in a clear cut way, this would also help push Turkey toward revising its position. As long as Turkey senses that it can, through pressure, influence countries such as Israel, [it is easier for Turkey to stick to its current position].

At the same time, since Armenia is not really engaging Israel all that much – be that bilaterally or through votes in the United Nations – this does not help Israel [take a position that it should].

In the end, the real issue is that both Turkey and Azerbaijan are engaging Israel more actively than does Armenia. One example of this is that Armenia does not even have a diplomatic representative in Israel, just an honorary consul.

So, one of my intentions is to contribute to expansion of relations between Israel and Armenia.

About Ze’ev Elkin

Mr. Elkin was elected to the Knesset on the ticket of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima Party in 2006. In addition to several committee assignments, Mr. Elkin is co-chair of the Israel-Armenia inter-parliamentary friendship group.

Prior to his election Mr. Elkin taught at the University of Jerusalem and was an advisor to the director of the education department of Sokhnut, the Jewish Agency Of Israel, which assists and encourages Jews worldwide to settle Israel.

Mr. Elkin earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Jewish history at the Hebrew University, where he is completing a Ph.D.

Born in 1971 in Kharkov, Ukraine’s second-largest city, Mr. Elkin moved to Israel in 1990.

connect: http://www.knesset.gov.il
zelkin@knesset.gov.il
From the U.S.: 011-972-26-408-145

Briefly abt. ICG on Armenian politics; more ADL fall-out in Mass.; Armenian-American in Ohio Congress run; Turkish and Azeri caucuses; Bush in Russia

First published in April 12, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Think tank calls for international pressure on Armenia


The International Crisis Group (ICG), a Brussels-based think tank issued a report criticizing as “inadequate” the international reaction to the Armenian government’s handling of the February 19 presidential elections and subsequent opposition protests that resulted in violent riots on March 1.

The report, “Armenia: Picking up the Pieces,” issued on April 8 suggested that unless the United States and European Union “exert pressure, Armenia is unlikely to make progress” on democratic reform and resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The pressure, the report recommended, should take the form of a potential suspension of foreign aid and a hold on closer cooperation.

The arguments in the report, which questions the legitimacy of Serge Sargsian’s presidency and appears to lay the blame for the post-election violence solely with the government, mirror closely the views of former president Levon Ter-Petrossian’s campaign – more than those expressed by international organizations and Western governments.

Incidentally, one of the ex-president’s closest aides involved in this year’s campaign, Levon Zourabian, was since 2004 the ICG analyst for Armenia, and helped develop its November 2004 report titled “Armenia: Internal Instability Ahead.”

Although Mr. Zourabian is still listed in that position on the think tank’s web site, ICG’s Tbilisi-based Caucasus Project Director Magdalena Frichova told the Armenian Reporter that Mr. Zourabian “left [the] Crisis Group back in January and had nothing to do with [the April 8] report.”

Ms. Frichova added that ICG is “acutely conscious of any conflict of interest, and [takes] all precautions against it.”

Mr. Zourabian had not responded to an e-mail query as of press time.

ICG is co-chaired by former senior British and U.S. officials Chris Patten and Thomas Pickering and led by former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans. In a report issued on November 14, ICG warned increased risk of war in Karabakh by 2012.

To see the full report connect at http://www.crisisweb.org

Massachusetts Municipal Association pulls sponsorship of Anti-Defamation

League program Citing the Anti-Defamation League’s failure “to clarify and strengthen its earlier statements concerning recognition of the Armenian Genocide” during the league’s national board meeting last November, the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) voted on April 8 to withdraw its sponsorship of the league’s No Place for Hate (NPFH) program.

The action by MMA, which is an association of the state’s cities and towns, comes after 12 Massachusetts communities, starting with Watertown in August of last year, decided to suspend their cooperation with the Anti-Defamation League over its ambiguous position on Armenian Genocide affirmation.

connect: http://www.noplacefordenial.com

Armenian-American running for Ohio congressional seat

David Krikorian, a Cincinnati-area businessperson and state chair for the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), has been qualified to run as an independent candidate this November to represent Ohio’s second congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives, his campaign reported.

Mr. Krikorian will be running against incumbent GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt and her Democratic challenger Dr. Victoria Wulsin, who lost to Ms. Schmidt by a narrow margin in 2006. Ms. Schmidt is a member of the Turkish caucus and has opposed Genocide affirmation.

On the other hand, Dr. Wulsin had pledged to support the Armenian-American agenda and was, in the 2006 elections, backed by the ANCA.

In a comment to the Armenian Reporter, ANCA director Aram Hamparian praised Mr. Krikorian’s business and civic skills and said that the ANCA “join[s] with members of the Armenian community from the across the country in supporting him in every way we can.”

connect: http://www.krikorianforcongress.com

Azerbaijan, Turkey building congressional caucuses

Turkish and Azerbaijani lobbyists in Washington have been making steady progress in expanding their congressional influence over the past year. A highlight is the expansion of congressional caucuses dedicated to U.S. relations with the two countries.

Established in 2004, the Azerbaijan caucus has been actively recruiting members over the last year, increasing membership from 14 in April 2007 to 40 as of this week, according to the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesperson, cited by Day.az on April 7.

According to the website of the Turkish Coalition of America there are currently 77 members in the congressional Turkey caucus, up from 71 reported by the caucus co-chair Rep. Robert Wexler (D.-Fla) at the end of 2006. Incidentally, many of the Turkey caucus members are also members of the Armenian caucus, which currently numbers 155 members.

Speaking on April 3 at the Rumi Forum, a recently established Turkish think tank in Washington, Mr. Wexler said that U.S.-Turkish relations have improved substantially over the past year. “The animosity that affected the relationship because of the Iraq War is no longer present,” he said.

When asked about the Armenian Genocide resolutions in the U.S. Congress, Mr. Wexler skirted the question, stressing the importance of continuing to build “a positive Turkish image in the U.S.”

Last month the Turkish government decided not to renew its contact with the lobby group of former House Speaker Bob Livingston (R.-La.), The Hill newspaper reported on March 31. The Livingston Group, which worked for Turkey for eight years, earned more than $12 million primarily for helping fight Armenian Genocide affirmation.

That task now falls on another big Washington firm, DLA Piper, which first picked up the contract with Turkey in May 2007. The firm is led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R.-Tex.) and former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D.-Mo.)

Bush, Putin meet for final summit

The presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation met for their final summit near the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi on April 5–6 as President Vladimir Putin is set to conclude his term in office next month, news agencies reported. President George Bush also met with Mr. Putin’s successor, President-elect Dmitry Medvedev.

The two leaders sought to downplay bilateral differences issuing a “U.S.-Russia Strategic Framework Declaration” and exchanging compliments at a press conference.

While the declaration mentioned that the two countries will “work closely together on all the major global international issues that confront us,” it did not specifically refer among the priorities to either Karabakh or other post-Soviet conflicts, in which both the United States and Russia have played mediating roles.

Two days earlier both presidents attended the NATO summit in Romania, where Mr. Putin described U.S. calls for the alliance’s expansion into Ukraine and Georgia as a “direct threat” to Russia, RFE/RL reported. NATO postponed to December formal discussion of the two countries’ membership. (See this page in the April 5 Armenian Reporter.)

In Sochi, Mr. Putin also reiterated Russian opposition to the U.S. proposal, now backed by NATO, to station new radars and missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic. The U.S. administration says it will use them against a potential future missile threat from Iran.

But Russia argues that these installations can have multiple uses, including against its own forces, and would thus alter the strategic balance in Europe. Russia has offered to establish a joint missile-defense system, but the United States has been reluctant to allow Russia any major role in the system.

Since taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush has met Mr. Putin 28 times – more than any other foreign leader with the exception of former British prime minister Tony Blair.

- Alexa Millinger contributed to this week’s Briefing

Interview with Karabakh's Representative in U.S.

This was published in April 5 and 19 issues of the Armenian Reporter.

“Karabakh has things to do in Washington”

NKR Representative Vardan Barseghian discusses the challenges of leading Artsakh’s de-facto diplomatic mission in the U.S. in an interview with the Armenian Reporter’s Nareg Seferian.

Reporter: This representation, the Office of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the United States, first of all, how did it come about? What is the story behind it?

Barseghian: The representation itself was established in 1997, when the U.S. became closely involved in Nagorno Karabakh peace negotiations.

So, when I arrived, the office had already been up and running. In 1999, we formally registered the representation with the U.S. government under a special law that allows such representations to work here.

This arrangement does not grant us diplomatic privileges that are given to embassies of states that are formally recognized by the U.S. We have this arrangement since the Nagorno Karabakh Republic is still in the process of acquiring international recognition.

We work with the U.S. Congress, educating its members about the situation in Karabakh and advocating for economic and political support.

And certainly, we work with the Department of State, analytical centers, academia and the media. A major part of our work is directed towards establishing and maintaining strong ties with the Armenian Diaspora in the U.S.

Reporter: And this work gives the advantage to the Armenian perspective on this conflict? This boosts the Armenian effort in that regard?

Barseghian: Certainly. The Nagorno- Karabakh Republic – Artsakh – is already functioning as a state with all the required attributes and it has its own representations throughout the world, including in Armenia, Russia, France, Lebanon, Australia and the United States.

It is only natural that we want to establish direct contacts, and we are thankful to the government of the United States for allowing us to be here, and represent and defend our interests, and to advocate for greater ties and support.

Reporter: Obviously, the Diaspora has a role in this office, seeing as how you are in the same office suite as the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA). How did it come about that the NKR Representation was not housed in the same building with the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia?

Barseghian: That would not be politically correct: Karabakh needed to have its own separate premises. Since Armenia has bilateral relations with the United States, the existence of another diplomatic entity within the Armenian Embassy was seen as improper.

NKR has its state structures and although we are the same Armenian people, politically we are two distinct entities in the region, the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, and that is communicated through our foreign relations efforts.

So the AAA stepped forward and offered technical and financial support to our mission and, using this opportunity, I would like to thank the AAA for their critical support over the years.

In recent years, as Artsakh’s financial situation improved, the NKR government has been providing more financial support for its diplomatic missions around the world, including most of the funding for our mission in Washington.

But we still need to rely on Diaspora support.

We very much appreciate the Assembly’s help, but Karabakh needs to have a separate office and continue to work effectively with all our counterparts. I would use this opportunity to call on our friends here, Armenian and non-Armenian, to continue standing by the Representation, to extend greater support as we work towards our common objectives.

Reporter: You said that you are separate entities with the Embassy, but you mentioned also that you are the same Armenian people. Do you work alongside with the Armenian Embassy staff here? Is there ever any co-ordination or consultations with them?

Barseghian: We have a very good working relationship with the Armenian Embassy, including with Ambassador Tatoul Markarian. As I said, Karabakh has its own, distinct foreign policy agenda, diplomatic goals. But, on a number of issues, a number of subjects, our aims are the same. So, we work very closely while maintaining our independence.

Reporter: Apart from Karabakh, there are no other representations here in Washington from post-Soviet unrecognized republics? No Abkhaz or Ossetians?

Barseghian: Abkhazia used to have a representative in New York. At least there was somebody who worked with the United Nations on their behalf.

But I know for sure that Kosovo has maintained a very strong representation here, as did Montenegro and East Timor, before becoming independent.

So, it is not unusual for states seeking international recognition to have representation in the United States, and those states, of course, are here to present their cause and to explain the situation first-hand, so, it is important for us to be here, and to continue our work and expand our outreach.

Reporter: What has been Azerbaijan’s reaction to this office through its Embassy here, its community here? Do they raise this issue? Do they object to this, have there been any incidents, over the years, against the functioning of this office?

Barseghian: We know for a fact that Azerbaijan is not happy with our presence here, because one of their goals is to spread disinformation about Karabakh, to allege, without any factual ground, that Karabakh is an uncontrollable zone, that nuclear waste is being dumped there, that there is narcotics trafficking and any other criminal activity that Azerbaijan can imagine.

But when there is an office that presents the real situation in Karabakh, then, of course, that is not to Azerbaijan’s liking. They do not like that because they want to spread their disinformation unhindered and I am sure they have raised this issue with the State Department.

Several years ago, the late [Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev was speaking at a public event in Washington, DC, and my colleague from the representation was present. He raised his hand to ask a question. Of course, as is customary at such events, when he stood up he introduced himself as working at the Karabakh Office…

The late Aliyev was very surprised, got very agitated and wondered how somebody from Karabakh could be allowed to be at that event, and even pose a question! The question itself almost did not matter.

This is just one example that they do not want us to be here.

Every time I or one of my colleagues gets up to speak in a public forum in presence of Azerbaijani officials, the reaction is always something like, ‘No, it cannot be, you cannot represent Karabakh, Nagorno Karabakh doesn’t exist, you are probably just a student here…”

Reporter: So, they are in denial…

Barseghian: Exactly. Or whenever there is a foreign visitor to Karabakh, and this visitor goes back and says NKR is a functioning country, they are not criminals, the situation is calm, people go about their daily business, Azerbaijan denies that, too, even from their own representatives. They even put one of their journalists in prison simply for visiting Karabakh and writing about it without the usual amount of bias.

Azerbaijan is awash in all these myths about evil Armenians, the evil Armenian lobby and even when the reality looks them straight in the eyes they would reject it to save their myths.

But since the U.S. is one of three lead mediators in the Karabakh conflict, and we do have representations in Russia and France, the other mediator countries, we really appreciate this opportunity to be here as well. And it is important for the U.S. government and the American public to hear our voice, because they are trying to mediate an issue that directly concerns us, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. So, despite these efforts by Azerbaijan, we are working within the limits of the status that we have.

Hopefully sometime soon these limits will be lifted, and Karabakh will be formally recognised by the international community, including the United States, and that is what we are working towards.

Reporter: You mentioned some of your activities, educating the Congress, informing various branches of the U.S. government, and ties with the Diaspora in America. Could you elaborate on that?

Barseghian: This Representation acts as any embassy in Washington, so we facilitate contacts between the United States and Karabakh, both on an official level, which includes regular visits by Karabakh officials here, and also at the public level. Any embassy in Washington is doing just that. The scope of activity differs, due to our specific situation, our ties with the executive branch are limited, but they exist. We have an ongoing dialogue. Our ties with the U.S. Congress are much wider.

Of course, information plays a major role, so we provide regular updates on developments in Karabakh. We maintain a web site www.nkrusa.org and since 1999 we have been publishing the Artsakh Newsletter. This newsletter has covered the political situation, the peace process, economic situation in Karabakh, and other developments.

We used to have the newsletter both in print and electronic versions, but in 2007, we dropped the print format, to be able to issue it more frequently. The newsletter is now called the Artsakh News Digest and is issued electronically on a biweekly basis and it is distributed to the governments, think tanks, the media and throughout the Diaspora.

The Representation has just two staff members, including myself and to be effective we stay very focused on our work. [A third staff member was added recently. – Ed.]

Reporter: So, it’s just the two of you here… As I understand, this Representation has not had more than two or three people working at a time. Is this a problem? And is this because of financial constraints? You mentioned that your funding comes both from the government and Diaspora.

Barseghian: Yes, the Karabakh government provides the bulk of our funding. As I mentioned, the Assembly has provided office space since 1997, for which we are very grateful. Other organizations also support us on a limited scale, particularly the Cafesjian Family Foundation and the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU). We also have a number of individual supporters.

We are truly thankful for all the support, but the challenges we face are huge. So, it is important that your readers, our compatriots understand that Karabakh has things to do in Washington, many things to do.

Of course, our office is understaffed and we have serious financial constraints. But Karabakh is the cornerstone of the Armenian national agenda today and we can help everyone who is willing to help us achieve our objectives to find a role for themselves.

Certainly, the representation needs to be much stronger, to have a bigger budget to be able to have at least five staff members. So, I’d like to use this opportunity to deliver this message that all our friends in U.S. need to stand by this representation, which has a very challenging task at hand.

Even with just two employees, we’ve been able to have a functioning representation, achieve increased awareness of the situation in Nagorno Karabakh, facilitate economic and cultural projects, doing whatever is within our limits.

But we have a new set of challenges in the region, to be able to counter Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s aggressive efforts, including in Washington, we need to appreciate what is happening now, and be able to continue our work not just in a reactive way, but also in a proactive way.

On the peace process and threats of war

Reporter: Over the past almost ten years now, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh has been outside the Karabakh peace process. Is Karabakh’s participation in the talks necessary?

Or, do you think it’s appropriate to pull back on this in order to have more substantial talks, so that the content of the talks is more realistic and more in line with Armenian interests?

Barseghian: The current format of talks certainly does not reflect the reality on the ground and the division of decision authority. I would not say that Karabakh has been excluded from the talks, the top leadership of Karabakh is consulted on a regular basis and is informed about the specifics of the negotiations, and the current level of dialogue between the authorities in Karabakh and Armenia allows an exchange of information and certain level of co-ordination of actions, of steps.

But, naturally, talks should be first of all between Karabakh and Azerbaijan, with Armenia present as an interested party. When this whole conflict began, Azerbaijan
attacked Karabakh, and it was Karabakh that defended itself and Armenia stepped in to help its brethren in Karabakh.

Azerbaijan is trying to portray this conflict as a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but the reality is that this is a national liberation movement for the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh. And only the people of Karabakh can decide their own future.

Of course, we trust Armenia, we are the same people, but, as I said, politically, we are separate. And the people of Karabakh need to be represented at the talks and, eventually, this is inevitable since no major issue can be decided without the explicit endorsement of the people of Karabakh directly or through their elected representatives.

The main reason there has been no progress in talks is because Azerbaijan is not really interested in accepting the reality, Azerbaijan wants to go back to the status quo of 1988, when the Soviet Union was still around. That is not possible.

Karabakh has been able to defend itself, and has been able to establish a line of defense, the Line of Contact that has been stable for about fourteen years without
a peacekeeping force and which needs to become an international border, which it is already de-facto.

Once this reality is recognized, Azerbaijan will sit down to talk with Karabakh about the future of our relations. About building bridges so that we, as citizens of this region can live in peace and go about our daily lives and take care of our economies and social needs of our respective populations.

For now, as long as Azerbaijan wishes to talk to Armenia about a peace deal that corresponds to our vision, we are fine with that. But Azerbaijan by refusing to talk to Karabakh also tries to create an illusion for itself and for the international community that this conflict is not about self-determination or liberation of the people, that it is a territorial dispute.

When somebody looks at a map and sees the current configuration of conflict, it is easy to buy that claim since what used to be Soviet Azerbaijan is now controlled by somebody else.

But it is crucial to realize that in 1992, when Karabakh was on the verge of extinction, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh were obliged to break out of the encirclement, go outside their former Soviet administrative borders in order to defend their people, homes and way of life.

In 1992, Azerbaijan occupied nearly half of Nagorno Karabakh Soviet-era territory, with all of its Armenian population expelled. But we were able to regroup, reorganize
our self-defense, and push back the Azerbaijani forces and create a buffer zone around Karabakh.

But this history of the conflict tends to be forgotten when we discuss territories, refugees, communications…

We need to continue to educate the international community, and everybody involved,
about the cause of this conflict, as well as the consequences. The cause was the illegal annexation of Nagorno Karabakh, a historic Armenian land, by Azerbaijan with the help from the Bolsheviks. Stalin just gave it to Azerbaijan.

The people of Karabakh were never happy with that decision. Last twenty years provided an opportunity to us to deal with this illegal occupation and liberate ourselves.

So, when this reality is appreciated, recognized, then it is easy to deal with consequences. So, when Azerbaijan advocates for a return to 1988, everyone needs to realize that it was that exact status quo that caused this conflict and that we do not need to continue with the same vicious cycle.

I think there is that appreciation internationally, we simply need to work, everybody needs to work with Azerbaijan in explaining the new reality, that there is no going back to the situation of 1988 or 1921.

The people of Karabakh have managed to realize their right to live in freedom, they defended that right on the battlefield, and the NKR has been successful in building a functioning country. When this is recognized, we will be able to come to a solution sooner rather than later.

Reporter: Is there a real threat that the conflict may re-ignite into war?

Barseghian: Yes, the war, the Azerbaijani aggression is still a very recent history for us and we are not forgetting it. And Azerbaijan’s top government officials continue to threaten us with a new war, and we consider our history and we see the military build-up by Azerbaijan and we understand that a new war cannot be ruled out.

Having said that, we also know that Azerbaijan recognizes our ability to defend ourselves and we have been keeping our defense capability up-to-date, in line with demands of a modern war, and that is why the Line of Contact has been generally stable.

A certain balance of power has been established in this region, which paved the way for the ceasefire.

Once this balance of power shifts, a new war may become more likely. Of course, we are not interested in starting a new war, we basically got what we wanted; we wanted to be able to live securely on the lands of our ancestors. We were able to reach that goal.

Unfortunately, our people paid a very heavy price for that, and because of this war that Azerbaijan initiated, that price was inevitable as we were left without alternate options. Our heroes, who sacrificed their lives and health, did so knowingly, to ensure the life and freedom of their families.

Today, we cannot rule out a new war, but we are not afraid of it either. We know that we need to be prepared for another war in order to make it less likely. Azerbaijan knows about our determination to defend ourselves, our lives.

But the day that we give Azerbaijan a reason to doubt our determination, will be the day when the war would undoubtedly begin. But we are not going to give Azerbaijan that reason.

Reporter: But Azerbaijan is increasing its military spending, they have made their intentions clear. Does this not mean that Karabakh may be faced with more daunting challenges?

Barseghian: We are aware of Azerbaijan’s increased military spending, but we also keep up in defense capabilities, improving, modernizing, and training our soldiers and officers to be ready for a new war.

The war of 1991-1994 was very hard for the people of Karabakh, for all Armenians who came to support us. In that war, Azerbaijan had an upper hand in personnel and equipment. Perhaps ten times more military hardware, at least 3-4 times more ground forces. Nevertheless, faced with such difficult odds, Artsakh was able to prevail.

Azerbaijan knows the facts of that war, and even the biggest army will not help them, because our soldiers will be fighting for their families, their homes. And certainly in addition to that motivation, we now have the type of defense capabilities that we never had before.

The NKR Office: how to get involved

Reporter: Back to Washington issues. Do you often get people coming in, Armenians or not, who want to help out, or who have done things for the NKR Representation here?

Barseghian: Over the years there have been many such cases, but I of course wish we had even more. For several years now, we have had an internship program, so that plays a part. Using this opportunity, I would like to thank the volunteers who have helped us all these years.

All of this support has been great, but the central issue for the office is to be able to have a bigger staff and for sure, a bigger budget.

I would also like to mention a lot of day-to-day support from organizations, especially the Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian National Committee, the
U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Office and others that work in Washington and throughout the U.S. That’s where our strength comes from, and we are really lucky in this regard
to have the support of those organizations.

But our co-operation needs to reach a new level that will correspond to current realities and challenges.

It’s been sixteen years since Karabakh’s independence. We have to recognize that the world has changed, that our opponents are working very hard against us internationally and that we need to be up to the new challenges to achieve our goals.

Reporter: Finally, can you tell us a little about yourself? How did you end up representing the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the U.S.?

Barseghian: In 1999, while working at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Karabakh, I got a call from then President Arkady Ghoukasian, with whom I previously worked at the Foreign Ministry. He said that he wanted me to accept this position, which I did and a month later I arrived in Washington.

But there is a pre-history to that of course. Back in 1993 I just graduated from university in Moscow and was preparing to go back to Karabakh. I was in the metro, and as I was making a transfer from one metro line to another, I walked by a vendor who held a book in his hand titled “English in Three Months.”

I noticed the title as I was passing, then stopped, came back and bought that book.

Prior to that my foreign language was German and I did not study English at school or university. But I always liked English, I liked the way it sounded, I liked the Beatles and other bands, and I always wanted to learn it, so I bought that book.

Back in Karabakh, there was no electricity, no heat, shortage of water and everything else, and the war… But I really wanted to learn English. There was this drive inside me, I had just graduated and, you know, I still had that urge to keep learning.

So, at night, I would sit down and learn English by candle-light. I even built a candle chandelier myself!

I studied diligently. My mother – God bless her soul – would wake up at night at four or five o’clock and see me still studying by candlelight, and would say, ‘What are you doing?! Go, get some rest!’

But I had this motivation that I could not stop. And later, working for international relief organizations in Stepanakert and at the Foreign Ministry I had a chance to practice the language. And eventually, that played a major role in getting me to where I am. But at that Moscow metro stop, I never thought I would end up in Washington.

And in spite of all challenges, it is definitely a great privilege and honor to be Artsakh’s envoy to the United States.

About Vardan Barseghian

Prior to his appointment as the Permanent Representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to the United States in August 1999, Mr. Barseghian helped manage the Stepanakert office of the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) and earlier worked at the NKR Foreign Ministry.

Born in 1970 in Stepanakert, Mr. Barseghian finished a local high school and then enrolled at the Moscow Civil Engineering University. After compulsory military service in the Soviet Army and graduation from the university in 1993, Mr. Barseghian
returned to Karabakh. There, he first served in an NKR Defense Army unit that repaired armored vehicles damaged in combat and then joined the Karabakh office of the Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), one of the foreign humanitarian organizations that provided medical aid in Karabakh during the war.

Mr. Barseghian and his wife Lusine have two sons, Robert and Thomas.

For more information about the NKR Office visit htt://www.nkrusa.org.

Briefly: Bush nominates Armenia, Caspian envoys; NATO summit stalls expansion; AKP vs. military in Turkey; Knesset committee to discuss Genocide

First published in April 5, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Bush nominates ambassador to Armenia, designates new Eurasia energy envoy


On March 28, the White House formally announced President George Bush’s intention to nominate Marie Yovanovitch, current the U.S. ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia. (See the March 29, 2008, Armenian Reporter for background on Amb. Yovanovitch).

Upon receipt of the formal nomination, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), will schedule a hearing on the candidacy.

The president has also satisfied a request by Sen. Biden and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Dick Lugar (R.-Ind.), made last October, to appoint a “special representative” dedicated to Caspian energy issues. On March 31, President Bush announced that the special envoy for the European Union, Boyden Gray, will also serve as special envoy for Eurasian energy to promote the U.S.-led efforts to channel Central Asian oil and gas to Europe while bypassing Russia and Iran.

Previously, U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central and South Asia Steve Mann held that responsibility.

NATO allies stall U.S. push for Georgia, Ukraine membership

In spite of public lobbying by President Bush for NATO to begin immediate membership talks with Ukraine and Georgia, opposition from Germany and France effectively stalled the effort at the alliance summit held in Romania April 2–4, U.S. media reported.

The U.S. position that NATO should offer membership action plans (MAPs) to the two countries was backed by the United Kingdom, and Canada as well as new NATO members of Eastern Europe, but it was opposed by most Western European countries, with senior German and French officials citing their reluctance to aggravate relations with Russia.

However, in a compromise decision on April 3, NATO promised eventual membership for Georgia and Ukraine and said that it would review their applications for MAPs again in December.

Greece in turn had delayed a formal invitation to the Balkan state of Macedonia, in a long-running dispute over the country’s name, which is identical to that of one of the northern Greek provinces.

NATO countries agreed without controversy to invite Croatia and Albania to join the alliance. European countries also agreed to bolster the NATO forces in Afghanistan and endorse the U.S.-proposed European missile defense system to preempt a potential threat from Iran.

The missile defense issue is expected to be the focus of President Bush’s discussion in Russia, where he will meet President Vladimir Putin and President-elect Dmitry Medvedev this weekend.

Turkey’s high court to consider ban on ruling party

In a politically charged decision, the Turkish Constitutional Court agreed unanimously on March 31 to consider a ban on the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

If agreed to, the ban would also bar 71 of AKP’s senior members, including the country’s president and prime minister, from politics for a period of five years. Turkish analyst Cengiz Candar told the New York Times that the court’s decision was “not a legal act; it’s political.”

The case is likely to drag on for many months, and is expected to be used as a political leverage by the AKP government’s opponents.

The proposal was brought by the public prosecutor’s office, which along with the judiciary remain some of the last bastions of the secular-military establishment after the Islamist-leaning AKP swept the parliament last year and succeeded in getting one of its own elected as Turkey’s president.

The opponents argue that AKP is steering the country away from constitutionally mandated secularism and wants to impose Islamic laws; they particularly cite AKP’s effort to lift a ban on women wearing headscarves in universities. The indictment alleged in part that the ruling party was part of a U.S. conspiracy to install “moderate Islamic regimes.”

The Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice, meantime, decided to delist PKK – the Kurdish rebel group – from the European Union (EU) list of terrorist organization, citing lack of proper justification, Radio Netherlands reported on April 3. The EU is expected to appeal that decision.

Intermittent clashes between Turkish armed forces and the Kurdish rebels continue, with deadly fighting reported in the southeastern Sirnak province reported by Turkish officials on April 2.

----

Knesset committee sends Armenian Genocide motion to a closed-door committee over sponsors’ objections

The Rules Committee of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, voted 11 to 7 on April 1 to submit a motion on the discussion of the Armenian Genocide to the Knesset’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, the Russian-language Israeli news agency newsru.il reported.

According to Knesset member Ze’ev Elkin, who is with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party, a Rules Committee member Zahava Gal-On of the leftist Meretz party requested a revision of the ruling, which will be considered after the Knesset returns from recess on May 19.

The proponents of the discussion, including Mr. Elkin and the motion’s original sponsor Chaim Oron (also with Meretz), have called for the issue to be considered by the Education and Culture Committee, which holds open hearings.

The opponents prefer the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, since its hearings are typically held behind closed doors.

Knesset member Yosef Shagal, who led the opposition to the discussion, told the Azerbaijani Trend news agency that he expects the latter committee to “close this problem.” A native of Soviet Azerbaijan, Mr. Shagal is with Yisrael Beitanu party of Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Liberman.

The April 1 debate included a sharp polemic between Mr. Shagal and Mr. Elkin, himself an immigrant from Soviet Ukraine. Mr. Shagal called the measure “populist.” Mr. Elkin responded that Mr. Shagal’s late party colleague Yuri Shtern was also one of the measure’s proponents. In a followup Russian language response Mr. Shagal reportedly called Mr. Elkin a “goat” and threatened physical violence against him.

Mr. Elkin later said that he regretted that the debate turned ugly.

In a comment for newsru.il, Mr. Shagal argued that the Jewish community in “hot-headed” Azerbaijan may be threatened should the discussion on the Armenian Genocide
proceed any further. Citing the importance of the relationship with Turkey, successive Israeli governments have sought to avoid discussion of the issue.

On March 26, the Israeli Knesset voted for the first time in its history to discuss the Armenian Genocide, in a decision its proponents called “historic.” Following the vote, senior Israeli officials told the local daily Yediot Aharanot that the decision was “out of place and undesired.”

Meantime, an Azerbaijani Parliament member Fazil Gazanfaroglu drafted a resolution on “Israeli genocide policy against Palestinians since 1967” and threatened that it would be adopted should the Knesset recognize the Armenian genocide, the Azerbaijan Press Agency reported on April 2.

Anonymous Turkish officials appeared confident that there is not sufficient support in the Knesset for the measure to be adopted, Zaman newspaper reported on March 28.