Armenia objects to Cheney rhetoric on NK

First published in October 18, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Armenia takes issue with Bush administration’s rhetoric on Karabakh
Recently modified language prioritizes “territorial integrity”
by Emil Sanamyan

U.S. vice president Dick Cheney with Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian of Armenia with translators in Washington on October 10, 2008. Armenian government photo

Washington - In a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington on October 10, Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian raised concerns on behalf of Armenia over the recently modified rhetoric of U.S. officials on Nagorno-Karabakh, the prime minister's office reported.

It is "extremely dangerous" to emphasize the principle of territorial integrity at the expense of self-determination when it comes to Karabakh, Mr. Sarkisian told Mr. Cheney in what amounted to the first publicly reported criticism of the revised U.S. policy language by Armenia.

The prime minister was referring, in particular, to remarks delivered in Baku by Mr. Cheney that a Karabakh settlement "must proceed" from the principle of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and only then "take into account other principles." The remarks were apparently drafted by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, the U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, which mediates in the Karabakh negotiations.

"If territorial integrity is prioritized, the peace process - all of the work the mediators have done - becomes meaningless," Prime Minister Sarkisian told the Armenian Reporter on October 14. "And this also provokes [Azerbaijan] toward war."

According to Mr. Sarkisian, Mr. Cheney in response reiterated U.S. support for the peace process.

Evolution of the peace process

According to sources familiar with the details of the peace process, since 1999 its focus has been on ways that would formalize Karabakh's separation from Azerbaijan and reunification with Armenia.

But with Azerbaijan increasingly belligerent, the Karabakh talks in recent years have shifted toward a "postponed status" for Karabakh, with an increasingly vague definition of a mechanism for determination of this status.

Still, while the United States has always voiced support for the principle of territorial integrity with regard to former Soviet republics, including Azerbaijan, it has also mentioned the need to reconcile that principle with other principles.

For example in an August 6, 2007, interview with Russia's Vremya Novostei newspaper, Mr. Bryza noted, "There are three main principles that influence our talks [on Karabakh]: refusal to apply force, recognition of the territorial integrity of the states, and the right for self-determination.

"A compromise should be found among these principles," he said, and added, "I represent [the United States,] a country founded by separatists."

In the case of Georgia, a close U.S. ally, the United States has spoken openly in support of Tbilisi's claims on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But U.S. officials - up until recently - have been careful not to use language that could be deemed to be prejudging the outcome of the talks on Karabakh's status.

As Azerbaijan continues to lobby for international support for its claim on Karabakh, Azerbaijani officials have become increasingly wary about international developments.

In February, the Azerbaijani government called the U.S. recognition of Kosovo "illegal" and pulled its troops from the NATO peacekeeping mission there.

Azerbaijanis were outraged by the U.S. vote against the UN General Assembly resolution on Karabakh proposed by Azerbaijan last March. Mr. Bryza told Azerbaijani media that the decision to oppose the resolution was one he "agonized and lost sleep over."

Adding to Azerbaijan's worries is the pledge of presidential candidate Barack Obama to work toward a Karabakh settlement "based upon America's founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination."

The Russian-Georgian military clash in August has also made the threat of Azerbaijani attack in Karabakh - its biggest leverage in talks - less credible.

The latest upset came with the decision of Turkey's president to visit Armenia last month; a number of current and former Azerbaijani officials portrayed this move as a "betrayal" of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan's "endangerment" and permutations of U.S. rhetoric

President Ilham Aliyev rushed to Moscow to pledge his loyalty soon after the Georgia war and the visit of the president of Turkey to Armenia.

Intimidated by Russia's military operations in Georgia, Azerbaijani officials began to suggest that they may reroute their energy exports, particularly natural gas, via Russia.

It has been a longstanding U.S. goal to challenge Russia's dominance of gas supplies to Europe. Azerbaijan, along with Georgia, provides a key transit corridor for that effort.

"If Azerbaijan tilts to Russia there goes 15 years of U.S. energy diplomacy," a Western diplomat based in Baku told Britain's Daily Telegraph on September 2.

In response, the United States appears to have sought to encourage Azerbaijan, which, in the words of Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, was "endangered" in the wake of the Russian-Georgian war.

The first signs that U.S. officials were reconsidering their Karabakh policy language came on August 19. In a State Department press conference, Mr. Bryza said, "the principle of territorial integrity occupies the highest priority when we begin the process of conflict resolution, separatist conflict resolution. It simply is the fact of international law."

But, he quickly added, "If the two sides decide that they can reach a compromise that incorporates other elements of international diplomatic practice or international law like self-determination of peoples, terrific.

"That is what we want to do in the case of Karabakh: have a negotiated political settlement that takes into account both of these principles," he said.

New rhetoric unveiled

The new language was annunciated by Vice President Cheney during his visit to Baku on September 3, in which he sought to shore up Azerbaijan's confidence in Western support.

In comments during that reportedly less-than-successful trip, Mr. Cheney went beyond the usual endorsement of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity by saying that the United States is "committed to achieving a negotiated solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - a solution that starts with the principle of territorial integrity, and takes into account other international principles." Mr. Cheney and other U.S. officials since have not spelled what these other principles are.

Mr. Bryza then repeated this new language to Armenia's Mediamax news agency on September 5 and at the congressional Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe on September 10.

In written testimony submitted for that hearing, Mr. Bryza spoke of "a just and lasting settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that proceeds from the principle of our support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, and ultimately incorporates other elements of international law and diplomatic practice."

Armenian officials did not react publicly at that time. Nor did Congress. During a subsequent trip to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in mid-September, Mr. Bryza encountered no public rebuke.

Then, on October 9, Mr. Bryza took an additional rhetorical step. In an interview with the BBC's Russian-language service, he went so far as to suggest that Armenia should first recognize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity before a settlement on the Karabakh conflict is finalized.

Prime Minister Sarkisian delivered a public rebuff of U.S. policy the next day.

On October 13, Mr. Bryza's latest remarks were also blasted by Ken Hachikian, chairperson of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), as a "retreat from principle" in U.S. policy and "absolutely wrong."

Ross Vartian, executive director of the U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC), told the Armenian Reporter, "United States emphasis of territorial integrity over self-determination does not serve the cause of a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

"Instead of confronting Azerbaijan's war preparation and threats, the United States appeases," Mr. Vartian charged.

N.B. During his visit to Yerevan on October 17, Mr. Fried was asked about Mr. Cheney's remarks and Armenian reaction by the Armenian Reporter's Armen Hakobyan (transcript follows):

Hakobyan: During his meeting with Vice President Cheney the prime minister referred to the vice president's statement about the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan being the basic principle, and said that statement was dangerous; focusing on this principle, other principles are not taken into consideration. Having in mind that the statement had come from the American co-chair, Matthew Bryza, as a representative of a co-chair country, what are you doing about that danger and about making room for another important principle, self-determination?

Dan Fried in Yerevan on Oct. 17

Fried: Well, I'm happy to tell you that some of the media reports of what my friend and colleague Matt Bryza said were not entirely accurate. We have always believed and we believe now that territorial integrity is an important principle. We even say that we start with this principle. We have not ever said it is the only principle, and indeed it is not. Territorial integrity is a recognized principle of international law. There are other principles, such as self-determination.

Now, we all know what we're talking about here. Bringing these principles together, reconciling these principles is extremely difficult and complicated. The Minsk Group process has been working on these issues for some time. The process has made some real progress. We are going to build on that process – on that progress if we can. We will work with the governments [sic] of Azerbaijan, with the government of Armenia, and the co-chairs are prepared to work together.

It is important to actually find a settlement. Scoring debating points, one side, the other, advantage here, advantage there, well that's fine, but it doesn't take us where we need to go. We need to try to solve these regional problems and not debate them. This is serious business. We cannot continue to live with this situation of tension and occasional incidents of shooting.

The people of Azerbaijan, the people of Armenia, the people of the occupied territories, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh all deserve better. And I look forward to working with the Minsk Group and trying to push forward a solution as soon as we can.

N.B.-2 While Mr. Fried and others at the State Department have implied that Mr. Bryza's comments to BBC Russian were misconstrued, the remarks were made in Russian and their recording is available here http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/international/newsid_7661000/7661150.stm
Mr. Bryza was interviewed by BBC's Mark Grigorian whose own comment on the issue is available here: http://markgrigorian.livejournal.com/249429.html?thread=8577877#t8577877

Interview with Prime Minister of Armenia

First published in October 18, 2008 Armenian Reporter.
Prime Minister: Armenia's economy is "facing very serious dangers”
Focus of government is small and medium business
by Emil Sanamyan



Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian in Washington. Lusine Sarkisyan for the Armenian Reporter


Washington - In an interview on October 14 with the Armenian Reporter's Washington Editor Emil Sanamyan, Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian of Armenia spoke about the impact of the global financial crisis and unresolved conflicts on Armenia. What follows is an English translation of most of that conversation.

Armenian Reporter: In your meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney on October 10, you referred to the recent tendency by U.S. officials to prioritize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity; you called it "extremely dangerous." What was the vice president's reaction to that?

Tigran Sarkisian: I thought the reaction was a positive one and that the vice president agreed that the peace process that is taking place in the Minsk Group framework [co-mediated by France, Russia and the United States] is the way for the problem's resolution.

I also focused on the dangerous statements made by Azerbaijan's foreign minister [Elmar Mammadyarov] at the United Nations last month. [Mr. Mammadyarov said] that they view the Karabakh settlement within the framework of the [nonbinding] UN General Assembly resolution [adopted last March], which certainly does not help us move forward toward a settlement.

[In the meeting with Vice President Cheney,] I once again noted that we have a constructive position. Azerbaijan is aware of this, as are the mediators, and we hope that after Azerbaijan's [presidential] election [on October 15], there will be a new stage of constructive dialogue.

In our meeting earlier today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also said she expects new momentum in the negotiations after these elections.

AR: But could this momentum be built on this new American policy language that prioritizes Azerbaijan's territorial integrity?

TS: If territorial integrity is prioritized, the peace process - all of the work the mediators have done - becomes meaningless, since negotiators should take into account the positions of both sides. And this also provokes [Azerbaijan] toward war.

Monitoring Azerbaijan's arms buildup

AR: Does Armenia seek to expand the peace process from the current efforts to develop "settlement principles" to other measures such as strengthening of the cease-fire, a nonaggression pact, and disarmament?

TS: We raise these concerns in various organizations. We are concerned that Azerbaijan is intensively and aggressively arming itself. They are spending unjustifiably huge amounts on their military, and this undermines the peace process. And certainly we have brought this to the attention of our American and European colleagues, as well as NATO experts.

Moreover, international arms treaties must be respected. [Under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty], there is a verification mechanism in which Armenia takes part. Our officials visit Turkey, and Turkish colleagues visit Armenia to monitor our forces.

And Azerbaijan too should participate in this monitoring. It is clear that they are in violation of [CFE] agreements and we are certainly worried by this.

At the same time, I would note that before the recent fighting [in South Ossetia] there was more militant rhetoric from Azerbaijan that it would use force. To an extent, the events in Georgia have had a cooling effect on our Azerbaijani colleagues. Although just yesterday [on October 13], the Azerbaijani president again talked about his efforts to isolate Armenia.

AR: Countries supplying especially deadly weapons - tactical ballistic missiles, multiple-launch rocket systems - to Azerbaijan are well known. They are Ukraine, and to a lesser extent Turkey and Israel. Has this issue been raised with these countries? Specifically, when President Serge Sargsian met with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yuschenko relatively recently?

TS: I cannot respond to these questions at this time.

Toward a shared vision of the future - with Turkey

AR: On Armenia's Turkey initiative: following the meetings in New York last month, the sides appear to have gone back to their original positions, Armenia to its "no preconditions," and Turkey to its preconditions. Do you anticipate any change in this dynamic?

TS: Today Secretary Rice expressed a thought that I fully share. [She said] that countries that have problems and wish to establish relations should focus on the future rather than the past. If we are going to continue to stir up the past, we do indeed have a lot of issues, and that would mean we will never come to an agreement.

But if we are to focus on the future, our shared vision of the future, it will also become easier for us to reassess the past. We support [developing] such a vision, and for this reason we say that we have no preconditions.

If our Turkish colleagues talk about preconditions, that means they are still looking into the past. And if we go into the past, then certainly the Genocide issue would be central and it would demand explanations. But this would be a road to nowhere.

If we want to build a new Armenia, we cannot do so using old methods. And Turkey too has no alternative if it wants to be a part of the European Union; it must change its approaches, implement serious reforms, and look to the future. This is a very difficult and painful process, both in Armenia and even more so in Turkey, so we should be patient.

At the same time we should acknowledge that the president's invitation to his Turkish colleague has been criticized both in Armenia and Turkey, as well as in Azerbaijan. In Armenia, the criticism is that we are pulling back, showing weakness, [people are wondering,] "What does that give us?"

First of all, this is a catalyst that helps reassess the existing situation, and as a result of this visit something that seemed unexpected or even unrealistic has now become an established fact. This means that future steps are also possible.

As Secretary Rice noted after [Turkish President Abdullah Gül]'s visit to Armenia expectations have been heightened that everything would change quickly [in relations.] But no one can expect that normalization of relations with Turkey is an easy process, and it will have its ups and downs. But one obvious thing is that the Armenian president has shown political will in this matter.

Another question is where we would be had Mr. Gül declined to visit Armenia.

Damages from the war in Georgia

AR: In your meeting with the vice president you also mentioned the $670 million in damages that Armenian economy suffered as a result of the fighting in Georgia. Is there a specific conversation taking place about specific U.S. assistance in that regard?

TS: Yes and not just with American colleagues but also our colleagues at the World Bank and IMF. We have made the point that economic consequences of this conflict have been regional and particularly acute for Armenia, which relies on Georgia for most of its trade.

And our calculations - the $670 million - were done in accordance with the same methods used by our Georgian colleagues. I also mentioned this in my meeting with the Georgian prime minister [Vladimir Gurgenidze], who is also now in Washington.

The global financial crisis and Armenia

AR: What impact do you anticipate from the current financial crisis on Armenia's development?

TS: We are facing very serious dangers, both in terms of [decline in the growth] of remittances and other financial transfers. And we are looking for ways to soften the impact.

First of all, we are looking to increase credit for medium and small businesses. We spoke about projects with the World Bank and IMF that could soften the impact on small businesses.

AR: Is the issue of the new nuclear power plant still on the U.S.-Armenia agenda? Is the United States interested in taking part in this project beyond the recently concluded feasibility study?

TS: Yes we are open to this and believe that this could be a joint project, with participation from the United States, France, and Russia.

A precedent for such cooperation was recently created in Bulgaria, [where the French Areva conglomerate is in a joint contract with Russia's Atomstroyexport to build a new nuclear plant].

Handling conflicts of interest

AR: Last April, my colleagues in our Yerevan bureau asked you about the government's conflict of interest policy. In particular, your health minister is also a stakeholder in private hospitals. Has there been any progress on this issue?

TS: We have prepared a concept paper that outlines the disclosures that government officials would be mandated to make. The point of this concept is to acknowledge the existence of conflicts of interest, as well as impossibility of their full elimination - since it is hard to find anyone who has no personal business interests. At the same time, these conflicts should be known and transparent to the public, and regulated.

Various countries have different models for this and we have developed our own. There will be a special entity that would consider and monitor these conflicts among the members of government and the National Assembly.

This concept paper has been submitted to the president and if it is approved by the coalition government, there will be legislation that will help enforce our constitutional provisions that prohibit business activity by government officials.

AR: My colleagues in Yerevan recently spoke to a number of CEOs in the information technology (IT) sector in Armenia. [See last week's edition of this newspaper.] The CEOs continue to complain of the same problems as in the past: lack of skilled specialists, inferior infrastructure - in particular high Internet costs - and government officials who are not sufficiently educated to be able to regulate the sector. Are you planning any major initiatives in that regard?

TS: Yes, we have agreed with the World Bank that we will have a comprehensive project that would help develop the IT sphere. This would include e-governance and infrastructure improvements. I would note that prices for Internet access are already falling. We want this to become a comprehensive program on IT development and are looking to receive the World Bank's technical expertise to implement it.

Azerbaijan's anti-election

First published in Oct. 11, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Azerbaijan going through electoral motions
Ilham Aliyev faces token opposition, voting formality
News analysis by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON – Looking at Azerbaijan’s news portals this week, it is impossible to tell that on October 15 there will be a vote for the country’s next president.

On one popular site, Day.az, the main newsmakers of October 7 are Armenia’s Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian and a Russian official who coordinates the work of the generally moribund Commonwealth of Independent States.

Among the most popular items this week are a video of a hazing incident in the Azerbaijani army, problems with the Baku water supply, and the local crime beat.

Watching the sixth presidential election in Azerbaijan’s history is proving to be as exciting as watching the grass grow. There may be seven candidates, but no one is betting on the six of the seven with sitting president Ilham Aliyev’s reelection but a mere formality.

Since Azerbaijan is a member of the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and some other entities, it has to hold elections; even more dictatorial Turkmenistan occasionally does. But elections in Azerbaijan have always been a one-man show rather than a competition between candidates.

If there is one place in the world where political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s prediction of the “End of History” is proving true so far, it is in Azerbaijan. Except, Professor Fukuyama’s vision of worldwide democratization has not quite come through.

As the late Heydar Aliyev used to say “democracy is not something you can buy in the bazaar.” As a result Azerbaijan had to settle for a more traditional system.

Feudal rule with tribal foundations

“Kolkhoz [Soviet style collective farm] should remain a kolkhoz, since this too is [our] history” Ilham Aliyev is quoted as saying in a Russian-language poster.

This is how it has always been. The last decade and a half has seen the clock rolled back on the Russian-imposed European enlightenment in Azerbaijan. It is back to the khanate system.

Like in Armenia and Georgia, which also have no democratic traditions, sitting presidents in Azerbaijan have the unchecked powers of a feudal lord to set the rules of political competition and enforce them. And they successfully exercise local political power of voter turnout assuring their own or their handpicked successors’ election.

But unlike Armenia and Georgia, Azerbaijan’s president also has a monopoly on economic power and money. More than 80 percent of the country’s income comes from oil production and sale controlled by the president. The president’s cronies, who double as government officials, have monopolies on the main consumer goods.

Several years ago, when political surveys were still done in Azerbaijan, the list of the richest people in Azerbaijan was topped by the Aliyevs’ associates, such as the customs director or transport minister, and hardly a person from outside the government hierarchy. A couple of exceptions were Russia-based Azerbaijan natives who are allowed a limited economic presence in the homeland.

Moreover, nearly all of the privileged are tied by family or tribal connections to the Aliyevs. At least 12 of 28 cabinet-level officials, most of them in the same jobs since the early 1990s, are direct Aliyev relatives or were born in or have roots from the Aliyevs’ native Nakhichevan and Armenia, two places that provide the bulk of the “soldiers” for the ruling family. These individuals also hold influential positions in the president’s office and dominate lucrative jobs in the oil sector, various inspectorates, and the police.

Since the Aliyev restoration in 1993, challenges to the regime have come primarily from inside this elite, above all from disgruntled relatives or cronies who grow rich and over-confident. But none has been successful, with perpetrators now in prison or exile. None is openly challenging Ilham Aliyev in this election cycle.

The military, currently being pumped with cash, may eventually emerge as a source of discontent toward the status quo. But few signs of any such development have been observed so far.

Finally, a challenge could theoretically come from abroad, for example from the company formerly known as British Petroleum (bp), which is the only foreign entity with a significant presence in Azerbaijan. But so far bp and other foreign players have had few reasons to go after the Aliyevs.

As a result, the president is standing, lonely, with six token candidates. According to reports from Azerbaijan, there are no visible election rallies or posters. Aliyev Jr. continues to focus his public appearances on endless inaugurations of Heydar Aliyev statues, museums, and parks around Azerbaijan.

According to RFE/RL, more than 100 of them have appeared since a 2004 presidential decree mandating that every Azerbaijani town have some.

Challengers taken care of ahead of elections

Elmar Husseynov, murdered in 2005 after challenging the ruling family in his writing.

The Baku airport, Azerbaijan’s highest peak, the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the biggest offshore production platform, and even a couple of distant stars of our universe carry his name. He is the best-known and probably most accomplished Azerbaijani in history, having made a rapid career in the KGB to be then elevated to Soviet political stardom as one of only about a dozen Politbureau members in 1982.

But even Heydar Aliyev had his dark periods. Ousted by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, he fell victim to infighting between Mr. Gorbachev’s reformers and his conservative opponents.

Mr. Aliyev had to fight to keep his government car and saw his son expelled from the Soviet diplomatic academy and forced to make a living, as many other Soviet citizens, from petty trade between Istanbul and Moscow.

Heydar Aliyev could have gone quietly but he decided to take back what he felt should rightfully belong to him. In 1990 he launched a political challenge against Ayaz Mutalibov, then the Soviet Azerbaijani leader. Forced to stay out of Baku, Mr. Aliyev went to his native Nakhichevan, where he quickly became its leader, formally a parliament speaker.

Both Mr. Mutalibov and Abulfaz Elchibey, who overthrew him (also an Aliyev from Nakhichevan but apparently of a different tribal stock) kept Heydar Aliyev out of Baku and out of elections, having passed a special decree disqualifying individuals of his age and older from running for president.

Heydar Aliyev in turn ruled Nakhichevan as a de-facto independent breakaway state, declaring sovereignty from the USSR before Azerbaijan did, and signing a ceasefire accord with Armenia two years before Azerbaijan. In 1992, Mr. Aliyev’s militia even fought and expelled government forces that attempted to impose control over Nakhichevan.

When Heydar Aliyev returned to Baku in 1993, he made sure both Mr. Mutalibov and Mr. Elchibey stayed out of the capital, and went on to methodically oust his real and potential adversaries.

In 1994 Prime Minister Suret Husseinov, a mafia boss who staged the military coup that brought Mr. Aliyev to power, fled to Russia with thousands of his supporters arrested. In 1995 thousands more were rounded up in a crackdown on the special police force (OPON), the Turkish-backed elite Azerbaijani unit in the Karabakh war which turned into the main postwar mafia, commanded by Rovshan and Mahir Javadov.

In 1996–97 came the first intra-Nakhichevan tribal war with Mr. Aliyev’s right-hand man at the time, parliament Speaker Rasul Guliyev, who fled to the United States and has since tried but failed to effectively challenge the Aliyevs; hundreds of Mr. Guliyev’s relatives and loyalists were imprisoned.

It fell to Ilham Aliyev to deal with the latest intra-elite challenge. Economics minister Farkhad Aliyev (unrelated) and economics minister Ali Insanov, both multimillionaires are both now in prison after allegations they funded opposition groups. Dozens more were jailed in those latest crackdowns.

Meantime, a former Elchibey aide and one-time up and coming opposition leader Ali Kerimov (Kerimli) was targeted for character assassination that included efforts to link him to Armenians and allegations that he is a closet homosexual. Kerimov and other oppositionists have essentially disappeared from political scene.

History of preordained outcomes

Ilham Aliyev’s wife Mehriban (on left), currently a member of parliament, has been cited as her husband’s most likely successor. Their son, Heydar Aliyev II is eleven this year and under existing rules not eligible to be president until 2032.

Traditionally, the outcome has been a foregone conclusion in all of Azerbaijan’s presidential elections.

In the 1991 vote Mr. Mutalibov moved from the job of the Azerbaijani Communist Party leader to that of the newly independent country’s first president without having to physically switch offices.

In June 1992 Mr. Aliyev-Elchibey was elected, but only after his militia ousted Mr, Mutalibov and seized the national Supreme Soviet (Milli Majlis), making an ally of Mr. Elchibey acting president.

In October 1993, four months after taking office on the back of Suret Husseinov’s military coup, Aliyev the senior formally became president. No surprise that he was re-elected in 1998 and went on until he died in 2003.

There was some debate as to who would succeed the ailing Aliyev Sr. In a clear sign of distrust in his groupies and a departure from a Politburo tradition of picking like-minded allies as successors, Mr. Aliyev took the route of Syria and North Korea by anointing a close relative.

His apparent top pick, reportedly an out-of-wedlock son, was assassinated in obscure circumstances. By 2003 the focus was on his son Ilham, Heydar’s younger brother Jalal Aliyev, and son-in-law and fellow KGB man Mahmud Mamedguliyev.

According to former health minister Insanov, a close confidant, Aliyev Sr. never made that choice. By the time Ilham Aliyev was made prime minister and formal successor in August 2003, Mr. Insanov claimed, his father was unconscious in a Cleveland clinic.

In an apparent precaution, the comatose Heydar Aliyev was kept on the ticket until shortly before voting day. And he reportedly was kept on life support until after his son was formally elected and inaugurated. Heydar Aliyev passed on after the formalities were over.

That may have been a unique case in the world’s electoral politics – with a father, the sitting president, challenged by his son, the prime minister.

Tradition of token politics

A more esoteric subject that only a true admirer of the Azerbaijani political culture can appreciate is a chronic presence of publicly unknown but apparently governmentconnected individuals to offer token opposition to sitting presidents in what passes for elections in Azerbaijan.

The tradition likely has earlier roots, but its post-Soviet launch dates to 1991, when Mr. Mutalibov’s election was boycotted by the nationalist Popular Front and he had Araz Alizade, allegedly a Soviet KGB officer, play the role of “opposition.”

In a “twist of fate” in 2003 Mr. Mutalibov, by then a longtime resident of Moscow, and Mr. Alizade pooled their by then insignificant resources together to create a single insignificant party.

In 1992, unable to run himself, Heydar Aliyev fielded an obscure physicist Nizami Suleimanov as an opponent to the Popular Front’s Elchibey. Mr. Suleimanov promptly accused Mr. Elchibey, a radical nationalist espousing an ideology of Turkic racial supremacy, of being an “Armenian agent.” And when Mr. Elchibey was, as expected, proclaimed the winner, Mr. Suleimanov claimed the vote was stolen from him.

No such indecencies were to be had in 1993, during Heydar Aliyev’s first election, since “alternatives” were apparently inserted by the man in charge himself. The honor to carry on the token tradition then fell on Kerar Abilov, a “psychologist," and Zakir Tagiyev, a “busimessman.”

In that one, Mr. Aliyev won with 98.8 percent of the vote, with a 90 percent turnout reported. According to speculations at the time, both the percentage and absolute numbers were ordered inflated to be higher than what Mr. Mutalibov claimed to win in 1991.

In 1998 came the time for Azerbaijan’s “little Napoleon,” Etibar Mammadov, who together with such fellow candidates as Khanhussein Kazimli and Abutalyb Samedov, promptly lost the election to Heydar Aliyev, who this time settled for 75.9 percent of the vote.

In 2003, Ilham Aliyev officially improved the family rating to 80 percent of the vote in an election that was probably as competitive as it gets in Azerbaijan. In that vote, the token role fell on Isa Gamberov, an Elchibey ally who was acting Azerbaijani president for a few weeks in 1992.

Spinning the nonelection

The Azerbaijani government and its hired help will spin this nonelection as an “improvement” or perhaps even a “significant improvement” on past votes, as long as there is no state of emergency or street clashes reported.

Over the years, the spin has become more refined. During the last “parliamentary election” in 2005, the Azerbaijani government used “unassociated” middlemen to hire reputable American pollsters that would in turn hire progovernment polling groups in Azerbaijan to show that the ruling clan is genuinely popular. American and European consultants for hire flocked to Baku to preempt and counterbalance anticipated criticism from Western observers.

Already this week, the Central Asia and Caucasus Institute housed at the Johns Hopkins University in Washington will host a discussion on “Azerbaijan’s Forthcoming Presidential Elections.”

The announcement notes that “rapid economic development and political evolution in Azerbaijan itself… give particular importance to these elections and associated debate.”

But the challenge this year is that all more-or-less known figures have declined to go through the electoral motions. In the absence of politics there is at least some humor, Azerbaijani style.

The sitting president is “challenged” by the likes of Hafiz Hajiyev who also “ran” in 2003 when his role was limited to hurling insults at Mr. Gamberov.

This year Mr. Hajiyev, nicknamed Balig (“fish” in Azeri), is running with the slogan “Death to [Agriculture Minister] Ismet Abbasov.”

It is not the chronic overfishing in the Caspian that is Mr. Hajiev’s concern but apparently that “Abbasov’s mother is Armenian, therefore, me and Ilham Aliyev should join efforts to dismiss such ministers,” Day.az duly reported.

A fellow candidate, Gudrat Hassanguliyev expressed a different concern.

“Azerbaijan should change its name to ‘Northern Azerbaijan,’” Mr. Hassanguliyev opined to the same news agency in reference to Azerbaijan’s off-again-on-again claims against Iran. “By doing this,” he says, “we will let the whole world know the historical truth!”

But others wonder “what about the historic Azerbaijani territories held by perfidious Armenians, i.e. Western Azerbaijan? Shouldn’t it then be the ‘Northeastern Azerbaijan Republic’?”

Briefly: Krikorian run in Ohio; Negroponte in Baku and Azeris in DC; Turkey vs. Kurdistan; Russia vs. Georgia

First published in Oct. 11 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan and Lusine Sarkisyan

David Krikorian in tight race for Ohio congressional seat


Cincinnati-area businessperson David Krikorian is making the strongest nonparty bid for the House of Representatives this year nationwide, according to RealClearPolitics.com on October 9. Mr. Krikorian has been an activist for the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) in Ohio.

Various surveys have shown Mr. Krikorian polling between 10 and 20 percent in the state’s 2nd congressional district, putting him within reach of his opponents, incumbent Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt and her Democratic challenger Victoria Wulsin, who are believed to be tied at 35 to 40 percent.

The three came together on October 6 for a debate that focused on the economy and the recent bailout of major financial companies. Ms. Schmidt is a member of the congressional Turkey Caucus and opposes Armenian Genocide affirmation.

In the previous election cycle, she narrowly defeated Ms. Wulsin. The ANCA, which in 2006 endorsed Ms. Wulsin, is strongly backing Mr. Krikorian in this election.
connect: http://www.krikorianforcongress.com

U.S., Azerbaijan calibrating ties after Georgia war

Deputy Secretary John Negroponte, the State Department’s second most senior official, went to Azerbaijan on October 2 in an apparent effort to safeguard plans for Caspian natural gas to flow to Europe via Georgia and Turkey.

Following the Russian military success in Georgia, Azerbaijani officials have hinted they might agree to a Russian proposal to buy all of Azerbaijan’s natural gas at market prices. In response, U.S. official have sought to recommit Baku to westward projects by playing up U.S. support for Azerbaijan’s “territorial integrity,” or in other words its claims on Armenian Karabakh.

The U.S. government has made breaking Russia’s near-monopoly on natural gas exports to Europe one of its regional priorities. But since the United States is also opposed
to energy cooperation with Iran, which has the world’s second largest natural gas resources after Russia, it is counting on supplies of natural gas from Turkmenistan through a pipeline network that would skirt both Russia and Iran.

Mr. Negroponte hinted that the United States might give the upcoming reelection of President Ilham Aliyev its seal of approval even though all major opposition figures are boycotting it.

The U.S. official was noncommittal when questioned repeatedly whether the United States would provide military help to Azerbaijan if it were attacked by Russia, but promised that “the United States will continue our security cooperation and assist the reform of Azerbaijan’s defense establishment,” according to a State Department
transcript of his remarks.

Azerbaijani government seeks “diaspora” presence in Washington

Azerbaijani officials, Azerbaijanis resident in the United States, and others met on October 1–2 in Washington to discuss ways to establish a more effective “diaspora” presence in Washington that could counter the influence of the Armenian community.

For more than a decade, Azerbaijan has mainly relied on paid lobbyists to advance its agenda in the United States. In addition, several years ago Azerbaijan also established a State Committee for Work with Azerbaijanis Living Abroad (SCWALA) to supplement its lobbying via support for ethnic Azerbaijani individuals and entities.

In the United States over the past year, recent Azerbaijani immigrants created the U.S. Azeris Network (USAN) that apparently seeks to replace the Azerbaijani Society of America, established by World War II–era émigrés in the 1950s as the main vehicle for Azerbaijani community lobbying.

Apparently wary of unwanted guests, SCWALA and USAN co-organized last week’s conference, titled “Diaspora and Energy Security in the Development of the U.S. Azerbaijan Strategic Allied Relations,” at an initially undisclosed location
in Washington.

According to a pre-conference announcement at www.usazeris.org, only pre-approved guests who could confirm their identity were to be permitted to attend.

Turkey stung by Kurdish rebel attacks


Kurdish rebel forces typically referred to as PKK launched another deadly attack on the Turkish army on October 3. As Istanbul-based Gareth Jenkins reported for the Jamestown Foundation citing Turkish media, as many as 350 Kurdish forces were involved in an attack near the border with Iraq; it lasted nearly 10 hours and left 17 Turkish soldiers dead and 23 wounded.

Turkey retaliated by sending its aircraft to bomb areas of Iraqi Kurdistan; it claims to have killed dozens of Kurds. On October 5 hundreds of thousands across Turkey turned out for soldiers’ funerals.

Since last year, the Turkish army has stepped up anti-PKK operations inside Iraq, but the organization’s attacks on the Turkish military both near the border with Iraq and in Turkey’s interior have continued.

On October 8 a smaller Kurdish force ambushed a bus carrying Turkish police inside the city of Diyarbakir, leaving the bus driver and five police officers dead and 16 others, including bystanders, wounded.

According to Mr. Jenkins, the latest attacks, the deadliest in years, have “severely damaged the prestige of the Turkish military,” which quickly requested additional powers to deal with the insurgency.

“Ever since it resumed its insurgency in June 2004,” he wrote on October 6, “the PKK has essentially been . . . using violence as part of a campaign of psychological and
emotional attrition in the hope of eventually convincing the Turkish authorities that the organization cannot be destroyed by military means and that the only solution is to enter into a political dialogue.”

For now, the Turkish military was forced to demolish the Aktutun outpost attacked on October 3 and four other forward bases as too vulnerable to Kurdish attack. And on October 8, the Turkish parliament also voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize military operations inside Iraqi Kurdistan.

European MPs: Georgia, Russia both guilty in Ossetia war

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution on October 2 that called for an “independent international investigation into what happened” in and around South Ossetia last August, “since the facts surrounding the outbreak of war between Georgia and Russia are disputed.”

The resolution adopted by the Assembly suggests that both Georgia and Russia had violated international law, Council of Europe principles, and their commitment to settle conflicts by peaceful means.

The resolution says, “The Assembly is concerned about the human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by both sides in the context of the war.

“In particular, the use of indiscriminate force and weapons by both Georgian and Russian troops in civilian areas can be considered war crimes that need to be fully investigated,” the resolution said.

PACE also called on Russia to “withdraw” its recognition of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, considering it a violation of international law and Council of Europe statutory principles.

Speaking during the debate on the resolution, PACE member Armen Rustamyan (ARF) said, according to a summarized translation, “he could not identify the culprit in this conflict” since Armenia has important relations with both countries.

Erol Aslan Cebeci, a Turkish member of parliament from the ruling party, expressed concern over violations of the “territorial integrity of Georgia” and said Russia’s military operation was a “clear violation of international law and extremely disproportionate.”

But he added that the “Georgian administration has been excessively aggressive in its dealing with South Ossetian affairs” and cautioned against “taking steps that could jeopardise the channels of dialogue” with either Georgia or Russia.

Briefly: U.S. Genocide record; Turkish Ambassador marks Armenia independence; Georgian opposition in DC; Russian FM on self-determination

First published in Oct. 4, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan and Lusine Sarkisyan

U.S. Ambassador-Designate to Turkey clarifies position on Genocide

U.S. ambassadors to Ottoman Turkey Henry Morgenthau (1913–16) and Abram Elkus (1916–17) and other contemporary U.S. diplomats described in their communications “an attempt to exterminate the Armenian population,” ambassadordesignate to Turkey James Jeffrey noted in a written response to questions for the record from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair and vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.)

The exchange, released by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) on September 26, was part of the Senate committee’s consideration of Mr. Jeffrey’s candidacy to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey and a congressional effort to correct the Bush administration language on the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. Jeffrey promised that if confirmed he would continue to encourage “Turkey to come to terms with the dark spots in its history and establishing an honest dialogue within Turkey on these events,” as well as support normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential candidate, released a statement to Armenian-Americans on September 29. The statement was substantially the same as a text sent to the ANCA on February 1. Both communications acknowledged the Armenian community’s contributions to America and Armenia’s cooperation with the United States, but did not promise any positive changes in U.S. policy on matters of significance to Armenian-Americans, such as the Armenian Genocide issue.

Senior U.S., Russian, and Turkish officials mark Armenia’s independence

U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Bohigian, the U.S. State Department's coordinator for Eurasian energy, Ambassador Steven Mann, newly appointed Russian ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak, and, significantly, Ambassador Nabi Sensoy of Turkey were among more than 100 guests at a reception on September 30 at the Armenian Embassy in Washington to mark Armenia's independence.

According to present and former Armenian Embassy staff, this was the first time since the Armenian Embassy in the United States was established that a Turkish Ambassador attended one of its formal functions. Ambassador Sensoy's unprecedented gesture comes weeks after the first-ever visit to Armenia by a Turkish president.

(One source told the Reporter that in 1999 Turkish Ambassador Baki Ilkin together with Azerbaijani Ambassador Hafiz Pashayev visited the Armenian Embassy to pay an informal farewell to outgoing Ambassador Ruben Shugarian. But neither Turkish nor Azerbaijani diplomats have attended Independence Day or Armed Forces Day receptions regularly held by the Embassy.)

Coming up: Armenian prime minister plans U.S. visit

Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian will visit Washington between October 9 and 14, U.S. and Armenian officials familiar with the visit's planning told the Armenian Reporter.

Mr. Sarkisian, for whom this will be the first visit in his capacity as prime minister, will meet U.S. officials and participate in the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on October 11-13.

Georgian opposition leaders flock to the United States

Levan Gachechiladze and Hudson's Zeyno Baran on left

Levan Gachechiladze, the main opposition candidate in the Georgian presidential election in January 2008, this week became the latest Georgian pro-Western opposition leader to visit the United States.

Speaking at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, on September 30 about the recent developments in his country, Mr. Gachechiladze argued that it has become "impossible" to unite around the current Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili since he makes "wrong decisions" and there are serious questions about his leadership since Georgia's brief but militarily disastrous war with Russia last month.

Mr. Gachechiladze warned that unless Mr. Saakashvili promptly restores democratic freedoms and shares power with the opposition, "destabilization" will follow.

Georgia's former acting president and parliament speaker until earlier this year Nino Burjanadze, David Usupashvili of the Republican Party, and David Gamkrelidze of the New Rights Party have all visited the United States since the August war.

In a September 8 commentary, the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl revealed that "American officials are still seething at Saakashvili [over] his impulsive and militarily foolhardy attack on South Ossetia," provoking the Russian counter-attack and thus causing an "embarrassment" to the West.

"The truth is that it would be considerably easier for the United States to defend Georgia and its democracy if it did not have to defend - and depend on - Saakashvili himself," Mr. Diehl argued.

Although both President George W. Bush and Mr. Saakashvili were at the United Nations General Assembly last week, no meeting between the two has been reported.

Russia touts self-determination in “mini-empires”

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia, who was in New York last week for the United Nations General Assembly, offered Russia's views on relations with the United States and international developments in light of the war in Georgia in an extensive presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations on September 24.

Mr. Lavrov spoke at length on nations' right to self-determination, which the Russian minister recalled has long been the "mantra" of U.S. foreign policy and was described as "one of the noblest ideas in our world" by Vice President Dick Cheney during his visit to Italy on September 6.

Mr. Lavrov argued that in addition to major empires, "there exist mini-empires and the same attitude ought to apply to them. If we are to be guided by principle rather than bias and political conjecture, the size should not make difference."

He went on: "The relevant issues are those of oppression, of threat of genocide, of central authorities' inability or unwillingness to bring the minority into the fold peacefully by way of persuasion, creating a climate of confidence and trust, providing a decent and caring government for all citizens."

Speaking of his country's actions in support of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Mr. Lavrov suggested that "Russia is now an advocate of such principles of America as live and let live, give and take, helping the underdog!" Minister Lavrov's remarks in full can be found at http://www.cfr.org.

MCC Armenia: $20mln. spent in 2 yrs.

MCC Armenia rep.: $20 million disbursed in two years
Says scope of program shrunk because of dram appreciation
by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON – In public remarks at the headquarters of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) on October 1, Alex Russin, the corporation’s resident country director for Armenia, outlined the program’s goals, while sharing his concerns about Armenia’s continued eligibility under the good-governance criteria.

Mr. Russin said that only about $20 million has been spent in nearly two years since the $235 million, five-year program was launched. Another $4.7 million request for funds is now pending.

The work so far has included the completion of one canal system, the repair of 24 kilometers of mountainous rural roads just south of Gyumri, and the training of about 15,000 farmers, with a total of 60,000 farmers to be trained. Mr. Russin said that the tempo of the program will ramp up in the next three years.

Significantly, because of the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, coupled with Armenia’s strong economic growth, which has strengthened Armenia’s currency, the MCA Armenia has been forced to scale back the scope of work, with 350 kilometers of roads now planned for renovation instead of the original goal of 900 kilometers.

Mr. Russin has also expressed concern that the political situation in Armenia hangs like a “cloud” over the program. When asked what steps from the government he is anticipating that would keep Armenia eligible for MCC aid, Mr. Russin generally pointed to the need for reforms that would satisfy local civil-society groups as well as an effective fight against corruption pledged by the government.

Previously, during a visit with the Armenian community in Detroit on August 5, MCC Chief Executive Officer Ambassador John Danilovich told the Armenian Reporter that the Armenia program was “moving ahead in all respects.” He also sounded optimistic about the Armenian government’s ability to implement needed democratic reforms.

In his September 3 speech to the Armenian diplomatic corps, President Serge Sargsian underscored MCC’s importance for Armenia, while also noting “certain foot-dragging with regard to the program’s” implementation. Mr. Sargsian expressed hope that the “efforts of the Armenian authorities so far will be understood correctly, and the opportunity will be given to continue the project jointly agreed to.”

The MCC Board of Directors held its quarterly meeting on September 17. No new decisions on Armenia were announced. The meeting focused on provision of a possible $100 million in additional aid to Georgia.

On September 29, the MCC welcomed legislation that would make it possible to extend compact implementation from five to up to ten years and would also authorize conclusion of concurrent and additional compacts. MCC also praised efforts of members of the House of Representatives to keep the corporation’s total funding at about $1.54 billion in Fiscal Year 2009. connect: www.mcc.gov

Pres. Sargsian: in war, genocide prevention better than cure

First published in September 27, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

At UN, Serge Sargsian calls for prevention of war, genocide
In first visit as president Sargsian meets world leaders, Armenian-Americans
by Emil Sanamyan

Serge Sargsian, President of the Republic of Armenia, addresses the United Nations' General Assembly. Marco Castro / UN Photo

NEW YORK - "If a country increases its military budget and brags about it, [this country] must receive a rapid and firm response" from the international community, Armenia's president Serge Sargsian told the United Nations General Assembly on September 25 as he spoke of lessons learned from Georgia's attack against South Ossetia and the subsequent Russian response.

Mr. Sargsian was clearly referring to both Georgia and Azerbaijan, whose military budgets have increased exponentially to reach $1 and $2 billion, respectively, this year. Just as Georgia sought to regain control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, now recognized as independent states by Russia, Azerbaijan has been seeking military revanche over Karabakh.

"Prevention is preferable to cure and a potential military conflict must be prevented at the planning stage," the Armenian president said.

He also recalled the recent passage by the General Assembly, over opposition from Armenia, France, India, Russia, and the United States, of a nonbinding resolution supporting Azerbaijan's claims on Karabakh; the resolution was adopted with the support of only 39 countries.

"Wasn't that voting lip service to Azerbaijan?" Mr. Sargsian wondered. "I hope that the real interest of Azerbaijan is a peaceful and comprehensive resolution of the conflict, just like it is in the interests of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia."

A resolution, the president made clear, would have to be based on the right of people to self-determination and the free will of Karabakh's residents.

Pointing to the antiwar "Twisted Gun" monument located in the United Nations' Sculpture Garden, Mr. Sargsian looked forward to a time when a similar monument could be erecting "for the Armenian and Azerbaijani children in our region. Let me assure you, these kids deserve it," he said.

Remembering history, trying to build a new future with Turkey

In his General Assembly speech, Mr. Sargsian also recalled the 60th anniversary of the Convention on Genocide Prevention, marked this year, and pointed out that these events are significant for Armenians, a people who "survived the Genocide."

Both at the United Nations and especially at a meeting with hundreds of Armenian-Americans on the evening of September 24, Mr. Sargsian also spoke at length of his recent efforts to reach out to Turkey to normalize relations.

"The most important decision" at his September 6 meeting in Yerevan with Turkish president Abdullah Gül, Mr. Sargsian said, was "not to leave the current problems to future generations."

At the meeting with Armenian-Americans, Mr. Sargsian praised Mr. Gül for the "courage" he showed; he said he believed in the Turkish government's "determination" to improve relations.

But in remarks at the General Assembly on September 23, Mr. Gül spoke of his visit to Armenia only in the context of Turkey's effort to achieve a Karabakh settlement favorable to Azerbaijan.

And according to sources in the Armenian government, a bilateral meeting between Foreign Ministers Edward Nalbandian and Ali Babacan was hung up over logistics, as well a joint declaration proposed by Turkey to be adopted together by Armenia and Azerbaijan.

When asked about the declaration, Mr. Nalbandian told Arminfo news agency last week that he hoped there would be no "artificial obstacles" on the way toward normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey, a course that two presidents agreed to pursue.

U.S. praises Sargsian for "healing reforms"

Meeting in New York on September 24, Mr. Sargsian discussed a variety of regional concerns with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Ms. Rice welcomed what she termed "healing reforms" implemented by the Armenian government to deal with the post-election crisis earlier this year. She also welcomed the Armenian president's effort to improve relations with Turkey. Mr. Sargsian in turn thanked the United States for its assistance to Armenia.

While in New York, Mr. Sargsian also met with leaders of Cyprus, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Serbia.

This article was reported by Emil Sanamyan and Lusine Sarkisyan in Washington and Florence Avakian in New York and was written by Mr. Sanamyan

Interview with Amb. Gilmore: U.S. will not allow a Russian sphere of influence

Ambassador Harry Gilmore: The United States will oppose a Russian sphere of influence
by Emil Sanamyan and Lusine Sarkisyan

Amb. Gilmore in his Virginia home. Armenian Reporter.

Harry Gilmore, former U.S. ambassador to Armenia (1993-95) spoke with the Armenian Reporter's Emil Sanamyan and Lusine Sarkisyan on September 16 about ongoing U.S.-Russian tension over Georgia and its implications, Turkey's position on the matter, and Armenia's latest effort to normalize relations with Turkey. Below are edited portions of that conversation.

Reporter: It seems like the Russian government is itching for some kind of a tussle with the United States. In addition to the Georgia operations, last week you saw Russia sending strategic bombers to Venezuela, and now it's sending its navy to the Caribbean.

Gilmore: Russia is being consciously more assertive. The analysis that I've seen from the people I trust most in terms of understanding Russia, from ambassadors to Russia there have been a stream of events that [aim to] defeat Russia's frustration.

I think historically Russia has a frustration of being encircled by the West and the outside world and not being a part of Western European institutions more broadly.

They particularly like to quote Winston Churchill, who at one point in the early days of the Soviet Union said he wanted to strangle the baby of Bolshevism in its cradle. I think even though the Communist period is over, the Cold War is over, I think that's still one part of Russian mentality and I think a number of events have fueled the Russian frustration about being a part of what they call the unipolar world and the desire to break out of that.

[That list of grievances includes most recently] the independence of Kosovo. [Russians] think about that as unjust action on the part of the West, and they felt that it set an unfortunate precedent; NATO expansion [into former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republics, even though] Russians felt there was an understanding that the NATO will not move eastward, particularly militarily.

They feel Russia has been taken advantage of and another aspect is the missile defense effort of the U.S. - an effort to defend against Iranian missile capabilities, but it was Poland and the Czech Republic that really bothered Russia.

I think all these things are part of the mindset, part of this clash in Georgia.

[At the same time,] I think we have a financial meltdown, a global financial crisis. Let's just say I think it's beyond the control of any one government and I think it's going to have a major impact on all of us.

What I hope is that it plays out that we all keep each other's interests in mind and Russia doesn't come off poorly, Russia doesn't suffer more.

I would like to see Russia come out of this with a deeper understanding of its connections with the global economy and need to be careful when you are such an important economic player with even brighter economic future.

Turkey and the Russia-Georgia war

Reporter: One of the striking developments last month was the Turkish government's position. On the day of Russians coming into Georgia, Turkish president Abdullah Gül was hosting the Iranian president, and talked to the Guardian about this Georgian situation being a lesson to the U.S. that it's not a unipolar situation any more, that it's a multipolar world now.

Considering this position, would it be valid to say that the U.S.-Turkish alliance no longer exists and that NATO membership no longer matters that much?

Gilmore: I don't think it's quite that traumatic, but certainly NATO has changed greatly: it's bigger, and the original core members of NATO now are only one piece of NATO. But I don't think NATO is out of business by any means.

The influence of NATO with regard to Georgia and Ukraine is something we need to watch very carefully because the question is will there be a consensus in NATO on whether to offer Georgia and Ukraine closer ties with NATO. I think that NATO has not gotten a consensus on that.

Reporter: Definitely not, but in terms of Turkey: In recent years, Turkey would typically be positioned somewhere between the U.S. and continental Europe, which has been skeptical about enlargement and confronting Russia. That would be a typical Turkish position. In this conflict, it seems that the Turkish position was much closer to Russia than any other NATO country; there was no Turkish criticism of Russia at all.

Gilmore: I'm not sure of that, I've watched that carefully and I'd put that out there as a question mark, an assertion to be explored. Has Turkey reacted differently, has Turkey been more understanding toward the Russian position?

I think Turks had given Georgians some assistance. The Turks are obviously very careful with Russia and the U.S. When U.S. [vessels] carried assistance up through the straits to the Black Sea, the Turks applied convention rules very carefully and didn't change these requirements, and the Russians, by the way, appreciated that.

With that being said, I have seen nothing since August 8 that suggests that Turks had changed their course on EU membership or changed any of their loyalty to NATO. Given the special nature of Turkey, the Turkish government will always be careful and any change in Turkish policy would be very subtle thing.

Turkish-Armenian summit

Reporter: Since we are on subject of Turkey, the Turkish president's visit to Armenia was one of those not-so-subtle events. Our journalists in Armenia had dug up information that previously Turkish Prime Minister Ismet Inönü visited Soviet Armenia in the 1930s.

Gilmore: In a way it doesn't surprise me. When the Soviet Union was born, there was an alliance between Russia and Turkey. Vladimir Lenin personally was one of the authors of it. That memory is not dead and for a person like Inönü, who was a close lieutenant [of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's] that would be something that he was a part of.

Reporter: Clearly, President Gül did put a lot of thinking into this decision...

Gilmore: As did, I think, President Serge Sargsian....

Reporter: One would imagine, but the invitation was extended two months ago and for those two months there was no clear response from President Gül....

Gilmore: The Turkish press gave significant coverage to the invitation and President Sargsian was interviewed [by the Radikal newspaper] and I thought did a masterful job in presenting the case why he invited President Gül.

It's not the first time Turkish reporters are given interviews by Armenian leaders. Robert Kocharian gave a very important interview, 5-6 years ago. Of course, in my time, Levon Ter-Petrossian was engaged in a careful dialogue with Turkey.

But it seems to me that President Sargsian has done a very masterful job in trying to explain to the Armenian world why he's doing what he is doing. He is in it with his eyes open. I think it's a major initiative for the Armenian leader and I hope it bears fruit.

Reporter: Can this clear the waters in terms of Armenia explaining its position to Turkey, rather than Turkey explaining the Armenian position to itself, as it has been for a while? Do you think the Turkish leadership is clear about what Armenian intentions are?

Gilmore: I think they are. From what I've seen, there has been dialogue since the rebirth of the Armenian state; there has been some dialogue between Ter-Petrossian and Turkish leaders.

But I think there is more dialogue now between Armenia and Turkey than ever before.

Reporter: One functional difference is that for Armenia, the Turkish issue is large, an almost definitive issue in its foreign policy, but for Turkey Armenia is one of many issues on its agenda.

Turkey is now focused on winning a seat on the UN Security Council. They are opening embassies around Africa and assisting Pacific island nations, thus generating international support. They are still on the EU track but it is not as significant as previously.

How is the Armenian item playing into larger Turkish policy today? Is Turkey genuinely interested in normalization?

Gilmore: I think they are, one of the reasons I'm sure that the Turks have calculated carefully. Azerbaijan for its own reasons has been very nervous about [Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia], about the Turkish-Armenian dialogue.

They have lobbied Ankara against it but this time, Gul and [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan [must have] have thought through of what they are doing about Armenia and talked to Baku about it and made it clear that whatever Baku [says,] the Turks are going.

That to me is a measure of Turks' sincerity.

Pipelines and Karabakh after the Ossetia war

Reporter: It seems until recently the Turks weighed Baku and Yerevan and said: why should we spoil good relations with "brothers" in Baku at the expense of Yerevan, which is not offering us that much other than some soothing historical lessons?

Now, with Turkish position evolving with Russia, they look at Armenia as an extension of Russian interests and....

Gilmore: They certainly look at Armenia as a strategic ally of Russia, which President Sargsian has made very plain is the case, and then the Turks have taken that into account.

With that being said, I give Turkish diplomacy a lot of credit and I think they will see Armenia as a strategic ally of Russia is not in lock-step to Russia. Armenia is a sovereign country and Sargsian is making decisions as the head of sovereign Armenia. Strategic alliance with Russia is fundamental to Armenian interests as he and the Armenian political class see them, but Armenia is not anybody's satellite.

Reporter: But would it make sense to say that now Turks are not just weighing Baku against Yerevan but they are weighing the future of their relations with Russia and Armenia versus Baku?

Gilmore: I think it's probably a factor in their decision. I think the Turks also know if there is an opening of a new border and exchange of ambassadors it could be very significant.

If you could get Armenian-Turkish normalization and some kind of agreement on Karabakh I think you could have a very different Caucasus. I think Armenia and Azerbaijan have naturally a lot of complementarities in terms of economics and I think both countries would profit considerably and quickly. I'm sure the Turks have thought of that and I'm sure they've thought of communications with Baku which are now through Georgia or down the tortured route through Iran.

Reporter: From your time, there was a lot of talk about running the Azerbaijan to Turkey pipelines through Armenia. It seems that because of the crisis in Georgia that talk has been revived. A sign of that was Vice President Dick Cheney, while not going to Armenia, making a comment on inviting Armenia to the EU summit on energy.

Gilmore: I saw that and again, Armenia will be very careful on this issue because of its strategic alliance with Russia. So much depends on Russia's intentions.

[But] I think it's clear that the Turks have been very careful not to rule anything out in terms of Armenia as a transit country of future pipelines. It's probably premature to talk about it at this point but I cannot believe the Turks, careful strategic thinkers, haven't thought about it.

Reporter: Other than that, in terms of the U.S. reaction to this crisis, one of the side effects that we have seen is [Deputy Assistant Secretary of State] Matt Bryza drafting new language on the U.S. position on Nagorno-Karabakh for Vice President Cheney's visit to Azerbaijan; he played up "territorial integrity," and it was clearly designed to appease Azerbaijan.

Gilmore: I've also seen the U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan in the Azerbaijani press saying it's time to put more emphasis on resolving the issue in the context of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. I don't know if it's a policy shift or not.

Reporter: And for our readers, what is the difference between a change of rhetoric and a change of policy?

Gilmore: Change in rhetoric does not necessarily mean change in policy. From what I understood from colleagues in the U.S. government, the U.S. still hopes to work on [the Madrid] principles for Karabakh. [The say that] France, the U.S., and Russia [can continue] as co-chairs of the Minsk Group.

The other question on my mind as a former diplomat is about the French, through President [Nicolas] Sarkozy's mediation efforts in Georgia: Are they looking at this post-August 8? Is there any implication for Karabakh negotiations and what is it? What are implications of Russia recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Is there an analogy with the Karabakh?

McCain vs. Obama Russia policy

Gilmore: Maybe there will be difference depending on which candidate will be elected in terms of a difference in policy. Sen. John McCain at one point said that we are all Georgians; whether in fact a McCain administration will pursue that policy, I'm not sure.

I would assume whichever camp wins there would be systematic review of U.S. policy, including toward Russia and the region. I would imagine if McCain gets elected, the idea of Georgia being supported for eventual NATO membership would still be U.S. policy.

With Barack Obama, I'm less sure [he'd support such a direct confrontation with Russia], but support for Georgia's territorial integrity will be a part of our policy whoever is elected. And then I think at some point Russia intends to incorporate [Abkhazia and South Ossetia]. This could be a long procedure.

Reporter: Either way, the holdup there is Abkhazia. It doesn't want to be a part of Russia.

Gilmore: [True,] Russians were not totally pleased with the outcome of the [most recent presidential] election there and the Abkhaz have the tendency to do their own thing. Ossetia is different; North Ossetia is a part of the Russian Federation so South Ossetia joining that entity is logical from South Ossetian and Russian points of view.

Reporter: What do you think is in the U.S. interest? Should the United States continue to lobby for Georgia and Ukraine to be NATO members and thus antagonize Russia? Or should the United States in a way let this area be like Finland in the Cold War - connected to the West economically but not militarily?

Gilmore: I would say certainly the U.S. interest is to continue support of the territorial integrity of Georgia as well as the territorial integrity of Moldova...

Reporter: And, in that case, what about Azerbaijan?

Gilmore: In Azerbaijan: support its territorial integrity, but the territorial integrity and principles are fine, but there is a negotiated settlement that changes that and the parties agree that's a different question. I think I made myself clear and I know you understand it.

But, back to the U.S., I would personally support economic assistance to Georgia and figure out a way to repair some infrastructural damage. If Georgia continues to pursue NATO membership I think the U.S. [should support that]. That's what Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried had said in his last testimony; I think it's going to be U.S. policy.

And some kind of [security] assistance to Georgia to enable it to have the means to protect its own internal security and putting down some kind of protections for its borders [is in order].

Reporter: But back to Finland. It was attacked by the Soviet Union in 1939 and the U.S. and allies sacrificed Finland's interests to keep the Soviet Union as an ally against Nazi Germany. So, in this case, the bigger challenge is Iran or Islamic terrorism or perhaps China; would it make sense for the U.S. and its allies to sacrifice Georgia's interests to continue to court Russia?

Gilmore: I don't think we'll do that. The United States and European Union are not going to abandon Georgia. However, whether they will approve Georgia for full membership in NATO is a different question. It's a question of when and if.

Reporter: Finally, with the financial collapse going on, would it be too conspiratorial to suggest that some thinking minds in the United States and Russia could decide that some kind of long-term confrontation might be in the interests of their states?

Gilmore: I think no, the decision makers in both countries are very careful not to get into that kind of a situation. There is nothing to be gained for either side in that kind of confrontation. Everybody would lose and people in the countries would just suffer.

I personally don't look for a new Cold War, I see some analogies, but I don't know if this is becoming a Cold War.

With that being said, I think there is a possibility that Russia by pushing the idea that it has a sphere of influence will get a negative reaction in the political class of the U.S.

I think nobody is going to accept that as when we talk about the sphere of influence, does that mean Poland shouldn't be in NATO? We won't accept that and if the Russians keep talking about it, it will change the attitude of not only the U.S. but France and Britain, maybe even Germany.

I hope the Russians don't go down that road and they calculate their interests carefully.

Congress marks Artsakh freedom anniversary

First published in Sept. 27, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Artsakh’s freedom celebrated on Capitol Hill
Speakers call for U.S. recognition, support for NKR
by Lusine Sarkisyan and Emil Sanamyan

NKR Rep. in U.S. Barseghian (left) with Armenian caucus co-chairs Reps. Pallone (right) and Knollenberg (center).

WASHINGTON - About 100 supporters of Artsakh attended a September 19 Capitol Hill program that featured remarks by members of Congress, a keynote address by community activist and lawyer Mark Geragos, and calls for formal U.S. recognition and greater assistance to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

The event, "Nagorno Karabakh Republic/Artsakh: 20 Years of Freedom, Democracy, and Progress," was hosted by the co-chairs of the Congressional Armenian Caucus in cooperation with the NKR Office in the United States and the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia.

The gathering was part of conferences and events worldwide timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the movement for Artsakh's freedom and the 17th anniversary of the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, formally proclaimed on September 2, 1991.

In their remarks, Ambassador Tatoul Markarian of Armenia and Vardan Barseghian, NKR representative in the United States, reviewed the history and recent developments in Karabakh and in talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Mr. Barseghian used the opportunity to advocate for formal U.S. recognition of NKR's independence as well as an expanded U.S. assistance package to the Armenian republic.

"We expect the United States and other nations to formally recognize the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, thereby affirming the right of the people of Artsakh to live in freedom without fear of violence, oppression, and persecution," Mr. Barseghian said.

Now, he added, is the "time to expand the nature and scope of [U.S.] assistance to avail Karabakh residents to the type of U.S. assistance - business advice, education, and exchanges - others in the Caucasus have had access to for over a decade."

In light of the recent crisis in Georgia, he also called for international diplomacy that would have "Azerbaijan commit in writing to the nonuse of force" to strengthen the relative peace in the region and create an atmosphere of trust conducive to a peace agreement.

In his keynote address, Mr. Geragos challenged members of Congress to increase U.S. support for Karabakh, suggesting that $35 million in humanitarian aid allocated over 10 years was far from enough, and that a democracy in a troubled region should be getting substantially more U.S. support.

In addition to Armenian Caucus co-chairs Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.), members of Congress who spoke included Reps. Shelly Berkley (D.-Nev.), Gus Bilirakis (R.-Fla.), Jim Costa (D.-Calif.), Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.), George Radanovich (R.-Calif.), Steven Rothman (D.-N.J.), Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), and Tim Walz (D.-Minn.)

In their remarks, members of Congress touted NKR's successes, held up the Armenian republic as an example to be followed by others, and argued for expanded U.S. engagement up to full recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

Reps. Pallone and Knollenberg were presented with a book of letters and drawings from children of Artsakh, prepared by Nelly Martirosian, a Columbia University student who spent two months volunteering in Artsakh. Other members of Congress in attendance also received memorable photos, including those of Artsakh children standing in formation to spell out "thank you" for U.S. help to NKR.

Those in audience also viewed a documentary on Artsakh produced by Peter Musurlian, while human right activist Kathryn Porter talked about her first-hand experiences in Artsakh.

Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan, Prelate, and Archbishop Vicken Aykazian, the Diocesan legate in Washington, offered invocations.

Along with annual congressional commemorations of the Armenian Genocide held every April, events dedicated to Artsakh's successes in preservation of peace and security and efforts to win formal international recognition of its independence - typically held every September - are the largest Armenian events regularly organized on Capitol Hill.

Briefly: Bush, Obama on Armenia independence, U.S. to "Georgia and the region," State Dept. on Genocide and anti-Armenian attacks in Azerbaijan

First published in September 27, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan and Lusine Sarkisyan

Bush, Obama send messages on Armenian Independence Day

President George W. Bush sent a private message to congratulate President Serge Sargsian on Armenian Independence Day.

The letter was transmitted to Mr. Sargsian by Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as she handed her letter of credence to the Armenian president on September 22, the president’s office reported without publicizing the content of the message, which is the first known direct communication from Mr. Bush to Mr. Sargsian since the latter took office in April.

Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama issued a public message on September 21, Armenian Independence Day, noting that “throughout their long history, a spirit of independence, self-reliance, and survival defines the Armenian people... Even in the face of genocide, the pain of the past has not defeated the Armenians, either in Armenia or the far-flung diaspora.”

Pointing to the Georgia crisis, Mr. Obama said it “shows the danger that lurks when rising tensions are ignored and the United States pursues a diplomatic strategy of neglect.” At the same time, he welcomed the “hopeful step – taken by the Presidents of Turkey and Armenia – to restart dialogue.”

The full text of the statement by Mr. Obama appears at www.barackobama.com/2008/01/19/barack_obama_on_the_importance.php

Congress to appropriate $365 million in aid for “Georgia and the region”

According to the text of proposed legislation made available by Rep. David Obey (D.-Wis.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee on September 23, “$365,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Georgia and the region for humanitarian and economic relief, reconstruction, energy-related programs and democracy activities.”

The extra aid proposed is six times the amount Georgia was slated to receive before the August war with Russia, but less than the $570 million initially requested by
the Bush administration.

The proposal would also safeguard foreign aid already earmarked, such as that to Armenia, from being “reprogrammed for assistance for Georgia.”

But the draft legislation apparently leaves it to the administration’s discretion whether assistance to “the region” actually means providing part of the $365 million to other countries in the region.

On September 19, twenty members of Congress joined Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and George Radanovich (R.-Calif.) in writing to Mr. Bush with a request for proportional funding to Georgia’s Armenian-populated districts as well as additional aid to Armenia to offset the losses its economy suffered as a result of Russian-Georgian fighting last month.

The issue was raised earlier by Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.), with Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried promising to look into the concerns.

Senators question nominee for U.S. ambassador to Turkey on Armenia policy

Senators John Kerry (D.-Mass.) and Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.) questioned President Bush’s nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey in a hearing on September 24.

Ambassador-designate James Jeffrey, who previously served in the U.S. diplomatic mission in Turkey on three separate occasions and is currently Mr. Bush’s deputy national security advisor, called Turkey a “key friend and strategic partner of the United States” on a range of issues, although he acknowledged “occasional differences” over Iraq and Iran.

Mr. Jeffrey also “strongly urge[d] Turkey to work with Armenia to reestablish diplomatic relations and to have an open and honest dialogue about the tragic events at the end of the Ottoman Empire.”

Mr. Kerry wondered if that meant the United States is “supportive of the historical commission itself” as proposed by the Turkish government.

Mr. Jeffrey responded that the United States supports “anything that the two sides agree on and as part of the process there should be a full and open review of events of that time... providing it’s mutually agreed on.”

Mr. Menendez said he was “dismayed” by Mr. Jeffrey’s remarks, arguing they were at variance with the administration’s position as expressed during Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s confirmation process earlier this year.

“The Administration in their letter said ‘our goal is not to open a debate whether the Ottomans have committed these horrendous acts, it is to help preserve the documentation that supports the truth of those events,’ Sen. Menendez stressed.

Mr. Jeffrey disagreed that he was diverging from the U.S. position as articulated by Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Reynolds in July 2008.

In the days prior to the hearing, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) contacted committee members urging them to scrutinize the administration’s nominee on “failings in U.S.-Turkey policy” ranging from disagreements over Iraq to the Administration’s opposition to congressional legislation affirming the Armenian Genocide that was debated last year.

According to the ANCA, the “sad public spectacle” of lobbying against the Genocide resolution was accompanied by “the decision of the President to send two of his Administration’s senior officials, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman and Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried, to Ankara to
personally apologize for America for the House Foreign Affair Committee’s approval of this human rights legislation” on the Genocide in October 2007.

State Department report again ignores Azerbaijan’s anti- Armenian policies

Remnants of Baku's Armenian cemetery as of Sept. 2007“The International Religious Freedom Report 2008,” a congressionally mandated State Department report released on September 19 focused – as similar reports have done in years past – on restrictions and harassment faced by missionary groups, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses, while ignoring continuing anti-Armenian rhetoric and actions in Azerbaijan. The reports are compiled primarily by in-country U.S. Embassy staff.

The report also listed, in minute detail, the few instances in which anti-Semitic comments were employed by pro-government media in their attacks on the opposition in the pre- and post-election period (while ignoring equally xenophobic although not anti-Semitic attacks).

The report did note that Armenia is “a country traditionally known for its welcoming attitude toward Jews.”

While reporting that “on December 17, 2007, Jewish community members discovered a small swastika drawn on the Hebrew side of the 14-month-old Joint Tragedies Memorial,” the report misses the state-organized destruction of Armenian monuments and cemeteries throughout Azerbaijan, including the widely publicized case in central
Baku (see the September 15, 2007, edition of the Armenian Reporter).

Also ignored are a slew of Armenophobic comments by Azerbaijani leaders, such as those by country’s formal Muslim leader Allahshukur Pashazade who told a visiting Jewish American rabbi that “falsehood and treason run through Armenians’ blood” (see this page in the July 26 edition of the Armenian Reporter).

In a correction, the report no longer refers to Nagorno-Karabakh as an “occupied region” (see this page in the September 22, 2007, edition of the Armenian Reporter). Instead it mentions an “unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh” and “those areas of [Azerbaijan] controlled by ethnic Armenian separatists,” while rehashing baseless claims and figures used by the Azerbaijani government.

Not much change in “corruption perception”

The Corruption Perception Index (CPI), the informal rival of the World Bank’s Doing Business report, which measures business regulation (see this page in the September 20 edition of the Armenian Reporter), was released by the Berlin-based Transparency International on September 23. Both reports count towards Armenia’s continued eligibility for the U.S. aid under Millennium Challenge program.

This year’s CPI for Armenia was 2.9 of out of 10 possible points – the same rating it had in 2005–2006, but slightly worse than 3.0 in 2007 and 3.1 in 2004. The decline placed Armenia 109th of 180 nations on par with Argentina and Moldova.

Transparency studies in Armenia are conducted by the Center for Regional Development, a Yerevan-based Transparency International affiliate (www.transparency.am).

Meanwhile, other Transparency affiliates found improvements in Georgia, placing it in 67th place, up from 79th, and regression in Azerbaijan, placed 158th, down from the 150th position in 2007.