RA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, RF STATE DUMA SPEAKERS DISCUSS ONCOMING CSTO SUMMIT IN YEREVAN
PanARMENIAN.Net
May 17, 2010 – 21:10 AMT 16:10 GMT
Armenian National Assembly and Russian State Duma speakers, Hovik
Abrahamyan and Boris Gryzlov had a telephone conversation on May 17.
Conversation focused on May 31 CSTO summit in Yerevan as well as
interparliamentary collaboration-related issues, RA NA press service
reported.
ANOTHER ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT ATTACK CONVICT DIES IN PRISON
Arman Hovannisian, Ruzanna Stepanian
rticle/2044912.html
17.05.2010
Armenia – Footage of the October 27 terrorist act in the Armenian
Parliament, Yerevan, 27Oct, 1999
One of the seven men convicted in a 1999 deadly attack on Armenia’s
parliament was found dead in his prison cell at the weekend. Armenian
prison authorities said they have launched an investigation to
ascertain the cause of Hamlet Stepanian’s sudden death.
They did not announce any results of the inquiry as of Monday evening.
Stepanian was serving a 14-year prison sentence which he had received
for allegedly helping five gunmen burst into the National Assembly and
spray it with bullets on October 27, 1999. The then Prime Minister
Vazgen Sarkisian, parliament speaker Karen Demirchian and six other
officials were killed in the shooting spree that thrust Armenia’s
government into turmoil.
The gunmen led by Nairi Hunanian, an obscure former journalist,
surrendered to police after overnight negotiations with then President
Robert Kocharian. All of them were tried, together with Stepanian,
and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2003.
In a short statement, a Justice Ministry department managing Armenia’s
prisons said Stepanian died in his bed in Yerevan’s Nubarashen jail
late on Saturday. It said an initial examination of his body found no
"traces of violence." An ongoing official inquiry involving detailed
forensic examinations will determine the exact cause of the convict’s
death, added the statement.
As part of that inquiry, four members of a non-governmental council
monitoring prison conditions in Armenia were allowed to be present
at an autopsy conducted by state forensic experts. One of them, Laura
Galstian, suggested on Monday that Stepanian died of a heart attack.
Armenia – Nairi Hunanian, a former journalist, the ringleader of the
group that committed the terrorist act of October 27, 1999
"We found no other suspicious facts," Galstian told RFE/RL’s Armenian
service. "This is our preliminary conclusion, but we will wait for
the final results of the forensic-medical examinations."
Galstian, who herself is a doctor, cited prison medics as saying
that Stepanian had no history of serious heart trouble. "The same was
confirmed by his relatives, including a cousin whom we have met," she
said. "She last visited him with a parcel ten days ago, she kept in
touch with him by phone, and he did not voice any [heart] complaints."
Galstian said she and the three other members of the monitoring council
have also talked to 16 other inmates at Nubarashen who shared the same
prison cell with Stepanian. "They told us that they jointly had dinner
[with Stepanian on Saturday evening] and that half an hour later he
said he is feeling unwell and has to go to bed. Then his prison mates
heard a wheezing sound but were unable to help him."
Speaking to RFE/RL’s Armenian service, Aghasi Atabekian, a lawyer
who defended Stepanian in the 2001-2003 trial, pointedly declined
to exclude the possibility of his former client’s murder. Atabekian
pointed to the past deaths of two other parliament attack suspects.
One of them, Norayr Yeghiazarian, was found dead in pre-trial detention
in 2000, several months after being charged with supplying weapons
to the gunmen, among them Hunanian’s younger brother Karen and uncle
Vram Galstian. Law-enforcement authorities said at the time that
Yeghiazarian, an electrician by profession, accidentally electrocuted
himself to death while using a heating stove in his cell.
And in 2004, Vram Galstian was found hanged at Nubarashen. The prison
administration claimed that he committed suicide.
Both prison deaths fuelled more allegations of a high-level cover-up
of the parliament shootings by relatives and supporters of the
assassinated officials. Some of them still suspect Kocharian and the
current President Serzh Sarkisian (no relation to Vazgen), who was
Armenia’s national security minister in October 1999, of masterminding
the killings to eliminate increasingly powerful government rivals.
Hunanian insisted throughout his marathon trial that the decision
to seize the National Assembly and change what he denounced as a
corrupt and undemocratic government had been taken by himself without
anybody’s orders. But many in Armenia believe that the ringleader and
his accomplices had powerful sponsors outside the parliament building.
GOVERNMENT TO EASE CONDITIONS OF FLATS FOR YOUNG FAMILIES: KARAMYAN
Tert.am
17.05.10
A government-implemented mortgage project Flats for Young Families
facing problems in practice, Deputy Minister of Sport and Youth
Policy of the Republic of Armenia, Arsen Karamyan said at a press
conference today.
"We have said after the program was launched that it should be
considered a pilot one," said he, adding that the program needs
some changes.
According to Karamyan, as soon as those changes are made, the
beneficiaries will be offered easier terms. The new terms will refer
to the prepayment, payoff deadline and age restrictions. Particularly,
the government will offer the beneficiaries to pay 25% prepayment
instead of the current 30%; as well we extend the time for the payoff
from 10 years to 15 years.
"There will be more applicants as soon as the term is eased," said
Karamyan, adding that about 20 families have been given flats, while
the 60 applications are still under review.
The Atlantic and its Enemies: A Personal History of the Cold War by
Norman Stone Norman Stone has produced a lively and idiosyncratic
account of the cold war that is none the worse for an occasional
tendency to ramble, says Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
The Observer,
Sunday 16 May 2010
1957: tanks rumble across Moscow’s Red Square to mark the 40th
anniversary of the Communist rule in Russia. Photograph: ©
Bettmann/Corbis
Who won the cold war, and how, and why? The obvious answer to the
first question is that the west won, the United States and its western
European allies. But this wasn’t a victory for armed force like the
preceding defeat of Germany and Japan. Nato was arguably the most
successful military alliance there has ever been; and yet when the
Soviet Union imploded 20 years ago it still possessed a full nuclear
arsenal and, unlike the German army in the woefully misleading phrase
nationalists used after 1918, the red army really was "undefeated on
the battlefield", at least in the west.
The Atlantic and Its Enemies: A Personal History of the Cold War by
Norman Stone 712pp, Allen Lane, £30.00 Buy The Atlantic and Its
Enemies: A Personal History of the Cold War at the Guardian bookshop
In 1992 Francis Fukuyama published The End of History. Although it
wasn’t a stupid book, the title was hubristic even at the time and, as
Norman Stone says in The Atlantic and Its Enemies, "even funnier
afterwards". Any idea that liberal democracy and market capitalism had
swept away competitors would seem painfully presumptuous as the new
century opened amid a wave of nationalist and sectarian violence.
Never mind who won, what went wrong?
And how did it begin? When the greatest and most terrible of wars
ended 65 years ago, only one of the victorious powers had fought from
start to end, and, not surprisingly, was exhausted. The cold war thus
began what Stone calls "the war of the British succession" between the
Americans and the Russians.
In Churchill’s phrase, an iron curtain descended across Europe as
Russia took over one country after another by force or fraud, and the
process was, as Stone says, very ugly indeed. He knows central Europe
better than most historians, and has no sympathy with the
"revisionist" claim that the west started the conflict, or that both
sides were equally to blame.
With bewildering rapidity, the communist absorption of eastern Europe
was followed by Mao’s triumph in China, the explosion of a Russian
atomic bomb, the creation of Nato, and the Korean war, a warning that
cold war could quickly turn hot. Stalin died in March 1953, but a year
before he had proposed a reunited but neutralised Germany. Those Stone
inelegantly calls "anti-cold war historians" have adduced this as
evidence that Stalin sincerely wanted peace, a view that Stone
(presumably pro-Cold War) derides. But there is a difference between
the internal character of a regime, however loathsome, and its
legitimate national interests, and Stalin might just have meant it.
Although no real war troubled Europe during the four decades or more
of the cold war, that certainly didn’t mean the world was at peace. In
one of the predictions in Nineteen Eighty-Four that he hasn’t been
given proper credit for, Orwell said the superpowers would avoid
direct confrontation while waging proxy wars in African and Asia, and
this was what happened. But neither the Americans nor the Russians
understood what they were doing in those distant climes, where what
had begun as a conflict between communism and liberal democracy became
far more complex when national and religious passions were ascendant.
We then return home to "the British disease", where Stone not so much
flies as flaunts his colours as one who thinks the Iron Lady rescued
us from the abyss. British economic and industrial decline was indeed
an historical fact, and there’s no denying the grave condition in
which the country found itself in 1979, although Stone as so often
paints with a broad brush: "The country was about one third as well
off as Germany, and in parts of the north there were areas that even
resembled communist Poland." Some of his other statements are not so
much sweeping as highly dubious (can it really be true that the Ford
motor factory at Dearborn had an annual workforce turnover of 900%?).
At any rate, after a lengthy discursion on Chile we return to Europe
and the history which didn’t end after all.
All of this is told in a lively or even rollicking fashion, and the
word "personal" in Stone’s subtitle is an understatement;
idiosyncratic or downright eccentric might be more like it. The author
is one of the great academic characters of our time. Born and bred in
Glasgow, he was educated at Cambridge and taught there after various
adventures in central Europe which he describes here, including a
stretch in a Slovak prison.
Some contemporary historians have achieved not only fame but literary
immortality. The paradox-mongering hackademic in Alan Bennett’s The
History Boys sounds very much like Niall Ferguson, and readers of
Robert Harris’s Archangel have suspected that the bibulous historian
"Fluke" Kelso (who inspires the best fictional description of a
hangover since Lucky Jim) has more than a hint of Norman Stone.
>From 1984 to 1997 Stone was a professor at Oxford in succession to
Richard Cobb (no Perrier addict himself), and there was something
heroic about his sojourn there. To have neglected his duties and shown
open disdain for his colleagues, while continuing to refresh himself,
would have made him unpopular enough among the bleating dons, but to
have been an "out Thatcherite" as well showed pluck beyond the call of
duty.
Anyone who thought Fluke, I mean Stone, would one day mellow was
mistaken. After Oxford he took himself off to Ankara, from where he
has tried to persuade us that, even if the Armenians didn’t quite have
it coming in 1915, there was no "genocide". However that may be, Stone
writes informatively about the country where he now resides.
He may not realise it, but no one who reads these pages can possibly
think that Turkey will join the European Union in any foreseeable
future, even were the Cyprus dispute to be resolved. Here again, Stone
takes an unfashionable line, if not defending, then not condemning the
Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974. Its consequences were
brutal, and the subsequent partition may well be permanent, but when
the Turkish-Cypriot leader Rauf Dentkas said that his people had
thereby avoided the fate of the Gaza Palestinians, he might have had a
point.
Having made his name 35 years ago with a scholarly and fascinating
study of the eastern front in the great war, Stone wrote a readable
general history of Europe from 1878 to 1919, to which this is a kind
of delayed coda. Most of what Stone has written is worth reading, and
The Atlantic and Its Enemies displays its author’s merits, as well as
his faults. I was reminded of what Isaiah Berlin said of his friend
Lewis Namier: according as whether one was or was not interested in
the subject on which he was discoursing, he could be the most
interesting man alive or the most boring. Some of these pages are
repetitious, or rambling, or simply unstoppable, and on occasion one
has the feeling of being trapped in the bar by the club raconteur.
Then again there are many very vivid passages, and Stone in his
anecdotage can be good fun, even if some of his turns of phrase –
"Khrushchev was not the only Communist leader to be showing off: Mao
had his own remarks to pass" … "Progress happened" … "a terrible
cocktail, superbly written up" – are so colloquial as to be obscure.
And Stone is welcome to tweak lefty noses, but when he says of the
Vietnam war that "Johnson was very anxious to spare civilians," one
must add that, in that case, he was not anxious to much effect.
When the fall of communism comes, Stone’s knowledge of eastern Europe
is once again invaluable, although he rubs in the fact that few in the
west foresaw that fall, even confessing his own error. There is a nice
line from the late Philip Windsor, the international relations scholar
at the LSE, who said that it was "the end of an empire" – not the
Soviet one, but political science. But then amid the triumphalist
crowing on the right 20 years ago nor did many foresee what Russia
would be like today, or the longer consequences of the
American-sponsored resistance to the Russian war in Afghanistan, or
where financial deregulation and the cheap-mortgage boom would lead
the west, or what the new revolt of Islam portended.
No, there is only one generalisation about history to be made with
absolute confidence: you never can tell.
U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: DAILY PRESS BRIEFING: QUESTION: LIKE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?
Philip J. Crowley
/141816.htm
May 13, 2010
Assistant Secretary Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
INDEX: DEPARTMENT
Secretary Clinton’s Meeting With Afghan Female Ministers / Supporting
Women Leadership Secretary Clinton at U.S. Institute of Peace /
Conversation with President Karzai Readout of Secretary Clinton’s
Call with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu U.S. – China Human
Rights Dialogue is Underway / Dialogue Led By Assistant Secretary for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Mike Posner and Chinese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs Director General for International Organizations Chen
Xu Russian Adoptions USAID Administrator Raj Shah in Nairobi / Will
Also Travel to Sudan Assistant Secretary Phil Gordon in Macedonia/ Will
Discuss Bilateral Issues U.S. Has Joined The Alliance of Civilizations
CHINA
Human Rights Dialogue Underway / Internet Freedom / Google
IRAN
Secretary Clinton Conversation With Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu
regarding Iran Tehran Research Reactor / Uranium Enrichment
UNITED KINGDOM
Secretary Clinton to Meet With British Foreign Minister Hague Tomorrow
SOUTH KOREA
High Level Meeting with South Korean Officials Tomorrow/Expect to
Discuss Regional Security Issues
TUNISIA
Under Secretary Burns and Assistant Secretary Shapiro Meeting with
the Tunisian Defense Minister
THAILAND
Demonstrations In Thailand
RUSSIA
Russian Adoption Agreement/U.S. Interagency Team Continues to Meet
with Russian Counterparts in Moscow
JAPAN
Meetings Between U.S. And Japan
CHILE
Chile Investigation
TRANSCRIPT:
12:18 p.m. EDT
MR. CROWLEY: Okay, the Secretary – and I know we’re a little pressed
for time – the Secretary will be meeting with some Afghan female
ministers this afternoon, underscoring our support for Afghan women.
Our goals are to improve the security of women in institutions that
serves women, supporting women’s leadership in the public and private
sectors, promoting women’s access to formal and informal justice,
enforcing existing law and constitutional rights of women, improving
women and girls’ access to education and health care, strengthening and
expanding economic development opportunity for women, especially in
agriculture, and increasing women’s political participation. And I’m
sure she will talk to them about reintegration and stress that Afghan
women’s rights will not be sacrificed as reintegration efforts move
forward and that there is a commitment to have at least 25 percent
of the membership of the upcoming peace jirga be women.
QUESTION: How many ministers is that? That she’s meeting with?
MR. CROWLEY: She’ll be meeting with the minister of labor, social
affairs, martyrs and the disabled; the acting minister of health; the
director of gender and human rights at the ministry of foreign affairs.
QUESTION: How many ministers is that? Two?
MR. CROWLEY: That’s three.
QUESTION: No, no, I don’t think the director of —
MR. CROWLEY: All right.
QUESTION: It’s three officials but only two ministers.
MR. CROWLEY: You’ll see them at the camera spray upstairs in a few
minutes.
QUESTION: Right. But are those the only two women in the cabinet?
MR. CROWLEY: That’s a good question. I’ll – they’re the two that are
here. I’ll take that question.
And then the Secretary moves over to the U.S. Institute of Peace,
where she will have a conversation with President Karzai, moderated
by good friend Ambassador Bill Taylor, and that will be live-streamed
on USIP.org and be covered live on C-SPAN. And I think many of you
probably will be going over there.
The Secretary this morning spoke with Turkish Foreign Minister
Davutoglu regarding Iran. During the call, the Secretary stressed that,
in our view, Iran’s recent diplomacy was an attempt to stop Security
Council action without actually taking steps to address international
concerns about its nuclear program. There’s nothing new and nothing
encouraging in Iran’s recent statements. It has failed to demonstrate
good faith and build confidence with the international community, which
was the original intent of the Tehran research reactor proposal. It
has yet to formally respond to the IAEA. She stressed that the burden
is with Iran and its lack of seriousness about engagement requires
us to intensify efforts to apply greater pressure on Iran. Now, that
was the primary purpose of the conversation. They briefly touched
on other subjects, including Middle East peace and the relationship
between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
The U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue is underway. You’ll recall that
President Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed during their November
2009 meeting that we would organize another session. Assistant
Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Mike Posner and
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for International
Organizations Chen Xu are leading the dialogue. Rule of law, religious
freedom, freedom of expression, labor rights, and other human rights
issues of concern will be raised over a two-day period.
Moving to Russia, our teams finished a second day of meetings on
adoptions. We’re committed to reaching an agreement to increase
safeguards for inter-country adoption between Russian – Russia and
the United States. We shared our views on existing difficulties and
discussed ways to resolve them. In fact, the detailed discussions
and very complex issues were such that they stayed over and will have
another round of consultations tomorrow.
Raj Shah has arrived in – or will be arriving in Nairobi today on the
first leg of his travel throughout – to Africa and to Kenya and Sudan.
Phil Gordon departed Macedonia today for – I’m sorry, departed Kosovo
for Macedonia, where he’ll discuss bilateral issues.
And finally, the United States has decided to join the Alliance of
Civilizations. We recognize the value of the Alliance of Civilizations
as an important initiative seeking to improve understanding between
cultures and peoples. We will be the 119th[i] member country or
international organization in the alliance’s group of friends. And on
May 28 and 29, the Government of Brazil will host the next Alliance
of Civilizations’ Forum in Rio de Janeiro and the United States
will attend this forum – our first event as a member of the group
of friends.
QUESTION: Why hadn’t you been a member before?
QUESTION: You’re not civilized?
MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) I think going back to the previous
administration had a particular (inaudible) to joining an international
organization.
QUESTION: Why, though?
MR. CROWLEY: You’ll have to ask them.
QUESTION: No, no. Why – I mean, there were concerns about this group,
were there not?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it was created in 2005 and we think the alliance
activities complement President Obama’s vision of more active U.S.
engagement with other nations and international organizations to
advance America’s security interests and meet the global challenges
of the 21st century.
QUESTION: Are you convinced now that the group is not going to be
promoting things hostile to Israel?
MR. CROWLEY: I think we believe that – I mean, the focus – the agenda
of this organization, we think, is very consistent with what we’re
trying to achieve in our relations with a broad range of countries.
QUESTION: Did you discuss it with Israel before announcing you’d
join it?
MR. CROWLEY: I do not know. I mean, we pursue our own national
interests. We don’t normally ask other countries permission to do
what we think is in our interest.
QUESTION: I don’t believe she said "ask permission."
MR. CROWLEY: You feeling all right? I heard a rumor you were —
QUESTION: My daughter. That’s all (inaudible). Quickly on China Human
Rights Dialogue, you didn’t mention internet freedom in the list that
you went down. Is that going to come up generally, and is the issue
of Google going to come up specifically?
MR. CROWLEY: Internet freedom is a dimension of our pursuit of
freedom of expression. That segment of the discussion will happen this
afternoon and it wouldn’t surprise me if a range of issues regarding
internet freedom comes up.
QUESTION: Including Google?
MR. CROWLEY: I can’t predict. This is – this component of the dialogue
will occur this afternoon.
QUESTION: And one other thing. Have you yet gotten a response, let
alone a satisfactory response, from the Chinese Government to your
inquiries about Google?
MR. CROWLEY: It goes back several weeks. I do not know that we
have received any indication of the – of any investigation that we
called for.
QUESTION: Can I ask about the Davutoglu? You said that she doesn’t
think any of the recent Iranian diplomacy amounted to anything new.
Was she referring to that dinner they hosted or to the conversations
that she’s had —
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean —
QUESTION: — that they’ve had with the Iranians and the Brazilians?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, Iran has been very busy in recent weeks having
conversations with a range of countries. Part of that conversation did
occur last week in the dinner in New York. And not only – during the
conversation in New York, not only did Iran not offer any new, Foreign
Minister Mottaki indicated during the dinner that notwithstanding
any potential agreement on the Tehran research reactor, they would
continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent, which we – which is of
great concern to us and violates their obligations under the IAEA.
So they had initially, when they announced they were going to enrich
uranium to 20 percent, they claimed at the time that it was for the
Tehran research reactor, but it’s obviously part of a broader agenda.
And that’s what we are concerned about. That’s why we continue to
pursue the sanctions resolution as part of our pressure track.
QUESTION: Was there a specific reason for the timing of this call? I
mean, why today? Why now?
MR. CROWLEY: We have maintained very close contact —
QUESTION: Did the Turks come out and say something that – I don’t
know —
MR. CROWLEY: No.
QUESTION: The Brazilians are going this weekend, I think with the
Turks?
MR. CROWLEY: Well —
QUESTION: Tauscher’s there now, right?
AMBASSADOR VERVEER: Hmm?
QUESTION: Tauscher is there now in Turkey, right? Is her visit in
any way —
QUESTION: On the 16th.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: What — what is the purpose of her visit to Turkey at this
time? Larijani is in Turkey, too.
MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take that question. I’m not up on her travel.
QUESTION: You said that the Turks were, or that the Secretary was
satisfied what she heard from the Turks in response to her comments
today?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we have an ongoing conversation. Obviously, at
some point in the next few weeks, we expect to table a resolution in
New York, and at that time, Turkey will have a decision to make in
terms of whether or not to support that resolution. We’ve had many,
many discussions with Turkey and Brazil and others who are deeply
engaged in this process. You are quite right that President Lula will
be going to Tehran this weekend. Foreign Minister Davutoglu has been
personally to Tehran multiple times trying to convince Iran to be
more forthcoming, and so we have just kept in regular contact.
QUESTION: So the answer is no, she was not – she doesn’t feel like
she was able to convince them of anything?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure she necessarily intended to convince
them. I mean, ultimately, Turkey will make a judgment based on its
own self-interest and its own international obligations. We are
in conversation with Turkey, Brazil, many other countries that are
part of the Security Council and will be required to judge what the
consequences of Iran’s failure to respond or engage seriously are.
QUESTION: Does she have any plans to talk to Lula or Amorim before
the trip, before –
MR. CROWLEY: If she does, I’ll let you know.
QUESTION: And just one thing you said —
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware – I don’t know. You can talk to the White
House in terms of whether the President plans to talk to President
Lula before the weekend. But if we tee up a call with Foreign Minister
Amorim, I’ll let you know.
QUESTION: And you said that she saw nothing new nor encouraging
in Iran’s recent statements. Does she think that the Turkish and
Brazilian diplomatic efforts are pointless?
MR. CROWLEY: No. We have a two-track strategy. The – Turkey and
Brazil have made a substantial commitment to try to make progress
on the engagement track. We have in the past as well. We obviously
continue to welcome any efforts that – any steps they can take to
try to convince Iran to change course. We ourselves are skeptical
that Iran is going to change course. And certainly, coming out of
President Lula’s trip to Tehran this weekend, we look forward to
hearing the results of that discussion and any others that might
occur. And at that point, I think we’ll understand where – what Iran
is either willing or unwilling to do. And at that point, we believe
that there should be consequences for failure to respond.
QUESTION: So you’re saying that Lula – Lula is sort of the last
opportunity for them to be responsive to —
QUESTION: In this phase?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we are – we continue to move forward on a
sanctions resolution, and we have a sense of urgency about this. We
want to get this done as quickly as possible. But our view remains
that we are doubtful that Iran is going to change course absent the
kind of significant pressure that comes with a resolution and the
consequences that come with them.
QUESTION: There seem to be all different options, though, on how this
Tehran research reactor deal could proceed. And I wonder, how flexible
is the U.S. being? Did she give Davutoglu any red lines about what
the U.S. would accept in this?
MR. CROWLEY: In – regarding the TRR, it was put on the table last fall
to build confidence with the international community about the true
intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. We have drawn conclusions from
Iran’s failure to even respond – much less engage constructively –
even respond to the proposal formally to the IAEA. She stressed to
Foreign Minister Davutoglu again today that it’s not about the public
statements that Iran makes. If Iran wishes to engage in – regarding
the TRR, come up with alternatives that meet the fundamental intent
of the proposal, then they can pick up the phone and call the IAEA,
which is something they have failed to do.
QUESTION: P.J., Lula is going to Moscow before going to Tehran. Has
he discussed any specific ideas with State that he might be discussing
with the Russians before going to Iran about the nuclear fuel swap?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we are significantly engaged with Russia on
this process and we would anticipate that that discussion would be
consistent with our stance, which is that Iran has to either respond
or face the consequences of a UN Security Council resolution.
QUESTION: P.J., the Secretary meets William Hague tomorrow. Is she
comfortable with the fact that his coalition partner is very clear
that they regard the Iraq war as having been illegal, that they’re
seeking a full judicial inquiry into allegations of British complicity
into rendition, and they’ve ruled out force against Iran?
MR. CROWLEY: She looks forward to the discussion tomorrow. She
has met William Hague before. I think, as was indicated in London
yesterday with the discussion by Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy
Prime Minister Clegg, there are lots of things that have been said
during a campaign, but now you have a coalition government. And I
think, as Prime Minister Cameron said yesterday, he seeks to maintain
a secure and effective relationship with the United States. And we
look forward to hearing from Foreign Secretary Hague about how he
sees the future of the relationship.
QUESTION: Does that security and an effective relationship depend to
some extent on rolling back on the Lib Dems’ part from both —
MR. CROWLEY: Well, these are judgments that the new British Government
is going to have to make. I mean, we recognize in this country that
there are things said during a campaign and then they have to put
together a program to govern.
QUESTION: Like Armenian genocide?
MR. CROWLEY: As the President said yesterday, this is an
extraordinarily special relationship. It is one of the most important
strategic relationships in the world. We have a shared vision of
the world, a shared agenda. I’m confident that that will be the
primary topic of conversation tomorrow, including the situation in
Afghanistan. I don’t know if Iraq will come up. It wouldn’t surprise
me if perspective on the current steps being – aggressive steps being
taken in Europe to deal with the economic crisis.
So I’m confident there will be a full discussion. There will be a
press availability tomorrow and you’ll have a chance to ask him that
question yourself.
QUESTION: Does that mean that you expect the – that you expect them
to not follow through on their —
MR. CROWLEY: I think, given —
QUESTION: That politics is politics, and politicians lie to get
elected?
MR. CROWLEY: No. Well, hang on a second. I mean, given —
QUESTION: Is that —
MR. CROWLEY: Given the statements made yesterday, I think the release
of – I think there was a release of kind of the basis of the coalition
government. We will look forward to seeing how the government plans
to govern over the next five years. We look forward to the discussion.
QUESTION: If they do go ahead – well, you’re not worried about a
criminal inquiry if it comes to pass?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not – I’m just going to say we look forward to the
meeting tomorrow and —
QUESTION: (Inaudible) you say that was the last administration had
nothing —
MR. CROWLEY: We look forward to the meeting tomorrow and we’ll hear
what Foreign Secretary Hague has to say about what their agenda is.
QUESTION: Another meeting tomorrow, there’s going to be a preparatory
2+2 with the South Korean Government taking place here at the State
Department. Do you have any agenda, logistics of that meeting?
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t have a specific agenda in front of me, but as with
any high-level meeting with our South Korean allies, I would expect
there will be bilateral discussions. We are making adjustments on the
military front. We will, of course, discuss regional security issues,
including North Korea. I would fully expect bilateral and regional
issues to be – to dominate the discussion.
QUESTION: Do you expect a preview of the Cheonan investigation?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are involved in and fully supportive of the
ongoing investigation.
QUESTION: Regarding the human —
QUESTION: The never-ending, ongoing investigation. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Regarding the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, will there
be – religious freedom issue will be addressed? And will —
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: — (inaudible) issue will be included?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Falun Gong issue will also be included?
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know that Falun Gong will be a specific topic.
I’m not ruling it in or ruling it out. The dialogue just got underway.
You’ll have, I think, a briefing tomorrow afternoon with Assistant
Secretary Mike Posner at the conclusion of the dialogue and you can
ask him what specific issues came up.
QUESTION: Very briefly on this, the alliance, who is going to go to
this meeting in Rio? And might I suggest that it would make a lovely
stop after a return from Asia —
MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: — if you really want to show how committed you are and send
a high-level representative. It is a ministerial meeting, isn’t it?
MR. CROWLEY: I do not know. I will —
QUESTION: Two days in Rio?
MR. CROWLEY: I will provide your recommendation to the Secretary
of State.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout on the meeting of the Tunisian
defense minister and Under Secretary Burns and Assistant Secretary
Shapiro today?
MR. CROWLEY: We’ll see if we can get you something, Samir.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: The Human Rights Dialogue is here, isn’t it?
MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?
QUESTION: The human rights dialogue is here?
MR. CROWLEY: Yes. Deputy Secretary Steinberg addressed the – both
groups – both teams at the start of the dialogue first thing this
morning.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. side raising the names of specific political
prisoners or specific cases?
MR. CROWLEY: We frequently do that with meetings that we have with
high-level individuals or delegations from China. That’s a good
question to ask Mike tomorrow.
QUESTION: But do you know?
MR. CROWLEY: I do not know what the particular items to be discussed
will be.
QUESTION: Do you have a reaction —
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I’m sure there could well be, in the course of
a broad discussion, some specific cases that we bring up that are
illustrative of the concerns that we have.
QUESTION: How concerned are you about the violence in Thailand and
the decision by the government to shelve elections in November?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are very concerned. We’re watching it very
closely. It has had an impact on our embassy operations. We continue
to believe and we continue to encourage both sides that violence is
not the route to resolve these issues. Ultimately, the government
and the demonstrators have to get back together again and to find –
reach agreement on a path forward. And we are aware that a senior
general affiliated with the protestors has been shot and wounded today,
so we are very concerned about the ongoing violence.
QUESTION: Are you concerned about the violence or about the – because
it was a two-part question about the election.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we’re concerned about both. I mean, there was an
understanding, whether it had been a formal agreement or not, on a
way forward to elections. It would appear as though that agreement
has collapsed and we would like – there’s no route to a solution
through violent confrontation. The government has to continue to have
a dialogue with the demonstrators and they need to reach an agreement
on a path forward.
QUESTION: Are there broader implications for democracy in that
country? I mean, are you thinking about these possible implications?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I’m not sure that now is the time for kind of
sweeping statements. There is – there are fundamental fissures within
Thai society, and the only way to resolve this and to develop a civil
and inclusive society is through peaceful negotiation.
QUESTION: What’s the effect on your embassy? You said it was affected.
MR. CROWLEY: I think it’s closed to only essential operations – let
me see, give me a second. It is closed and American citizens services
will be available for emergencies only.
QUESTION: When you say it’s closed, do you mean it’s closed —
MR. CROWLEY: I think essential personnel right now are —
QUESTION: Right.
MR. CROWLEY: — manning the embassy, but it’s not open.
QUESTION: Is that because of a specific threat or just because —
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think the embassy sits on the fringe of this
containment area where some of the violence has taken place.
QUESTION: Are you close to a Russia deal? Are you close to a Russia
deal on adoptions? You sounded like it was —
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we have a good understanding of the issues.
We are – we’ve agreed to pursue an agreement and looking at a wide
range of steps to improve the security of these adoptions. I think
we’re confident that we will be able to reach an agreement, but
these are complex issues. I think actually getting the agreement,
which can have legally binding obligations on both sides, will take
some time to finalize.
QUESTION: On Futenma. There was a meeting between U.S. and Japan
yesterday. Do you have any readout of that?
MR. CROWLEY: It was a good meeting, but we continue our dialogue
with Japan.
QUESTION: How did the U.S. react to the Japanese proposal?
MR. CROWLEY: There are ongoing discussions about what to do and we’re
not done yet.
QUESTION: Anything new on the Chile investigation?
MR. CROWLEY: No.
QUESTION: Do you think it’s progress from last week?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we have been engaged with Japan for,
obviously, many months. We continue to share ideas back and forth. I
think we’re hopeful that we can reach an understanding soon, but
there’s still work to be done.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. CROWLEY: Okay.
(The briefing was concluded at 12:45 p.m.)
ISMET ABBASOV: "IF WE WANT TO HOLD SUCH IMPORTANT EVENTS IN BAKU IN 2012 , WE ABSOLUTELY HAD TO ARRIVE IN ARMENIA"
APA
May 14 2010
Azerbaijan
Baku. D.Dzhabarogly-APA. An interview with Azerbaijani Minister of
Agriculture Ismat Abbasov.
– How is going on your visit to Armenia?
– The visit ends. The purpose of the visit is to attend the 28th
regional forum of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and
the 37th session of the European Commission on Agriculture in 2010
in Baku. And we achieved it. It is expected that FAO will decide
that 28th Regional Conference will be hold in Baku in 2012. If we
want to hold such important events in Baku in 2012, we had to arrive
in Armenia. Otherwise, it would not be not possible. I met with the
ministers of agriculture of many countries. I also met with Armenian
minister of agriculture by his desire. On the last day of the forum
will take a final decision on the holding the 28th Regional Conference
and the 37th session of the European Commission on Agriculture in Baku.
– How is attitude of Armenian community to visit of Azerbaijani
minister to Armenia?
– In the local press reported about it. They pay much attention. They
are interested in how I arrived here. I was born in Yerevan, and I
know the Armenian language. And I gave several interviews. Presented
my point of view in the way of reaching a settlement of the Karabakh
problem.
– How organized your safety?
– For the sake of fairness I must say that security is provided at
very high level. This comes from the high prestige of our country.
– Were there any attack to you by Armenian press in connection with
your statements about the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia?
– I have told in interviews at Armenian media that occupation of
Azerbaijani lands by Armenia is a fact and it is a reality that
Nagorno Karabakh is Azerbaijani territory. Azerbaijan prefers peace
way but in any case Azerbaijan will liberate its territory. If the
peace way does not work we will use alternative ways.
At the same time, I said that can not be discussed any collaboration
issue with Armenia till solving the Karabakh problem. The position
of our country is so: only after the settlement of the conflict, it
would be possible cooperation in all fields, including agriculture. I
also spoke about the government program on reducing poverty and
about special attention of Azerbaijani President to the development
of agriculture.
– You have visited to a house in Yerevan, where you was born?
– Yes. The house where I was born and lived for 17 years is on its
place right now, too. I visited to Goyche region. In Goyche I has
visited the house of my father-in-law- Mikailov Bayramov’s house,
who was director of the farm in the village Shishgaya, as well as
the house of the rector of Azerbaijan Medical University Ahliman
Amiraslanov. In all of these homes live people. In those houses in
the Goycha region and in our houses in Yerevan settled Armenians who
lived in Azerbaijan. This is the land of our fathers and grandfathers,
where we were born and grown up.
ERDOGAN BRAND OF ISLAM SHOULD WORRY THE WEST
The Australian
May 14, 2010 Friday
1 – All-round Country Edition
The secular military is under attack and the foreign policy has
dramatically shifted
LAST week I asked Bernard Lewis where he thought Turkey might be
going. The dean of Middle East historians speculated that in a
decade the secular republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk might
more closely resemble the Islamic Republic of Iran — even as Iran
transformed itself into a secular republic.
Since coming to power in 2002, the ruling Justice and Development Party
(AKP) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has dramatically recast
the traditional contours of Turkish foreign policy.
Gone are the days when the country had a strategic partnership with
Israel, involving close military ties and shared enemies in Syria
and Iran and the sundry terrorist groups they sponsored. Gone are
the days, too, when the US could rely on Turkey as a bulwark against
common enemies, be they the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Today, Erdogan has excellent relations with Syrian strongman Bashar
Assad, whom the Prime Minister affectionately calls his "brother".
He has accused Israel of "savagery" in Gaza and opened a diplomatic
line to Hamas while maintaining good ties with the genocidal government
of Sudan.
He was among the first foreign leaders to congratulate Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad on his fraudulent victory in last year’s election. He
has resisted intense pressure from the Obama administration to vote
for a new round of Security Council sanctions on Iran, with which
Turkey has a $US10 billion ($11bn) trade relationship. And he has
sabotaged efforts by his own foreign ministry to improve ties with
neighbouring Armenia.
The changes in foreign policy reflect the rolling revolution in
Turkey’s domestic political arrangements. The military, long the pillar
of Turkish secularism, is under assault by Erdogan’s Islamist-oriented
government, which has recently arrested dozens of officers on suspicion
of plotting a coup. Last week the Turkish parliament voted to put a
referendum to the public that would, if passed, allow the government
to pack the country’s top courts, another secularist pillar, with
its own people. Also under assault is the media group Dogan, which
last year was slapped with a multi-billion-dollar tax fine.
Oh, and America’s favourability rating among Turks, at around 14 per
cent according to recent polls, is plumbing an all-time low, despite
Barack Obama’s presidency and his unprecedented outreach to Muslims
in general and Turks in particular. In 2004, the year of Abu Ghraib,
it was 30 per cent.
All this would seem to more than justify Professor Lewis’s alarm. So
why do so many Turks, including more than a few secularists and
classical liberals, seem mostly at ease with the changes Erdogan has
wrought? A possible answer may be self-delusion: liberals were also at
the forefront of the Iranian revolution before being brutally swept
aside by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But that isn’t quite convincing in
Turkey’s case.
More plausible is Turkey’s economic transformation under the AKP’s
pro-free market stewardship. Inflation, which ran to 99 per cent in
1997, is down to single digits. Goldman Sachs anticipates 7 cent growth
this year, which would make the country Europe’s strongest performer —
if only Europe would have it as a member. Turks now look on the EU with
diminished envy and growing contempt. Chief among the beneficiaries
of this transformation has been the AKP’s political base: an Islamic
bourgeoisie that was long shut out of the old statist arrangements
between the secular political and business elites.
Members of this new class want to send their daughters to universities
— and insist they be allowed to do so wearing headscarves. They
also insist that they be ruled by the government they elected, not
by unelected and often self-dealing officers, judges and bureaucrats
who defended the country’s secularism at the expense of its democracy
and prosperity.
The paradoxical result is that, as the country has become wealthier
and (in some respects) more democratic, it has also shed some of
its Western trappings. Erdogan’s infatuations with his unsavoury
neighbours reflects a public sentiment that no longer wants Turkey
to be a stranger in its own region, particularly when it so easily
can be its leader. Some Turks call this "neo-Ottomanism", others
"Turkish-Gaullism". Whichever way, it is bound to discomfit the West.
The more serious question is how far it all will go. Some of Erdogan’s
domestic powerplays smack of incipient Putinism. The estrangement
from Israel is far from complete, but an Israeli attack on Iran might
just do the trick. And it’s hard to see why Erdogan should buck public
opinion when it comes to Turkey’s alliance with the US.
Most importantly, will the Erdogan brand of Islamism remain relatively
modest in its social and political ambitions, or will it become
aggressive and radical? . It would be insane not to worry about
the possibility.
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA REGIONAL 27TH TWO-DAY CONFERENCE OF THE UN FAO STARTED TODAY IN YEREVAN
ARMENPRESS
MAY 13, 2010
YEREVAN
YEREVAN, MAY 13, ARMENPRESS: Europe and Central Asia Regional 27th
two-day conference of the UN FAO started today in Yerevan.
Representatives of the 53 member countries of FAO as well as
representatives of organizations functioning in the region, observers,
from UN specialized agencies and international financing establishments
participate in the event. During the conference the results of the
activity of the organization during the recent years and the plan of
actions will be pointed out. Representatives of the agricultural sphere
will discuss such issues like the impact of the financial-economic
crisis on the agriculture, issues on climate change, management of
water resources, cattle breeding and bio-conditions in rural areas.
Minister of Agriculture Gerasim Alaverdyan in his opening speech
highlighted the organization of the conference which is being conducted
in Armenia for the first time. He noted that the discussions conducted
during the conference will enable develop effective mechanisms for
confronting agricultural challenges. Greeting all the participants
of the conference the minister wished them fruitful and effective work.
The General Director of FAO Jacques Diouf noted that it is a great
honor for him to be in Armenia. He said the priority of the activity of
the organization is the reduction of poverty and famine. In 2009 the
number of undernourished people increased with 105 million reaching 1
billion. He noted that progress is being registered in the direction
of reduction of the number of undernourished people in Europe and
Central Europe.
"The history shows that there is no other effective mechanism directed
toward the reduction of poverty then the investments in the sphere
of agriculture," the general director said. In his opinion it is
necessary to unite for reduction of poverty and famine. "It is time
to pass from word to work," he pointed out.
Azerbaijani delegation was also participating in the conference headed
by the Agriculture Minister Ismat Abasov who was born in Armenia and
knows Armenian.
KING OF JORDAN ABDULLAH II TO VISIT AZERBAIJAN ON MAY 15
APA
May 13 2010
Azerbaijan
Ambassador Elman Arasli: "A Memorandum of Understanding and agreement
on youth cooperation will be signed between the two countries during
the visit"
Amman. Rashad Suleymanov, Shaig Mammadov – APA. Azerbaijani Ambassador
to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Elman Arasli’s interview to APA
-How do you evaluate current state of Azerbaijan-Jordan relations? What
are prospective spheres of the cooperation between the countries?
-Azerbaijan-Jordan relations have been dynamically developed in
the past four years. Leaders of both countries are interested in
the development of relations. King Abdullah visited Azerbaijan for
two times. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has also visited the
Kingdom of Jordan. King Abdullah is expected to pay his third visit to
Azerbaijan on May 15. First of all, political relations are developed
between the countries. The Jordanian leadership is univocally
supporting Azerbaijan in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Jordan
condemns Armenia’s aggression and demands immediate and unconditional
withdrawal from the occupied lands. It defends Azerbaijan’s position
at the international organizations, including UN, the Organization of
the Islamic Conference. One of the avenues in Amman was named after
the late president Heydar Aliyev. There is an intensive exchange
of delegations between the countries. More than 30 agreements of
cooperation were signed between the countries. Two more agreements
are expected to be signed during the King’s visit.
-What agreements are expected to be signed?
-A Memorandum of Understanding about the international cooperation
between the governments of Azerbaijan and Jordan and draft agreement
on youth cooperation between the Ministry of Youth and Sports of
Azerbaijan and Supreme Youth Council of Jordan will be signed during
the visit.
-Does the Jordanian community know Azerbaijan?
-Today Jordan-Azerbaijan Friendship Society is working in Amman. Former
deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers and incumbent senator
is leading the Society. But our relations are not in an official
level. Azerbaijani Diaspora established its commission. The Society
has its office here. They gather in the office to exchange ideas
and to hold parties and exhibitions dedicated to Azerbaijan. "Soviet
Azerbaijan", a book written by the late president of Azerbaijan Heydar
Aliyev, who was one of the USSR leaders in 1980s, was translated into
Arabic and published in Amman. It is an indication of Jordan’s interest
to Azerbaijan and they know Azerbaijan here in Jordan. The newspapers
and television make reporting about Azerbaijan almost every week.
-What can you say about the economic relations? Is there increase or
decrease in the trade turnover?
-The economic relations are improving. There is a separate
agreement about it, meetings are held regularly. Intergovernmental
commission was set up. The first meeting was held in Amman. The
second meeting is planned for the second half of this year in
Baku. Several business forums have been held for the development of
the economic relations. About 15 Jordanian companies are functioning
in Azerbaijan. Days of Azerbaijani Culture will be held in Amman
in the second half of this year. Late in May Deputy Minister of
Culture and Tourism Adalat Valiyev will come to Amman to discuss
the preparations. The trade turnover between the countries is not
so big. But there is progress. For example, last year the trade
turnover increased by 43%. From this year Azerbaijan has begun to
import vegetables and fruit from Jordan. Jordan is interested in
importing cattle, small cattle from Azerbaijan.
-Azerbaijan has participated in SOFEX exhibition in Amman and
demonstrated its defense products. What can you say about the
cooperation in this field?
-There is cooperation in the military sphere and participation in
this exhibition is the result of this cooperation. A joint commission
has been established for military cooperation. Two meetings of the
commission were held in Amman and Baku. The recent meeting was held in
Baku in April. The representatives of Azerbaijan’s military structures
regularly visit Amman.
-Several months ago, when Azerbaijan and Syria were holding gas talks,
the Syrian media wrote if Azerbaijan’s gas is transported to Syria
through Turkey it can also be transported to Jordan. Have any talks
been held in this field?
-There is nothing serious in this field. The sides exchanged views. But
it is not right to say something since there are no real results.
VIVACELL LAUNCHES MOBILE TV IN ARMENIA
Michael Lacquiere
World Markets Research Centre
Global Insight
May 10 2010
VivaCell-MTS, the Armenian unit of leading CIS mobile operator Mobile
TeleSystems (MTS), has announced that from 17 May 2010 it will
commercially launch a mobile TV package. The "Basic" package will
comprise nine channels for a price of 400 drams (US$1.03) per day,
including value-added tax. The channels will be available to view
for 24 hours after purchase.
Significance:With mobile penetration in Armenia having reached 97%
at the end of 2009, it is understandable that operators are looking
for alternative means of revenue generation to help bolster performance
as organic subscriber growth opportunities begin to slow down, despite
multiple SIM ownership. A service such as mobile TV is unlikely to be
heavily subscribed as a mobile handset is simply not an ideal mode
for viewing television, but the service may yet prove attractive
to higher-end users. VivaCell’s monthly ARPU was around US$8.7 in
the fourth quarter of 2009, well down on the US$11.4 reported by
the operator in the previous year. Although this is partially due
to the dilutory effects of increased subscriber numbers, VivaCell
will still be hoping that such initiatives as mobile TV could help
to increase ARPU.