Author: Chakhmakhchian Vatche

ARMENIA AND TURKEY MUST ELIMINATE OBSTACLES HAMPERING THEIR TRADE

ARKA
Oct 19, 2009

YEREVAN, October 19, /ARKA/. Armenia and Turkey should eliminate all
obstacles that can hamper development of their relations, Armenian
Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian said in a last Thursday televised
interview.

"Normal economic relations with its neighbor would benefit not only
Armenia but Turkey too. Therefore, all obstacles that can hamper this
should be removed,’ he said.

The two neighbouring countries have no diplomatic ties, the border
is closed since 1993 and there is a history of animosity that stems
from the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire.

According to the Armenian prime minister, closed borders in the 21-st
century are ‘nonsense’ because they deter normal economic development.

He said this is well known both in Armenia and Turkey.

On October 10 Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, and Edward
Nalbandian, his Armenian counterpart signed two protocols in Zurich,
Switzerland on establishment of diplomatic relations and development
of bilateral ties. The protocols will still need ratification by
their respective parliaments.

MONEYVAL committee says Armenia makes progress in fighting money laundering

YEREVAN, October 16, /ARKA/. The Council of Europe’s Moneyval
Committee said Armenia has made substantial progress in the
implementation of recommendations of International Financial Action
Task Force on Money laundering. The news was announced by the governor
of Armenia’s Central Bank Arthur Javadian.

The Committee of Experts Moneyval of the Council of Europe monitors
and assesses the measures adopted by member states in the field of
prevention and fighting against money laundering and financing of
terrorism in line with recommendations drawn up by Financial Action
Task Force on Money Laundering.

In his opening remarks today at the meeting of the Armenian
inter-agency commission on fighting counterfeiting, plastic card
frauds, money laundering and financing of terrorism, Arthur Javadian
said the progress was due to the coordinated and purposeful work of
all stakeholders. He thanked the Financial Monitoring Center of the
Central Bank saying the progress was largely due to its everyday and
consistent work. He also thanked members of the inter-agency
commission for their contribution to the progress.

He said fighting money-laundering is a constantly developing process
and because of that Armenia needs to constantly improve its
instruments and methods of cracking down on this crime.

Daniel Azatian, head of the Financial Monitoring Center of the Central
Bank, said all financial organizations, realtor companies, casinos,
notary and lawyers firms as well as some state agencies which provide
information about suspicious transactions exceeding 20 million Drams
are registered with their Center.

Moneyval at its 30th plenary meeting in late September adopted the
mutual evaluation report of Armenia. In its assessment of Step 3 of
fighting money laundering and financing of terrorism Armenia is in the
10th position among 25 member countries. Armenia joined Moneyval in
2006 and is involved actively in the process of mutual assessment of
the system for fighting money laundering and financing of terrorism.
-0-

Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, Russia
Oct 11 2009

Russian foreign minister comments on Armenia, Turkey signing protocols

We have just witnessed a remarkable event, Armenia and Turkey signed
the protocol on establishing diplomatic relations and the protocol on
the development of bilateral relations, which determines further
actions of the sides to promote the comprehensive returning of
interstate ties back to normal.

I will not conceal it – we are sincerely happy. Armenia and Turkey are
friendly countries to Russia.

The content of the signed documents is the evidence of strong
determination of both countries to cover their part of the road.
Significantly, none of the envisaged steps can be interpreted as
harmful to a third party.

Improving relations between the two neighbouring states will lead to
the revival of trade and economic ties, will have a positive impact on
the social and economic situation both in Armenia and in Turkey.

The Russian Federation is ready to support this process through
further implementation of cooperation projects with Armenia and
Turkey, first of all in the power engineering and transport sectors.
The Russian company Inter UES is taking part in supplying electricity
from Armenia to Turkey. The Russian Railways is ready to help
establish and maintain uninterrupted railway communication between the
two countries through the border crossing Dogukapy-Akhuryan. There are
also other projects with good prospects which will have a favourable
impact on people’s everyday life.

We welcome the pragmatic and businesslike joint work of Armenian and
Turkish partners to settle difficult issues. Today’s agreements are
the result of the purposeful efforts of the Armenian and Turkish
leaders aimed at rapprochement of the two countries. The credit is due
to foreign ministers Eduard Nalbandyan and Akhmet Davutoglu. We feel a
strong mood to work toward establishing good-neighbourly relations
between Armenia and Turkey, which should promote further steps for
strengthening peace and security in the region.

I would like to stress that the signing of the protocols is the first
step on the road of bringing the relations back to normal. The sides
should ratify the documents and begin their practical implementation
as soon as possible.

TURKEY’S CAUCASUS ALLIES PONDER ARMENIA DEAL
By Kenan Guluzade in Baku

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
Oct 15 2009
UK

Azeris say Turkey’s border accord with Armenia is a betrayal of
their alliance.

The Turkey-Armenia peace deal has angered Azeris, who accuse Ankara
of betraying them by not tying its signature to a resolution of the
Karabakh conflict.

Turkey and Azerbaijan, whose people are close ethnic kin, have been
allies since the end of the Soviet period, and Turkey broke off ties
with Armenia in 1993 to support Azerbaijan over the Karabakh conflict.

Now, 15 years after the war ended with a ceasefire, Armenians still
rule Nagorny Karabakh as a self-proclaimed state – in defiance of the
international community, which considers it part of Azerbaijan – and
Armenian forces hold around a seventh of Azerbaijan’s internationally
recognised territory.

"Sometimes the opinion is expressed that the normalisation of
Turkish-Armenian relations, the opening of the border, could in
future help the regulation of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. I do
not support these opinions," said President Ilham Aliev on the eve
of the signing ceremony.

"I think that if Turkish-Armenian relations normalise before the
Karabakh problem is resolved, then the position of Armenia in the
talks process will toughen. I am absolutely convinced that these two
processes – the regulation of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict and the
opening of the Turkish-Armenian border – should move in parallel.

Maybe there is no official connection between these processes, but
there is an unofficial one."

The day after the October 10 signing ceremony, Azerbaijan’s newspaper
headlines made clear the country’s reaction to the move. "Everyone
agrees, except Azerbaijan," said the Mirror. "The Armenian-Turkish
protocols are signed. Will Turkey keep its promise to Azerbaijan?"

asked the Echo.

On October 13, activists from the Organisation for the Liberation
of Karabakh protested outside the Turkish embassy. The next day,
they held another protests, with about 40 people taking part – a
large number for an unsanctioned demonstration in Baku. The police
broke up both protests, and detained several participants, but not
before the protesters had shouted their slogans.

The protesters shouted "Shame on the Turkish government", "No
ratification" and "Turkey, don’t betray Azerbaijan" and burned
portraits of the Turkish president, prime minister and foreign
minister.

Analysts doubted the protest would change much, however, and said
direct pressure should be put on the Turkish government.

"To hold this protest in Azerbaijan is ineffective. Only large protests
in Turkey can affect the process. And we must act in solidarity with
the Turkish opponents of the protocols’ ratification," said Boyukaga
Agayev, an expert on the South Caucasus.

Large protests in Turkey have not materialised, however, although
opposition parties have pledged to disrupt the ratification process,
and pro-Azerbaijan activists have distributed anti-Armenian stickers
and Azerbaijani flags.

Not everyone in Azerbaijan thinks they should. Ilgar Mammadov,
co-founder of the opposition Republican Alternative Civic Union
movement, said he hoped Turkey and Armenia would sign their peace
deal, thus giving Turkey a chance to counteract Russian influence
in the South Caucasus. Armenia is currently a close Russian ally,
and Moscow has military bases there.

"If the border is opened, over time Turkey and its western partners
will be able to build a solid and legitimate economic and political
presence in Armenia. That presence would allow them to drag Armenia
out of the hands of the decision-makers in the Kremlin when Baku and
Yerevan are close to a deal next time," he said.

But his opinion is a rare one. Most opposition politicians in
Azerbaijan, no matter how fierce their criticism of the government
on other questions, line up behind Aliev when it comes to Karabakh.

"I think it is necessary to hold talks with the Turkish government
and appeal to the Turkish people. In Turkey, the government cannot
take a step on this without the support of the nation. The will of
the Turkish nation could force the government to refrain from taking
this step," said Ali Kerimli, chairman of the opposition Party of
the National Front of Azerbaijan.

Turkey’s parliament is due to vote on ratifying the deal on October
21, according to officials in Ankara, and Azeri politicians still
hope the deal might be avoided.

"We hope that during the discussion of the protocols in the Turkish
parliament, the deputies will unanimously tell Armenia and the world
that ratification of these documents is possible only after the
liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan," said Ganira
Pashayeva, who also singled out France, Russia and America, which
attended the signing ceremony , as possible friends of Azerbaijan.

"First of all, they must put pressure on Yerevan, so Armenia frees the
Azerbaijani lands. Peace and cooperation in the region are possible
only after Armenia leaves the occupied territories."

SARGSYAN RAISED ISSUES ALREADY AGREED UPON UNDER KOCHARIAN’S PRESIDENCY, SAYS BAKU

Tert.am
12:51 17.10.09

The last meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, which took
place in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau, did not give cause for
optimism, because the Armenian side suddenly began to discuss the
issues that were agreed two to three years ago, Foreign Minister of
Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov told Azerbaijani news source Trend News.

"We understand that there is a rule that unless everything is agreed,
it means nothing was agreed, but it is impossible to move if to go
back and start to discuss proposals or ideas that were agreed at
least two or three years ago. This is, of course, disappointing,"
Mammadyarov said.

Mammadyarov believes that such actions by the Armenian side are
connected with the latest events in the region: the Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement.

"Maybe the Armenian side considers that if the process developed in
this regard, it is possible to freeze other issues," said the Foreign
Minister of Azerbaijan.

According to the minister, the OSCE Minsk Group should come to the
region approximately in late October – early November. "They need to
interpret what they heard in Chisinau, to think how to support the
dynamics that was objectively observed and are the most important,
to find all the correct arguments in order to explain to Armenia that
they can not open the questions that have already been agreed.

Otherwise, it will be an endless process," said Mammadyarov.

PRESS RELEASE
The Heritage Party
31 Moscovian Street
Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+374 – 10) 53.69.13
Fax: (+374 – 10) 53.26.97
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Website:

15 October 2009

Heritage Yet Again Proposes a Bill on Artsakh’s Recognition

Yerevan–On 14 October, the members of the Heritage Party’s
parliamentary faction submitted to speaker Hovik Abrahamyan of the
Armenian National National Assembly a draft law `On the Recognition of
the Mountainous Karabagh Republic.’ And pursuant to Article 1 of this
proposal, `the Republic of Armenia recognizes the Mountainous Karabagh
Republic.’ If adopted, this proposed law will come into effect on the
tenth day following its official public announcement. The Heritage
Party faction’s chairman Stepan Safarian expressed hope that `the
parliamentary majority would be realistic and not exclude this law
measure from discussion on the floor, as it myopically did, back in
April 2008, with Heritage Party founder Raffi K. Hovannisian’s similar
legislative proposal submitted on 28 August 2007, and adopts it, by
taking into consideration the current and anticipated developments
concerning the Mountainous Karabagh Republic.’ `We also will be happy
if our colleagues sign under this bill as its co-authors,’ Safarian
concluded. According to the law, the parliament speaker has to
introduce this proposal for discussion in the next two days.

Heritage’s central office provides the following complete text of the
Heritage MP’s arguments in favor of the adoption of this draft law.

ARGUMENTATION

FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL `ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE MOUNTAINOUS
KARABAGH REPUBLIC’

Based on the fact that the Mountainous Karabagh Republic (MKR) meets
the all of the preconditions under international law for a sovereign
state, Armenia, with the adoption of this bill, will de jure recognize
the de facto status of Artsakh. This law will serve as the basis for
the Republics of Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh toward normalizing
the relations established as a result of the MKR’s formal recognition,
clarifying Armenia’s rights and commitments for the guarantee and
consolidation of Artsakh’s security, determining Armenia’s national
interests and state policies, and guaranteeing Armenia’s engagement in
the post-1 March restoration process.

Armenia formally recognizes the Mountainous Karabagh Republic because,

a) The Mountainous Karabagh Republic, as a subject of decolonization
from the USSR and just like the ex-Soviet republics, has achieved its
independence in correspondence with the precepts of international law
and legal norms of the USSR, and specifically on the basis of the
people’s right for self-determination, and today, the MKR, as an
independent state, is an established reality;

b) Considering the prospect that the OSCE Minsk Group’s ongoing talks,
with respect to the resolution of the Karabagh conflict, might
determine another status for the MKR, if all the parties to the
conflict and the involved states–and the residents of Artsakh, in the
first place–reach an agreement, Armenia therefore has not recognized
the Mountainous Karabagh Republic to this day;

c) Even though the MKR and Armenia have continually manifested their
readiness and a political will to find a mutually acceptable solution
to this conflict, as a result of the talks, however, no acceptable
solution has been found to date. At the same time, the Republic of
Azerbaijan formally declares that it rejects any solution that does
not recognize the ex-Azerbaijan SSR’s territorial integrity and that
it grants Mountainous Karabagh no other status but autonomy.
Furthermore, official Baku openly and loudly makes war cries to
resolve the problem through military means and, to that end,
continuously increases its military budget, and thus violates the
quotas stipulated in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe. The resolution proposed on the basis of the announced `Madrid
Principles’–which, in November 2007, were formally presented to the
two sides, but not to the MKR, and its `renewed’ version was
introduced in August 2009–conflicts with the MKR’s Constitution and
Karabagh’s national territorial integrity specified in this charter
and, therefore, with Karabagh’s national security. Such a solution is
also a threat to Armenia’s national security;

d) Although, pursuant to the first point in the USSR Supreme Council’s
1 December 1989 decision 1650-11, the Supreme Council of the Armenian
SSR had recognized the `fact of the self-determination of the Nagorno
Karabagh Autonomous Oblast…,’ and, in line with the aforesaid
decision’s second point, it was determined that `the Armenian SSR’s
Supreme Council recognizes the congress of the empowered
representatives of Nagorno Karabagh and the National Council, elected
by this congress, as the Oblast’s presently functioning sole power,’
and following Karabagh’s 10 December 1991 referendum on independence,
the war that Azerbaijan waged on the MKR and Armenia, and the
ceasefire agreement signed in 1994, altogether new historical,
territorial, and political realities have emerged. And cherishing vain
hopes that Azerbaijan would agree to resolve the problem and be
prepared to make mutual concessions by way of negotiations, Armenia
did not properly acknowledge these realities. The MKR’s Constitution
was adopted with the referendum held in 2006, and this document
specifies Karabagh’s present-day national territorial integrity;

e) In connection with the bill `On the Recognition of the Mountainous
Karabagh Republic,’ which was authored by Raffi K. Hovannisian and
introduced on 28 August 2007, it should be pointed that all the
political arguments, which were made in the Armenian government’s 24
September 2007 conclusion with reference to this proposal, have turned
out to be impractical and untruthful, both at the time and during the
two years that followed. Recognizing the MKR, pursuant to Armenia’s
laws, does not at all contradict with our country’s commitments to the
international organizations such as the UN, Council of Europe, and the
OSCE. This is because the documents of these organizations either
include statements (OSCE/CSCE) on Armenia’s formal position, or their
principles directly refer to the people’s self-determination and the
indigenous people’s rights and the recognition, even unilaterally
(UN), of these rights. With this act, Armenia does not transfer the
matter’s resolution to the international bodies, it does not assist in
Azerbaijan’s similar wishes, does not jeopardize the fragile peace and
the existing status quo established in the region, and does not want
to decline from its commitment to resolve the issue through talks–to
note, according to the OSCE’s documents, along with Armenia, the MKR,
too, is a party to these talks, and it does not and did not decline
from its readiness to negotiate–because such developments depend
exclusively on other factors such as a change in the international
community’s stance and a disparity in this stance, a variation in the
balance of the international and the parties’ national forces
(political-military and economic balance), Armenia’s and the MKR’s
diplomatic capabilities, etc.; and

f) In terms of the act of recognition, the international law has no
procedure that rules out other approaches to this matter. This can be
carried out de facto, which Armenia has done but is insufficient, and
de jure, whose necessity exists today. In international practice, this
can be fulfilled by the head of the state, or the executive, and by
the parliament. With this law, the MKR’s recognition will clarify the
parliamentary diplomacy in connection with the Karabagh problem, the
talks process–envisioned by the head of the state, or the
executive–aimed at the resolution of the problem, especially when, as
an ultimate goal, it is in keeping with the already made statements
and the points noted in the Strategy for National Security.

At the same time, therefore, and in order to resist the Republic of
Azerbaijan’s open military–and now internationally documented yet
disregarded–threat, and in the interest of raising Armenia’s and the
MKR’s current security level, Armenia, together with the Mountainous
Karabagh Republic, guarantees the security of the people of the MKR
and its territorial integrity, in the case of any offensive operation
against, or open threat toward, the MKR.

With the adoption of this law, however, Armenia does not exclude the
possibility of determining, by the will of the MKR people, another
status, if it is decided through the holding of a national referendum.
And should such a decision be reached by the residents of Artsakh,
Armenia will assist in its fulfillment.

This law will also enable Armenia to provide assistance–during the
post-conflict period, and in common with the MKR, other interested
countries, and donor organizations–for the elimination of the
aftermath of the war, which includes the creation of normal living and
work conditions for the peaceful inhabitants, the return of the
refugees, and the resettlement of the areas.

Founded in 2002, Heritage has regional divisions throughout the
country. Its central office is located at 31 Moscovian Street, Yerevan
0002, Armenia, with telephone contact at (374-10) 536.913, fax at
(374-10) 532.697, email at [email protected] or [email protected], and
website at

OCTOBER 16 – DAY OF ARMENIAN PRESS

PanARMENIAN.Net
14.10.2009 20:44 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On October 16, Armenia is celebrating the day of
national press. On that very day in 1794, the first Armenian printed
journal "Azdarar" was published in Madras (India).

By a Government decision dated April 22, 2004, October 16 was declared
as the Day of Media Workers. Later, it was renamed as the Day of
Armenian Press.

ARMENIA: PEACE PLAN WITH TURKEY SPARKS FRESH PROTESTS
10/12/09

Eurasia Insight
ticles/eav101209a.shtml
Marianna Grigoryan

Putting aside decades of hostility, Armenia and Turkey signed a
framework agreement on October 10 that will pave the way for the
reopening of their borders and the reestablishment of diplomatic
ties. But while the Armenian government has promoted the deal as a
peacemaking tool, popular opposition to the agreement among ordinary
Armenians shows no sign of dying down.

The central streets of downtown Yerevan were blocked early on
the morning of October 11. Some residents took the barricades as
a sign that the government feared further demonstrations against
the protocols.

What are we celebrating when they donÎ"×~Pשt care a fig about the
peopleÎ"×~Pשs opinion?Î"×~PÂ¥ complained 60-year-old Yerevan cab
driver Hamazasp Manukian. Î"×~P£Did anybody ever listen to the people
before signing these protocols?

The day before the protocol signing ceremony, hundreds of anti-protocol
demonstrators marched to YerevanÎ"×~Pשs Tsitsernakaberd monument
to the victims of Ottoman TurkeyÎ"×~Pשs 1915 slaughter of ethnic
Armenians. At the rally, a leader of the nationalist Armenian
Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiun warned that opponents
will force the government to step down, if need be, to stop the
protocolsÎ"×~Pש ratification.

Î"×~P£If they drive us to resort to that measure, we will do
it,Î"×~PÂ¥ declared Vahan Hovhannisian, a onetime presidential
candidate. Î"×~P£We want to change the system, the government, the
National Assembly and the president. If they donÎ"×~Pשt listen to
the peopleÎ"×~Pשs voice, we wonÎ"×~Pשt demand that someone just
resigns. We will go for a total change of power.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation dropped out of the government
coalition in May to protest President Serzh SargsyanÎ"×~Pשs attempted
reconciliation with Turkey.

But even less nationalist opposition members insist that giving
up now is not an option. The consequences of signing the protocols
Î"×~P£will be no less severe than the results of March 1 [2008 –
when ten people were killed in clashes between police and presidential
election protestors], which resulted in the authorities becoming weak
and totally vulnerable to outside pressure, Î"×~PÂ¥ predicted Stepan
Safarian, head of the Heritage PartyÎ"×~Pשs parliamentary faction.

In a bid to soothe public anger at the protocols, President Sargsyan
took to the airwaves on October 10 shortly before the Zurich signing
ceremony.

Saying that setting up ties with Turkey has Î"×~P£no
alternative,&#x CE;"×~PÂ¥ Sargsyan acknowledged in reference to the events
of 1915 that Î"×~P£[t]he genocide wound does not heal.Î"×~PÂ¥ But
time, he said, dictates that Armenia should move forward.

Î"×~P£The memory of these victims and our future generations require
a stable and strong statehood, a powerful and prosperous country,
a motherland comprising the dreams of all Armenians, Î"×~PÂ¥ Sargsyan
said.

consider the establishment of normal ties with all our neighbors,
including Turkey, an important step on this path.Î"×~PÂ¥

Many Armenians, however, view the future through the past. Î"×~P£How
can one believe the Turks and extend a hand to them? Î"×~PÂ¥ asked
70-year-old Yerevan pensioner Marta Petrosian. Î"×~P£How can one
forget what happened in the past?

Those feelings run particularly strong among ArmeniaÎ"×~Pשs
influenti al Diaspora, many of whom protested President SargsyanÎ"×~Pשs
visits to Los Angeles and Paris to discuss the protocols with ethnic
Armenian communities.

Î"×~P£I&#x CE;"×~Pשm choking with shame,Î"×~PÂ¥ commented Anush Mkrtchian,
a 31-year-old literature scholar from Los Angeles who joined the
protests. More time should have been taken for discussions, and,
potentially, a referendum on the question, she argued. Diaspora
Armenians now Î"×~P£everywhere accuse those living in Armenia of
treason,Î"×~PÂ¥ she claimed.

One French Diaspora member, however, calls the treason charges
Î"×~P£nonsense.

Î"×~P£I can understand people getting angry, but if you do not
live in your motherland you have no moral right to call a person a
traitor . . . Î"×~PÂ¥ commented Vardan Nersisian, who left Armenia
for France ten years ago. Î"×~P£Another question is whether the
authorities are pursuing the right policy or not. I hope they will
be reasonable enough.Î"×~PÂ¥

Some Yerevan political analysts caution that the controversy will
only increase as the protocols go to parliament for ratification.

Î"×~P£Arm enian-Turkish relations and the genocide issue
are sore points for our people,Î"×~PÂ¥ said Stepan Grigorian,
director of the Analytical Center on Globalization and Regional
Cooperation. Î"×~P£Taking this into consideration, as well as the
problem of trusting the authorities and other issues, tensions might
increase.

Some observers, citing a statement by Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan that reconciliation with Armenia pins on an Armenian
withdrawal from territories surrounding the disputed region of Nagorno
Karabakh, contend that Turkey itself may attempt to put pressure
on Armenia.

Î"×~P£If Turkey puts forward conditions and starts pressing Armenia,
an emergency situation may emerge in terms of [a bid to force a] change
of power,Î"×~PÂ¥ opined independent political analyst Yerevand Bozoian.

Ruling Republican Party spokesperson Eduard Sharmazanov, a member of
parliament, discounts the notion. Every marathon must start with a
first step, he said.

Î"×~P£We must take this step,Î"×~PÂ¥ Sharmazanov said
of the governmentÎ"×~Pשs agreement to reconciliation with
Turkey. Î"×~P£Nobody should say theyÎ"×~Pשre better patriots than
we are.Î"×~PÂ¥

Editor’s Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based
in Yerevan.

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION CONDEMNS SIGNING OF TURKEY DEAL
Irina Hovannisian

le/1849950.html
12.10.2009

Armenia’s leading opposition forces reacted angrily on Monday to the
signing of far-reaching Turkish-Armenian protocols, again branding
them as a sellout.

The most vocal critic of the deal, the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), said it will fight against the protocols’
ratification by parliament "by all possible means" and again threatened
to campaign for President Serzh Sarkisian’s resignation.

"The Armenian Revolutionary Federation is determined to fight for
the scuttling of the protocols," the nationalist party said in a
statement. "To that end, Dashnaktsutyun will resort to all political
and constitutional means, including regime change."

The statement reiterated the party’s main arguments against
the agreements, including a claim that they could thwart broader
international recognition of the Armenian genocide. It said Sarkisian
himself shared opposition concerns about rapprochement with Turkey
in his latest public pronouncements on the subject.

Giro Manoyan, a senior party representative, told journalists that a
Dashnaktsutyun-led coalition of a dozen opposition parties will stage
another demonstration against Sarkisian’s policy on Friday. One of
those parties, Zharangutyun, was also quick to condemn the high-profile
signing of the two agreements welcomed around the world.

Zharangutyun’s U.S.-born top leader, Raffi Hovannisian, described it as
"the latest entry in the ledger of crimes committed, and covered up,
against the Armenian nation."

"As a servant of the Armenian nation … I am appalled by this
latest offense," Hovannisian said in an "open letter to the Armenian
nation." "As an Armenian citizen … I ache as the soul of our nation
is traded away for illusory promises of ‘good will’ and ‘open borders’
with Turkey."

Like Dashnaktsutyun, Hovannisian condemned Yerevan for pledging
to formally recognize Armenia’s existing border with Turkey and
agreeing to the formation of a joint panel that would look into the
1915 extermination and deportation of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian
population. That, he said, "not only challenges the untouchable
veracity of the Genocide, but secures the complicity of the Armenian
state in absolving Turkey of any responsibility for its genocidal
actions."

The charge was echoed by a leading member of the Armenian National
Congress (HAK), the country’s largest opposition alliance that has more
moderate views on Turkey than Dashnaktsutyun and Zharangutyun. Levon
Zurabian accused Sarkisian of "forfeiting the genocide" to gain strong
international support for his rule challenged at home. "Armenia is
not getting an open border even at the expense of renouncing genocide
recognition," he told RFE/RL, pointing to Ankara’s renewed linkage
between Turkish-Armenian relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
resolution.

Zurabian said the HAK will officially react to the development
later this week. The opposition bloc led by former President Levon
Ter-Petrosian stopped short of rejecting the Turkish-Armenian protocols
as a whole in a statement issued last month.

Also condemning the Zurich accords was Armenia’s longtime former
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian. "It is difficult to imagine a more
demeaning signing or a more demeaning document," read a statement
issued by Oskanian’s Civilitas Foundation think-tank. "The parties
themselves and the representatives of the world powers, all were
present but all remained silent."

"When such a `historic’ moment goes by with none of the sides or
the witnesses able to say anything acceptable or in agreement with
the rest … it is difficult to see how this document can provide the
serious basis of trust and respect necessary for stable and respectful
relations between the parties," the statement said, scoffing at a
compromise arrangement that salvaged the Turkish-Armenian deal.

By contrast, the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) described
the protocol signing as an "achievement." Galust Sahakian, the leader
of the HHK’s faction in parliament, also downplayed Turkey’s possible
refusal to ratify the protocols and open the border with Armenia
before a Karabakh settlement.

"Of course, we would certainly not gain from that," Sahakian told a
news conference. "But we wouldn’t lose anything either. In any case,
it is Turkey that would be in a difficult situation." The Armenian
side will "stop the negotiating process" if the Turks drag their feet
over the protocol ratification, he said.

Zurabian insisted, however, that Turkey will manage to keep more
countries from recognizing the Armenian massacres as genocide even
if it declines to implement the agreements.

ARF: WE WILL USE ALL POLITICAL MEANS TO ENSURE FAILURE OF PROTOCOL RATIFICATION PROCESS

/arf-we-will-use-all-political-means-to-ensure-fai lure-of-protocol-ratification-process/
October 12, 2009

Below is a declaration by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF)
on the signing of the protocols.

The protocols on establishing relations between the Republic of
Armenia and the Republic of Turkey were signed on Oct. 10.

On this occasion, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) declares:

a) Consultations, which took place over the last several weeks after
the protocols were made public, although not always under free and
transparent conditions, proved that there are serious concerns and
great counteraction regarding these documents; that the homeland
and the diaspora have the same approach to fundamental issues
concerning all Armenians; that the struggle for the Armenian Cause
is simultaneously a struggle for the fate and development of our
independent statehood.

b) The consultations proved that the protocols and the process
include provisions satisfying the three fundamental preconditions
that Turkey has put forth since the first days of the independence
of the Republic of Armenia. It also became apparent that the same
concerns existed in those Armenian circles that were defending the
Armenian president’s policy.

c) These concerns were finally clearly expressed by the president
of the Republic of Armenia in his address to the Armenian people on
Oct. 10. The president disclosed the existence of those very same
dangers and preconditions that the Dashnaktsutyun had expressed. In
particular, the president of the Republic of Armenia affirmed that:

1. Any kind of relations with Turkey cannot put into question the
veracity of the Armenian Genocide and the fact that the Armenian
people have been dispossessed of their homeland.

2. There exists a border issue between Armenia and Turkey.

3. The signed documents cannot in any way be related to the resolution
of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.

We are convinced that had the president expressed these positions
earlier, it could have steered the consultations correctly and could
have resulted in the refusal to sign the protocols. At any rate,
this position must guide all the representatives of the Armenian
authorities, as well as those who defended the now-signed protocols.

d) Turkey’s unconstructive position during the signing ceremony of
the protocols is an eloquent testament that Turkey is realizing the
process in favor of accomplishing its own preconditions, which was
sufficient foundation for Armenia to refuse to sign. The scandal that
occurred during the signing ceremony is a testament to the failure
of our diplomacy in Armenia-Turkey negotiations. The presence of the
foreign ministers of the United States, the Russian Federation, France,
the European Union, and Switzerland, and the efforts to ensure the
signing of the protocols at any cost, is pressure being brought to
bear, especially on the Republic of Armenia. We are convinced that
Armenia should not have succumbed to those pressures. It is equally
unacceptable for the world’s power centers to exert pressure on small
nations, through political, economic, or other means.

e) We are entering a new stage of the struggle following the signing
of the protocols. The new announcements being made from Turkey are
a testament to that country’s objective, which is to weaken Armenia
and the Armenians and to enforce new concessions.

Under these conditions it is necessary to prevent the ratification
of the protocols, which are a blow to the interests of our state
and nation. That objective demands the widening and deepening of our
pan-Armenian unity, keeping the door shut in the face of any expression
of national discord and to be prepared to endure potentially dangerous
new developments that await pan-national issues.

The ARF is steadfast in its struggle to ensure the failure of the
ratification of the protocols. For that objective, the Dashnaktsutyun
will use all political and constitutional means, all the way to regime
change, if necessary.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation is appealing to all Armenians
to arm themselves with confidence and resolve. We are compelled to
prevent the ratification of the protocols with our combined powers
and by doing so, to neutralize the real dangers threatening Armenia
and the Armenians, in the name of the Republic of Armenia, liberated
Artsakh, the unity of our people, and the right of our generations
to live with dignity in the world.

Armenian Revolutionary Federation Oct. 12, 2009 Yerevan