Author: Chalian Meline

ABOUT ROBERT KOCHARYAN’S VISIT
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
22/01/10

Despite recently increased developments in the Karabakh settlement
process, the visit of the former president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan
to Iran has caused huge interest.

This press information immediately provoked rumors about the return
of Kocharyan, or at least, a try in this connection. Moreover, many
even felt that without the support of Russia and the West, Kocharyan
decided to seek assistance from Iran. But these conclusions are a bit
hasty. The point is not that Robert Kocharyan visited Iran not on his
own initiative and by invitation, and met with the president and the
Foreign Minister of this country to discuss serious issues. In the
end, Iran is not a country that indulges someone’s plans, even if it
is a retired president. That is, it is obvious that Kocharyan needs
Iran not less than, at least, Iran needs Kocharyan.

And maybe this is the most important point in this issue. Which is the
reason why Iran discusses bilateral relations and regional issues with
the retired president and not with the current government of Armenia?

Can Iran not talk to the official Yerevan on these issues? Is Robert
Kocharyan a mediator between the official Tehran and Yerevan? Does Iran
want to show with this step its dissatisfaction with Serge Sargsyan’s
foreign policy? Or maybe Serge Sargsyan wants to communicate with
Iran through Robert Kocharyan because Sargsyan is very busy and cannot
do all the work in the directions of the Armenian and Turkish issue,
Western and Russian matters. These are questions the answer of which
will enable to understand or imagine Robert Kocharyan’s visit to Iran.

It is noteworthy that information about the visit of the ex-president
of Armenia to Iran was not covered much by the Armenian TV channels.

Perhaps the Armenian authorities are advantageous to demonstrate that
they are not related to the visit of the president Kocharyan like to
the anti-Western lexicon heard during his visit. On the other hand,
for Serge Sargsyan Kocharyan’s visit and the content of the issues
discussed can be a good argument against Turkey and the West: see
what can happen if the Armenian and Turkish process fails.

In any case, it is obvious that Kocharyan’s visit opens a new section
in the Armenian and regional developments, borders, and the "relief"
of which will be determined only over time.

icles/2010/01/21/now_the_postmortem/

Boston Globe

Oh, the ups and downs
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Columnist | January 21, 2010

Time to tally the spoils and count the bodies.

There are piles of both in the aftermath of Tuesday’s special Senate
election: lots of winners beyond Scott Brown and the GOP and many
losers besides Attorney General Martha Coakley and the strategists who
helped her to this humiliating, unimaginable defeat.
First, some of the victors.
Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill: Both of these gubernatorial hopefuls
have to love it that the voters who snuffed Coakley’s ambitions hanker
to do the same to Governor Deval Patrick next fall. If you’re
Treasurer Cahill, you have cause for optimism: Your antitax,
throw-the-bums out message appeals to lots of the voters who put Brown
over the top. If you’re Baker, you may rue the fact that Brown has
displaced you for now as the GOP’s local superstar, but you’re
thrilled because a lot of Brown voters were looking for sensible
balance in government.
Mike Capuano: The combative congressman Coakley thrashed in the
primary got some serious love nationally in the final week of the
campaign. The chatterati were nostalgic for his fire, certain he would
have trounced Brown. He might run against Brown in 2012, though many
others are considering that prospect today, too, his former House
colleague and UMass Lowell chief Marty Meehan, for example, who has
mountains of campaign cash.
Eric Fehrnstrom: Brown’s senior strategist is now a national star and
rightly so. He read the electorate right and ran a disciplined
campaign, including super ads selling his candidate as an affable,
common-sense kind of guy. Also brilliant: He actually had the
candidate ask people for their votes.
Change: Voters love it, they told us on Tuesday. But they don’t want
to wait for it. For example, if you elect a president because you want
change, and he doesn’t transform the world in a year, it’s time to
change again, even if that means voting for the party that blocks his
every move.
Robert DeLeo: If Coakley had won, the House speaker would have
appointed her successor, a process which would have borne an uncanny
resemblance to patronage. Second, DeLeo, in choosing, would have
risked alienating supporters of either House Ways and Means Committee
chairman Charlie Murphy or Representative Peter Koutoujian, both of
whom wanted the job. He now avoids that sticky wicket.
Some of the losers:
Unions: Organized labor hasn’t gotten one of its anointed candidates
into a high-profile statewide office in forever. In addition to
Coakley, former Treasurer Shannon O’Brien and former attorney general
Scott Harshbarger were both union favorites, and they tanked.
Therese Murray: The Senate president got behind Coakley early and was
intimately involved in her campaign strategy. Coakley’s initial
allergy to the press bore a striking resemblance to Murray’s.
Women: Massachusetts still has an abysmal record of electing women to
higher office. Coakley joins the ranks of women who get past the party
faithful only to be stopped by a wider electorate, some of whom don’t
like women at all.
Conventional wisdom: Here was Tuesday’s biggest loser. Everybody wrote
Brown off, including members of his own party. Everyone thought
Coakley – running for a seat long held by Ted Kennedy and in
Massachusetts, no less – could coast. Lots of these were folks who
didn’t just believe in, but loved, the idea of Massachusetts as a
liberal enclave, as the state which sent back to Washington again and
again the senator the right hated and feared the most.
Now they wonder where they live.
Yvonne Abraham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
[email protected].

1062 REFUGEE FAMILIES FROM AZERBAIJAN HOUSED

PanARMENIAN.Net
19.01.2010 15:36 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ 1062 refugee families from Azerbaijan have been
housed in Armenia since 2005, in the framework of a governmental
program, according to the head of the RA Migration Service.

"$40-45 million is needed to resolve the refugees’ problems," Gagik
Yeganyan said. "The issue will be raised during a conference with
representatives of international organizations to be held this year.

1270 families are still homeless."

20 years ago the Azerbaijani authorities instigated the Armenian
pogroms in Baku. Some 400 Armenians were killed and 200 thousand
were exiled in the period of January 13-19, 1990. The exact number
of those killed was never determined, as no investigation was carried
out into the crimes.

On January 13, a crowd numbering 50 thousand people divided into
groups and started "cleaning" the city of Armenians. On January 17,
the European Parliament called on EU Council of Foreign Ministers
and European Council to protect Armenians and render assistance to
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. On January 18, a group of U.S. Senators
sent a letter to Mikhail Gorbachev to express concerns over the
violence against the Armenian population in Azerbaijan and called
for unification of Nagorno Karabakh with Armenia.

OSCE MEDIATORS NOT INTERESTED IN FAIR SOLUTION TO KARABAKH CONFLICT – AZERI MP
Tamilla Sencaply

news.az
Jan 19 2010
Azerbaijan

Gudrat Hasanguliyev News.Az interviews Gudrat Hasanguliyev, chairman of
the United Popular Front of Azerbaijan Party and a Milli Majlis deputy.

Robert Bradtke, US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, mediating a
settlement to the Karabakh conflict, has said that the presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia may meet by the end of the week, according to
the Armenian press. What role do you think this meeting will play in
settling the Karabakh conflict?

This is a usual meeting. Our lands were occupied by Armenia and
we have already set out the terms on which Azerbaijan may make
concessions. Azerbaijan has already done a great deal, though Russia
is actively supporting Armenia. Russia should also declare its position
on which it is ready to make concessions.

We must liberate our lands either through war or peacefully. The world
community has taken a laissez-faire attitude, so Azerbaijan is left
alone to face Russia and Armenia. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s
latest visit to Moscow also showed that Russia is interested in
preserving the conflict and France has the same position due to
the large Armenian diaspora. Meanwhile, Turkey does not have the
opportunity to provide the necessary support to us.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan is visiting Moscow. What connection
does this visit have with the next meeting of the presidents?

Sargsyan’s visit to Moscow will not have any influence on the next
meeting of the presidents. The Armenian president will probably be
warned against doing anything wilful. This is the main aim.

I think if Russia’s interests are not considered on the Karabakh issue
or Azerbaijan does not decide to settle the issue by force, neither
Russia nor any other country will take steps to settle the Karabakh
conflict within the framework of territorial integrity and justice.

The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are also expected to visit the region
this week. How do you assess the co-chairs’ role in the conflict
settlement?

I don’t think any country chairing the OSCE Minsk Group (the USA,
Russia and France) is interested in a fair solution to the Karabakh
conflict. France and the United States would like the conflict
solution to meet Armenian interests, but I think Russia does not
want the conflict to be settled in the Armenians’ favour as it has
its own interests.

The next visit of the co-chairs is no different from previous ones
and constitutes a kind of pressure on Azerbaijan to make concessions
and permit a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh which will legally mean
the secession of this territory from Azerbaijan. I do not expect
anything from this visit.

As for Armenia, it is closely watching the processes in the Karabakh
conflict settlement. The latest event – ratification of the protocols
on rapprochement with Turkey in the Constitutional Court – has resulted
in mass protests in the country. This shows that there is a need to
take peoples’ interests into account too.

Do you think there might be progress on the Karabakh conflict
settlement in 2010?

If you mean a just solution to the Karabakh conflict, I do not think
that Russia, the USA or France will take definite action. As for a
military settlement of the conflict, this is the most realistic.

IRAN REACHING GEORGIAN BLACK SEA PORTS VIA ARMENIA

The Messenger
Jan 19 2010
Georgia

Armenia and the Asian Development Bank have signed an agreement which
specifies that in 2010-2017 the bank will allot a loan for constructing
motorways connecting Armenia with the Georgian Black sea ports of
Poti and Batumi. USD 120 million will be used for this purpose in 2010.

Armenia’s Transport and Communication Minister Gurgen Sarkisian has
confirmed that the Asian Development Bank will allot USD 500 million.

Iran’s Ambassador to Armenia highlighted that Iran is interested in
constructing this motorway and Iranian banks will also participate in
financing the construction. The initial cost of the project is USD 962
million. The project plan has been prepared by German-Austrian Company
ILF following a feasibility study undertaken by the PADECO company.

The distance between Yerevan and Batumi by road is presently around
700 kilometres. After the construction of the new motorway it will
be only 450 kilometres.

"WE LOSE IN CASE OF FREEZING THE PROCESS"

Aysor
Jan 18 2010
Armenia

Today on the meeting with the journalists the RA ex-Prime Minister,
member of ANC Hrant Bagratyan said that there is no need to bother
and the Constitutional Court was to announce that the protocols
correspond with the constitution: "I do not see any fact worthy to
be commented on."

According to him Turkey has not yet decided the border opening issue,
but thinks that today the score is 1:0 in Turkey’s favor.

"We have made serious steps. We do not discuss whether they are right
or wrong. But if that step doesn’t bring to any result and the process
is freezing and neither Turkey ratifies nor us then we lose. In the
Ukrainian Rada the Genocide issue is already frozen", – H. Bagratyan
announced, and added that it is correct to wait for the Turkish
ratification, – "We shouldn’t make the Turkish feel impudent. But they
see that that there neither force nor any concept in front of them."

According to H. Bagratyan after the signing of the documents the rating
of the Erdogan’s government increased with 7% and the authorities of
the Armenian authorities decreased.

"If this economic situation will go on then in 3 – 4 years we will
be asking for the settlement of the Karabakh conflict settlement that
Azerbaijan suggests and we refuse today", – announced H. Bagratyan.

According to the speaker Azerbaijan is buying rockets from Israel by
which he can hit Yerevan and "if the war starts it will not start in
Karabakh but in Yerevan."

ARMENIAN LEADERSHIP’S APPROACHES IN OVERCOMING ECONOMIC CRISIS BELONG TO OPPOSITION: BAGRATYAN

Tert.am
16:05 ~U 18.01.10

The Armenian leadership’s ideas on overcoming the global economic
crisis, in actual fact, belong to the opposition, said Armenian
National Congress representative and former prime minister Hrant
Bagratyan at a press conference today. Three proposals, in particular –
the creation of a pan-Armenian bank, construction of an Iran-Armenia
pipeline, and the building of a new nuclear power plant – are nothing
new: they have been heard since 1992.

In particular, the idea of creating a pan-Armenian bank came about
in May 1992.

As for the creation of an Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, Bagratyan stated
that an agreement had been signed at one time, though the actual
process of beginning construction began with the advent of a new
government. The former prime minister also noted that he had signed
an agreement on creating a new nuclear power plant in 1998.

"But those issues cannot raise the country’s economy, since there
are more important issues," concluded Bagratyan.

LINCOLN MITCHELL: HARD DIPLOMATIC WORK IS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE SUCH CONFLICTS AS THE ONE IN NAGORNO KARABAKH

Today
59656.html
Jan 18 2010
Azerbaijan

Interview with assistant professor in the practice of international
politics at Columbia University’s School of International and Public
Affairs, Lincoln Mitchell.

As you know, region of south Caucasus is a region of frozen conflicts,
which seriously damage the security of the whole region. Now,
considering other issues, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, how important
it is for the US to have its presence felt in the South Caucasus
region?

It’s very important for the US to have its presence felt in the
region. And it’s not easy, nor it can be done lightly. It can’t be
done by flying every now and then or by issuing a few statements. Real
hard diplomatic work is required to resolve or to be constructively
involved into the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or
Abkhazia, South Osetia.

It is not a priority, compared to Afghanistan or Iran, and as of late –
the earthquake in Haiti, which may not seem like a big deal if you’re
sitting in Baku, but is enormously important for the US. So in that
regard, while this is not really a top shelf priority, it still can,
and should get attention. Perhaps, not on a daily basis from president
Obama, or state secretary Clinton, but for the people working around
them and underneath them. The US needs to have its presence there
not in a sense that Â"we need to have an army thereÂ", but in a sense
that USA is interested and involved in resolving these problems.

Russia is considered one of the major players in the SC region,
and so is Turkey. Again, with other problems to deal with, it seems
like US began to lose its power in the South Caucasus region. Do you
believe it is so?

I would also say, that China is an important power in the region too.

You know, globally, one of the impacts of the first 8 years in
this decade was that the US has less ability to be present, and to
have influence in far away places. Part of this is true, due to the
fact that other countries that are strong, and wealthy, and taking
European Union as an example – it can play a positive role. I am not
sure however that Russia’s role in Georgia is not a positive one,
unfortunately. Part of it is due to the economic meltdown in the late
2008, from which the world hasn’t fully recovered yet. And part of
it goes to the disastrous US policy in Iraq. I wouldn’t write the
United States off from the region, it still can have its presence felt.

Policy makers in Washington understand that right now.

What are the chances, in your opinion, of the SC countries (such as
Azerbaijan, and Georgia) to join NATO?

In the short run, the chances are not very good. But that’s also a
reflection of where NATO is right now. Azerbaijan and Georgia simply
don’t have enough votes right now. A bigger picture question is
Â"should Azerbaijan and Georgia, or one of them eventually join NATOÂ".

It is the view of NATO and also of the USA, that if the country wants
to join NATO (which is very clear in Georgia’s case), then it should.

As for the long run, I think it’s a strong possibility, if that’s
what countries want to do, and if both countries can substantially
strengthen their democracy domestically.

The frozen conflicts in both countries are problems, but not unsolvable
problems. In other words, progress can be made, and NATO can lead
Georgia or Azerbaijan half way. But I don’t think it’s going to happen
anytime soon. Both Georgia and Azerbaijan are hindered by bigger
picture politics within NATO, over which Azerbaijan and Georgia have
no control.

There are obvious tensions between US and Iran about this infamous
nuclear program. And it seems like Iran doesn’t react to the
sanctions. What in your opinion are options for the US to deal with
this problem? Is there a possibility for a military way of regulation?

The Obama administration, in my view, and you can see this very clearly
with Iran differs from its predecessor in a very important way. The
Bush administration was very interested in bluster and talking big. The
Obama administration is less interested in talking, and more interested
in getting things done. President Obama and his team have resisted
weighing in on issues such as Iran’s domestic political turmoil. They
know, that it will only strengthen the Ahmadinejad regime. Frankly,
I think the administration in Washington is too smart to be pulled
into taking any military action. I think they are pursuing a quieter
course, the one that will be more successful.

This issue with Iran is very serious for the United States, and not
really serious for anyone else. Iran doesn’t want to be in a position,
where the US will let Israel handle the problem, because it won’t work
out very well for Iran. But Iran is also facing a domestic political
crisis. In my view, the best US can do, is quietly watch the current
Iran regime collapse by itself, and then pick up the pieces. It won’t
be a 6 month process, I would say it might take from 3 to 5 years.

TIGRAN SARGSYAN’S CONGRATULATIONS TO "RA PRIME MINISTER CUP" PARTICIPANTS AND WINNERS

gov.am
Jan 18 2010
Armenia

RA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan was in attendance of RA Prime
Minister Cup’s final game in the framework of "Brain Ring"
intellectual marathon, contested by the teams of connoisseurs of
government agencies. The finance ministry team won the contest,
closely followed by those representing the ministries of economy,
agriculture and State property management department by the government
respectively. In his congratulatory remarks, the Prime Minister said
in particular: "In the first place, I would like to congratulate the
winners and wish them every success in future.

I feel this intellectual contest should inspire the whole staff of
the Ministry of Finance forward to new achievements as your work is
intellectual in itself. This is an indication to our society that
your ministry is prepared to defy new challenges ahead: we will always
have such intellectuals as will find the best possible solutions amid
emergency situations when non-standard approaches and quick thinking
is needed and, of course, we are enthusiastic about this."

The Prime Minister has stressed the need for engrafting an intellectual
bias upon the government and mentioned that "in this respect,
the government may become the leader of a broader intellectual
drive." Tigran Sargsyan assured that the competition will be held
annually, with the contests to be covered by Armenia TV.

Nalbandian, Bradtke discuss Karabakh process
16.01.2010 14:21 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian met with
US Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassador Robert Bradtke and US
Ambassador to Armenia Marie Yovanovitch to discuss the latest
developments in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement process, RA
MFA press office reported.

The OSCE Minsk Group was created in 1992 by the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, now Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)) to encourage a peaceful, negotiated
resolution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

The Helsinki Additional Meeting of the CSCE Council on 24 March 1992,
requested the Chairman-in-Office to convene as soon as possible a
conference on Nagorno Karabakh under the auspices of the CSCE to
provide an ongoing forum for negotiations towards a peaceful
settlement of the crisis on the basis of the principles, commitments
and provisions of the CSCE. The Conference is to take place in Minsk.
Although it has not to this date been possible to hold the conference,
the so-called Minsk Group spearheads the OSCE effort to find a
political solution to this conflict.

OnDecember 6 , 1994, the Budapest Summit decided to establish a
co-chairmanship for the process.

Implementing the Budapest decision, the Chairman-in-Office issued on
23 March 1995, the mandate for the Co-Chairmen of the Minsk Process.

The main objectives of the Minsk Process are as follows: Providing an
appropriate framework for conflict resolution in the way of assuring
the negotiation process supported by the Minsk Group; Obtaining
conclusion by the Parties of an agreement on the cessation of the
armed conflict in order to permit the convening of the Minsk
Conference; Promoting the peace process by deploying OSCE
multinational peacekeeping forces.

The Minsk Process can be considered to be successfully concluded if
the objectives referred to above are fully met.

The Minsk Group is headed by a Co-Chairmanship consisting of France,
Russia and the United States. Furthermore, the Minsk Group also
includes the following participating States: Belarus, Germany, Italy,
Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Turkey as well as Armenia
and Azerbaijan. Current Co-chairmen of the Minsk Group are: Ambassador
Bernard Fassier of France, Ambassador Yuri Merzlyakov of the Russian
Federation and Ambassador Robert Bradtke of the United States.