Author: Hunanian Jack

THERE ARE NO DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ARMENIA AND
"PROSPEROUS ARMENIA" PARTY, SPOKESMAN FOR ARMENIAN PRESIDENT SAYS

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 15, NOYAN TAPAN. "There are no disagreements among
representatives of the authorities, and the Republican Party of
Armenia and the "Prosperous Armenia" Party". Spokesman for the
Armenian President Victor Soghomonian stated this in an interview to
the newspaper "Hayots Ashkharh" ("Armenian World"). He denied the
rumors about disagreements between the president Robert Kocharian and
the defence minister, chairman of the RPA Board Serge Sargsian.

The Armenian president is not a member of any political party. Members
of the "Prosperous Armenia" Party’s (PAP) political board elected at
the PAP special congress on February 15 denied the rumors that Robert
Kocharian is the author of the idea of creating the "Prosperous
Armenia" Party.

To recap, representtaives of both RPA and PAP have repeatedly stated
that they have chances to receive many votes at the parliamentary
elections to be herd on May 12.

OVER 47% OF MONEY TRANSFERS TO ARMENIA FELL ON THE SHARE OF UNISTREAM

Mediamax Agency, Armenia
Feb 14 2007

Yerevan, February 14 /Mediamax/. 47.27% of money transfers, sent to
Armenia from abroad in 2006, fell on the share of the UNIstream system.

As Mediamax was told in the press service of "Unibank", the volume
of money transfers to Armenia by means of the UNIstream system grew
1,5 times, as compared to 2005, thus making 149bln 130mln AMD.

The volume of transfers, realized from Armenia by means of the
UNIstream system, grew by 37%, as compared to 2005, and as of December
31 of 2006 made 18bln 516mln AMD.

PROFESSOR OUTLINES ARMENIAN CONNECTION TO GALLIPOLI
Reporter: Mark Colvin

6039.htm
PM – Monday, 12 February , 2007 18:40:00

MARK COLVIN: What links the first genocide of the 20th century with
the battle most often cited as defining the birth of Australia’s
national identity?

The genocide was the Turkish massacre of the Armenians; the battle
was Gallipoli.

And what they have in common is that they both started on almost the
same day, within a few hundred kilometres of each other.

Why don’t we know this as a nation? That’s the question posed in an
essay by Robert Manne, Professor of Politics at LaTrobe University,
in this month’s issue of the magazine The Monthly.

He’s discovered that Australian historians have hardly noticed the
coincidence of the two events.

ROBERT MANNE: In 1915 the Ottoman Government began one of the first
really systematic genocides in history, certainly of the 20th century.

And within a year or so, perhaps one million Armenians had been killed
because they were a Christian minority in the Muslim Ottoman Empire,
which was in its point of crisis.

And there’d been persecution for a long time, but this was not
persecution, it was the attempt to eliminate a people.

MARK COLVIN: And of course the Turkish Government throughout the
20th century denied that this ever happened, and denial is still
going on. A journalist, Hrant Dink, was just murdered the other day
for talking about the Armenian genocide. To what extent has it been
covered up in history?

ROBERT MANNE: Well, I think two things; I think most people have
a vague awareness now because the Armenians have been absolutely
determined not to let it just fade out of history, but I don’t think
it’s as well known as it ought to be.

The Turkish Government has always utterly denied that a genocide took
place, although they admit that some massacres took place. But they
largely blame the Armenians for that saying they were a rebellious,
subversive element at a time of wartime crisis. But it’s at the
heart of Turkish identity is to deny the meaning and the reality of
that genocide.

MARK COLVIN: And you say that Australian historians have effectively
ignored it, and that’s despite a really close coincidence between
the genocide and a key event in Australian history.

ROBERT MANNE: That’s right.

It seems to me the strangest thing. We have Anzac Day as April the 25th
1915 is remembered; the Armenians have April the 24th 1915 as their
day of mourning, which they take to be the beginning of the genocide.

The two events not only coincided in territory and in time, but there
is quite a lot of evidence that the genocide was pushed on because
of the Dardanelle campaign of the Anglo-French forces in which the
Australians were involved.

So despite the fact that the things happened at the same time and in
the same place more or less, and they were even kind of connected with
a causal link, I looked through book after book about Gallipoli, and
there’s no end of books that Australians have written about it, and
virtually none of them mention it for more than a passing paragraphs
or a couple of lines.

MARK COLVIN: What is the causal link? Tell us more about that.

ROBERT MANNE: Well, there are some contemporary historians, there’s
a wonderful Turkish historian, Tanner Akcham, who think that when the
Gallipoli campaign began, or when the Dardanelles were first bombed by
the Anglo-French in March 1915, that was the final moment of reckoning,
and that the Turkish regime, which was run by two or three young Turks
were the dominant figures, they set upon and decided on a systematic
extermination of the Armenians, saying that at this moment of crisis,
where Constantinople might fall, we can’t afford to have a subversive
minority within our country.

So, the Dardanelle campaign and the Gallipoli landings pushed on and
maybe not exactly caused, but at least triggered the final events
that led to the genocide.

MARK COLVIN: So why should Australian historians look more closely
at it?

Because our national myth says that we weren’t really the strategic
force behind the Dardanelle campaign, we were just the pawns, we were
just the people who were thrown into the breech.

ROBERT MANNE: Yes, my point is not so much that they should, although
I wish they had. My point is how strange it is that the event that’s
really by far the most important historical event in the national
imaginary in Australia, which is the Gallipoli campaign, our historians
have never thought to ask the obvious questions about the connection
between the two events, or even to comment on the fact that the two
events took place at the same time.

Apart from the poet Les Murray, I’ve not come across an Australian
writer who’s really thought imaginatively about the connection of
the two events in whatever they’ve written.

MARK COLVIN: And you think that’s not likely to change? You say,
"in the Australian collectively memory of Gallipoli, the Armenian
genocide simply has no role, I suspect it never will".

ROBERT MANNE: Yes, that’s what I think. That is because, as I say,
I don’t think …

MARK COLVIN: Is that just your natural pessimism or do you think
historians are simply unlikely to heed your call?

ROBERT MANNE: It’s not really pessimism in so much as to think
that history and collective memory are different things. And that
Gallipoli, this event that’s so important to Australians has never
been an important event for historical reasons.

I think it was an important event at first because it was the point at
which the Australian nation felt it was a nation, which they hadn’t
felt at federation, and where they felt they showed to the British
and the British Empire, the kind of manliness that they possessed.

And I think always Gallipoli has been tied up with identity and almost
never been really connected to a kind of interest in the history of
the First World War, let alone an interest in the Ottoman Empire.

And so it’s not really pessimism so much as kind of trying to identify
the difference between history and myth, that I think it’ll never
become a matter of great interest in Australia, except perhaps for
some intellectuals.

MARK COLVIN: But historians are supposed to be interested in facts
not national myths, aren’t they?

ROBERT MANNE: Yes, but the historians that move time and again back
to Gallipoli, I think are driven by the interests of myth. Even
if they want to revise the story, what they’re doing is revising
the myth. But they’re not really interested in the kind of overall
historical questions that are connected to it.

MARK COLVIN: Robert Manne, whose essay on that subject is published
in this month’s issue of the magazine The Monthly.

GEORGIA: AN IMPORTANT STATE FOR THE STABILITY IN THE CAUCASUS
View by Kamer KASIM, PhD (USAK)

Journal of Turkish Weekly

JTW 10 February 2007

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia became an independent
state, however, since its independence Georgia faced severe internal
crisis and security problems, which were the great obstacle for
the implementation of reforms and the success of the state-building
process. Having border with Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia
and access to the Black Sea make Georgia important transit routes to
the Europe and Central Asia. Internal conflicts and lack of stability
prevented Georgia to utilize its location in the Caucasus and delayed
the possible regional cooperation, which would be beneficial for all
the countries in the region. Given the fact that Georgia has lack of
natural resources and weak economic structure, it is very difficult
for Georgia to exploit its geographical location without support from
the regional powers and the United States. In fact, Georgia is the
one of the biggest beneficiary of the US aid in the world. Georgia
has received approximately $ 800 million aid from the US.

Turkey, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands are also
important donors for Georgia. To analyze the roots of Georgia’s
continuing problems and its difficulty to solve them despite the
financial and political support from the outside world; we need to
look at Georgia’s frozen conflicts and Russian role in the region.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has
emerged with 60 percent of the population and 76 percent of the
territory of the former Soviet Union and followed the policy of
domination in the former Soviet territories. The Soviet Union was
a multinational empire and its foreign policy agenda was designed
accordingly. The foreign policy of the Russian Federation had to
be different than the Soviet Union. Internal discussing about the
direction of the Russian foreign policy produced the two main groups:
Atlanticists and Eurasianists. Atlanticists considered Russia as
a Western nation and according to them cooperation with the Western
states would help Russia to absorb Western values, including democracy
and human rights. Atlanticists believed that Russia must avoid
assuming a leading role in the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS). Russia’s active role in the CIS would slow down Russia’s
integration with Western economic institutions. Until the end of 1992
Atlanticist view was dominant in Russian foreign policy and they aimed
to liberate the Russian Federation from the burdens of the empire
and to make Russia a part of community of democratic states. In that
period, Russia’s administration was concerned with transforming of
the Russian economy into a genuine market and to integrate Russia with
the Western system. As a result, Russia showed a lack of interest in
its relations with the new Caucasian and Central Asian republics.

Eurasianists criticized Atlanticist view and they emphasized Russia’s
distinctive identity from the West. The Eurasianist approach affected
Russia’s foreign policy after 1992, and produced the policy of ‘Near
Abroad’ (blizhneezarubezhe) promoting Russia’s relations with the CIS.

Eurasianists believed that the security of Russia and its "Near
Abroad" was inseparable and Russia should not ignore the Caucasus
and Central Asia. As an indication of the change in Russian foreign
policy, the "foreign policy concept" was introduced in 1993, which
emphasized actual and potential conflicts of interests with the West
and envisaged a more active role for Russia in security and economic
affairs in the "Near Abroad". After that Russia used every tool to
restore its dominance in the Caucasus and small states in the region
were severely affected by that policy. Georgia was one of the worst
affected states with the Russian policy in the region.

Georgia was rejected became a part of the CIS and Russian military
presence in the country. Russia showed its ability to use internal
dispute in regional states in order to exert its influence and to
keep its military presence in newly independent states. Georgia was an
easy target for the Russian foreign policy, since Georgia has diverse
minority groups and fragile political and economic structures. As a
result Georgia faced internal turmoil and conflict with Abkhazia and
Ossetia. Abkhazia was an autonomous republic within Georgia and the
conflict, erupted between Georgians and Abkhazians.

The Russian forces played a role in supplying arms, training and
assisting Abkhazian units in direct combat. The main reason for the
Russian support of Abkhazia was to put pressure on Georgia to enter the
CIS and allow Russian troops to be deployed on the Turkish-Georgian
border. Abkhazia’s strategic position along the Black Sea coast was
probably another reason for the Russian support of Abkhazia. In fact,
the conflict forced Georgia to enter the CIS.

Russia got four military bases in Georgia. The Russian bases were
in the most sensitive areas. One was in Abkhazia and was believed
to be a support point for the Abkhazian separatists. Another was in
the southwestern region of Adjara, which was also in rebel hands. A
third one was at Akhalkalaki; the heart of a region populated mainly
by Armenians. The fourth one was on the outskirts of Tbilisi where
there is also an air base.

On April 4, 1994, the "Declaration on Measures for a Political
Settlement of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict" was signed,
even though the resumption of armed conflict remained a future
possibility. According to this document, Abkhazia would have its
own constitution, parliament and government and appropriate state
symbols, such as an anthem, emblem and flag, and would maintain
its own internal sovereignty. Georgian officials complained about
the agreement and Deputy Prime Minister, Nadareishvili, said that
"agreements signed between Georgia and Abkhazia had no legal basis
and were harmful for Georgia".

Georgia also faced Ossetia problem just after the independence. Some
south Ossetians wanted to unite with North Ossetia and become part of
Russia. Having used Abkhazians and Ossetians, Russia had the chance
to meddle Georgia. After Ossetians’ declaration of sovereignty,
Georgian Parliament abolished Ossetia’s autonomous status.

100,000 people became refugee as a result of the fighting in Ossetia.

In 1992 a Russian-Georgian-Ossetian peacekeeping force was created in
South Ossetia. Crisis gave Russia a chance to intervene the internal
affair of Georgia. It might be argued that unification of south and
north Ossetia was not Russia’s interest. Therefore Russia benefited
from the crisis, but it did not also want Ossetians to reach their
final objective.

Dispute between Russia and Georgia continued about the Russian
military bases in Georgia. In 1995, the treaty was signed between
Georgia and Russia about permission to the Russian military bases
in Georgia. The Treaty was in effect for 25 years, and automatically
extent five years at a time if the parties did not agree otherwise.

However, the treaty was not ratified. In 1999, Georgian Foreign
Minister Menegarashvili stated that the reason for the non-ratification
of the 1995 treaty was that it was in fact breaching the limits of
the original Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty. In March
2005 the Georgian parliament passed a resolution ordering Russia
to withdraw from Georgia no later than 2006 and allowing Georgia
to exercise its right to take measures against the bases before May
2005.12 According to the recent deal the withdrawal of the Russian
military bases from Georgia will be completed within 2008.

The developments after the 11th of September 2001 terrorist attacks
have a great impact in the Caucasus. The US military presence in
the region increased the US influence and in this aspect, together
with Azerbaijan, Georgia became an important state to fight against
terrorism. The stability in Georgia became more important for the US.

First, Georgia provides air link for the US troops to Central Asia
and important check point in the Caucasus. Second after 11 September
and the War in Iraq in 2003 made crucial to the realization of the
East-West energy corridor and particularly the transportation of
Caspian oil to the world markets. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline
became partly operational on 25th of May 2005.

Therefore, the US will not want any destabilization of Georgia,
which might prevent the flow of oil from the pipeline. Despite the
fact that Georgia was benefited from the international environment
after the 11 September 2001, Russia also used this environment for
its benefit, which to some extent put Georgia in a difficult situation.

Russia imposed more assertive policy towards the Chechen conflict
and blamed Georgia to provide shelter for terrorists in Pankisi Valley.

Russia argued that Pankisi Valley became the area as a training ground
and arms smuggling route for the Chechen rebels. The area also became
home for approximately 7.000 Chechen refugees and full control of the
region is beyond the Georgia’s capacity. Russia aimed to established
anti-terror centers in Georgia. However, Georgia considered this
suggestion as a Russian strategy to re-label its military bases in
Georgia as anti-Terror centers.

Georgia faced also tension in Javakheti province and its capital
Ahalkelek, where was home for Ahiska Turks and currently Armenian
minority lives there. The return of the Ahiska Turks to Georgia was
discussed in the Council of Europe within the framework of Georgian
membership to the Council of Europe. Ahiska Turks’ return to Georgia
has not been realized yet. The province is adjacent to Turkey and on
the important transit route between Turkey and Georgia.

Separatist tendencies of the Armenian minority of the province might
destabilize Georgia and even the potential danger exists for the
creation of second "Karabakh". During the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
Armenians in Javakheti aided to the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and
Nagorno-Karabakh problem is stimulated Armenian nationalism.13 After
11th September 2001 increased importance of Georgia in the region
and the US military presence in Georgia reduced the risk of possible
conflict in Javakheti province.

After the completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Cayhan pipeline Georgia
became a key state for Turkey, Azerbaijan and the US. Georgia’s
relations with Turkey improved on the political and economic front.

The project to construct railway link between Turkish city
Kars to Georgian city Ahalkelek would be important for improve
the transportation in the region. However, Armenia objected the
Kars-Ahalkelek railway link. Armenia argued that proposed railway line
would contribute the isolation of Armenia. The construction of the
Kars-Ahalkelek railway line and the rehabilitation of the existing
Tbilisi-Ahalkelek line need approximately $ 400 million.

Georgia’s significance will grow in the region and the US and Turkey’s
assistance will continue in the future. Political stability in the
Caucasus will be very difficult to achieve in the near future. The
increase of political and economic stability in Caucasus countries
will contribute the regional stability. After the "velvet revolution",
the positive atmosphere emerged for the stability of Georgia and
stability will create the suitable atmosphere for the solution of
Georgia’s "Frozen Disputes".

Kamer KASIM: Assoc. Prof. Dr. & USAK (International Strategic Research
Organization) Caucasus Expert. BA (University of Ankara), MA and PhD
(University of Manchester)

NOR ZHAMANAKNER PARTY CALLS OPPOSITION FOR COMING UP WITH UNITED PROPORTIONAL LIST

Noyan Tapan
Feb 12 2007

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 12, NOYAN TAPAN. The Nor Zhamanakner (New Times)
Party expressed readiness to resolutely struggle against possible
falsifications at the parliamentary elections to be held in 2007
May. The party’s statement spread on February 12 read this. "Being a
self-sufficient political force and having sufficient financial and
organization abilities, NZP, nevertheless realizes the necessity to
fight with a united front against the antipopular authorities," the
statement read. NZP calls the opposition field for running for the
elections with a united proportional list and opposition political
leaders enjoying absolute confidence among people for nominating
their candidatures by the majoritarian system giving preference to
Yerevan’s electoral districts.

PM ERDOðAN GIVES SIGNALS FOR A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN ARTICLE 301

Sabah, Turkey
Feb 12 2007

After long debates on article 301 in the Turkish criminal code,
the Turkish government has decided to make some changes in the law.

Debates began after the killing of the Armenian author Hrant Dink,
as he was one of the many authors convicted with article 301 during
the past few years. The first statement about the changing of the
article came from the Minister of Foreign Affairs; Abdullah Gul, upon
his arrival from Washington. Gul said the government may make some
changes on article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code which prohibits
the violation of "Turkishness."

After Abdullah Gul’s statements, Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdoðan
communicated to other AKP administrators, that possible changes may be
made on the article. Stating that he is totally against the removal
of the article all together from the Turkish Criminal Code and such
a possibility will not even be discussed, PM Erdoðan said he will
consult with civil society organizations before making any changes.

–Boundary_(ID_rdyF0v7OU3FiaXg0PmVkYA)–

Panorama.am

23:20 08/02/2007

`My right’ Newspaper’s owner car was burnt in Yerevan

The car , belonging to the owner of ` My right ` newspaper and Armenian News
Portal , former Press Secretary of the Minister of Justice
of RA Ara Saghatelyan was burnt on today around 20:15 p.m. ` The car was
parked new the newspaper editorial office. Usually I come to the editorial
office every evening to check the assignments completion by journalists , to
give advices and to coordinate the work of the editorial board.
Approximately in 6-7 minutes after my arrival I heard the the car alarm was
ringing. I ran out to the street and saw that the car is in. I took of my
coat and tried to extinguish the fire also I called our neighbors and asked
them to bring water. At that moment I noticed a bottle with pouring petrol
on the roof of the car. Later I also found two more bottles near the car.’ –
said Ara Saghatelyan.

Ara Saghatelyan also added that editorial office is working in its usual
regime. Definitely we don’t perform any irresponsible steps since we believe
that freedom of speech has its reasonable limits and is closely related to
social responsibility . I can’t say that this incident is related to my
newspaper publications . I definitely don’t have personal enemies / – he
added. At this point of time he doesn’t suspect anybody.

Source: Panorama.am

ALBERT BAZEYAN HAS NOT SIGNED ANYTHING AUTHORIZING THE CHOPPING OF TREES

A1+
[07:50 pm] 07 February, 2007

According to the residents of Aghayan 19 and Teryan 56, the permission
to start construction in the grove near the buildings was given
in 2000 when Albert Bazeyan was mayor of Yerevan. Today the former
mayor of Yerevan told "A1+" that he remembers about the decision,
but he has never signed under any document containing the words
"chopping of trees".

"Before making any decision the mayor must get the positive conclusion
of the corresponding administrations of the municipality. If there have
been any illegal steps, I’m ready to answer for them in court. But I
assure you that in those years we only allotted lands by the principle
of rent", he said.

Let us remind you that the 20 trees in the grove were chopped down
on by Nushikyan association January 20 in order to build a hotel.

ARAM KARAPETYAN MEETS AMBASSADORS OF NETHERLANDS AND SWEDEN

Panorama.am
19:30 08/02/2007

Aram Karapetyan, leader of New Times Party, met with Onno Eldrenbosh
and Hans Gunnar Aden, ambassadors of Netherlands and Sweden at the
initiative of the Armenian diplomatic office of the intergovernmental
organization of International Institute of Democracy and Election
Support.

The organization aims to foster government and non-government forces
in order to develop democratic processes in accordance with lasting
development strategies. The interlocutors talked about internal
political development during some two-hour meeting.

The sides also discussed foreign policy guidelines.

TERM OF ARREST OF ZHIRAYR SEFILIAN AND VARDAN MALKHASIAN EXTENDED FOR 2 MONTHS

Noyan Tapan
Feb 07 2007

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 7, NOYAN TAPAN. The court of first instance of
Yerevan’s Kentron and Nork-Marash communities on February 7 satisfied
two petitions of the Investigative Department of the RA National
Security Service to extend the term of arrest of Vardan Malkhasian and
Zhirayr Sefilian for two months, considering that after being released,
they may hide or prevent the investigation of the case. According
to Radio Liberty, the lawyers of these persons said that they will
dispute these court decisions at the appeal court. To recap, leading
members of the movement Unity of Armenian Volunteers Zh. Sefilian
and V. Malkhasian were arrested on December 10, 2006 on charges of
public calls for changing the Constitutional order by violence.