Author: Jagharian Tania

Armenian Diaspora in Britain and the Armenian Question
By Dr. Sedat LACINER

Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 1 2005

Introduction[1]

The Armenian diaspora in Britain is relatively small when it is
compared with those in the United States or in France. Although there
is no consensus some Armenian sources claim that the Armenian
population in Britain is about 11-19.000, mostly living in London and
Manchester.[2] The recent developments showed that the Armenian
community in Britain has influenced the British public opinion beyond
their population. As will be discussed in this study, the historical
experiment about the Armenians in Britain also shows that this is not
a new trend; for instance in the 19th century the Armenians, though
their number was less than a thousand in England, could success to
create an anti-Ottoman public opinion in this country. In this
framework, this study first explores the secrets of the Armenian
diaspora in Britain in affecting (sometimes manipulating) the British
public opinion and press.

Second, the author of this article believes that the Armenian and the
Turkish diasporas in Britain[3] can play a crucial role in solving
the Armenian problem since both should be open to dialogue, and both
diasporas are far away from the problematic territories, namely the
Caucasus. As a result of this belief the article examines the
possible contributions of the Armenian diaspora in Britain to the
possible solution of the Armenian question.

Finally, third aim of this study is explore the present situation of
the Armenians in the United Kingdom.

I. Armenian Community in Britain: People and Institutions

Today the Armenians mainly live in London and there is a small
Armenian community in Manchester. The Armenian population in London
is estimated about 7.000-12.000 although the figures are not
reliable. The London Armenians concentrate in the boroughs of Ealing,
Hounslow, Brent and Haringey. The first serious Armenian immigration
to the UK was experienced 150 years ago and the immigration continued
in the 20th century. The Armenian immigrants are mainly from the
former Ottoman Empire territories (Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and Iraq),
Iran and Russia. Recent arrivals have fled because of the economic,
social and political problems from the former Soviet Union republics,
including Armenia.[4]

The early comers are relatively wealthy people and it can be argued
that now they have no serious economic problems. The most formidable
problem the Armenian community confronted is identity crisis. The
homeland cannot provide a model for the diaspora and the Armenian
identity is under the threat of the Western culture. Moreover,
because the Armenians in the United Kingdom have come from a variety
of different countries, there are different communities within the
community. An Armenian from Iraq or Lebanon, for example, might have
different cultural needs to an Armenian from the former Soviet Union
or Iran. That is why religion and the historical tragedies are used
in order to strengthen the relations among the Armenians. However,
exaggeration of the religious feelings and the historical events
cause extremism and hate against other ethnic groups. In other words,
the Armenian ethnic identity is established on the historical hatred
and hostility against the other ethnic groups notably against the
Turks by this approach. As a result of this not only the relations
between the Armenians and the other ethnic groups have been damaged,
but also the Armenians themselves have suffered from the extremism.
The Armenian youth in particular has faced pressure from their
parents and the community. The elderly Armenians want to create an
old – type Armenian youth, while the young people prefer to be a
‘normal’ part of the British society. For example, ‘instead of
celebrating the traditional Armenian Christmas on 6 January, many
young Armenians prefer to celebrate Christmas on 25 December, because
they do not want to be different from their peers’.[5] The Armenian
youth organisation RBO’s ‘ideal London’ clearly shows the social
pressure on the Armenian youth:

‘A world which exists to provide the Armenian youth of London what
truly deserve. A world not polluted with daily drubbings over
politics and religion. A world, to do the things that young people
do. You can even swear and kiss in public without the fear of being
judged by another… It’s time to be young again.'[6]

These words prove that the British Armenian youth want to be
depoliticised and to be a normal part of the British society.

Apart from the problems discussed above, the recent arrivals face the
most serious problems. Many of them have come from the former Soviet
Union and their main problems are employment, accommodation and
social adaptation. Finally, the common concern of the Armenian
community is the economic and political problems in Armenia. Some
radical groups (nationalist or revolutionary left) in particular
perceive themselves as a part of the politics in Armenia although
they live in Great Britain and they are British citizens.
Surprisingly they, with the other radical groups from the other
Armenian diasporas, influence the balance of power in Armenia. As has
been witnessed in the last presidential elections, the support of the
diaspora Armenians helped to replace the moderate previous Ter
Petrosian with the more strict and radical Kocharian. It can be
argued that the Armenian diaspora, including those in Britain,
increases tension and radicalism in the Armenian politics.

In brief, the British Armenians do want to help the homeland country,
but they do not know how to do so, and as will be discussed, they
damage the Armenian national interests by deepening the hostility
between the Armenian and the Turkish people and by increasing
radicalism in Armenia, although the Armenian Republic desperately
needs stability and it needs to improve its diplomatic, political and
economic relations with its biggest neighbour, namely Turkey.

Armenian Organisations in Britain

Social and Education Organisations: The British Armenians have three
one-day schools in Eastern and Western Armenian languages. The
Tantanian Sunday School was one of the first examples. In the 1980s,
the Armenian Saturday Language and Studies School was established.
Later the Martiza Soghnalian Armenian School was began in Kensington,
London. The Armenian Community Playgroup was founded in May 1987. The
Ealing Council, the Centre for Armenian Information and Advice (CAIA)
and the London Armenian community have financially supported the
organisation. The CAIA also runs the Armenian Community Pre-School
Group, which was established in 1987. The school provides Armenian
language courses four days a week.

The London Armenians also have their own cultural –
religious societies, youth groups, senior citizen club and ladies
committees.

The Armenian Community Centre: Opened on 27 November 1988 at

West End Road
, Middlesex. Sport facilities are impressive.

The Centre For Armenian Information and Advice (CAIA): In Acton,
West London. It was formally opened in 1986. The CAIA was funded by
the London Borough Grants Scheme. It has set up an Armenian
playgroup, Armenian language classes for adults and children. It is
compiling a telephone directory of Armenians in the Britain. The
Centre started Hayashen Community Centre project in 1994. Now it aims
to establish an Armenian – English Library in London.[7] The Armenian
broadcasts from Armenia can be watched in the centre.

Homenetmen London: London branch of Homenetmen international
organisation. Founded in 1979. Organises social and sportive events.
Furthermore it organises political events with other organisations
like its sister organisations HOM and Hamazgayeen.

RBO: Founded in 1995 by two Armenian young people. Aims to unite all
Armenian youth in London. They further want more freedom for and less
social and religious pressure on the London Armenian youth. RBO
organises parties and concerts. They have organised about 20 ‘HOKIS
events’,[8] with an average attendance of over 100 youth.

The Branches of the International Armenian Organisations In Britain:
Some European, American and Canadian Armenian organisations and
political parties also have branches in London because the capital is
one of the important, if not the most, political lobbying centres in
the world. Some of these organisations work under subsidiary
organisations to curtain their real names and aims. It is unfortunate
that most of these organisations are political and extremist. They
focus on the Armenian question and Turkish-Armenian relations rather
than concentrating on the Armenian diaspora’s social, economic and
cultural problems. Another effect of these organisations is that they
politicise the diaspora. They speak before the British public and
media in the name of the British Armenians though their
representative power is quite low.

Churches: There are two important Armenian churches in Britain: St.
Sarkis Armenian Apostolic Church (Kensington, London) and Holy
Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church (Manchester). Both serves as a
cultural, social and religious centres.

Other Organisations: Some of the other important Armenian
organisations in Britain can be listed as follow;

– ACPG, Armenian Community Pre-School Group.

– Aid Armenia, Land and Culture Organisation

– Anahit Association, London.

– The Armenian National Committee.

– Armenian Rainbow Coalition (London)

– The Armenian Relief Society of Great Britain (ARS).

– The Armenian Revolutionary Federation UK (The radical political group’s UK branch).

– Armenian Rights Group.

– Barbara Melinski Fund.

– The British Armenian Community.

– Church Council.

– Committee for the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide (CRAG)

– Hamazkayin.

– Hayashen Armenian Youth Club.

– Hayastan All-Armenian Fund (Manchester).

– K. Tahta Armenian Community Sunday School.

– Manoukian Charitable Foundation.

– Organisation for the Preservation of Armenian Schools and Churches in India (London).

– Social Democratic Hunchag Party

– Tekeyan Cultural Association, London.

– Tekeyan Trust.

Press: The Tekeyan Cultural Association publishes Erobouni, a
bi-weekly Armenian – English newspaper. Gotchnag is another Armenin
publication. It is published by the Nor Seround Cultural association
affiliated with the radical Hinchak Party.

Aregak (1964-1966) and The London Monthly (1974-1976)
were two good examples for the Armenian press in the United Kingdom.
Another radical publication was Kaytzer (1978-1988) published by the
London Branch of the Union of Armenian Students. Kaytzer defended
armed struggle and terrorist methods against the Turkish diplomats to
realise its political aims, and in order to get popular support it
tried to terrorise the Armenian community in the country. For Kaytzer
the Armenians had to support all illegal Turkish, Kurdish or Armenian
groups against the Turkish state.

The Centre For Armenian Information now publishes
Armenian Voice quarterly. The Centre delivers the magazine free of
charge. Its circulation is about 3.000 copies.

Table 1.

Armenians in Britain

Manchester and North West 3000-5000

London and the South 7000-12.000

Other regions 1000-2000 (?)

Total 11-19.000

Source: Armenian Voice; Exile; The Institute for Armenian Research

II. Historical Background

Early Years

It is known that there were some Armenians in the British
Isles as early as the 7th century though they were less than ten
people. These people were a small part of the immigrants from
Caucasia who escaped from the Mongol attacks. The first political
contacts between the Armenians and English experienced during the
Crusades. In these wars, the Cilician Armenians openly supported the
occupying Christians against the local Muslims and the other peoples
of the region.[9] The letters exchanged between King Henry III and
the Armenian King Hetoum, who called for assistance when the
Crusaders were passing through Cilicia, proves this co-operation.[10]
It is also noted that the Armenian King Leo IV and King Richard
Lion-Heart met in 1191 in Cyprus and this co-operation continued in
the following years.

According to the British Orthodox Church, the first
Armenian Bishop came to Britain in 1250 after the Tartar
invasion.[11] Though we do not have reliable evidence, it is also
claimed that many Armenians settled in the Southern England, near
Plymouth during the time of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658). The
similarity between ‘Armenian’ and ‘Arminian’ raised doubt whether
these people were Armenian or not. According to the story Cromwell
was passing through the Armenian quarter and his interest were raised
by the people who lived there and called themselves ‘Armenians’. He
asked the head whether they were Royalist or Nationalist. The head
replied they obeyed the law of land, and the answer annoyed Cromwell,
and these people had to leave all their houses and returned to
Amsterdam, the Netherlands where they had come from.[12] In brief, it
is difficult to speak of a serious Armenian existence in Britain
before the 17th century. In the 17th century, the Armenian traders
became important in trade between East and West. These traders were
Christian and spoke Eastern languages, like Turkish, Arabic, Persian
and Indian, all were great advantage to them in the East-West trade.
Many Armenian traders established an extensive network of commercial
contacts in Britain, Iran and India. As a result of these economic
relations, many Armenians visited England, and some settled there.
Yet, their number was still tiny and they were far away from forming
a significant community in Britain. The Armenians in India were
crucial to English, because the English were trying to colonise
India, and the Armenians were one of the Christian minorities of
India who were very desirous to help the English against the Indians.
Apart from the political co-operation, the Armenian merchants had
come India before the English and they had trade bases in Calcutta,
India. During the 17th century the Armenian merchants became one of
the dominant traders in the route of Calcutta – Middle East – Italy
and Manchester. As a result of their service to Britain the famous
Armenian merchants were granted the status of Free Citizens of
England in 1688 by a Royal Charter.[13]

The next major Armenian settlers came from the Ottoman
territories as the Armenians dominated trade between the British and
Ottoman Empires with the Greeks. They were mainly from Ýstanbul,
Ýzmir and Selanik. The majority of them settled in London, Manchester

2005-06-01 08:37:18

–Boundary_(ID_58dhxH3aR0gVxh3lhO9rQQ)–

Kremlin adm chief, Armenia president dwell on bilateral relations
By Tigran Liloyan

ITAR-TASS News Agency
May 31, 2005 Tuesday

YEREVAN, May 31 — The Russian-Armenian relations, especially, the
deepening of economic cooperation, were in the focus during a meeting
between Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Kremlin administration
chief Dmitry Medvedev in Yerevan on Tuesday.

Medvedev also gave Russian President Vladimir Putin’s best regards
to the Armenian president.

The Russian-Armenian relations develop dynamically, Robert Kocharyan
said. Russian investment in Armenia considerably increased recently,
he said.

The chief of the Kremlin administration said the work on implementation
of the agreements reached during the March meeting of the two heads
of state in Yerevan was in progress.

Dmitry Medvedev has also met with his Armenian counterpart Artashes
Tumanyan to discuss the regional economic projects, including the
construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to Armenia, a source at the
Armenian president’s press service told Itar-Tass.

ARMENIAN AND AZERI FMs MEETING TERMS NOT FIXED YET

Pan Armenian News
30.05.2005 04:51

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Kocharian-Aliyev meeting offered new
possibilities for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement, Armenian
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stated. In his words the terms of
his meeting with Azerbaijani FM Elmar Mamedyarov have not been fixed
yet. Before meeting with Elmar Mamedyarov the Armenian FM will meet
with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. According to Vartan Oskanian,
the meeting will be possibly held in June.

Mughni school named after Archbishop Tashjian

Yerkir/arm
27 May 05

Scores of people gathered at the St. Gevorg church and the local school
of the Mughni village on May 24. Every year this day, Archbishop
Mesrop Ashjian would lead a pilgrimage to the St. Gevorg church,
but this time, the pilgrims from Armenia and Diaspora arrived in the
village without him.

On the initiative of the Hamazkayin Cultural and Educational Union,
the school village was named after Archbishop Mesrop Ashjian.

Opening the event, Lilit Galstian, the director of the Hamazkayin
office, reminded of the projects carried out by the Hamazkayin jointly
with Archbishop Tashjian. Many remember the celebration of the 1700th
anniversary of Christianity adoption in Armenia with 16,000 Armenian
youngsters singing together, she said.

It was thanks to Archbishop Ashjian that the village’s church and
school were restored. And now, after the great patriot’s death,
the school was named after him.

Hungarian News Agency (MTI)
May 29, 2005

SOCCER – UNDER-19 EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP QUALIFIERS

Budapest, May 29 (MTI) – Results of matches played in the 2nd round
of an under-19 European Championship qualification tournament at
Zalaegerszeg and Andrashida, W Hungary, on Sunday:

Italy – Hungary 3:0

Armenia – Belgium 1:0

Previous results (on Friday):

Belgium – Hungary 4:1

Armenia – Italy 0:0

The winner of the tournament, scheduled to end on Tuesday, will
qualify for the European Championship, to take place in Northern
Ireland in July.

ABOUT 22.5 THOUSAND TONS OF FERTILIZER PROVIDED TO ARMENIAN FARMS ON
CONCESSIONARY TERMS

YEREVAN, MAY 26, NOYAN TAPAN. With the RA government’s subsidy, 20
tons from 21.5 thousand tons of nitric fertilizer has already been
distributed to farms at the price of 74 thousand drams a ton.

According to the information provided by the RA Ministry of
Agriculture, the remaining part of the fertilizer will be transported
to Armenia and distributed to farms within the next month. The
government allocated a subsidy of 86 mln drams to supply farms with
fertilizers on concessionary terms. It was noted that this February,
farms were provided at reduced prices with another 2,550 tons of
nitric fertilizer, which was purchased with the grant of the Japanese
government (2KR).

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
May 26, 2005, Thursday

A FOND FAREWELL TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

SOURCE: Trud-7, May 26, 2005, p. 6

by Yuri Stroganov

Question: Perhaps the CIS has really outlived its usefulness as a
mode of cooperation. What if it is really just an instrument for
civilized divorce, as some political scientists and politicians
claim?

Alexei Pushkov: You know, such speculations cause surprise in some
other former Soviet countries. I was asked in Armenia if it meant
that we had been wrong to focus on unification values all these years
since the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Question: But why try to keep an organization afloat when is sinking?

Alexei Pushkov: Because any alliance is better than a final divorce.
I dare say the Russian leadership understands this. In his May 9
speech, President Vladimir Putin made an emphasis on combat unity and
brotherhood of all our peoples in the war on Nazism. He spoke of
everything that united us and was so valuable to all. The advantages
of the CIS are well understood in many republics of the former USSR.
It is wrong to discount strong pro-Russian trends in Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus. They should be appreciated and
valued.

Question: Isn’t the market supposed to unite us automatically? After
all, mutual benefits are apparent and undeniable. Why would official
Kiev question expediency of the United Economic Zone? Why would
Turkmenistan stand aside from the CIS? More and more complications
affect relations with Moldova. What’s the matter?

Alexei Pushkov: Their government believe that a new landmark, the
West, is much more beneficial economically and politically. I’d say
that there is something childish about this behavior as well. Young
countries strive to emphasize their sovereignty and independence, to
show that they no longer depend on the former Motherland. Such
details are psychologically important, of course, but peoples of
these countries are objectively interested in close contacts with
Russia and Russian economy. Infatuation with the West may fail to
live up to expectations, while contacts with Russia already exist and
have proved their worth many times over. I’d say that interests of
CIS countries will become well-balanced soon and this demonstrative
disinclination to cooperate within the framework of the CIS will
become history.

Question: What do you think of the opinion of the words of presidents
of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev
that should Ukraine decide not to join the United Economic Zone, it
will do as well without Ukraine?

Alexei Pushkov: I’d say that they are correct. We are not going to
drag anyone in with chains. One’s own willingness is needed. If you
ask me, I think that to whoever constantly emphasizes that he doesn’t
need us we should say plainly that we do not intend to make new and
new offers endlessly. In my view, the Kremlin says that we should be
wiser in relations of this kind. Taking trouble over partners again
and again is naivete. Our partners should be shown exactly what they
stand to lose. They should be made understand that if they went, they
are not going to be able to return any moment they decide to. On the
other hand, the states that will stand by us will benefit from it.

Everything has its own price. Our leaders should make Ukraine feel
negative consequences of its pointed turn from Russia to the West.
Let Ukraine get what it needs from the West then. I’m not talking
about sanctions or any harsh measures. It’s just that Russia needs a
policy that will show everyone that Russia is not going to swallow
absolutely everything.

Question: Some experts say that we have already become sterner. They
say that it is because of the political pressure applied by Russia
that Georgia did not slap sanctions on Russian military bases.

Alexei Pushkov: Yes, Duma’s sharply worded statement that promised
sanctions against Georgia in response to illegitimate activities on
the part of its authorities, had a sobering effect on Tbilisi. I’m
convinced, however, that we should have been even sterner than that.
I’d have suspended the talks altogether for the duration of the
ultimatum. What happened instead? The Duma responded sharply but the
executive branch of the government immediately came up with a
compromise variant of the accord. It’s wrong. It is these actions
that leave the impression that Russia may be talked to in the
language of ultimatums. I’m convinced that Georgia understands that
it is threading extremely thin ice, that a total row with us will
hurt it. Unfortunately, we ourselves permit them to use ultimatums in
the dialogue with us.

Question: There are rumors that America is dissatisfied with
Saakashvili’s recklessness and that Bush actually visited Tbilisi to
take a look at potential successors to Saakashvili.

Alexei Pushkov: I’d say it’s merely an ungrounded speculation.
Saakashvili owes his broad support in the West and first and foremost
in America precisely to his anti-Russian stand. The worse the
situation in Georgia becomes, the more actively he will play the
anti-Russian card. Precisely in order to prevent the West from
thinking that he should be replaced.

Question: So the rumors are groundless?

Alexei Pushkov: I admit that there may be some dissatisfaction with
Saakashvili in the US Administration. After all, it is not comprised
of our enemies alone. There are people in it who understand that
Georgia is not Russia’s match. The way I figure it, Bush’s
Administration fears that Saakashvili may drag it into his own
conflict with Moscow. America is treating us with kid gloves. It
doesn’t need an open conflict with Russia, particularly over
something insignificant like Georgia.

Question: How would you comment on Bush’s words about the “democratic
active response forces” that might land in CIS countries?

Alexei Pushkov: Bush isn’t abandoning efforts to promote America’s
strategic objectives, but he doesn’t want quarrels with Russia
either. He decided to support Putin by attending Victory Day
celebrations. It showed that he had respect for the president of
Russia and Russia itself. At the same time, he made trips to some
Baltic states and Tbilisi and spoke of the “democratic special
forces.” All cards are open. Lukashenko was warned that he would be
overthrown. Bush is quite straightforward here. On the other hand, it
may be a smokescreen. The United States regularly uses them.

Question: And what do we do with Belarus, our ally in the CIS?
Construction of the Union state has stalled.

Alexei Pushkov: Belarus is a sovereign state. It has its own elite,
which likes its positions of power and doesn’t want them jeopardized.
Belarus doesn’t want to become just a region of the Russian
Federation. That is understandable. A powerful campaign mounted by
the West and Belarusian opposition aimed at another orange revolution
is the only thing that may compel Belarus to unite with Russia. The
Belarussian elite will have no choice, you know. This is where the
danger is rooted. We may find ourselves saddled with a rebellious
republic at the moment when our own political situation may be
anything but tranquil. That is why unification in the near future
already is preferable to that in a moment of crisis.

Question: Is it possible to view the latest events in Uzbekistan in
the context of Western intrigues?

Alexei Pushkov: To a certain extent. I would not say that the United
States has been involved. In my view, Islamic centers certainly have
been involved. Different forces have a common interest. They want the
CIS split and Russia’s influence weakened.

Question: Some political scientists claim that the future of Russia
depends on the future of the CIS. Does it?

Alexei Pushkov: It does, to a considerable extent. The CIS is our
last line of defense. The forces that are conspiring now to weaken
Russian influence within the CIS will not stop there. They will
concentrate on Russia itself next. Russia is a multi-ethnic
formation, just like the Soviet Union. Think about which forces would
seek Russia’s disintegration. Anti-Russian circles in the United
States and Western Europe; China, which might be tempted to grab the
Russian Far East if we are week; Islamic centers that aspire to
spread their influence to some parts of Russia. The dangers are
great. Unless we put an end to the process of Russia’s influence
within the CIS being reduced, we will find these dangers knocking at
our doors.

Translated by A. Ignatkin

Press gauges pipeline’s impact on region

BBC
Thursday, 26 May, 2005, 02:23 GMT 03:23 UK

Baku’s ever expanding oil skyline

There’s a clash of views in Azerbaijan’s newspapers over the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. But both pro-government and
opposition press agree it will make a huge impact on the post-Soviet
republic’s future.

Russian and Armenian papers see the pipeline as a bolster for US
influence in the region and a sign of Russia’s waning influence.
Turkish papers agree, but look forward to the financial rewards.

—————————————————————-

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which was once perceived as a myth,
is no longer just a project, but a reality and a milestone for
independent Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan’s pro-government Markaz

—————————————————————-

[Former Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev chose a successful oil
strategy by opting for the BTC [Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline]. The
pipeline was important not just because of its economic viability, but
also because of its priority in Azerbaijan’s foreign policy. This was
an open message that the country will be integrated into Euro-Atlantic
entities and this course will remain unchanged.

Azerbaijan’s pro-government Olaylar

—————————————————————-

It is difficult to convince anyone that billions of oil dollars will
reach the people of Azerbaijan with the current ruling bureaucracy in
power and in conditions of corruption… The start of big oil exports
from Azerbaijan has raised the issue of change to the country’s
political regime.

Azerbaijan’s pro-opposition Mustaqil Qazet

—————————————————————-

The political games played by the authorities in the run-up to the
opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline may seriously worry the
biggest shareholder in the project, BP. The fact that the authorities
have declared that the pipeline will be guarded not by Nato, but by
weak, non-professional and corrupt domestic security agencies puts the
operation of the pipeline under threat.

Azerbaijan’s pro-opposition Yeni Musavat

—————————————————————-

Baku says “No” to Russia, but “Yes” to America… It seems any
strengthening of Russian military force in Armenia is as unacceptable
to Azerbaijan as it is to the West. But this year Baku intends to
accommodate US servicemen on its territory.

Russian pro-government Rossiyskaya Gazeta

—————————————————————-

The US is focusing on the Caspian in order to gain control of the oil
in the region. It intends to achieve this aim through
Azerbaijan… The very frequency of contacts between US administration
representatives and Azerbaijan’s leadership gives reason to believe
that the US has decided to gain access to the riches of the Caspian
through the “gates of Baku”.

However, it seems Baku has not yet taken a final decision as to
whether to open them to the Pentagon or not… And the US is clearly
implying that there will be a “coloured revolution” if Baku does not
meet American demands.

Russian Defence Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda

—————————————————————-

Even if the Americans manage to get the required volume of oil from
Kazakhstan in 2008 (there are simply no such volumes in Azerbaijan),
the oil that will go from Ceyhan to Europe will all the same be twice
as expensive as Arab or Russian oil. Thus, Azerbaijan instead of
becoming a trump card in the “economic war” will simply turn into an
“economic excuse” for the US to establish itself in the region.

This is a process which, under the pretext of “guarding the oil
pipeline”, may end in the deployment of Nato mobile forces in the
region… Once the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline starts to operate, the US will
have achieved its purpose: the withdrawal of Russia from the region,
i.e. it will settle an important geopolitical issue under the cover of
an economic project.

Armenian newspaper Ayots Ashkar

—————————————————————-

When the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline functions with full capacity it will
carry 1bn barrels. This pipeline is a part of the US administration’s
project to control Middle Eastern oil… Our part in this project is
having the pipeline on our territory. Our benefit is the annual
commission per barrel… an opportunity to receive 200m dollars on
average a year.

Turkey’s Milliyet, commentary by Gungor Uras

BBC Monitoring selects and translates news from radio, television,
press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than
70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaus
abroad.

Pan Armenian News

AMERICAN MILITARY BASES IN AZERBAIJAN?

The American military mission in Azerbaijan will not be connected with
Karabakh in any way.

The experts of American – Israeli “Statfor” center for strategic forecasts
have prepared a report about the agreement between Baku and Washington
concerning the issue of disposition of US military forces on the territory
of Azerbaijan. According to the experts of “Statfor” an adequate decision
was made on April 12 in the course of US Defense Minister Donald Ramsfield’s
visit to Azerbaijan. The authors of the report refer to Azeri governmental
sources.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ There are no grounds to trust the information sources of
“Statfor” centre, because information about the agreement of Baku to dispose
American military bases has already been spread before. Thos who did not
want to believe that kept referring to the statement of former Secretary of
State Collin Powel who asserted that Bush administration had no intension to
dispose American military bases in Azerbaijan. Powel can bravely insist that
he was not lying because formally the American military subdivisions that
are going to be sent to Azerbaijan cannot be considered military bases. They
are called “temporarily disposed mobile forces”. But the essence remains the
same. Moreover, according to “Statfor” the mobile forces are going to stay
long. “Statfor” experts say that the first American planes will arrive
within the next few weeks.

The locations of the mobile forces are already fixed. The government of
Azerbaijan suggested the following formerly Soviet bases: “Galla” in
Absherone, “Bina” in Baku, “Nasosny” in Sumgait, “Salyan” in Garachala and
airdromes in Kyurdamir, Lenkoran, Evlakhe, Gyanja and Nakhichevan.
Researching the territories during a year, American experts have chosen
Kyurdamir, “Nasosny” and “Galla”. All the three objects are situated in
central Azerbaijan, far from Karabakh. The main base is going to be in
Kyurdamir.

“Statfor” experts mention three most important tasks of the American
military presence in Azerbaijan. The first one is the security of Baku –
Tbilisi – Jeyhan pipeline, the second task is the creation of conditions in
case there is a need to attack Iran and the third one – to force Russia out
from the region. According to analysts of the American – Israeli center, it
is not planned to use mobile forces for “peace keeping measures” in
Karabakh.

Meanwhile, it is well known that US military experts used to seriously
discuss the issue of possible disposition of military forces in Azerbaijan
for the settlement of Karabakh conflict. One of the many scenarios of
application of the mobile forces supposed such a perspective too. It was
worked out by a retired US air force colonel Sam Gardiner who thought that
Pentagon may “offer limited aid for the settlement of disputable questions
on Nagorno-Karabakh”. What did he mean by that is very unclear. But the
December issue of military “Atlantic Monthly” magazine has published an
article where it is said that Gardiner’s proposal concerning Karabakh was
denied because of being contradictory to the interests of USA. Thus, we can
hope that the disposition of US military mobile forces in Azerbaijan will
not have a direct impact on the process of Karabakh conflict settlement. At
the same time it can be supposed that the presence of American militaries in
Azerbaijan who are responsible for the security of oil pipeline will make
Azeri politics think less about the idea of resuming the war that will
threaten the plans of Washington.

20.05.2005, “PanARMENIAN Network” analytical department

Published by The JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION
Tuesday, May 24, 2005

JAVAKHETI REGION COMPLICATES GEORGIAN RELATIONS WITH ARMENIA
By Zaal Anjaparidze

In April Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and his Armenian counterpart
Robert Kocharian held talks in Tbilisi following unrest in Georgia’s
predominately Armenian-populated southern region, Samtskhe-Javakheti. The
disturbances, which calmed down soon, coincided with a parliamentary
resolution about the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia,
including one installation in Akhalkalaki, Javakheti. Residents of Javakheti
argue that closing the Russian military base would leave about 10,000 locals
without any means of subsistence.

Javakheti also dominated talks between Armenian Parliamentary Chair Artur
Bagdasarian and his Georgian counterpart, Nino Burjanadze, during
Bagdasarian’s visit to Tbilisi on April 29-30. Burjanadze tried to assure
her Armenian visitor that Georgia is doing its utmost to improve the
socio-economic conditions of the region and to improve Armenian
participation in Georgia’s civic life (Civil Georgia, aravot.am, Aprili 30).

On May 2, Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Okruashvili declared that the
Georgian government would not allow separatism in Samtskhe-Javakheti and
would neutralize the political groups that have been promoting anti-Georgian
policies and agitating the locals by organizing protest rallies against the
closure of the Russian base. Okruashvili — and later Saakashvili — vowed
that the government would ensure jobs for the local Armenians after the base
closes, but apparently few Javakheti Armenians trust these statements
(Caucasus Press, May 2).

As the situation in Samtskhe-Javakheti continues to simmer, the local
Armenian community is increasingly turning towards neighboring Armenia.
Javakheti has strong ties to Armenia. More than 100,000 Javakheti natives
live in Armenia. Some Armenian political parties, notably Dashnaktsutiun,
make the occasional radical statement about the rights of Armenians in
Javakheti in order to appeal to these voters. The party sharply reacted to
what it called “anti-Armenian statements” made by Professor Giorgi
Gachechiladze, a member of Saakashvili’s advisory board, in the Georgian
tabloid Rao-Rao on March 14. Dashnaktsutiun issued a press release on March
18, warning that any Georgian policies that discriminate against the
Javakheti Armenians would be fraught with negative consequences for Tbilisi.
Saakashvili’s offices responded by downplaying Gachechiladze’s comments and
underlining the importance of friendly relations with Armenia.

Javakheti natives now living in Armenia have established a political party,
“Zor Airenik” (Mighty Homeland). On March 16, together with the Armenian
Democratic-Liberal Union and the Ramkavar Azatakan Party, members called on
the Georgian and Armenian governments to take urgent measures to solve the
problems of the Armenian community in Javakheti. They argued that
Javakheti’s Armenian community is justified in its appeal for security
guarantees, including autonomy and self-governance (Info.ru, March 24; Prima
News, April 24).

The Georgian-Armenian union “Nor Serund” (New Generation) also called on the
Saakashvili regime to pay more attention to Javakheti, and it slammed the
Georgian media for distorting information about the region. This March an
estimated 6,000 Armenians rallied in Akhalkalaki demanding the Georgian
government to stop plans to close the Russian base, acknowledge the Armenian
genocide of 1915, remove a ban on teaching Armenian history in the
Armenian-language schools, adopt a law on protecting minority rights, and
develop self-governance and regional infrastructure (see EDM, March 23). The
protestors blamed Georgian authorities for deliberately stalling the
economic development of Javakheti in order to compel Armenians to leave the
region. The anticipated repatriation of Meskhetian Turks to Javakheti by
2012, one of Georgia obligations before the Council of Europe, is another
cause for concern within the Armenian community.

The Armenian press has criticized the recently publicized Georgian national
security concept, which states that “pragmatic cooperation” should determine
Georgian-Armenian relations. The fact that the concept did not name Armenia
among the list of Georgia’s “strategic partners,” as were Azerbaijan,
Ukraine, Turkey, and the United States, irritated some Armenian analysts.
Van Baiburt, an ethnic Armenian member of the Georgian parliament, said the
reaction of the Armenian press perhaps did not reflect the position of
official Yerevan and would not poison Georgian-Armenian relations
(Resonance, May 21).

According to some analysts, there is a growing desire among Javakheti’s
Armenian community for unification with neighboring Armenia. This
possibility is one of Tbilisi’s highest — if unspoken — concerns.

Two factors complicate a solution for Javakheti: the increasing dominance of
an ethnic-oriented mentality over civic awareness in the Georgian political
establishment and the fear of possible Russian support for separatism in
Javakheti. Some local Armenian opinion leaders argue that a separation of
powers between the “center” and “region” might provide a solution. Javakheti
Armenians were highly dissatisfied with the Georgian authorities’ decision
to prohibit the registration of the local political movement “Virk,” which
advocates political autonomy for Javakheti.

The socially vulnerable Georgian minority in Javakheti, meanwhile, is
seeking government support for increasing their standing in the region.

The Georgian government and international donors in Georgia hope that
ongoing reforms, combined with socio-economic and humanitarian programs,
will help turn the Javakheti Armenians back to the Georgian state. Whether
these measures will be effective remains to be seen.