Author: Jalatian Sonya

ABIG SAHAKYAN’S TWO BOOKS TO BE PRESENTED AT RA NATIONAL LIBRARY

PanARMENIAN.Net
19.01.2010 18:53 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On January 22 two books of an Armenian poet Abig
Sahakyan "Abundant Autumn" and "Mist and snow at the top of the
mountain" will be presented at the RA National Library. According to
the candidate of philological sciences Karo Vardanyan, each of the
380 verses of the third book of Abig Sahakyan "Mist and snow at the
top of the mountain" is a testament of love for the homeland.

Abig Sahakyan is a poet, an author of three collections of poetry:
"Abundant Autumn", "Life as work" and " Mist and snow at the top of
the mountain".

KARABAKH NEEDS WORKABLE SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR BOTH COMMUNITIES
Jamil Bayramov

news.az
Jan 20 2010
Azerbaijan

Erkin Gadirli An international law expert Erkin Gadirli comments to
News.Az on the major challenges for peace in Nagorno-Karabakh.

What are the chances of the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities
peacefully co-existing in Nagorno-Karabakh?

Peaceful co-existence is necessary, but by itself it cannot provide a
sustainable solution to the problem. It is important to differentiate
between eliminating all the actual consequences of the military
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh on the one hand, and dealing with
potential systemic conflicts in the future regional autonomy on
the other. The former is a matter of security in preventing future
violence, while the latter connotes management of social conflicts
in and between the constituent communities of Nagorno-Karabakh.

It is also crucial to keep in mind that solving the security aspect
of the problem is not and should not be a goal in itself, strange as
it may sound. In fact, practically speaking, security is the easiest
component of the solution package. It will require a major political
agreement, international guarantees and, possibly, internationally
assigned peace-keeping forces. However, the main goal is to design
a system of self-governance in Nagorno-Karabakh that will be fair,
stable and workable. That, of course, implies all the prerequisites
of genuine democracy. It is this component that seems to have been
underestimated. It is high time to open an inclusive discourse on
this overshadowed aspect of the problem.

Peaceful co-existence is a sound notion, only if it is viewed as
part of the larger concept of the "mutual self-governance" of both
constituent communities of Nagorno-Karabakh. Although this concept
itself stems from the as yet undefined "higher possible status
of autonomy", it still deserves a separate in-depth analysis. In
other words, it is useful to view mutual self-governance as an
analytically independent subject. Unfortunately, the dominant
tendency to territorialize the dispute hinders the understanding of
differences between autonomy for the region and mutual self-governance
for the people.

I firmly believe that both communities in Nagorno-Karabakh will
re-establish themselves to constitute a democratically governed region,
which can even become, if not a model, then at least a trigger for
the further democratization of Azerbaijan and Armenia. My belief is
visionary, rather than prescriptive. Much still needs to be openly
debated.

WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN:
By William M. Paparian

USA Armenian Life Magazine
January 19, 2009
California

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smilin’ free at the changes all around
Pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday
When I get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again

Those are lyrics from Won’t Get Fooled Again by The Who. It was an
anthem of my generation, the generation of Woodstock, and Khe Sanh,
and Kent State: Won’t Get Fooled Again. On the issue of recognition
of the Armenian Genocide by the United States government, the
Armenian-American community keeps getting fooled again, and again
and again. We have been hood-winked, bamboozled, lied to, and betrayed.

It’s time to pursue a new agenda for justice for the Armenian Nation.

I spent some of the best years of my life in pursuit of Hye Tad. In
the early 1980’s, I served on the Board of Directors of the Armenian
National Committee, Western Region, and helped to establish it as a
Political Action Committee in my capacity as General Counsel.

As Mayor of Pasadena, on April 24, 1996, when more than 7,000 watched
as then Chairwoman of the American Red Cross and former Cabinet member
Elizabeth Dole laid a wreath at the Armenian Martyrs Monument in
Montebello, I was the keynote speaker. Throughout these years I have
been witness to the leadership of the Democratic Party playing the
Armenian-American community on recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

During the most recent campaign for U.S. President, I watched as my
youngest college age son Saro prepared to cast his first vote. I
saw the idealism in his eyes and heard the hope in his voice
as he expressed faith in the campaign promises of then Senator
Barack Obama that he would be the President that would recognize
the Armenian Genocide on April 24th. And I will always remember my
son’s disillusionment and sense of betrayal when on April 24, 2009,
President Obama, in the ultimate act of political cowardice, issued
his infamous Meds Yeghern statement.

After 12 years of service as an elected public official and postilions
on municipal, county, regional, and state governmental agencies, I have
seen first hand the the prevarications with which public officials will
profess one thing to the community and then deceitfully do another
behind the scenes. One classic technique out of the parliamentary
playbook is to announce support for a proposal, and then simply refer
it to a committee where the proposal is never heard from again. That’s
precisely what’s happened to the latest congressional resolution on the
Armenian Genocide. Introduced on March 17, 2009, the bill was referred
to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs where it has languished ever
since. That committee is chaired by California Congressman Howard
Berman who is also a co-sponsor of the bill. No hearing has been
scheduled by Congressman Berman on the Genocide Resolution nor does
he have any intention of ever doing so. The Speaker of the House,
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is also a co-sponsor of the bill. She
has it within her power to bring the Genocide Resolution to the
floor of the House of Representatives so it can be passed. She has
no intention of doing so. She had the opportunity during the last
session of Congress to bring a similar bill, House Resolution 106 to
the floor of the House of Representatives, but didn’t because she
had cut a deal with former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
and paid Turkish government lobbyist not to do so.

Meanwhile, the precious political capital that has been marshaled
by a dedicated cadre of bright, young Armenian-American political
activists in Washington DC and across the country, has been squandered
each and every time we are betrayed by those in whom we have place
our trust. Betrayal of Armenian-Americans by those in whom we place
our trust is not a new phenomenon.

It happened during World War I, when 1200 Armenian-American Gamavors
carried the U.S. Flag into battle when they seized the high ground
and defeated the Turkish Army led by Kemal Attaturk on the heights of
Arara and paved the way for General Allenby’s victory in Palestine and
the surrender of the Turkish government to the Western Allies. These
brave men had gallantly fought and died becauseFrance, Britain and
the United States had promised a Free and Independent Armenia. They
were betrayed just like we were betrayed by President Obama last
year and just like we are being betrayed now by the leadership
of the Democratic Party on the current congressional resolution to
recognize the Armenian Genocide. Enough is enough. It’s time to forge
a new agenda for justice for the Armenian Nation, an agenda that is
principled, and uncompromising. And an agenda that will no longer
tolerateunfulfilled promises.

In 1973, an elderly Armenian Genocide survivor named Gourgen Yanikian
lured 2 Turkish diplomats to the Santa Barbara Biltmore Hotel and
executed them. He had already issued a proclamation declaring that this
was the only means left with which to secure justice for the Armenian
Nation. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. In the early
1980’s, I was part of the legal team that secured Yanikian’s release
from prison. He died shortly thereafter having cheated the Turkish
government of their efforts to see him die in prison. Was Yanikian
right? Is political violence the only means left to secure justice
for the Armenian Nation? I hope not and continue to be optimistic
that we will make the legal and political system work for us and
ultimately triumph. We must persevere with the same spirit of our
heroic Gamavors. But we can no longer accept broken promises from
Barack Obama or Howard Berman or Nancy Pelosi. We are not going to
be fooled again!

RA PRESIDENT RECEIVES OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF OSCE CHAIRMAN-IN-OFFICE

Noyan Tapan
Jan 20, 2010

YEREVAN, JANUARY 20, NOYAN TAPAN. On January 20, RA President
Serzh Sargsyan received OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs Yuri Merzliakov
(RF), Bernard Fassier (France), Robert Bradtke (U.S.), and Personal
Representative of OSCE Chairman-in-Office Andrzej Kasprzyk. RA Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandian also took part in the meeting.

According to RA President’s Press Office, issues regarding the current
stage of Nagorno Karabakh settlement process and high-level meeting
scheduled for the future were discussed at the meeting.

IS LEMKIN’S LEGACY GOING UNHEEDED?
by Eric Herschthal

The Jewish Week
a17697/Editorial__Opinion/The_Last_Word.html
Jan 19 2010

The Center for Jewish History is currently showing an exhibit
dedicated to the life and work of Raphael Lemkin. If his name isn’t
quite familiar to you, rest assured, you’re not alone. In any event,
you certainly know the one word that’s become synonymous with him:
genocide. In 1943, Lemkin invented the term. And in 1951, he saw to
it that the United Nations make it punishable crime.

The exhibit is a timely one, but you might say it’s timeless too.

There is the matter of Darfur, of course, but perhaps just as tragic
is the ongoing resistance to what is often called "Lemkin’s Law." A
walk through the exhibit’s myriad of letters, legal documents and
grainy recorded speeches gives you a pretty good understanding why.

>From the beginning, Lemkin knew that his task wouldn’t be easy. In
1933, for instance, Lemkin, a young Jewish lawyer born in Poland and
then working for its government, traveled to Madrid for a League of
Nations conference. His mission was straightforward enough: prosecute
the Turkish officials who initiated the Armenian genocide. One million
Armenians had been slaughtered at the outbreak of World War I, and
Lemkin, a fresh-faced 33-year-old, wondered why nothing was being
done. "Why," he asked, "is it a crime for one man to murder another,
but not for a government to kill a million?"

Alas, his timing was off. The year of the Madrid conference, the Nazis
seized power, and under Hitler’s watchful eye the Polish government
pressured Lemkin to resign. Six years later, the Nazi invasion of
Poland forced him to flee, and in 1941 he landed in the United States.

He got prestigious teaching posts at the Duke and University of
Virginia law schools with the help of sympathetic American professors.

But his growing awareness of the Holocaust pulled him out of the ivory
tower. He last heard from his parents just after he fled Poland,
and by the war’s end, he learned that 49 of his closest relatives
had been killed. Years later, he described his march to criminalize
genocide as an "epitaph on his mother’s grave."

What Samantha Power, in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book that also
recaps Lemkin’s career, called "a problem from hell," had for Lemkin
become personal. By 1943, he had already coined the term "genocide"
— from the Greek work genos, for "tribe," and cide, for "kill" —
but the word went into wide circulation only after the publication
of his book "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe," published in 1944. Once
the war had ended and the UN had been created, Lemkin began the next
phase of his career: turning a word into a crime.

It’s at this point that Lemkin’s real tragedy begins. Power’s book does
an especially good job bringing to life the shameful recalcitrance
of even the most civilized governments, particularly America’s,
to endorse the genocide resolution. The main sticking point was
clear: the U.S. did not want to endorse a law that might put their
own government at risk. While respectable institutions like the
American Bar Association made a smart case that the UN law allowed
for too expansive a reading, it was obvious that the real stumbling
block was the U.S. government. Segregation was still allowed in the
South, and the government felt that under related war-crime clauses,
it might be found guilty.

Of course the U.S. was fine leading the charge at the Nuremburg
Trials, which prosecuted Nazis just after the war. But the laws used
to indict the Nazis employed the softer "crimes against humanity"
clause, a holdover from the League of Nations days. That clause
prevented the prosecution of governments for crimes committed within
their own borders. "If the Nazis had exterminated the entire German
Jewish population," Power writes, "but never invaded Poland, they
would not have been liable at Nuremberg." Lemkin’s mission at the UN
was to close that loophole.

He succeeded, but the legacy of criminalized genocide is
disheartening. The UN may have criminalized it in 1951, but the
United States did not sign on until 1987. (Lemkin died in 1959.) More
recently, the International Criminal Court, which in 2002 became
the body responsible for prosecuting genocides, has been severely
handicapped. It has still not been ratified by the U.S., to say nothing
of Israel, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and China, among others. And even then,
it is a court of last resort, summoned only when independent countries
do not try criminals themselves.

To date, eight people have been convicted of genocide in a period
that has seen millions die in its name. Given that record, it’s worth
asking what Lemkin’s Law means if his legacy goes unheeded. He worked
tirelessly in the name of the law, but that was only the handmaiden
of his larger aim. Justice was what mattered, and it is something
that eludes him, and us, still.

Eric Herschthal covers arts and culture for the paper.

ARMENIA-TURKEY: WHO WILL BLINK FIRST?

Spero News
=25768&t=Armenia-Turkey%3A+Who+Will+Blink+Firs t%3F
Jan 18 2010

Over three months have now elapsed since the signing in Geneva on
October 10 of two protocols on establishing and developing "good
neighborly" diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey. But the
prospects that either parliament will ratify those protocols in the
near future remain …

Over three months have now elapsed since the signing in Geneva on
October 10 of two protocols on establishing and developing "good
neighborly" diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey. But the
prospects that either parliament will ratify those protocols in the
near future remain slim.

The major obstacle to ratification is Ankara’s insistence on linking
the normalization of relations with Armenia to concessions by
Yerevan in the Karabakh peace process, specifically, the withdrawal
of Armenian forces from districts of Azerbaijani contiguous to
Nagorno-Karabakh. The text of the two protocols does not, however,
contain any reference either to Nagorno-Karabakh or to Azerbaijan.

Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian, who first argued the case for
establishing relations with Turkey in an editorial published in the
"Washington Post" three years ago, has warned periodically since
October that Armenia may annul the protocols if the Turkish parliament
fails to endorse them within a "reasonable timeframe." Sarkisian did
not, however, set a specific deadline.

In a January 17 interview with RFE/RL’s Armenian Service, Foreign
Minister Eduard Nalbandian too warned that Turkey risks reversing
the progress achieved to date if it continues to peg ratification
to concessions by Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. He stressed that
neither the Armenian nor the Turkish side set any preconditions when
they embarked in 2008 on the Swiss-mediated talks that resulted in
the formulation of the two protocols. "Had there been preconditions,
we would not have started this process and reached agreements in
the first place," Nalbandian told RFE/RL. "If one of the parties is
creating artificial obstacles, dragging things out, that means it is
assuming responsibility for the failure of this process," he added.

Meeting in Moscow last week with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said he considers
Turkey’s linkage "in one package" of relations with Armenia and
resolving the Karabakh conflict unrealistic and "not the right
approach." "It is difficult to solve either of these problems
separately in the first place, and if one tries to tackle them
in a single package, then the prospects for resolving them will
automatically become quite remote," Putin reasoned on January 13.

The next year can be ‘historic’ for progress on disarmament –
Secretary-General

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today voiced optimism that 2010 will be
a "historic year" for progress on disarmament and non-proliferation
goals, vowing to press ahead with efforts to rid the world of weapons
of mass destruction.Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov repeated
that argument in Yerevan the following day, telling journalists at a
joint press conference with Nalbandian that "in my view, to try and
artificially link those two issues is not correct."

Erdogan, however, is quoted as having told journalists on his return
flight to Ankara that the "Turkish-Armenian issue will find a solution
only after "the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh ends." "If Armenia has
good intentions, let it prove them by starting the liberation of the
districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh," Erdogan added.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu by contrast has been less
explicit and less categorical, speaking only of the "need for some
progress in the [Karabakh] peace talks" before the two protocols can
be ratified.

Erdogan’s obduracy raises the question whether Turkey was acting
in good faith when it signed the protocols. Certainly the Turkish
government must have anticipated the outraged accusations from Baku
that it had acted in a way that "directly contravened Azerbaijan’s
national interests and cast a shadow on the fraternal relations
between the two countries."

Yerevan-based analyst Richard Giragosian told the Armenian
daily "Hayots ashkhar" last November that contrary to its
leaders’ statements, Turkey does not expect the signing of an
Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh soon. "Turkey is
not that frank in its demands related to Karabakh…. This is a test
of sorts in which the Turkish side is trying to determine the extent
of Armenia’s readiness to make concessions."

In other words, each side appears to be waiting for the other to
blink first.

Nalbandian on January 17 offered little hope for progress with
regard to a settlement of the Karabakh conflict. He said recent
statements by Azerbaijani leaders, including President Ilham Aliyev’s
renewed implicit threat to restore Baku’s control over the breakaway
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic by force, show that Baku "is not prepared
for mutual concessions in 2010." Parliamentary elections are due in
Azerbaijan in the late fall of this year.

REPRESENTATIVE OF ARMENIA’S COMMISSION: THE MATERIAL PUBLISHED IN AZERBAIJANI MASS MEDIA REGARDING YEGHISHE GEVORKYAN AND HIS FAMILY AMAZES BY THE DEEPEST DEGREE OF STUPID PRIMITIVISM

ArmInfo
2010-01-19 14:55:00

ArmInfo. The material published in Azerbaijani mass media regarding
Yeghishe Gevorkyan and his family is a regular lie and provocation.

This time, this material of the Azerbaijani sources amazes by the
deepest degree of stupid primitivism, Head of the Working Group under
the Commission on Captives, Hostages and Missing Armen Kaprielyan
told ArmInfo when commenting on the information which appeared in a
number of the Azerbaijani electron mass media regarding the citizen
of Armenia Yeghishe Gevorkyan and his family, being currently in the
territory of Azerbaijan.

To recall, Gevorkyan (a recidivist thief, 8- times convicted and
suspected in a murder) transferred to Azerbaijan with his wife and
three minor children on January 10. Azerbaijani Lider TV reported on
January 16 that the Gevorkyan family is living at one of Azerbaijan’s
military units. On January 18, this report was published by the
Azerbaijani agencies.

"The Azerbaijanis arranged a circus show with an Armenian family ‘being
unhappy hitherto but already quite happy’, moreover, the Azerbaijani
propaganda perorates about some ‘Armenian citizens having transferred
to the Azerbaijani side’. If the Azerbaijanis sing "the favorite tune
about the big question" and mean the six Armenian servicemen who fell
prisoners in Azerbaijan during 2009, I officially claim once again
that in each case we deal with non-acquaintance of the servicemen
with the area: the guys just lost their way and turned out to be
in the enemy’s territory by mistake. As for the absurd story about
a joint supper of the Armenians with the Azerbaijani servicemen,
it is nothing else but the next idiot trick of the bone-heads from
the Azerbaijani special services", Kaprilyan emphasized.

To recall, another six Armenian servicemen fell prisoners in
Azerbaijan during 2009. They are: Hrant Markosyan, Rafik Tevosyan,
Vardevan Sargsyan, Ohan Harutyunyan and Gevork Tovmasyan, as well as
Karen Harutyunyan.

UAE STRIVES TO RAISE LEVEL OF RELATIONS WITH ARMENIA

news.am

Jan 19 2010
Armenia

Armenia and the United Arab Emirates should raise the level of
bilateral relations, UAE Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan said at
the meeting with RA Vice-Premier Armen Gevorgyan.

He also underlined importance of cooperation development in atomic
power, mentioning that International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
might become a good platform for the relations’ establishment.

Armen Gevorgyan highly assessed Armenia-UAE dialogue in various
fields. The officials discussed possibility of economic cooperation
in investments, energy, agriculture, tourism, IT and banking spheres.

They also touched upon activities of interdepartmental commission
recently formed in Armenia. Gevorgyan outlined that early set up of
the commission in UAE will further cooperation efficiency between
the countries.

Armenian delegation comprising RA Energy and Natural Resources Deputy
Minister Areg Galstyan and RA Ambassador to UAE Vahagn Melikyan will
be on a visit to the country till January 11 and participate in the
Third World Future Energy Summit.

ALIYEV: "THE WAY OF SOLUTION TO NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY BECOME A PRIORITY IN THE REGULATION PROCESS"

APA
Jan 18 2010
Azerbaijan

Baku – APA. President Ilham Aliyev chaired the meeting of the Cabinet
on the outcomes of socio-economic development of 2009, APA reports.

The head of state said 2009 would remain as the year of financial
crisis in the history.

"Despite this, Azerbaijan as a part of the world economy could get
out of the critical situation with minimal losses," he said.

Ilham Aliyev said the serious social and economic reforms paved the
way for all-round development of Azerbaijan.

"In 2009 our country protected its economic interests, the people’s
social position improved. According to the outcomes of 2009, Azerbaijan
is the country that developed most rapidly in the world.

GDP grew 9.3 percent in Azerbaijan in 2009. This is a historical
achievement. Growth in the industrial production was 8.6 percent,
agriculture 3.5 percent, the inflation rate was 1.5 percent in 2009.

$9.2 billion was invested in Azerbaijan, $7.3 billion of it are
domestic investments," he said.

The head of state said large infrastructural projects were implemented
within a year, 74,000 jobs created, the level of poverty fell by 11
percent, the country’s currency resources made up $20.4 billion.

Moreover, 64 schools, 59 medical establishments were built,
5 olympic-sport complexes were opened, new roads constructed in
Azerbaijan in 2009.

"Important steps were also taken in the foreign policy in 2009. The
number of our friends and strategic partners increase". Touching
upon the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the president said the way of
solution to the problem had already been determined and the principle
of territorial integrity became a priority in the regulation process.

Minister of Finance Samir Sharifov, Chairman of the Central Bank
Board of Governors Elman Rustamov, Minister of Communication and
Information Technology Ali Abbasov and Chairman of the State Social
Protection Fund Salim Muslumov made reports on socio-economic measures
carried out in the country last year. In his final speech, President
Aliyev noted that Azerbaijan relies on its resources and there is a
strong will to further strengthen the country: "We are proud of these
realities. Azerbaijan does not have an economy of transition period,
today Azerbaijan has liberal and sustainable economy relying on its
resources". The head of state underlined that implementation of social
programs and infrastructure projects would also be continued in 2010.

EDITOR IN-CHIEF OF RUSSIA’S KOSMOPOLIS NEWSPAPER: AZERBAIJAN’S POSITION IS FAR MORE CONSTRUCTIVE AND MATURE

Today
688.html
Jan 18 2010
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with editor-in-chief of Russian Kosmopolis newspaper,
political expert Denis Dragunski.

Recently, Turkish PM Erdogan paid an official visit to Moscow. In your
opinion, is it just an official visit scheduled in advance or there are
very important economic negotiations related to gas deal, pipeline,
and geopolitical ones related to resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict behind it?

I think this important and high-level visit focused on both economic
and geopolitical issues. However, I do not expect major breakthroughs
is the Moscow-Ankara, Moscow-Baku and Moscow-Yerevan lines. Erdogan’s
Moscow visit and high-level negotiations were rather traditional
respect for the major nuclear and energy power such as Russia.

Pipeline bypassing Russia will be built, of course. Europe have
already learned lessons from "gas wars" on the Russia-Ukrainian border.

Everything happens at the close patch of southern Europe (Southwest
Asia), next to Russia which insists on a zone of its interests
in the former Soviet Union while peaceful Europe wants it to be
so without a scandal. It wants new relationships along the axis of
Ankara-Baku-Yerevan to be built without a scandal. Russia, of course,
wants to embed itself in this so-called New South Caucasus system.

However, I do not see Russia’s any specific role in this respect. In
the late 1980’s and mid 1990s, the following geopolitical scenario was
considered (as opposed to the famous "Goble Plan"): Russia should take
Armenia under its wing to ensure its survival and prosperity and make
"Russian Israel" in the South Caucasus and Asia.

To put it mildly, this plan was senseless for two reasons. First,
Russia had neither money nor the technical capacity to do so.

Secondly, it is easy to imagine scale of the confrontation with
Azerbaijan and Turkey on this issue. Thank God, this plan has not been
used as the basis of Russia’s policy in the South Caucasus. As far as
I know, today Russia has no concept of its presence (influence, games)
in this region at all. It has no political ideology, no real plans,
strong economic projects, no action, except a very vague statements
about "traditional zone of interests" and establishment of inefficient
structures like CSTO.

The past year has been very active in terms of progress in the Karabakh
conflict with no real steps. This year Baku expects real steps from
Yerevan. In your opinion, what is Russia’s role in Armenia’s possible
withdrawal from the occupied lands? What steps Russia may take towards
its CSTO partner to achieve advances in this regard?

Russia is unlikely to be able or want to influence Armenia in terms of
its withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh. This is primarily because the
active pressure on Yerevan would lead to Armenia’s withdrawal from
the CSTO and, consequently, to another fiasco in Russia’s diplomacy.

Another reason for Russia’s caution in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
is quite simple. The fact of long-term and intractable conflict
justifies Russia’s presence in the South Caucasus. "Intermediaries"
and "guarantors" are respected everywhere in the world. All these
meetings and conversations are no more than a diplomatic game.

Moreover, there is reason to believe that Russia, Europe and the
United States have already formed a group of international officials
who have long and reliable "source of income" in such conflicts.

Therefore, the establishment of the New South Caucasus is, first of
all, the affairs of the countries in the region..

Turkey has become more than a serious player in the Caucasus for a
short period of time. However, Ankara did not hide its ambitions to
become a regional leader in the Caucasus. To what degree are Ankara’s
ambitions realistic? What is Moscow’s attitude towards them?

I think Turkey is truly interested in boosting its foothold in
the South Caucasus. This is related to actual failure of Turkey’s
"European project". Despite close and very positive economic and
military-political ties with Europe, Turkey will not be accepted to
the EU in the foreseeable future.

This is the objective course of things. Therefore, quite possibly,
Turkey has decided to launch a major new multi-year regional
project and to become a bridge that will connect the South Caucasus
countries (and, possibly, Transcaspian) with Europe. Of course, some
representatives of Russia’s political class do not like it. Russia
has no real possibilities, but to be honest, there is no reason to
impede it.

Apparently, Turkey has taken up this matter seriously. It was reported
that after Moscow Erdogan will go to Yerevan especially because the
Constitutional Court has confirmed legitimacy of the Armenian-Turkish
protocols.

However, it was stated even at the highest level in Turkey that no real
steps to normalize relations with Armenia will be taken until they see
similar steps in Yerevan in terms of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict …

That’s right, since the Karabakh problem dramatically hinders creation
of the New South Caucasus. Karabakh holds the entire region in a
state of fairly strong, but a dangerous balance of military forces
and political aspirations.

Prior to his visit Erdogan said that he it would be nice to get to
Istanbul by car from Baku, passing through Nagorno-Karabakh, Yerevan
and Ankara without any danger and without any boundaries. Actually,
it is a wise approach. I would call it "The infrastructure on top of
politics. Roads are more important than borders. Economic integration
is more important than sovereignty. "

It would be really great if you built a modern road from Baku, through
the whole of Azerbaijan, including Karabakh, via Armenia and Turkey
onwards to Europe. The Nagorno Karabakh problem will be solved much
easier if significant economic progress is achieved during construction
of new infrastructure and implementation of regional integration,
as well as the rule of law and guarantees to human rights are ensured.

In other words, it will open up new innovative and effective ways to
solve this long and painful problem in an integrated and updated the
South Caucasus in cooperation with Turkey.

Problem of the New South Caucasus is largely a problem of Georgia. New
South Caucasus is difficult to imagine without Georgia, and Georgia –
with no close ties with Azerbaijan and Armenia. If Georgia gets stuck,
politically and psychologically, a desire to return Abkhazia and
South Ossetia, and all its achievements in reforms will be shattered
and it will become a "sick man of the South Caucasus."

In this sense, Azerbaijan’s position seems to me far more constructive
and mature. Not giving up sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan
has a peaceful negotiation policies, patiently developing tools for
a possible solution to the problem through political integration,
economic development and respect for legal principles.

Therefore, relations with Turkey are important for the entire South
Caucasus, and especially for Azerbaijan, which is the most economically
powerful country in the region.