Author: Kharatian Ani

Regnum, Russia
March 23 2006

Serzh Sarkisyan: gas price may be abated for Armenia

Price for gas, supplied by Russia to Armenia, may be considerably
lower, stated Armenian Defense Minister, co-Chairman of
Armenian-Russian intergovernmental commission Serzh Sarkisyan.

`After meeting of presidents of Armenia and Russia in Moscow, huge
work has been done. In accordance with order of President Robert
Kocharyan and after discussion in early March with the prime
minister, I sent a letter with a number of proposals to Gazprom’s
head Mr. Miller. On Friday we received Miller’s answer: Gazprom is
ready to sign appropriate documents till the end of March, which will
enable population and producers to pay lower prices comparing with
earlier ones,’ stated Sarkisyan. `I may not name the price, but I do
not believe the price rising will heavily influence budgets of
population and producers’, added he, Radio Liberty informs.

It is remarkable, Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan stated,
speaking with journalists today, that people should not expect
changing of gas tariffs. `Price of $110, fixed in the bilateral
agreement, is a final one and changes should not be expected,’
mentioned he. Also, the Armenian premier pointed out that the parties
specify possible variants of compensations.

It should be reminded, that average gas price for Armenian consumer
will total $162.95 per 1,000 cubic meters on April 10. For consumers,
using up to 10,000 cubic meters per month (for population), the
tariff will total 90 drams ($0.20) per 1 cubic meter; for consumers,
using more then 10,000 cubic meters (mainly enterprises of energy
sphere), tariff will total $146.51 per 1000 cubic meters. Gas tariff
will increase by about 52.5%, for enterprises – by 85.2%.
Recalculation of gas tariffs for domestic consumer is caused be fact
that price of gas, supplied to Armenia by Russia will nearly double –
from $56 up to $110 per 1,000 cubic meters since April 1. But the
Russian holding postponed introduction of new tariffs in Armenia till
April 1, and the talks between Yerevan and Moscow on the matter still
continue.

EDUCATIONAL CENTER OF ARMENIAN FRONTIER TROOPS FOUNDED IN YEREVAN WITH
FINANCING OF U.S. GOVERNMENT

YEREVAN, MARCH 23, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. An educational
center of RA Frontier Troops was founded on March 22 2006 in
Yerevan. The center for repaired with the assistance of the
U.S. government. The document on transferring the construction to the
Armenian side was signed by U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans and
Commander of RA Frontier Troops Armen Abrahamian. Within the
framework of struggle against illegal circulation of drugs and
cooperation in the law-enforcement sphere the U.S. government has
invested 130 thousand USD for finishing the repairs of the
building. The repairs started a year ago by investing 84 thousand USD
within the framework of the U.S. Embassy’s program on control over the
export and security of borders. As Embassy representatives informed,
the educational center of Frontier Troops is intended for training of
both beginning frontier guards and those doing service. After the
repairs of the first part of the educational center some groups of
frontier guards took part in courses with a duration of 1-2 months
preparing for replacing the Russian frontier troops in Zvartnots
airport. Soon it’s envisaged to organize courses on using equipment on
passport decoding. Henceforth conscripts won’t serve on land borders
of the country, therefore the frontier guards should have training in
order to learn how to control borders with conscripts being
absent. “For sovereign states a good guard of borders is one of the
most important problems,” Ambassador Evans mentioned. He emphasized
that the investments made for retraining of the Armenian frontier
forces proceed from the interests of the Armenian people and the whole
international community. As Armen Abrahamian, Commander of RA Frontier
Troops, mentioned, the U.S. government renders assistance to the
frontier troops within the framework of the program on control over
the export and safety of borders made between the Armenian and U.S.
governments in 2000. By this program, starting from 2001, the Service
of Frontier Control of Frontier Troops of Armenia has been given
transport means and instruments of examination, radio stations,
computers, cars and in May 2005 the repaired and equipped building of
Bagratashen check point was put into exploitation. However, according
to Abrahamian, all these resources won’t ensure the desirable result
without training and retraining of the specialists, the possibility
for which is created at the educational center.

Armenian National Committee of America – Western Region
104 North Belmont Street, Suite 200
Glendale, California 91206
Phone: 818.500.1918 Fax: 818.246.7353
[email protected]

PRESS RELEASE
Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Contact: Armen Carapetian
Tel: (818) 500-1918

ANCA-WR APPLAUDS LOS ANGELES TIMES FOR EDITORIAL IN SUPPORT OF
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RECOGNITION

LOS ANGELES, CA – The Armenian National Committee of America – Western
Region (ANCA-WR) today applauded the Los Angeles Times for publishing
an editorial calling on the US Government to officially recognize the
Armenian Genocide.

The editorial entitled `It was genocide’ appeared in the March 22nd
edition of the Los Angeles Times and highlighted reports that the US
Ambassador to Armenia, John Marshall Evans, faced early termination of
his post due to comments he made affirming the Armenian Genocide. The
editorial explained that while the Armenian Genocide is a textbook
example of genocide, the US Government has shied away from using the
term genocide in describing the annihilation of Armenians by Ottoman
Turkey due to its current-day political relations with the Turkish
Government. The Los Angeles Times went on to praise countries that
have passed resolutions acknowledging the genocide and expressed hope
that the US Government would one day act in kind.

`We commend the LA Times for taking a principled stance on the
Armenian Genocide, which is a crime against all humanity,’ commented
Zanku Armenian, a member of the ANCA-WR Board of Directors. `The
editorial position of the LA Times joins a growing list of prominent
newspapers around the country that have taken similar positions
including the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune and many
others. This serves as a major blow to Turkey’s genocide denial
campaign and sends a clear message that it is time for the US
Government to reaffirm the facts of the Armenian Genocide rather than
persecute those who dare speak the truth.’

Armenian and ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian were quoted along
with Congressman Adam Schiff (CA-29) in a Los Angeles Daily News
article just one day before the Los Angeles Times editorial
appeared. The Daily News article reported on Ambassador Evans’ pending
recall that was first publicized by California Courier Publisher Harut
Sassounian on March 9th. Congressional members like Representatives
Schiff, Armenian Issues Caucus Co-chairman Frank Pallone (NJ-6) and
Grace Napolitano (CA-38) have since been probing US State Department
officials, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, for an
explanation of these disturbing reports.

The controversy ensued following comments Ambassador Evans made last
year. `I will today call it the Armenian Genocide,’ the Ambassador
said speaking in front of a public audience in 2005. `I think it is
unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe in
calling things by their name.’ Ambassador Evans also disclosed that he
had consulted with a legal advisor at the State Department who had
confirmed that the events of 1915 were `genocide by definition.’

Within days after his remarks and the conclusion of a speaking tour of
Armenian American communities, Ambassador Evans was apparently forced
to issue a statement clarifying that his references to the Armenian
Genocide were his personal views and did not represent a change in US
policy. He subsequently issued a correction to this statement,
replacing a reference to the genocide with the word `tragedy.’

Despite the apparent trouble the Ambassador’s remarks had caused
inside the State Department, the American Foreign Service Association
(AFSA), in recognition of his honesty and commitment to principle,
decided to honor Ambassador Evans with the `Christian A. Herter
Award,’ recognizing creative thinking and intellectual courage within
the Foreign Service. Sadly, as Washington Post staff writer Glenn
Kessler revealed on June 9th, AFSA withdrew its award following
pressure from `very serious people from the State Department.’

ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian, in a letter sent to Secretary Rice on
March 10th, wrote that, `the prospect that a U.S. envoy’s posting –
and possibly his career – has been cut short due to his honest and
accurate description of a genocide is profoundly offensive to American
values and US standing abroad – particularly in light of President
Bush’s call for moral clarity in the conduct of our international
affairs.’

The ANCA letter also urged Secretary Rice to respond in a timely
manner to the series of written questions on this matter submitted on
February 16th by Congressman Schiff during her testimony before the
House International Relations Committee. Among these questions was a
specific request that the Secretary assure the Committee that the
Department of State has not taken – and will not take – any punitive
action against Ambassador Evans for speaking out about the Armenian
Genocide.

The ANCA is the largest and most influential Armenian American
grassroots political organization. Working in coordination with a
network of offices, chapters, and supporters throughout the United
States and affiliated organizations around the world, the ANCA
actively advances the concerns of the Armenian American community on a
broad range of issues.

AZG Armenian Daily #052, 23/03/2006

Armenian Genocide

AFTER THE ANTI-ARMENIAN RALLIES IN LION

Prefect Jean Pierre Lacroix of Rouen, France, made a
statement on the ban of rallies of Turkish
organizations denying the Armenian Genocide. When the
Armenian Association of France accused Lacroix of
failing to stop the April 24 rally against erecting a
monument to the Armenian Genocide victims, the Rouen
perfect stated that the law did not allow him to do
so. Today he has the right to ban the rallies in view
of the last precedent. “I would not approve of such
rallies,” he said.

PRESS RELEASE
Armenia Fund USA, Inc.
152 Madison Ave, Suite 803
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-5307
E-mail: [email protected]

The Many “Faces” of Armenia Fund USA’s Projects
~With its multifaceted programs and initiatives, the Fund’s outreach and
socio-economic impact continue to make a difference in thousands of lives~

NEW YORK, New York – Non-governmental organizations, working hard to make a
difference in lives of beneficiaries, can get caught up in the day to day
whirlwind of raising funds, strategic planning, and program implementation
in order to effect much-needed change. In the course of “good works”, it is
important to guard that the focus on statistics and dollar signs does not
blur the reason we are all working so passionately.

Armenia Fund USA (the Fund) is not an exception to this. As we look back on
the large-scale projects which have distinguished the Fund and Hayastan
All-Armenian Fund’s other 18 worldwide affiliates, we would like to share
some of the “Faces” of those whose lives have been forever changed by our
programs and initiatives.

For example, look at the small village of Nor Getashen. Located in the
northern part of Nagorno-Karabakh, this village was partially destroyed
because of the Armenian-Azeri conflict which began in 1991. Fearing for
their lives and those of their families, many inhabitants scattered into
Russia and other parts of the world. But today, houses and the village
school teem with laughter, songs and smiles of men, women and children who
have become the new pioneers in their own homeland. And, contributing
largely to the repopulation of the village is the provision of safe drinking
water made possible by American-Armenian businessman Norman Miller’s gift to
Armenia Fund USA for a new water system.

In Stepanakert, the region’s capital, a once war-ravaged and destroyed
polyclinic will reopen as the new “Armine Pagoumian Polyclinic and
Diagnostic Center” in May 2006. Made possible by American-Armenian business
leader Mr. George Pagoumian, the facility has state-of-the-art equipment and
telemedicine technology, and world class medical training designed by two
leading U.S. medical centers. The Polyclinic will not only ensure
high-quality medical and healthcare services for the region’s people but it
will, because of the advanced training and opportunity to develop new
skills, provide the clinic’s staff with increased job security and
advancement opportunities.

Today it is not uncommon to see subsistence farm families struggling to
barely eek out a living from their small fields – with some of these
families living without, literally, any protein in their daily diets. But
through Armenia Fund USA’s Agricultural Initiative many of these families
will have an opportunity for a raised standard of living. In May 2006, as
part of a three-year, three-region initiative, 300-400 subsistence farmers
in Haterk (Mardakert region) will be invited to join the first Agricultural
Development Association (ADA). They will learn how the ADA will provide
local jobs and technical support, access to large farm equipment, and small
loans to help establish family businesses and expand agriculture production
of various products. Most importantly, the program will combat poverty in
the region, thus allowing the families to secure a more economically and
stable future for themselves and their homeland.

Armenia Fund USA, through the generous support of its donors, continues
touching lives of thousands of people in Armenia and Karabakh. However, this
is not only restricted to large-scale projects, but also through smaller –
but badly needed- projects which have captured the vision of some of the
Fund’s donors. In their continuing commitment to effect social change,
several have, over the years, asked Armenia Fund USA to help facilitate
their gifts for projects such as the new program to institute preventative
measures against the threat of the Avian Influenza in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Other examples are the renovation of the heating system in Nork orphanage in
Yerevan.

In May 2006, Kevork Toroyan, Chairman, and Irina Lazarian, Executive
Director, will travel to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh to review the progress
of some recent initiatives. Winding their way from village to village and
city to city, they will once again assess the overall economic impact and
increased regional stability which have helped shape the future of the
region and its people.

But more than that, they will be able to see the “Faces” of the projects and
those who will benefit from the new initiatives. They will shake the
calloused hand of the aging grandmother who works her small field manually;
they will see children who are now safe from once threatening water-borne
diseases caused by antiquated and contaminated pipelines; they will see
farmers’ carts filled with produce heading to markets, now accessible by the
new North-South Highway, and they will celebrate as the doors of the new
Armine Pagoumian Polyclinic and Diagnostic Center open to hundreds of
people.

ABOUT ARMENIA FUND USA: ARMENIA FUND USA, founded in 1992, was one of the
first of Hayastan All-Armenian Fund’s 18 international affiliates and serves
constituents in all states east of the Mississippi. As a non-profit,
non-governmental, nonsectarian organization, the Fund represents all
Armenian constituents.

Armenia Fund USA is the largest contributor among the 18 international
affiliates – supporting strategic infrastructure projects in Armenia and
Karabakh, and having helped build 138 miles of roads, 100 miles of
waterways, 36 schools, 3 electric transmission networks, 210 residential
buildings and 15 healthcare institutions.

Armenia Fund USA’s Mission is the development of strategic socio-economic
infrastructure in Armenia and Karabakh, focusing on major projects such as
major highways, schools, drinking water to communities and humanitarian
programs in education, training and medical facilities. The Fund has adopted
a policy to go “Beyond Bricks and Mortar” to provide sustainability to
projects it sponsors.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
—————————————— —-
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +37410. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +37410. 562543
Email: [email protected]

PRESS RELEASE

21-03-2006

Italian TV program on the Past, Present and Future of Armenian-Turkish
Relations

The Italian television channel RAI UNO broadcast a live program, on
Armenian-Turkish relations on the morning of March 20. Guests on the program
were Rouben Shugarian, Armenia’s Ambassador to the Italian Republic, and
Ugur Ziyal, Turkey’s Ambassador to the Italian Republic.

The program began with an interview with Charles Aznavour conducted by a
journalist who had been in the camps of Auschwitz.

Regarding current relations, Armenia’s Ambassador repeated Armenia’s
readiness to establish diplomatic relations with Turkey without setting any
preconditions. He mentioned that keeping the borders closed contradicts the
spirit of the European Union.

In this respect, the Armenian Ambassador referred to President Kocharian’s
letter to the Turkish PM Recep Erdogan sent last year where he stressed that
governments are responsible for the development of bilateral relations, and
they have no right to shift the responsibility to historians. It is
necessary to set an intergovernmental commission to discuss and find
solutions to all bilateral problems, the President had said.

The program also included visual and documentary materials and photographs.
This broadcast was the second time in two months that RaiUNO had referred to
the Armenian Genocide. The first one, on January 20, focused on 20th century
genocides, and began with the Armenian Genocide. At that time, the Turkish
Ambassador had objected.

Further, the Turkish diplomat accused the Italian press of one-sidedness,
noting that Turkey does not adhere to a policy of denial but tries to search
for the truth, and thus proposed to set a joint commission of Armenian and
Turkish historians. Turkish historian Omer Turan had joined the Turkish
ambassador on the RaiUNO program.

Ambassador Shugarian stated that the Turkish interpretation of the issue
does not only contradict the Armenian viewpoint but that of the
international community, the vast majority of which including the Italian
parliament has acknowledged the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian diplomat
stressed that it is impossible to rewrite history or make amendments to it
by means of censorship. The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact and is
out of the question; the Armenian Diaspora are a vivid illustration of it.
“Can you imagine a commission of Jewish and German historians trying to
determine whether or not Auschwitz was real,” said Ambassador Shugarian

KHOSROV HAROUTIUNIAN CONSIDERS THAT 2006 TO BE YEAR OF KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT

Noyan Tapan
Mar 20 2006

YEREVAN, MARCH 20, NOYAN TAPAN. The Karabakh problem will be solved
by the third President of the Third Republic (Robert Kocharian is
the second President of the Third Republic: “NT”) who will be from
“lower part, people.” David Hakobian, the Chairman of the Marxist Party
of Armenia expressed such an opinion at the March 17 debate at the
“Hayeli” club. In this way he disproved the optimism of his opponent,
Khosrov Haroutiunian, the Chairman of the Christian-Democratic Union
of Armenia, on the issue that the year of 2006 must be the year of
the problem settlement what, according to the CDUA Chairman, doesn’t
at all mean that Armenia must go to compromises under military threats.

According to Khosrov Haroutiunian, during the whole period of
the Karabakh conflict settlement, so beneficial conditions for
the settlement as there are today have never been created: the
international community understands that not to settle the conflict
means to danger one’s own interests, and that one may not settle
this conflict without taking into account the possible usage of the
right to free self-determination of Artsakh. He doesn’t consider
accidental that U.S. Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried and OSCE Minsk
Group American Co-Chairman Steven Mann first visited Azerbaijan:
today the international community has something to say to Azerbaijan,
the ball is in Azerbaijan’s field.

Kh.Haroutiunian considers that results of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani Presidents’ meeting in Rambouillet, and more correctly,
the absence of those weren’t unexpected. He reminded particularly the
RA President’s formulation: “poor expectations.” This, according to
the speaker, wasn’t accidental as immediately before the Rambouillet,
the Azerbaijani side presented its uncompromising position concerning
the Nagorno Karabakh problem, and possibilities of settling the problem
in military way were already spoken about before the Rambouillet.

Khosrov Haroutiunian is far of the opinion that the Rambouillet makes
war developments more probable: the Rambouillet only facted that one
of the sides isn’t yet ready to make decisions in the most serious
negotiation process.

According to him, the Azerbaijani side’s warlike statements,
militarist hysteria aren’t a challenge addressed to Armenia, those are
addressed to the international community. The Azerbaijani political
administration just attmepts to use the situation to put pressure on
the international community and form agreements reached during the
Rambouillet-Prague negotiations in its faviour. David Hakobian in his
turn expressed a viewpoint that the Artsakh problem has already reached
the status that all the variants of the so-called mutual compromises
in the future diplomatic processes have already exhausted themselves:
“Everything or nothing” there is no alternative, and the Rambouillet
proved this again. The issue may not be the subject of a negotiation
process any more, the moment of populating and re-populating historic
Artsakh and adopting a new military doctrine has already come.” In
his opinion, right from the start the Armenian diplomatic tactics is
a defeatist, yeilding, so-called “beggar’s” diplomacy. “Today we have
already come with a victorious sword, and we must be the dectating
part,” the leader of the Marxist Party stated.

WHO WILL “DETERMINE” NAGORNO KARABAKH DE JURE?
Alexander Grigorian

Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
20 March 2006

It took the Azerbaijanis and us many years to realize the declarative
nature of the two basic principles – the right for self-determination
and territorial integrity – set down in the UN and OSCE documents. More
exactly, our neighbours and we realized that the real correlation of
these two tenets of the international law depend on the political
reality, determined by the upholding of one of these tenets by the
international community or juggling of these two principles to solve
geopolitical problems. However, better late than never.

With regard to this the words of Movladi Udugov, the chief ideologist
of Maskhadov Ichkeria, which does not exist any more, come to my mind,
which he pronounced in his interview with the Yerevan-based news
agency. Movladi Udugov gave, in my opinion, an absolutely definite
and correct answer to the question what his vision of the solution
of the eternal dilemma between the right for self-determination
and territorial integrity was. “Famous dilemmas are the result
of a question that was originally put falsely,” said number one
ideologist of Ichkeria. “We (Ichkerian leaders – A.G.) are little
interested in a so-called international recognition. This recognition
would not guarantee peace. The international politics acts with a
consideration of real forces and interests.” And what do we have with
regard to the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, if the OSCE, under the
auspices of which the peace settlement is carried on, recognized all
the parties of the conflict to have reason? In this connection the
announcement of the former OSCE Chairman-in-Office Flavio Kotti on the
principles of settlement at the OSCE summit in Lisbon is notable. As
the second principle of settlement he mentioned the legal status
of Nagorno Karabakh on the basis of self-determination, which would
give the highest degree of self-governance to Nagorno Karabakh within
Azerbaijan. In other words, on the one hand, the right of the Armenians
of Karabakh was recognized, but on the other hand, to a degree that
would be determined by Azerbaijan. Stepanakert and Yerevan rejected
the principles of the summit in Lisbon. Baku (which was at the same
time the author of these principles) accepted them, because under
these principles Azerbaijan would maintain its territorial integrity,
and would, in addition, determine the degree of “self-determination”
of the Armenians of Karabakh. Then the concept of the “common state”
emerged as a way of settlement based on compromise. However, this
proposal was rejected by Baku, because this concept would take away
from Azerbaijan the right to “determine” the Armenian population
of Nagorno Karabakh, although Azerbaijan would still maintain its
territorial integrity. And the international community, namely the
OSCE Minsk Group (more exactly the three co-chairmen), is seeking for
combining these two principles, offering a “draw” to the conflict
parties. For its part, this means that in this stage of historical
development of the region the international community (i.e. the West
plus Russia) is interested in having the Armenian population live in
Nagorno Karabakh, as well as in preventing the secession of ethnic
formations in Azerbaijan, which would destabilize the situation in the
region. And in case of defending one of the two basic principles of
the international law by the West and Russia they would not achieve
this aim. For instance, if the issue were resolved on the basis of
the right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination,
Azerbaijan would either be divided into two independent states or
would have to cede part of its territory to Armenia. And if the
resolution were based on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,
no Armenians would stay to live in Nagorno Karabakh. Thus, the
application of the formula “self-determination minus territorial
integrity” to the settlement of the ethnic conflicts in the South
Caucasus would divide the country into independent ethnic states, and
the formula ” inviolability of frontiers minus self-determination”
would result in ethnic clearing. However, I think, the application
of the formula “self-determination plus territorial integrity”
in resolving ethnic political and ethnic territorial conflicts
is not free of risk either. The point is that the attempts at
combining these two principles might cause a “short circuit”. And
the consequences of this short circuit might be much more tragic
than the dissolution of the state or ethnic clearing. For instance,
if there were not for the Belovezh agreements which prepared the legal
basis for the division of the former USSR into 15 independent states,
and the leadership headed by Gorbachov sought for the resolution of
ethnic conflicts by way of combining these two principles, an ethnic
explosion would happen on the one sixth of the Earth, which could
cause a nuclear threat. Therefore, the fear of such a “circuit”
compels one of the conflict parties to yield. This was the case in
the former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, which “divorced on good
faith.” The situation was right the opposite in former Yugoslavia. As
a result even the Serbian state may soon lose Kosovo, as well as
Montenegro, which may become independent states. This is the reality
that needs to be taken into account by both the conflict parties and
the mediators. This, however, does not mean that any of the conflict
parties (Nagorno Karabakh, or Azerbaijan, for instance) should make
a unilateral compromise. The art of politics is to tune external
interests to its own interests. For this aim Azerbaijan applied the
factor of oil, which brought it significant political dividends at
the OSCE summit in Lisbon. And the overestimation of this factor by
the Baku authorities is the misunderstanding that Azerbaijan keeps
the international community under its thumb and not vice versa, which
did not allow them to achieve a settlement of the Karabakh conflict,
favourable for them. By the way, the former leadership of Armenia
also believed the “almightiness” of the factor of oil, and fearing
international isolation of the republic, accepted the principles of
resolution of the Karabakh conflict, that favoured Azerbaijan. However,
the Western community and Russia appear to be interested in having
Armenian population living in Nagorno Karabakh. Considering this,
we have to carry on persuading the international mediators, as well
as the entire civilized world, that with a vertical relationship
between Baku and Azerbaijan no Armenians would continue to live in
Nagorno Karabakh. The impression is that the international mediators
can now better imagine the consequences of returning Nagorno Karabakh
to the constitutional hug of Azerbaijan. It is not accidental that
the concept of a common state proposed by them earlier, as well as
the plan to hold a referendum on the status of Nagorno Karabakh in
the present territory of Nagorno Karabakh are efforts to give the
people of NKR an opportunity of de jure self-determination. This is the
reason of the negative reaction of official Baku, which was once again
confirmed during the negotiations between the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan in Rambouillet, France. In 1997 the chairman of the
Committee of External Relations of the National Assembly of Armenia
Hovanes Igitian told the reporter of the Respublika Armenia Newspaper:
“I would point out some methodological shortcomings. Unfortunately,
I think, the dispute on the existence of NKR, its population, the
problems of development of Nagorno Karabakh has been shifted to a
theoretical plane: territorial integrity or self-determination. On
the one hand, this complicates the issue, on the other hand, makes
it primitive. The issue is much more complicated…” The security
of the Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh should underlie the
settlement. This security, however, is impossible if Nagorno Karabakh
is joined to Azerbaijan.

And if the West and Russia are interested in having the Armenian
population of Karabakh live in Karabakh, they are simply obliged
to prevent a return to a vertical relationship between Baku and
Stepanakert. However, another question might occur. How long will
the West and Russia be interested in having the Armenian population
in Nagorno Karabakh? The answer of this question greatly depends on
NKR and certainly Armenia. The two Armenian states should interest the
international community by their actions and manner of existence. This
can be achieved in two ways. First, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh need
to adopt the values and lifestyle of Western democracies. Second,
they should seek to benefit the realization of interests of the
world and regional leaders in their external policies. The latter is
more important than the former, because the world is not interested
in Armenia both in terms of its energy resources and geographical
position. Consequently, Armenia needs to manipulate the interests of
other states that influence the security and prospects of development
of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh in one way or another. Non-standard
steps should be taken, which might not correspond to our former ideas
of friends and foes. In politics there are no friends and foes forever,
only interests are constant. If our main purpose is to prevent the
return of Nagorno Karabakh to the constitutional field of Azerbaijan,
providing the security of Armenia and NKR, the foreign policies of
the two Armenian states should be defined accordingly. Emotions
and counterarguments emanating from the Armenian mentalities, as
well as militaristic threats would not only be impertinent but also
prejudicial. The point is that realities may change as life goes
on. For instance, in the present stage of settlement of the Karabakh
conflict the official stance of the Baku authorities is directed at
changing the existing reality, which is, on the whole, beneficial
for the Armenian parties. It is a challenge that we should cope with
duly, using all our potential. A pragmatic foreign policy and full
correspondence with the standards of Western democratic societies
with an increasing military potential might be a way. No alternatives
to this can be seen. We may reach international recognition of NKR by
becoming part of the interests of the world and regional powers through
our pragmatic actions. Consequently, with a de facto self-determination
we should seek for a de jure self-determination all by ourselves. In
other words, everything depends on us, and not Moscow, Washington,
Paris or Ankara, which do not have constant friends and constant foes,
as it is accepted in big politics.

ARMENIA-EU ACTIVITY PROGRAM ELABORATION PROCESS DISCUSSED AT ARMENIAN
DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER’S MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF CIVIL
SOCIETY

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
March 17 2006

YEREVAN, March 17. /ARKA/. Process of Armenia-EU activity program
elaboration as part of European Union’s European Neighborhood policy
was discussed Friday at Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Armen
Bayburdyan’s meeting with representatives of the country’s civil
society. The ministry press service told ARKA News Agency that the
results of Armenia-EU negotiations second stage held on March 6 in
Brussels were presented at the meeting. According to the press
release, Bayburdyan said the negotiations produced positive results –
an accord was reached on some points. He also spoke on some issues to
be discussed by Armenian Government and European Commission soon. The
sides also stressed importance of interaction with civil society in
this process. M.V. -0—-

U.S. VIEWS ON AZERI-ARMENIAN DISPUTE

United Press International
March 15 2006

BAKU, Azerbaijan, March 15 (UPI) — The U.S. co-chair of the mediating
OSCE Minsk Group, Steven Mann visited the Azeri capital Baku Tuesday.

Ambassador Mann, the State Department’s senior advisor for Eurasia,
and State Department Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian
Affairs Daniel Fried met Azerbaijani officials to discuss the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, the AssA-Irada news agency said.

AssA-Irada said that during a press conference Mann urged both nations
to seek a negotiated settlement despite the lack of concrete results
of during February talks between Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders in
Rambouillet, France.

Following the collapse of those discussions, a number of Azerbaijani
politicians threatened to use the country’s surging oil revenues
to acquire more military hardware and re-launch a war to resolve
the dispute.

Mann told journalists “There are issues of concern for both parties
that are reflected in their positions. But the resumption of
hostilities would be a tragedy for both countries. No war will lead
to a solution either now or in 20 years.

“At the same time, in considering the military option, Azerbaijan
should take into account other factors, such as the importance of
energy projects that will bring profits to the country. America is
cooperating with Azerbaijan and Armenia and deems both as friendly
nations,” he said.

In one of its first foreign policy initiatives after coming to power
five years ago, the Bush administration attempted in April 2001 to
mediate a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The two
countries fought a three-year war over Nagorno-Karabakh, which ended
with a 1994 cease-fire, leaving Armenia occupying the traditionally
Armenian enclave.