Author: Tambiyan Samvel

APPEAL COURT CLARIFIES OBSERVERS’ STATEMENT

Panorama.am
20:26 15/05/2007

Alina Yengoyan, press secretary of the appeal court, clarified on
court files on election processes, which were also reported in the
observers’ statement.

The observers’ statement says that court rulings were in some cases
arbitrary and not consistent. The report pinpointed to court cases
canceling the registration of candidates in 19 and 39 election
communities.

According to the clarification, Armavir court canceled the registration
of Hakob Hakobyan and Susanna Harutunyan because the court found two
and three fake signatures in the nomination list of the candidates.

Vayots Zor court received an application to cancel the nomination
of a candidate in election community 39 because he used the Armenian
flag during the campaign, which is banned by law. The court decided
to warn the candidate to refrain from such actions but it did not
cancel the nomination.

"In both cases, there were no legal contradictions in the court
rulings. Therefore the court rulings cannot be described as not
arbitrary and non-consistent," Yengoyan told Panorama.am.

CEC QUALIFIES OYP VICE-CHAIRWOMAN’S STATEMENTS AS FALSE AND PROVOCATIVE

Noyan Tapan
May 15 2007

YEREVAN, MAY 15, NOYAN TAPAN. On May 15, RA Central Electoral
Commission refuted the publication of the same day in Haykakan Zhamanak
daily under the title "Theft", according to which at Syunik region’s
polling station N 38/23 CEC added 58 ballot-papers received in favor
of Impeachment bloc to votes received by ARFD. According to CEC,
OYP Vice-Chairwoman Heghine Bisharian’s statement that until May 14,
0 votes had been given for Impeachment at polling stations N 38/25
and 38/25, but as a result of May 14 recalculation the data became
58 and 169, respectively, does not correspond to reality, either. It
is mentioned that no application of recalculation was received at
electoral district N 38, no recalculation was done at polling stations
N 38/25 and 38/28 and the votes received by the Impeachment bloc when
summing up results at the above mentioned polling stations were 58
and 169, respectively.

"Once more we witness Heghine Bisharian’s false and provocative
statements, which have nothing in common with real facts," CEC
statement read.

OSCE CHAIRMAN-IN-OFFICE ADDRESSES THE GOVERNMENTS OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN

ArmRadio.am
15.05.2007 13:56

The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Spain’s Foreign Minister Miguel Angel
Moratinos has declared that his visit to the Karabakh conflict zone
is aimed to expedite the settlement of the conflict. Azerbaijani
television informs that Moratinos addressed the Governments of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, noting that "Spain is ready to support the efforts
of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs."

On June 4 the OSCE Chairman-in-Office will visit Baku and later
in Yerevan.

"I call on the Governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to undertake
actions corresponding to the current political situation and take
into consideration the mediators’ efforts, Miguel Angel Moratinos said.

Noyan Tapan Highlights weekly
May 14, 2007

Aliyev says to Azeri refugees: "Don’t hope to return home soon."

by Haroutiun Khachatrian

On May 4 the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev made a speech in
the town of Ramani not far from Baku, presenting, as he put it, the
"essence of negotiations" around Nagorno Karabakh. The speech caused
quite a great resonance, including in the Armenian press.

Before turning to the subject proper, I’d like to note that a
considerable confusion arose as a result of an inadequate presentation
of the Azerbaijani president’s speech in some preliminary reports. To
avoid misunderstanding of this kind, I have used the reports
containing large excerpts from Aliyev’s speech (newsazerbaijan.ru and
websites, and reports of ITAR-TASS).

If we ignore part of Aliyev’s statement, in which he tries to
pre-determine the status of Karabakh (actually it is an important part
but famous and often repeated by Azerbaijanis), the main emphasis in
the speech is laid on the issue of how the Armenian party should
withdraw its troops from seven Azerbaijani regions around Nagorno
Karabakh (again we ignore the fact that the negotiations are held
between Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, hoping that the
authorities of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, which actually controls
the territories, will agree later to act accordingly). With the
preliminary agreement published by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs in
June 2006, at the first stage troops must be withdrawn from five
regions, except Lachin and Kelbajar, then – in the course of further
development of the process (in case of settling issues related to the
status of Karabakh, as requested by the Armenian party) – also from
the two other regions. The Armenian party expects a constant link to
be secured between the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic through the territory of the Lachin region. It is important
that after the withdrawal of the Armenian (Karabakh) troops, the
Azeris, who previously lived in these areas and were displaced during
hostilities, should naturally return there.

So, according to the preliminary agreement of June 2006, the
sequence of events should be as follows:

1. Withdrawal of Armenian troops from five regions,

2. Return of refugees (IDPs) to these regions,

3. Reaching an agreement on the order of determining the status
of Karabakh,

4. Withdrawal of Armenian troops from Kelbajar and Lachin,

5. Further return of IDPs – to Kelbajar and Lachin,

6. Return of Azeries to Karabakh,

7. Holding a referendum on the status of Karabakh.

That is, the Armenian party in principle would not object to the
withdrawal of troops from Lachin, the more so – from Kelbajar.

It is in this part that Aliyev said news. In his words:

"Our demands are: All the occupied Azerbaijani territories must
be freed without any condition being put forward. The process of
returning Lachin and Kelbajar may not be based on any precondition. At
the current stage of negotiations, the main principle is that the
Armenian troops unconditionally leave the seven occupied Azerbaijani
territories. No doubt, we realize that this process will proceed stage
by stage and last several years."

In other words, Azerbaijan no longer agrees with the June 2006
principles. Well, it is up to Azerbaijan. But the Azeri president goes
further to say:

"This is our principal condition. And this provision was accepted
both by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs and the Armenian party."

That is, according to Aliyev, there was a turning-point in the
negotiation process, and the Armenian party agreed to his conditions.

Before citing the reaction of the Armenian party, I’ll give a
third side’s information about the situation around negotiations. This
side is the U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza who
said in his interview to The Voice of America on April 25 (quotes
translated from Russian):

"The matter concerns immediate withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces from 5 regions around Nagorno Karabakh, return of these regions
to Azerbaijan, deployment of peace-keeping forces there and return of
refugees. Negotiations on conditions to return Kelbajar and Lachin are
continuing." "But here we are close to reaching an agreement," Bryza
went on.

That is, according to Bryza, at least eight days before Aliyev’s
speech there was no change in the issue about five or seven regions
must be freed. And nothing might change during these eight days
either, because no negotiations were conducted in this period.

Columnist of Azerbaijani newspaper "Zerkalo" Rauf Mirkadyrov
writes in this connection:

"The president speaks about unconditional withdrawal of Armenian
troops from all the seven regions, including Kelbajar and Lachin,
while U.S. co-chair – about the necessity to agree on certain
conditions for return of these two administrative-territorial units.
This is not the same thing."

After saying "this is not the same thing," Mirkadyrov delicately
ends the sentence. Delicately, as another conclusion would logically
follow it: "Either Aliyev or Bryza is lying. Who is the liar?"

Of course, Aliyev is the liar. It is evident not only from the
fact that Bryza was not interested in telling a lie eight days before
Aliyev’s unexpected speech. It also follows from the comment of the
Armenian party (prime minister Serge Sargsian) that the Armenian party
had not changed its point of view.

Unlike Aliyev, Serge Sargsian did not accuse the Azerbaijani
party of lying (compare the following part of Aliyev’s speech: "I
don’t care what kind of deceitful statements the Armenian authorities
make before their people. That is why today I state the main
principles of the negotiation process."), he just took it into
consideration that the Azerbaijani party had probably changed its
position and he added: "I don’t know why Aliyev made this statement."

What do we have as a result? If we consider the sequence of the
above mentioned future events, at that moment the June 2006 agreement
did not certainly guarantee a solution of the Karabakh problem but at
least it allowed to fulfill the second of the above stated points: a
partial return of refugees to five of the seven regions. It would be a
great progress indeed not only in the lives of these unhappy people
but also in the whole settlement process as it would form a basis for
resumption of the joint life of Armenians and Azeries and enable to
ease the tension and increase the mutual trust.

Renouncing the June principles and especially speaking again
about the constantly growing military budget of his country
(i.e. threatening Armenia), Aliyev simply told his refugee
compatriots: "Don’t hope to return home soon." And he will keep
shedding crocodile tears about "one million refugees" all around the
world. The fact that the real number of refugees is half of this
figure is not a reason for making the fate of these unhappy people a
subject of speculations.

AZG Armenian Daily #088, 13/05/2007

THE REALIZATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PARTICIPATING IN ELECTIONS GROWN

According to the voting in , when 250 people took part in 6
days, 63% of citizens voted for a party taking into account the
ideological directions of the party. This fact is against the
viewpoint of psychologists that people don’t believe in any project or
idea. Only 3% of Armenians are ready to vote taking bribes. And maybe
all the philanthropies and donations of the candidates, the medical
equipments, from 5 to 15 thousand drams, various promises, seeds, etc
will have an opposite influence on the decisions of the voters. The
sympathy for the leader of a party plays a very important role in the
opinion of 31% of voters.

To the question, if the pre-electoral propaganda had an influence on
their opinion, 60% gave a negative answer. 58% of voters think that
their vote and participation in the elections may really influence on
the results of the elections. The majority of voters (47%) are sure
that the pre-election atmosphere has become healthier, and the
realization of the importance of participating in elections has grown.

By Karine Danielian

ARMENPRESS

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT CONGRATULATES THE WINNER PARTIES

YEREVAN, MAY 13, ARMENPRESS: Armenian President
Robert Kocharian visited today the office of the
Armenian Republican Party and congratulated its
leadership on the victory in the parliamentary
elections.
Robert Kocharian said that by giving their votes to
the Republican party people expressed their support to
the continuation of social-economic reforms taking
place in the country.
Presidential press service told Armenpress that the
Kocharian also received the leadership of the
"Prosperous Armenia" party. He congratulated them
saying that their victory is a serious success
especially taking into consideration the fact that it
is their first participation in the parliamentary
elections. Robert Kocharian expressed hope that
"Prosperous Armenia" party will start an effective
cooperation in the parliament with other political
forces.
During the phone conversation with the
representative of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation Hrant Margarian, Robert Kocharian
congratulated the party on the success in the
elections. The president also expressed hope that the
party will establish effective cooperation with other
political forces.

FIVE YOUNG ARMENIAN WRESTLERS STAND ON PEDESTAL OF HONOR IN INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT HELD IN ROSTOV-ON-DON

Noyan Tapan
May 11 2007

ROSTOV-ON-DON, MAY 11, NOYAN TAPAN. Rafayel and Varderes Samurghashev
Brothers’ Greco-Roman Wrestling International Tournament finished on
May 10 in Rostov-on-Don.

Narek Khachatrian (42 kg, Yerevan), Gevorg Sahakian (63 kg, Artimed),
Andranik Khachatrian (85 kg, Apaga) out of 8 Armenian sportsmen became
winners in the competition of young wrestlers of 12 countries. Gor
Nersisian (46 kg, Yerevan) and Aslan Poghosian (50 kg, Yerevan)
took the third place.

Principal coach of Armenian youth national team of Greco-Roman
wrestling, Honored Coach Gagik Khachatrian informed Noyan Tapan
correspondent that now the team is preparing for the International
Tournament to be held on June 1-3 in Tbilisi.

TURKEY’S INITIATIVE TO SEND OBSERVERS "A LITTLE STRANGE"

Panorama.am
12:20 10/05/2007

"Turkey cannot choose what political relations it wants to have
with Armenia and what not. Political and diplomatic relations are
not subject for choosing," Vladimir Karapetyan, press secretary of
the Armenian foreign ministry, said today speaking about Armenia’s
refusal to issue visas to Turk observers. He said Turkey continues
keeping the Armenian border shut and refuses to enter into diplomatic
relations with Armenia. "Under these conditions sending observers
was a little strange," Karapetyan said.

"Armenia is sorry that Turkey did not demonstrate enough sensitivity
while sending observers to Armenia in the case when there are no
diplomatic relations between the two. We understand that OSCE is
concerned about Armenia’s commitments in front of OSCE and we reconfirm
our commitment to that. But we also expect that OSCE member state
anticipate that Turkey will keep to its commitment to established
normal, friendly relations with Armenia," press spokesman says.

ONE + ONE + ONE + ONE

A1+
[01:44 pm] 10 May, 2007

While citizens of Armenia were watching the concert
"Moscow-Yerevan-Transit" at the Republic Square, not far from the
Square the police beat those citizens who had gathered at National
Security Service building to claim justice.

The mass meeting was held by three opposition parties/the
Triple Alliance: "Impeachment" alliance and "New Times" (NT) and
"Hanrapetutyun" parties.

After the incident, the meeting participants moved to the Liberty
Square shouting "Vic-to-ry!". During the party leaders’ speeches,
there was an absolute silence at the place as the party leaders had
to make their speeches without microphones. The police did their best
to take all microphones.

"Victory is a process that is to be achieved step by step and
today we have done the major step towards our victory. We have never
supported the idea of beating our policemen though we will combat their
attacks. We do our best to hold our meetings in peaceful atmosphere",
announced Aram Karapetyan, Leader of NT.

During the incident with the police Davit Martirosyan from
"Impeachment" party was injured. "We showed who is the lion in the
country and who is the rabbit. We have always used our right for
peaceful meeting and marches however we will combat those who are
on our way and are trying to take away our childrens’ right", said
Nikol Pashinyan from "Impeachment" party.

Aram Sargsyan, "Hanrapetutyun" Party leader simply said," One plus
one plus one". It was late, already 23:00 but the participants did
not want to leave the Square. The Party leaders told the participants
to leave for their homes and inform them in case the police- the skin
headed interfere.

THE CASE FOR HEGEMONY
By Robert T. McLean

American Thinker, AZ
May 10 2007

On April 30th, the State Department released a report noting a 25%
increase in terrorist attacks around the world in 2006, ostensibly
signaling the emergence of a period of unparalleled danger. Indeed,
the end of the Cold War did not usher in an era of universal peace,
but rather unleashed both rogue regimes and non-state actors to
pursue ambitious and destabilizing goals. Today global hostilities
are covered with unprecedented scrutiny magnifying their destruction
and expanding the perception that the world has become concurrently
more perilous and exceedingly unpredictable. This has unleashed a
nostalgic desire for the simplicity of the past that has now expanded
to virtually every corner of the globe.

The bipolar international structure of the Cold War is often warmly
remembered as a time when the balance of power – aided by the commonly
understood inevitability of mutual assured destruction – ensured
a relatively peaceful world where a war between the superpowers was
largely unfeasible. By contrast, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, and the instability of the greater Middle East
draw many to the deduction that perhaps a multipolar world where no
single power maintains hegemony is the preferable path towards a more
stable and peaceful future.

Such judgments have justified, if not formed the basis for, the current
strategies of Russia and China to balance the power of the United
States. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently derided Washington’s
attempts to create a unipolar world while speaking at the Munich
Conference on Security Policy in February, as he explained that such
actions have led to an increasing number of global conflicts. Defense
Minister Sergey Ivanov clarified Putin’s remarks to Itar-Tass,
Russia’s main government news agency, when he noted the following:
"We say that a unipolar world does not lead to anything good, there
are many times more conflicts now than at the time of the Cold War."

To be sure, this line of thinking is neither new nor confined to those
outside the United States apprehensive of the unquestioned primacy
of a single foreign power. Writing in the Atlantic Monthly in August
1990, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer wrote an essay
self-explanatorily titled "Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War." The
central supposition was simple: with the loss of order provided by
the structural compositions of the Cold War, a Hobbesian anarchy was
destined to shape the future of international relations. Of course
Mearsheimer was not alone in his views. He has been joined by not
only a growing number of "realists" weary of the costs associated
with hegemony, but also a different sort of critic represented by the
increasing number of anti-American leftists in the United States who
are inherently suspicious of American power.

With the growing level of agreement that the United States should
abandon its role as world’s lone superpower, some questions must be
asked. May Mearsheimer and his radical leftist counterparts have been
right? Is the Kremlin accurate in its assessment they we have indeed
reached a time of unprecedented conflict and global disorder?

A rather simple exploration of history illustrates that, on the
contrary to those who disparage the preservation of American hegemony,
the world has indeed become significantly more peaceful since the
end of the Cold War.

According to data compiled by the University of Maryland, an average
of 52.5 wars occurred per decade of the Cold War through 1984. As a
result of those conflicts, an average of nearly 4.6 million people died
per decade. This is hardly peaceful. By contrast, the Uppsala Conflict
Data Program in Sweden found that state-based conflicts decreased by
approximately 40% from 1992 to 2005. Battle deaths since 1990 make up
only a small fraction of those incurred through any decade during the
Cold War, and the frequency of attempted military coups has dropped
significantly; an average of 12.8 occurred per year between 1962
and 1991, while just 5.9 were attempted per year from 1992 through
2006. From 1989 to 2005 the number of genocides decreased by 90%.

A common misperception of the post-Cold War era maintains that while
conventional battles between states have decreased, globalization
and the deterioration of stability have put civilian lives at risk
as the barriers between combatant and civilian have broken down from
the growing number terror attacks and civil conflicts. However, as
the authors of the University of British Columbia’s Human Security
Brief 2006 noted in their latest annual report: "notwithstanding
the increase in terrorist attacks, the number of civilian victims of
intentional organized violence remains appreciably lower today than it
was during the Cold War years." Thus, all of the leading indicators –
number of wars, battle deaths, civilian lives lost – point to a more
peaceful and stable world under American primacy.

If the confrontation of the Cold War is not a correct paradigm for a
peaceful future, perhaps one resembling that of the Concert of Powers
and the long held mutual goal of a balance of power that prevailed in
Europe between 1815 and 1914 would provide a greater blueprint for the
21st century. Such a restructuring of the world order has been called
for from analysts and commentators as diverse as Henry Kissinger and
Noam Chomsky. But was the world after the fall of Napoleon until the
outbreak of World War I really as peaceful as some of the advocates
of balance of power would lead you to believe?

While a continent-spanning great power conflict was avoided until the
outbreak of the First World War, the peace established at the Congress
of Vienna in 1815 did not last long. By 1829, the Russo-Turkish
War had concluded leaving more than 130,000 dead. This was not the
last time these two powers would go to war as an approximate 200,000
died in further hostilities in 1877 and 1878. In the meantime, the
Russians faced the Polish Insurrection between 1830 and 1831 – they
had been granted control of much of Poland at the Congress of Vienna
– leaving at least 20,000 dead, while the First Carlist War in Spain
ended only after more than 30,000 lost their lives. The Crimean War of
1854 to1856 resulted in approximately 300,000 deaths; the Seven Weeks
War in 1866 killed 35,000; and by the time the Franco-Prussian War
concluded in 1871 more than 200,000 had lost their lives. Additional
competition between the European powers for empire and the influence
and resources that go along with it was also not without incident.

In fact, it was largely the example of the tumultuous environment
of 19th century Europe that molded America’s earliest perceptions
of a proper security environment. What was essentially conceived
by George Washington and was later refined by John Quincy Adams,
American leaders have long sought to avoid entangling the nation in
any sort of foreign policy based on balance of power. Expressing his
deep seated reluctance for any type of balance of power in the Western
Hemisphere, Adams noted in 1811 that were the United States not to
emerge as the hegemon of the Americas, "we shall have an endless
multitude of little insignificant clans and tribe at eternal war
with one another for a rock or a fish pond, the sport and fable of
European masters and oppressors." Multipolarity, in the absence of
a global congruence of interests and widespread cooperation, will
inevitably lead to such a situation the world over.

Critics of American efforts to maintain its primacy often point
to the economic, political, and military costs associated with
such ambition. These concerns are not without merit, but they
also overlook the costs incurred when a peer competitor arises as
was the case throughout much of the Cold War. The average annual
percentage of GDP spent on defense during the Cold War was roughly
7% compared to less than 4% since 1991. Thus, the so-called "peace
dividend" would be more appropriately labeled the "primacy dividend"
as the United States was not at war at until the collapse of the
Soviet Union, but rather was in a costly struggle to outlast a peer
competitor. Additional criticisms about the costs in American lives
are also unfounded. During the Cold War an average of about 18,000
American military personnel died as a result of hostile action per
decade. Even if we count the civilian lives lost on 9/11, that number
has decreased a staggering 83% since 1990. Finally, the questions of
the political consequences incurred as a result of hegemony are, at
the minimum, significantly exaggerated. It was the not so not-aligned
Non-Aligned Movement that emerged out of the Cold War, and even "Old
Europe" is returning to the acknowledgement that there is a pervasive
parallel in values and interests with the United States.

Indeed, any future deterioration of American hegemony would be
accompanied by catastrophic consequences. History reveals that tragic
violence inevitably follows newly created power vacuums. The decline
of the Ottoman Empire brought on a massacre of the Armenians, and
the end of British rule in India resulted in massive devastation in
South Asia. As was persuasively illustrated in Niall Ferguson’s War
of the World, the weakening and contraction of Western empires were
indispensable contributors to the unprecedented bloodshed of the 20th
century. Make no mistake, history will repeat itself – beginning in
Iraq – should the United States loose its nerve and retract from its
responsibilities as the world’s lone superpower.

While it has become fashionable to proclaim that the 21st Century
will emerge as the "Asian Century," the United States – and its many
allies – should do everything in their powers to insure that we are
indeed at the dawn of a new American century.

Robert T. McLean is a Research Associate at the Center for Security
Policy in Washington, D.C.