Author: Topchian Jane

COE COMMISSIONER SURE RA PRESIDENT-ELECT WILL CONTINUE THE EFFORTS IN THE DIRECTION OF REFORMS IMPLEMENTATION

armradio.am
04.04.2008 15:29

On April 3 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas
Hammarberg sent a letter to RA President Robert Kocharyan, which says,
in part:

"A number of meetings in Yerevan on March 12-14 provided me with an
opportunity to better understand the circumstances of the events in
Yerevan at the beginning of March and the future actions. I will take
those into consideration, when reporting to the Committee of Ministers
on April 30. You are always open for a constructive dialogue with this
institution, and I would like to express my high appreciation of it.

Since you are completing the second term in office and pass the
presidency to President-Elect Serge Sargsyan, I would like to confirm
the great volume of reforms implemented in Armenia under your rule,
which found their reflection in my latest report. I know that some
reforms were extremely sensitive and hard, and I would like to
express my respect for your devotion to their implementation and
political courage

I’m confident your successor will continue the efforts directed at the
implementation of reforms and will take into account my remarks, which
are mentioned in the same report," the Commissioner’s letter reads.

AZERBAIJAN & RUSSIA IMPORTANT PARTNERS FOR LONG-TERM PROSPECTIVE – TREND NEWS COMPANY’S DIRECTOR GENERAL

TREND News Agency
April 4 2008
Azerbaijan

Russia, Moscow, 4 April /TrendNews corr R. Agayev/ The relationship
between Azerbaijan and Russia, having centuries-old history and
traditions, has assumed a special significance, the Director General of
the Trend news company Ilgar Huseynov said speaking at the conference
‘Azerbaijan 2008: Breakthrough for Development’ in Moscow on 4 April.

According to Huseynov, the Azerbaijani diaspora is one of the largest
and respected ones in Russia. Business cooperation between the
countries is enhancing and the cargo turnover is rising. "The Russian
culture and Russian language are thoroughly protected in Azerbaijan.

The Slavonic University is successfully operating, and the joint
humanitarian projects are being implemented in the field of literature
and art," he said.

" Azerbaijan is the dominating country in the South Caucasus, and
is a serious and sedate partner. Therefore, this is quite enough
to suppose that Azerbaijan and Russia are important partners for
long-term prospective," he said.

He said that along with the official statements on support to
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, several Russian channels
broadcast films and information pictures about Nagorno-Karabakh of
quite contrary idea.

"In addition, we, representatives of Azerbaijan’s national press,
expect large understanding from Russia. Of course, it is possible
to bring evidences regarding independence of the press. I support
independence, but the reality is that the Azerbaijani community
judges Russia’s position not only through official statements, but
also through the activities of Russian press. Unfortunately, biased
materials regarding Azerbaijan results in increasing tensions in the
inter-ethnic and international relations, and contributes towards
the destruction of the political processes, dissidence and adhesion,"
he said.

Speaking of the situation in South Caucasus, the General Director of
Trend said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia presents
obstacles in general development of the region and its integration
into worldwide economy and policy. "First of all, this situation does
not meet the interests of Azerbaijan as a most dynamically developing
country of the region," he said.

Irrespective of the whole complex of the problems, Azerbaijan could
achieve realization of the regional energy and transport projects of
global character. "However, these successes disturb the destructive
forces. We face large number of foreign propagandistic materials
describing the history of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wrongly,
putting Azerbaijan’s position at stake in the negotiations process on
the conflict settlement. I think that the efforts of finding solution
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in an averaged and simplified manner
are wittingly made unproductive," Huseynov said.

TERRY DAVIS CALLED ON TURLEY TO REPEAL ARTICLE 301

PanARMENIAN.Net
03.04.2008 16:49 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr
Terry Davis published an article titled ‘Modernity and progress must
be protected through modern and progressive means’ in two Turkish
newspapers, the Turkish Daily News and Radikal.

The article reads:

"Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was one of Europe’s most important 20th
century personalities. Against the background of a bloody world
conflict and in a situation which was turbulent and unpredictable,
at a time when centuries old empires collapsed and future terrible
conflicts had already started to foment, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made
a series of courageous, visionary and groundbreaking decisions to
transform Turkey into a modern, European State. He made history,
and he influenced the future of his own country, and Europe as a whole.

It is therefore not surprising that the Turkish authorities – and
the Turkish people – hold this historic leader in such a high esteem,
and that they are so vigilant in protecting his historic and political
legacy.

It is always delicate for an outsider to comment on personalities
of such stature, but I shall do so, with all humility and respect,
for three reasons.

First, because Turkey is a European country and a member of the
Council of Europe of which I am Secretary General.

Second, because Mustafa Kemal Ataturk not only changed the history
of Turkey, but also influenced the history of Europe as a whole.

And finally, because sometimes an outside view can provide fresh
food for thought and constructively challenge established ideas
and attitudes.

I dare to think that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk would not have
disapproved. After all, when it comes to challenging established
ideas and attitudes, there are very few people in history who can
match his record.

He was a bold and visionary reformer with one central objective in
mind – a modern, well functioning European society for the benefit
of the people of Turkey. He managed to achieve great things before
he passed away, far too early, but there is no doubt that if he had
lived longer or even if he lived today, he would have continued to
work for the benefit of Turkey -he would have continued to reform!

Against this background, I should like to make a few brief comments
on a very topical issue which causes a great deal of attention not
only in Turkey, but also elsewhere in Europe, namely the effect of
Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code on freedom of expression
in Turkey. Article 301 provides for something up to 3 years of
imprisonment for any public criticism of the Turkish identity and
insult to being Turk, the Turkish Republic, the organs and the
institutions of the State. Most recently, this has come to the
forefront when Istanbul lawyer and human rights activist Ms Eren
Keskin was sentenced to more than 6 months in prison for an interview
published in a German daily in June 2006. In the past, people such
as Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink have been prosecuted under Article 301.

First of all I want to say that the primary vocation of the Council
of Europe is not to criticize or ostracize its member states – and we
are definitely not in the business of criticizing judicial decisions.

But we do have a problem with the law on the basis of which the Court
has reached its decision.

The role of the Council of Europe is to help its member states to meet
the obligations to human rights and democratic standards expected from
a member of the Council of Europe. The obligation to guarantee freedom
of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, is one of these standards.

Many friends of Turkey believe that Article 301, and the way it is
being used by the Turkish Courts, violates Article 10. This is why
I have repeatedly urged the Turkish authorities to amend or simply
revoke Article 301. This is also why, a few months ago, I publicly
welcomed the announcement that this would happen shortly. I believe
the time has come to do it, not shortly, but now.

In conclusion, I should like to return to the founder of the modern
Turkish State. Article 301 is often justified by the need to protect
his legacy, but I would also suggest an alternative view. The fact is
that Article 301 sets Turkey apart from all the other modern European
democracies which do not have or apply such restrictions on freedom
of expression.

It follows that the question to ask is what would have been the
attitude of the person who did so much to make Turkey a modern European
society and a modern European state.

I believe that the Turkish society and democracy are mature, modern
and resilient enough not only to survive, but also to thrive without
Article 301 and other restrictions on freedoms guaranteed by the
European Convention on Human Rights. I also believe that this is
the best way to protect and promote the legacy of Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk. He, for one, clearly understood that modernity can be neither
achieved nor preserved, with outdated means."

KARABAKH PEACE IN QUESTION AFTER ARMENIAN VOTE
By Emil Danielyan

Eurasia Daily Monitor
April 3 2008
DC

Armenia’s post-election political crisis and Azerbaijan’s apparent
attempts to take advantage of it are dealing a serious blow to
international mediators’ hopes for a near-term solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The conflicting parties are hardening
their positions and stepping up mutually hostile rhetoric, despite
significant progress made in Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks in the
past two years.

The talks have centered on the basic principles of a Karabakh
settlement proposed by the US, Russian and French diplomats co-chairing
the OSCE Minsk Group. A relevant agreement was formally submitted
to Baku and Yerevan by the Foreign Ministers of the three mediating
powers in November 2007. They expressed the hope that it would be
finalized in the coming months.

The agreement calls for a phased settlement of the Karabakh conflict
that would start with the restoration of economic links between the
two South Caucasus states parallel to the liberation of virtually all
Azerbaijani districts around Karabakh that were occupied by Armenian
forces during the 1992-1994 war. The disputed territory’s status,
the main bone of contention, would be determined by its predominantly
Armenian population in a future referendum. Karabakh would remain
under Armenian control in the interim.

Presidents Robert Kocharian of Armenia and Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan
were close to cutting a peace deal along these lines in early 2006.

The talks collapsed, however, apparently because of last-minute
disagreements on the timetable for Armenian troop withdrawal and the
practical modalities of the Karabakh vote. The mediators modified their
proposals and revived the peace process in the following months. The
final version of those proposals in November 2007 set no time frames
holding the referendum on self-determination, suggesting that it
might never be held. The logic behind this compromise formula is
obvious: While effectively legitimizing continued Armenian control
over Karabakh, it does not force Azerbaijan to drop its claim to
the territory.

According to Western diplomats privy to the Armenian-Azerbaijani talks,
the parties essentially agreed on the key points of the Minsk Group
plan by the end of 2007. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew
Bryza spoke of the need to "work out the remaining small differences"
as he visited the conflict zone together with the group’s two other
co-chairs, Russia’s Yuri Merzlyakov and France’s Bernard Fassier,
in January 2008. The mediators seemed satisfied with their talks
with Aliyev and Kocharian. "We sense that they are trying to finish
the process as soon as possible," Bryza told reporters in Yerevan
(RFE/RL Armenia Report, January 17).

The co-chairs had hoped that the two sides would sign the framework
peace accord some time after Armenia’s February 2008 presidential
election, clearly expecting it to be won by Kocharian’s longtime chief
lieutenant, Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan. Sargsyan’s victory proved
extremely controversial, sparking opposition protests in Yerevan that
were brutally suppressed by the ruling regime on March 1. Kocharian and
Sargsyan are currently busy trying to neutralize further opposition
challenges to their rule. Although they both have voiced support for
the proposed Karabakh settlement, it remains to be seen whether they
are really committed to it and ready to risk alienating nationalist
elements in the ruling regime that are opposed to any territorial
concessions to Azerbaijan. The loyalty of pro-government groups such
as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (also known as the Dashnak
Party) is now essential for a successful transfer of power from
Kocharian to Sargsyan.

The search for Karabakh peace was further complicated on March 14
when the UN General Assembly passed an Azerbaijani-drafted resolution
demanding an "immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of
Armenian forces" from occupied Azerbaijani lands. The United States,
Russia and France voted against the non-binding resolution, backed
by 39 mostly Islamic nations, saying that it was at odds with their
existing peace proposals largely accepted by Azerbaijan. Baku responded
by accusing the mediators of favoring the Armenian side and threatening
to demand that the Minsk Group be co-headed by other countries.

The Armenian side construed this threat as an attempt to disband a body
that has spearheaded international efforts to resolve the Karabakh
dispute since 1992. Kocharian warned on March 20 that Armenia would
officially recognize the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
as an independent state if Azerbaijan pulled out of the Minsk Group
process.

The Minsk Group co-chairs, meanwhile, urged Aliyev and Sargsyan
to hold their first-ever talks on the sidelines of the upcoming
NATO summit in Bucharest. In a March 19 statement, they said that
the two sides had agreed "in principle" to such a meeting. Aliyev,
however, has subsequently refused to meet his newly elected Armenian
counterpart. His chief foreign policy aide, Novruz Mammadov, claimed
on March 29 that the embattled Sargsyan needed such an encounter to
shore up his "domestic position," rather than to achieve a breakthrough
in the negotiation process (Turan, March 29).

This was seen by Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian as a further
indication that Baku wanted to avoid signing a "document created
as a result of two years of work by the Armenian and Azerbaijani
parties." (Armenian Public Television, March 31.) During a March 31
visit to the Karabakh capital of Stepanakert, Kocharian stressed the
need for Armenia to recognize the NKR, either immediately or in the
near future. In remarks clearly addressed to his incoming successor,
the outgoing president said Yerevan should at least sign a defense
pact with the Karabakh Armenian leadership (lragir.am, March 31).

RESIDENTS PROTEST ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Juliet Werner

Queens Tribune
71.html
April 3 2008
NY

The New York Armenian Home in Flushing feels more like a community
center than a nursing home. Residents trade memories of Armenia,
or "our country," during meals. In the evening, the men and women,
many in their 90s, dance in the traditional Armenian style; arguments
over the correct steps frequently overpower the music.

"It’s called an adult care facility," case manager Karine Barsoumian
said. "But it’s a kindergarten."

Barsoumian spends many hours a week with the home’s 79 residents,
all members of what the home’s Web site calls, the "global Armenian
community."

"It’s not Armenian Home, it’s International Home," she said.

Residents speak Armenian, Arabic, Russian and Bulgarian. Turkish is
occasionally heard as well, but not without opposition.

"They’ll say, ‘don’t use that language,’" Barsoumian explained.

Several of the residents are survivors of the Armenian Genocide carried
out by the "Young Turk" government of the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923
that killed 1.5 million.

Onorik Eminian, 95, witnessed the death of her parents and siblings.

The Red Cross picked her up and escorted her to an orphanage. She later
made her way to Greece, and, finally, to the United States in 1930.

In anticipation of the 93rd Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide
scheduled for April 27 in Times Square, several residents of the
Armenian Home shared their stories of survival with the press on
Sunday. Eminian became anxious as soon as she saw a group had gathered.

"Are there Turks among you?" she wanted to know.

Eminian’s paranoia has only heightened as a result of an October 2007
trip to Washington D.C. where she was harassed by a group of Turkish
protestors. The Armenian National Committee had invited Eminian, along
with other survivors, to the capital for the House of Representatives’
Oct. 10 vote on House Resolution 106.

The resolution, which called upon the President to "ensure that the
foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding
and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic
cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating
to the Armenian Genocide and for other purposes," was approved by
the Foreign Affairs Committee by 27 to 21 despite President Bush’s
warning that it would strain America’s relationship with Turkey,
an ally in the War in Iraq. Democratic support exists in the Senate,
but the resolution has lost momentum.

"It’s time has passed," Dr. Denis Papazian, Director of the Armenian
Research Center at the University of Michigan – Dearborn, said. "We
are in the election cycle where this issue will be placed on the back
burner. The Turkish government made a big fuss about the resolution,
and the administration caved in. The spin doctors tried to make the
resolution seem anti-patriotic, and succeeded to some extent. There
is no use fighting a losing battle at this point. Better to declare
victory for its passage through the Foreign Relations Committee than
to take it back on the floor during this administration and having
the Armenians look unpatriotic."

Eminian, once she agreed to tell her story, revealed an intense
patriotism.

"Don’t forget the American navy is the best in the world," she said.

"I’m not lying what they did to me."

Perouz Kalousdian, 98, also traveled to D.C. to support the resolution,
but quickly slips back into apathy.

"They can feel sorry, that’s all. What can they do,"

Kalousdian said. "We’re in America. We’re saved. But I never forget."

According to Papazian, forgetting exonerates the genocide’s
perpetrators.

"The last stage of genocide is denial," Papazian said. "You counter
opponents of Armenian genocide recognition by presenting the truth,
evidence, reason and perseverance. It is a fight of memory against
forgetting."

The fight isn’t over and the resolution has a better chance if the
next administration is Democratic – both Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama favor it. But Jenny Akopyan, the Armenian Home assistant director
who accompanied the survivors to Washington, isn’t holding her breath.

"If they ask us to bring residents [again] we will do our best,"
Akopyan said. "But time passes by and they’re not getting younger."

The April 27 event in Times Square is free and open to the public.

For more information call Linda Millman Guller at (203) 454-9800.

OPINION: ARMENIA’S ECONOMIC POLICY ATTRACTS BIG WORLD PLAYERS TO COUNTRY FOR RECENT SIX YEARS

ARKA
April 2, 2008

YEREVAN, April 2. /ARKA/. Gagik Minasyan, Republican MP and chairman of
Armenian National Assembly’s standing financial committee, commenting
Wednesday on appearance of foreign companies at Armenian banking
market, said Armenia’s economic policy has attracted big world players
to the country for recent six years.

22 banks and 347 branches function in Armenia now. HSBC, European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development< International Financial
Corporation, Russian VTB Group, French ACBA-Credit Agricole, Kazakh
BTA Bank, American Cascade Holding and Iranian Mellat Bank have
entered Armenian market for the last decade.

Troyka Dialogue with its TDA Holding Limited, Lebanese BIBLOS BANK,
Russian Gasprombank, ProCredit Holding AG and KfW came to Armenia in
2007 alone.

Swedish OMX has bough 100% of Armenian Stock Exchange’s and Armenian
Central Depository’s shares.

Minasyan views their appearance in Armenia as convincing evidence of
their confidence in this country.

He stressed the importance of OMX activities and said every effort
will be made to create political stability and favorable environment
for investing in the country.

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY OF ABU DABI TO TAKE PART IN EASTER HOLLY MASS

ABU DABI, MARTI 28, ARMENIANS TODAY – NOYAN TAPAN. The Saint Nicholas
Greek Orthodox Church of Abu Dhabi will celebrate the St. Easter. A
holy mass will be served by Father Aram Dekermendjian and the Council
of the Armenian Community of Abu Dhabi will be present.

EVERYTHING WAS DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTION
Arthur Hovhannisyan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on March 28, 2008

Interview with Justice Minister GEVORG DANIELYAN, Second-Class State
Advisor of Justice

"Some people currently announce that by declaring a state of emergency,
the President of the republic violated our country’s Constitution and
the norms of international law. Does such allegation have anything
to do with the reality?"

"It is a barefaced statement. Moreover, by distorting the facts, they
insisted the competent international bodies were the authors of such
statements. Let’s note that there are certain constitutional norms
underlying the decree. First, Article 44 of the Constitution authorizes
the President to restrict, in a manner presribed by law, separate human
and civil rights and freedoms during the state of emergency. In the
meantime, exceptions are only envisaged for the rights and freedoms
enshrined in Articles 15, 17-22 and 42. And let’s note that the decree
contains no provision with regard to these rights and freedoms.

No law on the legal regime of the state of emergency has been
adopted yet; however, Section 6 of Article 117 of the Constitution
clearly states that ‘Before the definition of the legal regime of the
state of emergency by law in the event of an imminent danger to the
constitutional order the President of the Republic after consulting
with the Chairman of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister,
shall take measures appropriate in the given circumstances and address
the people on the situation."

As regards the international documents, Article 15 of the Convention
on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms makes it
clear that the above-mentioned institution is recognized and used
internationally. Article 44 literally repeats the relevant provision
of the Convention.

By the way, regrettable though it is, we know many examples from the
history of our country when a state of emergency was declared without
constitutional bases. Thus, in the period between 1991 and 1996,
a state of emergency was declared throughout the republic six times,
based on Clause 15, Article 8 of the RA Law on the RA President (the
law is no longer in effect). They were, as a rule, accompanied by
imposing curfews; such practice was still up-to-date in those days
and was automatically preserved from the Soviet times.

Speaking about restrictions, let’s recall that in order to do that
it was not frequently required to resort to the institution of the
state of emergency. Everything was done in accordance with the rules
characteristic of the Soviet legal regime, in strict observance of
the former traditions.

In this respect, the decree on the ‘Temporary termination of the
activity of ‘Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun’
public-political organization", adopted on December 28, 1994 and
entered into force on the same date, is characteristic. If you think
that there is at least one legislative norm underlying it, you are
sadly mistaken. The decree is unique in terms of its kind and does not
have its precedent in the history of law, as it contains absolutely
no reference to any legal act.

That’s to say, in the atmosphere of impunity, no steps were
taken towards the establishment of formal bases. Furthermore,
the conversation is about a decree terminating the activity of a
political party. Unfortunately, the examples are not few in number,
but luckily they are in the past."

"The March 1 decree on declaring a state of emergency and the March
11 decree on introducing amendments thereto contain some restrictions
regarding the media. There are still speculations over the fact that
such restrictions were in breach of the Constitution of Armenia
and the international instruments on human rights and especially,
freedom of speech. Were there really such breaches?"

"Touching upon this question, I refer to the above-mentioned Articles
of the Constitution. In terms of its legal bases, the decree is
invulnerable.

Those speculating the issue ignore the fact that there were and there
still are sufficient legal bases for restricting the right and that
under the well-known international norms the right to freedom of
speech is not absolute; it is also subject to restrictions. In the
meantime, it was also clear that the goal of the restriction was to
keep the public from provocative information, and this was done with
state security considerations.

The fact that one can hardly ever meet examples of the restriction of
freedom of speech in the EU member states is often discussed. We’ll
soon introduce the experience of those countries on one occasion,
and it will become clear that they are more consistent in terms
of protecting state security and envisage incomparably stricter
punitive measures for such abuses of freedom of speech that violate
those values.

I deem it necessary to underline that the security of the country
and the state, as well as respect for the rights of others are not
abstract notions.

It is not allowed to make populist statements on democracy, by
violating those values.

DON’T PRESS YOUR "DEMOCRACY" ON US

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on March 26, 2008

According to the statements of international organizations the
authorities in Armenia might have had a milder treatment to the
"peaceful protesters" armed with iron stick and avoided using "great
force" against them. Are such statements an adequate response to
what happened?

Answering this question of the correspondent of "Hayots Ashkharh",
AHARON ADIBEKYAN yesterday mentioned,

"Perhaps it was possible, if he were more sacred than the Pope and
guided himself with the Christ’s precept saying, ‘when you receive
a slap on the cheek, turn round your head to receive a slap on the
other cheek too’. The Europeans had better think about Belfast. They’d
better think about Spain where people die every week as a result
of explosions.

They’d better think about Belgium which is facing serious civil
clashes.

Hence, they’d better avoid pressing their "democracy models"
on Armenia.

There is such a concept in chess: a situation of forcible steps. We
are now in that situation, and the authorities, in their own honor,
managed to overcome the potentially explosive situation with minimum
losses and relatively small number of victims.

PUTIN HOPES FOR FURTHER COOPERATION WITH ARMENIA

Interfax News Agency
March 24 2008
Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he hopes for further cooperation
between Russia and Armenia after the change of leadership in both
countries.

Receiving Armenia’s President-Elect Serzh Sargsyan in the Kremlin on
Monday, Putin congratulated him on his victory in the elections and
voiced hope for further development of relations.

"First, let me congratulate you on the election. I know that political
processes in Armenia are not simple but we hope that no matter how
these processes develop, all that has been achieved in bilateral
relations over the previous years will be preserved and multiplied,"
Putin said.

Sargsyan, for his part, thanked Putin for inviting him. Putin relayed
the invitation through Armenia’s current President Robert Kocharyan
during his visit to Moscow on February 22.

"We have always felt your support, in campaigning too, for which I
am really grateful. Our president and our ambassador passed on to
me your letters and, honestly, never before have we felt such an
unambiguous approach," Sargsyan said.

"Let me too congratulate you on the success of the presidential
campaign [in Russia]. We know Dmitry Medvedev as your associate and
hope that our relations will continue after he takes office. We need
this and will work in this direction," Sargsyan said.