|
|
|
|
|
Compelled to Decide: Presidential campaign forces position on NKR By Aris Ghazinyan ArmeniaNow reporter Armenian party organizations and separate politicians vying for the highest state post must present their position on the Karabakh problem on the threshold of the presidential election. Despite the importance of the issue and its special place in the national life, no such tradition has been established yet. In this respect the republic’s citizens have the right to demand that political forces should present corresponding approaches in connection with the key factor of modern Armenian history. Approved in January of this year, the Strategy of Armenia’s National Security states: “…the Republic of Armenia is committed to settling the conflict only in a peaceful way on the basis of mutual compromises. The legal bases of the declaration of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) are irreproachable. Constantly proceeding from the principle that any final agreement or ultimate document must get the approval of the Karabakh side, Armenia finds it acceptable only those variants of settlement that will be aimed at the consolidation of the irreversibility of the reality of the NKR’s factual existence. Nagorno-Karabakh must have a territorial link with Armenia. Security must be guaranteed.” Despite the seeming simplicity and clarity of the issue, in fact everything is much more complicated and controversial; the historical resolution of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of the then Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) about reunification adopted in December 1989 contradicts the fact of the declaration of the NKR and the Republic of Armenia in September 1991. Another, equally remarkable event took place in the period between those three events: on August 23, 1990, the parliament of Armenia adopted a Declaration on Armenia’s independence which was based on the fact that the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh were an inseparable political whole. The preamble to the document does not leave any doubts on this account: “Based on the joint resolution of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh adopted on December 1, 1989 ‘On the Reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh’, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia declares the start of the process of the establishment of independent statehood.” A natural question arises in that case: which of the four events is paramount? As one could expect, the discussions of this question have acquired a particularly acute nature in recent days. Igor Muradyan, an expert of the “Kavkaz” analytical center, one of the ideologists and leaders of the Karabakh movement in 1988, thinks that similar contradictions show that a precedent of ignoring major state decisions has been developed in Armenian political circles. Furthermore, he says that the recognition of NKR at the present moment meets the interests of international organizations overseeing the problem. “The recognition of NKR under the given political and social conditions means nothing else but giving up lowland Karabakh, 7,600 square kilometers of our Homeland, to please foreign forces and for the sake of relieving a headache. If the Armenian parliament is capable of making a decision on ‘recognition’, then only within the borders of the former Soviet-Armenian ghetto named NKAR. Who needs such recognition and a new ghetto already in conditions of ‘liberal democracy’? It is patently clear that apart from Armenian politicians it is needed for political project developers from organizations like the International Crisis Group and its patrons. And it turns out that this and similar initiatives are the essence of the notorious settlement reduced to extinguishing conflicts and not realizing the national-political rights of our people.” The well-known political analyst thus thinks that the legislative initiative of the Heritage party is aimed at recognizing the territory of the former NKAR and not the really existing NKR outside Azerbaijan. In other words, he thinks that a substitution of notions takes place in this case as the former NKAR is presented as the NKR. In his opinion, “the leading powers of the West and the East are interested in the establishment of this very NKR, as a second sovereign Armenian state.” Apart from other things, Muradyan thinks that the possible recognition of the independence of the whole territory (Nagorno-Karabakh, i.e. mountainous or upland Karabakh, and lowland Karabakh) controlled by the NKR Defense Army does not meet the interests of the current generation of Armenian leaders both in Yerevan and Stepanakert. “The Armenian political class does not imagine what to do with this recognition which is to mark the beginning of huge work. The current parliament of Armenia is a team of firm and consistent proponents of conformism as a basic political stereotype of behavior. It is completely unacceptable also for the administration in Stepanakert. A reliable political basis for ceding the lands of lowland Karabakh to Azerbaijanis was created as a result of parliamentary and presidential elections in the NKR.” The recognition of NKR by Armenia would be an ideal catalyst of regional processes, which, no doubt, would lead to the establishment of a completely new international situation, or would rather strengthen the established tendency of the collapse of “small empires”. Different arguments in regards to the possible resumption of military operations are groundless in Muradyan’s opinion. “Azerbaijan cannot achieve the necessary level of sovereignty for making independent decisions about the start of a war of revenge for the Karabakh province. Neither Turkey nor Azerbaijan attach any importance to the agreements and obligations, they have their own vision of international relations and are capable of ignoring any political conditions. The decision about the start of an Azeri-Armenian war can be made only and only in Ankara.” http://armenianow.com/?action=viewArticle&...79&IID=&lng=eng
|
|
|
ARMENIAN EX-PRESIDENT BREAKS LONG SILENCE, SIGNALS COMEBACK By Emil Danielyan Tuesday, October 2, 2007 Levon Ter-Petrosian, Armenia’s former president acclaimed in the West for his conciliatory stance on the Karabakh conflict, has rocked the domestic political arena with his first public speech in nearly a decade. Addressing hundreds of supporters in Yerevan on September 21, he described the current Armenian leadership as “corrupt and criminal” and called for its ouster. The blistering attack was a further indication that he is likely to contest the presidential election due early next year. Ter-Petrosian has kept an extremely low profile ever since he was forced to resign in February 1998 by his key cabinet members, notably then-prime minister Robert Kocharian, for advocating what they saw as a “defeatist” international peace plan on Karabakh. The plan, put forward by the OSCE Minsk Group, envisaged a phased settlement of the conflict with Azerbaijan and would indefinitely delay agreement on the status of the disputed territory. Kocharian and other hardliners found the proposed peace accord too risky and demanded a “package” deal that would recognize continued Armenian control over Karabakh. In his speech, Ter-Petrosian called the unresolved state of the Karabakh dispute “the greatest crime” committed by the ruling regime over the past decade. He reaffirmed his belief that Armenia’s security and sustainable economic development are contingent on the normalization of the country’s relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey. However, Ter-Petrosian did not come up with any formulas for Karabakh peace, saying that he does not know how the latest impasse in Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks can be overcome. The 62-year-old, who led Armenia to independence from the Soviet Union, also denounced the Kocharian administration as an “institutionalized mafia-style regime that has plunged us into the ranks of third world counties.” He accused it of rigging elections, abusing human and civil rights, illegally controlling courts, and extorting bribes from leading Armenian businessmen. Kocharian, who succeeded Ter-Petrosian as president and is now completing his second and final term in office, was quick to rebut the accusations, speaking to journalists on September 25. Kocharian described Armenia as “one of the fastest developing countries in the world,” pointing to its robust economic growth, which has averaged 13% since 2002 despite the continuing Azerbaijani and Turkish economic blockades. “I became prime minister of Armenia in March 1997 and inherited a $300 million [state] budget … Next year, Armenia will have a budget worth about $2.5 billion,” he said. Kocharian went on to warn that his predecessor will become an “ordinary opposition figure” and face “all the consequences stemming from that” should he join the unfolding presidential race. He specifically threatened to “remind” Armenians of the severe socioeconomic hardship that they had suffered following the Soviet collapse and the outbreak of the war with Azerbaijan. Throughout his presidency Kocharian has exploited painful popular memories of the 1990s, which many analysts view as the main obstacle of Ter-Petrosian’s return to power. The reclusive ex-president himself indicated in his speech that he is not sure he is popular enough to make a strong showing in the upcoming election. He complained in particular that many Armenians still do not understand the importance of Karabakh peace. Ter-Petrosian’s political allies are more sanguine in that regard, saying that he can capitalize on his international stature and what they see as widespread popular dislike of the government. Furthermore, they claim that he is the only politician capable of defeating the presumed election favorite, Prime Minister Serge Sarkisian, and have been trying to muster broad-based opposition support for his presidential run. However, most of the other major opposition forces have refrained from throwing their weight behind Ter-Petrosian so far. Some of their leaders pointed out last week that Ter-Petrosian himself rigged elections and bullied his political opponents when he was in power from 1990 to 1998. They recalled his decision in September 1996 to send tanks to the streets of Yerevan to enforce the official results of a reputedly fraudulent presidential election that gave him a second five-year term. Meanwhile, Sarkisian and his Republican Party, which swept to a landslide victory in the recent parliamentary elections, claim to be untroubled by the prospect of being challenged by Ter-Petrosian. Whether this is really the case is unclear, though. Far more certain is the fact that Ter-Petrosian’s comeback would add an element of unpredictability to the 2008 election and perhaps reverse growing public apathy about politics. That could, in turn, complicate government attempts to rig the vote. Even the ex-president’s most bitter opponent, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF, also known as the Dashnak Party), has welcomed his possible participation in the presidential ballot, saying that it will spur a healthy political debate on Karabakh, relations with Turkey and other key issues. The ARF, which is particularly influential in the worldwide Armenian Diaspora, had been controversially banned and saw dozens of its activists imprisoned on terrorism and coup charges during Ter-Petrosian’s rule. The nationalist party was re-legalized immediately after Kocharian’s rise to power and has since been represented in his governments. It has pointedly refused to endorse Sarkisian for the Armenian presidency and intends to nominate its own presidential candidate instead. This was probably the reason why, on September 29, Ter-Petrosian paid a sensational visit to the ARF headquarters in Yerevan and met with two top party leaders (both of whom were jailed by him in 1995). A short statement by the ARF said the talks focused on “issues related to the forthcoming presidential elections.” “Both sides stressed the need for a politico-ideological debate,” it added. The very fact of such a meeting was a measure of just how intriguing political life in Armenia is becoming these days. (A1plus.am, September 29; Aravot, September 26; Armenian Public Television, September 25; Haykakan Zhamanak, September 22) http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372469
|
|
|
Geghamian Vague On Presidential Bid By Anna Saghabalian Opposition leader Artashes Geghamian pointedly declined on Wednesday to announce his participation in next year’s presidential election and said he is ready to endorse another candidate. Geghamian indicated that he will stand in the election if he feels that he stands a real chance of winning it. He said he and his National Unity Party (AMK) have yet to decide whether it would make sense to contest the vote simply to “express our views on pivotal issues” facing Armenia. Geghamian was until recently one of the country’s most popular opposition figures, finishing third in the last presidential election held in 2003. His popularity has since declined significantly, as evidenced by the AMK’s poor showing in the May parliamentary elections. According to official vote results, the party won less than 4 percent of the vote and failed to gain a single parliament seat. Geghamian underlined the reversal of fortunes with his vague remarks. Significantly, he did not rule out the possibility of throwing his weight behind another presidential hopeful who would embrace his “anti-crisis” economic program. Geghamian also replaced his customary harsh criticism of the Armenian government with calls for the consolidation of the country’s political elite for the sake of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and other issues relating to the “salvation of Armenian statehood.” “It is imperative for [former President] Levon Ter-Petrosian, Vazgen Manukian, Artashes Geghamian, Paruyr Hayrikian, Robert Kocharian, Serzh Sarkisian, Aram Karapetian and our other colleagues … to sit down at the table and reach a common denominator on at least one issue,” he told reporters, referring to Karabakh. Geghamian also revealed that he met with Ter-Petrosian two weeks ago to discuss “threats to Armenian statehood.” He said they reached no concrete agreements because of their differences on a number of unspecified issues. The meeting was part of Ter-Petrosian’s ongoing consultations with various opposition forces which are aimed at building broad-based political support for his possible presidential bid. Speaking at a weekend AMK conference, Geghamian indicated that he is unlikely to endorse the ex-president. (Photolur photo) http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeniarepor...DCDE1546CFF.ASP
|
|
|
NOMINATION OF LEVON TER-PETROSIAN DEPENDS ON SERGE SARGSIAN? ‘Levon Ter-Petrosian’s nomination as a candidate for presidency depends on Prime Minister Serge Sargsian", announced the leader of the National Unity Party Artashes Geghamian in "Hayeli"("Mirror") club on September 3. "It depends on the forthcoming official visits of the Prime Minister. After it, the agiotage "to announce or not to announce" will come to an end", he added. To the question of the journalists if the nomination of the first president depends on the foreign guarantees, Artashes Geghamian answered: "I don’t speak of guarantees. It’s already 13-14 years that the negotiation process continues in Armenia, and the most active sides of the negotiation process are USA, Russia and France. If the negotiation process hasn’t yet changed into a war, it means that the sides have adopted the status quo of the Karabakh issue. It means that the same EU that parallel with Armenia admitted Azerbaijan, also adopted the status quo. Now, in the created situation there could be serious geopolitical changes. It’s hard to speak of the interests of the above-mentioned countries, as there are serious series of issues there. Anyhow, everything will be clear after October 25", underlined Artashes Geghamian. "The most important thing today is that Levon Ter-Petrosian, Serge Sargsian, Aram Karapetian, Paruyr Hayrikian, Vazgen Manukian, and everybody unite for a common issue – to reach a consensus on Karabakh issue", said the leader of NU party. He is sure that the discussion of Karabakh issue will be a pivotal in the electoral campaign of the presidential elections. "He, who wants to come to power, must think of consensus", underlined Artashes Geghamian. He is sure that cooperation with the authorities is a matter of urgency, and the meeting of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Levon Ter-Petrosian confirms it. What about the nomination of National Unity Party candidate for the presidency, Artashes Geghamian still thinks of its appropriateness. If NU finds inappropriate the nomination of personal candidate, then Mr. Geghamian will support the candidate whose programs are close to his anti-crisis program. By Gohar Gevorgian, translated by L.H. http://www.azg.am/?lang=EN&num=2007100506
|
|
|
A New Person, Both Absent and Present Tigran Paskevichyan October 08, 2007 Many have said while speaking of the upcoming presidential elections that there is the need for a new person, that everyone - both the authorities and the opposition, both the old and the new - has outlived their time. This could be true, if it weren’t so obviously false. It is false because there is no need for a new person and there could not be one because of a number of reasons. printable version email to friend The structure of our country does not allow for someone to establish themselves in politics, because, for example, the mayor of the capital or the heads of provinces are not elected, elections for seats in parliament are a formality and so on. So any new person who tries to enter the field could be asked - who are you, what experience do you have, what have you achieved in life? Armenia is under an information blockade. All the mass media outlets accessible to the general public are under state regulation and they all try to avoid political, social, and controversial issues in order to save themselves from potential problems - rather, they give slots to shows, soap operas, lotteries and other such programs. Thus, a politician looking to establish himself in the field has no way to reach the public. Sources of funding are closed as well. No businessman dares finance political projects because of the problems that might come up with the authorities. And finally, there is the unresolved conflict in Karabakh, the details of which are kept secret. Anybody who tries to be the “new kid on the block” can be disqualified by the claim that he or she is unaware of the negotiation process in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Besides all this, sixteen years is not enough time for a new generation of politicians to come up. Those who seek a new person understand the necessity for a change in government, thus automatically rejecting the participation of anyone currently in power. That leaves one with a choice from among the opposition, but let us first consider the camps within the government that may decide to participate in the elections. The ARF, which has been in government constantly over the past ten years, is trying to make a smooth transition to the other side, but their cooperation with Robert Kocharyan and the Republican Party does not inspire confidence in their ability to improve the situation. The ARF has never been hugely popular since its establishment in Armenia and has its own limited electorate, united not in their affection for the party, but rather around a certain conviction about it. Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) - who was in power from 1998 through 2005 - also has a stable, if small, electorate of its own. The party has ended up “offside” after its collapse and the resignation of Artur Baghdasaryan from his position of Parliament Speaker. It is neither in power, nor is it an opposition party. I think that Orinats Yerkir cannot be a major player in these elections because it needs time to reorganize and reconsider. Raffi Hovhannisyan’s Heritage Party also has a stable but small electorate. The leader of this party, which managed to secure its presence in the current Parliament, has the potential to be the new person, but he does not have clear answers to the questions which are bothering the population. Populism is an obstacle to honesty in his case and his desire for popularity has led to the avoidance of honest answers. The traditional opposition, which was until recently called the Justice alliance, has been dissolved. The main actors in Justice, Stepan Demirchyan (APP) and Aram Z. Sargsyan (Republic) have understood that they are not in starring roles for the upcoming elections and are ready to be with Levon Ter-Petrosyan, if he puts his candidacy forward. It is hard to predict what they would do if the first President of Armenia were not to be a candidate. Arshak Sadoyan, Shavarsh Kocharyan, Hrant Khachatryan and Aram G. Sargsyan together have a total score of around zero and, having realized that, have begun to play Serzh Sargsyan’s game. Their strategy is mainly aimed against Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who has not announced his candidacy clearly yet. Once again, it is unclear what they would do if Ter-Petrosyan decided not to participate in the elections. Maybe they would support Vazgen Manukyan as part of their services to Serzh Sargsyan. Vazgen Manukyan has announced his intention to stand alone, but since his ADU lags behind Orinats Yerkir and Heritage as far as popular support is concerned, his participation will do little more than provide diversity, which is not a danger to the ruling candidate, even if it is not an advantage. That leaves Artashes Geghamyan, who the public has had difficulty understanding since the 2003 elections when the leader of National Unity, showing a sense of disunity, went to the elections alone. Many people thought then, as they do now, that victory would have been guaranteed for a united opposition. Who can be the NEW PERSON in this situation? Levon Ter-Petrosyan? If we go by the saying that “anything new is just something old that has been forgotten,” maybe. But let us not rush into things, because the first President of Armenia has only given a speech and has not said anything about coming forward as a candidate. There is nobody new and there will not be one. That much is obvious. Therefore, maybe there should be a different approach - instead of looking for a new person, one should look for new solutions to old problems. to be continued http://www.hetq.am/eng/politics/7165/
|
|
|
NKR FORMER FM ARMAN MELIKIAN TO RUN FOR RA PRESIDENT Nagorno-Karabakh Republic ex FM Arman Melikian intends to run for RA President, Melikian stated in the course of a press conference held at Urbat Club on November 28. On the same day Arman Melikian, former FM of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, currently foreign policy Adviser to Karabakh President, filed a resignation to NKR President Bako Sahakian. Arman Melikian admitted the fact that Karabakh people were not informed of his decision, however, they are most likely to learn everything after today�s press conference. Ter-Petrossian and his staff suggest that corrupt system of power should be liquidated, however, in the Karabakh settlement issue they remain on the positions of 1997 and are ready to relinquish liberated territories controlled by NKR. Republican staff does not guarantee that the territories will not be relinquished, at the same time it categorically rejects the fact of corruption, Arman Melikian believes. In his words, ��to build a normal state there is no need to relinquish territories; not to relinquish territories there is no necessity to have a corrupt system of a state��. ��Whoever the nation will vote for will find himself in a bad situation. In the first case he will have to agree to lose territories, in the second � to cope with corruption. It is a bad choice, so we should try to avoid it by joint efforts��, NKR ex FM stated. http://www.defacto.am/index.php?OP=71329433
|
|
|
WHITE TO SARKISSIAN AND BLACK TO PETROSSIAN [05:44 pm] 10 December, 2007 Yerevan Press Club, Team Research Centre and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation have monitored the Armenian television and radio on the eve of the election campaign. Today they presented the results of the November monitoring. Mass Media turn out to have taken a profound interest in two presidential candidates, Armenia’s Premier Serzh Sarkissian and former President Levon Ter-Petrossian. YPS Chairman Boris Navasardian states that Serzh Sarkissian is mostly mentioned in positive contexts while Levon Ter-Petrossian in negative ones. Out of 944 reports about Serzh Sarkissian 14 were negative, 162 positive and 768 neutral. Only 10 reports about Levon Ter-Petrossian were positive. 293 reports were negative, and 196 neutral. POLITICAL FIGURES “ARE OUT OF REACH” The YPS chairman Boris Navasardian says that Armenian TV channels invite the presidential candidates to talk shows despite the lack of parity on TV Channels. However, they often get refusals. For example, Armenia’s Prime Minster Serzh Sarkissian is unavailable for local reporters. But we learnt that he has recently given a few interviews to foreign reporters. Former president Levon Ter-Petrossian and Heritage Party leader Raffi Hovannissian also avoid interviews. The latter refuses because he has not made up his mind which presidential candidate to second at the presidential race. Two activists, Artashes Geghaman and Arthur Baghdasarian do not refuse invitations although the technical issues are often complicated and restricted. http://www.a1plus.am/en/?page=issue&iid=55439
|
|
|
Ter-Petrosian Reaffirms Conciliatory Line On Turkey By Emil Danielyan Former President Levon Ter-Petrosian reaffirmed on Saturday his conciliatory stance on Amenia’s relations with Turkey, saying that Yerevan should leave it to the worldwide Armenian Diaspora to pursue international recognition of the 1915 genocide. He also deplored Armenian efforts to thwart Turkey’s membership in the European Union. The highly sensitive issue was a major theme of his latest speech at an anti-government rally in Yerevan, with Ter-Petrosian responding to government claims that his views on Turkish-Armenian relations are “pro-Turkish.” Echoing long-standing claims by Armenian nationalist groups, President Robert Kocharian said in a newspaper interview last week that his predecessor is “ready to forget the genocide and turn Armenia into an appendage of Turkey.” State television and other media controlled by Kocharian, for their part, have cited Turkish press commentaries saying that Ter-Petrosian’s return to power would be welcomed by Armenia’s historical foe. “Speaking about my being pro-Turkish are individuals who had sheepishly served Turks during a lengthy period of their adult life,” Ter-Petrosian shot back in a blistering reminder of the fact that Kocharian and Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian had held senior positions in the Communist hierarchy of Nagorno-Karabakh at a time when it was ruled by Azerbaijan. Ter-Petrosian stressed that three generations of his family “fought against the Turks in one way or another,” recalling in particular their participation in a 1915 siege of several Armenian villages on the Turkish Mediterranean coast by Ottoman troops. “My grandfather took part in the heroic battle of Musa Dagh; my seven-year-old father carried food and water to [Armenian] positions; while my mother was born in a cave in those days,” he told the crowd. “If French warships had not accidentally passed by the Musa Dagh coast, then I would not have existed and, to the delight of Robert Kocharian and Serzh Sarkisian, spoken from this podium today.” “In 1966, at the age of 21, during a demonstration held on the occasion of the genocide anniversary I was arrested [by the Soviet KGB] and kept in a Yerevan jail for about a week at a time when Kocharian and Sarkisian had not even heard about the word genocide,” he said. Ter-Petrosian said he continues to believe that genocide recognition should not have been included on Armenia’s foreign policy agenda after his resignation in 1998. “It is time to understand by setting ultimatums and cornering Turkey nobody can force it to recognize the Armenian genocide,” he said. “I have no doubts that Turkey will sooner or later recognize the Armenian genocide, but that will take place not before a normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations but after the creation of an atmosphere of neighborhood, cooperation and trust between our countries.” Ter-Petrosian at the same time rejected as “unacceptable and offensive” Turkey’s calls for the creation of a Turkish-Armenian commission of historians that would be tasked with determining whether the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians constituted a genocide. He also criticized Ankara for its furious reaction to genocide resolutions adopted by various countries of the world under pressure from their Armenian communities. “Turkey must not confuse Armenia with the Diaspora and must not resent the latter’s behavior because the Diaspora is a consequence of the genocide,” he said. “Had it not committed a genocide, there would have been no Diaspora.” Armenia’s first post-Communist government headed by Ter-Petrosian avoided raising the genocide issue in its dealings with Turkey throughout its tenure from 1990-1998. The Kocharian administration has likewise stood for an unconditional normalization of bilateral ties. However, it has declared genocide recognition a major foreign policy goal and welcomed relevant lobbying efforts by the Diaspora. The policy change was underscored by Kocharian’s 1998 speech at the UN General Assembly in which he urged Turkey to come to terms with one of the darkest episodes of its past. Ter-Petrosian dismissed such actions as mere gimmicks that have only antagonized the Turks and made the memory of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians killed in 1915-1918 an “object of immoral haggling” in the international arena. He claimed that Yerevan’s policy and Diaspora lobbying in Europe enable EU governments opposed to Turkey’s entry to the bloc to “exploit the genocide issue.” “Isn’t it clear that Armenia can neither facilitate, nor impede Turkey’s membership in the European Union?” he said. “So why on earth do we send letters to Brussels demanding that the EU does not start membership talks with Turkey or set genocide recognition as a precondition?” “Isn’t it obvious that Turkey’s membership in the EU is beneficial for Armenia in the economic, political and security terms?” he added. “What is more dangerous: an EU member Turkey or a Turkey rejected by the West and oriented to the East? “Or what is more preferable? An Armenia isolated from the West or an Armenia bordering the EU? Our country’s foreign policy should have clearly answered these questions a long time ago.” The Kocharian administration says that Armenia supports, in principle, Turkey’s accession to the EU but believes that should happen only after Ankara drops its preconditions for normalizing relations with Yerevan. “Armenia does not regard Turkey's potential membership in the EU as a threat to national security,” Prime Minister Sarkisian wrote in a December 2006 article in “The Wall Street Journal.” “Quite the contrary. We hope it will mean that Turkey will change, and be in a better position to face both its history and future.” In an interview with Reuters news agency last July, Sarkisian accused the EU of turning a blind eye to Turkey’s long-standing economic blockade of Armenia. "Europeans are shy over these issues. They love to talk about human rights, about democratic values but it's much easier to talk rather than to implement anything," he complained. Armenian lobbying groups in Europe take a harder line, saying that genocide recognition should be a precondition for Turkey’s EU membership. One of them, the Brussels-based European Armenian Federation, plans to stage an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Belgian capital on Friday. The EU’s governing Council is scheduled to meet on that day to discuss stalled accession talks with Ankara. (Photolur photo) http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeniarepor...AF2E93754D6.ASP
|
|
|
Presidential election is another opportunity for Armenia to consolidate its democratic institutions Commenting on the results of his two-day visit to Yerevan, Special Representative of the European Union for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby stated today in a telephone interview with Mediamax that the upcoming presidential election “is an opportunity for Armenia to take another important step towards consolidation of its democratic institutions.” “There is a positive backdrop to build on. The parliamentary elections in May received an assessment that was largely positive. And the wide field of candidates for the presidency should provide for a lively campaign that will stimulate the interest in political life among the public”, Special Representative of the European Union in the South Caucasus said this. “But at the same time, there are also a few question-marks that will have to be taken seriously. Although the parliamentary elections received a passing grade, it will be a disappointment if the presidential elections will just be conducted at the same level. Instead, Armenia should aim for further improvement. The international observers noticed several areas with room for improvement, in particular media coverage, voting procedures, vote counting, prevention of vote buying, and use of administrative resources. The presidential election is an opportunity to address the shortcomings that were noticed last time,” Peter Semneby stated. Public Radio of Arménia source: Radiolur http://www.eafjd.org/spip.php?breve1090&lang=en
|
|
|
13:23 22/12/2007 ARAM MAILYAN: QUASI – ONE PARTY SYSTEM IN ARMENIA ''After the parliamentary elections of 2007, the opposition of 1996 does not exist. As a result of May elections, the acting system has strengthened, which, in fact is a quasi-one party system,'' the deputy of Supreme Soviet in 1990-95 Aram Mailyan made this statement. In his words, after the parliamentary elections the first president Levon Ter-Petrosyan came into the political field to feel the gap. He also said his entry was ''strong'' but he could not keep to the high level later. Mailyan believes the presidential elections will not be free, fair and at the high level as promised by the authorities. He is sure that the ''quasi-one party'' system will preserve and even in unfair elections, the authorities will win. Source: Panorama.am http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2007/12/22/mayilyan/
|
|
|
#$%&^&*(&*! Outcomes of Karabakh status referendum not predetermined, ICG says 24.12.2007 /PanARMENIAN.Net/ “The outcomes of referendum on Nagorno Karabakh’s status are not predetermined. Azerbaijan will have the opportunity to offer full-fledged citizenship to Armenians of Karabakh,” said Sabine Freizer, the International Crisis Group Director of the Europe Program. “It’s premature to speak of referendum results unless troops are withdrawn and refugees return to their homes,” she said. “The situation in Karabakh will clear up when refugees come back to their homes, an interim administration is formed, rule of law and human rights are secured. Anyway, irrelative of the outcomes of the referendum, owing to the geographical peculiarities of the region, all residents of Karabakh will have to keep in contact with Azerbaijan for the glory of the region,” Ms. Freizer said, Day.az reports. http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=24454
|
|
|
ICG: Azeri leadership should stop convincing publics in possibility to win the war 24.12.2007 /PanARMENIAN.Net/ There is a possibility of resumption of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, said Sabine Freizer, the International Crisis Group Director of the Europe Program. The oil incomes inspired confidence in Azerbaijan and offered a chance to modernize the army, according to her. “Azerbaijan seems to drag out a peaceful resolution unless the military balance is in its favor. Official Yerevan, which has achieved real economic progress, is also inflexible and keeps on building up defense expenses,” she said. “Armenian leaders also think that time works for them and de facto independence of Nagorno Karabakh will become a reality that can’t be neglected. However, the wait-and-see policy represents a menace. The year of 2012, when Azerbaijan’s oil income can reduce and the military adventure can seem a tempting way to distract popular attention from the economic crisis, promises to become the most dangerous year. Vital oil and gas pipeline stretching nearby Karabakh will be the first victims of the new war. This is a scenario Europe and the United States want to prevent,” Ms. Freizer underscored. “The Azeri leadership should stop convincing the public in the possibility to win the war with a Blitzkrieg,” she said, Day.az reports. http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=24451
|
тему читают:
|
|
|
