The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Harut Sassounian, the publisher of The California Courier newspaper, President of the United Armenian Fund and Lincy Foundation Vice President gives the Russian federal news agency Regnum an in-depth interview. For many years I have enjoyed reading Mr. Sassunians political commentaries. I consider him to be an Armenian nationalist and one of the finest representatives of the American-Armenian community.

Excerpt from interview:

"REGNUM: At present, Northern Martakert, Shahumyan and Getashen – the last named is part of Nagorno-Karabakh — are under Azerbaijan’s control. In your opinion, what is the solution to the problem of the regions in question?

A solution to the problem of the territories may be based on the principle of territorial swap. If we cede part of some territories under Artsakh’s control to Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani side returns the aforementioned territories. Another way is the resumption of hostilities and return of the territories by force."

It is interesting that a state controlled news agency in Russia would even ask such a question.

Armenian

************************************************** **************
Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is a secondary issue – interview with Harut Sassounian



REGNUM: A number of the US-based Armenian organizations are currently advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915. At present, 226 US Congressmen are reportedly advocating the adoption of a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. What is your opinion of the prospects for the adoption of the resolution? What is the importance of the resolution, considering the fact that Armenian political circles have no clear idea of their further steps after the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide?

Regarding your question about the prospects for the adoption of the resolution by the US Congress, I can say that more than half of the 435 Members of Congress have co-sponsored the resolution. This means that, if the resolution is submitted to a vote even tomorrow morning, it will be adopted without any problems. I think that around 350 Congressmen will vote for the resolution and just a few will vote against it. The major problem is whether the leadership of the US Congress will submit the resolution to a vote or, under Bush administration pressure, the resolution will be shelved, which was the case in 2000, when Speaker Hastert withdrew the resolution at the last moment. Otherwise, it would have certainly been adopted. The question is whether the scandal similar to that in 2000 will recur or the resolution will be submitted to a vote. I think that this time the resolution will be submitted to a vote, and its adoption has almost a hundred-per-cent chance, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been making statements advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide for 20 years. Besides, when I contacted her last November, before she was elected Speaker, she stated that she had been advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide for many years and intended to do so in the next year as well. Thus, we have a promise made by Nancy Pelosi who has not changed her position for many years. Also, a majority in the US Congress favors the adoption of the resolution. The submission of the resolution to a vote was postponed because of the parliamentary and, later, presidential elections in Turkey. We did not want the Armenian side to be accused of aiding the radicals in the Turkish elections. Now we have nothing to wait for and the resolution will certainly be submitted to a vote.

[...]

REGNUM: There is an opinion that Armenian Diasporan organizations, while dealing with the issue of the Armenian Genocide, do not pay enough attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Do you agree with this viewpoint, and is it possible that the international community should recognize the Armenian Genocide, without saying anything about the necessity for compensations, and oblige the Armenian side to make certain concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue instead?

I disagree with the opinion that the Diaspora is ignoring the Artsakh problem (In our conversation, I would prefer using the historical name of Nagorno-Karabakh – Artsakh). I have heard such an opinion, but I can state with confidence that not only this point of view is wrong, but also the real situation is quite the opposite. Our people, neither in Armenia nor in the Diaspora, have political sophistication. This has been true throughout our history. Armenians have always had an advanced culture, we have many excellent musicians, a rich literary and architectural heritage, but, in contrast to Turkey, we have never had political maturity. And no wonder. Turks ruled an empire for 600 years. We never had such an experience. We have always been under other nations’ yoke. All that we do in the political arena, including on the issue of the Armenian Genocide, is unprofessional and insufficient. We speak of the Armenian Genocide everywhere, make statements and give the impression that we are making great efforts towards the settlement of this issue. However, these are mere words without any value. The same is true in the Artsakh problem. Everybody says: “We are for Artsakh. This is our historical land.” But what is really being done for Artsakh? Yes, some young men went to war and sacrificed their lives for Artsakh’s freedom, which is the most valuable thing they could do. But what are others doing? They are only talking. We are always only talking. So I do not agree that we do more in this area than in another, and this is the reality.

[...]

REGNUM: You often visit Armenia and, naturally, are acquainted with the situation. If you had to enumerate the priorities of the country’s foreign policy, which issues would you first of all point out?

If we establish certain problems as priorities, the first thing to note is, of course, Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, as the conflict over Artsakh is unresolved. The major problem is a state of war or rather a bloody ceasefire with Azerbaijan – shots can be heard on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, both sides sustain losses. The second issue is the Armenian-Turkish relations – from the viewpoint of both the past and the current blockade of Armenia. The third item is, I think, the Armenian-Georgian relations, which are not problematic in general, but we have a problem of the Javakhk Armenians – not a territorial issue. However, the problem is the observation of the rights of the Armenians residing there. Of course, some problems of human rights, social conditions, schools and churches must be resolved in the context of friendly relations with Georgia.

REGNUM: The necessity for concessions has recently been spoken of more and more often in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. From the viewpoint of the Armenian Diaspora, what is the degree of concessions?

Conflict can be settled through compromises – this is a fundamental principle. Another way of settling conflicts is a decisive victory over the enemy in military operations. The issue is settled either at the negotiating table or on the battlefield. We gained a victory on the battlefield, and cannot be defeated at the negotiating table. I do not think that there exists any threat of resumption of hostilities. Azerbaijan is not ready for war. If they were, they would resume military operations without asking anyone. If hostilities are resumed now, Azerbaijan may lose all the other territories, particularly Shahumyan. That is, if Azerbaijan unleashes a war now, it will lose more than it may gain. I disagree with the opinion that the Armenian side must not cede even an inch of land. Some territories surrounding Artsakh, which are of no strategic importance or historically Armenian lands, may be ceded. It is not up to us to decide which particular region, town or village may be ceded to the Azerbaijani side. Time will come, and representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Artsakh, standing over a map, will draw a border. However, we must not just cede the territories to them, stating that this is our concession. In exchange, we must have them recognize Artsakh as an independent state or as part of Armenia. A relevant document must be signed, and an international peacekeeping force must be stationed in adjacent territories. That is, concessions are only possible in case of concessions on the part of Azerbaijan and observation of the aforementioned terms. I think it must be a comprehensive solution.

REGNUM: Do you think that the Azerbaijani side will agree to such a solution?

If they do not, we have nothing to propose to them. We gained a victory, and the Artsakh problem is resolved for us. We have nothing else to solve. We are quite satisfied with the present-day situation – Artsakh was liberated, full stop! It is in Azerbaijan’s interest to propose something to us, and concessions on our part will be possible in exchange for that “something.”

REGNUM: At present, Northern Martakert, Shahumyan and Getashen – the last named is part of Nagorno-Karabakh — are under Azerbaijan’s control. In your opinion, what is the solution to the problem of the regions in question?

A solution to the problem of the territories may be based on the principle of territorial swap. If we cede part of some territories under Artsakh’s control to Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani side returns the aforementioned territories. Another way is the resumption of hostilities and return of the territories by force.

REGNUM: Nevertheless, you rule out the possibility of resumption of hostilities in the immediate prospect. How long can this neither-peace-nor-war state last?

I am not a prophet. However, I personally rule out the possibility of such developments in the next few years. But we must always be ready for an attack.

REGNUM: What is your description of Armenia’s present-day foreign policy – nationalistic, liberal?

Once again I have to say what I have already said. I am not delighted with the political maturity of Armenians, both inside and outside Armenia. In general, I am not satisfied. I would not like to criticize Armenia’s authorities, because they have the same problem as all Armenians. Armenia’s policy in the international arena is not impressive. I can neither say that they committed major blunders nor can their work be called brilliant.

REGNUM: As a specialist in the field of communication, what is your opinion of Armenian information policy? If we consider the presence of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Armenia in the sphere of information activities, what problems can you see?

Our work in most fields lacks professionalism. Whatever field you ask about, I will have to repeat the same phrase. The work carried out in the information field is equal to zero.

REGNUM: To what do you attribute this deficiency and how can it be improved?

To improve in an area, one should first of all realize its value. Neither the Armenian people nor the authorities realize the value of the information field. For example, when Presidents Aliyev and Kocharyan agree on specific issues, and Aliyev then goes back on his word, it takes our authorities almost a year to reveal this fact. This information must be spread within 24 hours through all media outlets, PR-companies should be employed to flood Western newspapers with analytical articles, to show the world that we are a peaceful nation and ready for negotiations and concessions. And it is not us, but Azerbaijanis, who are the cause of war. We must clearly realize that information is power. It must be collected and used at the right moment.

REGNUM: As seen from Armenia, the Diaspora seems to be strong, but disunited? We have a 3-million-strong community in Russia, rather strong communities in the US and Europe. However, they do not cooperate. In your opinion, is there a necessity for at least these communities to cooperate, or the currently applied method is right and no need for coordination of Armenian communities’ activities exists?

What is going on now is both wrong and a waste of energy. We are a small nation, and cannot afford to be disunited. We need centralization of forces, cooperation not only between the aforementioned three communities, but also among Armenian communities worldwide. I have some ideas of how to organize Armenians worldwide, but I would not like to go into the details at this time. The unification of Armenians around common national ideas is a goal that can be attained. Members of Armenian communities worldwide must set themselves tasks and determine the ways of accomplishing them. Armenians worldwide can elect their leaders by democratic principles, by means of a vote. No one in the Diaspora should declare himself to be a leader without the vote of the Armenian public. Thus, we will have an elected body in the Diaspora that will cooperate with the elected leaders of Armenia and Artsakh.

REGNUM: You are also a representative of the Lincy Foundation. I would like to ask you a question. It is a hypothetical question, to be exact. In your opinion, in the context of the current situation, when Armenia’s borderline villages are hardly populated, would not it be better to direct the Foundation’s resources to the implementation of a repatriation program for Armenians, which is of paramount importance, rather than to the renovation of Armenia’s roads, which is important as well?

It is not up to me to decide where our Foundation’s resources must be directed. In Armenia, I supervise the work carried out under the Foundation’s programs. I am well acquainted with what is going on in Armenia, and if I had the authority, funds would have been directed to the resolution of some other problems. The process of allocating funds is as follows: Armenia’s top-level authorities propose the direction and a schedule of necessary works. The Lincy Foundation considers the authorities’ proposals under the following principle: “If we want to do anything good for Armenia, who is better informed of the country’s needs – those living in far away Los Angeles or the ones that grew up in this land, who are governing the country and are responsible for their people’s future?”

Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/897320.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

After their unsuccessful trip to the lion's den, it's all unraveling. Congoleezza Rice is laying it all out.

Armenian

************************************************** *********

Rice: Russia's Military Moves 'a Problem'




In Exclusive Interview, Rice Comments on Assertive Russian Military, Now Seen as Second Only to America's

In an interview with ABC News, Secretary of State of Condoleezza Rice expressed concern about Russia's increasing military assertiveness. "I think the rapid growth in Russian military spending definitely bears watching," Rice said. "And frankly, some of the efforts for instance, Bear flights in areas that we haven't seen for a while are really not helpful to security."

Rice was referring to flights of Russian TU-95 "Bear" bombers, which Russia started this summer, bringing the Russian aircraft to the edge of American and NATO airspace off the coasts of Alaska, Britain and Guam. In each case, the U.S. Air Force or NATO scrambled fighter jets to intercept the Russian aircraft, replaying a cat-and-mouse game that was common during the Cold War. But the Russian bombers had not made flights like these since 1992.

"We don't have an adversarial relationship with Russia any longer, and I would sincerely hope that Russian military activities, as well as Russian military expenditures, would reflect that," Rice said. Russia's military spending has increased dramatically under President Putin. U.S. intelligence estimates that Russia now spends as much on its military as China, which has also raised alarms with its build-up.

"Russia is once again indisputably the number two military power in the world, second only to the United States," a senior U.S. official said. Russia arms sales have also increased dramatically under Putin. And when it comes to arms, the list of Russian customers reads like a who's who of U.S. adversaries, including Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Burma. Rice said she raised this issue directly in talks over the weekend with Russian leaders in Moscow.

"The Russians, of course, say that there's nothing illegal about these arms sales," Rice said. "I [told them] not everything that is legal in the narrowest sense is good for the international system.

"Clearly, in the case of Iran and Syria, you have states that are engaged in destabilizing behavior in one of the world's most volatile regions, and, by the way, a region where we and the Russians are working together to try to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians, a more stable Lebanon, a more stable Iraq. And so, yes, it's a problem."

Source: http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3728855

[skhara]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Congoleezza Rice

"We don't have an adversarial relationship with Russia any longer

Oh really???!!!

and I would sincerely hope that Russian military activities, as well as Russian military expenditures, would reflect that

You know, the utter gall of these a**holes never ceases to amaze me. Only jooSA can have a national intrest, everyone else must fall in line..

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russia's Putin emerges from Iran plot "like a hero"



Commentators were both amused and intrigued at the heroic light thrown on Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday when he defied what he said were security service warnings of a plot to kill him in Iran.

"I don't known if it's true or not true, but it makes him look like a hero, if he goes there. It makes him look like Jean-Claude Van Damme, or Steven Seagal - it's a drama," said veteran Russian broadcaster Sergey Dorenko told Reuters. Putin, who was photographed earlier this summer showing off his muscular torso while on a hunting trip to Siberia, confirmed he would travel to Tehran after a summit in Germany, although Kremlin officials had said plans for his visit were in doubt.

The flurry of speculation followed a Russian news agency report published on Sunday, quoting a single unnamed security source, that plotters were planning to assassinate Putin in Tehran this week. The dramatic tale, since confirmed by Kremlin officials, has dominated the country's media. Unlike his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, with his booming voice, theatrical manner and shock of white hair, the current Russian President needs all the help he can get to make him colorful, said Dorenko.

"This is a kind of manifestation of quiet courage, it's like 'I must go'. It's not like Yeltsin, who was already a character when he came out on stage," he said. The plot reports come shortly before Duma elections this December and Putin's scheduled departure from office next March. They come at a time of speculation on how the president, hugely popular at home, will maintain some grasp on power in Russia.

KREMLIN STRUGGLE

"The impact is he's a hero and not afraid of a possible attack on him - so he's going," Dorenko said. Internal Kremlin intrigue, and no terrorist threat, were the real reason for the story, said Nikolai Zlobin, the director of the Russian and Eurasia Project at the World Security Institute in Washington.

"I think this is nothing to do with Iran and nothing to do with terrorism. I think this is an example of the struggle inside Putin's administration," he said from Moscow, where he has been following the news reports closely.

"Putin is the target of the story, not the target of a plot. I think some groups in the Russian elite are trying to show Putin that he has to be more careful, more balanced," he said.

Zlobin says they want Putin to recognize the destabilizing affect they believe could result from his departure as Russia's President and wanted to suggest how vulnerable the country could become, without him at the helm. Life without Putin. These groups, Zlobin said, would not be regarded amongst the liberals inside the administration and want Putin to feel very responsible ahead of the elections. Another analyst felt there were some real details backing up the allegations, even if they were being manipulated to suit a domestic political agenda.

"I think that there is something behind this information, like some real facts, but nobody knows exactly for sure," said political commentator Georgy Bovt.

"I think that information of this type would have never been reported by news agencies without the permission of the President's press office," he said.

"Why did they agree on making it public? I don't know, but there is some intrigue about how it was made public," he said.

Putin's visit to Iran is the first by a Kremlin leader since Josef Stalin went in 1943. Mystery around the "assassination plot" was reminiscent of the coded, enigmatic world of the old Soviet Union; 'orderly' days oft drawn on by Putin in his drive to centralize power and end the chaos of the Yeltsin era.

Tehran dismissed the report as baseless, calling it "psychological warfare" by Tehran's enemies -- an apparent reference to Western countries pushing Russia to back stronger sanctions against Iran over a nuclear program they believe could spawn atomic weapons. Russian television channels said previous plots to kill Putin had been foiled in Baku, Azerbaijan, in 2001 and in St Petersburg in 2000. Russian secret services did receive intelligence about a plot against Putin, the country's three main news agencies reported on Monday, quoting an unnamed security service official.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...58706420071015

U.S. Frustrated by Putin’s Grip on Power

[IMG][/IMG]

At the gathering of leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized nations in Germany this year, President Bush turned to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and remarked that the two of them had outlasted most of their old colleagues from the group’s annual meetings, American officials recalled. Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi, Gerhard Schröder and Tony Blair had left or were leaving.

“Next year,” Mr. Putin replied, “it will be only you.”

Mr. Putin’s response, for a time, persuaded the Bush administration that he would keep his word and step down as Russia’s president when his term ends next year, several months before Mr. Bush’s own presidency ends in January 2009. Now, though, Mr. Putin’s plans are far from clear, and as a result, the administration’s hopes that Russia would move toward a freer, more democratic society have substantially diminished.

Mr. Putin’s surprise suggestion last month that he might yet remain in power — possibly as a newly empowered prime minister, possibly as the eminence atop the “party of power” — has left the White House stumped. The administration is uncertain how to deal with a man who has consolidated power almost exclusively in his own hands, even as Mr. Bush continues to call Mr. Putin “my friend.”

That is why a certain discomfort regarding Mr. Putin’s future hovered over two days of talks here attended by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates.

“If you don’t have countervailing institutions, then the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” Ms. Rice said Saturday, raising concerns about the state of Russia’s judiciary, legislative branch and news media, but declining to criticize Mr. Putin by name.

When asked by reporters more than once and by a human rights advocate in a meeting at Spaso House, the American ambassador’s residence, she declined to discuss who might lead Russia, formally or informally, come next year and what that outcome might mean. At a news conference with the Americans and their Russian counterparts, the question elicited a smile from Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and guffaws from uniformed members of the general staff sitting in the audience, as if asking it were audacious.

“There’s a lot of speculation about who’s going to be president, whether President Putin is going to take any of a number of jobs or no job at all,” Ms. Rice said later, “and I just think speculating on that is not going to help.”

Such comments reflect another reality: the powerlessness of the United States when it comes to prodding Russia in a more democratic direction, barely six years after Mr. Putin’s willingness to reach out to Mr. Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, seemed to herald a new era of cooperation. Mr. Bush, a believer in the personal bonds of diplomacy, said he had seen in Mr. Putin’s eyes a trusted democratic ally in the effort to curb terrorism. Instead, on Mr. Bush’s watch, Russia has slid toward a more authoritarian system that seems to differ with the United States on more issues than not.

The administration’s occasional scoldings have accomplished little except to harden anti-American views at the Kremlin and in the state news media. (A swaggering Mr. Putin opened the discussions on Friday with a sarcastic harangue over the American plans for missile defense.) Along the way, promoting democracy in Russia has largely faded from the administration’s agenda, overtaken by a clear-eyed, pragmatic effort to defuse the disputes over missile defense, the future of the two countries’ strategic nuclear forces and the array of conventional forces in Europe.

Those issues, along with Iran’s nuclear programs, dominated the discussions here. A senior official who traveled here, speaking on the condition of anonymity because diplomacy was involved, said what Mr. Putin’s next steps might be was not a topic in any of the meetings. Tanya Lokshina, the chairwoman of a Russian human rights organization, the Demos Center for Information and Research, was among those who met with Ms. Rice on Saturday. She said that given the focus on security matters, the meeting with rights campaigners had been mostly symbolic.

She contended that the United States had “lost the high moral ground,” and thus should join with European countries to make it clear to Mr. Putin that a drift further away from democracy was unacceptable diplomatically.

“The American voice alone doesn’t work anymore,” she said after the meeting. “The Russians are not influenced by it.” She said Ms. Rice had bristled at the criticism, replying sharply, “We never lost the high moral ground.”

There is a growing sense in the White House that with Mr. Putin’s accretion of power, his ability to dictate his own successor or to remain the country’s ruler in some capacity is unavoidable at this point. Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said last week that he could imagine Mr. Bush turning to his friend and saying, “You really would be better off, Vladimir, if you really moved a little bit toward democracy.” But he went on to say that he did not expect a change.

In fact, senior administration officials find it hard to imagine that Mr. Putin would step aside and leave the trappings of office to a successor, even a weakened one, let alone the power he has concentrated in the presidency. Could Russia conceivably be represented at the next Group of 8 meeting, or any other important meeting, by someone who is nominally the head of state, but not the country’s real leader?

Whatever Mr. Putin’s ultimate plan, the Bush administration effectively has no choice but to deal with him until the succession plays itself out. Ms. Rice said she did not think that the uncertainty of the process would prevent progress on the disputes at the center of these latest talks.

She also said, when asked, that she had not misjudged Mr. Putin back in 2001 when Mr. Bush first met him. “I certainly always read him as somebody who was going to do what he thought was in the best interest of his nation and was going to be, in a sense, transparent about that,” Ms. Rice said. “Where there have been differences, I think it’s because I think we read those interests differently.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/wo...a4a&ei=5087%0A

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russian strategic bombers to conduct exercises Oct. 16-30



Russian strategic bombers will conduct October 16-30 a series of long-range training flights, with simulated bomber raids and missile launches, an Air Force spokesman said on Monday. "Russian strategic bombers Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3, and Il-78 aerial tankers will conduct flights over the Arctic region, the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, and the Black Sea, with simulated bombing raids and firing of cruise missiles at testing grounds in northern and southern Russia," Colonel Alexander Drobyshevsky said. Colonel General Alexander Zelin, the commander of the Russian Air Force, will supervise the exercises. Moscow announced in mid-August that regular patrol flights by strategic bombers had been resumed, and would continue on a permanent basis, with patrol areas including commercial shipping and economic production zones. The U.S. administration expressed concern about the resumption of patrol flights by Russian strategic bombers. "I think the rapid growth in Russian military spending definitely bears watching," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with ABC News on October 14. "And frankly, some of the efforts - for instance, Bear flights in areas that we haven't seen for a while - are really not helpful to security."

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071015/83924958.html

[Lernakan]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Armen Ayvazyan: Instead of reading the Genocide resolution adopted in US, they are playing the game of “she loves me, she loves me not” in Armenia



The process of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is at the threshold of a new phase: it is very possible that the U.S. House of Representatives (and the Senate, with lesser likelihood) will adopt the Resolution 106 on the Armenian Genocide, introduced in the U.S. Congress in January. If it were to happen, many other countries would adopt similar resolutions in a chain reaction. However, what will follow then? That is the principal question, which unfortunately has not been answered by the Armenian political structures. And where could such an answer come from if the currently achieved and discussed recognitions were not subjected to a more or less adequate analysis? We are facing serious problems.

Above all is the problem of information and analysis (including elementary awareness). The media reports daily on the process of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. However, who in Armenia has seen or read the text of the very recent R106? Has the Armenian press printed the actual resolution to enable its serious and professional study by political forces, experts and the public in general? Where is its official Armenian translation provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia? Where is the comparative analysis of this and previous resolutions adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1975 and 1984 (the 148th and 247th resolutions, respectively)? Nothing of this sort has been undertaken. Here, it will only be noted that the R106 qualitatively differs from the 1975 and 1984 resolutions in its thorough historical and legal formulation (it consists of 30 articles well supported by the facts and arguments). It confirms the historical truth. It outlines the chronological framework of the Armenian Genocide more comprehensively: from 1915 to 1923 (unlike the resolution adopted in 1975, which only noted the year of 1915). It clearly states the number of victims: 2 million deportees, of whom 1.5 million were killed. The resolution underscores a circumstance that is very important from political and legal perspectives: “the Armenian Genocide… succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.”

The problem of correct and sober assessment is particularly sensitive. What would the adoption of this resolution mean to Armenia? For example, Italy, Canada, Poland recognized the Armenian Genocide, but what changes took place in their policies towards Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, or the problem of Artsakh? In reality, nothing changed. Most importantly, to what extent can such resolutions contribute to the most urgent task – the guarantee of the security of Armenia?

The question of Genocide recognition was raised even before the independence of Armenia and for decades it was the main field of political activity of the Armenian Diaspora – the Spyurk. However, today the situation of Armenia and Armenians has changed radically: there is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the situation in Javakhq, the Azerbaijani-Turkish blockade, the danger of the resumption of war. In short, the problem of the physical security of Armenia is a very real one.

However, the genocide recognition campaign, conducted without serious research and planning, still remains the main aim of political activity of the Diaspora, consuming huge amounts of national resources and human potential at the expense of efforts on other important national fronts. In their activities the Diaspora’s organizational structures give an obvious priority to the international recognition of the Genocide over current security problems of Armenia.

Armenia itself still separates the Karabakh problem from the process of international recognition of the Genocide, and considers it apart even from the Armenian Question at large. But the possible universal recognition of the Genocide in the not-so-distant future will not mean the vanishing of the Armenian Question from the international political arena. Since the essence of the Armenian question is not the international recognition of the Genocide, but the creation of a mature Armenian state on such a territory, which would insure a safe, viable existence and development of the Armenian civilization. From that perspective there are no developed plans on further activities of the Armenians.

In short, the Armenian political elite and society on the whole display an irresponsible, almost childish approach to the question of international recognition of the Genocide, one that resembles the whimsical game “she loves me, she loves me not”, in this case with the refrain “she recognizes, she does not recognize”. In the meantime, a correct reorientation (regardless how difficult) of this process may give immense political capital to Armenia and the Armenians in general.

It is long overdue that Armenia and Armenians evaluated similar resolutions with their own (still not formulated) criteria, which would correspond to the historical reality as well as national and state interests. Below are five main criteria for such assessment:

•Accurate indication of the chronology of the Genocide: 1894-1923;

•Necessary mentioning of the fact that the Armenians were annihilated in their homeland – the western part of Armenia;

•Unambiguous indication of the state, which committed this crime against humanity, i.e. Ottoman Turkey, as well as the direct condemnation of its legal successor, the Republic of Turkey, for denying the Armenian Genocide and committing hostile acts towards present-day Armenia (the blockade, the refusal to establish diplomatic relations, the information warfare, the military aid to Azerbaijan, etc.);

•Recognition of the responsibility of the Turkish state before the Armenian state, the ultimate representative of the interests of the Armenian nation, and the necessity of compensating, particularly, the Republic of Armenia (implying, above all, the territorial compensation);

•Mandatory linkage of the consequences of the Genocide with the current geopolitical situation in the region. In other words – the acknowledgement of the foremost effect of the Genocide on the security of Armenia and the region.

The truth is that the Genocide created a territorial problem by decreasing the historical area of habitation of Armenians to a critically dangerous scale, threatening the very existence of the nation. It is exactly in this context that one must view the issue of liberation of Artsakh (thanks to which the borders of Armenia acquired defensibility and minimally necessary strategic depth), as well as the provision for the secure development of the Armenians of Javakhq.

The task of Armenian diplomacy is to skillfully tie the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide to a just resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and the achievement of lasting security in the region. By recognizing the Genocide, the international community is obligated to make the next logical step and recognize the right of Armenians to Artsakh, including all of the liberated territory. Meanwhile, in parallel with the increase in attention to the issue of the Genocide in the publications of western media as well as in the politics of certain countries, recently, there is a notable tendency of strengthening pro-Azerbaijani positions regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This may completely devalue the process of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

The above-mentioned criteria regarding responsibility and compensation have not yet been included in any of the resolutions adopted by international institutions. The R106 is not an exception either. It does not contain a clear and unambiguous condemnation of the current Republic of Turkey. Though by accepting the timeframe of the Armenian Genocide between the years of 1915 to 1923, the resolution necessarily implies the responsibility of the founders of this republic as well (they were in control of the most of current territory of Turkey since 1920).

It is true that the last section of the resolution calls upon the US 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 the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution.” However, the fair statement about “the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution” is ambiguous. A direct referring to the current geopolitical predicament of Armenia as a consequence of the Genocide is absolutely needed.

Moreover, after meeting with the Turkish Ambassador on October 10th of 2007 the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a supporter of the R106, expressed hope that Turkey would realize it is not a condemnation of its current government but rather of “another government, at another time.” The Democratic Representative Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in turn, said he would soon propose a second resolution reaffirming the US-Turkish alliance and friendship.

Anyway, time does not wait. It is today that Armenia must begin the development and realization of the next phase of the policy for overcoming the consequences of the Genocide. Tomorrow, when it will have on the one hand the universal recognition of the Genocide and, on the other, a dwindled and weakened Diaspora (as a result of an accelerated process of assimilation) it will be too late.

The pragmatism of the foreign policy of Armenia means not the blatant ignoring of the apparent animosity of Turkey, but the comprehensive actualization of the Armenian Question, first of all with the help of realistically thought out propositions regarding territorial compensations to Armenia.

Armen Ayvazyan

Ph.D. in Political Science, Director of the “Ararat” Center for Strategic Research

http://regnum.ru/english/898381.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Indeed a historic event for Iran, for Russia and for the entire Caspian sea region. Needless to say, the West is increasing finding itself isolated.

Armenian

************************************************** *********

Iran hails Putin's landmark visit



Iran on Tuesday hailed the visit of Russian president. "The landmark visit to Tehran of Vladimir Putin is a major event itself but more importantly is the failure of a US-Zionist scenario organized to make the Russian president cancel his trip," the official news agency IRNA said in an editorial. President Putin is the first Russian president who visits Iran after about 65 years when the then president of Russia, Josef Stalin, visited the country in 1943 along with his British and US counterparts. Iran claims Israel tried to prevent this historic visit. "About 24 hours prior to President Putin's visit to Iran, certain Zionist sources started a new bid and a psychological warfare to prevent his visit claiming that there was an imminent "assassination plot" against the Russian president during his Tehran visit," the editorial added. During his stay in Iran, Putin stressed that Moscow would not allow other countries to use its soil for attacking the Caspian Sea littoral states. He made the remarks in his speech at the second summit of the Caspian Sea littoral states. The Russian president arrived in Iran Tuesday morning at the head of a high-ranking delegation to attend the summit.

Source: http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/217641

Putin Warns Against Use of Force on Landmark Visit to Iran



Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against the use of military force in the Caspian region. The Russian leader is in Iran for a summit of the five Caspian Sea nations. VOA's Challis McDonough has more in this report. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during an welcoming ceremony in Tehran, Iran, 16 Oct 2007 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during an welcoming ceremony in Tehran, Iran, 16 Oct 2007 Speaking on a landmark visit to Tehran, President Putin said no Caspian nation should let its territory be used to attack another Caspian state. The Russian leader's comments are seen as a reference to rumors that the United States is considering military action against Iran, because of its nuclear program. Mr. Putin spoke at the opening session of a summit of the five nations bordering the Caspian Sea. This is the first time a Kremlin leader has visited Iran since World War Two. Mr. Putin's trip is being watched closely for signs of movement in the nuclear standoff between Iran and the West. Russia has been a key mediator in the crisis. The Iranian and Russian presidents are scheduled to hold direct talks focusing on the nuclear issue. Mr. Putin went to Tehran despite a warning by Russian security services of a possible plot to assassinate him there.

Source: http://voanews.com/english/2007-10-16-voa8.cfm

Putin reaffirms commitment to Bushehr [Nuclear Power Plant] completion



Russia will complete the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran, President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday. Russian nuclear equipment export monopoly Atomstroyexport has been building Iran's first nuclear power plant despite opposition from Western countries and amid international concerns that the Islamic Republic is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program. "Russia said from the start that it would not only sign a contract but see it though," Putin, who is on a two-day official visit to Iran, told a news conference in the capital, Tehran. "We are not going to go back on our commitment," he said. The completion of the plant, being constructed under a 1995 contract, came under threat in February 2007 after Russia complained of funding shortfalls. Moscow said Tehran had only covered 60% of the required funds by the fourth quarter of 2006, and completely stopped payments in mid-January. Iran denied any payment problems, and accused Russia of delaying tactics. The Russian leader said the delays were mainly caused by certain technical and legal difficulties dating back to the initial 1975 construction contract between Iran and Germany, which has never been implemented. "At the start of the construction we received German equipment, which is obviously outdated," Putin said, adding that some other subcontractors, including South Korea, failed to provide equipment under relevant contracts with Iran. "In addition, there are certain legal provisions in the [Russian-Iranian] contract that have to be revised and amended," the president said. Putin also said Russia would start supplying fuel to Bushehr when a commissioning date is set, and contract obligations are amended. "Under International Atomic Energy Agency rules, nuclear fuel will be supplied several months before a nuclear reactor is commissioned," he said.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071016/84182133.html

[skhara]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

The "Great Game" Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6862

Preface: The Caspian Sea Summit and the Historical Crossroads of the 21st Century

This article is part of The Sino-Russia Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia (September 23, 2007). For editorial reasons the article is being published by Global Research in three parts. It is strongly advised that readers also study the prior piece.

History is in the making. The Second Summit of Caspian Sea States in Tehran will change the global geo-political environment. This article also gives a strong contextual background to what will be in the backdrop at Tehran. The strategic course of Eurasia and global energy reserves hangs in the balance.

It is no mere chance that before the upcoming summit in Tehran that three important post-Soviet organizations (the Commonwealth of Independents States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Community) simultaneously held meetings in Tajikistan. Nor is it mere coincidence that the SCO and CSTO have signed cooperation agreements during these meetings in Tajikistan, which has effectively made China a semi-formal member of the CSTO alliance. It should be noted that all SCO members are also members of CSTO, aside from China.

This is all in addition to the fact that the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the U.S. Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, were both in Moscow for important, but mostly hushed, discussions with the Kremlin before Vladimir Putin is due to arrive in Iran. This could have been America’s last attempt at breaking the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition in Eurasia. World leaders will watch for any public outcomes from the Russian President’s visit to Tehran. It is also worth noting that NATO’s Secretary-General was in the Caucasus region for a brief visit in regards to NATO expansion. The Russian President will also be in Germany for a summit with Angela Merkel before arriving in Tehran.

On five fronts there is antagonism between the U.S. and its allies with Russia, China, and their allies: East Africa, the Korean Peninsula, Indo-China, the Middle East, and the Balkans. While the Korean front seems to have calmed down, the Indo-China front has been heated up with the start of instability in Myanmar (Burma). This is part of the broader effort to encircle the titans of the Eurasian landmass, Russia and China. Simultaneous to all this, NATO is preparing itself for a possible showdown with Serbia and Russia over Kosovo. These preparations include NATO military exercises in Croatia and the Adriatic Sea.

In May, 2007 the Secretary-General of CSTO, Nikolai Bordyuzha invited Iran to apply to the Eurasian military pact; “If Iran applies in accordance with our charter, [CSTO] will consider the application,” he told reporters. In the following weeks, the CSTO alliance has also announced with greater emphasis, like NATO, that it too is prepared to get involved in Afghanistan and global “peacekeeping” operations. This is a challenge to NATO’s global objectives and in fact an announcement that NATO no longer has a monopoly as the foremost global military organization.

The globe is becoming further militarized than what it already is by two military blocs. In addition, Moscow has also stated that it will now charge domestic prices for Russian weaponry and military hardware to all CSTO members. Also, reports about the strengthening prospects of a large-scale Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq are getting stronger, which is deeply related to Anglo-American plans for balkanizing Iraq and sculpting a “New Middle East.” A global showdown is in the works.

Finally, the Second Summit of Caspian Sea States will also finalize the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Energy resources, ecology, energy cooperation, security, and defensive ties will also be discussed. The outcome of this summit will decide the nature of Russo-Iranian relations and the fate of Eurasia. What happens in Tehran may decide the course of the the rest of this century. Humanity is at an important historical crossroad. This is why I felt that it was important to release this second portion of the original article before the Second Summit of the Caspian Sea States.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Ottawa, October 13, 2007.

The haunting spectre of a major war hangs over the Middle East, but war is not written in stone. A Eurasian-based counter-alliance, built around the nucleus of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition also makes an Anglo-American war against Iran an unpalatable option that could turn the globe inside-out. [1]

America’s superpower status would in all likelihood come to an end in a war against Iran. Aside from these factors, contrary to the rhetoric from all the powers involved in the conflicts of the Middle East there exists a level of international cooperation between all parties. Has the nature of the march to war changed?

Tehran’s Rising Star: Failure of the Anglo-American attempt to Encircle and Isolate Iran

Shrouded in mystery are the dealings between Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan during an August, 2007 meeting between President Ahamdinejad and President Aliyev. Both leaders signed a joint declaration in Baku on August 21, 2007 stating that both republics are against foreign interference in the affairs of other nations and the use of force for solving problems. This is a direct slur at the United States. Baku also reemphasized its recognition of Iran’s nuclear energy program as a legitimate right.

However, the meetings between the two sides took place after a few months of meetings between Baku and the U.S. together with NATO officials.

Baku seems to be caught in the middle of a balancing act between Russia, Iran, America, and NATO. At the same time as the meetings between the Iranian President and Aliyev in Baku, Iranian officials were also in Yerevan holding talks with Armenian officials.

This could be part of an Iranian attempt to end tensions between Baku and Yerevan, which would benefit Iran and the Caucasus region. The tensions between Yerevan and Baku have been supported by the U.S. since the onset of the post-Cold War era, with Baku within the U.S. and NATO spheres of influence.



At first glance, Iran has been busy engaging in what can be called a counter-offensive to American encroachment. Iranian officials have been meeting with Central Asian, Caucasian, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and North African leaders in a stream of talks on security and energy. The SCO meeting in Kyrgyzstan was one of these. The importance of the gathering was highlighted by the joint participation of the Iranian President and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Security Council of Iran, Ali Larijani.



Iran’s dialogue with the presidents of Turkmenistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Algeria are part of an effort to map out a unified energy strategy spearheaded by Moscow and Tehran. Iran and the Sultanate of Oman are also making arrangements to engage in four joint oil projects in the Persian Gulf. [2]

Iran has also announced that it will start construction of an important pipeline route from the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Oman.[3] This project is directly linked to Iranian talks with Turkmenistan and the Republic of Azerbaijan, two countries that share the Caspian Sea with Iran. Furthermore, after closed-door discussions with Iranian officials, the Republic of Azerbaijan has stated that it is interested in cooperating with the SCO. [4] In addition, Venezuela, Iran, and Syria are also coordinating energy and industrial projects.


The Nabucco Project, Eurasian Energy Corridors, and the Russo-Iranian Energy Front


Across Eurasia strategic energy corridors are being developed. What do these international developments insinuate? A Eurasian-based energy strategy is taking shape. In Central Asia, Russia, Iran and China have essentially secured their own energy routes for both gas and oil. This is one of the reasons all three powers in a united stance warned the U.S. at the SCO’s Bishkek Summit, in Kyrgyzstan, to stay out of Central Asia. [5]



In part one of the answers to these questions leads to the Nabucco Project, which will transport natural gas from the Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia, and the Eastern Mediterranean towards Western Europe through Turkey and the Balkans. Spin-offs of the energy project could include routes going through the former Yugoslav republics. Egyptian gas is even projected to be connected to the pipeline network vis-à-vis Syria. There is even a possibility that Libyan gas from Libyan fields near the Egyptian border may be directed to European markets through a route going through Egypt, Jordan, and Syria which will connect to the Nabucco Pipeline.

At first glance, it appears that the transport of Central Asian gas, under the Nabucco Project, through a route going through Iran to Turkey and the Balkans is detrimental to Russian interests under the terms of the Port Turkmenbashi Agreement signed by Turkmenistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan. However, Iran and Russia are allies and partners, at least in regards to the energy rivalry in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea against the U.S. and the European Union.

In May, 2007 the leaders of Turkmenistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan also planned the inclusion of an Iranian energy route, from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, as an extension of the Turkmenbashi Agreement. A route going through either Russia or Iran is mutually beneficial to both countries. Both Tehran and Moscow have been working together to regulate the price of natural gas on a global scale. If Turkmen gas goes through Russian or Iranian territory, Moscow will profit either way. Both Tehran and Moscow have hedged their bets in a win-win situation.

Russia is also involved in the Nabucco Project and has secured a Balkan energy route for the transportation of fuel to Western Europe from Russia vis-à-vis Greece and Bulgaria. To this end on May 21, 2007 the Russian President arrived in Austria to discuss energy cooperation and the Nabucco Project with the Austrian government. [6] One of the outcomes of the Russian President’s visits to Austria was the opening of a large natural gas storage compound, near Salzburg, with a holding capacity of 2.4 billion cubic metres. [7] The Nabucco Project and a united Russo-Iranian energy initiative are also the main reasons that the Russian President will visit Tehran for an important summit of leaders from the Caspian Sea, in mid-October of 2007.



One might ask if Russia, Iran, and Syria are surrendering to the demands of America and the E.U. by providing them with what they sought in the first place.

The answer is no. The Franco-German entente is very interested in the Nabucco Project and through Austria has much at stake in the energy project. French and German energy firms also want to get involved as are Russian and Iranian companies. This is also one of the reasons Vienna has been vocally supporting Syria and Iran in the international arena. Total S.A., the giant French-based energy firm, is also working with Iran in the energy sectors.



Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus have not been fully co-opted; they are acting in their national and security interests. However, the national interests of modern nation-states should also be scutinized further. The leverage Moscow and Tehran now have can be used to drive a wedge between the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance. A case in standing is the initial willingness of France and Germany to accept the Iranian nuclear energy program. It is believed in Moscow and Tehran that the Franco-German entente could be persuaded to distance itself from the Anglo-American war agenda with the right leverage and incentives.

This could also be one of the factors for the marine route of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which runs from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany and bypasses existing energy transit routes going through the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belarus, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Eastern Europe is part of what is called “New Europe” as a result of Donald Rumsfeld’s 2003 comments that only “Old Europe,” meaning the Franco-German entente, was against the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [8] For example Poland is an Anglo-American ally and could block the transit of gas from Russia to Germany if it was prompted to do so by Britain and America. Moreover, Russia could exert pressure on these Eastern European countries by cutting their gas supplies without effecting Western Europe. Several of these Eastern European states also were pursuing transit fee schemes and reduced gas prices because of their strategic placements as energy transit routes.

Russia and Iran are also the nations with the largest natural gas reserves in the world. This is in addition to the following facts; Iran also exerts influence over the Straits of Hormuz; both Russia and Iran control the export of Central Asian energy to global markets; and Syria is the lynchpin for an Eastern Mediterranean energy corridor. Iran, Russia, and Syria will now exercise a great deal of control and influence over these energy corridors and by extension the nations that are dependent on them in the European continent. This is another reason why Russia has built military facilities on the Mediterranean shores of Syria. The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline will also further strengthen this position globally.
.....

[Merv]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Interesting to look at the path of the pipelines. The two countries that are obviously intentionally ommitted are Armenia and Serbia. Which indicates that both are seen as proxies of Russia and both will be treated that way in the future (i.e. not a pretty future from NATO!).

Stability has nothing to do with it: Georgian and Kurdistan are less stable than Armenia and Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia are less stable than Serbia (excluding Kosovo).

The Great Game continues.

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations