ARMENIAN POLITICAL NEWS

RFE/RL Report
Azerbaijan In New War Threat
Azerbaijan ` Minister of Defense Safar Abiyev, 2004
25.02.2010

Azerbaijan stepped up its threats to win back Nagorno-Karabakh and
Armenian-controlled territories surrounding it by force on Thursday,
with Defense Minister Safar Abiyev speaking of a growing likelihood of
`a great war' with Armenia.


`For 15 years diplomacy has not achieved any concrete results and
Azerbaijan cannot wait another 15 years,' Abiyev said, according to an
Azerbaijani Defense Ministry statement reported by local and
international media.

`Now it's the military's turn and the threat is growing every day,"
Abiyev was quoted as telling the French ambassador to Baku, Gabriel
Keller. `If Armenia does not end its occupation of Azerbaijan's
territory, the beginning of a great war in the South Caucasus is
inevitable.'

Azerbaijani leaders and President Ilham Aliyev in particular have for
years been threatening to resolve the Karabakh conflict by military
means if the long-running Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations fail to
yield a settlement acceptable to Baku. Abiyev's comments seemed to take
this bellicose rhetoric, criticized by international mediators, up a
notch.

Armenian leaders dismiss such threats. President Serzh Sarkisian warned
late last month that an Azerbaijani assault on Armenia and Karabakh
would trigger `serious counterattacks' with unspecified elements of
surprise.

Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian issued a similar warning earlier in
January. He said Armenian forces have significantly beefed up defense
fortifications around Karabakh in recent years and are prepared for
renewed fighting.

The mutual threats contrast with the American, French and Russian
mediators' hopes to broker an Armenian-Azerbaijani framework accord on
Karabakh in the course of this year. `The understanding [between the
conflicting parties] is growing and the number of issues that must be
tackled by the top leaders is decreasing,' Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov said early this month.

Still, the top U.S. intelligence official, Dennis Blair, warned just
days before Lavrov's statement that chances of another
Armenian-Azerbaijani war have grown because of the U.S.-backed
rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey strongly opposed by Azerbaijan.


RFE/RL Report
Armenia Again Threatens To Scrap Turkey Accord
26.02.2010

President Serzh Sarkisian made late on Thursday his most explicit
threat yet to annul Armenia's normalization agreements with Turkey in
what appeared to be a tense conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu reported the next day. (UPDATED)


The two men spoke in Kiev on the sidelines of the swearing-in of
Ukraine's newly elected president, Viktor Yanukovich. Davutoglu told
Turkish journalists there that the `meeting' centered on
Turkish-Armenian relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

`We reviewed the Turkish -Armenian normalization relationship in its
entirety with open hearts today, including our anxieties and the
obstacles we face,' Davutoglu said, according to `Hurriyet Daily
News.' `We spoke about Armenian- Azerbaijan relations and the
activities of the Minsk Group as related to the Karabakh issue.'

Sarkisian's press office clarified that the two held on talks as such,
saying that Davutoglu `approached and exchanged views' with the
Armenian president during a reception hosted by Yanukovich. It said
Sarkisian told him that the ratification of the Turkish-Armenian
`protocols' must be completed `within the shortest possible time.'

`Or else, as was stated before, the Republic of Armenia will withdraw
its signatures from the protocols,' the office said in a statement
circulated on Friday.

Sarkisian first publicly warned of such possibility in early
December. He instructed the Armenian government to draft legal
amendments regulating Yerevan's possible pullout from international
treaties. The Armenian parliament adopted them in the final reading on
Thursday.

Sarkisian was quoted by his office as also telling Davutoglu that
Turkey could open its border with Armenia before ratifying the
protocols. `A country dreaming about a region without borders should
take the first step and end Armenia's blockade,' he said, scoffing at
Ankara's stated efforts to promote peace and stability in the South
Caucasus.

`If Azerbaijani pressure does not allow Turkey's parliament to ratify
the protocols, then nothing keeps Turkey's executive authority from
opening, even before the protocol ratification, the border between the
two states which it itself had closed,' he added.

Sarkisian also ruled out any Turkish involvement in the Karabakh peace
process. He pointed to Turkey's `unilateral military assistance' to
Azerbaijan and `biased statements' on Karabakh made by Turkish
leaders.

In a related development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
reaffirmed on Thursday Washington's support for the quick and
unconditional ratification of the protocols. `We are working very hard
to assist Armenia and Turkey in their efforts and we would like to
continue to support that effort and not be diverted in any way at
all,' Clinton told U.S. lawmakers.

`The normalization process, which carries important benefits for both
sides, should take place without preconditions and within an obvious,
reasonable timeframe,' she said.

HETQ
ANKARA CONCERNED ABOUT "CONFUSING SIGNALS" FROM

YEREVAN
26.02.2010

According to reports in the Turkish press, Ankara remains unsatisfied
that Armenia is committed to normalizing relations with its western
neighbour.

Hurriyet reports that a senior Turkish Foreign Ministry official said
today that, "Confusing signals are coming from the Armenian side." The
official was referring to the law recently passed by the Armenian
parliament that would make it easier for Yerevan to ultimately pull
out of the Protocol ratification process.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with President Sargsyan
in Kiev on Thursday while attending the inauguration of Ukraine's
newly-elected President Victor Yanukovych. Hurriyet reports that the
meeting lasted for over a hour although it was scheduled for much less.

The paper claims that Turkish diplomatic sources are concerned with
the contradictions in Armenia's words and deeds, underlining that
Yerevan has repeatedly said that Protocols will not be put to a vote
before ratification by the Turkish parliament.

"I cannot understand the basis of the Armenian claim that one of the
parties concerned would ratify the agreements before the other party.

There is nothing about Turkey's pre-approval in either the protocols'
texts or under international law," Foreign Ministry spokesman Burak
Ozugergin told the Hurriyet.


OPENING OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH BORDER TO HAVE POSITIVE
INFLUENCE ON ENERGY SPHERE
news.am
Feb 22 2010
Azerbaijan

In the future Armenia may become a corridor for pipelines.

The due opinion was voiced by EU special envoy on Central Asian
countries Pierre Morel meeting Turkish journalists on February 19.

He said the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border will have a positive
influence on the energy sphere of both countries.

There are many options for a new Caspian-Turkish pipeline that has a
mobile and varying energy landscape. In this sense, Morel said that
Armenia could also have become a route for future pipelines. He
noted that there is no exact route for possible new pipeline. "I
think the main idea is to use Armenia as an area for conduction of
future pipelines", Morel said.

He said the Caucasus must be used for transportation of energy sources,
as the "South Caucasus is a wider concept compared to Nabucco".

"Corridor is not one pipeline, it is a system of pipelines. And only
in presence of a group of pipelines will it be possible to speak of
the southern corridor", Pierre Morel said.

Keghart.com
Editorial,

28 February 2010

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland

[Eurasia]
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island

[Eastern Hemisphere]
Who rules the World Island commands the World.”

--- Sir Halford Mackinder, geopolitician, 1904

When the Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet

Union political pundits pontificated that the world was entering an era

of long-lasting international peace. These premature optimists forgot

or disregarded that ideology wasn’t the only reason for the rivalry

between the United States and the Soviet Union. The two political,

military and economic giants competed also for good-old fashioned

national dominance.

Thus the much-ballyhooed peace dividend never materialized as

the U.S. increased its military budget rather than reduce it. After

undergoing an economic earthquake due to the break-up of the

Soviet Union, Russia recovered sufficiently to boost its military arsenal

but Moscow’s investment in military hardware significantly lagged

behind that of Pentagon’s. Taking advantage of Russia’s perceived

military and strategic decline, the U.S and NATO intensified their

encroachments on the Soviet Union’s former turf in Eastern Europe,

in the Caucasus and in the Middle East. Washington strategists

remained avid students of Sir Mackinder.

In January the U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria, James Warlick, said

that Washington is entering into negotiations with Bulgaria to station

interceptor missile facilities, probably in one of the three military bases

the Pentagon has established there. A week earlier the Romanian

President Traian Basescu had announced that his country—where the

U.S. has four bases—would host land-based U.S. interceptor missiles.

About the same time Poland revealed that a U.S. Patriot Advanced

Capability-3 anti-ballistic missile battery will be stationed 35 mile from

the Russian border. Meanwhile the Czech Republic has stated that it

will provide sites for a new-generation U.S. radar.

Georgia is also expected to offer bases for new U.S. missiles. Already

U.S. airmen have been stationed at the hugely expanded and

modernized Krtsanisi National Training Centre in Georgia. U.S. Marines

are training Georgian soldiers and have held at least one war game not

far from the Russian border. America’s number one ally in the Middle

East—Israel—is providing aerial drones to Tbilisi and is delivering large

amount of arms and ammunition to Georgia.

Azerbaijan, Armenia’s neighbor, is clamoring to join NATO. America sees

that country as an ideal launching pad for an attack on Iran. Since as many

as a quarter of Iran’s population is believed to be ethnic Azeri, Baku may

also be deployed by the Americans to destabilize Iran. Further south,

America is building land- and sea-based interceptor missile capabilities

in the Persian Gulf.

The Washington claim that the missiles in Eastern Europe are intended to

defend against Iranian and Korean missile threats is so patently a

falsehood that it doesn’t deserve to be contradicted.

In the past few years we have heard the almost daily threats of U.S./Israeli

attacks on Iran. While Iran is in itself an important country to have in the

Western camp, it’s also important to Washington as the last link in the

encirclement of Russia.

One doesn’t have to check the map to realize that Armenia is in the centre

of this strategic and military chess game. We are, in fact, the eye of the storm.

Georgia in our north in embroiled in conflict with our long-time friend Russia.

Iran, our southern neighbor, is facing regular threats from the world’s mightiest

pressure on Armenia to hand Artsakh to Azerbaijan. And let’s not forget the

heavily-armed genocide-denying neighbor which occupies most of historic

Armenia.

So far Yerevan has managed to stay out of the American strategy to constrict

Russia. We have remained friends with Moscow, Washington, and Tehran.

This might seem like a miraculous tightrope walk. It isn’t.

While Yerevan has played its cards well, Moscow, Washington and Tehran

understand that tiny Armenia—caught between a rock, a hard place, and

another harder place—has to stay friendly with the three major parties. Like

the Armenian community during the Lebanese Civil War, Armenia has wisely

chosen the path of positive neutrality.

But to remain in Washington’s good books in the long term, Yerevan needs

the concentrated support of American-Armenians. If someday the push comes

to shove and militarists in the Pentagon tell Armenia “you’re with us or against

us”, Armenia will need deft lobbying from the American-Armenian community.

Rather than chase fires as they blaze here and there, our lobbyist should have

in hand a robust and clearly-enunciated argument to convince Washington that

it is not in its interest to push tiny Armenia.

Whether it sides with Moscow or Washington, in case of conflagration,

Armenia would evaporate faster than one can say “Ayp, Pen, Kim”. Some

Lebanese Arabs—on both sides of the warring factions—initially expressed

their disapproval, if not hostility, when Armenians decided to opt for positive

neutrality during that country’s Civil War. But eventually, the warring sides

honored the Armenian position. We hope Washington and Moscow

demonstrate similar wisdom and sophistication and not try to drag Armenia

into their dangerous war games.


Message from ANC UK,

The Armenia-Turkey protocols, signed in Zurich, Switzerland on
October 10, 2009, by the foreign affairs ministers of both Armenia
and Turkey, are now awaiting ratification from their respective parliaments.

In their present form, the protocols satisfy two preconditions set by Turkey
for normalising its relations with Armenia, namely giving up any land claims
from Turkey and effectively abandoning the pursuit of the international
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, the ratification process
of the protocols satisfies Turkey’s third precondition of making
Armenia-Turkey relations conditional upon the resolution of the Artsakh
issue.

For these reasons, we will use all legal means to stop the ratification of
these protocols.

To prevent these dangers, we urge you to raise your voice of protest
and ask the deputies of the National Assembly of the Republic of
Armenia to block the ratification of these protocols.

http://notoprotocols.net/en/