Category: Georgia

Georgia’s top defense officers arrested in attempted coup

TBILISI, May 5 (Xinhua) — Several top Georgian Defense Ministry officials were arrested on Tuesday for an attempted coup, which ended without violence after most mutineers surrendered, officials said.

“It’s over. Most of the people have surrendered,” Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said.

Georgian officials said servicemen of an armored cavalry battalion based in Mukhrovani, 30 km from Tbilisi, mutinied earlier in the day. President Mikhail Saakashvili viewed the mutiny as “a very serious incident,” according to the Interfax news agency.

Defense Minister David Sikharulidze said the mutiny had been planned “on a broader scale” and was aimed at foiling the planned NATO exercise in Georgia.

“The general objective was to topple the government with an armed revolt,” he added.

Officials of the Defense and the Interior Ministries were at the scene to negotiate with the mutineers at the base.

“They know about our proposal,” he said, adding all commanders in Mukhrovani involved in the mutiny had been dismissed from their posts.

Utiashvili, the Interior Ministry spokesman, said the organizers were former high-ranking Defense Ministry officials.

“The preliminary investigation materials showed that the plot was coordinated with the Russians and was aimed at disrupting the NATO training scheduled to take place in Georgia on May 6,” he said.

Georgian officials said one organizer of the coup is Giya Gvaladze, head of the special task unit Delta in the 1990s, while another is Koba Kobaladze, who was previously reported by Interfaxas Koba Otaradze.

Kobaladze has been detained on suspicion of co-organizing the military mutiny, Interfax reported, citing local Imedi TV.

The arrested officers will be charged with planning a coup and involvement in the Russian special services, Utiashvili said.

The uprising unit has been confined to barracks, according to Utiashvili.

A video seized by the Interior Ministry showed Gvaladze talking to his followers about the coup planned for Thursday.

“The Russians will come to help us, a total of 5,000 people, who intend to liquidate such leaders as Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili,” Gvaladze said in the video, according to Interfax.

“If the coup is a success, Georgia will reunite with Russia,” Gvaladze said in the video, adding that elections would be held in Georgia if the coup succeeds.

Russia has denied accusations of involvement in the coup, the Itar-Tass news agency reported, citing a source in the Russian security services.

Russia’s permanent representative to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, also called the accusations ridiculous and absolutely unfounded.

“Of course we have slowly begun to get accustomed to mad accusations by Georgian political and military authorities that if there is hail or thunderstorms, this is all Moscow’s work,” Rogozin was quoted by Interfax as saying on Tuesday.

A NATO military exercise under the Partnership for Peace program is set to begin Wednesday in Georgia. NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero was quoted by Itar-Tass as saying that the exercise would go on despite the armed revolt.

Georgian opposition leaders also called an emergency meeting upon the mutiny, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

The opposition has been staging protests in Tbilisi recently demanding the resignation of Saakashvili.

Source: news.xinhuanet.com, 05.05.2009

May 5, 2009

INTERESTING PROPOSAL BY ARMENIAN EXPERT

ermeni-uzmandan-ilginc-teklif-yukari-karabag_bjpg

Friday, 01 May 2009

Founder of Michigan University Armenian Researchs Center and Caucasus expert Associate Professor Ronald Suni said that Karabkh conflict could be solved by giving a self governing status to Nagorno Karabakh while keeping it bounded to Azerbaijan.Giving an interview to Azerbaijani 1News news portal, American scholar said that the problem of Nagorno Karabakh could be solved only by the reconciliation between Azerbaijan and Armenia. He said, “Two basic principle must be applied. The solution should be based on territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and self determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. There should be an Armenian administration in Upper Karabakh where mostly populated by Armenians. Upper Karabakh should be given self governing status. But it should remain in the official borders of Azerbaijani state.”

Caucasia expert claimed that opening of borders might decrease the tension in the region. Suni said, “Opening of the state border between Turkey and Armenia could be a step towards decreasing the tension in the region. Following that development Azerbaijan may remove the embargo to Armenia too. And Yerevan may return the occupied lands back to Azerbaijan. Those are important steps.”

Armenian expert recognizes that Nagorno Karabakh is Azerbaijani land in his book. Experts writes in his book: “Armenians came to the region which is called as “Ancient Armenia” 2600 years ago. They settled this area after they found Urartu state there. Upper Karabakh is the land of Albanian people. Today grandchildrens of Albanian people is Azerbaijani Turks. Thus, Karabakh is Azerbaijani land.”

May 3, 2009

Azerbaijan confirms participation in military drills in Georgia

BAKU, May 1 (RIA Novosti) – Azerbaijani troops will take part in controversial NATO military exercises in Georgia, the defense ministry said in a press release.

The Cooperative Longbow/Cooperative Lancer 2009 exercises have been slammed by Russia despite reassurances from NATO that they will not involve feature light or heavy weaponry. Some 1,300 troops from 19 NATO countries and its partners are expected to participate, although Serbia, Moldova and Kazakhstan have withdrawn.

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said “NATO’s plans to hold exercises in Georgia…are an open provocation. Exercises must not be held there where a war has been fought,” and warned that the exercises could have negative consequences for those who made the decision to hold them.

The announcement follows a meeting on Wednesday in Brussels between the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Aliyev stressed Azerbaijan’s commitment to NATO-Azerbaijan relations and the country’s active participation in the Individual Partnership Action Plan.

The row between Russia and the military alliance intensified on Thursday following the expulsion of two Russian diplomats to NATO over spying claims and the signing of a border protection agreement between Russia and Georgia’s former republic’s of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Russia recognized the two former republics as independent states following a brief war with Tbilisi over South Ossetia.

The two Russian diplomats, one of whom is the son of Russia’s EU envoy Vladimir Chizhov, were expelled in connection with a spy scandal involving an Estonian official, Herman Simm, who was jailed for 12 years for handing over secret documents to Russian intelligence operatives.

Russia’s foreign ministry called the move “scandalous” and added “Naturally, we will draw our own conclusions about this provocation.”

And in a ceremony at the Kremlin on Thursday Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a joint border-protection agreement with the two former republics.

NATO responded to the signing saying that the agreements were a “clear contravention” of a French-brokered ceasefire deal.

And U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said: “This action contravenes Russia’s commitments under the Aug. 12 cease-fire agreement brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.”

Russia expressed its surprise to the reaction with Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko saying in a statement: “It is a surprising point to make as Russia has not signed any truce agreements with anyone in that region.”

May 1, 2009
The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy

CAUCASUS UPDATE

In this new section, we publish the weekly analysis of the major events taking place in the Caucasus. The Caucasus Update is written by our Editorial Assistant Alexander Jackson.

On April 20 the US State Department announced that Richard J. Morningstar had been appointed special envoy on Eurasian energy issues to Secretary Clinton (State Department, April 20). Morningstar will “provide the Secretary with strategic advice on policy issues relating to development, transit, and distribution of energy resources in Eurasia”. He is certainly well qualified for the job – he served as special advisor on Caspian basin energy diplomacy in 1998-1999, prior to which he served as a special advisor on assistance to the former Soviet Union.

The appointment of the special envoy suggests that the Obama Administration’s policy on the Caspian region is finally beginning to take shape. This should come as no surprise – the area does, after all, lie between two of President Obama’s biggest foreign-policy challenges, Russia and Iran, as well as Turkey, which has been highlighted as a key US ally in the drive to rebuild America’s image in the Muslim world.

But even in these critical areas the delay in appointing officials – which is so clear elsewhere in the US government, particularly the Treasury – is also visible. As of April 23, the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine was still vacant. Although most of the headline-grabbing policies towards Moscow so far have been initiated by President Obama or Secretary Clinton, the lack of a dedicated high-level official for Russia is alarming.

The profile of the Administration’s other Eurasia specialists suggests that the Obama Administration does not intend to make a radical break with the Bush era. Heading the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs as a replacement to Daniel Fried will be Philip H. Gordon, a Europe and Turkey specialist (Joshua Kucera over at Eurasianet wrote an excellent profile of Gordon on March 18). However, Gordon’s confirmation has been held up in the Senate by John Ensign, a Republican with links to the Armenian lobby. Ensign has allegedly blocked the confirmation in response to Gordon’s refusal, in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to classify the tragic events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire as ‘genocide’. This is not something new. Similar “refusals” prevented several other key appointments in the past including the appointment of an ambassador to Armenia for a couple of years up until 2008.

Gordon’s argument, which appears to be echoed by President Obama, is that use of the term would inflame Turkish public opinion and embolden hardliners, ruining the new Administration’s attempts to rebuild ties with Ankara. This suggests a new emphasis on pragmatism, a trend also clearly visible in efforts to rebuild relations with Russia even if this means toning down support for Georgia.

However, a change in tone does not reflect a wholesale change in policy. This is to be expected. The parameters of US involvement in the Caspian region – energy, counter-terrorism, peaceful conflict resolution, containing Iran and providing a bridgehead for operational support in Central Asia, are not likely to change. It was therefore logical that Matthew Bryza, the State Department’s top official for the South Caucasus and co-chair from the US in the OSCE Minsk Group, remained at his post. He has built up a solid reputation in the region and possesses extensive experience of its problems.

As noted above, any shifts in the new Administration’s policy towards the Caspian and the South Caucasus are likely to come through changing policies towards Russia, Iran, or Turkey. President Obama’s desire to reset relations with Russia has had mixed results so far, with agreements, for instance on strategic arms reductions, alternating with aggressive rhetoric against continued cooperation between NATO and Georgia (BBC News, April 16). The US so far has shown rhetorical restraint, and has made little fuss about the retrial of the ex-Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

This pragmatism is also visible in the Caucasus: the Obama Administration has held back from the unequivocal declarations of support for Georgia’s President Saakashvili that he received during the Bush Administration. Seeing him replaced with someone less bombastic towards Russia would probably be a quiet relief for Washington. As for Georgia’s NATO aspirations, the Obama administration will probably stick to the line agreed at the December 2008 summit – Georgia will be a member of NATO, but not yet.

There are three big questions with regard to Georgia. Firstly, how much military assistance is the US willing to offer to rebuild the country’s shattered armed forces? The cost of irritating Russia is likely to outweigh the benefits of re-equipping the Georgian military with American kit. Secondly, how would the US treat a revolution in Georgia? Its reaction to 2003’s Rose Revolution was generally supportive: it strongly criticised the falsified election which triggered the protests and was quick to congratulate President Saakashvili. His replacement by a Russia hawk would provoke grave concern in Washington. Thirdly, what would the new Administration do in a new Russia-Georgia war? Speculating on such a chaotic event is of course fanciful, but the US would certainly not go any further than the Bush Administration did in last August’s war. If John McCain – a noted Russia hawk and supporter of President Saakashvili – had won the election, things might be different.

The second big issue is Nagorno-Karabakh. Matters are largely out of Washington’s hands here. Although it co-chairs the OSCE Minsk Group tasked with resolving the conflict, Russia is far more dominant in this framework and the US has been increasingly hedged out of the peace process by Moscow and, to an extent, Ankara. Turkey’s Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform, which is apparently already operating despite a lack of fanfare (RFE/RL, April 20), was specifically designed to minimise the impact of outside powers on the Karabakh process.

Nonetheless, Ankara remains Washington’s main way of leveraging the conflict, partly through its rapprochement with Armenia. President Obama’s high-profile visit to Turkey in March was an explicit attempt to enlist the assistance of Washington’s main Muslim partner in Eurasia and a key NATO member to improve the US’s standing in the Islamic world. The appointment of Gordon indicates the new importance of Turkey, as well as a clear-headed desire to solve the Armenian issue.

Finally, Caspian energy, Morningstar’s new portfolio. His appointment suggests that the Obama Administration is hoping for the Nabucco project to be a repeat of the successful BTC pipeline, whose inception was overseen by Morningstar in 1999. This is optimistic, but there are few people with a better chance. His European expertise (he was ambassador to the EU 1999-2001) may help to nudge Europe into more active support of Nabucco, but once again there is only so much that Washington can do here. At an energy conference in Bulgaria on April 25, Morningstar bluntly stated that Nabucco is not a panacea for Europe’s energy problems.

Although it is still early days, the outlines of Obama’s Caucasus policy are becoming clear. A renewed partnership with Turkey and a willingness to work with Russia are the core elements. The Armenian diaspora in the US will be a clear loser from this, but Washington’s support of the Turkish-Armenian thaw will certainly benefit Armenia itself. Georgia, or more specifically President Saakashvili, may also lose out. Azerbaijan may gain if the Administration invests more energy in the Karabakh conflict, notwithstanding its limited influence there. In any case, the big question mark remains the new period of détente with Russia: if ‘pressing the reset button’ fails, the Bush-era cycle of confrontation in the Caucasus could easily resume.

April 29, 2009
South Caucasus Presents Tangled Web Of Shifting Allegiances
Turkish soldiers guard a road at Dogu Kapi, on the Turkish-Armenian border, on April 15.

April 24, 2009 By Brian Whitmore Anticipation is in the air in the Armenian village of Margara.

Roads are being repaired. Visitors are inquiring about real estate prices. Talk abounds of new hotels, shops, and restaurants.

A sleepy border hamlet of just 1,500 people, Magara is the site of the only bridge linking Armenia with Turkey — a bridge that has not been used since Ankara closed the border and cut off diplomatic relations with Yerevan in 1993 over the war in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Now, with talk of an impending Armenian-Turkish rapprochement reaching a fever pitch, locals like 70-year-old Demaxia Manukian are hopeful that their isolation is at an end.

“The more consumers there will be, the better it will be for us. Infrastructure will improve — the streets and the water system,” Manukian tells RFE/RL’s Armenian Service, stressing that the town will need to be spruced up in order to impress all the new visitors if the border opens.

“After all, it’s a matter of prestige. That’s why it has to get better.”

The thaw in relations between Ankara and Yerevan, which began shortly after Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian took office a year ago, has picked up steam in recent months with high-level backing from both the United States and Russia.

The issue takes on added relevance this week, as Armenians on April 24 commemorate the 94th anniversary of the onset of mass killings of ethnic Armenians by Ottoman Turks at the end of World War I — a longstanding source of tension between Turkey and Armenia.

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry announced this week that the two sides had agreed to a road map to normalize ties. In testimony before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Ankara and Yerevan for taking “bold steps” toward reconciliation, adding that “normalizing relations and opening their borders will foster a better environment for confronting that shared, tragic history.”

But the complex Turkish-Armenian relationship does not exist in a vacuum. It is but one thread in a tangled web of grievances and mistrust that have long plagued the South Caucasus — and sparked a sometimes fractious race for influence among the international powers drawn by the lure of energy and strategic location.

Historical Animosities

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Turkey was the first country to recognize Armenia’s independence, but the warm neighborly relations were short-lived.

Turkey and Azerbaijan, both predominantly Muslim countries, are close allies. When Armenia occupied Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region, Ankara broke off relations with Yerevan and closed the border in solidarity with its ally.

Azerbaijan remains deeply suspicious of a Turkish-Armenian reconciliation and has hinted that it would scuttle the regional balance if its interests are not safeguarded.

Moreover, Yerevan’s longstanding claim that the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I constituted genocide infuriates Ankara and has long been a roadblock to normalizing ties.

The Turkey-Armenia road map, brokered by Switzerland, comes as Armenia and Azerbaijan appear to be edging closer to a resolution of the Karabakh standoff, with apparent help from Moscow.

Both the Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders traveled to Russia this week for talks with officials, and both offered carefully worded, but optimistic, assessments of the talks.

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan, which fears it will be the odd man out in a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, has turned a cold shoulder to its traditional allies in Ankara in recent weeks, with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev refusing a recent invitation to travel to Turkey.

At the same time, Baku has been cozying up to Moscow.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (right) with Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev in Barbikha on April 17Baku may be seeking to remind Ankara that as the sole energy supplier in the South Caucasus, it is free to choose its friends, and its issues. Analysts say Turkey is trying desperately to persuade Azerbaijan that an opening to Armenia is in everybody’s interests.

“The Turkish strategic perspective and the message that they constantly articulate to Baku is that over the longer term, a normalization with Armenia will actually enhance Turkish leverage and influence in the region — which, from the Turkish point of view is good for Ankara and good for Baku,” says Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Center for National and International Studies.

“This is a Turkish strategic agenda based on Turkish national interests. It is not to curry favor with Brussels, nor is it to please Washington. But in the long run from a Turkish perspective, it’s good for the region, it’s good for Azerbaijan, and it’s good for Turkey.”

Baku, however, appears unconvinced.

During his visit to Moscow on April 17, Aliyev said he saw no obstacles to cutting a deal to sell natural gas to Russia’s Gazprom. Aliyev added that Baku hoped to diversify its natural gas exports, most of which are currently sent west to Europe via Turkey.

Such a move would be a severe blow to the proposed U.S.- and EU-backed Nabucco pipeline, which would transport gas from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to Europe via the South Caucasus, bypassing Russia.

Baku has also warned that an open Turkish-Armenian border “could lead to tensions in the region and would be contradictory to the interests of Azerbaijan.”

Shifting Alliances

Analysts say Aliyev is attempting play the gas card to get the best possible deal in a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Specifically, Baku is seeking Russian support for the withdrawal of Armenian troops from regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.

A Karabakh resolution would be a feather in Moscow’s cap as it seeks to reassert itself in its former Soviet territories. But a far greater draw — for Moscow and all the international powers keeping toeholds in the South Caucasus — is energy.

The South Caucasus’ role as a transit hub for oil and gas from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia to Europe is casting a long shadow over the ongoing process as Russia and the West seek to control these crucial energy routes. Ilgar Mammadov, a Baku-based political analyst, says “everybody is playing a sophisticated game.”

After the Armenian-Turkish road map was announced on April 22, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry released a statement saying that “the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations must proceed in parallel with the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied lands of Azerbaijan.”

But Mammadov says Baku’s strategy has risks, as it could push Azerbaijan even “farther into the hands of Russia” and away from the West.

“Baku is trying to use the advantage of its geopolitical location to influence the position of its European and American partners. But if the Russians respond to this policy in a very material way, like pulling Armenian forces back from some of the occupied territories, I think the foreign policy orientation of this regime in Baku may become irreversible,” Mammadov says.

If the Russians respond to this policy in a very material way, like pulling Armenian forces back from some of the occupied territories, I think the foreign policy orientation of this regime in Baku may become irreversible.The moves toward Moscow by Baku, which until now has enjoyed a degree of independence due to its energy wealth, are being watched nervously in Georgia, whose ties with Russia have sunk in recent years, bottoming out during the five-day war over South Ossetia in August.

With no energy resources of its own, and an international partner — the United States — that has grown more accommodating of Moscow in recent months, Georgia may be in the position to suffer most in the event of a resurgence of Russian influence in the region.

Armenia, which has the strongest traditional ties with Moscow despite its relative lack of resources, may prove a more equal partner if the border with Turkey is opened and its commercial isolation ends. In this way, Russia has a vested interest in seeing the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement move forward, and may be using the Karabakh process to help nudge it along.

In a recent interview with RFE/RL, Deputy U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza — who is one of three co-chairmen of OSCE-sponsored mediation on Karabakh — stressed that Washington sees the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation and a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement as “separate tracks.” He added, however, that negotiations on Karabakh are gaining momentum.

“I honestly can say that I feel more than ever a constructive spirit and that we are actually entering a new phase, I hope, of the negotiations,” Bryza said. “The presidents spent a year getting to know each other a bit and knowing each other’s positions. And now I feel we are moving to a new phase with a deeper more detailed discussion of the remaining elements of the basic principles that need to be resolved.”

Football Diplomacy 2.0

Analysts say, however, that Turkish-Armenian reconciliation will likely precede any settlement on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Sabina Freizer, director of the Brussels-based The International Crisis Group’s Europe program says many Caucasus-watchers are pointing to October, when Sarkisian is due to visit Turkey to watch a World Cup qualifying soccer match between Armenia and Turkey, as a possible date to close the deal.

“I am quite optimistic and I believe that if the border is opened and diplomatic relations are established this will change things fundamentally in the South Caucasus. I personally believe that at this point the two sides seem to be close enough that the border should open quite quickly,” Freizer said. “But of course the timing is very political. One date that people are talking about is during President Sarkisian’s visit to Turkey, if it occurs in October. That might be a good time to open the border.”

If an agreement is reached in time for Sarkisian’s visit, it would provide a tidy conclusion to the “football diplomacy” that the Armenian president began in September, when he hosted Turkish President Abdullah Gul to Yerevan to watch the last match between the two national teams.

While the United States has strongly backed Turkey and Armenia normalizing relations, the momentum is also causing some political discomfort for U.S. President Barack Obama.

During a visit to Turkey earlier this month, Obama encouraged the talks between Ankara and Yerevan, saying they “could bear fruit very quickly.”

The recent progress, however, will make it difficult for Obama to make good on a campaign promise to Armenian-Americans to recognize the 90-year-old mass killings as genocide. Such a move now would infuriate Turkey and potentially scuttle any deal to open the Armenian border.

But back in the border village of Margara, residents say they are ready to move beyond painful historical grievances.

Three of Demaxia Manukian’s uncles perished in the mass killings, but he nevertheless says he is ready to move on.

“There are Turks and there are Armenians. The Turks are human beings, too. They rock their children in their cradles just like we do,” Manukian said. “But when politics get injected into this, that is the danger.”

RFE/RL’s Armenian and Azerbaijani services contributed to this report
- Print
- Email
- Comment (4)
Would you like to post to this forum? Name * Enter your name Enter your name Location City City E-mail Enter your email Your email address is invalid Comment *
Your comment is empty or longer than 4000 characters. Your comment is empty or longer than 4000 characters. Disclaimer
Reader comments in no way reflect the views or opinions of RFE/RL correspondents, contributors, or staff.
Before you post a comment, please read the forum rules Are you human? Please enter the numbers below: Comments 1-4 (of 4) by: J from: US April 24, 2009 20:38 To Dasiey “from Canada”- your poor English betrays your IQ

by: Dasiey from: Canada April 24, 2009 17:18 Mr. Whitmore,

Based on the western media reports such as New York Times,Armenian have sculpted women and children in Azerbaijan just 17 years ago!!
As a humanitarian advocate ,I believe we can Not be blind to the facts that Armenian committed genocide in Azerbaijan just 17 years ago in the city of Kojli.
Armenia so far have not respected The latest U.N Resolution( March 14/2008) which asks Armenia to withdraw from %20 of Azerbaijan’s occupied lands.

Further more,Armenian terrorist group(ASALA)was removed from the list of terrorist in North America is still active! This is their media’s website:

The question is Which nation is the victim?

by: Armenian from: US April 24, 2009 13:16 Armenians will never move on until Turkey accepts genocide. There is no nation on the Earth that could forget genocide, and definitely, not Armenians. It is not politics, it is a matter of historical justice. So please stop publishing rubbish.

by: J from: US April 24, 2009 11:44 Why is Azerbaijan constantly mentioned- it is irrelevant to the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation issue. They should know that by now.
April 26, 2009
Opening of Armenia-Turkish border weakening Russian influence

By Messenger Staff

Thursday, April 23

Alexander Skakov from the Russian Institute of Strategic Research thinks that opening the Turkish and Armenian border will hamper Russian attempts to bring Armenia under its influence.

Today Armenia is under the Russian sphere of influence because it is confronting Azerbaijan and Turkey. Its connection to the rest of the world through Georgia is partly blocked and therefore the basis of its communications is Iran.

The Americans think they can offer Armenia better options and thus attract it into the US sphere of interest. Skakov says that if Armenia receives direct access to the Turkish coast, Black Sea and Mediterranean it will engage in more direct trade with the West, bypassing Russia. The West will also guarantee Armenia’s sovereignty. Skakov thinks that after opening the border with Turkey Armenia will become less dependent on Russia and more on NATO and the EU.

Source: www.messenger.com.ge, 23 April 2009

April 24, 2009