Category: Southern Caucasus

  • Azeri Consul General Protests LA Times For Including Karabakh in Travel Show

    Azeri Consul General Protests LA Times For Including Karabakh in Travel Show

    By Asbarez Staff on Feb 9th, 2010LOS ANGELES (APA)—Azerbaijan’s Consul General to Los Angeles, Elin Suleymanov, has complained to the Los Angeles Times for including Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in the Los Angeles Times Travel and Adventure Show set for February 13, the Azeri Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

    The Los Angeles event is the largest travel show in the US. The tourism offices of Armenia and Karabakh will share a large “Welcome to Armenia” booth in the Exhibition Hall of the Travel Show, which organizers estimate will be seen by as many as 50,000 people over the course of the two-day show.

    According to Ministry spokesperson Elkhan Polukhov, Suleymanov wrote a letter to the LA Times protesting that the exhibition referred to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as part of Armenia. The Consul General said it was unacceptable for the newspaper to invite Nagorno Karabakh because it is “an integral part of Azerbaijan.”

    Azeri-Americans have also written the LA Times, calling on the newspaper to” respect international law, which recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan,” Azerbaijan’s state-run APA news agency said.

  • Debate on Caspian Sea and future of Nabucco gas pipeline project

    Debate on Caspian Sea and future of Nabucco gas pipeline project

    Nabucco gas pipeline, which emerged in the recent history of energy, can create new opportunities for the EU countries to check the monopoly of Russia over their gas supply. This project is not only important for the diversification of gas supplies of the EU countries, but also will bring new advantages and stakes to the different countries while passing them through. Some of these countries are the post-Soviet Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan that intend to provide the natural gas resources for the following project. As obvious, these gas providers are the littoral Caspian Sea countries that legally dispute over the demarcation of the mentioned sea. Will it create difficulties for the realization of the Nabucco project? Or intentions of these states to join Nabucco will ease the dispute and push them towards concessions? 

    KEY WORDS: Nabucco gas pipeline, the Caspian Sea, demarcation, legal status, International Court of Arbitration, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, the EU

     Introduction

    The Nabucco gas pipeline is one of the hot issues among the planned projects those are on the agenda. The main problem that has been discussing till today is the natural gas sources of the following project. The first planned gas will come from Caspian Sea sources where the legal status of the sea is not solved completely yet. For that reason, all the issue of Caspian Sea legal status which related with the Nabucco project will analyze in this research paper. In the first part will analyze potential resources of the project and their opportunity in order to join the Nabucco pipeline. In this perspective there mainly will investigate Caspian Sea resources. Then in the second part will focus on the unresolved legal status of the Caspian Sea and its negotiation process. At the result of the negotiation there were signed the agreement between Caspian littoral states which also will analyze in second part. Later, in the third part will investigate sectoral dispute between two costal states of Caspian Sea –Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan around the same oil and gas fields in the sea border of the two countries. Moreover, Ashgabat decide to send the issue to International Court of Arbitration which it can influence the realization of the Nabucco gas pipeline project. On the other hand, there are also will examine the intentions of Baku and Ashgabat toward the Nabucco project.

    The thesis of this paper is that the realizing of Nabucco project mainly depends on the Central Asian gas resources. To active this project, Trans-Caspian pipeline must not be forgotten. Since, there is a strong relationship between these two lines. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan could not be realized it due to possible Russian influence. Thus, they need at least one of the Western countries or US guarantee to realize it. Because of the construction of these pipelines can influence to Russian gas monopoly all over the Europe. However, problem is that today EU counters could not construct a union energy policy which they try to make it individually with Russia or others.

    In order to analyze every part of the issue, firstly it was used traditional method in which historical development is based on. Additionally, there were online resources which including official statements, and other reliable academic papers.

    Potential resources and problem overview of Nabucco project

    The Nabucco project represents a new gas pipeline connecting the Caspian region, Central Asia, Middle East via Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary with Austria and further on with the Central and Western European gas markets[1]. In order to realize the project, the Caspian Sea gas resources are very essential, as the first stage of the project gas will come from Azerbaijan, which there is only Azerbaijan gas guarantee until now. Moreover, staying of the instability in the Middle East decreases the opportunity of this region in order to join the project and increases the importance of the Caspian Sea resources. On the other hand, for connecting the Iraq gas to Nabucco gas pipeline there is a need for a new pipeline between Turkey and Iraq which is a part of the Arab Gas pipeline. Besides, Iran is one of the alternative gas providers to Nabucco project with its enormous reserves but there is a problem about its underdevelopment gas infrastructure that needs huge investment. Also, the US is against the participation of Iran in the Nabucco project until solving the nuclear problems in this country. Because of all these reasons the Caspian Sea reserves are fundamental for realizing this project.

    Despite of the expectations of the European Union, there is a problem of the legal status of the Caspian Sea, which from 1991 till today could not be solved by the littoral states in this region. There is another problem as well. The Trans-Caspian pipeline that is planned to transport Turkmen and Kazakh gas to Baku has not been constructed yet, which will be joined Nabucco gas pipeline. Additionally, on July 2009 increasing dispute between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan around the Caspian Sea oil and gas fields, where Turkmenistan has decided to send the issue to International Arbitrage, could create another difficulty for realization of the Nabucco project. This dispute stems from the unresolved legal status of the Caspian Sea that will be discussed bellow.

    The unresolved legal status of the Caspian Sea 

    The Caspian region is one of the main energy bases and one of the major economic assets in the world. There are huge oil and gas reserves here, which are currently attempted to be fully improved and be transported to the world markets. Its oil reserves estimated to be 18-35 billion barrels that near to the United States (22 billion) and the North Sea (17 billion barrels) oil reserves.[2] Additionally, the region has a huge capacity of gas reserves as well, which is approximately 236-337 trillion cubic feet[3].   

    After the establishment of the USSR, the legal status of the Caspian Sea is defined by the agreement between the Soviet Russia and Iran (Persia) without participation of the other Caspian littoral states. This agreement was signed between these two states on 26 February 1921. Another agreement on Trade and Navigation between the USSR and Iran was signed on 25 March 1940[4]. Later, in 1949, the Soviet Union began to use the Caspian Sea hydrocarbon resources in the offshore area centered in the costal part of the Caspian Sea of Azerbaijan. It is worthwhile to mention that before the exploration in the fields of Siberia of the USSR in 1960s, the most productive region was Azerbaijan in the Soviet Union[5].On the other hand, until 1970, the USSR part of the Caspian Sea was used as a common sea among Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan. After that in 1970 according to the new amendment, this area was divided among the Soviet littoral states[6]. According to this amendment, Kazakhstan got 29%, Azerbaijan 20%, Russia 19%, Turkmenistan 18% and Iran 14% of the Caspian Sea[7].

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when the Caspian Sea littoral states got their independence, they intended to determine the new status of Caspian Sea. In this period every littoral state’s perspective was different from others and they couldn’t achieve an agreement. Because, this process took place without pre-planning and, obviously, the littoral states were not ready for that in 1991-1992.  From the beginning, Azerbaijan was an only state that proposed the sectoral division via the median line method of the Caspian Sea, which now is accepted by the all other littoral states of the Caspian Sea but only except Iran.[8]

    Despite of the disagreement between the coastal states, Azerbaijan signed the “Contract of Century” in 1994 with the largest oil companies in the world in order to corporate and explore the Caspian Sea off shore fields in the Azerbaijan sector. With this event, the Caspian Sea became one of the major geo-strategic areas and energy sources of the world. However, in this period the Caspian Sea was not a part of the economic plans of Iran and Tehran considered the fact of the occurrence of the western oil companies in the Caspian Basin as a political danger to its national security. Moreover, Russia also could not accept this agreement because of the old imperialistic ambitions in the South Caucasus[9].

    After, singeing of the “Contract of Century” the Caspian littoral states could make an agreement and it was the first phase of the negotiations period. Russia and Kazakhstan could come to the agreement on the division of the northern part of the Caspian Sea to realize sovereign rights on subsoil use from July 6, 1998[10]. Later than, Azerbaijan also joined the contract, where at the beginning of the negations process her propose was the same. The signing of this agreement was very important, because the Caspian Sea costal states found a solution to the main legal problem of the Caspian Sea about its status and ways of the using it. The basin’s sectional division was admitted by all littoral states, except Iran.  Additionally, this agreement put a quota on the fishery and bioresearches in the Caspian Sea because of the threat of extinction[11].

    With the signing of the agreement, a dispute occurred between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan because of the distribution of the Caspian three oil and gas fields – Kapaz (Turkmenistan calls it Serdar), Azeri (Omar) and Chirag (Osman).  Even, in 2001 the Embassy of Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan was closed. Nevertheless, the relationship of two states began to normalize in the time of new and current President of Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, and there were signed some good intention documents[12]. Then, bilateral negotiations constantly started between the two sides in order to solve the problem in the sea borders of the two states.   

    The bases of the bilateral negotiations have been constructed in the middle line principle and it was taken as a basis, which is also accepted in the international practice. The middle line concludes from the last costal point of territory of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. However, the problem is that, Ashgabat suggests that “Absheron peninsula and Chilov Island should not be taken into consideration while delimitating the Caspian Sea between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.[13]” If the two states border are delimitated from the Absheron peninsula and Chilov Island, there are two oil and gas fields – Azeri (Omar) and Chirag (Osman), which should be included into Azerbaijani territory of the Caspian Sea. Conversely, if these territories should not be taken into consideration while delimitating the Caspian Sea borders between these two states, these two oil and gas fields will be included into Turkmenistan area of the Caspian Sea.

    Despite of these expectations of Ashgabat, there is no any international practice like this, which one territory should not be taken into consideration while delimitating the sea borders between two or more states. Besides, Absheron peninsula is not a small territory in the Caspian Sea that can be ignored while measurement. It lies down nearly 60 km towards the Caspian Sea, in which approximately 1/3 population of Azerbaijan lives. Additionally, the capital city of Azerbaijan is placed at the same area[14].

    Moreover, there is another dispute around the field of Kapaz (Turkmenistan calls it Serdar), where, according to Ashgabat, belonged to Turkmenistan sector of the Caspian Sea during the Soviet period. However, according to Baku- after the 1970 amendment in the USSR’s Caspian Sea law, the border line passed through from the center of Kapaz (Serdar) field. Furthermore, this filed is revealed by Azerbaijani oilman in the Soviet time and today Baku wants to extract it from Turkmenistan.

             The International Court of Arbitration and the intentions of Baku and Ashgabat

    On the other hand, the bilateral negotiations has been continuing from 1999 till today between two parts and last meeting was realized in Baku on July 15-17 2009. After the last meeting, President of Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow ordered to address the international experts and high-degree lawyers to learn the Azerbaijan’s claims over the disputed fields in the Caspian Sea and legality of the foreign oil-gas companies operating in those fields, and then, intent to send the documents to the International Court of Arbitration.  It should be also mentioned that before this statement, in the meeting of governments on July 10, Berdimuhamedow stressed that they (Turkmenistan) want to participate in Nabucco project[15], where there is seemed a contradiction between his two statements. Because, sending the dispute issue to an international court can cause a problem for realization of Nabucco project[16] from the point of view prestige. Since, may be an investments would not want to put investment to the project which its source in the International court.

     Nevertheless, Ashgabat decide to send issue to the International Arbitration may be there is different intention of Berdimuhamedow. Because, Turkmenistan is one of the largest global reserves and it is the largest producer of gas in the region with production of 2.0 tcf/yr, it accounts for almost two-thirds gas output of the region[17]. When Berdimuhamedow came to power, one of his priorities in the foreign policy was the diversification of energy transport roots to the world market. There is an attractive opportunity- is the Nabucco project, which completely depends on Turkmen gas to be realized at the end, because, Azerbaijani gas is not enough to fulfill the Nabucco gas pipeline.

    There is one of the main obstacles for Ashgabat to join Nabucco project is the unconstructed Trans-Caspian gas pipeline that aims to transfer Turkmen gas to Baku. Moreover, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan could not realize it together, because there are needs the Western encouragements to the both sides[18]. One can assume that the unexpected Turkmen move at this time aimed “specifically at attaining some more concessions from the West, especially given the current huge interest of the latter to get the Nabucco project swiftly implemented”[19].

    Meanwhile, there is a similarity between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan in energy transportation policy toward the Nabucco project. It is a very important project for these two countries, because, both sides want to transport energy reserves to the world market without the bypassing Russia. Despite of those two Caspian littoral states’ intentions to this project, there is European Union diminished policy to realize the Nabucco project. As every EU country has its own national energy policy, as a result, they cannot construct a common and harmonized EU energy policy. At the result of inattention of EU, Baku singed the gas agreement with Gasport for selling Shah- Deniz II field’s gas to Russia .The amount of gas agreement was not huge, just 500 mil but it was the signal of Baku to the EU for to be more active. 

    On the other hand, four months ago, there was an explosion in the natural gas pipeline between Turkmenistan and Russia, where the natural gas flow has failed to resume yet[20]. Besides, as a result of the global financial crisis, there is a decrease in the natural gas demand in Europe. Thus, Russia wants to re-negotiate the volume-and-dollar terms for its gas. However, Turkmen has protested that a contract is a contract and Turkmenistan is losing $1 billion in a month in revenue[21].

    Meanwhile, the unbearable Russian position to Turkmen gas export still is in progress. In addition, there is imperceptible European Union view to Nabucco project which both of them speed up the construction of China Turkmenistan gas pipeline. The pipeline 1,833-kilometer gas pipeline starts at the gas plant near this border town in Turkmenistan and runs through central Uzbekistan and southern Kazakhstan before entering China at the border pass of Horgos in the northwest region of Xinjiang.  The pipeline, starting near a Chinese-developed gas field in eastern Turkmenistan, is expected to reach full annual capacity of 40 billion cubic metres by 2012-13 and help Beijing propel its explosive economic growth[22].

    Then again, the both of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan want to create a center of attention of the United State’s interest to this gas pipeline project. Because, the Nabucco project is the one of the big project in the world that there need full politically and financially supporting for the supplier counters and European counters. It’s too hard for European Union countries to realize the Nabucco project without the US supporting. Moreover, the “Nabucco is an integral part of a US strategy of total energy control over both the EU and all Eurasia”[23]. On the other hand, the role of the US lobbying for successfully realizing of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline which it began from Azerbaijan to Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, which opened in 2005[24] also be a magnet for Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

    Eventually, the legal status of the sea should solve according to International Law and International practices with the providing of costal states interests because, the Caspian Sea is one of the major geo-strategic areas and energy sources of the world but not only for littoral states. On the other hand, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan should compromise each other in order to realizing of the Nabucco project because the both states are interest with this project.

    Conclusion

    The potential resources of the Nabucco project are under the question. There are some problems in the Middle East also Caspian Sea as well which it can influence the realization of project. On the other hand, there is unresolved legal status of the Caspian Sea that it began after the collapse of the Soviet Union until today. Moreover, at the result of negotiation process there was signed the agreement between Caspian Sea littoral states about the sartorial division of sea according to middle line principle. Nevertheless, signed agreement for sartorial division of Caspian Sea, there is no fully solution of the problem. Additionally, increasing dispute between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan around the Caspian Sea oil and gas fields, where Turkmenistan has decided to send the issue to International Arbitrage, could create another difficulty for realization of the Nabucco project.


    [1] Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH, “Project Description ,Pipeline Route,” (accessed August 15,2009)

    [2]CaspEcoProject Management and Coordination Unit, Caspian Sea Environment Program  “General background”   http://www.caspianenvironment.org/NewSite/Caspian-Background.htm /  (accessed 27 August 2009)

    [3] Bernard A. Gelb, Terry Rayno Twyman, The Caspian Sea Region and energy resources (New York: Hauppauge, 2004)

    [4] Kepbanov A. Yolbar,” The New Legal Status of the Caspian Sea Is The Basis of Regional Co-Operation and Stability ,” Journal  of International Affairs, Vol.2 Num. 4  (December 1997-February 1998)

    [5] Kamyar Mehdiyoun” International Law and the Dispute Over Ownership of Oil and Gas Resources in Caspian Sea”  The American Society of International Law. (2000)

    [6] Kepbanov A ..” The New Legal Status of the Caspian Sea …”

    [7] Meftun Metin”HAZAR Politik ve Bölgesel Güç”( İstanbul: IQ kültür sanat yayıncılıq 2004) 148

    [8] Yusifzade B. Khoshbakht, “The Status of the Caspian Sea Dividing Natural Resources between Five Countries,” Azerbaijan International, vol.8:3 (2000) (accessed September 10, 2009).

    [9] Rustam Mamedov “International Legal Status of the Caspian Sea: Issues of Theory and Practice” (working paper, Ankara University journals database, 32 DOI: 10.1501/Intrel_0000000041,2001)

    [10] Kazakhstan Today, “Russia ratified Russian-Kazakhstan Caspian sea division agreement” March 11.2007,   (accessed September 19, 2009).

    [11] Mamedov “International Legal Status of the Caspian Sea…

    [12] Michael P. Croissant, Bülent Aras, “Oil and geopolitics in the Caspian Sea Region‎” ( Peaeger Publisher,  Westport USA, 1999) 34.

    [13] APA , “Turkmenistan Foreign Ministry: Absheron peninsula and Chilov island should not be taken into consideration while delimitating the Caspian Sea”  August  04, 2009 (accessed September 20, 2009)

    [14]  Gennadiĭ Illarionovich Chufrin , The security of the Caspian Sea Region ,( Stockholm International Peace Research Institute OXFORD 2001) 64

    [15] APA , “Turkmenistan Foreign Ministry: Absheron peninsula and Chilov island….

    [16] Jackson Alexander, “The Implications of the Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan Dispute”, Caucasian Review of International Affairs, vol. 42, August 10, 2009 (accessed September 19.2009)

    [17] Hooman Peimani , The Caspian pipeline dilemma: political games and economic losses, (Peaeger Publisher, Westport USA, 2001) 15

    [18] Ibrahimov Rovshen, “Turkmenistan need Western encouragement”( Qafqaz University lessons  Baku, Azerbaijan August 27,/2009 )

    [19] Jackson “The Implications of the Turkmenistan…..

    [20] David Trilling” Turkmenistan: Pipeline Spat With The Kremlin Turns Into A Political Test Of Strength” EURASIA INSIGHT 4/15/09  (accessed Dismember  25, 2009).

    [21]Steve Le Vine “Nabucco and Trans-Caspian: Times Change, Pipeline Politics Goes On” JULY 30, 2009, (accessed September 23, 2009).

    [22] Xinhua reports “Chinese, Turkmen, Kazakh, Uzbek presidents unveil gas pipeline”

    [23]Hearing, Energy supplies in Eurasia and implications for U.S. energy security (Washington USA: DIANE Publishing, 2007) 60

    [24] Brenda Shaffer, Energy Politics (Pennsylvania USA: University of Pen… Press, 2009) 53

     Famil QURBANOV – Baku Qafqaz University

  • U.S. Pressure ‘Essential’ For Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    U.S. Pressure ‘Essential’ For Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    5F3058B3 C736 4039 8022 05494F31979D w527 sArmenia — David Phillips, a U.S. scholar who chaired the former Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, presents the Armenian translation of his book in Yerevan, February 4, 2010.

    04.02.2010
    Emil Danielyan

    Stronger U.S. pressure on Turkey is essential for salvaging its fence-mending agreements with Armenia and the administration of President Barack Obama understands that, according to a renowned U.S. scholar who was actively involved in Turkish-Armenian reconciliation initiatives.

    In an interview with RFE/RL on Thursday, David Phillips also criticized Ankara’s linkage between the implementation of those agreements and a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. He dismissed Turkish claims that a recent ruling by the Armenian Constitutional Court ran counter to key provisions of the Turkish-Armenian “protocols” signed in October.

    Phillips, who coordinated the work of the U.S.-sponsored Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) in 2001-2004, further said that Armenia should not rush to walk away from the deal. But he stressed that its ratification by the Turkish parliament can not be “an open-ended process.”

    “If these protocols fall apart and there is a diplomatic train wreck, it will have a serious adverse effect on U.S.-Turkish relations,” he said. “And this comes at a time when the U.S. is seeking Turkey’s cooperation on Iran, when Turkey is playing an increasingly important role in Afghanistan and during the wrap-up to redeployment from Iraq.

    “The Obama administration knows full well that these protocols should go forward because it is in the interests of Turkey and Armenia. It is also in America’s interests to keep the process moving forward so that U.S.-Turkish cooperation is in effect.”

    Analysts believe Washington will step up pressure on Ankara ahead of the April 24 annual commemoration of more than one million Armenians massacred in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1918. Obama avoided describing the massacres as genocide in an April 2009 statement, implicitly citing the need not to undermine the ongoing Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.

    U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg discussed the issue with President Serzh Sarkisian and Foreign Minisiter Edward Nalbandian during a one-day visit to Yerevan on Thursday.

    Phillips, who currently runs a conflict resolution program at the American University in Washington, declined to speculate on just how strong that pressure will be. “But I do believe that unless the Obama administration presses the Turks at the highest level, the likelihood of the protocols being ratified in Ankara will decrease,” he said.

    Phillips described Steinberg’s visit as a “a clear indication that the Obama administration understands the importance of this matter and the need to raise the profile of its involvement.” “And its efforts to use its leverage should intensify in the near future,” he said. “The U.S. needs to be actively engaged in this process if it is going to work.”

    U.S. officials have already made clear that they disagree with Ankara’s highly negative reaction to the Armenian court ruling. While upholding the legality of the protocols, the Constitutional Court ruled last month that they can not stop Yerevan seeking a broader international recognition of the Armenian genocide.

    Turkish leaders claim that the court thereby prejudged the findings of a Turkish-Armenian “subcommission” of history experts which the two governments have agreed to set up. The Armenian side insists, however, that the panel would not be tasked with determining whether the mass killings and deportations of Ottoman Armenians constituted genocide. It says the Turks are deliberately exploiting the ruling to justify their reluctance to ratify the protocols.

    “There is nothing in the [relevant protocol] annex that says that the subcommission is going to be considering the veracity of the Armenian genocide,” agreed Phillips. “If those questions are being raised, they are being raised as a way of deflecting the focus of discussions and creating conditions whereby Armenia is blamed for any breakdown of the process.”

    “If the Turks ever thought that signing the protocols would bring an end to international recognition efforts, they were wrong,” he said. “They should have known that from the beginning and I’m quite sure that they do know that.”

    Commenting on Turkish leaders’ repeated statements making protocol ratification conditional on the signing of a Karabakh agreement acceptable to Azerbaijan, Phillips said, “The protocols are very clear. There is no mention in the protocols themselves or in any of the annexes about Nagorno-Karabakh.”

    President Serzh Sarkisian has publicly threatened to annul the agreements unless Ankara drops the Karabakh linkage “within a reasonable time frame.” Some of his aides have spoken of late March as an unofficial deadline for their unconditional implementation.

    In Phillips’s view, walking away from the deal at this juncture would be a “mistake.” But he acknowledged that the Armenian government can not wait for Turkish ratification for much longer.

    “I know that for domestic political reasons, this can’t be an open-ended process, and April 24, as the anniversary of the Armenian genocide, has been put forward as a deadline,” he said. “Whether or not April 24 is a deadline is something for the Armenian government to decide. But there clearly needs to be an end point.”

    In the meantime, suggested Phillips, Sarkisian should formally submit the protocols to Armenia’s parliament “without necessarily calling for a vote.” “Then the onus of responsibility for a potential diplomatic breakdown would rest with Ankara,” he reasoned.

    D2AAC51A 092A 4526 A2E4 7BB599EEC3E4 w270 s

    Armenia — Armenian-language copies of Unsilencing the Past, a book on the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission written by U.S. scholar David Phillips.

    Phillips spoke to RFE/RL in Yerevan where he arrived earlier on Thursday to present the newly published Armenian translation of his 2005 book, “Unsilencing the Past,” that gives a detailed account of TARC’s largely confidential activities. The panel of Turkish and Armenian retired diplomats and prominent public figures was set up in 2001 at the U.S. State Department’s initiative and with the tacit approval of the authorities in Ankara and Yerevan.

    TARC repeatedly called for the unconditional establishment of diplomatic relations between the two states and opening of their border before being disbanded in 2004. It is also famous for commissioning a study on the events of 1915 from the New York-based International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). In a report released in February 2003, ICTJ concluded that the Armenian massacres “include all of the elements of the crime of genocide” as defined by a 1948 United Nations convention.

    But the report also said, to the dismay of nationalist groups in Armenia and its worldwide Diaspora, that the Armenians can not use the convention for demanding material or other compensation from Turkey. Former U.S. President George W. Bush repeatedly cited the ICTJ study in his April 24 statements.

    Phillips hailed the study as a potential blueprint for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. “The full benefit of that finding has yet to be fully understood and materialized,” he said.

    Phillips also credited TARC with laying the groundwork for the unprecedented thaw in Turkish-Armenian relations that began shortly after Sarkisian took office in April 2008. “The rapprochement that’s underway today would never have occurred in this time frame if TARC hadn’t existed,” he said. “All of TARC’s recommendations are now being put into effect.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1949005.html
  • U.S. House Panel Schedules Vote On Armenian “Genocide” Bill

    U.S. House Panel Schedules Vote On Armenian “Genocide” Bill

    7F036E98 4463 4DAB AC52 D12375569225 w527 sU.S. — The early morning sun rises behind the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC, 22Oct2009

    05.02.2010
    Emil Danielyan

    A key committee of the U.S. House of Representatives will vote early next month on a resolution urging President Barack Obama to describe the 1915 mass killings and deportations of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide, Armenian-American leaders said on Friday.

    The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), said Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has scheduled the vote for March 4. The ANCA chairman, Ken Hachikian, thanked the California Democrat for taking what he called a “bold step.”

    Officials from the Armenian Assembly of America, the other major Armenian lobby group in Washington, confirmed the information. The Assembly was due to officially announce it later in the day.

    “We look forward to working with the Chairman and all our friends on the Committee from both parties to facilitate passage of this critical piece of human rights legislation by both this panel and the full House of Representatives,” Hachikian said in a statement. “Our grassroots activists are mobilized to help achieve the success of this effort.”

    The draft resolution introduced by pro-Armenian legislators a year ago urges Obama to “accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.” Its progress in the House of Representatives stalled in 2009 amid an intensifying dialogue between Armenia and Turkey that culminated in the signing last October of two “protocols” on normalizing relations between the two nations.

    The reported scheduling of the House committee vote will add a new twist to Washington’s efforts to secure the protocols’ ratification by the Armenian and Turkish parliaments. Some observers expect the Obama administration to use the prospect of genocide recognition in its efforts to eliminate ratification conditions set by the Turkish government.

    Ankara has gone to great lengths in the past to prevent similar genocide resolutions from reaching the House floor. The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved such legislation in 2000, 2002 and 2007.

    The upcoming committee vote could further complicate Turkey’s efforts to win U.S. support over a recent Armenian Constitutional Court ruling which the Turks say was at odds with the letter and spirit of the protocols. A top Turkish diplomat will reportedly visit Washington for that purpose in the coming days.

    1F7B2E28 246B 4B08 B602 EA223724C5A9 w270 s

    Armenia — Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian (L) talks to visiting U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg on February 4 2010.

    Senior U.S. State Department officials have already dismissed, however, the Turkish protests against the court’s conclusion that the protocols can not stop Yerevan from seeking broader international recognition of the Armenian genocide. According to official Armenian sources, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg reaffirmed that position during a visit to Yerevan on Thursday.

    Steinberg on Friday described his talks with President Serzh Sarkisian as “extremely productive and substantive.” He also urged Ankara and Yerevan to move forward on protocol ratification, the AFP news agency reported.

    “I very much hope that both Armenia and Turkey will move forward. I don’t think delay is in anybody’s interest,” Steinberg told journalists in Tbilisi.

    “There’s a very strong commitment on behalf of the United States to work with Armenia and Turkey to see the ratification of the protocols,” he said.

    Armenian-American leaders say the near-term passage of the genocide bill, vehemently opposed by the Turkish government, hinges, in large measure, on whether Turkey’s parliament will endorse the protocols. As one of them told RFE/RL recently, “If Turkey does not ratify the protocols or open the border [with Armenia] on time, the resolution will be relatively easy to pass.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1950012.html
  • International Conference and Student Workshop on the Armenian Diaspora

    International Conference and Student Workshop on the Armenian Diaspora

    BOSTON—Boston University will host an international conference and a student workshop on the Armenian Diaspora during the weekend of February 12. The three-day event is organized by the Charles K. and Elisabeth M. Kenosian Chair in Modern Armenian History and Literature, Boston University.

    Armenian Diasporan communities emerged over centuries as a result of voluntary migration and forced displacement in times of military conflicts, the Genocide during World War I, and economic and political crises. Featuring ten panels, the conference and the workshop will bring together more than forty scholars to present their views and new research on the Armenian Diaspora. They will explore a wide range of topics, including the formation of Armenian Diaspora communities and identities in different parts of the world, the role of the Armenian communities in host societies, and the development of diasporic cultures in various contexts (e.g., nationalism, transnationalism, feminism).

    Friday Program:

    The student workshop will take place on Friday, February 12, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. at The Castle, 225 Bay State Road, Boston University.

    The workshop is sponsored by the Charles K. and Elisabeth M. Kenosian Chair in Modern Armenian History and Literature, and the International Institute for Diaspora Studies (A Division of the Zoryan Institute).

    Session 1: Diasporic Identities and Community-building
    Friday, 10 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
    Chair & discussant: Simon Payaslian (Boston University)

    Presenters:

    Cynthia Oliphant (California State University, Fresno)
    “The Effect of Organizational Structure on the Diaspora Experience”

    Anna Harutyunyan (Freie Universität Berlin, Institute Of Ethnology)
    “Challenging the Theory of Diaspora from the Field”

    Hakem Rustom (London School Of Economics)
    “The ‘Others’ of the Diaspora: Armenian Migration from Anatolia to France”

    Session 2: Diaspora and Cultural Development
    Chair: Bedross Der Matossian (MIT)
    Discussant: Kevork Bardakjian (University Of Michigan, Ann Arbor)
    Friday, 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

    Presenters:

    Lilit Keshishyan (UCLA)
    “Wandering as Rule: The Diasporic Subject in Vahe Berberian’s Namakner Zaataren”

    Marie-Blanche Fourcade (Université De Montréal)
    “Heritage Challenges in Diaspora: How to Preserve, to Share and to Pass Down? The Case Study of the Quebec Armenian Community”

    Stephanie Stockdale (Thunderbird School Of Global Management)
    “Cultural & Social Factors of the Armenian and Jewish Diasporas of Argentina: A Comparative Study”

    Session 3: Transnationalism, Nationalism, and Conflict
    Friday, 4 p.m. – 6 p.m.
    Chair: Richard G. Hovannisian (UCLA)
    Discussant: Asbed Kotchikian (Bentley University)

    Presenters:

    Stepan Stepanyan (Fletcher School Of Law And Diplomacy, Tufts University)
    “The Armenian Community of Georgia as a Factor of Security in the South Caucasus Region”

    Anush Bezhanyan (University Of South Carolina)
    “Iraqi Armenians after the Toppling of Saddam Hussein: Emigration or Repatriation”

    Katherine Casey (University Of Chicago)
    “Agree to Disagree: The Incompatible Nationalisms of Armenia and Its Diaspora”

    Lorand Poosz (Bolyai University)
    “Data Concerning the Transylvanian Armenian Community’s Response to the Armenian Genocide”

    Saturday-Sunday Program

    The conference will take place on Saturday, February 13, from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and on Sunday, February 14, from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. On both days the conference will be held at the School of Management, Auditorium-Room 105, 595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston University.

    The conference is sponsored by the Charles K. and Elisabeth M. Kenosian Chair in Modern Armenian History and Literature, the International Institute for Diaspora Studies (A Division of the Zoryan Institute), and the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, Belmont, Mass.


    Saturday Program

    Session 4: Diasporic Identity, Human Rights, and Genocide
    Saturday, 9 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
    Chair: Simon Payaslian (Boston University)
    Discussant: George Shirinian (Zoryan Institute)

    Presenters:

    Nanor Kebranian (Kenderian) (Columbia University)
    “Can the Armenian Diaspora Speak? Diasporic Identity in the Shadow of Human Rights”

    Joyce Apsel (New York University)
    “Teaching the Armenian Genocide in North America: New Resources, Programs, and Integration within Genocide Studies”

    Rubina Peroomian (UCLA)
    “The Third-Generation Armenian-American Writers Echo the Quest for Self-Identity with the Genocide at Its Core”


    Session 5: Narrativization of Diasporic Belongingness and Revival
    Saturday, 10:30 a.m. – noon
    Discussant: Khachig Tölölyan (Wesleyan University)
    Chair: Marc Mamigonian (NAASR)

    Presenters:

    Susan Pattie (University College London)
    “Constructing Narratives of Belonging among Armenians in the Diaspora”

    Sebouh Aslanian (Cornell University)
    “Networks of Circulation, Patronage, and ‘National Revival’: The Armenian Translation of Charles Rollin’s History of Rome”

    Sona Haroutyunian (Ca’ Foscari University Of Venice)
    “Vittoria Aganoor’s Alter Ego”

    Session 6: Armenian Repatriations 1946-1949: Contexts, Experiences, Aftermaths
    Saturday, 1:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.
    Chair & Discussant: Susan Pattie (University College London)

    Presenters:

    Sevan Yousefian (UCLA)
    “Picnics for Repatriates”

    Astrig Atamian (Inalco, Paris)
    “Armenia, here we come! The French Armenian Communists during the Repatriations”

    Kari Neely (Middle Tennessee State University)
    “Kevork Ajemian’s Use of Middle Eastern Armenian Repatriation in ‘A Perpetual Path’ ”

    Session 7: Desnelle Collective
    Saturday, 4 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.   
    Chair: Hrayr Anmahouni/Eulmessekian (La Crescenta, Calif.)
    Discussant: David Kazanjian (University Of Pennsylvania)

    Presenters:

    Helin Anahit (Middlesex University, London)
    “Diaspora Landscapes as a Thought Model”

    Emily Artinian
    (Chelsea College Of Art & Design, London)
    “From Ararat to Anywhere?”

    Christopher Atamian
    (New York)
    “Thinking the Past: Restorative and Reflective Nostalgia in Frounze Dovlatian’s ‘Garod’”

    Charles Garoian
    (Penn State School Of Visual Arts)
    “Scattered Flesh / Tservadz Mort”

    Neery Melkonian (New York)
    “A Feminism that is Often Accented, Sometimes Whispers, Even Stutters: Modern and Contemporary Armenian Women Artists in Transnational Contexts”

    Abelina Galustian (University Of California, Santa Barbara)
    “The Substance of Orientalism in Visual Representation”

    Sunday Program

    Session 8: Culture & Economy in Diasporan Communities
    Sunday, 9:30 a.m. – noon
    Chair: George Shirinian (Zoryan Institute)
    Discussant: Marc Mamigonian (NAASR)

    Presenters:

    Aida Boudjikanian (Montreal)
    “The Armenian Jewelers’ Niche of Montreal: Between a Local Trait and an Armenian Diasporic Tradition”

    Gregory Aftandilian (Washington)
    “Re-cementing Kinship Ties: Armenian-American Soldiers and the French Armenian Community during World War II”

    Philippe Videlier (Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, Lyons)
    “Armenians and Turks in France Confronting the Genocide”

    Matthias Fritz (State Linguistic V. Brusov University, Yerevan)
    “The Evolution of the Armenian Diaspora in Germany during the Past Two Decades”

    Session 9: Transdisciplinarity of Diaspora Studies
    Sunday, 1 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
    Chair: Richard G. Hovannisian (UCLA)
    Discussant: Khachig Tölölyan (Wesleyan University)

    Presenters:

    Daniel Douglas And Anny Bakalian (CUNY)
    “Armenians in the United States: A Quantitative Analysis Using the American Community Survey”

    Carel Bertram (San Francisco State University)
    “Diasporic Armenians as Pilgrims to Their Family Towns and Villages”

    Joan Bamberger (Anthropologist, Watertown, Mass.)
    “Re-Generation of Armenian Arts in Watertown, Massachusetts”

    Nikol Margaryan (Yerevan State University)
    “Anthroponyms in the Context of Ethnic Identity”


    Session 10: Diasporan Ethnonationalism and Transnationalism
    Sunday, 3:45 p.m. – 6 p.m.
    Chair: Asbed Kotchikian (Bentley University)
    Discussant: Bedross Der Matossian (MIT)

    Presenters:

    Ara Sanjian (University Of Michigan-Dearborn)
    “Limits of Conflict and Consensus among Lebanese-Armenian Political Factions in the Early 21st Century”

    Vartan Matiossian (Hovnanian School, New Jersey)
    “Domino Effect: U.S. Immigration Policies and the Formation of the Armenian Communities in Latin America”

    Ohannes Geukjian (American University Of Beirut)
    “Armenia-Diaspora Intransigence in Light of Armenian-Turkish Relations and the Resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, 1991-Present”

    Both the workshop and the conference are open to the public, and admission is free.

    Founded in 1839, Boston University is an internationally recognized institution of higher education and research. With more than 30,000 students, it is the fourth largest independent university in the United States. BU consists of 17 colleges and schools along with a number of multi-disciplinary centers and institutes that are central to the school’s research and teaching mission.

  • Armenian Defense Chief To Attend Afghanistan Forum In Turkey

    Armenian Defense Chief To Attend Afghanistan Forum In Turkey

    48DA57A6 675B 4E04 8F26 08E621771719 w527 sArmenia — Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian addresses students and professors at Yerevan State University on January 25, 2010.

    03.02.2010

    Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian will fly to Istanbul on Thursday to attend an international conference on the future of the ongoing NATO-led mission in Afghanistan which Armenia is about to join.

    Defense ministers of NATO member states are scheduled to start the two-day gathering on Thursday evening with a working dinner centered on reforms of the alliance. They will be joined on Friday by their counterparts from partner countries participating in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which has been fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan along with American troops.

    The meeting will discuss the planned dispatch of around 40,000 extra troops to Afghanistan as part of the ISAF’s new counter-insurgency strategy. They include a 40-strong Armenian army unit that will serve under German command and be mainly tasked with protecting a military airport in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz.

    1113B180 DFE9 4811 A935 0BFF8AA72B9C w270 s

    Armenia — Armen Martirosian (C), the Armenian ambassador to Germany, poses for a photo with Armenian troops due to be deployed in Afghanistan, January 28 2010.

    The Armenian parliament approved the deployment in early December after months of negotiations between Armenian and NATO officials. The Armenian contingent left for Germany last month to undergo additional training at a German military base located in the southwestern Baden-Wurttemberg region. It is due to flown to Kunduz later this month.

    Armenia’s ambassador to Germany, Armen Martirosian, visited the Afghanistan-bound troops on January 28. “The commanders of the [German] military base highly assessed the degree of the servicemen’s preparedness,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

    According to the Armenian Defense Ministry, Ohanian will hold bilateral meetings with some of his Western counterparts on the sidelines of the Istanbul forum. A ministry statement said he will also visit the Istanbul Patriarchate of the Armenian Apostolic Church which leads Turkey’s small Armenian community.

    Ohanian will apparently become the first serving Armenian defense minister to set foot in Turkey.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1947885.html