U.S. President maintains Armenia and Azerbaijan military aid parity

28.12.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

U.S. President George Bush signed the fiscal year (FY) 2008 overall appropriations package this week, known as the omnibus bill, which included $58.5 million in economic assistance for Armenia and maintained Armenia and Azerbaijan military aid parity, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA.)

The Armenia economic aid figures are $17.5 million less than the FY 2007 figures but represent a clear increase over the Administration’s request of $35 million. Congress also approved $3 million in foreign military financing (FMF) assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan, reversing the Administration’s latest bid to retreat from its 2001 pledge to maintain parity in military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan.

"We are troubled by the reductions in aid to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, particularly in light on the ongoing economic costs of the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, as well as Baku’s increasingly violent rhetoric about restarting its war against the Armenians," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "We thank all of our friends in the Congressional appropriations process who, working against significant competing budgetary pressures – were able to deliver figures higher than the President’s request, and also to maintain military aid parity."

In addition to the Armenia allocation, the omnibus aid bill also includes $50.5 million for Georgia and $19 million for Azerbaijan. Millennium Challenge Account funding is set for $1.5 billion, half of President Bush’s request.

The final compromise aid legislation does not stipulate a specific amount of aid to Karabakh, urging the State Department to be guided instead by the individual Senate and House recommendations adopted earlier this year, one of which did allocate $6 million in aid to Karabakh.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Interview With Murat Akgun of NTV R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs

Ankara, Turkey
September 20, 2007
QUESTION: Mr. Burns, good morning and welcome to the NTV studio.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: It's not a secret that the Turkish public is expecting a step or steps from the United States of America against the PKK as soon as possible, especially in northern Iraq. Do you think that we can see such steps in northern Iraq in the short term?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We are Turkey's greatest supporter on the PKK. We are against the PKK; we classify it as a terrorist organization; we do not give it any support; and we entirely sympathize with the Turkish people, the Turkish government. There was just an attack two days ago. A soldier was killed here in Turkey and I believe over 150 people have been killed this year by the PKK alone. And so we've got to work with Turkey and we want to work with Turkey to try to end this threat. Part of the answer will be working with the Iraqi leadership, specifically the Kurdish leadership in northern Iraq, to try to get them to give political support to the effort to stop the PKK. But we support Turkey entirely on this issue.

QUESTION: Last week there was a question to you from a journalist in Washington, if I'm not wrong. The question was can we see a step or steps from the US against the PKK in the next six months and then you said I believe so. If this is the correct answer as I remember it, what are you waiting for for some steps, especially in the military field in northern Iraq?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I think that the imperative here is two steps. First is to isolate the PKK diplomatically, convince the European countries not to allow the PKK to establish political front organizations in European capitals and is to brand the PKK and castigate it internationally as a terrorist organization. We the United States have contributed to that goal with Turkey, working with the Turkish government, and will continue that. The second is -- are there concrete measures that can be taken to protect the Turkish people and to protect the Turkish military from cross-border attacks? We are working with the Turkish government and the Iraqi government to try to create that environment where the PKK will no longer be able to attack. So we want to be helpful and we’re working with the Turkish government towards that end.

QUESTION: Are we still in the first step, Mr. Burns?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No, I think we've…we’ve been in the first step for ten years. We are in both the first and second phases. And both of them are important.

QUESTION: You were talking about cooperation between Iraqi authorities and Turkey and especially Kurdish leadership and Turkey, but now there are two important questions. First, Iraqi authorities have no power everywhere in the country and second, the Kurdish leadership do not even qualify PKK as a terrorist organization. In this case, what kind of cooperation do you expect between Turks and Kurds?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I think there has to be political dialogue, frankly, with the Iraqi leadership and the Turkish government and the two have to talk. Hopefully the Turkish government and the United States government can convince the Iraqi leadership that this particular organization is a violent organization, it doesn't deserve to have any political support whatsoever, and it has to be kept away from the border areas with Turkey so that it cannot launch its strikes across the border. That is primarily a political question. So discussions are important. The United States can help to facilitate these discussions. We have our own discussions with the Iraqi government. I know that Prime Minister Maliki was here in Ankara just a couple of months ago. I know that he said some very critical things about the PKK when he was here and it was good to see that.

QUESTION: But on the other hand, during the visit of Mr. Maliki we couldn't even succeed to sign an agreement concerning the fight against terrorism.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, there's no question that Turkey deserves help from the United States. We are your ally. We are your friend. As a victim of terrorism, and we are a victim of terrorism, we sympathize entirely with the Turkish people and Turkish government so you should consider us your closest collaborator in this fight against the PKK.

QUESTION: When you say that the United States of America is also the victim of terrorism, I just remembered the statement of the Prime Minister of Turkey the day before yesterday. He said that even the Pentagon could not handle the terrorism. How do you evaluate this remark?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I think that first of all I had a very good meeting with Prime Minister Erdogan yesterday and I think that we, all of us, realize that the fight against terrorism is not going to be easy, that there are times when we'll have successes and there will be times when we'll have setbacks, but we've got to have a consistent effort. And it had to be universal. It has to be all democratic countries working together so in that respect I think there's a great connection between Turkey and the United States because we both need to struggle against terrorism, which is affecting both of our peoples.

QUESTION: Well, there's a discussion among the public in Turkey whether Turkish armed forces should make an operation into northern Iraq or not, if there is not enough cooperation between the Iraqi Kurdish leadership and Iraqi central authorities and Turkey. Do you think that it's going to be a legitimate right of Turkey to make an operation against PKK targets?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We hope there will be adequate consultations and cooperation with the Iraqi government that will make it unnecessary for Turkey to take such an action. Obviously Iraq is a country that has experienced incredible trauma over the last four and a half years. We don't want to see anything develop that would further destabilize Iraq and so our vast preference would be to see the kind of trilateral cooperation among Iraq, Turkey and the United States that will make such an operation not necessary. And that's the goal of our policy.

QUESTION: I will have one more question concerning Iraq. There are press reports that the United States of America will withdraw forces from Iraq next year more and more and according to the same reports the Washington administration would like to use some harbors and bases in Turkey. During your visit to Ankara did you have any specific request concerning this issue to the Turkish authorities?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I didn’t have…I did not have any specific request to the Turkish authorities and I can just tell you that President Bush spoke last week, a week ago, about our policy in Iraq. He was very clear that the United States will maintain our military forces in Iraq and that we intend to be successful there.

QUESTION: Iraq is not the only issue in the Middle East or among our neighbors. I would like to ask a question about Iran. How would you evaluate the cooperation between Iran and Turkey due to the fact that they are two neighboring countries?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, first of all, we believe that Iran is a serious threat to peace. Iran is funding most of the Middle East terrorist groups and arming many of them. Iran is also trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. So Iran is a dangerous country. We want to work diplomatically, hopefully peacefully, with surrounding countries to try to isolate the Iranians. And, frankly, the United Nations has decided on sanctioning Iran so we are very pleased that Turkey is implementing the sanctions passed by the United Nations. We don’t believe there should be a business-as-usual attitude between any country and Iran because we need to pressure Iran economically so it will be more inclined to negotiate on this nuclear question.

QUESTION: There was very strong, hard statements from the French President and the French Foreign Minister concerning the nuclear capacity of Iran. Mr. Kouchner even mentioned the possibility of a war against Iran. Is it an option – a war between Iran and western countries or an operation of the United States of America if they do have nuclear weapons?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, there's no question in our minds that the achievement by the Iranian government in the future of a nuclear weapons capability would change the balance of power in the Middle East in a very negative way – for Turkey, for the United States, for all of the European countries – so all of us want to stop the Iranians from doing so. We have said, we Americans, that we wish to pursue diplomacy, that we wish to work with other countries to try to convince the Iranians that they need to stop. Now, one way to do that is through negotiations. We've offered negotiations with Iran. Iran had turned us down twice in the last year. We've said that we'll sit with Russia and China and the European countries, we the United States, together, talk to the Iranians and try to figure out a diplomatic way forward, but the Iranians have said no to the negotiations and they continue their nuclear research programs. That's why we've turned to sanctions, economic sanctions, at the Security Council. And we would like all countries to support those sanctions.

QUESTION: Do you still believe that there is risk of war in the area because of the nuclear capacity of Iran in the short term or mid-term?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, we hope very much to prevent a war. We hope very much that through a tough-minded policy of leverage of sanctions against Iran the Iranians will understand they are isolated in the world. Name the countries that support Iran in this quest for nuclear weapons – maybe Syria, maybe North Korea, maybe Belarus, maybe Cuba. There are very few countries supporting Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons in terms of its political aspirations. But most of the countries of the world are arrayed against Iran and advocating that Iran stop its nuclear weapons development and so it's important that Iran listen to the voice of the international community and understand how isolated it is.

QUESTION: A question about Syria – there was serious tension between Israel and Syria in recent days. There was a protest from the Turkish government to Israel. What kind of role may Turkey have concerning the tension between Israel and Syria and in general concerning the Middle East process, including the peace conference at the end of next month in Istanbul?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well I think in general Turkey is a unique country in the Middle East and has influence in the Middle East because Turkey can talk to nearly everyone and we appreciate the fact that Turkey has a good relationship with Israel. We appreciate the fact that Turkey is so close to some of the moderate Arab states. In the case of Syria and Iran, both of those countries are supporting terrorism and both of them are supporting Hezbollah which is a negative influence in the region and so we appreciate the fact that Turkey is a country that can send strong messages and communicate with countries to try to convince them to turn away in the case of Iran from a nuclear weapons program, in the case of Syria, from its support for terrorism.

QUESTION: About Cyrus, there were elections in Turkey and Greece and now we're going to have elections in the Greek part of Cyprus by the beginning of next year. What's going to happen? Do you see the chance of the development of a permanent solution at the end of 2008 in Cyprus?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We hope there can be progress in Cyprus. It's been far too long. It’s been so many decades where there has been no peace in Cyprus…

QUESTION: I'm asking about a solution…

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, we believe that the United Nations should restart its effort to find a peaceful solution and a just solution to the problem of Cyprus. The United States of course will be involved in this, as will Turkey, as will Greece and many other countries. We think it's very, very important that there be progress this year if that's possible. Now we know that Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Talat met recently. I don’t know if that meeting produced many positive results. I had very good discussions here in Ankara with the Turkish authorities. We are working with Turkey; we are working with Greece; and I look forward to meeting the Cypriot leader, President Papadopoulos, as well as Mr. Talat to see if we can push this process forward.

QUESTION: Last question concerning Turkish-Armenia relations. We know that the Washington administration wants Turkey to take some steps to normalization relations between the two countries but how about the Armenian responsibility? Don't you think that Armenia should also do something? For example withdraw its forces from Azerbaijan's occupied territory?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We have been concerned to see that since 1991 there has been no normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey is an ally; Armenia is a friend. So we wish to see progress there. Obviously this is up to the two countries to work out and it’s going to be a two-way street as any relationship is in international diplomacy but our hope would be that there could be a normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, that the border could be opened, there could be normal commerce and trade and a peaceful relationship. That may take some time, it may be difficult, but it's a necessary step in our view. And we hope to see the same kind of changes here within Turkey that will make this a place where minorities such as the Armenian population can live here in a peaceful way and contribute to Turkish society.

QUESTION: Mr. Burns, thank you very much for answering my questions.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: It's a pleasure. Thank you very much.

Released on September 20, 2007

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Richard Hoagland not to be appointed as US Ambassador to Armenia?

17.07.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

Richard Hoagland, US Ambassador Designate to Armenia, is about to be reassigned to another country, according to several confidential but highly reliable sources. This decision was made after his candidacy was twice blocked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both times Sen. Robert Menendez from New Jersey placed hold on Hoagland’s nomination, The California Courier reports.

“The US administration must have realized that Richard Hoagland’s nomination as Ambassador to Armenia is despairing. After languishing for a whole year at an empty desk in the State Department, Ambassador Hoagland deserves to have an assignment at a diplomatic post in a country other than Armenia. His superiors’ mismanagement of this issue should no longer keep his career in limbo. Only time will tell if the Bush administration has properly understood from this episode the deeply-felt sentiments of the Armenian-American community. In view of the embarrassment suffered by the State Department on this occasion, it is hoped that, henceforth, the administration would think long and hard before showing any more disrespect towards the Armenian-American community on the core issue of the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” The California Courier writes.

On September 7, 2006 thanks to Senator Robert Menendez’s efforts Hoagland’s candidacy was blocked in the Senate. On December 1 the New Jersey legislator joined with Majority Leader Harry Reid in calling on the Administration to offer a new candidacy for this post. The negative attitude towards Richard Hoagland’s nomination is connected with his outright denial of the Armenian Genocide in response to questions posed during and after his June 2006 confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Former US Ambassador to Yerevan John Evans was forced into early retirement last year, after he used the words “Armenian Genocide” to describe the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

WHITE HOUSE PROPOSES TO RENDER AZERBAIJAN MORE ASSISTANCE

06 February, 2007
A1+

WASHINGTON, DC - The Bush Administration, in its FY2008 federal budget, has proposed a 49% cut in aid to Armenia, and is - once again - seeking to break the agreement it struck with Congress more than five years ago to maintain parity in military aid levels to Armenia and Azerbaijan, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)

The President's budget recommends cutting U.S. economic aid to Armenia from the FY2006 actual level of $69 million to a proposed FY2008 level of $35 million. The budget proposal does not include any specific assistance figures for Nagorno Karabagh.

The proposed military aid cuts come in two broad categories, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET). The proposed FY2008 FMF figure for Armenia is $3 million, a cut of $960,000, fully 30% less than the proposed FY2008 figure for Azerbaijan of $4.3 million. The President is seeking only $300,000 in IMET for Armenia, down $538,000 from FY2006, a dramatic cut of 64%. In sharp contrast, the White House is proposing that Azerbaijan receive $1 million in IMET, a considerable increase over their FY2006 level of $823,000 and more than three times the IMET levels being proposed for Armenia. Overall, the President's budget proposes 38% less in U.S. military aid for Armenia than for Azerbaijan.

"We are troubled, once again, both by the President's breach of his agreement with Congress to maintain parity in military aid appropriations to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as by the drastic cut that he is proposing in economic development assistance to Armenia," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

"We look to our friends in Congress to help restore military aid parity and to substantially increase aid levels to Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh that reflect Armenia's growing partnership with the United States, as well as the shared values and enduring friendship between the American and Armenian peoples."

The Foreign Operations Subcommittees of the Senate and House Appropriation Committees will now review the budget and each draft their own versions of the FY 2007 foreign assistance bill.

The agreement to maintain parity in U.S. military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan was struck between the White House and Congress in 2001, in the wake of Congressional action granting the President the authority to waive the Section 907 restrictions on aid to Azerbaijan. The ANCA has vigorously defended this principle, stressing that a tilt in military spending toward Azerbaijan would destabilize the region, emboldening the Azerbaijani leadership to continue their threats to impose a military solution to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. More broadly, the ANCA has underscored that breaching the parity agreement would reward the leadership of Azerbaijan for obstructing the peace process, and undermines the role of the U.S. as an impartial mediator of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

US govt donates mobile hospital to Armenia’s army

YEREVAN, February 5 (Itar-Tass) -- The U.S. government has donated a 1.5 million U.S. dollar mobile hospital to the Armenian army.

The hospital can be set up in any part of the world and will provide medical assistance, including surgical, to Armenian army personnel, a U.S. embassy official told Itar-Tass on Monday.

The United States organised weeklong training for 43 Armenian military medics to teach them how to operate the hospital.

U.S. Charge d'Affaires Anthony Godfrey said the hospital would be important for supporting Armenian army activities within coalition or NATO forces or in emergencies.

The head of the U.S. embassy’s office for defence cooperation, Lieutenant Colonel Dough Peterson said the donation of the hospital marked the start of serious military medical cooperation between the Armed Forces of the United States and Armenia.

Armenian military medical personnel will be trained and new equipment will be bought for the mobile hospital. It will be supplied at the end of this year or the beginning of the next one.

The office for defence cooperation is accountable to the American ambassador and the U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, and deals with U.S. government defence assistance.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenians urge Bush to drop ambassador-designate for Armenia

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Under US law, the president can appoint senior officials for two years by bypassing the Senate when Congress is in recess, but it is not clear if Bush would do so for Hoagland because it could be a source of new friction with some leading Democratic leaders

ÜMİT ENGİNSOY

WASHINGTON - Turkish Daily News


A leading U.S. Armenian group has demanded that U.S. President George W. Bush withdraw the nomination of his pick for ambassador to Yerevan, who has refused to recognize the Armenian genocide.

Dick Hoagland is absolutely unacceptable. A denier of the Armenian genocide should never serve as America's ambassador to Yerevan, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) said in a statement received over the weekend.

ANCA asked U.S. Armenians to send messages to senators asking them to demand that the White House drop Hoagland's nomination.

ANCA's move came in the wake of the Democratic Party's landslide victory in last week's congressional elections that gave the Democrats control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Many prominent Democratic lawmakers supporting the Armenian cause are expected to assume key posts in the new Congress, and U.S. Armenian leaders already have said that the upcoming congressional session would provide opportunities for the passage of genocide resolutions in the House and the Senate.

Hoagland faced hostile reactions from Armenian groups after he declined to classify last century's Armenian killings in the Ottoman Empire as genocide during his confirmation hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June.

The Republican-dominated committee then approved Hoagland's candidacy despite Armenian objections, but Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, in September put a hold on the ambassador-designate's nomination.

Under U.S. law, all senior government officials, including ambassadors, must win the Senate's approval, and any senator can indefinitely block nominations. But such moves are rare because they put such dissenting senators under intense pressure.

But ANCA's move to urge Bush to withdraw Hoagland's nomination means that the Armenians have no intention of accepting the president's pick for ambassador, particularly at a time when a new congressional leadership, more friendly to the Armenian cause than the present Republican-led one, is due to take office in late January.

U.S. Armenians blast Bush and his Republican administration for Washington's official policy to reject genocide recognition. As a result the U.S. Armenian community mostly backed Democratic candidates in the 2004 and 2006 elections, although there are many Republicans in the Armenian caucus in Congress.

Bush in May fired Robert Evans, America's former ambassador in Yerevan, for publicly qualifying the Armenian killings as genocide in violation of U.S. policy and nominated Hoagland to replace him. U.S. Armenians strongly protested Evans' firing.

Under U.S. law, the president can appoint senior officials for two years by bypassing the Senate when Congress is in recess, but it is not clear if Bush would do so for Hoagland because it could be a source of new friction with some leading Democratic leaders.

The larger danger for Turkey is the prospect of a genocide recognition resolution's congressional passage at some point next year.

Bush administration officials recently have admitted that the president's efforts to stop a new resolution may fail in this dramatically changed political climate after the Democratic victory.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Officials: Armenian military officer wounded in Iraq

November 11, 2006
International Herald Tribune
By the Associated Press

YEREVAN, Armenia: An Armenian military officer with a contingent of troops serving in the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq has been wounded, officials said Saturday.

Lt. Gevorg Nalbandian was wounded while on a mission to defuse mines, Armenian Defense Ministry spokesman Seiran Shakhsuvarian said, but he did not say when or where the incident occurred.

Nalbandian had his foot amputated after the incident, Armenian Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian said Saturday on a visit to the military conscription office in the Armenian capital.

The Armenian troops have been deployed to Iraq since January 2005, and early this year Armenia rotated its troops in Iraq for the fourth time, sending 46 servicemen.

The mission has been met with criticism from opposition parties, many Armenians and even the 30,000-strong Armenian community in Iraq, which fears being targeted for attacks.

Armenia's President Robert Kocharian and his government have sought to portray the deployment as a way to boost ties with Europe.

The Armenian contingent serves under Polish command.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.