Armenia And Usa Sign Military Agreement

[Armen]

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/04/26/53642.html

 

Armenia and USA sign military agreement

 

18:30 2004-04-26

Armenia and the USA have signed a military agreement on rendering mutual services, Mikhail Arutyunyan, the Head of the Command Staff and the Senior Deputy Defense Minister of Armenia said at today's briefing. There has been created a legal basis, which will allow both countries to render logistic support to each other during joint actions and military exercises on the terms of mutual compensation, he noted. "The rights and duties stipulated in the agreement are mutual and will allow military forces of the two states to establish allied relations during joint actions and exercises," Arutyunyan mentioned.

 

In his turn, U.S. General Charles Wald, the Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, declared that this agreement was important for military forces of the USA as Armenia and that cooperation between the two states was developing in a stable way.

[Armen]

If this is what it actually says, Armenia has outmaneuvred Azerbaijan.

[Armen]

US European Command

 

http://www.eucom.mil/Photo_Gallery/index.h...lery/main.htm&2

[Armen]

http://www.arminfo.am/

 

AZERBAIJAN'S STANDING TO FORCEFULLY TAKE BACK DISPUTED LANDS MIGHT HAVE HAD U.S. BACKING AND PAINT ARMENIA INTO CORNER: US EXPERTS

 

YEREVAN, APRIL 29. ARMINFO. U.S. gets an eventual presence in the Caucasus, such was the opinion of the specialists of an independent analytical center STRATFOR (Strategic Forecasting LLC).

 

In the article "The US woos Armenia" the experts say that to really get an eventual presence in the South Caucasus, Washington needs Armenia's support, as Azerbaijan and Georgia have already announced their adherence to it.

 

Meanwhile, Armenia traditionally has been the most pro-Russian of the three states and has had good ties with Iran, often facilitating communication between Tehran and Moscow. As a predominantly Christian state in a Muslim region, Armenia has a close relationship with Russia. Armenia and Iran share an animosity for Turkey.

 

Yerevan has a vested interest in allying itself with the United States. Armenia occupies a large chunk of Azerbaijan's land -- known as Nagorno- Artsax -- and has no intentions of giving it back. Azerbaijan has floated the idea that it might be prepared to forcefully take back the disputed land; given Azerbaijan's standing with the United States, these threats might have had U.S. backing. This would paint Armenia into a corner and leave it with few viable options. The easiest way to defeat a strong U.S. ally that is itching for a fight is to become a U.S. ally in kind - - a decision that might explain the relative speed with which the U.S. military and Armenian armed forces reached an accord.

 

Any diplomatic efforts to draw Yerevan under the U.S. military's influence will have to be delicate and measured over a period of years. Political machinations by Russia or Iran could derail U.S. plans. For the time being, such intervention seems unlikely.

[Armen]

Groong

---------------------------------------------------------

USA TO FAIL IN Artsax, AZERI DAILY SAYS

 

Ekho, Baku

29 Apr 04

 

The US business interests in the South Caucasus will eventually

require political backing, and Washington seems to have decided to

deal seriously with regional conflicts, and firsty the

Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Artsax conflic t, Azerbaijani

newspaper Ekho has reported. In order to resolve the problem, the USA

has to dismiss its balanced policy and define favourites, Ekho said.

Washington might try to drive Armenia out of Russia's influence, while

at the same time putting pressure on Azerbaijan and Turkey. But in

this case, the USA could alienate its two strategic partners and,

moreover, provoke an upsurge in Islamic influence in the region, the

paper said. The whole plan might have "catastrophic repercussions" for

Washington and make it forget about its major economic projects in the

region, Ekho concluded. The following is the text of Nurani report by

Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 29 April headlined "American

rollercoaster"; subheadings inserted editorially:

 

USA vs Russia in South Caucasus

 

This popular attraction is called "Russian rollercoaster" everywhere

in the world. It is believed to repeat the traditional Russian

amusement - sliding down an ice hill on a sleigh. However, in Russia

it is said to be "American" since this "round-the-year" attraction

came from America.

 

For some reason, this unserious comparison comes to my mind every time

I compare how the Russian and Western press comment on the situation

in the South Caucasus. The majority of Moscow (and pro-Moscow)

newspapers believe that the South Caucasus has long been "ruled" by

the USA that has turned this region, which is geographically and

environmentally destined to be none other than "Russia's backyard",

into "its 51st state". On the other side of the former "cold war"

frontiers, the situation is conceived in a completely opposite way.

 

The composition, to be more precise, the style of the (OSCE) Minsk

Group was the best proof: while Russia was officially represented by

unimpressive (Nikolay) Gribkov, the former deputy director of the

Russian foreign intelligence service and the incumbent deputy foreign

minister, Vyacheslav Trubnikov, visited the region along with his

colleagues. Moreover, the "strategic concepts" of the two super

powers, as regional observers could witness more than once, do not

concur.

 

We should probably expect that the US business interests in the region

will sooner or later require political "backing". Today, one can find

dozens of ongoing political developments which, if you have enough

desire and imagination, could pass for the manifestation of that US

strategy. For instance, the "rose revolution" in Georgia (even if the

USA's real role in it is a topic where telling whisper and hints will

for a long time dominate clear-cut and unambiguous statements) was

unequivocally interpreted as the start of a "purge" of the political

field of the oil-rich region from corrupt undemocratic regimes,

despite their loyalty and the leader's past merits.

 

USA has to dismiss balanced policy

 

Against this background, the appointment to the post of US co-chairman

of the Minsk Group of Steven Mann, who used to be in charge of the

"energy diplomacy" in the region which proved to be very successful,

is said to clearly show the USA's decision to seriously deal with the

settlement of regional conflicts in the South Caucasus, and the

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in the first place.

 

If we remember that the USA has been for quite a long time "pushing"

Armenia and Turkey towards a dialogue, Steven Mann's appointment,

which reveals the USA's aspiration to a speedy settlement to the

conflict which is simmering near pipelines, completes the "picture" of

the situation in the region.

 

However, the "conflict diplomacy" in general, and the brokering

mission in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in particular, might

prove to be a much more difficult task for the USA than an effective

economic breakthrough. The world has already witnessed the failure of

three mediation initiatives in Nagornyy Artsax - the step-by-step

and package settlements and the territorial swap. Although today US

diplomats react quite painfully to criticism of the Minsk Group, one

has to draw not at all encouraging conclusions from 10-year-long

negotiations: the chances that the parties themselves can "reach a

compromise" are most likely to be very slim. To put it simply, if the

USA is serious in its intention to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani

conflict, it will sooner or later have to dismiss its hope to conduct

"balanced policy" and define its likes and dislikes.

 

A fairly extraordinary situation has been formed in the region. Both

regional political mega projects - the Artsax settlement and the

Armenian-Turkish dialogue - impact Armenia. This country is the only

strategic ally of Russia in the region, while it is opposed in one

case by Turkey, for which, despite all the recent problems, the USA is

undoubtedly number one strategic partner, and in the other case by

Azerbaijan, for which Washington is again closer than Moscow.

 

"Catastrophic" repercussions for USA

 

Rumours have been going on in the South Caucasus for quite a while

that the USA will finally try to "buy out" Armenia from Russia and

take this country out of Moscow's monopoly and thus gain control of

the whole of the region. Hence, there is a clear conclusion that now

Washington will try its best to "interest" Armenia and,

correspondingly, step up pressure on Azerbaijan and Turkey: it is

always easier to pressurize your ally than a country which you have

yet to improve relations with.

 

However, the situation is far from being simple. If in the early 1990s

analysts said that those who would succeed in mediating conflicts

would get carte blanche in the region, today's forecasts are

completely different: in case of the mediators' failure, all the other

US projects in the region, including economic projects, might be

threatened.

 

Indeed, relations with Armenia are a very sensitive issue both in

Azerbaijan and Turkey. It is hardly possible, even theoretically, to

"dose up pressure" in order, on the one hand, to force Azerbaijan and

Turkey to make a concession that would impress Armenia, and on the

other hand, not to damage its own positions in these countries. The

reason is simple: the "limit" of Armenia's requirements is extremely

high. On the other hand, excessive pressure on Baku and Ankara might

prompt these countries not only to look for "alternative partners",

from the European Union to Russia. An upsurge in Islamic influence in

these countries could prove to be much more dangerous. These will be

the same Islamists who found themselves in power in Iran unexpectedly

for the whole world, easily won the majority of seats in the Algerian

parliament elections, and proved to be the most influential political

force in today's Iraq. They hardly have any particular influence in

Azerbaijan nowadays, and the ruling JDP (Justice and Development

Party) in Turkey can hardly be described as a radical group. However,

politicians know well about the possibility of "catastrophic" shifts

in the public opinion, particularly if sensitive and painful problems

such as Artsax are at issue. This means that an attempt to buy out

Armenia from Russia at the expense of Turkey and Azerbaijan could have

catastrophic repercussions for Washington, and the USA will have to

forget about those regional mega projects for a long time to come.

[Armen]

ARMENIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY DENIES IT WILL HOST USA MILITARY AIRCRAFT

 

Arminfo

29 Apr 04

 

YEREVAN

 

The Armenian Defence Ministry has denied media reports that an

agreement has been concluded with the USA on the deployment of US

military aircraft at Armenian airports.

 

The press secretary of the Armenian Defence Ministry, Col Seyran

Shakhsuvaryan, has told Arminfo that Yerevan-based Aykakan Zhamanak

newspaper to day reported, quoting a report of the influential

American analytical centre Stratfo r of 27 April, that an agreement

was reached during the visit to Armenia of the deputy commander of the

US European Command, Gen Charles Wald, (on 25-26 April), under

which Armenia gave permission to the USA to deploy its war planes

at Armenia's military airports.

 

"This sensational, albeit not corresponding to reality, report is the

result of incorrect translation and incorrect interpretation of the

agreement," Shakhsuvaryan said. He said that the aforementioned

agreement "On mutual acquisition and cross-servicing between the

Armenian Defence Ministry and the US Department of Defence" had

nothing to do with the deployment of US planes at Arm enian military

airports. In fact, the goal of the agreement is to render logistics support,

taking into account the countries' policies and priorities, Shakhsuvaryan said.

Edited April 30, 2004 by ArmenSarg

[Armen]

The Russia Journal

Apr 30, 2004, 23:59 (Moscow time)

 

Armenia denies giving US permission to use its airstrips

 

DEFENSE » :: Apr 30, 2004 Posted: 15:10 Moscow time (11:10 GMT)

 

YEREVAN - Reports that the United States Air Force has arranged to use

Armenian airbases are false, Col. Seyran Shakhsuvaranian, press secretary of

Armenia's Defense Ministry, declared Thursday in a statement responding to

reports carried by local media citing the American STRATFOR research center.

 

The colonel said the agreement reached during the visit to Armenia of Gen.

Charles F. Wald, deputy commander of US forces in Europe, did not include

provisions for basing US warplanes on Armenian bases. 'The actual aim of the

agreement has to do with the provision of supplies and technical services

between the two sides when one or the other requests it and at the option of

the other in view of its policies and priorities,' his statement said.

 

According to the STRATFOR account, agreement was reached during Wald's visit

on April 25-26 to allow US military airplanes to land at Armenian airports.

It called the agreement part of an effort to isolate Armenia from Russia and

Iran. /Rosbalt/

[mx5]

very instructive.

 

notice how they(Turkey and Azarbaijan) are threatning with pan islamism again, as though nothing has changed since 100 years,it is the only weapon they have got :encouraging religous fanatisism whenever and wherever is needed.

 

these same two countries they know how to take and steal from small nations,but never give back what does not belong to them,unfortunately they are never asked to,and got away with everything....till now...!!

[Yerevanian]

They didn’t sign. At least when posting something like this make sure it’s valid!

[Armen]

Yerevanian jan, I posted all kinds of sources and news. The agreement was signed but it was wrongly interpreted by a US analytical web-site (i.e Stratfor). I posted the statement of Armenian Defence agency on this.

If it was signed or not is out of question. It was signed, as you can see from the US European Command's link, statement of Armenia's defence ministry etc.

Please, read before commenting.

Regards

[Yerevanian]

Yerevanian jan, I posted all kinds of sources and news. The agreement was signed but it was wrongly interpreted by a US analytical web-site (i.e Stratfor). I posted the statement of Armenian Defence agency on this.

If it was signed or not is out of question. It was signed, as you can see from the US European Command's link, statement of Armenia's defence ministry etc.

Please, read before commenting.

Regards

I've heard with my own ears yesterday on Armenian TV.. no such thing was signed!

[Armen]

OK. Can you tell me what was signed then? Because in the photo form the US European Command web-page, which I provided above, it seems like Michael Harutyunian, Armenian's Chief of General Staff, is signing something.

Did they tell in the news what was signed?

[Sasun]

In all likelihood whatever was signed was not a very big deal. If it was that big Kocharian would be the one to sign. Not to say that Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement is a small thing, it just does not compare to several major defence agreements with Russia.

[Armen]

Sasun, an agreement providing air basis would not be signed by the president but it would be a big geopolitical deal. Technical agreements are not signed on the highest levels. At the same time a framework agreement with no specific follow up action plan would be signed by the president a would carry only political weight.

Sometimes it is useful to go low profile.

Also, an agreement with US is not necessarily against the Russian interest. In Kirgizstan US and Russian air bases are located just some 50-60 miles from each other if I'm not wrong. The only country that would become unhappy in our case is Iran.

Edited May 3, 2004 by ArmenSarg

[hytga]

from what i know, the agreement was about sending armenian military doctors and engeneers to iraq, but non servicemen