Are You Surprised to Hear that Washington is No Stranger to Election Rigging?

It seems that the US can be considered the only state that has been redrawing the map of the world for it to better suit the interests of its political, financial, military cycles. In fact one can’t help but to be amazed by the maniacal zeal with which the White House advances its agenda on the international stage. It was this zeal that was behind the becision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the stagings of war in Vietnam and on the Korean peninsula, the laucnch of the Cold War against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. Those events were followed by countless wars across the Middle East and North Africa: in Iraq, in Syria. Afghanistan, Libya. But the special interests keep on advancing their agenda, now pitting the US against the North Korea and Iran.

In addition to repeated instances of armed aggression against the state that refuse to obey Washington’s dictates, the White House has been engaged in physical elimination of individual politicians that head undesirable governments. It goes without saying is that for a government to fall into this category it’s enough for it to try to defend its national interests in a bid to ensure the well-being of its people. Those politically motivated assinations have been examined in much detail in a number of media publications, including those featured in the New Eastern Outlook.

By establishing an elaborated network of non-governmental organizations in various countries of the world that are being sponsored through a number of off-the-books operations of the CIA, the State Department has been aggravating political contradictions in various countries of the world, while being supported by a number of private foundations, including those financed by George Soros. It goes without saying that this fact constitutes a gross violation of all international norms, since a great many of those aggravation result in coup d’etas that are usually being described by the popular euphemism of “color revolutions”. In fact, there’s a handful of examples to present here.

Iran

Last summer, in a letter submitted to the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, Iran would accuse the United States of repeated attempts of taking down the government of the Islamic Republic. This official appeal to the UN appeared to be Tehran’s reaction to repeated attempts by Washington to interfere in Iran’s sovereign political life, including Rex Tillerson’s statement that was made last June at a hearing in the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which he stated that Washington’s approach to Iran can be summed up in its support of anti-government elements inside Iran, which were aiming at taking power in this Middle Eastern state. Never before such a high-profile diplomat would officially pledge his support to the staging of the so-called “peaceful internal political transition”, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the Algerian Accords of 1981, signed and ratified by both Iran and the United States. After all, according to the existing US-Iranian agreements, Washington promised not to interfere, both directly or indirectly, through the use of political or military force into the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The fact Washington was behind the recent demonstrations in Iran is evidenced by the well-coordinated support that Washington has been providing to the local opposition. The White House has already stated that in the very near future it will allocate yet anoother billion dollars to support Iran’s “freedom fighters”, while imposing sanctions against the key political figures of this state. An attempt to make anti-government rethorics in Iran more popular has also been made by the sittting US President himself. In his Twitter, Donald Trump would urge individual representatives of the Iranian society to get away with the “repressive” regime, while supporting his publications with #IranProtests hastag.

Netherlands

On the eve of the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, that were due to take place last March, local politicians would voice a cocern that the right-wing Party for Freedom has been reciving funds from the US. Among the foreign bodies involved in the sponsoring of this party one can find such American conservative organizations as the Gatestone Institute and Freedom Alliance. It is noteworthy that the Freedom Alliance enjoys the support of Robert Shillman, a prominent supporter of the sitting US president, Donald Trump.

It’s been noted that America’s neoconsorvative David Horowitz donated nearly 150,000 dollars to the Party for Freedom, making it the largest individual official donation that year in the Dutch political system, which may seem a modest contribution compared with donations made in the US. It’s curious that by making this donation that was made by the fund run by David Horowitz, it violated the existing US federal law, which prohibits it from sponsoring political parties.

Ronald van Raak, a deputy of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands, on behalf of all Dutch politicians expressed outrage over this instance of foreign interference.

Armenia

The US Embassy in Armenia has been engaged for years in consistent attempts to make the representatives of the local opposition more combative in a bid to prevent candidates that are sympathetic to Russia from coming to power in the upcoming presidential election next March. At the same time, the sitting US ambassador to Yerevan, Richard Mills is known for pleding all sorts of US support to the opposition forces at countless meetings he holds with the representatives of those forces.

Venezuela

In recent years, there’s been a mounting number of well-founded accusations against the CIA and the White House due to their attempts to take down the sitting legitimate government in Venezuela. An Venezuelan-American lawyer, Eva Golinger in her interview for the teleSUR channel shared a number of details about Washington’s role in the staging of the attempted coup d’etat in Venezuela back in 2002 and the possible murder of President Chavez.

Reently, the Venezuelan Commander-General, Jesús Chourio, announced that US-sponsored mercenaries were attempting to pull out yet another coup d’etat attempt last year by launching an attack against a military in the Venezuelan city of Valencia. Earlier that year, according to Venezuelan authorities, a helicopter that opened fire at the building of the Interior Ministry and the Supreme Court of Venezuela was hijacked by a policeman suspected of having links with the CIA.

In order to force Venezuelan authorities into changing their policies that in no way satisfy America’s special interests, the United States introduced a harsh sanctions policy against Venezuela, while providing open support for the opposition forces.

Cambodia

Washington has recently come forward with a direct ultimatum to Cambodia, aimed at discrediting its authorities. This step was provoked by Phnom Penh’s decision to dissolve the main opposition party – Cambodian National Rescue Party. In response, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be as bold as to announce (emphasis added)

As a first step, we will terminate support for the Cambodian National Election Committee and its administration of the upcoming 2018 national election. On current course next year’s election will not be legitimate, free or fair.

End Notes

And list goes on an on, well beyond anybody’s ability to present all of Washington’s sins in a single article! However, it should be added that in a bid to hide from the international community the fact it’s been election rigging central, Washington unleashed a Russophobic propaganda campaign, seeking ways to accuse Russia of the crimes it’s been coming itself. However, realizing the groundlessness nature of such allegations accusations against Russia, a number American political figures have come forward to dismiss those charges. Even the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Pompeo has recently been forced to admit that he was in possession of no evidence of a collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s election campain members.

So wouldn’t it be beeter for Washington, instead of vocing far-fetched accusations against Russia, to admit its destructive role in influencing democratic procedures in other states?

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”   

Armenia’s Energy: Benefits of Cooperation with the EU

In November 2017, the Republic of Armenia (RA) plans to sign an important treaty with the European Union. The document is known as the “Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement” (CEPA). In the view of its supporters, the expansion of cooperation with the EU as a result of the CEPA implementation should benefit the Armenian economy. However, the conditions put forward by the European party make people doubt the benefits of the agreement for the Republic of Armenia.

One of the important requirements of the EU, which Armenia must fulfill in accordance with the CEPA, is the closure of the Armenian nuclear power plant.

The Armenian (Metsamor) NPP is located near Metsamor in the Ararat Valley, 28 km from Yerevan. More than 100 Soviet enterprises and organizations, most of which belonged to the RSFSR, took part in the construction of the station and the manufacture of necessary equipment, and after the collapse of the USSR, it was taken over by the Russian state corporation “Rosatom.”

The first power unit of the Armenian nuclear power plant was launched in 1976, and the second unit was put into operation in 1980. The project of the station was developed taking into account the seismic activity of the Armenian highland. The increased strength of the buildings, the monolithic slab in the basement and the hydro-depreciation system made it possible to prevent an accident during the devastating Spitak earthquake of December 1988. The earthquake claimed tens of thousands of lives and caused tremendous damage to the Armenian infrastructure and industry, but there was no radiological catastrophe. Moreover, the Armenian NPP remained fully operational.

However, in fear of new ground tremors, the Soviet leadership decided not to take the risk, and in early 1989, the operations of both units of the nuclear power plant were ceased. The Armenian SSR then shifted to using hydrocarbon fuel as its main energy source. Armenia does not have its own larger or smaller oil and gas fields. Therefore, hydrocarbons were supplied by rail and gas pipelines from the Azerbaijan SSR, the Turkmen SSR and the RSFSR. After the dissolution of the USSR and the beginning of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorny Karabakh, the shipments by Azerbaijan were stopped. The transit of Russian energy carriers through the territory of Georgia also became impossible due to the military activities in Abkhazia and Ossetia. Turkey, which supported Azerbaijan in the Karabakh conflict, blocked all communication through the Turkish-Armenian border. Armenia thus found itself blockaded.

After that, the energy crisis of 1992-1995 broke out in Armenia, which became a difficult page in Armenian history. The relaunch of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant helped overcome it. In 1993, the Government of Armenia decided to begin rehabilitation work on the second power unit of the station. The first unit was then already partially dismantled and was not fit for restoration. In November 1995, Power Unit No. 2 of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant was put back into operation again.

At present, the station generates up to 40% of all the electricity consumed in the RA. Despite the successful operation of two Armenian thermal power plants and several dozen hydropower stations, as well as energy exchange with Iran, it remains a strategically important target for Armenian energy security. Therefore, for many, the demand of the European Union to close the Armenian nuclear power plant is puzzling: do the expansion of cooperation with the EU and the possibility of the introduction of a visa-free regime cost 40% of electricity?

It should be noted that the EU has long been pushing for the closure of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant. This issue has been raised periodically in the negotiations between Brussels and Yerevan since the early 2000s. Also, Azerbaijan and Turkey have for many years been demanding that the station operations be discontinued. However, these two countries have been engaged in a long-standing conflict with Armenia, and there is nothing surprising about their desire to try and weaken it. Nevertheless, the motives of the EU leadership are not yet very clear.

Usually, the supporters of the station closure are explaining their position in terms of security considerations. Thus, on 26 April 2017, the day of the 31st anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan once again called upon the international community to turn its attention to the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant. It was stated that the station was built based on the same technologies as the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, that it is located in a seismically hazardous zone, and that no major repairs have ever been carried out on it in all its years of existence, as the RA does not have the means to fully maintain its nuclear power plant. According to the representatives of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Armenian NPP poses a threat to the lives of millions of people in the region of the Caspian, Black and Mediterranean seas.

Most of these statements are untrue. First, the Armenian NPP does not have much in common with the Chernobyl NPP. As mentioned above, the plant was designed taking into account the increased seismicity of the construction area. At the Armenian NPP, VVER-440 reactors were installed that are much more stable than the RBMK reactors operating at Chernobyl. Secondly, the operation of the station is constantly supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has repeatedly confirmed its security. Other international organizations are also in agreement with the IAEA.

For example, in August-September 2017, The World Association of NPP Operators audited the operation of the Armenian NPP. A panel of experts from eight countries assessed the plant performance in terms of international safety standards. Following this assessment, some of them stated that the level of safety of the Armenian NPP is higher than that of most European nuclear power plants.

The European Union also recently had the opportunity to verify the plant’s security: in the summer of 2016, a group of experts from the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group and representatives of the European Commission conducted an expert assessment of the report on the “stress test” at the Armenian NPP. It should be recalled that, after the accident at the Japanese station “Fukushima-1” in 2011, it was decided that all European nuclear power plants were to undergo a “stress test,” during which reactors were supposed to operate under conditions close to the conditions of the Fukushima accident. A number of non-EU countries, including Armenia, also voluntarily decided to conduct such tests.

With regard to the maintenance of the Armenian NPP, to which, according to the Azerbaijani MFA, the RA does not have any funds allocated, it should be recalled that, since the relaunching of the station in 1995, Russian specialists from Rosatom have been carrying out the planned repairs. Rosatom is currently in the process of extending the operating life of Power Unit No. 2 of the Armenian NPP in accordance with the agreement that the Russian Federation and Armenia concluded in 2014. In May 2017, the RA Ministry of Energy stated that two thirds of these works had been completed. The Russian party took over the financing of the modernization of the nuclear power plant by allocating Armenia a credit of USD 270 million and a grant of USD 30 million.

Thus, the statements coming from Azerbaijan about the threat posed by the Armenian NPP to the whole region appear groundless. Many experts believe that the large-scale company deployed by Azerbaijan and Turkey against the atomic energy of the Republic of Armenia only has the goal of weakening its old enemy, inflicting it with maximum damage by any means. There is even a perception that the closure of the nuclear power plant is necessary for Azerbaijan in connection with its military plans.

It should be recalled that in April 2016, after more than 20 years of armistice, some fighting broke out between the armed forces of the RA and the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on the one hand and the Azerbaijan troops on the other. The fighting was soon halted, but after that, some high-ranking Azerbaijani officials began threatening Armenia with a missile attack. One of the reasons why these threats are not yet feasible is the state of the Armenian NPP. Local weather conditions are such that in the event of Azerbaijani missiles hitting a station loaded with nuclear fuel, the wind would carry the resulting radioactive cloud back to Azerbaijani territory. Thus, the NPP is not only an important source of energy for Armenia, but also a defense barrier against military blackmail.

If the behavior of Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey seems understandable, the reason for their support by the European Union is unclear. The EU is not offering Armenia any specific substitution for its nuclear energy. There are only unclear promises of investment in renewable energy sources. Given the precarious financial situation of the EU, its promises should not be relied upon. The RA itself does not have the means to change its energy in a revolutionary manner. It is argued that once it accepts the EU conditions and signs the СЕРА, the country will immediately undergo a new energy crisis or become energy dependent on the countries that would agree to supply Armenia with hydrocarbons. If it were Azerbaijan, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic could forget its independence. Perhaps Brussels, which is now concerned about the integrity of the EU after Brexit and the events in Catalonia, would welcome such a result.

However, the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant is clearly not scheduled to close in the near future. As mentioned above, Rosatom is now working to extend its term of service to 2026. The possibility of building a new unit equipped with a more modern and safe Russian VVER-1000 reactor is still being discussed. In October 2017, the Russian company TVEL (a subsidiary of Rosatom specializing in the production of nuclear fuel) and the management of the Armenian NPP signed a new major contract for the fuel supply.

At the end of October 2017, there was held a regular meeting of the Security Council for Nuclear Energy under the President of Armenia, at which Armenian leader Serzh Sargsyan stated that the preservation and development of nuclear energy remains a strategic direction for the country.

All this clearly contradicts the conditions of the СЕРА. The EU may have to reconsider its requirements if it wants the treaty to be signed.

Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

 

“This is the Smoking Gun” New Evidence Finally Shows State Complicity in Armenian Genocide

Taner Akcam, a Turkish historian at Clark University in Massachusetts claims to have uncovered and deciphered an original Ottoman government telegram from 1915 which, he argues, proves state complicity in the genocide.

“Until recently, the smoking gun was missing,” Akcam said, as cited by The New York Times. “This is the smoking gun.”

The systematic killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire which is widely, but not completely, recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century, has long been denied by successive Turkish governments for over a century.

The denial centers around the absence or disappearance of military tribunal documents from the post-war period which showed the convictions of generals involved in the act.

Akcam has described his recent discovery as “an earthquake” that he hopes will finally remove “the last brick in the denialist wall.”

Ackam found an original, but encrypted, telegram that was sent in 1915 from the Turkish city of Erzurum. A high-ranking official of the Ottoman Empire, Behaeddin Shakir, sent a coded telegram to a colleague in the field requesting details on the deportations and en-masse exterminations of Armenians in the eastern Anatolia region.

A deciphered copy of the telegram helped convict Shakir in absentia, but the original court documents, replete with sworn testimony, later disappeared under dubious circumstances.

Those who researched the genocide have since relied on secondary sources, such as the official Ottoman state newspaper, to build the case that definitively proves the genocide took place.

“My firm belief as a Turk is that democracy and human rights in Turkey can only be established by facing history and acknowledging historic wrongdoings,” said Ackam.

Akcam’s academic career has been devoted to exposing what remains a raw nerve for many in Turkey. Yet he recognizes that given present circumstances in his home country, following a referendum which affords President Recep Erdogan unprecedented powers, his discovery is unlikely to create any shift in the official line.

He further argues that many of the ills of the modern Middle East stem from the widespread refusal of various peoples in the region to take ownership of their historic transgressions against one another.

“The past is not the past in the Middle East,” he said. “This is the biggest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Eric D. Weitz, a history professor at the City College of New York has dubbed Ackam ‘the Sherlock Holmes of the Armenian Genocide’ for his sterling and tenacious investigative work into what remains a bitter and painful chapter in the history of Turco-Armenian relations.

April 24 is recognized as the day in 1915 when the genocide began and is commemorated by Armenians worldwide each year.

In 2016, Pope Francis referred to the killings as a genocide and faced massive backlash from Turkey, as has been the case in every instance of recognition by a state, official body or public figure.

Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Canada, The Vatican and Argentina are among the countries that have officially recognized the events in Anatolia in 1915 as an act of genocide.

Cooperation between Armenia and Iran May Result in Benefits for the EAEU

On December 21, 2016, tThe President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, visited the Republic of Armenia on December 21, 2016. During his one-day visit, he met with the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, and the Prime Minister, Karen Karapetyan, as well as with other top leveltop-level politicians of Armenia. This visit may bring benefits both to both the Iranian-Armenian relations and to Iran’s relations with the Eurasian Economic Union (the EAEU), which include among its members are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Russia.

Iran and Armenia have communicated maintained mutual relations for many centuries. Today, the Republic of Armenia and the Islamic Republic of Iran are credible stable political partners. The twoBoth countries set the goalaim to strengthen the economic interactionrelations, which haves weakened after a long period of the international sanctions imposed on Iran due to its nuclear program. NowPresently, when after the lifting of most of the international sanctions are lifted, Iran is now rebuilding relations with and iits old partners are rebuilding relations. The major subject of theDuring their negotiations, between the Iranian and Armenian leaders was thediscussed trade and economic cooperation. In this context, they also discussed the issues related to transport.

The project of “the Persian Gulf – the Black Sea” Iinternational Ccorridor project was discussed. As it is known, Armenia is already participatesing in the project of the North-South International Transport Corridor project. The main route of for the North-South International Transport Corridor runs from Iran to Europe via Azerbaijan and Russia, and it has the Armenian direction link aimed to connect Iran and the Black Sea via Georgia with the help ofby railways. This route will help Iran deliver its goods to Europe at a maximum speed and minimum expenses, and it will increase the intensity of trade intensity in the region.

In addition, tThe pPresidents of Iran and Armenia also touched on the topic of Iran’s economic integration into the EAEU. According to Hassan Rouhani, the fact that Armenia is the an EAEU mMember brings great prospects to the Iran-Armenia cooperation great prospects. In this respect, Iran and Armenia are especially attractive for each otherhave special mutual interests. Iran intends to expand its economic relations with the entire EAEU via Armenia, and get gain access to the Black Sea. Being As the sole mMember of the EAEU , which sharesharings borders with Iran, Armenia intends to become an intermediary, with reaping all the bonuses that thisit impliesentails.

TheA prospect tof createing a free trade zone between the EAEU and Iran is the very most attractive one for Armenia. Iran, rich in oil and gas, is one of the most economically developed countries of the Middle East, and the creation of the a free trade zone between it and the EAEU will turn Armenia into one of the key mMembers of the Union, and will enablinge it to earn benefit on the transit traffic.

Increased trade between the EAEU and Iran will require the creation of the relevant infrastructure. This is shall also be advantageous for ArmeniaArmenia, as it the nation has long wished to establish an exintensive transport connection with Iran for a long time. In 2014, tThe project of Armenia-Iran railway was approved by the Armenian government in 2014Armenian government approved the Armenia-Iran railway project. H, however, ithis was not implemented due to the lack of funds. The complex mining excavation activities require about 3.5 billion dollars. If the a free trade zone is created between Iran and the EAEU, all the Mmember Sstates of the Union will invest funds into constructing thise railway construction.

InAt the end of the meeting, Hassan Rouhani and Serzh Sargsyan announced to the media that the relations between Iran and Armenia remained warm and, friendly, and they wouldwill be extendedcontinue expanding in the future. They expressed reiterated their intention to develop the regional infrastructure again in order to increase the goods turnover and strengthen cooperation in the sectors of industry and power engineeringenergy. The bBoth pPresidents expressed their desire to continue participatingion in the development of the North-South International Transport Corridor. The heads of Iran and Armenia also reported that they attached importance to the continued negotiations between Iran and the EAEU on the creation of the a free trade zone.

As one of the most interested stakeholders, Armenia has long been promotinged the idea of an Iran-EAEU free trade zone as one of the most committed parties for a long time. In 2015, it the nation addressed the Eurasian Economic Commission with a proposal to discuss this project. Yerevan declared that it was ready to become an intermediary in the negotiations between the EAEU and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In March 2016, Vache Gabrielyan, the Deputy Prime Minister of Armenia, declared the creation of a working party to for the purposes of analysinge all possible consequences of the establishing a free trade zone establishment for each country of the Union, and highlighted that the discussion was had been initiated by the Armenian party. In October 2016, Minsk hosted a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council was held in Minsk, where the Prime Minister of Armenia, Karen Karapetyan, reported that the a free trade zone with Iran would bring benefits to all EAEU States.

In generalOverall, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan support Armenia’s incentive. However, the establishing a free trade zone establishment requires a long period, during which all the states should agree on their interests. Therefore, to start gaining profit from the cooperation with Iran, Armenia has decided to create an Armenia-Iran free economic area zone, without waiting for thea decision on the a free trade zone zoneand to start gaining profit. The joint ventures of between Iran and the EAEU states will operate be conducted in the city of Meghri on the border between Armenia and Iran. Products of these enterprises will be free from theexempted from customs duties under when deliveredies to markets in the the EAEU markets and Europe, which provides Armenia with a number of tariff preferences under the GSP+ system.

It should beImportant to note here isd that under these circumstances, the Republic of Armenia has a chance to become an intermediary in the current situation bothnot only between Iran and the EAEU, but also between and Iran and the European Union. Iran is a very attractive trade partner for Europe as a trade partner. However, some differences of betweenthe Iranian legislation and legislation in the the banking system from the European banking system ones complicate cooperation. Armenia expects that Europe will trade with Iran via Armenia when After it establishes the the free trade zone with Iran, and after the railway communication link between the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea starts operating, Armenia expects Europe to conduct its trade with Iran via its own corridorson.

Such a scenarioThese developments will affect both the regional and the global economyy. After all, iIf by that time the economies of Iran and the Eurasian Union manage to integrate by that time, the strengthening of the trade relations of between Iran and Europe will result in the improved ties between Europe and the EAEU. This may lead to the weakening of the US influence in the European Union. It should be recalled that now the USA is presently trying to impose the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on Europe, which many European experts believe to be very unprofitable. It may happenis not wholly implausible that in the course of time, the European Union will find the cooperation with the EAEU will become moreincreasingly attractive for the European Union in the course of time.

Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine  “New Eastern Outlook”.