Author: Andres-Papazian

REVUE DE PRESSE
La Turquie a plus à perdre que la France

Quelles seraient donc les conséquences d’une rupture des relations
franco-turques ? Chercheur à l’institut de relations internationales
et stratégiques (‘IRIS), Alican TAYLA est spécialiste de la Turquie et
de son environnement géopolitique, il a accepté de répondre à nos
questions.

Ankara a vivement réagi à l’adoption en première lecture jeudi 22
décembre d’une proposition de loi pénalisant la négation du génocide
arménien. Cette dernière a déja annoncé le gel de sa coopération
politique et militaire avec la France et annoncé que d’autres mesures
seraient prises, notamment économiques.

La Turquie peut-elle donc réellement mettre ses menaces à exécution et
`réviser ses relations avec la France` ? Déjà il faut rappeler que les
tensions Franco-turques ne datent pas d’aujourd’hui. Déjà en 2005, la
demande d’adhésion de la Turquie à l’Union Européenne (UE) avait
suscité un débat houleux dans la société française entre les partisans
et les opposants à la candidature. En 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy s’était
clairement exprimé contre l’adhésion de la Turquie à l’UE ce qui a
jeté un froid entre Paris et Ankara une fois qu’il est devenu
Président de la République. Par ailleurs les seules sanctions qui
viennent d’être adoptées sont le rappel de l’ambassadeur de Turquie en
France et la suspension d’accords militaires. Il n’y a pas lieu donc
d’amplifier la crise qui ne s’installera pas de manière durable. Les
deux pays ont trop d’intérêts en commun : la Turquie poursuit son
adhésion à l’UE, les deux pays sont des alliés stratégiques et surtout
les aspects économiques ne permettent pas au deux États de suspendre
leurs liaisons. L’organisation patronale turque le TUSIAD a déjà fait
savoir qu’elle ne participera pas à un boycott des produits français.
Les intérêts stratégiques militaires et économiques sont trop
importants entre les deux pays pour que la Turquie mette réellement
ses menaces à exécution.

Quels seraient les conséquences d’une rupture des liens entre la
France et la Turquie ?

Les conséquences seraient désastreuses pour les deux camps. Même si la
Turquie a beaucoup plus à perdre que la France. Les deux pays ont
énormément d’intérêts communs : ils sont tout les deux membres de
l’OTAN, ils ont un partenariat militaire qui bénéficie aux deux Etats
et la France est un investisseur important en Turquie. De plus si la
Turquie est une puissance montante au Moyen-Orient elle n’a pas
renoncer à l’adhésion à l’UE.

Pourquoi la France tient-elle à faire adopter une loi pénalisant la
négation du génocide arménien ? Il y a deux raisons qui quelques part
sont liées aux enjeux politiques de la prochaine élection : la
première s’inscrit dans une logique de continuité pour Nicolas Sarkozy
dont la loi était une proposition qui date de sa campagne en 2007. Le
président s’était alors engagé à légiférer sur ce sujet et il le fait
à quelques mois de la prochaine élection. Ce n’est donc pas du tout un
hasard de calendrier si cette proposition de loi arrive aujourd’hui.
L’élection présidentielle est indéniablement la première motivation de
la majorité pour faire adopter ce projet par l’Assemblée. La seconde
raison profondément liée à la première c’est l’ancrage de la
communauté arménienne admirablement ancrée dans la société Française
et au sein des deux partis majoritaires. Les Arméniens constituent en
France un lobby assez puissant.

!zcqyaKik5MILU/

dimanche 15 janvier 2012,
Stéphane ©armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

Electric Networks of Armenia CJSC Sold

01.13.2012 18:14 epress.am

On Dec. 30, 2011, Electric Networks of Armenia CJSC shares were
transferred from Interenergo BV to Inter RAO Holding. As reported
today by the electricity provider, all the necessary corporate
procedures were previously carried out and the transaction was given
the green light by the Republic of Armenia and the RA Public Services
Regulatory Commission.

Thus, moving forward, 100% of the shares of the Electric Networks of
Armenia was transfered to Inter RAO, a company registered in the
Netherlands that is fully owned by Russian energy company Inter RAO
UES.

Note, the Electric Networks of Armenia has the exclusive license to
distribute and transmit electrical energy in Armenia.

From: A. Papazian

Levante online , Italia
12 gennaio 2012

Genocidio armeno, le posizioni della Turchia .

Giovedì 12 Gennaio 2012 01:12
di Marianna Cortese

Il tema del genocidio armeno è tornato, con tutta la sua forza, nel
dibattito politico dopo lo scontro che ha visto contrapposti la
Turchia e la Francia.

Il termine genocidio armeno si riferisce a tutte quelle azioni
collegate alla deportazione e all’eliminazione fisica degli armeni
avvenute tra il 1915 e il 1916. Gli armeni ricordano questo
avvenimento il 24 aprile di ogni anno, tanto che nel 2010 si è
commemorato il 95° anniversario del genocidio armeno.

Questi avvenimenti devono essere inquadrati nel loro contesto
storico-politico: infatti all’indomani del primo conflitto mondiale e
dell’abbattimento dell’Impero ottomano, salirono al potere i Giovani
turchi che avvertivano la popolazione armena come potenziale alleata
dei russi contro il neo potere repubblicano. Nel 1915 si registrano i
primi arresti, tanto che in un solo mese si segnalano più di mille
intellettuali armeni, tra cui giornalisti, poeti, scrittori e delegati
di Parlamento, deportati nei territori interni dell’Anatolia e qui
massacrati. Le cosiddette marce della morte coinvolsero più di un
milione e duecento mila persone, tra le quali molte morirono durante
il viaggio per sfinimento, malattia o fame.

Il governo turco continua ancora oggi a negare, al punto che la
magistratura turca punisce con arresto e reclusione fino a tre anni
chi nomina in pubblico l’esistenza del genocidio, in quanto gesto
anti- patriottico. Questo è testimoniato dai molti arresti avvenuti in
terra turca: ricordo, infatti, lo storico Taner Akçam arrestato nel
1976 e condannato a dieci anni di reclusione, in quanto accusato di
essere stato il primo a parlare pubblicamente di genocidio; e lo
stesso stava per coinvolgere lo scrittore Orhan Pamuk che, durante
un’intervista ad un giornale svizzero, accennava a quegli avvenimenti
storici. Quest’ultima denuncia fu, però, poco dopo ritirata. La
Turchia, infatti, vede le morti avvenute durante questi
`trasferimenti’ non come un atto deliberato e programmato ma,
piuttosto, causato dalla fobia russa, così largamente presente in quel
periodo. Questo atteggiamento negazionista causa profondi problemi per
l’entrata del paese turco nell’Unione Europa: ventuno paesi, infatti,
riconoscono e criticano l’atteggiamento passato e presente della
Turchia nei confronti degli armeni.

In questo folto dibattito politico va inserita e letta la legge
approvata dal Parlamento francese che rende illegittima la negazione
del genocidio, compiuta anche dagli stessi turchi, sanzionandola con
un anno di carcere e 45 mila euro di ammenda, per chi nega
pubblicamente questi terribili fatti storici.

Le reazioni turche non sono tardate. Il primo ministro turco Erdoḡan
critica la decisione francese e la descrive come una `profonda ferita
che potrà difficilmente rimarginarsi’. Molto diverso è il tono del
ministro degli Esteri francese Alain Juppè che si dichiara
`dispiaciuto per il malcontento turco’ ed invita il Paese a `favorire
la conservazione di un dialogo aperto e costruttivo’, forse anche per
preservare i grandi risultati diplomatici conseguiti negli ultimi
tempi nella gestione dei rapporti tra questi due paesi.

Le reazioni dell’opinione pubblica a riguardo della scelta francese
sono varie; in molti prevale la convinzione che questo interesse sia
dovuto a meri calcoli pre-elettorali: in questo modo, infatti, Sarkozy
vorrebbe riservarsi l’appoggio dei francesi di origine armena presenti
nel proprio paese. Non bisogna, però, dimenticare che questa
consapevolezza si inserisce in un’ottica mondiale molto più ampia.

Nel 2010 il Congresso degli Stati Uniti votò una risoluzione che
chiedeva al presidente Obama di riconoscere questa tragedia; ed anche
allora la Turchia ritirò il proprio ambasciatore. In Italia invece,
dopo un dibattimento apertosi nel 1998, la Camera dei deputati, in
concerto con il Parlamento europeo e lo Stato Vaticano, riconosceva
nel 2000 gli eventi, invitando la Turchia a fare i conti con la
propria storia, e i sentimenti derivanti da decisioni che, in quegli
anni, causarono molti morti e tanto dolore.

From: A. Papazian

Marianne2.fr , France
14 janvier 2012

Génocide arménien: pourquoi Juppé a-t-il «fermé sa gueule» ?

Régis Soubrouillard – Marianne | Samedi 14 Janvier 2012 à 05:01 |

Auditionné par la commission des affaires étrangères de l’assemblée
nationale, le Ministre des affaires étrangères n’a pas pu échapper à
une question sur le vote -en urgence électorale- de la loi sur la
pénalisation du génocide arménien. Farouchement opposé à ce texte,
Juppé a dit en privé à ses conseillers et au président tout le mal
qu’il pensait de cette démarche, se montrant beaucoup plus dicret lors
de ses prises de paroles publiques. Jurisprudence Chevènement oblige.

Un ministre ça ferme sa gueule ou ça s’en va ». La formule de
Chevènement, au moment de la parenthèse mitterando-libérale de 1983,
est restée un must, une référence en matière de savoir-vivre
politique.
Juppé l’a longuement médité ces derniers temps si l’on en croît ses
propos devant la commision des affaires étrangères de l’assemblée
nationale .
Auditionné par la dite commission le mardi 10 janvier, le Ministre des
affaires étrangères n’a pas échappé à la question fche : le dossier
turc.
Ancien Ministre des affaires étrangères lui-même, c’est Hervé de
Charrette (voir la vidéo) qui a mis les pieds dans le plat avec un art
de la diplomatie consommé « dans cette période où il y a la
confrontation avec l’Iran et les difficultés que nous connaissons en
Syrie, vous aviez cherché à faire en sorte que nos relations avec la
Turquie connaissent un développement qui paraissait prometteur et une
affaire dont j’ai du mal à percevoir l’urgence, la pénalisation du
génocide est arrivé comme un cheveu sur la soupe, ce qui a prondément
perturbé notre politique étrangère dans la région. Je voudrais savoir
ce que vous en pensez et où en est-on ? ».

Brouahaha et rires contenus dans salle. Un ange passe avant qu’Alain
Juppé ne prenne la parole : « Je me réfère beaucoup à Jean-Pierre
Chevènement par les temps qui courent. Il a dit un jour: un Ministre
ça ferme sa gueule où ça s’en va, je vous laisse le soin d’interpréter
les conditions d’application de cette maxime au cas particulier. Je ne
vais pas biaiser avec tout ça, tout le monde connaît mon point de vue
sur le sujet. J’étais dans mon rôle en signalant les inconvénients, le
mot est faible, qu’une telle initiative pouvait avoir dans la région.
Je ne reviens pas là dessus. Il faut maintenant gérer la situation
dans la région. Et ça n’est pas fini. Il y aura une deuxième vague au
Sénat. Nos amis turcs ont réagi comme il fallait s’y attendre. Je leur
avais demandé de ne pas sur réagir, ils ont sur réagi. Je le dis en
toute sérénité. Le rôle des diplomates c’est de recoller les morceaux
quand il y a de la vaisselle cassée. C’est ce que j’essaye de faire ».

Le responsable du quai d’Orsay multiplie alors les exemples d’échanges
économiques ou universitaires franco-turcs : « On va essayer de faire
en sorte que nos relations avec la Turquie s’apaisent » lche-t-il, un
peu dépité, en conclusion, de son propos.

Un concours de génocides pour récupérer les voix des arméniens
Si Alain Juppé se réfère à Jean-Pierre Chevènement, il n’en tire pas
les mêmes conclusions. En 1983, alors Ministre de la Recherche,
Chevènement avait quitté ses fonctions. Juppé fermera sa gueule
préférant avaler la couleuvre des lois mémorielles et louvoyer lors de
ses prises de paroles publiques.
Selon Le Canard Enchainé du 21 décembre 2011, en conseil des
ministres, Juppé avait pourtant prévenu Sarkozy des dégts
diplomatiques et économiques que causerait le vote d’un tel texte.

« Je me dois de dire que si ce texte devait passer, ce ne serait pas
sans conséquences économiques et diplomatiques avec les Turcs. Il ne
faut pas oublier que les Turcs viennent de commander 100 Airbus ,
qu’il y a 1000 entreprises françaises en Turquie dont Axa. J’aurai
prévenu tout le monde sur les graves conséquences que cela peut avoir.
Personne ne pourra dire qu’il n’avait pas été informé ».

Juppé abandonnera tout langage diplomatique face à ses collaborateurs
: « Cette proposition de loi est intellectuellement, économiquement et
diplomatiquement une connerie sans nom. On n’a pas à se lancer dans un
concours des génocides. Tout ça pour tenter de récupérer les voix des
Français d’origine arménienne. C’est ridicule ! ».

Tout à ses préoccupations électoralistes, Sarkozy n’en tiendra aucun compte.

A peine rentré à Paris la semaine dernière, l’ambassadeur de Turquie
devra affronter le vote du Sénat qui devrait examiner le texte avant
la fin du mois de janvier. Outre des constitutionnalistes, seront
entendus des responsables d’organisations arméniennes et turques en
France ainsi que les ambassadeurs des deux pays à Paris.

From: A. Papazian

Trend, Azerbaijan
Jan 14 2012

Tension in Armenia enough for people to take it to streets

14 January 2012, 11:04 (GMT+04:00) There is enough tension in Armenia
for people to go out on the streets, member of the Armenian National
Congress, chairman of the Armenian nationwide movement (ANM) Aram
Manukian said.

“In late February – early March people will become more active, and I
believe, there are enough reasons for them to go out on the streets,”
Tert.am quotes Manukian as saying.

Manukian said, there are 3 factors that will force people to take to
the streets: the first is rise in prices, “since people have for the
first time celebrated the New Year on credit”, the second is migration
and the third one is situation in army.

“We should add to all this pre-election tensions. My calculations on
people’s taking in the streets to demand change of power are based on
these three factors,” Manukian added.

As for the struggle, chairman of the ANM noted that there are
different methods of struggle – pickets, rallies and demonstrations.

From: A. Papazian

APA, Azerbaijan
Jan 14 2012

European Democrat and Social Rally to vote against `Armenian genocide’
bill in French Senate

[ 14 Jan 2012 12:40 ]

Baku. Habil Suleymanzadeh – APA. A number of French senators, led by
the European Democrat and Social Rally (RDSE), also said they would
vote against the bill criminalizing the denial of the so-called
`Armenian genocide’, APA reports quoting AFP.

RDSE has 16 senators in the Senate, who consider that the legislative
branch should not be involved in such disputes and give reasons for
bringing anyone to the responsibility.

The Senate will start hearing on above-mentioned bill on January 23.
The French National Assembly approved the bill on December 22, 2011
and sent it to the Senate.

From: A. Papazian

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 14 2012

The US is done waiting

BERÄ°L DEDEOÄ?LU

Unfortunately, very few foresee a more stable international system in
the near future. The global financial crisis continues to stimulate
tensions between states and societies around the globe in one way or
another.

The Obama administration’s initial choice was not to lose more time in
the Middle East and to concentrate its efforts in Asia. Consequently,
serious problems in the Afghanistan-Pakistan area were expected. While
Iran, and perhaps its sponsor, Russia, tried to destabilize Pakistan,
the US planned to use the latter, along with Afghanistan, as a barrier
between Iran and China. The US was acting as if it was applying a
policy of containment against China.

As the US moved its military and political weight toward Asia, Iran
lost its chance to successfully expand its reach into the East. That’s
why it tried once again to find a way out of the south and acted in
the Persian Gulf, as well as in Syria and Lebanon. The real reasons
behind Iran’s actions cannot be fully understood by looking only at
Tehran, as there are other powers that use Iran to achieve their own
goals.

Iran’s recent moves have proven there are still great issues to be
resolved in the Middle East and that no actor has a chance to give its
attention to the Far East before finding a solution to these issues.
That’s why the US has decided to support more vigorously its allies in
the Middle East. This would be much simpler if everything was alright
with them, but the truth is quite different. The Mubarak regime was
overthrown in Egypt and Israel is reluctant to do what it takes to
resolve the Palestinian issue. All this comes at a time when relations
between Turkey and Israel have hit rock bottom. It is true that Turkey
is now seen as a more trustworthy partner in the Arab world but,
luckily, it has resisted pressures to adopt a more hard-line stance
against Israel, remaining on the ground of `soft politics.’

The most reasonable scenario for the US is to bring together some of
the EU countries on good terms with Russia, such as Germany and
France, with Turkey and a few Arab countries in order to use them to
stabilize the Middle East through the use of soft politics. However,
the above mentioned EU countries have refused to play their part for
political and economic reasons, and never want to be seen in the same
picture as Turkey.

Not only have they refused this, they have also increased pressure on
Turkey by using the Cyprus or Armenian issues. Some have seen that
under these circumstances, Turkey will look for bilateral alliances
and will accept any European power willing to help. The UK was one of
the first countries to have noticed this opportunity and has already
begun to support Turkish policies toward Iraq, Syria, Egypt and
Armenia. To tell the truth, this will not be the first time in history
that European powers have seized such opportunities.

While these new balances are put in place, the EU remains of decisive
importance. The meaning of this will become more apparent if military
interventions in Syria and/or Iran are seriously put on table. We live
in a world where nobody can blame others for one’s own mistakes or
inefficiencies. The only way out is to be as transparent as possible,
and transparency will only be established through dialogue. Sending
warships to far away seas or dropping bombs from warplanes only worsen
the existing situations.

Everything indicates that the US has decided it has waited enough. It
is now in a hurry to build multilateral coalitions and to pull Russia
to its side through the influence of some EU members while Turkey
remains out of the EU. If it fails, it will declare Russia as the
`other,’ along with Syria and Iran, and will start to contain these
players using EU member countries not aligned with Russia. In this
second scenario, too, Turkey will be kept outside the EU.

From: A. Papazian

Armenian genocide: Israel must maintain its moral compass

By M. HAKAN YAVUZ AND TAL BUENOS
01/14/2012 21:49

Keeping silent on a moral issue for the sake of maintaining political ties
with Turkey would be a declaration of moral bankruptcy.

Was the recent surfacing of the Armenian tragedy in the Israeli Knesset
rooted in political or moral ground? Fully aware that the timing of the
public debate on the Armenian tragedy recently held by the Knesset’s *
Education* Committee is political to an embarrassing degree, Knesset
Speaker Reuven Rivlin set out to negate this immediate perception by
stating, more than once, that the reopening of the debate on the issue was
not a matter of political or diplomatic considerations, but a moral duty.

Such rhetoric aims to establish a narrative according to which the
Israel-Turkey political relationship held Israel’s moral position hostage.
Now that Israel is free from its political commitments to Turkey, the
argument goes, Israel may officially declare that what happened to the
Armenians during WWI was genocide.

However, to argue that Israel did in fact keep silent on this issue for the
sake of maintaining political ties with Turkey is tantamount to declaring
Israel’s moral *bankruptcy*.

A state that prides itself on earnestly trying to do the right thing
despite endless and tremendous challenges and unprecedented moral trials
cannot afford to abandon its moral compass in this manner.

Is Israel prepared to sacrifice the integrity of its current president,
whose position symbolizes Israeli consensus, and say that when Shimon Peres
announced unequivocally in April 2001 that what happened to the Armenians
was tragic but not genocide, he sold morality for political gain?
Tragically, by blurring the *differences* between the Holocaust and the
massacre of Armenians, Israel is harming itself by lending a hand to the
continued practice of irresponsible use of the term genocide in other
arenas of conflict, such as the conflict Israel itself has with the
Palestinians. In a growing number of forums, campaigns against Israel’s
position in its conflict with the Palestinians are armed with the term
genocide as a weapon of mass political pressure.

This has already had a detrimental effect on Israel’s international
relations, but will surely haunt it to a greater extent in days to come,
especially should the United States reduce the level of its commitment to
warding off accusations against Israel in the international system. Such a
scenario may eventually lead to united international opposition against
Israel, and perhaps even to outside interference with Israeli actions
through international courts of law. Is it hard to imagine a possible law
somewhere in Europe that would make it illegal to deny the `genocide’ of
the Palestinians? Instead of letting politicians add more fuel to the fire
of misuse of the term genocide, careful scholarly work must be done to
investigate the transition from Holocaust to the modern-day use of the term
genocide and put its politicization in proper academic perspective.

Scholars are invited to examine the historical context of post-World War II
interests in Germany, and see how the American-led efforts to `de-Nazify’
and reeducate Germany introduced the term genocide via Raphael Lemkin, an
employee of the US government, to cement the moral advantage they had over
the Germans through international law, out of political interest, and not
simply out of the goodness of their hearts.

Accordingly, the universal condemnation of the Nazi crimes in the Holocaust
provided the necessary impact for the introduction of the Genocide
Convention in the United Nations. Then, once the term was taking on a life
of its own, its promoters sought to convince states to ratify genocide, the
practice of universalizing the singularity of the Holocaust had begun, and
the systematic extermination of Jews was now to be equated with many
dissimilar events.

For instance, it is reported that while looking to persuade the Irish to
ratify genocide and bring the term closer to their hearts, Raphael Lemkin
told John Costello, the Prime Minister of Ireland, that the potato famine
from which they suffered was a type of genocide.

In a world where a potato famine resulting from a careless shipping
management is described by the same word as the deliberate attempt to
exterminate all of Europe’s Jews, the Holocaust will surely be
*confused*with cases of civil war. The Deutchtum (German character) of
German Jews
will be mixed up with acts of rebellion, and Nazi Germany’s irrational
hatred and greed will be indistinguishable from a nation’s reasonable
desire to survive a conflict.

The loose and superficial definition of genocide proved to be sufficient
for promoting US interests in Germany post WWII, but not tight enough to
save the term from becoming rich ground for interest groups that are
seeking political momentum. While the well-being of the weak must be
advocated, it cannot be done at the expense of a nation’s natural right to
defend itself when threatened by other groups, be they strong or weak.

Every nation has the right to employ whatever means it has to fight for its
survival, and should not have to do so at the expense of its moral standing
in the eyes of other nations. This is a belief both Israel and Turkey share.

Turkey is uniquely positioned at the gateway between East and West, and as
such, it holds the key for the long-awaited *accommodation* of the State of
Israel in the region.

A common denominator for both might be found in the attempt to rescue the
term genocide from further politicization. With this short essay, we intend
to encourage increased scholarly dialogue on the concept of genocide:
morally, philosophically, historically and legally. It is our hope that
such activity would advance the field of genocide studies in both
countries, and weather the storm between the two governments until the
relations between the two nations know better days.

Professor M. Hakan Yavuz is originally from Turkey and teaches political
science at the Middle East Center at the University of Utah. Tal Buenos is
originally from Israel and is a doctoral student political science at the
University of Utah, focusing on genocide studies.

From: A. Papazian

Official: `Details of the soldier’s death are under investigation’

On December 30, 2011 Armenian soldier Hayk Khachatryan was dead at
Armenian Army as a result of disease. Panorama.am asked the head of
the military-medical department of Armenian Armed Forces Colonel
Artashes Parsadanyan to answer some questions on the tragic accisdent.

Answering to the question which signs of illness the soldier had and
whether it was impossible to save the soldier’s life, Mr. Parsadanyan
said: `It was discovered at the Yerevan Norq hospital that the soldier
was ill with chicken-pox and the illness was expressed by its terrible
type. The illness developed quickly. Nearly the whole organism was
damaged. Of course the necessary assistance was shown to the soldier
but this illness is unpredictable. On 2011 two other people also were
dead by the same illness in the same hospital and they were not
militants. I can say that very few people have been treated from this
illness and were able to overcome it.’

Panorama.am also asked to the military official whether an
investigation is held to find out the details of the death and the
medical assistance which was shown.

`After the soldier’s death Armenian Minister of Defense ordered to
create a special independent commission led by professor Benik
Harutyunyan. Both militants and the medical professors are included in
the commission. I think the commission will manage to clear up the
details of the illness its development and its treatment. The
commission will conclude its work in some days and the results will be
announced’, the military official said.

14.01.12, 10:41

From: A. Papazian

Committee on ethics the best institute to raise civilizational level
of Armenian Parliament

January 14, 2012 | 15:35

YEREVAN. – Committee on ethics is the best institute to raise
civilizational level of the Armenian Parliament, Prosperous Armenia
Party MP Vardan Bostanjyan told Armenian News-NEWS.am.

Vardan Bostanjyan is one of the authors of the bill amending the `Law
on Regulations in the National Assembly.’ If the bill is adopted, a
committee on ethics will be set up.

The committee however will not have legal power. But the fact that any
issue, causing improper behavior of the MP, is discussed at the
parliament is just unbearable for any reasonable person. `It will
serve as a `straight jacket’ especially for relations and approaches
of the ruling parties,’ he added.

Bostanjyan believes that the bill on establishing the committee will
be passed as even those MPs, who are against it, will not have the
risk to speak up.

Meantime, the MP said that it is not necessary to link the
establishment of the committee with the fact that Armenian Parliament
lacks ethics.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

From: A. Papazian