Author: Andres-Papazian

AZERBAIJAN’S AND GEORGIA’S STATEMENTS THAT ARMENIAN NPP IS UNSAFE ARE NOT TRUE

arminfo
Tuesday, December 6, 22:18

Azerbaijan’s and Georgia’s statements that Armenian Nuclear Power
Plant is unsafe are not true, Chairman of the Nuclear Safety Council
of Armenia Adolf Birkhofer said after the 12th meeting of the Council.

He said that similar things are said about the German NPPs. The German
authorities have decided to ban nuclear energy in their country, but
nuclear energy can be developed if there are experienced engineers
and effective state control. Brikhofer believes that nuclear energy
can be developed for peaceful purposes, but here much depends on the
continuity and the efficiency of the personnel. And so, the Armenian
authorities have decided that nuclear power engineering should be
taught in universities.

Birkhofer said that the Nuclear Safety Council was set up by the
President of Armenia July 13 1996 as an independent advisory agency
for improving the safety of Armenian NPP and raising it to the level
of European and American ones. The Council meets each year. Its key
tasks are to ensure nuclear safety, to outline priorities and to
recommend solutions in the field.

From: A. Papazian

AGREEMENT ON TRUST MANAGEMENT OF “HAYPOST” IS PROLONGED FOR HALF A YEAR, TRANSPORT MINISTER SUGGESTS TO CHANGE THE MANAGEMENT MODEL OF THE COMPANY

/ARKA/
DECEMBER 6, 2011
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, December 6. /ARKA/. Terms of contract on trust management of
Dutch company Haypost Trust Management B.V. of national postal operator
of Armenia – “Haypost” (Armpochta) is prolonged for six months.

Press-service of the Armenian Transport and Communications Ministry
informs that a relevant agreement was signed on Monday by Transport
Minister Manuk Vardanyan and Haypost Trust Management B.V. General
Director Juan Pablo Gechidzhyan.

Agreement on transfer of the company “Haypost” in Haypost Trust
Management B.V. was signed on November 30, 2006 in Yerevan for 5 years
with the right of prolongation of the agreement for the similar period.

Vardanyan said that the programs envisaged by the company “Haypost”
were not fully implemented, particularly during five years only 84
post offices were repaired out of 250 and only a part of universal
services was introduced.

In this regard the Minister suggested to change the management form
that will provide an opportunity to invest not only at the expense of
the company’s profit by the new contract, but also new investments
which will allow to have a modern and renovated post offices and
a full list of universal services, to ensure the implementation of
modern technologies and recruitment of new staff.

“Otherwise the opportunity of review of the agreement or its
termination will be discussed”, states the press-release.

ARKA News Agency asked “Haypost” to clarify the situation and expects
comments from the company’s press-service.

On November 30, 2006 agreement on transferring the Armenian company
“Haypost” under trust management of Dutch “Haypost Trust Management”
was signed for 5 years with the right of prolongation for another
five years.

CJSC “Haypost” is a national post operator operating in Armenia. It
has 900 post offices in the territory of Armenia

From: A. Papazian

STATEMENT OF MG CO-CHAIRS A BLOW TO AZERBAIJAN

ARMENPRESS
DECEMBER 7, 2011
YEREVAN

The peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is preferable
not only for the Minsk Group, but all the parties, political analyst
Alexander Markarov noted at December 7 press conference. “The parties
once again reiterate that the issue does not have military solution:
it is another blow to Azerbaijan, taking into consideration its
collection of ammunition,” political analyst said.

Speaking about the influence the spiritual leaders may have in the NK
issue, the speaker said there is such experience: a spiritual leader
comes forth as a power participating in the political process ongoing
in country. “In our days, though, the latter come forth as expressers
of public opinion and are trying to promote the friendly relations
and express the viewpoint of the state,” the political analyst said.

Armenpress reported that December 6 on the occasion of the OSCE
Ministerial Council Meeting in Vilnius, the Heads of Delegation of the
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries (Foreign Minister of the Russian
Federation Sergei Lavrov, Secretary of State of the United States
Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Minister for European Affairs of France
Jean Leonetti) and the Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian
and Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov reaffirmed the
importance of reaching a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

From: A. Papazian

ON THE QUESTION OF RECOGNIZING THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH REPUBLIC: HOPES AND ILLUSIONS

asbarez
Monday, December 5th, 2011

Dr. Ara Papian
BY DR. ARA PAPIAN

Talk on the recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) in
general and, specifically, recognition by the Republic of Armenia
has become more prevalent of late. The discussions have been of a
political nature, although the recognition of a state is first and
foremost a legal matter. The debate can be divided into two camps. The
first finds that the recognition of the NKR would amount to nothing.

As for the second, it seems that recognition of the NKR is the
ultimate end for them. I shall abstain from evaluating these
approaches. Instead, I shall stress the legal aspects of this issue
in trying to demonstrate that the question is much more complicated
than what it appears at first glance.

The recognition of any state – regardless of to what extent that act
would have a political basis – is a legal phenomenon. Accordingly,
then, it is necessary to examine the premises and the legal
consequences that have to do with the recognition of states.

The first recognition by treaty in modern times took place in 1648,
when the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) between the Spanish and the
Dutch was put to an end and Spain recognized the independence of the
United Netherlands that had broken away sixty-seven years earlier,
having declared sovereignty in 1581.

To comprehend more fully the matter of recognizing newly-established
states, it is necessary to note what kinds of criteria are put forth by
international law to acknowledge the independence of countries. As per
international law, there are three such criteria: a fixed territory,
a population, and an effective government. I find it necessary to
emphasize that international law does not place any minimal thresholds
for territory or population. In this regard, it is important that the
territory be specified and the population be permanent, and that’s
all. E.g., there are 2 areas between northern Sudan and South Sudan,
currently in the process of establishing its independence – Abyei and
South Kurdufan (the former with 10 460 sq.km and 60 000 inhabitants;
the latter at 158 355 sq.km and a population of 1 100 000) – a total of
1 160 000 people and 168 815 sq.km, the fate of which is to be decided
in future. As you can see, such an indecisive circumstance does not
hinder the process of establishing independence. Let me also stress
that the territory of NKR is marked with accuracy up to the metre,
as separate from Azerbaijan.

As for effective government, then it is absolutely clear that, at
the very least from May 1994, the elected officials of NKR have been
fulfilling the duties of government throughout the entire territory
of NKR. I would like to underscore in particular that the Republic
of Azerbaijan has never maintained an effective government over
any part of the territory of NKR, and it had not ever carried out
any kind of governance over the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Oblast.

The aforementioned were the three criteria for recognition. Let us now
turn to what bases exist not to recognize. International law points
to two conditions because of which recognition can be obstructed. The
first is insufficient independence. The NKR’s position is quite weak
in this case. We are forgetting an important factor – independence
means independence not only from Azerbaijan, but also from Armenia.

Therefore, as long as the NKR remains outside the negotiations process,
it would be naïve to expect that any state would recognize the NKR’s
independence.

The second condition hindering recognition is the violation of any
component of the principle of self-determination, for example, if
there is inadequate representation of a given ethnic or religious
group in the local authorities. In this case, the circumstances of
the NKR authorities are completely in line with the current population
of the country.

The conduct and order prevalent in a state seeking recognition is also
an important factor. From a purely legal perspective, a democratic
regime is not a prerequisite for independence to be recognized.

Nevertheless, the retrogression of the NKR from “Partly Free” to “Not
Free” as per the index prepared annually by Freedom House is a serious
step backwards on the NKR’s path to recognition. Objections could
be made to this argument: after all, if anyone wanted to recognize
anything, these circumstances would be recognized as well. I agree.

However, the trouble is indeed that they do not wish to recognize,
and so in such a case the only prudent policies would be to eliminate
all possible conditions and excuses not to recognize.

Now let us turn to another important question. What legal consequences
could be brought about by recognition of the NKR, or, put more
simply, why do some people insist that the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
be recognized?

This question has two sides. One is the recognition of the NKR by the
Republic of Armenia, and the second is recognition by other countries.

Recognition by Armenia would have more than one manifestation. Many
are motivated by political considerations. However, the issue has
serious legal complexities, which are always ignored. According to
the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, which forms part of the
Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, the establishment of RA is
based, among other things, on “the December 1, 1989, joint decision of
the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and the Artsakh National Council on
the ‘Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Region of
Karabakh'”, that is, it recognizes the legality of that document. The
third clause of that joint decision declared “the reunification of
the Armenian SSR and Mountainous Karabakh”. How could the Republic of
Armenia, then, recognize part of its own territory as independent? I
would like to underscore that the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is a
part of the Republic of Armenia is not only codified de jure in the
Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, but is also de facto the
reality in our everyday life. If that were not the case, then the
military service of the conscript from Armenia in the NKR would be
illegal, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh could never carry passports
of the Republic of Armenia, and Robert Kocharian could not participate
in the presidential elections of the Republic of Armenia.

Those seeking recognition of the NKR believe that recognition
would add to the security of the NKR. If we set aside the apparent
anti-constitutional nature of such a decision, perhaps they would be
correct. Nevertheless, let us recall that a recognized state would be
in no less danger from external aggression. There are numerous recent
examples to support this: regular Turkish incursions into Iraq, the
invasion by that same Iraq into Kuwait, the assault by Israel into
Lebanon before that, or Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus, and so on. Thus,
taking into account the experiences of the not-too-distant past,
we may summarize that, yes, international recognition would benefit
the level of security of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, but it would
be no guarantee for the secure existence of the NKR.

Now for the most important question: what to do? History attests
to the fact that states exist as long as that state and its likely
adversaries maintain a balance of power. The response, then, is
very simple: the balance of power must be maintained. I would like
to especially stress that power and military might are not the same
thing. Coercive force is an important component of power, but it is
only one component. The most difficult question arises out of this:
how to maintain the balance of power with the NKR and the Republic
of Armenia on the one hand, and Azerbaijan and Turkey on the other,
when the elements that make up the power of the parties are based
on essentially different things. To put it simply, we are behind our
potential adversaries in terms of politics, the economy, territory,
geographic positioning, population, resources, military output, etc.

This question, which appears so difficult at first glance, has a very
simple answer. As balance is a relative concept, that is, it is the
comparison of power of the sides, then if one cannot maintain a balance
by becoming more powerful one’s self, then another approach must be
adopted, that of weakening one’s opponent. There are many ways to do
so. I shall refer to only a few. Native peoples of Azerbaijan today,
whose numbers are at least two and a half to three million – the
Lezgin, Avar, Tsakhur, Talysh, Tat, Udi, and others – are suffering
under the yoke of Azerbaijani nationalism. Yes, the identities
of many are repressed or forcibly concealed, but pointed efforts
in the information realm would encourage the awakening of national
consciousness among them. Our delegations in various European bodies
and our embassies in the entire civilized world must always bring
up facts of the discrimination and sufferings in place concerning
the ethnic and other minorities in Azerbaijan. In practice, it would
be necessary to broadcast radio and television programming from the
NKR in Russian, in Turkish, and in the languages of those peoples,
and also to set up websites for them. I imagine that people would
object, saying that there is no expertise or no funding for any of
this. First about the funding. If the maintenance costs for former
officials of the NKR were to be reduced or eliminated from the NKR’s
budget, then even that amount is sufficient to carry out the plan I
mentioned. And when there is funding, the expertise will appear too.

There are still individuals in the native peoples of Azerbaijan
who wish to struggle for the future of their own people. And I also
believe at the same time that it would be better if the Armenia Fund
would renovate one or two fewer schools or perhaps not construct a
windsurfing club on the shores of Lake Sevan, and instead implement
the plan I put forth. If the powers were to be put finally out of
balance, war would be inevitable, in which case all of the renovations
and such would be rendered into ruins. Therefore, maintaining an
external balance through internal counter-balances must be one of
the foundations of policy for the Republic of Armenia and the NKR.

The above applies to Turkey as well. In Turkey today, there is a
profound process of identity seeking underway. The best example is the
target group of the Zazas, which, according to some estimates, could
be up to three million in Turkey. Relations with the Kurds are very
important and, taking into account the ongoing processes in our region,
they could be decisive for Armenia’s future. Armenia must carry out
much more mature and far-sighted policies now, nearing its twentieth
year. We have to understand that, if not the restoration of our rights,
and then at least the establishment of an intermediary state between
Turkey and us would match our core interests. If not, then our being
recognized will not save us. I would like to recall that our first
republic had complete recognition by the international community,
including Turkey and Russia, but that did not hinder them from
attacking the Republic of Armenia and dividing it between themselves.

The other way to guarantee the security of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic is to keep Turkey as far away as possible from the region.

Regrettably, the unfortunate Armenia-Turkey protocols acted as a Trojan
horse and helped Turkey to stick its nose into the Nagorno-Karabakh
business.

It is clear that, in essence, any negotiation, including an
inter-state one, is a process of the applications of leverages and
counter-leverages. Negotiations can be of benefit to one, if one’s
leverages over one’s interlocutors have more influences, than those
of the interlocutors have over one. When, years ago, I proposed my
plan to the president of the republic, the plan being for the most
part based on the revival of the arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson,
I had in mind then security guarantees for the Republic of Armenia
and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I find today as well that if the
Wilson arbitral award were to receive corresponding weight and if it
were to be given enough attention by influential juridical bodies and
experts, then it could act as a serious piece of leverage for us as a
guarantor of Turkish neutrality on essential issues. I find today still
that the creation of leverages of influence on Turkey must be the most
important foreign policy goals for us and that Wilson’s arbitral award
could serve to guide us well in that regard. Most unfortunately, in
spite of all my efforts, I could not achieve anything over the course
of five years, otherwise I would not continue my struggle alone and
would at least have an establishment to assist and support me.

In sum, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The recognition
of NKR would be very inopportune politically, and it is full of
undesirable consequences legally.

2. Without constitutional amendments, recognition of the NKR by RA
would be anti-constitutional.

3. The recognition of NKR by any country would violate the territorial
integrity of RA.

4. The recognition of NKR by any country without its recognition
by RA would place conscripts from Armenia serving in NKR in a very
vulnerable legal position.

5. Our efforts should be mainly directed towards maintaining the
balance of powers. Azerbaijan must be weakened internally in order
to do so, and leverage ought to be set up with regards to Turkey.

6. The issue of the recognition of NKR must be stricken from the
Armenian political agenda as a matter unfeasible in practice, and an
objective that would not have any real outcome.

Some years ago, I had the opportunity to meet one of the former
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. Our conversation was candid, as
both of us were former officials. In answering my question, as to
what is the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh, he said the following: “What
would it be? If you can keep it, it’s yours. If you can’t keep it,
then it will belong to the Azerbaijanis.” The response is of course
rather cynical, but that is the only truth.

Ara Papian is the head, Modus Vivendi Center

From: A. Papazian

ZARAKOLU SE DIT PRIS DANS UNE HISTOIRE KAFKAIENNE

Source/Lien : NAM
Publie le : 06-12-2011

L’editeur arrete Zarakolu se dit pris dans une histoire kafkaienne

Le celèbre editeur, ecrivain et militant Zarakolu, qui a ete arrete le
mois dernier dans le prolongement des procès engages contre l’Union
des Communautes du Kurdistan (KCK), met en lumière les conditions de
sa detention.

“Tout s’est passe depuis le debut selon un processus tout a fait
kafkaïen”, dit Zarakolu, laureat de nombreux prix prestigieux, dans
sa lettre a Hurriyet Daily News.

C’est en ces termes que Zarakolu decrit ses demarches pour obtenir
son transfert au centre de detention d’Edirne, dans la province du
nord-est, où son fils Deniz Zarakolu, doctorant en philosophie a
l’Universite Bilgi d’Istanbul, est detenu depuis le debut du mois
d’octobre, au motif de ses liens supposes avec le KCK.

“Deniz est a Edirne, et je me trouve a Kandira. J’ai depose une
requete au Bureau de Coordination du Procureur de Bakirkoy pour
remedier a notre situation. J’ai demande mon transfert a Edirne,
près de mon fils”, a dit Zarakolu, qui est detenu dans une prison
du type F de Kocaeli, dans la province du nord-ouest, où sont gardes
les prisonniers dangereux.

“Je regrette que le bureau du procureur n’ait pas accede a ma demande
et ne me permette pas de voir mon epouse Catherine. Heureusement,
la police s’est montree plus clemente et a accepte que nous nous
voyions au tribunal le jour du procès”, a ecrit Zarakolu dans sa
lettre, dont le feuillet porte la mention ecrite d’un contrôle par
les autorites de la prison.

Zarakolu a rappele en outre qu’il avait ete en prison en 1972 pour
avoir publie un livre dans sa maison d’edition Belge Publishing. Il
a ecrit qu’il etait en bonne sante malgre toutes les difficultes
auxquelles il devait faire face, decrivant le temps passe derrière
les barreaux comme “des jours passes dans la lumière blafarde de
longs couloirs”.

Il a aussi dit avoir appris le kurde parce que quelques uns de ses
compagnons de cellule ne parlaient pas le turc. “J’apprends le kurde
pour continuer a avoir des conversations humaines tous les jours.

J’apprends aussi a mes amis a parler l’allemand”.

Zarakolu a dit qu’il s’etait procure ‘Resurrection’, le livre de
Tolstoï, et qu’il recommencait a le lire 40 ans après l’avoir lu une
première fois. “Ce livre est extremement important pour moi, il me
permet de comparer le passe et le present. Le thème de ‘Resurrection’
c’est la problematique de la conscience et de la catharsis”.

Ragip Zarakolu a ete arrete le premier novembre en meme temps que
le celèbre universitaire Busra Ersanli et des douzaines d’autres
personnes considerees comme suspectes, sur l’ordre du tribunal
d’Istanbul. (Hurriyet Daily News, Vercihan Ziflioglu, 29 novembre
2011).

Les Organisations Internationales de l’Information renouvellent leur
demande de liberation des Journalistes Emprisonnes

Une mission internationale de journalistes et d’organisations de media,
composee de la Federation Europeenne des Journalistes et de sa filiale
Turkiye Gazeteciler Sendikasi (TGS, Syndicat des Journalistes de
Turquie), et d’une delegation de la Deutscher Journalisten Verband
(DJV) allemande, de l’International Press Institute (IPI), de Reporters
Without Borders (RSF, Reporters sans Frontières), de l’European
Association of Journalists (AEJ), s’est rendue en Turquie du 22 au
24 novembre pour constater le recul de la liberte de la presse dans
ce pays a denonce ce jour le fait que 64 journalistes sont encore
en prison.

“Nous observons qu’a present, les membres de la communaute
journalistique de Turquie rassemblent leurs forces dans le combat
pour la liberte de la presse et pour la liberation de leurs collègues
emprisonnes” a declare la delegation. “La solution du problème se
trouve en Turquie. Comme representants d’organisations internationales,
nous soutenons avec force nos collègues et enjoignons les autorites a
dialoguer avec elles pour trouver des solutions democratiques conformes
a la liberte de la presse. Il faut mettre fin au climat de peur et
d’autocensure que nous avons constate.

Manifestation et actions

Mardi, les participants a la mission ont pris part a une manifestation
devant le Palais de Justice Caglayan, a Istanbul, où le procès de 10
journalistes turcs emprisonnes devait commencer. La manifestation
s’est deroulee sans aucun incident, malgre une presence policière
massive. Les conditions de l’audience ont cependant profondement
inquiete les observateurs. Dans une salle d’audience beaucoup
trop petite et bondee, dans laquelle certaines delegations n’ont
pu acceder qu’après une queue de plus de deux heures, les avocats
des journalistes ont demande la recusation de l’un des trois juges,
suspecte de partialite, et reclame la liberation de leurs clients
; les accusations dont ils font l’objet sont maintenues. La cour a
rejete la demande de liberation et a renvoye l’affaire au 26 decembre
devant une cour de rang superieur qui pourra statuer sur la recusation.

Rencontre avec les familles

Mercredi, les participants a la mission ont rencontre les familles
des journalistes detenus au siège de la Plateforme Pour le Liberte
des Journalistes. Après de nombreux et emouvants temoignages de faits,
de peurs et de courage, les participants ont exprime un certain nombre
de recommandations, dont la creation d’une organisation pour venir en
aide aux familles des journalistes emprisonnes, pour la creation d’un
” kit information” a l’intention des journalistes etrangers qui sont
peu familiarises avec le niveau de liberte de la presse en Turquie
et pour la mise en place d’une formation juridique pour les jeunes
journalistes turcs, afin de leur permettre de mieux rendre compte
des affaires judiciaires.

Rencontres au Parlement

Jeudi, la delegation, dont la demande d’entrevue avec le ministre de
la justice avait ete rejetee, a rencontre a Ankara les vice-presidents
des groupes parlementaires de tous les partis politiques du parlement
turc. Les trois partis d’opposition ont promis de soutenir la tenue
d’une session speciale au parlement turc sur la liberte de la presse
et egalement l’envoi de membres du parlement comme observateurs dans
les procès de journalistes. Le parti AKP au pouvoir a declare que
“seraient prises en consideration” la première proposition, ainsi
qu’une surveillance des conditions de detention de journalistes “et
autres detenus”. Il y a aussi ete promis que seraient invitees les
ONG, organisations non gouvernementales, aux debats a venir sur les
textes relatifs a la liberte de la presse.

A la suite de ces reunions, les organisations de journalistes et de
media :

– expriment a nouveau leur inquietude et leur colère, constatant la
deterioration de la liberte de la presse en Turquie, dont le nombre
de journalistes en prison est actuellement le plus eleve en Europe ;

– exigent un changement legislatif afin que cessent les poursuites
de journalistes engagees sous le couvert de la loi anti-terroriste
et du code penal turc ;

– confirment leur demande pour la liberation immediate des journalistes
turcs emprisonnes.

– TGC-EFJ, 24 novembre 2011)

Traduction Gilbert Beguian

dimanche 4 decembre 2011, Stephane ©armenews.com

Retour a la rubrique

From: A. Papazian

LE NOUVEAU PRESIDENT DU PARLEMENT VIENT D’ETRE ELU
Laetitia

armenews.com
mardi 6 decembre 2011

Le Parti Republicain d’Armenie (HHK) a nomme l’actuel president par
interim du parlement armenien, Samvel Nikoyan. Il demeure a ce poste
jusqu’a la fin des legilsatives en mai prochain.

Lors de sa reunion jeudi, le HHK a egalement decide que Edouard
Sharmazanov, qui travaille actuellement en tant que secretaire
du parti au parlement, prendra le poste de vice-president, ce qui
libèrera par consequent Nikoyan.

Le HHK, qui contrôle la majorite des sièges, est en mesure de nommer
le nouveau president et un des ses adjoints dans le cadre d’un accord
de partage du pouvoir avec ses deux partenaires de la coalition,
le parti Armenie prospère et Orinats Yerkir.

L’approbation des candidats designes par un scrutin secret est deja
connue etant donne la position dominante de la coalition au pouvoir et
celle du HHK a l’Assemblee legislative. Les deux partis minoritaires
au Parlement, a savoir la Federation revolutionnaire armenienne
(Dachnaktsoutioun) et Heritage, semblaient peu enthousiastes pour
contester la nomination du candidat au poste vacant.

Sharmazanov, qui est aussi le porte-parole du HHK, a declare que
le parti va nommer officiellement sa candidature a l’une des quatre
sessions de l’Assemblee nationale a compter du lundi.

Le poste du president du parlement, qui est le deuxième plus haut
poste politique en Armenie est reste vacant depuis la demission de
son titulaire precedent a la mi-novembre,Hovik Abrahamian.

From: A. Papazian

MEDVEDEV’S REMARKS ON ARMENIA AND CONNECTIVITY

Hurriyet Daily News

Dec 2 2011
Turkey

What do Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Greece, Bulgaria
and Romania have in common?

They are all members of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation
Organization, (BSEC) which was established in 1992. The BSEC does not
serve its purpose well, if you ask me. Its member states’ economies
differ in their structure and levels of development.

Their only common denominator is that none of them are connected, not
to each other, and not to the world. This is true for Central Asian
countries as well. I’ve lately been thinking about the importance of
connectivity for regional economic and social transformation.

That, I believe, is what the Black Sea region needs as well. So you
will understand that I was pleased to hear President Dmitry Medvedev’s
remarks on the need to build up the physical and virtual infrastructure
of Armenia. That is truly the country where dialogue on connectivity
should start.

Let me start by underlining President Medvedev’s remarks. When asked
about Russian investment plans in Armenia in October 2011, he said:

“We realize how important infrastructure projects are to our Armenian
friends – both real and virtual infrastructure. … We hope that
through our joint efforts and with the help of other countries, we
will help Armenia build a more modern and perhaps even completely
new communications system.”

There are three aspects outlining a new regional cooperation framework
in these comments.

First, the president is talking about projects connecting Armenia
internally and externally. A very good idea. Second, Russia owns
the railway system in Armenia, so all infrastructure projects for
Armenia have to be planned in Moscow. That means that Mr. Medvedev is
not just talking, he actually has the capacity to deliver. Even more
significant. Third, he talks about the involvement of other countries.

Connecting Armenia to the region and the world should be a policy
priority for Turkey as well. For Turkey, a strong land connection
between Armenia and Azerbaijan would mean access to the Russian market
and beyond. Container trains today could mean pipelines tomorrow.

Definitely a great idea.

Connectivity is a game changer in regional economic and social
transformation. In the past, only rivers could bring inland
connectivity. The United States was very fortunate in that regard.

Today, connectivity requires infrastructure: roads, railway networks,
airports, seaports, telecommunication facilities.

These are meticulously designed transport corridors. Now, Turkey
has tremendous problems finding any of these to its north. We need
to design intermodal transport networks in the Black Sea region to
pave the way for more interaction and fully deploy our capabilities
across our neighborhood. Economies change through interaction.

Changing a country’s basket of consumption goods is the starting
point of changing its economic structure. And when you export goods,
you also start exporting industries. So looking across the Black
Sea region, I think that our different, and thereby complementary,
economic structures are really a blessing.

As a naive economist, I strongly believe that we are living in an
age in which we can create a more conducive atmosphere by connecting
communities through joint welfare-enhancing projects. Whether they
are simmering or frozen, all conflicts can be dealt with in a more
conducive atmosphere. Connectivity is good.

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJAN NOT TO WAIT FOR NEXT 20 YEARS TO GET LAND BACK – MP

news.az
Dec 5 2011
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan is not then country which was 20 years ago, Armenia should
recognize it at last, MP Ganira Pashayeva stated.

The Azerbaijani parliamentarian gave an interview to Turkish TRT,
NTV channels and Anadolu Information Agency where she noted that
Armenia has been occupying 20% of Azerbaijani lands already 20 years.

‘But this can’t last forever because Azerbaijan will never accept
the loss of its own lands,’ Pashayeva said.

‘During these years Azerbaijan became more powerful, it eclipses
Armenia in economic, political and military spheres and is ready
to get back the lands. We are not going to wait other 20 years for
Armenia to release our lands,’ the MP stressed.

From: A. Papazian

PS STAFF IN PAY PROTESTS

PS News

Dec 5 2011

Public Servants in Armenia are stepping up protests over their
poor wages.

In a letter to President Serzh Sargsyan which appeared on Facebook,
the workers say their minimum salary is AMD40,000 per month ($A105).

In response the Government is considering raising the minimum salary
by AMD 15,000 ($A38).

President of the Council of the Civil Service, Manvel Badalyan said
it did not surprise him that Public Servants were protesting.

“We are making small strides forward,” Mr Badalyan said.

“We just weren’t able to do more earlier on.”

He said that if a Public Servant performed satisfactorily and without
fault, then he or she deserved a pay rise.

“Let those people [the protest leaders] come to our office and explain
the situation,” Mr Badalyan said.

“People have to meet us halfway – if someone doesn’t want to assume
his share regarding resolving his or her problem, then I’d rather
not extend a helping hand.”

He said he had always stated that salaries for the Country’s Public
Servants were very low, including his own and that of the country’s
Prime Minister.

“I have no desire, as the head of a Department, to defend the fearful
and people with no scruples,” he said.

“I want to defend those who want to defend themselves.”

Activists who organised the Facebook letter said that 1,000 Public
Servants out of 7,000 had signed it in one day.

From: A. Papazian

FIRM TO EXAMINE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE FUND DISPUTE
By Mark Kellam

Glendale News Press
Dec 5 2011
CA

Deal puts under scrutiny insurance claims of $10,000 or more by
descendants of Armenian Genocide victims.

An accounting firm will review 178 insurance claims as part of a deal
struck in a case involving a multimillion-dollar compensation fund for
descendants of Armenian Genocide victims, attorneys announced Monday.

Lawyers Mark Geragos and Roman Silberfeld, who sit on opposing sides
of a dispute regarding the fund, said claims for $10,000 or more will
be examined to make sure there were no accounting discrepancies.

Originally, Silberfeld’s client, Glendale-based attorney Vartkes
Yeghiayan, had sought an audit of all 1,300 claims made to a
compensation fund set up by France-based insurer Axa S.A. to check
for problems.

Accounting issues had previously been raised, including the assertion
that some claimants who received multiple checks only cashed those for
smaller amounts, even though checks for larger amounts were supposedly
sent out at the same time.

Also, in some instances, separate but identical claims were filed by
siblings. One sibling’s claim would be approved, but the claim from
the other sibling would be denied.

Audit costs will come out of the $2.5 million left in a $17.5-million
compensation fund set up by Axa several years ago.

The attorneys also agreed that all claims will be moved to a neutral
location.

“That way everyone will have access to them,” Silberfeld said.

The claims are currently stored in the basement of a building owned
by Geragos.

It was also discovered a few months ago that the multiplier used to
determine payment amounts was off by 0.1%.

Silberfeld and Geragos agreed that the correct multiplier will be
used on claims for $10,000 or more.

Claimants paid $10,000 will receive about $10 each, which is
economically feasible, Silberfeld said. Paying the additional amount on
claims under $10,000 would not be worth the time and postage, he added.

The fund’s administrator, Glendale resident Persagh Kartalian, will
submit a sworn statement to the court providing details about the
fund’s distribution, staff and operations, Silberfeld said.

Judge Christine Snyder said Kartalian’s input is important. “He does
owe everyone here some explanation about what happened,” she said.

Yeghiayan’s motion is tied to a lawsuit filed earlier this year by
Geragos and attorney Brian Kabateck against Yeghiayan alleging that
he and his wife, attorney Rita Mahdessian, set up sham charities and
misused nearly $1 million during the last six years.

Geragos, Yeghiayan and Kabateck were on the same legal team that in
2005 brought a lawsuit that resulted in Axa’s compensation fund, which
was set up to pay claims that it failed to compensate descendants of
Armenian Genocide victims who bought policies between 1875 and 1923.

From: A. Papazian