Author: Andres-Papazian

AZERBAIJANI LOBBY IS MORE ACTIVE IN GERMANY – SAYS GERMAN JOURNALIST

12:37 | December 24,2014 | Politics

Barbara Oertel, Foreign Policy Editor at Tageszeitung Daily, visited
Armenian for the fourth time this year.

She has managed to get acquainted with the country’s sights and
study Armenians.

“Armenia has great potential for development but several factors
hinder that development. Those include the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
Armenian historical monuments left in Turkey and the Eurasian Economic
Union, which I doubt that will give anything good to Armenia,” says
Barbara Oertel.

The German journalist wants to learn Armenian. She already knows
Russia and often reads Russian newspapers and follows the work of
Russian TV companies.

In reply to the question whether freedom of speech and expression is
protected in Germany, the journalist said, “According to the index
of freedom of expression, Germany always takes middle positions
in the rankings of a leading company. By and large, I can say that
freedom of expression is honoured in Germany but we fight for its
protection every day. Attempts are made to undermine the right to
freedom of expression for some economic reasons. Some companies and
politicians try to pressurize journalists and newspapers if they do
not like the article written by them. No matter who is in power, our
aim is to regulate the power and become counterbalance to it. We want
to identify and show the problems in order to change something. If
there is on open wound, we point at it,” said Barbara Oertel.

She perfectly understands the political aspects of the post-Soviet
countries and says they frequently speak about the Armenian Genocide.

The German journalist stresses that some counties adopt draft
resolutions to recognize the 1915 Genocide in order to receive the
votes of Armenians living in their country. At the same time, she
notes that Azerbaijani lobby is very active in Germany and spends
large amounts of money which cannot be said about the Armenian lobby.

Barbara Oertel has never been to Azerbaijan.

From: A. Papazian

THE KARS TREATY–NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL

NCWA’s legal advisory board examines the controversial treaty

The Kars Treaty signatories were the Soviet Union, the Armenian,
Georgian Soviet Socialist republics and Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist
Republic, as well as the Turkish Assembly in Angora (Ankara), prior
to the founding of the Republic of Turkey. The treaty is a crucial
event in modern Armenian history. It’s also controversial and often
misunderstood. The legal advisory board of the National Congress of
Western Armenians explains the shortcomings of the treaty. –Editor.

The Treaty of Alexandropol was signed on Dec. 2, 1920 between Turkish
revolutionaries (before the declaration of the Republic of Turkey)
and the Government of the Republic of Armenia. Article 11 of the
treaty declared the Sèvres Treaty “null and void”. The territory of
the Republic of Armenia was reduced by more than 50%. The treaty was
supposed to have been ratified within one month by the parliament of
the Republic of Armenia. It was, however, never ratified due to the
occupation of the RoA by the armies of the Russian Soviet Federative
Socialist Republic (RSFSR). It was eventually replaced by the Kars
Treaty as stipulated in Article I of the Kars Treaty.

The Treaty of Kars was signed on Oct. 23, 1921 and ratified in Yerevan
on Sept. 11, 1922. While all signatories had the necessary powers to
negotiate and sign the treaty, doubts have always been expressed about
its validity and applicability for two main reasons: at the time only
the RSFSR was a sovereign state in accordance with international law.

The three other entities, namely the Armenian Soviet Socialist
Republic, the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, Azerbaijan Soviet
Socialist Republic were not independent sovereign states and recognized
as such by international law or the international community (the League
of Nations). Furthermore, the Turkish delegation represented the Grand
National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) founded in Ankara on April 23,
1920 and not the government of Turkey. The GNAT declared the Turkish
Republic in 1923, two years after the signing the Kars Treaty.

A treaty is valid if all of its provisions are put into effect and
implemented. Articles XIII, XIV, XV XVII XVIII and XIX , concerning
the relations between the Soviet Republic of Armenia and Turkey,
have never been implemented. Signatories cannot pick and choose which
provisions of a signed treaty will be implemented and which will not.

Hence the reference only to the borders provided for in the treaty
and not applying the remaining provisions is not in accordance with
international law.

In accordance with Article V the region of Nakhichevan constitutes
an autonomous territory under the protection of Azerbaijan and not
an integral part of Azerbaijan. All inhabitants of territory that
was part of Russia before 1918, and over which the sovereignty of
Turkey is affirmed, shall have the opportunity, if they desire to
relinquish their Turkish nationality, to leave Turkey freely, taking
with them their possessions and goods, or the proceeds of their sale
(Article XIII). In accordance with the provisions of Article XVII the
contracting parties agree to take all necessary measures necessary to
maintain and develop railway, telegraphic, and other communications,
as well as to assure free transit of persons and commodities without
any hindrance.

Consular conventions were supposed to be concluded within three
months in accordance with Article XIX. None of the foregoing was
implemented. After the Second World War the USSR attempted to annul
the Kars Treaty.

On 7 June, 1945 the Foreign Minister of the USSR, Vyacheslav Molotov
requested, on behalf of the Armenian and Georgian SSRs, from the
Turkish ambassador in Moscow that the provinces of Kars, Ardahan and
Artvin be returned to the USSR. Ultimately Churchill convinced the
United States not to accept the request of the USSR. There was no
further follow up.

To ensure the validity of the Kars Treaty it is necessary either to
implement all the provisions of the treaty or negotiate a new one. A
non-implemented treaty remains null and void.

From: A. Papazian

THOMAS DE WAAL’S FUTILE ATTEMPT AT TRIVIALIZING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014

BY SETO BOYADJIAN, ESQ.

“A half-truth is a whole lie” – Yiddish proverb

Thomas de Waal is a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. He has penned an article, “The G-Word – The
Armenian Massacre and the Politics of Genocide,” that will appear
in the upcoming January-February 2015 issue of Foreign Affairs. This
article is the precursor of his forthcoming book, “Great Catastrophe:
Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide.” Given the timing of
the publication of this article and the book, it is obvious that Mr.

de Waal opens the first salvo of Turkish denialism against the
centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. de Waal is an analyst who has repeatedly focused on
Armenian-Azerbaijani relations over the issue of the independent
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh and on Armenian-Turkish relations over
the issue of the Armenian Genocide. But he has a peculiar way of
showing integrity in his approach to these two fundamental issues.

It is peculiar because, as an “expert” in conflict resolution, Mr. de
Waal utilizes the old gimmick of double standard. On the issue of
Nagorno Karabakh, he is an ardent proponent of changing the status
quo – in favor of Azerbaijan and against Armenia. On the issue of the
Armenian Genocide, he is an avid defender of maintaining the status quo
– in favor of Turkey and against Armenia. As it is obvious, for Mr. de
Waal the concept of justice is a variable in his approach to conflict
resolution, depending on the identity of the party to the conflict.

Given his biased reputation on issues involving Armenia and Armenians,
Mr. de Waal’s article did not strike any intellectual surprises
on the side of justice and truth in conflict resolutions. Through
this article, his entire endeavor amounts to a futile attempt at
trivializing the Armenian Genocide in order to reach his proposed
conclusion that it is time for Armenians to “bury their grandparents
and receive an acknowledgment from the Turkish state of the terrible
fate they suffered.”

We should look beyond this insulting “advice” and, instead, focus on
the facts Mr. de Waal advances in support of his conclusion. We must
bear in mind that his attempt is to transform the Armenian Genocide
into a non-existing issue.

First, he claims that Armenians “discovered” Genocide in 1960s.

According to Mr. De Waal, for decades the “event of the Great
Catastrophe” were “more a matter of private grief than public record;”
that they spent more effort “fighting the Soviet Union rather than
Turkey;” and that only in the 1960s did they “seriously revive” the
massacres “as a public political issue” by being inspired from the
“Holocaust consciousness.”

In making these blatant statements Mr. de Waal conveniently overlooks
the facts that as of the beginning of 1920s Armenians expressed their
collective consciousness of the Catastrophe and voiced their claims
for reparations. It is true that they did not refer to it as Genocide,
as they could not, because that term came into existence in 1944, when
Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin coined it based on the Ottoman massacres
of Armenians. Until that time, Armenians presented themselves to the
world and to Turkey as claimants of their national heritage destroyed
by Ottoman Turkey and of their national homeland occupied by Turkey.

As the world turned a blind eye on Armenian demands for justice, in
the 1920s they organized their own “Nuremberg trials” by punishing
the chief organizers and perpetrators of the Armenian massacres –
namely, Talaat pasha, Enver pasha, Jemal Azmi, Behaeddin Shakir,
Jivanshi Bey, and so on… At the same time, Armenians established
the Delegation of the Republic of Armenia to officially pursue their
claims for territorial and economic reparations from Turkey.

Contrary to Mr. de Waal’s claims, Armenians actively pursued their
claims for justice since the 1920s; at the same time they remembered
their grandparents and they will do so forever.

Second, Mr. de Waal displays his irritation over the use of the
word “Genocide” in reference to the Armenian massacres. He credits
Raphael Lemkin for inventing that terminology and lobbying the United
Nations for the adoption of the 1948 Genocide Convention. However,
he attempts to discredit Lemkin as a “problematic personality;” he
criticizes the ambiguity of the Genocide Convention; and he deplores
the exploitation of the word Genocide. With that he arrives at the
notion that “The Armenian Diaspora saw the word as a perfect fit
to describe what happened” to them, thereby helping “activate a new
political movement…”

Mr. de Waal ignores the fact that even back in 1944, when Raphael
Lemkin coined the term Genocide he invoked the Armenian case as a
definitive example of Genocide in the 20th century. Lemkin described
the crime of Genocide as the “systematic destruction of a whole
national, racial or religious groups. The sort of thing that Hitler
did to the Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians.”

Mr. de Waal also ignores the records that the United Nations enacted
on December 11, 1946, its first resolution on Genocide, known as UN
General Assembly Resolution 95(1). Thereafter, on December 9, 1948,
it adopted the UN Genocide Convention. Both the resolution and the
convention recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the
United Nations intended to prevent by codifying the existing customary
international rules and standards. Again, in 1948, the UN War Crimes
Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide as being “precisely . . . one
of the types of acts which the modern term ‘crimes against humanity’
is intended to cover as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.”

Thereafter, in 1985, the UN Commission on Human Rights report,
entitled ‘Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide,’ invoked the Armenian massacres as an example
of genocide. In the report, the UN commission stated, “The Nazi
aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in
the twentieth century. Among other examples, which can be cited as
qualifying, are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916.”

As the official records stand, the Armenians did not see the word
Genocide “as a perfect fit,” it was the United Nations who, on
behalf of the world governments, established and declared through its
resolutions and the Genocide Convention that genocidal acts of Ottoman
Turkey against Armenians and of Nazi Germany against Jews are Genocide.

Third, according to Mr. de Waal, even if the word Genocide is granted
to the Armenian massacres, the U.N. Genocide Convention does not have
retroactive applicability. He claims, without identifying them that
“Most international legal opinions are clear that the UN Genocide
Convention carries no retroactive force and therefore could not be
invoked to bring claims on dispossessed property.”

Again, Mr. de Waal makes blanket statements without any substantiation
in fact or in law. And once again, he conveniently ignores the record,
the law and the facts. The provisions of the Genocide Convention carry
ex post facto applicability. They are indeed enforceable retroactively
based on the following points:

1. The dual vocation of the Genocide Convention in preventing and
punishing the perpetrator of the crime of Genocide provides the
necessary basis for its retroactivity;

2. The retribution mandated by the Genocide Convention makes it
retroactive, because, besides being condemned and punished for the
crime of Genocide, the perpetrator of the crime is also not to be
allowed to keep the fruits of the crime;

3. The Genocide Convention is declaratory of a pre-existing
internationally recognized wrongful act, thereby giving rise to
both state responsibility and individual penal liability. As such,
the convention is not creating a new criminal law.

4. To provide solid legal grounds to the foregoing points, on November
26, 1968 the UN adopted the Convention on the Non-Applicability of the
Statutory Limitation on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. This
convention eliminated any time bar on the crime of genocide. Thus,
the provisions of the Genocide Convention are applicable to any crime
of genocide, irrespective of the time of its commission.

Mr. de Waal makes many other unsubstantiated statements in his
attempt at trivializing the Armenian Genocide. He twists facts,
to serve his purpose, as if to confirm Mark Twain’s observation to
“get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

In the final analysis, Mr. de Waal’s entire attempt is based on
uttering half-truths. And as the wise Yiddish proverb asserts,
“A half-truth is a whole lie.”

From: A. Papazian

THE YEAR THE CULTURE WARS WENT GLOBAL

Spiked
Dec 23 2014

Frank Furedi
Sociologist and commentator

A century after the outbreak of the First World War, it seems humanity
is confronted with new cultural disputes that have the potential to
mutate into violent conflicts.

The experience of the past century has demonstrated that the
politicisation of culture always ends badly. And little wonder:
cultural crusaders create a climate of intolerance towards the norms
and values of their cultural targets. They are often censorious and
seek to devalue their opponents. In its more extreme forms, cultural
politics leads to the mutual dehumanisation of the antagonists.

Such dehumanising sentiments were far too evident a century ago. The
Armenian genocide of 1915 represented the most extreme and destructive
manifestation of this lethal synthesis of culture and militarism.

Tragically, almost a century later, the spectre of culturally motivated
violence haunts that region once more. Until recently, the great
Armenian church in Deir el-Zour in Syria served as a memorial to the
mass killings that occurred during the Great War. Earlier this year,
however, in a savage act of vandalism, a group of Islamists blew the
church up. They destroyed its archives, and the bones of hundreds of
victims of the 1915 massacre were left strewn in the streets.

Today, the most extreme exponents of the politicisation of culture
are the jihadist zealots who regard the lives of those who do not
share their faith as unworthy of moral value. But the depravity and
barbarism of a movement such as the Islamic State can obscure the
disturbing reality: namely, that the politicisation of culture, and
its intolerant consequences, is gaining strength across the world. It
has certainly contributed to the hardening of the rivalry between
the West and Russia. And it is this, the emergence of a caricature
of the Cold War, that is arguably the most significant international
development of 2014.

It seems that disputes about lifestyle, family life, sexual orientation
and the nature of community life are no longer confined to the
domestic sphere. The Culture Wars have gone global. Muslim jihadists
are not just fighting with bombs; they are directly assaulting Western
liberal values and denouncing them as immoral. For his part, Russian
president Vladimir Putin has sought to present himself as fighting
for traditionalism and the Christian way of life.

In turn, Western diplomats have criticised Russia for its patriarchal
and sexist culture.

Global crusaders

There is little doubt that the Russian government is a willing
participant in what it regards as a war over moral values and beliefs.

In September 2012, Putin stated that ‘cultural self-awareness,
spiritual and moral values [and] codes of values are an area of
intense competition’. He said that to ‘influence the worldviews of
entire ethnic groups, the desire to subject them to one’s will, to
force one’s system of values and beliefs upon them, is an absolute
reality, just like the fight for mineral resources that many nations,
ours included, experience’.

In recent years, the Putin regime has claimed that the Russian way of
life and its values have been the target of hostile foreign interests.

The Russian government has expressed concern about the influence of
the Western media over its national life. It regards Western NGOs
operating in Russia as agents of alien interests, which is why in
June 2012 it passed a law that requires any Russian NGO funded from
abroad to register itself as a ‘foreign agent’.

Putin self-consciously cultivates the image of Russia as a moral
crusader fighting for the survival of human civilisation. Last
December, in his annual state-of-the-nation speech, he responded to
Western criticisms of Russia’s attitude to homosexuality by lamenting
the decline of morality in the West. He drew attention to what he
perceived as the morally disorienting consequences of Western social
engineering: ‘This destruction of traditional values from above not
only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently
anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs
counter to the will of the majority of people.’ He claimed that
traditional family values were the only effective defence against
‘genderless and infertile… so-called tolerance’.

Although ostensibly directed at the Russian public, Putin’s
denunciation of the ‘genderless and infertile’ lifestyles of Westerners
was also directed at a global audience. Just a few days before the
delivery of this speech, an influential Kremlin-linked think-tank
published a report titled Putin: World Conservatism’s New Leader. The
report sought to present Putin as the global saviour of traditional
values. The report claimed that ordinary people throughout the
world yearn for the stability and security offered by traditional
values. It argued that people believe in the traditional family and
regard multiculturalism with suspicion. Dmitry Abzalov, a spokesman for
the think-tank, told the press that ‘it is important for most people
to preserve their way of life, their lifestyle, their traditions’,
and, because of that, they ‘tend toward conservatism’.

Western commentators frequently claim that Russia is waging a cultural
conflict against tolerant, liberal and democratic values. It is
certainly the case that of all the protagonists, Russia is the most
self-conscious exponent of a values-based public narrative. But
Moscow’s use of a moralistic discourse of tradition and Russian
nationalism should be seen as a variant of the values-driven ideology
of Western governments themselves.

Western institutions and governments are hardly shy when it comes
to demanding that their values and lifestyles be adhered to by
all societies. In fact, societies and cultures that do not adhere
to Western values face pressure to fall into line. Take the case
of Japan. During the summer, the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination exhorted the Japanese government
to pass an American-style law that would criminalise certain forms
of speech as hate speech. What is remarkable about this intervention
is that it was not confined to calling on the Japanese to deal with
racial discrimination; it actually prescribed an Anglo-American legal
innovation for the policing of free speech in Japan. It is entirely
legitimate to criticise a nation’s government for failing to deal with
racial discrimination. However, the demand that a sovereign nation
regulate public speech in accordance with the values and methods of
Western societies is a form of cultural colonialism.

The problem with international cultural crusades is not the actual
values – many of the sentiments promoted by Western institutions are
worthy and enlightened ones. No, the problem is that such crusades
assume that Western states possess the moral authority to question,
undermine and change the laws and values of communities throughout
the world. When diplomacy and geopolitics become entwined with the
attempt to affirm the moral superiority of a way of life, the outcome
is always unpredictable.

The real danger with the globalisation of the Culture Wars is that it
threatens to confuse diplomatic problems with existential questions
that touch on a people’s way of life. Take the case of US president
Barack Obama’s high-profile address to European youth. In this speech,
he linked his criticism of Russia’s behaviour in the Crimea with
criticism of those who oppose his political agenda in the US. He
celebrated the politics of identity and permissiveness, and denounced
the ‘older, more traditional view of power’. He added that ‘instead of
targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws
to protect their rights’. In all but name, Russia served as a proxy
for Obama’s desire to attack his traditionalist foes back in the US.

When domestic cultural conflicts in the US are recast on the
global stage, diplomacy may become hostage to them. Diplomacy could
become, in short, an extension of a domestic moralistic crusade. Such
international values conflicts may appear relatively benign compared to
those that led to the outbreak of the First World War. But do not be
fooled. Cultural rivalries, and disputes over lifestyles and values,
are extremely difficult to resolve because they are intimately linked
to basic moral questions, even to the meaning of good and evil.

As a result, these disputes are rarely susceptible to pragmatic
solutions and can easily escalate into dangerous rivalries. Let
1914 be a warning to all those who presume to lecture other nations’
inhabitants about how to live their lives.

Frank Furedi’s latest book, First World War: Still No End in Sight,
is published by Bloomsbury.

From: A. Papazian

SME DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL CENTER OF ARMENIA TO SUBSIDIZE PURCHASE OF NEW-GENERATION CASH REGISTERS BY 4,500 ECONOMIC ENTITIES IN 2015

YEREVAN, December 24. /ARKA/. SME Development National Center
of Armenia intends to subsidize purchase of new-generation cash
registers by 4,500 economic entities in 2015, Gegham Petrosyan,
executive director of the center, told journalists on Wednesday. He
said the necessity of state support emerged in 2014 – the government
allocated AMD 150 million for compensations. Economic entities in
rural communities will have their purchase fully compensated. Petrosyan said. At its extraordinary session held
on December 17, the National Assembly passed amendments to the law on
application of cash registers, in accordance with which introduction
of new-generation cash registers was postponed for one year until
January 1, 2016. About 8,000 companies with turnover over AMD 58
million have already introduced and are using them. A 128-Megabite
nonerasable storage is one of new requirements to cash registers as
well as operational and basic memory, room for placing memory card,
for connecting to information system of tax agencies via 3G and GPRS
Internet for making software changes and integrating new modules and
carrying out transactions by using plastic cards. (1$ – AMD 461.10).

–0—-

From: A. Papazian

UNDERGROUND PARKING LOT TO BE BUILT AT REPUBLIC SQUARE

December 23, 2014 15:04

Yerevan /Mediamax/. Minister of Urban Development of Armenia Narek
Sargsyan today spoke about the major projects due to be implemented
in Small Center of Yerevan.

Addressing a final press conference today, he said that “Old Yerevan”
project will be fully drafted in March 2015. Presently, the author of
the project Levon Vardanyan is discussing the details of construction
with investor Vartan Sirmakes in Switzerland.

Speaking about the Republic Square, the Minister said that construction
of an underground parking lot is “the number one” task now.

“Active discussions are being held, and the assignment of construction
of 3-storey parking lot for up to 1000 vehicles is being worked out.

The underground parking lots will also address the issue of traffic
jams on the crossroads”, he said.

As for the North Avenue, Narek Sargsyan said that it “is the reflection
of our urban development culture which proved successful”.

He added that there will be circular landscaping at the Avenue in
near future.

– See more at:

From: A. Papazian

KARABAKH PRESIDENT HANDS STATE AWARDS TO FREEDOM FIGHTERS

16:09 23/12/2014 ” SOCIETY

Artsakh Republic President Bako Sahakyan on Tuesday attended the
6th congress of the Artsakh Union of Freedom Fighters in capital
Stepanakert.

In his speech, Bako Sahakyan underscored the role of war veterans
and the organization itself in the process of state building and
socio-economic development of the republic.

The President underlined that the activities directed to provide
healthcare to the freedom fighters, improve their social and living
conditions are constantly at the spotlight of the authorities.

The President also handed state awards to a group of freedom fighters.

Primate of the Artsakh Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church
Archbishop Pargev Martirosyan, Prime Minister Ara Harutyunyan, Defense
Minister Movses Hakobyan and other officials participated in the event,
the presidential press service reported.

Source: Panorama.am

From: A. Papazian

COUTEUSE TRADITION ? : LE SOCIOLOGUE APPELLE A DE PLUS MODESTES FETES DU NOUVEL AN AU MILIEU DE LA HAUSSE DES PRIX

ARMENIE

Comparativement aux annees precedentes, cette annee les prix de la
saison des vacances du Nouvel An sur le marche armenien ont pris une
forte hausse selon les specialistes la reliant a la devaluation du
rouble et du dram, ainsi que l’appreciation significative du dollar
sur le marche mondial.

Aujourd’hui dans les bureaux de change un dollar americain a ete
vendu pour 550 drams, alors qu’encore a la mi-Novembre, il etait
aux alentours de 410-415 drams. Parce que l’Armenie est un pays
essentiellement importateur, selon les specialistes, une telle baisse
de la monnaie nationale a un effet sur l’augmentation du coût des
marchandises importees. Certains produits locaux deviennent plus cher
aussi parce que dans de nombreux cas, la production locale est basee
sur des matières premières importees.

Le sociologue Aharon Adibekyan pense que la societe doit sortir
des anciennes normes de celebrations du Nouvel An et faire moins de
preparatifs cette fois.

“Il est inutile de prendre un pret et rembourser cette somme pendant
toute l’annee,” a declare le sociologue exhortant les gens a mettre
la table du Nouvel An au niveau de leurs possibilites.

Selon Adibekyan, 200 $ est suffisant pour qu’une famille organiser
une modeste et > fete du Nouvel An, et l’an dernier les
calculs etaient de l’ordre de 50 a 60$.

“La plupart des normes du Nouvel An ne sont pas d’origine armenienne,
l’arbre du Nouvel An est venu de Russie, l’Armenie n’avait pas
de sapins, la dinde est venu d’Amerique. Et si les Armeniens sont
traditionnelle dans le meilleur des cas, il doit y avoir du khashlama,
gata, pakhlava, vin et desserts sur leurs tables, ” a dit Adibekyan.

Le President de l’Association des consommateurs d’Armenie Armen
Poghosyan ne partage pas l’opinion que la celebration du Nouvel An
est hors des traditions armeniennes et que les Armeniens doivent
sortir des normes.

“Notre force reside dans nos traditions, et le Nouvel An est l’une
des meilleures traditions transmises de generation en generation,”
a-t-il conclu.

Alina Nikoghosyan

ArmeniaNow

mardi 23 decembre 2014, Stephane (c)armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA’S EURASIAN INTEGRATION AND ADVANTAGES FOR NAGORNO-KARABAKH

11:17 * 23.12.14

Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union will offer economic
advantages also to the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) Republic, according
to a spokesperson for the country’s prime minister.

Artak Beglaryan says he believes that the new integration perspective
will boost the exports from the country, enriching simultaneouslly
the import supply from Russia. “As the imported products will be
custom-free, it will have its impact on lowering the prices,” he
told Tert.am.

Asked whether Nagorno-Karabakh is mentioned as an exporting country on
labels, Beglaryan he doesn’t think that to be a major problem. “That
problem could have arisen any time in the past, but it is actually
resolved. Armenia’s name seems to be circulating everywhere, but
the legal procedures of organizations are just a formality. The
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not normally mentioned on any product.

Even though Artsakh may appear at times, the address is again one of
the Republic of Armenia.”

Beglaryan said he thinks that the country may attract interest
with its reprocessed food, including conserved products, as well as
alcoholic beverages.

Commenting on the economic advantages for Karabakh, Gagik Minasyan, the
head of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Financial-Credit
and Budgetary Affairs, said he expects to see the same integration
level in the two Armenian republics.

“We are not planning and there will not be any new divide between the
Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a result of
Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. Hence Armenia’s
integration into that new economic organization offers an extremely
serious opportunity to developing the economy of Nagorno-Karabakh,”
he said.

Minasyan said he thinks that Nagorno-Karabakh’s agricultural produce
will be the first thing to attract the Eurasian market. “After a
corresponding re-procession, Nagorno-Karabakh’s economic products
may have an extremely high demand on the Eurasian Economic Union’s
consumer market,” he noted.

From: A. Papazian

IRAN, ARMENIA CALL FOR THIRD HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION LINE

IRNA – Islamic Rep. News Agency, Iran
Dec 18 2014

Tehran

Iran’s energy minister and his Armenian counterpart underlined
the need for the establishment of a third high voltage electricity
transmission line.

Hamid Chitchian, accompanied by his Armenian counterpart Yervand
Zakharian told reporters here on Monday that Iran in return for
delivering natural gas to Armenia will receive electricity from the
country at times of need.

He said with the establishment of the third high voltage electricity
transmission line the transfer of energy will be increased and the
increase in the amount of electricity will be influenced by the
decisions which will be taken during talks of the Armenian side with
Iran’s Oil Ministry.

Also speaking to reporters, Zakharian said at present economic
transactions between the two countries stands at $300 million,
adding that the figure is expected to increase by two fold during
bilateral talks.

He said with the establishment of the third high voltage electricity
transmission line which will become operational by 2018, the amount
of electricity transmission will be increased two to three times
and finally this will be effective in the expansion of bilateral
economic exchanges.

Pointing to proper political relations between the two countries, the
Armenian minister said the ties should become stronger in economic
field, adding that presidents of the two countries have emphasized
that economic relations should be further increased.

Meanwhile, addressing the inaugural ceremony of the 12th session of
Iran-Armenia joint economic commission Chitchian said Iran will employ
all capacities available for the development of bilateral relations
and cooperation with Armenia.

Stressing that Iran’s principled policy in the region and the world is
based on development of relations with most countries, especially the
regional countries and the neighbors, Chitchian said good political
relations between the two countries are not harmful for any regional
country but rather will help more convergence in the region.

He further remarked that both Iran and Armenia enjoy cultural and
historical commonalities and these common points and the policy of
good neighborly relations have resulted in a progressing trend with
the absence of any ups and downs in bilateral relations since the
independence of Armenia to date.

The Iranian minister noted that in the past two years some problems
ceased development of cooperation which has now been removed through
efforts of the organizations involved in both countries.

“From now on further growth of the development of relations and
cooperation between the two countries can be witnessed especially in
economic sectors.”

Chitchian noted that natural resources such as water and mineral
reserves in Armenia on the one hand and technical and engineering
capabilities and great human assets of Iran on the other hand will
pave the way for further development of ties between the two countries.

The 12th session of Iran-Armenia joint economic commission, hosted
by Iran’s Energy Ministry, will continue for two days.

From: A. Papazian