Author: Andres-Papazian

ARMENIAN WOODS: DESTRUCTION OR RESTORATION?

ArmInfo
2010-10-15 16:26:00

ArmInfo. In the last 20 years Armenia’s woods have gone through a
real ordeal: illegal cuttings, climate changes… These are just few
of the obstacles preventing the recovery of the Armenian forests.

Experts say that as a result of the energy crisis of the 1990s
Armenia’s woods have shrunk from 25% to 8% of the total territory and,
according to NASA’s unpromising reports, this tendency continues:
in 2001 the forest lands made up 8% of the country’s territory,
in 2006 they already made up 7.9%.

It turns out that not all of the woods are officially registered as
such. Due to a series of strange governmental decisions, 50,000 h of
forestry have been given the status of agricultural lands and pastures
and given to communities, who have sold them to some unknown people.

One of the most vivid examples is Hankavan Forest, whose 500 h are
officially reported as being pastures.

Nobody except ecological NGOs cares for the future of such pastures.

Tomorrow they may be turned into 50,000 h of desert while hundreds of
thousands of cut trees – into the legal income of some personalities.

This is not the only problem though. Illegal cuttings have been one
of the key concerns in the last few years. Ecologists report that
truckfuls of cut trees are being taken from the wooded areas. Lori
region is the leader in illegal cuttings. The last scandal took place
in Aug 2010 when 116 trees were cut in Gugark forestry. Foresters
give different reasons for such “green poaching” – one of them is
lack of arms and transport for controlling the territories.

According to mass media, mafia is behind illegal deforestation and
controls the shadow timber works. While the problems of uncontrolled
deforestation remain unresolved, forests are endangered by changes in
the climate. To understand the seriousness of the situation, one should
follow the analysis of the situation in Syunik region. Surveys show
that as compared with the average index of 1961-1990, the elements
in the region have declined by 9%, and over the period from 1935 to
2007 the average annual temperature rose by 0.7%. Besides, the number
of summer days with a temperature of over 25 degrees: in Meghri –
by 10 days, in Kapan and Goris – by 21 days.

Specialists say that the temperature rise, alongside with reduction
of elements, leads to deceleration of forest recovery processes. Over
the past 30-40 years, the lower zone of oak and hornbeam-oak forests
of Syunik has moved higher by 100 meters. According to the experts,
creation of nursery areas for drought-resistant trees might dampen
the consequences of the climate change.

So, what future will the Armenian forests have? While the state
structures say that forestry in Armenia makes up 12%, American
specialists are beating the alarm: if the situation does not change,
by 2020 the republic risks to remain without forests at all.

Ecologists say that a 5-year ban on deforestation may save forestry
from destruction.

However, at present ore mining companies also start making their own
contribution to destruction of green zones. For over several years
ecologists have been trying to stop deforestation in Teghut aimed at
developing the copper-molybdenum deposit. ACP assures that “only”
357 hectares of forests will be cut, but at the same time passes
in silence by the fact that several disappearing plants of Teghut
are included in the Red Book and belong to the first category of
especially rare plants, among them Caucasian persimmon, orchids,
galanthus. To note, the International Plant Protection Convention
forbids exporting galanthus bulbs from the republic.

Today Armenia’s forests seem to be at a crossroad: one path leads
to their full destruction, the other one leads to their recovery,
and it is for the country’s government to decide which path to choose.

From: A. Papazian

HD VOICE TECHNOLOGY CATCHES INTEREST OF 2 ARMENIAN RADIO COMPANIES

PanARMENIAN.Net
October 15, 2010 – 16:23 AMT 11:23 GMT

HD voice wideband technology to provide a deeper clarity and better
audio experience in VoIP communications, caught the interest of 2
Armenian radio companies, Orange Armenia spokesperson stated.

“HD voice service has been available in Armenia since June 2010.

Beside Armenia, HD voice technology has already been presented in Great
Britain and Moldova,” Lilit Martirosyan told PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.

In June 2010, Orange presented Nokia 6720 Classic, new telephone
model supporting HD Voice standards. The price for a new model was
set at AMD 125 000. In figure, Orange plans on increasing the range
of HD Voice telephones in Armenia.

In HD voice, a wideband codec doubles the sampling rate and more than
doubles the width of the sound spectrum reproduced, from 50Hz to 7KHz,
adding significant depth and nuance to the transmitted sound.

From: A. Papazian

ICRC ARMENIA REFRAINS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE STATE OF ARMENIAN HOSTAGES IN AZERBAIJAN

PanARMENIAN.Net
October 15, 2010 – 16:08 AMT 11:08 GMT

We’re aware that the representatives of the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) have met with Armenian captives in Azerbaijan.

Being a neutral party, we must follow the established order, the head
of PR department at ICRC representation in Yerevan, Ashot Astabatsyan
stated.

In a conversation with PanARMENIAN.Net reporter he refrained from
providing information on the state Armenian captives, not having been
authorised to divulge such information.

Dwelling on the return of the captives to their native land,
Astabatsyan said the issue is under discussion.

“ICRC will assist in the return of captives as soon as agreement is
reached,” he noted.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA WILL ‘NEUTRALIZE AZERBAIJANI SNIPERS THROUGH MILITARY MEASURES:’ DEFENSE MINISTRY

Tert.am
15.10.10

Armenia’s Defense Ministry has issued a statement over the killing
of an Armenian soldier by an Azerbaijani sniper late on Thursday.

“The Defense Ministry of the Republic of Armenia strongly
condemns Azerbaijan’s adventures to exacerbate the situation on
the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line by the use of snipers,” reads
the statement.

It comes after Vitaly Ashot Igityan, 22, a temporary soldier at the
military unit N38401, was around 7 p.m. on 14 October killed by an
Azerbaijani sniper at an outpost deployed in the south-eastern part
of the contact line between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.

Further the statement says that by such actions shortly after the
OSCE Field Assessment Mission in the territories surrounding Nagorno
Karabakh “Azerbaijan proves that not only it does not follow UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s calls to remove the snipers from the
contact line, but also ignores the concerns of the OSCE Minsk Group
chairman-in-office and the OSCE co-chairs over the deaths caused by
Azerbaijani snipers.”

With those acts Baku also attempts to hinder the efforts by the
international community, aimed at the peaceful settlement of Nagorno
Karabakh conflict.

“The Defense Ministry of the Republic of Armenia announces that
military-diplomatic and relevant military measure to neutralize the
activities of the Azerbaijani snipers on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
line of contact,” read the statement.

Further the Defense Ministry said it conveyed its deepest condolences
to the relatives of Vitali Igityan.

From: A. Papazian

Rwanda: UN Should Admit It Was Wrong About Genocide Report
Jean-Paul Kimonyo

13 October 2010

opinion

Conceding that the genocide accusations against the Rwandan army are no
longer tenable after the publication of the final UN mapping report on
the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda’s comments, human
rights organisations that had supported the double genocide thesis have
ceased to refer to the alleged crimes in their latest reactions.

Why doesn’t the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
come clean on the issue and acknowledge its mistake?

After Rwanda’s substantiated objections to the draft report, the OHCHR
decided to distance itself from its earlier genocide allegations by
presenting counterfactual elements that make the accusation itself
irrelevant.

However, for reasons only known to OHCHR, it has not had the common
decency to remove the allegations altogether.

The well-organised leaking of the report to the media focused on the
accusations of genocide against the Rwandan army, yet the report made
allegations against a host of other nations.

The head of the mapping exercise investigation team, Mr Luc Côté,
was quoted extensively in an article appearing the day after the first
leak in the French newspaper Le Monde, saying that what happened in the
Congo “was the same thing” as what happened during the 1994 genocide in
Rwanda.

We now end up with a kafkaesque situation. A UN report formulates
extremely grave accusations of genocide based on the absolute lowest
evidentiary standards. “Reasonable suspicion,” chosen by the authors, is
a lesser standard of proof in US law than probable cause, preponderance
of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond reasonable
doubt.

By participating in this trivialisation of the crime of genocide, the
OHCHR undermines the cause it is supposed to serve as well as its own
integrity.

The effect of such behaviour will go far beyond just the DRC case.

The OHCHR has many questions to answer. The changes made to the final
version of the UN mapping report only partially respond to one of
Rwanda’s objections relating to the context of its intervention in the
DRC.

The one time the authors chose to recognise the context of events in the
DRC — as a war of self-defence aimed at repatriating millions of
innocent civilian refugees taken hostage by genocide perpetrators —
they were forced to acknowledge a list of mitigating facts that negates
the accusation of genocide.

What about the comments that question the factual basis of the report?
All the incriminated countries have produced comments on the report.
Three of them have noted that in many instances, their armies have been
mentioned in places where they were not deployed.

Rwanda has submitted 30 pages of objections covering all the sections of
the report and questioned the intentions of the authors.

On multiple occasions, the authors assert that their mandate as set out
in the “Terms of Reference” (TOR) [p.542] — a three-page document —
required them to make legal classifications of crimes. However, neither
the words “legal classification” nor “genocide” are in the TOR.

This blatant lie by the authors bent on covering up their defamatory
objectives is enough reason to question the integrity of the report.

It is a disgrace for the UN to associate itself with the egregious
manipulations in this report after failing to prevent or contain the
1994 genocide in Rwanda.

Dr Kimonyo is an adviser in the Office of the President of Rwanda

Copyright © 2010 The Nation. (allAfrica.com).

From: A. Papazian

Kourtney and Kim Kardashian Take Their Act to New York

The stars of Keeping Up with the Kardashians plan to open a boutique in
Manhattan, as part of Kourtney and Kim Take New York.

By Lauren Drell

10/ 13 / 10

Kourtney and Kim Kardashian are taking New York by storm — and plan to give
the city a dash of their personal style. The famously voluptuous sisters,
who found fame on Keeping Up with the Kardashians, have found a retail space
for their family’s boutique, Dash, on Spring Street in Manhattan’s Soho
neighborhood.

Kourtney and Kim’s new entrepreneurial endeavor will be documented in
Kourtney and Kim Take New York, a new series on E! Their boutique, at 119
Spring Street, is expected to open in January 2011. The space previously
housed the Eleanor Ettinger Gallery space and sits just a few doors down
from high-end shops like Chanel.

The original Dash store is located in Calabasas, Calif., and the recent
Kourtney and Khloe Take Miami series on E! followed the opening of the South
Beach location. Now that Khloe is married to Los Angeles Lakers forward
Lamar Odom, Kim will be taking her place as the Kardashian empire expands to
the Big Apple.

AOL Money and Finance
© 2010

From: A. Papazian

RA GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES HOUSING CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM IN COUNTRY’S REGIONS

PanARMENIAN.Net
October 15, 2010 – 14:41 AMT 09:41 GMT

Armenian Deputy Minister of Sport and Youth Affairs Arsen Karamyan
said that as a result of studies it was decided to implement Support
to Dwelling Construction for Young Families program in two regions
of Armenia – Syunik and Tavush, as there is a clear demand and
creditability for new dwellings purchase.

According to Karamyan, this is the first large-scale program of
housing construction in the country’s regions, but for construction
works in the earthquake zone. “We will contribute to the development
of the housing space through this initiative. Besides, the program
is in compliance with the governmental concept on equal development
of regions. In my opinion, the program will be implemented also in
other regions of Armenia,” Karamyan said.

Pointing to the fact that the program reads that the dwellings are
provided at lower prices compared to market ones, a PanARMENIAN.Net
reporter asked Karamyan to comment on high payments for the dwellings –
AMD 195,000/1sq.m.

However, Karamyan noted that the market prices for dwellings in Kapan
make around $800/1sq.m. “In such case, the payment of AMD 195,000
rather differs from market prices. Besides, the beneficiaries can use
lax credits,” Karamyan said, adding that around 17% of the dwelling
cost is the share of construction materials transportation, most of
which are delivered from Yerevan.

Karamyan noted that the dwellings are completely repaired, gasified
and supplied with a heating system.

From: A. Papazian

Peter Henne
Security Fellow, Truman National Security Project
October 13, 2010
Huffington Post

Understanding Turkey’s Foreign Policy

A few days ago, I returned from a trip to Turkey, sponsored by the Rumi
Forum. The trip included visits to four cities in Turkey and meetings with
community, business and political groups. As someone who studies Turkey, the
trip was an incredible opportunity to learn first-hand about a country I
already admire. I have discussed my thoughts on domestic issues in Turkey. I
also gained greater insight into the country’s foreign policy.

Throughout the 20th century, Turkish politics was marked by the secular
nationalist image instilled in the country by Ataturk’s dramatic
post-Ottoman reforms. The primary goal of the country’s foreign policy was
to maintain its security and territorial integrity. This led to a hard
stance on minority issues such as the Kurds, hesitation to address the
Armenian issue, and tensions with Greece over Cyprus. It also contributed to
Turkey’s US ties; fearful of the Soviet threat, Turkey allied itself with
America and joined NATO. It also established close ties with Israel.

Turkey’s foreign policy has changed markedly since the rise of the ruling
Justice and Development Party (AKP), a conservative party with Islamist
roots. Opposition to Israeli policies has increased, as has hesitation to
support US military actions in Iraq. At the same time, Turkey has reached
out more to regional states such as Syria and Iran, made some progress on
the Armenia and Kurdish issues, and intensified its efforts to join the
European Union. These changes have led to a flurry of speculation, including
some decrying Turkey’s Islamic or Eastern shift, and others claiming its
international relations can be explained by economic interests.

Neither approach is completely accurate. Turkey’s relations with Israel and
the United States are more strained than they were throughout the Cold War,
but they do not represent a complete break. And claims of an Islamic shift
in Turkish foreign policy are contradicted by the AKP’s great efforts to
join the EU. Instead, the two can be seen as part of Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu’s “Zero-problems” approach to international relations, which
involves management of all regional and international issues. This includes
regional tensions such as Turkish-Syrian relations and Iran’s nuclear
program.

At the same time, it would be inaccurate to claim economics or material
interests alone are driving these changes. Turkish people I met with did
discuss the monetary gains from the AKP’s policies, but they also discussed
their support for the government in terms of its new approach to democracy,
and Turkey’s historical and cultural ties to surrounding states. Beyond
this, there is the fact that something changed with the AKP; something about
this party led to a different approach to foreign policy. The potential
economic benefits from trade with Syria and EU membership, and the stability
to be gained from resolving the Iran issue were present before the AKP came
to power. That is, in order to explain Turkey’s current foreign policy, one
cannot point solely to these international factors, which for the most part
remained constant.

Instead, I would argue, it is something about the AKP that led to these
changes. Again, it is not a story of an Islamist party coming to power.
Instead, we have a conservative party with a broad base. Their supporters
include business interests, religiously-minded voters, and minority groups.
And the AKP’s leaders have a distinct belief in the important role Turkey
should play in international politics, which includes economic, security and
religious issues. Religion is important to AKP members and supporters, but
as a public value, not an Iranian-style theocracy.

When formulating foreign policy, then, Turkish leaders likely weigh these
various interests and concerns. Economic gains must be balanced against
security, domestic stability and religious values. At times these point in
the same direction; Turkish-Syrian ties satisfy Muslim identification among
voters, help Turkish businesses, ease regional tensions, raise Turkey’s
international profile, and alleviate domestic unrest through economic
growth. At other times, these pressures may be counteracting each other,
such as in the case of Israel or relations with the United States over Iraq;
the increased prestige and domestic support gained through Turkish actions
on these issues accompany tensions with allies and possible regional
instability.

The answer, as always, is more complicated than most let on. Turkey is not
becoming an Islamist or anti-Western state, but it is also not only acting
on material incentives. Instead, its domestic politics, the makeup of its
governing party, and the current state of the international system have
combined to create a unique and dynamic foreign policy.

The important question, then, is what does this mean for the United States?
Turkey still values its ties with the United States, and there is a great
potential for the United States to work closely with Turkey on issues of
common concern, such as regional stability, counterterrorism and trade. But
America will have to accept some disagreements over the means through which
these goals are achieved, just as it does with other allies like Britain and
France.

Turkey’s changing foreign policy is not a harbinger of a new multipolar
world. It is, however, the first chance for the Obama Administration to act
on its vision of a “multi-partner” world, which Secretary of State Clinton
has laid out. The manner in which the Administration deals with Turkey,
then, will have a great impact on its legacy and the US position in the 21st
century international system.

From: A. Papazian

IRAN IS QUITE A SELF-SUFFICIENT COUNTRY: SHE DOESN’T NEED TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY
Karine Ter-Sahakyan

PanARMENIAN.Net
October 5, 2010

Despite the president and nuclear program “out of favour” with the
West, it is disadvantageous for the United States to have a conflict
with Iran, since she ranks second in the world by her oil and gas
reserves.

For Armenia, Iran is more than a neighbor and simply a friendly
country. For the past 20 years Iran has been if not a faithful ally,
then at least a predictable partner. And under these circumstances
the political system or religious affiliation is not at all important.

Unlike Georgia, Iran has taken a neutral, in certain cases even fair,
attitude towards Armenia.

One circumstance must be taken into account here. The stumbling block
and source of instability in the region has always been Azerbaijan.

This country has requirements for all countries in the region,
including Turkey. It is true that claims on Turkey are of purely moral
quality: constant requests for support and assistance in resolving
the Karabakh conflict have put Turkey in a very awkward position. But
this is just, in passing.

In the relations Armenia-Iran it occurred as in the well-known proverb
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Frankly speaking, the situation
is not very good, but it is better than nothing. It is worth noting
that for several years now Tehran has been trying to join in the
regulation process of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Naturally,
she will not succeed, as she won’t be let into the negotiation
process for fear of turning it into a “showdown” between Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Iran. Besides one cannot disregard the fact that Iran,
to some extent, is considered a pariah state and all her initiatives
are shattered by the disapproval of the international community of the
country that is remarkably consistent in her determination to bring its
nuclear program to its logical conclusion. But the same international
community, in relation to the embargo on trade and cooperation with
Iran, acts selectively. As we know, there are a number of American
companies successfully cooperating with Iran. It is idisputable that
the U.S. government knows about it, but it prefers to turn a blind eye
to it. Despite the “out of favour” president and the nuclear program,
it is disadvantageous for the United States to have a conflict with
Iran, since she ranks second in the world by oil and gas reserves.

But let us revert to the Armenian-Iranian relations. They are, in
general, normal and tend to improve, which is important for Armenia,
located in a shipping deadlock. As recent developments show, Georgia
does not behave in the best possible way, playing on the nerves and
permanently closing the checkpoint Upper Lars. Roughly speaking,
Georgia behaves worse than Baku, but it is inexplicable Armenia
does not share a conflict like Karabakh with Georgia. However,
the authorities of this country are doing their best to make sure
the situation in Javakhk gets out of control. It will not happen
tomorrow, nor the day after it, but it certainly will one day, if,
when in Yerevan, the Foreign Minister of Georgia makes statements like
“Javakhk is not on the map of Georgia”. And the Foreign Ministry of
Armenia will be silent, since it is in impasse. In a word, Georgia
behaves like a little kid, who was allowed to indulge, and so she
indulges herself. But we shall hope that she won’t get away with it
very long.

In this regard, Iran is quite a self-sufficient country, which doesn’t
need to infringe on the rights of the Armenian community. Moreover,
Armenians are the only religious minority in this country, who, by
the constitution, have their representatives in parliament. Recall
the history we can say that the Persian Empire always took Armenians
from the conquered territories, resettled them and forced to work
for the empire. Let us agree that it is much better than slaughter…

In this regard, we recall the words of Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki, who said that in its foreign policy Iran attaches
great importance to developing relations with neighboring states,
and in this context, Armenia occupies a special place. Hopefully,
it will be so in the foreseeable future.

From: A. Papazian

Amir Madani
Writer and political analyst
10 / 2010
Huffington Post

Burning the Koran: Who Does it and Why?

The sad story of the Florida pastor who wanted to burn copies of the Koran
is well known. The minister stirred up protests and disapproval before the
fateful day, and after having inflamed the monsters of hatred, abstained
from carrying out the final act. It is fair to think that one who wants to
set fire to books might one day expand the idea from book- bonfires to
witch-burning. As seen a number of deaths occurred during the worldwide
protests.

Instead of a moment of tolerance the date of 9/11 became a moment of
division. Those who oppose the building of a religious center (a probable
mosque) near Ground Zero because of the 9/11 tragedy do not blame terrorist
groups or single individuals linked (probably) to particular groups within
sectors of the governments of certain countries, but rather they blame a
religion that, like others, has given identity, laws, and a way of life to
millions of people. It is a well-known fact that before the Muslims arrived
to America similar accusations which denied rights had been applied to
Indians, Jews and Catholics.

The debate on the subject has fallen to the lowest of levels, with insults
against the Muslims (e.g.: Martin Peretz, the editor-in-chief of the New
Republic, writes: “Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims.”
So at this point, one of the most authoritative New York Times columnists
(Nicholas D. Kristof) poses the question, “Is this America ?” In fact, these
attitudes have nothing to do with America’s history of freedom and rights
including the freedom of religion.

It is obvious that groups and individuals fostering hate are behind these
attitudes of intolerance that foster hatred in order to build neo
divisionism (ethnic, religious, racial, cultural, geographic…). By means
of these neo-tribal divisions there is an attempt to destabilize democracy,
reduce or even destroy democratic accountability, that is to say, the
centrality of law and the responsibility of the individual. These divisions
are based upon fear and are used to building or expanding privileges and at
the same time impeding the extension of rights to others.

This is the logic of Al-Qaeda. It does not see religion as an expression of
civilization and a subtle choice of conscience, but as an absolute ideology,
where the law of blind obedience rules and humanity is fractured into
religious tribes. Moreover, certain regimes do not recognize democratic
legitimacy and in so doing they nourish the clash of civilizations to foster
illegitimate power. Instead of putting under pressure citizens living in
democracies and thier religion , the public opinions gattering with
International institutions should ask reforms in the arab-Islamic world.

Much remains to be explained about the instigators of 9/11 but there are few
doubts about the executors of the attack: they came from specific areas and
countries. Yet to blame the whole Islamic world for the acts of a few
individuals is like blaming the entire democratic European civilization for
the behavior of Nazi skinheads and criminal groups.

The majority of victims of these very few terrorists acting in the name of
Islam are mainly Muslims. The monster or terrorism that threatens stability
and security could be defeated only by full respect for the law, not only by
punitive justice (law) but also by distributive justice in order to
eliminate the social situations where terrorism rises and thrives . In order
to understand the point of the problem one must distinguish between the
religious message of Islam and Islam in politics and history.

Islam was born in a primitive society. Along with a religious message, it
had to give administrative rules and combine spiritual and secular aspects.
The religious message of Islam is tolerance and the Koran forbids imposing
faith with force: “in religion there is no coercion” (2,256). Jihad is
substantially a war against passion leading to purification. It is not
historically true that Islam has always imposed itself through the force of
arms. Christian Armenia has peacefully lived with Islamic neighbors for
centuries. Thus only politics and interests define the positions and not
religion which is exploited and simply plays an instrumental role.

The Pastor’s intention was condemned not only by the Islamic world, but also
by public opinion, by Western chancelleries , by governments and by the
Obama administration. President Obama, conscious of the dangers
neo-divisionism presents to democracy has stated: “Koran burning will boost
terrorism” . General Petraeus aligned with President Obama has declared:
“Burning Koran endangers troops” . A question arises: if burning the Koran
was not endangering American troops around the world by giving boost to
terrorism, it would be okay?!

This debate seems to be a door that turns around an irrational pivot and
opens onto the darkness where the light of reason fails and politics become
sectarian. These vicissitudes are dramatic in every aspect, and show the
pressure that democratic and enlighted civilization is receiving from
anti-democratic secterianism. This way of acting substitutes democratic
cohabitation with an “Animal Farm” where the rights conquered in light of
democratic civilization will be transformed into concessions.

From: A. Papazian