IMPORT, EXPORT VOLUMES RISE
Aysor
July 27 2010
Armenia
Goods of USD 1 750m were imported to Armenia in the first six months
of 2010. Goods of USD 445m were exported from the country in the same
period, State Revenue Committee State Customs Service reported.
Import and export volumes rose against the same period of 2009:
goods of USD 1 408m were imported, USD 321m exported in the first
six months of 2009.
From: A. Papazian
CATHOLICOS OF ALL ARMENIANS WON’T TRAVEL TO TURKEY
Aysor
July 27 2010
Armenia
Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II will not participate in the
services to be offered on September 19 at the Armenian Church of
Surb Khach (St Cross) in Turkey, a spokesperson to press office of
The Echmiadzin Catholicosate told media.
The Armenian Church of Surb Khach is located in modern Turkey, on
Akhtamar Island. After official restoration works, there was not set
a cross on its dome, ignoring the Christian tradition.
The Armenian delegation to Turkey will involve two representatives
of The Echmiadzin Catholicosate.
From: A. Papazian
UNESCO SELECTS WORLD HERITAGE SITES
Panorama
July 27 2010
Armenia
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) kicks off its first full day of meetings in Brasilia today,
with the purpose of selecting the next UNESCO World Heritage Sites. On
the list of candidates are the Tabriz Historic Bazaar Complex in Iran,
Mount Vernon in the United States, and the Matheran Light Railway in
India, among others.
UNESCO World Heritage Sites dot the planet, with some famous sites
all over the world. A few of Armenian cultural monuments – Churches of
Sanahin-Haghpat, Geghardavanq with River Azat, Churches of Etchmiadzin
and Zvartnots are protected by UNESCO World Heritage.
The World Heritage Committee will pay special attention to sites that
are in danger, due to “problems such as pollution, urban development,
poorly managed mass tourism, wars, and natural disasters, which have
a negative impact on the outstanding values for which the sites were
inscribed on the World Heritage List.”
From: A. Papazian
AZERBAIJAN AGAIN VIOLATES CEASEFIRE
Aysor
July 27 2010
Armenia
Cases of ceasefire violation were again fixed on Karabakh-Azerbaijan
armed forces contact line over the July 26 night and during the day.
The Azerbaijani side fired at Nagorno Karabakh posts in Horadiz,
Chakhili, Kurdlar, Mehdili, Cheyil, Yusufjanlu, Javagirli,
Bash-Karvend, Shkhlar, Kengerli, Namirli, Seysulan, Talish and
Gyulistan, NKR Defense Ministry press office reported.
Azerbaijani side’s operations were suppressed by Armenian defense
army return actions.
From: A. Papazian
‘INTERNATIONAL LAW IN KARABAKH CONFLICT IN AZERBAIJAN’S FAVOR’
news.az
July 27 2010
Azerbaijan
The international law is in Azerbaijan’s favor in Karabakh issue,
said adviser on political issues of the Germany embassy in Azerbaijan
Florian Peter.
‘Certainly, international law is in Azerbaijan’s favor but the lack of
compromises in search of solution to the Karabakh conflict which is
observed in the Azerbaijani and Armenian publics hampers the search
of effective resolution of the Karabakh conflict’, he said during
the presentation of the project of Euro-Atlantic organization of
Azerbaijani youth “Peace or victory: vision of the conflict”, held
at the International Novosti news center.
Peter spoke of the importance of the project supported by the OSCE
and German embassy in Azerbaijan for the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict.
He said public discussions of the limits of compromise the residents of
Azerbaijan can offer for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict will
be discussed within the framework of the project ‘Peace or victory:
vision of the conflict’.
‘The search of compromises in public is a difficult process and just
a start of the long way. The public must learn to take into account
the opinion of the opposite side’, he said.
From: A. Papazian
BRITISH PM PRESSES FOR TURKEY’S EU ACCESSION
Ekklesia
July 27 2010
UK
British PM David Cameron says he will “fight” for Turkey’s accession
to the European Union, despite the slow pace of negotiations.
Those opposed to Turkey joining the EU have cited a variety of reasons,
including the country’s poor human rights record and fears of a
Muslim-majority country – albeit with a strong secular tradition –
being at the heart of Europe.
Proponents say that while reform is necessary, and contentious
questions like Turkey’s denial of the 1915-23 Armenian Genocide
() remain to be faced, these will
be more fruitfully dealt with inside rather than outside the Union.
Pope Benedict XVI has in the past expressed disquiet about possible
Turkish EU accession, but has gradually changed his view on the matter.
However, a raft of political, economic and procedural issues have
delayed progress on achieving membership.
On his first visit to Turkey as prime minister, Mr Cameron said the
country could become a “great European power”, helping build links
with the Middle East.
He also compared hostility to the membership bid in some parts of
the EU with the way the UK’s entry was once regarded.
Mr Cameron is expected to agree a new strategic partnership with
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan during his visit.
Cynics say that he also hopes that robust support for Turkey’s EU
membership will also secure reciprocal support for the more reserved
and sheltered position within Europe which Mr Cameron favours for the
UK – leading, as he does, a party with a high number of ‘Euro-sceptics’
in it.
In his speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara, Mr Cameron said
he wanted to “pave the road” for Turkey to join the EU, as a country
“vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our
diplomacy”.
A European Union without Turkey at its heart was “not stronger but
weaker… not more secure but less… not richer but poorer”.
He added: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey’s membership of the
EU. And to fight for it.”
Commentators suggest that despite the many reform questions facing
its institutions, actual contact with the EU has in practice, as with
modern economic and political realities, blunted the scepticism of
those who have in the past traded on anti-EU rhetoric.
From: A. Papazian
AZERBAIJAN HAS ‘TO MAKE COMPROMISES TOO’ – ARMENIAN MP
news.az
July 27 2010
Azerbaijan
Tigran Torosyan News.Az interviews Tigran Torosyan, doctor of political
science, MP, Armenian National Assembly speaker from 2006 to 2008.
What can you say about the negotiating process on the peaceful
resolution of the Karabakh conflict, in particular, the updated version
of the Madrid principles which the mediators would like to see as a
basis for talks? Is it possible to say that the negotiating process
has stalled?
The president of Armenia has responded [to Azerbaijani accusations
that Armenia is dragging its feet on accepting the Madrid principles]
by saying that the St Petersburg proposals have not been accepted by
Azerbaijan. As far as the updated Madrid principles are concerned, I
think it is obvious that they remain only suggestions. This viewpoint
is reinforced by the fact that the Muskoka statement of the Minsk
Group co-chairs contains the same six provisions that were already
stated in the L’Aquila announcement a year ago.
It is worth mentioning that publicizing the provisions of a document
under negotiation before the end of the negotiating process is an
unprecedented phenomenon except in the Karabakh settlement process.
This apparently stresses how interested the co-chairing countries are
in regulation of the conflict. However, there has been no progress
in the past year. What is the reason? I think it is the fact that
although the Madrid principles define the international law framework
through which the conflict should be solved (although this is not
necessary, since the principles are stated in the Helsinki Final Act
and fundamental documents of the UN), the intermediaries are not
keeping the process on this path and are not specifying concrete
steps towards a solution based on these principles. Moreover,
the formulations of six steps in these documents and the uncertain
announcements that followed served as a basis for further speculation.
Of course, it is common practice that in order to ensure their
flexibility the intermediaries always try to allow for a margin
in discussions, but when this is done unskillfully it results in
the reverse effect. The key to ensuring real progress is the clear
definition by the intermediaries of the objective, mode and conditions
of the exercise of the right to self-determination. The norms of
international law say that it is only the people (i.e. the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh) that are eligible to exercise the right to decide
their status which can be the declaration of an independent state,
separation and unification with another state or any other status of
people’s choice. Of course, the co-chairs know this perfectly well,
but they are also aware that Azerbaijan will never sign any agreement
that implies the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. The only solution
is, therefore, via the path that was earlier taken by Kosovo.
What is behind Yerevan’s reluctance to accept the updated Madrid
principles and the failure of the meeting of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Almaty? What is Armenia concerned
about? The Madrid principles or something else?
Of course, it would be better if you asked the Armenian authorities
for their interpretations. As far as the “updated” Madrid principles
are concerned, here I think there are two circumstances. No matter
what you name the consecutive suggestions of the co-chairs, these
proposals are presented to the sides, the sides’ opinion is received
and the co-chairs continue their work based on the feedback.
In answer to your previous question, I said that the June statement
of the co-chairs showed that in the last year the Madrid principles
have not changed. Consequently, there are no “updated” principles. It
can be suggested that representatives of Armenia have not accepted
some of the suggestions of the co-chairs, but the Azerbaijani side
tried to manipulate the situation when the foreign minister announced
that Azerbaijan had accepted the “updated” principles but with some
reservations. Does this mean that Azerbaijan has accepted something
that Armenia has rejected? I think the same story lies behind the
Almaty “failure”. At a time of negotiations behind closed doors,
especially when there is no progress, the rhetorical abilities of
the sides become the main factor and this is dangerous from the point
of view of conflict resolution, especially, when things end up with
falsehood, hate speech and bellicose announcements.
Opposition leader and former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan has
said that without resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, Armenia has no chances of improving
security, economic development and demography, regardless of who is
in power. Do you agree? Why doesn’t Yerevan make a compromise?
Of course I don’t agree. Although domestic and foreign issues are
interrelated to a certain degree, he confuses the level of their
impact on the situation. Ter-Petrosyan led Armenia for eight years
and had opportunities to present and implement his vision. When he had
to leave the post of president, he “foresaw” that Armenia would very
soon fail in all areas. However, despite the existing problems and
difficulties, the decade that followed Ter-Petrosyan’s presidency was
way more successful than the years of his leadership of the country.
His political knowledge and views, therefore, cannot be trusted.
Of course, mutual compromise is an important principle in the
resolution of conflicts, but the framework for it is no less
important. If one of the sides tells you that he will strangle you
if you do not obey his demands, then this cannot be formulated as
mutual compromise, this is blackmail. Both of the Armenian sides have
already made a number of compromises. Nagorno- Karabakh has chosen not
to unite with Armenia (although, it has the full right to do so under
international law), but has opted for a declaration of independence as
the way to exercise its right to self-determination; Karabakh has also
agreed to be temporarily represented by Armenia at the negotiating
table and Karabakh has even agreed to discuss the issue of a new
referendum. So Azerbaijan also has to make some compromises in return
and only after that should the issue of further mutual compromises
be discussed. I am confident that the issue would be resolved soon
if Azerbaijan fulfilled its obligations as a UN and OSCE member state
and acknowledged the right to self-determination of Karabakh.
You said recently, “Armenia should say openly that it will not
participate in senseless meetings with an unpredictable party, which is
unable to regulate even its own armed forces, and produce irrefutable
information about Azerbaijani provocation.” What did you mean by this?
You probably know that this concerns the incident that took place
right after the meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents
which resulted in the killing of Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers.
All the corpses of the soldiers were found in the territory which is
under the control of the armed forces of Nagorno-Karabakh. Even some
Azerbaijani experts question Baku’s announcements, especially since
the Nagorno-Karabakh side did not have any motivation for the attack.
This incident was unprecedented as the attack of the Azerbaijani
military took place only few hours after President Aliyev’s return
from St Petersburg. I do not think that President Aliyev is unaware
that this is outside the commonly accepted procedures for negotiations
and that refraining from the use of force and threat of force is one
of the three main declared principles (which is also an obligation of
any OSCE member country, according to the Helsinki Final Act). Since
official Baku refuses to accept responsibility for this attack, it can
only be assumed that Azerbaijani soldiers, stirred up by the bellicose
announcements that are made almost every day by their country’s top
officials, tried to solve the conflict through the use of force. But
this is no justification either. For negotiations to be effective,
the sides have to fulfil their obligations, otherwise the negotiations
make no sense.
From: A. Papazian
“CITY POSITION FACING MOUNT ARARAT IS DISTORTED”
Aysor
July 27 2010
Armenia
Yerevan projected by Tamanyan differs much from present-day Yerevan.
Union of Architects of Armenia Chairman Mkrtich Minasyan told
reporters. According to him, a city changes like an organism.
Formerly, the city changed but Tamanyan’s project was kept, while
now the city face is distorted.
“Tamanyan’s project intended a city for 450 thousand inhabitants,
it was planted with trees and shrubs, while present-day Yerevan is
a high density city, what is impermissible,” Minasyan said.
Director of Alexander Tamanyan House-Museum Alexander Tamanyan also
regretted to say that today’s Yerevan has changed much: “City’s
ideology has changed, its position facing Mount Ararat is distorted.”
Specialists think that we will lose Yerevan if it goes on like this.
From: A. Papazian
ARMENIANS RESUME DIGS IN AZIKH CAVE
news.az
July 27 2010
Azerbaijan
Armenians have resumed archaeological digs in the Azikh cave located
in the Fizuli region occupied by Armenians in 1993.
According to Armenia Today, the digs in the cave resumed in mid July.
Armenians hold digs in the Azikh cave beginning from 1999.
In 1968 Azerbaijani archaeologist Mammadali Huseynov discovered a
paleontological station in the Azikh cave, in the Guruchay gorge,
the studies of which played a great role in studying people’s living
of that time. The Azikh cage is among most interesting habitats of
people and has no analogues in the territory of the former USSR.
The Azikh cave located at the height of 900 m above the sea is related
to the holizontal through caves of corridor type extending to over 200
meters and about 1250 square meters in area. Two analogous corridors
and five halls exist in the cave.
The lower jaw of the pre-Neanderthal man (a young girl) was found in
the cave in 1968. After the research, scientists came to a conclusion
that she lived about 350,000-400,000 years ago.
From: A. Papazian
AGHET – EIN VOLKERMORD’S RETROSPECTIVE SCREENING IN YEREVAN
Aysor
Armenia
July 27 2010
The National Gallery of Armenia will host screening of the best
movies of the 7th International Golden Apricot Film Festival, which
took place in Yerevan. A film Aghet РEin V̦lkermord (Genocide, a
Tragedy) by German film-maker Eric Friedler will be screened Tuesday,
told media producer and author of the program at the National Gallery,
Melik Karapetian.
The 90-minute documentary was included in the program of the Golden
Apricot Festival. It features the 1915 Genocide, committed by Turks
against civil Armenian population, which resulted in 1,5 million
deaths among them. The film highlights the Turkish authorities’
policy of nowadays towards recognition of those crimes.
Initiated by a Congressman Adam Schiff, the film was screened at the
Capitol Hill gathering together former US ambassador to Armenia John
Evans, supporters of the Resolution on the 1915 Genocide congressmen
Brad Sherman, Frank Pallone, and other officials. After the screening
the congressmen made statements condemning Turkey’s policy.
Eric Friedler’s film Aghet – Ein Völkermord will be screened at 8
pm in Yerevan’s The Club.
From: A. Papazian