Author: Andres-Papazian

RUSSIA’S “NEW” APPROACH TO KARABAKH ISSUE

Russia’s stance on the Karabakh issue is usually viewed from two
angles: whether Moscow will leave Karabakh to Armenia or give to
Azerbaijan.

Stances have changed frequently over these 20 years. For example,
during Dmitry Medvedev’s tenure Russia made efforts to have part of
Karabakh annexed by Azerbaijan, initiating for this purpose the format
of three-party talks. Afterwards Moscow tried to get something from
Azerbaijan in return for Karabakh but got a refusal. And now a new
approach is outlining.

Apparently, Russia intends to leave Karabakh for itself. Several
factors will be helpful. First, the empire is collapsing, and Russia
is trying to pick up whatever it can lift. Apparently, the lifted load
could be the so-called unrecognized states because the recognized
states have already separated from the empire, including Armenia
and Azerbaijan.

Second, Karabakh has strategic importance to Russia. It is not
accidental that the Russian press is currently scrutinizing the Treaty
of Gulistan according to which Karabakh was annexed by Russia 200
years ago. In Russia they prefer to forget about the Treaty of Sevres
but instead demonstratively present to Turkey the original copy of
the Treaty of Moscow. Now they suddenly need the Treaty of Gulistan.

Being in the space of Russian empire, including in Armenia
was presented as the only way of avoiding Turkish (Azerbaijani)
influence on Armenia. For example, in the 1960-70s of the past century
parents preferred sending their children to Russian schools to avoid
azerbaijanization although they might send their children to Armenian
schools. Now the tendency is to present that the recognition of NKR by
Russia and deployment of Russian troops there is the only alternative
to azerbaijanization (through westernization).

However, there is already an alternative – it is the unification of
the Armenian states which only needs to be declared. Karabakh is part
of Armenia, not the Russian empire, despite the agreement of Gulistan.

Because documents were mentioned, it should be noted that the Armenian
state was proclaimed in August together with Karabakh.

Interestingly, nobody in Armenia and Karabakh practically responds to
Russia’s efforts. Everyone pretends that there is nothing serious,
well Chapman has arrived in Karabakh, she is welcome, or they wink
to each other in private talks that Russia will not be allowed to
act on its own and land in Karabakh like in Serbia.

Meanwhile, silence looks like approval of a big compromise. Although,
it is obvious to everyone that it is not going to be a compromise
but capitulation because separating Karabakh from Armenia will be
the beginning of the end.

Perhaps it is time to proclaim the united Armenian state to dismiss
ideas about getting parts of it. And the blocs which want integration
with Armenia must recognize the united Armenian state.

Naira Hayrumyan 17:39 29/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:

From: A. Papazian

COLLEGE STUDENTS PROTEST PLANNED TUITION HIKES -PHOTOS

Narek Aleksanyan

14:32, August 29, 2013

A group of students gathered outside the Government Building in
Yerevan to protest tuition hikes that will come into effect in
Armenia’s colleges and universities this fall.

The protesters say the hikes are illegal since the Education Ministry
hasn’t taken into account the financial status of the students to
be affected.

They also do not believe that the tuition hikes will result in better
quality education. After submitting their letter of grievances to
Minister of Education and Science Armen Ashotyan (see photo), the
students took their protest to a number of nearby state universities.

From: A. Papazian

ZHAMANAK: AIR ARMENIA DELAYS YEREVAN-MOSCOW FLIGHT

10:51 29/08/2013 ” DAILY PRESS

Air Armenia has delayed the Yerevan-Moscow flight for an indefinite
time. Vahan Harutyunyan, company’s owner, told Zhamanak that it is
not yet known when the first flight will be carried out.

Air Armenia was the first air company to be granted permission to
operate flights to Moscow, Sochi, St Petersburg, Rostov, Krasnodar
and Samara following Armavia’s bankruptcy.

“This is not a delay. We are in a preparatory stage, which envisages
a number of processes. We will announce the exact date when they are
close to an end,” Harutyunyan told the paper.

Source: Panorama.am

From: A. Papazian

NEWSPAPER: SASHIK SARGSYAN HAS DECIDED TO EARN 50 MILLION DRAMS DAILY FROM PLACEMENT OF SPEED-METERS

by David Stepanyan

ARMINFO
Thursday, August 29, 13:29

Armenian president’s brother, Sashik Sargsyan, which according to
the rumors, owns the “business” on fining of drivers with a help of
placement of the speed-meters in Yerevan, has decided to “enlarge”
his business. As Chorrord Ishkhanutyun weekly says, Sashik Sargsyan
has recently instructed the relevant centre to fine 10 thousand
drivers every day.

The size of the minimal fine is 5 thsd drams (about $17), and if we
multiply it by 10 thsd, we will get a solid sum – 50 mln drams for a
day. Moreover, the weekly says that just a small part of this sum is
paid to the state budget like a tax. As for the salary of employees
of the computer centre which fix violations, it is small – 100-150
thsd drams (about $250-350).

From: A. Papazian

GLOBAL CLEANSING

Is it possible that global politics does not have rational goals? This
may be the most important question in political science and sociology,
perhaps also history.

The 20th century was deprived of rational premises, justifications
and tasks in politics. The end of the cold war suggested that global
politics would be more rational but it became more “romantic” although
what’s the use of parting with “romanticism”?

In 1983 the last romantic of all great politicians Yuri Andropov died,
which marked the beginning of review of global geopolitics. It is
obvious that such review was determined by the course of history but
reviewers proved useless.

The international community dragged out the search for new realities
but not imaginary and provoked threats and has arrived at the
understanding that the global powers cannot pose real threats to one
another. A more actual threat was uneven demographic and economic
development which is not something new but the issue is that the world
powers hurried to describe this factor as outdated and unrealistic
in the era of scientific progress.

However, after significant scientific achievements and did not allow
to match and combine problems of intensive and extensive development.

The post-economic period (or epoch) did not start or was rather unreal
to regulate distribution of resources under such uneven development.

In order to forestall developments or catastrophe, the world centers
of power are undertaking wobbly steps and trying to ensure legitimacy
of corrections in the policy of immigration with which a lot of other
objectives are linked closely.

The immigration policy is a more natural and more or less civilized
sphere of a larger-scale policy of transformation of the global living
area. However, in order to resolve such large-scale objectives it
is necessary to redirect demographic flows with different methods,
including methods of “loyal, legitimate violence”.

In the contemporary world when social standards have received such a
high level sending tens and millions of people refugees into a search
for a “new-old” homeland will be a catastrophe for some states and
nations and at the same time a political deliverance for others.

Now let’s look into what Zbigniew Brzezinski says regarding Syria:

“Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that
Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it
ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part
of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns
somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those
rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to
be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that
one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S.

policy was aiming at.” [The National Interest]

“I think if we tackle the issue alone with the Russians, which I think
has to be done because they’re involved partially, and if we do it
relying primarily on the former colonial powers in the region-France
and Great Britain, who are really hated in the region-the chances of
success are not as high as if we do engage in it, somehow, with China,
India and Japan, which have a stake in a more stable Middle East.”

“I’m afraid that we’re headed toward an ineffective American
intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which
intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes.

But what you are talking about means increasing our aid to the
least effective of the forces opposing Assad. So at best, it’s simply
damaging to our credibility. At worst, it hastens the victory of groups
that are much more hostile to us than Assad ever was. I still do not
understand why-and that refers to my first answer-why we concluded
somewhere back in 2011 or 2012-an election year, incidentally-that
Assad should go.”

(The National Interest,
)

The United States is implementing another messianic goal of cardinal
and radical review of recurrence of colonial and traditional empires,
trying (quite sincerely) to impart this policy with rational
characteristics which is practically impossible.

Global redesign of borders has a quite rational goal and purpose –
ensuring national and global security. However, realization of this
idea by way of some rational means doomed this policy to failure.

The Near East is undergoing not just a redesign of borders but
a global cleansing of the population on ethnic, confessional and
tribal grounds. Without global and regional cleansing a more or less
acceptable stable existence in the 21st century is impossible.

At the same time, not only the global centers of power but also big
regional states with certain mental ambitions participate in this
policy. Different states that understand this global tendency are
trying to obtain new geopolitical advantages, others are trying to
save from the beginning of the catastrophe.

The Western community is trying to finish this revision by the
time China’s presence in different regions gets broader and more
significant. It is one of the possible time criteria but it is possible
that there are other limitations in space and time.

What will be a cementing factor for the new configuration of borders,
ethnicity, confession, economy or ideology? Apparently, one factor
or another will dominate in every separate case. It is difficult to
predict now who will benefit or win. In a global context, the world
powers will benefit, perhaps also regional states, or may be both
will benefit partly.

There are forces which are interested in any revision of state borders
(Abkhazia and Ossetia are separated from Georgia, Chechnya and
Dagestan separated from Russia, Transylvania from Romania, Scotland
from Britain, areas populated with Kurds from Turkey; no matter what
is divided, it is important that it divides and fragments, as soon
as possible, as a chain reaction). What is now happening in Syria
is a mass cleaning of the population therefore the regime ruling in
Syria continues to exist.

Most probably, the idea of revolution in the Near East put forth by
the administration of George Bush and Condoleezza Rice proposed not
just an ideological revision but a geopolitical revision. Freedom and
democracy are impossible without deliverance of nations from violence
and their own violence against other peoples.

Whatever interesting has been done in the U.S. policy intended for
a decade was initiated by the Republican Party (even petty tyranny
of the so-called neoconservatives). In this regard, the idea of
global cleaning serves as an alternative to the European idea when
state borders became something “sacred”. Both poles of the Western
community are trying to combine these two doctrines, hoping that for
convergence and overcoming of controversies. Is it possible?

The problem is that the European states are increasingly sharing the
policy and points of view of the American establishment. A person
cannot be free unless his nation is free. Doesn’t this match the
ideals of great religions?

Igor Muradyan 12:25 29/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:

From: A. Papazian

L’ARMENIE ACCUEILLE LA RENCONTRE 2013 DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE SUR LA DIMENSION RELIGIEUSE DU DIALOGUE INTERCULTUREL

EUROPE

Strasbourg. > : dans le cadre de la presidence armenienne
du Comite des Ministres, la Rencontre 2013 du Conseil de l’Europe
sur la dimension religieuse du dialogue interculturel aura lieu a
la residence des hôtes de la Republique armenienne (Government Guest
House), a Erevan, les 2 et 3 septembre 2013.

Edward Nalbandian, Ministre des Affaires etrangères de l’Armenie et
President du Comite des Ministres du Conseil de l’Europe, ouvrira
cette Rencontre 2013 avec sa Saintete Karekine II, Patriarche supreme
et Catholicos de tous les Armeniens.

La Republique d’Armenie a inscrit la promotion des valeurs europeennes
par le dialogue interculturel au nombre des principales priorites de
sa presidence (16 mai – 14 novembre 2013) afin d’intensifier l’action
menee pour lutter contre l’intolerance et promouvoir la liberte de
religion, conformement a l’article 9 de la Convention de sauvegarde
des droits de l’homme et des libertes fondamentales.

Cette 6e edition de la Rencontre s’articulera autour de seances
plenières et trois tables rondes sur les thèmes suivants : 1)
>.

L’evenement rassemblera des delegues de communautes religieuses et
non religieuses, des professionnels des grands medias ainsi que
des experts, des universitaires et des representants de diverses
organisations internationales et ONG.

Contexte

L’histoire de l’Europe (du cujus regio, ejus religio a nos jours)
est etroitement liee a l’evolution des tendances en matière de
croyances religieuses. De tout temps et a differents egards, la
dimension religieuse a souleve, dans tous les pays, d’importantes
questions liees au contexte social et a la politique generale.

Le Conseil de l’Europe a ouvert la voie a une union plus etroite
et a la mise en oeuvre de conceptions communes en Europe, grâce,
en particulier, a la Convention culturelle europeenne signee
en 1954. Le developpement des migrations et le redecoupage des
frontières nationales, notamment après la chute du mur de Berlin,
ont incite les societes europeennes a repenser l’approche de la
diversite culturelle, ethnique, linguistique et religieuse. Depuis
lors, le terme > figure dans un nombre
toujours croissant de conventions, recommandations et declarations
de la communaute internationale.

En 2005, le Troisième Sommet des chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement
du Conseil de l’Europe a Varsovie a confirme que la mission de
l’Organisation etait de favoriser le dialogue interculturel fonde
sur l’universalite des droits de l’homme. En 2006, dans le cadre
de la presidence russe du Comite des Ministres, une Conference
internationale sur >, connue sous le nom de >, a appele a l’instauration d’un dialogue regulier autour des droits
de l’homme, de la cohesion sociale et de la diversite culturelle. En
2007, dans le cadre de la presidence suivante, Saint-Marin a lance
la première Conference europeenne sur >.

En mai 2008, le Livre blanc sur le dialogue interculturel . En 2010 (a Ohrid, en >) et en 2011 (dans la ville de
Luxembourg), le thème principal a lance le debat sur

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIE
ARMENIE : UN VILLAGE ESPERE QU’UN RENOUVEAU RELIGIEUX POURRA STIMULER L’AMELIORATION ECONOMIQUE

Les residents de l’un des villages les plus delabres d’Armenie ont
l’espoir qu’un renouveau religieux pourrait ameliorer leur situation
economique.

Au debut août, la ville de Karakert, un village sans eglise armenienne
fondee dans les annees 1950 pour les travailleurs de l’usine, a
organise un bapteme de masse. Les residents, dont certains se refèrent
desormais a la ville comme ” maudite “, espère que l’evenement pourrait
contribuer a inverser deux decennies de declin.

” C’est une renaissance “, a declare Ashot Mnastkanyan, qui a amene
ses enfants Manvel, 13 ans, et Ani, 11 ans, pour etre baptise au centre
communautaire de Karakert. ” Nous sommes venus ici avec tant de joie “.

” Aujourd’hui, je me sentais comme finalement devenu armenien ”
a declare la nouvelle baptisee Laura Manoogyan, 55 ans. Le Père
Avedis Zargavak Zhamkochyan, l’un des nombreux pretres officiant a la
ceremonie de masse, a rencherit afin de la corriger : ” Tu as toujours
ete armenienne, mais aujourd’hui vous etes devenu une chretienne “.

La crise economique en 1991 qui a suivi l’effondrement de l’Union
sovietique a devaste Karakert, qui est situe a environ 70 kilomètres
d’Erevan. Les hommes en âge de travailler ont quitte la ville en
masse au debut des annees 1990, aller a l’etranger a la recherche
d’un emploi. Karakert a rapidement gagne une reputation comme etant
l’un des villages les plus vetustes du pays. En l’absence de centre
spirituel et beaucoup de difficultes, la foi parmi les 4426 habitants
du village s’est considerablement ralentie a la fin des annees 1990
et au debut des annees 2000.

Mais maintenant, beaucoup de gens du pays croient que la religion peut
aider a promouvoir une reprise economique. Une ecrasante majorite
des Armeniens appartient a l’Eglise apostolique armenienne, une
institution fondee en 301 et qui est profondement liee avec le tissu
culturel de l’Armenie. Reprimee pendant l’ère sovietique, l’Eglise a
connu une legère reprise au cours des 20 dernières annees. Environ
88 pour cent des Armeniens interroges par les centres de recherche
de ressources sur le Caucase en 2010 ont decrit la religion comme ”
plutôt importante ” ou ” très importante ” dans leur vie.

Les voisins post-sovietiques de l’Armenie connaissent une tendance
similaire. En Georgie, où le Patriarche Ilia II, chef de l’Eglise
orthodoxe georgienne, se classe comme figure publique la plus influente
du pays, un vif debat public se deroule sur le rôle de l’Eglise dans la
societe. Pendant ce temps, fortement laïque l’Azerbaïdjan, le respect
des pratiques islamiques gagne du terrain , avec des fidèles musulmans
protestant contre les restrictions informelles des foulards islamiques
pour les femmes dans les ecoles publiques et les universites.

L’eglise armenienne a ete critiquee au niveau international concernant
sa tolerance des minorites religieuses. Le Conseil de l’Europe et
l’Organisation pour la securite et la cooperation en Europe examinent
actuellement des amendements a un projet de loi sur la religion visant
au renforcement de la position dominante de l’Eglise apostolique
armenienne au detriment des droits des minorites.

A Karakert, l’Eglise est percue comme une bouee de sauvetage. L’Eveque
Sion Adamyan, qui a preside la ceremonie de bapteme, a affirme que
l’administration du sacrement de l’Eglise oblige a faire attention
au bien-etre social du village. ” Je me sens responsable de ces gens
a qui nous montrons la voie du salut ” a declare l’eveque Adamyan.

L’evenement a ete organise par un philanthrope local, Elsik
Ghezlashori, avec le soutien des villageois et du Fonds Armenie
Enfants (COAF), une organisation non-gouvernementale de New York qui
travaille sur les questions relatives aux enfants dans les pauvres
villages armeniens.

Malgre l’enthousiasme de l’eveque, certains habitants affirment
que l’Eglise dans son ensemble a ete inattentifs a la situation de
leur village meme si son centre spirituel et administratif, connu
comme le Saint Siège d’Etchmiadzin, se trouve dans la meme province
de Karakert. Aucun plan n’a encore ete annonce pour construire une
eglise dans Karakert. Les responsables de l’Eglise n’ont pas pu etre
joints pour commenter a temps pour la publication.

Ghezlashori croit que l’Eglise ne peut faire davantage pour
promouvoir la foi dans les villes et villages. ” Ils ont besoin d’une
comprehension spirituelle correcte et nourrissante pour les aider
dans leur lutte pour rester chretiens “, dit-elle, se referant aux
residents des regions economiquement defavorisees.

Note de la redaction :

Liana Aghajanian est un redacteur pigiste base a Los Angeles.

Eurasianet.org

jeudi 29 août 2013, Stephane ©armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

LA CONSTRUCTION D’UN IMMEUBLE AUTORISEE MALGRE LES PROTESTATIONS

Erevan

Les autorites municipales semblent pretes a permettre a un promoteur
prive de construire un immeuble dans un quartier d’Erevan. Une decision
qui a suscite des protestations par les residents du quartier et les
activistes civiques ces dernières semaines.

L’architecte, Tigran Barseghian, a rencontre une vingtaine de residents
locaux opposes au projet mardi soir. ” Le but de cette reunion etait
de nous pousser a rester calme et conformiste “, a declare une femme
au service armenien de RFE /RL (Azatutyun.am). ” J’ai eu une très
mauvaise impression “, a declare un autre participant.” L’architecte
en chef d’Erevan a probablement un interet personnel dans ce projet. ”

Les residents des immeubles situes autour du site de construction
affirment que la nouvelle structure serait trop près de leurs maisons
et leur cacherait ainsi le soleil. Ils affirment egalement que la
construction est illegale parce qu’ils n’ont pas d’accord. Certains
d’entre eux ont egalement allegue que Edward Abrahamian, le
proprietaire irano-armenien de l’entreprise de construction, a une
influence sur le gouvernement armenien.

Les fonctionnaires municipaux ont rejete ces plaintes. Ils disent
que le constructeur a deja accepte plus tôt cette annee de reduire
la taille d’un immeuble pour satisfaire des residents.

jeudi 29 août 2013, Laetitia ©armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

EUROPEAN INTEGRATION OF ARMENIA: MYTHS, REALITY, CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
by David Stepanyan

Thursday, August 29, 00:28

The more time is left till the November initialing of DCFTA and the
Association Agreement with the EU by Armenia, the more the tension
around this document to be signed in Vilnus. The content of this
document consisting of 1500 pages has not been published yet because
of an unknown reason. For this reason, when analyzing the reasons,
aspects and arguments of the discussion that started between Armenian,
Russian and European experts, we are forced to present not specific
points of the agreement, but their general geo-political context.

Anyway, we have to confess that because of several impartial reasons,
the given way of the analysis has turned to be more effective than
possible analysis of the text of DCFTA and the Association Agreement
covered with a stamp “incognita”.

>From the very beginning of the negotiations between Armenia and the EU
regarding these documents, the background of the negotiating process
gained numerous myths which directly contradict the reality. The
key one of them is the myth invented by the Armenian authorities and
political experts, according to which the initialing of the agreements
with the EU does not at all contradict development of relations with
Russia. However, recent events are evidence of the contrary. First
of all, I mean the growing pressure upon Yerevan, in which Russia
and partly Europe are using secondary factors, which seem to be such
at first sight. The pressure is still imposed through the non-stop
discussion between Yerevan and Moscow, as well as in Yerevan between
pro-Russian and pro-Western experts. The participants in the discussion
submit any arguments but not the ones that meet reality.

Let’s offer several options, how Europe, the Euroatlantic community
and Russia motivate the games around Armenia.

It turns out that the discussion around the Association Agreement of
Armenia covers more global geo-political space than even the territory
of six countries involved in the Eastern Partnership. After the “cold”
war, the Euroatlantic community started creating a new “security zone”
which supposes integration of the neighboring states.

Incidentally, unlike the myths, which say that economy, communications
and even pipelines lay on the basis of this integration, actually,
the European security is in its basis, which undoubtedly, the USA is
also interested in. Within the frames of this logic, the Association
agreement with the “Eastern Partnership” countries is undoubtedly
a political document of the Western policy influence in the 6 CIS
countries including Armenia. In particular, a new format of the EU and
NATO policy is being today formed at least regarding the two South
Caucasus states. However, at present this format does not suppose
obligatory membership of Armenia and Georgia in these two structures.

This seems to be the key motivation of Brussels and Washington,
why the Eastern Partnership Programme arose. Today this programme is
simply supported by a new economic format, such as the Association
Agreement and DCFTA.

It is clear that Russia is not pleased with such a situation,
not only because of its natural and grounded empire ambissi0ons,
but also the concern about its own security. The availability of
the explosively dangerous North Caucasus, supported by Washington,
Turkey as well as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is enough. And Georgia and
Armenia, neighboring to this region and involved in the circle of
the Western security system, increase the fear of Moscow more. The
“Eastern Partnership” programme idea was put forward by the EU at the
suggestion of Poland, an “old friend” of Russia, out of spite of the
integration ambitions of Moscow at the territories of the post-soviet
space. But taking into account the availability of Ukraine which wanted
to join Europe long ago, and which Russia cannot keep even with a
help of the gas blackmail, undoubtedly this idea has all the chances
to be completed successfully. In this context, Russia’s Customs Union
programme with a prospect of setting up of the Eurasian Union is a
natural attempt of contradiction to the policy of the Euratlantic
community on extension of its own influence space. The difference is
that at the time of the Eltsin’s Russia this extension was implemented
through fast joining NATO of the former Warsaw Treaty countries,
today it is being implemented within the frames of the soft power
through the economic integration programmes.

We have to confess that both European integration and Eurasian
integration promise certain economic dividends to Armenia. In this
context, signing of the DCFTA supported by the promised aid 3-4
billion EUR, really looks to be attractive to Armenia. In general,
Yerevan’s stance is grounded by the fact that Armenia agrees to
the Association agreement with the EU as it hopes for the economic
prosperity. However, there is no calculation how DCFTA will affect the
market and structure of the import-oriented economy of Armenia after
joining the well-developed and competitive European market. Moreover,
one cannot speak about competition with Europe in the sphere of
industry and agriculture. For this reason, we have got an impression
that no Association agreement and DCFTA can lead Armenia to the
economic growth as it practically has no real sector. We cannot either
answer the question if the Customs Union is beneficial to Armenia.

Neither the government nor the political leadership seem to have the
answer to these questions. In this context, we may agree to those
experts which have got an impression that Armenia does not have an
active dialogue with Russia, or it takes place at the top level, when
one man defines the destiny of the whole people. They think it is
inadmissible in both cases, as in such conditions external players
do not know, what to wait from such Armenia and what surprises
its authorities may bring. This results in total distrust in the
complementary position of the Armenian authorities.

By the way, Yerevan has similar distrust in the West as well as
Russia. First of all, just this circumstance makes the authorities of
the republic look for the counterbalances between Moscow and Brussels.

This distrust and concern have been recently demonstrated open in the
statement by Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Shavarsh Kocharyan,
which said when commenting on the Moscow’s statement that sale of
weapon to Azerbaijan is just business, that “Armenia’s intention to
make the Association Agreement with European Union is also a pure
business, whereas the sale of weapon always has a political context”.

“One thing is when we speak about the Association Agreement or DCFTA.

In these conditions we shall not lose our sovereignty and can
adopt decisions about our own tax policy. But we shall lose certain
sovereignty when resolving similar problems, if we become a member
of the common customs system”, – Kocharyan said.

Incidentally, the Armenian authorities put security into the hands
just of the Russians, as in Yerevan as well as Moscow and first of
all in Brussels they understand very well that Europe does not want
and cannot ensure security of Yerevan and Karabakh because of several
partial and impartial reasons. Today Moscow has been playing this part,
especially thanks to deployment of the 102-nd Russian military base
at the territory of Armenia. So, to put under blow the availability
of the Armenian Karabakh and bad or good but independent Armenian
state in order to please ghostly prospects of Armenia’s European
integration would be wrong and will not be the solution that reflects
reality. Though it seems to be a paradox, but just unsettlement of
the Karabakh conflict, preserving of status-quo of 1994 is the key
tramp card of Yerevan in its relations with external players. In these
conditions, losing of Karabakh will nullify the role and significance
of Armenia in the regional policy and put the Armenian statehood
under the threat of disappearance.

Undoubtedly, Russia unlike NATO can provide Armenia’s security at
present stage. The point is that Moscow alone cannot any more fulfill
functions of Armenia’s security guarantor. I do not mean even the
problem of the weapon sale to Azerbaijan. The danger is that from
time to time self-interest of some representatives of the Russian
elite prevail over the interests of the state. Here is hidden the key
danger for Armenia but not in the empire ambitions of Russia. In this
context, the elite ruling in Armenia should be extremely careful when
choosing the foreign political discussion between the West and North.

At present, Yerevan must think not about the content of DCFTA
or any other integration document, but how to become a partner
in the developing geo-political combinations. There are many
examples in the world, how even a small state may become a partner,
for instance, Israel. So, on this way Armenia has to take part in
various strategies, to work in the direction of becoming a partner,
as it is very much dangerous to remain a raw material in the context
of the above-mentioned.

From: A. Papazian

NO POLITICAL FORCES IN CIVILIAN MOVEMENTS

17:30 28.08.2013

Karen Ghazaryan
“Radiolur”

There is no complex situation connected with political developments,
member of the Prosperous Armenia Party, economist Vardan Bostanjyan
told reporters today. He added that the current civilian processes
called “political life” are not extraordinary.

Vardan Bostanjyan welcomes the recent civilian movements and says
their success is conditioned by the participation of the youth,
which is not stereotyped.

Member of the Pan-Armenian National Movement Hovhannes Igityan
considers that civilian movements are positive, but not productive.

Igityan explains the passive stance of the opposition with the fact
that it does not imagine it’s possible to grab power with the help of
the public. He thinks the position of the opposition is incorrect. He
adds, however, that there are more global issues the opposition
should address.

From: A. Papazian