Author: Badalian Vardan

BMI LAUNCHES FLIGHT SALE IN ARMENIA

Noyan Tapan
06.09.2011 | 14:23

Press release

(Noyan Tapan – 06.09.2011) Book early for the lowest fares to London
this winter

bmi, British Midland International, on 5 September launched its
international seat sale offering huge savings on flights to London
Heathrow from Yerevan.

Fares start from EUR 168 excluding taxes and flights are available to
book from today until 30 September 2011 for travel from 1st November
2011 ~V 31 March 2012.

With the autumn fast approaching, now is the perfect time to take
advantage of bmi~Rs low fares and fly to London for some of the best
shopping in the world. As well as a huge discount on fares, customers
booking flights at flybmi.com during the international seat sale will
receive a VIP voucher for the Westfield Shopping Centre in Shepherd~Rs
Bush, London ~V the largest urban shopping mall in Europe. The voucher
will give a discount in a variety of shops and eateries.

Simon Avagyan, bmi sales manager business, said:

~SOur international seat sale offers our customers the chance to fly
to London for a great price. London is the perfect destination for
a shopping break, from the buzz of Oxford Street to the elegance of
Bond Street and Harrods; there are shops for all tastes and budgets.

~SWith the amazing low fares on offer, what our customers save on
flights, they can spend in the fabulous array of shops London has
to offer.~T

For more information or to book visit

To book using a smartphone visit

POVERTY, EDUCATION, ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION MAIN CONCERNS FOR ARMENIA’S YEZIDIS: YOVANOVITCH

ArmeniaDiaspora.com

Sept 5 2011

Epress.am — In Sept. and Oct. 2009, Embassy officers met with members
of the ethnic Yezidi community, Armenia’s largest minority group,
to discuss key issues the community faces in Armenia, according to
a confidential cable dated Dec. 3, 2009, released by WikiLeaks.

The cable, written by then US Ambassador to Armenia Marie
L. Yovanovitch, notes that ethnic identity, education and
endemic poverty are the main issues that confront the Yezidis in
Armenia. Yerevan State University (YSU) Professor of Oriental Studies
Garnik Asatryan told an embassy official that “Yezidis occupied the
lowest category of Armenian society in terms of income and education
levels” but attributed these problems more to their sociocultural
norms and “Armenia’s clan economic system” rather than racial or
religious discrimination.

In a Sept. 22 meeting, head of Yezidi public radio Hasan Tamoyan also
identified education and poor economy as key issues, though noting
that the difficulties his community faces were not unique to his ethnic
group. “In fact, he believed that Yezidis in Armenia were afforded more
recognition and special status from the government than in other FSU
[former Soviet Union] countries. According to Tamoyan, many Yezidis
simply choose not to go to school and women marry very young.”

On Oct. 14, the US Ambassador met with local Yezidi leaders from
the villages of Algyaz, Sipan, and Jamshlu in Aragatsotn region,
including Mayor of Algyaz Aziz Mhoyan, Tengiz Mamoyan of Sipan,
and Tital Aloyan of Jamshlu.

“The discussion focused on the economic hardships caused by decaying
or non-existent infrastructure and services, as well as on the
out-migration of young people due to limited employment opportunities.

In addition, the cattle-breeding and sheep-herding on which these
villages depend have been adversely affected by harsh weather and
limited pasture land.

“Aziz Mhoyan pointed to gasification of his village as a key challenge,
which was due to be finished by 2010, but had stalled due to budget
shortfalls associated with the global economic crisis. He expressed
frustration that the main gas pipeline was less than one mile
away. Similarly, Tengiz Mamoyan identified the paramount problems for
his community as inadequate heating and insufficient access to clean
water. Meanwhile, Tital Aloyan cited the lack of medical facilities
or a functioning school as the primary problems his village faced.

“All three leaders acknowledged the critical role that foreign
remittances played in the survival of their communities: In Alagyaz,
Sipan, and Jamshlu, 80-90 percent of families rely on remittance from
abroad. The need for foreign remittances is directly connected to the
emigration of youth since 1991, which the communities heads cited as
another threat to Yezidi society in Armenia,” reads the cable.

In a section titled “Are the Yezidis Really Kurds?”, Yovanovitch
notes that Tamoyan, the head of Yezidi public radio, named cultural
misidentification of Yezidis as Kurds as a major problem for the
community; however, when the ambassador visited Aragatsotn marz,
“the local Yezidi leaders were adamant that they are Kurds, ethically,
culturally, and linguistically. The only point of difference between
the groups is religion, they declared.” As Yovanovitch observes, “The
fact that ottoman Kurds played a significant role in the exile and
massacres of Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire may also be a factor
in Armenian Yezidis’ reluctance to identify themselves as Kurds.”

When the ambassador asked whether an umbrella organization representing
the needs of the community exists, the Aragatsotn Yezidi leaders said
though there were several organizations, the Yezidis did not speak
with one voice:

“Rather many of the Yezidi organizations and NGOs in Armenia were
personality driven and concerned primarily with the interests of
their leaders. Nonetheless, all three leaders agreed that an umbrella
organization would be more effective in securing economic assistance
from the Yezidi expatriates and wealthy communities in Russia’s far
east. (COMMENT: We were left with the impression that the divisions
in the community caused by the Yezidi versus Kurd debate hampers
the establishment of an effective and unified organization that can
represent the interests of the Yezidi.)”

The cable concludes with an opinion by Garnik Asatryan, the YSU
professor, who believed that the Armenia-Turkey border opening could
radicalize the Yezidi and Kurdish communities in Armenia as it would
allow for more direct contact with elements of Turkey’s Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK/KGK). However, the US ambassador brushed off
this view, calling it “alarmist” and noting that though “Armenia’s
Yezidis/Kurds may feel solidarity with Kurds asserting their ethnic
identity in other countries in the region, there is no evidence that
they have actively supported broader Kurdish political movements.”

Photo: The tomb of Sheikh Adi, the most holy Yezidi religious shrine,
located in Lalish, Iraq (Wikimedia Commons).

Article source:

STILL GOING: FRENCH CROONER AZNAVOUR, 87, GEARS UP FOR TOUR

France 24

Sept 5 2011

AFP – He may be 87, but don’t suggest to French crooner and veritable
national monument Charles Aznavour that his forthcoming tour is a
goodbye. “I have never, ever used the word farewell,” he quickly
points out.

The legendary singer-songwriter pleased fans the world over when he
announced plans for a month-long residency at Paris’ landmark Olympia
theatre starting September 7, followed by a nationwide tour.

Aznavour’s stint in the capital is a return to the stage that launched
his career 55 years ago. Close to 1,000 songs and some 60 films later,
there is — once again — speculation that he may choose the moment
to announce his retirement.

“Some of the press say anything!” he told AFP. “I said that I was
going to do one of my last tours. But when (US director) Martin
Scorsese presents his latest film, you don’t say he’s not going to
make another.”

The performer of such hits as “She”, rerecorded by Elvis Costello for
the Julia Roberts-Hugh Grant comedy “Notting Hill”, and “Yesterday When
I Was Young” said he is embarking on his new tour without first-night
nerves — but a bit of anxiety.

“I used to get nervous, at the start, when the audience hadn’t come
to see me but from the moment they did, it stopped,” he said.

Anxiety, on the other hand, “it’s about the set, the songs. Was I
right to do this tour? Should I have stopped before?” he said.

Born in Paris in 1924 to Armenian origin parents, Aznavour —
originally Aznavourian — grew up in the city’s poorer neighbourhoods
before finding a home on the stage.

Starting out in cabaret, he later teamed up with young songwriter
and composer Pierre Roche and the iconic Edith Piaf, who would take
him to America and a solo career.

In 1954 he rose to prominence with his live renditions of “Sur Ma
Vie”, followed by one of his biggest hits “Je m’voyais deja” in 1960
— the same year he starred on screen in Francois Truffaut’s “Shoot
the Piano Player”, which catapulted him to fame abroad.

A couple of years later he took New York’s Carnegie Hall by storm
before touring the world and seeing his songs sung by stars from Ray
Charles (“La Mamma”) to Liza Minnelli and Fred Astaire.

Aznavour — sometimes referred to as the French Frank Sinatra — is
not only one of France’s most popular singers but the first French
performer to have a recording that went platinum in Europe. He has
sold more than 100 million records worldwide.

In 1998 he was named Entertainer of the Century by CNN and Time Online.

The octogenarian is aware he may not be able to carry off performances
as he once did, and may have to make concessions to his years.

“If I need to sit down, I’m going to sit down, if I need to sing
while standing, I’ll sing standing,” he said matter of factly.

“That doesn’t mean I’m helpless, but you have to know your age.

“My memory is getting worse and worse, so I’m just going to tell the
audience the truth: I will probably have an autocue at some point,”
the singer said.

“I don’t complicate things, because the audience isn’t complicated. I
have told them everything until now, including when I had a hair
transplant,” he laughed.

Ahead of the tour, Aznavour is publishing “From One Door to Another”,
a collection of thoughts and memories, and “Always”, a new album of
original songs.

>>From a generation of French “chanson” masters where lyrics are king
and the tune a prop, the album is pure Aznavour with story-songs on
the passing of time, on war, love and desire.

“I’m often asked if I am thinking about a woman as I write,” he said.

“No, I think about the beauty of the words first then the subject
follows by itself.”

“I owe everything to French literature, I’m a voracious reader, I
buy an enormous number of books, and beautiful books, because I like
it when my hands are able to touch something as beautiful as my eyes
can see,” said Aznavour.

His current reading list features the latest offering by French-Afghan
author Atiq Rahimi, some Turkish literature, and “a spot of the Bible
and the Koran…”

For his Olympia shows and the 20 dates that follow he has selected
“some new songs, some old, some very old, and some all-time
favourites.”

The new? “Well, I have a new musician who plays the duduk,” he said,
referring to a flute-like traditional woodwind instrument from Armenia,
where Aznavour set up an aid foundation and was granted citizenship
in 2008 by presidential decree.

“So I am going to sing a song that I recorded with a duduk but that
I have never been able to play on stage,” he adds enthusiastically.

“I’m like every other artist, I like doing things that nobody else
does: performing at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, at the Kremlin,
St Mark’s Square in Venice… I get a real kick out of that,” he said.

“At my age, I’m not stopping anyone else from doing it. Just the
opposite, I think am paving the way.”

WHO WILL DECIDE THE FUTURE OF TURKISH-ISRAELI RELATIONS?

Today’s Zaman
Sept 5 2011
Turkey

The Palmer report on the Mavi Marmara raid has triggered another
wave of tension between Turkey and Israel. Turkey’s demands from the
government of Israel for an official apology, compensation for the
victims and the lifting of the blockade of Gaza have not been met,
and it is now very unlikely that they will be in the future.

So the Turkish government has decided to move ahead with several
sanctions against Israel, making it clear that they are targeted at
the Israeli government and not the people of Israel, who deserve a
better government, according to Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul.

Some Israeli commentators have rushed to explain the new sanction
policy and the deterioration of the relationship between the
two countries in general between the two countries by referring
to the Islamist past of the Turkish ruling party and its leader,
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which is the most shortsighted
explanation of the current situation. We should remember that Turkey’s
relations with Israel proceeded without any crisis under the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party) government for six long years, from
2002 to the end of 2008. During these years the AK Party welcomed
Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, to Ankara, where he addressed
the Turkish Parliament, a rare gesture offered to a close friend.

Meanwhile the Erdogan government tried to help mediate differences
between Israel and Syria in order to pave the way toward permanent
peace in the region.

The downturn in Turkish-Israeli relations started with Israel’s war
against Gaza in December 2008, in which hundreds of Palestinians,
mainly elderly people, women and children, were killed. It is important
to remember that when Israel attacked Gaza in December 2008, Turkey
was trying to get Israel and Syria to agree to direct peace talks.

It is therefore nonsense to explain the current crisis by referring to
the so-called Islamist background of the Erdogan government. Israel’s
policy of violence could not be accepted by the people of Turkey,
and the AK Party government has simply been responsive to the public
mood provoked by Israeli aggression. The raid on the Mavi Marmara was
surely beyond tolerance. The Israeli government has chosen to deal
with the old issue using outdated and inconclusive methods that have
resulted in their losing the friendship of Turkey.

I think recent Israeli governments have failed to understand the
dynamics, actors and policies essential to the “new Turkey.” Turkey is
no longer a country ruled by its military, which suppressed different
points of view on domestic as well as foreign policy matters. Any state
that wishes to be a friend of Turkey should first win the support
and sympathy of its people. A government that is accountable to the
people under democratic rule cannot remain indifferent to the demands
of its people on foreign policy matters.

Normalization between the two countries will not begin without Israel
coming to terms with this “new Turkey,” with its government, civil
society, economy and support in the world. The Israeli government
should abandon any daydreams of a return to the late 1990s, when
they had a working relationship with the Turkish government, and the
Turkish military disregarded what the people actually wanted.

Public opinion has had an increasing impact on Turkey’s foreign
policy-making in recent years. Democratization and a growing
participation in civil society, due to economic development and the
EU accession process, have empowered public opinion to assert itself
on the matter of foreign affairs, which was not the case a decade ago.

Thus Turkey’s relationship with Israel was questioned whenever Israel
engaged in violent policies in the region, like the war in Lebanon
and the attacks on Gaza. Public reaction to Israeli aggression in
the region is bound to be taken into consideration by a government
that is accountable to its people.

Especially after the killing of eight Turks and one Turkish-American
aboard the Mavi Marmara by Israeli soldiers, public opinion is ever
more important. It will be very difficult to win the people over to
a rapprochement with Israel, without at least an official apology
and compensation.

It is therefore a mistake to assume that the Erdogan government is the
source of the problem, and to claim that Turkish-Israeli relations
would return to normal under a non-AK Party government. To refute
this I will say two things: First, the AK Party government is only
responding to the public mood and demands. Second, the AK Party is very
unlikely to disappear from the political scene in Turkey. That is to
say that both the current public mood and the AK Party’s rule appear
as though they will be around for a while. So instead of sitting and
waiting in vain for them to disappear, Israel and its friends should
try to not lose Turkey’s support permanently.

My advice to the Israeli government is that it should get used
to living and working with the AK Party government, and to try to
understand the “new Turkey” because even in a future post-AK Party
period things will never be the same as in days past

TURKISH-ARMENIAN AT ODDS OVER NEW BOOK
Vercihan Ziflioglu – ISTANBUL

Hurriyet

Sept 5 2011
Turkey

A book written by Armenian historian Ara Sarafyan that includes
historical documents published by Turkish researcher Murat Bardakcı
has sparked a new debate between the two figures.

Bardakcı has accused Sarafyan of plagiarism in the book “Talat
PaÅ~_a’s Report on the Armenian Genocide, 1917,” while Sarafyan has
countered that Bardakcı is uncomfortable about the findings in the
monograph, which draws heavily on the Turkish researcher’s work but
also includes some additional documents.

“He has appropriated parts he saw fit, added explanations according
to his own fancy and then published it under his own name without any
shame or embarrassment. This is worse than plagiarism; it is outright
theft,” journalist and writer Murat Bardakcı said.

Bardakcı prepared his book, “Talat PaÅ~_a’s Dead Letter,” in 2008 with
personal documents compiled from Talat PaÅ~_a’s archives. Bardakcı
said his publisher was going to initiate legal proceedings against
Sarafyan, the director of the Gomidas Institute.

Sarafyan, meanwhile, also responded to the accusations; “I have made
a more solid case – Talat’s report was actually based on official
Ottoman records. I have also analyzed Talat’s data in the way that
Talat would have read them,” he recently told the Daily News.

AZERBAIJAN TOLD U.S. IT WANTS “FULL MEMBERSHIP” IN NATO
by Joshua Kucera

EurasiaNet.org
Sept 5 2011
NY

Azerbaijan’s defense minister told U.S. officials that the country was
interested in “active cooperation with NATO up to full membership” but
couldn’t say so publicly, according to a diplomatic cable recently
released by Wikileaks. The cable recounts a 2007 meeting between
Defense Minister Safar Abiyev and a U.S. delegation from the Pentagon
and State Department headed by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Peter Rodman:

Abiyev said that Azerbaijan’s cooperation with NATO had a goal
in mind. He said that this goal “could not be announced, for
certain reasons” at present, but that Azerbaijan sought “active
cooperation with NATO up to full membership”. He said that the ongoing
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was the only inhibitor of Azerbaijan moving
even more quickly with NATO: “It is time for more serious, more active
steps by the US in Minsk Group. Our cooperation with the US and NATO
would be more open and more decisive in this case.”

There is ample reason for suspicion here. It’s not clear what the
“certain reasons” for Baku’s reticence were, perhaps the fear of a bad
Iranian or Russian reaction, an issue that’s frequently cited in the
cables from Baku. There is reason to doubt the sincerity of that fear
(see below). But even if you take the Azerbaijanis at their word,
if you can’t even announce publicly that you want to join NATO,
the obstacles are so daunting as to make any such wish meaningless.

The last part of that quote suggests (though the cable writer doesn’t
say this) that Azerbaijan wanted to dangle NATO cooperation as a
carrot to get the U.S. to take its side in the Nagorno Karabakh
negotiations, or perhaps to get the U.S. Congressional restrictions
on arms provisions to Azerbaijan overturned. Perhaps there has been
a shift in attitude in Baku since 2007, but as my colleague Shahin
Abbasov reported earlier this summer, what little Azerbaijan-NATO
cooperation had existed seems to be declining.

But that hasn’t stopped the U.S. from continuing to push more forms of
military cooperation. Another cable, from 2009, discussed the visit of
the commanding general of U.S. Air Forces Europe General Roger Brady
to the airfield at Nasosnaya, near Baku, which the U.S. was inspecting
as a potential replacement for the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. The
airport had already been renovated with U.S. money, and Azerbaijani
officials brought up the possibility of further renovations, with the
costs shared by the U.S. and Azerbaijan. “There may well be potential
at Nasosnaya, particularly if Manas’ future was again in doubt,”
the cable’s author wrote.

Another cable discusses Azerbaijan’s contributions to the
transportation of U.S. military cargo overland to Afghanistan on the
Northern Distribution Network. It contains a remarkable statistic:
as of 2009, when the cable was written, fully 96 percent of the
container traffic through Baku’s sea terminal was NDN-related.

And the cable again presents Azerbaijan as a willing partner behind the
scenes, but unwilling to make its desire for a closer alliance public.

Baku would also be very sensitive to pressure from Russia and Iran
if it consented to lethal transit within the NDN framework. The
Azerbaijanis’ reaction when the idea of NATO AWACS overflight was
floated in Brussels in late August 2009, as well as the skittishness
of the Foreign Ministry in April 2009 over approval of the REGIONAL
RESPONSE 09 military exercise, and the ongoing example of the MFA’s
stubborn resistance to a train-and-equip program linked to an expanded
deployment all suggest that Azerbaijan’s enthusiasm for overt signs
of increasing closeness to the United States is waning.

Yet, the cables from Baku frequently describe Baku’s repeated attempts
to get arms provisions from the U.S. It doesn’t get too much more
“overt,” to use the U.S. Embassy’s word, than weapons sales. Why
aren’t they afraid of Iran and Russia’s reaction if they were to buy
American weapons? It seems like they profess to be worried about that
reaction when the U.S. wants something from them, but when they want
something from the U.S., it’s not such a big deal.

IF TURKEY WANTS ISRAEL’S APOLOGY IT SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE FIRST

HULIQ.com

Sept 5 2011

Some say Turkish neo-ottoman appetite is growing and as Turkey
wants Israel to apologize for the flotilla incident, it should first
apologize to Armenia for the Armenian genocide by looking back to
its own history.

The subject was thrown into sharp relief this weekend when Turkey
sent Israel’s ambassador home after the Israelis refused to issue an
apology for killing nine Turkish nationals while enforcing a naval
blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza.

Turkey took the action after a United Nations panel found that Israel
had used excessive force in stopping a flotilla of Hamas sympathizers
launched from Turkey from reaching Gaza. The same panel, however,
also found that Israel was within its rights to impose and enforce
the blockade, and the Israeli government has used this finding to
reject Turkey’s call for an apology.

Turkey’s temper tantrum in response is somewhat ironic in light
of a similar request that has been waiting in its inbox for several
decades. That one, from Armenia, calls on Turkey to express regret for
the extermination of more than a million Armenians during the First
World War years, an act many regard as the first modern genocide but
which Turkey refuses to acknowledge as such.

As the Turkish and Armenian governments have been engaged in a delicate
diplomatic dance aimed at producing a mutually satisfying answer to
that request, and as the Turks have done nothing further recently to
upset the Armenians, there have been no displays of official ire from
Yerevan over the lack of response to that request.

In contrast, Turkey allowed the flotilla to set sail from its
territory, an action the Israelis could have interpreted as a
deliberate provocation on the Turkish government’s part.

Israel, however, counts Turkey as one of its few friends in the
Islamic world, and as such, has avoided any actions that might annoy
the Turks. That includes speaking up about the Armenian genocide, an
issue that one might expect the Israelis to be especially sympathetic.

The German government has issued a formal apology to Israel for the
Holocaust as well as paid reparations to Israel and the descendants
of those who perished in the systematic German extermination of Jews.

One of the reasons Turkey refuses to issue an apology for the Armenian
genocide is because the events occurred under a regime and in a country
that no longer exists. Yet the same could be said about the regime
that carried out the Holocaust. And with Turkey’s current government,
led by an Islamist party, moving to assert itself more as a regional
power, some of its traditional rivals are expressing fears that it
may have Ottoman ambitions.

All of this suggests that the Turkish government might want to rethink
its actrions in the wake of Israels refusal to apologize for the
flotilla intervention. Or maybe work on one of its own.

TURKISH HEALTH MINISTRY SAYS EVERY 5TH IN TURKEY SUFFERS INSANITY

AZG DAILY
06-09-2011

According to Turkish paper “Radikal”, Turkish Ministry of Healthcare
has released the psychological map of country’s population, which says
every 5th citizen in the country has certain psychological problems.

According to official data 18% of Turkish population suffers certain
psychological problems, while 11% of children and young population
have health problems.

Only one out of six who suffers mental disease applies to the doctor.

It’s said that insanity comes second after heart diseases, Panorama
reports.

WIKILEAKS DUBS HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN AS TIGRAN SARGSYAN’S MAIN RIVAL

PanARMENIAN.Net
September 5, 2011 – 18:08 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – WikiLeaks whistle blowing website has released
another stack of cables classified by deputy head of U.S. diplomatic
mission in Armenia Joseph Pennington after meeting with Armenian
Parliament Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan.

The meeting described focused on Armenia’s foreign policy and internal
reforms. According to Pennington, Abrahamyan called Prime Minister
Tigran Sargsyan, viewed as a reformer in Armenia, “a person whose
words don’t match his actions”.

As Pennington noted, in a conversation with Sargsyan, Abrahamyan
failed to get a clear response as to the means necessary to fight
corruption and oligopoly.

According to Pennington, without any noticeable sense of irony,
he went on to ridicule the PM’s asset declaration draft law that
would require 500 senior public officials to come clean about their
holdings and business interests.

In his comments Pennington stressed Abrahamyan is widely considered
one of Sargsyan’s most formidable rivals, and someone who is carefully
building up his own power base.

“With detainees or the NGO law, for example, Abrahamyan
likely concluded there was decent upside and limited cost to
at least presenting himself as an advocate for inclusiveness and
reconciliation. But where a reform agenda collides with his personal
or political interests, as with a draft law requiring him to reveal
his considerable business holdings, he reverts to what most suspect
is his true, thuggish form,” he said, according to cables released.

HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN COULD BECOME POTENTIAL THREAT TO SARGSYAN’S RULE: US AMBASSADOR

epress.am
09.05.2011 09:30

On Oct. 9, 2008, then US Ambassador to Armenia Marie L. Yovanovitch
met with National Assembly Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan (pictured). In
this, their first official meeting, the then new parliamentary
speaker “blasted” the opposition for “blackening” the image of
Armenia, asking the US ambassador to use US influence to moderate
the Levon Ter-Petrossin (LTP)-led opposition movement, according to
a confidential Oct. 29, 2008 cable recently published by WikiLeaks.

Abrahamyan appealed to the Ambassador for the Embassy to stop providing
the opposition with support. “The Speaker said such support was
‘harming our country,’ and that the opposition would be better off
devoting itself to preparing for the next parliamentary elections in
three years’ time. (COMMENT: In fact, we provide no support to the
opposition of any kind, although our frequent advocacy of political
freedoms and human rights can be misunderstood by the likes of
Abrahamyan as pro-LTP.)”

During the meeting, Abrahamyan played down the relevancy of the
opposition, saying that “‘their numbers are decreasing because they
have nothing to tell the public.’ Abrahamyan also pointed to the
resounding loss of LTP ally Ararat Zurabyan in the Sept. 28 election
for the post of Yerevan central district prefect as further evidence
of the lack of public confidence in the opposition. (COMMENT: Local
and international observers, including our own from the Embassy,
reported widespread irregularities in the conduct of the vote as
well as the vote count. However, Abrahamyan has a point about LTP’s
decreasing public support and lack of a compelling message.)”

Yovanovitch writes that in reference to the Mar. 1-2 post-election
unrest, Abrahamyan “said the authorities are not scared of the
opposition, but do fear provocations that seek to frame the authorities
for violence initiated by the opposition. Abrahamyan complained that
he has not heard ‘any constructive statements’ from the opposition
on the issues of reform currently underway in Armenia.

He declared that every country needs a constructive opposition,
‘not enemies’.

“In response, the Ambassador enumerated the continuing concerns of
the US government: that the conduct of the presidential election was
significantly flawed; that some of those detained during the Mar. 1
unrest appeared to have been arrested because of their political
activities; that there appeared to be a denial of fair, speedy justice
in many of the ongoing trials of those detained; that the electronic
media was being unfairly manipulated by the authorities so as to give
a one-sided picture of the situation; and that the political rights of
citizens to associate and assemble continued to be severely curtailed.

The Ambassador urged the government to resolve all these issues
and ‘turn the page’ on such an unfortunate chapter in Armenia’s
post-independence history.”

Abrahamyan admitted violations in the presidential election, but not
enough to influence the outcome, reads the cable.

“Abrahamyan also defended the banning of opposition rallies on various
grounds. He first argued that ‘we have not denied, but proposed new
venues’ to the opposition when their requests have come in. (COMMENT:
The alternative venues offered by the authorities are comparable to
denying protesters in Washington access to the Mall and offering them
instead the parking lot of RFK stadium.) The Ambassador objected
to the Speaker’s rationale for banning the opposition’s rallies,
and noted that in the 90 rally requests submitted since Mar., only
two were permitted for the originally requested venue. She reiterated
that by continually depriving the opposition their right to be heard,
the authorities only aggravated the situation.”

The National Assembly speaker said, however, he was prepared to
open the parliamentary platform to “all political forces, people and
the public” to allow open discussions to take place, as long as the
discussions are based on objective, reasonable criticism. Abrahamyan
said that ‘we are ready to listen to their critiques,’ and that the
Ambassador will see in practice that ‘we are inclined to a constructive
approach,’ and that ‘we are democratic people’.”

The parties also discussed the Millennium Challenge Program (MCC),
with the parliamentary speaker urging the Ambassador to end its limited
funding suspension. “Abrahamyan said he hoped the Ambassador could
‘intervene to undo its delay.’ When told by the Ambassador that the
program was delayed because of its failing eligibility indicators,
the Speaker feigned surprise and said it was ‘news to me’.”

Yovanovitch informed Abrahamyan that “until Armenia substantively
addressed the fallout from the flawed presidential election and the
post-election violence, as well as its failing indicators, the future
of MCC would be in question. The Ambassador reiterated that it would
help if the authorities did three things: adjudicate in a transparent,
fair manner all of the cases of those detained in relation to the
election; allow people to demonstrate legally who want to; and allow
the media to work and report more freely.”

In the commentary which concludes the cable, the US ambassador writes,
“Abrahamyan typifies the type of Republican politician that makes up a
large chunk of the parliament and of the ruling party establishment:
politico-oligarchs who use political power to advance their business
interests and vice versa. Such figures brought Sargsyan to power, but
also could become a potential threat to Sargsyan’s rule if he moves
overtly against their interests. Over time, Abrahamyan’s political fate
may be a bellwether of reform prospects during President Sargsyan’s
Administration. At the moment, it is not clear to us whether he won his
current position because he enjoys Sargsyan’s trust and confidence,
or conversely whether he wrested the job from Sargsyan unwillingly,
and Sargsyan did not feel secure enough in his position to refuse.”