GRAND PRIX TOURNAMENT: ARONIAN TO BE DEFEATED
Panorama.am
10:32 18/04/2009
After the third round of Grand Prix tournament Levon Aronian who played
with the black figures have been defeated by Sergey Kariakin. It was
obvious Aronian did not use his best possibilities. Sergey Kariakin
prepared well to meet his famous rival, but it seemed that Aronian
underestimated him. Currently they both Aronian and Kariakin have
two points.
"BARCAMP YEREVAN 2009" TO BE HELD APRIL 18-19 IN YEREVAN
ArmenPress
April 17 2009
Armenia
"BarCamp Yerevan 2009" will be held April 18-19 in the capital. It
will gather the specialists of information technologies and the new
media sphere, internet users, bloggers, representatives of companies
dealing with internet and digital technologies, journalists and all
those who use new technologies and the net in their works.
Head of the initiative group Gegham Vardanian told Armenpress that the
event aims at giving the people involved in the sphere an opportunity
to communicate with each other, implement an exchange of experience
and make new initiatives, suggestions.
According to G. Vardanian, 200-300 people mainly from Armenia, Ukraine,
Russia, Georgia and USA are intended to take part in the "BarCamp".
"BarCamp" are called the events on IT, net and new medias which are
held in a non-formal atmosphere, which ensures open discussions
and free exchange of thoughts. During the "BarCamp" there are no
specially invited speakers: participants read reports and organize
discussions. Compared with the traditional conference, here the
agenda is formed by the participants and gets a final shape only
after opening of the event.
The "BarCamp" is entirely a new format of organization of events:
it was first implemented in 2005 in the USA California state after
which it was widely spread in the whole world.
In the former Soviet space the first "BarCamp" was organized in Kiev in
October 2007. More than 300 people from Ukraine, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan,
Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Poland and other states took part in it.
"BarCamp Kiev" was followed by "BarCamp Baltic’s" in Riga in February
2008, then came "BarCamp Caucasus" in Tbilisi in June.
MEGHRI HYDRO POWER PLANT TO BE BUILT BY IRANIAN COMPANIES
/ARKA/
April 17, 2009
YEREVAN
Meghri hydro power plant will be built by Iranian companies, Armenian
Minister of Energy and Natural resources Armen Movsisyan said as
quoted by Armenian TV channels.
The Minister summarized the results of the visit of Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan to Iran at a press conference.
The Minister reported that, according to an agreement reached, Meghri
hydro power plant will be built by Iranian companies. The investments
will be then made up for in a form of electricity, he said.
Another agreement reached envisages maximal use of Armenian labor force
in implementing the investment projects and use of Armenia’s potential
in construction of infrastructures, including Iran-Armenia railroad.
On March 19, 2007, Armenia and Iran signed an agreement on construction
of two hydro power plants on borderline Araks River. The capacity of
each of the plants is to be 140megawatt.
Construction of Meghri hydro power plant is to cost about $240mln.
RUSSIA HOPES TO SEE MAXIMUM PROGRESS SIN THE KARABAKH SETTLEMENT
armradio.am
17.04.2009 18:10
Russia would like to achieve maximum progress in the negotiations on
the Nagorno-Karabakh resolution, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
said, the RIA Novosti reported.
"I think the regular meetings between the Presidents of Azerbaijan and
Armenia are very important. Russia is ready to fulfill its mandate. We
have always tried to contribute to the process. I’m sure that the
problem can be solved on the basis of interests of both nations and
new proposals if such contacts continue, Medvedev said to journalists
after the talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on April
17. Medvedev did not rule out "new ideas" might appear.
"It is necessary to act within the framework of law, but not be
close to new approaches, which might infuse a fresh spirit into the
situation, thus enabling to consolidate positions. I believe it is
possible," he said.
Medvedev stressed that the Russian Federation would do its utmost to
resolve the complicated, but solvable problem.
According to the Russian President, the sides hear each other’s
arguments.
"There are prospects, and one needs to rely on principles of
international law and resolutions adopted by the UN and the OSCE. I
think there is progress. Now the sides must show restraint and see
the prospects," Medvedev said.
RA PRESIDENT RECEIVES RF AND TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTERS
NOYAN TAPAN
APRIL 16, 2009
YEREVAN
On April 16, RA President Serzh Sargsyan received RF Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov, who had arrived in Yerevan to take part in the 20th
meeting of BSEC member-countries’ Foreign Ministers’ Council.
S. Sargsyan and S. Lavrov discussed issues regarding Armenian-Russian
strategic allied relations, as well as RA President’s forthcoming
working visit to RF. Regional and international issues of bilateral
interest were also touched upon at the meeting.
According to RA President’s Press Office, the same day S. Sargsyan
received Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, who is also in
Yerevan to take part in the meeting of BSEC member-countries’ Foreign
Ministers’ Council.
Issues regarding normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations were
discussed during the meeting.
RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and Turkish Deputy Foreign
Minister Ertugrul Apakan also took part in the meeting.
SEN AREVSHATIAN: WE CAN IMPROVE ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS BUT NOT AT EXPENSE OF NATIONAL INTERESTS
YEREVAN
APRIL 16, 2009
NOYAN TAPAN
Lie and falsehood have taken roots in the new generation in Turkey,
and it does not permit the Turks to realize the terrible sin of their
grandfathers. Sen Arevshatian, a philosopher-historian, academician
of the RA National Academy of Sciences, said in his interview to the
Ararat Strategic Center. According to center’s information, since 2007
December a film is being shown at Turkey’s schools on the initiative
of the Turkish Ministry of Education, which is about how allegedly
the Armenians slaughtered the Turkish people. 600 thousand disks of
the film were distributed to schools, and already 12 million pupils
have seen it, including pupils of primary classes.
According to Sen Arevshatian, official Yerevan says nothing about this
measure because of its inability to fight the falsehood. He considers
that the Armenian authorities should introduce an official protest
to Turkish government and international instances.
According to the academician, we can improve the Armenian-Turkish
relations in a well-considered way, not at the expense of national
interests. He considers inadmissible and dangerous Turkey’s
participation in the construction of a new Armenian nuclear power
plant. In S. Arevshatian’s words, it will give nothing to Armenia
except damaging its national security.
s/guest_contributors/article6094144.ece
>From The (London) Times
April 15, 2009
A promise of peace in the shadow of Ararat
At last the Turkey-Armenia border may finally be opened. But the move
will stir up deep and long-held regional feelings
Michael Binyon
Y ears ago Andrei Gromyko, the veteran Soviet Foreign Minister, was
once buttonholed by his irate Turkish counterpart. `Why do you show
Mount Ararat, which lies in Turkey, on the flag of Soviet Armenia? Do
you lay claim to our territory?’ `No,’ replied Gromyko. `Why do you
have a crescent on your flag? Do you lay claim to the Moon?’
Armenia is now free of Soviet control. But the Turkish-Armenian
border, sealed during the Cold War years when it marked the tense
boundary between Nato and the Soviet Union, remains closed. And though
Armenians gaze across at Ararat’s elusive peak, they still cannot
cross over into the lost provinces of their historic homeland that lie
in northeast Turkey.
Something, however, may at last be moving. Ali Babacan, Turkey’s
Foreign Minister, will visit Yerevan today for a meeting of the Black
Sea Economic Cooperation Council, an 11-nation regional grouping set
up in 1992. But the real issue for him and for his Armenian hosts is
the border. Can both countries set aside their historic animosities
and suspicions and dismantle the last Cold War barbed-wire barricades?
Barack Obama hopes so. Indeed, in Istanbul last week he challenged his
Turkish hosts to `move forward’ and establish, for the first time,
diplomatic ties with their Armenian neighbours. Much more than just
the border is at stake. A reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia
would help to ease more than 90 years of bitterness dating back to the
Ottoman massacres of Armenians between 1915 and 1917, which still cast
a long shadow over the politics of the Caucasus and the West’s
attitudes to Turkey.
Background
An open border would not only bring huge economic benefits to both
sides: it could also help to thaw one of the last `frozen conflicts’
in Europe’s backyard, the military stand-off between Armenia and
Azerbaijan over control of the ethnically Armenian enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
It could also help Russia to regain its balance within the turbulent
Caucasus and Turkey to extend its reach to its cultural Central Asian
hinterland. And it could remove some of the taboos from today’s
Turkish politics, where any mention of the Ottoman killings of up to
1.5 million Armenians produces a venomous nationalist reaction.
The issues are all interlinked, and, bedevilled by emotion, are
exceptionally difficult to resolve. At the heart of the stalemate lie
the fears and political isolation of Armenia, a tiny country of less
than three million people, that has historically been at the mercy of
its powerful neighbours. Armenia, the first nation to adopt
Christianity, lies on the front line of Islam, and has always looked
to Russia for protection from Turkey and its Muslim Azeri neighbours.
It is a role that Moscow has embraced eagerly, and one that has
underpinned Russia’s military confrontation with Turkey, which for
centuries has shaped the history of both countries.
But the forcible incorporation of Armenia into the Soviet Union in
1922 changed the relationship. There is lingering resentment in
Yerevan of Moscow, especially after the postSoviet economic collapse
when Russia put pressure on Armenia by cutting fuel supplies. The
impoverished nation shivered through several winters. Armenia hoped to
open up to the south. But although the border with Turkey was briefly
opened, it was closed swiftly in 1993 after Armenia invaded Azerbaijan
to establish a corridor to the besieged Nagorno-Karabakh, and Turkey
sided with Muslim Azeris.
Turkish support is vital to Azeri hopes of regaining control of its
enclave. Azerbaijan has therefore reacted ferociously to hints of a
Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. It has suggested that it would use its
oil muscle and interrupt supplies through the vital pipeline from Baku
to southern Turkey unless Armenia made concessions.
The threat seems to have rattled Ankara. Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Turkey’s Prime Minister, poured cold water yesterday on suggestions
from Armenia that the border could be opened in time for the World Cup
qualifying tie in October. President Sarksyan said he hoped he would
be able to cross the border into Turkey to watch the football game.
Not until Nagorno-Karabakh is settled, Mr Erdogan retorted.
The Islamist Prime Minister cannot be seen to abandon his Muslim
neighbour. But Turkey has also long harboured hopes that it could
spread its influence far beyond Azerbaijan into former Soviet Central
Asia, which is Turkic-speaking and desperately in need of some Western
knowhow and investment. These hopes came to little in the early 90s.
Now they are being revived. Ankara can ill afford to upset the Azeris.
Reconciliation with Armenia, however, and an end to the Caucasus
stalemate could benefit everyone. It would confirm the status of
Turkey as the superpower within the Black Sea council. Turkey may look
to the EU as a supplicant, but to its neighbours it looks an economic
giant.
Armenia, blocked to the north by the instability in Georgia and
fearful of being too dependent on Russia, would have an alternative
outlet to the world through Turkey. And economic cooperation could
soothe historic hatreds.
For Russia, there would also be gains. Paradoxically, the Russians
have never had better relations with Turkey than now, largely because
of the huge volume of trade, the massive flow of Russian tourists and
the reduced threat from a Nato member on Russia’s borders. But these
smooth relations are fragile.
Historic competition for influence and for the region’s energy
resources could flare up again. Russian actions in Georgia raised
hackles in Turkey. Moscow needs a settlement to ensure that there is
no new `South Ossetia’ in the offing – and that the Nagorno-Karabakh
dispute does not turn violent again, leaving Moscow and Ankara on
opposite sides.
Mount Ararat is a peak of startling beauty, especially in the morning
sun. The reputed resting place of the Ark and revered by so many in
the region, it has become a symbol of division. An open border would
allow all to approach its heights.
TURKISH-ARMENIAN DIALOGUE ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE
By: Emil Danielyan
Jamestown Foundation
he=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34855&tx_ttnew s%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=c1620bcf97
April 14 2009
The nearly year-long negotiations between Armenia and Turkey look set
to prove fruitless after Ankara has revived its long-standing linkage
between the normalization of bilateral ties and a resolution of the
Karabakh conflict. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
repeatedly made clear this month that his government will not establish
diplomatic relations with Yerevan and re-open the Turkish-Armenian
border without Azerbaijan’s consent. In Armenia and especially
amongst its worldwide diaspora, meanwhile, there are growing calls
for President Serzh Sarkisian to abandon the Western-backed talks.
The success of those talks seemed a foregone conclusion in the weeks
leading up to President Barack Obama’s visit on April 6-7. According
to reports in both the Turkish and Western media, Armenia and Turkey
have finalized an agreement on gradually normalizing their strained
relations and setting up inter-governmental commissions dealing with
various issues of mutual interest. Some of those reports quoted unnamed
Turkish officials as saying that the agreement could be signed during
or shortly after Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s trip
to Istanbul on April 6. The resulting outcry in Azerbaijan (EDM,
April 10) suggested that Ankara and Yerevan were indeed very close
to cutting a far-reaching deal.
Erdogan called into question the possibility of such a deal when
he told a news conference in London on April 3 that Turkey cannot
reach a "healthy solution concerning Armenia" as long as the Karabakh
dispute remains unresolved (Today’s Zaman, April 4). He reaffirmed
the linkage on April 8, two days after Obama stated in Ankara that
the Turkish-Armenian negotiations were "moving forward and could
bear fruit very quickly, very soon." The Turkish premier went as
far as demanding that the U.N. Security Council denounce Armenia
as an "occupier" and called for Karabakh’s return under Azeri rule
(Hurriyet Daily News, April 9).
Any doubts about the practical implications of these statements
were dispelled by Erdogan during his holiday in southern Turkey on
April 10: "We will not sign a final deal with Armenia unless there
is agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Karabakh," he told
journalists (Anatolia news agency, April 10). In an interview with
the Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo published the following day, the
deputy chairman of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, Haluk
Ipek, said the Turkish-Armenian border will remain closed for at
least ten more years. Ipek dismissed speculation over its impending
re-opening as "dishonest" Armenian propaganda aimed at driving a
wedge between the two Turkic nations. Turkey’s more dovish President
Abdullah Gul likewise underscored the importance of Karabakh’s peace
when he commented on Turkish-Armenian reconciliation in an interview
with The Financial Times on April 8.
That the Turkish-Armenian dialogue is reaching an impasse was
effectively acknowledged by Sarkisian at an April 10 news conference:
"Is it possible that we were mistaken in our calculations and
that the Turks will now adopt a different position and try to set
preconditions? Of course it is possible," he said (Armenian Public
Television, April 10). The Armenian leader insisted that Karabakh
has not been on the agenda of that dialogue. Indeed, Ankara was
clearly ready to stop linking Turkish-Armenian relations with a
Karabakh settlement acceptable to Baku when it embarked on a dramatic
rapprochement with Yerevan last summer. The two countries’ foreign
ministers would have hardly held numerous face-to-face meetings since
if it was not.
For his part, Sarkisian signaled his acceptance, in principle,
of a Turkish proposal to form a joint commission of historians
tasked with examining the 1915-1918 mass killings of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. One of the Turkish-Armenian commissions which the
governments reportedly agreed to form would conduct such a study. The
idea was floated by Erdogan in 2005 and rejected by then Armenian
President Robert Kocharian as a Turkish ploy designed to scuttle
greater international recognition of what many historians consider
the first genocide of the twentieth century. Turkish leaders have made
no secret of using the fence-mending negotiations with the Sarkisian
administration to discourage Obama from making good on his election
campaign promise to describe the slaughter of more than one million
Ottoman Armenians as genocide.
The almost certain collapse of the talks has left Armenian politicians
and pundits questioning the wisdom of further Armenian overtures to the
Turks. "If Turkey suddenly succumbs to Azerbaijan’s threats and these
negotiations yield no results soon, then I think the Armenian side
will not carry on with them," said Giro Manoyan, a senior member of the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation, a nationalist party represented in
Sarkisian’s coalition government (Hayots Ashkhar, April 10). Former
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian likewise advocated, in an April
7 interview with RFE/RL, Yerevan’s pullout from the reconciliation
process if the sixteen year Turkish blockade of Armenia is not lifted.
Such views are indicative of the dominant mood in the Armenian
diaspora and, in particular, the influential Armenian community
within the United States. Harut Sassounian, a prominent community
activist and commentator, criticized Armenia’s policy on Turkey,
effectively blaming it for Obama’s failure to publicly use the word
"genocide" during his visit to Turkey. "In view of these developments,
it is imperative that the Armenian government terminates at once all
negotiations with the Turkish leaders in order to limit the damage
caused by the continued exploitation of the illusion of productive
negotiations," Sassounian wrote in an April 9 editorial by his Los
Angeles-based newspaper California Courier.
Sarkisian insisted on April 10 that the dialogue with Turkey can
be deemed beneficial for the Armenian side even if it produces no
tangible results. He said Armenia will "emerge from this process
stronger" in any case because the international community will have no
doubts that "we are really ready to establish relations [with Turkey]
without preconditions."
GEORGIA OUTRAGED BY SAAKASHVILI’S REMARK ON ARMENIA
PanARMENIAN.Net
13.04.2009 17:57 GMT+04:00
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s recent remark on Armenia
is outrageous and thoughtless, Development and Collaboration Center
Projects Manager Paata Zakareishvili told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.
"A high ranking official must now permit himself to make such
statements, and especially about his neighboring country. The statement
outraged many in Georgia," the expert said.
"The step is president’s attempt to distract Georgian people’s
attention from existing issues and prove that the neighboring country
is in a worse state than Georgia."
"If I compromised with Russia, we’d lose all our democratic values,
like Kirgizia did, or be as poor as Armenia, with economy fully
dependent on Russia," Newsweek cited Saakashvili as saying.
New Issue of `Armenian Review’ Published, Two Others Forthcoming
rmenian-review-published-two-others-forthcoming/?e c3_listing=posts
By Weekly Staff – on April 11, 2009
WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.) – The fall-winter 2008 issue of `The Armenian
Review’ was released earlier this month. Titled `Armenians and
Progressive Politics,’ the issue presents Armenia and Armenians within
the larger context of progressive and modern socialist politics.
Edited by guest editor Dikran Kaligian, the issue features articles by
Khatchik DerGhougassian, Levon Chorbajian, Ara Khanjian, Razmig
B. Shirinian, Markar Melkonian, Dikran M. Kaligian, as well as several
book reviews.
In September 2008, Asbed Kotchikian, professor at the global studies
department at Bentley University, assumed the editorship of the
journal and, during the last couple of months, the Review has
witnessed restructuring and change, including the revamping of its
website (), the formation of an advisory board,
the appointment of Vartan Matiossian as the book review editor of the
journal, as well as the planning of several events around the upcoming
issues. Kaligian continues as managing editor.
`The revamping of the website has been a priority because it is the
face of the new Review,’ said Kotchikian. `It aims at attracting
researchers and scholars to submit proposals for possible articles and
it will provide a detailed index of past issues.’
Talking about the mission of the Review, Kotchikian highlighted the
journal’s role in Armenian studies circles. He noted that in March,
during the Society of Armenian Studies conference held at UCLA, the
new issue of the Review was presented, and the journal generated a
renewed interest by participating scholars.
After being published relatively irregularly for the past several
years, the new issues promise the regular publication of this
peer-reviewed academic journal, which will be celebrating its 60th
anniversary this year with a special issue looking at the history of
the Review and of other journals dealing with Armenian studies.
Also in the works are issues on the comparative study of reparations
for mass crimes and injustices, and a special issue on civil society
in Armenia, both scheduled for publication in 2009. With these issues,
the journal promises to resume publishing three times a year.
Alongside its regular publications, the Review will organize and
co-sponsor conferences and panel discussions related to its wider area
of interest, which includes socio-political and economic developments,
art and architecture, geography and the politics of the former Soviet
space and the Middle East, the role of ethnography and nationalism in
politics and history, ethnic conflicts, and conflict resolution.
One such event will be held on April 20 at Bentley University. Titled
`Subjects and Citizens: (Un)Even Relations between Turks, Kurds,
Armenians,’ the panel will include scholars Ugur Umit Ungor
(University of Sheffield, UK), Bilgin Ayata (Johns Hopkins), Henry
Theriault (Worcester State College), and Kaligian (Regis
College). Kotchikian will moderate.
First published in 1948 by the Hairenik Association, the Review has
become a forum of intellectual and academic exchange dealing with
issue pertaining – but not limited – to Armenians and Armenia. For
more information, visit or email
[email protected].