Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

Mediamax, Armenia
March 10 2012

The only obstacle rest with Ankara and Baku, Armenian President says

Saturday 10 March 2012 14:17

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan said today that
the only obstacle for the establishment of the relations between
Armenia and Turkey rest with Ankara and Baku.

Serzh Sargsyan said this speaking today at the Republican Party of
Armenia Convention.

`Our initiative on the normalization of the relations between Armenia
and Turkey which from the outset had two ways to progress. It is true
that the initiative didn’t develop in the way desirable for Armenia
and the international community; the Armenian-Turkish border still
remains closed. However, the second way which the initiative went on
was also important, because

First, as recent developments have clearly shown, it has solidified
the process of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide;

Second, the entire world came to see that the only obstacle for the
establishment of the relations between Armenia and Turkey rest with
Ankara and another capital, which acts as a busy-body, but in no way
or shape with Yerevan;

And third, that Turkey was compelled by that initiative to sign an
international document, which rules out any precondition for the
establishment of the relations’, Armenian leader said.

From: Baghdasarian

Facing up to illiberal democracy (and not just in Central Asia)

by Christopher Schwartz on
3/10/2012 · 1 comment

In the last two months, we’ve born witness to more incidents of illiberal
democracy or democracy’s
`doubles’ here
in Central Asia/Eurasia, from Kazakhstan’s parliamentary elections
which many say was an experiment in pseudo-pluralism; to Turkmenistan’s
surreal presidential election that has left those of us on the outside
(and, indeed, many of those on the inside) scratching their heads wondering
what it was all about to begin with; to Russia’s intriguingly complex
and probably historical presidential poll
.
Still to come in the next few years are parliamentary elections in Armenia
and Tajikistan, and presidential elections in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Tajikistan, none of which are expected by Western observers to be free and
fair. The question I hear a lot from non-specialists is: *why are these
societies even bothering with the charade?* At the moment, this is the
shape of my answer:

Central Asian/Eurasian politics can be easily dismissed as tired Sovietisms
re-worked into cynical caricatures of the West. Unfortunately, as I get to
know this part of the world better, I’m increasingly not so convinced that
it’s us Westerners who are being mocked; instead, what’s happening to the
concept of liberal democracy here is actually very much part of a universal
phenomenon. Just ask any civil society activist and they’ll tell you how
`liberal democracy’ can and is frequently bastardized to mean `popular
legitimacy’, and `popular legitimacy’ is, in turn, bastardized to mean
`approval for the regime’s policies’. The uncomfortable reality is that
this as true in the archetypal liberal democracy, the United States of
America, wherein elected officials routinely and conveniently distort
the widespread (albeit diminishing) voter apathy of the
countryto mask the
hijacking of policy-making by special interests, as it is true
in, say, Kazakhstan, whose consistently high voter
turnout(in
comparison to the USA), masks the authoritarian tendencies of the
dominant ruling party (all the more so if the turnout figures prove to be
false). In both cases, what we’re really dealing with is
legitimacy-engineering, intended to buttress a constellation of elites and
their related pet institutions and industries by a transference of moral
authority from the grassroots to the top.

Make no mistake, the target of the legitimacy-engineering is primarily
internal: the grassroots itself (particularly the electorate), as well as
rivals for power (real or perceived). The electorate, thanks to a terrible
education and media system, simply don’t know any better; the rivals,
having achieved a position of relative elitism to have access to more
information, *do* know better but catch the hint and respond accordingly
(i.e., silence and subterfuge). Insofar that the legitimacy-engineering has
an external orientation, this is a secondary, although not unimportant
goal, namely, to deflect criticism via the logic of national
self-determination. Indeed, democratic elections can accomplish what divine
right of kings or Marxist dialectical materialism never could, namely, to
give the impression of collective agreement with respect to a regime’s
choices. And yes, in all of this I am talking as much about my homeland as
I am about the Central Asian/Eurasian states (I am probably sounding like a
very bitter expatriate right now). The benefactor of the
legitimacy-engineering is not as clear in the American context as in the
Central Asian/Eurasian one, but in both cases, it’s really a system that’s
receiving the moral authority, not just the man on top.

Yet, speaking of the men on top, just as presidents of the United States
can be prone to messianic depictions of themselves – either of the Terror
or Hope variety of eschatology – Central Asian/Eurasian presidents
notoriously have a penchant for the salvific. Besides the late Niyazov,
Karimov spring to mind, and in his own way, Bakiyev had a tinge of the
deliverer to his administration, as well, and Putin and Aliyev frequently
co-opt still-fresh memories of societal turmoil in their favor. Along these
lines, I actually have a begrudging respect for Nazarbayev: his golden
handprint in the Baiterek is actually not so much an expression of
megalomania as it is a statement of fact, namely, that he has left an
indelible mark upon his country, like it or not, for better and for worse.
That’s more than I can say for all the `Change’ that’s happened in
the
United States since 2008 (at least in my cynical moments). But again, in
all cases, the target is internal, the goal still is and always is
legitimacy-engineering. The era of elections setting the course of a nation
rather than approving a pre-set path – if it ever existed – is fast
receding into the past here and in the West.

But then there’s Turkmenistan. I think, unfortunately, *this* country is an
outlier. I’ve got a sinking feeling in my gut that it is increasingly
fruitless to seek any kind of rationality oriented toward the outside world
from the Turkmen president, even vis-à-vis his immediate neighbors, much
less the West. If there is any logic to his behavior, then it’s most likely
in response to internal power dynamics, the nature of which are invisible
to the outside eye (although there are
clues).
But before we start thinking that this is still in keeping with the overall
trends in managed democracy, we should consider the thoughts of my
colleague Annasoltan, who has come to
fearthat
what we’re really looking at in Turkmenistan is the possible mental
deterioration of Berdimuhammedov. The presidential election, then, may have
really been driven by the illogic of ego and insecurity: this time around,
the legitimacy-engineering was directed not at the grassroots, but by the
establishment toward the president himself.

Power-plays and madness are not mutually co-exclusive, of course, and in
fact the latter can sometimes be a pretty good tool in the former, just ask
Caligula. Moreover, determining how much of this exercise in megalomania
was the initiative of Berdimuhammedov and how much of it arose from the
overall regime, and for which purposes, could be enlightening. Until those
facts can come to the light of history, unfortunately, all the rest of us
can do is stand outside Turkmenistan’s parallel universe and wonder about
its strange physics, a political physics in which the logic of liberalism
and democracy are twisted to reduce an entire society into instrumental
extensions of one single ego.

From: Baghdasarian

Statement of the Central Committee of the Social-Democratic Huchakian Party

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

`We learned with satisfaction that the State agency of the Ministry of
Justice, with its February 14 decision has registered the modified
charter of the Party adopted at the 8th Congress of the
Social-Democratic Hunchakian Party (SDHP) and acknowledged the powers
of the new board that was elected during the Congress and is chaired
by comrade Gevorg Perkuperkyan.
The Central Committee of the SDHP welcomes the return of the SDHP
structure in Armenia to the all-Hunchakian family and wishes that
after a two-year interval, the Party will be involved in political
activities with new vigor as it uses its great experience and ideology
for the prosperity of the homeland.
In light of this development, we express our hope that the RA Ministry
of Justice will stay true to its decision and will be consistent in
returning the flag, the coat-of-arms, the stamp, the certificate of
state registration, the archives and the property of the Party to its
rightful owner by the letter and spirit of the corresponding law.’

From: Baghdasarian

`Germans need to know about the Armenian Genocide’

05:29 pm | March 08, 2012 | Social

Doctor at the University of Hamburg Anna Mary Braun and scientific
worker of the Institute of History at the National Academy of Sciences
of Armenia, post-graduate student of the University of Waprtal
Manushak Markosyan presented their studies on the Armenian Genocide at
“Armat” Press Club today.

“It is important that the Germans know about the Armenian Genocide.
Germans don’t talk about it very much. Armenia is surrounded by Muslim
countries, and that is why it needs the support of other countries,”
Braun mentioned.

From: Baghdasarian

Serzh Sargsyan: Artsakh has been and will continue to be Armenian

10.03.2012 15:27

`The process of international recognition and condemnation of the Armenian
Genocide continues thanks to joint efforts of Armenia and Diaspora. We have
a clear-cut message to all states and nations of the world: denial of the
Genocide perpetrated at the beginning of the last century is the direct
continuation of that crime. This crime committed against the Armenian
nation continues even today, right now, it goes on through the denial of
the obvious fact. The Armenian nation and the entire humanity have to bring
to an end that crime that is being perpetrated every day, every moment,
right before our eyes,’ Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan declared at the
13th Congress of the Republican party of Armenia.

`We will not lessen our vigilance in the Nagorno Karabakh peace process.
Artsakh has been and will continue to be Armenian. The Republic of Armenia
has provided and will continue to provide all-inclusive assistance to
Artsakh’s political and economic development. International recognition of
the right of the people of Artsakh to self-determination will be the
foundation for the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh problem. We
will continue our works in the ongoing negotiations aimed at the engagement
of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic as a full-fledged party in these
negotiations. Efforts of Armenia, Artsakh and Diaspora will be aimed at the
adoption in the international organizations of the decisions which preclude
military option for the resolution of the conflict, the President declared.

Touching upon the initiative to normalize the relations with Turkey, the
President stated: `Our initiative didn’t develop in the way desirable for
Armenia and the international community; the Armenian-Turkish border still
remains closed. However, the second way which the initiative went on was
also important, because, first, as recent developments have clearly shown,
it has solidified the process of the international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide. Second, the entire world came to see that the only
obstacle for the establishment of the relations between Armenia and Turkey
rest with Ankara and another capital, which acts as a busy-body, but in no
way or shape with Yerevan. And third, that Turkey was compelled by that
initiative to sign an international document, which rules out any
precondition for the establishment of the relations.’

`This example comes to prove that Armenia’s foreign policy course has been
remarkably principled and calculated. In the future too, we will adhere to
that course. We will fulfill in good faith our alliance commitments and
international obligations, using each opportunity to advance our national
goals through international engagement,’ he added.

`It is quite understandable that in order to thwart hostile encroachments
diplomatic efforts only are not enough. In the process, we have
strengthened our defense capability. We have installed both foreign and
domestically produced armaments and military hardware. Without going into
details, I would like to state that today we have adequate means and power
to deter the potential adversary.

We will continue to bring our defense potential in compliance with the
modern standards of professionalism, discipline, transparency and control.
The Army will become exemplary also for our society. All current tendencies
testify that we will reach these standards shortly,’ the President
continued.

According to the President, `elections are only a means and not an end.’
`We are a nation and we are a state. We have goals. Elections, parliaments
and governments are tools to achieve those goals. We must continue to work
to strengthen Armenia’s standing and prestige in the region and in the
world, must strive to achieve a greater political weight,’ he added.

`Nowadays, a full-fledged propaganda war is being waged against Armenia and
the Armenians dispersed around the globe. That war becomes particularly
vicious when we achieve success in different areas or register developments
in the process of the international recognition and condemnation of the
Armenian Genocide. We don’t conduct any campaign against any country or a
nation but we face waves of hostility. In the contemporary world, only a
democratic Armenia can withstand these waves. Against these waves we must
bring out Armenia’s new image – the image of a more liberal and thus of a
stronger Armenia,’ President Sargsyan said.

From: Baghdasarian

Are There Billionaires in Armenia?

Naira Hayrumyan

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 15:36:58 – 09/03/2012

Forbes published the list of billionaires of 58 countries. There is no
representative of Armenia.

Are there billionaires in Armenia? It is very difficult to answer this
question because no one knows anything about the wealth of the
Armenian tycoons. Robert Kocharyan is rumored to have 4 billion. There
has never been any word on other `billionaires’. The size of Armenia
does not allow for such wealth.

Declarations of income and an open scoring system allows the state to
identify the richest people in the country and accordingly to
calculate their taxes. In addition, a specific amount of possessions
also requires justification, such as how the wealth was acquired and
from where.

There are media tycoons, owners of computer companies, as well as
owners of mines and enterprises of primary processing of raw
materials, as well as owners of trade nets. It is not clear how people
become rich in Armenia.

In Russia where control over material is not transparent enough the
oligarchs are not afraid of declaring their wealth. At least, they do
not deny reports on their income published by international ratings.
In Armenia, rich people are ashamed of their wealth. Even though they
show off their wealth by their life style, sometimes with a very bad
taste, no rich officer or businessman or bureaucrat has ever disclosed
how much money they have.

It has several causes. First, most people avoid taxes, second, the
rating assumes that someone is ahead while others lag behind, and in
Armenia, no one wants anyone to be richer than him. Third, the Soviet
tradition also matters where being rich was a public disgrace.

The rankings of rich people in Armenia, apparently, are disliked by
everyone, even the government. Otherwise, it would have initiated the
process of declaration of income a long time ago, without which the
attempts `to bring major business into taxation’ seem to be a fiction.
No one wants to compare their income. Everyone pays taxes as much as
it was defined in section quotas.

The Arab sheiks and eastern rulers do not compare their wealth either.
They do not have to compete with one another. Competition in general
is not inherent in the East. In this sense, Armenia is an oriental
country where the elite is not accountable to people.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIE-CONSOMMATION
L’Arménie a consommé 181 000 tonnes de viande en 2011
elle a produit 127 000 tonnes et importé 54 000 tonnes

En 2011 l’Arménie a consommé 181 000 tonnes de viande. Lors d’une
conférence de presse à Erévan, Gricha Baghian, le vice-ministre de
l’Agriculture a informé que la production de viande en Arménie avait
atteint l’an dernier 127 000 tonnes. L’Arménie avait alors importé 54
000 tonnes supplémentaires de viande pour faire face à la consommation
intérieure. « Notre production progresse, mais elle ne peut pas
complètement faire face à la consommation du pays » dit G. Baghian.
L’importation porta essentiellement sur la viande de volaille. « Nous
avons fait un effort supplémentaire en direction du contrôle sanitaire
de la viande vendu (…) cette année le gouvernement dépensera 900
millions de drams pour ce contrôle » ajouta G. Baghian.

Krikor Amirzayan

samedi 10 mars 2012,
Krikor Amirzayan ©armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

Sarkozy ‘to bow out’ if unelected

irishtimes.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012, 12:44

French president Nicolas Sarkozy said today he would fight with
everything he has to win a second term but will bow out of politics if
he loses an April-May election.

Mr Sarkozy, who is trailing Socialist challenger Francois Hollande in
opinion polls six weeks before the first round of voting, claimed Mr
Hollande’s lack of ministerial or international experience was a
problem at a time of economic turmoil.

“I worry when I look at the Socialist candidate’s programme… and I
worry about this dearth of experience in such a troubled period. But
if the French people do not put their faith in me, do you really think
I would carry on in politics? The answer is no,” Mr Sarkozy told RMC
radio.

Mr Hollande widened his lead slightly this week, advancing 2 points to
30 per cent support for the April 22 first round, while Mr Sarkozy
gained only 1 point to 28 per cent. The survey, by pollster CSA, saw
Mr Hollande beating Mr Sarkozy by 56 per cent to 44 per cent in the
May 6 run-off.

“I will fight with all my strength to win your confidence, to protect
and lead you and build a strong France, but if that is not your choice
I will bow out, that’s the way it is, and I will have had a great life
in politics,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy said on a three-hour televised debate on Tuesday that he
was not discouraged by his weak poll scores and that one his
characteristics is that he never gives up.

But French media are reporting that his campaign team is starting to
worry that Mr Sarkozy’s efforts to overcome a widespread dislike of
his personal style and anger over three years of economic gloom are
not working.

Campaign spokeswoman Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet – who was lambasted as
out of touch after she was unable to tell a radio presenter the price
of a Paris metro ticket – lamented this week that the race had
descended into distracting polemic.

Presidential spokesman Frank Louvrier has been quoted by the daily Les
Echos as saying that if Mr Sarkozy’s camp did not keep the focus
squarely on debating ideas they were “sure to lose”.

Mr Sarkozy launched his campaign in mid-February, several weeks after
Mr Hollande, and has opted for a strategy of unveiling his ideas –
such as a new minimum tax on company profits, making the unemployed
sign up to training to get their benefits and holding policy
referendums – week by week.

After a strong start that saw him trim the gap with Mr Hollande by a
few points, he suffered setbacks in his second week, including being
jostled by left-wing militants while out on the campaign trail, and
has now lost his initial bounce.

Meanwhile, Mr Hollande has consolidated his lead position after
announcing a surprise 75 per cent tax rate on annual income above 1
million, a move nearly two in three voters support.

On Thursday’s radio show, Sarkozy proposed a new household fund for
women abandoned by fathers of their children, a new renovation
programme for city suburbs and said he would cut the number of
legislators by 10 to 15 per cent to trim public spending.

Mr Sarkozy, whose main focus is on structural reform and tighter
immigration rules, is expected to give his first real campaign
overview at a big campaign rally on Sunday in the Paris suburb of
Villepinte.

From: Baghdasarian

Trend, Azerbaijan
March 7 2012

EU seeks more active role in resolving Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
7 March 2012, 15:24 (GMT+04:00) Azerbaijan, Baku, March 7 / Trend E.
Tariverdiyeva /

Special attention was not paid to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue at a
meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the Visegrad Four (Poland,
the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) and the member-countries of
the EU program in Prague. However, the issue of unresolved conflicts
was discussed, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European
Neighbourhood Policy Stefan Fule said in an interview with radio
station Azatutyun.

“We have generally discussed the issue that the European Union claims
to play a more active role in resolving such conflicts as
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” the Commissioner said. “First and
foremost, of course, this is the promotion of the Eastern Partnership
program. It includes the countries involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. In this respect, it gives an opportunity to find new ways to
enhance cooperation between the two countries and open new doors.”

He said the EU must take steps to strengthen the confidence.

“We have clearly stated that we are ready to become part of a
comprehensive and full solution, whatever it was, of course, on the
basis of the parties’ consent,” Fule said.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 per cent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France and the U.S. – are
currently holding peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
surrounding regions.

From: Baghdasarian

APA, Azerbaijan
March 7 2012

Withdrawal from Eurovision Song Contest 2012 – Armenian propaganda
machine accepts defeat – ANALYSIS

[ 07 Mar 2012 18:16 ]
The step taken by Armenia at the time when the humanitarian dialogue
is brought to the forefront in the peace negotiations shows that
Yerevan’s claims on `necessity of public diplomacy’ were insincere

Baku. Vugar Masimoglu – APA. The step taken by Armenia is not a
surprise for the persons reasonably assessing the processes, the
Public Television of this country has officially announced their
withdrawal from the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. The position of the
European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which first reacted to this
decision, shows that this is not a surprise for the organization. The
Contest Executive Supervisor Jon Ola Sand said: “We are truly
disappointed by the broadcaster’s decision to withdraw from this
year’s Eurovision Song Contest. Despite the efforts of the EBU and the
Host Broadcaster to ensure a smooth participation for the Armenian
delegation in this year’s Contest, circumstances beyond our control
lead to this unfortunate decision.” What are these circumstances? The
problems regarding security? Actually, Jon Ola Sand in his statement
indirectly confirmed that these claims are pretexts. The European
Broadcasting Union is directly responsible for the security of the
delegations participating in the contest, audience, it obtains
official security guarantee from the host country, basing on this
guarantee passes decision to start the organizational activities. It
is up to the EBU to obtain security guarantee, the EBU has obtained
this guarantee from the Azerbaijani government and the statement of
Jon Ola Sand means that the question of security, which Armenia has
been keeping in the focus of attention for a long time, is a pretext,
Armenians indeed have passed a decision not to participate in the
contest because of the circumstances beyond EBU’s control. What are
these circumstances?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to analyze Armenia’s
tactics regarding the participation in this contest. The first
question that arose after Azerbaijan’s representatives won in the
contest was connected with Armenia’s participation. While this was
unimportant for a European not able to assess the existing realities
of the region, it was urgent for the societies of Azerbaijan and
Armenia that are under the conditions of active conflict for 24 years.
Armenia assessed this urgency from the first day, used the tactics of
artificial agiotage around the participation in the contest. The aim
was to cast shadow on the achievements (not the material benefits) of
Azerbaijan as a host country. It is not accidental that for several
months the Armenian propaganda machine has been attempting to
attribute to the security problem its hesitation regarding
participation in Eurovision, it has been claiming that there is no
guarantee for security of the delegation, media representatives,
citizens. But these claims were reduced to zero by the Azerbaijani
government and the European Broadcasting Union, both sides said the
security of all delegations and everyone who will come to Baku to
watch the contest will be fully ensured. After it became known that a
record number of countries will participate in Eurovision 2012, the
security claims of the Armenian propaganda machine failed, though
Armenian Public Television postponed the announcement of the final
decision, in the end they were obliged to say that they would
participate in the contest.

Were the hesitations of Armenia really related to the security
problems? Many representatives of this country participated in the
international events held in Baku in recent years and no problem
occurred on their security. But why do Armenians exaggerate the
security problem? The logical result is the following – the only
significance of participation for Armenia in Eurovision-2012 is the
making anti-Azerbaijan propaganda. The participation of Armenia in the
contest has no meaning because they failed this propaganda now.
Armenians always made propagandas in all contests. Everybody remembers
that the Armenian spectators waved the flag of so-called `Nagorno
Karabakh Republic’, included the elements in their show-programs which
irritated Azerbaijani and Turkish spectators, the keeping by
presenter, who announces the results of the country, the of photo
`Armenian monuments’ in our occupied lands. But it was known that the
Armenians wouldn’t make this propaganda in Baku, because neither
Azerbaijan nor the contest’s organizer European Broadcasting Union
would have allowed it. That’s why it’s obvious that all pretexts for
Armenia, the purpose of which is making anti-Azerbaijan propaganda in
participation in the contest, have exhausted.

On the other side, Armenians can’t digest the dividends that will be
given by this contest to Azerbaijan. Anyhow, Eurovision Song Contest,
which is in the top five in the list of contests having the most
audiences in the world, will play a great role in introduction of
Azerbaijan. According to various calculations, bout 500 mln people
watch semi-final and final stages of Eurovision, it means that one of
14 people in the world will obtain information through video tapes and
show-program about Azerbaijan, nature, rich culture and music of our
country. Eurovision-2012 will bring to naught the groundless
imaginations about our country in the West by Armenian propaganda
machine. Such contests are the irreplaceable tools for forming the
public opinion from the point of view of having the mainstream
audience and the West will know Azerbaijan once again through these
tools. Thus, the successful usage of chance by Azerbaijan from hosting
the Eurovision-2012 also means the first serious defeat of Armenian
propaganda machine and Armenian Diaspora.

On the other side, Armenia’s refusal of participation in
Eurovision-2012 at the time when the humanitarian dialogue is brought
to the forefront in the negotiations on the settlement of Nagorno
Karabakh conflict shows that the claims of Yerevan on `necessity of
public diplomacy’ were insincere. Both countries (i.e. also
Armenia)undertook the commitment on taking mutual steps for formation
of mutual confidence atmosphere in the last negotiations held through
OSCE Minsk Group, the first step in this direction has been already
taken, Azerbaijani and Armenian intellectuals met in Moscow after 4
years and the agreement was achieved for holding such meetings in the
future. Eurovision-2012 platform can be considered as the most
relevant platform for continuing the dialogue, by refusing the
participation in the contest, Armenia showed its `sincerity’ in the
negotiations on the settlement of the conflict.

From: Baghdasarian