Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

RENTAL LODGINGS IN ARMENIA AND GEORGIA ARE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO COLOR

news.am
February 09, 2012 | 15:51

YEREVAN. – Dwellings in Armenia and Georgia can be rented online. And
Ginosi.com has classified these dwellings into four colors.

The “Red List” presents those lodgings whose information is constantly
updated, which have a high-quality service, and which have received
this rating as a result of the patrons’ evaluations.

The “Orange List” comprises those dwellings whose quality is as good
as the “Red-List” lodgings, and which have a great potential to be
included in the “Red List.”

The “Gray List” is composed of those lodgings which do not have clear
information on them, and which do not compete in terms of evaluations
and services.

And the “Black List” includes those dwellings which are not rented
through Ginosi.com, or which have problems in connection with hygiene.

From: Baghdasarian

MEMORIES OF A LOST JERUSALEM

Al Arabiya

Thu Feb 09, 2012 15:25 pm (KSA) 12:25 pm (GMT) Thursday, 09 February 2012

The Graf Zeppelin over Jerusalem, 1931 by Elia Kahvedjian (Elia Photo
Service) inShare.0By Niamh McBurney for Al Arabiya

Some eras remain engraved in memories. But others are fortunate enough
to be documented by the sagacious few. Elia Kahvedjian collected and
took around 3,000 photographs of Jerusalem and surrounding areas in
the early part of the 20th century. Kahvedjian documented Jerusalem
in its final years under the British Mandate, preserving forever
parts of the city that were soon to be destroyed or redeveloped.

Born in Urfa, in southern Turkey, Kahvedjian was a refugee of the
Armenian genocide. Forced on a death march with his mother after his
remaining extended family was murdered by Ottoman troops, the young
Elia, estimated by his family to be around 10 or 11, was sent to an
orphanage in Nazareth run by the American Near East Relief Foundation.

When he told the orphanage he didn’t know his surname, they asked
what his father sold in his shop. “Coffee”, he replied, so he became a
‘Kahvedjian’, from ‘kahve’, the Turkish word for coffee.

At the orphanage he was taught by Garro Boghosian, an amateur
photographer who began paying Kahvedjian to accompany him on his
excursions in order to carry his unwieldy equipment. The young orphan
fell in love with photography, and from Nazareth he was sent to
Jerusalem, to live in another orphanage. There he began working for a
wealthy Christian family, the Hananya brothers, who ran a photography
shop in the center of the city.

Working in the photography shop gave Kahvedjian the opportunity to
further his knowledge in the trade. When the brothers grew older and
wanted to retire, Elia bought the shop from them and continued to
run it. His family have recently found a picture of Elia in a group
portrait of the Jerusalem Order of the Freemasons. They believe his
association with the Freemasons gave him access to contacts within
the British army, which subsequently become pivotal to his survival.

According to his family, a British army officer warned Elia two days
before the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (referred to by Israelis
as the War of Independence) that he should dispose of his belongings
and leave the city. He hid his negatives and photos in a storeroom
in the Armenian Quarter, closed the shop and fled the city.

When he returned, in 1949, he opened the shop in the Christian Quarter
that remains the “Elia Photo Service” to this day. In 1987 Kahvedjian’s
daughter-in-law rediscovered the forgotten glass-plate silver nitrate
negatives when she tidied the storeroom. The family developed a number
of the films, and organized the photos for Elia’s first exhibition,
held in the American Colony Hotel. The exhibition was wildly received,
and the family proceeded to turn the shop into a small photographic
museum. Filled with the black and white photos that span Kahvendjian’s
career, the shop serves tourists keen for images of a time gone by
and residents reminiscing about their earlier lives.

In 1998 the family chose a selection of the photographs to create a
book, “Jerusalem Through My Father’s Eyes.” The book was printed under
the family’s supervision with paper imported especially from France.

The volume was the subject of a very public court case in the Jerusalem
District Court after several shop owners in Jerusalem began selling
unofficial copies it. The family won the case and were awarded
damages. It is still unknown where the forgeries were produced.

Today, Elia’s portrait watches over all those who come to gaze at his
pictures in his family’s small establishment. Antique cameras that
remain in working order hang from the ceiling amongst the black and
white memories of a lost time. According to his family’s estimate,
Elia died at 89, in 1999. But his life, and the life of an older
Jerusalem, live on.

From: Baghdasarian

PARLIAMENTARIANS CONSIDER RENAMING AZERBAIJAN
Lilit Gevorgyan

Global Insight
February 8, 2012

The Azerbaijani Press Agency (APA) reports that at the first plenary
session of parliament, the chairman of the pro-government Azerbaijan
Popular Front Party (BAXCP), Gudrat Hasanguliyev, proposed renaming
the country to the “Republic of Northern Azerbaijan”. His proposal
was backed by Fazail Aghamali, chairman of another parliamentary
pro-government party, Motherland, as well as Gudrat Gasanguliyev,
a parliamentary deputy from the minority Azerbaijan National Unity
Party, and deputies from the ruling Yeni (New) Azerbaijan Party (YAP).

Siyavush Novruzov, the deputy executive secretary of YAP said, “It
is quite a significant issue. The world is full of examples, such as
North Korea, South Korea, Northern and Southern Cyprus.” Gasanguliyev
justified the motion by saying that “two-thirds of Azerbaijani
territories are currently included into the composition of the
modern-day Iran, therefore we need to rename the Republic of
Azerbaijan into the Republic of Northern Azerbaijan.” Some deputies
went further, proposing a referendum on the issue and amending Article
11 of the Azerbaijani Constitution to read that the entity consists
of Northern, Southern and Western Azerbaijan. They did not explain
if Western Azerbaijan would not be included in the current borders
of the Republic. They also suggested considering joining sanctions
against Iran.

Significance:There is a small likelihood that parliament will actually
change the name of the country or indeed hold a referendum. Should
this happen, it will be a direct challenge to Iran’s territorial
integrity and will escalate tensions with Iran even further. The fact
that there is a parliamentary-level debate in Azerbaijan is indicative
of one of the key problems in relations between the two counties.

Azerbaijan is mainly a Shi’a Muslim country but is ethnically of
Turkic extraction, hence its very close relations with mainly Sunni
Turkey. Despite sharing religious similarities with Iran, the two
countries have had strained relations since Azerbaijan gained
independence in 1991, partially because of Baku’s territorial
ambitions. The country was formed at the beginning of the 20th
century and its people gained the name Azerbaijanis at the same time,
losing the previous label of Caucasian Tatars. Azerbaijan is the name
of a region in northern Iran which has around 25 million population
including Turkmens and other ethnic groups, some of whom have affinity
with the modern-day Azerbaijani people, but in limited numbers. For
Iran this is a geographic name which they believe Azerbaijan wants
to exploit for political reasons, depending on the geopolitical
situation. One such situation emerged in the 1940s. Then part of
the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin had planned expansion into Iran and
Soviet troops occupied northern Iran in 1941, going on to create a very
short-lived Soviet republic there. Interestingly, even then the region
was not fully under Soviet Azerbaijani control as it was shared by
Soviet Armenia. The region returned to Iranian control after the war.

The expansionist discourse in Azerbaijani parliament is only likely
to unnerve Tehran.

From: Baghdasarian

DEVELOPMENTS AROUND IRAN
Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan

09.02.2012

Though in prior years, tension around Iran – intensifying and
weakening, was not considered to be unusual, over the recent period
it can be observed that the developments concerning the Southern
neigbour of Armenia has changed their character. They have become
extraordinarily aggressive as compared with the prior years, and this
allows consuming that the situation around Iran is changing.

On the one hand if that aggression is conditioned by the pressure
imposed by the US and its European and Middle East allies, then two
points can be distinguished as the goals of that pressure:

~Uin short-term prospects to compel Iran to make as many concessions
on the crucial regional issues as possible; ~Uin long-term prospects
to weaken the ruling regime in Iran.

Situational observation The session of the EU Foreign Affairs Council
which took place on January 23 in Brussels took a decision to prohibit
all the EU member countries to import oil from Iran.

Let us mention that according to the latest data, Iran sells 2.3
million barrels of oil everyday, 450 thousand barrels of which are
bought by the EU member countries, mainly by Spain, Greece and Italy.

Taking into consideration the fact that the European countries are
going to buy Saudi and Russian oil instead of the Iranian, and on the
other hand the United States are continuing exerting pressure on other
countries which have broad trade and economic relations with Tehran
in order to make them refuse from the Iranian oil and suspend all
the financial operations with the Iranian banks, Tehran may really
face a problem of selling its oil on international market.

It is not a secret that oil is the first income item for the Iranian
regime and on this item the social and economic stability in country
is mainly dependant1. It is not a mere chance that in last December
when the intentions of the EU (to ban import of oil from Iran) has
become public, the Iranian party initiated immensely tough manoeuvres
(Velayat-90) which had lasted for 9 days and covered huge territory –
from the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Arab Sea and Aden Gulf.

During those manoeuvres the first vice-president of Iran Mohamad
Reza Rahimi stated that that if the sanctions concerning the Iranian
oil came into power, the armed forced of the Islamic Republic would
close the Strait of Hormuz through which about 40% of world oil
transportation is taking place2.

It is characteristic that during “Vilayat-90” manoeuvres they practiced
blocking the Strait of Hormuz. During those manoeuvres Iran also
tested new long-range missiles which can strike targets in Israel as
well as deliver strikes on the American military bases in the Middle
East. Further to all the aforementioned the commander of the naval
forces of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution Ali
Fadavi stated that the Iranian navy would arrange new manoeuvres in
February in the district of the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States responded to the steps taken by Iran. At first the
Pentagon stated that the presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf
corresponded to the international laws and Washington did not intend
to withdraw its Navy from the region. Soon, on January 8, it became
clear that in addition to the “John Stannis” aircraft carrier and
other naval vessels accompanying it, the United States brought up
to the Gulf another group of naval vessels leaded by “Carl Winson”
aircraft carrier. Besides, the Pentagon sent from the Pacific Ocean to
the Indian Ocean the third group of war-craft ships leaded by “Abraham
Lincoln” aircraft carrier. France also brought up a group of war-craft
ships leaded by “Charles de Gaulle” aircraft carrier. Several British
naval vessels also were sent to the Gulf.

On January 8 the US Secretary of Defence Leon Paneta made s statement,
mentioning that closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would be taken
by Washington as “crossing red line”. Three days before Paneta’s
statement, the Minister of Defence of Great Britain Philip Hammond
made even tougher statement saying that if Iran closed the Strait of
Hormuz, the United Kingdom would initiate military actions in order
to re-open it. But even more remarkable was the publication in The
New York Times which was later confirmed by the Iranian sources:
according to them the US president Barak Obama sent a letter to the
supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, thus cautioning him
from closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Threats and counterthreats between Washington, its allies and Iran are
nothing new but this time the difference is that they are accompanied
by such a demonstration of the military forces and tough statements
on the highest level. On the other hand the situation is constrained
by the issue which caused that constraint, i.e. the Iranian oil. As
it was mentioned selling oil is of vital importance for the Iranian
regime. They realize it in the United States and European countries
either and the fact that in previous years they did not touch the
Iranian oil was a kind of indicator that the external pressure on Iran
was of situational character. Now the situation is changing and the
decision of the European countries to stop buying oil from Iran means
that the policy of the US and the European powers towards Iran has
changed its character which is the indicator of the situation changing.

Changing of the situation is also proved by the developments round the
nuclear programme of Iran and the aggravation of the Iranian-Israeli
confrontation which can be observed over the recent period.

Against the background of the tension around the Iranian oil and
Strait of Hormuz, on January 8 Tehran stated that the underground
uranium enrichment plant started working near Fordo population centre,
not far from the city of Kum3. The head of the Iranian Nuclear Agency
Fereydun Abasi added that the plant can enrich uranium up to 20%. It
is remarkable that this step by Tehran was condemned not only by the
United States, Great Britain, France and Italy, but also by Russia.

In two days the Israeli mass media wrote, making reference to the
special services of their countries that this year Tehran planned
to blow up at one of its underground objects one kiloton bomb just
like in Northern Korea in 2006. It is remarkable that on the same
day (January 10) The Times published the report recently spread by
Institute for National Security Studies working under the Tel Aviv
University; according to that report in 2012 Israel should be ready
to face nuclear Iran.

Just in several days, on January 18 the former head of the Israeli
intelligence service, Major General Amos Yadlin stated that Iran
possessed all the technologies and materials necessary for the creation
of the weapon and it was just a matter of the political decision.

On the next day the Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated
that Iranian leadership took a decision to create nuclear weapon. The
fact that two days before the statement was made Netanyahu cancelled
Austere Challenge 12 joint American-Israeli manoeuvres, which were
planned on April and which should have been the biggest in the history
deserves special attention. According to both American and Israeli
sources this is the way Tel Aviv wants to express its discontent with
the approach of Washington to the Iranian issue; currently Washington
is against usage of military force against the Islamic Republic. Here
it is important that Tel Aviv resorts to such strict measures from
the point of view of the American-Israeli relations which taking
into consideration the situation around Iran should be the evidence
of super-importance of the issue or of the so-called high stakes.

Conclusions The process is not finished yet and the issue is in what
way the developments will go after the aforementioned decision of
the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the EU.

Of course many things depend on Iran’s response. However any step
taken by any of the parties, in fact, will be of temporal character
as the logic of the developments is not directed to the detente.

On the other hand the developments around Syria are important.

According to many international experts, one of the aims of the
pressure of the US and its allies exerted on Iran is to compel it to
make concessions. The fall of al-Assad’s regime in Syria may seriously
affect Iran’s positions in the region. The pressure on Damascus is
rising and one should wait and see what Tehran will offer to its
Syrian ally.

1 According to the western expert evaluations, today Iran receives
about 2/3 of its national revenue from selling gas.

2 In addition to that statement the Head of the Iranian General
Staff Major General Ataola Selehi and Iran’s Minister of Defence
Ahmad Vahidi stated, correspondingly on January 3 and 4, that the
United States should withdraw its naval forces from the Persian Gulf
as the countries of the region were capable of providing the security
of the Gulf by their own means.

3 In response to the American threats Iran is moving its nuclear
objects underground.

From: Baghdasarian

SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON WATERLINE IN ARMENIA

news.am
February 09, 2012 | 19:00

Hov-Khach company has decided to construct 5 small HPPs on
Yotnaghbyur-Garni waterline in Armenia. The HPPs will be controlled
by an automatic system.

In August, 2011, the Armenian government had postponed payment of
added value tax due to which Hov-Khach company was able to import
turbine-generators.

By the government decision on Thursday the company was granted another
postponement for importing management systems.

From: Baghdasarian

TEL-AVIV MUST RISE ABOVE MONOPOLIZING GENOCIDE
BY ARA KHACHATOURIAN

asbarez
Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman

When Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said “attempts to
turn conflicts and massacres in Africa, Asia and Balkans into another
Holocaust are unacceptable,” and “Since its establishment, Israel has
opposed the application of the term Holocaust to another war or
tragedy,” it revealed an ugly and ignorant reality by which certain
Israeli leaders have been guided.

Having risen from the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel should have been
the first country to properly acknowledge the events of 1915 as
Genocide. However, as Lieberman himself decries that “today historical
incidents have turned into political disputes; that’s why I don’t
consider it right for Israel to address this [the Genocide] issue,”
the Israeli government has made it a policy to ignore the Armenian
Genocide in the face of its regional POLITICAL interests-namely its
unholy alliance with Turkey.

Lieberman’s assertion that Israel has a monopoly on man’s inhumanity
to man disrespects and diminishes the suffering and eventual fate of
the millions genocide victims be they Armenian, Rwandan or Sudanese.

It also goes against all international conventions on prevention of
such acts, to which Israel is a signatory. More important, Lieberman’s
statements can be characterized as denial, which implies complicity in
and the perpetuation of the cycle of Genocide.

In December, an unprecedented discussion took place in the Israeli
Knesset, where leaders from both parties affirmed the need for
Israel’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This coincided-or
prompted-leading Israeli publications and human rights advocates, to
as the director of Jerusalem Institute of Holocaust and Genocide
Israel Charny appropriately said “put an end to this charade and fully
recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

At the same Knesset event Israel’s foreign ministry representatives
maintained the Tel-Aviv’s steadfast denial of the Genocide by saying
“at this time, recognition of this type can have very grave strategic
implications… Our relations with Turkey today are so fragile and so
delicate that there is no place to take them over the red line.” Is
this not politicizing historic events?

This dangerous semantics game only bolsters the likes of Turkey to
continue its policies and further its pre-meditated and planned
campaign of denial that also allows it to wreak havoc on its
minorities today and pursue a policy of stifling those that stand
opposed to its doctrines.

Israel must rise above Lieberman’s skewed beliefs that Israel has
cornered the market on being a victim of a systematic effort to
annihilate an entire race. Such a monopoly does not exist in the world
and the likes of Avigdor Lieberman only incite hatred by making such
statements.

Lieberman should remember that such sense of entitlement breeds
supremacist sentiments, which were the cornerstone of Hitler’s plan
that eventually became known as the Holocaust.

From: Baghdasarian

NEW BOOK PUBLISHED BY THE EUROPE AZERBAIJAN SOCIETY, ENTITLED THE ARMENIAN QUESTION IN THE CAUCASUS: RUSSIAN ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS LAUNCHED IN LONDON

APA

Feb 8 2012
Azerbaijan

Professor Kerim Shukurov: All documents have been systematically
arranged for publication and, to date, we have gained access to
over 10, 000 pages, of which 2000 pages have been published in these
three volumes

Baku – APA. The roots of the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh were outlined in the heart of London on 6 February 6
during the launch of a new book, published by The Europe Azerbaijan
Society (TEAS), entitled The Armenian Question in the Caucasus:
Russian Archive Documents and Publications. The event was attended by
H.E. Fakhraddin Gurbanov, Azerbaijani Ambassador to the UK; H.E. Unal
Cevikoz, Turkish Ambassador to the UK and more than 70 journalists,
historians, students and friends of Azerbaijan.

These three authoritative volumes incorporate facsimile documents
from the Russian State Historical Archive, St. Petersburg, and the
Russian State Military History Archive, Moscow. These invaluable
historical documents, many of which are published for the first time,
chart the systematic migration of Armenians to the Caucasus and their
subsequent protection during the time of the Russian Empire.

During his speech at St. James’s Hotel and Club, Professor Kerim
Shukurov, who spearheaded the research, commented: “This is a key
resource, taken from the Russian archives. All documents have been
systematically arranged for publication and, to date, we have gained
access to over 10, 000 pages, of which 2000 pages have been published
in these three volumes. There is no exact definition of The Armenian
Question, but by collection the material and arranging it correctly,
Azerbaijan can seek to gain understanding of its position. Future
books will cover relations with Georgia and Armenia in the years
beyond 1914.”

He continued: “The Azerbaijani position on the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict is supported by the publication of these books, which prove
that Armenians were systematically relocated to the Caucasus during
the time of the Russian Empire.”

Lord Laird stated: “I recently discovered the South Caucasus area,
which has great future potential, particularly due to its expending
relations with Europe. The Armenian Question does not try to
rewrite history – it is a serious work of archive research. It is
very important to ensure that the Azerbaijani case is understood,
and these books assist with achieving this.”

Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski, Monmouth University, USA, then
contextualized the importance of these books, saying: “These
books contain important, overwhelming details. During the late 19th
century, Azerbaijan’s international position changed, due to the oil
revolution. Baku became a cosmopolitan, urbanized hub of intellectual
development, with a booming economy. It was also the center of the
press in the Turkic world. However, the Armenian aggression of 1905-06
changed this situation, and this is charted in these books.”

From: Baghdasarian

WITH THE VIEW OF ACCELERATING RESOLUTION OF NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT, EUROPEAN UNION MAKES NEW PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHING CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE SIDES

APA
Feb 8 2012
Azerbaijan

Ambassador Roland Kobia: “These ideas are being discussed with
Azerbaijani and Armenian leadership”

Baku. Victoria Dementieva – APA. “The European Union is discussing
with Azerbaijani and Armenian officials new proposals on confidence
building measures aiming to accelerate the resolution of Nagorno
Karabakh conflict”, said Head of EU Delegation to Azerbaijan Roland
Kobia, APA reports. He reminded that EU High Commissioner Catherine
Ashton said in Azerbaijan that the EU would increase its efforts in
the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict: “We support and welcome
the efforts of the Minsk Group, but we want to propose new ideas
for achieving rapid resolution of the conflict, particularly for
establishing confidence between the conflicting parties.”

Kobia said that those ideas were being discussed with Azerbaijani and
Armenia leadership: “Of course we will announce these ideas. But we
intend to discuss it with the sides”.

On February 7, EU Special Representative for South Caucasus and
crisis in Georgia Philippe Lefort met with Azerbaijani President,
Foreign Minister and Justice Minister during his visit to Azerbaijan.

From: Baghdasarian

AZERBAIJANI MOST MILITARIZED COUNTRY IN SOUTH CAUCASUS

The Messenger
Feb 8 2012
Georgia

According to a global military index, Azerbaijan is the 15th most
militarized country in the world, out of 149 ranked countries. The
index is calculated by the Bonn International Centre for Conversion,
which compares military expenditure with GDP, and studies the amount
of heavy weaponry available to a nation’s forces. The most militarized
country in the world, according to 2010 data, is Israel, followed by
Singapore, Syria, and Russia. Georgia places 54th, with Armenia at
24th, Turkey at 26th, and Iran at 32nd.

From: Baghdasarian

AZERI PRESIDENT, US TOP OFFICIAL DISCUSS TIES, KARABAKH SETTLEMENT

Turan news agency
Feb 5 2012
Azerbaijan

Baku, 5 February: [Azerbaijani] President Ilham Aliyev and US Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton have held a meeting on the sidelines of
the Munich Security Conference. The presidential press service has
reported that the sides expressed their satisfaction with the high
level of bilateral ties.

The role Azerbaijan plays in peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan as
part of the anti-terror coalition was praised. The sides exchanged
views on the settlement of Karabakh conflict. Issues related to
democracy, security and regional problems were also discussed,
sources at the [US] Department of State have reported.

[translated from Russian]

From: Baghdasarian