Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

COMMUNIQUÉ DU COMITÉ DE SOUTIEN Ã VARDAN PETROSYAN
Pour la mise en libert̩ de Vardan Petrosyan РVideo/Photos

A l’appel du Comité de soutien à Vardan Petrosyan, ses amis artistes
français se sont rassemblés en grand nombre devant l’Ambassade
d’Arménie ce dimanche 9 novembre pour réclamer sa libération.

Ils ont exprimé Ã travers leur art et avec force conviction leur
indignation face au sort que la justice arménienne réserve à Vardan
Petrosyan.

Ani Hamel-Petrosyan se bat depuis un an pour obtenir la mise en
liberté de Vardan Petrosyan.

***

Me Marie Dosé, avocate française de Vardan Petrosyan, a de nouveau
dénoncé les graves dysfonctionnements de cette procédure judicaire qui
bafoue tant la présomption d’innocence que le droit à un procès
équitable.

« Défendre Vardan Petrosyan c’est finalement osciller entre la colère
froide et l’émotion. Parce que l’émotion de Vardan Petrosyan contamine
l’avocate que je suis, et la colère froide m’envahit à chaque fois que
je rentre dans ce tribunal qui n’en est pas un. La prison dans
laquelle Vardan Petrosyan est incarcéré n’est pas une prison, parce
que ce n’est pas seulement un lieu de privation de liberté, c’est un
lieu où les droits fondamentaux n’existent pas.

Le tribunal dans lequel je suis entrée pour défendre Vardan Petrosyan
n’est pas un tribunal, parce que les droits de la défense sont
bafoués, parce que l’avocat arménien Nikolay qui fait ce qu’il peut
est sans cesse remis à sa place, ou en tout état de cause à une place
qui n’est pas celle de la défense, et parce que finalement se joue ici
un show médiatique, mais pas un jugement.

(…)

Je n’ai jamais connu Vardan libre, je ne l’ai jamais vu chanter, je ne
l’ai jamais vu danser, je ne l’ai jamais vu jouer de la musique, je ne
l’ai jamais vu parler librement de son pays, vous dire à quel point ce
pays est magnifique, mais vous dire aussi à quel point ce pays rate,
insulte presque, sa chance. »

Voir la vidéo du discours de Me Marie Dosé :

***

Thierry Charpiot, membre du comité de soutien à Vardan Petrosyan,
donne lecture de la lettre ouverte à Monsieur Serge Sargsyan,
président de la République d’Arménie, remise à l’Ambassade.

« Il n’y a pas deux mesures à l’injustice, ni à la justice. On est
coupable de faits ou on est innocent. Vardan est innocent. Un peu
de bon sens ne ferait pas de mal à la justice Arménienne qui est en
train de fabriquer une surprenante histoire.

Cette histoire sera un jour relayée dans le monde parce qu’on ne
lchera rien. Vous en faites un martyr, un otage, nous en ferons une
légende. Vos noms, messieurs les bourreaux, vos enfants auront honte
d’avoir à les porter… On ne lchera rien.

Vardan ne mérite pas ce traitement ignoble. Il doit être libéré…

(…)

Nous ne lcherons RIEN. »

Suivre :¨

S’informer :¨

Liens vers les vidéos de la manifestation :

?search_query=%23freevardanpetrosyan

dimanche 16 novembre 2014,
Ara ©armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

Pinar Selek
La Photo du jour

Toujours à la pointe du combat en dépit des charges qui pèsent contre
elle sur une soit-disante bombe posée sur un marché d’Istanbul en
1998, la sociologue, militante antimilitariste féministe et écrivaine
turque, vivant en exil en France, Pinar Selek sera à nouveau jugée le
5 décembre prochain à Istanbul.

Nullement intimidée par la pression judiciaire exercée sur sa personne
en raison de ses idées, Pinar Selek s’affiche et affiche son soutien
inébranlable à la cause arménienne.

dimanche 16 novembre 2014,
Jean Eckian (c)armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

Armenian side must present its stance on helicopter downing to
million-strong audience – Artak Davtyan

13:33 * 16.11.14

Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) parliamentary group member Artak
Davtyan commented on the international reaction to the incident
involving the Nagorno-Karabakh helicopter.

Political figures and journalists have to present the truth to the
world, he said.

“In Western countries, with the freedom of speech and press,
Azerbaijan is able to present its stand. We must do our best to
present our stand to a million-strong audience as well,” Mr Davtyan
said.

With respect to a euronews reports, he said that it reflected the reality.

“It was an unbiased and brief report for European citizens. It was a
report addressed to a particular side,” Mr Davtyan said.

Armenian News – Tert.am

From: Baghdasarian

Monterey County Herald (California)
November 14, 2014 Friday

Stephen Zunes: U.S. still refuses to acknowledge Armenian genocide

By Stephen Zunes Special to The Herald

This coming year marks the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
Do not expect there to be any congressional resolution or presidential
proclamation acknowledging it, however. Indeed, the United States has
never acknowledged there even was an Armenian genocide.

Between 1915 and 1918, under orders from the leadership of the Ottoman
Empire, an estimated 2 million Armenians were forcibly removed from
their homes in a region that had been part of the Armenian nation for
more than 2,500 years. Three-quarters of them died as a result of
execution, starvation and related reasons.

Dozens of other governments including Canada, France, Italy, and
Russia and several UN bodies, as well as 40 U.S. states, have formally
recognized the Armenian genocide. The Obama administration, however,
like every U.S. administration before it, has refused to do so and has
successfully blocked Congress from doing so either.

Congress has previously gone on record condemning former Iranian
president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for refusing to acknowledge the German
genocide of the Jews. Congress appears unwilling, however, to
acknowledge the Ottoman genocide of the Armenians. While awareness of
anti-Semitism is fortunately widespread enough to marginalize those
who refuse to acknowledge the Holocaust, tolerance for anti-Armenian
bigotry appears strong enough that it’s still considered politically
acceptable to deny their genocide of 1.5 million people.

Opponents of the measure argue they’re worried about harming relations
with Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire and an
important U.S. ally. However, the United States has done much greater
harm in its relations with Turkey through policies far more
significant than a symbolic resolution acknowledging a tragic episode
from the early 20th century, such as clandestinely backing an
attempted military coup by right-wing Turkish officers in 2003,
defending Israel’s 2011 attacks on unarmed Turkish ships in the high
seas killing 10 Turkish crewmen, and arming Iranian Kurds with close
ties to Kurdish rebels in Turkey who have been responsible for the
deaths of thousands of Turkish citizens.

Some argue it is pointless for Congress to pass resolutions or the
president to issue proclamations regarding historical events. Yet
there were no such complaints regarding commemorations of the
Holocaust, nor is there normally much opposition to the scores of
other dedicatory resolutions and proclamations regularly coming out of
Washington.

The Obama administration, like administrations before it, simply
refuses to acknowledge that the Armenian genocide even took place. As
recently as the 1980s, the Bulletin of the Department of State claimed
that “because the historical record of the 1915 events in Asia Minor
is ambiguous, the Department of State does not endorse allegations
that the Turkish government committed genocide against the Armenian
people.” Even more recently, Paul Wolfowitz, who served as deputy
secretary of defense to President George W. Bush, stated in 2002 that
“one of the things that impress me about Turkish history is the way
Turkey treats its own minorities.”

Adolf Hitler, responding to concerns about the legacy of his crimes,
once asked, “Who, after all, is today speaking of the destruction of
the Armenians?” The United States is sending a message to future
tyrants that they can commit genocide without acknowledgement by the
world’s most powerful country.

Indeed, refusing to recognize genocide and those responsible for it in
a historical context makes it easier to deny genocide today. In 1994,
President Bill Clinton also refused to use the word “genocide” in the
midst of the Rwandan government’s massacres of over half that
country’s Tutsi population, a decision that contributed to the delay
in deploying international peacekeeping forces until after the
slaughter of 800,000 people.

As a result, U.S. refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide isn’t
simply about whether to commemorate a tragedy that took place nearly a
century ago. It’s about where we stand as a nation in facing up to the
most horrible of crimes. It’s about whether we are willing to stand up
for the truth in the face of lies. It’s about whether we see our
nation as appeasing our strategic allies or upholding our
long-standing principles.

Stephen Zunes is a Santa Cruz resident and a professor of politics and
coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San
Francisco.

From: Baghdasarian

Foreign Policy Journal
Nov 14 2014

States and Security Perceptions: Keeping Azerbaijan at Bay

by Grigor Boyakhchyan | November 14, 2014

The priority that states place on military power stems from the
anarchic structure of the international system, which constantly
shapes the security perceptions of the individual entities operating
within. The anarchic system of international politics obstructs the
existence of an international sovereign above the level of states to
create and enforce international law or resolve disputes that surface
among them. Since there is no single international agency that wields
a legitimate monopoly on the use of force, foreign policy interests
that a state pursues are vitally affected with military power. In an
anarchic environment, force and politics are interrelated, even when
states are at peace.

The anarchic system of the international politics breeds skepticism
regarding the motives and intent of other state units and necessitates
a constant assessment of the dynamism of shifts in power relationships
that, in the aggregate, heighten the central premise of the security
dilemma–the means by which a state attempts to increase its security
decreases the security of others. Because even high levels of military
spending scarcely create feelings of complete security, weighing the
likely consequences of action in specific situations–and prospects of
success or failure in invoking force–sharpen the contours of national
security dilemma. The classical maxim–si vis pacem, para
bellum–appears to show no fading signs.

The structure of the international system is also marred by the
presence of weak and falling states whose outlook on international
politics and the emanating challenges vis-a-vis the preservation of
their statehood constitute the very medium through which their
national security perceptions are informed and shaped, as well as
serve as benchmark against which the future course of their actions is
charted. Weak states continue to generate specific threats, often
beyond the accomplishments of international military intervention, and
serve as a blueprint for perpetual instability.

While there is a general tendency to perceive national security
through the prism of external threats and challenges, for weak states,
however, national security also embraces broader internal dimensions
and domestic implications. Among other reasons, this is largely due to
a lack of sociopolitical cohesiveness and consent in regard to the
nature of the state, as well as the ensuing patterns of political
rivalry and fragmentation that cripple the internal dynamics of weak
states. Because their internal cohesion rests more on power than on
any broad-based political consensus, the primarily external
orientation of the concept of national security increasingly tilts
toward embracing the domestic agenda of threats.

The security dilemma that the states confront is further exacerbated
in terms of the impact of great power politics on local regional
relations. Once the domestic political life of states becomes
intertwined in the rivalries of great powers, the pattern of perpetual
instability becomes even more acute. The effect is one of replicating
a complicated overplay of global patterns of competition and rivalry
on the local setting. As a consequence, weak states are vulnerable to
external powers willing to marshal the right combination of recourses
to affect their foreign policy alternatives and choices.

Both Middle East and South Asia illustrate this process through the
competitive and intricate metrics of great power arms sales that make
the security environment more prone to the use of force. American
prolonged military aid to Israel and Pakistan, for example, serves as
the principle means of entry into the regional politics with the
potential to sway instability and mutate into wider conflicts. So,
too, does the Russian strategic engagement in the already volatile
South Caucasus region through the sales of military hardware and power
projections that have the potential to dramatically affect the
delicate regional balance of power.

Not only is the South Caucasus region inherently conflict-prone, but
it is also extremely vulnerable to changes in the local security
environment resulting from arms trade. As opposed to a race between
arms producers and the ensuing predictability associated with it,
there are fewer limitations placed on the race between non-producers
except the scope of budgetary constraints and the rate of absorption.
As a consequence, races between non-producers are much less stable and
predictable, and can cause large and abrupt changes in the local
balance of power.

However, even a relatively small state operating within strict
budgetary confines can effectively hedge against the action-reaction
driven arms race instigated by the opposing party through a set of
well-elaborated and properly orchestrated peace enforcement
measures–both political and military–that are well adjusted to meet
the prevailing security challenges and are, in the aggregate, geared
toward raising the costs of fighting to an unacceptable level. These
measures should not be confused with conventional peace enforcement
actions taken the world over. Rather, they should be tailored to
enforcing peace and compelling the opponent to rule out war as a
viable option both on the ground and as a coercive strategy at the
table of negotiations.

The advantageous position of the Mountainous Karabakh defense
posturing and the strong fortifications along the line of contact do
not solely mean that a relatively small state can effectively hold off
larger ones. It also means that a status-quo state can often maintain
a high degree of security with a level of arms–as far as the
quantitative balance of power is concerned–lower than that of its
expected adversary. This is not to say, however, that the Mountainous
Karabakh defense forces need not develop robust retaliatory
capabilities to resist aggression, and inflict an intolerable damage
on the enemy. Rather, it is to do away with the simple and mechanistic
thought patterns building on the calculation of Azerbaijani
procurement of armaments per se and its predictive force. Not only
will this help avoid being entrapped in escalatory dynamics and
mutually reinforcing action-reaction driven arms race, but also, this
will help avoid the tendency to treat military power–let alone the
sheer procurement of armaments–as the ultimate measuring rod. This it
is not.

Wars are not instigated by the mere buildup of weapons, however
worrisome that development may be. They are caused when the political
tenets of the war are likely to be satisfied and an aggressor believes
it can achieve objectives at an acceptable cost. In simple terms,
states conduct cost-benefit calculations when deliberating about
whether or not to attempt expansion, and calculations based on the
procurement of armaments per se offer only part of a larger
picture–and an insignificant part that may be.

War is an extremely unpredictable endeavor, fraught with unintended
consequences and costs–both in blood and treasure. It also is an
extremely adversarial activity in which the enemy has a vote. Although
a state might be willing to engage in a lightening war (blitzkrieg)
and plan accordingly, it is hardly likely that the other side would
have sufficient faith to respond in kind. Many of the simplistic
scenarios advanced by military analysts capitalizing on the
preponderance of a lightening war across the Mountainous Karabakh and
Azerbaijani border suffer grave shortcomings. The competing party to
warfare is not an inert and reactive organization and may not work
from the same playbook. Besides, scarcely has there ever been a war
that fulfilled the initial plans and expectations of the party that
initiated it. Ultimately, what the careful analysis of enumerable
prewar strategies suggests is that all war-fighting plans are useless;
it is the process of continuous planning that is essential.

While the purpose of military organizations is to win wars, it is also
to avert wars by being able to change the adversaries’ behavior and
the underlying mentalities prevalent in policy-making, thwart its
military strategy by undercutting its effectiveness and making
aggression difficult, costly, and unattractive. The key is to align
contextual intelligence with tactics and objectives, as well as gain
technological edge over the enemy that would allow conducting
precision strikes against long-range targets. In a region of complex
threats, deterrence and defense, along with the ability to attack
targets from great distances, should be aligned to serve as a potent
hedge against risk and uncertainty.

To ultimately prevail in this contest of wills and strength, there is
a clear need to shift the focus on qualitative attributes of the
balance of power and power projection capabilities through the
acquisition of cutting edge technologies and long range penetrating
capabilities, deterrence and denial strategies that seek to exploit
the adversary’s center of gravity (in case of
authoritarian/dictatorial regimes this entails holding at risk those
value assets of the opponent that bring devastation at home and
possible removal from power). Even dictators tend to put certain vital
interests on top of all else – primarily their survival in power.
Aggression or resort to arms becomes unattractive if the price is too
dear and too high.

Grigor Boyakhchyan holds a Master’s Degree in International Security
Studies (ISS) from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University. He currently serves as Head of Foreign Relations
Department of the Center for Information and Analytical Studies under
the Government of the Republic of Armenia. Prior to service, he taught
a full-time course on International Security Challenges for Master’s
Degree students at Yerevan State University.

From: Baghdasarian

di-ve.com
Nov 15 2014

Armenia Performs at JESC 2014 – Betty “People of the Sun”

Article By:di-ve.com [email protected]

Elizabeth Danielyan, better known as simply Betty, is an Armenian
child singer who will be representing Armenia in the Junior Eurovision
Song Contest 2014 in Malta with her song “People of the Sun”.

Betty speaks fluent Russian and a bit of English as well, along with
her native Armenian.

At the tender age of 11, Betty is a star in her own regard and has
already managed to reach enormous success in her birth country on
television. She is one of the most popular young presenters having
held interviews with not only her peers and contemporaries but also
famous grown-up artists.

Her performance tonight was an excellent one and we hope she enjoyed
it as much as we did.

Good luck to all the young contestants tonight.

From: Baghdasarian

Causes and Consequences of the Helicopter Attack, and Baku’s Motives
for Escalation

Friday, November 14th, 2014

BY ARMEN SAHAKYAN
>From the Armenian Weekly

The continuous state-sponsored terrorism campaign of the Republic of
Azerbaijan against the Republics of Artsakh and Armenia recently
culminated in a shooting of an unarmed helicopter belonging to the Air
Force of the Republic of Artsakh. The helicopter was conducting a
training flight within its sovereign air space. It is intellectually
naive to attribute such aggressive behavior to one factor. Rather,
there is a host of major drivers of Azerbaijan’s adventurism, which
this article will address. They are namely heavy petrol-reliance,
increasing domestic illegitimacy of the governing regime, loss of
international reputation, the ongoing Ukrainian Crisis, the false
parity of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, and the projected perpetual
decline of Azerbaijan’s relative regional power and role.

Major current events have the tendency to be analyzed in isolation
from history and overall trends with an added component of emotions
that further distorts the real picture. Keeping this in mind,
Azerbaijan’s petro-aggression, as defined by Jeff Colgan, should be
viewed within the wider historical and political economy contexts.

Azerbaijan’s economy has been heavily reliant on oil exports, which
peaked in the 2010s and has been steadily decreasing by each passing
year ever since. The decline in world oil prices combined with
reduction in oil output have put greater pressure on the state and
further exacerbated its Dutch Disease–the inability to develop other
export industries in the economy due to high exchange rates caused by
heavy reliance on oil. The natural gas sector is much less profitable
than oil, implying that the “golden age” of Azerbaijan may be well
behind us, if no new major oil fields are found.

The Aliyevs’ almost-uninterrupted dictatorial reign of Azerbaijan for
over four decades is showing signs of crippling. With the forces of
globalization providing citizens with easier access to alternative
information, paralleled by the intensifying levels of repression
within the country, the governing regime finds itself ostracized both
by its citizens as well as the international community. The government
denies fundamental rights to its national minorities, such as Lezgins,
Avars and Talysh; jails human rights advocates as well as journalists;
and keeps the general population economically worse-off due to
systemic rent-seeking and increasing income inequality. The tally of
political prisoners currently stands at over 100 individuals and
increasing, further cornering Azerbaijan on the international stage.

The international criticism of Azerbaijan’s worsening domestic
situation has also been intense. Organizations such as the Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Journalists without Borders, and
many others have repeatedly condemned the government’s actions and
even called for international sanctions.

The ongoing crisis in Ukraine and Russia and the West’s swerved
attention provide a window of opportunity for Azerbaijan to maneuver.
Armenia’s strategic partner Russia serves as one of the major
deterrent forces against Azerbaijani aggression. Certainly, the armed
forces of Armenia and the defense army of Artsakh are the primary and
best guarantors of security, yet Armenia’s membership in the CSTO
alliance provides an extra layer of security. Aliyev is taking his
bets by testing the resoluteness of the CSTO as well as the
Russian-Armenian bilateral pact.

Graph produced by the author, with data from the Correlates of War Project.

By looking at the graph above, it is clear that Russia has
historically maintained disproportionately more power than Turkey and
Iran combined. This is obviously an analysis looking at the three
states as a subsystem of their own, isolated from the rest of the
world, and discounting for the effect of alliances. Nevertheless, it
is helpful to visualize the stark power discrepancy among the three
major South Caucasus players in order to appreciate the deterrent
feature of Russian involvement. It also has additional advantage over
the Western powers due to its geographic proximity, cultural affinity,
and immediate national security concerns.

The August meeting in Sochi of the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan,
and Russia after the Azerbaijani provocations on the border and the
immediate cease of violence by Azerbaijan following the meeting is an
indication of Russia’s strong influence in the region. Armenia should
also appeal to its Western partners for support in an effort to end
Azerbaijan’s petro-aggression, and aid Baku in establishing democratic
oversight institutions that would allow for more predictable
negotiations in the future, insuring against Aliyev’s unilateral
warmongering attempts.

Given all these constraints and opportunities, the Azerbaijani junta
seeks maximum benefits especially knowing that the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairs will continue a policy of false parity. Such an appeasement
strategy may well have been justified for the Minsk Group Co-Chairs in
the past, but the circumstances have changed drastically since 1994,
making such a policy today not only ineffective but also
counterproductive, further exacerbating the impunity of the Aliyev
regime.

By instigating provocations on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border as well
as Artsakh-Azerbaijan line of contact, the Aliyev regime is pursuing
at minimum two objectives: first, trying to send a signal to the
international community that it is opposed to the status quo (this
becomes especially clear when looking at the timing of Azerbaijani
sabotage activities), and second, silencing its own disgruntled
domestic population, which has witnessed an extraordinary increase in
income inequality and intensifying repressive crackdowns. As much as
international developments may have an effect on a state’s foreign
policy conduct, it is unwise to dismiss the domestic considerations
that play into power calculations. Rather, there exists a mutual
reinforcement of international and internal factors that result in
rational decisions of governments, including in the case of
Azerbaijan.

It is important to keep in mind though that rationality is a type of
subjective thought-process that is not guaranteed to lead to optimal
outcomes for actors. More often than not, bounded rationality is also
coupled with non-rational elements further increasing the level of
uncertainty. Therefore, even if there are no questions about the
premeditated nature of Azerbaijan’s provocations, there always exists
a margin of error that, if large enough, may prove to be detrimental
to the state’s national security interests.

The authorities in Yerevan and Stepanakert need to be vigilant and
level-headed when making their decisions on retaliation. Further
intensification of violence is exactly what Azerbaijan would want in
order to try to move up the spiral of violence in an attempt to
eventually reap significant concessions in exchange for de-escalation.
The question is not about the “if,” but rather about the “when” and
“how” of planning an operation. This incident may be a good
opportunity to open the airport in Stepanakert for commercial flights,
to convince the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs into admitting the fallacy
of their outdated policy, and to further isolate Azerbaijan from the
international community given its bad reputation for dictatorship,
gross human rights violations, and organizing state-sponsored
terrorism campaigns against a democratic and free people. Now is the
time for the international community to stop the Aliyev regime from
future attempts to destabilize the region.

Armen Sahakyan specializes in international political economy and
international economics. He serves as the executive director of the
Eurasian Research and Analysis (ERA) Institute (Washington, D.C.
branch), and as analyst of Eurasian affairs at the Political
Developments Research Center (PDRC) based in Yerevan, Armenia.
Sahakyan is a Master of Arts candidate at the Johns Hopkins University
School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and has previously
served as an adviser to the Permanent Representative of the Republic
of Armenia to the UN in New York.

From: Baghdasarian

Italian MP complains on Turkish Embassy’s anti-Armenian activity

17:29, 15 November, 2014

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 15, ARMENPRESS. Italian MP Romina Mura voiced a
question before the country’s Government regarding the activity of the
Turkish Embassy to Italy. “Armenpress” reports about this citing the
personal website of the Italian MP.

Among other things, Mura underscored: “The 100th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire will be marked next year. 1.5
million people were killed. So many years have passed now, but Turkey
still continues denying that it has committed genocide and conducts
the policy of putting pressure on all those, who call the elimination
of the Armenian Christians a genocide. Turkey has reached a point,
that it now targets Pope Francis, who called it ‘the first genocide of
the 20th century’.”

The fact of the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman government has been
documented, recognized, and affirmed in the form of media and
eyewitness reports, laws, resolutions, and statements by many states
and international organizations. The complete catalogue of all
documents categorizing the 1915 wholesale massacre of the
Armenian population in Ottoman Empire as a premeditated and thoroughly
executed act of genocide, is extensive. Uruguay was the first country
to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide in 1965. The massacres
of the Armenian people were officially condemned and recognized as
genocide in accordance with the international law by France, Germany,
Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, Poland,
Lithuania, Greece, Slovakia, Cyprus, Lebanon, Uruguay, Argentina,
Venezuela, Chile, Canada, Vatican and Australia.

From: Baghdasarian

All parties in Armenia are branches of KGB – Paruyr Hayrikyan

13:30 / 15.11.2014

Nyut.am conducted an interview with the leader of the National
Self-Determination Union party Paruyr Hayrikyan.

– Mr Hayrikyan, the Constitutional Court recognized the agreement on
Armenia’s membership to the Eurasian Economic Union as constitutional.
What does it mean to you?

– What was to happen, has already happened. From the very beginning
they conducted closed sitting and the content of the decision was
already clear.

– Was not it contradictory to the spirit of our Constitution?

– Obviously it did. The way of its discussion was contradicting it
too. While there is a provision in the Constitution that each person
has right to discuss issues publicly. It relates to the citizens but
this question as well may be viewed as citizens’ suit against the
Constitutional Court. What does it mean to conduct session in written
form and provide secret report? I have expressed my strict opinion
over it. I have written in my Facebook page that the staff of the
Constitutional Court filled the row of the national traitors. Of
course they are not the ones who started the process. It was launched
by Serzh Sargsyan.

– What consequences will it have for our statehood?

– Those who want to dominate Armenia have no issue to eliminate the
country they just want it to make it their subordinate. The next phase
of this process will take place in the National Assembly. I have
stated that the members of the Republican party while voting for it
must remember that they breach all the sanctuaries for which founder
of the party Ashot Navasardyan gave his young years.
Besides losing the sovereignty there is another issue as well. By
entering the Eurasian Economic Union our citizens cannot as they join
the alliance of three dictators. Besides, how can Armenia’s economy
grow if the country is tying the economic system with the Russian
declining economy? It is necessary to be mentally ill to expect
positive things from this membership.

– Mr Hayrikyan, could we have avoided it? What about the danger coming
from the north?

– Over time it is becoming difficult to avoid it. Armenia should have
adopted public diplomacy policy in time, from the very beginning. In
that case when Putin was putting conditions in front of Sargsyan, the
latter could have said that he could not decide on his own and must do
everything publicly.
If he [Serzh Sargsyan] had the sense of responsibility and morality he
would have conducted public discussions even if Putin blackmailed him.
And finally he could have resigned. But there is another issue, he
knew quite well that if there was another person instead of him, or
other ruling party instead of the one headed by him they would have
done the same. As all the parties here are branches of KGB.

Nyut.am

From: Baghdasarian

23 school-leavers from Armenia to get an opportunity to enter UWC
Colleges in 2015

by Karina Manukyan

ARMINFO
Saturday, November 15, 10:21

On November 15, at 1 pm, the Paramaz Avetisyan building of the
American University of Armenia will host Open Doors of the UWC Dilijan
College. The event will provide an opportunity to receive data about
the UWC, education system, criteria of admission and procedure of
admission to other colleges of UWC.

UWC Dilijan is the joint project of philanthropists Ruben Vardanyan
and Veronika Zonabend and their partners. At a press conference on
Friday, Veronika Zonabend said that this year 22 school-leavers from
Armenia have entered the UWC. 10 of them are studying at UWC Dilijan
College, with the other 12 – at other UWC Colleges in different
countries.
Zonabend said that all the specified students from Armenia have
received grants that cover 90-100% of the tuition fee. The total
amount of grants provided by the donors from Armenia and other
countries for education of Armenian teenagers is 1.5 million USD. In a
number of cases, travel costs have also been reimbursed.

According to Daria Brodnikovskaya, representative of the National
Committee of UWC Armenia, applications for admission to UWC Colleges
for 2015 are accepted until 11 December 2014. Pupils aged 15-17, who
have good progress in studies, can submit their applications.

In 2015, a total of 23 school-leavers from Armenia will get an
opportunity to enter UWC Colleges. 10 of them will study at UWC
Dilijan College, the rest -at other UWC Colleges in the USA, Italy,
Canada, China and other countries.

UWC has 14 schools and colleges across 5 continents, all with
distinctive characteristics but sharing the same mission, ethos and
values. More than 50,000 students from more than 181 countries have
studied at UWC schools, colleges and programmes. The International
Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma is one of the most well regarded and widely
known secondary school qualifications in the world and is recognized
by the world’s leading universities. Students from different countries
are selected by the National Committees of their countries. The UWC
Dilijan admission criteria are available on

The tuition fee at UWC Dilijan is 35 thsd USD per annum. In the
meantime, due to the scholarship system most of the students pay only
10% of the specified amount.
At present the College has 96 students from 48 countries, including
countries of North America, Eastern Europe, Russia and Australia.

UWC Dilijan became the first college in the post-Soviet area to join
the UWC network. By 2023 the total number of students will be 650.

From: Baghdasarian