Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

Karabakh president receives Armenian army chief

December 28, 2013 | 20:36

STEPANAKERT. – President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Bako
Sahakyan met with the head of the General Staff of Armenia’s Armed
Forces, colonel-general Yuri Khachaturov and discussed issues related
to army building and cooperation between the two Armenian states.

Artsakh Republic defense minister, lieutenant-general Movses Hakobyan
and other officials participated in the meeting.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN STUDIES AS `CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE’

26.12.2013

Based on the address made at the Second Conference on Armenian Studies
and the Contemporary Challenges of (October 17-19, 2013, Yerevan)

Gagik Harutyunyan
Executive Director, Noravank Scientific Educational Foundation, Yerevan

Armenian studies are certainly not a purely academic/fundamental
science. Branches of Armenian studies ` history, literature,
architecture, etc., are manifestations of our civilizational identity,
which in turn had brought new content to our identity and system of
values (and continue doing so). The modern thinking suggests that
these concepts are the basis of the national security system. Thus,
Armenian studies are essentially a nation-forming and state-building
discipline.

Admittedly, such interpration of Armenian studies is not adequately
perceived by our society and the discipline’s concepts and results of
applied nature are rarely used in practical/political affairs1. There
are many reasons for this, among which is the circumstance that
Armenian studies are a part of our scientific/educational system that
currently is not in its best shape. It is obvious that such situation
inevitably impacts on development of the national political thought.
This cause-and-effect relationship explains the fact that to date
there are only few interdisciplinary researches juxtaposing and
combining the fields of Armenian studies (or for that matter, any
other scientific disciplines) and politics. Yet this would have
allowed not only uncovering the commonalities between the fields, but
also developing their complementation mechanisms and application
formats.

Given the challenges that our society has to face (both of our states
are in no war, no peace situation; our communities in the Middle East
are at the verge of extinction due to geopolitical developments; there
are many problems in diaspora, because the tactics of identity
preservation based solely on Genocide recognition by the international
community is no longer effective and does not guarantee national
development), such statement of problem appears quite critical. With
the mentioned realities in mind some observations of the said problems
are presented here below, with a prior brief deliberation on some of
the modern and significantly expanded views on national security.

In the area of security the highest priority is currently assigned to
the safety, effective setup and development of the society’s
spiritual/intellectual resources. In this context the traditional
approaches to and definitions of warfare have changed: presently the
politics and strategies are carried out mainly through the so-called
`soft power’ and `information warfare’ which is part of the former. It
has to be noted in this regard that spiritual/cultural issues are
encompassed in the information security, which in turn is a component
of the national security. In our society the information security is
often interpreted somewhat simplistically and sometimes is presented
as political/historical disputes in Armenian and Turkish/Azeri mass
media and social media, or reciprocal hacker attacks. Undoubtedly,
these activities are elements of the information warfare and are also
necessary, but they have limited tactical significance and impacts.

Meanwhile, it is known that the theory of information warfare and
methods employed in it have qualitatively evolved in the recent
period. The so-called `second generation’ network information warfare
is worth mentioning, which pursues the following main objectives.

to disintegrate the adversary’s social/moral bases and the system of values,
to impose own cultural code in the consciousness of the adversary’s
(or sometimes even the ally’s) society through manipulative
technologies.

Armenia and the Armeniancy are involved in such warfare for some
well-known reasons, and in these terms are in the risk zone. In such
conditions our intellectual and political elite must develop a
strategy adequate to the existing challenges, which should take into
account the following circumstances.

Security doctrines usually assign key importance to the protection of
so-called `critical infrastructures,’ construed as the most essential
military/political, socio-economic and information structures,
incapacitation of which leads to a failure of the whole security
system. We contend that the status of `critical infrastructure’ must
be assigned to the systems and structures that safeguard
spiritual/intellectual development, as their failure may lead to
demoralization of the society. Such approach is currently gaining
ground in the world, and for instance, in a relatively recently
published military doctrine of Israel, within the critical security
infrastructure top priorities were given to structures deemed as
national symbols, such as Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum, religious
temples, etc.2 It appears, similar approach must be used in Armenia as
well, but without limiting it to physical structures. An attempt will
be made here to examine several problems from this perspective, in
particular those related to our system of values3 and public
interpretations of the modern history.

The system of values in the society is not a static category, since it
changes depending on the historical, military/political developments,
as well as evolutionary or revolutionary ones. Today the system of
values is substantially influenced by printed and electronic mass
media through widely spread, targeted and/or supposedly chaotic
information flows, which to a considerable extent form the global
community’s way of thinking, mindset and hence, also the system of
values.

Naturally, these realities are characteristic to the Armenian society.
Obviously, the Armenian system of values with its civilizational
traits is one of the cornerstones that ensured our national/historical
continuity. At the same time, it has to be noted that study of the
problems in this area requires consideration of certain peculiarities
of our history of the last hundred years.

The Genocide and loss of the Western Armenia have deeply impacted the
psychology and worldview of our society, especially the diaspora. The
diaspora part of the Armeniancy is also characterized by the fact that
they undergo not only intra-ethnic or global influences, but also
national/civilizational ones specific to their countries of residence.
Armenia’s society has its peculiarities, too. As a result of
geopolitical and revolutionary processes of the last two centuries `
the Persian rule, Russian Empire, the First, Second and finally the
Third republic to mention a few ` this part of the Armeniancy has
changed the socio-ideological environment of its social being several
times. This has led to considerable, sometimes controversial,
substantive transformations in the society’s system of values.

In particular, after the Bolshevik `terror’ in 1920-30s, the communist
concepts imposed on the society of the Second republic gradually
transformed over time and became as much coherent as it was possible
to the ideas of the national system of values. Yet currently, a
significant part of the society is at odds with the liberal ideology
concepts that were imposed this time through socio-economic terror
during the period, which can be called `an era of vulgar liberalism’,
still continuing today to a greater or lesser degree. This last period
left extremely negative effects on the national ideological worldviews
that were formed during the 1965 events related to the Armenian
Genocide commemoration and ensuing Karabakh movement. The combination
of these processes has introduced significant uncertainties in the
ideas that the society has about its values.

Interestingly, the study of the public’s system of values is currently
viewed as a crucial matter, and for example, World Values Survey
(WVS)4, an international organization, conducts extensive studies
around the world. The research outcomes are used in making both
economic and political decisions and particularly, the so-called
`color revolution’ technologies are anchored on knowledge of
socio-psychological characteristics of a given society. The research
conducted by the mentioned organization suggests that the population
of Armenia is in the cultural domain of the South Asian and
ex-Communist countries, where traditional and survival values prevail.

Currently studies of values system in Armenia are conducted by the
Chair of Psychology at the Yerevan State University (led by Narine
Khachatryan). Also, impacts of the information environment on the
system of values are studied at the Noravank Foundation5. However, it
is evident that the activities implemented in this area are not
sufficient and furthermore, are far from gaining applied significance.
It can be safely stated that any perceptions about the system of
values prevailing in Armenia, let alone in Armenian diaspora, are
general and emotional, and are far from being scientifically
substantiated. It is even more difficult, if not impossible to answer
the question what value direction the Armenian society has taken and
what transformations could be expected in future. Such situation often
causes controversial comments in the political-information arena,
which in no way contributes to the establishment of an effective
national security system and implementation of relevant political
strategies6.

It must be especially emphasized that a closer relationship between
Armenian studies and the policies, as well as their practical use seem
impossible without an appropriate information policy, and this is
applicable also to other problems unrelated to the system of values.

In particular, if the information coverage of our history’s Soviet
period were to be examined, it would become clear that there are
serious problems directly related to one of the fundamental laws of
the information security ` preservation of an unbroken history and
national memory. Societies that lose their historical base are most
prone to information/psychological influences, and in this regard it
is pertinent to quote a Chinese proverb: `Forgetting history means
betrayal.’

The views on the Second republic voiced in the information space bear
mainly `tragic’ or `sarcastic’ overtones and remind the Bolshevik
style, when anything related to the First republic had to be
condemned. Perhaps Carl Schmitt was right, contending that
`philosophical paradigms of Marxism and liberal ideological/economic
demonism are the same.’

As far as assessment of the Second republic is concerned, the
mentioned approaches constitute distortion of the objective history,
because in addition to its negative and tragic aspects, Soviet Armenia
created a powerful scientific, technological and industrial system,
experienced demographic growth, formed a creative society with high
educational and moral levels. For instance, in late 1980s there were
30,000 scientific personnel in Armenia, whereas now their number is
about 6000. In 1984 total 200 inventions were introduced for
application in economy7.

It has to be clearly realized that history of any country is not just
that of its political regime, but also the history of its society and
people. In this context it must be admitted that the Armenian society
took its share of political, military and revolutionary calamities
with high dignity. Boris Kagarlitsky, a prominent intellectual and
political scientist, who, incidentally, is a former prisoner of
Mordovian labor camps, has noticed felicitously that disparaging the
Soviet history is first of all a betrayal of the memory of the Soviet
regime’s victims.

No attempt is made here to idealize our not so distant past, as it
makes no sense to idealize or demonize any historical period. At the
same time it has to be understood that the First republic was the
basis of the Second one, which in its turn paved the way to the Third
republic, and this must be interpreted and dealt with accordingly. Any
other approaches only obstruct the system of national security,
inappropriately discredit our state/political institutions and make
them appear younger than they actually are. For example, some time ago
billboards appeared that read: `Armenian Army is 20 years old’, while
in fact our army has a history of many thousands of years.

The presented and numerous other issues, perhaps, require
establishment of joint political/governmental and academic/expert
commissions that would discuss and find solutions for these types of
problems.

1 ÕÕ¡ÖÕ¸Ö?Õ©ÕµÕ¸Ö?Õ¶ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Ô³., ÕÕ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¸Ö?Õ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¦Õ£Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ Õ¼Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¡Õ¾Õ¡ÖÕ¸Ö?Õ©ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¸ÖÕ¸Õ·
Õ¤ÖÕ¸Ö?ÕµÕ©Õ¶Õ¥Ö, «Ô³Õ¬Õ¸¬Õ¢Õ¸Ö?Õ½», #1(9), Õ§Õ» 3, 2007Ö?

2 Ð`ÑинÑ?ев С., Ð? взглÑ?де на пÑоблемÑ? безопаÑ?ноÑ?Ñ?и кÑиÑ?иÑ?еÑ?кой
инÑ?ÑаÑ?Ñ?ÑÑ?кÑ?Ñ?ÑÑ? в гоÑ?Ñ?даÑÑ?Ñ?ве
Ð`зÑаилÑ?,

3 Recently this problem is much speculated about in the context of
Armenia’s integration preferences

4See

5 See, for example, Ô»Õ¤Õ¥Õ¸Õ¬Õ¸Õ£Õ¥Õ´Õ¶Õ¥ÖÕ¨ ÕÕ Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¾Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ®Ö?Õ¸Ö?Õ´, ÔµÖÖ?Õ¡Õ¶,
«Õ?Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¾Õ¡Õ¶Ö?» Ô³Ô¿Õ, 2013Õ©.Ö?

6 ÕÕ¡ÖÕ¸Ö?Õ©ÕµÕ¸Ö?Õ¶ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Ô³., Ô»Õ¶Õ¿Õ¥Õ£ÖÕ¡Ö?Õ«Õ¡ÕµÕ« Õ¸ÖÕ¸Õ· Õ°Õ«Õ´Õ¶Õ¡Õ – Õ¶Õ¤Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¥ÖÕ« Õ´Õ¡Õ½Õ«Õ¶ Õ¡ÖÕªÕ¥Ö?Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶
Õ°Õ¡¬Õ´Õ¡¬Õ¯Õ¡Ö¬Õ£Õ« Õ°Õ¡Õ´Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Ö?Õ½Õ¿Õ¸Ö?Õ´, Ô³Õ¬Õ¸Õ¢Õ¸Ö?Õ½, #4(37), Õ§Õ» 20, 2013Ö?

7 Ð?ÑÑ?Ñ?Ñ?нÑ?н Ð`., «ÐаÑ?пад Ñ?иÑ?Ñ?емÑ? и Ñ?оÑмиÑование бÑ?дÑ?Ñ?его», Ð’Ð?Ф
«Ð’оÑаванк», Ð-Ñеван, 2011.

October 2013

«21-ÖÕ¤ Ô´Ô±Õ?» No. 6, 2013

Return
________________________________
Another materials of author

GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION IN SOUTH CAUCASUS IS GETTING CRYSTALLIZED `
G.HARUTYUNYAN[18.12.2013]
FAVOURABLE REGIONAL POLITICAL SITUATION IS FORMED AROUND
NAGORNO-KARABAKH PROCESS[25.11.2013]
SECURITY OF EURASIA: IDEOLOGY [28.10.2013]
THE MULTIPOLAR REALITIES, MIDDLE EAST AND NEWS TICKER GENOCIDE (Part
2)[09.09.2013]
A NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE HAS BEEN PERPETRATED IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Interview of Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo Information
Agency[13.06.2013]
REGNUM: NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE IS BEING PERPETRATED IN SYRIA (from the
press-conference of Gagik Harutyunyan)[16.05.2013]
ON SOME MAIN ISSUES OF INTEGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A VALUE SYSTEM[29.04.2013]
INTEGRATION PROCESSES AND INFORMATION POLICY [28.02.2013]
CHALLENGES TO ARMENIA IN THE GLOBALIZING WORLD[27.12.2012]
WAR IN SYRIA: PROBABLE SCENARIOS[04.12.2012]

From: Baghdasarian

TIGRAN SARGSYAN: U.S. TO INVEST IN VOROTAN CASCADE

Saturday,
December
28

Decisions and laws adopted in our country should not endanger the
interests of investors, Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan said at the
concluding press conference today.

“The government should give investors stable guarantees, especially
in spheres regulated by the government. I want to make it clear that
the matter concerns not only Russian investments, but any foreign
investment. In this connection I would like to say that we recently
signed an agreement with our American partners who expressed their
willingness to implement investment programs in Vorotan Hydropower
Cascade. I consider it an extremely important investment program for
our country. We need to understand that these are vital spheres for
our country, especially the energy sector,” the prime minister stated.

In his words, any country intending to implement an investment project
in Armenia wants to get clear guarantees.

As regards the Armenian-Russian gas agreements’ provision, under
which “no future laws, decrees, decisions and other legal acts of
the Republic of Armenia shall change and/or cancel and/or otherwise
infringe upon the rights and interests of Gazprom OJSC, ArmRosGazprom
CJSC and their legal successors” and the concern that it may harm
the country’s sovereignty, the prime minister said:

“Armenia should create a reliable environment for investments. There
is no danger for our sovereignty here. There is a danger for
sovereignty when the authorities fail to create favorable conditions
for investment”.

According to him, the government managed to raise the index of
investment profitability, assuming an obligation to ensure a stable
environment for investments.

27.12.2013, 20:42

Aysor.am

From: Baghdasarian

VIETNAM: PRIME MINISTER TALKS COOPERATION WITH ARMENIA

Thai News Service
December 26, 2013 Thursday

Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has said the Vietnamese Government
supports activities by Armenian Ambassador Raisa Vardanyan to step
up links between the two countries, especially in trade and training.

In a December 25 reception for the newly-accredited ambassador,
PM Dung said the Government will consider opening the Vietnamese
Embassy in Armenia soon.

Vietnam attaches importance to stepping up the traditional and
mutually-beneficial collaboration with Armenia , he said, expressing
his hope that an intergovernmental committee will be established soon
to boost bilateral ties.

Sharing the Vietnamese leader’s views, the diplomat wowed to spare
no efforts to foster bilateral relations, especially in economics,
trade and investment.

She also affirmed Armenia ‘s consistent policy of attaching importance
to relations with Vietnam and said the opening of the embassy in the
Southeast Asian country is expected to strengthen the collaboration
between the two countries.-VNA

From: Baghdasarian

TURKOLOGIST. “IT IS USELESS TO EXPECT ANYTHING FROM TURKEY.”

December 27 2013

Ruben Safrastyan, turkologist, Director of Institute of Oriental
Studies, does not recommend expecting anything from Turkey on the eve
of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. “There is no need
to wait for something. The prognostic that Turkey could fundamentally
change its policy in recognizing the Armenian Genocide, is missing. I
do not also consider the show organized in Yerevan serious. The Turkish
Foreign minister’s interview with Turkish journalists regarding the
Armenian-Turkish relations did not say anything,” said Mr. Safrastyan,
today, at “Pastark” club. He also said that the Armenian-Turkish
relations stirred the interest of different centers around the world,
because they are driven by Turkey’s relations with other countries,
and what will be the situation in the South Caucasus.

“The current state of affairs of Karabakh works for all major centers
in the world, this is geopolitically frozen.” To the question of how
Armenia’s membership to the CU would affect the possibilities of the
Armenian-Turkish dialogue, the turkologist said, “Armenia’s accession
is of no special geopolitical importance to the world. What happened
was due to the fact that we still had a contract with Russia since
1997, we are a CSTO member, and Russia’s military bases are deployed
in Armenia. Geopolitically, no new phenomenon happened; therefore,
the situation is not changed.” Turkologist Hakob Chakryan does
not see any perspective in the Armenian-Turkish dialogue, because
“Armenian-Turkish dialogue does not exist, there would not be a
dialogue even on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian
Genocide. They would only try to create an impression that they
want to resume the dialogue, to create the illusion that they are
ready only to possibly lessen the effect. So, accession of failure
to join the Customs Union will not have a significant effect on the
Armenian-Turkish dialogue, or the development of relations.” In
the conversation with us, Mr. Chakryan also expressed an opinion
that the Karabakh conflict settlement is actually frozen. According
to him, there is a competition going on between the Minsk Co-chair
countries regarding the settlement of Karabakh conflict, for the sake
of influence in the South Caucasus. “Everybody is in favor of the
conflict to be settled, and depending on which country would settle
it, the influence of given country will drastically increase.”

Arpine Simonyan

Read more at:

From: Baghdasarian

PRIME MINISTER’S VOCIFEROUS STATEMENTS

Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan held a press conference at the end
of the year. Editors of the mass media were invited but not all the
editors showed up. Besides, a big number of interns attended the press
conference, both on the side of the government and the mass media.

They had been invited by the government to improve their professional
skills through following the press conference.

The press conference was almost a marathon, in the spirit of Putin’s
press conferences and close to Putin’s time – four hours – though
part of it was spent on finishing technical preparations.

In terms of content, the picture of the press conference was relative,
and it would be possible to fit the interesting statements within a
shorter period.

There were some interesting statements indeed. In particular, Tigran
Sargsyan announced that in Armenia the economy was a balloon before the
crisis. This is the first such evaluation uttered by Tigran Sargsyan
who was the president of the Central Bank then. According to him,
“the economic balloon blasted” because the other spheres were not
competitive due to speculative processes in the sphere of building.

The reason of decline of direct foreign investments was decline of
speculative building sphere. Tigran Sargsyan said annually over 700
million to one billion dollars were invested in private building
before the crisis, which is a huge number that stimulates growth,
and when it is removed, decline is inevitable.

Tigran Sargsyan’s next sensational statement was the offshore scandal.

The prime minister was asked, “The press has recently reported
the activities of a Diaspora Armenian lady involved in an offshore
scandal. Nairi Mehredge is a relative of Member of Parliament Vartan
Oskanian of Prosperous Armenia Party, she set up a company called
“Assembly of Mice” in Cyprus in which she involved dead people.” The
query was made by haynews.am.

Tigran Sargsyan said he could not imagine this press conference without
a question regarding the offshore. He announced that he is interested
in disclosing the question fully. The prime minister repeated that
he has nothing to do with the offshore accounts. “The same lady who
registered an enterprise in Cyprus under my name has registered an
enterprise in Cyprus, a company under the name of dead people. I wonder
what explanations Mr. Oskanian will give, whether this is unexpected
information for him or his person is standing behind this and this
scandal has a political context,” Tigran Sargsyan said.

He called the reporters to investigate this case and find out the
truth.

Tigran Sargsyan’s next vociferous statement concerned the fight
against oligopolies. Sargsyan announced that the government’s program
for five years will succeed if competitiveness is provided in Armenia.

Without such a result the program of the government will fail, the
prime minister said.

According to him, after the economic decline following the collapse
of the Soviet Union some spheres appeared in the hands of a group
of people. On the one hand, the legislation must be made more rigid
for these people, and on the other hand, favorable climate must be
created for SMEs. Tigran Sargsyan said Armenia will have no future
without a middle class which is the basis for the civil society.

In answer to the question whether the anti-monopolistic and
anti-oligopolistic policy is effective, Tigran Sargsyan said
the reporters should assess judging by the state of things. As an
indicator, Tigran Sargsyan suggested the mass media which, according
to him, are sponsored by oligarchs. Provided that the mass media
“attack the prime minister, the government for every issue, we are on
the right way and we must finish with those issues”. And if there is
peace, no attacks, then unfortunately we are doing something wrong,
he said, advising to judge the effectiveness of oligopolies and
monopolies by these facts.

21:55 27/12/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:

From: Baghdasarian

NO SIGNS OF TURKEY-ARMENIA THAW

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
IWPR Caucasus Reporting #717
Dec 25 2013

Turkey now says Armenia must mend fences with its other neighbour
Azerbaijan before rapprochement can happen.

By Lamiya Adilgizi, Yekaterina Poghosyan – Caucasus

If anyone was expecting Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s
trip to Armenia – the first such high-level visit in five years –
to herald an upturn in relations, they will have been disappointed.

Neither side appears ready to give ground on the key issues.

While in Yerevan on December 12 for a meeting of the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation Organisation (BSEC), Davutoglu had a two-hour
meeting with Armenia’s foreign minister Eduard Nalbandyan.

Davutoglu said Turkey wanted the relationship with Armenia to be as
good as it was with other neighbours.

He also said the unresolved conflicts in the Caucasus sapped energy
that might be better spent on economic cooperation.

“We would like Armenia to move past these frozen conflicts and to
become part of our economic projects,” he said.

Although Davutoglu did not refer explicitly to Nagorny Karabakh,
his remarks were read in Armenia as meaning that bilateral relations
could not improve before that dispute was resolved.

Karabakh has been controlled by an Armenian administration since the
war of the early 1990s, but claims to independence remain unrecognised
and the international community regards it as part of Azerbaijan.

Mediation efforts have failed to make substantive progress towards
a settlement since a 1994 truce ended open warfare between Armenian
and Azerbaijani forces.

Turkey, a close ally of post-independence Azerbaijan, closed its
border with Armenia and broke off diplomatic relations during the
war over Karabakh.

The difficult relationship between Armenia and Turkey long pre-dates
the Karabakh issue, however. The two countries are deeply divided on
whether a genocide of Armenians occurred in Ottoman Turkey in 1915.

Despite this difficult history, Ankara and Yerevan showed signs of
seeking a rapprochement some years ago. In 2008, Turkish president
Abdullah Gul paid an unprecedented visit to Armenia, and the following
year, the two countries signed accords on restoring relations
and opening the border. Neither country’s parliament ratified the
agreements, however, and the whole process ground to a halt.

As long as it lasted, the thaw caused consternation and a sense of
betrayal in Azerbaijan.

Since then, the Turkish position seems to have shifted. Senior
officials including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan have said there
will no progress as long as the Karabakh conflict remains unresolved.

“Karabakh is not just Azerbaijan’s problem but also Turkey’s problem,”
Erdogan said at a joint press conference with Azerbaijan’s president
Ilham Aliyev on November 13.

Ankara was Aliyev’s first foreign destination after he was re-elected
as head of state in October.

Rober KoptaÅ~_, an ethnic Armenian Turkish journalist who was part of
the press corps that accompanied Davutoglu to Yerevan, said this now
appeared to be an immovable policy – Ankara would not now take actions
that might upset Azerbaijan. But he held out hope that progress in
the two areas could take place in parallel.

“If negotiations to resolve the Nagorny Karabakh conflict speed up
[and] at least some progress is made there… Azerbaijan would be
satisfied, and Turkey could go some way towards easing its tense
relationship with Armenia,” KoptaÅ~_, who is editor-in-chief of the
Armenian-Turkish weekly Agos, told IWPR.

In Yerevan, Ruben Safrastryan, director of Armenia’s Oriental
Institute, was less hopeful.

“We are seeing Turkey continuing to link normalisation of
Armenian-Turkish relations to the Nagorny Karabakh conflict,” he said.

“Davutoglu is using this visit as a primitive form of PR to create
the illusion that Turkey wants to revive the normalisation process,
when in reality we aren’t seeing of the kind.”

Armenian officials were tight-lipped on the Davutoglu visit, but Giro
Manoyan of the opposition Dashnaktsutyun party said Turkey was probably
trying to project itself as a peacemaker as the 100th anniversary of
the genocide approached.

“It wasn’t a Turkish minister visiting to Yerevan; he was just
participating in the BSEC meeting in Yerevan. Turkey wishes to create
the impression that you should expect something to come of Davutoglu’s
visit… but there’s no reason to believe that. Turkey does not in
fact want to normalise relations with Armenia; it’s merely trying to
create that impression,” he told IWPR.

In Azerbaijan, Leyla Aliyeva, head of the Centre for National and
International Studies, said her country’s increasing importance as
a supplier of oil and gas to Turkey gave it ever more sway over that
country’s policy towards Armenia.

“If the recent Turkish initiative covers the Nagorny Karabakh conflict,
Azerbaijan will react positively; if it doesn’t, then I doubt it,”
she told IWPR.

Lamiya Adilgizi is a correspondent for the Istanbul-based paper Today’s
Zaman. Yekaterina Poghosyan is a correspondent for Mediamax in Yerevan

From: Baghdasarian

U.S. WILL SPEND $3.35M TO ‘IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF MEDIA CONTENT’–IN ARMENIA

CNS News
Dec 18 2013

December 18, 2013 – 4:15 PM
By Barbara Hollingsworth

CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
is planning to spend $3.35 million to “improve the quality of media
content and strengthen the media’s capacity to meet professional
standards” in Armenia, according to an agency request for applications
(RFA).

No American media organizations are eligible for the grant, but
“government controlled and government owned organizations” in Armenia
are encouraged to apply even though the country is burdened by a
“powerful executive that systematically undermines nascent institutions
and agents of democratic accountability.”

“The Media for Informed Civic Engagement (MICE) is a five-year activity
that aims to increase citizen access to independent and reliable
sources of information about the Government of Armenia’s (GOAM)
policies and planned reforms, with special emphasis on USAID-supported
reforms in decentralization, transparency and accountability, and
social sector policy,” according to the RFA. (See USAUD RFA.pdf)

Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, only “local organizations”
that are “organized under Armenian laws,” have their “principal place
of business in the Armenia,” and are “managed by a governing body,
the majority of whom are Armenian citizens….not controlled by a
foreign entity” are eligible for the grant.

However, USAID includes “government controlled and government owned
organizations in which the recipient government owns a majority
interest or in which the majority of a governing body are government
employees” under its definition of “local organizations.”

One of USAID’s goals is to “strengthen media capacity to meet
professional standards of journalism and reflect a diversity of
perspectives in reporting. As a result, journalists will be more
professional; networks of media outlets will be strengthened; and
access to credible and professionally produced information will
increase,” according to USAID’s “Armenia’s Democracy, Human Rights,
and Governance Assessment.” (See usaid armenia cdcs.pdf)

The assessment noted “the rapidly increasing level of internet
penetration and its impact on media. The increase in online news as
a source of information is prompting traditional media to cover a
wider range of issues.”

However, “the key challenge is the lack of genuine checks and
balances in the system compounded by a powerful executive that
systematically undermines nascent institutions and agents of democratic
accountability. The centralization of power leads to serious deficits
in the consistent application of the rule of law and citizens’
meaningful participation in political processes….

“Contributing to the overall challenge, agents of accountability,
including the citizenry, civic actors, and the media, are weak and
do not constitute an effective counterweight to executive power,”
the assessment stated.

After the second year of the five-year grant, USAID says it will
conduct a “mid-term external performance evaluation” to determine: 1)
the relevance of the activity vis-a-vis USAID/Armenia’s priorities;
2) the relevance of the approach in the current Armenian context;
and 3) the performance of the implementer.”

From: Baghdasarian

SEEC TO DISCUSS ROADMAP FOR ARMENIA’S ENTRY INTO CUSTOMS UNION – RUSSIAN PRESIDENT

Voice of Russia
Dec 24 2013

The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council (SEEC) will debate a roadmap for
Armenia’s planned accession to the Customs Union, formed by Russia,
Belarus and Kazakhstan, at its session on Tuesday.

0″Our integration project is interesting and holds appeal for many
partners in the CIS due to objective economic reasons. As we know,
Armenia and Kyrgyzstan have not only expressed their wish to become
its participants, but have already accomplished a significant amount
of work in this direction. A roadmap outlining further steps as part
of Armenia’s accession will be put up for debate today. A similar
document concerning Kyrgyzstan is currently being negotiated,” Russian
President Vladimir Putin said at the SEEC session in the Kremlin.

From: Baghdasarian

PRESS RELEASE
Policy Forum Armenia
1250 I (Eye) Street N.W., Suite 710,
Washington, DC, 20005
Email: [email protected]

Dear Friends:

Our homeland has been through a great deal of ordeal in the passing
year. Fraudulent presidential elections, massive protests, rising
emigration, the misguided commitment to join the Russia-led Customs
Union, and mass arrests of activists protesting Russia’s Vladimir
Putin’s visit to Armenia have all contributed to that. The economy has
slowed down significantly and recorded practically no growth in the
second and third quarters of 2013 compared to the same periods a year
ago. According to the official statistics, one in every three Armenian
residents lives in poverty. Unofficial estimates are much higher. In
the meantime, the ruling regime continues to control in excess of an
estimated 60 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

Although this may have been one of the worse years for Armenia since
independence, we have much reason for enthusiasm. The civil society is
stronger than at any point before. Those on the barricades are
determined to not only force the regime to leave but are also eager to
build institutional foundations for a freer and independent
Armenia. Our brothers and sisters in the Diaspora today are better
informed about the conditions on the ground in Armenia and the true
factors behind the misery and devastation observed outside of downtown
Yerevan. As never before we are united with the understanding that
with hard and persistent work we can turn Armenia into a country that
we all could be proud of and will one day return to live.

We believe we have contributed to this positive message. By visiting
our website you can see that with only modest resources (coming mostly
from our members) we have been able to maintain a high level of
analytical output and inform our stakeholders of the true problems
faced by people of Armenia and the country itself. Only when you have
the right diagnosis you can expect to find the right cure for the
illness. We are the only organization in the Diaspora that produces
consistent and professional output on completely volunteer basis
without being paid for what we do.

Highlights of our 2013 effort are as follows:

· Election Research: within days from Armenia’s presidential election
on February 18, 2013, PFA issued its analysis of the election outcome
using statistical and econometric methodology and helped reveal
massive fraud in favor of the incumbent.

· International Relations: In May 2013, PFA joined forces with the
United States Atlantic Council to hold a high level round-table
discussion with Washington-based senior experts on Armenia’s relations
with NATO.

· Post-election Developments: In June 2013, jointly with the George
Washington University Law School and Elliot School of International
Affairs, PFA hosted Armenian presidential candidate Raffi Hovannisian
for a conversation on foreign and domestic policy, and to hear his
views of the political and civil society development in Armenia.

· Diaspora: In August 2013, we hosted a discussion on the conditions
of Armenians in Syria by Arménag Aprahamian, the President of
Paris-based National Council of Armenians from Western Armenia, an
organization accredited by the United Nations to represent the
indigenous people of Western Armenia.

· Economic and Social Issues: In October 2013, we released our third
State of the Nation Report on `Corruption in Armenia’ where we focused
on wholesale and retail corruption and offered mechanisms of reducing
the cancer of corruption in Armenia.

· Environment: Subsequently we hosted a group of environmental
activists and scientists, who brought to the US a documentary showing
the extent of desecration caused by open mining in Armenia’s Southern
Syuniq region.

· Institutional Development: we are extremely fortunate to have been
able to put together a world-class Academic Board, which serves as the
main quality-controller of our research, and receive a 501(c)3
tax-exempt status from the US Internal Revenue Service.

However, there is one area that leaves more to desire this holiday
season. It is the knowledge that we could have doubled the amount of
work we do to benefit Armenia and its people if only we had slightly
more financial resources at our disposal. Therefore, please consider
making a tax-deductible donation to enable us to continue to serve our
mandate of providing independent, high-quality analysis of issues of
true concern for Armenia today and tomorrow. A nation without a
forward-oriented think-tank is bound to remain on the sidelines of
history and is unlikely to make the jump forward that we are all
dreaming about.

In closing, we would like to thank you for staying engaged with
Armenia and with us. We wish you all Happy Holidays! May the New Year
bring joy and new opportunities for Armenia, its residents, and every
Armenian around the world.

Sincerely Yours,

Management and Fellows of Policy Forum Armenia

From: Baghdasarian