Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

ARMENIA’S PARLIAMENT EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER KHOJALY DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY CZECH PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE

YEREVAN, March 1. /ARKA/. Armenian parliament expressed concern over
Khojaly draft resolution adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the Czech Republic’s parliament, Artak Zaqaryan, the chairman of
the Armenian related parliamentary committee, said Friday.

Earlier last month the Azerbaijani media sources referring to Elman
Abdullaev, a spokesman for Azerbaijan’s Foreign Affairs Ministry,
reported the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic
Parliament condemned “ethnic cleansing” in Khojaly. The document
adopted by the Committee also “recognizes the territorial integrity”
of Azerbaijan referring to Nagorno-Karabakh as to its part.

On February 21, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic
said in a statement the adopted draft resolution has no relevance to
the policy of the Ministry.

“I have already replied to my Czech counterpart-the chairman of the
foreign affairs committee of the parliament lower chamber. In my
letter, I expressed all our concern about this matter,” Zaqaryan told
reporters in Novosti International press center in Yerevan.

Zaqaryan also added the letter clarifies Armenian official position
on this draft resolution.

Zaqaryan expressed his hopes that the Czech Republic will respond
to the position of the Armenian side detailed in the letter, adding
such format of communication plays an important role in resolving
many issues between states.

Armenia will make all the possible efforts to stave off any attempts
of Azerbaijan to propagate anti-Armenian policy in foreign parliaments,
according to him.

“We will organize responsive events and undertake any steps to make
these societies learn the real truth about these events and not
believe the falsified information,” he said.

On February 25-26, 1992, Karabakh self-defense military units initiated
a military operation to unblock the only airport in the republic near
Khojaly village and to neutralize the enemy’s weapon emplacements
in the village itself. The assaulting units of Nagorno-Karabakh
self-defense force left a security corridor for civilians to leave
and the Azeri side was notified of it in advance.

But Azerbaijani authorities did not take any actions to withdraw
civilians from the combat zone. Moreover, the column of civilians was
shot on the territory under Azeri control. Experts believe “Khojaly”
was organized by Azerbaijani nationalists for political purposes.

On April 10, 1992, the regular army units of Azerbaijan attacked on
the village and ruined it.

As Azerbaijan declared its independence from the Soviet Union and
removed the powers held by the Karabakh’s government, the Armenian
majority voted in 1991, December 10, to secede from Azerbaijan and
in the process proclaimed the enclave the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Full-scale fighting, initiated by Azerbaijan, erupted in the late
winter of 1992. International mediation by several groups including
Europe’s OSCE’s failed to bring an end resolution that both sides
could work with.

In the spring of 1993, Armenian forces captured regions
outside the enclave itself. By the end of the war in 1994,
the Armenians were in full control of most of the enclave
and also held and currently control seven regions beyond the
administrative borders of Nagorno-Karabakh. Almost 1 million
people on both sides have been displaced as a result of the
conflict. A Russian- -brokered ceasefire was signed in May 1994
and peace talks, mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, have been
held ever since by Armenia and Azerbaijan. -0- – See more at:

From: Baghdasarian

MARCH 1 REVELATION

11:00 01/03/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:

Five years have passed since the day when 8 demonstrators and 2
soldiers were killed in Yerevan in the result of the clampdown. During
these five years, attempts were made to “close the chapter of March 1”
at both local and international levels. Investigation was carried out,
commissions were set up, reports were delivered etc.

In Armenia, though, no one believes in this because they see “political
interest” rather than real revelation. Indeed, the society has never
witnessed steps aimed at revelation but attempts by political groups
to use the tragedy for their political goals.

On the other hand, as is said, such a tragedy cannot be revealed
unless Armenia becomes a sovereign and strong country. Apparently,
foreign forces fighting for influence on Armenia are also involved.

This is natural because Armenia is important in geopolitical processes,
and stakeholders are largely involved in forming government.

Hence, the planners of tragedies such as March 1 and October 27
usually are not linked to a concrete person. This is the reason how
the investigation was held and why citizens don’t trust. It is hard
to tell whether we will see a full revelation even if Armenia becomes
a sovereign and strong country. Whether it will be possible to ignore
local and foreign “interests”.

In the meantime, Arsen Kharatyan says: “When we got tired of swearing,
blaming, dishonoring and threatening, sorrow again returned to the
relatives – mothers, fathers, sons and sisters, wives and brothers,
neighbors and friends. Relatives of the victims once again promised
not to believe the fruitless hunger for justice living alone with
their sorrow and hoping to live at least one day without tears.”

From: Baghdasarian

SHAVARSH KOCHARYAN: BAKU’S DESTRUCTIVE POLICY THAT REMINDS ONE OF THE MIDDLE AGES WILL SOONER OR LATER LEAD TO INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF NAGORNO KARABAKH

ARMINFO
Friday, March 1, 11:12

A Lithuania-Artsakh Parliamentary Friendship Group is a milestone
event that witnesses the rich history of the Armenian-Lithuanian
relations, Shavarsh Kocharyan, Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia,
said in an interview with ArmInfo.

He recounted that Lithuania was the first country Armenia signed a
memorandum of understanding with, yet when it was officially part of
the USSR. So, there are good preconditions of cooperation building
on good history. The deputy minister recalled that Lithuania declared
independence a bit earlier than Armenia.

“What is different about it is that the Azerbaijani agitprop tried to
distort all this for a long period of time and drive a wedge between
our countries. However, Baku’s attempts proved useless over time. In
fact, the parliamentary friendship group was set up,” Kocharyan said.

He said that Baku’s destructive policy that reminds one of the Middle
Ages and is based on lie and xenophobia will sooner or later lead to
international recognition of Nagorno Karabakh.

A group of Lithuanian parliamentarians adopted a resolution on setting
up of a parliamentary friendship group with Artsakh.

The resolution in particular runs that since Lithuania and Artsakh
have always been led by the international law and democratic values
in their fight for liberation, taking into account the fact that the
right to self-determination is the only guarantee to physical security
and people’s development, underlining Karabakh’s efforts to create a
free and democratic nation, the Lithuanian parliamentarians propose
to set up a parliamentary friendship group with Artsakh. The original
document was handed over to the NKR Foreign Minister, Karen Mirzoyan.

Nine members of Seymas, representing various factions, have joined
the initiative.

From: Baghdasarian

RAFFI HOVANNISIAN’S PRESS CONFERENCE – “LET NO FOREIGN POWER PRESUME IT HAS A RIGHT TO GIVE US LESSONS ABOUT DEMOCRACY”

13:19, March 1, 2013

Minutes ago, Raffi Hovannisian concluded a press conference in Freedom
Square. He is now headed to Mysanikyan Square to pay his respects to
those who died during the civil unrest of March 1, 2008.

Hovannisian again declared that no foreign power should presume the
right to teach the Armenian people lessons in democracy and to tell
Armenians who their freely elected president is.

Hovannisian said it was his constitutional right to reject the official
presidential election results and that he would use all constitutional
and legal means to return the government to the people.

Hovannisian labelled the popular movement in support of his efforts
as a pan-national struggle for justice and freedom.

He reiterated his belief that the people of Armenia seeking a
fundamental change in the country’s government and public institutions
should not expect overnight solutions, since the problems facing
Armenia are system-wide.

He confessed that the Heritage Party and civic election observers could
have been better organized to register election fraud and violations,
especially in rural communities.

Nevertheless, he said there was irrefutable proof of widespread
election fraud and cited how soldiers were conveyed to polling stations
in order to vote for Serzh Sargsyan.

He did not rule out the possibility that the Heritage Party would field
a candidate in the upcoming Yerevan mayoral election, citing local
elections as part and parcel of his campaign to return government to
the people in every town and village in Armenia.

He warned the ruling regime to stop spreading rumors that due to
the unresolved political situation, security up and down Armenia’s
borders is suffering.

Hovannisian warned that it was unacceptable and dangerous for the
regime to use the pretext of national security in order to drive a
wedge in the movement for political rights and social freedom now
unfolding in Armenia.

He concluded by urging all Armenians to join with him tomorrow at
Freedom Square where a number of organizational and agenda issues
would be jointly discussed.

From: Baghdasarian

WHO OPENED FIRE AT ARMENIAN CITIZENS ON MARCH 1, 2008?

11:16 AM | TODAY | POLITICS

Tigran Khachatryan, Zakar Hovhannisyan, Gor Kloyan, Hovhannes
Hovhannisyan, David Petrosyan, Armen Farmanyan, Samvel Harutyunyan,
Tigran Abgaryan, Grigor Gevorgyan and Hamlet Tadevosyan…. These
are the ten people who died during the deadly post-election clashes
between protesters and riot police on March 1, 2008.

Five years ago, Armenians welcomed the first day of spring with alarm
and panic. Security personnel and police officers had attacked the
demonstrators protesting against alleged electoral fraud at Liberty
Square and cruelly “cleansed” the square. On the morning of March 1,
police and army units dispersed everyone who remained overnight,
beating them with truncheons and electric-shock devices.

The clashes continued during the day in different parts of the capital,
leaving ten dead and another 200 injured towards the end of the day.

Five years have past since the tragic street violence but the wound is
still too fresh. Five years later we are witnessing new post-election
developments, but we still have numerous unanswered questions, the
most important is, “Who opened fire at Armenian citizens and who gave
the order?”

From: Baghdasarian

Iran’s nuclear program: a defiant quest for modernity

The Canadian Jewish News
Friday, March 1, 2013

By Sheldon Kirshner, Staff Reporter

Iran’s quest to build a nuclear arsenal by hook or by crook has
degenerated into a global crisis, having consumed the efforts of
diplomats for the past decade.

Israel’s threat to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, combined with
U.S. President Barack Obama’s determination `to prevent [Iran] from
getting a nuclear weapon,’ as he stated in his State of Union speech
to Congress last month, only amplifies the issue.

It remains to be seen whether it can be resolved peacefully, but as
British journalist David Patrikarakos correctly observes in Nuclear
Iran: The Birth of an Atomic State (Palgrave Macmillan), the need to
find a solution is critical. Its resolution, he adds, `will affect the
world for at least a generation.’

Although Iran’s nuclear program was launched more than 50 years ago,
the full story of its development, from birth to the present day, has
not been told until now. With this book, based mainly on primary
sources, Patrikarakos fills in the gap admirably.

He’s a dispassionate writer, but he doesn’t bury his opinions. As he
puts it, `If the spectre of a possible attack on Iran is deeply
troubling, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is worse.’

Iran’s possession of nuclear arms, he argues, would be catastrophic
–strengthening the Islamic fundamentalist Iranian regime at the
expense of its neighbours, further inflaming the already tense
standoff between Iran and Israel, emboldening Tehran’s proxies,
Hezbollah and Hamas, setting off a regional arms race and prompting
non-nuclear states in the Middle East to emulate Iran.

`It is a deeply undesirable outcome, one that must be avoided at all
costs,’ he asserts.

In his view, the nuclear program offers Iran an opportunity =80=9Cto
engage with modernity’ and `negotiate a place within a perennially
hostile world.’ He adds, `Understand the nuclear program and you will
understand modern Iran.’

Iran, unlike its Arab neighbours, has never experienced the impact of
direct colonialism, but it has been subjected to foreign
meddling. Iran lost substantial territories to Russia in a war in the
1820s, and in the same decade, Iran was forced to cede land in Armenia
and Azerbaijan. During World War II, the Soviet Union and Britain
occupied Iran, and in the 1950s, a U.S.-backed coup deposed a
nationalist prime minister.

As a result, he points out, Iran has been zealous to preserve its
independence and territorial integrity.

Iran entered the nuclear age in 1957 when a nuclear training centre
was established in Tehran under the auspices of the Central Treaty
Organization, an alliance composed of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and
Britain. Subsequently, Iran signed a treaty with the United States for
co-operation on the peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran since 1941, believed that
nuclear energy would lessen Iran’s dependence on oil for domestic
power, put an end to endemic electrical shortages and place his
underdeveloped country on a path of industrial and economic progress.

With German assistance, Iran built its first nuclear reactor in
Bushehr. By the end of 1978, the eve of the Islamic revolution that
deposed the shah’s monarchy, Iran had a civil nuclear program in
place.

The Iranian government, having publicly rejected the allure of nuclear
weapons, signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but
the shah warned he might revise his policy if `20 or 30 ridiculous
little countries are going to develop nuclear weapons.’

The shah’s arrogant comment notwithstanding, Iran was really in no
position to build an atomic device because its nuclear program was
based entirely on power plants rather than uranium enrichment.

Nonetheless, as Patrikarakos notes, the nuclear program was probably
the `most developed expression’ of the shah’s modernization
program. Nuclear power, he elaborates, was `intertwined with notions
of national pride and progress’ and personal ambition on the part of
the hubristic shah.

Yet in opposition circles, the nuclear program was synonymous with
corruption, waste and royal excess. Frequent power cuts in the
mid-1970s led critics to conclude that nuclear power was hardly a
panacea for Iran’s problems.

The new Islamic regime initially considered the nuclear program
excessively expensive and ideologically unclean, calling it a Trojan
horse for western infiltration and imperialism. Nevertheless, a
decision was taken that nuclear research, particularly in prospecting
and extracting uranium, should continue.

Severe electricity shortages convinced the mullahs that the shah’s
nuclear program could be useful. In 1982, with the Iran-Iraq War
raging, the nuclear program was officially restarted. The program was
now `an integral part of how the Islamic republic defined itself in
the modern world,’ says the author.

Iranian scientists living abroad were invited back, and Iran began
exploring the possibility of signing co-operation agreements with
Argentina, Pakistan, India and China.

Convinced that a nuclear deterrent would confer prestige on Iran and
protect the Islamic revolution from the schemes of its enemies, namely
the United States and Israel, the regime took concrete steps to
rebuild the nuclear program,

Iran secretly purchased centrifuges from the Khan network in Pakistan
and bought equipment from China. Russia, however, would become Iran’s
chief nuclear partner. In 1994, the Russians agreed to complete one of
two unfinished reactors in Bushehr.

Iran’s belligerent attitude toward Israel, an undeclared nuclear
power, prompted the Israeli government in 2002 to warn that Iran posed
an existential threat to its statehood. With Mahmoud Ah-ma-di-ne-jad’s
election as president in 2005, Israel hardened its policy toward
Iran’s nuclear program.

By then, Iran had made headway in its covert pursuit of the full
nuclear cycle and had officially informed the International Atomic
Energy Agency of its uranium enrichment program, says Patrikarakos.

United Nations sanctions, he writes, had no effect on its nuclear
ambitions.

He suggests that Iran’s willingness to engage the major powers in
talks has been little more than a stalling tactic. Iran regards its
nuclear program as

`a symbol of a defiant modernizing state’ and will not likely abandon
it in the face of international pressure.

Iran’s defiance prompts Patrikarakos to write, =80=9CThe supreme irony
… is that Iran’s nuclear program is the ultimate expression of its
desire for acceptance (but on its own terms) that is pursued through
the one means that will ensure it remains a pariah.’

From: Baghdasarian

Hilary’s Fight for Freedom — Her Crucial Legacy

The Huffington Post
03/01/2013

By Frank Vogl

No U.S. secretary of state devoted as much energy, time and
determination to encourage non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in
many difficult and dangerous parts of the world to speak truth to
power. Her actions in support of human rights, the building of
democracy, the strengthening of the rule of law, and opposition to
government-driven corruption, were remarkable.

As her successor, John Kerry, now starts traveling the world — this
week sees his first overseas trip to Europe — it is vital that he
continue to voice unequivocal support for the increasingly besieged
NGOs in a rising number of countries.

Right now we are seeing authoritarian governments react harshly to the
successes that civil society are registering in organizing mass public
protests and promoting their causes. Accordingly, activists are
confronting increasing barriers to their operational activity, curbs
on their ability to undertake advocacy, restrictions on their ability
to build contacts and communicate widely, and mounting difficulties in
organizing meetings and public demonstrations. From Russia to Sri
Lanka, the activists for freedom and against governmental abuse of
office are under mounting attack.

Kerry needs to learn from Hilary’s example. To illustrate — on July
5, 2010, at a meeting with civil society leaders in Yerevan, Armenia,
Clinton declared: “Democracy requires not just elections, but open
dialogue, a free exchange of ideas, government transparency and
accountability, and above all, an empowered citizenry, who constantly
work together to make their country fairer, juster, healthier, and
freer.”

Tirelessly, Mrs. Clinton toured the developing world and Eastern and
Central Europe to encourage civil society activists to speak truth to
power and pledge U.S. support for their pro-democracy, human rights,
anti-corruption agendas. She recognized that government threats
against these non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and restrictions
on their activities were rising as a direct result of the success of
so many of the campaigns.

The former secretary of state’s contribution in support of NGOs
deserves to be recognized as one of her outstanding accomplishments in
office. It provided enormous encouragement to activists in many
countries where they are threatened on a daily basis. Her tireless
efforts, often to the considerable discomfort of her government hosts
overseas, improved the standing of the United States in much of the
world.

She spoke passionately. For example, at an international conference in
Poland in early July 2010, she recalled the heroes of the Solidarity
Movement in the 1980s, and then she said:

“Over the last six years, 50 governments have issued new restrictions
against NGOs, and the list of countries where civil society faces
resistance is growing longer. In Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, physical violence directed against individual activists has
been used to intimidate and silence entire sectors of civil
society. Last year, Ethiopia imposed a series of strict new rules on
NGOs. Very few groups have been able to re-register under this new
framework, particularly organizations working on sensitive issues like
human rights. The Middle East and North Africa are home to a diverse
collection of civil society groups. But too many governments in the
region still resort to intimidation, questionable legal practices,
restrictions on NGO registration, efforts to silence bloggers.”

But Mrs. Clinton then said:

“It is our responsibility to address this crisis. Some of the
countries engaging in these behaviors still claim to be democracies
because they have elections. But, as I have said before, democracy
requires far more than an election. It has to be a 365-day-a-year
commitment, by government and citizens alike, to live up to the
fundamental values of democracy, and accept the responsibilities of
self-government. Democracies don’t fear their own people. They
recognize that citizens must be free to come together to advocate and
agitate, to remind those entrusted with governance that they derive
their authority from the governed. Restrictions on these rights only
demonstrate the fear of illegitimate rulers, the cowardice of those
who deny their citizens the protections they deserve. An attack on
civic activism and civil society is an attack on democracy.”

The secretary announced the creation of a special fund to help to
protect embattled NGOs, adding:

“For the United States, supporting civil society groups is a critical
part of our work to advance democracy. But it’s not the only part. Our
national security strategy reaffirms that democratic values are a
cornerstone of our foreign policy. Over time, as President Obama has
said, America’s values have been our best national security asset.
Hilary Clinton’s activities in this area will form a central part of
her legacy in public office. Her efforts have helped to encourage many
NGOs, who despite the tightening vice of governmental threats and
restrictions, continue to wage their increasingly effective
campaigns. Many of them are deeply grateful for the explicit
encouragement that they received in recent times from government of
the United States.”

Frank Vogl is the Author of ‘Waging War on Corruption – Inside the
Movement Fighting the Abuse of Power’

From: Baghdasarian

Carnegie: Stalin Still Admired in Ex-Soviet Lands

ABCNews.com
March 1, 2013 (AP)

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press

MOSCOW – An opinion survey commissioned by the Carnegie Endowment says
that Soviet dictator Josef Stalin has remained widely admired in
Russia and other ex-Soviet nations, even though millions of people
died under his brutally repressive rule.

The Carnegie report, released Friday, was based on the first-ever
comparative opinion polls in Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia. It found that support for Stalin in Russia has actually
increased since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

The report has concluded that public attitudes to the dictator have
improved during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 13-year rule as the
Kremlin has found Stalin’s image useful in its efforts to tighten
control.

The tyrant led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in
1953. Communists and other hardliners credit him with leading the
country to victory in World War II, and making it a nuclear
superpower, while others condemn the brutal purges that killed
millions of people.

One of the report’s authors, Lev Gudkov, a Russian sociologist whose
polling agency conducted the survey, noted that in 1989, the peak of
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to liberalize the country
and expose Stalinist crimes, only 12 percent of Russians polled
described Stalin as one of the most prominent historical figures.

In the Carnegie poll last year, 42 percent of Russian respondents
named Stalin as the most influential historical figure.

“Vladimir Putin’s Russia of 2012 needs symbols of authority and
national strength, however controversial they may be, to validate the
newly authoritarian political order,” Gudkov wrote in the Carnegie
report. “Stalin, a despotic leader responsible for mass bloodshed but
also still identified with wartime victory and national unity, fits
this need for symbols that reinforce the current political ideology.”

Putin, a former KGB officer, has avoided open public praise or
criticism of Stalin, but he has restored Soviet-era symbols and
focused on the nation’s Soviet-era achievements rather than Stalinist
crimes. Kremlin critics have seen attempts to whitewash Stalin’s image
as part of Putin’s rollback on democracy.

Many in Russia have been dismayed by government-sponsored school
textbooks that paint Stalin in a largely positive light and by the
reconstruction of a Moscow subway station that restored old Soviet
national anthem lyrics praising Stalin as part of its interior
decoration.

In the most recent sign of respect for the dictator earlier this year,
the regional legislature decreed that the city of Volgograd, which was
known as Stalingrad until its renaming in 1961, should once again be
known by its old name on days commemorating the historic WWII
battle. In some Russian cities, authorities ordered images of Stalin
to be put on city buses as part of festivities.

The Carnegie report revealed that while a high number of Russians have
a positive view of Stalin, his era mostly draws negative perceptions,
an ambiguity that reflects public confusion, the legacy of
totalitarian “doublethink” and paternalist state model.

An even greater admiration of Stalin was seen in his homeland,
Georgia, where 45 percent of respondents expressed a positive view of
him. In Armenia, 38 percent of those polled said their country will
always need leaders like Stalin. In Azerbaijan, where respondents
viewed Stalin more negatively compared to the three other nations, 22
percent of those polled didn’t even know who Stalin was.

From: Baghdasarian

Israel outraged by Erdogan’s statement

Vestnik Kavkaza
1 March 2013

Prominent Israeli journalists, lawmakers and public figures are
outraged by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent
statement, according to which Zionism is similar to fascism and Israel
is responsible for ‘crimes against humanity’. It’s still not clear
whether Israel will respond to these remarks or not.

The remarks were made by Prime Minister Erdogan at a UN forum on
Wednesday. Talking about Islamophobia, the Turkish leader said that
Zionism is a violent ideology similar to fascism.

In Israel many people note that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was
present at the meeting and did nothing to stop Erdogan’s speech.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has not responded yet, maybe because of
the political tensions continuing in the country. No official has
agreed to comment on the incident, however one representative of the
ministry said that Erdogan could have been mistaken. He could have
thought that UN Resolution No. 3379, which was adopted in 1975 under
pressure from the Soviet Union and Arab states and condemned Zionism,
had not been repealed, the official believes. In fact the resolution
was repealed in 1991.

Nowadays, many Israeli officials believe that it’s high time to
reconsider the 1915 Armenian genocide and announce it a tragedy
similar to the Holocaust. It’s also possible to discuss the violence
committed by the Turkish authorities against Kurds, the official says.

Pyotr Lyukimson reporting from
Israel. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza.

From: Baghdasarian

U.S. Department of State, the Jewish lobby and the oil companies
discuss presidential elections in Azerbaijan

11:33 02/03/2013 » ECONOMY

In the U.S., intensive discussions on the forthcoming presidential
elections to be held this autumn in Azerbaijan began. As the site
`Avropa.info’, in discussions of government and the U.S. State
Department is attended by representatives of well-known American KBR,
the Jewish lobby and the representatives of State Oil Company of
Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR).

According to the site, an interesting factor is participation of KBR
in those discussions, as it is engaged in oil and gas business and has
a share in many countries engaged in oil production, however, in the
oil sector of Azerbaijan its representation is low. The company is
also known by its being implicated in corruption and domestic scandals
in countries where it is doing a business.

For example, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was the person
involved in a corruption scandal in Nigeria. There were evidences of
the fact that in 90s a subsidiary of Halliburton Company KBR and its
consortium partners have spent $ 180 million on bribing Nigerian
officials. The company has been accused of paying bribes to officials
in Nigeria in the amount of $ 180 million for receiving a contract of
4 billion in order to build a gas processing plant in the country.

Source: Panorama.am

From: Baghdasarian