Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

INFLATION IN ARMENIA LED TO MALNUTRITION – OXFAM REPORT

tert.am
09.10.12

There are about one million poor people in Armenia, many of them
are starving and while the food prices will grow twice by 2030,
the poverty rate will go up too.

This is the preface of the report on Vulnerability of Prices in Armenia
prepared by Oxfam Armenian branch within the framework of Monitoring
of Food Prices in Armenia program.

“Everyone, everywhere is trying to find the guilty. We tried to find
out the deeper causes of inflation in Armenia,” Gagik Torosyan,
who participated in the process of preparation of report told the
reporters on Tuesday.

First of all an attempt has been made to reveal both objective and
subjective reasons of the raise in prices in Armenia. It has been
revealed that the inflation resulted in malnutrition as people have
deprived themselves of some food as a result of growth in prices.

As compared with June 2011, in 2012 the products that have become more
expensive are pomegranate by 41,9%, pork by 36,2%, cacao by 34,5%,
raisins by 26.2%, Pele coffee by 26.0%.

Agreed with favorable agricultural year, a number of products have
become cheaper. Among them are table beet by 51.3%, garlic by 52%,
plum 56.4%, apple by 59.9%, melon 69.1%.

From: Baghdasarian

LE HAK ATTEND LA DECISION DE LEVON TER-PETROSSIAN
Laetitia

armenews.com
mercredi 10 octobre 2012

Le parti de l’opposition le plus important est en attente de la
decision de son chef Levon Ter-Petrossian en ce qui concerne sa
participation a l’election presidentielle l’an prochain.

” Tout depend de la decision de Ter-Petrosian “, a affirme Levon
Zurabian, le chef du Congrès National Armenien (HAK). Il a souligne
que Ter-Petrossian est tenu comme une autorite indiscutable au sein
du HAK et est considere comme un candidat potentiel pour se presenter
a la presidentielle l’an prochain.

Le haut representant du HAK a fait valoir qu’ un bon candidat doit etre
capable de defier le regime actuel plutôt que d’etre un personnage
selectionne sur la base d’un compromis politique. Zurabian a dit
qu’il croyait en la force de Ter-Petrossian.

Interroge pour savoir si le HAK envisagerait d’appuyer Oskanian (BHK)
ou le chef du parti du BHK, Tsarukian, si l’un d’entre eux etait
a l’election presidentielle, le membre dirigeant de l’alliance de
l’opposition a declare : ” Je ne pense pas qu’il soit necessaire de
commenter des opinions personnelles. La participation aux elections
presidentielles doit etre construite sur des calculs politiques
concrets plutôt que sur la simple volonte. C’est notre approche. Les
autres forces politiques et individus, sont libres d’exprimer leurs
propres opinions. ”

From: Baghdasarian

GEORGIA: IS TBILISI SETTING POLITICAL BENCHMARK FOR AZERBAIJAN, ARMENIA?

Eurasia Review
Oct 9 2012

By Shain Abbasov and Marianna Grigoryan

Last time, Georgians did it via revolution. This time, political
change came through the ballot box.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s concession of Georgia’s
October 1 parliamentary election to his political foes, the Georgian
Dream coalition headed by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, is giving
two of the country’s neighbors, Armenia and Azerbaijan, a fresh reason
to pay attention to Georgia.

Opposition forces in both countries appear to see the election’s
outcome as a model for political change, even as their respective
governments – neither a civil-rights trendsetter – stress that the
reason for change is minimal.

Georgia

“Many people here in the National Assembly Hall used to mock
Saakashvili for eating his tie,” Vahan Hovhanissian, a member of
the opposition Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiun,
commented in Armenia’s parliament on October 2, “but he has created a
country where the opposition can win.” Hovhanissian was referring to
an infamous moment involving Saakashvili during the Georgian-Russian
war in 2008.

Azerbaijani opposition leaders agree. “These elections are an important
event not only for Georgia, but for the whole South Caucaus and
even the post-Soviet region,” said Isa Gambar, head of Azerbaijan’s
Musavat Party. “It’s the first time in our region when the opposition
officially scores a victory in elections and the government accepts
it.”

That acceptance, agreed Ali Kerimli, head of the Popular Front Party
of Azerbaijan, “is the biggest victory in the Georgian president’s
political career.”

So far, though, the governments of both Azerbaijan and Armenia have
been much more circumspect in responding to the Georgian election
results. Neither Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev nor Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan has congratulated the Georgian Dream on
its win.

But, then, neither has much personal incentive to do so.

Aliyev, who plans to run for reelection in October 2013, arguably
owes his nearly decade in power to the political legacy of his father,
the late President Heydar Aliyev, a fixture on Azerbaijan’s political
scene since the Soviet era.

Sargsyan, who also plans to run for reelection next year, owes much
of his status to his nearly 20 years in the Armenian government –
including stints as prime minister and defense minister.

Working with the opposition has not been a critical part of either
leader’s political experience.

Perhaps for that reason, what Azerbaijani and Armenian government
comments there have been about the Georgian elections have come more
in the way of asserting both countries’ own democratic credentials.

In an October 3 interview with the opposition Yeni Musavat newspaper,
Ali Hasanov, the influential head of the Azerbaijani presidential
administration’s Political and Public Affairs Department, asserted
that Azerbaijan’s presidential vote will prove “even better … than
[the parliamentary elections] in Georgia.”

“No one should have any doubts,” Hasanov assured readers.

The remark sparked a steady stream of caustic commentary in the
opposition press. “We have doubts, Mr. Hasanov. We have enough reasons
to have doubts,” responded the opposition Azadlig (Liberty) newspaper
the next day. To date, international observers have not recognized
Azerbaijan’s elections as free or fair.

Similarly, in Armenia, Deputy Parliamentary Speaker Eduard Sharmazanov,
spokesperson for the governing Republican Party of Armenia, maintained
that the country has no reason to take its cue from Georgia. “In
terms of democracy, Armenia does not take second place to Georgia,”
Sharmazanov told EurasiaNet.org. “Moreover, [Armenia] is one of the
most democratic countries of the region.”

In 2012, Washington, DC-based democracy-watcher Freedom House gave
both Armenia and Azerbaijan similarly low evaluations for political
rights and civil liberties, tagging Armenia as “partly free” and
Azerbaijan as “not free.”

While scoring better in both categories, Georgia also ranked as only
“partly free.”

Nonetheless, that slight degree of difference makes a difference
for Azerbaijan’s Kerimli and Gambar. The Aliyev administration would
never allow free elections, and then admit defeat, both men said.

The Azerbaijani presidential administration’s Hasanov, though, asserts
that the Azerbaijani opposition lacks the skills to duplicate Georgian
Dream’s victory at the polls.

“I believe that the Azerbaijani opposition is not capable of running
such a campaign [as the Georgian Dream] and winning the elections,”
he said.

Comparing its finances to those of billionaire Ivanishvili,
Azerbaijan’s opposition might well agree, but Aliyev critics still
place most of the blame on government repression.

Political analyst Elhan Shahinoglu, head of the Baku research center
Atlas, believes Azerbaijan’s opposition can learn from Georgia’s
election.

Though not a prominent public figure, Ivanishvili managed to unite
the Georgian opposition and voters around his coalition quickly,
Shahinoglu noted. “[E]verything is possible if the Azerbaijani
opposition has real will and is ready to work hard,” he said.

In Armenia, opposition leaders believe they faces similar stumbling
blocks. Naira Zohrabian, parliamentary-faction secretary for the
Prosperous Armenia party, a onetime government coalition member,
charges that the police-protester clashes and arrests of opposition
supporters after Armenia’s 2008 presidential elections do not suggest
that the country’s February 2013 presidential vote can follow the
Georgian model.

“I hope that one day we will have such elections, but I can clearly
state that it would be pointless to dream about it in the upcoming
elections, since the Armenian authorities have no political will
[for such a vote],” Zohrabian asserted.

Sharamazanov dismissed the criticism. “Is it our fault that the people
trust us and vote for us?” he asked.

Independent political analyst Yervand Bozoian said Armenian
politicians can “learn from Georgia” – from its aggressive fight
against corruption, as well as its maiden attempt at bipartisanship.

“[I]f Armenians consider themselves smarter than Georgians, they
should seize the initiative and initiate reforms in Armenia,” Bozoian
said. “Learning is not shameful.”

Shahin Abbasov is a freelance reporter based in Baku. Marianna
Grigoryan is a freelance reporter in Yerevan and the editor of
MediaLab.am.

From: Baghdasarian

DIPLOMATIC SOURCE: “TURKEY MAY CLOSE ITS AIR SPACE FOR ARMENIA, IF THEY LAUNCH FLIGHTS TO NAGORNO KARABAKH REGION”

APA
Oct 8 2012
Azerbaijan

Baku. Rashad Suleymanov – APA. “Turkey may close its air space
for Armenia, if they launch flights to the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan”.

APA reports quoting to diplomatic sources there are relevant agreements
between Azerbaijan and Turkey.

This issue has been reportedly discussed between Azerbaijani and
Turkish aviation organizations.

Speaking to APA Turkish parliamentarian from Nationalist Movement
Party Sinan Ogan said it is possible: “We can raise this question in
the parliament. But in this case, some studies must be carried out
regarding the route of the flights to Nakhchivan,” he said.

From: Baghdasarian

VARDAN OSKANYAN NOT GOING TO GIVE EVIDENCE

Mediamax
Oct 8 2012
Armenia

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Former Armenian Foreign Minister, MP Vardan Oskanyan
said today that he “will continue to use his constitutional right
and won’t give evidence.”

Vardan Oskanyan wrote the following on his page on Facebook:

“I am invited to the National Security Service at 12:00 this afternoon
where I will be charged with misappropriation and money laundering.

Today, neither the people nor those who have instituted the case,
nor the investigators, not those who have approved the Prosecutor
General’s petition believe that Vardan Oskanyan has appropriated or
laundered money. Everybody knows that what’s happening is absurd.

I am going to NSS only because the law requires it. I’ll continue to
use my constitutional right and won’t to give evidence.”

From: Baghdasarian

REGIONAL CONTEXT OF ELECTIONS IN GEORGIA: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

Politkom.ru
Oct 5 2012
Russia

[Translated from Russian]

by Candidate of Historical Sciences Sergey Minasyan, leader of Caucasus
Institute’s Political Research Department (Yerevan, Armenia)

The results of the parliamentary elections in Georgia have proved
unexpected for everyone. Hardly anyone, apart, of course, from the
actual apologists for Bidzina Ivanishvili’s triumphant Georgian Dream,
had expected such an unconditional opposition victory. However,
the chief mistake of the majority of experts monitoring the
preelection dynamics in Georgia was not their underestimation of
the electoral preferences of Georgian voters. Even several months
before the 1 October elections it was clear to practically everyone
that Saakashvili would noticeably “yield” to the opposition bloc,
particularly in the capital, and that he would not get a “clean”
win in these elections without employing the administrative-security
resource. The main problem for experts and commentators was their
substantial overestimation of the potential of just this administrative
resource, which suddenly proved ineffective during the elections.

It is possible that the administrative-security resource was
substantially shaken as a result of the scandal involving video
materials on torture in Georgian prisons, with the subsequent
dismissals of the internal affairs minister and the minister for
probation, which to all intents and purposes paralysed the security
structures that have traditionally been loyal to Saakashvili. Many
people in Georgia maintain that it is perfectly possible that the
administrative resource also failed to work because of the recently
unpublicized neutrality of Prime Minister Vano Merabishvili, who has
a huge influence on Georgia’s security structures. Not that all of
this is all that important, for the elections have already taken place.

Saakashvili has acknowledged their results and has already voiced
readiness to work with the new government, which will be formed by
Ivanishvili’s bloc.

However, this still does not mean that Mikheil Saakashvili and
his team have fully surrendered their political positions. First,
Saakashvili’s presidential term expires only in 2013, and he himself
is free to schedule the date of the next elections, whether in January
or, say, next September. During this time Saakashvili theoretically
holds certain levers, right down to the dissolution of the newly
elected parliament under certain conditions. Second, Georgia’s present
constitution, “adjusted” in accordance with the wishes of the current
president, contains many other loopholes and traps of various kinds,
which he can use in the struggle to preserve his own political future.

The possibility also cannot be ruled out that the very fact that he
acknowledged his party’s defeat in the elections, which increased
his popularity in Western circles, was largely occasioned by hopes of
“reserve paths of retreat.” In the end, Saakashvili may just sabotage
the activity of Ivanishvili’s government throughout the time remaining
to him, creating a situation similar to the Ukrainian version of
relations between President Yushchenko and Premier Yanukovych or the
situation, say, that has been encountered in French political practice
in recent decades.

Let us try, nevertheless, to analyse “off the cuff” what regional
significance the parliamentary election results in Georgia might have
by examining the standard version of the development of events in
that country in the event of the full-blown formation of a full-blown
government by Ivanishvili’s party.

First, we should expect a softening of the general background in
Russian-Georgian relations. There evidently will not be a full-blown
political “reconciliation” for a certain time to come, but economic
relations will, in all probability, be resumed. Naturally, issues
in the form of Georgia’s proclaimed policy of NATO membership and
full-blown Euro-integration will remain unresolved. Ivanishvili has
reaffirmed the priority nature of these areas, adding at the same time
that he will pay his first official visit precisely to Washington. But
at the same time, to all appearances, if the so-called “North Caucasus
card,” which also includes the problem of recognizing the genocide of
Cherkessians, is not consigned completely to oblivion, it will cease to
be actively played by Tbilisi. This policy of Tbilisi’s may have been
rational under conditions of a complete impasse in Russian-Georgian
relations, but in the event of attempts to arrange relations with
Russia the new Georgian authorities will have to renounce Georgia’s
public use of the “Cherkessian lever” if not to pressure Moscow then
to play on its nerves.

However, the most important and interesting thing can be expected in
the matter of the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflict. Sukhumi and
Tskhinvali are already following the developments inside Georgia with
a sinking heart, fearing that in the event of the start of a new stage
of Russian-Georgian reconciliation their interests may be sacrificed
by Moscow. Predictable Saakashvili was far more advantageous and
convenient for them than Ivanishvili, who proclaims more flexible
approaches with regard to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On the other
hand, the fact that the negotiating format and expert consultation
on the Georgian side may be taken on by people who, in the eyes of
the Abkhazians and Ossetians, would be able to arouse trust and who
would have a deeper understanding of the specific nature of these
conflicts (Irakli Alasania, Davit Usupashvili, Paata Zakareishvili,
Ivlian Khaindrava, and other “republican intellectuals”) cannot fail,
by definition, to entail a change in the format of Georgian policy
on this issue.

In particular, claims have already emerged that Tbilisi may try to
implement a new policy of “everything but recognition,” implying the
establishment of direct contact with the Abkhazian and South Ossetian
authorities, the signing of an agreement on the nonuse of force, and
even the opening of “Ergneti Market,” which was closed down in 2004
and which once served as a very important lever to tie South Ossetia
economically to Georgia. But all of this, naturally, without Georgia
formally recognizing the independence of these republics. For now,
however, these are just vague leaks of information to the media, and it
is not clear to what extent a move of this kind can be implemented in
the event of the full-blown formation of a new government by Georgian
Dream with new views on the conflicts.

Theoretically, it is also possible to expect changes in the new
Georgian leadership’s approaches to the question of the regions
with the ethnic minorities that live there -Samtskhe-Javakheti
with its Armenian population and Kvemo Kartli with its primarily
Azerbaijani population. During the present elections, as in all the
previous ones, it was in these regions that the regime was able to
utilize its administrative resource with complete success, picking
up in Samtskhe-Javakheti, for example, more than 70 per cent of
the votes (compared with a result of just over 40 per cent on the
scale of all of Georgia) and all the seats of the majority-system
deputies. This situation, which can hardly suit Georgian society
and the Georgian political elite, is accounted for by a whole slew
of factors. These include both apathy and the substantially greater
administrative-security control in these regions under Saakashvili,
making it possible effectively to falsify elections, as well as
the ban on the functioning of regional parties and sociopolitical
movements from among representatives of ethnic minorities capable
of more effectively representing local interests and entering into
alliances with republic-wide parties by attracting the support of
their own supporters locally. Some progress is possible on this issue.

During the election campaign in Samtskhe-Javakheti Ivanishvili also
promised to examine the question of granting the Armenian language
the status of a regional language, with a more flexible approach to
its use as the language of local administration and education. In
addition to factors promoting the better integration of ethnic
Armenians and Azerbaijanis into Georgia’s political and cultural field
(through the creation of positive incentives and cadre cooptation),
the liberalization of the policy towards ethnic minorities and,
on the whole, a more open political atmosphere in Georgia after
the elections may also become an important argument in the hands of
the new government given a change of approach in the Abkhazian and
Ossetian conflicts.

We should expect the activation of Armenian-Georgian relations,
particularly when we consider the obvious factor of a possible
softening of relations between Tbilisi and Moscow and, accordingly,
a levelling of the “Russian limiter” in relations between Yerevan and
Tbilisi. On the other hand, the Georgian precedent of regime change
as the result of legitimate elections has aroused great interest and
even unfeigned liking in Armenian society and in the political elite
in the context of the presidential election expected in February
2013 and the incipient start of a tough and evidently also highly
competitive political struggle in Armenia.

To all appearances, the Georgian election results came as an unpleasant
surprise to the Azerbaijani authorities. Novruz Mamedov, spokesman
for Ilham Aliyev’s administration, declared that “not only he but
also everyone to a certain degree is surprised that President Mikheil
Saakashvili’s party was unable to secure the support of the Georgian
public.” The Azerbaijani official’s concern is understandable, for
elections are expected also in Azerbaijan in 2013, and the Georgian
example proved quite “out of place.” Baku is also concerned about
the possibility of the normalization of relations between Russia
and Georgia, which creates better opportunities for Armenia in its
communications with its chief military-political ally.

It is also unclear what fate may await Azerbaijani investments in the
event of a possible economic redistribution in Georgia after the change
of government. It is no secret that Azerbaijan’s economic penetration
of Georgia (for example, by enterprises of the Azerbaijani State Oil
Company) was implemented primarily with the shadowy participation of
certain persons in Saakashvili’s closest entourage.

Some people in Baku fear that this may now be jeopardized.

However, the aforementioned regional geopolitical situation based on
the Georgian election results is becoming apparent only in the most
general outline and may change significantly. The new political season
in Georgia is still only beginning, and the starting conditions and
many players may still substantially correct and change their positions
and approaches and even change places. However, one thing is obvious:
The regional “echo” of the Georgian elections will reverberate for
a long time to come.

[Translated from Russian]

From: Baghdasarian

CEREAL PRICE GOES UP IN ARMENIA

news.am
October 08, 2012 | 18:00

YEREVAN. – Bread and cereal prices went up in Armenia again in recent
days. Bread prices went up by AMD 10 to 20 or in cases when price
did not change, the bread weight in some stores were reduced. At the
same time, pasta prices also went up, due to the unprecedented high
prices of Russian wheat in ports.

Wholesale price for high class flour made AMD 276, while super type
is AMD 316/1 kg in a Yerevan stores.

Home-made pasta prices went up on average by 5 to 6 percent and the
wholesale price made AMD 380/1 kg. International wheat prices are
not steady as well.

From: Baghdasarian

U.S., NATO PREFERS TURKEY ‘TO PULL THE CHESTNUTS OUT OF THE FIRE’ – ARMENIAN EXPERTS

tert.am
08.10.12

Different media outlets, including German ones, refuted the reports
that an artillery shell that killed five and injured at least ten
Turkish citizens in the border town of in Akcakale, Å~^anlıurfa
Province, Turkey, was really fired by the Syrian army.

At her meeting with journalists on Monday, Anush Hovhannisyan,
an expert in Turkic studies, said it is one more proof of Turkish
provocations. “That is, Turkey is eagerly seeking its military
involvement in the Syria crisis,” she said.

The Arabist Hayk Kocharyan shares Ms Hovhannisyan’s opinion. The
reports that Syria allegedly assumed the responsibility for the
tragedy and later apologized are false, he added.

He noted that the attack was launched from the region controlled
by insurgents.

As regards NATO and U.S. support to Turkey, Ms Hovhannisyan said that
the two prefer Turkey to “pull the chestnuts out of the fire.”

Turkey’s naval forces reached the Mediterranean coast, Syria’s
north-western region mostly populated by Christians and Alevis.

Ms Hovhannisyan noted that Turkey is now creating a springboard
in the north-western and southern regions for further military
operations inland.

Both the experts believe that Syria is a “bur in the throat” of the
geographical center of “Syrian spring” – the Bashar Assad regime has
not collapsed as soon as it was expected to.

The U.S and NATO on the one hand, and Turkey on the other hand are
divided over Syria’s state system after Bashar Assad: the former want
to see Syria a multinational state, whereas the latter is placing
emphasis on the need for Islamic Syria.

“The Justice and Development Party claims that the minority is
pressing the majority in Syria. We should not forget that, although
conservative, these are Islamic authorities supportive of Sunnism,”
Ms Hovhannisyan said.

Mr Hayk Kocharyan, in turn, noted that the Syrian president’s power
is not entirely based on Alevis’ power. Also, his wife comes from a
well-known Sunni family.

From: Baghdasarian

PROSPEROUS ARMENIA LEADER SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENCY – VARTAN OSKANIAN

tert.am
08.10.12

Armenia’s ex-FM Vartan Oskanian, who is an MP of the Prosperous
Armenia Party (PAP), believes that the party should nominate a
candidate in the 2013 presidential election in Armenia, and “the
party leader Gagik Tsarukyan should first of all be this candidate.”

“With respect to the PAP nominating its candidate, I can say the
following: first, the party has not yet made an official decision on
the issue. So what I am going to say now is my personal opinion. Since
the PAP enjoys great reputation in the country, and the people have
great expectations, I think that the party must necessarily participate
in the presidential election by nominating its own candidate.

It is natural that the party leader Gagik Tsarukyan should first of all
be this candidate. If, however, Mr Tsarukyan is unwilling to run for
presidency, and the party decides on my candidacy, I am ready to assume
this responsibility,” Oskanian said in an interview with Civilnet.am.

Asked if the PAP or its leader will face even stronger pressure should
the party nominate its presidential candidate, Oskanian said that this
issue should be considered in terms of Armenia’s national interests.

“Armenia will only benefit from the PAP’s participation in the
presidential election. Our democracy, the people will have a real
alternative, and the international community will treat us as a
country that has embarked on the way of true democracy,” Oskanian said.

At a press conference on September 15, Vahan Babayan, an MP of
the PAP, stated that the PAP leader has the highest ratings as a
political figure.

The MP’s statement was followed by the publication of survey results
by the sociologist Aharon Adibekyan. According to the results, 30.4%
of the respondents see Gagik Tsarukyan as a presidential candidate.

From: Baghdasarian

CAFESJIAN CENTER FOR THE ARTS AND YEREVAN HISTORY MUSEUM TO HAVE A JOINT EXHIBITION

ARMENPRESS
8 October, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 8, ARMENPRESS: Cafesjian Center for the Arts continues
its inter-museum cooperation project by organizing joint exhibitions
with sister museums. The exhibition organized in partnership with
Yerevan History Museum and titled “Yerevan. View from the future” is
marking the launch of 2012 Erebuni-Yerevan celebrations. Armenpress
was informed by Lilit okhakyan, responsible for PR and marketing
of Cafesjian Center for the Arts. She has also added that the first
exhibition in this program was Spring Motifs, organized in partnership
with the Museum of Russian Art.

The exhibition on view at the Cafesjian Center for the Arts presents
fine and graphic artworks by renowned Armenian artists, portraying
various scenes of Yerevan in the first half of 20th century, as well
as photographs of modern-day Yerevan, symbolizing the progress of
the city in retrospect to old Yerevan.

Armenpress reports that the Director of the Yerevan History Museum,
Armine Sargsyan has noted “The presented works are valuable not only
from an artistic but also from a historical perspective, for they
represent a city that has now become history. Owing to M. Saryan, P.

Terlemezyan, H. Kojoyan, S. Arakelyan and other celebrated artists,
the younger generation today enjoys an opportunity to form a true
idea of the Yerevan they have never seen”.

From: Baghdasarian