Abdullah Gul Sure Possible Setting Up Of Subcommission Of Historians

ABDULLAH GUL SURE POSSIBLE SETTING UP OF SUBCOMMISSION OF HISTORIANS ‘WILL CLARIFY FACTS’ REGARDING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

ArmInfo
2009-10-07 12:59:00

ArmInfo. President of Turkey Abdullah Gul is sure that possible
setting up of a subcommission of historians "will clarify facts"
regarding the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish president expressed such
views in an interview to the Le Figaro.

Asked if Turkey is ready to start discussing the issue of Armenian
genocide to achieve full normalization of relations and opening the
border with Armenia, Gul said Turkey wants the historical commission
to be set up to establish facts." Asked if these facts have not been
established yet, Gul said: "No, of course. Those events happened one
hundred years ago. Indeed, there were tragic and sorrowful sufferings,
but there were mutual. If enmity were not ended, France and Germany
would not cooperate now. Our priorities is peace, stability and
cooperation in the whole region for the future of our children." As
regards the Turkey-EU talks, Gul said the problem is in Turkey and
in the necessity to achieve European standards.

A. Gul’s interview before his visit to France that got underway on
Wednesday was timed to the Days of Turkey in France. The president
is expected to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and high-
ranking officials.

The protocols on establishment of diplomatic relations and
normalization of relations initialed by Armenia and Turkey provide
for setting up the above subcommission of historians.

Five Clues To Arshile Gorky’s Work

FIVE CLUES TO ARSHILE GORKY’S WORK
by Gregory Lima

ticle/2009-10-01-five-clues-to-arshile-gorky-s-wor k&pg=3
Thursday October 01, 2009

Yerevan – In the 1920s in Yerevan and New York major new art museums
were created. In Yerevan, Martiros Saryan was establishing the
National Gallery, while in New York Alfred Barr was preparing MoMA,
the Museum of Modern Art.

A major art museum is an expensive judgment on what passes as worth
gathering and saving.

Each in its time required an explanatory narrative to justify its
acquisitions. Periodically each narrative requires renewed scrutiny in
the light of new developments, expanded horizons, and reevaluations. We
are in such a period today in Yerevan.

Both Yerevan and New York had to answer the question: What is
significant modern art?

Strangely, perhaps, the question at that time was much more difficult
to answer in New York than in Yerevan. At the turn of the century
and into the early 1920s, as far as the art scene was concerned,
Moscow was a suburb of the Parisian avant garde, often outdoing Paris.

Major Armenian artists of the period studied in Moscow, Paris, or both,
and were generally open, within their own perspectives, to the latest
"advances."

I grew up as a schoolboy in Arshile Gorky’s New York of the 1930s
and early 1940s, where I haunted the museums and galleries. In that
atmosphere of economic depression, Gorky’s Parisian-inspired outlook
on modern art was an especially hard sell. Personally, I didn’t
understand the formative work he and the small number of artists
attached to the American modern-art avant garde were doing.

The meaning is in the movement

One day, at one of the New York museums, I watched a very tall man
intently staring at a painting on the wall. As I watched him, for the
longest time his eyes would not break from the scene before him. For
some reason it made me uncomfortable. Deliberately, I walked between
him and the wall, breaking his contact.

He turned on me, angry. "It is paint," I said, defensively. "It is
not moving."

"It is a Cezanne!" he answered the rude boy. "The meaning is in
the movement."

I believe the tall man with strong, unblinking eyes focused on the
painting before him was Arshile Gorky. It was the best introduction
to modern art this critic was ever to receive.

What Cezanne brought to modern art was the fusion of time and motion
into painting, as the artist experienced it, and he did it in the
most innocent of all possible ways. He did it by painting in his own
style exactly what he saw, as he saw it. But his painting was not a
quick sketch executed in the moment.

When he stood up and stretched and then returned to the scene before
him, even though he tried to place himself exactly where he was, the
scene had changed, subtly or seriously. The change was in the light,
the color, or perhaps a slight altering of where he was sitting. It was
the same, but different in a visible way against what he had already
painted. Instead of erasing, altering, or ignoring what he had done
before, he learned to deliberately include it. How he did this with
his brush and colors made all the difference. In this simple act he
revolutionized modern art.

It depended on the artists who would follow him and how they
interpreted the innovation. At its simplest, it visibly extended
the plane of a color. Abstract the planes and you come to Cubism,
as with Picasso. But that was only one of multiple possibilities of
new artistic systems with the artist rather than the subject at the
center of the work, all of which may not yet have been explored. At
its heart lay the importance of the artist’s released creativity
in shaping his vision, his intention, and the hinted possibility of
conjoining multiple perspectives in a single composition.

America looks to Europe

The effect on modern art, including early-20th-century Russian art,
was so profound that Lenin, on the advice of his minister of culture,
was prepared (until the money too soon ran out) to erect a statue
of Cezanne in a Moscow square, to celebrate him as one of the major
revolutionaries of the times.

If Cezanne found favor among the revolutionaries in Russia, who
spoke for the disenfranchised, it was an entirely different matter in
America. The French avant garde, with their international influence,
had a certain snob appeal in America, and was largely the province of
the highly educated. Alfred Barr, establishing the Museum of Modern
Art, was a product of Princeton, with a Harvard Ph.D. The collectors
who depended on his educated eye began by looking to Europe, offering
little support for the few local aspirants. That support had to
come from a scant number of collectors, and strangely for the United
States, from the government. In the first six years of its existence,
from 1929 to 1935, MoMA spent no more than $1,000 on new acquisitions.

That Gorky was included in the first group exhibit at the MoMA in
1930 was a notable achievement, and it established him as a serious
artist. By that time he was about 26 years old and had transformed
himself from Manoog Adoian – the boy with the donkey in the Yerevan
market trying to sell to other starving Genocide refugees the
gleanings from the fields that his sisters had gathered after others
had harvested the crops.

He was to become one of the four pillars of Armenian modern art,
standing with Martiros Saryan, Hakob Hakobyan, and Ervand Kochar. Of
the four, to my mind, he is the least understood, cut off by tragedy
at the moment he had finally achieved the breakthrough into a wholly
original style of international importance.

Transferring the capital of modern art

Over a period of some two decades from that first exhibition at the
MoMA, he was a leader among a small group of a new wave that would
sweep the art world, transferring the capital of modern art from
Paris to New York.

It is not strange that recently in Paris, at the prestigious Pompidou,
a new series of exhibitions, showing the development of modern
art from the mid-20th century, started by giving over the whole
designated space for the exhibition to Arshile Gorky as the beginning
of the contemporary movement of which New York is the capital. The
recognition of his stature in Paris, and in contemporary art, would
have made him proud.

How the boy whose earliest memories were of Armenian home life and
growing up on the shores of Lake Van made this journey has been told
in several books. What can be gleaned offers some useful clues to
the particular nature of his art.

Five seem especially important to understanding the man and his art.

Late speaker

The first clue is that he reportedly didn’t speak until he was six
years old. He once boasted that he didn’t speak until he was eight.

Not speaking does not necessarily mean you do not have a language
of thought and observation. Certain aspects of observation may be
keener. It can mean you are not satisfied you know something because
someone gave it a name.

If you have an active, intelligent mind, and Manoog Adonian had a
very active and intelligent mind, you may look more profoundly at the
interaction of things in a way that may be outside the determining
grammar of verbal speech.

Perhaps you see that what surrounds the object may be as important
in its effect as the object itself – at the least it modifies it,
even when it may seem like blank space. In studying Gorky, do not
depend on words. Blank spaces are not blank.

In his own hands

A second clue is that his education was understandably spotty, with
large gaps when he might have or should have been in school. Perhaps
his most important learning all his life was by practical thinking
and doing.

He had to work from the age of 12, hands on, with little instruction,
experimenting with what works and what doesn’t, in order to produce
his own products for market. Among 200,000 impoverished refugees,
Gorky had to produce for a difficult market, to put it mildly.

Among his jobs in Yerevan to earn food for his family, he worked with
animal horn, creating and selling sturdy, fine-toothed combs. He also
found employment working with wood, learning joining as a carpenter.

Perhaps most significantly, he got a job as a typesetter. This involved
movable type, setting each letter and blanks between words in rows
by hand, proofreading words, sentences, paragraphs, correcting. The
final page was a product of many proofs and serious labor. It was a
process he would never forget, adapting it to his painting.

>From the presses he took pages home. In the night he would bind them
for sale the next day as pamphlets or small books.

This direct connection to printed matter would last for the rest of
his life. He was rarely without a small book in his pocket. Such
printed matter was a source of his constant study of the masters,
his delight in Armenian poetry, and significantly, the latest word
and illustrations from Paris, his vital umbilical to the avant garde
of modern art.

He went briefly to three different art schools in America, but his
education as an artist, like his education as an artisan in Yerevan,
was basically in his own hands. He was a quick study in drawing,
at which he excelled, and he could use it to help support himself in
school. Even at school he found practical application for his studies.

When he arrived in New York, after only a few years in America, he
believed himself to be a qualified art teacher. Not only did he land
a job as a teacher at a school in the center of the big city, giving
him a start, but he discovered that by stressing sharp observation of
the masters and committing to a hands-on approach to self-expression,
he was an excellent teacher.

Clarity of space

A third clue is that by accounts of other artists who knew him well,
he insisted on working hard every day, preferring to go without food
than without paint and canvas, pencils and paper; and he was meticulous
in the care of the tools of his trade.

It would seem that having decided to be an artist, he became a serious
artist every day for the rest of his life. In a major distinction
from other artists in the neighborhood, he would not work until the
floor of his studio was spotless, and he would get down on his knees
and scrub it when necessary.

I believe the clarity of the space his art inhabited as he worked
and his ability to precisely navigate that space with his tools to
meet his sensibility was a matter of primary importance to him.

Retaining a grip

The fourth clue is that he kept a picture of his mother close to him
as he worked – the mother that refused food and died of starvation
outside of Yerevan in his arms during the Genocide.

In America he had assumed a new, distinguished name and created an
alternate, somewhat romantic identity as a personal declaration of
freedom from the circumstances of his past. The trajectory of his life
had taken him far from his origins. He retained his grip on reality
by keeping before him who he really was and what that meant to him.

It is reasonable to assume his sense of who he truly was and how he
felt about it deeply affected his work.

An Armenian journey

Finally, he met Armenian artists and first came into direct contact
with oil paintings upon arriving in Tiflis, Georgia, from Yerevan
on his journey to America. I believe he saw himself in the mirror of
those paintings and painters.

In a critical moment of self discovery, his new life began not in
America but in Tiflis, I believe.

Tiflis was the eastern intellectual and financial capital of the
Armenian diaspora. It was the 19th-century center of the first
self-taught school of Armenian oil painting that had originated in
Nakhichevan, the Hovnatanian school. Saryan in that city in 1916
established the Union of Armenian Artists in the hope of safeguarding
the still-living Armenian legacy, and he would draw upon artists in
that circle to create the first home for Armenian art in Yerevan.

When Gorky arrived for his brief visit of some weeks, Ervand Kochar had
recently completed his studies in Moscow and was painting landscapes
in the park. Shortly afterward, Kochar would leave for remarkable
success in Paris.

Hakob Hakobyan was on a different life trajectory, and is still alive
and at work, but he plays a role in the as-yet-unwritten story of the
intertwined lives and tribulations of the four pillars of Armenian
modern art.

Of the four, Gorky had the shortest lifespan, dying by his own hand
at the age of 44, broken in body, arm paralyzed, unable to paint, at
the very height of his success. He is buried in Sherman, Connecticut,
in an all-but-forgotten grave a few winding miles down the back roads
from my parents’ summer cottage, where I now live. Standing where
he painted some of his best late work, I have wondered what he might
have produced had he had just a few more years of life. But that is
idle speculation; this is the Gorky we have.

The Eagle Room

The story took a historic turn this week in the empty Eagle Room, where
preparations are underway for the internationally significant event of
the opening of the brilliantly innovative Cafesian Center for the Arts.

Twenty-three packages of Gorky’s works were brought into the room
where they will be on display. As an ensemble they very well illustrate
Gorky’s strengths, his thinking, and his way of working. They stretch
over time from his early work to his probing experiments in what was
to be called Abstract Expressionism.

Several are startlingly beautiful.

Opening the heavy packing was the Cafesjian Center for the Arts
director Michael De Marsche, with a box-cutter in hand. The package
opening was random, with each work placed against the gallery wall. How
they were to be hung in the room for the anticipated Gorky exhibit
was to be determined in the next days.

To my delight, De Marsche, opening one of the packages, revealed
a Gorky study with the unmistakably heavy influence of Cezanne. In
that moment I was back in New York with the tall man whose gaze I
had broken as a child, and Gorky had come back to Yerevan.

The genial De Marsche was very much up to the occasion. Upon
unpacking each work he placed it for a brief spell on a table. He
has a showman’s instinct. For that moment each claimed the space
of the whole gallery. Gorky seemed to look out of his work from the
high reach of the Cascades to the whole of Yerevan beneath our feet,
and Gorky was in command.

http://www.reporter.am/index.cfm?furl=/go/ar

The Pentagon’s Coming Epic Fail

THE PENTAGON’S COMING EPIC FAIL
Joshua Foust

Registan.net
10/3/2009

Let’s think about the Pentagon-funded propaganda channel
Al-Hurra. Originally conceived in 2004, it was meant to be an
Arabic-language counterpart to the supposed anti-Americanism of other
Middle Eastern-focused news channels, notably al-Jazeera. Ever since,
especially given its dismal ratings, the channel has faced criticisms
from all angles, whether Congress insisting it was still insufficiently
pro-America and pro-Israel, the GAO noting unacceptable management
and editorial practices, or, most recently, an investigation by the
State Department’s Investigator General. In short, the channel has
been a failure at almost every level.

It was a major reason why skepticism ran high about the Pentagon’s
Special Operations Command’s Trans Regional Web Initiative, an attempt
to create and run regionally-oriented news sites in Russian, Chinese,
and the major Caucasian languages (Georgian, Armenian, Azeri). As
EurasiaNet correspondent Deirdre Tynan notes, skepticism runs high
about the initiative:

Experts and observers believe the initiative hypothetically has
merit. But they are questioning whether the Pentagon, its contractors
and subcontractors have the expertise and deft touch needed to
make information inroads in areas where there are deep reserves of
hostility and suspicion toward the use of American military power. Many
experts believe that existing US government-funded mass media outlets,
specifically Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
(RFERL), have the capabilities and experience needed to achieve the
desired objectives.

"The initiative is not a bad idea in a general sense. But, given
the epic fail of the Pentagon’s previous attempts to do this, I just
assume it will be clumsy," said Joshua Foust, military analyst and
blogger. "It’s doubtful the Pentagon would allow these news outlets
[websites] to have editorial freedom and highlight US missteps."

Not to bela trength of RFE/RL and VOA is that they criticize American
actions. Even though they are not truly independent journalist
organizations, that kind of editorial freedom gives them a lot more
credibility than, say, the Pentagon Channel.

SOCOM’s ownership of these websites does not bode well–even if they
wind to be capable news organizations, the fact that their funding
comes from the fracking special forces means they’ll never attain
the kind of reputation and independence they’d need to fulfill their
stated purpose. Hell, VOA and RFE/RL still are viewed with tremendous
skepticism, especially inside Russia, and they’ve been at this for
literally decades. It’s tough to know if they’re effective, and they
have much more freedom to operate. How does SOCOM expect TRWI to be
effective? We don’t really know. Don’t hold your breath.

Hayk Demoyan: Protocols Contain No Precondition On NKR Issue

HAYK DEMOYAN: PROTOCOLS CONTAIN NO PRECONDITION ON NKR ISSUE

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
05.10.2009 15:19 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Ankara has to be more interested in Protocols’
confirmation of self determination right than Armenia does, Genocide
Museum Director Hayk Demoyan told a news conference in Yerevan.

"Protocols are criticized by many who assert the documents stipulate
for territorial integrity principle and leave out the nation’s self
determination right. This is seen as a precondition for NKR conflict
settlement issue. Still, I believe, Protocols contain no preconditions
on NKR issue," Hayk Demoyan noted, adding that the documents could
pose danger to Armenia, should they clearly stipulate for Armenia’s
acknowledging Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

He reminded that Cyprus issue is Turkey’s crucial problem, with Turkish
diplomacy taking every effort for Cyprus Turks’ self determination
rights acknowledgement.

Diaspora not affected by President’s meeting with Europe communities

Diaspora not affected by President’s meeting with Europe’s Armenian
communities
03.10.2009 15:09 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ RA President Serzh Sargsyan’s meeting with Europe’s
Armenian community representatives in Paris did not particularly
affect Diaspora’s position on Armenian-Turkish Protocols, Head of
Armenians’ Union in Italy Paykar Svazlyan told a PanARMENIAN.Net
reporter.

At that he found Diaspora’s demands for receiving Armenian
authorities’ explanations natural. `Diaspora’s reaction is a
psychological complex which should be overcome through a dialogue,’
Svazlyan noted.

According to him, Turkey is attempting to exert pressure on
Armenia. `We must be strong enough to resist all that with united
efforts,’ he said, considering Armenia’s desire to normalize ties with
Turkey quite natural.

During RA President’s meeting with Europe’s Armenian community,
Armenians’ Union of Italy was represented by RA Honored Consul in
Milano Pietro Kuchukyan.

Philip Gordon: Armenian-Turkish Normalization, Karabakh Process Goin

PHILIP GORDON: ARMENIAN-TURKISH NORMALIZATION, KARABAKH PROCESS GOING AHEAD

armradio.am
30.09.2009 16:39

US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Philip Gordon held a briefing for journalists to comment on the
meetings of Azerbaijani, Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers
with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the margins of the UN
General Assembly 64th session, Press Secretary of the US Department
of State reported.

"During the meeting with Foreign Minister Mammadyarov of Azerbaijan,
the Secretary of State underscored the United States continued strong
support for the Nagorno-Karabakh process. Also in the meeting was our
new Minsk Group co-chair – that is to say, representative to those
talks Ambassador Robert Bradtke, a highly experienced diplomat whose
designation in this job underscores how keen we are to see progress
on that front," Philip Gordon said.

The Assistant Secretary of State continued that "Secretary Clinton met
with Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbandian and she stressed our very
strong support for the continued Turkey-Armenia normalization process."

"She made clear that, for the United States that is a process that
should move forward without preconditions and within a reasonable
timeframe.

She also raised the issue of democratization in Armenia. She stressed
that we cooperate and value our partnership with Armenia on a range
of issues, and wa nted to see that move forward."

According to Gordon, during the meeting with the Turkish Foreign
Minister the Secretary talked about Turkey-Armenia, and again she
stressed the US support for that process.

Philip Gordon refused to make any comments about signings or schedules
of protocols between Armenia and Turkey, which were going to sign a
deal on October 10. "There are things still to be finalized as to
the details of a signature and submission to parliament, said the
Assistant Secretary.

"This is a difficult process that faces some political opposition
in both places, and it’s hard for both governments. We welcome the
process; but we also want to see a conclusion to the process, and
that’s what we’re underscoring when we say that".

When the Turkish journalist asked "Just to spell out preconditions,
you mean that the Armenians don’t stipulate that the Turks recognize
the genocide?" Gordon answered: "I mean, no preconditions means
no preconditions on either side. There are lots of things that
one could try to link this process to, and what we are saying
is that the process is inherently valuable, that we think that
Turkey-Armenian normalization is a good thing, and it shouldn’t
wait for other things to get done or be linked to other things; it
should go ahead. I mentioned in the context of the Secretary’s meeting
with the Azerbaijan i foreign minister the Nagorno-Karabakh process,
which is also going ahead.

If we could succeed on these multiple tracks, we would really take
a major step towards peace and stability in the Caucasus, energy
corridor across the Caucasus, and prosperity in the region. So that’s
why we strongly support these."

Gordon added that Turkish-Armenian normalization was not an initiative
by the United States and it was initiated just by Turkey and Armenia.

"Armenia, without an open border with Turkey, is isolated. We saw
during the war in Georgia in August 2008 that it could be even further
isolated when negative things happen in the region. And a normal
relationship with Turkey would really be a historic development that
would benefit the people of both countries today. It would facilitate
trade between them. And so we actually do think that there is a
historic opportunity in the region," Philip Gordon said.

As for the possibility of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s visit
to Turkey for a return match, the US Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs said: "I understand that the Armenian
president has been invited to Turkey for the return football match. We
think it would be a good thing if he attended it, reciprocating
the attendance of the Turkish president at the match when it was
in Armenia. And you’ll have to ask him under what circumstances he
would go or not go. It would be a good sign and further evidence of
the two countries coming together if he went to the football match."

RIA Novosti Information Agency And Russian-Armenian University To Ho

RIA NOVOSTI INFORMATION AGENCY AND RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN UNIVERSITY TO HOLD CONFERENCE ON SECURITY IN SOUTH CAUCASUS

ARKA
Sep 30, 2009

YEREVAN, September 30, /ARKA/. Russian RIA Novosti information
agency and the Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University will hold a
4-day conference in Yerevan on October 1-4 on Security in the South
Caucasus and Fulfillment of the Region’s Peoples’ Interests.

It will be the fourth annual international conference organized by RIA
Novosti with participation of journalists and experts from Armenia,
Georgia, Azerbaijan. Prominent Russian experts, economists, political
analysts and heads of mass media have also arrived in Yerevan to take
part in the conference.

The organizing committee told ARKA that the conference will continue
a set of events for promotion of the idea of information cooperation
between RIA Novosti and the Southern Caucasian countries.Participants
of the conference will present in Yerevan the most comprehensive
and credible information about Russia’s role in the region and its
interest in achieving stability across the Caucasus. For this purpose
the International Novosti Press Center in Yerevan will organize a
tele-bridge between Yerevan and Kiev, Ukraine, on New Geopolitical
Landscape in the Greater Caucasus.

This year’s conference is timed with the 10-th anniversary of the
Russian-Armenian University. Chief editors of popular Russian mass
media outlets will conduct master classes on Russia’s intern ational
policy for the university’s students, majoring in journalism and
political science.

Armenian Foreign Minister Delivers Speech At The 64th Session Of UN

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER DELIVERS SPEECH AT THE 64TH SESSION OF UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ARMENPRESS
Sep 29, 2009

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 29, ARMENPRESS: On September 28 Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandian delivered speech during the general
discussions of 64th session of the UN General Assembly. Media relations
department of Armenian Foreign Ministry told Armenpress that in his
speech the Minister said: "Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and
gentlemen, I would like to warmly welcome you, Dr. Treki, on your
election as President of the 64th session of the General Assembly
and express our readiness to work with you to achieve the ambitious
agenda that is ahead of us during this session. I would also like to
extend our thanks to the outgoing President, Mr. Brockmann for his
hard work during the previous session.

Mr. President, Each new session of the General Assembly provides an
opportunity to share with each other our achievements and concerns,
and join our efforts in moving the global agenda forward. We are
going through a truly challenging period. This year we were all
devastated by the impact of the financial crisis. The crisis did not
leave a corner of the world or an economic sector untouched. Many
countries in the world experienced unprecedented economic decline
seriously challenging the hard-earned advancements and the prospects
for reaching the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

Armenia was not void of the dramatic effects of the on-going financial
crisis. However, the Armenian government did its best to safeguard
the socially vulnerable. No cuts in the budget were made in the
social sector.

Mr. President, We believe that our endeavors must be guided, first
and foremost, by the need to mitigate human costs of the crisis in
order to avoid serious consequences on human security. We believe
that an equitable global recovery requires full participation of
all countries, irrespective of their size and level of development,
in shaping appropriate responses to the crisis. And we have to come
together he take decisions that help us overcome the past and build
future because there are still painful gaps between our people’s
dreams and prospects.

United Nations funds, programs and agencies, in accordance with their
respective mandates, have an important role to play in advancing
development, in accordance with national strategies and priorities,
to achieve the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals.

We understand that these goals for which the deadline set is the year
2015, will require enormous efforts to achieve. The General Assembly
will continue to address this issue during its sixty-fourth session,
and Armenia is ready to contribute to the process of preparing for
a high-level meeting in September 2010.

Mr. President, We embarked on the process of UN reforms in order to
reflect the present world in this fora and to enhance its capabilities
and effectiveness in addressing modem challenges. Armenia commits
itself to strengthening the institutional capacities of the United
Nations, supports the UN reform-processes and is ready to bring its
contribution.

We were successful in agreeing on several vital decisions, creation
of Peacebuilding Commission and Human Rights Council among others. We
aspire to further advance the human rights protection in conformity
with the obligations of member-states, and we see an honest discussion
on outstanding issues and sharing of experience on how to overcome
them within the Human Rights Council as a true path to success in
this respect.

We regard the principles of Prevention of Genocide and Responsibility
to Protect as the key principles, cornerstones of the overall human
security system. In this respect we commend the report of the Secretary
General on "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect", which charts
a course for the United Nations to prevent genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing through bolstering the capacities of the Organization.

As it is rightly stated, in the Report, genocides do not happen
all of a sudden. The instigators propa rounds for violence. As
survivors of genocide, we, Armenians welcome all efforts to prevent
and combat racist and xenophobic attitudes. We have been and will be
doing everything to provide for a continuous advocacy for prevention
of genocide. The international community must be vigilant over the
development of such situations and events, and demonstrate its ability
to act timely to prevent future tragedies.

Mr. President, We consider the goals of disarmament and
non-proliferation major elements of global and regional security
systems. We must shoulder the responsibility and work not only towards
non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons but also towards
elimination of militaristic aspirations of some states. It is totally
unacceptable when the threats to resolve the conflicts through military
means are made on the highest level, and those are left unabated by
the international community.

The NK peace process, which is mediated by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE
Minsk Group, is moving forward. The Presidents and the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan meet regularly to discuss
the principles of a comprehensive resolution of the conflict. Armenia
is convinced that in order to create an opportunity for progress in
the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, the parties
should commit to refrain from steps that could hamper dialogue and
the peace process.

On the international arena, Azerbaijan consistently misrepresents the
essence of the Nagorno Karabagh problem, like two days ago in this
forum, trying to smother ethnic cleansings and its policy of violence
against the people of Nagorno Karabagh. The international community
recalls the Azerbaijani open aggression, large-scale hostilities
and war against Nagorno Karabagh, also with the help of mercenaries,
closely linked to terrorist organizations. These ultimately claimed
lives of tens of thousand of civilians.

We believe that there is a serious basis for the settlement of
the Nagorno Karabagh problem, if the provi by the Presidents of
the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Russian
Federation on 2 November 2008, in Moscow, and also in the Declaration
of the Foreign Ministers of the Co-Chair countries of the OSCE Minsk
Group issued in Helsinki on 4 December 2008, and in the Declaration
adopted by the Foreign Ministers of all 56 OSCE member states on 5
December 2008, are implemented. According to these documents, the
parties must commit themselves to the peaceful settlement of the
problem through negotiations, based on "Madrid Principles" of the
Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

The Basic Principles, around which negotiations are held currently,
are anchored on the benchmark codes of the international law as
incorporated in the Charter of this Organization, the Helsinki Final
Act and other relevant international documents. The international
principles of Non-Use or Threat of Use of Force, the Self-Determination
of Peoples and Territorial Integrity are equally viable. Some
have long attempted to downplay the importance of the notion of
self-determination of peoples as a second-rate principle in the
system of international law, and inferior to that of "territorial
integrity". I have to disappoint the advocates of double standards:
self-determination is an unconditional clause of the international
law; it is about liberty, freedom of any people to choose its future
and fate, and to defend its collective rights whenever those rights
and that future are jeopardized. If selfdetermination was inferior
to territorial integrity there would have been only 52 member states
in the UN, instead of 192 present.

Mr. President, Trust and accountability among neighboring states are
guarantees for sustainable cooperation and durable security in the
region. We, in the South Caucasus, have yet to report on that. Our
region, in fact, is among the most sensitive hot spots on the world’s
political map overloaded with almost a full set of security threats
and challenges. The region is devastated by conflicts and interstate
tensions, dividing lines and economic blockade. Closed borders and
ruptured ties have become the norm of life. However, a courageous act
and a courageous response hold the promise of changing the situation
to the better.

The process of the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations
that started by the initiative of the President of Armenia Serzh
Sargsyan last September, known as "football diplomacy," promises to
bear fruit despite all difficulties.

Over the past year with the help of our Swiss mediators and other
international partners we have advanced towards opening one of the
last closed borders in Europe and normalization of our relations
with NO preconditions. We wish to be confident that the necessary
political will can eventually leave behind the mentality of the past,
and we hope that the wisdom and courage will prevail to make the
last decisive steps. We have been most encouraged by the support of
the international community. We are well aware of the fundamental
and positive implications of the normalization of Armenian-Turkish
relations and of the opening of the border for the security and
stability of the region.

Mr. President, We must reinforce the bridges between UN member-states,
working out mutually beneficial and comprehensive security and
cooperation schemes. And our common objective should be the shaping
of an environment that is safe and prosperous for all.

To meet the political, economic, environmental and social challenges,
we have to put our efforts, resources and political determination tog
d these challenges and push ahead the international development agenda.

Thank you, Mr. President.

What Has Become Of GILD Arbitrage Fund’s Purported 20 Million Euro I

What Has Become of GILD Arbitrage Fund’s Purported 20 Million Euro Investment in Armenia’s Mines?
Edik Baghdasaryan

rage-risk-capital-fund-2/
2009/09/28 | 18:15

Feature Stories society economy

In the 2008 yearly financial report issued by the Estonian GILD
Arbitrage Risk Capital Fund, the company says that it has invested
20 million Euros in Armenia. According to the report, the company
has invested in Armenia’s mining sector via Melorama Holding Ltd.,
registered in Cyprus.

This firm has registered several subsidiary holdings in Armenia that
have also acquired mines and performed mining studies. The report
claims that it has spent 20 million Euros for such operations.

The question now before us is which specific mines has this off-shore
company purchased? We have yet been unable to answer this question. In
response to our inquiry, the government has declared that, "Melorama
Holding Ltd. does not appear in the list of those companies duly
registered as operating in the mining sector of the RoA." This
response can only mean that either the Armenian government is unaware
of the transactions taking place in the mining sector or that Melorama
Holding Ltd., for whatever reason, is conducting transactions through
a third party and that its name does not directly appear in the list
of shareholders.

Through the assistance of our colleague with the Estonian newspaper
"Äripaev", the shareholders of Melorama Holding Ltd. have been
uncovered:

1. 25% of the company belongs to "AS Gild Fund Management" registered
in Estonia.

2. 60% belongs to "Melorama Investments Ltd¦. This company is
registered in the Marshall Islands; another off-shore zone.

3. 15% belongs to Davit Manukyan, whose address is registered at
Yerevan, Aghbyur Serob Street 11/3, Apt. 2

No one lives at this address. Numerous phone calls went unanswered. The
apartment belongs to RoA Presidential Advisor Andranik Manukyan or
his son, Davit Manukyan.

We tried to get Andranik Manukyan’s comments on the matter but to no
avail. His assistant repeated that he was away on a business trip
and unavailable. We had informed them previously as to the nature
of our inquiry. The assistant gave us the same answer even when we
called a second time; this despite the fact that we had spotted
Andranik Manukyan at an event in downtown Yerevan that very same
day. Evidently the presidential advisor seeks to avoid comment on
the matter. Mr. Manukyan had dealings with Armenia’s mines back when
he was a minister in the government. It was through his meditation
that the Hankavan gold mine was sold to the Russian-based company,
GeoProMining. According to our information, the cost of the sale was
U.S. $30 million.

An Estonian journalist severely questions whether such investments have
actually been made. It cannot be ruled out but it is more likely that
in 2008 a few Armenian gold mines were sold to this off-shore company.

This would signify that the RoA government has seen not one penny as a
result of this transaction. It can also be assumed that the transaction
took place outside of Armenia and that none of the proceeds reverted
to Armenia.

Which mines have been purchased and who owns the exploratory and
operational licenses for them? Who were those government officials
that gave the go-ahead for the sale? One thing is crystal clear
however. Not just anyone could have obtained the exploratory and
operational licenses for the mines and then sold them without paying
any tax to the government.

The article appearing in the Estonian newspaper "Äripaev" cited
the quote of the Armenian government published in "Hetq" that
Melorama Holding Ltd. Isn’t registered in any lists of mining sector
shareholders.

Subsequently, the newspaper presented the following explanation given
by Tõnno Vahk, Director of GILD Arbitrage Risk Capital Fund:

We can’t comment from whom and on what conditions we bought those
assets (licenses) in Armenia, because there are strict confidentiality
agreements. Also, this could significantly damage ongoing negotiations
with potential investors. We have no need to share details of
our investments with public; this information is available for
investors. This kind of information (I asked the names of companies
GILD has in Armenia) is not important for public and publishing it
could only harm investors.

Melorama is a big group (altogether about 30 firms) and holding
company (Melorama Holding Ltd) does not directly own any Armenian
companies. According to the law only Armenian companies can own
licenses. This explains why there are now direct investments from
Cyprus to Armenian mining sphere.

We have nothing to do with Armenian former environment minister
(Vardan Ayvazyan), we invested, when he was vacated from his position.

Facts and information you got from Armenian government and journalist
are probably correct, but irrelevant and it has absolutely no meaning
from our position.

As one can see, the director of Gild Arbitrage claims that "Direct
investments in Armenia’s mining sector are made via Cyprus". According
to the RoA National Statistics Service, Cypriot direct investment in
Armenia during 2008 amounted to $10 million. However, this amount has
no connection to the investments made in the mining sector. Before
the mining sector was passed to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Energy end Natural Resourcez , Environment Minister Aram Harutyunyan
allocated several score of exploratory licenses. Most of the mines,
essentially gold mines, were granted to the firm "Luliar Ltd."

This firm belongs to Silva Hambardzumyan who also owns "G. Arshakyan
Ltd", another company that was granted exploratory licenses for a
number of other gold and copper mines. Furthermore, two months ago
Silva Hambardzumyan also purchased the company "Sipan 1", which owns
the operating licenses for the Meghri-Lijkvaz-Tey and Terterasar
gold mines. The question arises – is there any connection between
the Estonian investments and the mines owned by Sylva Hambardzumyan?

http://hetq.am/en/society/gild-arbit

Hillary Clinton To Leave For Zurich On October 10?

HILLARY CLINTON TO LEAVE FOR ZURICH ON OCTOBER 10?

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
28.09.2009 16:54 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ US State Secretary Hillary Clinton may attend the
ceremony of signing Armenian-Turkish Protocols on October 10. US
Intelligence Services have already reserved a hotel room for her,
German NZZ Online reports. Observers find that such step by Ms. Clinton
is aimed at showing United States’ interest in Armenian-Turkish
process. "Such interest is mainly accounted for oil and gas reserves
in Caucasus region. Switzerland’s mediation was authorized by US,"
said newly-appointed Ambassador in Bern.

German periodical also reports that US State Secretary’s participation
"has not yet been approved."

Ceremony will also be attended by Swiss Foreign Minister Michel
Michel Kalmi-Rey.