Author: Hovhannisian John

RUSSIA CRITICIZES EU EASTERN PARTNERSHIP

PanARMENIAN.Net
26.03.2009 23:30 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Russia’s Foreign Ministry Thursday renewed criticism
of the European Union’s new "Eastern Partnership" with six ex-Soviet
states, saying the scheme forced them to side with either Europe or
Russia, easy bourse.com reports

"We still have questions regarding the added value of the ‘Eastern
Partnership’," ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told journalists
at a weekly briefing.

e referred to a plan launched last week in Brussels designed to
provide support to eastern European countries and also encourage
reforms.

The countries involved – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova,
Ukraine and possibly Belarus – "face an artificial choice: Are you
with the European Union or are you with Russia?" said Nesterenko.

"That can be applied to Belarus to the fullest extent," he said.

He also warned against bringing the countries into conflict with
Moscow-led regional structures such as the Commonwealth of Independent
States and a defense group called the Collective Security Treaty
Organization.

"In our opinion, such an architecture of E.U. cooperation with Russia’s
neighbors shouldn’t come into conflict with the integration obligations
of these counties within the CIS and the Collective Security Treaty
Organization," said Nesterenko.

The new partnership plan has an aid package attached worth EUR600
million – money likely to be welcome as the economic crisis hits
the region.

THIRD ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI PUBLIC PEACEMAKING FORUM IS CONSTRUCTIVE: EXPERT

Trend
March 25 2009
Azerbaijan

Manager of the International Alert projects for Eurasia region
Dessislava Roussanova believes that the third Armenian-Azerbaijani
public peacemaking forum to support peaceful settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was constructive.

"The discussion was very constructive, the tone was extremely
positive. There was a desire among many that this collaboration between
civil society and the mediators should become a regular cooperation,"
the International Alert said.

The Armenian-Azerbaijani Forum titled, "Security: challenges and
opportunities, as well as mechanisms to establish trust" is being
held under the mediation of International Alert in Vienna on March
24-27. Participants of the forum are Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders
of civil society, experts and intellectuals from all sides in the
conflict. The forum is also attended by the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew
Bryza (U.S.), Bernard Fassier (France) and Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia).

Roussanova said that The three Co-Chairmen had a united message to
the Forum – war is not an option. But the Co-Chairmen were there
not just to deliver their messages. They were there to listen, to
engage in dialogue, and to discuss very frankly with civil society
issues and aspects of the Nagorno-Karabakh peacebuiding process and
the possible role that civil society could play in it".

The Armenian and Azerbaijani participants discussed their views
on challenges and possibilities to increase the level of trust and
confidence between the societies involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. "The debate was absolutely open. Everybody present was
expressing their views. There were some opinions which were far from
each other, this was expected. But there were also a lot of shared
ideas. The tone of the dialogue was most of the time very constructive,
Roussanova, said.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan
lost all of Nagorno-Karabakh except for Shusha and Khojali in December
1991. In 1992-93, Armenian armed forces occupied Shusha, Khojali and 7
districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed
a ceasefire in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia,
France, and the U.S. – are currently holding the peace negotiations.

ON A STOCK EXCHANGE

A1+
05:57 pm | March 23, 2009

Official

On March 23 NASDAQ OMX Armenia conducted a trade of 2.000.000 dollars
with an average rate of 368, 50 drams for a dollar. The closing price
is 368 drams, reports the press service of the Central Bank.

ONE YEAR OF SERZH SARGSYAN’S PRESIDENCY AS ASSESSED BY POLITICIANS
Lena Badeyan

"Radiolur"
24.03.2009 11:20

The coalition forces are generally satisfied with the work done by
Serzh Sargsyan during the first year of his presidency, although they
notice certain shortcomings, as well.

"I would not say that everything has been succeeded, because the social
crisis hampered the progress. There were spheres where my expectations
were greater. The one who never errs, does nothing. Simply, we have
no right to err," Press Secretary of the Republican Party of Armenia
Edward Sharmazanov said.

Head of the opposition "Heritage" faction Armen Martirosyan has his
own formula for the implementation of Serzh Sargsyan’s programs.

"If Serzh Sargsyan wants to accomplish his election platforms, he must
first destroy the oligarchic-criminal, the political-economic system,
and for that purpose he should launch dialogue with the opposition
and the public, and hold extraordinary elections later. Only in this
case he can fulfill his pledges," Armen Martirosyan said.

The Armenian President’s stance during the August events in the
region is important to Heghine Bisharyan, Head of the "Orinats Yerkir"
faction. "We managed to be rather flexible and maintain our relations
with neighbor states, Georgia and Russia, and face no economic
problems," she said.

Representati ves of the coalition forces tried to be objective in
their evaluations and point to the negative things along with positive
ones. Both Heghine Bisharyan and member of the Prosperous Armenia Party
Naira Zohrabyan first recalled the tragic events in Yerevan last March.

"As for the domestic political situation, it would be untrue to say
that the internal political tension has been completely settled after
the events of March 1."

No matter who was the leader of the state on March 1, 2008, today’s
authorities are responsible for revealing the truth, Armenia
Martirosyan considers.

In general, the past year was a year of daring projects, Edward
Sharmazanov says.

These daring projects include the construction of a new nuclear power
plant, the Armenian-Iranian railway, the creation of the Pan-Armenian
Bank, the intensification of the negotiation on the settlement of
the Karabakh issue, the establishment of Armenian-Turkish relations
through "football diplomacy."

"I don’t want to throw mud at the activity of our two ex-Presidents.

Simply, it was the requirement of the time that Armenia’s foreign
policy had to become more initiating and it was one of the points in
Serzh Sargsyan’s platform," Sharmazanov said.

Naira Zohrabyan stressed that the previously planned steps sometimes
fail even in the leading countries of the world.

UNISTREAM IMPLEMENTS SERVICE OF PAYMENT RECEIPT THROUGH ‘ELECTRONIC CASH’

ArmInfo
2009-03-24 11:33:00

ArmInfo. UNIStream carries out a new project aimed at extension of
the product row. As Unibank’s press service told ArmInfo, the system
has implemented a service of payment receipt in favour of "electronic
cash" systems: "Yandex.Money", MoneyMail, Webmoney, "Mobile Purse",
"Common Purse", RBK Money.

"This is a quite convenient kind of Internet-service which has lately
got widespread occurrence in the world. One can pay for the telephone,
Internet, TV, purchases, as well as make communal payments directly
from the browser", Unibank’s UniStream Director for Service and
Control of Remittance Systems Natalya Ter-Gevorkyan said.

UniStream’s additional services also include payments on the imported
goods, credit repayments, replenishment of the deposit or account in
any currency, etc. To note, UniStream system’s turnover in Armenia
in Jan-Feb, 2009, exceeded $55.2 mln. The number of money transfers
exceeded 75,000. UniStream system in Armenia has been working through
"Unibank" since the second half, 2002. The tariffs on transfers through
this system start from 1,1%, delivery duration – from 10 minutes,
geography of transfers – 90 countries of the world.

DASHNAKTSUTYUN READY FOR YEREVAN MAYOR ELECTION

PanARMENIAN.Net
23.03.2009 14:25 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Supreme body of ARF Dashnaktsutyun has approved
the list of candidates to run for Mayor of Yerevan and the Council
of Elders.

On March 22, Dashnaktsutyun submitted an application and essential
documents to the Central Election Committee, the ARFD press office
reported.

The list includes 51 candidates, with MP Artsvik Minasyan at the
head. He is followed by Albert Achemyan and Norayr Davidyan.

Enjoy a better web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer
8 optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.

March 22 2009

Were the 1915 deaths of Armenians genocide?
Saturday March 21, 2009

This is the question that’s heating up again in the U.S. Congress at a
sensitive juncture: a new president, the new president’s upcoming
April 6-7 trip to Turkey to attend a forum on relations between the
West and the Muslim world, and angering Turkey as they stand to play a
mediator role in Obama’s attempt to reach out to Iran. There’s a new
resolution in the House that would call as many as 1.5 million
Armenian deaths at the hands of the Ottoman Empire starting in 1915
"genocide." Turkey blames the deaths on civil upheaval toward the end
and directly after World War I, saying that 300,000 Armenians were
killed and at least as many Turks. Obama had promised on the campaign
trail to call the deaths genocide, but few are expecting him to use
the terminology now with the Turkey visit and relations with Turkey at
stake.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan responded to the legislation’s
introduction in a TV interview Wednesday. From Hurriyet Daily News:

"Babacan said the Armenian lobby had an influence on the
U.S. Congress, which is dominated by Democrats, but emphasized that
unlike in the past, negotiations between Turkey and Armenia were under
way to normalize ties.

‘The complete normalization of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey ties
will create a brand-new geopolitical situation in the southern
Caucasus. A decision or a statement to be made by a third country [on
the 1915 killings] will cause harm,’ he said. ‘While we are looking
into the future from a broader perspective, we believe that any
interference by a third country is very wrong. We hope that an
irrational step will not be taken. We are openly speaking with our
American friends. We hope no wrong steps will be taken.’"

3/21/were-the-1915-deaths-of-armenians-genocide.ht m

EurasiaNet, NY
March 20 2009

ARMENIA: OPPOSITION TO UNITE FOR YEREVAN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS?
3/20/09

Aiming to increase their chances for electoral success, ex-president
Levon Ter-Petrosian’s Armenian National Congress and the Heritage
Party are exploring ways to unite against the governing Republican
Party of Armenia in Yerevan’s upcoming municipal elections to be held
in May.

The ANC and Heritage Party resumed talks about a joint mayoral
candidate after earlier failing to reach accord, Armenian news
services reported on March 20. Ter-Petrosian will head the ANC’s list;
parliamentarian Armen Martirosian is slated to lead the Heritage
Party’s roster. The top candidate for the party that wins a majority
of seats in the City Council will be named mayor.

THE IMPERATIVE OF BRINGING NAGORNO KARABAKH

Azat Artsakh Daily
19 March 09
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR

Lately, the question of participation or non-participation of NK in
the negotiation process is being discussed more frequently in the
conflict parties’ media. This question is urgent but its decision has
different meaning for every part, as a whole for the prospect of the
regulation of the Azerbaijan-Karabakh conflict. Certainly, Azerbaijan,
with the efforts of which NK is partially debarred from the negotiation
process more than 10 years, is very interested in the preservation
of this situation. Such position allows Baku to distort the essence
of the conflict, presenting it as a confrontation between Armenian
and Azerbaijan, regarding of which as if the military aggression has
been made with the purpose of capturing the territories. Meanwhile,
the conflict started and is going on between Nagorno Karabakh and
Azerbaijan, and the status of Nagorno Karabakh as a rightful party is
legally granted by official documents of OSCE and other international
organizations. Insisting on their return to the negotiation process
the authorities of NK quite fairly appeal to the provisions of the
Resolution of OSCE Budapest Summit held in December 1994 which refer
to all three parties of the conflict – Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan
and Armenia.20I must say that the only success in the process of
negotiation and the only active agreement to this very day remains
Bishkek Agreement held in May 1994, which was signed by the three
parts, including NK. I must also underline that before the exclusion
of NK from tripartite format negotiation, the project of the supposed
regulation of the conflict was suggested for consideration only
to the three parts, but not to the two ones. Today an impression
is given that many have forgotten partially about this. Even the
international mediators themselves with the co-chairs of the Minsk
Group OSCE do not hurry to bring NK back to the negotiation table
and bend their efforts practically to DS meetings of the presidents
of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Nevertheless, of course, the mediators
have not forgotten about this. During their last visit in the region,
they said in the interview with the journalists that NK participated
in the negotiation process until 1998. At the same time, the mediators
invariably maintain as a traditional ritual that the agreement and the
participation of NK and its nation are important for a final decision
of the problem. Moreover, they express confidence that eventually the
Karabakhian part will be linked to the negotiation. However, with the
same invariability, they state that it does not depend from them and
such question must be discussed with the consent of the presidents
of Armenia and Azerbaijan. 20 A reasonable question arises: how about
the legally obliging documents of OSCE concerning the three parties,
the documents of the very same organization that they represent and
the resolutions of what they are obliged to execute?

Doesn’t such an attitude of the co-chairmen mean that they have
resigned on the caprices and whims of Azerbaijan and have left the
whole regulation process at the mercy of the Azeri’s fate? Apparently,
there will never be the Azerbaijani president’s consent on bringing
NK back to the negotiation table, which is spoken of by the Minsk
Group co-chairmen.

Anyway, this is what Ilham Aliyev himself confirms from time
to time. Thus; recently, two weeks after singing the Meiendorf
Declaration, he stated: "There are no sides in Nagorno Karabakh
conflict but Azerbaijan and Armenia. It has always been known and now
this fact is fixed by the signature of the Armenian leader in Moscow
Declaration. " It has become habitual, that the co-chairs of The Minsk
Group call parts "to show political will for accepting difficult but
necessary decisions".

May be, it will be better if co-chairs themselves show will and accept
"necessary decision" about the reinstatement in the negotiation
process in full format and the counteraction of the destructive
position of Azerbaijan, it is time to put an end? Just only by
announcements of obligation and inevitability of the participation of
NK in negotiations, its actual participation cannot be provided. It
cannot be provided also the achievement and the realization of the
comprehensive agreement without full participation of NK in all the
stages of the regulation of conflict. This question is more than
evident and entirely is not beyond the comprehensive of the process
of regulation.

Moreover, it is the very first condition of the continuation of
the process; otherwise, the negotiation loses its significance in
the frame of the Minsk Group OSCE, as it is nonsense to discuss the
fate of NK without its participation. NK is an established state,
which it is impossible to ignore. It is able and ready to make its
contribution in the solution of the conflict and to make its part of
responsibility for the fate of regulation.

In addition, for this, bringing NK back to the negation process must
become an imperative of the day for mediators. With every day, they
discuss Karabakh conflict.

WHERE IS THE ARAB OUTRAGE OVER DARFUR?
By Eran Tzidkiyahu

Jerusalem Post
March 18 2009

In recent years, a media revolution has been taking place in the
Arab world, so that the media now reflect to a great extent the
atmosphere of the Arab street as well as the consensus in the Arab
regimes. Criticism against the crimes committed by the Zionist occupier
in Palestine receives substantial resonance, whereas other horrors that
take place in the region get little coverage, especially when they are
the work of local players and not of Europeans, Americans or Jews. The
regional condemnation of Israel doesn’t reflect global humanitarian
standards but is reserved especially for the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.

The criticism against Israel, by its volume and severity, overshadows
the coverage of the ongoing conflict in Darfur, for example, which in
the past few years has already claimed a quarter of a million victims
and created millions of refugees. The ethnic cleansing taking place
in Darfur is far worse than any other regional crisis and cannot be
compared to the Israeli-Palestinian political conflict, neither in
volume nor in essence.

The silence of the Arab media regarding the humanitarian side of
the conflict in Darfur is reinforced by the fact that Sudan is an
active member of the Arab League. Moreover, some voices in the local
press claim that the Western coverage of the Darfur crisis is part
of a Zionist-Western conspiracy to divert attention from Iraq and
Palestine and bring foreign involvement to Sudan to take control of
its natural resources.

In 2007 THE INTERNATIONAL Crisis Group and the American University in
Cairo held a workshop on media coverage of the Darfur crisis. The
participants – leading journalists and academics from the Arab
world – claimed that Arab media do not give enough attention to the
humanitarian disaster in Darfur, compared both to Western media and
to the attention that Arab media dedicate to other conflicts in the
Middle East. Their report argues that due to lack of resources, but
also lack of interest and racism, political aspects of the Darfur
crisis are generally given priority over humanitarian ones, their
coverage being shallow and inaccurate.

Criticism of Israel from the likes of Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey
and Syria appears loaded with hypocrisy when all of these countries
oppress minorities and bluntly violate human rights.

In Sudan, the Arab Janjaweed tribal militia is backed by president
Omar al-Bashir, himself accused by the International Criminal Court of
genocide. Immediately after his indictment by the ICC in July 2008,
the Arab League, many of whose members accuse Israel of war crimes,
issued a statement in support of the Sudanese president. Still, some
voices in the Arab world backed the ICC decision and condemned the
Arab League statements, among them that of Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed,
director-general of Al-Arabiya TV and former Al-Sharq al-Awsat editor.

THE ARAB WORLD was silent in the 1960s when Egypt used mustard gas in
northern Yemen, in the ’70s when Jordan killed Palestinians, in the
’80s when Syria massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens who
were supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, and in the ’90s when Saddam
Hussein slaughtered Kurds in the north and Shi’ites in the south of
Iraq. Severe discrimination is being practiced against ethnic and
religious minorities in countries throughout the Middle East.

Since Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked of on
camera at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Turkey has become the
flag-carrier for criticism against Israel in the Middle East. Turkey,
while accusing Israel of war crimes, cannot confront its own past
regarding the Armenian genocide and pressures academic and diplomatic
bodies to prevent any serious public debate on the subject. Today,
Turkey uses cultural and military oppression to deny the right of
the Kurdish minority to self-determination.

According to Reporters without Boundaries, the biggest challenge to
the freedom of press in the Middle East is the self-censorship that
reporters exert on sensitive issues. Due to these restrictions, the
Arab reporters channel their criticism toward Israel, which remains
the regional punching bag and the target of Arab and Muslim rage
against every illness in the world. Arab countries would certainly
benefit more from looking inward to their own societies’ problems.

ALL THESE EXAMPLES do not acquit Israel from criticism. Whether
Israel is conceived as a country fighting for its existence or as
an aggressive occupier, external criticism is a necessary factor in
balancing the conflict. An advanced dialogue is already taking place
within Israel itself, and many organizations enjoy their freedom to
harshly criticize the state. Similarly, crimes taking place in other
countries do not exempt the IDF from its obligation to seriously
investigate the reasons for the high number of civilian casualties
during the last operation in Gaza.

Nonetheless, the regional media should report proportionally, since
one-dimensional coverage of the conflict is misleading, demonizing
and creates intense hate toward Israel and the Jews in the Arab
street. This atmosphere will in turn make it difficult for the
moderate Arab states to explain to their people the peace initiatives
that they promote. While Arabs widely cover any Western or Israeli
aggression against Arabs or Muslims around the world, they ignore
Arabs or Muslims hurting other Arabs, Muslims or Africans. This gap
in coverage suggests that Arabs require much higher moral standards
from Israel and the West than from themselves.

Regional criticism against Israel must be made within international
relationships of proportional political and international
interests. Higher questions of morality and justice must be left
to philosophers, or to a just and balanced media that is ready
to criticize all sides without bias and in accordance to global
humanitarian standards.

The writer is a Legacy Heritage Fellow working on Jerusalem and a
MA student in the Middle East and Islamic studies department at the
Hebrew University.