Author: Kalantarian Kevo

EXPERT RECOMMENDATIONS ON ARMENIA’S DEFENSE STRATEGY REVIEW

armradio.am
24.03.2009 18:28

The recurrent sitting of the interdepartmental commission coordinating
the Defense Strategy Review held its recurrent sitting at the
Ministry of Defense. The sitting was presided over by co-chairs of
the commission, secretary of the National Security Council Arthur
Baghdasaryan and Defense Mnister Seyran Ohanyan.

Member of the international advisory expert group, expert of the US
Department of Defense, Dr. Antonio Bernards, as well as experts from
the Republic of Bulgaria, Mr. Ilya Nalbantov and Colonel Vladimir
Milensky, were invited to participate in the sitting.

During the sitting discussed were issues related to the second stage
of the defense strategy review. Dr. Bernards gave recommendation to
members of the Commission on the methodology of the second stage.

An agreement was reached to hold the next sitting in June of the
current year.

MARCH 1 MAY BE REPEATED IN ARMENIA?

PanARMENIAN.Net
24.03.2009 19:25 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "I’d be surprised if people chose to support Levon
Ter-Petrosyan after Mar.1, 2008 events. Ter-Petrosyan announced in
his recent statements that he won’t settle for anything but victory,"
ADP Leader Aram Sargsyan told a news conference in Yerevan.

"Levon Ter-Petrosyan is preparing a fertile ground for future
provocations. Should Council of Elders elections follow 2008
Presidential Elections line, Armenia won’t be able to overcome the
situation that tends to become increasingly dangerous," Aram Sargsyan
emphasized.

Levon Ter-Petrosyan took the 2nd place in 2008 Presidential elections.

Feb. 20, 2008 Armenian opposition organized meetings to rally against
election results. The rally ensued in mass disorders and confrontation
with police. 10 people were killed and over 200 were injured. On Mar.1,
2008 a 20-day state of emergency was announced in Yerevan.

"HERITAGE" WISHES GOOD ELECTIONS TO ALL VOTERS

A1+
03:52 pm | March 23, 2009

Politics

On March 23, the Heritage party has issued a statement on the May 31
Elections for Yerevan’s Council of Elders, which holds in part:

The Heritage Party,

– placing a huge importance to the elections for the Council of Elders
of Yerevan, in terms of the institutional establishment of Armenia;

– considering these elections as yet another chance for our country
to ultimately form in the Armenian capital-and by way of free, fair,
and transparent elections-legitimate authorities who are chosen by
the people;

– bearing in mind Yerevan’s growing importance for the country and
that this importance makes the elections for the Council of Elders
become, to some extent, equivalent to the national elections;

– remaining true to its adopted values and work ethics;

– expressing with regret that it was impossible to reach an accordance
with the Armenian National Congress (ANC) with respect to a united
list of candidates for the elections;

– condemning the authorities’ limitations put on the freedom of speech
and the ongoing firm establishment of an environment of intolerance,
the "instructed" and unsubstantiated accusations against Heritage
and its founder Raffi K. Hovannisian disseminated over the years by
the media that serve the ruling administration, the deluge of lies
and disinformation which periodically grows worse especially before
elections, as well as registering-for the record-certain oppositional
media’s attempts to imitate the aforesaid defective mode of operation
in the recent week and doing this with the silent support by the ANC;

– acknowledging all too well that if, under the condition of a low
political culture reigning in the country, the opposition participates
in the elections with two separate lists, the ensuing clash will
be inevitable even in the case of exerting the greatest of efforts
to prevent it, and the victims will be the whole opposition and the
entire people, and they will assume the complete task of thwarting
such likely confrontation; and

– understanding that under such conditions one of these two
oppositional forces must give way,

hereby decides:

To not present its own candidate list for the elections for Yerevan’s
Council of Elders, to be held on May 31, 2009, and urges its voters and
all Yerevan residents to cast their ballots in favor of the opposition.

Heritage also reaffirms its resolve, as the INDEPENDENT PUBLIC
OVERSEER, to:

– wage an all-out battle to keep the citizens’ ballots not tampered
with and, by way of the election commission members it has appointed
and through its activities outside those commissions, to prevent all
attempts toward falsifying these ballots and thus to assist guarantee
the creation of equal conditions all through the pre-election
campaign-as well as throughout the period prior and subsequent to
it-and in this way to attain free, fair, transparent and, as a result,
legitimate elections; and

– monitor the entire election process, and to record and inform the
body politic and the law enforcement of the cases of election fraud.

The Heritage Party wishes good elections to all voters and political
forces taking part in them. Let the will of the Yerevan residents
triumph on May 31 and the citizen of the three-millennia-old capital
of Armenia finally attain a blissful liberty that is anchored in the
God-given right to choose.

PROCREDIT BANK REDUCES INTEREST RATES FOR DRAM LOANS

ArmInfo
2009-03-23 13:18:00

ArmInfo. ProCredit Bank has announced an action for local producers
increasing interest rates for AMD loans starting March 17 to April 30,
ProCredit Bank told ArmInfo.

Thus, the bank offers AMD loans worth up to 15 million drams aimed
to promote SMEs at the annual interest of 18%. ‘We expect sustainable
and lasting cooperation with our clients offering them a full package
of high-quality services’, ProCredit Bank Executive Officer Bertolt
Hertzfeldt says. He is sure that the given action will make it possible
for local producers to maintain and even strengthen their positions
in the market.

ProCreidt Bank entered the local market on February 5 2008. The bank
is continuously expanding its branch network, not only in Yerevan but
also in the regions, with the aim of bringing its transparent and
fair banking services to more and more communities in Armenia. The
bank serves 5 branches, including one in Vanadzor. Another 5 branches
will be opened till the end of the year, including in Gyumri and
Artashat. Total credit portfolio of the banks amounts to $20.7
million. Portfolio of deposits totals nearly $10 million.

The shareholders of ProCredit Bank in Armenia are such well known
organizations as: ProCredit Holding – with 67.49% of shares KfW –
with 15.84% of shares EBRD – with 16.67% of shares ProCredit Bank
of Armenia does not have any indirect shareholders. The Bank’s
shareholders do not have any liabilities to ProCredit Bank of Armenia.

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 22 2009

Historian challenges politically motivated 1915 arguments

The general tendency to debate the events of 1915 — the killings of
Anatolian Armenians during World War I — by employing politically
motivated theories on the nature of these events stands as a barrier
between the peoples of Armenia and Turkey, preventing them from
adequately airing their deep, almost century-old grievances.

Prominent German historian Hilmar Kaiser is presently in Ankara
carrying out research in the Turkish archives. In an interview with
Sunday’s Zaman this week, Kaiser says the field of history "is flooded
with political advocates who are less historians than
opinion-formers," drawing a picture full of gray areas, showing there
is still ample room for research on the 1915 events.

In the 1990s, Kaiser was working exclusively in Ä°stanbul and
that period, he was only granted access to the Ottoman archives, which
were under special regulations, and had been declined permission to
carry out his research in any other library or archive by the
then-Tansu Ã?iller government. Today, however, Kaiser believes
that there aren’t any issues as far as access to the state archives is
concerned.

`Two weeks ago, I was in Washington, D.C., presenting my research and
photos at an Armenian Assembly [of America] conference, and I
suggested that if they are looking for a good director for their
archives and genocide museum, they might consider hiring Yusuf
Sarınay, the head of the Turkish state archives, or Mustafa
Budak, the head of the Ottoman archives. These are two highly
qualified people with vision, determination and commitment. Some
people were surprised, but I was very serious about it,’ says Kaiser.

`Yes, there are still problems, but having said this, I should
immediately add there are problems everywhere. The important thing is
there is a process in place to overcome these problems. It’s a huge
administration, and encountering problems is part of the daily work. I
can only say that, as far as I’m concerned, and I know the same for
many, many researchers — both Turkish or foreigner — that they have
had exactly the same experiences. If there is a problem, it’s
immediately addressed and resolved. That’s all you can ask for. Turkey
has gained a lot of credit with its new archive policy, and it will
gain more credit if the present government would support the archives
more strongly with additional funding,’ he notes.

Historical research and reassessments

Kaiser is critical of colleagues who prefer doing their work without
researching the context of original documents and thus making
`reassessments’ of certain theses — one of which is that the
Ä°ttihat ve Terakki (Committee of Union and Progress) had a
racist motivation, acted premeditatedly and had developed a systematic
extermination policy during the 1915 events.

`One should stop thinking of the [Committee of Union and Progress] CUP
as a kind of monolithic party. Research on the Armenians in WWI has
tended to try to create the impression of a Turkey that was like a
small version of Nazi Germany, with a single party and with a poor
man’s SS named TeÅ?kilat’ı Mahsusa. I think this is
totally wrong; one has to study the Turkish-Armenian case on its
own. Yes, there were some people within the CUP inspired by European
positivists, who were partly racist, but thinking that this was not
the general party line. That racism was not the driving motive behind
the Armenian policy is quite clear because if you compare it to the
German racism, you cannot explain the survival of tens of thousands of
Armenian women and children in Muslim houses, even in the government
orphanages. This would have been completely impossible if the
government had been inspired by the German type of racism,’ says
Kaiser.

`People like to compare Young Turk-Turkey to Nazi Germany, but it is
not a comparison; they equate it. A comparison should also stress the
fundamental differences,’ he continued. `Racism as well as Muslim
fundamentalism were not driving forces. Some allege that Islam was
very conducive to large-scale massacres of Armenians. It’s totally
illogical. If Islam is very conducive to large-scale massacres of
Armenians, why were they here for 600 years? Second, why did the
survivors survive in Muslim societies in the Middle East?’

`Ridiculous’ mega explanations

There is a major argument over demographic planning, suggesting that
it was planned by the Committee of Union and Progress and culminated
in the Armenian relocation.

Kaiser stresses demographic planning is as old as the Ottoman Empire,
starting in the 14th century.

`There has always been demographic planning — before and after
1915. One has to establish a direct link between the policy against
Armenians and demographic planning, more specifically that the
demographic planning was a motive behind the policy. I’m very
skeptical about this. Demographic planning played a role, but let’s be
realistic: When you have tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from the
Balkans and from the Russian border areas camping in the open and you
start deporting Armenians, and you have access to empty houses, what
do you do with it? Of course, you use it. To make the claim that this
was the driving force behind the deportations is, in my view, wrong
because it cannot explain the timing of the deportations. This
demographic argument is in a way a substitute for a blueprint,’ he
asserts.

`People who believe there was more some kind of long-term planning,
like since 1909 or 1912, have had a problem in showing a concrete link
between what happened in 1915 and these alleged earlier plans. So we
are faced now with a lot of substitutes after the earlier arguments
had been dismantled. Yes, demographic planning is very important, but
is not the driving motive. Not in my research; I haven’t found any
convincing proof — on the contrary, the evidence points in different
directions.’

Kaiser also is opposed to those who depict the Committee of Union and
Progress and the Ottoman army as homogeneous bodies.

`Yes, the CUP was a nationalist group, but it also included very
religious groups. These people cannot be united. They obviously put on
a straight face in public, like some politicians do today. And even if
you’re a Turkish nationalist, that doesn’t make you a killer. There
were people who were famous Turkish nationalists like Halide Edip; she
advocated assimilation of Armenians, but she very strongly opposed any
kind of murder. On the other hand, this opposition against it was not
just limited to nationalists; it also included anti-CUP opposition,
for example, from the Liberal Party. Believe it or not, this
opposition that concentrated on Cemal Pasha in the area of the Fourth
Army cooperated — there is proof for this — with the Armenian
underground against Talat,’ he explains.

`Let me say something more radical: The one person who saved most
Armenians in World War I was nobody other than Cemal Pasha. That this
hasn’t been discussed so far is just due to the fact that we have a
couple of political problems with the whole thing, and our field is
really flooded with political advocates who are less historians than
they are opinion-formers. We have reports from German navy officers
who were on the staff of Pasha because he was also minister of the
navy. Sometimes when he saw abuse of Armenian deportees, he just let
the official be hung on the spot, he didn’t even wait for it. There
are many, many Armenian sources about this as well, like memoirs. On
the other hand, one should not be too romantic about it.’

And cheap political arguments

Kaiser also has crucial notes suggesting that the Turkish Republic was
built by killers, and the alleged `Armenian genocide’ was the founding
act.

`Then you can also find other founding acts like the defeat in the
Balkan Wars. I mean this is nonsense. You have to establish a direct
link. The Armenian population base was destroyed, and look around
Turkey today: It’s obvious, and this had a strong impact, but the
republic wasn’t founded on this. This is very important; it was a part
of the environment that the republic was founded in, and as far as I
can see, I haven’t found anything from contemporary sources that would
suggest that Mustafa Kemal was involved in the killings. The only
thing I found is that he was very much opposed to it, very outspoken
at the time. But that later his opinions about Armenians changed has
something to do with the war in the Trans-Caucasus and then the
Soviet-Turkish problems. But what we were told about what happened in
1915, 1916 does not lend itself to any kind of interpretation that
Kemal followed any policy that was not dignified for a Turkish
officer.

`Coming to the army — the Fourth Army, they have resisted. We do have
a problem with the military; this is the Third Army because it is
there where the big killing took place. The problem with the Third
Army is that you have a kind of `çorba’ [soup in Turkish] among
political officers who owed their quick advancement to positions of
prominence to their party connections, or their dependency on Enver
PaÅ?a. These people were not very much liked by the standard
career officers who had earned their position on merit.

`Secondly, you have all sort of elements of the so-called
TeÅ?kilat-ı Mahsusa, the special organization operator,
and I remind you I was able to identify some of these units who were
killing Armenian villagers before even
SarıkamıÅ?. So there you have elements and players
that had been already active under Abdulhamid. They were just
continuing that trade under a different name.

`We need precision in research and these mega explanations — the
army, the Turks, the Muslims — this is simply ridiculous, and this is
only useful if you want to make a cheap political argument, which I
don’t.’

22 March 2009, Sunday
EMÄ°NE KART ANKARA

.do?load=detay&link=170297&bolum=101

THE WASHINGTON POST: WILL OBAMA RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?

PanARMENIAN.Net
20.03.2009 21:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ During last year’s presidential campaign, Barack
Obama repeatedly insisted that, as president, he would "recognize the
Armenian genocide." Obama’s pledge may have been smart politics. But
now that Obama is president, his pledge has put him in a diplomatically
difficult position. The question of calling the deaths a genocide has
returned just as Obama is preparing for a visit next month to Turkey,
which firmly rejects such a label.

"There is no substitute for speaking plainly when you are talking
about mass murder," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff, who introduced this
week a resolution calling on the president to publicly recognize
a genocide and whose district contains the largest concentration of
Armenian Americans in the country. "I hope he will use the opportunity
to prepare Turkey for U.S. recognition and to encourage Turkey to
have an open examination of its past."

U.S.-Turkish relations are on an upswing after a dismal period
immediately after the invasion of Iraq. Turkey, a NATO member, also
plays an increasingly important role in the Middle East, the Caucasus
and the Balkans. Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy adviser to
Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan, said he stressed that point in
meetings this week with senior administration officials. He also made
the case that Turkish-Armenian relations are improving in the wake
of Erdogan’s recent visit to Armenia, and that any U.S. resolution
on genocide would only set back that progress.

But the administration’s outreach to Turkey must be balanced against
the high hopes that Obama inspired among Armenian Americans, Washington
Post reported.

ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT RATIFIES 5.2 SDR CREDIT AGREEMENT

ARKA
March 17, 2009

YEREVAN, March 17. /ARKA/. The RA Parliament has ratified a credit
agreement between Armenia and the International Development Association
(IDA), World Bank (WB). The agreement provides for additional financing
for the 3rd program of the Social Investments Fund.

The agreement was signed on February 26, 2009. On behalf of Armenia
the document was signed by RA Minister of Finance Tigran Davtyan. The
document provides for additional funding under the Third Program of
the Social Investment Fund of November 1, 2006.

The total worth of the agreement is 5.2mln SDR. The credit agreement
between Armenia and IDA will take effect the day the WB is notified
of all the ratification procedures having been completed in Armenia.

IDA issued interest free loans for 30-40 years, with a 10-year
grace period.

Since 1992, when the WB established cooperation with Armenia, it has
issued $1.162bln to the country. Sixteen programs are currently being
implemented, and $94mln have been provided for their completion.

16:07 17/03/2009
Source: Panorama.am
ARMENIA TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY TO TURKEY

Armenia will provide electricity to Turkey, Lusine Harutyunyan, the
press secretary of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources told
Panorama.am. According to her Armenian party has signed a contract
with the Turkish UNIT company and will provide high voltage
electricity to Turkey. `Currently the high voltage lines are being
repaired in the territory of Turkey. The Contract is already signed
and as soon as they finish the repair activities we’ll start the
process,’ said Lusine Harutyunyan.

SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OF ARMENIA VISITS KALININGRAD AND MINSK

armradio.am
17.03.2009 12:16

On March 16 the delegation headed by the Secretary of the National
Security Council of Armenia, Arthur Baghdasaryan, arrived in Russia’s
Kaliningrad region. Arthur Baghdasaryan had a meeting with the Governor
of Kaliningrad, Georgy Boos and members of Government.

The Armenian delegation presented a package of suggestions worked out
by the Government, which envisages broad opportunities for bilateral
cooperation.

The parties agreed that a delegation headed by the Governor of
Kaliningrad will visit Armenia to discuss the new opportunities of
cooperation with the leadership of the country.

The same day the delegation headed by Arthur Baghdasaryan left for
Belarus at the invitation of the Secretary of the National Security
Council of the Republic of Belarus, Yuri Zhadobin.

During the meeting with the Armenian community of Belarus the
Mr. Baghdasaryan noted that a brood range of issues related to the
Armenia-Belarus military-political cooperation would be discussed in
the framework of the visit. Belarus is a strategic partner of Armenia,
and the reinforcement of cooperation with Belarus derives from the
interests of both countries. The Security Councils, the law-enforcement
bodies, the Ministries of Emergency Situations have a great potential
for cooperation; the two countries have broad opportunities to deepen
the cooperatio n within framework of the Collected Security Treaty
Organization.

At the request of the Belarusian Armenian community, Arthur
Baghdasaryan referred to a number of issues related to the domestic
and foreign political and economic life in Armenia, particularly the
elections of tehMayor of Yerevan, settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
issue, normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations, construction of
the Armenia-Iran oil pipeline and railway, Yerevan-Batumi highway,
construction of a new nuclear power plant in Armenia.

PINATA DIPLOMACY: DON’T SACRIFICE CAMPUS FREE SPEECH
Ricky Kreitner

McGill Daily
ata-diplomacy-don-t-sacrifice-campus
March 16 2009
Canada

"Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was
Stalin. If you’re really in favour of free speech, then you’re in
favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

– Noam Chomsky

On February 20, the Turkish professor and Armenian genocide denier
Turkkaya Ataöv, invited at the behest of the Turkish Students Society
(TSS) and to the chagrin of the Armenian Students Association (ASA),
spoke to a very divided McGill audience. I’ll allow others to outline
the historical evidence, but suffice it to say that nearly everyone
agrees that more than a million Armenians were systematically disposed
of by the Young Turk government in 1915 in what is accurately labeled
as the first modern genocide. Professor Ataöv is simply, empirically,
historically wrong.

The ASA argues that universities cannot sanction genocide denial in
the name of free speech. They could not be more wrong.

The McGill Tribune quoted Mardig Taslakian, Vice President External of
the ASA, asking, "What would the University’s reaction be if neo-Nazis
invited someone to come and preach that the Holocaust didn’t happen?" I
can’t speak for McGill, but I hope its reaction would be to politely
ask the neo-Nazis to keep the noise down and clean up after themselves,
and I would be right there screaming bloody hell if their reaction
were anything but. The distinction between denying past violence and
inciting future violence is not an insignificant one.

Taslakian wrote last Tuesday in The Tribune, "The falsification of
history, denial of the Holocaust, or of any crime against humanity
recognized as genocide by the international academic community can’t be
protected by a false label of ‘freedom of speech.’" Pardon my language,
but you bet your ass they can and must be. If freedom of speech means
anything to you – and, of course, this entire discussion is predicated
on my assumption that it does – it must mean that. If the TSS wants
to drag its name through the mud by inviting this buffoon to speak,
why not let them? McGill’s Deputy Provost Morton Mendelson made the
sole defensible decision by allowing the event to go on.

As we turn now to another recent campus free speech issue, recall last
week I wrote that an example of the new anti-Semitism can be found
in "some posters on Canadian campuses – commendably not McGill’s –
promoting Israel Apartheid Week [that] depicted an Apache helicopter
labeled ‘Israel’ firing a rocket at a lone Palestinian boy carrying
a teddy bear – a thinly-veiled modification of that old, trusty blood
libel standby."

Carleton University, among others, apparently agreed with my assessment
and ordered the posters taken down, arguing that they violated the
Carleton and Ontario Human Rights Codes.

But the ban was a terrible mistake. I’ll attack federal and provincial
human rights codes in the future, but even if the posters do violate
them, one simply must resist the sinister, illiberal passions of the
offended mob. It’s easy to ban something for being "inflammatory and
capable of inciting confrontation;" but if human rights language
is to be anything more than the collective moral masturbation of
supposedly civilized people, we must take the more difficult and
nuanced position: to condemn the anti-Semitism and yet celebrate as
loud as we can the right for others to proclaim that anti-Semitism
from the highest mountaintops.

Anyone who reads the Carleton University Statement on Conduct and
Human Rights, will be surprised to come across Section 6, which reads:
"The University respects the rights of speech and dissent and upholds
the right to peaceful assembly and expression of dissent" – all
principles that the rest of the document goes on to systematically
shred into barely recognizable fragments of their former selves. The
vagueness of Section 6 renders it utterly meaningless, and the sarcasm
is clear. Shame on you, Carleton University, for flippantly using
these hallowed words, and for treating the ideals behind them with
such unreserved contempt.

I am as proud of McGill for the fact that these posters did not appear
on campus as I am for my stubborn intuition that the administration
would have let them remain if they had.

In The Tribune’s editorial regarding Ataöv’s speech, they quoted
H.L. Mencken lamenting, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is
that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels." If anything
at all is true in this sorry universe, it is that. Yet, as The Tribune
urged, the fight must be fought. It is not easy, and nor should it be.

But free speech must be defended even – nay, especially – when it is
the most difficult to do so. Though the pen is mightier than the sword,
it’s still best to have thick skin.