Obituary: Bedig Tashjian
Monday, May 13th, 2013
Bedig Tashjian
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Western US Central Committee
would like to announce the passing of one its member, Unger Bedig
Tashjian, which took place on Friday, May 10, 2013. Unger Bedig
Tashjian was a former member of the ARF Western Region Central
Committee.
Armenian Revolutionary Federation
Western US Central Committee
Australian parliamentary leader responds to Turkish condemnation of
Genocide recognition
12:58 14.05.2013
Armenian Genocide, Australia, Turkey
On May 10 the Parliament of New South Wales, Australia, unanimously
passed a motion to recognize the Greek, Assyrian and Armenian genocide
perpetrated by Ottoman Turks in World War One. Turkey responded by
condemning the motion and barring Australian legislators from
Gallipoli. The Turkish Consul General sent a letter to the NSW
Parliament in which he condemned the genocide recognition. AINA
reports that the sponsor of the motion, Rev. Hon. Fred Nile, the
Parliamentary Leader and member of the Christian Democratic Party,
responded to the Turkish Consul General’s letter as follows:
Dear Sir
As you noted in your correspondence of 6th May 2013, I moved a motion
of recognition of the Genocides of the indigenous Assyrian and
Hellenic peoples of Anatolia, incorporating a re-affirmation of the
1997 recognition of the Genocide of the indigenous Armenian people.
The motion was tabled and carried unanimously, in accordance with
Parliamentary procedure.
Similar motions of a commemorative nature are moved and carried by
members of both Houses of the Parliament of New South Wales on a
regular basis on a wide range of issues, particularly related to human
rights and current affairs.
My intention in moving this motion was NOT to attack or denigrate the
modern State of Turkey which was established by a great Turkish
leader, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who I greatly admire.
These Genocides were carried out by the leaders of the Ottoman Empire,
not the modern State of Turkey which has wonderful relations with
Australia, in spite of the Gallipoli campaign.
In moving this motion, I have drawn on the conclusions reached by the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Australian
Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Scholars, and other national and
international scholarly groups. The unanimous opinion is that the
Assyrian, Armenian and Hellenic peoples were victims of genocide in
the 1910s and 1920s.
As noted by Australian jurist Geoffrey Robertson QC in his 2009 study
`Was there an Armenian Genocide?’ (attached), Winston Churchill
declared the events to be `an administrative holocaust … there is no
reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for
political reasons.’
When commemorations and scholarly conferences on the Genocide of the
Armenians are regularly held within the Republic of Turkey, and
Turkish scholars and writers such as Taner Akcam and Orhan Pamuk call
for recognition of the fact of the Genocides, I fail to understand how
the NSW Legislative Council resolution constitutes `sowing the seeds
of hatred’ in Australia? Please visit for recent examples:
It is time for Turkey to recognise the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide
Turkey Should Acknowledge The Armenian Genocide
The Genocide Recognition motion has a very strong focus on the
Genocides as part of the Australian national story. As documented in
the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, ANZACs were captured and
imprisoned as far south as the Sinai peninsula, as far east as
Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) as well as across Anatolia. Visit here for
more details.
The archives of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra have written
and photographic evidence that ANZACs rescued Armenians and Assyrians
in Persia (Iran) and Mesopotamia (Iraq), as well as during the
Palestine Campaign. Many of these ANZACs later became involved in an
international humanitarian relief effort on behalf of the survivors
for over a decade.
The events of the Assyrian, Armenian, and Hellenic Genocides were
documented by the Australian media from early 1914 (before World War
One began), throughout the war and well into the 1920s (National
Library of Australia). I also refer you to a recent study by Dr John
Williams of the University of Tasmania, published in the April 2013
issue of Quadrant magazine: The Ethnic Cleansing of Greeks from
Gallipoli, April 1915.
As the Armenian National Archives were only formed in 1923, when the
Genocides were almost over, a `joint commission of history’ between
the Republics of Armenia and Turkey would have little to discuss
(National Archives of Armenia) The archives relevant to the Genocides
of the Armenians, Assyrians and Hellenes are in Ankara, Constantinople
(Istanbul) and Moscow.
In conclusion, for the Christian Democratic Party, as for the entire
Parliament of New South Wales, recognition of the Genocides of the
indigenous Assyrian, Armenian and Hellenic peoples of the Ottoman
Empire is not simply a matter of history. As the effects of the
Genocides continue to this day, it is an issue of international law
and human rights and I will continue to advocate such issues at every
opportunity.
`Let justice be done, souls consoled, broken hearts mended, nations
reconciled and honour given to all those who perished so needlessly
during a dark hour in mankind’s recent history’.
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Hon. Fred Nile
ARMENIE
Les autorités et l’opposition ne s’entendent pas sur le dépouillement des votes
La Commission Electorale Centrale (CEC) et deux groupes d’opposition
de premier plan ont adopté vendredi des interprétations divergentes
d’un recompte des votes qui a été mené dans près d’une centaine
d’enceinte à Erevan suite aux élections municipales du 5 mai.
Le Congrès National Arménien (HAK) et le bloc Barev Erevan avaient
demandé plus tôt cette semaine que les bulletins soient recomptés dans
162 des 462 bureaux de vote de la ville. Seulement 97 de ces requêtes
ont été acceptées par la CEC et de ses divisions territoriales.
Le président de la CEC, Tigran Mukuchian, a déclaré le recompte n’a
pas changé le nombre des votes reçus par ces derniers et les autres
prétendants aux élections dans les circonscriptions. Il a décrit cela
comme une preuve supplémentaire que les résultats officiels des
élections donnant une victoire écrasante au Parti républicain
d’Arménie au pouvoir (HHK) sont crédibles.
« Ces indicateurs sont révélateurs » a déclaré Tigran Mukuchian au
service arménien de à RFE / RL (Azatutyun.am). « Ils témoignent du
fait qu’il y avait rien d’extraordinaire au dépouillement du scrutin
mené dans 97 circonscriptions ».
Tant le HAK et Barev Erevan, qui rejettent les chiffres de la CCE
comme frauduleux, ont affirmé que le décompté a exposé les preuves de
la fraude électorale.
« La machine de propagande du gouvernement tente de fausser le but de
nos demandes de recompte », a déclaré Levon Zurabian, vice-président
du HAK. « Nous n’avons pas fait une demande de recompte pour que les
résultats des élections changent. Nous sommes à 100 pour cent sûrs
qu’a la fois les votes multiples et l’achat de voix ont permis
d’obtenir les résultats que le Parti républicain voulait ».
« Nous nous rendons compte que recompter seulement les voix ne
changerait pas cela. Nous voulions juste faire connaître les preuves
de ce crime à grande échelle » a-t-il déclaré au service arménien de
RFE / RL (Azatutyun.am).
Levon Zurabian a expliqué que le HAK voulait obtenir un accès aux
dossiers de la commission électorale indiquant le nom des habitants
d’Erevan qui apparemment se sont rendus aux urnes le 5 mai. Il a dit
que le dépouillement a exposé le fait que beaucoup d’entre eux sont
absents d’Arménie.
Selon Levon Zurabian, le parti d’opposition a recueilli des dizaines
d’exemple d’une telle fraude et autres violations et demandera aux
procureurs d’ouvrir des enquêtes pénales. En outre, le HAK demandera
au Tribunal administratif d’Arménie de déclarer les résultats de
l’élection générale nuls et non avenus.
Stépan Safarian, membre du bloc Barev Yerevan, a fait un point
similaire, disant que le bloc de l’opposition avaient les noms de
nombreux électeurs absents dans plusieurs circonscriptions et
voulaient vérifier si quelqu’un d’autre avait voté à leur place. « Je
connais au moins deux ou trois cas de vote au nom de citoyens absents
», a-t-il dit. « Ils seront envoyés à la police ou aux procureurs. Il
s’agit d’une violation très grave ».
mardi 14 mai 2013,
Stéphane ©armenews.com
USA
Richard Hovannissian et Elie Wiesel en Conversation sur le Génocide
Orange, Californie – Le 17 avril, le professeur Richard Hovannissian,
premier titulaire de la présidence de l’Armenian Educational
Foundation in Modern Histoiry à l’Université de Californie, Los
Angeles, professeur associé à l’Université Chapman et à l’Université
Irvine de Californie, a eu une ` conversation ` avec le Dr Elie
Wiesel, lauréat du prix Nobel et survivant de l’Holocauste ; le thème
du débat était l’obligation morale des êtres humains d’honorer et
préserver la mémoire des victimes du Génocide arménien et de
l’Holocauste, en recherchant et en entretenant les rapports de témoins
survivants, en travaillant à leur reconnaissance et en en promouvant
l’enseignement.
Devant un auditoire nombreux, dans une salle de la Chapelle Wallace de
Toutes les Fois, ces universitaires ont décrit leur expérience
personnelle unique et celle de leur communauté, évoquant les concepts
de vérité et de justice à la suite du Génocide arménien et de
l’Holocauste. A la question d’Hovannissian qui se demandait si une
justice aux victimes de l’Holocauste est possible, évoquant les
innombrables monuments et compensations qui ont été faites, Wiesel a
répondu tout simplement ` non `. Hovhanissian a alors ajouté que les
Arméniens, pour leur part, n’ont même pas obtenu la satisfaction
modeste d’une reconnaissance formelle par la République de Turquie. Il
a commenté l’opinion du Dr Wiesel selon qui l’Holocauste est au-delà
des limites de l’histoire et par conséquent incomparable, en soutenant
de son côté que l’Holocauste, comme le Génocide arménien, pourraient
être vus dans leur contexte et historicisés sans que l’un ou l’autre
ne puisse apparaître comme un événement rationnel.
Le Dr Elie Wiesel a parlé de la ` passion de mémoire ` des Arméniens
et pour préserver chaque détail d’une calamité qui a marqué et
traumatisé toutes les générations d’Arméniens qui ont suivi, dans leur
pays comme en Diaspora. Wiesel a ensuite décrit comment la cause
arménienne `est devenue finalement ma cause `, et a évoqué
l’importance du souvenir et ce qui pourrait se passer quand le dernier
témoin mourra.
Le Dr Hovhanissian a dit avec insistance que la sélectivité de la
mémoire défie tous ceux qui ne sont pas liés à un événement,
l’Holocauste ayant été universalisé tandis que les Arméniens luttent
encore contre le négationnisme. ‘ L’histoire n’est pas seulement notre
histoire, mais celle de l’espèce humaine `, a dit Hovannissian, avant
de déclarer que la mémoire ne doit pas seulement être liée à un groupe
unique de victimes.
Il existe actuellement deux institutions à Los Angeles qui
entretiennent, numérisent, indicent et utilisent les témoignages des
survivants pour le Génocide arménien et pour l’Holocauste – le projet
Histoire Orale Arménienne de l’UCLA dirigé par Hovannissian , et la
collection beaucoup plus vaste de la Fondation de la Shoah à
l’Université de Californie du Sud. Hovannissian a commencé le
programme de l’UCLA dans les années 1970 en faisant faire à des
étudiants des entrevues avec des survivants du Génocide arménien. Ces
entrevues étaient ensuite transcrites et traduites par une génération
d’étudiants qui leur ont succédé. Le modérateur de ‘ Elie Wiesel et
Richard Hovannissian en Conversation ` était la Présidente Jennifer
Keene du Département d’Histoire et faisait partie d’une manifestation
d’une semaine consacrée à Elie Wiesel et organisée par le Centre
Rodgers d’Enseignement de l’Holocauste dirigé par le Dr Marilyn
Harran.
Dans les jours précédents le programme Chapman, le professeur
Hovannissian avait fait une conférence à Erevan, en Arménie, à Buenos
Aires en Argentine, à Montevideo en Uruguay, à Berlin en Allemagne et
à Scottsdale, en Arizona. Le 21 avril, il était le principal
intervenant de la commémoration annuelle du Génocide arménien à
l’Eglise Sainte-Marie de Costa Mesa, Californie, et il a répondu à
l’invitation de l’Université Chapman pour y donner une conférence dans
deux classes de l’Holocauste le premier et le 2 mai. Il fera une
présentation sur la destruction de Smyrne/Izmir dans un programme
adressé à la communauté entière à l’église Saint-Léon dans le New
Jersey le 17 mai, avant d’animer une conférence à Montreal le 25 mai,
à l’occasion du 95ème anniversaire de la fondation de la République
Arménienne.
Jano Boghossian
ASBAREZ
traduction Gilbert Béguian
mardi 14 mai 2013,
Stéphane ©armenews.com
Hungary: Government May Restrict Access To
Information
14:52, May 13, 2013
The Hungarian Parliament adopted a controversial amendment to its Freedom
of Information Act on April 30, a move that will make civilian and
journalistic access to information more difficult, Atlatszo.hu
reported.
The amendment was passed less than 48 hours after its introduction.
The amendment severely limits citizens’ access to public information, as
it
limits the amount of data individuals may obtain. The amendment also
requires that individuals justify requests for information related to court
cases, public bodies, and public officials, all information that was
previously in the public domain, according to Transparency
International
The amendment is allegedly meant to limit the number of `abusive’ requests
for information, but local organizations, including Transparency
International Hungary, watchdog K-monitor, the Hungarian Civil Liberties
Union, and OCCRP partner Atlatszo.hu have decried the sudden change. All
four organizations quit the anti-corruption group formed by the Hungarian
Ministry of Justice in protest.
The quartet also petitioned President Janos Ader to veto the amendment.
While Ader vetoed the amendment, and said that it gave `public service
entities excessive right to decide what qualifies as an `abusive demand’ of
information, he did not send it to the Constitutional Court. Under
Hungarian law, Parliament can revote on the issue, thus bypassing the veto
and passing the law unchanged.
In a commentary on the amendment, Atlatszo.hu criticized the change and
highlighted the importance of continued transparency.
Every citizen has the right to be informed about the spending of public
money. Transparency is pivotal in any democracy, and the amendment voted on
in Parliament calls that into question. Passing an amendment reshaping the
sphere of freedom of information in only two days is unacceptable, the
investigative reporting center added. Even more conspicuous is the fact
that the amendment was proposed when civil society organizations requested
access to the bids in a tender for tobacco retail licenses, which
reportedly went to government party loyalists. This law will allow public
decision makers to get away with bias and allow corruption to go
unpunished, Atlatszo said.
Atlatszo added that the new, government friendly understanding of freedom
of information enables users of public funds, mainly government offices and
municipalities, to keep the allocation of public funds secret. The law
contradicts the fundamental ethical norms of a democracy and places
measures included in the Hungarian government’s anti-graft action plan into
doubt.
Transparency International Hungary, K-Monitor watchdog for public funds,
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and Atlatszo.hu
investigative
portal are convinced that the amendment of the law on freedom of
information discredits all previous stances of the government to stop
corruption. We are still devoted to make Hungary a better society free of
corruption, but we will not lend our reputation to the mockery our
government orchestrated in the anti-corruption arena, Atlatszo said.
Today’s Zaman, Turkey
May 13 2013
What to expect from Obama-ErdoÄ?an meeting
by ABDULLAH BOZKURT
Among all the possible talking points for US President Barack Obama’s
upcoming meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an on
May 16 in the White House, obviously some have to be dropped for
various considerations and sensitivities, not to mention time
constraints for the duration of the meeting. How to prioritize the
agenda items, which seem unusually long, will differ for each side as
bureaucrats and diplomats scramble to harmonize diverging views on
issues of mutual concern in a lead up to the meeting. I think the
discussion of what will be the most important topic at the meeting
that many predict will be Syria, especially after the twin blast that
claimed the lives of almost 50 people on Saturday in the Turkish
border town of Reyhanli, is no longer relevant to US-Turkish
relations.
What makes this visit of the utmost importance for both Turkey and the
US is that it will provide a chance to restore somewhat lost
confidence on both sides amid signs of decoupling on a number of
issues. ErdoÄ?an and Obama have been less talkative since 2011, a year
when Erdogan’s access to Obama via direct contact rivaled only that of
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain who was the most frequent
caller among foreign leaders. This year, Obama spoke to ErdoÄ?an only
once on the phone when he successfully mediated between Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ErdoÄ?an during his visit to the Jewish
state. Given that both sides are fully aware of their respective
importance for each other, I believe there will be a successful
realignment of common interests by trimming down differences to the
extent it is possible, starting with Syria.
On Syria, the disappointment ErdoÄ?an feels on Obama’s lack of
enthusiasm in becoming deeply involved in the Syrian crisis for more
than two years needs to be addressed. The urgency of hastening the
departure of the Bashar al-Assad regime has picked up speed in recent
weeks with the introduction of chemical weapons to the conflict by
pro-regime elements and the chilling reminder of spillover hazards
with respect to the twin blasts in the Turkish border town. Similarly,
ErdoÄ?an needs to allay Obama’s concerns on Iranian attempts to bypass
the US sanctions regime using Turkey as a conduit and Ankara’s lack of
full cooperation on cracking down on illicit and illegal Iranian
activities in Turkey. On the divided island of Cyprus, Turkey feels
there is now a window of opportunity for the last push for unification
based on the prospect of rich natural gas in the waters off of Cyprus
and economic woes on the Greek Cypriot side. Ankara requires US
support for this initiative, and some groundwork has already been laid
down during US Secretary of the State John Kerry’s frequent visits to
Turkey.
The EU process is no longer a significantly important issue for
Turkish-US talks as Ankara seems to have somewhat lost its confidence
in the process amid the eurozone crisis and enlargement fatigue in the
27-nation bloc. It will not ask any more than it has to for the US’
nudging of Europeans to put the frozen process back on track.
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorism will be on the agenda in a
different format this time because of the settlement process the
government has been pursuing with the imprisoned leader of the PKK,
Abdullah Ã-calan, since last December. ErdoÄ?an will ask the US to
support the process to make sure it isn’t derailed by provocations and
interventions staged by third parties. US intelligence may come in
handy in preventing attempts at sabotaging the process. In the
meantime, he will also repeat the pending Turkish request for armed
drones from the US to be used for the mop-up operations against the
PKK leaders and militants who refuse to lay down arms at the end of
the process if and when it is successfully concluded.
The closer cooperation and coordination in the fight against al-Qaeda
and other radical groups, especially in the Syrian case, and on
cracking down on the leftist Revolutionary People’s Liberation
Party/Front (DHKP/C), which claimed the Feb. 1 suicide bomb attack on
the US embassy in Ankara, as well as its splinter groups will be
discussed. There has been a high-level interagency counter-terrorism
dialogue between Turkey and the US in the last couple of years, but
the establishment of a joint counterterrorism task force to share
intelligence and to launch joint operations against common targets as
proposed by the US has not been put into effect yet.
In the Iraqi case, tables have turned. In contrast to the past, Turkey
now has very bad relations with the pro-Iranian Shiite Nouri al-Maliki
government in Baghdad while enjoying very cordial ties with the
Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq. Washington believes
Turkey may be undercutting Maliki by engaging with the Kurds
independently in the energy trade and at the expense of the federal
government, fearing that it may lead to a partition of Iraq along
ethnic and sectarian lines. On the other hand, ErdoÄ?an has given up on
Maliki completely because he believes there is no chance of making a
deal with Maliki who has effectively become the dictator of Iraq and
disenfranchised Sunnis, Kurds and even some Shiite groups. It will be
interesting to see how Obama and ErdoÄ?an can come to a common
understanding on Maliki.
Sharp differences still persist on ErdoÄ?an’s announced visit to Gaza
and his close personal relations with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, and
they may prove to be difficult to reconcile. ErdoÄ?an believes the US
should be talking to Hamas, listed as a terrorist organization by
Washington, in addition to the Fatah leadership because Hamas is a
political reality and can’t be ignored. The US, however, insists on
three conditions that Hamas needs to fulfill before it has a place
around the negotiating table, i.e. recognizing the right to exist for
Israel, respecting past agreements with Israel and giving up armed
struggle against the occupation. Though the normalization of
Turkish-Israeli ties seem to be set on track, the visit to Gaza
without coordinating with Israel, Egypt and the Palestine Authority
may agitate some people in the US Congress and will draw the ire of
the powerful American Jewish community. Obama, keen to maintain good
relations with the Israeli lobby in the US and the Jewish state in the
Middle East during his second term, wants to avoid an unnecessary
crisis by urging ErdoÄ?an to suspend the visit until the reconciliation
between Fatah and Hamas takes place.
On the reopening of Greek Orthodox Halki Seminary in Ä°stanbul, nothing
has really changed from the last time Obama discussed this issue with
ErdoÄ?an with the exception that some properties have been restored to
their former non-Muslim owners by a government-run commission. Turkey
is waiting for the US and Greek Patriarchate to exert pressure on
Athens to improve the conditions of the Muslim Turkish minority in
Western Thrace so that they can sell the revisions, which will allow
the reopening of the seminary, to deputies in Parliament in particular
and to the public in general. The same standoff is valid for the
Armenian genocide issue as well. The chance for Turkey to normalize
its relations with Armenia before the 2015 centennial seems to be a
far-fetched idea against the background of growing Azeri influence in
Turkey with investment and trade advocacy, not to mention political
capital. In Afghanistan, the US may ask for the further involvement of
Turkey in the country’s development and consolidation of its
institutions with more military/police training and reconstruction
programs as it starts to withdraw forces and equipment from
Afghanistan before the 2014 deadline.
Obama will likely press ErdoÄ?an on the need for Turkey to keep
pursuing further democratic reforms in order to address its
shortcomings in human rights, mainly in areas related to freedom of
speech and freedom of the press. The US, keen to shift some of its
regional liabilities to its partners, wants to see its ability to work
with Turkey strengthened, and for that it needs to remove irritants in
bilateral relations. The message should be that Turkey must put its
house in order to boost its democratic credentials. I’m sure Obama was
advised to play a delicate and gentle game with ErdoÄ?an on these
issues because ErdoÄ?an can be quite combative when he is pushed too
far. Obama is also aware of Turkey’s domestic political outlook as
well. He must know that Turkey will be undergoing successive elections
starting with the local one in March 2014, followed by presidential
elections the same year and parliamentary elections in 2015. As usual,
the US influence on Turkey will be restricted during the long campaign
period because politicians in Turkey from all spectrums love to bash
the US because it is easy, and there is no cost involved.
ErdoÄ?an will probably raise the issue of how US talks with Russia in
resetting ties within the framework of comprehensive deal have been
progressing on the eve of the drawdown of American forces from
Afghanistan by 2014. Turkey, which does not see Russia as a threat but
is worried about the possible implications from the comeback of
Russian influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus, wants to see how a
deal between Washington and Moscow would affect Turkish interests.
There may be other issues of mutual concern ranging from the Balkans
to Africa, from the impact of the EU’s free trade talks with the US on
Turkey to re-energizing the Middle East peace process.
The bottom-line is that the visit will be marked as a success to the
extent Obama and ErdoÄ?an can find ways to match up to the label of
`being a strategic partner’ on a number of outstanding issues. In the
past, even during difficult and bad times, Turkey and the US had
always found a way to keep this crucial alliance above turbulent
waters. This time they have more reasons to do the same. If the
political commitment is there, the deal on general parameters will be
reached one way or another, leaving the operationalizing of these
plans to technical/bureaucratic teams.
Belarusian Telegraphic Agency, Belarus
May 13 2013
Lukashenko, Sargsyan to hold talks in Yerevan
13.05.2013 09:10
YEREVAN, 13 May (BelTA) – Presidents of Belarus and Armenia Alexander
Lukashenko and Serzh Sargsyan are set to hold talks in Yerevan, BelTA
has learnt.
The Belarusian leader arrived in Armenia on an official visit on 12
May. The two leaders are expected to discuss bilateral relations and
cooperation in international organizations. Special focus will be on
the expansion of bilateral trade, development of economic contacts
including implementation of joint cooperation projects.
The sides are expected to sign a number of bilateral documents.
Members of the official Belarusian delegation will also hold meetings
with their Armenian counterparts to discuss the ways to intensify
all-round cooperation.
In 2012 the bilateral trade totaled $46.1 million. Exports made up
$38.7 million, imports – $7.4 million. Belarus posted trade surplus of
$31.3 million. Belarus’ main exports to Armenia include tires, trucks,
tractors, oil products, paper, butter. Belarus has a solid commodity
distribution network of its companies in Armenia. There Belarus-funded
companies have been opened in Armenia so far: Trading House BelAr,
BelAZ Caucasus Trans Service and the Armenian-Belarusian Trading House
Ar-Be.
Nagorno-Karabakh people want development in historical homeland –
Armenian president
17:31 – 13.05.13
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and his Belarusian counterpart
Alexander Lukashenko discussed, among other issues, the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.
At a press conference following the two presidents’ meeting, Armenia’s
leader said that the Nagorno-Karabakh people want development in their
historical homeland.
`They want to have equal rights with other nations, which have been
internationally recognized as independent,’ said President Serzh
Sargsyan.
The Armenian leader informed his Belarusian counterpart that Armenia’s
stance remains unchanged. The country is ready for a peaceful
settlement of the conflict.
Armenian News – Tert.am
U.S. Ambassador’s Tough Statements
The U.S. Ambassador John Heffern stated in a meeting with the students
of Synopsys Armenia that he reports to the U.S. ambassador directly
but he also tries to put pressure on the U.S. president to recognize
the events of 1915. The ambassador says Armenia is a complicated
country due to the events of 1915.
Certain pressure is made on the U.S. president through me, including
in regard to recognition of the events of 1915.
John Heffern says surprised that despite closed borders the Armenians
find ways to achieve success, develop, they are warm, and Armenia is
not a grey country as he had thought before arriving here.
To achieve success Armenia must have different options and should not
depend on one option so they encourage Armenia to face the West to
find another option there. We are not trying to replace Russia and its
functions here, the U.S. ambassador said.
John Heffern says the business climate must be improved to result in
growth of the levels of international investments. He noted that he is
and will continue working with American businessmen to bring
investments to Armenia.
Business requires rule of law, transparency, competitiveness and
predictability, he says, noting that they always tell Armenian
officials that SMEs need honest competition. Heffern says there is a
tax system and a customs system but there are certain complaints on
behalf of the American businesses which try to import goods but find
that customs clearance is too expensive. He also notes that someone
starting a business needs to be sure that the judicial system will be
fair. John Heffern says there is progress on these issues but there is
a lot to do.
John Heffern underscored the DCFTA between the EU and Armenia, holding
out hope that it will be successfully implemented. Armenia needs those
ties, all the Armenians will benefit from the application of
international standards, he says.
The U.S. ambassador notes that Armenia is mainly present in IT but
American investments are expected to develop tourism and food
processing in the regions of Armenia. According to the ambassador,
there is a possibility to create jobs for the people in the regions,
as well as tourism but an expensive air ticket policy is conducted.
Armavia does not exist, Armenia must open up its sky and accept all
the air companies, he says, noting that they are working towards
bringing American Airlines to Armenia.
Heffern noted that the future of Armenia is in knowledge-based economy.
20:24 13/05/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
For whom?
2013-05-13 17:18:16
Here is Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko in Armenia, according
to RA President’s official website, he is in Armenia at Serzh
Sargsyan’s invitation, but, in fact, as well as media reports from
Belarus, Lukashenko is actually in RA at Gagik Tsarukyan’s invitation.
This hypothesis is quite plausible, taking into account several
important factors. First, Gagik Tsarukyan has friendly relations with
Lukashenko, consecration of St. John church in Abovian built with the
funding of Gagik Tsarukyan and opening ceremony of “Pharaon”- huge,
entertainment complex, they say, it is unprecedented in the whole
region- all these confirm the fact.
However, in this case the situation, in which Serzh Sargsyan appeared,
is interesting. But in what situation is actual the President? It
turns out that the President has not arrived at the invitation of RA
President. The situation could be absurd not only for Serzh Sargsyan,
but also for the foreign President.
And not taking steps in this case, would mean a capitulation, in this
case by Gagik Tsarukyan, which is, of course, given recent events, is
impermissible for Serzh Sargsyan.
But apart from this situation, there is another important factor,
which promises to be quite interesting in Serzh Sargsyan’s Gagik
Tsarukyan’s background of comminucation. It is already known that
Alexander Lukashenko during his official visit will attend
consecration of St. John church, and attention, accompanied by Serzh
Sargsyan. It turns out that Serzh Sargsyan attends the event on the
basis of the situation in which he found himself, that is, from kind
of dead-end situation, which is the only way, and which leads towards
Gagik Tsarukyan.
So what can occur as a result of the tripartite meeting?
In the first variant this could relax the tense situation, which has
been developed in Armenia. It can mitigate rate, which excludes the
PAP’s role in political life, and, as shown by the composition of the
new government, even in the sport. So, it turns out that Gagik
Tsarukyan is seeking ways to regulate relations with Serzh Sargsyan
that may be either successful, depending on the context, or vice
versa.
And here in the second version Gagik Tsarukyanmay take the initiative,
that is, he can show that not only RA President may appoint meetings
and be capable of dictating rules of game in Baghramyan 26, but him,
too.
Thus, in any case, in this situation, Gagik Tsarukyan appears as the
organizer, which means relaxation of pressure coming by Serzh
Sargsyan, or, at least, a guarantee of dialogue to find common ground,
why not expect the ruling system in a particular segment, which
Tsarukyan needs as air and water, taking into account the situation in
which the President of Olympic Committee has appeared.
Gevorg Avetisyan