57 NON-STATE PRE-SCHOOL ESTABLISHMENTS ARE OPERATING IN ARMENIA
ARMENPRESS
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
YEREVAN
About 57 non-state pre-school establishments are operating in Armenia.
Head of the Education and Science Ministry’s staff’s licensing
department Movses Movsisyan told Armenpress that eight private
pre-school establishments received licenses for 2010-2011. According
to him, in the same period three cases of suspension of licenses
were registered.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SIGNED FOR IMPROVING THE PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF PASTURE-BASED LIVESTOCK FARMS
ARMENPRESS
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
YEREVAN
The Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia and Heifer
Project International today – on 22 September, 2011 signed a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) for joint cooperation in the framework of the
“Community Agricultural Resource Management and Competitiveness”
Project.
The MOU was signed by RA Minister of Agriculture, Sergo Karapetyan;
RA Ministry of Agriculture Project Implementation Unit Director,
Gagik Khachatryan and Heifer Project International Armenian Branch
Office Director, Anahit Ghazanchyan.
CARMAC Project will be implemented by joint cooperation of RA Ministry
of Agriculture PIU and Heifer Armenia. The Project aims at improving
the productivity and sustainability of pasture-based livestock farms
in 55 mountainous communities in six Marzes of Armenia by increasing
milk production, improving pasture management and enhancing farm
sales of livestock products.
Heifer International is a non-profit, humanitarian organization
dedicated to ending world hunger and poverty and caring for the
Earth by providing livestock, trees, training and other resources
to help poor families around the globe become self-reliant. Heifer
International came to Armenia in 1999 and has implemented more than
45 projects in South Caucasus, assisting more than 5,000 families in
Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to build their own family farms.
Currently, Heifer Armenia is implementing 19 projects-17 in Armenia,
two in Georgia.
WOMEN U19: ARMENIA – MACEDONIA 1:8
Aleksandar Zlateski
MacedonianFootball.com
Sept 22 2011
A great performance by the women’s U19 national team as they rolled
to an easy 8:1 victory over their counterparts from Armenia.
Complete domination by the young Macedonian women in today’s match
against Armenia. The match was already decided in the 1st half where
Macedonia held a 6:0 advantage. Macedonia added two more goals in
the 2nd half with Armenia also scoring a goal to complete the 8:1
scoreline.
The player of the game for Macedonia was Gentjana Rochi who scored
five of the eight goals. The other three goals were scored by captain
Natasa Andonova, Hristina Adjuleska, and Marjana Naceva. With today’s
win, Macedonia finished in 3rd place in Group 6. The match was played
at Kukuš Stadium in Turnovo.
Lineup for Macedonia: Avramoska, Bogleva, Ginovska, Spasova, Rochi,
Georgieva, Andonova (c), Smilkovska (46′ Talimdjioska), Naceva,
Adjuleska (73′ Veselinova), Gjeorgieva (46′ Petrova).
Scorers for Macedonia: 6′, 19′, 37′, 45′, 65′ Rochi, 40′ Andonova,
45′ Adjuleska, 66′ Naceva.
Final Group 6 Standings: Austria – 7 points Italy – 7 points Macedonia
– 3 points Armenia – 0 points
ARMENIANS ‘HAVE SICK PSYCHOLOGY’
news.az
Sept 22 2011
Azerbaijan
Armenia pursues unrealistic dreams.
The statement came from senior official at Youth and Sports Ministry
of Azerbaijan Farhad Hajiyev at a conference ‘Role of culture of peace
and promotion of human rights in patriotic upbringing of the youth’
held as part of the ‘Month of Peace.’
He said Azerbaijan will always advocate peace as a peace-loving state
and will recover the occupied lands through peace.
‘In fact, we are ready for war. Azerbaijan needs peace and stability
most of all. I am confident that Azerbaijan will regain the lands it
has lost with the help of correct policies,’ Hajiyev added.
The senior official noted it was impossible to compare Azerbaijan
and Armenia as they have different way of thinking.
‘They are still talking about a history that does not belong to them
while we are developing and strengthening our standing in international
community. Armenians have sick psychology. They pursue dreams far
from reality,’ Hajiyev noted.
KARABAKH CONFLICT ON UN AGENDA ACHIEVEMENT OF OUR DIPLOMACY – MP
news.az
Sept 22 2011
Azerbaijan
Inclusion of the issue of state in the occupied lands of Azerbaijan
to the 66th session of the UN General Assembly is achievement of
our diplomacy.
The expected discussion of the issue in the General Assembly shows
that our country holds a consistent policy, which is proven by the
fact that Azerbaijan exposes the aggressive policy of Armenian on all
levels and attains fair decision of the international organizations.
The statement came from MP Mubariz Gurbanly in a statement to the
ruling party’s website.
He said that by voting against the issue Armenia demonstrates violation
of norms of principles of international law. He said that Azerbaijan’s
stance on Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement is based on principles
of international law.
‘Norms and principles of international law set the territorial
integrity and sovereignty to a foreground. Meanwhile, territorial
integrity and sovereignty issues are the main aspects set forth by
Azerbaijan in these negotiations’.
MOTHERS OF DECEASED SOLDIERS PROTEST OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT
Tert.am
18:56 22.09.11
A group of Armenian citizens had gathered outside the Government
Building in Yerevan, protesting for various issues.
Several women, wearing black clothes, were demanding the government
to find out the real reasons of the deaths of their sons in the army.
Some of them assumed that their sons might also participate in
the military parade celebrating the 20th anniversary of Armenia’s
independence, were they alive today.
Some of those gathered outside the Government Building were former
residents of North Avenue in central Yerevan, protesting for the
protection of their rights.
Also protesting were owners of kiosks who were condemning the decision
of the Yerevan Municipality to dismantle their trade facilities.
“The prime minister [Tigran Sargsyan] ordered not to touch the kiosks.
It turns out that the prime minister’s words are ignored,” said a
kiosk owner.
Speaking to Tert.am, some said they are sure the Yerevan Municipality
is implementing what they called a “denialist policy” and ignores
everybody’s opinion.
They said the kiosks in Yerevan are being dismantled without any
alternative solution offered to their owners.
MILITARY PARADE MAY SERVE DETERRENT FOR AZERBAIJAN – EXPERT
news.am
Sept 22 2011
Armenia
YEREVAN.- Military parade, marking the 20th anniversary of Armenia’s
independence may become deterrent for Azerbaijan, said political
analyst Stepan Grigoryan.
According to him, the parade was also a report about spending budget
funds on military equipment presented to the Armenian society.
“Why not? Let Azerbaijan see our strength and calculate the losses
in case it decides to resume hostilities,” he emphasized.
The expert stressed that Armenia must always take into account the
geographical location. High level militarization is registered in
the entire region, he added.
Grigoryan said we must show our military capability as it can become
a deterrent for those who have any claims to Armenia.
Stepan Grigoryan also mentioned the fact that the first and second
presidents of Armenia did not participate in celebrations.
“If we build a democratic state, everyone has the right to go
anywhere or not, to take part in the festivities or not. In any case,
I think they could participate. However, they are free people and
make decisions themselves,” he said.
Armenia’s first and second presidents refused to participate in
the solemn events dedicated to the 20th anniversary of Armenia’s
independence. Spokesperson for first President Levon Ter-Petrosyan,
did not inform of the reasons, while Robert Kocharyan’s office said
he would not attend the events as he would be out of the country.
AKCAM: SCIENTISTS WHO DENY ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ARE CORRUPTED BY TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTRY
Panorama
Sept 22 2011
Armenia
British “Times Higher Education” has published an article about
Armenian Genocide which is titled “Can we know the truth about
Armenian Genocide?”
“The editor-in-chief of “Agos” daily Hrant Dink was murdered in Turkey
in 2007 as he was holding a long lasting campaign against Turkish
denial of Armenian Genocide. Before Dink’s assassination he was sued
for “criticizing the Turks”. Turkish writer, Nobel Prize holder Orhan
Pamuk was also sued for the same issue. Now many scientists say those
who deny Armenian Genocide are corrupted by Turkish Foreign Ministry,”
writes the paper.
Taner Akcam, a professor of Clark University in Massachusetts, has
declared during Bucharest-hosted conference on Armenian Genocide that
he has received phone calls from anonymous sources that scientists
were corrupted to deny Armenian Genocide.
“If anybody works on the issue of Armenian Genocide, he/she can lost
the job. This is the reason why many scientists don’t use genocide
term. If I plan to live Turkey, I cannot find any job there,”
Akcam said.
“If Turkey opens Armenian-Turkish border and normalizes relations with
Armenia, it will positively impact on studies of Armenian Genocide,”
said Akcam.
HOW WILL ARMENIA VOTE ON PALESTINE’S INDEPENDENCE BID?
news.am
Sept 22 2011
Armenia
Former Soviet republics are pondering on the position on recognition
of Palestinian state. Some take into account relations with Arabs and
Turks, and others – with the U.S. and the EU. But for the same reason,
some countries still can not decide, writes Israel-based Izrus.
In an article the author divides post-Soviet countries into four
groups. The first group includes those who unequivocally support
Palestinians, and it was announced publicly (Russia, Azerbaijan). The
second group includes four Muslim republics of the CIS, which have
not yet expressed public support for the Palestinians, but certainly
will vote in their favor (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan). The third group comprises countries that have already
made it clear that they would not support Palestinian’s independence
bid (Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia and Latvia). The remaining states
are those which have not yet displayed their position on the issue
(Belarus, Moldova and Armenia).
“Armenia has not clarified its position on Palestine’s recognition
by September 22. Armenia does not have close relations with Israel,
but is Iran’s strategic partner in the Caucasus. At the same time
it maintains good relations with Lebanon and Syria, and, like its
opponent – Azerbaijan, is trying to get the support of Arabs on the
Karabakh issue,” the article reads.
The author points out that Yerevan, with regard to problems related
to the Middle East, adheres to Washington’s wishes. The example is
participating in the Iraqi operation and voting on some anti-Israeli
resolution in the UN. However, Armenians tried to keep a “balanced
position” not to annoy Arabs by alternating votes “for” and “against”,
the article mentions.
Leader of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas is expected to appeal to UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon with a written request to recognize independence
of Palestinian state during the UN General Assembly session.
THE 1823 RUSSIAN SURVEY OF THE KARABAGH PROVINCE
Sep 22, 2011
George A. Bournoutian History
A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the
First Half of the 19th Century
Description On May 14 (26), 1805 General Paul Tsitsianov, the
Russian commander in the Caucasus, and Ebrahim Khan of Karabagh
signed a treaty, by which the Karabagh Province became a Russian
protectorate. Ebrahim Khan promised to be a loyal subject of the
Russian Emperor, to pay an annual tribute of 8,000 gold rubles to
the treasury in Tiflis, and to send a son and a grandson as hostages
to Tiflis. In exchange, Russia promised that Ebrahim Khan and his
progeny would continue as the khans of Karabagh and that local rule,
including the courts and administration, as well as the taxes would
remain under Ebrahim Khan’s jurisdiction.
On the night of June 2 (14), 1806, a group of Russian soldiers
killed Ebrahim Khan, after he had reportedly resubmitted to Fath
`Ali Shah of Iran and had left Shushi to join the Iranian army. The
Russians appointed Mahdiqoli, a son of Ebrahim Khan, as the new Khan
of Karabagh. He promised to abide by the articles of the 1805 treaty.
On November 21 (December 2) 1822 Mahdiqoli Khan fled to
Iran. Taking advantage of the situation, General Alexei Ermolov, the
Commander-in-Chief of Georgia, Astrakhan, and the Caucasus, declared
the 1805 treaty null and void. He terminated the protectorate and, on
December 26 (January 7, 1823) sent a letter to Count Victor Kochubei,
the Minister of Internal Affairs, stating that Karabagh was now
incorporated into the Russian Empire.
In order to enumerate the population of Karabagh and ascertain the
revenues collected by the Khan, Ermolov, on January 13 (25), 1823,
ordered State Counselor Paul I. Mogilevskii and Colonel Ermolov II
to conduct a detailed survey of the Karabagh Province. On April 17
(29) 1823, they presented their findings in thirty-five registers to
the Municipal Council in Shushi, and on May 2 (14) to General Ermolov
in Tiflis.
The survey, titled The Description of the Karabagh Province, compiled
in 1823, was eventually published in 1866 by the printing house of
the Viceroy of the Caucasus in Tiflis. The number of copies printed
must have been very few, for it, as well as the previous surveys
conducted in the Sheki (Shakki) Province by Mogilevskii and General
F. Akhverdov in 1819, and in the Shirvan Province, by Mogilevskii and
General V. Madatov in 1820, both of which were also printed in 1866 in
Tiflis, soon became rarities. To our knowledge, with the exception of
I. P. Petrushevskii, no serious scholar of 19th-century Transcaucasia
or Iran has mined the valuable information contained in these surveys.
As a historian of the various khanates of Transcaucasia and Iran,
Prof. George Bournoutian had been very interested in examining
this survey for many years. Although he was told that it contained
information about the Armenians of Karabagh, his main interest was
the data on land tenure and taxation of another khanate which had been
under Iranian rule, but which had developed its own unique system of
land tenure and taxation, prior to its incorporation into the Russian
Empire. His interest in the region began as a graduate student, when he
chose the social and economic history of the Khanate of Erevan under
Iranian suzerainty as his doctoral subject. The survey conducted in
the Erevan Province immediately after the Russian annexation revealed
unique data on the administration, land tenure and taxation of the
khanate during the rule of its last Khan, Hoseynqoli, and added a
great deal of new information to our knowledge of the region.
The author, therefore, sought the 1823 survey printed in 1866 for
many years. Although he had been able to obtain a number of Xerox
copies from Armenia and Georgia, they were incomplete and poorly
reproduced. Finally, in 2003, he was delighted to learn that a new
edition, numbering only 500 copies, had appeared in Baku. However,
instead of printing a facsimile of the original, the production team
had decided to reformat the entire text. In doing so, they not only had
made numerous spelling and typographic errors, but had also omitted
important data, some of which appear to have been intentional. The
editors had not bothered to explain the invaluable data on the
administration, land tenure and taxation of Karabagh prior to its
annexation to Russia. One would have hoped that in reformatting the
entire text, the editor or some other scholar would have researched
the many terms and presented a true picture of the socioeconomic
conditions of Karabagh under the last Khan.
The present work is an accurate translation of the original survey,
which was obtained with the help of Vadim Gomoz from the Moscow
Library. It details the revenues collected from the city of Shushi, as
well as each district of Karabagh in 1822. Prof. Bournoutian explains
the various taxes collected and the types of land tenure prevalent
at the time. He also indicates the number of Armenians, Tatars,
and nomadic families, which inhabited each district in the region.
Finally he analyzes the data and provides an accurate picture of
the demography and economic conditions of Karabagh prior to its
incorporation into the Russian Empire and an important addition to
the history of the region under Iranian rule. The present study will
finally put to rest the claims that Armenian arrived in Karabagh only
after 1828.