Author: Kanayan Tamar

FOOTBALL FEDERATION TO HOUSE SARGSIAN’S HEADQUARTERS

A1+
[02:58 pm] 24 October, 2007

Armenia’s Football Federation (AFF) will soon house Serzh Sargsian’s
pre-election headquarters, the AFF press service informed A1+.

The news is really astonishing as the AFF is one of the unique
federations in Armenia which works under tense regime.

The federation had moved to Khanjian as the former office on Sarian
Street was too small for the departments. AFF former press secretary
Suren Baghdasarian explained the information vacuum of 2000-2004 by
the lack of rooms and normal conditions.

According to our verified data, ARF Chaiman Ruben Hairapetian’s study
will be allotted to RA deputy Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamian, the
chief of the pre-election headquarters. This, in turn, implies that
the federation will house Sargsian’s central headquarters.

HARUT SASSOUNIAN AWARDED FOR HIS HUGE INPUT INTO PROMOTING ARMENIA AND ARMENIANS

ARMENPRESS
Oct 22, 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 22, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian government press office
said today prime minister Serzh Sarkisian has decreed to award Harut
Sassounian the memorial medal of the Armenian prime minister.

A press release by the press office said Mr. Sassounian was awarded the
medal for his long-time activities to promote Armenia and Armenians,
implementation of a series of charity projects in Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh and for his huge contribution into charity programs.

The government press office said Serzh Sarkisian awarded the medal
during a visit to the Los Angeles, USA.

Harut Sassounian is the publisher of The California Courier, a weekly
newspaper based in Glendale, California. His editorials dealing with
political analysis on international affairs are reprinted by scores
of U.S. and overseas publications.

He is also the founder and President of the United Armenian Fund,
a coalition of several largest Armenian-American charitable and
religious organizations. The U.A.F. has supplied some $500 million
of humanitarian assistance to Armenia on board 140 airlifts and 1,300
sea containers since the 1988 earthquake.

As Vice Chairman of Kirk Kerkorian’s Lincy Foundation, Harut Sassounian
oversaw the implementation of multi-million infrastructure-related
projects in Armenia, including construction of 3,674 apartments,
bridges, tunnels, highways, and city streets, renovation of 34 cultural
institutions, as well as providing $20 million of loans to small and
medium-size businesses.

He is currently overseeing Lincy’s new $60 million projects to renovate
schools, roads and streets in Armenia.

CBA ASSIGNS RATINGS TO THREE ENTERPRISES

Noyan Tapan
Oct 23, 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 23, NOYAN TAPAN. The Central Bank of Armenia (CBA)
has assigned ratings to 3 enterprises. NT was informed by the CBA
press service that Valetta LLS received "B" rating (previous rating –
"B"), Armenian Copper Program CJSC – "B" rating (previous rating –
"C+"), and Shen Concern CJSC – "B" rating (previous rating – "B").

"SYNOPSYS" INTRODUCES "GREEN DESIGN" PRINCIPLE

Noyan Tapan
Oct 23, 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 23, NOYAN TAPAN. Synopsys company (US), the world
leader in electronic automated design, has introduced the principle of
"green design" aimed at reduction of global warming. Integral chips
designed by this principle help reduce losses of consumed electric
current, as a result of which the atmosphere warms less.

Gayane Markosian, PR officer of Synopsys Armenia CJSC – the Armenian
subsidiary of Synopsys, told NT correspondent that software and
integral chips developed jointly by Synopsys and its partners are
designed under the slogan "Engineers Will Save the World".

Rich Goldman, Synopsys’ vice president for strategic market development
and Synopsys Armenia’s CEO, recently gave lectures on the "green
design" principles at the State Engineering University of Armenia
(SEUA), Yerevan State University, the Russian-Armenian (Slavonic)
University and the National Academy of Sciences of the RA.

According to G. Markosian, by the October 19 decision of the SEUA
Scientific Board, Rich Goldman was awarded title of honorary doctor
in recognition of his significant contribution to the development
of an "industry-university" efficient educational model at SEUA, and
for his series of lectures on modern topics of microelectronics for
SEUA’s teaching staff, post-graduate students, masters and students.

To recap, Synopsys Armenia that employs about 300 engineers is one
of Synopsys’ biggest subsidiaries among its 65 subdivisions worldwide.

AHMADINEJAD HONOR OUTRAGES ARMENIAN JEWS

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY
.html
Oct 23 2007

The Eurasian Jewish Congress condemned Armenia for honoring Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian president was presented with an honorary doctorate Monday
at Yerevan State University, as well as a gold medal. Ahmadinejad
was visiting Armenia for a two-day state visit.

In an interview with the Rosbalt news agency, Eurasian Jewish
Congress representative and Armenian Jewish community President Rima
Varzhepetyan expressed outrage at the decision to honor Ahmadinejad.

"The constant anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric of the president
of Iran, as well as the regularly organized statements in denial of
the Holocaust, place Ahmadinejad in line with theories not unlike
those of Dr. Goebbels, one of the chief ideologues of Nazi ideology
in Germany," Varzhepetyan said.

THERE’S A WORD FOR IT: GENOCIDE
By Harry Rosenfeld

Albany Times Union, NY
storyID=631926&category=OPINION&newsdate=1 0/21/2007
Oct 21 2007

>From almost the very beginning, the United States has been clear
about what happened to the Armenians living in Turkey during the
First World War. But when Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire, cabled the State Department in 1915 that "a campaign
of race extermination" was being inflicted on the Armenian minority,
there was no epitomizing word to describe the atrocity that was to
take 1.5 million lives.

It wasn’t until a relentless advocate, Raphael Lemkin, invented a
name for it in 1944 — a name now embodied in the official lexicon
of the United Nations and the world’s governments, as well as among
ordinary people. The name Lemkin came up with, and tirelessly lobbied
the United Nations to formally adopt, was genocide.

Lemkin’s extended family had perished in Hitler’s extermination
campaign only a few years earlier, and he hoped that the descriptive
name would help to prevent future ones. It did not, as demonstrated
by what befell Europe’s Jews and arguably Asia’s Cambodians and
Africa’s Darfurians.

>From 1915 onward, the U.S. government in one form or another of
congressional actions or in presidential statements, has cited the fate
of those Armenians who were deported in a death march by the Turks
as dangerous to the war then being waged. Many officials, including
President Ronald Reagan, had no problem with using the word genocide.

However, when a committee of the House of Representatives made the
latest effort in a series for the U.S. "to accurately characterize
the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as
genocide," Realpolitik intruded to block the nonbinding resolution
as it had thwarted past efforts.

In an Op-Ed piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, accurately wrote that "Turkey
and the U.S. have been friends, partners and allies for decades."

Turkey today indeed is not the country it was under the Ottomans. It is
the most democratic and moderate Muslim country, plays a stabilizing
role in the volatile Middle East and is the supply lifeline for
American troops in Iraq.

All that was being put at risk by the congressional action "that is
acutely offensive and unjust to Turks," the prime minister wrote.

Even today, Turkey officially describes what happened in 1915 as a
tragedy, but one that also took many Turkish lives. The documentation
of the slaughter of the Armenians is voluminous, including some from
Germany, Turkey’s World War I ally. There is little if any support
of the prime minister’s invocation of Turkish suffering at the hands
of a beleaguered Armenian community.

Ninety years later that is where the problem resides and the issue
festers. Even modern Turkey, a much more democratic and less corrupt
regime than in the neighboring Republic of Armenia, is not willing to
acknowledge its own history, although at first there were some limited
efforts to punish some officials held responsible for the genocide.

The House resolution could not have been to make crystal clear the
United States’ position on the Armenian genocide. That has been done
throughout the years. What the stalled resolution more likely was
aimed at was to encourage Turkey to face up to the terrible actions
in its past.

Perhaps even in failure the resolution might serve this purpose,
helping the present rulers to better understand the burden their
country’s past exacts to this day. In contrast, contemporary Germany
has confronted the horrors of its past, acknowledging the murder of
6 million Jews and others, and is the better for it today within its
own borders and among the nations of the world.

There are elements in Turkey working to open their society up to
modify the norms that continue to be a stumbling block in their
country’s efforts to join the European Union. As for the U.S., it has
reciprocated the Turkish commitment to the alliance with encouragement
and support, going to far as to block the congressional resolutions.

This controversy probably will simmer down as others like it have in
days past. But it will reappear time and again, through the efforts
of Armenians scattered around the world who can never forget what
happened to their forbearers and who will find support among people
of conscience.

The resolution stated that it "will help to prevent future
genocides." Experience tells us that it will always take more than
words, but that words can have inherent power and influence, as
witness Lemkin’s coinage.

KARABAKH CONFLICT DEVELOPS IN MIDDLE EAST SCENARIO – AZERI EXPERTS

Zerkalo, Azerbaijan
Oct 12 2007

Azerbaijani experts say that the conflict between Azerbaijan and
Armenia over the breakaway region of Nagornyy Karabakh is developing in
accordance with the Middle East scenario or the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, as peace talks have been lasting for years without any
results. Russian-language Zerkalo newspaper quoted some experts
participating in a roundtable on the conflict as saying that peace
talks will continue at least for a couple of more years.

"A serious breakthrough in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict will hardly be made before presidential elections in
Armenia and Azerbaijan" in 2008, the newspaper said. The following
is the text of an unattributed report in Zerkalo newspaper headlined
"The Karabakh conflict develops in accordance with the Middle East
scenario say experts at a closed-door roundtable on the settlement
of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict". Subheadings have been inserted
editorially.

Another closed-door roundtable of experts and political analysts
on the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which was
organized by the South Caucasus research centre and Analitika.az
website, has recently taken place. This time experts discussed the
topic called "prospects for the development of the settlement of
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in accordance with the Middle
East scenario".

The urgency of this issue proceeds from the statements of most
representatives of international organizations saying that a serious
breakthrough in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
will hardly be made before the presidential elections in Armenia and
Azerbaijan [in 2008]. This situation has been repeated before. Taking
into consideration the facts that Azerbaijan will see municipal
elections in 2009 and parliamentary elections in 2010 following the
presidential election scheduled for 2008, it is not ruled out that
the break in peace talks may continue for two years.

In view of the abovementioned facts experts were requested to answer
the following questions: 1. How real is it that the peace talks on
the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagornyy
Karabakh will last for many years like those on the Middle East
[Israeli-Palestinian] conflict? 2. How much does the delay in the
resolution of the conflict for many years meet the interests of the
conflicting parties, that is, Azerbaijan and Armenia? 3. How much does
it meet the interests of the major mediators, which are the co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group [a team of mediators set up in 1992 to mediate
a peaceful resolution], specifically Russia, the USA and the European
Union? 4. How capable is the OSCE Minsk Group in the current format
to achieve a peace deal that would be acceptable to all the parties to
the conflict? 5. Does the formula "the co-chairs and the international
community will support any solution that would be acceptable to all
the parties to the conflict" contribute to the soonest signing of a
peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan? 6. If Azerbaijan is really
interested in speeding up a peaceful solution to the conflict, is not
it the time for Baku to take the conflict to the UN Security Council
so that the council can identify clear frameworks for the settlement
of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the mandate for the mediators
of the OSCE Minsk Group on the basis of international law?

Breakthrough to be hardly made

Most of the experts believe that the likelihood of a breakthrough
in the peace talks in 2007-2008 is equal to zero. Nevertheless, the
experts did not rule out that a fundamental change in the geopolitical
situation in the region may force Moscow or Washington to put the
issue of the settlement of the conflict toughly to Azerbaijan or
Armenia. It was noted that this option may have both positive and
negative consequences for the sides of the conflict.

Everything will depend on which party the great powers that have
geopolitical interests in the region will use to settle the conflict.

Experts believe that this option is unlikely, but say that a window
will be opened for a short time in 2009 for intensifying peace talks
on the resolution of the conflict.

No military action expected

Experts do not think that a resumption of full-scale military
operations is likely in the forthcoming eighteen months, at least
before the presidential election in Azerbaijan. However, even in
this case it is not excluded that the aggravation of the situation
and a resumption of large-scale military hostilities after a certain
geopolitical situation takes shape in the region will fully meet the
interests of Russia. In this scenario Moscow may do any provocation
to make the sides of the conflict resume war.

Experts say that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is already
developing in accordance with the Middle East scenario. It is
impossible to achieve compromises between the parties to the conflict,
while a military solution does not meet the interests of the USA, first
of all. That is why the settlement of the conflict has been handed over
to the OSCE, which has no real leverage to solve the conflict at all.

Russia not interested in solution

In the meantime, the unanimous opinion of the experts is that Russia is
not interested in the settlement of the conflict since it may actually
lose leverage to influence Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the USA is
interested in the resolution of the conflict, but tries to do it more
at the expense of Azerbaijan. Experts say that the development of
the settlement process in accordance with the Middle East scenario is
totally contradictory to the national interests of both Azerbaijan and
Armenia. The formula "time is working in our favour", which is largely
promoted in Azerbaijan and Armenia, is deprived of any logic. At the
current stage the region is of interest to Western powers, first of
all the USA, as a source and corridor of transportation of energy
resources. However, this situation is not going to last forever.

Most of the experts said with regret that, as strange as it may seem,
the current "no peace no war" situation meets the interests of the
ruling elites both in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

OSCE incapable of solving conflict

Seven versus four experts believe that the OSCE Minsk Group with
its present mandate and format is incapable of achieving a peaceful
solution to the conflict. However, it was stressed that it is
hardly ever possible to create a different format that would be more
operational under the current circumstances.

Most of the experts (except two) do not think that the formula "the
co-chairs and the international community will support any solution
that would be acceptable to all the parties to the conflict" contribute
to the soonest signing of a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan
because the sides can not reach agreement on the status of Nagornyy
Karabakh. But agreement on this issue could be an ideal option since
it could deprive the great powers which have geopolitical interests
in the region, first of all Russia, of possibilities to manipulate
the situation on the ground.

Therefore, the experts believe that the status of Nagornyy Karabakh
should be determined at a later stage at the Minsk conference, as was
originally envisioned in the relevant resolutions of the OSCE and UN.

Taking conflict to UN

Finally, the majority of the experts (six versus five) think that it
is appropriate to take the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict to the UN Security Council and other international
organizations. However, some of the experts believe that this will not
result in any actual output because the states which are represented
in the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, the USA and France) occupy the seats
in the UN Security Council with the right to veto and they are not
ready yet to identify their unanimous positions on the settlement of
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

It should also be noted that the participants in this permanent
roundtable were such experts and political analysts as Arif Yunusov,
Arastun Oruclu, Ilqar Mammadov, Zardust Alizada, Rasim Musabayov,
Sahin Rzayev, Nair Aliyev, Azad Isazada, Casur Sumaranli, Alakbar
Mammadov and Uzeyir Cafarov. The permanent presenter at the roundtable
is a political observer of Zerkalo newspaper, Rauf Mirqadirov.

Wall Street Journal
Oct 20 2007

The Turkish Front

October 20, 2007; Page A10

Some day, we may look back on this week as a turning point in
America’s relations with its closest Muslim ally, Turkey, and perhaps
for the entire Middle East. Unfortunately, only a seer can say
whether it’ll be a turn for the better.

The ructions over the House’s foray into Ottoman history and Turkey’s
threat to invade northern Iraq don’t look good. But clear-eyed
leaders will spot an opportunity in this crisis to renew an alliance
for this difficult new era. American and Turkish interests overlap,
and the countries need each other as much as they did during the Cold
War.

How Turkey Could Undermine Iraq
The more sober politicians in Washington and Ankara understand this.
Wednesday’s parliamentary approval of a possible Turkish incursion to
chase down Kurdish terrorists in their Iraqi hideouts was remarkable
for its restraint. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan waited more
than a week after the latest strike by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(or PKK) killed 13 Turkish soldiers to bring up the measure. No
democratic government could ignore such attacks and the growing
public outrage.

The Turks have also ruled out any rash move into northern Iraq.
Ankara would prefer that the Iraqi Kurds and U.S. squeeze the PKK
hiding in the Qandil mountains and avoid the risks of launching its
own incursion. The vote this week is a wake-up call from the Turks —
not least to the Iraqi Kurds, who have an opening to improve ties
with their most important neighbor.

Meanwhile, with uncanny timing, Congressional Democrats this week
were about to stick a finger in Turkey’s eye. Whether the massacres
of up to 1.5 million Armenians in eastern Anatolia in 1915 constitute
"genocide," as a nonbinding House resolution declares, is a matter
for historians. In the here and now, the resolution would erode
America’s influence with Ankara and endanger the U.S. effort in Iraq.
Worse, Mr. Erdogan’s ability to work with Washington would be
constrained by an anti-American backlash.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the week promising to bring the resolution
to the House floor. But she is now having second thoughts — if not
out of good sense, then because her rank-and-file are peeling away as
they are lobbied against the anti-Turk resolution by the likes of
General David Petraeus. Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert tabled a
similar resolution when asked by President Clinton in 2000, and we’ll
soon see if Ms. Pelosi will do the same for a Republican President.

The PKK also reads the papers, and its leaders timed their attacks on
consecutive weekends this month as the resolution moved through the
House. The Marxist separatist group, whose 20-year war has claimed
almost 40,000 lives, would love to divide the U.S. from Turkey.
Unless managed right, the Turkish response this week also imperils
improving bilateral ties between Ankara and Baghdad; the countries
had only recently signed a counterterrorism pact. In Turkey itself,
PKK support is dwindling, and Mr. Erdogan’s ruling party swept the
Kurdish-majority areas in July’s elections.

To avoid the trap set by the PKK, the U.S. needs to press the Iraqi
Kurds to act against them. This doesn’t have to hurt America’s
friendly dealings with the Kurds. But someone has to remind Massoud
Barzani, the president of Iraq’s Kurdish region, that the PKK poses a
grave threat to the economic boom and stability of northern Iraq. His
aggressive rhetoric toward Turkey, and the Kurdish peshmerga
militia’s disinterest in cracking down on the PKK, gives the wrong
impression of complicity with the terrorists. With typical bluster,
Mr. Barzani yesterday said he’d fight the Turks — hardly helpful.

Short of declaring war on the PKK, the peshmerga could easily cut off
supply lines of food and arms into the Qandil mountains. The Turks
want the U.S. to nab a few big PKK fish, which is easier said than
done. But Ankara isn’t unreasonable to expect to see more of an
effort. In return, its troops can stay on their side of the border.

This hasn’t been an easy year for Turkey. For most of it, Mr. Erdogan
and his neo-Islamist party fought a cold war with the country’s
secular establishment, led by the military. His commanding election
victory in July ended that political crisis, only to see Congress and
the PKK distract anew from his primary task, which is building the
Muslim world’s most vibrant free-market democracy.

Turkey wants a unitary, stable and prosperous Iraq, and should know
that any wrong moves in the north could jeopardize that. The Turks
unabashedly support Israel’s right to exist and can’t abide a nuclear
Iran. On these and other issues, Ankara is an indispensable partner
for America. Mr. Erdogan is expected to meet President Bush next
month to discuss Iraqi Kurdistan and probably the Armenian
resolution. The U.S.-Turkey friendship is too important to let it be
ruined by parochial politics in either country.

7919465520.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Azat Artsakh Tert, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Oct 19 2007

The NKR President accepted

On October 16th, the NKR President Bako Sahakian accepted the
assessor of Armenian Dentists’ Union of Canada, the head of the
department of public organization "Hand by hand" Zareh Uzunian, the
chairman of International Armenian Doctors’ Union Avetis Poghosian
and the persons accompanied them.The President estimated highly
different programs realized in Artsakh by these organizations and
expressed gratitude for showing permenant assistance to our people.
In their turn, the guests expressed readiness for having henceforth
an active participation in the realization of the programs directed
to the development of the sphere of health of the republic.(Central
Administration of Information of the NKR President’s stuff reported).

TANNER LEADS OPPOSITION TO VOTE ON ARMENIAN ISSUE
By Bartholomew Sullivan

commercialappeal.com , TN
Oct 17 2007

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., has taken the lead asking
the Democratic House leadership not to bring a resolution condemning
the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 to a floor vote.

In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H.

Hoyer, Tanner and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., wrote that the
resolution would inflame relations with Turkey at a time the NATO
member and ally in the Iraq war is critically needed.

"Enactment of (the resolution), which is directed at action of the
Ottoman Empire, would have serious consequences for the United States’
important relationship with modern-day Turkey, a strong NATO ally;
and threaten our operations and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,"
they wrote.

Tanner is chairman of the House delegation to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly.

President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and every living
Secretary of State since the Ford administration have asked Congress
to drop the resolution, citing the harm it would do to American-Turkish
relations.

Tanner, whose district includes parts of Millington, Frayser and all
of Tipton County; U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., whose district
includes parts of eastern Shelby County; and U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen,
D-Tenn., whose district is Memphis, were never sponsors of the
measure. Turkey is the honored country in next year’s Memphis in
May events.

Until recently, the resolution had 225 co-sponsors. Of the 21
congressmen who have withdrawn their support in recent days, two are
from the Greater Memphis area: U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., whose
district includes DeSoto and Marshall counties; and U.S. Rep. Marion
Berry, D-Ark., whose district includes Crittenden and Mississippi
counties.

The resolution was expected to go to a vote sometime this week,
but Hoyer is now saying he wants to get a floor vote before Congress
adjourns for the year.

ct/17/tanner-leads-opposition-vote-armenian-issue/