Author: Kanayan Tamar

LES BANQUES ET LEUR CAPITAL : LES ECONOMISTES EVALUENT L’IMPACT DE L’EXIGENCE DE LA BANQUE CENTRALE DE FAIRE AUGMENTER LES FONDS DES ACTIONNAIRES

ARMENIE

La decision de la Banque centrale de donner un delai de deux ans aux
banques commerciales afin d’augmenter six fois leur capital social
jusqu’a 30 milliards de drams (environ 63 millions de $) est dirigee
vers la resolution de certains problèmes auquel le système bancaire
est aujourd’hui confronte affirment des experts.

La Banque Centrale a pris sa decision du relèvement du minimum
actuel de 5 milliards de drams ( 10,5 millions de $ ) du capital a
30 milliards de drams le dernier jour ouvrable de l’annee dernière
donnant aux 21 banques en Armenie jusqu’au 1er Janvier 2017 afin
d’appliquer cette directive et expliquant que cette etape est dirigee
vers la stabilisation des banques.

Selon l’economiste Vilen Khachatryan, la Banque Centrale a une idee
claire des problèmes dans le système bancaire et cette initiative
est dirigee vers leur solution.

> a declare Vartan Bostanjyan.

Vartan Bostanjyan a egalement d’autres preoccupations selon lesquelles
pour accumuler plus d’argent, les banques vont rendre l’accès aux
prets plus difficiles avec des taux d’interet plus eleves.

Vilen Khachatryan, cependant, n’est pas d’accord avec cette evaluation
: > a declare l’economiste.

Selon Vilen Khachatryan, la Banque Centrale tentera de lancer
le processus d’unification en douceur, parce que les gens sont
predisposes negativement envers les banques commerciales, il y aura
une certaine tension.

Actuellement, seulement cinq parmi les 21 banques qui fonctionnent
en Armenie possèdent plus de 30 milliards de drams de capital.

Par Sara Khojoyan

ArmeniaNow

lundi 2 fevrier 2015, Stephane (c)armenews.com

AUTRICHE : LES EGLISES CHRETIENNES COMMEMORERONT LE GENOCIDE DES ARMENIENS

AUTRICHE

Le 24 Avril, les eglises chretiennes en Autriche se souviendront du
genocide de 1,5 million d’Armeniens. Selon Erich Leitenberger de la
Fondation “Pro Oriente” il s’agit de “la verite et la justice.”

Le genocide doit etre enfin reconnu et condamne. Les personnes ont
ete tuees il y a 100 ans parce qu’elles etaient chretiennes a affirme
Erich Leitenberger. Seuls ceux qui se sont convertis a l’islam,
ont pu echapper au genocide.

lundi 2 fevrier 2015, Stephane (c)armenews.com

DES NOUVELLES CONCESSIONS FAITES PAR LE GOUVERNEMENT

Fiscalite

Le Premier ministre Hovik Abrahamian aurait accepte vendredi de faire
a nouveau des concessions majeures a des dizaines de proprietaires
de petites entreprises qui manifestaient contre les controversees
nouvelles règles fiscales introduites par le gouvernement.

Abrahamian a rencontre des representants des manifestants alors qu’ils
se sont de nouveau rassembles devant son bureau a Erevan. Les leaders
des manifestants ont ete satisfaits de la reunion de deux heures.

“D’après ce que j’ai compris, M. Abrahamian est de notre côte”,
a declare l’un d’eux.

“Le Premier ministre a notamment convenu de discuter et de reviser
la loi”, a dit un autre participant de la reunion.

La loi a ete modifiee en octobre pour demander a ces petites entites
de montrer aux agents du fisc des recus de leurs transactions avec
les fournisseurs de gros. Le gouvernement a dit que ce sera ainsi
beaucoup plus difficile pour les grands importateurs de marchandises
armeniennes d’echapper a l’impôt.

Les operateurs economiques affectes disent qu’ils ne peuvent pas
se conformer a cette exigence parce que les fournisseurs refusent
systematiquement de leur donner des recus. Une serie de manifestations
organisees en septembre et octobre avait deja force Abrahamian a
reporter l’application de la loi au 1er fevrier.

Le gouvernement n’a pas confirmer ni nier les nouvelles concessions.

lundi 2 fevrier 2015, Claire (c)armenews.com

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Jan 31 2015

Choosing a wardrobe like an Ottoman

NIKI GAMM

A distinction was made between what a Muslim could wear and what a
non-Muslim could wear. In fact, the Quran and the religious traditions
form the basis for this differentiation

From the earliest days of Islam, a distinction was made between what
clothing a Muslim could wear and what a non-Muslim could wear. The
Quran and the traditions form the basis for this differentiation.

The so-called Pact of the Caliph Omar, which may have been issued to
protect non-Muslims in Syria after the Arab conquest, lays down a
number of conditions that include dressing in the same way no matter
where they were and wearing a specific belt.

An Armenian man

In later centuries, non-Muslims wore special emblems such as a yellow
badge, which was later used in Medieval Europe to distinguish Jews.
Non-Muslims also had to wear medallions around their necks when they
went to the hamam, and unless specifically ordered to, they were
prohibited from wearing crosses or icons on their dress.

During the 14th century, the Ottomans followed in the footsteps of
previous Muslim governments. The only difference was that initially
the majority of the people over whom they ruled were Christians:

Mostly Greeks and Armenians. Fatih Sultan Mehmed issued a decree
relating to the worship and customs of non-Muslims some time after the
fall of Constantinople in 1453. In it, he basically assured them that
they could continue their lives as before; some have thought this also
referred to freedom of dress, even though there’s no mention of it in
the document. The number of Jews in Anatolia was small until after the
Spaniards expelled them from Spain in 1492, later followed by Portugal
and France.

Under these circumstances, it would have been difficult for the
Ottomans to insist on dress codes since they, as Muslims, were the
ones in the minority.

Sumptuary laws

These Ottoman laws, known as sumptuary laws, have not been seriously
studied, unlike the serious restrictions put on dress in Western
European countries. Nor does it seem that they were seriously
enforced, even after they were promulgated. The latter situation was
due in part because when a sultan died or was deposed, the laws he had
promulgated had to be renewed by the succeeding sultan, who may or may
not have been otherwise engaged directing military campaigns or
solving problems created by rebellions.

What we do know is that the laws covered what a man could wear such as
his headgear, his outer garments – including their materials and
lengths – and the color of his shoes. The outer garments were mostly
dark. Christians wore colored turbans and shoes of red or yellow,
while Jews’ clothes were black or violet. A 1702 law determined that
Jews were no longer to wear yellow slippers, but only black coverings
on the feet and head. This may have been applicable to the Christians
as well. Luxury items such as silks and furs were exclusively the
prerogative of the imperial family and the highest ranking officials.

An Armenian woman

Women’s clothing was not usually included, as they were more or less
confined to the home; however, from the 17th century onwards the women
in the imperial family achieved considerable power and prominence,
which accustomed people to seeing them in the public sphere – even if
they were veiled.

This was helped by the freedom with which foreign women could move
about (so long as they didn’t offend Muslim sensibilities). Non-Muslim
women who already had more freedom than their Muslim counterparts
often emulated the foreigners, and this led in the 18th century to a
number of prohibitions on certain kinds of public displays.

Prosecution under the law

On one occasion, Sultan Murad III (r. 1574-1595) ordered the execution
of all the Jews in the empire merely because he was annoyed by the
luxury which they displayed in their clothing. It was only after the
intervention of Solomon Ashkenazi and other influential Jews with the
grand vizier, seconded by the payment of a large sum of money, that
the order was changed into a law restricting dress.

Thereafter Jews were required to wear a kind of cap instead of a
turban, and to refrain from using silk in making their garments.

Sultan Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) was known for his ruthless prosecution
of anyone who disobeyed his laws to the extent of going out at night
in disguise to ensure obedience and mete out punishment on the spot if
necessary. On one occasion he reportedly ran across a Christian beggar
who was wearing yellow boots at a time when only Muslims were
permitted to wear yellow shoes. In spite of the beggar’s plea that
he’d been given them as castoffs by a Muslim, the sultan had him
executed anyway.

Gibb and Bowen write the following about Sultan Murad IV’s prohibition
in their book `History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey’:
`Everyone was ordered to wear only the clothing and headgear to which
he was entitled by virtue of his millet, rank, class, occupation, and
the like, and subjects of all religions were ordered to obey their
leaders as well as their laws and traditions.’

We see that by the time Halil Hamit was appointed grand vizier from
1782 to 1785, the sumptuary law on clothing had to be reinforced once
again. This time, the insistence was on materials, and Hamit ordered
that everybody only use traditional materials `rather than the Indian
and European robes that had become the mode since the Tulip Period.’
This actually was to revive Ottoman cloth manufacturing and reduce the
importation of these items.

Sultan Selim III (r. 1789-1807) also ordered that his subjects return
to wearing traditional garb as a part of his attempts to reform the
Ottoman Empire. Instead of modernizing, he and his advisors returned
to the old ways. To head off dissent, the coffeehouses and taverns
were closed, and peasants who had come to the cities because they
could no longer make a living on the land were forced by decree to
return to where they had come from. However, the sultan did not
succeed in stifling dissent and ended up deposed in 1807.

Sultan Mahmud II later ruled that clothing was no longer regulated, so
we see the emergence of the fez instead of the turban. The Ã…?alvar
became pantaloons. The robe was replaced by coats. The shirt style
became that of the foreigner. To drive the point home, Mahmud had his
portrait painted twice: In one he wore traditional robes, and in the
other he wore a `Western’ military uniform.

January/31/2015

Al Jazeera, Qatar
Jan 31 2015

Turkey, Armenia and the tragedies of wars

Gallipoli is a good place to start for resolving the historic dispute
between Turkey and Armenians.

31 Jan 2015 08:32 GMT
Merve Sebnem Oruc, managing editor in online journalism and a
commentator in Turkey.

The Battle of Gallipoli was one of the most critical scenes in
Turkey’s history. Britain and France opened an overseas front in
Gallipoli in East Thrace and tried to overcome the Ottomans. The
Russian Empire was promised the capital Istanbul by the two of Entente
Powers of World War I. It was a fight for the survival of a nation, a
struggle for life or death.

The victory in Gallipoli didn’t help Turks win the war but it gave
hope to resist and start the war of independence a couple of years
later. The resistance is honoured every year on March 18 in Gallipoli
and on the shores of the Dardanelles.

Gallipoli is of significant importance to others like Australia and
New Zealand. Each year, on April 25, they commemorate the Australian
and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) who died in Gallipoli. This is
known as ANZAC day.

It was a battle away from home. It wasn’t even their war. They were
dominions of the British Empire when the war broke out. Gallipoli is
now a symbol of their national identity and existence. Their nations
were born there.

Honour and remembrance

Both commemorations are based on remembering and honouring – not
celebrating. Australians who come to visit Gallipoli are always
welcomed by the Turks who were their enemies once. After all, places
like Gallipoli are memorials – not only for the people on the side of
the Allies, but also for all those involved in the tragedies of wars.
There, the Memeds and the Johnnies are resting side by side.

This year is the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli. Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has invited more than 100 world
leaders, including Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, to attend
centennial commemoration ceremonies. The UK’s Prince Charles and the
prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand are expected to take part
in the ceremonies as well.

Armenians mark anniversary of mass killings

Turkey will commemorate the centennial on April 24 instead of the
regular memorial date, March 18, in a symbolic gesture of compassion.
April 24 also marks the start of the deportation of Armenians by
Turkish unionist authorities – it is the day Armenians around the
world traditionally commemorate their ancestors who were killed in
that campaign.

On April 23, 2014, Turkey issued a first-of-its kind statement
offering condolences to the descendants of slain Ottoman Armenians.
Erdogan, then prime minister, highlighted the “shared pain” endured
during the events of 1915, expressing condolences on behalf of the
Turkish state.

It is upsetting that Sargsyan has decided to reject the invitation,
which would have helped lead us one step closer to understanding and
reaching closure on the tragic events of 1915. The invitation, after
all, was yet another historic move following Erdogan’s statement.

The Turkish public still largely refuses to accept what happened a
century ago. Turkey is only just coming to terms with the
Unionist/Kemalist ideology, which was the root of the animosity
against Armenians, and the official nationalist interpretation of
history is now collapsing.

Taboo talking points

Ten years ago, merely talking about 1915 was a feat of bravery, but
now there is no taboo when discussing anything out loud. Explaining
why he had rejected Erdogan’s invitation, Sargsyan said he viewed it
as an attempt to overshadow the centenary of the Armenian genocide.
But while Turkey is taking historic steps, despite the sentiments of
the majority of its people, it would have been more constructive for
Armenia to have responded favourably.

Discussing and understanding history is more conducive to progress
than being stuck at the same point for years, and Gallipoli is one of
the most appropriate places to start.

Discussing and understanding historical reality is more favourable
than being stuck at the same point for years, and Gallipoli is one of
the most appropriate places to start.

Historians who write about Gallipoli hardly mention Armenians – and
writings about Armenians rarely mention Gallipoli. But prominent
researchers, even the ones who accept what happened in 1915 as
genocide, say there is a strong link between the Gallipoli campaign
and the Armenian deportations.

Taner Akcam, a leading international authority on the subject, draws
attention to that link in his 2006 book “A Shameful Act”:

“It was not a coincidence that the Armenian genocide took place soon
after the Sarikamis disaster and was contemporaneous with the empire’s
struggle at Gallipol … A nation that feels itself on the verge of
destruction will not hesitate to destroy another group it holds
responsible for its situation… A prediction made by the German
Ambassador Wangenheim is worth mentioning. With the outbreak of the
war in August 1914, Henry Morgenthau warned him that the Turks would
massacre the Armenians in Anatolia, to which Wangenheim replied: ‘So
long as England does not attack Canakkale … there is nothing to
fear. Otherwise, nothing can be guaranteed.'”

While another historian, Ronald Suny, provides evidence that the
crisis precipitated by the Entente bombardment of the Dardanelles
fortresses in March 1915 was a trigger, Donald Bloxham, a professor of
modern history, believes that the arrests of the Armenian
intelligentsia on April 24 came after the news that the British and
the French were about to land their troops at Gallipoli.

That doesn’t mean Gallipoli is an excuse for what happened, but
understanding this history will help us take significant steps and
achieve results.

Merve Sebnem Oruc is a managing editor in online journalism and a
commentator in Turkey.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

New York Times
Jan 31 2015

Heroes and Bystanders

JAN. 31, 2015
Nicholas Kristof

ONE of the great heroes of the 20th century was Auschwitz prisoner No.
4859, who volunteered to be there.

Witold Pilecki, an officer in the Polish resistance to the Nazi
regime, deliberately let himself be captured by the Germans in 1940 so
that he could gather information about Hitler’s concentration camps.
Inside Auschwitz, he set up resistance cells — even as he almost died
of starvation, torture and disease.

Then Pilecki helped build a radio transmitter, and, in 1942, he
broadcast to the outside world accounts of atrocities inside Auschwitz
— as the Nazis frantically searched the camp looking for the
transmitter. He worked to expose the Nazi gas chambers, brutal sexual
experiments and savage camp punishments, in hopes that the world would
act.

Finally, in April 1943, he escaped from Auschwitz, bullets flying
after him, and wrote an eyewitness report laying out the horror of the
extermination camps. He then campaigned unsuccessfully for an attack
on Auschwitz.

Eventually, he was brutally tortured and executed — not by the Nazis,
but after the war, in 1947, by the Communists. They then suppressed
the story of Pilecki’s heroism for decades (a book about his work,
“The Auschwitz Volunteer,” was published in 2012).

I was thinking of Pilecki last week on the 70th anniversary of the
liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps. I had relatives
killed in Auschwitz (they were Poles spying on the Nazis for the
resistance), and these camps are emblems of the Holocaust and symbols
of the human capacity for evil.

In the coming months, the world will also commemorate the 100th
anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide — which, despite the
outrage of Turkish officials at the term, was, of course, a genocide.
There, too, I feel a connection because my ancestors were Armenian.

Then, in the summer, we’ll observe the 70th anniversary of the end of
World War II — an occasion for recalling Japanese atrocities in China,
Korea, the Philippines and elsewhere. All this is likely to fuel more
debates focused on the past. Should we honor Armenian genocide victims
with a special day? Should Japan apologize for enslaving “comfort
women”?

But, to me, the lesson of history is that the best way to honor past
victims of atrocities is to stand up to slaughter today. The most
respectful way to honor Jewish, Armenian or Rwandan victims of
genocide is not with a ceremony or a day, but with efforts to reduce
mass atrocities currently underway.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington is a shining
example of that approach, channeling outrage at past horrors to
mitigate today’s — from Syria to Central African Republic. But, in
general, the world is typically less galvanized by mass atrocities
than paralyzed by them.

Even during the Holocaust, despite the heroism of Pilecki and others
like Jan Karski, who tried desperately to shake sense into world
leaders, no one was very interested in industrial slaughter. Over and
over since then, world leaders have excelled at giving eloquent “never
again” speeches but rarely offered much beyond lip service.

This year, I’m afraid something similar will happen. We’ll hear
flowery rhetoric about Auschwitz, Armenia and World War II, and then
we’ll go on shrugging at crimes against humanity in Syria, Central
African Republic, Sudan and South Sudan, Myanmar and elsewhere.

Darfur symbolizes our fickleness. It has disappeared from headlines,
and Sudan makes it almost impossible for journalists to get there, but
Human Rights Watch reported a few days ago that the human rights
situation in Sudan actually deteriorated in 2014.

Indeed, the Sudanese regime is now engaging in mass atrocities not
only in Darfur but also in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile regions.
Sudan bombed an aid hospital in January in the Nuba Mountains, and the
Belgian branch of Doctors Without Borders has just announced the
closure of operations in Sudan because of government obstructionism.

A decade ago, one of the most outspoken politicians on Darfur —
harshly scolding President George W. Bush for not doing more — was an
Illinois senator, Barack Obama. Today, as president of the United
States, he is quiet. The United Nations force in Darfur has been
impotent.

Granted, humanitarian crises rarely offer good policy choices, but
there’s no need to embrace the worse option, which is paralysis. We’ve
seen in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Kurdistan and, lately, Yazidi areas of
Iraq and eastern Congo that outside efforts sometimes can make a
difference.

So, sure, let’s commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz, the horror of
the Holocaust and the brutality of the Armenian genocide by trying to
mitigate mass atrocities today. The basic lesson of these episodes is
not just that humans are capable of astonishing evil, or that some
individuals like Witold Pilecki respond with mesmerizing heroism — but
that, sadly, it’s just too easy to acquiesce.

Murder in Ajapnyak district: Man found dead in apartment

15:27 | January 31,2015 | Social

A criminal case has been filed at the Investigation Division of
Ajapnyak and Davitashen administrative districts in connection with
the death of citizen Arshavir Barsamyan (born in 1946).

On January 31, the local police received a report about a quarrel in
one of the apartments of Fuchik street. On arriving at the scene,
police officers found the body of a man (identified as Arshavir
Barsamyan) in the apartment. There were three other people in the
apartment.

The criminal case was filed under Article 104 of the Armenian Criminal Code.

Investigator falsified the evidence of the criminal case

13:45 | January 31,2015 | Official

Citizen Edgar H. reported to the Special Investigation Service of the
Republic of Armenia that on May 25, 2014 the investigator of Amasia
Investigation Department of Investigation Principal Department of the
Armenian Police interrogated him as a witness.

Later on December 2014 in the course of the trial of the criminal case
reviewed in Shirak Regional Court of General Jurisdiction when
promulgating his preliminary investigation testimonies he was informed
that both the content of his testimonies and the signatures affixed on
the interrogation protocol were falsified.

A criminal case has been launched according to the report of the
citizen Edgar H. based on the materials prepared in the Special
Investigation Service of the Republic of Armenia in accordance with
Paragraph 1 of Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Code of the
Republic of Armenia, the CIS Press Service reports.
A preliminary investigation is underway.

The suspect or the accused of the alleged offence is deemed innocent
unless his or her innocence is proved by virtue of the effective court
verdict in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Armenia.

‘Twitter’ microblog of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev – a new
attraction for Internet users

16:31 31/01/2015 >> SOCIETY

Tweet of the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev where he says that the
shipyard in Azerbaijan already produces ships became a subject of
mockeries by the users of social networks. Editor of “Gawker Media”
Michael Ballaban shared this tweet in “Jalopnik” blog, accompanying it
with the following comment: “Yes, but really, does Shipyard of
Azerbaijan produces ship already?”

Aliyev Tweet did not leave the commentators indifferent either. “I
cannot figure it out geographically. Azerbaijan has an access to the
Caspian Sea, which in reality is just a big lake, then where should
actually these ships be sent?”, said one of the users, and another
added: “I’ve been to that shipyard! If you’re bored and in Azerbaijan,
I recommend travel to Kazakhstan by cargo ship.”

The Armenian-Azerbaijani relations were also touched during the
discussions. “In fact, the biggest problem is that this guy is the
Azerbaijani dictator who steals the oil-wealth of the country, and the
reason of the anti-Armenian tirade is the only unifying thing that
makes the Azerbaijani blood boil,” said one of the commentators.

The others were making fun of the President of Azerbaijan and were
playing with words. “He will retweet no one, he doesn’t reply to
anyone, he doesn’t talk to anyone, he just shoots his thoughts into
the dark void of the Internet,” said the users.

REVUE DE PRESSE
Photos : Sublime, Amal Clooney enfile sa robe d’avocate pour défendre
l’Arménie !

Amal Alamuddin-Clooney est de retour aux affaires. Aujourd’hui, la
brillante avocate s’est rendue à la Cour européeene des Droits de
l’Homme (CEDH) pour défendre les intérêts de l’Arménie. Et oui, en
plus d’être belle et mariée à un sex-symbol, Amal Clooney a une tête
bien remplie…

Amal Alamuddin a beau être devenue madame Clooney, entrant de facto
dans la sphère people, elle n’en reste pas moins une brillante avocate
spécialisée dans le droit international. Ce mercredi 28 janvier, elle
s’est donc rendue à la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme à
Strasbourg pour représenter l’Arménie dans un procès qui oppose
l’homme politique turc Dogu Perinçek à la Suisse.

En effet, Dogu Perinçek a été condamné en Suisse pour “négation du
génocide arménien”. Ce dernier contre-attaque donc devant la CEDH. De
son côté, Amal Alamuddin-Clooney représente les intérêts de l’Arménie
dans cette affaire, puisque le pays s’est porté partie civile. En
1917, en pleine Première guerre mondiale, les troupes turques ont
commis de nombreux massacres en Arménie, massacres que la communauté
internationale juge comme étant un génocide. La Turquie, de son côté,
reconnait qu’il y a eu des massacres mais refuse le terme de
“génocide”.

En tout cas, la femme de George Clooney est le genre d’avocate que
tout le monde aimerait avoir pour être défendu en justice. Et si Amal
est très compétente, il faut bien avouer que la robe de magistrat lui
va tout aussi bien celles des grands couturiers. Inutile de préciser
que lors de cette audience, Amal Clooney était l’objet de toutes les
attentions…

samedi 31 janvier 2015,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com