Author: Kanayan Tamar

ELECTRIC NETWORKS OF ARMENIA ENSURED PROFIT FOR GAZPROM ON ARMENIANS’ DIME: ZHOGHOVURD

06.17.2014 11:42 epress.am

Electric Networks of Armenia, a subsidiary of the Russian company
Inter RAO UES, preferred to purchase more expensive electricity,
and now it’s unloading that burden on Armenian consumers, reports
local daily Zhoghovurd.

The newspaper notes that the main official reason for raising the
electricity rates in Armenia is that Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA)
had a financial gap to fill, since the power plant ceased operations
for 88 days more than expected last year, and ENA was forced to fill
the gap by purchasing electricity from the Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant
at 49.1 AMD per kWh, suffering a loss of 16.6 billion AMD as a result.

The newspaper, however, claims that ENA could’ve purchased electricity
not from Hrazdan TPP, which runs on Russian gas, but from Yerevan TPP
at 29.1 AMD per kWh, which would be half as expensive as it runs on
Iranian gas.

“But they didn’t do that. And as a result, the Russian Inter RAO UES
subsidiary, giving preference to Hrazdan TPP running on Russian gas,
through internal agreement, simply artificially increased the volume
of Russian gas consumption in Armenia, ensuring profits for Gazprom,”
reports the paper.

KARABAKH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION VISITS FRANCE

June 17, 2014 | 11:40

YEREVAN. – The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic–or Artsakh–National Assembly
(NKR NA) delegation, led by NKR NA Speaker Ashot Ghulyan, on Monday
kicked off its two-day visit to Paris.

On the first day of its trip to the French capital city, the
delegation first paid a visit to the Armenian College of Paris
(Tbrotsaser School), informed the NKR NA press service.

On the same day, the delegation visited the Embassy of Armenia in
France, and met with Ambassador Vicken Tchitechian.

Subsequently, the Artsakh MPs laid a wreath, on behalf of the NKR
NA, to the Komitas Monument, which eternalizes the Armenian Genocide
victims.

Next, the Karabakh parliamentary delegation met–at the hall of the
John the Baptist Armenian Church–with members of the Diocesan Council
of the French Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

On Tuesday, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic National Assembly delegation
is scheduled to hold talks in the French Senate and the National
Assembly.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

SPEECHES OF MATTHEW BRYZA AND ARMENIAN MPS CAUSED SCANDAL IN NATO PA SEMINAR

APA, Azerbaijan
June 16 2014

[ 16 Juny 2014 17:19 ]

Baku. Mubariz Aslanov – APA. Speech of Matthew Bryza, former U.S.

co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group and US ambassador to Azerbaijan,
Director of the International Centre for Defence Studies caused
scandal at the NATO PA seminar in Baku.

APA reports that making speech at the second part of the 86th seminar
of the NATO PA on “South Caucasus: Challenges and Opportunities”, M.

Bryza said that Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents can not reach
necessary level of mutual confidence for compromising and settlement
of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict yet.

Bryza noted that in spite of efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group for
long years, the problem is still remaining unsolved: “It’s needed to
work hard to reduce usage of military version in the settlement of
the conflict”.

Without mentioning reasons of the conflict, M. Bryza called on sides
to compromise generally.

Armenian delegation welcomed Bryza’s speech and asked for speech out
of the program. President of NATO PA Hugh Bayley called on them to
stick to the time-limit. Thereafter, head of Armenian delegation
Koryun Nahapetyan made speech. He demanded Azerbaijani side to
withdraw snipers from frontline. Member of Azerbaijani delegation
to NATO PA Gudrat Hasanguliyev commented on speeches of Bryza and
Armenian delegation: “I always criticized M. Bryza’s position and
have to criticize again. Though, Bryza is an independent expert,
he conducts himself as a worker of the US Department of State and
expresses its position. Mr. Bryza, because of your spouse is Turk,
Armenians did not allow you acting as an ambassador to Azerbaijan
more than a year. Do you expect justice from them?”

Thereafter, G. Hasanguliyev told Armenians delegation: “An agreement
on settlement of the conflict was reached at the end of 1990s between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, an execution in Armenian parliament
ruined everything. Armenian’s behavior shows that it is not needed
to conduct negotiations with it. Because Armenia is afraid of Russia
and they move under this fear. It would be better the talks to be
held with Russia, but not Armenia. Since Karabakh war started, you
have destroyed and banished all other nations. You changed Armenia to
monoethnic country. Today, only strange nation in Armenia is servicemen
of Russia’s 102nd military base. What will you say about it?”

Hasanguliyev also responded to Armenia’s accusations on that Turkey
supports Azerbaijan: “During the first years of Karabakh war, President
Abulfaz Elchibey asked Turkey for a helicopter to evacuate people
from Kalbajar in order to prevent second Khojaly massacre.

Turkey did not respond to us. Instead of it, Turkey gave 5 tones of
grain to Armenia. Why don’t Armenian delegation focus on this?”

Member of Armenian delegation Tevan Poghosyan spoke about Ramil
Safarov. He tried to distort the UN resolutions.

Head of Azerbaijani delegation to NATO PA Ziyafet Asgerov asked
questions to Armenian delegation and Matthew Bryza: “Mr. Bryza,
please, tell us what means Karabakh word? You don’t know, let me tell
you. Karabakh word is an original Azerbaijani word consisting of Kara
Bakh (Black Garden). That’s it is not Armenian word. This remained
unchanged in medieval, period of Khanates, even USSR too. Mr. Bryza
and Armenian counterparts where you address it will show that Karabakh
is an Azerbaijani land. The article #1 of the UN SC resolution #822
says: “The UN Security Country condemns occupation of Kalbajar and
neighboring regions by Armenia and demands immediate liberation”. Next
article says: “Occupation of Aghdam and neighboring regions is
condemned and it’s demanded Armenian troops to withdraw from there”.

Resolution #874: “The UN condemns occupation of Zangilan and
neighboring regions by Armenia and demands immediate liberation. Same
documents on other regions include same texts. What do you need more?”

Z.Asgerov criticized international community for being indifferent to
occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenians: “The US destroyed
Libya immediately after the UN SC resolutions, Iraq and other regions
faced same policy due to chemical weapon. However, you could not find
anything. Today, Iraqi people suffer torments, you know, I know too,
but world community is not confused. Even, you destroyed Yugoslavia
without any mandate of the UN. This is also your work, in your honest.

Why is your honest so silent? However, the UN has resolutions
regarding Nagorno Karabak for 20 years? Why are these resolutions
still unfulfilled? You apply sanctions on Russia regarding Crimea,
Ukraine. Why don’t you impose sanctions on Armenia for 20 years? our
territories also have been occupied. Mr. Fogh Rasmussen made a speech
on Ukraine crisis at the NATO PA meeting in Lithuania. Why don’t you
make speech about Azerbaijan? Why don’t you adopt resolution regarding
Azerbaijan? Put an end to this double standards. Shame!”

Z. Asgerov also told Armenians who caviled at “enemy” word used by
Azerbaijan: “Armenian delegation says that Azerbaijani president
called Armenia “enemy”. Do we have to call it a friendly country? It
occupied 20% of our territory, we have 1 mln of refugees. Now you
demand us not to call you “enemy”? Mr. Armenian MPs you occupied
Azerbaijan’s lands your posts are in Zangilan, Gubadli, Fuzuli and
other regions. Now you demand us to withdraw the snipers from them.

We’ll withdraw snipers when you ge back to your Armenia-Azerbaijan
border. I defend my territory from my enemy. What does your sniper
do there? What do you do where my snipers are?”

The seminar is going on after break.

The Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq.
Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate

The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western
Military Alliance

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
June 14, 2014 “ICH ” – “GR”
– – The Western media in chorus have described the unfolding conflict in
Iraq as a “civil war” opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham against
the Armed forces of the Al-Maliki government.

(Also referred to as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS))

The conflict is casually described as “sectarian warfare” between Radical
Sunni and Shia without addressing “who is behind the various factions”. What
is at stake is a carefully staged US military-intelligence agenda.

Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by
US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of
the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the
foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls
the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.

The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April
2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity
encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It
responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances
of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria
and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various
“opposition” terror brigades.

The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in
favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which
has logistical bases in both countries. The ISIS Sunni caliphate project
coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria
into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia
Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.

Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons
systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham -which is fighting Iraqi government
forces- is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to
engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly
by US-NATO.

The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with
advanced weapons systems and then “let them fight”.

US-NATO is involved in the recruitment, training and financing of ISIS
death squads operating in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS operates through
indirect channels in liaison with Western intelligence. In turn,
corroborated by reports on Syria’s insurgency, Western special forces and
mercenaries integrate the ranks of ISIS.

US-NATO support to ISIS is channeled covertly through America’s staunchest
allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to London’s Daily Express “They
had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”

“through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported
militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other
al-Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

While the media acknowledges that the government of Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting ISIS, it
invariably fails to mention that both Doha and Riyadh are acting on behalf
and in close liaison with Washington.

Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being
fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire
country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of
an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in
transforming Iraq into an open territory.

Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is
confrontation between Shia and Sunni.

America’s military occupation of Iraq has been replaced by non-conventional
forms of warfare. Realities are blurred. In a bitter irony, the aggressor
nation is portrayed as coming to the rescue of a “sovereign Iraq”.

An internal “civil war” between Shia and Sunni is fomented by US-NATO
support to both the Al-Maliki government as well as to the Sunni ISIS
rebels.

The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is longstanding policy of the US
and its allies.

“Supporting both Sides”

The “War on Terrorism” consists in creating Al Qaeda terrorist entities as
part of an intelligence operation, as well as also coming to the rescue of
governments which are the target of the terrorist insurgency. This process
is carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the
pretext to intervene.

ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a
project of the Sunni population of Iraq which is broadly committed to a
secular forms of government. The caliphate project is part of a US
intelligence operation.

In response to the advance of the ISIS rebels, Washington is envisaging the
use of aerial bombings as well as drone attacks in support of the Baghdad
government as part of a counter-terrorism operation. It is all for a good
cause: to fight the terrorists, without of course acknowledging that these
terrorists are the “foot soldiers” of the Western military alliance.

Needless to say, these developments contribute not only to destabilizing
Iraq, but also to weakening the Iraqi resistance movement, which is one of
major objectives of US-NATO.

The Islamic caliphate is supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence. Israel is also involved in
channeling support to both Al Qaeda rebels in Syria (out of the Golan
Heights) as well to the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria and Iraq.

More broadly, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) encompasses a consistent
and diabolical logic: both sides -namely the terrorists and the government-
are supported by the same military and intelligence actors, namely US-NATO.

While this pattern describes the current situation in Iraq, the structure
of “supporting both sides” with a view to engineering sectarian conflict
has been implemented time and again in numerous countries. Insurgencies
integrated by Al Qaeda operatives (and supported by Western intelligence)
prevail in a large number of countries including Yemen, Libya, Nigeria,
Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Pakistan. The endgame is to
destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open
territories (on behalf of so-called foreign investors).

The pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds (e.g. in Mali, Nigeria or
the Central African Republic) is predicated on the existence of terrorist
forces. Yet these terrorist forces would not exist without covert US-NATO
support.

The Capture of Mosul: US-NATO Covert Support to the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (ISIS)

Something unusual occurred in Mosul which cannot be explained in strictly
military terms.

On June 10, the insurgent forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIS) captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, with a population
of close to 1.5 million people. While these developments were “unexpected”
according to the Obama administration, they were known to the Pentagon and
US intelligence, which were not only providing weapons, logistics and
financial support to the ISIS rebels, they were also coordinating, behind
the scenes, the ISIS attack on the city of Mosul.

While ISIS is a well equipped and disciplined rebel army when compared to
other Al Qaeda affiliated formations, the capture of Mosul, did not hinge
upon ISIS’s military capabilities. Quite the opposite: Iraqi forces which
outnumbered the rebels by far, equipped with advanced weapons systems could
have easily repelled the ISIS rebels.

There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS
rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The
media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi
armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass
defections.

Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers –
roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an
insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on
Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with
which they took Iraq’s second largest city after three days of sporadic
fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)

The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were
sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency:

Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their
officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul “handed over”
the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and
historical ties. (Daily Telegraph
,
13 June 2014)

What is important to understand, is that both sides, namely the regular
Iraqi forces and the ISIS rebel army are supported by US-NATO. There were
US military advisers and special forces including operatives from private
military companies on location in Mosul working with Iraq’s regular armed
forces. In turn, there are Western special forces or mercenaries within
ISIS (acting on contract to the CIA or the Pentagon) who are in liaison
with US-NATO (e.g. through satellite phones).

Under these circumstances, with US intelligence amply involved, there would
have been routine communication, coordination, logistics and exchange of
intelligence between a US-NATO military and intelligence command center,
US-NATO military advisers forces or private military contractors on the
ground assigned to the Iraqi Army and Western special forces attached to
the ISIS brigades. These Western special forces operating covertly within
the ISIS could have been dispatched by a private security company on
contract to US-NATO.

In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully
engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few
skirmishes, no fighting took place.

Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army -trained by the US military
with advanced weapons systems at their disposal- could have easily repelled
the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders
not to intervene. According to witnesses, “Not a single shot was fired”.

The forces that had been in Mosul have fled — some of which abandoned their
uniforms as well as their posts as the ISIS forces swarmed into the city.

Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda
offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi
soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances
discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the
militants.

A contingent of one thousand ISIS rebels take over a city of more than one
million? Without prior knowledge that the US controlled Iraqi Army (30,000
strong) would not intervene, the Mosul operation would have fallen flat,
the rebels would have been decimated.

Who was behind the decision to let the ISIS terrorists take control of
Mosul?

Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military
advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?

Source: The Economist

Was the handing over of Mosul to ISIS part of a US intelligence agenda?

Were the Iraqi military commanders manipulated or paid off into allowing
the city to fall into the hands of the ISIS rebels without “a single shot
being fired”.

Shiite General Mehdi Sabih al-Gharawi who was in charge of the Mosul Army
divisions “had left the city”. Al Gharawi had worked hand in glove with the
US military. He took over the command of Mosul in September 2011, from US
Col Scott McKean. Had he been co-opted, instructed by his US counterparts
to abandon his command?

(image left) U.S. Army Col. Scott McKean, right, commander, 4th Advise and
Assist Brigade, 1st Armored Division, talks with Iraqi police Maj. Gen.
Mahdi Sabih al-Gharawi following a transfer of authority ceremony on
September 4, 2011

US forces could have intervened. They had been instructed to let it happen.
It was part of a carefully planned agenda to facilitate the advance of the
ISIS rebel forces and the installation of the ISIS caliphate.

The whole operation appears to have been carefully staged.

In Mosul, government buildings, police stations, schools, hospitals, etc
are formally now under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS). In turn, ISIS has taken control of military hardware including
helicopters and tanks which were abandoned by the Iraqi armed forces.

What is unfolding is the installation of a US sponsored Islamist ISIS
caliphate alongside the rapid demise of the Baghdad government. Meanwhile,
the Northern Kurdistan region has de facto declared its independence from
Baghdad. Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces (which are supported by Israel)
have taken control of the cities of Arbil and Kirkuk. (See map above)

Concluding Remarks

There were no Al Qaeda rebels in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Moreover,
Al Qaeda was non-existent in Syria until the outset of the US-NATO-Israeli
supported insurgency in March 2011.

The ISIS is not an independent entity. It is a creation of US intelligence.
It is a US intelligence asset, an instrument of non-conventional warfare.

The ultimate objective of this ongoing US-NATO engineered conflict opposing
Maliki government forces to the ISIS insurgency is to destroy and
destabilize Iraq as a Nation State. It is part of an intelligence
operation, an engineered process of transforming countries into
territories. The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding
policy of the US and its allies.

The ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is
not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which historically has been
committed to a secular system of government. The caliphate project is a US
design. The advances of ISIS forces is intended to garnish broad support
within the Sunni population directed against the Al Maliki government

The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing
board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.

The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader
conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of
the Al Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the
intervention of Iran.

The proposed redivision of Iraq is broadly modeled on that of the
Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states”
(Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia,
Montenegro, Kosovo).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three
separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the
Middle East.

The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was
published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired
colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel
Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been
used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military
officers”. (SeePlans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New
Middle East”

ByMahdi Darius Nazemroaya
, Global
Research, November 2006)

The Old Partition of the Middle East is Dead. I Dread to Think What Will Follow

By Robert Fisk

June 14, 2014
“ICH ” – “The Independent –
-“Sykes-Picot is dead,” Walid Jumblatt roared at me last night – and
he may well be right.
”

The Lebanese Druze leader – who fought in a 15-year civil war that redrew
the map of Lebanon – believes that the new battles for Sunni Muslim jihadi
control of northern and eastern Syria and western Iraq have finally
destroyed the post-World War Anglo-French conspiracy, hatched by Mark Sykes
and François Picot, which divided up the old Ottoman Middle East into Arab
statelets controlled by the West.

The Islamic Caliphate of Iraq and Syria has been fought into existence –
however temporarily – by al-Qa’ida-affiliated Sunni fighters who pay no
attention to the artificial borders of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan, or
even mandate Palestine, created by the British and French. Their capture of
the city of Mosul only emphasises the collapse of the secret partition plan
which the Allies drew up in the First World War – for Mosul was sought
after for its oil wealth by both Britain and France.

The entire Middle East has been haunted by the Sykes-Picot agreement, which
also allowed Britain to implement Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour’s
1917 promise to give British support to the creation of a Jewish “homeland”
in Palestine. Perhaps only today’s Arabs (and Israelis) fully understand
the profound historical changes – and deep political significance – that
the extraordinary battles of this past week have wrought on the old
colonial map of the Middle East.

The collapsing Ottoman Empire of 1918 was to be split into two on a
north-east, south-west axis which would run roughly from near Kirkuk –
today under Kurdish control – across from Mosul in northern Iraq and the
Syrian desert and through what is now the West Bank to Gaza. Mosul was
initially given to the French – its oil surrendered by the British in
return for what would become a French buffer zone between Britain and the
Russian Caucasus, Baghdad and Basra being safe in British hands below the
French lines. But growing British commercial desires for oil took over from
imperial agreements. Mosul was configured into the British zone inside the
new state of Iraq (previously Mesopotamia), its oil supplies safely in the
hands of London. Iraq, Trans- jordan and Palestine were under British
mandatory control, Syria and Lebanon under the French mandate.

But the new geographical map created by al-Qa’ida and its Nusra and Isis
allies runs not north-east to south-west but east to west, taking in the
cities of Fallujah, Tikrit and Mosul, and Raqqa and large areas of eastern
Syria. Jihadi tactics strongly suggest that the line was intended to run
from west of Baghdad right across the Iraqi and Syrian deserts to include
Homs, Hama and Aleppo in Iraq. But the Syrian government army –
successfully fighting a near-identical battle to that now involving a
demoralised Iraqi army – has recaptured Homs, held on to Hama and relieved
the siege of Aleppo.

By chance, economist Ian Rutledge has just published an account of the
battle for Mosul and oil during and after the First World War, and of the
betrayal of the Sunni Muslim Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who was promised an
independent Arab land by the British in return for his help in overthrowing
the Ottoman Empire. Rutledge has researched Britain’s concern about Shia
power in southern Iraq – where Basra’s oil lies – material with acute
relevance to the crisis now tearing Iraq to pieces.

For the successor power to Sharif Hussein in Arabia is the Saudi royal
family, which has been channelling billions of dollars to the very same
jihadi groups that have taken over eastern Syria and western Iraq and now
Mosul and Tikrit. The Saudis set themselves up as the foundational Sunni
power in the region, controlling Arab Gulf oil wealth – until America’s
overthrow of the Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein led inexorably to a majority
Shia government in Baghdad allied to Shia Iran.

Thus the new Middle Eastern map substantially increases Saudi power over
the region’s oil, lowering Iraq’s exports, raising the cost of oil
(including, of course, Saudi oil) and at the expense of a frightened and
still sanctioned Iran, which must defend its co-religionists in the
collapsing Baghdad government. Mosul’s oil is now Sunni oil. And the vast
and unexplored reserves believed to lie beneath the jihadi-held deserts
west of Baghdad are now also firmly in Sunni rather than in national,
Shia-controlled Baghdad government hands.

This break-up may also, of course, engender a new version of the terrifying
Iran-Iraq war – a conflict that killed 1.5 million Sunni and Shia Muslims,
both sides armed by outside powers while the Arab Gulf states funded the
Sunni leadership of Saddam. The West was happy to see these great Muslim
powers fighting each other. Israel sent weapons to Iran and watched its
principal Muslim enemies destroy each other. Which is why Walid Jumblatt
now also believes that the current tragedy – while it has killed off Mr
Sykes and Mr Picot – will have Arthur Balfour smiling in his grave.

ARMENIA
Lebanese company will establish pecan orchards in Armenia

Lebanese society Gardenia Lebniz Farms will make pecan orchards in the
region of Kotayk with an American variety of fruit said the Ministry
of Agriculture.

This decision follows a meeting of the Minister of Agriculture Sergo
Karapetyan Armenian with Lebanon’s Ambassador to Armenia, John
Makaron, president of Gardenia Lebniz Farms Nicola Abu Faisal and a
representative of the same company Jamil Abdeim.

Lebanese society has already chosen 20 hectares of land in Yeghvard
and planted the first pecan trees brought from the U.S. state of
California.

Sunday, June 15, 2014,
Stéphane © armenews.com

ARMENIE
La section ferroviaire de Gyumri à la frontière turque prête à fonctionner

La section de la ligne de chemin de fer qui relie la ville de Gyumri
en Arménie à la ville de Kars en Turquie est prête à fonctionner,
selon Viktor Rebets, président de la compagnie des Chemins de fer du
Sud Caucase (SCR), une société russe chargée de l’exploitation des
chemins de fer en Arménie.

S’exprimant lors d’une conférence de presse Viktor Rebets a dit qu’il
y a quelques années, la société a accompli beaucoup de travail pour
rétablir la section du chemin de fer qui s’étend jusqu’à la station
sur la frontière avec la Turquie.

Viktor Rebets a souligné que, pour l’ouverture du chemin de fer de
Kars à Gyumri une décision politique est nécessaire. Le chemin de fer
de Kars à Gyumri a été construit à l’époque de l’Empire russe.

Le 11 Octobre 1961, l’URSS et la Turquie ont signé un accord sur le
transport ferroviaire directe. Le dernier train en provenance de
Turquie a traversé la frontière vers l’Arménie en juillet 1993.

dimanche 15 juin 2014,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

Guardian Liberty Voice
June 13 2014

Reuven Rivlin, New President of Israel

by Rathan Harshavardan on June 13, 2014.

Reuven Rivlin, a veteran lawmaker, will be at the helm of the affairs
of the state of Israel as the new president. Rivlin, who succeeds
Shimon Peres as the 10th president, is not a political novice. Chosen
by members of the parliament, the veteran lawyer from the right-wing
Likud party will cease to be a Member of the Knesset (MK) after June
10. In a secret ballot, Rivlin defeated MP Meir Sheetrit by 63 to 53
to take the position.

It is reported that Rivlin will take up the post after Peres, 90,
steps down in July following his seven-year term. Rivlin’s role will
be largely ceremonial and he will have no role in the ensuing dialogue
with Palestine. The newly-elected president does not share the same
view as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as far as Palestine is
concerned. He opposes the formation of a separate Palestine and
supports Jewish settlements along the occupied West Bank. His personal
view of the issue is at odds with the Prime Minister and the party,
leaving him open to scrutiny by the party and by other nations.

No longer claiming to be affiliated to any party, Rivlin, who won in
the second round of voting on Tuesday, called himself a “man of the
nation.” Speaking ecstatically to a Knesset member, Rivlin, the new
President of Israel, announced his mission of letting democracy
flourish in Israel. Born in 1939 in Jerusalem to Yosef Yoel Rivlin,
the 74-year old Rivlin studied law and graduated from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. A vegetarian since the late 1960s and a
father of four, he is a big fan of the Beitar Jerusalem football club
and has been so since he watched his first game in 1946.

Elected to the 12th Knesset in 1988, Rivin went on to serve as
chairman of the Likud party until 1993. After losing his seat in 1992,
he returned to the Knesset four years later. Rising to power in 1999,
he was chosen as Israel’s Minister of Communications in 2001 and held
the post for two years. In 2003, he was elected as the Knesset
Speaker, a role that earned him national criticism. As an outspoken
critic of Ariel Sharon’s policies, the lawyer constantly broke
convention with publicized spats. Top posts in Israel typically demand
political neutrality and Rivlin, with his views on Sharon, was a
supporter of the disengagement plan. Opposing the decision to declare
Israeli legislation illegal, Rivlin had a very public spat with Aharon
Barak, then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Rivlin has been an outspoken supporter of the Jewish settlement along
the West Bank, and was quoted in 2010 to have declared that he would
accept Palestinians as Israelis and not carve the state in two. He
also made headlines with his criticism of Pope Benedict XVI, whose
previous service in the Nazi army was called out when the Pope
addressed Israel at the Yad Vashem memorial. Rivlin, who invited the
ire of many Members of Knesset (MK) and the political right, was the
center of controversy in 2010. Ignoring the advice from the committee
that wanted Haneed Zoabi, a Balad MK, removed for his role in the Gaza
flotilla raid in 2010, Rivlin earned praise from foreign and liberal
Israelis for his efforts to protect democracy. Campaigning for the
recognition of the Armenian genocide, the active politician gives
speeches on the issue. He insists that the genocide is not a political
issue, but a reminder of the tragedy that Armenia faced during WWI. He
also insisted in 2012 that the genocide was not an accusation against
Turkey or its government.

Prime Minister Netanyahu congratulated Rivlin on his election and
promised joint action in unifying Israel internally and against
external challenges. Israelis know that Rivlin, the new president of
Israel, has a tough act to follow. Peres is a Nobel Peace Prize winner
and a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Michael and St. George
-honors he received for his work in Israel. After being sworn in as
Israel’s newest president on July 24, Rivlin is expected to shift his
focus from international affairs to domestic issues.

By Rathan Paul Harshavardan

Telegram & Gazette (Massachusetts)
June 13, 2014 Friday

The Armenian rug of hope

by Harry N. Mazadoorian,

Sometimes a meaningful symbol can bring about results not achievable
by millions of articulate and well-reasoned words. We have all seen
examples where large populations have been moved from lethargy into
action by a symbol such as a flag, a gesture or a picture.

One such symbol is a rug woven by orphan survivors of the Armenian
Genocide of 1915, many years ago.

This year marks the 99th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. More
than 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children perished from
deportations, death marches, starvation and outright murder at the
hands of the Ottoman Empire.

So great was the sympathy and outrage that a relief effort of
unparalleled proportions was undertaken in the United States. The
Americans providing humanitarian relief and support for the victims
were a virtual who’s who of American politics, arts, academia and
philanthropy, as well as ordinary citizens, all outraged by the
atrocities.

The Near East Foundation raised millions of dollars, the equivalent of
several billion today, for humanitarian relief. At the same time,
Danish relief workers, Swiss missionaries and people of goodwill from
all over the world rushed to create orphanages in Syria, Lebanon,
Greece, and elsewhere, providing lifesaving support to the young
orphans who survived, such as my mother and father.

Regrettably, the American outrage which followed the horrific genocide
waned in ensuing decades. Passage of time, shifting policies in the
Middle East and a growing reliance on the perceived strategic role of
the government of Turkey, successor to the Ottoman Empire, caused
indignation to melt into indifference.

Even efforts to have the United States Congress pass a symbolic
resolution recognizing and denouncing the genocide encountered
insurmountable resistance. Turkish opposition to congressional action
was strong.

Presidents, including President Obama, who pledged to recognize the
atrocities as genocide while on the campaign trail, abandoned the
pledge once elected for fear of offending a key ally in the Middle
East. Euphemisms and cleverly selected words replaced a forthright
recognition. The genocide was deftly sidestepped.

Some asked, did recognition of this genocide of so long ago, so far
away, of a people so little known, really make a difference? Meanwhile
genocide, brutality and killing continue throughout the world.

The “orphan rug” was painstakingly woven by Armenian orphans of the
Ghazir Orphanage in what is now Lebanon in gratitude for the
lifesaving humanitarian efforts of the United States during the
bleakest hours of the genocide.

The rug was presented to President Calvin Coolidge in 1925 and resides
in the White House today. Interestingly, the rug resided in
Northampton, Massachusetts for some time after the Coolidges left
Washington. Awareness of the rug heightened after the publication of a
marvelous book about the rug by Dr. Hagop Martin Deranian, who
practices in Worcester.

When the rug was requested for commemorative programs by Armenian
advocacy groups and by the Smithsonian Institution itself, the White
House declined the request, citing what appeared to be hollow
logistical and procedural reasons. Speculation was that sensitivity to
Turkish denial of the genocide was the real reason.

Organizations such as the Armenian Assembly, a Washington-based entity
promoting awareness of Armenian issues, and supportive members of
Congress, including Sen. Edward Markey, persisted in seeking release
of the rug.

Finally, at the end of April, the White House agreed to release the
rug for public display at some time in the future. This is encouraging
news and further details about when and where it will be displayed are
eagerly awaited.

Why has this single rug, this 90-year-old inanimate object, generated
such a passionate interest? What difference could its production or
non-production possibly make?

Clearly, the rug is only a symbol, but an extremely visible and
powerful one. It represents the spirit of those fragile orphans whose
resilience, faith and gratitude kept them going and which brought many
of them to this country — many to the Worcester area — to become proud
and productive Americans.

It serves as a precious and powerful emblem of respect and gratitude
to this country. Something which hapless survivors and waifs created
with their own hands — more than four million knots of appreciation.

It also symbolizes the potential for a long-overdue and much-needed
transformative healing following one of history’s darkest and most
tragic chapters.

The rug is part of American history representing this country’s
pivotal role, throughout its history, in supporting the persecuted and
oppressed all over the world. It belongs to all Americans.

Perhaps, after nearly 100 years, the display of this modest symbol
will play a role in curbing the brutality and killing which continues
throughout the world.

Harry N. Mazadoorian of Kensington, Connecticut is the son of
survivors of the Armenian Genocide, both of whom were relocated to
orphanages in the Near East, before coming to America where they
initially lived in Whitinsville. He is an attorney and a mediator and
is the Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Quinnipiac University Law
School Center on Dispute Resolution.

SWEDISH ERIKSSON, ABB, ELEKTA AND EDUCATION FIRST TO DISCUSS COOPERATION WITH ARMENIAN PARTNERS

YEREVAN, May 13. / ARKA /. Representatives of Swedish companies
Ericsson, ABB, Elekta and Education First will discuss new
cooperation programs with Armenian counterparts in the fields of
telecommunications, energy, health, education and others, the Armenian
government said following a meeting today between Prime Minister Hovik
Abrahamyan and a Swedish delegation headed by Minister of Trade and
Northern Cooperation Eva Bjorling.

Vice President of Education First Carl Johan Westring was quoted as
saying that it plans to open a representative office in Armenia.

Eva Bjorling said the delegation conveyed to the Armenia National
Cancer Center a linear accelerator on behalf of the Swedish government.

“We are impressed with the level of cellular communication development
in Armenia and this in mind we will continue to assist Armenia in
the introduction of digital television,” she said.

She noted that the main purpose of the visit to Armenia is to intensify
bilateral business ties and increase bilateral trade.

In turn, Hovik Abrahamyan spoke about investment opportunities
offered by the government and noted that Armenia’s economy is open
to investors, and the government is ready to assist foreign companies
to step up their operations in Armenia.

“The Armenian government will do everything possible to further
strengthen and deepen the relations between our countries,” said
Abrahamyan.

Abrahamyan also conveyed an invitation via Bjorling to Swedish Prime
Minister to visit Armenia at a convenient time. -0-

– See more at: