Author: Kanayan Tamar

Le Monde, France
23 juin 2012 samedi

” Un génocide est un mal politique, pas une qualification pénale ”

Propos recueillis par Jérôme Gautheret

ENCART: Le juriste Antoine Garapon, en prenant l’exemple de l’Arménie,
milite pour une politique mémorielle. Il critique le vote de lois qui
entravent le travail des historiens sur les crimes contre l’humanité

Juriste, secrétaire général de l’Institut des hautes études
judiciaires, Antoine Garapon poursuit depuis des années une réflexion
sur les rapports entre la justice et l’histoire. Il est l’auteur d’une
trentaine d’ouvrages, dont Peut-on réparer l’histoire ? Colonisation,
esclavage, Shoah (Odile Jacob, 2008).

La censure par le Conseil constitutionnel de la loi pénalisant la
négation des génocides semble marquer un coup d’arrêt aux lois dites
mémorielles. Comment expliquez-vous que ces textes hybrides se soient
multipliés durant les deux dernières décennies ? J’y vois d’abord une
faiblesse institutionnelle. Nous sommes dans une démocratie où montent
sans cesse des demandes de reconnaissance. Face à elles, les
institutions ont une extrême pauvreté de moyens. Le président de la
République a ce pouvoir. Jacques Chirac l’a montré le 17 juillet 1995,
lors du discours du Vél’ d’Hiv reconnaissant la responsabilité de la
France dans les crimes de Vichy. Cet acte a eu des effets
extraordinairement apaisants : c’est un des grands moments de sa
présidence. Mais sinon, le pouvoir judiciaire n’a pas ce pouvoir. Du
coup, on se reporte sur le législatif, qui a été privé de la
possibilité de prendre des résolutions par la Constitution, et le
législateur en vient à ” tordre ” l’instrument de la loi, lui faisant
remplir un rôle qu’elle n’est pas censée tenir. Est-ce le cas pour la
loi reconnaissant le génocide arménien, en 2001 ? Oui, car ce n’est
pas une loi : ce n’est rien de plus qu’une résolution. Que dit le
texte ? ” La France reconnaît publiquement le génocide arménien. La
présente loi sera exécutée comme une loi de l’Etat. ” C’est
extraordinaire : il n’y a tout simplement rien à exécuter ! Regardons
de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique. Régulièrement, en adoptant des
amendements, la Cour suprême fait vivre la démocratie et agrandit le
champ de ” qui est américain “. Nous n’avons pas ce genre d’outils
symboliques en France et les lois mémorielles sont le signe de cette
absence.

Nous devrions au contraire être capables de signifier à toutes les
parties blessées par l’histoire présentes sur notre territoire que la
France les reconnaît. Par exemple, les rapatriés d’Algérie et des
harkis sont entrés sur le sol français par la petite porte, mais ils
sont là…

Vous avez opposé la ” connaissance “, mission des historiens, à la ”
reconnaissance “, mission nouvelle conférée à l’historien. Ces lois
traduisent-elles le poids de nouvelles demandes auxquelles les
historiens ne sont pas préparés ?

Oui, et cela tient beaucoup à la particularité de la notion de
génocide. Cette qualification vise à définir un crime indiscutable et
absolu. Elle naît après 1945, dans une situation atypique. La guerre
s’est conclue par une victoire totale des Alliés, donc sans nécessité
de compromis. Il n’y a plus de menace sécuritaire. Tous les accusés ou
presque sont dans le box. Surtout, il y a un consensus de réprobation
de l’extermination des juifs d’Europe. Cette configuration ne se
reproduira pas. C’est pourquoi, au terme de génocide, je préfère celui
de crime contre l’humanité, plus clair et mieux délimité.

Reste qu’un absolu a été créé. Par exemple, l’opposition en Syrie
parle de génocide pour renvoyer l’Occident à son inaction face à la
répression. C’est ça. Et on a eu le même cas au Darfour… Ces
interférences perturbent le travail politique et celui de la justice.

Comment expliquer le tollé après le vote de la loi sur la négation du
génocide arménien en décembre 2011 et janvier 2012 ? Peut-être
arrivons-nous à la fin d’un cycle d’activisme mémoriel, qui a connu
son apogée au moment de la création des tribunaux pour le Rwanda et
l’ex-Yougoslavie et de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI). La guerre
froide était finie, et il n’y avait pas encore cette réorganisation du
monde autour de la menace terroriste. Les Américains ont tenté de
donner corps au rêve d’une justice internationale harmonieuse qui ne
passerait pas par l’équilibre des forces. Mais ils en sont revenus.

Derrière la recherche de la qualification de génocide, il y a quelque
chose qui me paraît contradictoire avec la démocratie : c’est la
recherche de l’indiscutable. Or, la démocratie, c’est le régime du ”
tout discutable “. De la même façon, le génocide est un absolu du mal,
mais un mal politique. En en faisant une qualification pénale, on
cherche à le soustraire à la politique pour le faire entrer dans le
domaine de l’indiscutable. C’est une bonne opération au début, cela
permet d’organiser la vie internationale autour de lignes rouges. Mais
à partir du moment où on en fait une catégorie morale ou juridique, on
se prive de la faculté de comprendre les faits. Cet argument a été
objecté à la justice internationale, même si on peut lui opposer le
fait que celle-ci peut contribuer, à sa mesure, à la réaffirmation des
valeurs de la démocratie.

Dans ce débat, quelle est la place de l’historien ? Il doit alimenter
le débat, bousculer l’histoire canonique écrite par les peuples. Il
doit être dans cette tension permanente, nourrie par les communautés
qui cherchent, de leur côté, à faire avancer leur vision de l’histoire
– et cela est légitime. Mais l’historien est parfois pris à partie et
se retrouve parfois impliqué dans des procès… Qu’un juge, dans des
conflits ponctuels, se penche sur la déontologie de l’historien ne me
choque pas. C’est ce qu’il fait toute la journée pour toutes les
professions. La justice ne fait ici que renvoyer les canons de la
bonne recherche historique, comme elle le ferait pour n’importe quel
corps de métier.

Ensuite, je ferais une distinction entre justice dans l’histoire et
justice de l’histoire. Il me semble qu’il est possible à la justice de
dire : ” Tel jour, à telle heure, telle personne a causé la mort de
telle autre, dans telles conditions. ” Là, les historiens peuvent
aider, car c’est très circonscrit. C’est l’affaire Papon. Ces moments
sont utiles, ils aident à dépasser ce que Paul Ricoeur appelait l'”
histoire vive “, qui n’est pas encore purgée de ses injustices.

En revanche, la justice de l’histoire, l’idée qu’on va pouvoir par des
procès pénaux rendre justice à propos de faits comme la colonisation
et la Shoah me semble tout à fait impossible. La justice doit éviter
d’entrer dans cet engrenage.

Nous avons laissé de côté une autre histoire vive, celle de l’Algérie.
Un texte d’apparence anecdotique voté le 23 février 2005, demandant
aux programmes scolaires de mettre en valeur le ” rôle positif ” de la
France en outre-mer, a ouvert une dispute sur le bilan du colonialisme
tout en portant sur la place publique le débat sur les lois
mémorielles. Que s’est-il passé ? On sent, à la lecture de ce texte,
des dérapages successifs. On voit un acte de reconnaissance fédérateur
et apaisé au début, puis on dérape sur les programmes scolaires, sur
une histoire officielle de la guerre selon la France. On est dans un
modèle institutionnel épuisé : ce n’est pas à la loi de dire ça.

Sur l’Algérie, nous sommes face à une difficulté majeure. Il nous faut
reconnaître que la France s’est mal comportée à l’égard des
pieds-noirs et des harkis sans heurter la population d’origine
algérienne qui cultive la mémoire des luttes du FLN. J’ai proposé une
commission vérité et réconciliation, constituée d’historiens
travaillant sur les mémoires de la guerre d’Algérie. Dans un monde
idéal, ce travail devrait se faire avant que la loi intervienne. On a
fait le contraire. Aujourd’hui, l’abcès est là, parce que ce drame a
une dimension actuelle. Car on ne s’intéresse au passé que pour des
raisons présentes.

On n’a jamais trop insisté sur la loi de 1999, qui, la première, par
le biais d’une reconnaissance du droit d’indemnisation, parlait de ”
guerre ” en Algérie. Le symbolique (il y a eu une guerre en Algérie)
était associé à du normatif (des réparations pour une catégorie). Ça
me semble le bon chemin. Une commission parlementaire avait conclu, en
2008, qu’il fallait en finir avec les lois mémorielles. Serait-on
arrivé au bout d’un processus ? C’est mon sentiment, à voir la
quasi-unanimité contre la proposition de loi sur la négation des
génocides. Aujourd’hui, on pourrait se diriger vers une véritable
politique mémorielle : construction de monuments, jours fériés,
commissions… Je suis favorable à une politique mémorielle à des fins
constructives pour une France qui ne cesse de se recomposer. Mais à
des lois mémorielles sèches, non.

Interfax, Russia
June 22 2012

Azeri ruling party official urges OSCE Minsk Group to help return occupied land

BAKU. June 22

The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs should facilitate the return of
occupied Azeri territories to Azerbaijan, or otherwise their mediating
activities will be futile, Ali Akhmedov, the executive secretary of
the ruling party New Azerbaijan, told journalists on Friday.

“We expect the soonest possible resolution of the Karabakh problem and
the return of the occupied land from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs,”
Akhmedov said.

The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are expected to make a routine visit to
the region within the next few days.

Akhmedov noted sarcastically that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs visit
the conflict region often but fruitlessly, which has prompted some
locals to start calling these visits ‘touristic’. “We are not against
such visits: if they come here, then they must have set themselves the
goal of making progress in settling the conflict. However,
unfortunately, their arrivals have not had any significant effect on
the resolution of the problem. Talking about a significant effect, we
mean the resolution of the conflict and the liberation of the occupied
lands,” Akhmedov said.

To this end, the co-chairs should first of all openly name the
aggressor and demand that it leave the occupied territory, Akhmedov
said. “If no such steps are made, the co-chairs’ further steps will
not bring about any results,” he said.

va

WPS Agency, Russia
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
June 22, 2012 Friday

RUSSIA WILL SELL ARMS TO ITS ALLIES IN A SIMPLIER WAY

BY: Denis Telmanov

In his interview CSTO Secretary General Nikolai Bordyuzha spoke about
the problems with selling Russian military equipment and the role of
the CSTO in clearing the Russian pilots detained in Tajikistan.

Question: After a three-year dispute between the Russian military
ministries the Russian military producers on prices, the Defense
Ministry was removed from the acquisition of weapons and military
equipment. What about the CSTO countries? Are there any problems with
the procurement of Russian weapons for them?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: There are some problems. The multi-stage system of
decision-making on arms sales to the Russian allies is rather
complicated. The state maintains a very strict control over the entire
procedure of selling weapons, because the issue is very sensitive and
may seriously affect all the political spheres including the foreign
policy factor and the whole activity of the state. Therefore,
decisions are made at the level of the government of Russia. Sometimes
it takes several months. This causes complaints from our allies who
need to buy weapons as quickly as possible for the money allocated by
their governments.

Now the CSTO Secretariat together with the Russian Federal service for
military-technical cooperation (FSMTC) are working out special
regulations to facilitate the procedure of procurements for the CSTO
countries.

Question: A new structure engaged in the procurement of weapons for
the army will soon be created in Russia. Will it be able to somehow
simplify the procedure of selling weapons and equipment to the CSTO
countries?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: In my opinion, this structure will first of all
streamline the procurement system. It will also protect the interests
of Russian producers. Moreover, it will be evaluating the quality of
military products and advisability of their purchasing abroad,
especially when it comes to samples of weapons which are produced in
Russia, too,. and may be purchased for our military forces from the
Russian producers. On the whole, it will enhance the objectivity and,
most importantly, the quality of these purchases.

Question: And who determines the prices for the Russian weapons? No
secret, the Ministry of defense of Russia and Russian producers have
been bargaining about the prices for three years already. Who
regulates their prices for the countries of the CSTO?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: The CSTO has no access to the formation of prices.
It is the CSTO member-states who have the right to buy weapons at
Russian domestic prices on the basis of the Agreement on preferential
purchases of weapons and special equipment with no surcharges. The
final prices are determined by Rosoboronexport and FSMTC on the basis
of what producers demand. There are differences on some types of
equipment, especially the scientifically and technologically
complicated types. But as a rule our allies purchase the types which
have been exploited and sold for a long time already. These types are
sold at stable prices, and no questions arise.

There were cases when producers raised their prices, but after the
interference of the CSTO Secretariat and FSMTC these prices went back
to the norm. Sell at a higher price is a natural desire of any
manufacturer, and buy cheaper is a natural desire of any buyer. But
there is a government decree which regulates the preferential
inside-Russian prices for our allies.

Question: At present, do the CSTO countries buy more Western or
Russian armaments?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: The tendency is universal: absolute pragmatism
based on the technological potential of the equipment. They just
choose better equipment. Some foreign-made systems are really better –
for example, they highly appreciate the British sniper rifles. But the
general approach to the procurement of arms can not be changed because
of the following three factors.

Firstly, the allies have mostly Russian systems in their service –
armored vehicles, small arms, large artillery systems, anti-aircraft
complexes, etc. Thus, their personnel is trained to use these weapons.
The system of training in all the CSTO countries is almost one and the
same.

Secondly, they need weapons promptly compatible with the equipment of
other CSTO armies, and first of all with the Russian Armed forces
armaments. Compatibility is achieved only when the weapons are of the
same type.

Question: Why then the allied countries have some non-Russian weapons
in their service? There are American jeeps in Kazakhstan, Chinese
multiple launch rocket systems in Armenia…

Nikolai Bordyuzha: Many of the weapon systems were just gifted to them
within the framework of military assistance programs. By the way, we
also render them substantial military assistance. However, by and
large, all the CSTO States are focused on the purchase of equipment of
the Russian or Belarusian production.

Question: Vice-Premier of Russia Dmitry Rogozin is now responsible for
the purchase of weapons for the Army. Is he the catalyst for this
process, or does he slow it down?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: (…) He is now the catalyst for changes, and not
only in the military equipment sales system, but in all the changes in
the military-industrial complex of Russia, including in the relations
with the countries of the CSTO.

Question: Do you think Rogozin has achieved any success in the
position of Russia’s Ambassador to NATO? After all, Russian has failed
in trying to link the non-proliferation of missile defense system in
Europe with START-3.

Nikolai Bordyuzha: In any case, thanks to the negotiations we came to
the parity in offensive weapons which suits both Russia and the United
States. Now we are in the second stage. The negotiating process is
going on. Coming to a compromise is an extremely time-consuming and a
very complicated process.

(…)

Question: Let’s talk about the joint defense projects within the CSTO
format. At present Russia and Belarus develop our regional system of
air defense, which can then be transformed into ABM defense system,
with the new C-400 “Triumph” systems in service. May it be considered
as some kind of a symmetric answer to the European anti-missile
defense system, or is it our independent project?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: Well I wouldn’t say that it is the direct CSTO
answer to Europe. It is a planned work in the framework of the CSTO
and the Union state of Russia and Belarus. Though, the same system is
being created and in Armenia… Negotiations are under way on the
creation of the Russian-Kazakhstan regional air defense system in
Central-Asian region, with further participation of Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan.

Question: And is it possible to form a sort of an air defense CSTO
system in the future?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: We are already on this road. First we shall create
regional systems, and then connect them in a common system.

(…)

Question: May other countries join this system in the future? Iran, for example?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: True, Iran made unofficial statements about its
possible participation in the work of the CSTO. But no further steps
followed.

Question: Has this possibility been discussed at some level?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: No, why? After all, Iran has not initiated this
issue… If Iran submitted a formal statement to join the CSTO, we
would consider this statement in accordance with the established
procedure, and if a consensus positive solution were adopted (after,
of course, the study of all the positive aspects), Iran would become
an observer or a member of the organization.

Question: Is Iran viewed as a probable enemy?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: I wouldn’t now talk about the scenarios around
Iran, it’s too touchy. I know one thing and said it many times before:
the world community should not allow any attack on Iran.

(…)

Question: In what direction the CSTO will develop?

Nikolai Bordyuzha: Military cooperation. Work on the suppression of
terrorist and extremist organizations, illegal migration and human
trafficking, collective response to emergency situations – we are
planning to make it one of the priority directions. We will have a
common emergency service with a common information base, a common
system of monitoring and forecasting, a common technical policy,
preferential procurement system of the Russian rescue equipment.

(…)

Source: Izvestiya (Moscow issue), June 21, p. 1

Etchmiadzin women’s center recognized by Armenian government
by Noushig Hovhannesian

Published: Sunday June 24, 2012

Nonna Sargsyan, Ani Qochar, Nune Yesayan, Lala Ghazaryan and Tigranuhi
Karapetyan with young women of Mer Doon.

Related Articles
>From orphanage to womanhood, teens in transition find a warm home at Mer Doon

Mer Doon: Providing real family and real home

Philadelphia – Ms. Tigranuhi Karapetyan, President of Our Home-Mer
Doon, recently received the “Golden Medal” from Armenia’s Ministry of
Labor and Social Affairs.

This recognition is the highest award of the Ministry of Labor and
Social affairs and honored Ms. Karapetyan as an outstanding example
for her many years of devoted and loving service to the orphaned and
disadvantaged children in Armenia during an event organized by Mer
Doon, “You Are A Mother, A Woman, A Creator.”

During April 4 attended by Minister of Labor and Social Affairs Artur
Grigoryan, special guests included the Head of Department of Family,
Women, and Children Issues of the RA Ministry of Labor and Social
Affairs, Ms. Lala Ghazaryan, singer Ms. Nune Yesayan, “Yes” Magazine
Editor in Chief, Ms. Ani Qochar and friend of Mer doon, Ms. Nonna
Sargsyan. The Mer Doon Board of Directors congratulates Ms. Karapetyan
for this very distinguished honor and is very grateful for her
steadfast commitment and dedication to the organization.

Established in 2005 by Tigranuhi Karapetian and U.S.-based co-founder
Julie Ashekian, Mer Doon first opened its doors in Etchmiadzin,
Armenia in October 2006. Mer Doon provides a loving and compassionate
family environment for disadvantaged young women who have outgrown
their orphanage.

Sadly, most emancipated orphans in Armenia are unskilled, minimally
educated, and unprepared for adulthood. Many fall prey to lowly
opportunists who offer them some form of shelter, claim ownership over
them, and exploit them in the worst ways imaginable. Mer Doon offers
these young adults a chance at an education, a home, and a much
brighter future. For many of these young adults, Mer Doon is the first
family they have ever known.

Mer Doon is currently providing for ten young women, each furthering
their education, and pursuing a useful skill or vocation. In addition,
these girls receive a religious education, learn French, Russian, and
English languages in-house, and are trained by staff in personal and
social skills. To learn more about Our Home-Mer Doon and how you can
support their mission, please visit

FRANCE
Un livre raconte les coulisses de la bataille entre Devedjian et Sarkozy

Sous des apparences de fable politique, un livre à paraître jeudi
raconte les coulisses de la guerre à droite entre le président (UMP)
du conseil général des Hauts-de-Seine Patrick Devedjian et Nicolas
Sarkozy, au cours du dernier quinquennat.

Dans cet ouvrage, `Le Monarque, son fils, son fief` (éd. du Moment),
écrit par Marie-Célie Guillaume, directrice de cabinet de Patrick
Devedjian, les protagonistes prennent les traits de `l’Arménien` et du
`Monarque`, également appelé `Rocky`.

L’histoire se déroule dans le département de la Sarkozie rebaptisé `La
Principauté`. Elle débute peu après l’élection de Rocky à la tête du
`Vieux Pays`. Déçu de ne pas avoir obtenu le poste qu’il convoitait au
gouvernement, l’Arménien va s’atteler `au nettoyage des écuries` de la
Principauté, ce qui lui vaudra de s’attirer les foudres du Monarque.

Son `ami de plus de trente ans` fera alors tout pour l’éliminer
politiquement. Mais l’Arménien aura sa revanche en conservant les
rènes de ce territoire `riche et prospère`.

Pour expliquer sa démarche, Marie-Célie Guillaume parle `d’un travail
de distanciation` par rapport à `des évènements vécus et subis
douloureusement pendant quatre ans`.

Dans ce brûlot dressant un portrait au vitriol de Nicolas Sarkozy,
elle passe en revue les évènements qui ont marqué le 92. Les élections
municipales mouvementées de `Rockyville` font écho à celles de
Neuilly-sur-Seine en 2008.

La candidature du `Dauphin`, autre personnage central de l’ouvrage, à
la présidence de `Little Manhattan` rappelle celle, controversée, de
Jean Sarkozy à la présidence de l’Epad. Sans oublier, le `complot`
pour empêcher l’Arménien de garder la main sur la présidence de la
fédération du parti.

Autour des héros de cette satire gravitent d’autres personnages tels
`Préfet Tigellin` (Claude Guéant) dont les journées commencent `par la
lecture des relevés d’écoute téléphonique et des rapports de
surveillance de la police` ou encore le couple Thénardier (les
Balkany), `couple indissociable à la réputation sulfureuse` et
`meilleurs amis du Monarque`.

`Ce livre a aussi pour but de dénoncer une certaine façon de faire de
la politique`, explique Marie-Célie Guillaume qui dit avoir été
menacée de représailles à l’annonce de sa sortie.

dimanche 24 juin 2012,
Stéphane ©armenews.com

Electricity exchange at 1,808 MW

Jun 24 2012

.Google PlusFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail A FriendPrint This PageSave
as PDF Add to Reading List .Iran exchanged some 1,808 megawatts of
electricity with neighboring countries on Friday.

According to the report released by the Energy Ministry, some 303
megawatts (MW) of electricity were imported from Armenia while 1, 137
MW were exported to Iraq, IRNA reported on Saturday.

The total amount of electricity exported to Afghanistan, Republic of
Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey hit 1,306 MW.

Some 502 MW of electricity were imported from Armenia and Turkmenistan.

Iran has electricity exchange with Armenia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan,
Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to a report released by the Energy Ministry in April, Iran
exported some 398.9 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity since the
beginning of the current Iranian year (started March 19).

The report said the figure shows a 43-percent rise compared to that of
the same period of the preceding year which was 279.1 GWh.

It added that implementation of Subsidy Reform Plan helped reduce
electricity consumption which created a proper condition for
increasing power exports.

The implementation of the Subsidy Reform Plan, which began late in
2010, has enabled the government to gradually reduce energy subsidies
over five years, with low-income families compensated with direct cash
handouts.

Iran exports electricity to Armenia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey,
Azerbaijan, Nakhichevan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

PRADA COLLABORATION
Ella Alexander

Vogue.com

June 22 2012

PRADA has teamed up with graphic designer and artist Vahram Muratyan
to make a one-off T-shirt collection for men and women, inspired by
creations from the spring/summer 2012 collection – from heels with
flame detailing to statement sunglasses. It will land in stores
in mid-July.

The Italian label first recruited the Armenian-born illustrator earlier
this year to make a virtual lookbook named Prada Parallel Universes,
which reflected his bold, playful style. Muratyan is best known for
his book Paris vs New York, which explores the graphic signs of both
cities and serves as a starting point for Prada’s latest offering.

Each T-shirt is priced at ~@150 (£120, although the British price is
yet to be confirmed).

ARMENIA’S JUSTICE MINISTER REFUSES TO TAKE UP THE POST OF CHAIRMAN OF THE CASSATION COURT

arminfo
Friday, June 22, 20:19

Armenia’s Justice Minister Hrayr Tovmasyan told journalists on Friday
that he does not wish to be Chairman of the Cassation Court.

Recently there have been media reports saying that the Government is
not satisfied with the work of the acting Chairman of the Cassation
Court Arman Mkrtumyan.

Mkrtumyan is reported to be at odds with Chairman of the Constitutional
Court Gagik Harutyunyan, who wants him to be replaced by Tovmasyan.

NATO REPRESENTATIVES HIGHLIGHT THE ROLE OF ARMENIA AS ACTIVE PARTNER

ARMENPRESS
22 June, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JUNE 22, ARMENPRESS: NATO+Armenia meeting took place at NATO
Headquarters to discuss the 2011 report on Armenia-NATO Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP).

Foreign Affairs Ministry press service told Armenpress that the
Armenian delegation was led by Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Ashot
Hovakimyan and Armenian Deputy Minister of Defense Davit Tonoyan.

NATO+Armenia meeting was chaired by James Appathurai, Special
Representatives of NATO Secretary General to Caucasus and Central Asia.

In his speech Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Ashot Hovakimyan
referred to successful fulfillment of Armenia-NATO IPAP, to May 6
parliamentarian elections in Armenia, to positive evaluations of the
international observers. The speaker also dwelled on the democratic and
institutional reforms implemented in Armenia, Armenia-EU cooperation,
Nagorno-Karabakh issue settlement, underlining the tensions on
Armenian-Azerbaijani border, the Azerbaijani provocations and
violations of the ceasefire regime. Ashot Hovakimyan also presented
the recent regional developments.

Deputy Minister of Defense Davit Tonoyan presented the reforms
implemented in Armenia in the spheres of defense and security as
defined by Armenia-NATO Individual Partnership Action Plan . NATO
peacekeeping actions were also under consideration.

Afterward the Armenian officials answered the questions of the
representatives of NATO member states.

In their speeches NATO officials highlighted the role of Armenia as
an active partner and thanked for the Armenian peacekeeping actions
in Kosovo. They also positively assessed the reforms in Armenia in the
spheres of defense and politics, as well as the May 6 parliamentarian
elections.

Delegations of OSCE Mink Group Co-Chairing Countries, the US and
France, confirmed once again the commitment of their states to 3
principles of Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement — non-use of force,
self-determination of peoples, and territorial integrity.

ARMENIA TO MAKE RADICAL CHANGES IN INDUSTRIAL POLICY. PM

ARMENPRESS
22 June, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JUNE 22, ARMENPRESS: We must establish a competitive economy
resulted by Government-private sector partnership. Armenian Prime
Minister Tigran Sargsyan came forth with the speech at the course
of the business forum entitled “Armenia, opportunities for growth
and international experience organized by the junctions of Black Sea
Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB).

The head of the executive body declared that radical change in
industrial policy is ahead.” We are concerned that Black Sea bank make
investment in Government implemented projects. Armenia high estimates
the projects launched by Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB),
worth 75 million US dollar” Sargsyan noted, Armenpress reports.

Armenian PM assured that they are creating new conditions for business
start-ups, which is the number one problem in Armenia.Prime Minister
did not deny the obstacles hindering to launch business in Armenia
and promised to foster law enforcement and judicial bodies to avoid it.

In the words of BSTDB chairman Andrey Kondakov Black Sea states ensured
sustainable growth against the background of international economic
development. “Armenia is the best example of it” Kondakov concluded,
informing Black Sea bank will provide 50 million euros to Armenia
for the financial support by 2014.

Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is an international
financial institution founded by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Bank
authorized capital makes3.3 billion euros.