Author: Madatian Greg

OLEG YESAYAN APPOINTED RA AMBASSADOR TO RF

news.am
Jan 22 2010
Armenia

January 21, 2010 RA President Serzh Sargsyan signed a decree on the
removal of Armen Smbatian from the position of RA Ambassador to Russia,
RA Presidential Press service informed NEWS.am.

Smbatian was elected to Executive Director of CIS Interstate Fund
for Humanitarian Cooperation.

Under another presidential decree, Oleg Yesayan was designated for
the post of RA Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Russia
(residence-Moscow).

Prior to the appointment, Yesayan was holding a position of NKR Prime
Minister and RA Ambassador to Belarus.

CONTROL CHAMBER TO FOCUS ON EDUCATION SECTOR IN 2010

PanARMENIAN.Net
22.01.2010 18:24 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The studies conducted by Armenia’s Control Chamber
have revealed negative results in all state structures apart from
the Constitutional Court, according to Control Chamber Chairman
Ishkhan Zakaryan.

"Over the last two years, we have fixed large-scale violations
and abuses by Ministry of Culture and state property management
institutions, and this gives rise serious concerns," he told
journalists Friday.

At that, he noted that the General Prosecutor’s Office has instituted
criminal cases over 21 violations.

According to him, the recent legislative amendments will enable the
chamber to directly apply to Prosecutor’s office in case of finding
wrongdoings.

In addition, Mr. Zakaryan said that the Control Chamber’s 2010
activities will focus on education sector.

US CO-CHAIRS SAYS KARABAKH LEADERSHIP, PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE AWARE OF TALKS

Yerkir
18.01.2010 14:02

Yerevan (Yerkir) – NKR President Bako Sahakyan and OSCE Minsk
Group co-chair Robert Bradtke discussed the Karabakh settlement in
Stepanakert on January 17.

Answering a question at a news conference that followed the meeting,
Bradtke said that the co-chairs work with the Armenian and Azerbaijani
presidents and make regular visits to Nagorno-Karabakh to inform its
leadership about the results of the meetings.

"We think that the Karabakh leadership and people should be informed
about the talks. We inform them on the topics of the discussions,"
he added.

HOW GORBACHEV CONTRIBUTED TO THE ‘KARABAKHIZATION’ OF AZERBAIJANI POLITICS
Paul Goble

Georgian Daily
tent&task=view&id=16527&Itemid=65
Jan 19 2010
Georgia

Twenty years ago this week, Mikhail Gorbachev sent troops into
Azerbaijan to crush the popular front there, but what the Soviet
president achieved by his actions was the further radicalization
of Azerbaijan and the "Karabakhization" of Azerbaijani politics, a
situation that continues to this day, according to a leading Moscow
commentator.

In an article posted on the "Novaya politika" site yesterday,
Sergey Markedonov says that the unwillingness of the Soviet
government to force Armenia to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan and
its dispatch of Soviet forces to Baku "became a transforming moment
in the process of the national self-determination of Azerbaijan"
(novopol.ru/text80474.html).

Bot h Moscow’s failure to defend the territorial integrity of the
Azerbaijan SSR and the brutality of its forces in the Azerbaijani
capital changed everything, Markedonov continues. Until then,
Azerbaijan "had lacked a powerful dissident movement," unlike Georgia
or the Baltic states.

However, "the striving of the Kremlin to refrain from the adoption
of a one-sided resolution of the ‘Karabakh question’ and the refusal
of Moscow to fulfill its political contract to guarantee Azerbaijani
territorial integrity pushed Baku onto the path of the search for
national independence and sovereignty."

And that drive, one based on a near universal popular consensus that
Karabakh must be reintegrated into Azerbaijan, meant that nationalism
rather than communism became the republic’s dominant ideology. Indeed,
Markedonov says, it is possible to speak of "Karabakhization" as
"the foundation" for Azerbaijan’s statehood.

In response to the Soviet invasion, 45,000 Azerbaijanis quit the ranks
of the CPSU, and Heidar Aliyev, who had been forced from the Politburo,
reemerged as a national leader by speaking to a meeting of Azerbaijanis
and others at the permanent representation of his republic in Moscow,

For him and for all Azerbaijanis, Markedonov continues, "problem number
one for independent Azerbaijan" was the question of the restoration
of the territorial integrity of the country, because its military
defeat by the Armenians had had such "a serious influence on the
self-identification of Azerbaijanis."

In the judgment of the Moscow analyst, "Heidar Aliyev’s return
to Azerbaijani politics" allowed the country to overcome ethnic
separatism at home from the Talysh, Lezgins, and Avars) and "also
to minimize the threat [to predominantly Shiite Azerbaijan] from the
side of radical Islam."

After 1993, Markedonov says, "Baku easily dealt with both military
risings and ‘rose revolutions,’ but "the main thing that Aliyev was
able to achieve is an adequate assessment of the military and foreign
policy resources of an independent Azerbaijan and on the basis of
this assessment to form a sensible strategy."

Aliyev recognized that using military force to resolve the problem
was not a promising strategy and thus was willing to reach a ceasefire
accord with Armenia, and he also understood, Markedonov says, that Baku
needed to "overcome the unique diplomatic vacuum around the republic"
by reaching out to all major powers and portraying Azerbaijan as
"a civilized state."

In recent years, many people have asked how long this "breathing
space" and "concentration" can continue, Markedonov notes, but he
argues that however emotionally powerful appeals to recover Karabakh
may be, Azerbaijan would not profit from any use of military power
anytime soon.

First of all, the Moscow specialist on the Caucasus says, "both Armenia
and unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh are serious competitors," something
that dashes any hopes for "a blitzkrieg." Second, the unsuccessful
use of force could threaten the stability of political arrangements
in Azerbaijan, as the case of Elchibey in the early 1990s shows.

And third, any military campaign "would create problems not only of a
military but also of an informational-political character." Overnight,
such actions would "destroy the image of Azerbaijan, which has
been carefully cultivated over the years, as a victim of ‘Armenian
aggression.’"

Even if Baku were successful, it would not be forgiven, Markedonov
argues, saying that Azerbaijanis should not see the Russian moves
in Chechnya as a precedent. That is because, he continues, "what the
world forgave Moscow for is something it would not forgive Baku."

Consequently, Azerbaijan’s only option, he concludes is to "wait and
‘concentrate.’"

But the passions ignited by the events of Black January and the
centrality of the fate of Karabakh and the other occupied territories
remain so great that it is perhaps no surprise that on this "round"
anniversary, many Azerbaijanis are hoping against hope that the
negotiations will lead to the recovery of their lands or seeking
alternatives.

And one of the most interesting – and, following Markedonov’s argument,
instructive — is the call by the Sheikh ul-Islam Pasha-Zade, the head
of the Muslim Spiritual Directorate in Azerbaijan, for Gorbachev to be
brought to trial in the Hague for his crimes against the Azerbaijani
nation (;div= 33786).

That won’t happen, of course, but it is a reminder of the continuing
sensitivity of the events of a generation ago in the Caucasus now,
an impact that any who are seeking to address the problems there must
not only acknowledge but face up to, all the more now because these
feelings have been allowed to fester so long.

QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT AZERBAIJANI CITIZEN’S INTERVIEW TO ARMENIAN TV

news.az
Jan 19 2010
Azerbaijan

Eldar Taghiyev An interview given to Armenian TV by Azerbaijani citizen
Eldar Taghiyev may contravene international law, it has emerged.

Eldar Taghiyev, 47, was detained during an attempt to cross the border
into Tavush District of Armenia on 28 December 2009, according to
Armenian media reports.

In an interview broadcast by Armenian Public TV on 18 January, Taghiyev
said he had no intention of returning to Azerbaijan. He said that he
had no job and living conditions were harsh in his village of Alibeyli
in Tovuz District in the west of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani officials think that Taghiyev has been captured by the
Armenian side.

"The interview given by Azerbaijani captive Eldar Taghiyev to an
Armenian TV channel contradicts international conventions," the
secretary of the State Commission for Prisoners of War, Hostages and
Missing People, Shahin Sailov, told ANS Press.

He said that under international rules, hostages and captives must
first meet representatives of the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC). Any public statements are inadmissible without such
a meeting.

The secretary for the state commission said he had no information
about Eldar Taghiyev meeting ICRC representatives. A meeting is
planned but there is no official information about it.

Shahin Sailov said that Eldar Taghiyev might have been forced to talk
to the Armenian TV channel. "He is a captive. It is not so difficult
to force a captive to give an interview and make statements against
his country."

Everything that Eldar Taghiyev said in his interview to Armenian
Public TV is untrue, according to Maharram Gasimov, head of the
Alibeyli village executive authorities.

He said Taghiyev’s remarks about a shortage of water in Tovuz were
not true.

"All villages in Tovuz are supplied with water. Alibeyli village
is supplied with water both naturally and through pumps that pump
water from the Tovuzchay river. A water channel passes near Eldar
Taghiyev’s house, so his comments on a shortage of water in the
village are untrue," Gasimov said.

He said that the village has enough water both for agricultural
irrigation and for everyday domestic use. "Eldar Taghiyev has a
wonderful house. There is a bathroom in his house. If there is no
water, how does his family use the bathroom?" Gasimov asked.

Gasimov said that Eldar Taghiyev had no grounds to complain about
social conditions.

The head of the executive authorities said that Eldar Taghiyev used
to be involved in trade, but had recently been earning a living as
"an ordinary worker".

GEORGIAN DIOCESE OF ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH COMMEMORATE VICTIMS OF ARMENIAN POGROMS IN BAKU.

PanARMENIAN.Net
18.01.2010 18:12 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On January 17 the Armenian Church of St. Echmiadzin
in Tbilisi and all the churches of the Georgian Diocese of the Armenian
Apostolic Church (AAC) served the liturgy and requiem for the victims
of the Armenian pogroms in Baku in 1990.

Leader of the Georgian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church Bishop
Vazgen Mirzakhanian served requiem the Armenian Church of St.

Echmiadzin in Tbilisi.

As press office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia
reported, the service was attended by the Ambassador of Armenia to
Georgia Silvanyan Hrach, leader of the Gegharkunik Diocese of AAC,
Bishop Marcos Hovhannisyan, locum tenens of the leader of the Georgian
Diocese of Javakhk monk Babken Salibyan, representatives of Armenian
organizations in Georgia, as well as numerous believers.

After the service, participants laid a wreath at the cross stone in
memory of victims of the Armenian pogroms in Baku.

On January 13, 1990, the Azerbaijani authorities instigated the
Armenian pogroms of Baku. Some 400 Armenians were killed and 200
thousand were exiled in the period of January 13-19. The exact number
of those killed was never determined, as no investigation was carried
out into the crimes.

On the above-mentioned date, a crowd numbering 50 thousand people
divided into groups and started "cleaning" the city of Armenians. On
January 17, the European Parliament called on EU Council of Foreign
Ministers and European Council to protect Armenians and render
assistance to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. On January 18, a group of
U.S. Senators sent a letter to Mikhail Gorbachev to express concerns
over the violence against the Armenian population in Azerbaijan and
called for unification of Nagorno Karabakh with Armenia.

WHY IRAN-ARMENIA GAS PIPELINE WAS CONSTRUCTED: BAGRATYAN

news.am
Jan 18 2010
Armenia

"Why did we construct Iran-Armenia gas pipeline if it should not
operate," RA former Premier Hrant Bagratyan said at Jan.

18 interview referring to Russian gas price rise (U.S. $180 per 1000
m3) starting April 2010.

"It was an alternative to be used if Russian gas price rises. What
happened with it? What was the purpose of that main? Receiving gas
from Iran, we do not pay transit charge. If you think that Iranian
gas is expensive I would parry that they could have made the pipe
wider and supply gas to Georgia and other states," Bagratyan outlined
adding that today’s developments become politics after ten years.

Former Premier also underlined that Serzh Sargsyan’s statement that
Armenia is solvent is true. "He does not tell a lie, he was just told
so. He is unaware that starting 2014 Armenia will have to pay a U.S.

$480m foreign debt annually unless it accumulates more debts by then."

RA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan stated earlier that Armenia will
incur a U.S. $500m loan in 2010.

Interfax, Russia
Jan 14 2010

Armenia vows to do its best to ratify protocols with Turkey

YEREVAN Jan 14

Armenia will do its best to ratify bilateral protocols with Turkey,
Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian told a Thursday press
conference following negotiations with his Russian counterpart Sergei
Lavrov.

"In keeping with our commitments, we will do our best to ratify the
Armenian-Turkish protocols within a reasonable period of time and
without artificial obstacles," he said.

The ratification of international accords is more difficult in Armenia
than in Turkey, the minister said.

"The documents had reached the Constitutional Court, and the latter
found them to be constitutional on January 12. I do not want to think
that Turkey is deliberately blocking the ratification of the protocols
at the national parliament. That would mean that the Turkish
administration does not meet its commitments," Nalbandian said.

Diena, Latvia
Jan 14 2010

Chemistry, Physics of Relations

by Didzis Melkis
[translated from Latvian]

Relationships are a delicate thing, which is why people sometimes tend
to talk about the chemistry therein – the way in which one side deals
with the other, what the final result is, taking a bit from each one
and perhaps adding a third. Often enough, however, private
relationships – and certainly international relationships, as well –
relate to a different science. Physics is the issue – relations take
on a positive or negative meaning. In this case, the important thing
is how people look at a specific relationship, because one which some
people hold to be good may be seen by others as standing in opposition
to their interests.

>From the perspective of Latvia and Europe, a positive trend in recent
times has been the improved relationship between Turkey and Armenia,
all the more so because the latest initiative came from Armenia. Its
Constitutional Court ruled that protocols signed by working groups as
to the closer relationship between the two countries are in line with
Armenia’s basic law. From the distanced perspective of cool-headed
northerners, the fact alone does not appear to be anything special,
but among impassioned Armenians, it has created quite a bit of
emotion.

History of Relationship

The most recent tensions between Armenia and Turkey relate to the
closing of the border between the two countries and the interruption
in diplomatic relations between them which occurred in 1993. The
relations have not been restored to this very day. At that time,
Turkey supporter Azerbaijan, defending its right to the separatist
territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is understandable that ever since
the latter half of the 1980s, this serious issue poured oil onto the
fire in Armenia, and ever since that time, being an Armenian has
increasingly meant being against Turkey. It was no accident that after
the court announced its ruling on Tuesday [12 January], protesters
outside the building greeted judges by screaming "You are not
Armenians!" It is precisely against the background of this negativism,
you see, that we get a completely clear sense of the positive value of
the closer relationship between the two nations. Armenia, at the level
of state, has decided to stop talking about evil, to demonstrate the
initiative, and to use the law to move forward towards cooperation and
perhaps even friendship.

The point here is not just the relationship between Turks and
Armenians. The important thing is that Turkey is an EU candidate
country and is involved in this whole process. Turks are not without
blame in what has been a critically bad relationship with Armenia, and
that is particularly true when it comes to Turkey’s refusal to admit
that its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, committed genocide against
Armenians in 1915. One-and-a-half Armenians were killed at that time,
and it is understandable that this scar is very fresh and painful in
the historical self-understanding of Armenians.

The founder of contemporary Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, did try in
the 1920s to draw a line under previous history. He established the
new country as one that was strictly secular, focused on progress, and
pro-Western. The deeper streams of the Turkish people’s ethos,
however, appear to be more durable than any rational political
decisions, and until quite recently, the genocide against the
Armenians was a taboo issue in Turkey. It was only recently, when the
EU opened its doors to the Turkish candidacy, that the issue finally
became a matter of public discussion, as did several other previously
taboo matters such as gender equality and the rights of the Kurdish
minority.

The current process of moving towards rapprochement between the two
countries relates only to the opening of the border and the
restoration of diplomatic relations, but it is clear that any
combination of the words "Armenia" and "Turkey" brings along the
unspoken emotional burden about the Armenian genocide. This is a
fundamental and essential question when it comes to Turkey’s
relationship with the EU and much of the rest of the world, and so any
reason, method or instance in which Turkey and Armenia have any
voluntary contacts must be seen as a positive and commendable thing.
That is even true with respect to the national soccer match which was
held in Armenia year before last in the presence of the Turkish
president. That was in and of itself so important a fact that it would
be quite improper to try to find out what the result of that match
was.

Comparable Historical Issues

The rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia allow us to increase the
good faith with which we look at other and similarly emotional
processes in international relations where the issue is national pain,
resolution, and peaceful co-existence. It can be said about Latvia and
our tortured history in the 20th century, as well as about Ukraine and
the terrors of famine which it faced in 1932 and 1933. Similarly to
the Nazi genocide against the Jews, these are things that cannot be
forgotten, but without knowing about and admitting to them and
ensuring a certain level of restitution, albeit delayed, gradual and
only moral, we cannot imagine the full moral life of any nation to
which these imperatives apply.

Ours is a civilization which has only recently been torn asunder by
dark passions, and healing has only just begun. If the bandage put on
a raw scar is painful, then very much more delicate are the various
traumas and offences that involve the historical memory of nearly any
nation in the world. If we look at the international level, we can
remember the recent visit of [US President] Barack Obama to Japan,
where he did not even think about a proposal that he visit a memorial
in Hiroshima. Japan itself is unsuccessfully trying to avoid the
specter of violence which is accusing it of offences in China during
World War II.

That is exactly why any ray of hope which sheds light if not on the
heart of the pain, then at least a bit of the territory which stands
alongside the shadowy zone must be emphasized. Good job, Armenian
justices!

EDITORIAL: CONSTRUCTION & REAL ESTATE IN THE CIS

Who’s Who Legal
Jan 15 2010

The property market in the CIS has seen a drop-off in transactional
work over the past year, and the lawyers we consulted are finding
their restructuring and advisory skills are increasingly in demand. We
feature 31 lawyers from seven jurisdictions in this chapter, which
combines lawyers with construction and real estate backgrounds.

Salans is represented by three lawyers in this section, including Tim
Stubbs who is the firm’s head of banking and finance in Russia. Stubbs
has advised clients in property development and reconstruction
projects and the negotiation of construction loans and was described
as "top-flight" by respondents. Ophelia Abdullayeva and Vagif Ahmadov
are both listed from the Baku office.

Baker & McKenzie – CIS Limited is similarly well represented.

Konstantine Kouzine is a former real estate equity partner with
PricewaterhouseCoopers’ CIS law offices and focuses his practice on
private equity, real estate funds and property leasing throughout
Russia. The "excellent" Maxim Kalinin is managing partner of the
firm’s St Petersburg office and is recognised for his work in real
estate, power and transport infrastructure projects. Natik Mamedov
in Azerbaijan specialises in real estate sales and finance as well
as hotels, resorts and tourism.

Clifford Chance LLP and DLA Piper LLP are also among the major
international law firms with a formidable regional presence in this
area. Clifford Chance CIS Limited fields Marc Bartholomy from its
Moscow office while Jared Grubb stands out in Kiev. Sergey Koltchin
heads the real estate and construction practice in the Moscow office
of DLA Piper and is recognised for his work with land ownership rights
and construction and infrastructure issues as well as FDI projects
in Moscow and the Urals. Natalia Kochergina is based in Kiev and has
recently advised AREA (Apollo Real Estate Advisors) and 1849 PLC.

Equally prominent are Goltsblat BLP and Turcan & Turcan, both of whom
are headquartered in the region. The "well-known" Elena Barinova
of Goltsblat has extensive experience of domestic and cross-border
property finance transactions as well as the privatisation of
state-owned real estate property, including brownfield and greenfield
sites. Vitaly Mozharowski also at the firm’s Moscow office joins
Barinova on our list and is "highly regarded" for his investment,
project finance and due diligence work in real estate and construction
transactions. Moldova-based firm Turcan & Turcan fields managing
partner and "leading light" Alexander Turcan in this chapter alongside
Octavian Cazac.

Eric Michailov heads the corporate and M&A practice at the
Moscow office of White & Case LLC and is given "top marks" for his
representative work on behalf of investment funds and international
companies pursuing real estate M&A projects in Russia. At Linklaters
CIS, Xavier Hunter is also highly regarded for his work with real
estate transactions.

Belarus firm Vlasova Mikhel & Partners benefits from the inclusion of
managing partner Konstantin Mikhel in this section. Mikhel is a member
of the foreign investment advisory council to government ministers and
is recommended for his transactional and restructuring knowledge. Also
based in Minsk is Alexander Stepanovski of Stepanovski Papakul and
Partners Ltd, who specialises in investment and construction as well
as disputes between building companies.

In Ukraine, Timur Bondaryev at Arzinger is "excellent" and Ulan
Tilenbaev at Kalikova & Associates is similarly highly regarded. The
outstanding Alexander Botian and Vassili Salei are listed from
Borovtsov & Salei in Belarus, while Kiryl Apanasevich and Dennis
Turovets are recognised for their high-quality work at Sorainen and
Magisters respectively. Armenia’s David Sargsyan from Ameria Legal
Practice is another local leader and in Azerbaijan Ismail Askerov
stands out for his work at MGB Law Offices.

s/article/19721/editorial-construction-real-estate -cis/