PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS OF 2 MILLION USD CARRIED OUT AT NASDAQ OEMEX ARMENIA OJSC ON OCTOBER 15
Noyan Tapan
Oct 15, 2009
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 15, NOYAN TAPAN. Purchase and sale transactions of 2
million dollars at the weighted average exchange rate of 386.5 drams
per dollar were carried out at Nasdaq Oemex Armenia OJSC on October 15.
According to the press service of the Central Bank of Armenia, the
closing price made 386.5 drams.
DOWNSIZED COMMONWEALTH
by Arkady Dubnov
WPS Agency
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 9, 2009 Friday
Russia
CIS LEADERS THEMSELVES DISMISS THE COMMONWEALTH AS SOMETHING
IMMATERIAL; Central Asian presidents will miss the CIS summit.
The CIS summit opening in Kishinev tomorrow will be
downsized. Presidents of European CIS countries (Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, and Moldova) and two republics of the Caucasus (Armenia
and Azerbaijan) are expected. Central Asian leaders (Kazakh, Tajik,
Kyrgyz, and Turkmen) meanwhile decided against making a trip to faraway
Moldova for the questionable pleasure of attending a ritualistic
event. These countries will be represented by prime ministers and
deputy premiers. It is fair to add that status of Turkmenistan in
the Commonwealth is not clear. Never exactly a full-fledged CIS
member, Turkmenistan decided to quit the structure altogether in
the Turkmenbashi’s days and even started going through the motions
of withdrawal. The whole process quietly came to a halt after 2006
when "the father of all Turkmens" passed away and was replaced with
Gurbankuly Berdymuhammedov.
Downsized or not, the CIS summit will remain in the focus of
attention. To a certain extent, the publicity is all but assured by the
scandal caused by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s refusal to meet
with his Ukrainian counterpart Victor Yuschenko in Kishinev. Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov returned from the talks with his Ukrainian
opposite number in Kharkov and confirmed that there would be no
bilateral meetings between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents
within the framework of the summit. Asked by Ukrainian journalists
for comment on Moscow’s persistent refusal to arrange a tete-a-tete
meeting between Medvedev and Yuschenko, Lavrov shrugged. "What can
I say? Consider it absence of response. We are friends with the
Ukrainians, but this is how things are."
The state of affairs with the Russian-Ukrainian bilateral relations
is truly unprecedented. Foreign ministers do meet, but the Kremlin
boycotts the head of the Ukrainian state. On the other hand, there are
lots of unprecedented things about the Commonwealth in general. It is
probably the only alliance in the world whose members have remained
in the state of war for over 15 years already. Is the CIS being kept
together just because imitation of peacekeeping processes between
Azerbaijan and Armenia is more convenient (at least, less troublesome)
within its framework? It is clear after all that were it not for the
planned meeting between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia in
Kishinev, and another one where Medvedev will join Ilham Aliyev and
Serj Sargsjan, the summit in Kishinev would have seen neither the
Azerbaijani nor the Armenian leader.
Central Asian leaders’ absence from the summit is a different matter
altogether. Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev was still pondering
the matter last night but as things stand, there is no pressing
necessity for him to attend the Kishinev summit. Save, probably,
for an opportunity to meet with Medvedev. On the other hand, Bakiyev
met with Sergei Naryshkin of Medvedev’s Presidential Administration
in Bishkek on October 6, so that it could obviate the necessity of
seeking a rendezvous with the Russian president himself.
Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan has just seen Nicholas Sarkozy off
and there is nothing to compel him to go to Kishinev either. Besides,
Nazarbayev discussed "cooperation with CIS countries" with Russian
president’s advisor Victor Chernomyrdin yesterday. As for a meeting
with the Russian president, the two leaders are scheduled to meet on
a shooting range in Kazakhstan on October 16 where a joint exercise
of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization will culminate. In
fact, other CSTO leaders are expected there too so that there is no
need for Nazarbayev to subject himself to inconveniences of travelling.
All of that also applies to Emomali Rakhmon of Tajikistan. First,
he will also meet with his CIS opposite numbers in Kazakhstan on
October 16. Second, he already discussed everything he thought
had to be discussed with Sergei Stepashin of the Russian Auditing
Commission in Dushanbe last week. (Rakhmon and Stepashin go back to
the period of the Tajik civil war in the 1990s.) Third, his state
visit to Russia is scheduled for a few weeks from now. Last but not
the least, Rakhmon is expected in Ashkhabad these days where energy
cooperation with Turkmenistan will be discussed. That energy is more
interesting – and potentially rewarding – than boring CIS matters
need not be said. Also importantly, there is the subject of water
to be remembered. Barely days ago the Turkmen president dropped a
bombshell on its Central Asian neighbors (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and
Kyrgyzstan) and said that they should start paying Turkmenistan for
the water they used for irrigation purposes. Central Asian countries
are still catching their breath and formulating a response. Kyrgyzstan
for one is a country supplying water to its neighbors too.
What really counts, however, is that what we are witnessing is a
demonstration that the Commonwealth is dismissed by its members as
something immaterial. CIS leaders do not regard it as a structure
existing to facilitate political coordination. Already demoted to the
status of a "presidential club", CIS summits seem to be losing even it.
PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:
PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon
CONSULTATION ON INTERFAITH ISSUES IN ANTELIAS
During October 14-15 2009, His Holiness Aram I held a meeting at the
Catholicosate in Antelias to discuss ways for strengthening the contribution
of women in interfaith dialogue internationally and regionally. For this
occasion he had invited Mr. Mohammad Sammak, Advisor to the Grand Mufti of
Lebanon, Secretary General of the Lebanese Committee of Christian-Muslim
Dialogue, Secretary General of the Executive Arab Group for Christian-Muslim
Dialogue, and Member of the King Abdul Aziz Centre for National Dialogue,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He had also invited Mrs. Teny Pirri-Simonian, Vice-
President of the Ecumenical Relations Committee of the Catholicosate of
Cilicia, Director of the European Project for Interreligious Learning, and
member NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns at the
United Nations Geneva.
The current meeting was a follow-up to the symposium held in Antelias in
February 2009, under the auspices of His Holiness Aram I. The symposium was
organized by the European Project for Interreligious Learning, headquarters
in Switzerland. The recent meeting identified ways through which women’s
vision and experiences in dialogue could be heard and given visibility.
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the Ecumenical
activities of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician
Catholicosate, the administrative center of the church is located in
Antelias, Lebanon.
Serzh Sargsyan on Armenia-Diaspora cooperation
News.am
12:52 / 10/15/2009
RA President Serzh Sargsyan withheld comments on the Nagorno Karabakh
problem during his Oct. 14 visit to Bursa, Turkey, as his Turkish
counterpart Abdullah Gul underlined the significance of progress in
the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. OSCE Minsk Group U.S., Russian
and French Co-Chairs on Nagorno-Karabakh are making every effort to
resolve the conflict, ITAR TASS reports quoting Gul’s words.
Serzh Sargsyan tactfully refused to comment on the issue. The Armenian
leader touched upon the Armenian-Diaspora cooperation abroad, which,
despite the Armenia-Turkey normalization process, demands that Turkey
admit the Armenian Genocide.
As NEWS.am previously reported Armenian and Turkish Presidents had
an opportunity to talk to the representatives of local Armenian
communities, who are the descendents of the Genocide victims.
YEREVAN TO HOST FIFTH CHILDREN’S AND YOUTH FILM FESTIVAL ON OCTOBER 15-19
PanARMENIAN.Net
14.10.2009 18:40 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On October 15-19, Yerevan will host the Fifth
International Children’s and Youth Film Festival. After film
presentations in Yerevan, events will be organized in Nagorno Karabakh
Republic. Thereafter, festival organizers will conduct a 40-day trip
to various regions of Armenia.
Festival will bring together outstanding representatives of television
and cinema art, including script writer and director Karen Shahnazarov,
renowned journalist and TV reporter Alexander Gordon, famous Russian
artist, pianist Levon Oganezov, script writer and actor Tigran
Keosayan, producer and director, General Director of "GOLD VISION"
agency David Keosayan and other outstanding personalities who have
made their contribution to the development of cinematography and
TV industry.
Guests will conduct master classes in schools.
The fifth jubilee anniversary envisages premium presentations of
films, as well as meetings with spectators and renowned Armenian
artistes. Within festival frameworks, it is also planned to celebrate
the 80th birthday anniversary of Sos Sargsyan, Yervand Manaryan and
Rolan Bykov.
For opening and closing ceremonies, organizers have prepared special
surprise related to the creative art of renowned Armenia animator
Robert Sahakyants.
SERZH SARGSYAN TO MEET WITH ARMENIAN FOOTBALL TEAM BEFORE ARMENIA-TURKEY MATCH
Tert.am
16:47 14.10.09
Armenian president spokesperson Samvel Farmanyan stated today that
Serzh Sargsyan has made an official decision to visit Turkey.
He said the president is leaving for the Turkish city of Bursa
today upon Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s invitation to watch the
Armenia-Turkey football match.
Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, Deputy Foreign Ministers
Arman Kirakosyan and Shavarsh Kocharyan, and other high state officials
of the president’s staff and foreign ministry will be leaving for
Turkey together with the president. A number of journalists will also
accompany the president.
According to Farmanyan, while in Bursa, Sargyan will firstly meet
with the Armenian national team players to motivate them before
the game. Sargsyan will have a face-to-face meeting with the Turkish
president in Bursa. A meeting with the larger delegation will also take
place. A luncheon and reception on behalf of the Turkish president
will be organized in Bursa in honour of Sargsyan. The delegation
headed by Sargsyan will return to Yerevan after the match.
As informed by the Armenian president press office, this is Sargsyan’s
first visit to Turkey and, in general, the fourth visit to Turkey
since independence by a president of the Republic of Armenia.
Republic of Armenia’s first president, Levon Ter-Petrossian, visited
Turkey twice, in 1992 and 1993, and second Armenian president, Robert
Kocharian, made a visit to Turkey in 1999.
UNDERSTANDING THE GREEKS OF TURKEY
Today’s Zaman
14 October 2009, Wednesday
Understanding the Greeks of Turkey – Being in Turkey, cultural and
religious diversity is definitely an issue worth exploring. The
colorful mix of mosques, synagogues and churches, often found
side-by-side on a single street, probably fascinates many visitors —
and it still says much about the multitude of different communities
that have shaped life in the region over the past centuries.
Being in Turkey, cultural and religious diversity is definitely
an issue worth exploring. The colorful mix of mosques, synagogues
and churches, often found side-by-side on a single street, probably
fascinates many visitors — and it still says much about the multitude
of different communities that have shaped life in the region over
the past centuries.
This week, Today’s Zaman wants to have a look at the Turkish Greek
community in particular. Along with the Armenians and Jews, they
form one of the three minorities officially recognized by today’s
Turkish government.
But how did it actually come to that? The Greek minority in Turkey
is a remnant of a once much larger community — the so-named Greek
Orthodox Church, a Christian denomination which today comprises
five administrative jurisdictions: the Ecumenical Patriarchate
of Constantinople (now Istanbul), the Patriarchate of Alexandria,
the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Church of Cyprus and the Church
of Greece. Within the larger communion of Orthodox churches, which
all emerged in the early years of the Byzantine Empire, these five
churches share a common cultural tradition and conduct their liturgy
in Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament.
During the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Greek Orthodox Christians
were recognized as a separate "millet," a kind of legally protected
religious minority group in the empire’s governmental system. They
were free to run their own religious, cultural and educational
institutions and thus soon came to play a significant role in the
social, p c life of the empire. Especially in the 17th and 18th
centuries, actually a period of apparent decline and loss of power for
the Ottomans, the Greeks were sought after for their administrative,
technical and financial skills. The Phanariotes especially, a class
of wealthy Greeks of Byzantine aristocratic origin who lived in the
Phanar (now Fener) district of Constantinople, became increasingly
powerful as merchants, bankers and diplomats and went on to exercise
great influence in the administration of the Ottoman Empire’s Balkan
domains in particular. It is said that a good 1,700 Greeks filled
some of the highest offices of the Ottoman state at that time.
The leader of the Greek community within the empire officially became
the ecumenical patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, which was moved
to the Fener district in 1586, to the Church of St. George. In fact,
at that time the sultan regarded the ecumenical patriarch as the leader
of all Orthodox people, Greeks or not, within the empire and thus, it
had, indeed, considerable financial and political influence. Today,
the patriarchate complex includes the authorization offices, the
patriarchate library, the financial offices and the public enterprises
of the patriarchate and the Cathedral Church of St. George. The
church is definitely worth visiting. It is especially famous for its
priceless artifacts and relics, which include the patriarchal throne,
believed to date from the fifth century; three rare mosaic icons;
a fragment of the Pillar of the Flagellation to which Jesus was tied
and whipped; and the coffins of three saints.
Still, the Fener district is surely one of the most fruitful places
for those keen on discovering the Greek Orthodox past and present
in Turkey. The Greek High School for Boys on the top of Fener hill,
for instance, has always been an important educational institution
to educate young Greeks for Ottoman bureaucracy and orthodox clergy
as well. The Yoakimyon High School for Girls and Marasli Greek
Elementary School next to the patriarchate can also be found in
the district. Further on you will come across a couple of smaller,
more or less well-preserved churches, and you can still find a few
of the typical, small Greek single-family houses, recognizable by
their finely decorated facades.
Indeed, Greek life was flourishing under Ottoman rule, and it
was not only restricted to Istanbul. Great numbers of Greeks also
lived in Thrace and in Asia Minor, around the Mediterranean shore in
particular. All together they formed an estimated 2.5 million at the
end of the empire.
However, something was about to change. Resentment between t er been
uncommon and increased noticeably. The patriarch couldn’t encourage
projects of Greek renaissance and dreams of former Byzantine nobility
in the face of the Ottoman Empire’s increasing loss of power at the
end of the 20th century.
Already apparent in the late 19th century, political instability,
dire economic conditions and continuing ethnic tensions prompted the
emigration of many Greeks to other countries. Thus, by the time the
agreement for the so-called population exchange was signed between the
governments of Greece and Turkey in 1923 to end the Greco-Turkish War
and to constitute the borders of the newly founded republic under the
Treaty of Lausanne, many Greeks had already fled the country. However,
the treaty included further exchanges and the expulsion of about
500,000 Turks from Greece and about 1,500,000 Greeks from Asia Minor
and eastern Thrace to Greece. An estimated 200,000 Greeks located in
Ä°stanbul and eastern Thrace were permitted to stay.
Experience Turkish-Greek history in Kayaköy
Still, these events are a very complicated chapter in Turkish-Greek
relations and they were surely linked to much suffering — on both
sides. Those, however, who want to dig a bit deeper into the whole
matter may travel to a small place named Kayaköy, located a good 10
kilometers from Fethiye on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. A ghost
town and museum village today, its ruins still tell the story of
its former mainly Greek inhabitants, who had to leave the place in
the course of these historic events. Prepare yourself with the novel
"Birds without Wings," written by Louis de Berniéres in 2004. The
fascinating novel tells the fictive story of Kayaköy based on very
well-researched and sensitively prepared historical background facts.
Today, according to a report on religious minorities in Turkey
prepared by the Turkish Foreign Ministry in December 2008, there are
around 3,000-4,000 Greeks left in Turkey today, the majority of whom
reside in Ä°stanbul, as well as on the two islands at the western e
" and "Tenedos" in Greek language), and on the Princes’ Islands —
the places which had been excluded at that time from the population
exchange. All in all, the community runs some 108 churches, 90 of
which are open for worship, and currently has 15 elementary schools
and six high schools in use, all of which are located in Ä°stanbul.
PRESS RELEASE
Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
138 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 689-7810
Fax: (212) 689-7168
Email: [email protected]
Website:
Contact: Iris Papazian
October 14, 2009
St. Illuminator’s Cathedral Reopens After Undergoing Year-Long Renovation
By IRIS PAPAZIAN
Photos by Bedros Yessaian
NEW YORK, NY-It was a glorious weekend for the Eastern Prelacy of the
Armenian Apostolic Church of America as St. Illuminator’s Cathedral in New
York City reopened with impressive services on September 19 and 20.
Founded in 1915, St. Illuminator’s, the first Armenian Cathedral in the
United States, has a rich history of service to the Armenian community in
the aftermath of the genocide, the Great Depression, and two World Wars.
The Cathedral has been undergoing extensive renovations for more than
one year. The sanctuary is complete except for some finishing artistic
touches. Work on the renovated hall and offices is continuing and a
completely re-designed exterior and interior front entrance will be
completed during the coming months.
Re-Consecration of Altar
Saturday evening, His Eminence Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan, the Prelate
of the Eastern Prelacy, re-consecrated the Cathedral’s altar, as well as two
new candle altars and two icons donated by Mr. and Mrs. Edward and Carmen
Gulbenkian. Also consecrated were the five new crystal chandeliers and
various liturgical items such as crosses, altar covers, censor, pitcher, a
set of complete vestments for the celebrant, and a handmade silver and gold
chalice with cover, a gift from the Prelacy.
The familiar and beloved altar painting of the Mother of God with the
infant Jesus, by Arshag Fetvadjian, continues to grace the altar.
Clergy attending and participating in the Saturday services included:
His Grace Bishop Anoushavan Tanielian, Vicar of the Prelacy; Archpriest Fr.
Moushegh Der Kalousdian, Pastor Emeritus of the Cathedral; Archpriest Arshag
Daghlian from North Andover, Massachusetts, who is retired but continues to
serve as an outreach priest; Rev. Fr. Mesrob Lakissian, pastor of the
Cathedral; Rev. Fr. Nareg Terterian, pastor of St. Sarkis Church,
Douglaston, New York; and Rev. Fr. Hovnan Bozoian, pastor of Sts. Vartanantz
Church, Ridgefield, New Jersey.
In his message on Saturday, His Eminence praised the Cathedral’s
faithful parishioners for their dedication through the years. He expressed
thanks to the donors who made the renovation possible and the members of the
building committee, headed by Setrak Agonian, who facilitated and guided the
renovation, encountering many unexpected "surprises" along the way which
added to the time and expense of the renovation. The Prelate noted how it
was the Cathedral community that helped the survivors after 1915 as they
arrived year after year in a new land with no possessions or resources
except the will to start over again. Many of the survivors relocated in the
vicinity of the Cathedral and that area became known as "Little Armenia."
During the Second World War, the Cathedral saw many of her sons and
daughters leave to fight foreign tyranny and when the war ended the
Cathedral once again opened her arms to welcome refugees from communist
countries who were living in camps and were saved by the American National
Committee for Homeless Armenians (ANCHA). In a partnership between ANCHA and
the Armenian Relief Society (ARS), the Cathedral became their stepping stone
to the new world. Mr. Agonian, who as a young boy was rescued by ANCHA, and
is now a successful businessman, a leader in the International Olympics
committee, and chairman of the Cathedral’s Building Committee, recalled
those days. "I was 16 years old, and my mother and I arrived with almost no
possessions. This Church welcomed us, fed us, and helped us get settled in a
new life. Of course I am going to help now; this Cathedral is our Ellis
Island," he said. Many others in attendance who were aided by ANCHA echoed
the same sentiments.
Divine Liturgy on Sunday
On Sunday, Archbishop Oshagan celebrated the Divine Liturgy and
delivered the sermon to an overflow crowd of parishioners and friends. His
Eminence spoke about the significance of the Mayr Yegheghetzi (Mother
Church). "The Cathedral," he said, "has been a faithful and doting mother to
us. She has nurtured our wounds at the time of distress and has shared our
happiness in our moments of joy." He recalled how the Mayr Yegheghetzi kept
the Christian faith vibrant in the lives of her children, and the national
dream alive, including the symbols of statehood like the tri-colored flag.
"This Church and our Prelacy kept our dream alive and never wavered," His
Eminence said.
The Prelate warmly welcomed the newly appointed ambassador of Armenia to
the United Nations, His Excellency Garen Nazarian, and wished him success in
his important assignment.
Cathedral’s Priest is Honored
The Prelate read an encyclical from His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of
the Great House of Cilicia, granting Rev. Fr. Mesrob Lakissian, the
Cathedral’s pastor, the honor of wearing the Pectoral Cross on special
occasions. The Prelate presented a beautiful cross to the grateful Der Hayr.
Requiem Service for Clergy
Requiem Services were held for His Holiness Karekin I, on the tenth
anniversary of his passing, and for the past prelates and the priests who
served the Cathedral, including, Archbishop Hrant Khatchadourian, Archbishop
Mesrob Ashjian, V. Rev. Fr. Boghos Kaftanian, Rev. Fr. Matteos Mannigian,
Rev. Fr. Azaria Boyajian, Rev. Fr. Serovpe Nershabou, Rev. Fr. Bedros
Hagopian, Rev. Fr. Rupen Kapikian, Rev. Fr. Untzag Kazanjian, Rev. Fr.
Matteos Hekimian, Rev. Fr. Nishan Papazian, Rev. Fr. Mesrob Der
Hovannessian, Rev. Fr. Stepanos Garabedian, Rev. Fr. Arsen Simioniantz, Rev.
Fr. Khachadour Giragosian, Rev. Fr. Asoghik Kelejian, Rev. Fr. Nerses
Baboorian, Rev. Mampre Biberian, Rev. Fr. Ashot Kodjian.
Madagh Offered;
Eagle of Prelacy Awarded
After the conclusion of the Requiem Service, Madagh was blessed and
offered to the congregation gathered in the newly renovated hall. Attending
were many of the children of the survivor generation that had embraced the
Cathedral and kept her enriched with love and devotion. Many of those
first-generation children of the survivors were baptized in the Cathedral,
many were married there as well. They have since relocated to other areas
especially in New Jersey and Long Island, but their attachment to the
Cathedral remains fervent.
Archbishop Oshagan presented the highest Prelacy award, "The Eagle of
the Prelacy," to Mr. Agonian, chairman of the building committee, for his
extraordinary service to the Cathedral and community. With concise and
moving words Mr. Agonian accepted the award and expressed his love for the
Armenian Church and St. Illuminator’s Cathedral. He called upon all to rally
around the Cathedral to keep her vibrant and strong. "Let us complete this
renovation so in five years we can celebrate the Cathedral’s Centennial
anniversary proudly and with the secure knowledge that the Cathedral,
renewed in spirit and structure, will continue her service for another
hundred years."
Mrs. Lalique Vartanian, chair of the Cathedral’s Board of Trustees,
expressed her heartfelt thanks to the many people who made this day possible
and she asked for the continued support and encouragement of parishioners
and friends.
Ambassador Garen Nazarian expressed congratulations to Archbishop
Oshagan and to Rev. Fr. Mesrob Lakissian. He noted that this is a special
time in Armenia. "Tomorrow is the 18th anniversary of the independence of
Armenia and today all of the churches in Armenia are offering special
prayers for the Republic."
Rev. Fr. Mesrob expressed heartfelt thanks to His Holiness Aram I, and
to the Prelate Archbishop Oshagan, for the honor bestowed upon him. He
thanked the donors to the building fund and noted that 90% of the work is
complete and the remaining 10% will be completed within the next few months.
For all those who are eternally linked to the Mayr Yegeghetzi through
personal memories both joyful and sad, this weekend was a crowing moment in
the long and rich history of St. Illuminator’s Cathedral strengthened by the
grace of the Holy Spirit.
ARMENIA-TURKEY PROTOCOLS SHORTSIGHTED
f/interviews/265-armenia-turkey-protocols-shortsig hted.html
Wednesday, 07 October 2009 00:00
Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the executive branch and
their majority in parliament are for signing the Armenia-Turkey
protocols. It seems nothing stands in their way especially since
their representatives constantly say that given the population’s
grave socio-economic situation, it is obvious that they support the
signing since that is the only way to have the border open.First,
there are more dignified ways to arrive at an open border, I’m
certain of that. Today, it’s obvious that both in Armenia, and in the
Diaspora the general mood is quite apparent. In Armenia, as a result of
discussions, however superficial, and after Serge Sargsian’s foreign
visits, it’s obvious that there is a great deal of resistance to this
initiative. As a result of this process, whose dangers were apparent
to me early on, our nation finds itself in a complicated situation,
from which the government is not trying to extricate itself; rather,
it’s further intensifying it.At the beginning of the Armenia-Turkey
process, the political forces were reserved in their comments,
and the pitfalls did not seem obvious to many. Was it possible to
avoid publicizing these documents and to take the process in anothe
r direction?Of course it was possible, but what we have today is the
worst-case scenario. First, the process went public, which on the one
hand enticed the Turkish side to exploit the process for its own sake,
and as a result, important countries with differing interests engaged
at very high levels. Second, the Armenian government succumbed to
artificial and senseless timetables which served the interests of
other countries. On April 22, they made a statement which provided
President Obama with the opportunity not to use the term ‘genocide’;
then came the premature publicizing of these protocols with a date
for signing that would give Serzh Sargsyan the justification he needs
to attend the football game in Turkey.
As a result of the administration’s miscalculations and their ignoring
obvious realities, we have today two very serious problems. First,
a hasty and badly negotiated document which even in the case of
the most pragmatic interpretation, goes counter to our national
interests. Second, a continuing and unpredictable process on which
the Republic of Armenia has zero leverage and influence.Today it’s a
fact that as a result of those documents there is serious tension,
to say the least, in our society. Therefore, there is a serious
problem with this document, right? But to pull off such an agreement
with Turkey, it would have been necessary to enjoy serious majority
support. Today, not only is there=2 0no such support, but the contrary
is true. The authorities had no right to put our people in such
a situation.Mr. Oskanian, your criticism can leave the impression
that there is some jealousy or envy.Any fair-thinking individual
would realize that the man who is to sign this document is not to be
envied. Further, those who are forced to explain away my criticism by
calling it jealousy do so because they can’t publicly accept their
own failures, and it turns out they’re well aware that they’re in
a difficult situation. During the president’s closed-door meetings
with the Diaspora, eve government representatives said that this is
a badly negotiated document, but because it’s already on the table,
they are forced to defend it. But I would like to point out that
this is not something like a tax-legislation package that we can
say is not so great, but we can pass it, and then later see about
improving it. This is that critical document which assesses our past
and pre-determines our future.But those who defend the documents say
that there are no pre-conditions in the protocols and even stress
that the words ‘genocide’ or ‘Karabakh’ are not even there.Did they
really think that there, black on white, it was supposed to say that we
renounce the genocide issue and Karabakh, too? Those who defend this
document, who resist seeing the obvious realities, would, I suppose,
f ind ways to prove their position even if that were the case. You
know, if some people don’t wish to see reality, that doesn’t mean
that reality does not exist. With these protocols, the Turks have seen
expressed their 17 years of preconditions – a commission that studies
historic events and documents, and recognition of borders. In fact,
since ‘making news’ and ‘taking initiative’ are in vogue in Armenia
these days, let me assure you that by signing these protocols,
Armenia will indeed be the first in the world in one thing – in the
history of diplomacy, there are no other protocols which affirm the
recognition of existing borders; there is no such principle in the
world. There are more than 190 countries in the world and nearly that
many territorial disputes. Those countries have diplomatic relations,
recognize each other’s territorial integrity, without confirming each
other’s borders, or at least not formulated in such a way. Today, when
Aliyev can stand on the lands of Nakhichevan and insolently proclaim
that Zangezur is Azerbaijani territory, Armenia’s recognizing Turkey’s
present borders is simply political shortsightedness. So, these two
preconditions are in fact in this document; while the other one –
about Karabakh – is something that Erdogan reminds us about daily. No
matter how much the Armenian government insists that NK is not a
preco ndition, no matter how often the co-chairs insist that NK is
not a precondition, at the end of the day, who is it who will open
the border – the same person who is announcing that NK is indeed a
precondition.Today there are some who analyze the domestic political
situation, and issues related to democratization and conclude that all
this facilitates foreign pressure on Armenia.You know, in 18 years,
democracy in Armenia has never been in an enviable state. I was foreign
minister for 10 years and I can assure all those who don’t know, as
well as all those who know but wish to mislead the public, that the
international community cannot force a government to take steps it
does not wish to take. And those who wish to justify the government’s
foreign policy by invoking the idea of foreign pressure, they are
simply aiding in the implementation of this flawed policy.Nevertheless,
responding to your criticism, many respond by saying that Armenia was
seriously weakened after the last presidential election, after the
events of March 1, and thus it became easier for the international
community and the superpowers to push the Armenian government to
take steps which assume greater risk. And in this context, there
is often mention of your share of the guilt.Every government since
independence bears some guilt for Armenia’s unenviable international
situation. Some more, some less. But if we only engage in demagogery
and accusations and counter-accusations, Armenia’s problems will not
be solved. That only justifies today’s failures, both domestic and
foreign. Yes, the domestic situation does have a determining effect,
but not because it brings on foreign pressures. When there are so many
domestic problems, political divisions, serious economic challenges,
problems with democracy, all of which cannot be resolved by opening
the border, and you add to these this new situation, we will be faced
with challenges which we will not be able to withstand unless we have
a unified society and a government which enjoys the public’s categoric
support.You mean the challenges involved in the Karabakh resolution
process?Yes, and today those who insist that the Armenia-Turkey process
is not linked to the Karabakh process are fooling themselves. I have
no other explanation. I don’t exclude the possibility that Turkey
will open the border before the Karabakh issue has reached a final
resolution. But I do exclude the possibility that they will do so
without having received the assurances of the main actors about the
return of territories and a resolution of the Karabakh status issue
that is to Azerbaijan’s liking. This is the most worrisome. The
government’s insistence that the process is not linked to Karabakh
or that these are really good documents raises serious questions in
my mind about the soundness of the authoritiesE2 judgments. When they
really don’t see anything to worry about, then there is reason to worry
that tomorrow, in the Karabakh process too, the worse formulations
also won’t be a source of concern for them.Mr. Oskanian, there is also
criticism aimed your way saying that both the current Armenia-Turkey
negotiations, as well as the Karabakh document on the table today,
were born in your days in office.The shortest answer to that question
is that this kind of public, high-level Turkey-Armenia process that
is taking place today and that could bring upon us serious pressures
on the Karabakh issue did not exist in our day. That’s an irrefutable
fact. As to the Karabakh document, it is supposed to be the basis for
negotiations, not for hasty solutions. Neither in the Armenia-Turkey
case, nor in the case of Karabakh, have we brought any documents
to the public for their consideration. Therefore such criticism is
baseless.There are also claims that the dangers that this process may
bring for the NK issue are theoretical, but that an open border is
essential, and will come at a cost.That’s the whole issue – at what
price. Today they are trying to offer us two erroneous assumptions:
one is that the open border is our only salvation. Without at all
disputing that an open border is far better than a closed border,
let’s also admit that Armenia’s internal, systemic economic and=2
0political problems are so many that even partially solving even
a few of those problems would have incomparably greater economic
effect than an open border. Those problems have nothing to do with
a closed border. Further, the open border will not have a direct
impact on the life of the average citizen, or will have only a small
and short-lived effect, because the opening of the border will also
bring with it a variety of economic challenges which will be possible
to address only when there is rule of law in our country and not the
countless problems which we have today. In exchange for an open border,
such capitulation would have been understandable only if Armenia’s
very existence depended on it. Is it possible that some people think
that we are in that kind of desperate situation?The second erroneous
assumption is that the open border is as necessary for us as the air
we breathe and the water we drink, and therefore we must pay that
price. With the policies of the past, Armenia has proven countless
ways that the Turkish blockade cannot bring us to our knees. The
country was experiencing economic growth, there were no concessions
in the NK question, and the genocide recognition process was moving
forward at a rapid pace and that of course was the source of greatest
concern for Turkey.
In that sense, we had a great negotiating advantage over Turkey. It is
Turkey that is under European pressure reg arding opening the border,
Turkey’s eastern regions are suffering economically, and they need
the open border no less than us. It is Turkey that wishes to play a
regional role, and without an open border that is not possible. Each
year, it is Turkey that faces the ‘danger’ of possible US recognition
of the genocide, and finally, it is the Turkish leadership that has
announced a policy of zero problems with neighbors.
Today we have given Turkey the opportunity to implement that policy
at our expense. Had we taken all these factors into consideration,
we could have been a bit more patient and implemented a more prudent
diplomacy, so that we could have a more desirable outcome sooner or
later. Instead, rather than taking advantage of the situation, the
Armenian side has not only agreed to all the preconditions, but has
also given Turkey the right to unilaterally determine the opening of
the border.Nevertheless, many insist that even if we accept that the
process did not evolve in a way that would have been most beneficial
for us, there is no way out now, and the only thing to do is to
conclude the process.If there is the desire to recognize a mistake and
correct it, then it’s always possible to find a way out. After all, in
Turkey and in the US, and in Europe, they are following the resistance
that has been demonstrated both in Armenia and in the Diaspora. It is
possible to cite that resistance, and even go to watch the football
game, but ask for a ‘time-out’ as far as signing the protocols is
concerned, and then, under more comfortable circumstances, return
to a confidential, not public format of meetings, and negotiate a
more acceptable document. Everything can be put on the right path,
if, of course, there is a desire to do so and not to, at all costs,
prove that one is right.Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the
executive branch and their majority in parliament are for signing
the Armenia-Turkey protocols. It seems nothing stands in their way
especially since their representatives constantly say that given the
population’s grave socio-economic situation, it is obvious that they
support the signing since that is the only way to have the border open.
First, there are more dignified ways to arrive at an open border, I’m
certain of that. Today, it’s obvious that both in Armenia, and in the
Diaspora the general mood is quite apparent. In Armenia, as a result of
discussions, however superficial, and after Serge Sargsian’s foreign
visits, it’s obvious that there is a great deal of resistance to this
initiative. As a result of this process, whose dangers were apparent
to me early on, our nation finds itself in a complicated situation,
from which the government is not trying to extricate itself; rather,
it’s further intensifying it.
At20the beginning of the Armenia-Turkey process, the political forces
were reserved in their comments, and the pitfalls did not seem obvious
to many.
Was it possible to avoid publicizing these documents and to take the
process in another direction?
Of course it was possible, but what we have today is the worst-case
scenario. First, the process went public, which on the one hand
enticed the Turkish side to exploit the process for its own sake,
and as a result, important countries with differing interests engaged
at very high levels.
Second, the Armenian government succumbed to artificial and senseless
timetables which served the interests of other countries. On April
22, they made a statement which provided President Obama with the
opportunity not to use the term ‘genocide’; then came the premature
publicizing of these protocols with a date for signing that would
give Serzh Sargsyan the justification he needs to attend the football
game in Turkey. As a result of the administration’s miscalculations
and their ignoring obvious realities, we have today two very serious
problems. First, a hasty and badly negotiated document which even in
the case of the most pragmatic interpretation, goes counter to our
national interests. Second, a continuing and unpredictable process
on which the Republic of Armenia has zero leverage and influence.
Today it’s a fact that as a result of those documents there is serious
tension, to say the least, in our society. Therefore, there is a
serious problem with this document, right? But to pull off such an
agreement with Turkey, it would have been necessary to enjoy serious
majority support. Today, not only is there no such support, but the
contrary is true. The authorities had no right to put our people in
such a situation.
Mr. Oskanian, your criticism can leave the impression that there is
some jealousy or envy.
Any fair-thinking individual would realize that the man who is to sign
this document is not to be envied. Further, those who are forced to
explain away my criticism by calling it jealousy do so because they
can’t publicly accept their own failures, and it turns out they’re well
aware that they’re in a difficult situation. During the president’s
closed-door meetings with the Diaspora, eve government representatives
said that this is a badly negotiated document, but because it’s already
on the table, they are forced to defend it. But I would like to point
out that this is not something like a tax-legislation package that
we can say is not so great, but we can pass it, and then later see
about improving it. This is that critical document which assesses
our past and pre-determines our future.
But those who defend the documents say that there are no pre-conditions
in the protocols and even stress that the words ‘genocide’ or
‘Karabakh’=2 0are not even there.
Did they really think that there, black on white, it was supposed
to say that we renounce the genocide issue and Karabakh, too? Those
who defend this document, who resist seeing the obvious realities,
would, I suppose, find ways to prove their position even if that
were the case. You know, if some people don’t wish to see reality,
that doesn’t mean that reality does not exist. With these protocols,
the Turks have seen expressed their 17 years of preconditions – a
commission that studies historic events and documents, and recognition
of borders. In fact, since ‘making news’ and ‘taking initiative’ are
in vogue in Armenia these days, let me assure you that by signing these
protocols, Armenia will indeed be the first in the world in one thing –
in the history of diplomacy, there are no other protocols which affirm
the recognition of existing borders; there is no such principle in the
world. There are more than 190 countries in the world and nearly that
many territorial disputes. Those countries have diplomatic relations,
recognize each other’s territorial integrity, without confirming each
other’s borders, or at least not formulated in such a way. Today, when
Aliyev can stand on the lands of Nakhichevan and insolently proclaim
that Zangezur is Azerbaijani territory, Armenia’s recognizing Turkey’s
present borders is simply political shortsightedne ss. So, these two
preconditions are in fact in this document; while the other one – about
Karabakh – is something that Erdogan reminds us about daily. No matter
how much the Armenian government insists that NK is not a precondition,
no matter how often the co-chairs insist that NK is not a precondition,
at the end of the day, who is it who will open the border – the same
person who is announcing that NK is indeed a precondition.
Today there are some who analyze the domestic political situation,
and issues related to democratization and conclude that all this
facilitates foreign pressure on Armenia.
You know, in 18 years, democracy in Armenia has never been in an
enviable state. I was foreign minister for 10 years and I can assure
all those who don’t know, as well as all those who know but wish to
mislead the public, that the international community cannot force
a government to take steps it does not wish to take. And those who
wish to justify the government’s foreign policy by invoking the idea
of foreign pressure, they are simply aiding in the implementation of
this flawed policy.
Nevertheless, responding to your criticism, many respond by saying
that Armenia was seriously weakened after the last presidential
election, after the events of March 1, and thus it became easier for
the international community and the superpowers to push the Armenian
government to take steps which assume greater risk. And in this
context, there is often mention of your share of the guilt.
Every government since independence bears some guilt for Armenia’s
unenviable international situation. Some more, some less. But if we
only engage in demagogery and accusations and counter-accusations,
Armenia’s problems will not be solved. That only justifies today’s
failures, both domestic and foreign. Yes, the domestic situation
does have a determining effect, but not because it brings on foreign
pressures. When there are so many domestic problems, political
divisions, serious economic challenges, problems with democracy,
all of which cannot be resolved by opening the border, and you add
to these this new situation, we will be faced with challenges which
we will not be able to withstand unless we have a unified society
and a government which enjoys the public’s categoric support.
You mean the challenges involved in the Karabakh resolution process?
Yes, and today those who insist that the Armenia-Turkey process is
not linked to the Karabakh process are fooling themselves. I have
no other explanation. I don’t exclude the possibility that Turkey
will open the border before the Karabakh issue has reached a final
resolution. But I do exclude the possibility that they will do so
without having received the assurances of the main actors about the
return of territories and a resolution of the Karabakh status issue
that is=2 0to Azerbaijan’s liking. This is the most worrisome. The
government’s insistence that the process is not linked to Karabakh
or that these are really good documents raises serious questions in
my mind about the soundness of the authorities’ judgments. When they
really don’t see anything to worry about, then there is reason to worry
that tomorrow, in the Karabakh process too, the worse formulations
also won’t be a source of concern for them.
Mr. Oskanian, there is also criticism aimed your way saying that
both the current Armenia-Turkey negotiations, as well as the Karabakh
document on the table today, were born in your days in office.
The shortest answer to that question is that this kind of public,
high-level Turkey-Armenia process that is taking place today and that
could bring upon us serious pressures on the Karabakh issue did not
exist in our day.
That’s an irrefutable fact. As to the Karabakh document, it is supposed
to be the basis for negotiations, not for hasty solutions. Neither in
the Armenia-Turkey case, nor in the case of Karabakh, have we brought
any documents to the public for their consideration. Therefore such
criticism is baseless.
There are also claims that the dangers that this process may bring for
the NK issue are theoretical, but that an open border is essential,
and will come at a cost.
That’s the whole issue – at what price. Today they are trying20to
offer us two erroneous assumptions: one is that the open border is
our only salvation. Without at all disputing that an open border
is far better than a closed border, let’s also admit that Armenia’s
internal, systemic economic and political problems are so many that
even partially solving even a few of those problems would have
incomparably greater economic effect than an open border. Those
problems have nothing to do with a closed border.
Further, the open border will not have a direct impact on the life
of the average citizen, or will have only a small and short-lived
effect, because the opening of the border will also bring with it
a variety of economic challenges which will be possible to address
only when there is rule of law in our country and not the countless
problems which we have today. In exchange for an open border, such
capitulation would have been understandable only if Armenia’s very
existence depended on it. Is it possible that some people think that
we are in that kind of desperate situation?
The second erroneous assumption is that the open border is as
necessary for us as the air we breathe and the water we drink, and
therefore we must pay that price. With the policies of the past,
Armenia has proven countless ways that the Turkish blockade cannot
bring us to our knees. The country was experiencing economic growth,
there were no concessions in the NK question,=2 0and the genocide
recognition process was moving forward at a rapid pace and that of
course was the source of greatest concern for Turkey. In that sense,
we had a great negotiating advantage over Turkey. It is Turkey that
is under European pressure regarding opening the border, Turkey’s
eastern regions are suffering economically, and they need the open
border no less than us. It is Turkey that wishes to play a regional
role, and without an open border that is not possible. Each year, it
is Turkey that faces the ‘danger’ of possible US recognition of the
genocide, and finally, it is the Turkish leadership that has announced
a policy of zero problems with neighbors. Today we have given Turkey
the opportunity to implement that policy at our expense. Had we taken
all these factors into consideration, we could have been a bit more
patient and implemented a more prudent diplomacy, so that we could
have a more desirable outcome sooner or later. Instead, rather than
taking advantage of the situation, the Armenian side has not only
agreed to all the preconditions, but has also given Turkey the right
to unilaterally determine the opening of the border.
Nevertheless, many insist that even if we accept that the process did
not evolve in a way that would have been most beneficial for us, there
is no way out now, and the only thing to do is to conclude the process.
If there is the desire to recogni ze a mistake and correct it, then
it’s always possible to find a way out. After all, in Turkey and
in the US, and in Europe, they are following the resistance that
has been demonstrated both in Armenia and in the Diaspora. It is
possible to cite that resistance, and even go to watch the football
game, but ask for a ‘time-out’ as far as signing the protocols is
concerned, and then, under more comfortable circumstances, return
to a confidential, not public format of meetings, and negotiate a
more acceptable document. Everything can be put on the right path,
if, of course, there is a desire to do so and not to, at all costs,
prove that one is right.
DESPITE REFUSAL OF YEREVAN MUNICIPALITY, ARF TO HOLD RALLY ON OCTOBER 16
NOYAN TAPAN
October 13, 2009
Yerevan
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 13, NOYAN TAPAN. The rally that ARF plans to hold in
Charles Aznavour Square on October 16 will take place, irrespective
of Yerevan Municipality’s decision, representative of the ARF Armenia
Supreme Body Armen Rustamian said.
The Yerevan Municipality on October 12 did not give its permission
for the ARF’s rally, explaining that another mass public event is
scheduled to take place on the day and in the place indicated in the
notification that ARF submitted to the municipality.
According to A. Rustamian who on October 9 officially notified the
municipality of the rally, the decision of Yerevan municipality is
"of a stereotyped nature and is imperfect as well". He said the
decision was taken in violation of the RA Law on Conducting Meetings,
Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations because in case of refusal,
the municipality was to propose an alternative, which it did not do.