Author: Hunanian Jack

Trend, Azerbaijan
Aug 17 2009

A number of facts about Azerbaijani history rigged on exhibition in
Washington

The United States, Washington, Aug. 17 /Trend News, N.Bogdanova/

A number of facts about Azerbaijani history were rigged on an
exhibition "The Tsar and East gifts from Turkey and Iran in the
Moscow, Kremlin" in Washington DC at the Smithsonian Institution.

The exhibition represents items of 15th-17-th centuries that were
given as a present by Safavid and Ottoman kings to Russian tsars.

Both on the information booklet and explanations under some items the
presents given to tsars by Safavid kings, (especially by Shah Ismail
1) are represented as "Iranian Safavid king’s presents given with the
help of ruling New Julfa Armenians".

The information also doesn’t state where exactly New Julfa belongs
to. It is just mention that in those years Armenian merchants were a
dominating the region of New Julfa and they had there trade
centers. The book published on the occasion of the exhibition says
that Armenians contained the majority of Safavid Imperia. There is no
any reminder about Azerbaijan in the book and at the exhibition.

Julfa is a city in the Eastern Azerbaijan Province of the
north-western Iran which is located in the border with Nakhchivan
Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan. Its administrative centre is the
Julfa city. Population numbers about 56,000 people (2006).

Julfa as the entire Nakhchivan-Zangazur region is a subject of dispute
between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenians claim to Julfa, seeking to
present this city to the world as an Armenian city.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding
districts. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in
1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the
U.S. – are currently holding the peace negotiations.

Sponsors of the exhibition are the LUKoil company, US-Russia business
Council and Russian-American Chamber of Trade. The exhibition is
organized by the Moscow Kremlin museums and the Arthur M.Sackler
Gallery, Smithsonian institute. The exhibition will last till
September 13th.

ANCA: US IMPLEMENTS POLICIES ON ARMENIA AS TURKEY DICTATES

PanARMENIAN.Net
21.08.2009 19:01 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)
Chairman Ken Hachikian today sent a letter to Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton outlining the concerns of the Armenian American
community regarding the recent biased remarks by Matt Bryza,
the U.S. Co-Chair to the OSCE Minsk Group charged with helping to
negotiate a settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

The four-page letter, dated August 20, 2009, addressed, in detail,
recent unfair, inaccurate, and counter-productive statements by Bryza,
and, more broadly, expressed the view that his actions reflect the
failings of an Administration that, having already broken a series of
pledges to Armenian Americans, is now in the process of effectively
handing over decision-making on U.S. policy on Armenian issues to
the Turkish government.

In the letter, Hachikian stressed: "Today, seven months after the start
of the Obama-Biden Administration, we are seriously concerned that
this Administration has abdicated its responsibilities by effectively
outsourcing our nation’s foreign policy with respect to Armenian
issues to the Republic of Turkey, as every single policy dealing with
Armenia has been made along the lines that Turkey has dictated, rather
than along the sound principles of morality and democracy that you,
President Obama and Vice President Biden unambiguously articulated
during your presidential campaigns last year."

The full text of the letter is provided below.

Dear Secretary Clinton, I am writing on behalf of the Armenian
National Committee of America (ANCA) to voice the Armenian American
community’s grave concerns regarding recent unfair, inaccurate,
and counter-productive statements by the U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE
Minks Group, Matthew Bryza, regarding the Republics of Armenia and
Nagorno Karabagh.

Mr. Bryza’s recent actions as a part of the Obama-Biden Administration,
as well as his past conduct during his time as Deputy Assistant
Secretary, as U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, as a senior
National Security Council staff member, and as an Eurasian energy
advisor for the Department, reflect a pattern of consistent, material,
and transparent bias against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. His behavior
in the months since President Obama’s inauguration are especially
troubling because they stand in such dramatic contrast to the public
commitments that the President, Vice President, and that you made to
the American electorate during the 2008 Presidential campaign.

As you may know, the ANCA has consistently registered public concerns
regarding Mr. Bryza’s biased diplomacy on Armenia-related matters,
including his pro-Azerbaijani bias in the Nagorno Karabagh peace
process and his longstanding role as a promoter of U.S. complicity in
Turkey’s denials of the Armenian Genocide. Our community’s attention
was again drawn to his representation of our government’s policies
following a speech he delivered, on August 7, 2009, in Tsakhkadzor,
Armenia, as well as by news reports that he is being considered as
a candidate to serve as our next Ambassador to Azerbaijan. In his
remarks in Tsakhkadzor, Mr. Bryza, once again, made a number of
statements that directly contradict the President’s pledge to work
toward a "lasting and durable settlement Nagorno Karabagh conflict
that is agreeable to all parties, and based upon America’s founding
commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination."

Most notably, Mr. Bryza has argued that the fatally flawed Madrid
principles are a balanced set of concessions, when, at their heart,
they represent nothing more than a major, irreversible, up-front
concession of fundamental security on the part of the Armenian side
with only a vague promise that some undefined process, involving
undetermined actors, will take place regarding Nagorno Karabagh’s
status, according to his own words, "at some point" in the future.

The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, has made it painfully
clear that he will not even honor this weakly worded and effectively
meaningless expectation. President Aliyev has chosen to reserve his
public comments for threats of renewed aggression and assurances that,
even if Armenia were to surrender territories, "it may take a year,
maybe 10 years, maybe 100 years, or it will never be possible" to
reach the point where Azerbaijan would consent to a mere "discussion"
of Nagorno Karabagh’s status.

This "compromise" is not a fair deal, but rather a one-sided surrender
of Nagorno Karabagh’s rights, status, and security, in large measure,
engineered by Mr. Bryza. This settlement, which would cement Armenia
into profound strategic and military disadvantages and ensure continued
regional instability, is, at present, being imposed upon the Armenian
people through the full force and leverage of the U.S. government.

In his remarks, Mr. Bryza compounded his biased defense of these
flawed principles by falsely claiming that the Azerbaijani side
has made a "concession" by agreeing to merely discuss the matter of
Nagorno Karabagh’s self-determination. The fact is that Azerbaijan
has neither the moral right nor the practical ability to grant
either freedom or independence to Nagorno Karabagh. He also, during
the question and answer period, assigned to the people of Nagorno
Karabagh a second-tier right to self-determination, one that requires
the assent of Azerbaijan, as opposed to the right to independence
enjoyed today by the people of Kosovo and recognized officially by
the U.S. government despite the objections of Serbia.

Also of profound concern in Mr. Bryza’s comments at Tsakhkadzor was
his false assertion that Nagorno Karabagh’s exclusion from the OSCE
Minsk Group peace process was driven by Armenia’s request to the
others parties to the negotiations. This is simply not the case.

In addition to the concerns I have outlined regarding Mr. Bryza’s
recent comments, we remain seriously troubled that he has continued
to stand in the way of broad-based dialogue between the governments
and peoples of the U.S. and Nagorno Karabagh. In his capacity as
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair, instead of promoting open communication,
he has enforced a set of outdated and counter-productive restrictions
that block the hope for greater mutual understanding. He has, as well,
even as recently as the current foreign aid cycle, failed to facilitate
desperately needed U.S. development assistance programs in Nagorno
Karabagh. Finally, he has undermined his own credibility by making
the patently false claim that neither he nor his State Department
colleagues have applied pressure to Armenia regarding the settlement
of Nagorno Karabagh.

The concerns I have raised regarding the one-sided Nagorno
Karabagh diplomacy that Mr. Bryza has conducted on behalf of the
U.S. government reflect our community’s broader disappointment
regarding the Obama-Biden Administration’s failure to honor its many
pledges on Armenian issues. Foremost among these, of course, is the
President’s broken promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Rather
than upholding this crystal clear covenant, the Administration has,
instead, aggressively attacked the spirit and letter of this commitment
by promoting Turkey’s artificial "roadmap" and pressuring Armenia to
accept a "historical commission" that, in yet another transparent
attempt by Ankara to perpetuate its campaign of genocide denial,
calls into question the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. The
Administration has, in addition, sharply cut economic and other aid
to Armenia, despite the President’s pledge to maintain assistance
levels. This pattern of behavior represents a breach of faith with
Armenian Americans, fundamentally damages our government’s friendship
with Armenia, and effectively eliminates our country’s ability to
act as an honest broker in the region.

Today, seven months after the start of the Obama-Biden Administration,
we are seriously concerned that this Administration has abdicated
its responsibilities by effectively outsourcing our nation’s foreign
policy with respect to Armenian issues to the Republic of Turkey, as
every single policy dealing with Armenia has been made along the lines
that Turkey has dictated, rather than along the sound principles of
morality and democracy that you, President Obama and Vice President
Biden unambiguously articulated during your presidential campaigns
last year.

Thank you for your consideration of our views. We respectfully request
an immediate personal meeting between you and the Armenian American
community’s civic, religious, and charitable leaders so that we can
address these matters in greater detail.

Sincerely, Kenneth V. Hachikian Chairman

ALEXANDER BOZHKO: HISTORIC PROCESSES TAKE PLACE IN SOUTH CAUCASUS

News.am
15:40 / 08/21/2009

Question: Mr. Ambassador, what has changed in the South Caucasus,
particularly for Armenia, since the hostilities last August?

Answer: Historical evidence is that wars do not resolve
problems. Rather, they delay solutions, and it is the children
and grandchildren of those unleashing wars that often have to find
peaceful solutions…

No doubt, the five-day war worsened the situation both for the entire
South Caucasus and for each of the countries in the region and the
international community, which now has one more headache. As regards
Armenia, I share Armenian experts’ opinion that the war once more
showed Armenia’s vulnerability – first of all in terms of transport
communication.

Question: What are Ukraine’s interests in this region, as well as the
place of its relations with Armenia in the context of these interests?

Answer: The South Caucasus is one of Ukraine’s foreign policy
priorities both within the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization
(BSEC) and at the bilateral level. It is natural, we understand each
other quite well, have common historical past, though we can show
different attitudes to it.

>>From the practical aspect, economic relations are our top priority.

Judge for yourself, before the crisis we registered steady positive
dynamics in Ukrainian-Armenian trade. Last year the bilateral trade
turnover exceeded U.S. $300mln.

In terms of total trade turnover, Ukraine was Armenia’s fourth
largest partner after Russia, Germany and China, and the second
largest partner in terms of imports.

Armenia is known to conduct foreign trade operations by means of
Ukraine to a considerable extent. The Ukrainian shipping company
Ukrferry is a traditional partner of Armenian forwarding companies. One
more foreign trade route was opened this March: a new terminal was
opened at the port of Kerch, which will save much time for Armenian
export-import operations.

That is Ukraine’s presence in the South Caucasus is mutually
beneficial. It is noteworthy that much more Armenian brandy – the
main component of Armenia’s export – is sold in Ukraine than in
Armenia itself.

With a view to further development of interregional cooperation and
execution of previously signed agreements, the Ukrainian Embassy
in Armenia is working at arranging the visits of delegations from
different Ukrainian regions. Specifically, this autumn we expect a
delegation of the Kharkov region led by Arsen Avakov to visit Armenia.

We are also developing a bilateral political dialogue. In this context,
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan’s visit to the Crimea last July
was an important event. The Armenian leader participated in the
celebrations of the 650th anniversary of the Armenian monastery Surb
Khach (Holy Cross). During the high Armenian delegation’s visit to
the Crimea, Ukrainian and Armenian Presidents, Victor Yuschenko and
Serzh Sargsyan held a meeting. The two leaders set the priorities of
the short-term bilateral agenda.

I would like to point out the Ukrainian-Armenian cooperation within
international organizations last year. Specifically, on our joint
initiative, the OSCE Foreign Ministers’ Council approved a Declaration
on the 60th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Our countries are actively
cooperating under the Eastern Partnership program.

Finally, last November, in Odessa, the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture
and Tourism and Armenian Ministry of Culture and Youth Affairs signed
a cultural cooperation program for 2008-2012. The program provides for
the holding of Days of Armenian Culture in Ukraine, Days of Ukrainian
Culture in Armenia, as well as for a number of other activities and
a more active cultural dialogue. We are really lacking it.

This year the Ukrainian-Armenian Intergovernmental Commission for
Economic Cooperation is to meet in Yerevan. I hope the Commission
members will not only analyze the state of the bilateral trade and
economic relations for the previous period, but also exchange their
views on the ways out of the global crisis for our economies.

Question: The Madrid Principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement
provide for a peace-making operation in the region. Does Kiev intend
to apply for participation in the peace-making format?

Answer: Ukraine has a many years’ experience in different peace-making
missions. If Ukraine receives such a proposal, it will thoroughly
consider it.

As far as I know, the Madrid Principles is a draft document. I
has not yet been accepted by the sides or taken effect. So it is
obviously too early to speak of its practical application. I think
when the "principles" turn into an "agreement", the issue of inviting
peace-makers and that of particular countries will be considered.

Question: What is Ukraine’s position on the normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations?

Answer: Ukraine’s official position was voiced by the Head of the
Press Service of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately
after the Armenian, Turkish and Swiss Foreign Offices issued a joint
statement on April 22, 2009.

Specifically, the document says that the sides "have been working
intensively with a view to normalizing their bilateral relations
and developing them in a spirit of good-neighborliness, and mutual
respect, and thus to promoting peace, security and stability in the
whole region."

The Ukrainian Foreign Office also expressed hope that the practical
steps to implement the statement will be crowned with success for
peace and prosperity of both nations and of the entire region.

On my part I would like to add that historic processes are going
on in the South Caucasus now. The normalization of Armenian-Turkish
relations and the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are of
paramount importance not only for political stability in the region,
but also for the two economies. So we are sincerely interested in
progress in both the negotiating processes, as well as in further
prosperity of friendly Armenia.

Question: Under agreements with Kiev, Russia is going to transfer its
Black Sea fleet from the Crimea to Abkhazia. What impact will it have
on the situation in the South Caucasus?

Answer: Indeed, under intergovernmental documents, the Black Sea
fleet of Russia is to remain in Ukraine until 2017.

I would like to note that Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine
prohibits the deployment of foreign military bases in the country. But
our state remains faithful to its international commitments (temporary
deployment of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Ukraine until May 28,
2017) and fully meets the relevant agreements of 1997.

As regards the fate of the fleet, it is Russia’s internal affair,
as you can understand.

EGYPTIAN FM HIGHLY ASSESSED MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL COOPERATION WITH ARMENIA

PanARMENIAN.Net
21.08.2009 13:36 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On August 20, newly appointed Armenian Ambassador
to Egypt Armen Melkonyan handed the copies of his credentials to
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abu al-Gheit, RA MFA press service
reported to PanARMENIAN.Net. Congratulating Armenian diplomat, Abu
al-Gheit expressed hope that he would contribute to the extension
and development of Armenian-Egyptian ties. Egyptian official highly
assessed bilateral cooperation between two countries, stressing
the importance of contacts on different levels, as well as Armenian
community’s role in the country’s internal life and strengthening of
Armenian-Egyptian relations.

Armen Melkonyan in turn passed Armenian FM Edward Nalbandyan’s
greetings to Abu al-Gheit, and expressed willingness to invest his
best efforts in implementation of all above-mentioned programs and
further extension of mutually beneficial cooperation. At Minister’s
request, Armenian diplomat introduced recent developments in Karabakh
settlement process and Armenian-Turkish dialogue.

ARMENIA TO BE ON THE ALERT IN RUSSIAN-TURKISH TIES DEVELOPMENT

PanARMENIAN.Net
19.08.2009 15:41 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The agreement on Armenian-Russian strategic
partnership contains no clause prohibiting parties from cooperating
with other states, Hay Dat Bureau Director Kiro Manoyan told a
news conference in Yerevan. Russia did not violate agreement terms,
he said. There’s no need to get into a "panic" for Russian-Turkish
process; we just have to be on the alert as cooperation between Moscow
and Ankara may develop into strategic partnership.

Manoyan also commented upon Richard Giragosyan’s recent statement
regarding Turkey’s unwillingness to allow Russia to use its air space
for providing supplies to Russian military base in Gyumri. "It’s
fantastic," he said, noting that Turkish Foreign Ministry had denied
such statement. In the meantime, the speaker didn’t find it real that
Turkey may agree to such proposal.

AGBU Press Office
55 East 59th Street
New York, NY 10022-1112
Phone: 212.319.6383, x118
Fax: 212.319.6507
Email: [email protected]
Website:

PRESS RELEASE

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Celebrating 20 Years of AGBU’s Presence in Melbourne

On May 16, 2009, over 200 people gathered to celebrate 20 years of
AGBU’s establishment in Melbourne, Australia. The chapter’s
20th-Anniversary Grand Ball was held at The Langham Melbourne, one of
Australia’s premiere hotels.

The event was organized by members of the Ball Committee, comprised of
Diana Tchakerian, Anne Tcheupdjian, Verkin Torossian, Ohannes
Gulbenkian, Vrej Sarafian, Chairperson Maral Tchorbadjian and
Vice-Chairperson and the evening’s MC, Gloria Hotakorzian. After
spending months of event planning, the organizers were thrilled with the
results. With speeches held to a minimum, the night was devoted to fun.

The lavish and elegant evening was filled with nearly six hours of
exquisite food and wine, combined with hip, upbeat music and lots of
dancing. The music was courtesy of Furia, a 14-piece Latin Show Band,
along with Melbourne-based Armenian singer Kevork. The lively performers
were able to encourage even the most shy and apprehensive attendees out
on the dance floor.

With their tireless work and dedication, the committee succeeded in
creating a memorable evening for all in attendance. Committee member
Diana Tchakerian said of the evening, "Everyone who attended this
special celebration went away absolutely satisfied with all aspects of
the evening and were proud to have been part of a fitting celebration
for an esteemed organization, which will no doubt enjoy many more
similar celebrations in the decades to come."

Established in 1906, AGBU () is the world’s largest
non-profit Armenian organization. Headquartered in New York City, AGBU
preserves and promotes the Armenian identity and heritage through
educational, cultural and humanitarian program, annually touching the
lives of some 400,000 Armenians around the world.

ARMENIANS – MAIN POPULACE OF SAFAVID EMPIRE

News.am
13:03 / 08/17/2009

Azeris decided to dispute history. The exhibition organized by
Smithsonian Institution of Washington titled "The Tsars and the East:
Gifts from Turkey and Iran in The Moscow Kremlin" became the target
of Azerbaijani mass media.

This exhibition features 15-17 cc. exceptional objects presented
by Safavid and Ottoman kings to Russian tsars. The information of
brochures and under the exhibits reads the presents of Safavid tsars
(Shah Ismail 1) as "presents of Iranian Safavid rulers contributed
to New Julfa Armenian governance".

It is also mentioned that Armenian merchants were holding major outlets
in New Julfa region. However Azeris were shocked to know that Safavid
Empire was mainly populated by Armenians and there was no mention of
Azerbaijani in the exhibition brochures.

New Julfa is located in North-West of Iran, at Nakhchivan
border. Whereas Old Julfa is in Nakhchivan’s territory, where within
last years Azeris destroyed all Armenian graves (with the crosses as
a gravestone) to eradicate any reminders of Armenians living there.

The exhibition, lasting till September 13, 2009 is sponsored by
"LUKOIL" Company, U.S.-Russia Business Council, U.S.-Russia Chamber
of Commerce and organized by Moscow Kremlin Museum, Arthur M. Sackler
Gallery and Smithsonian Institution.

THE STRIP: Historic Tropicana poised for pricey renovation

Q&A with Alex Yemenidjian, one of the new owners of the Tropicana

Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV)
August 16, 2009

BY ARNOLD M. KNIGHTLY, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

New Tropicana co-owner and chief executive Alex Yemenidjian is still
getting himself and his team acclimated to their new surroundings.

A former top executive at MGM Grand Inc., Yemenidjian is working
15-hour days trying to revitalize one of the Strip’s remaining
historic properties, which he acquired July 1.

Without the luxury of being able to tear the property down in the
current economic environment, Yemenidjian and his partners, Canadian
private equity firm Onex Corp.., are launching a nearly $100 million
plan to renovate the 52-year-old property.

Much of what the Tropicana of tomorrow will look like is a project in
flux.

The boardroom outside his office is covered with sketch boards,
photos, and carpet and floor samples of what the new rooms will look
like.

Yemenidjian, who ran MGM Studios after leaving the gaming industry,
plans to transform the property into a South Beach Miami-themed
resort.

He plans to go before county planners later this year with extensive
construction plans that include building a new nightclub that will
overlook the Strip.

The property’s revitalization took its first public step Aug. 6 with
the unveiling of a new "Tropicana Las Vegas" logo.

Question: You talked about a large remodel of the property before the
gaming regulators. Has that begun and what changes should the public
notice first?

Answer: It has definitely begun. I spend approximately 40 percent of
my time in design and construction meetings dealing with the physical
transformation of the property. The first phase is the complete
refurbishment of the employee dining room, the construction of a new
employee lounge, and the renovation of all back of house offices and
common areas.. This phase has been designed, permits are being pulled
and construction begins August 24th. It

The second phase is our convention and exhibition center, all our
hotel rooms and all related common areas. We are about 75 percent done
with the design of this phase and we expect to complete construction
by next spring.

The third phase is the renovation of most of our dining
facilities.. The design of our new buffet is almost done and we will
start designing the remaining restaurants in the next few weeks.

The balance of the project is more complex. We are now in the design
development stage and, as soon as we have complete construction
documents, we will go out to bid. But we will be implementing many
cosmetic changes in the casino as we go along, so the public will
certainly begin to notice meaningful changes before the end of the
year.

Question: What has been the biggest challenge in the first month since
taking over the ownership and operation of the Tropicana?

Answer: Without question, the biggest challenge has been dealing with
issues that are left over from the bankruptcy proceeding. I have never
before acquired a company that was in bankruptcy, and the process is
long, inefficient and very expensive. For someone who thrives on
efficiency, the bankruptcy process is very frustrating.

Question: One of the issues that is still pending from the bankruptcy
is the use of the Tropicana name. What is the status of the pending
lawsuits on the use of the Tropicana name and are you talking to
Tropicana Entertainment to get the dispute resolved quickly?

Answer: We are not currently in discussions with Tropicana
Entertainment regarding the pending lawsuit, so most likely this issue
will be resolved in court.

Question: Is there anything that has surprised you in the first month?

Answer: I have been pleasantly surprised by the tremendous reservoir
of good will that exists in our work force. The team members love this
company, love their jobs and are beaming with pride. Considering how
previous administrators have neglected the property, neglected the
operations and neglected the employees, it was very
freshing to find that despite all that neglect so much pride and
passion can be harnessed. And regardless of what happened in the past,
I am keenly aware that change can be scary for many of our team
members. But change also irrigates the human condition.

Question: What is the biggest challenge for your team being new to the
market and operating in this environment?

Answer: Actually, most of our team has very extensive experience in
the Las Vegas market. Of the 11 vice presidents, only one has no
experience in this market or in the gaming industry for that matter,
and that is by design. That is Nancy Gregory, our vice president of
entertainment. Given that the execution of a successful entertainment
strategy in this fiercely competitive environment is probably the most
difficult challenge we face, I wanted to have someone who was only
constrained by the limits of his or her imagination.

Question: What has been the biggest challenge building a gaming
company from scratch?

Answer: The biggest challenge right now is the lethal combination of
the economic downturn coupled with a severe supply-demand imbalance in
Las Vegas. To be sure, building a gaming company in the midst of an
economic downturn like the one we are currently experiencing is akin
to trying to build a house in the middle of an earthquake. Room
revenue is the only segment of our business that has any meaningful
pricing power, and that segment has totally collapsed.
And to make matters worse, there is a huge supply of additional
capacity coming into the market in the next 12 months while demand is
actually contracting.
So we are all hoping that the excitement of the opening of the
CityCenter project creates more demand than it consumes.

Question: Your partnership with Onex Corp. is the property’s fourth
ownership in three years. Many of the employees have been here through
the upheaval from the absent ownership of Aztar to Columbia Sussex’s
mismanagement and bankruptcy. How do you heal the morale and convince
the staff of you and your partne

Answer: In an environment characterized by broken promises and
sustained neglect, in order to have any credibility with the work
force, any new promises have to be followed by swift execution and
delivery. It is no accident we are fast-tracking the physical
transformation of the property, and that we are starting with the
employee dining room and the employee lounge before anything else.

Question: How are you reaching out to customers to let them know about
the changes?

Answer: We are not reaching out to the customers just yet. We don’t
want to promise anything if we are not ready to deliver on that
promise.

Question: When you left MGM Grand you said you had wanted to return to
the casino business as an owner. Did you think the opportunity would
be on the Strip?

Answer: Frankly, I didn’t know. Since December of 2007 my partners and
I have seriously looked at more than 20 opportunities, both domestic
and international. We did not limit ourselves geographically. We
continue to look for additional acquisitions or greenfield
opportunities in various markets, including additional acquisitions in
the Las Vegas market. That our first acquisition happened here is
fortuitous because we always wanted our new gaming company to be
headquartered here. And we are keenly aware that this is the major
league: (MGM Mirage majority shareholder) Kirk Kerkorian is the
smartest man I know, Steve Wynn is the best designer of hotel-casinos
in the world, Sheldon Adelson went from 0 to 60 faster than a Ferrari,
and (Harrah’s Entertainment Chairman and CEO) Gary Loveman presides
over the largest hotel-casino company in the world. In this league,
you don’t lose your lunch.

Contact reporter Arnold M. Knightly at [email protected] or
702-477-3893.

43157.html

OFFICIAL CHANGES TO TURKISH PLACE NAMES SOMETIMES A HARD SELL

Today’s Zaman
14 August 2009, Friday

President Abdullah Gul recently used the old name of Bitlis’ Norþin
district, which was renamed Guroymak. Gul’s usage sparked a major
debate over place name changes.

President Abdullah Gul’s recent use of the old name of renamed
district has reignited public debate over the names of things in
Turkey, a subject sometimes closely intertwined with issues and
conflicts involving cultural and ethnic identity. What’s in a name?

Quite a bit it seems, with the president’s recent usage of the original
name Norþin to refer to Bitlis’ Guroymak district during a visit,
sparking heated discussions over place names in Turkey. Around 28,000
names of provinces, districts, villages, rivers and streams have been
changed officially in recent times. Most of them, about 12,000, have
been village names. While this phenomenon can be observed throughout
the country, there is a large amount of places in the Black Sea and
eastern and southeastern Anatolia regions that were renamed.

Place names in Turkey are granted for a variety of natural, social
and culture factors. In particular, village names can be divided into
two types: Turkish names and non-Turkish names. A significant number
of villages in both categories have had their official names changed
since 1940.

Again, most of the village name changes are in the eastern Black Sea
and eastern and southeastern Anatolia regions. However, while the
official names have changed, they do not all enjoy public acceptance,
with middle-aged and elderly citizens in particular often refusing
to refer to their hometowns by the new titles.

Around 28,000 provinces, districts, villages, rivers and streams have
had their names officially changed since 1940, sometimes for loaded
political or ethnic reasons and sometimes for expediency. But getting
people to adopt the new names of their homes isn’t always easy

A 2000 publication by Fýrat University faculty member Dr. Harun
Tuncel on the Turkish villages whose names have been changed sheds
light on the topic of the name changes that have been taking place
for 50 years. In 1949, the Provincial Administration Law went into
effect, which led to the 1957 establishment of a Name Changing Expert
Commission to review the names of around 75,000 residential places
in Turkey.

The commission decided to change 28,000 of them. Between 1965 and 1970
and from 1975-76, the commission also evaluated the names of natural
bodies such as lakes, changing nearly 2,000 names of such bodies.

In 1982 the Interior Ministry published a report called "Our Villages,"
which detailed all of the villages whose names had been changed by
1981 — a figure it pegged at 11,931. Work in the ministry archives
has shown the number of villages whose names have been changed since
1981 to number 280.

As in the Black Sea region, some of the village names in eastern and
southeastern Turkey that have been changed are Turkish names. But
the vast majority of names that have been altered in these regions
were changed because they were of Armenian, Kurdish or Arabic
origin. Tuncel’s 2000 report noted that village residents had not
yet fully adopted usage of the new official names.

Middle-aged and senior residents in particular eschewed using the
new names of their hometowns, with children and youth using the new
names, since they were more familiar with the new names. Because
of the continued usage of the old names by an important segment of
society in these villages, the old names have not yet been erased
from the collective memory, Tuncel says.

Even though the government may change a name of an area, what is
more important is the usage of a name by the public and in the home,
Tuncel noted. "It certainly seems as if the usage of the old names
will continue for some time to come. It’s a reality that despite the
fact that the new names are in Turkish and chosen for their harmony
with the Turkish writing system, some of these will never be widely
adopted by the regional public, and such places will continue for
centuries to be referred to by their old names," he said.

Turkish names were also changed by the commission. In some cases,
this is due to the proximity with other villages, for example,
with names similar enough to serve as cause for confusion. In other
places, the names were simply so ludicrous that the commission felt
it necessary to change them to avoid humiliation or embarrassment by
residents or public officials. Examples Tuncel gives of such places
that names were changed include Aptaldam (Idiot Roof), Deliler (The
Maniacs), Kotukoy (Evil Village), Þeytanabat (the Land of Lucifer),
Kýllý (Hairy), Komik (Comical) and Hýrsýzpýnar (Thief Fountain).

EVGENI ALEKSEEV -ONLY WINNER OF 3RD ROUND

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
11.08.2009 21:42 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The only effective game in the third round of FIDE
Grand Prix series tournament was Evgeni Alekseev-Ernesto Ivankiev match
which ended in Alekseev’s victory. All other games ended in a draw.

Thus, as a result of the 3rd round, Aronyan, Chaparinov and Leko
continue topping the tournament list.

3rd round games: Kasymdjanov Rustam – Yakovenko Dmitry – 0.5:0.5
Alekseev Yevgeni – Inarkiev Ernesto – 1:0 Gelfand Boris – Bacrot
Etienne- 0.5:0.5 Chaparinov Ivan – Aronyan Levon – 0.5:0.5 Ivanchuk
Vasily – Leko Peter – 0.5:0.5 Kamsy Gata – Hakobyan Vladimir- 0.5:0.5
Elianov Pavel – Kariakin Sergey 0.5:0.5 Tournament position after 3
rounds: Aronyan, Leko Chaparonov – 2; Hakobyan, Yakovenko, Bacrot,
Kariakin, Gelfand, Elianov, Kasymzhanov, Alekseev, Ivanchuk – 1.5;
Kamsky – 1; Inarkiev – 0.5.