Author: Karabekian Emil

PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN HAILS AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARMENIA AND KUWAITI CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

ARKA
Nov 5, 2009

YEREVAN, November 5, /ARKA/. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan hailed
a cooperation agreement signed between Armenian and Kuwaiti chambers
of commerce and industry, the presidential press office told ARKA. The
agreement was signed during President Sargsyan’s visit to Kuwait.

Sargsyan welcomed the agreement during a meeting with the chairman of
Kuwaiti Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ali Mohammad Thunian al-Danim.

An agreement was reached that a delegation of Kuwaiti Chamber of
Commerce and Industry will pay a visit to Armenia to look into its
investment potential and explore cooperation prospects. Ali Mohammad
Thunian al-Danim invited Armenian businessmen to take part in Kuwaiti
five-year development plan.

President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan arrived on a two-day state visit to
the State of Kuwait on Tuesday. His delegation comprised the Minister
of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbandian, Minister of Finance Tigran
Davtian, Minister of Diaspora Affairs Hranush Hakopian, Minister of
Culture Hasmik Pogossian, Minister of Education and Science Armen
Ashotian, Chairman of the Armenia-Kuwait parliamentary group Vahan
Hovannissian, Chairman of the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs
Arsen Ghazarian, and Chairman of the Industrial and Commercial Chamber
Martin Sarkissian.

This was the first visit of the President of Armenia to a Gulf state
since Armenia’s independence. At the international airport of Kuwait,
the President of Armenia was welcomed by the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh
Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber Al Sabah, the Crown Prince of Kuwait Nawaf
Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, and other members of the country’s
leadership.

On the first day of the visit, the President of Armenia met with the
Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait Jassem Mohammad al-Kharafi
and the Prime Minister of Kuwait Nasir Al-Muhammad Al-Ahamd Al-Jaber
Al-Sabah. President Sargsyan also met with the Chairman of the Kuwait
Investment Authority Bader Muhammad Al-Sahadin and the Chairman of
the Economic Development Fund Abdulwahab Ahmad al-Bader.

In the end of the day the President of Armenia and the Emir of Kuwait
had a meeting, after which the Republic of Armenia and the State
of Kuwait signed a number of documents on bilateral cooperation. At
the conclusion of the day, the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad
al-Jaber Al Sabah gave a state dinner in honor of the President
of Armenia.

On the second day of his visit, the President of Armenia visited the
Science Center of Kuwait and met with the President of the Commerce
and Industry Chamber of Kuwait Ali Mohammad Thunian al-Danim.

In the afternoon, the delegation headed by the President of Armenia
returned to Yerevan.

ARMENIAN CUSTOMS PREPARE TO OPEN ARMENIAN-TURKISH BORDER

news.AZ
Nov 5 2009
Azerbaijan

The customs points hold preliminary work in anticipation of the opening
of the Armenian-Turkish border that will result in trade enlivening,
said Armen Alaverdyan, deputy chairman of the committee on state
revenues of Armenia.

He said Armenia is ready for a flow of Turkish goods, though no large
flow is expected.

Alaverdyan said, economically Turkey is the same partner for Armenia
as Russia, Georgia and other countries and goods imported from Turkey
are imposed the same duties as imports from other countries. He also
noted that Turkish goods had always been imported to Armenia.

The trade turnover between Armenia and Turkey is now being carried via
the third countries, mostly via Gergia and Iran. According to experts,
the blockade by Turkey causes a loss of 500 mln dollars to Armenia
per annum. Economic professor Tatul Manaseryan estimates that the
shadow turnover between the two countries makes up 25% of Armenia’s
overall trade turnover.

By the expert estimates of the Armenian-Turkish business development
council, the trade turnover between Turkey and Armenia nears 100 mln
dollars and will reach 300 mln dollars in case of border opening.

NATIONAL MORTGAGE COMPANY’S AUTHORIZED CAPITAL MAY GROW

ARKA
Nov 3, 2009

YEREVAN, November 3, /ARKA/. Armenian Central Bank chairman Arthur
Javadian said today the National Mortgage Company’s capital may grow
as the company unfolds its activity extending new mortgage loans.

In an interview with ARKA news agency, Arthur Javadian said the
National Mortgage Company’s authorized capital is 5 billion Drams now.

He said the government may cut its participation in the company to give
more room to private companies. He said the National Mortgage Company’s
long-term activity is based on ‘private public partnership’ and in
line with this principle the government may cut its participation
and give more chances to private sector.

The universal National Mortgage Company was started on July 13, 2009.

Its primary authorized capital was 5 billion Drams. ($1 – 386.41
Drams).

ARMENIA MEDIATES RUSSIA AND GEORGIA

news.am
Nov 4 2009
Armenia

The opening of "Upper Lars" checkpoint between Georgia and Russia
will be economical for both sides and constitutes no danger, considers
Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze.

According to him, talks with Russia directly are not held, but the
issues are discussed under Armenia’s mediation.

"Georgian side deals with Armenia as a mediator and Armenia further
negotiates with Russia. There was one meeting on technical matters
only," GHN news agency quotes Vashadze.

The Georgian FM underlined that as of today none of the sides lays
down any precise conditions, also no preparation for any agreement
is being made.

As NEWS.am reported previously, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili
proposed to bring up for discussion in National Security Council
the opening of frontier checkpoint on Russian-Georgian border "Upper
Lars". The checkpoint is not functioning since July, 2006. Officially,
the need for repairing and development in conformity with up-to-date
standards was the cause for the closure. This transit route was closed
also for Armenia.

In May 2009, Georgian MFA stated that Moscow informed Tbilisi of its
readiness to open Kazbegi-Upper Lars checkpoint. However, no precise
decision was made thereafter.

GOVERNMENT HAS THIS YEAR ALLOCATED OVER $ 1 MILLION FOR HI TECH SPHERE DEVELOPMENT

PanARMENIAN.Net
03.11.2009 14:39 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ It’s already two years Armenian Government has
been providing financial assistance to High Tech sphere development,
Armen Grigoryan, Executive Secretary of IT Development Support Council
under RA Government, told a press conference in Yerevan. "Last year,
Government allocated USD 1 million. This years’ allocations comprised
more. Of course, the sphere needs more financial assistance," Executive
Secretary said.

The Council, he added, reveals and discusses problems in IT sphere
and submits them to Government. "We have already elaborated an IT
development concept which envisages organization of several events,
such as creating electronic system and rendering public services.

There is already a commission coordinating all those issues," Armen
Grigoryan said, adding that Council’s recent session focused on
problems in communication and education spheres.

WHAT’S PETER SEMNEBY’S AIM?

news.am
Nov 3 2009
Armenia

On the threshold of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’ visit to the
region scheduled for early November, EU Special Representative for the
South Caucasus Peter Semneby made a number of provocative statements,
which may only exacerbate the Armenian-Azerbaijani disagreements.

Long ago Armenia outlined the greatest extent of concessions it is
ready for, and the only thing for the international community to do
was to focus its attention on Azerbaijan’s non-constructive position.

All of a sudden, a high-ranking European official made statements
that can only cause official Yerevan to revert to the initial hard
lines at the next stage of the negotiations process.

It is noteworthy that in his sensational interview with the Russian
Vremya Novostey (Time of News) newspaper, Mr. Semneby, roughly
speaking, "beat" even Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. A couple of
months ago the latter used such a vague phrase as "Nagorno-Karabakh
will have some status," whereas the high-ranking European official
stated that the most complicated issues, that is the issues related
to Nagorno-Karabakh’s status, are being postponed for an indefinite
period. Thus, Mr. Semneby thinks that the return of the regions forming
a security zone round Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan is a very easy
issue, whereas that of Nagorno-Karabakh status is a complicated one.

This position is beneath criticism and runs counter to the
previous statements made by all the international mediators, who
have repeatedly stated the inevitability of mutual, and painful,
concessions. Mr. Semneby, however, has presented a picture that does
not contain a single hint at any concessions by Azerbaijan.

It is common knowledge that official Yerevan encounters serious
problems with presenting its approaches to the Nagorno-Karabakh
population. Although it is Armenia’s ex-president Robert Kocharyan who
is fully responsible for the Nagorno-Karabakh being ousted from the
negotiation process, repeatedly reminding the Armenian side of this
fact does not resolve one of the major problems. Although Armenia and
Azerbaijan are the only negotiators, none of their decisions may be
implemented if official Yerevan fails to convince Stepanakert of the
necessity for observing the agreements.

The European official should have understood the simple truth. Mr.

Semneby’s sensational interview, however, evoked most unfavorable
responses by the Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh authorities. The most
important fact is that the EU Representative contradicts himself by,
on the one hand, calling for not burdening the Armenians authorities
to get them to hold a constructive position and, on the other hand,
creating difficulties for them. What is the cause of all that? A
complete lack of understanding of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
of the limit of the conflicting parties’ potential for concessions,
or the European Union’s sudden wish to torpedo the negotiations? Or,
may be it is just an amateurish approach?

ARMENIAN NATIONALISTS MAY DERAIL PEACE WITH TURKEY
By Matt Robinson and Margarita Antidze

Reuters
utersEdge/idUSTRE5A22VJ20091103?sp=true
Nov 3 2009
UK

YEREVAN (Reuters) – The historic prospect of peace with longtime
foe Turkey has roused angry opposition among powerful Armenian
nationalists, which could yet undermine President Serzh Sarksyan and
torpedo the whole process.

Under accords signed last month, Christian Armenia and Muslim Turkey
agreed to establish diplomatic relations and reopen their frontier,
overcoming a century of hostility stemming from the World War One
mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks.

Peace would bring big economic benefits to poor, landlocked Armenia,
while Turkey would burnish its credentials as a potential EU entry
state and a reliable energy transit country by solving a border
dispute.

Villagers in the border region, an unforgiving landscape of rock and
barren land, enthuse about new trade routes beyond the guard towers
manned by soldiers of Armenian ally Russia.

Workers are preparing to lay new rail tracks.

But the killings of last century — considered genocide by some
European nations and Western historians though Turkey disputes this —
remain a defining element of Armenian identity.

The deal must be ratified by both parliaments, but is stirring
resentment, particularly among diaspora Armenians, of which many are
descendents of those who fled modern-day Turkey.

The huge diaspora is the source of crucial donations and remittances
for the country of 3.2 million people, whose already struggling
economy is forecast to contract 15 percent in 2009.

Opponents say the accords undermine Armenia’s pursuit for further
‘genocide’ recognition and effectively give up claims to parts of
eastern Turkey as an Armenian homeland.

"This is an act of complicity where the Armenian state and presidency
is taking part in the burial of the Armenian question and in the
ceding of rights to memory, to homeland and ultimately the right of
return to the ancestral patrimony," said Raffi Hovannisian of the
opposition Heritage Party.

U.S.-born Hovannisian, grandson of four survivors of the killings,
said: "This is one of those visceral, existential issues that go to
the core of Armenian identity and rights."

Armenia says 1.5 million Armenians died in systematic massacres aimed
at the extermination of its people. Turkey says there was no such
campaign, the death figure is far lower and that many Muslims also
died in partisan fighting.

Sarksyan was met by angry protests by Armenians in Europe, the Middle
East and United States last month. He argues the accords renounce
nothing and contain no preconditions.

REBEL REGION

Under the deal, a commission will investigate the killings.

Hovannissian said it would discuss the issue "ad infinitum."

Damaged by deadly violence that followed his election last year,
analysts say Sarksyan wants a foreign policy victory.

But Turkey, faced with a backlash from Muslim ally Azerbaijan,
has now raised the stakes by saying it will only ratify the accords
if Armenia gives ground in negotiations over the rebel province of
Nagorno-Karabakh.

This has seriously complicated the peace process.

Backed by Armenia, ethnic Armenians in the mountain region threw off
Azeri rule in war that erupted with the collapse of the Soviet Union
in 1991. Some 30,000 people died and Turkey closed its border with
Armenia in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan.

Propped up by Yerevan, the region runs its own affairs.

Many ordinary Armenians say they are more concerned about the economic
benefits of peace than old feuds with Turkey.

"Our diaspora lives well," said a man who gave his name as Ovik in the
border village of Getap. "They can go anywhere, to Turkey as tourists,
while we can only look at Turkey from here."

"Genocide is genocide, no one doubts that it was genocide or that it
took place," he said. "But we should move forward."

At the Akhurian railway station on the border, workers are readying
new tracks. Station master Karine Petrosyan hopes to increase her
36,500 Dram ($95) monthly wage and see a return to the days when 50
people worked at the station, rather than five.

The Armenian opposition appears too weak to derail the thaw with
Turkey. But if Sarksyan is perceived to be involved in a trade-off
over Nagorno-Karabakh, it would be political dynamite.

Nagorno-Karabakh cost former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan his job
in 1998 when he was forced to resign over concessions he offered to
Azerbaijan. A climbdown now from military victory, as part of a deal
with Turkey, would likely spark public outrage.

Analysts say Turkey could drop the condition as it nears the 95th
anniversary of the killings next April, when Armenians hope U.S.

President Barack Obama will keep a campaign promise to label them
genocide in a traditional presidential statement.

Or Ankara could hold out for Armenian concessions on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Sarksyan looks unlikely to play along.

"A success with Turkey is enough for both greater legitimacy and
statesmanship, making Nagorno-Karabakh that much riskier politically,"
said Richard Giragosian, the American director of the Armenian Center
for National and International Studies.

"I really think if he wants to be bold and go for the Nobel Prize
and do something on (Nagorno) Karabakh, he’s gone."

PRESS RELEASE
Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apost. Church of America and Canada
H.E. Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan
Prelate, Easter Prelacy and Canada
138 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-7810
Fax: 212-689-7168
Web:

November 2, 2009 Special Issue

Yeretzgeen Arpine Shrikian, 81

Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan and the Religious and Executive Councils
of the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America,
announce with sorrow the passing of Yeretzgeen Arpine Shrikian, who
died yesterday morning, Sunday, November 1, 2009. She was 81 years
old.

Yn. Arpine is survived by her husband, Archpriest Dr. Gorun Shrikian,
and children Anie, Dirouhie, and Movses and their families.

The family will receive visitors on Wednesday, November 4 and
Thursday, November 5, from 6 to 9 pm at St. Sarkis Armenian Apostolic
Church, 19300 Ford Road, Dearborn, Michigan. The Wake Service (Dan
Gark) will take place Thursday evening at 7:30 pm.

Funeral services officiated by Archbishop Oshagan will take place at
11 am on Friday, November 6, at St. Sarkis Church. Interment will
follow at Oakland Hills Memorial Gardens Cemetery, Novi, Michigan.

In lieu of flowers memorial donations are being accepted for
St. Sarkis Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Relief Society.

Sincere condolences are extended to Der Hayr, his children and
grandchildren and all family members. We pray that our Lord will grant
Yeretzgeen eternal bliss in His heavenly kingdom, and the blessings of
His comfort to her bereaved family.

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Oct 30 2009

Turkish-Armenian Soccer Diplomacy: A Direct Hit at Azerbaijan’s
Foreign Policy Architecture

Friday, October 30, 2009
Elnur Soltanov

Azerbaijan is not happy with the two protocols signed between Armenia
and Turkey on the 10th of October in Zurich, Switzerland. The most
common explanation has been that despite all the verbal promises by
its strategic ally, Baku is not sure that the opening of the borders
will be tied to the partial withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from
the territories in and (especially) around Nagorno-Karabakh. But the
level of disappointment in Azerbaijan cannot be fully explained away
by an unfavorable behavior of the brotherly government. For
Azerbaijan, the Turkish border initiative amounts to more than that.
Namely, it is poised to destroy the foreign policy architecture
Azerbaijan has been meticulously building since the mid-1990s around
Karabakh issue, leaving behind uncertainty and confusion. This is what
makes the repercussions of the Turkish-Armenian conciliation so
unbearable for Azerbaijan.

After military defeats in and around Nagorno-Karabakh between 1992 and
1994 and the concomitant cease-fire freezing the situation lopsidedly
in Armenia’s favor, in the spring of 1994, Azerbaijan started to
pursue a new foreign policy strategy. It may have begun by default,
yet by the mid-2000s it has evolved into a clearly, if unofficially,
defined foreign policy doctrine. The nature of the strategy was
simple, invoking the memories of the Cold War. It was to be built on
Armenia’s economic isolation and strategic marginalization. The
situation was Armenia’s choice to an extent, but Azerbaijan was intent
on fully capitalizing on the trend.

Armenia was to be left out of the regional energy and transport
projects and deprived of the benefits of the burgeoning Turkish
economy. This also meant closer relations with Russia and Iran,
outsiders in the Western-dominated global politics. Azerbaijan, on the
other hand, revitalizing its economy, becoming a significant link in
the Western energy security, and increasing the power of its military,
was to eventually make Armenia more willing to concede on the
negotiating table its enormous gains obtained in the battlefield. The
vision and the resources (which, essentially, were hydrocarbons)
behind the project were coming from Azerbaijan, which also had a
significant degree of control over it.

Until recently, the strategy was paying off to the apprehension of the
Armenian and the satisfaction of the Azerbaijani side. The enormously
expensive and rewarding Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum natural gas pipeline have already been
successfully completed by 2006. The third main transport link,
Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad was slated to be finished by 2011/2012.
When Armenians helped to freeze the international investment flow into
the latest project pointing to the intentional isolation of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, in one of the best indications of its willingness to
spearhead and finance the strategic trend, opened up its treasury
generously offering $220 million to Georgia to be paid back in 25
years with a symbolic interest rate of 1 percent. The dynamism that
the pipelines and hydrocarbon revenues have been generating has had an
economic and geopolitical multiplier effect along the
Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey axis, of which Armenia was not a part.

Armenian economy was definitely lagging behind with an associated
demographic downturn. According to CIA Country Report, Azerbaijan’s
economy grew twice as fast as the Armenian economy between 2006 and
2008. Its GDP per capita, almost even with that of Armenia a couple of
years ago, was 30 percent more than Armenia’s $6,300 by 2008.
Azerbaijan’s arms purchases, steadily increasing since the early 2000s
was starting to offset Armenian military arsenal, seasonally flooded
by Russia’s huge military transfers. In fact, the military budget of
Azerbaijan could be effectively catching up with the entire state
budget of the Republic of Armenia for 2009. Partly as a result of
continuing economic difficulties and overall insecurities, Armenia’s
population size has been stuck around 3 million, while Azerbaijan has
grown by a million since 1994 to over 8 million. According to the
International Monetary Fund’s forecasts these trends are to continue
for at least the next five years. The hard economic blows of the
Russian-Georgian war and the global economic downturn of 2008 were the
latest indications of how fragile Armenia’s situation was compared to
that of Azerbaijan.

It is difficult to say how much longer it would have taken for Armenia
(if ever) to be more willing to make concessions. The pace was slow
but the strategy and vision of the Azerbaijani political establishment
was clearly defined and things were, it seemed, moving in the right
direction. It is here that the deep disappointment on the part of the
Azerbaijani government lies. The Turkish move, and there are many
reasons to believe that the initiative came from Turkey, removed the
most fundamental pillar out of the Azerbaijan’s foreign policy
architecture. True, the architecture was being designed by Azerbaijani
vision and built by Azerbaijan’s relatively rich energy resources. But
the fundamental pillar necessary for the success of the isolation
project was Turkey’s willingness to cooperate in keeping Armenia at
bay.

For Azerbaijan the timing of the Turkish initiative makes it
especially worrisome. It began after Azerbaijan’s resource-led
projects and investments have already been made. One does not change
the direction of the multibillion pipelines and railroads overnight.
In the same context, it is only with the completion of the pipelines
in 2006 that a true economic gap started to emerge between Azerbaijan
and Armenia with real security implications. As soon as Azerbaijan’s
foreign policy architecture started to show real signs of success
Turkey defected.

Of course, there could be positive implications to the
Turkish-Armenian conciliation for Azerbaijan, yet it is undefined,
unofficial and is as possible as the opposite result. Despite the
Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government’s verbal promises,
Karabakh is not built into the border initiative which has been
internationalized and already slipping off of Turkey’s control. What
could be gone are not only the clarity of the tools and the purpose of
Azerbaijan’s foreign policy strategy around Karabakh, but also the
relative control Baku had over the overall process targeting the
resolution of the conflict. With the signatures in Zurich, the future
of the occupied lands of Azerbaijan is a function of the overly
internationalized Turkish-Armenian relations. Azerbaijan has lost the
initiative.

>From the Azerbaijani perspective, its clear, controllable, working and
priority strategy has been replaced by an unclear, uncontrollable and
an untested alternative. The status quo around Karabakh, which is
unfavorable to Azerbaijan, is no longer the driving force of the
regional political configurations; it has become an appendix to the
internationalized Turkish-Armenian relations. And Turkey, the
international community and Armenia, in dwindling the order down to
zero, are less concerned about Azerbaijani preferences in the zone of
conflict.

One cannot help but remember that Turkey felt betrayed when the United
States decided to withdraw its Jupiter medium-range nuclear missiles
from Turkish soil to resolve its differences with the Soviet Union
after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The current situation between
Azerbaijan and Turkey is not exactly analogous to the aforementioned.
The latter is only a worse case from the Azerbaijani viewpoint. In the
Jupiter crisis the strategy and resources belonged to a more powerful
ally and Turkey was only trying to beef up its overall strategic
position bandwagoning with the overwhelming global American
initiative. But in the case of Turkey and Azerbaijan, a unilateral
move by a more powerful ally is perceived as wasting Azerbaijan’s
resources, Azerbaijan’s strategy and Azerbaijan’s initiative. It would
not be an exaggeration to say that this strategy was shaping the very
identity of the Azeri foreign policy. One of the biggest and
overlooked challenges of the Turkish-Armenian protocols will be
dealing with the destruction of this foreign policy architecture and
identity, and the uncertainty, confusion and the lack of direction it
leaves behind.

* Mr. Elnur Soltanov is an assistant professor at Azerbaijan
Diplomatic Academy, Baku.

rkish-armenian-soccer-diplomacy-a-direct-hit-at-az erbaijan8217s-foreign-policy-architecture-2009-10- 30

NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE OF ARMENIA REFUTES REPORTS THAT ARMENIANS TOOK AZERBAIJANI DRIVER TO YEREVAN

ArmInfo
2009-10-30 12:03:00

ArmInfo. National Security Service of Armenia told ArmInfo the reports
by Azerbaijani media saying that Armenians took an Azerbaijani to
Armenia absurd and not subject to any detailed comments.

This time Baku-based APA agency, which is known by its unreliable
reports, has disseminated the following misinformation. Thus, APA
reported that driver Alasgar Orujaliyev was taken to Armenia.

According to him, on October 14, he left for Tbilisi to find a
job in cargo trucks and was forcibly taken to Armenia by the two
unknown. He was kept in the administrative building of the Armenian
border crossing point for two days. Further, he says he was taken to
Yerevan by car and kept in a cellar in Yerevan for a week. During this
period, he was allegedly offered to stay in Armenia. He was forced
to write negative opinions about Azerbaijani government, state and
OSCE. The driver says he was allegedly tortured and forced to drink
a liquid that made him unconscious. Achieving no results, Armenians
delivered him back to the border and set free, the driver says.

Such a fairly tale about Azerbaijan Rambo is not the first and not
likely to be the last provocation by Azerbaijani "neighbors" taking
into account the unhealthy interest of Azerbaijani mass media to the
Armenian-Georgian border. The goal of such dirty work style funded
by the Azerbaijan authorities is more than evident.