Seta's Armenian Blog: Armenian New sent by A Topalian

Hurriyet, Turkey

June 21 2012

New Page Opens in Turkish-French Relations

Thursday, 21 June 2012 13:21

Turkey has ended sanctions on France that were enacted after former

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's attempted to pass a bill

criminalizing denial of the events of 1915 as genocide, Turkish

Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu said today.

The move was based on Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an's orders,

DavutoÄ?lu said during an interview with private broadcaster CNNTürk.

"We can see that [newly elected President François] Hollande has the

will to work through problems," DavutoÄ?lu said, defining the future of

Hollande's presidency as a new page in bilateral relations.

Turkey had taken a series of harsh measures against France following

the French Senate's approval last December of a bill criminalizing the

denial of genocide claims for the events of 1915. France's

Constitutional Court then overturned the bill, preventing it from

becoming law.

Turkey recalled its ambassador to Paris and ended all bilateral and

international cooperation with France, including projects running

under the European Union. Military permits were also canceled and

ports were closed to French Navy ships.

CHATHAM HOUSE: LACK OF SOVEREIGNTY SHOULD BE ARMENIA'S

NUMBER ONE CONCERN

arminfo

Friday, June 22, 20:26

Russia's influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia is in

decline but it keeps pushing against the tide, Chatham House says in

its report "The Long Goodbye: Waning Russian Influence in the South

Caucasus and Central Asia."

"The South Caucasus, with its potential interstate conflict, presents

a complex arena for Russian soft power. The levers of Russian influence

here vary. They are economic and military in Armenia, scarcely present

in Azerbaijan, and essentially related to negative publicity as well

as economics with regard to Georgia," the reports says, adding that

Russian influence in Armenia is so great that lack of sovereignty

should be Armenia's number one concern. The governments in Azerbaijan

and especially Georgia, where there is less Russian soft power at work,

have more traditional security concerns about Russia.

Armenia does not share these concerns (at least openly).

Concerning Russia's influence on Armenia's energy market, the report

says: "In 2003, the CEO of United Energy Systems (UES), Anatoliy

Chubais, outlined plans to integrate the South Caucasus into a Russia-

led energy-supply network through ten former Soviet republics, as

well as plans to ensure electricity outflows from Armenia to Turkey

and Azerbaijan. Chubais denied that UES sought political gains but

he has been a leading proponent of the concept of a Eurasian 'liberal

empire' and his actions gave Russia almost total control of Armenia's

energy market. It was Robert Kocharian, Armenia's president from 1998

to 2008, who effectively sold off Armenia to Chubais and other Russian

commercial and political interests. Through Gazprom's ownership of its

Armenian subsidiary, ArmRosGazprom, 80% of Armenia's energy structure

is Russian-controlled, including the majority of the Iran-Armenia

gas pipeline, thus ensuring that Armenia cannot become an independent

transit country should Iranian gas ever reach European markets.

Russia has also bought up all but two of Armenia's hydroelectric and

nuclear power stations, in exchange for writing off Armenian debt."

Regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the reports says: "Russia's

support of Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute has been based

on several interests: limiting Turkish influence, countering a

Russophobic Azerbaijan in the early years of independence, and

long-standing cultural ties reflected in the large Armenian diaspora

in Russia. Russia's positioning has given it a powerful lever of

influence over Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as external parties.

However, its backing of Armenia's stance has changed in recent years:

during his presidency, Medvedev invested more effort in mediation than

his predecessors and the Azerbaijani first family has strong interests

in Russia. But there are forces deriving financial profit and political

leverage from continued tension and the status quo. Russia sees its

mediation over Nagorno-Karabakh in terms of its influence and may

not be genuinely interested in a resolution. This is shown by Russian

objections to an international peacekeeping force and to changes in the

make-up of the Minsk Group, which has been mediating on the conflict

since 1992. Russia has proposed deploying its own troops instead. This

would strengthen its position, but seems unlikely to be accepted by

Azerbaijan. It is an open question whether Russia would support Armenia

militarily should Azerbaijan decide to retake the territory by force."

"It is conceivable, however, that this uncertainty is a factor in

Azerbaijan's restraint so far. At the trilateral summit in Kazan in

June 2011 Azerbaijan expressed scepticism about the latest Russian-led

peace initiative. It still considers Russia to be a dishonest broker,

perhaps partly owing to the Armenian background of Russian foreign

minister and chief negotiator Sergei Lavrov, but probably mostly from

fear of a pax Russica in Nagorno-Karabakh, which Azerbaijan considers

to be its territory."

"A full-blown renewal of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would jeopardize

Russia's position in Azerbaijan and Turkey, particularly if the

Armenians required military assistance. Pipeline security would also

be affected, and Russia prioritizes energy security and financial

profit over conflict manipulation," the reports concludes.

ERA OF OLIGARCHS' ARBITRARINESS ENDS

Naira Hayrumyan

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 15:56:53 - 21/06/2012

The very first session of the National Assembly showed that not

only the authorities but the entire political system of the country

is changing.

The harsh criticism the program of the government encountered

in the National Assembly proved that the institution of political

responsibility is being formed in Armenia. And even if the Republican

Party approves and affirms confidence in government, everyone knows

that the parliament stages a real harsh political fight.

An important change took place. What had previously been called by

the authorities opposition's populism has now become a demand of

responsibility. Not the program of the government but the extent of

responsibility of the prime minister for the emigration, the rate

of dram, the growth of poverty and economic decline in general is

discussed.

During independence, the institution of political accountability

has never been operational in Armenia. People could be arrested

for stealing a chicken, while the collapse of the entire economy

was considered just a mistake, and everyone has the right to make

mistakes. The institution of responsibility is not laid down in the

legislation. The judges who pass verdicts which are later dismissed

by courts of higher instance are never held responsible.

The next step of the opposition should be institutionalization of

responsibility. The current and former authorities who did not have

adequate opposition and political opponents did everything they could

to deprive the society and their opponents of mechanism of control

and accountability, recall or resignation in case of defaults.

Now there is opposition in Armenia, and it is proven in the first

session of parliament. But the opposition will never come to power if

it does not insist on the introduction of the institution of political

responsibility and revocation of the ruling forces. Democratic

governance is a very simple mechanism. People elect those who bring

the best program, monitor its implementation, and if the promises are

not met, they do not re-elect the same party but hold it responsible.

Armenia has even taken away the right to monitor implementation of

election pledges.

If the parliamentary opposition succeeds in introducing this

mechanism, it may ensure full democratic transition of the political

system. Although it is minority in the parliament, the opposition can

do that. Strange though it may seem, with the help of the president.

Whatever is said about Serzh Sargsyan upholding the interests of the

oligarchic class, the latter is evidently becoming a burden for him,

and he wants to create mechanisms to curb the oligarchs and his own

party. He will hardly be proud of the incident in Harsnakar or Samvel

Alexanyan's cynical reaction.

The best mechanism is the opposition. It is not accidental that Serzh

Sargsyan did everything he could to have the whole opposition enter

the parliament. Judging by the confusion of Hovik Abrahamyan and

stunned Republicans who are not used to resistance, Serzh Sargsyan

has succeeded.

Oligarchs are also stunned because they suddenly met people in

parliament who can show them to their real place. And it does not

matter that Samvel Alexanyan swaggers and Galust Sahakyan shouts. They

understand that the good days have passed, and true political fight

has started.

The most important thing is that all this is shown on TV, and

now everyone knows that Stepan Demirchyan or Nikol may show Samvel

Alexanyan to his place. The era of arbitrariness of the oligarchs is

coming to an end. Another shock and it will die.

Armenian economist receives Turkish award

news.am

June 23, 2012 | 00:04

ISTANBUL. - Known Istanbul-based Armenian economist Taron Acemoglu

received the annual award of the Galatasaray Union, handed out by the

known Galatasaray Lyceum. The Award Ceremony took place at the Tevfik

Fikret Hall at Galatasaray Lyceum.

A statement on the Official website of the Galatasaray Union states

that the award is given every year since 1908 to those Turkish

citizens who pay great contribution to the prosperity of Turkey.

According to the statement the Council of the Union decided to give

the award to Acemoglu unanimously. According to IDEAS/RePec Acemoglu

is amongst the top 20 most quoted economists of the world. He ranks

8th in the list, while Nobel Prize winner, economist Paul Krugman

ranks 13th.

Diaspora Armenians wish to immediately sell their real estate in

Armenia - newspaper

news.am

June 23, 2012 | 07:37

YEREVAN. - Many Diaspora Armenians, who have settled in Armenia for

years on end, are now knocking on the doors of several real estate

agencies, Chorrord Inknishkhanutyun daily writes.

`Some of them want to immediately sell their elite apartments acquired

in Armenia while others are trying to promptly get rid of the plots of

land obtained in the shores of [Lake] Sevan. Even there are rumors

that many of them intend to sell at a bargain price especially their

detached homes acquired in the Sevan area.

Incidentally, former and serving state and local officials likewise

are considering selling their detached homes in the areas adjacent to

[Lake] Sevan,' Chorrord Inknishkhanutyun writes.

Financial Times, UK

June 23 2012

History confronted

Review by Delphine Strauss

A fresh perspective on the Armenian tragedy

?The Young Turks' Crime Against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and

Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, by Taner Akçam, Princeton

University Press, RRP £27.95/$39.50, 528 pages

`The dead who remain on the roads are to be removed and their corpses

are to be thrown into the valleys, lakes or rivers, and the

possessions that they have abandoned on the roads are to be taken and

burned.'

So wrote Talat Pasha, Ottoman minister of the interior, in a telegram

sent on July 21 1915 to provincial governors carrying out the

deportation of Anatolia's Armenian population. It is bureaucratic

asides such as this that shock in a newly translated book by Taner

Akçam, known as one of the first Turkish academics to challenge

Turkey's official denial that the resulting mass killings represented

genocide.

Bitter divisions over this bloody episode, which Armenians claim led

to the deaths of up to 1.5m people, have long poisoned Turkey's

overseas relations. Here, Akçam attempts to break the deadlock in the

historical debate. He underlines the futility of the frequent focus on

a `hunt for one Holocaust-style final decision', arguing that the

Armenians' annihilation was rather `the cumulative outcome of a series

of increasingly radical decisions'.

Instead of seeking evidence of a single, central order to exterminate

the Armenians in Ottoman archives ` from which incriminating evidence

may well have been removed ` Akçam argues that there is no real

discrepancy between the Ottoman documents that do survive and the

accounts of Armenian and foreign observers.

The cables and court records he cites, many unpublished until now,

show consistently that the central authorities ` whether or not they

ordered the massacres ` were aware of the scale of the killings

carried out by armed gangs, as well as of the deaths from hunger and

exposure among Armenians forced on to the roads under inhuman

conditions.

Yet their concern was with clearing the corpses, or preventing local

officials embezzling Armenian property, not with stopping it. They

also sent continual requests for statistics on the number of Armenians

remaining in each area, which they wanted to reduce to no more than 5

or 10 per cent of the local population ` a policy, Akçam argues, that

could only have been achieved by killing.

Yet perhaps as important as such indications of official intent is

Akçam's lucid account of the pressures driving Ottoman policy in the

run-up to 1915. As the Ottoman empire ceded one western province after

another to emerging nations in the Balkan wars of 1912-13, Muslim

refugees flooded eastward into Anatolia. There were population

exchanges with Bulgaria and Greece, and attacks on Greek villages

intended to persuade the Christian population to emigrate.

The Armenians, however, came to be seen as an existential threat to

the survival of the Ottoman state. The fear was that, with Russian

support, they could unite to form an autonomous government in eastern

Anatolia ` and this fear became acute in 1915 as Russian troops

crossed the Ottoman border.

Akçam stresses that this in no way justifies the official Turkish

version of events, which implies that when an ethnic group is seen as

a threat to the state, its wholesale deportation and the deaths that

inevitably result are acceptable. `The current framing of this debate,

especially in Turkey, shows that the fundamental moral issue has yet

to be addressed,' he writes, criticising the endless tug-of-war over

whether the word `genocide' should apply. `Regardless of the term

used, it is necessary to fully confront the immense human tragedy

whose repetition must absolutely be prevented.'

Akçam has long courted controversy in Turkey, where he was jailed as a

student activist in the 1970s before claiming asylum in Germany, but

his intellectual courage is beyond question. Moreover, while Turkey's

official account of what happened in 1915 is unchanged, Turkish public

and intellectual opinion is now much more open to debate. This

dispassionate, scholarly study is a valuable contribution to help that

debate move on.

Delphine Strauss is the FT's deputy comment editor and a former Ankara

correspondent

Yahoo News

June 18 2012

Scotland Yard to investigate David Nalbandian kick

By Chris Chase

British police will open an investigation into David Nalbandian for

his role in bloodying a linesman while kicking an advertising board

during Sunday's final at Queen's Club.

Officials ruled that the Argentine had to default the match to Marin

Cilic after smashing the sign with his right foot. During that brief

outburst, Nalbandian made contact with line judge Andrew McDougal and

sent part of the sign flying into his leg. McDougal was bloodied in

the encounter but suffered no other injury.

Nalbandian was leading 7-6, 3-4 at the time but was forced to default

the match, forfeiting his prize money and rankings points in the

process.

"We are aware of an incident at the Aegon Championships on June 17," a

Scotland Yard spokesman said. "A complaint has been made and the

Metropolitan police service is now investigating. The allegation is of

assault."

[Slideshow: See the best photos from the weekend's sports action]

Assault?! Look, I think David Nalbandian should be punished more

harshly than the ATP is going to. He deserves a suspension and a hefty

fine for injuring the linesman. But assault? Unless the advertising

board moonlights at one of those white-wigged British lawyers or is

distantly related to Pippa, pursuing any sort of criminal case against

Nalbandian is ludicrous.

We could get into a whole debate about on- and off-court actions and

whether they deserve the same scrutiny under the law. But that's

irrelevant to the main point: Nalbandian kicked a sign and happened to

injure someone standing behind it. He was wrong and should be dealt

with appropriately. That's by tennis officials, not legal ones.