Month: November 2009

‘UGLY KING’ YILMAZ GUNEY AND BAHMAN GHOBADI ON THE WAY TO DIYARBAKIR

Hurriyet
Nov 24 2009
Turkey

Turkey’s first Kurdish Films Conference and Festival will be held
in December in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir. The festival,
jointly organized by the Diyarbakir Cinema Center and Diyarbakir
Metropolitan Municipality, is expected to host some of the world’s
leading directors and scriptwriters

Kurdish has been a fixture on the silver screen ever since Bahman
Ghobadi’s "A Time for Drunken Horses" won international plaudits at
the beginning of the 2000s. Now, the success of Kurdish cinema in
recent years has spawned the idea of a festival.

Featuring a story about a Kurdish family set in Kurdish, "A Time for
Drunken Horses" captured a Golden Camera Award in 2000.

Until Ghobadi, the first name that came to mind in Kurdish cinema
was scriptwriter Yilmaz Guney, who was nicknamed the Ugly King. Long
before Ghobadi, in fact, Guney won the Golden Camera Award at Cannes
in 1982 for "Yol" (The Road), directed by Å~^erif Gören. He shared
the award with Greek director Costa Gavras’ "Missing."

But Guney’s success was limited in one sense because there was no
established Kurdish cinema in those years. Furthermore, the film’s
language was Turkish, not Kurdish. "Zare," made in 1926, is regarded
as the beginning of Kurdish cinema. Although the film was made with
the participation of a Kurdish tribe, its director was Armenian Hamo
Bek-nazaryan. It is not possible to talk about the emergence of a
real Kurdish cinema until the middle of the 1990s.

First Kurdish cinema festival

At the end of the 1990s, young Kurdish directors from the diaspora
brought fresh air to cinema just at the time when the first examples
of Kurdish cinema were meeting with audiences around the world.

The Diyarbakir Cinema Center was formed in 2002 as part of Anadolu
Kultur (Anatolian Culture), a civil society initiative, and began
looking for possibilities to hold a festival under the direction of
Kemal Yıldızhan.

That search has come to fruition, as a festival is now scheduled for
early December in Diyarbakir to be accompanied by a conference attended
about Kurdish cinema by world-renowned directors and scriptwriters,
according to Yıldızhan. He talked to the Diyarbakir Metropolitan
Municipality about the issue and received its support.

The festival will run from Dec. 4 to 13, with film screenings on Dec.

12 and 13.

‘Six regions, six films’

The Kurdish Film Festival is being organized on the theme "Six
Regions, Six Films," with previously unscreened films from Kurdish
directors from Iraq, Iran, Turkey and the United States scheduled for
exhibition. Speaking to the Hurriyet Daily News & Economic Review,
Yıldızhan said, "Even though Kurdish cinema has been much discussed
in recent years, it should be discussed at length."

He said the focal point of the conference would be films made by the
young generation of Kurdish directors from the diaspora. "There will
be discussions to determine whether these films constitute Kurdish
cinema or not," he said.

Ghobadi completes Guney’s unfinished work

The festival plans to screen Hiner Salem’s "0 Kilometre" (Kilometer
Zero), Kazım Oz’s "Bahoz," Hisen Hesen Ali’s "Havini," Miraz Bezar’s
"Min Dit," Jalal Jonroy’s "David ve Leyla" (David and Leyla) and
Ghobadi’s "Yarım Ay" (Half Moon).

Talking about Ghobadi’s importance in terms of Kurdish cinema,
Yıldızhan recalled Guney’s words. "If Kurdish had not been banned in
Turkey, I would have made ‘Suru’ (The Herd) in Kurdish," Yıldızhan
said. "After years, Ghobadi succeeded where Guney failed. He put
Kurdish people on the world agenda with this film."

Introversion in metaphor and themes

Films made by Kurdish directors generally feature themes of
statelessness, language problems and destitution while borders,
difficult geographical conditions and snow are also highlighted.

"Kurdish cinema is trying to open to the world by baring its heart,"
said Yıldızhan.

"Kurdish directors in the diaspora have an interactive relation with
the culture of the country they live in. They are nourished by Kurdish
culture as well as their country [of residence]. This interaction
will make Kurdish cinema richer in the future," he said.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NAGORNO-KARABAKH RECOGNITION

The International News
=210063
Nov 24 2009
Pakistan

Armenia warns Azeris Azerbaijan angry at Armenian thaw with Turkey

YEREVAN: Armenia said on Monday it could recognise breakaway
Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state if Azerbaijan carries out
its threat of military action to take back the mountainous territory.

Tensions over the Armenian-populated region, which broke away from
Muslim Azerbaijan with Christian Armenian backing in the early 1990s,
are rising as Armenia pursues an historic thaw with Azeri ally Turkey
to the anger of oil-producing Azerbaijan.

Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan and Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev held
talks on Sunday on the rebel territory at the heart of the South
Caucasus, a strategic crossroads between East and West and key transit
region for oil and gas to Europe.

In comments broadcast on Saturday, Aliyev warned that Azeri patience
was running thin and that without a breakthrough soon, Azeri troops
were ready to take back the territory by force.

Sarksyan’s spokesman Samvel Farmanyan said in a statement:" It should
be noted that Armenia so far has not recognised the independence
of Nagorno-Karabakh for one reason–so that it would not become an
obstacle to peaceful negotiation."

"If peaceful negotiations break down and military action begins, then
nothing stands in the way of Armenia recognizing the independence of
Nagorno-Karabakh." Fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh erupted as the Soviet
Union headed towards its 1991 collapse. Some 30,000 people died and
more than 1 million were displaced before a ceasefire in 1994.

Ethnic Armenian forces took control of the territory of 100,000 people
and seven surrounding Azeri districts, including a land corridor
to Armenia.

With no peace deal, soldiers on the frontline continue to be picked
off by landmines and snipers. No state has recognised Nagorno-Karabakh
as independent.

A bid this year by Turkey and Armenia to bury a century of hostility
stemming from the allegedly mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman
Turks has thrust the dispute back into the diplomatic spotlight.

Ankara says it wants Armenian forces to pull back before it ratifies
a deal to establish diplomatic ties with Yerevan and open the border
it closed in 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan, courted by Europe to supply gas for the planned Nabucco
pipeline, has reacted angrily to the thaw, fearing it will lose
leverage in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Media reports in Azerbaijan and Turkey speculate about a possible
Armenian pullback from the Azeri districts adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh
in order to clinch the deal with Turkey. Farmanyan said "such a
question is not being discussed."

Mediators from the United States, Russia and France gave little away
on Sunday after Aliyev and Sarksyan’s sixth meeting this year, saying
they made "important progress" but also met some difficulties.

They said they would work with the sides’ foreign ministers ahead of
an OSCE Ministerial Council in Athens on Dec. 1-2.

ARMENIAN-AZERI LEADERS HOLD TALKS

Aljazeera.net
November 23, 2009 Monday
Qatar

Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, has warned Serzh Sargsian,
his Armenian counterpart, that he will pursue a military option
against Armenia if a long-running border dispute is not resolved in
Munich this week.

The presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia met for talks at the
headquarters of the French consulate general in Germany on Sunday.

The meeting focused on resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh, a landlocked
region in the south Caucasus where territorial ownership had instigated
armed conflict with the participation of ethnic Armenians

Turkey, a new edition to the official mediators of the talks, attended
the meeting to press for progress before sealing a rapprochment
with Armenia. Officials from the United States, France and Russia
also joined.

The talks in Germany mark the sixth encounter for the Armenian and
Azeri president.

Patience ‘running thin’

Prior to the meeting, Aliyev warned that his country andrsquo;s
military was ready to take back the mountainous territory by force.

In comments broadcast on Saturday, he also warned Azeri patience
was running out, a statement analysts say reflects rising tension
over the prospect of Turkey opening its border with Armenia, which
oil-producing Azerbaijan vehemently opposes.

"If that meeting ends without result, then our hopes in negotiations
will be exhausted and then we are left with no other option. We have
the full right to liberate our land by military means," Aliyev said.

But a bid by Turkey and Armenia to bury a century of hostility stemming
from the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks has thrust the
Caucasus conflict back into the diplomatic spotlight.

Natalia Leshchenko, an expert on the Caucasus region, told Al Jazeera:
"This conflict has been frozen for almost two decades now so its
unlikely it would erupt into war. Besides, the Azeri leader is aware
of the fact that he would have to play against all the great powers
of the world by trying to start a conflict."

She said: "This is almost being done for the benefit of the domestic
audience to say that he will go ahead with these talks."

Turkey mediates

Ankara and Yerevan have signed accords to establish diplomatic ties
and open their border, which Turkey closed in 1993 in solidarity with
Azerbaijan during the war.

The deal carries huge significance for Turkey’s diplomatic clout in
the strategic Caucasus region, for its bid to join the European Union,
and for landlocked Armenia’s crippled economy.

But Azerbaijan has reacted angrily, fearing it will lose leverage
over Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

US, Russian and French mediators say they are making progress in
intensified talks, but Western diplomats say neither side appears
ready to commit to painful concessions.

‘Making progress’

The principles of a new deal would allow ethnic Armenian forces to
give back most of seven Azeri districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh
that they captured during the war.

If the deal is approved the territory would then be granted greater
international legitimacy before a popular vote in the future to decide
its final status.

Nagorno-Karabakh has been under control of Armenian troops and ethnic
Armenian forces since a 1994 ceasefire deal that ended six years of
war and killed at least 30,000 people.

The territory of 100,000 people wants recognition as an independent
state, but 15 years of mediation have failed to produce a peace deal.

Instead, sporadic exchanges of fire continue to threaten war in a
key oil and gas transit region to the West.

AZERBAIJANI CIVILIAN KILLED NEAR REBEL KARABAKH: REPORTS

Agence France Presse
Nov 23 2009
France

An Azerbaijani civilian has been killed by Armenian forces near the
disputed region of Nagorny Karabakh, Azerbaijani media reported Monday.

ANS television and the Azeri Press Agency reported that the
41-year-old man was killed on Sunday after Armenian forces opened
fire on Azerbaijani positions in the Goranboy region on the de facto
border with Karabakh.

Officials with Azerbaijan’s defence ministry could not be reached to
confirm the reports.

Backed by Yerevan, ethnic Armenian forces seized control of Nagorny
Karabakh and seven surrounding districts from Azerbaijan in the early
1990s, in a war that claimed an estimated 30,000 lives.

Armenian and Azerbaijani forces are spread across a ceasefire line in
and around Nagorny Karabakh, often facing each other at close range,
and shootings are common.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev met with his Armenian counterpart
Serzh Sarkisian in Germany on Sunday for the sixth round of talks
this year on resolving the conflict.

The two former Soviet republics have cut direct economic and transport
links and failed to negotiate a settlement on the region’s status.

ARMENIA THREATENS AZERBAIJAN WITH KARABAKH RECOGNITION

Agence France Presse
Nov 23 2009
France

Armenia on Monday threatened to recognise Azerbaijan’s breakaway
Nagorny Karabakh region as an independent state if Baku takes military
action to reclaim the territory.

"Armenia so far has not recognised the independence of Karabakh
for only one reason — so that it does not become an obstacle in the
process of peace negotiations," Armenian presidential spokesman Samvel
Farmanian said in a statement.

"If peace talks fail and military actions begin, nothing will prevent
Armenia from recognising the independence of Karabakh," he said.

Tensions over the disputed region have risen after Armenia and close
Azerbaijani ally Turkey signed an historic deal to establish diplomatic
ties and re-open their border.

On Saturday, Azerbaijani news agencies quoted President Ilham Aliyev
as saying that Baku has the right to retake Nagorny Karabakh by force
if ongoing peace talks fail to produce any results.

Aliyev met with his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian in Germany
on Sunday for the sixth round of talks this year on resolving the
conflict.

International mediators said in a statement after the talks that
"progress was made" but that "some issues still remain open."

Backed by Yerevan, ethnic Armenian forces seized control of Nagorny
Karabakh and seven surrounding districts from Azerbaijan in the early
1990s, in a war that claimed an estimated 30,000 lives.

Armenian and Azerbaijani forces are spread across a ceasefire line in
and around Nagorny Karabakh, often facing each other at close range,
and shootings are common.

Azerbaijani media reported Monday that an Azerbaijani civilian had
been shot dead by Armenian forces near the de facto border with Nagorny
Karabakh over the weekend, but the rebel region’s armed forces denied
the reports.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

I’M NOT SURE ARMENIAN-TURKISH BORDER WILL OPEN SOON: U.S. EXPERT

Today
747.html
Nov 24 2009
Azerbaijan

Day.Az interview with expert at the U.S.-based Council on Foreign
Relations Jeffrey Mankoff.

Day.Az: May a possible improvement in the U.S.-Russian relations have
an impact on the policies of these two countries in the Caucasus,
specifically, resolution of conflicts in the region?

Jeffrey Mankoff: Improved U.S.-Russian relations are likely to have an
impact on their ability to achieve progress in resolving conflicts in
the Caucasus. The U.S. and Russia diplomats played an important role
in signing of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. The main factor in this
agreement is Turkish interests in solving regional disputes in order
to promote Turkey’s role as a regional political "broker". However,
the signing of the "deal" would not have been possible without the
U.S.-Russia cooperation which in turn appeared only in past year or
without Moscow’s and Washington’s attempts to improve the overall
climate of bilateral relations.

Q: Do you expect speedy progress in resolving ethnic conflicts such
as Nagorno-Karabakh?

A: Not really. The only way Turkey and Armenia could achieve even a
limited deal is to put aside the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. Given the
pressure on the Armenian government, Armenia will unlikely be able to
make any concessions on Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey also needs to retain
some leverage with Azerbaijan which was very upset by agreement between
Turkey and Armenia. It will take time to analyze these protocols and
consider them in the Turkish and Armenian parliaments.

Moving forward in a more complex Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may take
more time.

Q: Armenia is the only one of three South Caucasian states where
there is a strong Russian influence. Do you think the United States
is studying opportunities to strengthen its influence there in order
to weaken Russia’s influence?

A: I think that the U.S. is trying to avoid considering its relations
with the Caucasus countries as an alternative to Russia’s influence.

In fact, the U.S. wants Armenia to agree to take part in the pipeline
project from the Caspian Sea to Europe which Russia opposes.

Q: Azerbaijan has signed a deal with Russia to supply gas to this
country starting from 2010. It is argued that Baku made this move
being disappointed at the slow of implementation of projects such
as Nabucco which is aimed at ensuring European energy security. What
are your views?

A: I think that there are several factors in Azerbaijan’s decision.

First, following the August events in Georgia, it seemed that the
regional balance in the Caucasus has changed. Secondly, there are
difficulties by Turkmenistan in the Nabucco issue and the lack
of funding.

Q: Do you expect the Armenian-Turkish border to open soon, or at least,
before there is progress in the Karabakh settlement?

A: I’m not sure about the "soon", but the border is likely to open
before the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia has a financial
interest in opening of the border. For the Armenian diaspora, which has
not directly confronted the consequences of political and economic
isolation of Armenia, it is easy to criticize this arrangement,
which does not address the issue of Karabakh. Armenian citizens
will certainly benefit from it. In turn, opening of the border would
increase the regional weight of Ankara including in its negotiations
with the European Union.

DANGER IN THE CAUCASUS

The Daily Telegraph
November 23, 2009 Monday
London

Nagorno-Karabakh is the Schleswig-Holstein question of our day. Of
that 19th-century conflict Lord Palmerston said that only three men
in Europe had ever understood it; one was dead, the second became mad
and the third was himself, and he had forgotten it. Nagorno-Karabakh,
a territory within Azerbaijan but with a largely Armenian population,
made the news in the early 1990s when Azerbaijan and Armenia waged a
bloody war over it as the Soviet Union was breaking up. Since then,
the enclave has slid from public consciousness, at least in the West,
as one of those intractable problems that bedevil the Caucasus. That
neglect, however, has not deterred diplomacy. Yesterday the presidents
of the two republics met in Munich; France, America and Russia are
mediating under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe.

Their talks have been given added momentum by a rapprochement between
Turkey and Armenia, a historic move given the long shadow cast by the
Ottoman massacres of Armenians between 1915 and 1917. But Ankara has
said that the re-opening of their common border and the establishment
of diplomatic relations depend on progress over Nagorno-Karabakh. The
Schleswig-Holstein question led to three wars, the last, when Prussia
seized control from Austria, the first of Bismarck’s campaigns to
unify Germany through "iron and blood". The future of Nagorno-Karabakh
carries serious implications for Turkey’s role in the Caucasus, and,
by extension, its bid for EU membership, for the supply of oil and
gas to the West, and for Armenia’s crippled economy.

Finding a solution, based on Armenia’s ceding of territory in exchange
for an eventual referendum on the enclave’s status, is daunting. But
the stakes, in an area of great strategic importance, are high.

SARKISIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO MUNICH, SAYS HOVANNESIAN

Asbarez
Nov 24th, 2009

ARF Bureau member Vahan Hovannesian

STEPANAKERT (ARF Press Service)-President Serzh Sarkisian should not
have gone to Munich for the OSCE-sponsored talks, in the wake Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev’s military threats against Armenia, said
Armenian Revolutionary Federation Bureau member Vahan Hovanessian
during a press conference Tuesday at the Artsakh press club.

The ARF leader said that Armenia’s absence from the Munich meeting
would have been accepted by the international community since it
would have fallen within international norms of peaceful conflict
resolution principles.

"[Armenia] should have told the mediators that [Alieyv’s] announcement
was equal to pressure and we do not see the imperative to negotiate
under pressure," said Hovannesian, who added that Aliyev’s military
threats could not be seen as one of his regular such statements,
but an ultimatum.

On Friday, Aliyev said in comments televised across his country, that
if Armenia did not agree to "return occupied territories" Azerbaijan
would have no problem in seizing them through military force.

Hovannesian suggested that Armenia could have used Aliyev’s remarks
as weapon against Azerbaijan in the negotiation process, but failed
to do so.

The mediators should have been urged by Sarkisian to call Azerbaijan to
task on its unconstructive and damaging behavior, and by not attending
the Munich talks Armenia could have sent a clear signal to Azerbaijan
and the OSCE mediators that Armenia did not stand for such threats,
he explained.

"I have stopped believing the Minsk Group co-chairs’ announcements,
because they contradict themselves," said Hovannesian.

"Everything is being done to squeeze concessions from Armenia on
the Karabakh front, in order to make the Armenia-Turkey protocols
approval process easier," said Hovannesian, adding that the ARF had
been warning the Armenian government about such traps, in which,
the ARF believes, the Armenian authorities have fallen once before
by agreeing to take part in the rapprochement process.

"The best option is to not ratify the protocols. This would not be
such a frightening situation. The talks would begin from scratch or
from a point where Armenia would have an opportunity to bypass the
current dangers," said Hovannesian.

Hovsannesian, who also leads the ARF parliamentary faction in Armenia,
argued that Armenia’s response to Aliyev’s remarks-recognition of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-is but one element of solving the problem.

He added that pursuing international recognition for Karabakh would
facilitate Stepanakert’s complete participation in the peace process.

In his remarks, Hovannesian also commented on Russia’s recent posturing
on issues related to Armenia, which he described as being Moscow’s
closest regional ally.

"I consider Russia’s current role in both Armenian-Turkish and
Armenian-Azeri relations to be very dangerous for Armenia," said
Hovannesian.

AZERBAIJAN: PROVOCATIONS ONLY HOPE
By Ivan Gharibyan

news.am
Nov 24 2009
Armenia

Azerbaijan has, as usual, "held special celebrations" of the regular
meeting between Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents, Serzh Sargsyan
and Ilham Aliyev. The sides made appreciable progress in agreeing on
the fundamental principles of settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The processes going on in both the states are further evidence of
the different moods shown by the authorities and public in connection
with the imminent settlement of the protracted conflict.

It is the different approaches by official Yerevan and Baku, as
well as by the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies that are the only
obstacle to an early settlement of the conflict. A simple formula for
the aforementioned different approaches is evident. The Armenian side
realizes the necessity for mutual and painful concessions, which are
a necessary and sufficient condition for settling the conflict. The
stance of the Armenian authorities, which are practically showing
their readiness for settling the conflict, is what is driving the
Azeri regime of its wits, forcing it into desperate steps, which,
in turn, contribute to Azerbaijan’s international isolation.

The last of the steps were President Ilham Aliyev’s warlike statements
on the threshold of the Munich meeting, and even the OSCE Minsk Group
had to openly condemn them. After the meeting, which admittedly showed
progress, Baku decided to resort to a provocation. According to the
available information on the contents of the document known as the
Madrid Principles, at the first stage of settlement the Armenian
side is to return only five of the seven regions neighboring on the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) to Azerbaijan. As regards Kelbajar
and Lachin, the issue will "be on the agenda" in five years provided
neither side violates the previous agreements. However, internationally
pressured and stalemated, Azerbaijan has immediately resorted to
spreading disinformation on the withdrawal of Armenian troops from
Kelbajar in the immediate future.

What is the aim of the provocation the Azerbaijani authorities resorted
to the day after the Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting? It is obvious: after
they have come down to an open condemnation of their warlike threats
by the mediators and, under international pressure, are now faced with
a necessity for revising their non-constrictive position, Ilham Aliyev
and his milieu are placing their last hopes on the Armenian society’s
discontent with the concessions the Armenian leader is ready for. That
is the reason why, the five regions not yet "at Azerbaijan’s disposal,"
Baku has begun speaking about the sixth. The Azerbaijani authorities
have to distract public attention from the issue of referendum on
the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, a condition President Ilham Aliyev
has to accept under international pressure.

The negotiation process has reached a point when the "the house
of cards" built by the Azerbaijani authorities has collapsed. Baku
perceived the Armenian side’s readiness as a ground for taking a harder
line. Now that the negotiation process is nearing "the crucial point",
the mediators and geopolitical players have made it clear for Aliyev
that the territories neighboring on Nagorno-Karabakh can be returned
only after an agreement on a referendum on Nagorno-Karabakh’s status
has been reached.

The fact of steadily mounting pressure on official Baku was admitted
by Novruz Mamedov, Head of the International Department, Azerbaijani
Presidential Administration. Speaking at the international conference
"Obstacles to Security in the South Caucasus: realities and prospects
of regional cooperation" organized by the Center for Strategic Studies
at the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration, he slated the West,
particularly the United States. The high-ranking official’s statements,
which were, of course, a reflection of the official position, boiled
down to Azerbaijan’s offence at the United State and the entire West
for their demanding specific mutual concessions to the Armenian side
instead of indulging the Azeri authorities’ non-constructive position.

The desperate efforts, however, will not help Azerbaijan break the
deadlock it has found itself at. Hopes for dividends from "flirting
with" the Kremlin do not promise anything to Ilham Aliyev and his
milieu either. Just a few days ago Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
reported a full agreement on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem between
Russia and the West. So Azeri authorities had better take a realistic
view of the geopolitical processes going on in the region – and do
it as soon as possible — so as not to come off a complete loser.

HOVHANNISYAN: GEORGIA MAY BE AFFECTED BY INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE

Aysor
Nov 24 2009
Armenia

"Georgia’s position is simply unacceptable and doesn’t suit to
civilized state, especially, to the Christian country," said at
today’s press conference head of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, Vahan
Hovhannisyan when asked about last developing in case of Armenian
Churches in Georgia.

Some Armenian churches located in Georgia were declared as ‘disputed’
and were not given back to Georgian Diocese of Armenian Apostolic
Church. These churches are: St. Gevorg Church (known as ‘Mugnetsots’),
Norashen, Virgin’s Shamkhoretsots, St. Nshan, Yerevantsots of St.

Minas, and St. Nshan in Akhaltsikhe.

St. Gevorg Church of the 13th century, as people called it
‘Mugnetsots’, ruined on November 19. All requests and claims voiced
before by Armenian Catholicosat in address to Georgian government
and Georgian Patriarchy, remained unanswered.

In this connection, Armenian politician said that only international
pressure may affect Georgia. "This is exactly what we are going to
do," stated Vahan Hovhannisyan without detailing which steps are to
be taken.