570 families get houses in 2018-2020 in the sidelines of disaster housing recovery program

Save

Share

 20:46, 7 December, 2020

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 7, ARMEPRESS. The Government of Armenia kept the housing issue of the disaster area under constant attention during the last 2.5 years, ARMENPRESS reports Mane Gevorgayn, press secretary of the Prime Minister, wrote on her Facebook page.

''During the period of 2018-2020 the housing issue of nearly 570 families was solved (the amount of funding over 6 billion AMD)'', she wrote.

December 7 marks the 32th anniversary of Spitak Eartquake.




Armenpress: Armenian FM to pay working visit to France on December 8-9

Armenian FM to pay working visit to France on December 8-9

Save

Share

 21:44, 7 December, 2020

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 7, ARMEPRESS. Foreign Minister of Armenia Ara Ayvazian will pay a working visit to France on December 8-9.

As ARMENPRESS was informed from the press service of the MFA Armenia, FM Ayvazian will hold negotiations with French FM Jean-Yves Le Drian.

Ara Ayvazian is also scheduled to meet with Secretary General of La Francophonie Louise Mushikiwabo and UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay during the visit.

Putin, Merkel discuss situation in Nagorno Karabakh

Save

Share

 19:46, 7 December, 2020

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 7, ARMEPRESS. Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the situation in Nagorno Karabakh and issues over the Russian peacekeepers, ARMENPRESS reports the official website of the Kremlin informed.

It's mentioned that the interlocutors discussed the situation in Nagorno Karabakh in detail, among other issues. Vladimir Putin informed about the mediation efforts to end hostilities, as well as the activities of the Russian peacekeepers stationed along the line of contact and in the Lachin corridor at the request of Baku and Yerevan. It was stressed that the consistent implementation of the agreements enshrined in the declaration adopted by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia on November 9 contributes to the general stabilization of the regional situation. The importance of solving the vital problems of the population affected by the military conflict was also stressed. In this regard, the need for the participation of international specialized organizations in the work of the Humanitarian Response Center established by Russia was noted. The parties expressed mutual readiness to further cooperate within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.

RFE/RL Armenian Report – 12/07/2020

                                        Monday, 

Moscow ‘Satisfied’ With Karabakh Truce Implemenation

        • Aza Babayan

RUSSIA -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets with his Armenian 
counterpart Ara Aivazian in Moscow, December 7, 2020

Russia is satisfied with Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s compliance with a 
Moscow-brokered ceasefire agreement that stopped the war in Nagorno-Karabakh on 
November 10, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday.

“We are satisfied with the fact that the ceasefire on the ground has been 
observed for almost a month and there is a return of refugees,” Lavrov said 
after talks with his visiting Amenian counterpart, Ara Ayvazian.

“There is progress in the exchange of prisoners of war and bodies of the dead 
and the search for missing persons,” he told reporters. “But as we pointed out 
earlier today, we are interested in seeing these acute humanitarian issues 
solved as soon as possible. And we mapped out today a number of steps in that 
direction.”

In his opening remarks at the three-hour negotiations, Lavrov said that through 
Russian peacekeepers deployed in the Karabakh conflict zone Moscow will seek to 
facilitate a “quick completion” of the exchange of POWs envisaged by the truce 
agreement.

Ayvazian also stressed the importance of the prisoner exchange, which has not 
yet begun. “We hope that there will be no obstacles from the Azerbaijani side,” 
he said at the joint news briefing with Lavrov. “Also, there have been many 
cases of inhumane treatment of Armenian prisoners held by the Azerbaijanis.”


A Russian peacekeeper stands guard on a road in the town of Lachin on December 
1, 2020.

Ayvazian, who was appointed as foreign minister less than a month ago, also 
reiterated Armenia’s strong condemnations of Turkey’s role in the Karabakh war 
that broke out on September 27.

“Turkey must withdrawl its military personnel and armed terrorist groups linked 
to them from the Karabakh conflict zone and the South Caucasus in general,” he 
said.

Ankara has denied sending members of Turkish-backed Syrian rebel groups to fight 
in Karabakh on Azerbaijan’s side. Azerbaijan also denies the presence of such 
mercenaries in the Azerbaijani army ranks.

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov and Lavrov discussed the 
implementation of the truce agreement in a weekend phone call. Baku and Moscow 
reported few details of the conversation.

The agreement brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin says nothing about 
Karabakh’s status. It is expected to be a key focus of Armenian-Azerbaijani 
negotiations planned by Russia, France and the United States.

Lavrov said Russian, French and U.S. diplomats co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group 
are planning to visit the conflict zone soon in an effort to kick-start the 
peace process. But he gave no possible dates for the trip.



Pashinian Must Go, Insists Parliamentary Opposition

        • Anush Mkrtchian
        • Karlen Aslanian

Armenia -- Emond Marukian, the leader of the opposition Bright Armenia Party, 
speaks during parliamentary hearings in Yerevan, December 7, 2020.

The two opposition parties represented in Armenia’s parliament remained adamant 
on Monday in demanding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s resignation and fresh 
parliamentary elections.

One of them, Bright Armenia (LHK), has not joined street protests organized by a 
coalition of 16 opposition groups accusing Pashinian of mishandling the war with 
Azerbaijan. Nor has the LHK backed an interim prime minister nominated by them 
last week.

“The prime minister symbolizing our defeat must resign. The parliament should 
choose an interim prime minister because this parliament obviously cannot serve 
out its constitutional term,” LHK leader Edmon Marukian said during 
parliamentary hearings organized by his party.

Marukian stressed at the same time that the Armenian opposition and the 
parliamentary majority representing Pashinian’s My Step should work together in 
trying to end the post-war political crisis in Armenia. They should do 
everything to prevent violent unrest in the country, he said.

Prosperous Armenia (BHK), the second parliamentary opposition party, is a key 
member of the opposition coalition holding anti-government rallies in Yerevan. 
It has given Pashinian until Tuesday to resign or face nationwide “civil 
disobedience” actions.

Naira Zohrabian, a senior BHK parliamentarian, said such actions are inevitable 
because Pashinian is unwilling to step down.

“He will not quit before provoking violent clashes,” claimed Zohrabian. “We must 
to everything to prevent such clashes.”

My Step lawmakers boycotted the parliamentary hearings.

One of them, Andranik Kocharian, rejected at the weekend the opposition demands 
for Pashinian’s resignation and accused the opposition of plotting a violent 
overthrown of the government. He rejected any parallels between the ongoing 
opposition demonstrations and the protest movement that brought Pashinian to 
power in 2018.

“The state must protect state structures, the government,” Kocharian told 
RFE/RL’s Armenian Service. “This government has a high degree of legitimacy even 
in this difficult, depressing post-war situation.”

Echoing Pashinian’s statements, Kocharian insisted that the current government 
should stay in power to “maintain stability” and cement the ceasefire in and 
around Karabakh.



Armenian President Wants Government To Return $100 Million Donation


Armenia -- President Armen Sarkissian speaks during an official ceremony at the 
presidential palace in Yerevan.

President Armen Sarkissian has criticized a pan-Armenian charity for donating to 
Armenia’s government most of $170 million raised by it for Nagorno-Karabakh 
during the recent war.

Sarkissian said the unusual move undermined donors’ trust in the Hayastan 
All-Armenian Fund. He urged the government to release a detailed report on how 
it has used the economic and humanitarian aid to Karabakh.

Hayastan launched an international fundraising campaign immediately after the 
outbreak of the war on September 27. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians from 
around the world responded to its appeal for urgent aid to Karabakh and its 
population severely affected by the fighting. They donated roughly $170 million 
to Hayastan within weeks.

It emerged afterwards that the charity headquartered in Yerevan redirected more 
than $100 million of those proceeds to the government. The Armenian Finance 
Ministry said on November 24 that the hefty donation will finance the 
government’s “infrastructure, social and healthcare expenditures” necessitated 
by the six-week war.

In a statement issued on Sunday, Sarkissian’s office revealed that he objected 
to the financial contribution approved by most members of Hayastan’s board of 
trustees headed by the Armenian president. It said he believes the decision left 
the fund’s donors suspecting that “their trust has been abused.”

According to the statement, Sarkissian has sent a letter to the board members 
arguing for “urgent steps” that should be taken before the donors’ “trust in the 
Government and the Fund has been finally lost.”

“Consequently, according to the President, the Government must submit a clear, 
detailed, and transparent report on the expenditures made with the transferred 
sums of the Fund, and this must be done in the most public way,” the 
presidential office said.

Sarkissian also called for an “urgent international audit” of Hayastan. He said 
that in case of “negative” findings” of the audit the government should redefine 
the hefty donation as a “loan” and pledge to eventually reimburse the fund.

“The return of the funds, transferred by the Government to the Hayastan 
All-Armenian Fund, can significantly change the situation and become a guarantee 
of restoring the confidence in the Fund,” added the statement.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s office and the Hayastan management did not 
immediately react to Sarkissian’s concerns and proposals.

Later in November, Hayastan raised in the United States and France $26 million 
in fresh funds for Nagorno-Karabakh. It attracted the bulk of the donations 
pledges during an annual telethon broadcast from Los Angeles.

Hayastan has implemented $370 million worth of various infrastructure projects 
in Karabakh and Armenia since being set up in 1992. Its board of trustees mostly 
comprises Armenia’s political leaders and prominent Diaspora philanthropists.



Ter-Petrosian Slams Pashinian, Opposition

        • Karlen Aslanian

Armenia - Opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian at his election campaign 
headquarters in Yerevan, 2Apr2017.

Former President Levon Ter-Petrosian has added his voice to calls for Prime 
Minister Nikol Pashinian’s resignation while condemning what he called 
opposition threats of a violent overthrow of Armenia’s government.

In a weekend article posted on ilur.am, Ter-Petrosian said that both Pashinian 
and opposition groups holding anti-government protests are putting the country 
at risk of “civil war” with their radical stances.

He pointed to veteran politician Vazgen Manukian’s speech at a rally held by a 
coalition of 16 opposition groups in Yerevan on Friday. They hold Pashinian 
responsible for Armenia’s defeat in the war with Azerbaijan and want him to cede 
power to an interim government that would hold snap parliamentary elections.

Manukian, whom the opposition forces want to take over as a caretaker prime 
minister, said Pashinian should “realize that the sooner he willingly resigns 
the better it will be for him.” “If this movement does not win, furious people 
will rip him apart,” he warned before thousands of opposition supporters marched 
to the prime minister’s residence guarded by security forces.


ARMENIA -- Politician Vazgen Manukian attends an opposition rally in Yerevan, 
December 5, 2020

Opposition leaders gave the prime minister until Tuesday to step down or face a 
nationwide campaign of “civil disobedience.”

Ter-Petrosian said Manukian’s speech amounted to a threat of violent regime 
change. He claimed that the radical opposition also demonstrated its “readiness 
for violence” by rallying supporters outside the government compound where 
Pashinian lives with his family.

The 75-year-old, who served as Armenia’s first president from 1991-1998, also 
hit out at Pashinian, saying that the latter is ready for “any confrontation” to 
cling to power in the wake of the war in Nagorno-Karabakh stopped by a 
Russian-brokered ceasefire on November 10.

“Given the shameful and humiliating defeat inflicted on Armenia and Artsakh, 
Pashinian’s regime must definitely and immediately resign,” he said. “Not 
through internal clashes but a solely constitutional path … I am therefore 
calling on the people not to participate in mass unrest provoked by both the 
current government and the opposition.”


ARMENIA -- People attend an opposition rally in Yerevan, December 5, 2020

Like the Armenian opposition, Ter-Petrosian has been highly critical of 
Pashinian’s handling of the war that killed thousands of Armenian soldiers and 
resulted in sweeping Armenian territorial losses. He and two other former 
presidents, Robert Kocharian and Serzh Sarkisian, offered to negotiate with 
Russia in a bid stop the hostilities shortly after their outbreak on September 
27.

Pashinian questioned late last month the sincerity and seriousness of the 
ex-presidents’ offers, prompting angry responses from all three men.

Levon Zurabian, Ter-Petrosian’s right-hand man, told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service 
earlier in November that Pashinian did not give the 75-year-old ex-president a 
“mandate” to negotiate in Moscow a better peace deal. Zurabian blamed that on 
Pashinian’s “insatiable and morbid vanity.”

Pashinian played a major role in Ter-Petrosian’s 2007-2008 opposition movement. 
He subsequently fell out with the ex-president and set up his own party.


Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2020 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.

 


Erdogan expresses hope that France will ‘get rid of Macron’ as soon as possible

France 24
Dec 4 2020
 
 
 
Erdogan expresses hope that France will 'get rid of Macron' as soon as possible
 
 
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday he hopes France will get rid of Emmanuel Macron as soon as possible, the latest salvo in an escalating war of words between the two leaders.
 
 
Turkey is embroiled in a series of disputes with France and its EU partners, from tensions in the eastern Mediterranean to the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region.
 
The spat has risen to new levels in recent months as France has moved to crack down on Islamist extremism after several attacks on its soil.
 
"Macron is trouble for France. With Macron, France is passing through a very, very dangerous period. I hope that France will get rid of Macron trouble as soon as possible," Erdogan told reporters after Friday prayers in Istanbul.
 
He said the French should dump their leader "otherwise they will not be able to get rid of yellow vests", referring to the protest movement that erupted in France in 2018.
 
"Yellow vests could later turn into red vests," Erdogan said, without elaborating.
 
The Turkish leader has repeatedly suggested that Macron get "mental checks" and urged the Turkish people to boycott French-labelled products.
 
Erdogan's diatribe came as the European Union weighs imposing sanctions against Turkey at a December 10 summit, largely over its standoff with EU member Greece in the eastern Mediterranean.
 
Diplomats have said that Paris is pressing for such punitive measures against Ankara even if some key EU members — notably Germany — are more circumspect and want a diplomatic approach.
 
"We are ready to use the means at our disposal," said European Council chief Charles Michel, expressing dismay over Ankara's "unilateral acts" and "hostile rhetoric".
 
In a televised interview Friday, Macron appeared unwilling to be drawn into a new round of insults with Erdogan.
 
"I believe in respect… I think invective between political leaders is not a good method," said Macron.
 
'Give Marseille to Armenians'
 
Turkey and France are also at odds over Nagorno-Karabakh, a region of Azerbaijan populated by ethnic Armenians that broke away from Baku's control in a 1990s post-Soviet war.
 
Fresh fighting broke out in September, leaving several thousand people dead, until a Russian-brokered ceasefire deal was sealed last month.
 
Turkey is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan and Macron — whose country has a large Armenian community — repeatedly accused Ankara of sending Syrian militia to fight for Baku.
 
Last month, the French Senate adopted a non-binding resolution calling on France to recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state.
 
"You are a mediator but on the other side, you have passed a resolution in your parliament… about a region on which you are supposed to be a mediator," Erdogan charged.
 
France along with Russia and the United States co-chairs the Minsk Group, which has led talks seeking a solution to the conflict for decades but has failed to reach a lasting agreement.
 
Erdogan also repeated comments by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev that France should concede the Mediterranean port city of Marseille — home to one of France's biggest Armenian communities — to Armenia if it wanted to establish a state for the Armenians of Karabakh.
 
 
 
"I am giving the same advice: if they are so keen, they should give Marseille to Armenians," Erdogan said.
 
In September, Macron's comments on the simmering eastern Mediterranean standoff, which has pitted Turkey against Greece and the rest of the EU, drew Ankara's wrath.
 
"The people of Turkey, who are a great people, deserve something else," Macron said in comments slammed by Ankara as meddling in domestic politics.
 
Macron told Al-Jazeera in October France wanted things to "calm down" but it was essential first that the "Turkish president respects France, respects the European Union, respects its values, does not tell lies and does not utter insults".
 
(AFP)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

An Armenian Tragedy

Slate Mag
Dec 4 2020
 
 
 
How a country’s wishful thinking was shattered by a brutal national defeat.
 
By JOSHUA KUCERA
DEC 04, 20205:45 AM
 
YEREVAN, Armenia—Grisha Stepanyan sat, looking lost. His crutches leaned against his chair, his left pant leg neatly folded up above his knee. He clutched a square of cardboard cut from a package of Choco Pie snack cakes on the back of which were written, in precise Armenian script, the phone numbers of several family members.
 
 
The day before, he said, a group of “Turks” had raided his village in Nagorno-Karabakh and had killed six residents. (Armenians use “Turks” as a slur for Azerbaijanis, but in this war, Azerbaijan was getting heavy backing from Turkey, so it’s not clear exactly to whom he was referring.) His daughter came to pick him up immediately, wrote out the phone numbers for him, and put him on a minibus to Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, six hours’ drive away.
 
That’s where I met him, in a refugee reception center with dozens of his compatriots. They were among the tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians who had fled Karabakh since the Azerbaijani offensive started in late September.
 
Many of them, like Stepanyan, were elderly, and many were children. One girl was in a wheelchair. A volunteer at the center showed me, on her phone, several drawings that some of the children had done while there. One, by a 9-year-old boy, depicted his house with a tree in front that had been destroyed by an incoming shell.
 
Many of the children appear to have been traumatized by the fighting, said Varuzhan Mazmanyan, a doctor who was volunteering at the center and who was showing me around. One boy of 5 or 6 heard a crane start up at a construction site next to the refugee center; he thought the sound was a drone and ran inside.
 
 
It’s not easy on the elderly, either. Stepanyan was worried about how he was going to collect his monthly pension now that he wasn’t in Karabakh, and as he struggled to explain his predicament to Mazmanyan, he broke into tears. The doctor gently explained that a system was being set up to distribute Karabakh pensions here in Armenia, but it didn’t do much to change the old man’s miserable _expression_. Tears continued to well in his eyes.
 
COVID-19, unsurprisingly, is rampant in Karabakh and new arrivals at the center get their temperature checked and a face mask if they don’t have one. Many of these people had spent days or weeks in crowded underground bomb shelters in Karabakh before fleeing to Armenia. I couldn’t help but notice that the mask-wearing rate was maybe 60 percent, but who can worry about an invisible threat like the coronavirus when a very tangible one is landing and exploding around you? Besides, it’s pretty much impossible to socially distance when you’re a refugee.
 
I had come to Armenia at one of the most difficult times in the nation’s history, and it was about to get worse. On Sept. 27, Azerbaijan had launched a full-scale offensive in order to recapture Karabakh, an enclave within its territory that it lost to Armenians nearly three decades earlier.
 
By the time I got there, about a month into the war, Armenia was losing. The individual human cost was visible here at the refugee center, in the stories of people who had had to flee their homes ahead of the advancing Azerbaijani forces. If Azerbaijanis managed to take all of Karabakh, the territory’s entire population of 150,000 residents—virtually all ethnic Armenians —would likely become refugees.

 

But the loss was also being experienced at a different level among Armenians, at a national and existential scale. For Armenians, Karabakh is an integral part of their national identity. One common formulation has it that the nation is a “trinity,” consisting of the country of Armenia, Karabakh, and the large global Armenian diaspora.
 
Armenia had won control of Karabakh in a previous war with Azerbaijan, in the 1990s, as the Soviet Union was collapsing. That war had ended in a cease-fire but not a peace treaty, and Karabakh is still internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory. Armenians didn’t see it that way, though. “There is no Armenia without Karabakh,” Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said in one wartime address to the nation.
 
Winning Karabakh in the 1990s was seen by many Armenians as a sort of comeback after the 1915 genocide of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. As Thomas de Waal’s definitive account of that war, Black Garden, put it: “Victory over Azerbaijan had altered the previous fixed self-image of Armenians as ‘the noble victim.’ This time, after all, they had won, and others had lost.”
 
Mazmanyan’s ancestors were from Kars, in today’s Turkey, and were survivors of the genocide. “Why is this happening again, 100 years later?” he asked. “Here [at the refugee center] you see women, children, elderly. The men are all there, so they can return all our lands again. That is the goal of everything we’re doing here.”
 
Losing Karabakh would be not only a national defeat but also a blow, possibly fatal, to the hopes engendered by Armenia’s 2018 Velvet Revolution, in which the man-of-the-people ex-journalist Pashinyan improbably toppled the corrupt, strongman regime that had ruled the country for two decades. For Pashinyan to be the one to lose to Azerbaijan would threaten the country’s prospects for democracy.
 
At that point in October, though, the scale of the oncoming catastrophe was perhaps too great to comprehend, and there was a pervasive denial about how the war was going.
 
The Armenian Ministry of Defense was issuing regular, rosy dispatches from the front denying any Azerbaijani advance and proudly enumerating the numbers of tanks and drones it had destroyed and enemy soldiers it had killed. Independent analysts, though, were painting a different picture: Azerbaijan was making dramatic advances on the ground and Armenian forces were suffering serious attrition.
 
The Armenian media had, however, uncritically picked up the official line. This was partly due to a censorship regime: Shortly after fighting started, the government instituted martial law, one of the provisions of which was that it was illegal “to call into question the military capabilities” of the armed forces. But it also seemed to be partly a self-censorship in response to popular demand: There was no appetite for news about how Armenia was losing.
 
In my day job I am Caucasus editor at Eurasianet, a website covering the former Soviet Union, and any story we published that suggested things could be going badly for Armenia was met with a flurry of social media anger, claiming that we had fallen victim to Azerbaijani government propaganda.
 
There were widespread rumors that—secretly—the situation was better than it appeared. Many Armenians told me that they had heard from authoritative sources that things were in fact going well on the battlefield, or that Russia was secretly supplying arms. (Russia is nominally a treaty ally of Armenia, but its conspicuously laissez-faire attitude while Armenians in Karabakh were under attack was the subject of much speculation.)
 
I met one young woman, Irina Safaryan, who worked for the de facto government in Karabakh and had fled to Yerevan when her hometown, Hadrut, was taken by Azerbaijan. She chalked up bad news about the war to “panic” spread by irresponsible social media users: “Imagine if they had Twitter in 1993. Panicking is not going to help anyone.” Still, she allowed that some of the bad news may have been true. “I know a lot of things, but I keep them to myself,” she said.
 
I asked Armenian American political analyst Richard Giragosian, who has lived in Yerevan for 16 years and now heads a think tank here, what he made of this kind of denial. He called it the “myth of invincibility” borne out of the experience of the first war, which Armenians at one point were badly losing until they came back to rout the Azerbaijanis.
 
That mythology has bred a sense of complacency, an almost spiritual belief in Armenians’ toughness and superiority over Azerbaijanis that would negate whatever material advantage the Azerbaijani state might have. Giragosian characterized this thinking as “bullshit exceptionalism.”
 
Volunteer fighters stand in a valley outside a village southeast of Stepanakert on Oct. 23, during the ongoing fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces.
Aris Messinis/AFP via Getty Images
 
But there also were plenty of cracks in the outward displays of confidence. I took a tour of VOMA, a volunteer paramilitary organization in Yerevan that trains nonsoldiers in combat skills and maintains a battalion of troops fighting in Karabakh. It was almost a tragically shambolic scene, with a wide variety of unprepared-looking people training to go a war that even the professional soldiers of the Armenian armed forces were losing badly.
 
There I met 59-year-old Hrayr Koroghlian, a gray-bearded Frenchman of Armenian descent who had left his job at a car dealership in France to train at VOMA. Other than the wooden model of an AK-47 he cradled, he bore a remarkable resemblance to Bill Murray as Steve Zissou. “I’m mentally ready” to go to the front, he told me. “The commanders will decide when I’m physically ready.”
 
But when I asked the two young volunteers who were showing me around how they thought the war was going, they both lowered their eyes and paused a bit. “I don’t know,” one told me.
 
This war had been coming for a long time. In the late 1980s, Armenians demanded that Karabakh—which was inside the borders of Soviet Azerbaijan—be transferred to Soviet Armenia. Interethnic violence broke out and then, when the Soviet Union collapsed, all-out war. By the time a cease-fire was signed in 1994, Armenia controlled a substantial part of Azerbaijani territory. That included Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as large swaths of other territory surrounding it, which Armenian forces captured during the fighting. Those territories had been almost entirely populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis, who all fled. In total, more than 600,000 Azerbaijanis were displaced from this area, according to United Nations figures.
 
The remaining population—almost entirely ethnic Armenian—formed a Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, unrecognized by any other state, including Armenia itself. Armenia nevertheless heavily backed the de facto state, both financially and militarily.
 
The loss burned among Azerbaijanis, who saw the war as an unjust land grab by Armenians. Over the years since the war, peace talks were held to come up with a formal resolution to the conflict, which would have included something like a return to Azerbaijan of the territories surrounding Karabakh, some kind of status for Karabakh that would reflect the will of its population, the right of the displaced people to return, and an international security guarantee to police it all.
 
In the early days of the negotiations, the two sides talked seriously and were at times agonizingly close to making a deal. But the talks increasingly turned into empty formalities and the positions on both sides hardened against making any compromises. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, poured the wealth it gained from extracting its substantial natural gas and oil reserves into its military and vowed that it would take back its territories by force, if necessary.
  
The signs of war were especially evident over the last year. Azerbaijan was initially cheered by Pashinyan’s coming to power. The former ruling regime had been led by senior officers from the first Karabakh war, a group of hard-liners known as “the Karabakh clan” in Baku. Pashinyan, who had no connection to Karabakh, initially appeared to Azerbaijanis to be a fresh voice and someone with whom they could talk. There were some initially positive moves on the diplomatic front. But the populist prime minister began to adopt even more hard-line public positions than even the “Karabakh clan” had. These were reciprocated by even more urgent threats of war from Baku.
 
And yet, most Armenians never seemed to believe that a war was actually possible. Over my years of reporting on this conflict, I had been struck by the disconnect from what I heard in Azerbaijan—that war would be inevitable if negotiations didn’t work—and among Armenians, who tended to think that Baku was all talk and no action.
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Armenians and Azerbaijanis really hate one another. The rivalry may be the most vicious in the world. The few voices of those on either side who are trying to break the cycle of aggression and victimization have been even further marginalized as the result of the war. But they still exist.
 
Early on in the war, I read a Facebook post by a young Armenian journalist, Arpi Bekaryan, that had affected me strongly. It described her journey from being an Azerbaijani-hating nationalist to someone who saw the conflict in terms of humans, not sides.
 
After the war started, wading into Caucasus social media every day was a suffocating exercise, seeing people who were once liberal and open-minded turning nationalist and flag-waving. The mutual hatred was crushing, and reading Bekaryan’s post was cathartic. So when I went to Yerevan, I looked her up.
 
She told me that on the day war broke out, her father happened to be in Karabakh for the funeral of an in-law. She didn’t get any news from him all day and began to worry. Meanwhile, her Azerbaijani friends on Facebook were cheering the outbreak of war and celebrating what they thought would be their imminent return to Karabakh. “I have lost many friends from Azerbaijan,” she told me.
 
That she has friends from Azerbaijan at all is a rarity; the large majority of young Armenians and Azerbaijanis have no contact with one another. But Bekaryan had just finished a master’s program in journalism in Georgia that brings together Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis. There she got to know people from the other side of the conflict and their perspective, and realized that what she had learned growing up about the conflict was incomplete at best. “We think Azerbaijanis are all brainwashed and under the influence of state propaganda, and that we aren’t at all, that we’re balanced,” she said with a laugh.
 
While she’s been dismayed by many of her Azerbaijani friends’ turn toward militarism, she saves most of her criticism for her own side, for Armenians’ unwillingness to acknowledge Azerbaijanis’ trauma and legitimate grievances from the first war.
 
That is an exceedingly rare quality in this conflict, and people on either side who criticize their own side’s nationalism and militarism are routinely branded as “traitors.” I asked her how she dealt with that accusation.
 
She responded by telling me a story about a funeral she had gone to a week before, of a good friend’s brother who died fighting. She described it as impersonal, almost mechanistic, with the soldiers’ funerals taking place three at a time and martial hymns being played.
 
As she left, another friend described how impressed he was with the scene. “He was trying to romanticize this, seeing this as something patriotic, and I got so angry I started to shout at him on the street. ‘There is nothing to be proud of,’ ” she told him. “ ‘It’s because of people like you that we are in this situation.’
 
“If it wasn’t for this nationalistic ideology we wouldn’t be here at all, and we wouldn’t have had the war in the ’90s as well,” she continued. She is soft-spoken, but her voice tightened. “I don’t see myself as a traitor. They are the traitors. These people are not ending the war with this hate speech, with this nationalism, even by going to the front and fighting again and again. How many times is it going to take, how many lives? People are saying here, ‘We will fight to the last Armenian.’ We talk about the genocide but then we say we will fight to the last Armenian. And they call me the traitor?”
 
In this atmosphere, saturated with bravado and desperation, defeat was unfathomable. And for Armenians, who tend to see themselves as cardinally superior to Azerbaijanis—more civilized, smarter, tougher, and better fighters—the thought that they could one day lose never crossed their minds.
 
And then they lost.
 
A bit past midnight on Nov. 10, Pashinyan, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a deal to end the war.
 
Two days before, Azerbaijan had announced that it had captured Shusha, the hilltop city that is both a strategically key site and a symbolically rich one; it had been the center of Azerbaijani culture in Karabakh for centuries.
 
Armenian officials denied that the city (they spell it Shushi) had been taken. “Wait for the official news, and wait for the end of the battle of Shushi which I’m sure our army will end with glory and we will win, I am sure. Trust our army and wait,” the Ministry of Defense spokesman, Artsrun Hovhannisyan, said. Armenian social media and rumor mills were full of reports that, in fact, the city was not under Azerbaijani control. It turned out that the Azerbaijanis were right, and with Shusha under their control, the Armenians faced a rout and Pashinyan had no choice but to sign the capitulation.
 
The terms were a complete catastrophe for Armenia. Azerbaijan would retain control of everything they took during the war and gain control of the occupied territories surrounding Karabakh. Among the territories signed away was Grisha Stepanyan’s village of Chanakhchi. The little territory that Armenians were left with would be protected by Russian peacekeepers, and the future of that bit of land, even in the medium term, is precarious.
 
The response among Armenians was shock, sadness, and anger. “I’m empty,” Safaryan, the government worker in exile, tweeted that morning. “I don’t exist any more.” Her hometown of Hadrut also had been signed away.
 
Almost immediately after the capitulation was announced, mysterious groups of men, some likely connected to the former regime, stormed Parliament, badly beat the speaker, and even broke into Pashinyan’s residence (he wasn’t there). Pashinyan’s political opponents, who had been lying somewhat low during the war, immediately struck and demanded his resignation.
 
Even many of the prime minister’s supporters were dismayed. Pashinyan regularly claimed to rule by mandate of “the people,” and one of his promises shortly after coming to power was that he would not sign any “secret” deal on Karabakh but would instead bring it to the people to discuss.
 
Protesters attend an opposition rally demanding the resignation of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan at Independence Square in Yerevan on Nov. 21.
Alexander Ryumin/TASS via Getty Images
 
The morning after the deal was signed, I headed over to Parliament to see if anything was still happening and found a few hundred people uneasily milling about, hoping that Pashinyan or members of parliament would come out and explain what had happened.
 
One of them was Tigran Khachaturyan, who was a Pashinyan supporter. “You can imagine the frustration of the nation now. That the person who had the most trust just screwed us in one night, with one signature,” he said. He acknowledged that Pashinyan may have had no choice but resented that the deal was done in precisely the fashion the prime minister had vowed it wouldn’t. “OK, there was no choice—then do it according to your promise. Come to the square and tell it to the people.”
  
Many others, though, didn’t believe Pashinyan had no choice and accused him of “selling out” Karabakh. The details of the conspiracy theory were fuzzy and often contradictory, but they were all based on a belief that Armenia could have won the war. “He is a traitor,” Ruzana Martirosyan told me. “He stopped the soldiers from fighting.” Another, Emma Begiyan, told me: “They were telling us every day that everything was going great [in the war] and now in one night we’re selling our land.”
 
In the wake of the defeat, there has been a lot of second-guessing of Pashinyan’s decision-making. The chief of staff of the armed forces came out to say that military leaders recommended surrendering just days after the start of the war, when it was clear that Armenia was hopelessly outmatched against Azerbaijan and Turkey, and the country could have negotiated less painful terms. Putin piled on, saying that Pashinyan had rejected an earlier deal, to which Aliyev agreed, that also would have left Armenia in a far better position than it ended up.
 
It appeared that Pashinyan was politically hamstrung by Armenians’ belief that they couldn’t lose. After the war ended, Giragosian told me that Pashinyan was getting conflicting information on the military situation, and pessimistic assessments like that of the armed forces’ chief of staff were in the minority. Still, he summed up Pashinyan’s strategic thinking in one word: “hubris.” As I write this, Pashinyan’s fate is unclear, but it’s hard to believe he’s going to hold on for much longer.
 
Pashinyan is far from irreplaceable and the values of his revolution—a dedication to stamping out corruption and putting more power in the hands of the people—may be in better hands with someone else. The bigger risk, though, is that the entire project of democratization that he spearheaded will be discredited and jeopardized.
 
For decades, liberal critics of the former ruling regime were patronized by the claim that democracy was a luxury unaffordable for a country like Armenia, under a serious military threat that demanded strong internal unity. That isn’t why Armenia lost, but it will be an easy explanation for many to seize on to. Pashinyan was far from perfect, but he was better than what came before and very likely better than what will come next.
 
Meanwhile, the war only accelerated the cycle of hatred between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, which is now worse than I have ever seen it. Armenians are now in the humiliating position that Azerbaijanis were 26 years ago, and while one would hope that would engender some empathy for the suffering of the other side, the opposite has happened.
 
Azerbaijanis, with very few exceptions, have been far from gracious in victory. The tone was set by Aliyev, who in his address to the nation following Armenia’s capitulation mocked Pashinyan as a “coward” and crowed over the concessions Armenians were forced to make.
 
Videos emerged on social media showing Azerbaijani soldiers committing horrific atrocities against captured Armenians and defacing Armenian churches. Armenians grieving over their loss on Twitter have invariably been swarmed by replies from gloating Azerbaijanis. Even Bekaryan, among the most pacifist of Armenians, has been badgered by Azerbaijani trolls for any post she dares write that is sympathetic to the Armenians now suffering.
 
The way forward for Armenians now is murky.
 
In the wake of defeat, one man who has been having a moment in Armenia is Jirair Libaridian, a historian and former senior diplomat who had been the Armenians’ chief negotiator in the 1990s. He had been the rare voice calling for Armenians to negotiate seriously with Azerbaijanis; his warnings now appear prescient, and he has been giving several interviews with scathing assessments of what he has described as decades of wishful thinking on the conflict.
 
“We have cultivated an unwillingness to accept reality, to reject reality and replace it with our dreams. We have raised this to an art form,” he said in an interview with the BBC Russian service. “We chased after dreams and the impossible, and we lost what was possible, what we could get.”
  
Many other Armenians, meanwhile, are digging in, vowing to regroup and retake the territories that they lost, even if it takes decades—like it did for the Azerbaijanis.
 
“Learn from their [Azerbaijanis’] successes and their failures such that someday we may be able to liberate [Karabakh] from tyrants and despots again,” one recent Armenian American Harvard graduate wrote in a diaspora newspaper. “They spent 25 years planning this invasion. Who says that we cannot do the same?”
 
Reporting for this story was supported by the Pulitzer Center.
 
 

San Giorgio di Nogaro, Italy, recognizes the Armenian Genocide

Public Radio of Armenia
Dec 4 2020

The Municipality of San Giorgio di Nogaro, Italy, has recognized the genocide of the Armenian people perpetrated in the years 1915-1916, the Council of the Armenian community of Rome reports.

With a resolution presented by Councilor Fabio Fiorin and voted unanimously by those present, the Municipality of San Giorgio di Nogaro formally recognized the historical truth of the Armenian genocide “on the basis of the resolutions already adopted by the UN, the European Parliament, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America and by the Parliament of the Italian Republic itself.”

With this pronouncement the name of the Municipality of San Giorgio di Nogaro joins the more than 140 Italian communities that have recognized the Genocide.

The Council for the Armenian community of Rome welcomes the news of the recognition and expresses its gratitude to the Municipal Council of San Giorgio di Nogaro for having chosen to be on the side of universal values such as truth and justice and express solidarity with the Armenian people particularly at this challenging moment in its history.

On 25 November 2020 the Council adopted another resolution which recognized the independence of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh).

Hundreds protest against Armenian PM

News Today
Dec 4 2020

Yerevan: Hundreds of Armenians blocked streets in the capital Yerevan late on Thursday and called for the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan over a ceasefire deal that locked in Azeri territorial gains in Nagorno-Karabakh last month.

Pashinyan has rejected the calls to resign over what his opponents say was his disastrous handling of a six-week conflict between Azerbaijan and ethnic Armenian forces over the Nagorno-Karabkh enclave and surrounding areas.

Protesters chanted Nikol is a traitor and police officers detained several people, witnesses told Reuters.

Earlier on Thursday, a coalition of 17 opposition parties named former premier Vazgen Manukyan as a potential caretaker prime minister to replace Pashinyan until snap parliamentary elections are held.

The move has no legal force, but illustrates public anger against Pashinyan who has accepted full responsibility for the outcome of the conflict, but said he is now responsible for ensuring national security and stabilising Armenia.

Former National Security Service Chairman Artur Vanetsyan said Manukyan could serve as a prime minister without a party affiliation and then call snap elections that he himself would not take part in.

The ceasefire signed by leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia on Nov. 10 halted military action in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan but populated by ethnic Armenians. Some 2,000 Russian peacekeeping troops are now being deployed to the region.

Large areas in Nagorno-Karabakh previously controlled by ethnic Armenians were handed over to Azerbaijan, whose forces had captured territory including areas that Baku lost in an earlier war in the 1990s.

ANN/Armenian News – Conversation on Armenian News – Anastas Mikoyan – 12/03/2020

Armenian News Network / Armenian News

Conversation on Armenian News: Soviet or Armenian? The Life and Times of Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan

ANN/Armenian News

December 3, 2020


Introduction

Hello and welcome to Armenian News Network, Armenian News.

Thank you for listening and supporting our podcast. If you like what you hear, please help us reach a wider audience by subscribing to our channel, liking, and sharing our podcasts. We are on all your favorite media platforms, including Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and more.

In this Conversations on Armenian News episode, we’ll be talking with historian Pietro A. Shakarian on the life and times of Soviet Armenian statesman Anastas Mikoyan. If you are interested in Armenia’s Soviet past and its continued impact on the country today, then this is an episode not to be missed!

This episode was recorded on Thursday, November 12, 2020.

  • Pietro Shakarian

  • Hovik Manucharyan

  • Asbed Bedrossian

Born in Sanahin, Armenia in 1895, Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan was the most prominent Soviet state figure of Armenian origin. A survivor, Mikoyan managed to weather every Soviet leader from Lenin to Brezhnev.  He was once the #2 man in Moscow after Nikita Khrushchev, and his legacy is complex.  Today on Armenian News, we will explore this extraordinary historical figure.

Mikoyan, with Soviet Armenian leaders Yakov Zarobyan and Anton Kochinyan in Sanahin, Alaverdi, Lori, Armenia.  Courtesy of the Russian State Archive, Moscow (f. 5446, op. 120, d. 1723, l. 21).

To help us unpack the historical legacy of Mikoyan, Pietro Shakarian joins us today from Cleveland. Pietro is a historian and a Ph.D. candidate in Russian History at the Ohio State University. His dissertation focuses on Mikoyan’s reforms in de-Stalinization and the nationality sphere in the Khrushchev-era USSR. His analyses on Russia, Armenia, and the post-Soviet space have appeared in The Nation, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Russian International Affairs Council, Russia Direct, and Hetq.  He has also worked with the Gomidas Institute in London on the republication of 19th century accounts of the Russian Caucasus and Armenia.

Who was Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan?

  • How did he rise to power, his journey from his birthplace of Sanahin, in northern Armenia to the corridors of power in the Kremlin.

  • Few Soviet leaders were able to transcend the major political shifts that occurred within the USSR throughout its history. However, Mikoyan managed to survive from Ilyich Lenin to Ilyich Brezhnev, “without heart attack and paralysis” as the phrase goes. How did he manage to weather the storm of Stalinism and beyond?

Mikoyan and the internal/external politics of the USSR

  • There is a lot of controversy surrounding Mikoyan, especially regarding his role in Stalin’s Terror.  Along with Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Litvin, he was tasked by Stalin to purge the Soviet Armenian leadership in September 1937. What was Mikoyan’s exact role in this episode?

  • What role did Mikoyan play in the process of de-Stalinization in the USSR generally, and in Soviet Armenia specifically?

  • How did Mikoyan contribute to the development of the Soviet nationality policy during the era of the Khrushchev Thaw? 

  • Mikoyan was a very prominent figure in Soviet foreign policy, from China and Hungary to the US and Cuba.  Can you tell us a little about some of the characteristics that made him a successful diplomat?

Soviet or Armenian?

  • Was Mikoyan a Soviet, an Armenian, or a Soviet Armenian leader?

  • What role did Mikoyan play in Soviet Armenian affairs?  Did he advocate, or lobby, on behalf of Yerevan in Moscow?  What does the documentary record say about his involvement?

  • What was Mikoyan’s position toward the issue of Artsakh – Nagorno-Karabakh?

Mikoyan’s Legacy

  • Finally, what is Mikoyan’s legacy in retrospect? Should we look upon this major figure as a hero or a villain?

That concludes this week’s Conversation On Armenian News on Armenia’s debate on Armenia’s IT Industry. We’ll continue following this discussion and keep you abreast on the topic as it progresses.

We hope this Conversation has helped your understanding of some of the issues involved. We look forward to your feedback, including your suggestions for Conversation topics in the future. Contact us on our website, at groong.org, or on our Facebook PageANN – Armenian News”, or in our Facebook Group “Armenian News – Armenian News Network.

Special thanks to Laura Osborn for providing the music for our podcast. I’m Hovik Manucharyan, and on behalf of everyone in this episode, I wish you a good week. Thank you for listening and talk to you next week.

YouTube           Apple           Google         Spotify       Facebook

Anastas Mikoyan, Soviet Armenia, Artsakh-Karabakh, Great Terror, Joseph Stalin, Lavrentii Beria, Nikita Khrushchev,  Khrushchev Thaw, de-Stalinization, Yerevan, Lori, Sanahin, Alaverdi, Syunik, Zangezur, Meghri, Lake Sevan, Arpa-Sevan canal, Caucasus, Yeghishe Charents, Aleksandr Myasnikyan, Grigory Arutinov, Suren Tovmasyan, Yakov Zarobyan, Anton Kochinyan, Stepan Shahumyan, Armenian Bolsheviks, Russian Revolution, Russian Civil War, Baku Commune, Cuban Missile Crisis

TURKISH press: Azerbaijan to celebrate Victory Day on Nov. 8 in memory of Shusha’s liberation

Russian peacekeepers and Azerbaijani servicepeople patrol the area at the entrance to the town of Shusha, Azerbaijan, Nov. 26, 2020. (Photo by Getty Images)

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on Thursday announced that the country will celebrate Victory Day every year on Nov. 8.

Aliyev on Wednesday had declared Nov. 10, the day when Armenia accepted defeat and ended six weeks of fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, as Victory Day.

However, taking into account that Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's death anniversary is commemorated in Turkey on Nov. 10, Aliyev decided to change the date of Victory Day to Nov. 8, when Shusha, known as the pearl of Nagorno-Karabakh, was liberated after nearly three decades of Armenian occupation.

Azerbaijani national leader and late President Heydar Aliyev once said, "As much as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is dear and respected by the Turks, he is also dear and respected by the Azerbaijanis."

Atatürk's words that "the joy of Azerbaijan is our joy, its sorrow is our sorrow" have been engraved upon the history of the Turkic world.

The liberation of Shusha was a triumph of the Azerbaijani determination and played a decisive role in the fate of the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, also recognized as the Patriotic War by Azerbaijan, and led to the recognition of defeat by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian as well as the cessation of the hostilities between Baku and Yerevan.

Aliyev has also signed an order on the commemoration of martyrs of the Patriotic War.

Based on the Presidential Order, on Dec. 4 at midday, a minute of silence will be observed across the country to pay tribute to martyrs of the Patriotic War who sacrificed their lives for the territorial integrity of the country.

On Wednesday, Aliyev also designated Sept. 27, when Baku began the operation to liberate its lands from occupation, as a "Memorial Day" for the martyrs.

Turkic Council condoles Azerbaijan

The Turkic Council conveyed condolences Thursday to Azerbaijan for those who lost their lives in the clashes with Armenia.

"#TurkicCouncil wished God's mercy on 2,873 martyrs who gave their lives for their homeland during the just struggle for their territorial integrity of our Member State, brotherly #Azerbaijan," it said on Twitter.

The Council wished a quick recovery to veterans and conveyed condolences to Azerbaijan and the entire Turkic world.

Azerbaijan announced Thursday that nearly 2,800 of its soldiers were killed in the recent fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh, the first details it has released of military losses in weeks of clashes with Armenian forces.

The defense ministry in Baku said in a statement that "2,783 servicemen of the Azerbaijani armed forces were killed in the patriotic war," adding that the identity of 103 troops is yet to be established through DNA analysis. Another 100 Azerbaijani soldiers are missing, the statement said.

Azerbaijani soldiers "showed courage and heroism in the Great Patriotic War and inflicted crushing blows on the Armenian armed forces," it said.

Yerevan had earlier announced that 2,317 Armenian troops died during the conflict, which also claimed the lives of at least 93 Azerbaijani and 50 Armenian civilians.

Relations between the former Soviet republics have been tense since 1991 when the Armenian military occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and seven adjacent regions.

Fresh clashes erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan in late September, rekindling the Caucasus neighbors' decadeslong conflict over the region.

During the conflict, Azerbaijan liberated several towns and nearly 300 settlements and villages from the Armenian occupation.

Fierce fighting persisted for six weeks despite efforts by France, Russia and the U.S. to broker cease-fires, before Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a Moscow-brokered peace deal on Nov. 9.

The agreement was signed after Baku's army overwhelmed the separatist forces and threatened to advance on Karabakh's main city Stepanakert.

The deal has sparked celebrations in Azerbaijan and fury in Armenia, where Pashinian is facing mounting criticism for agreeing to the deal.

Under the agreement, which leaves Karabakh's future political status in limbo, Armenia lost control of parts of the enclave as well as the seven adjacent districts that it seized during the 1990s war.

Nearly 2,000 Russian peacekeepers have been deployed between the two sides and along the Lachin corridor, a 60-kilometer (35-mile) route through the district that connects Stepanakert to Armenia.