Author: Andres-Papazian

news.az, Azerbaijan
May 3 2011

Azerbaijani soldiers ‘ready to fight’ – Defence Ministry
Tue 03 May 2011 12:47 GMT | 15:47 Local Time

Defence Ministry spokesman Lt-Col Eldar Sabiroglu has said that
Azerbaijani soldiers are ready to fight to regain Azerbaijani
territory.

He made the comments in a wide-ranging interview published in official
newspaper, Azerbaijan, on Tuesday.

Sabiroglu emphasized that the Azerbaijani army was ready to gain
victory over the occupying country, meaning Armenia.

Morale

He said that morale in the Azerbaijani army was a priority for the
Defence Ministry.

“Let’s have a look at our recent past, when the absence [during the
Karabakh war] of a single command and control system made it much more
difficult for us to change the situation at the front in our favour.
As a result, decreased morale amongst our soldiers was one of the
reasons for the occupation of our land.

`The situation in the army in this regard changed for the better after
national leader Heydar Aliyev came to power,’ Sabiroglu said.

`The supreme commander-in-chief, President Ilham Aliyev, is
successfully continuing the line set by Heydar Aliyev. Ilham Aliyev
has visited the frontline regions numerous times where he talked and
shared bread with soldiers. The soldiers are glad to sit alongside the
commander-in-chief in the trenches. This raises overall morale,”
Sabiroglu said.

He cited the bravery of Warrant Officer Mubariz Ibrahimov, killed in a
clash with Armenian forces in June, for entering an unequal battle in
which he destroyed a large number of enemy troops and died heroically.

“The letter Mubariz Ibrahimov sent to his parents before he died shows
that he had high spirit. Then, to take Mubariz’s body from the
battlefield, the two officers – Farid Ahmadov and Ahmad Abdullayev –
bravely fought and inflicted damage on the enemy and died heroically.

`There are thousands such heroes in our army. This is not just a
slogan or simply words. This shows that the Azerbaijani soldier is
ready to fight,’ Sabiroglu added.

International cooperation

The Defence Ministry spokesman said that Azerbaijan made extensive use
of international experience in military reforms and army-building.

“In recent years the Defence Ministry has achieved significant results
in establishing bilateral and multilateral cooperation with
international organizations and countries. Azerbaijan enjoys military
cooperation with 28 countries on the basis of memorandums and
agreements and is discussing similar agreements with another 28
countries,” Sabiroglu said.

Azerbaijani soldiers and officers attended a total of 276 specialized
courses, working meetings, conferences, visits and talks in Azerbaijan
or other countries in 2010 as part of that bilateral cooperation.

“Some 1,300 representatives of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces took part
in these events, while around 1,000 soldiers took part in 150 events
as part of NATO programs. This year 123 events are to be held as part
of NATO’s Individual Partnership Action Plan, 11 of which will be in
Azerbaijan,” Sabiroglu said.

On Azerbaijan’s involvement in the ISAF forces in Afghanistan, he
said: “Ninety Azerbaijani servicemen are successfully serving in
peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Defence Minister Safar
Abiyev has received many letters of thanks for their excellent service
from the coalition forces command.

“This is just a small part of the programs we are carrying out in the
army. The involvement of Azerbaijan’s Defence Ministry in
international military events, programs and projects is growing and
the international authority of the Azerbaijani army is growing in
tandem.”

1news.az

From: A. Papazian

Expert on Genocide bill: France decided against impairing ties with Turkey

May 4, 2011 – 20:49 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net –

Recently, the relations between Turkey and France were rather
strained. The adoption of a bill criminalizing the denial of Armenian
Genocide would further exacerbate them, according to a Turkish Studies
expert.

Commenting on the French Senate’s non-adoption of the bill in a
conversation with a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter, Ruben Melkonyannoted,
`with Turkey’s increasing presence in the international scene, many
countries, including France, have to reckon with it. Recent
international situation does not favor adoption of Genocide
resolutions or similar draft laws,’ he said.

The expert noted with regret that the Genocide issue was turned into a
bargain between the states.

Dwelling on the response of France’s Armenian community, the expert
noted, `I expect the reaction will be sharp, yet I’m more interested
in the response of Charles Aznavour, who earlier said he’d undertake
drastic steps were the bill not adopted.’

The French Senate on Wednesday, May 4 rejected a bill penalizing the
denial of Armenian Genocide.

The bill, which was recently rejected by the French Senate
Constitution Commission, envisioned five years in prison and a fine of
up to 45,000 euros for people on French soil who deny Armenian
Genocide. The bill was not endorsed by the French government either.

Earlier, the Coordination Council of Armenian Organizations of France
called on Armenian community representatives to gather in front of the
Senate during the discussion of the bill to be presented by Serge
Lagauche at 2:30 pm Paris time.

From: A. Papazian

France may adopt Genocide bill after end of war in Libya, expert says

May 4, 2011 – 21:08 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net –

French Senate’s failing to adopt a bill criminalizing the denial of
Armenian Genocide is linked with current French authorities’ position,
according to Armenian Academy of Sciences’ Oriental Studies Institute
director.

As Ruben Safrastyan told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter, at present,
France is rather active in Libya military mission, which increases the
importance of Turkey’s position on the issue. `Unfortunately this
hasn’t been the first time when a superpower breaks its promise to
serve its own interests,’ the expert said, however, noting that France
might change its position upon completion of military operations in
Libya.

The expert gave positive assessment to the position on the Armenian
community of France, urging them to continue working towards adoption
of the bill.

The French Senate on Wednesday, May 4 rejected a bill penalizing the
denial of Armenian Genocide.

From: A. Papazian

The Jewish Week
May 4 2011

Whose Holocaust Museum?

May 3, 2011
Steve Lipman

The controversy that often surrounds a Holocaust museum’s decision to
include the mass murder of other groups – like the Armenian Genocide
in Turkey a century ago, or the 1994 killings in Rwanda – is expanding
beyond a small group of scholars to the wider public.

In a series of recent articles, Edward Rothstein, critic-at-large at
The New York Times, asks if the Shoah is a uniquely Jewish tragedy, if
a Holocaust museum should broaden beyond its immediate subject, if
there are universal lessons to be learned from the Jewish experience
at the hands of the Third Reich.

His answers: the Holocaust should be treated as uniquely Jewish, and
institutions dilute their message when they present other genocides as
comparable. `It is as if familiarity is breeding analogy … [some
Holocaust museums] began to see the Holocaust as an extreme
manifestation of a refusal to care about injustice or the fate of
one’s neighbor,’ he wrote.

(The expansion of the Holocaust’s message is worldwide: the Holocaust
Centre in Cape Town, South Africa, introduces a parallel track about
apartheid, and a Holocaust museum that is to open this year in
Johannesburg will feature references to the genocide in Rwanda.)

`This is always one of the major tensions’ among Holocaust scholars,
Edward Linenthal, author of `Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create
America’s Holocaust Museum’ (Viking, 1995), says in an e-mail
interview. `The relationship between historic specificity and wider
contexts was always on the minds of those tasked with the creation of
the [U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum].’

Many leaders of the Holocaust remembrance movement take issue with
Rothstein’s conclusions, but credit him with sparking a national
dialogue on the subject.

Newspapers and online forums carried excerpts from his articles the
last few weeks, and David Marwell, director of the Museum of Jewish
Heritage-A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, in Battery Park City,
issued a statement that his institution’s balanced approach to
Holocaust memory `presents this difficult history in a way that both
respects its unique character and distills important lessons for our
visitors.’

While Rothstein’s critique is `worthy of consideration,’ he fails to
understand that the Holocaust’s legacy led to a universal condemnation
of genocide, says Michael Berenbaum, former director of the Holocaust
Research Institute at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. `The
transition was organic.’

`People are discussing this,’ debating the universalistic and
particularistic aspects of the Holocaust, says Arthur Flug, executive
director of the Holocaust Resource Center at Queensborough Community
College in Bayside. `He’s opened up the topic for discussion.’

In `Making the Holocaust the Lessons on All Evils,’ an April 29 essay
that focuses on Los Angeles’ Museum of Tolerance, Rothstein implies
that Queensborough’s `modest’ center is guilty of universalizing the
Shoah, alluding to the center’s exhibitions and hate crimes curriculum
that teach students `options’ when confronted with bias.

But Flug says that an effective museum exhibit `is more than a history lesson.’

Otherwise, he adds, `it becomes static. We are required as educators
to teach some course of action.’

From: A. Papazian

ianyan Magazine
May 4 2011

Infographic: The Importance of Armenian Genocide Recognition

Armenia, Diaspora – By Liana Aghajanian on May 3, 2011 9:13 pm

On April 24, members of the Armenian Diaspora gathered in cities
across the world to commemorate the 96th anniversary of the 1915
Ottoman Turk slaughter of 1.5 million ethnic Armenians. In Armenia,
thousands paid their respects by laying down flowers at Yerevan’s
Armenian Genocide memorial, Tsitsernakaberd. In an unexpected display,
commemorations also took place in several Turkish cities, including
Istanbul, where at least 1,000 people gathered to read out the names
of Armenian intellectuals who died in 1915.

The Armenian Genocide has been a contentious topic in Armenian and
Turkish circles. The former struggles for recognition and justice
because the latter’s government denies any genocide took place. The
cause of genocide recognition is seen as a priority for the Armenian
Diaspora, who, formed because of the genocide, still live with the
pain of their ancestors. But does this cause remain a priority for all
Diasporans? What about residents of Armenia, who struggle with
poverty, government corruption and closed borders with two out of four
neighbors? While the Turkish government denies the event and usage of
the word `genocide,’ how do those of Turkish descent in Turkey or
elsewhere feel about addressing what Armenians demand justice for.

We conducted an online survey of around 135 Armenians and those with
other ethnic backgrounds about how important, if at all, Armenian
Genocide recognition was to them.

While not scientific, and not representative of `random’ Armenians in
Armenia, the diaspora as well as those of Turkish descent, it was an
interesting experiment to see what those close to the Ianyan network
felt about the issue.

Click to the thumbnail below to enlarge and read our Armenian Genocide
Recognition infographic below:

From: A. Papazian

The Armenian Genocide, The Forgotten Genocide-Part II

May 4, 2011

In the early twentieth century a new dawn seemed to be rising over the
Ottoman Empire. Abdul Hamid II was still on the throne. However, his
power was increasingly limited by the rise of support for
constitutional government, especially as advocated by the Young Turk
reform movement.
The Young Turks represented the elite of the well educated young
generation of civilian and military professionals. They advocated
western style reforms of a secular political nature.
The Committee of Union and Progress led the movement. Its leaders
worked hard to get the support of Christian groups and the West.
Democracy was stated as a goal in opposition to a long time dictator.
In 1902 a Young Turk Congress was held in Paris with a majority of
Turkish, but also Armenian, Greek, Jewish and other representatives.
The Congress issued a resolution denouncing the oppression and
misdeeds of the Sultan’s regime and calling for the establishment of a
constitutional government `which would guarantee rights for all
peoples of the Empire’.
The Young Turks stated policy was also to put an end to all massacres
of Armenians.
The main Armenian groups, including the popular Dashnak Party, issued
declarations of support for the Young Turks’ program. They stated
that their goal was also constitutional reform rather than opposition
to the unity of Turkey. Expecting a birth of freedom, Armenians
actively joined the struggle against the longtime dictatorial regime.
Many were enthusiastic in hoping for a brotherhood of Turks, Armenians
and others within the Empire. Even some revolutionary Armenian groups
agreed to work peacefully with the Young Turks as hope for a bright
new future for Armenians seemed realizable. Many idealists among them
trusted the promises of the Young Turks and were ready to forgive the
past.
The West applauded the Young Turk movement, which by July 1908 broke
into an open military insurgency. Though this occurred over a century
ago it had remarkable similarities to the uprising against the Shah of
Iran and recent insurgencies, especially Egypt where many Coptic
Christians joined the anti-Mubarak forces with expectations of a
better future.
The western press was enthusiastic about the growing allegedly
democratic Turkish insurgency. European and American journals and
newspapers eagerly anticipated that a modern westernized Turkey would
develop because the reformers proclaimed that their goal was a
constitutional government.
Sultan Abdul Hamid resisted the demands for reforms and the insurgency
spread among the military. Efforts by the government to stop the
insurrection failed. On July 21, 1908 the Committee of Union and
Progress sent a telegram to the Sultan requesting the restorations of
the constitution and other changes. There was a threat of military
occupation of the capital if the Sultan did not give in. On July 24,
Abdul Hamid accepted the demands and agreed to a constitutional
government similar to those in Western Europe. Abdul Hamid would
continue as Sultan and Caliph, or religious leader, but became
essentially a figurehead.
The new regime was celebrated by many Christians and Muslims. It would
be controlled by the Committee of Union and Progress and so came in
with very high expectations. Henry Morgenthau, United States
Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, described the era of good feelings
that then seemed to be germinating between Young Turk leaders and
Armenians, demonstrating once again how hope springs eternal in the
hearts of men.
However, everybody was not happy. Fundamentalists, especially the
conservative Society of Mohammed, wanted an end to liberal reforms
and a re-imposition of strict Islamic Law with real Sultanic rule. By
April 1909, there was an outbreak of a military and civilian
traditionalist insurgency. After a bloody struggle, the Young Turks
quickly prevailed in Istanbul and forced Abdul Hamid’s abdication.
Meanwhile fundamentalist Muslims decided to target Armenians again.
By now, they were the favorite scapegoats of fanatical Muslims and
supernationalist Turks. Most affected were Armenians in the rich
agricultural district of Adana and the region of Cilicia. They were
blamed for the support that Armenian leaders had given to the reform
movement. There was also jealousy of the wealth of many Armenians.
Some held Muslim mortgages, causing anger that Armenian merchants and
craftsmen in the area were more prosperous than the local Turks.
Adana exploded in an orgy of blood and violence around the Paschal
period in April 1909.
Turkish mobs rampaged in Adana, killing thousands of Armenians and
looting their property. They claimed that Armenians were revolting
and that they were saving the state. Of course, there was no such
revolt, though some Armenians did fight back to save their lives. But
self defense was looked upon as a rebellion. Many of the zealots
seemed to believe that if they wanted to kill or enslave Armenians,
the latter must submit like sheep to the slaughter.
Resistance inflamed the attackers’ passions even more. Women and
children were targeted in large numbers. An Armenian boy could grow
to be a fighter. A woman could give birth to enemies of the Ottoman
Empire. That many of the attackers were also anti-Christian is
indicated by their making churches and clerics a frequent target. Two
American missionaries were murdered. The New York Times reported that
at least 19 Protestant ministers were killed.
After prevailing in Constantinople, the Young Turks sent their army to
quell the Adana fighting. Armenians believed that they would now be
rescued since the arriving military was commanded by their reformist
Young Turk allies. But their expectations were not fulfilled. The
troops, upon arrival, claimed Armenians had fired on them. This was
unlikely as Armenians had accepted a ceasefire and surrendered many
weapons at the instigation of the British. The Turkish army, together
with mobs of Islamic hardliners now commenced an even greater cycle of
slaughtering Armenians and destroying Christian schools and churches
of all kinds. Turkish soldiers set fire to the Mousheghian School, a
Christian institution. It housed students and two thousand refugees.
Many who sought to escape were shot by soldiers. The fires spread to
the Armenian Church packed with many refugees. To escape, a priest
led them to the French College which was also set on fire. Gregorian
Catholic and Protestant Churches were also burned down.
Taner Akcam, a Turkish historian wrote that after the slaughter was
over, a Turkish soldier wrote in a letter, `We killed thirty thousand
of the infidel dogs, whose blood flowed through the streets of Adana.’
These infidels were of course Armenians. U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau
recorded that by the end of the murderous rampage at Adana `35,000
people were destroyed’. Nearly all were Armenians. The terror spread
from Adana throughout many other areas occupied by Armenians in Asia
Minor and parts of Syria. The New York Times reported that mobs
rampaged through the ancient Christian city of Antioch and
`practically wiped out’ the Armenians of the city and the vicinity.
Thousands of helpless Armenians – women and children were left as
destitute survivors.
In Tarsus, the home of Saint Paul, the Armenian quarter was burned
down and churches were sacked. Massacres were `raging in the
neighboring Armenian villages’.
In the Alexandretta district all the Armenian villages were being
devastated. Some 200 Armenian villages and small towns were reported
destroyed in Anatolia. The death count overall was clearly much larger
that the Adana toll. The true figures will never be known. Many
western foreigners were caught up in the danger zones during the
widespread massacres. In Constantinople itself perhaps the most
prominent was Mary Custis Lee, the daughter of General Robert E. Lee.
This prompted several countries including the United States and Great
Britain to send warships to the area to protect their citizens. The
arrival of western naval forces was a clear potential threat to the
Ottoman government that if the killings continued, military
intervention would take place. Much of the leading U.S. press, like
the New York Times, was in fact calling for Western military
intervention. American and European public opinion became
increasingly inflamed against the atrocities. Even U.S. President
[William Howard] Taft vigorously condemned them and the threat of
intervention became more feasible. Consequently, the Young Turks made
certain to stop the killings. In addition, for the first and perhaps
last time, several Turkish government leaders publicly admitted and
condemned the atrocities. This is something they would not do today
as denial of blame has been official Turkish policy for close to a
century. The Young Turk government also put on trial many men charged
with the atrocities. After conviction, one hundred twenty four Turks
and seven Armenians were executed for crimes during the massacres.
Despite the most recent horrors endured by Armenians, many of them
hoped for peace and good relations between Turks and Christians, of
whom they were still the largest remaining Ottoman group. For several
years this seemed possible. During World War I everything changed.
It had seemed that things could not get worse for Armenians, but they
did.
About Miljan Peter Ilich
Historian and filmmaker, Miljan Peter Ilich has eight feature length
films, many documentaries and a number of short subjects to his credit
as producer. Among them is the controversial ArtWatch, a collaboration
with the late Professor James Beck of Columbia University, Frank Mason
of the Art Students League of New York and director James Aviles
Martin and TCI: the First Hundred Years commissioned by Technical
Career Institutes. Other documentary film credits include Chios
1822: Martyrdom and Resurrection of a People and Cyprus: the Glory and
the Tragedy. Feature film credits include the cult film classic, I Was
a Teenage Zombie, Mothers; Unsavory Characters; What Really Frightens
You, Soft Money and the New York 3-D Sensation, Run For Cover in 3-D.
Peter Ilich has also produced for theatre and television in New York,
most notably the acclaimed play Struck Down, about the 1994 Baseball
season. He is the co-host, writer and co- producer of Orthodox
Christian Television’s `Chios: the Island of Saints’; `Cyprus: the
Glory and the Tragedy’; `The Sacred Land of Kosovo’ and frequent
panelist on Democracy in Crisis.
Dr. Ilich is a Juris Doctor, New York University and PhD. City
University of New York and is a Professor of Law at Technical Career
Institutes in New York City.

From: A. Papazian

news.am, Armenia
May 4 2011

Turkey’s defense industry grows

May 04, 2011 | 06:54

Turkey’s defense industry grows by 19 % in 2010, Hurriyet Daily News reports.

The total revenue of Turkish defense industry amounted to $2.773
billion in 2010, up from $2.319 billion in 2009. This is a robust
growth, said a report released by the Defense Industry Manufacturers’
Association.

However, the Turkish industry reported a 5 percent decline in exports.
Total exports stood at $634 million in 2010, down from $669 million in
2009.

“The slight drop in exports reflects the continuing effects in 2010 of
the global financial crisis,” reads the report.

Analysts said one reason for growth in the near future for the Turkish
industry is heavy investment in research and development activity. In
2010 the defense industry spent $666 million on research and
development, up 32 percent from $505 million in 2009.

Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised that Turkey’s
local defense companies would manufacture tanks, helicopters,
warplanes, and military satellites in the next 12 years as part of his
party’s election manifesto for parliamentary polls scheduled for June
2011.

The research released earlier showed that Turks have negative attitude
towards the world. Thus the opinion poll revealed many people in
Turkey have negative views of Arabs, Armenians, Jews, Greeks,
Russians, and Americans. The respondents’ attitude towards Armenians,
Jews, and Greeks was especially unfavorable. About 73.9% said they
have negative attitude towards Armenians, 71.5% – about Jews, and 67%
– about Greeks.

From: A. Papazian

Glendale News Press
May 4 2011

U.N. official: Armenia needs financial help

She’s expected to ask Diaspora for aid during speech Thursday in Glendale.
May 03, 2011|By Bill Kisliuk

A United Nations official based in Armenia said Tuesday that the
national economy needs help from its Diaspora as it emerges from a
painful recession.

Dafina Gercheva, the U.N.’s resident coordinator in Armenia, is
expected to deliver that message Thursday in a speech sponsored by the
Armenian American Chamber of Commerce at the Glendale Hilton.

In an interview Tuesday, Gercheva and fellow U.N. official Armen
Baibourtian said support from the 8 million Armenians living outside
the country is critical to economic expansion and democratic reforms
in Armenia.

From: A. Papazian

Art Daily
May 4 2011

Historic Conservation Project by World Monuments Fund Begins in Eastern Turkey

Ani Cathedral southwest corner.

ISTANBUL.- Bonnie Burnham, President of World Monuments Fund (WMF),
today announced that WMF and the Turkish Ministry of Culture and
Tourism have embarked on a historic partnership to conserve the Ani
Cathedral and the Church of the Holy Savior, in Ani, a medieval city
in northeastern Turkey. Once the site of hundreds of religious
buildings, palaces, fortifications, and other structures, Ani was, in
the tenth century, one of the world’s great cities. Today, however, it
stands abandoned, and its celebrated historic buildings are in a
precarious state. Support for these conservation projects has been
provided by the U.S. Department of State’s Ambassadors Fund, the
Turkish General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums, and
World Monuments Fund.

Ertu��rul G�¼nay, Minister of Culture and Tourism in Turkey, has stated
about the project: “This partnership with World Monuments Fund is a
milestone in Turkey’s efforts to conserve its many important
cultural-heritage sites. Among these, Ani, which is of global
significance, presents particularly complicated challenges. We hope
that giving new life to the remains of once-splendid buildings, such
as the Ani Cathedral and Church, will bring new economic opportunities
to the region.”

Ms. Burnham added, “There has long been international concern about
the fragile condition of the many extraordinary ruins at Ani, and the
site has been listed on the World Monuments Watch on multiple
occasions, beginning in 1996. In conserving these two important
structures, WMF and Turkey’s General Directorate of Cultural Heritage
and Museums will develop methods that can be applied to the other
buildings still standing in this seismic area. We hope that this work
will usher in a new era in the life of this important site.”

Ani
Situated on a plateau in northeastern Turkey, next to the border with
Armenia, Ani was strategically located along a prosperous east-west
caravan route. While the origins of settlement in the area date to the
Iron and Bronze Ages, Ani reached its cultural golden age in the
second half of the tenth century, when it became the political and
commercial center of the Bagratid Armenian kingdom. Most of its
surviving structures, which include seven churches (one later
converted to a mosque), a city wall, commercial and residential
buildings, and underground passages, are ruins of edifices dating from
the medieval era, when the city changed hands several times and was
ruled by successive Christian and Islamic dynasties.

At its height, Ani’s population numbered well over 100,000, including
Armenians, Muslim Kurds, and Turks, and the city was filled with
artistically and architecturally sophisticated buildings. However, by
the mid-eleventh century, it had begun to decline, due to factors
including internal strife, invasions by various groups, earthquakes,
and the redirection of important trade routes away from the city. By
the fifteenth century, Ani was in terminal decline; by the seventeenth
century, it was a small village; and by the eighteenth century, it was
in ruins and abandoned.

Today, Ani is a haunting presence on the windswept steppe. Long
isolated in a militarized area, since the collapse of the Soviet Union
the border has been gradually demilitarized and has become more
accessible through the recent opening of the region to tourism.

Ani Cathedral
With its pointed arches, four interior columns, and cruciform plan
with clustered piers, Ani Cathedral, completed in 1001, is a
masterpiece of medieval Armenian architecture. It was designed by the
renowned architect Trdat, who had rebuilt the dome of Hagia Sophia
following an earthquake in the late tenth century.

Although Ani Cathedral is still standing, over the course of its
history it has suffered greatly from harsh weather conditions and
innumerable earthquakes. The latter have resulted in damage that
includes the complete collapse of the building’s central dome and the
partial collapse of its northwest corner.

Surp Amenap’rkitch Church (Church of the Holy Savior)
Completed in 1035, the Surp Amenap’rkitch Church (Church of the Holy
Savior) was built as a reliquary for a fragment of the True Cross. It
was a two-part rotunda in form, comprising a lower portion capped by a
smaller one above. Each portion of the exterior comprised 19 sides.
Inside, the lower portion was divided into eight sections, each capped
by a conch, or semi-dome, while the smaller upper portion was a smooth
surface regularly punctuated by windows and capped by a dome.

Like the Ani Cathedral, the Church has suffered earthquake damage
throughout its history. In addition, in 1930 a lightning strike caused
the southeast side of the building to collapse.

From: A. Papazian

news.am, Armenia
May 4 2011

Yerevan to host international forum on diaspora

May 04, 2011 | 06:22

YEREVAN. Armenia’s capital will host an international forum on
`Prospects for development of Diaspora in globalizing world’ on May
26-27, 2011.

The Armenian government will provide AMD 10 m to the Ministry of
Diaspora. The decision is included on the agenda of May 5 governmental
session.

According to a certificate of Armenian Ministry of Diaspora, about 50
countries around the world have diaspora and a public agency to work
with it. These agencies never held a joint event or a meeting, though
they share the same problems.

The forum will provide an opportunity to share experiences of
countries with diaspora. An international document on diaspora may be
developed during the event.

From: A. Papazian