Author: Andres-Papazian

SOLDIER KILLED IN TAVUSH REGION

news.am
July 28 2010
Armenia

Lieutenant Artak Nazaryan (1979) was killed by a bullet in one of the
military units of the Tavush region of Armenia. He has been serving
as a contract soldier since December 2009, Lragir reported.

On July 6, Artak’s mother visited the son and spent several days
being aware of the fact he had some problems with the officers.

The incident occurred on July 27 morning, whereas soldier’s parents
were informed of it in the evening at 5:00 p.m. local time. The
parents were told that their son had committed a suicide. However,
the relatives do not credit this version.

Lragir notes that Artak Nazaryan was journalist Tsovinar Nazaryan’s
brother.

From: A. Papazian

HAYOTS ASHKHARH: ERDOGAN TO BE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN ARMENIA-TURKEY RAPPROCHEMENT

news.am
July 28 2010
Armenia

“Pre-election campaign of parliamentary elections will shortly be
launched in Turkey, scheduled in 2011 and speaking of Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement during this period is tantamount to a political suicide,”
the daily quotes Turkish studies expert Artak Shakaryan.

According to him, for this reason there is no need to expect progress
in the normalization process.

“However, if Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wins the
elections, Turkey will be actively engaged in the normalization
of Armenia-Turkey relation, as the 100th anniversary of Armenian
Genocide will be marked in 2015, which is a special date for Turks,”
the expert stressed.

From: A. Papazian

NON-MUSLIM MINORITIES INCLINED TO SAY ‘YES’ IN REFERENDUM

Turkey
Today’s Zaman
July 29 2010

As the nation prepares to vote for a constitutional amendment package
in a referendum on Sept. 12, non-Muslim minorities in Turkey are
inclined to say “yes” to the reforms, which are expected to improve
Turkish democracy. They generally feel that more changes are necessary,
however, to more fully democratize the country.

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government has
taken major steps to save the country from its current Constitution,
which was drafted under martial law after the Sept. 12, 1980 coup.

Like many civil society groups, non-Muslim minorities have widely
expressed the view that the proposed constitutional changes don’t
go far enough but still represent a considerable step in the right
direction.

According to Ara Kocunyan, editor-in-chief of the Armenian daily
Jamanak, published in Ä°stanbul, non-Muslim minorities will benefit
from the proposed government reforms. “The referendum means that
there will even more changes to come,” he told Today’s Zaman. Kocunyan
also added that the Turkish-Armenian community is going to vote with
the grander vision of further changes in mind. “The members of the
Armenian-Turkish community approach the issue with great awareness of
citizenship. They are aware of the process of change in Turkey, and
supporting that kind of a process is natural for minorities,” he said.

He said that the Turkish-Armenian community is the largest minority
group in Turkey with a population of approximately 60,000; out of
this group most live in Ä°stanbul.

For Aris Nalcı, editor of Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, the issue of
the upcoming constitutional amendments is a personal matter as he had
to leave Turkey when he was an infant because of the military coup
in 1980. He says: “My mother had to leave Turkey [during the coup]
when I was just 40 days old. When we came back two years later,
I didn’t know my father,” he said.

He further asserted that Turkish-Armenians were among the groups who
suffered the worst during the Sept. 12 coup and wants to push for
further amendments.

He finds this process to be groundbreaking and inspirational.

“Constitutional change is about touching an untouchable, a taboo. It’s
a step forwards for broader change,” he said.

Nalcı feels that most Turkish-Armenians will vote for the amendments.

The Sept. 12 coup d’état was the third coup in Turkey’s history and
arguably its bloodiest. The coup came after a period of ideological
and armed conflict on Turkey’s streets during the second half of the
1970s. An estimated 5,000 people were killed during the violence.

After the coup in 1980, the military ruled the country through the
National Security Council (MGK) before democracy could be restored.

Some 600,000 people were reportedly detained during this period and
more than 200,000 tried, 10,000 stripped of their citizenship and 50
executed. Hundreds and thousands were tortured or went missing.

These tragedies are the ones which Denis Ojalvo, an international
relations expert from Ä°stanbul’s 20,000-plus Jewish community,
would like to emphasize, stressing that positive change is often born
from despair. Ojalvo says that while the Sept. 12 military coup led
to the horrible suffering of minorities, the military intervention
later brought them relief.

He argues that politically speaking, the most important issue for
Turkey right now is that the executive branch should become independent
of the legislative branch. Political leaders should take the lead
of the people who voted them in. “This points at handicaps in our
political parties’ laws and the election system. Since the political
parties do not want to lose absolute control over their organizations,
they do not solve this problem. Submitting a constitutional reform
for a referendum without tackling that basic problem is like a black
humor to me,” he said.

He added that the “judiciary-military tutelage” seems to have been
replaced by an “executive tutelage” with the proposed changes to
the Constitution.

The 1982 amendments to the constitution were voted in by referendum
in June 1982. The first elections were held in 1983, out of which
came a single-party government under Turgut Ozal’s Motherland Party
(then ANAP, now ANAVATAN).

Kezban Hatemi, a minority rights lawyer, reminds us that many civil
society groups have joined efforts to launch a referendum campaign
called “Yetmez ama evet” or “Not enough, but yes,” claiming that
it reflects the views of non-Muslim minorities in Turkey as well as
regular citizens.

She said that what they are expecting from the government as the
next step is a brand new civilian constitution which will broaden
individual rights and freedoms.

Hatemi also pointed out that the government has taken great steps
towards addressing the concerns of minorities, something that
harmonizes well with Turkey’s goal to join the European Union. “This
is the first time that non-Muslim minorities have had a fresh breath
of air,” she said.

Hatemi elaborated by drawing attention to the issue of confiscated
properties which have yet to be returned to their rightful owners,
“This problem has not yet been solved, but there have certainly been
improvements.”

Hatemi said that she didn’t think that non-Muslim minorities would
follow the path of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), which opposes
the change. She stressed that it was Kemal Kılıcdaroglu, the new
leader of the main opposition CHP, who took the Foundations Law to
the Constitutional Court be overruled. It was later passed in favor
of the minorities.

Laki Vingas, head of the Greek Schools Foundation, however, says that
it is wrong to place the AK Party and the CHP against each in the
referendum issue. “If the CHP had proposed the same changes,” he says,
“I would still say ‘yes’ to them.” He added that the Greek community
overwhelmingly approves the constitutional amendment package.

“We need to say ‘yes’ on Sept. 12. Saying ‘no’ would give strength
to coup supporters,” said Mihail Vasiliadis, editor-in-chief of
Apoyevmatini, a weekly Greek newspaper that caters to the Greek
community of approximately 2,500 in Ä°stanbul.

According to Vasiliadis, non-Muslim minorities seem to support the
constitutional amendment package in general.

When it comes to the Syriac community’s feelings regarding the
reform package, Daniel Gabriel, human rights and the United Nations
nongovernmental organization director of the Syriac Universal Alliance
(SUA), said that the Turkish government could do much more to encourage
the kind of democratization necessary to join the European Union,
especially with respect to the protection and empowerment of all
minority groups in Turkey. “The SUA sincerely applauds the Turkish
government call for constitutional change,” he said in a written
statement from Europe.

He feels the current amendment package is “more symbolic than real,”
adding, “It’s truly one step forward and two steps back.”

He asserts that ethno-religious minorities such as the Syriacs in
Turkey will still not benefit from the long-awaited changes. “This
is regretful because September 12, 2010 could be a defining moment in
Turkish history. Here is a great opportunity for the Turkish nation to
really align itself with EU democratic principles and not miss another
chance. The flotilla has sailed and it’s called ‘True Democracy.’ The
Syriac Universal Alliance asks Turkey to get on board before it’s
too late,” he said.

Nevertheless, Zeki Basatemir, on the board of directors for the
Syriac Catholic Church Foundation in Turkey, said they will vote
“yes” in the referendum because this is the first time they feel that
the politicians in Turkey have been interested in helping them solve
their problems. “Most of the Syriacs think that the reform package
is good,” he says, “We will vote ‘yes’ with the sentiment of ‘pacta
sunt servanda,’ or ‘agreements must be kept’,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

KARABAKH MEDIATORS CALL FOR ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO SOLVE THE CONFLICT

HULIQ.com
July 28 2010
SC

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, who mediate the Nagorno Karabakh dispute
between Armenia and Azerbaijan today realized that the current measures
are not enough to resolve the frozen conflict and that additional
measures are needed to ink the final peace between the two neighbors.

Ambassador Bernard Fassier of France, Ambassador Robert Bradtke of the
United States and Ambassador Igor Popov of the Russian Federation met
with the members of the Minsk group in Vienna today and briefed them
about the current stage of the ongoing peace process between Armenia
and Azerbaijan. At the meeting they released a statement saying
“the efforts made so far by the sides of the conflict have not been
sufficient to overcome their differences.”

The co-chairs called for “additional actions” to ensure the ceasefire
is lasing. They also stressed the need for a “spirit of compromise”
to move the process between Armenia and Azerbaijan from the current
deadlock.

This is exactly for this reason that they announced their plan to
visit the region to “assist the parties in their efforts.” According to
the OSCE release the co-chairs will visit the region in September of
2010. By region they mean primarily Armenia and Azerbaijan, however;
Nagorno Karabakh is increasingly becoming an important factor if this
conflict is ever to be resolved. Azerbaijan denies this reality and
does not want to negotiate with Nagorno Karabakh. Yet, the current
ceasefire, which has been holding pretty steadily since 1994, is a
tripartite ceasefire. Azerbaijan has signed it with Nagorno Karabakh
and Armenia and not only with the later.

When it comes to giving more space to the spirit of compromise let’s
see which side has done how much and what is still expected.

Tigran Torosyan, the former speaker of the National Parliament of
Armenia sums up what compromise Armenian side has done so far.

Speaking to Azerbaijan based News.az Torosyan says “Both of the
Armenian sides have already made a number of compromises. Nagorno-
Karabakh has chosen not to unite with Armenia (although, it has
the full right to do so under international law), but has opted
for a declaration of independence as the way to exercise its right
to self-determination; Karabakh has also agreed to be temporarily
represented by Armenia at the negotiating table and Karabakh has even
agreed to discuss the issue of a new referendum. So Azerbaijan also
has to make some compromises in return and only after that should
the issue of further mutual compromises be discussed.”

One side cannot make the only concessions and demonstrate the spirit
of compromise alone. Azerbaijan needs to join the club and do its
own share of the compromise.

Instead of weekly threats of using force it would help if Azerbaijan
puts this policy aside and look at the conflict resolutions and its
positive fruits beyond Nagorno Karabakh. The next compromise, which
will be the milestone, is the announce that it will respect the right
of self-determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh.

The visit of the Minsk Group co-chairs will be fruitful in September if
they can achieve this milestone. The root of the problem is the right
of self-determination of the people who live in Nagorno Karabakh. They
had a very difficult history with Azerbaijan and want to leave in
peace with security guarantees. They only see this security guarantee
outside of Azerbaijan.

Look at Kosovo. Kosovar people’s right of self-determination is
respected, acknowledged and there is peace in Balkans. We need that
in the Caucasus too.

From: A. Papazian

CAMERON TALKS TURKEY, BUT EU MEMBERSHIP REMAINS ELUSIVE FOR ANKARA

International Business Times

July 28 2010

On his recent trip to Turkey, the British Prime Minister David
Cameron has aggressively campaigned for the country’s membership
into the European Union (EU), attacking the opposition as misguided
and/or prejudicial.

Cameron has vowed he would “fight” for Turkey’s membership and that
he is “angry” at the stalled progress. The British head of state
declared that with its unique geographical and cultural position,
Turkey could become an invaluable link between Europe and the Middle
East, including Iran.

In a speech before the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, Cameron praised
Turkey as “vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital
for our diplomacy.”

As Cameron has also alluded to, Turkey has the second largest army
in NATO, and has served as an important ally in the war in Afghanistan.

Turkey is also a crucial conduit for oil and gas pipelines heading
towards Europe.

Cameron is also seeking to establish better trade links between
Britain and Turkey, with the strategy of doubling their value over
the next five years.

While Mr. Cameron may indeed genuinely want Turkey in the EU club –
Britain, after all, has long advocated for its inclusion – his words
may mean little to the 27-member bloc, many of whom, particularly
France and Germany, actively oppose Turkey’s entry.

Both Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the
French president, have espoused that Turkey be given a “privileged
partnership” with the EU, but nothing more.

Turkey has officially been a candidate for EU membership since December
1999 and accession negotiations commenced in October 2005.

But, like a jilted bride, Turkey remains on the outside looking in –
and for a whole host of reasons.

“There are still considerable obstacles to Turkey’s accession,” said
Neil Shearing, senior emerging markets economist at Capital Economics
Ltd. in London. “While Mr. Cameron’s intervention will obviously be
welcomed by Ankara, entry remains years, more likely decades, away.”

For one thing, Turkey is a historic enemy of EU member Greece and has
refused to fully recognize the government of another EU member, Cyprus.

Turkey also has a long and poor record on human rights – its treatment
of women, of political prisoners, and of the restive Kurdish minority
in the Southeastern part of the country, the state’s prosecution of
certain human rights defenders, writers and journalists, among other
things, all violate EU values.

While Turkey has indeed instituted some reforms – for example,
abolishing the death penalty, imprisoning senior military and police
officers for committing acts of torture, and the allowance of Kurdish
language in radio and television broadcasts – changes have been too
few and too slow for most EU observers.

Another particularly contentious point that seems to have no hope
of resolution lies with Turkey’s activities during World War I when
up to two million Armenians are believed to have been murdered in
a state-sponsored mass extermination program. Turkish governments
ever since has refused to even acknowledge the killings, much less
apologize for them.

Robert C. Holderith, president & chief executive officer of Emerging
Global Shares, said another important reason for blocking Turkey is
because they have refused to support the EU’s sanctions against their
neighbor and trading partner, Iran.

“It really has more to do with politics than economics,” Holderith
said. “Bulgaria and Romania are both EU members, but they are emerging
markets and they are, by many measures, poorer than Turkey.”

Holderith believes that while Cameron may indeed want to expand the
U.K.’s trading relationship with Turkey, the British leader might
actually be acting on behalf of the United States, which wants to stay
out of this affair, but clearly wants Turkey to remain a strategic
military partner in NATO in Iran’s backyard.

Perhaps the least-openly discussed grievance against Turkey is that
it is a large and overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

Turkey is a nation of more than 72-million, with two-thirds of the
population under 35. As such, some European critics fear that Turkey’s
entry into the EU might prompt an influx of more immigrants into
European nations which are already struggling with high unemployment
and budget crises.

To partially offset the fears of Britons and Europeans who oppose
further immigration, Cameron suggested that the UK would impose
provisional restrictions on the right of Turks to live and work in the
UK after it joined the EU — as Britain currently does with Bulgarians
and Romanians.

But with its high birth rate, Turkey is projected to overtake Germany’s
as the most populous state in Europe by 2020.

Given their large population, a Turkish presence in the EU would
vastly change the make-up of the European Parliament.

“Turkey would automatically have great influence in the [European]
Parliament, second only to Germany, by strength of numbers alone,”
Holdedrith said. “That Parliament has the power to make trade laws and
agreements. It’s a big strategic problem for those who oppose Turkey.”

The Turkish economy – which would be the sixth largest in Europe if it
were formally included – has actually performed quite well this year,

Turkish GDP surged 11.7 percent year-on-year in the first quarter
of 2010 — the best pace since the second quarter of 2004 — after
posting a 6 percent advance in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Apparently, Turkey has so far been unhurt by growing economic woes
in Western Europe, its biggest export market. (The Turkish economy,
however, shrank 4.7 percent in 2009 – including a huge a 14-plus
percent drop in the first quarter of that year – another victim of
the global recession).

Trade Minister Nihat Ergun has forecast that Turkey’s economy could
grow as much as 8 percent in 2010, according to Turkey’s Ihlas News
Agency. (The International Monetary Fund expects Turkey to expand by
a more modest 6.3 percent in 2010.)

Turkey boasts a tightly regulated banking system which has avoided the
viral excesses of the global financial crisis. Unemployment is rather
high, at 13.7 percent, but the Ankara government expects it to fall.

Holderith also notes that the Turkish Lira currently trades at about
half the value of the Euro.

“If you want to buy a Mercedes Benz, it’ll cost you twice as much,
all things being equal, if you’re in Turkey,” he said.

“The equalization of these two currencies – however, that would work
— could create an opportunity for the Germans, French and British
to be able to sell to the Turks at a lesser price.”

Although this would benefit European manufacturers, Germany and France
probably feel the trade-off is not worth the risk.

While the Turkish economy is accelerating, Shearing cautions that
Turkey remains a relatively poor county and, if it were allowed to
join the EU, would likely need substantial EU structural funds –
which would not be politically popular.

To illustrate the status of the Turkish economy, Holderith explains
that his company defines ’emerging market’ as an economy with a GDP
per capita of between $2,000 and $20,000. Turkey is currently at
about $13,000. (By comparison, the U.S. is at $46,000, France and
Germany are each in the low $40,000s, while China is at $8,000).

However, Holderith believes Turkey will eventually join the EU –
though it may take up to the years.

“These Western European countries will eventually realize that they
need to be closely tied with the faster-growing economies in their
region,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

IRAN TO TAKE ON ARMENIA IN AUGUST

Persian Football

July 28 2010

PFDC – YEREVAN, Iran and Armenia agreed to a friendly match in
Yerevan on August 11, the homepage of the Armenian football federation
confirms.

The game on the official FIFA matchday is scheduled to kick off at
9pm local time. It will be the first time that the two neighbouring
countries meet in a friendly match.

Iran are preparing for the Asian Cup in January 2011 in Qatar where
they have been grouped with defending champions Iraq, Korea DPR and
the UAE.

Armenia will have to engage in the qualification for the Euro 2012
where they will face Russia, Slovakia, Ireland, Macedonia and Andorra.

From: A. Papazian

COOPERATION SET BETWEEN ARMENIAN CITY OF VAYQ AND ITALIAN AREZZO

Panorama
July 28 2010
Armenia

Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Karine Ghazinyan hosted Tuesday
Italian delegation headed by Franco Vacari, the head of “Rondine –
castle of peace” association, Toskana State. According to MFA PR
department the Italian delegation pays regional visit to Armenia
having a peace mission to settle the conflicts.

The Italian diplomats said they chose a student from each conflict
region to have studies in Italy. Mrs. Deputy Minister thanked for
giving that kind of opportunity to an Armenian student and then to
another student from Artsakh.

It was agreed upon creating cooperation between Armenian city of Vayq
and Italian Arezzo.

The members of the Italian delegation had a meeting with the mayor
of Vayq and had discussion on this respect.

From: A. Papazian

KNOT OF INDEPENDENCE

Russia Profile

July 28 2010

The Partial Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia Means Academic
Analysis of the “Kosovo Precedent” Is No Longer Abstracted

The UN International Court last week effectively recognized
the legality of the Kosovo authorities’ 2008 decision to declare
independence from Serbia. But the significance of this problem goes
far beyond the limits of formal jurisprudence. The “Casus Kosovo”
has a bearing on the formation of the basic principles of world
order. And if ethnic nationalism is allowed in the Balkans, why
shouldn’t it be allowed in the mountains of the Caucasus or in the
deserts and tropics of Africa?

After the Kosovo Parliament approved the declaration of independence
of the former autonomous province of Serbia (which was examined at
the UN International Court), both Russian and Western experts began
to talk about the opening of a new chapter in history – of “the world
after Kosovo.” At the same time, to speak of the event as some kind
of sensation would be misleading. It had been long expected.

For two decades the Kosovo question has been one of the most difficult
and entangled ethno-political problems on the Balkan peninsular. In
1991 Kosovar Albanian leaders declared their independence, but the
problem did not go beyond the scope of the Balkans. And that is why
Albania was the only country supporting Kosovo 19 years ago, although
later the idea of uniting the two Albanian states was withdrawn from
the agenda.

The new generation of Kosovar-Albanians, involved in the political
conflict against Belgrade, began to view independence not as an
intermediate stage, but as the ultimate goal. If anything, as an
end in itself. After NATO’s operation “Allied Force,” (the 78-day
bombing campaign from March 24 to June 10, 1999) ended in the de-facto
secession of the former Serbian autonomous province, much became
absolutely clear. Belgrade did not (and does not) have either the
power or the practical, political-ideological, or moral-psychological
resources to “Serbianize” the province.

However, to limit its impact to only the Balkans would be false. The
Kosovo Casus is a subject of intense study in the countries of
the “parallel Commonwealth of Independent States” (Abkhazia, South
Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transdnestr). In August 2008 two of the
four republics of “CIS-2” compared their status with Kosovo’s. They
had become semi-recognized. The difference was only in the number of
states which recognized that independence. The former Serb province was
recognized by 69 countries, while Abkhazia and South Ossetia received
only 4 nuanced recognitions. But the UN has recognized neither Kosovo,
nor the two former Georgian autonomies. And the chances of Kosovo
receiving such recognition in that famous building in New York is
precisely nil, taking into account not so much the widely publicized
position of Russia, but also the role played by China. Moscow can
theoretically recognize the independence of the former Serb autonomous
province if it betrays Belgrade. Beijing can afford itself the luxury
of ignoring the Serb position since its celestial interests (Taiwan,
Tibet) are in fact much more important than the political-psychological
problems of distant Serbia.

In this way, the 2008 political decision and the 2010 legal decision
have led to (and will to lead to) a situation where the principle
of ethnic self-determination comes to the foreground. This is
how it was at the beginning of the twentieth century. Then, the
right of a nation to “self-determination” between the two variants
(Woodrow Wilson’s liberalism and Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevism) became
the cornerstone of the global system. There was one problem. All of
the various national elites had their own images of what constituted
“their land” and “their country,” and these did not correspond with
those of the other elites. That’s why the Czechs looked fearfully at
the Germans and Poles, the Poles at the Germans and the Czechs, and the
Romanians at the Hungarians. The years 1938 to 1939 led to territorial
integrity becoming the new political principal (which would later be
formalized in the Helsinki agreement in 1975). The land surveying of
postcolonial Africa was carried out according to this model.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, ethnic
nationalism acquired new youth and vigor. In February 2008 the United
States and its allies took responsibility for legitimizing a new state,
and half a year later it was Russia that did so. In the first instance
the politicians who made the decision believed that a multinational
Kosovo within Serbia was impossible, and those in the second case
believed the same thing about “reintegration of Georgia.”

Since in the cases of Nagorno-Karabakh and Transdnestr the positions
of the Russian Federation and the West do not differ dramatically, no
one is shouldering the onus of responsibility for determining these
“shards of empires.” In Nagorno-Karabakh there are “strong” parties
interested in maintaining the status-quo, and in the other case
Moscow does not have a common border with the unrecognized republic,
which is why it is not unnecessarily charging the situation.

The problem is not about who is right and who is wrong. The Serbs
and the Albanians, the Abkhaz and the Georgians, the Armenians and
the Azeris could all draw up a long list of claims against each other
(including on their historical right to territory). The ethnic groups
are not to blame (even more so as they don’t have legal personalities),
but rather the principles and the approaches. Ethnic nationalism in
its extreme forms leads to the appearance of the “Kosovo casus,” in
which in there appears in Europe a fairly lame state, the government
of which is run by an old fighter called Hashim Tachi and nicknamed
“the Snake.” To what extent the Snake is able to solve the social
and daily problems of his compatriots is debatable.

Before, everything could be blamed on the evil will of Belgrade. Today
it necessary to take responsibility, regulate the judicial system,
bring into line corrupt officials, and the old comrades-in-arms of
the Kosovo liberation army. There remains the question of the Kosovo
precedent. And whoever wants to, of course, will see a precedent
without any formal jurisprudence.

Now, the question surrounding the recognition of Kosovo has become a
matter of interpretation. To the benefit of such interpretations there
has appeared a starting point in the form of the partly recognized
republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And that is why all the
discussions and arguments about the precedent of Kosovo are not
abstracted academic analyses, as was the case before 2008.

The event can be considered an evil, or a “triumph for democracy,”
but the independence of Kosovo did not unite the great powers. The
event didn’t even unite Europe (as had been planned in many
strategies concocted in Brussels). Five EU countries (Greece, Spain,
Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia) do not recognize the result of the
self-determination of the former Serb autonomy. But then the whole
of Europe united in a stance toward the recognition of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. Here Greece, Romania, France and Britain spoke with one
voice. But, be that as it may, Kosovo will never be a part of Serbia,
and Abkhazia and South Ossetia will hardly return to the care of
“mother Georgia.”

In addition we shouldn’t exclude the conflicts (or at the very
least serious confrontations) between partly recognized republics
and their military-political patrons. Just as yesterday’s Kosovar
field commanders are not ready to embrace the standards of Western
democracy, the leaders of Abkhazia are not pleased about the arrival
there of “colossal Russian business” (which is prepared to buy up
their energy at source, take total control of tourist facilities,
and take over the administrative business of the local authorities).

However, these conflicts will not entail a growth in sympathy toward
Belgrade or to Tbilisi. The political agenda will simply change
slowly. Besides, this is all ahead. And in any case, it will be a
different history for these post-Serbian and post-Georgian countries.

Sergei Markedonov is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), Russia and Eurasia Program Washington, DC

From: A. Papazian

GALLERY OF ARMENIAN-BORN ARTIST AT LIBRARY’S DONALD B. PALMER MUSEUM

Patch

July 28 2010

Artist Sona Yeghiazaryan promises escape through simplicity.

Starting this week, the library is offering Springfield residents a
chance to take a journey into the unknown.

“Stories of Color,” an exhibit of paintings by Sona Yeghiazaryan is
now on display at the library’s Donald B. Palmer Museum. Yeghiazaryan,
an Armenian born artist Montclair State University graduate, says on
her website that much of her inspiration comes from music, and that
creating art is her way of “dreaming,” “playing music” and more.

“To me art is a journey to the unknown world,” Yeghiazaryan said in
a statement. “It reveals itself only to those willing to believe in
the world built on the irrationality of poetic souls.”

She stresses that the goal of her art is connectivity and honesty.

“In my art there are no secrets, only magic that happens to those who
can fall in love with the breathtaking beauty of the simple, those
who can hear a whole symphony from a simple sound made by color,”
Yeghiazaryan said. “In my work I am showing you the simple, the
visible, so you can imagine the invisible. Here the colors will tell
you stories, the endings of which entirely depend on the inventiveness
of your mind and creativeness of your soul.”

Yeghiazaryan was born in Armenia and started drawing when she was two
years old. She found success quickly, having two personal exhibitions
in pre-school. She continued her education in Fine Arts at the Academy
of Fine Arts in Yerevan, Armenia.

She graduated Montclair State University with a Bachelor’s degree in
Art Education and a concentration in painting. From 1992 until the
present, she has had numerous exhibitions internationally including
shows in Armenia, Belarus and the USA. At 16 she was chosen to
participate in the International Young Artists festival in

Minsk and exhibited at the art gallery of Marc Chagall, where one of
her works was selected for the gallery’s permanent collection. In
the US, she had been selected for numerous shows including the
International Artexpo, Columbia University, Cooper Union and the Pen
& Brush.

The exhibit will be up until September 1. Yeghiazaryan is celebrating
her exhibit on July 29th at a reception in the Springfield Library’s
Palmer museum from 6 to 8. All are invited to attend.

From: A. Papazian

ARTISTS INVITED TO HELP ESTABLISH MUSEUM FOR GRIGORIAN’S ARTWORKS TEHRAN TIMES ART DESK

Tehran Times

July 29 2010
Iran

TEHRAN — Painter Janet Lazarian has made a heartfelt appeal for the
establishment of a museum to permanently house artworks by deceased
Iranian-Armenian artist Marcos Grigorian.

Grigorian (1925-2007), who is recognized as the pioneer of Iranian
modern art, died from a heart attack at his home in Armenia in 2007.

His works are currently being kept at the Museum of Literature which
is now part of the Middle East Museum in Yerevan.

“Grigorian took his collection of artworks to Armenia almost 20 years
ago and displayed them at the Museum of Literature,” Lazarian told
the Persian service of ISNA on Wednesday.

This was supposed to be a temporary show as he was not planning to
store his collection there forever but he died before he was able
to remove it, she said, adding, “The museum is a place for books and
the location where Grigorian’s works are on display is too small.”

This is while it was previously reported in the news that Grigorian had
donated 5000 of his artistic creations to the government of Armenia.

She continued, “At first, Marcos was determined to convert the second
floor of his home in Yerevan into a museum and transfer the items
there, but he died before he was able to realize his wishes.

“Two years ago, Armenian Ministry of Culture asked for permission
from the heirs to convert Marcos’ house into a museum and transfer
his collection there, but it would seem the request was rejected.

“The heirs did not give the government permission since they felt the
house is not in a desirable location. They claimed that they plan to
sell the house and would purchase another located in the center of
the city specifically for Marcos’ artwork,” she added.

The heirs (niece and nephew of Marcos) reside in the United States
and are due to travel to Armenia to sell the house.

In Armenia, the houses of artists and authors are converted into
museums after their deaths, and in Yerevan alone, there are 35 museums
of Armenian scholars, she noted.

Tehran’s Art Center will be playing host to a commemoration ceremony
for Marcos this year in autumn.

Grigorian’s artworks encompass a wide range of themes. His first
paintings depict the violent despair of the victims of Auschwitz.

Later, turning to sculpture, his works were dominated by such themes
as Persian bread, abgusht (a type of Persian soup) and wheelbarrows
full of straw.

He is also renowned for sculptures that he crafted from a combination
of clay and straw. Grigorian was also fond of teahouse paintings.

Some of his works are now on display at the Museum of Modern Art
in New York, Tehran’s Museum of Contemporary Art, and the Museum of
Contemporary Art in Kerman.

From: A. Papazian