Author: Babajanian Karo

IRATES DE FACTO: ARMENIA TO HAVE NEW EMIGRATION FLOW?

March 21, 2014

YEREVAN. – The law, which the Russian Federation (RF) government
approved recently, has caused quite a lot of enthusiasm in Armenia’s
rural communities, where there are a large number of migrant workers,
Irates De Facto newspaper reported.

“Pursuant to this law, people living in the former USSR countries
can easily become an RF citizen in three months, if they give up
citizenship of their own country.

“Our compatriots living in the villages are excited by this law. Many
have even decided to leave the country with their families; the youth,
with the expectation of work, the elderly, with higher pension.

“It should be noted that this law will contribute to the already
alarming rates of emigration [fromArmenia].

“Incidentally, the migrant workers we knew considered this law a
‘salvation,’ since they no longer will face red tape to obtain Russian
citizenship,” Irates De Facto wrote.

NATIONAL MINORITIES FACE INCREASING DISCRIMINATION IN TURKEY: REPORT

March 21, 2014 – 19:07 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Despite March 21 being both the UN-designated
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and
the start of the Nevruz festival, which marks the first day of spring
and has been celebrated by people from diverse ethnic communities and
religious backgrounds for thousands of years, some prominent voices
in Turkey use the occasion to say that discrimination is increasing
against those who do not practice Sunni Islam or identify as ethnic
Turks, Today’s Zaman reports.

Aren, a Christian of Armenian heritage in his 30s, says that on one
occasion, when he was exercising at the gym, some people opened windows
soon after he started running and said that “the room had started to
smell like an Armenian.”

Other prominent incidents of racial and religious discrimination —
such as the murder of Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist who
was killed outside his office, and three Christians who were brutally
murdered at the Zirve publishing house in Malatya — reveal that
intolerance can be deadly.

On paper, Turkey has taken significant steps to fight against
discrimination. After the long-running public debates over the
implementation of a “democracy package” — an initiative to extend
rights to Turkey’s disadvantaged minorities — hate crime entered the
Turkish statute books for the first time in December 2013. Hate and
prejudice crimes are defined as “crimes committed against someone
or some group based on their language, race, nationality, skin
color, gender, disability, political views, philosophical beliefs or
religion.” Yet, unlike the preferred definition of the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), it lacks criteria
based on ethnicity and sexual orientation. In addition, the largest
ethnic minority in Turkey, the Kurds, are not specifically included
in the regulation.

Similarly, Zeynep Arslan, a representative from the Hrant Dink
Foundation who coordinates the Media Watch on Hate Speech Project, told
Today’s Zaman about the project’s research from the last four months
of 2013. “There has been an increase in racial, ethnic and religious
discrimination that should not be underestimated. The provocative tone
toughened in the media, criticizing the illegalization of hate crime,
especially during the Christmas season in order to target Christians,”
Arslan says. She points out that most discrimination she has uncovered
is against individuals or groups who identify as Armenian, Christian
or Jewish. “The next most serious targets of discrimination are Kurds
and Westerners,” Arslan claims.

She also mentions that popular political discourse which makes
headlines also results in the increase of hate speech and
discrimination.

Turkey hosts both religious and ethnic minorities, ranging from ethnic
groups like Armenians, Jews and Kurds to religious groups like Alevis,
Shiite Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Christians. CIA World Factbook
statistics claim that an estimated 25-30 percent of the Turkish
population belong to an ethnic minority, while 25.7 percent adhere to
a minority religion, including large numbers of Alevis, a non-Sunni
Muslim group combining Anatolian folk Shiite Islam with Sufi elements.

ARMENIA AFTER THE VILNIUS SUMMIT: IT IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE STRUGGLE FOR “HEARTS AND MINDS”

21.03.2014

Sergei Sargsyan
Deputy Head, Centre for the Political Studies, Noravank Foundation

As the February events in the Republic of Moldova (Gagauzia referendum)
and Ukraine (ouster of Yanukovych) showed, signing or refusing to
sign an EU Association Agreement by itself does not completely take
off the table the issue of the direction for foreign political and
economic integration for the EU Eastern Partnership countries.

In Gagauzia the initialing of the Agreement was viewed as a threat
to the autonomy. Fearing that the Constitutional Court of Moldova
may at any time abolish the Article 4 of the Law on Gagauz Autonomy
that “in case of a change in the Republic of Moldova status as
an independent state the people of Gagauzia reserve the right for
external self-determination” and that in such case it would take at
least two months to organize a referendum on the issue, a preventive
referendum was conducted in February 2014. Participation was record
high (over 70.4% of the registered voters) and the results showed
that 98.4% are for integration with the Customs Union with 1.5%
against it. At the same time 2.5% voted for joining the EU and 97.4%
were against. The idea of “the deferred status of the autonomy”,
whereby Gagauzia reserves its right to self-determination in case
Moldova loses its independence, was supported by 98.8% of the voters.

This is not only about Gagauzia. The Bulgarians of Taraclia region
in south of Moldova, other towns and cities in Moldova, such as
Bessarabka, Cahul and the industrial center and “northern capital” of
the country BÄ~ClÈ~[i are also likely to join to the Gagauz initiative.

However, since the Constitution stipulates no local referendums, most
likely they will conduct those under the pretense of “opinion polls.”

These will bear no legal effects, but will uncover the population’s
mindset towards the prospect of Chisinau signing an Association
Agreement with the EU. The results will certainly be used in the
parliament election campaigns that, in fact, have already started.

In Ukraine a sudden, unprepared and weakly reasoned refusal of the
cabinet to follow the very course it supported for several years
toward closer relations with the EU, including establishment of a
free trade zone, sparked an outburst of protests, which culminated in
Maidan-2013. It further evolved into Maidan-2014 with fewer, but more
radically inclined supporters, which resulted in an armed standoff and
over 80 casualties, seizure of the executive power in the country,
ouster of president Yanukovych and revival of the urgency to sign
the EU Association Agreement.

After the Vilnius summit doubts were cast on further continuation of
the Eastern Partnership Program in its existing format. After all,
despite an apparent success with Moldova and Georgia, the Program
failed not only in Azerbaijan and Belarus (signs for which were visible
even before), but also in Armenia and most surprisingly, in Ukraine.

In early February 2014 thirteen EU countries prepared a document
dubbed “European package” that is supposed to lay foundations for
further cooperation with the Eastern Partnership countries under
the “post-Vilnius” realities. This document widens the areas of the
Program activities, including accelerating conclusion of Association
Agreements with Georgia and Moldova, more frequent visits of Program
officials to participating countries, more active dialogue with Russia
and strengthening Europe’s role in resolution of the long-lasting
conflicts. In essence, this is about reinforcing the information
support of the Program and increasing informational pressure on
its participating countries. This will be carried out through the
structures established within the framework of the renewed European
Neighborhood, through the Eastern Partnership Program, EURONEST
Parliamentary Assembly, European Foundation for Democracy, EC Civil
Society Fund with its platforms in the countries, as well as most
likely through some new structures.

Generally, within the framework of the Eastern Partnership program
and under tutelage of the EU, in participating countries there is
an already established and actively operating network of government
organizations, which:

– receives intense political, organizational and technical support
from European institutions;

– is fully or considerably out of the government control in a given
country, and in the long term is financially independent;

– monitors (in fact controls) implementation of the bilateral and
multilateral agreements and commitments of the governments in relation
to the EU; and

– is managed and coordinated by centers in Europe.

Among other things, the “European Package” entails implementation of
comparative studies to assess Eastern Partnership countries’ prospects
in case of signing an EU Association Agreement or, conversely, joining
the Customs Union. Hence, with this the EU intensifies competition
with Russia to attract new countries to alternative integration
projects and pushes this competition into the information space,
where Europe has a lot more experience than Russia does and hence,
Brussels plans to outperform Moscow there.

The West has been systematically and constantly operating in the
information space of the region since long ago. On the contrary,
Russia started doing the same only recently, time to time and through
one-time events, which at best result in a short-term surge of sympathy
among a limited number of participants.

Admittedly though, Moscow managed to win Brussels in the first round
of the information struggle (not information warfare yet). However,
this was not really because Moscow played well, but because Europe
played poorly, when it abandoned its declared principles of openness
and transparency by keeping the texts of Association Agreements under
lock and key, away from the public eyes in the signatory states.

As a whole, all of this means that struggle “for the hearts and minds”
of the people in Eastern Partnership countries has only begun.

As far as the “hearts” are concerned, since this is about the emotional
condition of the societies, the struggle outcome will depend on
quantitative parameters of the information flow, perseverance and bias
of the representatives and charismatic speakers of the media, as well
as in what proportion they will be divided along the East-West axis
(for South Caucasus it is the North-West axis).

As for the struggle for “minds”, it is a lot more serious, because
here one has to do with the facts, and as it is well known, facts are
non-ductile. As an example, there is a widespread and continuously
planted idea that Armenia abandoned its intentions to prepare and
sign the EU Association Agreement only under the Russian pressure
and out of a sheer concern for its own military security, despite
the government has shown clear interest in such agreement since 2010.

However, a thorough analysis of the outlooks for the proposed
alternative integration projects along with their pre-stated depth
of integration brings to a conclusion that Yerevan’s decision in
favor of the Customs Union was based on economic arguments at least
to the same extent as military and political ones. In particular,
many experts and analysts in and outside Armenia have brought
to attention examples of differing approaches of CU and EU to the
largest and most promising projects that are directly related not only
to economic development, but also national security. For instance,
Brussels has stated on numerous occasions about the necessity to shut
down the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant, whereas Russia has offered to
prolong its operation under international support to increase its safe
functioning and also supported Yerevan’s plans of constructing a new
nuclear power plant with modern technologies to replace the old one.

Given the differences in Brussels’ and Moscow’s approaches to
Georgia-Abkhazia and Georgia-South Ossetia conflict and development
prospects for trans-regional communications in South Caucasus, Russia
is the only global actor truly interested for objective reasons in
opening the railroad traffic through Abkhazia, Georgia and Armenia.

Turkey and Azerbaijan are implementing a project to construct
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku (KATB) railway, which has significant
geopolitical and anti-Armenian component in it. At the same time,
for Iran a railway corridor through Armenia would not be the only one
connecting it to Georgia and Russia among the existing and projected
North-South communications lines.

Washington’s efforts to suspend the KATB project that excludes Armenia
from yet another regional communications project somewhat slowed
down the construction, but failed to stop it, thus allowing Turkey to
continue the blockade of the existing alternative Gyumri-Kars railroad.

Thus, because of Armenia’s prospects for regional integration
without compromising national security interests of the Republic
of Armenia and Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh in terms of unilateral
concessions to Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and to
Turkey in terms of the Genocide recognition, it is beneficial for
Yerevan to join projects where Russia is interested and which it
lobbies. This concerns both ensuring reliable supply to the Russian
military base 102 in Armenia and full-capacity operation of Russian-
and jointly-owned export-oriented industrial facilities in Armenia,
whether currently idle, operating or to be built. Among those the
largest ones are worth mentioning, such as Mars, Armenal and Nairit
factories, for which reconstruction and increased scope of production
with Russian participation are now actively discussed.

In addition, not everything is simple with the Russian gas imports,
which have a key role in energy security of Armenia.

Signing an EU Association Agreement and being in a free trade zone
together with Georgia would first of all mean shutting down the
Armenian Nuclear Power Plant in a maximally short period of time.

Secondly, it would mean liberalization and considerable
unification/regionalization of energy policies of Tbilisi and Yerevan,
which implies merging the energy markets of the two countries in
accordance with the EU energy policy “Third Package” rules, with equal
access and free competition for all participants of the agreement.

This would result in decreased Russian interest in Armenia and hike
of Russian gas prices to market levels already in the mid-term, in
turn leading to low demand for electricity generated by Armenian,
Armenian-Russian and Russian power plants (first of all the Unit 5
of the Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant) caused by less expensive or at
least very competitively priced electricity from the Georgian hydro
power plants, both existing and under construction.

In economic terms this could be only welcomed. However, once Georgia
virtually becomes a monopolist in the energy market of Armenia,
the latter would be vulnerable both economically and politically,
since electricity prices may then increase due to absence of common
interests unlike in the case with Armenian-Russian relations, whereas
Georgia’s strategic partnership with Turkey and Azerbaijan continues
to strengthen.

Under such circumstances any disputes would have to be resolved in
Brussels, which due to own energy interests will consider the stances
of not only Tbilisi and Yerevan, but also that of Baku. Moreover,
in such situation interests of Tbilisi and Baku would match. This
would become especially relevant once the Georgian section of the
North-South gas pipeline, which has strategic importance for Armenia,
is put up for privatization. On numerous occasions Azerbaijan has
assertively expressed interest in purchasing it. It is pertinent to
recall the early 1990s, when there was a practice of blowing up this
pipeline, which passes through Marneuli region of Georgia predominantly
populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis. With the Armenian NPP shut down
and no gas storages, this had a strong psychological effect on the
population of Armenia, when the country was in an open armed conflict
with Azerbaijan. One of the consequences of the energy blockade was
mass emigration, the effects of which are still felt in Armenia.

Also, signing the EU Association Agreement would directly affect the
Armenian-Iranian relations, development of which is currently viewed
“with understanding” in Washington and Brussels. However, further
associated relations with the EU would require Armenia join the EU
and US economic sanctions against Iran. As the current outlook for
lifting the sanctions is still bleak, this would negatively affect
Armenia’s situation.

***

It appears the current geopolitical situation in South Caucasus creates
conditions in which an informed, objective and established viewpoint
of Armenia’s people toward the country’s participation in integration
projects will be formed not so much by informational coverage of
the Armenia-EU and Armenia-CU bilateral relations, but rather by the
analysis of the military, political and economic actions that actors
playing in the region will conduct. A substantiated, balanced position
of the experts and analysts would enable the society to choose in
the wide range of suggested opinions the ones in best interests of
Armenia and mutually beneficial for its allies.

Return ________________________________ Another materials of author

THE MAIN TRENDS IN GEORGIAN POLITICS AND ECONOMY IN SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER,
2013[23.12.2013] INTEGRATION ASPIRATIONS OF ARMENIA AND SOME ISSUES
OF THE MILITARY AND POLITICAL SECURITY OF THE REP. OF ARMENIA AND
NKR[12.09.2013] TURKEY: THROES OF SECULARISM[31.07.2013] INTEGRATION
PROSPECTS OF POST-SOVIET STATES ON THE EXAMPLE OF KIRGIZIA AND
UKRAINE (EXPECTATIONS AND CONCERNS)[03.06.2013] INTENSIFICATION OF
RUSSIA-TURKEY INDIRECT MILITARY AND POLITICAL CONFRONTATION[25.02.2013]
GEORGIA: AN ATTEMPT TO MANEUVER IN A NARROW GAUGE[14.01.2013] SOME
ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY AND POLITICAL SITUATION ROUND
THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT [02.08.2012] “IT IS NECESSARY TO RAISE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, – says the deputy head of the Center for Political
Studies of “Noravank” Foundation Sergei SARGSYAN in his interview
to “Golos Armenii”[26.07.2012] TRANS-CASPIAN GAS PIPELINE: GOALS,
PROBLEMS AND RISKS [25.06.2012] TURKEY IN THE US MISSILE DEFENCE
SYSTEM: PRIMARY ASSESSMENT AND POSSIBLE PROSPECTS[13.10.2011]

POLITICAL TECHNOLOGIST: THERE ARE NO MECHANISMS TO CONDUCT A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT

by Marianna Lazarian

ARMINFO
Friday, March 21, 13:31

The four non-coalition forces of the Armenian Parliament have all
reasons to conduct a vote of no confidence in the Armenian Government,
but there are no mechanisms to do that, political technologist Karen
Kocharyan said at today’s press conference in Yerevan.

“It’s good that the four factions with different ideologies were
able to join efforts and initiate signature collection. By March 28
they should obtain the required number of votes to carry out their
initiative”, he stressed.

When asked what party represents the real opposition in Armenia,
Kocharyan stressed that the only serious party in Armenia is ARF
Dashnaktsutyun. He thinks that the rest of the parties will fall apart
as soon as their leaders decide to leave the mainstream politics. “If
the Prosperous Armenia Party leader suddenly decides to leave the
politics and take up business only, the PAP will simply fall apart.

The same can be said about the ruling Republican Party of Armenia,
as well as the Armenian National Congress or Heritage”, he said.

To note, on March 28 the four non-coalition forces of the Armenian
Parliament (Prosperous Armenia Party, Heritage, ARF Dashnaktsutyun
and Armenian National Congress) are going to include in the agenda
the issue of non-confidence in the Government

As regards the situation in Ukraine and the referendum in Crimea,
Kocharyan expressed his amazement at the fact that serious politicians
see no parallels between Nagorno-Karabakh and Crimea. “What’s the
difference? Stalin presented Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan and
Khrushchov presented Crimea to Ukraine”, he said.

In the meantime, he thinks that there is no need to hold one more
referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh. He stressed that the referendum was
held 25 years ago and that now Artsakh is an independent state with
all the necessary attributes of democratic power.

RAFFI HOVANNISIAN: HERITAGE HOPES FOR MEETING OF FOUR PARTIES’ LEADERS

March 21, 2014 | 12:38

YEREVAN. – Four non-colaition political forces continue constructive
cooperation, Heritage leader Raffi Hovannisian assured.

He said the bills submitted by political forces are being discussed
in the atmposphere of restraint and effectiveness.

“The leaders of political parties have not met so far. The meeting
is necesssary to overcome certain differences and finally state the
format of cooperation has moved beyond parliament,” Hovannisian said.

The politician noted that the political forces considering that
the results of 2013 presidential elections were flawed, must accept
immenence of change of power.

“However, we have not reached agreement on the matter. Heritage is
not against initiating no-confidence vote in the government, but we
demand change of power starting from Serzh Sargsyan. Consolidation
of non-parliamentary opposition forces is vital, too,” he explained.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

Venice votes in referendum on splitting from Rome

15:21 17.03.2014

Italy, referendum, Venice

Voting has begin in Venice and the surrounding region on whether to
break away from Italy, the BBC reports.

Recent opinion polls suggest that two-thirds of the four million
electorate favour splitting from Rome, but the vote will not be
legally binding.

The poll was organised by local activists and parties, who want a
future state called Republic of Veneto.

This would be reminiscent of the sovereign Venetian republic that
existed for more than 1,000 years.

A focal point for culture, architecture and trade, Venice lost its
independence to Napoleon in 1797.

Online voting is due to continue until Friday.

Armenia backs Crimea’s right to self-determination

Published time: March 21, 2014 23:42
Get short URL

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan (RIA Novosti/Tigran Mekhrabyan)

Armenia has backed Crimea’s choice of joining Russia, supporting the
right to self-determination for the peninsula’s population. In
response, Ukraine has recalled its ambassador to Armenia.

“Armenia’s principled position on the right to self-determination
remains unchanged and has been repeatedly expressed over the years,”
Armenia’s deputy foreign minister, Shavarsh Kocharyan, told Ukrainian
Ambassador Ivan Kukhta, as quoted by the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s
press service.

The meeting, which took place in Armenia’s capital of Yerevan, was
initiated by the Ukrainian side after Armenia’s President Serzh
Sargsyan expressed support for the Crimean referendum, stating it was
justified.

Sargsyan told his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in a phone
conversation that the Crimean referendum was a”model for the
realization of self-determination.”

In response, Ukraine recalled its ambassador to Yerevan for
consultation on Friday.

Kiev also summoned Armenia’s ambassador to Ukraine, Andranik Manukyan,
to express its concerns over Armenia’s position on the referendum.

On Sunday, over 96 percent of voters taking part in the Crimean
referendum answered “yes” to the autonomous republic joining Russia.
The Crimean parliament also unanimously voted to integrate the region
into Russia.

On Friday, Russia finalized the legal process of taking Crimea under
its sovereignty, as President Putin signed a law amending the Russian
constitution to reflect the transition.

Earlier, Russian lawmakers ratified both the amendment and an
international treaty with Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, which was
legally required for the incorporation.

The move has been met with an onslaught of international sanctions
against Russia for its role in the Ukraine crisis.

Armenia has a strong stance of supporting self-determination.

During the confrontation over Nagorno-Karabakh, which broke out in
1988, the region – mostly populated by Armenians – sought independence
from Azerbaijan and announced its intention to join Armenia. In 1991,
the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was founded. Azerbaijan tried to regain
control over the territory, and the conflict escalated into a
full-scale war which claimed the lives of around 30,000 people. The
conflict ended in 1994, with Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence remaining
unrecognized and the region remaining a part of Azerbaijan, according
to Baku’s legislation. Yerevan has been supporting the
Nagorno-Karabakh region, representing its interests in an official
capacity.

Since 1994, talks to determine the status of the disputed region have
been conducted within the framework of the Minsk Group of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The group
proposed the basic principles for a settlement of the conflict – known
as the Madrid document – in 2007.

Transitions Online, Czech Rep.
March 21 2014

Armenia compiles list of 1915-1916 victims as anniversary approaches

One year before the 100th anniversary of massacres at the hands of
Ottoman Turks that most Armenians consider a genocide, the country’s
National Archive has announced that it will draft a list of victims’
names based on surviving records, according to Public Radio of
Armenia.

Amatuni Virabyan
Armenian National Archive head Amatuni Virabyan compared the
initiative to that of a Jewish effort after World War II that
“collected the names of 6 million victims and 3 million photos.”

But he said it would be impossible to provide a definitive list of
Armenian casualties “as the initiative is too belated.”

Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Armenians were driven out of
present-day Turkey in 1915-1916. Some were killed outright while
others wandered in the Syrian desert and elsewhere, often dying of
starvation.

Armenia and Turkey have a tense relationship because of Ankara’s
reluctance to apologize or treat the acts as anything other than
wartime hostilities.

While Yerevan claims that more than 1.5 million Armenians were killed
in the attacks, Ankara puts the number of deaths closer to 300,000.

According to members of the International Association of Genocide
Scholars, “More than a million were exterminated through direct
killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of
the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient
civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.”

Virabyan said an Armenian commission worked on loss estimates in the
years following World War I in an unsuccessful effort to get
reparations.

Filmmaker Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation is raising funds to
integrate Armenian testimonies into its collection of accounts from
survivors of other genocides and ethnic cleansing, Public Radio of
Armenia reports, in time for the 100th anniversary of the killings in
April 2015.

Press TV, Iran
March 21 2014

Ukraine recalls envoy to Armenia over Crimea

Ukraine’s interim government has recalled its ambassador to Yerevan
for consultations after Armenia threw its weight behind Russia’s
annexation of the strategic Black Sea peninsula of Crimea.

Acting Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsya recalled
Ambassador Ivan Kukhta on Friday, and summoned Armenian Ambassador to
Kiev Andronik Manoukyan Enokovich to express his strong objection over
Yerevan’s position.

During a telephone conversation between Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Wednesday,
Sargsyan hailed Moscow’s annexation of Ukrainian breakaway region of
Crimea and termed it as “a model for the realization of
self-determination.”

On Friday, Putin signed into law the documents officially making
Crimea part of the Russian territory.

He also signed legislation creating two new Russian administrative
districts — Crimea and the port city of Sevastopol.

Earlier, Russia’s upper and lower houses of parliament overwhelmingly
put their stamp at the annexation of Crimea into the Russian
Federation.

Crimea declared independence from Ukraine on March 17 and formally
applied to become part of Russia following a referendum a day earlier,
in which 96.8 percent of Crimean residents voted in favor of the
secession. The voter turnout in the referendum stood at 83.1 percent.

The move sparked angry reactions from the United States and the
European Union, both imposing punitive measures against a number of
Russian officials and authorities in Crimea.

State Youth Orchestra of Armenia performs at Emile Bustani Auditorium

15:45 22/03/2014 >> CULTURE

On March 21, the State Youth Orchestra of Armenia performed at Emile
Bustani Auditorium as part of its concert tour to Lebanon, under the
baton of the artistic director and principal conductor Sergey
Smbatyan, the press service of the Orchestra reports.

Surely, the fascinated listeners will not forget the evening of March
21 as it became one of the brightest events in the cultural life of
Lebanon. In the first part of the concert, the audience was presented
“The Wild Dove” by Antonin Dvorak and Cello Concerto by Robert
Schumann (Soloist: Antonio Meneses (cello)). Maestro Meneses performed
Courante from Cello Suite No.1 by Bach for an encore. In the second
part of the concert, the SYOA performed “Swan Lake” Suite by Pyotr
Ilyich Tchaikovsky. At the end of the evening, the listeners were
refusing to leave the hall demanding more performances. With standing
ovations the Orchestra performed “Lezginka” by great Aram
Khachaturian.

The State Youth Orchestra of Armenia (SYOA) has been invited to have 4
concerts in Beirut as the official orchestra of the 20th Al Bustan
International Festival. For the first time in the history of the
festival, its official representative will be an Armenian orchestra.

Within the framework of Al Bustan Festival, the State Youth Orchestra
of Armenia is going to present another two concerts.

The trip to Lebanon is becoming a reality thanks to the general
partner of the orchestra – VivaCell-MTS.

Source: Panorama.am