Author: Badalian Vardan

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY TRIES TO FIND OUT IF THERE WERE ARMENIAN CITIZENS OF BOARD THE CRASHED AIRBUS A320

by Marianna Lazarian

ARMINFO
Tuesday, March 24, 15:54

The Armenian Foreign Ministry is specifying information about possible
presence of Armenian citizens on board the Airbus A320, which was
flying from Barcelona to Dusseldorf, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Tigran
Balayan has told ArmInfo.

“We are taking the relevant measures. As soon as we have some data,
we will make them public”, he says.

It has previously been reported about the crash of the A320 Airbus
(German Wings) that was making a Barcelona-Dusseldorf flight.

According to preliminary reports, there were 142 passengers, 2 pilots
and 4 crewmembers on board the plane. The wreckage was found near a
French village.

ARMENIAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST DOESN’T HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR GEORGIAN PARLIAMENT’S ADOPTION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION DRAFT

17:00, 24 March, 2015

YEREVAN, 24 MARCH, ARMENPRESS. The Parliament of Georgia won’t pass a
resolution on the Armenian Genocide. “Taking into account Georgia’s
trade and economic relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, as well as
the presence of Turkish and Azerbaijani communities in Georgia, the
Armenian deputies’ discussions on the Armenian Genocide resolution
in the Georgian parliament won’t be fruitful,” member of the board
of the European Integration” NGO, political scientist Narek Minasyan
mentioned during a March 24 press conference, as “Armenpress” reports.

The political scientist noted that the ruling Georgian elite is facing
two very serious choices ahead of the Centennial of the Armenian
Genocide. “Turkey, which is Georgia’s number one partner in trade
and economy, has invited Georgia to participate in the celebrations
dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli, and
Georgia’s decision to accept or decline the invitation will show the
relations of which country are considered overriding for the Georgian
government,” Minasyan underscored.

AGMI PUBLISHES MEMORIES OF OTTOMAN ARMENIAN SPORTSMAN VAHRAM PAPAZIAN

17:58, 24 Mar 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute has published memories of
Ottoman Armenian sportsman Vahram Papazian. The memoirs titled “Love,
love, love” are a very unique source of the pre-genocide history
of the Armenian life in the Ottoman Empire. It’s also an absolute
historical source of the history of sports and Olympic Games, World
War I, Armenian Genocide, as well as the refugees and migration.

For the first time in the Ottoman history two Armenian sportsmen
Vahram Papazian and Mkrtich Mkrian represented the Ottoman Turkey in
the fifth Olympic Games in Stockholm in 1912.

In the chapter “On the way to Stockholm” Papazian wrote: “In 1912, the
International Olympic Games were to be held in Stockholm, and Turkey
was invited to participate. However, the Turks had no athletes, while
the Armenians did. So the Armenians decided to send their athletes
to represent the huge Ottoman Empire and succeeded. Ottoman Turkey
participated twice in a similar international competition as an empire
thanks to two Armenian sportsmen, as you will see later on. The two
Armenian athletes brought honor to their country… …When I arrived
in Stockholm in the morning, I noticed that the streets and important
buildings were adorned with flags of all the countries participating
in the Olympic Games, but there was not a single Turkish flag among
them. I was very concerned about this. After all, I was the official
representative of the Ottoman Empire, and this slight against my
country was an insult to me.

I took a car and went straight to the Turkish embassy to express my
anger. With suitcases still in hand, I demanded immediate action.

After introducing myself and receiving congratulations from the
ambassador, I said: “Bey Effendi, Stockholm is depressing to me and
I would like to return to my country with my suitcases on my arm. All
of Stockholm is adorned with foreign flags, but not the Turkish flag,
and this is an insult to me and my country. I will only stay here
if measures are taken so the flag of my country flies among all
the others.

The Turkish ambassador petrified for a moment. Like many others, he
couldn’t believe that an Armenian could have such a strong love and
respect for their Turkish country. He probably did not realize the
clear fact that the Armenians have always loved their Turkish country,
that it was the Turks who didn’t love their loyal Armenian subjects,
and have always been persecuting them on each occasion…

… And two hours later, the Turkish flag was flying on every corner,
thanks to a young Armenian, who in a few years would be mourning
millions of unburied corpses of Armenians, all of them having been
massacred by the Turks.”

As a survivor and an eyewitness of the Armenian Genocides, Papazian
also gives us important information about the Armenian Genocide.

“One of the lies about the Armenian massacres is the statement that
the Armenians were massacred because they helped Russians by spying for
them. Even if this was true, what were the massacred honest, peaceful,
and loyal Armenian population of Harput, children and grandparents,
to blame for?

Vahram Papazian’s memoirs, published for the first time in English,
have been edited by Doctor of Sciences Mr. Hayk Demoyan, Director of
the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute. The Armenian version of the
book was published in Beirut in1962.

LA FORCE DU PEUPLE ARMENIEN RESIDE DANS SA DECENTRALISATION

Publie le : 23-03-2015

Info Collectif VAN – – Le Collectif VAN vous
invite a liere cet article publie sur le site Repair le 18 mars 2015.

Repair

mercredi 18 mars 2015

Razmik Panossian

Politologue canadien, Directeur du Departement des Communautes
Armeniennes de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian (Lisbonne)

Dans cet essai, Razmik Panossian explique qu’il est temps de degriser
ce qu’il nomme l’>, repond Erevan. Il est, après tout, le seul
Etat survivant (sans oublier l’Artsakh). Beaucoup dans la diaspora
acceptent cela et se tournent vers l’Armenie, mais sans toutefois
y retourner. D’autres repondent : , soulignent-ils, des autorites sovietiques dans les elections du Catholicosat
en 1956 a Antelias au Liban), le Comite central du Parti communiste
armenien a decide en 1957 de developper de nouvelles politiques et
de nouveaux instruments pour augmenter l’influence de l’Armenie
sovietique sur la diaspora. La manifestation la plus concrète de
cette nouvelle politique a ete la creation de la Spiurkahayutyan Hed
Meshagutayin Gabi Gomide5 (Comite pour les liens culturels avec les
Armeniens de la diaspora), suivie par la publication de magazines,
manuels, et d’autres initiatives, qui visaient toutes la diaspora. Un
document revelateur de 1974 dans les archives, intitule en Armenie, la plus grande des
multiples vagues de rapatriement. Loin d’etre une entite passive, la
diaspora, sous la direction des partis et des organisations politiques
communautaires mobilises, s’est organisee et a defendu des questions
nationales. Elle-meme etait divisee selon des lignes ideologiques :
certains dans la diaspora soutenaient la patrie sovietique dès les
annees 1920, tandis que d’autres rejetaient le regime communiste. Il
est interessant de retracer l’evolution de l’organisation la plus
influente de diaspora, le parti antisovietique dachnak, du rejet total
de la Republique dans les annees 1920 et 1930 a l’acceptation comme
une patrie dans les annees 1970 et 1980. Alors que le > global se reproduisait au sein des communautes importantes de
la diaspora armenienne, les militants des deux côtes ont contribue
a sa construction et a son entretien. Neanmoins, en depit du rideau
de fer intra-communautaire, la vision de l’Armenie sovietique et de
ses allies dans la diaspora a fini par devenir hegemonique.

Les gouvernements postsovietiques en Armenie, parfois soutenus
par des conseillers de la diaspora, ont toujours adhere a cette
logique. Bien sûr, il ya eu un changement significatif dans l’attitude
d’Erevan envers la diaspora, en particulier entre les gouvernements
Ter-Petrossian et Kotcharian. Comme les administrations successives
ont tendu la main a la diaspora, la poussee d’inspiration sovietique
a la centralisation et au contrôle est restee. Parfois explicitement,
a d’autres moments implicitement. Le ressentiment actuel chez certains
intellectuels et dirigeants de la diaspora envers l’Armenie est une
reaction aux tentatives de ses fonctionnaires pour contrôler — ou a
tout du moins diriger la diaspora — que ce soit par des mecanismes
institutionnels ou ideologiques.

En ce qui concerne la tendance au contrôle, la diaspora n’est pas en
reste et il convient egalement de noter que, dans les annees 1990,
une attitude prevalait chez certains leaders de la diaspora, notamment
dans le parti dachnak : en tant que leaders de la nation,
ils devaient gouverner l’Armenie independante — ou au moins avoir leur
mot a dire dans sa politique — sans avoir aucune presence serieuse
en Armenie. La mobilisation de la diaspora (generalement couronnee
de succès) contre les politiques de rapprochement de l’Armenie
vis-a-vis de la Turquie (par exemple, les Protocoles de 2009) est un
autre exemple de l’affirmation des priorites de la diaspora. Quand
il s’agit de relations avec la Turquie, les Armeniens de la diaspora
sentent qu’ils ont leur mot a dire legitime, et qu’ils devraient etre
en mesure d’influencer, si ce n’est definir, la politique.

Contrôler la diaspora armenienne a partir d’un centre –que ce soit
Erevan ou ailleurs — est impossible. La diaspora est trop diverse,
trop decentralisee et trop independante pour etre contrôlee, du moins
avec succès. Elle peut certes etre affaiblie, mais elle ne peut pas
etre contrôlee efficacement. Et ne devrait pas l’etre. Sa force meme,
et la force du peuple armenien, resident dans le fait que la nation
a toujours ete decentralisee. La culture armenienne a survecu au
genocide en raison de sa decentralisation, en raison de ses multiples
centres culturels et multiples communautes de la diaspora. Ni les
Jeunes-Turcs, ni le regime de terreur de Staline n’ont pu detruire
complètement tout un peuple parce qu’il y avait des Armeniens ailleurs.

La centralisation et le contrôle sont les deux faces d’une meme pièce
(et incarnes dans de nombreux Etats). Les deux sont, a mon avis,
prejudiciables a la survie du peuple armenien. Voici les trois raisons
pour lesquelles je crois qu’ils sont des strategies dangereuses :

Premièrement, comme mentionne ci-dessus, ils sont historiquement
etrangers a l’experience de la nation armenienne. L’>, avec
ses nuances de centralisation, a ete un cri de ralliement rhetorique
pendant des siècles, creant des poètes et des hommes politiques de
la communaute, mais pas des decideurs politiques serieux. Meme si
nous revenons sept siècles en arrière, jusqu’aux derniers royaumes
armeniens existants, nous voyons qu’il y avait des Etats extremement
decentralises avec de puissants princes locaux qui maintenaient le
roi en echec. La centralisation ne fait tout simplement pas partie
de la tradition politique armenienne. La centralisation communiste
s’est accomplie dans le sang et la douleur, et n’a finalement pas
reussi en Armenie.

Deuxièmement, dans la conjoncture actuelle, posons-nous la question
honnetement : la centralisation vers où, et le contrôle par qui ?

L’Armenie elle-meme est confrontee a une serie de graves problèmes.

Oui, c’est le seul Etat armenien survivant, mais c’est un pays avec
des institutions faibles, un système politique dans lequel le pouvoir
reel est exerce par des moyens informels, un système economique
oligarchique, et des politiques etrangères et militaires qui sont
entièrement a la charge d’une superpuissance regionale. Malgre les
nombreux succès qu’a remportes l’Armenie au cours des deux dernières
decennies, elle reste neanmoins un etat relativement faible dans un
voisinage difficile, avec un problème d’emigration considerable. Ce
n’est tout simplement pas une bonne politique que d’en faire le point
de debut et de fin de tout ce qui est armenien. Avoir une diaspora
forte et independante est l’equivalent d’une

SYRIAN PARLIAMENT SPEAKER CALLS ON INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO CONDEMN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

12:04, 23 Mar 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

Speaker of the People’s Assembly of Syria, Dr. Mohammad Jihad al-Laham
received Armenian Ambassador to Syria Arshak Poladyan on March 21.

Ambassador Poladyan conveyed to the Syrian Parliament Speaker a
congratulatory letter from Galust Sahakyan, President of the National
Assembly of Armenia.

In the letter Galust Sahakyan expressed gratitude for holding a
special sitting at the Syrian People’s Assembly dedicated to the 100th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, for condemning this heavy crime
and expressing support to the Armenian people.

The Armenian Speaker expressed special gratitude to the Syrian people,
who opened the doors and gave refuge to Armenian Genocide survivors.

“The humane attitude of the Syrian nation and its leaders is always
remembered and appreciated by the Armenian people,” Mr. Sahakyan wrote.

At the meeting Dr. Mohammad Jihad al-Laham once again referred to
the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian
peoples and called on the international community to condemn this
heinous crime against humanity.

Ambassador Poladyan, in turn, briefed the Syrian Parlaiment Speaker on
the events dedicated to the 100thanniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Other issues of regional importance were also discussed.

REFINING THE VINE: WINEMAKING IN ARMENIA AND GEORGIA LOOKING TO FIND MARKET RELEVANCE

FEATURES | 23.03.15 | 10:58

By GAYANE MKRTCHYAN
ArmeniaNow reporter

As the two ancient South Caucasus nations known to have grown vines
and made wine for millennia Armenians and Georgians have had as much
‘good-neighborly’ relations as competition in the ancient trade both
during the Soviet period and after independence.

As the geopolitical paths of the two wine-making nations forked after
the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union – with Georgia eventually
choosing closer integration with Europe and Armenia striving to
preserve its traditional alliance with Russia – grape-growers and
winemakers in both countries also began to see their future in the
increasingly competitive world from different perspectives.

While there may be points of difference also related to the past,
viticulturists and winemaking experts in both countries agree that
the 20th century wasn’t the best time for winemaking. The Soviet
collectivization of vineyards in the 1930s when farmers were deprived
of ownership of their land was perhaps one of the strongest blows to
the industry.

“A winemaker is first of all a person and this person needs to be
the master of his own production, the owner of his vineyard,” says
Shalva Kheruani, a veteran winemaker and president of the Degustation
Association of Georgia.

“If there hadn’t been the 70 years of Soviet rule Georgia perhaps
would rank high among wine-making European nations today,” he adds.

Avaz Harutyunyan, the president of the Union of Winemakers of Armenia,
agrees that vineyards lost their “masters” because of the Soviet rule.

“For 300 years grapes had had their master in this land. But
[after the Soviet rule] we lost our face. That’s why the world does
not acknowledge either us or Georgians as major grape-growing or
wine-making nations,” says Harutyunyan.

Even so, the two nations that claim to be the world’s oldest winemakers
lost even more in terms of the industry after gaining independence
and adopting capitalist rules of production.

Among other things it also meant that free-market rules would apply
to winemaking – an industry that is labor intensive and requires
time and money before becoming profitable. As a result, the areas of
vineyards dramatically decreased in both South Caucasus countries.

In Soviet times, Georgia’s vineyards occupied a territory of 160,000
hectares, while today they make only 48,000 hectares. In Armenia the
territory under vineyards has shrunk from 36,000 during the Soviet
period to just 18,000 hectares today. In Armenia, 95 percent of locally
grown grapes procured for the industry are used for brandy production,
and only five percent goes for wine.

While brandy making is a relatively new trade in Armenia, the nation’s
winemaking culture and traditions date back to 4,000 BC. In 2011,
a group of local and international archeologists found proof of the
world’s oldest winery in a cave near the village of Areni in central
Armenia.

But today winemaking is more advanced in Georgia, which also takes
pride in its being one of the oldest wine regions in the world.

The major shift came in the 19th century when Tsarist Russia declared
Armenia to be a “country of brandy” and Georgia a “country of wine”.

That distinction followed major investments in brandy production
in Armenia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when Armenian
brandy became famous around the world.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is known to have become a
big fan of Armenian brandy (or Russian brandy as he knew it) after
getting a taste of it at a 1945 Stalin-hosted conference of World
War II allies.

And while Stalin each month sent a box of ‘Russian brandy’ to Churchill
after the Yalta meeting, Harutyunyan says apart from that the Soviets
did little to promote the noble beverage produced by Armenians abroad
otherwise and its sales were mostly limited to the 15 Soviet republics.

“When the Soviet Union collapsed, Armenia, by inertia, began to
fit itself into the Russian market, instead of trying to reach new
markets,” the specialist says.

But Georgia had to look beyond Russia when the two fell out over
geopolitical matters and Moscow banned imports of Georgian wines
in 2006.

Georgian Degustation Association head Kheruani says Georgian winemakers
realized then that they needed to pay more attention to quality to
win new markets.

“We went back to the 19th century as our wine tried to find its
owners,” he remembers.

Georgian exports declined dramatically – from 50 million bottles
in 2005 to just about 9 million today. But quality, Kheruani says,
had to be raised in order to “surprise” the consumer in conditions
of suddenly stiffer competition.

“Our vineyards today have their own ‘passports’, the State determines
when the harvest should begin and end [to achieve the best results].

We have wine inspectors and it is no longer possible to procure grapes
of poor quality today,” the Georgian winemaking expert explains.

His Armenian counterpart says that quality issues aside, Armenian
wines also need to be duly promoted abroad and besides domestically
organized wine festivals Armenia also needs to organize such events
abroad – something that Georgia has done in recent years.

“In Armenia the government has put emphasis on brandy production
so that we don’t lose that as well, but problems are evident even
in that sector,” says Harutyunyan, pointing out that in conditions
of recurrent crises in Russia, which is the main export market for
Armenian alcoholic beverages, brandy production should not be the
only emphasis.

According to Harutyunyan, winemaking is just as profitable, if not
even more profitable, as brandy production and if proper investments
are made in wine production in Armenia it may provide great revenues
for the nation.

“This does not mean giving up brandy production, we just need to give
up the idea of promoting brandy as our only top product,” he says.

Recently, Armenian winemakers for the first time participated in an
international wine festival in Dusseldorf, Germany. Harutyunyan says
that participation by five companies became possible due to assistance
from the government and one international organization.

The specialist believes that for the government and leading producers
it is crucial that Armenian wines – like Georgian wines – can also
be showcased at major international fairs.

ALTERCATION BETWEEN ZARUHI POSTANJYAN AND SAMVEL FARMANYAN

14:02 | March 23,2015 | Politics

During today’s parliament sitting, Armenia lawmaker Nikol Pashinyan
asked Parliament Speaker Galust Sahakyan about the report of a gas
commission which was to have been submitted at the previous four-day
sitting.

Mr Sahakyan said the conclusion was ready and will be distributed to
lawmakers in the coming four days. Minutes later, a quarrel broke out
between Heritage faction lawmaker Zaruhi Postanjyan and Republican
lawmaker Samvel Farmanyan, which was accompanied with insults.

Postanjyan said ‘the young man sitting on the right [Samvel Farmanyan]
who had managed to change several parties, need not give her advice.’
In his turn, Farmanyan said, ‘Postanjyan looks much better on TV as
a housewife than in the National Assembly.

“I have observed that she is professionally incompetent,” he said.

This finally angered Vice-Speaker of the National Assembly Eduard
Shramazanov who turned off their microphones and said, “You are not
at a market.”

Then the NA proceeded to discuss the 1915 Genocide of Armenians,
Greeks, and Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire. The discussion is attended
by representatives of Greek and Assyrian communities in Armenia.

IT IS NECESSARY TO REALIZE ARMENIA’S VALUE AND IMPORTANCE FOR RUSSIA

[ Part 2.2: “Attached Text” ]

March 23 2015

Interview with expert of the Armenian Center for Democracy, Security
and Development Marta Ayvazyan

– Riga is going to host the EU summit in May. The European officials
mention that we need to have realistic expectations of the Riga
Summit. How do you explain the Europeans’ recent activeness
and increased interest towards our country?

– First and foremost, the Europeans and generally, the Western
countries’ concern and attention to the developments in our
region have been increased. And this has taken place in the implication
of the Islamic extremism and currently ongoing developments in the
relations of the West-Russia, the West-Iran, Russia-Turkey and the
South Caucasus countries, particularly the spread out of activities of
the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” and many other
factors. The EU, based on its political, economic, energy and military
security interests, is continually seeking to peace and security in
the South Caucasus and ensuring the possibility for sustainable and
integrated economic development in the region. From this point of view,
Armenia’s interests unambiguously coincide with the interests
of the EU. Russia, whose position in the international platform has
considerably weakened in the last year, naturally, is also guided
by its own interests, but, unfortunately, without having any other
way to preserve and strengthen its presence and influence in our
region, it operates based on the principle of instability, corrupt,
and therefore, manageable government support, the existing conflicts,
and in our case, preservation of NK conflict and escalation of tension
and incitement of hostilities, as appropriate. To achieve its goals
in our region, Russia uses Armenia, which serving Russia’s
geopolitical interests has turned into a source of instability and
also possible military threat in the South Caucasus. In my opinion, the
growth of tension on the borders with Armenia, in the Nagorno-Karabakh
frontline, the sharp increase in the number of incidents in recent
years should be considered in this implication.

All of this, as well as Russia’s aggressive intervention and
role in the Ukrainian crisis, Crimea’s annexation to Russia
are causes for Europeans’ concern and some activation in our
region and, in particular, in Armenia. The EU, whom Armenia in fact
deceived by making a sharp turn to the EaEU, and whose policy is based
on long-term policy planning, however, has never turned its back to
Armenia. In the current situation and led guided by the principle of
its involvement policy, the EU considers it necessary and possible to
continue the political as well as economic cooperation and signing of
an appropriate document with Armenia. At the same time, formulation of
“realistic expectations” is remarkable, which perhaps is
a reference to the Russian factor and from this perspective contains
certain restrictions and expressed lack of confidence in RA government
authorities and other political forces current operating in Armenia.

– Armenia would prefer that Russia does not sell weapons to Azerbaijan,
mentioned Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian recently in
his interview to Slovenian daily newspaper.

What will be the consequences for the expression of this level of
attitude by official Yerevan? How can Armenia achieve results on this
issue? What kind of work is necessary to conduct in this direction?

– I do not think that such expression of the attitude may have
consequences, moreover, the mentioned interview as a whole excludes
any practical continuation and even to some extent it shows dominance
of Russia’s interests over Armenia’s interests. Moreover,
interpreting the content of ally’s notion in a very unique way,
it once again confirms that Armenia or better to say, Armenia’s
current government authorities will no way dispute Russia’s
actions under the present conditions, regardless of their nature,
motives and possible consequences for Armenia. Generally, selling
weapons to Azerbaijan is only one episode of Russia’s attitude to
Armenia and the entire picture of the policy led. Even the most recent
examples are many and refer to a variety of fields, ranging from the
sale of weapons and contrary to our national interest, the membership
to the EaEU up to shooting of the Avetisyan family members carried
out by a soldier or soldiers of the Russian military base in Gyumri,
and in particular, the flagrant violation of its international treaty
obligations by Russia with regard to the investigation of the case. And
the main problem is first and foremost among us, our inability to
protect our interests. While, Armenia has a range of leverages
and opportunities to influence Russia in different dimensions,
bilateral and international partnership frameworks and to protect
its interests. These levers are available in political, economic and
military cooperation spheres with favorable conditions for Armenia,
ranging from import of gas from Iran, review of financial terms for the
military base deployment in Gyumri, and intensifying the international
cooperation with other states for ensuring military, particularly,
border security, raising the issue of international obligations
commitment by Russia towards Armenia at the international instances
up to withdrawal from the EaEU membership. No matter what, I consider
the change of the format of our southern border, in particular, the
protection of the international airport a necessary step. How can
one totally trust the borders and generally the security provision
to someone, who has never been a reliable partner and for whom, the
source of the threat to your security is historically more important
and valuable than you? However, all of this will be possible only
through repeatedly voiced systemic changes, in the case of formation
of a government and equivalent opposition not intertwined by corruption
schemes and private interests with Russia’s power and oligarchic
system legitimate in Armenia. It is also a necessary condition to
ultimately realize Armenia’s value and importance for Russia,
not to overestimate Russia’s importance for Armenia and to
instill this awareness in our society.

– Former Foreign Minister of Armenia Vartan Oskanian recently
had left a post on his Facebook, telling that he had received an
invitation to speak at the event organized in one of the Diaspora
Armenian communities marking the centennial of the Armenian Genocide,
but the Embassy to Armenia had objected to his participation.

“I must say that this is absolutely incomprehensible and
unacceptable. I am sorry for this kind of fainthearted behavior,”
said he. You and your colleagues were deprived of the employment
at MFA for the statement about lawful holding of presidential
elections in 2008 during the tenure of Oskanian as a Minister of
Foreign Affairs. How do you feel about this and other statements by
“democratic” Oskanian in recent years?

– For me, there is no fundamental difference between Vartan Oskanian
and, let’s say, the same Gagik Tsarukyan, both of them, each
in his own realm and within the scope of his abilities, are a mean
or a tool serving the interests of other players or forces. Suffice
it to recall the enthusiasm that Oskanian was displaying to support
the actions of the authorities who had organized the March 1, 2008
slaughter, instead expecting to take over the post of the prime
minister of Armenia, which, however, did not become a reality so
forth. Hence, I no way treat the statements made by Oskanian in recent
years, nor his actions. And what comes to others’ fainthearted
behavior,” then Oskanian’s this kind of assessment is
worthy of only irony.

– What do you think, what happened in the political arena on February
12 after Serzh Sargsyan’s famous speech? Can the events following
this speech, the PAP dissolution, be considered a surprise?

– PAP dissolution, more precisely, Gagik Tsarukyan’s overthrow
was not a surprise, as well as the pending reduction of the PAP
membership, which is the logical continuation of Tsarukyan’s
fall. What happened to Armenia’s political arena was that the
plan for implementing a bourgeois-democratic revolution through
this “Armenia-origin force”, which on the one hand
is practically aimed at nullifying the strong and true opposition
movements formed in Armenia in 2008, which in its turn was obviously
dictated by Moscow, and on the other hand, basically, was mainly due
to Serzh Sargsyan-Robert Kocharyan competition to gain the trust and
support of Moscow, ended, or, rather to say, served for its purpose
and exhausted itself. What agreements the key role-players achieved
in the meantime under what influence will become apparent over the
time. However, as a result, a quite strong ruling pyramid headed
by Serge Sargsyan is left in nowadays Armenia’s political
arena, which is based on personal economic interests, is dependent
on the Russia’s government authorities, is totally unbalanced
by adequate opposition force, thereby is vulnerable and contains
numerous risks for Armenia.

Emma GABRIELYAN

Read more at:

ICRC AWARE OF SOLDIER’S CROSSING OF KARABAKH-AZERBAIJANI LINE OF CONTACT

12:26, 23 March, 2015

YEREVAN, MARCH 23, ARMENPRESS. The International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) is aware that a contract soldier has crossed the
Karabakh-Azerbaijani line of contact. There was no meeting held with
him yet. The Head of Communication Programs of the Yerevan Office of
the International Committee of the Red Cross Zara Amatuni informed
“Armenpress” about this.

Among other things, the Head of Communication Programs of the Yerevan
Office of the International Committee of the Red Cross Zara Amatuni
underscored: “We are informed about the crossing of the line of
contact on March 22. According to our commitments, we follow the
incident and stay in touch with the authorities.”

Previously the Press Spokesman of the Ministry of Defense of the
Republic of Armenia Artzrun Hovhannisyan had reflected on the
possible comments by Azerbaijan regarding the contract soldier of
the Defense Army of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Private Andranik
Grigoryan’s going across to the rival’s side. As reports “Armenpress”,
the Press Spokesman of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of
Armenia Artzrun Hovhannisyan made a post on this on Facebook and
particularly underscored:

“There is no need to comment on the action of the contract soldier of
the Defense Army of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Private Andranik
Grigoryan, who had left the arms on the combat position going across
to the rival’s side. Notwithstanding, in our opinion, the Azerbaijanis
will soon make comments saying that he alone, armed to the teeth,
attacked Azerbaijan and their askyars hardly managed to eliminate
the Armenian Rambo.”

MEDIAMAX’S “100 SECONDS” PROJECT PRESENTED

Society | March 23, 2015 13:43

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Mediamax media company and VivaCell-MTS presented
100 Seconds project in Yerevan today.

Vigen Sargsyan, Chief of Staff of the Armenian President and
Coordinator of the Events Dedicated to the Armenian Genocide
Centennial, also attended the presentation which took place in the
Komitas Museum-Institute.

100 Seconds project is based on testimonies of Genocide survivors
published by the National Archive of Armenia. People having public
influence around the world and in their countries (writers, musicians,
directors, actors) are reading 100 seconds extracts from testimonies.

All in all, 24 videos were filmed which will be presented at
and on a Youtube channel on March
23-April 23.

VivaCell-MTS is the general partner of the initiative and
post-production is done by Tumo Company.

“The main goal of 100 Seconds project is to call people’s attention
to the horrible sufferings that Armenians went through 100 years ago.

It’s no easy to read and listen to the testimonials. But the more
people are shocked by the testimonials the more likely they are going
to do their best to prevent new genocides. Our project is meant for
denying Adolph Hitler’s words voiced in 1939, a week before invading
Poland: “And who now remembers the annihilation of Armenians?””,
said Mediamax Director Ara Tadevosyan.

Photo: Mediamax

“Talking about 1.5mln victims, we often touch upon the tragedy in a
too statistical manner. We forget that 1.5mln were concrete people
and we deal with millions of human tragedies. The Genocide was not
only a national but personal tragedy”, he said.

Speaking about the project’s format of encapsulating a testimony in 100
seconds, the Director of Mediamax noted that “in the modern world, the
form of presentation is as important as the quality of the content”.

“Unfortunately, the life pace nowadays doesn’t allow people to read
full testimonies, and the format of 100 seconds enables us to present
what we want”, he said.

Ara Tadevosyan expressed his gratitude to VivaCell-MTS for acting
as the general partner of the project and covering the costs for
organizing the filming in various countries.

Photo: Mediamax

“To rule out the possible false perception, it should be said that
all the participants have read the testimonies without receiving any
payment for it,” stressed the Director of Mediamax.

Ara Tadevosyan especially thanked Tumo Director Vigen Tumanyan,
designer Vahan Balasanyan for developing the project’s logo, and
songwriter and musician Serzh Melkonyan for his significant technical
assistance.

“Over the last 10 years, we have carried out a number of important
projects in cooperation with Mediamax but this project is special as
it should remind the world about the dreadful page of our nation’s
history. We are grateful to people of various nationalities who took
part in this project, thus proving that the Genocide issue does not
refer to only Armenians,” said VivaCell-MTS General Manager Ralph at
the presentation.

“This project is a message to the civilized world that we should not
forget – we should remember, recount and remind everyone of it and if
we do not condemn what happened, we will then encourage new genocides,”
said Ralph Yirikian.

Secretary of State Commission Coordinating Events Dedicated to the
Armenian Genocide Centennial Vigen Sargsyan expressed his gratitude
to Mediamax for 100 Seconds project.

Photo: Mediamax

He recalled that the Armenian Genocide Centennial commemoration is
built around four cornerstones – memory, gratitude, international
struggle and rebirth.

“100 Seconds project is a great input in the “memory” section. The
dissemination of the stories of the Genocide survivors has exceptional
significance as we can show through it how this crime might roll into
every family,” said Vigen Sargsyan.

“I would like to express special thanks to VivaCell-MTS, which
regularly stands by such most fundamental social initiatives. In
this case we have an outcome, which is important in that the project
participants have not received any payment. They used their fame
and popularity to make our history more audible in the world. As the
Secretary of State Commission, I hail the project and ask everyone
to help share the materials,” said Vigen Sargsyan.