Author: Badalian Vardan

ALL EFFORTS TO PREVENT INCREASE IN CUSTOMS DUTIES IN ARMENIA-GEORGIA RELATIONS – GIORGI KVIRIKASHVILI

19:25 * 24.12.14

Georgian Vice-Premier, Minister of Economy and Sustainable Development
Giorgi Kvirikashvili told reporters in Yerevan on Wednesday that the
Georgian side is taking steps to prevent an increase in customs duties
in the bilateral trade turnover.

“We are doing our best to harmonize our association with the European
Union with Armenia’s decision to accede to the Eurasian Union. Before
we start negotiating a new customs treatment, we are trying to keep the
same customs duties that have been in effect so far,” Mr Kvirikashvili.

The sides have enough time to revise all the technical issues for
Armenia and Russia to maintain active trade relations.

“Armenia is one of our important trade partners, and we are going to
do our best to develop the relations with Armenia,” Mr Kvirikashvili.

With respect to transit through Georgia, he said that the sides have
opportunities of lateral cooperation and cooperation within the World
Trade Organization.

“Transit is an important component of our trade,” he said.

Armenia’s Minister of Economy Karen Chshmarityan noted that both
Armenia and Georgia benefit from free trade agreements.

“Our task is to maintain the treatment in relations with our partners
in the future,” he said.

Armenia will simultaneously expand its cooperation with European
states, Mr Chshmarityan said.

L’ARMENIE A ENREGISTRE OFFICIELLEMENT 65000 CHEMEURS

ARMENIE

Le nombre de chômeurs officiellement enregistres en Armenie est
de 65.000, y compris 15 300 jeunes de moins de 30 ans. L’essentiel
des ch̫meurs 46900 Рsont des femmes a annonce le vice-ministre du
travail et de la securite sociale Ara Petrosyan. Selon Ara Petrosyan,
la creation d’emplois est une priorite pour le gouvernement armenien.

Le vice-ministre a aussi dit que seulement huit ou neuf pour cent
des handicapes citoyens armeniens en âge de travailler ont un emploi.

mercredi 24 decembre 2014, Stephane (c)armenews.com

WASHINGTON POST’S COVERAGE OF DEVELOPMENTS IN AZERBAIJAN IS BIASED — EMBASSY

Trend News Agency (Baku, Azerbaijan)
December 22, 2014 Monday

Dec. 22–The coverage of the developments in Azerbaijan by the US
Washington Post newspaper reflects neither widely acknowledged success
nor the robust US-Azerbaijan partnership, Counselor of Azerbaijani
embassy in the US Mammad Talibov said in his article published in
that newspaper.

“Contrary to the assertion in the Dec. 12 editorial “Dystopia on
the Caspian,” the Azerbaijani people today are fulfilling their
centuries-old aspirations by building a prosperous, stable, free and
a truly independent nation,” said the article.

Talibov said the case of journalist Khadija Ismayilova is going through
Azerbaijan’s legal system. As recent events in the United States have
shown, legal decisions are not always popular and, in some cases,
even spark mass protests, according to the counselor.

Under any circumstances, the process must be respected in Azerbaijan
and in the United States, and all citizens, including journalists,
should be equal before the laws of the land, according to the article.

“I believe we’d all agree that promotion of human rights and democracy
is best done when one leads by example rather than by mentoring,”
he said. “This is especially true when the United States speaks to
its friends, including

Azerbaijan.”

Talibov added that voicing concern for humanitarian needs of hundreds
of thousands of Azerbaijanis displaced as a result of the Armenian
occupation would go a long way.

LAND-LOCKED: THE NECESSITY OF OPEN BORDERS IN ARMENIA

By Rupen Janbazian on December 23, 2014

Special for the Armenian Weekly

The historically positive relationship between Israel and the Republic
of Turkey has been strained since the 2008-09 Gaza War and the 2010
Gaza flotilla raid. More recently, following U.S. pressure on both
sides, a failed attempt of reconciliation between the two nations
began in early 2013, with little to no development.1 Relations between
Israel and Turkey hit a new low in October 2013, with the scandal over
alleged Turkish involvement in the exposure of Israeli special agents
in Iran.2While military, strategic, and diplomatic cooperation between
the two nations were once accorded high priority by both parties,
Turkey’s legal challenge to Israel’s blockade of Gaza has shown that
relations may never be fully restored.

One of the most interesting aspects of Ankara’s claim that Israel
was acting unlawfully in Gaza, was the fact that it inadvertently
highlighted the illegal blockade that Turkey has imposed on neighboring
Armenia for the past two decades. In 1993, the Republic of Turkey
joined Azerbaijan in implementing a blockade in response to the
Nagorno-Karabagh War. Although Turkey did not directly take part in
the conflict, it sided with Azerbaijan because of ethnic ties, and
continues to enforce the damaging blockade that cannot be justified
under international law. This act assumes a total air, rail, and
road blockade of Armenia with no exceptions, even for shipments of
humanitarian assistance.3,4 Approximately 80 percent of the length
of Armenia’s borders is closed, including all roads, rail lines,
and pipelines from Turkey and Azerbaijan into Armenia.5 This has
crippled the Armenian economy and hindered the nation’s growth and
prosperity over the past two decades.

The Republic of Armenia is a land-locked country with very few natural
resources and relies on trade with neighboring nations to develop and
progress. The blockades imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan have created
a difficult situation within the country, as the cost of transport
to Iran and Georgia is consistently on the rise. Concern regarding
the expansion of international trade to land-locked countries was
first brought up in the United Nations in February 1957, during the
656thPlenary Session of the General Assembly. Recognizing the need to
provide corresponding transit possibilities to land-locked countries
for the development of international commerce, Resolution 1028 (XI)
“invites the Governments of Member States to give full recognition
to the land-locked Member States in the matter of transit trade and,
therefore, to accord them adequate facilities in terms of international
law and practice in this regard.”6 In 1969, the Republic of Turkey
acceded to the Convention on Transit Trade of Land Locked States
of 1965.7

The convention’s first principle stated that “the right of each
land-locked State of free access to the sea is an essential principle
for the expansion of international trade and economic development.”

The third principle of the convention assumes the right to free access
to the sea for land-locked countries, stating, “In order to enjoy the
freedom of the seas on equal terms with coastal States, States having
no sea coast should have free access to the sea.” Moreover, the fourth
principle of this convention states that “Goods in transit should
not be subject to any customs duty,” and that “Means of transport
in transit should not be subject to special taxes or charges higher
than those levied for the use of means of transport of the transit
country.” Although Turkey has acceded to the Convention on Transit
Trade of Land-locked States, the Republic of Armenia has not. It
is perhaps in Armenia’s best interest to sign onto this important
convention to better position itself and protect its rights as a
land-locked nation.8

The blockade imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan has often wrongly been
referred to as an embargo or as trade sanctions on Armenia. However,
in terms of international law, the economic blockade and diplomatic
boycott are directly against the principle outlined in the United
Nations Charter requiring the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

This principle, calling for the peaceful settlement of disputes, is
also mentioned in the “Accession Partnership with Turkey” adopted by
the EU Council. Moreover, the international community has on several
occasions called on Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift their blockades. The
UN Security Council, for example, has explicitly referred to and voiced
concern over the economic blockade imposed by Azerbaijan against
Armenia. On Jan. 29, 1993, the president of the UN Security Council
made a statement (S/25199) expressing “deep concern at the devastating
effect of interruptions in the supply of goods and materials,
in particular energy supplies” to Armenia and to the Nakhichevan
region of Azerbaijan, and called on governments in the region “to
allow humanitarian supplies to flow freely, in particular fuel.”9 In
late 2000, the European adopted (C5-0036/2000) concerning the report
on Turkish progress towards candidacy for the European Union, which
called on the Turkish government to re-establish normal diplomatic
and trade relations with Armenia and lift the ongoing blockade.10

It’s important to note here the significance of Armenia’s remaining
open borders. Armenia shares a small yet very important border
with neighboring Iran, along the Araks River. Yet, its border with
Georgia is even more significant and vital, since the main land, rail,
and seaborne transportation routes, which allow Armenia to connect
with the outside world, all pass through Georgia. It is assumed that
approximately 70 percent of Armenia’s foreign commodity circulation
is achieved through Georgian territory, via the Georgian rail system
and the ports of Batumi and Poti.11Following the 2008 South Ossetia
war, which prompted concerns over the stability of energy routes in
the Caucasus, it became even more clear that the Republic of Armenia
cannot rely solely on its existing open boundaries, and must work
towards opening the remaining length of its borders.

It is also important to note the significance of certain international
programs that aim to facilitate travel and increase security within
the borders of the South Caucasus. For example, the Integrated Border
Management Systems in the South Caucasus (SCIBM) aims to “facilitate
the movement of persons and goods in the South Caucasus states of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, while maintaining secure borders,
through enhancing inter-agency, bilateral, and regional border
management cooperation both within and among the countries of the
South Caucasus region as well as between the countries, EU Member
States, and other international sectors.”12

Unfortunately, the issue of lifting the blockade is often politicized
and tied to the future of Nagorno-Karabagh. In reality, the closed
borders have a profound impact on the process of self-determination
in the region and on Karabagh’s development. On Oct. 10, 2009, the
foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia signed an accord proclaiming
the two nations had agreed to establish diplomatic relations. Among
many other issues, the document emphasized their decision to open
the common border between Turkey and Armenia. This provision within
the document, however, suggested that both Armenia and Turkey were
party to this blockade, when, in reality, Turkey’s decision in 1993
to illegally blockade Armenia was taken unilaterally.13 The Republic
of Armenia has continuously called for the normalization of ties,
including unimpeded transportation, without preconditions.

Nonetheless, the diplomatic efforts to normalize relations have
faltered, as Turkish officials announced publicly that they would only
ratify the protocols after the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict is settled,
and Armenia responded by suspending its ratification process.14 On
April 22, 2012, the ruling Armenian coalition made a statement, in
which it made it clear that the political majority in the National
Assembly considered statements from the Turkish side as unacceptable,
“specifically those by Prime Minister Erdogan, who has again made
the ratification of the Armenia-Turkish protocols by the Turkish
parliament directly dependent on a resolution over Nagorno-Karabagh.”15

According to a study by the New England School of Law’s Center
for International Law and Policy, “Nagorno-Karabagh has a right of
self-determination, including the attendant right to independence,
according to the criteria recognized under international law.”16 As the
analysis elaborates, “the principle of self-determination is included
in Articles 1, 55, and 73 of the United Nations Charter.”17Moreover,
the right to self-determination has been repeatedly recognized in a
series of resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly–notably,
Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which focuses on the principles
of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation
among states in accordance with the UN Charter. While the Azerbaijani
argument states that political independence for Karabagh violates the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, according to the New England
School of Law’s study, “the claim to territorial integrity can be
negated where a state does not conduct itself ‘in compliance with
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’ and
does not allow a subject people ‘to pursue their economic, social,
and cultural development’ as required by United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV).”18 The Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group was created in 1992 by
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to encourage a
peaceful, negotiated resolution to the Karabagh conflict.

Azerbaijanis have long distrusted the Minsk Group, claiming that
the three co-chair countries (Russia, France, and the United States)
have large Armenian Diasporas and will always favor Armenians in the
conflict. Many Azerbaijanis accuse the Minsk Group of not putting
enough pressure on Armenia to return territory to Azerbaijan, and of
prolonging the negotiations indefinitely.19 Nonetheless, the OSCE
Minsk Group remains the only internationally mandated format for
negotiations on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.

According to Ara Papian, the former ambassador of the Republic of
Armenia to Canada and current head of the Modus Vivendi Centre, the
Republic of Armenia is able and is obliged to defend its rights based
on international law, and to carry out goal-oriented and consistent
steps towards lifting the blockade on Armenia.20 As a member of the
UN, the Republic of Armenia has the absolute right to “bring any
dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34
[of the UN Charter] to the attention of the Security Council or of
the General Assembly,” as per the first clause of Article 35 of the
UN Charter. Article 34 states, “The Security Council may investigate
any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international
friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether
the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger
the maintenance of international peace and security.” The Republic of
Armenia’s initiative to bring up the issue of Turkey and Azerbaijan’s
deliberate violations of international law would help support the
course of lifting the dual blockades on the Republic of Armenia.21

In reality, this situation, especially on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
border, looks quite grim these days–likely the worst since the
blockade was first imposed. While there have been some small, but
important steps in Turkish civil society to discuss the possibility
of open borders with Armenia, Azerbaijan continues to be the “sore
thumb” in the ever-so complicated situation between the parties. In
November 2014, a two-day conference entitled, “The Sealed Gate:
Prospects of the Turkey-Armenia Border,” took place at the Faculty
of Political Science at Ankara University, a dialogue and a venue
that would have been considered unimaginable in even the recent
past.22However, only about a week before the conference, Azerbaijani
armed forces shot down an unarmed Armenian helicopter–the most
significant military incident between the two sides since the 1994
ceasefire. While Azerbaijan has claimed the Mi-24 helicopter crossed
the line of contact and was planning to attack, Armenia maintains
that the aircraft remained on its side and was completely unarmed.23
Azerbaijani military hostility, coupled with cries from Azerbaijani
civil society and government agencies denouncing such conferences
and calls for the opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey,
make it difficult to imagine an open Armenian-Turkish border as long
as Azerbaijan is involved and is active at the bargaining table.24

Normalizing relations with Turkey is part of the Republic of Armenia’s
national security strategy, officially adopted in 2007. Armenia’s
security is threatened and its development hampered as a result of the
“unnatural character” of bilateral relations and the closed border by
Turkey, it states. Furthermore, “the absence of normalized relations
adversely affects the stability of the region as a whole and impedes
the development of regional cooperation.”25 The World Bank suggests
that if the blockade were to be lifted by just Turkey, Armenia’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could increase by 30 to 38 percent,
and its exports could easily double.26

Considering that more than three-quarters of the length of Armenia’s
borders are closed, and accepting the fact that the closed borders have
been damaging for the Armenian economy and threatening to Armenia’s
national security–delaying the country’s development and prosperity
over the past 20 years–it is vital that the illegal blockade be
lifted by Turkey, and that the borders to Armenia be opened. What is
most important, however, is that the process is done in such a way
that the Republic of Armenia does not make any serious concessions,
such as the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the legal rights
of Karabagh citizens. At the same time, it is important for the
Republic of Armenia to actively engage in and support the Integrated
Border Management Systems in the South Caucasus (SCIBM), since the
program works within the United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
functions with international law standards, and is in accordance with
the UN Charter.

Notes

[1] Sanders, Edmund and Christi Parsons. “Obama Facilitates
Reconciliation Between Israel and Turkey.” Los Angeles Times, March
22, 2013.

2 Watson, Ivan and Tuysuz, Gul. “Turkey Rejects Claims it Blew Israeli
Agents’ Cover.” CNN 17 October 2013.

3 “Addressing Turkey and its Blockade on Armenia.” Armenian Center
for National and International Studies, Occasional Paper Number One,
Autumn 1994.

4 One exception to this policy came in the winter of 1993, when Turkey
opened its borders to humanitarian aid, which provided Armenia with
energy supplies. Although Turkey allowed for some humanitarian aid to
pass through its territory, this did not prevent then-Turkish Prime
Minster Suleyman Demirel from giving all the diplomatic support he
could to Azerbaijan, especially in the United Nations.

5 Hakobyan, Tatul. “Georgia to remain vital transit route for
Armenia.” The Armenian Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009.

6 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1028 (XI) Land-Locked
Countries and the Expansion of International Trade (Feb. 20, 1957).

7 Papian, Ara. “The Blockade by Turkey: An Utter Violation of
International Law and Borne Obligations.” Azg Daily, April 3, 2007.

8 ibid.

9 United Nations Security Council Resolution 822 (April 30, 1993).

[1]0 European Parliament, “Turkey’s Progress towards EU Accession.”

(Doc. A5-0297/2000) Nov. 17, 2000.

[1]1 Hakobyan, Tatul.

[1]2 United Nations Development Program. “Towards open, but secure
borders in the South Caucasus.” United Nations

[1]3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. “Protocol
on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between Republic of
Armenia and Republic of Turkey.” Oct. 10, 2009.

[1]4 “President Sarkisian Announces Suspension of Protocols.” Armenian
Weekly, April 22, 2010.

[1]5 “Armenia suspends normalization of ties with Turkey.” BBC News,
April 22, 2010.

[1]6 “The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution.” Public
International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for
International Law & Policy, pp. 21-24.

[1]7 ibid.

[1]8 ibid.

[1]9 Ismailzad, Fariz, “Azerbaijan’s Relations with Minsk Group Hit
New Low.” The Jamestown Foundation, March 26, 2008.

20 Papian, Ara.

21 ibid.

22 Janbazian, Rupen. “Conference on Turkey-Armenia Border Takes Place
in Ankara.” The Armenian Weekly, Nov. 24, 2014.

23 Kucera, Joshua. “After Azerbaijan Shoots Down Helicopter, How Will
Armenia Respond?” Eurasianet, Nov. 13, 2014.

24 “Azerbaijani Organization Condemns Pressure on Turkey to Open
Borders with Armenia.” Trend News Agency, Nov. 24, 2014.

25 “National Security Strategy.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Armenia, Jan. 26, 2007.

26 Polyakov, Evgeny. “Changing Trade Pattern after Conflict Resolution
in the South Caucasus.” The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 2000.

PETROS MAKEYAN: I SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HHK AND BHK (VIDEO)

14:53 | December 24,2014 | Politics

The ruling regime in Armenia has always tried ‘to plant mines’ in the
opposition field, the chairman of the Democratic Homeland Party said
today when summarizing the passing year.

“There have been big mines [in the face of Artashes Geghamyan and
Artur Baghdasryan] and small mines which exist up to nowadays but do
not have a significant role,” Petros Makeyan said.

“The pillar of the acting authorities is the oligarchy, and its levers
were used against the opposition. The so-called constitutional reforms
were the continuation of the process. One oligarchy is represented by
the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) led by Serzh Sargsyan,
the other is the Prosperous Armenia Party (BHK) at the head of Robert
Kocharyan. These two men are competition with each other. They are
trying to drive us, the parties that have been fighting for at least
15-20 years, out of the game so that we will not disturb them” he said.

Mr Makeyan says it is time to recover the situation; otherwise the
country’s statehood might be threatened.

“The HHK and BHK today are fighting a formal war for power but the
fight has its limits: they should not devour each other,” he stressed.

“I see no difference between HHK and BHK, between Serzh Sargsyan and
Robert Kocharyan,” he said adding that his party will never cooperate
with the opposition trio.

A TALE OF THREE CITIES

Rev. Dr. Vrej Nersessian is a senior priest of the Armenian Apostolic
Church and holds a doctorate in theology from King’s College,London.

He is a world authority on the Christian Middle East. Rev. Nersessian
is the author of a number of significant works on Armenian
Christian art and Christianity. He was born in Iran (1948), educated
atMartasiragan Djemaran of Calcutta, and at Echmiadzin. Subsequently
he moved to London where he became the curator of the Christian
Middle East Section at the British Library, a position that he held
for many years.

Rev. Dr. Vrej Nerses Nersessian, 7 December 2014

On the website of the Catholicosate of Holy Echmiadzin is a communique
concerning the recent episcopal gathering, in which representatives
from the dioceses from around the world had allegedly tabled the
motion to demote the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople
to the status of dioceses of a sort.

The abolishing of the Patriarchal status of Jerusalem and
Constantinople is not in the remit of Holy Echmiadzin or the synod
of Armenian Archbishops. Both these institutions have universal
and international status recognized and validated by international
treaties.

>From the presence of Armenians in Jerusalem and Constantinople
Christianity spread into Armenia before the emergence of St. Gregory
and King Drtad. A document attributed to an Armenian monk named
Anastas Vardabed lists seventy monasteries and churches owned by
Armenians in Jerusalem prior to the 7th century. In the mid-5th
century the Armenians had founded a scriptorium in Jerusalem, which
also emerged as an important intellectual centre, where significant
number of religious, canonical, and patristic texts were translated
into Armenian. The Armenian lectionary used in Armenian churches is
a translation from the Greek; the liturgy celebrated in the Armenian
Church is that of St James’ translated into Armenian from the Greek as
it was celebrated in the Holy City in the 5th century. In 2008, Prof.

Abraham Terian published a study called Macarius of Jeruslaem, Letter
to the Armenians, AD 335 (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press & St. Nerses
Armenian Seminary, New York). The letter was penned by Macarius,
Bishop of Jerusalem, who had been commissioned by Emperor Constantine
to oversee the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. And
it is in answer to queries by the newly-established Armenian Church
regarding Baptism and the Eucharist. The document is dated to 335,
a little over 30 years after Armenia adopted Christianity as a state
religion. The presence of several mosaics with Armenian inscriptions,
some the earliest evidence of the use of the Armenian alphabet outside
Armenia, are the most reliable evidence of the presence of Armenians
in the Holy Land. The inscription on a mosaic found in the apse of the
6th century funerary chapel in the Musrara Quarter of Jerusalem has
the inscription “To the memory and salvation of all Armenians whose
names are known to the Lord “. This is an inscription for the memories
of those thousands of Armenians who made pilgrimages to Jerusalem.

When the Arabs conquered the Holy Land in 638, the Armenian See of
Jerusalem obtained a stature which equaled the Greek Patriarchate.

When Saladin occupied Jerusalem in 1187, as an avowed enemy of
the Latins and the Greeks, Saladin found it expedient to endow the
Armenians of the Holy Land privileges as custodian of the Holy Places.

This happened during the incumbency of the Armenian Patriarch Apraham
(1180-91). The small Armenian community of Jerusalem, comprising some
five-hundred monks and a thousand families, were granted a charter
guaranteeing the community’s security and freedom of worship throughout
the entire domain, as well as the integrity of its possessions and
prerogatives in the Holy Places. The status quo of the Holy Places, as
enunciated in the 1850s and reconfirmed time and again in subsequent
years, was the sum of a historical evolution, whose beginnings are
traceable to the early centuries of Christianity. The privileges and
rights of the Armenian Patriarchate, along with those of the Latin and
Greek Patriarchates, were reaffirmed in the Paris Peace Conference
in 1856, and at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. The Ottoman Sultan
Abdulhamid II ‘the Red Sultan’ is the instigator of a firman on 25
July 1888, coinciding with the incumbency of the Armenian Patriarch
Haroutiwn Vehapedian (1885-1910), which re-affirmed the supreme
authority of the Armenian Patriarch over all the Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire, once again and his seat in Jerusalem was declared
“the seat of the Armenian Patriarchate of the Holy Sepulchre,
Jerusalem, Gaza, Tripoli, Nablus, of the Ethiopians, the Copts and
other nationals’. This firman meant that the Armenian Patriarch
enjoyed the full protection of the Sublime Porte and acquired full
legal independence. The rights of the Armenian Patriarchate were
also protected by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. During the period
of Turkish Occupation of Palestine St James’ thrived well under the
Ottoman rule. This has been due, on the one hand, to the influence
of the Armenian amiras in Constantinople at the Sublime Porte,
and on the other, to the Turkish policy of ‘keeping the balance of
power’ between the Greek and Latin communities in Jerusalem. It is
ironic that the ‘Red Sultan’ had recognized the importance of the
Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem within the realm of the Ottoman
Empire. The demotion of the Patriarchate to a ‘diocese of a sort’
will be much welcomed by Israel and it would be a catastrophic blow
to the standing of Christianity in the Middle East.

Palestine that had formerly been governed under the British Mandatory
authority, which had brought a modicum of order to the region,
withdrew in May 1948 after the creation of the State of Israel.

Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan prepared a memorandum addressed to Dr. Ralf
Bunch, director of the United Nations Trusteeship Council, on the
possibility of implementing an earlier decision of the UN General
Assembly, whereby Jerusalem and its environs would be designated as
an “international zone”. Archbishop Nersoyan ‘memorandum’ gives a
judicious history of the patriarchate and its role in the running
of the Holy Places and took part in the three Geneva discussions,
advocating the case for the Jerusalem Brotherhood to be allocated a
single voting right in the Administrative Council of the Holy Places
[Tiran Nersoyan (1904-1989)[See Documents for the history of the
Armenian Church, Holy Echmiadzin, 2004, pp.305-08].

Millions of Armenian Christians have gone to Jerusalem, walked the
walk their Lord walked from Bethlehem to Golgotha fulfilling their
Christian duty of supporting the convent by a gift of a manuscript,
a chalice, a lantern, set of luxurious vestments, curtains which were
the ‘place of memory’ for themselves and the future generations,
recalling the words of the prophet ‘Blessed is he with a child in
Zion’. Patriarch Gregory the Chainbearer of Jerusalem (1715-1749)
and Yovhannes Kolot, Patriach of Constantinople (1678-1741) forged an
alliance between Jerusalem and Constantinople to save Jerusalem for
the Armenian Church of today. Thousands of orphans from the Turkish
Genocide found shelter in the Convent of St James’ and some of whom
became the most prominent religious and intellectual leaders of the
Armenian Church of the 20th century. The founder of the Theological
Seminary of Armash raised a whole generation of learned primates who
steered the Armenian Church through its most difficult period among
them Maghakia Ormanian (1841-1918), Papken Guleserian (1868-1936),
Eghishe Tourian (1921-30), Torkom Koushagian (1931-39), Mesrob Nshanian
(1939-44), Gyuregh Israyelian (1944-49), Tiran Nersoyan (1904- 1989),
and Eghishe Derderian (1960-1990 ). In a poem calledMeknoghneroun
(The Departed) the poet-patriarch very movingly remembers the names
of those orphans ‘who walked through the sands of the desert from
‘Van to Salmast, to Nahr Omar, while others like drops of tears fell
silently, with thousand dreams’.

After the Sovietization of Armenia the entire dioceses
outside the Motherland were cared for my members of St James’
Brotherhood–Archbishops Serovpe Manougian, Sion Manougian, Bsak
Toumayan, Shnorhk Kaloustian, Mampre Kalfayan, Papken Varzhapedian,
Haigazoun Abrahamian, Asoghig Ghazarian, Tiran Nersoyan, Torkom
Manougian, and presently Khajak Barsamian. The first clergy from
Holy Echmiadzin to hold a position in the Diaspora were the late
Archbishops Arsen Berberian and Nerses Bozapalian in the Diocese
of Great Britain after the 1965s. For this alone Holy Echmiadzian
and the Armenian Nation must be eternally grateful. While the See of
Cilicia disowned Holy Echmiadzin the Brotherhood of Jerusalem remained
steadfastly faithful to Holy Echmiadzin and performed every task it
was requested to perform by catholicoses in Holy Echmiadzin.

The proposed Constitution for the Armenian Church was in the
processes of making during the incumbency of the Catholicos
Vazken Ist with the participation of Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan,
the greatest canonist of the Armenian Church, next to academician
Vazken Hakobyan. Archbishop Nersoyan was a reluctant participant
in the formulation of the Constitution for he knew ‘the Armenian
Church, as all other ancient mainline Churches, both western and
Eastern, ought to be governed by canon law, not a constitution’
[Hagop Nersoyan, Remarks on a proposed constitution for the Armenian
Church, Jerusalem,2001]. From the earliest times the Church has
governed its affairs by canon laws and has avoided going down the
path of constitutional rigidity for several reasons. Constitutions
were adopted in exceptional cases in very particular situation
like the National Constitution of the Armenians in effect in
Constantinople in 1863 or the Polozhenye in 1836 in Tsarist Russia,
which reduced the Armenian Church into a department of religious
affairs within a large body of what may be described as the National
Administration. Both these Constitutions were adopted or forced
on the Armenian Church in order to facilitate its dealings with two
particular states–Tsarist Russia and Ottoman Turkey. It is impossible
to formulate a single constitution to govern various dioceses located
in various countries with incompatible rules and regulations. If the
Church does formulate such a Constitution, it will be condemned to
remain futile words tossed into the air and will be more damaging than
beneficial [ÔµÕ©Õ§ Õ¥Õ¯Õ¥Õ²Õ¥O~AÕ”Õ¶ Õ¡ÕµÕ¶Õ¸O~BÕ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶Õ”O~B
Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¿Õ§ Õ¡ÕµÕ¤ÕºÕ”Õ½Õ” ”Õ~MÕ¡Õ°Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¤O~@Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ”O~Bն”,
Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¤Õ¡Õ¿Õ¡ÕºÕ¡O~@Õ¿Õ¸O~BÕ¡Õ® Õ§ Õ´Õ¶Õ¡Õ¬Õ¸O~B O…Õ¤Õ”Õ¶ Õ´Õ§Õ”
Õ­O…Õ½O~D Õ¥O~B Õ¤Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ¡Õ¬Õ¸O~B Õ¡O~BÕ¥Õ¬Õ” Õ¾Õ¶Õ¡Õ½Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡O~@
O~DÕ¡Õ¶ Õ©Õ§ O…Õ£Õ¿Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡O~@] (Tiran Nersoyan, Documents p.527). This
clear warning has come to pass. He makes this criticism in a very
long letter dated 28th July 1962 to His Holiness Vazken Ist, who had
sent him a draft of the Constitution for his observation (Documents on
the History of the Armenian Church. Document no.212-213, pp. 460- 480;
no. 238, pp.518-558, dated July 28th 1959 and 29th July 1962). For the
purposes of this communication I will only highlight a few selected
observations that have direct bearing on the subject of my essay.

Clause 84 (p.477).’ ‘[The Catholicos ] has complete authority on
the administration of the Armenian Church’ [Õ~FÕ¡ Õ¬Õ”Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¡O~@
Õ”Õ·Õ­Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ”O~BÕ¶ Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ” Õ~@Õ¡Õµ Õ¥Õ¯Õ¥Õ²Õ¥O~AO~BÕ¸Õµ
Õ¾Õ¡O~@Õ¹Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¾O~@Õ¡Õµ]. This assertion is undefined and
does not correspond to reality. Anyone writing history should not
confuse desirability with reality.

Clause 85 (p.478). There is a degree of papal style authoritarianism
[ÕºÕ¡ÕºÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ”O~BÕ¶ Õ¯Õ¨ Õ©Õ¥Õ¬Õ¡Õ¤O~@Õ§] creeping around the
person of the Catholicos. It is more appropriate to say ‘the unity of
the Armenian Church is safeguarded by the canonical authority of the
Catholicos as head of the Episcopal order’ [Õ~@Õ¡Õµ Õ¥Õ¯Õ¥Õ²Õ¥O~AÕ¸O~B
Õ´Õ”Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ”O~BÕ¶Õ¨ Õ¯Õ~]Õ¡ÕºÕ¡Õ°Õ¸Õ¾Õ¸O~BÕ” Ô¿Õ¡Õ©Õ¸Õ²Õ”Õ¯Õ¸Õ½Õ”
Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¾Õ¥O~@Õ”Õ¶ Õ”Õ·Õ­Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢Õ~] Õ”
Õ£Õ¬Õ¸O~BÕ­ Õ¥ÕºÕ”Õ½Õ¯Õ¸ÕºÕ¸Õ½Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¤Õ¡Õ½Õ¸O~BÕ¶].

Armenian Church’s second universally recognized Armenian community
with a patriarch as its head is the Armenian Patriarchate of
Constantinople. The third canon of the Ecumenical Council of
Constantinople held in 381 established Constantinople’s place
of honor in the ecclesiastical hierarchy right after Rome. The
Council of Chalcedon held in 451 confirmed the precedence of
Constantinople over the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria and
its jurisdiction over all of Asia Minor. The Armenian presence in
Constantinople has contributed to the cultural and material wealth
of the imperial city since the reign of Emperor Constantine. The
Armenian historian Agathangeghos in his History of the Armenians
describes a visit by the fourth century King Drtad of Armenia and
St. Saint Gregory to Constantine I, after they became Christian rulers
(H.Bartikyan, Dashants Tought [Letter of Concord], PBH 2(2004),
65-115 Dr.Vrej Nersessian ‘Did Drtad meet Constantine I the Great’,
HHH, vol.XIX,1999,pp.65-70). The Armenian literary figures Ghazar
Parpetsi, describes the close links of the newly-founded Christian
state of Armenia with Constantinople in these words ‘streams of wisdom
have been flowing from the royal capital’. Movses Khorenatsi states
that he visited Constantinople and provides detailed description of
the buildings of the capital. Goryoon relates that Mesrob Mashdots
‘acquired many inspired books of the fathers of the church’ in
Constantinople and brought these to Armenia from Constantinople. After
the invention of the Armenian alphabets, Mashdots sent his disciples
to Constantinople among them Ghevont, Yeznik, Goryoon. Armenian kings
and Cartholicoses placed a premium on their political and cultural ties
with Constantinople. The revised translation of the Armenian Bible is
based on the Greek texts brought to Armenia by those Armenian clergy
attending the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

In the autumn of 1453 the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II captured
Constantinople. In 1461 the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople
was established to supervise both the civil and religious affairs of
the Armenian ‘millet’, as a practical system of governance over the
Armenians in the entire Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Patriarchate
played a central role in the reform initiated for the Armenian
millet in the 19th century. These were ratified by the Sultan in
1847 leading to the founding of the Armenian Spiritual and Supreme
Council in 1863, confirming the regulations that became known as
the ‘Armenian National Constitution’ [”Õ~@Õ¡ÕµÕ¸O~A Ô±Õ¦Õ£Õ¡ÕµÕ”Õ¶
Õ~MÕ¡Õ°Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¤O~@Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ”O~Bն”]. In January 1916 the Young Turks
terminated and nullified the Armenian National Constitution and the
Patriarch of the day Zaven Ter Yeghiayan was exiled to Baghdad and
thence to Mosul, where he remained until the end of the war. The
Allied victory and occupation of Constantinople forced the defeated
Turks on November 20, 1918 to re-institute the legal status of the
Armenian Patriarchate. Patriarch Zaven returned to Constantinople on
the British destroyer ‘Acacia’ on February 19, 1919.

After the transfer of the Catholicosate from Cilicia to Holy Echmiadzin
(AD 1441), from 1520 to 1910, thirty-one catholicoi have occupied the
throne of St. Gregory the Illuminator (Ormanian,Azgapatoum,vols.1-III,
Beirut,1965) of these two have been from Byzantium (i.e Constantinople)
and four have been former Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople–Grigor
XI Pyzantatsi (1536-1545), Aleksandr II Pyzantatsi (1753-1755),
Matt’eos I Kostandnopolsetsi (1858-65), Gevorg IV Kostandnoplosetsi
(1866-82), Mkrtitch I VanetsiKhrimyan Hayrik (1892-1907), Matteos II
KostandnO…upolsetsi ( 1908-1910).

On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide it
would be a much welcomed gift to the Turks if the Patriarchate
of Constantinople–a thorn in the side of the Turkish state–was
demoted to the status of a diocese. In the last two decades the
Turkish authorities have blocked the election of a new Patriarch of
Constantinople. If at some stage in the future Turkey recognizes the
Armenian Genocide and decides to make cultural, material compensations
then the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, as the principle
institution governing the affairs of Western Armenians, would be the
main body to negotiate and receive and appropriate compensation on
behalf of the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

When the entire Diaspora of Western Armenians for whom the Patriachates
of Jerusalem and Constantinople have been spiritual, intellectual
and moral fortresses for centuries, they are being threatened with
the prospect of being demoted to the ‘status’ of dioceses.

It is most unfortunate that the memories of the Genocide victims
are being explicitly and unashamedly exploited by crisis of our
own making. It is painful to see attempts being made to vilify the
Brotherhood of Jerusalem by accusations of being unfaithful to the
memory of the Genocide victims.

BUSINESS ENTITY IN YEREVAN CAUSED DAMAGE TO NATURE IN AMOUNT OF 61.68 MILLION AMD DUE TO VIOLATION WATER PRESERVATION STANDARDS

14:47 December 23, 2014

EcoLur

>From 15.12.2014 to 20.12.2014 the State Environmental Inspection
detected violations during inspections it carried out, which resulted
in drawing up 26 decisions on administrative fines in the amount of
1.95 million AMD, while the total damage caused to environmental was
estimated in the amount of 62.52 thousand AMD.

The sanctions imposed by the State Environmental Inspection results
in 1.87 million AMD paid to the state budget, as the official website
of Nature Protection Ministry informs.

Particularly, Yerevan Territorial Division detected violation of
water preservation standards with one business entity and drew up
the decision on administrative fines in the amount of 200,000 AMD,
while the damage caused to environment was estimated in the amount
of 61.68 million AMD.

HEADING FOR A JEW-FREE TURKEY

Middle East Forum
Dec 23 2014

by Burak Bekdil
The Gatestone Institute

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were about 200,000 Jews
in Turkish lands – when the entire population was barely 10 million.

Today, the Turkish population has reached 77 million – and there are
fewer than 17,000 Jews.

Mois Gabay, a Turkish Jewish writer for Salom, the Istanbul
Jewish newspaper, recently wrote in his column, “Are Turkish Jews
Leaving?”: “We face threats, attacks and harassment every day. Hope
is fading. Is it necessary for a ‘Hrant among us’ to be shot in order
for the government, the opposition, civil society, our neighbors and
jurists to see this?” The ‘Hrant’ to whom he referred is Hrant Dink,
a Turkish Armenian journalist who was shot dead in 2007 by a gang of
nationalist Turks.

On Dec. 15, the Turkish liberal daily Radikal interviewed Gabay,
who started by showing Radikal’s reporter dozens of threats and hate
messages he has received through Twitter, Facebook and mail messages.

“This is almost daily,” he said.

According to Gabay, only this year 37% of high-school graduates in
Istanbul’s Jewish community left Turkey to study abroad, twice as many
as in previous years. “We don’t know how many of them will return,”
he says. “But the idea to leave Turkey (for good) is also in the
minds of my generation.”

The reason is simple: “The circle is closing in,” according to Gabay.

“In an atmosphere like this, especially if you are a trader, you tend
to change your name. Mois’s tends to become “Musa’s,” “Cefi’s,” become
“Cem’s” and “Meri’s” become “Peri’s” (all the latter are Turkish
names.) His Jewish friends tell Gabay that they are elaborating on
the idea of leaving Turkey and settling in far-away countries such
as Canada, Panama and Australia. Two Jewish friends of his who have
shops in Istanbul’s busy Unkapani district recently complained to
him that “The imam in the neighbourhood has the habit of preaching
to his congregation ‘not to make friends with Jews and Christians.'”

According to Gabay, the Turkish government’s [anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish]
rhetoric paves the way for this, provokes Turks and spreads [hatred]
to even larger masses. But there is more.

“Thanks to the spread of social media, the previously ‘invisible Jew’
is reachable now. There are laws against hate speech. But not a single
person has ever been prosecuted [let alone sentenced] for threatening
and insulting [Jews].

But according to a prominent Turkish Armenian, part of the blame is
on Turkey’s tiny non-Muslim minorities.

Etyen Mahcupyan is a leading Turkish Armenian intellectual, writer
and columnist. He has published more than 15 books and has written
regular columns in Turkey’s leading liberal newspapers. Last October,
Mahcupyan, one of a dwindling number of liberals keenly supporting
Turkey’s Islamist government, was appointed as “chief advisor” to
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. In a recent interview with Turkey’s
leading daily, Hurriyet, Mahcupyan said,

Whatever has been a [political] asset for Turkey’s Armenian community
(they number around 60,000) is an asset for the Jewish community too.

But… there is Israel… As long as the psychology of the Israel
issue continues to influence politics in Turkey and relations between
the two countries do not normalize…

The line Mahcupyan shyly did not finish probably would have gone on
like this: “Turkey’s Jews will keep on paying the price.”

Turkish Armenian intellectual Etyen Mahcupyan thinks that daily
attacks on Turkey’s Jews and other non-Muslims happen because they
are better-educated then Muslims and have a “superiority complex.”

In a recent article, Mahcupyan, a former editor of Agos, where the
slain Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink wrote, argued that
Turkey’s [secularist] Jews harboured an allergy against Muslims.

Mahcupyan apparently deserves his new position as “his master’s voice.”

He admits that it is the government’s responsibility to do something
if Turkey’s Jews felt awfully alienated. But he thinks “there is the
other side of the story.”

Mahcupyan said: “All of this [anti-Semitism in Turkey] is related
to the Jewish community’s perception of Islam and the region. This
is a perception that powerfully produced politics and positions. If
the Armenians do not behave like them [the Jews] we can understand
the historical difference between the two [Jewish and Armenian]
communities.”

Apparently, Mahcupyan, the prime minister’s chief advisor, tends
to blame the victim, not the criminal. “I have lived through this
personally for the past 60 years,” he explains. “Among Turkey’s
non-Muslim minorities, including Jews and Armenians, there is an
[established] opinion about humiliating Muslims.” So, did your poor
friend Dink deserve to be murdered because he humiliated Muslims?

Secondly, Mahcupyan continues, “Both Jews and Armenians are
better-educated [than Muslim Turks] and more open to the West. And
this brings in a feeling of superiority complex.”

To sum up, the Turkish Armenian liberal intellectual, who also happens
to be advising the Turkish prime minister, thinks that daily attacks
on Turkey’s Jews and other non-Muslims, including the murder of his
“friend” Dink, happen because: Jews and Armenians humiliate Muslims;
they are better-educated then Muslims and hence their superiority
complex. Lovely!

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ottoman state machinery produced
several non-Muslim converts (the devshirme) who enjoyed higher
echelons of the palace bureaucracy and finer things of life because
their pragmatism earned them excellent relations with the ruling
Muslim elite. It looks like the devshirme system is still alive in
post-Ottoman Turkey.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a columnist for the Turkish daily
Hurriyet and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

ANCA: JUSTICE THAT PUNISHES THE PERPETRATOR, MAKES THE VICTIM WHOLE, AND PREVENTS FUTURE CRIMES

15:39, 24 Dec 2014

It’s particularly vicious to hear people preaching that Armenians
should only be working for change from within Turkey, according to
Executive Director of the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA).

“We once had this chance, and, despite great challenges and even
greater risks, played a courageous and consequential role in reforms —
until 1915, when Turkey massacred and exiled us, effectively ending
our ability to press for progress as citizens of that state. It
takes a very cruel or equally calculating heart to lecture the
brutalized victims of a crime about their failure to rehabilitate
their attackers,” Aram Hamparian said, according to Asbarez.

“Given the vast post-genocide power asymmetry between the Turkish state
and the surviving Armenian citizens of Turkey — or between Turkey
and landlocked, partitioned, and blockaded Armenia for that matter —
arguing that the Armenian Genocide should be a matter between Turks
and Armenians is just a harsh way of saying leave Turkey alone to
consolidate the fruits of its crime,” he said.

Turkey’s preferred “lion and lamb” formulation is all the more
one-sided by virtue of the added power Turkey secured through genocide
and the incalculable harm caused to the Armenian nation by this still
unpunished crime, according to Hamparian.

“This approach, of course, stands at odds to the basic conceptions
of justice held by nearly every culture on earth. Genocide may be
the worst of all crimes, one with serious geopolitical implications,
but it remains a crime. And the answer to crime is justice. Justice
that punishes the perpetrator, makes the victim whole, and prevents
future crimes,” he said.

“It is to our credit that decades of diasporan advocacy for justice
— undertaken in countries around the world in the wake of our near
annihilation — has started to break down walls of denial in Turkey
and sparked a small but growing domestic movement for a truthful and
just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,” he added.

“Having “forced the Spring,” we are now — with increased resolve —
waging our struggle on two mutually reinforcing fronts: one in Turkey,
one in the rest of the world,” Hamparian concluded.

AZERBAIJAN ALLOCATES $4.2 BILLION FOR THE MILITARY IN 2015

19:19 * 23.12.14

Azerbaijan allocated AZN 3 307 796 989 ($4 210 025 550) from state
budget for maintenance of military institutions (excluding the Ministry
of Emergency Situations) in 2015, APA reports.

The law “On state budget of the Republic of Azerbaijan for 2015”,
that was approved by President Ilham Aliyev yesterday, revealed funds
allocated to the military institutions for strengthening the country’s
defense capability. The above-mentioned figure includes maintenance
costs of the Armed Forces, State Border Service, State Service for
Mobilization and Conscription, Ministry of Defense Industry, Ministry
of National Security, Interior Troops, Special State Protection
Service, State Courier Service and expenditures for special defense
projects and events.

Military expenses envisaged in state budget for 2015 makes AZN 1
778 529 044. AZN 1 651 220 836 was allocated for defense forces,
AZN 1 255 185 738 for Defense Ministry, AZN 157 645 847 for State
Border Service, AZN 22 437 696 for State Service for Mobilization
and Conscription and the rest for other purposes.

AZN 121 089 332 was allocated for national security, AZN 2 831 126 for
applied research in the Ministry of Defense Ministry, AZN 3 387 750
for other expenditures. AZN 4 203 171 was allocated to the Ministry
of Defense Ministry for research costs.

AZN 85 980 953 was allocated to Special State Security Service,
AZN 165 561 488 to Interior Troops (AZN 4 596 123 for education
expenditures, AZN 2 319 388 for health care expenditures) and AZN 2
960 434 to State Courier Service.

AZN 9 180 475 ($ 11 684 524) will be allocated to Azerbaijan National
Agency for Mine Action (ANAMA) for humanitarian demining operations
in 2015.