Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

MIGRATION CONCERNS: DESPITE NEGATIVE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK IN RUSSIA, MOST ARMENIAN MIGRANTS STILL HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE

Society | 03.02.15 | 12:41

Karine Kuyumjyan

By Sara Khojoyan
ArmeniaNow reporter

While the Armenian government introduces Armenia’s membership to
the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) from the positive sides only, the
EEU initiator member Russia’s economic problems are felt in Armenia
already today.

Last year 200,000 Armenian migrant workers in Russia earned less money,
which is why incoming private remittances from that country decreased
by 10 percent. At the same time, Armenians earning their families’
living in Russia are facing hardships starting from the border,
however, even this factor does not prevent Armenians from leaving
the country.

Last year, for instance, the number of Armenian citizens who left and
never returned was more than 21,000, moreover, besides Yerevan, in all
10 provinces of Armenia a decrease in the population was registered,
National Statistical Service Census and Demography Department head
Karine Kuyumjyan told reporters.

“Minus 21,800 – this is the difference of those who left and returned,
i.e. more people left than returned, but because the natural growth of
the population formed 15,300, the number of the population decreased
by 6,500,” Kuyumjyan said.

One of those citizens who left last year and returned this year
is a resident of Yeghegnadzor Hakob Sargsyan who worked at a road
construction company in Moscow, however, because he did not get paid
he could not return.

“They have not paid yet. I found another job for two months, barely
earned the ticket price and the amount of the loan I had and returned,”
Sargsyan told ArmeniaNow, addding that, nevertheless, he cannot find
an alternative equivalent of his Russia job in Armenia.

“I have so many debts that whatever work I do will not make enough to
pay both my debts and my family’s living, and my elder son is in the
army, he cannot help me, and now there are five members in my family
to be fed,” he explained.

Nevertheless, demographers and migration experts advise migrant
workers in Russia if possible to avoid leaving for Russia in 2015,
because, besides legal problems, with economic problems and ruble’s
drastic devaluation economic profits are also under suspicion.

Last year, for instance, individuals transferred $1.5 billion from
Russia to Armenia – $200 million less than in 2013.

“We must wait before Russia’s migration policy and economic state
stabilize, however, if people have to leave and they have no
alternative, they must make sure where, what kind of job and under
what conditions they will be doing it,” demographer Ruben Yeganyan said
last Friday at a discussion organized by Media Center on the topic of
“the consequences of restrictions of Russian migration legislation
on Armenia.”

As a result of changes in the Russian migration legislation in 2014
the entry of 50,000 Armenian citizens to Russia was forbidden for
3-5 years, according to Russia’s migration service, another 150,000
Armenian citizens currently residing in Russia are in the ‘risk zone’.

From: Baghdasarian

PRESS RELEASE
The Armenian Center at Columbia University
Media Contact: Taleen Babayan
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 201-693-3453

Groundbreaking Symposium at Columbia University Focusing on Monuments &
Memory, in Commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,
To Be Held February 20

By Taleen Babayan

Major scholars from around the world will participate in a timely, and
thought-provoking conference at Columbia University, `Monuments and Memory:
Material Culture and the Aftermath of Histories of Mass Violence’ on Friday,
February 20, 2015.

This all-day symposium concentrating on material culture and memory, with
the ruins of the ancient Armenian city of Ani as the centerpiece, is
organized and hosted by Peter Balakian, Donald M. Constance H. Rebar
Professor of the Humanities at Colgate University, and Rachel Goshgarian,
Assistant Professor of History at Lafayette College, and sponsored by the
Armenian Center of Columbia University, Columbia’s Institute for the Study
of Human Rights, the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society, and
the Armenian General Benevolent Union.

The conference will explore the general themes of restoration, restitution
and social justice and will be groundbreaking in its comparative analysis
of Jewish monuments in Eastern Europe, Muslim monuments in the Balkans, and
Armenian-Christian monuments in Turkey.

Four sessions revolving around these topics will take place throughout the
day, each chaired by a member of the Columbia community who will conduct
and moderate the question and answer sessions.

The first session, `Monuments and Memory: the Significance of Material
Culture in the Aftermath of Genocide,’ (10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.), chaired
by Christine Philliou, Associate Professor of History at Columbia
University, will address the historical contexts for the destroyed or
appropriated material cultures of minority peoples in the aftermath of
histories of mass violence. The current conditions of these monuments will
be analyzed, as well as their roles in collective memory for both occupying
and exiled cultures. Presenters include Peter Balakian; Andrew Herscher,
Associate Professor of Architecture at the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor; and Marianne Hirsch, William Peterfield Trent Professor of English
and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

The second session, `The Medieval Armenian City of Ani: A Case Study in the
Politicization of Art History, History, Historical Monuments and
Preservation in a Post-Genocidal Context,’ (11:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.),
chaired by Nanor Kebranian, Assistant Professor in the Department of Middle
Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies at Columbia University, will
include papers on subjects related to Ani’s multicultural past, cultural
destruction, restoration projects, depiction in modern Turkey, and place in
the construction of Armenian identity. Presenters include Rachel
Goshgarian; Christina Maranci, Arthur H. Dadian and Ara Oztemel Associate
Professor of Armenian Art and Architecture at Tufts University; Heghnar
Watenpaugh, Associate Professor of Art History at the University of California,
Davis; and Yavuz Ozkaya, Restoration Architect at PROMET Architecture and
Restoration Co.

The third session, `Monuments, Memory, Restitution, and Social Justice:
What issues do monuments raise in these historical contexts? How can social
justice and restitution be achieved decades after the event of genocide or
mass-killing?’ (2:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.) will be chaired by Hamid Dabashi,
Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at
Columbia University. Presenters include Osman Kavala, Founder of Anadolu
Kultur; Leo Spitzer, Kathe Tappe Vernon Professor of History at Dartmouth
University; and Elazar Barkan, Professor of International and Public
Affairs at Columbia University.

The concluding session will be a round table discussion followed by a
reception for participants and attendees.

`Rachel and Peter are bringing together a wide range of speakers to address
the issue of Ani, from historians to cultural heritage advocates, to
practicing architects actively engaged in restoration projects at Ani,’
said Maranci.

`I hope that it will galvanize more dialogue about the fate of the churches
and other ancient monuments in and around Ani, because of their historical
and architectural importance and because of their structural
vulnerability.’

`There is tremendous opportunity here to address the painful history of
Armenians and Turkey and forge a different way forward regarding Armenian
cultural heritage in Turkey,’ said Watenpaugh, who recently published,
`Preserving the Medieval City of Ani: Cultural Heritage Between Contest and
Reconciliation’ in the *Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians*
*.* `This is the right time to have a critical and public discussion about
this site, and the broader issues it raises.’

Mark Momjian Esq., Chair of the Armenian Center and an alumnus of Columbia
College and Columbia Law School, emphasized his alma mater’s role not only
in aiding the survivors of the Armenian Genocide, but in advocating support
of the Armenian Republic.

`Ambassador Henry Morgenthau was an alumnus of Columbia Law School, and he
is in the pantheon of heroes to the Armenian people. Talcott Williams was
the first director of Columbia’s School of Journalism, and he was heavily
involved with Near East Relief. George Edward Woodbury, a comparative
literature professor at Columbia, assailed the perpetrators of the Armenian
Genocide. And there are countless others,’ said Momjian, a Philadelphia
lawyer and community activist. `This symposium marks the centennial of the
Armenian Genocide, but it also honors the many Columbians who denounced
this terrible crime against humanity and who worked tirelessly to help the
Armenian people.’

The event will take place in Room 1501 of Columbia University’s Morningside
Campus International Affairs Building, located at 420 West 118th Street,
from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. with breaks for lunch and coffee. A reception
will follow. This event is free and open to the public.

From: Baghdasarian

MP: ARMENIA IS ‘FRANCE’S IMMORAL SISTER’ WHO DOESN’T COME HOME AT NIGHTS

APA, Azerbaijan
Feb 2 2015

[ 02 February 2015 15:20 ]

Baku. Mubariz Aslanov – APA. An Azerbaijani MP originally from Karabakh
has called Armenia “immoral sister”.

MP Elman Mammadov, who originally comes from Azerbaijan’s Khojaly city,
has made an interesting point about Armenia during speech.

“The French president once said Armenia is the younger sister of
France. But I see that the president was imprecise. Because based on
the way Armenia behaves and my familiarity with those in power there
I can tell you Armenia is France immoral sister who doesn’t come home
at nights,” he noted.

From: Baghdasarian

U.S. DECISION ON KARABAKH. WHO WILL THEY DISCUSS IT WITH?

Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – 03 February 2015, 20:42

With its geopolitical importance, stakeholders and states, practice
of observation and discussions, influence on the political processes
the Karabakh issue is an international one.

In the past years the Karabakh issue was discussed on the international
arena more intensively, which was explained by the increased focus
of the Western community on the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea,
as well as Eastern Europe.

At the same time, the Karabakh issue, as well as other similar issues
on the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe, were observed beside other
more large-scale geopolitical and political issues.

In this respect, the consideration of the Karabakh issue as an
international issue requires a certain balance of notions and criteria,
in other words, at a certain level and actuality and importance.

The main criterion in considering the Karabakh issue, as well as
other similar issues is security. So far the Karabakh issue has been
considered as part of projection of security.

Territorial integrity, democracy, tolerance and other principles are
agreed with consideration of only security conditions. A hierarchy
of conditions and factors of security has been formed in the South
Caucasus which are primarily directed at successful extraction and
transportation of energy resources.

The United States and Great Britain declare different goals and
objectives in the South Caucasus but if earlier their actual policy
was subject to energy projects and their security and stability were
the priority, now the situation has changed.

Along with these basic conditions a combination of “pure” geopolitics
and geoeconomics is in place which is considered primary or secondary
depending on the situation. The combination of political and economic
interests misleads not only the society but also the political class.

The United States and the United Kingdom have lost interest in
functions of transit of Caspian oil, as well as Afghanistan. Along
with its increasing participation in the political processes in the
South Caucasus and North Caucasus the United Kingdom has started
playing a leading role in the development of Karabakh settlement
plans and schemes.

The United Kingdom is trying to conduct a systemic policy of
participation and influence in the region. In this respect it is
necessary to have a more substantial look at the British policy on the
region as a complete “British Caucasian project”. The next stage of
the Karabakh settlement in 1999-2002 was more important in terms of
the understanding of the issue by the United States and the leading
European states.

Starting from 1999 the Clinton administration tried to get down to
the settlement of the Karabakh issue without a clearly developed plan
and understanding of a real opportunity of settlement, hoping that
the Democratic Party will succeed in retaining power and continue a
foreign policy with a considerable ideological basis.

However, the Clinton administration did not have time and political
resources to have an incentive for the settlement process.

In 2001 the most important and the only attempt of the Bush
administration to activate the settlement process was related to the
upcoming decision on change in missile defense and the U.S.-Russia
agreement.

Aside from such a crucial lever of pressure on Russia as NATO expansion
in Central Europe an attempt was made to put pressure on Russia in
the southern strategic direction, i.e. the South Caucasus.

The central development of this stage of the settlement – the Key West
meeting – demonstrated that the Karabakh issue defies a settlement,
whether democratic or through use of force.

Having found itself in the role of “observer”, Russia was able to make
its situation an advantage because in the result of this process the
United States was not able to make use of this as a lever of pressure
on Russia.

The process of negotiations over Karabakh lost this function and
stopped mattering to the United States.

The U.S. Deputy Secretary John Armitage and the Director of Policy
Planning for the State Department Richard Haass who were experienced
analysts and policy planners played an important role in the period
of discussion of the Karabakh issue in 2001.

Further development of the settlement process which was under the U.S.

control and influence was planned and inspired by the developments of
2001. In September-October 2001 the U.S. representative to the Minsk
Group Rudolf Perina had a long trip across Europe and held meetings
to discuss “transfer” of part of responsibility for the settlement
process onto the European partners.

In fall 2002 the United States decided to share responsibility for
the Karabakh settlement with the European community, primarily the
United Kingdom which has geo-economic interests in the South Caucasus.

The fall 2002 was marked by the efforts of the United States to
implement the sovereignty intentions of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
realizing the impossibility of settlement of the Karabakh issue based
on outdated principles and approaches.

During the Obama administration the Karabakh issue was forgotten. In
parallel, Russia made concessions in Eastern Europe that resulted in
the war in Ukraine and Russian expansion in the South Caucasus.

In the past stage the U.S. attitude to the states of the South
Caucasus was formed, which was agreed with the European partners. It
is understood that this inheritance acquired meaning in the American
policy during the Bush administration, and now the U.S. administration
is so confident of this situation that it underlies the U.S. policy
on the South Caucasus.

During the George Bush administration new relations with Turkey were
set up which resulted in aggravation of the U.S. relations with this
country. The United States sees Turkey and its satellite Azerbaijan
as states that act against the interests of the Western community.

The United States sees Armenia as a country which acts as a constraint
for Turkey and its satellite.

Hence, the U.S. policy on the South Caucasus has changed, and Russia’s
stance, strange though it may seem, will increasingly affect the
hostile attitude to Turkey because Russia and Turkey are trying to
coordinate their foreign policy and shape something like an alliance.

This is the clear policy and stance of the United States and NATO
and it does affect the attitude of the United States and the Western
community on the Karabakh issue.

The problem is in Armenia which has become Russia’s vassal and the
U.S. and the European Union cannot find someone who they would be
able to talk to on these issues.

From: Baghdasarian

Mazza on Der Matossian, ‘Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late Ottoman Empire’

H-Nationalism
Feb 3 2015

Author: Bedross Der Matossian
Reviewer: Roberto Mazza

Bedross Der Matossian. Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty
to Violence in the Late Ottoman Empire. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2014. 264 pp. $85.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8047-9147-2; $24.95
(paper), ISBN 978-0-8047-9263-9.

Reviewed by Roberto Mazza Published on H-Nationalism (February, 2015)
Commissioned by Ari Ariel

Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late
Ottoman Empire

Shattered Dreams of Revolution by Bedross Der Matossian attempts to
challenge the existing scholarship on the Ottoman constitutional
revolution of 1908, which the author says is split into two main
trends: one which views the revolution as a factor in the decline of
interethnic relations in the empire and another which romanticizes the
revolution as a period of positive projects including modernization,
political reforms, and economic growth, abruptly ended by the outbreak
of the First World War. Der Matossian tells the story of the shattered
dreams of several ethnic groups in the empire after the constitutional
revolution: Armenians, Jews, and Arabs. The choice to use the term
“ethnic” rather than “national” group is well justified, as Der
Matossian is borrowing the concept of “ethnic boundaries” from social
anthropology, showing that despite diversity inside of these groups,
they shared strong and common bonds within their ethnic boundaries.

Based on a variety of sources, including Ottoman and Western material,
and, above all magazines and newspapers produced by the various
communities, Shattered Dreams of Revolution successfully shows the
opportunities and challenges that arose for the ethnic groups. The
work is divided into six chapters that follow the chronology of
the revolution, showing how events were experienced by the various
communities. Although Der Matossian intends to examine the Armenians,
Jews, and Arabs of the empire equally, he focuses mainly on the
Armenians, less on the Jews, and considerably less on the Arabs.

Chapter 1 is dedicated to the festivities in the provinces celebrating
the revolution. Der Matossian argues that the participation of
nondominant groups in the festivities demonstrated their loyalty to the
new regime. His analysis of space, symbolism, and language shows how
minority communities tried to prove their commitment to the revolution:
religious and secular spaces became centers of revolutionary festivals
and speeches. Loyalty to the nation became apparent through the theme
of brotherhood which was echoed throughout most of the minority press,
and in particular in the Armenian press.

Der Matossian, far from taking a romanticized view of the
postrevolutionary festivities, immediately highlights the divisions
and contradictions amongst the various groups, which become even more
evident in chapter 2 with the examination of the political discourse
and the debates surrounding key terms like “freedom” and the future of
the Ottoman state. The struggle to create an Ottoman identity based on
universal principles was evident in the press, which also struggled to
preserve the particular features of every community. It was, however,
the emerging Turkish concept of millet-i hakime (the ruling nation)
asserting the superiority of the Turkish element that cast a shadow
on the dreams of the revolution.

Chapter 3 is a micro-study of the impact of the revolution on the
ethnic groups: among the Armenians and Jews of the empire a struggle
emerged between the supporters of the ancien regime and those who
supported the revolution, but more importantly over the election
of new religious leaders that would represent the ideals of the
revolution. Interestingly, Der Matossian, while presenting the debate
over Zionism among the Jews of the empire, underlines that Zionism was
not always understood as a separatist project, nor was it accepted by
the majority of the Jews living in the empire. The analyses of the
Arab provinces is rather superficial; however, the author is right
that making generalizations about the impact of the revolution on
these provinces would be misleading. Nevertheless it is clear that
the politics of the notables was threatened by the revolution, but
ultimately was not defeated.

Chapters 4 and 5 are a solid and detailed discussion of the electoral
process in the run-up to the first competitive elections in the
Ottoman Empire. These two chapters are a great contribution to the
study of the constitutional revolution of 1908 as Der Matossian shows
how ethnic groups established electoral committees in an attempt to
unify their various political currents before the first mass political
performance in the Middle East. A number of deputies representing
the ethnic groups were elected–some were satisfied with the results,
like the Jews and the Arabs; less satisfied were the Armenians. The
election sanctioned the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) as the
real winner of this political competition. At the same time, it was
becoming apparent that the CUP and ethnic groups could not agree on
a number of issues, including religious institutions and above all
education. The dilemma afflicting these groups was to display loyalty
while at the same time protecting the interests of their groups.

According to Der Matossian, before the counterrevolution of 1909 the
Armenians were very active in parliament, particularly in the debates
over the restriction of public gatherings, which they understood as
a potential restriction of their political activity.

The last chapter is dedicated to the counterrevolution of 1909 and
its suppression. Der Matossian suggests that the counterrevolution
was a complex event that was not just the expression of religious
fanaticism, but a multi-actor, multivocal event that eventually led
to the demise of the dreams of the revolution. Since the constitution
represented a chance for the ethnic groups to become relevant actors
in the political process, the counterrevolution was a major blow;
however, Der Matossian stresses that the response of the ethnic groups
was not homogenous. Members of the various groups participated in
the suppression of the counterrevolution, although their actions were
less decisive than the military operations undertaken by the CUP. Der
Matossian, in this final chapter, takes some time to discuss the
Adana Massacres of 1909, suggesting that by then the dreams of the
revolution were already shattered; ethnic tensions were on the rise
and becoming violent. After the counterrevolution, the CUP restricted
the liberties gained by the ethnic groups in the constitutional
revolution: the preservation of the empire took precedence over the
values of the constitution. Der Matossian is right to say that the
dreams of the revolution were shattered, not only by the CUP after the
counterrevolution, but by the contradictory dynamics of the revolution
itself, and nationalism–seen as an epidemic by many–was not contained
by the constitution.

Shattered Dreams of Revolution is a compelling work on the Ottoman
revolution of 1908 and its shortcomings. Though Der Matossian focuses
more on the Armenians than the other ethnic groups–the Jews and the
Arabs–this work must be commended for presenting a fresh picture
of the revolution as a key event that needs to be more fully studied
for its repercussions on the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This is
a work that cannot be ignored by those studying late Ottoman history
and in particular how nationalism impacted the empire’s subjects. It’s
a pity there is no bibliography at the end.

Printable Version:

Citation: Roberto Mazza. Review of Der Matossian, Bedross, Shattered
Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late Ottoman
Empire. H-Nationalism, H-Net Reviews. February, 2015.

URL:

From: Baghdasarian

WASHINGTON LOSES INFLUENCE IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS, EXPERTS

Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijan
February 2, 2015 Monday

Russia continues to supply weapons of the Karabakh conflict sides. So,
from the territory of Montenegro transport 38 planes loaded with
weapons for the parties to the conflict performed flights, stated
the American expert Stephen Blank, speaking at the conference:
“Security and energy issues in the South Caucasus after Ukraine”,
organized by the Kennan Institute in Washington.

At that time, Azerbaijan buys from Russian high-tech weaponry at very
high prices, Armenian side gets the same number of obsolete weapons,
but at extremely low prices. “Thus, Azerbaijan unwittingly helps
Armenia to buy weapons from Russia at low prices,” said Blank.

If war starts in Karabakh, Russia may intervene directly, and it
will lead to a much greater disaster than a war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Russia is not interested in resolving the conflict, they
are interested in freezing the Karabakh conflict, said Jeffrey Mankoff,
employee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS.)

After Ukrainian events Russia has made it clear that “if it wants it
will immediately destroy the sovereignty of any of these states, the
West will not help them,” he added. The experts also criticized the
passive role of official Washington in the South Caucasus. According to
them, the passivity of the United States in the Caucasus is considered
as a weakness.

” Indifference of the USA to the South Caucasus countries in the region
will be perceived as evidence of America’s weakness, which leads to
strengthening the position of Russia and Iran,” said Michael Rubin,
an expert of the American Enterprise Institute (American Enterprise
Institute.)

In turn, the expert of the Woodrow Wilson Center Audrey Alshtad,
proposed Washington to arrange the negotiating of the sides, and
facilitate direct negotiations between the parties to the Karabakh
conflict, without waiting for the efforts of other intermediaries,
according to Radio “Liberty”. -02D-

From: Baghdasarian

GYUMRI CASE: PERMYAKOV TO GO ON TRIAL AT GARRISON COURT IN GYUMRI

13:02 03/02/2015 >> LAW

Russia and Armenia have agreed that Russian serviceman Valery
Permyakov, who has been accused of murdering a family of seven in
Armenia’s northern city of Gyumri, will go on trial in Armenia on
the premises of Russia’s military base there, sources familiar with
the situation toldInterfax on Tuesday.

“The parties reached a final agreement that the trial in this
high-profile case will proceed in Gyumri, at Garrison Military Court
No. 102 of the Russian military base,” one of the sources said.

Such a decision was adopted in accordance with the bilateral agreement
regulating the presence of Russia’s military base in northern Armenia,
he said.

Another source told Interfax that Russia and Armenia had also agreed
to cooperate during a preliminary investigation.

“Since the crime of the Avetisyan family’s murder is being investigated
simultaneously by the Russian and Armenian sides, they are considering
the possibility of adopting a joint, consolidated indictment based
on Russian penal laws,” he said.

Permyakov also faces charges of going absent without leave (AWOL)
in possession of firearms, he said.

“The Russian side will be informed of all circumstances established
by Armenian investigators and will add them to the case files,”
the source said.

Six members of one family, including a two-year-old child, were shot
dead in their house in Gyumri on January 12. A six-month-old baby
was hospitalized with stab wounds. He died in hospital on January 12.

Valery Permyakov, a serviceman of the 102nd Russian military base
stationed in Gyumri, the main suspect in the murder, was detained by
Russian border guards while attempting to cross the Armenian-Turkish
border near Yerazgavors village in Armenia’s Shirak province.

Permyakov is held in custody at the Russian military base. He was
questioned and confessed to the crime. Permyakov is charged under
Article 105.2 and 338.2 of the Russian Criminal Code (murder and
desertion). Also, Armenian Investigative Committee brought a charge
against Permyakov under Article 104 part 2 point 1 (murder of two or
more persons) of the Armenian Criminal Code.

From: Baghdasarian

JOURNALISTS- ON THE EVENTS IN BERDZOR

12:59 | February 3,2015 | Politics

Even the journalist’s badge didn’t help the photojournalist of “Noyan
Tapan” Anushavan Nikoghosyan to avoid the beating by policemen on
Artsakh border on January 31.

Today Anushavan Nikoghosyan told that when he was hit in the back, he
showed his badge but it didn’t matter. He was hit for the second time.

“Six policemen were hitting together. They tore the badge and the
camera was lost,”- he told.

The operator of the Founding Parliament Arsen Khechoyan reminded
that on that day armed people had been already standing on the road,
“They were well-prepared and filmed everything, they said that all
the journalists could pass to the other side, but I didn’t pass,”-
he remembers.

Arsen Khechoyan said that they were asked to show the journalist’s
badge and the policemen avoided the cameras, “No one wanted to
be shot.”

Today neither he nor Anushavan Shahnazaryan has cameras.

Anushavan Shahnazaryan calls on to return his camera for the further
professional activities but he won’t apply to the court, “I leave it
on their conscience.”

Anushavan still has got a headache, at night he had a temperature,
but in general he feels good.

From: Baghdasarian

RUSSIAN RAILWAYS TO DEVELOP NIGHT LINE TRAIN ROUTES WITH SNCF IN FRANCE – YAKUNIN

YEREVAN, February 3. /ARKA/. The Russian Railways company (RZhD)
and the French SNCF will be working on a joint project of night line
trains, president of the Russian Railways Vladimir Yakunin said in
his interview to Les Echos.

The distances are too long in Russia, and these trains are still
widely used there, unlike Europe where night trains have started to
disappear, Yakunin said.

The project is expected to start by the end of this year, he said,
according to RIA Novosti.

Earlier, RZhD and SNCF signed an agreement on international rail
ticket sales to promote national and international routes operated
by their daughter companies. Since September 2010, train trips from
Moscow to Nice and Paris have been operated between Russia and France.

-0–

From: Baghdasarian

TURKISH PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT ON COMMITTEE OF HISTORIANS PROVES TURKEY’S FEEBLE ARGUMENTS – EXPERT

10:58 * 03.02.15

In an interview with Tert.am, expert in Turkic studies Ruben Melkonyan
commented on Turkish President Recep Erdogan’s statement on a committee
of historians.

The recent statements by the Turkish president and prime minister,
as well as by other top-ranking officials, show their arguments are
going through a crisis because the lies underlying Turkish propaganda
have exhausted their potential.

Turks have for thousands of times repeated their lies thus making
themselves unperceived by the conscientious part of Turkey’s society
and by the international community.

“Erdogan’s latest statement was one of similar statements. It did
not suggest anything new and proved their feeble arguments,” Mr
Melkonyan said.

In his latest speech, the Turkish president said that “we are not
obliged to accept the so-called Armenian genocide on anyone’s order.”

“We are saying, ‘If you are sincere on this matter, then come, let’s
leave this to historians, let historians study the issue, let’s open
our archives,'” Erdogan said.

“Historians said what they wanted to say long ago, and not only
Armenian historians, but also international and even some Turkish
ones. Historians must not always be referred to and leave the issue
in its academic aspects because political figures must hold their own
positions on different issues, regardless of what historians say,”
Mr Melkonyan said.

It is a serious approach for a political figure, because scholars
are always debating and there cannot be one truth, especially for
political figures.

This is one of the manifestations of Turkey’s ostrich policy because
Turkish historians themselves refute Erdogan’s statements on archives.

They try to study the archives only to face the fact they are
classified for Turkish scholars as well.

“I think he had to make that statement because for so many years
Turkish propaganda has not been able to find new answers and arguments
because they are based on lies,” Mr Melkonyan said.

This is nothing but a method to avoid the issue Turkish authorities
have been employing for decades. But they have never succeeded nor
will they.

From: Baghdasarian