Author: Bedik Zaminian

The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, called for restraint on the part of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The diplomat’s comment on Monday, March 6, was published on site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Zakharova recommended that the parties to the conflict take steps to de-escalate the situation and urged to strictly comply with the provisions of the Statement of the leaders of Russia Vladimir Putin, Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Armenia Nikol Pashinyan dated November 9, 2020 on a complete ceasefire and all hostilities in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.

The diplomat expressed serious concern over the escalation of tension in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. She noted that in recent days the ceasefire regime has been repeatedly violated there.

In particular, Zakharova drew attention to the shootout with the dead that took place in Karabakh on March 5, which is part of the conflict. According to the representative of the Foreign Ministry, the incident once again confirms the need for Baku and Yerevan to return to negotiations as soon as possible within the framework of the implementation of the provisions of the tripartite statements of the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, which, among other things, relate to the unblocking of regional communications, the delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and the preparation of a peace treaty.

“Any issues related to ensuring security and life in the zone of responsibility of the Russian peacekeeping contingent (RPK) must be resolved peacefully in contact between the parties under its auspices,” Zakharova stressed.

On Sunday, March 5, a sabotage group of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces attacked a Nagorno-Karabakh police car. As a result, three people were killed and another was shot.

The situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border worsened in the autumn of 2022. Yerevan and Baku accused each other of the escalation, and also reported deaths on each side.

After that, it became known about the blocking of the Lachin corridor. This is the only road that connects Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. On December 30, Zakharova said that Moscow was concerned about the lack of progress in restoring the full functioning of the Lachin corridor for the movement of citizens, vehicles and goods in both directions.

On December 29, the Russian Foreign Ministry noted that the work of Russian peacekeepers on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh deserves the highest appreciation, since thanks to them security is maintained in the region. In turn, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that Russian peacekeepers are working hourly to resolve the situation in the Lachin corridor.

Relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan escalated against the backdrop of contesting the ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh, which in 1988 announced its secession from the Azerbaijan SSR. During the military conflict of 1992-1994, Baku lost control over Karabakh. In September 2020, Baku took control of a number of settlements during military operations. In November of the same year, Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the participation of the Russian Federation, signed an agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan will pay a working visit to Cairo from March 7 to 9 to participate in the session of the Arab League Council at the ministerial level.

Within the framework of the visit, a number of meetings are scheduled to be held.

The Armenian Foreign Minister will also meet his Egyptian Counterpart Sameh Shoukry.

 Faizan Hashmi

YEREVAN (UrduPoint News / Sputnik – 07th March, 2023) The number of confirmed cases of measles in Armenia as of Tuesday morning increased to 29, the Armenian Ministry of Health said on Tuesday.

The number of confirmed cases on Monday was 20.

“As of 10 a.m. (06:00 GMT), the number of laboratory confirmed cases of measles reached 29, 15 people were hospitalized, seven were already released,” the ministry’s statement read.

The condition of the patients is assessed as moderately severe.

Some of the patients were not vaccinated, while others had only one injection, the ministry said.

Measles is a highly contagious viral disease that is transmitted by airborne droplets. Young children are at the highest risk with serious complications, including death. Vaccination against measles is extremely effective with 97% of the vaccinated never catching this disease. Conversely, a non-vaccinated person has almost a 100% chance of being infected at the first contact with a carrier.

https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/number-of-confirmed-measles-cases-in-armenia-1654706.html

1.1. ABOUT IOM

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is the UN’s leading agency on migration and the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration, working closely with its key stakeholders – migrants and Member States – to promote humane, safe, and orderly migration. It does so by providing services and advice to governments and migrants from an integral and holistic perspective, including links to development, in order to maximize the benefits and opportunities of migration and reduce its challenges. Established in 1951, IOM now has more than 170 Member States, offices in over 400 field locations and more than 14,000 staff – 90 percent of IOM’s staff being deployed in the field. In the South Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia region, IOM has 19 country offices. In Armenia, IOM has a main office and two sub-offices in Yerevan, and 18 staff.

As recognized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, human mobility is indivisible from sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – and the commitment to leave no one behind and to reach the furthest behind – will not be achieved without due consideration of migration. Additionally, the Global Compact for Migration is grounded in the 2030 Agenda and promotes the principles of having a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to address this intrinsic link. This Strategy will support the Member States to achieve this, ultimately leveraging the potential of migration through a whole-of-government approach to achieve sustainable development outcomes for all. It is a direct contribution to the Decade of Action to fast-track progress for reaching the Sustainable Development Goals. It brings greater coherence and development impact to IOM’s activities and allows for a joined-up approach to the way the Organization designs and delivers its operations, as called for in IOM’s Strategic Vision.

IOM’s Strategic Vision, presented to IOM Member States in 2019, spans the period of 2019 to 2023. The Vision articulates how IOM plans to meet its new and emerging responsibilities, including IOM’s mandated role as Network Coordinator. It sets out the ‘direction of travel’ for IOM, is forward looking and encourages ‘joined up thinking’. This Strategy is aligned with the Vision, its corresponding Regional Strategy for South-Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the IOM Strategic Results Framework, which are anchored in the overall framework of the 2030 Agenda and the Global Compact for Migration.

1.2. IOM IN ARMENIA

IOM Armenia, one of the first UN offices in Armenia, opened in 1993, when the Republic of Armenia (RA) became an IOM Member State. IOM activities in the country are designed and implemented in line with the key documents signed with the Government of Armenia (GoA), including the Cooperation Agreement on Privileges and Immunities in 1994 and the Memorandum of Understanding in 2001 and the overall UN-Armenia framework agreements.

An advocate of strong partnerships with key stakeholders in migration nationally and internationally, IOM Armenia enjoys an excellent reputation and the trust of the Government of Armenia and partners. Since 2021, IOM has assumed the role of the Coordinator and Secretariat of the UN Network on Migration in the Republic of Armenia.

For three decades, IOM Armenia has been a key contributor to the reforms of migration policies and management in Armenia through policy advice; generation of quality evidence; extensive capacity building; technical assistance; awareness raising, and importantly, assistance to various groups of migrants.

With well-established, reliable operations and programming in Armenia, and experienced and professional staff, IOM Armenia is a competitive, result-oriented organization, committed to results-based management and value for money principles for the projects and programmes it manages. It has a sound institutional setup, with policies on data protection, ethics, rights-based approach, gender-sensitivity, values, monitoring and learning systems in place.

IOM Armenia’s programming addresses a large scope of migration issues, in line with Armenia’s international, regional, and bilateral agreements, and in support of Armenia’s Government Program, relevant strategies, concepts and national action plans. IOM Armenia’s migration management and humanitarian programmes take a multi-faceted approach to migration, in line with the Government of Armenia priorities in labour migration and human development, migration and social cohesion, assisted voluntary return and reintegration, integrated border management and counter-trafficking, towards securing sustainable and human-centred solutions. IOM Armenia is well positioned to mobilize the resources of the IOM globally to ensure rapid response to emerging country needs, including emergency response and management of compound crisis situations in Armenia.

With excellent knowledge of migration and development in Armenia, expertise in data collection and analysis, including facilitated access to a variety of data sources on migration management, as well as strong technical capacity, IOM Armenia provides strategic direction, technical advice and support to the GoA in the areas of policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks of comprehensive, human rights-based and effective migration management, prevention of irregular migration, labour migration and pre-departure support, negotiations of bilateral labour agreements (BLAs), assisted voluntary return and reintegration, readmission management, humanitarian border management, counter-trafficking response, migration data and management information systems, as well as COVID-19 vulnerabilities related to migration. It serves as a knowledge hub in the sector for the government, development partners, civil society and private sector.

IOM Armenia has assisted the GoA in developing and reforming its migration governance system through providing assistance to stakeholders for enhancing the relevant policy and regulatory frameworks. Specifically, IOM Armenia assisted the Government of Armenia in its border management reform by supporting expansion of the Border Management Information System to all border crossing points of the Republic of Armenia, and improvement of the security standards in Zvartnots International Airport. IOM Armenia supported the reforms in migration management, including introduction of the system of electronic passports and biometric identification cards. Recently, it supported the GoA in developing the Conceptual Framework of Migration Management. IOM provided technical assistance to the Government of Armenia in elaboration of policy and legislative frameworks to regulate labour migration, including amendments to the Law on Foreigners, Administrative Offences Code, and Labour Code of the Republic of Armenia. As a result of IOM Armenia’s advocacy, Armenia became a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in 2013. IOM Armenia has consistently supported the Government of Armenia in its efforts to prevent and combat human trafficking by supporting the development of the National Plans of Action to Combat Human Trafficking; and lobbying for the ratification of the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and its protocols; and criminalization of human trafficking.

IOM Armenia has made significant contributions to the development of the institutional framework for migration governance in Armenia by developing the Work Permit Issuance System in Armenia in line with the best international standards and practices; establishing the Migration Resource Centre, which provides free consultations to potential migrants and informs returnees about the existing reintegration programmes; and facilitating the connection of the central units at the Police Headquarters and Yerevan Zvartnots Airport to the Interpol I-24/7 telecommunication database system. IOM Armenia developed knowledge products and practical toolkits to raise awareness of migration issues, challenges and support mechanisms in the country, such as the counter trafficking course, currently included in the middle and high school, as well as a university curriculum; and a toolkit for processing readmission cases in Armenia. In collaboration with UNFPA Armenia, IOM supported the Government of Armenia and the Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia (Armstat) in development of the SDG National Reporting Platform.

IOM Armenia has played a key role in ensuring Armenia’s international presence and cooperation in migration. It supported the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to participate in the negotiations of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), which Armenia subsequently voted in favour of in 2018, and has since submitted two Voluntary National Progress Reviews on Implementation of GCM in 2018 and 2021. To enable a safe environment for circular migration of Armenians, IOM facilitated negotiations for bilateral labour agreements between Armenia and destination countries. In 2011-2013 IOM facilitated policy seminars on migration between Armenia and the EU, furthering the dialogue between Armenia and the EU in the context of the EU-Armenia Mobility Partnership, Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements.

https://reliefweb.int/report/armenia/iom-armenia-mission-strategy-2022-2025

Editor’s Note: This special section of The National Herald spotlights the tragic burning of Smyrna in 1922 as the climactic event in the destruction of Hellenism in Asia Minor. To properly understand what was going on in Asia Minor at the time, one cannot confine oneself to the occurrences in Western Asia Minor – events in its eastern region were also crucial for the fate of the Hellenes. There, East of Ankara, unfolded the saga of wo ancient nations, the Kurds and the Armenians. It is the latter people that Stavros Stavridis’ article focuses on.

Armenia, Great Britain, and the League of Nations: 1918-1923

The formation of an independent Armenian state was one of the promises given by Great Britain and its allies to the Armenian people during World War I (1914-1918).

Before examining this aspect of Armenian history, there is a brief overview of Armenia’s past from antiquity until the end of 1918 that appears below. Armenia is a Mediterranean nation that shares borders with Turkey, Georgia, Iran (Persia), and Azerbaijan. It is mountainous, with its highest peaks located in the Caucasus. The Armenian language belongs to the Indo-European language family.

For centuries, the Christian people of Armenian lived in Eastern Turkey, where they coexisted with Kurdish nomads. From antiquity until the Middle Ages, the area was governed by successive Armenian dynasties, which had to face continual invasions and migration by Turkish-speaking peoples from the 11th to the 16th century. The area eventually came under the control of the Ottoman Empire, although the Armenians maintained a strong sense of national identity through the preservation of their language and the role of the Armenian Church. The overwhelming majority of Armenians belonged to the Armenian Apostolic Church, along with a small number of Roman Catholics and Protestants.

During the period of Ottoman rule, they were governed by the Millet system, which provided non-Muslim minorities with administrative and social autonomy. Prior to World War I, the Armenians lived in six administrative regions separated into pashaliks, along with Kurdish nomads. Frequently, they resided in homogeneous villages and neighborhoods in cities and towns.

The Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of the Young Turks, who accused them of collaborating with the Russians during the years 1915-1918. A number of foreign journalists, missionaries, diplomats, and military officers witnessed the massacre and exile of the Armenian people from their ancestral home.

During World War I, the Armenians aided the Allies in their military efforts, such as by defending the front in the Caucuses following the Russian collapse in 1917. Also, the French Armenian Legion fought in Palestine as part of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, under the leadership of British general Edmund Allenby. As the war was coming to an end in December 1917, British Premier David Lloyd George described Armenia as a land “soaked with the blood of the innocent” and declared that it would be one of the nations that would “never be restored the blasted tyranny of the Turks.”

Armenia was represented at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 by the Chairman of the Armenian Parliament Avetis Aharonian and the leader of the Armenian National Delegation in Turkish Armenia Boghos Nubar Pasha. Both men envisioned a united and independent Armenian state that would include the republic represented by Aharonian and the seven vilayets or provinces of Cilicia, Erzurum, Bitlis, Diyarbakir, Harpoot, Sivas, and a portion of Trebizond that provided access to the Black Sea.

It should be noted that Europe’s Great Powers were not interested in the creation of a large Armenian state that would extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caucasus. This was due to the fact that Great Britain was unwilling to provide Armenia with military aid and assume responsibility for its protection, hoping that the United States would assume the Armenian mandate instead.

However, U.S. indecisiveness regarding the acceptance of the Armenian mandate slowed down peace negotiations with Turkey in 1919 and exposed the minority populations in eastern Anatolia to greater risk, which posed a threat to their very existence.

According to Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian, the British Peace Delegation and Foreign Office were in favor of sending military aid, but the War Office, the India Office, and Treasury opposed such aid. The British Government’s decision to withdraw its forces from the Caucasus in August 1919 was part of its wider policy to reduce its overseas commitments and cut down its military footprint.

In the summer of 1919, Armenia faced attacks by Kurdish and Tatar forces across the length of its borders as it was trying to feed its repatriated population. The establishment of a Turkish nationalist movement in Anatolia posed a serious threat to the formation of an Armenian state. Meanwhile, disagreement prevailed among various government agencies in London over the question of providing military support to Armenia. The War Office supported the Cabinet’s policy of withdrawal and maintained that it had no available weapons and equipment to spare. The Foreign Office, on the other hand, criticized this decision and argued that Armenians needed to be provided with military supplies. Without British military aid, the fate of Armenia seemed doubtful.

Speaking to representatives of the Allies in London on February 16, 1920, British Foreign Minister Lord Curzon proposed that Armenia be placed under the protection of the League of Nations. The League of Nations Council responded to Curzon’s proposal on April 11th, stating that it did not have the military or financial resources to help Armenia. In actuality, Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant forbade it from serving as a Mandatory power. Instead, the Council proposed that the best solution to the Armenian question would be for an independent state to accept the mandate with the League’s supervision and moral support. One problem facing the League of Nations and Allied Supreme Council was that a portion of the territory of the new Armenian state was under foreign military occupation. The Allies and League of Nations did not have the decisiveness and material resources with which to remove Turkish forces from Armenian soil.

The Treaty of Sèvres, which was signed on August 10, 1920, established a free and independent Armenia (Article 88), whose border with Turkey would be determined with the aid of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who would act as arbitrator (Article 89). Toward this end, Article 91 provided for a Boundary Commission to delineate the border between Armenia and Turkey, while Article 93 charged Armenia with the duty of protecting the minorities residing in its territory.

Facing attacks on three fronts by the Bolsheviks, Turkish nationalists, and Tartars from Azerbaijan, the Armenians appealed for help to the League of Nations Council on October 6th and 12th 1920. The Armenians considered these attacks on their territory to be a violation of the Treaty of Sèvres. With the League of Nations Council unable to help Armenia militarily or through the provisions of its Covenant, Armenia turned to the Allied Supreme Council, requesting its aid and intervention. The Armenians tried to warn Great Britain and its allies about the danger that would arise from the formation of a Turkish-Bolshevik bloc in the Near East.

The British War Office was not indifferent to rapprochement between Turkey and Russia. To facilitate the Armenians, the League of Nations Council referred Armenia’s appeal to the Allies for consideration at the end of October. On November 10th, Prime Minister Lloyd George assured the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that the Armenians were receiving military supplies and fuel for their military transports. It made no sense to discuss implementing the Treaty of Sèvres until President Wilson could arbitrate the border issue between Turkey and Armenia.

Former Armenian Prime Minister Alexander Khatisian proposed that the Greeks occupy Trebizond, so that its port could be used as a supply station and as “a base for campaigns targeting the Caucasus.” In fact, Britain’s High Commissioner in Constantinople Sir John de Robeck supported such an operation. On October 2nd, he informed Curzon that “it is my opinion that its preemptive occupation by the Allies is the most effective means of support to Armenia.” Curzon replied that an Allied occupation of Trebizond was “not practical, and Greek occupation was not desirable.” The British naval command considered the control of naval traffic in the Black Sea from Constantinople to be the best solution.

In response to the resolution of the League of Nations Assembly of November 22nd, the Council cabled President Wilson and other League of Nations members states on November 25th expressing the hope that the U.S., in particular, could offer their good services to intervene in the conflict between Turkey and Armenia. The League of Nations Assembly resolution of November 22, 1920 stated that “the Assembly of the League of Nations requests the Council to arrive at an understanding with the Governments, with a view to entrusting a Power with the task of taking the necessary measures to stop the hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists – The Assembly decides to nominate a Committee to examine measures to be taken and to report to the Assembly.”

At the Conference of London in February-March 1921, and the Paris Conference in March 1922, allied ministers pledge to create an Armenian ethnic homeland. In his talks with the Turkish nationalist foreign ministers Bekir Sami and Yusuf Kema in March 1921 and 1922, Curzon had stated that an independent Armenia must be formed, with the areas of Kars, Ardahan, and Alexandroupolis being included in the Armenian state. Both foreign ministers assured Corzon that their government wanted good relations with Armenia. Pledges regarding the creation of an Armenian homeland revealed the disinterest and open hostility of France and the lukewarm support of Italy toward Britain. While in Paris in 1922, Curzon managed to convince Italian Foreign Minister Signor Schanzer and French Premier Raymond Poincaré that they bore a responsibility for fulfilling prior pledges made to Armenians regarding the establishment of their nation. Curzon’s ‘formula’ relied on participation by the League of Nations. The League was to assume a special responsibility for the protection and safeguarding of the minorities in Europe and Asia, while the borders of Armenia remain unfixed. Following a peace treaty, Turkey would be invited to join the League of Nations. Even the resolutions of the League of Nations Assembly and Council in September 1921 and 1922, as well as in October 1921, respectively, urged the Allied Supreme Council to take the necessary measures to create an Armenian homeland that would be independent from Turkey. Nonetheless, such a measure would never materialize, because the League of Nations and the Allied Supreme Council possessed neither the funds nor the willingness to aid the Armenians during this calamity.

At the Lausanne Conference of 1922-23, Curzon, who served as Chairman of the Territorial and Military Commission, described the problems the Armenians were facing. Approximately 1,250,000 of their countrymen were living in the Soviet Republic of Yerevan, which was already overpopulated with Armenian refugees from Kars, Ardahan, Van, Bitlis, and Erzurum. There were approximately three million Armenian refugees spread throughout the Caucasus and neighbouring countries, while only 130,000 of them remained in Turkey. Addressing Curzon’s committee on December 13, 1922, the head of the Turkish delegation at Lausanne Ismet Pasha stated that Turkey was unwilling to cede even an inch of its territory to Armenia. He added that Turkey had formed good relations with the Soviet Republic of Yerevan, and that he would no longer entertain discussions regarding the formation of an Armenian national homeland. The united Armenian delegation presented the League of Nations Secretary-General with two memoranda describing their position regarding the future of an Armenian state, proposing that these documents be referred to the League of Nations Council for deliberation. The tone of both memoranda revealed the Armenians’ decisiveness to make one last ditch effort to attain their national aspirations. Protections were put in place for the safety, property, religious freedom, linguistic rights, and equal civil rights of the surviving minorities in Turkey, as foreseen in articles 37-45 of the Treaty of Lausanne, however, Armenians’ hopes for a national homeland never materialized in the final peace treaty with Turkey.

Stavros T. Stavrides is a researcher/historian and regular contributor to The National Herald.

Thousands of places remain vacant as students fail entry tests due to low quality education and fewer applicants.

When she sat her entry exam at university, Sirush Isayan felt unprepared.

“Our school does not have good teachers in foreign languages and mathematics, I didn’t get a good understanding of those subjects. I studied on my own, but it was not enough,” Isayan told IWPR.

Isayan, who hails from the village of Svarants in Armenia’s southern Syunik region, failed the exam. She joined the ranks of thousands of recent high school graduates whose results fell short of the threshold needed to enter university.

In 2022, Armenia recorded unprecedentedly poor results in university admissions: 25 per cent of the 1,918 government-funded places remained vacant, while out of 21,761 self-funded places, 15,243 were left unfilled.

“The situation is the result of a low number of graduates and the poor education public schools provide,” Atom Mkhitaryan, dean of the scientific and education centre of the National Academy of Sciences, told IWPR.

Armenia’s troubled demography is affecting universities as there are fewer graduates than the available government-subsidised places. For many, the obstacle is money.

Armenia’s higher education system is highly centralised. The country has 55 higher education institutions, including 26 state universities, which are almost all located in the capital Yerevan.

Tuition fees range from 400,000 to one million drams (990 to 2,480 US dollars) and renting an apartment in Yerevan starts at a minimum of 150,000 drams (370 dollars). The average salary in Armenia is 180,000-200,000 drams (between 445 and 495 dollars).

“For people from the villages, studying at the university in Yerevan is a challenge. Few can afford the tuition fees and renting costs without interrupting their daily classes. For those who make it, a degree is earned at a very high price, both financial and personal,” 23-year-old former student Asya Garselyan told IWPR.

Garselyan’s parents worked in agriculture in their native village of Bavra, in the north-western region of Shirak, and decided to move to the capital to find better paid jobs to support their daughter’s dream of going to university.

“I worked two years as a waitress in a café to save and pay for my education. It was exhausting,” she recalled. Then in 2018 she applied and entered the Yerevan State University of Languages.

When the Covid pandemic hit, the café closed and she eventually found a job in the IT sector. But by the time she was in her third year, Garselyan could not make end meet. She eventually dropped out.

In 2020, 781 students were expelled from university for failing to pay the fees; in 2019 the figure was 962 and in 2018, 365.

In July 2018, prime minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that “no student should be expelled from the university for being unable to pay tuition fees .

“The prime minister’s statement is just words,” Mkhitaryan said. “Many students drop their higher education primarily because of tuition fees and various associated costs. But if they are expelled after being admitted, what mechanisms do we have to avoid it?”

The education state policy and system need to be revised, he noted, as “the ongoing so-called reforms have zero and sometimes even negative results”.

There are other factors. The economic contraction of 2020, due to the pandemic and the war against Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh, resulted in young people turning to jobs that required no university qualifications, while high-achieving students applied for scholarships to study abroad.

The mismatch between what universities offer and what the labour market needs adds a layer of inefficiency.

“In the planned economy of the Soviet era, the state knew exactly how many specialists it would need in the specific sectors every year and planned the distribution of places accordingly,” Mkhitaryan explained, adding that today the government’s approach is shrouded in confusion.

Experts maintain that, to bear fruit, education reform should also include better conditions, professional development and salaries for education professionals.

Universities must adjust their curricula to current economic relations and offer competitive short-term programmes and training.

In May, the World Bank announced a 25 million-dollar loan to the government for additional financing of the country’s Education Improvement Project (EIP), which includes quality and relevance in higher education institutions.

The World Bank indicated that quality of education is a key challenge “causing a mismatch between the formal qualifications of graduates and the skills sought by employers, slowing overall productivity, and hampering economic growth in Armenia”.

Sciences are particularly hit by low number of applicants, with subjects like chemistry, geology and agriculture attracting close to no applicants. This results in an aging scientific community: data from the statistical committee of Armenia showed that in 2020 more than half of the country’s scientists were over 50 years-old and mostly male.

Upgrading the system to international standards will be a long-term effort.

The Armenian National Agrarian University had the lowest admissions in 2022, with only 40 places filled out of 1,000 available. The institution, one of the country’s oldest, is failing to attract applicants despite efforts to modernise, for example creating about 40 laboratories and research units.

“On the one hand, the government says that agriculture is one of the priority sectors of our economy, but on the other, it does not implement an adequate policy on providing the education in the agricultural sector,” Sos Avetisyan, head of the institution’s PR department, told IWPR.

“Some school teachers lack the required knowledge. It is not a coincidence that Yerevan State Pedagogical University ranks second after us with a low number of first year students. People don’t want to become teachers. This is a serious problem, a nationwide issue.”

On July 28, the government approved the draft law on developing state education until 2030. The deputy minister of education Artur Martirosyan stated that by 2030, “90 per cent of graduates will work according to their profession after graduating from school, college or university”.

“Providing targeted state support to specific Armenian universities will create an opportunity to significantly improve our position internationally and include four Armenian universities in the list of the top 500 international rankings,” Martirosyan said during the cabinet session.

Mkhitaryan does not share this optimism.

“At this rate, we may even lose what we have. It is simply unwise to say that by 2030 four Armenian universities will be included in the world’s top universities. First of all, it involves huge financial investments and students, including international, as well as the integration of research work into the educational process, which we do not have at all,” he told IWPR, adding that none of the current cabinet members will be in the government in 2030, so no one will bear any responsibility for the programme’s failure.

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/armenian-universities-lost-applicants