Armenia’s Aparan hosts international sculpture symposium

News.am, Armenia
May 6 2018
Armenia’s Aparan hosts international sculpture symposium (PHOTOS) Armenia’s Aparan hosts international sculpture symposium (PHOTOS)

16:10, 06.05.2018
                  

The urban municipal community hall of Aparan, Armenia, is carrying out numerous cultural programs ahead of the 100th anniversary of the triumphant, heroic Battle of Bash Aparan.

Within the framework of these programs, the 1st International Sculpture Symposium, entitled “The Deeds of Our Ancestors,” is held in Aparan, from May 1 to 20.

Eleven sculptors from Italy, Japan, Belgium, Belarus, India, Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), and Armenia are attending this symposium.

Also, many events are planned during this event, and which are aimed at developing cultural life in Aparan.

Verelq: Who is for and who is against, but not Nikol Pashinyan, but the resolution of the crisis?

  • 01.05.2018
  •  

  • Armenia:
  •  

12
 1051

A little while ago, the discussions on the election of the RA Prime Minister ended in the National Assembly. The representatives of the NA factions also held a meeting, presenting their position on how they will vote, for or against Nikol Pashinyan.


SIDE: Armen Rustamyan, ARF faction leader

I have to refer to Aghvan Vardanyan’s statement, which was a surprise for his faction. Of course, we respect his decision, but this is Dashnaktsutyun, and we will certainly evaluate that behavior.


And the position of Dashnaktsutyun is the same and unchanged: we will vote in favor of Nikol Pashinyan. We must reach such a solution that will benefit the Armenian people in Armenia and the Diaspora. 



SIDE: Mikael Melkumyan, “Tsarukyan” faction


We record that the extent of the mistake of the current authorities is such that he cannot stay, he must leave. We are standing on the edge of a watershed, if we make a mistake today we will be thrown back a decade. The Tsarukyan bloc has joined the popular movement and will vote for Nikol Pashinyan.


AGAINST: Vahram Baghdasaryan, Republican faction

Political decisions are not made through ultimatums, blackmails, curses. We have accepted the victory of the people, we agree with the criticisms, we have taken into account the people’s movement. We recognize that a grassroots movement can support any candidate. But the Republican faction will vote against the issue of Nikol Pashinyan becoming the prime minister, trying to stop the dangerous wave that will be born in our country. 


Ara Babloyan, Speaker of the National Assembly, RPA party, extraordinary speech


What we all want is that we definitely have to do things smoothly and smoothly. During the recent discussions of political forces, both positive and negative phenomena in the country came to light. At the same time, all the criticisms that were also voiced by the RPA members prove that without eliminating these shortcomings, the situation can be improved and the country’s progress ensured. It is a fact that today we are in a political crisis and it should be solved in a peaceful and acceptable way for everyone.


Mr. Pashinyan, instead of dialogue, you want to oppress and defeat the parliamentary majority. As a skilled politician, how do you imagine getting votes without dialogue? I am convinced that we must continue to move forward on the path of political negotiations, outlining a tomorrow without tsunamis and upheavals.


Azerbaijani Press: Armenia’s "Velvet Revolution" keeps peace with Russia – for now

Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijani Opposition Media
 Friday
Armenia's "Velvet Revolution" keeps peace with Russia - for now
The leaders of the protest movement that toppled Armenia's longtime
leader Serzh Sargsyan have studiously - and so far successfully -
avoided making their call for a "velvet revolution" about Armenia's
foreign relations.
But not far under the surface of the protest movement lie strongly
skeptical attitudes of the country's tight relationship with Russia.
And if, as seems increasingly likely, a fundamental change in
Armenia's politics is underway, the country's relationship to Russia
will come under pressure.
Russia is Armenia's closest ally and security guarantor, maintaining a
large military base in Armenia and providing substantial military aid.
Armenia is a member of Russia's two most significant regional
organizations, the security-oriented Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO) and the trade bloc Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
Russian border guards man the country's frontier with Turkey.
Moscow tends to hold a dim view of popular revolts in its post-Soviet
allies, regularly warning of the danger of so-called "color
revolutions" such as those seen in Georgia and Ukraine. And it
generally saw Sargsyan as a reliable, if not enthusiastic, steward of
Russian-Armenian ties.
Nevertheless, the Kremlin has maintained a hands-off attitude toward
events in Yerevan.
"For now we see that the situation is not unfolding in a destabilizing
way which is a cause for satisfaction," Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry
Peskov told reporters the day after Sargsyan stepped down.
The leader of the anti-Sargsyan movement, Nikol Pashinyan, carefully
avoided voicing any international agenda during the protests. And when
Sargsyan stepped down, Pashinyan took pains to announce that he did
not foresee any significant changes to Armenia's relationship with
Russia. He has said that he supports staying in the CSTO and EAEU and
keeping the Russian military base.
Pashinyan and other leaders of the movement met Russian officials at
their embassy in Yerevan on the evening of April 25, and Russia
appeared to give its tacit approval. "I met with official
representatives from Moscow, who assured me of Russia's
noninterference in Armenia's internal affairs," Pashinyan told a rally
the same evening.
In the past, however, Pashinyan and other protest leaders have taken
more Russia-skeptical positions. The Yelk bloc in parliament, to which
many of the leaders including Pashinyan belong, submitted a proposal
last year to leave the EAEU. Pashinyan has also expressed skepticism
about the CSTO's value to Armenia.
At a press conference on April 24, the day after Sargsyan resigned,
Pashinyan alluded to the possibility of geopolitical shifts in the
future. "We're not going to make any sharp geopolitical movements.
We're going to do everything in the interests of Armenia. Any question
has to be discussed in its own time," he said.
At the protests, many of the participants, unprompted, criticized
Sargsyan's close ties to Moscow and expressed hope that a change in
government would lead to a less pro-Russia orientation.
"You're not from Russia, are you?" one protester asked angrily when
approached by a reporter during one of the low moments of the
movement, shortly after Pashinyan had been arrested. "Good. All of
this is Russia's fault."
After Sargsyan stepped down, another protester - asked what his hopes
for the country were now - put foreign relations close to the top of
list: "We hope that the politics won't be only pro-Russia, that they
will be more balanced."
And even as Moscow has stayed relatively sanguine about the events
unfolding in Armenia, many pro-Kremlin commentators have been framing
the developments as a potentially dangerous color revolution. The
protest leaders "are committed to the West," said analyst Nikolai
Spiridonov in an interview with the Russian news agency RIA Novosti's
Ukrainian service. "We can assume that if one of them becomes
president or prime minister, under the new system, then the balance of
power in the country will change in favor of the West."
One Russian meme has the Kremlin's attack dog TV anchor Dmitry
Kiselyov asking Russian President Vladimir Putin: "I don't understand
- are the Armenians now Banderovtsy, or not yet?" ("Banderovtsy" is a
Russian derogatory term for Ukrainian nationalists and a key trope in
Russia's information war against Ukraine's 2014 "Maidan" revolution
that brought in a pro-Western leadership.)
"Pashinyan wants a pro-Western political course," said Anton
Evstratov, a Russian commentator and history professor in Yerevan. But
there are deep security and economic ties that bind Armenia to Russia,
which will make it difficult for him to implement any sort of
pro-Western agenda, Evstratov said. "The question is, is he able to
put his pro-Western views into reality?"
He said that Russian officials' low-key reaction also is the result of
a belated understanding that the Kremlin's heavy-handed approach
backfired. Evstratov said he was "surprised" by the "soft" reactions
from Russian officials like Peskov, but said that they appeared to
have learned from their mistakes in Georgia (during the Rose
Revolution of 2003) and Ukraine (during the Maidan revolution of
2013-14), when the heavy-handed Russian reaction exacerbated events
and largely turned the two countries against Russia. "They [Russians]
are doing it much more professionally now."
Pashinyan and his colleagues could be compared to "Euroskeptics who
come into parliament on a nationalistic movement, but when they are in
power they become far more moderate and able to negotiate," said Yuri
Kofner, head of the Eurasian sector of the Centre for Comprehensive
European and International Studies at Moscow's Higher School of
Economics, and an advocate of greater Eurasian integration. "I think
the situation can be similar here."
Styopa Safaryan, a former member of Armenia"s parliament who advocates
closer ties with the West, said Russia is likely reassured by
Pashinyan's relatively balanced foreign policy orientation. Pashinyan
did advocate leaving the EAEU, "however, he also was not supporting
Armenia's full European and Euro-Atlantic integration," Safaryan told
Eurasianet. "Pashinyan will not change Armenia's foreign policy agenda
and there is nothing to threaten Russia and Russian interests."
He added, though, that free and fair elections - one of Pashinyan's
major demands - could help more openly pro-Western parties gain a
foothold in the country.
Joshua Kucera is the Turkey/Caucasus editor at Eurasianet, and author
of The Bug Pit.

Comment l’Allemagne a-t-elle contribué au génocide des Arméniens?

Sputnik France
7 avril 2018


© AFP 2018 ODD ANDERSEN
International

15:18 07.04.2018(mis à jour 15:19 07.04.2018) URL courte

Le Deuxième Reich a livré à l’Empire ottoman des armes pour qu’il puisse effectuer le génocide arménien, relate un nouveau rapport de Global Net — Stop the Arms Trade (GN-STAT) publié par Deutsche Welle.

© Sputnik.
Macron va commémorer le génocide arménien… sans condamner la Turquie

Les forces turques ont utilisé des fusils et d’autres armes allemandes pour procéder au génocide des Arméniens dans les années 1915-1916, selon un rapport préparé par le réseau Global Net — Stop the Arms Trade (GN-STAT) relayé par Deutsche Welle.

Ainsi, d’après le document, le plus gros fabriquant allemand d’armes légères durant les deux guerres mondiales, Mauser, fournissait à l’Empire ottoman des millions de fusils et d’armes de poing qui ont été utilisés durant le génocide avec le soutien d’officiers allemands.

«Des officiers allemands qui servaient l’état-major turc ottoman ont activement aidé à effectuer des meurtres d’individus. La plupart des agresseurs étaient armés de fusils ou de carabines Mauser, et les officiers d’armes de poing Mauser», informe le rapport.

© Sputnik. Vladimir Fedorenko
Génocide arménien: la Turquie s’offusque de la position de Macron

En outre, comme le signale le document, l’armée turque était équipée de centaines de canons produits par l’entreprise allemande Krupp.

Outre les livraisons d’armes, l’Allemagne a jeté «les bases idéologiques» du génocide, précise le rapport.

GN-STAT est un nouveau réseau multilingue mondial qui comprend plus de 100 organisations et une base de données des militants, journalistes, artistes, dénonciateurs et d’autres personnes intéressées par les exportations d’armes.

Le génocide arménien est un génocide perpétré d’avril 1915 à juillet 1916 au cours duquel les deux tiers des Arméniens qui vivaient alors sur l’actuel territoire de la Turquie sont morts du fait de déportations, de famines et de massacres. Il a coûté la vie à environ 1,2 million d’Arméniens d’Anatolie et d’Arménie occidentale.

Sports: Mkhitaryan: “I want to write my name into Arsenal’s history"

Panorama, Armenia
April 5 2018
Sport 14:40 05/04/2018 World

Armenian national football team and Arsenal midfielder Henrikh Mkhitaryan has told FourFourTwo that he is determined to turn Arsenal’s ailing fortunes around and become a Gunners legend.

“When I heard I could swap Man United for Arsenal, I said, ‘Yes, I want to do that’, I didn’t think twice. It’s important for me to play in an offensive team,” Mkhitaryan said.

“I couldn’t have imagined a better start. I’d missed playing offensively. I joined Arsenal because Wenger wanted me, not because he wanted to replace Sanchez. We are different players and characters, with different abilities and skills, so I’ll try my best to do everything for the club.”

“I want to write my name into Arsenal’s history and have my name as a legend here,” says the midfielder. “I want to score goals, make assists and win trophies to make the fans happy.”

ACNIS reView

Analytical 

 

Kurds and us
MARCH 30, 2018 

On March 18, Afrin, one of the pivotal cities of the Kurdish resistance, fell to the hands of Turkish regular troops and Syrian opposition military groups in the north of Syria. The latter, as well as the entire Kurdish region of Afrin, was considered one of the key bases of the national liberation struggle for the Kurdish people. His fall on the basis of the decades-long Turkish-Kurdish military-political confrontation had a great psychological impact on the Kurdish community that fought for freedom. This, in turn, led to the emergence of deep doubts and pessimism among the Kurdish people regarding the future of finding their place and importance in the region.

The loss of Afrin would not have had such a great psychological impact on the Kurds, if it were not for the destructive artillery that has been accompanying the people during their struggle for half a year. After years of struggle for independence and freedom, after all, in 2017 On September 25, an independence referendum was held in Iraqi Kurdistan, which promised to be the biggest achievement in the life of the Kurds. However, the military and political successes recorded in Syria and Iraq in the previous years turned into a problem in the lives of forty million people just as quickly, turning the victories into military and political defeats at a dizzying speed.

The Kurdish people live in the clutches of the three state-creating societies of the Middle East: the Turks, the Arabs and the Iranian peoples, having no access to the sea. It is no coincidence that after the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds were immediately targeted by the governments of Iran and Iraq and within a few weeks they lost all the “disputed territories”, including Kirkuk, one of the largest centers of the oil industry in the world. Similarly, the self-defense of the Kurds of the Afrin region against the attacks of the Turks and the “Free Syrian Army” group, which enjoys their patronage, lasted only two months. Today, many people are trying to find explanations why the Kurds, despite their respectable number and opportunities, are unable to record significant successes in the national liberation struggle.

This issue is not only important for the Armenian community from the point of view that the national-liberation struggle of the Kurds mainly refers to the problem of facing the threats coming from Turkey (a problem that is equally relevant in the case of Armenians), but also from the point of view that the Armenians have lived in the grip of three state-creating communities: Turks, Russians and Iranian peoples for the past centuries, and now the Republic of Armenia similarly has no access to the sea.

Many people see the answer to the question in the fact that the Kurds, with their clan (tribal, tribal) social structure, are far from the possibility of becoming a state-creating community. Looking out at the world from the coastal castles on the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris, for now only terror is turning into a political factor. The constant fears expected from the “world’s strong” make them captive to the idea that “power begets right” in the recognition of one’s own state and rights. And that “power”, since it is mainly in the hands of others, you can act against the power centers of the region and recognize your own rights only if you are supported by other regional or geopolitical forces. The destructive effect of this bio-philosophy begins to work from the moment when, at some point in the struggle, individual figures (in essence, the leaders of the ashirets) question the ideas of others about the power balance created in the region and find that the guarantee of victory against some other power in the current situation is so great that it is necessary to make an agreement with him, at least to extract the maximum benefit for his “country” or group (ashiret).

It was this devastating mechanism that worked in 2017. after the September 25 referendum. Although 92 percent of the population said “yes” to independence, the leader of Iraqi Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, as a sum of the fears of the entire political elite, promised not to declare independence immediately, offering his neighbors who formed a coalition against him to help him establish a dialogue with official Baghdad and hold discussions on the territory’s status. A few days later, the process of independence of Kurdistan was already completely defeated, when it became known that the powerful Kurdish “Talabani” clan representing the south of the country signed a separate agreement with the leadership of Iraq, betraying the pan-Kurdish struggle. After that, Bafel Talabani, the son of the former president of Iraq, the former leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Jalal Talabani, tried his best to deny the accusations that he betrayed and allowed the Iraqi forces and the Shia militia to occupy Kirkuk. The latter stated that the forces led by him withdrew in order to avoid heavy losses, while at the same time providing greater rights and opportunities for Iraqi Kurdistan, fixed in an agreement with official Baghdad.

During the events unfolding around Afrin in recent months, the phenomenon of “betrayal” among the Kurds appeared again. However, in this case, it was not their own people who betrayed them, but Russia, the external power which, according to the Kurds, was obliged to support the Kurds while protecting their own rights and freedoms.

Regardless of whether the “betrayal” has internal or external recipients, as well as regardless of whether there is actually betrayal or it has become a way for the Kurds to justify their own defeats, we have a problem to see that we are dealing with a phenomenon that is equally typical of Armenians. After all, like the Kurds, we also look at the outside world in almost the same way, recognizing the subjects related there as absolute centers of power, on which the recognition of our rights depends.

Kurds’ failures and disappointment have one basis. It is the deep-rooted conviction in the consciousness of the Kurds that their salvation depends on the outside world. According to that philosophy, the power centers of the region and the world lie on the way to form their own state power, and by persuading them and making agreements with them, possible rights were obtained. The power of the sovereign, thus, is the result of the energy received from external forces. And this is possible only when you are able to combine your own interests with the political interests of others and get a concrete result in the form of statehood.

This vicious philosophy will still take away many cities and regions from the Kurds. Apart from Russia, everyone, including the USA, will turn the Kurdish question into a coin, until the Kurdish political mind comes to the truth that there is no greater source of power and energy than firmly established self-determination. Self-determination of living in one’s hearth by one’s own laws and defending them with the force of arms. A subjective decision, during which the Kurds will disregard their own fears, the opinions of their neighbors, the calculations about the lack of funds, the lack of allies in the outside world, the concerns of ever being abandoned and betrayed.

The Kurdish national-liberation struggle needs their “Karabakh movement” – a movement whose philosophy outlined the path of Artsakh’s freedom in the past, but which is currently considered nonsense or is not understood even by our political apolitical “figures”. In contrast to the formula “conscious right gives birth to power”, the formula “power gives birth to right” has a history of thousands of years both among us and among the Kurds. Perhaps the problem is that aging nations do not seem to have the potential to rejuvenate. Why live freely, if you can sell the elements of sovereignty and live easily and safely under the roof of others. As a result of Bafel Talabani’s agreement with official Baghdad, from the fact of Iraqi troops entering the territories under Kurdish control to the fact of formation of Russian military police units in Gyumri is one step. The mentality of seeking power in the outside world unites Armenians and Kurds today.

 

Saro Saroyan

Sports: Gevorg Ghazaryan makes appearance for C.S. Marítimo in winning match against Feirense

ArmenPress, Armenia
Gevorg Ghazaryan makes appearance for C.S. Marítimo in winning match against Feirense

YEREVAN, MARCH 31, ARMENPRESS. Gevorg Ghazaryan, midfielder of the Armenian national football team, who also plays for C.S. Marítimo, made an appearance for the Portuguese team as part of a national championship match against Feirense.

C.S. Marítimo defeated Feirense4:1.

Although Ghazaryan wasn’t in the starting lineup, the Armenian was brought in as a substitution in the last minute.

English –translator/editor: Stepan Kocharyan

Aliyev stands on site of leveled Armenian church to threaten Yerevan

PanArmenian, Armenia

PanARMENIAN.Net – When making territorial claims against Armenia for the second time in the past month, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev was standing on the spot where once an Armenian church used to rise.

Addressing the Azerbaijanis on the beginning of Novruz, Aliyev said a big part of the territory of present-day Armenia “is the historical Azerbaijani land.”

It is noteworthy that Aliyev was standing in front of the Maiden Tower where the Armenian church of the Holy Virgin was standing up until 1990, blogger, journalist Sedrak Mkrtchyan said in a tweet.

The church was built in 1797 or 1799 at the foot of the Maiden Tower, a fortress in Baku. According to a diplomat working in the Azerbaijani capital in 1992, the church was demolished in the wake of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Now, there is an empty space at its former site near the Maiden Tower.

Statement by Edward Nalbandian, Minister of Foreign affairs of Armenia at the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament (video)

Chairman McAllister,
Distinguished members of the European Parliament,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to thank for the invitation to address the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I recall our last meeting with Chairman McAlister and members of this Committee in Yerevan, last May, where we had a very open and sincere exchange of views on many issues of mutual interest. Today I look forward to continue our discussions.

Distinguished members of the European Parliament,

Inter-parliamentary cooperation has been an indispensable and integral part of the political dialogue between Armenia and the European Union. The Parliamentary Cooperation Committee provides a productive platform in this regard. Its last session has been successfully convened in Yerevan last December. As our country is about to complete its transition to parliamentary system of governance the role of the inter-parliamentary cooperation gains an increased significance.

Needless to say, that Parliaments stand at the forefront of promotion of democratic values and human rights. Strengthening of democratic institutions has always been among priorities of the Armenia-EU cooperation. The April 2017 Parliamentary elections in Armenia demonstrated that the progress achieved in upholding fundamental freedoms is sustainable and irreversible and we acknowledge the important contribution of the European Union in this regard. We thank the European Parliament for joining the 650 members strong team of international observes in Armenia, which concluded that the parliamentary elections were well administered and fundamental freedoms were respected. The European Union on its part stated that the election result reflected the overall will of the Armenian people. We stand ready to continue our cooperation with the European Union, including through the Human Rights Dialogue, as well as with the OSCE ODIHR, Council of Europe and all other partners in implementing their recommendations on further improving the electoral process and strengthening our democracy.

Mr. Chairman,

The further consolidation of democratic institutions, rule of law, strengthening of judiciary, good governance are at the core of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement signed last November between Armenia and the European Union that was among the major deliverables of the Eastern Partnership Summit in Brussels. The Agreement reflects the depth and scope of our partnership and defines the guidelines for future collaboration. We strongly believe that it will contribute to the successful realization of the reform process and sustainable development of our country in a number of spheres that are covered by the Agreement. We have announced that Armenia will finish the ratification process by April.

Dear friends, we count on your support for the smooth ratification of the Agreement in the national parliaments.

The importance of this Agreement is not limited to the Armenia-EU relations, it is widely acknowledged and quoted as a successful example that brings integration processes closer to each other and effectively bridges interests in the spirit of cooperation. Indeed, Armenia laid the foundations of enhanced partnership with the European Union being an active member of the Eurasian Economic Union. In this regard the Armenia-EU Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement can become a positive precedent for interactions between different integration frameworks. It is indicative that just three days ago at the Munich Security Conference during the roundtable with the President of Armenia both the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Russia’s Federation Council praised Armenia as a role model of the cooperative approach with different integration formats.

The signing of CEPA is not a stand-alone example of the Armenia-EU partnership. Before coming to this meeting I have put my signature together with High Representative Mogherini, as the Co-Chairs of the Armenia-EU Cooperation Council, under the document on the implementation of the Armenia-EU Partnership Priorities document that has been negotiated in parallel with the CEPA and together with it will serve as the main guideline for the Armenia-EU partnership.

In the past two years Armenia has delivered in different fields of mutual cooperation with the EU, namely joining COSME, HORIZON 2020 programs, initialing the Common Aviation Area Agreement, becoming a part of the extended core Trans-European Transport network (TEN-T), finalizing the accession to the “Creative Europe”, that will be signed next month. We are looking forward to the new endeavors, attaching particular importance among others to the launch of visa liberalization dialogue. We appreciate the strong supportive voice of the European Parliament in this regard.

The “20 deliverables for 2020” that the Heads of State and Government have approved at the Brussels Summit offers not only a good action plan for the coming years but also a new revised architecture of the Eastern Partnership, which is directly linked to the performance of the partner countries and more importantly to their political will to deliver on the shared commitments.

We also believe that the principles of differentiation and incentive based approach (more-for-more) offer a unique opportunity to develop a multi-track or multi-layer cooperation, thus allowing us to maintain the integrity of the Eastern partnership.

Distinguished members of the European Parliament,

Obviously, Armenia does its best to improve the partnership climate. However, the cooperative mood in our region continues to be shadowed by the conflicts and dividing lines.

Almost 30 years past after the fall of the Berlin wall Turkey continues to keep its borders with Armenia closed.

When President Serzh Sargsyan assumed the office ten years ago, he initiated a process of normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey without any preconditions. Turkey agreed to proceed on this basis and a year later Armenia and Turkey signed in Zurich two protocols with this purpose. However, just after the signature Turkey has backtracked from the agreements. Not only has it refrained from ratifying the protocols, but Ankara has returned to the language of preconditions that it had used before the beginning of the process. Turkey has attempted to link the Armenian-Turkish normalization process to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based on ungrounded claims of the Azerbaijani side. Any Turkish attempts to interfere in the Karabakh process or to link the normalization of relations with the Nagorno-Karabakh talks, harms both processes. This is a position that the whole international community have emphasized several times.

From the beginning of the process we made it clear in our contacts with the Turkish side as well as publicly that Armenia will never put under question the fact of the Armenian Genocide or the importance of its international recognition. True reconciliation does not consist of forgetting the past or feeding young generations with tales of denial. Armenia did not require the recognition of Genocide by Turkey as a precondition for the normalization of the relations. Paradoxically it is Turkey, that for 100 years has continuously denied the Genocide, has attempted to manipulate that issue, using it as another precondition. While I touched upon this issue, speaking in the premises of the European Parliament, I would like to recall that one of the first resolutions on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide was adopted here back in 1987. Likewise, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the European Parliament for expressing its principled position on the centennial of the Armenian Genocide in 2015.

The normalization process with Turkey could have created new opportunities for both of our nations and the region at large. Armenia spared no effort to see it succeed. Turkey has missed historic chance of reconciliation. Armenia does not resort to the language of preconditions, but equally, we shall never accept preconditions put forth by anyone. As President Sargsyan made it clear last Saturday in his speech at the Munich Security Conference “We cannot wait eternally for Turkey’s response”.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Our discussion with you would be incomplete without reflecting on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

In 1999 the European Parliament adopted a resolution which stipulated that Nagorno-Karabakh declared its independence following similar declarations made by the former Soviet Republics. Indeed, Nagorno-Karabakh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan. However, the leadership of Azerbaijan continuous to claim Nagorno-Karabakh, but not only. On February 8th the President of this country declared that different regions of Armenia, including its capital Yerevan are historic lands of Azerbaijan, where Azerbaijanis must return and that it is Baku’s political and strategic goal. I will leave to your consideration if this is a territorial claim towards a neighboring country, saber-rattling, or something else. But, it is well known that Baku’s belligerence on use of force and threat of force have many times turned into real actions.

In April 2016 Azerbaijan again unleashed large scale military offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh that was accompanied by the gross violations of the international humanitarian law, including killing of children, women, elderly people, mutilation of the corpses, beheadings of captured soldiers in the style used by notorious terrorist organizations. Obviously, this aggression has caused a serious damage to the peace process. Two summits were organized by the mediator Co-Chair countries – USA, Russia and France in the aftermath of aggression, in Vienna and St. Petersburg aimed at stabilizing the situation and creating conducive conditions for the advancement of the peace process. However, Azerbaijan backtracked from the agreements reached at these Summits and refused to implement them. This concerns first and foremost to the creation of the mechanism for investigation of the ceasefire violations and the expansion of the monitoring capacities of the team of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, and of course the strict adherence to the trilateral ceasefire agreements of 1994-1995. There was a one and half year long interval between the high level meetings before the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met again in Geneva last October. The joint statement of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan issued together with the Co-Chairs after the Summit reflected what Armenia has been long advocating for: to intensify the negotiation process and to take additional steps to reduce tensions on the Line of Contact, meaning the realization of the agreements reached at the Vienna and St. Petersburg Summits.

It is not just Armenia that strongly advocates for the implementation of these agreements. The Co-Chairs have continuously stressed the necessity of respecting commitments reached at the Summits and the last such statement was made only days ago. However, Azerbaijan fails to respect the agreements. The recent most illustrative case was the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Krakow in January, where was agreed in principle to implement the expansion of the Office of the Personal Representative. Armenia and the Co-Chairs issued almost identical statements reflecting this agreement while Azerbaijan has not made any reference to it either after the meeting or up to now. When the Co-Chairs were back to the region few days ago, Azerbaijan again failed to honor the implementation of the agreement on the expansion.

It is important for the international community to speak in one voice with the Co-Chair countries to support their approaches with the aim of advancing the peace process. All conflicts are different and it is not possible to put them together or address in the same cluster. There are diverse approaches of the international community in dealing with the different conflicts. In the case of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process the Co-Chair countries have reiterated on numerous occasions, including at the level of presidents, that three principles of the international law form the basis of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution, namely the non-use of force or threat of force, territorial integrity, and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples. These principles were elaborated by the Co-Chairs as an integrated whole and, as they stated, any attempt to select one of them at the expense of others would make it impossible to come to a settlement. All OSCE participating States, including Azerbaijan, endorsed these principles of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution during the December 2009 Ministerial Council in Athens. The European Parliament has supported these principles in a number of resolutions. So did the European Union, including in the Comprehensive and Enhanced partnership Agreement with Armenia. This is what the entire international community endorses.

Any deviation from this compromise language proposed by the impartial mediators would damage the concerted efforts of the international community, would undermine the work of the Co-Chair countries, would send a false signal of disunity that may be exploited by the enemies of peace and eventually may derail the peace talks, open the door for new hostilities. Therefore, this issue should be taken with extreme caution. The position and language of those who have declared their support to the Co-Chairs approaches could not differ from one document to another. It should be made clear once and forever that there is no alternative to the negotiated solution proposed by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs’, including the three principles of international law suggested by them as the basis for the conflict resolution.

Armenia has continuously reiterated that will continue its efforts together with the Co-Chair countries towards exclusively peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Here I will stop my remarks and will look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

Art: Exhibition of artwork by Armenian sculptor to take place at Tretyakov Gallery

Panorama, Armenia
Feb 7 2018

Russia’s Tretyakov Gallery announced today a solo exhibition of the sculptor Nikolai Nikogossian for the first time, dedicated to the 100th anniversary of his birth.

“This ambitious demonstration will allow museum patrons to appraise N.B. Nikogossian’s excellence not only as a sculptor but also as a painter, as the latter persona has been virtually unknown to the general public so far,” the Gallery said in a release. 

According to the source, the exhibition will include portraits, self-portraits, landscapes, and still-lifes – in all, 60 canvases from the master’s family collection.

In addition, 10 graphic sheets will be put on display, as well as 63 sculptured works from the family collection and the Tretyakov Gallery funds.

To note, works of Nikolai Nikogossian – painter, graphic artist, teacher, People’s Artist of Armenia (1977) People’s Artist of the USSR (1982), winner of USSR State Prize (1977) – have entered the “golden fund” of the Soviet art. They are in the Russian Museum, the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow Museum of Modern Art, Museum of Fine Arts of Karelia the State Art gallery of Armenia, in the art museums of former Soviet Union
During his long life, Nikolai Nikogossian created more than 200 busts (in bronze, wood and marble), 600 oil paintings and 3000 charcoal drawings.

Among these works – well-known sculptural portraits of Gorky, G.V.Sviridov, Shostakovich, Komitas, images of Shirakatsi, the composition “Maya Plisetskaya,” “toilers of the Ararat Valley” as well as number of outstanding works of monumental sculpture: the monuments of Avetik Isahakyan in Gyumri, Yeghishe Charents in Yerevan, etc.