Zarif, Armenian counterpart discuss regional security

MEHR News Agency, Iran
March 6 2021

TEHRAN, Mar. 06 (MNA) – Iranian Foreign Minister and his Armenian counterpart stressed the significance of addressing regional challenges in a phone talk on Saturday.

Foreign Minister of Armenia Ara Ayvazian had a telephone conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, ARMENPRESS was informed from the press service of the MFA Armenia.

The Foreign Ministers exchanged views on issues of the bilateral agenda. The sides expressed satisfaction with the dynamics of the development of relations based on centuries-old friendship and mutual readiness to strengthen it further was reaffirmed, including through the activation of political dialogue at various levels.

The interlocutors touched upon regional security and stability issues. The Ministers highlighted the role of coordinated cooperation in addressing new regional challenges.

FA/PR

European Commission deplores Azerbaijani attacks on Shushi Cathedral during 2020 war

Save

Share

 10:32, 4 March, 2021

YEREVAN, MARCH 4, ARMENPRESS. In the response to the urgent written question sent to the European Commission by the Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Loucas Fourlas (Cyprus, EPP), the High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell states on behalf of the European Commission that the latter deplores the damages caused to the Shushi Ghazanchetsots Cathedral by the Azerbaijani armed forces, the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) said in a news release.

In the urgent written question addressed by MEP Fourlas, it is mentioned that the Azerbaijani armed forces targeted and attacked Shushi’s Ghazanchetsots Cathedral on 8 October 2020, in violation of international rules of war. The MEP asks the European Commission whether the latter is planning to take steps “to protect both the civilian population and places of worship” in Artsakh/ Nagorno Karabakh that are currently under the Azerbaijani control.

Responding the MEP, the European Commission states that it deplores the destruction of religious and historic monuments in Nagorno Karabakh and underlines the importance of preserving and restoring the cultural and religious heritage.

Furthermore, in his answer the High Representative refers to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017), which gives the definition of the war crimes, targeting of the religious, educational and cultural centers.

The European Commission also welcomes the mission initiated by UNESCO to the regions of Nagorno Karabakh currently under the Azerbaijani control aimed at establishing a first factural assessment of the Armenian cultural heritage. It will also contribute to supporting the preservation and restoration of the cultural sites.

Commenting on the response of the written question, the EAFJD President Kaspar Karampetian stated: “Azerbaijan has to bear full responsibility for the gruesome war crimes committed during and after the 2020 war in Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh, including targeting civilian settlements as well as religious sites i.a. the Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi. Shushi has undeniably been a historical Armenian city, an important center for culture and education, and the symbol of the Armenian revival of Artsakh. The international community and the relevant organizations must closely follow and monitor the preservation of the Armenian religious and cultural heritage in the region. We should not allow yet another act of cultural genocide, such as the destruction of thousands of Armenian medieval cross-stones in Nakhijevan by the Azerbaijani authorities in 2006. Any attempt of demolition of historic Armenian presence in Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh must be prevented and strongly condemned”.

EU agreements with China and Armenia come to life

EFA News
March 3 2021

news: on 1 March two international trade agreements entered into force: the EU-China agreement on cooperation and protection of Geographical Indications, and the EU-Armenia partnership agreement, which entered into force provisionally in June 2018 .

The EU-China agreement, published in the European Journal on 3 December 2020, protects the names of 100 European and 100 Chinese Geographical Indication products.

There are 26 Italian GIs protected by the agreement with Beijing. This is the complete list of Italian products that fall within: Balsamic vinegar of Modena PGI, Asiago PDO, Asti PDO, Barbaresco PDO, Bardolino Superiore PDO, Barolo PDO, Brachetto d’Acqui PDO, Bresaola della Valtellina PGI, Brunello di Montalcino PDO, Chianti DOP, Conegliano-Valdobbiadene Prosecco DOP, Dolcetto d’Alba DOP, Franciacorta DOP, Gorgonzola DOP, Grana Padano DOP, Grappa IG, Montepulciano d’Abruzzo DOP, Mozzarella di Bufala Campana DOP, Parmigiano Reggiano DOP, Pecorino Romano DOP, Parma Ham DOP, Prosciutto di San Daniele DOP, Soave DOP, Taleggio DOP, Tuscan IGP, Vino Nobile di Montepulciano DOP.

While the EU-Armenia agreement protects, for the aromatised wines category, Vermouth of Torino GI, as well as 280 GIs in the food category and all Italian PDO PGI wines.

hef – 17414
Roma, RM, Italia, 03/03/2021 12:39
EFA News – European Food Agency

Office of Prosecutor General urges to refrain from any initiative endangering legal order in Armenia

Tweet

 15:00, 25 February, 2021

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 25, ARMENPRESS. The Office of the Prosecutor General of Armenia has released a statement, warning that any anti-constitutional process, involvement to that process, no matter who will conduct it, will receive the strongest legal assessment.

“The risks of the February 25 statement of the General Staff of the Armenian Armed Forces, the discussions and comments on it in public and social platforms have created preconditions of domestic public, political instability in the Republic, and their possible developments can lead to unpredictable, catastrophic consequences for our state and people from security perspective, with serious treats to the legal and constitutional order.

Therefore, the Office of the Prosecutor General calls on to stay within the regulations of the Constitution of Armenia and avoid irresponsible actions, refrain from any initiative endangering the legal order in the country, the attempts of engaging the Armed Forces to the domestic processes, any action directed against the public order”, the Office said in a statement.

On February 25 the General Staff of the Armenian Forces of Armenia issued a statement, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his Cabinet.

In his turn Pashinyan commented on the statement, calling it as a “military coup attempt”. He invited all his supporters to the Republic Square to discuss the ongoing developments. Currently Pashinyan is marching across Yerevan with his supporters.

Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan

Government under pressure to recognise Armenian genocide ‘at last’

Dutch News
Feb 9 2021

The Dutch government is coming under renewed pressure to recognise the mass slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century as an act of genocide.

Parliament will debate a motion on Thursday that calls on the cabinet to drop the qualified term ‘the question of the Armenian genocide’ when referring to the killing of up to 1.5 million between 1915 and 1917.

The motion, proposed by ChristenUnie MP Joël Voordewind, has the support of the former coalition parties VVD, CDA and the CU itself, as well as Geert Wilders’s PVV party, the Socialists (SP), GroenLinks, the Animal Rights Party (PvdD), 50Plus, Forum voor Democratie and two independents – comfortably enough for a majority.

Three years ago parliament passed a motion to recognise the Armenian genocide, but the cabinet declined to adopt the term. The then deputy prime minister, Labour’s Lodewijk Asscher, argued it was ‘unhelpful’ for governments to make judgments on international law.

‘There are people living in the Netherlands with a family history that this touches on,’ he said.

In the same year junior finance minister Menno Snel represented the Dutch government for the first time at the ceremony in Yerevan to commemorate the victims.

Turkey has always refused to define the mass murder as genocide and the Dutch parliament drew an angry response from Ankara, which accused the Netherlands of hypocrisy because it ‘looked the other way’ during the genocide at Srebrenica in 1995.

The proponents of the new motion say recognising the genocide is an important step towards reconciliation and preventing future atrocities. ‘That’s why it is of great importance first of all that countries speak up clearly. A large majority of the chamber is calling on the Dutch government to finally do this,’ Voordewind told NOS.

ANN/Armenian News – Calendar of Events – 02/11/2021

Armenian News Calendar of events

(All times local to events)

************************************************************************************

What:  “Artsakh Survival Scenario”
           a Zoom lecture in Armenian presented by Giro Manoyan, member of ARF 
Bureau

When:  Thursday,  at 7:30pm
Where: Zoom Lecture
            Organized by Crescenta Valley Meher & Satig Der Ohanessian Youth Center
            2633 Honolulu Ave. Montrose, CA 91020
Misc:  Giro Manoyan will touch upon the Sept.-Nov. 2020, 44-day war which substantially

changed the situation in and around Artsakh, reversing major political, territorial,

diplomatic, and other gains of the last 30 years. The republics of Artsakh and Armenia

face new external and internal challenges and, in some cases, existential threats.

How can the Armenian nation overcome these challenges and threats? What urgent changes are needed? What are the options for Artsakh survival: Artsakh’s international recognition as an independent country, joining Armenia, joining Russia or staying as it is?

           We invite the greater community to attend this free zoom presentation. 
Tel:     818-244-9639

************************************************************************************

Armenian News’s calendar of events is collected and updated mostly from

announcements posted on this list, and submissions to Armenian [email protected].

To submit, send to Armenian [email protected], and please note the following

important points:

  • Armenian News’s administrators have final say on what may be included in Groong’s calendar of events.
  • Posting time is on Thursdays, 06:00 Pacific time.
  • Calendar items are short, functional, and edited to fit a template.
  • There is no guarantee or promise that an item will be published on time.
  • Calendar information is believed to be from reliable sources. However, no responsibility is assumed by Armenian News Administrators for inaccuracies and up-to-date-ness.
  • No commercial events will be accepted. (Dinners, dances, forget it. This is not an ad-space.)

************************************************************************************

  • The Week in Review Podcasts
  • The Critical Corner
  • The Literary Armenian News
  • Review & Outlook
  • Probing the Photographic Record
  • Armenia House Museums
  • ..and much more

© Copyright 2021, Armenian News Network / Armenian News, all rights reserved.

Regards,
Armenian News Network / Armenian News
Los Angeles, CA     / USA

Artsakh military releases names of 29 more fallen soldiers

Panorama, Armenia
Feb 8 2021

The Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) Defense Army on Monday, February 8, released the names of 29 more Armenian servicemen killed repelling Azerbaijani attacks during the 2020 war. 

1. Reservist Muradyan Vigen Israyel, born in 1995

2. Volunteer Khachatryan Arman Shahvalad, born in 1977

3. Volunteer Ohanyan Vahan Surik, born in 1963

4. Volunteer Gareginyan Vahan Karapet, born in 1973

5. Reservist Mkhitaryan Levon Sergey, born in 1982

6. Reservist Sumbulyan Samvel Tovmas, born in 1969

7. Volunteer Galstyan Garegin Garik, born in 1979

8. Reservist Margaryan Hovhannes Gurgen, born in 1987

9. Yelughyan Narek Yuri, born in 1997 

10. Khachatryan Tigran Artur, born in 1998

11. Arakelyan Artur Arayik, born in 1986թ.

12. Reservist Vardanyan Tigran Andranik, born in 1995

13. Volunteer Grigoryan Artur Georgi, born in 1989

14. Melkonyan Samvel Yeghishe, born in 1996

15. Hakobyan Karen Hrahat, born in 1985

16. Hunanyan Grigor Nver, born in 1996

17. Ananyan Robert Artashes, born in 2000

18. Babayan Gor Gagik, born in 2001

19. Hovhannisyan Hovhannes Smbat, born in 2000

20. Mnatsakanyan Gevorg Mnatsakan, born in 2001

21. Manukyan Arman Artur, born in 2001

22. Gasparyan Hovhannes Qajik, born in 2002

23. Mirzoyan Harutyun Hakob, born in 2002

24. Tatintsyan Euner Artur, b. 2001

25. Grigoryan Mkhitar Koryun, born in 2002

26. Vardanyan Avetis Hakob, born in 2000

27. Baghdasaryan Vagharshak Hrachik, born in 2002

28. Melkonyan Hrant Vachagan, born in 2001

29. Khachatryan Garnik Manuk, born in 2000.

After the fighting, uncertainty reigns in Armenia’s borderlands

Open Democracy
Feb 1 2021


The deal that stopped Azerbaijan’s 44-day war against Armenia hints at peace via economic development. Does it convince the people most likely to be affected?

Constance Léon
1 February 2021

“Everyone here volunteered during the war. Even men in their sixties,” said Vardan Hayrapetyan, sitting in the spartan office of his hotel in southern Armenia, near the Iranian border. The hotel mostly caters to Iranian truck drivers who shuttle gas and other goods along the main road through Syunik province, a relatively narrow strip of land that is bordered by Azerbaijani territory on two sides, east and west.

“Most of the men went to defend the border with Nakhichevan and the south of Karabakh,” Vardan added. “That’s where the battles were hardest.”

Nakhichevan is Azerbaijan’s exclave to the west of Armenia, while Nagorno-Karabakh is disputed territory to the east. For 44 days last autumn, Armenia fought a tooth-and-nail defence against Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, home to thousands of Armenians (and before a cataclysmic war in the 1990s, to many Azerbaijanis as well). On 27 September, Azerbaijani forces launched a full-scale military offensive in Karabakh, forcing civilians from their homes with artillery and ground forces, and overwhelming Armenian defences with the help of Turkish-made drones.

Several months later, thousands of soldiers are dead or missing, and many civilians are displaced. Numerous war crimes have been documented. A Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement, announced in November, has tentatively paused the fighting, recognising Azerbaijan’s gains in Karabakh and the “buffer zone” of territory that surrounds it. In the space of six weeks, Armenia’s gains from the war it fought with Azerbaijan in the 1990s have been largely undone.

For Armenia, the effective loss of Karabakh has caused a significant political crisis, with the country’s reformist government coming under huge pressure to win the war. Armenia’s current prime minister Nikol Pashinyan was elected in a landslide after the 2018 ‘Velvet Revolution’, but support for the once popular revolutionary leader has wavered over the course of the war, which many Armenians have seen as existential. Azerbaijani troops are now stationed deep in the heart of what was once Armenian Karabakh and the “buffer zone”, and are visible on Armenia’s official borders. And suddenly, the once porous borders between Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and the buffer zone have hardened.

Economic development and the opening up of cross-border transport links, offer a potential route out of the crisis. This is a potentially attractive proposition for Armenia, a landlocked country whose borders have effectively only been open to two of its neighbours – Iran and Georgia – since the 1990s. Becoming a regional transit hub for the south Caucasus would turn defeat into an opportunity. But to reactivate transport routes cut off during the war in the 1990 will require unprecedented trust between Armenian and Azerbaijani societies. Nowhere is this more relevant in Syunik, since the November peace deal gives Azerbaijan a transport route through southern Armenia to its exclave of Nakhichevan.

In January, in their first joint meeting since the November agreement, the three leaders – Pashinyan, plus the Azerbaijani and Russian presidents Ilham Aliyev and Vladimir Putin – announced a trilateral working group to prepare the “unblocking of all economic and transport links” in the region. But who does this stand to benefit? As a recent analysis published by Euractiv suggests, Turkey and Azerbaijan are pushing for the corridor across southern Armenia, while Russia is keen to revive Soviet-era railway links with Iran.

To some, there is a sense that this development agenda, currently shrouded in diplomatic secrecy, is being imposed on Armenia from the outside – a view reflected on our journey through Syunik in late December 2020, where we found distrust and disappointment, as well as hope for the future.

The main road that links Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, to Iran makes its way south through Syunik province, via the towns of Goris, Kapan and Meghri.

Georgian and Iranian lorries hum along this muddy and winding route that runs directly along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border for a few kilometres, transporting liquified gas, construction materials and other goods. Goris, the town nearest the Lachin corridor, a mountain pass between Armenia and Karabakh, has become busy since the war. Once an aspiring tourist destination, it became the first secure place for civilians fleeing the conflict.

We were installed comfortably in a Lada driven by Henrik, a local who often uses this road. Until recently, it was the only cross-border route to stay permanently open to goods transport during the pandemic in all Armenia.

A few kilometres south of Goris, Henrik pointed out Shurnukh, a village that sits astride the road – and the border with Azerbaijan, now protected by Azerbaijani troops. Before the collapse of Soviet Union, Shurnukh was a largely Azeri-populated village on Armenian territory, whose inhabitants had to leave when the first Karabakh war started. “The village was taken by Armenians in the 1990s and now we are returning it,” Henrik said.

Residents of Shurnukh protesting in late December 2020 | Image: Constance Leon

When we reached Shurnukh, around 20 residents were blocking traffic, in protest against the recent division of their village – and were demanding financial compensation so they can move to Russia. In December, Armenia’s prime minister acknowledged that there were “certain painful situations” in Shurnukh and Vorotan, another nearby village affected by border demarcation with Azerbaijan, and offered financial support to people forced to leave their homes.

One of them is Armen Haroutsounyan, who settled here 30 years ago. Originally from Goris, Haroutsounyan used to work in a military factory, but is now a farmer. “It was better during the Soviet Union, but these houses were already Armenian back then,” he tells us. “Let the compensation money [for the loss of property] go to those who were wounded. I’m going to burn my house down.”

In early January, the Syunik regional administration stated that 11 houses in Shurnukh were situated on the Azerbaijani side of the road. The owners have been given temporary shelter.

After Shurnukh we came to a Russian military checkpoint – a tent manned by four soldiers that monitors the road south to Kapan, the next town after Goris. According to both modern GPS and Soviet-era maps, the next three kilometres of road is part of Azerbaijani territory, now under Azerbaijani control since the war in the autumn. In late December, a “Welcome to Azerbaijan” sign appeared on the road. Because of the risk that drivers will be fired on by Azerbaijani military personnel, the Armenian security services set up an emergency hotline. “Normally, it is the fighting that determines the territories, not the agreements,” said Henrik as we passed.

A few kilometres later, when we reached Kapan, Syunik’s regional capital, Azerbaijani troops were visible from the edge of town, on the other side of the airport.

“The Azeris continue to behave in an offensive manner,” Vardan Hayrapetyan, the hotel owner, later told us. “From Goris to Kapan there are Azeri soldiers. We just do not see an end to the war.”

After Kapan, we reached Meghri, the town closest to the border with Iran. In the central square, in the middle of winter, only one cafe was open. Assya Sarkissian, the owner, was born in Meghri and has run the cafe since retiring from her job as a border guard for Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), which has controlled Armenia’s borders with Turkey and Iran since the 1990s.

“Syunik is the backbone of Armenia,” Sarkissian told us, explaining that the region was struggling. “Economic activity decreased during Covid, but war took over and it affected us more.”

Like many locals, Sarkissian was particularly worried about security. “I have not used the road to Yerevan since the war,” she said. “We have been afraid since the 1990s: the Azeris are unpredictable. Who will guarantee our safety on the road?”

“It’s been agreed that the Russians will guarantee the security of Azeri trucks traveling through Meghri. Who is going to guarantee the security of Armenians taking the road to Yerevan, through Nakhichevan?”

Hayrapetyan’s hotel is in Meghri, and he shared Sarkissian’s concerns. “It’s been agreed that the Russians will guarantee the security of Azeri trucks traveling through Meghri. Who is going to guarantee the security of Armenians taking the road to Yerevan, through Nakhichevan?” he said, referring to Pashinyan’s recent hint that he wants the road that once linked Yerevan to Armenia’s Iranian border through Nakhichevan to be reopened.

In January, Mane Gevorgyan, the Armenian prime minister’s press secretary, announced that, as part of the Moscow diplomatic discussions, the sides were discussing the possibility of letting Armenia use an existing railroad that runs through Nakhichevan to the southern end of Syunik province. “I should emphasise that in Moscow there is no signature on any document on the Karabakh issue or any territorial issue,” Gevorgyan said at the time.

Meghri | CC BY 2.0 Flickr / unbdaveable. Some rights reserved

This is not the first time Syunik – and Meghri, in particular – has been in the spotlight. Gayane Ayvazyan, a researcher who studies Armenian perspectives on Nagorno-Karabakh, told us that Meghri has been central to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since peace talks hosted in the US at Key West, Florida, in 2001.

“The purpose back then was that Armenia would hand over Meghri as a territorial swap in exchange for the Soviet-era Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. Armenia and Azerbaijan initially agreed, but Heydar Aliyev rejected the deal in the end,” Ayvazyan said. “I remember that Meghri residents rejected the idea completely.” A later peace plan, the Madrid Principles, removed Meghri from the discussion, Ayvazyan added.

Secure borders would enable local and national economic development, with Meghri acting as a regional trade hub. As well as providing a transit point for gas from Iran, Meghri’s tropical climate makes for fertile agricultural land, producing kiwis, figs, pomegranates, persimmons and dried fruits that supply the rest of Armenia and are exported to Russia. The region is also a source of copper ore.

Meghri has long been viewed as key to strengthening economic ties with Iran. In 2017, Armenia’s then-prime minister Karen Karapetyan announced that a free economic zone would be established in Meghri. The promised foreign investment never materialised, and in 2019 Armenia’s post-revolution government opened a corruption investigation into the privatisation of public land used for the zone.

“We had a long period of lost opportunities,” said Vahagn Khachatryan, an economist and former mayor of Yerevan. Armenia has three free economic zones, which Khachatryan believes could be used to stimulate local production. Meghri could be especially attractive to joint Iranian-Armenian companies, since both countries are participants in the Eurasia Economic Union.

Khachatryan said that other priorities should be to build a copper smelting facility in Meghri, so that ore mined locally can be processed rather than exported, and to develop hydroelectric infrastructure on the Araks river, which runs along the Iranian border. Armenia’s deputy prime minister, Mher Grigoryan, told openDemocracy by email that “a new modus operandi for the Meghri FEZ [free economic zone] is being developed by Armenia’s Ministry of Economy, and will be announced in the coming days.”

“I realise it’s not very easy, but Armenia has to persuade its neighbours that we just want to live in peace and in economic collaboration, which would be mutually beneficial”

Khachatryan, who stood for parliament in 2017 on a platform that advocated for peace and reconciliation with Armenia’s neighbours, is more circumspect. “I realise it’s not very easy, but Armenia has to persuade its neighbours that we just want to live in peace and in economic collaboration, which would be mutually beneficial.” Armenian society is still in shock from the war, he acknowledged, and needs time to prepare for peace and commerce.

The proposed transport corridor linking Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhichevan will run from east to west across Syunik, in southern Armenia. But aside from the problem of public support in Armenia, it is also unclear how the corridor will work in practice, and how it will comply with international law, says Taline Papazian, a professor at Aix-Marseille University in France, and head of the Armenia Peace Initiative NGO.

“Who will guarantee the road’s ongoing construction maintenance and legal status once completed? Who will control the road, and what currencies will be permitted to trade? What types of goods, weapons and personnel will be allowed to move along it? Perhaps most importantly for Syunik: will it be connected to Meghri or any other Armenian towns?” said Papazian.

Ilham Aliyev, Vladimir Putin and Nikol Pashinyan | Image: Kremlin.ru

The answers to these questions are likely to be determined, at least in part, by Russia, the main broker of the peace deal. “We understand that the priority for Russia is to open roads and railroads to allow rapid good transportation to open up the region,” said Papazian.

More immediately, however, development will require good relations and closer cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. “Without this, the expected effect of opening up – and this is for all the actors concerned – will not take place,” said Papazian.

Armenia’s deputy prime minister declined to comment on specific plans for upcoming meetings with Azerbaijani and Russian representatives. “The goal is to find the best and most efficient formula for cooperation that will eventually contribute to increasing exports and promoting investment, and reducing the prices of imports,” Mher Grigoryan said. “At this stage, we are considering and evaluating all possible options.”

Gerard Libaridian, an academic and former diplomat, told openDemocracy that transport routes are seen by Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan as the most important issue, which explains their prominence in the November agreement. Issues such as the future status of Karabakh and the fate of Armenian prisoners of war have so far been relegated to second place in the negotiations.

More important for Armenia, said Libaridian, a former adviser to the country’s first president Levon Ter-Petrosian, was the question of “what to do about the defeat and Armenia’s decreased level of sovereignty?” For Armenia, any potential economic opportunities should be seen in the “political-strategic context within which these have become possible,” he said.

A crisis roadmap developed by Armenian civil society representatives in December focused on the aftermath of war in Armenia, and suggests that the Nakhichevan-Azerbaijan highway should be negotiated over “in the last place”. Libaridian said that the current situation can best be characterised as the absence of war and a “peace process” that is more imposed than negotiated.

In Syunik, anxiety over what comes next is tempered by a sense of self-sufficiency, in relation to Armenia’s urban centres. Some residents joked to us that they were still waiting for the 2018 revolution – led by the now prime minister Nikol Pashinyan – to reach the region. (In 2018, for example, voters in the regional capital Kapan elected an independent mayor instead of a candidate backed by Pashinyan.)

Several people we met expressed concern that the interests of people in Syunik – which are particular, due to their proximity to several borders – were being overlooked by Armenia’s leaders, and that some form of cohabitation with Azerbaijan was necessary. “You have to stop panicking and be patient to understand someone who lives near the borders,” said Sarkissian, the cafe owner in Meghri.

Hayrapetyan, the hotel manager, was more forthright. “War is a problem of elite politics,” he said. “We care about our children just as the Azeris care about theirs. I was a construction engineer and I worked with Azeris. The people of Yerevan do business abroad with the Azeris in Russia [but] we have to live with our neighbours, we have to build peace. We have already had 30 years of tension. We can’t go on like this for another 30 years.”

Henrik, our driver, put it even more bluntly. “We receive less aid than Karabakh.” Two of his brothers fought at Jabrayil, a part of Karabakh occupied by Armenians until a particularly fierce battle in October.

“When there is a significant change in life, of course there are worries. In general, however, I can say that Syunik is neither restless, nor scared, nor depressed”

Tatevik Hovhannisyan, a political scientist who comes from Kapan, told openDemocracy that Armenia’s government failed to keep the public adequately informed about the war and its consequences, which has led to panic and distrust in Syunik.

“There is a lack of communication between the government and institutions, [or with] local elected authorities, as well as with the general public,” she said. “Citizens aren’t told what to expect and what to do.”

In mid-January, the Armenian government set up an inter-ministerial task force to “manage the activities of discovering and operatively addressing the existing and possible problems in Syunik” after the war. Only one of 16 members of the task force, Syunik’s recently-appointed governor Melikset Poghosyan, comes from the region. The rest are deputy ministers or officials from other state bodies.

“Nobody in Syunik knows about this new body,” said Hovhannisyan. “This speaks volumes about the lack of communication, too.”

A spokesperson for the Syunik regional administration declined to comment on the situation in the region, only stating that many issues had become sensitive.

“When there is a significant change in life, of course there are worries,” said Karen Hambardzumyan, a former Syunik governor who is now an MP with Armenia’s governing My Step Alliance. “In general, however, I can say that Syunik is neither restless, nor scared, nor depressed.”

As the road from Yerevan reaches the Iranian border, it meets the Araks river, which flows close to the frontier. Overlooked by a series of watchtowers, the river – which runs from Turkey through Nakhichevan and along the border with Iran – is protected by a fence originally built to prevent people from escaping the Soviet Union. Before the pandemic, local Armenian farmers would sell their produce in the Iranian market immediately on the other side of the border.

In a canteen on the central square of Agarak village, site of the border crossing into Iran, and close to Azerbaijan’s exclave of Nakhichevan, Anna Vardanyan prepares lunch for lorry drivers passing through. “No matter what borders we end up with, it will still be me washing the dishes,” she told us.

“Since the revolution, Pashinyan has been looking out for ordinary people,” Vardanyan continued. “Everyone gets their retirement pay checks and then, they are able to pay their utility bills. Before the revolution, we would have to pay our taxes without our retirement pensions being paid for months.”

Iranian border as seen from near Meghri | CC BY NC ND 2.0 Sergey Eliseev / Flickr. Some rights reserved

In a separate room of the restaurant, three men are enjoying lunch while smoking. Aram Hayrapetyan, Gor Lachinyan and Leo Zakaryan, Armenians in their early 20s, transport charcuterie from Kapan to other parts of Syunik for a living. They also fought in Jabrayil during the war. “We use the Goris-Kapan road even if it is dangerous. Business keeps going,” said Hayrapetyan.

In December, opposition parties held a mass rally in Yerevan calling for prime minister Pashinyan to resign, in protest at the November peace agreement. People in the cafe were scathing about the protesters.

“Aren’t they ashamed?” Vardanyan said. “It was previous governments who failed to prepare us for these drones [supplied by Turkey to Azerbaijan]. There was nothing the Armenian government could do about them. Pashinyan did well to stop what would have been a bloodbath.”

Zakaryan was more direct. “Protesters are drowning the whole country,” he said.

With a snap parliamentary election announced for later this year, Syunik residents will soon have their chance to pass judgement on Pashinyan – and the post-war economic development agenda..

Back in Meghri, Assya Sarkisyan made a plea for unity. “What concerns me the most is the fight for the seat of prime minister. Let’s be smart, let’s stop these power struggles. We need someone who is strong in their actions and their strategy.”

Additional reporting by Knar Khudoyan. Interpretation by Araks Sahakyan.

Perspectives | What the Second Karabakh War tells us about the liberal international order | Eurasianet

EurasiaNet.org
Feb 1 2021

Kevork Oskanian Feb 1, 2021

 

We live in a time of uncertainty: The order that has governed the basic parameters of international politics since the end of the Cold War is coming under unprecedented challenge. Last year’s war between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be seen as the first interstate war of this new era and so has relevance beyond the borders of the Caucasus. What can the Second Karabakh War tell us about the fate of what is known by international relations scholars as the “liberal international order”?

The liberal international order is the post-World War II system of interstate relations, backed by American power, that promised a more peaceful and orderly world through democratization, international law, and economic integration. In Europe – where these norms had been most fully realized – this order was being expanded by means of NATO and the European Union. Organizations like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, and others were devised to spread the benefits of liberal internationalism to the less fortunate states left outside that expanding zone, including the South Caucasus.

Until the late 2000s, this order had appeared unassailable. But the global financial crisis of 2008, the fallout from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of China and the challenge of populism in the West all put it into doubt. The onetime promise of peace and prosperity though the spread of liberal values was quickly losing credibility.

The fact that the bloodiest and most virulent of all “frozen” conflicts in the former Soviet space exploded again when that order had deteriorated was no accident; the declining salience of the previously dominant, taken-for-granted norms and values played a major role in its thawing.

To be sure, the South Caucasus had always been a region where this order had remained relatively weak. Even between Georgia and Azerbaijan – the region’s friendliest dyad – energy cooperation and investment flows had not translated into more institutionalized bilateral integration. Moreover, the region’s three states had chosen to engage with the main suppliers of liberal public goods – NATO and the EU – on an ad-hoc basis, and to vastly varying extents. The deadly enmity between Armenia and Azerbaijan had, in no small part, been kept in check through an old-fashioned balancing act orchestrated by Russia – happy to provide weaponry to both sides – rather than an acquired respect for the liberal norms inherent to international law.

How that balance between Armenia and Azerbaijan broke down is by now well understood: the Armenian leadership vastly – and fatally – underestimated the disparity between its own capabilities and those of Azerbaijan, pursuing an assertive foreign policy it could not afford. Armenia also misjudged the willingness and ability of both Russia and the West to intervene in the conflict and furthermore was caught off guard by changes in regional politics – most importantly, a much more interventionist Turkish foreign policy. Combined, those developments all made it possible for Baku to undertake the war that ended in a decisive victory.

But what this account – centered as it is on power-political shifts – leaves out is how the decline of the liberal international order enabled it all.

Consider how much the picture has changed over the past 10 years.

In 2010, the U.S. was still a power to be reckoned with in the South Caucasus: pushing NATO membership for Georgia and energy corridors between Azerbaijan and Europe that bypassed Russia, while remaining actively involved in the OSCE Minsk Group mediating the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. The EU’s newly launched Eastern Partnership, and its inherently liberal normative framework, was seen as a desirable short-cut towards development in all three regional capitals. And EU-candidate Turkey could still be coaxed by the U.S. – and to a lesser extent the Europeans – into pursuing “football diplomacy” with Yerevan, while still seeing its security as integrated with, and inseparable from, the wider NATO framework. The region’s states had to orient themselves in a context defined by straightforward competition between Russia on the one hand, and ‘the West’ – broadly defined – on the other.

A decade later, that world had changed beyond recognition. The U.S. had lost interest in grand, long-term strategic interventions in peripheral regions, and had moved away from most of the demonstrative commitment to “values” in its foreign policy; it was little more than an irrelevance during the negotiations surrounding the Second Karabakh War. The Eastern Partnership had diverged into ad-hoc, à-la-carte arrangements with former Soviet states much less willing to accept unilaterally imposed modernizing packages; the most Brussels could muster during the conflict were ineffective expressions of “concern” in the face of large-scale violations of international humanitarian law. The erosion of the U.S. and EU influence had opened the door for middle-power Turkey to choose its own assertive foreign-policy path, independently providing a range of services for clients of its own choice around its neighborhood.

For smaller countries with flexible foreign policies and the ability to play several sides – like Azerbaijan – this development was a boon: The appearance of Turkey as an autonomous actor in particular allowed it leverage against Russia. To small states with fewer options – like Armenia – these developments proved disastrous. Moscow’s long-standing lock on Yerevan’s foreign and security policies – predicated in no small part on the latter’s deep-seated historic distrust of Turkey – left it far less prepared for a more fluid and unpredictable world, where playing within the simple binaries of the past – West/Russia, democratic/authoritarian – no longer had the same currency.

A blip, or the new normal?

The current implications go far beyond the South Caucasus itself. In the U.S. the question is to what extent a new administration, arguably much more wedded to the tenets of the liberal international order, will be able to roll back the damage done to the institutional and normative restraints once taken for granted by regional and extra-regional actors – and not just in the South Caucasus.

In the coming years, will there be a reversion to the pre-Trump templates or a new, more restrained, less interventionist foreign policy? Was the Trump era a blip, a mere interlude, or the indication of something deeper, something structural?

Structural or not, the question of whether – and how – the new team in Washington will be able to successfully address the challenges to the liberal international order will matter far beyond America’s borders. It will matter to supra-national institutions like the EU, built on liberal precepts and thus far incapable of wielding the blunter power-political instruments – hitherto largely outsourced to the U.S. through NATO – needed in these more illiberal times. It will be relevant to middle powers like Turkey, and their choice to explore their own policy autonomy in a less hegemonic era.

And it will matter to small states like Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and the foreign policy choices at their disposal, as NATO expansion, the continued viability of liberal values, and the formal negotiations around Nagorno-Karabakh all have come into question. Whether we see a (last-gasp?) attempt to revert to the old, a more pragmatic adaptation to the new, or something in between, the result will be significant for already complex regions like the South Caucasus.

 

Kevork Oskanian is an honorary research fellow at the University of Birmingham. 

RFE/RL Armenian Report – 02/02/2021

                                        Tuesday, February 02, 2021
Armenian Official Confirms New Eurobond Issue
February 02, 2021
        • Sargis Harutyunyan
Armenia - Martin Galstian, the governor of the Armenian Central Bank, speaks 
with journalists, February 2, 2021.
Central Bank Governor Martin Galstian confirmed on Tuesday reports that Armenia 
has issued its fourth Eurobond worth $750 million to manage its increased public 
debt and budget deficit.
Galstian said that the dollar-denominated bonds, repayable in 10 years at an 
annual yield of almost 3.9 percent, attracted strong interest from foreign 
investors.
“Never before has there been so much demand for bonds issued by Armenia,” he 
told reporters. “This has to do with a number of factors. International 
financial institutions and investors have accumulated large amounts of cash, and 
they are looking to see where to invest them.”
The Armenian government has not yet commented on the latest Eurobond issue. It 
is not clear whether it plans to use the proceeds to fully or partly buy back 
$500 million in similar bonds sold at a 4.2 percent yield in September 2019.
The government needs cash to finance its 2021 budget deficit projected at 341 
billion drams ($658 million) or 5.3 percent of GDP. Under its budget bill 
approved by the parliament in December, 60 percent of the deficit is to be 
covered from external resources.
The government already resorted to additional external borrowing last year to 
make up for a significant shortfall in its tax revenues resulting from an 
economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic. As a result, Armenia’s 
public debt rose by $647 million, to almost $8 billion, in the course of 2020. 
The debt is projected to pass the $9 billion mark this year.
According to the latest Central Bank estimates cited by Galstian, the Armenian 
economy contracted by 7.8 percent last year but should grow by about 2 percent 
in 2021. The government expects slightly faster growth.
Kocharian To Again Visit Moscow
February 02, 2021
        • Robert Zargarian
Armenia -- Former President Robert Kocharian attends his trial in Yerevan, 
February 2, 2021.
The judge presiding over the trial of Robert Kocharian has allowed the former 
Armenian president to visit Moscow for the second time in less than two months, 
it emerged on Tuesday.
A trial prosecutor, Gevorg Baghdasarian, revealed the permission and demanded an 
explanation from the judge, Anna Danibekian, during the latest court hearing on 
coup charges leveled against Kocharian and three other former officials.
“We don’t know the grounds on which Robert Kocharian is allowed to leave 
Armenia,” complained Baghdasarian. He said Danibekian should have consulted with 
the prosecution before making the decision communicated to the Armenian police.
“If you think that the court’s decision must be appealed you are not deprived of 
that possibility,” countered the judge.
Kocharian was allowed to be absent from the country from February 3-8. His 
spokesman Victor Soghomonian told the “Hraparak” newspaper that the ex-president 
will fly to Moscow to take part in a meeting of the board of directors of a 
major Russian corporation, AFK Sistema.
Kocharian has been a board member since 2009. He reportedly attended a board 
meeting during his previous trip to the Russian capital in mid-December.
The 66-year-old, who governed Armenia from 1998-2008, had not been able to 
attend any Sistema meetings since being first arrested in July 2018. He was most 
recently released from jail on bail in May 2020.
Sistema’s main shareholder, Vladimir Yevtushenkov, was reportedly one of four 
wealthy Russian businessmen who paid the bulk of the $4.1 million bail set by 
Armenia’s Court of Appeals.
Russia has criticized the criminal proceedings launched against Kocharian. 
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made a point of congratulating 
him on his birthday anniversaries and praising his legacy.
Some Kocharian loyalists claimed that Putin spoke with his former Armenian 
counterpart by phone during the latter’s December trip to Moscow. Kocharian’s 
office did not confirm that.
The ex-president, his former chief of staff Armen Gevorgian and Armenia’s two 
former top generals, Seyran Ohanian and Yuri Khachaturov, stand accused of 
overthrowing the “constitutional order” after a disputed presidential election 
held during the final weeks of Kocharian’s decade-long rule. The charges stem 
from a deadly post-election unrest in Yerevan. All four defendants reject them 
as politically motivated.
Speaking during Tuesday’s court hearing, Kocharian insisted that he is tried for 
his handling of a “political process.”
Kocharian has been at loggerheads with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s 
government ever since it took office following the “Velvet Revolution” of 
April-May 2018. He has joined opposition groups in blaming Pashinian for 
Armenia’s defeat in the recent war in Nagorno-Karabakh and demanding his 
resignation.
Kocharian said last week that that he and his political allies will participate 
in snap parliamentary elections even if they are held by Armenia’s current 
government. “We will participate and win,” he declared.
Azeri Soldiers Detained, Freed In Armenia
February 02, 2021
        • Nane Sahakian
Armenian -- Armenian army officers at a new border post in Syunik province 
bordering Azerbaijan, December 11, 2020.
The Russian military announced late on Monday that it has secured the release of 
two Azerbaijani army soldiers detained after crossing into Armenia at the 
weekend.
The Defense Ministry in Moscow said they were detained by officers of Armenia’s 
National Security Service (NSS) near the village of Tegh in Armenia’s 
southeastern Syunik province. It gave no details of the incident.
A ministry statement said the Azerbaijani servicemen were freed at the request 
of Russian peacekeeping troops stationed in and around Nagorno-Karabakh.
The NSS and the Armenian Defense Ministry did not comment on the incident on 
Tuesday. Tegh’s mayor, Nerses Shadunts, confirmed the detentions but said he is 
not allowed to disclose their circumstances.
“The situation here is not tense right now,” Shadunts told RFE/RL’s Armenian 
Service. “There is no panic among local people. Everything is normal.”
“As for our border guards and army, you can conclude that everyone was on duty 
and vigilant and properly did their job,” he said.
Tegh is located close to the so-called Lachin corridor that connects Armenia to 
Karabakh and is controlled by the Russian peacekeepers. The rural community also 
borders the rest of the Lachin district which was handed back to Azerbaijan 
under the terms of the Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement that stopped the war 
in Karabakh on November 10.
During the six-week war Russia deployed soldiers and border guards to Syunik to 
help the Armenian military defend the region located southwest of Karabakh 
against possible Azerbaijani attacks. One of the Russian border guard posts was 
set up near Tegh.
Russian troops also patrol sections of the main regional highway straddling the 
Soviet-era Armenian-Azerbaijani border.
Armenian Central Bank Again Raises Key Interest Rate
February 02, 2021
Armenia -- A statue symbolizing the national currency, the dram, outside the 
Central Bank building in Yerevan.
The Central Bank of Armenia (CBA) raised its main interest rate on Tuesday for 
the second time in less than two months.
The CBA’s governing board set the refinancing rate at 5.5 percent, up by 0.25 
percentage points.
The board already raised it by 1 percentage point on December 15 following a 
nearly 6 percent depreciation of the national currency, the dram. The dram’s 
exchange rate has remained largely stable since then.
The CBA said on January 13 that it will again resort to currency interventions 
to ensure “the normal functioning of Armenia’s financial markets.”
In a statement issued later in the day, the bank attributed the latest rate 
increase to stronger inflationary pressures on the Armenian economy. It said 
that the increased cost of imported foodstuffs “considerably” pushed up consumer 
price inflation in the country in December.
CBA data shows that Armenia’s foreign exchange reserves fell from $2.6 billion 
in August 2020 to $2.2 billion in November before growing by over $360 million 
in December.
The Central Bank cut its benchmark rate for four times between March and 
September last year as the Armenian economy plunged into recession due to the 
coronavirus pandemic.
Armenia’s economic outlook worsened further following the ensuing outbreak of 
the war in Nagorno-Karabakh stopped by a Russian-brokered ceasefire on November 
10. The country’s GDP shrunk by an estimated 8.5 percent in 2020.
In its 2021 state budget approved by the parliament in December, the Armenian 
government forecast a GDP growth rate of 3.2 percent for this year. The 
International Monetary Fund expects the Armenian economy to expand by only 1 
percent in 2021.
Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2021 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.