Davit Tonoyan to be appointed Armenia’s Defense Minister

Panorama, Armenia

Acting Minister of Emergency Situations Davit Tonoyan will today be appointed Armenia’s Defense Minister, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan told reporters after Friday’s cabinet meeting.

Pashinyan stressed the need to focus on the creation of a “government of consent”, rather than a “government of coalition”. 

“Today, Davit Tonoyan will be appointed Defense Minister; other appointments will come shortly,” he added.   

Russia Armenian racing driver’s car goes airborne at 300 km/h

News.am, Armenia
Russia Armenian racing driver’s car goes airborne at 300 km/h Russia Armenian racing driver’s car goes airborne at 300 km/h

09:50, 11.05.2018
                 

Russian Armenian SMP Racing driver Matevos Isaakyan’s car went airborne and flipped twice during the World Endurance Championship’s Six Hours of Spa in Belgium, reported RIA Novosti news agency of Russia.

The video above shows the vehicle ending up in the barriers after catching air at a speed of 300 km/h.

Subsequently, Isaakyan told F1News that he underwent a medical examination and feels well.

He said that he looked at the footage, but “did not learn anything new.”

The cause of this incident is being looked into.

Watch video at

Antique Armenian bowl put up for sale in Turkey for $200

News.am, Armenia
May 6 2018
Antique Armenian bowl put up for sale in Turkey for $200 (PHOTOS) Antique Armenian bowl put up for sale in Turkey for $200 (PHOTOS)

13:46, 06.05.2018
                  

An antique bowl with Armenian inscriptions on it has been put on the market by a buying and selling website in Turkey.

The person selling this bowl has put it up for sale for US$200.

Also, the seller noted that even though the bowl has a slight damage, it is an original Armenian bowl.

The Critical Corner – 05/07/2018

A History of Armenian Critical Thought… 
 
Armenian News Network / Armenian News
May 7, 2018
By Eddie Arnavoudian

The criticism of an unjust, iniquitous social order, of oppressing and exploiting states and ruling classes is not a Marxist invention! The intellectual critique of foreign and domestic states and elites forms a solid axis in the cultural and intellectual legacy of every nation. Among Armenians too, besides the sycophantic, self-serving glorification of ugly elites, by hired pens of a kept intelligentsia, often priestly, there is an ancient critical tradition worthy of recall and recovery. 
 
From 5th century Moses of Khoren whose powerful ‘Complaint’ against the Armenian ruling establishment startles with contemporary relevance, to 20th century novelist Shirvanzade’s denunciations of heartless Armenian capitalists in Baku, the history of Armenian critical thought shines with challenges to the devastation of community and national life by foreign and domestic elites. 
 
Today when every radical criticism of society (or indeed even the mildest – by Jeremy Corbyn in Britain for example) is denounced or dismissed as dangerous or irrelevant Bolshevism, a reminder of the history of Armenian critical questioning of power can inspire us to hold firm as we battle against forces that today destroy not just community and nation but the very natural world in which these must exist. 
 
 
Part IV: The 18th Century Bourgeois Age
 
I. The Madras Troika
Unlike Britain or France, Armenia did not have a bourgeois revolution that ridding itself of the feudal order and absolute monarchy would set the basis for the evolution of a constitutional democratic republic or state. Nevertheless flowing from specific and peculiar historical, social and economic circumstances the history of Armenian thought registers a coherent and comprehensive 18th century ideological challenge to Ottoman and Iranian feudal occupation and to the Church-dominated Armenian feudal order, a challenge that runs together with a vision of an independent, democratic constitutional Armenian state. 
 
The outstanding exponents of this 18th century worldview were the troika of Joseph Emin (1726-1809), Movses Baghramian (c1720s-c1790s) and Shahamir Shahamirian (1723-1797). All three were rooted or anchored in a hugely wealthy Armenian merchant class settled in Madras, India, with parents or grandparents often hailing from historical Armenia. Born in Iranian Hamadan, Emin and family migrated to India where they prospered as merchants (See Note 1). Originally from Garabagh, Baghramian lived in New Julfa and after adventurous journeys through Russia and the east he settled in Madras where he became tutor to Shahamir Shahamirian’s children. The latter’s birthplace is unknown but his family had also moved from New Julfa to settle in Madras where he made his fortune in the jewelry trade. In 1771 Shahamirian opened his famous printing presses that published the Troika’s works and attracted the rage of the heads of the Armenian Church in Etchmiadzin.  
 
Introducing us to the thought of this Madras Troika, Gevorg Grigoryan’s ‘From the History of Progressive Armenian Socio-Political Thought’ (208pp, 1957, Yerevan) shows them not just as thinkers but as activists reaching out to Armenian forces in western Ottoman and eastern Iranian occupied Armenia as well to the Georgian and Russian monarchies with the ambition of building a united front to liberate Armenian lands from Ottoman and Iranian occupation.
 
The Troika’s political ambition went further. Their opposition to foreign occupation was premised on opposition to the feudal order. In the wake of the liberation of Armenia their intent was to remove the Church-dominated Armenian feudal order and replace it with a democratic, constitutional state after the fashion of the UK. Here the Constitution that described the Madras Troika’s political vision represented a sort of anti-feudal, anti-colonial bourgeois manifesto for struggle, right up to and including armed struggle if necessary.
 
For the Troika an independent Armenian state was envisaged as a safe haven for Armenian commercial and merchant capital that operating in international markets without the protection of its own state was beginning to be challenged and undermined by European competitors. Though limited by their class and their times, their vision had nevertheless a radical, even revolutionary dimension. It was fashioned not only by opposition to imperial domination, by opposition to Armenian Church feudalism, but also by an honourable internationalism and by substantial elements of a state welfare system for the common people. 
 
Leo who was often zealous in his denunciation of wealthy Armenian capitalist merchants, was unrestrained in his enthusiasm for the Troika. To the Armenian community they offered, he wrote ‘the cutting edge of European progressive thought’, ‘the most advanced then available’.  In his opinion Movses Baghramian was ‘a revolutionary thinker’ and the hugely wealthy Shahamir Shahamirian was ‘that Indian domiciled revolutionary jeweler’. Both, together with the ‘small circle of Madras and India based merchants’, glowed liked ‘extreme red revolutionaries’. 
 
Leo’s enthusiasm is understandable. The Troika’s intellectual legacy shows them to have contributed a noteworthy anti-colonial and anti-feudal chapter to the history of modern Armenian thought. These men were oppositionists in the best sense, critics and not just of foreign foes but of domestic forces blocking national progress and development. They were men who looked, found wanting, and sought to act! 
 
 
II. The historical and economic foundations
Historically the path for organic, territorially based Armenian bourgeois economic, social and political development was destroyed twice. The 9th-11th century Bagratouni state had registered substantial economic advance producing seeds of potential capitalist development. In 1049 it fell to Byzantine machinations from the west and Seljuk invasion from the east. Armenian elites readily abandoned their homeland and begun to set up base across the globe. 
 
Not all elites left. In eastern Armenia right into the 16th century stubborn resistance with efforts to recover statehood were accompanied by economic growth that by the late 16th and early 17th centuries formed a new hub for a national revival. The process was cut short by the 1500-1639 Hundred Year Ottoman-Iranian war and the forcible deportation of entire Armenians communities from developing homelands into Iran there to serve Iranian economic development. (See 17th century Arakel Tavrizhetsi’s ‘The History’ – a compelling and tragic account. For a comment you can visit ‘The Critical Corner’ 02/29/2016 at http://www.tcc/tcc-20160229.html)
 
Driving a sturdy merchant class out of Armenian homelands Shah Abbas’s deportations blocked the development of Armenian forces of production in Armenia proper. A new wave of Armenian merchants and traders spread across the globe. British occupied India was one site for settlement. There Armenian capital amassed huge wealth. Acting collectively they formed joint enterprises and began to extend into small scale manufacturing, purchasing plantations and other sources of raw materials. On his death Shahamirian left a fortune of 23 million roubles. He was just one among a group of wealthy merchants that included Shehmiranian, Khojajanian, the Raffaelian brothers, Karamanian, Ohanjanian, Geragian, Babajanian and many others (p25-26). 
 
Together Armenian merchants and capitalists wielded a degree of such economic power that it forced concessions from British imperialism. Representing a significant force in the British occupied Indian economy in 1688 the British East India Company felt compelled to codify equal rights for Armenian capital. Armenian capital grew rapidly, developing its own independent interests. But as British power grew, as it drove out Dutch and French competitors, its unappeased hunger for profit, and its fear of a potentially significant commercial rival pushed it to turn on Armenian wealth. 
 
Armenian capital resisted. It drew up a programme for Armenian autonomy in Madras (p123). It joined Indian forces in revolts against British authority. In 1763 Armenians joined Mir Gassim Ali’s armed uprising. Among the rebel army’s leadership was famous Armenian merchant Grigor Haroutyounianan. The Indian rebel army also included an Armenian battalion. But by 1772, having fortified their subjugation of India, the British made their anti-Armenian move: An act of Parliament rescinded Armenian capital’s privileges. Armenian capital in India was endangered!
 
Beyond India, Armenian wealth had developed in Western Europe, in Russia, in Poland and Ukraine. But here too as in India, European capitals undergoing national development began assault on Armenian business (See the concise ‘History of the Armenian People’, Yerevan, 1975, pp696-697). Across the world Armenian merchants and traders began to feel the fragility of positions that lacked the protection of independent statehood. So the more combative representatives of an emerging globally-based Armenian bourgeois class began to contemplate the restoration of independent Armenian statehood as an effective guardian of their interests. Among them there were significant divergences of vision
 
Within the Tsarist empire where Armenian commerce was prominent in the Northern Caucuses and Astrakhan men such as Hovsep Arghoutian produced an outline of Armenian statehood that in contrast to the Troika represented a right wing clerical programme seeking to restore Armenian feudal estates and relations, within which commercial capital would operate. Against such trends it was the intellectual representatives of India-based Armenian wealth menaced by British greed who elaborated the most progressive platform for an independent and democratic Armenian state as a safe harbour for their wealth accumulation. 
 
 
III. The philosophy and the constitution
Hovsep Emin has left us a gripping and illuminating autobiography, the ‘Life and Adventures of Joseph Emin’ (1792, written in English; a 1918 edition has a substantial stock of Emin’s letters). Baghramian’s legacy is the first Armenian language socio-political pamphlet (‘New Notebook that Call Yordorak’ 1772) that underlines the principle of political organization that he opposed to the individualism he had noted in Armenian life (p48). Shahamirian’s exhaustive and all-encompassing ‘Constitution’ (A trap Paratz 1773) details the entire structure of an independent democratic Armenia. These offer a full description of the Troika’s world view, in their democratic virtues and their sometimes terrible backwardness.
 
The Troika’s outlook was shaped by the conservative wing of European and British Enlightenment philosophy and politics. They were opposed to the 1789 French revolution (p128-129) and were indiscriminate admirers of Europe who never referred to its brutal slave-owning foundations. Emin for example lauds European education thus:
‘If the Europeans had not devoted themselves to education and that in one of the smallest regions of the globe, they would not have been able to stand against Asia or Africa, and moreover they would not have discovered and civilized America (p71).’
 
One gasps and moves on! The Madras Troika were also Christians ascribing nature’s and humanity’s existence to divine creation (p57-58).
 
Yet in the context of Ottoman and Iranian occupation and of the collaborationist feudal Armenian Church that dominated 18th century life Emin, Baghramian and Shahamirian were bourgeois radicals, even revolutionaries. In their Christianity one could say they represented a sort of anti-feudal liberation theology that put the Bible to good democratic use. The Biblical narrative of creation here formed a pillar. Shahamirian:
‘In his struggle against feudal absolutism and against the class rule of the feudal Church, in his affirmation of the rights, the  freedom and equality of the individual and in defence of a rational organisation of society…based himself on the Christian principle that God created all men and women as equal. (p62)
 
Arguing that ‘God created everyone equal’ Joseph Emin opposes absolutist and feudal servitude:
‘A rational person cannot willingly become slave to someone else and must be especially careful not to accept the superiority of his own Christian brethren, for God has created all of them equal…(p78)’
 
Christian convictions were combined with aspects of Enlightenment philosophy and natural law. All human ill, all woe and suffering are born of obscurantism and ignorance, of prejudice and irrationality that conceal Divine and natural truths. Overcome these with education, reason and enlightenment and men and women can begin to create a social order in harmony with their human essence. ‘On earth’ writes Shahamirian ‘man/woman are born naturally equal (p79)’. The rule of law and of constitutional government as the most rational form of social organisation flows from this Divine and natural equality. In contrast, the danger of individual tyranny and of absolute rule is evident, Shahamirian writes, in Armenian history: 
‘Absolute monarchy, individual rule and authority and willful individual action have been the cause of the infinite troubles that have befallen Armenia and the Armenian nation… (These) have reduced us from a state of nobility and happiness to that of being enslaved by others. We have become objects of insult and scorn (p82-83).’
 
This was the starting point of the Troika’s criticism of the Armenian Church that they judged to be an obstacle to national liberation, progress and development. According to Emin:
‘Generally in the last few centuries the Armenian Church and clergy has not only not helped to liberate the Armenian people from the Turkish-Iranian yoke, but in preaching …patience and obedience it has held them back from struggle…has reconciled men to submissiveness…(and)  has destroyed their will to fight… (The Church) ‘…shackles the Armenian people’s spirit (p63-64, 69).’
 
Baghramian asserted that the Church should have no leadership role in the national struggle. It should not even be a partner! Arguing that ‘a layperson has no right to interfere in the affairs of the Church’ he concluded that the clergy ‘should have no right to interfere in the work of the secular world (p65)
 
And so from remote Madras, without reference to the actual Armenian conditions and forces, Shahamirian produced his inspired Constitution, a veritable statement of struggle against Iranian, Ottoman and Armenian feudalism, ironically first published in 1789! The new democratic state was to be headed by an elected legislative assembly and an executive, with its own army and its own judicial systems. The Constitution proclaimed all people equal before the law, irrespective of gender, race, nationality and religion. It encouraged the development of trade and markets by removing a broad band of feudal restrictions (p120-121).  
 
Besides its democratic structures, this Constitution had substantial features of a national welfare system, a social democratic dimension one could say. After meeting requirements of national security, all state income was to be devoted to health and education. A hospital was to be built in every town. Other clauses catered for orphans, for those unable to work and for the elderly who had no family (p116). Separating Church and state, education would be removed from Church hands (Clauses 155, 156 and 397 of the Constitution) and become obligatory for both sexes. With education and enlightenment always central to the Troika, the Constitution required schools to be set up in every town and village (p118). Additionally proposals for a humane prison regime insisted on cleanliness, healthy conditions while also allowing for weekend home visits and even conjugal rights.  
 
Its progressive and democratic qualities notwithstanding, this was a bourgeois nationalist Constitution designed to benefit an Armenian capitalist and landowning class. So even as all nationalities were deemed equal before the law (Clause 2, 3, 10, 128) and even as there was to be complete religious freedom (Clause 5) the Constitution decisively discriminates. It secures Armenians, and only those belonging to the official Armenian Church, the dominant and leading role in political and economic life. 
 
Only Armenians, men, not women and only those affiliated to the official Armenian Church could be elected to public office (p104)!  To secure Armenian economic primacy, at a time when agriculture was still dominant, the Constitution stipulated that only Armenian men affiliated to the Armenian Church could own land (p104)! No account was taken of the multi-national citizenry of an imagined democratic Armenia! Here another underlining of the breach between the objective reality of the homeland and the Troika’s ambitions, revealing a narrow bourgeois nationalist class dimension.
 
Armenian women like non-Armenians were subject to discrimination that made them second class citizens. Despite formal equalities, despite opposition to what was termed the ‘Asiatic’ abuse of women, despite women’s rights to education and the prohibition of forced marriage, the Constitution offers women no role in public economic and political life. And shockingly in the sphere of family law they alone, not the man, would be punishable if unfaithful in conjugal relations (p114)!
 
Representing the political dreams of a segment of Armenia capital being edged out from British occupied India Shahamirian’s Constitution bore little or no relation to actual political, social, economic and demographic conditions in Armenian homelands. But its democratic and social foundation, its anti-imperial and anti-feudal thrust despite its awful limits, reserves for it a valuable place in the history of Armenian democratic thought. Significantly and thought provokingly in all their endeavours the Troika strove for Armenian freedom conscious of the rights of the Georgian and Aghvan peoples too (p133-136, 142,143, 179, 181, 188-190).
 
 
IV. The struggle for statehood 
Emin, Baghramian and Shahamirian were no desk-bound dreamers. Opposed to the selfish egoism so prevalent in public life today, for the Troika the highest form of civic virtue, of public service was active patriotism! Emin indeed turned down a lucrative career in the Russian Tsar’s army to devote his energies to the national struggle despite impossible odds. Men of action, to advance their aims they sought direct links with political and social forces in Armenia. 
 
Mature foundations and social forces for the realisation of an independent Armenian republic did not exist in historic Armenia. Nevertheless the Troika’s efforts did coincide with significant national political fermentation in both Ottoman and Iranian controlled Armenia, most particularly in the eastern Armenia semi-autonomous principalities of Garabagh. With these forces the Troika sought to establish active political relations.
 
Though the Garabagh principalities had lost position and power since the failure of their 1720s uprising against Ottoman and Iranian power, they remained prominent enough for Emin, Baghramian and Shahamirian to regard them as decisive forces for Armenian liberation.  In his history that covers the period Leo writes that for the Madras activists Garabagh was ‘the base for the entire Armenian liberation movement and so they ‘strove to generalize the Garabagh movement across the entire Armenian land and nation (Leo p314 and 282).’
 
Ferment for liberation was also evident in western Armenia, particularly in the region of Mush-Sassoun where the destruction of Armenian life and of their communities was driving people to the edge. The scale of catastrophe is underlined by a frank contemporary Turkish historian who tells of destruction, of forced labour and super-exploitation (See ‘History of Armenia’, 1972, Volume IV, p203). In Mush Emin established relations with Bishop Hovann, progressive leader of the Armenian Church in the region (See Note 2). They discussed projects of liberation that included possible armed uprisings against Ottoman forces. 
 
The paucity of local forces in a contest against Ottoman and Iranian power led the Madras Troika to seek Tsarist aid. This turn to a great power was not however the usual manifestation of Armenian dependency politics. The Troika, and especially Shahamirian, attempted to act as an independent not comprador trend of Armenian wealth. Shahamirian’s Constitution grants Tsarism a prime role in liberating Armenia from Ottoman and Iranian clutches but insists that Tsarist Russia respect the Armenian constitution and does not attempt to impose Russian feudal relations on the land (p139-140). It also demands that as the Armenian state built up its own defences Tsarist troops steadily withdraw from Armenia (p141-142).
 
In the late 1750s and 1760s Emin and Baghramian travelled through Armenia, Georgia and Russia negotiating, mobilising and working to build alliances with Mush and Garabagh as well as with the Georgian and Russian monarchies. Shahmirian, though he never left Madras, maintained systematic correspondence with Garabagh principalities and the Armenian Church in Etchmiadzin that he courted as possible allies. In this courting are evident those terrible contradictions arising from the absence of mature democratic forces in historic Armenian homelands. In search of practical allies the Troika was forced to seek collaboration with the leadership of an Armenian feudal estate that regarded them as the devil incarnate! With an Enlightenment bent they perhaps hoped that rational discussion and consideration would raise the Church leadership above its own material class interests and prejudices. Alas that this would not be so! 
 
A liberated Armenia would face a huge obstacle, a formidable foe in the feudal Church. Through the centuries it had been able to preserve its status as a vast landowning estate with substantial holdings grouped around monasteries in Etchmiadzin, Datev, Gandzasar, Haghbad, Sanahin and Abragounis in the east and Aghtamar, Varak, Narek and Mush in the west.  With 40 different forms of taxing the peasants living on its estates the Church kept them in check with a combination of obscurantist mystification and preaching of passivity. And if this failed they happily turned to occupying state forces to repress resistance (p15-16). 
 
Hugely wealthy and integrated into Iranian imperial power (p153) the Vatican of the Armenian Church, Etchmiadzin, then headed by Simeon of Yerevan arduously sought to thwart the Troika. It obstructed and tried to sabotage Troika relations with Georgian monarchs (p151) and the Garabagh principalities (p152). Opposed to all members of the Troika Simeon of Yerevan was particularly enraged by Baghramian. When Shahamirian sent Simeon a copy of Baghramian’s pamphlet he received a letter by return denouncing Baghramian for uttering ‘words of the devil’ and instructing Shahamirian to collect up and burn all copies of the pamphlet. He goes further demanding that Shahamirian also close his own printing press and stop sending ‘dangerous letters’ to Garabagh’s leadership. He demanded in addition that Shahamirian expel Baghramian from Madras (p156-159)! 
 
The measure of the progressive quality of Troika’s ideological programme and political initiatives was this ugly hatred from the Church, the dominant faction of the Armenian establishment. Against this reactionary, obscurantist feudal force the Troika’s world view, its ideology and programme however remote from the objective conditions that obtained in Armenia, represented and for a time became a genuine, democratic challenge for progress. 
 
* * *
 
Alas the Madras Troika’s practical ventures came to nothing. The homeland did not have the native forces sufficiently strong to uphold a constitutional democratic banner in a struggle for liberation and progress. So the Troika’s vision dissipated leaving little or no influence on the next stage of the national liberation movement into the 19th and 20th centuries. 
 
Some have been harsh in their evaluation! In Volume 2 of ‘The History of Armenian Intellectual Culture’ Arakel Arakelian is utterly dismissive. Emin is depicted as something of a charlatan, while together he claims, the Troika’s:
‘…ideals smashed to smithereens against the rocks of reality.  Their ideas…found no fertile soil and did not develop in the grim reality of 1750s Armenia (p149)’
 
Yet in their anti-colonial ambition, in willingness to take up arms, in opposition to the Church led feudal order in Armenia and in their determination not to bend to Russian feudalism, in their struggle for a genuinely independent statehood and in their concern for the well-being of the common people, the Madras Troika’s ideological vision and work constitutes a rich episode in the history of Armenian national development and nation-building. They were self-made individuals doing their own class and national bidding, not that of another state or nation. They may not have succeeded but compared to 19th century comprador and conservative Armenian capital’s influence and role in the liberation movement the Troika’s was a superior independent light of progressive thought from which we can learn today!
 
Today, for all its limited, 18th century bourgeois vision and conception the Troika’s world view puts them head and shoulders above our contemporary elites. They strove to free Armenia and build an independent nation, develop its economy and its civic society not rob it and gift its resources and business to foreign capital. They did not want to be compradors. While our current elites sell off our national wealth and happily act as agents for foreign business the Troika’s vision embodied a genuinely independent and developed Armenia – independent economically and politically. 
 
 
Note 1
Leo offers the best brief biographical sketch of this truly extraordinary fellow whose authenticity is vouched for among others by British political philosopher Edmund Burke! Leo brings Emin alive both as an adventurous patriot and a determined visionary. See Leo’s ‘History of the Armenian People’, Volume III, Part 2, pp282-321, Yerevan, 1973).  
 
Note 2
Leo in the same volume offers a good account of the Hovann-Emin relationship. They seem to have clicked together almost perfectly. Incredibly Hovann assured Emin that he could mobilise 40,000 western Armenian soldiers to fight Ottoman tyranny if Emin and the Georgian monarchy could put 200 of their troops on occupied Armenian soil! A critical evaluation of the relationship between the two awaits its author.



Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from
Manchester, England, and is Armenian News’s commentator-in-residence on
Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues have
also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open Letter in
Los Angeles.
*******************************************************************
    The Critical Corner:           tcc/
    The Literary Armenian News:         tlg/
    Review & Outlook:             ro/
    World News:                      world/
    The Entertainment Wire:    ew/
    The Photographic Record: orig/Probing-the-Photographic-Record.html
    Armenia House Museums  orig/armeniahousemuseums.html
    Many more features on      
© Copyright 2018 Armenian News Network/Armenian News. All Rights Reserved.

On Credit and for Cash. What Weapons Russia Is Delivering to Armenia and Azerbaijan

Izvestia , Russia
March 30 2018
On Credit and for Cash. What Weapons Russia Is Delivering to Armenia and Azerbaijan
by Konstantin Bogdanov
[Armenian News note: the below is translated from Russian]

In 2018, Russia will start delivering armaments to Armenia under a new credit line of $100 million. Vladimir Drozhzhov, deputy head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, announced this. Material from the iz.ru portal reviews the armaments which conflicting parties — Armenia and Azerbaijan — have received from Russia.

The agreement to provide the credit was signed 24 October 2017. The money is provided at the interest rate of 3 per cent for a period of up to 15 years. The ordered equipment and armaments will be delivered between 2018 and 2022. According to the terms of the agreement, Yerevan can use up to 90 per cent of the Russian credit money to pay for every concluded contract but must first make an advance payment of 10 per cent on its own.

There is no detailed data as to what exactly is to be delivered under this credit. Experts who have analysed regional military potentials have generally concluded that the deliveries are likely to comprise artillery (including self-propelled types), radio stations of artillery reconnaissance designed for counterbattery combat, and means of tactical air defence.

The United States announced in February 2018 that Armenia’s buying Russian armaments could lead to the imposition of sanctions on its state structures and private companies. “These sanctions aim to ensure that Russia faces consequences of its actions. By limiting the possibility of other countries to buy military equipment, we are depriving Russia of the revenue from its sale which could be used for continuing the international campaign of negative influence and destabilization,” the US Embassy in Armenia said, clarifying Washington’s position.

Not for First Time

After the property of the Soviet Army left behind in the South Caucasus was divided in 1992, Armenia continued to receive additional armaments and ammunition at least until mid-1996. According to some sources, it was part of delayed implementation of the agreements onthe division of property. Others said that those were new deliveries which bypassed existing prohibitions. According to the information which Lev Rokhlin, head of the State Duma Committee on Defence, publicized in April 1997, the transferred property could have been worth up to a billion dollars.

More specifically, over 80 T-72 tanks, a certain number of BMP-2 [infantry fighting vehicles], as well as up to 120 rocket and cannon artillery pieces were transferred. A certain number of portable antiaircraft missile systems and some 10,000 pieces of small arms were handed over too. Armenia also got some half a million artillery shells, the same number of 30-milimeter shells for the automatic cannons of BMP-2s, some 1,000 rounds for antitank missiles systems, nearly 350,000 hand grenades, and more than 227 million rounds for small arms.

Subsequent military-technical cooperation with Armenia was of targeted nature and was limited by the state’s difficult financial situation. Things only began moving forward in 2015 when Russia agreed to provide Armenia the first credit of up to $200 million for the purchase of armaments.

Under this credit, Yerevan will get 9K58 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems with ammunition, Igla-S and Verba portable antiaircraft missile systems, TOS-1A Solntsepek heavy flamethrower systems, Konkurs-M and Kornet-E antitank missile systems, and Tigr armoured vehicles. Avtobaza-M mobile electronic reconnaissance systems will also be delivered. Small arms and RPG-226 Aglen grenade launchers will be delivered too, along with communications equipment and engineering equipment. Yerevan has additionally ordered spare parts, aiming systems for tanks, and trucks.

Aside from this line, Yerevan additionally received as part of military aid in 2016 tactical ballistic missile systems Iskander-E, antiaircraft missile systems Buk-M1-2, and radio-electronic warfare systems.

On Other Side

Attentive observers will remember that Russia is delivering armaments not only to Armenia but also to Azerbaijan which is engaged in a conflict with the former over Nagorno-Karabakh. The scale of the deliveries is much larger: For a number of years, the post-Soviet “oil monarchy’s” defence budget alone was larger than Armenia’s entire state budget.

Moscow and Baku signed an intergovernmental agreement on military-technical cooperation as early as 2003. Azerbaijan has ordered a considerable package of armaments in Russia since 2005 (the statistics provided below are from the collection of articles titled Waiting for Storm: South Caucasus which was published by the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies).

Specifically, 162 tanks (62 T-72Bs and 100 T-90Ss) and over 400 other armoured vehicles (118 BMP-3s, as well as BTR-82As and BTR-80As) have been delivered. The number of purchased rocket and cannon artillery pieces and antitank systems has exceeded 300, including self-propelled artillery systems 2S19 Msta-S, 2S31 Vesna, multiple launch rocket system 9K58 Smerch, 100 antitank systems Kornet-E, and two divisions of tracked heavy antitank rocket systems Khrizantema-S, as well as 24 heavy flamethrower systems TOS-1A Solntsepek. Engineering equipment has also been delivered on a large scale.

Azerbaijan’s air defence forces have received from Russia two divisions of antiaircraft missile systems S-300PMU-2 Favourit, two batteries of antiaircraft missile systems 9K332ME Tor-M2E, as well as 300 portable antiaircraft missile systems 9K338 Igla-S.

Additionally, over the last 10 years, Azerbaijan’s security agencies have received 24 Mi-35M helicopters and 77 helicopters of the Mi-17 family. A license agreement for the production of 120,000 AK-74M assault rifles has been signed.

The contracts have only been implemented partially, among other things due to the delayed payments resulting from the sequestration of Baku’s defence budget since 2015. For example, a total of 200 BMP-3 vehicles have been ordered and the entire batch has not been delivered yet. Deliveries of other armoured vehicles as well as of antitank missile systems and TOS-1A systems have also been delayed.

Un apéro avec André Manoukian : « J’ai découvert que l’Arménie pouvait m’apporter autre chose que des névroses »

Le Monde, France
30 mars 2018

Chaque semaine, « L’Epoque » paie son coup. Le musicien évoque, entre deux chips, ses origines, Deleuze, l’amour, et son utilisation de la métaphore.

LE MONDE | 30.03.2018 à 14h18 • Mis à jour le 01.04.2018 à 06h41 | Propos recueillis par Yoanna Sultan-R’bibo

                 
André Manoukian au café Le Croco du Marais à Paris, le 15 mars. | ROBERTO FRANKENBERG POUR « LE MONDE »

Promis juré : « Etre journaliste, pas groupie du pianiste. » Première mise à l’épreuve le matin de l’apéro, par textos interposés : « M. Manoukian, bruit de perceuse au Café Crème, on s’installe en face, au Croco. » « Non, non, venez chez moi, ce sera plus cool. Et puis il y a mon piano. » « O.K. ! » On avait dit pas groupie ! Le photographe douche mon enthousiasme : « La rubrique s’appelle “Un apéro avec”, il me faut un décor de café ! »

Cheveux décoiffés, sourire charmeur, André Manoukian descend de chez lui. « Je vais toujours au café d’en face, mais c’est sympa ici. J’ai découvert ce coin du 3e arrondissement en déjeunant avec des journalistes de Libé. » Il sirote son jus de tomate comme s’il fumait la pipe, se prête avec naturel à la séance photo. « Ça va, ma coupe ? » Derrière mon Perrier, je crève d’envie de lui dire que j’ai tous ses disques, de lui parler de ce concert génial à Lyon, en 2006, d’enchaîner sur sa liaison avec Liane Foly. On avait dit « journaliste Le Monde ». « Parlez-moi de l’Arménie. »

Jazz et sonorités arméniennes

André Manoukian revient justement de l’ONU, à Genève, où il a donné avec Charles Aznavour, un concert en hommage à l’Arménie. Inkala (2008), Melanchology (2011), puis Apatride, sorti en novembre : ses albums solo mêlent tous piano jazz et sonorités arméniennes, comme un voyage vers cet Orient perdu. « Il y a dix ans, grâce à la musique, j’ai découvert que l’Arménie pouvait m’apporter autre chose que des névroses. »

« En milieu hostile, ou même sur un plateau, parler devient un réflexe de protection. Et la métaphore, un langage universel »

Le voilà parti dans le récit familial, marqué au fer rouge par le génocide. Celui d’un père, décédé en 2016, qui a cherché toute sa vie à « s’extraire de la communauté, après une enfance bercée par des récits de massacres ». Puis du grand-père…

ANCA -WR, Local Chapters Meet With L.A. Councilmember David Ryu

ANCA-WR local chapter representatives and staff with LA City Councilmember David Ryu (center)

LOS ANGELES —The Armenian National Committee of America-Western Region visited Los Angeles City Hall on March 7 to meet with Councilmember David Ryu and his staff.  The ANCA delegation was comprised of board members from the ANCA Hollywood and ANCA San Fernando Valley East chapters, along with representatives of the ANCA Western Region.

Councilmember David Ryu represents Los Angeles’ Fourth District, which encompases the Sherman Oaks and Toluca Lake neighborhoods in the Eastern San Fernando Valley and Los Feliz and other neighborhoods adjacent to Little Armenia, Hollywood.

The ANCA delegation and Councilmember Ryu discussed a variety of topics pertaining to the Armenian-American community and district residents in general.  Among the topics discussed were collaborating with the Councilmember on community cleanup efforts, neighborhood safety, and support of Armenian non-profits and youth groups who operate in the Council district, particularly in regards to securing use of sports and other facilities for youth activities.

“The meeting with Councilmember Ryu not only gave us an opportunity to highlight concerns of the Armenian community in his district but to energize, strengthen and solidify our relationship with his office.  The Councilmember expressed a genuine commitment in working closely with the ANCA on issues of concern to the Armenian community. We look forward to a more synergistic collaboration with his office in the future,” said ANCA Hollywood Co-Chairwoman Lara Yeretsian.

ANCA San Fernando Valley East Chairman Levon Baronian, who participated in the meeting, stated, “We are grateful for our continued relationship with Councilmember Ryu.  He has been a willing supporter of our activities in the past and we look forward to increased cooperation with him and his staff in working toward the realization of our common goals.”

Councilmember David Ryu, who is the first Korean-American to be elected to the Los Angeles City Council, emphasized his and his office’s commitment to diversity in his staff, which includes an Armenian-American.  Ryu also expressed interest in visiting local Armenian institutions such as schools and community centers in the near future to become better acquainted with their activities and members.

Also in attendance at the meeting were ANCA-WR Boardmember Anahid Oshagan, ANCA Hollywood Co-Chairman Paul Seradarian and boardmember Joe Kahraman along with ANCA San Fernando Valley Boardmember and ANCA-WR Government Relations Director Serob Abrahamian.

With chapters throughout the State of California and in over a dozen other western states, the ANCA-WR works in cooperation with its national headquarters in Washington, DC, and its Eastern Region counterpart in Boston, to promote the concerns of Armenian Americans.

Armenian and Russian peoples’ friendship is anchored on Christian values – Eduard Sharmazanov

ArmenPress, Armenia
March 7 2018
Armenian and Russian peoples’ friendship is anchored on Christian values – Eduard Sharmazanov

YEREVAN, MARCH 7, ARMENPRESS. The Vice President of the National Assembly of Armenia Eduard Sharmazanov met on March 7 with the RF delegation led by the Executive Director of the History of the Motherland Foundation Konstantin Mogilevsky and the Director of the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Yerevan Sergey Rybinsky, to take part in the Conference dedicated to the 190thanniversary of the Treaty of Turkmenchay.

As ARMENPRESS was informed from the press service of the parliament of Armenia, Eduard Sharmazanov offered condolences on the Russian An-26 aircraft crash while landing at Hmeymim Airport of Syria that claimed lives of over 3 dozens.

The parliament Vice President highlighted the holding of the Conference with the heading “The Treaty of Turkmenchay: 190 Years. The History and the Presentin Yerevan”, underlining that such events are important not only in terms of once again evaluating the past, but also informing the youth about the Armenian-Russian centuries-old friendship and common past.

“The victory in the Great Patriotic War is our peoples’ common victory, and the new generation should be well aware of that and recognize heroes. The Armenian and the Russian peoples’ friendship is anchored on Christian values. We have common values and we should preserve them,” he underscored.

Eduard Sharmazanov proposed them to organize an Armenian-Russian scientific-educational conference dedicated to the Battle of Kursk, noting that the Chief of Marshal of Tank Troops of the Soviet Union, Hero of the Great Patriotic War Hamazasp Babajanyan was the hero of that Battle. He proposed also to discuss the issue of also organizing the exhibition in the Russian Federation with the heading“Parliamentarians against Genocides”dedicated to the 70thjubilee year of the adoption ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocideby the UN.

In terms of the implementation of the initiatives and theprogrammes the guests underlined the support of the History of the Motherland Foundation and the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Yerevan.

The perspectives of the activation of the two peoples’ political, military, educational and scientific ties were discussed. It has been noted that the further development and deepening of the bilateral relations stems from the interests of the two states.

English –translator/editor:Tigran Sirekanyan


‘Sarkissian’s citizenship shouldn’t have been subject of discussion’ – Vice Speaker

Category
Politics

Vice Speaker of Parliament Arpine Hovhannisyan says the citizenship issue of President-elect Armen Sarkissian shouldn’t have become a subject of discussion because he had presented all required information.

Speaking to reporters in the parliament, Hovhannisyan stressed that the president-elect had presented all basis, in accordance to which his citizenship matter shouldn’t have become a subject of such great discussion.

“Under the British law, the citizenship is renounced immediately upon request for dual citizenship holders in case of non-native Brits,” she said.

Commenting on arguments that the opposition is demanding Sarkissian to present the documents proving that he has indeed renounced his British citizenship and is holding solely Armenian citizenship, Hovhannisyan said: “Whether or not Mr. Sarkissian will find it appropriate to publish those documents and at what phase he will find it appropriate are questions which are addressed not to me, but to Mr. Sarkissian”.

Armen Sarkissian was elected by the Parliament of Armenia on March 2. 90 lawmakers voted in favor, while 10 voted against his candidacy.

He is of no relation to incumbent President Serzh Sargsyan.

RFE/RL Armenian Report – 02/27/2018

                                        Tuesday, 
Appeals Court Upholds Guilty Verdict Against Babayan
 . Karlen Aslanian
Armenia - Samvel Babayan, a retired army general critical of the
government, attends an appeals court hearing in Yerevan, 26 February
2018.
Armenia's Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a six-year prison
sentence handed down to Samvel Babayan, a retired army general
prosecuted on charges of illegal arms acquisition and money laundering
which he strongly denies.
It also rejected the appeals of two other suspects in the high-profile
case who were sentenced by a district court in Yerevan to three and
two years in prison in November.
Babayan was arrested in March 2017 after Armenia's National Security
Service (NSS) claimed to have confiscated a surface-to-air rocket
system. The arrest came about two weeks before Armenia's last
parliamentary elections. Babayan was unofficially affiliated with the
ORO alliance led by former Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian and two
other opposition politicians. ORO condemned the criminal case as
politically motivated.
Babayan has since repeatedly denied prosecutors' claims that he
promised to pay other defendants, notably his longtime associate
Sanasar Gabrielian, $50,000 for the delivery of the shoulder-fired
Igla rocket.
Gabrielian, who received the three-year prison sentence, insisted
during their trial that it was he who commissioned the confiscated
Igla. He claimed that he wanted to donate it to Nagorno-Karabakh's
army.
Both defendants appealed against the guilty verdict handed down by the
lower court. They and the third suspect, Armen Poghosian, said they
must be acquitted on all counts.
Armenia - The Court of Appeals hands down a verdict on the appeals of
Samvel Babayan and two other men accused of illegal arms acquisition,
.
"This is a fabricated case," Babayan told the Court of Appeals on
Monday. He reiterated that he only advised Gabrielian to hoard the
sophisticated weapon in a remote Karabakh village and then
confidentially tip off a military official in Stepanakert.
A trial prosecutor insisted, for his part, that the investigators have
substantiated their accusations levelled against Babayan and the other
defendants. Purported evidence presented by them includes a short
segment of a wiretapped telephone conversation between Babayan and
Gabrielian.
Babayan said that his secretly recorded remarks were "taken out of
context." He earlier petitioned the court to have the prosecutors
publicize full audio of the phone call. The court refused to do that.
Babayan, 52, led Karabakh's Armenian-backed army from 1993-1999 and
was widely regarded as the unrecognized republic's most powerful man
at that time. He was arrested in 2000 and subsequently sentenced to 14
years in prison for allegedly masterminding a botched attempt on the
life of the then Karabakh president, Arkady Ghukasian. He was set free
in 2004.
Babayan criticized the current authorities in Yerevan and Stepanakert
after returning to Armenia in May 2016 from Russia where he lived for
five years.
Armenian Parliament To Debate 2008 Crackdown On Opposition
 . Tatevik Lazarian
Armenia - A man walks past burned cars on a street in Yerevan where
security forces clashed with opposition protesters, 2 March 2008.
The National Assembly agreed on Tuesday to debate an
opposition-drafted resolution condemning the use of lethal force
against opposition protesters in Yerevan in the wake of Armenia's
disputed 2008 presidential election.
The parliamentary resolution put forward by the opposition Yelk says
that supporters of opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian protested
against "the falsification" of the results of the election that
formalized the handover of power from outgoing President Robert
Kocharian to Serzh Sarkisian.
It describes as "crude and illegal" the forcible dispersal of those
protests on March 1-2 2008 which left ten people dead. The statement
demands that law-enforcement authorities at last identify and
prosecute those responsible for the killings.
The parliament unanimously voted to include the draft resolution on
its agenda even though its standing committee on legal affairs gave a
formal negative assessment of the document last week. Gevorg
Kostanian, the incoming committee chairman affiliated with the ruling
Republican Party of Armenia (HHK), criticized the Yelk motion.
Armenia - Opposition leader Nikol Pashinian addresses protesters that
barricaded themselves in central Yerevan, 1 March 2008.
Addressing fellow lawmakers before Tuesday's vote, Yelk's
parliamentary leader, Nikol Pashinian, again blamed the authorities
for what was the worst street violence in Armenia's history. "Ten
years ago the police illegally used force against citizens fighting
protesting against the falsification of the presidential elections, as
a result of which ten people were killed in the center of Yerevan," he
said.
"Serzh Sarkisian managed to seize power only thanks to those
killings," charged the outspoken politician who played a major role in
Ter-Petrosian's 2007-2008 opposition movement.
HHK lawmakers rejected such claims during parliamentary hearings on
the unrest that were chaired by Pashinian earlier this
week. Significantly, one of those lawmakers, Samvel Nikoyan, blamed
not only Ter-Petrosian but also Kocharian for the bloodshed. Nikoyan
disputed Kocharian's March 2008 claim that some of the protesters shot
at security forces.
Armenia - Armenian army soldiers are deployed on a street in Yerevan
where security forces clashed with opposition protesters, 2 March
2008.
Ter-Petrosian, who had served as Armenia's first president from
1991-1998, was the main opposition candidate in the February 2008
presidential ballot. He rejected as fraudulent official vote results
that gave victory to Sarkisian.
Many Ter-Petrosian supporters took to the streets to demand a re-run
of the vote. Thousands of them barricaded themselves in downtown
Yerevan on March 1, 2008 after riot police broke up nonstop
demonstrations organized by Ter-Petrosian and his allies in the city's
Liberty Square.
Eight protesters and two police servicemen were killed as security
forces tried to forcibly end that protest as well. Ter-Petrosian urged
his supporters to disperse early on March 2, 2008 shortly after
Kocharian declared a state of emergency and ordered Armenian army
units into the capital.
Dozens of opposition figures, including Pashinian, were subsequently
arrested and prosecuted. The parliamentary statement proposed by Yelk
also demands that Armenian prosecutors review those "fabricated"
criminal cases.
New Body To Oversee Armenian Judiciary
 . Astghik Bedevian
Armenia - A district court building in Yerevan, 27Jun2017.
The Armenian parliament will elect on Wednesday five of the ten
members of a new and powerful body tasked with overseeing Armenia's
courts.
The remaining members of the Supreme Judicial Council will be chosen
by the country's judges who took the bench at least ten years ago.
The council is being set up in accordance with sweeping constitutional
changes enacted in 2015. According to one of those amendments, its
main mission is to "guarantee the independence of the courts and the
judges."
The council will nominate virtually all new judges that will be
appointed by the Armenian president and the National Assembly. It is
also empowered to take disciplinary action against judges or have them
terminated altogether.
The parliament discussed on Tuesday the five members of the council
proposed by the ruling Republican Party (HHK) and its junior coalition
partner, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(Dashnaktsutyun). Lawmakers will vote for or against them in secret
ballot.
The candidates, among them Gagik Harutiunian, the outgoing chairman of
Armenia's Constitutional Court, will have to be backed by at least 63
members of the 105-seat parliament in order to get elected to the
judicial body. The HHK and Dashnaktsutyun control 65 parliament seats.
The two other political groups represented in the legislature chose
not to nominate any candidates. Instead, deputies representing the
opposition Yelk bloc put tough questions to the five candidates on the
parliament floor. In particular, Harutiunian was asked about the
existence of political prisoners and opposition allegations of
electoral fraud that have always been dismissed by the Constitutional
Court.
"I won't confirm or deny [the existence of political prisoners] for
the following reason: I have not looked into any criminal case of this
kind," said Harutiunian.
Yelk's parliamentary leader, Nikol Pashinian, hit out at the
long-serving Constitutional Court chief after the question-and-answer
session. "The guy was vice-president, prime minister and
Constitutional Court chairman # but doesn't know if there have been
political prisoners in Armenia," he said. "This is his relationship to
the truth."
Pashinian also attacked another candidate, former Justice Minister
Gevorg Danielian. He said that Armenian jails were "full of political
prisoners" during Danielian's tenure.
HHK parliamentarians rejected the criticism. "Nobody can call into
question their [professional] qualities that are needed for their
tenure at the Supreme Judicial Council," one of them, former
Prosecutor-General Gevorg Kostanian, said during the debate.
Incidentally, another candidate nominated by the ruling party, Liparit
Melikjanian, ran for the parliament on the Yelk ticket as recently as
one year ago. He accused the Armenian authorities of pursuing
"anti-national policies" during the election campaign.
"I may sympathize with the Yelk bloc in terms of political views but I
think that my political career is over now," Melikjanian said on
Tuesday.
Armenian courts have long been notorious for their lack of
independence from the executive branch. They are still mistrusted by
many citizens despite having undergone frequent structural changes in
the last two decades. Corruption among judges is thought to be another
serious problem.
Sarkisian Encouraged By Faster Economic Growth
Armenia - President Serzh Sarkisian meets with Prime Minister Karen
Karapetian and other senior officials in Yerevan, .
President Serzh Sarkisian hailed on Tuesday robust economic growth
recorded in Armenia last year, while acknowledging that it did not
have a serious impact on living standards.
Sarkisian said the Armenian economy expanded by at least 7.4 percent
in 2017 as het met with Prime Minister Karen Karapetian and other
senior officials to discuss the socioeconomic situation in the
country.
"This is certainly a good indicator," he said. "But we must also bear
in mind that one year of strong economic growth cannot have an impact
on broad sections of our society."
The rapid growth, the president went on, should continue unabated for
two or three more years before its positive effects can be felt by
most Armenians. He noted in that regard that the Armenian government
achieved "good economic indicators" in January as well.
The Finance Ministry made a more modest growth projection last month:
6.7 percent. It had originally forecast a 3.2 percent growth rate. It
revised that target upwards to 4.3 percent in September.
Armenia's National Statistical Service (NSS) has yet to report an
official growth figure for 2017. So far it has released only detailed
separate data on the performance of different sectors of the
economy. In particular, Armenian industrial output rose by over 12
percent, according to the NSS.
In its five-year policy program approved by the parliament last June,
Karapetian's cabinet pledged to ensure that the domestic economy grows
by around 5 percent annually. Sarkisian announced on Tuesday that his
administration will finalize "within several weeks" a 12-year
"strategy for Armenia's socioeconomic development." A statement on the
meeting released by the presidential press service gave no details of
that strategy.
Sarkisian will complete his second and final presidential term on
April 9. He is widely expected to become prime minister and thus
extend his decade-long rule.
Press Review
"Zhoghovurd" reports that the Armenian government is determined to
complete a controversial reform of the national pension system that
triggered street demonstrations in Yerevan in 2014. It will become
mandatory in July for all Armenian workers self-employed individuals
born after 1973. The paper is critical of the new pension system,
saying that it should not be introduced in Armenia because average
wages there are quite low. It says that a higher pension tax envisaged
by the reform will only cut those wages in real terms.
"Zhamanak" says that hardly anyone was surprised by Gagik Tsarukian's
decision to endorse President Serzh Sarkisian's pick for the next head
of state, former Prime Minister Armen Sarkissian. The paper links this
decision to what it sees as a "profound transformation of the
government system in Armenia." Tsarukian is keen to adapt to this
ongoing change, it says.
"Building a party and making it a success in Armenia is a very
difficult task," writes "Hraparak." "Especially if that party does not
make use of government resources its chances of electoral success
become slim # and the likelihood of splits within it greatly
increases. That explains why the history of non-governing parties in
Armenia has been one of volatility and upheavals. Such parties fail to
achieve important results because financial resources and public
platforms mainly serve pro-government forces."
Karapet Rubinian, an opposition figure who has served as deputy
speaker of the Armenian parliament in the past, tells "Aravot" that
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's latest statements on "historic
Azerbaijani lands" in Armenia may be a prelude to renewed fighting in
Nagorno-Karabakh. Rubinian also speculates that Aliyev's decision to
bring Azerbaijan's next presidential election forward by six months is
apparently connected with the ongoing political transition in Armenia.
(Tigran Avetisian)
Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2018 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
www.rferl.org