Author: Kalantarian Kevo

H. SAHAKYAN: AZERBAIJAN ESCAPES ANY DISCUSSION ON NK CONFLICT

Panorama
Sept 6 2011
Armenia

“Do the international community and Azerbaijan really have common
dispositions over the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh? Why does Baku keep
ignoring the appeals of that society? Maybe they have too in common
positions that Baku recommends dozens of proposals,” said Hovhannes
Sahakyan, a Member of Parliament from Republican faction.

According to the MP Azerbaijan escapes any meeting, discussion on NK
issue, that country directly or indirectly refuses recommendations
by the mediators.

“The world is tired of shows produced by Azerbaijan which surely
isn’t in favor to the conflict reconciliation,” said the official.

WIKILEAKS. ARF, THE PROTECTOR OF SAMTSKHE-JAVAKHETI

yerkir.am
12:23 – 06.09.2011

With the publication of all WikiLeaks cables from the US State
Department and its diplomatic missions wordwide, interesting
information has become available regarding many issues of concern to
Armenia and Armenians. One of these issues is the situation in Javakhk,
the Samtskhe-Javakheti administrative region in the south of Georgia,
bordering the Republic of Armenia.

WikiLeaks published cables with references to Javakhk, from US missions
in Tbilisi, Yerevan, Moscow, Ankara and Baku, as well as the State
Department number around one hundred.

The cables from the Ankara and Baku embassies are mainly regarding
the Kars-Akhalkalak-Baku railroad construction. There are references
to this railroad in cables from the US diplomatic missions in Yerevan
and Tbilisi.

12 February 2004 (Identifier: 04YEREVAN347)[i], about the official
openning ceremony in Yerevan of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation-Dashnaktsutyun 29th World Congress. In the cable US
Ambassador Ordway writes: “Dashnak Party Chairman Hrand Margarayan’s
February 6 comments on relations with Turkey, N-K, and Georgia’s
Armenian population sparked renewed controversy among Armenia’s
political elite. Margaryan declared during his address to the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF or “Dashnaksutyun”) 29th
World Congress that the GOAM should not entertain closer relations
with Turkey, endorsed permanent independent status for all geographic
regions involved in the N-K conflict and called for autonomy for the
Armenian enclaves in Georgia’s Javakheti region. FM Vartan Oskanian,
who himself addressed the meeting before Margaryan’s speech, was
quick to distance himself and the GOAM from these statements during
press opportunities this week.”

Amb. Ordway goes on: “The most unexpected part of Margaryan’s. He
fell short of calling for an independent state and clarified that an
autonomous Armenian region should exist within the Georgian state.

Margaryan claimed that the Armenian Diaspora was increasingly
supportive of the ARF’s approach to Javakheti.” According to the
Ambassador, the “Speech creates headaches for the GOAM.” Oskanian
did not criticize Margaryan’s comments, but went to great lengths
to categorize them as ARF opinions that ‘do not reflect Government
of Armenia policy. November 2006 (Identifier: 06YEREVAN1645)[x],
US Embassy in Yerevan CDA Godfrey reports: “Georgia’s predominantly
Armenian Samstkhe-Javakheti (S-J) region periodically makes news in
Armenia, colored by the local perception here that Georgians treat
their Armenian minority shabbily. Armenian government officials
have not generally complained on this theme, but others, including
the governing-coalition Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF)
‘Dashnaktsutyun’ party, bemoan what they view as Georgian neglect of
the impoverished and isolated community. Working together, Yerevan
and Tbilisi poloffs recently interviewed the ARF, an Armenian-based
Javakheti advocacy group, and local analysts to assess the issue from
a Yerevan perspective”. “RUN-OF-THE-MILL POVERTY OR POLITICAL NEGLECT?

Giro Manoyan, a member of the nationalist ARF’s party secretariat
(or “Buro”) said that while the Armenian community’s situation has
improved under President Saakashvili, conditions in S-J remain worse
than that of other poor, but ethnically Georgian, regions.

ARMENIAN BAR ASSOCIATION HOSTS ‘RISING STARS’ AWARDS CEREMONY

asbarez
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

ABA chairman Edvin Minassian with 2011 “20 Rising Stars Under 40”
honorees

PASADENA-The Armenian Bar Association held its inaugural “20 Rising
Stars under 40” awards ceremony on July 28 at the Pandora on Green
restaurant in Old Town Pasadena.

The Rising Stars award recognizes 20 Armenian legal professionals
under the age of 40 who have distinguished themselves in their
professions and who have made a meaningful impact on their respective
communities. This year’s honorees span the globe, coming from Toronto,
Boston, Hong Kong and Los Angeles, among other locations.

Master of Ceremonies Garo Hovannisian introduced each honoree to
enthusiastic applause. He noted that “each of the award recipients
has a remarkable story. Their accomplishments in their professions and
their commitment to community and Armenian interests set them apart.”

Hovannisian added that “we’re excited not only for their
accomplishments thus far, but for the prospect of what lies ahead for
each of them, both professionally and in terms of their contributions
to the advancement of the Armenian communities worldwide.”

Armenian Bar Chairman, Edvin Minassian, followed Hovannisian’s
introductory remarks. He noted that “Today’s Rising Stars award
recipients represent the best in the Armenian legal community. When we
honor them we likewise honor the profession we have chosen, one that
ultimately stands as a bulwark against arbitrary government and assures
that the rights of the individual shall remain at the forefront. By
the same token, today’s honorees are not only individuals to whom we
in the Armenian community may point with pride.

They are also, and ultimately more importantly, individuals who have
already made their professional mark in the larger society as well.”

The Bar Association’s Vice Chairman, Garo Ghazarian, also encouraged
the recipients to stay the course and continue to excel, both
professionally and with regard to their commitment to the Armenian
community.

The 2011 Rising Stars award recipients are Ani E. Ajemian (Sherin &
Lodgen, Boston, MA), Armen Akaragian (Mardirossian & Associates, Inc.,
Los Angeles, CA), Michael R. Amerian (Office of the Los Angeles City
Attorney, Los Angeles, CA), Henri Arslanian (UBS Investment Bank,
Hong Kong), Ara A. Babaian (Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP, Beverly Hills,
CA), Nareg Gourjian (Gourjian Law Group, Glendale, CA), Annie P.

Marandjian-Hovanessian (Vulcan Materials Company, Los Angeles, CA),
Ara Jabagchourian (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Burlingame, CA),
Raffi Kassabian (Reed Smith, LLP, Los Angeles, CA), Lara Kayayan
(Home Savings of America, Los Angeles, CA), Karnig Kerkonian (The
Kerkonian Law Firm, LLP, Evanston, IL), Alex Khachaturian (White &
Case LLP, Washington, DC), Hovanes Margarian (The Law Office of Hovanes
Margarian, Sherman Oaks, CA), Armen S. Martin (Liner Grode et al.,
Los Angeles, CA), Mampre Pomakian (LAUSD, Office of General Counsel,
Los Angeles, CA), Suzanne J. Prysak (Jenner & Block, LLP, Chicago,
IL), Chris K. Safarian (Safarian & Choi, Los Angeles, CA), Nicole J.

Simonian (Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA), and Fernand Vartanian
(ACE INA Insurance, Toronto, ONT, Canada).

More than 200 guests attended the gala awards ceremony. Among the
many prominent attendees were Zaven V. Sinanian (Judge, Los Angeles
Superior Court), Chahe-Philippe Arslanian (Judge, Superior Court,
Toronto, ONT, Canada), Antranig Kasbarian (Chairman, ARF Central
Committee, Eastern U.S., and Executive Director, Tufenkian Foundation),
Garo Mardirossian (immediate past president of the Consumer Attorneys
Association of Los Angeles), and Steven Dadaian, Esq., (Senior policy
advisor, Armenian National Committee). On a more personal note,
the ArmenBar is particularly gratified that so many family members
chose to accompany honorees, many traveling considerable distances
to participate in the ceremony. Their presence and obvious exuberance
added a measure of sparkle to what was an altogether enjoyable evening.

STEPAN GRIGORYAN ON KREMLIN’S INABILITY TO RESOLVE KARABAKH ISSUE

Tert.am
22:56 06.09.11

RIA Novosti has interviewd Stepan Grigoryan, an active participant
in the Karabakh national-liberation movement, member of the Karabakh
Committee at the Yerevan Physics Institute, deputy of the Armenian
Supreme Soviet in 1990-1995, one of Armenia’s most prominent political
scientists and head of the Analytical Centre on Globalisation and
Regional Cooperation.

Question: Why was the independence of the NKR proclaimed in September
1991?

Answer: To answer this question we should recall what happened in
the late 1980s. Perestroika intensified democratic attitudes in major
Soviet cities and evoked hopes for the restoration of justice regarding
the many national minorities in the country’s outskirts.

Thus, Armenians who were in the majority in the NGAR demanded its
return to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) and the
restoration of usurped political, economic, and social rights.

These demands were strong enough in Armenia to produce a powerful
Armenian national movement in February 1988. This political force
broke the Armenian Communist Party’s long-standing monopoly on power.

Since its birth, the Karabakh movement carried a powerful democratic
impetus. Armenia was the first Soviet republic to adopt a new law on
elections in the middle of 1989. It allowed every Armenian citizen to
run for the elections to the Armenian Supreme Soviet by collecting
signatures of other citizens (before, the monopoly to nominate
candidates belonged to the Armenian communists) and have their own
elected representatives at all constituencies.

In May 1990, Armenia held free democratic elections to its Supreme
Soviet (now the National Assembly of Armenia) that allowed it to form
a multi-party parliament. It was this parliament that adopted laws
on the freedom of the media, on parties and public organizations,
and freedom of religion. It also endorsed a package of laws for the
transition to the market economy.

Regrettably, the communist Kremlin reacted negatively to all
initiatives set forth by Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh. The Kremlin
fully controlled the media and used it to flare up ethnic hate in the
South Caucasus. Many remember reports on the Karabakh conflict in the
Vremya TV program and articles in the newspapers Pravda and Izvestia.

It was impossible to understand anything from them except that
“extremists are staging rallies and marches” and that “people of
different nationalities were killed” during clashes. This was reported
at the time when peaceful rallies of several hundred thousand people
gathered on Freedom Square in Yerevan in 1988-1990. Apart from the
Nagorny Karabakh issue, they discussed the democratization of Armenian
society, freedom of speech, human rights, and fair and free elections.

According to the established Soviet, or rather imperial tradition,
the Kremlin decided to control the situation by turning different
ethnic, religious, and social groups against each other. When the
extraordinary session of the NGAR Soviet of People’s Deputies made
a political decision on February 20, 1988 to request the region’s
withdrawal from the Azerbaijan SSR and inclusion into the Armenian
SSR, it was the Kremlin personified by the CPSU Central Committee
Politburo rather than Azerbaijan that had a sore reaction to it and
later resorted to force. It is enough to recall Operation Ring that
special units of the Soviet Interior Ministry forces held with the
use of armor under the pretext of fighting illegal armed formations in
May-August 1991 in Armenian villages in the north of Nagorny Karabakh,
the Shaumyan district and the Getashen sub-region of Azerbaijan. This
operation led to the deportation of Armenians from these villages.

These actions consolidated the positions of the forces in Armenia and
Nagorny Karabakh that did not believe in the communist government’s
ability to resolve the Karabakh issue in a peaceful and fair way or
to reform the political system. Therefore, the Supreme Soviet of
Armenia adopted a declaration of independence on August 23, 1990,
a year before the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP)
staged a coup. Its neighbors in the Caucasus passed similar documents
a year later.

The GKChP coup could not change anything in the position of the new
Armenian political elite with modern democratic views. Moreover,
the events around the Nagorny Karabakh issue led to the exodus of
Armenians from Azerbaijan after 1988. They showed the Kremlin’s
inability and likely reluctance to resolve the extremely serious
issues facing the nation.

There was a demonstrative difference in the approach of Armenia and
Nagorny Karabakh. Stepanakert linked more hopes with the central power
but after the Operation Ring and the end of the coup spearheaded by
the Karabakh leaders with hopes that Moscow will resolve the Nagorny
Karabakh issue.

Nagorny Karabakh decided to secede from the Azerbaijan SSR in full
conformity with the Soviet Constitution. I’d like to mention one
important fact that Baku wants to keep silent about. On August 30,
1991, the Azerbaijan Supreme Soviet adopted a resolution on restoring
the political independence of the Azerbaijan Republic based on the
proclamation of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR), on May 28,
1918. The resolution makes modern Azerbaijan the legal successor of
the ADR. But at that time Nagorny Karabakh was not part of the ADR. I
think it wold be logical to assume that having proclaimed itself the
legal successor of the ADR, Azerbaijan thereby agreed to Karabakh’s
cessation. It’s important to also take into account the fact that
the League of Nations declared Nagorny Karabakh a disputed territory
in 1918.

Armenia was the only Soviet republic to gain its independence according
to Soviet laws (a republic wishing to secede had to make notice about
the start of the procedure a year in advance). During the coup, the new
leaders of Armenia had their concerns but they were bent on holding a
referendum on independence. It took place as planned on September 21,
1991, and 94% of Armenia’s population voted for its independence.

On December 10, 1991, in two months and a half and just a few days
before the Soviet Union’s official disintegration, the overwhelming
majority of the population in Nagorny Karabakh – 99.89% — voted at a
referendum for its complete independence from Azerbaijan. This event
was followed by large-scale military actions, which, as a result,
paved the way for Nagorny Karabakh’s independence, but this is a
whole different story.

EU STATEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN AZERBAIJAN

AZG DAILY
07-09-2011

On September 1 the European Union issued a statement on human rights,
fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in Azerbaijan. The statement
reads as follows:

“The European Union continues to closely monitor the situation of
human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in Azerbaijan.

We would like to express our concern about the recent demolition
of houses and the expropriation of property in the Baku area. In
particular, the EU is worried by the demolition on 11 August 2011 of
the Institute for Peace and Democracy’s office in Baku. The issue has
been aggravated by the fact that the destruction took place in spite
of a valid Court Judgement of 24 May 2011. We call on Azerbaijan
to thoroughly investigate this case and to honour respective legal
provisions in the domain of property rights. The EU will monitor
developments related to property rights in Azerbaijan and offers its
co-operation to discuss the best international practices that can be
used in this area.

The EU also remains concerned about the situation of political
prisoners in Azerbaijan. We have been alerted by the fact that on
25 August 2011, six citizens of Azerbaijan have been sentenced to
prison terms between 18 months and three years on the basis of their
participation in demonstrations that took place on 2 April 2011 in
Baku. Eight more defendants are awaiting trial. We take note that human
rights defender Mr Vidadi Iskenderov has been sentenced to three-year
imprisonment on 26 August and that he will appeal the verdict on the
basis that court proceedings in his case did not comply with fair
trial standards.

In this context, the EU calls on the Azerbaijani judiciary to
ensure fair, transparent and evidence-based trials, including
appeal processes. We call upon the Azerbaijani authorities to avoid
politicisation of the judicial process and to ensure that it is
respected. Moreover, recalling our statement of 19 May 2011, we are
concerned about the situation of the now imprisoned youth activists and
bloggers Bakhtiyar Hajiyev and Jabbar Savalan. We regret that on 15
August the Azerbaijani Ministry of Justice denied the German Federal
Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid
visiting Azerbaijan access to Mr Hajiyev. The

EU is also disappointed to learn that the appeal courts in the cases
of both Hajiyev and Savalan have ruled to uphold the imprisonment
sentences. We welcome the intervention of the Representative on
Freedom of the Media in these two cases.

The EU expects Azerbaijan to fulfil its international obligations in
the field of human rights, including those stemming from the European
Convention on Human Rights. We call on the government of Azerbaijan to
extend an invitation to the Rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe on Political Prisoners.

Finally, stressing that full respect for human rights, fundamental
freedoms and the rule of law is at the heart of the OSCE commitments,
as well as of the framework for co-operation within the Eastern
Partnership, we remain committed to assisting Azerbaijan in fulfilling
its respective commitments, particularly those assumed within the
OSCE framework. The EU invites Azerbaijan to provide updates on
developments with regard to all the matters we have raised today.”

FATHER AND UNCLE OF THE SOLDIER DRIVEN TO MADNESS IN ARMY ARE READY TO DEMAND JUSTICE IN THE REPUBLIC SQUARE

arminfo
Tuesday, September 6, 16:08

Father and uncle of the soldier of the NKR Defense Army Hovhanness
Vardanyan, who has proved in the psychiatric hospital, are ready to
take posters and rally in the Republic Square to get justice.

The video posted on Youtube by the initiative group “We will not keep
silent!” tells that the
comrade of Hovhaness Vardanyan informed the family of the soldier that
their son was taken to psychiatric hospital 9 days ago. Vardanyan’s
father tells that his son underwent medical examination twice and was
drafted by the Ararat Territorial Military Commission. He was healthy
and went for sports. He served normally a year and 2 months before
he had a quarrel with an officer. Hovhaness’s father was informed of
the incident with a delay of 17 days.

The territorial military commission called the incident a
misunderstanding. Vardanyan’s father phoned the commander of his son
to get more information on the incident. The commander explained
nothing. The Defense Ministry has not responded to the statements
of the soldier’s relatives since August 3. Vardanyan’s father tells
that when he visited the son in the hospital, he was given certain
documents saying that his son was excused from duty. The documents
tell nothing about the incident in the army. He was told that his
son got a fright and a shock. Vardanyan’s father declares that his
son was beaten up in the army and there are still signs of violence
on his legs and back. “I sent a healthy boy to army, and has got him
back from Karabakh in such state,” the father cried out.

The soldier in the video just repeats separate phrases going to and
fro, rolling on the ground and saying that he served well in Karabakh
but he was beaten up and raped. The uncle of the soldier Aram Virabyan
expressed indignation at the negligence of the higher instances to
the incident. “This negligence makes us leave for Karabakh and settle
accounts with the offenders. We are ready to rally in the square with
posters,” he said.

FRANCE WILL SUPPORT STATUS QUO

Lragir.am News

16:09:32 – 06/09/2011

Political scientist Igor Muradyan commented on Philippe Lefort’s
appointment as EUSR for South Caucasus

The newly-appointed EUSR for South Caucasus and the Crisis in Georgia
is going to pay a visit to the region, which aroused much interest
in the countries of the region.

Philippe Lefort used to serve as Head of the General Directorate of
the Continental Europe at the French Foreign Ministry, earlier he
worked as French ambassador to Georgia. Once, his visits to Abkhazia
as French ambassador aroused great interest, as well as, later as
Foreign Ministry official along with this German counterpart.

Philippe Lefort’s visit to Turkmenistan in connection with the
political and geo-economic problems was interesting too. According to
the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the
European Union, Catherine Ashton, Philippe Lefort is an experienced
diplomat, he knows the region very well and perfectly fits this office.

We have to note also that the French diplomat is an excellent analyst
and subtly understands most delicate parts of politics in the South
Caucasus and other regions. It is difficult to say for sure why a
Frenchman was appointed to the post of EU Special Representative for
South Caucasus, but we can offer some considerations on this subject.

First of all, we should note that France has been a Co-Chair of OSCE
Minsk group for many years, as well as, France played a unique and
excellent role in the normalization of the Georgian-Russian war. But,
apparently, there are more principled factors of the appointment of the
French diplomat to this post. Perhaps, some key events happened which
have not been adequately reflected in the public debate – namely, the
current and potential capabilities and intentions of the United States
and Russia in the Black Sea and South Caucasus have been clarified.

Briefly, Russia demonstrated an evident failure in the regional
politics and its dreams on “equidistance” from Armenia and Azerbaijan
faded away and in this stage, Russia did everything to hold away
Armenia and the Armenian nation, at the same time, it will not get
anything from its relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

United States returned to the original plans to strengthen its presence
in the interior regions of Eurasia and began to ignore Russia’s
interests and positions in all functional and geopolitical lines. But,
despite the fact that the U.S. position seems to be more active than
Russia’s, the Americans do not feel any enthusiasm for the nomination
of any new initiatives to resolve conflicts and problems in the region.

In a way, Russia’s policy during the last 10 years greatly contributed
to establishing and strengthening of the U.S. positions which is
satisfied with the current situation of all countries and the general
alignment of forces in the South Caucasus. In the current situation,
appeared the demand for a “third” party, which can only be the
European Union, but rather, France, which represents the interests
of Europe. It is quite clear that, unlike the U.S. and Russia, the
Europeans do not have the necessary operational capabilities needed
for the influence in a region like the South Caucasus, but this does
not mean that Europe assumes a passive role in the politics of the
region and prefers to just watch the regional processes.

In order to understand the positions of France and its partners
in Europe in the regional policy, it is necessary to attentively
consider the political events in the Arab countries, first of all,
in Libya and Syria. At the same time, it is necessary to focus on
the positions of both leading European partners of France, Germany
and Great Britain, which means combination of more moderate and at
the same time sufficiently proactive policies.

There is no doubt that France has developed its policy regarding
Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, which would require consideration
of new developments in the politics of Turkey, Iran and Russia. As
you know, France has taken a tougher stance against Iran and holds a
very delicate, almost latent, but an effective policy towards Turkey,
where the tactics of France and the U.S. are very similar, which is
reflected in the policy of “containment” of Turkey’s foreign policy
ambitions in the region.

It is yet difficult to define quite thoroughly and confidently the
policies of France in relation to the South Caucasus, moreover,
presenting on behalf of Europe, which actually, is happening, Paris
should take into account the stances and positions of its European
partners. There are several signals that the Europeans, and first
of all, France, prefers not initiating new ambitious projects on any
“normalization”.

Rather, France and Europe would prefer to encourage the policy of
maintaining the “status quo”, with successive promotion of mutual
understanding between the parties to conflicts. Apparently, this is
not just a political style, but very pragmatic policy, which certainly
has reasons, as the repetition of “principles” of the “settlement”
has not yet led to anything but increase of the tension.

BAKO SAHAKYAN VISITED THE CONSTRUCTION SITE OF THE “ARTSAKH”

Noyan Tapan
06.09.2011 | 18:01

Economy

(Noyan Tapan – 06.09.2011) On 6 September President of the Artsakh
Republic Bako Sahakyan visited the construction site of the “Artsakh”
dwelling district being built in capital Stepanakert and convoked a
working consultation dedicated to the carried out activities.

Minister of municipal engineering Karen Shahramanyan delivered a
corresponding report.

The Head of the State noted the importance of maintaining high working
paces in the final stage of the construction and putting into operation
a district corresponding to modern standards.

Premier Ara Haroutyunyan and other officials partook at the
consultation.

BANK VTB (ARMENIA) RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF GRATITUDE FOR SUPPORTING IN RESTORATION OF MILITARY MEMORIAL IN THE CITY DILIJAN

ARKA
Sep 6, 2011

YEREVAN, September 6. /ARKA/. Bank VTB (Armenia) received a gratitude
certificate from Dilijan Municipality for supporting in restoration
and maintenance of the memorial to Soviet soldiers in Dilijan,
press-service of the Bank informed “ARKA”.

City Mayor of Dilijan Armen Santrosyan handled the certificate to
General Director of Bank VTB (Armenia) Valeri Ovsyannikov on Saturday
during the official opening ceremony of the restored monument –
the greatest monument to the heroes of the Great World War II in
Transcaucasia.

Santrosyan thanked Ovsyannikov and wished the management and the staff
of the Bank further prosperity and achievements in their activity.

Ovsyannikov thanked the City Mayor and administration of Dilijan
for their attention. “Cooperation of Bank VTB (Armenia) and the
administration of the city Dilijan in recent years is developing
successfully in several directions. I hope that this positive trend
has all pre-conditions for continuation and expansion for the benefit
of the city and the people of Dilijan”, he said.

The event in Dilijan which took place on the territory of the memorial
to Soviet soldiers – heroes of the Great World War II was dedicated
to 66th anniversary of the end of the war.

Veterans of war from Yerevan and other cities of Armenia,
schoolchildren, students, representatives of the society of Dilijan
and Tavush region, Dilijan administration, official representatives
of Russian Embassy in Armenia, management of “Rosgossotrudnichestvvo”
in Armenia, Fund of Support to Russians in Armenia, representatives
of Russian community in Armenia, veteran organizations, delegation
of Bank VTB (Armenia) and mass media participated in the event.

CJSC “Bank VTB (Armenia)” became participant of international financial
group VTB in April 2004. Currently it is the second largest in Russia,
VTB Bank (CJSC) owning 100% of shares of “Bank VTB (Armenia)”. The
Bank is traditionally among the leaders of the banking system of
Armenia by a number of key indicators. The Bank now owns the largest
branch network in the country – 68 branches

THE HISTORICAL GROUNDS OF THE KARABAKH ISSUE ARE INDISPUTABLE
Ruzan Ishkhanian

Sunday, 04 September 2011 08:50

The goal is to intensify the propaganda in this direction in the
international community

Within the events on the 20th anniversary of the NKR declaration, the
recent round-table discussions at the Republican TV were dedicated to
the issues of the historical science in Artsakh. What was the situation
in the sphere before the Artsakh National-Liberation Movement, what has
changed after the independence declaration, and to what extent is the
international community aware of the issue’s historical grounds? The
basic accents related to the conduct of proper propaganda works on the
international level, the current priorities of the historical sciences’
development, and systematization of the historians’ activities.

Participants of the round-table discussions were doctor of historical
sciences, professor, dean of the ArSU (Artsakh State University)
history department Valery Avanesian, candidate of historical sciences,
professor, chief of the ArSU Armenian sciences department Vahram
Balayan, candidate of historical sciences Vardges Safarian, candidate
of historical sciences, political scientist David Babayan, candidate
of historical sciences, director of the Artsakh museum of history and
local lore Melanya Balayan, chief of the monuments’ protection and
record section of the tourism department under the NKR Government
Slava Sargsian, candidate of historical sciences Mher Harutyunian,
and lecturer of history Loreta Abrahamian. The discussions were led
by the Artsakh TV journalist Norayr Hovsepian.

The communist ideology and colonialist dependence from Azerbaijan
negatively impacted the development of the historical science in
Artsakh. The so-called Azerbaijani historical science appropriated
the eastern Armenian provinces’ history, which didn’t let the
Armenian historians study and comment on the real situation. In a
similar situation, the Azerbaijani historians fabricated what didn’t
take place in reality. Introducing the Soviet reality, chief of the
Armenian science department V. Balayan emphasized in particular that
the Armenian historical science couldn’t focus its potential and
strike a blow on this falsification. Though there were individuals
among our historians (Bagrat Ulubabian, Ashot Hovhannisian) who tried
to introduce the historical truth, but it wasn’t enough. It should
be also noted that the lecturers of the historical department of the
then Stepanakert Pedagogical Institute tried to introduce the dark
sides of the Artsakh history. Valery Avanesian noted the absurdity
taken place at the institute – the Armenian history wasn’t studied
at the historical department; instead, the Azerbaijani history was
firmly studied. Naturally, the historians faced certain difficulties
in conducting corresponding researches; on the other hand, there
were people trying to create something. Vardges Safarian noted that
he worked at the Stepanakert Pedagogical Institute in the 70s and
tried to deal with the Karabakh issue. It was generally prohibited to
express any opinion on the Karabakh issue within the Armenian science,
which proceeded from the Leninist national policy. An unwritten rule
acted then, according to which the Karabakh issue had to be bypassed.

V. Safarian had to write his candidate thesis in Moscow. His thesis
topic was triply reconfirmed, as an Azerbaijani constantly hindered
him. Due to this, the Artsakh historian couldn’t continue his work.

Expert on the Artsakh historical monuments Slava Sargsian noted that
development of the historical science here was really difficult in
the Soviet period. The issue of the Artsakh history was dealt with by
separate individuals, mainly Karabakhians living in Yerevan. To speak
of the Artsakh history before the Movement isn’t right, as there was
no Artsakh section in the history of the Armenian people. Continuing
the idea of his counterparts, V. Avanesian emphasized the historical
memory of the people as an important constituent of its struggle. It
is indisputable and we must always speak of the fact that the Armenian
people was born and lived in this territory, on this ancient land
and that it is just the memory that led to 1988. The Karabakh issue
wasn’t ever raised. The Armenians of Artsakh declared a few times
the necessity of restoring the historical justice.

What does the world think about the NKR? What did the world know
about us before and immediately after the Movement? In this regard,
political scientist David Babayan noted that before the national
liberation movement we had lived in two parallel realities. One was
a passive idea of historical science and the other was the people’s
historical memory. In the scientific sphere, Artsakh wasn’t really
introduced, because in the Soviet period it was impossible to export
scientific works and books from the NKAO for introducing the truth
to the world. It was fully excluded, as it contradicted the Soviet
state’s national policy, one of the directions of which was formation
of the new Azerbaijani nation. Any step opposing this was strictly
ceased. In the historical science, Artsakh was an object and not a
subject. Azerbaijan tried to assure the world that Artsakh was its
historical territory and Armenia testified in every possible way that
it was its integral part. So, we were passive from the scientific
point of view. But, there was the second section. As it was noted,
it is the historical memory, for the maintenance of which separate
individuals played a great role. The main emphasis was made on the
maintenance of the Armenian image of the Artsakh people. Secret
works were conducted in different ways – communicating at homes and
expressing historical events to each other. D. Babayan explained
all this with a specific example – at school (he studied at school
#8 in Stepanakert) they didn’t study the Armenian history, as the
curriculum provided the Azerbaijani history. They didn’t ever page
the unpleasant textbook. The teacher of history taught the pupils the
Armenian history at the Azerbaijani history lesson. That brave woman
took the pupils to Gandzasar, Dadivank, and Amaras for acquainting the
pupils with the historical and architectural centers of Artsakh. It
was a heroic deed. Certain individuals fought against the state system.

Similar works were conducted in about all the spheres. There was a
single goal – to restore the historical justice. “The outer world had
poor information about Artsakh. There was a special school on studying
the Soviet disciplines in the USA, in the focus of attention of which
were all the vulnerable issues of the Soviet reality. We didn’t know
what they specifically did there, but we new that wide-scale propaganda
was conducted there and the Soviet state was generally introduced as an
‘evil empire’. It is clear that they were not interested in Artsakh as
a separate land. The Movement made the Artsakh issue international
both in the political and historical-ideological context”, said
David Babayan.

Were the historical science’s priorities and future plans really
specified after the independence establishment? V. Balayan noted
that, unfortunately, proper activities in this direction hadn’t been
realized. The Artsakh State University was the place where the first
steps on creating the Artsakh history, in particular, the Movement
chronicle, were taken. At the same time, an attempt was made to
create historians’ school. According to V. Balayan, certain progress
is fixed in this process – there are young people seriously dealing
with the historical science, writing candidate thesis, and inspiring
trust with their job. These issues were somewhat systematized with
time. Certain amounts were invested at the Artsakh State University
for developing the Armenian science and via the support of our
Diaspora compatriots an Armenian science center was created at the
university in 1996. Via the University’s means, the first excavations
were realized in the Artsakh territory. Surely, later the Government
allocated greater amounts for this work. Cooperation was established
with archeologists, orientalists, and ethnography specialists from
Armenia. There are real possibilities today to communicate with other
states, to introduce Artsakh to the world not only in the political,
but also in the scientific context. According to V. Balayan, the
Artsakh historians get proposals from Japan, France, and Russia to
introduce their viewpoints for publishing them in their scientific
journals. A scientific journal was also established at the Armenian
science center. The Artsakh and French counterparts use joint efforts
for publishing works on the Armenian science. Surely, all this was
gained thanks to the Artsakh statehood.

Speaking of the stages of archeology development in Artsakh, V.

Safarian noted that beginning from the 19th century scientists,
mainly from Russia, had worked here. The first year of the Movement,
in 1988, cemeteries belonging to the early Christianity period
were excavated in Nor Armenavan. It was the beginning. In 1989, the
Artsakh Museum of History and Local Lore, jointly with the RA NAS
Archeology Institute, conducted corresponding works in Shosh village
and near the Meghradzor River. In 1995, the volume of archeological
researches increased in Artsakh. V. Safarian noted the significance
of archeological materials as the most neutral, thanks to which
our people’s ethnic-cultural uniqueness can be demonstrated more
strictly. Currently, the state conducts purposeful and scheduled
works, supporting all the archeological activities in the Artsakh
territory. Currently, excavations are held in the liberated territories
and the archeological excavations are continued in Tigranakert. Another
habitation is discovered.

Melanya Balayan noted the significance of introducing the history of
Artsakh to the international community. According to her, about 90
percent of the Artsakh Museum visitors pledge the same – before coming
to Karabakh they have a vague idea of Artsakh, but after visiting
the country they leave it with quite another impression. We have
the problem of introducing the historical grounds of the Karabakh
issue to the international community, which means that the conducted
researches should be properly introduced to the outer world.

Answering the question how the works on historical topics should
be systematized, D. Babayan noted, in particular, that it could be
done both in centralized and non-centralized manners. First, some
circumstances should be taken into account, including the financial
abilities and intellectual potential. Some difficulties are available
in the propaganda sphere. To introduce properly Artsakh to the European
community, high-level works in European languages are needed.

V. Avanesian noted the poor level of teaching foreign languages at
schools and universities, while they must be perfectly learned for
being introduced to the international community. The younger generation
should realize this problem.

Our common goals and notions should be centralized. The independence
of Artsakh is irreversible, the status is firm, and no border can
be returned – these are the common goals. According to D. Babayan,
the most important is the direction of our ideology, which is properly
chosen. What knowledge about the Artsakh history do the Artsakh pupils
gain and how do they meet today’s requirements? History teacher
Loreta Abrahamian introduced in details what knowledge the pupils
of every form get from their textbooks. According to her, the
9-form textbook provides more profound information on the ancient,
medieval, and modern periods of Artsakh history. But, she considers
a serious missing that the textbooks provide almost no information on
the processes taken place in our country after 1994, while providing
quite detailed information on the RA. Melanya Balayan added that
our pupils learn the Armenian culture of the 10th-14th centuries,
bypassing the history of Artsakh culture of the same period. How can
Gandzasar, Dadivank, and other architectural centers be bypassed?!

Much is really to be done in this regard.