Author: Kalantarian Kevo

RFI, France
29 nov 2013

Le cinéma arménien à l’honneur au Festival «Nuits noires» de Tallinn

Par Kèoprasith Souvannavong

Coup de projecteur, au 17e Festival du film Nuits noires de Tallinn
(PÖFF), en Estonie, sur le cinéma arménien. Un cinéma de la mémoire,
relativement marqué par le génocide de 1915 et dont la spécificité est
d’être à la fois un cinéma national et un cinéma de la diaspora, comme
l’explique Jivan Avetisyan, producteur et réalisateur basé à Erevan.

De notre envoyé spécial à Tallinn

On dit souvent, à tort, que le cinéma arménien est né avec le génocide de 1915.

En effet, le 7e Art arménien existait bien avant le génocide de 1915.
Mais c’est dans les années 1920 qu’il a vraiment été fondé, et ce par
Amo Bek-Nazarov, alias Bek-Nazaryan, dans le Caucase, en Arménie
soviétique. Bek-Nazaryan, acteur et réalisateur de Patricide (1923) et
Chor et Chorchor (1926), a créé les studios Haïfilm dans un premier
temps, puis Armenfilm par la suite.

Il y a donc deux grandes périodes pour le cinéma arménien : celle de
l’époque soviétique, puis celle qui vient après la chute de l’URSS.
Qu’en est-il de la période actuelle, et quels sont les thèmes abordés
par les cinéastes arméniens d’aujourd’hui ?

Le cinéma d’aujourd’hui est plus diversifié, plus audacieux que sous
l’ère soviétique durant laquelle il fallait faire des films empreints
de « sauce socialiste », se conformer à la censure, ce qui limitait un
peu l’imaginaire des créateurs.

Chez les cinéastes du présent, l’éventail des thèmes abordés est assez
large, mais ces thèmes restent tout de même liés à l’histoire récente
comme la guerre d’indépendance du Karabakh (relatée par exemple dans
le documentaire de Vardan Hovhannisyan, A story of a people in war and
peace, « Une histoire d’un peuple en temps de guerre et de paix »,
projeté ici au PÖFF de Tallinn, NDRL) et la situation sociale après
cette guerre (qui a eu lieu de 1988 à 1994 dans l’enclave ethnique du
Haut-Karabakh, en Azerbaïdjan du sud-ouest, entre les Arméniens de
l’enclave, alliés à la République d’Arménie, et la République
d’Azerbaïdjan, NDLR).

Il y a également des récits plus intimistes, des histoires d’amour, de
couples… Il n’y a aucune limitation ni de thèmes qui prédomineraient
chez les jeunes cinéastes. La tendance actuelle consiste même à
décliner les thématiques de façon universelle. Et surtout il y a aussi
beaucoup de recherche stylistique, certains jeunes tendent vers le
cinéma expérimental, d’autres se tournent de plus en plus vers les
nouvelles technologies pour leurs films. Mais le cinéma arménien ne
rencontre de nos jours qu’un seul problème : le financement.
L’autofinancement ne suffit pas. Il faut toujours aller chercher des
co-productions avec l’étranger.

Qui sont les réalisateurs de la nouvelle génération les plus
représentatifs du cinéma arménien et qui se tournent en l’occurrence
vers l’étranger pour la coproduction ?

Il y a notamment Maria Sahakyan (I am going to change my name, « Je
vais changer mon nom », 2013, également projeté ici au PÖFF de
Tallinn, NDRL) et Hovhannes Galstyan (Bonded parallels, 2006), qui
rayonnent non seulement en Arménie, mais aussi au niveau
international, grce à des coproductions justement : elle avec la
Russie, lui avec la Norvège. Ces cinéastes vont chercher leurs
inspirations et leurs financements ailleurs, et les jeunes
réalisateurs arméniens suivent de plus en plus cette voie.

Beaucoup de cinéastes arméniens se forment aussi à l’étranger…

Maria Sahakyan est diplômée du VGIK de Moscou, une des grandes écoles
de cinéma ex- et post-soviétique. Hovhannes Galstyan a fait ses études
à Erevan, à l’Institut des beaux arts, du cinéma et du thétre. Mais
beaucoup font effectivement des études à l’étranger, par exemple en
France, à la Fémis [l’école nationale supérieure des métiers de
l’image et du son, NDLR]. C’est normal, parce qu’il n’y a pas vraiment
d’école de cinéma proprement dite, même s’il y a l’institut que je
viens d’évoquer. Cet institut donne des bases, certes, mais il n’y a
pas matière pour aller suffisamment loin dans les hautes études
cinématographiques.

Combien de fictions sont produites en Arménie chaque année ?

Quatre par an, et c’est le maximum. J’entends par là des vrais longs
métrages, produits ou coproduits sur place de façon sérieuse. En
revanche, il y a beaucoup de courts métrages, parce que la vidéo et le
numérique permettent de tourner des films à moindre coût. Un grand
nombre de films de télévision et de séries se font ainsi grce au
numérique.

Ces longs métrages sont-ils destinés au marché intérieur ou à un
public international ?

Nous essayons d’avoir une approche universelle afin que nos films
aillent dans des festivals du monde entier. Mais les thèmes de nos
films sont souvent liés à ce qui se passe en Arménie même. Nous visons
donc à la fois le public arménien et international, et c’est la
difficulté de l’exercice.

La spécificité du cinéma arménien est d’être à la fois un cinéma
national et un cinéma de la diaspora…

Absolument. Et s’agissant de la thématique, en Arménie on parle
globalement de la difficulté d’être, comment l’être humain s’inscrit
dans l’histoire et le contexte dans lequel il vit. C’est ce
qu’abordent en général les cinéastes en Arménie. Ceux de la diaspora
traitent de thèmes plus divers. Le lien n’est pas si direct, pas si
évident entre les deux.

Quand on évoque ceux de la diaspora, on pense, entre autres, à Atom
Egoyan (Ararat, 2002) au Canada, Robert Gudiguian (Le Voyage en
Arménie, 2006) et Serge Avedikian (Paradjanov, 2013) en France, qui
ont abordé des thématiques arméniennes. Il y a des passerelles sur ces
thématiques historiques arméniennes, mais la particularité du cinéma
de la diaspora n’a rien à avoir avec celle des réalisateurs dans le
pays même. Cette dispersion contribue aussi à la richesse de la
culture arménienne.

Le génocide de 1915 est apparemment plus présent dans le cinéma de la
diaspora arménienne. Comment l’expliquez-vous ?

La raison en est simple : l’identité de la diaspora est liée au
génocide. Les gens qui se sont retrouvés dans les années 1920-1930 en
France, en Europe, aux Etats-Unis ou ailleurs, c’est à cause du
génocide. Alors que les Arméniens qui vivent dans le Caucase, dans
l’Arménie ex-soviétique, étaient déjà sur place et ont traversé les
empires persan et russe. Donc leur problématique est moins liée au
génocide.

Comment voyez-vous l’avenir du cinéma arménien ?

Je suis assez optimiste. Je trouve que tous les jeunes producteurs
indépendants actuels sont très actifs, très volontaristes. Ils
apprennent vite. Il y a de plus en plus de projets qui naissent en
Arménie et qui s’ouvrent vers l’extérieur. En dépit des difficultés,
et malgré l’enclave dans lequel nous sommes un petit peu, j’ai
l’impression que la production sera très riche et très diversifiée.

17e Festival du film « Nuits noires » de Tallinn (PÖFF), en Estonie,
du 15 novembre au 1er décembre 2013.

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Nov 30 2013

Kayseri’s carved rock sanctuary to become art gallery

KAYSERÄ° – Anadolu Agency

A 1,700-year-old rocked carved sanctuary in Kayseri’s Talas district
will turn into a museum and art gallery to host classics and
traditional arts

Tol Mabet (sanctuary) in the central Anatolian province of Kayseri’s
Talas district, which is famous for its historic mansions and
underground richness, will become a museum and art gallery, where
classical works will be displayed. The sanctuary is a carved rock one
and dates back to 1,700 years ago.

Talsa Mayor Rifat Yıldırım said that the rock-carved place, which is
located on Ali Saip PaÅ?a Street, has a unique style of architecture in
the region.

Yıldırım said that they estimated that the sanctuary dated back to the
third and fourth century B.C. and it had undergone restoration many
times to strengthen the structure. He said they had worked
meticulously to restore the sanctuary and expose it to tourism.

Built for safety

`Most probably this place was an underground city built for safety,’
Yıldırım said, and continued: `Arrangements in the structures show us
that it served as a church in history. This is a very strong
structure. We see in this sanctuary what humans can do by carving
rocks. It was built with a magnificent mathematical transaction. As a
result of long-time work, we prepared a restoration project. It was an
abandoned place before the restoration. We won an award from the Union
of Historical Towns. The restoration took nearly four years. This is a
magnificent structure built completely with hand workmanship. This is
why the restoration was very detailed.’

Yıldırım said that the use of such structures should not go against
the purpose of its structuring, and continued:

`This is a sanctuary and needs respect. It should not be seen as a
commercial enterprise. Considering it, we have decided that this place
should be home to culture and art events. We will make an art gallery
to host calligraphy, ornamentation and marbling works. Artistic
performances will be staged here. We also estimate that there are some
hidden structures under this sanctuary. We have not reached them yet
but I think we will. We restored the neighboring structures of the
sanctuary. It had a cost of nearly 1 million Turkish Liras.’

Yıldırım said that Talas also had many historic structures just like
Tol Mabed since Greeks, Armenians and Turks had lived in the district
together through centuries and left a rich heritage.

`We also plan to bring Talas to tourism because every year many
tourists from Athens come to Talas with tour companies because Greeks
immigrated to Greece from here as a result of the population exchange.
They visit the land of their ancestors. We will make use of this
opportunity more,’ he said.

The Daily Star (Lebanon)
November 29, 2013 Friday

A roadmap for Arab modernism

Jim Quilty

Paul Guiragossian made several journeys. You could argue his life was
a series of migrations.

BEIRUT: Paul Guiragossian made several journeys. You could argue his
life was a series of migrations. The son of Armenian genocide
survivors that had resettled in Jerusalem, he moved to Beirut in late
1947, fleeing the instability that marked the late Mandate period. The
artist’s studies took him to Italy, then to France, and from 1989 to
1991 he lived in Paris. He then returned to Lebanon, where he died two
years later.

Guiragossian’s circuitous passage from Jerusalem to Beirut was
mirrored by his artistic transhumance from figuration to abstraction –
from portraiture and ensemble depictions of discernibly human figures,
to forms whose emotive power rests in their want of individual
features.

It is the shared view of Sam Bardaouil and Till Fellrath that this
negotiation between abstraction and figuration lays at the heart of
his work.

Fellrath and Bardaouil are co-curators of “Paul Guiragossian, The
Human Condition,” the retrospective exhibition now up at the Beirut
Exhibition Center. It is comprised of over 100 paintings and works on
paper, many of them never before exhibited. Sampling works from five
decades of production, it is the most comprehensive Guiragossian
retrospective to date.

Timed to mark the 20th anniversary of the artist’s death, “Condition”
has been staged in collaboration with the Paul Guiragossian Foundation
– the source of some 80 percent of the works on display – and is a
prelude to a comprehensive monograph on Guiragossian’s life and work,
expected in 2014.

Though retrospectives are inherently historical, Bardaouil and
Fellrath have sidestepped chronology as an organizing principle.

“We thought it reflects his approach to linearity much better if we
were to use a thematic approach,” Bardaouil says. “He used to say
there is no before; there is no tomorrow. Art from the Lascaux cave is
as contemporary as art done by an artist living today.”

The curators have chosen to subdivide “Condition” into eight thematic
sections – Self, Family, Woman, Theater, Faces, Despair, Faith and
Life. Each is hung in its own gallery, a contextual ecosystem for this
facet of Guiragossian’s work, anchored by one or two recognized master
works. Thoughtful quotations from the artist festoon the gallery
walls, suggesting something of the humane intellect behind the
paintings and sketches.

“We feel that curating an exhibition is very much like composing a
painting,” Bardaouil says.

“We try to create a fluid semiotics that allows the viewer to
subconsciously go with what you are trying to say, without being too
didactic.

“We wanted to create this juxtaposition, between what you first see
when you walk here -” he gestures to one of the figurative canvasses
in the “Family” section, ” – and what you see here with this
[abstract] piece in the back. Automatically your eye picks up on the
three vertical figures. It’s a similar palette and you don’t need too
much explanation to understand that this abstraction is taking the
human figure to a new place.”

In thematic and spatial terms, this modular approach to the BEC’s
otherwise warehouse-like space is a curatorial tour de force.
Clustering Guiragossian’s works within more intimate spaces makes
their digestion a more pleasant and informative experience.

Discrete art historical interventions, in the form of a handful of
works by Guiragossian’s modernist contemporaries – Khalil Saleeby,
Saliba Douaihy, Mustapha Farroukh and Cesar Gemmayel – provide further
context.

“This is something that connects to our practice,” Bardaouil says, “to
use this retrospective as an introduction to the study of modernity in
the Arab world.

“Most times you see artists in complete isolation … You don’t get a
glimpse of how they sat within a tradition of art-making that is
relevant to this particular part of the world. That’s something we
wanted to avoid.

“The other thing is that most of the time comparisons [between the
exhibiting artist and his contemporaries] are either too simplistic or
too West-East. It was important for us to use this exhibition as a
little opening into a complex and diverse art history that was
sometimes in conflict with other art histories, sometimes in
dialogue.”

Art Reoriented – as Bardaouil and Fellrath’s multidisciplinary
curatorial project is called – are habitués of the MENA’s contemporary
art scene. This helps explain the echoes of contemporary art practice
that are audible in this modernist retrospective.

Bardaouil and Fellrath’s recent projects include Akram Zaatari’s
“Letter to a Refusing Pilot,” the video installation at the heart of
the Lebanese pavilion at the 2013 Venice Biennial.

At Doha’s Mathaf in 2012, the team curated “Tea with Nefertiti,” a
critical engagement with the narratives surrounding Egyptian art.

In this respect, “Condition” could be seen as a way of taking some
contemporary art talking points and pursuing them within a modernist
context.

“Whenever you talk about contemporary art – when it comes to places
considered peripheral to the centers of artistic production – there’s
this underlying assumption that it’s something that doesn’t have a
background,” Bardaouil says. “It’s as if there was this gap between
what we consider classical Islamic art and contemporary art.

“But there’s an entire century in the middle that is a total limbo.
It’s not only something that people overseas assume about the region.
Unfortunately, it’s something many people from this region believe as
well.”

The curators view “Condition” as an opportunity to reintroduce the
artist’s work to the Lebanese public, and so have drawn upon PGF
resources to devote a gallery to a Mac-driven biographical and
archival annex, to complement and contextualize the works.

It could be a pragmatic response to the pathology about the dearth of
archives and its impact upon the Lebanese condition, a motif in the
practices of reconstruction-era Lebanese artists.

Rupture is a term commonly associated with the contemporary art of the
’90s generation. Critically informed and cosmopolitan, favoring
performance, video and photography, it apparently reflected the
psychic and aesthetic disjuncture of the war years more than any
dialogue with the country’s modernists.

Some of these artists did gesture to the rupture. The thoughtfully
image-critical works of Walid Sadek provide a case in point. “Love Is
Blind” (2006), for instance, consists of exhibition tags that nod
poetically (with irony or reverence) to the landscapes of Mustafa
Farroukh, without pictorial references.

Art Reoriented has hung “Antiques,” the central frame of a
Guiragossian triptych that served as a backdrop for Ussama al-Arif’s
1970 play “Idrab al-Haramiyya.” The two other parts of the triptych
were lost in the Civil War.

“Till and I were thinking we want to emphasize that moment of
rupture,” Bardaouil says. “We wanted to emphasize the absence of these
narratives.”

The lone panel to survive the Civil War, “Antiques” hangs from the
ceiling, flanked by a pair of empty frames – a conceptual rupture made
literal.

“Paul Guiragossian, The Human Condition” is up at the Beirut
Exhibition Center until Jan. 6. For more information see
/exhibitions/showing-now.

The process of consolidation on the Armenian insurance market continues

17:52 29.11.2013

ArmInfoElita BABAYAN, Insurance Specialist, Agency of Rating Marketing
Information (ArmInfo)

XPRIMM: Starting 1st January 2013 a system of bonus was introduced,
and starting January 1, 2014 – one of malus. Was this system accepted
by the insurance market? What has been the total amount of bonuses
granted to disciplined drivers? What are the expectations of the
market since the introduction of this system?

Elita BABAYAN: The bonus-malus system, or rather one of its components
(“bonus”) applies to contracts signed after December 31st, 2012. Thus,
the system is already functional in Armenia; however, many drivers are
still lacking knowledge about its details.

According to estimates by the Executive Director of the Motor
Insurers’ Bureau of Armenia, Anna VARDIKYAN, full implementation of
the “bonus-malus” (BMS) in the next few years will lead to a reduction
of the number of undisciplined drivers in Armenia by 6-10%.

The system, according to the Bureau will indirectly affect the
behavior of drivers that pose a potential threat to the life and
health of citizens, forcing the first to be more disciplined.
“Bonus-Malus” also prevents fraud in the field of MTPL.

Since the date of implementation of the “bonus” component, the total
amount of bonuses (3% of the premiums) issued to disciplined drivers
amounted to about AMD 350 million.

With the introduction of the “bonus-malus” system, insurance companies
are expecting to “save” the unprofitable MTPL segment, which seems to
be very unlikely to independent insurance experts, given the presence
of a number of unresolved problems related to the system of vehicle
inspection, which in Armenia is considered to be very bureaucratic. It
should be noted that the “bonus” of conscientious drivers will grow
annually, and its maximum size reaches 50% of the insurance premium
for a specific driver.

XPRIMM: Please assess the mandatory health insurance in Armenia:
results, expectations, trend

E. B.: When evaluating the status of the health insurance segment in
Armenia, it should be noted that the activity of policy holders
requests for insurance compensation (most of them are government
employees) is quite high. However, there is an extremely low level of
awareness about the cases in which they can get insurance payments and
what is not possible to be compensated. However, the government’s
initiative led to a noticeable (4 time) increase in the health
insurance market in Armenia, and is intended to pave the way for the
introduction into the social life of compulsory health insurance.

According to insurers, this product will become unprofitable business
for the companies, but a good tool for the promotion and mainstreaming
of insurance in society. So, annual payments in health insurance in
Armenia increased by almost 10 times and reached, on April 1st, 2013,
AMD 1.6 billion or 33% of the total payments. Thus, seven insurance
companies collected AMD 2.052 billion premiums.

The capacity of the health insurance segment has grown rapidly after
the introduction by the Armenian authorities of the social package for
budgetary workers. Currently, the state program of “social package”
includes 150,000 budgetary workers.

For the implementation of this program, the government has allocated
this year nearly AMD 21 billion. It should be emphasized that the
premiums collected under the program accounted for over 90% of health
insurance premiums.

XPRIMM: Online sales are becoming popular in many countries. Are the
Armenian market and population ready accept this innovation? What are
the steps taken by companies towards the development of this trend?

E. B.: Online sales of insurance policies have become an ordinary
procedure in Western countries. For Armenia, this is a new sales
channel and it is not popular among the insured. The pioneer (and so
far the only company) in this segment is ROSGOSSTRAKH Armenia. They
will launch an online service for selling insurance policies for those
who were traveling abroad in early 2013. Thus, the population of
Armenia is not ready for the transition to the new (Internet)
mechanisms for concluded insurance contracts. Insurers are also
neutral to the online promotion services.

XPRIMM: The segment of agricultural compulsory insurance has become
more common in some CIS countries, particularly in relation to natural
disasters. Is Armenia, which has been affected by natural disasters,
what are the losses of the latest date? What measures have been taken
in this direction?

E. B.: about the topic of Insurance of agricultural risks is somehow
quite abstract for the rural population of Armenia. And this is
understandable, because the agricultural sector of our economy is
extremely behind the global technical progress, and the rural
population is hardly feeding the country with its gifts of their
“modest” harvest. The practice of agriculture has become economically
inefficient.

According to Ms. Babayan, in such conditions it is a bit premature for
the rural population to talk about the possible development of
agricultural insurance in Armenia, but on the other hand we are more
likely behind the schedule. The management agricultural sector of
Armenia has undergone a significant decline and is far from being
effective, that’s why today it needs a wide acceptance of the
international practice of agricultural risks insurance. Such a system
in Armenia can earn acceptance through appropriate development for
agribusiness, which needs specific legislative initiatives and a
consistent policy.

In Armenia not many insurance companies practice agricultural
insurance business risks.

In practice, there are two known options of agricultural risks
insurance. First – there is a classic option, when insurance
protection guarantees a partial or full compensation for potential
losses in the insurance case – crop failure, death of livestock or
crop failures and other.

In Armenia, getting insurance for “farmers” risk without specific
legislative initiatives in the field of agriculture is very
complicated. Legislation in the field of agriculture does not
determine the legal status of small farmers engaged in animal
husbandry and cultivation of certain agricultural crops.

Beyond that, many farmers do not respect important rules for efficient
livestock management conditions. On the farms there are no special
pens and winterized facilities for cattle, no planned activities are
carried out for monitoring the vaccination of livestock, and activity
of veterinary services is not very effective. Such a system glitch
makes insurance of agricultural risks extremely inefficient for
insurers. But it also has the opposite effect – the insurance will
encourage the introduction of these basic norms and procedures of
management. Nevertheless, insurance of cattle is one of the
potentially viable areas in the field of agricultural insurance.

If insurance of major livestock product is more or less clear, the
insurance for agriculture is an even more difficult task, because it
requires a methodological approach to the assessment of the possible
risks and the probability of their occurrence.

The most likely and effective option for our market could be insurance
of risks in the agricultural production. We are talking about food
enterprises and food processing industry, especially the dairy
industry. Players in the industry are interested to get insurance
coverage, but they are also trying to reduce cost as much as possible.
In insurance they would rather see an opportunity to protect their
business from financial loss and they will often turn to insurers with
a task difficult to prove for them. Thus, the development of specific
mechanisms for these businesses requires a lot of time, the
availability of qualified personnel, material resources for the study
of the circumstances affecting the level of profits, etc. .

XPRIMM: Do you expect a merger or acquisition in the current year?

E. B.: The process of consolidation on the Armenian insurance market
continues. ArmInfo has been informed by a reliable source that the
largest insurance player, ROSGOSSTRAKH Armenia, a subsidiary of
ROSGOSSTRAKH (Russia), is acquiring GARANT Insurance, which
specializes in health insurance.

Editor: Olesea ADONEV

Russia may designate anti-Armenian book extremist material

November 30, 2013 – 15:44 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Azerbaijan got another reason to be offended with
Russia, and it won’t miss a chance to do so.

The Central District Court of Russia’s Krasnoyarsk Krai will hold a
hearing on recognition of an Azeri-published `Armenian Terrorism’ book
as an extremist material.

As APA reported citing AzerTAc news agency, on October 3, Krasnoyarsk
Prosecutor’s Office was informed that the book was distributed in the
district by Azeri Diaspora representatives.

A psycholinguistic research conducted by the experts at Krasnoyarsk
State Pedagogical University psycholinguistic research showed that
`separate texts in the publication, its introduction, photos and
related comments are biased materials aimed at suggesting that
`Armenian terrorism’ exists, Armenians inflict bodily harm and kill
people over ethnic hatred, act to stir up national and religious
enmity’.

Referring to the Federal Law on Extremist Activity with the view of
protecting the interests of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor’s
Office recognized the publication as an extremist material and sent a
relevant judgment to the court.

The Prosecutor’s Office asked the court to recognize the book as an
extremist material, and request the Russian Justice Ministry to
include the book into the list of extremist materials.

The book, authored by the late Prosecutor General of Azerbaijan Ismat
Gayibov and the late Director General of Azerinform (AzerTAc) Azad
Sharifov, was published in Azerbaijan in 1992.

Azeri media already interpreted the book’s possible recognition as
extremist literature as a step negatively affecting the country’s ties
with Russia.

Russian court is to consider recognition of Azerbaijani book
“Armenian terrorism” as extremist literature

15:27 30/11/2013 » LAW

On December 12, in Krasnoyarsk central city court hearing was held in
connection with the recognition of a book, entitled “Armenian
terrorism” and published in Azerbaijan, as an extremist material, the
Azerbaijani news agency “APA” reports. It is noted that the authors of
this book are deceased Azerbaijani Prosecutor General Ismat Gayibov
and CEO of “Azerinform” Azad Sharifov.

According to the investigation materials, on October 3 the
prosecutor’s office received information from the Federal Security
Service Office of Russia in Krasnoyarsk district on distribution of a
publication entitled “Armenian terrorism”. The report notes that this
edition is distributed by the members of the Azerbaijani Diaspora
residing in the Krasnoyarsk district.

“According to the conclusion, prepared by the experts of the
Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University after V.P. Astafev, as a
result of psychological and linguistic research, some separate
fragments of the edition, its prologue, the photo materials and the
following comments are biased materials aimed at creating with a
reader (viewer) an opinion that the “Armenian terrorism” exists, as
well as that certain groups of Armenian nationality cause physical
injuries to people worldwide and eliminate them because of their
national origin, as well as conduct purposeful activity for creating
and inciting national and religious hatred,” the material stated.

The prosecutor’s office, referring to the federal law “against
extremist activities”, in order to protect the interests of the
Russian Federation, recognized this edition as an extremist material
and sent the appropriate decision to the court. The prosecutor’s
office has asked the court to declare the edition of “Armenian
terrorism” as an extremist material and to send the copy of the
decision on including this edition into the list of extremist
materials to the RF Justice Ministry, “APA” adds.

Declining Association Agreement not calamity for Armenia – expert

14:44 – 30.11.13

Armenia’s failure to initial an association agreement with the EU
should not be perceived as a calamity for the country, an expert has
said, as the EU has not abandoned its plans to continue the joint
partnership.

At a news conference on Saturday, the political analyst Levon
Shirinyan said Armenia’s decision to join the Eurasian Customs Union
(a move that restricts the chances of European integration) was the
right choice stemming from the country’s security interests. `We must
never turn the relationship with Russia into a demonstration of
obsequiousness. We must strengthen our statehood instead,’ he said,
noting that Armenia has no alternative in the light of the Turkish
factor.

`Do you imagine what would have happened to us had we demonstrated
persistence on September 3 [the day President Serzh Sargsyan made the
landmark statement about joining the CU]?’ he said, calling for
efforts to use the Russian market.

The expert further stressed the importance of giving a proper welcome
to Russian President Vladimir Putin next week, noting that Russia is
the country that fully secures Armenia’s arms supply.

As for the Putin big delegation expected to arrive in Armenia on
December 2, Shirinyan considered it a good sign, noting that Russian
investors are coming to Armenia together with the president. Secondly,
he said, Russia is thus demonstrating its respect for Armenia.

Armenian News – Tert.am

Putin Revealed His Intention

A lot of experts state that the agenda of the Russian president
Putin’s December 2 visit to Armenia is to give a boost to the process
of membership to the Customs Union. They say the roadmap will be
discussed during Putin’s visit, and the process will be accelerated.

In fact, the Kremlin has officially confirmed that Putin’s visit will
begin in Gyumri. He will go to the 102nd Russian military base. He may
bring along a batch of weapons not to come empty-handed.

The issue of the Customs Union is just a veil on the agenda of Putin’s
visit because the visit itself is a demonstration of power. On
September 3 Russia thwarted the process of signing of the EU-Armenia
Association Agreement, and now it is not interested in fast membership
of Armenia to the Customs Union. It is a bugbear for Armenia because
it is too difficult to establish relations and achieve agreements not
only with Armenia but also Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Putin is coming to Armenia to demonstrate power and therefore he
starts his visit at the military base in Gyumri. The question is whom
he demonstrates power. Does he want to demonstrate it to Turkey?
Together with Turkey Russia implements a nuclear power plant
construction project worth 20 billion dollars, tries to have Turkey
join the Customs Union, lays out the South Stream gas pipeline, is
getting ready to confront the challenges of normalization between Iran
and the West. Or is he demonstrating power to Azerbaijan whose number
one supplier of arms Russia is?

Or is Putin demonstrating power to Armenia, hinting that while in 1920
Russia’s red army arrived in Armenia, in 2013 it is already in
Armenia. Perhaps therefore Putin chose December 2, the date of
capitulation of Armenia to the bolshevists. Putin has reasons to
threaten Armenia because recently he has become convinced that Armenia
is not only the government and the political opposition `on the
Russian line’ but the dignified citizens who might be few but have a
strong sense of dignity and big awareness of the importance of
sovereignty.

It is possible that Putin is demonstrating power to the citizens,
especially that the government of Armenia has vested in him the right
to intervene in Armenia’s domestic affairs under the CSTO agreements.

It is possible that Putin is demonstrating power to the West.
Moreover, the West could be the main audience for the demonstration of
power, and Moscow hints that it will remain in the Caucasus, even if
it takes a war. Russia has nothing else to demonstrate in the
Caucasus. Russia has lost in economy and culture, war is its last
resort. In this sense, Moscow translates its words to actions that
Armenia is an outpost.

It means that Moscow will ensure an environment for normal operation
of its armed forces. In other words, Armenia is a military township
with an adequate concept of life, logic and psychology. In other
words, Russia is becoming an obstacle to the civil future of Armenia.
This does not mean that there will not be a civil life. There will be
just enough of it to support the military township.

Here is Russia’s intention for Armenia. Moscow has run out of resource
and imagination for other programs in Moscow.

Although, there is no confidence that the resource will be enough to
turn Armenia to an outpost. After all, despite the colorful picture of
the society, there is a rise of national dignity and awareness of
state sovereignty, which is anchored in psychology and common sense.
If the citizens of Armenia do now demonstrate power, it is not due to
lack of power but reluctance to show off.

Hakob Badalyan
11:55 30/11/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:

WAS NAZARYAN ALONE IN THE ATTACKS AGAINST ELDERLY ARMENIAN WOMEN?

Today’s Zaman (Turkey)
November 28, 2013 Thursday

It is like a crime movie with many surprises. Once we get a certain
idea about the killer, we are very much surprised at the next scene
when another shadow starts to appear on the screen. Remember the
attacks and murders of elderly Armenian women in Istanbul’s Samatya
neighborhood in late 2012? When we looked at the events as they
unfolded, we concluded that they were hate crimes.

Turfanda Asik, 87, was severely beaten and lost her sight. The
assailant took nothing from her apartment. Maritsa Kucuk, 84, was
found dead in her home, stabbed seven times and badly beaten. Only a
few pieces of jewelry that were on her were taken, but the money in
her apartment remained untouched.

Sultan Aykar, 83, was knocked down by an assailant approaching from
behind as she unlocked the door to enter her home. She lost her sight.

It was obvious back then that these attacks were not robbery
motivated. But the police hastily came to this conclusion in their
very first announcement.

And on March 4, the police came up with quite a surprising discovery.

They caught the suspect, whose blood sample was a perfect match to
blood found at Kucuk’s apartment. Thirty-eight-year-old Murat Nazaryan,
the alleged assailant, was himself of Armenian origin.

With this result, the suspicion about these incidents being potential
hate crimes had quickly dispersed and the file was closed.

However, as soon as families of the victims started to get involved in
the case, some suspicious elements started to emerge once again. The
prosecutor, for example, declared the file confidential and barred
victims from accessing the file.

Lawyers from the Human Rights Association (IHD) were following the case
on behalf of the victims. On Nov. 19, they made a public announcement,
explaining peculiarities in this case and giving reasons why we should
look at the case as a potential hate crime. Let’s read this statement:

“Maritsa Kucuk, 87, was battered and stabbed to death on Dec. 28,
2012. Had murder been the only motive, an abrupt blow or a firearm
shot would have sufficed to kill a woman at that age. Yet, she was
brutally battered for hours and repeatedly stabbed. … From Nov. 28,
2012 to Jan. 26, 2013, a period that [includes] Maritsa Kucuk’s
murder, other elderly Armenian women were targeted in Samatya in
similar attacks involving brutal violence. Following Murat Nazaryan’s
arrest, all news reports, which were obviously funneled to the media
from a single source, highlighted Nazaryan’s Armenian ethnicity,
branded him the ‘Samatya assailant,’ creating the impression he was
responsible for all attacks, and asserted that the attacks were
robbery-motivated. Nazaryan, however, is currently on trial only
for Maritsa Kucuk’s murder. … Nazaryan remained silent [during]
the first two hearings. The only thing he said was, ‘I didn’t kill
anyone.’ At the hearing on Nov. 4, 2013, the truth began to slowly
emerge. Maritsa Kucuk was killed by three people who had taken Nazaryan
along by force. They had guns. … [Nazaryan] mentioned gangs. He
said he had kept silent because he was bullied and frightened.”

Nazaryan’s new testimony has led human rights groups to believe that
these attacks may indeed have been organized ones. The lawyers asked
the court to expand the investigation.

As far as I can understand, Nazaryan’s testimony has yet to lead to
arrests of other suspects; neither can I see any details about the
identity of other possible suspects. However, if his last statements
are not fabrication, then he turned into a mere pawn of an organized
gang perpetuating hate crimes.

With these tiny details, it would be premature to make any conclusion
on whether he is a pawn or an ordinary criminal who makes up stories.

However, the case deserves close scrutiny to ensure that the whole
truth about these murder and attacks is revealed. While the case is
unfolding, many other interesting details may come along with it.

HEIKO LANGNER: “ARMENIAN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS ARE THE BASIS OF THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT”

Vestnik Kavkazussia
Nov 29 2013

29 November 2013 – 11:42am

Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, head of the European Bureau of Vestnik
Kavkaza

Heiko Langner, a German political analyst, specialist on the
post-Soviet space and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has expressed
his point of view on the conflict in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.

– Mr. Langner, what has brought you to such intensive research of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

– The conflict drew my attention in the late 1980s when the situation
in the South Caucasus became tense. State mass media in the GDR was
actively describing the events, taking the political side of Moscow and
the Azerbaijani Soviet authorities. Actions of the Karabakh Armenians
were pictured as anti-Soviet and nationalistic-separatistic.

That time, I, as many other young people in the GDR, was having big
hopes for the persona and politics of Mikhail Gorbachev, so I was
shocked by the conflict in the Caucasus. It would not fit into the
image of the Soviet Union formed by the state education system of the
GDR. According to this image, the USSR was a voluntary state union
of interconnected Soviet nations. A violent conflict spoke about
the contrary.

After the unification of Germany and the collapse of real socialism,
the mass media of the FRG was dominated by a pro-Armenian outlook
on the conflict for a long time. So in early 1990s, I supposed that
mass media of the GDR gave false descriptions of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. In late 1990s, however, article with a pro-Azerbaijani
approach to the problem were initiated again.

Now, I cannot recall for sure when it happened but after a some
meetings with Armenians in Germany, I noticed that they were telling
the very same story very coherently. It seemed somewhat memorized
and even learnt by heart. It was always noted that Armenian were only
victims of the conflict but, nonetheless, they managed to win the war.

It gave me a sense of distrust because it cannot happen practically.

In the reality of war, the ones who fight actively cannot be only the
victims, they regularly get in situations where they are the offensive
side. And so the one who does not fight and always remains a victim
cannot win the war. I noticed that something just was not adding up,
so I got down to more intensive research of the conflict about 15
years ago. Since then, I got into details of the Karabakh problem.

Whether a person is an expert in this case or not is eventually decided
by others. This should be decided by readers of the interview, I will
accept that.

– What reasons for the conflict do you see?

– I can assure you that the first reason is not a competition between
different principles of the international law like territorial
integrity or the right for self-determination. These two principles
are in no way mutually exclusive and can instead complement each
other within the framework of a decision on granting autonomy from the
central government, on condition of will of the sides. There are many
examples in the world for this. The conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh
is based, in my opinion, first of all, on contradictory images of
the historic appurtenance of the region. Armenians consider it their
part of the ‘historic Armenia.’ It should be noted that the huge
space, which includes, besides Armenia, large territories of modern
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and in maximum version even
Syria and Lebanon, has never seen Armenian statehood in over 700
years and the Armenian population lived under domination of other
states. We should add that the Armenian population in its historic
reality of settlement has never been a majority, and was forced to
share the territory with numerous other groups of the population that,
doubtlessly, had and have the same fundamental right to live there.

Throughout history, the Armenian population has been facing situations
of mass threat for its existence and banishment throughout history,
starting with the Mongol invasion, and this has deeply anchored in the
memory of the nation. For this reason, earlier strives for ‘national
rebirth’ and own statehood was closely connected to understanding of
ethnic homogenous state. Ethnic uniformity became a determinant for
existence of the Armenian, equally with the desire to consolidate all
territories inhabited by Armenians in a national state. No wonder
the Armenian SSR, which like other USSR republics, was founded as
a nationally-determined territory (because the socialist policy was
supposed to be presented in a national form), had a constant decline
of the non-Armenian population.

With all understanding of the tough history and sufferings of Armenian
people under domination of foreign states, there cannot be any excuse
for exile and displacement of other population groups. Today, Armenia
with its 98% of ethnic Armenian population is the only mono-ethnic
states in the South Caucasus. This can be explained by natural
development, especially in such historically multi-ethnic region as
the South Caucasus. The situation has become a result of focused
policy, realized with a different level of intensity for decades,
even despite communist dominance. And the goal of this policy is to
form an ethnically homogenous state.

– How do you think this policy has affected the situation around
Nagorno-Karabakh?

– From 1918 to 1920, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh belonged to
the first independent Azerbaijani Republic, though even then, there
were disputes about the ownership of the region. After sovietization
of both states, the ‘Caucasian Bureau’ decided to finally leave
Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian autonomous region, as part of the
Azerbaijani SSR, in 1921. Although three Armenian representatives
took part in the vote, Armenia has never given up its claims for
the territory. In the 1960s, a petition campaign was initiated for
the Moscow center to have the autonomous region transferred from the
Azerbaijani SSR to the Armenian SSR. Moscow was consistently against
it, rightly considering such pretensions as a precedent threatening
the existence of the Soviet Empire. I have an impression that many
young people of Azerbaijan do not know about this and often think that
Moscow has always been on Armenia’s side. But this is wrong. Armenia
initiated attempts to expand its national territory by merging
compact territories inhabited by Armenians beyond the republic. This
way, they tried to realize their national dream to form the united
‘Great Armenia.’

The same happened in the late 1980s. Back then, interethnic tensions
with violent acts and pogroms erupted, resulting in both nations
getting hurt. The current conflict has a long background rooting
from realization of Armenian territorial pretensions, for which the
principle of the right of people for self-determination is being
instrumentalized today. Perhaps, even now, the majority of Karabakh
Armenians, despite 20 years of de facto separation, do not want their
own state and would prefer joining Armenia.

In the Soviet times, Azerbaijan was territorially happy and interested
in protection of the then status quo, while Armenia wanted to
fundamentally change it for its benefit. This is why it is clear
who has more responsibility for escalation of the conflict. This
can even be seen from the chronology of events. The National Supreme
Council in Baku deprived Nagorno-Karabakh of the status of autonomy
in November 1991, two years after Nagorno-Karabakh had unilaterally
proclaimed its ‘independence.’ Moscow has always been the judge in this
conflict. In reality, the conflict has lived throughout all the time
of USSR’s existence, and Moscow only ‘froze’ it for some time. During
Perestroika, it was unfrozen again and after the collapse of the USSR,
it quickly grew into an interstate war. The burden of history should
not be underestimated. The key to settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict lies in the hands of the Kremlin

To be continued