Author: Kalantarian Kevo

Criticize, but decently

October 19 2013

Our high-rank clergymen need to get used to current situation, when
they are not beyond criticism, and when we, the ordinary believers,
express our dissatisfaction regarding their, to say the least,
intemperate behavior. However, the criticism is beautiful within its
reasonable limits; there is nothing sound in rude and arrogant attacks
of the Catholicos and the Holy See. Calling my church leader a `devil’
is sacrilege, obscenity and injustice. Apart from everything, it is
offensive, first of all, to me as a representative of given faith. (To
the point, despite knowing that ardent opponents `are going to
attack’, I must say that I support the harshest critics of present or
former presidents, but insulting, humiliating qualification are
unpleasant to me, they offend my dignity as a citizen). Karekin II is
not a devil at all, he is a ordinary Armenian high-ranking official
with the mercenaries typical to given environment, with intellectual
level and with completely lack of `spiritual fire’. The current
Patriarch is neither the first nor the last Catholicos of our history,
who does not have the qualities of being a spiritual leader. Bishop at
Shirak Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church Michael Ajapahyan, to
confirm that `who is not an Apostolic, he is not an Armenian’, in my
opinion, a wrong and splitting thesis, says that to understand the
music of Komitas you definitely need to be a man of our faith. Let’s
leave aside the circumstance that in this case to understand Bach’s
music you should be a Catholic, and thus we admit by default that Bach
belong only to Catholics, and Komitas is only ours. I just wanted to
remind how the relations of our prominent musician and `bosses’ of the
Holy See are arranged after the death of Catholicos Khrimian Hayrik.
They were relations between the talented individual and average,
spiritually self-contained leaders. Thus, `shining’ among the priests
are as rare as in other specialties. … As a response to my criticism
to the high clergymen, the following `murderous’ counterargument is
usually brought: `and are you perfect to write such things, first,
consider the beam of timber that is in your own eye.’ Of course, there
are thousands logical answers to it, but I will try to find the
shortest. No, I am not perfect, I am too far from being perfect. We
all have a long way to go. His Holiness, too.

Aram Abrahamyan
Read more at:

Zaruhi Postanjyan. `They are not graspers of the chance’

October 19 2013

No matter how the members of the Standing Committee of NA Foreign
Affairs and Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharyan asked Zaruhi
Postanjyan to withdraw her draft law and wait for a better time or to
try to do another way that her draft law on `Recognition of Nagorno
Karabakh Republic’ not to get voted, she remained steadfast. As a
result, the Committee in the ratio of three votes pro and two votes
cons will present this draft law with negative conclusion to the next
session. Interestingly, one of the voters voting `con’ was de jure
member of the `Heritage’ party Alexander Arzumanyan, the other was the
Republican Party member Hamlet Harutyunyan who demonstratively left
the session, saying that he will not participate in the discussion of
the issue presented by Zaruhi Postanjyan, but in the end he came and
voted `con’. Those voting `pro’ were Nikol Pashinyan from the ANC,
Tevan Poghosyan from `Heritage’ and Armen Rustamyan from ARF. The
other members present at the session, Republican Samvel Farmanyan,
Razmik Markosyan, Shirak Torosyan, `Rule of Law’ party member Khachik
Harutyunyan and independent MP Edmon Marukyan did not participate in
the voting. There should be at least five `pros’ for the draft law to
be endorsed. After the session, to our questions whether Ms.
Postanjyan expected such a result, she said that she expected for
better, she thought that, eventually, their conscience will all of a
sudden awaken, but, unfortunately, so far `the conscience is with the
devil, it does not belong to them’. Ms. Postanjyan unequivocally
opposed the opinions repeatedly voiced during the session that, now,
it is not the convenient moment to recognize NKR. `You heard how many
times they said that we need to grasp the chance, but they were also
saying that there were moments that they missed, they are not graspers
of the chance, and again they are going to miss the chance. Today,
also, they are going to miss the chance with their participation.’ The
details of the discussion will be available a bit later.

Melania BARSEGHYAN

Read more at:

Where to Invest Our Resources?

By Raffi Bedrosyan // October 17, 2013 in Headline, Opinion

When visiting Armenia for the first time, one’s itinerary invariably
includes a multitude of churches and monasteries. Modern Armenia is
the land of churches. Historic Armenia in Anatolia was also a land of
churches, with nearly 4,000 churches and monasteries. The Van Lake
region alone had over 300 churches. The ancient city of Ani, dubbed
the `city of 1,001 churches,’ contained 40 churches. We are proud of
our churches, awed at their architectural beauty and intricate
construction techniques, and amazed at their settings, perched as they
are on inaccessible mountaintops.

Poetry reading and music at Sourp Giragos Church (Photo by Arif Temel)

Yet, this obsession with churches, when combined with our tragic
history, makes me think, `I wish we had fewer churches to visit, and
instead many more victory monuments like Sardarabad. I wish our
Armenian kings, princes, political leaders, and wealthy notables in
the past had spent less time, talent, resources, and money on these
churches, and instead more on fortifications and defense of our lands
and territories.’

Delving into the reasons why these churches were built, it becomes
apparent that it was not merely to meet the religious needs of the
population; rather, it was to bring glory to the benefactor and
perhaps help him `ease into heaven.’ Throughout history, our religious
leaders have told benefactors that there is no better way to serve
God, Jesus Christ, and Armenians than to build another church.
Therefore, regardless of political, economic, or social realities and
upheavals, Armenians continued to build churches, in both historic and
modern Armenia, as well as in all corners of the world, often times
disregarding other needs and priorities. This was the case in medieval
Armenian kingdoms in historic Armenia, in Cilicia and Eastern Anatolia
up until 1915, then in the diaspora, and now in modern Armenia.

When future generations look back on our 22 year-old Armenia and on
the diaspora, they will see the challenges we faced in establishing a
new country from the ruins of the Soviet Empire, while at the same
time fighting the deadly Karabagh war, dealing with the closed borders
and economic blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan, the disastrous 1989
earthquake, and most critically, the continuing depopulation of
Armenia due to a lack of employment and investment opportunities. And
they will also see examples of vast church-building activities both in
Armenia and the diaspora. In 1997, in the midst of urgent needs to
reconstruct Armenia and Karabagh, Armenians found the money to build
the St. Gregory Illuminator Cathedral in Yerevan. In 2001, diasporans
in Los Angeles started the construction of a huge cathedral, while
there was and is still scarce resources to keep Armenian schools open.
In 2011, an oligarch donated all the funds to build the St. Hovhannes
Cathedral in Abovyan, while the starving local population had almost
emptied the town. Just last month, wealthy Russian Armenians opened a
vast new cathedral in Moscow. The Etchmiadzin Catholicosate has become
a Vatican-like complex continuously expanding with new buildings. The
combined total expenditure on these large churches, as well as several
other smaller church projects, easily exceeds $200 million. These
projects are not funded from revenue-generating sources or regular
budgets, but instead, from one-time significant donations from
benefactors, mostly from the diaspora. They will not generate any
revenue, either, but will create a continuing need for additional
donations for upkeep and maintenance.

One wonders if these donations could be used for more worthwhile
projects, such as helping Armenians remain in Armenia, or helping
Armenians remain Armenian in the diaspora. There seems to be a widely
accepted belief that neither the government nor the church is in touch
with the concerns and needs of the common people. During a recent
private audience with the Catholicos, he was asked what the Armenian
Church can do to keep our youth more interested in the church and
attached to their Armenian roots. His curt response was, `This should
be done at home and at school.’ The much-anticipated Bishops Synod,
assembled last month for the first time in 600 years, did not produce
any tangible resolutions to address the concerns of the common
Armenian, be it in Armenia or the diaspora. Most benefactors do not
want to invest in Armenia, due to a fear that government corruption
and required bribes will make their investment useless – and, in so
doing, will fail in creating economic benefits for either themselves
or the Armenian population. Unless the government takes concrete steps
to change the valid perception that investments only end up in the
hands of the governing oligarchs, there will not be much participation
in the desperately needed economic growth of Armenia. In the meantime,
church leaders will continue to preach the tried and true argument
that the most beneficial donation a benefactor can make for himself
and his family is giving to the church.

Of course, there are truly worthwhile church-building and restoration
projects, with strategic and significant benefits for all Armenians.
One example is the restoration of the Ghazantchetsots Church in
Shushi, undertaken immediately after the Karabagh war. During the war,
Azeris controlling Shushi used this historic church as an arms depot
and military center, from which they continuously bombarded
Stepanakert in the valley. They knew that Armenians would never attack
or fire on their own church. When Armenian commandos victoriously
entered Shushi in May of 1992, they found the church in shambles,
burned, desecrated, and full of human excrement. Today, it stands as a
symbol of victory against all odds.

The other critical restoration project is the total reconstruction of
the Diyarbakir/Dikranagerd Surp Giragos Church in Turkey in 2011, the
first time a church was restored as a functioning church (and not
merely a museum) in historic Armenia after being destroyed in 1915.
This project was strategically significant for a number of reasons:
First, the restored church is concrete evidence against the denialist
state version of history of the government of Turkey, as it
demonstrates that there was a large Armenian presence in Anatolia
before 1915. Secondly, it immediately became a religious and cultural
center, helping the Turkish and Kurdish population of Turkey
understand the realities of 1915 through media events, conferences,
and concerts. Third, and for the first time since 1915, the foundation
that restored the church started the process of reclaiming the
properties belonging to the church (but confiscated after 1915) with
several properties already secured through negotiations and courts.
Fourth, the church became a living genocide memorial, attracting tens
of thousands of Armenian visitors from the diaspora and Armenia
annually, and starting a dialogue while fostering closer relationships
with liberated Kurds and Turks who have faced the historical truths of
1915, and now demand their government to do so as well. Last but not
least, the most significant outcome of the restoration of this church
has been the emergence of `hidden Armenians.’ Islamized Armenians have
started `coming out,’ visiting and praying in the church, getting
baptized, participating in Armenian-language courses, helping build an
Armenian museum on church grounds, contributing to the security and
administration of the church, demanding acceptance of their real
identity by the government, and so on. The church acts like a magnet
for these people. More than 100 people visit on average per day,
coming from all over Anatolia, and not just Diyarbakir, to try to find
their Armenian roots. New initiatives are underway to restore and
reclaim other destroyed Armenian churches and monasteries in historic
Armenia.

It is my sincere hope that future government and church leaders, as
well as future benefactors, will decide more wisely on what projects
to invest in, giving higher priority to the needs and wants of the
Armenian people compared to their own.

Armenia-EU cooperation to continue, says ruling party rep.

News | 18.10.13 | 09:51

Photo:

Regardless of whether Armenia signs an association deal or some new
document at the upcoming Eastern Partnership summit, cooperation with
the European Union will continue, said ruling Republican Party of
Armenia (RPA) spokesman Eduard Sharmazanov.

Speaking to reporters after the Thursday night meeting of the RPA
executive body, during which, he said, mostly intraparty and internal
political matters were discussed, Sharmazanov did not clarify whether
President Serzh Sargsyan will attend the summit in Vilnius, Lithuania,
on November 28-29 after what many analysts and officials in Brussels
said was an apparent U-turn in Armenia’s policy of European
integration connected with the announcement of the decision to join
the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

`I cannot say whether an association agreement, a statement, a
declaration in the old form or a new document would be signed at the
upcoming meeting in Vilnius, but it is our deep conviction that
cooperation will continue and it is necessary for both Europe and
Armenia,’ said the RPA spokesman as quoted by RFE/RL’s Armenian
Service.

`And the focal point of our dialogue should be freedom of speech and
establishment of democracy,’ added Sharmazanov.

Sergey Grinyaev: Russia’s decision on Nagorno-Karabakh depends on
Armenia’s decision on South Ossetia and Abkhazia

ArmInfo’s Interview with Sergey Grinyaev, Director General of the
Russian Center of Strategic Assessment and Forecasts

by David Stepanyan

Saturday, October 19, 17:15

What are the prospects of the Russian policy on creation of the Eurasian area?

I think the prospects of the Eurasian policy conducted by Russia today
are rather positive. Such optimism is based on impartial facts – the
integration processes are backed as they have been developing on the
ways of the integration ties available earlier. The industrial and
social ties of the USSR will be restored in some cases. This will
reduce expenses for integration much. Moreover, despite the years of
independent development, today the true and potential participants in
the Eurasian integration processes are much closer to each other by
their historic roots, than it seems at first sight. Using an example
of fast extension rates of the European Union for the last decades,
today we can see that absence of historical affinity and the gap in
the social and culture surroundings between the newcomer-states and
“old term residents” give birth not to the integration but
assimilation processes. As a rule, as a result of such unification,
new members of the EU lose their national identity.

Some experts say that despite its declared commitment to join the
Customs Union, the Armenian elite still represents the interests of
the West. Do you think this opinion meets the realities?

Unfortunately, I do. In the last years Armenia has been actively
pro-Western. This policy is welcomed by most Armenian communities
abroad even though Russia too has a big Armenian community. This is
mostly the fault of Russia, who has neglected the South Caucasus and
Central Asia in the last years. Today Israel and Turkey have much more
influence in the region than some 5-10 years ago, let alone China and
the United States. So, it would be wrong to expect that everything
will change the moment Armenia joins the Customs Union. In fact, it
was more the personal initiative of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan.

What economic benefits may Armenia get from its accession to the
Customs Union? Are these benefits commensurable with those from
signing the AA/DCFTA with the EU?

I think the question is asked in the wrong way. I would offer to turn
it around – what is Armenia ready to bring to the Customs Union to be
useful to that and to ensure its own prosperity? I am absolutely
confident that the current stage of integration is based on the
conditions of mutual pragmatic usefulness. The times have passed when
Russia shouldered problems of its close allies only to ensure their
false “integration”. Few allies appreciated Russia’s “kind will
gestures”. As a rule, they were striving to gain profit both from
Moscow and other geo-political centers simultaneously. So Yerevan’s
profit will depend on the fact how Armenia will display itself in the
new union, what it is ready to bring to it, and how much interesting
it will be to other partners. Only preserving of the current
status-quo at the labor market and preserving an opportunity of the
non-visa trips to the Customs Union member-states will allow Armenia
to preserve significant share of the foreign currency receipts, to
avoid unemployment at the local labor market, and as a result, to
preserve certain social stability. Europe cannot replace Russia’s
labor market. And taking into account the failure of multi-culturalism
policy, the reorientation of the European policy towards the national
objectives, one should wait for tightening of the migration policy in
the EU countries.

Many experts, including Russian ones, think that the major goal of
Moscow’s integration projects is Ukraine rather than Armenia or
Moldova. What can Moscow offer Kyiv to prevent Ukraine’s European
integration?

I am one of those specialists who consider Ukraine as one of the key
participants in the Eurasian integration process, without offence.
Since the Soviet period, Ukraine has been the basis of the country’s
industrial and agricultural might. Big well-educated human resources,
fruitful soil, potential in high-tech industry have really made that
country one of the most desirable candidates for Eurasian integration.
Without Ukraine, this integration process will be incomplete. The West
tries its best to prevent rapprochement of Moscow and Kyiv, he said.
What Moscow offers Ukraine is development of economic ties between
Russian and Ukrainian enterprises. Unlike Europe, Russia is interested
in Ukrainian aircrafts and potential in the field. Besides Russia, the
only country that is interested in, at least, preservation of
Ukraine’s industrial potential is China, and not Europe. The global
financial-economic crisis showed that the real sector is the only
pillar even for a developed country. And the Customs Union offers
development and protection of domestic markets through preferential
internal taxation and high foreign taxes. Integration ties of Russia
and Ukraine will be lost if their relations deteriorate. And what
then? Is Europe ready to support the aircraft and space engineering,
and agriculture industry of Ukraine? I am afraid, not. All the above
sectors are just rivals for Europe. What happened to the industry and
agriculture of the countries of Eastern Europe that joined the EU:
GDR, Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Baltic States? Did they manage
to sustain competition with of their European rivals? No, they
didn’t. Does Armenia need such perspectives? I think there is much to
think about.

After Armenia had taken a decision to join the Customs Union, Russian
experts started speaking of possible recognition of the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. They also
say that Azerbaijan can prevent this by Eurasian integration only. How
promising is this policy of `soft pressure’ on Baku?

Russia’s decision on Nagorno-Karabakh depends on Armenia’s decision on
South Ossetia and Abkhazia. As regards Azerbaijan, I would not say
that Russia is trying to force anybody to do join the Customs Union.
This is a pragmatic project. If Azerbaijan decides that it is good for
it, it is free to join. All territorial disputes must be solved before
the accession to the Customs Union lest they might cause tension in
it. This is what the EU does. They refuse to admit a country if it
has territorial disputes.

Global politics is experiencing sharp fluctuations directly affecting
the South Caucasus and the neighboring regions. The Syrian situation
is one of the examples. What can these fluctuations do to a small
country such as Armenia?

Even though Armenia is a small country, it must be tougher in
defending the rights and freedoms of Armenians living in Syria. I
regret that the strong Armenian Diaspora is doing nothing to solve the
Syrian problem. Pressured by the United States and the United Kingdom,
Armenia prefers being neutral on this problem, and this is in strong
contrast to the pro-American positions of Georgia and Azerbaijan. I
believe that Armenia and Russia must have a common stance on the
Syrian problem. Russia has managed to stabilize the situation in
Syria, but we are still far from peace. In this context, the
assistance of the Armenian Diaspora would be really invaluable. Their
support for our efforts would help us not only to stop the civil war
in Syria but also to save the lives of its citizens, many of whom
Armenians.

President of European Movement Azerbaijan wants to visit
Nagorno-Karabakh despite the threat to be declared persona non grata
in Azerbaijan

by Marianna Lazarian

ARMINFO
Saturday, October 19, 15:01

President of the European Movement Azerbaijan (EMA) Ramin Hajili
urges Armenia to withdraw its troops from “the occupied territories”.
He assures that if Armenia withdraws its troops from “these 6
regions”, official Baku will make very big concessions.

Hajili fails to answer ArmInfo’s question about the concessions to be
made by Azerbaijan, as well as the question why Armenia, the winner in
the Karabakh war, should make any concessions. “In this particular
case, someone should make concessions. Azeri people want no war and
want the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be settled peacefully”, he says.

In the meantime, despite the prospect to be declared persona non grata
in Azerbaijan, Hajili has expressed a desire to visit Karabakh.
“Despite that threat, I would like to visit Nagorno-Karabakh. I may
also be blacklisted for I have visited Armenia, but if we are afraid
of such actions, the problem will not move off the dead center”, says
Hajili.

Hajili says that he was born in Nagorno-Karabakh and lived there till
he became 10 years old.

To note, EMA President Ramin Hajili and EMA Expert on Peace Building
Hamida Giyasbeyli have visited Yerevan within the framework of the
European Movement International’s project on improvement of civic
initiatives in the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict.

Romanian TV channel broadcasts program dedicated to Armenians

12:30, 19 October, 2013

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 19, ARMENPRESS. “Suceava Reports” (VorbeÅ?te Suceava)
program broadcasted on Plus TV television of the Romanian city of
Suceava regularly hosts historian and publicist Adrian Popovici. Each
time Adrian Popovici appears in the program, he touches upon the
issues dedicated to the Armenians despite the topic of the program.
The scope of the program includes social, religious, and educational
issues. After four thematic programs dedicated to the Armenians, the
TV audience sent a number of letters asking the administration of the
TV Company to continue introducing the world’s oldest Christian
nation, which lived side by side with the Romanians for centuries.
Hence, the host of the program Relu GavrilÄ? Ursache and Adrian
Popovici came to a conclusion to start the program introducing
materials published in Romanian-Armenian “Ararat” periodical. One of
those materials was titled “The Canonization of the Armenian Genocide
Victims in the Armenian Church”.

This is a unique initiative in the history of the local television.
Adrian Popovici states that “Suceava is also an ancient Armenian
spiritual
centre, like Etchmiadzin, Sis, and Ani.”

László Kemény: Hungarian professor: Armenia will manage `to keep a
foot in both worlds’

ArmInfo’s interview with László Kemény, Professor of Political Science (Hungary)

by Marianna Lazarian
Saturday, October 19, 12:37

The ruling party of Armenia claims that the decision to access the
Customs Union stems from national security of Armenia. How much
grounded is that statement, given that Russia sells weapons to
Azerbaijan amid Kazakhstan’s demands to immediately close the borders
with Nagorno Karabakh? What did really motivate Armenia to access the
CU?

The national security of all countries, including Armenia, is a
complicate system having its secrets and nuances that are not subject
to disclosure. I suppose that Armenia’s decision was based on
long-term interests of your people. The geopolitical location of your
country, as well as the political, economic, military and other
developments around it should also be taken into account. It is
necessary to take into account also the social and economic situation
in the country, external factors, the attitude of external forces
towards Armenia, their possible pressure and the country’s ability to
resist that pressure or use it in its favor. I could bring further
arguments to show how complicate was that decision, but the
responsibility for that decision is laid upon the leadership of
Armenia and the people will assess whether it was a right decision at
the next democratic elections.

As regards the sale of arms of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan’s pressure on
Nagorno Karabakh’s `hot-button subject,’ one can assess those actions
only taking into consideration all the aforementioned.

In Armenia’s decision to access the Customs Union besides strategic
factors, there were also specific calculations and historical
experience of partnership with super powers. Now we observe a new
world order where every country is free to decide what integration
process is more beneficial for it, though some political forces still
force their vision of `cold war.’ Armenia has decided that it is more
favorable for it to access Russia’s Customs Union to establish ties
with the countries of that integration bloc.

What prospects will Armenia have in the Customs Union and will there
be any prospects at all? What impact will this decision have on the
republic? Experts say that by making this decision the republic has
once for all refused European integration. How much grounded is this
opinion? What has Armenia lost by refusing the Association Agreement?

When speaking of `Armenia’s intention to join the Customs Union’, one
should remember that Armenia has been negotiating with the
representatives of the Customs Union and the European Union for a long
time. In the meantime, Armenia also announced its intention to get
integrated into the Eurasian Union. The country has been participating
in the European Neighborhood Policy since 2004 and in the Eastern
Partnership program since 2009. Moreover, a public opinion poll
conducted in 2005 demonstrated that almost two-thirds of the country’s
population would like to see Armenia in the European Union. In the
meantime, Armenia has close ties with Russia and it stated in both
2006 and 2010 that there was no alternative to those relations.

The process is rather complicated. In the course of time the
participants’ approaches towards the two major integration projects
have changed. For instance, on 10 July 2013, Stefan Fule, European
Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, said
in Yerevan that the European Union did not make Armenia choose between
the integration projects. Your issue
(¹6E67A0-EA06-11E2-A9410EB7C0D21663)
said that Fule did not know whether Russia exerted pressure on Armenia
though he followed the news and was aware of a number of problems.
Fule thought that the signing of the Association Agreement would not
restrict Armenia’s interaction with other countries. It would help
Armenia to strengthen its positions even more, he said. In the
meantime, the European Commissioner stressed that there should be
elementary compatibility between the two integration projects. He said
that the EU did not force its partners to restrict their relations
with Russia. He added that the EU would encourage the cooperation with
Russia in the fields that met Armenia’s interests.

On 11 September, 2013, Fule pointed out that the member states of
Eastern Partnership could expand their cooperation with the Customs
Union, however, as observers only, since the Customs Union membership
was incompatible with Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. A day
later he met with Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and
stressed that the issue of initialing the Association Agreement was no
longer on the agenda given that on Sept 3 Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan announced Armenia’s decision to join the Customs Union and to
contribute to the formation of the Eurasian economic union.

On October 8, Edward Nalbandian, Foreign Minister of Armenia, had a
meeting in Brussels with Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative
for Foreign Affairs. Minister Nalbandian underlined that Armenia
wished to move forward the partnership with the EU in all possible
directions relying on those achievements and progress which were
jointly made in recent years in Armenia-EU relationships. High
Representative Catherine Ashton noted that the EU wished to continue
the development of comprehensive cooperation with Armenia in all
areas, which could be compatible with the decision of Armenia to join
the Customs Union
().

The impression is that Armenia will be able `to keep a foot in both
worlds’ and create a similar development prospect for other countries
as well.

What should Armenia expect from the Eastern Partnership Summit in
Vilnius? Will EU offer Armenia a new format of cooperation?

The Eastern Partnership has undergone various changes since its
establishment. Its initial goal announced in 2008 was to develop
integration processes of the EU and the partner countries: Ukraine,
Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Belarus. The situation has
changed after the Constituent Meeting in Prague on 7 May 2009 when a
new joint declaration was adopted to boost the political and economic
integration between the EU and the EaP countries. However, the
political and economic impact on these countries has not been fully
justified.

The prior component of EU’s new initiative is the energy component,
particularly, energy supply to Europe alternative to Russia’s
deliveries. Another evident goal is to break Russia’s geopolitical
influence in Eastern Europe and strengthen the EU’s positions there.
Some Russian experts still think that the EU intends to finally
disintegrate the post-Soviet area via the Eastern Partnership project
and bring the CIS countries out of Russia’s influence.

Actually, none of the six countries is able to fulfill the EU’s
requirements. Ukraine is closer to the EU partnership more than
others, but it has faced an impassable barrier – “Timoshenko case.”
Ukraine will be able to overcome these obstacles only if it fulfills
the EU’s requirements, which have not been coordinated with the
Ukrainian public yet. As for Armenia, it is out of the question.

Thank you, Mr. Kemény.

§CDC900-3899-11E3-A45A0EB7C0D21663

Yerevan to host a high-level conference on `Combating racism,
Xenophobia and Intolerance in Europe’

12:03 19.10.2013

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, Chairman of the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, will open in Yerevan a High Level
Conference on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Intolerance in Europe
on 21 October.

The conference takes place in the framework of the Armenian
Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
and brings together state representatives, governmental, international
and independent experts, representatives of international
organisations and civil society.

During the conference the participants will have the opportunity to
reflect upon racism and xenophobia in political discourse, the role of
human rights institutions in combating racial and ethnic
discrimination as well as topics related to combating hate speech and
racial stereotypes on social networks and media.

Anti-LGBT law would reflect noncompliance with international
obligations – HRW to Armenian president

10:56 – 19.10.13

Human Rights watch has expressed its concerns over a proposal for
revising the gender equality law in Armenia in an effort to remove the
controversial provision regarding the definition of gender.

In a letter addressed to President Serzh Sargsyan, a deputy director
for the organization’s Europe and Central Asia Division, Rachel Denber
, says the measure would amount to a restriction against people based
on sexual orientation, reflecting t he Armenian government’s
noncompliance with its obligations to promote tolerance towards LGBT
people and protect them against discrimination.

The organizations calls for the Armenian government’s efforts to
protect the rights of the LGBT people and take action to prevent the
passage of any measures that it says would violate the European
Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments.

The full text of the letter is provided below:

Dear Mr Sargsyan,

We are writing to express our concern regarding a proposal for
legislative amendments that appeared on the website of the Police of
the Republic of Armenia on August 5. The proposals sought to add two
articles to the Code of Administrative Offenses outlawing the
`propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations,’ a move that would be
in clear violation of freedom of expression and discriminate against
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

The police have since removed the proposal from its website, and media
reports indicate that there are no immediate plans for parliament to
consider it. However, we are concerned that other institutions may
seek to introduce similar proposals and ask that you ensure that such
measures are forcefully opposed as incompatible with international
human rights law and would not advance for parliamentary debate.

The proposal claimed the ban would `protect’ Armenian families. It
would impose fines of up to 350 times Armenia’s minimum wage on
citizens, public officials, and legal entities who breach the law. The
proposal did not define `propaganda’ or `nontraditional sexual
relations.’

The broad wording of the proposal meant that it could have been used
to restrict the rights of human rights organizations, civil society
groups, or anyone else who works on issues such as the rights of LGBT
people or sex workers. It also would have discriminated against LGBT
people on grounds of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Armenian civil society organizations learned of the proposal only when
it was published on the website of the Police of the Republic of
Armenia.

Measures such as those proposed by the police are illegal under
international human rights instruments that Armenia is obliged to
uphold. They impose unjustified – and therefore unlawful –
restrictions on the freedoms of expression and assembly, in violation
of articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Armenia is a party to both. They also violate the
international prohibition on discrimination, guaranteed by both
instruments.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has unanimously
adopted a set of recommendations (CM/Rec (2010)5) to member states,
including Armenia, on measures to combat discrimination on the grounds
of sexual orientation or gender identity. The recommendations invite
the member states to ensure that the stipulated principles and
measures are applied in national legislation, policies, and practices
relevant to the protection of LGBT people. Relevant recommendations
are:

1. Examine existing legislative and other measures, keep them under
review, and collect and analyze relevant data, in order to monitor and
redress any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual
orientation or gender identity;

1. Ensure that legislative and other measures are adopted and
effectively implemented to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual
orientation or gender identity, to ensure respect for the human rights
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons and to promote
tolerance towards them.

Measures such as those in the proposal directly contradict the Council
of Europe recommendations.

Civil society organizations in Armenia have expressed concern over the
government’s failure to protect the social, economic and political
rights of LGBT people. LGBT people continue to face discrimination in
accessing employment and healthcare, as well as violence in the army
and in families. The government has yet to pass a law banning hate
crimes in Armenia, leaving LGBT people vulnerable to abuses such as
the repeated homophobic attacks against the DIY pub during May 2012. A
draft law currently under consideration by parliament outlawing
discrimination on the grounds of sex, ethnicity, and age omits sexual
orientation from its considerations.

Any measures to limit LGBT peoples’ freedom of expression and assembly
on the basis of their sexual or gender identity would further reflect
the Armenian government’s noncompliance with its obligations to
promote tolerance towards LGBT people and protect them against
discrimination. They could also possibly condone homophobia and
transphobia, which contributes to a climate of hatred and violence.

We call on the Armenian government to support LGBT peoples’ human
rights and take actions to curb the passage of any measures that
violate the European Convention on Human Rights and other
international instruments to which Armenia is party.
Sincerely,

Rachel Denber

Deputy Director

Europe and Central Asia Division

Copies of the letter have been sent to Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan
and President of the National Assembly Hovik Abrahamyan.