Author: Kanayan Tamar

Armenian Genocide through art: Impact of performance on recognition

14:55 * 06.09.14

Any piece of art or performance by a Diaspora-Armenian artist can
raise awareness of the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian Cause, but
given the targets and audiences, they are not absolutely likely to
replace state functions, says Violet Grigoryan, an Armenian writer and
publicist.

“A piece by an independent artist – be it a painting, performance or
whatever – is of more help to the audience and people who might be
politically less aware of the Armenian Genocide, interstate relations
and the Armenian history. It works better, raising more people’s
awareness. But its effect is for the given moment only, with no
guarantees or responsibilities for future,” she told Tert.am,
commenting on US-Armenian rock musician Serj Tankian’s initiative to
co-author the symphonic composition 100 Years ahead of the Armenian
Genocide centennial.

The musician had earlier unveiled a plan for presenting the project on
September 20 in Pasadena. Lark Musical Society has been chosen to
premier the new composition.

Actress Lala Mnatsaknyan is of the opinion that it is very important
to focus more coordinated efforts on the art or performance aspect
while seeking an international recognition and condemnation of
Genocide. Speaking to Tert.am, the actress said she expects more
concrete results from Diaspora-Armenian artists but expressed regret
that the events were not arranged much earlier.

“It is impossible to organize a concert in May and invite a couple of
people here to sing, recite poetry and then leave. This should have
been already done, but I do not see anything as yet. Perhaps they are
planning to arrange it later. But why do it late? Didn’t we know about
2015 five years ago? This should have been done long ago so that we
would be in that process now,” she said.

The actress proposed producing films and staging performances, noting
in the meantime that they do not absolutely have to feature crying
scenes or other sad episodes.

“It is important to organize globally interesting events, and not only
on artists’ level. The more we have people speaking about Genocide,
the better the international community will be aware of it. We, the
individuals, do what were are supposed to, but we need a higher level
of state assistance and a higher level of reaction. It is necessary to
speak about this, because we are losing the moment,” Mnatsakanyan
added.

NATO Upholds Territorial Integrity of Armenia, Azerbaijan

Friday, September 5th, 2014

Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the NATO summit in Wales

NEWPORT, Wales–In an all-encompassing declaration adopted Friday at a
NATO summit in Wales, the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principle
decision-making body, made references to conflicts in the South
Caucasus and Eastern Europe. The declaration, keeping in line with
NATO verbiage since 2006, referred to territorial integrity while
neglecting to mention the right to self-determination.

“Russia’s illegitimate occupation of Crimea and military intervention
in eastern Ukraine have raised legitimate concerns among several of
NATO’s other partners in Eastern Europe,” the Wales Summit Declaration
reads.

“Allies will continue to support the right of partners to make
independent and sovereign choices on foreign and security policy, free
from external pressure and coercion. Allies also remain committed in
their support to the territorial integrity, independence, and
sovereignty of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Republic of
Moldova.”

“In this context, we will continue to support efforts towards a
peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the south Caucasus, as well as
in the Republic of Moldova, based upon these principles and the norms
of international law, the UN Charter, and the Helsinki Final Act. The
persistence of these protracted conflicts continues to be a matter of
particular concern, undermining the opportunities for citizens in the
region to reach their full potential as members of the Euro-Atlantic
community. We urge all parties to engage constructively and with
reinforced political will in peaceful conflict resolution, within the
established negotiation frameworks,” the declaration says.

Turkey should reconcile with its own past – Edward Nalbandian

11:37 ¢ 06.09.14

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s article was published in
the French Le Figaro with slight abridgements

Below is the full version

In international relations there are, unfortunately, cases of missed
opportunities. The statement of Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an, followed by the
comments of other Turkish senior officials on the eve and after the
commemoration of the 99th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide are
such cases. The fabricated notions of “common pain”, `just memory’ and
the appeal to the Turks and Armenians to `follow Erdogan’s lead’ are
misleading. Ahmet Davutoglu declares `that the main goal of Erdogan’s
statement is prevention of worldwide efforts of the Genocide
recognition’. Instead of concrete steps towards reconciliation one can
find calls to complicity. I mean complicity against the international
recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

It is hard to find a nation nostalgic towards its centuries-old
suppression in its ancestral homeland. Any oppressed nation cannot
share the nostalgia towards the Ottoman Empire. Like other empires,
the Ottoman Empire was built upon and forcefully sustained through
suppression of the basic rights and freedoms of many of its citizens.

Mr Davutoglu’s differentiation of the Western and Turkish perception
of sufferings by Christians and Muslims is astonishing. The Armenian
Genocide is not only part of Armenian or western memory and history,
but also of the memory of the Muslim world. One of the earliest
references to the Armenian Genocide belongs to Muslim witness Fayez El
Ghossein, who in 1916 published his work entitled `The Massacres in
Armenia.’ Sharif and Emir of Mecca Husayn ibn Ali was one of the
prominent Islamic leaders, who acted against the program of physical
annihilation of the Armenians and called on his subjects to defend
Armenians as they would defend themselves and their children. In
1919-1921 the large-scale extermination of Armenians were referred
such Turkish public figures as Refi Cevat, Ahmet Refik Altinay. Many
Muslim historians refer to the massacres of Armenians as genocide,
while Arab historian Moussa Prince used the term `Armenocide’,
considering it as `the most genocidal genocide.’

For the sake of `just memory’ artificial political actions and calls
are not needed, while those, who dare express their opinion freely are
killed like Hrant Dink, or exiled like Orhan Pamuk, or taken to
custody, like Ragıp Zarakolu.

Davutoglu is playing the same old tune of founding a commission of
historians `in order to find the truth’. One of the most competent
international institutions on genocide studies, the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, in answer to the same proposal, made
an appeal to the Turkish government to accept what had been proven
long ago. Instead of repeating decade-old re-worded or rephrased
appeals we need genuine and concrete steps. Ratification of the Zurich
Protocols, normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations, opening of the
borders could pave the way to the difficult path of reconciliation
between our peoples. The sub-commission on historical dimension, as
envisaged by those Protocols, could implement a dialogue with the aim
to restore mutual confidence between the two nations. It would be
impossible to do by putting under question the reality of the Armenian
Genocide.

Led by an apparent desire to deny the fact of the genocide, as defined
by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, Erdogan’s message yet again underlined that what happened
in 1915 `was regardless of religion or ethnic origin.’ It seems that
the 1919 Turkish Military Tribunal’s Indictment, which proved by
undeniable facts that the deportations and large-scale massacres of
the Armenians were a state policy, and sentenced its main masterminds
to death, has been forgotten in Ankara. It seems that Rafael Lemkin’s
development of the concept of `genocide’ has gone unnoticed in Ankara.
I have to remind that 99 years ago on May 24, 1915 Russia, France and
the Great Britain issued a special declaration by which they warned
the perpetrators of the atrocities against the Armenian people of
their personal responsibility for `these new crimes of Turkey against
humanity and civilization.’ It is beyond any doubt that the Armenian
Genocide was organized with genocidal intent. Meanwhile an attempt is
made by the Turkish officials to equate the losses of the war and the
systematic annihilation of Armenians, as a result of which millions of
my predecessors lost their lives, homes, lands, properties. There was
an attempt to strip millions of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire of
their right to life, as well as their past ` more than 2000 cultural
and religious monuments were destroyed and the survivors were driven
off the lands they had inhabited for many centuries, before Turks came
to this region. In 1915 one of the chief masterminds of the Armenian
Genocide, then Interior Minister Mehmed Talaat Pasha confessed to
Germany’s Consul General that `there is no Armenian question, because
there are no more Armenians.’ He was wrong, but the nature, magnitude
and the consequences of that horrible crime are far beyond the
definition of `suffering.’

In one of the interviews Erdogan rhetorically asked `if such a
Genocide occurred would there have been any Armenians living in this
country?’ Today a large number of Jews live in Germany, but no one
would dare put under question the reality of the Holocaust. Or, how
can one speak of `relocation’, when 1.5 million of people died or were
killed? Planned marching people to the dessert, starving them to
death, killing most of them en route is not a relocation, it is a
`death march,’ it is a genocide.

The denial of the genocide, the atmosphere of impunity paved the way
for the repetition of new crimes against humanity. Genocide denial is
considered by scholars as the last phase of the crime of genocide.
Even though there are still few who continue to deny, but this does
not mean that there is a `dispute’ about it. On the one hand, there is
the fact of genocide that nobody doubts in the world, the pain of
which every single Armenian family anywhere in the world bears until
now, and on the other hand, there is an official and imposed denial of
the genocide by the Turkish government. Turkey is in dispute with
itself.

Is it possible to make the descendents of genocide survivors, spread
all over the world, a part of the complicity of genocide denial? Is it
possible to equate perpetrators and victims of genocide by such
clichés as `common pain’? It is appalling to imagine that the
perpetrators of Holocaust, of genocides in Cambodia, in Rwanda, and
other crimes against humanity, can be equated with the victims. Is it
even possible to consider genocide survivors’ descendants as `Turkish
diaspora’, which some Turkish politicians are trying to do today?

As Rwanda Genocide survivor Esther Mujawayo recently mentioned at the
UN Human Rights Council High Level Panel Discussion in Geneva
dedicated to the Genocide Prevention Convention, `Today is the fourth
generation of Armenians who are still waiting”. Not only Armenians,
the whole international community for almost 100 years has been
waiting for Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide. The genuineness
of the desire for reconciliation must be proven through recognition
and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government must
not refrain from genuine reconciliation. Thousands of Turkish citizens
have opted for that path already.

Davutoglu mentions Armenian composer Komitas as an example of
Armenians’ creative activities in the Ottoman Empire. ”Just memory”
should have shed some light on the life of Komitas, who was a witness
of the Genocide. He had seen all the sufferings, the horror that
befell the Armenians and said that “nobody knows all the wounds of our
tragedy… this distress will drive us mad!” And from 1916 onwards,
for 20 years he spent his life in a psychiatric hospital.

On April 24, 2003 when we were unveiling the Komitas statue in Paris,
I expressed hope that this memorial to the Armenian Genocide victims
could symbolize the sufferings and memory of the victims of all
genocides perpetrated in the 20th century, that it would become a
mourning site for all those who consider tolerance and respect to
human life and dignity as a continuous process, that there would bow
not only the descendents of those who suffered physically and
spiritually, but also the descendents of those who caused those
sufferings. I believe that the route to reconciliation is not a path
of denial, but that of conscious memory, because true reconciliation
does not mean forgetting the past or feeding younger generations with
the tales of denial. Turkey should reconcile with its own past to be
able to build its future.

The President of Armenia has invited the Turkish President to visit
Armenia on April 24, 2015, on the occasion of the commemoration of the
100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. We hope it will not be a
missed opportunity and Turkey’s President will be in Yerevan on that
day.

Edward Nalbandian
Foreign Minister of Armenia

Hraparak: Yet another elite wedding to take place in Armenia

12:13 06/09/2014 >> DAILY PRESS

Armenia’s ruling elite will attend yet another elite wedding tomorrow:
the sister of Yerevan Mayor Taron Margaryan and the son of former head
of Nubarashen prison Arsen Afrikyan are getting married, with the
wedding ceremony to be held at Florence restaurant belonging to former
Mayor of Yerevan Karen Karapetyan, Hraparak reports.

All representatives of the ruling elite are invited to the wedding
ceremony, including Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan, with much talk
recently about disagreements between the Premier and Taron Margaryan,
the newspaper notes.

Source: Panorama.am

Yerevan Brandy Company to buy 37,000 tons of grapes this year

YEREVAN, September 5. / ARKA /. The French-owned Yerevan Brandy
Company (YBC) said today it will purchase 37,000 metric tons of grapes
this year, by 2,000 tons more it bought last year.

The company will pay 150 drams for 1 kg of grapes to be bought by its
branches in Armavir and Aygavan and 140 drams by the branch in Tavush
region, up from 145 and 135 drams respectively, it paid last year.

The winegrowers will get the money within 3-4 days after delivering
their grapes to the company.

This year, the Yerevan Brandy Company will continue buying grapes from
farmers who signed seven year-long contracts with the company. The YBC
said it buys around 40% of grapes from these farmers.

“In view of increasing purchases, the Yerevan Brandy Company is
expanding its production capacity. In particular, a new distillation
workshop will open soon at Armavir branch, which will be equipped with
three additional Charente distillation apparatus,” the company said.

The Yerevan Brandy Company was founded in 1887. In 1998 it was sold
to French Pernod Ricard for $30 million. -0

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 5 2014

A mountainous conflict
5 September 2014 – 2:25pm
By The Economist

THROUGH a slit in a stone bunker, soldiers from the Nagorno-Karabakh
republic can see their Azeri foes just 150 metres away. In these
mountains between two former Soviet republics, there are echoes of
Ukraine. This summer was “more tense than before”, says an officer at
the front of this long-simmering conflict.

Nagorno-Karabakh is run by ethnic Armenians but is legally part of
Azerbaijan. Secession in 1988 led to a war that killed some 30,000
people. A shaky ceasefire ensued in 1994, with Azerbaijan losing 14%
of its territory. Exchanges of fire along the front have long been
common, but the clashes this year have been the worst since 1994.
Commando raids became frequent, adding to the usual sniper fire. And
the action has spread to the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, where
civilians have become targets. Each side blames the other. Heavy Azeri
losses at the start of August provoked bellicose rhetoric from the
president, Ilham Aliyev. “The war is not over,” he declared. “Only the
first stage of it is.”

Like a headmaster disciplining unruly students, Russia’s Vladimir
Putin summoned Mr Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan,
for talks in Sochi in early August. Tensions cooled, but the parties
are no closer to a settlement. On September 2nd Mr Sargsyan
congratulated Nagorno-Karabakh on the 23rd anniversary of its
independence by calling the republic’s choice “an irreversible reality
now”.

But it is Ukraine that casts an ominous shadow, “reinforcing the
zero-sum mentality”, says Thomas de Waal of the Carnegie Endowment in
Washington. Trust in international mediators and security guarantees
has frayed. Officials in Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital, detect double
standards over sovereignty and self-determination. They wonder why the
West punishes Russia for annexing Crimea, but not Armenia for similar
behaviour in Karabakh. Many ask why the West approves of Ukraine using
force to restore territorial integrity, but insists on Azerbaijan’s
peaceful patience. As a result, Azerbaijan is “losing trust in the
ability of the West to maintain a deterrent or a peaceful ceasefire,”
says Matthew Bryza, a former American ambassador to Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan feels vulnerable. Russia provides a security guarantee for
Armenia, where it has a military base and 4,000-5,000 troops. Azeri
officials see the Western response to Ukraine as tepid, part of a
worrying pattern of disengagement.

This perceived indifference has favoured a crackdown in Azerbaijan.
Several anti-government activists have been arrested this year, some
charged with treason. The bank accounts of NGOs have been frozen.
International pressure was once a “brake mechanism” on Azerbaijan,
says Sabine Freizer, at the Atlantic Council, but it may no longer
work.

Azerbaijan’s new assertiveness has come with the weakening of two
restraints: its military disadvantage and the prospect of a diplomatic
settlement. Riding a wave of petrodollars, Azerbaijan’s annual defence
budget rose from $177m in 2003 to $3.4 billion in 2013. Purchases
include sophisticated weapons from Israel, Turkey and Russia. The
country has a new and inexperienced defence minister.

Armenia has built up its forces and defences too. Even so, Mr Putin
used its sense of vulnerability to persuade it to apply for membership
of the Eurasian union, his pet project. The risk of open war remains
low, but the militarisation of the borders and the willingness to use
violence creates “the risk of a war by accident”, says Richard
Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Regional Studies Centre. The
consequences would be disastrous, drawing in Russia, Turkey and Iran,
and potentially feeding unrest in the Middle East.

The framework of a peace plan exists, hinging on the return of seven
de jure Azerbaijani districts around Nagorno-Karabakh in exchange for
the republic’s right to decide its own status. But in Stepanakert, the
capital, leaders insist that a settlement is impossible without a seat
at the table for Karabakh, which is represented by Armenia. Even then,
a compromise that includes returning territory to Azerbaijan is
“unrealistic”, says Nagorno-Karabakh’s prime minister, Arayik
Harutyunyan.

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 5 2014

Armenia loses competitive potential

5 September 2014 – 12:23pm

Armenia’s rank has changed from 85 to 79 in the Global Competitiveness
Report of 2014-2015. The report includes 144 countries. The situation
has got worse since the replacement of Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan
with Ovik Abramyan, AmenianReport reports.

The country rose 2 points in higher education and infrastructure and 1
points in technological readiness. The efficiency of the labour market
dropped to rank 24, development of the financial market to rank 21.

Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine made progress in the Global Competitiveness Report.

World Bulletin, Turkey
Sept 5 2014

Turkey remembers 2008’s ‘football diplomacy’

History was made six years ago when Turkey’s football team travelled
to Yerevan to play Armenia in a match charged with emotional and
political significance.

Six years ago tomorrow, the Hrazdan Stadium in the Armenian capital of
Yerevan erupted into a wall of noise as two unlikely opponents lined
out in the first World Cup meeting of Armenia and Turkey — a match
which became the first round of the so-called ‘football diplomacy’
between the two troubled neighbors.

Amid the flags, anthems, jeers and whistles, Turkey’s Abdullah Gul,
who recently stepped down as president, made a small piece of history.
By accepting an invitation from his Armenian counterpart, Serzh
Sarkisian, he became the first Turkish head-of-state to visit Ankara’s
smaller neighbor.

Gul’s visit was an uncharacteristic display of good neighborliness —
the two countries still do not have diplomatic ties, a situation with
roots in a longstanding and bitter dispute over events from the First
World War.

Turkey strongly rejects allegations by Armenia and several other
countries as well as some historians that the killing of an estimated
1.5 million Armenians during 1915 in the Ottoman Empire amounts to
“genocide,” saying the death toll is overblown and that many of the
fatalities were due to starvation and disease.

This provided the backdrop to the charged atmosphere in Yerevan for
the World Cup qualifier match. Amid fears of fighting between fans
Turkey’s coach Fatih Terim called for calm, saying: “This is only a
football game not a war. We cannot carry the weight of history on our
shoulders.”

“The match was definitely beyond a sport activity,” says Turkish
academic Ahmet Han from Istanbul’s Kadir Has University. “It was a
step of public diplomacy towards improving bilateral relations with
Armenia.”

This view is shared by the Turkish team’s then-trainer, Mufit Erkasap,
who tells the Anadolu Agency that the match — despite a 2-0 win for
the visiting Turks — contributed to improved relations between
Armenia and Turkey.

Erkasap says that the presence of the Turkish president at the match
gave his footballers the confidence to play better and feel better.

Team doctor Cengiz Dinc agrees: “That the president attended the match
helped us get rid of stress.”

Dinc says his players were stressed due to “disturbing stares at the
Turkish team” from the time their plane landed at Yerevan’s airport
until they arrived at their hotel.

“I felt the same stares in the street when we were walking around the
city,” he claimed, recalling a heightened sense of tension around the
capital.

“Despite all the negative feelings, however, I still believe that the
match was a significant step towards better relations between the two
nations because all kinds of sport also serve as a bridge that makes
people forget about their disappointment and hostility.”

The historical debate influenced many Armenian supporters during the 2008 match.

“Some fans were carrying banners about the 1915 killings and shouting
angrily to Turkish footballers,” Erkasap says, adding that the number
of Turkish fans at the match was less than 1,000, lost amid a sea of
Armenian supporters.

He said Armenian fans booed Turkey’s anthem at the start of the game
and that they also protested against Turkey by whistling.

Abdullah Gul’s visit also created nationwide controversy in Turkey.
Not everybody was pleased about the initiative, with many arguing that
the president should not go before problems between Armenia and Turkey
were resolved.

Gul’s visit also became a hot topic on Turkey’s emerging social media
scene at that time.

Erkasap claims that those discussions on Turkish media stressed the
footballers: “We helped them relax with psychological support,” he
says.

On the other hand, a statement on President Gul’s website which was
released prior to the match was full of hope. In it he said: “This
opportunity should be used in the best way. We believe that our visit
will contribute a lot to creating a new atmosphere of friendship in
the region… And the match will help clear the way for reconciliation
between the two sides who share a common history…”

Only one year later the Armenian president paid a visit to Turkey’s
northwestern Bursa province to join Gul at the second-leg of the World
Cup qualifier, which Turkey again won 2-0.

The meeting was regarded the latest round in the “football diplomacy.”

“Such organizations are vital in that they are the gestures of
goodwill, and they also help create awareness on these matters,” says
Han, who argues that the momentum from these ground-breaking events
was not maintained.

“However,” he continued, “we could not see any follow-up acts of
goodwill… In order for the countries to better establish faith in
each other, public diplomacy should be carried on with small but
continuous steps in a ‘baby-step approach,’ which will offer a safe
feeling of being in control and fully confident in each step.”

The legacy of these two games can been seen in the improved relations
between the two countries. Armenia sent its foreign minister, Eduard
Nalbandyan, to Ankara on August 28 to attend the presidential
inauguration of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

However, the future depends on diplomacy dealing with difficult issues
like the relations between Azerbaijan (a Turkic country situated at
the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia) and Armenia — a
conflict which has strained Ankara and Yerevan’s reconciliation
process.

“Armenia must make peace with Azerbaijan before it can fix its
relations with Turkey,” President Erdogan said Wednesday in a joint
press conference with his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev.

Nevertheless, for team doctor Dinc that night in Yerevan is something
which he will never forget: “Both the match and the visit to the
country was one the most interesting ones in my career, with mixed
feelings of excitement, stress about our historical debate and hope
for victory.”

AA

Orange County ANCA Meets with Senate Candidate Solorio

Friday, September 5th, 2014

Chris Guldjian, Baydsar Thomassian, Jose Solorio, and Garo Madenlian

SANTA ANA, Calif.–The Armenian National Committee of America Orange
County Chapter members recently welcomed Jose Solorio, candidate for
the 34th State Senate District, to the Orange County Armenian Center
where they gave the current Community College Trustee and former State
Assemblyman a tour of the facilities, and shared some historical
information about all the Armenian community organizations working out
of the Armenian Center.

After briefly discussing the ongoing community activities sponsored by
the various organizations, ANCA OC members and Solorio held a brief
meeting where they were joined by Baydsar Thomassian, Deputy District
Director for the Honorable Kevin De Leon, the recently named
California Senate President Pro Tempore.

During the informal meeting the parties discussed issues important to
the Armenian American community of Orange County, as well as two
important ANCA Western Region initiatives. AB 1915 commonly referred
to as the Genocide Education Bill adds Armenian Genocide survivor and
witness oral testimonies into the teachings of human rights in
California public school and encourages professional development
activities and resource development for educators to teach about the
Armenian Genocide; and of course AJR 32, the resolution where
California recognized the independence of Artsakh and called on the
United States to do the same.

Solorio pledged to work with the community and outlined his continued
support for Armenian American issues, most notably his unwavering
stance to recognize the Armenian Genocide. He then discussed his
election campaign in the 34th district and invited the ANCA OC to his
upcoming event.

ANCA OC members and Solorio then walked next door to Forty Martyrs
Armenian Church to the annual festival and blessing of the grapes
where the Armenian American community had an opportunity to personally
meet with the candidate. During the official program Mr. Solorio was
also introduced to the crowd of over 500 community members and invited
to the podium where he reiterated his support for community issues and
recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Do Certain NGOs Play the Role of a ‘Trojan Horse’ in Armenia?

BY STAFF
– POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2014POSTED IN: APPO JABARIAN, COLUMN

By APPO JABARIAN
Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
USA Armenian Life Magazine (English-language edition)
Hye Kiank Armenian Weekly (Armenian-language edition)

In an August 28 article titled “Could a Euromaidan happen on Yerevan’s
Republic Square?,” Vestnik Kavkaza magazine wrote: “After the events
of the last decade in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine, experts have
started serious talks about color revolutions in the South Caucasus.”
Some analysts claim that the neo-cons in the West are angling certain
opposition media outlets, some NGOs and certain political operatives
to “open a new anti-Russian front in the Transcaucasus.”

Vestnik Kavkaza further wrote: “The term ‘democracy’ in Armenia has
long been exploited for information wars. For quite a while,
Washington has been hesitating whether to support President Serzh
Sargsyan or put bets on the opposition. After the victory of Sargsyan
in early presidential polls, it seemed that the power was in the hands
of a politician loyal to Moscow. However, it is hard to say that
Armenia has a pure pro-Russian position. Sargsyan himself is trying to
gain the support of both Russia and the U.S.”

According to the Center for World Journalism and Research, the work of
non-governmental organizations in Armenia has reached “a grand scale
in recent years.” The Justice Ministry has registered thousands of
NGOs.

The magazine also noted: “After the collapse of the USSR, the Armenian
Assembly of America, a structure related to the State Department … has
been in the avant-garde of American influence in Armenia.”

The article pointed out the fact that millions of dollars have been
dumped in Armenia to fund the activities of NGOs that are loyal to
western donors’ agenda. “Open Society Institute, a Soros Fund founded
in Armenia in 1997, has already spent over $24 million in Armenia. …
The Investigative Journalists got $187,400, the Asparez Journalist
Club got $58,650, and the Independent Network of Journalists got
$83,200 for creating a negative image of Russian-Armenian
cooperation.”

Back in 2012, I wrote: “Not all NGOs in Armenia are completely devoted
to their stated missions. Some of them have raised several ‘red flags’
because of their activities. They may have been set-up to pursue
hidden agendas that are detrimental to Armenia’s national security. …
Given the fact that sizable segments of the Armenian society continue
to be politically illiterate they can be easily influenced and
misguided by individuals or non-governmental organizations that may
present themselves as ‘well-meaning’ but in reality they can pursue
hidden goals. They may sound very empathetic towards the general
populace, yet they care less about Armenia and its future. They
publicly discuss burning issues and gain political mileage, yet their
main intention is not democracy as they claim to be.”

I further underlined: “Can Armenia mitigate the negative impact of
certain NGOs that play the role of Trojan horses from within? It can
and it should. Armenia Should Emulate Russia in Qualifying
Foreign-Funded NGOs as ‘foreign agents.’ … It would be strongly
effective if all NGOs whether engaged in political activities or
humanitarian endeavors be required to publicly present every year the
sources of their income and itemize their expenditures. Transparency
at NGO level can be utilized as a great example to follow.”

A few years ago, in an interview with the REGNUM News Agency titled,
“LOOK OUT! ETHNIC ESPIONAGE,” Igor Muradyan, a widely recognized
expert on the politics of the Caucasus region, stressed: “First of
all, you should take into account the continuing political struggle in
Armenia and view the stance of the Armenian Assembly of America also
in this light. I don’t think that ethnic NGOs enjoy full independence
in the US, but the point is that the Armenian Assembly of America is
more than dependent. Even more, the Assembly is functionally
dependent. The Assembly directors and employees don’t just look down
on Armenia’s political class and leaders; they look down on them with
disdain.”

He elaborated: “In 2001 the Assembly’s board decreed ‘to fight
Armenian nationalism.’ This implies suppression of any instance of
patriotism, especially over the Karabakh problem and Armenian-Turkish
relations. … Gathering information on the state of the armed forces of
Armenia, including armaments, information on senior officers, on the
import of military hardware (invoice numbers, payment terms,
transportation routes), receiving analytical notes on the fighting
capacity of the Armenian army, information and assessment of typical
conflicts inside the military command, the concerns and plans of
different groups in the military circles; gathering information on the
leaders and activists of political parties, the mass media and
political leaders of Armenia, including economic interests, ties with
foreign countries.”

He concluded: “Of certain interest is the impression I got personally
from such contacts. Strange but true: Assembly representatives get
openly malicious and bilious over the fact that the Armenian armed
forces are highly capable of discharging many combat operations on
their own. Would they be more comfortable if the army of their
‘historical homeland’ had other characteristics and was like the
armies of some other states? Altogether incompetent, the Assembly
representatives were as much annoyed to know that Armenia is not a
perishing country and is successfully developing economically.”

Many Armenia-based NGOs are well-organized and genuinely transparent,
and continue making transformational contributions to Armenia’s
present and future. Armenian society can achieve optimum results
through social, political, spiritual and economic activism. There is
no question that civil society in Armenia is in need of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

However, some NGOs can prove to be a curse if they are not regulated
properly and their activities watched closely.