Azerbaijani president intends to put end to political opposition – The Washington Post

Save

Share

 19:51, 30 July, 2020

YEREVAN, JULY 30, ARMENPRESS. The Washington Post journal has published an article, claiming that Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev want to put an end to the political opposition in his country. ARMENPRESS reports the article also refers to the aggression of Azerbaijan against Armenia in July and the political developments following it.

It’s mentioned that the president of Azerbaijan has never been kind to independent media and dissidents.

‘’The February parliamentary elections were deemed by international observers to be devoid of real political competition. Now, in the midst of the pandemic, low oil prices and tensions with archrival Armenia, Mr. Aliyev has suddenly discovered a “fifth column” of enemies, the political opposition, and has begun throwing them in jail. Mr. Aliyev’s tantrum is threatening to obliterate what remains of independent political forces in Azerbaijan”, reads the article.

Referring to the Azerbaijani aggression on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, the article notes that an organized rally took place in Baku during those days, which was used by Aliyev to silence his political opponents.

‘’Late in the protest, a group of people briefly stormed into the parliament building in Baku before they were removed by police, and several police cars were overturned by angry crowds. Aliyev saw the protest as a pretext to go after the “fifth column. The day after the rally, he attacked the largest opposition party, the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. He claimed that the Popular Front is worse than Armenians’’, reads the article, adding that the specials services of Azerbaijan have started to arrest the members of the party and other people. Sources in Azerbaijan say that as many as 120 people are currently held, including some deputy leaders of the party as well as journalists.

Armenian Ambassador meets with Russian Deputy FM

Save

Share

 19:41,

YEREVAN, JULY 24, ARMENPRESS. Ambassador of Armenia to Russia Vardan Toghanyan met with Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Alexander Grushko, ARMENPRESS reports Armenian Embassy in Russia informs.

”Pan-European and regional security challenges in the light of the current escalation were discussed. The necessity of easing the tensions was emphasized, including from the perspective of continuing Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement process”, reads the statement.

Starting from July 12 Azerbaijan provoked tensions by launching an aggression against the Armenian borders, shelling not only the military positions but also civilian settlements.

In the light of the tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in many countries of the world Azerbaijanis attack Armenians based on ethnic belonging, in some cases posing real danger to the security of Armenian diplomatic staffs. The Foreign Ministry of Armenia strongly condemned the behavior of provoking inter-ethnic clashes in 3rd countries, emphasizing that those acts are instigated by Azerbaijani state structures.

Editing and Translating by Tigran Sirekanyan

RFE/RL Armenian Report – 07/24/2020

                                        Friday, 
Scores Arrested After Armenian-Azeri Violence In Moscow
        • Aza Babayan
Russia -- The Russian National Guard (Rosgvardiya) soldiers and police officers 
patrol in downtown Moscow on June 8, 2020.
Police in Moscow made at least 25 arrests on Friday following overnight violent 
attacks involving local Armenians and Azerbaijanis which resulted from last 
week’s deadly fighting on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.
The violence erupted late on Thursday, with various groups of men reportedly 
attacking other people and businesses on ethnic grounds.
An amateur video posted on the Internet showed several men smashing a car with 
Armenian license plates and beating up its driver. Another footage showed other 
violent youths assaulting an elderly man and demanding that he name the country 
which they believe should control Nagorno-Karabakh.
A Russian-Armenian activist, David Tonoyan, reported at least five attacks on 
Armenians which he said mostly occurred in Moscow’s southern suburbs. One 
Armenian was stabbed and hospitalized as a result, he said, adding that the 
Russian police beefed up security in those areas.
“According to our information, only Azerbaijanis have been arrested so far,” 
Tonoyan told RFE/RL’s Armenian service.
The “Moskovsky Komsomolets” daily reported that an Azerbaijani man was badly 
beaten by a group of Armenians in one of those suburbs, Maryino. The Union of 
Azerbaijanis of Russia alleged an Armenian attack on an Azerbaijani-owned 
restaurant in the Russian capital.
Russia - Police arrest participants of clashes between Azeris and Armenians in 
Moscow, .
The Moscow police department reported, meanwhile, that it arrested more than 25 
people on suspicion of involvement in what it described as “a number of conflict 
situations between citizens” in Maryino. It was careful not to mention their 
nationality or ethnicity.
In a statement, the department said it is continuing to investigate the 
incidents and warned of tough action against more “manifestations of collective 
violation of the public order.”
Russia’s human rights ombudsperson, Tatyana Moskalkova, expressed serious 
concern over the “disturbances between representatives of the Armenian and 
Azerbaijani peoples.” She said ethnically motivated violence is “unacceptable in 
any civilized society.”
The violent incidents came hours after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov 
met with leaders of Russia’s sizable Armenian and Azerbaijani communities to 
discuss ways of maintaining what his press office called “interethnic peace and 
accord” in the country. Ara Abramian, the pro-Kremlin chairman of the Union of 
Armenians of Russia, said Lavrov’s meeting with him and Azerbaijani-born 
businessman God Nisanov took place at his initiative.
Nisanov is the main owner of Moscow’s largest wholesale food market which 
refused to sell apricots imported from Armenia following the July 12 outbreak of 
the hostilities on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. The move sparked an outcry 
from many Moscow Armenians who queued up to buy those apricots in a show of 
support for Armenia.
RUSSIA -- Ara Abramian (C), President of the Union of Armenians of Russia, 
attends a meeting of the presidential Council for Interethnic Relations in 
Moscow, September 14, 2018
It emerged on Thursday that another hypermarket located just outside of Moscow 
has also stopped selling Armenian agricultural products, beverages and prepared 
foodstuffs. The Tvoy Dom trading center is owned by Aras Agalarov, an 
Azerbaijani billionaire whose son Emin used to be married to one of Azerbaijani 
President Ilham Aliyev’s daughters.
Violent clashes between Armenian and Azerbaijanis have also been reported in 
several major European capitals and Los Angeles. In what may have been a related 
development, a car belonging to the Armenian Embassy in Germany was set on fire 
and burned down on Thursday.
The Armenian Foreign Ministry said on Friday that some of its diplomats working 
abroad have received threats. It did not elaborate.
In a statement, the ministry accused the Azerbaijani authorities of inciting the 
violence. It also urged Armenian nationals living abroad and Diaspora Armenians 
not to “succumb to any provocation.”
U.S. House Approves More Funding For Mine Clearance In Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh - A representative of the HALO Trust briefs U.S. congressman 
David Valadao (C) on its demining activities in Karabakh, 18Sep2017. (Photo by 
the Amenian National Committee of America.)
The U.S. House of Representatives approved late on Thursday $1.4 million in 
fresh U.S. funding for humanitarian demining operations in Nagorno-Karabakh 
carried out by a British charity.
The HALO Trust has cleared tens of thousands of anti-personnel and anti-tank 
landmines, mostly left over from the 1991-1994 Armenian-Azerbaijani war, since 
it began its work in Karabakh in 2001. The U.S. Congress has financed the effort 
as part of its direct humanitarian assistance to the Armenian-populated 
territory allocated over strong Azerbaijani objectives.
The current U.S. administration has sought to end that assistance. An amendment 
to a House bill on U.S. foreign aid in the fiscal year 2021 requires it continue 
funding the demining program in Karabakh.
The amendment was drafted by three pro-Armenian members of the House. One of 
them, Jackie Speier, argued that Karabakh has one of the highest per capita mine 
accident rates in the world. More than 400 of its residents have been killed 
there by landmines since 1994.
The measure was also co-sponsored by more than 30 other lawmakers, virtually all 
of them Democrats. Armenian-American advocacy groups lobbied hard for its 
passage.
“Today’s vote represents a powerful rebuke to the Azerbaijani government-driven, 
State Department-supported effort to end Artsakh’s demining program despite its 
remarkable record of having removed tens of thousands of landmines and saving 
countless lives,” said the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).
The Armenian Assembly of America also hailed the amendment. “For a relatively 
small investment, the United States can make a significant difference for the 
people of Nagorno-Karabakh, especially for the children,” it said in a statement.
The Assembly statement quoted Kristen Stevens, a representative of The HALO 
Trust, as saying: “We are overjoyed to see the House of Representatives include 
funding in the State and Foreign Operations bill for humanitarian demining in 
Nagorno-Karabakh.”
The aid allocation also needs to be backed by the U.S. Senate. The ANCA said it 
is already “working with Senate leaders” to include the funding in their version 
of the foreign bill.
Lawmaker Leaves Tsarukian’s Party
        • Tatevik Lazarian
Armenia -- Parliament deputy Sergey Bagratian speaks to RFE/RL, Yerevan, January 
26, 2020.
A parliament deputy from Gagik Tsarukian’s Prosperous Armenia Party (BHK) has 
left the country’s largest parliamentary opposition force after being questioned 
in an ongoing criminal investigation.
The lawmaker, Sergey Bagratian, formally notified parliament speaker Ararat 
Mirzoyan about his decision to quit the BHK in a letter revealed on Thursday. 
Bagratian is understood to have given no reason for the move. He could not be 
reached for comment on Friday.
Some Armenian media outlets speculated that Bagratian defected from the BHK to 
avoid prosecution on corruption charges. They claimed that the charges stem from 
financial abuses allegedly committed in Armenia’s southeastern Vayots Dzor when 
it was governed by Bagratian from 2010-2012.
A spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor-General, Arevik Khachatrian, said 
on Friday that Bagratian was questioned as a witness in a criminal case opened 
recently. She refused to give any details of the probe.
A senior BHK parliamentarian, Naira Zohrabian, told RFE/RL’s Armenian service 
that Bagratian’s decision took her and her colleagues by surprise.
“Mr. Bagratian had no differences with the leader or any other member of our 
parliamentary faction,” she said. “We always had very active, businesslike and 
friendly relations with Sergey Bagratian.”
Zohrabian said that Bagratian has not answered phone calls from other BHK 
members or communicated with them otherwise for the past month. “We have zero 
information about why Mr. Bagratian left the faction,” she stressed.
Armenia -- Gagik Tsarukian gives a speech at the parliament ahead of a vote that 
stripped him of immunity from prosecution as an MP, June 16, 2020.
Bagratian, 57, stopped making public statements shortly after the Armenian 
parliament allowed law-enforcement authorities on June 15 to arrest and 
prosecute Tsarukian on vote buying charges which the BHK leader rejects as 
politically motivated.
The BHK claims that Pashinian ordered the National Security Service (NSS) to 
“fabricate” the charges in response to Tsarukian’s June 5 calls for the Armenian 
government’s resignation. It also also says in recent weeks the NSS and police 
have rounded up scores of BHK activists in a bid to ratchet up the pressure on 
Tsarukian. Pashinian and his allies deny a politically motivated crackdown on 
the party.
Bagratian’s exit reduced to 24 the number of parliament seats held by the BHK. 
The latter continues to have the second largest group in the 132-member National 
Assembly controlled by Pashinian’s My Step bloc.
Armenian, Russian Troops Train For Drone Warfare
Armenia -- Armenian and Russian military officers pose for a photograph at the 
start of a joint air-defense exercise, .
Armenian and Russian troops are practicing how to deal with enemy military 
drones during a joint air-defense exercise that began in Armenia on Thursday.
According to the Armenian Defense Ministry, the command-and-staff exercise 
involves the commanders of a Russian-Armenian air-defense system and the 
Armenian army’s separate anti-aircraft units as well as air force officers from 
the two states.
“During the exercise they will develop new ways of fighting against UAVs 
(unmanned aerial vehicles) for the purpose of improving the counter-drone 
system,” the ministry said in a statement. They are simulating various 
“scenarios” of drone warfare, it said.
The joint air-defense system was set up in the late 1990s and upgraded by a 
Russian-Armenian treaty signed in 2015. It includes elements of a Russian 
military base stationed in Armenia.
The Defense Ministry statement also said that participants of the drill are 
looking into last week’s deadly clashes on Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan 
during which both sides used reconnaissance and attack drones. “The Armenian 
side is analyzing the enemy’s tactics and actions of its air-defense 
detachments,” it added.
Armenia -- Armenian officers demonstrate an Israeli-made "combat" drone 
SkyStriker which they say was intercepted during fighting with Azerbaijani 
forces, .
The Armenian military claims to have shot down or intercepted 13 Azerbaijani 
drones during the hostilities that broke out at a border section on July 12 and 
left at least 17 soldiers from both sides dead. It demonstrated on Tuesday what 
it described as fragments of some of those Israeli-made UAVs.
A military spokesman, Artsrun Hovannisian, publicized on Friday a photograph of 
two Armenian officers standing next to a SkyStriker “suicide” drone manufactured 
by the Israeli company Elbit Systems. Hovannisian said earlier that the largely 
intact drone was brought down by an Armenian electronic warfare system.
The Armenian military also says that it used for the first time domestically 
manufactured attack drones during last week’s hostilities. It claims that they 
destroyed at least one Azerbaijani tank.
Baku has dismissed these claims. It claims, for its part, that Azerbaijani 
forces shot down two Armenian drones. The Armenian side denies that.
Russia helped to largely stop the fighting on July 16. The Foreign Ministry in 
Moscow said on Thursday that Russia’s Defense Ministry is also involved in 
efforts to de-escalate the situation along the border between Armenia’s Tavush 
province and the Tovuz district in Azerbaijan.
Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2020 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
 

Asbarez: Aliyev Trashes His Own Foreign Minister

July 14,  2020

President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan (right) with his long-time foreign minister, Elmar Mammadyarov, whose job seems to be in jeopardy

After the Azerbaijani forces suffered grave losses when they brazenly attempted to breach the border with Armenia beginning Sunday, President Ilham Aliyev trashed his own foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov during a cabinet meeting Wednesday.

Reports of tensions between Aliyev and the foreign ministry have been circulating for weeks, with Turan news agency reporting last week that Azerbaijan’s National Security Service raided the foreign ministry and arrested top officials on charges of embezzlement as part of a larger “corruption” investigation.

Turan reported Wednesday that Aliyev was at a loss when Mammadyarov did not show up to a cabinet meeting.

“I could not find him, he was not at his office,” Aliyev told his cabinet on Wednesday, and openly expressed his dissatisfaction with Mammadyarov’s performance, accusing him of being irresponsible.

According to Turan, Aliyev then asked Prime Minister Ali Asadov to brief the cabinet on a conversation he had with the foreign minister.

Asadov said that Mamedyarov was at home at 3 p.m. “I asked him why are you at home? You have to be in the office and follow the instructions of the president,” the prime minister said adding that Mammadyarov told him he was working from home.

Aliyev, according to Turan, was also angry with the fact that Mamedyarov had allegedly discussed cooperating with Armenia on to combat the coronavirus pandemic.

“What kind of cooperation can we talk about with Armenia?” Aliyev told his cabinet, according to Turan.

Asbarez: Yerevan, Stepanakert Slam Ankara for Destabilizing Region


Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev (left) embraces his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The foreign ministries of Armenia and Artsakh on Monday condemned Turkey’s unconditional support for Azerbaijan after its forces brazenly attacked military and civilian positions in Armenia’s Tavush Province on Sunday.

The Turkish foreign ministry issued a statement on Sunday voicing unequivocal support to Baku and decrying what it called “yet another manifestation of Armenia’s aggressive nationalism.”

“Turkey will continue, with all its capacity, to stand by Azerbaijan in its struggle to protect its territorial integrity,” said the Turkish foreign ministry statement.

“On July 12, the Foreign Ministry of Turkey issued a statement, in which the it not only expressed its unconditional support to Azerbaijan, and, in fact, justified the use of force by Azerbaijan on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, but also disseminated utterly false and misleading information,” said a statement issued by Armenia’s Foreign Ministry.

“This provocation by Turkey and its groundless accusations against Armenia attest to the fact that this country [Turkey] has not been acting as a member of the OSCE Minsk Group, but as a party involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This fact makes it even more impossible for Turkey to play any role in the issues related to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, within international, and particularly the OSCE framework,” added Armenia’s foreign ministry adding that Turkey’s attempts to intervene in conflicts in its neighboring countries has already undermined the security and stability the region.

“We strongly condemn Turkey’s attempts to instigate instability in our region, and affirm that Armenia will continue to consistently work toward maintaining and strengthening international and regional security, while closely cooperating with international partners to this end,” concluded the Armenian foreign ministry statement.

Official Stepanakert also echoed Yerevan’s concerns about Turkey’s membership in the OSCE Minsk Group and condemned Ankara and Baku for destabilizing regional security.

The Artsakh Foreign Ministry issued a statement Monday strongly condemning what it called “the gross violation of the ceasefire by Azerbaijan on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border in the Tavush region of the Republic of Armenia, followed by a targeted escalation of tensions.”

”The attack on the Armenian positions by the Azerbaijani army with the employment of heavy equipment, as well as the mortar shelling of the border villages of Armenia pose a direct threat to regional security and stability. We reiterate that the distorted notions advance by Azerbaijan’s leadership of the supremacy of military force over international is a source of constant threats and a serious destabilizing factor in the South Caucasus,” added the Artsakh foreign ministry.

“We resolutely reject any attempt to encourage Baku’s neglect of its international obligations. In this regard, we consider the statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry in support of the provocations and violations of the ceasefire regime by Azerbaijan unacceptable. We emphasize once again that such a position by Turkey makes its membership in the OSCE Minsk Group senseless,” explained the foreign ministry.

“We urge the international community and the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs to give a proper assessment of both the actions of Azerbaijan on destabilizing the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and the encouragement of these steps by Ankara,’’ concluded the Artsakh foreign ministry statement.

Armenpress: New tender to be announced for restoration of Dvin archaeological site

New tender to be announced for restoration of Dvin archaeological site

Save

Share

 09:10, 6 July, 2020

YEREVAN, JULY 6, ARMENPRESS. The restoration works of Dvin archaeological site, located in Hnaberd community of Armenia’s Ararat province, have already crossed the designing stage. The designing works have been conducted by the Bedrosian Architecture Office, Executive Director of the Armenian Territorial Development Fund Artur Soghomonyan told Armenpress.

“So far, several tenders have been announced for launching the works, but they were postponed for various reasons. Now we are going to announce a new tender and hope that this time we will have a company participating in this project because the continuation of the works depends on this”, he said.

It is planned to fortify and restore three monuments in the Dvin archaeological site. They are the first and second palaces of the Catholicosate and the St. Gregory Catholic Church. The works are being carried out by the Armenian Territorial Development Fund within the frames of the local economy development project through the loan resources provided by the World Bank and the co-financing of the Armenian government. The investment at the first stage will comprise nearly 145 million drams.

“The partnership with archaeologists at this stage is in the form of verbal agreements, but these works are just impossible and impermissible without archaeologists, therefore, firstly the archaeologists will work and then the constructor company”, Artur Soghomonyan said.

He said it’s still too early to say what infrastructures this site will have from tourism perspective. “At this stage it’s too early to speak about infrastructures as we deal strictly with a unique space and we will be able to answer to this question after complete excavations and restoration of the site. This is the reason that the works have been separated into two phases: at the first phase there is a task to carefully restore the site without damaging the architectural composition after which only the works on creating tourism infrastructures will launch”, he added.

Reporting by Anna Gziryan; Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan

The Times: Armenian red wine among the 100 best wines for summer 2020

Public Radio of Armenia
July 8 2020

French Embassy in Armenia responds to inquiries on missions of French doctors

Save

Share

 14:41, 9 July, 2020

YEREVAN, JULY 9, ARMENPRESS. The French Embassy in Armenia responded to the inquiries over the missions of French doctors in Yerevan.

“The two missions of the French doctors arrived in Armenia at the invitation of the Armenian authorities who ensured the organization of these missions.

The French Embassy was informed about the visits through the Armenian government, welcomed the delegations and has always been in touch with them while in Armenia.

In response to the request of the Armenian government, France covered the transportation and accommodation costs of the second delegation.

The French Embassy in Armenia once again expresses its gratitude to the medical teams who agreed to come to Armenia in a very short period of time to help their Armenian colleagues with advice”, the Embassy said in a statement.

Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan

CivilNet: Historical Notes on Armenian-British Military Collaboration in 1918-20

CIVILNET.AM

July 5, 2020 11:17:

By Artsrun Hovhannisyan, PhD

Deputy Head of Defense University after Vazgen Sargsyan

The establishment of Soviet rule in Armenia, and the development of science and academia being restricted by the framework of central Soviet ideology, did not allow for the proper historical study of Armenia’s First Republic. Even after independence, the study of some topics remains incomplete, or, at least, they remain inadequately presented. This has resulted not only in our misunderstanding of our relations with various nations and states, but it has also resulted in misattributing causes of certain gaps in our history during that period. During its short existence, the First Republic of Armenia paid great attention to the establishment of foreign relations. Suitably, it is very important to study the history of Armenian-British diplomatic relations during that period, including with respect to military cooperation. The sources for this study are the works of both Armenian and British figures as well as archival documents available on the subject. Also valuable to this study are the works of authors whose viewpoints were not constricted by mold.

On the face of it, the history of Armenian-British military collaboration does not seem rich, or, at least, not much has been written on the subject. Yet, in reality, Armenian-British military cooperation was on strong footing during the short life of the first Armenian Republic, between 1918 and 1920. We know that in 1918, after independence, Armenia was an ally of Great Britain, a member of Entente. This alliance is clear by the fact that Armenia continued to wage war against Turkey, which was among the most active opponents of Entente, and Turkish troops had suffered undisputed defeats and bypassed Armenia.

Among Armenian historians from the Soviet era, there is a commonly accepted viewpoint that the British government, as an ally, was not quite reliable for Armenia, and though it gave many promises to assist Armenia (including in military matters), it failed to keep its promises, and Armenia ultimately did not get tangible support from London. This reinforced viewpoint successfully placed itself in Soviet academic literature and continues to hold its position until today, yet remains without basis.

Let us try to understand what the situation was in regards to this relationship, specifically with respect to military cooperation. Officials have made many references to British troops being with officers in various subdivisions and missions, yet we find the first significant reference to a more or less considerable force in Alexander Xatisyan’s work (in Armenian), “The Origin and Development of the Armenian Republic.” In the ninth chapter of his work, the author says in this regard[1], “The Expansion of Armenia’s Borders and the 1919 Act of May 28th: With regards to Armenia’s expansion, the most important were the unifications of Kars, Zangezur and Naxijevan.” All of these regions were reunified with Armenia with the participation of Great Britain.

The author continues: “The reunification of Kars happened the following way: In December of 1918, when the Turks withdrew from Alexandropol, they left their main station in Kars, where, according to the notes of Shukri Pasha, it became a regional autonomy named Shura. Besides the local Turks, two Russian Molokans also entered Shura.

“At the same time, In Alexadropol, Tiflis, Yerevan as well as a number of other places, the Armenian refugees from the Kars region, numbering about 100,000, were making appeals to the Armenian government as well as to representatives of Europe, requesting to make it possible for them to return to their birthplaces of Kars, Ardahan and Kaghzvan.

“Georgian claims were also apparent with respect to the region of Kars. It seemed that they too will make demands. To get ahead of misapprehension and complexities, I went to Tiflis, to see General Walker, England’s supreme commander. Our dispute with the Georgians was especially over the northern parts of Kars, the provinces of Ardahan and Oltisi. The Georgians had no claims to the city of Kars, the Kars Province or Kaghzvan Province.

“To make the situation clearly, I do not find it redundant to recall that up until the world war, the state of Kars had a population of 404,000, of which 123,170 were Armenians, 4,266 Georgians, 102,860 Turks and Tatars, 54,931 Kurds, and the remaining 118,000 were Russians, Greeks, Bosha, Qarapapaks, etc. With this, Armenians made up a third of the entire population and formed the largest of all the groups when taken separately.

“My trip to Tiflis resulted in a border being drawn with Georgians in the following manner: Ardahan Province’s northern part, above Ardahan city, the other side of the Poskov River, went to Georgia, and temporarily, the western part of Kars, from Merdenek westward, would stay under English command as a zone that directly shares a border with the state of Batumi. With this, evidently, the provinces of Kars and Kaghzvan, along with the Kars fort, as well as the city of Ardahan, were to be turned over to Armenia, which included the Alexdropol-Kars-Sarikamish-Karaurgan railroad. Oltisi Province, evidently, was to remain to the Turks.

“Yet the areas that belonged to Armenia were not in the hands of Armenians, even though resolutions were made in Tiflis. Those resolutions still needed to be executed. And thus one Colonel Temperley was assigned with this task, who was England’s representative in Yerevan at the time.

“Besides that, General Beach came from Tiflis to Alexandropol. In the start of the month of March, at midnight, I met with him, and present were also Generals Hovsepyan, Perumyan and Dro.  English General Davie also participated in this discussion. It was decided that our detachments had to mobilize to Kars in two directions, along the railroad and highway. Armenian forces were to be 1,200 in number, and English forces would initially be 1,500 and eventually reach 3,000. Colonel Temperley was appointed as military governor, while Stepan Ghorghanyan was appointed civilian governor (who also governed the Kars region during czarist times).

“It goes without saying that in the life of our republic it was a very big deal for Armenian forces to enter Kars. It was an occasion that created much enthusiasm among the people. Naturally, following Armenian soldiers were the refugees returning to the state of Kars.

“The Shura chose not to voluntarily hand over the leadership to the Armenian governor. Colonel Temperley even gave orders to arrest Shukra Pasha, who, however, was able to escape. Colonel Temperley called before him the entire Shura group, and gave them three minutes to voluntary hand over the leadership or otherwise he would resort to weapons. The Shura expressed that before violence, they would yield. That same night, English special military units arrested 153 local suspects and sent them to the island of Malta.”

This case provides significant proof in showing just how much military cooperation there was between Armenian and British governments and armies. During intergovernmental military-political and economic discussions, issues of financial, economic, military and other assistance to the newly independent state of Armenia had continually been put on the table. Military-political leadership visits took place from both sides, during which many kinds of military assistance and cooperation issues were discussed. Particularly important were issues pertaining to weapons and ammunition assistance, likewise with other material and supplies, logistics involved in delivery, the issue of getting them across Georgian territory, etc. In the second half of 1919, the General of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, Gabriel Ghorghanyan (Korganov), spent six weeks in London, having meetings with representatives of Britain’s foreign and military offices as well as military industry professionals. The main issue at hand was military assistance[2]. The same issue was also discussed with the delegates appointed by Admiral de Robek in April of 1920, upon visiting Yerevan.

Dr. Richard Hovannisian, an American-Armenian scholar who has studied the matter, notes (in the referenced work) that only after General Ghorghanyan’s six-week visit, on January 19, 1920, did the Allied Supreme Council decide to assist the Republics of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

At first glance, that seems like a long time, given that Armenia was living through dire times. However, we must note that it was just a matter of two or three months, and quite naturally so, given that all the while, during the same period, military operations were taking place, three republics had leaders that didn’t have a complete handle over the situation, there were many riots taking place, etc. Let us also remember that during this period there was no direct link between London and Yerevan, and in the entire region British forces had less forces than even a single regiment, and those troops didn’t even have a common installation. There were two light infantry battalions in Batumi, whose issue of withdrawal was continuously insisted upon by the British War Office. The closest British troops in proximity were in Iraq, but their numbers and capabilities were sharply reduced after the war.           

On the other hand, it was evident that Great Britain’s foreign secretary, Lord George N. Curzon, continually insisted that it is necessary to assist the newly independent Armenian republic. In the House of Lords and government, a view was growing in popularity that after the defeat of the “whites”, at a minimum, Georgia and Azerbaijan can not confront and resist “red” Russia, yet even in this very difficult political situation, Lord Curzon insisted in assisting the Armenian people, saying that Britain has a moral debt to pay the Armenian people[3]. On March 11, 1920, a discussion took place on the Armenian question in the House of Lords, and there Viscount James Bryce asked from the lords to assist the Armenians, saying that Britain has an obligation to do so. There, Lord Curzon came forth with a special speech. After praising the bravery of Armenians, and insisting that they would be able to secure themselves if they are supplied with adequate weaponry, he went on to say that the suffering of the Armenians must be ameliorated, and promises by the warring nations towards the Armenians must be kept[4]. Seven days after this discussion, at the Allied Supreme Council, Lord Curzon announced that Great Britain’s government was making preparations to assist the Republic of Armenia[5].

On March 25, 1920, Prime Minister Lloyd George specifically made a note about the Armenians, saying:

“With regard to the Republic of Erivan, which is Armenian, it depends entirely on the Armenians themselves—whether they protect their independence. They must do so; they must begin to depend upon themselves. They are an intelligent people; they are an exceptionally intelligent people. In fact, it is their intelligence which gets them into trouble sometimes, from all I hear. That is what is so obnoxious to the Turks. I am told that they could easily organise an army of about 40,000 men. If they ask for equipment we shall be very happy to assist in equipping their army. If they want the assistance of officers to train that army, I am perfectly certain there is no Allied country in Europe that would not be willing to assist in that respect. That is far and away the best thing for themselves. It would increase their self-respect. It would make them a manlier and more virile people. Instead of always casting themselves upon other countries and sending supplications and appeals, let them defend themselves. When they do so the Turk will have too much respect—not for them, but for himself—to attempt any more massacres in that quarter[6].”

With these words, it is evident that pro-Armenian influence peddlers had overcome the difficult political challenges within the British Empire’s government, and there is a clear decision to assist Armenia. Yet, naturally, it would all come down to depend on the Armenian people and Armenia. Later, according to Dr. Richard Hovannisian, artificial difficulties were invented by Great Britain’s War Office, because at first they kept postponing the delivery of weapons, then they were trying to sell the weapons rather than to gift them, and later they insisted that delivery means were unavailable, and various other excuses were given. To the view that those weapon transfers must be in the form of a sale, and that the government loan must be with prepayment and commensurate interest percentages, Lord Curzon replied that such an approach is unacceptable [7]. In the start of April, this issue was discussed amongst the treasury, foreign, military and maritime communications departments. On April 17 it was definitively decided that 48 field gun units, 400 machine gun units, 25,000 rifle units, 40,000 units of military outfits, etc. were to be sent to Armenia. It is understandable that many discussions and internal communications needed to take place before such a decision could be reached. Avetis Aharonian, chairman of the parliament of Armenia, expressed gratitude upon hearing of this news (despite the 200,000 pound payment) [8]. This issue of payment was once again criticized by the foreign secretary, noting that the shipment could have been sent to General Denikin, who had already paid for it in full, yet it was being sent to Armenia instead[9]. Simultaneous with the discussion pertaining to weapons and ammunition were the discussions pertaining to allocating military advisors[10] and supply of aircraft. For the whole of April in Great Britain, along with the discussion of weapons supply, there was discussion of sending 40 English officers to serve in Armenia, and, for which to pay, the Republic of Armenia would be extended a loan of half a million pounds[11]. Let us note that this figure did not include the number of officers who voluntarily stayed behind in Armenia and had already been serving in the Armenian army for two years.

Simultaneously, there was also discussion on the issue of obtaining respective equipment for the production of bullets. General Ghorghanyan, during his November visit, had already visited factories and studied equipment that produced from 50,000 to 120,000 bullets daily, yet, because of their hefty prices, it was not possible to purchase such equipment. And later, when there was discussion on the armament that was already to be sent to Armenia, the War Office hindered the transfer of such a factory due to political considerations[12]. Armenia’s internal situation, changes within the government, the war with Georgia as well as other issues, continually brought forth problems also in these matters. The May, 1920 uprising in Alexandropol brought forth further obstacles and doubt in the eyes of Great Britain’s government. Although the issue of weapons supply was already decided upon, the decision surrounding matters of sending officers and supplying airplanes had been delayed. The quite powerful pro-Armenian lobby in Great Britain’s parliament continued to stress the importance of assistance.

On June 10th, parliament member Aneurin Williams once again reminded everyone of the moral debt Britain has towards Armenians, and there was even talk of 200 officers making official trips[13]. Finally, on that same day, the renovated ship, Hornsey, was sent off to Batumi[14]. It contained 48 field gun units with projectiles, 400 machine gun units with 57.5 million bullets, 25,000 Canadian rifle units, 40,000 units of complete military outfits (which included 80,000 units of undershirts and socks), 1077 first aid kits, various military hardware, telescopes, compasses, gun repair kits, canned food, etc[15]. For this to be delivered to Batumi, Armenia’s leadership was made to sign for a debt of 850,000 British pounds. Besides that, for the cargo to be delivered from Georgia to Armenia, the Georgian side demanded 27 percent of the cargo, to which the Armenian government agreed[16].

The issue of specialists and other armament once again came to be discussed and evaluated. Once again, proposals were made, along with their corrections, and no definite deadline was set. It was already the month of August, and those proposals seemed to become less likely to reach fruition because of the unfolding developments both within and surrounding Armenia, all of which lead to British leaders having a more grim view of Armenia’s future. British intelligence was reporting to their government that Armenian authorities were planning to hold talks with Russian Bolshevik leaders. Naturally, the discussion surrounding sending military specialists could not take place in line with such dire reports. Many in the British government and parliament pointed out that War Secretary Winston Churchill, was in fact correct when he kept insisting that any British assistance to Armenia would eventually end up in the hands of “reds” or nationalist Turks[17]. Yet throughout this period there remained a number of assigned British officers in Armenia, along with many volunteers that had travelled to ameliorate the suffering of Armenian people, remaining faithful friends. Among these great friends of Armenia, the most famous is perhaps Oliver Baldwin, who was the son of Great Britain’s future prime minister Stanley Baldwin.

From the very beginning, the discussion surrounding aircraft supply, or rather their sale, was quite heavy. Towards the end of March, 1920, Egypt’s Armenian community, where there were many supporters of the allies, and even party members, made an appeal to British leaders regarding airplanes stationed in Alexandria which were no longer being used[18]. During prior discussions, British forces commander Field Marshal Allenby argues that Britain already has some 700 decommissioned air vessels, some of which can be provided to the Armenian side. However, the War Office replies that doing so would be pointless, and further, that if the Armenian side has the finances for such purchases, then it is best that they pay for the foreseen weapons and ammunition so that at least that matter is resolved quickly. Aside from that, such a step would be technically very difficult to provide, and the Armenian side would likely lack the expertise required for their use, as well as other issues[19]. Here, once again, started the heated debate between the foreign and war offices, yet the situation would not change.  

Only near mid-July did the War Office, under pressure from the Foreign Office, finally agree to transfer vessels to Armenia under the condition that other departments would also be able to make the necessary allocations[20] (since, at the time, there were many agencies involved with technical matters involving airplanes). However, the execution of this decision continued to be delayed until the August events, although in 1920 there had been many aviation specialists visiting Armenia from various countries. Armenia had purchased two airplanes from England, yet they had been standing in Batumi since early 1920 and were not being delivered to Armenia[21]. These two vessels were finally delivered by train dispatched on June 16, 1920, on wagons 303532 and 804592 respectively, accompanied by Ghulyan-Rilsky[22]. There is information that there were also two other airplanes purchased from France, but we should not leave out the possibility that such information is in fact about these two same planes.

On July 5, 1920, the said English ship arrived to Batumi, and the cargo reached Armenia approximately a month later. For the Armenian army, this was assistance of enormous significance, both in there of quantity and variety of the items mentioned. Even so, here too have many Armenian contemporaries and historians found various issues. Among these is one such item from the cargo, a rifle which continues to carry a legacy with mixed reviews among the works of many historians, referred to as “Bosh”. In reality, those were the Canadian manufactured Ross Mark II or Ross Mark III branded rifles, which did in fact have issues of reliability (and such issues are even recognized by English and Canadian sources).

Armenian sources primarily viewed those Canadian rifles negatively with respect to its use in combat. The soldiers and leadership found them to be heavy, uncomfortable and rubbishy[23]. These rifles truly did have issues, even though the rifles were using the excellent 7.7x56R mm (.303 British) bullets, which were also being used in other rifles. In fact, during WWI, Canadian forces discarded the rifles and gladly accepted the English Lee-Enfield rifles instead, which also took the same bullets[24]. However, it seems that Armenian sources also exaggerate the negative aspects of the rifle, possibly as a means to justify future defeats. I should mention that this author has personally had the opportunity to fire this rifle in Great Britain and have found it to be powerful and especially accurate, but it has some issues with its bolt action which requires some skill and practice to be able to use it well. Of course, the Armenian army had a problem with weapons, nevertheless these nearly 20,000 Canadian rifles, along with the other weapons delivered, should have been enough to at least conduct combat operations[25]. Securing that quantity was extremely important for the Armenian side[26].

Let us try to summarize the issue of Britain’s weapons supply in the following way:

1. Post-Armenian Independence, Britain rendered clear steps in aiding Armenia.

2. Great Britain was nevertheless fulfilling its allied obligations. There was a strong Armenian lobby in the country that continually pushed for assistance. The government wanted to supply weapons to Armenia, and that is explicitly stated by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and other high ranking officials. In any case, they were certain that the Armenian army would be fighting against Turkish nationalists.

3. It is obvious that Great Britain did not wish to arm Azerbaijan or Georgia, being certain that such weapons would only end up in Turkish hands[27].

4. Despite numerous issues, including the loans involved, ultimately a significant amount of arms, ammunition and gear were transferred to Armenia, which, if used effectively, could solve major problems. The quantity of the supplied weapons was very large for the Armenian army, and the cost in today’s value would be about 80 million British pounds, which is quite a significant loan amount for a single year even by today’s standard. And all of this was accomplished despite the numerous subjective and objective obstacles:

-There were serious technical issues with respect to diplomatic ties between the Republic of Armenia and Great Britain. Means of communication were absent. Even within the country, documents being sent from by mail from one department to another took quite long.

-WWI had just come to an end, and Great Britain was economically rundown. They were spending large amounts in various fields, and thus expectation of much free assistance was quite naïve.

-The internal issues in Armenia, as well as its regional surroundings, were plentiful: Armenian-Azerbaijani war, Armenian-Georgian war, combat against Mohammedans, various internal issues in Batumi, Javakhk, domestic Armenian issues including revolts, political changes, etc.

-The Armenian populace did not have a friendly attitude towards the British. This attitude of distrust was especially apparent with regards to the military, and talk of relying on the Russians continued to prevail.

-At first glance, especially in the case of airplane supply, it appears that the British War Office is quite indifferent towards the Armenian nation, as they truly did not want to supply vessels to Armenia. On the other hand, we must realize that those airplanes were very expensive, and their actual use by the Armenian side raised serious technical problems. In fact, that same amount would be better spent in aiding Armenians with other weapons, which were much more useful. This also substantiates that the War Office was not against supplying weapons to Armenians. Here, we must also factor in that mainly, at the time, airplanes were mainly viewed as strategic-political weapons, and they should not be viewed in the same light as artillery. At the end of the day, supplying such weaponry as aircraft are quite problematic, and the British leadership feared that such weaponry could end up in the hands of Bolsheviks. It is not a mere coincidence that the two vessels Armenia purchased from the British reached Batumi and were basically nabbed by the Englishman in charge and were not released and transferred to Armenia until after long and numerous diplomatic complaints. 

With this, we can conclude that the prevalent, one-sided negative view of Armenian-British military cooperation and that of failures to meet promises, especially with respect to weapons and ammunition supply, is in fact not quite reasonable. And we can say this because, as we saw above, significant military aid did in fact arrive in Armenia, all within a matter of six months, and those weapons were incredibly significant for Armenia. At first, those six months seem very long, but we must realize that even in today’s world of instant and unrestricted communication means, intergovernmental weapon transfers are quite time consuming, especially considering the volume involved. Let us also note that during the two years of continuous war that the Armenian republic lived through, no other ally supplied weaponry of such volume as Britain, and additionally, no one supplied weapons free of charge. Further, Great Britain played a large role in the work related to reunifying the territories of Kars, Nakhichevan as well as other smaller territories with Armenia[28]. There is clear evidence that British troops worked hand in hand with Armenian forces to liberate those territories. In fact, the liberation of Kars was organized by Armenian-British joint forces on the basis of a contract signed between the Major-General of the Allied Forces in the South Caucasus, George Foreistier-Walker, and Armenian Foreign Minister, Sirakan Tigranyan[29].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1.      British Archives` FO 371/4932, E1287/111/58, minutes.

2.      FO 371/4953, E1613, E1981/134/58, WO to FO, 10.03.1920, Tille minute, 16.03.1920.

3.      FO 371/4955, E4051/134/58, Aharonian to FO, 27.04.1920

4.      FO 371/4955, E3385/134/58, WO to FO, 17.04.1920, FO minutes.

5.      FO 371/5209, E1473/1214/44, Aharonian and Nubar to Lloyd George, 8.03.1920; Malcolm to Nubar, 26.04.1920.

6.      FO 371/5209, E1473/1214/44, Aharonian and Nubar to Lloyd George, 8.03.1920; Malcolm to Nubar, 26.04.1920.

7.      FO 371/4955, E3891/134/58, minute, 27.04.1920.

8.      FO 371/4956, E4638/134/58, minutes.

9.      FO 371/4957, E6297/134/58, Williams to Curzon, 10.06.1920.

10.    FO 371/4957, E6619/134/58; E6745; WO 33/1000, 11.06.1920; E6361.

11.    FO 371/4957, E6745/134/58, enclosure.

12.    FO 371/4956, E4466/134/58, enclosure.

13.    FO 371/4957, E5449/134/58, WO to FO, 27.05.1920

14.    FO 371/4958, E8304/134/58, WO to FO, 14.07.1920

15.    FO 371/4938, E5091/1/58, enclosure.

16.    FO 371/4953, E1613, E1981/134/58, WO to FO, 10.03.1920, Tille minute, 16.03.1920.

17. National Archives of Armenia: f. 200, ts. 1, c. 607, year 15; AA, f. 200, ts. 1, c. 488, year 76;

18. f. 200, ts. 1, c. 442, part 1, no. 180

19. f. 200, ts. 1, c. 442, part 2, no. 378:

20. f. 204, ts. 1, c. 237, year 5:00

SECONDARY SOURCES

21. British Documents, British Archives vol.Xll, p.575-576; FO 371/3933, E2055/1/58; FO 371/4934, E2762, E2763/1/58, WO to FO, 5.04.1920; E2763/1/58, MacDonell minute; FO 371/4939, E5596/1/58, WO to FO, 31.05.1920

22. Great Britain. Parliament. Parliamentary Debates. House of Commons. 5th series. vol CXXVll, London, 1920,

23. GreatBritain. Parliament. The Parliamentary Debates. House of Lords. 5th series, vol.LXIX. London, 1920․

24. “The Origin and Development of the Armenian Republic” by Alexander Khatisyan: Beirut: Beirute, 1968.

25. Vratsyan S., Republic of Armenia, [Armenian Republic] E., 1993, p. 508;

26. “Hayrenik” magazine, [Hayrenik Newspaper] Boston, 1926, No. 5.

MONOGRAPHY

27. Dancocks Daniel G., Gallant Canadians: The Story of the Tenth Canadian Infantry Battalion, 1914-1919 (Calgary Highlanders Regimental Funds Foundation, 1990).

28. Rawlings Bill, Trench Warfare, Technology and the Canadian Corps 1914-1918. University of Toronto Press, 1992.

The Republic of Armenia, Vol. I (1971), Vol. II (1982), Vols. III & IV (1996) Berkeley: University of California Press
Galoyan G. A, Armenia and the great powers in 1917-1923. [Armenia and the Great Powers], E., 1999,
R. Hovhannisyan. International relations of the Republic of Armenia 1918-1920. Yerevan 2007․
32. Armenia’s expansion in 1919. The Country With An Area of 45,000 Square Kilometers.  

[1] “The Origin and Development of the Armenian Republic” by Alexander Khatisyan: Beirut: Beirute, 1968, p.149-169.
[2] R. Hovhannisyan. International relations of the Republic of Armenia 1918-1920. Yerevan 2007, Chapter XII, p. 538.
[3] British Archives` FO 371/4932, E1287/111/58, minutes.
[4] GreatBritain. Parliament. The Parliamentary Debates. House of Lords. 5th series, vol.LXIX. London, 1920, p. 418.
[5] FO 371/4953, E1613, E1981/134/58, WO to FO, 10.03.1920, Tille minute, 16.03.1920.
[6] Great Britain. Parliament. Parliamentary Debates. House of Commons. 5th series. London, 1920, vol CXXVll, col.661-662
[7] E2352/134/58, WO to FO, 27.03.1920
[8] FO 371/4955, E4051/134/58, Aharonian to FO, 27.04.1920
[9] FO 371/4955, E3385/134/58, WO to FO, 17.04.1920, FO minutes.
[10] FO 371/5209, E1473/1214/44, Aharonian and Nubar to Lloyd George, 8.03.1920; Malcolm to Nubar, 26.04.1920.
[11] FO 371/4955, E3891/134/58, minute, 27.04.1920.
[12] FO 371/4956, E4638/134/58, minutes.
[13] FO 371/4957, E6297/134/58, Williams to Curzon, 10.06.1920.
[14] FO 371/4957, E6619/134/58; E6745; WO 33/1000, 11.06.1920; E6361.
[15] FO 371/4957, E6745/134/58, enclosure.
[16] AA, f. 200, ts. 1, c. 607, year 15; AA, f. 200, ts. 1, c. 488, year 76; FO 371/4938, E5091/1/58, enclosure.
[17] R. Hovhannisyan. International relations of the Republic of Armenia 1918-1920. Yerevan 2007, Chapter XII, p. 539.
[18] FO 371/4956, E4466/134/58, enclosure.
[19] FO 371/4957, E5449/134/58, WO to FO, 27.05.1920
[20] FO 371/4958, E8304/134/58, WO to FO, 14.07.1920
[21] Galoyan G. A, Armenia and the great powers in 1917-1923. [Armenia and the Great Powers], E., 1999, p. 186.
[22] AA, f. 200, ts. 1, c. 442, part 1, no. 180
[23] Vratsyan S., Republic of Armenia, [Armenian Republic] E., 1993, p. 508; K. Sassouni, The Armenian-Turkish War, “Hayrenik” magazine, [Hayrenik Newspaper] Boston, 1926, No. 5, p. 80.
[24] Rawlings Bill, Trench Warfare, Technology and the Canadian Corps 1914-1918. (University of Toronto Press, 1992), p.12; Dancocks Daniel G., Gallant Canadians: The Story of the Tenth Canadian Infantry Battalion, 1914-1919 (Calgary Highlanders Regimental Funds Foundation, 1990).
[25] At this same time, Greece had transferred 10,000 outdated GRAS rifles and 4,000,000 bullets. AA, f. 200, ts. 1, c. 442, part 2, no. 378:
[26] France, too, discussed selling Lebel rifles to Armenia at the time.  AA, f. 204, ts. 1, c. 237, year 5:00
[27] British Documents, vol.Xll, p.575-576; FO 371/3933, E2055/1/58; FO 371/4934, E2762, E2763/1/58, WO to FO, 5.04.1920; E2763/1/58, MacDonell minute; FO 371/4939, E5596/1/58, WO to FO, 31.05.1920.
[28] R.G.Hovannisian. Republic of Armenia, vol.l, p.90, 157, 190, 199, 204-212, 217, 225, 230-237, vol.ll, p.58,78, 158, 176, 213, 499, 502-505, c.165-166, 201-203, 402-408. FO 371/4932, E1287/111/58, minutes.  GreatBritain. Parliament. The Parliamentary Debates. House of Lords. 5th series, vol.LXIX. London, 1920, p. 418.FO 371/4953, E1613, E1981/134/58, WO to FO, 10.03.1920, Tille minute, 16.03.1920.
[29] Armenia’s expansion in 1919. The Country With An Area of 45,000 Square Kilometers.

President Sarkissian holds meeting with AUA President

Save

Share

 17:25, 2 July, 2020

YEREVAN, JULY 2, ARMENPRESS. President of Armenia Armen Sarkissian hosted President of the American University of Armenia (AUA) Karin Markides, the Presidential Office told Armenpress.

At the meeting the sides exchanged views on the role of education in the contemporary world, issues relating to having a respective education in line with the changing world, as well as ensuring connection between the university and the economy.

The AUA President introduced the projects implemented by the university, and in particular the new initiative relating to the technology field, stating that it aims at establishing cooperation between educational facilities, scientific-research institutes and business.

The meeting participants discussed the Armenian presidential initiative ATOM (Advanced Tomorrow) on science and technology development and the cooperation opportunities within its framework.

Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan