Author: Karapet Navasardian

                        GROONG's Calendar of events
                        (All times local to events)

                =========================================
What:           Armenian Economic Association 2018 Conference
When:           Jun 15 2018 9am
                Jun 16 2018 7pm (ends)
Where:          Tumo Center for Creative Technologies
                and the American University of Armenia,
                Yerevan, Armenia
Misc:           Scholars and researchers are invited to present their
                research in all areas of economics and finance.
                April 30 deadline for paper submissions.
Online Contact: aea2018 [at] aea.am
Web:            
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.aea.am_conferences.html&d=DwIB-g&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=LVw5zH6C4LHpVQcGEdVcrQ&m=0oa8jQWCcuOyNg5yWTsGvE9UEBKrw68eGUQknF6bTVI&s=54rw3j_lrI7dijnzeyLFZ4GWs9jDExjuo3xLJf3laVo&e=

***************************************************************************

Armenian News's calendar of events is collected and updated mostly from
announcements posted on this list, and submissions to [email protected].

To submit, send to Armenian [email protected], and please note the following
important points:

a) Armenian News's administrators have final say on what may be included in
        Armenian News's calendar of events.
b) Posting time will is on Thursdays, 06:00 US Pacific time, to squeeze in
        a final reminder before weekend activities kick in.
c) Calendar items are short, functional, and edited to fit a template.
d) There is no guarantee or promise that an item will be published on time.
e) Calendar information is believed to be from reliable sources. However,
        no responsibility by the List's Administation or by USC is assumed
        for inaccuracies and there is no guarantee that the information is
        up-to-date.
f) No commercial events will be accepted.
        (Dinners, dances, forget it. This is not an ad-space.)
g) Armenian News is a non-commercial, non-partisan, pan-Armenian outlet.


*******************************************************************
    The Critical Corner
    The Literary Armenian News
    Review & Outlook
    World News
    The Entertainment Wire
    Probing the Photographic Record
    Armenia House Museums
    ...and much more

© Copyright 2017,  Armenian News Network / Armenian News, all rights reserved.

Regards,
--
Armenian News Network / Armenian News

Los Angeles, CA     / USA

application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

PRESS RELEASE Equality Armenia Leadership Award 2018 Recepients.pdf

How to Make Hate Speech an Asset Against Inherent Evil

January 18, 2018
by The Armenian Mirror-Spectator

By Philippe Raffi Kalfayan

A recent column in the Armenian Mirror-Spectator (“Intolerance Toward ‘the 
Other’” by Raffi Bedrosyan) reported on a   shocking event that happened in 
Turkey during the inhumation of a non-Turkish person, displaying an unequalled 
degree of hatred and intolerance toward the “other” to the extent that the 
family had to forcibly renounce burying its relative in that cemetery, because 
the protesters claimed the cemetery soil was forbidden to Armenians. This is 
the occasion to stress that such discriminatory intolerance is a source of evil 
and may prompt or result in most severe violations of international human 
rights law, namely crimes against humanity, the supreme form of which is 
genocide.

In Turkey, the ideology and then the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey 
rely upon constitutional segregation, both ethnic and religious. The 
Constitution recognizes exclusively “Turkishness” and the Treaty of Lausanne, 
considered as a fundamental law, distinguishes the Muslim from the Non-Muslim.

Since the time before the Genocide, the “other” is seen as an enemy (“the enemy 
of the interior”) when it relates to minorities, or as a “giaour” (infidel) as 
it relates to non-Muslims.

Already in the 19th century, the Armenian Christian minority was seen as 
“other” because [of the need to be] “protected” either by the Western nations 
or/and by the Russian Empire. They became “enemies” for the purpose of 
justifying the “final solution” in 1915.

Peter Balakian quotes in The Burning Tigris British ethnographer William 
Ramsey, an enthusiast of Turkish civilization who spent more than 10 years in 
the country, and described what being a “giaour” implied: “The Turkish law (…) 
was synonymous with unspeakable contempt (…) The Armenians (and the Greeks) 
were dogs, pigs (…) good for spitting when their shadow was grazing a Turk, 
good for humiliation, mats to clean the mud off. Imagine the inevitable result 
of several centuries of slavery, to endure insults and scorn, centuries during 
which nothing of what the Armenian possessed — nor his properties, nor his 
house, nor his life, nor his own person, nor his family — was sacred or escaped 
violence — an unreasonable and gratuitous violence — and when resisting it in a 
violent way meant death.”
                                             
Nowadays, racism and nationalism are on the rise in almost every big nation. It 
is therefore not surprising to observe a violent resurgence of old ghosts in 
Turkey. Witness the recent creation of the first racist political party, which 
singles out Turks as a superior race 
(www.hurriyetdailynews.com/first-racist-political-party-founded-in-turkey-in-2017-turks-presented-as-superior-race-125310.)

In Azerbaijan, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the humiliation of the Azeri 
army have given rise to official hatred, enshrined as national doctrine. The 
Azerbaijani leadership has even endorsed the denial of the Armenian Genocide 
and perpetuates the falsehood.

Edward Nalbandian, minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Armenia, in 
his address at the 24th Meeting of the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Ministerial Council (Vienna, December 7, 2017) 
stated that “Azerbaijan continues to practice anti-Armenian hate speech, it 
calls all Armenians of the world its number one enemy, writes in the textbooks 
that Armenians are genetic enemies of Azerbaijan, erases all traces of 
indigenous Armenian cultural heritage and religious sites, and claims that 
territories of Armenia are ancient Azerbaijani lands.”

Hate speech has become the main vector of discrimination against Armenians in 
Turkey as well as in Azerbaijan.

Hate Speech and International Crimes

Hate speech is a form of discrimination and has been a significant element in 
the commission of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes 
because it incites to intolerance and violence against a person or a group of 
persons. Past and current examples are legion: slavery and human trade, 
colonial crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity (Hereros and Namas in 
Namibia, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Rwanda, European Jews, Muslim 
Bosnians in former Yugoslavia, Apartheid in Israel and South Africa, African 
tribes in Central Africa and Sahel, etc.).Although widely recognized as source 
of evil and duly prohibited by regional and international treaties, it does not 
prevent hate speech to prosper across all continents. Today’s official 
discourses in many countries are based on nationalistic and religious 
exclusions, and may lead to humanitarian disasters.

The direct and public incitement to commit genocide is one of the five acts 
punishable by the Genocide Convention. Any advocacy of national, racial or 
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or 
violence is prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights (ICCPR, art. 20.2). The UN Convention on Elimination of all forms of 
Racial Discrimination’s preamble reads “(…) that any doctrine of superiority 
based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, 
socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial 
discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere.” Art. 4(c) emphasizes that 
“States Parties shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, 
national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.” The general 
recommendation number 35 about “Combatting racist hate speech” issued by the 
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), recommends (Art. 
13) that the States parties declare and effectively sanction as offences 
punishable by law: (a) All dissemination of ideas based on racial or ethnic 
superiority or hatred, by whatever means; (b) Incitement to hatred, contempt or 
discrimination against members of a group on grounds of their race, color, 
descent, or national or ethnic origin; (c) Threats or incitement to violence…; 
(d) Expression of insults, ridicule or slander of persons or groups or 
justification of hatred, contempt or discrimination…, when it clearly amounts 
to incitement to hatred or discrimination. CERD adds (Art. 14) that public 
denials or attempts to justify crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, 
as defined by international law, should be declared as offences punishable by 
law, provided that they clearly constitute incitement to racial violence or 
hatred.

It is not by coincidence that the Republic of Armenia took the lead at the UN 
Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2015 to draft a resolution about the Prevention 
of Genocide, where they successfully inserted during preliminary session the 
Art. 9 “Condemning the intentional public denial or glorification of crimes of 
genocide and crimes against humanity as defined by international law, and notes 
with concern that public denials create a risk of further violations and 
undermine efforts to prevent genocide.” This article has disappeared in the 
final draft adopted by the HRC on April 7, 2015, although the preamble clearly 
“notes with concern that attempts to deny or to justify the crime of genocide, 
as defined in the Convention and established as such under international law, 
may risk undermining the fight against impunity, reconciliation and efforts to 
prevent genocide.”

The ECRI, which is the Council of Europe’s commission combating racism and 
intolerance, considers that hate speech is to be understood as the advocacy, 
promotion or incitement, in any form, of the denigration, hatred or 
vilification of a person or group of persons, as well as any harassment, 
insult, negative stereotyping, stigmatization or threat in respect of such a 
person or group of persons. It recognizes that hate speech may take the form of 
the public denial, trivialization, justification or condoning of crimes of 
genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes which have been found by courts 
to have occurred, and of the glorification of persons convicted for having 
committed such crimes.

Both Turkey and Azerbaijan have ratified the UN Convention combatting racial 
discrimination, and are parties to the Council of Europe and European Court of 
Human Rights.

Hate Speech in Turkey: A Social Phenomenon at State level

The last ECRI report on Turkey (June 2016) denounces that “hate speech is 
expressed increasingly by officials and other public figures, including senior 
representatives of the state and some members of the opposition.” The report 
gives the prominent example of President Erdogan’s televised statement: “They 
have said I am Georgian […] they have said even uglier things — they have 
called me — pardon my language — Armenian, but I am a Turk.” A recent research 
has unveiled the underlying high levels of intolerance: around 70% of the 
respondents to a recent survey had negative views and attitudes towards Jews 
and Armenians (Anti-Defamation League 2015; Küçükcan 2010: 16).

Most reported hate speeches go unpunished and ECRI further states that they are 
not aware of criminal court convictions for hate speeches targeted at Kurds, 
Alevi or non-Muslim communities. On the contrary, law enforcement authorities 
use Art.216 of the Criminal Code on incitement to hatred almost exclusively in 
cases of offensive speech concerning the majority religion, i.e. Muslim Sunni.

Erdal Dogan, a lawyer, told Today’s Zaman on March 20, 2014 that the problem of 
ethnic and racial discrimination is deeply rooted in Turkey and will not be 
resolved soon. “Since the founding of the Turkish Republic, our country had 
been built according to the concept of ‘oneness’. To ‘Turkify’ everyone, 
governments normalized hate speech and did not recognize ethnic or religious 
differences.” He further adds, “the goal of such policies was to label as an 
enemy all those who were not Sunni Muslim Turks.”

Baskin Oran, a prominent political scientist, and one of the two co-authors of 
the official report on minorities ordered by Prime Minister Erdogan in 2004, 
kept saying that the definition of citizenship in Turkey is the fundamental 
matter sustaining discrimination against minorities.

Uzay Bulut, a journalist, reminded in an article titled “Turkey: Normalizing 
Hate” that insulting non-Turkish and non-Muslim people has almost become a 
social tradition in Turkey. Prejudice and hate speech have become normalized.

In 1996, in Turkey’s parliament, then interior minister and current MP from the 
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Meral Aksener, said that the leader of the PKK 
(Kurdistan Workers’ Party), Abdullah Ocalan, was “Armenian semen.” She then 
clarified the remark by saying, “I did not refer to the Armenians living in 
Turkey. I referred to the Armenian race in general.” Bulut recalls that 
“Armenian semen” or “Armenian sperm” are the most popular swear words in 
Turkey, often used for Kurds, as well.

Perinçek Case

Here we may point, despite its shortcomings, to the decision of the European 
Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Grand Chamber in the Dogu Perinçek case. The 
judges have indeed voluntarily truncated and biased the interpretation of 
Perinçek’s statements denying the Armenian Genocide to avoid those to be 
qualified as the manifestation of anti-Armenian racism. Thus, the unfortunate 
outcome of the decision, confirmed by the decision of the French Constitutional 
Court on January 8, 2016, is that hate speech and the Jewish Holocaust denial 
are unique in the sense that antisemitism is at the root of Holocaust denial 
while racial discrimination would not be at the root of other genocides’ denial.

Non-governmental organizations, parties to the Perinçek case, have failed 
imposing the reality of the link between the anti-Armenian hate speech and 
genocide denial. The Armenian government did not want to challenge the 
integrity of freedom of expression (nor did the government of Turkey).

Meanwhile, the Court asserts (para. 227) “the right of Armenians to the respect 
of their dignity and that of their ancestors, including their right to respect 
for their identity constructed around the understanding that their community 
has suffered genocide.” This de jure association between the Armenian identity 
and the suffered genocide restores the link between hate speech and genocide 
denial in the light of the respect to human dignity; a promising and potential 
argument for future legal battles around those questions.

In June 2015, Turkish nationalists protesting in front of the German Embassy in 
Ankara in the aftermath of the adoption by the German Parliament of a 
resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide, shouted: “The best Armenian is a 
dead Armenian.”

Azerbaijan, Hate Speech and Karabakh

In the ECRI report concerning Azerbaijan (March 2016), one can read that 
“almost all of the 196 hate speech items dealing with ethnic conflicts were 
targeted at Armenians. Politicians and civil servants were the main 
disseminators of hate speech, followed by journalists.” Other sources confirm 
recurrent hate speech towards Armenians, which is connected to the conflict 
over Nagorno-Karabakh, the frequent ceasefire violations at the contact line 
and the resulting deaths and injuries. The Advisory Committee of the Framework 
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities for example noted “a 
persistent public narrative surrounding the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh 
identifying invariably Armenia or Armenians as ‘the enemy’ and openly 
promulgating hate messages.”

According to other sources, there is a conflict-ridden domestic political 
discourse and Azerbaijan’s leadership, education system and media are very 
prolific in their denigration of Armenians. Political opponents are accused of 
having Armenian roots or of receiving funds from Armenian sources. What is 
worse, an entire generation of Azerbaijanis has now grown up listening to 
constant rhetoric of Armenian bashing. According to a 2012 survey, 91 percent 
perceived Armenia as Azerbaijan’s greatest enemy (Caucasus Research Resource 
Centre et al. 2013: 21).

In a recent article, Anzhela Elibegova, co-author of a book titled Armenophobia 
in Azerbaijan writes that “Armenians are the perfect external enemy for 
Azerbaijani authorities who use the current situation to aim their propaganda 
machine in the necessary direction, falsify history and disseminate 
Armenophobia domestically. She quotes many official declarations showing that 
Armenophobia emanates from the head of state, President Ilham Aliyev. The 
excerpts of his speeches are given as examples to show that the targets of its 
Armenophobia are not Karabakh Armenians, but the Armenian nation, which “will 
soon perish from the world map.”

Others in power there offer even more aggressive declarations. Ogtay Asadov, 
chairman of the National Assembly of Azerbaijan said: “During the last century 
Armenians violently massacred over two million Azerbaijani people and Turks. 
Armenian nationalists are the ones responsible for all these murders.” Elman 
Mammadov, a member of the National Assembly of Azerbaijan noted: “It is not 
clear why Turkey tolerates Armenian people on its lands. What is the reason 
Turkey does not require Armenians to free their lands? Turkey should be a state 
without Armenians […].  If Turkey and Azerbaijan unite, they may wipe Armenia 
off the map of the world.  Armenians should beware of this […].” And Hafiz 
Hajiyev, Leader of the New Musavat Party offered: “Our sons in Armenia will set 
the nuclear plant in Armenia to explode so that no Armenian is left in that 
territory.”

Those political declarations could have been interpreted as intimidation 
pressures, if one had not witnessed already inhumane criminal acts resulting 
from this hatred dissemination.

The first example is that of Gurgen Margaryan, a lieutenant in the Armenian 
Armed Forces, hacked to death in his sleep by Azerbaijani Lieutenant Ramil 
Safarov in Budapest, Hungary in 2004. Both men were participating in a 
NATO-sponsored English-language training course at the Hungarian University of 
National Defense within the framework of the “Partnership for Peace” program. 
The gruesome murder sent shockwaves across the world for its barbarity. Safarov 
was sentenced to life imprisonment but under questionable circumstances was 
extradited to Azerbaijan in 2012, where he received a hero’s welcome by both 
the government and people.

The second example is related to the “April war” occurrences (April 2-6, 2016). 
In the village of Talish (Nagorno Karabakh), three elderly members of the 
Khalapyan family, including 92-year-old Marusya Khalapyan were brutally 
tortured, mutilated and killed. Three servicemen, Hrant Gharibyan, Hayk Toroyan 
and Kyaram Sloyan were beheaded by Azerbaijani military in the vicinity of 
Talish. Photos of Azerbaijani soldiers posing with the head of Kyaram Sloyan 
were shared on social networks. Eighteen other servicemen were listed as 
missing in action. Their bodies later transferred to the Armenian side had 
signs of torture and mutilation.

Although this column has no intention to elaborate on the topic of 
Nagorno-Karabakh self-determination, it must be highlighted briefly that 
self-determination is divided in two concepts. The internationally coded one is 
the internal self-determination. It foresees the implementation of 
self-determination with the consent of the sovereign State and relying upon 
democratic and rule of law principles. The un-coded one, the external 
self-determination proceeds of the casuistic method and is often arbitrarily 
assessed by the so-called “international community.” The threshold imposed for 
considering the second concept are egregious and repeated violations of 
international human rights laws against the minority group. If the State 
responsible does not stop or prevent them, it should then either consent on its 
own for the minority or oppressed group to the right to secession, and 
consequently accept constitutional changes of its state structure, or run the 
risk of a “remedial secession” by force.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto case of unilateral secession, although legally 
implemented in respect to the USSR Constitutional provisions regarding the 
autonomous republics. Whether the situation at the time was meeting the 
criteria fixed in the Quebec case for exceptional circumstances of secession, 
both parties have their own arguments and it will remain a controversy.

This question does not matter any longer. In fact, secession from the State in 
which a people forms a part is regarded by many prominent authors and some 
States as a right of last resort if the denial of fundamental rights of 
minority groups is sufficiently blatant and irremediable — in other words if 
the said groups are victims of attacks on their physical existence or 
integrity, or of a massive violation of their fundamental rights. This is what 
the Supreme Court of Canada stated in substance in this reference case.

The doctrine of the CERD states that “[…] the external aspect of 
self-determination implies that all peoples have the right to determine freely 
their political status and their place in the international community based 
upon the principle of equal rights and exemplified by the liberation of peoples 
from colonialism and by the prohibition to subject peoples to alien 
subjugation, domination and exploitation.” It further emphasizes that “in 
accordance with the Declaration on Friendly Relations, none of its initiatives 
should be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would 
dismember or impair, totally or part, the territorial integrity or political 
unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in accordance 
with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and 
possessing a government representing the entire population of the territory 
without distinction of race, creed or color.”

It is submitted therefore that the current official policy of hatred and racial 
discourse promulgated by Azerbaijan will lead to the elimination by any means 
of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. The OSCE Minsk Group came to this 
conclusion long ago. As a result, the current diplomatic process should 
recognize this fact and its consequences.

  
  
(Philippe Raffi Kalfayan is an international legal expert, the former secretary 
general of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), an associate 
researcher at the Paris Human Rights Center at the University of Paris 2 
Pantheon Assas.) 

                                        Friday, 

Dutch Parliament Recognizes Armenian Genocide


Netherlands -- The Dutch parliament building in The Hague.

(Reuters) - The Dutch parliament on Thursday passed a motion
recognizing as genocide the massacre of as many as 1.5 million
Armenians in 1915, although the government said it will not become
official policy of the Netherlands.

The motion, which was opposed by just three lawmakers out of 150,
risks further straining relations between The Hague and Ankara, which
have been tense since the Dutch barred a Turkish minister from
campaigning in the Netherlands last year.

"The government will not follow the judgment of the parliament,"
Foreign Minister Sigrid Kaag told Dutch television before the vote.

She urged "utmost caution when applying the term genocide to past
events". "This cabinet wants to be very careful about relations with
Turkey, which have been better," she said.

Relations between the two countries, both members of NATO, went into a
freeze last year when the Netherlands deported a Turkish minister who
had come to campaign among the Dutch Turkish minority for a
constitutional referendum in Turkey.

Turkey summoned the Dutch charge d`affaires to Ankara on Saturday to
express its unhappiness with the impending vote on Armenia. Nearly a
dozen other EU countries have passed similar resolutions. On February
5, the Netherlands said it will not attempt to appoint an ambassador
to Turkey for now.

A second motion passed on Thursday calls for a high level Dutch
government official to attend Armenia's formal genocide remembrance
day on April 24. In the past the country's Dutch ambassador has
attended.

Kaag said the government will consider how best to represent the Dutch
government at the commemoration.

Most scholars outside Turkey consider the killings were a genocide,
that is, an attempt to destroy an entire people in part or whole.

Turkey accepts that many Christian Armenians living in the Ottoman
Empire were killed during World War One, but contests the figures and
denies the killings were systematically orchestrated or constitute a
genocide.

"The politicization of 1915 events by taking them out of historical
context is unacceptable," Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Hami
Aksoy said in a statement before the vote.



Dutch Parliament Vote Hailed By Armenia, Condemned By Turkey


Armenia -- A woman is reflected in a display containing a banner
depicting "Tools of Genocide" forming the shape of "1915", in
reference to the year of the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman
Turks, in Yerevan, April 22, 2015

Armenia has praised while Turkey condemned the Dutch parliament for
reaffirming its official recognition of the 1915 genocide of Armenians
in the Ottoman Empire.

The Dutch House of Representatives described the massacre of some 1.5
million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks as genocide in a resolution
overwhelmingly adopted late on Thursday. Another resolution passed by
it calls for a high level Dutch government official to attend an
official commemoration of the genocide anniversary in Armenia on April
24.

The Armenian government swiftly hailed the development. "With this
step, the parliament of the Netherlands once again reconfirmed its
commitment to universal human values and the noble cause of prevention
of genocides and crimes against humanity," Foreign Minister Edward
Nalbandian said in a statement.

Nalbandian noted that the Dutch parliament had already recognized the
Armenian genocide in 2004.

Predictably, official Ankara strongly condemned the Dutch resolutions,
calling them "baseless." "They are neither legally binding nor have
any validity," read a statement released by the Turkish Foreign
Ministry.

The statement at the same time pointed to the Dutch government's
decision to distance itself from the resolutions. Dutch Foreign
Minister Sigrid Kaag said before the vote that the government "will
not follow the judgment of the parliament."

The Turkish Foreign Ministry also summoned the Dutch charge d'affaires
in Ankara on Friday to express its unhappiness with the resolutions.

Relations between the two NATO member states began rapidly
deteriorating last year when the Netherlands deported a Turkish
minister who tried to campaign among the Dutch Turkish minority for a
constitutional referendum in Turkey. On February 5, the Netherlands
said it will not attempt to appoint an ambassador to Turkey for now.

At least 23 countries, including France and Germany, as well as most
scholars outside Turkey recognize the Armenian genocide. "The
historical record on the Armenian Genocide is unambiguous and
documented by overwhelming evidence," the International Association of
Genocide Scholars said in 2007.

Successive Turkish governments have vehemently denied a premediated
government effort to exterminate Ottoman Turkey's Armenian population
during the First World War.

Ankara reacted angrily after French President Emmanuel Macron pledged
late last month to assign an official day of commemoration for the
Armenian genocide victims. Macron also signaled support for a French
law that would criminalize public denials of the genocide.



Dashnaks Back Armenian President's Preferred Successor


 . Ruzanna Stepanian


Armenia - Presidential candidate Armen Sarkissian meets with leaders
of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Yerevan, 29 January 2018.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) on Friday
formally endorsed President Serzh Sarkisian's pick for the next head
of state who will be chosen by the parliament and have largely
ceremonial powers.

Dashnaktsutyun and its senior coalition partner, the Republican Party
of Armenia (HHK), jointly nominated Armen Sarkissian for the post of
president. A relevant motion was signed by around 60 parliamentarians
representing the two parties.

Sarkissian met and addressed them earlier in the day. Aghvan
Vartanian, a Dashnaktsutyun leader, said he was impressed with the
presidential candidate's speech. Vartanian said Sarkissian's vision
for Armenia's future is "fully congruent" with his and his party's
views.

Speaking to reporters, Vartanian dismissed suggestions that
Dashnaktsutyun would have backed any other candidate handpicked by the
outgoing president.

Dashnaktsutyun is represented in the Armenian government by three
ministers. It won 7 seats in the country's 105-member parliament
elected in April 2017.

Meanwhile, the ruling HHK's parliamentary leader, Vahram Baghdasarian
announced that the National Assembly will start a plenary debate on
the next president on March 1. "In all likelihood, the vote will take
place on March 2," he said.

Armen Sarkissian, who briefly served as Armenia's prime minister in
the 1990s, will have to be backed by a three-fourths and two-thirds
majority of lawmakers in order to win in the first and second rounds
of voting respectively. A simple majority of votes is enough to win
the presidency in the third round. The HHK has such a majority.

Nevertheless, Serzh Sarkisian expressed hope last month that the
former premier will win outright in the first round. In that case, he
would need the backing of at least 79 members of the National
Assembly.

The HHK and Dashnaktsutyun control 65 seats between them. They will
therefore need the votes of businessman Gagik Tsarukian's alliance
which holds 31 seats.

The Tsarukian Bloc, which is officially in opposition to the
government, will not field its own presidential candidate. It has not
yet clarified whether its lawmakers will vote for Sarkissian.



Tsarukian Bloc Unlikely To Back Opposition Appeal To Court


 . Astghik Bedevian


Armenia - Gevorg Petrosian, a parliament deputy from the Tsarukian
Bloc, 30 November 2017.

A senior member of businessman Gagik Tsarukian's alliance said on
Friday that it is unlikely to join another opposition group in
challenging the legality of the upcoming election of Armenia's new
president.

The head of state will be chosen by the parliament, rather than
popular vote, next week in accordance with the country's amended
constitution envisaging a parliamentary system of government.

Some Armenian lawyers critical of the government say that the new
constitutional provisions on the parliament vote are supposed to take
effect only after the outgoing President Serzh Sarkisian's final term
ends on April 9. Sarkisian's successor must therefore be directly
elected by voters, they say.

But government officials and legal experts cite other constitutional
clauses. One of them stipulates that only Armenia's parliament and
local government bodies shall be elected by popular vote. Another
clause says that lawmakers can pick the next president no sooner than
40 days before the end of Sarkisian's decade-long presidency.

Some opposition groups added their voice to the critics' claims that
the upcoming parliament vote is unconstitutional. One of them, the
Yelk alliance, moved on Thursday to ask the Constitutional Court to
rule on the dispute.

Yelk, which controls nine parliament seats, needs the signatures of at
least 21 lawmakers in order to lodge an appeal to the court. It has
asked deputies from the Tsarukian Bloc, which has 31 seats, to join in
the legal action.

Gevorg Petrosian, a senior Tsarukian Bloc lawmaker, echoed the
government arguments, saying that the constitution does allow the
National Assembly to elect the president as early as next week. "You
can't literally interpret one constitutional norm while ignoring the
essence of the whole constitution," he told RFE/RL's Armenian service
(Azatutyun.am).

Petrosian, who is a lawyer by training, predicted that the Tsarukian
Bloc will turn down Yelk's request. "I will voice my opinion at [a
meeting of] our parliamentary faction and I think that the faction's
position will not differ from mine," he said.

Petrosian insisted that Yelk would stand no chance of winning the
court case. It therefore makes no sense to appeal to the country's
highest court, he said.

Gevorg Gorgisian, a parliament deputy from Yelk, disagreed. "Even if
the Tsarukian Bloc is sure that there is nothing to be disputed, there
is an issue," he said. "The Constitutional Court should express its
position and clarify how those contentious constitutional provisions
should be interpreted."



Press Review



"Zhamanak" says that although it is already obvious that Serzh
Sarkisian will become prime minister and extend his rule in April he
has still not made an official announcement to that effect. "It's not
that someone in some place does not want Serzh Sarkisian to become
prime minister," writes the paper. "The situation is totally
different. Before publicizing his final decision Serzh Sarkisian needs
to calculate the scope of responsibility stemming from that
decision. That is, what short-term and mid-term challenges and risks
will confront the prime minister to be appointed on April 17."

"Chorrord Ishkhanutyun" says that nobody will challenge Sarkisian for
the post of prime minister. "The fact is that Serzh Sarkissian is
going to be the next prime minister," writes the paper. "Not because
he is the best [candidate] in terms of professional and human
qualities but because he has for years consistently done everything to
ensure that nobody except him can aspire to the status of the number
one state figure."

"Zhoghovurd" reports on some legal experts' and opposition
politicians' claim that the next president of the republic must be
elected by popular vote, rather than the parliament, in accordance
with the Armenian constitution. Their main argument is that a
constitutional provision mandating the president's election by the
parliament has not yet taken effect. The Armenian authorities point to
other, transitional clauses in response to the critics' claims. The
paper says that the opposition Yelk alliance wants to ask the
Constitutional Court to pass judgment on the matter but lacks at least
21 signatures of parliament deputies needed for such an appeal. Yelk
has asked deputies from the Tsarukian Bloc provide the necessary
signatures.

"Haykakan Zhamanak" reports that starting from March 1 drug stores in
Armenia will not be allowed to sell some types of medication without
written prescriptions signed by doctors. The paper says that the
restriction imposed by the Armenian Health Ministry will make life
harder for residents of remote villages that do not have policlinics
or other medical institutions empowered to issue drug prescriptions.
"There are already predictions that the new rules will lead to an
increase in ambulance calls," it says. It also claims that drug prices
will rise as a result.

(Tigran Avetisian)


Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2018 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
www.rferl.org

Agence France Presse
February 9, 2018 Friday 12:42 PM GMT


Aubameyang arrival has Mkhitaryan dreaming big at Arsenal

London, Feb 9 2018

Henrikh Mkhitaryan is living a dream at Arsenal after being reunited
with close friend and "the best team-mate" he's shared a dressing room
with in Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang.

Mkhitaryan bagged three assists on his home debut -- including the
pass to tee up Aubameyang for his first Arsenal goal -- as the Gunners
thrashed Everton 5-1 last weekend to breath a fresh air of optimism
into an often frustrated Emirates crowd.

Aubameyang and Mkhitaryan formed a lethal partnership in three years
together at Borussia Dortmund before the Armenian left for an unhappy
18-month spell at Manchester United.

However, the arrival of another former Dortmund connection in
Arsenal's new head of recruitment Sven Mislintat helped bring the pair
together again as Alexis Sanchez's move to United saw Mkhitaryan head
in the other direction, whilst Arsenal splashed a club record £56
million ($78 million) on Aubameyang on the final day of the January
transfer window.

"I think it could only be in a dream that we could join another club
other than Dortmund but I am very happy for that," said Mkhitaryan.

"I have known him very well, he is one of my best friends and the best
team-mate I have ever had. I am very happy to have him here and I
think all the fans are happy to see him in an Arsenal shirt.

"What can I say? I love playing with him. I can understand him from
one step and hopefully for the next games we are going to achieve
more."

Arsene Wenger needs his newly-formed front line, including Mesut Ozil,
to continue to shine if Arsenal are to maintain hopes of a top-four
finish when they face local rivals Tottenham Hotspur in the North
London derby on Saturday (1230 GMT).

Sixth-placed Arsenal sit five points off the Champions League places,
but Mkhitaryan insists the club's ambitions must be to win trophies.

"First of all we have to win lots of games. Secondly, we have to think
that we have to win titles because at the end of your football career
only the titles mean something," he added.

"I think if you play football, it doesn't matter for which club, you
have to achieve the maximum and you have to win titles because if you
are playing just to play football it is better to stop playing it."

United manager Jose Mourinho's lack of trust in Mkhitaryan has been
blamed for the latter's failure to make a lasting impression at Old
Trafford, but he insisted he has nothing to prove in the Premier
League.

"I don't want to find excuses," he said.

"I don't want to blame anyone... I am starting a new chapter in my
life, in my football career and I am very happy to be here.

"I will be pleased to achieve more than I have done in Manchester, of
course. I don't have anything to prove to anyone."