Azerbaijan Building Up Forces in Nakhchivan

EurasiaNet

Aug 10 2017


Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev (right) visits a Combined Army Unit base in Nakhchivan in January 2017. Azerbaijan is carrying out a substantial military buildup in Nakhchivan, as the territory’s strategic significance increases for both Baku and its foe, Armenia. (Photo: Azerbaijani Presidential Press Service)

Azerbaijan is carrying out a substantial military buildup in the exclave of Nakhchivan, as the territory’s strategic significance increases for both Baku and its foe, Armenia.
 
Nakhchivan is separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by a slice of southern Armenia, and it does not border Nagorno-Karabakh, the focus of the ongoing conflict between the two states. But it is the closest part of Azerbaijani territory to Yerevan and other strategic Armenian targets. Accordingly, with the prospect of a renewal of total war appearing to increase, Nakhchivan is becoming a flashpoint.
 
Another strategic consideration for Azerbaijani planners is that Nakhchivan is the ancestral home of President Ilham Aliyev’s family.
 
Azerbaijan has set up a new unit, known as the Combined Army Unit (Special Forces), based in Nakhchivan. It also has sent new air defense systems to the territory, as well as rockets and artillery, including Smerch, T-300 Kasirga, and T-122 Sakarya multiple-launch rocket systems. And it now holds annual joint military exercises in Nakhchivan with Turkey.
 
“The enemy should know that Nakhchivan is defended by the most professional army,” said Defense Minister Zakir Hasanov at the most recent iteration of the exercises in June.
 
Nakhchivan saw fighting during the hot phase of the Karabakh conflict in the early 1990s, but the region was relatively quiet in the more recent past.
 
Of late, sniping and shelling has centered around the line of contact separating the two sides in and around Karabakh. That has begun to change, though, as the Nakhchivan-Armenia border saw several skirmishes in the April 2016 flare-up of heavy fighting. And in August 2016, Azerbaijan shot down a reconnaissance drone that it said Armenia had sent into Nakhchivan.
 
“The enemy must be aware that if there is a provocation against Nakhchivan, we will initiate a robust response, and within a few minutes, all [Armenia’s] major cities will be attacked,” Hasanov said shortly after last April’s fighting. “Everyone knows that Nakhchivan’s defense has been organized at the highest level and the most professional army is defending Nakhchivan.”
 
The buildup in Nakhchivan has been closely monitored in Armenia. “We need to understand that we face a threat of the renewal of hostilities, and that the aggression from the enemy could be initiated from any direction,” said Armenian analyst Grant Melik Shahnazaryan.
 
Azerbaijan’s overhaul in Nakhchivan began in about 2013, when Hasanov carried out a shakeup of senior military officers in the region, and President Aliyev signed a decree to bolster the military forces in Nakhchivan.
 
At present, Azerbaijan has about 20,000 soldiers based in Nakhchivan (out of an estimated 67,000 total active duty troops), and around 400 armored vehicles, aircraft, air defense systems, and artillery systems. The focus has not been on the quantity of forces, but the quality, one Azerbaijani officer told EurasiaNet.org, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The transformation was not in the number of active personnel – the improvement was to the internal structure of the forces, and greater autonomy in decision-making in the event of a security threat,” the officer said.
 
Turkish assistance has played a key role in the buildup. Ankara’s actions are connected to its security guarantee for Nakhchivan that it maintains under the terms of the 1921 Kars Treaty between Turkey and the Soviet Union. 
 
In addition to the annual exercises with Turkey, Azerbaijan has sought to increase Turkey’s visibility as a military player in the region, for example by holding a trilateral defense ministerial meeting between Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey there. In addition, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement has been established: when senior Turkish military officers or civilians working on defense issues visit Azerbaijan, they also stop in Nakhchivan.
 
The buildup has gained new impetus in the last year. After Armenia’s acquisition of powerful Russian Iskander ballistic missiles – which for the first time has opened up the possibility of striking Baku, oil infrastructure, and other strategic targets in Azerbaijan – Baku has increasingly referred to Nakhchivan’s military value as a location for a counterattack. The border of Nakhchivan is just 60 kilometers from Yerevan, meaning that Azerbaijan’s Smerches (with a range of 90 kilometers) and the Kasirgas (100 to 120 kilometers) could easily reach the capital.
 
“The Nakhchivan army is capable of completing any task,” President Aliyev said during a visit to the territory in January. “Today, the military potential of Nakhchivan is at the highest level. The most modern equipment, weaponry, ammunition are sent here.”
 
Both sides, however, appear to realize that attacking each other’s capitals would invite a destructive counterattack, and so an attack from Nakhchivan would seem only a last resort.
 
In particular, an attack on Armenia from Nakhchivan could prompt Yerevan to demand that, under the provisions of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Russia intervene on its behalf, an escalation that Baku absolutely hopes to avoid.
 
“In the worst case scenario of total war, the short distance between Nakhchivan and Armenia’s strategic locations and infrastructures makes it even harder for Armenia to detect, track, intercept and destroy the attacking missiles launched from Nakhchivan,” said Fuad Chiragov, an analyst with the Azerbaijani government-run think tank Center for Strategic Studies.
 
But, he added, “Given that Armenia is a member of the CSTO, Azerbaijan is unlikely to make the first move in terms of using its military capacity in Nakhchivan as an offensive tool.”

Editor’s note: 

Zaur Shiriyev is an Academy Associate at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House).

 

Luceen Shirinian Baker Donates $40,000 to Jemaran; $10,000 to Asbarez

ASBAREZ

Aug 11 2017

Lucenn Shirinian Baker with Asbarez Armenian Editor Apo Boghigian

She came from Fresno to Little Armenia in Hollywood to the editorial offices of Asbarez. She had made an appointment to ensure that the editor would be in.

“First of all I want to give you this envelope. It’s for the renewal of my subscription,” said Luceen Shirinian Baker, the sister of long-time veteran Asbarez editor Barkev Shirinian, who also had worked at Aztag before relocating to California.

The late veteran editor of Asbarez, Barkev Shirinian (Photo by Tsolag Hovsepian)

“Now I want to explain what I want to do. I want to donate $10,000 to Asbarez in memory of my brother, Barkev Shirinian,” said Shirinian Baker, who had rented a car and asked a friendly neighbor to accompany her on this mission.

She and the editor chatted and reminisced about Barkev Shirinian—his meticulous approach to the Armenian language, his belief in the mission of the newspaper and his complete dedication to his job.

She presented the $10,000 check.

“Now I want your help,” said Shirinian Baker. “I want to donate $40,000 to my alma mater, the Neshan Palandjian Jemaran in Beirut, in memory of my beloved teachers, Levon Shant, Garo Sassouni, Parsegh Ganatchian, and all the greats of that time under whose wing I grew up.” After presenting the check, she said, “You have to get this money to them.”

Before heading back to Fresno, Shirinian Baker told of an important decision she had made: to will home to Hai Tahd.

How World War I Made the Middle East What It Is Today

DoD Live – Department of Defense

Aug 11 2017


Posted on by Katie Lange

  

By Katie Lange
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

When World War I ended, new countries were born and borders were redrawn in the Middle East. But those changes were marked with missteps that have led to many of the conflicts that have made it one of the most volatile regions in the world.

If you’re not sure why, here’s the basic gist.

The 1916-1918 Arab Revolt was often carried out by mounted Arab tribesmen, who knew the land intimately and were excellent marksmen. Library of Congress photo

The British, French and Russians had been jockeying for position over the declining Ottoman Empire for decades before World War I. But as the war unfolded, Germany’s spreading influence in the region brought concern from all parties. Great Britain wanted to protect its interests in the region – mainly oil and mobility via the Suez Canal – so Britain and its most important colony, India, sent troops to Bahrain. On Nov. 5, 1914, France and Britain declared war on the Ottoman Empire. The fight eventually moved east.

A map of the Middle East circa 1914.

There were three main components to the Middle East: the Ottoman Empire, Persia and Arabia.

During World War I, the centuries-old Ottoman Empire mostly encompassed the areas around Turkey, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine (Israel hadn’t been created yet). Armenia was also part of the empire.

Persia (modern-day Iran) was divided into three spheres of influence before the war: Russian-controlled, British-controlled, and a neutral zone.  During the war it became a battleground for Russian, Turkish and British troops.

Arabia: This encompassed most of modern-day Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates. Parts of it were fought over by the Ottoman Empire for a century prior to the war, when power had gone back and forth, but the region remained relatively autonomous during World War I.

During the war, Arab rebels who wanted to be free from the Ottoman Empire asked the British for help. The British supported that request, with the help of France. When the war ended, the two European powers implemented a mandate system in the Treaty of Versailles that split up the former empire’s countries – much to the chagrin of those who lived there.

A current-day map of the Middle East.

Turkey, an independent republic at that point, became the successor state to the Ottoman Empire. It’s still the biggest and most powerful country in the region.

Lebanon was created as a state separate from Syria, which had seen Lebanon as part of its own territory for years. These were put under French rule and stayed that way until after World War II.

Mesopotamia (Iraq) had been made up of three former Turkish provinces – Mosul in the north (known as Kurdistan), Basra in the south, and Baghdad in the middle. After the war, they were united as one country under British colonial rule.

Palestine was put under British control and divided into two countries, with the western portion of it becoming Trans-Jordan (later, just Jordan).

Georgia and Armenia (northeast of Turkey) were given international recognition.

Persia: Since Russia had problems of its own (namely, civil war), Britain became the dominant force.

Arabia: In 1932, many of the region’s kingdoms and dependencies were combined into one, called Saudi Arabia. Yemen, Oman, Muscat and the states that would later make up the UAE remained independent.

The Arabian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in early 1919 included King Faisal (front, center) and Lawrence of Arabia (third from right). National Archives photo.

Iraq:
When Iraq was put under British rule after the war, three missteps led to conflict in the region that continues today:

  • British leaders didn’t understand Iraq’s political or social issues and underestimated the popularity of the Arab nationalist movement (which was opposed to British rule).
    • Iraq’s provinces were each ruled by tribes and sheiks and had their own ethnic, cultural and religious identity. They weren’t used to a centralized government, which now included the voices and protections of minorities like Jews and Christians, so discord erupted from the start. A rebellion in 1920 was quelled just in time for the following:
  • The 1921 Cairo Conference.
    • Agreements made at the conference drastically reduced British troop levels in a region that had little civil order and governmental oversite.
    • The British also scrapped their promise to create an independent Kurdistan in Iraq’s north. To this day, Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere continue to defend their desire to become an autonomous region.
    • The conference led to the next major point:
  • The appointment of Faisal as king.
    • At the conference, Faisal Bin Al Hussein Bin Ali EI-Hashemi – Faisal, for short – was installed as Iraq’s king since he was pivotal in the success of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans. But as ruler, he rejected British control and wanted to form a single national identity, despite the aforementioned tribes, religions and ethnic groups. Since then, mostly Sunni Arabs have had political control over land that was largely populated by Kurds and Shiites, and each group’s grievances have brought about violent confrontations.

Britain’s division of the mandated area.

Palestine/Jordan:
The Cairo Conference’s decision to install Faisal as king in Iraq also deeply affected Palestine and Jordan. Faisal’s brother, Abdullah, had been trying to regain Syrian independence from the French. But the British didn’t want to cause conflict with France, so it threatened Faisal, telling him he wouldn’t get to rule Iraq if Abdullah attacked Syria. To appease Abdullah, the British created Trans-Jordan from Palestinian land and made Abdullah its king. This split set the foundation for the Arab-Israeli conflict we see today, since it split in half the land that would be considered for a future Jewish national homeland.

Persia:
A lot went on in this region during the 20th century. Here are some of the main takeaways.

The Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 that was formed after World War I would have given Persia British money and advisors in exchange for oil access. But that was rejected by the Iranian Parliament in 1921.

Iran’s king, Ahmad Shah Qajar, was removed from power in 1925 by the parliament after his position was weakened in a military coup. Reza Pahlavi, a former military officer, was named the new king and, in 1935, renamed the nation Iran. He was deposed in 1941 following an invasion by Soviet, British and other commonwealth forces looking to secure oil reserves from possible German seizure. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, then became king (shah, as they call it).

U.S. President Gerald Ford and the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, look at charts during a state visit. Photo by David Hume Kennerly, May 1975, courtesy of Gerald Ford Library

Unrest due to corruption and the shah’s efforts to westernize the country finally bubbled over in 1979, and the shah was forced to leave Iran. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had previously been exiled, returned to become the country’s supreme spiritual leader, and he made Iran a theocracy. Iranian revolutionaries, angered by American interests and political dealings in their country, also stormed the U.S. Embassy, accusing the U.S. of harboring the exiled shah, who had relied on the U.S. to stay in power. Hostages were taken, ties were severed, and thus began the lack of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran that continue to this day.

World War I also saw the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and its outcomes helped lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler and World War II. The Cold War can also trace roots back to World War I.

But all of those topics are for another day. The intricacies of the Middle East are enough for this blog!

Read More: Why the Great War Matters | U.S. Army Center for Military History

Follow the Department of Defense on Facebook and Twitter!

———-

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of this website or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DOD website.


MFA Deputy Minister: Large-scale construction of China`s diplomatic representation in Armenia must be viewed in the context of China’s growing interest in Armenia & region

ARMINFO News Agency, Armenia
 Thursday
MFA Deputy Minister: Large-scale construction of China`s diplomatic
representation in Armenia must be viewed in the context of China's
growing interest in Armenia and the whole region
Yerevan August 10
Naira Badalyan. The construction of new Chinese Embassy in Armenia,
which will become the second largest in the Eurasian region - after
Russia, is a sign of increasing interest of China in the South
Caucasus region. This opinion was expressed by the Deputy Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Armenia Shavarsh Kocharyan in an interview with
journalists on August 10 after the meeting of the government.
According to Armenian MFA Deputy Minister, such large-scale
construction of diplomatic representation must be considered in the
context of the growing interest of China towards Armenia and the whole
region. "To say that China is a strong state, perhaps, to say nothing,
on the other hand, it is obviously the desire of this country to
further intensify the policy in the region," Shavarsh Kocharyan
stressed.
The day before, laying of the foundation of new building of Chinese
Embassy in Armenia was held in Yerevan. During the ceremony,
Ambassador Tian Erlong said that China intends to expand its presence
in Armenia. "Our cooperation is developing rather quickly, it requires
great efforts and large areas," the ambassador said. In turn,
Assistant Foreign Minister of China Li Huilai noted that the existing
building of the Chinese Embassy in Armenia has been in use since the
beginning of the 1990s, and today it can no longer satisfy the needs
of the dynamic development of bilateral relations between states. "The
new premises of the Chinese embassy with an area of about 40,000
square meters will become one of the largest embassies in Armenia,
which fully demonstrates the desire of the Chinese and Armenian sides
to develop broader and all-round cooperation with each other," Huilai
said.
The construction of the new embassy will be completed in 2 years, the
construction work will be carried out by Chinese and Armenian
specialists. Before the ceremony, at the meeting with the Assistant
Foreign Minister of China Edward Nalbandian noted that Armenia regards
relations with China as one of the imperatives of foreign policy.

Our yoga power to take us to Baku

Aravot, Armenia

Aug 11 2017

“We won the war against Azerbaijan inasmuch as we are like yogis. Yogis are not different from common people, it is the same DNA, blood, skin, but they have such a powerful inner energy, they can control themselves, do things that common people cannot. Armenian nation, in this position, in this geopolitical situation should have this kind of energy”, told the Press Secretary of the President of the Republic of Artsakh, Davit Babayan.

According to him, if we get disappointed, we will lose: “This is why our adversary continually tries to make us get disappointed by different mechanisms – both by scaring us and leaving us hopeless and inner splits, forasmuch as it understands – we have been living here for 10.000 years, have fought against manifold enemies, nations and empires that have completely disappeared, now they are not in place, but we have remained and all that is due to our yoga power. If we have a look at our map and position, no one can survive in our situation, but we do, inasmuch as we have a kind of unceasing and ununderstandable power and that power will take us to Baku when necessary.”

“Aravot”

10.07.2017 


Artsakh MFA Head received Baroness Caroline Cox

ARMINFO News Agency, Armenia
 Thursday
Artsakh MFA Head received Baroness Caroline Cox
 Yerevan August 10
Naira Badalyan. On August 10, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh Republic) Karen Mirzoyan
received a delegation led by Baroness Caroline Cox, member of the
House of Lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
Welcoming Caroline Cox's 86th visit to Artsakh the Minister highly
appreciated her consistent efforts aimed at advocating the interests
of Artsakh and its people, as well as disseminating truthful
information about the conflict between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh
in the international arena.
During the meeting the sides also exchanged thoughts on a range of
issues of mutual interest, including those related to the current
stage of humanitarian projects initiated by the Baroness in Artsakh.

Huddled Masses Through the Ages

The Weekly Standard

Aug 11 2017
The welcome mat wasn’t always out.

On August 2, the White House press room was the scene of one of those dialogues of the deaf that so infuriate people outside Washington. Stephen Miller, one of President Trump’s senior policy advisers, stepped to the podium to endorse an immigration reform bill sponsored by two Republican senators, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. Whether you approve or disapprove of the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act—and I generally approve—the next several minutes, by any measure, were disheartening.

On August 2, the White House press room was the scene of one of those dialogues of the deaf that so infuriate people outside Washington. Stephen Miller, one of President Trump’s senior policy advisers, stepped to the podium to endorse an immigration reform bill sponsored by two Republican senators, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. Whether you approve or disapprove of the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act—and I generally approve—the next several minutes, by any measure, were disheartening.

First, Jim Acosta, the CNN senior White House correspondent whose function seems largely to engage Trump administration spokesmen in pitched arguments while the cameras are rolling, told Miller that “what you’re proposing here .  .  . does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration.” And then, to emphasize his debating point, he reminded Miller (and anyone listening) that “the Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being able to be a computer programmer.”

At which point Miller, in keeping with Trump White House press policy, chose not to dismiss the reporter’s non sequitur with a wave of his hand or a pitying smile, and stay on message, but to angrily engage Acosta. The next several minutes were consumed with a loud and fractious verbal wrestling match about immigration policy that revealed Acosta’s ignorance of American history and Miller’s capacity for rising to baits. By the end, if CNN had enlightened its viewers on a complex subject or the White House advanced the prospects for passage of the RAISE Act, I managed to miss it.

I was, however, intrigued by Acosta’s recurring invocation of the Statue of Liberty, which, he explained, “has always been a beacon of hope to the world for people to send their people to this country.” Which, strictly speaking, is not quite so. It is true, of course, that the Statue of Liberty has become a talisman of sorts for immigration to America. But that is because it is (accidentally) situated in New York Harbor adjacent to Ellis Island, which opened in 1892 to accommodate the last great wave of immigration to the United States. The 12 million people who passed through immigration control on Ellis Island until it closed in 1954 did so in the physical shadow of the Statue of Liberty. But the statue itself—a gift from France to commemorate the centennial of the American Revolution (1876)—was intended to honor not immigration but liberty, as its name would suggest. Indeed, Emma Lazarus’s sonnet “The New Colossus,” from which Acosta quoted its most famous line, is not so much about immigration per se as about America as symbol of freedom, whose “beacon hand / Glows world-wide welcome”—to Europeans, especially: “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp.”

In a sense, of course, the squabbling words repeated in the White House press room were nothing new, and may even be said to encompass the long, and no doubt eternal, debate about America as “a nation of immigrants.”

It is fair to say that since the first Eurasians crossed the Bering land bridge at the end of the last Ice Age, North America has welcomed newcomers with a certain ambivalence. When the Native American tribes weren’t slaughtering each other in prehistory, they turned their attention to the successive waves of Scandinavian, Dutch, Spanish, and English settlers who followed the European discovery of the continent. The dominant English and Scots of the colonial era looked askance at the Germans who, in the later decades of the early republic, disapproved of the Irish escaping famine—not to mention the Chinese who built the railroads, the free Africans who migrated northward from slavery, the Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia, and on and on.

Still, even so sensitive an observer as Henry James was not immune to this natural instinct. When he revisited New York City in 1904, James was struck by the Russian/Yiddish-accented English he encountered on the Lower East Side, wondering what it augured not just for his native tongue but for what it meant to be American. Lost on a ramble in the New Hampshire countryside, he asked directions from a young hiker who emerged from the woods. Assuming, from his “dark-eyed ‘Latin’ look,” that he might be Italian, James was unable to make himself understood in that language, and so asked plaintively, “What are you, then?” He was Armenian, came the response—thereby prompting a worried reflection, in James’s mind, about the stranger’s capacity, even desire, to assimilate into the American “brotherhood.”

Which, in a nutshell, is the conundrum. Nation-states have always protected their borders and, in varying degrees, reserved the right to withhold or grant citizenship. An influx of immigrants may confer economic benefits, in the short term, and cultural enrichment, in the long run; but the benefits are never evenly distributed, and the enrichment assumes a blend, not subversion, of values. A nation such as our own, founded on ideas and governed by laws, is entitled to demand that its immigration statutes reflect a democratic consensus, and that the laws be observed. This is logical to most citizens, and fair to all immigrants, especially those who observe the rules. Does the RAISE Act reflect these principles? That’s the question.

For obvious reasons, Henry James’s awkward encounter with an Armenian immigrant has a certain resonance with me—and, to some degree, reflects my own conflicted views about immigration policy. My paternal grandparents arrived on Ellis Island a few years after Emma Lazarus’s poem was affixed to the Statue of Liberty. But why did they come? They were fleeing for their lives from the Ottoman Turks, who had been systematically massacring Christian subjects within the empire, and who would, a dozen years later, seek to finish the Armenians off in the 1915 genocide. As a practical matter, my grandfather had an elder brother who had already emigrated and settled in Philadelphia, which is why they sailed for America and not, say, Australia or Canada.

!

Canadian-Armenian couple says Armenia is the only homeland for Armenians

Armenpress News Agency , Armenia
 Thursday
Canadian-Armenian couple says Armenia is the only homeland for Armenians
YEREVAN, AUGUST 10, ARMENPRESS. Canadian-Armenian couple Margar and
Eliz Sharapkhanyan say Armenia is the only homeland for Armenians.
The couple lives in Ushi village of Aragatsotn province since 2007.
They have renovated the village’s school, the culture house with their
own resources.
Margar Sharapkhanyan was born in Greece, studied in Italy, and lived
in Canada for 40 years, but he told Armenpress that he feels good
himself only in Armenia.
“I have been in different countries, but I didn’t feel myself an
Armenian neither in Greece, Italy nor Canada, I feel my identity only
in Armenia. The person, who was born, grew up and lived abroad, needs
to live in Armenia. Whether we want or not, we are foreigners in all
countries, the only country that we consider as ours is Armenia”,
Margar Sharapkhanyan said, adding that Armenia is not only Yerevan,
but also the provinces and villages. “I believe in Armenia’s villages,
and the rural economy should develop. Ushi is a small village, I
bought a land here and built a house, now I and other people are
working in the land. We have renovated the school and constructed a
culture house”, he said.
Speaking about visiting Armenia with his wife, Margar said he and his
wife are from Ushi village. “She didn’t complain, and now doesn’t
complain as well. Your wife must also have a desire to visit Armenia”,
he said.
Today as well the couple has many plans in connection with the
village. They have no plans to return to Canada. They are impressed by
the village and consider it as their only home.
Armenuhi Mkhoyan

Center for Urartian studies to be established under archeology development program

Armenpress News Agency , Armenia
 Thursday
Center for Urartian studies to be established under archeology
development program
YEREVAN, AUGUST 10, ARMENPRESS. Armenia’s government approved the
2017-2025 action plan contributing to development of archeology, as
well as the timetable, reports Armenpress.
The action plan aims at obtaining resources for all aspects of human
life, creating laboratories with international standards through
respective measures, excavations and research.
Under the action plan, it is expected to expand the excavations of
unique monuments of Armenian historical-cultural heritage and
strengthen the international cooperation, engage in tourism programs,
as well as create center for Urartian studies to study the history of
the kingdom of Van.
By the adoption of the action plan, active and effective cooperation
with public administration and local self-government bodies, academic
organizations and universities, as well as international structures is
expected.

Armenian Economic Development Minister sees no reason for serious concern over US sanctions against Russia

ARMINFO News Agency, Armenia
 Thursday
Armenian Economic Development Minister sees no reason for serious
concern over US sanctions against Russia
 Yerevan August 10
Naira Badalyan. For Armenia, there are no serious reasons for concern
in dealing with American sanctions against Russia. The Minister of
Economic Development and Investments of Armenia Suren Karayan stated
this in an interview with journalists after the August 10 meeting of
the Government.
According to him, at this stage Yerevan is studying possible negative
consequences of US sanctions against Russia for Armenia. "Until then,
we can not talk about specific figures, as well as possible negative
impacts on the Armenian economy," he said.
At the same time, according to Karayan, Armenia's economy has already
managed to adapt to the consequences of anti-Russian sanctions. "For
today, I see no reason for serious concern," stressed the head of the
Ministry of Economic Development.
Meanwhile, according to the Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia
Shavarsh Kocharyan, for all it is obvious that when negative phenomena
occur in the Russian economy, they affect all neighbors. "When there
was a crisis in Russia, it also affected the member of the EEU,
Armenia, and the non-member of the EEU Azerbaijan, and Georgia, which
goes to the EU." Countries that are somehow affiliated with Russia,
can feel a negative impact," said Kocharian in an interview with
reporters. As the Deputy Minister noted, in this context, Armenia's
economic policy is to deepen existing economic ties and create new
ones.