The following announcement was provided by the Watertown Library:

On Tuesday, Dec. 12, the Armenian Museum of America and the Watertown Free Public Library will welcome author Victoria Waterman in conversation with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Stephen Kurkjian. The writers will discuss Waterman’s novel Who She Left Behind during a free talk at the Watertown Free Public Library.

Waterman’s novel is historical fiction based on her own family’s history, spanning multiple generations from the final days of the Ottoman Empire to the Armenian neighborhoods in RI & MA in the 1990s.

All community members are invited to join Waterman and Kurkjian for the free talk at the Library, which begins at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 12. Light refreshments will be provided, books will be available for purchase. Registration is required. Visit bit.ly/watermantalk to register.

About the Armenian Museum of America
The Armenian Museum of America is the largest Armenian Museum in the Diaspora. It has grown into a major repository for all forms of Armenian material culture that illustrate the creative endeavors of the Armenian people over the centuries.

About the Watertown Free Public Library

The Watertown Free Public Library provides access to a wide variety of popular materials, resources, services, and programs that fulfill the informational, cultural, and recreational needs of Watertown and surrounding communities. Our Library works to create an environment that attracts and welcomes users of all ages and abilities.

https://www.watertownmanews.com/2023/11/20/author-victoria-atamian-waterman-pulitzer-prize-winning-journalist-stephen-kurkjian-speaking-at-armenian-museum/

Russia and Armenia’s relations have rapidly deteriorated in recent weeks, with the Kremlin’s propaganda channels openly targeting Armenia and Nikol Pashinyan. From OC Media.

According to Russia’s state-run Channel One, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is, per the title of a 23 October broadcast, “a harbinger of trouble.” The hour-long program was dedicated in its entirety to criticism of Pashinyan, focusing on the idea that he had sold, or was in the process of selling, his country to the West. 

It followed a trend that has been mounting in the past year, with long-simmering tensions between Russia and Armenia increasingly stated explicitly by media and officials in both countries. 

It also repeated a claim that has become central to Russia’s criticism of Armenia’s leader, blaming Azerbaijan’s attacks on Pashinyan’s recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity as including Nagorno-Karabakh. The position directly opposes Armenian statements, frequently put forward by Pashinyan, regarding the inactivity of Russian peacekeepers and Russia in the region since Azerbaijan’s attacks on Armenian territory in 2022. 

“Not our fault, not our problem,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, as Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians fled the region. 

But while mutual accusations of responsibility for Azerbaijan’s attacks on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh had become commonplace since Nagorno-Karabakh’s surrender, Russia’s messages have escalated. 

On 20 September, pro-Russian blogger Mika Badalyan called on Armenians to join anti-government protests in the streets of Yerevan, warning that were they not to do so, they would become “participants” in the “genocide” of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Amongst those who shared this text were Margarita Simonyan, a famous Kremlin propagandist and the editor-in-chief of Russia Today, and journalist Vladimir Solovyov. 

Russia’s unofficial state propagandists have, as is customary, voiced the most extreme and provocative positions, with Simonyan suggesting in September that Pashinyan commit suicide for having “gifted” Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan, and “selling his own people for a meager pension.”

However, similar ideas have been echoed by Kremlin officials. 

In a post on 19 September, Russia’s Security Council chief and former President Dmitry Medvedev stated that Armenia’s fate was “predictable,” laying the blame for Azerbaijan’s defeat of Nagorno-Karabakh with Pashinyan. 

“He decided to blame Russia for his mediocre defeat. Then, he gave up part of the territory of his country. Then he decided to flirt with NATO, and his wife definitely went to our enemies with cookies,” Medvedev wrote, referring to an official visit by Pashinyan’s wife to Ukraine. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov similarly stated during Azerbaijan’s attack that Armenia had allied with the West against Russia, claiming that the West was to blame for “destabilizing” the South Caucasus. 

A Closely Coordinated Campaign?

The new message appeared to be deliberately coordinated. 

Shortly after Azerbaijan’s attack, Meduza, an independent Russian media outlet in exile, revealed a guideline prepared in the Kremlin for the Russian state media that provided instructions on how to cover Azerbaijan’s attack. 

The main directive was to put the blame on Armenia and its relations with the West, emphasizing that Armenia had recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. 

“Armenia’s Prime Minister was probably pressured to make this statement by his Western ‘partners,’ who should fully share responsibility for the consequences,” the document read. 

The instructions repeated the Kremlin’s talking points, stating that Armenia’s decision had “radically changed the status of Karabakh” and given the green light to Baku to act, as the issue had become an “internal territorial” conflict. 

Talking to Russian media during Azerbaijan’s September attack, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov repeated those ideas, saying that “de jure” the military operations were being conducted “in Azerbaijan’s territory,” and Russia could consequently not intervene. 

Another independent media outlet, Vyorstka, went on to claim that Russian members of parliament had also been instructed to slam Pashinyan for the hostilities and downplay the impact on civilians. An anonymous parliamentarian told Vyorstka that they were told to make Pashinyan a “scapegoat” in their comments in response to Yerevan’s anti-Russian stance.

Ilya Yablokov, a lecturer in digital journalism and disinformation at the University of Sheffield, tells OC Media that Moscow is clearly aiming to “destroy” Pashinyan’s reputation, presenting him as an anti-Russian asset in the hands of Washington, instead of a pro-Russian asset under Moscow’s control. 

Yablokov states that Kremlin propaganda has been targeting Pashinyan since 2018, and that the current tone and trajectory of the propaganda, given the state of events, is “not surprising.” 

Pashinyan came to power in 2018 in Armenia’s Velvet Revolution, and Moscow has consistently denounced what it terms “color” revolutions – peaceful changes of power – in former Soviet states. While Moscow and Yerevan initially maintained somewhat friendly relations, Kremlin propaganda swiftly began to associate Pashinyan with George Soros, and claim that the West had backed the revolution. 

Richard Giragossian, the head of the Yerevan-based Regional Studies Center think tank, adds that Russia’s attitude is not necessarily specific to Armenia, as the country has become “ever more angry, vindictive, and vengeful” toward all of its neighbors. He adds, however, that Armenia has “remained an irritant” to Moscow since 2018. 

Yablokov believes, however, that Simonyan, the RT editor-in-chief, also has a personal apathy toward Pashinyan, occasionally targeting him based on her personal views, which mostly align with the Kremlin’s policies. 

Hard Ties to Break

Armenia relies on Russia not only for its security but also economically: most of Armenia’s strategic infrastructure, from railways to gas distribution, belongs to Russian companies, while most large Armenian mining companies are owned by Russian businesspeople. 

When the countries’ relations are souring, Russia has used this as leverage, banning imports of certain products, as the main customer for a number of Armenian goods. Following recent developments, some in Armenia called for the government to nationalize Gazprom Armenia, the management of the country’s railways, and Armenia’s nuclear power plant.

Adding to the factors fueling the war of words between Armenia and Russia has been the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICRC) by Armenia at the beginning of October, which potentially obligates the country to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin if he ever arrives in the country. 

While Moscow denounced the ratification as a “hostile move” that would have the “most negative consequences” on the two countries’ relations, Armenian lawyers have stated that international mechanisms would allow them to bypass the International Criminal Court order. 

Hakob Arshakyan, Armenia’s deputy speaker of parliament, added on 2 November that Armenia had proposed that the two countries sign an agreement, which would exclude Armenia from applying ICRC decisions concerning both countries.

“We have proposed it – we have not received a response – but there is still time before it enters into force, and I hope that there will be progress,” said Arshakyan.

But Pashinyan has explicitly tied Armenia’s interest in ratifying the convention to Russia, noting the failure of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization to intervene when Armenia was under attack by Azerbaijan, and the overall “non-effectiveness” of the treaties Armenia relies on for its security.

In the days following Azerbaijan’s attack on Nagorno-Karabakh, thousands of people protested in front of the Russian Embassy in Yerevan, blocking the embassy’s entrances and prompting Russia’s Foreign Ministry to send a note of protest to Yerevan regarding the protests and the disruption of the embassy’s “normal work.”

Some Armenian opposition members have, however, criticized Pashinyan’s anti-Russian stance, accusing him of “declaring war against Russia” while being “afraid” of fighting Azerbaijan.

More Dramatic Interference Unlikely, For Now

Giragossian, from the Regional Studies Center, notes that Russia does not yet look set to directly intervene in Armenia. 

He highlights that Russia’s response to Armenia remains verbal and confined to lower-level officials, with spokespeople for the Foreign Ministry and presidential administration most often stating their dissatisfaction. 

“If Russian anger at Armenia were truly a serious crisis, Moscow would have taken action and not just issued angry statements,” says Giragossian. “Moreover, it is not a crisis if Russian President Putin does not comment or criticize.”

Giragossian adds that active Russian intervention in Armenian politics is both unlikely and unnecessary. 

“The Armenian opposition has repeatedly sought and solicited Russian backing and support, and each request was rejected by Moscow,” says Giragossian. “If there were a more likely time for Russia to support the opposition and seek to overthrow the Armenian government, it would have been in the immediate wake of the shock of the 2020 defeat.”

But Yablokov believes that the Kremlin does not have “any consistency” in its positions and propaganda, meaning that it can and will support a revolution in a country if doing so is in its interests. 

Russia’s current approach to Armenia has also been heavily influenced by its invasion of Ukraine, says Giragossian. Russia failed to respond in a number of cases when military escalations erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan and in Nagorno-Karabakh, and “even the humiliation of the Russian peacekeepers by Azerbaijan” did not trigger a significant response.

An arms deal between Yerevan and Moscow planned for this year has also fallen through, with Russia owing Armenia $400 million worth of weapons and ammunition but failing to provide either. 

And following Moscow’s inaction during Azerbaijan’s incursions and the 2022 September war, Armenia has begun to more directly punch back. 

While Armenia’s Foreign Ministry in August accused Russia of “absolute indifference,” Pashinyan indirectly but pointedly stated that “some partners” had breached the norms of “diplomatic, interstate relations,” ethics, and their obligations as set out in bilateral contracts. Given Russia’s position as Armenia’s primary security partner, it was evident whom the comments were aimed at. 

The official antipathy significantly escalated on 24 October, when Armenia summoned Russia’s ambassador to discuss the anti-Pashinyan broadcast, with Russia summoning Armenia’s charge d’affaires the following day. 

Armenia has also increasingly chosen Western facilitators for its negotiations with Baku, refusing to take part in Russia-initiated talks and CIS gatherings, further contributing to growing tensions between the two countries. 

With both Russia and Armenia suffering recent military losses, it remains to be seen what action the growing antagonism might prompt. 

While sudden shifts in Armenia and Russia’s relations seem unlikely, observers note that Armenia has clearly chosen the path of moving away from Russia in favor of deepening its relations with the West, with the apparent aim of ridding itself of dependence on a country that previously served as its main ally. 

OC Media’s requests for comments from Armenian and Russian authorities remained unanswered. 

Ani Avetisyan wrote stories and photographed for four years before moving into the world of facts and numbers, first working as a data journalist, then as a fact-checker. Open-source investigations and data visualization are her passions. This article was originally published in OC Media. Reprinted with permission under a Creative Commons license with slight edits for Transitions style.

Azerbaijan continues to refuse to attend peace talks with Armenia, citing what it calls the biased approach of Western mediating countries. This time it was the U.S. that displeased Azerbaijan. 

On November 16, Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry put out a statement announcing the country's decision not to attend a meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Washington scheduled for four days later.

The snub was in large part a response to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James O'Brien's testimony the previous day at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing titled "The Future of Nagorno-Karabakh." He told the committee that the U.S. was working on establishing a "comprehensive, thorough and transparent" record of what happened in the formerly Armenian-populated enclave before and during Azerbaijan's September military takeover. 

"We have commissioned independent investigators, we have our own investigators working in the field. There is information available from international non-governmental organizations and other investigators. And as we develop the record of what happened, we will be completely open about what we are finding. I can't put a timeline on this investigation, but we will inform you as we go forward," he said. 

O'Brien went on to express support for Armenia, which has been attempting a pivot away from Russia and is scrambling to accommodate the 100,000-some people displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh in September. 

"I am very impressed by the Armenian government's commitment to reforms and diversifying the relationships that it has – economic, political, energy and security – particularly in the Trans-Atlantic community," he said. "And I think we owe it to the people of Armenia to help them through this difficult situation so that those choices they have made very bravely are able to help them to make them have a more secure, stable and prosperous future." 

O'Brien also said that the U.S. had canceled high-level bilateral meetings and engagements with Azerbaijan (without specifying exactly when) and would keep urging Baku to "facilitate the return of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians who may wish to go back to their homes or visit cultural sites in the region, as well as restore unimpeded commercial, humanitarian, and pedestrian traffic to the region."

In its statement the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry called the hearing "a blow to the Azerbaijan-U.S. relations in bilateral and multilateral formats."

"The groundless accusations voiced against Azerbaijan are irrelevant and undermine peace and security in the region," the statement read. 

On the day of the hearing, the U.S. Senate also adopted a bill titled "Armenian Protection Act of 2023". If it becomes law, the bill will suspend all military aid to Azerbaijan by repealing the Freedom Support Act Section 907 waiver authority for the Administration with respect to assistance to Azerbaijan for the years 2024 and 2025.

On that front, Azerbaijan's diplomatic body argued that the U.S. was repeating "the same mistake" it made in 1992, when Azerbaijan was sanctioned with this amendment, "despite being a state who faced aggression and occupation" at the hands of Armenian forces.

Also on November 16, the U.S. reaffirmed its support for Armenia-Azerbaijan rapprochement irrespective of who mediates. "We would encourage the two parties to engage in those talks, whether they are here, whether they are somewhere else, and that'll continue to be our policy," spokesperson of the U.S. State Department Matthew Miller told a briefing.

Baku for its part does not seem interested in the U.S. having an active role in those talks. For some months now, it has been expressing distaste with Western-brokered negotiations and instead shown a preference for regional mediators like Russia, Turkey, and Iran. 

And its latest statement, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry warned that, "[S]uch a unilateral approach by the United States could lead to the loss of the mediation role of the United States."

By Heydar Isayev via Eurasianet.org

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Tensions-Rise-as-Azerbaijan-Snubs-US-Mediated-Peace-Talks.html

On November 8, 2023, the CFPB and a national bank entered into a consent order to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in intentional discrimination against Armenian Americans who had applied for credit cards with said bank.

Specifically, the CFPB alleges that between 2016 and 2021, the bank singled out credit card applicants suspected of being of Armenian descent based on their surnames, applying more stringent criteria to such applications, “including denying them and requiring additional information or placing a block on the account.”

The CFPB further asserts that bank supervisors instructed employees not to discuss the practice in writing or on recorded phone lines and that employees were taught to lie about the reason for the adverse actions against the applicants, typically citing suspected credit abuse. According to the CFPB, these practices violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

Pursuant to the consent order, the bank has agreed to pay $1.4 million to impacted consumers as well as a $25.4 million penalty.

[View source.]

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/pursuant-to-consent-order-with-cfpb-6276163/

CV NEWS FEED // The historic Armenian Christian Quarter of Jerusalem now faces an “existential territorial threat” from foreign developers seeking to build a luxury hotel over the region, according to the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The patriarchate issued a statement last week after Jerusalem police began ordering local Armenians to evacuate the area in order for construction to begin.

“The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem is under possibly the greatest existential threat of its 16-century history,” according to the statement. “This existential territorial threat fully extends to all the Christian communities of Jerusalem.”

According to the Patriarchate, the developer, Xana Gardens Ltd. has begun its “vast destruction and removal of asphalt on the grounds of the Armenian Quarter” without proper legal permits from the municipality. 

In a letter to the developer on October 26, the Armenian Patriarchate canceled the land deal, which it described as “tainted with false representation, undue influence, and unlawful benefits.” 

The controversy began in July 2021 after the director of the Armenian Patriarchate real estate department, former priest Khachik Yeretzian, leased a large portion of the Armenian Quarter to Danny Rubenstein, a Jewish businessman from Australia and head of Xana Gardens Ltd. 

Rubenstein planned to build a luxury hotel during the 98 year period of his lease, after which the land and hotel would be returned to the Patriarchate. The land in question is approximately 8 acres, which is about 14% of Jerusalem’s Old City.

However, the patriarchate claims the lease was finalized without ratification from the Synod and the General Assembly. 

Yeretzian claims he signed the lease with the patriarchate’s full support and was being condemned “for an act that the patriarchate signed and now I am being accused.” 

On May 6, 2022, the Synod unanimously voted to defrock Yeretzian, “for his disloyalty and especially the series of frauds and deceptions he committed regarding” the lease of the Armenian Quarter. 

The Armenian Patriarchate’s statement continued:

Instead of providing a lawful response to the cancellation, the developers attempting to build on the Cow’s Garden have completely disregarded the legal posture of the Patriarchate towards this issue, and instead have elected for provocation, aggression, and other harassing, incendiary tactics including destruction of property, the hiring of heavily armed provocateurs, and other instigation.

The Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem was established in 301 AD, when Armenia officially declared itself a Christian nation. 

“We plead with the entirety of the Christian communities of Jerusalem to stand with the Armenian Patriarchate in these unprecedented times as this is another clear step taken toward the endangerment of the Christian presence in Jerusalem and the Holy Land,” the Patriarchate concluded. 

https://catholicvote.org/armenian-quarter-territorial-attack/

Iam Armenian-Italian. One morning three years ago, I woke to the news that my beloved Artsakh was under attack. I remember sucking in my breath as the words of the Italian song “Bella ciao” flooded my head: Una mattina mi son svegliato / O bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao / Una mattina mi son svegliato / E ho trovato l’invasor—“One morning I woke up / Oh goodbye beautiful, goodbye beautiful, goodbye beautiful, bye, bye, bye / One morning I woke up / And I found the invader.” 

I know invaders. I lived through a war as a child growing up in Veneto. I remember the sight of soldiers with machine guns, and checkpoints. I remember food rationing. I remember “Pippo,” the solo fighter plane that could drop a bomb or tin foil, could fire at us or just fly away. I remember the whistle of a bomb as it dropped from the sky. I remember the English pilot we hid and fed, and whose parachute we transformed into shirts for us girls. And I remember the darkness of those nights of the war, when we all covered our windows with thick blackout curtains. Oh, do I remember the invasor. I am old, very old.

I was a child then, and like all children considered myself immortal. I had the luxury of seeing the horrors of the invasor from afar. This does not mean that I did not know them—that I wasn’t there when my mother risked being arrested by the Nazis, or when my father and grandfather worriedly wondered if Armenians would be traded for alliances, or when they hid Jews in their clinic.

It also does not mean that I did not know what I had to do during the war. Despite what modern parents may think, children can and need to shoulder their own responsibilities. I did. I was the eldest. I knew that my parents could not protect the littler ones if they had to watch out for me too. So every night, I made sure my shirt and skirt were properly folded, and my shoes and socks were placed where I could quickly reach them if the air-raid sirens went off. I also knew what to do during an air-raid. One night my parents forgot me while they hurried with the other children to get to the bomb shelter. With the sirens howling, I quickly dressed and made my way down the staircase. When I got to the atrium, I saw my grandfather. “Are you afraid?” he asked me. “No,” I replied. “I am not either,” he said. So we sat side by side on a bench and heard the bombs drop on the city.  

I remember the joy we all felt when the Americans arrived. With them came food (chocolate and peanut butter, most importantly), protection, smiles, and laughter. It was not just a liberation. It was a sunrise: a chance to start anew. I owe Americans my life. When I was about to die from one of those terrible diseases that all wars bring, my grandfather was able to purchase the penicillin that broke the fever that caused me to lose all of my hair. 

I watched the world begin to rebuild. There were ominous signs then, signs that I have since understood are the aftermath of our terrible modern ideological wars: a referendum that all of Italy suspected had been manipulated, the private vendettas against the collaborators and allies of the invasori, the micro–civil war in central Italy that the writer Giovannino Guareschi described so well. The war was over when Italy began its massive effort to start over. Ideological warfare was not. 

The Cold War had already broken out while Adenauer, Schuman, and De Gasperi began to lay out the plans for a united Europe. We, the children of the war, rejoiced in their plans. They meant freedom: a solid future. Such was my own hope in the united Europe that I stayed in the Europa-Haus dormitory while I studied in Göttingen, and lived alongside my Spanish, French, German, and Norwegian friends. We all wore pins with the European flag.

But the ideological battle that the war had left in its wake killed our dream before it was born. The late sixties were filled with loud, angry protests, and the seventies with terrorism. Worse than the violence was the hypocrisy of those who ignored the underlying discord, who refused to address it. And now that hypocrisy has destroyed Nagorno-Karabakh.

The war that I grew up in never really ended. It has reached my beloved Artsakh, the Artsakh in which I drank Tuti oghi (mulberry vodka) under a star-filled sky near the excavations of the old city of Tigranakert, the city founded by the great Armenian king Tigran the Great. It was handed over to Azerbaijan after the 44-Day War in 2020. And now, more recently, over 100,000 Armenians have been driven from Nagorno-Karabakh after Azerbaijan launched an attack in September. 

I saw that governments would make grand statements about morality and do nothing. I saw that they would try to take advantage of the unrest in the Caucasus in order to further their own ideological agendas. I saw that it would be the people, my people, the Armenians of Artsakh, who would suffer. 

I hope the United States, who liberated us before, will remember its extraordinary generosity. Our memories of violence stretch back millennia. Centuries and centuries of wars and invasions have made hypocrites of us. 

But America is young; it can still be a beacon, an example. Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey has introduced a bill to “prevent ethnic cleansing and atrocities against ethnic Armenians.” He recognizes that this is not a matter of “two sides” who “simply have differences,” as Matthew Miller, the U.S. State Department spokesman, claimed days after innocent Armenian civilians were bombed by Azeris. I thank Rep. Smith for his support—and, more importantly, for caring about the truth, which is so often the first casualty of war.

Antonia Arslan was a professor of modern and contemporary Italian literature at the University of Padua. She is the author of the international bestseller Skylark Farm.