1 - Commentary
Sen. Menendez Delays Senate Confirmation
Of US Ambassador to Azerbaijan
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com
2- England: Derby City Council Recognizes Armenian Genocide
3- Commentary: Fabulous, albeit Complete Failure
By Claude Mutafian
4 - Commentary: We, as a people, are better than that
By Sona Hamalian
5- The women who remove deadly landmines
******************************************
1 - Commentary
Sen. Menendez Delays Senate Confirmation
Of US Ambassador to Azerbaijan
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com
Pres. Donald Trump nominated on Sept. 4, 2018, career Foreign Service
Officer Earle Litzenberger to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan
replacing Amb. Robert Cekuta who left Baku nine months ago.
A month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s October 4,
2018 hearing on Litzenberger’s confirmation, the Armenian National
Committee of America (ANCA) issued a press release urging the Armenian
American community, friends of Armenia, and human rights activists to
call on their Senators to scrutinize Litzenberger’s nomination.
Aram Hamparian, Executive Director of ANCA, explained that “there’s
never been a more urgent need for clarity regarding the nature and
scope of American relations with the Aliyev regime. This confirmation
process provides a much-needed opportunity for substantive
Congressional oversight of an increasingly troubled U.S.-Azerbaijan
bilateral relationship, characterized by escalating aggression against
Armenians, a worsening crackdown on dissent, and a well-funded
campaign to manipulate the American political process.”
Litzenberger has served as Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund;
Deputy Chief of Mission to the United States Mission to NATO; NATO
Deputy Senior Civilian Representative to Afghanistan; Deputy Chief of
Mission at the United States Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia; and Deputy
Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Litzenberger earned a B.A. from Middlebury College, and M.S. from the
United States Army War College. He speaks French, Russian, Serbian,
and Bulgarian.
During the October 4, 2018, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing, Litzenberger came under intense scrutiny. The ANCA reported
that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) referred to Azeri President Ilham
Aliyev’s “bellicose rhetoric and sporadic outbursts of violence,” when
pressing Litzenberger about Azerbaijan’s violent strategies.
Litzenberger responded that he would urge the Azerbaijani government
to step back from behaviors that would disrupt the line of contact in
the Artsakh conflict. He also stated that the United States is working
along three lines—the non-use of force, respect for territorial
integrity, and the right to self-determination.
In addition, Litzenberger referred to the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, which condemns “any
violence and any threat of the use of violence along the line of
contact” without specifically citing Azerbaijan’s attacks.
During the hearing, Sen. Menendez inquired whether providing weapons
to Azerbaijan should be curtailed based on its human rights
violations. Litzenberger responded that the State Department will be
careful to ensure its decisions do not undermine efforts to reach a
peaceful settlement of the Artsakh conflict. He also mentioned an
increased focus on Azerbaijani training in human rights.
Following the hearing, both Sen. Menendez and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
submitted written questions to Litzenberger. At the request of Sen.
Menendez, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee postponed
consideration of Litzenberger’s nomination to an unspecified date.
Both Senators may have additional written questions to the nominee as
a result of their concerns at National Security Advisor John Bolton’s
offer to sell weapons to Armenia and Azerbaijan during his late
October trip to the Caucasus.
Litzenberger was the only one of 19 ambassadorial nominations to be
postponed, very likely until next year, when the Committee will hold
its next business meeting.
ANCA’s Hamparian welcomed Litzenberger’s delay giving the Senators the
“opportunity for more careful Congressional oversight of our country’s
increasingly challenging bilateral ties with Azerbaijan’s aggressive
and abusive Aliyev regime, particularly in light of National Security
Advisor John Bolton’s controversial suggestion that the U.S. start
selling arms to Baku.”
Hamparian went on to assert: “We join with our Senate friends in
seeking greater clarity on this point, and, more generally, regarding
the Administration’s policy on Aliyev’s worsening pattern of
aggression against Artsakh and Armenia, incitement of hatred against
all Armenians, unapologetic blacklisting of U.S. legislators,
obstruction of the Royce-Engel peace proposals, threats to shoot down
civilian aircraft, the destruction of the Djulfa cemetery and other
Christian heritage sites, and—of course—his severe crackdown against
domestic dissidents and ethnic-religious minorities.”
Azerbaijan’s Turan news Agency reported the news about the delay of
the confirmation of the US Ambassador to Baku. Surprisingly, Turan
speculated that Pres. Trump may make a recess appointment taking
advantage of the absence of Senate sessions in December, which would
mean that the President could appoint Litzenberger as Ambassador to
Azerbaijan without Senate confirmation.
Readers may recall that Pres. Obama made such a recess appointment in
the case of Matt Bryza dispatching him as Ambassador to Azerbaijan,
after Sen. Menendez twice blocked his confirmation. Bryza could only
serve in Baku for 12 months before being forced to return to
Washington, after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to
confirm his nomination.
In the case of Matt Bryza, the Armenian-American community had a good
reason to object to his nominations as he had a serious bias against
Armenia and favored Azerbaijan and Turkey. However, Litzenberger does
not seem to have such biases and there is nothing personal against
him. Delaying his nomination is simply a means to ensure that he would
defend human rights in Azerbaijan and would urge the Aliyev regime to
be less bellicose in the Artsakh conflict. Litzenberger’s delay would
also send a message to John Bolton that the Senate does not welcome
his offer to sell weapons to Azerbaijan.
The delay of the Ambassador’s Senate confirmation would serve the
additional aim of upsetting the Aliyev regime by prolonging the
lengthy absence of a U.S. Ambassador to Baku, causing an irritation in
Azerbaijan-United States relations.
**************************************************************************************************
2- England: Derby City Council Recognizes Armenian Genocide
(The California Courier)—On Nov 21, 2018, Derby City council became
the first city council in England to recognize The Armenian Genocide.
Dr. Ara Nahabedian attended the council meeting and witnessed this
historic motion adopted unanimously by the full city council of Derby.
British citizen Russell Pollard proposed the resolution some nine
years ago to the Derby City Council, after visiting Armenia and
Artsakh. While visiting Dzidzernagapert, he discovered that the UK
does not recognize the Armenian Genocide. He also visited Yerablur, a
tribute to the fallen soldiers of the Artsakh war in the 1990s.
“I returned to England, and I felt that Armenia, for me, was
‘unfinished business’—I wanted to visit Artsakh, and so returned the
following May. From that point, and during 15 further visits, I met
many people in Armenia, in Artsakh, and Armenians in the UK. Some, who
will be friends forever, have allowed me to truly understand life in
Armenia and Artsakh. But not as a tourist—something more humanitarian,
and more purposeful,” said Pollard in his website Artsakh.org.uk.
Pollard runs his website in cooperation with Susanna Petrosyan of the
Artsakh Youth Development Center (AYDC), which supports Pollard with
research; assistance with identifying and meeting contacts; and
translation
He began to write articles, created the Artsakh website, gave
presentations. And in so doing, he was awarded a medal by the Prime
Minister of Artsakh—while being blacklisted by Azerbaijan. “I wanted
to tell non-Armenians—I wanted to spread the word about how the people
of Artsakh were and are under continual threat and that this is a
legacy of the Armenian Genocide of 1915….and the fact that it remains
unrecognized is part of maintaining this genocidal opportunity for
Azerbaijan—a close ally of Turkey.”
Pollard lives in Derby, a small city of 250,000 people in the center
of England. It has a very diverse population speaking nearly 200
different languages, a great history, and great people—but there is no
Armenian community.
In 2015, Pollard spoke about the Armenian Genocide during a Holocaust
Memorial Day (HMD) commemoration. According to Pollard, the Turkish
government had written to the Mayor of Derby prior to the event in
order to dissuade him from making this presentation. Pollard remained
undeterred and has spoken every year since then at the commemoration
about the Armenian Genocide.
Derby City Council is the local government for Derby. It sits directly
below the UK Government—it represents the people through 51 elected
Councillors. They have the power to make formal resolutions on behalf
of the people of the City.
The HMD committee started discussions with the Council to support a
Recognition motion earlier this year. “Initially it fell on deaf
ears—sometimes with these matters it is about timing—so we waited. A
breakthrough was made just a few months ago, and I drafted a motion;
it was confirmed that it would be tabled. On November 21, the Full
Council unanimously agreed to adopt this motion thus making Derby the
first City in England to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide. It
is a proud day for this City that it did so, to make a stand on simple
humanitarian grounds.” said Pollard. “Hopefully, in the future, the
Armenian world will recognize Derby as a place that did the right
thing; a City that held out a hand across the oceans to those people
in Armenia, in Artsakh, and throughout the Diaspora…to say, we hear
your pain, we see it, we feel it…and we are with you, and stand by
you, and with you!”
*********************************************************************************************
3 - Commentary: Fabulous, albeit Complete Failure
By Claude Mutafian
A distinguished art historian and well-known specialist of Byzantium,
Mrs. Helen Evans has been working at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
for many years. Among the exhibitions she has organized, let us
mention ‘The Glory of Byzantium (843-1261)’ in 1997 and ‘Byzantium:
Faith and Power (1261-1557)’ in 2004. Such topics involved necessarily
neighboring Armenia, and Mrs. Evans’ growing interest for Armenian art
was finally materialized by the present widely publicized exhibition
called ‘Armenia!’, where the curious exclamation mark may reflect some
kind of admiration. More important is the absence of any mention of
period in the title, contrary to the two abovementioned Byzantine
exhibitions. At first glance, it suggests that the exhibition should
cover the three millennia of Armenian history, or at least, if one
decides to exclude Urartu, the period from 500 B.C. to our days. This
is not the case: it begins at the dawn of the 4th century, with the
Christianization of Armenia, and ignores totally one millennium of
pagan Armenia. As an example, the absence of the name of the most
famous of all Armenian kings, Tigranes the Great (1st century B.C.),
in an exhibition called ‘Armenia!’ looks strange, if not unacceptable.
It would have been fair to call the exhibition ‘Christian Armenia!’,
and briefly explain on an introductory panel that Armenia did exist
long before, and that Christianization opened a new artistic era. Such
was the case of the exhibition properly called ‘Armenia Sacra’ in
Paris (Musée du Louvre, 2007).
The quality of the various items displayed here is properly amazing.
The exhibition succeeded in obtaining some incredibly rich loans, some
of them having systematically been refused before, as a manuscript of
the greatest Armenian miniaturist, T’oros Roslin (13th century), lent
by the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Let us also mention the
fabulous wooden door of the Mush Surb Karapet monastery, now kept in a
private collection, so that this is probably a unique opportunity to
admire it.
Many other similar examples can be given, but an exhibition is not a
mere collection of masterpieces, it has to be a pedagogical tool and
lead the visitor into a world essentially unknown, helping him to
discover it. Unfortunately, this is not the case for ‘Armenia!’ First
of all, the absence of any map, from the very beginning to the end, is
amazing. Does everyone know what and where Armenia is? Even for those
who know it, where are Cilicia, Vaspurakan, Sevan, Siwnik’, and so on?
These provinces remain purely abstract names. Even in the last
section, dedicated to the trade routes, not a single itinerary is
explicitly shown. As for the catalogue, it includes, at the very
beginning (p. 24-25), a single map, which stretches from Eastern
America to Japan: Armenia is so tiny that the names of dozens of
cities and monasteries are illegible, the provinces being totally
omitted!
This huge gap could have been, at least partly, compensated by some
adequate historical explanations, but these are absent from the
exhibition, as well as from the catalogue. A glance to the list of the
contributors of this catalogue shows that it involves exclusively art
historians; there is practically not a single historian in spite of
the fact that the evolution of art cannot be dissociated from the
historical frame.
As a first consequence of this absence of historical control,
precision is often lacking and mistakes are frequent. Let us quote a
few of them:
– After 387, Armenia was not “made a vassal state of Iran”; it was
divided between Byzantium and Persia (p. 209)
– The dates of the historian Movses Khorenatsi are still
controversial, between the 5th and the 8th or even 9th century: the
precise dates “(410-490)” assigned here make no sense (p. 29)
– The annexion of Kars took place in 1065, not in “1054” (p. 34)
– The mother of Queen Melisende was not from “Edessa,” but from Melitene (p. 35)
– The first husband of Zabel was not “deposed,” but put to death (p. 35, 130)
– King Levon V was not “buried” in Saint-Denis – where his tomb stone
was transferred in the 19th century – but in the Celestins’ convent
(p. 36)
– The name “Armenia Maritima” for the Crimean coast is a myth (p. 88)
– This southern coast of Crimea was in the hand of the Genovese alone,
not the “Venetians and Genovese” (p. 164)
– The foundation of the Armenian Patriarchate in 1461 by sultan Mehmed
II and the bishop of Bursa is purely mythic (p. 172, 253)
– The patriarch of Jerusalem was not at all restricted “on a local
level” (p. 233)
The exhibition captions and the catalogue notices are full of
interesting details concerning the description of the objects, but
they generally omit the historical context in full. For example, let
us have a look to the section dealing with Armenians in Italy (p.
164): when, why, how did they settle there? No answer. Even worse for
Jerusalem (p. 218), where the foundation of the Patriarchate is
totally ignored and the famous mosaics quoted without any
reproduction—the only picture being the interior of the cathedral. As
for the famous map of K’eomiwrchean (1691), why do neither the caption
nor the article (p. 301) mention its amazing story: it was considered
as lost until its discovery by chance in Bologna three centuries
later! Let us add that usually a catalogue recalls, for each object,
the former exhibitions where it has been already displayed: no such
precision is given here for any of them.
The name “Kingdom of Cilicia” is a widespread mistake all over the
exhibition and the catalogue. Such a kingdom has never existed: there
has been in Cilicia a “Kingdom of Armenia,” so called by the Armenians
as well as all their neighbors (Arabs, Greeks, Franks,…). To be
geographically more precise, one may speak of “Cilician Armenia.” A
few rooms away from ‘Armenia!’, the Museum has a permanent showcase
containing some silver coins from that kingdom, where one can read
explicitly “King of Armenia.” Why didn’t the exhibition display some
of these coins?
As for the birth of this last Kingdom of Armenia far away from the
motherland, there is a more serious problem. One reads that at some
moment “Armenians moved into Cilicia” (p. 34), without any
explanation. Were they tourists? The reason given elsewhere, “the
Byzantine defeat at the battle of Manzikert” (p. 134), is absurd: that
battle took place in 1071 between Byzantines and Seljuk Turks, it did
not involve the Armenians. The real reason has to be found somewhat
earlier, when these same Seljuk Turks captured Ani in 1064. Why is
this event carefully ignored here, as it had been on p. 31, where one
can read, without any explanation, that the monuments of Ani “stand
even now in ruins”? These ruins are “on the modern closed border
between the Turkish and Armenian Republics” (p. 66). On which side?
And why is this border “closed”? While it is correctly recalled that
the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia was destroyed by the Mamluks in 1375
(p. 164), why aren’t the Turks mentioned for the destruction of the
Bagratid Kingdom of Ani in 1064? Anyway, the word ‘Turks’ is totally
absent of the catalogue, as one can check it in the index. Is it by
chance?
These questions lead us to some more political considerations. As we
have seen, the exhibition begins with the Christianization of
Armenia—which would make sense if it were explicit. It ends with the
18th century, allowing to omit the tragic fate of the Armenians from
the 19th century on, and particularly the genocide.
Like the silence about the fate of Ani, several other indications are
somewhat puzzling.
– One speaks of the “monastery of the Holy Apostles in Mush” (p. 97)
without specifying that it was destroyed by the Turks during the 20th
century.
– Among the jewels of this exhibition, one has already mentioned the
carved door of the Surb Karapet monastery, also in Mush (p. 109). How
did this door survive the destruction of the whole monument? Why isn’t
there a single word about that? Maybe because any answer would
necessarily include the word ‘genocide.’
– The only explicit mention of depravity concerns the cemetery of
khachkars of Julfa, in Nakhchivan. One reads (p. 91) that they “were
deliberately destroyed in the 1990s, in an attempt to eliminate any
trace of Armenian presence from the region”. Although the date is
wrong—it took place in 2005—there is at least a correct mention. But
why isn’t the name of Azerbaijan, the author of this crime, mentioned?
– This province of Nakhchivan counted many monasteries, which had been
photographed before their complete destruction by Azerbaijan. There is
not a single trace of any of them, neither in the exhibition nor in
the catalogue. Is it in order to avoid putting that State in
accusation?
– Monuments of Lori, Siwnik’ or Vaspurakan are largely mentioned, but
those of Arts’akh-Karabagh, which are not less important, are
practically absent, in particular the famous monastery of Gandzasar,
briefly mentioned only once (p. 178), which did not deserve any
picture or commentary. Is that in order to avoid speaking of
Azerbaijan’s claims?
In one word, as in each case, it is obvious that Turks and Azeris were
aware of that exhibition from the very beginning. Did they make
pressure on the authorities in order to avoid the mention of anything
that could recall their criminal policy towards Armenians? Let us
consider another hypothesis: the friendly relations of the United
States towards these ‘Republics’ may have resulted in an automatic
censorship by the Museum authorities themselves.
Finally, the incredible absence of any map may enter very well in such
a frame. Maps are potentially dangerous: they suppose borders,
presence of populations, leading one to ask why the Armenians, so
numerous and active in such or such area, have totally disappeared
there. The answer has to come from Ankara and Baku.
This exhibition is included in the Museum entrance ticket, so that a
lot of people pass through it. I paid attention to these visitors: it
was obvious that they were delighted by the beauty of what they saw,
but also obvious that they did not understand anything of the context.
What a waste! Armenia has still to wait…
As a conclusion, one can say that ‘Armenia !’ is a fabulous display of
Christian Armenian art until the 18th century, but that as an Armenian
exhibition it is a complete failure, unworthy of an institution as
famous as the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Claude Mutafian is a mathematician and historian specializing in
Armenian history.
This article appeared in Armeniaca on December 1, 2018.
***************************************************************************************************
4 - Commentary: We, as a people, are better than that
By Sona Hamalian
[Ed.: On November 13, at 12:55 a.m., a post was made using Facebook by
the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia, in which Minister
of Culture Lilit Makunts wrote: “I announce the verbal warning to
deputy director of the Alexander Spendiaryan National Academic Theater
of Opera and Ballet Karine Kirakosyan for engaging in political
activities during working hours, and propagandizing and placing
psychological pressure on employees. I urge Mr. Orbelian, the Director
of the Opera, to adhere strictly to this law and not go beyond the
scope of his defined powers and functions. Otherwise severe
administrative measures will be applied. This warning is to be taken
into consideration by all those who fall under the purview of the
Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia.” This commentary is in
reference to that post.]
What is wrong with us?
We Armenians love to talk about how deep the roots of our nation go,
yet we often display a glaring lack of farsightedness, as an
inextricable attribute of the wisdom of an ancient people. We pride
ourselves on what we consider the inherent nobility of our nation, as
expressed through values such as hospitality, inclusiveness, and
generosity of spirit, yet we often act in utter disregard of these
values, driven by greed and the petty exigencies of the ego. And we
love screaming at the top of our lungs that nothing can suppress our
creative spirit, even in times of extreme collective hardship, yet far
too often we ignore, ostracize, or downright destroy our most
accomplished, most visionary artists.
Case in point: in the past few weeks, a nasty smear campaign was
unleashed in Yerevan, accompanied by threats both obvious and implied,
with the express purpose of ruining just such an artist.
The story might sound banal, even boring: a certain government
official is seeking to have the director of a major cultural
institution removed from his post, and has come up with a bunch of
fabrications to get the ball rolling—with no due process whatsoever,
and relying strictly on innuendo and threats.
This is the type of clique intrigue that can take place on any given
day, anywhere in the world, whether in governance, public
institutions, or commerce. In fact, it’s so prevalent that we might
have become rather desensitized to it. What’s unique to the case I
refer to is that the government official in question is Lilit Makunts,
the Minister of Culture of the Republic of Armenia—yes, the same
republic which pulled off a bloodless revolution only months ago, and
whose new government has inspired not just our homeland, but the
entire Armenian community of the world, with an exhilarating prospect
for genuine pluralism, transparency, accountability, and, above all,
fairness. What’s equally unique to this case is that the artist whom
the Minister is targeting happens to be one of the most accomplished
and dedicated Armenian artists alive, and one who almost
single-handedly has brought about the rebirth of a cherished national
treasure. That artist is Constantine Orbelian, the Artistic and
General Director of the Yerevan Opera House.
Minister Makunts launched her smear campaign with a shocking post on
the Ministry’s Facebook Page. She was accusing the executive personnel
of the Yerevan Opera House of holding political-agitation meetings at
the theater, and warned that talking about or discussing politics of
any kind is strictly forbidden by law, that it’s a prosecutable
offense. In the post she warns not only the Opera House staff, but,
the staff of any theater or state organization. Is Makunts the
Minister of Culture of Armenia or the Minister of Propaganda of a long
lost Soviet Republic?
I find the Minister’s unsubstantiated accusations and threats to be
disturbing on many levels, and not just concerning Maestro Orbelian
and his colleagues. Her overarching message couldn’t be clearer. In a
flagrant nod to Stalinism, she was telling everyone to keep quiet, to
refrain from voicing political opinions. She was, in effect, issuing a
warning against democratic processes and thought. Such behavior, so
profoundly unbecoming of a government official of our
post-velvet-revolution space, should make any concerned Armenian
wonder: is free speech already cancelled? Is free thought here under
fire? How on Earth can a discussion about politics or politicians be
deemed political “agitation?” And who in a democracy, after all, gets
to decide what is allowed and what isn’t?
I don’t know what degree of small-mindedness and just plain ignorance
it would take for someone—a Minister of Culture no less—to engage in
the type of Byzantine machination that has shown its ugly face in
Yerevan in the past few weeks. What I do know is that the Cultural
community is deeply disappointed in her. This would spell a dangerous
setback for democracy in Armenia. It would mean we’re not exactly an
open, fair, and pluralistic society. It would also mean we don’t
really care that a globally-renowned artist such as Orbelian has
helped the Yerevan Opera House burgeon like never before, by
empowering it to stage extraordinary productions in Armenia and
abroad; and that he has helped fund these efforts with his own
personal resources, again and again, because nothing excites him more
than having the Yerevan Opera House shine on the world stage, as a hub
for artistic excellence. And it would mean, by extension, that we
Armenians, you and I, don’t care much about the continued vibrancy of
our cultural institutions, since, apparently, anyone in a position of
power can, on a whim, have someone removed from a post, and do so with
the tacit consent of her government, and by echoing a totalitarian
past which our homeland fought so very hard to overcome. What, then,
is wrong with us? I hope nothing. It is my sincere wish, and no doubt
the wish of hundreds of thousands of Armenians across the globe who
revere Maestro Orbelian’s talent and work, that the campaign against
him as well as our freedom of speech and thought, will duly be exposed
for what it is, and that we, as a people, will have plenty of reason
to say that we’re better than that.
*****************************************************************************************************
5- The women who remove deadly landmines
By Elizabeth Sulis Kim
(Positive News)—London’s Metropolitan police and the UK Supreme Court
both appointed a woman in their leading role for the first time in
2017. Meanwhile in the US midwest, many men who once worked in
manufacturing are finding new careers in healthcare. While gender
stereotypes for many roles persist, the unwritten rules are breaking
down. What if all jobs went to the person best suited to them?
War is over in this landlocked, mountainous territory, but landmines
and unexploded ordnance still threaten lives and livelihoods. This is
Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
where all-out conflict ended in 1994 but left its legacy beneath the
soil’s surface. Those at The Halo Trust, a mine clearance
organisation, aim to clear all of the mines there by 2020, both to
prevent further casualties and to make the land economically viable.
Female de-miners began working for the non-profit in 2015. It was a
first in this patriarchal culture, where sex-selective abortions are
common and where many hold the belief that a woman’s place is in the
home. Now, 11 women are working as de-miners in the region and more
are being trained in a bid to reach the 2020 target. Christine
Kachataryan was a secretary and accountant at a local school before
she became a de-miner. “My husband was very worried for me and didn’t
want me to do it,” says the 38-year-old mother-of-three. “But
landmines have affected everyone in our communities, and I wanted to
do something to help. I was nervous at first—I’d heard the job was too
dangerous for a woman—but our training taught us how to do the work
safely.” She says the role is fulfilling, adding that her husband and
family are proud of her now.
Fellow de-miner Lucine Asryan notes that her friends often ask: “Why
do you want to be a de-miner, it’s a man’s job?” But her motivation is
deeply personal: her uncle was killed by a mine and she began training
soon after.
Despite stereotypes and stigma, the female de-miners of
Nagorno-Karabakh are proud not to fall behind their male counterparts.
“Women can actually do this job better than men because they are more
detail-oriented, more responsible —and more careful,” says Sirun
Ohanyan, who left a career in teaching to do the job.
“Men and women can do the same work, and our male colleagues are
respectful,” she adds. Being mothers, many of the women say that being
away from their children is the hardest part of their job. “My kids
miss me,” says mother-of-five Inga Avanesyan, “but I dedicate the
entire weekend to them”.
Then there’s battling the elements: extremely cold winters, and long
hours under the baking summer sun. But the end is in sight. Since
2010, an estimated 90 percent of this region’s minefields have been
cleared. As well as empowering themselves by taking on the work, the
female de-miners of Nagorno-Karabakh look forward to a safer future,
where their children will be able to run in the fields freely. Says
Kachataryan: “When the mines are cleared, life here will become safer
and people will live without fear.”
**********************************************************************************************************************************************
California Courier Online provides viewers of the Armenian News News Service
with a few of the articles in this week's issue of The California
Courier. Letters to the editor are encouraged through our e-mail
address, However, authors are
requested to provide their names, addresses, and/or telephone numbers
to verify identity, if any question arises. California Courier
subscribers are requested not to use this service to change, or modify
mailing addresses. Those changes can be made through our e-mail,
, or by phone, (818) 409-0949.