Artsakh Internal Affairs Ministry: Special measures in Stepanakert carried out in intensified mode

NEWS.am
Armenia –

On the order of the Minister of Internal Affairs and on the order of the chief of police, on the night of Sunday, special measures in the capital of Artsakh, Stepanakert, were continued in the reinforced regime, the MIA of Artsakh reported.

Within the enhanced service, all vehicles were stopped, the documents for the right to participate in traffic, as well as transported cargo were checked. Vehicles and transported cargo were inspected in the presence of drivers and citizens.

Special measures were launched on 17 May together with the traffic police, regional subdivisions and employees of Artsakh National Security Service.

The results will be reported later. 

Armenian deputy PM participates in session of Board of Eurasian Development Bank

Save

Share

 15:17,

YEREVAN, JUNE 24, ARMENPRESS. Deputy Prime Minister of Armenia Mher Grigoryan participated in the session of the Board of the Eurasian Development Bank in Kazakhstan’s capital of Nur-Sultan, the Armenian government’s press service said.

The EDB annual report, as well as the procedure of the EDB membership for new members were discussed during the meeting.

During the session deputy PM Grigoryan highlighted the adoption of the EDB cooperation strategy with Armenia for 2022-2026.

Armenia has a chance to be recognized as high-tech country, Deputy Minister says at Orion Summit 2022 in Yerevan

Save

Share

 14:00,

YEREVAN, JUNE 22, ARMENPRESS. Deputy Minister of High Technological Industry of Armenia Davit Sahakyan participated in the panel discussion “Maturing and Accelerating Armenian Startup Ecosystem: Innovation, Finance and Investment Perspective” during the Orion Summit 2022 in Yerevan.

In response to the question of ARMENPRESS, the deputy minister attached importance to this summit, which, according to him, is a platform to communicate with the field, understand the existing problems and jointly find their solutions.

“The summit enables to inform about the programs that the ministry is going to implement and is implementing for the development of the sector”, the deputy minister said.

According to Davit Sahakyan, Armenia is transitioning from a country of information technologies to a country of high technologies.

“During the panel discussion the initiatives, which we have implemented, were discussed, including the courses that are five such as cybersecurity, engineering, blockchain, artificial intelligence and technological entrepreneurship. We position today’s Armenia not based on today’s needs, but on future needs”, he said.

He said Armenia has a big potential to succeed in IT sector. This summit, he added, is one of the initiatives that is steadily moving towards the fulfillment of that goal.

About Orion

Orion Worldwide Innovations (“Orion”), is a startup growth and ecosystem acceleration hub and offers a full-service package to make companies investable to enter the US market, enhance their customer acquisition strategies, stay competitive and protect their innovation. Orion is a U.S.-based company formed in 2017, with offices in New York City, U.S., and Yerevan, Armenia, though Orion partners with companies and investor networks worldwide.




98.2% of respondents in Armenia are against Artsakh becoming part of Azerbaijan

ARMINFO

Armenia – June 8 2022
Marianna Mkrtchyan

ArmInfo. 66% of respondents in Armenia are convinced that a 44- day war in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone was inevitable. This is evidenced by the results of a  study conducted and published by the Caucasus Research Resource  Center (CRRC).

At the same time, 34% of respondents are convinced that the war could  have been avoided. 28% of respondents reported that they participated  in hostilities, 72% – did not participate. 5% were injured during the  war and recovered, 95% were not injured. 5% lost their jobs as a  result of the war, 4% – lost property and only 2% reported that they  had lost their relatives during the war.

At the same time, 91% of respondents expressed concern about the  negative consequences of the war, 3% were not concerned, and another  6% were neutral about the consequences. 79% are concerned about the  uncertainty caused by the war, 13% are not concerned, 9% are neutral.  63% of respondents also expressed concern about the impact of the war  on their income, 23% – not concerned about this circumstance, 13% -  neutral. 24% of respondents expressed concern about disagreements  with family members regarding the country's domestic policy, 64% -  not concerned, 12% – neutral.

At the same time, 78.8% of those polled were in favor of  Nagorno-Karabakh becoming part of Armenia, 9.1% were against it,  another 12.1% considered it acceptable.

59.8% of the respondents would unequivocally allow Artsakh to gain  independence, 20.1% would rather allow it, another 20.1 would not  allow it. Another 23.1% of respondents were in favor of Artsakh  becoming part of Russia, 29.5% – rather for it, 47.4% were against  it.

Moreover, 94.3% of respondents were against the creation of an  administrative division (on the territory of the NKR – ed. note),  which would be controlled by both Armenia and Azerbaijan. 97.9% of  those polled were against receiving autonomy by Artsakh within  Azerbaijan. And 98.2% said no to the accession of Artsakh to  Azerbaijan without any status.

At the same time, 32% are convinced that Armenia should do everything  to return all the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh, 42% are convinced  that Armenia should return all the territories lost as a result of  the 44-day war, another 26% of respondents believe that Armenia  should maintain the status quo.

At the same time, 52% of respondents were against the establishment of  transport communications between Armenia and Azerbaijan, another 14%  said that they disagree to some extent, 16% were neither for nor  against, 12% said that they agree to some extent, and only 6% were in  favor of opening communications.  62% of respondents are convinced  that the opening of communications between Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan  through the territory of the Republic of Armenia will pose a threat  to the security of Armenia, 17% believe that it will create threats  to some extent, 7% do not share this point of view, 6% – rather not  share, 7% – neither for nor against.

45% also do not share the opinion that the opening of the  above-mentioned road will create the basis for the development of the  RA economy, another 10% rather do not share this opinion, 24% rather  share this opinion, 12% do, 9% are neither for nor against.  89% of  respondents also expressed the belief that it is impossible to forget  what happened between peoples in the past. The citizens of Armenia  are also inclined to believe that in the foreseeable future there  will be a new war for Nagorno-Karabakh.  The study was conducted from  December 18, 2021 to February 4, 2022. The study involved 1648  respondents over 18 years of age. Citizens were selected from the  republican electoral lists of 2018.  Accuracy +/- 2.4%. Conducted  tete-a-tete polls.  31% of respondents are from Yerevan, 32% – from  other cities of the republic, another 37% – from villages.  55% are  women, 47% are men, of which 52% are unemployed and 48% are employed.  35% of respondents had secondary education, 28%- secondary vocational  education, 25% – higher education, 1%- post-graduate scientific  degree, 3% – incomplete higher education, 7% – incomplete secondary  education. 

Legendary filmmaker Artavazd Peleshyan’s “Nature” to premiere in Yerevan June 18

Save

Share

 10:36, 8 June 2022

YEREVAN, JUNE 8, ARMENPRESS. Legendary Armenian director of essay films, screenwriter Artavazd Peleshyan’s Nature (La Nature) film will be premiered in Yerevan’s Moscow Cinema on June 18, at 19:00.

The Nature movie’s global festival premiere was held at the New York Film Festival-59 in September 2021.

Premiered by the Fondation Cartier, Nature brings together amateur shots of nature, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, and grandiose landscapes from the internet, juxtaposing the overpowering force of nature with human ambition.

Artavazd Peleshyan received the “Lifetime Achievement Award” in the International Documentary Filmfestival Amsterdam (IDFA) for the movie.

ZKM Filminstitut founder Andrei Ujica and the Fondation Cartier’s artistic director Hervé Chandès will arrive in Yerevan for the premiere of the film.

The entrance is free of charge.

Forget France, Armenia is the center of winemaking. Euronews’s coverage of Armenian winemaking

Forget France, Armenia is the center of winemaking. Euronews's coverage of Armenian winemaking

Save

Share

 12:55,

YEREVAN, JUNE 11, ARMENPRESS.  "Forget France: Armenia is the hub of winemaking!" The leading international media network "Euronews" headlined its reflection, declaring the Armenian plateau the ancient homeland of winemaking.

 ARMENPRESS reports "Euronews" tells about the 8000-year-old traditions of Armenian viticulture and 6000-year-old winemaking culture, adding that one should not miss one of the oldest winemaking regions, Armenia when thinking about wine. The media emphasizes the fact that the unique exhibits kept in the Wine History Museum recently opened in Armenia open the way for visitors to the past and modern solutions of Armenian winemaking, showing the deep connection of the region, religion, culture, and medicine with Armenian wine.

"The museum is located only 30 km away from Yerevan, in Armenia Wine Winery, it is located in 8 meters deep basalt rocks ։ when you go through an underground tunnel, you feel like you are entering a huge wine cellar."- says "Euronews" adding; "The historical-archeological-ethnographic samples in the museum show how the wine accompanied the Armenians from the cradle to the burial rites." Taking advantage of the museum's tendency to popularize the culture of ancient winemaking, "Euronews" points out the existence of a bibliography, which proves that Armenia is truly the cradle of winemaking.

Hamazkayin Lebanon’s Seminar for Armenian Youth on Culture and Identity

 

Organizers and participants of the Hamazkayin Lebanon seminar, “Post-Genocide Creative Vision: Memory, Art and Demand for Restitution” pictured outside Armenian Genocide Orphans Aram Bezikian Museum May 21, 2022,

Background

On Saturday, May 21, 2022, the Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural Society in Lebanon under the patronage of the Catholicosate of Cilicia and with the financial support of the Armenian communities department of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation hosted a youth seminar on “Post-Genocide Creative Vision: Memory, Art and Demand for Restitution,” dedicated to the 107th commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. The one-day seminar brought together more than 130 young Lebanese-Armenians at the Bird’s Nest Orphanage in Byblos/Jbeil. 

Organizers noted the importance of this timely seminar, that “the feelings of alienation and destruction that resulted from this trauma had to be explained, new traditions had to be built, and new discourses about the ‘self’ and ‘identity’ had to be constructed. Armenians had to rebuild themselves as a nation. The collective experience – the Genocide – became one of the most significant building blocks. However, rebuilding an identity was and still is a struggle amidst global political dynamics, constant immigration waves, and ongoing threats to Armenia’s security and sovereignty that continue shaping the already multifaceted Armenian Diaspora in a more complex manner. This struggle is visible not only at the intellectual level but also through the more direct interactions of Armenians with their heritage and culture.”

For this reason, Hamazkayin’s Lebanese Regional Committee, in preparation for the commemorative programs for the 107th anniversary of the Genocide in 2022, decided to provide a critical and analytical approach to explain the evolution of the post-genocide diasporic Armenian identity and heritage. Just over a dozen speakers from different professional backgrounds were invited from Lebanon, the United States, the Czech Republic, Kuwait and Syria. Participants were representatives from various Armenian youth and student associations, schools and universities.

Opening remarks were made by Hamazkayin’s Lebanese Regional Office. Shaghig Hovsepian-Haroutiunian said that this youth seminar aims to raise awareness of the Lebanese-Armenian youth and encourage their critical thinking. In his welcoming remarks on behalf of the organizing committee, Father Barouyr Shernezian stated that the power of the Diaspora becomes significant when we succeed in organizing, consolidating, valuing and encouraging that power. Hence, the more we succeed in re-evaluating and understanding what we have done and continue to do, the more those values will be a stimulus for us to be strengthened in our unique line of Armenian identity. The opening speech of the event was made by Dr. Ara Sanjian who reflected on the first public Armenian Genocide commemorations, press releases and memorials around the world. The seminar also featured guest lecturer, Lebanese author, composer, poet, producer and orchestra leader Ghady Rahbani. Rahbani spoke in Arabic about the contribution of Armenian artists to the formation of Lebanese cultural identity. He highlighted the names of Lebanese Armenian artists who have contributed to the formation of the contemporary Lebanese cultural identity and the field of art. 

The Program 

The program was divided into four main topics: “Language and Literature”; “Music”; “Stage and Screen”; and “Diasporic Institutions and Community Life.” Each topic included a panel discussion and a short Q & A session.

“Language and Literature” was presented by lecturers Armen Urneshlian, Arda Jebejian and Anita Moutchoyan. The session was chaired by Christ Kheroian. The session began with a lecture on Literature and Trauma by Haigazian University lecturer and principal of the Armenian Evangelical College, Dr. Armen Urneshlian. Dr. Urneshlian briefly touched upon the expressions and ideas of the post-genocide psyche of Armenian writers and poets. He analyzed the expressions of intellectuals such as Tekeyan, Vahian, Oshakan, Tsarukian, Hamastegh and others.

The second lecture was delivered in English by Anita Moutchoyan and titled “A Comparison between First and Third Generation Diasporic Literature: From Assimilation Post-Memorial Documentation and Demand for Justice.” Moutchoyan is a lecturer at Haigazian University and the founding director of the HU Writing Center. Moutchoyan chose William Saroyan from the first generation and Peter Balakian from the third generation. Her talk primarily focused on tracing both first-generation and third-generation diasporic literary works, written in or translated to English, to highlight the role she had argued that post-memorial artistic witnessing plays in the continuous demand for justice for the Armenian cause.

The last presentation of the session was dedicated to the role of Western Armenian in the life of the Armenian community. The presentation “Western Armenian as a Symbol of Survival and Endurance” by Dr. Arda Jebejian, assistant professor at the American University of the Middle East addressed the consequences of deportation, the characteristics of the “victim Diaspora” and the attempts of the Armenians to preserve the Armenian language in their communities. 

Lecturers for the “Music” session included Dr. Sylvia Angelique Alajaji, Haig Utidjian and Zakar Keshishian. The moderator of the session was Garen Yosoulkanian.

Dr. Alajaji, who is associate professor and chair of music at Franklin & Marshall College, titled her presentation in English: “Exile on a Cassette. Notes on Music, Memory, and Refusal from the Post-Genocide Armenian Diaspora.” Dr. Alajaji discussed how in the wake of the Armenian Genocide, music opened up broader questions about how to define what it meant to be Armenian. She traced the Armenian musical cultures that emerged over a century from New York to Beirut to California. For Alajaji, these acts of preservation, creation, erasure and recovery all are part of what music means to the Armenian Diaspora.

The second lecturer on the topic was Dr. Utidjian, a conductor and musicologist. He delivered a lecture on “Armenian Sacred Music in the Aftermath of the Genocide,” where he highlighted not only our spiritual and cultural losses during the deportation and post-genocide period, but also the efforts to save the culture thereafter from the experiences of prominent individuals.

Keshishian’s lecture, “Exiled Musical Life: The Experience of Classical and Choir Music,” touched upon the role of music in the life of Diaspora Armenians on a professional and artistic level, showing its contribution not only in terms of preservation of the Armenian identity, but also as a post-genocide experience. 

The third session was dedicated to “Stage and Screen.” The lecturers of this session were Movses Hergelian, Vatche Adrouni and Hrach Tokatlian. The session was moderated by Kayane Madzounian. 

In his presentation titled “Commemoration through Colors and Shapes,” Dr. Hergelian referred to the Turkish massacres in the pre-genocide period from Ivan Aivazovsky’s experience to the post-genocide period, recalling the role of artists and the names of those whose art, according to Hergelian, could not be analyzed without considering the Genocide. Dr. Hergelian added that those artists sang with deep sorrow and expressed their rebellion and revolt through their deeds.

Adrouni, a lecturer at Haigazian University and the Northern Institute of Armenology and the founder of Shrchun Theater Group and Geghard Theater Center, titled his lecture “The Topic of Genocide on Stage.” He referred to the theatrical censorship created after the Hamidian massacres, when Armenians dominated the so-called “Turkish theater,” as well as the prohibition of Armenian-speaking performances and a number of words, and the unbridled ways of performing plays adopted by the Armenians. According to Adrouni, theater related to the Genocide has been of a political nature.

Tokatlian, a photographer and lecturer at the University of Saint Joseph in Lebanon, titled his presentation “Queries about Films Portraying the Armenian Genocide.” He presented the challenges and approaches adopted in making documentary or feature films related to the Genocide, as well as the digital picture of the works done so far.

The final session was dedicated to “Diasporic Institutions and Community Life.” The lecturers were Levon Sharoyan, Shaghig Kandaharian-Khutaverdian and Hrag Avedanian. The panel was moderated by Krikor Alozian.

Sharoyan, a lecturer at the Hamazkayin Institute of Armenology in Aleppo and a visiting lecturer at the Armenological Institute of the Great House of Cilicia, talked about  “Post-Genocide Reflections in Diasporic Printed Media.” He quoted excerpts from his analysis of the Mekhitarists’ Bazmavep and the Azadamart newspaper in Constantinople and linked the publications to certain periods of Armenian history and the Turkish nationalist movement. 

In her lecture “Post-Genocide Educational Institutions and the Development of National Identity,” Kandaharian-Khutaverdian, a lecturer at Haigazian University, discussed the role of the Armenian school in language preservation and national identity formation. She concluded that the Armenian school was not only a center of education and training, but also a guarantee of the existence of the Armenian people.

Avedanian, a researcher who is currently enrolled at the Media and Digital Literacy Academy of Beirut, titled his presentation “Constructing a Homeland: The Armenian Experience in Lebanon.” Avedanian presented the vibrant and flourishing cultural movement in post-genocide Lebanon, led by compatriot unions, churches, political parties and schools. Avedanian noted that the Diaspora, being far from the homeland, always kept its eyes on its homeland and, being inspired by it, kept its identity and flourished in a cultural homeland outside its ancestral land.

In order to enhance critical thinking and facilitate debate and discussion on post-Genocide Armenian identity, the seminar included a free discussion space called “Cultural Homeland” aiming to clarify and crystallize the series of lectures and encourage the young participants to provide a reflection and their perspective of post-Genocide Armenian identity. The facilitator of this discussion was Armen Abdalian, a political scientist and political commentator at Radio Voice of Van.

Later, the audience visited the Armenian Genocide Orphans Aram Bezikian Museum for a performance by the Hamazkayin’s Kousan Choir male ensemble led by Krikor Alozian.

At the end of the seminar, the organizers, speakers and participants had a friendly gathering where they exchanged ideas and opinions. 

Reflection

Experts representing a broad spectrum of artistic and literary disciplines discussed the creative response to the Armenian Genocide as a way of processing the pain and trauma experienced by survivors and their descendants throughout the past century. 

The Lebanese-Armenian youth learned that literature, paintings, music, plays and films not only act as catalysts for communication, but are also evidence of the long-lasting trauma affecting the psychological well-being of more than three generations of Diasporan Armenians. Decades of artistic work, cultural _expression_ and inspiration have helped shape contemporary Armenian identity and create a saturated and sometimes stringent understanding of what it means to be Armenian, often bringing a prescribed set of perspectives to bear. 

Such events are important to help the youth and students to explore how collective memory became one of the most crucial factors for identity formation in the Diaspora.

Yeghia Tashjian is a regional analyst and researcher. He has graduated from the American University of Beirut in Public Policy and International Affairs. He pursued his BA at Haigazian University in political science in 2013. In 2010, he founded the New Eastern Politics forum/blog. He was a research assistant at the Armenian Diaspora Research Center at Haigazian University. Currently, he is the regional officer of Women in War, a gender-based think tank. He has participated in international conferences in Frankfurt, Vienna, Uppsala, New Delhi and Yerevan. He has presented various topics from minority rights to regional security issues. His thesis topic was on China’s geopolitical and energy security interests in Iran and the Persian Gulf. He is a contributor to various local and regional newspapers and a presenter of the “Turkey Today” program for Radio Voice of Van. Recently he has been appointed as associate fellow at the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut and Middle East-South Caucasus expert in the European Geopolitical Forum.


CSTO states highly value your contribution to raising organization’s reputation: Stanislav Zas congratulates Pashinyan

Save

Share

 12:12, 1 June 2022

YEREVAN, JUNE 1, ARMENPRESS. Secretary General of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Stanislav Zas sent a congratulatory letter to Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan on birthday, the PM's Office said.

The letter reads:

“Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Accept my sincere and warm congratulations on your birthday.

The CSTO member states highly value Armenia’s and your personal contribution to the strengthening of the allied relations between our states, the coordination of the joint efforts in international and regional platforms, and the increase of the influence and reputation of our organization.

On this memorable day I wish you good health, welfare, new achievements and success for the welfare of the Armenian people”.

New Opportunities for Mediation in Nagorno-Karabakh


May 25 2022
COMMENTARY / EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 25 MAY 2022

Russia’s war in Ukraine has raised fears of renewed fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh but also hopes of mediation opportunities. In this excerpt from the Watch List 2022 – Spring Update, Crisis Group urges the EU and its member states to facilitate diplomatic efforts, preserve Moscow’s role in conflict resolution and make clear that they will support any agreed steps toward an eventual settlement.

In the shadow of Russia’s war in Ukraine, a series of clashes and a subsequent period of quiet have raised both fears about renewed fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh and hopes that diplomacy might still bring the parties closer to peace. In March, Azerbaijani forces seized territory around Farukh, an ethnic Armenian-populated village that has been patrolled by Russian peacekeepers since a ceasefire ended the 2020 war that upended an almost three-decade status quo in the region. The Armenian government, along with Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto authorities, worried that the move might herald a broader Azerbaijani offensive, taking advantage of Moscow’s focus on Ukraine. But subsequent talks between Yerevan and Baku appear to have calmed the situation and even suggested some areas for future engagement, indicating that neither side has ruled out the possibility of a peaceful settlement, although the two remain far apart on many core issues. While it remains unclear whether the situation will deteriorate or improve, the EU can help coax things in a positive direction by facilitating diplomatic efforts, preserving Russia’s positive role in conflict resolution and making clear that it will stand behind any agreed steps toward an eventual settlement, with financial and technical support.

To enhance prospects for peace, the EU and its member states should do the following:

  • Having already brought leaders from Armenia and Azerbaijan together for talks, Brussels should work with both sides to develop a format and agenda for further negotiations – including by providing a venue, facilitating regular working groups on specific issues and using its good offices to try to iron out differences among state and military officials at all levels. Brussels should also continue to help the two countries resolve disagreements over their common border – particularly at flashpoints, such as Azerbaijan’s Kelbajar and Armenia’s Gegharkunik, which have seen particularly deadly skirmishes since 2020. At the same time, the EU should preserve the role of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group, which has been the main international format for negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and still has an important – albeit likely more limited – role to play.
     
  • Despite rising tensions between Moscow and European capitals amid the war in Ukraine, the EU should continue to support Russia’s efforts to resolve the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, avoiding actions that suggest it is looking to block any mediation efforts by Russia.
     
  • Brussels should make clear that, as the region’s largest donor, it is prepared to fund a peace dividend in the form of financial support toward easing the countries’ most pressing socio-economic problems, including by helping meet the needs of displaced people, in the event that the parties reach a peace settlement. In the meantime, it should boost funds to help clear landmines and unexploded ordnance from conflict zones, which are now too dangerous for reconstruction or resettlement.
     
  • The EU and member states should not neglect engagement with de facto authorities and residents of Nagorno-Karabakh. Indeed, it should communicate to a sceptical Baku that such engagement is essential for ensuring buy-in to any future peace deal. The ethnic Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh is nervous that a deal will mean full Azerbaijani control of the enclave, forcing them to flee. Support for these people’s post-war needs will be crucial to sustaining a deal, but it must be carefully managed, as Baku views any engagement with Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto authorities as undermining its claim to the territory.
     

Dangerous Currents to Be Navigated

The beginning of 2022 saw violence in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone reach its highest point since a Russian-brokered ceasefire in November 2020 ended the second war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in and around the Armenian-majority enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The first war, which lasted from 1992 to 1994, had concluded with Nagorno-Karabakh having declared independence that no one recognised and seven neighbouring Azerbaijani territories under Armenian control. In the 2020 fighting, Baku took back part of Nagorno-Karabakh along with those seven adjacent territories. Under the new ceasefire deal, Russian peacekeepers deployed to the areas of Nagorno-Karabakh still held by ethnic Armenians after Armenia’s troops withdrew.

A spate of flare-ups since has nevertheless disrupted the ceasefire, fuelled by frustration on both sides over the fragile status quo. The recently redrawn front lines separating de facto and Azerbaijani forces are closer to ethnic Armenian settlements than before, in some cases cutting directly through them and complicating daily life. Azerbaijan remains concerned that Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto authorities have retained an armed force, with Baku arguing that it is illegal and that Russian peacekeepers should disarm it, and Armenia and the de facto authorities saying its disarmament was never part of the ceasefire deal. For their part, Armenia and the de facto authorities have accused Azerbaijan of intentionally damaging a pipeline bringing gas into the enclave, leaving Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians without their primary source of heating for almost a month in extreme cold weather conditions. Baku rejected the allegations.

The seizure of Farukh in March was especially significant, however, as it was the first time since the 2020 war that Azerbaijani troops penetrated the Armenian-populated area of Nagorno-Karabakh and established positions there. Following several days of clashes, which de facto authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh’s main city of Stepanakert said killed at least three ethnic Armenians, Azerbaijani forces took control of the Farukh area. (Crisis Group uses Soviet-era place names for locations in Nagorno-Karabakh.)

After moving into Farukh, Azerbaijan denied it had violated the November 2020 ceasefire agreement. Moscow, Paris and Washington called for it to withdraw, but Baku said it had no intention of doing so, as the village is part of its internationally recognised territory. Because Farukh lies in a strategic spot, surrounded by mountains giving direct views deep into Armenian-populated areas, this sequence of events prompted concerns in Yerevan and Stepanakert that Baku might have decided to press its advantage, leveraging both Moscow’s divided attention as it pursues its campaign in Ukraine and Azerbaijan’s much stronger military position since the 2020 war to mount a new offensive.

The spring witnessed an easing of tensions, however, following a 6 April meeting between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Brussels, at which they declared their readiness to start talks on a peace agreement. Subsequent diplomacy by both Moscow and Brussels helped reverse the escalatory dynamic between Armenia and Azerbaijan. On 11 April, the two countries’ foreign ministers held their first publicly announced telephone call in over 30 years, a milestone in bilateral engagement. Two days later, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said he would be ready to soften Yerevan’s longstanding insistence that talks address the question of Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence claim if that would prevent a renewed war. The residents’ security and rights, he said, were more important.

But, for all the positive rhetoric, there is no reason to think negotiations will be easy-going from this point forward. Baku has not responded to Pashinyan’s statement, while Armenian opposition leaders angrily denounced it as a betrayal and Stepanakert reconfirmed its demand for independence from Azerbaijan. Moreover, to date, Azerbaijan has shown no willingness to give special security and rights assurances to ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, saying they will have the same rights and security as all Azerbaijani citizens should Baku take over the entire territory. Without such assurances, however, Armenia will almost certainly find it impossible to publicly and formally recognise Azerbaijan’s control of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Shifting the Momentum toward Peace

Brussels, the only party besides Moscow to bring Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders together since the ceasefire to the 2020 war, has played a tremendously useful role in keeping contacts going. In 2021, in response to particularly sharp firefights along the stretch of border separating Kelbajar in Azerbaijan from Gegharkunik in Armenia, the EU helped relaunch a hotline linking the two sides’ defence ministries, which has significantly decreased tensions in the troubled border area. Since then, Brussels facilitated several meetings that have allowed the two sides to proceed with both talks on demarcation of the border.

 The EU can and should continue to do more to help revitalise diplomacy. 

The EU can and should continue to do more to help revitalise diplomacy, but it will need to work with others to be most effective, starting with the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe’s Minsk Group. The Minsk Group is jointly chaired by Russia, France and the U.S. Though it has struggled since 1994 to produce a breakthrough in resolving the conflict, it has an international imprimatur and the benefit of continuity. It appeals to Yerevan and Stepanakert, as it has long recognised the needs of ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh and kept the question of the region’s status on the table. Even Baku agrees that the OSCE process may be helpful in supporting confidence-building measures, such as contacts between Azerbaijanis and Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic Armenians, although it has long been critical of the process as failing to resolve the conflict – a view that hardened after its 2020 military success. Now, with the Ukraine war raging, ill will between Russia on one hand, and France and the U.S. on the other, risks impeding the process’s viability. In recent weeks, Moscow has accused Paris and Washington of boycotting the Minsk Group, which both denied. All three, as well as Armenia, insist that it remains a live format. Diplomacy by Brussels and EU member states should include coordination with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and should not seek to replace the format.

In general, the EU will also need to find a way to work directly or indirectly with Moscow. Russia, long the leading outside power in this conflict, is preoccupied with Ukraine and the worsening standoff with the West. It fears being sidelined in negotiations if it loses influence with Baku and Yerevan. Aside from accusing France and the U.S. of abandoning the Minsk Group, Moscow has also alleged that the EU itself is trying to cut it out of peace talks. While Russia’s aggression in Ukraine may indeed tempt Brussels to try weakening it in the South Caucasus, it remains the only country that has been willing to dispatch forces to the region. Even distracted, Moscow pays more attention to Armenia and Azerbaijan than does either Brussels or Washington. As a trade partner of both countries (indeed, Armenia’s largest), it retains meaningful leverage there. Working with Moscow, distasteful as it may seem in European capitals, improves the odds of bringing peace to the region, while working against it, or in a disconnected parallel process, would complicate the equation. Thus, even as they continue to impose costs on Russia for invading Ukraine, EU diplomats could, at least privately, indicate that they welcome Russian engagement on Nagorno-Karabakh, including the peacekeepers, and quietly cooperate to ensure that different sets of talks – such as the Minsk Group, EU-hosted meetings and talks on border demarcation – reinforce, rather than exclude each other.

Brussels will also need to engage with Turkey. The country’s role and perspective with respect to conflict resolution are different from the EU’s given Ankara’s longstanding support of Baku. But today, with Turkey and Armenia taking tentative steps toward establishing contacts, Ankara has an increased interest in preserving stability. The EU should encourage Ankara’s instincts in this direction, supporting engagement between Turkey and Armenia.

Aside from collaborating with other outside powers, the EU can help sweeten the deal if peace appears to be at hand. So far, the Union’s economic assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan – which has no provision for direct support in Nagorno-Karabakh – excludes any condition related to the conflict settlement. Brussels should use its economic leverage to encourage progress in negotiations. By making clear that peace will boost European investment and development aid, it will make any difficult compromise more palatable. Northern Ireland, though very different and until recently inside the EU itself, could serve as a model. To cement a 1998 accord, the EU promoted a “peace dividend” by funding a wide range of bottom-up and inclusive projects to support infrastructure, urban regeneration, young people and small businesses – the kind of initiatives long absent in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In the same connection, the EU should prepare to step up its aid to Armenia, which is poorer than Azerbaijan and already hosts people displaced by the 2020 fighting. It could find itself absorbing more if a peace deal leads ethnic Armenians to feel unsafe in territory controlled by Azerbaijan or if a new war provokes additional displacement from Nagorno-Karabakh. This aid could build on critical EU funding that already supports Armenian infrastructure projects and economic revival. In addition, EU member states that reduced bilateral aid after the 2020 war (like Germany, which is a major development donor) should renew their funding to help the two countries deal with post-conflict challenges.

Azerbaijan too could benefit greatly from EU support, notably for its mine clearance efforts, as it looks to enable over 600,000 people displaced in the early 1990s to return to territory it regained in 2020. This land is heavily mined, resulting in the deaths of several dozen Azerbaijanis since 2020. Mine clearance, moreover, is expensive. Local authorities in Azerbaijan say a mine costs $3 to set, but up to $1,000 to remove. The EU could work with Azerbaijan to organise a donor conference on landmine removal and explore other support programs.

The EU should throw its weight behind convincing Baku that it is in the interest of peace to let mediators (such as the EU special representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia) visit the conflict zone and meet de facto and civil society representatives. Member states that are strengthening their ties with Baku, as they diversify their energy supply due to the Ukraine war’s fallout, should drive home the same message. Doing so can only help the peace process, which, if it inches forward, still risks being derailed by potential “spoilers” – leaders, parties or interest groups who feel they are being left out. Indeed, engagement by the EU special representative with Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic Armenians could go some way to easing their fears that a deal will be struck without their involvement and full consideration of their concerns. The EU should step up the aid it has provided through the Red Cross for people displaced by the conflict, as this assistance can also go a long way to making this isolated community feel more secure.

A durable solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not yet within reach. But if outside actors can allow each other space to play their respective roles, it may be possible to fend off a return to war and help make a settlement more plausible.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/caucasus/nagorno-karabakh-conflict/new-opportunities-mediation-nagorno-karabakh 


Death toll in Texas school shooting rises to 21

Save

Share

 11:06, 25 May 2022

YEREVAN, MAY 25, ARMENPRESS. The death toll in Tuesday’s shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, has risen to 21, TASS reports citing CNN.

The tragedy claimed the lives of 19 children and two adults, CNN said.

Earlier, Texas Governor Greg Abbott identified the shooter as 18-year-old Salvador Romas, a local resident. The perpetrator acted alone and was killed by police on site. According to the governor’s information, the attacker was armed with a pistol, but presumably he also carried a rifle.