ARMENIAN CHESS PLAYERS IN SARAJEVO OPEN
Panorama.am
16:12 10/05/2010
Sport
Sarajevo (Bosnia & Herzegovina) hosts open and after the five rounds
GM Davit Petrosian has scored 10 points out of 15 and is behind the
five leaders with three points. Armenian chess federation reported
Aghasi Inants has so far scored 7 points.
It’s worth reminding that the victory in the tournament is assessed
3 points and the draw – 1 point.
news.am, Armenia
May 8 2010
War veterans’ problems remain unsolved in Armenia
11:04 / 05/08/2010As of April 1, 2010, 3,640 veterans of the Great
Patriotic War were living in Armenia, Acting Chairman of the RA Union
of Veterans Simon Yesayan informed NEWS.am.
According to him, people that served on the home front were reckoned
as veterans in the Soviet Union, whereas in independent Armenia they
are participants in hostilities, survived the Leningrad blockade and
those born in concentration camps. `We respect those who served on the
home front, but the Republic of Armenia does not view them as war
veterans,’ Yesayan said.
As regards social benefits for war veterans, he pointed out that the
monthly pay is 20,000 AMD (about U.S. $50). `It is not a small amount,
but it depreciated as prices rose. Some problems have been resolved `
veterans do not pay for public transport services ` others remain
unsolved,’ Yesayan said. He reported that about 20 war veterans now
residing in Gyumri and Spitak still have no flats. The Union requested
the Government to provide them with flat as soon as possible.
T.P.
Candlelight Vigil Draws Over 400 to Burbank City Hall
Friday, May 7th, 2010
by Asbarez
Community members commemorate the Armenian Genocide at the steps of
Burbank City Hall
BURBANK, CA-The Armenian National Committee of Burbank (ANC Burbank)
organized its annual candlelight vigil commemoration of the Armenian
Genocide on Tuesday, April 27th. Over 400 people attended the event
which took place on the steps of Burbank City Hall.
`The ANC of Burbank hopes to renew the effort to not only commemorate
the tragic events of this horrific time in our collective history, but
to also reaffirm that in order to truly respect the lives lost we must
acknowledge this truth at the national level,’ noted Armond
Aghakhanian, the chair of the event’s organizing committee. `Our
community welcomes the continued support of the Burbank City Council
in sustaining this fight to uphold the truth.’
The vigil took place following the Burbank City Council session in
chambers where Aghakhanian and Naira Chehras, a senior at Burbank High
School, received a proclamation from City of Burbank Mayor Gary Bric,
acknowledging the 95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
Aghakhanian also thanked Mayor Bric for a letter he wrote to President
Barack Obama highlighting the push for formal US reaffirmation of the
Armenian Genocide.
During the vigil, the crowd was addressed by several community leaders
including Chehras, Zareh Sinanyan (ANC PAC), Michael Kiaman (ANC
Burbank), Shahan Boghigian (Armenian Youth Federation `Varak’ Burbank
Chapter), and Aram Ohanian (ARF Badenagan `Kaytz’ Chapter).
The Armenian National Committee of Burbank advances the social,
economic, cultural, and political rights of the area’s Armenian
American community and promotes increased Armenian American civic
participation at the grassroots and public policy levels.
****
FULL TEXT OF BURBANK MAYOR GARY BRIC’S LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:
Honorable Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On April 27, 2010, the City of Burbank will recognize the Armenian
Genocide Remembrance, and every year we are reminded that the United
States of America is a champion of espousing human rights around the
world, and as such, bears the responsibility to help ensure America’s
historic leadership and humanitarian values on which our country was
founded, including the lessons learned from the past, are never
forgotten.
This year marks the ninety-fifth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide;
which is an important issue to many of our constituents. Our
legislative representatives including: Congressman Adam Schiff,
Congressman Brad Sherman, Congressman Howard Berman, Senator Barbara
Boxer and Senator Diane Feinstein, all support the formal recognition
of the Armenian Genocide.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gary R. Bric
Mayor, City of Burbank
DAVUTOGLU: WE MANAGED APRIL 24 WELL
Armenian Weekly Staff
Fri, May 7 2010
An article titled "The Protocols Live" by conservative columnist Taha
Akyol in the May 6, 2010, issue of Milliyet, recounts a conversation
with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on a flight to Kiev. In
the conversation, Davutoglu suggests that the protocols with Armenia
are not dead and that some "quiet diplomacy" is under way. The article
also comments on the "overture" to Turkish-Armenians abroad. Below
is a translation of the article, which also sheds some light on the
background of the protocols and Turkey’s ties with Azerbaijan.
Ahmet Davutoglu The Weekly thanks Ara Arabyan for the translation.
***
We are flying to the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, with Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu. Tomorrow, we will go to Crimea, the homeland of the
great Ismail Gaspirali [late 19th-century Tatar newspaper publisher
and politician]. On the flight, I ask Davutoglu if the protocols
[with Armenia] are dead. He replies "no."
Have they been frozen?
"You can say that. It depends on how you look at it. If you analyze
the process, our relations with Armenia are better than they were one
year ago. Our relations with Azerbaijan are also better. This means
that the river is not frozen; it is flowing."
There is apparently a tacit "three-way accord." Ankara, Baku, and
Yerevan will evidently conduct quiet diplmacy for "a few months; they
will not issue any statements that may make waves in public opinion.
What then? Then "positive steps" will be taken with regard to both
the protocols and the problems of the Caucasus.
Why Not in Protocols I ask: "Did you really sit at the negotiating
table with Armenia without any mention of the Karabakh problem?"
Davutoglu recounts a conversation he once had with Republican People’s
Party [Deputy General Chairman] Onur Oymen. Davutoglu apparently asked
Oymen: "You worked at the Turkish Foreign Ministry for many years. Do
you believe that our foreign ministry would sit at the negotiating
table without mentioning Karabakh or the 1915 events?"
Oymen reportedly replied "no."
I get a sense that both the Armenian occupation [of Nagorno-Karabakh]
and the history issue were discussed during the talks in Switzerland
and that, furthermore, these discussions went into the records of
the talks.
So, why were they not included in the protocols?
After some comments on condition that they "not be published,"
Davutoglu recalls the concept of "constructive ambiguity" in
diplomacy. The purpose of "ambiguity" in the text [of the protocols]
was to ensure that the process would get rolling; progress would be
made in steps later.
Indeed, as I wrote several times in the past, the protocols include
general principles that can provide guidance on both the Karabakh
problem and the history dispute.
‘We Managed April 24 Well’ Azerbaijan was concerned that Turkey
might have sold out Karabakh for the sake of warding off 24
April. Conversely, Armenia hoped that Turkey would panic if it
withdrew from the protocols and would have the protocols approved by
the National Assembly in a haste in order to prevent Obama from saying
"genocide" on 24 April-without taking a single step on the resolution
of the Karabakh problem. It hoped that Turkey’s failure to have the
protocols approved in its parliament would strain its relations with
the United States.
None of these happened.
Davutoglu rightly says that "we managed 24 April well."
Indeed, everyone saw "what cannot happen." Now "quiet diplomacy"
is under way on a more realistic foundation.
Davutoglu is quite optimistic that there will be positive developments
related to the protocols "in the next few months." He also informs
us that an energy agreement will be signed with Azerbaijan:
"I will not give you a date, but the prime minister will go to Baku and
sign the agreement. We have complete trust between us on every issue."
Would all these happen if there was no expectation of developments
in Karabakh?
Creative Overtures Prof Daron Acemoglu, a Turkish Armenian, lives in
the United States.
He is a 60-year-old economist who is a potential Nobel candidate. When
Davutoglu goes to the United States again, he will meet with Acemoglu
and invite him to Turkey. Initial contacts have already been made.
Davutoglu describes the "general principles" with the reasoning of a
"theoretician":
"Armenians who have emigrated from the Republic of Turkey to other
countries are ‘Turkey’s diaspora,’ not ‘Armenia’s diaspora.’ We will
not put all members of the Armenian diaspora in the same basket. We
will establish a dialog based on their posture."
Prof Dimitri Gutas, a Turkish Greek who lives in the United States,
is a specialist on Ibni Rushd and Islamic philosophy. He wanted to
come to Turkey but he was concerned: Would they detain this person, who
is 60, at the gates because he did not perform his military service?
Davutoglu intervened and invited Gutas personally:
"Please come, you are our guest. We will pick you up in the VIP lounge
and host you."
So Prof Gutas came to Turkey. He had a magnificent chat with
Davutoglu on philosophy. He gave a seminar at Sabanci University,
toured Istanbul, and left Turkey with very good impressions.
These are all examples of creative overtures in diplomacy.
Davutoglu visited 85 countries and had meetings with the leaders and
ministers of more than 100 countries in the past one year.
Davutoglu’s service as foreign minister is a great chance for Turkey.
Only his young daughter, Hacer, is displeased: "I want the Foreign
Ministry to be closed so that my father returns home!"
AZERI CONDITIONS FOR THE OPENING OF THE TURKISH – ARMENIAN BORDER
Messenger Staff
The Messenger
May 6 2010
Georgia
As Azeri deputy foreign minister Araz Azimov stated, Armenia asked
for some time to return occupied territories to Azerbaijan.The Azeri
diplomat said that Azerbaijan will not object to opening the border
between Turkey and Armenia if initially Armenia returns to Azerbijan
5 regions and Lachin corridor and that Azerbaijan would consider this
an expression of Baku’s good will towards Yerevan. Azimov stressed the
fact that there are no conditions regarding return of Azeri refugees to
Karabakh. According to him the Azerbaijani constitution should apply
to the occupied territories and the status of the territory should
be defined through a decision by the local population. All the towns
and villages should be freed and Lachin corridor should be opened.
AZERBAIJAN ‘RIGHT TO HAVE EXPECTED BETTER’ FROM USA
news.az
May 5 2010
Azerbaijan
Ramil Maharramov News.Az interviews Ramil Maharramov, an alumnus of
the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University
of Massachusetts.
Does the huge Armenian diaspora in the US seriously affect US foreign
policy towards the South Caucasus and Azerbaijan?
Historically the United States has a strong track record of acting as
US strategic and economic interests command. So far there have been
no or very few cases when the United States has acted contrary to its
strategic and economic interests. This will be increasingly so in the
22nd century where the intensified global competition for resources
and influence, in large part thanks to the rapid rise of China,
India, Brazil and Russia as regional and global powers, will force
the US to act more and more as its strategic and economic interests
dictate. The United States no longer possesses the global resources
and influence to command countries to behave and act as it wishes or
wants. As such, it can’t easily lose a country that matters for its
strategic and economic interests.
Therefore, it can easily be stated that the role of the Armenian
diaspora in defining US foreign policy towards the South Caucasus
and Azerbaijan is at best marginal. The Armenian diaspora tries to
influence US foreign policy through its few highly committed supporters
in the US Congress. However, we should know that the US Congress is not
responsible for US foreign policy. It’s the executive branch of the
US government led by the president that is responsible for planning
and conducting US foreign policy and that is also accountable for
the consequences of US foreign policy. The US Congress at best has an
advisory role, which is often ignored as US national interests require.
Many Americans, including American politicians at all levels, be it
the US President’s Office, Congress or US state legislators, do not
posses much information about Armenia and Armenian issues. Few people
in the US can easily find Armenia on a world map. This environment
has indeed helped Armenian diaspora organizations to create an image
of ‘strong’ American support for Armenians and Armenian causes by
mostly working through several members of the Congress and some
staff of the US President’s administration, and to a lesser degree,
churches, academics and journalists. They have managed to produce
‘considerable noise’ over Armenian issues through their own noisy
propaganda activities and media stories.
Turkey and Azerbaijan share some responsibility for this outcome
(Azerbaijan to a lesser extent as it is a young state which entered
international relations only after the collapse of the USSR), as
Turkey unilaterally did not take the Armenian diaspora seriously
and did not take adequate action to counter the activities of the
diaspora in an organized and planned way when Armenia launched its
propaganda machine in the 1960s. Unfortunately, Turkey began to take
the Armenian diaspora seriously only when ASALA (Armenian Secret Army
for the Liberation of Armenia) began its attacks on Turkish diplomats
and then in the 1990s. Azerbaijan immediately started to contribute
its share and we are starting to see the fruit only nowadays, which
makes the Armenian diaspora extremely nervous and more aggressive as
they have begun to realize that the global information space is no
longer at their disposal.
The negative influence on Armenia of the Armenian diaspora is seen
by some as the main obstacle to a Karabakh settlement. Why does the
diaspora not accept any compromises in the settlement process?
There is some truth in this opinion. However, we should differentiate
the Armenian diaspora from the Armenian diaspora/lobbying
organizations. Taken as a whole, the Armenian diaspora is a very
heterogeneous community which varies in terms of location, economic
affluence, world vision, connection to traditions, awareness of
Armenian identity, church attendance, mixed marriages, integration with
the local American community, the problems they face in their daily
lives, and so on. The only causes that have the power to mobilize
the Armenian diaspora and bring them together are the so-called
‘Armenian Genocide’ claims and the Armenians’ territorial claims
on Nagorno-Karabakh. These two causes are masterfully used by the
nationalist ‘Armenian Church’ to mobilize Armenians, to keep them
organized, to carry out hate propaganda against Azerbaijan and
Turkey and to prevent the Armenians living in the US and Europe
from assimilation. However, the ordinary Armenian diaspora remains
preoccupied with their daily problems in the communities where
they live. It is the Armenian diaspora/lobbying organizations
and the Armenian Church abroad that are the gatekeepers of the
Armenian diaspora, have a negative influence on the solution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and reject any compromise. As you know, they
are trying to present the seven occupied districts of Azerbaijan as
‘Liberated Armenian Lands’ or the buffer zone required to ensure the
security of Armenians in Nagorno-Karbakh.
Coming to the degree of this negative effect, it mainly depends on the
charisma, influence and power of the person who holds the presidency.
When the president is powerful enough and commands greater support
from the citizens of the Republic of Armenia, then he and of course
Armenia are less susceptible to pressure and the negative effect
of the Armenian diaspora. However, if this person doesn’t have
strong charisma and doesn’t command popular support, then he is
more vulnerable to external pressure including from the Armenian
Diaspora and Russia. Unfortunately, compared to past presidents Levon
Ter-Petrosyan and Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan is relatively less
powerful and has less popular support, which leaves him vulnerable
to the demands of the nationalist Armenian diaspora and makes any
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and any Armenian comprise
almost impossible. Unfortunately, in this context Levon Ter-Petrosyan
and Kocharyan were in a better position to achieve a compromise-based
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict than Serzh Sarkgsyan.
The Azerbaijani leadership accuses the US, Russia and France of
trying to improve the economic situation in Armenia and not putting
pressure on Yerevan to liberate Azerbaijan’s occupied lands. How
can you explain this position of the international community? Is it
because of the influence of Armenian diaspora or for some other reason?
The Azerbaijani leadership’s position is right, justified and
well-informed. The reason for these countries not putting enough
pressure on Armenia to compromise definitely lies in their own
national, strategic and economic interests. The Armenian diaspora
has a marginal role at best. The Armenian diaspora is often used by
the political and economic elites in these countries (US, Russia and
France) to conceal their real intentions which are driven by their
strategic and economic interests. For example, Russia doesn’t feel any
urgency to push for the resolution of this conflict, as the Karabakh
conflict gives it a lot of hard and soft levers to manage/control
both Azerbaijan and Armenia or to keep these two countries in its
orbit of influence. Russia can use this conflict to punish Armenia
or Azerbaijan, if either country takes actions counter to Russia’s
strategic and economic interests in the region.
The United States doesn’t feel any urgency on a conflict resolution
either. The US is mainly interested in the stability of the region
which is a must to ensure the continuity of energy projects in the
Caspian region, the smooth operation of the Western energy companies in
the region and diversification and introduction of new energy supply
routes to the West. Therefore, The US would prefer the status quo
(continued occupation of Azerbaijani lands) to any action or change
of position that would destabilize the region or instigate military
operations. The current US administration also understands that its
ability to influence or manage regional conflicts is hampered by
its distance from the region (as well as its preoccupation in Iraq,
Afghanistan and with Iran’s nuclear project) and that in any conflict a
more assertive and confident Russia would play a bigger role, ending
in results that would be unfriendly towards the US.
As to France, it is supposed to represent the EU in the Minsk Group.
However, the EU suffers from a lack of an centralized,
well-articulated, feasible and active foreign policy in the region.
This can be seen from the widely differing statements and approaches
of EU member countries in respect to Azerbaijan, Armenia and the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Therefore, France represents the most
impotent of the three parties and has minimal if any potential to
affect the solution of the conflict. France’s publicly more visible
pro-Armenian stance is mostly the result of its historical ties
and commitments to Armenians (whereas France understands its role
in promising Armenians ‘Greater Armenia’ in the early 20th century,
but failing to ensure this outcome which resulted in tragic massacres
of Turks, Kurds and Armenians), and of cultural reasons rather than
the presence of the Armenian diaspora in France. I don’t think France
has the economic or strategic ambitions and interests to push the
Armenians to compromise on a solution to the conflict.
The Azerbaijani side is very disappointed with the role of the US in
the Karabakh problem. Some experts even say that it has already harmed
the strategic partnership between Azerbaijan and the US. Do you agree?
Azerbaijan was right to display its discontent with the US position
on Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, ignoring Azerbaijan’s strategic
interests and pushing Turkey to mend relations with Armenia at the
expense of its relations with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has been right
to expect better treatment from the US as it was Azerbaijan not
Armenia that provided significant support to the US in the war on
terrorism, opened its air space to US military transport, gave shares
to American companies in Azerbaijan’s multi-billion energy projects,
took into consideration the US interests and position in choosing oil
and gas transportation routes, and acted and still acts as the only
safe corridor for US access to Central Asia. However, judging from
the recent statements and official trips, it is possible to state
that the parties have already begun mending the damage done to the
relations, given that this partnership benefits both countries and
meets the interests of both the US and Azerbaijan.
The Armenian side says that independence for Karabakh is the only
way to solve the conflict. May Armenia expect support from the
international community if Yerevan is the first to recognize this
‘independence’?
Armenians are well aware of the fact that no country in the world
will recognize Nagorno-Karabakh even if Yerevan does. Even Russia,
the closest ally of Armenia, clearly stated that Nagorno-Karabakh
is a different case from Kosovo and no parallel should be drawn
between these two cases. The Armenians have already exercised their
right to self-determination. They have their own internationally
recognized state. Azerbaijan will never tolerate the creation of a
second Armenian state at the expense of Azerbaijan’s territory. If
any country supports the Armenian claim to a second state, let them
give Armenians the territory and land to create the second state.
What are the prospects for progress in the Karabakh settlement? Can
it be resolved in 2010?
I don’t expect any solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict soon. A
solution would definitely be very difficult, if not impossible,
in 2010. A solution to this conflict is possible only if public
opinion in Armenia changes or Armenia gets a new visionary leadership
(president) with strong charisma, who can command popular support and
convince the Armenian population of the futility of their dream of an
independent Nagorno-Karabakh and who can also show them the benefits
of peace with their neighbours and in the region. From what I observe,
Armenian public opinion remains ultra-nationalist and the majority
outlaw any compromise solution to the Karabakh conflict. In these
conditions, only Azerbaijan with a strong and diversified economy,
healthy and well-educated human capital, a strong army and efficient
administration can bring about the solution of this conflict any
time soon. If outsiders see that Azerbaijan possesses all these
characteristics, then they will themselves put pressure on Armenia
to compromise in an attempt to save Armenia from crushing defeat
and collapse. In parallel, Azerbaijan should continue its policy of
isolating Armenia from all regional economic and trade relations.
Ramil Maharramov is Alumni of Center for Public Policy and
Administration, University of Massachusetts; Consultant in Management &
Development Industry.
ARTSAKH PRESIDENT RECEIVES PRIZE-WINNING SPORTSMEN
Panorama.am
05/05/2010
On 5 May President of the Artsakh Republic Bako Sahakyan received
Artsakh sportsmen taken winning places in Armenian, European and
international championships and their coaches.
Bako Sahakyan congratulated Artsakh sportsmen on the achieved success
expressing confidence that they will keep holding high the sports honor
of our country and will continue and multiply victories of our nation.
At the end of the meeting the President handed financial awards to
the winners and their coaches noting that the authorities of the
republic will continue assisting the development of physical culture
and sport as well as promote the process for reaching higher results
in this field.
According to the central information department of Artsakh President’s
Office, Defense Minister of the Artsakh Republic Movses Hakobyan,
chairman of state sports committee under the Cabinet of Ministers
Razmik Hovsepyan and other officials partook at the meeting.
STEPAN PETROSYAN: YOUTH PROGRAMS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN CATALONIA
PanARMENIAN.Net
May 5, 2010 – 12:43 AMT 07:43 GMT
On May 4, Armenian Deputy Minister of Diaspora Stepan Petrosyan
met with a parliamentary delegation of Catalonia headed by speaker
of the parliament Ernest Benach i Pascual. This is the delegation’s
first visit after the Armenian Genocide recognition by the Catalonian
parliament on February 26.
During the meeting, Mr. Petrosyan expressed gratitude for the
efforts aimed at the Armenian Genocide recognition by the Catalonian
parliament. Besides, he highly appreciated Ernest Benach i Pascual’s
attitude towards the Armenian community of Catalonia, specifically
the inauguration an Armenian-Spanish khachkar. He also briefed the
delegation on the Ministry’s programs.
The parties discussed education matters, as well as the status of dual
citizenship in Catalonia for Armenians residing there and acquirement
of the Armenian citizenship by them. Mr. Petrosyan emphasized the
importance of youth projects, specifically, the Ministry’s Come Home
program, the press service of the RA Ministry of Diaspora reported.
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION MUST BE MINIMIZED
A1Plus.am
05/05/10
If the current economy, legislation and mindset still have somewhat
positive trends, then that is coming from the reforms undertaken 15
years ago," former NA Deputy Chairman Ara Sahakyan told "A1+".
According to him, everything turned around and stopped and the signal
for that was Robert Kocharyan’s announcement when he said nobody can
be involved in business without violations, distortion or crime.
"He declared the business environment as a distrustful one where
there can always be criminals. He influenced them by ensuring perfect
control along with state structures on the one hand and depriving
civil society, the media and other institution from the opportunity
to work autonomously on the other."
According to Ara Sahakyan, the government has an extremely large and
inadmissible amount of control over public life, including the economy.
"If Tigran Sargsyan’s government reduced government intervention in
economy to a minimum, that would have been a great achievement," says
Ara Sahakyan, adding that in addition to its regulating function, that
is, gathering taxes and fines and regulating funding and subsidies,
the government should fulfill another function.
"Economy is very much like a biological organism. When you place
it in a healthy environment, it regulates itself, perfects itself
and develops. Government intervention with good intentions and
the gathering of budget through vulgar ways and underground causes
damage to the economy. Economy must be free from needless government
intervention. The government should only participate at the legislative
level; otherwise, that is an unlawful way of participating and only
disturbs," said Mr. Sahakyan.
The easiest resistance to the economic crisis was in Belarus where
government intervention in economy is the most tangible and prominent.
In response to this, Ara Sahakyan said: "The good state of economy in
Belarus is due to cheap power-generators from Russia, as well as the
sale of Belarus goods in the Russian market which has placed Belarus
in a so-called privileged state."
Armenia also receives power-generators for privileged prices, but
"the economy is not as good as that of Belarus." Armenia wasn’t able
to resist the economic crisis as Belarus did either.
"The main reason for our misery lies in the hands of our authorities.
The government has larger and inadmissible opportunities of having an
influence on the society. That is the reason why our society is not
developing. It is not adjusting, identifying its problems and that
is the reason why we blame the government for everything. We don’t
blame ourselves. The government pressures the society in a way that
it has turned into a totalitarian system," Ara Sahakyan told "A1+".
ST CROSS OF AKHTAMAR STILL WITHOUT CROSS
Panorama.am
04/05/2010
A holy mass will be served on September 12 in historic Armenian Church
of St Cross in Akhtamar Island, town of Van. After long negotiations,
Turkish Government authorized a liturgy once a year.
It’s important to mention that the church is open as a museum after
the reconstruction of 2007, "Hurriyet" paper reported.
Archbishop Aram Ateshyan, the chairman of Armenian patriarchate of
Polis said the liturgy is of great significance for the Armenians
spread all over the world. Thousands of Armenians are expected to
arrive in island to attend the holy mass. Hotels in the town of Van
are almost booked for the tourists.
It’s worth mentioning that the dome of the church lacks its cross.
Archbishop Ateshyan said the cross is in the museum. "We want cross
and the name of the church to be on the top. We hope it will be fixed
until September 12," Archbishop said.