Category: 2024

Signing of Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty is only theoretically possible

Vardan Badalian
Jan 19 2024
  • Arthur Khachatryan
  • Yerevan

Is the conflict exhausted

Unique conditions for the full establishment of relations between the countries — this is how the current period in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict can be characterized. The confrontation which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union has completely changed its logic over the past three years. The basis of the conflict between Yerevan and Baku was Nagorno-Karabakh. But in September 2023, Azerbaijan used military force and established full control over this territory.

Official Yerevan in fact did not object to this development of events and limited itself to restrained statements. Moreover, the Armenian authorities are ready to document the status of Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan. In this case, can the conflict be considered exhausted? At the moment, it seems that this is not enough for Azerbaijan to make a final peace.

  • How Armenia solves the problems of the Karabakh people: are the government’s projects effective?
  • “The West is increasing pressure on Baku”. Opinion on the resolution of the French Senate
  • “Armenia cannot count on integration with the West without Georgia”. Opinion

The 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh not only disrupted the status quo, but also led to large-scale and, importantly, rapid transformations in the South Caucasus region. The state of affairs has changed not only on the ground but also in the negotiation process. Against the background of the worsening Ukrainian crisis, the mediating countries began to compete for the status of the main moderator of the Yerevan-Baku negotiations.

At some point, the West began to succeed in this struggle. Personal contacts between the heads of the two countries moved to Western platforms. During these meetings, the Azerbaijani side achieved an important result — Armenia’s agreement to officially recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.

European mediators even managed to develop a document that the leaders of the two countries were to sign in Spain in 2023, which stipulates mutual recognition of the territorial integrity of the parties to the conflict within internationally recognized borders. But the President of Azerbaijan did not fly to Granada. The Armenian Prime Minister not only came to the meeting with European partners, but signed the statement.

Armenia recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, but received nothing in return. Now there is no Nagorno-Karabakh at all in the negotiation process.

Although Armenia says that the issue is not closed and the Armenian population should return to their homes, but these statements are rather intended for an internal audience. Yerevan is simply unable to put the NK issue back on the international agenda. At least, not yet.

After Azerbaijan managed to remove Nagorno-Karabakh from the negotiation process, the bilateral agenda focused on other issues. The most important are the demarcation and delimitation of the border and the unblocking of transportation communications. The issue of enclaves has been raised more and more often recently.

The main goal of the negotiations is to sign a peace treaty, which should put an end to the confrontation between the two states. But only Azerbaijan, having received everything it needed on the Western platforms, no longer accepts the invitations of Brussels and Washington to come and continue negotiations.

Instead Baku’s position is tilted towards Russia. And this does not suit Armenia, whose authorities have been boycotting events under the auspices of the CSTO and other Russian integration structures for a long time.

The Armenian Prime Minister himself has also refused several times to participate in summits with the participation of the leaders of Russia and Azerbaijan. Ilham Aliyev in this regard said Armenia’s “destructive position” was particularly due to Nikol Pashinyan’s decision not to participate in the CIS summit in Bishkek:

“We perceive with gratitude Russia’s mediation in the normalization of relations with Armenia. Russia is our neighbor and ally, as well as Armenia’s ally. It takes 6 hours for the Armenian Prime Minister to fly to Granada, participate in an incomprehensible meeting there, where Azerbaijan without Azerbaijan is discussed. And he cannot fly 2-3 hours to Bishkek, he has important business.”

Baku went further and declared the policy of the United States in the region unilateral. Aliyev defiantly refused to receive the US State Department’s Senior Advisor for Caucasus Negotiations, Louis Bono.

The reason for the deterioration of relations was the cancelation of visits of Azerbaijani representatives to the United States. The State Department explained this by the lack of progress in the peace process between Baku and Yerevan. The United States also suspended military aid to Azerbaijan.

However, attempts by Washington and Brussels to put pressure on Baku at the level of statements have not yielded results. Ilham Aliyev enjoys the full support of Turkey, as well as Russia, feels quite confident and intends to get the most out of the current situation.

For more than a year now, expert circles have been discussing whether Azerbaijan will be satisfied with Karabakh or continue escalation on the border with Armenia. In recent months, both sides have claimed progress in negotiations and convergence of positions on some disputed points.

This inspired at least some optimism, giving the impression that Aliyev had chosen a peaceful outcome.

But now the Azerbaijani president is essentially back to square one:

“The process of building our army will continue. Armenia should know that no matter how many weapons it buys, no matter how it is supported, any source of threat to us will be immediately destroyed. I am not hiding this, so that tomorrow no one will say that something unexpected has happened.”

In recent statements, the Azerbaijani leader also mentioned the “Zangezur corridor” and the process of delimitation of the state border.

Since the 2020 war, there has been a fierce dispute between the sides over approaches to unblocking transport communications. Azerbaijan insists on an extraterritorial corridor through Armenia to Nakhichevan. Yerevan wants to control all transit routes through its territory.

This is also acceptable to Western partners, and at some point it seemed that Azerbaijan had gotten used to this approach. However, Aliyev again said that if his country does not get the so-called “Zangezur corridor”, the blockade of Armenia will continue:

“If the route I named is not opened, we do not intend to open our border with Armenia in any other place. Cargo and people must pass from one part of Azerbaijan to another without any checks.”

This and other statements by the Azerbaijani leader provoked a strong response in Armenia. Official Yerevan again had to explain to Baku in restrained, diplomatic language that the provision of a “corridor” is excluded, Armenia intends to control the roads passing through its sovereign territory.

“They are trying to reintroduce corridor logic, which we categorically reject. On the corridor issue, they refer to the statement of November 9 [whose signing stopped the war in Karabakh in 2020]. But the two signatories of the document [Russia and Azerbaijan] demonstrated from the moment of signing until the September 2023 events that there is no such document for them. And there is also no mention of a corridor in the November 9 statement,” Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said.

He recalled that the same document stipulates guarantees for the unimpeded functioning of the Lachin corridor, the only road linking NK with Armenia, and for the safety of the Armenian population. But after the September 2023 one-day war and the exodus of the Armenian population from Karabakh, the trilateral statement finally lost its meaning and any legal force.

The process of delimitation and demarcation of the state border also poses serious risks for Yerevan. The Armenian authorities insist that Soviet maps from the 1970s should serve as the basis for this process. They most accurately define the state of affairs at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

At one point it seemed that the sides had managed to agree on this issue. But in the same interview with Aliyev it became clear that there is no change here either:

“Armenia’s proposal to delimit the border on the basis of maps from the 1970s is unacceptable. Either the period of the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic or the period of Sovietization should be taken as a reference point.”

Azerbaijan has recently been increasingly talking about the need to sign a peace treaty without specifying the principles on which the process of delimitation and demarcation of the border will be conducted. Yerevan views such statements as an attempt to make new territorial claims against Armenia.

“The point of the delimitation process is not to create a new border, as these borders have already been fixed by the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, according to which the existing administrative borders between Soviet states became state borders. Our delimitation commissions should reproduce these borders, they should be reproduced on the ground, on maps and papers. Azerbaijan is trying to form territorial claims against Armenia, which is absolutely unacceptable,” Pashinyan said in response.

It is premature to say that the latest statements from Baku indicate a final decision to go for confrontation. In this regard, Aliyev still has room for maneuvering.

But the Azerbaijani leader’s messages suggest that Baku’s confrontation with Yerevan will continue and it is not worth expecting the signing of a peace treaty in the near future.

However, even if some paper is signed, it will not be a guarantee of peace if Armenia agrees to sign it without specifying the principles of delimitation. Political scientist Stepan Danielyan believes so:

“In such a scenario, it will be a treaty on a future war or on Armenia’s surrender. Azerbaijan refuses to recognize Armenia’s territorial integrity. All the points that should be in the peace treaty are being promoted by Baku. Azerbaijan is preparing for another aggression, and Turkey is behind it.”

Developments in the South Caucasus region will be largely determined by the international situation. The attention of mediators, primarily Washington, is focused on the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip and around Ukraine. Given this and the expected presidential elections in the United States, a new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan seems quite probable.

https://jam-news.net/is-the-conflict-exhausted/

Is an Azerbaijani-Armenians Agreement Imminent?

Mike Maghakian
Politics Today
Jan 19 2024
WORLDBY ORHAN VALIYEV

Azerbaijan made better use of its capacity, won the Second Karabakh War, and saved its legitimate lands, recognized by international law, from occupation.

A

zerbaijan achieved a historic victory in the Second Karabakh War. In fact, for the first time in modern times, it gained the opportunity to dominate completely the lands of Karabakh and the entirety of Azerbaijani lands. In order to understand Azerbaijan’s victory better, one can refer to Atatürk’s and his comrades’ victory in the War of Independence; in a way, Azerbaijan won its own War of Independence and secured its future.

To understand this process, a brief historical background and an introduction of certain concepts is necessary. The most decisive outcome of modernity for states was undoubtedly sovereignty, and nations have played the role of cement in the consolidation of sovereignty. In this sense, the end of the 18th century and the whole 19th century gave birth to a state model that appeared to make Machiavelli’s dreams come true.

However, modernity has not produced the same results for all nations. Although the right to self-determination, in a sense a universal achievement of modernity, is expressed as a right for every nation, the colonial peoples had to struggle in a different way. The Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828), signed as a result of the war between Iran and Tsarist Russia, not only divided Azerbaijan’s lands, but also initiated the colonial process that ended its sovereignty over its remaining lands (today’s Republic of Azerbaijan).

Read: Azerbaijan Writes the Last Chapter in Karabakh

It is, thus, possible to look for the beginning of the historical root of the Karabakh problem in Turkmenchay, which went down in history as the first modern agreement that determined the modern order in the Caucasus. This agreement included the Azerbaijani Turks, the main power in the region, but not all the people of the region? Were the Azerbaijani Turks not part of the people of the region. In short, the liberation of the occupied part of Karabakh and the redefinition of the status of Karabakh in the name of the Azerbaijani nation became a matter of national sovereignty.

On the other hand, after the occupation of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which could not be transformed into a full-fledged state, by the Red Army forces, the Soviet Union established its dominance there and in the entire geography, and began to build its own order. Nagorno-Karabakh, the first modern status of Karabakh, was created in 1923, and was intended to serve the system built by the Soviets within the framework of Homo Sovieticus.

Therefore, the Soviets made the historical dominance of the Azerbaijani Turks over Karabakh problematic, and, in this way, the foundations were laid for the conflict that was to take place in the post-Soviet period. In order to make the Soviet system work in the South Caucasus, the Azerbaijani Turks, who have historically been the dominant and influential group in the region, had to be dealt with.

The bipolar system that emerged after World War II allowed Soviet policy to continue. However, the end of the Cold War, or the “end of history” as Francis Fukuyama claimed, began to bring about the end of the Soviet strategy. In short, as a result of the 44-day Second Karabakh War, it became clear that the consequences of the uprising of the late 1980s and the subsequent First Karabakh War were unsustainable.

Read: Is War at the Door? Iran and the Azerbaijan-Armenia Tensions

All diplomatic negotiations following the ceasefire agreement that ended the First Karabakh War, signed on the initiative of Heydar Aliyev, ended in failure. From today’s perspective, it is understood that the Second Karabakh War was a necessity.

The war should be evaluated as the result of a multidimensional process and development. First, the Azerbaijani state had to acquire the knowledge of conducting and managing a war. The oil agreement, signed on the initiative of Aliyev immediately after the ceasefire agreement (1994), became the main factor of Azerbaijan’s economic development. Azerbaijan did not spend the years of occupation only in fruitless diplomatic negotiations: improving the capacity of the Azerbaijani state was one of the central government’s main goals.

On the other hand, Turkey, which has defined a new strategy for the 21st century, began to carve out a place for itself as a new center in the regional geopolitical equation that is changing over time. The presence of a militarily, politically, and economically active Turkey in the region has also strengthened Azerbaijan’s power in the long run. Azerbaijan made better use of its capacity, won the Second Karabakh War, and saved its legitimate lands, recognized by international law, from occupation. This gave it the opportunity to become a fully fledged sovereign state on its legitimate territory. With the local anti-terrorist operation carried out in September 2023, the Azerbaijani state removed all occupying forces from the occupied territory and closed the sovereignty gap.

Read: What’s Next for Karabakh?

It should be remembered that the result of the First Karabakh War was an occupation contrary to international law. In the Second Karabakh War, the Azerbaijani state carried out its military operation in order to save its lands, which are recognized by the international law, from occupation. In other words, in spite of all the difficulties, adherence to international law brings justified success and victory in the long run.

After the Second Karabakh War, President Aliyev stated that the period of military conflict and war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has ended and the phase of diplomacy has begun. However, the modern order of Karabakh and even the region was built during the Tsarist and Soviet colonial periods, and therefore, despite the victory, it was impossible to sign an agreement immediately; in the modern process, the status of Karabakh was determined by the Soviets during the colonial process.

More important than an agreement, Azerbaijan and Turkey signed the Shusha Declaration, which was the first agreement signed between states in the region in the 21st century. It was important to deepen Azerbaijani-Turkish relations, which had been tested during the war, especially in the military dimension. The changing economic and political uncertainties in Eurasia, necessitate that the military, technological, and economic dimensions be taken into account, and bring to the fore the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), which was proclaimed in Istanbul on the basis of the Nakhchivan Agreement of 2008.

The principles and institutions of the 20th century, especially those built after World War II, are now being abandoned. In a sense, the 21st century is giving birth to itself. In this sense, the effect of the OTS must be taken into account in the order that will emerge in the South Caucasus after the Second Karabakh War.

Read: The Myth of Miatsum: Armenia Stuck between the Past and Reality on the Ground

Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Karabakh War shook off the Russian hegemony in the region, which began in the Tsarist era, was consolidated in the Soviet period, and continued in the post-Soviet period. However, the Russia-Ukraine war, with its growing global influence, has shaken Russia’s immunity in the region. Nevertheless, Moscow still maintains its status as a mediator.

The Azerbaijani side was not in a hurry to win, and after its historic victory, continues to act driven by the state spirit. Azerbaijan, considering that it is not possible to achieve peace immediately in the lands of Nagorno-Karabakh, which have been controlled and whose status has been determined by the colonialists for a long time, prefers to solve the process by extending it over time. In fact, Azerbaijan has achieved both the Lachin Corridor, solving the problem of the road to Khankendi, and the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh provinces from occupation, while maintaining its loyalty and commitment to international law—as President Aliyev has repeatedly stated.

Russia has now lost the privilege of being the sole hegemonic power involved in resolving the problem between Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time, Azerbaijan has managed to maintain its commitment to a balanced policy based on pragmatic, practical, and rational principles by pursuing a realistic policy. The foundation of the agreement was laid with the victory achieved as a result of the 44-day war.

Peace talks between the two countries after the Second Karabakh War; It continued in the context of Washington, Brussels and Moscow. The main issue in the peace talks, or before peace, was the recognition of the status and territorial integrity of Karabakh. In the current process, all the occupied territories, including Khankendi and Khojaly, have been redistributed within the framework of the “Karabakh Economic Zone” defined by Azerbaijan.

The Armenian constitution is the main obstacle to the recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Yet, towards the end of the year, there were positive developments in this regard. Azerbaijan is able to achieve results because it evaluates the mediation platforms in the peace talks according to their practical contributions to the process. The prisoner exchange was a remarkable development, and the fact that the two countries issued an official joint statement should not go unnoticed. Thus, a possible peace agreement will be possible in the context of the “development of mutual relations, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

In short, the peace talks; in particular, Azerbaijan’s constructive attitude, which it has persistently maintained from the beginning, the reality of the reconstruction of the economic ecosystem in the region, especially in Turkey-Azerbaijan cooperation, Turkey’s presence in the region both militarily and politically, Turkey’s positive approaches towards Armenia in line with possible positive developments are all important factors The invitation of Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan to Ankara for the swearing-in ceremony  of the Grand National Assembly can be seen as the reason for the positive developments that took take place at the end of 2023.

Given the UN Security Council’s “talk to Baku” move, we can say that a peace agreement is not far away.

https://politicstoday.org/is-an-azerbaijani-armenians-agreement-imminent/

EU Foreign Affairs Council will discuss Armenia and Azerbaijan on Monday

Emma Nadirian
Jan 19 2024

A meeting of the European Union Foreign Affairs Council, with the participation of the Foreign Ministers of the 27 member states, will be held in Brussels on Monday 22 January starting at 0900. The meeting will be chaired by EU High Representative Josep Borrell.

An announcement from Brussels said that the Council will discuss Ukraine and the Middle East. Under the item current affairs it will discuss Armenia and Azerbaijan.



Armenia greenlights controversial Amulsar gold mine

Parkev Tvankchian
Jan 19 2024
 

ByArshaluys Barseghyan

Operation of the contested Amulsar goldmine has been greenlit after Armenia’s government accepted a 12.5% share in the mines on Thursday. 

The agreed project also notes that the Ministry of Economy will manage the share once the mines are operational.

The share was agreed upon when Lydian Armenia, the company operating the mines, Armenia’s Economy Ministry, and the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) signed a memorandum of understanding in February 2023.

The government’s decision to accept the share from the company effectively greenlit the mines’ operation, despite years of protests by eco-activists and residents of communities adjacent to the mine.

At the time of the memorandum’s signing, EDB agreed to extend a loan of $100 million to Lydian Armenia for the construction and operation of the mines ‘in compliance with the best international mining practices and strict adherence to the applicable legislation of the Republic of Armenia, by promoting the local market and employment in affected communities’.

Economy Minister Vahan Kerobyan praised the project, stating that he predicted the mines would contribute to increasing Armenia’s GDP by about 1%.

‘We have no right to refuse such an opportunity’, said Kerobyan. 

‘This model dispels our concerns’

In Thursday’s government session, Ani Ispiryan, the Deputy Minister of Economy, announced that Lydian Armenia will invest $250 million in the operation of the mine.

Ispiryan announced that the mining company would annually pay an extra $7 million to local communities near the mine in addition to allocating environmental protection projects funded by environmental taxes. 

During the cabinet session, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that the government greenlit the mines’ operation after receiving answers to their inquiries.

‘It is commendable that, following one example, the investors wanted the people, in the form of the government, to participate and share in that project’, he said, referring to Geopromining’s offer of 15% of the Zangezur Copper Molybdenum Combine to the government in 2021.

‘The operation of the Amulsar gold mine with this model dispels our concerns and will be an additional stimulus for economic growth,’ said Pashinyan. 

Lydian Armenia told RFE/RL that the decision to grant shares in the company to the government was made by its shareholders.

‘And in the case of long-term and large-scale projects like the Amulsar project, such cooperation allows sharing both success and responsibility’, the company stated.

A month before the government’s approval, The Guardians of Amulsar, a group of activists opposing the operation of the mine, sent an open letter to the EDB board, saying that residents of the town of Jermuk and their supporters were committed to protecting Amulsar mountain from development, and warning that support for the project was ‘an adventure and doomed to failure’.

‘Amulsar is a living area for the population of the Jermuk community, and we will not give it up’, read their letter.


"Russians ‘saved’ Artsakh, now they want to pass to Armenia". Opinion from Yerevan

Rose Khoyetsian
Jan 19 2024
  • JAMnews
  • Yerevan

On severing ties with Russia

“Russia wants to project in Syunik [Armenia’s southern region bordering Azerbaijan] the logic of a corridor. They say if you don’t want to be taken away by force [the road meant to connect Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhichevan], give it away voluntarily,” Armenian political scientist Gurgen Simonyan said, commenting on the Russian Foreign Minister’s statements.

Although Sergey Lavrov said yesterday that there is no clause about the so-called “Zangezur corridor” in the November 9 trilateral statement, Simonyan claims that Moscow is determined to take possession of this road. What the Russian side calls control of the road, in his opinion, is actually a demand for an extraterritorial corridor. At the same time, the analyst emphasizes that there cannot be any “X-space where the laws of the country do not apply” on Armenia’s sovereign territory.

The political analyst commented both on Lavrov’s recent statements concerning Armenia and expressed his opinion on Armenian-Russian relations and cooperation with the West.

  • “Armenia is separating from Russia” – opinion on reforms in the National Security Service
  • Armenia-Russia Trade: Benefits and Risks of Sanctions
  • How the influx of Russian citizens has affected the Armenian real estate market

Sergey Lavrov said during a press conference on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s activities in 2023 that the “Zangezur corridor” was never discussed within the framework of the agreements reached on November 9, 2020.

According to him, all economic and transportation ties will be unblocked according to this document, which ended the 2020 Karabakh war. Armenia will guarantee the security of transport in both directions between the western regions of Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, and the border service of the Federal Security Service of Russia will exercise control on that road. He emphasized that Armenia’s sovereignty and jurisdiction on these routes will be fully preserved.

Lavrov also said that the West does not want to allow the implementation of the agreements reached between Yerevan and Baku through Moscow’s mediation. According to him, the lack of progress in the conclusion of the peace treaty is due to the position of Yerevan, while Baku is ready to sign the agreement on the territory of the Russian Federation.

The analyst argues that only Armenia has “naively and shortsightedly” fulfilled all points of the obligations stipulated under the November 2020 trilateral statement, while Moscow and Baku have not fulfilled a single one:

“If they raise the issue of unblocking the roads in Syunik, then let them ensure the security of the Lachin corridor [was stipulated under the trilateral statement], provide an appropriate atmosphere and conditions for the return of Artsakh Armenians to the homeland of their ancestors.”

The political analyst regards any demands from the Russian side, which has not fulfilled its obligations, as “rhetoric with hostile overtones”. He believes that Armenia should take Russia’s statements as a threat and pursue a policy of reducing the risks arising from them.

In the political analyst’s opinion, Yerevan should be very clear about the situation on the ground.

“It should be said that it was you who annulled the November 9 document, no process envisaged under it has been implemented in the region. And there are no Armenians left in Nagorno Karabakh. But the situation is changed not by statements, but by appropriate policy”.

He also suggested what motives Russia has to control the road connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan through the territory of Armenia. He recalled that Russian peacekeepers stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh demanded large sums from local residents for transportation of goods and people through the Lachin corridor:

“If they control this section of the road, the money that was supposed to go to the Armenian budget will flow into their pockets.”

Political scientist Richard Kirakosian – on Armenian-Russian relations, Armenia-EU cooperation

“If some force threatens your existence, there is a way to confront it, regardless of its scale. Obviously we cannot confront this powerful country with brute military force. So we have to look for allies,” the political scientist believes.

At the same time, Simonyan says that Armenia can only expect new allies to provide it with the latest technologies, economic and military training, but it should fight on its own.

According to him, the West has failed to prevent the Russians from “saving Artsakh”, but so far it has managed to oppose Russia’s plan to “save” Armenia. If suddenly Russia succeeds, then after such “rescue” the Republic of Armenia will cease to exist and there will be no Armenians left in it, just as there were no Armenians left in Karabakh.

The political scientist made such an appeal to the Armenian authorities. He believes that if Yerevan is able to harmonize its interests with those of friendly countries, it will find allies in their face. However, for that it is necessary to pursue an active policy.

Meanwhile the current government, in his opinion, pursues an “unprincipled and short-sighted” policy, regularly “heading North,” to Russia.

“In addition, Armenia continues to be part of military-political and economic integration projects (the CSTO military bloc and the Eurasian Economic Union), which obviously pursue a hostile policy towards it. The authorities go to the EAEU event and play up the chairmanship of this organization [the Prime Minister recently accepted Armenia’s chairmanship of the EAEU], but do not participate in the economic forum in Davos, where the future of the world is being discussed. These people do not react to the realities facing Armenia due to external and internal challenges, they are in some illusory world.’

The political analyst believes that Yerevan should start strategic relations with the European Union, as well as with the North Atlantic security system, as Armenia’s ally in the region is the West. And Russia, according to him, has staked on the Turkic world.

He does not rule out that in the near future Azerbaijan will join the structures operating under the aegis of Russia, e.g. EAEU and CSTO. He says it is still unclear what Baku will get in return for this integration.

“If this scenario is played out, we must fight and defend our territories [in Syunik] so as not to lose our strategic importance, our connection with Iran. If we lose our territory but keep our independence, we will lose our independence after some time because we will not be interesting to the world.”

Old City of Jerusalem’s Armenian photo shop stands the test of time

Arsine Chaltikian
Jan 19 2024
By BARRY DAVIS



The Old City certainly has it charms. Even now, with the distressing paucity of tourists as the local security issues continue to abound, and the gossamer-thin pedestrian traffic along the stepped and winding alleyways of the ancient walled hilltop spot. And there always seems to be something new to explore and discover there.

And so it came to be. While I made my way from the famed Lina hummus eatery a few days ago, back toward Jaffa Gate, I came across a brightly colored storefront which proclaimed that the premises housed Elia Photo – Service. The display window was a merry hodgepodge of large framed monochrome prints depicting scenes from yesteryear Jerusalem. There was also one hefty-looking tome on show which goes by the emotive title of Jerusalem Through My Father’s Eyes. The book contains dozens of prints of shots taken all over the country, primarily from Jerusalem of the 1920s and 1930s.

I got some of the tidbits of the place’s storied history from the current proprietor, Elia Kahvedjian.


“Our family name is interesting,” the genial fortysomething man tells me as I eye some of the seeming myriad prints arranged in old glass-fronted wooden cabinets that line the walls of the diminutive customer area. As I was to discover over the next hour or so, there are lots of interesting things about the business. “When my grandfather came here, he was asked his name. He knew his given name – Elia; I am named after him – but he had no idea of his surname. He remembered that his father used to lug sacks of coffee, so he told the official. That’s how we ended up with Kahvedjian.” Kahweh in Arabic means “coffee.”

I was clearly set for an entertaining hour or two of storytelling, and Kahvedjian did not disappoint.


The shop has been around since 1949. Interestingly, it is located in the Christian Quarter rather than the Armenian sector. Kahvedjian Sr. was an Armenian who hailed from Urfa in southeast Turkey. He was, his grandson assumes, born around 1910. “He was about five years old when he was on a death march, together with his mother, in 1915. His mother sensed something was about to happen and begged a Kurdish man to take her son.”

It was a fateful, timely move. “My grandfather remembered that the Kurd took him, and then he heard the rat-a-tat of gunfire and then silence. Everyone on the march was dead.” That traumatic early childhood experience took place as the crumbling Ottoman Empire engaged in the “ethnic cleansing” of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians.

The youngster’s trying start to life continued with his being promptly sold into slavery “for two gold coins,” followed by several months of wandering through the streets homeless. That must have been a helluva trial for the kid. It is a wonder he survived at all.

“He was eventually rescued by Americans from the Near East Relief Foundation,” says Kahvedjian, who worked in the hi-tech industry before taking the shop over, to keep the now 75-year-old family business going. “They saved a lot of children. They mentioned my grandfather in a book about all the children they saved. I think it came out in 2006.”


That’s how Kahvedjian Sr. came to this part of the world. “They brought him to Nazareth,” Elia recalls.

The recent arrival from Turkey also got a fortuitous start to his photographic road. “When he was at school, one of his teachers used to take photos, and he needed a strong student to carry the heavy glass plates. They were 8×10 inches each. They really weighed something.” Kahvedjian Sr., a strapping lad at the time, got the job and began taking an interest in the craft. “He started asking the teacher questions about photography. Sometimes he got answers,” Kahvedjian chuckles.

By the time he was 16, he was summarily cast adrift. “In Nazareth, they told him he was already a man and had to manage on his own,” says the grandson.

The teenager relocated to Jerusalem and found employment with the Hanania Brothers photography enterprise. “It was just up the road from Jaffa Gate, on IDF Square,” Kahvedjian explains, “where the Fast Hotel was, which is now the Dan Pearl Hotel.” Before the establishment of the State of Israel, the spot was known as Allenby Square.

The young man made good progress in the profession, imbibing the technical and technological nuances, and honing his own hands-on skills in the process. “He was really enthused with photography,” Kahvedjian notes.

By the end of his teens, he was primed to take the next incremental step. “He worked for Hanania Bros. until 1930 when the owners suddenly decided to move to Britain. I think they sensed which way the political wind was blowing. Their young charge grabbed the opportunity to strike out on his own with both powerful and eminently capable hands. The current proprietor says his then twentysomething granddad was an ambitious resourceful character. “He decided to buy the business in Jerusalem. There was only one problem. He didn’t have the cash,” Kahvedjian laughs. It was time for a leap of faith. “He offered them three times their asking price, which he would pay in installments. He was really determined. Not everyone would offer such a high price.”


The deal was struck, and the new owner made great strides – that is, until the local geopolitical tectonic plates shifted once more.

Mind you, he did get some substantial help to weather the storm from unexpected quarters. “He paid off all his debts within three years. He did well, but war was brewing. Two days before they left, British soldiers he knew well came to him and warned him that there was trouble on the way.” They didn’t just tip him off; they provided Kahvedjian Sr. with the means for getting his precious equipment, stock, negatives, and prints out of harm’s way. “They sent a couple of army trucks to transport the equipment and other things to a place in the Armenian Quarter [of the Old City]. It was an underground basement.” That was as good a repository as any. “Fortunately, the basement was cold, dark, and dry, which was perfect for preserving negatives.”

The building with the photography went up in flames a short while later.

And there they sat until 1987, when the founder’s son decided to dig into the stash which his father had always said was “a load of old garbage.” In fact, it was anything but trash. The photographic treasure chest comprised over 3,500 works snapped all over the country, the prints of which now reside at the store on Al-Khanka Street in the Christian Quarter. A selection of the photos now make up Jerusalem Through My Father’s Eyes, which was compiled by Kahvedjian Sr.’s son, the current owner’s dad.

“My grandfather opened the shop in 1949,” Kahvedjian relates. “People said he was crazy but, like always, he did well.” The founder duly prospered, first under Jordanian rule and then under Israeli rule following the Six Day War. “He really did well after 1967,” says Kahvedjian.

AS I peruse the hundreds of A4-size black-and-white prints dotted around the septuagenarian display cabinets, I catch a glimpse of a group shot with a difference. The gents in the 1930s photograph, lined up in two rows, all convey a serious, if not stern, demeanor. But there is a palpable sense of a left-field element to the snap. They are all sporting a banner-like garment which seems a little otherworldly.

“What do you think that is?” Kahvedjian asks me teasingly.

I take a stab in the dark. “The only thing I can think of is the Freemasons,” I proffer.

The proprietor’s smile tells me I’d hit the secretive nail on the head. “We found that in 2001, two years after my grandfather died. He must have been a member of the local Freemasons, and that’s probably why the British soldiers helped him.”

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Kahvedjian Sr. was not only adept at snapping; he also had a keen eye for the intriguing human element. “He liked to take pictures of people,” says Kahvedjian. “That’s what really interested him.”

You get that from the prints in Jerusalem Through My Father’s Eyes. “Jerusalem dancing gypsies, 1927,” for example, not only freezes the traditional hoofing action – no mean feat with the film quality and technology available to Kahvedjian Sr. almost a century ago – but also captures the spirit and emotion the performers exude. “Arab fortune teller reads for Jewish customer, 1936” and “Jerusalem, eating hummus, 1935” also document the human zeitgeist and street-level action to a tee.

We can be thankful for the Freemason protective connection and the fact that Elia Photo Service – Photographic Dealers continues to thrive, serving people with an interest in local history, three quarters of a century after it first opened its doors.

“We get diplomats and all sorts coming here,” says Kahvedjian. “Former [US] presidents [Bill] Clinton and George W. Bush have copies of my father’s book. And diplomats and wealthy people come here to buy something for people who have everything.”

A rare find, indeed. ■


 

Armenian President, Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs address agenda issues of bilateral and multilateral cooperation

David Nargizian

 21:18,

YEREVAN, JANUARY 18, ARMENPRESS. The President of the Republic of Armenia, Vahagn Khachaturyan, within the framework of the Davos Economic Forum, had a meeting with the Federal Minister of European and International Affairs of Austria, Alexander Schallenberg.

During the meeting, agenda issues related to both bilateral and multilateral cooperation between Armenia and Austria were discussed, the Presidential Office stated.

A special reference was made to the Armenia-EU partnership.

According to the source, the interlocutors exchanged ideas on the regional situation, existing challenges and developments.

It is noted that during the discussion, the parties emphasized issues of fully usage of the existing potential in the economy, culture, tourism, and other fields of the two countries.




Armenpress: Deputy Prime Minister meets EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the Crisis in Georgia

Emil Lazarian

 21:24,

YEREVAN, JANUARY 18, ARMENPRESS. Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan received the EU special representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia Toivo Klaar.

The Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Armenia, Ambassador Vassilis Maragos  also attended the meeting.
The parties discussed regional developments during the meeting, Grigoryan’s Office said.

Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan presented the “Crossroads of the World” project, which clearly outlines the prospects, structure, logic, and basic principles of unblocking transport and other infrastructure communications in the region. The parties also discussed issues related to the principles and legal foundations of the border delimitation process.

Asbarez: AEF’s 5th Annual Oratorical Contest to be Held at UCLA

Emil Lazarian
by Contributor

 

 January 16, 2024

 

in Community, Latest, News, Top Stories

2020 Oratorical contest participants


In adherence to its long-standing tradition of supporting educational programs for local Armenian students, the Armenian Educational Foundation is hosting its 5th Annual Oratorical Contest following four successful years. This year’s competition is in collaboration with UCLA’s Center for World Languages and will feature the inaugural competition for middle schools. The public speaking competition will take place at the UCLA’s Royce Hall Room 314, located at 10745 Dickson Ct., Los Angeles, on Saturday, January 27. The middle school round will take place at 10 a.m. and the high school round will take place at 2 p.m.

Students representing Southern California Armenian high schools and middle schools will participate in the Armenian and English language speaking contests. The schools participating in the competition this year include A.G.B.U Manoogian-Demirdjian School, Armenian Mesrobian School, Armenian Sisters’ Academy, C & E Merdinian Evangelical School, Chamlian Armenian School, Holy Martyrs Ferrahian High School, Rose and Alex Pilibos Armenian School, and Sahag Mesrob Armenian Christian School.

AEF has a distinguished panel of judges, including Armine Amiryan, Head of News at US Armenia TV; Alex Bastian, Esq., President and CEO, Hotel Council of San Francisco; Hagop Gulludjian, senior lecturer of Armenian Studies at the UCLA Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Department; Tereza Hovhannisyan, lecturer of Eastern Armenian Language at the UCLA Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Department; Araksya Karapetyan, news anchor for FOX 11 and Good Day LA; Dr. Lilit Keshishyan, PhD, project director, USC Dornsife Institute of Armenian Studies, lecturer, the USC Writing Program; Zaven Keuroghlian, co-founder and CEO of Zartonk Media; Ani Hovannisian Kevorkian, documentary filmmaker; Gegham Mughnetsyan, Chitjian Researcher Archivist, USC Institute of Armenian Studies; Sev Ohanian, screenwriter and film producer; Dr. Shant Shekherdemian, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Surgery, Interim Chief of Pediatric Surgery at UCLA, Associate Director for Healthcare Outreach / UCLA Promise Armenian Institute; and Vruir Tadevosian, TV host, journalist at Horizon Armenian TV.

“AEF has such a significant global impact, providing the opportunity for educational advancement for so many students both here and abroad. We are proud to be part of a program that promotes critical thinking and public speaking, and allows our students to refine a skillset that will be invaluable to their future success,” said Lara Petrossian and Kristina Kheshvadjian, AEF Oratorical Committee Co-Chairs.

AEF was established in 1950 to provide financial support to Armenian students and Armenian educational institutions and programs in Armenia, Artsakh and the diaspora. All AEF programs are planned and executed by volunteers with minimal overhead – assuring donors that their contribution is used directly towards the program they support.

For more information on the Armenian Educational Foundation or to donate online, please visit the website.