new promising era New Promising Era "President" & VP Nikol Pashinian

[MosJan]

 

[MosJan]

 

[MosJan]

 

[Yervant1]

They ask both sides to make compromises, but it seems only Armenia is the one that does!

 

Quote

 

July 17 2024

 

US: Armenia, Azerbaijan Need To Make Tough Compromises For Peace

 July 17, 2024 

By PanARMENIAN

Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State Matthew Millerhas declared that Armenia and Azerbaijan need to make tough compromises in order to achieve peace.

 

Miller told a briefing on Monday, July 15 that the two parties have made “incredible progress and they have come a long way”.

“And so what we continue to do is push them. A peace agreement between those countries would mean so much for those countries and it would mean so much for the region – for peace, stability, for security in the region” The diplomat noted.

“We do think a deal is possible, but it requires both sides to make some difficult choices and tough compromises, and so what we’re going to do is continue to push them to resolve those final differences and reach an agreement.”

Miller said the U.S. is not going to rest until peace is achieved.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/17072024-us-armenia-azerbaijan-need-to-make-tough-compromises-for-peace/

 

 

 

[Yervant1]

Newsmax

July 17 2024

 

 

Standing with Armenian Christians a Moral, Spiritual Mandate

 

By Dr. Alveda C. King

 

Standing with Persecuted Armenian Christians: A Moral and Strategic Imperative

The world is rife with religious persecution, and Armenian Christians are among those being targeted. For people of faith in the United States, the moral imperative to support our Armenian brothers and sisters can't be overstated.

Christians bear a biblical responsibility to be the voice of the persecuted church and the first to speak up on their behalf.

Not only is this issue a biblical obligation for Christians in the United States, but in the broader geopolitical context, Armenia is also the key to stability in the Caucasus region.

Armenia holds a unique place in history as the first nation to adopt Christianity as its official faith in AD 301.

This profound heritage, however, has often come at a steep price.

Over the centuries, Armenian Christians have faced waves of persecution, most notably during the Armenian Genocide in 1915, where over a million and a half Armenian Christians were killed by the Ottoman Empire.

The American Church responded to this tragedy by raising significant financial and humanitarian support that helped sustain the Armenian people.

However, Armenian Christians continue to be targeted. Throughout 2023, Azerbaijan carried out a vigorous campaign of ethnic cleansing against Armenians, during which they displaced 120,000 Armenian Christians and destroyed churches, cemeteries, and holy sites that date back centuries.

Much of the world was silent, and the church must speak up.

As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," so now is the time for us to unify and speak out for our Christian brothers and sisters.

Beyond the moral and faith imperative, Armenia occupies a critical geopolitical position directly impacting regional national security interests.

At the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Armenia is bordered by Iran to the south, Georgia to the north, Turkey to the west, and Azerbaijan to the east.

This strategic location makes Armenia a pivotal player in the stability of the Caucasus.

Over the last five years, Armenia has made significant moves away from the Russian orbit of influence and embraced closer ties to the West.

It recently ordered the removal of Russian border guards from its territory and announced that it would inevitably leave the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

Additionally, Armenia and the U.S. recently upgraded their relationship from a Strategic Dialogue to a Strategic Partnership.

By supporting Armenia, the United States reinforces its commitment to democracy and the rule of law in a region where authoritarianism and instability often reign.

Moreover, a secure Armenia is critical to establishing regional peace and security.

As part of this security consideration, the United States must implement proactive policies communicating U.S. priorities.

The U.S. must clearly signal a willingness to target Azerbaijan’s hydrocarbon industry with sanctions in the event of further Azeri aggression.

Should Azerbaijan threaten Armenia further, strong diplomatic and economic pressure must be employed to ensure that Baku understands that violence and regional instability will not be tolerated.

As Christians, our call to stand with persecuted Armenian Christians is both a moral and spiritual mandate.

As Americans, our support for Armenia aligns with our national security interests and values of democracy and freedom.

It's time for us to heed this call to action, to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves, and to ensure that Armenia remains a beacon of faith and resilience in a tumultuous region.

I urge all people of faith and Americans to unite in this cause.

Later this week I will be visiting this ancient Christian land with a delegation of notable leaders to learn and stand in solidarity with Armenia.

Let us stand together, pray, and take concrete action to support our Armenian brothers and sisters and uphold the principles that define us as a nation and as followers of Christ.

https://www.newsmax.com/dralvedacking/armenia-azerbaijan-christ/2024/07/17/id/1172944/

[Yervant1]

The National Interest

July 17 2024

 

Armenia’s Misguided “Pivot to the West”

Europe and the United States have recklessly encouraged Armenia to leave the Russian orbit without a plan to protect it from Putin’s wrath.

by Arman Grigoryan

 

Something extremely worrisome is happening in and around Armenia. The country is edging closer and closer to becoming the next theater in the destructive, dangerous, and unnecessary confrontation between the West and Russia. Armenia’s revolutionary government is “pivoting” from Russia to the West, by all appearances, walking the same path paved earlier by Georgia’s and Ukraine’s color revolutions. If the experiences of Georgia and Ukraine are any indication, Moscow is unlikely to treat this development with stoic resignation. The situation is worsened by the increasingly transparent Western encouragement of Armenia’s change of course, even though no one seriously believes that the West will be willing or able to do more for Armenia than it did for Georgia if Russia were to take off the gloves. 

The Rift

Up until recently, there were few safer bets than on Armenia’s continued close alliance with Russia. Given the country’s problems with some of its neighbors, its vulnerability, and the absence of adequate alternatives, that alliance seemed to be made of steel. It started showing cracks a few years ago, however, and it is now on the verge of a breakdown. In fact, Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan recently stated that Armenia intends to leave the Russian-dominated Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Even though the country’s foreign minister half-heartedly attempted to deny the existence of such intentions, talk of leaving the organization has been quite common in Armenia for some time now. Some pro-government political groups have launched a campaign demanding to hold a referendum on Armenia joining the European Union (EU), with the country’s prime minister recently expressing unqualified enthusiasm for such a path as well. Given the current state of relations between the EU and Russia, that was not just an overture toward the EU. It was a demarche against Russia.

What are the actual issues that have brought the relations between Russia and Armenia to such a low point? Armenians accuse Russia of being an unreliable ally and the CSTO of being a useless institution. They claim that Russia abandoned Armenia to the tender mercies of Azerbaijan or Turkey during the Armenian-Azerbaijani war of 2020 and that, in fact, it colluded with them. The Armenian side is aggrieved by CSTO’s refusal to intervene when Azerbaijan launched cross-border incursions into Armenia’s sovereign territory in the fall of 2022, which they consider a clear breach of treaty obligations. Armenians also accuse Russia of having failed in their peacekeeping mission, as Azerbaijan was able to impose a blockade on Karabakh in late 2022 and eventually force the entire Armenian population out of the region in September of 2023. 

Russians have responded to these accusations by pointing out that Russia and CSTO had no formal obligations to intervene when war broke out in Karabakh in 2020. They further remind Armenia that Russia had proposed a—in their opinion reasonable—blueprint for a compromise settlement, commonly referred to as the “Lavrov plan,” which would have guaranteed de facto Armenian control of Karabakh in exchange for the return of some of the territories outside of Karabakh that have been under Armenian control since 1994. 

Russia responded to the accusations of inaction in the fall of 2022 by arguing that the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan was not demarcated, which made the legal argument about intervention dubious. They also complain that the Armenian side refused to accept a CSTO observer mission and invited an analogous EU mission to monitor the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Russians further accuse Armenia of failing to implement a key provision of the ceasefire agreement that ended the war of 2020, which, among other things, obligated Armenia to provide an overland link connecting mainland Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhijevan and which was to be monitored by Russian Federal Security Service troops. 

This refusal undermined Russia’s position as the guarantor of the ceasefire and mediator in the negotiations. It also made it difficult for Russia to pressure Azerbaijan to keep the Lachin corridor, which connected Armenia to Karabakh, open while Armenia was refusing to implement the aforementioned provision. Additionally, Russians argue that after Armenia recognized Azerbaijan’s full and uncontested sovereignty over Karabakh, which they argue Armenia did without consulting with them or even notifying them, Russia could not have prevented Azerbaijan from establishing full control over Karabakh. Finally, Russians have been incensed by actions like the Armenian ratification of the Rome statute (which implied an obligation to arrest Vladimir Putin if he set foot on Armenian soil given his indictment by the International Criminal Court a few months prior), a delegation’s recent visit to Bucha, and participation in the conference on the reconstruction of Ukraine in Switzerland. 

From Symptoms to Disease

It is tempting to focus on the accusations and counteraccusations listed above and try to figure out which of them are justified and who is at fault for the deterioration of relations between the two countries. That would be a fool’s errand, however, for disputes over the symptoms obscure the true nature of the disease. The current malady has three interacting pathogens—the pro-Western outlook of the Pashinyan government, the perception that Russia’s preoccupation in Ukraine has created a window of opportunity to change Armenia’s strategic orientation, and increasingly enthusiastic encouragement from the West. 

Why am I calling the pro-Western outlook of Pashinyan and his team pathological? There is, of course, nothing wrong with being pro-Western per se, depending on how one defines the term. In fact, since the day it became independent, Armenia has been firmly committed to a foreign policy that is often referred to as “complementarity,” envisioning good relations with both Moscow and the West. The content of those relationships was certainly not identical. Armenia and Russia had a military alliance, which was an indispensable pillar of Armenian security since it had unresolved conflicts with some of its neighbors and since the West could not be the alternative provider of that security. Armenia, accordingly, aspired to forge and maintain relations with the West that were as close and friendly as possible without compromising on its alliance with Russia. 

With minor perturbations, this status quo held until the revolution in Armenia in 2018, which brought Nikol Pashinyan and his team to power. They were not fans of “complementarity.” They were more inclined to see those relationships as incompatible and mutually exclusive, and herein lies the pathology. They came to power already with a reputation of being pro-Western and anti-Russian, having criticized the previous administration for entering the Customs Union with Russia and for having abandoned the association agreement with the EU. They made no secret of their view of Russia as an obstacle to Armenia’s democratic and economic development and a protector of the corrupt regime that the revolution had toppled.

After the revolution, an air of mutual suspicion hung over the relationship between the two countries. Russians saw the new Armenian government as yet another example of a Western-backed “color revolution” meant to infringe on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. Pashinyan and company, in the meantime, suspected Russians of undermining them and supporting their opponents in Armenia connected to the old guard. Nevertheless, the tensions were managed for the time being as Pashinyan got the lay of the land, and Russia was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The revolutionary government also did not want to antagonize the Russians too much as the tensions with Azerbaijan were reaching a fever pitch.

Things took a dramatic turn after the Armenian-Azerbaijani war of 2020 and then after the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. The Pashinyan government decided to drag its feet on the implementation of certain terms of the ceasefire agreement that Russia had mediated and guaranteed, then blamed Russia as a useless ally when Azerbaijan tried to coerce Armenia into compliance. With transparent approval from the government, several pro-government media outlets, a massive army of pundits, and several satellite political forces launched a relentless public relations (PR) campaign to propagate the myth that the war was inevitable, as it was the result of a Russian-Turkish-Azerbaijani collusion against Armenia. Even high-ranking members of the government joined the chorus. 

This PR campaign served two purposes. First, it shielded Pashinyan from the responsibility for his astonishingly reckless diplomacy, which is precisely what made that war inevitable. Second, it convinced the Armenian public that Russia was an unreliable provider of security against Turkey and Azerbaijan but also their ally. This claim was designed to rebut the argument that if Armenia abandons the alliance with Russia, it will become vulnerable to Turkish and Azerbaijani coercion. If people could be convinced that Russia was already the friend of Armenia’s adversaries, then the arguments about the dangers of leaving the alliance and “pivoting to the West” would become moot. Consequently, any rapprochement with the West could only enhance Armenia’s security, whatever the limitations of Western commitments to Armenia. 

The war in Ukraine provided a powerful boost to these arguments. After Russia found itself stuck in a bloody and protracted war, “pivoting to the West” started to look like an even better idea. For one thing, Russia was neck deep in trouble in Ukraine, so it was not going to go on a mat with Azerbaijan and Turkey to protect Armenia. At the same time, it was also not going to risk another crisis by going after Armenia to halt its drift. 

Sending Armenia Down the Primrose Path

The United States and its allies have traditionally treated Armenia as a friendly country throughout the entire period of its independence, even if among post-Soviet states, Armenia has been in a different category than the Baltic republics, Ukraine, and Georgia. There has been a basic understanding in Washington and European capitals that Armenia had constraints and limitations in terms of how close its relations with the West could be, regardless of its preferences. There has also been an appreciation on all sides of the West’s limitations and constraints as an alternative provider of security for Armenia, given the country’s needs and problems, as well as the country’s questionable strategic value. Accordingly, there was no active and determined effort to knock Armenia out of Russia’s strategic orbit. Indeed, the West and Russia were able to cooperate and act with a common agenda and a common front as mediators in the negotiations to settle the Karabakh conflict. 

The West hailed the revolution in Armenia in 2018 and heaped praise on Pashinyan for pulling it off peacefully and putting the country on the path of democratic development. Even then, however, there was no active and overt encouragement to break with Russia. Nor was there any change of position on the need to settle the Karabakh conflict or the terms of the settlement that had been endorsed earlier. The West stuck to its circumspect posture after the war in 2020, when the anti-Russian sentiment in Armenia began to reach unprecedented levels. On one occasion, the French ambassador to Armenia reminded an interviewer who was criticizing Russia that it was the Russians that rescued Karabakh and Armenia in the fall of 2020. Shortly thereafter, an American diplomat, who had been the U.S. representative in the Karabakh negotiations, had to cool the anti-Russian zeal of another interviewer in a similar manner. Overall, nothing suggested a major change of established practice and certainly no overt endorsement of Armenia’s increasingly vocal quarrel with Russia. 

The attitudes began to change after the conflict in Ukraine escalated, however, and after the competition between the West and Russia became a costly and zero-sum confrontation. Things that were seen as going too far before began to look like reasonable options. Among them was the shift from counseling caution and being reluctant to encourage Armenia’s reckless behavior toward Russia to openly encouraging it. The early harbinger of that shift was the unprecedented visit of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to Armenia in the summer of 2022. This was not a routine State Department visit or a Congressman trying to ingratiate himself with their ethnic Armenian constituents. Even if the press releases about the purpose of his visit and the topics of his discussions with Armenian officials were not very informative, one could safely conclude that the visit signified an upgrade of Armenia in American strategic priorities. 

This was followed by a visit of a congressional delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi to express support for Armenia after the Azerbaijani incursion into Armenia in September 2022 and CSTO’s refusal to invoke its treaty obligation to come to Armenia’s aid. Later that same year, Richard Moore, the head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, paid a visit to Armenia, which was also unprecedented and could also have no explanation other than a significant reassessment of relations with Armenia. Pashinyan had another meeting with Moore on the sidelines of an international conference in Munich in February 2024. 

In line with these shifts was the extraordinary statement by French president Emmanuel Macron, who openly accused Russia of encouraging Azerbaijan to attack Armenia shortly after the Azerbaijani incursion into Armenia in September 2022. The statement generated a strong rebuke from Russia, as well as from Azerbaijan and Turkey. More recently, the French have decided to provide advanced weaponry to Armenia, including the coveted Caesar howitzers, raising the alarm in Azerbaijan and eyebrows in Moscow. 

The uncertainty as to what the West has been up to was further reduced by the U.S. assistant secretary of state, James O’Brien, who recently visited Armenia. During his visit, he gave an interview to the Armenian Service of Radio Liberty, where, among other things, he argued that Russia should be excluded from the project of opening the communications that will link Azerbaijan and Nakhijevan, and which by extension will link Central Asia to other countries in the region. He argued further that Russia should be excluded from the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process, which essentially means the exclusion of Russia from the region. O’Brien hailed Armenia’s democratic progress and the country’s determination to stand up to Russia and stated that the United States-Armenian relationship was being upgraded to the level of strategic partnership. 

What are the consequences of this shift? The government of Armenia and the assorted pro-Westerners who have made the sharp strategic reorientation of the country the centerpiece of their political agenda see it as a vindication of their efforts and evidence for the correctness of their posture. It has stiffened their determination to stay on their reckless course. Armenia is clearly on a collision course with Russia and consequently also on its way to becoming completely defenseless against Turkey and Azerbaijan at a time when they are responding to every Armenian concession with a new demand. It will also have severe economic consequences for Armenia, given Armenia’s dependence on the Russian market and on cheap energy exports from Russia. The question is, what will the West do when that collision happens? One way to answer that question is to invoke the decidedly unhappy experiences of Georgia and Ukraine. And the answer is “not enough” at best. However, we do not even have to rely on extrapolation from those experiences. 

A few weeks ago, Radio Liberty interviewed the U.S. ambassador to Armenia, who was asked that question, though in a slightly more general and gentler formulation. She spoke of plans to provide the Armenian army with armored ambulances and to organize courses to teach English to refugees from Karabakh. As for the French selling advanced weapons to Armenia, it is the worst of all worlds. It will be a source of concern for Azerbaijan, generating preventive incentives without any willingness or ability to extend security guarantees to Armenia in case these incentives are acted upon, all while providing Russia with incentives to egg Azerbaijan on. 

The same logic applies to Armenia’s upgrade to a strategic partnership. It signals Armenia’s eventual integration into Western institutions in the long run, which the Russians consider unacceptable. At the same time, the West is in no position to protect Armenia from Moscow’s wrath in the short run. To borrow the now-famous phrase of John Mearsheimer, what the West is doing is sending Armenia down the “primrose path” to further conflict.

Arman Grigoryan is an associate professor of International Relations at Lehigh University. Follow him on X @Arm__Grig.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/armenia%E2%80%99s-misguided-%E2%80%9Cpivot-west%E2%80%9D-211914?page=0%2C1

[MosJan]

if trump gets elected, it might revers the whole think. turks & putin are just not going to do anything at this time. and are supporting trump.

[MosJan]

Armenian-American troops serving as interpreters at joint U.S.-Armenia drills

July 18, 2024 - 18:11 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net - U.S. Ambassador to Armenia Kristina Kvien has said that American-Armenian U.S. military personnel are serving as interpreters during the joint Eagle Partner Exercise in Armenia.

“A pleasure to meet Armenian-American U.S. military personnel from my home state of California, who are serving as interpreters during the Eagle Partner Exercise. Thank you for your service!” Kvien said on social media on Thursday,

 

https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/315299/

[MosJan]

Armenia “making significant efforts” to mend ties with Turkey

July 17, 2024 - 13:25 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net - Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan has declared that Yerevan continuously makes significant efforts to mend ties with Turkey.

Mirzoyan made the remarks on July 15 when presenting Armenia's 3rd Voluntary National Review (VNR), summarizing the progress in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including its goals and targets.

“Armenia is genuinely engaged to conclude the agreement on the establishment of peace and interstate relations with Azerbaijan, anchored in the principles of mutual recognition of each other’s territorial integrity and delimitation of the state border based on the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, and unblocking regional transport infrastructure based on full respect for the countries’ sovereignty and jurisdiction, as well as the principles of equality and reciprocity,” Mirzoyan said.

“With this understanding, Armenia has initiated the “Crossroads of Peace” project. This project aims to develop communications between Armenia and its neighbouring countries, thus transforming the whole paradigm of relationships in the region from confrontation to mutually beneficial cooperation.”

“Armenia also continuously undertakes significant efforts towards full normalization, establishing diplomatic relations and opening borders with Turkey which, if successful, understandably will have a huge positive impact on the region.”

https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/315273/

 

[MosJan]

Armenia says Aliyev rejected meeting with Pashinyan

July 18, 2024 - 16:16 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net - Armenia has denied accusations from Azerbaijan, alleging that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has rejected a meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on the sidelines of the European Political Community Summit in London.

“The Armenian side suggested holding a bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan within the framework of the European Political Community Summit underway in the UK, however, the Azerbaijani side rejected this proposal. The offer of the Armenian side still stands,” Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ani Badalyan said in a statement on Thursday, July 18.

“The Armenian side also reiterates its proposal to intensify the negotiations on the highest levels and to reach the signing of the peace treaty within one month.”

Badalyan’s remarks came after Azerbaijani presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev claimed that Pashinyan has allegedly rejected a meeting with Azerbaijan.

[MosJan]

Pashinyan defends demarcation at meeting with more border residents

June 17, 2024 - 18:30 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net - Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan on Sunday, June 16 met with the residents of the border village of Shikahogh in Armenia's southern Syunik province.

Pashinyan maintained it was “necessary” to demarcate the border, and inquired about the problems and needs of the village.

“Border demarcation is necessary. As we do in Voskepar (a village in the northern Tavush province): we install barbed wire at demarcated areas, neither people nor animals can cross it,” Pashinyan said.

Pashinyan also spoke about the need to demarcate the border in the village of Nerkin Hand.

[MosJan]

 

[MosJan]

 

[MosJan]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9h6Fp6qAva/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

[MosJan]

 

[Yervant1]

---

July 19 2024

 

 

Is the call for tough compromises addressed to Azerbaijan or Armenia? Opinions from Yerevan

• JAMnews

• Yerevan

A peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan is possible, but it will require both sides to “make some difficult choices and tough compromises,” stated US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller. He emphasized that Washington will not stop until an agreement is reached.

The Armenian authorities have not yet responded to his statement. The parliamentary opposition believes that when Miller mentioned concessions, he might have been referring to the so-called “Zangezur Corridor.” The opposition recalls that the necessity of opening the “corridor” was recently mentioned by the president of Turkey as well.

The expert community also believes that the statement could be referring to amendments to the Armenian constitution. However, political analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan assures that he has information indicating that the call is actually addressed to Azerbaijan.

---

• Opinion: “The only viable option for Armenia is to coexist with Turkey and Azerbaijan”
• “Pashinyan seeks peace, while Aliyev pursues war”: opinion from Yerevan
• Armenia fulfills Aliyev’s demand? Pashinyan proposes a new constitution

---

Yerevan and Baku achieve “incredible progress”

Matthew Miller stated that Yerevan and Baku “have come a long way and achieved incredible progress.” According to him, this progress was evident during the recent meeting of foreign ministers in Washington. However, he did not provide further details.

The State Department representative said that Washington will continue to encourage both sides to resolve their differences and reach an agreement.

The meeting between the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan, mediated by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, took place on July 10 during the NATO summit. After the talks, the Armenian Foreign Ministry released only the following information: “The parties noted the progress achieved by Armenia and Azerbaijan towards concluding a historic peace treaty and establishing interstate relations, and agreed to continue their work.”

 

Comments

“The statement from the United States was very bad and strange,” said political analyst Styopa Safaryan.

“What does compromise mean? Have they just included Armenia in this segment? Are they trying not to offend Azerbaijan? Do they not want the reproach to be directed solely at Azerbaijan? Or is there indeed something in which we need to compromise, make a difficult choice?“

According to Safaryan, Armenia has no room left to retreat, “there is no more space for concessions.” The US needs to clarify what is meant by “difficult compromise,” the expert believes. This would allow Armenian society to understand what other choices lie ahead.

Miller’s statement seems strange to the political analyst because “it is not Yerevan, but Baku that regularly seeks reasons not to sign the document that includes the already reached agreements.” As evidence, Safaryan recalls Azerbaijan’s demand for Armenia to amend its constitution to sign a peace agreement.

Azerbaijan “has other demands as well, it just changes its priorities from time to time,” says the political analyst. He also finds it no coincidence that after the Mirzoyan-Bayramov-Blinken meeting, the Turkish president spoke about opening the so-called “Zangezur Corridor.”

This involves granting Azerbaijan an extraterritorial corridor, meaning Armenia would lose control over its own road. Erdogan took up one of the demands to make it easier for the Azerbaijani president to push another related to the constitution, Safaryan suggests.

Commenting on the issue of constitutional changes, Safaryan emphasized that this is an internal matter for Armenia:

“This issue should not be discussed in Washington or anywhere else. So far, no organization, including the Venice Commission, has told us that there are problems with our constitution from the perspective of international law.”

Recently, statements from Baku have suggested that Armenia should amend its constitution to conclude a peace treaty. Azerbaijan finds it problematic that the constitution references the Declaration of Independence, which mentions the reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh.

The analyst believes that “no referendum can erase from history” the fact that Armenia adopted the Declaration of Independence:

“And who said that this reference to the declaration implies that Artsakh is part of Armenia? This reference indicates that the Armenian people have achieved their historical goal of statehood.“

At the same time, the political scientist asserts that “it is precisely the constitution and laws of Azerbaijan that contradict the rules of the international game, as they formulate territorial claims against Armenia.”

In conclusion, the expert questions whether the West demands simultaneous changes in the legislation of both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

He explains that a peace agreement is an international document. If signed, it would have a higher status than local legislation. Therefore, the issue of constitutional changes should not be tied to the peace process.

 

The statement from Miller caused him concern until he received information that the call was addressed to Azerbaijan, says political analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan.

He did not disclose his sources. However, according to him, partners in the US understand that Armenia has already made all possible concessions:

“In reality, the main demands are addressed to Azerbaijan. They do not want to announce that one side is being destructive and needs to make concessions because this would reveal certain elements of the negotiation process, which is not planned at this time.”

Khurshudyan does not share the view that the parties did not achieve any progress during the negotiations in Washington. The results are not announced as a principle: until everything is agreed upon, nothing is agreed upon, the expert explains. He also considers it important that Miller used the term “peace agreement” rather than “framework agreement,” which Azerbaijan has been insisting on recently.

https://jam-news.net/armenia-azerbaijan-peace-treaty/

[Yervant1]

Azatutyun.am

 

Yerevan Scrambles To Unblock Armenian Fruit Exports To Russia

Հուլիս 19, 2024

• Gayane Saribekian

 

Armenia - Workers at the Spayka food export company store apricots at a warehouse outsideYerevan, 22Jun2016. (Photo by the Armenian Agriculture Ministry)

 

An Armenian government agency said on Friday that it is negotiating with Russian authorities and will step up laboratory tests of Armenian fruits and vegetables in an effort to have a Russian ban on their imports lifted.

Russia’s Rosselkhoznadzor agricultural watchdog notified Armenia’s Food Safety Inspection Body (FSIB) about the ban in a letter publicized by Armenian media on Wednesday. It alleged eight more instances of imported Armenian tomatoes and apples exceeding the maximum residue levels of pesticides allowed in Russia and other Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) member states.

The FSIB clarified that the “temporary restriction” applies to 16 Armenian companies exporting such agricultural products to Russia.

“In connection with the created situation, negotiations have started with the participation of specialists from both [Armenian and Russian] agencies,” it said, adding that they will hold a video conference to try to “quickly settle the problem.”

In a statement, the government agency also pledged to take “periodic laboratory control measures” that will involve “new instruments” meant to address the Russian concerns.

Russia accounts for more than 90 percent of Armenia’s fruit and vegetable exports vital for not only the owners of commercial greenhouses but also tens of thousands of subsistence farmers. The combined share of the 16 blacklisted Armenian firms in those exports, worth about $70 million in January-May 2024, is not yet known.

The Russian ban was widely construed by local commentators as a retaliation against the Armenian government’s continuing drift to the West and other actions denounced by Moscow. The Armenian government and its loyalists have not commented on these suggestions so far.

Tadevos Avetisian, an opposition parliamentarian, said that Rosselkhoznadzor’s decision could only be in part politically motivated. Avetisian said the FSBIC is also responsible for it because of its poor enforcement food safety standards.

“We must first and foremost blame representatives of our state who are mishandling things and once again leaving people in trouble,” he told RFE/RL’s Armenian.

The FSIB defended its track record, saying that Armenian and EEU regulations require it to conduct laboratory food testing only in cases of foodborne outbreaks or formal complaints lodged by individuals or other entities.

 

 

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/33043294.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0eI9K7biqy7UFUq1NoOnkp6Uy92YWUupeLdCbE4zbBwCPeRah6zTQKuUQ_aem_s6RhxDdJIt05hdnikrv87Q

[MosJan]

 

[Yervant1]

European Council

Council of the European Union

July 22 2024

 

 

European Peace Facility: Council adopts the first ever assistance measure in support of the Armenian Armed Forces

 

 

Today the Council adopted an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility (EPF) in support of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia worth €10 million. 

 

For the first time, the EU decided to support Armenia from the European Peace Facility. The aim of this assistance measure is to enhance the logistical capacities of the Armenian Armed Forces, and to contribute to improved protection of civilians in crises and emergencies. It also aims to enhance the resilience of Armenia and accelerate interoperability of its Armed Forces in case of possible future participation of the country in international military missions and operations, including those deployed by the EU. Concretely, the adopted assistance measure will allow the provision of a fully-fledged deployable tent camp for a battalion-sized unit.

 

Security is an increasingly important element of our bilateral relations with Armenia. This European Peace Facility measure will further contribute to the resilience of the country. We have a mutual interest to further scale up our dialogue on foreign and security policy, also looking into Armenia’s future participation in EU-led missions and operations.

 

Josep Borrell, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

The support adopted today will be provided in the framework of the EU’s partnership with Armenia, which is based on shared values and aimed at promoting peace, stability and prosperity in Armenia and the South Caucasus. 

 

The EU is committed to enhancing the comprehensive political and economic partnership with Armenia, based on the EU-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement, and to further strengthening our relations in all their dimensions. This includes intensifying dialogue and cooperation in the area of foreign and security policy, also encompassing the common security and defence policy (CSDP).

 

Background and next steps

The European Peace Facility was established in March 2021 for the financing of actions under the common foreign and security policy to prevent conflicts, preserve peace and strengthen international security and stability. In particular, the European Peace Facility allows the EU to finance actions designed to strengthen the capacities of third States and regional and international organisations relating to military and defence matters.

 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/07/22/european-peace-facility-council-adopts-the-first-ever-assistance-measure-in-support-of-the-armenian-armed-forces/

[Yervant1]

Business Media, Georgia

July 22 2024

 

 

Samantha Power Announces a New Phase in US-Armenia Relations

 

Arshaluis Mgdesyan

22.07.24 18:15

•23

 

 

 

Samantha Power, the head of USAID, announces a new phase in US-Armenia relations, focusing on sustainable development and economic cooperation.

During her recent two-day visit to Armenia, the head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Samantha Power, outlined key areas of development in Armenian-American relations.

In a video address summarizing the visit, Power emphasized the importance of building Armenia's resilience in various sectors.

According to Power, the primary focus is currently on three key aspects: food security, resilience to climate change, and energy independence. USAID is ready to support Armenia's efforts in each of these areas.

However, the main message was the US's intention to elevate its relationship with Armenia from aid to trade development.

As part of this strategy, the creation of a new public-private partnership was announced, which, according to Power, will become an example of modern and enduring cooperation between the two countries.

Earlier, BMG reported that the US would assist Armenia in developing cooperation with Amazon Web Services to implement cloud infrastructure and build capacity in Armenia. For this purpose, USAID, as Power mentioned, will provide new funding of $5 million.

https://bm.ge/en/news/samantha-power-announces-a-new-phase-in-us-armenia-relations

[MosJan]

 

[Yervant1]

Euractiv

July 23 2024

 

Armenia grapples with political polarisation

By Anna Pambukhchyan | Euractiv

 

 

After decades of the same elites ruling through largely undemocratic means, Armenia has in recent years seen a surge in political polarisation that is threatening its ongoing democratic transformation.

The 2018 Velvet Revolution dismantled the old status quo, stripping the elites of power and turning them into the major opposition force in the country, the Republican Party, which had been in power since 1999.

This newly formed opposition immediately resorted to branding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his supporters as foreign agents, first as “Soros agents” and after the 2020 44-day war with Azerbaijan as supporters of Armenia’s adversaries, Turkey and Azerbaijan, and as traitors.

This tactic aimed to delegitimise the new government and paint it as a threat to national security.

Pashinyan’s democratically elected government members, in turn, labelled the opponents as the embodiment of the corrupt past, the so-called “blacks”, the main threat to Armenia’s democratic future, while positioning themselves as the “whites”, i.e. the sole defenders of democracy.

This binary framing and the “black and white” division have further contributed to the polarisation of the public, fostering an environment where political opponents are seen as existential threats to the country.

War and peace divide

The 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War further exacerbated this polarisation.

The conflict and its aftermath, including ongoing security crises and contentious negotiations with neighbouring Azerbaijan, have deepened the divide. The government’s handling of these issues has been a focal point of criticism, fueling the opposition’s narratives that present the Pashinyan government as a security threat.

During recent protests, triggered by the government’s efforts to demarcate the borders with Azerbaijan in the northern Tavush region and led by archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, the polarisation escalated further.

Galstanyan stated that the church in Armenia is the last defender of Armenian identity, calling the movement a “holy struggle,” while presenting Pashinyan’s government as the implementation tool of external interests.

Some media outlets, publicly perceived to be affiliated with the members of Pashinyan’s party in turn called Galstanyan and his supporters “pro-Russian actors” and “agents of Russia”.

Although there were many long-time supporters of Russian interests in Armenia among Galstanyan’s immediate supporters, and the pro-Russian media in Armenia openly backed the protesters, there has been no proof of Galstanyan’s links with Russia.

The Armenian National Security Services said that they possess no evidence that could prove Galstanyan’s affiliation with Russian security services.

The movement has largely calmed down following the 15 June violent clashes between the protesters and the police. However, it made the political discourse in the country even more toxic, as anyone with a political opinion could be labelled a “foreign agent”.

Threat of backsliding

Local and international democracy watchdogs, including the Sweden-based V-Dem Institute, have highlighted the negative impact of political polarisation on Armenia’s democracy.

Tigran Grigoryan, the head of the Yerevan-based Regional Center for Democracy and Security, believes the political polarisation is working against the country’s democratisation.

“Both the opposition and the government are trying to delegitimise their political opponents by presenting each other as a threat to Armenia’s independence and sovereignty. This delegitimisation is narrowing the space for political dialogue in the country,” Grigoryan told Euractiv.

“When you claim that your opponent is not just a mere political opponent, but a danger, a “Turkish agent,” a “Soros person,” or similar labels, there is a chance you will use this as grounds for the use of non-constitutional and non-democratic means for overthrowing your opponent,” he continued.

Some actors in the country, however, are convinced that political polarisation is already better than the dominance of one single narrative on important issues such as security or foreign policy. Before this polarisation, the country in general lacked free discussion on sensitive issues.

“It may sound odd, but this polarisation is even necessary. It helps to debate and discuss issues which have been taboo for ages,” Naira Sultanyan, head of Democracy Development Foundation (former OSF-Armenia), told Euractiv.

“This period of polarisation can be an opportunity for growth if it leads to greater transparency, accountability, and a more participatory political culture,” Sultanyan said while highlighting the importance of independent and ethical media for de-escalating the polarisation.

Democracy promoters caught in-between

The trend of labelling of opponents as foreign agents and the political polarisation have strongly impacted civil society and its role as a promoter of democratic reforms.

“Even completely apolitical citizens in Armenia cannot avoid the ‘collateral damage of polarisation. You are ‘obliged’ to loudly and prominently evaluate one side or the other, to curse either the government or the opposition,” said Ashkhen Musheghyan, head of the Union of Informed Citizens, an Armenian NGO that has been advocating for reforms since the 2018 Velvet Revolution.

“The aggressive, often reality-distorting, populist narratives and rhetoric of the polarities, along with accompanying misinformation and manipulations, fill the public space with extremely high ‘noise’, occupying almost all information platforms and channels,” continued Musheghyan.

In this noise, reasonable suggestions, discussions, and criticisms are often drowned out and cannot be heard by the public and decision-makers.

“Although the authorities have initiated several democratisation reforms in recent years, in a polarised information space, they often cannot conduct impartial discussions, and ensure proper communication, or feedback around these reforms of public significance,” Musheghyan said.

There is also an ongoing debate among civil society about whether any type of cooperation with the government on democratic reform packages is acceptable.

In an attempt to distance themselves from the government, some organisations have resorted to rejecting any engagement with government agencies, while others are continuing to selectively engage with different agencies in the hope of promoting reform packages.

However, many of these organisations are paying a high price in a polarised public space, where they are often criticised and targeted by the political opposition and even their peers.

Armenia’s current experience serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance required in transitioning from entrenched authoritarianism to democracy, and the challenges that political polarisation poses to democratisation.

This article is part of the FREIHEIT media project on Europe’s Neighbourhood, funded by the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF).

[Edited by Alexandra Brzozowski/Zoran Radosavljevic]

https://www.euractiv.com/section/armenia/news/armenia-grapples-with-political-polarisation/

 

[MosJan]

 

[MosJan]

Տոտալ տապալում. Ի՞նչ է անում Փաշինյանն ու ինչու՞

 

 

[Yervant1]

---

Business Media, Georgia

July 24 2024

 

 

French Delegation Discusses Cooperation with Armenian NPP and Construction of New Power Unit

Arshaluis Mgdesyan

24.07.24 16:45

•23

 

 

 

On July 23, a delegation led by the French Ambassador to Armenia, Olivier Decottignies, visited the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). The delegation included specialists from the French company Framatome.

During the meeting with the NPP management, important issues of mutual interest were discussed. The areas of the NPP's activities where Armenian-French cooperation is possible were reviewed, and joint projects successfully implemented using French technologies were highlighted.

Particular attention was paid to the possibility of France's participation in the construction of a new power unit in Armenia. The NPP management expressed readiness to cooperate with the French side and to explore proposals for reactor technologies.

The parties presented their proposals and expressed hope for the early start of effective and mutually beneficial cooperation in the discussed areas, according to the NPP's statement.

Earlier, BMG reported that in June 2023, an interdepartmental working group was established in Armenia for the construction of a new nuclear power unit. The operational life of the existing Metsamor NPP has been extended until 2036. In recent years, technical modernization work has been carried out at the plant to extend its operational life.

The main contractor involved in the maintenance of the NPP is "Rosatom." The nuclear fuel for the NPP, uranium, is also imported from Russia. Currently, Armenia is discussing the option of constructing a new NPP using Western modular technologies instead of Russian ones.

The Armenian NPP is the only nuclear power plant in the region, built during the Soviet era near the city of Metsamor. It consists of two power units with VVER-440 reactors. The installed thermal capacity of one unit is 1375 MW, and the electrical capacity is 440 MW.

https://bm.ge/en/news/french-delegation-discusses-cooperation-with-armenian-npp-and-construction-of-new-power-unit