The main issue in Armenia is internal stability

Բնագիրը կցուած է։ Attached is my Google aided translation of the French Armenian political scientist Gaydz Minasian’s interview that the Armenian socio-political platform “Mer Oughin” had posted today, January 11, 2025. The link to the orginal in Armenian is posted below. Vahe H Apelian.

Courtesy "Mer Oughin" 

According to the political scientist, Aliyev's primary desire is for US President Donald Trump to give importance to Azerbaijan as a strong state in the region and to establish strong ties with it. Currently, Azerbaijan’s relation with Russia and Iran is complicated, not simple. Its relations with Turkey are good, but not one-sided. And of course, its relations with Armenia is in a half-war, half-peace. Azerbaijan will always be aggressive towards Armenia in one way or another, but it wants to show Trump that it has problems with Iran, France, and also Russia, and that Azerbaijan is a strong country and that the US should consider it first and foremost in the South Caucasus, and not Armenia. 

As for Yerevan, Gaydz Minasian noted although Armenia is “more sovereign” today than in the previous thirty years, but that is not enough, since there is no level of internal politics within the country that would make the country fully sovereign. If Armenia cannot strengthen and establish itself internally, it will always suffer some kind of slap from someone, in this case from Azerbaijan. What is happening in Armenia? There are almost no internal state institutions. More or less work is being done with the army and the Constitutional Court, but they are not enough. In other respects, everything is at a standstill. The Velvet Revolution remained halfway. Yes, some things were done, but they are not enough at all. Armenia must now understand that the main task facing it is to establish internal stability. It is very simple, why does the so-called political elite of Armenia not understand this? From Levon Ter-Petrosyan to Serzh Sargsyan, plus the ARF Dashnaktsutyun and various charitable associations, amount to absolutely zero. The Armenian opposition is busy serving the interests of a foreign country, Russia. We have no state institutions and no political elite in the country.

The political scientist insisted that focusing only on foreign policy is not right. What do we have to do with Greenland or Panama? Every month a new event takes place in the world. So we should leave our internal issues and deal with analyzing events that have nothing to do with us. What does this give Armenia? Armenia, like many post-Soviet countries, is currently subject to Russian influence. Yes, the Armenian authorities have taken a political course towards the West. But don’t they understand that going to the West is impossible if you don’t change your way of doing things, your style, your mindset? Armenia, with its current mindset, is still the same as Soviet or post-Soviet Armenia. Armenia today must work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if it wants to make real and serious changes, to establish itself as a country, otherwise it is impossible, while we continue with the same way of doing things that we had 30 or more years ago.

Turning to Europe, the political scientist noted that at the moment Europe itself has its own economic and security problems and Macron's speech was precisely about the fact that Europe should not and cannot entrust its entire defense mechanism to the US, Europe must ensure its own security. Seeing all this, we must understand that Europe and Russia have the following attitude towards Armenial Russia wants Armenia (as well as other post-Soviet countries) not to become truly independent and stable, but to have a tsarist government there that will serve Russia's interests. Europe wants to see not a puppet government, but a stable state. 

Armenia should simply understand that it has one overarching task and that task is to become an internally developed state. The necessary priorities for this change to come about are the army, the economy and education, nothing else, the political scientist concluded.

Gaïdz Minassian is a French journalist and political science PhD who works for the daily newspaper Le Monde. He also teaches at Sciences Po Paris. Minasian has written about the Armenian Genocide and how it became a tool of Western diplomacy. He has also considered how Armenia might take advantage of the shift in global geopolitics that has led to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S

The link to the original: https://mer-oughin.am/2025/01/11/%d5%b0%d5%b0-%d5%a3%d5%a5%d6%80%d5%ad%d5%b6%d5%a4%d5%ab%d6%80%d5%a8-%d5%b6%d5%a5%d6%80%d6%84%d5%ab%d5%b6-%d5%af%d5%a1%d5%b5%d5%b8%d6%82%d5%b6%d5%b8%d6%82%d5%a9%d5%b5%d5%b8%d6%82%d5%b6%d5%b6-%d5%a7/

 

SCOTUS is a Legislating Body

Vahe H Apelian

 

The pictures courtesy NY Times.

The debate whether the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution or legislates has long subsided. The consensus that seems to have emerged is that the very interpretation of the Constitution is legislation. Consequently, we have seemed to have resigned or accepted it that the SCOTUS is a panel of 9 persons, educated in law who wear a black gown and  during the State of the Union, sit with a solemn face, do not clap to the president’s address and try to impart an image that they stand above partisan politics, when in fact it was the partisan politics that brought that to that exalted position.

The headlines of NY Times today were very much telling of the SCOTUS’s legislation.

The two headlines were the following

 The first headline heralded the following: A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court.

The first sentence of the report summed the state of the SCOTUS. It read: “Two Republican appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, joined the court’s three liberals in ordering the president-elect to face sentencing on Friday.” That short sentence acknowledged that the appointees of the Supreme Court are judged by their inclination for narrow or more liberal interpretation of the Constitution and their decision has political implication and reflects the political divide of the country, whether they clapped at the State of the Union address or not. 

The appointment of the justices is political more than anything else. No wonder, President Obama was denied to appoint a justice when a vacant seat came about with the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, at the beginning of the presidential election year. The Republican majority in the Senate made it their stated policy to refuse to consider any nominee to the Supreme Court, arguing that the next president should be the one to appoint Scalia's replacement. in the SCOTUS. That seat ended up being filled during Republican Trump administration.

Less than two weeks after taking office, on January 31, 2017, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s former seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate, where Republicans maintained a majority after the 2016 election, confirmed Gorsuch less than three months later, on April 7, 2017.

Whether the president elect Trump should have faced justice should not be a cause for a divided SCOTUS. Why should the president elect, a citizen nonetheless, facing justice be a reason for division in the SCOTUS if not for political consideration? Presently the nine justices are sliced with a clean cut in two camps, six Republican leaning Justices and three Democratic leaning justices. 

                                                                    *** 

The other headline heralded the following: Justices seem Poised to Allow U.S. Tik Tok Ban. The Case Highlights Clash of National Security Concerns and Free Speech.

Tik Tok ban, in my view, is a security issue. SCOTUS should not be the body that rules whether Tik Tok should be banned or not. Of course it is a matter of free speech. The elected officials expressed their opinions without fear and concern for repercussion and for theirs safety and security, to galvanize the nation on an important ruling, whether to ban Tik Tok or not. 

I do not think that founding fathers had the speech of the Chinese in mind when they framed free speech in the U.S. Constitution. 

Imagine that some experts believe it is possible that Apple and Google could decide to not comply with the law, betting that President-elect Donald J. Trump, who has come out in support of TikTok, would direct his attorney general not to enforce it.

Let us face it folks, we are transition from a Republic to an emperorship by the new age meritocrats who have amassed hitherto unbelievable wealth and buy for themselves unbelievable power. Next to the SCOTUS, these select group of few individuals legislate the course of our lives.

Recalling Artsakh history: Remembering Samvel Shahramanyan's inaugural speech

This blog was first titled "From Arayik Harutunyabn to Samvel Shahramanyan, what changed?" It was posted on September 11, 2023, a day after Samvel Shahramanyan was sworn as the 5th president of Artsakh. I had noted that there does not appear to be a change in the fundamental policy of Artsakh which obviously is an existential matter. His inaugurals address focused on the fundamentals, which obviously are a matter of to be or not to be for Artsakh. However, 12 days of his inaugural address, Shahramanyan signed the total capitulation of Artsakh, lock, stock, and barrel, and the abduction of the Artsakh officials presently languishing in dungeons that are the Azeri prisons in Baku. The English translation of the quotes is Google's doing. Vahe H Apelian.

My first reaction to the change of leadership in Artsakh was my expectations that a major change of policy has taken place and that Russia asserted  itself as de facto master of the Caucasus with a Coup de Grâce.

But, has it been that? (http://vhapelian.blogspot.com/2023/09/lachin-corridor-test-of-wills.html)

During his inaugural address to the Artsakh National Assembly, the newly elected president Samvel Shahramanyan addressed the fundamental issues concerning Nagorno-Karabagh, the Lachin corridor, and Stepanakert-Yerevan relations and did not dwell on partisan politics.

First and foremost, the president Samel disputed Azerbaijan’s claim that there is no Nagorno-Karabakh issue any more and that the war has resolved the matter. He noted that it is not so and that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, contrary to Azerbaijan’s claim, is not resolved and that it should have a status. 

I quote, the first point from his inaugural address:

“The Artsakh conflict is not settled, as Azerbaijan claims, therefore Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory that should receive a certain status. (Արցախյան հակամարտությունը կարգավորված չէ, ինչպես պնդում է Ադրբեջանը, հետևաբար Լեռնային Ղարաբաղը հանդիսանում է վիճելի տարածք, որը պետք է ստանա որոշակի կարգավիճակ.”

         The president also noted that in no uncertain terms that Artsakh and Armenia should have a direct transport line and that there is no substitute to the Lachin corridor and that it should be open.  

I quote the second point he made in his inaugural address.

“Artsakh and Armenia should have a direct transport connection, the Lachin Corridor. Contrary to Baku's claims, the latter has been closed for a long time and should be opened. Other regional roads should also be launched, but they cannot replace the Lachine Corridor or be seen as an alternative to it. (Արցախն ու Հայաստանը պետք է ունենան ուղիղ տրանսպորտային հաղորդակցություն՝ Լաչինի միջանցք։ Վերջինս ի հակառակ Բաքվի պնդումների՝ արդեն տևական ժամանակ է փակ է և պետք է բացվի։ Պետք է գործարկվեն նաև տարածաշրջանային այլ ճանապարհներ ևս, սական դրանք չեն կարող փոխարինել Լաչինի միջանցքին, կամ դիտվել դրան այլընտրանք,)”

What was more revealing to me was the third point the new president of Artsakh made in the same inaugural address to the National Assembly of Artsakh noting that Stepanakert should negotiation with Baku. But he mentioned that along with the Russian Federation that there is a “collective west’ that is ready to provide a platform and act as mediator. I do not recall having read in the NA of Artsakh any reference to a “collective west”. I believe that these few words are very significant. 

I quote the third point he made in his inaugural address.

“Stepanakert should negotiate with Baku. Moreover, in this matter, both the Russian Federation and the collective West are ready to provide a platform and act as a mediator, which Azerbaijan is categorically against. (Ստեփանակերտը պետք է բանակցի Բաքվի հետ։ Ընդ որում, այս հարցում, թե ՌԴ-ն և թե հավաքական արևմուտքը պատրաստ են տրամադրել հարթակ և հանդես գալ միջնորդի դերում, ինչին կտրականապես դեմ է Ադրբեջանը:)”

Samvel Shahramanyan, also addressed Stepanakert and Yerevan relations, rather bluntly.

I quote: 

“Rethinking its security concept in the light of post-war realities, the Republic of Armenia actually backed away from its multi-year mission as the guarantor of Artsakh's security and adopted an approach called the peace agenda, the core of which is the recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, including Artsakh, provided that the basic rights of Artsakh Armenians and freedoms.” (Հայաստանի Հանրապետությունը հետպատերազմյան իրողությունների հաշվառմամբ վերանայելով իր անվտանգային հայեցակարգը, փաստացի հետ է կանգնել Արցախի անվտանգության երաշխավորի իր բազմամյա առաքելությունից և որդեգրել է խաղաղության օրակարգ անունով մի մոտեցում, որի առանցքն է կազմում Ադրբեջանի տարածքային ամբողջականության ճանաչելը, ներառյալ Արցախը, պայմանով, որ ապահովված լինեն արցախահայության հիմնական իրավունքներն ու ազատությունները:)

Indeed, Armenia has changed its policy regarding Artsakh. Nikol Pachinyan pursues a policy of peace in the region and as far as Artsakh in Azerbaijan is concerned, I quote Dan Donabedian ““Armenia has never signed a piece of paper recognizing Artsakh as Azerbaijan. Instead, it said it would be willing to do so if and only if the rights and securities of Armenians had guarantees and protections under international assurances.” It is a conditional statement that the president of Artsakh echoes but it is not hard to imagine that Artsakh expects more from Armenia, only if the latter could deliver more.

The president Samvel’s statement has displeased some segments of the citizens of Armenian, not as a divergent policy matter, but simply because as citizens of Armenia, they have shouldered the well-being of Artsakh materially and by blood. It is claimed that 5 to 6% of the Republic of Armenia’s budget, that naturally comes from the taxes the citizens of Armenia pay, is devoted to Artsakh, which presents 1/30 of Armenia's population. We know the inordinate human cost the citizens of Armenia bear having a few thousand of their young sons martyred during the Artakh war/s. 

From Arayik to Samvel, for now, there does not appear to be a change in the fundamental policy of Artsakh which obviously is an existential matter. His inaugurals address focused on the fundamentals that are a matter of to be or not to be for Artsakh. 

I quote president Samvel Shahramanyan:

“Dear Members of Parliament, the essence of the vision presented to you can be summed up in the following brief formulation. strengthening the state and maintaining internal stability, protecting Artsakh's right to self-determination, ensuring its free life and security, promoting the country's economic development, gradually improving the social condition of the people and strengthening law and order. “Հարգելի պատգամավորներ՝ Ձեզ արդեն իսկ ներկայացրած տեսլականի էությունը կարելի է ամփոփել հետևյալ սեղմ ձևակերպմամբ. պետության ամրապնդում և ներքին կայունության պահպանում, Արցախի ինքնորոշման իրավունքի պաշտպանում, նրա ազատ կենսագործունեության և անվտանգության ապահովում, երկրի տնտեսական զարգացման խթանում, ժողովրդի սոցիալական վիճակի աստիճանական բարելավում և օրինականության ու կարգուկանոնի ամրապնդում։”

It is imperative that we read the newly elected president’s inaugural address to formulate an informed opinion for a constructive dialogue in the Diaspora.

 

Recalling Artsakh history: Remembering Samvel Shahramanyan's inaugural speech

This blog was first titled "From Arayik Harutunyabn to Samvel Shahramanyan, what changed?" It was posted on September 11, 2023, a day after Samvel Shahramanyan was sworn as the 5th president of Artsakh. I had noted that “there does not appear to be a change in the fundamental policy of Artsakh which obviously is an existential matter. His inaugurals address focused on the fundamentals, which obviously are a matter of to be or not to be for Artsakh. However, 12 days of his inaugural address, Shahramanyan signed the total capitulation of Artsakh, “lock, stock, and barrel” and the abduction of the Artsakh officials presently languishing in dungeons that are the Azeri prisons in Baku. The English translation of the quotes is Google's doing. Vahe H Apelian

My first reaction to the change of leadership in Artsakh was my expectations that a major change of policy has taken place and that Russia asserted  itself as de facto master of the Caucasus with a Coup de Grâce.

But, has it been that? (http://vhapelian.blogspot.com/2023/09/lachin-corridor-test-of-wills.html)

During his inaugural address to the Artsakh National Assembly, the newly elected president Samvel Shahramanyan addressed the fundamental issues concerning Nagorno-Karabagh, the Lachin corridor, and Stepanakert-Yerevan relations and did not dwell on partisan politics.

First and foremost, the president Samel disputed Azerbaijan’s claim that there is no Nagorno-Karabakh issue any more and that the war has resolved the matter. He noted that it is not so and that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, contrary to Azerbaijan’s claim, is not resolved and that it should have a status. 

I quote, the first point from his inaugural address:

“The Artsakh conflict is not settled, as Azerbaijan claims, therefore Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory that should receive a certain status. (Արցախյան հակամարտությունը կարգավորված չէ, ինչպես պնդում է Ադրբեջանը, հետևաբար Լեռնային Ղարաբաղը հանդիսանում է վիճելի տարածք, որը պետք է ստանա որոշակի կարգավիճակ.”

         The president also noted that in no uncertain terms that Artsakh and Armenia should have a direct transport line and that there is no substitute to the Lachin corridor and that it should be open.  

I quote the second point he made in his inaugural address.

“Artsakh and Armenia should have a direct transport connection, the Lachin Corridor. Contrary to Baku's claims, the latter has been closed for a long time and should be opened. Other regional roads should also be launched, but they cannot replace the Lachine Corridor or be seen as an alternative to it. (Արցախն ու Հայաստանը պետք է ունենան ուղիղ տրանսպորտային հաղորդակցություն՝ Լաչինի միջանցք։ Վերջինս ի հակառակ Բաքվի պնդումների՝ արդեն տևական ժամանակ է փակ է և պետք է բացվի։ Պետք է գործարկվեն նաև տարածաշրջանային այլ ճանապարհներ ևս, սական դրանք չեն կարող փոխարինել Լաչինի միջանցքին, կամ դիտվել դրան այլընտրանք,)”

What was more revealing to me was the third point the new president of Artsakh made in the same inaugural address to the National Assembly of Artsakh noting that Stepanakert should negotiation with Baku. But he mentioned that along with the Russian Federation that there is a “collective west’ that is ready to provide a platform and act as mediator. I do not recall having read in the NA of Artsakh any reference to a “collective west”. I believe that these few words are very significant. 

I quote the third point he made in his inaugural address.

“Stepanakert should negotiate with Baku. Moreover, in this matter, both the Russian Federation and the collective West are ready to provide a platform and act as a mediator, which Azerbaijan is categorically against. (Ստեփանակերտը պետք է բանակցի Բաքվի հետ։ Ընդ որում, այս հարցում, թե ՌԴ-ն և թե հավաքական արևմուտքը պատրաստ են տրամադրել հարթակ և հանդես գալ միջնորդի դերում, ինչին կտրականապես դեմ է Ադրբեջանը:)”

Samvel Shahramanyan, also addressed Stepanakert and Yerevan relations, rather bluntly.

I quote: 

“Rethinking its security concept in the light of post-war realities, the Republic of Armenia actually backed away from its multi-year mission as the guarantor of Artsakh's security and adopted an approach called the peace agenda, the core of which is the recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, including Artsakh, provided that the basic rights of Artsakh Armenians and freedoms.” (Հայաստանի Հանրապետությունը հետպատերազմյան իրողությունների հաշվառմամբ վերանայելով իր անվտանգային հայեցակարգը, փաստացի հետ է կանգնել Արցախի անվտանգության երաշխավորի իր բազմամյա առաքելությունից և որդեգրել է խաղաղության օրակարգ անունով մի մոտեցում, որի առանցքն է կազմում Ադրբեջանի տարածքային ամբողջականության ճանաչելը, ներառյալ Արցախը, պայմանով, որ ապահովված լինեն արցախահայության հիմնական իրավունքներն ու ազատությունները:)

Indeed, Armenia has changed its policy regarding Artsakh. Nikol Pachinyan pursues a policy of peace in the region and as far as Artsakh in Azerbaijan is concerned, I quote Dan Donabedian ““Armenia has never signed a piece of paper recognizing Artsakh as Azerbaijan. Instead, it said it would be willing to do so if and only if the rights and securities of Armenians had guarantees and protections under international assurances.” It is a conditional statement that the president of Artsakh echoes but it is not hard to imagine that Artsakh expects more from Armenia, only if the latter could deliver more.

The president Samvel’s statement has displeased some segments of the citizens of Armenian, not as a divergent policy matter, but simply because as citizens of Armenia, they have shouldered the well-being of Artsakh materially and by blood. It is claimed that 5 to 6% of the Republic of Armenia’s budget, that naturally comes from the taxes the citizens of Armenia pay, is devoted to Artsakh, which presents 1/30 of Armenia's population. We know the inordinate human cost the citizens of Armenia bear having a few thousand of their young sons martyred during the Artakh war/s. 

From Arayik to Samvel, for now, there does not appear to be a change in the fundamental policy of Artsakh which obviously is an existential matter. His inaugurals address focused on the fundamental that is a matter of “to be or not to be” for Artsakh. 

I quote president Samvel Shahramanyan:

“Dear Members of Parliament, the essence of the vision presented to you can be summed up in the following brief formulation. strengthening the state and maintaining internal stability, protecting Artsakh's right to self-determination, ensuring its free life and security, promoting the country's economic development, gradually improving the social condition of the people and strengthening law and order. “Հարգելի պատգամավորներ՝ Ձեզ արդեն իսկ ներկայացրած տեսլականի էությունը կարելի է ամփոփել հետևյալ սեղմ ձևակերպմամբ. պետության ամրապնդում և ներքին կայունության պահպանում, Արցախի ինքնորոշման իրավունքի պաշտպանում, նրա ազատ կենսագործունեության և անվտանգության ապահովում, երկրի տնտեսական զարգացման խթանում, ժողովրդի սոցիալական վիճակի աստիճանական բարելավում և օրինականության ու կարգուկանոնի ամրապնդում։”

It is imperative that we read the newly elected president’s inaugural address to formulate an informed opinion for a constructive dialogue in the Diaspora.

 

Քաղաքականացած, ծանծաղ բանավէճ մը

 Ընթերցանութեան ժամանակ 2 վարկեան

վահէ Յ Աբէլեան

“Հայաստանի Պատմութիւն» կամ «Հայոց Պատմութիւն» բանավէճը քաղաքականացած, ծանծաղ բանավէճ մըն է մանաւանդ սփիւքի մէջ ուր, մեծամասնութեամբ կ'ապրինք եւ հետեւաբար կը սորվինք մեզ հիւրընկալող երկրին պատմութիւնը։  իսկ մեր պատմութեան պրպտումները ընդհանրապէս կ՚ընենք մեզ հիւրընկալ երկրին լեզուով որուն լաւապէս տիրապետած ենք։

եթէ համացանցի որոնման համակարգ Google-ին դիմէք Անգլերէնով, պիտի հանդիպինք հետեւեալին՝ American history ձեր պրպտումը պիտի առաջնորդէ ձեզ «History of the United States-ին – Պատմութիւն Միացեալ Նահանգներու»։ Canadian history-ի պարագային, ձեր պրպտումը պիտի յանգի “History of Canada-ին – Գանատայի Պատմութիւն»։ Նոյնն է պարագան այլ ազգերու  պատմութեան որոնումները։ Բայց եթէ համացանցին վրայ փնտռէք Kurdish history-ին, պիտի հանդիպիք՝ “History of Kurds-ին – Քիւրտերու Պատմութիւն»։

Եթէ համացանցի վրայ ձեր պրպտումը ընէք Հայերէնով, Հայոց պատմութիւնը ձեզ պիտի առաջնորդէ Հայոց պատմութեան բայց եւ պիտի հանդիպիք այս ակնարկին՝ «Անվան այլ կիրառումների տես՝ Հայաստանի պատմություն - այլ կիրառումներ»։ Իսկ նոյն պրպտումը ձեզ պիտի տանի «History of Armenia-ին – Հայաստանի Պատմութիւն», որպէս Հայոց Պատմութիւն  (տես ներքեւը)։ 

Համացանցը ազգի մը պատմութեան որոնումը նոյնացուցած է երկրին հետ, աւելի ճիշդ՝ պետութեան հետ։ Այսինքն ազգին եւ իր պետութեան պատմութիւնը նոյնացած են՝ բացի այն պարագայէն, երբ ազգ մը պետականազուրկ է, ինչպէս է Քիւրտերու պարագային։

Հայաստանի մէջ՝ մինչեւ երկրորդական վարժարան՝ դաստիարակութիւնը տեղի կ'ունենայ պետական դպրոցներու մէջ, նման Ամերիկայի Միացեալ Նահանգներու։  Հետեւաբար անբնական չէ որ պետութիւնը միջամուխ ըլլայ կրթական ծրագրին, ինչպէս կը պատահի Ամերիկայի մէջ։ Օրինակի համար, Ամերիկեան պետութիւնը արգիլած է կրօնի դասաւանդութիւնը Ամերիկայի հանրային դպրոցներէն ներս։ կարգ մը գիրքեր արգիլած են ոչ միայն որպէս դասագիրք, այլ նոյնիսկ դպրոցի գրադարաններէն ներս։ Հետեւաբար անբնական չէ որ Հայաստանի կառավարութիւնը միջամուխ ըլլայ պետական դպրոցներու կրթական ծրագրին։ Հաւանաբար Հայաստանի մէջ կան ոչ պետական դպրոցներ որոնք պետութեան կրթական ծրագիրին կողքին կը գործադրեն նաեւ իրենց կրթական առաքելութիւնը՝ ինչպէս օրինակ՝ օտար լեզուի դասաւանդութիւնը։ Ամերիկայի մէջ, կաթողիկէ  ոչ պետական  դպրոցները կրօն կը դասաւանդեն, բան մը որ արտօնուած չէ պետական դպրոցներէն ներս։

Իմ սերնդակիցներս ոչ թէ հայոց պատմութիւն սորվեցան, այլ դաստիարակուեցան Հայոց Պատմութեամբ։ Իմ մտապատկերիս վրայ դրոշմուած են Սիմոն Սիմոնեանի Հայոց Պատմութեան դասագիրքերը, զորս կարդացեր եմ ոչ միայն պարզապէս իբր դասագիրք, այլ նաեւ մէկէ աւելի անգամ՝ իբր զիս շատ հետաքրքրող ընթերցանութեան գիրքեր, որոնց հերոսները բոցավառած են երեւակայութիւնս։ Ես եւ Իմ սերնդակիցներս ալ, երջանկայիշատակ Գարեգին Ա. Ամենայն Հայոց Կաթողիկոսի խօսքով՝ Հայաստան չծնանք, բայց Հայաստանը ծնաւ մեր մէջ շնորհիւ մանաւանդ Հայոց Պատմութեան։ Բայց անսպասելի չէ որ որ Հայաստանածիներուն համար հայոց պամութեան դասաւանդութեան ընկալումը տարբեր ըլլայ սփիւռքահայուն ընկալումէն։

Բնականաբար ես ալ գիտակից եմ կեանքի չոր իրողութիւններուն։ Հարց տամ ձեզի՝ Կը խորհի՞ք որ Ամերիկայի Միացեալ Նահանգներուն հարաւի սահմանակից երկիրը՝ Մեքսիքան, պատմական Մեքսիքան իր պատմութեան ծրագրին մաս ըրած է։ Կը կարծի՞ք որ Մեքսիքայի պատմութեան մէջ Ամերիկայի Միացեալ Նահանգներու հետ իրենց իրենց ունեցած պատմական հողային հարցերը մաս կը կազմեն իրենց պատմութեան։ Ես կը կասկածիմ։ Ես չեմ լսած Մեքսիքացի քաղաքացի մը որ իր նախագահին հարց տայ որ արդի՞ոք Ամերիկայի New Mexico նահանգը Մեքսիքական հող եղած է անցեալին։ Գէթ երբեմնի ծաւալապաշտ Ամերիկան պահած է անունը։ Ամէնայն հաւանութեամբ Մեքսիքան կը դասաւանդէ ներկայ Միքսիքայի Պատմութիւնը։ Հայաստանի պարագային վարչապետը այդ իրողութիւնը կը կոչէ իրական Հայաստան փոխանակ ներկայ Հայաստան։ 

Եթէ Հայաստանի պետական դպրոցները իրենց պատմութեան դասագիրքը պիտի կոչեն «Հայաստանի Պատմութիւն», ես առարկութիւն չունիմ եւ ոչ ալ տրամաբանօրէն կրնամ ունենալ։ Չմոռնանք որ ներկայ Հայաստանի պատմութեան մէջ Արեւմտեան Ազրպէյճան գոյութիւն չունի, հոն կայ Սունեաց աշխարհը։ Ինչպէս նաեւ ներկայ Մեքսիքայի պատմութեան մէջ չկայ Ամերիկայի Ծոց (Gulf of America), Ամերիկայի նորընտիր նախագահին ակնարկով, բայց կայ Մեքսիքայի Ծոց (Gulf of Mexico).

Չեմ համոզուած որ Հայաստանի մէջ Հայաստանի Պատմութիւն կամ Հայոց Պատմութեան բանավէճը պատմութեան դասաւանդութեան սիրոյն է, այլ ներքին քաղաքական ընդիմադրութեան լծակ մըն է, կամ պատրուակ մըն է։ Որպէս ակադեմական բանավէճ ծանծաղ բանավէճ մըն է։ Մեր պատմութեան ուսուցումը կոչել Հայաստանի Պատմութիւն կամ Հայոց Պատմութիւն ոչ մէկ բան կը նշանակէ։ Հարցը բնականաբար անցեալի իրադարձութիւններուն ուսումնասիրութիւնն է Հայաստանի աշակերտներուն պատմութեան դասագիրքերուն մէջ, ինչ որ ըլլայ պատմութեան դասագիրքին անուանակոչութիւնը։ Իրողութիւնը այն է որ սփիւռքը ըսելիք չունի Հայաստանի կրթական ծրագրին մշակման մէջ, եւ ոչ ալ մասնակից պէտք է որ ըլլայ անոր քաղաքականացած բանավէճին։

Սփիւռքը բնականաբար կրնայ շարունակել դասաւանդել մեր պատմութիւնը որպէս Հայոց Պատմութիւնը եւ կարիքը չունի Հայաստանի արդի հայերէն պատմութեան դասագիրքերուն մանաւանդ որ սփիւռքին մեծամանսութիւնը արդէն չի կրնար Հայերէն կարդալ։

 

Armenia Responds to Ilham Aliyev’s allegations -- 2 -

Բնագիրը կցուած է ներքեւը։ I attached my Google aided translation of the PM Nikol Pashinyan’s response to Ilham Aliyev’s allegation to ARMENPRESS.AM today, January 8, 2025. See the PM Nikol Pashinyan’s Facebook page for the orginial. Vahe H Apelian

 

Mr. Prime Minister, the President of Azerbaijan made aggressive statements in an interview with local TV channels regarding the Republic of Armenia. What is your assessment? – 

Perhaps Baku is trying to create “legitimacy” for escalation in the region. Aggressive statements are being made with the expectation that aggressive responses will be heard from Yerevan, which will give Baku the opportunity to make its own statements more aggressive, combining this with the dissemination of false information about the violation of the ceasefire regime by the Armenian army in order to create a “justification” for a new escalation in the region. We will not follow this path. We will remain committed to the peace strategy and will consistently continue the implementation of the peace agenda. This means that we will use the language of dialogue, not aggression. We will continue to focus on the issues of demarcation, agreement on the text of the peace treaty, the implementation of the “Crossroads of Peace” project, humanitarian issues, including the clarification of the fate of the missing.

The President of Azerbaijan accuses Armenia of being a fascist state. Does this also fit into the logic you mentioned? – 

Without a doubt, because the calculation is that the reaction will be: you are the fascist, and the spiral I described will begin to tighten. But there is another approach. Let's record that Azerbaijan has such a perception of Armenia and try to understand what the reason is. On the other hand, it is obvious that the Republic of Armenia also has such a perception of Azerbaijan. It is precisely these mutual perceptions that have led to the multi-year conflict. But the peace strategy is for us to record that Azerbaijan has such a perception of us, and for them to record that Armenia has such a perception of them. The peace agenda is about discussing and addressing these perceptions. Some of the agreed articles of the draft peace treaty close the page on some of these perceptions, while other parts provide an opportunity to make all mutual negative perceptions part of the bilateral agenda and address them. I would like to add that we have proposed solutions regarding the two articles of the peace treaty that were not agreed upon and, in case of a positive response from Azerbaijan, we are ready to sign the treaty.

The President of Azerbaijan has again spoken about the corridor, saying that it must be opened and will be opened. What does this mean?

 The Republic of Armenia has put the "Crossroads of Peace" project on the table and is preparing to implement it. There is no other project on our agenda. "Crossroads of Peace" implies the opening of all transport communications in the region, including Azerbaijan-Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia and Armenia-Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan. I have already had the opportunity to announce that we have made a very specific proposal to Azerbaijan to open the Yeraskh-Sadarak-Ordubad-Meghri-Zangelan railway. This is more than a proposal, it is a specific solution to specific issues, and we are waiting for a positive response from Azerbaijan, after which the agreement will be recorded on paper, and we will begin the construction of our sections of the railway.

And what do you say about Aliyev's statement yesterday about the so-called "Western Azerbaijan"?

 Nothing new has been said on this topic for me to have a new response. And I responded to what was said previously in a previous interview with "Armenpress". I reaffirm my answer.

The President of Azerbaijan has again spoken about the armament of the Republic of Armenia, saying that it will only bring new tension to the region.

I have repeatedly touched on this topic. There is no element of illegitimacy in the agenda of the reforms of the army of the Republic of Armenia. I must repeat that the Republic of Armenia recognizes the territorial integrity of all its neighbors, including Azerbaijan, and expects the same, that is, clear and unconditional recognition of the territorial integrity of Armenia from Azerbaijan. I have also stated that we do not set a goal of returning more than 200 square kilometers of occupied territories of the Republic of Armenia by military means, because the demarcation process provides an opportunity to address this issue peacefully, through negotiations. Having stated all this, no one can dispute the right of the Republic of Armenia to have a capable army. As for the concerns related to armament, we also have concerns about the armament by Azerbaijan, and we have also heard their concerns. This is the reason why we have proposed to Azerbaijan to form a mechanism for mutual control of armaments and are waiting for their response.

In recent days, Azerbaijan has repeatedly spread information that the Armenian army has allegedly violated the ceasefire regime on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border.

The Armenian Ministry of Defense denied this information, recalling the proposal to create a joint mechanism for investigating cases of ceasefire violations. - Of course, the information about the violation of the ceasefire regime by our army does not correspond to reality. But in order not to make such situations a reason for periodic debates, we have proposed creating a joint mechanism to jointly check every alarm about the violation of the ceasefire regime and come to joint conclusions. We are waiting for Azerbaijan's response. 

 Ilham Aliyev also said that the next meeting of the demarcation commissions will take place in January.

Yes, a meeting is planned in January. I am convinced that the positive experience of the demarcation that took place in 2024 should be developed calmly, in working conditions. We are disposed to such work. Subscribe to our channel on Telegram

Բնագիրը՝ https://armenpress.am/hy/article/1208938?fbclid=IwY2xjawHwF8ZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeVBKiyrDn4-iNAJb36izWaFL-DyvbtXJnMDUuAGXPZCOmIEkT0PSWgkBQ_aem_BYbev3gTrpN7483frvyfxw

 

 

  

 

 

In memory of Annais Apelian Toutikian

 Vahe H. Apelian

Anna-the-bride (Anna Titizian Apelian), Anna Khatcher Chelebian, 
Annais Apelian Toutikian, Annie Chelebian Hoglind

Yesterday I read that Annais (Apelian) Toutikiian succumbed to her illness and passed away on Thursday January 2, 2025, in Canada. She was a family relation. My late mother took special pride noting that Annais was dressed up for her wedding to Joseph Toutikiian in her house in Antelias, Lebanon and that she escorted her out for her wedding.  She took immense pride in seeing the family Annais and Joseph had formed and wrote about her sentiments in that regard in a Kessab yearbook of years past.

The family relations were deep. Annais paternal grandfather Kerop Apelian was my mother’s maternal uncle, that is to say Kerop was the brother of mother’s mother, my maternal grandmother Karoun (Apelian) Chelebian. Annais’ mother Sirvart Chelebian, was my mother's paternal aunt, that is to say Sirvart was the daughter of my mother’s  paternal uncle.  My maternal grandparents Khacher Chelebian and Karoun Apelian were married in their makeshift camp in Attiyeh Syria, where they were driven in 1915 along many Kessabtsis, instead of to Deir ez Zor.

Annais’ obituary noted that she was born in 1950 in Keurkune, Kessab, Apelian family’s ancestral village. That makes her four years my junior. There is also much history associated with Annais’ name as well, that goes way back to her paternal grandmother Anna (Titilzian) Apelian. Annais’ brother, the late Kevork George Apelian immortalized their paternal grandmother Anna in his book, “Anna the bride”. 

Annais’ grandmother Anna’s marriage to Kerop had been the sensational event in Kessab of their days. It had come about by elopement. Anna had done the unthinkable. She had crossed all by herself in the darkness of the night and through the eerie silence of the  gorge and walked all alone all the way from the coastal village Kaladouran to Keurkune to her lover's parent's house, to the utter astonishment of his parents and only sister, my grandmother Karoun. Something had gone terribly wrong. Trusted intermediaries had worked out a plan. Kerop and his friends were to meet Anna in the cover of the night and escort her to his house. But the lovers missed either the rendezvous point or the timing, so Anna took upon herself to finish the task and walked to  Kerop’s parent's house and waited for her lover’s return. Never in greater Kessab had a girl walked all by herself to her lover’s house before. She had always been free spirited with a mind of her own and was also known for her beauty. 

Anna, however, was not to experience the tranquility of a family life with the man she chose to love. In time Kerop Apelian left his pregnant wife Anna and their firstborn child Kevork behind in Keurkune, under the care of his parents and sister, my grandmother Karoun,  and joined his two brothers in New York to have his family join him after settling in the New World. When his pregnant wife gave birth to their second son, Kerop sent word from America to name him James for the family was to join him in America. But that was not to be. 

In June 1915, Anna and her two young sons; her in laws, Kerop’s father Hanno, and Kerop’s mother, also Anna; and her sister-in-law, my maternal grandmother Karoun, were forcefully driven into the interior of Syria. Only my grandmother Karoun and Anna’s young son James survived the ordeal. The rest fell victims to the first genocide of the 20th century.   

"Anna the Bride" by Kevork George Apelian.
The book has been translated to Arabic,
 English by Annie Hoglind
and to Italian

In time James Apelian joined his father in America but did not want to live there, and returned to keurkune where he married Sirvart Chelebian, my maternal grandmother Karoun (Apelian) Chelebian’s sister-in-law.  Three children survived to adulthood from that marriage, Kevork George, Annais, and Kerop.

James and Sirvart (Chelebian) Apelian had named their first-born daughter Anna, in memory of child’s paternal grandmother Anna. But the child died in her infancy. My widowed grandmother’s youngest child also named Anna,  died of pneumonia when she was vivacious sixteen years old beautiful girl and was also buried in the Keurkune’s ancient cemetery next to her father Khatcher who also had died due to pneumonia at the age of 38. Anna’s tombstone reads in Armenian: “Here rests Anna K. Chelebian (1928-1945), “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mathew 5:8). 

My grandmother Karoun ruled out naming any daughter Anna, henceforth. But the memories of the Annas lingered. Thus, a variation of the name Anna evolved in the persons of my maternal cousin Annie (Chelebian) Hoglind, and in the person of Annais (Apelian) Toutikian. Both of whom became proud grandmothers.

I convey my deepest condolences to Annais’ husband Joseph and their two sons Haig James, Troy Aram and daughter Maria Sira and their children.