Book Reviews
An interview with Turgut Kerem Tuncel, PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Trento (Italy).
Mr. Tuncel, native of Turkey, is in Armenia to do research for his thesis entitled “Mayr Hayastan, Im Hayrenik; The memory and politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”.
What prompted you to do your thesis on the Armenian experience?
Well, it all came out of my initial interest in Jewish studies and anti-Semitism. Then I decided to make a comparative study of the survival strategies of the Jewish and Armenian communities in Turkey. Then, I started to focus on the Armenian community there and the concept of the “diaspora”.
It was how the Republic of Armenia was portraying itself as the homeland of all Armenians that intrigued me, given that most Armenians in the diaspora derive from eastern Anatolia. This construct of the current Armenian identity was of interest to me.
What did this comparative study between the Jewish and Armenian experiences show?
Briefly, the two tragedies experienced by these two people resulted in opposite realities. In the Jewish case, the Holocaust, in many ways, resulted in the consolidation of the Jewish state, while 1915 resulted in the diasporization of the Armenian people.
Have you looked at the repatriation issue in Armenia during your research? The differences between Israel and Armenia in this regard are glaring?
Actually, the repatriation issue is a major component of my research. It directly ties in to this concept of the Republic of Armenia (RoA) as the homeland for all Armenians.
I’d say that what is being done here in Armenia can be best described a “lip service”. And there are many underlying reasons for this.
Many Armenians from the RoA actually want to leave for socio-economic and other reasons. So how can the government invite Armenians from Paris or Los Angeles, living relatively comfortable lives, to relocate? What will these people do here?
The economic, political and social infrastructure in Armenia is not sufficient to sustain any serious repatriation.
Here, I’d like to remind you of Theodore Herzl’s work “The Jewish State”. The second part of the book gives a very detailed approach to the repatriation of Jews to the land of Israel. Herzl lay down a very rational outline.
I don’t see the same thing in Armenia or in the diaspora press. For example, there is talk of creating a Pan-Armenian National Council but you won’t find any details on the website of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. Then there was the idea of creating a two-chamber parliament in Armenia to get the diaspora represented. This too seemed to me less than serious
You include the word ‘memory’ in the title of your dissertation. The memory of the traditional diaspora is that of pre-1915 western Armenia. If this collective memory of the past is a major component of the current identity of so many diaspora Armenians, how can the RoA redirect this focus and serve as a rallying point today?
This is a problematic aspect of the diaspora – homeland issue. When you look at some segments of the diaspora, you can say they live in a strange mental world. They live in the present day but their minds are always returning to the pre-1915 period.
The diaspora could be a real asset for Armenia and the country really needs all the assets it can attract. But the traditional diaspora, or let’s say the leadership of the traditional diaspora, they cannot grasp the reality of current Armenia due to this focus on an idealized past.
Thus, I believe young diaspora Armenians must establish real relations and ties with this Armenia in 2011. They must reach out to the Armenia of today and not with that of their grandparents in order to help solve the myriad problems now facing the RoA.
So, can we say that there are two ‘homelands’ competing for the hearts and minds of the traditional Armenian diaspora?
Well, I am sure there are some Armenians who say they do not identify with current Armenia but I would also say that after the creation of the third republic in 1991, more and more diaspora Armenians and organizations have realized that, on a practical level at least, the RoA should be the focus of their energies.
In a way, those talking about a return to western Armenia may be a convenient excuse to not doing more, or even relocating, to the Armenia of today. It would be a challenge for them to leave what they know and are comfortable with in France or the U.S. and move to an Armenia that faces many problems.
This is understandable. We are all human beings. But they have to face reality and not overlook the fact that the Armenia of today needs a lot of help.
You talk about “the politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”. Can we assume that the RoA government has a political agenda in mind – creating an image of an Armenia where the concept of “love it or leave it” holds sway?
Well let’s look at the official state discourse – the attempt to portray the RoA as the homeland for all Armenians. Of course it’s a political strategy to connect the diaspora to Yerevan and tap into its resources.
In this sense, it’s a very understandable strategy on the part of the RoA government.
This divide between the traditional diaspora and the RoA probably manifests itself most clearly on the Genocide issue. Many argue the Turkish government seeks to manipulate the issue and thus divide the hard-line diaspora with a more malleable RoA. What’s your view?
All I can say is that the general perception in Turkey is that the diaspora takes a more hard-line approach as compared to the RoA. Just look at the fallout resulting from the Protocol debate. But as to whether Ankara has adopted a policy to play one off the other, I can’t say.
What I would like to add is that the RoA government, in turn, has somehow manipulated the issue as well. By creating this bogeyman image of Turkey, it has made calls for national unity and greater support for Armenia. In a way, it has sought the “unquestioning” loyalty of the diaspora in the name of national unity. This too is a fact.
This is your third visit to Armenia and you’ve been here for two months now. Can you give me a few general impressions?
Well, I came here to do research for my thesis and have interviewed several diaspora Armenians who have relocated but I also wanted to get a feel for the country and the people.
On a personal level, I have had positive experiences and have encountered no hostility when people find out I am Turkish.
I find it interesting that the press in Armenia has daily articles on Turkey and developments there. Mostly the press focuses on the negative aspects and not on the recent changes for the positive. This isn’t to say that Turkey doesn’t have problems and that conditions for Armenians living there aren’t problematic. Not at all.
I rented an apartment here and would always go to the same small shop to get bread and some breakfast. The sales ladies would always smile and joke with me. One day they asked where I was from and I told them I was from Turkey. Then they asked if I was Armenian or Turkish. I said, Turkish .After that, their smiles faded.
Another time, I and a few friends were at a nightclub in Yerevan. I went out for a smoke and there was a security guard outside smoking as well. He asked me where I was from. I said, Turkey. He asked if I was an Armenian from Turkey in a kind of aggressive way. I figured I should answer that yes, I was. He then started to interrogate me. Was my father and mother Armenian? I guess he didn’t believe me. It was getting a bit heated. The guy then told me that “I have killed Turks in Karabakh” and repeated this. All I could say was “Ok” and then I left.
This was the only time I felt really uneasy in Armenia. I would like to say that I feel safer in Yerevan than I do in Istanbul. Armenians, I have found, are not an aggressive people.
You have met with repatriates and average citizens here. What about your meetings with officials and the academia? Did you encounter any problems in getting them to sit down and talk with you?
I tried to arrange interviews with the major political parties but only two agreed to talk with me – the Armenian National Congress and Heritage. The others declined but never told me why.
I also spoke to a number of intellectuals and university professors. To be honest, I heard more interesting views and ideas from ordinary people than from the intelligentsia in Armenia. I don’t want to sound over judgemental, but the role of intellectuals is to bring forth new approaches and concepts – in a way to make us angry and challenge us.
What I heard from most, not all, were the same old stories and prejudices regarding the Armenia-Turkish issue.
Maybe a majority of intellectuals in Armenia are too conformist or opportunist when it comes to opening new doors. It makes me somewhat less optimistic regarding the future.
What about preconceived notions of Armenians in Turkey, amongst average citizens?
Let me give you a concrete example. Several years ago there was a quantitative study conducted jointly in Armenia and Turkey about their views of the other.
What the research showed was that the average Turkish person knows very little about Armenians. But, recently, amongst university students and some intellectuals, there’s a growing interest in Armenia and the culture. Again, it’s a new process of learning.
Armenians, on the other hand, have a certain knowledge and understanding of Turkey. This is another asymmetry between the two peoples.
There’s less coverage in the mainstream Turkish press about Armenia than the other way around.
Armenia isn’t a top priority when it comes to Turkish foreign policy. In the end, though, relations between the two neighbouring states must be normalized and this will require more dialogue and understanding of the other.
Source: Hetq – Originial Article
Related posts:
- Are Turkish-Armenians Diaspora?: Istanbul journalist says Turkey’s Armenians live in their historical lands
- Serzh Sargsyan will hear out Diaspora’s opinion on RA-Turkish protocols
- Turkish Intellectuals Call on Turkish Society to Commemorate Victims of The Armenian Genocide
- More than Turkish Armenians, Ethnic Turks have Interest in Business with Armenia: Expert
- Seven Armenians Seek Seats In Turkish Parliament
An interview with Turgut Kerem Tuncel, PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Trento (Italy).
Mr. Tuncel, native of Turkey, is in Armenia to do research for his thesis entitled “Mayr Hayastan, Im Hayrenik; The memory and politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”.
What prompted you to do your thesis on the Armenian experience?
Well, it all came out of my initial interest in Jewish studies and anti-Semitism. Then I decided to make a comparative study of the survival strategies of the Jewish and Armenian communities in Turkey. Then, I started to focus on the Armenian community there and the concept of the “diaspora”.
It was how the Republic of Armenia was portraying itself as the homeland of all Armenians that intrigued me, given that most Armenians in the diaspora derive from eastern Anatolia. This construct of the current Armenian identity was of interest to me.
What did this comparative study between the Jewish and Armenian experiences show?
Briefly, the two tragedies experienced by these two people resulted in opposite realities. In the Jewish case, the Holocaust, in many ways, resulted in the consolidation of the Jewish state, while 1915 resulted in the diasporization of the Armenian people.
Have you looked at the repatriation issue in Armenia during your research? The differences between Israel and Armenia in this regard are glaring?
Actually, the repatriation issue is a major component of my research. It directly ties in to this concept of the Republic of Armenia (RoA) as the homeland for all Armenians.
I’d say that what is being done here in Armenia can be best described a “lip service”. And there are many underlying reasons for this.
Many Armenians from the RoA actually want to leave for socio-economic and other reasons. So how can the government invite Armenians from Paris or Los Angeles, living relatively comfortable lives, to relocate? What will these people do here?
The economic, political and social infrastructure in Armenia is not sufficient to sustain any serious repatriation.
Here, I’d like to remind you of Theodore Herzl’s work “The Jewish State”. The second part of the book gives a very detailed approach to the repatriation of Jews to the land of Israel. Herzl lay down a very rational outline.
I don’t see the same thing in Armenia or in the diaspora press. For example, there is talk of creating a Pan-Armenian National Council but you won’t find any details on the website of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. Then there was the idea of creating a two-chamber parliament in Armenia to get the diaspora represented. This too seemed to me less than serious
You include the word ‘memory’ in the title of your dissertation. The memory of the traditional diaspora is that of pre-1915 western Armenia. If this collective memory of the past is a major component of the current identity of so many diaspora Armenians, how can the RoA redirect this focus and serve as a rallying point today?
This is a problematic aspect of the diaspora – homeland issue. When you look at some segments of the diaspora, you can say they live in a strange mental world. They live in the present day but their minds are always returning to the pre-1915 period.
The diaspora could be a real asset for Armenia and the country really needs all the assets it can attract. But the traditional diaspora, or let’s say the leadership of the traditional diaspora, they cannot grasp the reality of current Armenia due to this focus on an idealized past.
Thus, I believe young diaspora Armenians must establish real relations and ties with this Armenia in 2011. They must reach out to the Armenia of today and not with that of their grandparents in order to help solve the myriad problems now facing the RoA.
So, can we say that there are two ‘homelands’ competing for the hearts and minds of the traditional Armenian diaspora?
Well, I am sure there are some Armenians who say they do not identify with current Armenia but I would also say that after the creation of the third republic in 1991, more and more diaspora Armenians and organizations have realized that, on a practical level at least, the RoA should be the focus of their energies.
In a way, those talking about a return to western Armenia may be a convenient excuse to not doing more, or even relocating, to the Armenia of today. It would be a challenge for them to leave what they know and are comfortable with in France or the U.S. and move to an Armenia that faces many problems.
This is understandable. We are all human beings. But they have to face reality and not overlook the fact that the Armenia of today needs a lot of help.
You talk about “the politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”. Can we assume that the RoA government has a political agenda in mind – creating an image of an Armenia where the concept of “love it or leave it” holds sway?
Well let’s look at the official state discourse – the attempt to portray the RoA as the homeland for all Armenians. Of course it’s a political strategy to connect the diaspora to Yerevan and tap into its resources.
In this sense, it’s a very understandable strategy on the part of the RoA government.
This divide between the traditional diaspora and the RoA probably manifests itself most clearly on the Genocide issue. Many argue the Turkish government seeks to manipulate the issue and thus divide the hard-line diaspora with a more malleable RoA. What’s your view?
All I can say is that the general perception in Turkey is that the diaspora takes a more hard-line approach as compared to the RoA. Just look at the fallout resulting from the Protocol debate. But as to whether Ankara has adopted a policy to play one off the other, I can’t say.
What I would like to add is that the RoA government, in turn, has somehow manipulated the issue as well. By creating this bogeyman image of Turkey, it has made calls for national unity and greater support for Armenia. In a way, it has sought the “unquestioning” loyalty of the diaspora in the name of national unity. This too is a fact.
This is your third visit to Armenia and you’ve been here for two months now. Can you give me a few general impressions?
Well, I came here to do research for my thesis and have interviewed several diaspora Armenians who have relocated but I also wanted to get a feel for the country and the people.
On a personal level, I have had positive experiences and have encountered no hostility when people find out I am Turkish.
I find it interesting that the press in Armenia has daily articles on Turkey and developments there. Mostly the press focuses on the negative aspects and not on the recent changes for the positive. This isn’t to say that Turkey doesn’t have problems and that conditions for Armenians living there aren’t problematic. Not at all.
I rented an apartment here and would always go to the same small shop to get bread and some breakfast. The sales ladies would always smile and joke with me. One day they asked where I was from and I told them I was from Turkey. Then they asked if I was Armenian or Turkish. I said, Turkish .After that, their smiles faded.
Another time, I and a few friends were at a nightclub in Yerevan. I went out for a smoke and there was a security guard outside smoking as well. He asked me where I was from. I said, Turkey. He asked if I was an Armenian from Turkey in a kind of aggressive way. I figured I should answer that yes, I was. He then started to interrogate me. Was my father and mother Armenian? I guess he didn’t believe me. It was getting a bit heated. The guy then told me that “I have killed Turks in Karabakh” and repeated this. All I could say was “Ok” and then I left.
This was the only time I felt really uneasy in Armenia. I would like to say that I feel safer in Yerevan than I do in Istanbul. Armenians, I have found, are not an aggressive people.
You have met with repatriates and average citizens here. What about your meetings with officials and the academia? Did you encounter any problems in getting them to sit down and talk with you?
I tried to arrange interviews with the major political parties but only two agreed to talk with me – the Armenian National Congress and Heritage. The others declined but never told me why.
I also spoke to a number of intellectuals and university professors. To be honest, I heard more interesting views and ideas from ordinary people than from the intelligentsia in Armenia. I don’t want to sound over judgemental, but the role of intellectuals is to bring forth new approaches and concepts – in a way to make us angry and challenge us.
What I heard from most, not all, were the same old stories and prejudices regarding the Armenia-Turkish issue.
Maybe a majority of intellectuals in Armenia are too conformist or opportunist when it comes to opening new doors. It makes me somewhat less optimistic regarding the future.
What about preconceived notions of Armenians in Turkey, amongst average citizens?
Let me give you a concrete example. Several years ago there was a quantitative study conducted jointly in Armenia and Turkey about their views of the other.
What the research showed was that the average Turkish person knows very little about Armenians. But, recently, amongst university students and some intellectuals, there’s a growing interest in Armenia and the culture. Again, it’s a new process of learning.
Armenians, on the other hand, have a certain knowledge and understanding of Turkey. This is another asymmetry between the two peoples.
There’s less coverage in the mainstream Turkish press about Armenia than the other way around.
Armenia isn’t a top priority when it comes to Turkish foreign policy. In the end, though, relations between the two neighbouring states must be normalized and this will require more dialogue and understanding of the other.
Source: Hetq – Originial Article
Related posts:
- Are Turkish-Armenians Diaspora?: Istanbul journalist says Turkey’s Armenians live in their historical lands
- Serzh Sargsyan will hear out Diaspora’s opinion on RA-Turkish protocols
- Turkish Intellectuals Call on Turkish Society to Commemorate Victims of The Armenian Genocide
- More than Turkish Armenians, Ethnic Turks have Interest in Business with Armenia: Expert
- Seven Armenians Seek Seats In Turkish Parliament
An interview with Turgut Kerem Tuncel, PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Trento (Italy).
Mr. Tuncel, native of Turkey, is in Armenia to do research for his thesis entitled “Mayr Hayastan, Im Hayrenik; The memory and politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”.
What prompted you to do your thesis on the Armenian experience?
Well, it all came out of my initial interest in Jewish studies and anti-Semitism. Then I decided to make a comparative study of the survival strategies of the Jewish and Armenian communities in Turkey. Then, I started to focus on the Armenian community there and the concept of the “diaspora”.
It was how the Republic of Armenia was portraying itself as the homeland of all Armenians that intrigued me, given that most Armenians in the diaspora derive from eastern Anatolia. This construct of the current Armenian identity was of interest to me.
What did this comparative study between the Jewish and Armenian experiences show?
Briefly, the two tragedies experienced by these two people resulted in opposite realities. In the Jewish case, the Holocaust, in many ways, resulted in the consolidation of the Jewish state, while 1915 resulted in the diasporization of the Armenian people.
Have you looked at the repatriation issue in Armenia during your research? The differences between Israel and Armenia in this regard are glaring?
Actually, the repatriation issue is a major component of my research. It directly ties in to this concept of the Republic of Armenia (RoA) as the homeland for all Armenians.
I’d say that what is being done here in Armenia can be best described a “lip service”. And there are many underlying reasons for this.
Many Armenians from the RoA actually want to leave for socio-economic and other reasons. So how can the government invite Armenians from Paris or Los Angeles, living relatively comfortable lives, to relocate? What will these people do here?
The economic, political and social infrastructure in Armenia is not sufficient to sustain any serious repatriation.
Here, I’d like to remind you of Theodore Herzl’s work “The Jewish State”. The second part of the book gives a very detailed approach to the repatriation of Jews to the land of Israel. Herzl lay down a very rational outline.
I don’t see the same thing in Armenia or in the diaspora press. For example, there is talk of creating a Pan-Armenian National Council but you won’t find any details on the website of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. Then there was the idea of creating a two-chamber parliament in Armenia to get the diaspora represented. This too seemed to me less than serious
You include the word ‘memory’ in the title of your dissertation. The memory of the traditional diaspora is that of pre-1915 western Armenia. If this collective memory of the past is a major component of the current identity of so many diaspora Armenians, how can the RoA redirect this focus and serve as a rallying point today?
This is a problematic aspect of the diaspora – homeland issue. When you look at some segments of the diaspora, you can say they live in a strange mental world. They live in the present day but their minds are always returning to the pre-1915 period.
The diaspora could be a real asset for Armenia and the country really needs all the assets it can attract. But the traditional diaspora, or let’s say the leadership of the traditional diaspora, they cannot grasp the reality of current Armenia due to this focus on an idealized past.
Thus, I believe young diaspora Armenians must establish real relations and ties with this Armenia in 2011. They must reach out to the Armenia of today and not with that of their grandparents in order to help solve the myriad problems now facing the RoA.
So, can we say that there are two ‘homelands’ competing for the hearts and minds of the traditional Armenian diaspora?
Well, I am sure there are some Armenians who say they do not identify with current Armenia but I would also say that after the creation of the third republic in 1991, more and more diaspora Armenians and organizations have realized that, on a practical level at least, the RoA should be the focus of their energies.
In a way, those talking about a return to western Armenia may be a convenient excuse to not doing more, or even relocating, to the Armenia of today. It would be a challenge for them to leave what they know and are comfortable with in France or the U.S. and move to an Armenia that faces many problems.
This is understandable. We are all human beings. But they have to face reality and not overlook the fact that the Armenia of today needs a lot of help.
You talk about “the politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”. Can we assume that the RoA government has a political agenda in mind – creating an image of an Armenia where the concept of “love it or leave it” holds sway?
Well let’s look at the official state discourse – the attempt to portray the RoA as the homeland for all Armenians. Of course it’s a political strategy to connect the diaspora to Yerevan and tap into its resources.
In this sense, it’s a very understandable strategy on the part of the RoA government.
This divide between the traditional diaspora and the RoA probably manifests itself most clearly on the Genocide issue. Many argue the Turkish government seeks to manipulate the issue and thus divide the hard-line diaspora with a more malleable RoA. What’s your view?
All I can say is that the general perception in Turkey is that the diaspora takes a more hard-line approach as compared to the RoA. Just look at the fallout resulting from the Protocol debate. But as to whether Ankara has adopted a policy to play one off the other, I can’t say.
What I would like to add is that the RoA government, in turn, has somehow manipulated the issue as well. By creating this bogeyman image of Turkey, it has made calls for national unity and greater support for Armenia. In a way, it has sought the “unquestioning” loyalty of the diaspora in the name of national unity. This too is a fact.
This is your third visit to Armenia and you’ve been here for two months now. Can you give me a few general impressions?
Well, I came here to do research for my thesis and have interviewed several diaspora Armenians who have relocated but I also wanted to get a feel for the country and the people.
On a personal level, I have had positive experiences and have encountered no hostility when people find out I am Turkish.
I find it interesting that the press in Armenia has daily articles on Turkey and developments there. Mostly the press focuses on the negative aspects and not on the recent changes for the positive. This isn’t to say that Turkey doesn’t have problems and that conditions for Armenians living there aren’t problematic. Not at all.
I rented an apartment here and would always go to the same small shop to get bread and some breakfast. The sales ladies would always smile and joke with me. One day they asked where I was from and I told them I was from Turkey. Then they asked if I was Armenian or Turkish. I said, Turkish .After that, their smiles faded.
Another time, I and a few friends were at a nightclub in Yerevan. I went out for a smoke and there was a security guard outside smoking as well. He asked me where I was from. I said, Turkey. He asked if I was an Armenian from Turkey in a kind of aggressive way. I figured I should answer that yes, I was. He then started to interrogate me. Was my father and mother Armenian? I guess he didn’t believe me. It was getting a bit heated. The guy then told me that “I have killed Turks in Karabakh” and repeated this. All I could say was “Ok” and then I left.
This was the only time I felt really uneasy in Armenia. I would like to say that I feel safer in Yerevan than I do in Istanbul. Armenians, I have found, are not an aggressive people.
You have met with repatriates and average citizens here. What about your meetings with officials and the academia? Did you encounter any problems in getting them to sit down and talk with you?
I tried to arrange interviews with the major political parties but only two agreed to talk with me – the Armenian National Congress and Heritage. The others declined but never told me why.
I also spoke to a number of intellectuals and university professors. To be honest, I heard more interesting views and ideas from ordinary people than from the intelligentsia in Armenia. I don’t want to sound over judgemental, but the role of intellectuals is to bring forth new approaches and concepts – in a way to make us angry and challenge us.
What I heard from most, not all, were the same old stories and prejudices regarding the Armenia-Turkish issue.
Maybe a majority of intellectuals in Armenia are too conformist or opportunist when it comes to opening new doors. It makes me somewhat less optimistic regarding the future.
What about preconceived notions of Armenians in Turkey, amongst average citizens?
Let me give you a concrete example. Several years ago there was a quantitative study conducted jointly in Armenia and Turkey about their views of the other.
What the research showed was that the average Turkish person knows very little about Armenians. But, recently, amongst university students and some intellectuals, there’s a growing interest in Armenia and the culture. Again, it’s a new process of learning.
Armenians, on the other hand, have a certain knowledge and understanding of Turkey. This is another asymmetry between the two peoples.
There’s less coverage in the mainstream Turkish press about Armenia than the other way around.
Armenia isn’t a top priority when it comes to Turkish foreign policy. In the end, though, relations between the two neighbouring states must be normalized and this will require more dialogue and understanding of the other.
Source: Hetq – Originial Article
Related posts:
- Are Turkish-Armenians Diaspora?: Istanbul journalist says Turkey’s Armenians live in their historical lands
- Serzh Sargsyan will hear out Diaspora’s opinion on RA-Turkish protocols
- Turkish Intellectuals Call on Turkish Society to Commemorate Victims of The Armenian Genocide
- More than Turkish Armenians, Ethnic Turks have Interest in Business with Armenia: Expert
- Seven Armenians Seek Seats In Turkish Parliament
An interview with Turgut Kerem Tuncel, PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Trento (Italy).
Mr. Tuncel, native of Turkey, is in Armenia to do research for his thesis entitled “Mayr Hayastan, Im Hayrenik; The memory and politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”.
What prompted you to do your thesis on the Armenian experience?
Well, it all came out of my initial interest in Jewish studies and anti-Semitism. Then I decided to make a comparative study of the survival strategies of the Jewish and Armenian communities in Turkey. Then, I started to focus on the Armenian community there and the concept of the “diaspora”.
It was how the Republic of Armenia was portraying itself as the homeland of all Armenians that intrigued me, given that most Armenians in the diaspora derive from eastern Anatolia. This construct of the current Armenian identity was of interest to me.
What did this comparative study between the Jewish and Armenian experiences show?
Briefly, the two tragedies experienced by these two people resulted in opposite realities. In the Jewish case, the Holocaust, in many ways, resulted in the consolidation of the Jewish state, while 1915 resulted in the diasporization of the Armenian people.
Have you looked at the repatriation issue in Armenia during your research? The differences between Israel and Armenia in this regard are glaring?
Actually, the repatriation issue is a major component of my research. It directly ties in to this concept of the Republic of Armenia (RoA) as the homeland for all Armenians.
I’d say that what is being done here in Armenia can be best described a “lip service”. And there are many underlying reasons for this.
Many Armenians from the RoA actually want to leave for socio-economic and other reasons. So how can the government invite Armenians from Paris or Los Angeles, living relatively comfortable lives, to relocate? What will these people do here?
The economic, political and social infrastructure in Armenia is not sufficient to sustain any serious repatriation.
Here, I’d like to remind you of Theodore Herzl’s work “The Jewish State”. The second part of the book gives a very detailed approach to the repatriation of Jews to the land of Israel. Herzl lay down a very rational outline.
I don’t see the same thing in Armenia or in the diaspora press. For example, there is talk of creating a Pan-Armenian National Council but you won’t find any details on the website of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. Then there was the idea of creating a two-chamber parliament in Armenia to get the diaspora represented. This too seemed to me less than serious
You include the word ‘memory’ in the title of your dissertation. The memory of the traditional diaspora is that of pre-1915 western Armenia. If this collective memory of the past is a major component of the current identity of so many diaspora Armenians, how can the RoA redirect this focus and serve as a rallying point today?
This is a problematic aspect of the diaspora – homeland issue. When you look at some segments of the diaspora, you can say they live in a strange mental world. They live in the present day but their minds are always returning to the pre-1915 period.
The diaspora could be a real asset for Armenia and the country really needs all the assets it can attract. But the traditional diaspora, or let’s say the leadership of the traditional diaspora, they cannot grasp the reality of current Armenia due to this focus on an idealized past.
Thus, I believe young diaspora Armenians must establish real relations and ties with this Armenia in 2011. They must reach out to the Armenia of today and not with that of their grandparents in order to help solve the myriad problems now facing the RoA.
So, can we say that there are two ‘homelands’ competing for the hearts and minds of the traditional Armenian diaspora?
Well, I am sure there are some Armenians who say they do not identify with current Armenia but I would also say that after the creation of the third republic in 1991, more and more diaspora Armenians and organizations have realized that, on a practical level at least, the RoA should be the focus of their energies.
In a way, those talking about a return to western Armenia may be a convenient excuse to not doing more, or even relocating, to the Armenia of today. It would be a challenge for them to leave what they know and are comfortable with in France or the U.S. and move to an Armenia that faces many problems.
This is understandable. We are all human beings. But they have to face reality and not overlook the fact that the Armenia of today needs a lot of help.
You talk about “the politics of the construction of the Armenian homeland”. Can we assume that the RoA government has a political agenda in mind – creating an image of an Armenia where the concept of “love it or leave it” holds sway?
Well let’s look at the official state discourse – the attempt to portray the RoA as the homeland for all Armenians. Of course it’s a political strategy to connect the diaspora to Yerevan and tap into its resources.
In this sense, it’s a very understandable strategy on the part of the RoA government.
This divide between the traditional diaspora and the RoA probably manifests itself most clearly on the Genocide issue. Many argue the Turkish government seeks to manipulate the issue and thus divide the hard-line diaspora with a more malleable RoA. What’s your view?
All I can say is that the general perception in Turkey is that the diaspora takes a more hard-line approach as compared to the RoA. Just look at the fallout resulting from the Protocol debate. But as to whether Ankara has adopted a policy to play one off the other, I can’t say.
What I would like to add is that the RoA government, in turn, has somehow manipulated the issue as well. By creating this bogeyman image of Turkey, it has made calls for national unity and greater support for Armenia. In a way, it has sought the “unquestioning” loyalty of the diaspora in the name of national unity. This too is a fact.
This is your third visit to Armenia and you’ve been here for two months now. Can you give me a few general impressions?
Well, I came here to do research for my thesis and have interviewed several diaspora Armenians who have relocated but I also wanted to get a feel for the country and the people.
On a personal level, I have had positive experiences and have encountered no hostility when people find out I am Turkish.
I find it interesting that the press in Armenia has daily articles on Turkey and developments there. Mostly the press focuses on the negative aspects and not on the recent changes for the positive. This isn’t to say that Turkey doesn’t have problems and that conditions for Armenians living there aren’t problematic. Not at all.
I rented an apartment here and would always go to the same small shop to get bread and some breakfast. The sales ladies would always smile and joke with me. One day they asked where I was from and I told them I was from Turkey. Then they asked if I was Armenian or Turkish. I said, Turkish .After that, their smiles faded.
Another time, I and a few friends were at a nightclub in Yerevan. I went out for a smoke and there was a security guard outside smoking as well. He asked me where I was from. I said, Turkey. He asked if I was an Armenian from Turkey in a kind of aggressive way. I figured I should answer that yes, I was. He then started to interrogate me. Was my father and mother Armenian? I guess he didn’t believe me. It was getting a bit heated. The guy then told me that “I have killed Turks in Karabakh” and repeated this. All I could say was “Ok” and then I left.
This was the only time I felt really uneasy in Armenia. I would like to say that I feel safer in Yerevan than I do in Istanbul. Armenians, I have found, are not an aggressive people.
You have met with repatriates and average citizens here. What about your meetings with officials and the academia? Did you encounter any problems in getting them to sit down and talk with you?
I tried to arrange interviews with the major political parties but only two agreed to talk with me – the Armenian National Congress and Heritage. The others declined but never told me why.
I also spoke to a number of intellectuals and university professors. To be honest, I heard more interesting views and ideas from ordinary people than from the intelligentsia in Armenia. I don’t want to sound over judgemental, but the role of intellectuals is to bring forth new approaches and concepts – in a way to make us angry and challenge us.
What I heard from most, not all, were the same old stories and prejudices regarding the Armenia-Turkish issue.
Maybe a majority of intellectuals in Armenia are too conformist or opportunist when it comes to opening new doors. It makes me somewhat less optimistic regarding the future.
What about preconceived notions of Armenians in Turkey, amongst average citizens?
Let me give you a concrete example. Several years ago there was a quantitative study conducted jointly in Armenia and Turkey about their views of the other.
What the research showed was that the average Turkish person knows very little about Armenians. But, recently, amongst university students and some intellectuals, there’s a growing interest in Armenia and the culture. Again, it’s a new process of learning.
Armenians, on the other hand, have a certain knowledge and understanding of Turkey. This is another asymmetry between the two peoples.
There’s less coverage in the mainstream Turkish press about Armenia than the other way around.
Armenia isn’t a top priority when it comes to Turkish foreign policy. In the end, though, relations between the two neighbouring states must be normalized and this will require more dialogue and understanding of the other.
Source: Hetq – Originial Article
Related posts:
- Are Turkish-Armenians Diaspora?: Istanbul journalist says Turkey’s Armenians live in their historical lands
- Serzh Sargsyan will hear out Diaspora’s opinion on RA-Turkish protocols
- Turkish Intellectuals Call on Turkish Society to Commemorate Victims of The Armenian Genocide
- More than Turkish Armenians, Ethnic Turks have Interest in Business with Armenia: Expert
- Seven Armenians Seek Seats In Turkish Parliament
Commentary
14:52, May 13, 2013
The Hungarian Parliament adopted a controversial amendment to its Freedom of Information Act on April 30, a move that will make civilian and journalistic access to information more difficult, Atlatszo.hu reported. The amendment was passed less than 48 hours after its introduction.
The amendment severely limits citizens’ access to public information, as it limits the amount of data individuals may obtain. The amendment also requires that individuals justify requests for information related to court cases, public bodies, and public officials, all information that was previously in the public domain, according to Transparency International.
The amendment is allegedly meant to limit the number of “abusive” requests for information, but local organizations, including Transparency International Hungary, watchdog K-monitor, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, and OCCRP partner Atlatszo.hu have decried the sudden change. All four organizations quit the anti-corruption group formed by the Hungarian Ministry of Justice in protest.
The quartet also petitioned President Janos Ader to veto the amendment. While Ader vetoed the amendment, and said that it gave “public service entities excessive right to decide what qualifies as an ‘abusive demand’ of information, he did not send it to the Constitutional Court. Under Hungarian law, Parliament can revote on the issue, thus bypassing the veto and passing the law unchanged.
In a commentary on the amendment, Atlatszo.hu criticized the change and highlighted the importance of continued transparency.
Every citizen has the right to be informed about the spending of public money. Transparency is pivotal in any democracy, and the amendment voted on in Parliament calls that into question. Passing an amendment reshaping the sphere of freedom of information in only two days is unacceptable, the investigative reporting center added. Even more conspicuous is the fact that the amendment was proposed when civil society organizations requested access to the bids in a tender for tobacco retail licenses, which reportedly went to government party loyalists. This law will allow public decision makers to get away with bias and allow corruption to go unpunished, Atlatszo said.
Atlatszo added that the new, government friendly understanding of freedom of information enables users of public funds, mainly government offices and municipalities, to keep the allocation of public funds secret. The law contradicts the fundamental ethical norms of a democracy and places measures included in the Hungarian government’s anti-graft action plan into doubt.
Transparency International Hungary, K-Monitor watchdog for public funds, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and Atlatszo.hu investigative portal are convinced that the amendment of the law on freedom of information discredits all previous stances of the government to stop corruption. We are still devoted to make Hungary a better society free of corruption, but we will not lend our reputation to the mockery our government orchestrated in the anti-corruption arena, Atlatszo said.
https://reportingproject.net
Source: Hetq – Originial Article
Related posts:
- Better Access to Republic of Armenia Government Information Through Freedom of Information Legislation Reform
- Armenians in Hungary to sue Government over Safarov extradition
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia: ”The Government of Hungary Shares Moral Responsibility for Sponsoring a Grave Criminal Act”
- Freedom of Information Center launches new website in Armenia
- Armenia blames Hungary over complications in Karabakh conflict
A portrait painter, whose subjects are imaginary, is one of four artists in contention for the 2013 Turner Prize, BBC News reported.Lynette Yiadom-Boakye joins French installation artist Laure Prouvost, Britain’s David Shrigley and the British-German performance artist Tino Sehgal on this year’s shortlist.This year’s Turner exhibition will be held at Ebrington in Derry-Londonderry, 2013′s UK City of Culture.The winner – who will receive £25,000 – will be announced on 2 December.The other shortlisted artists will each receive £5,000.Established in 1984, the Turner Prize is awarded to a contemporary artist under 50, living, working or born in Britain, who is judged to have put on the best exhibition of the last 12 months.Previous winners include Damien Hirst, Antony Gormley and last year’s recipient, the video artist Elizabeth Price.Lynette Yiadom-Boakye, who lives and works in London, is shortlisted for her Extracts and Verses exhibition at the Chisenhale Gallery.She is of Ghanaian descent and is the first black woman to be in contention for the award.Born in 1977, she attended Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, Falmouth College of Arts and the Royal Academy Schools.According to the prize’s organisers, her “intriguing” paintings “appear traditional but are in fact much more innovative”.Glasgow-based David Shrigley is best known for his humorous line drawings, but also makes sculptures, photographs, paintings and animated films.His work, which combines jokes and commentary, can be found on greetings cards, in books and in magazines, as well as in galleries.His words have been used in recordings by David Byrne and Franz Ferdinand and he directed the video for Blur’s 2009 track Good Song.Born in Macclesfield in 1968, Shrigley is shortlisted for his solo exhibition Brain Activity, at London’s Hayward Gallery.The exhibition, said the Turner Prize organisers, was a “comprehensive overview” that revealed “his black humour, macabre intelligence and infinite jest”.Born in Lille in 1978, Laure Prouvost won the fourth Max Mara art prize for women in 2011 for her short films and installation work.Based in London, she is shortlisted for her new work Wantee, featured in Tate Britain’s Schwitters in Britain exhibition, and her two-part Max Mara art prize installation.Her “unique” approach to film-making, said organisers, “employs strong story-telling, quick cuts, montage and deliberate misuse of language to create surprising and unpredictable work”.Born in 1976 and based in Berlin, Tino Sehgal has been shortlisted for his “pioneering” projects This Variation and These Associations.The latter, staged last year at Tate Modern in London, invited the public to interact with volunteers in a “live installation” staged in the gallery’s expansive Turbine Hall.”Both structured and improvised, Seghal’s intimate works consist purely of live encounters between people and demonstrate a keen sensitivity to their institutional context,” said organisers.”Through participatory means, they test the limits of artistic material and audience perception in a new and significant way.”This year’s jury is chaired by Tate Britain director Penelope Curtis and includes the curator Annie Fletcher and the writer and lecturer Declan Long.Long said the each of the four shortlisted artists represented “remarkable developments” in art.”There’s so much range here, it’s fantastic,” he told the BBC’s arts editor Will Gompertz.Bookmakers Ladbroke have made Shrigley 2/1 favourite to win the prize, ahead of Prouvost, Sehgal and Yiadom-Boakye, a 7/2 outsider.It is the first time the Turner Prize exhibition has ever been held outside England.
Source: Tert – Originial Article
Related posts:
- Duchess Kate portrait gets mixed response from critics
- Painter Mariam Hakobyan opened her personal exhibition in Yerevan
- Vagrich Bakhchanyan, Renowned Painter and Literary Critic Passes Away
- Artists Unite to Restore Shushi’s Cultural Legacy
- US-Russian physicist get $3m award
The Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), which boasts the second largest faction in the National Assembly, has so far remained tightlipped on its attitude towards opposition leader Raffi Hovannisian’s demand that President-elect Serzh Sargsyan admit election fraud and start transferring power to the people.
PAP spokesman Tigran Urikhanyan refused to provide any commentary on Hovannisian’s Tuesday rally and plans to stage more protests against the official outcome of the February 18 presidential election in which his party had chosen not to take part or endorse any candidate in the race.
The Monday ballot gave victory to incumbent President Sargsyan, who officially polled close to 59 percent of the vote. Hovannisian, his closest challenger, got nearly 37 percent of the vote and is currently disputing the official outcome of the election.
“We haven’t discussed this matter yet,” the party spokesman told Tert.am, also ducking the question on the possible support of PAP members to Hovannisian’s struggle.
Addressing his supporters in Yerevan’s Liberty Square last night Heritage Party leader Hovannisian, who declared himself to be the rightful winner and elected president, made it clear that if given a chance to form a government he would also cooperate with the broad-based opposition and “alternative” forces, including PAP, that did not contest the February election.
Source: Armenia Now – Originial Article
No related posts.
12:14, February 9, 2013
Today, 9 days before the presidential elections, TNS opinion is presenting the results of its survey “Poll: Armenia on the Eve of Presidential Elections” describing the voting preferences and motivations of the Armenian voters, but also their views on the on-going campaigns of the various candidates. For this TNS opinion poll, implemented together with their local partner IPSC, 1 609 face-to-face interviews were conducted in all 10 regions (marzes) and 12 communities of Yerevan between 31 January and 5 February 2013, using the highest possible standards and extensive quality control measures, as outlined below. The poll was commissioned by European Friends of Armenia (www.EuFoA.org) in order to contribute to a factual debate ahead of the elections (see below for more details about our motivation and the organisations involved).
“Using a large number of quality checks, we carried out this poll in the middle of the campaign period and received very reliable and consistent data.” comments Dr Steve Schwarzer, Director for Methods and Statistics at TNS opinion, Brussels. “Now we see that President Sargsyan still has the most certain voters and almost twice as many as runner-up Raffi Hovhannisyan. However, the respondents say that so far Hovhannisyan’s campaign appears more convincing, focusing on programmatic campaigning around mainly economic topics. Strikingly, he now gains more support from the former Prosperous Armenia voters than the incumbent President, a clear change compared to our last poll.”
As a result, if presidential elections took place last week, Serzh Sargsyan would have scored 58,0% [-10,6% compared to our January 2013 poll] of valid votes (valid responses are without “Don’t know” and “Refuse to answer”; raw data with “Don’t know” and “Refuse to answer”: 40,2% [-3,8%]). The poll now rates Raffi Hovhannisyan at 33,0% [+12,2%] of the valid votes (raw data: 22,9% [+9,6%]). To evaluate the likelihood of a second round, TNS opinion also assessed the certainty to vote and analysed the characteristics of respondents who did not reveal their voting intentions. Following this analysis, Hovhannisyan currently is positioned in a bandwidth between 26% and 34%, while Sargsyan scores between 58% and 66%, looking very likely to win in the first round – based on the situation two weeks before the elections.
The voters of Paruyr Hayrikyan, a candidate who was shot into the shoulder under unclear circumstances on 31 January (after the first fieldwork day of this opinion poll), are now much more certain that their decision is final and his awareness among the public has strongly increased. However, the people intending to vote for him remain stable at 4,9% [+0,1%] of the valid votes. Hrant Bagratyan now stands 1,6% points lower than in January, scoring 2,8% of valid votes. As in January, the remaining four of the eight official candidates are largely unknown to the poll respondents and altogether score less than 1,5% of valid votes.
“Apart from the candidates’ ratings, we were positively surprised by voters’ trust in these elections, an aspect which is important for Armenia’s democracy and its political weight. More than 2/3 of the population believes that the upcoming presidential elections will be organised in a better way than previous elections and a similar number of people perceives media to report in a more neutral and fair manner than in the past. The number of people who are certain that they will turnout to vote is almost the same as in the very competitive elections in May 2012.” says EuFoA Secretary General, Dr Michael Kambeck.
The design of the random sample, fieldwork monitoring, survey implementation and quality control were developed together by TNS opinion and IPSC. Quality control measures were a particular focus, including call-backs and parallel visits, as well as extensive database consistency checks. For more details about this, please confer the background information below.
EuFoA has commissioned the poll for several reasons. In particular we want to:
Raise public awareness about the elections, issues important to the people, and public attitudes towards politics, political parties and their leaders.
Compare the findings of the poll on socioeconomic and political issues with earlier polls.
Contribute to a more meaningful debate, based on political content more than party political propaganda and myths.
Increase public transparency and trust in a realistic picture of political life in Armenia.
Increase pressure for a good technical conduct of the elections by providing comparative data for the assessments of international observers.
The complete poll report can be found in Armenian and in English on our website at www.eufoa.org/en/publications.
EuFoA is happy to provide commentary or background analysis in English, German, French, Italian, Polish, Russian and Armenian. Members of the Europe-Armenia Advisory Council may also be available for comments; for enquiries please contact our secretariat.
For more information on EuFoA and the Europe-Armenia Advisory Council, please visit our website at www.EuFoA.org.
High resolution picture material is always available on our website and upon request. It is free to use with a reference “Copyright:www.EuFoA.org”.
Methodology
A multi-stage, random (probability) sampling design was used. In the first stage, primary sampling units (PSU) were selected from each of the administrative regional units. This was agreed as best methodology between TNS opinion and IPSC .
1 609 interviews conducted face to face between 31 January – 5 February 2013.
Interviews were conducted in all 10 regions (marzes) of Armenia and in all Yerevan communities. The sample was distributed proportionally to reflect the population distribution in Armenia, with 34.4% of interviews conducted in Yerevan and 65.6% in the marzes.
· Interviewers selected households using the random walking method to ensure that there is no selection bias. To ensure a random selection, the person interviewed in each household was the adult whose birthday was closest to the day of the interview.
If a respondent was not immediately available, 1 to 2 call-back visits were done to conduct the interview later. If a call-back visit was not successful or if a respondent could not take part for other reasons, the interviewer approached the next randomly selected household according to the random walking method.
The sampling procedure was monitored by using a detailed contact sheet for each interviewer. The data base was analysed by TNS opinion in order to ensure that interviewers followed the instructions.
The data was weighted according to age and gender and is accurate to a maximum margin of error of ±2.4% for the overall sample.
Quality control
The design of the random sample, fieldwork monitoring, survey implementation and quality control were developed together by TNS opinion and IPSC.
22% of the interviews conducted were accompanied by IPSC quality control coordinators to ensure high quality and compliance with the standards agreed. All questionnaires were monitored by IPSC specialists to check the individual quality and logical consistency of the data. 6% of the questionnaires were checked by return visits. 25% of the entered paper questionnaires were double-checked in the database to ensure accuracy of processed data. Following all these checks, 31 interviews were rejected (1.9%) resulting in the aforementioned valid sample of 1 609 cases.
Route records were checked by TNS opinion and IPSC independently to ensure that interviews had been selected randomly.
33% of the sample was called back by IPSC to confirm demographic details and that the interview took place in the conditions recorded. Additionally, 15% of interviews were randomly selected by TNS opinion and called back to confirm key demographic information and two opinion questions. This consistency check-back resulted in the required compliance level with the originally collected data.
Extensive checks were conducted on the data file by TNS opinion to see if there were any logically inconsistent or inaccurate interviews, data points or invalid information. This was assessed positively and no case exclusions were made.
Source: Hetq – Originial Article
No related posts.
By the end of the week the campaign in the February 18 presidential election appeared to be getting more active as the main candidates contesting the number one political post held more meetings with members of the public to try to get their messages across.
Incumbent President Serzh Sargsyan, the leader of the Republican Party of Armenia, continued his campaign meetings in the regions, where he visited the Vayots Dzor province. In the town of Yeghegnadzor he met with citizens to tell them that if reelected for another five-year term in office he would make sure his government promoted agricultural cooperation and industries providing a high added value – grape and fruit growing.
“We have declared a common approach to the village and its agricultural problems as a key of our policy. We must create comfortable conditions for life in rural communities. We will make substantial financial investments in the planting and development of fruit orchards with the use of modern technologies,” Sargsyan said.
In the tourist center of Vayk the presidential candidate spoke about tourism and the rural economy in general, discussing issues with wine-makers and other farmers.
In Jermuk, Sargsyan also met with the provincial and municipal authorities as well as with representatives of health resorts, hotels, other service sector organizations to discuss the resort town’s socio-economic long-term development strategies.
The incumbent head of state also spoke about efforts to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections according to international standards, saying that Armenia has all prerequisites for such an election.
Another presidential candidate, chairman of the Liberty party Hrant Bagratyan left for the northeastern Tavush province early in the morning. During the day he had meetings with voters in the villages of Chinari, Aygedzor and Artsvaberd as well as the town of Berd.
In Chinari, which is a soft target for Azeri snipers and has experienced serious socio-economic problems because of its closeness to the border with Azerbaijan, Bagratyan pledged to open two enterprises there. He also said that residents of rural communities would not pay any tax for agricultural machinery.
In Berd, Bagratyan went to local shops, met with ordinary people in the streets and distributed his campaign leaflets. As part of his campaign Bagratyan was set to continue his tour of the Tavush province on Friday, returning to Yerevan in the evening.
Independent Armenia’s first foreign minister, Heritage party leader Raffi Hovannisian continued his campaign on foot in Yerevan’s streets. He greeted people as he walked through downtown Yerevan as well as visited some cultural places.
In particular, candidate Hovannisian visited the Yervand Kochar Museum, the Matenadaran, where he accidentally met with some Russian scholars and intellectuals visiting Armenia.
During his campaign on Thursday Hovannisian also visited the Chess House, talked to people playing chess there, and also visited the State Engineering University of Armenia, the National Library, and Yerevan State University, where he donated books authored by his son.
Candidate Arman Melikyan, who earlier this week announced he was suspending his campaign and engaging only in addressing the “legal aspect” of the elections, met with the head of the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission, Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini on Thursday.
During the meeting the two reportedly discussed Melikyan’s letter to the Central Election Commission (CEC) in which he demanded the release of information about citizens with voting rights who are absent from Armenia or have relinquished Armenian citizenship. The CEC, however, had refused to do so.
Candidate Andrias Ghukasyan continued his hunger strike in front of the National Academy of Sciences buildings, insisting that he felt good. He also presented some provisions of his election program to media.
“The main principle of my program is that the president should set a goal to himself to restore public confidence in statehood, to overcome the split that exists in society, regulate the domestic and foreign affairs of our country,” stated Ghukasyan.
Natioanl Self-Determination Union Chairman Paruyr Hayrikyan continued his campaign on Facebook, publishing interviews, presentations and video conferences through his account as well as providing commentary.
National Accord party leader Aram Harutyunyan and specialist in epic studies Vardan Sedrakyan continued meetings with media. Harutyunyan reiterated that he planned to withdraw from the race by February 8, while Sedrakyan said he intended to continue his struggle for presidency, but would not engage in active campaign until February 1.
Source: Armenia Now – Originial Article
No related posts.
Recent Comments