Armenian News
ROBERT FISK'S WORLD: YOU WON'T FIND ANY LESSONS IN UNITY
IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
Independent
Saturday, 11 July 2009
UK
At last, I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls. There they were, under their
protective, cool-heated screens, the very words penned on to leather
and papyrus 2,000 years ago, the world's most significant record
of the Old Testament. I guess you've got to see it to believe it. I
can't read Hebrew - let alone ancient Hebrew (or Greek or Aramaic,
the other languages of the scrolls) - but some of the letters are
familiar to me from Arabic.
The "seen" (s) of Arabic, and the "meem" (m) are almost the same as
Hebrew and there they were, set down by some ancient who knew, as
we do, only the past and nothing of the future. Most of the texts
are in the Bible; several are not. "May God most high bless you,
may he show you his face and may he open for you," it is written on
the parchments. "For he will honour the pious upon the throne of an
eternal kingdom."
The story of the discovery of the scrolls is, of course, well known. An
Arab Bedouin boy, Mohamed el-Dib, found them at Khirbet Qumran in
a cave in what is now the occupied West Bank of Palestine in 1947,
and handed them over to a cobbler turned antiquities dealer called
Khalil Eskander Shahin in Jerusalem; they eventually ended up in
the hands of scholars - mostly American - i n the Jordanian side of
Jerusalem. Then came the 1967 war and the arrival of the Israeli army
in East Jerusalem and... well, you can imagine the rest.
Now, I have to say that I looked at these original texts in the Royal
Ontario Museum in Toronto, a tale that was bound to engender a whole
series of questions, not least of which is Canada's softly-softly
approach to anything approaching controversy. At no point in the
exhibition, jointly arranged with the professional (and brilliant)
assistance of the Israel Antiquities Authority, is there any mention,
hem hem, of the West Bank or occupation. Or how the documents found
there came to be in the hands of the Israelis.
So cautious are the dear old Canadians - who should by now have
learned that concealing unhappy truths will only create fire and pain
- that they do not even mention that "Kando", the first recipient of
the scrolls, was Armenian. Of course not. Because then they would
have to explain why an Armenian was in Jerusalem, not in western
Turkey. Which would mean that they would have to mention the Armenian
Holocaust of 1915 (one and a half million Armenian civilians murdered
by Ottoman Turks).
This would anger Canada's Turkish community, who are holocaust
deniers. And in turn, it would anger the Israel Antiquities Authority,
who do not acknowledge that the Armenian Holocaust ever happened,
there being only one True Holocaust, which is that of the Jews of
Europe. The Jewish Holocaust is a fact, but the Armenian variety -
a trial run for Hitler's destruction of six million Jews - cannot
be discussed in Canada. Nor indeed in America, where Obama gutlessly
failed even to use the word "genocide" last April.
Then we come down to the exhibition itself. Poor old Canadians, they
had to publicise the whole fandango as a form of "unity" - there being
three monotheistic religions, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, geddit? -
but alas, the scrolls are not written in Arabic and the sole gesture
to the Islamic faith is a single 200-year-old illuminated Koran. The
museum bookshop also devotes a small heap of books on Islam to bolster
their claim to "unity". The exhibition, according to the museum's
director, William Thorsell - in a lamentable piece of pseudo prose -
"will launch provocative enlightening inter-faith discussions". Here
I reach for my sick bag.
Because the message of most of the videos showing around the exhibition
(this being the age of multitechnical as well as multicultural
wellbeing) make it clear that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank to the
rest of us) is originally Jewish. And so it was, by God. The poor old
Philistines lived on the sea coast. But when I suggested a swap to a
bunch of Israeli settlers some years ago - to be fair, they roared in
good-humoured laughter at my horrible sugg estion that Israel might
be given to the Palestinians in return for the occupied West Bank -
the idea did not commend itself to them. They wanted Tel Aviv and all
of internationally recognised Israel plus the West Bank. (At the time,
they also wanted to keep Gaza, partly on the grounds - according to
one of them - that this was where Jonah was puked up by the whale.)
No such claims soil the Ontario exhibition. "Words that Changed
the World" is how the organisers coyly entitle their exhibition, "a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see these historical treasures". But
up come the spoilsports, namely the Canadian "Coalition Against Israeli
Apartheid", to suggest that the scrolls, originally in the hands of the
Jordanian Department of Antiquities and the Ecole Biblique Francaise,
were "confiscated and illegally removed by Israel" in 1967. The Royal
Ontario Museum, the protesters say, is showing "looted" property
which it has no right to exhibit. The Palestinian Authority itself
has intervened, arguing that the museum is "displaying artefacts
removed from the Palestinian territories".
(Let us not, O Reader, mention the Elgin marbles, albeit that the
Brits don't occupy Greece.)
So the museum has started to clam up. "We're not granting any
interviews," according to a snotty spokeswoman for this esteemed
institution. I can well see why. The museum claims it has documents
to prove the legality of the exhibiti on. But it won't show them. Nor
will it consult Unesco for its opinion.
Plenty of unity there, of course.
Needless to say, if the Saudi government were to exhibit its Islamic
treasures in Toronto, I doubt very much if it would mention the large
Jewish community that once lived in Arabia. Any more than a recent
Turkish cultural exhibition at the Royal Academy mentioned the - ahem,
ahem again - contribution of the Armenians to Turkish history. Mind
you, given the fact that the photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls are
infinitely clearer and more decipherable than the originals stared
at by The Independent's Middle East correspondent, I do wonder if
these precious documents really need to be flown around the world.
But I guess it's the same old story: seeing is believing. Providing
you're not a Palestinian or an Armenian or anyone interested in
property rights.
Independent
Saturday, 11 July 2009
UK
At last, I have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls. There they were, under their
protective, cool-heated screens, the very words penned on to leather
and papyrus 2,000 years ago, the world's most significant record
of the Old Testament. I guess you've got to see it to believe it. I
can't read Hebrew - let alone ancient Hebrew (or Greek or Aramaic,
the other languages of the scrolls) - but some of the letters are
familiar to me from Arabic.
The "seen" (s) of Arabic, and the "meem" (m) are almost the same as
Hebrew and there they were, set down by some ancient who knew, as
we do, only the past and nothing of the future. Most of the texts
are in the Bible; several are not. "May God most high bless you,
may he show you his face and may he open for you," it is written on
the parchments. "For he will honour the pious upon the throne of an
eternal kingdom."
The story of the discovery of the scrolls is, of course, well known. An
Arab Bedouin boy, Mohamed el-Dib, found them at Khirbet Qumran in
a cave in what is now the occupied West Bank of Palestine in 1947,
and handed them over to a cobbler turned antiquities dealer called
Khalil Eskander Shahin in Jerusalem; they eventually ended up in
the hands of scholars - mostly American - i n the Jordanian side of
Jerusalem. Then came the 1967 war and the arrival of the Israeli army
in East Jerusalem and... well, you can imagine the rest.
Now, I have to say that I looked at these original texts in the Royal
Ontario Museum in Toronto, a tale that was bound to engender a whole
series of questions, not least of which is Canada's softly-softly
approach to anything approaching controversy. At no point in the
exhibition, jointly arranged with the professional (and brilliant)
assistance of the Israel Antiquities Authority, is there any mention,
hem hem, of the West Bank or occupation. Or how the documents found
there came to be in the hands of the Israelis.
So cautious are the dear old Canadians - who should by now have
learned that concealing unhappy truths will only create fire and pain
- that they do not even mention that "Kando", the first recipient of
the scrolls, was Armenian. Of course not. Because then they would
have to explain why an Armenian was in Jerusalem, not in western
Turkey. Which would mean that they would have to mention the Armenian
Holocaust of 1915 (one and a half million Armenian civilians murdered
by Ottoman Turks).
This would anger Canada's Turkish community, who are holocaust
deniers. And in turn, it would anger the Israel Antiquities Authority,
who do not acknowledge that the Armenian Holocaust ever happened,
there being only one True Holocaust, which is that of the Jews of
Europe. The Jewish Holocaust is a fact, but the Armenian variety -
a trial run for Hitler's destruction of six million Jews - cannot
be discussed in Canada. Nor indeed in America, where Obama gutlessly
failed even to use the word "genocide" last April.
Then we come down to the exhibition itself. Poor old Canadians, they
had to publicise the whole fandango as a form of "unity" - there being
three monotheistic religions, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, geddit? -
but alas, the scrolls are not written in Arabic and the sole gesture
to the Islamic faith is a single 200-year-old illuminated Koran. The
museum bookshop also devotes a small heap of books on Islam to bolster
their claim to "unity". The exhibition, according to the museum's
director, William Thorsell - in a lamentable piece of pseudo prose -
"will launch provocative enlightening inter-faith discussions". Here
I reach for my sick bag.
Because the message of most of the videos showing around the exhibition
(this being the age of multitechnical as well as multicultural
wellbeing) make it clear that Judea and Samaria (the West Bank to the
rest of us) is originally Jewish. And so it was, by God. The poor old
Philistines lived on the sea coast. But when I suggested a swap to a
bunch of Israeli settlers some years ago - to be fair, they roared in
good-humoured laughter at my horrible sugg estion that Israel might
be given to the Palestinians in return for the occupied West Bank -
the idea did not commend itself to them. They wanted Tel Aviv and all
of internationally recognised Israel plus the West Bank. (At the time,
they also wanted to keep Gaza, partly on the grounds - according to
one of them - that this was where Jonah was puked up by the whale.)
No such claims soil the Ontario exhibition. "Words that Changed
the World" is how the organisers coyly entitle their exhibition, "a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see these historical treasures". But
up come the spoilsports, namely the Canadian "Coalition Against Israeli
Apartheid", to suggest that the scrolls, originally in the hands of the
Jordanian Department of Antiquities and the Ecole Biblique Francaise,
were "confiscated and illegally removed by Israel" in 1967. The Royal
Ontario Museum, the protesters say, is showing "looted" property
which it has no right to exhibit. The Palestinian Authority itself
has intervened, arguing that the museum is "displaying artefacts
removed from the Palestinian territories".
(Let us not, O Reader, mention the Elgin marbles, albeit that the
Brits don't occupy Greece.)
So the museum has started to clam up. "We're not granting any
interviews," according to a snotty spokeswoman for this esteemed
institution. I can well see why. The museum claims it has documents
to prove the legality of the exhibiti on. But it won't show them. Nor
will it consult Unesco for its opinion.
Plenty of unity there, of course.
Needless to say, if the Saudi government were to exhibit its Islamic
treasures in Toronto, I doubt very much if it would mention the large
Jewish community that once lived in Arabia. Any more than a recent
Turkish cultural exhibition at the Royal Academy mentioned the - ahem,
ahem again - contribution of the Armenians to Turkish history. Mind
you, given the fact that the photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls are
infinitely clearer and more decipherable than the originals stared
at by The Independent's Middle East correspondent, I do wonder if
these precious documents really need to be flown around the world.
But I guess it's the same old story: seeing is believing. Providing
you're not a Palestinian or an Armenian or anyone interested in
property rights.
The Monitor (McAllen, Texas)
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service
July 10, 2009 Friday
Armenian victims: Dark past for Turkey
By Peter Balakian, Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star
COMMENTARY
HAMILTON, N.Y.
HAMILTON, N.Y. _ The Armenian Genocide continues to hover over
international politics 94 years later. Its ethical force in memory
haunts not only the legacy of the perpetrator, Turkey, but the legacy
of the victims, the Armenian people and the diaspora.
The political intensity surrounding U.S. recognition of the Armenian
Genocide surfaced this past April in President Obama's engagement with
the issue. Having promised as a presidential candidate to acknowledge
as genocide the events that befell the Armenians of Ottoman Turkey in
1915, on visiting Turkey in April, President Obama stopped short of
using the word "genocide" but spoke powerfully to the Turkish
Parliament about the importance of acknowledging dark chapters of
one's past.
"History is often tragic but, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each
country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can
help us seize a better future. I know there are strong views in this
chamber about the terrible events of 1915. While there has been a good
deal of commentary about my views the best way forward for the Turkish
and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way
that is honest, open, and constructive."
THE 'G' WORD
Armenians, Turks and the human-rights community awaited April 24, the
date of the president's annual Armenian Genocide commemorative
address, as the international press speculated whether he would use
the word "genocide." When he did not, most Armenians were
disappointed, some bitterly so. Yet Obama's statement was the most
ethically serious, probing statement on the subject ever made by a
U.S. president: "I have consistently stated my own view of what
occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed. My
interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just
acknowledgment of the facts," and he remembered "the 1.5 million
Armenians" who were "massacred or marched to their death."
To get a sense of how seriously the president acknowledged the
Armenian Genocide, albeit by syllogism, one need only note what he
said on the campaign trail in September 2008: "As a U.S. senator, I
have stood with the Armenianâ??American community in calling
for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide." In April he
said: "It is imperative that we recognize the horrific acts carried
out against the Armenian people as genocide, and I will continue to
stand with the Armenian-American community in calling for the
government of Turkey to acknowledge it as such."
However, what ensued between the April 6 visit to Turkey and the April
24 address was some secret diplomacy, brokered _ some believe
coercively _ by Turkey with Armenia to create a "road map" to
normalizing relations between the two countries (their common border
has been closed since the founding of the Armenian Republic in
1991). This new diplomacy involves Armenia agreeing to Turkey's
persistent request that there be a historical commission to "decide"
what happened to the Armenians in 1915. To many, and especially those
in the human-rights community, this is an obvious gimmick, by which
Turkey hopes to cast doubt on the scholarly consensus about the events
of 1915 for the purpose of continuing to deny its responsibility for
the genocide.
OWNING UP TO THE PAST
The irony spills into absurdity. The Turkish government spends
millions of dollars a year on PR firms and lobbyists in a campaign to
rewrite the history of the Armenian extermination. Turkey's courts
have prosecuted writers and intellectuals who acknowledge the Armenian
Genocide, most notably Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, who not only stood
trial for it but has been a target of death threats. Most tragically,
the assassination of Armenian Turkish journalist Hrant Dink in 2007
made it clear that dealing openly with the Armenian Genocide in Turkey
was dangerous business.
Turkey has shown no inclination to own up to the truth of its past. In
2004, it agreed to be part of a Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
Commission, but after the arbitrator, the International Center for
Transitional Justice, rendered an assessment that the events of 1915
were genocide, the Turkish government angrily pulled out of the
commission.
Would we allow President Ahmadinejad's government to be part of a
commission on the Holocaust? When countries such as France, Canada,
Poland, Greece, Russia and 15 others (as well as 41 U.S. states)
passed resolutions affirming the Armenian Genocide over the past
decades, they were not attempting to determine history, but rather to
affirm an existing historical record and, in large part, to redress
Turkey's continued aggressive denial campaign.
When Congress once again entertains an Armenian Genocide resolution,
many genocide scholars and the human-rights community hope it will
have the courage to stand up to Turkish pressure. Turkish historian
Taner Akcam has said U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide
would give the United States "self-respect" in this arena, and "It
would liberate Turks, Armenians, and itself in the process."
It is important that we not confuse the exigencies of diplomacy with
the need to stand firm about the moral reality of genocide and reject
any nation's attempts to cover up a genocidal crime. The history of
genocide is not a poker chip. While Armenia and Turkey must of course
look to the future and normalize relations so that the status of
Nagorno Karabagh and other political and economic issues can be
resolved, Armenia's President Sarkissian has stated that the road to
the future of Turkishâ??Armenian relations should not be
brokered with preconditions.
If Turkey believes in its future leadership in the region, then it
must, in President Obama's words, reckon with its past. Speaking as he
did on Turkish soil, Obama has already done some important work in
helping Turkey understand why acknowledging its past will only aid its
future.
The acknowledgement of the genocide that became a template for Hitler
is not just a Turkish-Armenian affair, but a universal moral issue:
The world's most powerful country can summon the courage to help
resolve it with a congressional resolution in the coming year.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Peter Balakian teaches at Colgate University and is the co-translator
of the recently published "American Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian
Genocide, 1915-1918" by Girgoris Balakian. Readers may send him e-mail
at PBalakian@mail.cornell.edu He wrote this for the Fredericksburg
(Va.) Free Lance-Star.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service
July 10, 2009 Friday
Armenian victims: Dark past for Turkey
By Peter Balakian, Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star
COMMENTARY
HAMILTON, N.Y.
HAMILTON, N.Y. _ The Armenian Genocide continues to hover over
international politics 94 years later. Its ethical force in memory
haunts not only the legacy of the perpetrator, Turkey, but the legacy
of the victims, the Armenian people and the diaspora.
The political intensity surrounding U.S. recognition of the Armenian
Genocide surfaced this past April in President Obama's engagement with
the issue. Having promised as a presidential candidate to acknowledge
as genocide the events that befell the Armenians of Ottoman Turkey in
1915, on visiting Turkey in April, President Obama stopped short of
using the word "genocide" but spoke powerfully to the Turkish
Parliament about the importance of acknowledging dark chapters of
one's past.
"History is often tragic but, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each
country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can
help us seize a better future. I know there are strong views in this
chamber about the terrible events of 1915. While there has been a good
deal of commentary about my views the best way forward for the Turkish
and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way
that is honest, open, and constructive."
THE 'G' WORD
Armenians, Turks and the human-rights community awaited April 24, the
date of the president's annual Armenian Genocide commemorative
address, as the international press speculated whether he would use
the word "genocide." When he did not, most Armenians were
disappointed, some bitterly so. Yet Obama's statement was the most
ethically serious, probing statement on the subject ever made by a
U.S. president: "I have consistently stated my own view of what
occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed. My
interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just
acknowledgment of the facts," and he remembered "the 1.5 million
Armenians" who were "massacred or marched to their death."
To get a sense of how seriously the president acknowledged the
Armenian Genocide, albeit by syllogism, one need only note what he
said on the campaign trail in September 2008: "As a U.S. senator, I
have stood with the Armenianâ??American community in calling
for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide." In April he
said: "It is imperative that we recognize the horrific acts carried
out against the Armenian people as genocide, and I will continue to
stand with the Armenian-American community in calling for the
government of Turkey to acknowledge it as such."
However, what ensued between the April 6 visit to Turkey and the April
24 address was some secret diplomacy, brokered _ some believe
coercively _ by Turkey with Armenia to create a "road map" to
normalizing relations between the two countries (their common border
has been closed since the founding of the Armenian Republic in
1991). This new diplomacy involves Armenia agreeing to Turkey's
persistent request that there be a historical commission to "decide"
what happened to the Armenians in 1915. To many, and especially those
in the human-rights community, this is an obvious gimmick, by which
Turkey hopes to cast doubt on the scholarly consensus about the events
of 1915 for the purpose of continuing to deny its responsibility for
the genocide.
OWNING UP TO THE PAST
The irony spills into absurdity. The Turkish government spends
millions of dollars a year on PR firms and lobbyists in a campaign to
rewrite the history of the Armenian extermination. Turkey's courts
have prosecuted writers and intellectuals who acknowledge the Armenian
Genocide, most notably Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, who not only stood
trial for it but has been a target of death threats. Most tragically,
the assassination of Armenian Turkish journalist Hrant Dink in 2007
made it clear that dealing openly with the Armenian Genocide in Turkey
was dangerous business.
Turkey has shown no inclination to own up to the truth of its past. In
2004, it agreed to be part of a Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
Commission, but after the arbitrator, the International Center for
Transitional Justice, rendered an assessment that the events of 1915
were genocide, the Turkish government angrily pulled out of the
commission.
Would we allow President Ahmadinejad's government to be part of a
commission on the Holocaust? When countries such as France, Canada,
Poland, Greece, Russia and 15 others (as well as 41 U.S. states)
passed resolutions affirming the Armenian Genocide over the past
decades, they were not attempting to determine history, but rather to
affirm an existing historical record and, in large part, to redress
Turkey's continued aggressive denial campaign.
When Congress once again entertains an Armenian Genocide resolution,
many genocide scholars and the human-rights community hope it will
have the courage to stand up to Turkish pressure. Turkish historian
Taner Akcam has said U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide
would give the United States "self-respect" in this arena, and "It
would liberate Turks, Armenians, and itself in the process."
It is important that we not confuse the exigencies of diplomacy with
the need to stand firm about the moral reality of genocide and reject
any nation's attempts to cover up a genocidal crime. The history of
genocide is not a poker chip. While Armenia and Turkey must of course
look to the future and normalize relations so that the status of
Nagorno Karabagh and other political and economic issues can be
resolved, Armenia's President Sarkissian has stated that the road to
the future of Turkishâ??Armenian relations should not be
brokered with preconditions.
If Turkey believes in its future leadership in the region, then it
must, in President Obama's words, reckon with its past. Speaking as he
did on Turkish soil, Obama has already done some important work in
helping Turkey understand why acknowledging its past will only aid its
future.
The acknowledgement of the genocide that became a template for Hitler
is not just a Turkish-Armenian affair, but a universal moral issue:
The world's most powerful country can summon the courage to help
resolve it with a congressional resolution in the coming year.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Peter Balakian teaches at Colgate University and is the co-translator
of the recently published "American Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian
Genocide, 1915-1918" by Girgoris Balakian. Readers may send him e-mail
at PBalakian@mail.cornell.edu He wrote this for the Fredericksburg
(Va.) Free Lance-Star.
ARMENIA EXPECTS TURKEY TO TAKE "PRACTICAL STEPS"
TO NORMALIZE TIES - MINISTER
Armenian Second TV Channel
July 3 2009
Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan has said that his
country expects Turkey to take "practical steps" as part of previous
arrangements on normalizing ties, the Armenian state-owned Second
TV Channel reported on 3 July. Nalbandyan said this today at a news
conference held jointly with OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and Greek
Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, TV reported.
"Previously Turkey suggested preconditions - one connected with the
settlement of the Karabakh issue, and the other with the process of
recognition of the genocide [killing of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire in 1915]," Nalbandyan said at the news conference. "Our
arrangement with Turkey when we started the negotiations, when we held
the negotiations, was the following - we came to agreement with the
mutual consent and understanding that we are going to settle these
relations and open the borders without preconditions."
In a comment on the recent statement of the Turkish foreign minister
that Turkey stays committed to the arrangement achieved with Armenia,
Nalbandyan said: "If the Turkish foreign minister made this statement,
one can only welcome it, as the arrangement that was achieved between
Armenia and Turkey was to normalize relations and open borders between
Armenia and Turkey without preconditions. If Turkey is ready to go
ahead with the implementation of these arrangements, one can only
welcome this, and we expect practical steps."
Turkey closed its border with Armenia over the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict in 1992, and the countries have had no diplomatic ties since.
Armenian Second TV Channel
July 3 2009
Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan has said that his
country expects Turkey to take "practical steps" as part of previous
arrangements on normalizing ties, the Armenian state-owned Second
TV Channel reported on 3 July. Nalbandyan said this today at a news
conference held jointly with OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and Greek
Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, TV reported.
"Previously Turkey suggested preconditions - one connected with the
settlement of the Karabakh issue, and the other with the process of
recognition of the genocide [killing of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire in 1915]," Nalbandyan said at the news conference. "Our
arrangement with Turkey when we started the negotiations, when we held
the negotiations, was the following - we came to agreement with the
mutual consent and understanding that we are going to settle these
relations and open the borders without preconditions."
In a comment on the recent statement of the Turkish foreign minister
that Turkey stays committed to the arrangement achieved with Armenia,
Nalbandyan said: "If the Turkish foreign minister made this statement,
one can only welcome it, as the arrangement that was achieved between
Armenia and Turkey was to normalize relations and open borders between
Armenia and Turkey without preconditions. If Turkey is ready to go
ahead with the implementation of these arrangements, one can only
welcome this, and we expect practical steps."
Turkey closed its border with Armenia over the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict in 1992, and the countries have had no diplomatic ties since.
CENSUS OF POPULATION TO BE HELD IN 2011 IN ARMENIA
Noyan Tapan
July 10, 2009
YEREVAN, JULY 10, NOYAN TAPAN. A decision to hold census of the
population in 2011 in Armenia was made at the RA government July
9 session. According to Stepan Mnatsakanian, the Chairman of the
National Statistical Service, a special committee has been created,
which has already held its first meeting and established the schedule
of actions. He said that test census of the population will be held
before that, in 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment