Category: Authors

  • U.S. Publicizes its Strategy on Armenia Based Obviously on America’s Interests

    U.S. Publicizes its Strategy on Armenia Based Obviously on America’s Interests

    The United States Department of State posted on its website a lengthy document which described the American government’s strategy for relations with 175 countries, including, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, in the next four years. The 16-page section covering Armenia is dated May 4, 2022. The document is titled, “Integrated Country Strategy” (ICS).

    The ICS sets goals and objectives through a coordinated and collaborative planning effort among Department of State, USAID, and other U.S. Government agencies with programming in Armenia. The document indicated that the main objective is the furthering of U.S. national interests. It made it clear that the goal of the United States government is to minimize the influence of Russia in Armenia, while maximizing U.S. interests. This is not surprising, as all countries attempt to increase their influence in the world. Given Russia vs. the West confrontation in the Ukraine war, U.S. antagonism to Russia has grown exponentially. This is confirmed by the document’s own statement: “The U.S. role has become more important as regional tensions increase following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

    In addition to its anti-Russia perspective, the United States drags Armenia into its hostility with China and Iran, further meddling in Armenia’s foreign relations. The document stated: “Strengthen the ability of partners and Allies to resist and counter influence operations and disinformation, particularly from Russia and the PRC [People’s Republic of China]; Counter Russian, PRC, Iranian, and other state, and non-state actors’ strategic, conventional, and hybrid threats and emerging disruptive technologies that threaten U.S. and European security in Europe and beyond.”

    The U.S. document also disparaged Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union since its other members are Belarus., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The document stated: “Armenia’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) may limit trade with non-EAEU members as it conforms with poorly planned or implemented EAEU standards or imposes unclear documentation requirements.” The U.S. document concealed the fact that Armenia signed on March 1, 2021 “the European Union-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA)” to enhance trade and other relations with European countries.

    Likewise, the U.S. document disparaged Armenia’s membership in the military alliance of the Collective Security Treaty Organization since its other members are Belarus., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.

    The first paragraph of the document stated: The U.S. objective is to “advance American interests by helping Armenia succeed as a secure, prosperous and democratic country, at peace with its neighbors, and more closely integrated with the Euro-Atlantic community.” The document also stated that Armenia’s defeat in the Artsakh War of 2020 and continuing tensions along its border “highlight the importance of the U.S. role as a Minsk Group Co-Chair and other diplomatic efforts to improve Armenia’s ties with its neighbors.” This is a misleading statement as the Minsk Group no longer exists, except on paper, since Russia, as one of the three co-chairs of the Minsk Group, does not acknowledge its viability and Azerbaijan totally rejects its mediating efforts. The United States is simply using the defunct Minsk Group as a tool to counter Russia’s unilateral actions in the Artsakh conflict. The second excuse the United States used to meddle in Armenia’s internal decisions is “to help Armenia normalize relations with its neighbors,” meaning Azerbaijan and Turkey, but not Iran. At this point, Armenia’s relations are much more critical with supportive Iran than with hostile Azerbaijan and Turkey.

    To avoid any misunderstanding, I am just as opposed to the undue influence of Russia in the internal affairs of Armenia, which should not be under the thumb of any country and should be able to manage its foreign relations to maximize its own national interests. What Armenia needs is a multilateral foreign policy, developing friendly relations with most countries of the world, including the Middle East (Arab States, Iran, and Israel), Asia (China and India), Africa, Europe, North and South America, and Russia. Relying on only one power, no matter which one, can only lead to disappointment and undue influence on Armenia.

    The U.S. document repeated several times that “Armenia has strengthened its commitment to a democratic path that respects rule of law and human rights, though more progress is required.” Fortunately, the State Department recognized that “more progress is required.” Elsewhere in the document, the United States correctly acknowledged: “The Armenian government has taken some steps to ameliorate social and human rights concerns, but progress has been mixed.” Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan came to power in 2018 espousing the ideals of democratic rule. Regrettably, he has strayed far from the principles of democracy, establishing one-man dictatorial rule, making all governmental decisions on behalf of the Cabinet of Ministers, Parliament, President, and Courts. Since Pashinyan has antagonized most Armenians, his popularity at home has suffered tremendously, decreasing from a high of 80 percent in 2018 to a low of around 30 percent. By ignoring the violations of human rights and decline of democracy in Armenia, the United States simply disappoints Armenians in Armenia and the Diaspora, particularly, American Armenians, who question the U.S. commitment to democracy beyond paying mere lip service.

    When the U.S. government and its embassy in Yerevan remain silent in the face of grave violations of human rights in Armenia, it shows that the United States, contrary to its statements, is not serious about improving democracy in the country. Similarly, when Azerbaijan regularly attacks and kills Armenians, while the United States calls on both sides to reduce tensions, the United States loses its credibility in the eyes of Armenians in and out of Armenia.

  • British Media Failed to Cover Terror Attack on Embassy in London

    British Media Failed to Cover Terror Attack on Embassy in London

    By Azer Hasret

    On August 4, 2022, a group of radical Shia Islamists had attacked the Embassy of Azerbaijan in London. The action happened early afternoon at a worktime. What was strange British police was present and they did not prevent attackers from this wrongdoing.

    According to media reports radicals approached Embassy’s building, entered, took away some of the belongings and damaged them.

    Then a dozen of members of the group went on the balcony of the Embassy, hoisted so-called flag of Huseyn. Some of them wrote something in Arabic language on the walls and windows of the Embassy which is located at the 2nd floor of the building.

    Afterwards one of the assailants approached the flag of Azerbaijan, took it away and dropped on the street.

    The national flag of Azerbaijan, pictures of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his father, former President Heydar Aliyev were walked through by the radicals on the street.

    And these actions were perpetrated before the eyes of London policemen who were very tolerant towards these wrongdoings.

    After some 2 hours of the action policemen arrested several perpetrators. Everything was filmed and aired live.

    Wasn’t this strange?

    That was.

    In the center of the city like London a group of radicals attack an embassy, damage belongings and policemen present do not take action to prevent this vandalism…

    That was strange appearance in the most known and most secure city of the world…

    So as this action happened one could think that the UK media would cover this kind of attack in the city. But what happened to the most “independent” and “free” UK media?

    According to the reports most mainstream media of the UK preferred to keep silence regarding this terror attack on the Embassy of Azerbaijan…

    Being a citizen of the new democracy – Azerbaijan we were really shocked not due to action of vandalism taken against the Embassy, but due to the silence of the UK mainstream media.

    Wasn’t that really news worth case? Imagine, a group of radicals claimed to be Shia Islamists attack an embassy, damage its property, and this happens in more than two hours period in front of the UK police. And this story is not news worth for the UK media.

    But we remember even one man whatever does in London and across the world the UK media covers it. Usually, they like to show while someone claiming to be Muslim takes any radical action. The UK media covers this kind of cases bringing to readers/viewers/listeners as a case of “radical Islam”.

    Now what happened? A group, attacking Azerbaijani Embassy claimed to be Shia Islamists and they are known as radical group. They claim to be “Mahdi Servants Union” and stated an attack as response to the Azerbaijani Government “repressions” against Shia Muslims.

    Just to remind, Azerbaijan is a secular new democracy, and no religion is suppressed here. But some people misusing Islamic religion for dirty purposes by the order of the Islamic Republic of Iran are trying to destabilize Azerbaijan. So, the Government of Azerbaijan takes preventive measures in order to assure stability and security. In this case radical religious groups claim to be oppressed and the likewise groups as “Mahdi Servants Union” use this opportunity to showcase against Azerbaijan.

    And in this case the UK mainstream media keeps silence, turns blind eye and thus shows its bias towards the nations and countries.

    That was the UK media which used to cover even the garbage dumps in Azerbaijan during the 1st European Games staged in Baku in 2015. They were paying very high “attention” on Azerbaijan using any small opportunity.

    But what happened now? Why the UK media failed to follow the principles of impartiality and media ethics and prevented itself from covering a brutal attack on the Embassy?

    Was that due to the Embassy being the Azerbaijani one? What would happen if the radical “Muslims” would attack any other country’s embassy like for example the Embassy of Armenia or etc.?

    We believe, that the UK media would cover this attack as “terror attack of Muslim group on Christian country’s embassy”.

    Then they say that the UK and even all Western media are free and independent…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjNnNaigNB4

  • UN Official Deletes His Tweet on Armenian Genocide, After Pressure from Turkey

    UN Official Deletes His Tweet on Armenian Genocide, After Pressure from Turkey

    The Turkish government resorted to its customary bullying tactics last week to force a high-ranking United Nations (UN) official to delete his tweet on the Armenian Genocide.

    On July 27, President of the United Nations General Assembly Abdulla Shahid issued a tweet with four photos showing him placing a wreath at the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan. He wrote in his tweet: “Laid a wreath at the Memorial to the Victims of Armenian Genocide. Special thanks to Museum-Institute Director Harutyun Marutyan & Hasmik Martirosyan for a tour of the Museum.” Marutyan presented to the visitor books on the Armenian Genocide and showed him the three cross-stones dedicated to the memory of Armenians who were killed by Azerbaijan.

    The wreath placed by the UN General Assembly President had white and blue flowers and was decorated with a blue ribbon with “United Nations” written on it. In the other photos of his tweet, he was seen observing a moment of silence at the Eternal Flame of the Memorial, taking a tour of the Armenian Genocide Museum, and signing the Guest Book in which he wrote: “I am very moved by my visit to this museum. I thank you for warmly receiving me as a part of my visit to Armenia.”

    During his three-day visit to Armenia, the President of the UN General Assembly met with various Armenian officials, including the President of Armenia Vahagn Khachatryan, Deputy Prime Minister Hambardzum Matevosyan, Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, Vice Chairman of the Parliament Ruben Rubinyan, female diplomats of the Foreign Ministry, and spoke at the graduation ceremony of the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic School.

    Shortly after Shahid’s visit and tweet, the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued an official statement condemning him for visiting the Armenian Genocide Memorial and alleging that his trip “to Armenia has been exploited with the purpose of exposing one-sided Armenian claims and it is in that context that he paid a visit to the so-called genocide memorial.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry added: “He would have been expected to act in a fair and impartial manner, to be more careful and responsible in this regard. Representatives acting on behalf of the UN authorized bodies must carry out their duties in accordance with the UN legal instruments and relevant norms and rules of international law, particularly the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide dated 1948. We condemn and reject attempts to distort historical facts and international law through political manipulation. Türkiye is of the opinion that the facts regarding the events of 1915 should be dealt with in a full, fair and honest framework.”

    Shahid, who is also the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Maldives, immediately deleted the tweet about his visit to the Armenian Genocide Memorial, succumbing to Turkish pressures.

    Whereas the Turkish government had succeeded in imposing its will on the UN official, not a single Armenian official who met with the President of the UN General Assembly bothered to question him why he deleted his tweet, let alone criticize him.

    Of course, nothing can excuse the submissive behavior of the high-ranking UN official who caved in to the directive of a dictatorial regime, contrary to the UN principles that he was sworn to uphold. Two sources confirmed some of the actions of the Turkish government: The Passblue.com website disclosed that Turkey rescinded its invitation to Shahid to visit Ankara. The Turkish Superhaber.tv further revealed that Turkey withdrew Shahid’s invitation to attend the Ambassadors’ Conference to be held in Ankara on August 8-12. Turkey probably used other behind-the-scenes measures to pressure Shahid.

    It is highly offensive that Shahid, by agreeing to delete his tweet, disrespected the Armenian Genocide which had been corroborated by the UN itself. On August 29, 1985, the UN “Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities” adopted a report on genocide by a vote of 15 in favor, 1 opposed, and 4 abstentions. The “Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” was prepared by British Special Rapporteur Benjamin Whitaker. Paragraph 24 of that report stated: “The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, [and] the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916 ….” The report also included an extensive bibliography on the Armenian Genocide. An earlier version of that report, prepared by UN Special Rapporteur Nicodeme Ruhashyankiko of Rwanda, had included in its paragraph 30 a reference to the Armenian Genocide which was subsequently deleted after excessive pressure by the Turkish government. I know these facts first-hand because I spent from 1978 to 1985 at the UN in Geneva as the representative of a non-governmental organization on human rights, countering the repeated Turkish attempts to delete the reference to the Armenian Genocide.

    The Armenian government may not be aware of these facts. I suggest that the Armenian Foreign Ministry file a strongly-worded complaint with the Secretary-General of the United Nations to have the deleted tweet reinstated and apologize to the Armenian nation.

  • Armenian Officials Falsify the Reason For Banning Papazian from Armenia

    Armenian Officials Falsify the Reason For Banning Papazian from Armenia

    Harut Sassounian

    Last week, I wrote about a scandalous incident when Armenian officials did not allow Mourad Papazian, a French Armenian community leader who has devoted his life to the defense of the Armenian Cause, to enter Armenia after arriving at the Yerevan Airport. Despite Papazian’s repeated questions at the airport as to why Armenian officials were banning him from entering the country, he was not given an answer. I will now comment on the latest developments in this case.

    Initially, government officials told the media that they are unable to reveal the reason for Papazian’s expulsion in order not to violate his right to privacy. When Zareh Sinanyan, Armenia’s Chief Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs, was first asked why Papazian was banned from the country, he said that he had no idea. Sinanyan then wrongly claimed that the organization co-led by Papazian, the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France (CCAF), had no right to represent the entire French Armenian community, since it was just one organization. Contrary to Sinanyan’s statement, the CCAF is not just one organization, but a coalition of around 60 French Armenian organizations.

    Later, one of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s unnamed aides gave a lengthy interview to the Armenpress wire service last week, alleging that Papazian was banned from Armenia for violating Chapter 2, Article 8, sections 1.k and 1.z of the law on “Foreigners.” The aide went on to claim that Papazian was one of the individuals who attacked Pashinyan’s motorcade in Paris on June 1, 2021. What happened to the government’s initial excuse that it cannot reveal the reason for Papazian’s expulsion to protect his privacy? The real reason for his expulsion was the Prime Minister’s intolerance to anyone who dares to oppose his regime.

    Here are the true facts: I verified that Papazian was not involved in any attack on Pashinyan’s motorcade because he was not there. The protest was carried out by a group of young men who regrettably hurled tomatoes at Pashinyan’s motorcade. That is not a proper thing to do to Armenia’s leader while on foreign soil. Nevertheless, last year’s incident was viewed by the Armenian government to be so unimportant that the Embassy of Armenia in Paris did not even file a complaint with the French authorities.

    Secondly, it is very strange that after the June 1, 2021 motorcade incident in Paris, Papazian visited Armenia on four different occasions and no one at the Yerevan Airport obstructed his entry. If the Prime Minister’s aide is serious about his baseless accusation against Papazian, why did the government not object to his entry to Armenia until a year later, during his fifth visit? The Prime Minister’s aide is thus acknowledging that Armenian officials are so incompetent that they cannot even implement properly their own decisions.

    Furthermore, Pashinyan’s aide falsely claimed that there are media reports about the Paris incident, including video tapes on the internet showing Papazian’s and others’ protest. The fact is that there is no such video showing Papazian at that protest simply because he was not there. Had there been such a video, the Armenian government would have disseminated it widely to prove Papazian’s guilt.

    Since the Prime Minister’s aide based his accusation of Papazian on Article 8, sections 1.k and 1.z of Armenia’s law on “Foreigners,” I found it interesting that section 6 of Article 8 of that same law lists the following government officials as the only ones who can have access to the black list of individuals banned from entering Armenia: “The staff of the President of Armenia, the national security agency, authorized police officials, Foreign Ministry officials, the courts and the prosecutor’s office.” Importantly, neither the Prime Minister himself nor his aides are on this list of officials authorized to access the black list. How did Pashinyan’s aide know that Papazian’s name is on the black list and the reason why he was banned from entering the country? This is an obvious violation of the law, the same law that Pashinyan’s aide quoted to justify banning Papazian. In a normal democratic country, this aide and his superiors would be prosecuted for breaking the law. What they have done to Papazian is an abuse of power. Armenia is not Pashinyan’s private house so he can decide whom to let in and whom to ban.

    Finally, while the government is busy blocking an Armenian nationalist from entering the country, a widely circulated video on social media showed a Turkish extremist at the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan, sticking his tongue out, howling like a wolf, giggling hysterically, ridiculing the Genocide and making the hand gesture of the terrorist Turkish Grey Wolves group, while wearing the flag of a Turkish soccer club which has the crescent and the star, the emblem of the Turkish Republic. While it is not always possible for the police to prevent such ugly incidents, if Armenian officials were not so busy trying the silence their political opponents, they would have more time to deal with the real enemies of the Armenian nation. How ironic that an Armenian nationalist is banned from entering Armenia, at the same time a Turkish extremist is allowed to enter the country and insult the memory of the Genocide martyrs.

    It would have been far better for Armenian officials to tell the truth by acknowledging that they should not have expelled Papazian from Armenia, instead of inventing more lies to cover up their initial wrongful action.

  • Azerbaijan sell arms to Ukraine

    Azerbaijan sell arms to Ukraine

    azer ukr

    Despite the news about the Ukrainian army’s progress, the United States continues to use its full potential to provide Kyiv with more weapons, in order to ensure the continued confrontation of the Russian army and prevent Moscow from achieving its goals in its special military operation.

    Washington confirms that it does not supply weapons to Ukraine indiscriminately, e.g.  the quality of weapons is “accurately calculated”. However, these criteria are determined by Ukrainian military attaches deployed in Ukrainian embassies around the world. The weapons are later circulated within the lists of weapons of interest to the Ukrainian army before obtaining them through international intermediaries, and then transferred to the territory of Ukraine and used against the Russian army.

    This mechanism is carefully organized and carefully. Washington is interested in buying Soviet weapons, given that the Ukrainian forces and militias participating in the fighting there are experienced in using this type of weapons.

    The latest American attempt took place in Azerbaijan’s Baku, where an agreement was signed between an organization that belongs to the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense and an intermediary European company close to Washington to supply a group of Soviet weapons to Kyiv.

    The details reveal that this company is of Spanish origin called “SDLE”, which is an abbreviation for (Star Defense Logistics Engineering S.L), this company works under the supervision and funding of the American Intelligence Agency (CIA). The offer also included a plan to visit the military facilities in Azerbaijan to inspect the supplied weapons and the agreement from the Azerbaijani side to provide the Spanish company with weapons schedules, quantities and prices. The third country which will be used to transfer the weapons to Ukraine is likely to be the Czech Republic.

    According to the information, the deal between the Spanish company and the Azerbaijani  “Device” industrial organization was signed on June 23, 2022 and amounted to about $78 million.

    As for the type of weapons, according to what the deal data shows, they are “Kornet”, “Victoria”, “Concura” and “Fagot” anti-armor missiles, in addition to “Strela” anti-aircraft missiles, and other light and heavy weapons.

    The signing of the deal was attended by two representatives from the Azerbaijani side, the director of the “apparatus” Mammadov Azer and his deputy, Khadyrov Elgar. The buyer’s side was represented by the CEO of the Spanish “Star Defense” company, Estrella Aurelio Jesus, in addition to the representative of the company, Zuhur Rashid.

    The information says that Azerbaijan has “transit” depots in Jordan with a large number of weapons, valued at about $500 million.  Yet, it is not known whether these weapons will be launched from there or not.

    The Spanish company is achieving remarkable growth in the field of weapons, and it also aspires to diversify its military activity.  Being a provider of military systems, it is now investing in the military sector and looking forward to designing and supplying more complex military systems.

    US officials have previously admitted on more than one occasion that their country is sending secretly obtained Soviet equipment in order to enhance the capabilities of the Ukrainian army in confronting the attacks of Russian forces. Though The Pentagon refused to disclose the size of its unknown arsenal of Soviet weapons, but Washington had previously kept some Soviet weapons in its warehouses, and was able to enhance them through similar deals with countries seeking to renew their military arsenal or aspiring to obtain American ones. In return for the supply of Soviet weapons to Ukraine.

    The relationship between Russia and Azerbaijan is currently considered to be good. Due to the personal relations between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Ilham Aliyev, Russian-Azerbaijani cooperation has been strengthened over the recent years. The ongoing war in Ukraine today is likely to become a test for trust and sincerity of the countries that call themselves as allies and friends.

  • Prime Minister Pashinyan has no RightTo Ban an Armenian from Entering Armenia

    Prime Minister Pashinyan has no RightTo Ban an Armenian from Entering Armenia



    French Armenian community leader Mourad (Franck) Papazian and his wife were not allowed to enter Armenia last week after they arrived at the Yerevan Airport. Papazian is a member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation’s worldwide leadership (Bureau) and the Co-President of the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France.

    At passport control, Papazian was told to wait until they verified his information. He had a proper French passport and did not need a visa to enter Armenia. While he was waiting, customs’ officials were consulting with their superiors on the phone.

    Papazian was then led to an isolated room at the airport where he was kept for several hours. Finally, National Security Service agents told him that he was not allowed to enter Armenia.

    Despite Papazian’s several requests, he was never informed of the reason for his being barred from entering Armenia. He was expelled from the country by placing him on the next flight to Paris.

    This is an incident with serious ethical, legal, diplomatic and national implications.

    Ethically, if Armenian officials want to ban someone from entering Armenia, they should have the minimum courtesy of telling the individual the reason for such a grave decision. The visitor is entitled to know why he is not being allowed to enter the country.

    In terms of Armenian laws, regardless of the reason for banning Papazian from entering the country, Armenian officials don’t have the right to take such an action on their own, be they airport officials, National Security Service agents or Prime Minister. Banning any visitor, let alone a fellow Armenian, from entering the country is a very serious decision. If Papazian had violated any Armenian laws, airport officials could have detained him, presented the charges against him to a judge who would have taken a legal decision based on the evidence after listening to both sides. Is Armenia a country governed by laws or by the vindictive decisions of the Prime Minister? If one man can act as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, then Armenia is far from being a democratic country. It is sad that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power four years ago as a democrat, is ignoring all democratic norms. Papazian’s sole guilt is being critical of the failed regime of Pashinyan.

    In terms of European laws, Armenia violated in this case several principles of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which it had committed to uphold. The required procedure is that Papazian first challenge his expulsion in a domestic Armenian court. If he is unsuccessful there, Papazian can then take his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. I am certain that the European Court will find that the Armenian government violated Papazian’s “right to a fair trial,” “freedom of expression” and “freedom of movement.” Furthermore, Papazian’s expulsion was a violation of United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Regarding this incident’s possible negative effect on Armenia’s relations with France, as a French citizen, Papazian has filed a complaint with the French Embassy in Yerevan and the French Foreign Ministry in Paris. As a well-known political activist, Papazian has close ties with Pres. Macron of France and other high-ranking French officials. Already, there was another unpleasant incident last May, when Papazian accompanied the Pro-Armenian Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, on her visit to Armenia. Since Papazian is a critic of Pashinyan, he informed the Prime Minister’s office that he will not join the Mayor’s scheduled meeting with Pashinyan, in order not to create an unwelcome scene during the meeting. Without any explanation, at the last minute, the Prime Minister decided to cancel the meeting with the Paris Mayor. This was a major diplomatic error. Armenia can ill afford to alienate French officials who are some of its staunchest supporters.

    In terms of the Armenian government undermining the collective interests of the Armenian nation, it is counterproductive that while Armenia is surrounded by bloodthirsty enemies and its very existence is threatened, its leaders are engaged in a self-defeating action regarding the Diaspora which only serves to further weaken Armenia. Azerbaijan does have massive petrodollars, but Armenia has a large Diaspora which is an unutilized asset.

    I am afraid that Papazian’s expulsion, if not reversed quickly, will have an adverse effect on Armenia’s relations with the seven-million strong Diaspora. Armenia’s leaders, rather than coming up with initiatives to attract more Diaspora Armenians to visit, immigrate and invest in Armenia, are unwisely alienating them.

    Since Papazian’s only guilt is that he was a critic of Pashinyan, his expulsion could cause many other Diaspora Armenians, who are opposed to the Prime Minister, to avoid visiting Armenia out of a concern that they too will be stopped at the Yerevan Airport and not be allowed to visit their homeland.

    It is highly regrettable that Papazian, a man who has dedicated his entire life to defending the interests of Armenia and the Armenia Cause, is treated in such an offensive manner. With great sadness, he acknowledged: “I knew that I was banned from Turkey and Azerbaijan. Today, I am banned from Pashinyan’s Armenia.”