Category: Asia and Pacific

  • Istanbul to host meting of Turkish, Armenian FMs

    Istanbul to host meting of Turkish, Armenian FMs

    BAKU, November 18 /AZERTAG/. According to AZERTAG own correspondent, within the upcoming session of BSEC (Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation) on November 24 in Istanbul, a meeting of Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers Ali Babajan and Edward Nalbandyan will be held.

    The meeting participants are supposed to dwell upon the visit of the Armenian president to Ankara on the invitation of Turkish President Abdullah Gul as well as bilateral relations and settlements of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

    It was noted that after this meeting, where Armenia will receive BSEC presidency, a press-conference of the Armenian minister will be held as well as an official reception.

    Earlier, Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babajan claimed the session does not envisage a trilateral meeting of the Azerbaijani, Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers.

  • Headscarf Ban Remains Live Issue in Central Asia

    Headscarf Ban Remains Live Issue in Central Asia

    Linking hijab controversy to fears of Islamic extremism may be counter-productive.

    By Abdumomun Mamaraimov in Jalalabad and Saodat Asanova in Dushanbe (RCA No. 556, 14-Nov-08)

    “We face a difficult choice – take the headscarf off or give up on school,” said Sahiba Yusupova, whose daughters are under increasing pressure from their school in southern Kyrgyzstan to remove headscarves on the grounds that they are too public a display of Muslim faith.

     

    Yusupova has already had to take her elder daughter out of school in Jalalabad and send her off to the capital Bishkek to study at a private Turkish-run institution. Now the second of her three daughters is having trouble.

    “The heads and teaching heads won’t listen … I see this as a kind of purge,” she said.

    Seventeen years after the Soviet Union collapsed and people began to practice their faith more freely, religion remains a contentious issue in the predominantly Muslim Central Asia republics, where secular governments are fearful of Islamic extremists.

    The Muslim woman’s headscarf continues to embody the tensions between governments and their more devout citizens. The battle is being played out at universities and in the workplace, but most of all in the schools where the authorities have greater powers to enforce a dress code.

    Neither side appears ready to give ground. IWPR interviews in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan revealed uncompromising stances on either side, backed by a whole set of attitudes and grievances about the other. Muslim women who want to wear headscarves believe their human rights are under threat from abusive state officials, while to many officials, outward signs of adherence to Islam reflect an unreasonable and potentially extremist state of mind.

    In Kyrgyzstan, IWPR looked primarily at the situation in the schools, where the issue arises every autumn at when a new school year begins and girls turn up wearing headscarves. In the past, schools tolerated the practice, but last year many of them began insisting that scarves did not count as part of the prescribed uniform and warning that anyone who broke the rules would be excluded. (See Kyrgyzstan: Hijab Row as New School Year Begins, RCA RCA No. 511, 04-Oct-07.)

    The debate became more acute this year following a set of instructions issued by the Kyrgyz education ministry to reinforce the school uniform rules. The ministry says the document is more of a recommendation than a rule-book, but schools are interpreting it as an outright ban and girls are being excluded for flouting it.

    In the education sector in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, “hijab” – the requirement for modest dress which can include both a headcovering and a long over-garment – usually means only a headscarf tied under the chin. To complicate matters, the looser headscarves tied backwards that are commonly worn by women in the region are considered “non-religious” and therefore acceptable by the authorities.

    Tajikistan imposed a formal ban on hijab in both schools and universities in autumn 2005. At the time, Deputy Education Minister Farhod Rahimov said girls who disobeyed would be expelled. Education Minister Abdujabor Rahmonov has equated wearing hijab with conducting “propaganda for religious ideas in a secular society”, while his officials have explained that the ban was needed because of the growth of radical groups which want to use Islam as an instrument to undermine the state.

    EXCLUDED FROM SCHOOL FOR WEARING HIJAB

    When Ayjarkyn Kamaldin Kyzy took to wearing a headscarf one month ago, she was immediately excluded from her secondary school in the southern Kyrgyz city of Jalalabad.

    Ayjarkyn recalled what happened when her mother was called in to discuss the issue. “The school head made fun of me in front of my mother, saying the next thing would be that I’d come in wearing a ‘paranja’,” she said, referring to a long-obsolete Central Asian version of the Afghan burka.

    “The head of studies Alla Vladimirovna and some of the teachers accused me of wearing the headscarf for fashion reasons. That was offensive.”

    Unlike many other wearers, Ayjarkyn is not supported by her parents. Her father Kamildin says she took to praying and wearing conservative dress after a summer job at the market where she worked alongside devout Uzbek girls.

    “We aren’t against praying, but why wrap yourself in a headscarf?” he asked. “We’re worried our daughter has fallen under the sway of extremists.”

    “Grown ups don’t understand,” responded Ayjarkyn. “I want to go to school, but I can’t.”

    Ayjarkyn belongs to a Kyrgyz family. Although strict adherence to Islam was traditionally more common among the sizeable Uzbek minority of southern Kyrgyzstan, in recent years the wearing of Muslim-style headscarves has become more popular among Kyrgyz women as well.

    In Kyrgyzstan, the headscarf dispute is most apparent in the south, and although it is hard to assess the scale, Jalalabad’s education department estimates that there are seven or eight cases in each of the city’s 20 schools.

    Local teacher Mukarram Muminova says her observations suggest there are up to 15 girls in each school who want to be allowed to wear hijab. “In addition, many have simply stopped coming to school because of the headscarf issue,” she added.

    Zilola Akbarhojaeva, who is Uzbek, is in seventh grade at a school in Jalalabad in the south of Kyrgyzstan. She has been wearing a headscarf for the last four years and is a good student but every year it is getting tougher.

    At the start of the academic year on September 1, the school authorities said she was at the wrong school because of where she lives and would have to go somewhere else. But as the argument progressed, it quickly became apparent that the real reason for attempting to get her to leave was her headscarf. After her parents discussed the matter with the local education department, an uneasy compromise was reached where Zilola can wear the scarf on a temporary basis on the grounds that she has a sore ear.

    “We are not against the uniform – we have bought everything the school asks for,” said her mother Saida. “The only thing we’re asking for is that they let our daughters wear headscarves. We bought white ones that look nice and don’t make them look very different from the other kids. But the school has banned even this.

    “They treat them very badly at school; they humiliate them and insult our religious sensibilities.”

    The ban on hijab in Kyrgyz schools extends to teachers as well as pupils. A male head teacher who asked to remain anonymous, disagrees with the ban but says it is being widely applied in Jalalabad region.

    “It goes against religious convictions and also local custom, which requires married women to wear headscarves,” he said. “A school… recently refused to take on a young teacher who wouldn’t remove her headscarf.”

    IWPR found similar cases in Tajikistan, where religion plays a similarly contentious role. Mamnuna Karimova complains that her 13 year old daughter Mavzuna faces outright discrimination at her school in the northern Sogd region,

    “My child wears a headscarf not because it’s fashionable but because of the religious views of our family,” she said. “Now she gets a lot of humiliation at school. The children see how negatively the teachers view these girls – making them take their headscarves off in public or barring them from lessons – and that behaviour naturally provides [schoolchildren with] a motive for mistreating them.”

    The Garm valley of eastern Tajikistan, where Islam has traditionally had a strong hold, has seen many girls dropping out of school because of the headscarf ban.

    Local teacher Halima Yunusova claims pupils’ insistence on wearing hijab is a pretext. “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many girls stopped going to school after [the penultimate] year nine, mainly because of early marriage and concerns at home. Now they’re campaigning to wear hijab because then they’ll be officially banned from going to school,” she said.

    TAJIK BAN EXTENDS TO UNIVERSITY

    However, claims that women are deliberately trying to drop out of education are clearly not true of those who go on to university. Malohat Sobirova, who comes from a remote village in southern Tajikistan, found it impossible to continue at university because of the general hostility to her insistence on wearing hijab.

    “I really wanted to get a higher education, have a career and be a useful member of society, but unfortunately I was excluded because I wear hijab,” she said. “It got to a point where I felt like an outcast. I couldn’t keep on fighting for my rights so I had to go back home to my village. I abandoned my dream of higher education and now I’m unemployed.”

    She insists she was right not to give in, “I grew up in a traditional Muslim family and I regard it as an obligation to wear hijab. I can’t appear in public without my head being covered; that’s unacceptable for a true Muslim woman.”

    Last year, student Davlatmo Ismailova brought the first and so far only court case against the education ministry and the Institute of Foreign Languages, which had excluded her for wearing hijab.

    She lost her case, and remains bitter about it. “Under the constitution, all citizens of Tajikistan are supposed to be equal, but my case showed that if spiritual values don’t coincide with spiritual ones, girls like me have no chance of getting a good education and working anywhere prestigious,” she told IWPR.

    By contrast, another student, Rahima Davronova, has opted for a compromise with the authorities at Khujand State University in the north of Tajikistan. Outside the premises, she can tie her scarf under the chin to fulfil the hijab requirements, but when she goes in she knots it behind her head to make it into the traditional Tajik headscarf with no religious connotations. “I just use a big scarf,” she explained.

    OFFICIALS DENY EXISTENCE OF BAN

    Unlike Tajikistan, where the hijab ban is official, education officials in Kyrgyzstan are quick to insist no instructions have been given to schools, merely a recommendation.

    According to Chyrmash Dooronov, head of the education department for Jalalabad city, school heads “have no right to stop children attending classes”, since the order issued by the education ministry does not explicitly ban headscarves, but simply fails to mention them in the list of required uniform items.

    Kylym Sydyknazarova of the national education ministry’s schools department says the document is really only a set of general guidelines.

    “The education ministry recommended that schools opt for a single school uniform themselves; in other words, that parents and teachers decide what the uniform should be and set this down in the school rules,” she said. “We can neither allow or forbid the wearing of headscarves.”

    Abdumalik Sharipov of local human rights group Spravedlivost says the ministry document does not say anything about headscarves, so “everything that isn’t forbidden by law should be allowed”.

    “None of the schools in Jalalabad that we asked could produce a copy of the order. It isn’t clear what they are basing their ban on…. If the order did ban the wearing of headscarves, we’d contest it in court,” he said.

    Attempts by local government education officials to blame the schools for the hijab ban may be disingenuous. One school headmaster confirmed that local officials were exerting verbal pressure on schools to change their internal rules. “We couldn’t initiate that by ourselves as the parents wouldn’t back this kind of change to the rules,” he said.

    EQUATING HIJAB WITH ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

    As officials argue their case, the subtext to the dispute rapidly becomes clear – they are hostile to headscarves because they regard Islamic clothing as an external sign of radical extremist views.

    In both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, their main concern is Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a group that advocates the removal of Central Asian secular governments and the creation of an Islamic state. Although members insist it is non-violent, regional governments have blamed it for a number of attacks over the years. Despite sweeping arrests in Uzbekistan, and smaller numbers of detentions in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the group still attracts new members, in part because its messages speak to socially and economically marginalised groups in a way that governments seem unable to do. (For more on this, see Islamic Group Quietly Builds Support in Kyrgyzstan, RCA No. 516, 16-Nov-07.)

    Unlike other regional states, the Kyrgyz criminal code does not explicitly ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir membership, although the country’s Supreme Court issued a ruling prohibiting the group from operating in 2003, and the constitution prohibits faith-based political parties in general.

    In Dooronov’s view, in some cases Hizb ut-Tahrir has “addled parents’ minds”, while in others it is the children themselves who are drawn towards the group. In the former case, he would like to see “irresponsible” parents prosecuted for depriving their children of an education.

    Damira Alimjanova, who used to head the regional educational department and now serves as deputy governor of Jalalabad, is a well-known opponent of headscarves in schools. Like other officials, she says schools should not exclude wearers, but she remains extremely suspicious of them.

    “I don’t want to accuse all headscarf-wearers of extremism, but how can one be sure there aren’t some among them?” she asked.

    The activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir worry the opponents of hijab in Tajikistan, too. But some like Gallia Rabieva, a member of Tajikistan’s parliament, also look back to the 1992-97 civil war, in which the opposition force was led by Islamic guerrillas. “We’ve already been burnt by that one…. We are always afraid these religious organisations will try to drive the thin end of the wedge in somewhere else,” she said. “We fear the secular nature of our state will be placed under threat.”

    Recalling Soviet-era campaign against the veil or “paranja”, Rabieva said, “Our grandmothers risked their lives to throw off the paranja in the 1920s….they fought for women’s freedom, so when I see a young woman dressing herself like that of her own free will, it makes me feel ill.”

    Mainstream Muslim groups disagree strongly with such views. They oppose extremists, and say it is wrong to lump all devout people together with radicals.

    In Tajikistan, the Islamic Rebirth Party, the civil war-era armed opposition referred to by Rabieva, is now a legal political party and has taken up a number of hijab cases where women felt their rights were being abused.

    The head of Kyrgyzstan’s official Islamic establishment, Mufti Murataly-Ajy Jumanov, says his local representatives are dealing with requests for help they have received from hijab wearers.

    At the same time, the mufti says the Kyrgyz intelligence services have good reason to be concerned about extremist groups. “You have to understand them; they have a job to do,” he said.

    By contrast, the muftiate’s representative in Jalalabad, Abibilla-Aju Bapanov, is more outspoken in his opposition to the way the state authorities are handling the headscarf ban. “In a country where the overwhelming majority of the population are Muslim, you can’t just copy the Europeans. That might have been possible 15 years ago, but not now, because Islam has taken deep roots in people’s consciousness.”

    Bapanov’s predecessor as chief cleric in Jalalabad, Dilmurat-Ajy Orozov, goes even further, saying, “The state doesn’t respect its citizens’ rights, the [parliamentary] deputies don’t see that there’s a problem, and the president isn’t paying any attention.”

    Tursunbek Akun is Kyrgyzstan’s human rights ombudsman, and well known as a defender of Muslim rights. On a recent visit to southern Kyrgyzstan, he described the headscarf ban as a “gross violation of human rights”, and promised to make the national authorities aware of the concerns expressed by local people.

    MORE NUANCED APPROACHES NEEDED

    Some analysts interviewed for this report were more concerned about the spread of Islamic practices than the rights of those who want to wear headscarves. Manuchehra Jumanova, a political scientist in Tajikistan, for example, thinks the authorities there are basically doing the right thing by placing restrictions on what .

    “After all, we have a secular state, not an Islamic one where all women wear hijab,” she said.

    Experts in Kyrgyzstan, however, warn that this issue is potentially explosive and the government should therefore try more subtle approach than simply banning – or appearing to ban – the wearing of headscarves.

    “It’s a very sensitive issue that requires a delicate approach,” said Sania Sagnaeva, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “There’s a risk of conflict [even] if there are no other motives for this. This is about society’s tolerance overall. Headscarves are a symbol of belonging to one religion, but officials see the issue as an attempt to dictate terms.”

    Sharipov of the Spravedlivost group added, “There’s no point in unnecessarily creating problems where there aren’t any. They need to allow those who want to wear headscarves to do so and set general guidelines for this,” he said. “Haven’t we enough things engendering popular discontent already – the energy crisis and price rises?”

    He added, “People are already saying openly that all this is directed against Islam generally. If the problem isn’t resolved once and for all, parents will demand that new schools be set up where the children can dress according to religious precepts. That would divide society along religious lines.”

    Spravedlivost’s leader, Valentina Gritsenko, says her group is planning legal action against Kyrgyz officials who stop girls wearing headscarves and expel them from school.

    “The [local] education departments are breaking two rights at once – the girls’ right to religious observance and their right to receive an education.”

    If the authorities in Kyrgyzstan fail to move, some are warning of growing social tensions.

    “People are planning to hold protest rallies,” said Bapanov. “We are restraining them and asking them to keep the peace until the matter is resolved through legal channels.”

    Jamal Frontbek-Kyzy, who heads the Mutakallim women’s group, has succeeded in getting the authorities to sit up and take notice. Last week, she wrote to President Kurmanbek Bakiev and the Kyrgyz parliament, and a subsequent meeting with officials resulted in a promise to resolve things “in a positive manner”.

    Having already won a four-year battle for women to be allowed to keep their headscarves on in passport photos, Frontbek-Kyzy is confident about this campaign.

    “I am sure the outcome will be positive, as the headscarf ban was thought up by officials who are not only ill-informed about Islamic issues, but also have a poor knowledge of the constitution,” she said.

    Abdumomun Mamaraimov is an IWPR-trained journalist in Jalalabad, and Saodat Asanova is IWPR Tajikistan Country Director.

  • Negotiators Say Parties in Karabakh Talks ‘Not There Yet’

    Negotiators Say Parties in Karabakh Talks ‘Not There Yet’

     

     

     

     

     

    By Ruzanna Stepanian

    International mediators have reported an ‘improved mood’ in the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh, but said the parties are “not there yet” for an ultimate peace accord.

    The United States, Russian and French cochairmen of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group spoke at a press conference in Yerevan Monday afternoon after what was their longer-than-usual regional tour, including stops in the capitals of Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region itself.

    Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, who chairs the Group from the US, was cautious not to give any precise period of time for a finalized framework agreement that the sides have been said to be inching towards and even close to signing by the end of this year.

    “We would like that to be the case that we are just on the very edge of the agreement being finalized, but we are not. But what I can say is that the mood between the presidents has improved significantly since the meeting November 2 in Moscow, for which we are grateful to our Russian colleagues,” Bryza said.

    The US negotiator denied the recent media speculations that the negotiations are months away from a big agreement and also that there is some secret protocol leading to a nontransparent set of commitments by Armenia.

    “That’s absolutely untrue,” Bryza said. “There can be no secret protocols… I don’t sense either president is looking at the negotiations as an opportunity to make concessions as much as a new opportunity to see the conflict from the other president’s eyes and find a way to achieve what each president needs to gain agreement of their society.”

    Bryza’s French and Russian counterparts similarly sounded cautiously optimistic about a future peace plan.

    “It is important to understand that we are at a preliminary stage of the elaboration of the future peace agreement. Of course, it would be great if we could already be discussing all the details of the situation on the ground, but, unfortunately, we are not yet. We are still at the level of formalization of the general basic principles,” said Bernard Fassier, the Minsk Group’s French cochairman.

    And Yuri Merzlyakov, of Russia, added: “The sides’ agreeing with the basic principles of settlement does not yet mean the elaboration of a peace accord, which will also take some time.”

    The cochairmen made the statements after meeting the leaderships in Azerbaijan, Armenia, as well as Nagorno-Karabakh to where they traveled from Yerevan over the weekend.

    The current negotiations for a settlement in the protracted dispute are believed to focus on proposals drafted by the Minsk Group and presented to the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the OSCE summit in Madrid in November 2007.

    The mediators’ regional tour comes amid renewed international hopes for a breakthrough in the peace talks after the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan pledged an intensified search for a solution to the long-running dispute.

    Only about two weeks ago, in a joint declaration with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Serzh Sarkisian and Ilham Aliev agreed to take into account the so-called Madrid principles of a Karabakh settlement – a proposed framework agreement that calls for a phased solution to the conflict eventually to end in a referendum of self-determination in Nagorno-Karabakh.

    It is assumed that the Minsk Group proposals aim at reconciling the seemingly conflicting principles of international law, namely territorial integrity and self-determination.

    Nagorno-Karabakh, a mostly Armenian-populated autonomous region in Soviet Azerbaijan, has been de-facto independent from Baku’s rule since the 1994 ceasefire that put an end to nearly three years of fighting between the area’s ethnic Armenians seeking an independent status and Azerbaijani armed forces sent in to stifle local secessionism.

    In the war that claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands more on both sides, Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenians managed to establish control over the most part of the region and expand into surrounding areas to form a security zone.

    A withdrawal of Karabakh forces from most of the surrounding seven districts now fully or partly controlled by Armenian forces, demilitarization of the territories and deployment of international peacekeeping forces there appear to be a key element of the current peace proposal.

    Another element opposed by hardliners in Armenia is the return of the population, mostly Azerbaijanis, who were displaced during the active military phase of the conflict, to the places of their former residence, mostly in areas surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, but also within the unrecognized republic proper.

    Under the yet undisclosed plan, Nagorno-Karabakh is likely to enjoy an interim status before a referendum is held at some indefinite future date to decide its ultimate status.

    Other provisions of such a settlement might include strong international guarantees of security to the population of the area backed up with an overland link connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia as well as financial aid from the international community for rehabilitation in the conflict zone.

    In remarks to Armenian Public Television at the weekend, President Serzh Sarkisian, visiting Nagorno-Karabakh, listed a number of key prerequisites that he said would be essential to reaching an agreement.

    “The Karabakh problem can be solved only if Azerbaijan admits that the people of Karabakh have and can exercise their right to self-determination,” Sarkisian said. “And secondly, if Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia have a shared land border and the population of Nagorno-Karabakh receive strong guarantees of security.”

    After a meeting with Sarkisian earlier on Monday, the Minsk Group troika did not disclose the details of the discussions.

    “It is important to use and choose words very carefully,” Bryza explained.

    The French cochairman, however, opened some of the brackets mainly concerning security issues.

    “The security of Nagorno-Karabakh’s people in the present status-quo is only depending on Nagorno-Karabakh itself and Armenia, with the strong opposition, to put it mildly, from Azerbaijan. What we have in mind to try to create for the situation in the future is to ensure that the security of Nagorno-Karabakh’s people could be provided and guaranteed by a set of complex security measures and international guarantees as well as the agreement of these measures by Azerbaijan,” Fassier said.

    “The people of Karabakh have to feel safe — safe from physical attack and safe from any economic pressure as well,” Bryza added.

    And the Russian representative, Merzlyakov, said: “The [Armenian-controlled] territories now play a significant role in ensuring the Karabakh population’s security. If an adequate replacement can be found, including international guarantees of security, they can be returned.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1598406.html

  • Azerbaijan in the World: ADA Biweekly Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 19

    Azerbaijan in the World: ADA Biweekly Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 19

    To download the PDF version of this issue:

    Azerbaijan in the World
    ADA Biweekly Newsletter

    Vol. 1, No. 19
    November 1, 2008

    adabiweekly@ada.edu.az

    Contents:

    Guglielmo Verdirame, “Introduction: Why International Law”
    – Guglielmo Verdirame, “The Kosovo Question”
    – Timothy Otti & Ben Olbourne, “European Convention on Human Rights
       and the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights
    – Stefan Talmon, “Recognition of States and Governments in International Law”
    – Guglielmo Verdirame, “Concluding Remarks”
    – A Chronology of Azerbaijan’s Foreign Policy
    – Note
    to Readers

    If you are interested in receiving the full issues of the newsletter, write to:
    adabiweekly@ada.edu.az

    The editors of “Azerbaijan in the World” hope that you find it useful
    and encourage you to submit your comments and articles via email
    (adabiweekly@ada.edu.az).

  • JOURNAL/CFP- Reminder: ARMACAD Academic-Autobiographical Journal

    JOURNAL/CFP- Reminder: ARMACAD Academic-Autobiographical Journal

    Armenian Association for Academic Partnership and Support (ARMACAD)

    ARMACAD
    Academic-Autobiographical Journal
    www.armacad.org
    Editor-in-Chief: Khachik Gevorgyan (Yerevan)

    Associate Editors: Mushegh Asatryan (Yale), Vahe S. Boyajian
    (Yerevan), Hovhannes Hovhannisyan (Yerevan), Artashes Karapetyan
    (Harvard), Gevorg Muradyan (Kaiserslautern)

    International Editorial Board: Gevorg Avetikyan (CEU), James Barry
    (Monash University), Dzovinar Derderian (Georgetown), Sona Gasparyan
    (Yerevan), Smbat Khachatryan (Cairo), Ekaterina Manicheva (St.
    Petersburg), Gayane Melkom Melkomian (Yerevan), Natalia Plechistova
    (Göttingen)

    The Armenian Association for Academic Partnership and Support launches
    the publication of a new Academic-Autobiographical Journal ARMACAD.

    We invite authors to submit their papers by November 30th, 2008.

    Format of the Journal

    The editorial board of the ARMACAD Academic-Autobiographical Journal
    invites authors to submit papers about their academic experiences in
    and outside Armenia. The Journal will be divided into two sections.
    The first section will include autobiographical articles of students
    and scholars from Armenia who have been abroad for an academic
    occasion – conference, seminar, summer school, degree programme,
    lecture, etc. In the second section we will publish autobiographical
    articles of foreign students and scholars who visited Armenia for
    academic purposes – conference, seminar, summer school, degree
    programme, lecture, etc.

    Themes of the Journal

    The Journal will provide an open forum for all interested parties to
    write about memories from their academic experiences in a free genre.
    You are welcome to submit any interesting recollection you have from
    Armenia and/or abroad. Any story related to your short, or a long term
    stay will fit into the scope of the Journal. The Journal will be
    published yearly and the authors may write about their experiences in
    a series of articles. Representatives of all academic disciplines are
    invited to contribute to the Journal. The Journal will be published in
    English.

    Submission Procedure

    Alongside your autobiographical article, please send your CV, a photo
    and a short biography. The biography and the photo will appear with
    your article in the journal. The short biography should include your
    current affiliations, your academic interests and any other
    information, which you would like the reader to be aware of. Please
    limit the biography to 200 words. 

    Please submit all materials to: armacad@armacad.org

    Once we receive an e-mail from you with the attached documents, a
    confirmation letter will be sent back to you. If you do not receive a
    confirmation e-mail, then we have not received your materials. In that
    case please resend them to: khachik.gevorgyan@yahoo.co.uk

    DEADLINE: November 30th, 2008.

    The first issue of the journal will be out in April-May 2009.

  • Removal of Afghan refugees from Calais to be jointly funded by Britain and France

    Removal of Afghan refugees from Calais to be jointly funded by Britain and France

    Afghan refugees in Calais will be removed on flights jointly funded by the British and French governments.

    Sylvie Copyans, from the French charity Salam, said:”Many of the Afghan refugees sleeping rough here fought against the Taliban. They face huge dangers if they go back, especially since the Taliban are becoming more powerful again.”

    Daily Express: Afghans will be sent home in handcuffs
    Indymedia: Afghans in Calais to be mass deported on Anglo/French charter flights