A doctor singing in a choir...

21 July 2011

Recently I happened to meet a very interesting person. I was sitting in a café when I heard somebody fluently speaking Armenian with a slight Western Armenian accent. I curiously strained my ears to hear what was being said without being noticed. But I was no longer able to resist my curiosity once I understood that the speaker was from Nagorno-Karabakh! I turned to the table where that man was sitting with a friend, introduced myself and asked if I could join them. The man gave me an amicable smile and welcomed to take the vacant seat.

His name was Shahen Baleozyan. He was the chief doctor of Kashadagh district. He said he was in Yerevan on holiday but was going to retire upon his return because of some health problems.

An immigrant from Syria, Mr.Baleozyan told me how he had got to Berdzor (Latchin) and why he had stayed there to live and work miles away from his family.

“I remember the year 2007, when I came to Armenia with my son, who was willing to enter the Yerevan Medical Institute. One evening I was watching TV when I saw an announcement inviting doctors to work in Nagorno-Karabakh... My first thought was ‘I must help my country.’ So, the next day I went to the interview. There were twenty of us but only four qualified. We were interviewed by Artsakh Buniatyan, the chief doctor of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It was a strange interview, I must say... He asked a couple of questions, I answered and, then, we began looking at one another. I think it was then that we understood that we could get along well.

And now I was already on my way to Karabakh... I was very lucky: the driver of the car had turned out to me my distant relative and had agreed to give me shelter until I got my own dwelling.

After a while as a surgeon, I was offered the posts of director of the local hospital and chief doctor of the district. I had never been manager before so I was forced to learn some standards and the labor code.

Realizing what a great responsibility it was to take control of a war-ridden business, I started to actively modernize it. The major problem was the shortage of personnel. I pulled the strings and very soon we opened obstetrics, gynecology, surgery and therapeutics departments.

My friends abroad helped me to find drugs and equipment. I did it all without being paid as the social-economic situation was just beginning to improve.”

The friend of Mr.Baleozyan said that he was not only a doctor and manager but also a benefactor: he has restored the local medieval church, has provided his personnel with new uniforms. Mr.Baleozyan was silent all the time while his friend was praising him. Then, he told me a funny story that had made him “famous...”

“I am not a professional singer but I always sang in choirs when I was a child... When the Berdzor Church resumed its services, I talked with the local priest and he agreed to hire me as ... a singer. And then came the day when I first sang. The service was underway when I suddenly noticed that people were looking at me curiously and whispering something to one another. After the service they began approaching me and asking for how long I had been engaged in singing. I don’t remember how it all ended on that day but the fact is that since then people have known me better as a singer than a doctor!”

Saying this, my smiling companion apologized, explaining that he had an appointment and had to go.

The special thing about our conversation was that Mr.Baleozyan was telling about hardships with such an ease that for some moment I forgot who he was and what privations he had gone through...

For a long time after his departure I was still thinking about the small town, its residents, the local church, the district doctor singing in it - the man who tried to bring people to life after destruction by showing them how important it was to have strong will and to believe in eternal values.

Gohar Karapetyan

Latest

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Dennis Sammut

Editor's choice

News

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

11 November 2026

Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States resumed in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, November 11. The second day of meetings follows an initial round of discussions that received positive assessments from Kyiv and Washington but exposed continuing divisions over the terms of a potential peace agreement. The talks, brokered by the United States, address prisoner exchanges, security guarantees and possible de-escalation, while territorial disputes remain the central obstacle to an agreement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described Tuesday's discussions as “constructive and quite substantive”, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “very productive”. US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly told participants that Washington had narrowed the differences between the two sides. Kushner also raised the possibility of developing a new European security framework. However, the US administration has provided few details about concrete progress. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the prospect of a ceasefire, accusing European countries of seeking a temporary truce to facilitate the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. He also dismissed the presence of European representatives in Abu Dhabi, saying: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi. Let them sit there.” European officials have held separate consultations with Ukrainian and American representatives but remain excluded from the trilateral negotiations, despite Washington signalling that their participation could eventually be considered. Territorial control seems to be an issue that the parties are unable to resolve. Russia continues to demand the entire Donbas region, including territories it has not captured, while Ukraine refuses to relinquish its land. A senior US official indicated that both sides had demonstrated some flexibility privately, but stressed that territorial arrangements could not be resolved before Ukraine's post-war security guarantees were established. Simultaneously, military escalation continues. On November 11, Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergii Koretskyi reported Russian strikes against six major electricity substations across four central regions, as well as railway infrastructure. Russia also reported targeting Ukrainian military-related facilities and a cargo vessel near Odesa. Meanwhile, NATO fighter jets were activated following overnight drone alerts in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. European divisions over continued assistance to Kyiv further complicate the diplomatic environment. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz faced opposition from Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary and Bulgaria after proposing to link the EU's next long-term budget to additional financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, Denmark announced a €643 million military assistance package and €20 million for Ukraine's energy sector on Tuesday. As negotiations continue, the contrasting positions of Moscow, Kyiv and their Western partners highlight the considerable obstacles to reaching a settlement. The discussions have opened diplomatic channels, but fundamental disagreements over territory, security arrangements and Europe's future security architecture remain unresolved.

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996, Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe. But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides. Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)

Dennis Sammut

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)

Dennis Sammut

A doctor singing in a choir...

Latest

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Popular

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”