Waa, what have I done, seemingly stumbled into a nest of entrenched POV Warriors! So as not to get too bogged down in the war of attrition that seems to have claimed the above attempts, if, as seems to be being suggested, naming should be per current Wikipedia:Polices, then most relevant seem to be NPOV Naming, WP:BIAS, and most of all Disambiguation - Primary Topics: per the last, a topic may be "primary" by (1) Usage and (2) Long-term significance. If (1) needs to be addressed (apparently in certain instances - surely here - "only one sense of primacy is relevant"), the usurped (UN Member etc) does have more far page views (per User:Henrik's stats tool) than the pretender (the administrative division); and "web presence" may not always be the best guide to "long-term significance", otherwise Justin Bieber would apparently be more significant to the history of culture and civilization than the Athenian Democracy, etc. So, with (1) out the way, if we are agreed that (2) "Long-term significance" is here the key determinant, then:

Long-term significance
, UNESCO World Heritage Site]] 
From where I'm sitting, both are far off lands about which we know little; per the respective article pages, however, and for starters:   
 one a UN Member State, the other not
 one with a written history of over two millenia, the other not
 one an important geo-political entity, fought over by rival powers from the Hittites in the second millenium BC to the Russians in 2008, the other not
 one a distinct culture, with its own language and script, the other not
 one with an architectural and artistic tradition recognised as of universal significance by UNESCO et al, the other not
 one with a musical tradition, of early polyphony, and other intangible heritage that is also recognized as of global important by UNESCO, the other not