Dashnaks Back New Russian-Armenian Pact
Armenia -- Armen Rustamian, a leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, at a news conference, 31Aug 2010.
31.08.2010
Ruzanna Stepanian
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) believes that Armenia had no choice but to extend and deepen its military ties with Russia through a new defense agreement, a leader of the influential opposition party said on Tuesday.
Armen Rustamian, the de facto head of Dashnaktsutyun’s organization in Armenia, also said that the collapse of the Turkish-Armenian normalization process was a major factor behind that agreement. The deal, signed during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s recent visit to Yerevan, extended the presence of Russian troops in Armenia until 2044 and upgraded their role in ensuring the country’s security. It also committed Moscow to supplying the Armenian military with modern weaponry. Presenting his party’s official position on the pact, Rustamian argued that no other foreign power is ready to give Armenia such security guarantees. “It is probably not a secret to anyone that 80 percent of our military security -- in fact, much more than that -- is today conditioned by our relations with Russia,” he told a news conference. “So in terms of military security, Armenia today has no viable alternative. This is a fact.”“Therefore, any step aimed at enhancing that volume [of Russian-Armenian military cooperation] is by and large positive,” he added. The Armenian National Congress (HAK), a more radical opposition force led by former President Levon Ter-Petrosian, has also reacted positively to the Russian-Armenian deal. Still, HAK representatives have said it would be offset by the possible sale of sophisticated Russian air-defense missiles to Azerbaijan. The deal has been strongly criticized by another major opposition group, the Zharangutyun (Heritage) Party of Raffi Hovannisian. Zharangutyun leaders have questioned Armenian officials’ claims that the Russian troops would openly side with Armenia in the event of another war with Azerbaijan.Rustamian, who also heads the Armenian parliament’s committee on foreign relations, said closer military ties with Russia are particularly vital for Armenia following the collapse its dramatic rapprochement with Turkey, which has been fiercely opposed by Dashnaktsutyun. He claimed that the process has only strengthened the Turkish-Armenian relationship and increased the likelihood of renewed war in Nagorno-Karabakh.“We have created a much more dangerous situation for ourselves,” said Rustamian. “To a certain extent, this step [the signing of the Russian-Armenian pact] was dictated by that.”
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
ARMENIAN FAMILY FUN DAY AT THE NYS MUSEUM--OCT 2ND
ARMENIAN FAMILY FUN DAY AT THE NYS MUSEUM: Mark your calendar now so you don’t miss out on this day of family fun at the New York State Museum in Albany. On Saturday, October 2, from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m., come celebrate Armenian culture by learning more about the harvest in Armenia. There will also be hands-on educational activities for children of all ages to enjoy. The Armenian community has a 20-year relationship with the Museum through the Armenian Culture Series. Your support and feedback is always welcome and greatly appreciated to ensure its success for the future. You may contact event co-chairs Rafi & Marianne Topalian at rafitop@aol.com for more information or to offer your support
HOLY CROSS ANNUAL PICNIC: Holy Cross Armenian Church
HOLY CROSS ANNUAL PICNIC: Holy Cross Armenian Church, 255 Spring Avenue, Troy, will hold their Annual Blessing of the Grapes Picnic on Sunday, August 29, at 12:00 noon. All are invited. Dinners include two shish kebabs, one chicken kebab, pilaf, salad, bread and beverage for $15. Kebab sandwiches and Armenian pastries will also be available for purchase. Take out is available.
Armenian Orphan Rug Lives up to Its Name
Armenian Orphan Rug Lives up to Its Name
Posted By Tom Vartabedian On July 21, 2010 @ 2:13 am In Mid-Atlantic
WASHINGTON—Somewhere inside the White House, stashed away inside an obscure storage room, lays an historic rug.
A close-up of the Armenian Orphan Rug with its intricate detail bearing colorful images of animals akin to the Garden of Eden. The rug was woven in 1924-25 and presented to President Calvin Coolidge. It now lies in storage inside the White House.
Not just any rug, but one created by 400 Armenian orphans from 1924-25 in a town called Ghazir, about 40 miles north of Beirut.
This colorful piece of tapestry, which measures 18 feet by 12 feet, lives up to its name: It has remained an “orphan” rug since it passed through the hands of President Calvin Coolidge in 1926.
The intricacy is woven with a passion unlike others of its kind, containing some 4 million knots made to characterize the biblical Garden of Eden with its collection of animals and other symbolic features.
The big loom was set up for an “Isfahan.” The 400 orphaned girls worked in shifts and spent 18 months on its completion. It was then sent to Washington and presented at a special ceremony to the White House in recognition of the help rendered by the American people to Armenian orphans.
Armenian historians and archivists are looking for a more permanent home, one that will avail itself to tourists and public acclaim. They’d like nothing better than to see this rug on permanent display in the White House, with credit given to Armenian Genocide survivors or, at the very least, have it showcased inside the Genocide Museum, or perhaps the Smithsonian.
They seem to think there are political ramifications preventing this rug from enjoying the life of nobility, for which it was intended.
“If you bring out the story of this rug, you’re talking genocide, and this country doesn’t recognize the Armenian Genocide,” laments Dr. H. Martin Deranian, a prominent Worcester historian and dentist who has documented every facet of this jewel. “It’ll open up the story of the orphans. I’ve taken responsibility to see this story brought to the surface and its meaning appreciated.”
The Armenian Orphan Rug is viewed inside the White House in September 1984 by activists looking to preserve its identity. (L-R) U. S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Dr. H. Martin Deranian, Worcester historian, and Set Momjian, a former ambassador to the United Nations.
Deranian has turned himself into a self-imposed rug ambassador in seeking the cause of justice. By unraveling this mystery, he’s hoping to bring greater credence to the Near East Relief and the scores of orphans saved during the genocide years of 1915-23.
He continues to pay homage to Dr. Jacob Kuenzler, or “Papa” Kuenzler as he was affectionately called, for evacuating thousands of Armenian orphans from Turkey to the relative security of Syria while working for the Near East Relief.
Kuenzler had the idea of starting a rug factory in Ghazir. He thought the girls would learn to weave rugs and go on earning a living this way.
It seemed to him that even on so small an outlay, much good could be achieved for these orphans. With only two looms, he started this rug factory in Ghazir, high up in the mountains.
President Coolidge was more than grateful for the rug. In a letter he wrote to Dr. John Finley, vice-president of the Near East Relief, Coolidge was overwhelmed by the gift.
“This beautiful rug woven by children in Lebanon has been received. This, their expression of gratitude for what we’ve been able to do for this country for their aid, is accepted by me as a token of their goodwill to the people of the United States who have assisted in the work of the Near East Relief. Please extend to these orphans my thanks and the thanks of the vast number of our citizens whose generosity this labor of love is intended to acknowledge. The rug has a place of honor in the White House where it will be a daily symbol of goodwill on earth.”
A “Golden Rule” Sunday had been instituted in the United States. Each year, on the first Sunday in December, people were asked to eat only a one-course meal and contribute the money they had saved to the Near East Relief. Some $2 million was collected annually.
An overall view of the Armenian Orphan Rug, which measures 18'x12'. Armenian activists are trying to have it removed from storage inside the White House and have it showcased.The presentation of the Ghazir rug to the White House in 1925 was given such widespread publicity that contributions from Golden Rule Sunday doubled. The factory received numerous orders for special carpets and many of the girls ultimately found homes and became brides.
The event was covered in the New York Times, which carried the headline, “President receives rug woven by orphans of Near East and praises work on relief.”
Coolidge displayed the rug in the Blue Room under his administration. It remained there until 1928 when he took it to his residence in Northampton, Mass.
The orphan rug graced his living room at a place called the Beeches until his death in 1933. From there, Mrs. Coolidge kept the rug inside her home in Northampton until she died in 1957, eventually landing with a son John until he sold his Connecticut home in 1974.
The rug wound up in storage at the Coolidge Homestead in Plymouth, Vt., when it was returned to the White House and added to the collection in 1983. It was placed in storage and not on public view, and has remained there for the past 27 years.
Deranian was invited to the White House to view the rug with U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Asbed Set Momjian, a former ambassador to the United Nations.
“The curator of the White House collection has indicated that it is highly unlikely the rug would be on exhibit in an official capacity,” said Deranian.
“It was an emotional feeling to touch this very rug. These girls with their nimble fingers wove their gratitude to America into every stitch. My interest dates back to my mother. During the deportation, she went through every indignity before ending up in Urfa.”
Call it fate but in 1995, Charlotte Movsesian of North Andover, Mass. observed a color photo in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune of Hillary Clinton showing off the Blue Room during her husband’s administration. And there was the rug, bright and bold as ever.
She recognized that rug because her own mother Vartouhi (Hovsepian) Gulezian was one of those orphaned girls who helped weave it. Mrs. Gulezian was 14 years old and brought to America from Ghazir in 1926 to work at a loom as a demonstration during the sesquicentennial (150th anniversary) celebration of the founding of the United States. She was joined by another orphan, 15-year-old Gulunia Kehyaian.
Movsesian wrote to Clinton and inquired about the rug, never expecting a response. A month later, she received a letter from the White House curator, inviting the entire family to Washington.
Together with her husband Albert S., brother Martin, and mother, off they went by train to meet the appointment. They were welcomed not by Hillary Clinton but the White House curator and her assistant. And there was the rug Mrs. Gulezian had made with the others orphans. She recognized it.
“A rush of emotion came over me, not so much for the beauty but what it represented,” said Albert Movsesian, who promotes genocide education in local schools with stories of the rug.
“The fact the Near East Relief was responsible for helping so many orphans, including my mother-in-law, deserves our utmost appreciation,” he added. “I got down on my hands and knees and touched every part of the rug. I saw the Golden Rule Gratitude inscription in one of the corners.”
The Movsesians wound up spending 90 minutes at the White House that day, had photos taken by the rug, and off they went, laden with memories of a lifetime. No sign of any president, however.
“Very few people know the significance of this rug,” Movsesian brought out. “The story about it has been a well-kept secret in the Armenian community because these orphans didn’t talk about it. After we saw the rug, back into storage it went. It’s been there ever since, simply forsaken. We’re hoping to resurrect it into a place of honor where it belongs.”
If and when that might occur, the rug will represent a memorial to those orphans whose sad fingers wove into its warp and weft a permanent remembrance of the depths of Armenia’s blackest hour.
If it could only talk, it would speak volumes.
=
Posted By Tom Vartabedian On July 21, 2010 @ 2:13 am In Mid-Atlantic
WASHINGTON—Somewhere inside the White House, stashed away inside an obscure storage room, lays an historic rug.
A close-up of the Armenian Orphan Rug with its intricate detail bearing colorful images of animals akin to the Garden of Eden. The rug was woven in 1924-25 and presented to President Calvin Coolidge. It now lies in storage inside the White House.
Not just any rug, but one created by 400 Armenian orphans from 1924-25 in a town called Ghazir, about 40 miles north of Beirut.
This colorful piece of tapestry, which measures 18 feet by 12 feet, lives up to its name: It has remained an “orphan” rug since it passed through the hands of President Calvin Coolidge in 1926.
The intricacy is woven with a passion unlike others of its kind, containing some 4 million knots made to characterize the biblical Garden of Eden with its collection of animals and other symbolic features.
The big loom was set up for an “Isfahan.” The 400 orphaned girls worked in shifts and spent 18 months on its completion. It was then sent to Washington and presented at a special ceremony to the White House in recognition of the help rendered by the American people to Armenian orphans.
Armenian historians and archivists are looking for a more permanent home, one that will avail itself to tourists and public acclaim. They’d like nothing better than to see this rug on permanent display in the White House, with credit given to Armenian Genocide survivors or, at the very least, have it showcased inside the Genocide Museum, or perhaps the Smithsonian.
They seem to think there are political ramifications preventing this rug from enjoying the life of nobility, for which it was intended.
“If you bring out the story of this rug, you’re talking genocide, and this country doesn’t recognize the Armenian Genocide,” laments Dr. H. Martin Deranian, a prominent Worcester historian and dentist who has documented every facet of this jewel. “It’ll open up the story of the orphans. I’ve taken responsibility to see this story brought to the surface and its meaning appreciated.”
The Armenian Orphan Rug is viewed inside the White House in September 1984 by activists looking to preserve its identity. (L-R) U. S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Dr. H. Martin Deranian, Worcester historian, and Set Momjian, a former ambassador to the United Nations.
Deranian has turned himself into a self-imposed rug ambassador in seeking the cause of justice. By unraveling this mystery, he’s hoping to bring greater credence to the Near East Relief and the scores of orphans saved during the genocide years of 1915-23.
He continues to pay homage to Dr. Jacob Kuenzler, or “Papa” Kuenzler as he was affectionately called, for evacuating thousands of Armenian orphans from Turkey to the relative security of Syria while working for the Near East Relief.
Kuenzler had the idea of starting a rug factory in Ghazir. He thought the girls would learn to weave rugs and go on earning a living this way.
It seemed to him that even on so small an outlay, much good could be achieved for these orphans. With only two looms, he started this rug factory in Ghazir, high up in the mountains.
President Coolidge was more than grateful for the rug. In a letter he wrote to Dr. John Finley, vice-president of the Near East Relief, Coolidge was overwhelmed by the gift.
“This beautiful rug woven by children in Lebanon has been received. This, their expression of gratitude for what we’ve been able to do for this country for their aid, is accepted by me as a token of their goodwill to the people of the United States who have assisted in the work of the Near East Relief. Please extend to these orphans my thanks and the thanks of the vast number of our citizens whose generosity this labor of love is intended to acknowledge. The rug has a place of honor in the White House where it will be a daily symbol of goodwill on earth.”
A “Golden Rule” Sunday had been instituted in the United States. Each year, on the first Sunday in December, people were asked to eat only a one-course meal and contribute the money they had saved to the Near East Relief. Some $2 million was collected annually.
An overall view of the Armenian Orphan Rug, which measures 18'x12'. Armenian activists are trying to have it removed from storage inside the White House and have it showcased.The presentation of the Ghazir rug to the White House in 1925 was given such widespread publicity that contributions from Golden Rule Sunday doubled. The factory received numerous orders for special carpets and many of the girls ultimately found homes and became brides.
The event was covered in the New York Times, which carried the headline, “President receives rug woven by orphans of Near East and praises work on relief.”
Coolidge displayed the rug in the Blue Room under his administration. It remained there until 1928 when he took it to his residence in Northampton, Mass.
The orphan rug graced his living room at a place called the Beeches until his death in 1933. From there, Mrs. Coolidge kept the rug inside her home in Northampton until she died in 1957, eventually landing with a son John until he sold his Connecticut home in 1974.
The rug wound up in storage at the Coolidge Homestead in Plymouth, Vt., when it was returned to the White House and added to the collection in 1983. It was placed in storage and not on public view, and has remained there for the past 27 years.
Deranian was invited to the White House to view the rug with U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Asbed Set Momjian, a former ambassador to the United Nations.
“The curator of the White House collection has indicated that it is highly unlikely the rug would be on exhibit in an official capacity,” said Deranian.
“It was an emotional feeling to touch this very rug. These girls with their nimble fingers wove their gratitude to America into every stitch. My interest dates back to my mother. During the deportation, she went through every indignity before ending up in Urfa.”
Call it fate but in 1995, Charlotte Movsesian of North Andover, Mass. observed a color photo in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune of Hillary Clinton showing off the Blue Room during her husband’s administration. And there was the rug, bright and bold as ever.
She recognized that rug because her own mother Vartouhi (Hovsepian) Gulezian was one of those orphaned girls who helped weave it. Mrs. Gulezian was 14 years old and brought to America from Ghazir in 1926 to work at a loom as a demonstration during the sesquicentennial (150th anniversary) celebration of the founding of the United States. She was joined by another orphan, 15-year-old Gulunia Kehyaian.
Movsesian wrote to Clinton and inquired about the rug, never expecting a response. A month later, she received a letter from the White House curator, inviting the entire family to Washington.
Together with her husband Albert S., brother Martin, and mother, off they went by train to meet the appointment. They were welcomed not by Hillary Clinton but the White House curator and her assistant. And there was the rug Mrs. Gulezian had made with the others orphans. She recognized it.
“A rush of emotion came over me, not so much for the beauty but what it represented,” said Albert Movsesian, who promotes genocide education in local schools with stories of the rug.
“The fact the Near East Relief was responsible for helping so many orphans, including my mother-in-law, deserves our utmost appreciation,” he added. “I got down on my hands and knees and touched every part of the rug. I saw the Golden Rule Gratitude inscription in one of the corners.”
The Movsesians wound up spending 90 minutes at the White House that day, had photos taken by the rug, and off they went, laden with memories of a lifetime. No sign of any president, however.
“Very few people know the significance of this rug,” Movsesian brought out. “The story about it has been a well-kept secret in the Armenian community because these orphans didn’t talk about it. After we saw the rug, back into storage it went. It’s been there ever since, simply forsaken. We’re hoping to resurrect it into a place of honor where it belongs.”
If and when that might occur, the rug will represent a memorial to those orphans whose sad fingers wove into its warp and weft a permanent remembrance of the depths of Armenia’s blackest hour.
If it could only talk, it would speak volumes.
=
Russia, U.S. reached consensus on South Caucasus
Russia, U.S. reached consensus on South Caucasus
August 27, 2010 - 12:14 AMT 07:14 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Recent statements by the U.S. Department of State prove that the United States and Russia has reached some consensus on South Caucasus, according to Gagik Harutyunyan, chairman of Noravank foundation.
“The U.S. is discontent with the activity of Turkey-Azerbaijan tandem and Turkey’s strengthening in the region,” he told a news conference on August 27.
Military expert Davit Jamalyan noted, for his part, that regional processes become more predictable
Aram I will not participate in Holy Cross church mass in Akhtamar
Aram I will not participate in Holy Cross church mass in Akhtamar
August 27, 2010 - 17:46 AMT 12:46 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia His Holiness Aram I refused to participate in the mass at Holy Cross church in Akhtamar island.
Continuing with the Genocide denial policy, Turkey just makes a show of tolerance to deceive the international community, said the press office of the Catholicosate of Cilicia.
“Turkey attempts to exploit the Armenian nation for its political purposes, once again practicing deception. Yet, it’s common knowledge that over 2000 Armenian churches situated in Western Armenia and Cilicia lie in ruins. Turkey can deceive no one by turning a single church into a tourist facility and museum. The Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia will always be demanding recognition of Armenian Genocide and indemnification for moral and material damages from Turkey,” the statement said.
August 27, 2010 - 17:46 AMT 12:46 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia His Holiness Aram I refused to participate in the mass at Holy Cross church in Akhtamar island.
Continuing with the Genocide denial policy, Turkey just makes a show of tolerance to deceive the international community, said the press office of the Catholicosate of Cilicia.
“Turkey attempts to exploit the Armenian nation for its political purposes, once again practicing deception. Yet, it’s common knowledge that over 2000 Armenian churches situated in Western Armenia and Cilicia lie in ruins. Turkey can deceive no one by turning a single church into a tourist facility and museum. The Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia will always be demanding recognition of Armenian Genocide and indemnification for moral and material damages from Turkey,” the statement said.
Azeri Official Accuses Russia, West Of Pro-Armenian Bias
Azeri Official Accuses Russia, West Of Pro-Armenian Bias
Azerbaijan -- Novruz Mammadov, head of international relations department of President′s Office, Baku, 01Apr2008
27.08.2010
Reacting to the signing of a new Russian-Armenian defense agreement, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s chief foreign policy aide has claimed that both Russia and the West support Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
“Giving such big support to an occupying country contradicts international legal norms and principles,” Novruz Mammadov told the APA news agency in an interview late on Thursday. “It is not very difficult to understand the essence of such overt support for such a state.”Mammadov said that by prolonging and upgrading its military presence in Armenia with that agreement Russia called into question its stated neutrality toward the Karabakh dispute. “With such statements and such support, it’s difficult to be an objective mediator,” he said. Armenian officials say that the new defense pact, which also commits the Russians to supplying its regional ally with modern weaponry, will discourage Azerbaijan from attempting to resolve the dispute by force. Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian told RFE/RL’s Armenian service this week that Russian troops could openly support Armenia in case of renewed fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. “I don’t think that the signing of such an agreement between Russia and Armenia and a greater modernization of the local [Russian military] base will pose a threat only to Azerbaijan,” Mammadov said, commenting on these statements. “If the Armenian side thinks that Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to it, then it’s a big mistake.”“If Armenia wants to draw Russia into a war in Nagorno-Karabakh, then it’s another big mistake,” he added. Ohanian’s claims were rejected as “laughable” by Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry. “Thisagreement is between two states, it is up to them. But this protocol cannot hinder or stop the Azerbaijani Army,” ministry spokesman Eldar Sabiroglu told ANS television on Thursday. According to RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani service, Sabiroglu also said Azerbaijan has no choice but to upgrade its armed forces by acquiring new weaponry.Mammadov, who heads the foreign relations department at Aliyev’s administration, also hit out at the United States and other Western powers. “One of the results of my calculations and observations is that the West and Europe … have channeled all their efforts into rendering support and assistance the occupier Armenia in a regular, systemic manner,” he said. The Azerbaijani official claimed in that context that the West organized an upcoming NATO disaster relief exercise in Armenia in order to force Turkey to open the Turkish-Armenian border. “They thus want to once again pit Turkey against Azerbaijan,” he said.
Azerbaijan -- Novruz Mammadov, head of international relations department of President′s Office, Baku, 01Apr2008
27.08.2010
Reacting to the signing of a new Russian-Armenian defense agreement, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s chief foreign policy aide has claimed that both Russia and the West support Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
“Giving such big support to an occupying country contradicts international legal norms and principles,” Novruz Mammadov told the APA news agency in an interview late on Thursday. “It is not very difficult to understand the essence of such overt support for such a state.”Mammadov said that by prolonging and upgrading its military presence in Armenia with that agreement Russia called into question its stated neutrality toward the Karabakh dispute. “With such statements and such support, it’s difficult to be an objective mediator,” he said. Armenian officials say that the new defense pact, which also commits the Russians to supplying its regional ally with modern weaponry, will discourage Azerbaijan from attempting to resolve the dispute by force. Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian told RFE/RL’s Armenian service this week that Russian troops could openly support Armenia in case of renewed fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. “I don’t think that the signing of such an agreement between Russia and Armenia and a greater modernization of the local [Russian military] base will pose a threat only to Azerbaijan,” Mammadov said, commenting on these statements. “If the Armenian side thinks that Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to it, then it’s a big mistake.”“If Armenia wants to draw Russia into a war in Nagorno-Karabakh, then it’s another big mistake,” he added. Ohanian’s claims were rejected as “laughable” by Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry. “Thisagreement is between two states, it is up to them. But this protocol cannot hinder or stop the Azerbaijani Army,” ministry spokesman Eldar Sabiroglu told ANS television on Thursday. According to RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani service, Sabiroglu also said Azerbaijan has no choice but to upgrade its armed forces by acquiring new weaponry.Mammadov, who heads the foreign relations department at Aliyev’s administration, also hit out at the United States and other Western powers. “One of the results of my calculations and observations is that the West and Europe … have channeled all their efforts into rendering support and assistance the occupier Armenia in a regular, systemic manner,” he said. The Azerbaijani official claimed in that context that the West organized an upcoming NATO disaster relief exercise in Armenia in order to force Turkey to open the Turkish-Armenian border. “They thus want to once again pit Turkey against Azerbaijan,” he said.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Dink’s lawyer rejected Turkish Government’s “friendly settlement”
Dink’s lawyer rejected Turkish Government’s “friendly settlement”
“The Government can surely make such recommendation but it’s not timely anymore. Dink’s family is against it,” the lawyer of Hrant Dink’s family Fehriye Chetin declared referring to Turkish Government’s recommendation to give “friendly settlement” to Dink trial in European Court of Human Rights. Hrant Dink raised the problem of freedom of speech but soon was murdered. Amicable solution could be possible if Dink was alive. But in this case it’s impossible, “Ermenihaber” news web site reported. It’s worth reminding that the Turkish government is considering a “friendly settlement” with the family of murdered Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in a case being heard at the European Court of Human Rights, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said late Tuesday.
Davutoglu said Turkey is planning to take steps to handle cases against it at the European court – in particular, the Dink case – in compliance with contemporary and universal law.
Source: Panorama.am
“The Government can surely make such recommendation but it’s not timely anymore. Dink’s family is against it,” the lawyer of Hrant Dink’s family Fehriye Chetin declared referring to Turkish Government’s recommendation to give “friendly settlement” to Dink trial in European Court of Human Rights. Hrant Dink raised the problem of freedom of speech but soon was murdered. Amicable solution could be possible if Dink was alive. But in this case it’s impossible, “Ermenihaber” news web site reported. It’s worth reminding that the Turkish government is considering a “friendly settlement” with the family of murdered Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in a case being heard at the European Court of Human Rights, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said late Tuesday.
Davutoglu said Turkey is planning to take steps to handle cases against it at the European court – in particular, the Dink case – in compliance with contemporary and universal law.
Source: Panorama.am
Ottoman Turks perpetrated genocide against Armenians in 1915, says Iran's vice president
Ottoman Turks perpetrated genocide against Armenians in 1915, says Iran's vice president
16:49 • 26.08.10
What Ottoman Turks perpetrated against Armenians a century ago constituted genocide, said Iain’s Vice President Hamid Baghaei, reports Regnum, citing the Iranian news agency IRNA.“Ottoman Empire committed genocide 100 years ago, in 1915, and today when the Ottoman Empire does not exist, the Armenian Government demands an official apology and compensation from today’s Turkey,” Mr Baghaei said at a conference on 25 August as he delivered a speech focusing on the damages Iran suffered during the World War II. “We must keep track of this issue in the international community, because otherwise we’ll owe our people,” Mr Baghaei was quoted as saying. “That issue is a matter of consistency from a historical and judicial viewpoint. If we have so far failed to pay attention to it that must have been our weakness.”
Tert.am
16:49 • 26.08.10
What Ottoman Turks perpetrated against Armenians a century ago constituted genocide, said Iain’s Vice President Hamid Baghaei, reports Regnum, citing the Iranian news agency IRNA.“Ottoman Empire committed genocide 100 years ago, in 1915, and today when the Ottoman Empire does not exist, the Armenian Government demands an official apology and compensation from today’s Turkey,” Mr Baghaei said at a conference on 25 August as he delivered a speech focusing on the damages Iran suffered during the World War II. “We must keep track of this issue in the international community, because otherwise we’ll owe our people,” Mr Baghaei was quoted as saying. “That issue is a matter of consistency from a historical and judicial viewpoint. If we have so far failed to pay attention to it that must have been our weakness.”
Tert.am
Vladimir Zakharov: Russia can’t stay aside in case of military resolution of Karabakh conflict
Vladimir Zakharov: Russia can’t stay aside in case of military resolution of Karabakh conflict
August 23, 2010 - 17:13 AMT 12:13 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Director of the Institute of Political and Social Studies of the Black Sea and Caspian region, Vladimir Zakharov, said that in case of a military resolution of the Karabakh conflict, Russia will not stay aside.
“It is impossible,” Zakharov said during Yerevan-Moscow TV space bridge. “It was Russia which launched the process with the Meindorf declaration; it was Russia’s President, who called on the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents to sign a document on peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict.”
Head of the Department of Political Studies of Caucasus Institute Sergey Minasyan noted for his part that Russia secures military balance in the conflict zone and acts as a guarantor of non-resumption of hostilities. According to him, Russia is trying to maintain peace in the region.
Commenting on the opinion that the Armenian-Russian agreements were signed in response to the Turkish-Azerbaijani agreements, the Armenian expert said he does not agree with it, as the agreements between Armenia and Russia were ready to be signed prior to achievement of any agreements between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Aiyev bears no relation to Karabakh conflict?
Aiyev bears no relation to Karabakh conflict?August 23, 2010 17:50
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict, said Vladimir Zakharov, Director of the Institute for Political and Social Research of Black and Caspian regions, during a space bridge summing up the results of the Russian President’s visit to Armenia.
“Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. After collapse of the Soviet Union Azerbaijan stated that it is not legal successor of the USSR. Baku clearly stated that is successor of the Republic of Azerbaijan that was created in 1917-1918 and was unrecognized. Thus, it is unclear whether Nagorno-Karabakh bears any relation to the unrecognized Republic of Azerbaijan,” the expert noted.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict, said Vladimir Zakharov, Director of the Institute for Political and Social Research of Black and Caspian regions, during a space bridge summing up the results of the Russian President’s visit to Armenia.
“Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. After collapse of the Soviet Union Azerbaijan stated that it is not legal successor of the USSR. Baku clearly stated that is successor of the Republic of Azerbaijan that was created in 1917-1918 and was unrecognized. Thus, it is unclear whether Nagorno-Karabakh bears any relation to the unrecognized Republic of Azerbaijan,” the expert noted.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
ARMENIAN HERITAGE PARK--BOSTON---GENOCIDE EDUCATION
2 CommentsTue, Aug 24 2010 | Published in New England | Email | Print
Najarian Inaugural Lecture to Be Held at Boston’s Faneuil Hall
By: Weekly Staff
BOSTON, Mass.—In recognition of the ground-breaking ceremony for the Armenian Heritage Park on Boston’s Rose Fitzgerald Greenway, the K. George and Carolann S. Najarian, M.D. Inaugural Lecture on Human Rights, a program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation, will be held on Thurs., Sept. 23, at 7 p.m. at Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall.
George Najarian and Dr. Carolann Najarian of Lincoln, Mass. Leo Gozbekian photo
Free and open to the public, the endowed lecture is an annual public program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation, sponsor of the Armenian Heritage Park.
The keynote speaker is Kerry Kennedy, a human rights activist, the founder and president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, D.C., and the author of Speak Truth to Power: Human Rights Defenders Who Are Changing Our World.
Opening remarks will be offered by Peter Balakian, the Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities at Colgate University and author of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response-A History of International Human Rights and Forgotten Heroes, which was the inspiration for this series. He wrote of the New England women and me—intellectuals, politicians, diplomats, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens—who, beginning in the 1890’s at Faneuil Hall, heard the eyewitness accounts of the atrocities taking place against the Armenian minority of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and were called to action. Distinguished Bostonians, among them Julia Ward Howe, Clara Barton,
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Alice Stone Blackwell, heard these accounts and were moved to help the Armenians. As a result, the American Red Cross launched its first international mission with Clara Barton bringing aid to the Armenians. Philanthropists nationwide raised over $100 million in aid. This was America’s first internationally focused human rights movement.
The purpose of the endowed lecture series is to advance understanding of human rights issues and the societal abuses faced by millions today, and to increase awareness of the work of individuals and organizations dedicated to eliminating these injustices so that we are all more actively engaged.
The inaugural lecture is being offered in partnership with the Bostonian Society, academic institutions, and human rights organizations.
Governor Deval L. Patrick and Mayor Thomas M. Menino are Honorary Chairs. Co-chairs of the inaugural lecture representing their participating organization are Martha F. Davis, Ph.D., faculty director, Northeastern School of Law, Human Rights, and the Global Economy; A. Frank Donaghue, CEO and deputy director, Physicians for Human Rights USA; Michael A. Grodin, M.D., executive director, Global Lawyers and Physicians Working Together for Human Rights, Boston University School of Public Health; David Hollenbach, S.J., director, Boston College Center for Human Rights and International Justice; Shant Mardirossian, chairman of the Board, Near East Foundation; Margot Stern Strom, founder/executive director, Facing History and Ourselves; Adam Strom, director of research and development, Facing History and Ourselves; Deborah W. Nutter, Ph.D., senior associate dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Ph.D., acting director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Human Rights and Justice; and Joshua Rubenstein, northeast regional director, Amnesty International USA.
The Najarians have endowed the lecture in honor of Dr. Carolann Najarian’s late father, Avedis Abrahamian. He survived the Armenian Genocide, leaving the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and arriving at the port of Providence, R.I., en route to New York City in 1921, at the age of 15. He received his high school diploma in New York City on his 60th birthday. The lack of a formal education, however, did not prevent him from being a vociferous reader of historical texts and educating himself on the critical issues facing his generation. As he sat in his small paint store in the Bronx, N.Y., he welcomed customers, friends, and family to join him in the back room for a glass of orange juice and, more importantly, discussion—often heated—on the critical issues facing America.
In the 1930’s, he warned against the continued failure to grant African Americans equal rights. He forewarned that by postponing this injustice, America would pay a high price.
When, on the back pages of the New York Times in the mid 1960’s, it was reported that “advisors” were going to Vietnam and villagers were being relocated, he cautioned against the escalating war, saying, “This is what was done to us, to the Armenians. They moved us out of our villages saying it was for our benefit. The U.S. is now doing the same in Vietnam. It will not go well. “
“This endowed lecture on human rights is in honor of my father as he taught so many about the need to pay attention, to spot injustice, and to speak out wherever and whenever it occurs.” said Carolann Najarian.
Highly regarded philanthropic leaders and Lincoln residents, George Najarian, a native of Cambridge, Mass., and Carolann Najarian, originally of New York City, have been actively involved in Boston’s Armenian American community for many years. In 1989, in response to the earthquake that devastated Armenia, they helped to establish the Armenian Health Alliance, Inc., a Boston based non-profit organization to provide direct medical relief to the victims of the earthquake. During the Nagorno-Karabagh war, Carolann Najarian left active medical practice to volunteer full-time as president of the Armenian Health Alliance. The Najarians also provided major support in 1999 to establish the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry Trust, a non-profit organization based in Armenia. In 1989, Carolann Najarian was named “one of Boston’s most interesting women” in Boston Women magazine.
Since 1987, the Najarians have made over 50 trips to the Republic of Armenia and to Nagorno-Karabagh, traveling extensively throughout both countries. The purpose of these trips was to assess the medical needs and deliver needed assistance to hospitals in major cities and villages in rural areas. In 1994, Carolann Najarian founded the Primary Care Center of Gyumri, the city most devastated by the earthquake of 1988, to provide free care and medicine. In 1995, she founded the Arpen Center for Expectant Mothers in the capital city of Stepanakert, to provide monthly assistance of food, vitamins, clothing, and other basic necessities. She documented her experiences in A Call from Home: Armenia and Karabagh, My Journal (1999), which brings together her experience growing up as the daughter of Armenian immigrants and that of a medical relief worker in Armenia and Karabagh.
The Najarians’ more local philanthropic activities include establishing scholarships for students at the Boston University School of Medicine, Queens College, and Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School, as well as support of non-profits, including the Food Project, Facing History and Ourselves, and the Salvation Army in Cambridge.
Most recently, they have fully endowed the K. George and Carolann S. Najarian, M.D. Lecture on Human Rights, a public program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation.
The Armenian Heritage Foundation, a non-profit organization with representatives from 37 Armenian American parishes and organization within Massachusetts, was founded in 2004 to design, secure designation, and raise funds to construct and maintain the Armenian Heritage Park on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, Boston. A gift to the City of Boston and Commonwealth, the Armenian Heritage Park celebrates the immigrant experience and commemorates lives lost during the 1915 Armenian Genocide and all genocides that continue to follow. Endowed funds support the park’s annual care, reconfiguration of the sculpture, and public programs including the annual lecture on human rights.
For more information, visit www.ArmenianHeritagePark.net.
ARMENIAN HERITAGE PARK--BOSTON---GENOCIDE EDUCATION
2 CommentsTue, Aug 24 2010 Published in New England Email Print
Najarian Inaugural Lecture to Be Held at Boston’s Faneuil Hall
By: Weekly Staff
BOSTON, Mass.—In recognition of the ground-breaking ceremony for the Armenian Heritage Park on Boston’s Rose Fitzgerald Greenway, the K. George and Carolann S. Najarian, M.D. Inaugural Lecture on Human Rights, a program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation, will be held on Thurs., Sept. 23, at 7 p.m. at Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall.
George Najarian and Dr. Carolann Najarian of Lincoln, Mass. Leo Gozbekian photo
Free and open to the public, the endowed lecture is an annual public program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation, sponsor of the Armenian Heritage Park.
The keynote speaker is Kerry Kennedy, a human rights activist, the founder and president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, D.C., and the author of Speak Truth to Power: Human Rights Defenders Who Are Changing Our World.
Opening remarks will be offered by Peter Balakian, the Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities at Colgate University and author of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response-A History of International Human Rights and Forgotten Heroes, which was the inspiration for this series. He wrote of the New England women and me—intellectuals, politicians, diplomats, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens—who, beginning in the 1890’s at Faneuil Hall, heard the eyewitness accounts of the atrocities taking place against the Armenian minority of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and were called to action. Distinguished Bostonians, among them Julia Ward Howe, Clara Barton,
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Alice Stone Blackwell, heard these accounts and were moved to help the Armenians. As a result, the American Red Cross launched its first international mission with Clara Barton bringing aid to the Armenians. Philanthropists nationwide raised over $100 million in aid. This was America’s first internationally focused human rights movement.
The purpose of the endowed lecture series is to advance understanding of human rights issues and the societal abuses faced by millions today, and to increase awareness of the work of individuals and organizations dedicated to eliminating these injustices so that we are all more actively engaged.
The inaugural lecture is being offered in partnership with the Bostonian Society, academic institutions, and human rights organizations.
Governor Deval L. Patrick and Mayor Thomas M. Menino are Honorary Chairs. Co-chairs of the inaugural lecture representing their participating organization are Martha F. Davis, Ph.D., faculty director, Northeastern School of Law, Human Rights, and the Global Economy; A. Frank Donaghue, CEO and deputy director, Physicians for Human Rights USA; Michael A. Grodin, M.D., executive director, Global Lawyers and Physicians Working Together for Human Rights, Boston University School of Public Health; David Hollenbach, S.J., director, Boston College Center for Human Rights and International Justice; Shant Mardirossian, chairman of the Board, Near East Foundation; Margot Stern Strom, founder/executive director, Facing History and Ourselves; Adam Strom, director of research and development, Facing History and Ourselves; Deborah W. Nutter, Ph.D., senior associate dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Ph.D., acting director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Human Rights and Justice; and Joshua Rubenstein, northeast regional director, Amnesty International USA.
The Najarians have endowed the lecture in honor of Dr. Carolann Najarian’s late father, Avedis Abrahamian. He survived the Armenian Genocide, leaving the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and arriving at the port of Providence, R.I., en route to New York City in 1921, at the age of 15. He received his high school diploma in New York City on his 60th birthday. The lack of a formal education, however, did not prevent him from being a vociferous reader of historical texts and educating himself on the critical issues facing his generation. As he sat in his small paint store in the Bronx, N.Y., he welcomed customers, friends, and family to join him in the back room for a glass of orange juice and, more importantly, discussion—often heated—on the critical issues facing America.
In the 1930’s, he warned against the continued failure to grant African Americans equal rights. He forewarned that by postponing this injustice, America would pay a high price.
When, on the back pages of the New York Times in the mid 1960’s, it was reported that “advisors” were going to Vietnam and villagers were being relocated, he cautioned against the escalating war, saying, “This is what was done to us, to the Armenians. They moved us out of our villages saying it was for our benefit. The U.S. is now doing the same in Vietnam. It will not go well. “
“This endowed lecture on human rights is in honor of my father as he taught so many about the need to pay attention, to spot injustice, and to speak out wherever and whenever it occurs.” said Carolann Najarian.
Highly regarded philanthropic leaders and Lincoln residents, George Najarian, a native of Cambridge, Mass., and Carolann Najarian, originally of New York City, have been actively involved in Boston’s Armenian American community for many years. In 1989, in response to the earthquake that devastated Armenia, they helped to establish the Armenian Health Alliance, Inc., a Boston based non-profit organization to provide direct medical relief to the victims of the earthquake. During the Nagorno-Karabagh war, Carolann Najarian left active medical practice to volunteer full-time as president of the Armenian Health Alliance. The Najarians also provided major support in 1999 to establish the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry Trust, a non-profit organization based in Armenia. In 1989, Carolann Najarian was named “one of Boston’s most interesting women” in Boston Women magazine.
Since 1987, the Najarians have made over 50 trips to the Republic of Armenia and to Nagorno-Karabagh, traveling extensively throughout both countries. The purpose of these trips was to assess the medical needs and deliver needed assistance to hospitals in major cities and villages in rural areas. In 1994, Carolann Najarian founded the Primary Care Center of Gyumri, the city most devastated by the earthquake of 1988, to provide free care and medicine. In 1995, she founded the Arpen Center for Expectant Mothers in the capital city of Stepanakert, to provide monthly assistance of food, vitamins, clothing, and other basic necessities. She documented her experiences in A Call from Home: Armenia and Karabagh, My Journal (1999), which brings together her experience growing up as the daughter of Armenian immigrants and that of a medical relief worker in Armenia and Karabagh.
The Najarians’ more local philanthropic activities include establishing scholarships for students at the Boston University School of Medicine, Queens College, and Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School, as well as support of non-profits, including the Food Project, Facing History and Ourselves, and the Salvation Army in Cambridge.
Most recently, they have fully endowed the K. George and Carolann S. Najarian, M.D. Lecture on Human Rights, a public program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation.
The Armenian Heritage Foundation, a non-profit organization with representatives from 37 Armenian American parishes and organization within Massachusetts, was founded in 2004 to design, secure designation, and raise funds to construct and maintain the Armenian Heritage Park on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, Boston. A gift to the City of Boston and Commonwealth, the Armenian Heritage Park celebrates the immigrant experience and commemorates lives lost during the 1915 Armenian Genocide and all genocides that continue to follow. Endowed funds support the park’s annual care, reconfiguration of the sculpture, and public programs including the annual lecture on human rights.
For more information, visit www.ArmenianHeritagePark.net.
Najarian Inaugural Lecture to Be Held at Boston’s Faneuil Hall
By: Weekly Staff
BOSTON, Mass.—In recognition of the ground-breaking ceremony for the Armenian Heritage Park on Boston’s Rose Fitzgerald Greenway, the K. George and Carolann S. Najarian, M.D. Inaugural Lecture on Human Rights, a program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation, will be held on Thurs., Sept. 23, at 7 p.m. at Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall.
George Najarian and Dr. Carolann Najarian of Lincoln, Mass. Leo Gozbekian photo
Free and open to the public, the endowed lecture is an annual public program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation, sponsor of the Armenian Heritage Park.
The keynote speaker is Kerry Kennedy, a human rights activist, the founder and president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, D.C., and the author of Speak Truth to Power: Human Rights Defenders Who Are Changing Our World.
Opening remarks will be offered by Peter Balakian, the Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities at Colgate University and author of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response-A History of International Human Rights and Forgotten Heroes, which was the inspiration for this series. He wrote of the New England women and me—intellectuals, politicians, diplomats, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens—who, beginning in the 1890’s at Faneuil Hall, heard the eyewitness accounts of the atrocities taking place against the Armenian minority of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and were called to action. Distinguished Bostonians, among them Julia Ward Howe, Clara Barton,
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Alice Stone Blackwell, heard these accounts and were moved to help the Armenians. As a result, the American Red Cross launched its first international mission with Clara Barton bringing aid to the Armenians. Philanthropists nationwide raised over $100 million in aid. This was America’s first internationally focused human rights movement.
The purpose of the endowed lecture series is to advance understanding of human rights issues and the societal abuses faced by millions today, and to increase awareness of the work of individuals and organizations dedicated to eliminating these injustices so that we are all more actively engaged.
The inaugural lecture is being offered in partnership with the Bostonian Society, academic institutions, and human rights organizations.
Governor Deval L. Patrick and Mayor Thomas M. Menino are Honorary Chairs. Co-chairs of the inaugural lecture representing their participating organization are Martha F. Davis, Ph.D., faculty director, Northeastern School of Law, Human Rights, and the Global Economy; A. Frank Donaghue, CEO and deputy director, Physicians for Human Rights USA; Michael A. Grodin, M.D., executive director, Global Lawyers and Physicians Working Together for Human Rights, Boston University School of Public Health; David Hollenbach, S.J., director, Boston College Center for Human Rights and International Justice; Shant Mardirossian, chairman of the Board, Near East Foundation; Margot Stern Strom, founder/executive director, Facing History and Ourselves; Adam Strom, director of research and development, Facing History and Ourselves; Deborah W. Nutter, Ph.D., senior associate dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Ph.D., acting director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Human Rights and Justice; and Joshua Rubenstein, northeast regional director, Amnesty International USA.
The Najarians have endowed the lecture in honor of Dr. Carolann Najarian’s late father, Avedis Abrahamian. He survived the Armenian Genocide, leaving the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and arriving at the port of Providence, R.I., en route to New York City in 1921, at the age of 15. He received his high school diploma in New York City on his 60th birthday. The lack of a formal education, however, did not prevent him from being a vociferous reader of historical texts and educating himself on the critical issues facing his generation. As he sat in his small paint store in the Bronx, N.Y., he welcomed customers, friends, and family to join him in the back room for a glass of orange juice and, more importantly, discussion—often heated—on the critical issues facing America.
In the 1930’s, he warned against the continued failure to grant African Americans equal rights. He forewarned that by postponing this injustice, America would pay a high price.
When, on the back pages of the New York Times in the mid 1960’s, it was reported that “advisors” were going to Vietnam and villagers were being relocated, he cautioned against the escalating war, saying, “This is what was done to us, to the Armenians. They moved us out of our villages saying it was for our benefit. The U.S. is now doing the same in Vietnam. It will not go well. “
“This endowed lecture on human rights is in honor of my father as he taught so many about the need to pay attention, to spot injustice, and to speak out wherever and whenever it occurs.” said Carolann Najarian.
Highly regarded philanthropic leaders and Lincoln residents, George Najarian, a native of Cambridge, Mass., and Carolann Najarian, originally of New York City, have been actively involved in Boston’s Armenian American community for many years. In 1989, in response to the earthquake that devastated Armenia, they helped to establish the Armenian Health Alliance, Inc., a Boston based non-profit organization to provide direct medical relief to the victims of the earthquake. During the Nagorno-Karabagh war, Carolann Najarian left active medical practice to volunteer full-time as president of the Armenian Health Alliance. The Najarians also provided major support in 1999 to establish the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry Trust, a non-profit organization based in Armenia. In 1989, Carolann Najarian was named “one of Boston’s most interesting women” in Boston Women magazine.
Since 1987, the Najarians have made over 50 trips to the Republic of Armenia and to Nagorno-Karabagh, traveling extensively throughout both countries. The purpose of these trips was to assess the medical needs and deliver needed assistance to hospitals in major cities and villages in rural areas. In 1994, Carolann Najarian founded the Primary Care Center of Gyumri, the city most devastated by the earthquake of 1988, to provide free care and medicine. In 1995, she founded the Arpen Center for Expectant Mothers in the capital city of Stepanakert, to provide monthly assistance of food, vitamins, clothing, and other basic necessities. She documented her experiences in A Call from Home: Armenia and Karabagh, My Journal (1999), which brings together her experience growing up as the daughter of Armenian immigrants and that of a medical relief worker in Armenia and Karabagh.
The Najarians’ more local philanthropic activities include establishing scholarships for students at the Boston University School of Medicine, Queens College, and Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School, as well as support of non-profits, including the Food Project, Facing History and Ourselves, and the Salvation Army in Cambridge.
Most recently, they have fully endowed the K. George and Carolann S. Najarian, M.D. Lecture on Human Rights, a public program of the Armenian Heritage Foundation.
The Armenian Heritage Foundation, a non-profit organization with representatives from 37 Armenian American parishes and organization within Massachusetts, was founded in 2004 to design, secure designation, and raise funds to construct and maintain the Armenian Heritage Park on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, Boston. A gift to the City of Boston and Commonwealth, the Armenian Heritage Park celebrates the immigrant experience and commemorates lives lost during the 1915 Armenian Genocide and all genocides that continue to follow. Endowed funds support the park’s annual care, reconfiguration of the sculpture, and public programs including the annual lecture on human rights.
For more information, visit www.ArmenianHeritagePark.net.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
8 youth organizations call on Armenians not to take part in St. Cross holy mass
8 youth organizations call on Armenians not to take part in St. Cross holy mass
A group of eight Armenian youth organizations have addressed a call to all Armenians worldwide, urging not to take part in a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, eastern Turkey, on September 19.
"As you know, Turkey is getting prepared for a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, September 19. According to the data at our disposal, about 6000 Armenians have booked tickets and are going to attend that show-program organized in the homeland occupied by Turkey. Well aware of all that being anti-Armenian, considering any Armenian's participation in that event as an unconscious pro-Turkish activity we call on all Armenians not to go and not to participate in that event that mocks Armenians. Any Armenian, who wants to attend it, must ask themselves: but where are the descendants, the offsprings of those who erected that wonderful building?Where is our virtue? … Remember we can never be guests in a land which was seized from us by barbars. We call on all Armenians to join us at 6 pm on August 22 to march to Tsitsernakaberd hilltop memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide.”
Source: Panorama.am
A group of eight Armenian youth organizations have addressed a call to all Armenians worldwide, urging not to take part in a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, eastern Turkey, on September 19.
"As you know, Turkey is getting prepared for a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, September 19. According to the data at our disposal, about 6000 Armenians have booked tickets and are going to attend that show-program organized in the homeland occupied by Turkey. Well aware of all that being anti-Armenian, considering any Armenian's participation in that event as an unconscious pro-Turkish activity we call on all Armenians not to go and not to participate in that event that mocks Armenians. Any Armenian, who wants to attend it, must ask themselves: but where are the descendants, the offsprings of those who erected that wonderful building?Where is our virtue? … Remember we can never be guests in a land which was seized from us by barbars. We call on all Armenians to join us at 6 pm on August 22 to march to Tsitsernakaberd hilltop memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide.”
Source: Panorama.am
Court Rules Turkey Violated Dink’s Freedom
Sent: Mon, Aug 23, 2010 7:54 pm
Subject: Court Rules Turkey Violated Dink's Freedom
Court Rules Turkey Violated Dink’s Freedom
ANKARA (Hurriyet)—The European Court of Human Rights reportedly ruled the Turkey violated the freedom of expression of Hrant Dink when it charged him for insulting Turkishness and violated the right to life by failing to protect Dink despite death threats. The court also condemned the inefficiency of the legal proceedings that took place after his death, according to the Turkish daily Vatan.
The court reportedly ruled that Turkey violated the freedom of expression by trying Dink for insulting Turkishness
The daily also led Monday with news of the European court’s ruling in favor of Dink and his family, who continued the legal fight after the journalist’s death. The family also filed another complaint saying the Turkish state failed to protect Dink before his death.
The European court did not release a statement Monday and Vatan reported that the court’s verdict would be announced in September. Diplomatic sources, however, said the Turkish Foreign Ministry had been not officially informed of the verdict.
A trial regarding slain journalist Hrant Dink at the European Court of Human Rights is continuing, Turkish Foreign Ministry sources said Monday despite widespread news that the court has already found Turkey guilty.
“The case has not yet been concluded. There is an ongoing trial process,” a diplomatic source told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review.
Representatives of the Justice, Interior and Foreign ministries met Monday to develop a roadmap regarding Turkey’s defense on the murdered journalist. Sources speaking to the Daily News declined to elaborate on the future policy to be followed, saying only that the relevant ministries were working on the issue.
The Dink trial made headlines earlier this month when Turkey cited in its defense the case against a leader of a Nazi organization in Europe as an example supporting its prosecution of Dink.
In previous remarks, Foreign Ministry Ahmet Davutoğlu said he was against the state going head to head with its citizens on freedom of expression at the European court.
While expressing regrets regarding the Turkish state’s referral to the Nazi case at the European court, Davutoğlu said the defense could not be withdrawn but added that the state could settle with the victim’s family.
Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian origin and editor of weekly bilingual Agos, was gunned down in January 2007 in front of his newspaper’s office. Before his death, he had filed an appeal with the European court after he was tried for violating Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which prohibits “insulting Turkishness.”
Subject: Court Rules Turkey Violated Dink's Freedom
Court Rules Turkey Violated Dink’s Freedom
ANKARA (Hurriyet)—The European Court of Human Rights reportedly ruled the Turkey violated the freedom of expression of Hrant Dink when it charged him for insulting Turkishness and violated the right to life by failing to protect Dink despite death threats. The court also condemned the inefficiency of the legal proceedings that took place after his death, according to the Turkish daily Vatan.
The court reportedly ruled that Turkey violated the freedom of expression by trying Dink for insulting Turkishness
The daily also led Monday with news of the European court’s ruling in favor of Dink and his family, who continued the legal fight after the journalist’s death. The family also filed another complaint saying the Turkish state failed to protect Dink before his death.
The European court did not release a statement Monday and Vatan reported that the court’s verdict would be announced in September. Diplomatic sources, however, said the Turkish Foreign Ministry had been not officially informed of the verdict.
A trial regarding slain journalist Hrant Dink at the European Court of Human Rights is continuing, Turkish Foreign Ministry sources said Monday despite widespread news that the court has already found Turkey guilty.
“The case has not yet been concluded. There is an ongoing trial process,” a diplomatic source told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review.
Representatives of the Justice, Interior and Foreign ministries met Monday to develop a roadmap regarding Turkey’s defense on the murdered journalist. Sources speaking to the Daily News declined to elaborate on the future policy to be followed, saying only that the relevant ministries were working on the issue.
The Dink trial made headlines earlier this month when Turkey cited in its defense the case against a leader of a Nazi organization in Europe as an example supporting its prosecution of Dink.
In previous remarks, Foreign Ministry Ahmet Davutoğlu said he was against the state going head to head with its citizens on freedom of expression at the European court.
While expressing regrets regarding the Turkish state’s referral to the Nazi case at the European court, Davutoğlu said the defense could not be withdrawn but added that the state could settle with the victim’s family.
Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian origin and editor of weekly bilingual Agos, was gunned down in January 2007 in front of his newspaper’s office. Before his death, he had filed an appeal with the European court after he was tried for violating Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which prohibits “insulting Turkishness.”
Saturday, August 21, 2010
8 youth organizations call on Armenians not to take part in St. Cross holy mass
8 youth organizations call on Armenians not to take part in St. Cross holy mass
A group of eight Armenian youth organizations have addressed a call to all Armenians worldwide, urging not to take part in a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, eastern Turkey, on September 19.
"As you know, Turkey is getting prepared for a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, September 19. According to the data at our disposal, about 6000 Armenians have booked tickets and are going to attend that show-program organized in the homeland occupied by Turkey. Well aware of all that being anti-Armenian, considering any Armenian's participation in that event as an unconscious pro-Turkish activity we call on all Armenians not to go and not to participate in that event that mocks Armenians. Any Armenian, who wants to attend it, must ask themselves: but where are the descendants, the offsprings of those who erected that wonderful building?Where is our virtue? … Remember we can never be guests in a land which was seized from us by barbars. We call on all Armenians to join us at 6 pm on August 22 to march to Tsitsernakaberd hilltop memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide.”
Source: Panorama.am
A group of eight Armenian youth organizations have addressed a call to all Armenians worldwide, urging not to take part in a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, eastern Turkey, on September 19.
"As you know, Turkey is getting prepared for a mass to be served in Sourb Khach Church (Saint Cross) on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, September 19. According to the data at our disposal, about 6000 Armenians have booked tickets and are going to attend that show-program organized in the homeland occupied by Turkey. Well aware of all that being anti-Armenian, considering any Armenian's participation in that event as an unconscious pro-Turkish activity we call on all Armenians not to go and not to participate in that event that mocks Armenians. Any Armenian, who wants to attend it, must ask themselves: but where are the descendants, the offsprings of those who erected that wonderful building?Where is our virtue? … Remember we can never be guests in a land which was seized from us by barbars. We call on all Armenians to join us at 6 pm on August 22 to march to Tsitsernakaberd hilltop memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide.”
Source: Panorama.am
Friday, August 20, 2010
Armenia Russia’s ally, Dmitry Medvedev says
Armenia Russia’s ally, Dmitry Medvedev says
Armenia is Russia’s ally, and Russia takes its ally obligations seriously, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told reporters at a joint press conference in Yerevan today.
Note that Russian President is paying a state visit to Armenia.
To Armenian journalists’ inquiry as to what Russia’s response will be if Nagorno-Karabakh security threats emerge, D. Medvedev said Russia signifies preservation of peace in the South Caucasus and considers resumption of war activities unacceptable. “We have ally obligations. Armenia is our ally,” Medvedev said.
Reminding that Armenia and Russia are CSTO member states, Russian President said the ally obligations are clearly stated in the agreement. “I would like to assure that Russia takes its ally obligations seriously,” Dmitry Medvedev highlighted.
Source: Panorama.am
Armenia is Russia’s ally, and Russia takes its ally obligations seriously, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told reporters at a joint press conference in Yerevan today.
Note that Russian President is paying a state visit to Armenia.
To Armenian journalists’ inquiry as to what Russia’s response will be if Nagorno-Karabakh security threats emerge, D. Medvedev said Russia signifies preservation of peace in the South Caucasus and considers resumption of war activities unacceptable. “We have ally obligations. Armenia is our ally,” Medvedev said.
Reminding that Armenia and Russia are CSTO member states, Russian President said the ally obligations are clearly stated in the agreement. “I would like to assure that Russia takes its ally obligations seriously,” Dmitry Medvedev highlighted.
Source: Panorama.am
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A One-Legged Climb to the Top of Mt. Ararat
No CommentsWed, Aug 18 2010 Published in Armenia, Top Story Email Print
A One-Legged Climb to the Top of Mt. Ararat
By: Nanore Barsoumian
On Aug. 4, Alexan Bayanduryan, 34, made the strenuous climb to the summit of Mt. Ararat on one leg and a pair of crutches as part of an international expedition. Armenian American Varuzhan Amirhanian from the Pyunic Union for the Disabled joined and assisted Bayanduryan, whose climb up Mt. Ararat came after three years of training.
Alexan Bayanduryan, 34, made the strenuous climb to the summit of Mt. Ararat on one leg and a pair of crutches as part of an international expedition.
In 1993, during the Artsakh War, Bayanduryan lost his left leg to a mine explosion. A father of two, he is known to be an active sportsman, participating in a number of wheelchair marathons, as well as an annual climb to the top of Mt. Aragats since 1997, organized by Pyunic.
“I was unaware of the difficulties I might face. The main obstacles came across at an elevation of 4,200 miles, but then oxygen shortage and headache were easily overcome. My mission was to climb Ararat in the name of the fallen soldiers-liberators, and I achieved my goal. Unfortunately, we could not see Armenia from the top because of the fog,” he said during a press conference.
Bayanduryan is the first man to climb the mountain on one foot. His next challenge will be to conquer Mt. Everest. “I must reach the summit of Everest. After a three-year effort, I managed to climb Ararat. Let’s see how much time I will need to scale Everest,” he was quoted as saying.
The Pyunic Union for the Disabled was established in 1988, and currently has 3,000 members. Its mission has been to protect the rights and legal interests of the disabled; to support the financial, medical, social, physical, and psychological needs of its members; and to promote sports for the disabled. Among other projects, the organization, whose director Hakob Abrahamyan is also president of the Armenian National Paralympics Committee, supported the two athletes who participated in the 2010 Paralympics that took place in Vancouver, Canada. The annual climb to the top of Mt. Aragats, organized by Pyunic, is scheduled to take place on Sept. 21.
In September 2009, Erik Weinmayer became the first known blind person to reach the summit of Mt. Ararat. The first recorded climb to the summit was made by explorer Dr. Friedrich Parrot, a professor of physics, and educator and poet Khachatur Abovian in 1829.
About 20 miles south of the Armenian border, the snow covered Mt. Ararat stands nearly 17,000 feet tall. It is believed to be the resting place of Noah’s Ark, and is a national symbol for Armenians worldwide.
A One-Legged Climb to the Top of Mt. Ararat
By: Nanore Barsoumian
On Aug. 4, Alexan Bayanduryan, 34, made the strenuous climb to the summit of Mt. Ararat on one leg and a pair of crutches as part of an international expedition. Armenian American Varuzhan Amirhanian from the Pyunic Union for the Disabled joined and assisted Bayanduryan, whose climb up Mt. Ararat came after three years of training.
Alexan Bayanduryan, 34, made the strenuous climb to the summit of Mt. Ararat on one leg and a pair of crutches as part of an international expedition.
In 1993, during the Artsakh War, Bayanduryan lost his left leg to a mine explosion. A father of two, he is known to be an active sportsman, participating in a number of wheelchair marathons, as well as an annual climb to the top of Mt. Aragats since 1997, organized by Pyunic.
“I was unaware of the difficulties I might face. The main obstacles came across at an elevation of 4,200 miles, but then oxygen shortage and headache were easily overcome. My mission was to climb Ararat in the name of the fallen soldiers-liberators, and I achieved my goal. Unfortunately, we could not see Armenia from the top because of the fog,” he said during a press conference.
Bayanduryan is the first man to climb the mountain on one foot. His next challenge will be to conquer Mt. Everest. “I must reach the summit of Everest. After a three-year effort, I managed to climb Ararat. Let’s see how much time I will need to scale Everest,” he was quoted as saying.
The Pyunic Union for the Disabled was established in 1988, and currently has 3,000 members. Its mission has been to protect the rights and legal interests of the disabled; to support the financial, medical, social, physical, and psychological needs of its members; and to promote sports for the disabled. Among other projects, the organization, whose director Hakob Abrahamyan is also president of the Armenian National Paralympics Committee, supported the two athletes who participated in the 2010 Paralympics that took place in Vancouver, Canada. The annual climb to the top of Mt. Aragats, organized by Pyunic, is scheduled to take place on Sept. 21.
In September 2009, Erik Weinmayer became the first known blind person to reach the summit of Mt. Ararat. The first recorded climb to the summit was made by explorer Dr. Friedrich Parrot, a professor of physics, and educator and poet Khachatur Abovian in 1829.
About 20 miles south of the Armenian border, the snow covered Mt. Ararat stands nearly 17,000 feet tall. It is believed to be the resting place of Noah’s Ark, and is a national symbol for Armenians worldwide.
Davutoglu: no country can warn Turkey or Turkish PM
Davutoglu: no country can warn Turkey or Turkish PM
August 17, 2010 - 17:38 AMT 12:38 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - The Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs said that no country could warn Turkey or the Turkish Prime Minister.
Ahmet Davutoglu, who is currently in the southeastern province of Kahramanmaras to hold a series of talks, replied to reporters’ questions on the latest news stories claiming that U.S. President Barack Obama warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during their recent gathering as part of the G-20 summit in Toronto, Canada, Today’s Zaman reported.
"Such a thing is not in question. Turkey and U.S. are strategic allies," Davutoglu said.
"On the other hand, not a single country could warn Turkey or display such a stance towards the Turkish Prime Minister. The meeting in Toronto was a friendly gathering that was held in accordance with the relations between two ally countries. It was a conversation between the leaders of two sovereign states that are totally equal. Therefore, such a warning is not in question and such news stories do not reflect the reality," Davutoglu noted.
Financial Times recently wrote that U.S. President Barack Obama warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about Turkey's attitude towards Israel and Iran during a meeting in Toronto in June.
The daily claimed that Obama warned Erdogan saying unless Ankara's attitude towards Israel and Iran changed, Turkey had a slim chance of obtaining arms it needed from the United States. A spokesperson for the White House later denied such story and stated that no ultimatum was given to Turkey,
August 17, 2010 - 17:38 AMT 12:38 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - The Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs said that no country could warn Turkey or the Turkish Prime Minister.
Ahmet Davutoglu, who is currently in the southeastern province of Kahramanmaras to hold a series of talks, replied to reporters’ questions on the latest news stories claiming that U.S. President Barack Obama warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during their recent gathering as part of the G-20 summit in Toronto, Canada, Today’s Zaman reported.
"Such a thing is not in question. Turkey and U.S. are strategic allies," Davutoglu said.
"On the other hand, not a single country could warn Turkey or display such a stance towards the Turkish Prime Minister. The meeting in Toronto was a friendly gathering that was held in accordance with the relations between two ally countries. It was a conversation between the leaders of two sovereign states that are totally equal. Therefore, such a warning is not in question and such news stories do not reflect the reality," Davutoglu noted.
Financial Times recently wrote that U.S. President Barack Obama warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about Turkey's attitude towards Israel and Iran during a meeting in Toronto in June.
The daily claimed that Obama warned Erdogan saying unless Ankara's attitude towards Israel and Iran changed, Turkey had a slim chance of obtaining arms it needed from the United States. A spokesperson for the White House later denied such story and stated that no ultimatum was given to Turkey,
Monday, August 16, 2010
Obama warns Turkey against current position on Israel
Obama warns Turkey against current position on Israel
August 16, 2010 - 13:06 AMT 08:06 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - The Financial Times reports today that US President Barack Obama has personally warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that unless Ankara shifts its position on Israel and Iran it stands little chance of obtaining the US weapons it wants to buy.
A senior administration official said that Obama told Erdogan that some of Turkey's recent actions have caused questions to be raised on Capitol Hill about "whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally".
Turkey is a member of NATO and currently serves on the UN Security Council. The Financial Times says that Washington was deeply frustrated when Turkey voted against United Nations sanctions on Iran in June.
Last week, the Obama administration warned Lebanon, whose US aid is not a foregone conclusion, that if there is another incident between the Lebanese Army and the IDF, there is no assurance that that administration would be able to prevent Congress from suspending aid to Beirut, globes.co.il reported
August 16, 2010 - 13:06 AMT 08:06 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - The Financial Times reports today that US President Barack Obama has personally warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that unless Ankara shifts its position on Israel and Iran it stands little chance of obtaining the US weapons it wants to buy.
A senior administration official said that Obama told Erdogan that some of Turkey's recent actions have caused questions to be raised on Capitol Hill about "whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally".
Turkey is a member of NATO and currently serves on the UN Security Council. The Financial Times says that Washington was deeply frustrated when Turkey voted against United Nations sanctions on Iran in June.
Last week, the Obama administration warned Lebanon, whose US aid is not a foregone conclusion, that if there is another incident between the Lebanese Army and the IDF, there is no assurance that that administration would be able to prevent Congress from suspending aid to Beirut, globes.co.il reported
Turkish Foreign Ministry rejects accusations implying government’s attempts to justify Hrant Dink’s murder
Turkish Foreign Ministry rejects accusations implying government’s attempts to justify Hrant Dink’s murder
August 16, 2010 - 12:25 AMT 07:25 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Turkish Ministry of Affairs issued a statement to reject accusations implying Turkish government’s attempts to justify the murder of Hrant Dink.
“The loss of Hrant Dink, editor-in-chief of Agos weekly, led to a profound sorrow in our country. The Turkish justice has been investigating all aspects of the killing with determination," the statement said.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Sunday that there were some baseless and distorted accusations in several newspapers in the last two days about the defense submitted by Turkey to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on November 19, 2009.
"It is totally inappropriate to claim that the Turkish government tried to find extenuating circumstances for the accused and used expressions in its defense keeping Dink responsible for his killing," he said.
"Dink was one of the most precious intellectuals raised in Turkey. It is impossible to even think about justification of such a heinous assassination. Any implication that the Turkish government was trying to justify the murder is totally unacceptable," he said.
The spokesman said that the defense submitted to the ECHR was prepared on the basis of mere legal and technical elements.
"It is both wrongful and unfair to come to some political consequences about the killing of Dink on the basis of the defense. The loss of Dink led to a profound sorrow in our country and the government condemned the killing in the most harsh way possible. It is our only solace that the suspect was detained and brought to justice shortly after the killing. The Turkish justice has been investigating all aspects of the killing with determination," he added.
52-year-old Dink was shot dead outside his newspaper's offices in Istanbul on January 19, 2007.
August 16, 2010 - 12:25 AMT 07:25 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Turkish Ministry of Affairs issued a statement to reject accusations implying Turkish government’s attempts to justify the murder of Hrant Dink.
“The loss of Hrant Dink, editor-in-chief of Agos weekly, led to a profound sorrow in our country. The Turkish justice has been investigating all aspects of the killing with determination," the statement said.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Sunday that there were some baseless and distorted accusations in several newspapers in the last two days about the defense submitted by Turkey to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on November 19, 2009.
"It is totally inappropriate to claim that the Turkish government tried to find extenuating circumstances for the accused and used expressions in its defense keeping Dink responsible for his killing," he said.
"Dink was one of the most precious intellectuals raised in Turkey. It is impossible to even think about justification of such a heinous assassination. Any implication that the Turkish government was trying to justify the murder is totally unacceptable," he said.
The spokesman said that the defense submitted to the ECHR was prepared on the basis of mere legal and technical elements.
"It is both wrongful and unfair to come to some political consequences about the killing of Dink on the basis of the defense. The loss of Dink led to a profound sorrow in our country and the government condemned the killing in the most harsh way possible. It is our only solace that the suspect was detained and brought to justice shortly after the killing. The Turkish justice has been investigating all aspects of the killing with determination," he added.
52-year-old Dink was shot dead outside his newspaper's offices in Istanbul on January 19, 2007.
Turkey Chides Karabakh Mediators, Reaffirms Support For Azerbaijan
Turkey Chides Karabakh Mediators, Reaffirms Support For Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan -- Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev (R) shakes hands with his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul (L) during a signing ceremony in Baku, 16Aug2010
16.08.2010
Turkish President Abdullah Gul reaffirmed his country’s unconditional support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and criticized international mediators ahead of a state visit to Baku that began on Monday.
The unresolved dispute was reportedly on the agenda of his talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev held later in the day. Reports from Baku said the two leaders signed a new Turkish-Azerbaijani agreement on “strategic partnership” and “mutual assistance.” Details of the agreement were not immediately made public. Gul stated both before and after the talks that the Karabakh conflict must be resolved rapidly and on the basis of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. In a weekend interview with the Azerbaijani APA news agency, he said Ankara “will do everything necessary” for a Karabakh settlement acceptable to Baku. “The world will not accept continued [Armenian] occupation of our fraternal country,” he said. The Turkish president also took a swipe at U.S., Russian and French mediators co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group. “We want the Minsk Group to move close to the conflict’s resolution,” he told APA. “But as things stand now, people call visits to the region by Minsk Group representatives ‘tourist trips.’ Therefore, new steps need to be taken.”“In 2008, I came up with such an initiative. At first, I traveled to Yerevan, then honorable [President Serzh] Sarkisian visited Turkey. We informed honorable President Ilham Aliyev about this whole process,” Gul added, referring to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement that eventually ended in failure. Armenian leaders have said all along that the Karabakh conflict was never on the agenda of Turkish-Armenian fence-mending negotiations. They say the process failed because Ankara subsequently reverted to linking the normalization of Turkish-Armenian with Karabakh peace. Gul appeared to single out Russia’s “important” role in the mediation process. But he also acknowledged, “Such difficult problems can not solved under pressure from of a single country.” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Russia as “the most important actor” in the Karabakh peace process and urged it do more to broker an Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement when he visited Moscow in January.However, both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir sidestepped the implicit Turkish calls for a stronger Russian pressure on Armenia during their subsequent visits to Turkey. “We don’t want anyone to think [after the conflict’s resolution] that we pressured one of the parties and achieved a solution to the problem that is unfair to somebody,” Putin said in Ankara in June. Putin also stressed earlier this year that the Turks should drop their Karabakh talks in their talks with
Azerbaijan -- Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev (R) shakes hands with his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul (L) during a signing ceremony in Baku, 16Aug2010
16.08.2010
Turkish President Abdullah Gul reaffirmed his country’s unconditional support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and criticized international mediators ahead of a state visit to Baku that began on Monday.
The unresolved dispute was reportedly on the agenda of his talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev held later in the day. Reports from Baku said the two leaders signed a new Turkish-Azerbaijani agreement on “strategic partnership” and “mutual assistance.” Details of the agreement were not immediately made public. Gul stated both before and after the talks that the Karabakh conflict must be resolved rapidly and on the basis of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. In a weekend interview with the Azerbaijani APA news agency, he said Ankara “will do everything necessary” for a Karabakh settlement acceptable to Baku. “The world will not accept continued [Armenian] occupation of our fraternal country,” he said. The Turkish president also took a swipe at U.S., Russian and French mediators co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group. “We want the Minsk Group to move close to the conflict’s resolution,” he told APA. “But as things stand now, people call visits to the region by Minsk Group representatives ‘tourist trips.’ Therefore, new steps need to be taken.”“In 2008, I came up with such an initiative. At first, I traveled to Yerevan, then honorable [President Serzh] Sarkisian visited Turkey. We informed honorable President Ilham Aliyev about this whole process,” Gul added, referring to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement that eventually ended in failure. Armenian leaders have said all along that the Karabakh conflict was never on the agenda of Turkish-Armenian fence-mending negotiations. They say the process failed because Ankara subsequently reverted to linking the normalization of Turkish-Armenian with Karabakh peace. Gul appeared to single out Russia’s “important” role in the mediation process. But he also acknowledged, “Such difficult problems can not solved under pressure from of a single country.” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Russia as “the most important actor” in the Karabakh peace process and urged it do more to broker an Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement when he visited Moscow in January.However, both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir sidestepped the implicit Turkish calls for a stronger Russian pressure on Armenia during their subsequent visits to Turkey. “We don’t want anyone to think [after the conflict’s resolution] that we pressured one of the parties and achieved a solution to the problem that is unfair to somebody,” Putin said in Ankara in June. Putin also stressed earlier this year that the Turks should drop their Karabakh talks in their talks with
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Bryza has ties to intensifying autocracy in Azerbaijan: Washington Times
Bryza has ties to intensifying autocracy in Azerbaijan: Washington Times
16:10 • 12.08.10
Last month, Washington Times reporter James Morrison wrote an item in his Embassy Row column about the nomination of Matthew Bryza as US ambassador to Azerbaijan. As Mr. Morrison noted, several human rights groups had previously questioned Mr. Bryza's close ties to Azerbaijani leadership, and tough questions about his possible bias again surfaced during his recent confirmation hearing.During the hearings, Mr. Bryza stated: "If confirmed, I will continue to encourage the government of Azerbaijan to move forward on key issues such as media freedom, freedom of expression, political pluralism, rule of law and civic participation." Obviously, these are noble goals often repeated by US ambassadors who are stationed in authoritarian countries, but Mr. Bryza's past in Azerbaijan raises important doubts about his promises.In 2007, the editor of the opposition newspaper Azadlig, Ganimat Zahid, and correspondent Agil Khalil were sued over an article titled "Azerbaijanis Paid for Matthew Bryza's Wedding." The article states that Azeri Economic Development Minister Haydar Babayev paid for a significant portion of Mr. Bryza's wedding, which took place in Istanbul the same year. At the time, Mr. Bryza was the US co-chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Minsk Group, the body tasked with mediating a peace deal for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Both countries claim sovereignty over the region, and although a cease-fire has been observed since 1994, no agreement has ever been signed between the two governments.In the year after the article was published, Azadlig correspondent Agil Khalil was the target of four murder attempts, and in July 2008 - no longer able to deal with the constant threats against him - he fled to France, where he remains to this day. Mr. Khalil cannot return to Azerbaijan because he fears for his life.There is no doubt that Mr. Bryza's experience in the region could be valuable for improving relations between the United States and Azerbaijan, but we think that because he has been involved in a complaint and suit against a newspaper, his credibility within Azerbaijani civil society and his stated commitment to press freedom can easily be questioned.Moreover, Mr. Bryza was very much criticized and questioned about his position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, an extremely sensitive and taboo subject in Azerbaijan. Reporter and editor Eynulla Fatullayev remains in jail for writing about the subject in a way that displeased Azerbaijani officials. A respected journalist recognized as a political prisoner by the international community, Mr. Fatullayev was the editor of two newspapers that since have been closed down, the weekly Realny Azerbaijan and the daily Gundelik Azerbaijan. Arrested in 2007, he was convicted the following year on charges of "insulting the honor and dignity of the Azerbaijani people," refusing to pay taxes and making "terrorist threats." The last charge resulted from an article that accused the Azerbaijani armed forces of sharing responsibility with their Armenian counterparts for the deaths of hundreds of civilians during an attack by Armenian troops in 1992 on the village of Khojali in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.Re-elected in October 2008 with 89 percent of the vote, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev reinforced his control of the country's destiny even more in 2009 by abolishing any limit on the number of terms he can serve. The latest development of note has been the adoption of amendments to the press law imposing additional curbs on journalists, including draconian limitations on the ability to take photos. The first sign a country is reforming its policy in a democratic way is to let journalists do their job properly, as a sign of transparency.As Mr. Aliyev continues to crack down on the press and freedom of speech, a nominee who can easily be identified as a strong supporter of the Azerbaijani government might indeed undermine the U.S. government's stated goal of improving democracy and human rights in the country.If Bryza's appointmentment is confirmed, let us be honest enough to say that it is not one of the priorities of President Obama's administration to improve media freedom or the right to freedom of expression in the country. Apparently, the administration prefers to focus on US energy investments. But without journalists properly doing their job, the United States will never know what their investments are used for.The Washington Times
Tert.am
16:10 • 12.08.10
Last month, Washington Times reporter James Morrison wrote an item in his Embassy Row column about the nomination of Matthew Bryza as US ambassador to Azerbaijan. As Mr. Morrison noted, several human rights groups had previously questioned Mr. Bryza's close ties to Azerbaijani leadership, and tough questions about his possible bias again surfaced during his recent confirmation hearing.During the hearings, Mr. Bryza stated: "If confirmed, I will continue to encourage the government of Azerbaijan to move forward on key issues such as media freedom, freedom of expression, political pluralism, rule of law and civic participation." Obviously, these are noble goals often repeated by US ambassadors who are stationed in authoritarian countries, but Mr. Bryza's past in Azerbaijan raises important doubts about his promises.In 2007, the editor of the opposition newspaper Azadlig, Ganimat Zahid, and correspondent Agil Khalil were sued over an article titled "Azerbaijanis Paid for Matthew Bryza's Wedding." The article states that Azeri Economic Development Minister Haydar Babayev paid for a significant portion of Mr. Bryza's wedding, which took place in Istanbul the same year. At the time, Mr. Bryza was the US co-chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Minsk Group, the body tasked with mediating a peace deal for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Both countries claim sovereignty over the region, and although a cease-fire has been observed since 1994, no agreement has ever been signed between the two governments.In the year after the article was published, Azadlig correspondent Agil Khalil was the target of four murder attempts, and in July 2008 - no longer able to deal with the constant threats against him - he fled to France, where he remains to this day. Mr. Khalil cannot return to Azerbaijan because he fears for his life.There is no doubt that Mr. Bryza's experience in the region could be valuable for improving relations between the United States and Azerbaijan, but we think that because he has been involved in a complaint and suit against a newspaper, his credibility within Azerbaijani civil society and his stated commitment to press freedom can easily be questioned.Moreover, Mr. Bryza was very much criticized and questioned about his position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, an extremely sensitive and taboo subject in Azerbaijan. Reporter and editor Eynulla Fatullayev remains in jail for writing about the subject in a way that displeased Azerbaijani officials. A respected journalist recognized as a political prisoner by the international community, Mr. Fatullayev was the editor of two newspapers that since have been closed down, the weekly Realny Azerbaijan and the daily Gundelik Azerbaijan. Arrested in 2007, he was convicted the following year on charges of "insulting the honor and dignity of the Azerbaijani people," refusing to pay taxes and making "terrorist threats." The last charge resulted from an article that accused the Azerbaijani armed forces of sharing responsibility with their Armenian counterparts for the deaths of hundreds of civilians during an attack by Armenian troops in 1992 on the village of Khojali in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.Re-elected in October 2008 with 89 percent of the vote, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev reinforced his control of the country's destiny even more in 2009 by abolishing any limit on the number of terms he can serve. The latest development of note has been the adoption of amendments to the press law imposing additional curbs on journalists, including draconian limitations on the ability to take photos. The first sign a country is reforming its policy in a democratic way is to let journalists do their job properly, as a sign of transparency.As Mr. Aliyev continues to crack down on the press and freedom of speech, a nominee who can easily be identified as a strong supporter of the Azerbaijani government might indeed undermine the U.S. government's stated goal of improving democracy and human rights in the country.If Bryza's appointmentment is confirmed, let us be honest enough to say that it is not one of the priorities of President Obama's administration to improve media freedom or the right to freedom of expression in the country. Apparently, the administration prefers to focus on US energy investments. But without journalists properly doing their job, the United States will never know what their investments are used for.The Washington Times
Tert.am
Turkey trembles, Armenians triumph
Turkey trembles, Armenians triumphAugust 12, 2010 11:14
The lawsuit filed by two American-Armenians Garbis Davouyan and Hrayr Turabian against the Turkish government and two major Turkish banks caused serious concern in Turkey.
According to the Hurriyet daily, Turkey is getting ready to a trial with help of “three waves” program. They are discussing the issue from the viewpoint of international law, specifying whether Turkey has a possibility not to accept the lawsuit. The Turkish side is also studying what possibilities U.S. law provides in case compensation is demanded. The international agreements on the issue are being studied as well. For instance, under the Treaty of Kars signed in 1921, the sides (one of the sides was Soviet Armenia) agreed that they bear no animosity towards each other.
The Treaty of Lausanne enabled Armenians to return to Turkey within 2 years. In 1934-1937 Turkey agreed to pay U.S. $1.8 m for each Armenian – U.S. citizen.
In his turn, Mark Geragos, one of the lawyers, noted that he will submit new documents within 180 days. He did not specify the amount of compensation, adding that the point is billions of dollars.
The lawsuit filed by two American-Armenians Garbis Davouyan and Hrayr Turabian against the Turkish government and two major Turkish banks caused serious concern in Turkey.
According to the Hurriyet daily, Turkey is getting ready to a trial with help of “three waves” program. They are discussing the issue from the viewpoint of international law, specifying whether Turkey has a possibility not to accept the lawsuit. The Turkish side is also studying what possibilities U.S. law provides in case compensation is demanded. The international agreements on the issue are being studied as well. For instance, under the Treaty of Kars signed in 1921, the sides (one of the sides was Soviet Armenia) agreed that they bear no animosity towards each other.
The Treaty of Lausanne enabled Armenians to return to Turkey within 2 years. In 1934-1937 Turkey agreed to pay U.S. $1.8 m for each Armenian – U.S. citizen.
In his turn, Mark Geragos, one of the lawyers, noted that he will submit new documents within 180 days. He did not specify the amount of compensation, adding that the point is billions of dollars.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
At 90, Sevres Treaty is Most Relevant Today
At 90, Sevres Treaty is Most Relevant Today
Signing of the Turkish Treaty with the Allies
On August 10, 1920, the Treaty of Sevres was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied Powers after World War I. A significant provision of the document was the inclusion of the Wilsonian Mandate for Armenia, which envisioned a Republic of Armenia that included much of its historic territory.
The relevance of this internationally binding document became even more apparent during last year’s sloppy efforts by Armenia and Turkey to enter into a normalization process without regard for history. The reader is all too familiar with the outcome of the so-called protocols process, but the danger of reverting back to that failed approach still remains as neither party is willing to nullify the documents, which served as the basis for normalization.
Much of the discussion of the protocols debacle centered on Turkey’s preconditions for a quick resolution to the Karabakh conflict, in favor of Azerbaijan and the formation of a commission that would discuss the Armenian Genocide. But a more disturbing point of contention in the protocols documents was the absence of an acknowledgement of the Sevres Treaty, which, for all intents and purposes, laid a concise groundwork for that region of the world and provided comprehensive legal mandates for parties involved.
Due to political realities, the pursuit of the Armenian Cause has evolved into the vocal advocacy for the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In recent years that movement has achieved momentum due in great part to the perseverance and commitment of Armenians throughout the world who have pressured their respective governments for recognition.
However, the Armenian Cause is multi-faceted in nature and encompasses an equally critical component, which includes restitution and reparations for the crime of Genocide. The Sevres Treaty ensures not only provides a basis for the pursuit of the above elements, but also clearly draws a map, which makes Armenians’ territorial claims legally binding and valid in the eyes of the international community.
Many times inadvertently we fall into the position of justifying our demands, where historically no justification is needed since the facts speak for themselves. The Armenian Genocide is an indisputable fact, as is the need for reparations for that crime. World leaders at the time were more cognizant of that than those who followed them since history has shown that complicity in denial has proven to be more expedient politically and economically.
As we mark the 90th anniversary of this landmark document, all efforts should be directed to how effectively the Sevres Treaty can be implemented today from an international legal perspective and how each of the signatories can be pressured into accepting the mandates outlined within that document.
Futile arguments might ensue from naysayers who claim that subsequent efforts and treatises have shaped today’s reality and reversed the provision of the Sevres Treaty. It is time for national political forces to revitalize the relevance of the treaty. At the same time, the Armenian government must include the appropriate provisions of the Sevres Treaty within the context of any future talks with Turkey.
Signing of the Turkish Treaty with the Allies
On August 10, 1920, the Treaty of Sevres was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied Powers after World War I. A significant provision of the document was the inclusion of the Wilsonian Mandate for Armenia, which envisioned a Republic of Armenia that included much of its historic territory.
The relevance of this internationally binding document became even more apparent during last year’s sloppy efforts by Armenia and Turkey to enter into a normalization process without regard for history. The reader is all too familiar with the outcome of the so-called protocols process, but the danger of reverting back to that failed approach still remains as neither party is willing to nullify the documents, which served as the basis for normalization.
Much of the discussion of the protocols debacle centered on Turkey’s preconditions for a quick resolution to the Karabakh conflict, in favor of Azerbaijan and the formation of a commission that would discuss the Armenian Genocide. But a more disturbing point of contention in the protocols documents was the absence of an acknowledgement of the Sevres Treaty, which, for all intents and purposes, laid a concise groundwork for that region of the world and provided comprehensive legal mandates for parties involved.
Due to political realities, the pursuit of the Armenian Cause has evolved into the vocal advocacy for the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In recent years that movement has achieved momentum due in great part to the perseverance and commitment of Armenians throughout the world who have pressured their respective governments for recognition.
However, the Armenian Cause is multi-faceted in nature and encompasses an equally critical component, which includes restitution and reparations for the crime of Genocide. The Sevres Treaty ensures not only provides a basis for the pursuit of the above elements, but also clearly draws a map, which makes Armenians’ territorial claims legally binding and valid in the eyes of the international community.
Many times inadvertently we fall into the position of justifying our demands, where historically no justification is needed since the facts speak for themselves. The Armenian Genocide is an indisputable fact, as is the need for reparations for that crime. World leaders at the time were more cognizant of that than those who followed them since history has shown that complicity in denial has proven to be more expedient politically and economically.
As we mark the 90th anniversary of this landmark document, all efforts should be directed to how effectively the Sevres Treaty can be implemented today from an international legal perspective and how each of the signatories can be pressured into accepting the mandates outlined within that document.
Futile arguments might ensue from naysayers who claim that subsequent efforts and treatises have shaped today’s reality and reversed the provision of the Sevres Treaty. It is time for national political forces to revitalize the relevance of the treaty. At the same time, the Armenian government must include the appropriate provisions of the Sevres Treaty within the context of any future talks with Turkey.
Don't attend Surb Khach mass, urges Public Council
Don't attend Surb Khach mass, urges Public Council
09:46 • 10.08.10
After long deliberations Armenia's Public Council reached a decision on Monday and called on all Armenians not to attend a mass to be served this autumn in Surb Khach (Saint Cross) church on Akhtamar Island located in Lake Van, Eastern Turkey."We think that participating in this event organized by the Turkish authorities in Surb Khach church is about our national dignity, therefore we are calling on Armenians not to take part in it," Jasmen Asryan, member of the Public Council, told Tert.am.The move comes after Romik Hovnanyan, President of Van-Vaspurakan patriotic union, sent a letter to the Council, calling on Armenians not to attend the mass to be served on September 19. Surb Khach has been closed for almost a century, and many Armenians say that by opening it for one-off mass ceremony Turkey attempts to use Armenians for pursuing its objectives: to show the world that it is in good terms with Armenians and that it pays due attention to minorities in Turkey, also to improve its image in the eyes of the international community on its way towards EU membership.
Tert.am
09:46 • 10.08.10
After long deliberations Armenia's Public Council reached a decision on Monday and called on all Armenians not to attend a mass to be served this autumn in Surb Khach (Saint Cross) church on Akhtamar Island located in Lake Van, Eastern Turkey."We think that participating in this event organized by the Turkish authorities in Surb Khach church is about our national dignity, therefore we are calling on Armenians not to take part in it," Jasmen Asryan, member of the Public Council, told Tert.am.The move comes after Romik Hovnanyan, President of Van-Vaspurakan patriotic union, sent a letter to the Council, calling on Armenians not to attend the mass to be served on September 19. Surb Khach has been closed for almost a century, and many Armenians say that by opening it for one-off mass ceremony Turkey attempts to use Armenians for pursuing its objectives: to show the world that it is in good terms with Armenians and that it pays due attention to minorities in Turkey, also to improve its image in the eyes of the international community on its way towards EU membership.
Tert.am
CNNTurk: The aim of Armenian climbers was to show that Mt. Atrarat belongs to Armenians
CNNTurk: The aim of Armenian climbers was to show that Mt. Atrarat belongs to Armenians
The aim of Armenian climbers was to show that Mt. Atrarat belongs to Armenians, Turkish CNNTurk reported regarding the Armenian climbers having erected Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh flags atop Ararat. “They were not limited to this: they even make remarks that Turkey has no authority in this region. It’s more than clear that the climbers are henchmen of PKK propaganda,” the source says.A Turkish official, who didn’t tell this name, said: “None of the tourists wanting to climb Ararat tell their names. Last year 6000 tourists climbed the mountain, most of them foreigners. Armenians entered the country with US and Canadian passports and erected Armenian flag instead of the American and Canadian ones. They were crafty.”Agri province has launched investigation to find who hosted the climbers and who accompanied them up the mountain.Previous News: Turks threaten to bury Armenian climbers on AraratArmenian national and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic flags erected on Ararat summit
Source: Panorama.a
The aim of Armenian climbers was to show that Mt. Atrarat belongs to Armenians, Turkish CNNTurk reported regarding the Armenian climbers having erected Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh flags atop Ararat. “They were not limited to this: they even make remarks that Turkey has no authority in this region. It’s more than clear that the climbers are henchmen of PKK propaganda,” the source says.A Turkish official, who didn’t tell this name, said: “None of the tourists wanting to climb Ararat tell their names. Last year 6000 tourists climbed the mountain, most of them foreigners. Armenians entered the country with US and Canadian passports and erected Armenian flag instead of the American and Canadian ones. They were crafty.”Agri province has launched investigation to find who hosted the climbers and who accompanied them up the mountain.Previous News: Turks threaten to bury Armenian climbers on AraratArmenian national and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic flags erected on Ararat summit
Source: Panorama.a
Court procedure will be stopped if Turkey agrees to pay
Court procedure will be stopped if Turkey agrees to pay
15:31 • 10.08.10
The recent lawsuit filed by American-Armenians against the Turkish Government and two banks does not require returning the real and movable estate confiscated from their predecessors in the Ottoman Empire but rather the incomes gained from the property and the money kept in bank accounts, American-Armenian lawyer Perch Boyajyan said in an interview with Turkish Haberturk.
On July 29 four Armenian-American lawyers filed a federal lawsuit against the Turkish government and Central Bank of Turkey and Agriculture Bank seeking compensation for the heirs of Armenians whose property was seized during the Armenian Genocide in 1915.
Mr Boyajyan further said the lawsuit has nothing to do with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
“That lawsuit doesn’t aim to prove the Genocide perpetrated by the Turks,” Boyajyan was reported as saying.
“In 1915 the Ottoman Empire made a decision to remove Armenians. In the meantime another decision was made which according to which the bank accounts, lands, factories of those who left [Turkey] would be kept under the state’s control. They have used all that during 95 years and have gained incomes. We do not want property. What we say is that they return the income gained from that property. This is a very simple lawsuit.”
Further Mr Boyajyan mentioned that they are ready to sit and talk with Turkish authorities.
“First we will wait for the Turkish Government’s response. Then we will examine the property certificates and will afterwards calculate the income gained from that property. And if agreement is reached over the sum, there will be no need to continue the court procedure. Otherwise it will continue, and the court will reach its ruling.”
Tert.am
15:31 • 10.08.10
The recent lawsuit filed by American-Armenians against the Turkish Government and two banks does not require returning the real and movable estate confiscated from their predecessors in the Ottoman Empire but rather the incomes gained from the property and the money kept in bank accounts, American-Armenian lawyer Perch Boyajyan said in an interview with Turkish Haberturk.
On July 29 four Armenian-American lawyers filed a federal lawsuit against the Turkish government and Central Bank of Turkey and Agriculture Bank seeking compensation for the heirs of Armenians whose property was seized during the Armenian Genocide in 1915.
Mr Boyajyan further said the lawsuit has nothing to do with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
“That lawsuit doesn’t aim to prove the Genocide perpetrated by the Turks,” Boyajyan was reported as saying.
“In 1915 the Ottoman Empire made a decision to remove Armenians. In the meantime another decision was made which according to which the bank accounts, lands, factories of those who left [Turkey] would be kept under the state’s control. They have used all that during 95 years and have gained incomes. We do not want property. What we say is that they return the income gained from that property. This is a very simple lawsuit.”
Further Mr Boyajyan mentioned that they are ready to sit and talk with Turkish authorities.
“First we will wait for the Turkish Government’s response. Then we will examine the property certificates and will afterwards calculate the income gained from that property. And if agreement is reached over the sum, there will be no need to continue the court procedure. Otherwise it will continue, and the court will reach its ruling.”
Tert.am
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Nancy Pelosi: failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide undermines moral authority of U.S.
Photo:
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Nancy Pelosi: failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide undermines moral authority of U.S.
August 7, 2010 - 12:44 AMT 07:44 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Members and supporters of the Armenian National Committee of America Western Region met with Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi this week during a fundraiser hosted in the City of Burbank, where they pressed the Speaker for a floor vote on House Resolution 252-the Armenian Genocide Resolution - and stressed that the House Democratic Leadership is expected to advance this important human rights legislation.
During the program, Speaker Pelosi offered remarks about the importance of having a statement of recognition of the Armenian Genocide and spoke forcefully about asserting American values. Pelosi stressed that geography should never undermine America's best values.
The Speaker noted that many presidential candidates have proclaimed their commitment to properly acknowledging the Armenian Genocide but have withdrawn from their commitment upon taking office. She noted that in order to have any moral authority to talk about humanity and the genocides in Rwanda, Darfur or anywhere else, the United States must properly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. She added that a failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide undermines the moral authority of the United States and hinders the ability of our nation to be a strong voice for what is right.
Speaker Pelosi has a consistent record of energetic and principled support for U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, dating back nearly 20 years. Since her election to the House in 1986, she worked closely with the Bay Area Armenian National Committee. As U.S. House Minority Leader in 2006, she pledged to support Armenian Genocide legislation in the 110th session of Congress. Over the years, she has continuously countered arguments that cite Turkey's strategic position as reason to oppose Armenian Genocide legislation. During this year's Capitol Hill Armenian Genocide Observance, Speaker Pelosi called on her colleagues not to rest until the entire U.S. government properly recognizes this crime as genocide.
H.Res.252, introduced in March of 2009 by lead sponsors Adam Schiff and George Radanovich, and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-chairs Frank Pallone and Mark Kirk , currently has over 140 cosponsors. The Armenian Genocide resolution calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide.
H. Res. 252 passed the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee in March of 2010. The measure currently awaits a full vote on the House floor. The Armenian American community has urged House Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional Democratic Leadership to advance H. Res. 252.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Nancy Pelosi: failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide undermines moral authority of U.S.
August 7, 2010 - 12:44 AMT 07:44 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - Members and supporters of the Armenian National Committee of America Western Region met with Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi this week during a fundraiser hosted in the City of Burbank, where they pressed the Speaker for a floor vote on House Resolution 252-the Armenian Genocide Resolution - and stressed that the House Democratic Leadership is expected to advance this important human rights legislation.
During the program, Speaker Pelosi offered remarks about the importance of having a statement of recognition of the Armenian Genocide and spoke forcefully about asserting American values. Pelosi stressed that geography should never undermine America's best values.
The Speaker noted that many presidential candidates have proclaimed their commitment to properly acknowledging the Armenian Genocide but have withdrawn from their commitment upon taking office. She noted that in order to have any moral authority to talk about humanity and the genocides in Rwanda, Darfur or anywhere else, the United States must properly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. She added that a failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide undermines the moral authority of the United States and hinders the ability of our nation to be a strong voice for what is right.
Speaker Pelosi has a consistent record of energetic and principled support for U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, dating back nearly 20 years. Since her election to the House in 1986, she worked closely with the Bay Area Armenian National Committee. As U.S. House Minority Leader in 2006, she pledged to support Armenian Genocide legislation in the 110th session of Congress. Over the years, she has continuously countered arguments that cite Turkey's strategic position as reason to oppose Armenian Genocide legislation. During this year's Capitol Hill Armenian Genocide Observance, Speaker Pelosi called on her colleagues not to rest until the entire U.S. government properly recognizes this crime as genocide.
H.Res.252, introduced in March of 2009 by lead sponsors Adam Schiff and George Radanovich, and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-chairs Frank Pallone and Mark Kirk , currently has over 140 cosponsors. The Armenian Genocide resolution calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide.
H. Res. 252 passed the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee in March of 2010. The measure currently awaits a full vote on the House floor. The Armenian American community has urged House Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional Democratic Leadership to advance H. Res. 252.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Two Armenians to make Turkey bankrupt
Two Armenians to make Turkey bankruptAugust 05, 2010 15:05
All the descendants of the Armenian Genocide victims residing in the United States may get compensations, the experts in Turkic studies Artak Shakaryan told a press conference. He pointed out that a claim was lodged against the Turkish Government, Central Bank of Turkey and Ziraat Bankasi, one of the oldest Turkish banks.
The descendants of the Armenian Genocide victims may win the claim provided that they manage to prove Turkey violated the Treaty of Lausanne. Articles 30, 31 and 32 of the treaty obliged Turkey to return the property to its subjects within two years and grant them citizenship, the expert said. Shakaryan stressed that this fact gave rise to speculations among Turkish lawyers, who claim the Turkish Government returned the property to returnees. As regards other, they violated the treaty themselves, so Turkey has nothing to compensate them.
“People could not return, as Turkey did not meet its commitments to ensure their security,” the expert said.
As to the prospects, Shakaryan forecasts the following outcomes:
It is actually an administrative claim. The U.S. judicial system is independent and is expected to defend U.S. citizens. Issues related to the Armenian Genocide can be considered by federal courts of California. “However, if the court returns a generally unfavorable verdict, we can face problems in future,” the expert said.
The descendants of the Genocide victims demand U.S. $170bn as compensation.
NEWS.am reminds readers that Garbis Davoyan of Glendale, Calif. and Hrayr Turabian of Queens, N.Y., demand compensation for the property and bank accounts lost in 1915-1916 as the Ottoman Government perpetrated the Armenian Genocide.
News from Armenia - NEWS.am
All the descendants of the Armenian Genocide victims residing in the United States may get compensations, the experts in Turkic studies Artak Shakaryan told a press conference. He pointed out that a claim was lodged against the Turkish Government, Central Bank of Turkey and Ziraat Bankasi, one of the oldest Turkish banks.
The descendants of the Armenian Genocide victims may win the claim provided that they manage to prove Turkey violated the Treaty of Lausanne. Articles 30, 31 and 32 of the treaty obliged Turkey to return the property to its subjects within two years and grant them citizenship, the expert said. Shakaryan stressed that this fact gave rise to speculations among Turkish lawyers, who claim the Turkish Government returned the property to returnees. As regards other, they violated the treaty themselves, so Turkey has nothing to compensate them.
“People could not return, as Turkey did not meet its commitments to ensure their security,” the expert said.
As to the prospects, Shakaryan forecasts the following outcomes:
It is actually an administrative claim. The U.S. judicial system is independent and is expected to defend U.S. citizens. Issues related to the Armenian Genocide can be considered by federal courts of California. “However, if the court returns a generally unfavorable verdict, we can face problems in future,” the expert said.
The descendants of the Genocide victims demand U.S. $170bn as compensation.
NEWS.am reminds readers that Garbis Davoyan of Glendale, Calif. and Hrayr Turabian of Queens, N.Y., demand compensation for the property and bank accounts lost in 1915-1916 as the Ottoman Government perpetrated the Armenian Genocide.
News from Armenia - NEWS.am
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Gunaysu: Silenced but Resilient: A Groundbreaking Panel Discussion in Istanbul
Gunaysu: Silenced but Resilient: A Groundbreaking Panel Discussion in Istanbul
By: Ayse Gunaysu
It was an unusually hot and very exciting day, as it would be the first time that the critics of Turkish intellectuals’ discourse about the “Armenian issue” would voice their arguments at a public meeting in Turkey where a face to face open discussion would take place around topics hitherto hotly debated mainly in e-mail groups and other social media channels.
L to R: Kentel, Adanir, Ayata, Erbal, and Bayraktar. (Photo by Silvina Der Meguerditchian)
As part of the two-day Hrant Dink Memorial Workshop “Silenced but Resilient: Language and Memory in Anatolia and Neighboring Regions,” organized jointly by the Sabanci University in collaboration with Anadolu Kultur on May 27-28, a panel discussion was held on the apology campaign. The panel was moderated by historian Fikret Adanir, with the participation of Ferhat Kentel and three resolute critics of the mainstream Turkish intelligentsia on the Armenian “issue”: Ayda Erbal from the New York University, Seyhan Bayraktar from the University of Zurich, and Bilgin Ayata from John Hopkins University.
In recent years I have found myself developing a mental picture of certain high-profile Turkish critics of the official Turkish thesis on the Armenian issue as a community communicating and interacting within a closed micro-cosmos. The main characteristics of this micro-cosmos appear to be self-complacency—naturally resulting in a lack of receptiveness to the signals coming from the outer world—intolerance to criticism, and when faced with any criticism, a strong reaction of indignation. Their reaction has reminded me, time and again, of the outrage of those who feel themselves victimized by the ungratefulness of those for whom they put themselves at risk “in a country like Turkey”—referring to the backwardness of the Turksih society and the risks in the face of the overwhelming ultra-nationalism. (No need to say that these Turkish intellectuals who criticize the official Turkish thesis on 1915 do face risks: some of them are being prosecuted, some are continuously receiving death threats. But, no need also to say that this should not grant anybody immunity from criticism.)
So, this was the first time that critics of certain Turkish intellectuals would speak in a public gathering in Turkey. Word was circulating that there had been an attempt by Prof. Baskin Oran to prevent the participation of the above-mentioned three academics in the workshop. Then came the news that the organizers had rebuffed the attempt. Therefore the mere fact that the panel would take place anyhow was in itself a declaration of commitment by the organizers to a sound academic stance.
Bayraktar: ‘Reproduction of the nationalist discourse’
When the time came for the panel discussion in question, the room had already been packed with an audience eager to listen to what the three voices had to say.
First spoke Seyhan Bayraktar. Her presentation, titled “Politics, Memory, Language: Changes, Continuties and Breaks in the Discourse about the Armenian Genocide in Turkey,” was a critical review of how the Turkish political and public discourse about the annihilation of Armenians developed from the 1970s until 2005. Her main argument was that despite the increased visibility of the Armenian issue in Turkey, which indicated a liberalization of the public sphere, a critical discourse about the nation’s past had not replaced the denial of the systematic extermination of the Anatolian Armenians. “In contrast,” she said, “ I argue that the former denial discourse has turned much more sophisticated today. The state has adopted new strategies to block genocide acknowledgements while discourse patterns that served denial purposes have turned out particularly pervasive and resistant even under different political and social contexts.”
Based on an empirical analysis of media texts, Bayraktar stated that despite relative liberalization, dominant nationalistic discourse frames have survived over time and were carried by a broader range of social and political actors than they were in the 1970s and 1980s. “This robustness of discourse frames under different political contexts has lead to the paradoxical outcome that even critics of the Turkish state’s politics of the past use discourse frames that have originally been invented by state actors as argumentative tools to relativize and deny the genocidal character of 1915 in Turkey’s foreign relations.”
Bayraktar gave as an example the alternative Armenian conference organized in 2005 at the Bilgi University, which was “the first attempt in its kind to critically address the Armenian issue within Turkey,” she underlined. The conference, reminded Bayraktar, coincided with a change in the Turkish government’s Armenian policy. While the traditional approach was reactive, developing a strategy in reaction to international genocide resolutions or other events, starting from the 2000’s the official policy became proactive, mainly due to the pressure from Europe. In anticipation of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government started to take steps to counter the outside pressure. The Turkish government’s direct contact with Armenia to set up a joint history committee and the Turkish National Assembly’s letter to the British Parliament to denounce the Blue Book as collection of fake documents were the two milestones in this process.
Giving a brief account of the heated debate over the conference, Bayraktar referred to the most common accusation used by the right-wing conservative front, namely “backstabbing” and “treason”—accusations which were most vehemently rejected by the accused party, the left and liberals. However, while strongly reacting against the accusations as a manifestation of excluding everyone who questioned the dominant discourse about the Armenian Genocide, the accused used the same “national interest” discourse to defend themselves. They mainly argued that in fact they were the ones who upheld the interests of the nation. Bayraktar said: “Although the counter-discourse blamed the nationalist and exclusivist approach of traditional elites using ‘traitorship,’ it was itself very much built on a deeply nationalist logic and rhetoric. The attempt was to turn the table round and claim that it was the sympathizers of the conference who were seeking for the ‘real’ good of the nation. Thus the alternative and liberals voices did not challenge the nationalist approach to the history of 1915 in essence and its fundaments. Instead, liberals, who criticized the state and state actors for not confronting the Armenian issue as open as necessary, reproduced and legitimized themselves the central logics of the nationalist discourse.”
Although Bayraktar explicitly acknowledged the significant progress in Turkey as regards public discussion of the topic, her presentation was in fact an impressive warning to Turkish intellectuals against the use of the same discursive patterns while objecting the dominant official ideology about what happened in 1915. “Despite the immense dynamics of the Armenian issue in the public arena of Turkey the examples above have tentatively shown the deficits of the developments: Turkish public intellectuals have not been able to set up a counter-discourse stressing the need for coming to terms with the past and reconciliation as such. Instead, by giving-in and using the same rhetoric strategies they have reproduced and legitimized nationalist discourse frames,” she concluded.
Erbal: An apology?
Ayda Erbal started her presentation by acknowledging that the intellectuals’ attempt at an apology was a remarkable but at the same time problematic process. Reminding the current meaning of apology (“an encounter between two parties offender/offended” where the offender acknowledges responsibility for an offense or grievance and express regret or remorse to the aggrieved party) she then gave a brief account of how the “apology” concept had been dealt with by scholars, making references to various writers such as Nicholas Tavuchis, Aaron Lazare and Nick Smith. She said the general tendency in the literature in this field was to make a binary distinction based on certain established criteria between apologies and non-apologies. In case of the Turkish apology campaign, following Nick Smith’s work, Erbal said, she is also interested in meanings transferred notwithstanding whether Turkish intellectuals’ apology satisfies the requirements of a categorical apology. Referring to the criteria suggested by Aaron Lazarre, which are (i) explanation of the offense; (ii) expression of shame/guilt/humility/sincerity; (iii) intention not to commit the offense again; and (iv)-reparations to the offended party, she said of the Turkish apology campaign: “This one would not be an apology even if it were formulated to solve a personal problem between two individuals, as it meets none of the criteria of a categorical apology, even failing short in correctly identifying the offense itself and the offender,” explaining that in order for it to be a categorical apology it had to satisfy all requirements plus what was also needed/asked by the aggrieved party. Moreover, she noted that due to a lack of clarity in language and lack of agency (the drafters had not mentioned who perpetrated the crime were, nor its deniers) and finally the usage of the passive voice reminded her what Haaretz journalist Amira Haas called “language laundromat” where language becomes a laundromat to white wash institutional crimes and responsibilities. She also added the usage of the G-word did not matter in this case, even if they did use the actual word, the text would still not satisfy a categorical apology. However she did emphasize that the choice of Mezd Yeghern was altogether significant regardless of whether the text could be regarded as an apology or not, because among many Armenian words describing the 1915 events, its Turkish equivalent, buyuk feleket, was a term which was the most vague and most ambiguous one. A term that conveniently left the agency—the entity who committed the crime—out.
Another important point she made was that the campaign was Jacobinist in nature. She said it was Jacobinist in its approach to both the offended and the offender party. In case of Turks, the Jacobinism lied in the fact that it was dictated from above without any attempt to broaden the base of participants in drafting or pre-apology deliberation, it didn’t care for inclusiveness and involvement of as many people as possible—unlike the very horizontal experience of “Sorry Books” in Australia where many took part in an apology campaign personally by writing their own apologies in empty notebooks. These were ordinary Australians who wanted to do something in response to the Federal Government’s refusal to formally apologize to the Stolen Generations. Regarding Jacobinism towards Armenians, which Erbal said was worse, the organizers didn’t make any effort to get in touch with representative bodies of the Armenians, to gain an insight into what they really want or need from an apology, or whether they need an apology from individual Turkish citizens altogether. Instead, by mandating the term, hence normalizing the discourse, freezing it around the term Medz Yeghern, they left no space for any input from the offended party. By preempting an apology on whose terms the offended and the “offender” did not agree, the campaign organizers created a de facto setting where if the offended party (Armenians) rejects the “apology,” they would look bad and end up being portrayed as the hostile and aggressive party despite the fact that the preemption of this kind of unasked for apology on whose terms the offended and the “offender” did not agree upon, is a symbolically violent endeavor to begin with.
Erbal also discussed the organizers’ justification of the choice of the word. One argument was that the word Genocide had been overly politicized and the other was that the Turkish public felt threatened by the term. She said the first was in fact a “non-argument” in that the politicization of the term was irrelevant, as the Genocide was itself a political phenomenon and over politicization or over-usage would not necessarily mean it would lose meaning and certainly instrumentalizing a very dear, very private term people use to express their pain also means politicizing it, so in that sense, it’s not politics or politicization that’s the problem here, the problem is rather a particular politics of genocide recognition. The second, she commented, was what they call “non-sequitur” in logic—which means lack of any connection between the assumption and the conclusion, she said “even if the assumption that the G-word frightens Turkish citizens were correct this cannot be used to explain as the reason to chose the term Mezd Yeghern amongst numerous words used by Armenians to describe what happened in 1915.
Erbal made one passing comment that I value and attach great importance to. She said that that sincerity, good intentions, emotions (which, many believed, was an important reason to support the campaign) were all irrelevant for her work as a political scientist. She said that despite the fact that she understood people’s sincere attachment to the issue and their feelings and that she did not feel herself in a position to question thirty thousand people’s sincerity; friendship and brotherhood/sisterhood discourse did not mean much in terms of citizens’ demand for institutional commitments. She added that she had been hearing these since her childhood and nothing has changed in the institutional mindset of the state in terms of its perceptions of its minorities. She still doesn’t feel herself equal and her actual condition as a non-equal citizen is the reason why we should talk about truth and justice in equal terms, preferably not adding insult to injury by dictating the terms of an apology from above. Hence without justice on whose terms parties should agree upon no-one can be equal since the Armenian is still ingrained as the fifth column in the state’s institutional mindset because of the exact same painful history.
Ayata: ‘Absolute denial replaced by a policy of regulation’
Ayata started with his argument that the discourses on reconciliation occur as separate and isolated themes for the Armenian, Kurdish, Alevi, Dersim issues, arguing that this compartmentalization is a central weakness of the reconciliation process. According to Ayata, this compartmentalization was not accidental but reflected a continuation of a divide and rule mentality, which effectively contributed to an existing power asymmetry by consolidating Turkish intellectuals and interlocutors as the main reference point while the marginalized/excluded groups’ position remained precarious single cases.
Looking into the case of “compartmentalization” closer by giving examples to how the Kurdish, Alevi and Dersim issues were dealt with, Ayata drew attention to the fact that the politics of total/absolute denial in Turkey was “crumbling.” She continued by saying: “Because the costs of crude denial have become too much for the state in the course of the increased internationalization of politics. However, this shift away from crude denial has not lead to a politics of acknowledgement. Instead there is a shift from a politics of denial to a policy of regulation.”
As for some intellectuals in Turkey, Ayata argued that they had chosen a role to navigate the state out of the mess that denial had caused. Instead of problematizing the solutions and the regulatory approach of the state, she commented, their actions were in compliance with the regulatory approach that were often justified with the argument that “Turkey was not ready for more”. “Their concern with nation’s least collateral damage prevails over the quest for justice, acknowledgement and truth seeking,” she said.
Ayata acknowledged that now it was more possible to talk about not only the Armenian genocide, but also on the displacement of Kurds than 10 years ago, and this was without doubt an important improvement. “Yet at the same time,” she continued, “there are strict limits to the discourse: for instance, it is possible to talk about the Kurdish issue, but the term Kurdistan can hardly be used, except it relates to the Kurdish regional government in Iraq. Similarly the term genocide continues to be a highly controversial term, that can be used without restriction when talking about Palestine, but is to be circumvented at all costs when talking about 1915, or 1938.”
Criticizing the apology campaign, Ayata said the choice of the term “Great Catastrophe” was a “great ignorance” towards those to whom the apology is extended to. “After all, what was the one political claim that united Armenians around the world if it was not the recognition of the Genocide?” she asked and continued: “The reason often given by progressive intellectuals for this discursive limitation when talking about the events of 1915, is that the Turkish society and politics are apparently not ready for more at this point. This marginalizes and delegitimizes those who already have been using this term.”
Ayata questioned the reason for the mainstream Turkish intellectuals to systematically refuse the use of the term Genocide. “It is worthwhile to remember that since the Jewish genocide, the entire development of German and European philosophy more or less evolved around questions how and why the Holocaust was possible, and what its responsibility entails for mankind,” she went on. “On a political level, it entailed for German intellectuals and politicians almost an unconditional commitment and feeling of responsibility for the Jewish Diaspora. In Turkey, instead, some intellectuals have even actively participated in Diaspora bashing, in which the Armenian community in Turkey are portrayed as ‘good Armenians, our Armenians’ as they are perceived harmless, while the Diaspora Armenians with their claims for justice and recognition of the genocide are ousted as hawks and ultra-nationalists. This is not too different when targeting some Kurdish politicians also as hawks. One should not forget that the line between sahin [Turkish word for “hawk”] and hain [Turkish word for “traitor”] is highly thin.”
An explosion of indignation in the face of criticism
While listening to them I was also observing the audience, how they listened to these criticisms and how they took it, as nearly half of them were the ones who either initiated, or actively supported the apology campaign and some took part in the organization of the alternative Armenian conference at Bilgi University. I could see only half of the room applauded the three women academics. When it was time for the question and answer session, the first to speak was Prof. Selim Deringil, a prominent Turkish historian highly appreciated by many because of his questioning the official theses, one of the organisers of the alternative Armenian conference in the Bilgi University and also one of the first supporters of the apology campaign. He sounded deeply offended and agitated, spoke indignantly, and said Seyhan Bayraktar had insulted them, the intellectuals who were criticized in her talk, by portraying them as the “state intellectuals.” He said she was unfair and offensive towards them, completing his intervention with an incredible comment: You were writing your papers abroad while we did everything here by taking all the risks!
But, for me, one of the most striking moments of the whole event was when a high-volume exclamation of reproach rose from the audience across the room. That moment was a consolation for me after the embarrassing statement by Deringil. My consolation was consolidated by Prof. Fikret Adanir’s reproach to Deringil. Adanir said that this was a scholarly meeting where such subjective comments should not be tolerated. Deringil’s words were a very good example of what I said above about the connection between the indignation and ungratefulness.
Others asking questions and expressing their own views on the topic during the question and answer session were by no means as aggressive, but many expressed disappointment at what they viewed as a lack of appreciation of their efforts.
It was a significant experience not only for me and for those who agree with Bayraktar, Ayata and Erbal, but, I believe, also for many others who disagree with them. I know—based on my post-conference encounters—that even many of those who felt offended by their criticism were impressed, or at least felt themselves in a position to take into account a very different perspective. Mine was a fulfillment of hearing in a public discussion arguments which until then had been suppressed because of various concerns—concerns such as seeing it a duty to support every attempt, even the slightest ones, that would hopefully undermine the official ideology.
There is a lot to discuss as the matter needs a much greater mental freedom on the part of us, those who live and work here in Turkey to elaborate in greater depth on how to fight back the powerful denial mechanism in Turkey. Furthermore, truth is not monolithic, on the contrary, it is very fragmented, many times, paradoxical. There may be truth in opposing arguments and more than one opposing argument can carry truth in itself. For example I believe the mainstream Turkish intelligentsia whom we criticize most do play a part in the sluggish change that Turkey has been undergoing (in fact the part they play is much greater than that of the marginal elements such as myself and our Human Rights Association). When we think of the terrible ignorance and deeply rooted commonplace nationalism of millions of people in Turkey, we can better see the dialectics of life, I mean, how even the most inadequate and poorly formulated attempts contribute to the change we long for.
My confused thoughts in a very confused environment of Turkey often come to a conclusion that the laws of life will have their own say in the historical process of change. On the one hand, there will be the timid and conciliatory criticisms aiming to trigger question marks in the minds of onlookers and bystanders, but at the same time reproducing the official discourses, hence slowing down the process. On the other hand, quite simultaneously—and thankfully—there will be Bayraktars, Erbals, and Ayatas who will ask for more, and pave the way for an uncompromising fight against lies and denial. I feel that it will be these contesting forces that will turn the wheels of change.
Related Articles
About the Apology Campaign
Mouradian: From Democracy to Justice
Ankara Interested in Make-Up, not Plastic Surgery
Critical Interventions: Kurdish Intellectuals Confronting the Armenian Genocide
Panel Discussion on Turkish-Armenian Relations Held at NY City Hall
Recent Articles
Remembering the Mekhitarists—50 Years Later (Part 6)
Vartabedian: My Friend the Consummate Armenian
Meneshian: Hear the Footsteps of a
By: Ayse Gunaysu
It was an unusually hot and very exciting day, as it would be the first time that the critics of Turkish intellectuals’ discourse about the “Armenian issue” would voice their arguments at a public meeting in Turkey where a face to face open discussion would take place around topics hitherto hotly debated mainly in e-mail groups and other social media channels.
L to R: Kentel, Adanir, Ayata, Erbal, and Bayraktar. (Photo by Silvina Der Meguerditchian)
As part of the two-day Hrant Dink Memorial Workshop “Silenced but Resilient: Language and Memory in Anatolia and Neighboring Regions,” organized jointly by the Sabanci University in collaboration with Anadolu Kultur on May 27-28, a panel discussion was held on the apology campaign. The panel was moderated by historian Fikret Adanir, with the participation of Ferhat Kentel and three resolute critics of the mainstream Turkish intelligentsia on the Armenian “issue”: Ayda Erbal from the New York University, Seyhan Bayraktar from the University of Zurich, and Bilgin Ayata from John Hopkins University.
In recent years I have found myself developing a mental picture of certain high-profile Turkish critics of the official Turkish thesis on the Armenian issue as a community communicating and interacting within a closed micro-cosmos. The main characteristics of this micro-cosmos appear to be self-complacency—naturally resulting in a lack of receptiveness to the signals coming from the outer world—intolerance to criticism, and when faced with any criticism, a strong reaction of indignation. Their reaction has reminded me, time and again, of the outrage of those who feel themselves victimized by the ungratefulness of those for whom they put themselves at risk “in a country like Turkey”—referring to the backwardness of the Turksih society and the risks in the face of the overwhelming ultra-nationalism. (No need to say that these Turkish intellectuals who criticize the official Turkish thesis on 1915 do face risks: some of them are being prosecuted, some are continuously receiving death threats. But, no need also to say that this should not grant anybody immunity from criticism.)
So, this was the first time that critics of certain Turkish intellectuals would speak in a public gathering in Turkey. Word was circulating that there had been an attempt by Prof. Baskin Oran to prevent the participation of the above-mentioned three academics in the workshop. Then came the news that the organizers had rebuffed the attempt. Therefore the mere fact that the panel would take place anyhow was in itself a declaration of commitment by the organizers to a sound academic stance.
Bayraktar: ‘Reproduction of the nationalist discourse’
When the time came for the panel discussion in question, the room had already been packed with an audience eager to listen to what the three voices had to say.
First spoke Seyhan Bayraktar. Her presentation, titled “Politics, Memory, Language: Changes, Continuties and Breaks in the Discourse about the Armenian Genocide in Turkey,” was a critical review of how the Turkish political and public discourse about the annihilation of Armenians developed from the 1970s until 2005. Her main argument was that despite the increased visibility of the Armenian issue in Turkey, which indicated a liberalization of the public sphere, a critical discourse about the nation’s past had not replaced the denial of the systematic extermination of the Anatolian Armenians. “In contrast,” she said, “ I argue that the former denial discourse has turned much more sophisticated today. The state has adopted new strategies to block genocide acknowledgements while discourse patterns that served denial purposes have turned out particularly pervasive and resistant even under different political and social contexts.”
Based on an empirical analysis of media texts, Bayraktar stated that despite relative liberalization, dominant nationalistic discourse frames have survived over time and were carried by a broader range of social and political actors than they were in the 1970s and 1980s. “This robustness of discourse frames under different political contexts has lead to the paradoxical outcome that even critics of the Turkish state’s politics of the past use discourse frames that have originally been invented by state actors as argumentative tools to relativize and deny the genocidal character of 1915 in Turkey’s foreign relations.”
Bayraktar gave as an example the alternative Armenian conference organized in 2005 at the Bilgi University, which was “the first attempt in its kind to critically address the Armenian issue within Turkey,” she underlined. The conference, reminded Bayraktar, coincided with a change in the Turkish government’s Armenian policy. While the traditional approach was reactive, developing a strategy in reaction to international genocide resolutions or other events, starting from the 2000’s the official policy became proactive, mainly due to the pressure from Europe. In anticipation of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government started to take steps to counter the outside pressure. The Turkish government’s direct contact with Armenia to set up a joint history committee and the Turkish National Assembly’s letter to the British Parliament to denounce the Blue Book as collection of fake documents were the two milestones in this process.
Giving a brief account of the heated debate over the conference, Bayraktar referred to the most common accusation used by the right-wing conservative front, namely “backstabbing” and “treason”—accusations which were most vehemently rejected by the accused party, the left and liberals. However, while strongly reacting against the accusations as a manifestation of excluding everyone who questioned the dominant discourse about the Armenian Genocide, the accused used the same “national interest” discourse to defend themselves. They mainly argued that in fact they were the ones who upheld the interests of the nation. Bayraktar said: “Although the counter-discourse blamed the nationalist and exclusivist approach of traditional elites using ‘traitorship,’ it was itself very much built on a deeply nationalist logic and rhetoric. The attempt was to turn the table round and claim that it was the sympathizers of the conference who were seeking for the ‘real’ good of the nation. Thus the alternative and liberals voices did not challenge the nationalist approach to the history of 1915 in essence and its fundaments. Instead, liberals, who criticized the state and state actors for not confronting the Armenian issue as open as necessary, reproduced and legitimized themselves the central logics of the nationalist discourse.”
Although Bayraktar explicitly acknowledged the significant progress in Turkey as regards public discussion of the topic, her presentation was in fact an impressive warning to Turkish intellectuals against the use of the same discursive patterns while objecting the dominant official ideology about what happened in 1915. “Despite the immense dynamics of the Armenian issue in the public arena of Turkey the examples above have tentatively shown the deficits of the developments: Turkish public intellectuals have not been able to set up a counter-discourse stressing the need for coming to terms with the past and reconciliation as such. Instead, by giving-in and using the same rhetoric strategies they have reproduced and legitimized nationalist discourse frames,” she concluded.
Erbal: An apology?
Ayda Erbal started her presentation by acknowledging that the intellectuals’ attempt at an apology was a remarkable but at the same time problematic process. Reminding the current meaning of apology (“an encounter between two parties offender/offended” where the offender acknowledges responsibility for an offense or grievance and express regret or remorse to the aggrieved party) she then gave a brief account of how the “apology” concept had been dealt with by scholars, making references to various writers such as Nicholas Tavuchis, Aaron Lazare and Nick Smith. She said the general tendency in the literature in this field was to make a binary distinction based on certain established criteria between apologies and non-apologies. In case of the Turkish apology campaign, following Nick Smith’s work, Erbal said, she is also interested in meanings transferred notwithstanding whether Turkish intellectuals’ apology satisfies the requirements of a categorical apology. Referring to the criteria suggested by Aaron Lazarre, which are (i) explanation of the offense; (ii) expression of shame/guilt/humility/sincerity; (iii) intention not to commit the offense again; and (iv)-reparations to the offended party, she said of the Turkish apology campaign: “This one would not be an apology even if it were formulated to solve a personal problem between two individuals, as it meets none of the criteria of a categorical apology, even failing short in correctly identifying the offense itself and the offender,” explaining that in order for it to be a categorical apology it had to satisfy all requirements plus what was also needed/asked by the aggrieved party. Moreover, she noted that due to a lack of clarity in language and lack of agency (the drafters had not mentioned who perpetrated the crime were, nor its deniers) and finally the usage of the passive voice reminded her what Haaretz journalist Amira Haas called “language laundromat” where language becomes a laundromat to white wash institutional crimes and responsibilities. She also added the usage of the G-word did not matter in this case, even if they did use the actual word, the text would still not satisfy a categorical apology. However she did emphasize that the choice of Mezd Yeghern was altogether significant regardless of whether the text could be regarded as an apology or not, because among many Armenian words describing the 1915 events, its Turkish equivalent, buyuk feleket, was a term which was the most vague and most ambiguous one. A term that conveniently left the agency—the entity who committed the crime—out.
Another important point she made was that the campaign was Jacobinist in nature. She said it was Jacobinist in its approach to both the offended and the offender party. In case of Turks, the Jacobinism lied in the fact that it was dictated from above without any attempt to broaden the base of participants in drafting or pre-apology deliberation, it didn’t care for inclusiveness and involvement of as many people as possible—unlike the very horizontal experience of “Sorry Books” in Australia where many took part in an apology campaign personally by writing their own apologies in empty notebooks. These were ordinary Australians who wanted to do something in response to the Federal Government’s refusal to formally apologize to the Stolen Generations. Regarding Jacobinism towards Armenians, which Erbal said was worse, the organizers didn’t make any effort to get in touch with representative bodies of the Armenians, to gain an insight into what they really want or need from an apology, or whether they need an apology from individual Turkish citizens altogether. Instead, by mandating the term, hence normalizing the discourse, freezing it around the term Medz Yeghern, they left no space for any input from the offended party. By preempting an apology on whose terms the offended and the “offender” did not agree, the campaign organizers created a de facto setting where if the offended party (Armenians) rejects the “apology,” they would look bad and end up being portrayed as the hostile and aggressive party despite the fact that the preemption of this kind of unasked for apology on whose terms the offended and the “offender” did not agree upon, is a symbolically violent endeavor to begin with.
Erbal also discussed the organizers’ justification of the choice of the word. One argument was that the word Genocide had been overly politicized and the other was that the Turkish public felt threatened by the term. She said the first was in fact a “non-argument” in that the politicization of the term was irrelevant, as the Genocide was itself a political phenomenon and over politicization or over-usage would not necessarily mean it would lose meaning and certainly instrumentalizing a very dear, very private term people use to express their pain also means politicizing it, so in that sense, it’s not politics or politicization that’s the problem here, the problem is rather a particular politics of genocide recognition. The second, she commented, was what they call “non-sequitur” in logic—which means lack of any connection between the assumption and the conclusion, she said “even if the assumption that the G-word frightens Turkish citizens were correct this cannot be used to explain as the reason to chose the term Mezd Yeghern amongst numerous words used by Armenians to describe what happened in 1915.
Erbal made one passing comment that I value and attach great importance to. She said that that sincerity, good intentions, emotions (which, many believed, was an important reason to support the campaign) were all irrelevant for her work as a political scientist. She said that despite the fact that she understood people’s sincere attachment to the issue and their feelings and that she did not feel herself in a position to question thirty thousand people’s sincerity; friendship and brotherhood/sisterhood discourse did not mean much in terms of citizens’ demand for institutional commitments. She added that she had been hearing these since her childhood and nothing has changed in the institutional mindset of the state in terms of its perceptions of its minorities. She still doesn’t feel herself equal and her actual condition as a non-equal citizen is the reason why we should talk about truth and justice in equal terms, preferably not adding insult to injury by dictating the terms of an apology from above. Hence without justice on whose terms parties should agree upon no-one can be equal since the Armenian is still ingrained as the fifth column in the state’s institutional mindset because of the exact same painful history.
Ayata: ‘Absolute denial replaced by a policy of regulation’
Ayata started with his argument that the discourses on reconciliation occur as separate and isolated themes for the Armenian, Kurdish, Alevi, Dersim issues, arguing that this compartmentalization is a central weakness of the reconciliation process. According to Ayata, this compartmentalization was not accidental but reflected a continuation of a divide and rule mentality, which effectively contributed to an existing power asymmetry by consolidating Turkish intellectuals and interlocutors as the main reference point while the marginalized/excluded groups’ position remained precarious single cases.
Looking into the case of “compartmentalization” closer by giving examples to how the Kurdish, Alevi and Dersim issues were dealt with, Ayata drew attention to the fact that the politics of total/absolute denial in Turkey was “crumbling.” She continued by saying: “Because the costs of crude denial have become too much for the state in the course of the increased internationalization of politics. However, this shift away from crude denial has not lead to a politics of acknowledgement. Instead there is a shift from a politics of denial to a policy of regulation.”
As for some intellectuals in Turkey, Ayata argued that they had chosen a role to navigate the state out of the mess that denial had caused. Instead of problematizing the solutions and the regulatory approach of the state, she commented, their actions were in compliance with the regulatory approach that were often justified with the argument that “Turkey was not ready for more”. “Their concern with nation’s least collateral damage prevails over the quest for justice, acknowledgement and truth seeking,” she said.
Ayata acknowledged that now it was more possible to talk about not only the Armenian genocide, but also on the displacement of Kurds than 10 years ago, and this was without doubt an important improvement. “Yet at the same time,” she continued, “there are strict limits to the discourse: for instance, it is possible to talk about the Kurdish issue, but the term Kurdistan can hardly be used, except it relates to the Kurdish regional government in Iraq. Similarly the term genocide continues to be a highly controversial term, that can be used without restriction when talking about Palestine, but is to be circumvented at all costs when talking about 1915, or 1938.”
Criticizing the apology campaign, Ayata said the choice of the term “Great Catastrophe” was a “great ignorance” towards those to whom the apology is extended to. “After all, what was the one political claim that united Armenians around the world if it was not the recognition of the Genocide?” she asked and continued: “The reason often given by progressive intellectuals for this discursive limitation when talking about the events of 1915, is that the Turkish society and politics are apparently not ready for more at this point. This marginalizes and delegitimizes those who already have been using this term.”
Ayata questioned the reason for the mainstream Turkish intellectuals to systematically refuse the use of the term Genocide. “It is worthwhile to remember that since the Jewish genocide, the entire development of German and European philosophy more or less evolved around questions how and why the Holocaust was possible, and what its responsibility entails for mankind,” she went on. “On a political level, it entailed for German intellectuals and politicians almost an unconditional commitment and feeling of responsibility for the Jewish Diaspora. In Turkey, instead, some intellectuals have even actively participated in Diaspora bashing, in which the Armenian community in Turkey are portrayed as ‘good Armenians, our Armenians’ as they are perceived harmless, while the Diaspora Armenians with their claims for justice and recognition of the genocide are ousted as hawks and ultra-nationalists. This is not too different when targeting some Kurdish politicians also as hawks. One should not forget that the line between sahin [Turkish word for “hawk”] and hain [Turkish word for “traitor”] is highly thin.”
An explosion of indignation in the face of criticism
While listening to them I was also observing the audience, how they listened to these criticisms and how they took it, as nearly half of them were the ones who either initiated, or actively supported the apology campaign and some took part in the organization of the alternative Armenian conference at Bilgi University. I could see only half of the room applauded the three women academics. When it was time for the question and answer session, the first to speak was Prof. Selim Deringil, a prominent Turkish historian highly appreciated by many because of his questioning the official theses, one of the organisers of the alternative Armenian conference in the Bilgi University and also one of the first supporters of the apology campaign. He sounded deeply offended and agitated, spoke indignantly, and said Seyhan Bayraktar had insulted them, the intellectuals who were criticized in her talk, by portraying them as the “state intellectuals.” He said she was unfair and offensive towards them, completing his intervention with an incredible comment: You were writing your papers abroad while we did everything here by taking all the risks!
But, for me, one of the most striking moments of the whole event was when a high-volume exclamation of reproach rose from the audience across the room. That moment was a consolation for me after the embarrassing statement by Deringil. My consolation was consolidated by Prof. Fikret Adanir’s reproach to Deringil. Adanir said that this was a scholarly meeting where such subjective comments should not be tolerated. Deringil’s words were a very good example of what I said above about the connection between the indignation and ungratefulness.
Others asking questions and expressing their own views on the topic during the question and answer session were by no means as aggressive, but many expressed disappointment at what they viewed as a lack of appreciation of their efforts.
It was a significant experience not only for me and for those who agree with Bayraktar, Ayata and Erbal, but, I believe, also for many others who disagree with them. I know—based on my post-conference encounters—that even many of those who felt offended by their criticism were impressed, or at least felt themselves in a position to take into account a very different perspective. Mine was a fulfillment of hearing in a public discussion arguments which until then had been suppressed because of various concerns—concerns such as seeing it a duty to support every attempt, even the slightest ones, that would hopefully undermine the official ideology.
There is a lot to discuss as the matter needs a much greater mental freedom on the part of us, those who live and work here in Turkey to elaborate in greater depth on how to fight back the powerful denial mechanism in Turkey. Furthermore, truth is not monolithic, on the contrary, it is very fragmented, many times, paradoxical. There may be truth in opposing arguments and more than one opposing argument can carry truth in itself. For example I believe the mainstream Turkish intelligentsia whom we criticize most do play a part in the sluggish change that Turkey has been undergoing (in fact the part they play is much greater than that of the marginal elements such as myself and our Human Rights Association). When we think of the terrible ignorance and deeply rooted commonplace nationalism of millions of people in Turkey, we can better see the dialectics of life, I mean, how even the most inadequate and poorly formulated attempts contribute to the change we long for.
My confused thoughts in a very confused environment of Turkey often come to a conclusion that the laws of life will have their own say in the historical process of change. On the one hand, there will be the timid and conciliatory criticisms aiming to trigger question marks in the minds of onlookers and bystanders, but at the same time reproducing the official discourses, hence slowing down the process. On the other hand, quite simultaneously—and thankfully—there will be Bayraktars, Erbals, and Ayatas who will ask for more, and pave the way for an uncompromising fight against lies and denial. I feel that it will be these contesting forces that will turn the wheels of change.
Related Articles
About the Apology Campaign
Mouradian: From Democracy to Justice
Ankara Interested in Make-Up, not Plastic Surgery
Critical Interventions: Kurdish Intellectuals Confronting the Armenian Genocide
Panel Discussion on Turkish-Armenian Relations Held at NY City Hall
Recent Articles
Remembering the Mekhitarists—50 Years Later (Part 6)
Vartabedian: My Friend the Consummate Armenian
Meneshian: Hear the Footsteps of a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
