Month: February 2015

Minneapolis Star Tribune
Feb 13 2015

On Ukraine, the best first step is to form a strategy

by: ROSS WILSON

It might be a good idea to send arms, but figure out what road we’d be on.

Arming Ukraine, as this newspaper, prominent Washington think tanks
and Sen. John McCain have argued, may be right. The case for doing so
appears compelling. The country is being savaged by a bullying Russia,
thousands are dying, and President Vladimir Putin’s redrawing of
political boundaries is violating the political order in Europe.
However, the matter of arming or not arming the authorities in Kiev
ends up being the wrong issue, or at least a premature one. What
should come first is some thinking through of the broader problem of
Russia and its neighbors, where American interests lie, and what
capabilities we have. These represent the harder work of formulating a
strategy.

Putin has one.

He aims to promote Russia’s welfare and role in the world by keeping
its neighbors away from the West. No more creep of the European Union
or NATO further into the former Soviet bloc, which his foreign
minister, Sergey Lavrov, declared in 2008 to be Russia’s zone of
“privileged interest.” Roughing up and punishing Ukraine is a means to
that end. It sends a blunt message to all of the neighbors about where
their interests had better lie — or else. Seemingly over-the-top
Russian actions caution Europeans, whose reluctance to challenge
Moscow goes all the way back to German unification in 1990 and before,
against further outreach to the east.

That’s what the mauling of Georgia was about in 2008. It’s why Moscow
has supported criminal separatists in tiny Moldova since 1991. These
priorities lie behind more subtle policies, too. Russia’s arming of
both Azeri and Armenian forces around the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh
region reinforces the protagonists’ dependence on it and therefore the
Kremlin’s role in the Caucasus. Promoting a Eurasian Economic Union
that now includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan keeps them commercially focused on Russia and reduces their
options elsewhere. Putin’s making nice to friendly regional autocrats
who dislike Western hectoring about human rights and democracy is an
easy gesture that fits this strategy, too.

Is arming Ukraine the right response? Maybe, but steps to do so should
flow from a broader policy and strategy regarding that country and
Russia. It is not enough to give arms to help Ukraine better protect
itself or to hope that doing so will convince Putin that aggression
will not go unchecked. What happens if this military aid is not
sufficient to make a difference — what do we do then? What does
“checking” aggression mean, and where might it end? It isn’t
appeasement or cowardice to insist on thinking through the
implications of confrontation with Russia in its back yard — any more
than it would be wise blithely to disregard the risks of failing to
take a stand now against Kremlin aggression.

We need at least some semblance of a strategy on all this — a plan of
action that relates what we would like to see with what our
capabilities are for realizing that outcome. It should address a
number of questions.

What are America’s interests with respect to Ukraine, what are
Russia’s and where are our trans-Atlantic allies? How should the fact
that the Kremlin retains thousands of nuclear warheads affect our
calculus? What are Ukraine’s inherent attributes and problems, and how
can we affect those? Is that country sui generis, or should U.S.
policy also focus on Georgia and/or others among the former Soviet
states — and, if so, which ones, and what do we then make of their
democratic and other failings? What other ways could we add to the
pressures Putin faces already — with regard to Syria, Russia’s energy
markets in Europe or even relations with China — to influence his
behavior?

What risks elsewhere in the world — for example, on the Iran nuclear
issue — might we run by taking a more robust stance against Putin’s
actions, and how can we mitigate these? If we lack sufficient military
or other instruments to affect developments, how can we add to our
capabilities and undermine the other side’s? If there is a problem
with public support for a robust policy on Russia in the United States
and Europe, how can that be changed — not in the firmament of partisan
politics, but in reality?

This is not to argue that military support for Ukraine is a bad idea.
It may be a very good idea. A compelling case can be made that the
United States and its trans-Atlantic allies need fundamentally and in
every way to resist Kremlin aggression and efforts to subjugate
Ukraine and other neighbors — to recreate in some measure a Soviet
Union-like entity whose collapse 23 years ago represented a great
windfall for security and prosperity in Europe and all over the world.

But the U.S. government needs to have worked up some kind of strategy
on Russia and explained it to the American people. And if we’re not
prepared to go a very considerable distance down the road of
confrontation with Russia, then we should be careful about adding to
expectations in Kiev that we may ultimately not be prepared to follow
through on.

Ross Wilson, a Minnesota International Center board director, served
as U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan during a 30-year career in
the U.S. Foreign Service.

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 14 2015

Bryza says principle of territorial integrity is effective concept for
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

14 February 2015 – 12:03pm

Former US ambassador to Azerbaijan, a former co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group, the director of the International Centre for Defence
Studies in Tallinn, Matthew Bryza, told Azerbaijani media that he
considers the principle of territorial integrity as the most effective
concept to resolve all conflicts such as Nagorno-Karabakh.

According to Trend, Bryza said that Armenia is making a mistake
thinking that time is on their side in the conflict.

According to Matthew Bryza, the UN Security Council does not make any
effort to implement its resolutions regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, as the organization has no mechanisms for their
implementation. At the same time, the mediators do not think
strategically and creatively enough to work effectively. “No one can
be a mediator, without being ready for intellectual work, and without
having the patience to find common ground,” he explained.

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 14 2015

Officer arrested in the case of death of cadet Haykaz Barseghyan

14 February 2015 – 4:46pm

The Investigative Committee of Armenia reported today that new data
has appeared in the case of the death of the cadet Haykaz Barseghian,
rejecting the version of his suicide. Barseghyan was found hanged at a
training ground in Yerevan.

According to the Ministry, within the framework of the investigation,
officer Artem Avetisyan was arrested in the Yerevan military unit. The
officer is suspected of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of
Article 375 of the RA Criminal Code “Abuse of authority, excess or
inactivity of authority.”

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 14 2015

Tsarukyan resigns

14 February 2015 – 5:39pm

The head of the government of Armenia, Hovik Abrahamyan has sent Gagik
Tsarukyan into retirement. Tsarukyan is no longer the chairman of the
Institute of Sports and Physical Culture, a spokesman for Prime
Minister of Armenia, Gohar Poghosyan said.

The institute will be headed by the Deputy Minister of Youth and
Sports Affairs Arsen Karamyan, News-Armenia reports.

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 14 2015

Vladimir Nikitin: it is necessary to settle Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

14 February 2015 – 9:28pm

The first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs,
Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots, Vladimir Nikitin,
talked to Vestnik Kavkaza about the current state of affairs in
relations between Russia and Azerbaijan at the moment: “Russia’s
relations with Azerbaijan are friendly. This is confirmed by the fact
that our delegations at PACE are voting together against US expansion.
Recently, the leader of the Communist faction in the State Duma
visited Azerbaijan, met with President Aliyev. Prior to this, all our
committee members had also gone there and had a half hour conversation
with the leader of Azerbaijan.”

“We concluded that Azerbaijan is one of those countries in the former
Soviet Union where there is no rabid Russophobia, where there is a
desire for people of all nationalities to live in peace. We hope that
Azerbaijan will be a country to become part of the Eurasian Economic
Union in the future,” Nikitin added.

He said that Russia is very interested in a settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue: “The President of the Russian Federation, and
the head of the State Duma, Sergei Naryshkin, are now taking steps to
ensure that the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan find the best way to
begin resolving the problem which causes a lot of pain to both
countries.”

“I think eventually they will find a solution,” he concluded.

From: Baghdasarian

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 14 2015

A political war has started in Armenia

14 February 2015 – 12:15pm

Armenian media report that Armenian citizens in the near future will
witness “sleaze, financial and criminal prosecution… A rat race, and
many other phenomena that have no connection with politics, but will
accompany further political events,” referring to a campaign now being
initiated by President Serzh Sargsyan against the leader of the
Prosperous Armenia party, Gagik Tsarukyan.

Recall that Sargsyan described Tsarukyan as “evil in the political
sphere of Armenia, which it was time to eradicate,” remembering missed
sessions of Parliament, and shadow economic activity, and rumors of
“creating professional criminal mechanisms.”

In response, Gagik Tsarukyan has spoken about the error of the
authorities and Sargsyan himself both in foreign and in domestic
politics, blaming them for the severe socio-economic situation in the
country.

Simultaneously, Tsarukyan claimed that he would not fight Sargsyan
alone, and that evening he held talks with the leader of the Armenian
National Congress, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, in the presence of deputies
from PAP Naira Zohrabyan, Vartan Oskanyan, Stepan Margaryan and
members of the ANC Aram Manukyan and Levon Zurabyan.
In the near future he intends to meet with the leadership of the Heritage party.

Experts immediately drew attention to the fact that, immediately after
the speech by Sargsyan, ex-president Robert Kocharyan urgently
returned to Yerevan from Kiev.

Official representatives of Kocharian rejected this connection, but
they do not exclude the possibility that the second president of the
republic will soon make a statement regarding the attack by Sargsyan
on Tsarukyan.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 13 2015

Armenian diaspora in US rejects PM’s claims on cooperation with Gülen movement

Leading figures from the Armenian diaspora in the US have rejected
recent allegations by Prime Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu that the Gülen
movement, also known as the Hizmet movement, is lobbying against
Turkey in the US in cooperation with the Armenian community there.

Speaking at his Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) Ä°stanbul
5th ordinary congress over the weekend, DavutoÄ?lu claimed that the
Armenian lobby, along with the Jewish and Greek lobbies, recently took
actions against Turkey ahead of April 24, the 100th anniversary of
what Armenians claim was a genocide of their people at the hands of
the Ottoman Empire. He added that the `parallel lobby’ is also
currently acting together with these lobbies.

`I am declaring here that we did not and will not yield to either the
Armenian lobby or the Jewish lobby. I am also appealing to the
parallel lobby, which is sending messages to these lobbies. We will
stand against you wherever you are,’ he said.

`Parallel structure’ is the government’s term to refer to the Gülen
movement, which is inspired by Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah
Gülen.

According to Turkey’s bilingual Armenian weekly Agos, leading
representatives of the Armenian diaspora in the US have strongly
rejected DavutoÄ?lu’s claims. On the contrary, they say, relations
between the movement and the diaspora in the US are not very good.

Edvin Minassian, who is among the executives of the US-based Armenian
Bar Association, told the weekly that the fact that many members of
the Armenian diaspora in the US are working for the closure of charter
schools run by Turks affiliated with the movement is a clear sign that
the two groups are at odds with each other.

The director of the US-based Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA), Aram Hamparian, was also quoted by Agos as saying that members
of the Gülen movement in the US openly and actively work against the
policies of the Armenian community in the US. He argued that members
of the movement support efforts by the Turkish government to `prevent
a just and truth-based solution to the Armenian genocide issue’ and
side with Baku in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

Harut Sassounian, the publisher of The California Courier, an
English-Language Armenian weekly based in Glendale, California, also
termed DavutoÄ?lu’s statements claiming that members of the Gülen
movement support the Armenian community in the US as `one of the lies
of DavutoÄ?lu and President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an.’

From: Baghdasarian

Anadolu Agency (AA), Turkey
February 13, 2015 Friday

Gulen lobby influences US lawmakers letter on Turkey

Dozens of US House members who received campaign donations from
entities linked to a wanted Turkish preacher, may have signed a letter
critical of Turkey without checking facts.

By Kasim ILERI
WASHINGTON

Some signatories to a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry by U.S.
House members critical of Turkish press freedoms, have received
financial benefits while insufficiently fact-checking claims made in
the letter.

Financial records show many of the signees have received political
donations from entities linked to a movement led by U.S.-based Turkish
preacher Fethullah Gulen.

In the Feb. 2 letter, lawmakers expressed concerns about recent
arrests of media figures in Turkey. It specifically laid emphasis on
proceedings against a Turkish media group linked to Gulen.

“According to multiple press reports, Ekrem Dumanli, the
editor-in-chief of Zaman, a highly circulated daily newspaper in
Turkey and Hidayet Karaca, CEO of Samanyolu Media Group, were arrested
on Dec. 14, 2014, on questionable charges, bringing the total number
of detained media personalities to 29,” the letter said.

More than 400 individuals, 150 of whom were linked to Gulen, were
monitored last year by the Turkish government on Twitter, according to
the letter.

Specific emphasis on Gulen-linked media have raised doubts that many
of the co-signers were motivated by political donations to their
campaigns from individuals and foundations linked to Gulen rather than
examining the assertions made in the letter.

Turkish officials have rejected the claims in the letter.

Turkey’s EU Affairs Minister Volkan Bozkir, who was on a visit to
Washington last week, told reporters not a single journalist was
detained in Turkey for expressing personal ideas or beliefs. The few
who are currently detained are being held on charges of robbery,
shooting and clashes with security officers.

He stressed the letter didn’t contain names of the detained. “They do
not have the names of these 29 press members allegedly detained in
Turkey. Furthermore, the facts in the text are not correct,” Bozkir
said.

Eric Harris, press secretary for Rep. Gwen Moore, one of the letter’s
co-signers, told The Anadolu Agency the letter was primarily authored
by Arizona Republican Matt Salmon and Missouri Democratic Emanuel
Cleaver.

Harris said the congresswoman’s advocacy for freedoms of expression
and the press motivated her to sign the letter.

As with all letters that are drafter in the House, he said there was
an extensive fact-checking process, based on cross checks with
institutions from government agencies and non-governmental
organizations as well as the Congressional Research Service.

“In terms of the specific number in the letter, I would refer you to
the Rep. Salmon’s office and Rep. Cleaver’s office as they were the
architects of the original text of the letter,” said Harris.

The spokesperson also added that his boss’ staff trusted the
documentation capability of the main sponsors’ office.

“Since we did not write the letter itself, we weren’t the one who put
the number down. We trust the guidance account of Rep. Salmon and Rep.
Cleaver; if they did not have the correct number there, I am sure they
would rectify that,” he added.

The Anadolu Agency approached more than 70 of the co-signers to the
letter and learned that the congresswoman’s office was not alone in
trusting its main sponsors.

Dozens of representatives’ offices declined to officially comment on
the letter and referred questions to Salmon and Cleaver. Several
confirmed they did not contribute to writing the text.

A communication director for one of the signatories told AA on the
condition of anonymity that since he supported freedom of press in
Turkey, the representative conceptually agreed with the letter.

He said, however, Salmon’s office was in charge of collecting
information about the names and affiliations of press members
allegedly detained in Turkey.

“We looked into the letter once it was sent to our office; we thought
there was something that we would certainly want to support, as it was
in line with our legislative trajectory in the House,” the official
said.

He said he was unable to share any document relating to names and
numbers specified in the letter but instead referred our requests for
such information to Salmon’s office.

In addition to the apparent lack of proper vetting of the claims made
in the letter, many co-signers also did not make clear why a specific
media group was singled out in the letter.

The letter specified two media figures linked to the Gulen movement
and gave numbers related to the movement, which leaves an impression
that the Gulen lobby played at least some role in drafting the letter
and getting it signed.

Led by Fehtullah Gulen, the Gulen movement has been under scrutiny in
Turkey. Officials linked to the movement are accused of conducting
wiretaps of high-profile figures within the Turkish state as well as
constructing a “parallel state” to overthrow the elected Turkish
government.

The group was recently included in the National Security Strategy of
Turkey as an organization that threatened the national security of the
country. The Turkish government also removed dozens of high-profile
bureaucrats from posts because of their alleged links to Gulen.

The preacher, who lives in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, had his
passport revoked in late January by the Turkish government, who then
informed its U.S. counterparts about the revocation.

A Turkish court also issued an arrest warrant for Gulen and Turkey is
readying documents to apply to Interpol to bring Gulen to justice in
Turkey.

The letter to Kerry was sent in an atmosphere of the tensions between
the Gulen movement and Turkish government, which can also leave the
impression that pro-Gulen links in the U.S. Congress contributed to
the letter’s draft and signing.

The Anadolu Agency combed records from the U.S. Federal Election
Committee and found foundations and individuals in the U.S. linked to
Gulen have donated more than $300,000 to political campaigns of dozens
of lawmakers who signed the letter.

Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas was the recipient of the largest amount in
2014 with $92,750. He was followed by Al Green of Texas who received
$67,100; Shelia Jackson Lee of Texas got $14,000, Robert Aderholt of
Alabama was given $24,800 and Jim Bridenstine of Oklahama collected
$13,000.

The records show some donors made regular payments and in some cases
family members of donors made financial contributions to the same
representatives.

Representatives usually receive donations from their own
constituencies for election campaigns, but among the co-signers of the
letter some received campaign donations from Gulen-linked donors who
lived outside of some representatives’ districts.

For example, Reps. Cuellar, Green and Aderholt simultaneously received
similar amounts from donors in different states and districts than
where the representatives have a constituency.

The main sponsors of the letter, Reps. Salmon and Cleaver, as well as
dozens of other co-signers, were sponsored by Gulen-linked foundations
in the U.S. for recent visits to Turkey where they met several
Gulen-linked journalists and academics.

Among the co-signers, 22 were sponsored for trips to Turkey in 2013-14
which cost $171,000.

Rep. Salmon, one of the main architects of the letter, Henry Cuellar,
Danny Davis, Mike Honda, and Aaron Schock personally visited Turkey
while other lawmakers sent representatives from their offices.

The Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians, Turkish American
Federation of Midwest, and Foundation of Intercultural Dialogue were
among the Gulen-linked foundations that sponsored the trips.

Among the co-signers of the letter, 47 were Democrat and 41 were Republican.

Many were members of the Greek, Armenian and Israeli caucuses.

Co-signers Jackie Speier, Barbara Lee, Steve Israel, Grace Napolitano,
Scott Garrett, Anna Eshoo, Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Chris Van Hollen,
Alan Lowenthal and Doug LaMalfa were also sponsors of the bills
against Turkey regarding the 1915 events, also known as the Armenian
allegations of “genocide” by the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

The majority of co-signers were from California, Illinois, Ohio and
Texas – states with the most number of Gulen-linked chartered schools.

From: Baghdasarian

Hurriyet Daily News, turkey
Feb 14 2015

Forgotten life and work of Zabel Yessayan slowly coming to light

William Armstrong – [email protected]

The pioneering work of Zabel Yessayan, an Armenian author born in
Ottoman Istanbul in 1878, was almost entirely forgotten after her
death in the Soviet Union in the 1940s. Even in Armenia itself
Yessayan remains little known today, though new translations of her
work have recently been appearing in English.

Her memoir of growing up in late 19th century Istanbul, `The Gardens
of Silihdar’ is reviewed here, and the Hürriyet Daily News spoke to
translator Jennifer Manoukian about Yessayan’s mysterious life and
exceptional work.

Let’s start by giving a broad idea about the background and context in
which she emerged, this broader ferment of changes in the Ottoman
Armenian community in the 19th century. What were the drivers of this
process?

It was a very exciting time for all nations in the Ottoman Empire. In
the Armenian community the change was driven mostly by reformers `
students who would become doctors, writers, lawyers – who went to
study in Europe at the beginning of the Tanzimat period, in the 1840s
and 1850s, and who returned to implement the trends they saw in
Europe. So we see a big push for improving the education system,
creating a periodical press, publishing books and reforming the
language. Before this period, there hadn’t been much of a secular
literary culture. The literate class was dominated mostly by the
clergy, so there were few novels and newspapers being printed.

The reformers sought to transform society by making education and
writing much more accessible. With this, the themes in literature
expanded. The novel and the short story were adopted as literary
forms, which reinforced the new vernacular literary language,
different from the one used in the Church. It was a period of
tremendous change, and the growing pains could still be felt as
Yessayan was growing up in the 1880s and 1890s.

Yessayan herself was heavily involved in educational issues early on,
from what I gather.

Definitely. She benefitted from an excellent education, which has a
lot to do with her father who wasn’t part of this reform movement but
who had adopted its ideals. He was committed to making sure his two
daughters got the best possible education and he tutored them
individually at home. He was the one who introduced them to the social
issues that would shape Zabel’s consciousness’those that she would
address later on in her writing.

So she had an informal education with him, then she went to the local
Armenian school in Ã`sküdar, and eventually left for France, where she
was one of the first Armenian and Ottoman women to go to Europe to
study.

What was she doing in Paris? How old was she? How long does she spend there?

The memoir ends when she was 17. She was planning to write two more
volumes of it, but she was arrested shortly after it was published and
we don’t have the later manuscripts, which may explain why it cuts off
so abruptly.

She left for Paris when she was 17, in 1895. In 1895, Armenian
intellectuals feared that they would no longer be able to write and
express themselves with as much freedom as they had before, because of
Sultan Abdülhamid’s surveillance and censorship policies. Even though
she was so young, she was involved in these intellectual circles,
listening to these writers and activists, attending the same literary
salons.

Her father became concerned that his daughter would also fall victim
of Abdülhamid’s policies, so he sent her to Paris to study at the
Sorbonne, where she would be protected from the political turmoil in
the Ottoman Empire and would also have a chance to hone her craft and
be exposed to new ideas. She already spoke French, so that wasn’t a
problem. The family wasn’t wealthy enough to send her all expenses
paid, so her father arranged for her to support herself by working as
an editorial assistant on a project to create a new French-Armenian
dictionary.

She arrived in Paris in 1895 and returned to Constantinople in 1902.
During that time a lot of things changed in her life. She was gaining
much more prominence in both French and Armenian circles. She got
married. She was publishing much more readily. What I really admire
about her is that she made an effort not only to write for the
Armenian community, but also to expose the French community to
Armenian literature. So from the very beginning she would translate
from Armenian into French, and she would write review pieces and other
articles that introduced the Armenian literary tradition to the French
public.

I wondered more broadly about her family’s economic position, because
it’s quite difficult to tell from the memoir.

It’s tough to say because she doesn’t really go into much detail. It’s
an enigma. Her mother and her father’s families both seem to have been
well-to-do. Her paternal grandfather was a judge, her maternal
great-grandfather was a civil servant, and other relatives had ties to
the palace. But her father was irresponsible with his money, which
caused his family to dip into periods of financial hardship. They had
some periods where there was a lot of tension relating to money. The
mother and the three aunts also worked, but it did not seem to
alleviate the burden. These financial issues would continue throughout
her life; she was never a wealthy woman.

In the review I refer to Yessayan as a feminist, but apparently she
was quite reluctant to use this term. Why?

We can only speculate that she was reluctant to identify as a women
writer or as a feminist, because writing by Armenian women at the time
wasn’t considered to be very serious; it was seen as more of a pastime
for bourgeois women, who mostly wrote poetry in the romantic style.
Yessayan used to say that they just wrote `frivolous’ stories, which
meant anything that wasn’t attacking social injustice. She never
worked within the confines of the social norms established for women,
she tried to shatter them and redefine them for herself. The other
women writing at the time never broke into the inner circle of
Armenian literature like she did.

Yes, she used the word `feminist’ with a lot of disdain and seems to
have understood feminists as women beholden to a kind of movement,
rather than women fighting autonomously to achieve political and
social equality. Dissociating herself from the feminist movement and
the term `feminism’ seems to be just another way for her to assert her
independence of thought.

But she got along very well with like-minded women. She worked on
planning what was called the Solidarity League of Ottoman Women,
drafting this idea with other Turkish women around 1908, right after
the constitution was declared. The idea was to try to create cohesion
between women of different ethnic communities, working specifically on
education. During this time she also had plans to create an Armenian
school for girls, as well as another project to train women teachers
to teach in Armenian schools in the provinces. But even though she was
working towards all these goals for the advancement of women, she
tried to distance herself from the term `feminist,’ as many women
still do today.

The memoir gives a classic image of introverted confessional
communities with little crossover. To what extent was Yessayan
involved in cross-communal links as she developed as an intellectual?

That’s a question that I’ve also asked myself. I’d be very intrigued
to know if she was reading Turkish literature. We don’t even know if
she had a strong handle on the Turkish language. But in the early
years she wasn’t dealing too much with any intellectual activity
beyond the Armenian and French communities. Later on she developed a
number of allies, but these were all people who she met in Paris. She
had ties to Prince Sabahaddin, who was one of Sultan Abdülhamid’s
relatives but had fallen out of favor and fled in 1899. She also
worked with Ahmed Rıza. But apart from that we don’t know too much
about any inter-communal collaboration.

In the memoir she expresses a strong distaste for what she saw as the
`romantic sentimentalism’ that was the literary fashion of the time,
in favor of a kind of rationalism.

Jennifer Manoukian, the translator of

Yessayan’s book.

>From the very beginning, she adopted the style and themes of the
realist movement that was gaining momentum in the 1890s. This could be
because romantic sentimentalism was the genre that women would most
often write in, so it was another way to emphasize her exceptionalism
as an author, while also showing that women were capable of rational
thought. She does make the movement her own, though, by introducing
complex female protagonists in her novels and laying bare their
thoughts, fears and concerns. This is the first, and practically the
last, time in Western Armenian literature that we see such
multidimensional female characters and plot lines that address the
particular experiences of women. In `The Gardens of Silihdar’ she
doesn’t portray women in the best light. She doesn’t seem have much
respect even for the women in her family, partly because they appear
to be driven by their emotions rather than by the rational principles
she espoused.

There’s a big difference in how she portrays her mother and father.
Her father comes across very positively while her mother is the
opposite. What was behind this?

She had a very turbulent relationship with her mother during her
childhood. Partly because her mother was battling a severe form of
depression and couldn’t really take care of her children.

But her father was the kind of person she wanted to become. He was
well-read, well-travelled, and very literary minded. He was also very
mentorly and never treated her like a child, which is something she
talks about in the book. Even when she was 10 years old he would have
conversations with her about politics and social inequity. He didn’t
try to sugarcoat anything for her and always treated her like an
adult, who was capable of understanding complex ideas.

We can see the effects of this in her writing. Even in her very early
writing she has a maturity to her ideas and expression. Her father was
the one who encouraged her to write. He was actually the one who
encouraged her to write about the issues that women faced in Armenian
society at that time. She commented that his open-mindedness was an
anomaly at the time. Her friends who were struggling with fathers that
wanted to push them into marriages were envious of her, because hers
encouraged her to develop her intellect and pursue a life that wasn’t
the expected route for women at the time.

She seems to have had an extremely peripatetic decade after leaving
Istanbul. Can you talk a little about the circumstances of why she
left the city, where she went, and how her work changed?

In 1915 she was one of the intellectuals targeted for arrest on April
24. That evening, the Ottoman authorities came to the house looking
for her, but she was visiting friends at the time. Her family got word
to her that she was being pursued, so she hid in a hospital in Ã`sküdar
for two months before fleeing over the Bulgarian border. But when
Bulgaria entered the First World War she had to flee again, and went
to the territory that would become the Independent Republic of Armenia
and then Soviet Armenia. She lived there for two years, collecting
many accounts and testimonies of Armenians who had fled the massacres
in the Ottoman Empire. That’s what occupied her time from 1916 to 1918
– she was furiously interviewing people, documenting them and
translating them into French for publication in newspapers to raise
awareness about the plight of the Armenians.

In 1919 she settled in France, where we see a huge shift in her
politics. From 1922 on, she became an advocate of socialism and worked
hard to convince Armenians in the diaspora that there was no hope for
the Armenian nation outside of the Soviet Republic. Many of her
writings after 1922 were colored by her politics. A lot of them are
dismissed as propaganda pieces and not taken as seriously as the work
she had written earlier. She visited Armenia in 1926 and wrote what
she said was a travelogue, but was really just a way to lure diasporan
Armenians into moving to Soviet Armenia. She edited a French Armenian
newspaper with socialist leanings for a while and then eventually
moved to Armenia in 1933, settling there for good. That’s where she
wrote `The Gardens of Silihdar,’ which was a complete departure in
style and theme from her other writings post-1922.

After 1935 she was arrested on trumped up charges, imprisoned and sent
to a labor camp. The last we hear of her is in 1942 from a prison in
Baku.

It’s so ironic and tragic that she said Armenians could only thrive in
Soviet Armenia, but then ended up a victim of Stalin’s Great Purge.
What were the accusations against her?

The charges were subversion. It had happening to a handful of Ottoman
Armenian intellectuals who had settled in Soviet Armenia and who were
writing these kinds of memoirs and accounts. The authorities feared
they would incite the Armenian community to glorify a history that was
pre-Soviet. But it’s all very secretive. Very little research has been
done into this period.

February/14/2015

Daily Sabah, Turkey
Feb 14 2015

Government seeks to make up for past mistakes to minorities

AYÃ…?E Ã…?AHIN
ISTANBUL

Turkey’s ruling party has been exerting major efforts to compensate
for previous governments’ unjust treatment of minorities since it came
to power and has recently launched cooperative works with
representatives of foundations and opinion leaders to address the
needs and wishes of minority communities. Ruling party officials have
made a strong case that minorities, who were once unjustly treated as
second-class citizens, should be considered a part of the same culture
they mold together.

Minorities in Turkey, who have lived in the country since its
foundation, have previously faced difficulties securing their most
basic needs of security, having a place to live and freedom to
practice their religion. Now the needs and problems of these groups
that have long-suffered from isolation in the place they call home,
are finally being addressed.

After decades of apathy, which extended to animosity, by the previous
ruling parties since the foundation of the Turkish Republic, the
current ruling party, which has been in office for three terms, has
taken up the subject and launched significant work that will come as a
relief to minorities in Turkey. The AK Party is acting more
confidently in admitting that there have been past wrongdoings against
minorities. In so doing, it is detaching itself from previous ruling
parties in both ideology and governmental policies and refuses to see
itself as successor to the Republican People’s Party (CHP), who
presided over a single-party term during which the confiscation of
minorities’ properties occurred.

The minorities have previously lacked legal rights. Not only were they
victims of the law that banned them from owning a property, but the
properties which they already possessed were also confiscated. In
addition, there were obstacles in forming and using places of worship
and they were not granted equal rights to the rest of the society.

In 1936, during the single-party term of the CHP, Turkey adopted a new
law on foundations, after which they lost autonomy. The law, which
initially targeted Muslim foundations, deeming them a threat to
secularism, also wanted control over minorities as well.

During 1960s, things got a little more difficult for the minorities’
acquisition of new properties, with the creation of bureaucratic
impediments. The harshest amongst these was the ruling handed down by
the Supreme Court of Appeals, which banned minorities’ acquiring new
property.

“It appears that the acquisition of real estate by corporate bodies
composed of non-Turkish people was forbidden,” the basis of the ruling
read. The minorities being branded as non-Turkish were also an example
of the discrimination they had to face during the period. Indeed
Turkey’s former Prime Minister Ã…?ükrü SaraçoÄ?lu, who was in office
between 1942 and 1946, had labeled the minorities who were Turkish
citizens as “foreigners.” During the term of SaraçoÄ?lu, non-Muslims
were exposed to a back-breaking tax, which was written off following
harsh criticism from western circles.

Minorities who constitute less than 1 percent of Turkey’s population
are now expressing appreciation towards the new government, which has
been endeavoring to give them back those rights that were once taken
from them and adopt an embracing approach. As a first step, Turkey has
adopted the policy of returning properties to minorities. Within the
context of reforms toward different faith groups in Turkey, 1,014
confiscated foundation properties have been returned and more have
been promised. Almost every one of the properties waiting to be
returned to the minorities were discussed individually by Turkish
Prime Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu, representatives from minority groups
and nongovernmental organizations during a dinner held on Wednesday.

DavutoÄ?lu assured minorities that they will be treated as a primary
component of Turkey instead of “visitors” or “foreigners.” DavutoÄ?lu
said that the rights of minorities will be given back not as a
“favor,” but as part of the government’s duty.

During the meeting, to which roughly 50 representatives and opinion
leaders attended, discussions were held concerning the problems that
minorities experience and possible solutions. DavutoÄ?lu addressed the
participants saying that the AK Party government has shaken off the
discriminatory attitude toward minorities by putting into practice
policies like the returning of confiscated properties, the assigning
of bureaucrats of Armenian origin and bringing life back to their
places of worship.