Month: February 2015

ARMENIA’S EUROPEAN JUDGE CONTROVERSY

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
IWPR Caucasus Reporting #768
Feb 25 2015

President invalidates candidate selection amid allegations that
process was flawed.

25 Feb 15 By Lilit Arakelyan

Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan has announced a rerun of the
selection process for a judge to sit at the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

Sargsyan declared last year’s shortlisting process null and void
after the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),
which oversees the ECHR, deemed the choice of candidates from Armenia
“impossible”. PACE selects judges for the court from a shortlist
of three submitted by member states, assesses their suitability,
and picks one, who must be “of high moral character and possess the
qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office, or
jurisconsults of recognised competence”. States are asked to ensure
that one of the three candidates is a woman.

In October 2014, the national selection process in Armenia came up
with three names – former ombudsman Armen Harutyunyan, human rights
activist and international law specialist Ara Ghazaryan, and Nelik
Harutyunyan, who heads the international legal department in the
prosecutor general’s office.

All three were due to travel to Strasbourg to be interviewed before
the parliamentary assembly voted on them. They are now unhappy about
the decision to hold the selection process all over again.

According to an official statement from Armenia’s justice ministry,
a PACE working group stated in December that Nelik Harutyunyan did
not meet the requirements in that she was not a lawyer of sufficient
repute.

Harutyunyan objected to the view that she was under-qualified.

“It’s interesting that during the last election of Armenian judges to
the ECHR in 2007, in which I also ran, I came second in the voting by
190 PACE delegates,” she told IWPR. “Eight years ago I was considered
sufficiently qualified. Eight years on, of course, my career has not
gone backwards. It’s entirely contradictory, and they need to give
a serious reason for disqualifying me.”

Ghazaryan, who is deputy director of the law firm Arnie Consult,
said the decision to re-run the selection process was a major
inconvenience. He received an invitation from the foreign ministry
to attend an interview in Strasbourg on January 16, and is annoyed
that he has paid for an air ticket and visa for nothing.

Civil society organisations in Armenia that acted as observers during
the selection process said there were “serious reasons” to discredit
it. They have questioned its fairness and transparency and said there
were a number of procedural violations.

“The identity of the candidates and the documents they submitted
were kept secret from the public,” Tigran Yegoryan, a lawyer for
the Europe in Law Association told IWPR. “Just before the deadline,
there were 11 applicants, but then the number increased to 14.”

Yegoryan’s association says many of the candidates did not meet the
standards set by PACE. It alleged that some had relatives on the
Armenian selection commission. Two were disqualified without a reason
being given.

In October 2014, 26 human rights organisations, lawyers and others
sent a letter to the selection commission highlighting flaws in the
process, but they are far from satisfied with the response.

As Sona Ayvazyan of Transparency International told IWPR, “Only the
ministry of justice responded to our letter, but instead of a proper
answer it came out with a contradictory statement that ignored our
concerns, cited poor examples from international practice and just
called on us to be happy with the way things were going.”

Yegoryan says it is right that the selection process should stand up
to scrutiny. He argues that it is very important for Armenia to have
a representative at the ECHR who genuinely meets the requirements
and has been elected according to the rules.

“Otherwise we will simply be excluded from the process of joining
the developed world,” he said. “Our reputation will be damaged and
we will place at risk as well as the ECHR’s authority.”

Lilit Arakelyan is a freelance journalist in Armenia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN OPPOSITION FORCE BACKS DOWN

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
IWPR Caucasus Reporting #768
Feb 25 2015

After calling for the downfall of the president, Prosperous Armenia’s
leader has a change of heart.

25 Feb 15 By Arshaluis Mghdesyan

After calling for protests to bring down Armenian president Serzh
Sargsyan, government, the country’s leading opposition party has
backed down and says it will work towards consensus instead. The
Prosperous Armenia party’s abrupt change of plan has created a rift
in the three-member opposition bloc, and experts say the credibility
of mainstream politics has been undermined.

Prosperous Armenia, the biggest parliamentary opposition party, called
for a “nationwide rally” against the ruling coalition to take place
on February 20, signalling an end to any kind of working relationship
with the ruling administration.

Its relations with President Sargsyan’s administration and the
governing Republican Party were already near breaking-point after an
attack on one of its senior figures earlier in the month. Prosperous
Armenia accused the authorities of complicity in the February 7
abduction and beating of Artak Khachatryan, a member of its governing
council. (See Outrage at Attack on Armenian Oppositionist.)

On February 12, President Sargsyan launched a personal attack on
Prosperous Armenia’s leader Gagik Tsarukyan. Addressing a Republican
Party meeting, he described Tsarukyan as “an evil for our country”
and a “pseudo-politician”.

Sargsyan ordered the prime minister to oversee an investigation into
allegations that Tsarukyan owed massive amounts in unpaid taxes,
and the same day he stripped the politician of his seat on Armenia’s
National Security Council. He also proposed depriving him of his
parliamentary seat, a move which would remove his immunity from
prosecution.

Tsarukyan hit back the next day with a speech calling for mass rallies
to press for the president’s resignation.

“I am calling for a general mobilisation [for protests] with the single
aim of getting Serzh Sargsyan to resign by all legal political means
– continuing rallies, marches and acts of civil disobedience – in
order to rid ourselves of the evil that the authorities have become,”
he said.

Tsarukyan said the reason he was under fire was because he would
not bow to a planned constitutional reform that would shift powers
from president to parliament. After consultations and a draft set of
constitutional amendments, Sargsyan is expected to decide early this
year whether to move forward to a referendum.

The proposed change might seem a desirable way of creating greater
democratic accountability, but opposition parties see it as a plot
to give Sargsyan a hold on power once his term as president expires
in 2018. This is his second term, the last he is entitled to. The
suspicion is that with his Republican Party dominating the legislature,
he could get himself elected speaker of a body armed with more power
than before; or else control things in the more back-seat role of
party chairman.

Tsarukyan said he had been offered various inducements to back the
reform, including the post of president. “It was on condition that
I wouldn’t obstruct the recycling of the [same] powers that be. I
categorically refused, and that’s why this [verbal] attack happened.”

Despite being in coalition with Sargsyan’s Republicans until 2012,
Prosperous Armenia joined forces with the opposition Armenian National
Congress and the Heritage Party last year to form the Nationwide
Movement, known informally as the “troika”. The other two parties
signed up to plans to hold the first mass protest on February 20.

The political confrontation now escalated rapidly. Insults were traded
publicly, and police raided premises owned by supporters of Tsarukyan,
and around 30 Prosperous Armenia members were detained.

As parliament embarked on the process of depriving Tsarukyan of his
seat, five legislators withdrew from Prosperous Armenia’s parliamentary
faction, clearly feeling the strain.

As tensions peaked, reports emerged that a mediator had appeared on
the scene, in the shape of billionaire businessman Samvel Karapetyan,
a Russian national of Armenian extraction. Karapetyan’s company
refused to confirm or deny the story.

Some analysts suspected the Kremlin had asked him to step in to
resolve the dispute in Russia’s closest ally in the South Caucasus.

“I believe Samvel Karapetyan has close ties to the Russian political
and business elite. Seen that way, his arrival in Yerevan looks like
Moscow’s attempt to intervene in this internecine political conflict
and to reconcile the sides,” political analyst Stepan Danielyan said.

Another peacemaker appeared, the Dashnakstutyun party, which engineered
a face-to-face meeting between Sargsyan and Tsarukyan.

Dashnakstutyun normally opposes the government but is supportive of
the planned constitutional reform.

“We are very pleased that the meeting happened, and that contact
was made and the ice broken,” Armen Rustamyan, who leads the party
in parliament.

Vahram Baghdasaryan, the Republican’s parliamentary head, struck a
note of caution, telling RFE/RL radio that the meeting only resulted
in a temporary truce.

After a weeklong stand-off between the two political heavyweights,
it was Tsarukyan who gave way. His party called off the rally, and
he declared that “we must not fight one another, but rather carry
on working and find and implement solutions to problems calmly and
without recriminations”.

He said that the way things were going, “it’s easy to envisage what
this will lead to in a week or two. No one will win, least of all
our society.”

Tsarukyan’s sudden about-face left the opposition troika in danger of
collapse. While the Armenian National Congress expressed understanding
for his decision, the Heritage Party threatened to leave.

Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Institute in Yerevan,
argues that Tsarukyan retreated after gambling and losing.

“Tsarukyan was responding to the public appetite for fast solutions to
complex political problems, for example through revolution or regime
change,” Iskandaryan said. “He suffered defeat because he is a priori
unable to meet that demand,”

Iskandaryan argues that Tsarukyan has backed down before, for example
when he decided not to run against Sargsyan in the last presidential
election. As Armenia’s wealthiest businessman, Tsarukyan may fear that
his assets are vulnerable to confiscation or takeover by the state.

Looking at the broader political scene, Iskandaryan regrets the
absence of a genuine, committed opposition.

“The authorities have set about liquidating the opposition, and it’s
worked,” he said. “That’s having a deleterious effect on the political
system. Politics is shifting away from the political arena to towards
public discourse and Facebook, becoming more radical along the way
and turning into endless discussions about regime change.”

This trend could have dangerous consequences, Iskandaryan said.

“In the absence of a serious political force to articulate it, public
dissatisfaction may eventually become so heated that everything
blows up into what one might call a “Maidan” [Kiev-style uprising],
in other words the collapse of the political system,” he said.

Arshaluys Mgdesyan is a freelance journalist in Armenia.

From: Baghdasarian

PARLIAMENT CHIEF URGES TURKS ABROAD TO BE MORE UNITED

World Bulletin, Turkey
Feb 25 2015

Parliament Speaker Cemil Cicek tells Canadian Turks that community
groups should become more united.

World Bulletin / News Desk Feb 25 2015

Turks living abroad should be more like the Armenian diaspora when
it comes to standing up for their home country, a senior Turkish
politician has said.

The speaker of the Turkish parliament, Cemil Cicek, told Turkish
people living in Canada that they need a more “organized” association.

Cicek was speaking in the Canadian capital Wednesday.

“There is a need to organize a lobby, to reveal a reaction if need
be and to convey opinions to others,” Cicek told a meeting of Turkish
community representatives in Ottawa.

Cicek cited Armenians as an example of how a small number of people
did much more than the many Turkish citizens living abroad.

“A group of 200 Armenians apply to the parliament of the country they
live in and ask for a motion on the allegations that Turks committed
genocide, whereas 50,000 Turkish citizens fail to make a 500-signature
petition,” he said.

The term of “genocide” refers to the 1915 incidents that took place
during World War I when a portion of the Armenian population living
in the Ottoman Empire sided with the invading Russians and revolted.

The uprisings came about after a decision by the empire to relocate
Armenians in eastern Anatolia.

Turkey officially refutes this description, saying that although
Armenians died during relocations, many Turks also lost their lives
in attacks carried out by Armenian gangs in Anatolia.

Cicek said divisions among Turkish associations were the reason for
this lack of action and called for unity.

PHILLIPS: EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY WILL UNFETTER ERDOGAN’S AMBITIONS

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 25 2015

February 25, 2015, Wednesday/ 17:59:07/ AYDOÄ~^AN VATANDAÅ~^ / NEW YORK

If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) succeeds in
securing enough votes to change the Constitution in the upcoming
general election slated for June, it will lead to the unfettering
of the ambitions of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, according to
Professor David L. Phillips, who underlined that it is crucial for
opposition parties to pass the election threshold if Turkey is to
see genuine political reform.

“Democracy needs checks and balances. The AK Party and Mr. Erdogan
have systematically degraded the system of checks and balances in
Turkey. If he wins enough votes in the national elections to change
the Constitution and establish an executive presidency, then Erdogan’s
ambitions will be unfettered,” said Phillips, the director of the
Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University’s
Institute for the Study of Human Rights, adding, “It is important that
opposition parties pass the threshold, so they are seated in Parliament
and can participate in the process of genuine political reform.”

Elected as president in August by popular vote after years in power
as prime minister, Erdogan has been voicing his desire for a switch
to a presidential system in Turkey ahead of the general election and
indicated that he wants the ruling AK Party to obtain the parliamentary
majority necessary to amend the Constitution and clear the way to
replace the current system with a presidential one.

The president supports the formation of a “Turkish-style” presidential
system — a strong unicameral system rather than a bicameral one,
which he says will help the country’s development by eliminating
“multi-headedness” in state governance and thus pave the way for a
more effective decision-making system. However, debates over the
presidential system have fanned growing concerns over Erdogan’s
monopoly on power and Turkey’s slide toward authoritarianism.

After the rise of the AK Party in 2002, many scholars in the United
States believed Turkey was on the path to democratization, which
they considered an important indicator of the compatibility of Islam
and democracy. Many also believed that with its commitment to the
European Union process and booming economy, Turkey could be a model
for the Middle East and play a historic role in connecting the East
and the West.

Phillips is one of those scholars, who now feel disappointed about
recent developments in Turkey.

“I am among the scholars who count themselves as a friend of Turks
and of Turkey but who were deeply disappointed in the AK Party,”
the professor said, stressing the AK Party has adopted policies that
are not in the interests of Turkey, Turks or its allies, like the
United States.

On Turkey’s cross-border operation to Syria last weekend to rescue
troops at an Ottoman tomb, Professor Phillips believes that the
recent removal of the remains of Suleyman Ã…~^ah from the tomb in
Syria by the Turkish government was carried out in cooperation with
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

“They seem to have done that in cooperation with ISIS [another acronym
to refer to ISIL], whose forces surround the tomb. There was no combat,
no live-fire exchanges. There was obviously a negotiation about the
deployment of Turkish troops and the removal of corporeal remains,”
Phillips said.

Phillips also believes Erdogan’s government chose to support radical
jihadist groups in Syria, including ISIL, when it misjudged the extent
of US commitment to regime change in Syria.

“When the US rejected military action, when it refused to enforce
its red lines, Mr. Erdogan became increasingly frustrated with the US
policy and he expanded support to Islamist and jihadist groups. This
was an expression of his frustration with the West. That support
backfired. Jihadi groups are fundamentally unfriendly to Turkey.

Ultimately they will attack Turkey, just as they did in Reyhanlı in
2012,” he said, adding that the decision in 2012 to provide logistical
support to jihadists transiting through Turkey to Syria was based on
a goal to get rid of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but it was a
strategic blunder by Turkey.

On the AK Party government’s seizure of the management of Islamic
lender Bank Asya — known to be close to the Gulen movement, which
the AK Party government has vowed to destroy — Phillips said the
move is contrary to the principles of democracy and undermines a
free-market system in a country whose economy is already a bubble.

Professor Phillips is the author of a number of important books,
including “From Bullets to Ballots: Violent Muslim Movements in
Transition” (Transaction Press, 2008), “Losing Iraq: Inside the
Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco” (Perseus Books, 2005) and “Unsilencing
the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation”
(Berghahn Books, 2005).

In Phillips’ new book, titled “The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the
Middle East,” he argues that US strategic and security interests are
advanced through cooperation with Kurds as a bulwark against ISIL
and Islamic extremism.

Today’s Zaman spoke with Professor Phillips about the recent
developments in Turkey and the region as well as his new book.

After the rise of the AK Party, many scholars in the US thought
Turkey would be a good model for the Muslim world in terms of
the compatibility of Islam and democracy. However, in the last
several years, some scholars have become disappointed. Are you also
disappointed about the authoritarian tendencies of Erdogan? Where do
you think they failed?

I want to acknowledge the positive contribution the AK Party made.

When it came to power in 2002 Turkey’s economy was in a free fall.

Inflation was brought under control, the economy was stabilized, and
foreign direct investment was increased. The initial contribution
of the AK Party was very positive. US-Turkish relations started to
deteriorate in 2003 as a result of the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Relations have worsened steadily since then. I am among the
scholars who count themselves as a friend of Turks and of Turkey but
who were deeply disappointed in the AK Party. It has taken actions
which are not in the interests of Turkey, Turks, or its allies like
the US.

After 2007, do you think the AK Party started to remove itself from
the European Union process and to turn into a more authoritarian state?

After the elections of July 22, 2007, the AK Party had a historic
opportunity to consolidate progress and to improve human rights
conditions in Turkey. Instead of focusing on minority rights and
human rights, it focused on the headscarf issue. That was a clear
statement of AK Party’s Islamist tendencies.

Do you think the AK Party miscalculated the geopolitical realities
regarding the Arab Spring when it claimed a leadership role in the
region through its alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood?

The “zero problems with neighbors” policy was based on a belief that
Turkey could become a leader of the Muslim world. In order to achieve
that goal, it needed to establish better relations with its neighbors.

The shared values between the AK Party and the Muslim Brotherhood are
apparent. From the West, however, Turkey looks like a Middle Eastern
country. But from the Middle East, Turkey looks decidedly Western.

There was never a realistic prospect for Turkey to become a leader
of the Sunni-Arab Muslim world.

Do you also think they miscalculated the situation in Syria?

Turkey was correct in pursuing a policy of regime change in Syria. The
US also adopted a policy of regime change. President Barack Obama
clearly stated that the US wanted Assad to leave power and vacate the
presidency in Syria. Turkey didn’t miscalculate. It just misunderstood
the depth of America’s commitment to regime change in Syria. When
the US rejected military action, when it refused to enforce its red
lines, Mr. Erdogan became increasingly frustrated with the US policy
and he expanded support to Islamist and jihadist groups. This was an
expression of his frustration with the West. That support backfired.

Jihadi groups are fundamentally unfriendly to Turkey. Ultimately they
will attack Turkey, just as they did in Reyhanlı in 2012.

Is this why Erdogan’s government went a little bit soft about ISIL?

They didn’t go a little bit soft. They supported jihadists who were
fighting in Syria.

Including ISIL?

ISIS is one of many jihadi groups. It is now the strongest and the
most prevalent. The 2012 decision to provide logistical support to
jihadists transiting through Turkey to Syria was based on a goal to
get rid of Assad.

Has that been a problem between the US and Erdogan’s government?

Of course it is. The US is leading a multinational coalition. Turkey
signed up for the multinational coalition but it has done very little
to seal its border. It has failed to allow the use of Ä°ncirlik air
force base for air strikes. It delayed agreement on a train-and-equip
program assisting the moderate Syrian opposition. Last week’s
agreement to train 1,200 fighters was overdue. Given the urgency of
the situation, Turkey should have moved faster.

What are your thoughts on the recent developments on the removal of
the remains of Suleyman Ã…~^ah from Syria?

They [Turkey] seem to have done that in cooperation with ISIL, which
controls that territory. There was no combat, no live fire exchanges.

There appears to have been a negotiation about the deployment of
Turkish troops and the removal of corporeal remains.

Do you think the UN will do anything about the allegations suggesting
that Erdogan’s government sent arms to ISIL?

No, I don’t think the United Nations would do anything about that. But
it is illegal to provide weapons to terrorist organizations.

Do you think Turkey will be challenged for that?

If there was a credible international body to challenge Turkey, then
Turkey deserves to be challenged. The UN doesn’t have the capacity
or credibility to challenge Turkey and the US would prefer to work
out its disagreements with Turkey quietly.

Do you think Americans are adequately discussing how best to target
ISIL’s financial resources rather than whether or not ISIL promotes
Islam?

I use the term “Islamic extremism” even though the Obama administration
is reluctant to use the term. Using the term Islamic extremism does
not imply that Islam condones violence. Nor does it mean that countries
whose population majority is Islamic are violent.

But it is a fact that violent extremism in Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria and
Somalia are perpetrated by groups whose members are Muslim. Muslims
face a choice. Do they support the peace-loving tenets of Islam or
do they subscribe to violent extremism of jihadi groups?

Why do you think the United States is reluctant to challenge Turkey
about it sending arms or supporting ISIL?

The US has demanded that Turkey seal its border. There are plenty
of media reports about Turkey purchasing oil from facilities in
Raqqa and elsewhere with proceeds supporting ISIL. The US has asked
Turkey to discontinue its oil business with ISIL. At the same time,
the coalition has launched air strikes against oil facilities and
refineries. I understand that 14 out of 18 oil-producing facilities
under ISIL control have now been rendered inoperable as result of
the air strikes. Turkey has been halfhearted in its efforts to cut
off the revenue streams to ISIL. It has been very weak in sealing its
border and depriving ISIL of the logistical support and manpower it
needs to sustain its operations.

Do you think ISIL and the AK Party leadership have anything in common
ideologically?

The deputy prime minister of Turkey [Bulent Arınc] had said women
shouldn’t laugh or smile in public because it draws attention to them.

That’s the kind of comment you would expect to come from someone like
[ISIL leader] Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Baghdadi just claimed leadership in the Islamic world by announcing
a caliphate. Why do you think he did that? Do you think a caliphate
is very central in the Islamic tradition?

Declaring a caliphate serves recruitment goals and political
objectives. Baghdadi has succeeded in establishing himself and ISIL
as the leading jihadi group. He differs from al-Qaeda because of
his declaration of a caliphate. ISIL is determined to destroy the
boundaries that were agreed to in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916
and institutionalized in the post-Paris peace conference treaties
and mandates.

Now Erdogan wants to be the executive president of Turkey. Do
you believe he can achieve that and that Turkey can turn into a
dictatorship?

Democracy needs checks and balances. The AK Party and Mr. Erdogan have
systematically degraded the system of checks and balances in Turkey.

If he wins enough votes in the national elections to change the
Constitution and establish an executive presidency, then Erdogan’s
ambitions will be unfettered. It is important that opposition parties
pass the threshold so they are seated in Parliament and can participate
in the process of genuine political reform.

Why do you think Erdogan wants to terminate the Hizmet movement? Do
you think he is doing that to consolidate his power?

The Hizmet movement represents a challenge to Mr. Erdogan. The
independent posture of the judiciary, police and prosecutors threatens
the AK Party. Erdogan has systematically targeted the Hizmet movement
and persons he believes are loyal to it as a way of consolidating his
power. Even more than [the Kurdistan Workers’ Party] PKK, the Hizmet
movement is now labeled as the primary adversary of the Turkish state.

Do you think the military is totally sidelined in Turkish politics?

Erdogan has systematically taken steps to sideline the Turkish
military. Many of them were in jail. Many of the old guard have been
silenced. In the past, the Turkish military may have been a reliable
partner of the United States, but it was not a reliable partner of
democracy. Subordinating the security structures to civilian control is
a necessary part of Turkey’s path towards the European Union. But doing
so without the promotion of human rights undermines democratization
and further removes Turkey from realizing EU aspirations.

Many believe that Erdogan had the opportunity to solve the Kurdish
issue in Turkey because they had the majority in Parliament but they
didn’t do many things that they could have. Do you think Erdogan used
the PKK leadership for a short-term political gain?

It is too soon to tell. We do know, however, that Erdogan announced
a democracy opening and pledged reforms but he did not deliver on
his promises. After the events in Kobani, the Kurds in Turkey were
incensed and launched demonstrations against the Turkish government.

If Erdogan doesn’t implement greater political and cultural rights
for Kurds, there is a real risk that the Kurds in Turkey could be
radicalized, leading to a resurgence of violence similar to what we
saw in the 1980s and the 1990s.

Do you think this is likely in the near future?

It is for Mr. Erdogan to decide whether he is serious about a
democracy opening and a peace process or if he’s using it for
short-term political gain. It is in Turkey’s interest to uphold the
rights of all Turkish citizens, including those of Kurdish origin.

Erdogan can still establish his legacy through a peace agreement
with the PKK that culminates in the disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration of PKK fighters.

Do you think Kurdish autonomy is likely in the near future?

The Kurds have proposed a democratic autonomy. Decentralization is
always a good remedy to aggrieved minority groups. However, Turkey
is deeply concerned about its disintegration. It views democratic
autonomy as a step on the path towards fragmentation. Turkey can
provide rights and remain a unitary state but it cannot ignore the
legitimate grievances of 20 million Kurds for greater political and
cultural autonomy. Denying the legitimate democratic aspirations of
Kurds in Turkey risks increased violence.

What do you think about Turkey’s approach to Kobani?

Turkey’s approach to Kobani was a strategic and public relations
disaster. Parking the tanks on the hill overlooking Kobani and
watching the Kurdish defenders of Kobani face off against ISIS actually
discredited Turkey. Equating ISIS and the People’s Protection Units
of the PYD was also a mistake. The world rallied behind the Kurdish
defenders of Kobani. ISIS succeeded in bringing the PYD, the PKK, PJAK
and the peshmerga together. There is now a discussion about whether
Kurds are better allies of the United States than the Turkish state
under Erdogan.

Tell us about your upcoming book titled “The Kurdish Spring.

My new book, “The Kurdish Spring,” is a diplomatic history of the
betrayal and abuse of the Kurds during the 20th century. It describes
historical injustice and division of Kurds in four countries and
assesses current conditions, concluding that Iraq and Syria are failed
states. Iraq will fragment and fall apart. In this event, Iraqi
Kurdistan will emerge as the world’s next newest country. Instead
of resisting those developments, Turkey should embrace them and
consolidate its strategic partnership with Iraqi Kurds so that
Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey can continue to work closely together in
commercial fields.

Are you also discussing the British Empire’s responsibility for the
displacement of Kurds in the region?

Sure. When I speak of betrayal I’m thinking of betrayal by great
powers, not only the betrayal of Kurds but also the betrayal of other
peoples in the region after World War I.

What is noteworthy is the promise made to Kurds in the Treaty of
Sèvres. They were told a referendum could be held on their political
status and that this status could be determined by Kurdistan as a
whole. However, the War of Independence undermined the Treaty of
Sèvres and led to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. There was no
mention of Kurds or use of the term “Kurdish” in the Lausanne Treaty.

Great powers were tired of fighting after World War I and they wanted
to establish an alliance with Turkey rather than act as its adversary.

As a result, Kurds and Armenians were denied their national
aspirations.

Do you think an independent Kurdish state is possible in today’s
geopolitical climate?

Iraqi Kurdistan is already a de facto independent state. There is no
contiguous border between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq, only a border
between Iraqi Kurdistan and lands held ISIL. Iraqi Kurdistan has
proven to be progressive, pro-democratic and fundamentally secular. It
has 45 billion barrels of oil and an increasing ability to provide
security to its citizens. Those are the elements necessary for state
building. Instead of undermining this progress, Turkey should embrace
it. Ultimately stability and democracy in the region will be enhanced
by the creation of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan.

How do you think the American government, this year, will position
itself on the Armenian resolution issue?

Let’s define “genocide.” It has four elements: more than one person
must have died and these people must have been members of the same
ethnic, religious or racial group. The perpetrator must have intended
them to die and their killing must have been systemic. What happened to
the Armenians clearly meets these criteria. The United States should
recognize the events in Armenia as genocide. President Obama has made
his personal views well known. When you become the president of the
United States you don’t have personal views — your views are those
of the US government. It would be helpful if he was to use the term
“Armenian genocide” and then the US and Turkey can move on and set this
issue aside. The Genocide Convention cannot be applied retroactively
for reparations or territorial claims.

Erdogan has tried to seize Bank Asya and is now trying to seize Ä°Å~_
Bankası, in which the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP)
holds shares. Do you have any remarks about how these political
manipulations of the banking system can affect the Turkish economy?

You can’t seize assets simply because you oppose the asset holders.

This is contrary to the principles of democracy and undermines a
free-market system. Turkey’s economy is already a bubble which is
highly leveraged. Foreign direct investment (FDI) is greatly reduced.

If you remove real state investments the FDI will be way down from
where it was a few years ago. Erdogan should be careful not to further
erode confidence among Turks and among foreign investors.

What about the nuclear talks between the United States and Iran?

They are at a crucial stage. It is important to work towards a deal
that is verifiable. If those talks fail, other states in the region
are likely to enter into an arms race by seeking nuclear weapons. If
Turkey becomes a nuclear arms state and continues on its current path
of Islamicization, that would represent a serious threat to the US,
NATO and other countries in the region.

Profile

David L. Phillips is currently director of the Program on
Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University’s Institute
for the Study of Human Rights. Phillips has worked as a senior
advisor to the United Nations Secretariat and as a foreign affairs
expert and senior adviser to the US Department of State. He has
held positions as a visiting scholar at Harvard University’s Center
for Middle East Studies, executive director of Columbia University’s
International Conflict Resolution Program, director of the Program on
Conflict Prevention and Peace-building at American University and as
a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. He has also been a
senior fellow and deputy director of the Council on Foreign Relations’
Center for Preventive Action, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council
of the United States, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, director of the European Centre for Common
Ground, project director at the International Peace Research Institute
of Oslo, president of the Congressional Human Rights Foundation and
executive director of the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Mr. Phillips is
author of “Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and US Intervention”
(Harvard’s Kennedy School 2012), “From Bullets to Ballots: Violent
Muslim Movements in Transition” (Transaction Press, 2008), “Losing
Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco” (Perseus Books, 2005),
“Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation” (Berghahn Books, 2005). He has also authored
many policy reports, as well as more than 100 articles in leading
publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,
Financial Times, International Herald Tribune and Foreign Affairs.

From: A. Papazian

OKTAY ASADOV: WE SAVE MONEY FOR WAR

Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijan
February 24, 2015 Tuesday

Baku / 24.02.15 / Turan: The central issue of today’s meeting of
the Parliament was the financial crisis that broke out after the
devaluation of the manat.

MP Igbal Aghazadeh demanded that the government of Azerbaijan
should compensate for damage caused to citizens as a result of the
depreciation of the national currency by 34%.

The Central Bank of Azerbaijan on December 30, 2014 stated that the
value of the national currency will not fall, and after less than
two months it deceived the country’s population, he said.

The Antimonopoly Service of the Ministry of Economy and Industry
said on artificially high prices by speculators. As a result of the
devaluation bank depositors were damaged at 3 billion manat, despite
the fact that the total amount of deposits of the population is 7.2
billion manat.

“I demand the government should offset the damage to the population
in all areas, including indexation of wages and social protection
for vulnerable people,” said Aghazadeh.

In response, the Speaker of the Milli Mejlis Oktay Asadov said
that within two months the country’s citizens was able to convert
their savings, “and during this period there has been converted $
4.5 billion.”

“The government kept the manat as much as it could. However,
Azerbaijan is at war with Armenia and does not exclude the possibility
of launching active military and other actions that may require
additional funds. It is necessary to think about the future, we can
not spend all of today reserves,” said the speaker.

“As far as I know, 70% of food production is domestic production and
higher prices should not be applied. The Ministry of Economy and
Industry is developing a plan to keep prices on the background of
the devaluation of the manat,” said Asadov.

The MP Ziyad Samedzade said that the devaluation of the manat was
“a necessary step”, given that the price of oil in the state budget
in 2015 is laid at $ 90.

“Now oil prices do not exceed $ 60. If it continues, by the end of the
year the budget deficit will amount to 7.6 billion manat. CBA annually
spent 2-2.5 billion manat for retention of the national currency.

However, permanent measures could lead to depletion of the reserves,”
said Samedzade.

MP Vahid Akhmedov blamed the central bank for the situation. “Until
the last days the CBA promised that the dollar rate would not exceed
0.9 manat. But it immediately reduced the cost by 34%.

I believe that the government should take urgent anti-crisis measures
to prevent the growth of prices, which has now become the most serious
problem, Akhmedov said. -02D-

U.S. ANALYSTS ON AZERI MANAT RATE DROP: “HOW ILHAM ALIYEV WILL EXPLAIN IT TO SUPPORTERS?”

Turan Information Agency
February 24, 2015 Tuesday

A.Raufoglu
Washington, DC

24.02.15/Turan: Azerbaijan appeared headed last Saturday for the
“worst economic turbulence in its independence, raising fundamental
questions about the future of the country as investors’ trust in its
basic institutions seemed to be eroding fast,” TURAN’s Washington
correspondent was told by an economy analyst who recently returned
from his trip to the oil-reach Caspian country.

The sudden drop in the Azeri Manat for 33 percent against the dollar
is “a sign that Azeri policymakers feel they have few options left
to fight the crisis,” said a source on the condition of anonymity.

“President Ilham Aliyev yet remains popular in the country, according
to his advisors who convinced recent U.S. scholars visiting their
country, but his rule has long been predicated on a basic bargain with
supporters to provide economic prosperity and stability in exchange
for political activity:The question is how he will explain current
Manat drop to his supporters,” the analyst said.

Aliyev did not publicly address the crisis on Monday, but
pro-government media speculates that he might change the decision of
the Central Bank.

Another analyst, Martin Spechler, a veteran professor of economics at
Indiana University, believes that a drop in the Manat rate is “not out
of line with other energy exporters and economies with fairly close
relations with Russia, where the Ruble has fallen even more than 35%!”

“The consequence will be higher prices for imports and in Azerbaijan,
inflation, because you import so much: A higher interest rate will
hold capital within the country to some extent, but of course it
will also retard development of small business,” he told TURAN’s
Washington correspondent.

“It will make luxury purchases by the elite of Baku more expensive,
too,” he said: “But Azerbaijan has the talented people necessary to
live in a somewhat smaller economy that will rely on domestic sources
of food and fiber.”

A possible bright spot, added Spechler, is that “this will make
reforms and diversification of Azeri industry more pressing and will
discourage an arms build up in preparation for war with Armenia.”

NO “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE” IN TURKEY’S HISTORY

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Feb 25 2015

25 February 2015, 18:05 (GMT+04:00)
By Mushvig Mehdiyev

There was no “genocide” against Armenians in the history of Turkey,
a top Turkish official said on February 25.

Turkish Parliamentary Speaker Cemil Cicek said Ankara was doing its
best to stand against the Armenian diaspora worldwide as it attempts
to denigrate and sully Turkey’s reputation and history.

“Turkey has always ensured that its archives remain open to
investigation into the events of 1915,” he noted, calling on Yerevan
to do the same, if they indeed had similar archives.

In his early remarks, Cicek accused Armenia of trying to turn its
1915 propaganda into a source of income exploiting its so-called
“genocide” to further its political and financial standing amid the
international community.

“Turkey holds no ill feelings towards the Armenian people. But this
does not mean that we will remain silent and inactive before Armenia’s
anti-Turkish campaign,” Cicek declared.

Turkey is ambiguously denying Armenia’s claims that the Ottoman Empire
systematically executed Armenians back in 1915.

Top Turkish leaders have said the events of 1915 were a difficult
time not only for Armenians, but also for Arabs, Kurds and other
ethnic minorities in the region.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu highlighted Armenia’s groundless
1915 genocide propaganda as a hindrance to the normalization of
relations between Ankara and Yerevan.

He insisted that although Ankara hopes for the normalization of
relations with Yerevan, Armenia would need to end its campaign against
Turkey and turn the page on its prejudices.

Armenia and the Armenian lobby claim that Turkey’s predecessor, the
Ottoman Empire allegedly carried out a “genocide” against Armenians
living in Anatolia in 1915.

The Armenian authorities have always hanged on the hope that world
leaders would support their allegations.

But before a lack of historical evidences, such claims have been
rejected en masse.

U.S. President Barack Obama, actually unequivocally avoided to use
the word genocide in his annual speeches on the falsified “Armenian
genocide.”

Hasan Celal Guzel, a well-known Turkish journalist and politician,
claims that the alleged “Armenian genocide” is a mere falsification
of historical events.

“Relocation of the Armenians dating back to May 27, 1915, is not an
“Armenian genocide. When the Armenians massacred more than 30,000
Turks and Kurds in Van, the leadership of the Ottoman empire decided
to relocate the Armenian population. Relocation cannot be interpreted
as genocide or massacre under any circumstances,” Guzel said.

“The Ottoman archives along with the U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration and national archives of England, Russia, France and
Germany clearly reveal that the number of Armenians who were lost
over that period stand at about 400,000,” confirmed Guzel, adding that
Armenia’s number – 1.5 million deaths – carries no link with reality.

The Armenian authorities and diaspora are preparing to solemnly mark
the 100th anniversary of the so-called “genocide” on April 24, 2015.

Armenia insisted it wants Turkey to admit to its so-called guilt even
though all evidences prove that no genocide ever took place.

But since Armenia has been unable to command any factual proofs to
support its claims, its calls for “recognition” have fallen into
deaf ears.

UN LIBRO DELLA NEMAPRESS PER LA GIORNATA DELLA CULTURA ARMENA

BuongiornoAlghero. Italia
25 feb 2015

L’Agenzia per il Patrimonio Culturale Euromediterraneo di Lecce,
presieduta dalla Sen. Adriana Poli Bortone si fa promotrice, in
collaborazione con l’Ambasciata della Repubblica Armena in Italia,
della seconda “GIORNATA dell’AMICIZIA & CULTURA ARMENA”.

L’incontro, organizzato nell’ambito delle iniziative celebrative del
Centenario del Genocidio degli Armeni, si terra a Lecce il prossimo
28 febbraio, a partire dalle ore 18, nei suggestivi spazi dell’ex
Conservatorio S.Anna, in Via Libertini, 1, sede dell’Agenzia per
il Patrimonio Culturale Euromediterraneo. Momento clou dell’evento,
la presentazione del volume “Le parole per raccontare.

Gli Armeni, storia, cultura, letteratura” (Ed. Nemapress),
di Pierfranco Bruni e Neria De Giovanni, con la prefazione di
S.E. Sargis Ghazaryan, Ambasciatore della Repubblica d’Armenia in
Italia, che presenziera all’incontro insieme agli Autori del volume
e ad osservatori del mondo Istituzionale, Culturale, Economico,
Associativo e dei Media.

Modera il dibattito il Dott. Gianluca Borgia, componente
Consiglio di Amministrazione Agenzia per il Patrimonio Culturale
Euromediterraneo. Padrona di casa la Sen. Adriana Poli Portone,
Presidente dell’Agenzia per il Patrimonio Culturale Euromediterraneo,
che ha fortemente voluto questo momento di confronto, e riflessione per
promuovere la conoscenza di una della pagine più cupe della storia del
XX secolo: il Genocidio Armeno. Conosciuto anche con il nome di Medz
Yeghern, il “Grande Male”, il genocidio armeno è stato il primo del
‘900, nonche uno dei più dimenticati: Hitler lo prendeva a canone del
massacro che serbava in mente: “chi parla ancora oggi del genocidio
degli armeni?”.

I responsabili sono rimasti pressoche impuniti, i manuali di storia
hanno esitato a raccontare ed il governo turco lo nega esplicitamente
ancor’oggi. Questo processo sistematico di sterminio della componente
etnica minoritaria armena fu avviato dall’Impero Ottomano all’interno
del territorio attualmente facente parte della Turchia. Il Genocidio,
la cui data di inizio viene convenzionalmente indicata con il 24 aprile
1915, ha causato la morte di un numero di vittime pari ad 1-1,5 milioni
di persone, tra cui circa 250 intellettuali e leader della comunita
armena di Costantinopoli. Le pagine dell’opera di Neria De Giovanni
e Pierfranco Bruni sono un viaggio a ritroso nella travagliata storia
del popolo armeno di cui raccontano non solo la tragica odissea umana,
ma anche la gloria e la ricchezza di una grande cultura millenaria,
che è l’essenza più intima di un popolo.

“La peculiarita di questo volume – sottolinea nella prefazione al
libro S.E. Sargis Ghazaryan, Ambasciatore della Repubblica d’Armenia
in Italia – è di guardare all’Armenia da due prospettive. Una più
profonda, che fruga incessantemente nella storia millenaria del popolo
armeno, nelle sue radici, nelle sue tradizioni. Un’altra più vicina,
che guarda agli Armeni – lontani dalla terra dell’Ararat – che hanno
stretto, nei secoli, un forte nesso di partecipazione e contaminazione
nelle terre e con le genti di approdo (…) Pierfranco Bruni e Neria
De Giovanni hanno compiuto questo viaggio senza temere le difficolta
del non conosciuto e senza accusare segni di stanchezza, riuscendo
nell’intento di approfondire la conoscenza di cosa si celasse dietro
i termini “armeno” e “Armenia”.

Il risultato è un volume denso e ricco di spunti. Ancora più
significativo perche esce a pochi giorni dal 24 aprile, quando si
commemorera il Centenario del Genocidio degli Armeni”. “… Da quel
giorno del 1915, – conclude l’Ambasciatore – i miei antenati, la mia
gente, sono diventati vittime o profughi, nel migliore dei casi. Sono
stati costretti cioè a fuggire in avanti e a non guardarsi indietro.

Oggi, invece, si vuole e si deve guardare indietro. Per non dimenticare
un crimine, a cui troppi hanno assistito silenti e impassibili”. Questa
seconda “GIORNATA dell’AMICIZIA & CULTURA ARMENA” è solo l’ultima
delle tante attivita di alto profilo promosse dall’Agenzia per il
Patrimonio Culturale Euromediterraneo, che suggella con forza la
volonta di valorizzare i rapporti con la comunita armena e rappresenta
un’occasione di scambio, socializzazione e condivisione di ideali,
cultura e storia.

From: A. Papazian

CRONICAS MENORES DE UNA TRAGEDIA MAYOR: 1988: POGROMO ANTIARMENIO DE SUMGAIT.

Diario Armenia
25 feb 2015

Buenos Aires (Diario ARMENIA).- Cuando ocurrieron los hechos, Lola
tenía veintisiete años y vivía en el segundo piso, departamento 10, de
un monoblock de la cuadra Nº 45. Ese día había ido a hacer las compras,
como siempre, al almacen del barrio. En el camino, le llamo la atencion
que no estuviera la patrulla policial que habitualmente se encontraba
estacionada frente a la oficina de correos. Sin referirle nada al
dueño del almacen, compro algunas verduras y pescado para preparar
la cena. Estaba embarazada de 6 meses y aún no lograba ponerse de
acuerdo con su pareja acerca del nombre que el niño o niña tendría.

Muy cerca, a tan solo media hora de viaje en coche, Yersilya se había
despertado muy temprano para ir al mercado, como todos los días,
a abrir el puesto de ropa usada. El comercio tenía un giro reducido,
y eran mas frecuentes los trueques que las ventas genuinas. Tenía 86
años y había nacido en una region montañosa a cientos de kilometros
de su ciudad, pero sus padres, a causa de la falta de trabajo, cuando
ella era apenas una niña, habían debido buscar mejor suerte en la
capital portuaria.

Ese día, el 29 de febrero de 1988, Lola fue víctima de un crimen
brutal.

Un grupo de personas entro por la fuerza a su departamento y la
arrastro a la calle. Allí la esperaba una multitud, en la que reconocio
a mas de un vecino, y un hombre, que la había golpeado sin parar
mientras bajaban la escalera, le ordeno que se desvistiera. Como se
nego, el hombre la golpeo todavía mas fuerte. Despues, la desvistio
el mismo usando un cuchillo y, entre tanto corte de ropa, algunos
puntazos lastimaron su piel.

Una vez desnuda la obligo a bailar. Nuevamente se nego, pero las
quemaduras con cigarrillos la persuadieron de improvisar algunos pasos
de baile. La humillacion era atroz, y la multitud que la insultaba
a los gritos hacía que todo fuera peor.

Entre los espectadores pudo ver al almacenero, ese mismo que mas
temprano le había vendido las verduras y el pescado. Gritaba y lo
hacía de manera tan salvaje que la saliva brotaba a chorros de su boca.

En ese momento, y ya con la sangre nublando su vista, se pregunto si
acaso no estaba soñando, o si acaso alguien no había cometido un error
y la había apuntado como responsable de alguna crueldad imposible de
ser tolerada por los vecinos del barrio.

Yersilya corrio igual suerte que Lola, pero ni una ni otra lo
supieron. Ambas murieron ese día.

Si se continuara el hilo de la idea que había venido a la mente de
Lola cuando fue atacada por la multitud, podría pensarse que tenían
en común su apellido y que la pena del crimen cometido por una podía
ser extendida a la otra.

Pero, a decir verdad, ninguna de las dos había cometido delito alguno.

Tampoco eran familia: el apellido de Lola era Avagyan y el de Yersilya,
Movsesova.

Entender estos dos asesinatos no es tarea sencilla. Quizas un poco
de contexto nos ayude.

Lola vivía en Sumgait, una ciudad satelite de Bakú, la capital de
Azerbaidjan. En ese momento, era una república sovietica. En Bakú
vivía Yersilya, y en el año 1988 la Union Sovietica se enfrentaba a
sus últimos días.

Junto con la Union Sovietica tambien caían las fronteras que la
habían definido y el Caucaso no fue una excepcion. En un país vecino,
Armenia, tambien sovietico, la gente se volcaba de a cientos de
miles en las calles de Erevan, su capital, a pedir la devolucion de
“nuestras tierras”.

Curiosamente, las tierras que los armenios reclamaban en Erevan
formaban parte de esa region montañosa en las que había nacido
Yersilya: Nagorno Karabagh.

Las autoridades de Azerbaidjan, antes y despues de la caída de la Union
Sovietica, no creyeron que el reclamo de los armenios de Erevan y,
luego, el de su Gobierno, fuera legítimo.

Seguramente existían muchos medios pacíficos para resolver la cuestion
planteada, es decir, muchas maneras de determinar si los territorios
mayoritariamente habitados por armenios desde hacía siglos debían
continuar o no, siendo administrados por Azerbaidjan. Despues de todo,
ambas Repúblicas habían cohabitado bajo la misma ley durante mas de
setenta años.

Sin embargo, al medio que utilizaron las autoridades azeríes no solo
le falto caracter pacífico, sino tambien originalidad: ya que los
armenios de aquí y de alla planteaban un problema, la mejor manera
de resolver el problema era terminar con quienes lo formulaban.

Algo así había ocurrido en 1915 cuando, al otro lado del Caucaso, en
Anatolia, las autoridades turcas decidieron enviar al desierto a los
armenios del Imperio Otomano. Algo así ocurre hoy en Siria. Entonces,
y ahora sí, podemos comenzar a entender que paso esa mañana de febrero
de 1988.

Lola, la joven, y Yersilya, la vieja, no compartían ni crímenes ni
familia, pero sí compartían su identidad: eran armenias, al igual
que otros trescientos cincuenta mil ciudadanos de origen armenio
de Azerbaidjan.

Ambas vivían en la diaspora, es decir, ambas vivían fuera de las
fronteras de Armenia. Sin embargo, todos en Sumgait y en Bakú sabían
que eran armenias: lo sabían sus vecinos, tambien lo sabían las
autoridades.

No sabemos si esa mañana Lola fue a comprar verduras y pescado, o si
su almacenero estaba o no entre la multitud que la ataco. Desconocemos
si la patrulla policial se detenía frente a la oficina de correos.

Peor aún, nadie sabe si había una oficina de correos de camino al
almacen. No sabemos, tampoco, si Yersilya vendía ropa en el mercado
o si hacía trueques por lo que necesitaba.

Ahora, lo que sí sabemos es que ambas vivían en esas ciudades, en
esas direcciones, y que esa mañana no había en ningún sitio policía
que las protegiera.

Sí sabemos que no fue casual que en Sumgait, en Bakú, en Kirovabad,
en Marduní, por nombrar solo algunos sitios, cientos de azeríes se
lanzaron a las calles, sin nadie que los detuviera, a asesinar a los
armenios que vivían en Azerbaidjan.

Sí sabemos que cientos de miles de armenios huyeron de Azerbaidjan
y sabemos que debieron buscar refugio en Armenia, en Rusia, y en
otros países.

Sí sabemos que en Nagorno Karabagh fuerzas paramilitares entraron a
poblados a buscar armenios previamente marcados y que los mataron
de a cientos, y que estos, en respuesta, comenzaron a organizar
autodefensas armadas.

Sí sabemos que hubo guerra y que fue heroica la lucha de los fedaí.

Sí sabemos que en 1994 se firmo un alto al fuego y que, pese a ello,
la paz no fue alcanzada.

Sí sabemos que los armenios de Azerbaidjan no regresaron a sus hogares
en Sumgait, Bakú, Kirovabad, y que lo perdieron todo.

Por eso, y dado que esta no fue la primera vez que los armenios
enfrentaron una campaña de limpieza etnica -el antecedente del
Genocidio contra el Pueblo Armenio cometido por el Estado Turco
entre 1915-1923-, nos permitimos escribir de este modo estas líneas,
donde la ficcion comporta tan solo una manera de narrar lo que los
documentos han demostrado sobradamente.

Sin embargo, y para que no se acuse a esta pluma de exagerar prolijos y
circunstanciados relatos documentales, valga a continuacion transcribir
el documento que ha servido de base a esta ficcion, que ya sabemos
por que es superada.

“El 29 de febrero de 1998, atacaron el departamento de Lola Avagyan,
la desvistieron y la llevaron a la calle. La multitud salvaje y
adoctrinada la obligo a danzar, la cortaron con cuchillos, le mutilaron
su pecho, le quemaron el cuerpo con cigarrillo y la violaron. Su padre,
Pavel Manvelyan, dijo que había estado en tres morgues: en Sumgait,
en Bakú y en Mardakyans, donde finalmente encontro el cuerpo de su
hija. Era el número 71 entre los cadaveres.

Pavel Manvelyan declaro en Moscú y firmo su declaracion. Ha visto mas
de 100 cuerpos apilados en tres morgues. L. Avagyan estaba embarazada
de seis meses”. (Ver imagen superior) *

“Yersilya Movsesova, nacida en 1902 en la region de Marduní de Nagorno
Karabagh, vivía en Bakú. La asesinaron en Sumgait, 3 Micro District,
6/2A, apt 18. “Hemorragia cerebral, fractura de los huesos craneanos,
múltiples fracturas de costilla, traumatismos en la cabeza y cuerpo”.

Se registraron otros 31 heridos de cuchillos”.*

Por eso, sabiendo todo lo que sabemos, nos preguntamos si no ha llegado
la hora de que los miembros de nuestra comunidad y de la sociedad en
general que marchan a la Embajada de la República de Turquía, tambien
participen de la marcha que anualmente se realiza a la Embajada de
la República de Azerbaidjan.

Seguramente esa suma fortalecera las voces de quienes recuerdan a
los que murieron en la campaña de limpieza etnica y en la guerra de
Nagorno Karabagh, de quienes reclaman el fin del discurso armenofobo
de las autoridades azerbaijanas y de quienes exigen la paz y el
reconocimiento de la República de Nagorno Karabagh, para desenmascarar
a quienes equivocadamente piensan que aún es posible poner fin a la
cuestion armenia eliminando al sujeto portador del reclamo.

Comite Aram Manukian de la FRA-Tashnagtsutiún

* Against Xenophobia and Violence, NGO, “The Sumgait Syndrome. Anatomy
of Racism in Azerbaijan”,

Erevan, República de Armenia, 2012.

From: A. Papazian

S.D. HUNCHAKIAN NAZARBEK YOUTH PROTEST AZERI PROPAGANDA EVENT

By MassisPost
Updated: February 25, 2015

PARIS – The Social Democrat Hunchakian Party’s Nazarbek Youth Movement,
took to the streets to protest the European Azerbaijan Society’s
(TEAS) event on Feb. 24, commemorating the disputed “Khojaly massacre”
at the Adyar Theater located in the 7th district in Paris.

The Youth of Nazarbek expressed their indignation towards the event
which propagated lies and distorted history. The youth distributed
literature exposing the injustices of Aliyev’s dictatorship, and held
up protest signs that read “France and Armenia are not for sale.”

“The purpose of this event promoting a fictitious massacre, was
to create an illusion of an Azeri diaspora by the well-funded, oil
rich Azeri government,” the Nazarbek Youth Movement declared in a
statement. “The Azeris believe that they are establishing a diaspora
under the appearance of Soft Power. Yet there was an extremely low
turnout at the event proving that it was a farce.”

The youth also expressed solidarity with Leyla Yunus, an Azeri
human-rights activist imprisoned by the dictatorial Azeri government
in July 2014, along with all victims of the war. “This war, continued
by the war-loving Aliyev dictatorship, has taken hostage, the Azeri
and Armenian populations of the region, which only benefits the Aliyev
dictatorship.” the statement continued.

In response to the TEAS event and Azerbaijan’s attempts to blur
the evidence by representing the victims as the aggressors, the
Hunchakian Nazarbek Youth Movement will host a conference with Hovannes
Guevorkian, Representative of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabagh to
France, to commemorate the Sumgait pogrom, which took place on Feb 27 –
29 prior to the war in 1988. The conference will take place on Friday,
February 27 at 8:30 p.m. at the Hunchakian Armenian Youth Center in
Alfortville, France.