Month: February 2015

US REDUCES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ARMENIA AGAIN

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 3 2015

3 February 2015 – 4:20pm

The US administration has introduced a new budget for the financial
assistance to the countries of the South Caucasus in 2016.

The paper proposes cutting economic assistance to both Armenia and
Azerbaijan, while maintaining parity in military aid to these two
countries.

“The President’s proposal of $18,360,000 in Economic Support Funds
for Armenia in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 would, if approved by Congress,
represent a record low in such aid since Armenia’s independence,”
ArmInfo writes.

The Executive Director of the Armenian National Committee of America,
Aram Hamparian, is concerned about the Obama administration’s
intentions. If the budget is approved, the Economic Support Fund
will provide $7,978,000 to Azerbaijan, $18.36 million to Armenia,
$50,552,000 to Georgia.

Foreign Military Financing to both Armenia and Azerbaijan amounts
to $1.7 million, Georgia is not funded. For international military
education and training, Azerbaijan will receive $600,000, Armenia –
$600,000, Georgia – $ 2.2 million.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS OPTIONS FOR NATION’S ECONOMY

CISTran Finance
Feb 3 2015

February 3, 2015 5:00 AM
By CISTran Finance Reports

During a cabinet meeting on Friday, Armenian Prime Minister Hovik
Abrahamyan said steps should be taken to ensure the country’s economy
can survive in adverse conditions.

As a result of the economic status in the region, the government has
approved the issuance of foreign bonds.

According to a report from the Republic of Armenia, with the country
joining the Eurasian Economic Union, technical regulations from
Armenian law and the union would be in effect.

Because of this, the prime minister has appointed inspectorates from
the ministries of agriculture and economics to serve as supervisory
authorities.

Other items discussed in the meeting included the approval of
the Ministry of Economy to issue one-time licenses to import and
export precious metals and their associated scrap and waste material
with third countries. They also approved the Ministry of Health’s
authority to purchase of diabeton, a drug used to treat diabetes,
for four years at 7 cents (US) per 60 mg capsule.

RUSSIAN SOLDIER TO BE TRIED FOR MURDER OF 7 BY RUSSIAN MILITARY PANEL IN ARMENIA

RAPSI
Feb 3 2015

Context

Armenian investigators interrogate Russian soldier over murder
of family Russian soldier charged with murder of seven in Armenia
pleads guilty

MOSCOW, February 3 (RAPSI) – The trial of Russian serviceman Valery
Permyakov, who has been charged with killing seven members of a family
in the city of Gyumri, will be held at the Russian military base in
Armenia, Interfax reported on Tuesday, citing informed sources.

One of the news agency’s sources said the sides had agreed that the
high-profile case would be heard by the military panel of the 102nd
Russian Military Base in Gyumri. The decision has been taken on the
basis of a bilateral agreement on the status of the Russian base in
the north of Armenia.

Another source told Interfax that the sides were negotiating a joint
investigation into the case and a joint indictment based on Russian
criminal law.

The source said the court will also consider the desertion charges
brought against Permyakov by Russian military investigators.

On January 12, Permyakov, who was serving at Russia’s 102nd army base
in Gyumri, killed a family of six and mortally wounded a six-month-old
baby, who died of injuries on January 19.

On January 21, Permyakov pled guilty of murdering two or more persons
in accordance with the charged brought against him under the Armenian
Criminal Code. He may receive a life sentence if convicted.

From: A. Papazian

Mazza on Der Matossian, ‘Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late Ottoman Empire’

H-Nationalism
Feb 3 2015

Author: Bedross Der Matossian
Reviewer: Roberto Mazza

Bedross Der Matossian. Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty
to Violence in the Late Ottoman Empire. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2014. 264 pp. $85.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8047-9147-2; $24.95
(paper), ISBN 978-0-8047-9263-9.

Reviewed by Roberto Mazza Published on H-Nationalism (February, 2015)
Commissioned by Ari Ariel

Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late
Ottoman Empire

Shattered Dreams of Revolution by Bedross Der Matossian attempts to
challenge the existing scholarship on the Ottoman constitutional
revolution of 1908, which the author says is split into two main
trends: one which views the revolution as a factor in the decline of
interethnic relations in the empire and another which romanticizes the
revolution as a period of positive projects including modernization,
political reforms, and economic growth, abruptly ended by the outbreak
of the First World War. Der Matossian tells the story of the shattered
dreams of several ethnic groups in the empire after the constitutional
revolution: Armenians, Jews, and Arabs. The choice to use the term
“ethnic” rather than “national” group is well justified, as Der
Matossian is borrowing the concept of “ethnic boundaries” from social
anthropology, showing that despite diversity inside of these groups,
they shared strong and common bonds within their ethnic boundaries.

Based on a variety of sources, including Ottoman and Western material,
and, above all magazines and newspapers produced by the various
communities, Shattered Dreams of Revolution successfully shows the
opportunities and challenges that arose for the ethnic groups. The
work is divided into six chapters that follow the chronology of
the revolution, showing how events were experienced by the various
communities. Although Der Matossian intends to examine the Armenians,
Jews, and Arabs of the empire equally, he focuses mainly on the
Armenians, less on the Jews, and considerably less on the Arabs.

Chapter 1 is dedicated to the festivities in the provinces celebrating
the revolution. Der Matossian argues that the participation of
nondominant groups in the festivities demonstrated their loyalty to the
new regime. His analysis of space, symbolism, and language shows how
minority communities tried to prove their commitment to the revolution:
religious and secular spaces became centers of revolutionary festivals
and speeches. Loyalty to the nation became apparent through the theme
of brotherhood which was echoed throughout most of the minority press,
and in particular in the Armenian press.

Der Matossian, far from taking a romanticized view of the
postrevolutionary festivities, immediately highlights the divisions
and contradictions amongst the various groups, which become even more
evident in chapter 2 with the examination of the political discourse
and the debates surrounding key terms like “freedom” and the future of
the Ottoman state. The struggle to create an Ottoman identity based on
universal principles was evident in the press, which also struggled to
preserve the particular features of every community. It was, however,
the emerging Turkish concept of millet-i hakime (the ruling nation)
asserting the superiority of the Turkish element that cast a shadow
on the dreams of the revolution.

Chapter 3 is a micro-study of the impact of the revolution on the
ethnic groups: among the Armenians and Jews of the empire a struggle
emerged between the supporters of the ancien regime and those who
supported the revolution, but more importantly over the election
of new religious leaders that would represent the ideals of the
revolution. Interestingly, Der Matossian, while presenting the debate
over Zionism among the Jews of the empire, underlines that Zionism was
not always understood as a separatist project, nor was it accepted by
the majority of the Jews living in the empire. The analyses of the
Arab provinces is rather superficial; however, the author is right
that making generalizations about the impact of the revolution on
these provinces would be misleading. Nevertheless it is clear that
the politics of the notables was threatened by the revolution, but
ultimately was not defeated.

Chapters 4 and 5 are a solid and detailed discussion of the electoral
process in the run-up to the first competitive elections in the
Ottoman Empire. These two chapters are a great contribution to the
study of the constitutional revolution of 1908 as Der Matossian shows
how ethnic groups established electoral committees in an attempt to
unify their various political currents before the first mass political
performance in the Middle East. A number of deputies representing
the ethnic groups were elected–some were satisfied with the results,
like the Jews and the Arabs; less satisfied were the Armenians. The
election sanctioned the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) as the
real winner of this political competition. At the same time, it was
becoming apparent that the CUP and ethnic groups could not agree on
a number of issues, including religious institutions and above all
education. The dilemma afflicting these groups was to display loyalty
while at the same time protecting the interests of their groups.

According to Der Matossian, before the counterrevolution of 1909 the
Armenians were very active in parliament, particularly in the debates
over the restriction of public gatherings, which they understood as
a potential restriction of their political activity.

The last chapter is dedicated to the counterrevolution of 1909 and
its suppression. Der Matossian suggests that the counterrevolution
was a complex event that was not just the expression of religious
fanaticism, but a multi-actor, multivocal event that eventually led
to the demise of the dreams of the revolution. Since the constitution
represented a chance for the ethnic groups to become relevant actors
in the political process, the counterrevolution was a major blow;
however, Der Matossian stresses that the response of the ethnic groups
was not homogenous. Members of the various groups participated in
the suppression of the counterrevolution, although their actions were
less decisive than the military operations undertaken by the CUP. Der
Matossian, in this final chapter, takes some time to discuss the
Adana Massacres of 1909, suggesting that by then the dreams of the
revolution were already shattered; ethnic tensions were on the rise
and becoming violent. After the counterrevolution, the CUP restricted
the liberties gained by the ethnic groups in the constitutional
revolution: the preservation of the empire took precedence over the
values of the constitution. Der Matossian is right to say that the
dreams of the revolution were shattered, not only by the CUP after the
counterrevolution, but by the contradictory dynamics of the revolution
itself, and nationalism–seen as an epidemic by many–was not contained
by the constitution.

Shattered Dreams of Revolution is a compelling work on the Ottoman
revolution of 1908 and its shortcomings. Though Der Matossian focuses
more on the Armenians than the other ethnic groups–the Jews and the
Arabs–this work must be commended for presenting a fresh picture
of the revolution as a key event that needs to be more fully studied
for its repercussions on the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This is
a work that cannot be ignored by those studying late Ottoman history
and in particular how nationalism impacted the empire’s subjects. It’s
a pity there is no bibliography at the end.

Printable Version:

Citation: Roberto Mazza. Review of Der Matossian, Bedross, Shattered
Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late Ottoman
Empire. H-Nationalism, H-Net Reviews. February, 2015.

URL:

From: Baghdasarian

PERINCEK MAY DENY BUT TURKEY SHOULD NOT

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 3 2015

JOOST LAGENDIJK
February 03, 2015, Tuesday

One of the most difficult things in life is to admit, on any given
subject, that someone you dislike from the bottom of your heart
is right.

It happened to me last week when Dogu Perincek defended himself at the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg for having denied
that a genocide took place against the Ottoman Armenians in 1915.

Last week’s hearing at the ECtHR is the latest episode in a long,
drawn-out legal battle over freedom of speech and the right to deny
the Armenian genocide. In 2005, Perincek spoke at several conferences
in Switzerland and described the idea of an Armenian genocide as an
“international lie.” In the years following, Swiss courts, also on
appeal, found Perincek guilty of denying historical facts and by
doing so racially discriminating against Armenians.

Perincek complained that the Swiss courts had violated his right to
freedom of expression and lodged an application with the ECtHR in
2008. In December 2013 the court ruled that Perincek was right. The
Swiss government then used its right to refer the case to the highest
level of the ECtHR. It is this so-called Grand Chamber that organized
the hearing on Jan. 28 and that will come up with a final ruling in
the next couple of months.

Let me be clear: I think Perincek is an ultranationalist champion
of conspiracy theories whose opinions I thoroughly reject and often
detest, and who has been convicted, according to me for good reasons,
for his links with all kinds of dirty businesses in the past as part
of the Ergenekon trial. But in this particular case he is right. He,
and others who share his opinion, should be allowed to say in public
that the events of 1915, as he put it more mildly and precisely at
the hearing, “do not fit the legal classification of genocide.” It
does not matter whether you agree with Perincek or not. Also, the
ECtHR in its 2013 ruling made it explicitly clear that it was not
its task to rule on “the appropriateness of legally characterizing
the events of 1915 as ‘genocide’.” The court stressed that genocide
was a very narrow legal concept that was difficult to substantiate,
and was therefore open to discussion and a matter of debate. It is
hard to see how the Grand Chamber could come to another conclusion.

Despite my personal uncomfortable feelings about Perincek and the way
he uses his freedom of expression, what really worries me is something
else. Perincek had his moment of glory in Strasbourg, but he remains
a marginal figure. My fear is that the Turkish state will conclude
that its official denialist policy on the Armenian genocide will,
most probably, again be validated by the ECtHR. Mind you: From the
moment Perincek turned to the Strasbourg court, the Turkish government
joined the proceedings as a third party. Present at the hearing last
week to show support for Perincek were high-level delegations of both
the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Republican People’s
Party (CHP). It looks as if this case has been turned into not just
one of Perincek versus Switzerland, but has purposefully been made
into one of the complete Turkish political establishment versus the
rest of the world.

With that mindset, a victory for Perincek will be automatically
interpreted by many in Turkey as a green light by the highest European
legal authorities for the traditional Turkish approach t the 1915
massacres.

That would be a serious mistake. Not only because this is a case about
freedom of expression and not about the correct interpretation of
history. Perincek is free to say what he wants, even if that makes
no sense to the rest of the world. But the Turkish government has
a fundamentally different responsibility. Especially in this year,
the centennial of the events, Turkish authorities should not hide
behind ECtHR rulings.

The rest of the world does not expect a dramatic U-turn from Turkey
on the “g-word.” What many people do hope is for Turkey to continue
where then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stopped last year:
To go the extra mile in showing to the descendants of the Armenians
who were killed or chased from Ottoman lands in 1915 that today’s
Turkey is sorry for what happened then and for the insensitivity
toward Armenian suffering shown by previous generations in Turkey.

From: A. Papazian

WASHINGTON LOSES INFLUENCE IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS, EXPERTS

Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijan
February 2, 2015 Monday

Russia continues to supply weapons of the Karabakh conflict sides. So,
from the territory of Montenegro transport 38 planes loaded with
weapons for the parties to the conflict performed flights, stated
the American expert Stephen Blank, speaking at the conference:
“Security and energy issues in the South Caucasus after Ukraine”,
organized by the Kennan Institute in Washington.

At that time, Azerbaijan buys from Russian high-tech weaponry at very
high prices, Armenian side gets the same number of obsolete weapons,
but at extremely low prices. “Thus, Azerbaijan unwittingly helps
Armenia to buy weapons from Russia at low prices,” said Blank.

If war starts in Karabakh, Russia may intervene directly, and it
will lead to a much greater disaster than a war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Russia is not interested in resolving the conflict, they
are interested in freezing the Karabakh conflict, said Jeffrey Mankoff,
employee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS.)

After Ukrainian events Russia has made it clear that “if it wants it
will immediately destroy the sovereignty of any of these states, the
West will not help them,” he added. The experts also criticized the
passive role of official Washington in the South Caucasus. According to
them, the passivity of the United States in the Caucasus is considered
as a weakness.

” Indifference of the USA to the South Caucasus countries in the region
will be perceived as evidence of America’s weakness, which leads to
strengthening the position of Russia and Iran,” said Michael Rubin,
an expert of the American Enterprise Institute (American Enterprise
Institute.)

In turn, the expert of the Woodrow Wilson Center Audrey Alshtad,
proposed Washington to arrange the negotiating of the sides, and
facilitate direct negotiations between the parties to the Karabakh
conflict, without waiting for the efforts of other intermediaries,
according to Radio “Liberty”. -02D-

From: Baghdasarian

OKTAY ASADOV EXPLAINED WHY BAKU SUPPORTED MOSCOW IN STRASBOURG

Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijan
February 2, 2015 Monday

The Speaker of Azerbaijani Parliament today commented on the vote of
the Azerbaijani delegation at the PACE session against the suspension
of the powers of the Russian delegation due to the annexation of the
Crimea and the support of the Donbass separatists.

“We do not subscribe to these sanctions, we are against it,” said
Asadov. According to him, there are groundless assertions that
Azerbaijan thus “supported the occupier.”

“No, this is absolutely not the case. We, just instead of sanctions,
are in favor of dialogue. The same Europe in the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue instead of sanctions against the Armenians offers us a dialogue,
so we offer them the same as an option.

This does not mean that we are in a negative position with regard to
Ukraine. We in every way support the territorial integrity of Ukraine,”
said Asadov.

The Chairman of the State Duma of Russia Sergei Naryshkin praised
the behavior of the Azerbaijani delegation.

Recall that last week PACE extended sanctions against the Russian
delegation to April 2015. In response, the Russian delegation refused
to participate in PACE for a year. -16D-

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MP: ARMENIA IS ‘FRANCE’S IMMORAL SISTER’ WHO DOESN’T COME HOME AT NIGHTS

APA, Azerbaijan
Feb 2 2015

[ 02 February 2015 15:20 ]

Baku. Mubariz Aslanov – APA. An Azerbaijani MP originally from Karabakh
has called Armenia “immoral sister”.

MP Elman Mammadov, who originally comes from Azerbaijan’s Khojaly city,
has made an interesting point about Armenia during speech.

“The French president once said Armenia is the younger sister of
France. But I see that the president was imprecise. Because based on
the way Armenia behaves and my familiarity with those in power there
I can tell you Armenia is France immoral sister who doesn’t come home
at nights,” he noted.

From: Baghdasarian

TURKEY OBSERVES ALL STEPS TO RESOLVE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Feb 3 2015

3 February 2015, 17:47 (GMT+04:00)
By Sara Rajabova

Ankara is trying to increase its efforts within the OSCE Minsk Group
to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that
has been lasting for over two decades.

Turkey as a member of the OSCE Minsk Group observes all the steps
taken to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is a serious
obstacle to peace, stability, prosperity and broad cooperation in
the South Caucasus, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry told Trend on February 3.

The Ministry said Turkey supports the steps taken to settle it within
the existing format of the Minsk Group.

“Aside from that, Turkey always raises the question related to the
Nagorno-Karabakh problem in relations with other countries, both in
the Minsk Group and other formats,” the ministry said.

“We will continue the efforts to maintain the relevance of this
important problem on the international arena and to resolve the
conflict soon,” said the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

As for the issue of bringing the number of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs from three to five, the Ministry said it has no information
yet regarding this.

The Ministry’s remarks came as some politicians suggested increasing
the number of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs by including Turkey and
Germany into the list of co-chairing countries.

Azay Guliyev, Azerbaijani MP and Deputy Chairman of the OSCE PA’s
committee on political affairs and security, earlier said he plans to
raise the issue of increasing the number of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
from three countries – the U.S., Russia and France – to five, including
Germany and Turkey.

Guliyev said he will raise the issue at the winter session of the
OSCE PA, to be held in Vienna.

Over 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory,
including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent regions, have been
occupied by Armenian armed forces since a lengthy war between the
two South Caucasus countries in the early 1990s. The UN Security
Council has passed four resolutions calling for an Armenian pullout,
but they have not been enforced to date.

Peace talks are underway on the basis of a peace outline proposed by
the Minsk Group co-chairs and dubbed the Madrid Principles. However,
the negotiations have been largely fruitless so far despite the
efforts of the co-chair countries over 20 years.

From: A. Papazian

NEW US AMBASSADOR TO ARRIVE IN ARMENIA NEXT WEEK

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015

U.S. Ambassador Richard M. Mills, Jr.

YEREVAN–The United States’ new Ambassador to Armenia, Richard M.

Mills, Jr., will arrives in Yerevan next week, the US Embassy in
Armenia announced through a Twitter post.

Mills was confirmed as the new Ambassador to Armenia on Dec. 16.

Mills previously served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy
in Beirut, where he began his tour in 2012.

Mills assumed the role of Charge d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy
in Malta, ad interim, in June 2011. Since August 2010, he had been
serving as the Deputy Chief of Mission for the Embassy.

Mills joined the Foreign Service in 1988, serving at Embassy Paris as a
consular officer, then as staff aide to the Ambassador. He returned to
Washington to join the Soviet Desk, eventually becoming desk officer
for the newly independent Armenia and Azerbaijan, followed by a tour
as a political officer at the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg, Russia.

>From 1996-98 Mills served in the Executive Secretariat, followed by a
tour as economic officer at Embassy Dublin from 1998-2001. Subsequent
tours included Political Advisor at the U.S. Mission to the UN;
Deputy Political Counselor at Embassy Islamabad; and Energy Attache
and Acting Economic Counselor at Embassy Riyadh. Mills was Political
Counselor at Embassy London from 2006-2009.