Author: Alex Jidarian

THE PHENOMENON OF ARMENIAN TOUCHINESS
Lilit Poghosyan

"Hayoc Ashkharh" daily newspaper, Armenia
Aug 15 2007

In response to our questions director of "Sociometer" center Aharon
Adibekyan shares his observations regarding the possible developments
of the upcoming autumn rearrangements.

"The first impression is that the opposition has not yet recovered
from their crushing defeat in the parliamentary elections. The main
reason of their failure was wrong tactics, as a consequence of which
pro-opposition powers failed to properly arrange many organizational
issues and this can be decisive in terms of reaching an agreement
about the united candidate for the forthcoming presidential elections.

Unlike them the pro-governmental parties scored a persuasive
victory and they don’t have any intentions to take abrupt steps. The
success during the parliamentary elections is a guarantee for the
pro-governmental parties not to face serious problems during the
forthcoming presidential elections."

"Do you mean opposition didn’t take lessons from the parliamentary
elections and in this case also they will scatter their votes?"

"Unfortunately, over again I have to take the role of a professor and
dispose opposition leaders against me. Even if, as fate has willed
it, they have achieved something it doesn’t mean they have nothing to
learn and that they can teach others. If we have a retrospective look
at their political biography and professional background, we will see
that none of them has graduated from Oxford or Harvard Universities and
none of them has basic knowledge about state governmental issues. What
they have achieved is a consequence of practical skills, while to be
an influential political figure one needs theoretical knowledge.

In our reality there is a misunderstanding about notions such as –
pro-opposition activist, pro-opposition grouping, pro-opposition power
and pro-opposition electorate. One can be a pro-opposition figure,
not representing any pro-opposition grouping or pro-opposition
power. Moreover there are various pro-opposition groupings in our
reality that are far not considered pro-opposition powers, as they
lack active electorate and social bases, backers and supporters
neither in state governmental bodies nor in private business sphere.

Some people believe by functioning in pro-opposition domain they have
direct contact with pro-opposition electorate. While the parliamentary
elections displayed that we have around 40% non pro-governmental
electorate that is scattered among small social groups. They lack
uniting power that can consolidate this potential.

If opposition wants to use this resource, they should be able to find
the authoritative figure among them that can do that.

After all it is not a bride or a partner that they are looking
for. They should find a political leader that can become the symbol,
idea and consciousness of that 40% protestant electorate. But the
moment you hear the topic of their discussions it is easy to see that
they are too far from solving this issue."

"How would you evaluate the political demeanor of the parties
functioning in the pro-governmental domain?"

"The originality here is that Dashnaktsutyun has taken the role of
the joker. From the first sight it seems beneficial, in the sense that
anytime you can change your color and appear both in pro-governmental
and pro-opposition domain. This policy is especially beneficial in the
parliamentary elections. Because there are always people who are angry
with the government and disappointed of the opposition and they can
give their votes to the third power, in this case Dashnaktsutyun. They
are those voters that are never guided by the categories of black and
white. They want something that is neither this one nor that one. A
public need of the third power always exists. What they really need
is to make the domain and seriously work on that stratum.

At present we are not sure whether this party can undertake
the role of the third power and be an alternative for the acting
authorities. Especially because Dashnaktsutyun is the party that has
higher rating as compared to that of its individual figures and the
absence of a smart leader can have bad influence on the opportunities
of the ARF candidate during the forthcoming presidential elections.

In case of "Bargavach Hayastan" party, I should say that the rating
of the party leader Gagik Tsarukyan was 10 times higher during the
parliamentary elections than it is as a presidential candidate.

That is why should the party advance G. Tsarukyan’s candidacy; their
defeat will be predetermined.

Anyhow it is too early to make predictions. All this can be
considered preliminary observations, analytical commentaries. The
future investigation of the public opinion will display the scenario
of the upcoming developments.

We have already made certain inquiries, probably in September – October
we will recommence our studies to understand what kind of president
Armenia needs at this stage and what anticipations the electorate has
from the upcoming elections. Only in this case can we bring forward
concrete numbers and percentages about the leading candidate."

"Do you think the fact that Levon Ter-Petrosyan that is intending to
break his oath of silence and return to policy can bring freshness
to the marathon of the coming presidential elections?"

"I have already mentioned that Armenians are like touchy cats.

When they are angry or disappointed in someone they will never go
close to him. It is not accidental that from thousand divorced couples
only 1-2 re-unite, they usually become enemies. This phenomenon of
touchiness functions in Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s case as well.

The objective and subjective difficulties that we faced during the
transitional period are linked with his character. During the survey
when we speak about Levon Ter-Petrosyan people remember the hard
years. And this stereotype will always remain in the memory of the
overwhelming majority. Our studies display that Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s
rating wavers between 1-3% and it is a very low percentage to become
a real alternative for the acting authorities and win the elections.

DASHNAKTSUTYUN THINKS REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS NOT BENEFICIAL

Lragir, Armenia
July 27 2007

The Republican Party got absolute majority in the parliamentary
election, but it does not necessarily determine the outcome of the
presidential election, Armen Rustamyan, representative of the ARF
Dashnaktsutyun’s Supreme Body, stated July 27 at the National Press
Club. "It is stated directly or indirectly that the outcome of the
parliamentary election will affect symmetrically the outcome of the
presidential election. I think this is not the right forecast regarding
the political developments and the current situation in Armenia."

He thinks the electoral system in Armenia has faults, such as vote
tampering or intimidation. "And this is the reason why the voters
do not use their right to vote fully. This right is either tampered
or taken away under pressure. Both methods are used in Armenia one
way or another. And it will take us long to get rid of this," Armen
Rustamyan says. According to him, the presidential election will also
have faults. "For the time being, we will make efforts to reduce these
faults. There is an important circumstance, however, which will make
the presidential election different from the parliamentary election,"
Armen Rustamyan says. According to him, this circumstance is that the
faults of the electoral system are revealed especially in the voting
under the majority system, meanwhile the presidential election is
closer to the voting under the proportional system when the entire
country is one electoral district.

"And I think it can affect the outcome of the presidential election
and also make the conduct of the voting to president more political.

And this is the underlying issue," says the representative of the
ARF Dashnaktsutyun’s Supreme Body. According to him, it is essential
to the future of the state to hold a better presidential election
than the parliamentary election. Armen Rustamyan reasserted that
Dashnaktsutyun will name its own candidate, and considering his
partisan experience, Armen Rustamyan assured that the candidate will
be a member of the party. However, he declined to mention names. He
says the Supreme Meeting will name the candidate. Armen Rustamyan only
says Dashnaktsutyun will not support another candidate and will not
name a candidate from another party but will name its own candidate.

The representative of the Supreme Body of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun Armen
Rustamyan repeated the ARF Bureau member Vahan Hovanisyan’s statement
he had made a few weeks ago that a non-Republican president will
help sustain the balance of powers. In this sense, Armen Rustamyan
contradicts to the Republican speaker of the National Assembly Tigran
Torosyan. Torosyan said in an interview with the Aravot Daily on
July 27 that after the adoption of amendments to the Constitution the
president is strong if he has the support of the parliament majority.

"The ideas of government vary. Because if we imagine the administrative
force, the force of the administrative resource of the government,
if we think that the state must be like a mechanism for pressure,
in this sense the authoritarian government is the strongest. However,
we know how such governments end up, how it happens," Armen Rustamyan
says, mentioning that the force of the government must first of all
rely on true concepts and public confidence. "Armenia lacks this most
of all and needs such a government," Armen Rustamyan says. He says
in this sense we will benefit if the president, the prime minister
and the parliament majority belong to the same force.

PACE MISSION ON MONITORING OF CULTURAL MONUMENTS DUE TO VISIT THE REGION

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
July 26 2007

The mission led by PACE’s co-rapporteur on monitoring of cultural
monuments in Northern Caucasus,UK parliamentarian Edvard Ohara will
visit the region late in August ,Edvard Ohara told the APA. The
mission’s visit will last one week.

PACE mission will visit Baku, Yerevan, Tbilisi, Nagorno Karabakh
and Nakhchivan AR within the framework of the visit. The mission
will cooperate with local experts while conducting monitoring of
cultural monuments.

OP-ED: GW’S SHAMEFUL AFFILIATIONS
By Alison Tahmizian Meuse

Daily Colonial, DC
George Washington University
April 25 2007

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes at GW? Have
you ever taken the time to look into our university’s political and
financial commitments? Well I have, and I am distressed to report
that the hands of our administration are filthy.

My individual awareness to such matters began when it came to the
attention of the Armenian Students Network that GW holds a membership
in the American Turkish Council (ATC). While the ATC has many positive
goals in regards to promoting Turkish interests in the US, one of its
more touchy objectives is to block the Armenian Genocide resolution
in the United States Congress. As an Armenian whose grandparents
were forced to flee Turkey in the face of systematic massacres
and deportations, it was rather revolting to discover that my own
university is a party to such an objective. President Trachtenberg is
to be commended for his straightforward affirmation of the genocide;
nevertheless, the university’s affiliation with the ATC derogates his
individual candor. By attaching the university’s name to such a lobby,
the GW administration is implicitly agreeing with all of the policies
and viewpoints adopted by that council. I encourage all students,
campus organizations, and faculty members to further investigate the
broader issue at hand. There is no doubt that the ATC is simply one
lobby group among many supported by our university.

Living in our nation’s capital has shown me the sway that Turkish
lobby groups exert in America. Indeed, it is groups like the ATC that
keep the Armenian Genocide out of our textbooks, despite the fact
that it was not the current Turkish government which perpetrated the
massacres. Even on April 24, when Armenians from around the world
gather to remember the deaths of loved ones, the Turks mobilize to
protest our commemoration observances. And they have that right. We
are all blessed to live in a country that permits free speech; a free
land where journalists do not fear for their lives and intellectuals
are not jailed for insulting the state. We do not have a penal code
whereby individuals are imprisoned for insulting "Americanness,"
as is the case in Turkey.

I was not compelled to write this article because I am against
Turkey. I have a dear friend who is Turkish, and I am in favor of
Turkey’s ascension to the European Union – an ongoing process that
is reforming both the government and society as a whole. Perhaps the
Turkish government will never accept the term "genocide" to describe
the events of the early twentieth century, but that seems unlikely
given that both the European Parliament and the Council of Europe
recognized the Armenian genocide years ago. The obstruction of genocide
recognition in the United States cannot be attributed to a historical
quandary on the veracity of the event; rather, it is a political
dilemma. Turkey is a crucial ally in the region; the combination of
its NATO membership, useful military bases, and positive relationship
with Israel has long forced our government to skirt the issue.

The author, a sophomore in the Elliott School, is an intern at the
Embassy of Jordan and Social Coordinator of the International Affairs
Society.

Editor’s Note: The article this story references can be found here.
;s =4231
;s =4276

Greeks against Turkey’s accession to the EU

ArmRdio.am
06.01.2007 12:51

The results of the survey conducted by `Kapa Research’ Company for `To
Vima’ newspaper revealed that about 40 percent of the population of
Greece support Turkey’s accession to the European Union, while 56.5
percent are against.

The newspaper wrote that 38.5 percent of respondents are optimistic
about the settlement of the Cyprus issue. 39.4 percent believe that
the island will be completely included in the European Union.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
July 17, 2006 Monday
THE UNITED STATES HELPED KILL SHAMIL BASAYEV;
Turkey and Georgia also participated in the operation
by: Igor Yavlyansky
THE SHIPMENT THAT KILLED BASAYEV CAME FROM IRAQ, VIA TURKEY AND
GEORGIA; By consulting experts and studying open sources, we have
attempted to analyze where the consignment of weapons originated,
the route it took to Ingushetia – and who might have helped deliver
it to the addressee, Shamil Basayev, complete and undamaged.
We continue our own investigation into the circumstances of Shamil
Basayev’s death. This time, by consulting experts and studying open
sources, we have attempted to analyze where the consignment of weapons
originated, the route it took to Ingushetia – and who might have helped
deliver it to the addressee, Shamil Basayev, complete and undamaged.
The weapons shipment contained a detonator, planted by the Federal
Security Service (FSB). Where did the shipment originate? Our
impression is that this operation was launched by President Vladimir
Putin himself. In an Interfax news agency report from July 11, an
unidentified expert described as a Russian special services veteran
declined to answer when asked to name the country from which Basayev’s
weapons consignment came, but recommended “a close analysis of media
reports over the past two months” about contacts between Russia’s
top leaders and representatives of other countries.
So we went ahead and did that. What catches the eye immediately is the
frequency of contacts between President Vladimir Putin and President
George W. Bush. They spoke by phone on May 1, May 30, June 5, June 19,
and July 6. In all these conversations, according to official reports,
one of the most important topic was the war on terrorism.
On June 6, a day after talking to Bush, Putin met with former US
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Most likely, Kissinger wasn’t fully
informed about what was happening; but Putin directed his remarks at
the television cameras as well as at Kissinger.
“Our views don’t always coincide, but we understand each other and find
a compromise,” Putin said to Kissinger. “Of course, our cooperation
in the area of fighting terrorism remains fairly urgent.
I spoke to the President of the United States by phone only
yesterday. We maintain permanent contacts at practically all levels
and between all state agencies.”
With the “prompt” provided by the unnamed special services source,
Putin’s words here may well be interpreted as a hint at meetings
between Russian and US intelligence agencies.
Now let’s approach this from another angle. Where was the weapons
consignment put together? In his report to Putin, FSB Director Nikolai
Patrushev said: “This operation became possible thanks to the fact
that operative positions had been established abroad, primarily in
those countries where weapons were assembled and subsequently sent
to Russia.”
In this context, the word “assembled” clearly doesn’t refer to the
factory production process; it refers to the location where the
weapons consignment was put together before being shipped to Basayev.
One of the experts we consulted pointed out that Chechen guerrillas
always say they acquire their weapons from the Russian military.
Undoubtedly, such incidents do happen sometimes; but our source
maintains that there’s more talk than evidence of Russian military
personnel selling arms to the guerrillas. And this is where the talk
originates: Soviet-made weapons could fall into terrorist hands not
only from Russian military storehouses, but also from other countries
that bought such weapons from Russia or the Soviet Union.
Given this and other abovementioned factors, the experts we consulted
consider the leading theory to be as follows: the weapons consignment
was probably collected in Iraq. The situation there resembles
Dudayev-era Chechnya: a devastated society in which former military
personnel are selling off entire arsenals. Such things also happen
in the Balkans, but we rejected that option, since the weapons there
are all Yugoslav- or Chinese-made. And the specialists we consulted
pointed to Iraq, where the former National Guard has scattered,
taking a great number of weapons.
So the shipment originated in Iraq. This is an undisputed
“responsibility zone” of the United States. Some reliable informers
might have told the Russian special services about the cargo being
assembled. But in order to make this work to Russia’s advantage,
it would have been necessary to cooperate with the Americans and
the new Iraqi special services established by the Americans – they
still have the final say in the region. The Russian special services
needed to plant a detonator in the weapons shipment, then track the
shipment’s progress all the way along its route. And that leads us
to a sensational conclusion: only America could have provided Russia
with this kind of assistance.
How was the cargo delivered to Ingushetia? We can rule out the
Iran-Armenia-Azerbaijan route. Firstly, Iran is an unfriendly zone
for terrorists. Its borders are closely monitored, to guard against
drug trafficking. Moreover, Iran is one of the few countries in
the Islamic world that has not been known to support the Chechen
separatists. Secondly, due to the continual conflicts between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, all cargo crossing the border between these two
countries is checked very thoroughly. Thirdly, there’s a shorter and
less problematic route: via Turkey and Georgia.
Turkey is a complicated country. It’s more than just a favorite
holiday destination for Russian tourists. But times change, and the
influence of the United States on Turkey is very great. If our first
conclusion (that the Americans have been helping our special services)
is correct, it would be logical to assume that they helped us reach
agreement with Turkey as well.
Next up, Georgia. Everyone is aware of Russia’s difficult relationship
with Georgia’s proud president, Mikhail Saakashvili. The power of US
influence on Saakashvili is equally well-known. But let’s not forget
the problem of the Pankisi Gorge, the terrorist bases there, and the
inconveniences this creates for Georgia. For example, the Western
European community used to have a certain amount of sympathy for the
Chechen separatists and Georgia, which supported the separatists;
but the situation has changed since the Paris trial of “Chechen
terrorists” who were planning an act of terrorism in France.
The court established that these terrorists had been trained in the
Pankisi Gorge.
Thus, having consulted experts and open sources, we conclude that the
weapons consignment was collected in Iraq; the detonator and radio
beacon were planted in the consignment in Iraq; and the consignment
was then delivered to Ingushetia via Turkey and Georgia.
There is also the possibility that the FSB’s radio beacon was planted
en route, perhaps in Georgia, rather than in Iraq – but this is
unlikely. One of Basayev’s emissaries probably took delivery of
the deadly cargo in Iraq and examined it thoroughly. His inspection
process might have involved placing secret marks on the cargo, to
make it obvious if anyone tampered with the goods along the way.
So why would Russia need to monitor the shipment’s progress and
seek a friendly attitude from the transit countries? The answer is
simple: in order to prevent any accidents. Russia had to ensure that
local special services, police, or criminals wouldn’t intercept this
important shipment, so that it could reach its designated recipient
complete and undamaged – and then fulfill its mission.
(…)
Source: Izvestia, July 14, 2006, p. 3
Translated by Elena Leonova

NA DELEGATION OFF TO BRUSSELS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OSCE PA SESSION
ArmRadio.am
03.07.2006 14:23
RA National Assembly delegation left for Brussels to participate in
the 15th annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
The delegation is headed by NA Deputy Speaker Vahan Hovhannisyan. It
comprises also MPs Samvel Mikoyan and Artashes Geghamyan. The session
will be over on July 7, Press Service of the National Assembly informs.

EU: DEMAND OF KARABAKH PEOPLE SHOULD BE MET
PanARMENIAN.Net
20.04.2006 01:27 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “The European Parliament considers it has not clear
“road map” to settle the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, however the EU
should take part in the solution of the issue without fail,” Chair
of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, French MP
Marie-Anne Isler-Beguin stated at a news conference in Yerevan. In
her words, the international community wants soonest settlement
of the Karabakh conflict by peaceful tools. “The other way is just
impossible. The conflict should be solved based on the right of peoples
to self-determination and observation of national minority rights. The
demand of the Nagorno Karabakh people should be met and Azerbaijan
has to respect people’s right to self-determination,” she remarked.
The delegation head believes that the OSCE MG should find a
political compromise between the parties of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. Marie-Anne Isler-Beguin emphasized the EP does not speak
“either of occupied, or liberated territories.” “These are the seven
regions around NK, where refugees should return and decide their
status themselves,” she underscored.
At the same time Isler-Beguin supposes the Armenian society should
be ready to living with Azerbaijanis.
At that she cited the example of France and Germany, which in spite
of past differences, are an exemplar of peaceful cooperation.

Washington Times
Oct 1 2005
Turkey wary of EU intentions
By Sibel Utku Bila
ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey yesterday girded for a showdown with the
European Union as anger and frustration simmered over what Turks see
as European backpedaling on pledges to admit the Muslim country to
the bloc.
With just three days left before the start of membership talks,
EU countries were still wrangling over accession terms for Turkey,
leaving Ankara on edge and its decades-old dream of integrating with
Europe shrouded in uncertainty.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said he would not go to Luxembourg
for the start of the talks Monday if Ankara is dissatisfied with the
EU’s conditions.
“Undoubtedly, there is the risk of not starting membership
talks,” Mr. Gul conceded late Thursday. “We are facing serious
problems.”
In an 11th-hour bid for a breakthrough, the EU will hold an
emergency meeting of foreign ministers tomorrow to seek a compromise
on a negotiating framework — the guiding procedures and principles
for the talks with Turkey.
The deadlock is blamed on Austria’s insistence to offer Turkey
“privileged partnership” as an alternative to full membership, an
option Ankara flatly rejects.
Mr. Gul said he would not board the plane for Luxembourg before
seeing the final document, but remained hopeful of a compromise
despite the time pressure.
Turkey has been trying to join the EU since the 1960s, but its
place in Europe has come increasingly into question, especially since
French and Dutch voters rejected a planned EU constitution, partly
over concerns about the membership of this sizeable and relatively
poor Muslim country.
The European Parliament fueled angry accusations that the
admission bar is being deliberately raised for Turkey when it urged
Ankara earlier this week to acknowledge that the Ottoman Empire —
predecessor of the Turkish Republic — committed “genocide” against
Armenians in World War I, as a condition for joining.

TURKEY WON’T SAY GENOCIDE, BUT U DOCUMENTARY DOES
By Don M. Burrows
Minnesota Daily, MN
Sept 29 2005
University film covers controversial Armenian genocide and garners
Emmy nomination
Armenian Genocide: 90 Years Later,” takes on one of the biggest
geopolitical controversies of the 20th century, even in its title:
Was the massacre of Armenians in 1915 an act of genocide?
The Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire
that carried out the killings, denies it was genocide, and has even
banned discussion in that vein.
The documentary, co-produced by the University’s Center for Holocaust
and Genocide Studies, uses interviews with historians and family
members of survivors to continue the discussion many avoid.
PHOTO COURTESY TESSA SAVVIDIS HOFMANN AND THE CENTRE FOR INF The
photograph “Deportation from Harput,” was used in the film “Armenian
Genocide: 90 Years Later.”
What is known is this: As many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed
from 1915 to 1917 in an apparent depopulation strategy by the Young
Turk government. Much like Jews were singled out in Nazi Germany,
Armenians – an ethnic and religious minority of artisans and skilled
laborers in Turkish society – were removed from their homes and
killed. The Turkish government, however, claims the killings were
part of ethnic clashes and denies that so many were slain.
The most compelling part of the film is the testimony of those whose
families survived the killings. Many remember their parents telling of
the horrors of leaving their homes and hiding from Turkish officials,
and recount how a remembrance of the events of 1915 is now embedded
in Armenian identity.
The documentary features two University history professors, Eric
Weitz and Taner Akcam. Akcam is a Turkish historian who was jailed
in the 1970s for broaching human rights. It first aired in April and
has since been nominated for an Upper Midwest Regional Emmy award in
the News Special category.
The timing couldn’t be better.
Just last weekend, a Turkish court canceled the academic conference
that was to occur at Bogazici University regarding this topic. The
action sparked a wave of protest from European leaders and Turkish
officials wary of bad press amid their bid for entrance into the
European Union. A previous conference was likewise banned in May
amid comments from the Turkish minister of justice, who called it
treasonous.
Stephen Feinstein, director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide
Studies, said more than 200 copies of the film have been distributed
to organizations and schools since its airing.
Feinstein said that although the current Turkish government is
different than the one that committed the slayings in 1915, it has
been defiant in recognizing it as genocide. This is despite a consensus
among genocide scholars and similar recognitions by state governments
worldwide, including the state of Minnesota. He attributes this to
fears of demanded reparations and damage to the Turkish Republic’s
grand narrative and national pride.
His main concern, and that of scholars worldwide, is that Turkey,
a supposedly free democracy, is suppressing academic discussion.
“In a democracy, you should be free to talk about the past,”
Feinstein said.
Weitz agreed, and said that while there are many Turks who accept
that genocide occurred, there are also those ideologues who fit their
denial of the genocide into their concurrent distaste for Turkey’s
entrance into the EU.
“When they challenge the ability of scholars to discuss these issues,
they are provoking the EU deliberately,” he said.
Feinstein said many documents from Turkey’s own archives prove
that a systematic killing took place, but are written in the Arabic
script that
was replaced by the Latin alphabet after World War I. Consequently,
many Turkish government officials can’t even read them.
As stated in the documentary, German records are perhaps the best
source of information on the massacres, given Germany’s alliance with
Turkey during World War I.
It was the Nazis’ knowledge of the Armenians that contributed in part
to their own policy of extermination, scholars argue.
And those involved in the now Emmy-nominated film hope it will educate
the public so as to contradict Hitler’s famous quote in defense of
his genocidal plans: “Who remembers the Armenians?”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress