Author: Andres-Papazian

SPEECH CRIMES AND FRANCE
By Timothy Garton Ash

Los Angeles Times
,0,6619238.story?track=rss
Jan 19 2012

Denying genocide may be ignorant, but the French government shouldn’t
criminalize it.

On Monday, the French Senate is scheduled to debate and possibly vote
on a bill that would criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide of
1915, along with any other events recognized as genocide in French
law. The bill has passed the lower house of Parliament. The Senate
should reject it, in the name of free speech, the freedom of historical
inquiry and Article 11 of France’s pathbreaking 1789 Declaration of
the Rights of Man and Citizen (“The free communication of ideas and
opinions is one of the most precious rights….”).

The question is not whether the atrocities committed against the
Armenians by the Ottoman Empire were terrible, or whether they should
be acknowledged in Turkish and European memory. They were and they
should be. The question is: Should it be a crime under the law of
France, or other countries, to dispute whether those terrible events
constituted a genocide, a term used in international law? And is the
French Parliament equipped and entitled to set itself up as a tribunal
on world history, handing down verdicts on the past conduct of other
nations? The answer: No and no.

The bill also would criminalize “outrageous minimization” of the
Armenian genocide. As Francoise Chandernagor of the Liberte pour
l’histoire campaign points out, this introduces a concept vague even
by the standards of such memory laws. If Turkish estimates of the
Armenian dead run at 500,000 and Armenian estimates at 1.5 million,
what would count as minimization? 547,000? And should the Turkish prime
minister be arrested for such “minimization” on his next official
visit to France? (The bill envisages a fine of 45,000 euros and up
to a year’s imprisonment.)

Taking a benign view of human nature and French politics, you might say
that this is a clumsy attempt to realize a noble intention. That would
be naive. There is a remarkable correlation between such proposals in
the French Parliament and national elections, in which half a million
voters of Armenian origin play a significant part. What happened to the
Armenians was recognized as genocide under French law in December 2001,
just before presidential and parliamentary elections. A bill similar
to this one was passed in the lower house in 2006 (but rejected by
the upper) in the run-up to the 2007 elections.

And what’s happening this year? Yes, elections.

Not that all leading politicians of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party
have supported the bill. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe opposes it. But
that’s because he’s worried about the implications for France’s
relations with Turkey. The Turkish government’s reaction has been
predictably vehement.

Thus a tragedy that should be the subject for grave commemoration and
free historical debate, calmly testing even wayward hypotheses against
the evidence, is reduced to an instrument of political manipulation,
a politician’s brickbat.

Meanwhile, Turkish intellectuals who have bravely said that what
was done to the Armenians was genocide are liable to be prosecuted
in Turkey. What is state-ordained truth in France is state-ordained
falsehood in Turkey.

Yet these are increasingly symbolic rather than effective acts. In
a country like France, and with rather more difficulty in Turkey,
the Internet allows people to find those forbidden views anyway.

So this is but the latest instance of a much wider challenge. What
should be the limits and norms of free expression in the Internet age?

And who should set them? These are among the questions being addressed
in a project called Free Speech Debate ()
that we have just launched at Oxford University. Among the 10
draft principles we offer for debate, criticism and revision,
one is especially relevant to the genocide controversy. It says,
“We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.”

Memory laws like the one proposed in France clearly fail this test,
but they are not the only example. In Britain, science writer Simon
Singh had to defend a costly libel action because of his criticism
of chiropractic claims. The Church of Scientology uses its copyright
of the immortal words of L. Ron Hubbard to prevent people seeing the
secrets of the Operating Thetan. (Tip: Search for Operation Clambake.)
This week, the English-language Wikipedia site was blacked out for
24 hours to protest a proposed U.S. bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act,
that, in the current version, would have a disastrous chilling effect
on the free, online dissemination of knowledge.

There are also more genuinely difficult cases. Late last year,
the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity asked
the journals Science and Nature to redact details of a study about
an easily transmitted form of the H5N1 virus, for fear it could be
misused by bioterrorists. And what about AIDS denialism? When endorsed
by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, this resulted, it has
been estimated, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who
might otherwise have been properly treated. The “no taboos” principle
needs to be tested against such hard cases.

France’s opportunistic, misbegotten bill is not a hard case. It’s a
no-brainer. Next week, let the French Senate give an example to the
U.S. Congress in the defense of intellectual freedom.

Timothy Garton Ash, a contributing editor to Opinion, is a senior
fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and professor
of European studies at Oxford University. His most recent book is
“Facts are Subversive: Political Writing from a Decade Without a Name.”

Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia will be in conversation with Timothy Garton
Ash, livestreamed on , at 5 p.m. U.K.

From: A. Papazian

3 OUT OF 4 ARMENIA POLICE EMPLOYEES CONFESSED IN COURT TO SHADY PRACTICES

epress.am
01.19.2012

Four witnesses were examined in court today in the case of former RA
Traffic Police Chief Margar Ohanyan, and also named as the accused,
former commander of the 2nd officers’ battalion Stepan Karakhanyan,
and traffic police employees Ara Levonyan and Samvel Makhmuryan.

Recall, they are accused of embezzling approx. 2,500 tons of gasoline.

The first witness, commander of the 2nd officers’ battalion Arsen
Mardonyan, testified that when it was time for monthly reporting,
he signed for more gasoline than he actually received and when
he raised this matter with former commander Stepan Karakhanyan,
the latter promised to supplement the shortage, but never did so
(the same comment was made by another witness, Stepan Sedrakyan,
in a previous court session).

Vardan Nargizyan, also a commander with the 2nd officers’ battalion
but who serves in Lori province, testified that he received 4,500-5,000
liters of gasoline but signed on paper that he received 12,000-14,000
liters. The witness confessed that he was new employee at the time
and his deputy conveyed Karakhanyan’s request to sign for more than
actually received.

Prosecutor Harutyun Harutyunyan asked the witness whether he had kept
Margar Ohanyan abreast of this issue, to which Nargizyan responded
in the negative.

Another battalion commander also involved in the case, Aram Galstyan,
testified that he received 4,500-5,000 liters of gasoline monthly from
Karakhanyan, but on paper this amount was 6,000-12,000 liters. He
approached Karakhanyan on the matter who (again) promised to
supplement the difference, but this never happened. The witness
testified that Karakhanyan said instead of the “more” gasoline,
they can take tires. It’s important to note that Galstyan serves in
the provinces of Vayots Dzor and Syunik and tires get worn out more
frequently in these mountainous regions.

Asked by the prosecutor why he didn’t inform then traffic police
chief Margar Ohanyan, the witness confessed that he made a mistake.

The fourth witness, senior inspector with the Traffic Police’s
finance division Yeprem Stepanyan, said he was not privy to any abuse
associated with receiving gasoline.

From: A. Papazian

SEYRAN OHANYAN RECEIVES HEAD OF EU DELEGATION IN ARMENIA

ARMENPRESS
JANUARY 18, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JANUARY 18, ARMENPRESS: Armenian Defense Minister Seyran
Ohanyan held a meeting Wednesday with new head of EU delegation to
Armenia, Ambassador Traian Hristea.

Seyran Ohanyan congratulated the Ambassador on appointment wishing
him fruitful work, press service of Armenian Defense Minister told
Armenpress.

The sides discussed prospects of Armenia-European Union cooperation
in the field of defense.

From: A. Papazian

NAGORNO KARABAKH FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTRY WELCOMES GREAT BRITAIN’S READINESS TO HOLD A REFERENDUM ON THE FUTURE STATUS OF SCOTLAND

ARMENPRESS
JANUARY 18, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JANUARY 18, ARMENPRESS: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
the Nagorno Karabakh Republic welcomes Great Britain’s readiness
to hold a referendum on the future status of Scotland. London’s
position proves once again that respect for human rights and
nations’ self-determination is the priority for democratic states,
the commentary of the NKR MFA Information Department provided to
Armenpress runs.

“Freedom and respect for these rights are, actually, the highest values
in the modern world. We are convinced that any attempts to hamper
the realization of the fundamental human rights must be considered
regardless of the political conjuncture and subjected to resolute
and strict assessment by the international community.

“We can only hope that the position of Great Britain and other
democratic states will positively impact Azerbaijan in accepting
these realities and respecting human rights,” the commentary reads.

From: A. Papazian

MAJORITY OF THE FACTIONS OF THE FRENCH SENATE STANDS UP FOR THE BILL PENALIZING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DENIAL

ARMENPRESS
JANUARY 18, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JANUARY 18, ARMMENPRESS: The bill penalizing Armenian Genocide
denial has become the subject matter of the meetings of the factions
of the French Senate and political groups, the parliamentary sources
of Nouvelles d’Armenie told Armenpress.

The head of “Union for a Popular Movement” ruling faction has urged
all the senators to make a matter of conscience while voting.

Head of the Socialist faction Francois Rebsamen has stated that nobody
from their faction will vote against the bill.

The center-inclined factions, which have overall 31 votes, will vote
against the bill, according to Natalie Gul.

The Communists have already stated their faction will fully support
the criminalization of denial of genocides.

The French National Assembly adopted the bill penalizing the denial
of the Armenian Genocide December 22, 2011. It will be brought up
for discussion at the Senate January 23.

By the way, the French-Armenians and Turks have planned actions in
front of the Senate for today.

From: A. Papazian

MANVEL SARGSYAN: DISSOCIATION OF PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT FROM PARTIES IS A PLEDGE OF DESTRUCTION OF THE OLIGARCHIC SYSTEM OF ARMENIA
by David Stepanyan

arminfo
Wednesday, January 18, 14:10

Interview of Director of Armenian Centre for National and International
studies Manvel Sargsyan with ArmInfo news agency

Can you predict what international events may affect the situation
in Armenia, stemming from the foreign policy situation in the world
in 2011?

The recent developments in Russia have set quite new tasks to
partner-country Armenia. The ruling party in Russia Yedinaya Rossia
swept the parliamentary elections on December 4 causing wide public
discontent. Our leadership has officially congratulated Putin’s
party, but no one knows what will happen in Russia tomorrow. It
makes impossible setting long-term goals in the foreign policy of
the country.

The developments and rapid processes in the Middle East and North
Africa that have changed the international situation and positions
of the lead superpowers in the world. These changes are felt also in
Armenia. The attitude of Russia, USA and Europe is very important for
us. But when the global political situation changes, the attitude of
these superpowers towards Armenia changes as well. Armenia can become
absolutely uninteresting to some countries or quite the opposite.

Therefore, it is very hard to predict anything in such uncertain
situation. In Armenia they have announced a policy of rapprochement
with Europe, on the one hand, and there are more and more opinions
that this rapprochement is just idle talks. The contents of NATO IPAP,
EU’s Eastern Partnership and other projects are still uncertain. No
one speaks of reality, because the reality is becoming less and less
clear to the disintegrating Europe, much less it is clear to Armenia.

Instability in Syria, the situation around Iran, the threats of Turkey
and Israel, where is this stemming from and what may it result in?

Obviously, 50 years of relative political stability affected all the
countries in the world, and quite sustainable political institutes of
power, for instance, in Arab countries, have turned into rudiments that
began to ruin. This happened as relevant ties, agreements, arrangements
that no longer exist, backed them. So, they proved powerless against
the rapidly changing situation. Thousands of unarmed people in the
Arab countries take to the streets and die for they can no longer
live as they lived before. The external interference is based on
the law of the international relations. When something happens,
every country speaks of its position, and it is normal. For instance,
in the case of Syria, Russia strives to preserve what it has, while
Turkey is trying to gain something.

What regional events may be expected at least in the mid-term prospect,
taking into consideration the growing tension?

I still see growing of instability in the region. It is hard to
predict what it will lead to in the conditions of the modern world. It
is especially relevant taking into consideration the amorphism of
relations between the countries.

Such amorphism in the relations of countries leads to inevitable
atomization. War unleashed by one country can be managed by another.

This amorphism is the key factor restraining the situation, stimulating
loud statements of state leaders who make such statements being
unable to change anything in reality. Here are the new trends in the
global politics.

How can the oligarchic system be broken in Armenia?

The destruction of the oligarchic system is possible only through
disassociation of the people’s movement from the political parties,
which is very much important. Today the oligarchic system of Armenia
is in a deep crisis and cannot function. The oligarchic system works
if there is a strict arrangement on separation of the spheres of
influence, as it was, for instance, during Robert Kocharyan’s tenure.

At present, the oligarchy cannot even make such an arrangement. For
this reason, the oligarchs which are in the power always want to
strengthen the repression machinery. So, we strictly see the tendency
of turning Armenia into the police state, as the oligarchic system
cannot pay way any more”, – he said. There is also another process –
socialization of the policy, like in case of the Prosperous Armenia
Party when one of the oligarchs is trying to attract the society to
his protection so that to contain the appetites of other oligarchs.

To come out from this vicious circle Sarkisyan has offered to study
the experience of other countries, in particular, Poland, Chile,
Ireland and United Arab Emirates. Only civil society is able to
implement the system changes, especially in the context of the fact
that the leadership of the parties became the main reason of the
situation when in 2008 the Armenian society could not overcome the
March crisis of the power.

Nobody captured buildings in any country where the democratic
revolution was successful. What is the difference between Armenia and
them? Everywhere the society and the elite of revolutionists, which
came forward in a natural way, delivered an ultimatum to the political
system. The ultimatum on the basis of the points of the written
Constitution. By means of terrible losses they forced their regimes
and administrations to admit their key demand – to hold free elections
and to invite all the parties to participate in these elections. The
idea of delivering an ultimatum is the core of all these revolutions.

Will you point at a certain criterion for fulfillment of such a
scenario in Armenia?

It is time to revise the forms of political activity, which are
obviously not successful in Armenia. For twenty years any revolt of
the people in Armenia has been managed by political forces, and there
has never arisen the question whether this is right or whether there is
an alternative. Since we constantly set the task to change the power,
convincing ourselves that system changes in Armenia are possible in
that case only, we should see the results or at least try to think
why nothing comes of it. Moreover, the whole XX century was a period
of examples of such experience, and one should also cast a glance at
our movement of 1988-1991.

The parties are unable to implement changes with the help of the
people, and the changes in the elite have failed to introduce any
essential changes in public life. In the meantime, no serious
surveys were conducted, and the public was not even told what
the political forces mean by system changes. Only change of power
was implied, nothing else. In this context, one should understand
what system we have and what system the society wants to create,
“especially in Armenia, where they very often speak of “restoration
of the constitutional regime”, i.e. of something which has never
existed in Armenia. Now the society of Armenia is seriously thinking
how to build a constitutional and legal state – one of the most
developed state formations in the world. Any system change is a
revolution, no matter how the public dislikes this word and thinks
that revolution means seizure of buildings. Meanwhile, nobody seized
buildings in the countries, which made a democratic revolution. It
is done in a different way, by means of an ultimatum on the basis of
the written provisions of the Constitution. It was by means of big
losses and hardships that the people of these countries forced their
administrations to hold free elections. The force saying that a velvet
revolution should occur in Armenia should demonstrate the road map of
the revolution The public should know how the revolution will be made.

“And when such a road map appears, the specified force should say that
it will be dissolved after the revolution and will not participate
in the elections. The public should know this now to trust these
politicians.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN OLIGARCH’S SPOKESPERSON CLARIFIES RELATION BETWEEN TSARUKYAN AND HOOLIGAN

NEWS.am
January 18, 2012 | 17:40

YEREVAN. – Ashot Avetisyan, 48, known as Hamo from Bangladesh, detained
on Wednesday for hooliganism, does not belong to any party and is not
the bodyguard of Prosperous Armenia Party leader Gagik Tsarukyan,
Tsarukyan’s spokesperson Khachik Galstyan said in response to the
Armenian News-NEWS.am correspondent’s question that Avetisyan is
one of the key figures featuring Tsarukyan’s bodyguards. Besides,
he is not aware what personal relations share Avetisyan with Tsarukyan.

Armenian News-NEWS.am has earlier informed that Garik N., 31, with
his VAZ vehicle had collided with BMW X-6 at 00.15 a.m., Hamo from
Bangladesh was inside the BMW. The latter cursed and beat Garik N.,
as a result forensic-medical expertise was appointed and criminal
case is instigated. Avetisyan is arrested.

From: A. Papazian

PACE DISCUSSES UPCOMING PARLIAMENTARY POLLS IN ARMENIA

Vestnik Kavkaza
Jan 17 2012
Russia

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian received John Prescott,
a co-rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE), on January 16, News.am reports.

The Armenian minister gave a high rating to the role of the Council
of Europe in holding democratic reforms in Armenia. Nalbandian noted
that Armenia continues fulfilling its obligations, based on principles
of democracy, human rights, domination of law.

J. Prescott praised democratic reforms in Armenia.

The sides discussed the coming parliamentary polls. Nalbandian
presented information on some cooperation aspects of Armenia and the
CE. They also talked on regional issues.

From: A. Papazian

GEORGIA AND POSSIBLE COMPLICATIONS IN IRAN

The Messenger
Jan 16 2012
Georgia

Developments between Iran and the USA are currently the hot topic
being discussed by the world’s media. It is clear that whatever
comes Georgia will not be able to remain neutral towards the
situation in the region. Iran is Georgia’s neighbour and any kind
of further deterioration of the situation will influence Georgia
either directly or indirectly. Georgian politicians and analysts are
attentively following developments in the situation. According to
western opinion Iran cannot prove to the international community that
it is not working on the production of nuclear weaponry. Therefore
international organizations have imposed sanctions against Iran. As a
result the threat of possible confrontation between it and the West
is ever increasing. There are two red lines which the United States
has drawn up as margins for Iran. The first is that the USA will
not allow Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz as it is a major route
for transporting oil worldwide. The second is not allowing Iran to
produce its own nuclear weapon.

So far Georgian leadership has not made an official statement on the
situation. It is understandable as Georgia has good relations with
its neighbour Iran but at the same time the USA is Georgia’s major
strategic partner. Of course Georgia is not interested at all in any
kind of military confrontation in the region, as it would be very
difficult to forecast the outcome of any conflict if unleashed.

Opposition representatives are predicting that Georgia will support
the USA in any circumstances and if the US asks it would even allow it
to deploy its military contingent on its territory. But this creates
the threat that Georgia might become a target for Iranian missiles.

There are even speculations that the current process of Saakashvili
opening many small hospitals around the country is in reality a cover
for an American project which envisages using these hospitals in the
event of military mobilization in the region. We repeat however that
these are just rumours.

Some analysts have highlighted yet another possibility. As it is known
Georgia and Iran have a visa free regime between the countries, so in
the event of military conflict a large number of refugees might try to
enter Georgia which would definitely be a very serious problem for the
small country. There is yet another potential threat, this time coming
from the North, as Russia would try to reinforce its position in the
South Caucasus and could demand that Georgia allow the transit of its
military cargo to the Russian military base located in Armenia. It is
clear that Russia will be trying to do its best to prevent American
proliferation in Georgia, however of course it will not be prepared to
directly confront such US moves. Much will depend on the way things
develop in Iran. If conflict does arise and if it only lasts a short
while then this will give the advantage to the US and disadvantage
to Russia, but what if it continues for a longer period of time?

Georgian analysts also think that Saakashvili and his team will almost
certainly use any potential conflict to their advantage. So in that
light a crisis in Iran would definitely influence Georgia’s domestic
as well as foreign politics.

From: A. Papazian

TRIAL PROCESS ‘COMEDY’ – FETHIYE CETIN

Panorama.am
18/01/2012

The ruling on Hrant Dink’s murder angered supporters of Dink who said
the trial failed to shed light on the alleged connections between
the murder and Turkish state officials, Radio Liberty reported.

Dink family’s lawyer, Fethiye Cetin, slammed the ruling, saying it
meant that a “state tradition of political murders” was deliberately
left intact because it did not deal with accusations of state
involvement in the 2007 murder.

“Those who feel uneasy about the state being depicted as killing its
own people — being murderers, assassins — have done nothing to clear
[the state’s] name,” Cetin said. “They have squandered the chance
they had in hand.”

She said the trial failed to shed light on “the darkness” – alleged
connections between the suspects and some state officials.

This case is not over … for us this case is just starting,” said
Cetin, vowing to appeal the verdict and likening the trial process to a
“comedy.”

A panel of judges found Yasin Hayal guilty of instigating Dink’s
killing, and gave him the life term despite a plea by a prosecutor that
the court should sentence seven of the suspects to life in prison,
including Erhan Tuncel – who until now has been portrayed as another
key instigator.

From: A. Papazian