Author: Andres-Papazian

IRELAND TO KEEP PRIORITY OF SETTLING NAGORNO-KARABAKH AS OSCE CHAIRMAN

Vestnik Kavkaza
Jan 12 2012
Russia

OSCE needs to make practical contribution to settling regional
conflicts as one of priorities of the organization, Irish Vice-Premier
Imon Gilmore said, commenting on chairmanship in the OSCE in 2012 at
the first session of the OSCE Permanent Council, Trend reports.

Ireland will set searches for solution of long-lasting conflicts as
another priority of the OSCE in the region.

Gilmore welcomed renewal of negotiations to settle the Transnistria
conflict and offered the OSCE Minsk Group full support to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He also offered support for Georgia within
the framework of the negotiations in Geneva on the conflict of 2008.

From: A. Papazian

HEALING WOUNDS: SEEKING CLOSURE FOR THE 1915 ARMENIAN MASSACRES
Richard Falk & Hilal Elver

MWC News

(Media With Conscience)
Jan 12 2012

Recently the National Assembly, France’s lower legislative chamber,
voted to criminalize the denial of the Armenian genocide in 1915,
imposing a potential prison sentence of up to one year as well as
a maximum fine of 45, 000 Euros. The timing of this controversial
initiative seemed to represent a rather blatant Sarkhozy bid for
the votes of the 500,000 French citizens of Armenian descent in
the upcoming presidential election. It follows similar pre-election
initiatives in 2001 when the French Parliament officially declared that
the massacres of Armenians in 1915 were an instance of genocide and
in 2006 when the Assembly first voted to criminalize Armenian genocide
denial, an initiative that never became law because the French Senate
failed to give its assent. And this hopefully may happen again with
respect to this recent Assembly move.

Predictably, the French action was perceived by Turkey as a hostile
provocation. The Turkish government, which has so far refused to
describe the 1915 events as ‘genocide,’ immediately reacted, warning
France of adverse economic consequences if this initiative went
forward, and has reacted by withdrawing its ambassador and freezing
inter-governmental economic relations. The Turkish Prime Minister,
Recip Teyyip Erdogan, denounced the action of the French Assembly that
had been initiated by a prominent member of Sarkhozy’s party. Erdogan,
known for his forthrightness, advised the French Government that
instead of criminalizing the Turkish unwillingness to acknowledge the
1915 events as genocide, France should busy itself with determining
whether its harsh tactics used during the 1950s in Algeria, and
supposedly responsible for up to a million Algerian deaths during
the long French campaign to hold onto to its north African colony
constituted genocide.

There are many issues raised by this turn for the worse in
French-Turkish relations, and its embittering dialogue about
historic events. Perhaps, the most important, is whether it is ever
justifiable to criminalize the expression of an opinion about a set
of past occurrences that goes against a societal consensus. It is
true that genocide or Holocaust denial can be hurtful to those who
are survivors or descendants of survivors, and identify with the
victims of such severe wrongdoing, and its attendant suffering,
but whether the sensitivities of these communities should ever
be protected by the criminal law seems doubtful, conflicting with
freedom of expression and censuring inquiries into historical events
that are unpopular and controversial, but occasionally illuminating
enough to challenge conventional wisdom. It would seem that informed
agreement and social pressure should be sufficient to deter all but
the most extremist instances of denial if a genuine and sufficient
consensus exists as to the locus of responsibility and the character
of the events. In this instance, such criminalization is especially
unfortunate as even if the facts of the 1915 events are reasonably
well established, the relevance of genocide is certainly ambiguous
and somewhat problematic, especially from a legal perspective.

Against this background, where Turkey has not yet been willing to
describe the events of 1915 as ‘genocide’ the criminalization of
the denial is more likely to raise tensions that encourage a long
overdue accommodation. Of course, there are related irritants to the
Turkish-Armenian relationship, especially the unresolved conflict
over the future of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave in Azerbaijan. Among
thoughtful Turks there continues to be some questioning of the
character of the World War I events in question, not about their
tragic character or even a willingness to condemn Ottoman wrongdoing,
but there remains a Turkish governmental and societal reluctance to
pin the label of genocide on these occurrences. It is well known that
the Armenian diaspora has long been seeking to induce key governments
around the world to make formal declarations to the effect that what
happened in 1915 was genocide, and some 25 governments have done
so, as have many lesser political entities such as sub-divisions
of the state or cities. Such efforts to legalize historical truth,
as distinct from mourning historical events, is itself

a political gimmick to circumvent diplomacy and accommodation. But to
criminalize genocidal denial represents a still further escalation
of Armenian efforts to resolve the controversy over this potent
g-word through branding of denial as a crime. We would insist that
rather than resolving the conflict, such steps make a politics of
reconciliation that much more difficult for both parties.

The discourse on genocide has always been confusing, multi-layered, and
often toxic. The word ‘genocide’ is weighted down by its implications,
explaining both why there is such a strong impulse to invoke it
and an equally intense effort to deny its applicability. We need
to distinguish genocide as a crime in international law from the
political assessment of historic events as genocide due to a clear
pattern of deliberate killing of an ethnic or religious group. And
such a political assessment needs to be further distinguished from a
moral condemnation of a pattern designed to destroy systematically a
beleaguered minority that might properly be described as ‘genocidal,’
or what has been more recently described as ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the
setting of Bosnia, which is distinct from the judicially certified
‘genocide’ that shook the foundations of Rwanda in 1994.

>From a legal perspective it is not plausible to call these events
in 1915 as genocide. After all, the word did not exist until coined
by Rafael Lemkin in 1943, and the crime was not so delimited until
the Genocide Convention came into force in 1951. Beyond this, and
more telling than this technical observation, is the fact that the
indictments at Nuremberg did not charge the surviving Nazi leaders with
genocide, but convicted these Germans of ‘crimes against humanity’
for their connection with genocidal conduct, and even here only if
the alleged criminal acts were associated with World War II, found
by the tribunal to be an unlawful war, and thus a ‘crime against
peace.’ If the Holocaust perpetrated against Jews and others did not
seem to the Nuremberg tribunal to be a distinct crime, then it seems
untenable to regard the Armenian tragedy as embodying the crime of
genocide. When the UN expert body, the International Law Commission,
put into words what was done at Nuremberg it explicitly affirmed the
Roman dictum prohibiting retroactivity: no crime without law (nulla
crimen sine lege). Such a dictum touches on a fundamental component
of justice to the effect that behavior, however detestable from moral
and political points of view, is not a ‘crime’ until so designated in
advance of the acts in question by a competent judicial body. This
principle has never been contested, and it pertains to the genocide
debate whenever attached to pre-1951 events, whether the Armenian
experience or to the destruction of a variety of indigenous peoples in
various parts of the world or to the barbarous institution of slavery.

At the same time, if what took place in 1915 were to have occurred
anytime after the Genocide Convention became effective, it would seem
beyond any reasonable doubt to qualify as genocide. The International
Court of Justice in the course of examining the Bosnian allegations
of genocide, put the bar high by requiring written or documentary
evidence of a clear intent by Serbian governmental leaders to commit
the crime of genocide that was not available (except the particular
incident involving the horrific massacre of several thousand Bosnian
males at Srbrenica in 1995 was declared to be genocide). While such
evidence was difficult to provide to the satisfaction of the World
Court in relation to this notorious Bosnian experience of the 1990s
partly as a result of a questionable arrangement with the ad hoc
International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia not to release
documentary evidence tying the Belgrade regime to the anti-Muslim
cleansing operations in Bosnia, the situation with respect to Armenia
is different. Unlike Bosnia, documentary evidence from the ruling
Ottoman authorities does exist in sufficient quantity and quality to
make a persuasive argument to the effect that ‘genocide’ took place
in 1915, but because the events occurred 36 years before genocide
formally became a crime such a showing is legally irrelevant.

If this reasoning is accepted, it has important implications,
including establishing some political space for bringing closure to
the issue: Turkey could formally declare that if what happened to the
Armenians in 1915 took place in the 1960s it would have been genocide,
while those on the Armenian side could accept the idea that the 1915
massacres were not then genocide, but that their extent, character,
and evidence would constitute genocide if taking place now, or anytime
after 1951. The French move, if indeed it becomes law, is irresponsible
in the extreme as it disallows the explorations of constructive ways
that the violence and suffering of the past might be mitigated. As
post-apartheid South Africa has illustrated, it might sometimes be
politically and morally preferable for a victimized people to opt for
‘truth and reconciliation’ than to insist on the criminalization of
past wrongs however heinous.

It seems to me that such an approach would have mutual benefits. It
would bring a conflict that has endured for decades nearer to closure.

It would allow Armenians to regard their victimization as genocide
from a political and moral perspective, while enabling Turkey to make
such a concession without fearing such legal implications as Armenian
demands for reparations and the recovery of lost property. Turkish
good faith and remorse could be further expressed by appropriating
funds for the establishment of a major museum of Armenian History
and Culture in Ankara, by recognizing April 24th as a day of Armenian
remembrance, and by encouraging honest historical inquiry into these
horrific occurrences.

Of course, such a politics of reconciliation can only have any hope
of succeeding if there is a large display of good will and a sincere
search by Turkish and Armenian leaders for positive relations between
the two peoples. It is to be expected that extremists on both sides
would strenuously object to such an accommodation. Admittedly,
there would not be complete satisfaction even among that largely
silent majority of Armenians and Turks who might welcome a pacifying
development. What would be created is valuable- a new opening that
would allow a more benevolent future to unfold for both peoples that
could include a joint cathartic reexamination of the past. Such a
development might add to the solemnity and dignity of the expected
worldwide observances in 2015 of the 100th anniversary of these events
and avoid these occasions from being little more than sad remembrances
and shrill recriminations.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA KEEPS INTEREST RATE STABLE AFTER INFLATION ENDS 2011 WITHIN TARGET RANGE
BY: Venla Sipila

Global Insight
January 11, 2012

The Central Bank of Armenia (CBA) has in its January meeting decided
to maintain its key refinancing rate unchanged at 8.0%, Reuters
reports. This was the fourth consecutive month in which the CBA
has refrained from rate revisions, after the policy rate had been
cut in September, after consumer price inflation had eased to the
target range. The latest interest rate decision came after December
inflation data from the Armenian National Statistical Service had
shown that prices ended 2011 with an increase of 4.7% year-on-year
(y/y) in December.

While annual inflation remained virtually stable compared with the
November rate of 4.8% y/y, month-on-month (m/m) inflation in December
accelerated to 2.5%. These rates brought the annual average inflation
rate for 2011 as a whole to 7.7%, just marginally above our latest
forecast of 7.6%. Food prices posted the highest again in 2011 as a
whole and also in December, the respective growth rates reported at
12.3% and 6.1% y/y. Meanwhile, prices of non-food goods rose by 3.4%
on average last year, while ending the year with an annual gain of
4.3%. Finally, service prices increased by 3.6% on average last year,
and by 2.9% cumulatively until December.

Significance:Armenian inflation ended 2011 comfortably within the
CBA’s target range of 1.5 percentage points on either side of 4%. A
key factor in suppressing inflation pressures was the recovery of
agricultural harvest, which prevented food prices from rising faster.

Demand pressures at present remain fairly weak, and inflation should
remain well in the target range in the coming months and quarters.

However, this outlook comes with major uncertainty. Global commodity
prices still remain very high, at the same time as risks to the
overall global economy signal threat to important remittance inflows to
Armenia. Should these markedly deteriorate, the potential for inflation
pressures from the exchange rate channel would increase, as a weaker
dram would lift the cost of imports measured in domestic currency.

From: A. Papazian

FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED: “ALL OF US ARE HRANT DINK”

12.01.12, 17:16

January 19, 2012 is the fifth anniversary of murder of Armenian-Turkish
journalist, editor of the “Akos” weekly Hrant Dink.

According to Turkish media Dink’s friends are going to hold a march
to the place where he was killed, at the editorial office of “Akos”
weekly. Dink’s friends have also released an announcement on the issue.

The announcement especially says:

“On January 19, 2007 Hrant Dink was killed. Five years have passed but
no one can convince us that this murder was planned and fulfilled just
by two-three people. People who warned Dink, who ordered his murder
now have thrown the whole responsibility from their shoulders and now
mock our pain. We do not want the predicted judge process, we do not
want to see the punishment of the people who have just shot at Dink.

We have more to do. Every person who has a conscience have lived with
a great pain during these five years. If we forget about this we will
kill our friend once more, we will let new murders take place.

We must come together and must claim “this court trial will end then
we consider it is ended”.

Even if 95 years are passed all of us are Hrant, all of us are
Armenians.

We are Hrant’s friends, we are for Hrant”, the announcement says.

Remind that Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink was killed on
January 19, 2007. 17 years old Oygun Samast was arrested as he was
suspended in the murder. He was sentenced with 21 years old on summer,
2011. Court trial on Dink’s murder is continued till now.

From: A. Papazian

HRAYR MKOYAN SIGNS DEAL WITH SPARTAK

Panorama.am
12/01/2012

Defender of Armenia’s national football team Hrayr Mkoyan has signed
a deal with Spartak Nalchik, according to the official site of UEFA.

The Armenian footballer has signed a 6 month contract with the Russian
football club, with a possible extension of 2 years.

From: A. Papazian

FORECASTS ON DASHNAKTSUTYUN RETURNING TO COALITION ARE PROPAGANDA: SEYRANYAN

epress.am
01.12.2012

Sociologist Aharon Adibekyan’s forecast that Dashnaktsutyun (Armenian
Revolutionary Federation, or ARF-D) might return to the ruling
coalition in the parliamentary elections is simply propaganda with
which, in connection with the public’s different ideas or approaches,
tries to evoke a confusing situation, former Minister of Education
and Science, ARF-D member Spartak Seyranyan told Epress.am.

“I’m not preparing to comment or explain what assumptions, ideas,
approaches or opinions some researcher, political analyst or
sociologist has about possible developments in Armenian politics,”
he said.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA OUTSTRIPPED ITS NEIGHBORS ON NUCLEAR-WEAPON SAFETY

NEWS.am
January 12, 2012 | 16:22

Armenia has outstripped its neighbors on nuclear-weapon safety,
American Nuclear Threat Initiative NGO made the rating together with
Economist Intelligence Unit Company.

The rating features how nuclear materials are preserved in 176 states.

It is divided into two groups-states, which have just 1 kg or more
of such material (32 states) and those which have less than 1 kg or
do not have it at all (144 states).

The rating was based on several factors including domestic nuclear
materials security legislation, safeguards adoption and compliance,
political stability and pervasiveness of corruption.

Armenia shared the 17th position with Portugal in the second group
and was the securest state in the region. Georgia was the 30th,
Turkey 36th and Azerbaijan 44th. The group headed Finland, Denmark
and Spain and closed Zimbabwe, Congo and Somali.

Iran is included in the first group occupying the 30th position. It
yields only to Pakistan and South Korea on danger degree.

Russia, acquiring more than 500 tons of nuclear material appeared in
the 24th position due to its high level of corruption.

The safest nuclear-weapon states are Australia, Hungary and Czech
Republic.

From: A. Papazian

FRANCE’S SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS TO BACK BILL PENALIZING THE DENIAL OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

ARMENPRESS
JANUARY 12, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JANUARY 12, ARMENPRESS: French socialists and communists will
vote for the bill penalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide. The
discussion of the bill is scheduled at the France’s Senate January 23.

Citing Nouvelles d’Armenie, Armenpress reports that it was stated
by the heads of the executive committees of the two parties Francois
Rebsamen and Nicole Borvo Cohen Seat.

“The majority of the socialists will back the bill but the members
of the party who will not want to vote for it will be free in their
choice,” Rebsamen stated. He also stressed that the bill has no
relation to commemoration but relates to current reality and for
Armenians, it is a document of justice.

“Our party will back the bill and we will do it all as one,” leader
of communists Nicole Borvo Cohen stated.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIA CANNOT BE PERSUADED TO JOIN SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN – ARMENIAN EXPERT

NEWS.am
January 12, 2012 | 12:23

YEREVAN.- Western states realize that they cannot oblige Armenia to
joint the sanctions against Iran, expert in Oriental studies Mher
Baghdasaryan told journalists on Thursday.

He recalled that Armenia is a direct neighbor of Iran and has good
relations with the Islamic Republic. Moreover, Iran is the main
direction enabling Armenia step out of the blockade organized by Turkey
and Azerbaijan, as the border with Georgia is “more fragile,” he said.

According to Baghdasaryan, consequences of sanctions imposed against
Tehran are already visible for Armenia. Taking into account the above
mentioned facts, Western powers realize it is impossible to persuade
Armenia to close border with Iran and joint the sanctions.

Commenting on likelihood of a military operation against Iran, the
expert said it would first of all bring a huge flow of refugees.

Hostilities can also make Azerbaijan take certain steps in the Karabakh
conflict zone.

From: A. Papazian

POUCHKINE ET SON DOUBLE

La Croix

11 janv 2012

TROIS GEANTS. Les biographies de Pouchkine, Dostoïevski et Gorki
Henri Troyat
Omnibus , 1308 pages , 28 ~@

TROIS GEANTS. Les biographies de Pouchkine, Dostoïevski et Gorki
d’Henri Troyat. Editions Omnibus, 1 308 p., 28 ~@

Henri Troyat (1911-2007) fut grand ecrivain et immense biographe.

D’ascendance armenienne, ne a Moscou, fuyant avec ses parents la
Revolution bolchevique, il n’eut de cesse, sa vie durant, de creuser
les grands destins de la Russie et d’offrir au public francais,
qui en fit son ecrivain prefere, des ouvrages d’une grande aisance
et d’une parfaite lisibilite.

Cinq ans après sa mort, les editeurs de la collection Omnibus ont
eu l’idee de regrouper trois des meilleures biographies, trois des
meilleurs livres peut-etre d’Henri Troyat. Car il y met, au service
de ses ” heros ” reels, le brio du raconteur d’histoires.

Nul besoin d’inventer des personnages de fiction quand se presentent
a notre contemplation et a notre imaginaire, sur la duree d’un siècle,
des vies aussi extraordinaires que celles de Pouchkine, de Dostoïevski
et de Gorki. La plus achevee, la plus complète, la plus volumineuse
de ces trois biographies est celle de Pouchkine (776 pages serrees !),
ecrite en 1946.

Troyat dit, pour resumer l’influence de Pouchkine sur la litterature
de son pays, qu’il se sera tenu ” au seuil ” de cette litterature,
comme s’il en avait detenu les cles. Avec pour mission d’ouvrir
toutes grandes les portes aux genies, immenses aussi, qui viendraient
après lui.

Henri Troyat ecrit : ” Au seuil de la litterature russe, sombre,
prophetique et tourmentee, il y a cet homme aureole de joie. À la
veille du realisme caricatural de Gogol, du nihilisme artistique de
Tourgueniev, de la haine contre la civilisation de Tolstoï, de la
propension aux tortures mystiques de Dostoïevski, a la veille de
toute cette bile, de tout ce sang, de toute cette obscurite et de
ces souffrances, il y a Pouchkine et son etonnante gaiete. ”

N’en deplaise au souvenir de Troyat, il est etrange qu’il mette en
exergue cette ” gaiete ” alors que son livre met plutôt en evidence
la gravite contradictoire d’une ~uvre profuse et la legèrete d’une
existence de polisson insupportable.

Mais va pour la gaiete si l’on veut parler de la lumière repandue sur
la pauvre terre russe, contre les forces de l’obscurantisme d’Etat
et de culture, contre une religion empesee dans la noirceur de la
culpabilite humaine. Car il est vrai, la biographie le demontre
a chaque page, qu’il y eut en Pouchkine, malgre sa courte vie
(1799-1837), une lutte constante entre deux personnes.

Comme une oscillation entre l’aspiration a la liberte et les tentations
de la futilite. Entre le liberalisme inspire des Lumières et le
souci de ne point deplaire trop aux autocrates (les deux tsars qui
dominèrent sa vie et sa carrière). Entre la claire conscience du
malheur du peuple russe et les brillances des mondanites.

Le poète resuma lui-meme sa division intime et insoluble lorsqu’il
ecrivit, quelques annees avant sa mort (il ne pouvait pas deviner
qu’elle viendrait si tôt), en une phrase terrible de lucidite :
” Le diable m’a pousse a naître en Russie, avec une âme et du
talent. ” Et dans quelle Russie ! Celle des tsars Alexandre Ier puis,
a partir de 1825, Nicolas Ier , autocrates chacun a sa manière et
tenant Pouchkine, repere dès le lycee, dans leurs rets. Avec pour
le second une manière de despotisme suave vis-a-vis du grand poète
qu’il redoutait, appreciait et meprisait.

D’où une duplicite d’Etat qui exilait Pouchkine ou le rappelait a
la cour au gre des circonstances, en faisant un prisonnier prefere,
surveille par toutes les polices de l’Empire, nomme cependant ”
gentilhomme de la chambre ” – promotion ressentie comme humiliante.

Tout cela destine non a honorer Pouchkine mais a le tenir en laisse
pour l’empecher de nuire et d’affaiblir la monarchie.

Il y avait deux Pouchkine. L’homme de plume, inspire, prolifique,
ouvrant au peuple russe, on l’a dit, les portes d’une litterature
sortie des mythes anciens et en creant de nouveaux (Eugène Oneguine ,
Boris Godounov , La Dame de pique ). En face, le devergonde, polisson,
hantant salons et maisons de passe, endette, invivable, flirtant avec
toutes les femmes et finissant par se marier, en 1831, avec la plus
belle d’entre elles, Natalia Gontcharova, pour son bonheur et pour
son malheur.

Henri Troyat resume : ” S’il avait agi comme il ecrivait, Pouchkine eût
ete un personnage heureux et calme. S’il avait ecrit comme il agissait,
il eût ete un auteur romantique, echevele, pueril et prolixe. Mais
il sut etre double. ” Il sut ou il dut.

Documentee et lyrique, bourree de citations de lettres et de journaux
intimes (on s’ecrivait beaucoup), la biographie de Pouchkine est aussi
une introduction a sa poesie via les belles traductions proposees
par Troyat lui-meme. C’est un monument qui s’achève, par l’agonie
du poète a la suite d’un duel idiot, par des pages magnifiques,
pathetiques et baignant dans une lumière sombre.

From: A. Papazian