Author: Andres-Papazian

ARMENIE-UNION ECONOMIQUE EURASIANNE
Sergueï Lavrov s’est entretenu avec son homologue arménien Edouard
Nalbandian pour l’entrée officiel de l’Arménie au sein de l’UEE

Le ministre Russe des Affaires étrangères Sergueï Lavrov a dans un
appel téléphonique le 2 janvier avec son homologue arménien Edouard
Nalbandian, salué l’entrée officielle de l’Arménie au sein de l’Union
Economique Eurasienne. Lors de l’entretien les deux hommes ont évoqué
un certain nombre de problèmes qui restaient à régler. L’Arménie a
signé officiellement le document de son adhésion à l’UEE en octobre
2014 en compagnie de la Russie, du Belarus et du Kazakhstan. C’est
donc officiellement le 2 janvier 2015 que l’Arménie a intégré l’Union
Economique Eurasienne chère au président Russe Vladimir Poutine.

Krikor Amirzayan

samedi 3 janvier 2015,
Krikor Amirzayan (c)armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIE-TRANSPORTS
Croissance du flux de transport ferroviaire et maritime entre
l’Arménie et le port de Poti

En 2014 les transports maritimes de marchandises en direction de
l’Arménie ou vers l’exportation ont marqué un accroissement, selon
Victor Rebetz, le directeur des >. Les
rencontres de sa société avec la direction du port de Poti (Géorgie)
furent régulières ces derniers mois. Au mois d’octobre 90 wagons a
destination de l’Arménie furent transporté via le port de Poti. > note V. Rebetz qui rappelle que
cette croissance des flux de marchandises transportés profite à
l’Arménie ainsi qu’à la Géorgie. Rappelons que la société > concessionnaire depuis 2008 des chemins de fer
d’Arménie, est une filiale de la compagnie russe >.

Krikor Amirzayan

jeudi 1er janvier 2015,
Krikor Amirzayan (c)armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

David Barsamian: Young People Don’t Pay Attention to the US Corporate Media

Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:41

TEHRAN (FNA)- David Barsamian, a leading Armenian-American radio
journalist, believes that as a result of the good performance of
alternative press, the young Americans don’t pay attention to the
propaganda of the corporate, mainstream media anymore.

David Barsamian, who is the founder and director of Alternative Radio
broadcast from Boulder, Colorado, tells Fars News Agency that the
journalists in the United States don’t need to be censored or
monitored by the government, because they are accustomed to a
full-fledged self-censorship.

Mr. Barsamian says that the US government orchestrated a large project
of media propaganda against its own people to rationalize and justify
its illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq: “[o]f course the case of Iraq is
very instructive because it’s almost like a textbook example of the
uses of propaganda.”

“The population here in the United States was subjected to months and
months of propaganda and the great danger that it posed to the United
States; that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to events of
September 11, and that he was somehow connected to the Al-Qaeda; all
of these things were completely ludicrous and anyone that knew
anything about West Asia and the history of Iraq and Saddam regime
would have laughed at these assertions,” he noted.

David Barsamian is a radio broadcaster, writer and journalist who has
conducted series of extensive, in-depth interviews with prominent
progressive intellectuals and thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, Edward
Said, Howard Zinn, Eqbal Ahmad and Arundhati Roy. His radio program is
broadcast on more than 150 radio stations across the United States and
in other countries. The Institute for Alternative Journalism named Mr.
Barsamian one of its “Top Ten Media Heroes.”

To discuss the workings of the mainstream, corporate media in the
United States, the relationship between the White House and the mass
media and the growing influence of the alternative media, FNA spoke to
David Barsamian on the phone. The interview was conducted long before
the US declared removal of the sanctions and normalization of ties
with Cuba and, interestingly, Barsamian has a note to make in this
regard. The following is the full transcript of the interview.

Q: My first question is on the growth of progressive media in the
United States. Why do you think the corporate media that are owned by
multinational companies are pushing for an aggressive US foreign
policy, advocating for new wars, military expeditions and trying to
entangle the US government into new military adventures? How is it
possible to counter such an approach taken by these corporate,
mainstream media?

A: Well, I wouldn’t agree with your premise that it’s the media
corporations that are the catalysts for the US imperialist foreign
policy. It’s the other military corporations that have a much more
major influence. The media play two roles in the United States. We
have two types of media here. One is a Weapon of Mass Destruction to
keep people’s attention focused on the latest divorce in Hollywood,
the marriage or the adoption of a Malawi baby and things like that.
Then we have an elite media, which is the New York Times, National
Public Radio, PBS, the Washington Post and other journals like that in
general which support US interventions based on the feeling that the
United States has a unique role to play in the world that no other
nation can substitute for what the United States can do
internationally. So the military corporations such as Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman, Boeing, United Technologies, Raytheon and all the
others benefit greatly from the US militarism, conflict and war. The
Middle East, your part of the world and West Asia are flooded with US
arms. Hardly a month doesn’t go by when there is some new arms deal
negotiated between these military corporations and United Arab
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other feudal Persian Gulf
monarchies.

Q: You know that the majority of mainstream and elite media, as you
put it, claim to be independent of the government and maintain that
their editorial policies are not influenced by the authorities and
those in power. Is it really the case that PBS, CNN, New York Times,
Washington Post and NPR are free and independent outlets that
contribute to the free flow of information regardless of what is
dictated to them?

A: Well, the rhetoric of course is that the corporate media are
adversarial, confrontational, and even hostile to state power. But the
evidence doesn’t support that. They have embedded an internalized
basic assumption such as the belief that the capitalist economic
system is the only way you can organize an economy. They accept the
role that the US has a right to intervene everywhere in the world, to
have military bases anywhere in the world, to declare its interest
anywhere in the world. They accept all of these things. They have
internalized these embedded assumptions. And now the only disagreement
they have is over tactics. I give you one example. The United States
has imposed a unilateral embargo on the island nation of Cuba in the
Caribbean for well over 50 years. It’s routinely condemned in the
United Nations by votes of 191-2, the two beings the United States and
Israel. No other country supports this. Now, the New York Times, which
is our best newspaper, had an editorial just a few days back,
criticizing the Cuban embargo as now largely ineffective; that it is
just window-dressing and that it is time for the embargo to end. New
York Times supported the embargo for many many years and now that it
sees it as ineffective, it’s recommending that the Obama
administration end the embargo. So that’s the kind of a discussion
that exists between the corporate and state. They criticize the
tactics but not the strategy. So embargos are fine, unilateral actions
by the United States are fine; but then occasionally, they are
criticized as not being effective or being too extreme, for example.
There are so many instances of this that I can talk about for the next
three days. There’s an enormous amount of hypocrisy between what the
media claim to be doing and what they are actually doing. They are
pro-imperialist, they are pro-capitalist, they are pro-US hegemony,
and none of this has changed since the United States has become the
global superpower.

Q: How does the US government respond to the unpopular stories run by
newspapers and magazines, including the intelligence and security
revelations or articles and commentaries that are critical of the
White House and Pentagon? What about the alternative media’s coverage
of the daily events and their reaction to the government’s handling of
the current affairs? We haven’t seen cases of American newspapers
being closed down or banned because of publishing what the White House
people dislike, but they certainly have their own instruments of
controlling the mass media and punishing the “wrongdoers.” Am I right?

A: Well; the answer to the first part of your question is that, state
largely ignores the alternative media; it doesn’t pay attention to it,
but occasionally, it has to, as in the case with Julian Assange and
Wikileaks; as in the case with Edward Snowden and the vast amount of
information that he has made available to the people of the world in a
very courageous act of independence and media freedom. So in those
instances, in fact, the government tried to control the flow of
information, claiming that national security was at stake and the
media corporations should cooperate. Occasionally, the government has
imposed censorship on different media during the release of the
Pentagon papers, for example, when the Nixon administration tried to
block the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing, but
the Supreme Court ruled that the public had a right to know, and that
this was an interference with the freedom of the press and so the
Pentagon papers were in fact released.

In other instances, I know of one in Guatemala when the US was
preparing to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Jacobo
Arbenz, the New York Times cooperated in not publishing the
information it had that the US was going to stage a coup in Guatemala.
There are other examples of this, but basically they don’t have to
impose rigid restrictions on journalists and editors, because the
journalists and editors censor themselves. They are part of the power
elite and part of the problem, and so they know the boundaries; they
know the redlines; they know what can be reported on, and what can’t
be reported on. So, to give you an example of the catastrophic war in
Iraq, I just heard yesterday on Democracy Now, which is an alternative
news program here in the United States, that is based in New York,
Phil Donahue was on – he is considered a liberal TV and radio talk
show host – he said the Iraq War was a blunder. This is the limit of
liberal criticism; it can be called a mistake, a tragedy, a blunder.

Just today, George W. Bush was interviewed on National Public Radio,
and there was no question asking him if he should be indicted for war
crimes and brought before the International Criminal Court for
violating Iraq’s sovereignty on multiple occasions. Well, according to
liberals like Phil Donahue, this was a blunder. But I have to
disagree. This wasn’t a blunder. It was a war crime and the people
responsible should be held accountable. We should have universal norms
of justice. You cannot accuse one state of violating the sovereignty
of another state; for example, the United States has taken a very
virtuous position on Russian intervention in Ukraine and the
annexation of Crimea, which was part of the Soviet Union until 1954
when the then Ukrainian Prime Minister gave Crimea to Ukraine. So,
that kind of intervention is considered illegal, criminal and has to
be condemned, but when Israel invades or bombs other countries like
Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Lebanon and continues to occupy the West Bank
and carry out major human rights violations and war crimes, that’s not
considered worthy of attention by whoever is in the White House and
none of the corporate media here report on these vast contradictions
and hypocrisies. We don’t need censors in this country. We censor
ourselves.

Q: So, do you think that these mainstream, corporate media are playing
a role in paving the way for the US military adventures?

A: They legitimize US intervention. They legitimize the capitalist
economic system. They legitimize US hegemony and the fact that the
United States has 735 military bases around the world. Many of them
are in your part of the world, i.e. West Asia. That is the societal
function of the media to provide the state with legitimacy and
propagandistic base so that the citizenry and the American people will
go along with the policies.

Q: What’s your viewpoint about the role the media in the United States
played in explicating the tragedy that played out on September 11,
2001 to the American people and giving rise to the Global War on
Terror? There were massive demonstrations across the United States in
the run-up to the occupation of Iraq and after that. There were also
protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, but the Bush
administration didn’t pay attention to them and went ahead with its
plans for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think that the media
in the United States could play a role in preventing the two wars from
happening?

A: Of course the case of Iraq is very instructive because it’s almost
like a textbook example of the uses of propaganda. The population here
in the United States was subjected to months and months of propaganda
and the great danger that it posed to the United States; that Saddam
Hussein was somehow connected to events of September 11, and that he
was somehow connected to the Al-Qaeda; all of these things were
completely ludicrous and anyone that knew anything about West Asia and
the history of Iraq and Saddam regime would have laughed at these
assertions. But they have a huge effect on the population and even
though there were demonstrations against the launching of the war on
February 15, 2003 – there were demonstrations all over the world,
including in the United States, but Tony Blair – let’s not forget him,
he is a major war criminal – he, along with Aznar of Spain and Bush in
Washington led the charge against Iraq and the consequences of that
criminal action are being borne today by the Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian
people and the people of the Persian Gulf. It was not a mistake or
blunder, but a war crime, and the people responsible for it should be
held accountable.

Let’s talk about Iran, about your country. The United States media has
been for many years conducting a virulent and incessant campaign of
the demonization of Iran largely goaded by Israeli interests who see
Iran as some kind of existential threat to Israel. So there has been
lots of negative reporting on Iran in the corporate media here, and
whenever Iran is discussed, it’s always in negative terms: Iran
refuses; Iran denies; Iran is not forthcoming; Iran is not living up
to the IAEA treaty stipulation. One should say the United States is
not living up to the IAEA stipulations. One of those stipulations is
that it should be actively reducing its nuclear weapons stockpile. Our
great President Barack Obama recently announced a $1 trillion, 30-year
plan to modernize US nuclear weapons. It’s in direct violation of the
NPT. We know that Israel has nuclear weapons. We know that India has
nuclear weapons. We know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. They are
not signatories to the NPT and are not being held accountable, but
Iran which is a signatory and which has been engaging in negotiation
is being held out for special criticism. Again, the hypocrisy here is
absolutely mind-boggling.

Q: I was about to touch upon Iran before you talked about it. The
portrayal of Iran in the Western mainstream media is really lopsided
and biased. Whenever there’s talk of Iran in an American TV station,
they show footages of a vast desert with camels running in them. They
simply equate Iran with the Arab nations of the region and never
screen anything about Iran’s glorious past, its ancient culture and
the contribution of the great Iranian poets, scientists and scholars
to the global civilization. Why is it so?

A: Well, people who are exposed to alternative media, like my program,
and others such as Z Magazine, The Progressive and The Nation, have a
different view of Iran from that which is laid out in the corporate
media. This view, as you say, largely rests upon clichés and
stereotypes about Iran and all the orientalist types of thinking which
Edward Said brilliantly deconstructed in his classic work Orientalism,
as well as in his Culture and Imperialism. So, the little information
the general public gets about Iran is all negative, but there are a
lot of other people who are tuned to the alternative media and
understand that Iran is in fact a very old, ancient and rich
civilization; you mentioned the great poetry. For example, Ahmad
Shamlu, when he died a couple of years ago, thousands of people
marched in his honor in Tehran. I visited his grave in Karaj. There
were people honoring him, leaving flowers at his grave. The Iranian
cinema is one of the world’s best, and many Europeans, American,
Canadian and Latin American people enjoy the great movies produced by
the Iranian filmmakers.

Q: How do you think it is possible to counter the hegemony of the
corporate media in the United States and elsewhere? How is it possible
to forge new channels for getting people exposed to the realities that
are withheld and concealed from them?

A: Well, that’s happening right now. The growth of the internet and
social media and all the new websites – Glenn Greenwald has a great
website called The Intercept, that was actually funded by an
Iranian-American Pierre Omidyar, the founder of the eBay, and very
good journalists such as Jeremy Scahill are writing excellent articles
there about the different aspects of the economic situation of the
world, the environmental crisis, the US foreign policy and military
interventions. Al-Jazeera has made an impact here in the United States
with its reporting. Al-Monitor is very good. There are all kinds of
good websites, radio programs and TV programs that are countering of
the hegemony of the dominant, corporate media. The good news is that
more and more young people are not paying attention to the corporate
media here in the United States. They understand that it’s garbage and
propaganda and there’s nothing of value there. So they are looking for
their independent sources.

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari

From: A. Papazian

Armenian soldier knows value of service for fatherland – defense official

13:01 * 02.01.15

In an interview with Tert.am, a spokesperson for the Ministry of
Defense commented upon the Armenian military’s achievements and losses
of 2014, praising the Armenian soldier’s devotion and love.

“We win because we are just, and we will win because our soldier
realizes the value of the service to his fatherland,” Vardan Avetisyan
said.

He also praised the collaboration with the media, which he said helped
reveal the Armed Forces’ excellent fighting capacity during the
skirmishes along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border in August, as well as
the military command’s high trust and the soldiers’ heroism for the
protection of every inch of land.

“Our people gave a fair evaluation to the numerous victories, duly
appreciating their valorous soldiers.

“Glory to all the guys who died and to their parents who, in their
gravest grief, intrinsically feel proud for their sons killed for the
fatherland,” he said, further extending his New Year greetings to the
Armenian nation, especially the soldiers serving in the frontline and
their commanders.

“What unites us all is the fatherland, no matter where they are. I
wish the Armenian people strength, spirit, solidarity and tolerance to
the benefit of strengthening our fatherland,” Avetisyan added.

From: A. Papazian

The Settlement of Musa Dagh Armenians in Anjar, Lebanon, 1939-1941

Friday, January 2nd, 2015

BY VAHRAM L. SHEMMASSIAN

This year marks the 75th anniversary of Anjar, home to Musa Dagh
Armenians situated in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley at an altitude of 950 m.
along the Beirut-Damascus highway, near the Syrian border. What was
the genesis of this unique Armenian rural town? What challenges did it
face during its infancy (1939-1941)? These are the two main questions
that this article addresses.

It all started in the Sanjak of Alexandretta/Iskenderun, an autonomous
province within Syria between the two World Wars. Its inhabitants
included a significant number of Armenian natives and refugees, among
them the indigenous population of Musa Dagh. A political crisis
beginning in 1936 shook Sanjak society to its core, as winds of change
from the French mandate to Turkish suzerainty increasingly caused
panic. The turmoil grew to alarming proportions for the Arabs,
Alawites, and Christians when a farcical election in 1938 installed a
Turkish majority in the Sanjak’s legislature. A year later Turkey
annexed the area. This was the final straw that compelled the
overwhelming majority of Armenians, among other groups, to seek refuge
in other parts of Syria as well as in Lebanon, apprehensive of Turkish
rule. The exodus from Musa Dagh took place before the 23 July 1939
annexation. The refugees temporarily settled in the open at Ras
al-Basit, between Kesab and Latakia, until a permanent home could be
found for them.

The Turkish Government asked the French not to install the Armenian
refugees near the Syrian-Turkish border. The French obliged, and
considered several options including, but not limited to, four
possible settlement sites in Lebanon: 1) in the mountains overlooking
Tripoli, especially around the villages of Sir and Bakhune; 2) in the
district of Hermel, along the Orontes River; 3) in the west of
Baalbek, around the villages of Shemestar, Hadith, and Budaye; 4) in
south Lebanon, in the foothills of Hermon, between the cities of
Marjaayun and Rashaya. Among those places Hermel was regarded as the
most suitable one not only because of the available land, but also
because the Armenians “would constitute a moderating element and a
factor of appeasement, in a corner which troubles, permanently, the
dissentions between Christians and non-Christians.” But for various
reasons, none of these places was selected.

The French High Commission of Syria and Lebanon ultimately negotiated
with a retired Turkish military officer named Rushdi Hoja Tuma, who
owned a 1,540 hectare domain at a place called Anjar in the Bekaa
Valley. Although Rushdi Bey demanded a prohibitively-high price for
his property, he was willing to accept, out of “patriotic sentiments,”
an “important reduction” if the Turkish government asked him to. The
land was purchased at a reduced price.

The relocation from Ras al-Basit to Anjar took place from 3-16
September. The refugees were shipped to Tripoli and thence entrained
to Riyaq, where a local Armenian reception team offered food, fruit,
and refreshments. From Riyaq they were transported aboard trucks to
their final destination of Anjar. This was an inhospitable
terrain–rocky, swampy, and thorny, with scorching summers and freezing
winters. But having no other choice under the circumstances, the Musa
Daghians had to reconstruct their new community here.

The newcomers in early 1940 numbered 1,060 families or 4,521 persons
originating from the following six main villages of Musa Dagh: Kheder
Beg, 1,050 persons; Bitias, 915; Haji Habibli, 904; Kabusiye, 754;
Yoghunoluk, 601; Vakef, 295. They huddled together within the contours
of the ruins of an ancient city, a 250 m. by 200 m. rectangular area
on the periphery of the future village site. The Armenian National
Union in Beirut and the French High Commission provided them with
tents, which sheltered as many as ten-twelve persons each.

The French High Commission’s Public Works Service drafted the future
village plan: an eagle-shaped layout with six distinct segments
mirroring the ancestral villages mentioned above. The principal roads
of Anjar would be 56 meters wide; the secondary streets 12 meters wide
with 4-meter sidewalks; and the tertiary arteries 6 meters wide with
2-meter sidewalks. A central water reservoir would distribute water to
springs (qastul) enclosed within octagonal walls and erected in the
main squares. The location chosen for habitation spread across the
last slopes of Jabal Anjar, a mountain separating Lebanon from Syria.
The Public Works Service also sought an additional 50-60 hectares of
land adjoining the Anjar domain upon which to extend part of the
village. The area put aside for the village proper included separate
spaces for the churches, schools, and auxiliary buildings of the three
denominations (Apostolic, Catholic, Evangelical). An auction held on
19 September awarded the construction of houses to a French
development company called Sainrapt & Brice.

The original plan was to build two rooms, a kitchen, and a restroom
per house. Given the start of World War II, however, the French were
compelled to cut their expenses. Consequently, the scheme was reduced
to one chamber with an outdoor restroom situated on a 400 m² lot per
family. In all, 1,250 dwellings had to be built by 15 December 1939.
This proved an impossible task, for the following reason. Internally,
the refugee community was to be governed by a committee chaired by
Kevork Kalusdian and consisting of one representative from the six
Armenian villages of Musa Dagh each. But since this committee did not
muster enough muscle and prestige to impose its will, it was able to
recruit only half of the 1,000 workers needed. The lack of the
necessary manpower and discipline thus hampered the construction work.
So that only fifteen houses were built by 15 November. The situation
began to improve when the French asked Movses Der Kalusdian, then a
lieutenant in the French Foreign Legion stationed at Baalbek, to put a
chaotic house in order among his compatriots at Anjar.

The slow progress of the construction work in the face of the
approaching winter and the spread of contagious diseases compelled the
French authorities to relocate about half of the refugees – especially
the women, children, and the elderly – to other villages in the Bekaa
Valley. Although the lodgings were requisitioned without indemnity to
their owners, no incidents occurred. The Armenians were distributed
among sixteen localities, as follows: Mreijat, 215 persons;
Majdal-Anjar, 400; Taalabaya, 169; Kab Elias, 180; Karak, 79; Ablah,
26; Forzol, 53; Jdita, 300; Zahle, 340; Istable, 70; Marje, 70;
Chtaura, 50; Saadnayel, 30; Bar Elias, 60; Maallaqa, 80; and Haouche,
10; for a total of 2,192 persons. They returned to Anjar in the spring
of 1940, that is, when the weather improved.

The remaining refugees stayed in Anjar under very adverse conditions
to work on the construction sites. By 11 May 1940 a total of 259
houses were “regularly occupied” by the workers and their families as
follows: Vakef, 26; Haji Habibli, 57; Kheder Beg, 49; Kabusiye, 25;
Yoghunoluk, 45; Bitias, 57. Another 159 houses were finished but not
yet occupied. But the development company was reluctant to relinquish
the houses before the completion of the entire project. It accordingly
asked the French authorities to order the evacuation of at least those
houses whose wooden support beams had not yet been removed and the
freshly-poured concrete to cover the roofs had not yet dried. The
problem dragged on to some extent until the beginning of March 1941,
when the refugees finally entered their “homes.” By then, 1,065 houses
were built instead of the 1,250 originally planned.

Serious health concerns ran parallel to the housing crisis. A certain
Dr. Boyajian managed the sanitary service until 15 October 1939, when
he was discharged for “grave professional negligence” and replaced by
Dr. Prudian from Riyaq. The latter as of 1 November functioned under a
French military doctor. The number of sick people was very high. One
could hardly find a tent without several anguishing souls. More than
300 grave cases underwent examination daily. As many as fifty-six
persons died from 8 September to 31 October alone. Typhoid, malaria,
gastrointestinal diseases, and trachoma constituted the main culprits.
The lack of hygiene coupled with the refugees’ exhaustion and
feebleness after a long, arduous journey from Musa Dagh to Anjar
contributed to the spread of those maladies. The most urgent need was
to tackle typhoid fever caused by ubiquitous mosquitos; it was largely
checked within fifteen days after the vaccination of the population by
three Armenian doctors from the American University of Beirut (AUB).
Some of the measures that could eradicate malaria and gastrointestinal
complications included the sweeping of filth; the keeping of animals
outside the encampment, or their selling; the controlling of
butcheries; the checking of edibles sold by peddlers; the disinfecting
of potable water; the drying up of swamps, and so on.

A tent-infirmary established on the spot was too small to be
effective; it was replaced by a more spacious Bedouin tent. Other
health facilities were needed. Accordingly, a former café and a nearby
garage at Deir Zanoun situated in the Anjar domains were transformed
into a health facility with capacity for thirty-five beds. Attending
the sick sheltered in the surrounding Arab communities posed another
difficulty. Hence new medical centers were opened in some of them.
This arrangement also lessened the burden on certain hospitals in
Beirut, where the more acute cases were transferred. Unfortunately,
despite all the efforts, the lack of sufficient funds failed to fully
achieve the desired outcome. Health thus remained a major problem in
subsequent years as well.

In farming, the total area set aside for cereals for 1940 amounted to
500 hectares–400 hectares for wheat and 100 hectares for barley. The
remaining cultivable land of 800 hectares would be distributed to the
settlers in 1941. Each family would receive an irrigable plot of equal
size. Families with four-six members would additionally get a
non-irrigable plot, whereas families with seven members or more would
obtain a third plot, also non-irrigable. Title deeds would be issued
only after five years to ensure the good use of the allocated
farmlands with hard work.

As the refugees during 1939-1940 were not yet in a position to engage
in sowing and harvesting, Lieut. Malod on 13 June 1940 reached an
agreement with Samuel Ibrahim, a threshing entrepreneur from nearby
Chtaura, concerning the first year’s wheat crops of Anjar. The
contract included thirteen articles. Articles I and II referred to the
types of tractors and crushers that had to be utilized. Article III
specified 25 June 1940 as the starting date. Article IV allowed for
six Armenians from the camp to work on the project, and indicated the
need for the “necessary SACKS” for collection. Article V allowed for a
maximum of 10 percent margin for wheat damage. Articles VI and VII
stipulated that the French High Commission had to pay Ibrahim 90
piasters per harvested quintal and that those installments had to be
made per each 1,000 harvested quintal. Article VIII gave Ibrahim the
right to opt out in case of a “force majeure” such as the “total
absence of fuel in the local market” and the impossibility to replace
damaged machine parts. Articles IX-XIII dealt with arbitration should
the need arise, and other details. The wheat and barley ultimately
reaped (no amount mentioned) were distributed evenly among the
populace.

During the period under study some initial measures respecting the
planting of fruit and other sorts of trees were also taken. Lieut.
Riaucou, who had replaced Lieut. Malod as the Special Services Officer
in charge of Anjar, on 16 November asked the Director of Agriculture
Service of Lebanon whether he could provide 3,000 fruit trees and
1,500 ornamental trees and at what price. The answer came from the
Director of the Lebanese National Economy: his Department was
“disposed” to provide 3,000 fruit plants of “2nd choice” from the
government nurseries of Hammana and Chtaura for the flat rate of 30
Lebanese piasters per tree. Those fruits included apples, pears,
prunes, cherries, and peaches. Ornamental trees, however, were not
readily available “at the moment.” Thus began the greening of Anjar.

The French also distributed small amounts of money for the refugees to
purchase food and other sundries. Food and other necessities were
additionally donated by various Armenian and non-Armenian
organizations and entities. The Association of French Women, the
Lebanese Armenian Relief Cross, the Armenian General Benevolent Union,
the Catholicosate of Cilicia at Antelias, Jacob “Papa” Künzler and his
Swiss missionary organization, the Armenian National Union, the
US-based Howard Karageuzian Foundation, the Harach newspaper of Paris
with its fund drive, special committees formed in Zahle, Beirut,
Damascus, and Aleppo, and the Musa Dagh Compatriotic Association in
the United States, all made important contributions. These included
clothing, bedding, kitchenware, powder milk, corn, sowing seeds, etc.,
in addition to pecuniary gifts.

Despite the enormous difficulties experienced by the refugees in their
new, inhospitable milieu, the churches and schools resumed their
activity in tents until the actual sanctuaries and classrooms were
built by the second half of 1940. But communal life was far from being
tranquil. Political conflicts besetting Musa Dagh society during the
interwar years were now transposed to Anjar. For example, unwilling to
live under the domination of Armenian Revolutionary
Federation/Tashnagtsutiun, some 35-40 families from mainly the rival
Social Democrat Hnchakian camp left Anjar by April 1940 and relocated
to Ras al-Ayn, near the southern Lebanese city of Sur/Tyr, where
another camp for the Sanjak refugees existed. Similarly, the French
authorities as of October 1939 crushed “latent” communist propaganda
at Anjar by expelling the ringleaders. Last but not least, gambling
must have become quite worrisome to warrant the issuance of a stern
warning by the local Armenian committee for those who engaged in it.

To conclude, the tribulations for Anjar did not come to an end with
the close of 1940; they continued in various forms and intensity. All
along the settlers entertained the hope of returning to Musa Dagh
should Turkey lose in World War II. But that dream did not
materialize, forcing the former highlanders to fashion a permanent
life for themselves in the present verdant, vibrant, and symbolic
rural Lebanese Armenian town of Anjar.

From: A. Papazian

Scoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand
Jan 1 2015

Armenia is now in the Eurasian Economic Union

Thursday, 1 January 2015, 12:39 pm
Press Release: The Eurasian Economic Commission – EEC

December 31, 2014
EEC Press Office
PRESS RELEASE

Armenia is now in the Eurasian Economic Union

January 2, the Treaty on Armenia’s accession to the Eurasian Economic
Union (EEU) is coming into force. Armenia became the fourth
full-fledged Member-State of the Eurasian Economic Union together with
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.

By this Treaty Armenia has made a part of the Treaty on the Eurasian
Economic Union, signed by the Presidents of the EEU Member-States –
Alexander Lukashenko, Nursultan Nazarbayev and Vladimir Putin on May
29, 2014 in Astana, as well as other international treaties forming
the EEU legal framework. From now on, Armenia undertakes corresponding
obligations, and therewith gets access to the EEU single market with
170 million citizens.

By joining the Eurasian Economic Union, the state gets fully involved
into implementation of the Eurasian project aimed, on the one hand, at
forming of four freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital
and labour force. On the other hand, – at creation of one of the key
economic centers of evolving architecture of the multipolar world.

The fourth partner expects a number of positive effects form
integration. Among the key ones there are an increase of goods
turnover due to elimination of barriers and minimization of
administrative expenses, increase of mobility of labour force due to
introduction to the single labour market, increase of stability of
economic development due to reduction of economic isolation effect,
development of infrastructure projects, participation in drawing up of
the agenda using the mechanisms of the Eurasian Economic Union.

The Treaty on accession provides for full involvement of Armenia’s
representatives into the activities of the EEU governance. Upon entry
of the Treaty into force the President of Armenia becomes a
full-fledged Member of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, and the
Prime Minister becomes a Member of Intergovernmental Council; the
full-fledged representative joins the Eurasian Economic Commission.
Armenia will be represented by three Board Members in the Board of the
Eurasian Economic Commission, as wells as other EEU Member-States.

For reference:

April 10, 2013 the Chairman of the EEC Board Viktor Khristenko and the
Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Tigran Sarkisyan signed the
Memorandum on cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Commission and
the Government of the Republic of Armenia. The document laid the basis
for cooperation between the Parties by providing consultations,
conducting conferences and seminars, preparing of analytical reviews
on issues of mutual interest, conducting meetings of the Eurasian
Economic Commission management with the Armenian Party. At the same
time, over a period of several years, the Republic of Armenia has been
engaged in an active dialogue with the European Union within the
frameworks of the “Eastern Partnership” program, aimed at conclusion
of the European Union Association Agreement.

September 3, 2013 the Republic of Armenia issued a declaration of
intent to join the Customs Union (CU) and Single Economic Space (SES).
October 24, 2013, during the panel session of the Supreme Eurasian
Economic Council in Minsk the Presidents of the Republic of Belarus,
the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation considered the
application of the Republic of Armenia and instructed the Eurasian
Economic Commission to initiate the procedure on accession.

The Working Group created based on Decision of the Supreme Eurasian
Economic Council “On accession of the Republic of Armenia to the
Customs Union and Single Economic Space of the Republic of Belarus,
the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation” dated October
24, 2013 No. 49 with participation of the representatives of Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and the Eurasian Economic Commission,
chaired by the Member of the Board – Minister in charge of the
Development of Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic
Commission Tatiana Valovaya developed the relevant “road map”.

November 6, 2013, in Erevan the Chairman of the Board of the Eurasian
Economic Commission Viktor Khristenko and the Prime Minister of the
Republic of Armenia Tigran Sarkisyan signed a Memorandum on
strengthened cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Commission and
the Republic of Armenia, the project thereof was preliminary approved
by Decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council at the highest
level on October 24, 2013 No. 49. In accordance with the Memorandum
the Republic of Armenia shall have the right to participate in the
sessions of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, the Council and the
Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission, as well as the right to
appoint a representative of the Republic of Armenia to the Eurasian
Economic Commission. The Memorandum also provides for the possibility
to establish information exchange between the Parties. This Memorandum
was prepared and adopted in furtherance of the Memorandum on
cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the
Government of the Republic of Armenia dated April 10, 2013.

December 24, 2013 in Minsk the Presidents of the Member-States of the
Customs Union and Single Economic Space approved the “road map” for
accession of the Republic of Armenia to the Eurasian integration
association. The Heads of the Member-States of the Customs Union and
Armenia accepted the Application “On participation of the Republic of
Armenia in the Eurasian integration process”, that welcomed the
intention of the Republic of Armenia to join the Customs Union and
Single Economic Space.

All the measures that had to be taken prior to the accession have been
taken. In the course of cooperation Armenia demonstrated a laudable
interest and activity. In accordance with the “road map”, the Republic
of Armenia had to take 126 measures out of 267 “prior to accession”.
All of them have been taken. Certain provisions relating to the
implementation of these items are included in the Treaty on Accession.
Within the frameworks of the accession procedure the experts of the
Eurasian Economic Commission made more than 40 visits to the Republic
of Armenia.

In general, the implementation of the “road map” for the Republic of
Armenia is the harmonization of national legislation with the
contractual and legal framework of the Eurasian Economic

Note to editors

The Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) – a supranational governing
body of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia (CU) and
the Single Economic Space (SES) of the Eurasian Economic Community.
The main task of the EEC is to ensure conditions for the CU and SES
operation and development as well as to elaborate economic integration
initiatives within the framework of the CU and SES. The EEC is based
on the Agreement on and of 18 November 2011. The United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is one of the five
regional commissions of the United Nations. It brings together 56
countries in Europe, North-America, and Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) and North America. Its main aim is to promote
pan-European economic integration and cooperation in environment,
forests, housing and land management, statistics, energy, trade and
transport.

From: A. Papazian

EDITORIAL: 2015

Friday, January 2nd, 2015 | Posted by Editor

The cover of Asbarez 2015 Special Issue

This most anticipated year is upon us. Armenians throughout the world
will come together to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide.

But beyond commemoration, the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide must
become the turning point, at which, we as Armenians–the entire
Armenian Nation–in unison to not simply demand the recognition of the
Genocide, but everything else that follows that statement of
truth–justice in the form of reparations and restitution.

As Turkey continues to deny the Genocide and fails to take
responsibility for the gruesome actions of its Ottoman predecessors,
Armenians, specifically the government of the Republic of Armenia,
must be steadfast in their convictions and not fall prey to the whims
of those for whom the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not
beneficial.

Turkey leads that pack, which also includes the governments of the
United States, Great Britain and others, which are stepping up their
efforts to alter the truth and draw a “new course” for the discussion
of the Armenian Genocide.

We have witnessed, in the past few months, an increase in official
reports, academic analyses and expert assessments that attempt to,
first and foremost, draw a wedge between the aspirations of the
Armenians living in Armenia and those living in the Diaspora. This
dangerous trend, which claims that only the Armenians in the Diaspora
are seeking the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, while those in
Armenia are anxious for dialogue, aims to create a diversion and plays
into the fear mongering by Turkey, which despite behaving as an
adversary toward its NATO allies, continues to impact policy and the
continuation of Genocide denial.

The first step must come from the Armenian Government, which has been
silent in the face of a recent report by the British Foreign Office
about the Armenian Diaspora, which sought to undermine the political
activism by Diaspora Armenians and falsely asserted that Armenians as
a Nation do not foster the same aspirations. Armenia’s Foreign
Ministry (and perhaps the Diaspora Ministry) should issue a forceful
rebuke of this mischaracterization, especially since Armenian
government officials always elevate the Diaspora as one of the
critical pillars of Armenia’s survival.

Then there is another element that is adding fuel to the denialist
perspective: Armenians who believe that this century-young struggle
has run its course and our National efforts must be put forward toward
the betterment of Armenia. Those who fighting for Genocide
recognition, these elements claim, must focus their efforts to
fighting injustice in Armenia. This is a warped concept, since
fighting injustice is a universal tenet and one does not outweigh the
other. These so-called modern-day “thinkers” should realize that by
giving up the cause for justice for the Armenian Genocide, does not
make them strong advocates for justice in the socio-economic and
political sphere in Armenia. No one said fighting for justice was easy
or convenient. Now, more than ever, with the withering of the survivor
generation, Armenians must elevate the cause, or else we would be
carrying out Turkey’s wishes and advancing their policy of denial at
all costs.

As this most anticipated date is upon us, let us abandon the rhetoric
and truly come together as a Nation to combat this historical
injustice, because only fighting the good fight for a Free, United and
Independent Homeland, will bring make us stronger as a nation and
propel us to a greater future.

Happy New Year!

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIE
Les défenseurs des droits humains en Arménie prédisent un
environnement plus sévère

Les défenseurs des droits de l’homme en Arménie mettent en garde que
les libertés civiles et la liberté de la presse pourraient être érodés
une fois que le pays adhèrera à la nouvelle union eurasienne de
Moscou. Un signe précoce de ceci est un plan pour copier les
restrictions de la Russie sur les groupes non gouvernementaux.

>, a dit
Avetik Ishkhanyan du Comité Helsinki d’Arménie. L’Arménie deviendra
membre de l’Union économique eurasienne en Janvier, rejoignant les
trois États déjà membres de l’Union douanière – la Russie, le
Kazakhstan et la Biélorussie. Un cinquième pays, le Kirghizistan, est
en train de finaliser les arrangements pour se joindre au groupe. Le
regroupement est officiellement une Union de style européen avec des
droits communs de douanes et une législation harmonisée. De nombreux
analystes, cependant, croient que c’est également une structure
politique qui sera inévitablement dominée par Moscou. Ce sentiment n’a
fait que se renforcer depuis que la Russie a pris l’Ukraine et est en
conflit avec l’Occident.

En Arménie, il y a des craintes que le gouvernement va s’aligner en
adoptant le type de législation rétrograde vu en Russie. Pour prendre
un exemple, le Kirghizistan Рpour les deux derni̬res d̩cennies ̩tait
le plus libérale d’Asie centrale – a maintenant un projet de loi
devant le Parlement qui imposerait de sévères restrictions sur ce qui
a été jusqu’à présent une communauté florissante d’ONG. Cette loi
s’inspire de la législation russe adoptée en 2012, et oblige les
groupes de la société civile à s’enregistrer comme des >.

Dans les deux pays le Kirghizstan et le Kazakhstan, il y a des
mouvements afin de copier la loi de 2013 interdisant la > comme en Russie.

Dès à présent le ministère arménien de la justice a mis au point un
projet de loi similaire visant à restreindre la liberté des ONG.

.

Détentions >

Artur Sakunts, chef du bureau de Vanadzor de l’Assemblée d’Helsinki,
est sombre sur les perspectives de respect plus large des droits
fondamentaux une fois que l’Arménie aura rejoint le bloc eurasiatique.

Il a fait valoir que cette année a connu une baisse marquée de
l’environnement des droits de l’homme, et fait valoir que l’Arménie
est de nouveau devenu un pays avec des prisonniers politiques.

Sakunts a cité deux cas, dont l’un d’eux est celui de Volodia
Avetisyan, un colonel à la retraite reconnu coupable de fraude et
condamné à une peine d’emprisonnement de six ans en juillet. Les
partisans disent son vrai crime a été d’organiser une manifestation
appelant à une meilleure prestation de l’aide sociale pour les
Arméniens qui ont combattu dans la guerre du Haut-Karabagh au début
des années 1990.

Le deuxième cas est celui de Shant Harutyunyan, qui a participé à une
petite manifestation anti-gouvernementale dans la capitale Erevan
l’année dernière. On lui a affligé six ans de prison après un procès
en Octobre. D’autres participants ont également été condamnés, dont le
fils de Harutyunan, un mineur, qui a obtenu une période d’essai. Deux
partis d’opposition, Héritage et le Congrès national arménien, ont
déclaré Harutyunyan comme un prisonnier politique.

Selon Sakunts, la nature de la preuve qui a conduit à des verdicts de
culpabilité dans les deux cas suggère que c’étaient vraiment des
“persécutions politiques”. Le ministre de la Justice d’Arménie,
Hovhannes Manukyan, affirmé que les hommes n’ont pas été incarcérés
pour des raisons politiques.

a-t-il expliqué.

Melikyan souligne également des tentatives formelles pour limiter la
liberté d’expression, par exemple un projet de loi visant à rendre les
médias légalement responsable des commentaires postés par les
internautes anonymes. Le projet de loi a été bloqué par une campagne
concertée montée par les journalistes arméniens.

Le dernier rapport de la liberté sur Internet à partir de l’organisme
de surveillance basé à Washington Freedom House donne l’Arménie un
bien meilleur score que l’un des autres membres de l’Union eurasienne.
Un autre précédent troublant a été fixé par une affaire dans laquelle
le parquet a lancé une action en justice contre deux médias, le
journal Hraparak et site de nouvelles Ilur.am, pour les forcer à
révéler leurs sources d’information.

>
a-t-il dit.

Arevik Sahakian est une journaliste indépendante en Arménie.

Institute for War & Peace Reporting

vendredi 2 janvier 2015,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

The Oppressed Nations and National Strength

By MassisPost
Updated: December 31, 2014

Vartan Derad

Mr. Derad, born in historic Armenia in September 7, 1900, at the age
of thirteen immigrated to the United States where he furthered his
education and attended the Emerson college of Oratory in Boston and
the Boston University Law School, where he earned his Juris Doctorate.

Mr. Derad became an active leader and public speaker, also editor of
Armenian newspapers, first in the New England area and then in
Southern California. He authored many books and contributed numerous
articles to various English papers. In the political field, he had
managed many local elections, having spoken from the same platform
with many prominent candidates for office, such as Thomas E. Dewey
former New York State Governor and Jasper McLevy, former famed Mayor
of Bridgeport, Connecticut, among others. Mr. Derad held responsible
positions in the Armenian Church structure and for four years served
as secretary to the Armenian Church of America. He was an ardent
member of the Social Democrat Hunchak Party, maintaining various high
level positions of Party in the East as well as the West coast of the
United States. He had also been a devoted student of economics and
political science and a close follower of world affairs. Mr. Derad
passed away in 1971.

Tomorrow’s Horizon, written in the midst of World War II, was Mr.
Derad’s analyses of the depths of the national and international,
economic, political and social problems which caused the war, and was
an aim to demonstrate the logical beginning for a world-wide union of
nations (a United Nations) and to peacefully avoid future conflicts. A
beginning where the belief that real democracy, personal liberty,
individual rights and political independence can survive and make the
machinery of a government function as the servant of the people,
instead of being the master over the people that constitutes the
nation.

With 2015 marking the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide as
well as the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, Mr. Derad’s
analysis of world affairs, primarily questions in dealing with small
nations and remembering and learning from historical political
blunders made by “BIG” powers, resonates in today’s world. MassisPost,
therefore presents a chapter entitled The Oppressed Nations and
National Strength from Mr. Derad’s book Tomorrow’s Horizon.

S.K.

The Oppressed Nations and National Strength

We are not going to let history of the oppressed nations repeat
itself. The liberation of oppressed peoples is constantly proclaimed
during the more chivalrous phases of the war. The United Nations who
will hold the future destinies of the small, conquered and enslaved
nations on the peace table must refrain from further political
sleights.

The democracies will and should have the right to demand an accounting
of the statesmen into whose hands the labor and agonies of millions of
men placed free disposition over the fortunes of conquered nations.
The economic aspirations of the international financiers must cease to
exist in order that the fire of independent nationalism will not burn
out in international intrigues and again be forgotten forever as it
happened in Versailles after the first World War.

It is very important to have foresight and not hindsight when the
question comes to deal with small nations and remember one of the past
political blunders as the poor Armenians were treated after one
million Armenian men, women and children were brutally massacred, and
tens of thousands of women and girls were carried off into the most
abominable slavery. Two hundred thousand Armenians of military age,
who might have helped to defend the frontier of a real Armenian state,
were unhappily slain and the history tells us how the main cause of
Armenia’s woes were the torturous and immoral diplomacy of Europe.

The pioneers of democracy and Christianity failed to understand the
cynical treatment which Armenia did have at the hands of the foreign
offices of the European Powers. The chief obstacle which Armenia had
to encounter in winning for itself “a place in the sun” had lain in
the fact that its legitimate boundaries had conflicted with the
boundaries of the zones with which the Allied Powers had
checker-boarded Asia Minor.

The Allies hesitated to talk too much about Armenian independence
while Romanoff Russia was in the war and when imperial Russia vanished
from the horizon, there was no good reason why the Allies should not
then have recognized the independence of those Armenians who hitherto
had lived under Russia and forgetting Turkey who still was the “sick
man of Europe.”

Yes, the reason was very obvious. Downing Street and Quai O’Orsai were
flirting with Deniken at the time, and Denikin, who desired a “great,
inseparable Russia,” would have none of an independent Armenia. And
why?

Because the British wanted Armenia’s Black Sea and Caspian gate which
might link her up with the rest of the world; the French wanted her
promised outlet to the Mediterranean on the south. More than that, the
Arxes valley and the mineral wealth of the Karabakh mountains the
British foreign office preferred to vest in the hands of the nomad
Moslems, who in all probability, would shortly come under British
influence and custodianship.

The historical truth remains that the Powers of Europe were only
interested in Armenia and the poor Armenians to the extent of how much
and in what ways and means they would have benefitted if they had made
an approach to this land and the lands of other small nations who
suffered and sacrificed, who bled and died in order that the BIG
powers and wealthy lords live and be happy.

History never recorded such a betrayal as that of Armenia, whose body
was crucified by the Turks and whose faith was destroyed by the BIG
POWERS after the first World War.

The great need of the world today and after this war is leadership and
there can be no higher tribute to international unselfishness and
kindness than the fact that every nation in the world is willing to
accept the proposals and just dealings of such a leadership. Let us
not cause the downfall of democracy by a provincial, distrustful and
disunited play and overthrow the civilization in the hands of greedy,
selfish money mongers and demagogues.

Anthony Eden, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his
July (1942) speech said a number of things that also should serve as
inspiration during and after trying periods ahead for the United
Nations. Note the following: “Let there be no doubt in the minds of
our enemies. Whether the struggle be long or short,’ we, together with
our allies, are in this war to the victorious end. No temporary
setback or disappointment or even lost battles can alter our
resolution to continue the fight against the dictator powers until
they are all finally disarmed and rendered powerless to do further
injury to mankind…

“We must either build an orderly, law-abiding international society in
which each nation lives and works freely without fear or favor or we
shall be destroyed in a welter of barbaric strife…”

Now we have come to the point where the free thinkers in every nation
must express himself in terms of internationalism, because the spirit
of nationalism now in effect forces each nation to watch every other
with suspicion, jealousy or menace. And what has been the result?

“Honor and vital interests of our nation,” exclaims the blood-thirsty
politician or the industrialist of each and opposing nation, “are in
danger. We must fight … carryon the war … war is human.” Then the poor
dupes begin to butcher one another at the word of command from higher
up. The schools that hold the future generation of mankind, become not
only the training ground, but actually a recruiting ground for the
army with the spirit of severe nationalism.

The motto of the school of “my country, right or wrong,” is no longer
a practical menu that can be served on the desks of our school
children. “My country, right or wrong,” is but the highest degree of
egotism, in common with the name HITLERISM. Had this been the motto of
General Washington and his compatriots the United States would still
be a part of the British Empire.

History proves and the events testify, that in the name of NATIONALISM
and without the spirit of internationalism we always have had wars,
butchering of brothers by brothers. A torrent of blood has flown from
the deep, damned war-wound in the breast of the working class. When
war is declared, the command is given immediately “Kill! Slay!
Slaughter! Plunder! Destroy! Rape! and crucify in the name of
NATIONALISM.”

Robert G. Ingersoll once wrote about the agonies of war, created by
the fire of stupid nationalism, combined with the greed of
international industrialists or war-mongers:

“Nations sustain the relations of savage to each other …no man has
imagination enough to paint the agonies, the horrors, the cruelties,
of war. Think of sending shot and shell crashing through the bodies of
men. Think of the widows and orphans! Think of the maimed, the
mutilated, the mangled …”

Narrow and shortsighted nationalism made the Turks massacre the
Armenians during the World War I, but in 1942, this time the turn was
shifted to the helpless Greeks. In “Life” magazine, August 3, 1942,
issue, there appeared some heartbreaking photographs of dying Greeks,
showing how the famine and death rode into Greece at the heels of the
Nazi conquest. These pictures were collected and privately printed in
April with the legend SECRET-NOT FOR PUBLICATION, by exiled Greek
Minister of Information, A. Michalopoulos.

The Germans came to Greece as conquerors. They picked it clean as a
bone and then announced that the Third German Reich has no
responsibility for the feeding of such conquered nations as Greece.

The last state of Greece was described as follows by Associated Press
Correspondent, Richard G. Massock:

“Stinking, ragged columns of men, women and children, who no longer
wash now that there is no soap, pick over the garbage of the Germans
and Italians. The poor lie in squalid homes, too weak to move, their
swollen bodies covered with sores. In processions, the Athenians go to
the city dumps. When one finds a sardine or other food can, he cleans
the inside with his tongue as a cat would do. The hospitals are
over-crowded, sometimes with three or four starving patients in a bed.
The courtyards of the morgues are filled with naked bodies. Three
hundred bodies at a time are buried in large pits, without lime.

“When people die, relatives place the corpses in the gutters without
reporting the deaths so that they won’t have to surrender the bread
cards of the deceased. The tragedy of Greece is not so much the dead
picked up in the streets each morning, as the famine and condemnation
to death reflected in the faces of those dragging their starved bodies
through the streets.”

As to what a terrible war is doing to an innocent, unarmed and
guiltless civilian people at their own homes, on their own city or
country streets, here the report about Greece carries on its tale in
more details in the same issue of “Life” magazine as how the Greeks
had expected to go hungry, but the Germans killed their cattle and
took their milk for the occupying German armed forces. They took their
boats so that they could not even fish. When an occasional wheat boat
arrived from Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Turkey, they claimed that it
was German wheat and confiscated more Greek food supplies.

The International Red Cross continued the report, fed about 700,000
people in Athens a daily bowlful of olive oil, rice and dried
vegetables. The price of bread was $4 a pound, butter $18, oil $12,
coffee $50, eggs 75c apiece and shoes $100 a pair.

Here is another heart-breaking report, when we are told how people
steal and kill for food, husbands abandon wives and children. Citizens
lie across the pavements, spitting blood into the gutter. A certain
sort of thud means that somebody else has fallen to the pavement. The
survivors do not look around.

There are many more bad, inhuman, uncivilized conditions caused by the
war under and at the point of the brutal warriors. Thus a war is a
plague that afflicts many nations and humanity. It destroys families,
kills everyone who raises his or her head in the name of patriotism.
In war, even God is forgotten because the churches are bombed and the
priests are brutally killed in the churchyards.

In Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s address on July 23, 1942, on the
war situation he said: “Governments can and must help to focus the
energies by encouraging, coordinating and aiding the efforts of
individuals and groups.”

Of course this “helping” philosophy will be put into action only and
when the governments, besides being willing to help, also get the
cooperation of so-called leading industrial individuals in their own
respective .lands. These individuals particularly who are in economic
power and have the means of dictating and in many cases, commanding
the legislative bodies to do certain things not for the benefit of all
the citizens, but for the benefit of the leading lords only. The
governments in this case should command these industrial lords to lay
down their selfish and money making weapons and extend their hands to
the rank and file of the people united as one man without any
expectation, ready to help the government direct the national 7efforts
to the creation of a lasting peace and preserving the same.

Secretary Hull continues: “In our own country we have learned from
bitter experience that to be truly free, men must have as well,
economic freedom and economic security, the assurance for all alike of
an opportunity to work as free men in the company of free men; to
obtain through work the material and spiritual means of life; to
advance through the exercise of ability, initiative and enterprise; to
make provision against the hazards and human existence.”

History shows us that no nation can enjoy its national peace while its
citizens are in the grip of constant fear of economic depression,
unemployment, bitter class struggle, strikes and what not.
A free nation will be able to contribute its worthy share to the
freedom of the world and to the people of this world when the citizens
of this nation are free first, free economically, politically and
socially. Free from shallow nationalism and baptized with the spirit
of internationalism.

Secretary Hull carries on his speech and says: “One of the greatest
obstacles which in the past have impeded human progress and afforded
breeding grounds for dictators has been extreme nationalism.

“All will agree that nationalism and its spirit are essential to the
healthy and normal political and economic life of a people, but when
policies of nationalism, political, economic, social and moral, are
carried to such extremes as to exclude and prevent necessary policies
of international cooperation, they become dangerous and deadly.

“Nationalism, running riot between the last war and this war, defeated
all attempts to carry our indispensable measures of international
economic and political action, encouraged and facilitated the rise of
dictators and drove the world straight toward the present war.

“During this period, narrow and shortsighted nationalism found its
most virulent expression in the economic field.

“It prevented goods and services from flowing in volume at all
adequate from nation to nation and thus severely hampered the work of
production, distribution and consumption and greatly retarded efforts
for social betterment.

“No nation can make satisfactory progress when it is deprived, by its
own action or by the action of others, of the immeasurable benefits of
international exchange of goods and services.”

The biggest and most cruel thing in the world is WAR and the way it is
conducted. The fundamental reason for war is the constant struggle
against want, and all its concomitants. Hence modern wars are
essentially wars for foreign markets for the benefit of the ruling
class or for the selfish greed of the stronger nation, which often
leads to the destruction of a former powerful industrial nation, or
nations, and as a result of that all nations during peace time if
there has ever been a peace time, will live in the shadow of
threatened coercion of war, in the shadow of fear that someday the
other nation will get stronger and strike a deadly blow.

From: A. Papazian

Turkey: America’s unacknowledged problem
By Efraim Inbar
Dec. 31, 2014

[Efraim Inbar is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic
Studies, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and
a fellow at the Middle East Forum.]

Turkey is a NATO ally, and U.S. President Barack Obama has called
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan his best friend. But
Erdogan-led Turkey does not behave as an ally or a friend of the U.S.
This is not a new development.

Erdogan and his Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party
(AKP), have ruled Turkey since 2002. Erdogan’s Turkey has gradually
distanced itself from the West, adopting domestic and foreign
policies fueled by Ottoman and Islamist impulses.

Turkey has been on the road to an authoritarian regime for several
years. Infringements on human rights have gradually increased. In
truth, Turkey has never had a political system with checks and
balances able to constrain attempts to consolidate power around one
politician. In recent years, Erdogan has weakened further the few
constitutional constraints against “Putinization” of the Turkish
political system.

The longer Erdogan rules, the more power-hungry he seems. His
authoritarian personality becomes clearer every day. The press is
hardly free. Erdogan arrests even Islamist journalists who are
critical of his policies. His party has infiltrated the judicial
system and the police. Foci of power, such as the bureaucracy, the
banking system, industrial associations and trade unions, have been
mostly co-opted by the AKP. Opposition political parties are largely
discredited. The military, once active in politics as the defender of
the Kemalist secular tradition, has been successfully sidelined.

>From a realpolitik perspective, the domestic political developments,
deplorable as they may be in Turkey, could be ignored by the
democratic West as long as Ankara continues to be a useful ally.
Unfortunately, Turkey no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.

The most recent examples of nefarious Turkish behavior are its
support of Islamic State and Hamas. Turkey is playing a double game
on the issue of Islamic State. It pretends to cooperate with the U.S.
policy in the attempt to contain radical Islam, but actually Turkey
supports the radical group. It allows passage of volunteers through
Turkish territory to join Islamic State in Iraq. The group gets
logistical support via Turkey, and sends its wounded militants for
treatment in Turkey. Turkish military forces stood idly by the
besieged city of Kobani, just across the Turkish border, while the
Islamists killed Kurdish fighters. Finally, Turkey denies the
American air force access to Turkish bases, forcing the U.S. to use
far away bases when attacking Islamic State targets.

Turkey is also openly supporting another radical Islamist
organization, Hamas. Despite the fact that the West regards Hamas a
terrorist organization, Ankara regularly hosts Hamas representatives
to meet the highest Turkish dignitaries. Hamas, an offshoot of the
Muslim Brotherhood, has a rabid anti-American position. Moreover,
Salah al-Aruri, a senior Hamas operative, operates out of Istanbul.
Recently, the Turkish branch of Hamas was involved in a series of
attempts to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel, and in
orchestrating a coup against the current leadership of the
Palestinian Authority.

Such behavior should not surprise policy makers in Washington. In
2003, Ankara denied the request from Washington to open its territory
so that the U.S. military could attack Saddam Hussein’s forces from
two separate fronts.

AKP-ruled Ankara also defied American preferences on Syria, a country
allied with radical Iran and on the American list of states
supporting terrorism. In January 2004, Bashar Assad became the first
Syrian president ever to visit Turkey. In April 2009, the two states
conducted their first ever joint military exercise. No other NATO
member had such close relations with the authoritarian regime in
Damascus, which has been closely allied with Iran for several
decades.

Turkey further deviated from the Western consensus in 2008 by hosting
Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir twice. Bashir, who was
charged with war crimes and genocide in Darfur, presided over an
Islamist regime.

Turkey even welcomed the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for a visit in August 2008. No Western country
has issued such an invitation to the Iranian leader. Additionally,
Erdogan congratulated Ahmadinejad immediately after his re-election
in June 2009. When it comes to Iran’s nuclear threat, Ankara, unlike
its NATO allies, has refused to adopt the U.S. stance on harsher
sanctions, fearing in part the economic consequences of such steps. In
June 2010, Turkey voted at the U.N. Security Council against a
U.S.-sponsored resolution meant to impose a new round of sanctions on
Iran.

Turkey also has consistently defied advice from Washington to tone
down its anti- Israel statements and mend relations with an important
American ally. All American efforts in this direction have failed.

There is also a clear divergence between the U.S. and Turkey on
important global issues such as Russia and China. For example, U.S.
wanted to send ships into the Black Sea via the Bosporus Strait
during the Georgia war in August 2008. Turkey flatly denied several
such requests on the pretext that the military vessels were too large.
Moreover, Turkey proposed the creation of a regional security
framework involving Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
that left out a NATO role. More blatantly, Turkey has failed to
participate in the Western economic sanctions imposed on Russia
during the recent Ukraine crisis.

Dissonance exists also with regards to China. While the U.S. fears the
rise of China, Turkey sees this country as a potential economic
partner and not a problem. It held military exercises with China.
Ankara even considered purchasing anti-aircraft systems from Beijing,
an incredibly brazen position for a NATO member.

It is not clear why Washington puts up with such Turkish behavior. The
Obama administration seems to be unable to call a spade a spade. It
refuses to acknowledge that Turkey is a Trojan horse in NATO, and
that Ankara undermines American interests in the Middle East and
elsewhere.

From: A. Papazian