Author: Andres-Papazian

U.S. LEGISLATORS ASKED TO BACK INCREASED AID TO ARMENIA, NAGORNO KARABAGH

Armenian Weekly
Mon, May 16 2011

Dear Colleague’ letter circulated by Rep. Pallone Urges $60 million
for Armenia; $10 million for Karabagh

WASHINGTON-Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) circulated
a letter urging his U.S. House colleagues to support expanded U.S. aid
to Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh, and a number of other pro-Armenia
provisions in the Fiscal Year 2012 foreign aid bill, reported the
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

In his letter, Rep. Pallone, calls upon his fellow Representatives
to join with him in co-signing a Congressional letter asking
the bipartisan leadership of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
State-Foreign Operations to support the inclusion of the following
provisions:

At least $60 million in economic support funds for Armenia.

At least $10 million in development aid to Nagorno Karabagh.

The strengthening of Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act and
maintaining military aid parity to Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The removal of barriers to U.S.-Nagorno Karabagh contacts and
communications.

Support for the reinstatement of Nagorno Karabagh in the OSCE Minsk
Group peace process.

At least $10 million in military aid to Armenia.

Armenian Americans can urge their Representatives to cosign this
letter by sending them an ANCA WebMail from the following link:

In his letter urging his colleagues to take action, Rep. Pallone
cites ongoing Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia and Nagorno
Karabakh as a primary reason to “enforce current law restricting
military aid to Azerbaijan.” Rep. Pallone added that, “Short of this,
the letter asks that parity in military financing between Armenia and
Azerbaijan be restored. The President has broken this long-held policy
in International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding for
the two countries.”

Rep. Pallone goes on to note that, “U.S. funding has also been
tremendously helpful in alleviating humanitarian crises in
Nagorno Karabakh. We are thus requesting $10 million in aid for
Nagorno-Karabakh and urging that aid be provided for humanitarian
and developmental programs. We also ask for an end to any remaining
restrictions on official government contact between the United States
and Nagorno-Karabakh and that representatives of Nagorno Karabakh be
reinstated in the ongoing Minsk Group Peace Process.”

The complete text of the Congressional letter to the leadership
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations is
provided below.

***

May 16, 2011

The Honorable Kay Granger Chairwoman Appropriations Subcommittee
on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Room HT-2, The
Capitol Building Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Nita Lowey Ranking Member Appropriations Subcommittee
on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 1016 Longworth
House Office Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Lowey:

As you prepare the Fiscal Year 2012 State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations bill, we write in strong support
of U.S. assistance to Armenia and other aid related provisions
that contribute to peace and stability in the Caucasus region. We
respectfully request that you consider the following requests listed
in priority order:

Economic Assistance to Armenia

Armenia is a crucial ally in a strategic region of the world between
Europe and the Middle East and it has extended its full support in
the war on terror. On May 10, 2011, Armenia announced that it will
triple its troop deployment serving in the NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to 130 personnel. Armenia
also has forces in Kosovo as part of the NATO KFOR operations and
was part of the coalition peacekeeping operations in Iraq.

The people of Armenia continue to face the devastating impact of Turkey
and Azerbaijan’s dual blockades, illegal actions that according to
World Bank estimates from several years ago cost Armenia roughly $720
million annually. Our assistance programs have played a vital role in
helping alleviate the crushing blockades and promoting the development
of Armenia’s free market system and democratic institutions.

Armenia consistently ranks as among the top 40 freest economies
in the world according to the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage
Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. This year, Armenia was ranked
the 36th freest economy in the world, just behind South Korea and
above France, Italy and Turkey.

We respectfully request that you include language within the Assistance
for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia Account ensuring that not less
than $60 million is appropriated for Armenia in Fiscal Year 2012.

Assistance to Nagorno Karabakh

U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus states has included promoting
the resolution of the conflict surrounding the independent Republic
of Nagorno Karabakh. It is more important than ever that the United
States maintain a principled stand for peace in this region and support
Nagorno Karabakh. There is no question that Nagorno Karabakh is an
example of how democracy can be born from conflict and progress into
a popularly supported government.

We request that the subcommittee include language directing USAID to
spend not less than $10 million in Fiscal Year 2012 for humanitarian
and development programs in Nagorno Karabakh.

We would like to further point out that the State Department has
failed to follow Congressional intent to deliver funds to Nagorno
Karabakh. From 2004 to 2010, the State Department expended less than
$13 million, while Congressional intent expressed through conference
reports and public law called for $46 million for humanitarian and,
as of 2010, development assistance. It is therefore vital that the
subcommittee include language requiring that not less than $10 million
be expended in Fiscal Year 2012.

Enhancing Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act

Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act continues to stand as a powerful
provision of U.S. law in principled opposition to Azerbaijan’s
blockade and other aggressive uses of force against Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh.

Despite calls on all parties to refrain from threats of violence,
Azerbaijan has repeatedly violated the cease fire agreement and
opposed the OSCE Minsk Group’s calls to pull back snipers. On more
than one occasion, Azerbaijan’s President has announced that “only
the first stage of war is over,” and his Defense Minister stated in
February 2011 that Azerbaijan is “seriously preparing” for war.

Moreover, in March 2011, the United States criticized Azerbaijan
for threatening to shoot down civilian airliners flying to Nagorno
Karabakh.

As you know, the Fiscal Year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act created a broad waiver authority that opened the door to military
assistance to Azerbaijan. In light of Azerbaijan’s behavior, and as a
contribution to the cause of a lasting and equitable negotiated peace,
we urge you to narrow this presidential waiver. We urge you to narrow
this presidential waiver as follows:

The President may waive section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act if he
determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that to
do so-

(A) the assistance is necessary to support United States efforts
to counter international terrorism, or to support the operational
readiness of United States Armed Forces or coalition partners to
counter international terrorism;

(B) the assistance will not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to
negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan or be
used for offensive purposes against Armenia or Nagorno Karabakh; and

(C) in the last fiscal year, Azerbaijan has not taken hostile action,
either through military force or incitement, including but not limited
to threatening pronouncements by government officials, toward Armenia
or Nagorno Karabakh and has demonstrated its commitment to a lasting
peace with Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh.

Assuming all conditions of this new waiver authority can be met, and
military assistance is provided to Azerbaijan, we urge you to uphold
the Appropriations Committee’s long-standing tradition of maintaining
parity in funding between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Military Assistance to Armenia

The U.S.-Armenia military relationship continues to expand in scope
and depth, building upon Armenia’s cooperation in anti-terrorism
efforts and its past deployment of forces to both Iraq and Kosovo.

Armenia also sent a military deployment to Afghanistan in support of
the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission and just
announced that it was tripling its forces in Afghanistan. Past U.S.

military aid has played a vital role in modernizing Armenia’s armed
forces, strengthening the principle of civilian control, promoting
increased NATO interoperability, and supporting the growth of Armenia’s
peacekeeping capabilities.

We request that the subcommittee include $8 million in FMF and $2
million in IMET funding for Armenia in Fiscal Year 2012.

Removing restrictions on contacts and communication with Nagorno
Karabakh

The time has come for ending restrictions on travel, contacts, and the
free exchange of ideas between U.S. officials and the democratically
elected leaders of Nagorno Karabakh. These outdated restrictions stand
in the way of greater mutual understanding, hinder direct oversight of
U.S. assistance programs, limits cooperation on regional priorities,
such as public health and anti-narcotics efforts, undermine our
effectiveness in promoting democracy, and ultimately place artificial
limits on our diplomatic and civil society efforts to bring about a
fair and durable peace.

We respectfully request that the following report language be included
in the bill.

“In the interest of promoting mutual understanding, regional
cooperation, and a fair and lasting peace, the Committee directs the
Department of State, to remove any official or unofficial restrictions
on U.S.-Nagorno Karabakh travel, visitations, discussions, meetings,
contacts, consultations, exchange programs, or other governmental or
civil society communication, cooperation, or interaction.”

Furthermore, in order that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict come to
a peaceful resolution through the OSCE Minsk Process it is vitally
important that representatives from Nagorno Karabakh be reinstated in
the negotiations. Although, Nagorno Karabakh was formerly officially
included for several years, they have not recently had a part in the
ongoing international negotiations aimed at determining their future.

We request that the subcommittee include report language that
recognizes the importance of including representatives of Nagorno
Karabakh in the ongoing Minsk Process.

Confidence Building Measures

In past years, the subcommittee has provided funding for
confidence-building measures to help facilitate a peaceful resolution
of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. In order to facilitate peace, we
recommend that these funds continue to be made available for increased
cooperation among Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. In
particular, we respectfully request language urging Azerbaijan to
support confidence-building measures that facilitate interaction
among the parties, in order to address regional security, resource
management, infrastructure, development and people to people programs.

Thank you for your leadership on the Appropriations Subcommittee on
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs. We are grateful for
your role in strengthening the relationship between the U.S. and
Armenia and on all the issues we have raised. We appreciate your
consideration of these requests.

From: A. Papazian

A DEMOGRAPHIC NARRATIVE OF DIYARBEKIR PROVINCE BASED ON OTTOMAN RECORDS
By: George Aghjayan

The Armenian Weekly
Mon, May 16 2011

“My central argument is that there is no major contradiction not
only between different Ottoman materials, but also between Ottoman
and foreign archival materials. So, it is erroneous to assume that
the Ottoman documents (referring here mostly to the documents from
the Prime Ministry Archive) were created solely in order to obscure
the actions of the Ottoman government…. Ottoman archival materials
support and corroborate the narrative of Armenian Genocide as shown
in the western Archival sources.” (Emphasis mine)

-Taner Akcam in “The Ottoman Documents and the Genocidal Policies of
the Committee for Union and Progress (Ittihat ve Terakki) toward the
Armenians in 1915,” Genocide Studies and Prevention, 1:2, (September
2006): 127-148.

After reading the above by Historian Taner Akcam, it occurred to me
that similar assumptions are reflected in the study of pre-World War
I populations within the Ottoman Empire. This is particularly true
of the various estimates of the Armenian population prior to the
Armenian Genocide.

To date, those studying the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire
have either accepted Ottoman registration records as the sole source
for analysis while dismissing the records of the Armenian Patriarchate,
or vice versa. Occasionally, the “suspect” records are critiqued prior
to dismissal, but more often than not they are dismissed superficially
or ignored altogether.

Using the Diyarbekir province as an example, I plan to analyze under
what scenarios Ottoman government and Armenian Patriarchate records
are consistent and thus complimentary.

Sources

There existed within the Ottoman Empire a long tradition of tax
registers. Throughout the 19th century, a more ambitious registration
system developed. At first, adult males were the primary objective
for tax and military objectives. Later efforts can be viewed as the
foundation for demographic analysis and governmental policy decisions.

However, even with gradual improvements in enumeration, the Ottoman
registration system never approached full coverage of the population.

While not exhaustive, the following are some of the weaknesses in
the data gleaned from Ottoman records:

Women and children were undercounted;

Registers containing non-Muslims have never been analyzed (only
summary data have come to light thus far);

Registration systems are inherently inferior to a census;

The sparseness of data complicates evaluation;

There is some evidence of manipulation;

Borders between districts and provinces frequently changed and thus
complicate comparisons.

While detailed records do not exist, summary information has appeared
in a number of sources, primarily in Ottoman provincial yearbooks
and government documents.

During this same period and for many of the same reasons, the Armenian
Patriarchate began an effort at enumerating the Armenian population.

Similarly, there are inherent weaknesses in the patriarchate data
that include, but are not limited to, the following:

Population estimates for Muslims were often included even though the
patriarchate had no way of gathering such data;

The patriarchate censuses were often timed with political objectives;

The sparseness of data makes it difficult or impossible to develop
a population timeline;

Detailed records are lacking and there is little hope further data
will come to light;

There is evidence of undercounting children and other gaps in data.

The primary source for patriarchate data for 1913-14 can be found
in two sources: Raymond H. Kevorkian and Paul B. Paboudjian’s “Les
Armeniens dans l’Empire Ottoman a la veille du genocide” (Paris:
Les Editions d’Art et d’Histoire ARHIS, 1992) and Teotik, “Goghgota
Hai Hogevorakanutian” ed. Ara Kalaydjian (New York: St. Vartan’s
Press, 1985).

Analysis

While most scholars have used the Ottoman statistics unadjusted or
made simple aggregate level adjustments, historian Justin McCarthy
utilized stable population theory in an attempt to compensate for the
known deficiencies. McCarthy’s work is often cited with frequent praise
and occasional criticisms, but rarely from a mathematical perspective.

McCarthy utilizes age-specific data from the early 1890’s to calculate
an adjustment factor that corrects the aggregate population for the
undercounting of women and children. He does so by fitting the known
data for males over the age of 15 to standard life tables he deems
representative of the population at the time and then doubles the
corrected male population to arrive at the total population. Once
the adjustment factor is calculated, McCarthy applies this to data
from 1914 and then utilizes population growth rates to extrapolate
back and forth in time. The graph displays his adjustments for the
Diyarbekir province.

There are many issues with such a methodology. First and foremost,
applying corrections based on the recorded population 20 years prior
is highly questionable and McCarthy fails to fully appreciate the
implications. The methodology is further hampered by the existence
of only one source for the reporting of population by age groups.

In the specific example of the Diyarbekir province, McCarthy notes that
the growth in recorded population from 1892 to 1914 is unrealistically
high. He speculates that the reason is due to improved enumeration
of the population. Yet, he still applies the same correction factor
calculated from earlier data without consideration that some of the
improved counting could have originated in the groups that the factor
is meant to correct (i.e., women and children).

In addition, as can be seen from the graph, McCarthy smoothed a dip
in the recorded male population aged 35-39. However, this is the
age group that would have been affected by the Russo-Turkish War of
1877-78. Stable population theory must be utilized cautiously so as
not to remove the very real demographic impact of historical events.

The issue becomes more acute when it is understood that the factor
thus derived is applied unadjusted to the 1914 population. In essence,
the recorded males aged 35-39 in 1914 are being adjusted by a factor
derived from the population of males who fought in the 1877-78 war
when quite reasonably they should not have been adjusted at all.

While population by age is only available in the 1892-93 data, the
breakdown by gender is available for other time periods and the ratio
of males to females varies by ethnicity and year of enumeration. The
adjustment, which McCarthy applied to all ethnicities equally,
should be viewed with caution. In fact, while the data limits the
ability to reflect ethnic differences, it is a mistake to assume no
such differences exist.

While the ratio of recorded males to females for Muslims in the
Diyarbekir province was traditionally around 1.20, by 1911 the
ratio had dropped to 1.04. Conversely, the ratio for Armenians was
traditionally around 1.05 but had jumped to over 1.17. What can
we make of this dramatic change and what are the implications when
estimating the Armenian population? The interpretation is complicated
by the expectation that the ratio of Armenian men to women should have
dropped dramatically following the Hamidian Massacres of 1894-96, which
targeted almost exclusively men. However, this could have partially
been offset by the forced conversion of Armenian women to Islam. In
addition, there is the emigration of Armenian males to consider.

Population by disctrict Another way to state the problem is to
refine McCarthy’s methodology for the differences in male to female
ratios. Based on the life table McCarthy employed, he arrived at a
factor of 1.1313 to adjust the male population for the undercounting of
young boys. The overall factor, then, for any time period and ethnicity
would equal (2 * 1.1313) / (1 + females / males). McCarthy’s resulting
adjustment factor based on 1893 data and that ignores ethnicity
is 1.2142 (through an error in McCarthy’s calculations, he uses
1.2172). If instead one were to use the 1911 data, the adjustment
for Muslims would be 1.1525, while 1.2146 for Armenians.

There is the additional issue of the extraordinary growth in the
recorded Muslim population while not quite to the same extent in the
Armenian population. McCarthy attributes this to improved enumeration
and assumes the improvement is equivalent for all ethnicities. That
was not the case and in particular the areas with the greatest
concentration of Armenians exhibited the least amount of growth. Not
surprisingly, these are also the areas with the greatest differences
between the Armenian population indicated by the patriarchate with
that of the Ottoman records.

As can be seen from the table above, prior to the Hamidian Massacres
Armenians accounted for almost 20 percent of the population in the
regions of Chermik, Palu, and Siverek. On the eve of World War I,
according to Ottoman records this proportion had dwindled to 10
percent. When compared to the Armenian Patriarchate figures, these
three areas account for ~25K of the ~33K difference, even though only
one-third of the Armenian population resided in those districts.

Summary

Even prior to the Hamidian Massacres, Ottoman records indicated a
decline in the number of Armenians within the Diyarbekir province. It
was not until 1900 that the Armenian male population recovered,
either due to improved enumeration or as part of the post-massacre
demographic rebirth.

Diyarbekir Province 1892/93 data The central question is under what
assumptions do we account for the difference between an Armenian
population of 72,124 as stated within Ottoman records to the 105,528
stated by the Armenian Patriarchate?

If we begin with the 1911 Ottoman document, which seems to represent
the population as of 1905-06, the Armenian male population is stated
as 34,645. The first adjustment is to account for the undercounting
of male children. As we have already seen, McCarthy assumed 1.1313
based on data from 1892. If we do not adjust the male population aged
35-39, which assumes the dip is due to higher deaths from the 1877-78
war, then the adjustment is 1.1215. The fundamental problem is that
the recorded population is 80 percent Muslim and there is no way to
discern whether Armenian children were undercounted to a greater or
lesser extent.

In addition, the total population grew by ~26 percent between 1892 and
1906. A more reasonable growth rate would have been 10-11 percent. The
additional growth has been assumed to come from better enumeration.

So, one could assume that no adjustment need be made for the
undercounting of children since improvements in enumeration entirely
came from those under the age of 15. While that is probably not a
reasonable assumption, it is a possibility that children were counted
to a greater or lesser extent in 1906 than in 1892.

In addition, there is the matter of the reasonableness of the life
table that McCarthy has chosen. It is beyond the scope of this article
to address this issue, but for these reasons

I prefer a range of assumptions. Here I will assume three different
adjustments for the undercounting of male children: 10 percent (low),
12.5 percent (mid), and 15 percent (high).

Low Mid High

1906 Recorded Armenian Males 34,645 34,645 34,645

1906 Adjusted Armenian Males 38,110 38,976 39,842

The Muslim population grew by ~14 percent between 1329 Ottoman document
and the 1330 Nufus (which is thought to represent the population as of
1914), while the Armenian population grew by ~12 percent. Again, this
represents better enumeration plus normal population growth. Either
the Armenian population grew at a slower pace or there were greater
improvements in registering Muslims than Armenians. For this purpose,
let’s assume 10 percent, 12 percent, and 14 percent, respectively.

Low Mid High

1914 Adjusted Armenian Males 41,920 43,653 45,420

Interestingly, this is about 6,000 less than what might be expected
based on the growth in the Muslim population. Based on other estimates
of the time, this would be an estimate for the number of Armenian
deaths during the Hamidian Massacres combined with emigration in the
intervening years.

As pointed out earlier, you cannot simply double the male population
to arrive at the total population, as Armenian males exhibited deaths
and emigration beyond those of females. In addition, conversion to
Islam needs to be accounted for. I am going to assume a range of
between 0 and 4,000 Armenian women converted to Islam in the years
between 1890 and 1914.

Low Mid High

1914 Adjusted Armenian Total Population 85,841 91,305 96,839

This represents a difference from the patriarchate figures of 9-23
percent. From 1890 to 1914, the population of Diyarbekir displayed
growth rates that indicate improved registration. Over that period,
there was no indication that the trend had leveled or even slowed.

Thus, omissions of men over the age of 15 may still have existed.

In addition, there is ample evidence that even in developed countries
the undercounting of minorities is greater than the rest of society.

For instance, even in the 1990 United States census, African Americans
are undercounted almost five times that of whites. Hispanics are
undercounted to an even greater extent. Further, the omission rates
for African Americans have been estimated to be greater for males
aged 15-40 than for ages 5-15.

This is not to say that Armenians within the Ottoman Empire and
African Americans within the United States would exhibit the same
rates of omission in census enumerations, but it does indicate that
differences between ethnicities is a reasonable assumption.

One area that should be looked to for evidence of undercounting of
Armenians, whether purposeful or not, is the town of Chungush.

Armenian sources indicate a very large Armenian population, yet
Ottoman records as late as 1900 indicate only one village containing
non-Muslims in the Chermik District where Chungush was located
(as well as the towns of Adish and Chermik, which also contained
Armenians). The Ottoman records indicate the Armenian population
dropped from almost 6,000 in this district to less than 800. The
population was well above 10,000 and closer to 15,000. This alone
could explain much of the difference.

The analysis above, to a large extent, assumed that the undercounting
in the Ottoman registration system was equivalent for Armenians
and Muslims. That was most likely not the case. But even with that
assumption, the Ottoman records indicate the impact on the Armenian
population of policies initiated by the Ottoman government.

Imperfect data is the norm in historical demography. However,
even with the flaws in available information, much can be learned
from such analysis as that above. The goal is not to arrive at a
definitive number of Armenians, but more to understand the issues
that must be overcome to fully understand the magnitude of the crime
that was committed.

From: A. Papazian

PRESS RELEASE
Office of California Senator Carol Lui
Contact: Robert Oakes
Legislative Director/Communications Director
State Capitol, Room 5061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 916-651-4021
Web:

May 16, 2011

SENATOR LIU ANNOUNCES DISTRICT STAFF CHANGES AND OFFICE RELOCATION

GLENDALE, CA – Senator Carol Liu on Monday (May 16, 2011) announced the
appointment of a new District Director and the relocation of her
District Office.

Liu appointed Talin Mangioglu as District Director. Ms. Mangioglu began
volunteering for then-Assemblymember Liu in 2004 and was hired as
full-time staff in 2005. She has served as District Manager since Sen.
Liu was sworn into office in December 2008.

Ms. Mangioglu was previously a small business owner in Pasadena and a
member of the South Lake Business Association. She is fluent in Spanish
and Armenian. She lived in Pasadena for 24 years and currently resides
in Van Nuys. Ms. Mangioglu attended Pasadena Community College and
California State University-Los Angeles.

Effective June 1, 2011, Sen. Liu’s District Office will relocate to 501
N. Central Ave., Glendale, CA 91203.

Liu represents nearly 850,000 people in the 21st Senate District, which
includes Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, La Cañada-Flintridge, San
Gabriel, Temple City, and several City and County of Los Angeles
communities. She is the Chair of the Senate Human Services Committee.

From: A. Papazian

VISITE A BERDADZOR, LIEU MYTHIQUE DE LA GUERRE DU HAUT-KARABAKH
Jean Eckain

armenews.com
lundi 17, mai 2011

Le 15 mai 1991, les troupes soviétiques et les forces spéciales
azerbaïdjanaises lancaient l’opération Koltso. Objectif :
permettre a Bakou de s’emparer du Haut-Karabakh, une enclave peuplée
majoritairement d’Arméniens qui avait voté l’autodétermination en
1988. Vingt ans plus tard, des habitants et des anciens combattants
arméniens se remémorent l’événement.

Si vous empruntez la nationale [M 12] qui relie Goris a Stepanakert,
au Haut-Karabakh, vous pourrez admirer toutes les couleurs du printemps
qui se déploient sur les versants escarpés, mais n’oubliez pas de
regarder vers les hauteurs. La, perchées sur un sommet que l’on
croirait inaccessible, vous distinguerez un ensemble de maisons
basses, blotties les unes contre les autres et qui semblent a demi
enterrées. Si vous voulez approcher l’histoire de l’Arménie et
savoir ce qui constitue la terre de l’Artsakh [nom arménien du
Haut-Karabakh], prenez la route sinueuse et escarpée qui mène vers
ces habitations. Vous découvrirez ainsi Berdadzor.

A l’époque soviétique, le canton de Berdadzor, dans le district
de Chouchi, se composait de quelques villages. Il y a vingt ans
précisément, le 15 mai 1991, deux semaines après les expulsions
sanglantes des habitants de Guetachen et Martounachen [localités
d’Azerbaïdjan qui étaient peuplées majoritairement d’Arméniens],
il était la cible de l’opération Koltso [Anneau]. C’était alors
une sorte d’enclave arménienne, car depuis de longues années
les responsables de la république soviétique d’Azerbaïdjan
s’étaient appliqués a chasser tous les Arméniens des villages
voisins. L’encerclement, censé permettre a l’Azerbaïdjan de s’emparer
d’un Karabakh rétif, ne pouvait laisser de côté Berdadzor, situé
a un emplacement stratégique.

Nous y arrivons aujourd’hui en compagnie de Gaïané Aroustamian, qui
participa aux événements de l’époque en assurant la liaison entre
Berdadzor, Stepanakert et Erevan. Un étroit chemin de terre nous fait
entrer dans Mets Chen, où nous passons devant une bâtisse inachevée.

C’est exactement le trajet qu’avaient suivi les détachements
soviétiques de répression et les Omons [forces spéciales du
ministère de l’Intérieur russe] azéris. Notre guide assure que tous
les villages du Karabakh qui étaient entourés de bourgades azéries
devaient s’assurer une protection armée. “Tout avait commencé par
des incidents, raconte Gaïané. Puis sont venues les attaques vraiment
sérieuses, les vols de bétail, les incendies, jusqu’aux agressions et
aux meurtres. Je me souviens qu’en 1990, dans le village de Tas Verst,
une vieille femme avait été assassinée, et sa maison brÔlée. Je
qualifierais la période 1990-1991 d’années d’affrontements, qui
ont été suivies par des actes de guerre. Des milices d’autodéfense
avaient été créées pour protéger la population de l’Artsakh. Elles
faisaient essentiellement des rondes de nuit.”

Lire la suite dans Courrier international ICI

From: A. Papazian

REVUE DE PRESSE
System Of A Down de retour

Mercredi 11 mai 2011, System Of A Down donnait le premier concert de
sa tournée de reformation à Edmonton. Et le moins que l’on puisse
dire, c’est que le public en a eu pour son argent ! Avec près de 30
morceaux, System Of A Down a donné au public canadien un très large
aperçu de son répertoire. De “Prison Song” à “Sugar”, en passant par
“B.Y.O.B.”, “Know”, “Chop Suey !”, “Aerials” ou “Toxicity”, tous les
grands classiques du groupe américain ont été rejoués pour le plus
grand plaisir du public du Rexall Place. On croise les doigts pour que
la set-list des concerts parisien qui auront lieu le mois prochain
soit proche de celle-ci. En attendant les deux concerts à Bercy les 6
et 8 juin prochain…
dimanche 15 mai 2011,
Sté[email protected]

D´autres informations disponibles

From: A. Papazian

Global Insight
May 13, 2011

Armenian PM Calls to Limit World Bank Credit Loans for Technical Assistance

BYLINE: Lilit Gevorgyan

During a cabinet meeting on 12 May, Armenian prime minister Tigran
Sarkisian instructed his ministers to suspend the use of World Bank
credit loans for technical assistance. He called instead for the
involvement of the Armenian experts and wider employment of their
skills and knowledge. Sarkisian clarified that the government should
use the World Bank’s expertise through grant programmes only in
exceptional cases. He argued that thus far, “the legislative and
regulatory projects that we order to the foreign experts at the
expense of credit funds do not find subsequent application. We do not
get sufficient results from the consultation, reporting and
professional advice either.” Sarkisian did not explain why the
legislative and regulatory projects did not find a subsequent
application.

Significance:Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991,
Armenia has been closely co-operating with international donors such
as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Their
financial assistance has been coupled with technical expert level
advice as the South Caucasian country made the transition from the
Soviet-style economic and state structure to an open market. Foreign
expert advice benefited the country during the initial stages of the
transition, but the grants and loans have also increased Armenia’s
foreign debt. Armenia has managed to go through difficult structural
reforms since then. Most importantly, the number of Armenian experts
has grown significantly in recent years. Many of them have Western
education and experience of working with inter-governmental
organisations. For historic reasons, Armenia has a 6-7 million strong
diaspora. Most of them live in Western countries and since Armenia’s
independence some of them have volunteered to provide their expertise
to the Armenian government at no or competitive cost. Thanks to
widespread scholarship programmes, the number of Armenian citizens
with Western graduate and research levels of education has also grown.
Using Armenian experts will not only be cheaper for the government,
but will also provide jobs for local professionals.

From: A. Papazian

Armenian president calls for enhanced mutual ties with Iran

Moscow, May 14, IRNA – Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan in a meeting
with a top Iranian official called for enhanced mutual cooperation
with the Islamic Republic of Iran on late Friday.

The Armenian president made the remarks in a meeting with Iran’s
Deputy Foreign Minister for Middle East and Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) Affairs Mohammad-Reza Sheibani in Yerevan.

Sargsyan voiced his country’s willingness to eliminate problems
hindering expansion of mutual ties.

Sheibani, for his part, said the proposal of holding an international
conference against terrorism was announced by President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in the UN General Assembly Summit in 2010.

He said the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the presence of
foreign troops and their meddling in the Middle East are the
root-cause of terrorism in the region.

Ways of fostering mutual ties were also discussed during the meeting.

The Iranian deputy foreign minister also held talks with Armenian
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian during his day-long visit to his
country.

From: A. Papazian

Yerevan to mark International Day of Families

May 14, 2011 – 13:21 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net –

Yerevan will mark the International Day of Families. On May 16, the
National Library of Armenia will host an event dedicated to the
holiday.

The International Day of Families is observed on the 15th of May every
year. The Day was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution in
1993 and reflects the importance the international community attaches
to families. The International Day provides an opportunity to promote
awareness of issues relating to families and increase the knowledge of
the social, economic and demographic processes affecting families.

“Far too many families endure chronic, punishing hardship. Lacking
jobs and the means to make ends meet, adults are unable to provide
adequate nutrition for children, leaving them with lifelong physical
and cognitive scars. …On this International Day of Families, let us
resolve to support families as they nurture the young, care for the
old and foster strong communities built on tolerance and dignity for
all,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his message.

The 2011’s commemoration of the International Day of Families focuses
on the “Confronting Family Poverty and Social Exclusion.”

From: A. Papazian

Ara Papian: Woodrow Wilson’s Arbitral Award Is A Valid And Legally
Obligatory Document

14.05.2011 | 11:47 | | Noyan Tapan | Articles and Analyses

(Noyan Tapan – 14.05.2011) By Ara Papian

The Armenian Genocide during the World War I and after went down the
history as a crystal-clear example of unpunished crime that reinvented
itself in Nazi extermination of the Jews, the Gypsies and the Slavic
peoples. The annihilation of an entire civilization that occurred
under the apathetic eye of the world at the turn of the XX century
ricocheted right into our lifetime with the destruction of innocent
people in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. The principle of an ignored crime
backfired again.

All Genocides have a common denominator – it is brutal and
premeditated killing of hundreds of thousands and millions of people,
huge loses of cultural values and property. Unfortunately, the
Armenian Genocide has something in particular that makes it deferent
and it stands separately from all other Genocides. In addition to
human loses and destruction of our heritage we lost the most valuable
thing that a nation can possess – we lost our Homeland. The Armenian
massacres and deportations uprooted men, women and children who were
living on their ancestral homeland for several millennia, reducing a
once vibrant region into open graves and ghost towns throughout
Anatolia and Western Armenia. It is a sad fact that today there are
less than 60,000 Armenians left in Turkey. After the 1.5 million
killed, the remaining survivors and their descendants are now
dispersed throughout the world.

Armenian territorial rights are based upon several international
instruments. The most important of them is the Arbitral Award by the
United States President Woodrow Wilson, done on November 22, 1920,
which by a binding decision and conclusively defined the boundary
between Armenia and Turkey. Because of the time constraint, I will not
go into details of this document. Especially when the full text of the
Arbitral Award in English (more than 240 pages) with detailed notes
and indices will come out in Yerevan at the end of next month – on May
28. However, it is important to give the general overview of the
Arbitral Award, which we Armenians rightfully consider as the Bible of
our territorial rights.

As you may know, the Republic of Armenia declared her independence on
May 28, 1918. One and half years after this declaration, on January
19, 1920, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers finally agreed to
recognize the government of the Armenian State on the condition that
the recognition should not prejudge the question of the eventual
frontier.1 The United States recognized the Republic of Armenia on
April 23, 1920, on the same condition. By the way, the United States
refused to recognize the independence of Georgia and Azerbaijan
because of their unlawful claims to Armenian territory.2

On April 26, 1920, the Supreme Council meeting at San Remo requested
the President of the United States two things:

1. The United States assume a mandate over Armenia;

2. The President of the United States to make an Arbitral Decision to
fix the boundary of Armenia with Turkey.3 As you may know, the
Armenian mandate was rejected by Senate vote on June 1, 1920.
Nevertheless, the American answer to the second request was positive
and on May 17, 1920, the Secretary of State informed the American
Ambassador in France that the President had agreed to act as
arbitrator.4 For the implementation of the task, the State Department
began to assemble a team of experts in mid-July 1920 headed by
Professor William Westermann, from Wisconsin University. The state
department put together a committee, entitled: `The Committee upon the
Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia’. As the Treaty
of Sevres was signed on August 10, 1920, the boundary committee began
its deliberations. The fact of signing the Treaty of Sevres is
important because the compromis, i.e. the application for the
arbitration, is included in the Treaty as Article 89. It must be
underlined that the status of the compromis has nothing to do with the
status of the main Treaty, thus with ratification or non-ratification
of the Treaty. Therefore, as the State Department received the
authenticated copy of the Treaty on October 18, 1920, it was
sufficient for the President officially to conclude the arbitration
without waiting the ratification of the Treaty of Sevres.

On November 22, 1920,5 Woodrow Wilson signed the final award with
seven enclosed appendices. So under the Arbitral Award of November 22,
1920, the border between Armenia and Turkey was settled conclusively
and without appeal, because, as clearly states The Hague Convention6
(article 54 of the 1899 edition and article 81 of the 1907 edition):7
`The award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties,
settles the dispute definitively and without appeal.’ 8

Few words on the content of the Arbitral Award. According to the
Arbitral Award, the title and the rights of the Republic of Armenia
were recognized on the large part of the provinces of Van, Bitlis,
Erzerum and Trebizond. It was less than the half of the territory on
which the Armenian title was recognized by the article 24 of the
Mudros armistice on October 30, 1918. This drastic cutback was due to
far-reaching reduction of native Armenian population, because of the
Armenian Genocide.

Now briefly on the most important issue – the present status of the
Arbitral Award. As indicates the official Manual of the Terminology of
Public International Law of the United Nations, for the arbitral award
to be valid it must meet four criteria:9

Criterion 1: The arbitrators must not have been subjected to any undue
external influence such as coercion, bribery or corruption;

Criterion 2: The production of proofs must have been free from fraud
and the proofs produced must not have contained any essential errors;

Criterion 3: The compromis must have been valid;

Criterion 4: The arbitrators must not have exceeded their powers.

Due to time limits, I will not go into details. However, after
assessing Wilson’s Arbitral award against the abovementioned criteria,
it can be declared confidently: The Arbitral Award of Woodrow Wilson
is still a valid and legally obligatory document, because the
indispensable feature of an arbitral award is that it produces an
award that is final and binding. By agreeing to submit the dispute to
arbitration, i.e. signing a compromis, the parties in advance agree to
accept the decision.10 Therefore, in spite of the long-standing
occupation, Turkey does not possess any legal title to the territory
of Wilsonian Armenia. After the arbitral award of the US President,
signed and sealed on November 22, 1920, Turkish presence over there is
not more than an administrative control alike of Turkish status in
Northern Cyprus. Thus, the presence and all acts taken by the Turkish
Republic in the `Wilsonian Armenia’ are illegal and invalid, because
the belligerent occupation does not yield lawful rule over a
territory.

It is true that international law by itself will not be able to bring
about a solution for the Armenian-Turkish confrontation. Nonetheless,
there is no doubt that international law is the only way to bring
about a just and peaceful resolution, thus a durable and permanent
solution. The main basis for the lawful solution of long-standing
Armenian- Turkish problem are not the infamous Armenian-Turkish
protocols, but the Arbitral Award, done over 90 years ago in the
capital city of this country by 28th President of the United States of
America Woodrow Thomas Wilson.

Notes

1 G. H. Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Turkish?Armenian
Boundary Question, vol. I, Chapters I-V, Washington, 1940, p. 715.

2 (H. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law, Cambridge, 1947,
p. 11. Papers Relating to Foreign Relations of the United States,
1920, v. III, Washington, 1936. p. 778.) [hereinafter – FRUS].

3 The Treaties of Peace, 1919?1923, (Preface by Lt.?Col. Lawrence
Martin).vol. I, New York, 1924, p. xxxii.

4 Ibid., p. 783.

5 Cukwurah A. O., The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International
Law, Manchester, 1967, pp. 165-166.

6 The 1899 Convention was ratified by Turkey on July 12, 1907. (The
Hague Court Reports, op. cit., p. cii).

7 This notion was comprised in article # 54 of the 1899 Convention
with slightly deferent wording: `The award, duly pronounced and
notified to the agents of the parties [at variance, puts an end to]
the dispute definitively and without appeal.'( The Hague Court
Reports, op. cit., p. lxxxix).

8 Ibid.

9 Manual of the Terminology of Public International Law, op.cit., §
508, pp. 588?590. 10 Ibid., p. 27.

From: A. Papazian

Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan will be Interrogated

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 14:58:01 – 14/05/2011

The head of the Special Investigative Service Andranik Mirzoyan did
not rule out interrogation of the first and second presidents of
Armenia. The expediency will be discussed and identified, he said
during the briefing after the release of the annual report on the
state budget of Armenia in the National Assembly.

He also said next week the Service will be heavily loaded with work
regarding March 1. This week witnesses to the case showed up at the
SIS who may give new evidence. Mirzoyan also informed that the group
of detectives has been enlarged, involving 15 detectives. The
materials of the Fact-Finding Group on March 1 will also be used. The
evidence obtained by the fact-finding group will be added to the
evidence obtained by the SIS.

Andranik Mirzoyan says `now there is possibility to review the entire
case from a different perspective, what actions were taken, new
circumstances may be investigated, we will see if there is possibility
for new examinations, interrogation of new witnesses, representatives
of the injured parties, additional interrogation. Foreign experts may
be involved in the investigation to the case.’

From: A. Papazian