Author: Andres-Papazian

LOI DE PENALISATION-MEDIAS
« La colère des Arméniens » titre « Le Point »
l’hebdomadaire critique la position de la Commission des Lois de la
Haute Assemblée

Sous le titre « La colère des Arméniens », l’hebdomadaire « Le Point »
(daté du jeudi 28 avril 2011-n° 2015) consacre un court article sur la
Loi de pénalisation du négationnisme du génocide arménien. « Le Point
» critique la décision de la Commission des Lois de la Haute Assemblée
qui a opposé à l’unanimité « l’irrecevabilité de cette proposition de
Loi ». « Le Point » écrit « Les partisans de la répression de la
contestation de l’existence du génocide arménien ont perdu une
première manche. La proposition de loi déposée par le sénateur Serge
Lagauche et de plusieurs de ses collègues a été combattue par le
rapporteur Jean-Jacques Hyest (photo), qui a obtenu, à l’unanimité,
que la commission des Lois de la Haute Assemblée oppose l’exception
d’irrecevabilité à cette proposition. Hyest a rappelé que la France
avait officiellement reconnu l’existence du génocide arménien par la
loi du 29 janvier 2011. Il a reconnue qu’en l’état du droit la
contestation du génocide arménien n’était pas susceptible de
poursuites pénales, mais pouvait faire l’objet d’actions devant une
juridiction civile. Les partisans de la proposition de loi, révoltés,
contestent un rapport « bclé et partial ». Il y figurerait en effet
une grosse erreur de droit : plus aucun recours sur la base du Code
civil en matière de restriction de la liberté d’expression n’est
possible, selon une jurisprudence constante datant de 2005. Et les
personnalités favorables au texte (BHL, Onfray, Klarsfeld) n’ont pas
été entendus ». Par ailleurs, dans le même numéro, Franz Olivier
Giesbert signe un article intitulé « Pour l’Arménie » et prenant
partie pour l’adoption par le Sénat de la Loi de pénalisation.

Krikor Amirzayan

“La colère des Arméniens” titre Le Point du 28 Avril 2011
Pour l’Arménie de FOGdimanche 1er mai 2011,
Krikor [email protected]

From: A. Papazian

COMMUNIQUE DU CCAF
Le président de la République reçoit une délégation du CCAF

Une délégation du CCAF a pu rencontrer samedi le président de la
République française pour s’entretenir avec lui de la position du
gouvernement sur la loi sanctionnant la négation du génocide des
Arméniens qui sera soumise au vote du Sénat le mercredi 4 mai.
Nicolas Sarkozy a indiqué que le gouvernement laisserait le Sénat
libre de déterminer son vote et qu’il ne donnerait pas de consigne à
sa majorité. Il a garanti qu’il ne s’opposerait pas au vote de cette
loi. Il a précisé qu’il maintenait sa position sur la nécessité de
combattre le négationnisme du génocide des Arméniens en France, qu’il
a assimilé au racisme. Il a assuré qu’une circulaire du ministère de
la Justice donnera des instructions en ce sens au parquet.
Le CCAF prend acte de cette avancée du président de la République qui
laisse espérer qu’un frein sera mis à la propagation du négationnisme
d’Etat sur le sol national.
La délégation du CCAF, composée de Mourad Papazian et d’Ara Toranian,
était accompagnée de Lévon Sayan, représentant Charles Aznavour qui
était retenu à Genève et de Patrick Devedjian. Jean-David Lévitte,
conseiller diplomatique de l’Elysée a également assisté à l’entretien
et ainsi que Jean Sarkozy.
Le CCAF relance un appel à l’ensemble des sénateurs, au-delà de toute
attache partisane, à voter en faveur de la loi, il invite à la
mobilisation devant le Sénat mercredi 4 mai à 14h et demande à la
communauté arménienne de rester plus mobilisée que jamais pour le
respect de ses droits.
Conseil de coordination des organisations arméniennes de France.
dimanche 1er mai 2011,
[email protected]

From: A. Papazian

WorldArmavia airline starts flights to Venice on Russia’s Superjet-100

YEREVAN, May 1 (RIA Novosti)

The Armenian airline Armavia opens on Sunday regular passenger flights
from Yerevan to Venice and back using Russia’s newest commercial
plane, the Sukhoi Superjet 100, company’s press service said.

The flights will be made regularly once a week on Sundays, the company said.

The newest Russian aircraft was delivered to Armavia at a ceremony in
Armenia on April 27. Next day it completed its first passenger flight
from the capital of Armenia to Moscow carrying 90 passengers.

The Superjet 100 is a family of medium-haul passenger aircraft
developed by Sukhoi in cooperation with U.S. and European aviation
corporations, including Boeing, Snecma, Thales, Messier Dowty,
Liebherr Aerospace and Honeywell.

The aircraft is capable of carrying 75-95 passengers up to 4,500 kilometers.

Armavia, which bought four of the planes in 2007, plans to use the
aircraft to conduct flights to Moscow, St Petersburg, Sochi and
Ukraine.

Currently, there are 17 models in production at different stages of completion.

The company plans to manufacture at least 14 Superjet 100s this year,
and 25 in 2012, and intends to sell 35% of them to the United States,
25% to Europe, 10% to Latin America, and 7% to Russia and China.

From: A. Papazian

Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)
T +995 32 75 19 03/04
F +995 32 75 19 05
[email protected]

VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT GEO-11-002 – PROJECT OFFICER JUVENILE JUSTICE

Temporary Appointment

Background

Georgia is a party of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
The Convention requires State Parties to develop and implement a
comprehensive juvenile justice policy in the “best interest of the child”.
The importance of reforming the juvenile justice system was highly
recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in its Concluding
Observations on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child in Georgia. Georgia has a population of 4,394,700 of which 1,089,000
are under the age of 18 and 363,000 are between the ages of 12-18.

Reform of the Juvenile Justice System in Georgia[1] is one of the key
priorities of UNICEF and the Government of Georgia’s Programme of
Cooperation. The aim is to establish a juvenile justice system that is
focused on rehabilitation and reintegration into society; ensuring that
children are not criminalized unnecessarily, with programmes of prevention
and diversion, and personnel dealing with juveniles adequately trained. All
of these are central to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
child’s best interest. On-going reform efforts in the penitentiary and
probation system have seen the introduction of child-sensitive and
rehabilitative measures for children, as well as the beginning of the use of
alternative sentencing measures and diversion.

The Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Corrections and Legal
Assistance (MCLA), are committed to reform the juvenile justice system in
line with international and European child-rights principles. This is
exemplified with the establishment of the Criminal Justice Reform
Inter-Agency Coordinating Council, created under the President’s Decree in
December 2008. Elaboration of recommendations for the improvements in
Juvenile Justice, Probation and Penitentiary systems is one of the main
objectives of the council, which has created a Juvenile Justice working
group to focus specifically on this area, and has helped place Juvenile
Justice issues at the forefront of the governments criminal justice reform
efforts.

According to agreements with the Government of Georgia, UNICEF has been
assisting the government to address policy issues with regard to juveniles
in probation and detention by implementing programmes to contribute to the
implementation of a comprehensive juvenile justice system in Georgia and
especially the improvement of the penitentiary system and probation system
for convicted child offenders. Specifically, UNICEF aims to assist the GoG,
and particularly the MCLA, to realize a reintegration-focused penitentiary
system and probation system that are geared to one another through
individual reintegration planning and reintegration programmes so child
offenders who are ‘conditionally released from detention’ or ‘conditionally
sentenced after detention’ move smoothly from the penitentiary system to the
probation system.

To this end UNICEF intends to contract a national project officer who will
be responsible for the coordination and overall technical guidance to the
above noted aims, project management, and assisting in the drafting of
narrative and financial reports.

Overall Task of the Project Officer

The Project officer will manage the planning, implementation and monitoring
of programme activities, under the overall supervision of the Child
Protection Specialist. S/he will provide inputs to link Programme relevant
activities with relevant components of the ongoing criminal justice system
reform in Georgia. The Project officer will receive general guidance from
the Child Protection Officer, Juvenile Justice as well as the Child
Protection Specialist.

Main Tasks of the Project Officer:

* To analyse documents and Programme achievements, constraints and
lessons learned;
* To assist/contribute in developing training modules for the
Penitentiary and Probation staff training when necessary.
* To design TORs for consultants and sub-projects for Programme
implementation, supporting identification of the implementing partners and
monitoring the same;
* To have regular communication with UNICEF international consultants,
as applicable, to receive guidance on particular aspects of Programme
implementation
* To establish relations and have regular communication with the
-Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance (MCLA) in order to ensure
timely and effective implementation of the Programme components, as well as
the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)
* Together with partners from the international community, to assist
main stakeholders and local partners to understand the meaning and
importance of the Programme and their role and function in the
implementation process
* To ensure UNICEF’s participation in all major forums related to
Programme relevant activities

* Together with the MCLA and main stakeholders to ensure continued
implementation of individual reintegration plan and reintegration packages
within penitentiary and probation systems,

* To provide necessary assistance to the steering group(s) on
Penitentiary and Probation reforms to prepare training, package on
individual reintegration plan, reintegration package for penitentiary and
probation staff and service providers, general juvenile justice issues,
child-sensitive communication, and application for conditional release

* To provide assistance to the MCLA, local service providers and
main stakeholder to implement individual reintegration plan and
reintegration package, particularly in the area of social welfare,
vocational and employment training.

* To assist the MCLA, and Ministry of Education and Science, in
managing hand-over of Vocational training activities to governmental bodies.

* To make links with child welfare, labour and education, Youth
participation and Youth Inclusion activities and stakeholders to support the
project’s integration with overall government system development. This
includes links with private and civil society actors.

Qualifications:

Essential:

* Advanced university degree in law, social work, social
sciences or other relevant fields

* Excellent and proven presentation, negotiation and
advocacy skills

* Excellent and proven communication, leadership and
teamwork skills

* Demonstrated ability to manage complex relationships
with a wide range of partners.

* Good analytical, prioritisation and planning skills

* 5 years experience in project management, including
report writing and budget management

* Fluency in written and spoken Georgian and English

Desirable:

* Good knowledge of Children’s Human Rights, and
juvenile justice issues. Knowledge of national legislation on juvenile
justice an asset

* Knowledge and experience of working on reintegration
of children in conflict with the law, particularly in the area of child
welfare is an asset

* Experience of working in juvenile justice sector,
probation and penitentiary systems an asset

* Experience within the social work field considered a
strong asset

* Experience of designing, managing and evaluating
training programmes highly desirable.

* Experience of conducting (interactive adult) training
on juvenile justice and/or children’s rights an advantage.

* Experience of working with high officials as well as
local representatives of the justice sector and NGOs working in related
fields

Competencies for the post:

Working with People; Communications; Analyzing and Drive for Results.

Supervision:

The project officer will work under the supervision of the UNICEF Child
Protection Specialist, with overall supervision from the Deputy
Representative/Programme

Liaison Requirements:

The project officer will work closely with the MCLA Ministry of Justice, as
well as other partners working in justice reform in Georgia.

Contract arrangements:

The position will be as a fulltime Temporary Appointment (TA) at the NOB
level. The duration of the contract is intended to be 6 months, with the
possibility of extension.

How to Apply:

If you are interested in the position and have the required qualifications,
please hand-deliver your application in a sealed envelope labeled only as
“VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT Number: GEO-11-002 – PO JJ” and place in the
respective vacancy box, located in the Entrance Hall of the UN house, 9
Eristavi Street, Vake, Tbilisi 0179, Georgia no later than close of business
of Thursday 12 May 2011. The application should contain:

(1) Cover Letter addressed to Representative, UNICEF Georgia Country
Office

(2) detailed Curriculum Vitae and

(3) completed UN Personal History Form (could be downloaded from
, ,
,
, and
together with this vacancy
announcement).

Incomplete applications or applications received in other form or after the
above deadline will not be considered and only short-listed applicants will
be contacted.

UNICEF is committed to diversity and inclusion within its workforce, and
encourages qualified female and male candidates from all national, religious
and ethnic backgrounds, including persons living with disabilities, to apply
to become a part of our organization.

_____

_____

[1] For the purpose of this TOR, the geo-political delineation is Georgia
“proper” omitting both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

From: A. Papazian

Zaman France
28 avril 2011

La question arménienne et la guerre des maux

28 April 2011, Thursday / EMRE DEMIR, PARIS

Les déclarations du président américain Barack Obama sur « les
horribles évènements » vécus par les Arméniens en 1915 n’ont contenté
ni ces derniers, ni les Turcs.

Cette divergence est tout à fait caractéristique du conflit des mots
qui accompagne cette douloureuse question historique. Le bras de fer
se poursuit notamment en France où la commission des lois du Sénat
vient de déclarer à l’unanimité l’irrecevabilité de la proposition de
loi tendant à réprimer la contestation de l’existence du génocide
arménien. Il est bien évident que le sujet marque une division entre
deux visions radicalement opposées. Mais cette dichotomie n’est pas
celle qui sépare les personnes qui acceptent le terme et celles qui le
refusent. Ici, on retrouve des discours nationalistes qui, de chaque
côté, se ferment à toute discussion à partir du moment où tel ou tel
terme a été tu ou prononcé. S’il y a une dichotomie, elle se dessine
plutôt entre, d’un côté, ceux qui au nom de ce terme refusent une paix
solide et durable entre deux peuples qui partagent des siècles de
proximité et, de l’autre côté, ceux qui croient que cette paix est
possible, s’opposant à toute instrumentalisation politique des
souffrances humaines. La véritable urgence est dans la reconnaissance
non pas de ce terme mais de l’Autre, de son histoire et de ses
blessures identitaires. Alors que force est de constater que cette
guerre des mots est devenue, de part et d’autre, un prétexte au
mépris. Un vrai rapprochement prendra du temps. D’ailleurs, la société
turque est en train de changer puisque pour la deuxième fois
consécutive, les événements de 1915 ont été commémorés en plein c`ur
d’Istanbul et les intellectuels débattent de plus en plus de ces
questions. C’est uniquement dans la continuité de ces débats, par un
long travail de fond alliant les historiens aux juristes, que la
question pourra être tirée au clair. La seule condition de ce débat
sera qu’il se fasse sans les politiques et sans haine de l’autre.

;.node1?newsId=5136

From: A. Papazian

April 29, 2011
Making the Holocaust the Lesson on All Evils

NYTimes
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN

LOS ANGELES – Before you are submerged within the museum’s
theatrically darkened central galleries, before you learn how the
cafes and intellectual life of the Weimar Republic gradually gave way
to the annihilationist racial fantasies Hitler outlined in `Mein
Kampf’ – before, that is, you experience a variation of the Holocaust
narrative with its wrenching genocidal climax – there are other trials
a visitor to the Museum of Tolerance here must pass through.

You must first choose a door. One is invitingly labeled
`Unprejudiced’; the other, illuminated in red, screams `Prejudiced.’
No contest. But one door doesn’t open; the other does. Here,
evidently, we must admit we are all prejudiced, not just the guards at
Auschwitz.

As proof, below a streaming news ticker (`Gay Basher Gets 12 Years’)
are panels about `Confronting Hate in America’: Two Latinos are beaten
on Long Island; a white supremacist shoots Jews in Los Angeles; a Sikh
is murdered in a post-9/11 `hate crime’; a homosexual student is
brutally murdered in Wyoming. On one panel is a description of the
Oklahoma City bombing; on another, the attacks of 9/11.

Walk a little farther and you come to a mock 1950s-style diner, where
a television monitor broadcasts a staged news video about a drunken
driver injuring his date on prom night. We are asked to record our
votes about who is most responsible: the liquor store owner who
illegally sold the booze, the parents of the drunk driver, the
teenager himself?

A case of cyber-bullying also solicits our careful assessments.
`Think,’ we are urged by the signs: `Assume responsibility,’ `Ask
questions,’ `Speak up.’

Similar prescriptions are implied throughout this 80,000-square-foot
museum, which opened in 1993 as `the educational arm of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center,’ the international organization associated with
that famed Holocaust survivor and `Nazi hunter’ who died in 2005. The
museum’s central exhibition about the Holocaust and the murder of six
million Jews is preceded by this `Tolerancenter,’ as it is called,
which strains to tie together slavery, genocides, prejudice,
discrimination and hate crimes, while showing even elementary school
students (as the museum literature says) `the connection between these
large-scale events and the epidemic of bullying in today’s schools.’

But as the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day is commemorated on Sunday
– known in Hebrew as Yom HaShoah – it is worth taking a closer look at
this approach to mass murder. The Museum of Tolerance is not
alone. Even a modest museum devoted to the Holocaust, like the one
that opened in 2009 at Queensborough Community College, offers
testimonials by students about how the Holocaust has taught them about
tolerance and the evils of discrimination. And no Holocaust museum, it
seems, can be complete without invoking other 20th-century genocides
in Rwanda, Darfur or Cambodia as proof that the lessons of the
Holocaust must be taught even more fervently. In the recently opened
Holocaust museum in Skokie, Ill., bullying also plays a cautionary
role.

Several years ago, too, the Anne Frank Haus in Amsterdam ended its
sober tour through the famed annex where that young diarist and her
family hid from the Nazis with a video-laden hortatory show about
nearly every social injustice that could be enumerated. The passion
may now be cooler, but the impulse remains. We learn from the
Amsterdam museum’s Web site that an Anne Frank School – like those
being established all over the world – `obliges itself to stand up for
freedom, justice, tolerance and human dignity and to resolutely turn
against any form of aggression, discrimination, racism, political
extremism and excessive nationalism.’

Though Yad Vashem in Israel and the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum in Washington have remained relatively immune to such sweeping
moralizing, in most institutions and curriculums, the Holocaust’s
lessons are clear: We should all get along, become politically active
and be very considerate of our neighbors. If not, well, the
differences between hate crimes and the Holocaust – between bullying
and Buchenwald – are just a matter of degree.

Perhaps, though, we should take the lesson even further. What if this
were the approach of every historical museum? The Imperial War Museum
in London might look at World War I as a result of intolerance and
hold out the promise of ending all wars if only its lessons were
properly learned; after all, didn’t the French and Germans enjoy a
sociable Christmas holiday cease-fire in the trenches of the Western
Front?

The history of American slavery might explore the many ways people
have enslaved others or forced them to do things against their
will. An examination of the Soviet Gulag might emphasize the need to
permit greater diversity of opinion in society, or more adventurously,
it might attack the notion of imprisonment itself for being so
Gulag-like.

As history, this is laughable. Yet we seem willing to accept that in
the case of the Holocaust, an exhibition must allude to all forms of
genocide, and must offer broad lessons about tolerance.

In part, this is because of the ways many of these museums began,
spurred into creation by survivors who were horrified by their own
experience, unable to make sense of it or of the hatred behind it.
Couldn’t it all have been prevented had others been more tolerant?

That approach is reflected in the Museum of Tolerance, whose founder,
Rabbi Marvin Hier, understood Wiesenthal’s own desire to generalize
the Holocaust to bring more attention to it. As Tom Segev suggests in
his new biography, `Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and Legends’
(Doubleday), the museum was even conceived of as a West Coast rival to
the more sober Holocaust museum then being built in Washington.

The spirit of generalization has also been applied to the nature of
the Holocaust itself. In a 2005 lecture on `The Use and Abuse of
Holocaust Memory,’ Walter Reich, a former director of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum, points out that in 1979, after a
commission headed by Elie Wiesel was established to create a Holocaust
museum in Washington, President Jimmy Carter referred to `11 million
innocent victims exterminated – 6 million of them Jews.’ The 11
million figure has since become an international touchstone. In some
cases it has expanded to 12, in effect diminishing Jewish centrality.

But, as Mr. Reich points out, the 11 million figure was pulled out of
thin air by Wiesenthal. The historian Yehuda Bauer wrote: `Wiesenthal,
as he admitted to me in private, invented the figure in order to
create sympathy for the Jews – in order to make the non-Jews feel like
they are part of us.’ In fact, historians suggest that there were
perhaps a half million non-Jews who died in concentration camps.

The impulse to tell the Holocaust story only in the context of
elaborate generalizations has also helped justify its inclusion in
school curriculums and helped obtain public financing for museums: The
goal was not particular but general, not Judeocentric but
humanitarian. The Museum of Tolerance, for example, runs an extensive
series of education programs, including `Tools for Tolerance for
Professionals Programs’: sensitivity training for educators, law
enforcement officers and corporate leaders.

But what kind of history emerges as a result of these generalizations?
History stripped of distinctions. To understand the Armenian genocide,
for example, it is insufficient to treat it simply in passing, as if
it resembled what happened to the Jews in Europe. Understanding it
would mean examining the Ottoman Empire in the early decades of the
20th century, chronicling the relationship between Muslims and
Christians on the borders of Europe, comprehending connections between
the fates of Greeks and Armenians, and analyzing the imminent
dissolution of that empire.

And the deeper one looks at the Holocaust itself, the more unusual its
historical circumstances become. The cause of these mass killings was
not `intolerance,’ but something else, still scarcely
understood. Making sense of the Holocaust would mean first
comprehending the nature of hatred for Jews, surveying the place of
Jews in European societies and dissecting the blindness of many
Germans and most Europeans to the ambitions Hitler made so explicit.

These killings were not in the context of war over contested terrain;
they often took precedence over the very waging of war. And they were
accomplished not primarily through individual murders by sword or
rifle, as so many other ethnic massacres before and since have been,
but rather by harnessing the machinery of the era’s most advanced
industrial society.

Intolerance is almost too easy an explanation, implying a comforting
moral message. Instead, why not look at how Hitler’s powers might have
been undercut before he began to wage the war in Europe and the war
against the Jews? Wouldn’t an examination of those possibilities offer
a more profound lesson about how to prevent genocide?

And how central is intolerance to genocide anyway? Many intolerant
societies don’t set up bureaucratic offices to supervise efficient
mass murder. Many people who consider themselves very tolerant are
nonetheless blind to their own hatreds. There are even intolerant
people who would still find genocide unthinkable.

Finally, the homiletic approach to the Holocaust has broken down
almost all inhibitions in using the Holocaust as an analogy, even
though the eagerness to do so is a sure sign of misuse. And judging
from recent history, the analogies that have already been established,
far from making genocide unthinkable, have helped make it seem as
commonplace a possibility as schoolyard bullying.

The Museum of Tolerance is at 9786 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles;
(310) 553-8403; museumoftolerance.com.

From: A. Papazian

Bergen County Armenians commemorate massacre
Sunday, May 1, 2011
BY CHRIS HARRIS
The Record
STAFF WRITER

Members of North Jersey’s sizable Armenian community are
expected to turn out in droves today for a ceremony in Times Square
commemorating the 96th anniversary of the massacre of more than 1
million Armenians in what is now Turkey during World War I.

Scheduled to take place from 2 to 4 p.m., the free event will pay
tribute to those slain during the first genocide of the 20th Century.

Speakers will include civic, religious, humanitarian, educational and
cultural leaders, as well as performing artists. Among those scheduled
to address the crowd are New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez and New York Sen.
Charles Schumer.

“It’s important to remember what happened 96 years ago because
this is a major event for Armenians and mankind,” said Hirant Gulian, a
Cliffside Park resident and chairman of the Armenian Genocide
Commemoration Committee, which organized today’s event. “This
was the first genocide of the 20th century. We have the responsibility
to honor those that perished.”

Gulian said he expects a contingent of at least “a couple of thousand”
Armenians from Bergen County will turn out. He estimates that there are
more than 20,000 Armenian families living throughout Bergen County.

The genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire. The Republic of
Turkey, the successor state of the empire, has steadfastly denied the
word “genocide” is an accurate description of the events. Armenians say
their ancestors were rounded up and brutally forced into exile in what
today is Syria. Many died along the way.

Gulian believes marking the anniversary of the killing of Armenians is
important not just for Armenians, but “other communities as well. We
have a responsibility to show the new generation that genocide like this
should not happen, but it continues … in Darfur, the Sudan. We have a
responsibility to remind the politicians and world leaders that they
somehow must put an end to this genocide.”

Bert Ammerman of River Vale will not be attending today’s
ceremony, but agrees with Gulian that it is important to keep the memory
of what happened in 1915 alive.

“It should be an annual attempt to keep to the forefront that innocent
people throughout the world are consistently facing the challenges of
genocide,” said Ammerman, who lost his brother, Tom, in the bombing of
Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

“History repeats itself; look at Darfur, Iraq, and what is happening now
in Libya,” Ammerman continued. “If you don’t keep it at the
forefront, people tend to forget quickly. If they are not consistently
reminded of it, they will think it doesn’t exist anymore. So,
doing this, at least on an annual basis, reenergizes people to do
something, if only for a short period of time.”

E-mail: [email protected]

Members of North Jersey’s sizable Armenian community are
expected to turn out in droves today for a ceremony in Times Square
commemorating the 96th anniversary of the massacre of more than 1
million Armenians in what is now Turkey during World War I.

Scheduled to take place from 2 to 4 p.m., the free event will pay
tribute to those slain during the first genocide of the 20th Century.

Speakers will include civic, religious, humanitarian, educational and
cultural leaders, as well as performing artists. Among those scheduled
to address the crowd are New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez and New York Sen.
Charles Schumer.

“It’s important to remember what happened 96 years ago because
this is a major event for Armenians and mankind,” said Hirant Gulian, a
Cliffside Park resident and chairman of the Armenian Genocide
Commemoration Committee, which organized today’s event. “This
was the first genocide of the 20th century. We have the responsibility
to honor those that perished.”

Gulian said he expects a contingent of at least “a couple of thousand”
Armenians from Bergen County will turn out. He estimates that there are
more than 20,000 Armenian families living throughout Bergen County.

The genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire. The Republic of
Turkey, the successor state of the empire, has steadfastly denied the
word “genocide” is an accurate description of the events. Armenians say
their ancestors were rounded up and brutally forced into exile in what
today is Syria. Many died along the way.

Gulian believes marking the anniversary of the killing of Armenians is
important not just for Armenians, but “other communities as well. We
have a responsibility to show the new generation that genocide like this
should not happen, but it continues … in Darfur, the Sudan. We have a
responsibility to remind the politicians and world leaders that they
somehow must put an end to this genocide.”

Bert Ammerman of River Vale will not be attending today’s
ceremony, but agrees with Gulian that it is important to keep the memory
of what happened in 1915 alive.

“It should be an annual attempt to keep to the forefront that innocent
people throughout the world are consistently facing the challenges of
genocide,” said Ammerman, who lost his brother, Tom, in the bombing of
Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

“History repeats itself; look at Darfur, Iraq, and what is happening now
in Libya,” Ammerman continued. “If you don’t keep it at the
forefront, people tend to forget quickly. If they are not consistently
reminded of it, they will think it doesn’t exist anymore. So,
doing this, at least on an annual basis, reenergizes people to do
something, if only for a short period of time.”

E-mail: [email protected]

Click here for more news from: Cliffside Park, River Vale,

From: A. Papazian

TURKEY SPENDS FREELY AGAIN, AND SOME ANALYSTS WORRY

28.04.2011

Televisions on display in a shop in Istanbul. Turkish banks have found
a creative way to finance swelling consumer appetites by approving
loans via text messages and ATMs.

By LANDON THOMAS Jr.
Is Turkey’s booming economy ripe for a fall? It certainly looks that way.

Stock brokers endure four-month waiting lists to pay as much as
$150,000 for top-of-the-line Audis and BMWs – twice the manufacturers’
prices after taxes. A real estate developer recently laid out a record
$33.3 million an acre for a 24-acre plot of land in Istanbul’s city
center.

But the most striking sign that the economy here may be overheating
comes from a usual suspect: the country’s aggressive banks. They have
found a creative way to finance consumer splurges by providing quick
loan approval via text message or automated teller machine.

Analysts and bankers say the explosive growth in consumer loans has
fed a worrying expansion of the country’s current account deficit,
estimated to be 8 percent of gross domestic product this year.

Turkey’s trouble in financing gaps of that size has been at the root
of its past two busts, and some worry that history may be repeating
itself.

`We are again producing and consuming beyond our capacity,’ said
Atilla Yesilada, an economist at Istanbul Analytics, who has lived
through Turkey’s last two busts, in 1994 and 2001. `We are financing
our growth entirely through foreign credit, which is becoming more
expensive. At some point life catches up with you, and you crash.’

More than any other emerging economy, Turkey has been on a
roller-coaster ride over recent decades, in which manic growth has
almost inevitably been followed by a sickening crash.

But this time will be different, promises the popular government of
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is heading for a nationwide
election in June in which the robust economy is widely expected to
carry him to an unprecedented third term in office.

Many people have said as much just before the Turkish economy
collapsed, of course. But here in Turkey, whose decade-long expansion
was only briefly interrupted during the global financial crisis, the
government and many business leaders argue that their nation has moved
beyond its boom and bust syndrome, and that policy makers are now
well-equipped to pull off a so-called soft landing.

`We are looking for 4.5 percent growth this year, and we think that is
manageable for the economy,’ said Faik Acikalin, the chief executive
of Yapi Kredi Bank, one of the country’s largest providers of consumer
loans.

Since the government’s crackdown on overly enthusiastic credit card
lending by banks in the last decade, general purpose consumer loans
have become the preferred vehicle for financing domestic demand here.

According to research from Standard Unlu, an Istanbul-based investment
bank, general purpose personal loans grew at an average annual clip of
61 percent from 2005 to 2008 and have barely slowed since, registering
a 42 percent gain last year.

It is not surprising that these loans have become so popular – for
banks as well as customers.

After a consumer receives a text message from the bank informing him
that he qualifies, or a note that he may pick up at an A.T.M., all he
needs to do is pay a quick visit to his bank branch and collect the
cash.

Mr. Acikalin insists that a close credit watch is being kept. And he
says nonperforming loans are extremely low, at about 3 percent of
loans outstanding. Broadly speaking, he adds, the Turkish banking
system is in better shape than ever.

He points out that after the 2001 crisis – when scores of thinly
capitalized banks failed – the government imposed stiff capital and
lending rules that protected banks from the worst ravages of the brief
2009 recession, when the economy fell by 4.8 percent.

Under Mr. Erdogan, who heads a government with a Muslim character
sharper than any in the 88-year history of the modern Republic of
Turkey, the country has plenty to crow about. Turkey generated a gross
domestic product of about $730 billion last year, making its economy
the 17th largest in the world.

While the standard of living is currently less than one-third of
Turkey’s stagnant, debt-burdened Mediterranean neighbors like Greece
and Italy, the economy is growing at about 9 percent a year – about
the same as China’s. And Turkey has a manageable inflation rate of 8
percent and a budget deficit that this year is expected to be little
more than 2 percent of G.D.P.

To be sure, the Erdogan government has not ignored the possibility
that Turkey, in allowing its current account deficit to balloon to
current levels – has already exceeded the nation’s self-imposed
economic speed limit.

The Central Bank of Turkey, taking aim at the country’s aggressive and
highly profitable banks, has sharply increased the level of
interest-free deposits that banks must hold at the central bank, in
effect decreasing the amount they have available to lend.

And if that was not a clear enough message to the banks to tap on
their lending brakes, Turkey’s top economic official, Ali Babacan,
reinforced it this month by warning that the government did not want
to take `police-style’ measures if the banks did not respond to the
gentler moves – a remark that resonated at a time when journalists and
authors have been arrested for writing articles that are critical of
the state.

The trouble is, the bankers are no longer entirely calling the tune.
More than six months into this go-slow approach to monetary policy,
Turkey’s voracious consumers continue to borrow and spend.

As expected, banks have made it more expensive for consumers to
borrow, by raising rates. But with access to personal loans easier
than ever, there is little sign that free-spending Turks are paring
back.

Fuat Erbil, head of consumer loans at Garanti Bank, Turkey’s largest
bank, says that the success of the instant loans reflects the emerging
buying power of a younger, more dynamic Turkey.

`The younger generation is spending more than their parents,’ he said.
`They eat out, care about fashion, buy BlackBerrys. It’s more, more,
more.’

>From where he stands, Mr. Erbil sees no slackening in loan demand as
higher interest rates have been absorbed by customers who seem to care
little about, say, paying a bit more to finance dining room sets for
their new houses. After generations of relative penury, `there is a
passion for these kinds of purchases,’ Mr. Erbil said.

In fact, there has been a passion for consumption and investment of
all sorts here – as evident when Mr. Erdogan celebrated the opening of
Turkey’s tallest edifice, the Sapphire building, at a glittering
ceremony in March.

So far, the building’s five floors of luxurious shopping have
attracted fairly thin crowds, a possible sign that mall-saturated
Istanbul might finally be reaching its limit. On a recent weekday, two
bored salesmen sat at a desk at the building’s entrance trying without
much success to draw interest in the building owner’s coming stock
offering.

But a line did form to ride the high-speed elevators to the
observation deck on the top floor of the 856-foot building.

It is less than two-thirds the height of the Empire State Building.
But from up there, with a stunning view of Istanbul’s European and
Asian sprawl, one can look down on the row of headquarters for the
bank executives who have financed Turkey’s boom – which the bankers
are betting will not end with another plunge.

From: A. Papazian

CRISIS IN LIBYA AND REGIONAL DIPLOMACY OF TURKEY

28.04.2011
Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan

On April 8 the prime-minister of Turkey Recep Tayip Erdogan stated
that his country is elaborating the programme on cessation of the
hostilities in Libya which includes armistice, withdrawal of the
troops loyal to Muammar Kaddafi from some cities, creation of
humanitarian corridor and immediate initiation of the reforms in
Libya.

When on April 3 the Pentagon stated that it ceased the participation
of the US troops in Libyan campaign after which the troops loyal to
Kaddafi regained the superiority and advanced to the East, in the
direction of Bengazi – the center of the rebels, this statement by
Erdogan may mean that for the international coalition formed against
Muammar Kaddafi the military solution of the issue seemed to lose its
topicality.

In the initial stage of crisis in Libya France stood out with its
initiatives and it is not a mere chance that the first anti-Kaddafi
congress took place on March 19 in Paris, to which Turkey was not even
invited.

But the aforementioned statement by Erdogan not only means that Ankara
at least has support of the United States (e.g. to offer armistice to
Kaddafi on behalf of `international community’) but it also
demonstrates the purpose of the Turkish policy to obtain the role of
the regulator in the Libyan crisis which has turned into an important
regional issue.

And if we consider the issue from the point of view of the territories
of the former Ottoman Empire, and correspondingly, from the point of
view of the influence areas, it becomes clear that the Turkish party
is very interested in the affairs in North Africa and that part of the
Mediterranean. Of course, this is not a novelty in the Turkish foreign
policy of the recent years. But the point is whether the US are going
to support that policy of Turkey only in this part of the
Mediterranean or in the other territories and areas of influence of
the former Ottoman Empire (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Caucasus) either.

Situational survey
In the initial stage of the crisis in Libya Turkey was particularly
against the foreign military interference. On February 28 Erdogan
stated: `NATO has nothing to do in Libya’.

This line of Turkey’s military and political leadership continued even
after the well-known decision of the UN Security Council and the March
19 Conference in Paris, during which international anti-Kaddafi
coalition which included the US, France, Great Britain, Canada,
Belgium, Italy, Spain and Denmark was established. On March 20 at the
session of the NATO council it was Turkey who did not allow the NATO
to undertake the mission of providing no fly zone over Libya.

The main reason for such an approach of Ankara was the ignoring of the
interests of Turkey. As it was mentioned, in the initial stage of the
anti-Kaddafi coalition formation it was Paris that singled out by its
diplomatic, informational and military initiatives. The result was
that for the first time since the 1956 Suez crisis Paris (by the way
again in cooperation with London1) has initiated a military campaign
directed to the widening of their authority and, correspondingly, its
political influence in the Mediterranean which is considered to be
important in the aspect of French interests. But such an activity of
Paris has again put forward the French-Turkish contradictions in the
Mediterranean which has aroused in recent years2. Coming forward with
such an initiative France at the same time made efforts to minimize
the involvement of Turkey in this process. It is not a mere chance
that during the meeting with the Minister of Defence of Macedonia
Zoran Konyanovski on March 21 in Ankara, the Minister of Defence of
Turkey Vecdi Gonul stated that it was difficult to understand the
leading role of France in Libyan campaign.

The situation, however, changed after the phone conversation of Obama
and Erdogan on March 21, during which, according to the official
statement, the crisis in Libya was discussed.

Two days later, on March 23 Turkish parliament not only approved
joining of the Turkish navy to the NATO forces in blockading Libya,
but Ankara also sent the biggest navy forces after the US – four
frigates, one submarine and one support vessel. On the same day the
president of Turkey Abdullah Gul made a statement and called Muammar
Kaddafi to quit.

It is remarkable that the United States turned for the assistance to
Turkey and in consequence of the mediation of the later it became
possible to free four captured correspondents of The New York Times.
And on March 22 the US State Department officially stated that the
interests of the United States in Libya will be presented by the
Turkish embassy.

And finally the most serious evidence of the Turkish involvement in
Libyan issue was the decision of the North Atlantic Alliance to
station the NATO control center responsible for the Libyan campaign at
the military base in Izmir.

Conclusions
It is very remarkable that against the background of events in
Tunisia, Egypt, the ongoing developments in Libya, Yemen, Syria and a
number of other Arab countries Turkey is the only Muslim country on
the international diplomatic and informational stage that tends to
influence the processes. Even Saudi Arabia which is well-known for its
financial possibilities and behind-the-scenes connections in Arab
countries cannot position itself in such a way and Saudi approaches
are often restricted to the measures of official character. As for the
other Muslim power in the region – Iran, the initiatives has not
acquired the same form as in case with Turkey. The Iranian authorities
confined themselves to calling the events in Egypt Islamic revolution
and exerting some diplomatic and informational pressure on the Sunnite
authorities of Bahrain.

On the other hand being involved in the Libyan crisis in this way,
Ankara, in essence, creates precedent for at least diplomatic and
informational interferences (if not military ones) in case of the
similar developments in the Middle East, North Africa, maybe even on
Balkans and in South Caucasus-Central Asia line.

E.g. over the recent period anti-governmental disturbances continued
in Syria and today Turkey is the only country which practically
interferes into Syrian developments. At the end of March about half a
dozen phone conversations took place between Turkish prime-minister
and president of Syria. On March 27 in Damascus Bashar al-Assad
received the chief of the Turkish intelligence Hakan Fidan and several
days later the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Ahmet Davutoglu
arrived. One of the statements of Erdogan concerning the developments
in Syria in which he called official Damascus to meet halfway the
wishes of the Syrian people and to initiate democratic reforms drew
attention.

In all the aforementioned the approach of the US should be singled
out. One can see that Washington initiates some measures to promote
the regional claims of Ankara and the cooperation between Turkey and
US which has been revealed in consequence of the crisis in Libya seems
to be the evidence of that. In this aspect the novelty is that the
American-Turkish contradictions which could have been observed over
the last period of Bush’s governing can be substituted by a
partnership which may acquire new meaning, as, e.g. for the US which
is leaving Iraq it is very important to have such a partner in the
region. But the point is whether Turkey will be able to undertake that
mission.

1On October 29, 1956 Great Britain, in the alliance with France and
Israel, embarked on a military campaign against Egypt. The aim was to
restore control over the Suez which had belong to the British and
French shareholders for almost a century (it was opened in 1869) and
in June 1956 it was nationalized by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel
Naseri. Under the pressure of the Soviet Union Great Britain, France
and Israel who were not supported by the United States were obliged to
stop military actions just in several days (November 6, 1956) and in
1957 they withdrew their troops from the occupied territories of
Egypt.

2Those contradictions are mainly based on the initiative of France to
create the so-called Mediterranean union. From the point of view of
Turkey this initiative contains two dangerous circumstances. Firstly,
in this way French try to increase their geopolitical influence in the
Mediterranean basin; such attempts are also made by Turkey. Secondly,
Paris tries to close finally the doors of the European Union for
Turkey, instead offering Turkey to join the Mediterranean format.
For the first time the idea of the Mediterranean union was put forward
by N. Sarkozy in May 2007 as a format for cooperation of the European
Union countries and countries of the region which are not members of
the EU. The Mediterranean constituent assembly was called in July 2008
in Paris under the name of `Barcelona Process: for the sake of the
Mediterranean’. It is remarkable that some observers in Ankara express
the opinion that the real initiator of such a way of keeping Turkey
out of the EU is the Pope Benedict XVI.

Return
——————————————————————————–
Another materials of author

-FUTURE OF THE MUSLIM POPULATION ON THE PLANET [24.02.2011]
-SOUTHERN SUDAN: NEW STATE IN THE WORLD[25.01.2011]
-ON THE CYBER-SECURITY[17.01.2011]
-TURKEY-CHINA INTERRELATIONS[29.11.2010]
-TURKEY AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES[11.11.2010]

From: A. Papazian

ARTIFACTS UNEARTHED AT CONTROVERSIAL CHURCH CONSTRUCTION SITE

hetq
13:57, April 21, 2011

Shards of pottery have been unearthed at the controversial planned
religious complex now being built at the St. Katoghike chapel located
in downtown Yerevan.

The discovery was made on April 7 during a site inspection conducted by
specialist from the Ministry of Culture’s Agency for the Preservation
of Historical and Cultural Monuments and the National Academy of
Sciences’ Antiquities and Ethnographic Department.

After research is conducted on the artifacts, including stones
discovered from the original St. Astvatzatzin Church, dating back
to the 13 century, they will be transferred to the Yerevan History
Museum and eventually exhibited.

On July 4, 2009, a ground blessing service was conducted by Catholicos
Karekin II for the construction of the St. Anna Church and Complex
nearby St. Katoghike church. The complex will also serve as the
Yerevan residence of the Catholicos.

The church and the pontifical residence are being financed by Hrair
and Anna Hovnanian of the United States; thus the unique name for
the new church.

Garik Chilingaryan, Director of Chilingaryan Design Construction,
the firm who won the contracting bid for the complex says that the
project has passed all the requirements put forth by the Urban Planning
Department and the Cultural Preservation Committee.

Many have argued that the grandiose project in the center of Yerevan is
superfluous and that the money could have been better spent elsewhere.

From: A. Papazian