Author: Andres-Papazian

Paris Côte d’Azur , France
mercredi 29 décembre 2010

Paris : la très arménienne Galerie Gavart

par Zaven…

En créant sa propre galerie, dans le 8ème arrondissement de Paris,
Zaven avait l’ambition de se distinguer. Après avoir constater que la
plupart des galeries parisiennes se concentraient sur les grands noms,
généralement ceux d’artistes décédés, il voulut, d’une part montrer
son travail d’artiste et d’autre part permettre à des artistes
contemporains et… vivants d’exposer leurs `uvres.

La galerie Gavart est en soi originale, avec un comité de sélection
rigoureux et une coopération en artistes choisis. En effet, Zaven, en
tant que fondateur, refuse de toucher des profits lorsque les autres
artistes de la galerie vendent des `uvres. De même, la structure de la
galerie s’apparenterait à une société de moyens pour professions
indépendantes. Enfin, les artistes qui ont signé un accord avec la
galerie Gavart participent à la vie de la galerie pendant une année
complète.

Ainsi, le premier trimestre 2011 accueillera les sculpteurs,
Revol-O’Quin de Kerhor, Lerivrain et Hakobyan et en parallèle les
peintures ou photos de Lecoq et Aléhaux.

Le parcours de Zaven vaut la peine qu’on s’y arrête. Sa vocation
d’artiste a commencé vers l’ge de neuf ans, dans son pays natal
l’Arménie, plus particulièrement dans une région pittoresque où la
nature est très colorée et ardente. À quinze ans, il entre à l’École
Supérieure des Beaux-arts d’Erevan, et obtient, quatre ans plus tard,
le diplôme de « professeur de peinture ».

Le système soviétique n’autorisant que l’art académique, un ami prêtre
lui conseille d’entrer au monastère, l’Église étant séparée de l’État.
Il peut ainsi librement exercer ses talents de peintre de l’abstrait,
discipline non reconnue par le système. La présentation de sa thèse,
centrée sur la compréhension de l’art sacré, convainc alors le jury,
constitué de professeurs de théologie.

En 1985, devenu abbé, Zaven est nommé directeur gérant du musée du
monastère et secrétaire du Catholicos (le pape pour les Arméniens).
Après un doctorat sur le symbole et les reliques chrétiennes, il
devient archimandrite, tout en continuant de peindre et d’exposer. Il
part ensuite étudier à Paris : deux ans à l’Institut Catholique, puis
une année aux Beaux Arts de Paris.

Chargé de l’Organisation au sein du Conseil d’Administration de
l’Église d’Arménie à Paris, il constate des fraudes, et proteste
auprès de ses dirigeants, qui n’apprécient pas son attitude. Il va
alors être pourchassé en France par des agents du KGB, mandatés par sa
propre Église !

Chassé de l’église arménienne pour désobéissance et privé de la
possibilité d’exercer sa vocation de prêtre, il se consacre alors
exclusivement à son autre passion : la création artistique. Il
participe activement à de nombreux salons et expositions personnelles,
sans jamais perdre l’espoir de réintégrer, un jour, son Église. Toutes
ses demandes dans ce sens sont, pour le moment, restées sans réponse.
C’est ainsi qu’en 2000, Zaven décide donc de créer sa propre galerie :
la galerie Gavart…

-Galerie Gavart au 5 rue d’Argenson – 75008 – M° Miromesnil – tel : 01
42 65 26 98

From: A. Papazian

Angers Mag Info, France
29 déc. 2010?

Premiers Plans 2011 : Robert Guédiguian, Président du Jury

C’est le réalisateur, acteur, producteur et scénariste marseillais,
Robert Guédiguian, qui sera le président du Jury du Festival Européen
Premiers Plans qui se déroulera à Angers du 21 au 30 Janvier prochain.
Il sera accompagné de l’actrice espagnole Carmen Maura, co-présidente
ainsi que de Clémence Poésy et de Yannick Renier.

Prix Louis Delluc en 1997 pour Marius et Jeannette et lauréat des prix
Henri Langlois de Vincennes pour « le Voyage en Arménie » en 2007,
Robert Guédiguian est comme Pagnol, très marqué par la région de
Marseille, ville dans laquelle il est né en décembre 1953, d’une mère
allemande et d’un père arménien.

Issu d’un milieu ouvrier, son père était docker, il s’intéresse très
jeune à la politique. Comme son père il sera militant au PCF avant de
faire des études de sociologie à l’université d’Aix en Provence.
Socialement marqué par son enfance et déçu de la politique, même s’il
reste très engagé avec le Front de Gauche, il trouve dans le cinéma un
moyen de s’exprimer, de militer et surtout de parler d’un monde
ouvrier qu’il connaït si bien au travers du quartier marseillais de
l’Estaque.

Nommé aux Césars 1997 pour « Marius et Jeannette », une romance
populaire mettant en avant la réalité sociale de son quartier favori
de Marseille, Robert Guédiguian, réalise en 2001, « Marie-Jo et ses
deux amours », film qui sera présenté en sélection officielle du
Festival de Cannes. Il affirmera, lors d’une conférence, avoir réalisé
l’un des ses films les plus politiques de sa carrière.

On lui doit également le film sur le Président Mitterrand, « le
promeneur du Champ de Mars » en 2005 avec un Michel Bouquet au sommet
de son art, et plus récemment en 2009, « l’Armée du crime », un film
retraçant l’épopée des résistants communistes immigrés menés par
Missak Manouchian, pendant la dernière guerre. Robert Guédiguian est
l’un des producteurs associés fondateurs d’Agat Films & Cie et
d’Ex-Nihilo.

Deux autres comédiens seront également membre du Jury 2011 : Clémence
Poésy, laquelle à tourné dans le dernier « Harry Potter – les Reliques
de la Mort » et Yannick Rénier, que l’on a pu voir dans « Welcome » et
« Pauline et François ».

From: A. Papazian

ACTUALIZATION OF THE ISSUE OF THE ARTSAKH RECOGNITION IN 2010

Lragir.am
31 Dec 2010

The fate of the Armenian-Turkish protocols has been an important issue
in the public discourse since the first months of 2010. The
international interest toward the ratification of these documents in
the Armenian and Turkish parliaments, despite Baku’s and Ankara’s
efforts, overshadowed the process of the Artsakh settlement.

On the eve of the Armenian Genocide Memorial Day the Armenian
President suspended by his decree the procedure of the ratification of
the Armenian-Turkish Protocols at the parliament of the country. The
Karabakh settlement again appeared in the center of attention of the
public and political forces of the three countries, parties to the
conflict.

On April 26, 2010, the NKR Public Council for the Foreign and Security
Policy applied to the Armenian organizations of Diaspora with the
appeal to initiate the process of the international recognition of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic. The appeal, addressed to the three Armenian
traditional parties and lobbying structures of the Armenian Diaspora
pointed out the necessity that Armenian organizations in Diaspora
consider the issue of the international recognition of the Artsakh
Republic as an equal priority direction of their activity besides such
an important issue as the recognition of the Genocide. It was stressed
that the international recognition of the NKR would create a whole
spectrum of new possibilities for protection of the republic by the
political and diplomatic ways. The recognized NKR will become the
legitimate part of the international security architecture, safely
guaranteeing its own defence.[1]

The initiative of the Public Council was positively assessed by NKR
NGO’s and various factions of the Armenian parliament,[2] including
the representatives of the republican majority.[3]

Deputy of the NKR National Assembly and member of the Public Council
Gegham Baghdasaryan in his speech at the meeting of the ARF
Dashnaktsutyun `Hye Dat’ (Armenian Cause) commissions and offices on
May 9, 2010, said that the Karabakh authorities might have done much
more in the last 16 years and at least could have a designed
program of actions and a concept for the international recognition of
Artsakh. `But it is not late today as well. For the Artsakh part of
the Armenian people the recognition is first of all the issue of
security, the issue of prevention of the new genocide,[4]’ ` noted Mr.
Baghdasaryan.

The participants of the `Hye Dat’ meeting, which was attended by
representatives of thirty countries of the world, decided that the
corner stone of the activities of the `Hye Dat’ commissions for the
coming years would be the Artsakh issue. In the light of Azerbaijan’s
unconstructive position in the Karabakh conflict settlement, the issue
of the international recognition of the NKR independence becomes
urgent and this direction of the activity of the `Hye Dat’ commission
should be much more active.[5]

It is necessary to note that in the second half of the last year the
`Hye Dat’ structures undertook some steps in the direction of the NKR
recognition. In particular, in October 2010 they organized an
acquaintance visit to NKR by the deputies of the European Parliament.
Commenting the results of the visit, the leader of the Dashnaktsutyun
faction in the RA National Assembly Vahan Hovhannisyan pointed out
that the visit of the deputies of the European Parliament to Karabakh
was one of the necessary steps for the recognition of the NKR
independence. `It is a necessary work for the Artsakh international
recognition, which we will conduct regardless the processes (the
initiative of the `Heritage’ faction, – Ð`Ð`) in the parliament,’ ` said
Mr. Hovhannisyan.[6]

On November 12-13, 2010, a conference of the European `Hye Dat’
committees took place in Paris with participation of the ARF
Dashnaktsutyun bodies in the Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland,
Germany, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus. The conference paid a special
attention to the issue of the international recognition of the NKR
independence.[7]

It is noteworthy that the NKR Minister of Foreign Affairs proposed to
create a special commission to promote the process of the NKR
recognition, pointing out that this issue requires complex efforts and
cannot be a task of just one agency. The statement was made in the NKR
Parliament on December 2010.[8]

Along with the discussion of the problem of the NKR international
recognition in various forums and areas, some work was carried out in
the Armenian parliament for the recognition of Artsakh by the Republic
of Armenia. As it is known, the deputies from the `Heritage’ faction
initiated the draft law `On the recognition of the NKR independence’
as early as on October 15, 2009, but its passing through the Armenian
parliament delayed.

The voting of the draft law, scheduled for October 2010, was
postponed. On December 9 the Armenian Parliament did not make a
decision on the draft law `On the recognition of the NKR
independence,’ submitted by the oppositional `Heritage’ faction for
the first reading (13 MPs voted `for,’ no-one `against’ or
`abstained’.) Deputies from the ruling coalition ` the Republican
Party, the `Bargavach Hayastan’ (`Prosperous Armenia’) Party and the
`Orinats Yerkir’ (`The Rule of Law Country’) Party ` did not take part
in the voting.

Unfortunately, the parliamentary forces of Armenia failed to reach the
consensus on such a strategically important issue for the Armenian
nation as the recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. The
legislatively fixed position of the Republic of Armenia on the NKR
status would not have left any false hopes in Azerbaijan and among its
supporters.

The next day after the voting the leader of the `Heritage’ Raffi
Hovhannissyan said: `For me personally the issue of recognition of the
NKR independence is no less important and principle than the issue of
the genocide of Armenians.’ Raffi Hovhannissyan admitted that he
expected some understanding by the representatives of the coalition
parties. `They should have understood that the issue of the NKR’s
recognition is not just one among the issues of the party urgent
interests. There were people who made their personal contribution to
the cause of the Artsakh liberation, and I expected that they would
display some other position,’ ` the former minister of Foreign Affairs
of Armenia admitted, adding that the party would not initiate
consideration of this issue in parliament of the country any
longer.[9]

Despite the fact that the `Heritage’ party failed to reach its goal,
its initiative on the recognition of the Artsakh independence by
Armenia has played quite a positive role. Thanks to this process in
the RA National Assembly, the international community continued
receiving signals from Armenia, including from the pro-governmental
parties, that the international recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic has no alternative. The discussion of the issue of the
Nagorno Karabakh recognition in the Armenian parliament kept the level
of urgency of the Karabakh problem in the Armenian society.

In the address to the Artsakh people on the occasion of the Day of
proclamation of the NKR the Armenian President and the leader of the
republican party of Armenia noted that the peaceful settlement of the
Nagorno Karabakh problem can have only one solution and it is the
internationally recognized independence of Artsakh.[10]

Meanwhile in his statement at the OSCE summit in Astana (Dec.12.2010)
and after that, at the session of the Council of Collective Security
of the CSTO (Dec.12.2010) the President of Armenia said that in case
if Azerbaijan resumes the armed aggression, Armenian will no have any
chance but to recognize the Nagorno Karabakh Republic de jure and do
its best to guarantee the security of the Artsakh people.[11]

The idea, voiced in Astana, was not any new, being in the arsenal of
the Armenian diplomacy in late 1990s ` early 2000s.[12] Such an
approach was justified in the post-war years and could be a
containment factor. But since 2008, when the process of recognition of
former autonomies started despite the wish of former metropolitan
states, when the UN International Court recognized the correctness of
the proclamation of the Kosovo independence,[13] it is wrong to tie up
the Artsakh recognition with the probable aggression by Azerbaijan. A
new situation has emerged and new legal precedents have appeared in
the international relations. Taking into account all that, we should
not let Azerbaijan have any role in the issue of recognition of the
status and future of the NKR. It would be the same as to expect the
international recognition of the NKR independence by the results of
the talks within the format of the OSCE Minsk Group, where
Azerbaijan’s consent is needed. As the Armenian President noted
correctly in the other part of his statement at the Astana OSCE
summit, `Azerbaijan has neither legal, political nor moral base for
claims regarding Nagorno Karabakh.’

The process of the NKR recognition should go on without Azerbaijan’s
participation in parallel with the Minsk Process (where the other key
issues may be discussed besides the status). Armenia and the
international community should recognize the independence of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic to prevent the possible military aggression.
As it has already been noted, the international recognition is a
modern mechanism to strengthen security in the conflict zones and to
maintain stability. Not long ago such a mechanism proved its
effectiveness in Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The Armenian Parliament could have adopted the resolution on the NKR,
using the terminology of the consultative conclusion of the UN
International Court to avoid the possible external pressure. Such a
proposal was made publicly in November 2010.[14]

On the eve of the voting related to the draft law on the recognition
of NKR, the National Assembly of Armenia adopted another draft law in
the first reading: `On introduction of amendments into the RA Law on
international treaties,’ according to which the republic will be able
to conclude treaties with those states that are not recognized by the
international community. The head of the `Heritage’ faction Stepan
Safaryan insisted that introducing such an amendment into the law,
Armenia openly demonstrates that it will not recognize the NKR, by
that trying to sign treaties with Artsakh as non-recognized republic.
The deputy considers such an approach incorrect and fraught with
dangerous consequences. The National Assembly adopted the mentioned
draft law `On introduction of amendments into the Law on international
treaties’ in the second and final reading at its December 17 session.

In the beginning of December 2010, two largest states of the Latin
America (Argentina and Brazil) responded to the request of the
Palestinian leader and declared that they recognized the independence
of Palestine in the borders of 1967.[15] Uruguay also announced about
the intention to recognize the Palestinian state in the beginning of
2011. The actions of the Latin American states related to the
recognition cannot be considered as precedents, because Palestine had
already been recognized as a state before that by dozens of the
countries of the world. But the interesting point here is that the
Latin American countries, where there is a strong Armenian Diaspora,
decided to enlarge their independence in the international affairs and
took the side of one of the parties in the protracted Middle East
conflict.

Remarkably, the United States and the European Union have not welcomed
the decisions made by Brazil and Argentina, considering their actions
premature. The US Assistant secretary of State William Burns for
political affairs said that only the Palestinians and Israelis
themselves would be able to implement the idea of creation of the
Palestinian state and its peaceful coexistence with Israel.[16] The
countries co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group hold the same logic in the
issue of determination of the Nagorno Karabakh status. That is why the
fact that a group of the Latin American states displayed independence
in their policy in the mentioned issue may open new opportunities for
us and therefore it should be a point of interest for the Armenian and
Artsakh diplomacy.

By Masis MAYILIAN

President, Public Council for Foreign and Security Policy

[1] The Karabakh Public Council for the Foreign Policy called on the
Diaspora to initiate the international recognition of the NKR,

[2] The RA parliamentary forces welcome the initiative of the NKR
Public Council,

[3] The RPA will assist in the issue of international recognition of
the NKR,
[4] Gegham Baghdasaryan: Artsakh is not a totem or mummy, but a live
organism,
[5] New challenges require greater consolidation,

[6] The visit of the European Parliamentarians to the NKR is one of
the steps aimed at the recognition of the independence of the country,

[7] A conference of the European committees of `Hye Dat’ took place
in Paris,
[8] In 2011 measures will be undertaken to open the NKR representation
in Brussels,
[9] Raffi Hovhannisyan: It is unacceptable to tie up the recognition
of the NKR independence with the break of the war,

[10]
[11]

[12] Why not recognize, Naira Ayrumyan,

[13] Ð`The UN International Court decided that the Declaration on
proclamation of the Kosovo independence does not contradict the
international law,

[14] The political will is needed,

[15] Brazil recognized the Palestinian state within the borders of
1967,

[16] W. Burns: Argentina and Brazil have recognized Palestine too
early,

From: A. Papazian

The Washington Times
December 31, 2010 Friday

Embassy Row

By James Morrison THE WASHINGTON TIMES

AMBASSADOR BRYZA

Matthew Bryza’s supporters cheered this week when President Obama
ignored Senate opposition and appointed the career diplomat to serve
as U.S. ambassador to the Central Asian nation of Azerbaijan. They
also accused two senators who had blocked his nomination of abusing
their power.

The appointment is a “triumph of U.S. national interests and security
over the special interest of two senators and one ethnic community,”
the board of directors of the U.S. Azeris Network said in a statement,
adding that the board “wholeheartedly congratulates” Mr. Bryza.

The board, which represents Americans of Azerbaijani heritage, claimed
Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, and Sen. Robert Menendez, New
Jersey Democrat, bowed to political pressure from Armenian-Americans,
who opposed Mr. Bryza’s appointment.

Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Menendez blocked the Senate from voting on his
nomination, so Mr. Obama appointed Mr. Bryza after Congress adjourned.
Any senator can place a “hold” on a presidential appointment that
requires Senate consent.

Mr. Bryza’s tenure as ambassador is only temporary because the
Constitution requires the Senate to review recess appointments by the
end of the next calendar year. That means one of the most
controversial diplomatic nominations of the Obama administration
is likely to be re-fought before Dec. 31, 2011.

The U.S. Azeris Network said Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Menendez “abused their
powers by virtually interrogating Mr. Bryza about everything from the
birthplace of his wife to his finances and wedding gifts.”

It accused the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and the
Armenian Assembly of America of “intense lobbying and hysteria” in
their opposition to Mr. Bryza.

Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Menendez had expressed their concerns for issues
raised by Armenian-Americans when they sharply questioned Mr. Bryza at
a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in September.

They shared Armenian-American criticism that Mr. Bryza was too close
to Azeri and Turkish officials and biased against Armenians. Mr.
Bryza’s wife is Turkish, and Azeri news reports claimed Azeri
officials paid for Mr. Bryza’s wedding. Mr. Bryza has repeatedly
denied that report and told the Senate committee that he paid for his
own wedding.

His critics also fear he tilts against ethnic Armenians, who claimed
independence for the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.

A spokeswoman for the ANCA on Thursday denounced Mr. Obama for the
recess appointment and accused him of breaking campaign pledges to
Armenian-Americans, who form powerful voting blocs in states like
California and New Jersey.

“He has disregarded his campaign pledges – one after the other – when
it comes to U.S. policy toward Armenia, Turkey and the Caucasus. So,
sadly, this [appointment] follows that trend,” said Elizabeth
Chouldjian.

She cited Mr. Obama’s campaign pledge to recognize as genocide the
killing of at least 1 million Armenians in the Ottoman Turkish empire
during World War I.

ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian called Mr. Bryza a “deeply
flawed diplomat.”

“The president’s push to send Matthew Bryza to [Azerbaijan] without
Senate approval represents a disservice to American diplomacy that
will undermine out nation’s ability to advance our interests and
values in the Caucasus region,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

Interfax, Russia
Dec 31 2010

More Nagorno-Karabakh talks possible in January – Lavrov

MOSCOW. Dec 31

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on a television program on
Thursday, expressed hope that he would meet with his Armenian and
Azerbaijani counterparts next month as part of talks in seeking a
solution to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Azerbaijan’s
disputed Armenian-speaking enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

“We expect to have our next regular contact in January and to report
to our presidents how to move further ahead,” Lavrov told Russia’s
Vesti 24 television channel.

Going over to the conflict between Moldova and its breakaway
Transdniestria region, Lavrov expressed hope that international
mediators in the conflict would be able to convene after the
completion of the current process in which a new president and
government are going to take office in Moldova.

“As soon as that happens, we will suggest getting together and seeking
an agreement,” he said.

From: A. Papazian

Trend Daily News (Azerbaijan)
December 31, 2010 Friday

Russian FM expects to meet Azerbaijani, Armenian counterparts in January

Azerbaijan, Baku, Dec. 31 / Trend /

Russian Foreign Minister expects to hold another meeting on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement with his Azerbaijani and Armenian
counterparts in January. Sergei Lavrov stated this in an interview to
Russia 24 TV channel.

The previous meeting of the three foreign ministers was held on
December 9 in Moscow.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including
the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994 with the
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, comprising Russia, France, and the
U.S., currently engaged in peace negotiations.

Armenia has yet to implement the U.N. Security Council’s 4 resolutions
on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding regions.

From: A. Papazian

The Express Tribune, Pakistan
Jan 1 2011

Armenian genocide: Millions killed and forgotten

by Ahmed Aziz

Turkey has always denied the death of 1.5 million Armenian Christians
as genocide, blaming it on civil war at the time.
On December 24, 2010, the United States once again avoided diplomatic
difficulties with a Nato ally, Turkey. The House of Representatives
ended its term by not putting forward a resolution recognising the
genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
This resolution is unlikely to be passed by the Congress in the next
term because the next house speaker, John Boehner, does not support
it.

According to the Independent, supporters of the resolution had high
hopes for it to be passed before the term ended because the outgoing
speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had previously supported the resolution.

Turkey is an important ally of the US in the Middle East playing a
supporting role in the Iraq War and has helped the US in the past on
other war fronts. Turkish governments have always denied the death of
1.5 million Armenian Christians as genocide, blaming it on general
anarchy and civil was at that time. However, historians term it as the
first holocaust of the 20th century, of which documentary and
photographic proof also exists.

Genocide roots in the Ottoman Empire

Within the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians were generally concentrated
in the eastern provinces. According to the Dhimmi system in the
Ottoman Empire the non-Muslims were subjected to over-taxation and
limited legal freedoms. Generally referred to as infidels or
unbelievers, they were not considered equal to Muslims. Testimony of a
non-Muslim against a Muslim was not admissible in court and their
houses could not be higher than their Muslim neighbor’s.

Initial massacres took place under the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II
in the late 19th century. These were called the Hamidiyan massacres in
which, according to different historians, 80,000 to 300,000 Armenians
were killed.

In 1908, the monarchy had collapsed after the Young Turk Revolution
and by 1913 the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), Ittihad ve
Terakki Jemiyeti, emerged at the head of the government in a coup. The
CUP had an extreme Turkish nationalistic ideology and was mainly
controlled by Enver Pasha, Minister of War, Talat Pasha, Minister of
the Interior and Grand Vizier in 1917, and Jemal Pasha, Minister of
the Marine.

The resettlement program

I will not go deep into political background of the genocide which
occurred during World War I but one of the basic reasons behind it was
Ottoman insecurity that the Armenian Christian subjects will support
the Russians pushing on in the eastern front of the war. Some
historians also credit it to the policies of the government to create
a unified and pure `Turkish state.’

In the spring and summer of 1915 Armenians all around the empire were
ordered to deport under a fictitious `resettlement program.’ Convoys
consisting of hundreds of thousands of Armenians from different parts
of the empire started towards the Syrian Desert. These convoys were
basically death marches because most of the people were subjected to
torture, rape and slaughter during their painful journey towards the
desert. The government did not make any plans for the provision of
food and water and thousands died of starvation and disease. Some
evidence of a primitive form of gas chambers also exists, where women
and children were put into a cave and the entrance of the cave was set
on fire, suffocating the people inside the cave.

The forgotten holocaust

A new `Special Organisation’ called the Teshkilti Mahsusa, was formed
as a tool for extermination. Approximated two million Armenians lived
in the Ottoman lands in 1915 but by 1918 an estimated 1 million had
perished and by 1923 a negligible number of Armenians were left in
main Anatolian Turkey.

Photographic and documentary evidence exist of the extermination of
the Armenian race from the Ottoman lands.

This Genocide the forgotten holocaust because it was over-shadowed by
the killing of the six million Jews during the World War II by Nazi
Germany and generally people really don’t know about it. It is ironic
because while persuading his associates that a Jewish holocaust would
be tolerated by the west, Adolf Hitler said the following and he was
right:

`Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

‘Events of such magnitude cannot be explained in one article so for
readers who are further interested in knowing about what took place in
the Ottoman Empire during that time, should have a look at the
following:

1.Great War for Civilization: The conquest of the Middle East – By
Robert Fisk (Chapter 10)
2.Subjects of the Sultan: Culture and Daily Life in the Ottoman Empire
– by Suraiya Faroqhi
3.The Knock at the Door: A Journey through the Darkness of the
Armenian Genocide – by Margaret Ajemian Ahnert
4.A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish
Responsibility – by Taner Akçam
5.Survivors: An Oral History Of The Armenian Genocide – by Donald E.
Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller
.

From: A. Papazian

times.am, Armenia
Jan 1 2011

New Year nonsense of Ilham Aliev: `Today’s Armenia was found on
Azerbaijani historical lands’

By Times.am at 1 January, 2011, 8:17 pm

`Azerbaijani nation and Azerbaijani country will never let the second
Armenian state to be found on Azerbaijani lands.’ Ilham Aliev
announced about this during his New Year message. Trying to proof to
the compatriots his `high erudition’, Ilham Aliev again showed his
`deep knowledge’ on the history.

`We know well, today’s Armenian State was found on historical
Azerbaijani lands. Erivan region, Zangezur region are our historical
lands,’ Aliev `enlightened’ his compatriots.

And on the same case Aliev abstained from his usual military
announcements. `This conflict can be solved only by international law,
in the frame of the Azerbaijani territorial completeness,’ Ilham Aliev
made happy his starving population.

/Times.am/

From: A. Papazian

times.am, Armenia
Jan 1 2011

K. Zatulin: `Karabakh conflict may be sharpened in the spring’
By Times.am at 1 January, 2011, 10:17 pm

Karabakh conflict becomes more and more disturbed. Now all the efforts
are made to prevent military actions on the conflict zone.

Unfortunately, the two sides show more and more intransigence, head of
the CIS Institute, Deputy of the Russian Parliament Konstantin Zatulin
announced about it during the interview with Pravda.ru news agency.

`To my personal opinion, Azerbaijani position became ruder. This is
connected with its real or imaged concerning Armenian-Turkish
regulation, which maybe added euphoria for the Azerbaijani authority.
They consider now is just the moment to solve Karabakh conflict on the
conditions presented by Azerbaijan. But it is not possible the
conflict will be solved by the unilateral way.

This serious problem remains for the next year and may be sharpened by
the spring,’ said Mr. Zatulin.

/Times.am/

From: A. Papazian

times.am, Armenia
Jan 1 2011

H. Abrahamyan congratulated Armenian Nation on New Year

By Times.am at 1 January, 2011, 10:34 pm
The speaker of the Armenian National Assembly Hovik Abrahamyan
congratulated Armenian Nation on New Year and Christmas, NA press
service reports.

The message especially says:

`Dear compatriots,
We have welcomed the next New Year with its new exceptions and new hopes.

2010 was a round for the development of our country. The passing year
wasn’t very easy but we have done everything to overcome the
difficulties.’

Continuing his New Year message Mr. Abrahamyan told about the works
which Armenian NA has done during 2010.

`Happy New Year and Merry Christmas dear compatriots. I wish you all
of you to be happy and healthy on 2011 and our Motherland to be in
peace,’ concluded NA speaker.

/Times.am/

From: A. Papazian