Le russe Rosneft et l’azéri Socar vont collaborer dans les recherche

RUSSIE-AZERBAÏDJAN
Le russe Rosneft et l’azéri Socar vont collaborer dans les recherches
pétrolières

La société pétrolière russe Rosneft avec son président Igor Sechine et
l’azérie Socar (State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic )
représentée par Rovnag Andullayev ont signé un accord de coopération
pour l’extraction commune de pétrole et de gaz. Selon l’agence de
presse russe Itar-Tass ces accords signés à l’occasion du Forum
économique international de Saint Petersbourg portent des dizaines de
volets ou de missions. A noter que le président russe Vladimir Poutine
était présent lors de la cérémonie des signatures de ces accords, ce
qui traduit l’importance de ces échanges économiques entre la Russie
et l’Azerbaïdjan. Au terme de ces accords, Rosneft et Socar
collaboreront dans les recherches pétrolières et de gaz en Sibérie et
dans la zone russe de la mer Caspienne.

Krikor Amirzayan

dimanche 25 mai 2014,
Krikor Amirzayan (c)armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

L’UNESCO récompense des programmes éducatifs en Arménie et au Canada

ARMENIE
L’UNESCO récompense des programmes éducatifs en Arménie et au Canada

L’organisation non-gouvernementale arménienne Bridge of Hope et le
département de l’éducation et du développement de la petite enfance du
Nouveau-Brunswick (Canada) sont les lauréats du Prix UNESCO/Emir Jaber
al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah pour la promotion d’une éducation de
qualité en faveur des personnes présentant un handicap intellectuel, a
annoncé l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science
et la culture (UNESCO).

Les deux lauréats ont été recommandés par un jury international qui a
examiné cinquante-quatre candidatures proposées par les Etats membres
et les ONG qui travaillent en partenariat avec l’UNESCO. Financé par
l’Etat du Koweït, ce Prix est décerné tous les deux ans.

Bridge of Hope, qui a été proposée pour le Prix par la Commission
nationale arménienne, est récompensée pour son programme intitulé ,
souligne l’UNESCO. Le département de l’éducation du Nouveau-Brunswick
a été proposé pour le Prix par l’ONG Inclusion International, qui est
une partenaire officielle de l’UNESCO.

>, a déclaré la Directrice générale de l’UNESCO, Irina
Bokova.

Chacun des lauréats recevra une récompense de 20 000 dollars au cours
d’une cérémonie organisée par le gouvernement du Koweït et l’UNESCO le
26 mai à Koweït.

dimanche 25 mai 2014,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

Surik Khachatryan: Vahe Hakobyan supports Vachagan Adunts’ candidacy

Surik Khachatryan: Vahe Hakobyan supports Vachagan Adunts’ candidacy

by Tatevik Shahunyan

ARMINFO
Saturday, May 24, 16:44

Ex-governor of Syunik marz Surik Khachatryan has refuted the
information that he exerted pressure on the candidates for mayor of
Goris.

On May 24, before the start of the 15th congress of the ruling
Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), Khachatryan said that the
candidates themselves decided to advance their candidacies or withdraw
them. He added that the candidate to run for mayor of Goris has
already been determined. “It is our common candidate”, he said. In the
meantime, Khachatryan stressed that he supports Vachagan Adunts’
candidacy, because he considers him a good man. Khachatryan also
pointed out that he is on perfect terms with the incumbent Governor of
Syunik Vahe Hakobyan who also supports Adunts, according to
Khachatryan.

To note, Ara Budaghyan and Tigran Karapetyan have suddenly decided to
withdraw from the election. For the moment, the candidates for mayor
of Goris are Vachagan Adunts and non-partisan businessman Hrayr
Yolyan. According to ArmInfo’s sources in the RPA, the tense situation
in Goris is explained rather by the need to maintain the counterweight
between the Hakobyans’ family and the team of ex-Governor of Syunik
Surik Khachatryan than by the personality of the future mayor. Thus,
the leadership of the country is trying to hinder power monopolization
in Syunik by the Hakobyans.

From: A. Papazian

Varoujan Koundakjian Awarded ‘Knight Of Cilicia’ Medal

Varoujan Koundakjian Awarded ‘Knight Of Cilicia’ Medal

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

>From left: Asbarez Daily Armenian Newspaper Editor Apo Boghigian,
Western Prelate Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Varoujan Koundakjian
and wife Armine, and ARF Western US Central Committee Chairman Dr.
Viken Hovsepian

GLENDALE-By the initiative of Asbarez Daily Armenian Newspaper and the
Armenian Cultural Foundaion, on the evening of Friday, May 16, a
reception was held at Phoenicia Restaurant in Glendale in celebration
of community activist, leader and philanthropist Varoujan
Koundakjian’s 80th birthday. The event also served as an opportunity
to honor Koundakjian’s decades-long service to the community.

On behalf of His Holiness Aram I Catholicos of the Great House of
Cilicia, the Western Prelate Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian awarded
Koundakjian the “Knight of Cilicia” insignia and Pontifical
Encyclical.

In the Encyclical, His Holiness commended Koundakijan’s lifetime of
service and dedication to the Armenian Church and people, spanning
from the Western United States to Armenia, his moral and financial
support, and valuable input and contributions to the advancement of
our religious, cultural, and social institutions.

In his remarks, the Prelate expressed his commendation to Koundakjian,
with whom he has enjoyed over 30 years of friendship. Arch.
Mardirossian extolled Koundakjian’s kindheartedness and benevolence
and conveyed his best wishes on his 80th birthday.

The special event brought together Koundakjian’s old friends and
colleagues who had gathered to honor a man, whose character and
generosity has propelled many a project in this community and in
Armenia.

As Koundakjian himself explained, he was born on April 24 and thus has
not celebrated his birthday, or if he has it has been in intimate
setting always not on his birth date.

The organizers, as well, taking note of this realities opted to host
the event after Koundakjian’s actual birthday, but were convinced that
honoring him was fitting to his vast involvement, leadership and
generosity in the community and in Armenia.

Varoujan Koundakjian receives his medal from Prelate Archbishop
Moushegh Mardirossian

Taking turns to extol Koundakjian’s virtues were his old friends, with
whom he spend the early days of his life in the United States. Vahag
Savoulian, Jano Titizian, Garbis Titizian and Armen Deirmenjian each
recounted fond memories and the experiences that shaped their life
here with Koundakjian at the center of it.

Armenian Revolutionary Federation Western US Central Committee
Chairman Dr. Viken Hovsepian spoke, on behalf of the organization,
expressing his gratitude for Koundakjian’s leadership in the ARF and
his generosity toward the organization. Also speaking was Asbarez
Armenian Editor Apo Boghigian who outlined that Koundakjian truly
embodied the ARF’s call of “Tebi Yergir”–toward the homeland, since
Armenia’s independence Koundakjian relocated to Armenia, where he
established businesses that employ locals and continue his
philanthropy in Armenia.

Koundakjian’s wife, Armine, who shares his husband’s love of Armenia
and Artsakh also addressed the gathering recounting the time she and
Koundakjian met and became a family and together working for the
Armenian Cause.

The event served a humanitarian purpose, as more than $75,000 was
raised for the Armenians of Kessab, who in March were forced to
evacuate their town and are currently in Latakia and elsewhere as
refugees. The donations were made to the Syrian-Armenian Relief Fund.

From: A. Papazian

http://asbarez.com/123452/varoujan-koundakjian-awarded-%E2%80%98knight-of-cilicia%E2%80%99-medal/

Ce soir l’Atlético Madrid portera le maillot Azerbaïdjan, land of fi

FOOTBALL-FINALE DE LA LIGUE DES CHAMPIONS
Ce soir l’Atlético Madrid portera le maillot Azerbaïdjan, land of
fire, propagande de l’une des dernières dictatures de la planète

Ce soir la finale de la Ligue des Champions, opposera à Lisbonne
(Portugal) deux clubs madrilènes, le Real Madrid à l’Atlético Madrid.
Ce dernier club, champion d’Espagne, porte sur le maillot en grand «
Azerbaïdjan, land of fire » (Azerbaïdjan, terre de feu). Mais cette
terre de feu est aussi une terre de sang avec l’un des derniers
régimes dictatoriaux de la planète. Combien d’européens savent que le
maillot de l’équipe de l’Atlético Madrid fait la propagande de ce pays
qui est une véritable dictature ? L’Atlético Madrid qui a encaissé de
Bakou 12 millions d’euros pour porter ce maillot et qui reconduira le
contrat l’an prochain -pour un montant supérieur- , devrait-il
boycotter cette propagande de l’Azerbaïdjan au nom de l’éthique ?
Ci-dessous un article paru le 22 mai sur le site de Reporters Sans
Frontières, assez sidérant. Krikor Amirzayan

Connaissez-vous vraiment le sponsor de l’Atlético Madrid ?

Connaissez-vous vraiment l’Azerbaïdjan, ce pays sponsor de l’Atlético
Madrid ? `Land of fire’ selon la propagande officielle, en réalité
`land of repression’. Les centaines de millions de téléspectateurs qui
assisteront à la finale de la Champions League de football, samedi 24
mai, ne doivent pas se laisser duper par la communication officielle.
Prédateur de la liberté de la presse, Ilham Aliyev, le président de
cette république caucasienne 160ème sur 180 pays au Classement mondial
de la liberté de la presse, a quasiment réussi à éteindre le
pluralisme chez lui.

Pas moins de dix journalistes et autant de blogueurs croupissent en
prison pour avoir fait preuve d’une indépendance trop grande au goût
du pouvoir. Le 15 mai 2014, le journaliste et défenseur des droits de
l’homme, Parviz Hachimli, était condamné Ã 8 ans de prison pour les
motifs fallacieux de « recel » еt « vente illégale d’armes ». La
traque menée par les autorités dépasse les frontières du pays. Le 18
avril 2014, le journaliste Raouf Mirkadyrov, correspondant du journal
indépendant Zerkalo, était extradé depuis la Turquie. Il était
aussitôt incarcéré et accusé d’`espionnage’. Une autorité de
régulation partiale et la manipulation du marché publicitaire ont
conféré aux autorités la mainmise totale sur le secteur audiovisuel.
Aucune chaîne indépendante n’existe dans le pays. Une poignée de
journaux indépendants lutte pour sa survie.

Le principal, Azadlig, croule sous le poids d’amendes astronomiques et
se trouve proche de l’asphyxie économique, car le réseau de
distribution ne fait plus remonter le produit de ses ventes. Le 14 mai
dernier, Bakou est paradoxalement devenue garante du respect des
Droits de l’homme sur le continent européen en prenant la présidence
tournante du conseil des ministres du Conseil de l’Europe. Reporters
sans frontières exprime son indignation et demande aux 46 autres
membres de l’organisation de rappeler au président de l’Azerbaïdjan
les responsabilités qui lui incombent en matière de respect de la
liberté de l’information.

,46327.html

samedi 24 mai 2014,
Krikor Amirzayan ©armenews.com

From: A. Papazian

http://fr.rsf.org/azerbaidjan-connaissez-vous-vraiment-le-22-05-2014
http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=100160

Armenian Parliament Rejects Proportional Election System

ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT REJECTS PROPORTIONAL ELECTION SYSTEM

The Messenger, Georgia
May 23 2014

By Messenger Staff
Friday, May 23
Armenian Parliament has rejected the initiative from the opposition
political party to conduct the elections according to the proportional
system. The chairperson of the ruling Republican Party, Vagram
Bagdasarian, stated that the country is considering constitutional
reform and this issue will also be discussed. Opposition meanwhile
thinks that single mandate districts have turned the government into
a feudal system.

From: A. Papazian

Armenia To Forbid Sex-Selective Abortion

ARMENIA TO FORBID SEX-SELECTIVE ABORTION

Catholic World Report
May 23 2014

May 23, 2014 12:11 EST
By Michael J. Miller

(Gènethique, May 22, 2014) Between June 2012 and January 2013 a
survey was conducted in Armenia concerning sex-selective abortion
and the reasons for it. Since it has become a common practice in
recent years, the Minister of Health is preparing draft legislation
to forbid elective abortion on account of the child’s sex.

The topic of the imbalance of births in Eastern Europe had already been
the subject of a study by the Institut National Etudes Demographiques
[French National Institute for Demographic Studies] last December. The
Armenian survey confirms this trend: in 2012 there were 100 girls born
for every 114 boys, whereas the normal ratio is around 102 girls born
for every 106 boys.

The Director of the Department for Maternal and Reproductive Health
within the Ministry of Health in Armenia opined that “We cannot blame
anyone for wanting a male child, but that must not be accomplished
through the elimination of healthy girls.”

Gènethique is an online review of bioethics news published by in
French the Fondation Jerôme Lejeune.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3151/armenia_to_forbid_sexselective_abortion.aspx

Azerbaijan’s Position To Use Force Against Karabakh Is Contrary To I

AZERBAIJAN’S POSITION TO USE FORCE AGAINST KARABAKH IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

Legal Monitor Worldwide
May 22, 2014 Thursday

Even though the Nagorno-Karabakh war was concluded in 1994 with
the signing of a ceasefire agreement, Azerbaijan has constantly
and openly been threatening to start a war to “solve” the conflict
unless a peaceful agreement is achieved – this has been the official
position of Azerbaijan. To this end Azerbaijan has been acquiring
increasingly sophisticated weaponry (with its military budget already
exceeding the entire Armenian national budget) and has been rejecting
the proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs for reinforcing the
ceasefire such as removing snipers from the line of contact on which
a great number of deaths are registered each year.The international
community condemns the threats of the use of force by Azerbaijan as
well as the ceasefire violations, each time restating that there is
no alternative to the peaceful settlement of the conflict.Azerbaijan
however claims that it has the right under the international law to
use force to take back its territories. Not only have the President
of Azerbaijan and other high-ranking officials stated this many
times in their public speeches, but this has also been included in
the recently adopted military doctrine of Azerbaijan, which states,
“Following the Republic of Armenia’s continual occupation of a part
of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan… Azerbaijan reserves
the right, in accordance with international law, to use any necessary
means, including force, to restore its integrity.”

Azerbaijan also grounds its rejection of ceasefire reinforcing
mechanisms arguing that “if the mechanism is put to work now, it
would mean consolidating the status quo, which is unacceptable for
Azerbaijan”, as Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov has
put it. It is thus imperative to address the question of the legality
of this stance pursued by Azerbaijan, which has in fact not been
given due assessment. In this regard we present to your attention the
review of the article by German professor of international law at the
University of Hamburg Otto Luchterhandt titled Learning from Georgia:
A non-use of force treaty for Nagorno-Karabakh published in the book
Europe’s Next Avoidable War, eds. by M. Kambeck and S. Ghazaryan,
2013 (pp. 211-223). The article analyzes the legal aspect of the
use of force in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh and concludes that the
militaristic stance officially pursued by Azerbaijan is contrary
to the international law. Also, drawing upon the experience of 2008
war in Georgia the author recommends that a non-use of force treaty
between the parties to the Karabakh conflict should be signed
without further delay to avoid a similar scenario.Below is the
summary of the article.Azerbaijan justifies its militaristic stance
by referring to the “occupation” of its territories and cites the
right to self-defense under the international law, quoting Chapter
7, Article 51 of the UN Charter (the right of self defense). However
the official position of Azerbaijan to retake territories, including
Nagorno-Karabakh, is not compatible with the international law,
argues Luchterhandt.First, Luchterhandt writes, Azerbaijan (as well
as Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh) is bound by international law to
“refrain from the threat or use of force”, which is a peremptory
norm of international law (jus cogens) and is one of the fundamental
principles of the UN Charter. Second, Azerbaijan wrongly cites the
right of self-defense embedded in article 51 of the UN Charter. It
is true that article 51 is the only exception from the non-use of
force requirement; however Azerbaijan cannot refer to this article
to justify launching a war. The article specifically says, “Nothing
in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a member
of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security.” This means,
as Luchterhandt explains, that “Azerbaijan can appeal to the right
of self-defense only if, and as long as, an ‘armed attack’ occurs”.

However, this has not been the case – the war was concluded in 1994
with the signing of a ceasefire agreement and since then the Armenian
forces have launched no armed attack against Azerbaijan and thus
Azerbaijan cannot use force in self-defense under this article.

Further, Azerbaijan grounds its position on an extended definition
of aggression given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
according to which an ‘armed attack’ can also include an “occupation
of a territory” of one state by another. However, if this definition
applied to the case, the right to self-defense still could not
justify the launching of war on the part of Azerbaijan now. “What
the Azerbaijani government is failing to recognize, is that on 11
May 1994 the parties (Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia)
reached a ceasefire agreement… based on the Bishkek Protocol”, –
says Luchterhandt. Thus by signing the ceasefire agreement Azerbaijan
has taken up a legal obligation to preserve the ceasefire. Dr.

Luchterhandt reminds that the Bishkek ceasefire agreement has “the
same legal value as an international treaty” and most importantly it
has “a permanent effect”. Furthermore, the obligation of Azerbaijan
under the international law to refrain from the threat or use of force
refers also to “international lines of demarcation, such as armistice
lines” as embedded in the 2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of
International Law concerning Friendly Relations, which perfectly
applies to the case of the Ceasefire Protocol. Luchterhandt goes on to
explain further,”What is the relationship between the Bishkek Ceasefire
Protocol and Azerbaijan’s right to self-defense? The answer is clear:
Azerbaijan is bound to respect the ceasefire for the entire duration
of the protocol, which is indefinite. Correspondingly, it has to
renounce carrying out any military efforts or actions.

Consequently, Azerbaijan’s theoretic right as a state to self-defense
according to article 51 of the UN Charter, is in the specific case of
the Karabakh conflict, being superimposed by the Bishkek Ceasefire
Protocol, and is therefore limited by the obligation of a ceasefire
and of non-resumption of military activities. Azerbaijan can appeal
to the full right of self-defense again only when the ceasefire is
interrupted by the Armenian side, thus becoming obsolete because
of the new “armed attack”, as indicated in the article 51 of the UN
Charter.”Luchterhandt also notes that the occasional skirmishes on the
border do not render the ceasefire agreement obsolete, because there
is no documented evidence as to which side was the first to violate
the ceasefire and because the incidents of ceasefire violations
qualify below the level of an “armed attack”. Furthermore, it is
possible to talk about “armed attack” only when “military force is
used against another state in a massive and coordinated way”, which
has not been the case.Thus Luchterhandt concludes, “The political
position of Azerbaijan, that the conflict can be solved by force
according to the political discretion of the country, is contrary to
international law. This position contradicts the non-use of force in
relation to the ceasefire lines agreed in the Ceasefire Treaty… and
should be deeply worrying for the entire international community”.The
author also warns against the dangers posed by the “irresponsible
leadership of Azerbaijan” and in this regard he makes a comparison
with the situation in Georgia prior to the 2008 war. He points to
the fact that prior to the war Georgia had been pursuing the very
same policy as Azerbaijan holds today. Notwithstanding the fact that
Georgia, based on a number of agreements, was obliged to solve the
conflict with South Ossetia by peaceful means, Georgian President had
repeatedly declared in public that if necessary Georgia would be ready
to re-establish its sovereignty by using force against South Ossetia.

When Georgia actually did use force it breached its international
obligation of refraining from the use of force. Professor Luchterhandt
recalls that prior to the military aggression exercised by Georgia the
UN mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) had been trying to persuade Saakashvili
to conclude a non-use of force agreement, to which however the Georgian
President would not agree. If this agreement had been signed, it would
have considerably increased the obstacles to launching a new war,
argues the author and advises the states, which are in a political
situation similar to that of Georgia prior to 2008, to learn the
lessons from the outcome of the Georgian war.Drawing on the example of
Georgia Luchterhandt urges the international community to pay greater
attention to strengthening the legal and political obstacles created to
prevent breaches of international law and using force. In the case of
Nagorno-Karabakh he thus suggests that an independent non-use of force
agreement should be concluded between all the parties: “Applying this
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it follows that the first objective
of the international community must be to compel the three parties in
the conflict – through political and diplomatic pressure – to reach
an effective non-use of force agreement. This task is particularly
assigned to the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group.”According to the author
this non-use of force agreement should be concluded independently
from the major negotiations regarding a solution to the Karabakh
conflict, which would create a basic level of trust between the
conflicting parties. He believes this would increase the respect of the
international law and would lead to a greater security and stability.

From: A. Papazian

After Years Of Denial, Foxman Recognizes Genocide

AFTER YEARS OF DENIAL, FOXMAN RECOGNIZES GENOCIDE

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

The ADL’s National Director Abraham Foxman

BY LAURA BOGHOSIAN

BOSTON–After years of equivocation, Anti-Defamation League National
Director Abraham Foxman has publicly acknowledged that the Turkish
massacres of the Armenian people constituted genocide.

This recognition comes after a seven-year campaign in which the
Armenian and Jewish communities, as well as human rights activists and
local officials, demanded that the ADL affirm this historical truth.

In remarks delivered at Suffolk University Law School’s commencement
on May 17, Foxman stated, “Had there been people of courage to
act in 1915 when the Armenian genocide was taking place, had there
been international intervention when massacres in Cambodia, Bosnia,
and the genocide in Rwanda were happening, innocent lives in great
numbers could have been saved.”

The announcement that Foxman would deliver the keynote address
and receive an honorary degree unleashed widespread criticism that
the university planned to honor a man who refused to issue a clear
statement on the Armenian Genocide and who actively lobbied against
its recognition.

Groups including the Suffolk chapter of the National Lawyers Guild,
Suffolk student organizations, the Armenian Bar Association, Suffolk
alumni, and others called on Suffolk to rescind its invitation. When
Suffolk refused, several faculty members carried small Armenian flags
in silent protest onto the stage where Foxman spoke.

Foxman’s Suffolk remarks stand in contrast to the ADL’s 2007 statement
that the “consequences” of the Turkish government’s actions were
“tantamount to genocide.” The Armenian community and its supporters
rejected that statement as its qualifiers circumvented the intent
required by the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention.

An ADL statement one year later that alleged it had “referred to
those massacres and atrocities as genocide” was likewise rebuffed as
it only “referred” to the unacceptable 2007 statement. Recent claims
by Foxman and the ADL that this 2008 release clearly and unequivocally
acknowledged the Armenian Genocide are false.

Since that time, human rights activists have continued to press
the ADL for an unequivocal acknowledgement, as well as an end to
its lobbying for the Turkish government to prevent passage of a
Congressional Resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

“Abe Foxman’s reference to the Armenian massacres as genocide,
without any qualifiers, is a welcome change,” stated Herman Purutyan,
Massachusetts chair of the Armenian Assembly of America. “Even though
Foxman continues to assert that he had previously acknowledged
the genocide, the basis for his claims are a chain of statements,
at the root of which is the 2007 statement full of qualifications,
intended to obfuscate the question. We expect that Foxman’s statement
at Suffolk is not only his personal view, but that it also reflects
ADL’s official position. ADL should confirm this by publishing an
unequivocal statement on its website, and joining in the efforts to
have the U. S. Congress recognize the Armenian Genocide by passing
the resolution currently before it.”

Foxman’s remarks reflected growing support by Jewish organizations
for recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In March, ADL New England
Regional Director Robert Trestan was quoted stating that the ADL
“now fully recognizes the Armenian genocide without reservation.”

The following month, the American Jewish Committee issued a release
that read, “We pause in mournful tribute to the memories of the
estimated 1.5 million victims of the Meds Yeghern, the Genocide of
Armenians, committed in the final years of the Ottoman Empire.”

Describing the genocide as “an unspeakable crime against humanity,”
the AJC called upon the Turkish government to confront the truth. ”

Finally, the Israeli Knesset discussed recognition of the Armenian
Genocide at a plenum on May 13. A motion by the left-wing Meretz
party to recognize the genocide before its 100th anniversary next
year received support from across the political spectrum, including
from the rightist coalition government.

“These reversals of position by major Jewish organizations are quite
significant for all those committed to recognition of the genocides of
the past century,” stated Dikran Kaligian, chairman of the Armenian
National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts. “No longer will Turkey
be able to exploit the differences between the positions of these
organizations’ leadership and their membership — the vast majority
of whom want nothing to do with Turkey’s genocide denial campaign.”

Locally, the Coalition to Recognize the Armenian Genocide was
established in 2008 to foster communication between the Armenian and
Jewish communities and to raise awareness of the Armenian Genocide
within the Jewish community. Its objectives include advocating for
official recognition of the genocide by the United States government.

Coalition members include representatives from the Armenian National
Committee of America and the Armenian Assembly of America.

The coalition facilitated contacts between Armenian activists and
members of the ADL and created an online petition calling on Congress
to recognize the Armenian Genocide that has gathered over 21,000
signatures to date.

Laura Boghosian is a member of the Coalition to Recognize the Armenian
Genocide.

From: A. Papazian

http://asbarez.com/123385/after-years-of-denial-foxman-recognizes-genocide/

Turkish Journalist: How I Faced The Armenian Genocide –

TURKISH JOURNALIST: HOW I FACED THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE –

May 23, 2014

By Rasim Ozan Kutahyali –

Another April 24 is coming around. A landmark in Middle Eastern
history, the date this year will mark the 99th anniversary of the
catastrophe of 1915. Ninety-nine years ago, one of the region’s
Christian peoples, the Armenians, fell victim to a great tragedy
they call Metz Yeghern, or genocide. A deep, insurmountable enmity
has haunted Turks and Armenians ever since, with tensions bound to
reach a crescendo next year, the centenary of the genocide. This year,
like those that went before, the spokespeople of various countries
will repeat their cliches. The annoying nonsense will go on.

Today, I tell of my own mental journey and the transformation of
conscience I experienced on this issue as a Turk. I speak of how I
faced up to the massacres of Armenians and Christians and how the
truth scarred my inner being. The road to acceptance was definitely
hard, but I eventually came to terms with the truth. The Armenians
were uprooted from the lands where I lived. Hundreds of thousands of
them were slain brutally on the orders of Talaat Pasha’s Young Turk
government. In the ensuing Kemalist era, Turkey’s Christians and Jews
were again expelled from their homeland. It was an unmistakable act of
ethnic cleansing, which the state I belonged to denied. Such denial,
on top of everything else, is shameful.

I was in high school when I first became curious about the events
of 1915. Our Kemalist teachers spoke of “Armenian allegations” and
“Armenian lies.” The Kemalist education we had received in earlier
grades had already instilled in me and my classmates an anti-Armenian
sentiment. Then, we were shown a government-sponsored documentary
according to which Turks, in fact, were the victims of genocide at
the hands of the Armenians.

The documentary was a ridiculous production, devoid of quality and
intellectual insight. I wasn’t convinced. On the other hand, being
the child of a Turkish family, I did not want to believe that “we”
slaughtered the Armenians. Turkey’s current official position —
It was not a massacre, but mutual killings — was in its fledgling
stages in the 1990s. To allay my own conscience, I endorsed this
thesis as the most credible one.

I began to read studies that supported the government’s version of
the events. Whenever the issue popped up, I insisted that there had
been no massacre, only mutual killing. During my university years,
I continued to read up on the issue, as it occasionally became a topic
of discussion and whetted my appetite to read more. Frankly, however,
I didn’t bother to read material from both sides, try to be objective
or fully seek the truth. To me, the truth was already in my mind:
An Armenian genocide never took place. The two peoples slaughtered
each other. Thus, my only purpose in reading was to reinforce the
“truth” I had already come to accept.

As the late Armenian luminary Hrant Dink used to point out, as a Turk
I was simply incapable of coming to terms with anything like genocide.

I could not bring myself to say, “Yes, we Turks slaughtered the
Armenians.” Dink argued that the urge toward denial was in fact a
natural human reaction. While on other political issues my thinking
matured into libertarian and democratic outlooks, on the Armenian
question I remained conditioned to insist that “It was mutual,” that
“Apologies should be extended on both sides,” that “It was a time of
war and there was no massacre, but mutual killings.”

Although I never read a study affirming the genocide, I gradually began
to sense that something was wrong with the pro-Turkish arguments. The
Turkish literature on the subject varied from “Nothing happened” to
“The killings were mutual” and ultimately to “Yes, it did happen,
but it was necessary.” At this point, I had a change of heart.

As a Turk, I might have felt the urge to delude myself, but to
endorse an argument that was more or less saying, “Yes, we did it,
and we were right to do so” seemed to me cruel and simply immoral.

The American scholar Justin McCarthy, whose work I read extensively at
the time, was a leading foreign supporter of the Turkish version. He
had the strong backing of the Turkish state and often visited Turkey
at Ankara’s invitation to make speeches here and there.

McCarthy did not deny the huge number of atrocities that resulted
from deportations, but concluded that if the deportations had not
taken place, the Turks would have lost eastern Anatolia. Therefore,
their actions were justified. This argument offered easy vindication
for Turks, most of whom might have been relieved to think it was the
right thing to do, after all.

As Dink also said, denying what happened or not believing in it was,
in a sense, a noble reaction. Most Turks probably harbor this sentiment
today. Yet, a large number of people tend to embrace the theory that
the Turks were in the right. This is terrible and truly shameful,
because it points to a cruel and immoral mindset that legitimizes
murder and mass killings.

In my case, even the pro-Turkish writings I read to delude myself
and relieve my conscience led me to eventually conclude that what
happened was a crime against humanity. Yet, at the same time, I came
to realize that labeling an entire nation as the butcher of another
is no less intellectual nonsense than the perspective of seeing an
enemy in each and every member of another nation. This holds true not
only in the Turkish-Armenian context, but also in the German-Jewish
and Serbian-Bosnian cases.

The real murderer is the mindset, not a nation, that justifies the
extermination of ethnic or religious groups from an allegedly lofty
purpose. It is such a revolting, results-oriented mindset that has
made possible all massacres and genocides, deeming all means legitimate
in achieving a purported sacred end. In regard to the events of 1915,
this morality- and conscience-deprived mindset emerged in the avatar
of the Young Turks ideology, embodied in Talaat, a man who saw people
as mere objects in his population-engineering designs.

So, that’s my personal story. I no longer deceive myself. What
happened in these lands in 1915 was a great tragedy, a genocide against
Armenians, a crime against humanity. Every “but …” argument about
this crime makes me nauseous.

AL MONITOR

Rasim Ozan Kutahyali has been a columnist for Sabah since 2011
after writing for Taraf from 2008 to 2011. He is a popular political
commentator on various TV programs, having started at CNNTurk and
now appearing on Beyaz TV. Kutahyali is known for his anti-militarist
and liberal political views.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.horizonweekly.ca/news/details/39002