Author: Andres-Papazian

Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, Italia
22 gennaio 2013

Armenia: elezioni a senso unico

Mikayel Zolyan | Yerevan

L’Armenia si prepara ad eleggere il suo prossimo presidente.
Nonostante la pesante crisi economica e il peggiorato quadro
regionale, Serzh Sargsyan, presidente in carica, si prepara ad un
nuovo mandato

Il prossimo 18 febbraio si terranno le elezioni presidenziali in
Armenia. La risposta alla domanda più importante che si pone con ogni
elezione è già chiara: l’attuale presidente Serzh Sargsyan sembra
destinato a vincere le elezioni, dal momento che gli sfidanti non sono
verosimilmente in grado di batterlo né di portarlo al ballottaggio. La
campagna elettorale, tuttavia, solleva un’altra domanda, a cui sia gli
osservatori armeni che quelli esterni trovano difficile rispondere.
Nella maggior parte dei paesi europei, i governi che hanno visto le
proprie economie soffrire a causa della crisi sono stati sconfitti
alle elezioni.

Com’è possibile che in Armenia, uno dei Paesi più colpiti dalla crisi,
il governo in carica si appresti a fare nuovamente il pieno di voti?
Eppure Serzh Sargsyan, un presidente la cui elezione precedente è
stata segnata da accuse di frode e proteste di massa, si trova oggi
praticamente senza concorrenza. Tutto questo sarebbe facile da
spiegare in un paese autoritario. Il sistema politico dell’Armenia,
tuttavia, pur non essendo esattamente una piena e funzionante
democrazia, non è nemmeno una brutale dittatura.

La situazione attuale è particolarmente sorprendente se si guarda alla
complicata situazione interna ed esterna dell’Armenia di oggi.
L’economia è stata duramente colpita dalla crisi economica, e oggi
molti armeni sono alla ricerca di lavoro all’estero. Le già complicate
relazioni esterne sono diventate ancora più insidiose nel corso degli
ultimi anni. Il tentativo di riconciliazione turco-armeno, lanciato
nel 2008 con il sostegno degli Stati Uniti e dell’Unione europea, è
fallito: i protocolli firmati da Ankara e Yerevan nel 2009 sono
rimasti lettera morta.

Se non molto tempo fa i mediatori parlavano di “finestre di
opportunità” nei negoziati armeno-azeri sulla risoluzione del
conflitto del Karabakh, oggi anche questo processo sembra congelato. A
fine agosto Ramil Safarov, militare azero detenuto in un carcere
ungherese per l’omicidio di un ufficiale armeno, è stato estradato in
Azerbaijan, dove non solo è stato rilasciato, ma anche trattato come
un eroe nazionale. Il conseguente scandalo diplomatico ha segnato
probabilmente il punto più basso nelle relazioni armeno-azere dal
cessate il fuoco del 1994. La vicenda Safarov e i costanti incidenti
sulla linea di contatto tra le forze armene e azere dovrebbero far
capire quanto vicine siano le parti al confronto militare aperto. Sul
piano dei rapporti con le potenze mondiali e regionali, infine, il
governo armeno deve conciliare le aspirazioni europee e la
cooperazione con l’UE nel quadro di programmi come il partenariato
orientale con l’alleanza politico-militare con la Russia, compito che
spesso appare praticamente impossibile.

La rinuncia dell’opposizione
Tuttavia, mentre l’Armenia si trova a gestire tante questioni
difficili, nella campagna elettorale si discute sorprendentemente poco
su come affrontarle. Il tema della maggior parte delle discussioni è
stato piuttosto l’identità dei potenziali candidati. Hanno infatti
esitato a lungo due dei più probabili concorrenti di Sargsyan: Levon
Ter-Petrosyan, primo presidente armeno e leader del blocco di
opposizione “Congresso Nazionale Armeno”, e Gagik Tsarukyan, uno degli
uomini più ricchi del Paese e leader del partito di semi-opposizione
Armenia Prospera. Fino a dicembre, non è stato chiaro se i due
avrebbero corso o meno, ma alla fine entrambi hanno deciso di
astenersi.

Perché i candidati che avevano le maggiori possibilità contro Sargsyan
hanno deciso di abbandonare la corsa? Molto probabilmente, la
decisione di Ter-Petrosyan è legata agli sviluppi dell’ultimo anno e
alle sue basse probabilità di vittoria. Nelle parlamentari di maggio
2012, l’ANC di Ter-Petrosyan ha ricevuto solo il 7% dei voti. Il
partito aveva rappresentato una forza emergente alle elezioni del
2008, ma oggi, a causa delle manovre del governo in carica, è
sull’orlo del collasso.

– — Dal nostro archivio: vai al dossier sulle elezioni presidenziali del 2008
-Al contrario, Armenia Prospera, fino a poco tempo fa parte della
coalizione di governo, ha fatto molto bene alle elezioni parlamentari,
sfruttando la sua posizione di partito che ha lasciato la coalizione
di governo, ma che ancora non si è dichiarato opposizione, evitando di
criticare apertamente il governo in carica. Tuttavia, tale posizione
non può essere mantenuta a lungo. La decisione di sfidare Sargsyan
nelle presidenziali avrebbe significato entrare apertamente nel campo
dell’opposizione, che in Armenia, come in altri paesi post-sovietici,
è associato a molti rischi. Molti esponenti di spicco di Armenia
Prospera, compreso il leader Gagik Tsarukyan, sono persone benestanti
con molto da perdere, non disposte a rischiare le proprie ricchezze
per la politica. Il procedimento per appropriazione indebita istruito
a carico di Vartan Oskanian, ex ministro degli Esteri, membro di
spicco di AP e potenziale candidato presidenziale, ha fatto capire ai
membri di AP ciò che potevano aspettarsi nel caso in cui il partito
avesse deciso di diventare una vera forza di opposizione.

I magnifici otto
Pertanto, in assenza di sfidanti di peso, agli elettori armeni sarà
presentato un bizzarro elenco di otto candidati, la maggior parte dei
quali ha poche possibilità di andare oltre l’uno-due per cento dei
voti. Il più esotico è probabilmente Vartan Sedrakyan, auto-proclamato
“eposologo” (il termine, altrettanto oscuro in armeno che in italiano,
vuole significare `ricercatore di folklore epico’). Sedrakyan ha
attirato una certa attenzione dichiarando che userà il folklore epico
armeno di “Sasuntsi David” come programma politico, e che il suo motto
elettorale è “C’è Dio al di sopra”. La maggior parte degli altri
candidati sono meno eccentrici, ma le loro probabilità di successo non
sono molto più alte.

Ci sono tuttavia due candidati, l’ex Primo ministro Hrant Bagratyan e
l’ex ministro degli Esteri Raffi Hovannisian, che possono lasciare il
segno sulle elezioni. Anche se nessuno dei due ha alcuna possibilità
realistica di battere Sargsyan, entrambi hanno l’opportunità di
ottenere una percentuale significativa di voti che potrebbe servire da
base per consolidare l’opposizione in futuro. Anche se Sargsyan è il
vincitore più probabile, infatti, nel Paese c’è molto malcontento, e
chi sarà in grado di posizionarsi come principale sfidante in queste
elezioni potrà sfruttare tale malcontento nei prossimi anni.

I due candidati hanno tuttavia i loro limiti. Bagratyan, spesso
associato alle discutibili politiche economiche dei primi anni
novanta, è profondamente impopolare presso alcune fasce di elettori,
in particolare quelli di età media e avanzata. A suo sfavore gioca
anche il fatto che il Congresso Nazionale Armeno, di cui Bagratyan è
ancora formalmente membro, non sostiene la sua candidatura e chiede il
boicottaggio delle elezioni. Hovannisian, nato in America dalla
diaspora armena e trasferitosi in Armenia nel 1991, gode della
reputazione di patriota, lontano dallo stile corrotto e cinico tipico
dei politici post-sovietici. Tuttavia, per alcuni elettori, il suo
background occidentale può essere un handicap, dal momento che spesso
viene visto come lontano dalla realtà sul terreno. La reputazione
politica di Hovannisian ha poi recentemente subito un colpo a causa
del fallito tentativo di alleanza tra il suo partito, “Heritage”, e i
“Liberi Democratici”. Se l’alleanza è riuscita ad entrare in
parlamento alle politiche del 2012, molti importanti membri di
“Heritage” sono stati lasciati fuori. Di conseguenza, l’alleanza è ora
di fatto inesistente e i “Liberi Democratici” non sostengono nemmeno
la candidatura di Hovannisian.

Dominio indiscusso
Il governo in carica, così traballante solo un paio di anni fa, si
trova oggi in una situazione di dominio indiscusso. La vecchia
opposizione è frammentata e marginalizzata, una nuova non è emersa.
Tuttavia, ciò che sembra una vittoria a breve termine per l’élite al
potere, potrebbe portare a problemi nel lungo termine. È evidente sia
agli armeni che alla comunità internazionale che queste elezioni
saranno senza una vera scelta. La quasi certa vittoria del governo in
carica, già pesantemente delegittimato agli occhi di gran parte della
società armena dopo le contestate elezioni del 2008 e la violenta
repressione delle proteste di massa, difficilmente risolverà il
problema della distanza tra governo e società. Nel suo discorso
inaugurale del 2008, Serzh Sargsyan aveva detto che avrebbe cercato di
rompere il muro di incomprensione tra il governo e una parte dei
cittadini armeni. Se le prossime elezioni sembrano destinate a
conferirgli un secondo mandato, difficilmente lo aiuteranno a rompere
quel muro.

From: A. Papazian

Cihan News Agency (CNA) – Turkey
January 19, 2013 Saturday

Dink case and democratization

ISTANBUL (CIHAN)- Six years have passed since Turkish-Armenian
journalist and Agos newspaper editor-in-chief Hrant Dink left us, on
Jan. 19, 2007. His departure from this world didn’t take place
naturally but was from an assassination that came slowly and visibly.
Dink loved his country so much and was such a well-meaning person that
those who knew him, i.e., us, nurtured the naïve conviction that no
one would want to hurt him. He thought so too. During the last several
years of his life, he was caught in an ever-narrowing trap.

All hell broke loose when the Hürriyet daily published a news story
about Dink’s well-documented claim that Sabiha Gökçen, the adopted
daughter of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and
Turkey’s first female pilot, was the daughter of an Armenian who died
during the forced relocation of Armenians in 1915. The General Staff
made a statement that directly targeted Dink. This statement referred
to the “dangers of raising questions about national values.” That day
was a turning point. On the day after the General Staff’s statement,
some people filed with the prosecutor’s office an official complaint
about an article that Dink had written long ago. And, of course, the
prosecutor brought a criminal case against Dink and this was the
beginning of an adjudication process that made him the target of
hatred. As you might recall, Dink was on trial on charges of
“denigrating Turkishness” under the infamous Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code (TCK). The number 301 was like a secret code, or a
password. At that time, a person who was handled under Article 301
would be considered as “finished off.” Such people would have been
advised to find a way to get out of the country.

Like us, Dink didn’t pay much attention to such advice. There were
several reasons for this. First of all, Dink — and we — knew well
that he didn’t denigrate Turkishness in his article and believed that
the court would quickly see this simple fact and acquit him. Since
2002, Turkey has entered a process of rapid chance and reforms. The
ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has been taking
decisive steps to make the country a full member of the European
Union. Perhaps it was exactly for this reason why some groups wanted
to kill Dink: to abort this process.

In his contested article, Dink had told the Armenian diaspora that
1915 had poisoned them and they should establish contact with the
newly established Armenia instead of building their identity on this
trauma and anti-Turkish sentiments. In doing so, he used a metaphor
>From the Turkish national anthem to make his narration more evocative.
We are talking about a sentence singled out from a series of articles.
This sentence was taken out of context on purpose. Moreover, court
experts reported that this sentence did not have any defamatory
intentions.

Despite these expert reports, the local court and the then Supreme
Court of Appeals held that Dink was guilty. Crowds would gather in
front of the court building before every hearing carrying placards
reading, “You are the son of a Christian missionary and you are an
enemy of Turks,” and soon Dink started to be known as an anti-Turkish
figure despite his efforts to repair his public image. Several
prominent people who are currently on trial under a criminal case
against Ergenekon were openly attacking him. They said that Dink was
spreading anti-Turkish sentiments and were using nationalistic,
provocative language while doing so. They were implying that Christian
missionaries wanted to destabilize Turkey and convert Turks to
Christianity. This missionary talk was continuously pumped to the
general public in the context of the debate about Dink. Certain media
outlets and certain columnists published extremely racist articles
against Dink. They went crazy, particularly during an Armenian
conference held for the first time in the history of Turkey in 2005 to
discuss the 1915 incidents from all perspectives. Once again, hundreds
of people gathered in front of Bilgi University, where this conference
was held, and were again carrying placards that frequently referred to
“missionaries” and “Armenians” in a libelous manner.

Threats began to arrive

During this process, Dink was receiving serious threats. He didn’t
care about the threats against his person, but the death threats were
also targeting his family. He filed official complaints about these
threats, but to no avail. He had taken personal measures. For
instance, he was no longer using his own car. But the authorities had
not provided him with protection. And although Agos was a dangerous
place, no security measures had been taken.

Of course, this was the side of the coin as we saw it at that time.
After Dink was murdered on Jan. 19, 2007, many documents and pieces of
information were destroyed, but the Dink family and their lawyers had
presented many pieces of evidence to the court. Then we had a chance
to see the other side of the coin. And it was truly horrific. Dink had
been the victim of a murder that came about slowly, but most
importantly, the state knew about it and had watched it happen. It was
as if everyone except Dink knew that he would be killed in a few
years.

The notice about the first murder attempt came in 2005. The
gendarmerie authorities in Trabzon were aware that the main suspect of
the murder, Yasin Hayal, was on the move. Erhan Tuncel, an informant
working for the police and gendarmerie, was also known to have played
a key role in the murder. Hayal’s brother-in-law, Coskun Igci, had
told gendarmerie officials that Hayal was preparing to kill Dink in a
provocative manner and had given money to Igci in order to buy a gun
for Hayal. The Istanbul Police Department knew that Hayal had come to
Istanbul to plan the murder. Many developments concerning Dink’s
murder were known to intelligence authorities.

But nothing was done. Although a very simple measure could have
prevented this murder, no one moved a finger and Dink was murdered in
front of his newspaper on Jan. 19, 2007.

A failure of justice

The criminal case launched in connection with the murder was
scandalous in all aspects. Everyone was sure that the blame would be
placed on the young contract killers and effectively covered up. But
for the sake of justice, Dink’s lawyers and the general public never
stopped getting more from the case. Perhaps this was a first in the
history of the republic. For the first time, the general public did
not quickly forget a trial but continued to pay close attention to
this case. The media kept interest on this murder case alive. Despite
this unceasing internal and external attention, the trial focused on
19 defendants. Speaking to the Taraf daily, Fethiye Çetin, the lawyer
for the Dink family, explained this as follows:

“You know the criminal case was brought against 19 defendants. I then
realized that all of my efforts to expand the case beyond these 19
defendants failed. In a sense, we were not allowed to go beyond this
framework. Lots of evidential documents and information were lost but
coincidentally, new evidence was found on various occasions. Based on
the new evidence, we demanded that the prosecutor and the court expand
the scope of the case. But our demands were never taken seriously. It
seemed as if the limits of the case had been predefined and any breach
of them wouldn’t be permitted.

“This applied not only to the police and prosecutors but also to other
public authorities as well. For instance, the process about the phone
records at the Telecommunications Directorate [TIB] was like this. It
said, ‘There is nothing in the telephone records of the place of
murder to show that any organization was involved in the murder.’ But
even our amateurish examinations could find a number of links. The
prosecutor has been holding an investigation file for the last six
years. This file was merged with the official complaints which we
filed about certain public officials. But no concrete steps were taken
over this file in the last six years. Now, we want the prosecutor to
take those steps.”

Recently, a report sent by the National Intelligence Organization
(MIT) to a parliamentary commission investigating coups and military
interventions made mention of the plans of a “network that is above
Ergenekon” which sought to overthrow the ruling AK Party. Realizing
that they couldn’t overthrow the AK Party through a traditional coup,
the junta members used the Special Warfare Department (ÖHD) of the
General Staff to plan an unconventional coup. Based on the six letters
>From whistle-blowing military officers, MIT’s report argued that
Dink’s murder had been planned and implemented by the ÖHD. Çetin, too,
made a similar observation about the organization that killed Dink:

“I was Dink’s lawyer before his murder, so I knew the run-up to the
murder very well. As far as I can see, there is multi-organizational
network nested deep within the state apparatus. It is a powerful,
well-organized and untouchable network. ‘Is it Ergenekon?’ I was asked
many times. I believe that a more ghastly network than Ergenekon is at
work. I can see this clearly when I look at the process of Dink’s
murder and the actors involved in it. Some of these actors are
currently standing trial in the criminal case against Ergenekon, but
there are also many actors at large. It is a network that has furrowed
deeper into the state and is more tenuous. We can find it if we follow
these trails. We are faced with a network which planned the whole
process as though it was one of its operations, carefully planned and
implemented the run-up to Dink’s murder, advertised it as a rage of a
handful of nationalist youths, meddled with the investigation and
prosecution phases and destroyed the evidence.”

And justice is still not done after six years. Yet solving the Dink’s
murder means more than the fulfillment of a simple demand for justice.
It is an opportunity for the democratization and cleaning up of the
Turkish state. I hope politicians see this and lend support to the
solution.

From: A. Papazian

Rustavi-2 TV, Georgia
Jan 25 2013

Release of ethnic Armenian activist sparks debate among Georgian politicians

The release of ethnic Armenian activist Vahagn Chakhalyan from prison
and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s harsh criticism of the
decision have sparked a debate between the ruling and opposition MPs
and officials.

Georgian Prisons Minister Sozar Subari has accused Saakashvili of
lying and said that the allegations by the National Movement members
do not correspond to the charges against Chakhalyan.

“He was charged with three articles and all of them were less serious
crimes. These were: violation of public order, hooliganism and
[possession of] weapons. He was not facing any of the charges, which
Saakashvili, [minority MP Goga] Khachidze, [former Prime Minister
Vano] Merabishvili and members of the National Movement mentioned,”
Netgazeti website quoted Prisons Minister Sozar Subari as saying on 25
January.

Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili said that Saakashvili’s
statement that Chakhalyan’s release was decided personally by
Ivanishvili was not true and it was not within the limits of his
competence to make such decisions.

“I remember that this question [on Chakhalyan’s amnesty] was raised by
the patriarch, the catholicos-patriarch of Armenia and you should have
seen my position there. Probably there is some recording. I do not
touch anything that does not concern me. I make decisions neither on
the release of prisoners nor their arrests. Neither do I point to the
Prosecutor’s Office what to do and it was a good example of this. As
soon as I was asked the question, I redirected it and said that I am
not competent. I do not decide these things, trust me. Trust me that
the vertical, which existed in the country, when one person was
deciding everything, will not exist any more and this precedent should
start from me,” Netgazeti quoted Ivanishvil as saying.

Minority and the ruling party MPs involved in a debate over the topic
in Rustavi-2 TV channel’s talk show “Pozitsia” (“Position”) on 25
January.

Opposition MPs slammed the ruling Georgian Dream for Chakhalyan’s release.

“This is a person, who will definitely threaten our state in the
future. This is a person who I am sure will restart previous
activities immediately after the release and these activities are
aimed at separating a historical part from Georgia. He has never
concealed these intentions,” the United National Movement MP Goka
Gabashvili said.

“We are talking about the things that were happening in this country,
by the way. They were happening in the 21st century. There were
regions, which did not obey the central government. There were
regions, which the law enforcers could not enter. There were
districts, which police could not enter. Vahagn Chakhalyan and his
gang were doing all of these,” minority MP Pavle Kublashvili said.

Georgian Dream coalition MP Zakaria Kutsnashvili said it was amnesty
law that obliged the court to release Chakhalyan.

“Georgian Dream is not afraid of people and Georgian Dream does not
regard people as a threat to our country. We think that it would be a
bigger wrongdoing, if the amnesty law, articles of which concern
people, would have been violated and, for instance, a person, who
deserved release, would not be released. Formally, it was the court
that released him according to the law and if the judge saw that the
amnesty was not concerning him, he could have kept him in custody. But
the judge checked the law, compared the articles on the basis of which
the prisoner was charged and released him,” Kutsnashvili said.

[Translated from Georgian]

From: A. Papazian

Jerusalem Post
January 20, 2013 Sunday

Palestinian envoy to Britain dismisses two-state solution

by JONNY PAUL/Jerusalem Post correspondent

LONDON – The Palestinian diplomatic representative to Britain has
buried the idea of a two-state solution, saying that he believes that
Jews are the children of God “because nobody is stopping them from
building their messianic dream of the Land of Israel [Eretz Yisrael].”

Manuel Hassassian, the head of the Palestinian delegation to London,
was speaking in parliament on Tuesday night at an event organized by
the anti-Israel fringe group Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

The Palestinian representative, who was appointed to London in 2005,
advocated a one-state solution. He told the audience of around 100
people that it was his personal belief that Israel does not want peace
and “nurtures on conflict.”

“There is no two-state solution,” he said. “Democracies don’t fight
each other. If Israel is a democracy, I would claim that the
Palestinians are also a democracy. If democracies cannot fight each
other then why not have one state, one man, one vote?”

Hassassian, an Armenian-Palestinian born in Jerusalem, implied that
God must be colluding with Israel, hence the Jews are children of God,
and asked how long the Palestinians were going to suffer at the hands
of Israel.

“We, the Palestinians, the most highly educated and intellectual in
the Middle East, are still struggling for the basic right of
self-determination. What an irony. How long are we going to suffer and
be patient with Israel?”

In response he reportedly said: “You know I’m reaching the conclusion
that the Jews are the children of God, the only children of God and
the Promised Land is being paid by God. I have started to believe this
because nobody is stopping Israel building its messianic dream of
Eretz Israel to the point I believe that maybe God is on their side,”
he said.

He also alluded to the demographic structure of Israel, remarking on
the growing population of the world’s Muslims.

“Israel will never continue to exist as a pariah state. Israel could
never continue to fight wars against the Palestinians, against the
Arabs and the Muslims. The US is not going to be Israel’s strategic
ally for time immemorial. And today we have 1.5 billion Muslims. In 20
years we will have two billion. And those two billion, forget about
politics, from a religious perspective will not allow Israel to
continue desecrating their religious rights [in Jerusalem], and then
what?”

Also speaking at the event was Labor party Shadow Justice Minister
Andy Slaughter MP, Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather and veteran
anti-Israel campaigner and Labor MP Jeremy Corbyn.

According to the London-based blogger Richard Millet, Slaughter
accused Israel of deliberately killing Palestinian families and
controlling the Palestinians’ calorie count.

Slaughter said Israel supplied Palestinians just enough to stop them
>From starving and he added that Israel’s failure to supply clean
water, electricity and decent homes to Palestinians as “collective
punishment.”

In his speech, PSC chair Hugh Lanning claimed that Israel has banned
180 life saving medicines from Gazan hospitals “because they might
save lives.”

Corbyn spoke about Gazans who had “never known the ability to move out of Gaza.”

Millet commented on this statement saying, “Ironically, he then
introduced us to Rania Al-Najjar from Gaza who has just completed a
Masters in International Relations at London’s City University.”

From: A. Papazian

Armenian Assembly releases updated fact sheet on Armenian Genocide and
U.S. Record

12:26 23/01/2013 » POLITICS

Today, the Armenian Assembly of America (Assembly) announced the
release of an updated edition of its widely-used fact sheet on the
Armenian Genocide and the U.S. Record. The 11-page fact sheet provides
a summary of the extensive U.S. historic record on the Armenian
Genocide from Ambassador Henry Morgenthau’s earliest condemnations to
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Armenian Genocide
Memorial in Yerevan. As the world observes the start of President
Obama and Vice President Biden’s second term, with John Kerry
nominated for Secretary of State, the Assembly is making the updated
fact sheet available.

When the Armenian Genocide was implemented in Ottoman Turkey, the
United States responded swiftly with the largest overseas humanitarian
assistance program organized during World War I. This proud chapter of
American humanitarianism was supported by U.S. presidents who were
fully aware of the atrocities committed during the years 1915 to 1923.
The American diplomatic corps, through its many eyewitness reports
submitted to the Department of State, created a voluminous record on
the first mass genocide of the 20th century, and it was through the
services of the U.S. State Department that the first crucial
international condemnation of the Armenian Genocide as a crime against
humanity was communicated to the Turkish authorities. That May 24,
1915, cable transmitted on behalf of the governments of Britain,
France and Russia reads:

In view of those new crimes of Turkey against humanity and
civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly to the
Sublime-Porte that they will hold personally responsible [for] these
crimes all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents
who are implicated in such massacres.

These developments formed the early background to the U.S. position on
wartime atrocities against civilians, which, in the aftermath of World
War II, propelled U.S. support for the United Nations Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, a position the
United States expressly stated in 1951 to the International Court of
Justice when it listed “the Turkish massacres of Armenians” among “the
outstanding examples of the crime of genocide,” and which President
Ronald Reagan affirmed in a 1981 proclamation and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia further confirmed in 1993. The
Armenian Genocide was also cited as a precedent at the Nuremberg
trials. However, the passage of time and the growing influence of
denial efforts promoted by the government of Turkey have worked to
relegate this proud chapter in American foreign policy from public
awareness.

President Barack Obama, like other U.S. Presidents and officials, has
taken steps to rectify this problem. Highlights of that record are
below. President Obama has defined the events using the dictionary
definition that fits the term Genocide, he has used an Armenian term,
Meds Yeghern, for the Armenian Genocide in his annual April 24
Remembrance Day statements and he has referred back to his prior views
as a senator and presidential candidate when he explicitly referenced
the Armenian Genocide. President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, and the Administration also made an historic effort to
reconcile Turkey and Armenia. In the universal effort to join allies
and other major countries in using the term Armenian Genocide, the
United States record on its own history cannot be deleted or
compromised.

Established in 1972, the Armenian Assembly of America is the largest
Washington-based nationwide organization promoting public
understanding and awareness of Armenian issues. The Assembly is a
501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.

Fact sheet
ªA%3AAssembly+Announces+Updated+Edition+of+Fact+Sheet+on+U.S.+Record+on+AG&utm_campaignªA%3A+Assembly+Announces+Updated+Fact+Sheet+on+U.S.+Record+on+AG&utm_medium=email

Source: Panorama.am

From: A. Papazian

ANI releases Centuries of Genocide textbook 4th edition

January 26, 2013 – 09:36 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – As part of its ongoing program to promote teaching
of genocide and human rights and the lessons of the Armenian Genocide,
the Armenian National Institute (ANI) announced the release by
Routledge publishers of the fourth edition of Centuries of Genocide:
Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, by Samuel Totten and William S.
Parsons, the genocide and human rights studies textbook widely used in
college and high school courses.

The fourth edition of Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness
Accounts addresses examples of genocides perpetrated in the
nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. Each chapter of the
book is written by a recognized expert in the field.

The chapter on the Armenian Genocide, which has appeared since the
first edition of the publication, previously issued under the title
Century of Genocide, is authored by ANI Director Dr. Rouben Adalian.
For this new and expanded edition, the chapter was updated to reflect
the growing scholarship on the subject.

The book is framed by an introductory essay that spells out
definitional issues. To help readers learn about the similarities and
differences among the various cases, each case is structured around
specific leading questions. In every chapter authors address: Who
committed the genocide? How was the genocide committed? Why was the
genocide committed? Who were the victims? What were the outstanding
historical forces? What was the long-range impact? What were the
responses? How do scholars interpret this genocide? How does learning
about this genocide contribute to the field of study?

Dr. Maureen Hiebert from the University of Calgary, who specializes in
genocide, government, politics, and international law, described the
publication as: “A welcome new edition to an already influential
series, Centuries of Genocide adds new cases spanning the nineteenth
to the twenty-first century and the four corners of the globe. Each
chapter offers up-to-date research and analysis by some of the leading
scholars in the field on the causes, processes, and aftermath of
genocide, along with searing first-person eyewitness accounts that
starkly illustrate the human experience, and tragic cost, of genocidal
violence.”

Dr. Ervin Staub of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and
author of Overcoming Evil: Genocide, Violent Conflict and Terrorism
and The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group
Violence, comments: “In this deeply humane book, fired by the passion
of the editors and authors to understand the roots of genocides so
that we can prevent this scourge of humanity, eminent experts give
up-to-date accounts of 15 genocides. The scholarship of the authors is
outstanding, the chapters in the book highly readable and compelling.
While most of the chapters are about genocides in the 20th century,
the book now contains chapters about genocides in the 19th century and
the first genocide in the 21st Century. The personal accounts included
truly reach the heart.”

Co-editor of Centuries of Genocide William S. Parsons, who is Chief of
Staff for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington,
DC, has devoted 30 years of his career to Holocaust education. In
1991, Parsons was invited to join the Museum’s Education Committee to
share his innovative ideas for teaching about prejudice and racism. He
is also the co-author of the teachers’ guide Facing History and
Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior.

Dr. Samuel Totten, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Professor of
Curriculum and Instruction, has written extensively on teaching,
preventing, intervening and documenting genocide. During the summer of
2004, Totten served as one of the 24 investigators with the U.S. State
Department’s Atrocities Documentation Project, interviewing black
African refugees along the Chad/Sudan border in order to collect data
for the express purpose of ascertaining whether genocide had been
perpetrated in Darfur.

Founded in 1997, the Armenian National Institute (ANI) is an
educational charity based in Washington, DC, and is dedicated to the
study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide.

From: A. Papazian

Armenians jeopardized in Istanbul

Massacres of the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire and its
successor Turkey are an integral part of the country’s domestic
policy.

Every now and then, Istanbul turns into a city that poses extreme
danger to Armenians. This does not mean it had been safe otherwise;
still, sometimes Armenians are facing really hard times. Massacres of
1955 which affected Armenians and Jews along with the Greeks were
meticulously planned within Turkey’s state policy.

January 26, 2013

PanARMENIAN.Net – Massacres of the Christian population of the Ottoman
Empire and its successor Turkey are an integral part of the country’s
domestic policy. Currently 98% of Istanbul population identify
themselves as ethnic Turks and name the Turkish language as their
mother tongue. Meanwhile, the origin of Istanbul citizens is quite
diverse, reflecting the complex migration processes in the Ottoman
Empire. Despite absolute prevalence of Turkish, the very Turkic
genetic element is not very significant among the inhabitants of
Turkey (let alone Istanbul), accounting for not more than one third.
This phenomenon can be explained by intense Islamization and
`Turkization’ of non-Turkic nations, the Christians and Jews in the
first place who constituted most part of the city’s population until
mid-15th century.

There are approximately 60 000 Armenians in Istanbul today who live in
constant fear. Assassination of Hrant Dink 6 years ago seemed to cool
down the Turkish nationalists; it did not happen, though. Actually,
this couldn’t have happened anyway because neither the police nor the
state stirred a finger to protect the lives of their own citizens,
particularly when Armenians, number one enemy for the Turkish state
are involved. However, Istanbul Armenians do not want to put up with
it; they say they live in their homeland and are not Diaspora, which
is not quite true, in fact. Their homeland, namely Western Armenia was
lost long ago, and Armenians are tolerated in Istanbul through habit
or out of political necessity.

It should be reminded that one of the oldest members of Istanbul’s
Armenian community, 85-year-old Maritsa Kucuk was brutally killed on
December 28, 2012. The old woman was beaten and stabbed, then
beheaded. Kucuk’s son Zadik found her body. `It was dark inside when I
entered the house, and mom was lying on the floor. I thought she had
fallen down. Then I saw her body all in blood. She lay naked, and she
had a cross sign on her chest,’ Zadik told Agos paper. Another elderly
Armenian woman was robbed and killed in early December 2012.

On January 6, three unknown people attempted to abduct another old
Armenian woman but failed to do this.

On January 10, IT teacher of the Armenian `Aramian’ school Ilker
Shahin was found dead in his house in Istanbul. Shahin was stabbed in
the throat three days prior to being found.

Two elderly Armenian women were assaulted in Istanbul on January 22
and 23. Sultan Aykar, 83 was attacked and beaten near her house. The
masked aggressor was scared away by neighbours who heard Aykar’s
cries. The witnesses described the attacker as a brunet aged 35-40
dressed in black. The attack left Aykar blind in one eye despite the
surgery she underwent. On January 23, two unidentified persons
attacked another old Armenian woman in the street near Samatia school;
they beat her and then left. According to eye-witnesses, the victim,
all in blood, hurried to leave, too. A criminal case is launched on
this incident; however, the practice of such proceedings in Turkey is
widely known by the example of Hrant Dink’s murderer’s trial.

With all this going on, the fact that Armenians, mostly women, go to
Turkey for work, mostly unskilled one and are actually unprotected,
cannot but cause concerns. There are no diplomatic relations between
Armenia and Turkey, and there hardly be any in the near future, so
Armenian citizens have no one to address in case of trouble. In this
regard, it is worth mentioning that Turkey is not the only option for
earning one’s living. There are no guarantees that children of these
people also leaving for Turkey will maintain their Armenian identity.
They will definitely face assimilation, and those who survive will
just dissolve in the 70 million Turkic environment; that’s the
reality.

The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan changed the Minister for Internal
Affairs; the former mayor of Istanbul Muammer Guler has taken up the
position now. The move was hardly sparked by the recent assaults
against Armenians. Istanbul is facing constant terrorist attacks, and
Guler is expected to stop the wave of violence perhaps. He will hardly
succeed in this though; the Kurds, the perpetrators, are not going to
surrender until independent Kurdistan is proclaimed. This will mark
the end of Turkey which will simply fall to pieces burying the
Christians first.

Karine Ter-Sahakian

From: A. Papazian

The NKR Foreign Minister received students and lecturers of the
American Johns Hopkins University

2013-01-23 21:33

On January 23, Foreign Minister of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Karen
Mirzoyan received students and professors of the Johns Hopkins
University, who had arrived in the NKR on a familiarization visit.

During the meeting, issues related to the history, current stage and
prospects of the Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict settlement, as well as
to the regional processes were touched upon.

Karen Mirzoyan noted, in particular, that in the unequal war imposed
by Azerbaijan the people of Karabakh had not only defended its
homeland and won a victory, but had also created an independent state
based on the principles of democracy, freedom, and respect for human
rights.

“As for the Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict settlement,
Nagorno-Karabakh stands solely for its peaceful settlement under the
auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen and for the return of
Artsakh to the negotiation table as an equal party”, said Mr.
Mirzoyan.

Noting that Azerbaijan has been trying to distort the essence and
format of the negotiations so far, the Minister said, “The key element
in the solution of the Karabakh issue is to accept the free will of
the Karabakh people. We believe that the right of the people of
Artsakh to self-determination will be surely taken into account”.

The NKR Foreign Minister emphasized that only the recognition of the
existing realities by the Azerbaijani party, abandonment of the
propaganda of hatred and militaristic sentiments and cessation of the
increase in military expenditure could create corresponding conditions
for the conflict settlement and for the establishment of peace and
stability in the region.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

From: A. Papazian

Jailed HAK Activists Abused By Police Officers In Custody- William Gomes
By Ghana News -SpyGhana.com

William Gomes

Men in detention are suffering alleged ill-treatment

(YORK, UK) – Armenian citizens are afforded the same humanitarian
rights under international law that any human being is entitled to.

Human Rights Ambassador William Nicholas Gomes, expressed his profound
concern regarding the lack of an effective investigation into
allegations of ill-treatment relating to the case of Armenian National
Congress activists Tigran Araqelyan, Artak Karapetyan, Sargis
Gevorgyan, and Davit Kiramijyan.

They are accused of disorderly conduct and violence against government
representatives during an encounter with Yerevan police in August
2011. This type of charge often equates to convenient language for
persecution but little else.

From: A. Papazian

SOURP SARKIS
Hier, l’Arménie a fêté Sourp Sarkis

Hier l’Arménie fêtait Sourp (Saint) Sarkis. Mais pour une fois, le
président Serge (Sarkis) Sarkissian n’est en rien dans cette affaire
puisque Sourp Sarkis (285-337) est un général représenté dans les
images chevauchant un cheval blanc et qui mourut en martyr avec son
fils Mardiros et 14 valeureux guerriers Arméniens en défendant les
frontières de l’Empire du roi Constantin. Saint Sarkis était nommé par
Constantin, « Sparabed » de Cappadoce frontalière de l’Arménie. Depuis
sa disparition, Sourp Sarkis est célébrée par l’Eglise arménienne
comme la fête de la jeunesse et de l’amour. Sourp Krikor Loissavoritch
(Saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur) le fondateur de l’Eglise arménienne a
institué cette fête qui précède du 20 au 25 janvier par un jeûne
appelé « Aratchavorats bahk ». La fête de Sourp Sarkis a dépassé en
Arménie le cadre religieux pour devenir une fête populaire. Les jeunes
invoquent Sourp Sarkis pour résoudre leurs problèmes amoureux. Hier,
des célébrations eurent lieu à l’église Sourp Sarkis d’Erévan ainsi
qu’au Parc des Amoureux.

Krikor Amirzayan

dimanche 27 janvier 2013,
Krikor Amirzayan ©armenews.com

From: A. Papazian