Author: Babajanian Karo

LE SENAT EXAMINE LE 23 JANVIER LE TEXTE SUR LE GENOCIDE ARMENIEN

Agence France Presse
10 janv 2012

(AFP) PARIS – Le Senat francais a confirme l’examen le 23 janvier de
la proposition de loi sanctionnant la negation du genocide armenien
de 1915, deja votee par les deputes en decembre.

C’est le ministre des relations avec le Parlement Patrick Ollier qui
a demande par une lettre date du 9 janvier cette inscription au Senat.

L’Assemblee nationale, chambre basse du Parlement, avait adopte le
22 decembre cette proposition de loi qui prevoit de punir d’un an
de prison et 45.000 euros d’amende la negation d’un genocide reconnu
par la loi francaise.

Ce vote a entraîne le gel par la Turquie de sa cooperation politique
et militaire avec la France. Ankara a prevenu debut janvier que Paris
devrait s’exposer a de nouvelles mesures de retorsion.

La Turquie pourrait ainsi decider d’abaisser le niveau de sa
representation diplomatique en France, jusqu’ici assuree par un
ambassadeur, selon une source diplomatique turque a Paris.

Le vote du texte a ete encourage par le president francais Nicolas
Sarkozy, accuse de vouloir s’attirer la sympathie des quelque 500.000
Francais d’origine armenienne a l’approche du scrutin presidentiel
du printemps.

Une proposition de loi de la gauche penalisant la contestation du
genocide armenien avait ete votee le 12 octobre 2006 par l’Assemblee
nationale mais rejetee par le Senat le 4 mai 2011 alors a majorite
de droite. Cette fois-ci l’adoption du texte par le Senat semble plus
certaine car meme si des divisons existent au sein des groupes.

La proposition de loi ne designe pas specifiquement le genocide
armenien, mais celui-ci est le seul a etre reconnu sans que sa negation
soit deja reprimee par une loi specifique.

La Turquie refute le terme de genocide meme si elle reconnaît que des
massacres ont ete commis et que quelque 500.000 Armeniens ont peri
en Anatolie entre 1915 et 1917 –les Armeniens evoquent 1,5 million
de morts.

GEORGIA’S NATIONAL SECURITY CONCEPT: NEW TAKES ON OLD STRATEGIES

Today’s Zaman
Jan 10 2012
Turkey

Turkey is Georgia’s “leading regional partner” and Azerbaijan its
“strategic partner,” confirms Georgia’s new national security concept,
the purpose of which is to analyze and present Tbilisi’s regional
and international security challenges.

The new national security concept, adopted by the Georgian parliament
on Dec. 23, 2011, is an updated and revised version of a previous
one from July 2005 and serves both as a crucial driver of the
government’s regional and international strategic aims and a platform
for discussions regarding the security challenges that Tbilisi is
currently facing.

Georgia’s political landscape changed substantially after the Rose
Revolution in November 2003, which prompted structural reforms within
the government, demonstrating that the problem had been a systemic
one exacerbated by a lack of political will. In the aftermath of the
August War in 2008, the key questions were how Georgia would define
its regional policy, what strategy it would implement regarding
the resolution of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia conflicts, and how
relations with Russia would develop. The answers to these questions
can be found in Tbilisi’s post-2008 politics. The main changes
brought about by the August War relate to two areas: the status of
the conflicts and the actual control over the territories of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia.

Under the July 2005 policy document, Georgia aspired to build good
relations with Russia based on mutual respect. Notably, it emphasized
that the existence of a Russian military base in Georgian territory
was not perceived by Tbilisi as a threat to its sovereignty. The
concept attempted to balance the rhetoric, but underlined that
granting Russian citizenship to residents of the breakaway republics
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia could constitute grounds for military
intervention. Indeed, this assumption became a reality during the
Russian-Georgian war in 2008, when Russian officials justified their
invasion by pointing to the need to protect Russian citizens living
in South Ossetia. Russia argued that the legal basis of the operation
was guaranteed by Article 14.5 of the Russian Federal Law on State
Policy on Fellow Citizens Residing Abroad, which provides that “if a
foreign state violates recognized norms of international law and human
rights with regard to Russian expatriates, the Russian Federation
shall undertake efforts authorized by international law to defend
their interests.” This is the Russian version of the “responsibility
to protect.”

The main change within the new security concept is that the document
openly describes Russia as an occupying presence and states that
Moscow’s primary goal is to turn Georgia into a “failed state”
in order to derail Georgia from its path towards Euro-Atlantic
integration and to “forcibly return Georgia to the Russian orbit.”

Another important issue is the threat of terrorism; the new document
declares that “Russia uses [South Ossetia and Abkhazia] for recruiting
and training terrorists with the aim of carrying out terrorist acts
on Georgian territory.”

Georgia can envisage the normalization of bilateral relations only once
Russia has withdrawn its troops. But describing Russia as an occupying
state seems to allow Moscow to respond that the Georgian government
is not ready to normalize relations, arguing that Tbilisi is trying
to blame their more powerful neighbor for their own mistakes. The
policy paper makes it extremely clear that “the enemy is abroad.” This
issue will become increasingly important in light of the approaching
parliamentary elections, and then the presidential elections next year.

In terms of relations with neighboring countries, Tbilisi continues
to identify Azerbaijan as a strategic partner and Armenia as a close
partner. The concept argues that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict still
threatens the stability of all states in the region. Interestingly,
the regional media is presenting those elements as new developments,
but closer analysis reveals this stance is merely repeating what the
2005 version had already established.

As well as changes to Georgia’s Russian strategy, the new concept
envisages a pragmatic and realistic approach to EU relations, to be
implemented as a process of “gradual integration.” NATO membership
remains the top priority on Georgia’s political agenda; just a few
days before adopting the new policy concept, the Georgian parliament
voted in favor of President Mikheil Saakashvili’s plan to send more
troops to Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF), deemed a gesture of support and a message of commitment
to NATO. The current government is keen to let NATO know they are
eagerly awaiting the result of NATO’s Chicago Summit in May 2012,
which they hope will mark a significant step forward for Georgia in
its drive to join the alliance.

Georgia is unique in the South Caucasus in the sense that its attitudes
toward forming alliances and its wish to join NATO reflect the absence
of a strong military ally; compare this to Armenia, which has Russia,
and Azerbaijan, which has Turkey. First of all, this is primarily down
to the lack of historical or cultural affinities with any of the big
powers, which, had they existed, would have been revived following
independence in 1991. Secondly, both Armenia and Azerbaijan have
chosen their allies based upon geographical proximity along with
either historical or cultural affinities, while Georgia looks to
more geographically remote partners in the West. Full membership in
NATO, as many experts have argued, could have prevented Russia from
intervening in South Ossetia in 2008. However, others argue that the
quest for NATO membership was actually the cause of the Russian attack
on Georgia. Ultimately, the 2008 August Russian-Georgian war did not
change the fact that Tbilisi’s military cooperation with NATO is under
the special category of “pre-alliance status” and that Tbilisi still
aspires to full membership.

The main changes and challenges in the new security concept are
the definition of the relationship with Russia and the orientation
towards Europe through gradual integration with the EU. Moreover,
the government wants to combine a pragmatic notion of balance in its
foreign policy with a continuous strategy; the document proves that
there has been a shift in the government’s stance — once ideologically
driven, it seems now to be based on realpolitik. The ambivalence of
the government during the Arab Spring demonstrated that while Georgia
supported the color revolutions across the former Soviet Union,
now it is far from adopting an ideologically driven foreign policy,
preferring to wait until the situation becomes clearer.

AZERBAIJAN TV SIGNAL NOW REACHES NORTHERN PART OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Trend
Jan 9 2012
Azerbaijan

The Teleradio Production Association of the Azerbaijan Ministry of
Communications and Information Technologies says that its television
relay now covers the front-lines of Aghdam, Barda and Tartar in the
Aran zone of the Karabakh, the ministry said on Monday.

This has become possible since the commissioning of a new television
station which also covers the northern part of the Nagorno-Karabakh,
the Ministry added.

The region was covered by Teleradio production association signal
in early October 2011.This became possible after the commissioning
of new digital equipment installed on the 92-metre Agsu television
tower. It sits at an altitude of 864 metres on the Agsu pass.

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

HEALING WOUNDS: SEEKING CLOSURE FOR THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES
by Richard Falk & Hilal Elver

Today’s Zaman
*.html
Jan 9 2012
Turkey

Recently the National Assembly, France’s lower legislative chamber,
voted to criminalize the denial of the Armenian genocide in 1915,
imposing a potential prison sentence of up to one year as well as a
maximum fine of 45,000 euros.

The timing of this controversial initiative seemed to represent a
rather blatant Nicolas Sarkozy bid for the votes of the 500,000 French
citizens of Armenian descent in the upcoming presidential election. It
follows similar pre-election initiatives in 2001 when the French
Parliament officially declared that the massacres of Armenians in
1915 were an instance of genocide and in 2006 when the assembly first
voted to criminalize Armenian genocide denial, an initiative that
did not become law because the French Senate failed to give its assent.

For obvious reasons, the assembly’s action was perceived by Turkey
as a hostile and provocative undertaking. The Turkish government,
which has so far refused to describe the 1915 events as “genocide,”
immediately reacted, warning France of adverse economic consequences
if such a move went forward, and has both withdrawn its ambassador
and frozen inter-governmental economic relations. The Turkish
prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, denounced the move in the
French Assembly initiated by a member of Sarkozy’s party and said
that, instead of condemning Turkey, France should busy itself with
determining whether its tactics in Algeria, responsible for as many
Algerian deaths during the 1950s, constituted genocide.

There are many issues raised by this turn for the worse in
French-Turkish relations. Perhaps the most important is whether
it is ever justifiable to criminalize the expression of an opinion
about a historical event that goes against a societal consensus. It
is true that genocide or Holocaust denial can be hurtful to those
who are survivors or descendants of survivors, and identify with the
victims of such severe wrongdoing, but whether the sensitivities of
these communities should be protected by criminal law seems dubious,
conflicting with freedom of expression and censuring inquiries
into historical occurrences that are unpopular, controversial and
provocative. It would seem that social pressure should be sufficient
to deter all but the most extremist instances of denial if a genuine
consensus exists. In this instance, such criminalization is especially
unfortunate as even if the facts are reasonably well established,
the relevance of genocide is ambiguous and somewhat problematic from
a legal perspective.

Criminalization of denial raising tensions

And here, where Turkey has not yet been willing to describe the events
of 1915 as “genocide,” the criminalization of the denial is more
likely to raise tensions that encourage a long overdue accommodation.

In Turkey there continues to be some questioning of the character
of the events in question, not their tragic character or even a
willingness to condemn Ottoman wrongdoing, but there remains a Turkish
governmental and societal reluctance to pin the label of genocide
on these occurrences. It is well known that the Armenian diaspora
has long been seeking to induce key governments around the world to
make a formal declaration that what happened in 1915 was genocide,
and some 25 governments have done so, as have many lesser political
entities such as sub-divisions of the state or cities.

The discourse on genocide is confusing and multi-layered. We need
to distinguish genocide as a crime in international law from the
political assessment of historical events as genocide due to a clear
pattern of deliberate killing of an ethnic or religious group. And
such a political assessment needs to be further distinguished from a
moral condemnation of a pattern designed to destroy systematically a
beleaguered minority that might properly be described as “genocidal,”
or what has been more recently described as “ethnic cleansing” in the
setting of Bosnia, which is distinct from the judicially pronounced
“genocide” that shook the foundations of Rwanda in 1994.

>From a legal perspective it is difficult to call these events in 1915
as genocide. After all, the word did not exist until coined by Rafael
Lemkin in 1943, and the crime was not so delimited until the Genocide
Convention came into force in 1951. Beyond this, the indictments at
Nuremberg did not charge the surviving Nazi leaders with genocide,
but convicted these Germans of “crimes against humanity” for their
connection with genocidal conduct. If the Holocaust did not seem to
the Nuremberg tribunal to be a distinct crime, then it seems even
less plausible to regard the Armenian tragedy as genocide. When the UN
expert body, the International Law Commission, put into words what was
done at Nuremberg it explicitly invoked the Roman dictum prohibiting
retroactivity: no crime without law (nullum crimen sine lege).

At the same time, if what took place in 1915 were to have occurred
anytime after the Genocide Convention became effective, it would
seem to qualify as genocide. The International Court of Justice
in examining the Bosnian allegations of genocide, put the bar high
by requiring written or documentary evidence of a clear intent by
Serb governmental leaders to commit the crime of genocide (except
in relation to the horrific massacre of several thousand Bosnian
males at Srebrenica in 1995), but if such evidence was difficult to
present in relation to wider Bosnian events in the 1990s, then it
seems almost impossible in relation to Armenian claims dating back
almost a century. If this reasoning is accepted, it has two important
implications: It could provide some political space for bringing
closure to the issue: Turkey could formally declare that if what
happened to the Armenians in 1915 took place in the 1960s it would
have been genocide, while those on the Armenian side could accept the
idea that the 1915 massacres were not then genocide, but that their
extent and character would constitute genocide if taking place now.

Possible mutual benefits

It seems to me that such an approach would have mutual benefits. It
would bring a conflict that has endured for decades nearer to closure.

It would allow Armenians to regard their victimization as genocide from
a political and moral perspective, while enabling Turkey to make such a
concession without fearing such legal implications as Armenian demands
for reparations and the recovery of lost property. Turkish good faith
and remorse could be further expressed by appropriating funds for
the establishment of a major museum of Armenian History and Culture
in Ankara and by recognizing April 24 as a day of Armenian remembrance.

Of course, such an approach could only succeed if there is good will
and a search for positive relations between the two peoples. It is
to be expected that extremists on both sides would object to such an
accommodation. There would not be complete satisfaction even among
the majority of Armenians and Turks, but there would be a new opening
that would allow a more benevolent future to unfold for both peoples.

*Richard Falk is a professor emeritus of international law and practice
who taught at Princeton University for 40 years. Hilal Elver is an
instructor at UC Santa Barbara.

FRANCE
France/Génocide arménien : L’ambassadeur de Turquie est rentré à Paris

L’ambassadeur de Turquie en France, Tahsin Burcuoglu, rappelé à Ankara
après l’adoption le 22 décembre au Parlement français d’une
proposition de loi punissant la négation du génocide arménien sous
l’Empire ottoman, est rentré à Paris, a-t-on appris dimanche de source
turque.

`L’ambassadeur a achevé les consultations pour lesquelles il avait été
rappelé et il est rentré samedi en France`, a indiqué à l’AFP le
porte-parole du ministère turc des Affaires étrangères, Selçuk Ünal.

`Il doit reprendre les travaux en France` pour empêcher que le texte
ne soit adopté au Sénat, a-t-il ajouté.

Le texte a été inscrit la semaine dernière à l’ordre du jour du Sénat
après une décision du gouvernement français et a de fortes chances
d’être définitivement voté, car il est également soutenu par la
gauche, majoritaire au Sénat.

La proposition de loi punit d’un an de prison et d’une amende la
contestation des génocides reconnus par la loi.

Elle ne désigne pas spécifiquement le génocide arménien, mais celui-ci
est le seul à être reconnu sans que sa négation soit déjà réprimée par
une loi spécifique.

La Turquie réfute ce terme de génocide même si elle reconnaît que des
massacres ont été commis et que quelque 500.000 Arméniens ont péri en
Anatolie entre 1915 et 1917 – les Arméniens évoquent 1,5 million de
morts.

Après le vote au Parlement, la Turquie a annoncé avoir gelé sa
coopération militaire et politique avec la France et une nouvelle
salve de représailles est à prévoir si le texte passe au Sénat.

Le vote du texte a été poussée par le président français Nicolas
Sarkozy, accusé de vouloir s’attirer la sympathie des quelque 500.000
Français d’origine arménienne a l’approche du scrutin présidentiel du
printemps.

AFP

Quelques citations du négationniste ambassadeur à la publication
`Aujourd’hui la Turquie` :

« Ce rapprochement diplomatique date de 2008, année où la France a
fait des efforts au sujet des allégations arméniennes concernant les
événements de 1915 » .

« A l’approche de 2015, l’agitation peut s’intensifier dans les
milieux arméniens ; certes le gouvernement français, y compris le
Président Nicolas Sarkozy, s’est engagé envers la Turquie à ce sujet.
Nous pensons que cet engagement serait respecté. »

« Auparavant, les rapports entre la Turquie et la France étaient très
différents. Nos relations diplomatiques étaient gelées, ce qui s’est
répercuté sur nos relations militaires. Mais à présent, cette époque
est révolue », explique Tahsin Burcuoðlu. A notre question « La
tension est-elle finalement tombée entre les deux pays ? », il déclare
: « Oui. C’est normal. L’attitude de la France est plus mesurée en ce
qui concerne le sujet turco-arménien. Il est inacceptable que la
Turquie voit ses rapports avec un autre pays mis sous tensions, en
raison de l’intrusion d’un sujet qui est tiers à leurs relations. En
l’occurrence, nous considérons que le problème arménien est un élément
étranger aux relations franco-turques. Certes, il y a une communauté
arménienne en France, implantée depuis des années. Mais il ne faut pas
oublier une chose, c’est qu’il y a aussi des Turcs, et en nombre au
moins égal à celui des Arméniens. Les Turcs sont intégrés à la vie de
la France. Il y a environ une centaine d’élus turcs qui remplissent
des fonctions de maire et il y aura à l’avenir des députés et des
sénateurs turcs. »

lundi 9 janvier 2012,
Stéphane ©armenews.com

CHINGIZ ASGAROV: THE EUROPEAN COURT SHOULD DECIDE THAT INDEED ARMENIA HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS FROM LACHIN REGION

Milaz.info
Jan 10 2012
Azerbaijan

“On January 9, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
declared admissible the application of six Azerbaijani nationals,
the internally displaced people from Lachin region. The court also
declared admissible the application of an Armenian national v.

Azerbaijan,” Azerbaijan’s authorized representative at the European
Court of Human Rights Chingiz Asgarov told journalists, APA reports.

He said the court was expected to take this step long ago.

“The European Court received the application of the Azerbaijani
nationals v. Armenia in 2005. The European Court held an open hearing
in September, 2010 and this decision was passed 16 months later. The
decisions show that Nagorno Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan. Armenian
Armed forces together with the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians occupied
a great part of the Azerbaijani territories. As a result of it,
one million Azerbaijanis became internally displaced people. It is
also written that the area of the former Nagorno Karabakh province
was 4 000 sq km, while twice as much territory was occupied. These
are seven regions of Azerbaijan,” he said.

Chingiz Asgarov also gave information about the application of the
Armenian national.

“This Armenian claims that he lived in the village of Gulustan of the
former Shaumyan, present Goranboy region. He claims that his right
of property was violated, Armenian cemeteries in Azerbaijan were
demolished. Due to evidences we submitted, the European Court rejected
this complaint. The Court considers his compliant as a drivel. Our
main argument is that the village of Gulustan is located on the line
of contact between the Azerbaijani and Armenian troops. Therefore
Azerbaijan can not secure the residence of any person there. But
the issue was decided to be considered by the court in the following
phases”.

Asgarov noted that the two complaints are the matter of jurisdiction.

“We proved our rightness, but the court has not yet considered the
complaints to the point. It will assess the jurisdiction matter
when considers it to the point. The European Court should decide
that indeed Armenia has responsibility for violation of the rights
of persons from Lachin region. This is not some false issue, because
in fact, Nagorno Karabakh and around regions are under the Armenia’s
control. On the other hand, the complaint against Azerbaijan is a
matter of jurisdiction. We can not secure the rights of that Armenian
man due to the fault of Armenia. If there are no Armenian armed forces
in that territory, the residence of persons can be secured. But we
can not secure the rights of that person because of presence of the
Armenian armed forces there. This is main issue”.

NEXT MEETING OF AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN PRESIDENTS SCHEDULED TO LATE JANUARY

MilAz.info
Jan 9 2012
Azerbaijan

The next meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents is
scheduled to late January.

APA reports quoting Armenian “News.am” website that this meeting
will be held on the initiative of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
in Sochi. The presidents will discuss the settlement of Nagorno
Karabakh conflict.

The last meeting of Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents through
intermediary of Dmitry Medvedev was held in Kazan last June. Though
the expectations from this meeting were great, no document was signed
at the meeting.

L’Alsace.fr, France
8 janv 2012

Loi sur le génocide arménien
La colère des habitants franco-turcs vivant en Alsace

le 08/01/2012 à 05:00 par Frédérique Meichler

Quelle que soit leur sensibilité politique, les personnes turques qui
vivent dans la région mulhousienne sont opposées à la proposition de
loi votée à l’Assemblée nationale visant à poursuivre pénalement toute
personne qui nie le génocide arménien.
« Je suis prêt à discuter de la réalité du génocide arménien, je ne
connais pas à fond le sujet. Mais ce travail doit être fait par des
gens compétents, des historiens reconnus, indique Adem, exilé en
France en 1983 pour raisons politiques, naturalisé français il y a
presque 20 ans. Au début, je pensais naïvement que ces lois étaient
motivées par les droits de l’homme. Mais pourquoi cela arrive-t-il
toujours six mois avant une échéance électorale ? Cela me gêne. Je
suis un partisan de la paix et du rapprochement des peuples. Cette loi
a pour effet de monter les uns contre les autres, de réveiller des
haines… »

Turkan, 36 ans, arrivée à Mulhouse avec ses parents à l’ge de 6 ans,
indique que cette proposition de loi suscite la consternation. « Tous
les gens sont remontés. La réaction est unanime autour de moi, chez
les jeunes, dans les associations… On ne comprend pas pourquoi la
France vote une loi qui vise des événements historiques remontant à si
longtemps et en plus, ailleurs qu’ici. Quel objectif poursuit-on ?
Alors que pas mal de Turcs étaient favorables à Sarkozy, aujourd’hui,
ils disent qu’il ne faut plus qu’il gagne… »

Muharrem est venu en France dans le cadre du regroupement familial en
1973, à l’ge de 4 ans. Il est gérant de société, affiche une
sensibilité « de gauche ». « Je suis dégoûté par cette loi,
indique-t-il. Je suis d’origine turque et j’ai une grand-mère
paternelle arménienne qui a vécu à Sivas et Istanbul, sans problème.
J’ai entendu parler dans ma famille des horreurs subies par les
Arméniens, mais c’était la guerre. J’ai des amis arméniens qui vivent
à Istanbul, ils se demandent vraiment pourquoi la France fait ça… On
ne m’a pas enseigné le génocide mais si c’est vrai, c’est aux
historiens de l’établir, pas à l’État français ! Même si je trouve que
la réaction du gouvernement turc est excessive, avec le rappel de
l’ambassadeur et les menaces économiques… »

Les pouvoirs publics turcs ont fait passer à la télévision nationale
des spots fin décembre, incitant tous les ressortissants franco-turcs
à s’inscrire sur les listes électorales dans les délais.

Les journaux turcs diffusés dans la région ont relayé ce message, tout
comme les associations qui ont distribué localement des tracts en turc
et en français : « Votez pour exister ! Ne laissez pas les autres
décider à votre place ! » peut-on y lire.

Mehmet Kunduraci est président du Centre culturel turc de Mulhouse,
rue Josué-Hofer, association qui gère une mosquée dont l’imam est un
fonctionnaire de l’État turc. « Cette loi est décevante pour nous,
pour tous les Turcs qui vivent en France. Je suis ici depuis plus de
36 ans, je n’ai pas encore la nationalité française mais j’ai trois
enfants sur quatre qui votent… On nous prive de la liberté de penser.
Normalement, la France est un pays exemplaire pour la liberté, non ?
Mais on va se défendre, on va manifester et on espère que cette loi
sera bloquée au Sénat. Nous, on vote aussi ! Et j’ai incité les
Franco-Turcs de mon association qui n’étaient pas encore inscrits sur
les listes électorales à le faire. »

Necmettin Yesilkaya, 35 ans, arrivé en France à l’adolescence, préside
une autre structure très influente dans la communauté turque
mulhousienne, l’Association sportive et culturelle turque installée
rue Lavoisier, proche du parti nationaliste des Loups gris. Les Loups
gris réfutent totalement la thèse du génocide arménien. « Nous sommes
nationalistes mais pas racistes, explique le président mulhousien.
Nous sommes fiers de notre culture et notre identité turques, tout en
nous intégrant. Et cette loi nous a blessés. » Necmettin Yesilkaya y
voit « une loi injuste », indique qu’aujourd’hui, « les Arméniens
vivent tranquillement en Turquie. C’est la politique et la guerre qui
ont pu nous éloigner à certains moments, mais c’est un peuple frère.
On dit même en turc, Sadik Evldi… » Ce qui peut être traduit par «
peuple fidèle » ou « frère ».

Beaucoup de Turcs prennent cette loi comme une accusation personnelle.
« C’est comme si l’État français disait à ma fille ou à mon fils : ton
grand-père ou ton arrière-grand-père est un criminel… Ce n’est pas aux
parlementaires français de juger. Et si ma fille me pose la question,
est-ce que mon grand-père a fait un génocide, que je réponds non, je
risque 45 000 d’amende et un an de prison ! »

Parmi nos interlocuteurs, une seule personne emploie le terme
génocide. Alev était gée de 5 ans quand elle est arrivée en France
avec ses parents alévis, en 1975. Elle est médiatrice scolaire. « J’ai
étudié la question, j’ai lu des livres, j’ai des amis arméniens. Mes
grands-parents nous ont parlé des horreurs qui se sont passées… Pour
moi, c’est une évidence. Mais je trouve absolument aberrant et déplacé
que la France légifère sur cette question. C’est un sujet qui doit
être traité par les Turcs, qui concerne la Turquie et l’Arménie. Cela
ne fait qu’attiser les tensions. »

Sarkozy: Turkey Cannot Teach France Any `Lessons’

Saturday, December 24th, 2011

Armenia Thanks France for Genocide Bill

PARIS – France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy dismissed on Friday
Turkey’s furious reaction to the passage of a French bill
criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide, saying that Ankara
cannot teach his country any `lessons.’
`I respect the views of our Turkish friends – it’s a great country, a
great civilization – and they must respect ours,’ the AFP news agency
quoted Sarkozy as saying in Prague where he attended the funeral of
late Czech President Vaclav Havel.
`France is not giving lessons to anyone but does not want them either,’ he said.
`Under all circumstances, we must remain calm … France does not ask
for permission, France has its convictions, human rights, and respect
for memory,’ added Sarkozy.
In remarks aired by French television, Sarkozy also cited that in 2001
the French parliament had recognized the Armenian Genocide.
`Ten years ago France adopted a law recognizing the Armenian genocide,
the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians,’ he said. `Now the question for
the parliament was to know whether the recognition of this genocide
should mean that those disputing it can be held accountable.
`This is what was decided by the National Assembly. You see, France
has principles.’
Earlier on Friday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused
France of committing genocide in its former colony Algeria and
launched a personal attack on Sarkozy. `In Algeria from 1945, an
estimated 15 percent of the population was massacred by the French.
This is a genocide,’ Erdogan said on live television, according to
Reuters.
`If the French President Mr. Sarkozy doesn’t know about this genocide
he should go and ask his father, Paul Sarkozy. His father served in
the French Legion in Algeria in the 1940s. I am sure he would have
lots to tell his son about the French massacres in Algeria,’ the
Turkish premier said.
AFP reported that France’s Foreign Minister Alain Juppe called on
Turkey not to `overreact’ to a bill that he insisted was a
parliamentary initiative, and not a project of Sarkozy’s government.
`We have been accused of genocide! How could we not overreact?’ the
Turkish ambassador to France, Tahsin Burcuoglu, said before taking a
flight home. `Turkey will never recognize this story of an Armenian
genocide.’

Armenia Thanks France
Armenia on Friday again thanked France for the Genocide bill adopted
by the parliament. In a letter to his French counterpart Nicolas
Sarkozy, President Serzh Sarkisian said the French National Assembly
demonstrated France’s devotion to `universal human values’ when it
approved a corresponding bill on Thursday.
According to the presidential press office, Sarkisian said the vote
also testifies to Sarkozy’s personal commitment to strengthening
`Armenian-French friendship,’ eliminating `division lines’ and
`reconciling peoples’ in the region.
Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian also thanked France in a
statement issued immediately after the National Assembly in Paris
voted to pass the bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian and
other genocides.

ARMENIENS DE TURQUIE
L’hôpital arménien Sourp Prguitch d’Istanbul provisoirement sauvé

Le Tribunal d’Istanbul a momentanément sauvé la fermeture de l’hôpital
arménien « Sourp Prguitch » (Saint Sauveur). Selon Hürriyet qui
rapporte l’information, le tribunal a bloqué provisoirement toute
construction nouvelle près des terrains de l’hôpital arménien en
attendant une décision finale du même tribunal. Le litige qui menace
aujourd’hui l’hôpital arménien Sourp Prguitch a pour origine la
spoliation en 1985 par l’Etat turc d’un terrain attenant à l’hôpital
pour le confier aux autorités de la commune de Zeytinbourna. Selon la
défense du Patriarcat arménien de Constantinople, les autorités
désiraient construire un terrain de sport sur un terrain attenant à
l’hôpital Sourp Prguitch mais le tribunal n’avait pas autorisé la
construction au regard des nuisances que le terrain pouvait
occasionner.

Krikor Amirzayan

dimanche 8 janvier 2012,
Krikor Amirzayan ©armenews.com